Quote
By Steve Patterson jacksonville.com Copyright 2011 The Florida Times-Union. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
September 13, 2011 - 10:38pm
Jacksonville Landing says $3.5 million grant for parking garage not enough
A deal to help build a 500-space parking garage near The Jacksonville Landing won a $3.5 million pledge of support from the City Council Tuesday.
But that apparently won't change the city's decades-old obligation to finance another garage in almost the same spot.
"It's a nice addition to downtown. It doesn't have anything to do with us," said Bruce Barcelo, a lobbyist for Landing owner Toney Sleiman and investors working with him.
The city made a deal to provide parking before the Landing opened in 1987, but that still hasn't been fulfilled. Doing that would require the city to provide another 300 parking spaces on weekdays and 375 on nights and weekends.
Full article: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2011-09-13/story/jacksonville-landing-says-35-million-grant-parking-garage-not-enough
Another level should just be added on to this plan. That should solve the number of spaces problem. Also, I don't think it would matter much if the Landing had dedicated parking or not. There's not any other places to go in that area. And what do they mean when they say it's not in the right location? It's too far away? That's as close as you can get.
Yeah, they're going around in circles at this point. If I'm the city, I'd just provide whatever dedicated number of parking spaces they're on the hook for and move on. I'm really not a fan of this garage (I like the concept of better utilizing existing parking the area), but if its going to go up, go ahead and put all of the Landing's spaces in it and call it a day.
Parking is not the answer. I was in the landing last week and noticed that nearly half of the food court spaces are empty. I remember when they were all full. I simply do not feel that whatever parking they want is going to change anything. It is what it is now.
Parking has never been the issue with the landing....the owner is still grabbing at straws trying to keep his space viable and relavent and always has...even when it opened it was'nt as strong as it should have been and the owners nasty attitude did'nt help anything...maybe he should sell the place and retire...let someone in there that's easy to work with and someone with modern ideas...i went there about a week ago and it just all seems so sad and desperate...and i'm sorry...parking is'nt going to help..and don't blame the economy...when the economy was roaring the landing was still just making it...
You know lots of the businesses the Landing would like to pursue require dedicated parking. The bigger issue is Downtown if it was full of residents and visitors to compliment the daytime workforce it would all be fine.
There is no single answer but if the place is to remain a retail/entertainment center (the lease is still in effect for several more decades from my understanding), then dedicated parking certainly plays a role in any type of redevelopment scheme. With that said, regardless of how we personally feel about parking, the city made a committment that hasn't been fulfilled since the place opened in the 1980s. At what point do you officially not decide to live up to the promises that were originally made to get the place built and what will be the impact of being known as a public government that reniges on multimillion dollar deals with the private sector?
Quote from: JeffreyS on September 14, 2011, 08:28:19 AM
You know lots of the businesses the Landing would like to pursue require dedicated parking. The bigger issue is Downtown if it was full of residents and visitors to compliment the daytime workforce it would all be fine.
In reality, downtown hasn't been full of residents living in what we consider as the core since the 1920s/30s and it won't be anytime soon. What it did have was high density residential districts surrounding it (connected by streetcar) and a built in economic backbone (where the rail & maritime industries met). On a larger level, perhaps its time to focus on re-establishing that lost network of connectivity and commerce.
Should be easier.
The city owes a garage to the Landing.
The city wants to build a garage caddy-corner to the Landing - but not for the Landing.
Most national chains won't move in without a set # of DEDICATED parking spots - doesn't include street parking or other garages
'People' complain that we don't have the retail DT that we have elsewhere (read: Big Name Nationals)
'People' complain that there's never any parking DT when they finally decide to try the Landing
WTF? If this isn't political hamstringing then I don't know what is.
Quote from: thelakelander on September 14, 2011, 07:35:16 AM
Yeah, they're going around in circles at this point.
you mean they keep driving around the roundabout ;)
The bottom line is the city owes parking to the Landing.
Parking is not an issue in downtown...the issue is people who think they should have a parking spot at the front door of every place they visit....if you can't walk a few blocks then move to lake city and have a good time....i never have understood the whole hoopla over parking downtown...i have never had a problem..and one other thing i'm sure the city would be willing to put a parking lot there if the place were'nt empty half of its life..just because you make a parking space does'nt make the demand for your business go up...
^The issue of dedicated parking is completely different than the issue of some people looking for a parking space at the front door of some place they are trying to access. The dedicated parking issue can be taken care of by better utilizing existing parking spaces, which is what the dead deal for the Omni lot would have done. Nevertheless, if the city is going to invest in a garage (highly questionable investment, imo), they might as well provide the exact number of spaces for the Landing that they agreed to in their deal.
GG there are bureaucracies that are inherent in many big businesses. So even if parking isn't an issue, their check list says something like we require 300 dedicated spots so if the Landing doesn't have those spots they just look elsewhere without doing some parking investigation.
Quote from: JeffreyS on September 14, 2011, 09:50:17 AM
GG there are bureaucracies that are inherent in many big businesses. So even if parking isn't an issue, their check list says something like we require 300 dedicated spots so if the Landing doesn't have those spots they just look elsewhere without doing some parking investigation.
Thank you Jeff...there are so many other issues this city has i just hate to see nonissues taking cash when there is none...
Agreed the city has plenty of spaces now it could just tag for the Landing without any investment and live up to the deal it made in 1987.
Quote from: thelakelander on September 14, 2011, 08:33:34 AM
There is no single answer but if the place is to remain a retail/entertainment center (the lease is still in effect for several more decades from my understanding), then dedicated parking certainly plays a role in any type of redevelopment scheme. With that said, regardless of how we personally feel about parking, the city made a committment that hasn't been fulfilled since the place opened in the 1980s. At what point do you officially not decide to live up to the promises that were originally made to get the place built and what will be the impact of being known as a public government that reniges on multimillion dollar deals with the private sector?
You know as much as I would like to say this place is mismanaged (which I believe it is), you are right. The city should come through on what it promised. It sure wouldn't hurt the situation.
Quotelet someone in there that's easy to work with and someone with modern ideas
In regards to working with and incentivizing new, innovative tenants... you are not even in the universe of being correct.
You know what the real issue is downtown on a macro level, the quote from Stephen Joost 'well, we have to do something'. Doing something for the sake of doing something(as Mr Joost is advocating), and simply doing something right the first time are worlds apart.
Quotewhat will be the impact of being known as a public government that reniges on multimillion dollar deals with the private sector?
bingo
I say just give him the parking so we don't have to listen to Sleiman's excuses about why all the national tenants he has lined up are holding out due to lack of dedicated parking. Once the parking is secured the floodgates will open and all the Fuddruckers of the world will be moving to The Landing within a month I'm sure. ::)
quote from the article
"The bill adopted Tuesday offered a developer, Parador Partners, a $3.5 million grant for building a garage along Hogan Street, between Bay and Water streets. The company owns the nearby SunTrust Building and wants to lease some spaces to building tenants.
It could also meet the Landing's night and weekend quota and open 200 weekday spots for shoppers. But Barcelo said the location doesn't meet the needs of the top-grade mall tenants the Landing seeks."
so...the deal for the lot adjacent to the Omni from last year was acceptable....but the location of this one (actually closer to the Landing) doesn't meet the locational needs of potential tenants?
I'm calling BS here
Why does it seem like everything Tony is lying about national chaines requiring deticated parking. THEY DO. Its not an excuse, its actually the truth. And truth be told I dont go to the Landing much because of the parking. From a consumer perspective, its much easier and less of a headache when there is deticated parking. I dont have much patience, so driving around trying to find somewhere to park just to go in to get some cookies is too much.
Pointblank...The city needs to honor its part of the deal. Had they honored back in 1987, the Landing probably would be more sucessful that what it is. This shows how backwards our city is. When parking becomes a debate, we have a problem. Lets wait and see what the new adminstration can make of this.
Hard to believe we are still talking about this. People wonder why DT cant move forward. I wonder what other cities similar to Jax would have done about a situation like this?
Quote from: duvaldude08 on September 14, 2011, 10:45:19 AM
Why does it seem like everything Tony is lying about national chaines requiring deticated parking. THEY DO. Its not an excuse, its actually the truth.
Well then once the dedicated parking is established we should expect to start seeing a bunch of new tenants right? I'll be waiting.
Maybe in the next 20 yrs. Thats how we roll here in Jax.
Quote from: cline on September 14, 2011, 10:49:01 AM
Quote from: duvaldude08 on September 14, 2011, 10:45:19 AM
Why does it seem like everything Tony is lying about national chaines requiring deticated parking. THEY DO. Its not an excuse, its actually the truth.
Well then once the dedicated parking is established we should expect to start seeing a bunch of new tenants right? I'll be waiting.
That's all we can do it wait.
Where is the Mayor on this one? He needs to begin to start delivering on Downtown promises. I am not going to have much patience with him on this promise! I am also beginning to believe Tony is jerking us around. I really do not believe he has any national tenants lined up!
Quote from: fsujax on September 14, 2011, 10:55:33 AM
I am also beginning to believe Tony is jerking us around. I really do not believe he has any national tenants lined up!
No way! He's got Fuddrucker's lined up.
Quote from: cline on September 14, 2011, 10:49:01 AM
Quote from: duvaldude08 on September 14, 2011, 10:45:19 AM
Why does it seem like everything Tony is lying about national chaines requiring deticated parking. THEY DO. Its not an excuse, its actually the truth.
Well then once the dedicated parking is established we should expect to start seeing a bunch of new tenants right? I'll be waiting.
Better yet, we would have lived up to our end of the deal and moved on.
Quote from: fsujax on September 14, 2011, 10:55:33 AM
I am also beginning to believe Tony is jerking us around. I really do not believe he has any national tenants lined up!
Probably so, but does it matter when it comes to the city living up to the end of its deal? I mean, I know people hate Sleiman but this goes back to the Rouse days. The jeri curl was still in style and the Avenues hadn't even broken ground when the city initially promised dedicated parking for the Landing. Its time to live up to our end and move on.
Quote from: thelakelander on September 14, 2011, 08:33:34 AM
....what will be the impact of being known as a public government that reniges on multimillion dollar deals with the private sector?
It's about 25 years too late to be worrying about that. If this situation has indeed caused the city to have this reputation, building the garage now is hardly going to remedy it.
So you're saying if we walk, you don't think it will have a negative impact on current desires to attempt to revitalize downtown?
This is a shameful situation for both the city and the Landing. I remember back when the Landing had tenants such as Banana Republic, Laura Ashley, Sharper Image and others. Nearly 25 years later, we are looking at a city that continues to fail in putting forth a good faith effort to support the Landing.
Question: Exactly how many spaces does he need to attract these "top-grade mall tenants"? The garage would offer him 500. The city is required to provide 300-375. The article also mentions that the location doesn't meet the needs of these "top-grade mall tenants". What is the location that would?
Quote from: thelakelander on September 14, 2011, 11:09:04 AM
So you're saying if we walk, you don't think it will have a negative impact on current desires to attempt to revitalize downtown?
I'm saying that the parking should be built/dedicated/whatever based on the environment that exists in 2011. Yes, it wasn't a good thing that the city made a commitment and didn't keep it, but any damage to our reputation is done. I can't see how following through two decades later is going to change that.
I suppose we could change the city motto to "Better Late Than Never".
You know what, Sleiman? Shut up.
Seriously.
You sit here and support the Tea Party, then beg city government for money to support your private enterprise? I've never had a problem parking and going to the landing. Either in the Landing parking lot, or parking somewhere near and walking a couple of blocks (at the most). If you want better tenants, parking isn't the problem. You are. You know the biggest reason that I don't go to the landing?
Here's a hint: There's no reason to go.
Quote from: fsujax on September 14, 2011, 10:55:33 AM
Where is the Mayor on this one? He needs to begin to start delivering on Downtown promises. I am not going to have much patience with him on this promise! I am also beginning to believe Tony is jerking us around. I really do not believe he has any national tenants lined up!
Mayor has only been in office for only a few months. Chill out. And he also forgot his magic wand today. We have more pressing issues right now. We have city council of clowns that can even balance a budget. And plus this issue just resurfaced. Im sure he was give his input when the time comes.
Quote from: cline on September 14, 2011, 11:15:10 AM
Question: Exactly how many spaces does he need to attract these "top-grade mall tenants"? The garage would offer him 500. The city is required to provide 300-375. The article also mentions that the location doesn't meet the needs of these "top-grade mall tenants". What is the location that would?
The garage offers zero dedicated spaces from what I've read.
Quote from: finehoe on September 14, 2011, 11:17:45 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on September 14, 2011, 11:09:04 AM
So you're saying if we walk, you don't think it will have a negative impact on current desires to attempt to revitalize downtown?
I'm saying that the parking should be built/dedicated/whatever based on the environment that exists in 2011. Yes, it wasn't a good thing that the city made a commitment and didn't keep it, but any damage to our reputation is done. I can't see how following through two decades later is going to change that.
I suppose we could change the city motto to "Better Late Than Never".
If we kept letting the city off the hook for everything, nothing will never change.
Magic wand or not, I voted for him soley on his stance regarding Downtown. I am not going to be chill too long on the issue.
Quote from: fsujax on September 14, 2011, 11:25:53 AM
Magic wand or not, I voted for him soley on his stance regarding Downtown. I am not going to be chill too long on the issue.
As did I. However, im realistic about the situation. (regarding the mayor) As much as I loved Godbald, he needs to be whipped for this. This should have been taken care of 20+ years ago. when he was in office. Since the Landing was his project, I think he should weigh in out in and speak about the details of the proposal that was made for the parking.
Quote from: duvaldude08 on September 14, 2011, 11:25:48 AM
If we kept letting the city off the hook for everything, nothing will never change.
True enough, but constructing a parking garage for a half-empty failed retail center hardly seems like the best use of scarce city funds. These 'festival marketplaces' are a thing of the past anyway. What may have been a great idea in the 80s often seems stale and tired in the 10s.
I've said it on MJ before and I'll say it again: You could build a suburban-style parking lot right flush against the Landing so that people never had to walk more than a few feet and it wouldn't change a thing. The city could construct a garage twice as big as the one it committed to, and the place would continue to be dead, and some other excuse would be trotted out on why no one wants to go there.
Quote from: thelakelander on September 14, 2011, 11:23:58 AM
Quote from: cline on September 14, 2011, 11:15:10 AM
Question: Exactly how many spaces does he need to attract these "top-grade mall tenants"? The garage would offer him 500. The city is required to provide 300-375. The article also mentions that the location doesn't meet the needs of these "top-grade mall tenants". What is the location that would?
The garage offers zero dedicated spaces from what I've read.
What about location? Since this proposed spot is not acceptable, where exactly does it need to be?
That location stuff is BS. The site is the same as the dead Kuhn garage deal.
I guess I have two thoughts about this.
1. Does a current administration have to live up to the promises of the previous one? If their is no legislation supporting this parking garage, then in my opinion it is a moot point. Is it fair, no it is not, but I'm saying, administrations promise a lot of stuff that never get's done.
2. If I had Tony Sleiman's money, I would have bought me some land built my own parking garage and would not have waited for the city. If the parking garage was that detrimental to my bottom line, I would have figured out a way to do it myself. Obviously this is easier said than done, but Im Just saying. This guy been waiting on the city since 1987, I mean really?
Sleiman didnt buy the Landing until 2006 I believe.
Quote from: manasia on September 14, 2011, 12:00:36 PM
I guess I have two thoughts about this.
1. Does a current administration have to live up to the promises of the previous one? If their is no legislation supporting this parking garage, then in my opinion it is a moot point. Is it fair, no it is not, but I'm saying, administrations promise a lot of stuff that never get's done.
[/quot
There is actually legislation (if that what you want to call it), about the deticiated parking for the Landing. I believe the Landing contract and wording have been change alot of the past two decades, but the deticated parking still stands. Otherwise, they wouldnt be entertaining it.
But I have one question, if sleiman is jerking us around, what would he gain buy building a parking garage???? " Oh yeah let me manipulate the city into building this garage so it can be empty and no one will come to the Landing. " Now if he got the money and the thing was never builty, THEN I would say he jerked us around. At this point, theres no way to tell what his intentions are. But at the end of the day, the city cant debate with about something THEY promised.
Quote from: fsujax on September 14, 2011, 12:02:02 PM
Sleiman didnt buy the Landing until 2006 I believe.
Oh Ok, I did not know that thank you for that information.
Quote from: duvaldude08 on September 14, 2011, 12:13:02 PM
Quote from: manasia on September 14, 2011, 12:00:36 PM
I guess I have two thoughts about this.
1. Does a current administration have to live up to the promises of the previous one? If their is no legislation supporting this parking garage, then in my opinion it is a moot point. Is it fair, no it is not, but I'm saying, administrations promise a lot of stuff that never get's done.
[/quot
There is actually legislation (if that what you want to call it), about the deticiated parking for the Landing. I believe the Landing contract and wording have been change alot of the past two decades, but the deticated parking still stands. Otherwise, they wouldnt be entertaining it.
But I have one question, if sleiman is jerking us around, what would he gain buy building a parking garage???? " Oh yeah let me manipulate the city into building this garage so it can be empty and no one will come to the Landing. " Now if he got the money and the thing was never builty, THEN I would say he jerked us around. At this point, theres no way to tell what his intentions are. But at the end of the day, the city cant debate with about something THEY promised.
Duval I do not think he is jerking us around, I just think he is a business owner who has no initiative. I would not be waiting for a promise from the city, to build something that is detrimental to my bottom line. (But I say this with a caveat, of that it is easier said than done)
Quote from: fsujax on September 14, 2011, 11:25:53 AM
Magic wand or not, I voted for him soley on his stance regarding Downtown. I am not going to be chill too long on the issue.
You voted for him because Audrey Moran wasn't in the running. Many people here did.
Quote from: peestandingup on September 14, 2011, 12:20:04 PM
Quote from: fsujax on September 14, 2011, 11:25:53 AM
Magic wand or not, I voted for him soley on his stance regarding Downtown. I am not going to be chill too long on the issue.
You voted for him because Audrey Moran wasn't in the running. Many people here did.
That's not quite fair to Alvin. Not being Mike Hogan was an equally strong asset he had. ;)
Quote from: Tacachale on September 14, 2011, 12:37:35 PM
Quote from: peestandingup on September 14, 2011, 12:20:04 PM
Quote from: fsujax on September 14, 2011, 11:25:53 AM
Magic wand or not, I voted for him soley on his stance regarding Downtown. I am not going to be chill too long on the issue.
You voted for him because Audrey Moran wasn't in the running. Many people here did.
That's not quite fair to Alvin. Not being Mike Hogan was an equally strong asset he had. ;)
Well, there's that too. ;D
Quote from: manasia on September 14, 2011, 12:16:38 PM
Quote from: duvaldude08 on September 14, 2011, 12:13:02 PM
Quote from: manasia on September 14, 2011, 12:00:36 PM
I guess I have two thoughts about this.
1. Does a current administration have to live up to the promises of the previous one? If their is no legislation supporting this parking garage, then in my opinion it is a moot point. Is it fair, no it is not, but I'm saying, administrations promise a lot of stuff that never get's done.
[/quot
There is actually legislation (if that what you want to call it), about the deticiated parking for the Landing. I believe the Landing contract and wording have been change alot of the past two decades, but the deticated parking still stands. Otherwise, they wouldnt be entertaining it.
But I have one question, if sleiman is jerking us around, what would he gain buy building a parking garage???? " Oh yeah let me manipulate the city into building this garage so it can be empty and no one will come to the Landing. " Now if he got the money and the thing was never builty, THEN I would say he jerked us around. At this point, theres no way to tell what his intentions are. But at the end of the day, the city cant debate with about something THEY promised.
Duval I do not think he is jerking us around, I just think he is a business owner who has no initiative. I would not be waiting for a promise from the city, to build something that is detrimental to my bottom line. (But I say this with a caveat, of that it is easier said than done)
Manasia, there are a few issues at play here. Because of the city's failure to come through on the contractually obligated parking, the Landing does not pay tax on its property (or something along those lines). Lake has shown that the lost tax revenue is far more than the cost would have been to take care of this parking issue decades ago. Also, Sleiman wants/needs to see the commitment from the city because he doesn't actually own the land under the Landing (It's under a very long-term lease) Hard to make major investments to your property when you don't trust your landowner, or so he says.
Quote from: thelakelander on September 14, 2011, 11:23:58 AM
Quote from: cline on September 14, 2011, 11:15:10 AM
Question: Exactly how many spaces does he need to attract these "top-grade mall tenants"? The garage would offer him 500. The city is required to provide 300-375. The article also mentions that the location doesn't meet the needs of these "top-grade mall tenants". What is the location that would?
The garage offers zero dedicated spaces from what I've read.
from what the article says, it seems to be 200 available spaces weekdays....why can't the City/Sleiman have those dedicated for the Landing?
And still doesn't answer the question regarding location....which, as I said, is a BS excuse
Didn't the deal specify that the city would provide 375 dedicated spaces for the Landing? I still question the need for a new garage but if you're going to build one across the street, why not add 375 DEDICATED spaces to it? That's completely different from 200 spaces the Landing and everyone else can use.
As for location, could they be referring to the location of extra spaces in what will apparently be the Suntrust Tower's garage? Is it a multiple story block wide garage where Suntrust gets all the premium spots? The design of what's being proposed hasn't been shown to all of us, so there maybe some aspects to this situation that haven't been revealed to the general public.
Thanx Maximus, that makes a lot of sense.
Before too many things are said regarding this deal, we all should understand the facts.
First, the Landing assumed a deal that was an obligation of Humana (the old owner of the Suntrust building and the lot proposed for the garage in question). The basis for the deal was that the Landing would build a parking garage on that land (if they acquired it) or any land in the near vicinity that Tony could acquire.
Second, the Landing would be entitled to $3.5 million from the City (as was previously promised to Humana) upon the completion of the parking garage.
Finally, a validation program would accompany the construction of the parking (funded by the City).
To put this in perspective, the Landing pushed a deal through City Council (during an election time) to purchase the parking lot adjacent to the Omni. In this legislation, the Landing was to be given $3.5 million with a parking validation program with no improvements to the parking lot. Furthermore, it was later clarified that the parking lot would not solely be used by patrons of the Landing, but rather run as a commercial parking lot.
Legislation that can be referenced for verification of this is in legislation 1986-674, 1986-1528, 1987-430, 1987-1247, 1987-1508, 1988-251, 1988-252, 1989-819, 1994-1336, 2001-059 and 2006-957.
^Thanks Planning Guy. Wasn't that the deal that Peyton vetoed a few months ago?
Thanks for the post Planning Guy. Do you have a history of the series of deals (including the Humana parking deal) that have evolved since the opening of the Landing in the late 1980s?
QuoteFurthermore, it was later clarified that the parking lot would not solely be used by patrons of the Landing, but rather run as a commercial parking lot.
Wouldn't this issue be important to clarify before pushing the legislation through?
Quote from: thelakelander on September 14, 2011, 03:20:09 PM
Thanks for the post Planning Guy. Do you have a history of the series of deals (including the Humana parking deal) that have evolved since the opening of the Landing in the late 1980s?
Yes, that would be helpful to post.
In bill 1987-1508, the rates for parking in the lot to the east of the Landing (then owned by the City) rates were reduced to entice/encourage people to park there.
In bill 1988-251, the City attempted to provide 525 short-term parking spaces in an existing garage bound by Laura Street, Main Street, Bay Street and Forsyth Street. This bill was withdrawn (Likely a problem with the parking garage owner, the Rouse Group and politicians).
In bill 1988-252, the City attempted to acquire property "in the vicinity of Main and Forsyth" through eminent domain. This bill was withdrawn. No explanation as to why.
In bill 1989-819, Authorized the JDDA to "USE THE "DESIGN-BUILD" APPROACH FOR CONSTRN OF A PARKING FACILITY ON PROPTYS OWNED BY THE CITY OR TO BE ACQUIRED BY THE CITY PURSUANT TO PENDING RESO 89-665; WAIVING THE PROVISIONS OF PTS 2 & 3, CHAPT 126, ORD CODE, TO PERMIT THE CONSTRN OF THE PARKING FACILITY ON A DESIGN-BUILD BASIS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH A NEGOTIATED BID SELECTION PROCESS AS ESTAB BY THE DIR OF CENTRAL SVCS, DIR OF PUBLIC WKS & THE DDA'S EXECUTIVE DIR (OR THEIR DESIGNEES); REQUIRING THAT A MINIMUM OF 50% OF THE LINEAR ST FRONTAGE & A MINIMUM OF 25% OF THE LST (GROUND) FLR OF THE PARKING FACILITY BE CONSTRUCTED & UTILIZED FOR RETAIL/OFC PURPOSES." I am not sure where the property was located.
In bill 1994-1336, "JAX LANDING, AUTH EXECUTION OF A 3RD AMENDMENT TO THE DIPOSITION, DEV & LEASE AGREEMENT AUTH BY ORD 84-1478-798, TO ELIMINATE CITY'S OBLIGATION TO CONSTRUCT A PARKING GARAGE ON NOT LESS THAN 800 SHORT TERM PUBLIC PARKING SPACES & REDIFINING THE CITY'S OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE "ALTERNATIVE" SHORT TERM PUBLIC PARKING IN CONSIDERATION OF UNDERTAKING CERTAIN OBLIGATIONS, INCLUDING SHARING IN THE COSTS OF CERTAIN "REMERCHANDISING PROGRAMS" & MAKING IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING PARKING FACILIITES; APPROP & 800,000 FROM JAX LANDING PARKING GARGAGE ACCT FOR CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS AT EXISTING CITY PARKING FACILITIES; AMEND ORD 94-825-562 (CIP) TO AUTH PRIORITY 1 STATUS FOR JAX LANDING PROJ; SUPERSEDING AGREEMENTS PARKING GARGAGE REQUIREMENTS & INTERIM PARKING AGREEMENT AUTH BY ORD 86-1528-870 (AS AMEND BY ORD 87-1247-683 & 89-834-447) FUNDING VIA A HUD SEC 108 LOAN WHICH WOULD NET ROUSE-JACKSONVILLE INC AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $3,400,000; EVIDENCING THE CITY'S INTENT TO REPAY THE HUD SEC 108 LOAN." This began to eliminate the City's Obligation.
In bill 2001-059, it approves execution by the City and the Jacksonville Economic Development Commission a Redevelopment Agreement with Humana Medical Plan, Inc. and appropriates $3,500,000 for a 1,000 space parking structure. The proposed City investment package includes the pre-leasing of 300 daily parking spaces and 375 evening, weekend and holiday spaces for twenty-nine years and a parking validation program for Jacksonville Landing patrons for which the City will contract with Humana for $500,000. This parking facility is bounded by Independent Drive to the south, Hogan Street to the west and Bay Street to the north and the Humana Building to the east. This was done to address a perceived need for parking employees of the old Humana Building and the Landing.
Finally in bill 2006-957, this was the bill that ultimately transferred the deal to the Landing, allowed the Landing to purchase the existing Landing surface lot from the City, settled the deal with Humana and established the deal in place today.
Quote from: cline on September 14, 2011, 03:22:30 PM
QuoteFurthermore, it was later clarified that the parking lot would not solely be used by patrons of the Landing, but rather run as a commercial parking lot.
Wouldn't this issue be important to clarify before pushing the legislation through?
Quote from: thelakelander on September 14, 2011, 03:20:09 PM
Thanks for the post Planning Guy. Do you have a history of the series of deals (including the Humana parking deal) that have evolved since the opening of the Landing in the late 1980s?
Yes, that would be helpful to post.
Yes. It was an important issue. However, this wasn't being supported by the Mayor and the JEDC brought it up when given the chance.
^Wait, this is confusing. So what is the deal today? What else needs to be done?
The deal as it stands today is:
The Landing will receive from the City approximately $3.5 million upon the construction of a parking garage in the "near vicinity" of the Landing.
and
The Landing will be provided a parking validation program of approximately $500K.
So will the parking validation program give Sleiman dedicated parking or no? It appears that is the issue, although his representative claims it has to do with the fact that the proposed location is not acceptable.
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y74/asonj23/b9b0a888bd2e05091392c70aad81114b.jpg)
Where does Cameron Kuhn's failed Riverwatch tower and garage fit into all of this? Also, do we really need another parking garage? I wonder if there is a way to reconfigure the deal in a manner that simply better utilizes existing parking at existing facilities?
Quote from: cline on September 14, 2011, 04:25:37 PM
So will the parking validation program give Sleiman dedicated parking or no? It appears that is the issue, although his representative claims it has to do with the fact that the proposed location is not acceptable.
The location talk is strange because the site is literally across the street. It's as close as you can get a garage without putting it on top of the Landing. Also, I hope this garage will have retail along Forsyth, Independent and Hogan Streets.
It sounds increasingly like the city is willing to work to fulfill its obligations, but Sleiman is trying to milk it for more and more. I just double checked on why Peyton vetoed the previous deal in March was because Sleiman had pushed through a bill that, on top of receiving $3.5 million WITHOUT having to build a garage, he would get another $1.9 million to "subsidize short-term parking operations".
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2011-03-09/story/city-council-fails-override-jacksonville-landing-parking-purchase-veto
Peyton pointed out that this deal was more than the $5 million Sleiman had payed for the Landing itself.
QuoteFurthermore, it was later clarified that the parking lot would not solely be used by patrons of the Landing, but rather run as a commercial parking lot.
That part was inserted later when both sides were trying to amend the deal... this is the part that ultimately killed the deal.
Quoteupon the construction of a parking garage
that was certainly Peyton's position.. but the group that was to uphold that end of the bargain(building the parking garage) is gone
the plan last year that was agreed upon by the city council, before language was changed in which short term parking would be part of the deal-which killed it, would have essentially kept the city's end of the bargain-absent a non-existent party which modified the existing parking obligation from the late 80's. Sleiman's, the city council and my position was that the parking obligation still existed by the city... irrespective of the parking garage... the party that was to build the parking garage is no more, the fact that they are gone doesn't dissolve the city from it's end of the bargain.
Let's say Old Man Willie owed both you and your grandpa 50k each. Gramps dies. Does that mean OMW doesnt owe you the 50k anymore unless grandpa rises from the dead?
Quotealthough his representative claims it has to do with the fact that the proposed location is not acceptable.
let's all be adults about this... location has nothing to do with it. A group of investors wants the Enterprise Center parking lot.. they don't want that money going to another group of investors at an adjoining space at Suntrust.
QuoteAlso, do we really need another parking garage? I wonder if there is a way to reconfigure the deal in a manner that simply better utilizes existing parking at existing facilities?
ok, say that the owners of the Suntrust building fix that surface lot(its an eyesore now)... they won't have enough space to give the Landing its spots PLUS spots that they could use... hence why a parking garage is being proposed. You can use google maps to figure out how many spots could be arranged at that parcel as a surface lot. It's not capable of 500 parking spaces, that's for sure.
The problem is... short term parking is being offered to the Landing in this newest scheme(which is in extremely high supply downtown, in fact the most short term parking in the entire city is downtown), that as you know is different than dedicated parking.
Quote from: Planning Guy on September 14, 2011, 04:16:44 PM
The deal as it stands today is:
The Landing will receive from the City approximately $3.5 million upon the construction of a parking garage in the "near vicinity" of the Landing.
and
The Landing will be provided a parking validation program of approximately $500K.
Thank you!
Everyone has been chattering about how the City hasn't met its committment...while that might have been true with previous agreements, it is not the case with the one currently in effect (signed by both parties).
Quote from: Tacachale on September 14, 2011, 04:39:42 PM
It sounds increasingly like the city is willing to work to fulfill its obligations, but Sleiman is trying to milk it for more and more. I just double checked on why Peyton vetoed the previous deal in March was because Sleiman had pushed through a bill that, on top of receiving $3.5 million WITHOUT having to build a garage, he would get another $1.9 million to "subsidize short-term parking operations".
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2011-03-09/story/city-council-fails-override-jacksonville-landing-parking-purchase-veto
Peyton pointed out that this deal was more than the $5 million Sleiman had payed for the Landing itself.
no other bill existed, both sides were trying to modify the deal that got passed by council 8 months prior... the deal was about to expire, and b/c of the language change not enough council votes were cast to overide peyton's veto.
Quote from: tufsu1 on September 14, 2011, 04:53:17 PM
Quote from: Planning Guy on September 14, 2011, 04:16:44 PM
The deal as it stands today is:
The Landing will receive from the City approximately $3.5 million upon the construction of a parking garage in the "near vicinity" of the Landing.
and
The Landing will be provided a parking validation program of approximately $500K.
Thank you!
Everyone has been chattering about how the City hasn't met its committment...while that might have been true with previous agreements, it is not the case with the one currently in effect (signed by both parties).
Again
Let's say Old Man Willie owed both you and your grandpa 50k each. Gramps dies. Does that mean OMW doesnt owe you the 50k anymore unless grandpa rises from the dead?
The existing deal for the Landing exists today in its current form which includes $3.5 million for the completion of a parking garage and $500K parking validation program. It is unaffected by the legislation that was passed last night.
The legislation that passed last night, will result in a 500 space garage being built on the vacant parcel bound by Bay Street, Hogan Street, Water Street and the Sun Trust Building. It is primarily to accomodate parking for the Sun Trust Building, but also to provide 200 public spaces for the businesses in the area (which includes the Landing).
It has been represented that there will be retail on the ground floor and the garage will be built to be added onto. Furthermore, the odd parcel and cul-de-sac (aka - Sister Cities Park), off of Hogan Street across Water Street from the Landing, is being considered for a hotel location.
Wouldn't it be great if all that were to come together in this economic recession?
Quote from: Tacachale on September 14, 2011, 04:39:42 PM
It sounds increasingly like the city is willing to work to fulfill its obligations, but Sleiman is trying to milk it for more and more. I just double checked on why Peyton vetoed the previous deal in March was because Sleiman had pushed through a bill that, on top of receiving $3.5 million WITHOUT having to build a garage, he would get another $1.9 million to "subsidize short-term parking operations".
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2011-03-09/story/city-council-fails-override-jacksonville-landing-parking-purchase-veto
Peyton pointed out that this deal was more than the $5 million Sleiman had payed for the Landing itself.
+1 I think you hit the nail on the head with this one.
Quote from: fieldafm on September 14, 2011, 04:50:04 PM
ok, say that the owners of the Suntrust building fix that surface lot(its an eyesore now)... they won't have enough space to give the Landing its spots PLUS spots that they could use... hence why a parking garage is being proposed. You can use google maps to figure out how many spots could be arranged at that parcel as a surface lot. It's not capable of 500 parking spaces, that's for sure.
The problem is... short term parking is being offered to the Landing in this newest scheme(which is in extremely high supply downtown, in fact the most short term parking in the entire city is downtown), that as you know is different than dedicated parking.
I'm not sure of the ownership structure of the garages within a two block radius of Suntrust, but there are two large garages (one near the Omni and one on Bay & Main) and a couple of surface lots as well. How is the occupancy within those garages and if they aren't 100% full, could deals be worked out to secure dedicated parking for both Suntrust and the Landing? Btw, where have the Humana/Suntrust Tower workers been parking for the last two decades?
Quote from: manasia on September 14, 2011, 04:58:44 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on September 14, 2011, 04:39:42 PM
It sounds increasingly like the city is willing to work to fulfill its obligations, but Sleiman is trying to milk it for more and more. I just double checked on why Peyton vetoed the previous deal in March was because Sleiman had pushed through a bill that, on top of receiving $3.5 million WITHOUT having to build a garage, he would get another $1.9 million to "subsidize short-term parking operations".
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2011-03-09/story/city-council-fails-override-jacksonville-landing-parking-purchase-veto
Peyton pointed out that this deal was more than the $5 million Sleiman had payed for the Landing itself.
+1 I think you hit the nail on the head with this one.
You can't fault Sleiman for the purchase. Rouse wanted out of here, Sleiman offered $5 million and they took it and ran back up north.
Forgive me for being thick, this still seems very strange to me. If the city owes the Landing the equivalent of $3.5 million, and they're going to put $3.5 million into this garage that includes some parking for the Landing, couldn't they work out a deal with Sleiman to put whatever money he was going to have to put into parking, into expanding this garage? Then just call the $3.5 million their obligation to the Landing, and call Sleiman's money the money he would have contributed to any other $3.5 million deal with the city. Or am I still missing something crucial?
Quote from: Planning Guy on September 14, 2011, 04:57:46 PM
The existing deal for the Landing exists today in its current form which includes $3.5 million for the completion of a parking garage and $500K parking validation program. It is unaffected by the legislation that was passed last night.
The legislation that passed last night, will result in a 500 space garage being built on the vacant parcel bound by Bay Street, Hogan Street, Water Street and the Sun Trust Building. It is primarily to accomodate parking for the Sun Trust Building, but also to provide 200 public spaces for the businesses in the area (which includes the Landing).
If I'm reading this correctly, then the city could expand the size of the garage on it's own dime to include the Landings' 500 dedicated spaces, waive the 3.5M payment (unless Slieman fronts the money for the spaces) and we have more retail, dedicated parking for the Landing and a surface lot is gone.
Does that sound right?
Quote from: thelakelander on September 14, 2011, 05:02:14 PM
Quote from: manasia on September 14, 2011, 04:58:44 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on September 14, 2011, 04:39:42 PM
It sounds increasingly like the city is willing to work to fulfill its obligations, but Sleiman is trying to milk it for more and more. I just double checked on why Peyton vetoed the previous deal in March was because Sleiman had pushed through a bill that, on top of receiving $3.5 million WITHOUT having to build a garage, he would get another $1.9 million to "subsidize short-term parking operations".
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2011-03-09/story/city-council-fails-override-jacksonville-landing-parking-purchase-veto
Peyton pointed out that this deal was more than the $5 million Sleiman had payed for the Landing itself.
+1 I think you hit the nail on the head with this one.
You can't fault Sleiman for the purchase. Rouse wanted out of here, Sleiman offered $5 million and they took it and ran back up north.
I don't fault Sleiman for making a good deal that worked for him on the purchase. I do fault him for trying to squeeze the city out of substantially more than what the actual obligation was.
No argument from me on that one.
Quotethey're going to put $3.5 million into this garage that includes some parking for the Landing...
Then just call the $3.5 million their obligation to the Landing
Then no dedicated parking for the Landing would exist(the reason for the original agreement with Rouse in the late 80's)... just more short term parking that is controlled by a third party, which is what the city already has plenty of.
QuoteFurthermore, the odd parcel and cul-de-sac (aka - Sister Cities Park), off of Hogan Street across Water Street from the Landing, is being considered for a hotel location.
That same hotel has kicked around the tires on 3 other sites in the last 5 years. Let's not get real excited about that prospect just yet.
QuoteBtw, where have the Humana/Suntrust Tower workers been parking for the last two decades?
You mean all 30 of them?
QuoteThe existing deal for the Landing exists today in its current form which includes $3.5 million for the completion of a parking garage and $500K parking validation program. It is unaffected by the legislation that was passed last night.
Everyone pay careful attention to this which is what I have been saying since Peyton was able to pull a final FU to old Sleiman on his way out the door. B/c essentially... this money is going to be spent on more parking and the city still has an obligation to the Landing to provide parking(its tenant btw... is that how a landlord treats their tenants?). So in this scheme, the answer to an oversupply of parking downtown will be... more parking with public money? Does that sound good to any of you? Is THAT good for downtown?
This legislation is simply BAD for the city. Period.
Let's go back to getting Old Man Willie to resolve his $50k obligation to you... and then we can all move forward.
Quote from: fieldafm on September 14, 2011, 05:17:39 PM
QuoteBtw, where have the Humana/Suntrust Tower workers been parking for the last two decades?
You mean all 30 of them?
Specifically, the 519 that were laid off when Humana shut down their service center around 2002. I simply don't understand why we "need" more parking even though the number of downtown workers is significantly lower than it was 20 years ago. It seems like downtown already has too much parking and that dedicated spaces for both the Landing and Suntrust could possibly be handled by better utilizing existing garages and lots. One of the things I did like about the recently killed deal was the fact that an existing lot would be utilized instead of adding to the parking supply.
Quote from: fieldafm on September 14, 2011, 05:17:39 PM
Quotethey're going to put $3.5 million into this garage that includes some parking for the Landing...
Then just call the $3.5 million their obligation to the Landing
Then no dedicated parking for the Landing would exist(the reason for the original agreement with Rouse in the late 80's)... just more short term parking that is controlled by a third party, which is what the city already has plenty of.
Why couldn't the dedicated parking be in this garage?
Quote from: Tacachale on September 14, 2011, 06:28:04 PM
Quote from: fieldafm on September 14, 2011, 05:17:39 PM
Quotethey're going to put $3.5 million into this garage that includes some parking for the Landing...
Then just call the $3.5 million their obligation to the Landing
Then no dedicated parking for the Landing would exist(the reason for the original agreement with Rouse in the late 80's)... just more short term parking that is controlled by a third party, which is what the city already has plenty of.
Why couldn't the dedicated parking be in this garage?
B/c the owner of the proposed parking garage doesn't want it. Short term parking is more profitable to them then seperating out dedicated parking to the Landing.
Quote from: fieldafm on September 14, 2011, 06:33:15 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on September 14, 2011, 06:28:04 PM
Quote from: fieldafm on September 14, 2011, 05:17:39 PM
Quotethey're going to put $3.5 million into this garage that includes some parking for the Landing...
Then just call the $3.5 million their obligation to the Landing
Then no dedicated parking for the Landing would exist(the reason for the original agreement with Rouse in the late 80's)... just more short term parking that is controlled by a third party, which is what the city already has plenty of.
Why couldn't the dedicated parking be in this garage?
B/c the owner of the proposed parking garage doesn't want it. Short term parking is more profitable to them then seperating out dedicated parking to the Landing.
So since you are obviously connected with Sleiman, care to share who any of these "top-grade mall tenants" are that are beating down the door to locate at The Landing once they get their dedicated parking? Just curious.
Quote from: Garden guy on September 14, 2011, 09:40:29 AM
Parking is not an issue in downtown...the issue is people who think they should have a parking spot at the front door of every place they visit....if you can't walk a few blocks then move to lake city and have a good time....i never have understood the whole hoopla over parking downtown...i have never had a problem..and one other thing i'm sure the city would be willing to put a parking lot there if the place were'nt empty half of its life..just because you make a parking space does'nt make the demand for your business go up...
I think parking is one of the foundations of a urban community, one we have completely messed up. Certainly at 43,000 spaces downtown has enough parking right now. The breakdown of our downtown parking is the punitive fines and nickle and dime robbery of the meters that chase people away. With the same stores that are out at the Town Center, most would fail downtown because who wants to pay for the privilege of parking with a punishing fine if you were in the dressing room too long? If we are serious about downtown we need to lose the meters and cut some slack on fines. Portland, Oregon had an interesting take on this, any out of area automobile parked over the limit was tagged with a "WELCOME TO THE ROSE CITY" ticket. The ticket had no fine, explained that the city controls parking with timed zones and asks the auto owner to comply in the future. I heard they even played with one that had a list of things to do downtown as well as coupons redeemable for drinks, food, etc at local restaurants and entertainment locations. I imagine the promotional pieces on these tickets were paid advertising and helped to offset any loss of revenue. OCKLAWAHA
Is it just me or does anybody else felt uncomfortable going into jax landing?. I felt the place are not well lit and had a strange odor (sewer gas). anybody else felt the same?.
Quote from: Rynjny on September 14, 2011, 09:01:26 PM
Is it just me or does anybody else felt uncomfortable going into jax landing?. I felt the place are not well lit and had a strange odor (sewer gas). anybody else felt the same?.
The lighting has been upgraded quite a bit...and yes, there is sometimes a strange odor.... but I have no issue in entering the landing (either through the inside or from the river).
Parking or not, as long as Sleiman owns The Landing it will always be a loser. He is a slum lord, that is his earned reputation. As FineHoe pointed out, you coud have free curbside valet at The Landing and it would still suck. The problem at The Landing is Sleiman, not a lack of parking. This guy may have $$ but he has no clue about being a retail landlord. What other properties does he own that are succesful?
Look at the Starbucks debacle. He had Starbuck's there, the only one in downtown Jacksonville, and now they are gone. WTF?? This is a major Fortune 500 company that did a steady business in that location. He had them out side of the main building. A smart landlord would give them free rent and put them inside maybe on the water, with a great view. The Starbucks in Riverside is killing it. Folks go there and hang out, enjoying drinks and surfing the web, some even actually work out of a Starbucks. If he had positioned them correctly it would have brought foot traffic INSIDE the Landing, one of their biggest problems is not enough foot traffic inside. PLUS Starbucks always draws folks from out of town, because they have a following. Another problem solved, bringing out of towners INSIDE The Landing. Just imagine , you are strolling around downtown and ask someone, "Is there are Starbucks anywhere?: "Sure inside The Landing, on the water. It's got a great view."
I walk a mile (one way) to get to Jags games. If The Landing had great tenants then folks would walk a block or two to patronize them.
I don't know who owns what in downtown but it feels like from all the stories I've heard - EVERYBODY IN DOWNTOWN WANTS TO LOOSE MONEY! The city, the landing, the parking garage owners, the lot owners, the building owners - EVERYONE (except, I hope, the retailers)!
It's like watching a bunch of kids yelling and fighting with each other, each one wants a piece of a pie - spending years upon years arguing which pie to the point when they finally agree to something, the pie is now spoiled and everyone looses. The worst part is, all these guys used their own money to buy the pie!
Quote from: MusicMan on September 14, 2011, 11:58:45 PM
Parking or not, as long as Sleiman owns The Landing it will always be a loser. He is a slum lord, that is his earned reputation. As FineHoe pointed out, you coud have free curbside valet at The Landing and it would still suck. The problem at The Landing is Sleiman, not a lack of parking. This guy may have $$ but he has no clue about being a retail landlord. What other properties does he own that are succesful?
This is where I don't agree with the negative talk about Sleiman stuff. He's got tons of successful properties across the city. Two that come to mind are the Target shopping center at JTB & A1A and the stuff at Beach & Hodges. Here is a link to Sleiman Enterprise's portfolio:
http://www.sleiman.com/LeasingInformation.aspx
The Landing has its problems and they revolve around downtown being more of a sucky product than Sleiman owning the Landing. As for Starbucks, they also walked out on a downtown location with free rent. If they wanted to be down here, they would. Landing or not.
If he's such a great guy then why does he have such a nasty reputation?...because that's how he behaves...he behaves like an asshole so we see him as one...i've know many people who would love to go down to the landing and open a place but dealing with the jerk is too much...screw any money to be made if dealing with him is part of it...he should sell and retire...we'd all be happier...
This isn't about hanging out with the guy or inviting him over your house for dinner. Sleiman Enterprises is a successful company and the only one that was willing to put up the $5 million to purchase the Landing (and he gets flack for this too). Regency Centers, St. Joe, Gate, Ben Carter....the list goes on....didn't step up when Rouse finally gave up on downtown. A dead Landing doesn't help his portfolio anymore than it helps downtown's image. We all need to focus on doing the things needed to make our downtown environment more successful and that includes resolving the Landing situation and properly integrating it with the street. Nevertheless, if someone can't open a shop at the Landing, send them elsewhere. Downtown is full of available empty retail spaces.
Quote from: thelakelander on September 15, 2011, 07:03:02 AM
This isn't about hanging out with the guy or inviting him over your house for dinner. Sleiman Enterprises is a successful company and the only one that was willing to put up the $5 million to purchase the Landing (and he gets flack for this too). Regency Centers, St. Joe, Gate, Ben Carter....the list goes on....didn't step up when Rouse finally gave up on downtown. A dead Landing doesn't help his portfolio anymore than it helps downtown's image. We all need to focus on doing the things needed to make our downtown environment more successful and that includes resolving the Landing situation and properly integrating it with the street. Nevertheless, if someone can't open a shop at the Landing, send them elsewhere. Downtown is full of available empty retail spaces.
If he's sooo successful in other areas please tell him to sell the landing and go over there. just because he's got someone elses money doesnt make him successful..just a good spender...also...being an asshole qualifies you as unwanted..personally i don't care how much money or property someones got...does'nt excuse bad behavior...
Unfortunately, if you can find a buyer, I'm sure anyone would be willing to entertain offers that would get them out of downtown. Nevertheless, we need to get over the personal politics and focus on the real issue, which is working together to reach the point of having a lively downtown.
This is no longer a constructive conversation. It has become a bunch of children throwing tantrums.
Frankly, most of these responses are no better than the stuff you see over at Jacksonville.com.
Quotewe need to get over the personal politics and focus on the real issue, which is working together to reach the point of having a lively downtown.
Well said.
Quote from: fieldafm on September 15, 2011, 08:45:07 AM
This is no longer a constructive conversation. It has become a bunch of children throwing tantrums.
Frankly, most of these responses are no better than the stuff you see over at Jacksonville.com.
Quotewe need to get over the personal politics and focus on the real issue, which is working together to reach the point of having a lively downtown.
Well said.
Ok. It seems that Sleiman could budge a little and meet the City halfway and it could turn out to be a win-win. Instead it is all or nothing. What gives? Is there a possiblity for a compromise because it doesn't really sound like it.
Quote from: Garden guy on September 15, 2011, 07:09:45 AM
...being an asshole qualifies you as unwanted..personally i don't care how much money or property someones got...does'nt excuse bad behavior...
After reading yet another of your personal attacks here Garden Guy, does this mean your leaving metrojacksonville? Dictating business policy based on your feelings is a recipe for disaster. OCKLAWAHA
Garden Guy, whatever you can say about Toney Sleiman, he's certainly not a poor developer or commercial real estate manager. If you doubt how successful his company is in Jacksonville, just go around town and see how many successful shopping centers, strip malls and other commercial properties display a Lebanese cedar tree flag or emblem - that's the Sleimans. It's very unlikely that the Landing is suffering any more under Sleiman than it would be under anyone else.
Quote from: cline on September 15, 2011, 08:48:15 AM
Quote from: fieldafm on September 15, 2011, 08:45:07 AM
This is no longer a constructive conversation. It has become a bunch of children throwing tantrums.
Frankly, most of these responses are no better than the stuff you see over at Jacksonville.com.
Quotewe need to get over the personal politics and focus on the real issue, which is working together to reach the point of having a lively downtown.
Well said.
Ok. It seems that Sleiman could budge a little and meet the City halfway and it could turn out to be a win-win. Instead it is all or nothing. What gives? Is there a possiblity for a compromise because it doesn't really sound like it.
Or perhaps this city might do better with the private investment/development if it showed it would live up to it's contractual obligations.
Quote from: JeffreyS on September 15, 2011, 09:37:43 AM
Quote from: cline on September 15, 2011, 08:48:15 AM
Quote from: fieldafm on September 15, 2011, 08:45:07 AM
This is no longer a constructive conversation. It has become a bunch of children throwing tantrums.
Frankly, most of these responses are no better than the stuff you see over at Jacksonville.com.
Quotewe need to get over the personal politics and focus on the real issue, which is working together to reach the point of having a lively downtown.
Well said.
Ok. It seems that Sleiman could budge a little and meet the City halfway and it could turn out to be a win-win. Instead it is all or nothing. What gives? Is there a possiblity for a compromise because it doesn't really sound like it.
Or perhaps this city might do better with the private investment/development if it showed it would live up to it's contractual obligations.
How did that work out for the City with the Shipyards?
Quote from: cline on September 15, 2011, 09:54:58 AM
Quote from: JeffreyS on September 15, 2011, 09:37:43 AM
Quote from: cline on September 15, 2011, 08:48:15 AM
Quote from: fieldafm on September 15, 2011, 08:45:07 AM
This is no longer a constructive conversation. It has become a bunch of children throwing tantrums.
Frankly, most of these responses are no better than the stuff you see over at Jacksonville.com.
Quotewe need to get over the personal politics and focus on the real issue, which is working together to reach the point of having a lively downtown.
Well said.
Ok. It seems that Sleiman could budge a little and meet the City halfway and it could turn out to be a win-win. Instead it is all or nothing. What gives? Is there a possiblity for a compromise because it doesn't really sound like it.
Or perhaps this city might do better with the private investment/development if it showed it would live up to it's contractual obligations.
How did that work out for the City with the Shipyards?
Well, obviously it only works when the private party lives up to its contractual obligations too. And the city should NOT let the private party milk them for more than what the actual obligations are.
Quote from: Tacachale on September 15, 2011, 09:18:45 AM
Garden Guy, whatever you can say about Toney Sleiman, he's certainly not a poor developer or commercial real estate manager. If you doubt how successful his company is in Jacksonville, just go around town and see how many successful shopping centers, strip malls and other commercial properties display a Lebanese cedar tree flag or emblem - that's the Sleimans. It's very unlikely that the Landing is suffering any more under Sleiman than it would be under anyone else.
I don't know Mr. Sleiman, nor do I know anything about what kind of reputation he may or may not have, but I think this may be something to think about. A developer/commercial real estate manager might be quite successful in their niche, which in this case seems to be suburban strip mall-type developments, but if they try to impose what has 'always worked' for them in an enivironment that may not be what they're used to, their former success might not be duplicated.
I've argued before that the Landing should not be looked upon like a strip mall that happens to be downtown on the river, that it should be approached as an unique, one-of-kind entity. Maybe it's true that the Landing would be suffering just as much under anyone else, but the possibility exists that if someone other than a suburban strip mall developer had purchased the Landing, who had a unique vision of what the property could be, then maybe we could look forward to the possilibility of something more than a Walgreens or an Office Depot.
Quote from: finehoe on September 15, 2011, 10:46:23 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on September 15, 2011, 09:18:45 AM
Garden Guy, whatever you can say about Toney Sleiman, he's certainly not a poor developer or commercial real estate manager. If you doubt how successful his company is in Jacksonville, just go around town and see how many successful shopping centers, strip malls and other commercial properties display a Lebanese cedar tree flag or emblem - that's the Sleimans. It's very unlikely that the Landing is suffering any more under Sleiman than it would be under anyone else.
I've argued before that the Landing should not be looked upon like a strip mall that happens to be downtown on the river, that it should be approached as an unique, one-of-kind entity. Maybe it's true that the Landing would be suffering just as much under anyone else, but the possibility exists that if someone other than a suburban strip mall developer had purchased the Landing, who had a unique vision of what the property could be, then maybe we could look forward to the possilibility of something more than a Walgreens or an Office Depot.
+1
Frankly, DT Jacksonville should be THRILLED to get either a Walgreens OR an Office Depot, given it's pathetic track record.
Please.
Is it being viewed as a strip mall by Sleiman or is this assumed? The plan discussed in the passed treated it more as an urban entertainment/dining complex. Unfortunately, it's been tied up in politics. So I wouldn't be so quick to assume that Sleiman doesn't recognize the differences between the Landing and a typical strip mall. Oh and yes. We should be more than happy to get an Office Depot, Walgreens or even a McDonalds in downtown.
Quote from: finehoe on September 15, 2011, 10:46:23 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on September 15, 2011, 09:18:45 AM
Garden Guy, whatever you can say about Toney Sleiman, he's certainly not a poor developer or commercial real estate manager. If you doubt how successful his company is in Jacksonville, just go around town and see how many successful shopping centers, strip malls and other commercial properties display a Lebanese cedar tree flag or emblem - that's the Sleimans. It's very unlikely that the Landing is suffering any more under Sleiman than it would be under anyone else.
I don't know Mr. Sleiman, nor do I know anything about what kind of reputation he may or may not have, but I think this may be something to think about. A developer/commercial real estate manager might be quite successful in their niche, which in this case seems to be suburban strip mall-type developments, but if they try to impose what has 'always worked' for them in an enivironment that may not be what they're used to, their former success might not be duplicated.
I've argued before that the Landing should not be looked upon like a strip mall that happens to be downtown on the river, that it should be approached as an unique, one-of-kind entity. Maybe it's true that the Landing would be suffering just as much under anyone else, but the possibility exists that if someone other than a suburban strip mall developer had purchased the Landing, who had a unique vision of what the property could be, then maybe we could look forward to the possilibility of something more than a Walgreens or an Office Depot.
See, this is where you don't have an understanding of the reality of what has been going on. Making general assumptions without knowing the facts clouds the conversation.
There was a major plan in place to redo the Landing and completely transform the structure of the complex... that got held up b/c the city didnt want to sell the land underneath the Landing. It's been said on here a few times, but the structure of the lease is prohibitive from a financing standpoint.
There was also a plan in place to bring a major player into the Landing... that deal fell through b/c of parking. Plain and simple.
Two years ago, the Landing opened up to the Off the Grid program and gave FREE rent to artists and took over the Farmers market from Hemming Plaza.
This YEAR, the Landing has been talking with some great new tenants with VERY fair deals... has been looking at some very innovative plans with the food court... and presently Chriss Flagg is presenting plans to use some of the DVI facade grant to open up the area facing Laura Street to pedestrians without having to cut into the building.
All the while... the city has closed the street in front of the Landing for well over a year-effectively killing off the dying food court business... Starbucks left(believe me, they weren't 'chased off' by exhorbant rents as some on here falesly claim) b/c they saw the drastic results of an eroding population downtown... and now the Riverside Trolley will no longer be shuffling lunchtime customers to the Landing... but instead will be dropping off people at the new courthouse(which makes no sense).
And as a final parting shot to the old family feud... Peyton gave money to people he liked to build yet another parking garage downtown, that is as useful as a hamburger at a vegan convention and which has nothing to do with the city's obligation to provide parking to the Landing.
All the while, the Landing is STILL the centerpiece downtown. It's quite amazing, given the politics people play with it.
When are we going to what's RIGHT for the city, instead of including/excluding only certain people that we find personally favorable?
Quote from: finehoe on September 15, 2011, 10:46:23 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on September 15, 2011, 09:18:45 AM
Garden Guy, whatever you can say about Toney Sleiman, he's certainly not a poor developer or commercial real estate manager. If you doubt how successful his company is in Jacksonville, just go around town and see how many successful shopping centers, strip malls and other commercial properties display a Lebanese cedar tree flag or emblem - that's the Sleimans. It's very unlikely that the Landing is suffering any more under Sleiman than it would be under anyone else.
I don't know Mr. Sleiman, nor do I know anything about what kind of reputation he may or may not have, but I think this may be something to think about. A developer/commercial real estate manager might be quite successful in their niche, which in this case seems to be suburban strip mall-type developments, but if they try to impose what has 'always worked' for them in an enivironment that may not be what they're used to, their former success might not be duplicated.
I've argued before that the Landing should not be looked upon like a strip mall that happens to be downtown on the river, that it should be approached as an unique, one-of-kind entity. Maybe it's true that the Landing would be suffering just as much under anyone else, but the possibility exists that if someone other than a suburban strip mall developer had purchased the Landing, who had a unique vision of what the property could be, then maybe we could look forward to the possilibility of something more than a Walgreens or an Office Depot.
I agree in principal, but I don't see that Sleiman is treating the landing like one of his suburban commercial developments. The Sleimans do have some experience in more urban areas, don't they own the Murray Hill town center, or part of it? Of course that's not on the scale of the Landing, but there's really nothing comprable to the Landing anywhere in the metro area. Some of their landing ideas sound pretty solid, like opening up the back so it's not just a huge wall facing the street.
And as Lakelander points out, there's also the problem that no one else was interested in buying the property even at a greatly reduced rate. I really don't believe this particular part of the problem is due to Sleiman's ownership.
QuoteThere was also a plan in place to bring a major player into the Landing... that deal fell through b/c of parking. Plain and simple.
How many parking spots did this player say they needed?
Here was that old redevelopment plan, which was quite impressive, imo.
(http://www.jacksonville.com/images/121505/107246_300.jpg)
Is there a scan of that? Also, didn't Chris Flagg do some mock-ups as part of the APA Conference visioning exercise when it was here a couple years ago?
I may have some old scans somewhere on MetJax but I'll have to spend sometime searching their archives. Here is a link to the APA stuff.
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2009-dec-re-imagining-the-jacksonville-landing
Quote from: fieldafm on September 15, 2011, 11:13:50 AM
Quote from: finehoe on September 15, 2011, 10:46:23 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on September 15, 2011, 09:18:45 AM
Garden Guy, whatever you can say about Toney Sleiman, he's certainly not a poor developer or commercial real estate manager. If you doubt how successful his company is in Jacksonville, just go around town and see how many successful shopping centers, strip malls and other commercial properties display a Lebanese cedar tree flag or emblem - that's the Sleimans. It's very unlikely that the Landing is suffering any more under Sleiman than it would be under anyone else.
I don't know Mr. Sleiman, nor do I know anything about what kind of reputation he may or may not have, but I think this may be something to think about. A developer/commercial real estate manager might be quite successful in their niche, which in this case seems to be suburban strip mall-type developments, but if they try to impose what has 'always worked' for them in an enivironment that may not be what they're used to, their former success might not be duplicated.
I've argued before that the Landing should not be looked upon like a strip mall that happens to be downtown on the river, that it should be approached as an unique, one-of-kind entity. Maybe it's true that the Landing would be suffering just as much under anyone else, but the possibility exists that if someone other than a suburban strip mall developer had purchased the Landing, who had a unique vision of what the property could be, then maybe we could look forward to the possilibility of something more than a Walgreens or an Office Depot.
See, this is where you don't have an understanding of the reality of what has been going on. Making general assumptions without knowing the facts clouds the conversation.
There was a major plan in place to redo the Landing and completely transform the structure of the complex... that got held up b/c the city didnt want to sell the land underneath the Landing. It's been said on here a few times, but the structure of the lease is prohibitive from a financing standpoint.
There was also a plan in place to bring a major player into the Landing... that deal fell through b/c of parking. Plain and simple.
Two years ago, the Landing opened up to the Off the Grid program and gave FREE rent to artists and took over the Farmers market from Hemming Plaza.
This YEAR, the Landing has been talking with some great new tenants with VERY fair deals... has been looking at some very innovative plans with the food court... and presently Chriss Flagg is presenting plans to use some of the DVI facade grant to open up the area facing Laura Street to pedestrians without having to cut into the building.
All the while... the city has closed the street in front of the Landing for well over a year-effectively killing off the dying food court business... Starbucks left(believe me, they weren't 'chased off' by exhorbant rents as some on here falesly claim) b/c they saw the drastic results of an eroding population downtown... and now the Riverside Trolley will no longer be shuffling lunchtime customers to the Landing... but instead will be dropping off people at the new courthouse(which makes no sense).
And as a final parting shot to the old family feud... Peyton gave money to people he liked to build yet another parking garage downtown, that is as useful as a hamburger at a vegan convention and which has nothing to do with the city's obligation to provide parking to the Landing.
All the while, the Landing is STILL the centerpiece downtown. It's quite amazing, given the politics people play with it.
When are we going to what's RIGHT for the city, instead of including/excluding only certain people that we find personally favorable?
I totally agree. The Landing is not the big bad boogie man everyone makes it out to be. I also read the article about the Fascade grants for the landing. I actually posted the article in one of the threads and no one even commented. (which was shocking).
Quote from: vicupstate on September 15, 2011, 10:56:38 AM
Frankly, DT Jacksonville should be THRILLED to get either a Walgreens OR an Office Depot, given it's pathetic track record.
No argument here, but with all the vacant retail space downtown, would any chain like these HAVE to locate at the Landing?
Quote from: fieldafm on September 15, 2011, 11:13:50 AM
There was a major plan in place to redo the Landing and completely transform the structure of the complex...
Didn't MJ recently do a piece on all the "plans" drawn up for DT? That and $3.95 will get you a cup o' joe.
Nothing will happen if we can't get past the personal political battle regarding the Landing.
Quote from: finehoe on September 15, 2011, 11:47:55 AM
Quote from: vicupstate on September 15, 2011, 10:56:38 AM
Frankly, DT Jacksonville should be THRILLED to get either a Walgreens OR an Office Depot, given it's pathetic track record.
No argument here, but with all the vacant retail space downtown, would any chain like these HAVE to locate at the Landing?
Quote from: fieldafm on September 15, 2011, 11:13:50 AM
There was a major plan in place to redo the Landing and completely transform the structure of the complex...
Didn't MJ recently do a piece on all the "plans" drawn up for DT? That a $3.95 will get you a cup o' joe.
Maybe you have some inside knowledge that no one else does that Sleiman is negotiating with Office Depot to open a space in the Landing? Or perhaps you are just putting words into people's mouths and making unfounded assumptions as before?
It's interesting that instead of looking at the FACTS... you just use sarcasm. I fail to see how this is productive.
Everybody loves the MetJax Pub Crawls(I know the businesses we serve CERTAINLY do). Bottom line, they would NEVER be possible without the Landing.
To claim and assume the Landing is trying to stick a square peg into a round hole is simply not true.
QuoteHow many parking spots did this player say they needed?
Think about this for a second... what's the largest restaurant chain in America? Applebees. If they wanted to set up shop downtown, they are going to need somewhere around 150 dedicated parking spots to open up. That's not me making an assumption, that's the business reality of the situation.
Right now, the Landing has 250 dedicated spots... for the entire building and ALL of their tenants.
Not only is dedicated parking an issue on the business side of the world.. there is also a perception problem about parking.
Here's a true story: for the past 4 years... I have spent New Years Eve at Koja Sushi. For $60 you get a riverview table on the patio to watch the fireworks and all you can eat/drink(beer/wine). You don't have to be down in the 'crowd' and get to enjoy a FANTASTIC deal for what you get. Try going to Savannah and get a riverfront table to watch NYE fireworks.
I had a friend that I invited last year. She only agreed to come b/c I said 'I'll pay for you to valet and the security guard will walk you to the steps at Koja'. Without this offer, she was too 'scared for her life' to come down there.
She gets there and calls and says 'the lot is full, I am going home' I said well pay at a parking garage and I'll come get you. She responds 'no, I don't want to get raped having to walk two blocks downtown'.
Ask any restaurant or retailer at the Landing about parking... and you will get an earful. It's not the ONLY problem(downtown has PLENTY of those), but it's certainly a LARGE problem.
The deal we are talking about now ADDS more uneeded parking that has nothing to with the Landing. The deal that fell through didnt add parking, but once and for all solved the landing's parking problem and settled a decades long obligation by the city.
Quote from: fieldafm on September 15, 2011, 12:02:53 PM
Or perhaps you are just putting words into people's mouths and making unfounded assumptions as before?
I'm not putting words in anybody's mouth:
Quote from: thelakelander on February 26, 2010, 02:31:23 PM
Most local shops can't afford to pay the long term leasing rates required for a riverfront center like the Landing. However, "national" does not have to mean "suburban". Places like Walgreens and Office Depot are examples of national chains that would do quite well in downtown. However, unless you offer an environment that can convince them to overlook their typical location selection criteria, you're going to have to meet some of their most important needs. One of the major ones is minimum guaranteed parking.
So you're the one who needs to get his facts straight.
Quote from: fieldafm on September 15, 2011, 12:02:53 PM
Here's a true story: for the past 4 years... I have spent New Years Eve at Koja Sushi. For $60 you get a riverview table on the patio to watch the fireworks and all you can eat/drink(beer/wine). You don't have to be down in the 'crowd' and get to enjoy a FANTASTIC deal for what you get. Try going to Savannah and get a riverfront table to watch NYE fireworks.
How many dedicated parking spaces does the City of Savannah provide for its riverfront venues?
Quote from: finehoe on September 15, 2011, 01:03:12 PM
Quote from: fieldafm on September 15, 2011, 12:02:53 PM
Or perhaps you are just putting words into people's mouths and making unfounded assumptions as before?
I'm not putting words in anybody's mouth:
Quote from: thelakelander on February 26, 2010, 02:31:23 PM
Most local shops can't afford to pay the long term leasing rates required for a riverfront center like the Landing. However, "national" does not have to mean "suburban". Places like Walgreens and Office Depot are examples of national chains that would do quite well in downtown. However, unless you offer an environment that can convince them to overlook their typical location selection criteria, you're going to have to meet some of their most important needs. One of the major ones is minimum guaranteed parking.
So you're the one who needs to get his facts straight.
Lol, my facts are quite straight thank you.
You're simply not understanding what has been said. If you have any constructive comments or questions that I can answer for you.. I'm all ears.
Quote from: finehoe on September 15, 2011, 01:12:09 PM
Quote from: fieldafm on September 15, 2011, 12:02:53 PM
Here's a true story: for the past 4 years... I have spent New Years Eve at Koja Sushi. For $60 you get a riverview table on the patio to watch the fireworks and all you can eat/drink(beer/wine). You don't have to be down in the 'crowd' and get to enjoy a FANTASTIC deal for what you get. Try going to Savannah and get a riverfront table to watch NYE fireworks.
How many dedicated parking spaces does the City of Savannah provide for its riverfront venues?
Please give me personal examples of commercial deals you have worked on in downtown Jacksonville with national chains where you didn't have these dedicated parking issues...
Quote from: fieldafm on September 15, 2011, 01:19:52 PM
Quote from: finehoe on September 15, 2011, 01:12:09 PM
How many dedicated parking spaces does the City of Savannah provide for its riverfront venues?
Please give me personal examples of commercial deals you have worked on in downtown Jacksonville with national chains where you didn't have these dedicated parking issues...
In other words, Savannah hasn't constructed any, yet they have a crowded, active waterfront; while Jacksonville has more parking spaces than people and you can still get a front-row seat on NYE.
QuoteThink about this for a second... what's the largest restaurant chain in America? Applebees. If they wanted to set up shop downtown, they are going to need somewhere around 150 dedicated parking spots to open up. That's not me making an assumption, that's the business reality of the situation.
Right now, the Landing has 250 dedicated spots... for the entire building and ALL of their tenants.
So at max, if the City holds up its end of the deal and provides 300-375 spots, we can expect 2 additional Applebees style chains to move in.
Quote from: finehoe on September 15, 2011, 01:30:19 PM
Quote from: fieldafm on September 15, 2011, 01:19:52 PM
Quote from: finehoe on September 15, 2011, 01:12:09 PM
How many dedicated parking spaces does the City of Savannah provide for its riverfront venues?
Please give me personal examples of commercial deals you have worked on in downtown Jacksonville with national chains where you didn't have these dedicated parking issues...
In other words, Savannah hasn't constructed any, yet they have a crowded, active waterfront; while Jacksonville has more parking spaces than people and you can still get a front-row seat on NYE.
Ummm, again no. Not even close. You have absolutely zero experience in this and I am done going back and forth with you... its totally unproductive.
Quote from: finehoe on September 15, 2011, 01:30:19 PM
Quote from: fieldafm on September 15, 2011, 01:19:52 PM
Quote from: finehoe on September 15, 2011, 01:12:09 PM
How many dedicated parking spaces does the City of Savannah provide for its riverfront venues?
Please give me personal examples of commercial deals you have worked on in downtown Jacksonville with national chains where you didn't have these dedicated parking issues...
In other words, Savannah hasn't constructed any, yet they have a crowded, active waterfront; while Jacksonville has more parking spaces than people and you can still get a front-row seat on NYE.
Savannah has several large parking garages. They just happen to be better designed to fit into that landscape.
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-5135-p1100934.JPG)
Also, Savannah benefits from something called.....foot traffic. DT Jax, doesn't.
Quote from: fieldafm on September 15, 2011, 01:15:59 PM
You're simply not understanding what has been said.
Not true. I understand perfectly. This is one more instance of the "silver bullet" approach that Jacksonville has used to such stunning effect for the last forty years.
"If we can just build this
one thing then it will turn things around."
One doesn't need to be personally involved in commercial real estate deals to know when something isn't working, and even a blind person can see that the Landing isn't working.
Anyone who thinks that constructing or in some other way providng dedicated parking spaces, even if it succeeds in getting some national chains to open in the Landing, will turn the place around if those businesses are the same as one can find in any suburban strip mall, is bound to be disappointed. Since hardly anyone lives there, the Landing must depend on luring people in from outside downtown, and I just don't think they will come if it is the same joints they can visit just up the street from where they live.
I don't think anyone is claiming that dedicated parking is the panacea to turning the Landing or downtown around. Everyone will probably agree that downtown has a long list of items that need modification and resolution. Dedicated parking at the Landing just happens to be one of many.
Remember how packed Riverside Arts Market was when they had the special event that featured all the fantastic local breweries? Why can't The Landing sponsor an event like that once a month? That would be an easy way to get folks down there. Throw in a free concert and you have the possibility for an awesome event.
Call it "Brews and Blues" at The Landing, or something like that, it seems the possibilities are endless.....................
One thing is for sure, folks walk a block or two to get to RAM.
Without the Landing, the MJ pub crawl wouldn't be feasible. You also can't forget about the number of artist they are allowing to set up shop for free in their space. So, they are definitely into tactical urbanism and even go out of their way to subsidize it.
Quote from: thelakelander on September 15, 2011, 02:37:47 PM
I don't think anyone is claiming that dedicated parking is the panacea to turning the Landing or downtown around. Everyone will probably agree that downtown has a long list of items that need modification and resolution. Dedicated parking at the Landing just happens to be one of many.
Agreed. I think everyone has the wrong perception of the The Landing and even DT development for that matter. There is no one thing that is going to turn DT around. There are a list of things. And the Landing is one of the items on the list. The Fascade improvements that are going to happen, which include outdoor/sidewalk cafes, and the entertainment zone finally being expanded are two things on a longgggggggg list of items for DT. From a business perspective, the Landing needs adequte parking to lure in the big teanets. Point blank. No one is saying that will solve all of our problems, but it would be a step in the right direction.
Quote from: thelakelander on September 15, 2011, 02:37:47 PM
I don't think anyone is claiming that dedicated parking is the panacea to turning the Landing or downtown around. Everyone will probably agree that downtown has a long list of items that need modification and resolution. Dedicated parking at the Landing just happens to be one of many.
Well of course. But it is being sold the way so many projects in Jacksonville have been, that if we do this
one thing then all the pieces will start to fall into place, the dominoes will start to fall, and before you know it Jacksonville will be like Manhattan on the St. Johns.
Quote from: finehoe on September 15, 2011, 04:07:36 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on September 15, 2011, 02:37:47 PM
I don't think anyone is claiming that dedicated parking is the panacea to turning the Landing or downtown around. Everyone will probably agree that downtown has a long list of items that need modification and resolution. Dedicated parking at the Landing just happens to be one of many.
Well of course. But it is being sold the way so many projects in Jacksonville have been, that if we do this one thing then all the pieces will start to fall into place, the dominoes will start to fall, and before you know it Jacksonville will be like Manhattan on the St. Johns.
Or maybe its a matter of perception. Because IMO they are not selling it as it will solve all problems or it will cause DT to fall into place. They are stating it will HELP solve the LANDING'S parking issues, etc.
Quote from: duvaldude08 on September 15, 2011, 04:39:42 PM
Or maybe its a matter of perception. Because IMO they are not selling it as it will solve all problems or it will cause DT to fall into place. They are stating it will HELP solve the LANDING'S parking issues, etc.
Except as many previous posters have noted, there are no parking issues at the Landing, as there are hundreds of spots available within a short stroll. But they say that won't cut it, they need dedicated parking to attract national chains, which will make people drive past the same chain at the end of their block and come downtown, and the new visitors will stop the decline of the Landing, and the newly revitalized Landing will spur surrounding development, yada, yada, yada. The pieces will fall into place and the dominoes will fall if only we go after this
one thing.
I've seen the same pattern over and over in Jacksonville, with the football team, OPS, the convention center, the skyway, etc. It's always about this missing ingredient that is holding everything back.
The truth of the matter is that if any national chains were actually interested in locating at the Landing they would expend a little energy and see that there is plenty of parking, that dedicated spots don't seem to impede Hooters, and take it from there. Businesses aren't going to pass up an underserved market if they think they can make any money there. Sleiman and certain of our local leaders and commercial real estate professionals may have convinced themselves that the only thing holding the place back is the lack of dedicated parking, and if there were no parking anywhere to be found around the Landing, they might be right. But since we all know that isn't the case, I really don't see how it will change anything.
QuoteExcept as many previous posters have noted, there are no parking issues at the Landing, as there are hundreds of spots available within a short stroll. But they say that won't cut it, they need dedicated parking to attract national chains...
These are two totally different unrelated issues that many in this city continue to mix up. Its why building a new garage is a complete waste of money in my opinion. Instead, existing parking should be better organized and utilized in a manner where some of it could become "dedicated" parking that would resolve the retail requirment situation that comes with going after major chains in a community with low foot traffic.
QuoteThe truth of the matter is that if any national chains were actually interested in locating at the Landing they would expend a little energy and see that there is plenty of parking, that dedicated spots don't seem to impede Hooters, and take it from there.
With a few years of designing commercial sites for chains and retail developers under my belt, what you describe is not how it works in Jacksonville or any other place with similar contextual/demographic characteristics. Truth of the matter is, many of these places do have typical site selection requirements and if your specific site doesn't meet those requirements, they'll find another site in the same market that does. In the case of downtown and the Landing, that could easily mean heading over to the Southside, Regency or River City Marketplace and still serving the same desired population.
ok...so national chains have dedicated parking requirements...The Landing has over 200 dedicated spaces in the adjacent surface lot...so isn't that enough to sign at least one national tenant?
Perhaps if it didn't have existing stores and restaurants consuming them. Seriously though, what's wrong with the city just living up to its contractual obligation and moving on? All the talk of wanting downtown revitalization is nothing more than hot air if we can't even handle providing 375 dedicated parking spaces.
Quote from: thelakelander on September 15, 2011, 09:27:18 PM
Perhaps if it didn't have existing stores and restaurants consuming them. Seriously though, what's wrong with the city just living up to its contractual obligation and moving on? All the talk of wanting downtown revitalization is nothing more than hot air if we can't even handle providing 375 dedicated parking spaces.
please...nobody is consuming those spaces....the Landing is half empty...and the parking lot is even more.
also, right now the City isn't in violation of its contractural obligation....the current agreement requires the City to pay Sleiman Enterprises $3.5 million when they construct additional parking for the Landing....any chage to that deal requires both parties to agree.
^Read Field's comments on the contractual obligation a few pages back. Also, if you think you're going to have a successful 125,000sf entertainment/retail complex with only 200 dedicated spaces in Jacksonville, you're in trouble. There was a reason the deal to bring the Landing to Jacksonville had more than 200 dedicated spaces. If it were Landmar (when they were around), Simon or Ben Carter, half the people complaining would be as silent as mice on this parking thing. COJ should provide the dedicated spaces and move on. That would be in everyone's best interest, especially downtown's. It's also the most fiscal responsible solution. Building a new garage without dedicated parking is crazy.
^It's hard to fault Peyton for vetoing the last iteration of the deal. That was just bad juju. And I don't know if it's such a bad idea for the city to want a garage rather than a surface lot if they're going to be giving Sleiman that much money. Figuring it out and moving on is optimal right up to the point that it requires signing off on a bad deal with taxpayer money.
^I don't fault Peyton for vetoing the last bill, once the extra $1.9 million or whatever it was, was thrown into the deal. However, I do fault the JEDC for not being able to look at this entire thing and downtown in general at a holistic level. I also fault them by not properly addressing this situation and moving on, over a two term period.
Thank you all for the posts, I understand the issue alot better since reading about here on MetroJax.
No disrespect to the Times-Union, but they really gave no clarity at all on this issue.
^^They never do!
Meanwhile the grand opening of the River City Gourmet was held. I heard it mentioned on WOKV this morning and they referenced the proposed parking garage in the story.
http://photos.jacksonville.com/mycapture/category.asp?eventID=1322884&CategoryID=10519
Quote from: fsujax on September 16, 2011, 11:45:42 AM
Meanwhile the grand opening of the River City Gourmet was held. I heard it mentioned on WOKV this morning and they referenced the proposed parking garage in the story.
http://photos.jacksonville.com/mycapture/category.asp?eventID=1322884&CategoryID=10519
Yea FSUjax, I saw them last night, when I was making cookie run at Coastal.
Honestly, Coastal Cookies is the place I frequent the most in the landing. I did buy a Gator Teeshirt from the sports place last week however.
Quote from: manasia on September 16, 2011, 01:01:12 PM
Honestly, Coastal Cookies is the place I frequent the most in the landing.
Maybe you should stop in at Hooters and let TUFSU1 show you around. ;D
remember, manasia had that opportunity once before
Quote from: tufsu1 on September 17, 2011, 12:57:17 PM
remember, manasia had that opportunity once before
Personally, I'm holding out for my Wiatt-guided tour of Winn-Dixie dining. Maybe he can score us the chef's table?
Quote from: fieldafm on September 19, 2011, 10:38:58 AM
Quote from: finehoe on September 19, 2011, 09:30:37 AM
With no dedicated parking, will anyone go?
Please also refer to the article that First Guaranty Bank is granting access to their parking lot for the event.
Ah, but access and availability isn't the same thing as having dedicated spaces.
But thank you for making my point that having access to available parking spots can serve the same purpose as having dedicated spots.
^Not in terms of getting corporate entities to sign contracts at locations that don't meet their site selection requirements. Come to think of it, even Baltimore's Harborplace and Gallery has a garage with 1200 spaces.
Quote from: finehoe on September 19, 2011, 04:42:23 PM
Quote from: fieldafm on September 19, 2011, 10:38:58 AM
Quote from: finehoe on September 19, 2011, 09:30:37 AM
With no dedicated parking, will anyone go?
Please also refer to the article that First Guaranty Bank is granting access to their parking lot for the event.
Ah, but access and availability isn't the same thing as having dedicated spaces.
But thank you for making my point that having access to available parking spots can serve the same purpose as having dedicated spots.
No they don't.. and you're trying to argue this point with two people that make a living doing this.
Quote^Not in terms of getting corporate entities to sign contracts at locations that don't meet their site selection requirements. Come to think of it, even Baltimore's Harborplace and Gallery has a garage with 1200 spaces.
Why go as far as Baltimore... Channelside has 1825 dedicated parking spaces AND a trolley.
I knew when this tpoic started it was going to go forever.
Like the parking garage issue?
Quote from: thelakelander on September 19, 2011, 04:48:58 PM
^Not in terms of getting corporate entities to sign contracts at locations that don't meet their site selection requirements. Come to think of it, even Baltimore's Harborplace and Gallery has a garage with 1200 spaces.
the garage was built with the Gallery, more than six years after Harborplace opened....and those spaces are hardly dedicated...part of the garage is reserved for the office bulding above and the rest is general public parking...in fact, my family parked there just about every time we visited the inner harbor from 1986 on.
Same goes for the garage across from Channelside....over half is reserved for long-term parking (port staff and cruise passengers)...the rest is public parking and used by those visiting the shops as well as the aquarium.
So it seems to me that having a garage across the street from the Landing with a certain amount of spaces set aside for the public is the same thing.
How do you know those public spaces weren't marketed by ownership as "dedicated" to retail clientele? It's not like major retail centers actually stick up signs in the parking garages that say "dedicated" vs "non dedicated."
On the surface of their site, it sure looks like its being marketed to potential tenants that they have a 1000 spaces of their own.
http://www.ggp.com/properties/mall-properties/harborplace-the-gallery
On the surface, one would think they could get away with less, given the high foot traffic count that area gets.
I'm sure it is being marketed that way...and since Rouse built the building and garage, they (and now GGP) can make that claim.
It's just like the existing Landing lot...I'm sure they label it as dedicated parking, but it is available to the general public.
But that's the difference between downtowns and suburbs...noone is going to park at SJTC that isn't going there
So, again....the Landing can actually build parking (as the current agreement calls for) or work out a deal with an existing facility for dedicated parking...but other than subsidizing a validation program, why should COJ pay $ for the second option?
Quote from: tufsu1 on September 19, 2011, 09:40:54 PM
I'm sure it is being marketed that way...and since Rouse built the building and garage, they (and now GGP) can make that claim.
It's just like the existing Landing lot...I'm sure they label it as dedicated parking, but it is available to the general public.
But that's the difference between downtowns and suburbs...noone is going to park at SJTC that isn't going there
So, again....the Landing can actually build parking (as the current agreement calls for) or work out a deal with an existing facility for dedicated parking...but other than subsidizing a validation program, why should COJ pay $ for the second option?
You mean, aside from the the 300 page contract that obligates them to pay for it?
Quote from: tufsu1 on September 19, 2011, 09:40:54 PM
I'm sure it is being marketed that way...and since Rouse built the building and garage, they (and now GGP) can make that claim.
It's just like the existing Landing lot...I'm sure they label it as dedicated parking, but it is available to the general public.
Yes, its exactly the same, except the Landing can only market 250 spaces as their own dedicated spots to potential clients. Harborplace markets 1000 and Bayside in Miami markets 1200. You can't market 200 spaces in a garage you have no control over as dedicated for your specific use to potential tenants.
QuoteBut that's the difference between downtowns and suburbs...noone is going to park at SJTC that isn't going there
This has nothing to do with meeting site selection requirements for perspective tenants.
QuoteSo, again....the Landing can actually build parking (as the current agreement calls for) or work out a deal with an existing facility for dedicated parking...but other than subsidizing a validation program, why should COJ pay $ for the second option?
The current agreement doesn't call for the Landing specifically to build a garage. The entity that was supposed to construct the old garage/tower no longer exists. We don't need a garage to provide dedicated parking in an effort to help make downtown's major attraction more economically viable. Nevertheless, that's a red herring argument regarding the purpose and need of dedicated parking for a retail center.
Quote from: fieldafm on September 19, 2011, 05:49:52 PM
No they don't.. and you're trying to argue this point with two people that make a living doing this.
I thought you were taking your ball and going home.
For what its worth, I decided to look up the number of spaces marketed by some retail/dining/entertainment centers in the downtowns of similar sized peer cities.
Uptown Charlotte's EpiCenter has a 1000 space garage.
Louisville's 4th Street Live garage has 731 spaces.
Memphis' Peabody Place is directly connected to a garage with 3,000 spaces.
Fort Worth's Sundance Square claims to have 5,000 spaces.
Jacksonville's Landing has a 250 space surface lot but people claim that should have no impact on attracting tenants with site selection requirements that include a certain number of dedicated parking. Any idea of why all of these similar sized centers have so many spaces? Also, the downtowns of the cities mentioned above are all light years ahead of DT Jacksonville when it comes to life.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 19, 2011, 09:52:37 PM
You mean, aside from the the 300 page contract that obligates them to pay for it?
from what I understand, the agreemnent obligates the City to pay $3.5 million
following the construction of new parking...so please don't be disingenuous.
realistically I'm with others on here....while I don't believe downtown needs more parking, I do understand the need for "dedicated" parking the Landing can claim.
As I get it, the deal now being discussed would have another developer providing the parking....and in order for the $3.5 million to go through to the other developer, Sleiman and COJ would have to agree to amend the agreement one more time....if Sleiman doesn't like that (maybe because he doesn't get to make $ on the parking), he doesn't have to sign on.
There's nothing disingenuous in overlooking a position that isn't based on reality. Cameron Kuhn was supposed to develop that garage as a part of the Riverwatch project. That agreement didn't state the Landing had to build a garage for the city to live up to its decades old obligation to provide parking. I'm not an attorney, but I don't even know how such an agreement would even continue when one of the main parties as disappeared. It sounds like a new logical deal is in order. Also, in the Suntrust deal, the developer isn't even providing the dedicated parking spots for the Landing. So we're subsidizing the construction of a 500 space garage and not even resolving the Landing parking obligation.
QuoteThe saga of how Cameron Kuhn stormed into Jacksonville several years ago with downtown development plans was strange enough.
It turns out it's even odder.
One of his investors stands accused of steering hedge funds to put huge amounts of money into a Ponzi scheme.
Frank E. Vennes Jr. was indicted April 20 in Minneapolis on four counts of security fraud and one count of money laundering. He pleaded not guilty.
The federal prosecution of Vennes does not have anything to do with Vennes lending millions of dollars to Kuhn, an Orlando developer who made a big splash in Jacksonville in 2005 and 2006. He bought several downtown buildings, including the old Barnett Bank building, historic Laura Street Trio and the SunTrust building.
But Vennes' legal problems have complicated efforts to build a parking garage on a half-block parcel of land next to the SunTrust Tower. Kuhn originally was going to build the parking garage, but after he abandoned his plans during the real estate downturn, Vennes took ownership of the property and inherited the obligation to build the parking garage.
City officials had some talks with Vennes about building the parking garage to satisfy the city's contractual obligation to provide parking for The Jacksonville Landing. But in 2008, a federal investigation of a massive Ponzi scheme named Vennes in an affidavit for a search warrant of his home.
Instead of pursuing the parking garage, Vennes has faced the criminal investigation and a raft of claims by creditors against his assets.
The April indictment alleges Vennes, 53, of Stuart, received more than $60 million in commissions by steering a hedge fund's investments into a Ponzi scheme operated by one of Vennes' business associates, Thomas J. Petters of Minnesota.
Petters built a $3.65 billion Ponzi scheme by falsely telling investors that his business, Petters Co. Inc., bought a huge volume of consumer merchandise such as electronics and sold it at profit to big box retailers, according to prosecutors.
Petters' company did not buy merchandise, however, and he used the investors' money for personal uses. He is serving a 50-year federal prison sentence.
A bill pending before Jacksonville City Council would clear the way for Parador Partners, owner of the SunTrust building, to purchase the land from Project Riverwatch LLC, which is entirely owned by Vennes. The property's market value is $2.6 million, according to the Duval County Property Appraiser's Office.
The city would drop a state lawsuit it filed against Project Riverwatch seeking $2 million in damages because Project Riverwatch has not built a parking garage.
The city also would release Project Riverwatch from the 2007 agreement for the garage. Project Riverwatch would give back to the city a small parcel of land that has a Sister City monument and benches .
That would clear the way for the city to execute a new development agreement with the SunTrust building's owner for the construction of a parking garage.
http://m.jacksonville.com/business/2011-06-14/story/jacksonville-landing-garage-caught-legal-woes-federal-charges
No where does it say that the Landing had to build a garage for the city to resolve its long standing obligation to provide the Landing with dedicated parking spaces. Dedicated spaces aside, how does the city anticipate resolving its obligation when the garage only includes 200 public spaces? Am I right that for this to work, the Landing would have to agree to allow the city to create a number of spaces well below the current contractually obligated number? If so, why would the Landing want to do that?
QuoteBackground Information: Parador Partners is the latest company to take up the project of constructing a
parking garage on the vacant lot on Hogan Street between Bay and Water Streets with reserved spaces for
Jacksonville Landing patrons. Parador also intends to lease spaces in the garage to tenant of the SunTrust bank
building on the northwest corner of Bay and Hogan Streets, which does not have its own parking facility. In
2002, pursuant to the 5th Amendment to the Landing lease, the City contracted with Humana Medical Plan, Inc. to
construct a parking garage at the corner of Bay and Hogan Streets adjacent to the then-Humana Building, within
which would be reserved 300 weekday and 375 night and weekend spaces for Landing patrons. Humana later
sold its office building and the adjacent vacant lot to developer Cameron Kuhn of Orlando who agreed to take up
Humana’s obligation to construct the parking garage as part of his Project Riverwatch. Several years later Mr.
Kuhn declared bankruptcy and the parking garage project fell through. The City conveyed Sister Cities Plaza
to Mr. Kuhn for his Riverwatch project, and is in the process of retrieving ownership of the property from the
Riverwatch bankruptcy trustee via a settlement agreement pending before the Council in Ordinance 2011-365.
The City has a long-standing contractual obligation to provide the Jacksonville Landing with 300 weekday and
375 night and weekend parking spaces in the immediate proximity of the Landing, which it has attempted to
fulfill by contracting with Humana and then with Project Riverwatch for the construction of a parking garage with
reserved spaces for Landing patrons. Most recently a proposal for the City to fund the Landing’s purchase of an
existing nearby surface parking lot in satisfaction of the obligation was approved by City Council but vetoed by
the Mayor.
cityclts.coj.net/docs/2011-0366%5CBill%20Summary/2011-0366.doc
I didn't say the Landing had to build the parking...just that additional parking w/ dedicated spaces needed to be constructed....from what I understand, that is what the 7th amendment to the lease says.
And yes, you are correct....the current proposal does not provide the required # of weekday spaces for the Landing (300), so Sleiman has every right to say no and not amend the agreement
Now I would be curious to see what he would say if the proposed deal was restructured to provide the proper # of spaces to the Landing.
Quote from: thelakelander on September 20, 2011, 12:11:26 AM
No where does it say that the Landing had to build a garage for the city to resolve its long standing obligation to provide the Landing with dedicated parking spaces. Dedicated spaces aside, how does the city anticipate resolving its obligation when the garage only includes 200 public spaces? Am I right that for this to work, the Landing would have to agree to allow the city to create a number of spaces well below the current contractually obligated number? If so, why would the Landing want to do that?
At the same time, it doesn't say that the city has to give the landing $3.5 million for just any parking. AFAICT that number was part of the garage deal. The city paying $3.5 million and turning a surface lot into a garage is a much different deal than paying the same amount for just the lot. And it certainly doesn't say that the city owes the landing $3.5 million for a surface lot PLUS $1.9 million to subsidize temporary parking.
It does seem silly that the city would spend money on a different garage project across the street from the Landing that literally no one believes will settle the Landing issue.
Just answer these two questions:
1) Let's say Old Man Willie owed both you and your grandpa 50k each. Gramps dies. Does that mean OMW doesnt owe you the 50k anymore unless grandpa rises from the dead?
2) Say you work at Darden and are in charge of site selection for Chili's. You have a whole team of people whose entire job is to figure out the demographics of your customer base. You find that for a site to be successful, you have to have 40k people within a 5 mile radius with an average household income of $80k. You have two sites to choose from. One site is at River City Marketplace and for your 300 seat restaurant, you will have a dedicated parking lot with 90 spaces. The other is at the Landing and your 300 seat restaurant will have 0 dedicated parking spaces in a location that already has a parking perception problem(people in this city just HAVE to be able to park at the front door, that's the reality of Jacksonville-I personally don't have this problem but people in this town by and large do). Both sites fit into your necessary demographic. Which site do you invest YOUR money in?
Simple. River City Marketplace.
QuoteAnd it certainly doesn't say that the city owes the landing $3.5 million for a surface lot PLUS $1.9 million to subsidize temporary parking.
The city is obligated for a parking validation program... but you will get no argument from me that the amended deal that included short term parking is what killed the deal and was frankly unecessary. I can see WHY that would have been beneficial for the investors, but that doesn't mean I agree with that portion of the deal.
IMO, going back to the original deal to acquire the surface lot for dedicated Landing parking is the best deal for everyone involved. This newest deal to bring a parking garage, with money that was supposed to go towards settling the Landing issue once and for all, is the absolute WORST deal for everyone involved. It's probably the worst deal done downtown since the Shipyards.
It doesn't appear likely though that this parking garage deal is going away. It is time for the Mayor and Council to lead on this issue, and frankly they are doing the opposite right now.
Quote from: fieldafm on September 20, 2011, 11:52:53 AM
1) Let's say Old Man Willie owed both you and your grandpa 50k each. Gramps dies. Does that mean OMW doesnt owe you the 50k anymore unless grandpa rises from the dead?
Well, naturally, according to Tufsu, the whole debt was wiped out when Old Man Willie's heirs gave what supposed to be your $50k to someone else. Since technically they paid the money, even though it wasn't to you, it's all good, right? Even though it didn't go to the intended place, must less satisfy the intended obligation, the money was still given...to someone...so it must be OK! Makes total sense.
QuoteSince technically they paid the money, even though it wasn't to you, it's all good, right?
Right, not only is Old Man Willie not giving you your half... he is giving your half of this money to your next door neighbor.
Once you take out the words 'Jacksonville Landing' and 'Toney Sleiman'... the reality of what is happening becomes much more asinine.
So, again when are we going to stop playing politics(b/c let's face it, if Ben Carter owned the Landing no one would be so galvanized against this parking deal) and do what is right for our city?
Quote from: fieldafm on September 20, 2011, 11:59:12 AM
QuoteAnd it certainly doesn't say that the city owes the landing $3.5 million for a surface lot PLUS $1.9 million to subsidize temporary parking.
The city is obligated for a parking validation program... but you will get no argument from me that the amended deal that included short term parking is what killed the deal and was frankly unecessary. I can see WHY that would have been beneficial for the investors, but that doesn't mean I agree with that portion of the deal.
IMO, going back to the original deal to acquire the surface lot for dedicated Landing parking is the best deal for everyone involved. This newest deal to bring a parking garage, with money that was supposed to go towards settling the Landing issue once and for all, is the absolute WORST deal for everyone involved. It's probably the worst deal done downtown since the Shipyards.
It doesn't appear likely though that this parking garage deal is going away. It is time for the Mayor and Council to lead on this issue, and frankly they are doing the opposite right now.
I agree that starting over with the original deal would be better than the two sides going back and forth as they are now. But it does seems that buying a surface lot and working out validation could be done for less than $3.5 million or $5.4 (or whatever the total would be) of the city's money, considering that $3.5 million was supposed to pay for most of a garage to be built on an equivalent lot.
Quoteconsidering that $3.5 million was supposed to pay for most of a garage to be built on an equivalent lot.
$3.5 million would not build that garage. Parking garages are extremely expensive to build. That money would simply offset some of the cost.
The best option would be to go back to the original deal. Unless the Mayor's office or Council steps up... that isn't going to happen. Right now they are all falling in line with this parking garage fiasco.
Lake, do you have more pictures of LA Live? This would be a good example of clustering as it relates to the Landing, the Hyatt and a potential new convention center.
LA Live is part of a larger complex that includes and entertainment center, the Staples Center, a large Marriot and Ritz Carlton and finally the convention center.
There are three parking garages and 10 surface lots just dedicated to this complex. There are also over a dozen private lots surrounding the complex... but the fact that they have TONS of dedicated parking is what makes this complex works. AND they have rail stations as well.
Quote from: fieldafm on September 20, 2011, 12:58:24 PM
Quoteconsidering that $3.5 million was supposed to pay for most of a garage to be built on an equivalent lot.
$3.5 million would not build that garage. Parking garages are extremely expensive to build. That money would simply offset some of the cost.
The best option would be to go back to the original deal. Unless the Mayor's office or Council steps up... that isn't going to happen. Right now they are all falling in line with this parking garage fiasco.
Well, it's not just the money, it's also the vacant lot, which COJ agreed originally to allocate for the Landing garage. Now, apparently, they're going to move forward with constructing a competing garage there instead, in which the Landing will have no dedicated parking. Ridiculous. I mean, really, it's kind of a slap in the face given the original promise. Sleiman is getting screwed.
Here some pics of LA Live.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Los-Angeles-June-2011/i-v9nr7sz/0/M/P1490788-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Los-Angeles-June-2011/i-5P4p5Dx/0/M/P1490784-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Los-Angeles-June-2011/i-K6kbkjG/0/M/P1490783-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Los-Angeles-June-2011/i-RtV9cNr/0/M/P1490782-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Los-Angeles-June-2011/i-mBhJXLn/0/M/P1490781-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Los-Angeles-June-2011/i-Ptgzp2V/0/M/DSC0267-M.jpg)
I love LA Live. I was there last year for a design conference. I'm not sure how the parking situation is over there, since I used the parking garage at the adjacent hotel that I was staying at. Between the restaurants, The Congo Room, Lucky Strike and the events held at the Nokia Theater there, it's definitely a nice setup. It would be nice if the Landing could emulate it on a smaller level. Maybe ditch the retail and just go for dining, entertainment and other niche shops.
Maybe going in a less constructive direction, and being a noob perhaps these are points raised in previous DT threads I've not seen, but decisions made by Sleiman Enterprises have certainly not helped The Landing, or the merchants.
Charging a five to ten dollar cover simply to walk around the Landing during events like FL/GA. Especially when you can keep your partying dollar closer to the stadium for free.
In addition, the only outside alcohol sales permitted during events were his own. Where before the restaurants could work the breezeways and courtyard, now Sleiman was gobbling up that business with his own shooter girls and beer sales.
Merchants are told nearly anything to keep them from leaving. Every week its "Insert big chain is on the other line right now, we're hammering out details for this or that impossibility."
There are four businesses hanging on for dear life upstairs. Four.
The company contracted to handle the parking lot is awful. Aside from the rates, there is NEVER a live person in case customer service is required. And of course there's no validation program. Even the previous validation program was confusing and frustrating to customers. And as I recall, merchants and restaurants HAD TO PAY to even participate in the program. Maybe that's typical?
How many times has he given rental space to a friend and then that business went bust, further souring the image of The Landing? Club Paris, the sub place downstairs, there's at least one other I can't recall right now.
There are a dozen little subtle things Sleiman Enterprises has done to bring burb money in while shunning inner city money. The problem with burb money is that its not as reliable, based purely on distance. Plus, that money goes back home at some point.
The maintenance on the property is abysmal. The hallways are too dark, which isn't helped by the empty storefronts and yes, there is often a strange odor. This would be the outdated trash compactor systems.
The hours also need to be expanded. How can the merchants succeed when the lease requires they close at eight, nine on the weekends, but the foot traffic doesn't pick up until after that, when the clubs open?
While the Landing may be owed additional parking, it won't be the save that Sleiman promises restaurants and merchants it will be. On a normal day the current parking lot has less than a dozen cars, usually less than half a dozen.
It definitely seems that you have an insider's perspective about the going-on's with the Landing. I wouldn't have guessed half of those things were going on, especially preventing businesses from selling alcohol outside during events. I'm sure that would frustrate bar owners. I wonder if that was an issue for Twisted Martini since their property opened out towards the courtyard. ...It would be nice to see something finally go back into that space.
QuoteCharging a five to ten dollar cover simply to walk around the Landing during events like FL/GA
That's the only event in which that happens(it's a crowd control measure, the schools have SPECIFCALLY asked for such measures to be put in place), and the majority of that money gets donated to charity. Hardly something that is taking place to ripoff people.
QuoteThere are four businesses hanging on for dear life upstairs. Four.
No one is arguing that. A shrinking downtown working population and over a year's worth of road construction certainly doesn't help. Just ask any of the merchants that participated in business disruption when there is a massive road maintenance project going on around town, and then double that timeline. Pretty hard to take for any small business that relies on constant cashflow to keep a business open.
QuoteAnd as I recall, merchants and restaurants HAD TO PAY to even participate in the program. Maybe that's typical?
That's the way validation programs work.
QuoteHow many times has he given rental space to a friend and then that business went bust, further souring the image of The Landing? Club Paris
You're painting an ENTIRELY broad stroke of friendship with that comment, lol. Those two were not friends.
QuoteThe hours also need to be expanded. How can the merchants succeed when the lease requires they close at eight, nine on the weekends
What mall do you know where retailers are able to open past 9pm??
Despite all that... two new large establishments are opening this month(the old tavern space and the old Twisted Martini space), three new retailers have opened in the last two months and the outside is about to get a makeover as part of DVI's Laura Street Facade Grant.
Maybe you should put that old axe you have to grind back in the shed and move on with life?
Quote from: comncense on September 27, 2011, 07:19:06 PM
It definitely seems that you have an insider's perspective about the going-on's with the Landing. I wouldn't have guessed half of those things were going on, especially preventing businesses from selling alcohol outside during events. I'm sure that would frustrate bar owners. I wonder if that was an issue for Twisted Martini since their property opened out towards the courtyard. ...It would be nice to see something finally go back into that space.
The old Twisted space will be opening up as a new bar in time for FL/GA.
Quote from: fieldafm on September 28, 2011, 08:25:07 AM
Quote from: comncense on September 27, 2011, 07:19:06 PM
It definitely seems that you have an insider's perspective about the going-on's with the Landing. I wouldn't have guessed half of those things were going on, especially preventing businesses from selling alcohol outside during events. I'm sure that would frustrate bar owners. I wonder if that was an issue for Twisted Martini since their property opened out towards the courtyard. ...It would be nice to see something finally go back into that space.
The old Twisted space will be opening up as a new bar in time for FL/GA.
Cool, glad to hear that Fieldafm. I really don't even care what kind of bar it is, it's just nice to know that space will be used since it's such a prime location. Has Fionn McCool's opened yet or are they shooting for FL/GA weekend as well?
I believe they are shooting for a soft opening the weekend before FL/GA.
Quoteespecially preventing businesses from selling alcohol outside during events
That's also not entirely true, Bennys and Hooters both sell in the bars below the staircases, the Twisted spot will have an outside bar presence for FL/GA and Chicago Pizza presently has an outside bar.
You can't take alcohol out of a restaurant... which is no different than any restaurant I have ever been to in my entire life.
Quote from: fieldafm on September 28, 2011, 08:25:07 AM
Quote from: comncense on September 27, 2011, 07:19:06 PM
It definitely seems that you have an insider's perspective about the going-on's with the Landing. I wouldn't have guessed half of those things were going on, especially preventing businesses from selling alcohol outside during events. I'm sure that would frustrate bar owners. I wonder if that was an issue for Twisted Martini since their property opened out towards the courtyard. ...It would be nice to see something finally go back into that space.
The old Twisted space will be opening up as a new bar in time for FL/GA.
I heard that they may be charging a covercharge to get into the landing during FL/Ga game...is that true?
Quote from: Garden guy on September 28, 2011, 08:46:18 AM
Quote from: fieldafm on September 28, 2011, 08:25:07 AM
Quote from: comncense on September 27, 2011, 07:19:06 PM
It definitely seems that you have an insider's perspective about the going-on's with the Landing. I wouldn't have guessed half of those things were going on, especially preventing businesses from selling alcohol outside during events. I'm sure that would frustrate bar owners. I wonder if that was an issue for Twisted Martini since their property opened out towards the courtyard. ...It would be nice to see something finally go back into that space.
The old Twisted space will be opening up as a new bar in time for FL/GA.
I heard that they may be charging a covercharge to get into the landing during FL/Ga game...is that true?
That's been happening for a few years, since the newest contract with the schools had a lot of stipulations on what you can and cannot do now... crowd control was a HUGE issue. The schools are pretty dead set on erasing the 'Worlds Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party' moniker.
Quote from: fieldafm on September 28, 2011, 08:43:17 AM
You can't take alcohol out of a restaurant... which is no different than any restaurant I have ever been to in my entire life.
Go to Savannah much?
Beside the door to most every establishment, restaurant or bar, they keep a stack of plastic cups so you can take your drink to go.
There's also a restaurant with a self-serve tap in the middle of the table. Can't remember the name of the place. (Barely remember going, but there were pictures :D)
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on September 28, 2011, 09:37:42 AM
Quote from: fieldafm on September 28, 2011, 08:43:17 AM
You can't take alcohol out of a restaurant... which is no different than any restaurant I have ever been to in my entire life.
Go to Savannah much?
Beside the door to most every establishment, restaurant or bar, they keep a stack of plastic cups so you can take your drink to go.
There's also a restaurant with a self-serve tap in the middle of the table. Can't remember the name of the place. (Barely remember going, but there were pictures :D)
Yes, but Savannah and New Orleans are pretty unique in the country in that regard.
I should have phrased my question differently. Where else in Jacksonville(or 98% of the cities in the country) can you take alcohol outside of a restaurant?
QuoteThere's also a restaurant with a self-serve tap in the middle of the table.
I haven't been to a bar in Savannah with a self-tap, kind of hard to have gone to every bar in that city :) ... but I have been to a place in Atlanta(Stats) with a self-tap. It was pretty pricey from what I recall.
Those pics of LA Live look great, but our DDRB would never allow that. First of all too many signs and banners! They wouldn't want us to lose sight of the "Jacksonville biege" that dominates our skyline.
Quote from: fieldafm on September 28, 2011, 09:48:52 AM
I haven't been to a bar in Savannah with a self-tap, kind of hard to have gone to every bar in that city :) ... but I have been to a place in Atlanta(Stats) with a self-tap. It was pretty pricey from what I recall.
Churchhills was the name of the place - on Bay St. I believe, and they weren't any pricier than you get from any other place.
The Miller Lite was $4 and the Stella was $5 - no waiting. ;D
My wife was jealous that there wasn't a vodka & soda tap - she had to keep waiting.
Has anyone visited Carnaval Court in Vegas, right outside of Harrah's Casino? I always thought the concept of Carnival Court would work great for the Landing's courtyard area. Close the courtyard off to 21 and up visitors, free entry and provide live music that's NOT country or folk music. Maybe a good cover band or something along those lines. We already have a stage in the courtyard, just add a permanent bar in the courtyard area that's in a central location. I think it would increase the foot traffic at the Landing at nights at least. Outside of the few people that visit Hooters and Mavericks, what reason do you have to go to the Landing on a regular night during the week?
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1428/531938220_acb0209956.jpg)
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1157/532038725_1b6c219080.jpg)
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1237/935111848_692dee554a.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3291/2773175487_e2bd8ddff2.jpg)
Quote from: Garden guy on September 14, 2011, 09:40:29 AM
Parking is not an issue in downtown...the issue is people who think they should have a parking spot at the front door of every place they visit....if you can't walk a few blocks then move to lake city and have a good time....i never have understood the whole hoopla over parking downtown...i have never had a problem..and one other thing i'm sure the city would be willing to put a parking lot there if the place were'nt empty half of its life..just because you make a parking space does'nt make the demand for your business go up...
True. Even "AT" the landing parking lot, I have almost NEVER seen it full. Except maybe during FL/GA or some huge event. There is plenty of parking downtown, you just have to walk a block.
The Landing is FINALLY offering free parking for folks who go to their restaurants at night Monday-Wednesday!
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 02, 2011, 09:14:27 PM
The Landing is FINALLY offering free parking for folks who go to their restaurants at night Monday-Wednesday!
I remember when that was the norm back when I was in grade school.