The city moves to terminate the Landing's lease agreement.

[thelakelander]

^You don't have to buy it because it's not your investment money on the line. Rouse wanted out of Jax so bad, they would have sold the Landing to you, COJ and anyone else around town. The fact Sleiman paid $5 million for a property that cost over $40 million to construct let's us know how bad Rouse wanted out after being tricked into building something Jax could never support in the first place.

[thelakelander]

Btw, was this ever discussed here? I think I completely missed this April 2018 article:

https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/sleiman-sees-more-redevelopment-plans-for-the-landing

[thelakelander]

Or this:

http://landingfacts.com/timeline-jacksonville-landing-lawsuit/

[jaxnyc79]

Btw, was this ever discussed here? I think I completely missed this April 2018 article:

https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/sleiman-sees-more-redevelopment-plans-for-the-landing

I just assumed that was a PR stunt

[thelakelander]

^That's probably the case. I still see the talk of redevelopment as only being a demo and a rebuild. On that end, when I see places like San Francisco's Ferry Building and Norfolk's Waterside being revamped and offering things Jax currently wishes it had, I do believe more vision is needed.  The structure isn't what ails the Landing. It's vision and local politics.

[jaxnyc79]

^That's probably the case. I still see the talk of redevelopment as only being a demo and a rebuild. On that end, when I see places like San Francisco's Ferry Building and Norfolk's Waterside being revamped and offering things Jax currently wishes it had, I do believe more vision is needed.  The structure isn't what ails the Landing. It's vision and local politics.

Don't think Sleiman's vision is the one that delivers any sort of ideal on the spectrum with something like the Ferry building, and I don't think a visionary for downtown Jax would premise any sort of enhancement on a parking garage, and let the whole zone, the most salient zone you've got, turn into a black eye for the city, one that might take a generation to recover from.  To me, a big reason a $40 million at cost shopping complex was sold for $5 million is that implied in the cost is that you'd have to make improvements to make it work in place of the city's defaults.  Use that massive discount and solve the parking problem yourself, and once things are humming, sue the city for nonconformance.  You love the city, don't let your structures turn into a shanty

[Kerry]

I thought Rouse sold The Landing because they were going out of business - which they did soon after the sale.

[thelakelander]

Part of this is a misrepresentation of history...

Don't think Sleiman's vision is the one that delivers any sort of ideal on the spectrum with something like the Ferry building, and I don't think a visionary for downtown Jax would premise any sort of enhancement on a parking garage,

In the retail world dedicated parking is a real thing. All the vision in the world won't land you certain types of tenants if you don't have the dedicated parking or foot traffic they require. I think we all can agree that DT Jax and the Landing don't have the foot traffic necessary to fill +100k square feet of retail. Would anyone say that Rouse didn't have vision because their festival marketplace concept included dedicated parking for their tenant and consumers? After all, their marketplace concept was one of the most successful urban redevelopment retail concepts of the 1980s. Many of their former centers in popular tourist destinations are still successful today....and in many cases, they include dedicated parking.

and let the whole zone, the most salient zone you've got, turn into a black eye for the city, one that might take a generation to recover from.

I remember going to the Landing when it first opened. I also remember it right before Sleiman took over. IMO, compared to what it was in the 1980s, it was already outdated and largely vacant. The real decline came just as soon as most of the original tenants bailed as soon as their first lease was up. Since 2003, it's been constant redevelopment and parking negotiation talk. It's spanned three mayoral terms, so the discussion has been start and stop depending on who was in office and what their position was towards Sleiman. Again, if Brown would have been reelected, I'm pretty sure the Landing would be in the process of being redeveloped as we speak.....and dedicated parking would have been a part of it.

To me, a big reason a $40 million at cost shopping complex was sold for $5 million is that implied in the cost is that you'd have to make improvements to make it work in place of the city's defaults.

No, Rouse wanted out and Sleiman offered to buy them. If a higher offer came, I'm sure Rouse would have taken the money, parking problem be damned.

Use that massive discount and solve the parking problem yourself, and once things are humming, sue the city for nonconformance.  You love the city, don't let your structures turn into a shanty

Where would you have built a garage? The city owns the land. You can't just plop something up on someone else's property if they aren't a willing partner.

[thelakelander]

I thought Rouse sold The Landing because they were going out of business - which they did soon after the sale.

They were acquired by General Growth Properties for $12.6 billion a year after they sold the Landing to Sleiman. The deal included 37 malls and other retail properties totaling 40 million square feet. These properties included Chicago's Water Tower Place, Boston's Fanueil Hall Marketplace and Manhattan's South Street Seaport.  So for some reason they held onto their profitable centers and sold off the money losers like the Landing.

[jaxlongtimer]

Parking for the Landing or any other project Downtown wouldn't be so much of an issue if we had some decent mass transit circulating/delivering people from large edge parking garages/lots surrounding and/or already within the Downtown core (or God forbid, actually transporting people from the burbs!) like most cities strive to do - along with those who might actually desire to try and live sans automobile altogether.  This would be best for Downtown on many levels and would be far cheaper than continuing to build a dedicated garage for every Downtown project on land that would be better used for supporting greater density and activity in the core.

IMHO, a big reason Downtown suffers is that every other block has to host a parking garage effectively acting as a black hole for any urban energy that might be otherwise developed.

[thelakelander]

You're right. Unfortunately, our mass transit situation seems like a much larger issue to tackle at this point.

[jaxlongtimer]

You're right. Unfortunately, our mass transit situation seems like a much larger issue to tackle at this point.

It's only a larger issue because our elected leaders refuse to prioritize it.  If they were the "business-like" leaders they claim to be, they would see that investing in some mass transit would give a much higher ROI than building more parking garages!  Only in Jax...

[Snaketoz]

The biggest problem with mass transit is getting the people to use it.  You would have to tax people using downtown parking, or use some sort of other method to compel people to park their cars and use the public transit.  Then, the few remaining downtown merchants would be hurt due to drivers avoiding downtown.  It's a vicious circle.  You can't spend on mass transit unless you know it's self-supporting.  Jacksonville is so spread-out mass transit will never work unless you make it more attractive.

[thelakelander]

You're right. Unfortunately, our mass transit situation seems like a much larger issue to tackle at this point.

It's only a larger issue because our elected leaders refuse to prioritize it.  If they were the "business-like" leaders they claim to be, they would see that investing in some mass transit would give a much higher ROI than building more parking garages!  Only in Jax...

That and we have a tendency to always go against the grain. The nation goes LRT and we go Skyway people mover. We failed and it set us back a generation. We're still trying to overcome that situation now by attempting to advance another revolutionary solution. Maybe it works and we're popular for a day or two....maybe it fails and sets us back two more generations...

[thelakelander]

The biggest problem with mass transit is getting the people to use it.  You would have to tax people using downtown parking, or use some sort of other method to compel people to park their cars and use the public transit.  Then, the few remaining downtown merchants would be hurt due to drivers avoiding downtown.  It's a vicious circle.  You can't spend on mass transit unless you know it's self-supporting.  Jacksonville is so spread-out mass transit will never work unless you make it more attractive.

There's no need or logic to investing in a transit system to cover the entire city.  Heck half of the city is wetlands, swamp and forest. Another good chunk is sprawl. If you want a fixed transit spine, you build by starting where you have the density, land use and supportive destinations first. Then expand incrementally over time. Previously, the biggest problem is we can't stick with the basics. For example, if the desired mode were LRT, I truly believe if you stick with the basics and get a decent starter in the five to ten mile range going, we'd be fine. Charlotte, San Diego, St. Louis, Houston, Salt Lake City, Denver, etc. are all examples of this.  Now we're moving away from that concept and trying to get in ahead of what may happen in the future with emerging technologies. So a lot of the tried and true things that make traditional transit work will need to be reevaluated.