Curry's Plan for the Landing Revealed

[jaxlongtimer]

Lawsuit costs, buying out business leases, paying Sleiman to leave, razing a +125,000SF of buildings, razing a bridge ramp, etc. a few costs to consider that have nothing to do with the costs associated with the design and construction of the space itself. In addition, if the park is going to be worth going to, it could cost tens of millions itself. Just look at Friendship Fountain. We're talking about spending $3 million to fix the fountain less than a decade after it was literally rebuilt.

Let's analyze this.  The costs of  the lawsuit appear to apply regardless of the plans for this property if the City is determined to gain control before its future is determined.  Buying out the leases may also be the same, as well, if the property needs to be emptied for any future changes.  Even a renovation and redeployment of the current structure would likely require removal of all tenants to facilitate any construction.  If things are as bad as people say, the tenants may welcome a release from their leases .  Razing the ramp, also suggested regardless of the future options, is, per the T-U article, only about $580K, not a major amount in the big scheme of things here.  Razing the building is also pocket change compared to other redevelopment costs.  Based on many plans proposed so far, it looks like some or all of the building gets razed anyway.

So, the only real incremental costs to compare appear to be the costs of renovating the current structure, replacing the current structure with new structures, or replacing the current structure with green space.

Let's say it costs $200 a square foot (possibly a low number given delinquent upkeep and higher finishing standards) to overhaul the 31 year old structure consisting of 126,000 sf (per Wikipedia).  That's a minimum of $25 million.  It doesn't count curing the parking problem, other infrastructure improvements, City incentives that may be demanded by an operator, and a demand for an extended bargain "lease" on the property or a bargain purchase.

Replacing the current structure with new structures will clearly costs over $100 million.  Based on the District, I would guess a developer would ask for at least $25 million in incentives from the City (maybe far more), infrastructure improvements, a parking structure, and again, an extended bargain  "lease" or bargain purchase of the property.

Per Google Maps, the Landing property appears to be no more than about 6.5 acres.  At $25 million, one way or the other, I would think the City could build a hell of a nice green space.  If not, I will take on the contract and deliver for them same.

You've basically tied yourself down to two expensive options...Mayor Brown's plan which is DOA with Curry in office and Curry's plan which is really a dream cooked up back when Payton was in office and also DOA if the city doesn't win the suit. Going back to 2003, there are several other options that don't call for either. When egos and political gamesmanship is replaced with innovative thinking and truly analyzing return on investment, there's several other options for revitalization that are available and have merit as well.

So, I gather you would sell the Landing and its land to Sleiman and leave it to him to take it from there.  Do you really think Sleiman, who has a reputation for winning big on his real estate deals, is going to not ask for parking, infrastructure, incentives and a very good deal on the land?  He paid only 5 million or so for a building that cost 30+ million to build decades earlier.  He will expect that same type of value on anything new he does.  What will the City be giving up to make him move forward?  For that matter, any other developer is going to ask for the same type and value of concessions from the City.  See Rummell and the District - over $50 million from the City.  No matter what, the City is going to be out millions.  I am just saying the green space option, from a money standpoint, certainly is no more than other options, and maybe much less.  Money is not an issue here, IMHO, and, thus, is not a reason for passing up the green space option.

Some posts appear to continue to overlook the green space option based on current and past City failures to properly vision and manage green spaces.  Based on this approach, we also should kill the Landing rather than keep it going as the City has proven it can't manage that either.  Again, the answer to all of DT's issues is to replace incompetent leadership, not walk away from what may be a great solution.

A great solution could be to sell the land. That removes the City from the real estate business but also places a high profile site on the tax rolls. Many have more faith in the private sector doing something that makes the private investment a plus than COJ being in the development business.

See above.  Increased value and turbo charged development around green space can easily equal or exceed the tax roll increase directly on this property over time.  People pay big premiums for superior access to both green space and the river.  By the way, the Landing was mostly a private investment driven deal and how did that turn out?  Berkman Plaza?  Adams Mark? Lots of private downtown developments have gone through foreclosure.  Plenty of risk to private deals too.  That's why smart developers/invetors are going to hedge their risks by milking the City and the taxpayers, unfortunately.  See the Stadium/Jaguars, the District, the Shipyards/ Metro Park/Lot J, the Trio, Offshore Power Systems/Blount Island and so many others.

quote author=jaxlongtimer link=topic=34739.msg482114#msg482114 date=1529278447]

I also go back to the "chicken and egg" issue.  Demand for green space feeds off surrounding development but surrounding development that feeds off of green space isn't going to happen unless there is such green space.  In such cases, it is for the City to make the first move, especially given the lack of trust in the City and it's track record of failing to deliver on such promises.

I'm personally not a big believer in the "chicken and egg" theory when it comes to revitalization. I'm also not big on forcing general theory on any type of context. There's no more demand for the Landing to be a green space than the east lot right next to it.

East lot, west lot, all around the town... no demand until someone living or developing nearby wants it.  I bet all those people starting to move into Vestcor's apartments would like to have some more green space like this.  How about we poll the residents currently living in Downtown and ask them whether they would favor this concept?  Let's ask the office workers while we are at it if they would enjoy such a space on their lunch hours?  And, I again ask, how will Downtown ever attract families with children without parks this size or bigger?

I continue to agree that all green spaces should be properly managed and enhanced as Lake advocates but I don't accept that as a reason to overlook this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to do something that will be a legacy for decades to come.

We said the same thing about the Skyway, Prime Osborn and the Landing itself. JTA is now attempting to sell legacy with the AV talk. In reality, none of these things are once-in-a-lifetime opportunities or legacies for decades to come. They all happen to be isolated gimmicks by various administrations and agencies that all lack the proper coordination and funding to create the unified synergy downtown really needs.

We agree, all these projects were poorly thought out (let's add the Courthouse!) and executed and done for all the wrong reasons, mostly for political/special interests, not for the civic good.  I actually think the current thinking for the next convention center at the old courthouse and the attempt to convert the Skyway to AV may repeat this pattern but that is the subject for another thread.  Here, I am arguing to change this pattern vis-a-vis the Landing .

Continuing, none of the cited projects should have been called once-in-a-lifetime opportunities as they are structures that can be re-purposed or replaced.  But, as a rule (unfortunately, see Durbin Creek Preserve proposition), most cities consider green space a permanent arrangement.  Jax owns this land already.  Once it is in private hands, given its valued location, the City will never be able to afford to take it back.  (Do you think the land the District will be built on will ever be eligible for a 30 acre park someday?)  I compare this situation to FDOT building an interchange, such as at Butler and I-95, with a stop light and then, years later, wishing to make it a full "expressway" interchange.  Faced with buildings on all the land around there that they could have had for a few dollars an acre before Butler was built, they couldn't "afford" to buy out the developed properties and, instead, had to build a very expensive flyover and more to stay mostly within the land they already controlled.  It's just good real estate management to buy real estate when the stars align as they rarely ever realign the same way again. 

I am thinking decades ahead, not just today.  One day we will have millions more living in Jax and they will rue the days Jax gave up all the City controlled riverfront lands we are looking at giving up now.

[jaxnyc79]

Is this about beating Sleiman or doing something DT actually needs? Have you ever worked in DT Jax? Residents and workers aren't begging for another grass lawn in DT. There's plenty of parks in DT now that could do everything you describe and more...if the city gave a damn to put money into them and maintain them. Any proposal Curry's team in terms of costs should first include a line item to upgrade and maintain the many underutilized spaces we already have and visit. Btw, Hemming is more central.

Hemming isn't waterfront, and maybe it's changed, but it wasn't much of a green space when I worked downtown.  It felt like a shaded plaza with planters.  It's a nice feature downtown, but given its location at the front door to City Hall, I've always considered it the public space for Jacksonville's Civic District and not so much for the city's CBD.  Ultimately, they represent very different vibes in an urban context.

You're kind of making my point. Hemming, the Main Street Pocket Park, the County Courthouse lawn, the Northbank Riverwalk (on the river), the East Lot (on the river), Friendship Fountain (on the river) can all be a lot of things they aren't, if properly invested, maintained and coordinated with the outer square that surrounds them.

Northbank Riverwalk is lovely, but when I last walked its length, it was more a promenade than park, lacking depth of green space on the waterfront.  Don't know east lot - is that amidst the cluster of northbank office bldgs?

[thelakelander]

The Northbank Riverwalk is a linear park or promenade that lacks interactivity outside of the Landing. It's another example of an existing public space that's underutilized and not maintained like it should be. There is depth in areas like Hogan Street south of Water Street and the East lot. The East lot is the surface parking lot directly on the other side of the Main Street Bridge from the Landing. It's between the Landing and Hyatt, one block south of Cowford Chophouse and the Elbow. Half the block between it and Cowford has a parking lot and a small JEA facility sitting on it. It was the location of wharfs housing downtown's public market. Then we went demo crazy.

[thelakelander]

So, I gather you would sell the Landing and its land to Sleiman and leave it to him to take it from there.  Do you really think Sleiman, who has a reputation for winning big on his real estate deals, is going to not ask for parking, infrastructure, incentives and a very good deal on the land?  He paid only 5 million or so for a building that cost 30+ million to build decades earlier.  He will expect that same type of value on anything new he does.  What will the City be giving up to make him move forward?  For that matter, any other developer is going to ask for the same type and value of concessions from the City.  See Rummell and the District - over $50 million from the City.  No matter what, the City is going to be out millions.  I am just saying the green space option, from a money standpoint, certainly is no more than other options, and maybe much less.  Money is not an issue here, IMHO, and, thus, is not a reason for passing up the green space option.

I'm totally fine telling millionaires no to public incentives for projects that may not need them. I'm also fine crafting $50 million handouts $10 million deals if retrofitting makes sense, thus freeing up $40 million for improving existing parks, filling financial gaps to restore more vacant historic buildings, two-waying streets, etc. I simply see no logical reason to blow a wad of cash into a site based on a dream, theory or concept, when said funds could bring greater positive impact and return of investment elsewhere.  As for Sleiman, I have no problem selling him the land at market value and developing a solution of what the city will or won't do.

See above.  Increased value and turbo charged development around green space can easily equal or exceed the tax roll increase directly on this property over time.  People pay big premiums for superior access to both green space and the river.  By the way, the Landing was mostly a private investment driven deal and how did that turn out?  Berkman Plaza?  Adams Mark? Lots of private downtown developments have gone through foreclosure.  Plenty of risk to private deals too.  That's why smart developers/invetors are going to hedge their risks by milking the City and the taxpayers, unfortunately.

All of these were heavily subsidized deals...not private. They would not have happened with private money because the market wasn't there to support them. No one is paying big premiums to be near our existing downtown parks. Why would this be any different? Who would pay a big premium to be next to it? Omni/Enterprise Center, SunTrust/Vystar, Wells Fargo Center, etc. already surround it. What's the big development site you're hoping a park at this location leads to infill growth?

East lot, west lot, all around the town... no demand until someone living or developing nearby wants it.  I bet all those people starting to move into Vestcor's apartments would like to have some more green space like this.  How about we poll the residents currently living in Downtown and ask them whether they would favor this concept?  Let's ask the office workers while we are at it if they would enjoy such a space on their lunch hours?  And, I again ask, how will Downtown ever attract families with children without parks this size or bigger?

You can ask me. I have a downtown office two blocks north of the riverfront. I've never thought about going to the riverwalk for lunch. However, me and my coworkers have been to Hemming a lot, as well as the restaurants facing the courthouse green pretty frequently over the last decade.

Also, Brooklyn Park, another underfunded DT park, is right around the corner from Vesctor's projects. Brooklyn Park has a baseball field, tennis courts, basketball courts, a kid's playground and community center. Given the amount of residential going up near it, I'd recommend putting more money into it if the concern is about families and kids. Especially since we blew up Kids Kampus for a similar lawn.

Jax owns this land already.  Once it is in private hands, given its valued location, the City will never be able to afford to take it back.  (Do you think the land the District will be built on will ever be eligible for a 30 acre park someday?)  I compare this situation to FDOT building an interchange, such as at Butler and I-95, with a stop light and then, years later, wishing to make it a full "expressway" interchange.  Faced with buildings on all the land around there that they could have had for a few dollars an acre before Butler was built, they couldn't "afford" to buy out the developed properties and, instead, had to build a very expensive flyover and more to stay mostly within the land they already controlled.  It's just good real estate management to buy real estate when the stars align as they rarely ever realign the same way again. 

I am thinking decades ahead, not just today.  One day we will have millions more living in Jax and they will rue the days Jax gave up all the City controlled riverfront lands we are looking at giving up now.

I believe we have more than enough parks in downtown. Improve what we have now and integrate public space in with larger projects, like the District, and we'll be fine.

[jaxlongtimer]

^Every project, public or private, has risks and there are no guarantees they will work out as planned.  All the solutions on the table have major risks for whoever pursues them.  I happen to think green space here is less risky and less costly with greater benefits over the long haul than solutions you are advocating for.  That's my opinion for the reasons previously stated.  You are certainly entitled to yours.

You may be fine telling millionaires no incentives for their projects but that is hardly the case for politicos in Jax.  I won't believe that will happen until I see it.  Follow the money.  Who do you think gives big money to politco's campaigns?  I do think you are also being naive about what will be required to motivate Sleiman or anyone else to redevelop the Landing site and take on the risks associated with same.

You lost me with how you net $40 million from a deal involving the Landing.  And, Sleiman paying "market value" for the Landing's land?  Well, let me just say, I don't think the City has shown much genius in its real estate dealings over the last 60 years and, if I had to bet, Sleiman will easily get the better of the City when it comes to such a transaction.  I find it a bit of a contradiction that you have no confidence in the City developing and maintaining green spaces but you think they will do the right thing negotiating land and development deals when, arguably, the City's track record in that regard is abysmal and far worse than mismanaging green spaces.

I compared 2 acre Brooklyn Park's single baseball field to one in Mandarin.  The Brooklyn field is only about 60% of a field I compared it to and the "fence" is a row of trees along McCoy's Creek (no fence visible in the aerial photo to keep kids from wandering into the woods/creek from the playing surfaces).  After allowing for the one basketball court, there is almost no land unaccounted for.  It also has no parking lot and is literally "across the tracks" from Downtown proper, accessible only by the Park St. Viaduct (no grade level walk available).  The tennis courts, community center and playground are in a detached 1.3 acre J.S. Johnson park diagonally across an intersection.  Kids have to travel that through the intersection to move about the entire enterprise.  Hardly an ideal park set up.  In the end, one small baseball diamond and playground and 2 tennis courts sitting on 3.3 acres isn't going to be anywhere near sufficient for vibrant residential development in both Brooklyn and Downtown.  Still missing: Dog walks, jogging and bike trails, picnic and large gathering areas, gardens, etc. that might appeal to more to adults.

I used to work Downtown and we headed to the riverfront all the time at lunch.  I measured the distance and it was over 2,000 feet and we thought nothing of it.  I have also eaten at the Landing (in its better days) traveling by car from work at lunch time from several miles away.  Such is the draw of waterfront views.  You have your lunch habits and I have mine.  The issue isn't specifically us and our habits, it is the wishes of a greater population.  My observation is most people are pulled to waterfronts more than not.

As to no one paying premiums to be near Downtown parks, you are playing to my point.  We don't really have the kind of green spaces that would motivate people to do so.  It's time we started creating ones that do.  It's obvious that people pay premiums for green spaces, especially waterfront ones, in every City that has such places.

By the way, I clicked on your own link about Lakeland's Bonnet park and noted that they are estimating development costs of between $250,000 and $500,000/acre ($50 to $100 million for 180 acres - I am just talking about 6 acres here ), that it has water frontage and that it is being considered a major boon and attraction for their Downtown and its future.  Some pertinent quotes, several of which I think align with my position more than yours:

...including a welcome center, nature center, event space with a great lawn, walking and biking trails, boating activities and sculpture garden.
...we have to pinch ourselves that this type of property exists next to downtown
...a premier park they hope will be the centerpiece of downtown Lakeland
...incorporated ideas and desires from more than 400 people
‒ The main entrance welcome center that can be reached by walking from downtown through a planned tunnel or by driving and parking. It will house a café, gift shop, exhibition gallery, covered patio and meeting room.
‒ A nature center situated along the shore of Lake Bonnet that will feature a café, gift shop and deck, covered patio, classrooms and a boardwalk along the lakeshore.
"It will be iconic and breathtaking and the place where everyone in Lakeland will want to be"
"We live in a great city, and it's on its way to becoming a remarkable place to come," Lakeland Mayor Bill Mutz said. "We want the park to become an extended passion from the Barnett Family to all of our families for generations to come."

Corey Skeates, Lakeland Chamber of Commerce president, said the park will be a selling point to lure businesses to locate to the Swan City.

"We're trying to drive the younger population here," Skeates said. "This is exactly what we hear from businesses outside of our community — they want more outside activity space. This is right in line with our mission."

‒ The event center will house a space that seats 300 people along with an outdoor trellis area for extra entertaining space, a botanical and sculpture garden and café.

‒ The great lawn will border the event space and will be a place for outdoor concerts that can hold as many as 7,500 spectators. The planners call it the ceremonial front porch of the park.

‒ A two-mile "circulator" walking and biking path.

‒ An elevated walking path through the tree canopy.

‒ An anchor center with a restaurant and possibly an art museum.

Lake, I very much respect your expertise and opinions.  You have done much to promote the urban core and push for doing the "right" things.  Like all complex issues, there will be times when people respectively disagree on certain points.  This issue will be one of them for us .

[thelakelander]

^Every project, public or private, has risks and there are no guarantees they will work out as planned.  All the solutions on the table have major risks for whoever pursues them.  I happen to think green space here is less risky and less costly with greater benefits over the long haul than solutions you are advocating for.  That's my opinion for the reasons previously stated.  You are certainly entitled to yours.

I'm not hear to change your opinion. I'm offering up mine. I don't believe in an either or absolute with this site. I believe we can have improved green space that's integrated with a mix of uses including retail, dining, entertainment and cultural. I believe that over the long haul, an integrated space that's interactive as opposed to passive is better in the long haul for an urban area. In this particular case, since a solid iconic structure and green space already exist, I also believe it's less risky and more affordable to work with what we have.

You may be fine telling millionaires no incentives for their projects but that is hardly the case for politicos in Jax.  I won't believe that will happen until I see it.  Follow the money.  Who do you think gives big money to politco's campaigns?  I do think you are also being naive about what will be required to motivate Sleiman or anyone else to redevelop the Landing site and take on the risks associated with same.

I'm not talking about picking winners and losers, which is what we do and why downtown will always struggle until our leadership evolves and sticks with strategies that area actually proven in the long run. I'm talking about making sound investments that generate a return on investment. Subsidizing market gaps, etc. to reduce risks are one thing, throwing tax money away is another.

You lost me with how you net $40 million from a deal involving the Landing.  And, Sleiman paying "market value" for the Landing's land?  Well, let me just say, I don't think the City has shown much genius in its real estate dealings over the last 60 years and, if I had to bet, Sleiman will easily get the better of the City when it comes to such a transaction.  I find it a bit of a contradiction that you have no confidence in the City developing and maintaining green spaces but you think they will do the right thing negotiating land and development deals when, arguably, the City's track record in that regard is abysmal and far worse than mismanaging green spaces.

Take the people out of it (geez, some really hate this Sleiman guy. Some make him sound like the antichrist ). You threw out the giving a random $50 million away. Using that as a number, my response was saying there may be logical solutions where $10 million in incentives gets something great done verses a wholesale Jax style razing that will run you $50 million. If that's the case, you just free up $40 million that was going to burned to be spent addressing other areas of need in the urban core.

I compared 2 acre Brooklyn Park's single baseball field to one in Mandarin.  The Brooklyn field is only about 60% of a field I compared it to and the "fence" is a row of trees along McCoy's Creek (no fence visible in the aerial photo to keep kids from wandering into the woods/creek from the playing surfaces).  After allowing for the one basketball court, there is almost no land unaccounted for. It also has no parking lot and is literally "across the tracks" from Downtown proper, accessible only by the Park St. Viaduct (no grade level walk available).  The tennis courts, community center and playground are in a detached 1.3 acre J.S. Johnson park diagonally across an intersection.  Kids have to travel that through the intersection to move about the entire enterprise.  Hardly an ideal park set up.  In the end, one small baseball diamond and playground and 2 tennis courts sitting on 3.3 acres isn't going to be anywhere near sufficient for vibrant residential development in both Brooklyn and Downtown.  Still missing: Dog walks, jogging and bike trails, picnic and large gathering areas, gardens, etc. that might appeal to more to adults.

Compare Brooklyn Park to the sketch at the Landing. It won't have any of the interactive uses that families with kids use. No playing fields, no basketball courts, no tennis courts, no playscapes, and it's not in decent walking distance of where all those Vestcor units are going up that you mentioned. The detachment you mention is literally across a street. So really you have 3.3 acres of existing park space to play with in the middle of a booming residential area. Those 3.3 acres are also directly tied to a play to turn McCoys Creek into a "blue" line type greenway that would connect a series of neighborhoods (thousands of existing residents) and parks to the downtown riverfront. Again, if we're throwing out numbers, there's no money or pot at the end of the rainbow. Spending less in the Landing site does allow for logic of spending more to assist with the enhancement and implementation of other urban core projects.

I used to work Downtown and we headed to the riverfront all the time at lunch.  I measured the distance and it was over 2,000 feet and we thought nothing of it.  I have also eaten at the Landing (in its better days) traveling by car from work at lunch time from several miles away.  Such is the draw of waterfront views.  You have your lunch habits and I have mine.  The issue isn't specifically us and our habits, it is the wishes of a greater population.  My observation is most people are pulled to waterfronts more than not.

This isn't an either or debate. I've mentioned countless times that we should improve what's there. The disagreement is what actually pulls people to waterfronts. I believe in urban areas it's not a single thing. It's the interactivity and mix of uses that you can't get anywhere else. If that's the case, working with the Landing structure and enhancing the public space already in place certainly has its merits.

As to no one paying premiums to be near Downtown parks, you are playing to my point.  We don't really have the kind of green spaces that would motivate people to do so.  It's time we started creating ones that do.  It's obvious that people pay premiums for green spaces, especially waterfront ones, in every City that has such places.

You're making my point again. I've been saying for the entire thread we need to improve the green spaces we already have. However, let's get real. There are sites that can be developed and others that are already developed. Outside of the parking lot at Enterprise Center and the East Lot (which I've also stated you could do a green space there for a much cheaper price and still have the interactivity of a revamped Landing), everything else that's adjacent is built out. The performing arts center, Enterprise Center, SunTrust Tower, Wells Fargo Center...none of them are going anyway regardless of what we do with the Landing site.

By the way, I clicked on your own link about Lakeland's Bonnet park and noted that they are estimating development costs of between $250,000 and $500,000/acre ($50 to $100 million for 180 acres - I am just talking about 6 acres here ), that it has water frontage and that it is being considered a major boon and attraction for their Downtown and its future.  Some pertinent quotes, several of which I think align with my position more than yours:

...including a welcome center, nature center, event space with a great lawn, walking and biking trails, boating activities and sculpture garden.
...we have to pinch ourselves that this type of property exists next to downtown
...a premier park they hope will be the centerpiece of downtown Lakeland
...incorporated ideas and desires from more than 400 people
‒ The main entrance welcome center that can be reached by walking from downtown through a planned tunnel or by driving and parking. It will house a café, gift shop, exhibition gallery, covered patio and meeting room.
‒ A nature center situated along the shore of Lake Bonnet that will feature a café, gift shop and deck, covered patio, classrooms and a boardwalk along the lakeshore.
"It will be iconic and breathtaking and the place where everyone in Lakeland will want to be"
"We live in a great city, and it's on its way to becoming a remarkable place to come," Lakeland Mayor Bill Mutz said. "We want the park to become an extended passion from the Barnett Family to all of our families for generations to come."

Corey Skeates, Lakeland Chamber of Commerce president, said the park will be a selling point to lure businesses to locate to the Swan City.

"We're trying to drive the younger population here," Skeates said. "This is exactly what we hear from businesses outside of our community — they want more outside activity space. This is right in line with our mission."

‒ The event center will house a space that seats 300 people along with an outdoor trellis area for extra entertaining space, a botanical and sculpture garden and café.

‒ The great lawn will border the event space and will be a place for outdoor concerts that can hold as many as 7,500 spectators. The planners call it the ceremonial front porch of the park.

‒ A two-mile "circulator" walking and biking path.

‒ An elevated walking path through the tree canopy.

‒ An anchor center with a restaurant and possibly an art museum.

It's pretty cool what they are doing there. Did you check to read what you cut and pasted, see a site plan or see the site's history? It's an abandoned CSX railyard on the edge of downtown. They aren't razing anything in the center of their downtown. What they did do is invest in their existing parks first (which blow anything in DT Jax away, btw). This park will be interactive....museums, restaurants, cafes, exhibition galleries, paddle boats, amphitheater, an aviary, trains, etc. Most importantly, it's also being designed to be an inclusive space. It's exactly what's not shown in Curry's plan. It's a Springfield Park or a modified Landing .

Lake, I very much respect your expertise and opinions.  You have done much to promote the urban core and push for doing the "right" things.  Like all complex issues, there will be times when people respectively disagree on certain points.  This issue will be one of them for us .

No worries. Everyone has different opinions and can express them. That's what makes America great.

[thelakelander]

Btw, here's the old Hogans Creek Master Plan:



This is a real urban park that can stimulate economic development and infill and it already exists. We just need to stop kicking it to the back burner because it isn't on the river.

[Kerry]

If Jax wants a park that will spur development and be our version of a waterfront central park, then build it on the vacant lots between Haskel and YMCA in Brooklyn.

[remc86007]

^ I think that lot is both too small and not close enough to the core. Because of the roads and railways, Brooklyn feels very far from the core from a pedestrian perspective.

I'm all for making the emerald necklace our flagship urban park. I think it's our best shot at revitalizing the mostly vacant areas between downtown and Springfield.

[Steve]

I believe we have more than enough parks in downtown. Improve what we have now and integrate public space in with larger projects, like the District, and we'll be fine.

This! I have two concerns with the Landing plan as presented:

1): How much activity will those buildings create? We can all agree the park proposed is a "passive" park (as opposed to something like a baseball field, skate park, etc.). We have enough of those - they can work IF the buildings on the rendering (which at present look like cocktail napkin drawings), and #2

2): I have ZERO faith we will maintain the place. We've listed all of the parks downtown and I agree, but even look at something like Memorial Park. The maintenance on that place is just okay....and that's with a decently funded and very well connected group (Memorial Park Association) and strong neighborhood group (RAP) watching over it.

[KenFSU]

Man, the straw man game is strong in these last few pages.

When did this argument become an either/or, where the only two possibilities are:

1) "Bulldoze the Landing, downtown is starved for greenspace!"
2) "Keep the Landing, there's no value in parks!"

Just look at the dearth of publicly owned riverfront land on the Northbank, and tell me this burning desire to replace the Landing with greenspace isn't stupid and politically motivated.



By my count, depending on how you slice it, I'm seeing between 15 and 20 publicly-owned blocks along the northbank riverfront between the Times-Union Center and the stadium that are either available, soon to be available via demolotion, or city-owned parking lot.

FIFTEEN TO TWENTY BLOCKS, on the riverfront, half so badly contaminated that we could build a park on them for a fraction of the cost of cleaning them up.

And the administration's solution to The Great Jacksonville Greenspace Crisis of 2018 that we just figured out we had is to bulldoze one of the only five active, non-contaminated blocks on the northbank riverfront and turn it into another grass field.

This is next level insanity we're talking here, the type of mistake that could set our downtown efforts back another generation.

I don't know how anyone can defend it, particularly when you factor in the cost.

Purely in terms of logistics, regardless of what you think about Sleiman, when you're sitting on 70 acres of contaminated riverfront land that can't be developed for mixed use without $50 million in remediation, why do you pick the clean 6.5 acres to turn into greenspace?

If we want a greener riverfront around Laura Street for downtown workers and residents to enjoy, there are a million ways to do that in and around the Landing without bulldozing it.

And if we're dead set on a showcase urban park for the masses, the westernmost portions of the Shipyards property (where we've previously discussed a signature park as part of the Shipyards development), from Berkman 2 down to around that block below the Baseball Grounds is a million times better.

For lots of reasons.

1) It's central to the CBD, the stadium district and Lot J, and directly across the river from the District
2) If the strategy is to promote infill between the CBD and the stadium district, a signature park gives you as good of a shot as anything (a streetcar running from Brooklyn to the stadium district would be nice too, but let's not get greedy)
3) Berkman 2 becomes a much easier sell when its overlooking said signature park
4) The USS Adams is already scheduled to moor at the site, at that leftmost pier, which adds an additional attraction to the park
5) It's a straight, two-minute water taxi ride back and forth across the river to and from the District, which we're pumping a lot of taxpayer money into; it would be awesome to create synergy with that four acres of public parkspace within eyesight directly across the river
6) It would provide a boost to the new convention center we want to build, adding a great park within direct eyeshot of the convention center, and providing a scenic walk to Lot J, where we presumably want to send many of our conventioneers
7) It satisfies land swap requirements for the Jaguars to develop Metropolitan Park, which the Landing may not
8 ) It encourages residential development to the east of the park along the riverfront, where the Jags want to build condo towers
9) It saves ~20 million in remediation cost to develop that section of the Shipyards as parkspace, rather than mixed use.

[thelakelander]

Good points. Lots of questionable moves in the works. It's hard to blame people who complain about the amount of public money spent in downtown. Public investment where it improves the quality of life of residents is one thing. When it's not being invested properly to generate the maximum return of investment to develop a cohesive walkable pedestrian scale setting it's another. Hopefully the court saves us from setting ourselves back another generation.

[jaxnyc79]

Man, the straw man game is strong in these last few pages.

When did this argument become an either/or, where the only two possibilities are:

1) "Bulldoze the Landing, downtown is starved for greenspace!"
2) "Keep the Landing, there's no value in parks!"

Just look at the dearth of publicly owned riverfront land on the Northbank, and tell me this burning desire to replace the Landing with greenspace isn't stupid and politically motivated.



By my count, depending on how you slice it, I'm seeing between 15 and 20 publicly-owned blocks along the northbank riverfront between the Times-Union Center and the stadium that are either available, soon to be available via demolotion, or city-owned parking lot.

FIFTEEN TO TWENTY BLOCKS, on the riverfront, half so badly contaminated that we could build a park on them for a fraction of the cost of cleaning them up.

And the administration's solution to The Great Jacksonville Greenspace Crisis of 2018 that we just figured out we had is to bulldoze one of the only five active, non-contaminated blocks on the northbank riverfront and turn it into another grass field.

This is next level insanity we're talking here, the type of mistake that could set our downtown efforts back another generation.

I don't know how anyone can defend it, particularly when you factor in the cost.

Purely in terms of logistics, regardless of what you think about Sleiman, when you're sitting on 70 acres of contaminated riverfront land that can't be developed for mixed use without $50 million in remediation, why do you pick the clean 6.5 acres to turn into greenspace?

If we want a greener riverfront around Laura Street for downtown workers and residents to enjoy, there are a million ways to do that in and around the Landing without bulldozing it.

And if we're dead set on a showcase urban park for the masses, the westernmost portions of the Shipyards property (where we've previously discussed a signature park as part of the Shipyards development), from Berkman 2 down to around that block below the Baseball Grounds is a million times better.

For lots of reasons.

1) It's central to the CBD, the stadium district and Lot J, and directly across the river from the District
2) If the strategy is to promote infill between the CBD and the stadium district, a signature park gives you as good of a shot as anything (a streetcar running from Brooklyn to the stadium district would be nice too, but let's not get greedy)
3) Berkman 2 becomes a much easier sell when its overlooking said signature park
4) The USS Adams is already scheduled to moor at the site, at that leftmost pier, which adds an additional attraction to the park
5) It's a straight, two-minute water taxi ride back and forth across the river to and from the District, which we're pumping a lot of taxpayer money into; it would be awesome to create synergy with that four acres of public parkspace within eyesight directly across the river
6) It would provide a boost to the new convention center we want to build, adding a great park within direct eyeshot of the convention center, and providing a scenic walk to Lot J, where we presumably want to send many of our conventioneers
7) It satisfies land swap requirements for the Jaguars to develop Metropolitan Park, which the Landing may not
8 ) It encourages residential development to the east of the park along the riverfront, where the Jags want to build condo towers
9) It saves ~20 million in remediation cost to develop that section of the Shipyards as parkspace, rather than mixed use.

"Curry's proposal is not wholly without merit" - hardly so strident as "Bulldoze the Landing, downtown is starving for greenspace."  The Landing as signature park space was based on the idea that where possible, the riverfront in the urban core should be lined with green space and publicly accessible.  Ideally, the same could have been done with our beachfront.

The "layered" aesthetic: River, Promenade, Landscaped/Manicured Park Space, Sidewalk, Boulevard, and then Private Property Interests like Residential mid-and-high rises along with Commercial Developments could begin on the other side of the boulevard with a view of the publicly accessible park space and waterfront.

I'm all for the Shipyards as riverfront park space as well. 

If you want to argue the Shipyards as a priority over the Landing, that's not without merit either, although hopefully plans for Berkman 2 start to redirect attention to next steps for the Shipyards.   

[Kerry]

In the core the river should be urbanized.  In suburbia the riverfront should be publicly owned.  Again, Jax gets it ass-backwards.

[Steve]

In the core the river should be urbanized.  In suburbia the riverfront should be publicly owned.  Again, Jax gets it ass-backwards.

While Jax certainly gets things wrong, can you find an example where a government owns riverfront property across 840 square miles.