Mayor Curry wants the Landing back

[thelakelander]

The Landing's original festival marketplace concept:

First Floor:

Although the Landing is centered around the courtyard, it's inaccurate to say it was designed to turn its back to downtown.  The Market Hall concept faced downtown.

Second Floor:

If Sleiman wanted to be cheap, he could just revamp the food court into a food hall.  However, revenue-wise, it doesn't make sense to have all that air conditioned common space with riverfront views not generating income.



The Food Hall -- Concept


The Food Hall -- Today





The Market Hall -- Concept


The Market Hall -- Today






The Gallery Shops -- Concept


The Gallery Shops -- Today






The Bull Market -- Concept


The Bull Market -- Today




Here's my two cents towards remodeling the existing space.

1. The restaurants and cafe spaces are dated but they've done generally well over the years.  It's the only concentrated collection of riverfront eateries in the city.  Renovate and clean it up and that section will do just fine.

2. The gallery shops failed. Downtown can't support that much square footage of specialty retail. This space also does not face the river. Consider carving it up into larger boxes that face Independent Drive.  You may have better luck getting someone like CVS to take up a 10,000 square foot box, as opposed to Gap opening a 1,000 square foot store.  Some of it may also be suitable for other uses such as cultural (decent visitor's center anyone?), entertainment or office. If COJ wants to really help, they could fix up the Hogan Street area south of Independent Drive to be more of an open pedestrian scale plaza/public space. Then you'd have retail facing it to the east, the performing arts center on the west, the river/riverwalk to the south and downtown to the north.

3. The market hall and food hall/court concepts failed.  The idea wasn't bad, there's just way too much space dedicated for these areas.  However, the market hall is a large open two-story space that faces downtown. Consider shifting the food court to this area and making it an open air communal style seating/common area. There could also be outdoor seating spilling its activities out into the downtown side. Then revamp the gallery shops immediately adjacent to it, into spaces to lease to food hall/court tenants.

4. The food court common area has great views but doesn't generate revenue.  The food court is also too large. Move the smaller eateries to the Market Hall...where they'll enjoy the same benefits the food truck court across the street has, and make the second floor space into  a few destination restaurants or entertainment venues.

[Noone]

Why have the docks in front of the landing been allowed to deteriorate so much? Trying to dock or even just pick someone up is incredibly dangerous. The city is lucky they haven't been sued.

+1

Look at our FIND money. We are so LOST.

[jlmann]

well you guys got it all figure out.

merely pointing out a difference in my comparisons is like saying aesops fables are about animals.  its a comparison.  not equating things as identical.

yes walgreens and mcdonalds exist in places we should mimic.  great job team.

however if you redesign the landing around those type of businesses it will never ever turn into anything better than today.  and just like wendys shell and a pharmacy didn't turn 5 pts around, and you cannot be serious that walgreens had anything to with king st success, a drug store and fast food will not turn the landing around or MEANINGFULLY improve it

riverside is booming, the trio is as close to happening as ever, Brooklyn continues to see projects announced and will start moving n/w over to park st and then lavilla across the bridge is seeing residences and development.  check the mj urban update just posted.  springfieild is finally getting critical mass, a jta center should do good things for that part of dt.  then you have the possibility of the shipyards/metro park to the east and the district happening on the southbank.

And what do all these surround? hmmm

And so, the idea of the forum and sleimans are remarkably short-sighted though I can at least understand sleimans motivation.  Sure the projects happening will see delays and some will take years, but locking up a bunch of the tenants yall describe in long term leases and making the TI they will demand for their strip center absolutely will be a lost opportunity.

the type of ideas that haven't been able to work for decades will be feasible as the projects and revitalization efforts that have been decades in the making turn corners and get critical mass, as they are.

on this topic MJ is a hammer in search of a nail.  And the hammer's motto is "Jax cant have nice things"

[thelakelander]

The natural focal point of the Landing is the river.  No one has said that a Walgreens or whatever should be a focal point. Only that if they wanted to come in as a tenant and if that's what the market supports, so be it. I also believe "nice" means different things to different people. No one is opposed to having a Pikes Place.

Jax (not just the Landing) should have whatever it can naturally support.  We shouldn't be forcing things on the private sector that may not be market ready just because we think its cool. That's not vision. That's how we end up with expensive white elephants that fail to achieve the desired goal of DT revitalization.

[FlaBoy]

In the end, the Landing was meant to complement a convention center. I have a feeling that may be part of the Mayor's thinking in wanting a Landing refurb in a similar timing to a possible new convention center?

[thelakelander]

The convention center and skyway were two major public initiatives that help lure Rouse back in the 1980s.  At the time, the Prime Osborn was new and seen as competitive in the convention industry.  The skyway was supposed to connect tourist from the convention center and future downtown hotels to the Landing.  Unfortunately, we quit on the skyway, subsidized jobs to leave downtown and didn't keep up with the times with the Prime Osborn.  Today, the skyway doesn't even run on the weekends.  Figuring out the convention center's future and moving the Laura Trio forward are two important pieces of the Landing's future.

[FlaBoy]

Found this from a guy we know has some sway with the Mayor. The article is from two years ago:

http://floridapolitics.com/archives/186261-economic-development-committee-presents-a-second-better-jacksonville-plan-in-the-making

The goal is to have a convention center by the river, on the old courthouse and city hall property. There are salutary economic benefits: low wage jobs and a lot of them. However, getting to yes on it may take time. As Delaney put it, "We're going to have a new convention center in Jacksonville someday."Whether it happens under the current administration is an open question.

Aundra Wallace of the Downtown Investment Authority said  a study is under way for that new convention center, and  concepts are being market tested. A new convention center, close to the amenities of downtown rather than the empty lots of LaVilla, tests better. That said, the Prime Osborn is still suitable for "home and garden shows."

At least one committee member pointed out the obvious: Convention centers flower during economic booms, but when the bad times come, the centers under perform. But Delaney contended that to "move the city forward" a convention center and a Jacksonville Landing reboot would have to happen in tandem.

This pretty much answers my question why Curry is going after Sleiman now. He is planning on building that convention center but he wants an integrated plan with the Landing.

[thelakelander]

Call me skeptical. COJ doesn't need the Landing to resolve the convention center issue.  In addition, the convention center would be a major undertaking of its own.  I'd personally rather COJ focus on building a convention center correctly and leave retail up to the private sector.  Do things that put people and traffic on the streets and the market will respond on its own.

[Adam White]

well you guys got it all figure out.

It must get really lonely being the only person who knows how everything really works.

[jlmann]

nah.  not at all.  plenty of folks outside this forum also know what would be best for the landing.  like our mayor.

fun lil anecdote from a conversation at the coffee shop this morning.   mavericks came up- talking about a show.  immediately out of a this fellows mouth. "id like to go to that show but I don't want to give that place money.  god I wished they'd just bulldoze the landing"
I had a good augh at the timing. the 3-4 others present all agreed re: the landing.  all these people live quite close to the landing and would absolutely go if it had anything to offer.  there also the type of folks to move an area that's being revitalized

don't think they're gonna be running down for a bite a chiles while they pick up shampoo though

[thelakelander]

god I wished they'd just bulldoze the landing"

Lol, most people in Jacksonville, especially those with no real skin the game, say that about downtown in general. Take it with a grain of salt.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

"id like to __________, but ___________" 

These are the same people that are single-handedly responsible for not buying tickets to see the Jags and are the sole reason that the Jaguars relocated to LA some 8 years ago....

Oh.... wait a sec.... 

[Jim]

JLmann, stop.  Do you honesty think we want nothing but big chains that you can already find on nearly every corner of town anyway?  Is that what you are taking from this conversation?  Have you not read anything else on this forum, or its predecessors, from the past decade?

We are saying the following:

1. Both entities need to work together to solve the Landing issue.

2. The original intention of the Landing failed because market expectations never materialized.

3. The current iteration of the Landing is underutilized.
a. Raze and begin anew or
b. Redevelop or
c. Utilize current space as current market demands.



3a will require substantial investment from both parties and likely a change in ownership of either the Landing or the land itself.
3b requires less investment from the city and likely won't need a change of ownership for the Landing or the land itself.
3c requires no city involvement or change of ownership.

4. Redeveloping the Landing with a concept that requires market forces that do not currently exist is precisely how the current Landing fell into the state it is in.  To redevelopment the Landing as something grandiose or unique requires factors the current region does not have and it will not have on the grounds of a redeveloped Landing alone.  The whole core needs a singular focus.  You need density, you need symbiosis, you need walkability, you need interaction with the river and downtown and you need a downtown that draws people consistently.


All Lake was trying to tell you is if 3a and 3b are not an option, then 3c in whatever fashion the market supports should be implemented.  I highly advise you to read his articles and posts (along with several others posters here) to get a better grasp of what we consider a quality redevelopment of the Landing.  I'll give you a hint though, it sure as hell isn't what you are characterizing it as.

[jlmann]

yeah people who live in orange park and julington creek say that.  because they never come to the core.

but its abundantly clear that having something interesting that people might actually want to go to is not a priority to this forum.

who even has skin in the game? the city? they share my position.  sleiman?  yeah not really caring about that given all his management of the site.  hes practically run it into the ground on purpose

if the city can muscle him out they should

[jlmann]

all I get from this is that everyone here is resigned to 3c being the only option.  cause we tried once in the 80s