Adaptive Reuse: An Artists' Vision For The Landing

[Tacachale]

What could be accomplished with the Jacksonville Landing if the city left the door open for reusing the structure before demolishing it outright? This artist's rendering shows one innovative idea for the space that focuses on adaptive reuse and selective demolition while still providing riverfront greenspace.

Read more: https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/adaptive-reuse-an-artists-vision-for-the-landing/

[Lostwave]

I vote for this.  Much better than a tear down.

[Kerry]

Again, it is focused on the water and not the street - which was the primary design flaw to begin with. 99.9999% of the people access the property from the street.  Ultimately the only "fix" is to rotate the whole building 180*.  The U should face the street and not the river and words 'The Jacksonville Landing' should read correctly from the street, not the river.

[Tacachale]

Again, it is focused on the water and not the street - which was the primary design flaw to begin with. 99.9999% of the people access the property from the street.  Ultimately the only "fix" is to rotate the whole building 180*.  The U should face the street and not the river and words 'The Jacksonville Landing' should read correctly from the street, not the river.

Lol, this was adaptive reuse. Kind of hard to make the U face the street when it doesn't do that. And if you look, they've replace the "Jacksonville Landing" sign with a "Jacksonville" that does face up Laura Street.

[jaxnyc79]

I understand the frustrations with tear-downs expressed on this thread, but I just really despise the Landing as a structure.  It would be nice to see something built that is "natively" pedestrian-oriented...better interactions and points of integration with the streetscape.  I do prefer issuing permits for construction of something new before tearing it down, however.

[Tacachale]

To reiterate, this is the city's plan for the space:

[thelakelander]

The reality of cost, economics and redevelopment timeline have to be factored into this topic. What type of use would you to see? Some will be more feasible using an existing building like the Landing instead of building new. So to keep maximum flexibility, issue a RFP for the site and let the responses decide how best to design to meet the requirements.

[vicupstate]

Again, it is focused on the water and not the street - which was the primary design flaw to begin with. 99.9999% of the people access the property from the street.  Ultimately the only "fix" is to rotate the whole building 180*.  The U should face the street and not the river and words 'The Jacksonville Landing' should read correctly from the street, not the river.

There is absolutely nothing to prevent opening storefronts on the street side. It can open up to BOTH sides  and your typical Farmer's Market/ Food Hall would normally do that anyway. 

[Captain Zissou]

This is a wonderful design and a great low cost solution to what to do with the site.

[Steve]

Again, it is focused on the water and not the street - which was the primary design flaw to begin with. 99.9999% of the people access the property from the street.  Ultimately the only "fix" is to rotate the whole building 180*.  The U should face the street and not the river and words 'The Jacksonville Landing' should read correctly from the street, not the river.

I think the article nailed it.

Let's think about it a different way. Looking at the sky view, the west side of the U actually follows the street to a degree; it's the east side that doesn't.

As the rendering shows, they have the Main Street Bridge ramp removed. I think that's a good thing...assuming demand is there.

The idea is that "triangle" space can be used for future development. It doesn't have to be a U at the street as they show.

With that said, nothing prevents retail opening up to Independent Drive/Water Street.

[CityLife]

Good work! This is fairly similar to a concept I posted about in another Landing thread a couple months back. In quotes below.

"I think one interesting option is to only preserve the two wings that run north from the river and remove the interior of the horseshoe and the wings that run east/west along the river. If you look at the Landing from the river, the wings I am referring to are the only architecturally redeeming features of the Landing, imo. With a new roof color and glass facade on the south face, this could look very incredibly nice (actually fairly similar to a waterfront fish market/restaurant I'm working on elsewhere). There would still be AMPLE opportunity to provide green space, hardscape, public art, fountains, etc; but the park would have a true anchor instead of being dead space like everywhere else along the riverfront."

I know some like it and think it is iconic, but I firmly believe one of the biggest issues with the Landing aesthetically is the roof color. There is a zero percent chance that color would be proposed if the Landing was a brand new development in 2019. Any discussion of re- purposing existing The Landing structure should start with a new roof color. 

I also hope people looking at this realize this design is only focused on the structure itself. There is still so much that could be done in the courtyard and pedestrian realm to create a park like setting with various amenities, public art, landscaping, and outdoor furniture.

Good conversation starter for sure, but also know that the final product could look much more appealing.

[FlaBoy]

This plan is similar to what just happened in Tampa with Channelside Bay Plaza, now Sparkman Wharf. There are some interesting ideas that Jax could utilize here.

https://www.bizjournals.com/tampabay/news/2018/11/28/channelside-bay-plaza-shunned-both-the-water-and.html

[Kerry]

Again, it is focused on the water and not the street - which was the primary design flaw to begin with. 99.9999% of the people access the property from the street.  Ultimately the only "fix" is to rotate the whole building 180*.  The U should face the street and not the river and words 'The Jacksonville Landing' should read correctly from the street, not the river.

There is absolutely nothing to prevent opening storefronts on the street side. It can open up to BOTH sides  and your typical Farmer's Market/ Food Hall would normally do that anyway.

It could to an extent but the entire exterior of the east side is all loading docks and mechanical.  Fixing that would cost more than rebuilding it.

[Tacachale]

Again, it is focused on the water and not the street - which was the primary design flaw to begin with. 99.9999% of the people access the property from the street.  Ultimately the only "fix" is to rotate the whole building 180*.  The U should face the street and not the river and words 'The Jacksonville Landing' should read correctly from the street, not the river.

There is absolutely nothing to prevent opening storefronts on the street side. It can open up to BOTH sides  and your typical Farmer's Market/ Food Hall would normally do that anyway.

It could to an extent but the entire exterior of the east side is all loading docks and mechanical.  Fixing that would cost more than rebuilding it.

There's plenty of area fronting Independent Drive that could be adapted to face the street.

[Steve]

Again, it is focused on the water and not the street - which was the primary design flaw to begin with. 99.9999% of the people access the property from the street.  Ultimately the only "fix" is to rotate the whole building 180*.  The U should face the street and not the river and words 'The Jacksonville Landing' should read correctly from the street, not the river.

There is absolutely nothing to prevent opening storefronts on the street side. It can open up to BOTH sides  and your typical Farmer's Market/ Food Hall would normally do that anyway.

It could to an extent but the entire exterior of the east side is all loading docks and mechanical.  Fixing that would cost more than rebuilding it.

In what world would that be? Especially if you redeveloped that property, it wouldn't be an issue at all.