Reading the article leads me to believe that Sleiman feels the Council might vote to let the moratorium expire. He has been pushing hard to get projects through before it ends.
http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=537679
interesting....I don't agree with Mr. Sleiman on many issues, but its good to see he understands the importance (perhaps overblown) of a new convention center as a catalyst for downtown....that said, his anti-tax stance won't help it get built.
Can someone post the rendering of the convention center for those that don't go to the article?
Not too shabby...
(http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/storyimages/34024.jpg)
The rendering of the convention center reminds me of the one in Pittsburgh, only backwards.
(http://www.pgh-sea.com/images/conventioncenter.jpg)
Is Sleiman going to do anything with the Landing on his own? Piece together the puzzle:
1) He contracts to redevelop the Landing and lease the land underneath at the height of the boom when other developers were proposing to add thousands of rooftops nearby (hoping all those bodies would come flocking to the only retail center in downtown).
1A) Those other projects fall through.
2) Then begins the fight for the city to build a garage for him as promised, as if that alone would mean success for his center.
3) Retail in general suffers leaving developers exclusive to retail desperate for deals and starving for cash, and lo and behold Sleiman lobbies the city to waive fees so he can increase profits trickling in elsewhere in his business model (to cover any large gaping holes in his portfolio?)
4) Retail is still not really happening, and neither is private development, so now in addition to the garage, he wants the city to build a CC in the hopes that some tourists are herded into his struggling and largest loss exposure that is the Landing.
Methinks Sleiman should have relied moreso on his ambition, experience and team to creatively get something done with the Landing than he relied on the City and other developers with nearby residential projects to make the thing work. He's still holding on, but he should just give up hope that outside forces are going to help him out there. Every developer has been through this...many with much greater loss exposure and their houses and all assets on the line. I know of a chairman of a dev. firm that has put a billion dollar Manhattan office building on his personal balance sheet before just to get a deal across the finish line. Stress and loss are a part of the business!
I really like the rendering. Notice the large canopy over where the pool is on the Hyatt also.
The only potential issue I see with that rendering, is that the portion fronting Bay Street may not interact with the street and have retail, dining, or entertainment spaces, which the TransForm Jax crew all agreed was vital if that site gets redeveloped as a CC. Of course its just a hypothetical rendering, but still a very important issue if the idea comes to fruition.
Lol, at the convention center being DT's most pressing need. This thought took place in the 1970s/80s. We turned the train station into one and LaVilla still died. How you integrate these things into the urban environment can either kill an area or help incrementally energize it. However, if we have $200 million to toss around DT, I don't know if its best to invest that entire pot on a CC.
The Landing site isn't large enough for what's desired. However, it would be nice to have the Landing updated and better integrated with downtown.
I think that's ugly.
How important is a convention center, really? I can see it being something we'd want to have, ideally. But I'd think we could have the most modern, state-of-the-art convention center and we still probably would struggle to book conventions with Downtown Jax in its current state.
We have very little to attract people to the city as it is. You can make a somewhat appealing laundry list of things, but they're very spread out over a wide area. There's not a lot in the vicinity of the center for people who might come for the weekend.
I say we make Downtown redevelopment the priority and then see what happens. A convention center will happen as part of that, I'd hope.
I don't think "build it and they will come" is the best strategy.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 05, 2012, 03:00:42 PM
Lol, at the convention center being DT's most pressing need. This thought took place in the 1970s/80s. We turned the train station into one and LaVilla still died. How you integrate these things into the urban environment can either kill an area or help incrementally energize it. However, if we have $200 million to toss around DT, I don't know if its best to invest that entire pot on a CC.
The thing about the new CC is that it could be a revenue generator as well as a driver of tourism. So I don't know that we can look at it in the same way we look at other public expenditures like the courthouse and the library.
I'd assume that most of the cost of a new CC would be financed. So in my mind the question is, can the increases in revenue and tourism dollars offset the financing costs? If so, the intangible benefits to Downtown and the region would make it a very big positive. If not, then you're probably right that there are better things to invest in DT.
Quote from: CityLife on October 05, 2012, 03:22:06 PM
The thing about the new CC is that it could be a revenue generator as well as a driver of tourism. So I don't know that we can look at it in the same way we look at other public expenditures like the courthouse and the library.
You should view a new CC the same way you view a library, schools, parks, roads, mass transit, etc. It's most likely going to be a money loser directly but you invest in them to spur indirect economic development. That being said, if all you had were $200 million in public money (I tend to view things this way because of our current fiscal situation) to invest in DT in the next five years, its difficult for me to say it will bring back the best return or even energize downtown outside of the immediate blocks.
QuoteI'd assume that most of the cost of a new CC would be financed. So in my mind the question is, can the increases in revenue and tourism dollars offset the financing costs? If so, the intangible benefits to Downtown and the region would make it a very big positive.
The intangible benefits will ultimately depend on how the box integrates with its surroundings. We screwed that up with the PO and the amount of potential revenue from a center that size hasn't been as great as it could be.
The PO is too small. I believe they need around 200k square feet of continuous exhibition space. The PO has less than 80k. The only way you're getting that much space on the Landing site is to construct a box that goes over the Main Street Bridge ramps.
Extending over the river would be pretty expensive and you'd be limited because of the shipping channel. If you're going to do a convention center, there are several sites, including the old courthouse site, that would be more suitable. Also, the Landing isn't a complete loss. It just needs to be updated and opened to the rest of downtown. While it will never be a retail mall, it can still be filled for the most part with entertainment and dining uses.
Anyone realize the artist's rendering is not at the site of the Landing? But at the site of the old courthouse and city hall annex.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 05, 2012, 03:28:26 PM
Quote from: CityLife on October 05, 2012, 03:22:06 PM
The thing about the new CC is that it could be a revenue generator as well as a driver of tourism. So I don't know that we can look at it in the same way we look at other public expenditures like the courthouse and the library.
You should view a new CC the same way you view a library, schools, parks, roads, mass transit, etc. It's most likely going to be a money loser directly but you invest in them to spur indirect economic development. That being said, if all you had were $200 million in public money (I tend to view things this way because of our current fiscal situation) to invest in DT in the next five years, its difficult for me to say it will bring back the best return or even energize downtown outside of the immediate blocks.
QuoteI'd assume that most of the cost of a new CC would be financed. So in my mind the question is, can the increases in revenue and tourism dollars offset the financing costs? If so, the intangible benefits to Downtown and the region would make it a very big positive.
The intangible benefits will ultimately depend on how the box integrates with its surroundings. We screwed that up with the PO and the amount of potential revenue from a center that size hasn't been as great as it could be.
Schools, parks, and libraries generate little to no revenue, and have significant operations costs. You even said we've lost out on potential revenue from the PO due to its size, so imagine the increases in revenue from a larger CC. I'm not saying it would profit, or even break even, but I'd like to see some projected data so that everyone can make an informed decision.
Basically, someone needs to do a detailed alternatives analysis (Cost benefit, financial impact analysis, etc) of adding a new convention site, vs. keeping the PO and weighing all the factors. Without that information, we the public, and politicians can't make an informed decision on whether or not to add a new CC.
Quote from: Egodriver71 on October 05, 2012, 03:47:47 PM
Anyone realize the artist's rendering is not at the site of the Landing? But at the site of the old courthouse and city hall annex.
That is where the article and most people project a new CC to go, if one gets built.
Quote from: stephendare on October 05, 2012, 03:45:12 PM
hmm.
200,000 uninterrupted square feet?
Yes. Then you still need additional space for support uses (entrance/foyer, storage/loading docks, truck aprons, etc.).
QuoteWell looking at the actual layout of the landing property it appears to be about 1000 feet along the shore line and about 600 feet deep, which is about 600 thousand square feet.
According to Google Earth, there's roughly 370' between Independent/Laura Street and the riverwalk. Hogan to Main Street is a little over 800'. However, you're not dealing with a square site. The Main Street Bridge ramps and Water/Independent eat into it significantly.
QuoteAnd that doesnt even take it over the water.
Shipping channel kills you there.
Interesting ideas Stephen. There is also the potential of using the surface lots at Bay and Hogan (Omni, Suntrust) Which also happens to be right at a Skyway stop...too bad someone is building a gorgeous (sarcasm) parking garage there....
Quote from: CityLife on October 05, 2012, 03:48:03 PM
Schools, parks, and libraries generate little to no revenue, and have significant operations costs.
Convention centers tend not to generate revenue either. Several end up being big money losers.
http://www.stltoday.com/business/columns/david-nicklaus/here-s-a-rarity-a-profitable-convention-center/article_c2c7e20b-f305-5048-9ee0-5dc004b3545d.html
You don't invest in them for them to bring in revenue. You're revenue is made by the spinoff of people staying in hotels, buying gas, shopping locally, dining, etc.
QuoteYou even said we've lost out on potential revenue from the PO due to its size, so imagine the increases in revenue from a larger CC. I'm not saying it would profit, or even break even, but I'd like to see some projected data so that everyone can make an informed decision.
The PO's problems are a combination of size, age and lack of supporting uses (ex. attached hotel, adjacent entertainment, etc.). It's location also limits its impact on downtown businesses. You can resolve many of these issues with a better located and designed structure. However, it would probably still lose money if we're looking at how it can directly generate revenue to cover the annual operations cost.
QuoteBasically, someone needs to do a detailed alternatives analysis (Cost benefit, financial impact analysis, etc) of adding a new convention site, vs. keeping the PO and weighing all the factors. Without that information, we the public, and politicians can't make an informed decision on whether or not to add a new CC.
I think this has already been done, which is why the courthouse site ended up being selected.
QuoteThere have been several plans to turn the front of the Landing into a Marina, the intensification of the current at the bend is why they havent been built, not shipping lanes.
The depth is over 60' from Main Street to the Acosta.
Unless you are tearing down the Landing all together, that site isn't going to work for a convention center.
Quote from: stephendare on October 05, 2012, 03:59:27 PM
Looking at google earth, the scale appears to be 200 ft per inch, and there are four of them along the landing on Hogan.
Also the Riverfront is significantly longer than bay street because it is not a regularly shaped property.
If you're using Google Earth, just zoom in and use the ruler/scale command.
Sleiman, the Hyatt and the City need to form the mayors favorite thing a P3 and get it done.
So in Michael's mind... how will the competitive problem that the current Prime Osborn convention center faces by not having enough single use contiguous space be solved by building a convention center around the Landing site (without tearing it down)?
Quote from: stephendare on October 05, 2012, 04:15:44 PM
Quote from: fieldafm on October 05, 2012, 04:04:26 PM
QuoteThere have been several plans to turn the front of the Landing into a Marina, the intensification of the current at the bend is why they havent been built, not shipping lanes.
The depth is over 60' from Main Street to the Acosta.
Unless you are tearing down the Landing all together, that site isn't going to work for a convention center.
Well luckily the good lord invented telephones, and I was able to call The Landing to get accurate measurements.
Even with the irregular shape, the property itself is closer to 300 than 200 thousand square feet, and large enough to accomodate this one unsourced (at present) requirement.
Additionally, in Toney's original plans for the redevelopment of the Landing, the proposal for a convention center was already forwarded several years ago before the Peyton Administration nixed all landing redevelopment plans and actively tried to choke the shit out of the flagship sleiman property.
In my discussion today, there was even a part of the conversation which contemplated the extension of the skyway paralell to Hogan street to serve both the Landing and The Times Union Center. (which I think would be unecessary if cheaper, covered moving walkways similar to the ones found at airports were installed in the planned parking garage.
There was some enthusiasm for the idea with the Landing folks actually. Who knows. Maybe this is one of the many fruitful discussions on metrojacksonville.
We can add that new Chinatown on the east parking lot. Seriously, though, Sleiman's old idea of doing a convention center was on the East lot. Either way, for the amount of money you would have to spend on that site and with the tight fit, you'd be better off not doing it.
QuoteSleiman's old idea of doing a convention center was on the East lot.
Correct, and would have included tearing down the stepped down building currently used as part of the Hyatt's meeting space in b/w the Landing parking lot and the Hyatt (which frankly wasn't a bad plan but it still had size limitations, which is exactly the same problem facing Prime Osborn).
^^I remember that plan, but that was before he also proposed putting a 25 floor office tower on that same site, right?
I think it was after.
Quote from: stephendare on October 05, 2012, 04:33:03 PM
meh.
sounds like speculation lake.
Since we don't know the amounts that it would cost comparatively, and even estimating the size of the property was so off,
My estimating of the property's size was not off. Also, I do know if the river is 60' deep at that location, extending an exhibition hall over the river is going to cost you significantly more than a plan, who's foundation does not have to account for that unique situation.
QuoteI would suspect that this is an idea that should be explored before any conclusions should be drawn.
To be honest, I think it's one that quickly dies, simply due to the configuration of the site, the landing lease situation, cost of squeezing something in there with limited expansion potential and still no direct connection to a hotel, and the fact that there are other workable parcels in the area.
QuoteThe behefits of a centrally located, mulituse facility, with inexpensive transit connection in the middle of what passes for the vibrant nucleus of the downtown that also activates transit for the TUPAC?
Cant overestimate the added value that such a co location would provide.
Great benefits but you can get this at other sites as well and not deal with some of the constraints and costs associated with this site above. Also, why replace the Landing with a convention center? Why not keep the Landing and add a mixed use convention center?
QuotePlus, I would really love to see some modern architecture that explores the new possibilities of our building technologies at this site.
I'd like to see various forms of architecture at a lot of sites. A revamped Landing could also provide the same opportunity.
Quote from: stephendare on October 05, 2012, 04:33:03 PM
The behefits of a centrally located, mulituse facility, with inexpensive transit connection in the middle of what passes for the vibrant nucleus of the downtown that also activates transit for the TUPAC?
Cant overestimate the added value that such a co location would provide.
Plus, I would really love to see some modern architecture that explores the new possibilities of our building technologies at this site.
Just thinking out of the box but if you wanted to tie something in with the TUPAC, have you considered the air rights for the three blocks of parking lots on the other side of it? I believe they are owned by different entities but you can get a decent sized single floor box there and directly tie it into the Omni, TUPAC and Water Street garage. The TUPAC would then essentially serve as your riverfront entrance.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Other/mi/i-GgjVpDP/0/L/cc-box-L.jpg)
An example of this would be the Dallas Convention Center. Under it, you have streets, parking and a covered LRT station.
(http://www.blumeng.com/develop_public/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/dallas.jpg)
I'm confused? The shipping channel is used regularly by barges and tugs headed to Green Cove and Palatka. To get a usable box like structure on the site, you'd have to completely demolish the Landing and build a new structure that goes over the bridge ramps and Independent Drive, between Hogan and Laura. There's simply easier ways to achieve what you're looking for in tying a CC and TUPAC together, such as building over the streets and parking lots between it, the Omni, and Water Street Garage. It cost you less, there's two large parking garages and three lots beneath, and still achieve your goal.
Quote from: stephendare on October 05, 2012, 05:19:21 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on October 05, 2012, 05:12:21 PM
Quote from: stephendare on October 05, 2012, 04:33:03 PM
The behefits of a centrally located, mulituse facility, with inexpensive transit connection in the middle of what passes for the vibrant nucleus of the downtown that also activates transit for the TUPAC?
Cant overestimate the added value that such a co location would provide.
Plus, I would really love to see some modern architecture that explores the new possibilities of our building technologies at this site.
Just thinking out of the box but if you wanted to tie something in with the TUPAC, have you considered the air rights for the three blocks of parking lots on the other side of it? I believe they are owned by different entities but you can get a decent sized single floor box there and directly tie it into the Omni, TUPAC and Water Street garage. The TUPAC would then essentially serve as your riverfront entrance.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Other/mi/i-GgjVpDP/0/L/cc-box-L.jpg)
An example of this would be the Dallas Convention Center. Under it, you have streets, parking and a covered LRT station.
(http://www.blumeng.com/develop_public/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/dallas.jpg)
While some interesting architecture could come of this, it would still lead to a dead zone.one that would suck all the life right out of the center of the city.
Just as the mostly empty convention center at the Prime Osborne created a giant dead zone that triggered a wave of demolitions that eventually put it in the center of an urban prairie.
Your center would be what you make of it. It can be as dead or as live as any location in the city, including the Landing site and the courthouse site it will most likely end up at. If you want to be cheap and dead, at least you're box would be at street level and no more dead than the site is today. If you wanted it to be lively, you simply add retail or cultural space at street level. This can be applied to any site.
(http://www.backpackingdave.com/Seattle06.JPG)
The shipping channel is in the river.
Is the Landing land taxed? I thought the City owned the land under the Landing.
Interesting idea, anyway, but I haven't grasped how you build a Convention Center on the Landing land without knocking down the existing Landing. And, even if it can be done, seems it would pretty much close the Landing for the duration of construction (or discourage folks from coming due to the ongoing construction).
The building is taxed but not the land.
Sorry, when I see Sleiman talking about a convention center and a cheerleadering confab in the same paragraph all I could think of was all the rental minivans high tailing to SJTC during a competition break.
Quote from: stephendare on October 05, 2012, 05:57:57 PM
The Landing is on taxable real estate. The Prime Osborne is on a huge stretch of non taxable property.
Setting aside another huge stretch of property for a two level tax free property is insane at this point in our history.
Okay, let's get this straight... Property tax revenues, which essentially fund city government, are declining rapidly. We're trying to revitalize downtown, which is already populated by a significant amount of real estate exempt from property taxes. So, let's set aside another significant portion of downtown real estate and make it exempt as well?
Um, Stephen has a good point.
Although, using the Old Court House site would not "remove" any taxable land, it just wouldn't allow it to become taxable land from a hypothetical sale to a private developer.
A convention center can be whatever we want it to be. You could probably do a P3 with Hyatt just as much as you could with Sleiman. One thing that seems to be overlooked in this discussion is the importance of ancillary uses such as dining, entertainment and retail. In fact, it's much more critical to the success of this project than property tax revenue on a convention center site. With that in mind, the Landing is something like 125,000 square feet of waterfront retail and dining in a highly centralized location. Even in its current state, it's still downtown's top destination. If you want vibrancy, you add to things instead of replacing them. Unless, it's on the verge of falling in the river, I don't see how demolishing it and replace it with a convention center box is a positive for downtown? You end up with a new box that doesn't really net you significant expansion over the PO, in another situation where it lacks a high number of retail and entertainment space in a compact setting. Not to mention your subsidized 966 unit convention center hotel still isn't directly connected.
I'm not seeing it. All of my architectural background in me doesn't see how you add on a convention center with 200,000 square feet of continuous exhibition space to the Landing without completely demolishing the existing structure and constructing an expensive replacement that extends over the ramps, river or whatever. All the planning and creativity in the world won't make me or you knock down jumpers like Ray Allen. At some point, reality has to come into the process.
Quote from: stephendare on October 05, 2012, 10:31:31 PM
http://www.youtube.com/v/cDUkGEH74Xw
http://sap.mit.edu/resources/portfolio/evaluating_vertical_expansion/
Recent Research from the Center for Real Estate
Recent research from the MIT Center for Real Estate indicates that the vertical phasing of buildings may hold significant potential for helping developers manage risk by allowing a building to grow in height as market conditions warrant.
Vertical expansion refers to a process by which a building is built to a certain height with the intention of possibly expanding it upwards in the future; if such an expansion never occurs, the original building can stand by itself as a fully functioning structure. The development method is an example of a 'real option' in real estate â€" a right but not an obligation to pursue a future course of action; real options are important because of the value they can add to a project.
Great link, but it doesn't apply to the Landing because the it isn't built to support the load of an exhibition center on top of it and it doesn't even have the proper foot print or size. If anything, it would apply to the vertical construction of a new mixed use convention center on the old courthouse site. For the Landing, you're looking at a complete tear down and rebuild.
We'll agree to disagree on this one.
You actually need more than 200k sf. The 200k would be for a continuous exhibition space only. For example, the Prime Osborn is 265,000 square feet but only has 78,500 of exhibition space. Here is a list of centers across the country and how their total square footage compares with their exhibition spaces.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_convention_and_exhibition_centers
Raleigh's new vertical center has 150,000 square feet of exhibition space but the center covers 500,000 square feet.
What do you think about this look?
(http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/storyimages/34024.jpg)
I like Vancouver's convention center quite a bit....but my favorite waterfront center ios Pittsburgh's
btw...regarding NYC, Madison Square Garden only serves as the arena for some conventions....the main convention center is the Javits Center, a few blocks away.
sorry I've been away from this thread all night....the first playoff game for the Baltimore Orioles in 15 years has me a bit distracted!
Quote from: stephendare on October 05, 2012, 11:03:47 PM
Its ok, but Im really more turned on by setting the forces of progressive architecture and new techniques loose if we are going to be building public buildings downtown.
Personally I don't want to see another neoclassical or pedestrian structure built in the urban core for at least another fifty years.
I want to be excited, turned on and inspired by architecture.
And I want to see our tremendous technology and science at play. This is one of the proposals for the shipyards site isnt it?
+1,000,000
Glad to see you so energized by this project, Mr. Dare!
Save a few naysayers, I think a convention center downtown could be one of those projects that has widespread acceptance and gets the community moving toward a common goal. It also solves some other problems, like restoring the current convention location back to a functioning train station.
Quote from: stephendare on October 05, 2012, 11:52:52 PM
MadisonSquare has been around for almost a hundred years and is a financial success and boon to the city.
The Madison Square that is around today opened in 1968. It replaced Pennsylvania Station, the train station our terminal was modeled after. The Jacob K. Javtis Convention Center opened in 1986. It replaced the New York Coliseum, which was built under the planning of Robert Moses in 1956. The Javtis has 670,000 square feet of exhibition space over two levels. Madison Square Gardens' largest exhibition space is only 36,000 square feet.
Quote from: stephendare on October 05, 2012, 11:03:47 PM
lol. it looks a bit like a two story home in pensacola.
Its ok, but Im really more turned on by setting the forces of progressive architecture and new techniques loose if we are going to be building public buildings downtown.
Personally I don't want to see another neoclassical or pedestrian structure built in the urban core for at least another fifty years.
I want to be excited, turned on and inspired by architecture.
And I want to see our tremendous technology and science at play. This is one of the proposals for the shipyards site isnt it?
That's on the courthouse site next to the Hyatt. I believe it was a part of the convention center article covering Sleiman's views.
Quote from: stephendare on October 05, 2012, 11:30:35 PM
What do you think of this convention center, Lake?
Looks cool from the video. Can the public get up there? A green roof that would also dub as a public park on top of a new convention center has been mentioned a few times on these discussion boards in the past.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 05, 2012, 04:03:34 PM
Quote from: CityLife on October 05, 2012, 03:48:03 PM
Schools, parks, and libraries generate little to no revenue, and have significant operations costs.
Convention centers tend not to generate revenue either. Several end up being big money losers.
http://www.stltoday.com/business/columns/david-nicklaus/here-s-a-rarity-a-profitable-convention-center/article_c2c7e20b-f305-5048-9ee0-5dc004b3545d.html
You don't invest in them for them to bring in revenue. You're revenue is made by the spinoff of people staying in hotels, buying gas, shopping locally, dining, etc.
QuoteBasically, someone needs to do a detailed alternatives analysis (Cost benefit, financial impact analysis, etc) of adding a new convention site, vs. keeping the PO and weighing all the factors. Without that information, we the public, and politicians can't make an informed decision on whether or not to add a new CC.
I think this has already been done, which is why the courthouse site ended up being selected.
Sorry to rehash this, but I wasn't able to respond yesterday...I know the revenue comes from the visitors..which is why I said "So in my mind the question is, can the increases in revenue and tourism dollars offset the financing costs?" on the first page of the thread. Sure a new CC may not even break even, but it will likely generate more revenue than the PO and bring in more tourism dollars. Can those increases offset the financing costs? Will the increases in revenue and tourism dollars in relation to what the PO is currently bringing in, make it less of a money pit over the long term? How much new development will a new CC potentially spark? How much will that increase the tax base? What is the value and potential savings of converting the PO back to a transportation hub? If a new CC is not built on the courthouse, what will the property be used for?
I'm sure somebody at the city has done some type of analysis on the courthouse site, but I'd really like to see a complex and professional alternatives analysis of the options. If one has been done, I'd love to see it. Otherwise, we're all speculating based on opinion and conjecture.
Quote from: CityLife on October 06, 2012, 09:12:58 AM
I'm sure somebody at the city has done some type of analysis on the courthouse site, but I'd really like to see a complex and professional alternatives analysis of the options. If one has been done, I'd love to see it. Otherwise, we're all speculating based on opinion and conjecture.
There was a study done a few years back that evaluated over 11 sites or so. I'm away from the computer but I'll try and dig it up later today.
Quote from: stephendare on October 05, 2012, 03:09:05 PM
Really. If you look at the location of the Landing and its centrality to the hotels. An add on convention center might be perfectly located there.
Its on the river, it already has a marina, there is an entertainment venue associated with it. It would require a much smaller skyway spur than any other potential location, and its the anchor of the Laura Street Renovations.
Toney isnt probably going to see a retail center success there for a good ten years anyways, and the Landing Restaurants would be a built in convenience to conventioneers.
Best idea I've heard in years
I love idea of engaging the river in the convention center. We can make the most of our river dolphins and manatees. Tourists love that stuff (as do I - it always brings a smile to my face when I see the dolphins out there).
I have no idea how Toney Sleiman would feel about taking out the entire Landing for the convention center. I didn't get the sense that was what he was proposing.
However, if he gets the same square footage of retail space out of it that he gets in a long term lease (99-years), and gets the dedicated parking that is owed to him, he may be great with it. I don't think it would be much of a financial loss to see the place closed for 2 years while this is under construction.
I don't know that a skyway extension is even needed if the convention center goes at the current Landing site. Central Station is only two blocks away. There would be a few operation challenges with extending it. Transit systems don't work as well when they diverge at the end of the line. Then every other train has to go in a different direction. Most of the skyway passengers would still be going north to FSCJ or Hemming, and so this would create more transfers.
If we really wanted a stop inside the convention center, then it might be best to just have a two-block connector that goes back & forth. Then increase the frequency of the main north-south route (Kings to FSCJ). The wait for convention visitors would only be 2-3 minutes (which is nothing in the world of transit).
Quote from: thelakelander on October 06, 2012, 09:27:36 AM
Quote from: CityLife on October 06, 2012, 09:12:58 AM
I'm sure somebody at the city has done some type of analysis on the courthouse site, but I'd really like to see a complex and professional alternatives analysis of the options. If one has been done, I'd love to see it. Otherwise, we're all speculating based on opinion and conjecture.
There was a study done a few years back that evaluated over 11 sites or so. I'm away from the computer but I'll try and dig it up later today.
With MetJax no longer in operation, we lost the archives to forum discussions before this site was established. There were a couple of convention center studies done 5 to 7 years ago.
(http://www.jacksonville.com/images/073005/83901_400.jpg)
This was in 2005. At the time, the Fairgrounds was the highest selection:
http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/073005/bus_19375381.shtml
Here's the Executive Summary of the JCCI's Convention Center Study in 2007:
http://www.jcci.org/jcciwebsite/documents/07%20Convention%20Center.pdf
Some other links to old articles on previous studies:
2004
http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/062104/bum_15898072.shtml
2006 -
Two studies to gauge convention appeal $20,000 will be spent to help determine if Jacksonville can support a center larger than the Prime Osborn
http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/121606/bus_6848250.shtml
2006 - Developer (Sleiman) weighs riverfront convention center
http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/081706/met_4470314.shtml
2007 - Prime Osborn, Hyatt lead pack of convention sites
http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/091507/bus_199680846.shtml
2007 - Convention center decision is no decision, yet A task force says a location decision should be punted to the mayor and City Council
http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/102607/bus_212128985.shtml
http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/091507/bus_199680846.shtml