Metro Jacksonville

The Jacksonville Landing's Redevelopment Plan

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/2967604357_dDL2ggM-M.jpg)

Conceptual plans have been released of the Jacksonville Landing's potential redevelopment. Metro Jacksonville invites you to take a look, let us know what you think and what you would modify or add if you had it your way.

Read More: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2013-dec-the-jacksonville-landings-redevelopment-plan

another plan.  Who will pay for this?  Sleiman, or the city?

Seems like a lot more demolition is coming to jacksonville for a paved lot on the hopes of "future development"

i can see alot of cash flowing into sleimans at the cost of the citizens...do we want to hand him more cash to loose....?..take him out kf the formula and then maybe...if hes at the helm...hell no

Quote from: mbwright on December 16, 2013, 07:56:19 AM
another plan.  Who will pay for this?  Sleiman, or the city?

Most likely, the city will be a financial partner by providing some type of incentive package. Likewise, the city will be most likely providing incentives for every major project in the Northbank, if they want to see them get off the ground anytime soon.

Quote from: Garden guy on December 16, 2013, 08:11:17 AM
i can see alot of cash flowing into sleimans at the cost of the citizens...do we want to hand him more cash to loose....?..take him out kf the formula and then maybe...if hes at the helm...hell no

So you are of the belief that you'd rather see the Landing and downtown fail then see ownership succeed at making it a better place (which also means making downtown a better place)? Is there a scenario in your mind where both current ownership and downtown come out winners?

Quote from: hightowerlover on December 16, 2013, 08:05:34 AM
Seems like a lot more demolition is coming to jacksonville for a paved lot on the hopes of "future development"

After nearly two decades of struggling, Rouse ran away from the Landing. Sleiman has had it for 10 years and nothing has really improved. Is it time for us to admit that downtown can't support 125,000 square feet of national chain retail space?

Is it possible for the Landing to be a vibrant space with the parking shown in Phase I? Is there anything you would suggest that you believe would improve the redevelopment plan?

as long as hes not making the decisions alone and every dime is accounted for...id rather the city buy him out and take it over...i trust noone especially him..sorry to offend you guys..

I was honestly hoping for more, but for what it is, I quite like it. Not a fan of the palm trees though (North Florida doesn't have to look like Fort Lauderdale), and I don't think it will look as picturesque from the south bank without the existing Landing signage.

I hate to be that guy, but with the court yard wide open like this, what can be done to prevent panhandlers from setting up shop or taking over the area? 

On the vehicular circulation slide, is that lane going right through the north side of the courtyard??

Quote from: Garden guy on December 16, 2013, 08:46:49 AM
as long as hes not making the decisions alone and every dime is accounted for...id rather the city buy him out and take it over...i trust noone especially him..sorry to offend you guys..

No offense taken, although the city has a pretty bad track record in the real estate development business.

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/1541959592_jMn2Fg5-M.jpg)

Quote from: peestandingup on December 16, 2013, 08:49:29 AM
On the vehicular circulation slide, is that lane going right through the north side of the courtyard??

Yes. The main entrance to the parking lot would be off the round-a-bout with the Jackson statue in it.

Personally I am positive on this.  This plan takes away the mall vs mall emphasis and makes it a place to enjoy the river.  Nobody ever said they had to be big chain restaurants.  Our local restaurants are much better anyways. 

Quote from: thelakelander on December 16, 2013, 09:04:42 AM

Quote from: peestandingup on December 16, 2013, 08:49:29 AM
On the vehicular circulation slide, is that lane going right through the north side of the courtyard??

Yes. The main entrance to the parking lot would be off the round-a-bout with the Jackson statue in it.

Which entirely negates the idea that this will be pedestrian friendly or improve the "Riverfront Connection" in any way besides maybe visually. Who says, "Oh, look at that beautiful river view, but it would be so much better if I had to cross a strip mall parking lot to get to it"? Cars and pedestrians on the same surface don't mix. If this isn't fixed the project isn't worth doing, let alone incentivizing. Call me cynical, but I don't expect a lot of constructive feedback from the DDRB or our illustrious mayor.

I also love how Phase II is planned for "when the market is ready". Translation: "this is lip service so the city will let us put more surface lots in the heart of downtown indefinitely."

Okay so what is the difference in terms of the Landing actually being redeveloped than it was a few years ago. I remember Sleiman had a display at the Landing of how he wanted to redevelop it. This never happened as we all can tell. So what is different now. Should we get our hopes up? I know the city back then would not sell him the land the Landing sits on if I remember correctly. Also will the parking garage across the street in that vacant lot ever be built. What good is a new Landing if there is no where for a good crowd of people to park? Someone please school me!

I don't see the reduction in rentable square feet and the addition of more obvious parking along street as the answer.  I also don't see the future mixed use buildings happening anytime soon.  Without the future buildings, it will have the look of a suburban office/retail park.  There has to be an option that opens up the view corridor at the street level while still maintaining the current roof line. The current ground floor in the view corridor area is primarily kiosk style retail, which isn't high dollar rent and probably the easiest to loose.  This project should be looked at more creatively with what is currently there, instead of clean slating the lot and starting over.  There are enough riverfront vacant lots and parking lots in downtown Jax already.  Let's not make more.

I do not see the need to have entry into the parking via the roundabout.  Enter via Hogan or existing.  Agree with Tacachale on this one.  Now for a pedestrian to enter you must cross Water  and a wide parking lot with traffic at all times from at least three directions.  Hardly going to make it more pedestrian friendly.  I guess we can all stand on sidewalks on Laura and admire the river view.  Other than that it would seem to better than the existing. 

If the city would provide incentives for the demolition of mall space and rebuild of the parking spaces would this finally meet their obligation for the dedicated parking?  My guess is no since he will pull the I will eventually build on those lots my high rises.  Lol. Yea sure Toney.  I like to see the city negotiate ow that part of it. Something along lines this will count as meeting this obligation unless you break ground on the other building within 5 years and tie it to a dollar figure.  In other words the new structure must represent 30 million or so in new construction so he just doesn't throw up some small building and say hey.  Give me more. 

Quote from: thelakelander on December 16, 2013, 09:04:42 AM

Quote from: peestandingup on December 16, 2013, 08:49:29 AM
On the vehicular circulation slide, is that lane going right through the north side of the courtyard??

Yes. The main entrance to the parking lot would be off the round-a-bout with the Jackson statue in it.

my major modification to the plan would be extending the two new buildings north to address Independent Drive and the roundabout.

This would still allow for the pedestrian/events plaza but would negate the area being used as an entrance/exit to the parking lots....and I think the # of spaces would be, at most, minimally affected 

oh yeah...and pull out the pavement on Hogan Street south of the parking/service entrance....that would allow for additional event space along the river adjacent to the TUPAC

Quote from: tlemans on December 16, 2013, 10:12:03 AM
Okay so what is the difference in terms of the Landing actually being redeveloped than it was a few years ago. I remember Sleiman had a display at the Landing of how he wanted to redevelop it. This never happened as we all can tell. So what is different now.

An agreement between the previous administration and Sleiman never came to fruition. There was bad blood there.

QuoteAlso will the parking garage across the street in that vacant lot ever be built. What good is a new Landing if there is no where for a good crowd of people to park? Someone please school me!

I believe that parking garage will be breaking ground soon but it won't resolve the Landing's dedicated parking situation, which is appears why they've decided to attempt to resolve it on-site.

I think Jacksonville just needs to learn how to park in a downtown setting, there's plenty of options in the vicinity they're just not signed well. 

If Sleiman really feels like the Landing is facing backwards because it embraces the river view rather than downtown, then fine I object to having a suburban-style parking lot "in front" of the building.

I just have a hard time justifying the need for more parking, for less retail/restaurant space.  Just seems like wasted money.  Yes the space is empty now, but if the original redevelopment plans worked, ie hotel or residential space, I could see those smaller venues becoming desirable again.  But there would need to be a core customer base on site.

To me this is like saying take the top 20-30 floors off the Bank of America tower because they can't find anyone to lease them now.

I don't mean to be negative, as clearly something needs to be done with the Landing. However, at this point we're seriously looking at demolishing most of the Landing, replacing most of it with suburban surface parking lots, and making it no more walkable than it is now. Fortunately there is time to fix it while it's all still on nice, cheap paper; the key will be actually doing it so we're not just throwing public money into another poor design.

Perhaps Independent Drive can be reconfigured to include on-street diagonal parking between Laura and Hogan Streets? That could be a way to reduce the number of off-street parking spaces and the need for a vehicular entrance through the middle of the courtyard. That would also create an opportunity to pull the new buildings closer to Laura Street.

One small thing that might also be figured in--PR.  Over the years, right or wrong--but by very popular word of mouth--the Landing has developed a reputation for being somewhat unsafe--particularly at night.  My personal guess is that a few incidents may have been exaggerated--but favorable Landing publicity will obviously need to improve.

Quote from: thelakelander on December 16, 2013, 11:28:05 AM
Perhaps Independent Drive can be reconfigured to include on-street diagonal parking between Laura and Hogan Streets? That could be a way to reduce the number of off-street parking spaces and the need for a vehicular entrance through the middle of the courtyard. That would also create an opportunity to pull the new buildings closer to Laura Street.

That sounds like it would be a nice compromise. Conceivably, though, Sleiman wants drivers to be able to go from one lot to the other without going out to the street (even though that means driving through what is now and always should be a pedestrian thoroughfare). And of course a compromise will require the city not to roll over.

Quote from: gedo3 on December 16, 2013, 11:32:23 AM
One small thing that might also be figured in--PR.  Over the years, right or wrong--but by very popular word of mouth--the Landing has developed a reputation for being somewhat unsafe--particularly at night.  My personal guess is that a few incidents may have been exaggerated--but favorable Landing publicity will obviously need to improve.

My co-worker's son was shot at the Landing in an attempted cell phone robbery. A Chicago Bears fan had his throat slashed at Fionn MacCool's. A massive brawl at Maverick's last year ended with a 22 year old getting run over and killed by a pick-up truck.  There are worse areas, but it's definitely not a completely fabricated issue either.

interesting replies to this news....

I like the opening up to Laura Street, but not that it was done specifically for more auto use. Maybe they're hoping a drive thru would bring Starbucks back?!! 

Also, is the public restroom under the bridge just to appease the city? Currently you can use the public restrooms inside the Landing. Or are they not going to be rebuilt?

Think I'd be more impressed of he did it without city money (i know, never happen) or if he took city money it came along with a caveat to end the parking dispute.

The Landing's mall would be demolished. The restrooms are inside the mall. That structure would be completely demolished and replaced by two smaller, two story buildings. I think would be safe to assume, the restrooms under the bridge would also serve the Landing, outside of what would be in sit-down restaurants.

QuoteThink I'd be more impressed of he did it without city money (i know, never happen) or if he took city money it came along with a caveat to end the parking dispute.

City money will be involved if anything happens. However, I think the second part about the parking situation is feasible.

Quote from: thelakelander on December 16, 2013, 01:29:41 PM
The Landing's mall would be demolished. The restrooms are inside the mall. That structure would be completely demolished and replaced by two smaller, two story buildings. I think would be safe to assume, the restrooms under the bridge would also serve the Landing, outside of what would be in sit-down restaurants.

QuoteThink I'd be more impressed of he did it without city money (i know, never happen) or if he took city money it came along with a caveat to end the parking dispute.

City money will be involved if anything happens. However, I think the second part about the parking situation is feasible.

I dont visit the site very often...but LAKE was this not your idea to open up the Landing to Laura street? Or maybe it was someone else, but someone here was always posting about that sort of thing.

Retail should front all streets -- Laura, Water and Hogan.  Perhaps residential fronts river since river can be seen from the streets for retail.  Sidewalk cafes on all streets.  On-street parking.

City money should not be given, nor should Sleiman be allowed to build a huge surface parking lot.  City should work out shared parking arrangements with garages and other surface lots.  Someone should do a map showing how many existing parking spaces are in a certain minute walk of the Landing today.

If residential is how you redevelop downtown and retail follows residential, why is City putting money into an existing retail facility?

Remember the City already owes the Landing dedicated parking.  When you say city money should not be given is it because you do not think the ROI is there? or some other reason?

Quote from: Kay on December 16, 2013, 02:28:08 PM

If residential is how you redevelop downtown and retail follows residential, why is City putting money into an existing retail facility?

Investment in QOL (which includes retail) is what is needed over a long time to drive real residential change.  Urban residential isn't the exact same as suburban. Yes Walmart follows rooftops and then the rooftops try to move further out and the process repeats.  In the core people move there to be near things so things you must have.

Quote from: JeffreyS on December 16, 2013, 02:33:18 PM
Remember the City already owes the Landing dedicated parking.  When you say city money should not be given is it because you do not think the ROI is there? or some other reason?

I think the City should not give money towards current design.  I'd give City money to rehab and reuse the existing vacant historic structures or other vacant structures. 

If they do give money to the Landing then the design has got to be right.  Current design is not pedestrain friendly.  It doesn't engage all of the streets as it should.  If you add onstreet parking then perhaps another surface parking lot is not necessary.

Quote from: Coolyfett on December 16, 2013, 02:27:38 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on December 16, 2013, 01:29:41 PM
The Landing's mall would be demolished. The restrooms are inside the mall. That structure would be completely demolished and replaced by two smaller, two story buildings. I think would be safe to assume, the restrooms under the bridge would also serve the Landing, outside of what would be in sit-down restaurants.

QuoteThink I'd be more impressed of he did it without city money (i know, never happen) or if he took city money it came along with a caveat to end the parking dispute.

City money will be involved if anything happens. However, I think the second part about the parking situation is feasible.

I dont visit the site very often...but LAKE was this not your idea to open up the Landing to Laura street? Or maybe it was someone else, but someone here was always posting about that sort of thing.

It's not my idea.  Sleiman has been talking about opening the Landing courtyard up to Laura Street since he purchased the complex back in 2003.

^Opening up the Landing courtyard to Laura Street is a great idea that's negated if they then put a strip mall parking lot between them.

+1000.

I agree with alot that Taca said. Is there anything good about this proposal besides the stellar riverview that I didn't know was there? To be frank, I think that (riverview) itself is very overrated for a local attraction(not top) like that. I do understand that something has to be done there, but tearing down nearly all of the Landing just doesn't seem right to me. I'm trying to be optimistic with that proposal, but I really do not see it. There are MANY concerns.

What about the dramatically reduced overall capacity? The FL/GA game crowd with the normal Landing, versus it with the Landing nearly all torn down? With large crowds, there will be no places to 'chill' ie the second floor, not unless you wanna be forced to patronage an overly crowded restaurant; So what was already very crowded will be even more cramped with less to do.

Are we losing Dock space?

Quote from: Tacachale on December 16, 2013, 04:14:36 PM
^Opening up the Landing courtyard to Laura Street is a great idea that's negated if they then put a strip mall parking lot between them.

I agree w this (and what's been said regarding this & the demolitions), which is why I asked about that slide. It's the first thing I noticed & seemed completely against the reasoning why it should be opened up to Laura. Looks like they're wanting to take a play from the book of the SJTC development & mash cars in with pedestrians. "Oh, look at all these public areas, courtyards & places to walk. Now, dodge these cars & try to have a good time." Stupid. It says it can be closed off for special events, but who even knows what that means.

I do like opening it up, I think we'd all agree there. And the courtyard is a nice touch that will make that area actually usable (instead of just a big empty underutilized slab as it is now). But they need to get out of the suburban mindset with some of the designs. There's plenty of ways to have parking that doesn't involve moving cars right through the complex.

Love the idea of Laurie Street going directly to the river landing with views & breezes. Jackson riding on his horse into Jacksonville from the St Johns River will be a very interesting viewing vangtage point!

The Landing needs more residential condos and all street level design could embrace the street and not have reflective glass windows with the only usuable entrances from the river side not from the street side.

So, I just saw Sleiman's new plan for the Landing. The entire complex would be torn down and replaced with a vertical center set back from the river. Super conceptual highlights include no surface parking, a 10-12 story hotel, a 20 story workforce housing tower, a new roundabout at Hogan, removal of Independent Drive ramps to/from Main Street and a waterfront park extending from Main to CSX. The park would be lined with restaurants/outdoor cafe seating.

There's two main buildings divided by an opening allowing a river view from Laura. First floors would be retail/residential. Floors 2-5 would be office/residential. Floors 6 and above would be a boutique hotel west of Laura and a residential tower east of Laura.

Say what?  Have you been drinking?

Quote from: thelakelander on January 15, 2014, 06:15:30 PM
So, I just saw Sleiman's new plan for the Landing. The entire complex would be torn down and replaced with a vertical center set back from the river. Super conceptual highlights include no surface parking, a 10-12 story hotel, a 20 story workforce housing tower, a new roundabout at Hogan, removal of Independent Drive ramps to/from Main Street and a waterfront park extending from Main to CSX. The park would be lined with restaurants/outdoor cafe seating.

There's two main buildings divided by an opening allowing a river view from Laura. First floors would be retail/residential. Floors 2-5 would be office/residential. Floors 6 and above would be a boutique hotel west of Laura and a residential tower east of Laura.

It's too early for April Fool's.

Nope. I'm sure the plan will be in the papers soon if I can't get my hands on it. I'm at the DIA meeting right now.

QuoteIt's too early for April Fool's.

Just wait to see how much Sleiman wants the City to shoulder. He never writes a deal where he is not the winner, he is in business for the profit.

Yea. It was on the news on 47.

So what makes this feasible now?

Boy, they are not kidding when they say conceptual.  The plans are showing now on Jax Biz Journal. Some of the floor plans look like they were drawn by hand with someone with a not too steady hand at that.  Not happening. Sleiman keeping his name outs there and getting on Tv.

(http://www.actionnewsjax.com/media/lib/1/f/a/1/fa1b8f87-b91a-4cdc-b057-c316bb2eaebe/Original.jpg)

What is that?

^Sleiman's revised plan for the site after working with the DIA, Mayor's Office and responding to the community's concerns about the original redevelopment plan over the last month.

So what do you guys think?

^ Me thinks this won't ever happen. From the description (sans 'rendering') it sounds like a nice idea though IMO. Heh, I like the idea of scrapping the current version of the Landing and starting over.

i am not holding my breath but I love it.

Quote from: Keith-N-Jax on January 15, 2014, 08:11:01 PM
So what do you guys think?

It's a big improvement over the plan last month but I'm skeptical that there is a market for this type of density on that site.  My guess is if something happens, it will be multiple phases, with the towers coming later. Still, it would be cool to have the buildings set back from the river, creating more waterfront public space in the process.

Yeah it does look better although I will miss the Jacksonville Landing sign.

ha. my dad just mentioned this to me during dinner but I thought he was crazy. No way it could be feasible. Lo-and-behold, he was right. Although, still can't possibly be feasible.

Quote from: Lunican on January 15, 2014, 07:26:29 PM
So what makes this feasible now?

that's the next question...from what I hear DIA will do a detailed market analysis before offering any incentives.

also understand that the marina shown in the drawing is likely not feasible....and that this plan assumes that at least the on-ramp from Independent to the Main St Bridge is removed.

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Jacksonville-Landing/i-m4q3fXP/0/XL/Landing%202-XL.jpg)

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Jacksonville-Landing/i-KvkFrkc/0/XL/Landing%203-XL.jpg)

Thanks much better plans laid out there. No way this happens. Would be nice though.

Possible future for Jacksonville Landing unveiled

The new vision for the Jacksonville Landing includes a boutique hotel, a residential tower, ground-floor restaurants and a courtyard for events.
The redeveloped Landing would feature two five-story buildings, with ground-floor restaurants and retail, and floors two through five could be residential or office space.
On the east side of the Landing, there would be a 20-story residential tower, possibly workforce housing. On the west side would be a 10-story boutique hotel, though Wilson cautioned that those figures are preliminary.
Sleiman, who specializes in suburban retail development, said that he would bring in other developers for the hotel and resident components.
Structured parking would be built on the Downtown side of the redevelopment, on floors two through five, hidden within in the structure.

http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2014/01/15/possible-future-for-jacksonville.html?page=all

Seems like another boutique hotel would cannibalize the Trio, no?

Would removing that ramp really be the best thing to do here?  Seems like it would add a lot of traffic to Laura St between the Landing and Forsyth from people trying to get on the bridge.  Either that or do a major overhaul of the one way traffic system.  Sleiman wants the ramps gone so he gets more land for free.  I don't see the ramp removal happening (even if something actually comes out of this whole proposal)

I hope the buildings in those rendering are mostly placeholders and aren't planned to look that bland.

I would rather see the Trio get money over this project.

That marina as shown is a pipe dream too considering the end of the docks look to be at the edge of the main channel coming through the bridge.

This proposal(not holding my breath) > The current Landing > breezeway demo proposal. 

Removing the on and off ramps to/from Independent Drive is a good thing....but imo getting rid of the connection to Ocean Street should be a non-starter

I do like the density achieved by the new plans and think this is a huge improvement from the previous. I just wonder what happens to the current tenants?  Seems a little pie in the sky to scrap existing functioning businesses for some loosely envisioned redevelopment. Why can't he develop the empty lot on the other side of the main st bridge first instead of always calling that space "future building". Why not build a few story parking garage with ground floor retail to at least relocate existing tenants, throw a hotel or residential 10 floors and see if this is market ready. At least then you get your parking without blasting away a tourism draw that may or may not materialize. I just fear this going south financially as soon as it's demolished and we get a new riverfront parking lot.

I work at Haskell, so it's been interesting to see the design and redesigns of this project so far. From what I can see from the inside it looks like they're talking about the financial expectations on both ends. So this is usually the part which sends those projects to the scrapboard.

This is the...3rd landing renovation  proposed in the past decade I believe?

Any word on the SF of retail and restaurants?  Any word on the number of hotel rooms?

This is obviously very preliminary and is much more appropriate/urban than what was proposed before.   I wish Sleiman had started with this proposal.  I see this as very high risk/ high reward.  My fears are 1) it will require a huge subsidy 2) it relies on too many other 'approvals' such as removing the ramps (which is a good idea, IMO) 3) There are not demostrated markets for any of the uses especially retail.  The residential demand will depend on the pricing.  Can you build new up to 20 stories for what the Strand rents for? 

I appreciate the 'go big or go home' aspect, but I would feel a lot better about it's prospects if the rest of DT was in better shape.  It has a certain 'build it and they will come' aspect to it.  If Laura Street andsurroundings were less of a ghosttown after 5, I would feel better about the viability in general.   

Quote from: I-10east on January 15, 2014, 10:49:20 PM
This proposal(not holding my breath) > The current Landing > breezeway demo proposal.

Agree but not holding my breath either.

Quote from: acme54321 on January 15, 2014, 07:39:30 PM
(http://www.actionnewsjax.com/media/lib/1/f/a/1/fa1b8f87-b91a-4cdc-b057-c316bb2eaebe/Original.jpg)

I'm always amused when they want to build a marina with peirs 90 degrees to shore in the fastest and deepest current of downtown.

It would be an interesting build. I'd be real interested in the foundations since I'm somewhat familiar with every piling, rubble, beam and trash pile beneath that building.  However it does leave the easement for the 54" force main.

We are currently building 23 story apartment buildings in several metro areas, Orlando, Houston, Atlanta, Charlotte, Tampa. They are small and rents start around $1,000 per month.  It might be a stretch for retail workers.  AND they all have attached parking garages. 

Quote from: tufsu1 on January 15, 2014, 11:11:00 PM
Removing the on and off ramps to/from Independent Drive is a good thing....but imo getting rid of the connection to Ocean Street should be a non-starter

If you're going to get rid of the ramps why not just go ahead and get rid of the Ocean St connection?  Making Main St two way again wouldnt be a bad thing.

Quote from: vicupstate on January 16, 2014, 06:09:44 AM
Any word on the SF of retail and restaurants?  Any word on the number of hotel rooms?

No. The way the presentation came off to me was that this is a very conceptual plan that was created based off community input from last month's public presentation and workshops with a few DIA members. The old plan was probably more realistic of what Sleiman believes the market is.  However, a market analysis will have to be conducted in the next few months to see how realistic this concept really is.

QuoteThis is obviously very preliminary and is much more appropriate/urban than what was proposed before.   I wish Sleiman had started with this proposal.  I see this as very high risk/ high reward.  My fears are 1) it will require a huge subsidy

Last night, the DIA and crowd was told not to worry about costs at this point.  However, you're right. If this is what the community wants to see, a chunk of subsidies will eventually be required.

Quote2) it relies on too many other 'approvals' such as removing the ramps (which is a good idea, IMO)

It shouldn't be too difficult to get the Independent Drive ramps removed, especially if COJ or Sleiman is willing to pay for the removal.  I don't see FDOT providing the cash for that. However I also don't see FDOT removing the Ocean Street ramp or converting Ocean or Main to a two-way street anytime soon either. That goes against the Secretary's desire to not see auto capacity reduced on their highways.

Quote3) There are not demostrated markets for any of the uses especially retail.  The residential demand will depend on the pricing.  Can you build new up to 20 stories for what the Strand rents for?

A market analysis will have to conducted to figure out all of these questions.  Also, according to the current Landing lease agreement, nothing can exceed the height of 75' or so on that site.

QuoteI appreciate the 'go big or go home' aspect, but I would feel a lot better about it's prospects if the rest of DT was in better shape.  It has a certain 'build it and they will come' aspect to it.  If Laura Street andsurroundings were less of a ghosttown after 5, I would feel better about the viability in general.

I believe the best thing about this plan is the demolition of the waterfront buildings to create a decent sized linear public space along the riverfront.  For all the talk about turning the old courthouse site and Shipyards into public space, this is a much better location.  A well designed space can be just as much of an anchor for additional retail and dining for whatever replaces the Landing as anything else.  With that said, I'd be truly surprised if what was shown last night isn't significantly reduced in scale after that market analysis is conducted. Nevertheless, that general footprint could easily be retained and incrementally phased in.

Folks, according to Don Redman this project is 7-8 YEARS from completion. The Landing is in his district. He should know.

By that time the Overland Expressway will be completed. 220 Riverside will have a hotel and be thriving as the next Town Center, Shad Khan will have redeveloped the Shipyards by then, the Southside JEA generation station location will have been turned into the most amazing outdoor amphitheatre attended by thousands every year in Jax, downtown will have a US Navy warship docked on the Southside, two mayors and countless ideas on how to hide the mess at the Landing will have come and gone.

Don't get too excited, there was a man named Cameron Kuhn who came to Jacksonville and infected all who would buy into him that he would change downtown.....crickets later and an empty Barnett Bank building later....

Look at Sleiman's strip malls for an idea about the man and his "vision", many have large vacancies. He has trouble in his own pool, what makes him an expert on building something to this degree? His past results do not bode well for future results, IMO.

Quote from: acme54321 on January 16, 2014, 09:10:36 AM

Quote from: tufsu1 on January 15, 2014, 11:11:00 PM
Removing the on and off ramps to/from Independent Drive is a good thing....but imo getting rid of the connection to Ocean Street should be a non-starter

If you're going to get rid of the ramps why not just go ahead and get rid of the Ocean St connection?  Making Main St two way again wouldnt be a bad thing.

While making Main a two-way street again, FDOT is most likely not going to agree to reduce the ability to move vehicles on their "six" lane highway.  To do that, COJ would probably have to find a way to take over Main and Ocean, similar to what Miami recently did with Brickell Avenue and Orlando with Edgewater in College Park.

I don't really see why the on-ramps being removed is such a make or break for this current design... seems like they just made a massive parking garage on the bottom that could easily be modified to not require the city to pay to remove the ramps.  I personally think the base of these buildings is out of scale anyways and makes the taller elements look more visually stumpy.

Quote from: mtraininjax on January 16, 2014, 09:19:13 AM
Folks, according to Don Redman this project is 7-8 YEARS from completion. The Landing is in his district. He should know.

By that time the Overland Expressway will be completed. 220 Riverside will have a hotel and be thriving as the next Town Center, Shad Khan will have redeveloped the Shipyards by then, the Southside JEA generation station location will have been turned into the most amazing outdoor amphitheatre attended by thousands every year in Jax, downtown will have a US Navy warship docked on the Southside, two mayors and countless ideas on how to hide the mess at the Landing will have come and gone.

Don't get too excited, there was a man named Cameron Kuhn who came to Jacksonville and infected all who would buy into him that he would change downtown.....crickets later and an empty Barnett Bank building later....

Look at Sleiman's strip malls for an idea about the man and his "vision", many have large vacancies. He has trouble in his own pool, what makes him an expert on building something to this degree? His past results do not bode well for future results, IMO.

You really just ?
A) Listened to Don Redman
and
B) Compared Toney Sleiman to Cameron Kuhn (who now sells lunch out of a food cart in downtown Orlando)


BTW, Sleiman Enterprise's vacancy rate is actually low.

QuoteBTW, Sleiman Enterprise's vacancy rate is actually low.

LOL,  Come on man, get outside and check out his properties, you know the ones with the little trees on a white sign. They are everywhere, go check out Beach and San Pablo as a good example.

Sleiman has no track record to build and develop what he plans to develop. So this, like the Shipyards, is a shot in the dark with public funds, which no one has discussed yet. Why don't we run the skyway to Mandarin, it sounds practical, it could be nice, but it costs a lot, no, don't discuss the costs, we are just spitballing right now.

I don't agree with Redman all the time, but he does make some realistic remarks on occasion, and since there is no money planned for this, his assessment of 7-8 years sounds realistic, of course, you can use "hope" as a plan and HOPE that the City does not raid the 9 million set aside to the DIA for downtown businesses. How convenient, the city puts 9 million in the fund, and Sleiman comes knocking saying he will tear down the old and in with the new?

Don't be a fool Jacksonville! Wake up and see what is happening. 

QuoteLOL,  Come on man, get outside and check out his properties, you know the ones with the little trees on a white sign. They are everywhere, go check out Beach and San Pablo as a good example.

Oh, so you know the exact amount of square feet occupied versus vacant based on the signs you see around town.  That seems completey reasonable.

QuoteOh, so you know the exact amount of square feet occupied versus vacant based on the signs you see around town.  That seems completey reasonable.

I can read sign and I can tell the difference between his signs and others. Pretty easy, actually.

We can go on a field trip and I can educate you, if you like.....

I guess you could leave the towers and the outer buildings off, but otherwise this plan seems like it would be very hard to do in phases. However, as a preliminary it's definitely a major step in the right direction.

Quote from: hightowerlover on January 16, 2014, 09:24:43 AM
I don't really see why the on-ramps being removed is such a make or break for this current design... seems like they just made a massive parking garage on the bottom that could easily be modified to not require the city to pay to remove the ramps.  I personally think the base of these buildings is out of scale anyways and makes the taller elements look more visually stumpy.

I don't either really see the major benfit of ramp removal either.

And yes the buildings look weird with such large pedestals.

Quote from: mtraininjax on January 16, 2014, 10:02:31 AM

QuoteOh, so you know the exact amount of square feet occupied versus vacant based on the signs you see around town.  That seems completey reasonable.

I can read sign and I can tell the difference between his signs and others. Pretty easy, actually.

We can go on a field trip and I can educate you, if you like.....

You should do that yourself and report back.  I actually know what the numbers are.

Quote from: acme54321 on January 16, 2014, 09:10:36 AM

Quote from: tufsu1 on January 15, 2014, 11:11:00 PM
Removing the on and off ramps to/from Independent Drive is a good thing....but imo getting rid of the connection to Ocean Street should be a non-starter

If you're going to get rid of the ramps why not just go ahead and get rid of the Ocean St connection?  Making Main St two way again wouldnt be a bad thing.

because the Main Street part would only have room for one lane in each direction.  Imagine what the traffic back-ups on the bridge and on Main Street would look like....never mind when the bridge is up.

as to the pedestal concerns raised by acme and highertowerlover, let me suggest you look at the condo towers built over the last decade in cities like Vancouver. 

They include a large pedestal composing the whole block but only a few stories tall to keep the pedestrian scale....with a skinny tower sitting on top....this serves two purposes

1. allows maximum sun to make it down to street level (something places like NYC could desperately use)
2. allows for amenities...including small green space, pools, etc. on the top of the pedestal

I hear some people mentioning tearing down the Main Street Bridge ramps, and making Main St two ways. That will require four lanes throughout (expansion of one lane DT). I get that many don't care about autos, but if a lane expansion isn't done, that DT part of Main would be an awfully congested bottleneck. Does Main even have any room for a lane expansion? Yes 4 lanes, to 3, back to 4 would be really stupid.

Quote from: tufsu1 on January 16, 2014, 11:08:07 AM
as to the pedestal concerns raised by acme and highertowerlover, let me suggest you look at the condo towers built over the last decade in cities like Vancouver. 

They include a large pedestal composing the whole block but only a few stories tall to keep the pedestrian scale....with a skinny tower sitting on top....this serves two purposes

1. allows maximum sun to make it down to street level (something places like NYC could desperately use)
2. allows for amenities...including small green space, pools, etc. on the top of the pedestal

Yeah, I was thinking about Vancouver too, having done some research recently about why skyscrapers hinder walkability. So now you get all the benefits while avoiding a few of the negatives.

Quote from: ProjectMaximus on January 16, 2014, 11:45:43 AM

Quote from: tufsu1 on January 16, 2014, 11:08:07 AM
as to the pedestal concerns raised by acme and highertowerlover, let me suggest you look at the condo towers built over the last decade in cities like Vancouver. 

They include a large pedestal composing the whole block but only a few stories tall to keep the pedestrian scale....with a skinny tower sitting on top....this serves two purposes

1. allows maximum sun to make it down to street level (something places like NYC could desperately use)
2. allows for amenities...including small green space, pools, etc. on the top of the pedestal

Yeah, I was thinking about Vancouver too, having done some research recently about why skyscrapers hinder walkability. So now you get all the benefits while avoiding a few of the negatives.

With all due respect, this is Florida not Vancouver.  No one is complaining about not maximizing sunlight in downtown Jacksonville.  The shade would be a welcome relief. 

Trust me I appreciate having a rooftop deck and pool area for the residents I just don't think this scale looks good.  I'm not saying elimate any sense of a pedestal element, I just think it looks bad as designed/proportioned.  I think the Strand and the Peninsula on the southbank got their pedestals right visually. This just looks weird to me as presented and I hope it evolves again.

Removing the off/on ramps......................

I wonder if anybody ran that by FDOT?

I don't think the pedestals are large.  I think the highrise boxes sitting on top of them are not to a realistic scale.

I also believe it's possible to phase in development by (1) demolish the mall/keep existing riverfront restaurants, (2) build only restaurant/retail buildings facing the proposed riverside plaza, (3) demolish existing riverfront buildings to construct plaza, and (4) add tower/garage buildings when market is ready. 

Wouldn't removing the ramp cut off walking access from the Southbank? Walking across the MSB on the southbound side dumps you off right in front of the Landing on Independent Drive now. If you tear out the ramp, then you'd have to walk all the way down to Bay Street and back around Wells Fargo and down Laura Street.

I guess it's just another two blocks, but crossing the river is already a pretty huge deterrent for folks in San Marco/Southbank. Maybe they would put a direct connection from the MSB to the North AND Southbank Riverwalk as part of this project and the Southbank Riverwalk construction?

^^couldnt they build a ramp from the bridge down to street level similar to the one on the Riverwalk next to CSX to get you over the railway bridge.

Plans also show a new stairwell from the Landing to the Main Street bridge.

Bring this back from the dead, and everybody will be happier.

(http://www.jacksonville.com/images/111303/13835_400.jpg)
(http://www.jacksonville.com/images/111303/13836_400.jpg)
(http://www.jacksonville.com/images/111303/13837_400.jpg)
(http://www.jacksonville.com/images/111303/13839_400.jpg)
(http://www.jacksonville.com/images/111303/13840_400.jpg)

Quote from: KenFSU on January 15, 2014, 09:33:25 PM
Seems like another boutique hotel would cannibalize the Trio, no?

My thoughts exactly.  In fact, as much as I'd love to see this Landing redevelopment happen, I'm also worried that we have another Shipyards-type scenario where we put all of our eggs in one basket and throw all of the city's incentive money at this while ignoring some of the smaller projects that may be more viable. 

Quote from: hightowerlover on January 16, 2014, 01:21:19 PM
Bring this back from the dead, and everybody will be happier.

There are parts of this old proposal that are pretty cool, but now that I've seen that linear park that links the Landing to the TU center and CSX, I really want that...

Quote from: thelakelander on January 16, 2014, 12:25:03 PM
I don't think the pedestals are large.  I think the highrise boxes sitting on top of them are not to a realistic scale.

I also believe it's possible to phase in development by (1) demolish the mall/keep existing riverfront restaurants, (2) build only restaurant/retail buildings facing the proposed riverside plaza, (3) demolish existing riverfront buildings to construct plaza, and (4) add tower/garage buildings when market is ready.

I think that's about the only way you're going to do it in phases. However, if you build out the first floor, what do you do about the parking? If you leave out the streetfront buildings, the plan is exactly the same as the previous plan (ie, surface parking in the front).

Quote from: hightowerlover on January 16, 2014, 12:15:28 PM

Quote from: ProjectMaximus on January 16, 2014, 11:45:43 AM

Quote from: tufsu1 on January 16, 2014, 11:08:07 AM
as to the pedestal concerns raised by acme and highertowerlover, let me suggest you look at the condo towers built over the last decade in cities like Vancouver. 

They include a large pedestal composing the whole block but only a few stories tall to keep the pedestrian scale....with a skinny tower sitting on top....this serves two purposes

1. allows maximum sun to make it down to street level (something places like NYC could desperately use)
2. allows for amenities...including small green space, pools, etc. on the top of the pedestal

Yeah, I was thinking about Vancouver too, having done some research recently about why skyscrapers hinder walkability. So now you get all the benefits while avoiding a few of the negatives.

With all due respect, this is Florida not Vancouver.  No one is complaining about not maximizing sunlight in downtown Jacksonville.  The shade would be a welcome relief. 

Trust me I appreciate having a rooftop deck and pool area for the residents I just don't think this scale looks good.  I'm not saying elimate any sense of a pedestal element, I just think it looks bad as designed/proportioned.  I think the Strand and the Peninsula on the southbank got their pedestals right visually. This just looks weird to me as presented and I hope it evolves again.

You're talking about aesthetics so you can't have a wrong opinion, and I actually agree with your opinion in those terms. But theres more to the practicality perspective than just amount of shade. With the skinny design their would be less trapped heat, which, I guess, offsets the lack of shade which in its own right is considered a negative because of psychological effects, not temperature. Same with the trapping of air pollutants. Also, imagine if you could take four or five stories off of the Peninsula and Strand and build out a larger base that more adequately addresses the pedestrian at street level...wouldnt that be far more desirable from a walkability/vibrancy perspective?

Anyway, we're going nuts over an extremely conceptual sketch.

If history is any guide, what is most likely to happen is that the current Landing structures will be demolished to make way for the new development, but then something will happen and the result will be that the empty land will just sit there for at least a decade.

Quote from: finehoe on January 16, 2014, 03:55:10 PM
If history is any guide, what is most likely to happen is that the current Landing structures will be demolished to make way for the new development, but then something will happen and the result will be that the empty land will just sit there for at least a decade.

...and the City will have about $9 million tied up in it while other viable projects die on the vine. 

Quote...and the City will have about $9 million tied up in it while other viable projects die on the vine.

Yup, Sleiman was waiting on the sideline, biding his time and now comes forward with plans he has had for some time, so he can suck the 9 million from the DIA for his 1 project.

The man does this for a living, when are you dreamers going to wake up and realize he will have the city pay for all of his fantasyland?

My question is this; Sleiman only owns the building not the land beneath it...I know I'm being kinda naive but wouldn't he have to rebuild something there? Empty land belongs to the city...
I too believe if the current structure is torn down we are looking at a decade or more of empty lot.
I think the Jacksonville way is believe a promise, tear it down and watch the weeds grow.
Shipyards: Check
Old JEA: Check
Brooklyn: about 10 years of weeds, Check
Talk of the Landing remodel or repurposed: Check (Over 10 years)
Southbank Hotel and shops on the River: Check  (Thank goodness they didn't raze any of those buildings waiting for the proposed redo.) It would look like the weed infested space that was once Crawdaddies.
LaVilla: Check. The greatest hits of weed infested empty blocks. How many years since the bulldozers and the continuation, and a slow one at that, of creating a Southside business park?
The wonderful old Southern Bell Building on Adams: Check. A great example of tearing down a terrific building and then totally revamping the ridiculous footprint of the original plan for the Courthouse complex.
And the total destruction of the cool buildings and warehouses near the Osborn Convention Center.

With some past pie in the sky projects that never panned out, I noticed that the Jax media has gotten more skeptical and savvy; Adding comments like 'Many want to know how viable or realistic this is' etc. 

Quote from: Ajax on January 16, 2014, 04:08:16 PM

Quote from: finehoe on January 16, 2014, 03:55:10 PM
If history is any guide, what is most likely to happen is that the current Landing structures will be demolished to make way for the new development, but then something will happen and the result will be that the empty land will just sit there for at least a decade.

...and the City will have about $9 million tied up in it while other viable projects die on the vine. 

I don't believe this will happen. I put my money on the project being scaled down to something a little more realistic with a similar footprint.

I liked the old idea of keeping the Landing shell and building around it. Despite its drawbacks, the Landing is iconic. I would be sad to see it go.  I know it was just built in the 80's but is this another case of tearing down Jacksonville's past ?

Quote from: thelakelander on January 17, 2014, 07:02:23 AM

Quote from: Ajax on January 16, 2014, 04:08:16 PM

Quote from: finehoe on January 16, 2014, 03:55:10 PM
If history is any guide, what is most likely to happen is that the current Landing structures will be demolished to make way for the new development, but then something will happen and the result will be that the empty land will just sit there for at least a decade.

...and the City will have about $9 million tied up in it while other viable projects die on the vine. 

I don't believe this will happen. I put my money on the project being scaled down to something a little more realistic with a similar footprint.

I absolutely agree.  Even with the bottom part and layout, I like the plan.  I just don't think the towers are going to happen.

For all the cynics out there, this plan will not fall through any time soon.
It will fall through AFTER the current Landing has been demolished.

This is a golden opportunity for the city to sell the real estate under the Landing and get this riverfront property on the tax rolls.

I agree, sell the land.

Quote from: finehoe on January 16, 2014, 03:55:10 PM
If history is any guide, what is most likely to happen is that the current Landing structures will be demolished to make way for the new development, but then something will happen and the result will be that the empty land will just sit there for at least a decade.

YEPP...thats what I see happening.

Quote from: acme54321 on January 17, 2014, 11:00:20 AM
I agree, sell the land.

and do what with the land?
The only thing in my opinion that will benefit downtown is a Landing type use. Otherwise it will never be used by the public. We have plenty of die at 5 already.

Quote from: Dapperdan on January 17, 2014, 07:32:32 AM
I liked the old idea of keeping the Landing shell and building around it. Despite its drawbacks, the Landing is iconic. I would be sad to see it go.  I know it was just built in the 80's but is this another case of tearing down Jacksonville's past ?

I'm with you....
Since most of us agree the towers will NEVER be built why not open up the center to the river. Keep the sign and update what is already there. There is always the land on either side of the structure if Sleiman really wants to do additions or a tower or whatever. IMO this is the idea that would actually get done.

Just don't tear down the Landing without contractual guarantees and penalties to build the plan.

I can assure you that Toney Sleiman has the new proposal worked out.  He's not the person you think he is; when he purchased The Landing and proposed a redevelopment, the City Council shot it down.  This proposal has teeth and will be successful, despite the TU article to the contrary. When The Landing opened 26 years ago there wasn't a single soul living downtown.  Now, they're plenty of people living downtown and more coming--including the development itself. Let us ALL embrace this beautiful plan to make Our City's waterfront world-class!

Quote from: hksanmarco on January 18, 2014, 06:00:41 AM
I can assure you that Toney Sleiman has the new proposal worked out.  He's not the person you think he is; when he purchased The Landing and proposed a redevelopment, the City Council shot it down.  This proposal has teeth and will be successful, despite the TU article to the contrary. When The Landing opened 26 years ago there wasn't a single soul living downtown.  Now, they're plenty of people living downtown and more coming--including the development itself. Let us ALL embrace this beautiful plan to make Our City's waterfront world-class!

I think my eyes just rolled so far back in my head that I can see the aneurism developing in my frontal lobe.

Quote from: JeffreyS on January 18, 2014, 12:35:33 AM
Just don't tear down the Landing without contractual guarantees and penalties to build the plan.

+1000

Quote from: RiversideLoki on January 18, 2014, 06:47:27 AM

Quote from: hksanmarco on January 18, 2014, 06:00:41 AM
I can assure you that Toney Sleiman has the new proposal worked out.  He's not the person you think he is; when he purchased The Landing and proposed a redevelopment, the City Council shot it down.  This proposal has teeth and will be successful, despite the TU article to the contrary. When The Landing opened 26 years ago there wasn't a single soul living downtown.  Now, they're plenty of people living downtown and more coming--including the development itself. Let us ALL embrace this beautiful plan to make Our City's waterfront world-class!

I think my eyes just rolled so far back in my head that I can see the aneurism developing in my frontal lobe.

The few people living in downtown (around 4k) now aren't enough to keep a Denny's open 24/7, much less the restaurants and retail in the Landing.  It was intended to pull a much larger crowd to downtown. That worked for a short time until the luster fell off in the mid 1990s. So, in reality, we had a lot more people working and even shopping in downtown when the Landing opened 26 years ago.  Places like Woolworth and McCrory's were still open then.  There was also life in LaVilla and Brooklyn. Even the Shipyards was still open and employing hundreds of people.

Now let's, get realistic. Even the conceptual plan as designed isn't going to make our city's waterfront "World Class." However, the waterfront space does have a ton of merit and should be done regardless of how plans evolve when the true market reveals itself.

Speaking of the building itself, there's no historical value in it but it is iconic. So is the sign above it. It would be interesting to take a look at the old 2004/2005 plan, which kept/retrofited the main structure, while mixing it with the current idea of demolishing the waterfront buildings.  Assuming the Independent Drive ramps (Not including Ocean Street) could be removed, you'd also end up with a decent sized plot of land for necessary parking/future building. The benefit here is that you'd probably achieve similar results at a much cheaper price to Sleiman and the taxpayer. Such a project could also be phased pretty well because you'd simply retrofit the existing mall structure into whatever the market can support before tearing down the narrow buildings housing most of the restaurants for the plaza. New towers or mid-rise buildings could then be added when the market determines their true feasibility.

Yeah, just modify the existing structure! If I understand correctly, the land is owned by the city! There is no point to tear down The Landing to have something worse than the courthouse fiasco! People will start to tear down City Hall if more time and money is wasted! Terrible! The stores are there! The parking that is already Downtown needs to be utilized! I think that people in Jacksonville are used to parking at the destination that they are trying to go to in town! Everything can be like that in a urban core! Jacksonville can be ahead of the game if they connect that is Downtown already! Buses, Skyway, Trolleys, and personal automobiles can be used effectively if the city can emphasize a good mix of modes!

The Landing can benefit off of some good planning! Downtown Jacksonville can benefit from some good planning of what is already there! Maybe, I just see the potential!

Here's some Census data for zip code 32202 which seems to be the downtown core area. Interestingly it gives the population in 2010 as 7915 but says it's only 5061 now which I absolutely don't agree with. I seriously doubt it's gone down like that in the last three or four years. Anyway, here it is:

http://www.city-data.com/zips/32202.html (http://www.city-data.com/zips/32202.html)

Quote from: avonjax on January 17, 2014, 11:58:59 PM

Quote from: acme54321 on January 17, 2014, 11:00:20 AM
I agree, sell the land.

and do what with the land?
The only thing in my opinion that will benefit downtown is a Landing type use. Otherwise it will never be used by the public. We have plenty of die at 5 already.

I'm saying since the city owns the land under Sleiman's buildings that the city's contribution to this project should be selling the land to Sleiman at a price determined by independent appraisal minus the amount that the city wants to contribute.  There shouldn't need to be any tax breaks invoved with this.

Quote from: IrvAdams on January 19, 2014, 09:06:03 AM
Here's some Census data for zip code 32202 which seems to be the downtown core area. Interestingly it gives the population in 2010 as 7915 but says it's only 5061 now which I absolutely don't agree with. I seriously doubt it's gone down like that in the last three or four years. Anyway, here it is:

http://www.city-data.com/zips/32202.html (http://www.city-data.com/zips/32202.html)

32202 also includes Fairfax and parts of the Eastside.  Also, what's officially considered downtown is a part of four zip codes: 32202, 32204, 32255 and 32207.

Thanks. Do you think downtown is shrinking in population in recent years? I would think it's on the upswing.

Quote from: thelakelander on January 19, 2014, 09:43:54 AM
32202 also includes Fairfax and parts of the Eastside.

I take it that you meant to say Fairfield.

Quote from: IrvAdams on January 19, 2014, 09:54:25 AM
Thanks. Do you think downtown is shrinking in population in recent years? I would think it's on the upswing.

In general most people would consider it on the upswing. But it depends, like Lake mentioned, what boundaries you include for downtown. And if you're talking since 2010, there's very little room for growth as there hasn't really been any significant increase in housing, if any.

Yes, I meant to say Fairfield. Also, residential living in downtown is on the upswing. It's been on the upswing for about 10 years now.  Unfortunately, we tore so much stuff down between the 1960s-1990s, it will still take years to build the type of density typically associated with a major city's Central Business District.

Per Jax Daily Record:

Sleiman: 'A lot of moving parts' to make Landing plan succeed

By Karen Brune Mathis, Managing Editor

Jacksonville Landing developer Toney Sleiman was blunt Thursday.
"Downtown today sucks," he said.

"I'm sorry if that is offending somebody, but go look at other downtowns that are doing great."

Anyone who knows Toney Sleiman can hear him saying it. He's gruff, insistent and frustrated.

Sleiman wants to redevelop the Landing, the Northbank riverfront marketplace he bought in 2003 for $5 million. It opened in 1987 and enjoyed early popularity with stores like Brookstone, Banana Republic, Laura Ashley, the Gap, The Limited, Ben & Jerry's, Sharper Image and other nationally successful tenants.

Then it began losing some of that luster.

It struggled with a lack of parking, a loss of tenants, a fear of crime and complaints about cleanliness, in addition to a horseshoe design considered a celebration of the river 27 years ago but a shunning of Downtown now.

Its troubles continued as employers relocated Downtown office jobs to suburban office parks. Three economic recessions played a part, too.

Then there was the St. Johns Town Center in Southside. The massive lifestyle center opened in 2005 and developed into a force of shopping, restaurants, residences and hotels.

It became what Downtown wanted to be.

Sleiman has presented redesign and redevelopment plans the past 10 years. But with little support, he shelved them.

"The Landing doesn't work," he said. "I tried. Ten years. "

He now proposes a drastic, and some might say long-awaited, plan of action: Tear it down.

While there will be debates over what happens next, Sleiman wants to rebuild on the site, with restaurants, retail stores, offices, workforce housing and a boutique hotel.

Sleiman has developed lots of property around town, but said his focus now will be "dead on" the Landing.

"This is the core," Sleiman said Thursday.

On Wednesday, he presented a design to the Downtown Investment Authority that incorporated community input.

Sleiman said Thursday he doesn't have a timeframe for redevelopment – or a price tag, other than to emphasize it will take support from government and public sources.

"We have to make it work, and it has to be private-public," Sleiman said.

That means financial incentives from the city.

He said the city was doing a market study on workforce housing, which he expects in 60 days, and he can use the results to approach developers.

The boutique hotel is another component. He said Mayor Alvin Brown and Ted Carter, executive director of the city Office of Economic Development, will accompany him to call on hotel chains.

With the mayor involved, "at least we get inside to talk to them."

Sleiman said the costs to redevelop the Landing will depend on factors such as the number of workforce housing units to be developed, the number of hotel rooms that can be supported, and costs to relocate the Landing's tenants.

He guesses there could be 200-300 housing units and a hotel of 100-150 rooms, but says he really has no idea.

Sleiman considers the stars to be "lined up" in favor of the Landing's redevelopment, citing Brown's support and other favorable responses.

"There is no way in the 21st century that we can have a vibrant Downtown that's thriving ... if we don't focus on the Landing," Brown told the authority Wednesday.

"The Landing is a top priority for my administration," he said.

But it won't be easy. Acknowledging there are "a lot of moving parts," Sleiman knows the deal requires financial and government support and approvals, and a belief there will be a market of residents, tenants and consumers to support the redevelopment.

Sleiman said he intends to visit all City Council members starting next week.

"If I get 19 council people that say yes, a mayor that says yes, a DIA board that says yes and Downtown Vision ... I am going to get everybody on board," he said.

He intends to meet with Jacksonville Civic Council founding Chairman Peter Rummell and other corporate leaders. Sleiman said civic leader Preston Haskell's team was designing the project.

"I can't do it by myself. I have to have help," Sleiman said. "I have to have financial help. I have to have 'help' help. I need the (news)papers supporting me."

Sleiman contends that a world-class Landing will attract business and people.

"Guess what happens Downtown? We fill up those buildings," he said, referring to office towers and structures that struggle with a Northbank office vacancy rate of 21.3 percent.

Compare that to Southbank's 11.1 percent office vacancy rate, or the overall area rate of 18.6 percent, according to the Cushman & Wakefield real estate firm for the fourth quarter.

Sleiman said proposed developments at the Shipyards, in La Villa and even the Laura Street Trio and old Barnett Bank buildings won't make a difference in the core like the Landing can.

"I think the young people want something to happen. I hear it all the time, how tired they are" with no progress for Downtown development to bring jobs, stores and entertainment.

"I am going to be on it every day. We are going to go forward," he said.

But he said he won't wait long.

"I am going to have preliminary numbers in the next 60 days and the city will say yes or no," he said, adding he wouldn't do a "one-year drag-out."

And if the city says no?

He paused.

"I haven't thought about it."

QuoteJacksonville Landing developer Toney Sleiman was blunt Thursday.
"Downtown today sucks," he said.

he would know, he's owned the structure for 10 years. All this, "I don't know what the costs are going to be" sounds like he wants the City to bail him out of a bad business decision.

Get ready for another Shipyards debacle. I see no positive upside, its all Sleiman talking and the mayor doing as Sleiman wants. How many other "top" priorities does the Mayor have?

Tony is right, DT does suck. The sad thing is that the potential there is just unbelievable.

Maybe Sleiman should do a city wide survey of what the public wants the Landing to be like. If city leaders can see the public expressing a demand then maybe Sleiman will get the support he needs. Personally I would like to see something like Pointe Orlando for the Landing. It would also be nice to have rooftop dining at the Landing like Black Sheep restaurant in Five Points.

Updates? Is the money now in a giant video screen? WHERE'S THE RESET BUTTON!!

I believe they're doing another study to determine the condo / apartment feasibility. Soooooo basically Sleiman is just throwing money away to tease us but he's not actually going to do anything.

^ Sleiman won't do anything without financial support from the City.  So the City is doing its due diligence and determining what the market really will support

Quote from: tufsu1 on July 13, 2014, 07:01:31 PM
^ Sleiman won't do anything without financial support from the City.  So the City is doing its due diligence and determining what the market really will support

Another way of saying that is: Nothing is happening now, and nothing will be happening for the forseeable future.  Until Khan money (that's real money that doesn't necessarily need the city to subsidize it) comes in somewhere downtown, users like Sleiman won't budge.

apparently there is something about the Landing redevelopment in the Mayor's budget that was just announced

Here's the latest 'new vision' of the Landing redevelopment. Sorry about the paywall that just popped up all of a sudden.

http://members.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2014-08-23/story/exclusive-jacksonville-landing-owners-propose-demolition-new-vision

^ someone posted this earlier on another thread, but I will say I like the concept. However, Sleiman should foot the bill because he will definitely make it back in rents. Of course, more and more it seems like Sleiman is just fishing for public money and waiting for the magic plan that'll do just that.

Interesting.  Isn't there a height restriction on buildings between the Wells Fargo building and the river?  Do these buildings fit under this?  Is it still in effect?

Looks good to me; but why build everything in phases? Afraid of a "bust" of some kind? Afraid of failure? Build the mix use high rises when the market is ready...how much you wanna bet, based on Jacksonville's past history and track record regarding projects like this, that those mix use high rises never get built? Jacksonville is so indecisive. I'm being too pessimistic you say? I feel the market is ready in Jax. The economy, population, finances, all are on the move and in a success type mode in Jax. Don't be so afraid. If City leaders do their job, in addition to the developers and others doing their part relative to marketing and promotion, go ahead and build it all at once and I'll bet THEY will come! I'm sold on this plan, but it appears that City Leaders, and others, don't have faith in themselves or our city...they are so nervous, afraid and scared...of what exactly I do not know...oh, I remember, I said failure didn't I? I love Jacksonville but sometimes the City Government just makes me ill.

Quote from: thelakelander on January 16, 2014, 09:21:01 AM

Quote from: acme54321 on January 16, 2014, 09:10:36 AM

Quote from: tufsu1 on January 15, 2014, 11:11:00 PM
Removing the on and off ramps to/from Independent Drive is a good thing....but imo getting rid of the connection to Ocean Street should be a non-starter

If you're going to get rid of the ramps why not just go ahead and get rid of the Ocean St connection?  Making Main St two way again wouldnt be a bad thing.

While making Main a two-way street again, FDOT is most likely not going to agree to reduce the ability to move vehicles on their "six" lane highway.  To do that, COJ would probably have to find a way to take over Main and Ocean, similar to what Miami recently did with Brickell Avenue and Orlando with Edgewater in College Park.

If the world continues in its radical, extremist, kill mode and mentality, we will all be a part of the upper atmosphere by that time and we won't have to worry about the Landing or anything else in Jax. I hope I am wrong. I say build it. Looks good to me. I understand all of the hurdles that most of you feel needs to be overcome to make this work, but part of our city's problem is we're afraid to move forward with superb plans, goals, objectives, and hard work that's required in order to make any project or development work downtown. It's almost like a football game...you can say, all day that the plays are too simple, too easy to read, etc., however, if the team gets together and everyone executes relative to the position they play, the team will be successful and will score everytime; the same is true with our City Government. Just do your job and superbly execute it relative to planning, organizing, controlling, marketing, and promotion, and I'll bet THEY will come!!!

Quote from: urbanlibertarian on January 17, 2014, 10:28:30 AM
This is a golden opportunity for the city to sell the real estate under the Landing and get this riverfront property on the tax rolls.

And if that happens, that will be sad, and will be indicative of our City leaders, once again, being slothfull, sloppy, and dropping the ball. They should all be fired if that happens.

Quote from: RiversideLoki on January 18, 2014, 06:47:27 AM

Quote from: hksanmarco on January 18, 2014, 06:00:41 AM
I can assure you that Toney Sleiman has the new proposal worked out.  He's not the person you think he is; when he purchased The Landing and proposed a redevelopment, the City Council shot it down.  This proposal has teeth and will be successful, despite the TU article to the contrary. When The Landing opened 26 years ago there wasn't a single soul living downtown.  Now, they're plenty of people living downtown and more coming--including the development itself. Let us ALL embrace this beautiful plan to make Our City's waterfront world-class!

I think my eyes just rolled so far back in my head that I can see the aneurism developing in my frontal lobe.

And we don't want to scare away the "plenty of people" that are already downtown because there's no big shopping venue like the Landing. I know that there's a little night life now on Bay Street and other pockets downtown, but it still shuts down at 5:00 just like it did in the early 80's before the Landing was built. They need to really get down a firm, astute plan that will work financially, economically, fiscally, and for the good of the City and downtown.

While I understand and appreciate the need for a re-do on the space, it will be a little sad to lose the iconic look of the existing structure. The buildings included in the new plan look a little bland.

Quote from: urbanlibertarian on January 19, 2014, 09:35:59 AM

Quote from: avonjax on January 17, 2014, 11:58:59 PM

Quote from: acme54321 on January 17, 2014, 11:00:20 AM
I agree, sell the land.

and do what with the land?
The only thing in my opinion that will benefit downtown is a Landing type use. Otherwise it will never be used by the public. We have plenty of die at 5 already.

I'm saying since the city owns the land under Sleiman's buildings that the city's contribution to this project should be selling the land to Sleiman at a price determined by independent appraisal minus the amount that the city wants to contribute.  There shouldn't need to be any tax breaks invoved with this.

Isn't downtown comprised of more than just one zip code? I would think you would compile the population of all of the zip codes to come up with an aggregate total for downtown Jax.

Quote from: spuwho on January 20, 2014, 12:55:49 AM
Per Jax Daily Record:

Sleiman: 'A lot of moving parts' to make Landing plan succeed

By Karen Brune Mathis, Managing Editor

Jacksonville Landing developer Toney Sleiman was blunt Thursday.
"Downtown today sucks," he said.

"I'm sorry if that is offending somebody, but go look at other downtowns that are doing great."

Anyone who knows Toney Sleiman can hear him saying it. He's gruff, insistent and frustrated.

Sleiman wants to redevelop the Landing, the Northbank riverfront marketplace he bought in 2003 for $5 million. It opened in 1987 and enjoyed early popularity with stores like Brookstone, Banana Republic, Laura Ashley, the Gap, The Limited, Ben & Jerry's, Sharper Image and other nationally successful tenants.

Then it began losing some of that luster.

It struggled with a lack of parking, a loss of tenants, a fear of crime and complaints about cleanliness, in addition to a horseshoe design considered a celebration of the river 27 years ago but a shunning of Downtown now.

Its troubles continued as employers relocated Downtown office jobs to suburban office parks. Three economic recessions played a part, too.

Then there was the St. Johns Town Center in Southside. The massive lifestyle center opened in 2005 and developed into a force of shopping, restaurants, residences and hotels.

It became what Downtown wanted to be.

Sleiman has presented redesign and redevelopment plans the past 10 years. But with little support, he shelved them.

"The Landing doesn't work," he said. "I tried. Ten years. "

He now proposes a drastic, and some might say long-awaited, plan of action: Tear it down.

While there will be debates over what happens next, Sleiman wants to rebuild on the site, with restaurants, retail stores, offices, workforce housing and a boutique hotel.

Sleiman has developed lots of property around town, but said his focus now will be "dead on" the Landing.

"This is the core," Sleiman said Thursday.

On Wednesday, he presented a design to the Downtown Investment Authority that incorporated community input.

Sleiman said Thursday he doesn't have a timeframe for redevelopment – or a price tag, other than to emphasize it will take support from government and public sources.

"We have to make it work, and it has to be private-public," Sleiman said.

That means financial incentives from the city.

He said the city was doing a market study on workforce housing, which he expects in 60 days, and he can use the results to approach developers.

The boutique hotel is another component. He said Mayor Alvin Brown and Ted Carter, executive director of the city Office of Economic Development, will accompany him to call on hotel chains.

With the mayor involved, "at least we get inside to talk to them."

Sleiman said the costs to redevelop the Landing will depend on factors such as the number of workforce housing units to be developed, the number of hotel rooms that can be supported, and costs to relocate the Landing's tenants.

He guesses there could be 200-300 housing units and a hotel of 100-150 rooms, but says he really has no idea.

Sleiman considers the stars to be "lined up" in favor of the Landing's redevelopment, citing Brown's support and other favorable responses.

"There is no way in the 21st century that we can have a vibrant Downtown that's thriving ... if we don't focus on the Landing," Brown told the authority Wednesday.

"The Landing is a top priority for my administration," he said.

But it won't be easy. Acknowledging there are "a lot of moving parts," Sleiman knows the deal requires financial and government support and approvals, and a belief there will be a market of residents, tenants and consumers to support the redevelopment.

Sleiman said he intends to visit all City Council members starting next week.

"If I get 19 council people that say yes, a mayor that says yes, a DIA board that says yes and Downtown Vision ... I am going to get everybody on board," he said.

He intends to meet with Jacksonville Civic Council founding Chairman Peter Rummell and other corporate leaders. Sleiman said civic leader Preston Haskell's team was designing the project.

"I can't do it by myself. I have to have help," Sleiman said. "I have to have financial help. I have to have 'help' help. I need the (news)papers supporting me."

Sleiman contends that a world-class Landing will attract business and people.

"Guess what happens Downtown? We fill up those buildings," he said, referring to office towers and structures that struggle with a Northbank office vacancy rate of 21.3 percent.

Compare that to Southbank's 11.1 percent office vacancy rate, or the overall area rate of 18.6 percent, according to the Cushman & Wakefield real estate firm for the fourth quarter.

Sleiman said proposed developments at the Shipyards, in La Villa and even the Laura Street Trio and old Barnett Bank buildings won't make a difference in the core like the Landing can.

"I think the young people want something to happen. I hear it all the time, how tired they are" with no progress for Downtown development to bring jobs, stores and entertainment.

"I am going to be on it every day. We are going to go forward," he said.

But he said he won't wait long.

"I am going to have preliminary numbers in the next 60 days and the city will say yes or no," he said, adding he wouldn't do a "one-year drag-out."

And if the city says no?

He paused.

"I haven't thought about it."

I love his unfailing optimism, positive attitude, vision, etc. This is the way everyone should think in City Government and the public and private sector who may play a part in building the new Landing. I know, trash the "build it they will come" mentality, but if you tear it down, and don't build it, what effect will that have on the City's image and downtown public attractability? BUILD IT!!!

A Channel 4 article on the new renderings.

http://www.news4jax.com/news/new-renderings-on-a-new-landing-released/27698720

Quote from: I-10east on August 23, 2014, 04:00:07 PM
Here's the latest 'new vision' of the Landing redevelopment. Sorry about the paywall that just popped up all of a sudden.

http://members.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2014-08-23/story/exclusive-jacksonville-landing-owners-propose-demolition-new-vision

I really love the new plans. They need to build it NOW.

Looks good.

A little Las Olas-ish, right?

(http://www.news4jax.com/image/view/-/27698902/medRes/2/-/maxh/360/maxw/640/-/86ey3yz/-/08-23-14-Landing-3-jpg--1-.jpg)

(http://www.passportflorida.com/home/files.php?file=shopping1_361871558.jpg)

^^I knew it looked familiar but I couldn't remember where I had seen that view before. Is there a timeline set for this project because the Main Street ramp will need to be removed before construction can start.

(http://jacksonville.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/fslider-homepage2014/Promo_Landing1.jpg)

from what I hear, Khan is backing this project as well....he may believe (like others) that The Landing is the lynchpin for everything else downtown.

Quote from: heights unknown on August 23, 2014, 04:35:26 PM
Looks good to me; but why build everything in phases? Afraid of a "bust" of some kind? Afraid of failure? Build the mix use high rises when the market is ready...how much you wanna bet, based on Jacksonville's past history and track record regarding projects like this, that those mix use high rises never get built? Jacksonville is so indecisive. I'm being too pessimistic you say? I feel the market is ready in Jax. The economy, population, finances, all are on the move and in a success type mode in Jax. Don't be so afraid. If City leaders do their job, in addition to the developers and others doing their part relative to marketing and promotion, go ahead and build it all at once and I'll bet THEY will come! I'm sold on this plan, but it appears that City Leaders, and others, don't have faith in themselves or our city...they are so nervous, afraid and scared...of what exactly I do not know...oh, I remember, I said failure didn't I? I love Jacksonville but sometimes the City Government just makes me ill.

I agree with this, but I'm in finance not real estate development, and I'm actually waiting for Simms to read this because he has an uncanny ability for predicting real estate futures in Jacksonville (no sarcasm here, plenty of his posts have come true almost exactly as predicted), but here is what I have heard numerous times from people "in the know":

Pretty much everything planned for downtown has a market waiting to fill it. The problem is that the first project(s) will beat the path for everyone else and unless done very carefully by a seasoned team, will fail. So even though it will be the real spark that ignites the downtown boom so many want, very few are willing to risk their money just to "take one for the team". I tend to believe this because the same principle applies to business in general, "the original idea company will make 1,000s; the second company that tweeks a few things and repackages similar product will make billions".

Just my $.02

Quote from: tufsu1 on August 23, 2014, 06:38:30 PM
from what I hear, Khan is backing this project as well....he may believe (like others) that The Landing is the lynchpin for everything else downtown.

This is interesting ... Would also signal that Khan isn't fully committed to the Shipyards just yet.  But the publicity hound that Sleiman is, surprised that wasn't first sentence in article. This really feels more like his regular "throw it at the wall an see what sticks". I mean this is 3rd plan in 12 months, so I'll remain skeptical and happily chow down on humble pie in the newly opened Khan/Sleiman Landing.

^ and being that Facebook and twitter are blowing up with commens along the lines of "if the city gives $1 to Sleiman that'll make my voting decision easier" I have to think any plans will be tabled until late 2015/early 2016.

The Shipyards and the Landing should complement each other. If Khan is taking an interest in the Landing, that's probably a good thing for both properties.  I'm also interested to see a proposed site plan.  Is the $11.8 million supposed to fund the public riverfront space, streets, and the removal of the Main Street Bridge ramp, while Sleiman pays for the development of the new structures?  Also, the name should change.  The Landing is being completely demolished and will exist no more.

Quote from: Todd_Parker on August 23, 2014, 05:09:53 PM
While I understand and appreciate the need for a re-do on the space, it will be a little sad to lose the iconic look of the existing structure. The buildings included in the new plan look a little bland.

If not iconic as a shopping mall, the Landing courtyard as it exists is certainly iconic as an event space. I have a hard time visualizing from the few renderings how events like Florida-Georgia weekend, the Christmas Tree Lighting, New Year's Eve, etc. will fit in at the new Landing. Across the street in the grass?

Ennis, per the T-U, the $11.8 million from the city will build the roads and landscape the city-owned property around the buildings. "No figures were given from any incentives for the buildings themselves."

What happens to the iconic sign?  Hooters?  Is it still a "Landing" (i.e. boat slips)?

Quote from: KenFSU on August 23, 2014, 07:26:50 PM

Quote from: Todd_Parker on August 23, 2014, 05:09:53 PM
While I understand and appreciate the need for a re-do on the space, it will be a little sad to lose the iconic look of the existing structure. The buildings included in the new plan look a little bland.

If not iconic as a shopping mall, the Landing courtyard as it exists is certainly iconic as an event space. I have a hard time visualizing from the few renderings how events like Florida-Georgia weekend, the Christmas Tree Lighting, New Year's Eve, etc. will fit in at the new Landing. Across the street in the grass?

Ennis, per the T-U, the $11.8 million from the city will build the roads and landscape the city-owned property around the buildings. "No figures were given from any incentives for the buildings themselves."

So basically, the $11.8 million is just the beginning to how much money will be requested. That would be find if we had capable negotiators in City Hall, instead of, well, Alvin Brown.

Quote from: blizz01 on August 23, 2014, 07:38:36 PM
What happens to the iconic sign?  Hooters?  Is it still a "Landing" (i.e. boat slips)?

They'll all be demolished.  From the renderings, it looks like the Landing marketplace concept will be replaced by a much smaller 2-block version of Washington, DC's National Harbor.

(http://cadillacranchgroup.com/sites/cadillacranchgroup.com/files/styles/medium/public/0103.jpg?itok=XsiQj9ho)

(https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3211/2619045567_2d96515b9c.jpg)

(http://holidays.syl.com/img/173/4.jpg)

As I stated earlier, I can't wait to see a plan view of this redevelopment.  I'm just as interested to see what happens along Independent Drive.

Quote from: thelakelander on August 23, 2014, 07:57:16 PM

Quote from: blizz01 on August 23, 2014, 07:38:36 PM
What happens to the iconic sign?  Hooters?  Is it still a "Landing" (i.e. boat slips)?

They'll all be demolished.  From the renderings, it looks like the Landing marketplace concept will be replaced by a much smaller 2-block version of Washington, DC's National Harbor.

(https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3211/2619045567_2d96515b9c.jpg)

As I stated earlier, I can't wait to see a plan view of this redevelopment.  I'm just as interested to see what happens along Independent Drive.

Is that Toney's hand out for taxpayer money?

LOL!

Quote from: Tacachale on August 23, 2014, 07:40:16 PM
So basically, the $11.8 million is just the beginning to how much money will be requested. That would be find if we had capable negotiators in City Hall, instead of, well, Alvin Brown.

sorry, but no...the $11.8 million is the amount the City would pay...$1 million up front and the rest at the back end if the project comes to fruition.

To me, there are two big problems with the concept

1. It is pretty uninspiring...looks like any other mixed-use development in any other city (although that is progress for Jax)

2. the road extension along the riverfront....I'm sure the streets could be closed for events, but the idea of separating the buildings from the riverwalk seems to be a lost opportunity.

Quote from: tufsu1 on August 23, 2014, 10:40:10 PM

Quote from: Tacachale on August 23, 2014, 07:40:16 PM
So basically, the $11.8 million is just the beginning to how much money will be requested. That would be find if we had capable negotiators in City Hall, instead of, well, Alvin Brown.

sorry, but no...the $11.8 million is the amount the City would pay...$1 million up front and the rest at the back end if the project comes to fruition.

To me, there are two big problems with the concept

1. It is pretty uninspiring...looks like any other mixed-use development in any other city (although that is progress for Jax)

So you can't get to next level or world class status by building a slightly larger Tapestry Park in the heart of downtown?

Quote2. the road extension along the riverfront....I'm sure the streets could be closed for events, but the idea of separating the buildings from the riverwalk seems to be a lost opportunity.

From the rendering it looks that way.

Quote from: tufsu1 on August 23, 2014, 10:40:10 PM

Quote from: Tacachale on August 23, 2014, 07:40:16 PM
So basically, the $11.8 million is just the beginning to how much money will be requested. That would be find if we had capable negotiators in City Hall, instead of, well, Alvin Brown.

sorry, but no...the $11.8 million is the amount the City would pay...$1 million up front and the rest at the back end if the project comes to fruition.

Nope, it's $11.8 million for the roads and city improvements, then on top of that, however much they'll eventually ask for "any incentives for the buildings themselves." (http://members.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2014-08-23/story/exclusive-jacksonville-landing-owners-propose-demolition-new-vision)

my understanding is DIA has no plans to provide additional incentives

We'll see. However, between Alvin Brown and Toney Sleiman, exactly one person has a reputation for being a competent negotiator.

The more that I think about this proposed redevelopment, the less crazy I am about it. Even in its current state, the Landing is still one of Jacksonville's most iconic downtown destinations, for tourists and locals alike. The Landing courtyard has become synonymous with Jacksonville's biggest traditions and events, from Florida-Georgia, to the 4th of July and New Year's Eve, to the Christmas tree lighting and boat parade, to the water taxis, to the hundreds of concerts and events that are programmed there throughout the year.

What happens when you slash retail and restaurants by 70%, demo the courtyard, cut the remaining restaurants/retail in half with vehicular traffic going down the middle, cut the public greenspace off from the restaurants by another road, etc? Yes, you add several hundred new bodies to the downtown population, but what's left of the public Landing (on city-owned land) when you're done? As far as the southwest corner goes, I would hope that the city would focus on filling the existing office towers and following through on the boutique hotel at the Trio before even thinking about contributing to either at the Landing.

As Ennis mentioned, I really hope that the potential Landing and Shipyards redevelopments are being planned to complement each other. If the Shipyards will include public event space and a good deal of restaurants and retail, I would feel a lot more comfortable with the proposed plans for the Landing.

P.S. I know it's not super important to a lot of people, but it's also worth pointing out that our skyline will lose two of its most prominent features. Obviously, the copper Landing roof and its signature, lit signage will be a casualty of the redevelopment, but the proposed east building looks like it would also completely hide the flared, bottom portion of the Independent Life building.

(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7290/9130838244_3b236292bc_z.jpg)

(http://jacksonville.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/fslider-homepage2014/Promo_Landing1.jpg)

The present landing has many restaurants right on the river.  It appears to be much less than that in the new plan, as well as a much smaller event space.   I cannot see how this will bring people to that area, besides some living in condos.  Seem like a great waste of valuable riverfront.  After having visited very progressive cities like Vancouver BC  and seeing where the waterfront is a very active space used by many people, this seems like a very bad concept.

On the positive side, extending Laura Street all the way to the river, with its associated enticing river view, is a huge improvement. If they enlarged the green-space common area and got rid of that road between the buildings and the water it could still be viable as a place where hundreds (or thousands) could gather, with plenty of room for a stage.

As pointed out, the Landing is the largest single meeting space in the city for major events. Concerts are held there all the time and it's seen as a place where the public can come for free and hang out. It needs to be large, and open, and without a street through it.

Some of us will have the opportunity to work with the former planning director of Vancouver, BC here in Jax in the coming weeks.  I'm sure the new landing plans will be a topic of discussion. 

Quote from: KenFSU on August 23, 2014, 05:32:51 PM
A little Las Olas-ish, right?

It should be noted that the Las Olas Riverfront "festival marketplace" is a bigger dump than the Landing.

I've spent a day pondering this proposal and I've decided I hate it. I think most view the Landing as a public gathering space. If the city wants to continue to own the land, then it should remain a public gathering space. This proposal eliminates that "courtyard" feel. If this is what Sleiman wants to build, then the city should sell him the land, put the property back on the tax roll and move on. Perhaps Khan can incorporate a new gathering space into the Shipyards development.

tufsu1, as I said, Vancouver BC is a very impressive city. It is there goal to be the "greenist" city in the world.  Buildings have greenspace on the tops of them and they have a wonderful bike/walking path completely around the waterfront which, when possible, separates the two with clearly marked signage.  Many restaurants have water views. The convention center, right along the water, has the paths running under it with shops and restaurants on the lower levels.  Perhaps some of these concepts can be utilized in Jacksonville.

A gathering space should be centrally located. The shipyards isn't and never will be. We have a chance to do something really special with the existing Landing courtyard. Unfortunately, it's an afterthought in the renderings shown. The architecture ofthe proposed plan is bland and uninspiring. Nevertheless, I'd like to see more detail in what happens along the riverfront. Are the buildings set back far enough? Is there outdoor dining, interactive water features, video screens, a stage, etc. Kind of hard to tell at this point.

Re-establishing Coast Line Drive - no, don't even consider this, not for one minute
Reducing the open space - no; and having the same square footage spread out linearly (especially with a road along it), is not the same thing.
Architecture - boring
I am interested to see the financing for this - how much more public money is Slieman going to demand?

Quote from: brainstormer on August 24, 2014, 12:34:46 PM
I've spent a day pondering this proposal and I've decided I hate it. I think most view the Landing as a public gathering space. If the city wants to continue to own the land, then it should remain a public gathering space. This proposal eliminates that "courtyard" feel. If this is what Sleiman wants to build, then the city should sell him the land, put the property back on the tax roll and move on. Perhaps Khan can incorporate a new gathering space into the Shipyards development.

I very much agree.  I think I do like the idea of having more residents living downtown and the access to the river.  The rest really is pretty much a letdown.  Architecturally- this plan is beyond conservative.  This looks like the most boring infill in the periphery of downtown Atlanta.  I am sorry, I am not really into this.  Sat on it, and do not support any of it.  I am no fan of giving this man any money. 

What if the area that is to be used as the extension of Laura St. were made into a courtyard instead of a road? You incorporate some sort of stage at the end by the river. Perhaps change the facade to make it a little more interesting, and I think you could have something decent. It definitely engages Independent Dr. much better than what's there now.

(http://cdn.urbancincy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/U-Square-at-The-Loop.jpg)

What about something like this? You could double the footprint to make a half circle facing the river. Turn the road down the center into part of the courtyard and eliminate the road along the river.  It is fun, modern, mixed use, and maintains the part of the Jacksonville Landing that we actually love.  The backside of the development can go up to Independent Drive with office or retail space. Put the hotel on one end, etc. People would support something like this.  They aren't going to want taxpayer money used to support what he just proposed.

^ that's a great example.  I am hopeful that Sleiman, DIA, DDRB, and others will work to make this plan better

^That kind of reminds me of Washington Harbor in Georgetown:

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Washington-DC-2013/i-B27BWvV/0/XL/P1650844-XL.jpg)

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Washington-DC-2013/i-WFGrX6v/0/XL/P1650842-XL.jpg)

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Washington-DC-2013/i-CWQtjjt/0/XL/P1650889-XL.jpg)

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Washington-DC-2013/i-5Qvs57n/0/XL/P1650841-XL.jpg)

Lake, I can support something like above.  I do have to admit, the proposal is better than what the landing provides, but not worth handouts. 

Looking at the rendering, I've arrived at the opinion that I like it, and am unable to suggest improvement.  This disappoints me, as I like to dislike things.

The straight through street, with shops on both sides ... the restaurants and shops with awnings along the river suggests an openness ... a quaintness ... a relaxed and inviting environment, all with views of the river.   

Is that a statue at the end of the street?  What a waste of space.  What mortal is so important so as to occupy such a prime spot?  The area could be used as a stage for music concerts or shows of various kinds.  The end of the street, and part way back to the roundabout, could be used for seating during concerts.  Larger concerts could be held at the future shipyards development, or at the old metro park.

The layout is not Disney-like ... its real and basic ... and therefore will stand the test of time.  The design is not trying to produce something that it is not ... if that makes any sense.  The idea of having residents close by is an added plus, as there will always be people around ... walking dogs, having lunch or dinner. 

In anticipation of having a full-blown mass transit system in the future, which might reduce the need for parking spaces, any large areas currently allowed for parking should be structured so as to ease remodeling for offices, more condos, or retail.

After taking some time to absorb the new design I have to say I don't like most of it. As run down as the Landing may seem it is iconic to our skyline. I much preferred one of the earlier designs that opened Laura Street to the river and kept the horseshoe design.
I'm not crazy about the architecture, don't hate it, but I am not in love with it either.
Hate the idea of a street down the middle. Love the idea of opening Laura to the river just not a street for cars.
For me this will NOT draw people downtown. I think 220 Riverside has a better shot. With a celebrity chef opening a restaurant and a great looking plaza it doesn't have the same potential to draw large numbers but it just may hurt the Landing.
I may be in the minority but the Riverfront piece isn't exciting enough to warrant losing river front dining.
And another thing about the architecture, for me it's way too ordinary and blends in way too much to create a "destination" feel.
The new concept may be fine for downtown residents and workers but I don't think beyond some Riverside, Springfield and San Marco residents it will lure people away from the burbs.
Without a high profile retailer, another unique restaurant or great and exciting, possibly iconic design, I think the new Landing will mostly succeed as nice apartment complex on the river.

I can't believe they'd want to get rid of that public/retail space. They could say goodbye to all that revenue coming in during New Years, Florida-Georgia, and other events. Hopefully as tufsu1 says, they'll change their minds - especially if they're getting taxpayer money.

Yeah, I agree with some here. This looks like total crap & like something you'd find in an office type suburb somewhere. There's hardly any public space, cars running down each & every part of it, a little fountain that's only good for looking at, etc. Its basically just a couple buildings with some street side shops in them. Wow. That's the best they got? Oh yeah, the "green space". I'm sure that'll be nothing.

Hell, I like the current design better than this. At least there's space. And sounds like all the cities they visited are southern "suburbs first" cities. They didn't think to, I dunno, maybe visit some truely urban enviornments in the northeast or out west??

Huge disappointment here. To me, it is terrible.What happened to the old plans of just cutting a center in the existing landing and building to the sides of it? That was a way better plan that incorporated some old with some new. As much as people talk about the Landing, I think all of us agree that it is very successful as a meeting place for downtown events. I don't see this at all with the new design. Do all the current stores get kicked to the curb for undoubtedly much higher rents in the new place? Capitalism at its best again.

A few more random thoughts:

1) Sleiman's project manager for the Landing redevelopment, Tom Senkbeil, was quoted by the T-U as saying, "Maybe a company would want to come to town and build its office building there [the southwest corner of the Landing property]. Can you imagine a better location?" Can Sleiman do that? Isn't this publicly owned land, theoretically intended for public use?

2) Mayor Brown believes the proposed redevelopment is tremendous, saying "The Landing is going to be the catalyst for all the economic development downtown, and I'm excited about it. I want the downtown to be a destination and not just a pass through." How does eliminating nearly 70% of retail and restaurant space, demolishing the iconic courtyard that hosts the city's biggest events, and replacing it with apartments, parking garages, and roads make the Landing more of a destination? How does it catalyze economic development? The street-level restaurants remind me of a larger version of the Metropolitan Parking Garage/Chicago Pizza out at the beach (pic below), and almost seem more like a public concession than an integral part of the design. Same goes for the fountain and public greenspace. It's pretty terrifying if the mayor and City Council truly believes the proposed plan to be "world class."

(http://i.imgur.com/hcvaia6.jpg)

3) What happens to the existing leases at the Landing? Rent is sure to increase after construction. Do we have assurances that restaurants/retail will fill the new space?

4) For the purpose of comparison, do we know what specific developments in Miami, Atlanta, Charlotte, N.C., and Louisville inspired the proposed redevelopment plan?

You can bet Sleiman will make millions out of the deal..

Quote from: KenFSU on August 25, 2014, 10:18:45 AM
A few more random thoughts:

1) Sleiman's project manager for the Landing redevelopment, Tom Senkbeil, was quoted by the T-U as saying, "Maybe a company would want to come to town and build its office building there [the southwest corner of the Landing property]. Can you imagine a better location?" Can Sleiman do that? Isn't this publicly owned land, theoretically intended for public use?

2) Mayor Brown believes the proposed redevelopment is tremendous, saying "The Landing is going to be the catalyst for all the economic development downtown, and I'm excited about it. I want the downtown to be a destination and not just a pass through." How does eliminating nearly 70% of retail and restaurant space, demolishing the iconic courtyard that hosts the city's biggest events, and replacing it with apartments, parking garages, and roads make the Landing more of a destination? How does it catalyze economic development? The street-level restaurants remind me of a larger version of the Metropolitan Parking Garage/Chicago Pizza out at the beach (pic below), and almost seem more like a public concession than an integral part of the design. Same goes for the fountain and public greenspace. It's pretty terrifying if the mayor and City Council truly believes the proposed plan to be "world class."

(http://i.imgur.com/hcvaia6.jpg)

3) What happens to the existing leases at the Landing? Rent is sure to increase after construction. Do we have assurances that restaurants/retail will fill the new space?

4) For the purpose of comparison, do we know what specific developments in Miami, Atlanta, Charlotte, N.C., and Louisville inspired the proposed redevelopment plan?

1). Where there's a will, there's a way.
2). Because he has absolutely no clue what he's doing.
3). I think that's the least of Sleiman's/our worries if this goes through.
4). Good question.

Here's the design that Sleiman proposed back in January, preserving the courtyard and marina, with public promenades and plazas along the river and at the end of Hogan Street. Certainly much more publicly friendly than what is now proposed. Those thru-roads in new proposal are absolute killers, and it looks like the pedestrian plaza initially proposed at the end of Hogan Street will now be used for private development (hotel or office tower).

(http://jacksonville.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/lead_photo_wide/JaxLandingRenderingInfoGraphic.JPG)

(http://jacksonville.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/superphoto/12999039.jpg)

Quote from: KenFSU on August 25, 2014, 10:18:45 AM


4) For the purpose of comparison, do we know what specific developments in Miami, Atlanta, Charlotte, N.C., and Louisville inspired the proposed redevelopment plan?

For Louisville I am guessing one development would be 4th Street Live.

Before (Old mall in downtown blocking off a street although not on the river)

(http://www.markgibsonphoto.com/images/M30.17W01W.JPG)

After: New 4th Street Live.  Mall demolished except that roofline, street opened, shops and buildings on side. 
         Sttreet is often blocked off as pedestrian only in the small section for events.

(http://www.travellinggolfer.com/wp-images/4th%20Street.jpg)

(http://dansmarathon.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/0427_louisville-05.jpg?w=300&h=225)

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQzajhCvb3zQQZmA6FdsfZQg6co4z6_tqQcWMx71U03LYq0ctZW0A)

Louisville has, in the past 15 - 20 years, developed some great riverfront parks, built a minor league baseball stadium and new arena downtown, and what I think was catalyst, revamped old convention center.  Many other things (museums, restaurants, housing, etc) followed.

Quote from: KenFSU on August 25, 2014, 10:18:45 AM
A few more random thoughts:

1) Sleiman's project manager for the Landing redevelopment, Tom Senkbeil, was quoted by the T-U as saying, "Maybe a company would want to come to town and build its office building there [the southwest corner of the Landing property]. Can you imagine a better location?" Can Sleiman do that? Isn't this publicly owned land, theoretically intended for public use?

2) Mayor Brown believes the proposed redevelopment is tremendous, saying "The Landing is going to be the catalyst for all the economic development downtown, and I'm excited about it. I want the downtown to be a destination and not just a pass through." How does eliminating nearly 70% of retail and restaurant space, demolishing the iconic courtyard that hosts the city's biggest events, and replacing it with apartments, parking garages, and roads make the Landing more of a destination? How does it catalyze economic development? The street-level restaurants remind me of a larger version of the Metropolitan Parking Garage/Chicago Pizza out at the beach (pic below), and almost seem more like a public concession than an integral part of the design. Same goes for the fountain and public greenspace. It's pretty terrifying if the mayor and City Council truly believes the proposed plan to be "world class."

(http://i.imgur.com/hcvaia6.jpg)

3) What happens to the existing leases at the Landing? Rent is sure to increase after construction. Do we have assurances that restaurants/retail will fill the new space?

4) For the purpose of comparison, do we know what specific developments in Miami, Atlanta, Charlotte, N.C., and Louisville inspired the proposed redevelopment plan?

the metropolitan has to be one of the worst pieces of architecture constructed in jax beach.  i have a hard time even considering it architecture.

Seriously, this plan simply cannot be allowed to happen as presented.

You're replacing this:

(http://members.jacksonville.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/superphoto/editorial/images/files/editorial/images/additional/47/met_33120709.jpg)

(http://thejacksonvilleparty.com/wp-content/themes/jacksonville-nightclub/thumb.php?src=http://thejacksonvilleparty.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/landing.jpg&w=683&zc=1&q=80&bid=1g)

(http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000l.J.BEtHYTI/s/750/Jacksonville-Landing-04-mw-123111.jpg)

With this:

(http://media.bizj.us/view/img/3529371/screen-shot-2014-08-23-at-80949-pm*600xx1070-713-142-0.png)

Quote from: KenFSU on August 25, 2014, 12:03:21 PM
Seriously, this plan simply cannot be allowed to happen as presented.

You're replacing this:

(http://members.jacksonville.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/superphoto/editorial/images/files/editorial/images/additional/47/met_33120709.jpg)

(http://thejacksonvilleparty.com/wp-content/themes/jacksonville-nightclub/thumb.php?src=http://thejacksonvilleparty.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/landing.jpg&w=683&zc=1&q=80&bid=1g)

(http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000l.J.BEtHYTI/s/750/Jacksonville-Landing-04-mw-123111.jpg)

With this:

(http://media.bizj.us/view/img/3529371/screen-shot-2014-08-23-at-80949-pm*600xx1070-713-142-0.png)

Perfect example of the issue.  The only reason I can think of that would make the politicians support this is money.  It appears to be at best supporting new development for new development sake rather than what is best for the community. Have we not learned that not all development is a positive?

I would think the issue is not at the Landing but rather what is around the Landing.  Fix the issues around it and perhaps no high dollar investment would be needed.  If the apartments suggested in this proposal were to be built adjacent to the landing, would not the retail follow at the Landing? Can part of the existing landing be saved and operated while one end is rebuilt to add apartments or whatever?  Can we loose a parking garage close by to facilitate the apartments suggested?

I believe somewhere on this forum is a list of the landing type developments in other cities and how they are fairing.  I also suspect that it can be proven that their fate is far more tied to the activity around them rather than their architecture or size limitations.

Quote from: JaxNative68 on August 25, 2014, 11:20:31 AM

the metropolitan has to be one of the worst pieces of architecture constructed in jax beach.  i have a hard time even considering it architecture.

You read my mind there.

Yeah, it's awful in comparison to even what's already there. I'm going to say if this is allowed to happen, it'll completely destroy that entire district of downtown.

You think you're having trouble attracting people to downtown now?? Shit, just wait. Who would want to come down there just to be able to drive through between two buildings that have a couple mediocre could-be-anywhere places to eat inside them? Oh, you're putting people in them by building condos too? Yeah, good luck with that.

And it doesn't shock me Brown is putting his blessings behind this. Apparently that guy has no taste whatsoever. Or probably whatever taste he's told to have. I'd be ashamed to even say such things as "tremendous" & "excited" when describing this stinky turd of a "vision", but there he is. Shameless.

Yeah, i'm with everyone who's against it. I cringed a little when I saw the new plans.  These new plans make the current landing look exciting by comparison.

If it goes forward the landing will be on a future write-up of "Lost Jacksonville" and we'll pine over what once was.

Quote from: peestandingup on August 25, 2014, 01:03:28 PM
Who would want to come down there just to be able to drive through between two buildings that have a couple mediocre could-be-anywhere places to eat inside them?

"A couple" might not even be that much of an understatement.

The new plans call for 60,000 square feet of total retail and restaurant space (a third of what currently exists).

Let's say you block off a third of that for retail, that leaves only 40,000 square feet for restaurants and bars.

Depending on if Sleiman is including outdoor seating in that count and how large the new establishments would be, we could be talking room for as few as four or five restaurants and bars total. Hell, the existing dance floor at Mavericks is 20,000 square feet alone.

(http://i.imgur.com/BdEbeV3.png)

(http://i.imgur.com/YrXhk8d.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/IsCwN2a.jpg)


Are there more renderings?

Is it possible the architecture plans aren't final, just to showoff the blueprint of what fits in with the DIA market feasability study?

Id also like to hear why the extended laura street cant be pedestrian only, and what about large events like the FL/GA game, new years, wheres the big gathering space?

keep in mind the January plan was one developed based on public input...and unfortunately not at all rooted in economic reality.  Sleiman's original plan from last fall was horrible and led to the Jan. revision.

A couple of new details from the Jax Business Journal:

- The $11.8 million that Sleiman is requesting will also include demolition costs for the existing structure.
- The restaurants will all be located on the back/river side of the Landing.
- The front side of the Landing will be utilized for "service retail." A drug store and Starbucks were mentioned by Sleiman as possibilities.

The Return of Starbucks to Jacksonville Landing! The End Times are near!

Quote from: billy on August 25, 2014, 04:05:59 PM
The Return of Starbucks to Jacksonville Landing! The End Times are near!

As someone previously mentioned, I'm not even sure you could get away with calling what's left the "Jacksonville Landing."

Maybe, Two Condos and a Fountain.

Featuring the hot new urban greenspace, The Landing Strip at the Intersection.

Wowee wow wow. A drug store AND a Starbucks?? Dare to dream, Landing! :/

Quote from: Bolles_Bull on August 25, 2014, 02:35:00 PM
Is it possible the architecture plans aren't final, just to showoff the blueprint of what fits in with the DIA market feasability study?

Id also like to hear why the extended laura street cant be pedestrian only, and what about large events like the FL/GA game, new years, wheres the big gathering space?

Yes, agree with this. At the very least, leave the streets out of it. All that common area should be grass or bricked-in, etc., with some kind of seating or comfortable surroundings, or a sloped design like Metro Park. In short, a crowd-friendly space.

It should be a destination. Not a pass-through.

Surely the mayor has seen Shad Khan's renderings for the 40 acres between Berkman and Everbank Field. I'm guessing the reason the new Landing doesn't look like a centerpiece is that the centerpiece is moving east.

Absolutely no one will go downtown for this. You will never, at least in my lifetime, compete with SJTC but to reduce the retail/restaurant space into a third, forget it. Downtown will become a quaint town with blown potential. There won't even be incentive for people to go for fireworks anymore in my opinion. And Florida/Georgia Weekend forget it. May as well turn the shipyards into a giant park and be done with it.
Of course the shipyards would stay empty most of the year except from some litter blowing around and everyone will still perceive downtown is scary and dangerous.
Who are the visionaries in this city?
Looks like no one or maybe Shahid Kahn.

Quote from: KenFSU on August 25, 2014, 10:52:56 AM
(http://jacksonville.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/superphoto/12999039.jpg)

It's better than the last one. But still kills the thing that the media always shows during national event TV. It also puts a marina at right angles into the deepest water in the fastest current. Bad marina design.

Quote from: KenFSU on August 25, 2014, 04:21:04 PM
As someone previously mentioned, I'm not even sure you could get away with calling what's left the "Jacksonville Landing."

Maybe, Two Condos and a Fountain.

Featuring the hot new urban greenspace, The Landing Strip at the Intersection.

I'm with ya Ken! I totally agree with your take on this 'new Landing'. They should redo this proposal. They are turning a gathering place (albeit outdated) into a place with very limited space for non-residents. Like you said, they shouldn't even call it the Jacksonville Landing, maybe the Northbank Residencies. 

I've been out all day. Umm, where's the stage? Is the green structure near Hogan?

What's the plan for special events and how does the retail interact?

(http://i.imgur.com/IsCwN2a.jpg)

(http://media.bizj.us/view/img/3529371/screen-shot-2014-08-23-at-80949-pm*600xx1070-713-142-0.png)

I assume this isn't an interactive fountain either? Anyone come across a site plan yet?

(http://members.jacksonville.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/superphoto/editorial/images/files/editorial/images/additional/47/met_33120709.jpg)

Is it possible to at least save the iconic sign and install it as a sculptural element within the proposed green space?

^ there's already a similar sign out front, so it seems likely

Similar to what many are saying about the Old Courthouse, I say they they should keep the Landing there until a suitable replacement is in order, and this new Catastrophe Landing just isn't working. I'm still not sold with this whole 'opening up Laura Street crap'. It seems like with such limited space, this parting the Red Sea inspiration is gonna compromise the New Landing's layout very badly. You can forget about any public interior space with the wide open Laura St; Less shelter from the weather, less gathering space, less capacity etc. 

If it kills downtown Jacksonville, you already know they will be on board.

Quote from: tufsu1 on August 25, 2014, 09:20:09 PM
^ there's already a similar sign out front, so it seems likely

You mean this little thing?

(http://www.news4jax.com/image/view/-/27698902/medRes/2/-/maxh/360/maxw/640/-/86ey3yz/-/08-23-14-Landing-3-jpg--1-.jpg)

Oh .... its a fountain at the end of Laura.  I thought it was to be a statue of Stephen Dare ... or maybe Jerry Moran ... or perhaps the two of them standing shoulder to shoulder ... finally reconciling their differences ... friends for eternity 

In any case, I still like the layout, and am pleased that it does not include a large gathering place for huge crowds.  The layout is designed for enjoyment "all" the time .. in the day, and the night, by residents, workers, and casual visitors.  It might be that when one designs a place "optimum" for huge event gatherings for brief moments of use, the nature of it is less welcoming to 24 hour ... every day enjoyment by the causal resident, shopper, or visitor.   

If anybody wants to have a huge event location, how about further east along the river ... within the shipyards or near Metro park?  The idea of having a huge "bowl" into which hundreds are dumped in a claustrophobic manner, as is the case with the current layout, seems rather ... well ... tacky.  But that's just me ... and I'm mentally retarded.   

The "open" feeling along Laura will be welcomed by most, as it offers the pleasant "distant" view.  The human psyche seems comforted by the far distance, as in the mountains or the sea.  The proposed layout allows this great view to anyone along Laura street, all the way to the First Baptist Church.  While standing on Laura one can perceive the splendor of god at one end, and the splendor of the river at the other.

And the new layout will allow me, and Jerry of La Cena, and our customers, to view the river while sitting or standing in front of our establishments.   

QuoteIf anybody wants to have a huge event location, how about further east along the river ... within the shipyards or near Metro park?  The idea of having a huge "bowl" into which hundreds are dumped in a claustrophobic manner, as is the case with the current layout, seems rather ... well ... tacky.  But that's just me ... and I'm mentally retarded.   

The benefit of large crowds in the heart of downtown means more people walking past the front door of downtown businesses. Funneling people who rarely come downtown, to isolated sites where they aren't exposed to local businesses, sort of defeats the idea of clustering complementing uses within a compact pedestrian scale setting. This is what Jax has been doing since the mid-20th century. You don't get vibrancy that way, no matter how much cash taxpayers throw at the problem. 

Quote from: thelakelander on August 25, 2014, 10:31:49 PM
Funneling people who rarely come downtown, to isolated sites where they aren't exposed to local businesses, sort of defeats the idea of clustering complementing uses within a compact pedestrian scale setting.

Exactly.  Go sit in front of Underbelly on Thursday night while 50,000 people drive past to park their cars for the Jags game.  Go sit in front of Chomp Chomp while everyone is on the way home. 

It's like a superhighway of would-be customers.

Quote from: I-10east on August 25, 2014, 08:38:26 PM

Quote from: KenFSU on August 25, 2014, 04:21:04 PM
As someone previously mentioned, I'm not even sure you could get away with calling what's left the "Jacksonville Landing."

Maybe, Two Condos and a Fountain.

Featuring the hot new urban greenspace, The Landing Strip at the Intersection.

I'm with ya Ken! I totally agree with your take on this 'new Landing'. They should redo this proposal. They are turning a gathering place (albeit outdated) into a place with very limited space for non-residents. Like you said, they shouldn't even call it the Jacksonville Landing, maybe the Northbank Residencies. 

It takes a lot to anger me, but this redevelopment plan truly has me fired up. Is the Landing in need of a refresh? Absolutely, I think we can all agree on that. But should that refresh involve bulldozing Jacksonville's signature, most iconic event space and replacing it with what looks like a South Florida retirement community? Absolutely not. I literally hate every single aspect of these renderings and even without seeing the full site plan yet, it blows my mind how poorly thought out this all seems to be.

I hate the way Laura Street effectively cuts the Landing in half. Opening up the Landing to downtown has been discussed for years, but this is the first time that I have ever seen that taken to mean opening it up to vehicular traffic. And for what purpose, to funnel Landing residents into Sleiman's parking garages at the expense of pedestrian experience?

I hate the road alongside the river even more. It's truly ridiculous, and says to me that Sleiman is not serious about the Landing being used as an event space any longer. Why else would you cut the narrow strip of public greenspace off from the vendors and restaurants with a road? And why would you further segment that greenspace into two separate halves by sticking a cheesy shopping center fountain (directly across the river from Friendship Fountain, no less) and shrubbery right in the middle?

I hate the tacky Fort Lauderdale palm trees (which get bonus points for blocking the view of the river for restaurants). I hate the private rooftop swimming pools (we've already bankrolled private pools at the stadium). I hate that the "world class" plan has its hopes set on landing a Starbucks and a drug store. I hate the meager 60,000 square foot allotment for retail, restaurants, and bars (a drug store would eat up a quarter of that space alone).

I hate what this does to our skyline, eliminating the iconic, lit "Jacksonville Landing" signage and copper roof and replacing it with two drab shoeboxes that completely block the view of the flared bottom of the Independent Life building from I-95.

Aside from adding up to 500 new downtown residents, which can surely be done to similar effect elsewhere without sacrificing the Landing, I have a hard time finding any other redeeming value in the proposed plan.

The Landing might be dated, but it's one of our few landmarks that is uniquely and identifiably Jacksonville. It's where we celebrated being awarded the Jaguars in 1993. It's where we ring in the New Year, Christmas, and the 4th of July. It's where the national media often sets up shop when a big sporting event is in town. And it's where Florida-Georgia holds an annual party so large that Hooters routinely grosses $100,000 for the weekend. Bringing it into the 21st century is one thing, and something that we have all supported for years. But replacing it entirely with apartments, two roads, and 950 parking spaces? That is a crime against Jacksonville, and an error in judgement that could set downtown back decades. The Landing is the heart of the city, and this is one project we really can't afford to f**k up.

Can't Get Right. The story of DT Jax revitalization... ;)

(http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view6/3184936/can-t-get-right-o.gif)

You know what's funny? Of all these "big" plans, a movie theater is not in the plans. An ice skating rink is not in the plans. Something to bring people together is not in the plans. These are nice buildings, but what is going to happen to pedestrian traffic along the riverwalk? What is going to happen to the existing restaurants currently at the landing? What is going to happen to the courtyard? Brown is glorifying these plans, but if I were him, I'd be nailing Sleiman right now!

Just some thoughts and if it has been addressed I haven't read all 15 pages.
1. Is the how many year Parking issue resolved?

2. The Public restroom is now separate and will be a stand alone. Will the Public Restroom space become like RAM, (Only open when RAM is open) Unity Plaza?  and not sure if Hemming Plaza will have a Public Restroom I guess you have the library right there. But is the plan to maybe have a 501-c programming the Public space too and this will include the Public Restroom?

3. Spoke with councilman Jim Love District 14 yesterday because I've been completely ignored by my District 4 representative. Scott Wilson feel free to jump in here. Anyway he indicated that there will be another noticed meeting on 2014-305 new docking Rules and Penalties. Toney Sleiman was at the 4/2/14 noticed meeting and everyone was supportive of the moving and the creation of a new spot for the Foxy Lady. Very Positive. But as we all see by the new docking zone map that was never before Waterways we may want to add back a 10 minute, 30 minute, or both a 10 minute and 30 minute commercial drop off and pick up zone. Why not? What is the position of the St. Johns Riverkeeper? Couldn't tell you.

4. Overstreet like you the marina pictures are nice but that is so far down the road. The current rips in that location. The primary concern especially if a penny of taxpayer money is involved is the immediate Public and Commercial opportunity for everyone to access this property from the St. Johns River an American Heritage River a FEDERAL Initiative in our new super duper restricted 2014-560 CRA/DIA zone. Public Hearing 8/27/14 at the full Jacksonville city council on 2014-560.

We all want to say VISIT JACKSONVILLE!

A new Authority
Embrace It
Or
It will Embrace Us

I suppose they could attempt to put "everything" at the "landing" location.  It could become concentrated, much like a black hole.  Do we want this small place to remain the restricted or limited "center" of Jax?  We might begin to look ahead to when the "center" becomes "larger" ... spreading ever so slowly outward from this central point -- without having vacuums within of course. 

Understandably, the city core must have events "now" to draw visitors to the core, but will Jax always be "only" an "event" oriented city?  What about the future need for a balanced and beautiful environment "between" the events and concerts? -- which is 90 percent of the time.  I think that's what the current proposed design is addressing.   

While the landing area might be massaged slightly to accommodate small events or concerts, perhaps along Laura between the buildings, how about making a larger event area next to the collapsed parking garage ... right in front of the wonderful strip of bars where the devil's water is sold?  Why not spread out the event activity a little ... away from the old landing center?  Do we want to continue a "bowl" environment at the landing site?  Why can't the landing area become more than an event place ... so that the area can be enjoyed 24 hours a day, 365 days per year?

Events are imagined and created to be enjoyed for a moment.  We might consider the quality of time and space outside of, and between, those moments.  We live in a time of momentary intense enjoyment, of fast consumption of the superficial, the colorfully contrived candy for the fast and sometimes shallow minds created in our computerized gaming world.

Sadly, there are fewer perceptions of reality within the population ... of the predicament into which we've descended, and continue to descend, as a consequence of our obsessions with the candy created by technology.

While we all enjoy events and hoopla and crowds -- and we must provide a place for these things -- we might also consider providing space for experiencing the real ... a balanced calm ... as shaped by nature, by the natural pressures of an evolving local economy, and by the mix of those who happen to live, work, and visit areas near our city center.

^ Hate to be the pessimist but I don't think that will ever be Jacksonville. They love their Walmarts and strip malls too much, and their idea of a road trip consists of "traveling" to SJTC or St. Augustine.

Quote from: ronchamblin on August 26, 2014, 05:01:15 AM
Why can't the landing area become more than an event place ... so that the area can be enjoyed 24 hours a day, 365 days per year?

Everything else in this discussion aside, I just wanted to point out that these things don't have to be and should never come down to "either or" situations.  The best vibrant environments are capable of hosting several activities 24/7, 365 days a year. Baltimore's Inner Harbor, a place we've attempted to copy several times, does a great job of this:

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Baltimore-2014/i-4nwxVtM/0/L/P1720514-L.jpg)

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Baltimore-2014/i-TZDH6zj/0/L/P1720558-L.jpg)

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Baltimore-2014/i-WJZ6BLd/0/L/P1720509-L.jpg)

^The Inner Harbor has a lot of stuff taking place within a very compact area, thus drawing all types of people, races, ages, income levels, etc. on an around the clock basis.

By the way, I don't think there's anything wrong with the proposed line up of uses.  What's shown is not "world-class" or a major destination (I really wish we stop saying stuff like this for what's being proposed) but a small number of apartments and integrated retail/dining are definitely "realistic".  While there are some great layout decisions made, more green space along the river and eliminating the Main Street on-ramp being two of them, we may have over thought ourselves on this one.

We're getting those things accomplished, but replacing the great elements of what many thought could be a decent regional draw with a random mixed-use apartment complex that's been built on the fringe of every big city downtown and densifying suburb for the last 20 years.

so some people hate it.  Some people like it.  The difference between the two groups seems to be those who see the Landing as the perpetural focal point and sole gathering spot, and those who see the Landing as one spot in an area that extends from the TU to EverBank.  Khan has been clear that he wants the Shipyards area to the the "front door".  To me that means it will be the area where the large gatherings take place, the Christmas tree, the huge Florida/Geoergia shindig.  So count me in the latter group.  The new Landing will be part of the whole, not a failed destination.

Quote from: thelakelander on August 25, 2014, 09:30:27 PM

Quote from: tufsu1 on August 25, 2014, 09:20:09 PM
^ there's already a similar sign out front, so it seems likely

You mean this little thing?

(http://www.news4jax.com/image/view/-/27698902/medRes/2/-/maxh/360/maxw/640/-/86ey3yz/-/08-23-14-Landing-3-jpg--1-.jpg)

no...I mean the sign currently out front...where the Jackson statue used to be

In case you are interested, comments from facebook.

Some of the highlights:

"Gay!!!!!!! Yea let's take everything away from the river so rich people can park their boats"

"I thought this was a "river city"?! Why would they design away from the river? And putting a street between it as well. That's the only reason I go to The Landing is to dine and enjoy on the river. This will change the face of our city in the worst way!"

"Slimeball Sleiman doesn't deserve a penny of my money. No way."

"Not interested in throwing more taxpayer money into this. If the businessmen can't figure out how to leverage a gorgeous piece of riverfront property, our taxpayer dollars are not going to help."

https://www.facebook.com/MetroJacksonville/posts/10152679543448979?comment_id=10152681392943979&offset=0&total_comments=35&notif_t=feed_comment (https://www.facebook.com/MetroJacksonville/posts/10152679543448979?comment_id=10152681392943979&offset=0&total_comments=35&notif_t=feed_comment)

Agree w Stephen. There's no such thing as a single public & main "meeting place" when it comes to urban environments. There should be several big ones all over (like there are in the entire Riverside/Avondale district). And downtown def has more empty space than you could shake a stick at. What happens if some people don't like whatever the Shipyards turn into? Outta luck I guess.

Besides, if we really wanna go there, Landing already has that title. Its been the established center piece at every holiday, big event, etc. Trashing it & moving the center piece to an unknown entity, which may or may not work out, is asinine. And yes, this plan is effectively trashing the actual good things about the Landing.

It needs a reorganization & making what works prominent, not a total teardown & transformed into a couple standard looking buildings w a handful of restaurants in them w people dodging cars the whole time.

You know what a better way to enjoy our river is besides looking at it through a car's windshield? On foot.

Quote from: stephendare on August 26, 2014, 10:01:45 AM

Quote from: downtownbrown on August 26, 2014, 09:55:39 AM
so some people hate it.  Some people like it.  The difference between the two groups seems to be those who see the Landing as the perpetural focal point and sole gathering spot, and those who see the Landing as one spot in an area that extends from the TU to EverBank.  Khan has been clear that he wants the Shipyards area to the the "front door".  To me that means it will be the area where the large gatherings take place, the Christmas tree, the huge Florida/Geoergia shindig.  So count me in the latter group.  The new Landing will be part of the whole, not a failed destination.

I think this misses the point.  The Landing is on public property that has been leased, and the original agreement of that lease provides that there will be public space built into the publicly owned waterfront.

Also, this is still Jacksonville, not Khantown or Sleimanburg.  No one person gets 'dibs' on the 'front door' or the 'catbird seat' or anything like that.

The city will do best when there are a hundred people doing significant projects independently of one another.

The City's leasehold right includes holding 10 events per year on the West Parcel. Whatever becomes of the property, the throwing of events will have to be taken into consideration. Counting on the isolated/non centrally located Shipyards to be the grand gathering space for public events is a repeat of the poor failed policies and ideas we've been kicking down the road for the last 60 years.  I hope we can really learn from our past and the success of compact settings in all of these peer cities we claim to be learning from.  You can't develop downtown like a sprawly suburb and expect vibrancy (pedestrian scale vibrancy) to happen anytime soon.....no matter how much money is tossed into the area.

stephendare wrote: "The city will do best when there are a hundred people doing significant projects independently of one another."

+1  Unleash the hounds. 

It appears that the consensus is "Mend it, don't (pretty much) end it."  Reconfiguration and added structures, yes.  Significantly changing it from what it currently is, no.

The one thing that the current Landing has going for it is its iconic building and shape. It is immediately recognizable to locals and visitors alike and says "this is the place" usually for special events. I don't see anything like that in this new proposal. It's just some buildings. It could be anywhere and still never say "visit me."

If we are about to raze the Landing complex, shouldn't we be getting something more iconic than what we have now. Something that will succeed where this one failed. And I'm not talking about ferris wheels and things like that. If we think of this space as a piece of the puzzle that extends past the Hyatt and to whatever the old courthouse property will become and onward to the Shipyards - then its a district. You have different venues and purposes for people to come. Some live, some work, many stay and play.

Do we really want to entrust the "king of Jacksonville strip malls" with our future riverfront vision. Nothing he's ever down before suggests anything other than bland. We don't need bland. We need spectacular.

Just my 4 cents worth.

I'm not a huge fan of the Landing but I think the new plan is horrible and already outdated looking just like the current version. If your going to build something new, build for the future not the now. Also, the mayor thinking it could be the catalyst for economic development is laughable. So let me get this straight, mediocre condos on top of mediocre shops and restaurants is a catalyst for economic development downtown? If the mayor really wants to make downtown a catalyst for business growth help small business in the core, pressure the owners of vacant store fronts to have interim infill projects, provide affordable housing comparable to the surrounding areas (San Marco, Riverside and Springfield) for young professionals and creatives and be proactive with small businesses starting up and help them rather than be a hinderance ie. getting a beer/wine license. A single downtown project will not be a catalyst, it will be multiple projects consisting of small organic growth with limited interference from the city.

Quote from: KenFSU on August 26, 2014, 12:52:20 AM

Quote from: I-10east on August 25, 2014, 08:38:26 PM

Quote from: KenFSU on August 25, 2014, 04:21:04 PM
As someone previously mentioned, I'm not even sure you could get away with calling what's left the "Jacksonville Landing."

Maybe, Two Condos and a Fountain.

Featuring the hot new urban greenspace, The Landing Strip at the Intersection.

I'm with ya Ken! I totally agree with your take on this 'new Landing'. They should redo this proposal. They are turning a gathering place (albeit outdated) into a place with very limited space for non-residents. Like you said, they shouldn't even call it the Jacksonville Landing, maybe the Northbank Residencies. 

It takes a lot to anger me, but this redevelopment plan truly has me fired up. Is the Landing in need of a refresh? Absolutely, I think we can all agree on that. But should that refresh involve bulldozing Jacksonville's signature, most iconic event space and replacing it with what looks like a South Florida retirement community? Absolutely not. I literally hate every single aspect of these renderings and even without seeing the full site plan yet, it blows my mind how poorly thought out this all seems to be.

I hate the way Laura Street effectively cuts the Landing in half. Opening up the Landing to downtown has been discussed for years, but this is the first time that I have ever seen that taken to mean opening it up to vehicular traffic. And for what purpose, to funnel Landing residents into Sleiman's parking garages at the expense of pedestrian experience?

I hate the road alongside the river even more. It's truly ridiculous, and says to me that Sleiman is not serious about the Landing being used as an event space any longer. Why else would you cut the narrow strip of public greenspace off from the vendors and restaurants with a road? And why would you further segment that greenspace into two separate halves by sticking a cheesy shopping center fountain (directly across the river from Friendship Fountain, no less) and shrubbery right in the middle?

I hate the tacky Fort Lauderdale palm trees (which get bonus points for blocking the view of the river for restaurants). I hate the private rooftop swimming pools (we've already bankrolled private pools at the stadium). I hate that the "world class" plan has its hopes set on landing a Starbucks and a drug store. I hate the meager 60,000 square foot allotment for retail, restaurants, and bars (a drug store would eat up a quarter of that space alone).

I hate what this does to our skyline, eliminating the iconic, lit "Jacksonville Landing" signage and copper roof and replacing it with two drab shoeboxes that completely block the view of the flared bottom of the Independent Life building from I-95.

Aside from adding up to 500 new downtown residents, which can surely be done to similar effect elsewhere without sacrificing the Landing, I have a hard time finding any other redeeming value in the proposed plan.

The Landing might be dated, but it's one of our few landmarks that is uniquely and identifiably Jacksonville. It's where we celebrated being awarded the Jaguars in 1993. It's where we ring in the New Year, Christmas, and the 4th of July. It's where the national media often sets up shop when a big sporting event is in town. And it's where Florida-Georgia holds an annual party so large that Hooters routinely grosses $100,000 for the weekend. Bringing it into the 21st century is one thing, and something that we have all supported for years. But replacing it entirely with apartments, two roads, and 950 parking spaces? That is a crime against Jacksonville, and an error in judgement that could set downtown back decades. The Landing is the heart of the city, and this is one project we really can't afford to f**k up.

Agree with everything...

The Inner Harbor in Baltimore is actually a quite large space. I have walked/ran it several times. I believe the linear footage along the harbor would actually exceed the distance from Metro Park to I-95. They do have several buildings interrupt the continuous flow, but paths around them are good. Although I do not like the Landing redesign due to blah or "no" architecture, road on river, and not enough green/public space, I believe it would not be an issue to move the large major gathering area to the shipyards. Bay street is already moving that way. Major concerts and events have been staged in this area (Jazz Fest, Superbowl, FL-GA game events, etc.). It is closer to Everbank Field and Arena for tie-in to events at these facilities.

Give the new Landing a more iconic design with more public space and restaurant visibility, and ability for the smaller event that occur, but shift the 'Main Event" site to the Shipyards. I agree that housing in the Landing is a good idea for increasing foot traffic in the central core.  Just make it not look like an office building and try to keep it affordable for young DT workers.

QuoteThe Inner Harbor in Baltimore is actually a quite large space.

^It's actually quite compact in comparison and the incremental line of investment of major destinations within it, is pretty compact as well. I'll have an Inner Harbor vs DT Jax riverfront article up tomorrow. I've been sitting on it for a while, but I'll finish it tonight. It's pretty interesting how both communities have invested in similar attractions since the 1960s, yet achieved totally different results to date. . 

Btw, the public hearing date for the closure of the Main Street Bridge on-ramp has been set:

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Other/mi/i-jkX4TXS/0/X3/Main%20Street%20bridge%20Ramp-X3.jpg)
click here for larger version: http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Other/mi/9562820_3WdxxK#!i=3488744525&k=jkX4TXS&lb=1&s=X3

The removal of the on-ramp is essential for the redevelopment of the Landing.

Comic Sans. Really.

Has anybody heard any new information about when Khan's proposal for the Shipyards is supposed to be revealed? Is it still expected by early September? I would hope that no decision would be made on the Landing until we figure out what's going on with the Shipyards property, and vice versa.

Quote from: funwithteeth on August 26, 2014, 03:03:17 PM
Comic Sans. Really.

I laughed out loud when I saw the bright yellow "PUBLIC HEARING" title in Comic Sans.

The WingDings must have already been taken...

http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2014/08/25/why-toney-sleiman-thinks-his-newest-plans-for-the.html (http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2014/08/25/why-toney-sleiman-thinks-his-newest-plans-for-the.html)

In their article about Slieman's view on this the Jax Biz Journal's reporter writes "Toney Sleiman's latest vision for the Jacksonville Landing would bring more than 300 apartments with rooftop pools to the city center— an ambitious proposal for a city that's yet to see a successful residential development in its urban core."

Really?  I guess her definition of successful is different than mine.

No big deal. Probably a newbie.  There are successful residential developments in the core, like Metropolitan Lofts, that were completed without incentives.

Quote from: urbanlibertarian on August 26, 2014, 03:26:54 PM
http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2014/08/25/why-toney-sleiman-thinks-his-newest-plans-for-the.html (http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2014/08/25/why-toney-sleiman-thinks-his-newest-plans-for-the.html)

In their article about Slieman's view on this the Jax Biz Journal's reporter writes "Toney Sleiman's latest vision for the Jacksonville Landing would bring more than 300 apartments with rooftop pools to the city center— an ambitious proposal for a city that's yet to see a successful residential development in its urban core."

Really?  I guess her definition of successful is different than mine.

In that same article, you can get another small glimpse at a sketch from Sleiman's Landing plan.

The fountain looks like it effectively cuts the greenspace in half.

(http://i.imgur.com/W13J2AX.png)

I really don't know why most of us are seemingly surprised. 

This is the same CC and mayor that had a difficult time being convinced that this:

(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-8205-dec_08_ddrb_agenda_for_web_page_32.jpg)

was a bad idea.  And with all the money they saved by not adding that absolute CF, they're still 'out of funds' to pay for the public art that was originally in the budget.

Now the big plan is to add some generic apartments and limited retail / restaurant options in one of, if not THE, most prime spot in the city.  Not to mention that I would have loved to have been in the room when they decided that their pièce de résistance was a 3-way stop onto a road along the river!

Everyone was like  (http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/kiss.gif)

It won't be funny if this sh@t goes forward.

Consensus seems to be that starting over with a largely clean slate is probably a good idea, but that the proposed design is going to need a lot of work. If nothing else, it's encouraging to hear so many people speaking out against Sleiman's uninspired vision.

Quotehttp://members.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2014-08-26/story/jacksonville-landing-proposal-gets-mixed-reviews-plan-wont-make-knees

Jacksonville Landing proposal gets mixed reviews; plan won't make knees weak, expert says

The latest plans for The Jacksonville Landing get mixed reviews from architects and urban planners who like various aspects of it, but say the city must set higher expectations for the design to spark the creation of a "world-class" downtown.

"When you look at great river cities and some of their riverfront developments, your knees get weak," said Chris Flagg, an architect who has participated in brain-storming sessions over the years on how to improve the Landing. "That's the visual impact that I think we have the opportunity to create." The new plan doesn't meet that bar, he said...

Jacksonville architect Ted Pappas called it a "non-remarkable design from a developer with a profit motive. There's nothing wrong with making a profit, but Jacksonville needs to move beyond just what a developer wants. When it's done, it should be something that someone would like to visit...."

Stephen Lovett, a Jacksonville architect who has worked on designs for downtown projects, said he hopes the design will change as the Landing moves through the city's review process. "Is it iconic and world-class? Maybe not today," he said. "We're probably not far enough in the process. So I'd answer it 'no,' but I'd have a huge massive qualifier to that answer – it's still early."

Much more at above link (behind paywall).

This plan reminds me of a prostate exam in Central California, I was surprised that it really didn't hurt at all... then I realized the doctor had BOTH hands on my shoulders! We're so screwed!

Tony, I actually like the design provided four changes are made:

1. Close the street to traffic, make it a people space. IE: I loved the Grand Funk Concert, as well as many others in the plaza... and that was the first time I hung at the Landing in a LONG..LONG..TIME! You've got that right, don't mess it up.

2.  As per the above, fill the bottom floors on both the downtown side AND the river side with mixed use retail, restaurants, services, (such as a Walgreens and/or Dollar Store) and don't discount coming up with a 'Official Visit Jacksonville/Florida Marine Welcome Station.'

3.  The balconies on the current Landing are nice and shade the lower area's, add them to the new one and expand them in width... Theater style seating possibilities? Maybe so.

4.  Talk to me Tony... bob@metrojacksonville.com (Yes I'm one of the publishers and a retired railroad planner) How about a REAL 1920 VINTAGE STREETCAR with it's own little display 'barn' and in the future running down Water Street to your door? I can make that happen.

REALLY!

That's my .02-cents worth.

Redevelop the Landing?  Okay, just replace the current leaseholder, Tony Sleiman, who has a proven record of failure. The Landing was busy and popular until he took over.
Open up Laura Street to the River?  Yes. 
Street on the river?  I hope not.
Palm trees? This isn't Palm Beach; plant live oaks.

Where is the inspiring architecture?  Where is the focus on pedestrians and river?  Why is there a proposed marina with finger piers 90 degrees to the swift current?

Jacksonville, and the downtown core, is much more than the landing.  To expect the area of the landing, which occupies a relatively small footprint in the core along the river, to somehow project great impact upon the city and the world, is to expect unrealistically.  If the space available for a new design was perhaps four to six times the current land foot print, then there would be room for a massive project, having many more design options.

Perhaps a larger foot print could be achieved by building out into the river, but that would be quite expensive, and a complicated process in legalities and structure ... not to mention the negative affect on the river itself.

The scale of the concept proposed so far is realistic, accommodates the needs of the area without becoming disney-like, engages the budgets available, and can be massaged to perfection by design improvements over the next few months.

Is the road along the river needed?  Is it necessary for Laura to extend past the roundabout?  Perhaps the road along the river can be removed from the design, and become more green area for walking and relaxing.  In my opinion however, the view down Laura to the river should be retained ... even if not as a road, as it provides a much needed openness, and connects the core to the river.  If the roads are removed, a method of delivering product to restaurants along the river must be devised.   

It might be feasible for the area between the roundabout and the water to be adapted for the occasional concert, perhaps by placing a temporary stage over the fountain, leaving the large concerts for an area to be developed west of the Berkman.

Although the landing is important historically, we might consider that the city core is over 100 city blocks ... that the landing is only one.  The landing has indeed been an icon ... at the center for the most part ... but icons can, by way of hope, be expected to perform unrealistically to achieve important, fundamental objectives, without actually doing so ... and can selfishly limit thinking and investment to their own enhancement, when less obvious needs suffer without attention and investment. 

Therefore, if what I've said so far makes any sense ... given the predicament of an area having not much space within which to work, and given the need for realism and practicality, I vote for further consideration of the rather comfortable design proposed, anticipating its revision toward perfection, and proceeding to its completion.

Worst part is this is the same approach the city took on the Super Bowl. "Oh we don't need to worry about entertainment or fixing things up. Let's just build lots and lots of condos! People will come to Jacksonville then!" Look at how well that worked out. Epic Fail 2.0 is on its way, thanks to Mr. Sleiman.

Quote from: ronchamblin on August 27, 2014, 01:18:46 AM
Jacksonville, and the downtown core, is much more than the landing.  To expect the area of the landing, which occupies a relatively small footprint in the core along the river, to somehow project great impact upon the city and the world, is to expect unrealistically.  If the space available for a new design was perhaps four to six times the current land foot print, then there would be room for a massive project, having many more design options.

Ron, I'd argue that the scale is fine and the amount of land is too. We're talking about at least two city blocks in the heart of downtown.  I've seen a lot more piled on less land. At this point, my major concerns are:

1. Architecture. I'm fine with the mix of uses but whatever we eventually end up doing should be iconic and a bit more progressive with that central location and $12 million in incentives. While the existing center has struggled for years, it's hard to argue that it isn't iconic and one of the most popular places in downtown.

As an example, 4th Street Live in Louisville doesn't take up that much space and even has a road running through it. Nevertheless, the compact mix of retail/entertainment, signage and architecture creates a compelling attraction in the heart of that city.

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/719192738_vg42H-M.jpg)

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/719192658_V8wef-M.jpg)

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/719187576_syXLE-M.jpg)


2. The road between the river and buildings. I hope it goes away. One of the best things about the Landing is the waterfront dining and outdoor seating. That's a design element that should be incorporated into the new plans. Circulation for movement of goods is needed but I hope this can be achieved without reestablishing a road that's open on a regular basis throughout the space. I know there are other places that have streets running through them but the connectivity between the bars/restaurants/retail and the public riverfront space should be as seamless and integrated as possible. This integration is one of the good things the Landing has always had going for it.

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Jacksonville-Landing/i-B95Jjjd/0/L/DSCF0009-L.jpg)
More space between the river and the buildings is great. However, it would be good to keep this element on the edge of the expanded public element.


3. The waterfront park. Needs to be more interactive. With that much space, it can be a place for special events, like it is now, and a place for around the clock activity. There's lots of great spaces across the country that pack more into smaller spaces. Between the two spaces, where's the stuff like LED video screens/walls, interactive splash fountains, sidewalk cafe style dining, etc.  This is the heart of downtown. We're possibly paying to move a bridge ramp for this. A well designed public space would be a destination in and of itself, funneling business to the adjacent retail.  It also doesn't have to be limited to the Landing's frontage. Pull the underutilized lawn in between Hogan and Pearl into the mix as well and do something really first class.

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/3207675356_WPtzPCX-M.jpg)

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/3207689159_5XzD95B-M.jpg)

https://ui.ppjol.com/mobile_stop/1/miamiheraldd/u/Wg21qr6sNTdRgJEvSgcMTw.html?zone=dH8ogmYVh7n4wEfMoZ1r08&mobile=1&entry=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.miamiherald.com%2F&u=K7VnkqPrIVayeOH6twIWrs&parentURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.miamiherald.com%2F2014%2F08%2F26%2F4311077%2Fvoters-give-skyrise-miami-liftoff.html

The latest news on renovations and expansion on Miami's version of The Landing......

The festival marketplace concept was a failure. The few that were a success are in dense settings and adjacent to additional pedestrian traffic generators.

My link didn't seem to work, but here are next steps for Miami to redo Bayside, our version of The Landing...

Miami voters on Tuesday overwhelmingly endorsed SkyRise Miami, a swooping observation tower and tourist attraction proposed on a spit of land behind Bayside Marketplace.

The public supported the 1,000-foot tower — coupled with a long-term lease extension for Bayside's operator — by a roughly two-to-one margin. The vote gives developer Jeff Berkowitz the green light to begin construction and triggers a $10 million upfront payment to the city of Miami.

At a campaign party held in a private room at the Hard Rock Cafe at Bayside, Berkowitz declared victory upon the release of only early and absentee voting tallies, which favored the agreement by more than 70 percent.

"It's a mandate," he said. "Up, up and away."

Berkowitz said the SkyRise team would get to work next week reconfiguring utilities that serve the Bayside marina, which are currently under the pier where the tower will be built. The pier will then be excavated and a foundation can be laid, which he said should take about nine months.

He hopes to complete SkyRise — a hairpin-shaped tower with observations decks, an upscale restaurant and a ballroom — by the first half of 2018. He plans high-altitude attractions, such as a Tower of Terror-like ride that drops 50 stories along the tower's shaft. There's also the possibility of a casino if the Legislature ever allows it.

Berkowitz, who says the project will be Miami's Eiffel Tower, has already lined up contractors and begun securing financing for the estimated $400 million project. He says he's investing some of his own millions, and seeking much of the financing from foreign investors through Miami's new EB5 financing center, which swaps visas for local investment.

"As far as I'm concerned this was our last required approval," he said of the referendum.

For General Growth Properties, the operator of Bayside, Tuesday's results extend the terms of its lease with the city to 99 years and require GGP to make at least $27 million in renovations to the 1980s-era shopping center. The operator can also expand the marketplace at 401 Biscayne Blvd.

SkyRise is subletting land from Bayside. Under the agreement with the city, if Berkowitz fails to build the tower, GGP would get a shot. Otherwise, the market's lease will be renegotiated.

The wide margin of passage Tuesday was somewhat expected, with pollsters predicting a nearly 2-to-1 margin of support leading up to the election. Together, Berkowitz and GGP invested more than $300,000 into radio ads and mailers that focused almost entirely on Bayside. Mayor Tomás Regalado helped them campaign.

The renegotiated lease with Bayside was also laced with public incentives, like the $10 million lump sum, increased annual payments and revenue percentages to the city, minority contracting stipulations and annual $200,000 installments to the Liberty City Community Revitalization Trust, a semi-autonomous arm of the city.

"That means the community as a whole will benefit, too," said Cyndy Hill, a 60-year-old Coconut Grove voter who cast her ballot at the Frost Museum of Science.

There was little organized opposition. An online petition to stop the project gathered less than 350 signatures. And while two Miami activists sued to stop the project, both cases were dismissed and the Third District Court of Appeal on Tuesday affirmed a lower court ruling in a case filed by Grove architect Charles Corda.

"The court has spoken," Corda said. "I'm going to wish Mr. Berkowitz good luck."

Voters on Tuesday also approved two charter amendments. One requires a second referendum for developers who fail to secure building permits on public land four years after first getting voters' consent. The other gives Miami's administration the power to lease submerged land directly to upland owners.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/08/26/4311077/voters-give-skyrise-miami-liftoff.html#storylink=cpy

Harbor Place in Baltimore has undergone a renovation and redesign since my previous visit in 2009 as well.  This time around, the interior was updated, a food court was relocated and a two-level Ripley's Believe It or Not takes up a good chunk of former retail space.

QuoteRipley's Believe it or Not! lease at Harborplace finalized

Ripley's Believe It or Not! has finalized plans to open an "odditorium" museum at the Inner Harbor by June.

The attraction, which will feature more than 500 "oddities," a mirror maze and a 3-D movie theater, will take up two levels of the Light Street Pavilion at Harborplace and include an attention-grabbing facade showing a sea serpent named Chessie wrapped around the entrance on the upper level.

Ripley's, an Orlando, Fla.-based entertainment company, toned down the appearance of the green, fanged sea monster from a proposal last fall that city officials considered too overpowering for the harbor.

Ripley's spokesman Tom O'Brien said he could not disclose anything about planned exhibits save that the centerpiece will be worth well over $1 million.

"This will be the most expensive item in any Ripley's worldwide," O'Brien said.


Harborplace owner General Growth Properties, which announced the finalized lease with Ripley's on Tuesday, said the attraction will be part of a new lineup of tenants to open in time for the summer tourist season, boosting occupancy of both waterfront pavilions to 95 percent.

Other previously announced changes include the addition of Bubba Gump Shrimp Co., the first restaurant chain based on a movie; McCormick World of Flavors, a store showcasing the Baltimore-based spice maker's brand; a new food court with a Subway, Chicken Now and China Max; the return of Johnny Rockets restaurant; and a renovated, expanded J. Paul's restaurant.

Read more: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/breaking/bs-bz-ripleys-harborplace-20120228,0,4542808.story#ixzz3BbCerkHQ

Quote from: stephendare on August 27, 2014, 09:33:24 AM
I think the problem with these festival marketplaces in their current incarnations is that they do not address what truly connects community together anymore, and that is communication.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that communication tech and social media are a new metric that most urban planners don't even realize is a part of the new environment that they should be planning for and embedding---as important as electrical and plumbing grids.

The festival marketplace concept failed as far back as the late 1980s and early 1990s.  I'm not sure what planners have to do with their failure.

Festival Marketplaces can and do work, but in a very limited number of cases. A higher level of tourism than JAX has, seems to be a prerequisite for success. Same thing with pedestrian malls, there are a few that work (Lincoln Road in SOBE) but they are likewise few and far between.

The Landing site needs to be an anchor for DT but it can't and shouldn't be the 'whole enchilada'.  Hemming needs to be an anchor too, which would create a natural flow of people between the two.  East Bay St./Shipyards site would be another anchor.     

Quote from: tayana42 on August 26, 2014, 11:53:50 PM
Redevelop the Landing?  Okay, just replace the current leaseholder, Tony Sleiman, who has a proven record of failure. The Landing was busy and popular until he took over.
Open up Laura Street to the River?  Yes. 
Street on the river?  I hope not.
Palm trees? This isn't Palm Beach; plant live oaks.

Where is the inspiring architecture?  Where is the focus on pedestrians and river?  Why is there a proposed marina with finger piers 90 degrees to the swift current?

I believe we are in the 'same book,' but perhaps different pages. Anyway I think I'm casually qualified to answer the question of the marina concept.' My family owned the marina next to Daytona Beach Chris-Craft in my misspent teen years. (DON'T LET YOUR KIDS GROW UP ON THE DAB BOARDWALK!  ;))

While not impossible, the idea presents huge expenses and maintenance headaches for both the owner of the landing as well as the city. Scour is the bane of railroad and highway bridges everywhere, the fact is the Matthews could be in serious trouble as the scour issue has not been addressed fully... anyone remember the Bridge of The Lions rebuild? Anyway scour can be demonstrated by placing a stick in the sand near the surf and pouring water so that it runs past the stick, give it a few seconds and the stick falls over.

The curve in the river, the narrow channel, and the sweep of the same against the north bank is undermining the entire north bank seawall and parking areas near the Hyatt. No doubt everything from the Fuller Warren to about the Shipyards on that side are experiencing the scouring of sand away from the bulkheads, piers and pilings. Building ANY lite bridge like structure on the north side is going to present some expensive and potential weakness problems.

Quotethe project will be Miami's Eiffel Tower

(http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2014/08/26/22/04/o2Grb.Em.56.jpeg)

That is an Eye Full.

Quote from: finehoe on August 27, 2014, 11:01:40 AM

Quotethe project will be Miami's Eiffel Tower

(http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2014/08/26/22/04/o2Grb.Em.56.jpeg)

The Miami Tie Clip®.

I don't think the images or the references that pop into my head when seeing this are safe for public comment or viewing.   ;D

All I can say is that whomever designed it had something else on their mind.....

Guys, I commissioned some sketches (i.e. copied and pasted in Windows Paint) of the before and after changes to our city skyline that would result from the proposed redevelopment plan. Results are below, and they ain't pretty.

Before:
(http://i.imgur.com/CHqiIu7.jpg)

After:
(http://i.imgur.com/gorOLxb.jpg)

Before:
(http://i.imgur.com/UZCaVjo.jpg)

After:
(http://i.imgur.com/aN6qybc.jpg)

Before:
(http://i.imgur.com/dqFzaGH.jpg)

After:
(http://i.imgur.com/wUvpm4P.jpg)

Certainly not all of these are 'THE LANDING' but they all certainly share successful elements.

(http://www.littlerock.com/!UserFiles/business-listings/partners/River%20Market.jpg)
Little Rock, River Market, AR
Little Rock's River Market is a haven for great food, talented Arkansas artists, unique shopping and swingin' Arkansas live music.

(http://www.railwaypreservation.com/vintagetrolley/Famers_Market_a_sm.JPG)
The Grove and Farmers Market, Los Angeles.
Don't think of it as a mall. Think of it as a lovely street crafted to evoke Parisian promenades. From your favorite boutiques and restaurants to choreographed fountains, free live concerts in the park and the historic Farmers Market, you'll enjoy an experience like no other in Los Angeles. Book an outdoor table at a restaurant after you've seen the musical fountain show or taken a trolley ride.

(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8534/8618625274_6a99faec33_z.jpg)
Memphis Main Street Mall, TN
Get Down with Beale Street Landing Grand Opening, Sesame Street Live, South Main Trolley Night, and more! From the Orpheum Theater to Central Station, South Main is a mosaic of Memphis originals, History, Art, Architecture, Architecture, Culture, Shops, Food, Characters and Innovation.

(http://www.stacywitbeck.com/images/project/59/Mall_Shelter_Nightv3%20resized.jpg)
Portland 5Th Street Mall, OR
If you are looking for a mall to walk through on a rainy day in the cultural district then look no further, you found it. Several levels, variety of stores, small food court area, several entrances, and you can jump on the light-rail for easy access.

(http://www.cnu.org/sites/www.cnu.org/files/imagecache/news/charteraward-littlerockar06_0.jpg)
Rendering, Little Rock, AR, 'Creative Corridor Project,' The Mann on Main development, the K Lofts, a new hotel, CRJW's move to the Fulk Building, Orbea's North American headquarters and the Tech Park. All are projects finished, currently taking place, or planned for Main Street. Opening with the new heritage streetcar extension, Coming this summer in the Arkansas Building with The Rep, Arkansas Ballet, Arkansas Symphony Orchestra, in addition to a little art and food. It's exactly what Priest said is needed to make the area thrive.

(http://www.shstreetcar.com/images/rotating2.jpg)
Rendering, Sugar House Streetcar, Salt Lake City, UT.
As currently contemplated, the plaza would provide public open space in the heart of Sugar House, but also would act as a venue for activities such as a farmers market, arts festival and concerts.

(http://www.tecolinestreetcar.org/news/streetcar_fest/streetcar_fest_crowd_centro%20resize.jpg)
Streetcars are back in Tampa, supporting continued growth in downtown, Channelside and Ybor City. The TECO Line Streetcar System is a 2.7-mile line serving the dining and entertainment destinations.

(http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa111/Ocklawaha/streetcar1-edgewater-florida_zps9beb0856.jpg)
Next up, we have, perhaps, the first large-scale modern US greenfield development proposed with a streetcar. The plans for Restoration in Edgewater, Florida — approved by the municipality September 24 — include a 3- to 4-mile internal streetcar line estimated to cost about $10 million per mile. That's much less than cities typically spend for a streetcar system, because the plan avoids many of the street closure and reconstruction costs associated with placing transit on an existing urban street, says Eliza Harris, project manager with Canin Associates in Orlando.

With 8,500 planned housing units, Restoration is close in size to Celebration in Orlando. It's one of the biggest new urban projects ever approved, and certainly the biggest post-recession TND (traditional neighborhood development) planned to date. Planning for Restoration began prior to the housing crash, Harris notes, so it could be considered a holdover from another

(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/assets/thumbs/image.3448.feature.jpg)
Jacksonville... Any Questions?

(Sorry about all of those damn REAL streetcars, they just keep popping up in just about every successful place I found).

Final bone of contention for the afternoon:

Why the rush?

You could argue that the Landing, as it currently exists, potentially has its best shot at success ever in the coming years. Look at what's (potentially) going on around it. To the west, you have a massive amount of development taking place in Brooklyn, bringing hundreds of new residents to the area. The Laura Street Trio and Barnett National Bank buildings will bring a Courtyard Marriott, high-end restaurant, a two-story sports bar, apartments, office space, and additional parking right beside the Landing. Friends of Hemming Park have plans to turn Hemming back into a safe, populated area with year-round programming. The Bostwick Building has been purchased with the intent of turning it into a restaurant. Everbank is bringing 400 more workers downtown, and when construction is completed at the old library, another 200 will follow. There are rumors that an Atlanta developer is interested in completing Berkman 2. To the east, Shad Khan will be presenting his plans for the Shipyards sooner than later, which Mark Lamping recently stated include bringing the USS Adams downtown as a Naval museum. Intuition is looking to make a splash next door, per Stephen, and Maxwell House just announced an expansion of their own. The Armada have discussed a soccer specific stadium in the coming years, and the mayor has announced renovations and enhancements to Metro Park and the northbank Riverwalk.

Dead center to all of this development is the Jacksonville Landing.

Why can't a portion of that $11.8 million in city money earmarked to remove 120,000 square feet of restaurant and retail and hastily convert the Landing to residential apartments instead go to giving the Landing a nice little facelift, opening up the middle to Laura Street, and buying another 5-10 years to see how these other projects pan out?

What will probably happen......they will demolish The Landing and something will happen with financing etc before the new structure gets built and JAX ends up with yet another vacant lot.......

Quote from: tpot on August 27, 2014, 02:28:26 PM
What will probably happen......they will demolish The Landing and something will happen with financing etc before the new structure gets built and JAX ends up with yet another vacant lot.......

Now where have I heard this before...?

Quote from: finehoe on January 16, 2014, 03:55:10 PM
If history is any guide, what is most likely to happen is that the current Landing structures will be demolished to make way for the new development, but then something will happen and the result will be that the empty land will just sit there for at least a decade.

(http://www.auctions.glasstrio.com/stuff/t/t_fl_jack_lot_61634.jpg) Well on the bright-side at least it was a parking lot before it was the Landing! We'd being going back in the direction of Jacksonville's glory days! :P

Quote from: finehoe on August 27, 2014, 03:40:00 PM

Quote from: tpot on August 27, 2014, 02:28:26 PM
What will probably happen......they will demolish The Landing and something will happen with financing etc before the new structure gets built and JAX ends up with yet another vacant lot.......

Now where have I heard this before...?

Quote from: finehoe on January 16, 2014, 03:55:10 PM
If history is any guide, what is most likely to happen is that the current Landing structures will be demolished to make way for the new development, but then something will happen and the result will be that the empty land will just sit there for at least a decade.

You mean like those condos that sit along the river unfinished because of the parking garage that supposedly collapsed? Yes I still think there's a conspiracy behind that, as well as the courthouse.

The garage did collapse and it killed 1 person and injured 21 others. One of the reasons it sat so long was because our legal system nationwide sucks...

Either way, that should be top priority. It's an embarrassment to have that sitting there for so long.

Just a quick note on differences between how Miami and JAX do business deals........as part of the deal negotiated with the Miami Heat playing in the arena, the Heat donate 1 million a year to the city park system, instead of the city paying for say swimming pools and big screens.......if you read about the redevelopment of Bayside in Miami, the investment for the upgrades is coming from private investment and that is on top of the investors giving 10 million upfront to the city and more money in a trust for further development of Miami.......

^^while true, Miami is not some stagnant metropolis either.  Private money follows the glitz and glamour. 

Quote from: finehoe on August 27, 2014, 03:40:00 PM

Quote from: tpot on August 27, 2014, 02:28:26 PM
What will probably happen......they will demolish The Landing and something will happen with financing etc before the new structure gets built and JAX ends up with yet another vacant lot.......

Now where have I heard this before...?

I have said the same....LOL

Quote from: finehoe on January 16, 2014, 03:55:10 PM
If history is any guide, what is most likely to happen is that the current Landing structures will be demolished to make way for the new development, but then something will happen and the result will be that the empty land will just sit there for at least a decade.

Quote from: avonjax on August 27, 2014, 09:45:32 PM

Quote from: finehoe on August 27, 2014, 03:40:00 PM

Quote from: tpot on August 27, 2014, 02:28:26 PM
What will probably happen......they will demolish The Landing and something will happen with financing etc before the new structure gets built and JAX ends up with yet another vacant lot.......

Now where have I heard this before...?

I have said the same....LOL

Quote from: finehoe on January 16, 2014, 03:55:10 PM
If history is any guide, what is most likely to happen is that the current Landing structures will be demolished to make way for the new development, but then something will happen and the result will be that the empty land will just sit there for at least a decade.

I think that's what they want to have happen. Screw it up so bad you can't fix it. That's GOB politics for you. Same way with the courthouse. I think Peyton drained all of the money from the BJP solely to that courthouse just so there wouldn't be any money for anything else. I'm sure others can see that as well. Can anyone really be that stupid?

Quote from: Anti redneck on August 28, 2014, 12:45:22 AM

Quote from: avonjax on August 27, 2014, 09:45:32 PM

Quote from: finehoe on August 27, 2014, 03:40:00 PM

Quote from: tpot on August 27, 2014, 02:28:26 PM
What will probably happen......they will demolish The Landing and something will happen with financing etc before the new structure gets built and JAX ends up with yet another vacant lot.......

Now where have I heard this before...?

I have said the same....LOL

Quote from: finehoe on January 16, 2014, 03:55:10 PM
If history is any guide, what is most likely to happen is that the current Landing structures will be demolished to make way for the new development, but then something will happen and the result will be that the empty land will just sit there for at least a decade.

I think that's what they want to have happen. Screw it up so bad you can't fix it. That's GOB politics for you. Same way with the courthouse. I think Peyton drained all of the money from the BJP solely to that courthouse just so there wouldn't be any money for anything else. I'm sure others can see that as well. Can anyone really be that stupid?

Or maybe the design will follow the pattern of the court house from "OK" to awful. Each new design has gone further into the dumpster for me.
I especially liked the comment that was quoted in the TU yesterday about how this was a nice design because it was setback from the river more and it was lower density.
Maybe I know nothing but lower density sounds more like suburbia to me not a downtown that wants to create 24 hour life.
Sometimes the thinking in this city is it's worst enemy.

^ That's why I hate the Times Union and wish a better newspaper would take its place. *hint, hint*

^I believe that was a part of a quote from Terry Lorince at Downtown Vision, Inc. Can't blame the Times Union for that. The theme of the article is about people's views on the project as proposed. Others include Chris Flagg, Ted Pappas, Steve Tocknell, and Steve Lovett.

QuoteLorince said that when a riverfront expert met with her group several years ago, he had several examples of cities with roads running along riverfront promenades.

"I think we still need to see how it relates to the Times-Union Center, where the road is leading, how it impacts other buildings," she said.

"But I think the project continues to evolve," she said. "The renderings are getting better and better. There's more of a setback from the river, there's lower density."

Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2014-08-26/story/jacksonville-landing-proposal-gets-mixed-reviews-non-remarkable-design#ixzz3BgPj4A8W

Sanity prevails!

Via the Jax Daily Record:

QuoteThursday update: Jacksonville Civic Council says more work needed on Jacksonville Landing plans

After reviewing the latest redevelopment concept for the Jacksonville Landing, the Jacksonville Civic Council wants a more thorough process before $11.8 million in public money is spent.

In a statement released this morning, Bob Rhodes, chair of the council's Downtown Task Force, said rather than endorsing the proposal, the community should use leading local and national architects and developers though an open design process.

The former Downtown Development Authority chairman went on to say in view of the $11.8 million Mayor Alvin Brown has proposed providing the project, the council supports a more thorough and inclusive process for re-imagining the riverfront retail venue.

"Community engagement with key stakeholders will also ensure that the Landing provides the type of unique downtown venue that our citizens deserve," Rhodes said.

He praised the Downtown Investment Authority's " thoughtful" Business Investment and Development plan recently introduced to City Council.

"As a key component to unlocking the DIA plan, the Jacksonville Landing deserves an equally thoughtful community review process before public dollars are invested," Rhodes said.

He encouraged the DIA to have a review process to "engage the public and capture the expertise of professionals" to create a Downtown destination that reflects the true nature of the city.

"Public investment in the Landing can only occur when a community engagement process is conducted and an iconic design is completed and presented," Rhodes said.

The Civic Council comprises more than 60 members from a range of industries and disciplines including banking and financial services, commercial real estate development and management, engineering and design and law.

It has taken on issues such as the city budget and pension reform, promoting Jacksonville as a center for medical care and research and Downtown's renewal.

Read more at:
http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=543740

Quote from: KenFSU on August 28, 2014, 09:21:36 AM
Sanity prevails!

Amen! I couldn't have said it better.

i still think you can visual open the landing from the river to laura st successfully without touching the current roof line. i can remember the days when the landing was vibrant place to go.  there is no reason it can't be that again, but the owner of the building needs to get off his wallet first and quit waiting for hand outs from the city.

Quote from: Anti redneck on August 27, 2014, 03:56:29 PM
Either way, that should be top priority. It's an embarrassment to have that sitting there for so long.

It's going to happen, and sooner than you think.  I hope.

Sleiman's got a guy.

Sleiman wants the city to spend $11.8 million to improve the public space surrounding the two redeveloped Landing buildings, estimated at $55 million to $75 million.
As Sleiman handles the political side, lobbying City Council and working with a supportive Mayor Alvin Brown, Senkbeil will take over the project development.
"He's my point man now. I assigned everything to him," Sleiman said.
That includes bids, development, project construction, "everything," Sleiman said.

From the  http://jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=543767

More scared than ever.

There is not one comp in Post/Carter/Weeks to the Landing.  There really isn't a comp anywhere in Atlanta.  And I'm pissed that we are going the multifamily route.

This article reads like Tom Senkbeil is a god of real estate.  He's a brilliant guy no doubt, but his background within real estate doesn't seem all too conducive to what I would like to see happen at the Landing.

The article keeps talking about 41 years experience, and how that means all of our problems are solved.  Senkbeil has taken companies public and worked for a public multifamily REIT.  I don't see how that is all that relevant to the Landing unless one wants a Post-like apartment building on that site.

Oh...well apparently people do.  The article posts lots of pictures of examples of Post properties, mentions Four Seasons Residences in DT Austin and Ritz Carlton Residences at 3630 Peachtree in Atlanta, and says this,

QuoteDuring Senkbeil's tenure, all the Post developments were high-density, mixed-use urban properties.

Errrrrrr, No!!!

This quote bugs me to no end, as well:

QuoteHe also knows residents like retail. He said 401 Oberlin's retail space includes the Tupelo Honey Café, a Southern restaurant that operates in North and South Carolina, Tennessee and, next year, Atlanta.

Perhaps the Jacksonville Landing? "I'll certainly call them."

Senkbeil said the Landing holds similarities to 401 Oberlin, saying both are high-density projects with "high-quality multifamily properties" and structured parking.

OMFG

Here is 401 Oberlin (same source, from link):

(http://jaxdailyrecord.com/storyimages/1409584126401Oberlin.jpg)


Shoot me now.



People of Jax, you are being duped.  With the multi route, everyone is giving up.  The easy route is to put up "urban" multi wrapped around a garage (that fabulous "structured parking" that seems to be a perk and automatically means "urban" nowadays in the south), throw in a bit of retail, calling on a couple of contacts who represent businesses not yet in NE FL (but undoubtedly on way since everyone who is "new" is really trying to expand into a successful chain) to say "we put in restaurants new to the area" a la Tupelo Honey, which I have actual experience putting into a project as well, lol, and telling everyone in Jacksonville the Landing is fixed.

What everyone will get is an ugly stick frame apartment building with 2-3 restaurants and some lawn space, called public space, and boom, we'll be told everyone succeeded finally in turning the place around.


YOU GUYS ARE BEING SOLD A BILL OF GOODS!!!!!!  BEWARE

Just wish we could afford Simms. Damn.

Again I am fine with the mix of uses...multi-family residential with some commercial is what downtown needs....and unlike Simms, I feel there are many good properties in the List portfolio...Post Walk in Tampa's Hyde Park for example. 

^I agree, I really don't see the problem with a residential element; in fact it would be a great addition so long as it didn't take away the other elements.

Quote from: edjax on September 01, 2014, 06:20:38 PM
Just wish we could afford Simms. Damn.

Aww, I can appreciate your vitriolic hatred towards me.  #hatersgonnahate

Too bad you have never had anything substantive to say about me, my posts, or half of the discussions that take place.  Always a personal nit.  I say it's time to up your game.

Quote from: tufsu1 on September 01, 2014, 08:30:58 PM
Again I am fine with the mix of uses...multi-family residential with some commercial is what downtown needs....and unlike Simms, I feel there are many good properties in the List portfolio...Post Walk in Tampa's Hyde Park for example. 

I should clarify - I want to see more residential downtown.  But I am staunchly opposed to residential on this site *unless* it truly doesn't take away the main purpose of this site and its sense of public ownership (and I think that will be very difficult to do because the best residential that can be built now in Jax is that lame proposal we've already seen).

There is nothing in the Post portfolio that is "bad", but there is *nothing* that I feel belongs on this site.  In my opinion, there is nothing truly "urban" about any property in the Post portfolio, or Tom's new portfolio.

The Landing, as-is now, looks better as a postcard forefront setting than any Type III stick multifamily they'll be able to design for that site.  The best look you'll get is something that is an iteration of 220 Riverside, which does not belong there, at all, in my most humble opinion.

If it takes the city stepping in in a major way to keep the Landing as a sort of public use with shops and restaurants and event space and stalls, then that's what should happen, no matter how long it takes.  I don't want this site, the most prominent in the city, used up by an iteration of a multifamily development described as "urban" that really could be in any major sunbelt city, both in a downtown or in a suburban setting (as is the case already).

I really hope somebody's standards in the city of Jax are as high as mine.  We will take away an opportunity to do something truly unique if we let multifamily take over this site, especially multifamily that can go anywhere else in our urban core, on the SS, anywhere in Orlando, Tampa, Atlanta, Charlotte, Austin, Nashville, etc.  This site, along with the bones and history that is there, is way better than that.

QuoteI should clarify - I want to see more residential downtown.  But I am staunchly opposed to residential on this site *unless* it truly doesn't take away the main purpose of this site and its sense of public ownership (and I think that will be very difficult to do because the best residential that can be built now in Jax is that lame proposal we've already seen).

There is nothing in the Post portfolio that is "bad", but there is *nothing* that I feel belongs on this site.  In my opinion, there is nothing truly "urban" about any property in the Post portfolio, or Tom's new portfolio.

The Landing, as-is now, looks better as a postcard forefront setting than any Type III stick multifamily they'll be able to design for that site.  The best look you'll get is something that is an iteration of 220 Riverside, which does not belong there, at all, in my most humble opinion.

If it takes the city stepping in in a major way to keep the Landing as a sort of public use with shops and restaurants and event space and stalls, then that's what should happen, no matter how long it takes.  I don't want this site, the most prominent in the city, used up by an iteration of a multifamily development described as "urban" that really could be in any major sunbelt city, both in a downtown or in a suburban setting (as is the case already).

I really hope somebody's standards in the city of Jax are as high as mine.  We will take away an opportunity to do something truly unique if we let multifamily take over this site, especially multifamily that can go anywhere else in our urban core, on the SS, anywhere in Orlando, Tampa, Atlanta, Charlotte, Austin, Nashville, etc.  This site, along with the bones and history that is there, is way better than that.

Couldn't have been said any better.

Simms is right about the Landing and Sleiman is trying to jump into something he is not good at, residential housing. When was the last time Sleiman built a massive complex of residential as compared to bunch of retail store fronts? The man is out of his league and he wants to "practice" with the crown jewel of Jacksonville? It is the one iconic item of downtown, besides our tall skyscrapers and the bridges, that is added to postcards and MNF pictures. Tear it down and build a brick shit-house instead?

The Landing was built under the premise of retail shopping, restaurants, night life with concerts using the river as the back drop. If Sleiman can't make this work, have him say he cannot make it work and sell it to some other carnival worker who can make it work. There is no harm in acknowledging failure Tony, just drop it and get back to what you are good at doing, turning trees into strip malls and ruining neighborhoods with the concept that "every store looks the same". Not downtown baby, not my downtown!

I wonder if the panic level about the Landing decreases when people envision Berkman 2 complete, old courthouse demolished, the southbank JEA project that will include another multi-use destination, and of course, Khan's Shipyards development.  Remember, Khan promised to reveal his plans before the season opener.  This week!!

My guess is that within the full context of these many projects, the complete demolition and redesign of the Landing becomes less important.  The Landing, as currently designed, could flourish and attract better dining and retail if more people live in and around the core.

Having said that, I agree with Bob Rhodes that the redesign process should be completely open and NOT dominated by Toney. 

The Landing is never going to meet the full potential of the space with its current design. And the proposed design won't meet that potential either, regardless of what else comes up in the area (especially in comparatively isolated places like the Shipyards and the Southside Generator site). We need to get things right when they're still on nice, cheap paper before we invest millions more taxpayer dollars.

I guess it all depends on the definition of "full potential".  If it has anything to do with Return on Investment, redesign of the existing footprint vs. complete demo and rebuild will always be part of the conversation.

Quote from: downtownbrown on September 02, 2014, 09:44:20 AM
I guess it all depends on the definition of "full potential".  If it has anything to do with Return on Investment, redesign of the existing footprint vs. complete demo and rebuild will always be part of the conversation.

The Landing is Jacksonville's front doorstep, and arguably the signature piece of real estate in the city. ROI should certainly be a consideration, but in the case of the Landing, the "return" should be thought of first and foremost in terms of quality of life enhancement, civic pride, and marketing opportunity, rather than apartment revenue on a balance sheet.

Ok.  What if we let Slieman do his dramatic change to the current Landing and a Landing-ish (restaurant, bar, retail, etc.) development were done on the old courthouse parking lot east of the Hyatt.  Still a prime riverfront location AND closer to the thriving Elbow entertainment disctrict AND across the street from the Hyatt?

Quote from: KenFSU on September 02, 2014, 11:02:08 AM

Quote from: downtownbrown on September 02, 2014, 09:44:20 AM
I guess it all depends on the definition of "full potential".  If it has anything to do with Return on Investment, redesign of the existing footprint vs. complete demo and rebuild will always be part of the conversation.

The Landing is Jacksonville's front doorstep, and arguably the signature piece of real estate in the city. ROI should certainly be a consideration, but in the case of the Landing, the "return" should be thought of first and foremost in terms of quality of life enhancement, civic pride, and marketing opportunity, rather than apartment revenue on a balance sheet.

I agree, but we have a City Council that seems very reluctant to fund any projects with debt, and a population that doesn't want to pay taxes (and doesn't care about downtown, except in theory).  So ROI is going to play a big part in the discussions.  The only hope is that Real Money with a Real Vision decides to "fix" Jacksonville. Pretty short list there.  And we need political leadership.  Why hasn't the Landing project been opened to urban developers and designers?  Has has been mentioned, Sleiman is a strip mall builder, not an urban designer.  He is out of his depth.

A breakdown of the $11.8 million being requested from taxpayers:

$3.24 million - demolish the Landing and prepare site for construction of new buildings

$1.83 million - landscaping, park benches, and trash receptacles

$3.5 million - stage, water fountain, shade canopies, and public art for public space

$2.21 million - streets encircling buildings and paver-surfaced pedestrian areas

$1 million - engineering and architectural services.

About $580k is needed to tear the Main Street Bridge ramp down. However, at the moment, no one has committed money to paying for it.

http://members.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2014-09-02/story/demolition-jacksonville-landing-site-would-cost-38-million-get-it-ready

Two assumed objectives for the landing seem to limit options for a new design.   

For example, are the two objectives below, primary, and actually necessary? .... 

1)  Keeping the overall height low so as to not obscure the river view from other buildings 

2)  Opening up Laura to the river.

If these objectives are to be sought, then what great and magical projects can follow?  Is the design somewhat limited to what has been proposed -- which is a relatively low, two-piece configuration ... one piece being on the east of Laura, the other on the west?

If one doesn't like the apparent "boring" design, then one might consider removing the primary objectives above.

Are we attempting to create some horrendous splash of magic architecture in order to "save" downtown?  While the landing area is significant in some respects, isn't downtown more than the landing?  Might we consider ending our effort to "make" downtown with some goddamn miracle at the landing?  If we must make a miracle, which is indeed possible, then we might consider more space to do so, either in height, which means blocking the view for other buildings, or in density, which means blocking Laura Street's view and access to the river ... or both.

Opening up Laura Street to pedestrians (and visibility) should definitely be a necessity. The Landing has never fully taken off with it's back to downtown and it never will.

Quote from: thelakelander on September 02, 2014, 11:04:55 PM
$3.5 million - stage, water fountain, shade canopies, and public art for public space

Seems pretty high relative what Sleiman presented.

Quote from: Tacachale on September 03, 2014, 06:35:00 AM
Opening up Laura Street to pedestrians (and visibility) should definitely be a necessity. The Landing has never fully taken off with it's back to downtown and it never will.

Absolutely. It would be a steady draw to the river. There's a terrific view there.

Quote from: ronchamblin on September 03, 2014, 01:33:25 AM
Two assumed objectives for the landing seem to limit options for a new design.   

For example, are the two objectives below, primary, and actually necessary? .... 

1)  Keeping the overall height low so as to not obscure the river view from other buildings 

2)  Opening up Laura to the river.

If these objectives are to be sought, then what great and magical projects can follow?  Is the design somewhat limited to what has been proposed -- which is a relatively low, two-piece configuration ... one piece being on the east of Laura, the other on the west?

If one doesn't like the apparent "boring" design, then one might consider removing the primary objectives above.

Are we attempting to create some horrendous splash of magic architecture in order to "save" downtown?  While the landing area is significant in some respects, isn't downtown more than the landing?  Might we consider ending our effort to "make" downtown with some goddamn miracle at the landing?  If we must make a miracle, which is indeed possible, then we might consider more space to do so, either in height, which means blocking the view for other buildings, or in density, which means blocking Laura Street's view and access to the river ... or both.

exactly right.  The Landing footprint simply isn't big enough to define Downtown.  This ain't Mayberry.  The Landing ought to be seen in context of the entire Riverfront, North and South, from the Stadium to Brooklyn.  A little stamp in the middle of it all might be a visual focal point, but it can't hold the variety and scope of an entire downtown ecosystem.

Quote from: Tacachale on September 02, 2014, 09:38:50 AM
The Landing is never going to meet the full potential of the space with its current design. And the proposed design won't meet that potential either, regardless of what else comes up in the area (especially in comparatively isolated places like the Shipyards and the Southside Generator site). We need to get things right when they're still on nice, cheap paper before we invest millions more taxpayer dollars.

It has almost nothing to do with design. It has to do with the draw of the venue. Other than a bar or restaurant, almost any of which can be done in other parts of the city (with free / better parking options) what is it that makes The Landing unique enough to bring people downtown? The answer is NOTHING; THAT is the problem. The only reason I go there is because it is someplace I can go by boat. Otherwise, I would probably never go there.

Quote from: JimInJax on September 03, 2014, 09:14:07 AM

Quote from: Tacachale on September 02, 2014, 09:38:50 AM
The Landing is never going to meet the full potential of the space with its current design. And the proposed design won't meet that potential either, regardless of what else comes up in the area (especially in comparatively isolated places like the Shipyards and the Southside Generator site). We need to get things right when they're still on nice, cheap paper before we invest millions more taxpayer dollars.

It has almost nothing to do with design. It has to do with the draw of the venue. Other than a bar or restaurant, almost any of which can be done in other parts of the city (with free / better parking options) what is it that makes The Landing unique enough to bring people downtown? The answer is NOTHING; THAT is the problem. The only reason I go there is because it is someplace I can go by boat. Otherwise, I would probably never go there.

It has something to do with design.  The Landing could be the attractive anomally in the gestalt of downtown.  The problem is that there is no gestalt.  Yet.

Curious...If in a designing pase, any sense in thinking about the Adams a part of the project?

Quote from: JimInJax on September 03, 2014, 09:14:07 AM

Quote from: Tacachale on September 02, 2014, 09:38:50 AM
The Landing is never going to meet the full potential of the space with its current design. And the proposed design won't meet that potential either, regardless of what else comes up in the area (especially in comparatively isolated places like the Shipyards and the Southside Generator site). We need to get things right when they're still on nice, cheap paper before we invest millions more taxpayer dollars.

It has almost nothing to do with design. It has to do with the draw of the venue. Other than a bar or restaurant, almost any of which can be done in other parts of the city (with free / better parking options) what is it that makes The Landing unique enough to bring people downtown? The answer is NOTHING; THAT is the problem. The only reason I go there is because it is someplace I can go by boat. Otherwise, I would probably never go there.

A space that attracts people and business is the draw of the venue. Business aren't going to go (or at least succeed) in a place they can't make money. The current design is, and always has been, too limited for the space to reach its full potential.

I see the Ferry Building as the perfect analogy of the Landing.

1) It's owned by EOP (balance sheet), but on Port of SF land (i.e. ground lease).
2) It's had its ups and downs over the years, but an opportunity led to its present state.
3) Required tons of patience on the part of ownership to breathe life into the space.  Required tons of money, too.  Took time to get tenants and vendors, and make them happy.
4) Sense of public ownership.
5) Mixed-use with class A office space on top floor
6) Event space - a wedding happens there almost every day
7) Waterfront, with public waterfront access.
8 ) Bookends downtown and offers a "setting" for the backdrop, which is high-rises
9) Roughly < 300,000 SF size range, altogether



The differences are that the city/port was a fantastic partner and ownership was well capitalized and had the necessary experience.  SF is admittedly on a different level, but before 1989 the whole waterfront was actually really dirty and crime-ridden, and not touristy at all.

I can see that throwing up some multi is the only way to get this to work, financially (and receive financing), "now", and I can see an argument for there being no point in "trying" since the city itself (i.e. leadership) sucks and won't seem to ever get its act together, but owning the Landing is not my problem.  It's Toney's.  He picked up something that has a *sense of public ownership* and I hope the media follows this closely, scrutinizes everything, and that the city allows public input.

The $30mm used for the scoreboards could have been invested nicely here, but then that would make the city an official partner and investor, oh wait...the city helped Khan's personal investment in the Jags that way without becoming an official investor!  Wait, the irony...(I guess the city owns the stadium and the Jags lease it, so it's "different").

Other cities that have a feature like the Ferry Building without all of those similarities to the Landing:

Philly - Reading Terminal
NYC - Chelsea Market
LA - Grand Central Market
Chicago - Chicago French Market
Atlanta - soon to be Ponce City Market and Krog Street Market
Boston - soon to be Boston Public Market

I like Chelsea Market because it's a mix of uses with office above, like the Ferry Building.  Ferry Building is literally directly analogous to the Landing, though.  In almost every way.  I'll try to snap pics this weekend since I need a break from being bad ;)

Was the Landing ever successful as a retail/ restaurant venue? If yes, then what changed?  If no, then why is it still here?  (Actually, I suspect it is still here because it was once, maybe is successful enough.) Is it the Landing and it's design that is an issue here or is it everything around it? Or, in this case today, the lack of everything around it?  It just seems to me that while this proposal is to "fix" the Landing, it is not the Landing that is broken but rather Downtown. If that is the case, no amount of Millions spent on "fixing" the Landing will work, now will it? The Landing needs to be left alone and not be the first thing "fixed".  Let's get the Laura Trio up and running, let's get other retail Downtown and then let's look at if a fix is even needed. Let's spend those millions on better things that will not just help the Landing but all of Downtown.

^The design can't really be separated from everything around it, because it's closed off from everything else, with its entire back to downtown. As a mall (sorry, "festival marketplace"), it was more successful than it currently is back when it opened, mostly because it was new. But it never did live up to the hopes for it, and the fact that it's an isolated space has a lot to do with that, among other factors.

It's always been successful during special events, and as a restaurant and bar destination it's actually been doing a lot better than it has in a long time. Sleiman took the initiative to keep the courtyard spots occupied by those uses, to his credit. However, much of the rest of the mall is closed.

Quote from: strider on September 03, 2014, 11:55:48 AM
Was the Landing ever successful as a retail/ restaurant venue? If yes, then what changed?  If no, then why is it still here?  (Actually, I suspect it is still here because it was once, maybe is successful enough.) Is it the Landing and it's design that is an issue here or is it everything around it? Or, in this case today, the lack of everything around it?  It just seems to me that while this proposal is to "fix" the Landing, it is not the Landing that is broken but rather Downtown. If that is the case, no amount of Millions spent on "fixing" the Landing will work, now will it? The Landing needs to be left alone and not be the first thing "fixed".  Let's get the Laura Trio up and running, let's get other retail Downtown and then let's look at if a fix is even needed. Let's spend those millions on better things that will not just help the Landing but all of Downtown.

I don't know enough about the migratory patterns of Jacksonville and surrounding area consumers to be able to tell you why the Landing fell out of favor, but I can clearly remember that for years after it opened it was definitely successful as a retail and restaurant/bar destination. There used to be lines of people gathering at the Landing entertainment venues. Hard to find a parking space.

Your points are well taken regarding whether the Landing is indeed 'broken'. In other words, even if you (re)build it, will they come?

In my opinion, opening it up to Laura Street is huge. People need to be drawn in to overcome the isolation of the structure.

You can't just go through the motions.  Places I mentioned above aren't successful simply because they "are", or because they're located where they're located.  They were all at one point in the worst parts of town, abandoned and neglected.  Now they are all major tourist destinations and successful private investments.

You have to have the right vision, the right kind of [patient] money, a good partner in the city, and the right experience.  THESE are the ingredients that are missing.

If MJ is any indication, there is a pent up demand and market for "artisan" stuff, new restaurants, new ideas, event space, nightlife, etc.  Redone and reimagined appropriately, Sleiman + well chosen partner can capitalize on this, and the city would be wise to make sure it gets done, even if that means becoming a public partner to a fuller extent.

The Ferry Building gets ~15% of its revenue from events, such as weddings.  That is a huge percentage.  Food vendors from Napa/Sonoma were originally brought in, practically paid to come in.  Now they are paying $200++ PSF in rent.  Office space above was initially non-competitive to the towers, but it was done well, molded to fit its unique setting/history, and now has a law firm paying close to $100 PSF in rent.

It sounds like even posters here are giving up.  This building has POTENTIAL in the form it is already in.  Just needs new architecture, programming, outreach, etc.

It also seems to me that to simply open up the back of the landing could be done relatively inexpensively by adding walls inside the structure and not removing the basic roof and exterior wall structures.  If there is a lot of space not being used, the loss of SF would not hurt and as many here seem to think that it must be more open,  then creating  open passageways (both floors)  would be an easy way to test those waters.  Certainly not the kind of cost the various proposals are demanding and it would add a new "thing" to the Landing.  A look-out from the second floor to Downtown up Laura or over the river.  Would that not be a change that fits this - "Redone and re-imagined appropriately" - and kicks it off?

1. Early warning signs. 18

Quote from: strider on September 03, 2014, 11:55:48 AM
Was the Landing ever successful as a retail/ restaurant venue? If yes, then what changed?  If no, then why is it still here?  (Actually, I suspect it is still here because it was once, maybe is successful enough.) Is it the Landing and it's design that is an issue here or is it everything around it? Or, in this case today, the lack of everything around it?  It just seems to me that while this proposal is to "fix" the Landing, it is not the Landing that is broken but rather Downtown. If that is the case, no amount of Millions spent on "fixing" the Landing will work, now will it? The Landing needs to be left alone and not be the first thing "fixed".  Let's get the Laura Trio up and running, let's get other retail Downtown and then let's look at if a fix is even needed. Let's spend those millions on better things that will not just help the Landing but all of Downtown.

The lack of foot traffic has always been a problem for the Landing, particularly during the work week. The 18-tenet food court was slashed in half within two or three years of the grand opening (this was pre-BOA Tower, keep in mind), and retailers like Sharper Image and Brookstone bailed within five. Retail and restaurant turnover at the Landing has historically outpaced that at places like the Avenues and Regency as well. Those that have survived have been able to do so by leveraging additional traffic from events like Florida-Georgia, 4th of July, New Year's, etc. Hooters pulls in $100,000 typically during FL-GA weekend alone.

When people say that the Landing is fine with just restaurants and shops and doesn't need to be the central event space in Jacksonville, they miss the point that without these events, the restaurants and stores likely would not survive.

^^^I think supplementing what you have said, which is very true, with the idea that the city needs to be a good partner - in addition to occasional big events that draw crowds downtown in general, a healthy downtown would do wonders to help the Landing.  And a re-imagined Landing and a growing/healthy downtown can happen simultaneously and for many of the same reasons, basically hinging on good decision making and a matter of priorities.

More office workers would translate to larger lunch time crowds.  More residents would translate to regular weekend foot traffic.  And nothing would help more than robust tourism - conventioneers, tourists, vacationers, business travelers, etc.

The city doing things better on its end to emphasize downtown, improve and expand an economy that would bring more office space downtown, incentivize more private residential development, and at least attempt to compete in the CVB business with other cities would basically solve every single problem ever brought up on this forum.  LoL

Quote from: KenFSU on September 03, 2014, 01:04:54 PM

When people say that the Landing is fine with just restaurants and shops and doesn't need to be the central event space in Jacksonville, they miss the point that without these events, the restaurants and stores likely would not survive.

Excellent point.

Quote from: simms3 on September 03, 2014, 01:16:23 PM
^^^I think supplementing what you have said, which is very true, with the idea that the city needs to be a good partner - in addition to occasional big events that draw crowds downtown in general, a healthy downtown would do wonders to help the Landing.  And a re-imagined Landing and a growing/healthy downtown can happen simultaneously and for many of the same reasons, basically hinging on good decision making and a matter of priorities.

More office workers would translate to larger lunch time crowds.  More residents would translate to regular weekend foot traffic.  And nothing would help more than robust tourism - conventioneers, tourists, vacationers, business travelers, etc.

The city doing things better on its end to emphasize downtown, improve and expand an economy that would bring more office space downtown, incentivize more private residential development, and at least attempt to compete in the CVB business with other cities would basically solve every single problem ever brought up on this forum.  LoL

It would be nice to know exactly how much public money and incentives it would take to get market incentives to take over.  Cynics say downtown doesn't work because there is no market for it.  PW projects all over the world suggest that if you build it they will come.  I wonder what the number is...

Quote from: strider on September 03, 2014, 11:55:48 AM
...it is not the Landing that is broken but rather Downtown.

Exactly.

But it's one of many broken pieces in a broken downtown; it's not going to miraculously fix itself.

Most problems have both fundamental and peripheral components. While the latter can be attractive to engage because of convenience, perhaps fun, and low cost, nothing of consequence will happen until the fundamentals are seriously addressed.

Simms conveys a truism when he suggests the importance of "somehow" increasing the number of workers and residents in the downtown.

Increasing the "population" in the city core, via workers or residents ... by whatever means, pressures, incentives, or enticements ... will move the core toward the magic threshold most envision.  Past the threshold, a self-sustaining energy will encourage and excite, will lower perceptions of risk, will encourage businesses and lenders to act ... will draw more residents ... thus beginning the process of genuine infill of buildings. 

A post threshold core will create a condition wherein the "city" doesn't have to do much in the way of monetary investment, as the private sector and banks will perceive less risk in moving to action in the core.

In the recent past, and currently, most potential investors and entrepreneurs are waiting for "others" to invest and move on potential projects ... are waiting for more "people" to be in the core ... are waiting for a scenario offering less risk -- which of course will be the post threshold era.

Steve Atkins, Kahn, Sleiman, and some others, are trying to move now ... to act ... engaging various levels of risk now to move the core toward and past the much needed threshold.  These fellows are preparing the way so to speak. 

All good points here about the lack of residents downtown contributing to the Landing's current condition. So look around downtown, there are a lot of empty buildings still. JEA just announced they plan to offer space in their building to other local businesses, but who really wants to be in business downtown, without help from the City to assist with incentives.

I do not see how Sleiman can say he is now in the apartment and condo business when he does not have a proven track record for this. His rallying cry has always been, build me a parking deck and I can make the Landing work, and now he is adding, allow me to build new condos and apartments and I can make the Landing work, my vision of a new Landing. I don't buy it, his first real foray into residential should be spent with his own money on his own land. Surely he can experiment with residential next to one of his strip malls. Show that he is worth of the use of taxpayer funds. Too much of a gamble for me with such a jewel and gateway to downtown.

Aren't they building apartments on Sleiman's property behind Earth Fare, Belk, etc. at Atlantic and Kernan?

Quote from: Tacachale on September 03, 2014, 04:01:20 PM
But it's one of many broken pieces in a broken downtown; it's not going to miraculously fix itself.

Going to timed parking in lieu of metered parking would go a LONG way to making the retail/restaurant businesses more successful. Don't believe me?

Question:

Given two choices to shop at store/restaurant X, one downtown and one in a equidistant area.

One has unlimited FREE PARKING.
Two has METERED PARKING with stiff enforcement and fines.
Which one do you choose?

Our downtown merchants and restauranteurs should revolt!

ALSO: Nothing wrong with downtown that a commitment for the expanded Skyway and TRUE STREETCAR wouldn't help jumpstart.

Housing, housing, housing.  If people don't live downtown, it will never be developed. 

Exactly, I just ran by the apartment and dropped off the laundry... 1 minute and a 'TICKET ON MY CAR!'

Almost 2:00, and the CIP has yet to be discussed. Not leaving a whole lot of time...

Quote from: ronchamblin on August 25, 2014, 10:18:04 PM
Oh .... its a fountain at the end of Laura.  I thought it was to be a statue of Stephen Dare ... or maybe Jerry Moran ... or perhaps the two of them standing shoulder to shoulder ... finally reconciling their differences ... friends for eternity 

In any case, I still like the layout, and am pleased that it does not include a large gathering place for huge crowds.  The layout is designed for enjoyment "all" the time .. in the day, and the night, by residents, workers, and casual visitors.  It might be that when one designs a place "optimum" for huge event gatherings for brief moments of use, the nature of it is less welcoming to 24 hour ... every day enjoyment by the causal resident, shopper, or visitor.   

If anybody wants to have a huge event location, how about further east along the river ... within the shipyards or near Metro park?  The idea of having a huge "bowl" into which hundreds are dumped in a claustrophobic manner, as is the case with the current layout, seems rather ... well ... tacky.  But that's just me ... and I'm mentally retarded.   

The "open" feeling along Laura will be welcomed by most, as it offers the pleasant "distant" view.  The human psyche seems comforted by the far distance, as in the mountains or the sea.  The proposed layout allows this great view to anyone along Laura street, all the way to the First Baptist Church.  While standing on Laura one can perceive the splendor of god at one end, and the splendor of the river at the other.

And the new layout will allow me, and Jerry of La Cena, and our customers, to view the river while sitting or standing in front of our establishments.   

What you got against vibrancy? Personally, I'd love to see some type of "somewhere to go" and this layout just becomes nothing but another part of town. Want condos? Finish the ones that are unfinished. If the layout included more stuff to do, like an outdoor stage on top, a movie theater, or had pedestrian streets, I wouldn't be too against this design.

QuoteAren't they building apartments on Sleiman's property behind Earth Fare, Belk, etc. at Atlantic and Kernan?

Surely the Building around town thread would divulge such tidbits? Eh? Been around town lately?

QuoteThe proposed layout allows this great view to anyone along Laura street, all the way to the First Baptist Church.

Yes, that's right. People from all over the world flock to Jacksonville to see the iconic First Baptist Church. Who needs the Statue of Liberty or the Golden Gate Bridge or even the Hollywood sign, when you can come see the First Baptist Church?

Quote from: KenFSU on August 27, 2014, 12:41:40 PM
Guys, I commissioned some sketches (i.e. copied and pasted in Windows Paint) of the before and after changes to our city skyline that would result from the proposed redevelopment plan. Results are below, and they ain't pretty.

Before:
(http://i.imgur.com/CHqiIu7.jpg)

After:
(http://i.imgur.com/gorOLxb.jpg)

Before:
(http://i.imgur.com/UZCaVjo.jpg)

After:
(http://i.imgur.com/aN6qybc.jpg)

Before:
(http://i.imgur.com/dqFzaGH.jpg)

After:
(http://i.imgur.com/wUvpm4P.jpg)

These are all views from the river. They look amazing, but visitors or passer-bys don't see these view unfortunately. They are either seeing the downtown views from the Fuller Warren Bridge, or the I-10/I-95 exchange, and unfortunately, the views from those angles are not very pretty. Would be nice if they were to ever do something about that, but unfortunately, this is Jacksonville we're talking about. They will never do anything to make it look appealing. Sad. :'(

Remodeling the landing is repeating history.................that didn't work.

In 1985 the mood, driven by a developer,  was that the Landing would incite people to come downtown. It would revitalize downtown.

In 2014 they are once again saying and thinking that the Landing would revitalize down town.  I agree it isn't the Landing that's broke it is the downtown.

I don't mind the idea of the plan, I just think the present designs sucks.  It looks like a prison.  I think much can be done to better modify the plan forwarded, but I'm not totally against the concept.  Hell, if anything, downtown could use more people. 

Quote from: Anti redneck on September 06, 2014, 06:52:36 AM

QuoteThe proposed layout allows this great view to anyone along Laura street, all the way to the First Baptist Church.

Yes, that's right. People from all over the world flock to Jacksonville to see the iconic First Baptist Church. Who needs the Statue of Liberty or the Golden Gate Bridge or even the Hollywood sign, when you can come see the First Baptist Church?

This might come as a shock to many of you but I'm pretty certain that Stephendare can back me up on this. People do come from all over the world to go to First Baptist Church. Fact is, not a Sunday goes by without small groups, tours, students etc. from all around the planet go into FBC as it is one of the leading churches in the Baptist faith. 45Th in size.

7   Potential Church   Fort Lauderdale   FL   12,382
16   Christ Fellowship Baptist Church   Palmetto Bay   FL   8,197
24   Church by the Glades   Coral Springs   FL   6,712
29   Idlewild Baptist Church   Lutz   FL   6,150
30   First Baptist Church of Orlando   Orlando   FL   5,690
44   The Crossing Church   Tampa   FL   4,613
45   First Baptist Church of Jacksonville   Jacksonville   FL   4,500

So when your on vacation, your devout, you love your faith and church and you happen to be in North Florida or passing through North Florida on vacation... Sunday morning and...

Quote from: Anti redneck on September 06, 2014, 07:08:31 AM

Quote from: KenFSU on August 27, 2014, 12:41:40 PM
Guys, I commissioned some sketches (i.e. copied and pasted in Windows Paint) of the before and after changes to our city skyline that would result from the proposed redevelopment plan. Results are below, and they ain't pretty.

Before:
(http://i.imgur.com/CHqiIu7.jpg)

After:
(http://i.imgur.com/gorOLxb.jpg)

Before:
(http://i.imgur.com/UZCaVjo.jpg)

After:
(http://i.imgur.com/aN6qybc.jpg)

Before:
(http://i.imgur.com/dqFzaGH.jpg)

After:
(http://i.imgur.com/wUvpm4P.jpg)

These are all views from the river. They look amazing, but visitors or passer-bys don't see these view unfortunately. They are either seeing the downtown views from the Fuller Warren Bridge, or the I-10/I-95 exchange, and unfortunately, the views from those angles are not very pretty. Would be nice if they were to ever do something about that, but unfortunately, this is Jacksonville we're talking about. They will never do anything to make it look appealing. Sad. :'(

Looking at these photos it really does look like shit! Not that it's bad to have buildings on the waterfront, or even that those buildings are rather short and bland, but they are completely blocking a view of the most iconic building in Jacksonville. The Well Fargo Building, Ipso facto is the symbol of Jacksonville.

At this point, with the city finance committee having all city departments cut 2.5% of their budgets and this 11.8 million dollar borrowing package cut, I don't see it happening this year, unless Sleiman pulls the money out of his own coffers. Peter Rummell had a nice editorial in the Sunday Times Union too.

Quote from: mtraininjax on September 08, 2014, 04:27:26 AM
At this point, with the city finance committee having all city departments cut 2.5% of their budgets and this 11.8 million dollar borrowing package cut, I don't see it happening this year, unless Sleiman pulls the money out of his own coffers. Peter Rummell had a nice editorial in the Sunday Times Union too.

Yes, and he made Sleiman and all the advocates for his Landing overhaul (including the TU) look like amateurs.  Given his influence on matters downtown, I think he effectively put the kibosh on the Landing changes until the city undertakes a more formal "programming" process.

^^^I just read his editorial and it's spot on.  The Landing is a community asset, and Sleiman did know that when he took it on.  Multifamily changes that dynamic, for the worse.

I promised pictures of the best comp in the whole country, I think, and I failed to get them this weekend.  Maybe on a lunch break this week.  I'm referring to the Ferry Building here in San Francisco.

There's no other community asset in America with such a similar history, similar location, similar size, and similar potential (reached in the Ferry Building's case).  It's offensive with all of the talent out there in America that has dealt with similar situations and learned from similar experiences that Sleiman hastily grabbed a REIT/multifamily expert from a city who has produced a very diverse array of real estate experts instead of diligently seeking out someone who has more appropriate experience working with such community assets, particularly those that require the programming that I have consistently referred to and that Rummell refers to in his editorial, as well as working with general urban retail/event/public space (i.e. not multi).

I will work hard to get pictures before I rant and say the same thing over again, but anyone on this forum can quickly see what I'm referring to here:

http://www.ferrybuildingmarketplace.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Ferry_Building

Before/After:
http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2012/05/25/then_now_the_history_of_the_ferry_building.php#more

5 yr old article from WSJ discussing Ferry Building copy-cats and why they won't be as succesful (i.e. the Landing CAN be as successful as it has similar ingredients!!!):

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB125856378297053859?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB125856378297053859.html

Quote from: mtraininjax on September 08, 2014, 04:27:26 AM
At this point, with the city finance committee having all city departments cut 2.5% of their budgets and this 11.8 million dollar borrowing package cut, I don't see it happening this year, unless Sleiman pulls the money out of his own coffers. Peter Rummell had a nice editorial in the Sunday Times Union too.

Someone might be able to correct me, but I don't think the $11.8 million Landing renovation is necessarily off the table for this fiscal year just yet. From my understanding, we are sitting on approximately $160 million in authorized borrowing from unfinished or shelved/delayed projects from previous years. In the next 30 to 90 days, an audit of these past projects will take place in which the finance committee calculates how much money is still needed for ongoing projects, and which halted projects can potentially be closed out or deauthorized. At that point, whatever cash is left could be applied to Brown's proposed capital improvement projects.

Agree, fantastic op-ed by Peter Rummell on Sunday. For those who didn't get to read it, Rummell's main points were that:

- The Landing's redevelopment will be the catalyst for downtown overall, but we have to get it right.
- The Landing is, first and foremost, a public gathering spot, and proper programming is key to the Landing's success. Without the assurance of quality programming, no public money should be invested.
- In his discussions with Sleiman and in Sleiman's media presentations, he has never heard a single reference to programming.
- The proposed road is a bad idea, and isolates pedestrians from Jacksonville's most valuable asset, the St. Johns River.
- " Racing to abandon the shared public experience of the Landing to develop another set of downtown apartments is unfair to all that consider the Landing their community asset."

Would any of this funding potentially be used for the public art that's supposed to go in front of the courthouse? I noticed some art in the small park across from the library. Is that permanent?

Here's Peter Rummell's letter, by the way. It's spot on.

http://jacksonville.com/business/columnists/2014-09-05/story/guest-column-rummell-suggests-improvements-landing-plan

Quote from: simms3 on September 08, 2014, 10:52:27 AM
^^^I just read his editorial and it's spot on.  The Landing is a community asset, and Sleiman did know that when he took it on.  Multifamily changes that dynamic, for the worse.

I promised pictures of the best comp in the whole country, I think, and I failed to get them this weekend.  Maybe on a lunch break this week.  I'm referring to the Ferry Building here in San Francisco.

There's no other community asset in America with such a similar history, similar location, similar size, and similar potential (reached in the Ferry Building's case).  It's offensive with all of the talent out there in America that has dealt with similar situations and learned from similar experiences that Sleiman hastily grabbed a REIT/multifamily expert from a city who has produced a very diverse array of real estate experts instead of diligently seeking out someone who has more appropriate experience working with such community assets, particularly those that require the programming that I have consistently referred to and that Rummell refers to in his editorial, as well as working with general urban retail/event/public space (i.e. not multi).

I will work hard to get pictures before I rant and say the same thing over again, but anyone on this forum can quickly see what I'm referring to here:

http://www.ferrybuildingmarketplace.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Ferry_Building

Before/After:
http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2012/05/25/then_now_the_history_of_the_ferry_building.php#more

5 yr old article from WSJ discussing Ferry Building copy-cats and why they won't be as succesful (i.e. the Landing CAN be as successful as it has similar ingredients!!!):

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB125856378297053859?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB125856378297053859.html

The Ferry Building is magnificent, to be sure.  Across the street is a major convention hotel.  Not too far away is the Mission District, which until recently was pretty sketchy, but now is trendy.  Another good analogue to the Downtown potential.  Aside from that, though, any parallel between SF and Jax is pretty much of a leap.  SF is decidedly urban and urbane.  Jax is suburban and blue collar.  Much of the SF waterfront has been developed for tourism for decades.  Jax, not so much.  It is nice to imagine, however, all of the remaining riverfront industrial sites being gradually converted to tourist/urban enclaves a la SF.  Imagine Tallyrand converting to hotspots beyond the stadium.  Wow.

There is no comparison between SF the city and Jax, but there is a direct comparison between the Ferry Building and the Jacksonville Landing.

Both are the waterfront centerpieces of their respective communities.  Both are similar size and have similar structural components, featuring basically a single main atrium down their lengths with bays that open onto this atrium or outside.  Both have active waterfront uses.  Both are privately owned and operated on public land and seen as community assets.

Also the Ferry Building came first, then the rest of SF's waterfront.  It was the centerpiece needed and a momentum builder.  SF's waterfront is still a major work in progress, btw.  I think the Landing serves as a similar key to unlocking the true potential of downtown Northbank's waterfront potential.

Also, the Hyatt in Jax is as close to the Landing as the Hyatt in SF is close to the Ferry Building, and they are similar size.  Neither really has a definitive bearing on the FB's or Landing's success (because both assets have potential driven by forces far greater than one single convention hotel), but both hotels can augment each asset's success.

Trust me when I say there are really SOOOO many similarities between the FB and the Landing.

RE: The Mission, that's pretty far away and not so much a part of downtown.  All of SF is trendy and expensive now.  No exaggeration.  Manhattan and SF are the only places in the US that are literally at their peaks, in terms of everything (population, wealth, cost, amenities, etc).  Parts of the Mission are still sketchy, but as with most really dense cities, it's corner by corner/street by street.  The Mission is as far from the Ferry Building as Avondale is from downtown.

When I first looked at apts in SF, I wrote off the Mission because it looked like a slum and really rundown and I couldn't figure out why studios were $3K+, but honestly now it's one of the only places in the entire city that has that certain Manhattan true 24 hour activity.  Understanding the city better, I could justify the price to live in the Mission.

Quote from: simms3 on September 08, 2014, 04:00:43 PM
There is no comparison between SF the city and Jax

Sometimes I like to make comparisons between SF in the 1970s and Jax in the 2010s... 40 years behind sounds about right  8)

We all agree the Jacksonville Landing needs to be re-done but the artist renderings are not that exciting. I did not see boat slips or a marina of any kind, its called a Landing for a reason. Also, the restaurants should be on the water, the view is what sells the Landing. I have no issue with a multi use facility such as residential. But the Landing hosts a slew of events and concerts. It needs to remain and become a vibrant part of the Downtown. They need to have reasons for people in the Westside and Orange Park to make the drive the the Landing. Why not a Jimmy Buffets Margaritaville, or Toby Keiths Bar, a Rainforest Cafe, Blue Martini, Red Robin, a Ice Bar. Things that are not here in North Florida. Jacksonville needs to become a destination. The Landing could become a huge gem for tourism. But it needs a vision. Mavericks is always packed and a nice entertainment venue and so is Fionn McCool's but they need more visual security and better lighting from the Hyatt to the Landing. People need the impression that its a safe place to go. Downtown is on the cusp of something huge in 4 years it will not be the same Downtown. I do believe the Aquarium and the USS Adams will happen as well as the redevelopment of the Shipyards property.

Rummel letter behind the TU paywall.  Bummer.

Quote from: jake_jax on September 08, 2014, 04:12:36 PM
We all agree the Jacksonville Landing needs to be re-done but the artist renderings are not that exciting. I did not see boat slips or a marina of any kind, its called a Landing for a reason. Also, the restaurants should be on the water, the view is what sells the Landing. I have no issue with a multi use facility such as residential. But the Landing hosts a slew of events and concerts. It needs to remain and become a vibrant part of the Downtown. They need to have reasons for people in the Westside and Orange Park to make the drive the the Landing. Why not a Jimmy Buffets Margaritaville, or Toby Keiths Bar, a Rainforest Cafe, Blue Martini, Red Robin, a Ice Bar. Things that are not here in North Florida. Jacksonville needs to become a destination. The Landing could become a huge gem for tourism. But it needs a vision. Mavericks is always packed and a nice entertainment venue and so is Fionn McCool's but they need more visual security and better lighting from the Hyatt to the Landing. People need the impression that its a safe place to go. Downtown is on the cusp of something huge in 4 years it will not be the same Downtown. I do believe the Aquarium and the USS Adams will happen as well as the redevelopment of the Shipyards property.

Well that's not going to help for a few reasons.

1) That's already the mentality of Jacksonville. Bring in lots and lots of chain restaurants and maybe we'll be closer to being a real city.
2) This is Jacksonville. They are already fighting to keep it from becoming a "destination"
3) Majority of the people here are still affected by "oh this doesn't pertain to me, so I don't care" and that's the problem with the Landing and downtown.
4) The GOB political interests. They want to screw it all up.

Hate to say it, but it's too late for Jacksonville. This "city" was subdued right when they ran off the movie industry. From there, it was just a long, but inevitable implosion of the city. Want to see Jacksonville take off? Change the mentality of this whole entire city. Otherwise, there will always be that inferiority complex.

Quote from: Gamblor on September 08, 2014, 04:08:57 PM

Quote from: simms3 on September 08, 2014, 04:00:43 PM
There is no comparison between SF the city and Jax

Sometimes I like to make comparisons between SF in the 1970s and Jax in the 2010s... 40 years behind sounds about right  8)

Lol, I get your humor but comparing to when SF was still the epicenter of an entire cultural movement?  ;)

I think Jax has comparisons to Atlanta/Charlotte/Dallas/etc moreso than it will ever have any comparisons to any of the 5 greatest cities of the US, barring any asset for asset (i.e. Landing to Ferry Building).

I think Atlanta/Miami serve as great models for general "new urbanist" development in the SE (i.e. for Jax), but the Landing has no twin in Atlanta, and the waterfront is something a city like Jax can look to a city like SF for redeveloping (definitely don't repeat what Miami did, eww).

Quote from: Anti redneck on September 08, 2014, 08:26:58 PM

Quote from: jake_jax on September 08, 2014, 04:12:36 PM
We all agree the Jacksonville Landing needs to be re-done but the artist renderings are not that exciting. I did not see boat slips or a marina of any kind, its called a Landing for a reason. Also, the restaurants should be on the water, the view is what sells the Landing. I have no issue with a multi use facility such as residential. But the Landing hosts a slew of events and concerts. It needs to remain and become a vibrant part of the Downtown. They need to have reasons for people in the Westside and Orange Park to make the drive the the Landing. Why not a Jimmy Buffets Margaritaville, or Toby Keiths Bar, a Rainforest Cafe, Blue Martini, Red Robin, a Ice Bar. Things that are not here in North Florida. Jacksonville needs to become a destination. The Landing could become a huge gem for tourism. But it needs a vision. Mavericks is always packed and a nice entertainment venue and so is Fionn McCool's but they need more visual security and better lighting from the Hyatt to the Landing. People need the impression that its a safe place to go. Downtown is on the cusp of something huge in 4 years it will not be the same Downtown. I do believe the Aquarium and the USS Adams will happen as well as the redevelopment of the Shipyards property.

Well that's not going to help for a few reasons.

1) That's already the mentality of Jacksonville. Bring in lots and lots of chain restaurants and maybe we'll be closer to being a real city.
2) This is Jacksonville. They are already fighting to keep it from becoming a "destination"
3) Majority of the people here are still affected by "oh this doesn't pertain to me, so I don't care" and that's the problem with the Landing and downtown.
4) The GOB political interests. They want to screw it all up.

Hate to say it, but it's too late for Jacksonville. This "city" was subdued right when they ran off the movie industry. From there, it was just a long, but inevitable implosion of the city. Want to see Jacksonville take off? Change the mentality of this whole entire city. Otherwise, there will always be that inferiority complex.

People are always pretty quick to jump on my posts (actually people on MJ get pretty damn personal), but I am never that negative.  omg

^Haha, simms, we do it because you're worth getting into it with. ;)

Quote from: simms3 on September 08, 2014, 08:45:26 PM

Quote from: Gamblor on September 08, 2014, 04:08:57 PM

Quote from: simms3 on September 08, 2014, 04:00:43 PM
There is no comparison between SF the city and Jax

Sometimes I like to make comparisons between SF in the 1970s and Jax in the 2010s... 40 years behind sounds about right  8)

Lol, I get your humor but comparing to when SF was still the epicenter of an entire cultural movement?  ;)

I think Jax has comparisons to Atlanta/Charlotte/Dallas/etc moreso than it will ever have any comparisons to any of the 5 greatest cities of the US, barring any asset for asset (i.e. Landing to Ferry Building).

I think Atlanta/Miami serve as great models for general "new urbanist" development in the SE (i.e. for Jax), but the Landing has no twin in Atlanta, and the waterfront is something a city like Jax can look to a city like SF for redeveloping (definitely don't repeat what Miami did, eww).

I am aware the comparisons don't always hold and I tend to make them on more defined issues than broadly. However your response is exactly what I'd hoped for. But let's be clear for any who might not be aware, the comparisons really, really fails, as SF/the Bay area in the 1970's is the epicenter of movementS... the one in the Haight while evolving was still strong, the one in the Castro is finding its legs quickly and rightly not takin' shit anymore, and the one in north beach still had some thump to it. Also across the Bay Bridge in Berkley and down the peninsula in Palo Alto the silicon movement is hatching... I'm sure there could even be a few more I could come up with if I sit and think about it... oh got one, Alice Waters opened Chez Panisse in 1970's and starts her pioneering work on California cuisine. I could go on :D

So maybe I should have said 1870s... but seriously all jokes aside, your points about comparison are and have been dead on. I personally think you could add Orlando as a good model too, but I could be wrong. Just every time I've been down in the last ten years or so, I get more and more impressed with what they are doing in their urban development.

I think a good comparison would be Louiville.  Both have consolidated governments with rivers in their downtown and are very similar in size with regard to city and metro populations.

There's no waterfront and it needs a makeover itself, but Atlanta's counterpart to the Landing is Underground Atlanta. Both were managed by Rouse during their heyday.  As for as cities that are decent comparisons to Jax....Nashville, Norfolk, Louisville, Hartford, Memphis, Grand Rapids, Rochester, Dayton, etc. are all mid-sized waterfront cities worth looking at for both good and bad examples of what to do.

^^^I don't personally think the Underground is a good (or bad) comp for the Landing.  Similarities are superficial.

In terms of cities with waterfronts that are good comparisons - sure we can list out every ville of similar size and look at successes and failures.  I think with our waterfront, though, we should strive to be one of the best.  I think there seems to be a lot more to learn from Baltimore (I deduce that from several MJ threads on Baltimore's waterfront), and I think there's a lot to learn from SF's.  I could honestly give two rats' asses about what Nashville or Louisville or Hartford have or have not done.  They aren't the best waterfronts - nowhere close, and the only takeaways there I see are where they've failed (so we don't repeat).  For successes, I'd rather be bolder - do what Baltimore (riverwalk/clustering, etc) or NYC (piers, etc) or Chicago (riverwalk, etc) or SF (piers, etc) have done, since they've done their waterfronts better than the rest and made full use of them.

SF has piers like Jax has, and a master-planning development policy that has worked extremely well that Jax (and all of those other cities listed) can format for their own use.  Baltimore clearly has done lots of things right.

QuotePeople are always pretty quick to jump on my posts (actually people on MJ get pretty damn personal), but I am never that negative.  omg

I wasn't trying to be negative. I was trying to be real. Think about it. People here only go from Point A to Point B, and they want nothing more. They don't want excitement. They don't want an adventure. They don't want entertainment. It's just too late for Jacksonville. Everyone is just set in their ways here. I don't see any hope with saving this town.

QuoteMajority of the people here are still affected by "oh this doesn't pertain to me, so I don't care" and that's the problem with the Landing and downtown.

The perception in the burbs is that this is a downtown issue, to be resolved by people affected downtown. When and if it gets resolved, and its something my neighbor tells me about as being cool, I might visit it sometime in the future, but for now, you are in the way of my cable TV, so get out of my life, come back when you are cool and worth my time.

Good ideas on round 1 Tony, now come up with something better for round 2, your cool factor sucks!

Quote from: simms3 on September 09, 2014, 12:37:38 AM
^^^I don't personally think the Underground is a good (or bad) comp for the Landing.  Similarities are superficial.

In terms of cities with waterfronts that are good comparisons - sure we can list out every ville of similar size and look at successes and failures.  I think with our waterfront, though, we should strive to be one of the best.  I think there seems to be a lot more to learn from Baltimore (I deduce that from several MJ threads on Baltimore's waterfront), and I think there's a lot to learn from SF's.  I could honestly give two rats' asses about what Nashville or Louisville or Hartford have or have not done.  They aren't the best waterfronts - nowhere close, and the only takeaways there I see are where they've failed (so we don't repeat).  For successes, I'd rather be bolder - do what Baltimore (riverwalk/clustering, etc) or NYC (piers, etc) or Chicago (riverwalk, etc) or SF (piers, etc) have done, since they've done their waterfronts better than the rest and made full use of them.

SF has piers like Jax has, and a master-planning development policy that has worked extremely well that Jax (and all of those other cities listed) can format for their own use.  Baltimore clearly has done lots of things right.

At the end of the day, it's definitely not rocket science and a lot easier than many believe. Clustering complementing uses within a compact pedestrian scale setting is the common feature in all the best examples out there. All of these places also put the pedestrian and human scale experience as the highest development priority.

In the Landing's case, one could probably argue that the existing building structure isn't the biggest issue at that site.  It would probably be better for taxpayers having the existing structure updated and retrofitted with new uses. The rest of that cash could then go to the public space and incentivizing complementing infill development on the immediate blocks underutilized blocks surrounding it.

For example, stick those 350 apartments on top of the garage that still hasn't gone vertical, immediately across the street. If extra waterfront public space and less retail square footage is desired, perhaps retrofit the existing structure to the north (including cutting a Laura Street opening), relocate the most successful restaurants (ex. Hooters etc.) then demolish the riverfront structures. After all, the food court is a huge waste and so is most of the specialty retail boutiques.  You could knock out all the interior walls and create several larger spaces with those two floors.

In Baltimore, the most recent Harborplace retrofit converted a portion of the Light Street pavilion's second floor into museum.  Now, the owner is considering eliminating the mall in the Pratt Street pavilion completely:

(http://media.bizj.us/view/img/2768551/harborplace*600xx1642-1098-320-0.jpg)

QuoteNew Harborplace plan would kill its mall vibe

One of the key upgrades Ashkenazy Acquisition Corp. is proposing for Harborplace calls for converting the Pratt Street pavilion from a mall-like space to more traditional street-level retail.

Floor plans included in an Ashkenazy leasing flier show that the company plans to eliminate a central hallway running the full length of the pavilion. Retailers on both the first and second floors would take over that space and move their entrances to Pratt Street and the promenade, or on balconies in the case of second-floor stores.

Ashkenazy would retain some public space in the building to provide access to three stairways and elevators, and stores would also be accessible from those halls. But the plan clearly shows a move away from the mall-style design popular when Harborplace was envisioned as the centerpiece of the Inner Harbor revitalization that began with its opening in 1980.

Full article: http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/blog/real-estate/2014/06/new-plan-for-harborplace-would-kill-its-mall-vibe.html

Quote from: simms3 on September 09, 2014, 12:37:38 AM
^^^I don't personally think the Underground is a good (or bad) comp for the Landing.  Similarities are superficial.

In terms of cities with waterfronts that are good comparisons - sure we can list out every ville of similar size and look at successes and failures.  I think with our waterfront, though, we should strive to be one of the best.  I think there seems to be a lot more to learn from Baltimore (I deduce that from several MJ threads on Baltimore's waterfront), and I think there's a lot to learn from SF's.  I could honestly give two rats' asses about what Nashville or Louisville or Hartford have or have not done.  They aren't the best waterfronts - nowhere close, and the only takeaways there I see are where they've failed (so we don't repeat).  For successes, I'd rather be bolder - do what Baltimore (riverwalk/clustering, etc) or NYC (piers, etc) or Chicago (riverwalk, etc) or SF (piers, etc) have done, since they've done their waterfronts better than the rest and made full use of them.


SF has piers like Jax has, and a master-planning development policy that has worked extremely well that Jax (and all of those other cities listed) can format for their own use.  Baltimore clearly has done lots of things right.

If former shipyards, blue collar neighborhoods, waterfront are the analogues, you can't ignore Boston. It has all of the above, and Boston is a very small city from a downtown perspective. Tow blocks from the water is the financial district, a marriott convention center right on the water. Screw Baltimore.  Look to Boston to see who has done it right.  All we need is 40 more years...

Quote from: thelakelander on September 09, 2014, 06:27:45 AM

Quote from: simms3 on September 09, 2014, 12:37:38 AM
^^^I don't personally think the Underground is a good (or bad) comp for the Landing.  Similarities are superficial.

In terms of cities with waterfronts that are good comparisons - sure we can list out every ville of similar size and look at successes and failures.  I think with our waterfront, though, we should strive to be one of the best.  I think there seems to be a lot more to learn from Baltimore (I deduce that from several MJ threads on Baltimore's waterfront), and I think there's a lot to learn from SF's.  I could honestly give two rats' asses about what Nashville or Louisville or Hartford have or have not done.  They aren't the best waterfronts - nowhere close, and the only takeaways there I see are where they've failed (so we don't repeat).  For successes, I'd rather be bolder - do what Baltimore (riverwalk/clustering, etc) or NYC (piers, etc) or Chicago (riverwalk, etc) or SF (piers, etc) have done, since they've done their waterfronts better than the rest and made full use of them.

SF has piers like Jax has, and a master-planning development policy that has worked extremely well that Jax (and all of those other cities listed) can format for their own use.  Baltimore clearly has done lots of things right.

At the end of the day, it's definitely not rocket science and a lot easier than many believe. Clustering complementing uses within a compact pedestrian scale setting is the common feature in all the best examples out there. All of these places also put the pedestrian and human scale experience as the highest development priority.

In the Landing's case, one could probably argue that the existing building structure isn't the biggest issue at that site.  It would probably be better for taxpayers having the existing structure updated and retrofitted with new uses. The rest of that cash could then go to the public space and incentivizing complementing infill development on the immediate blocks underutilized blocks surrounding it.

For example, stick those 350 apartments on top of the garage that still hasn't gone vertical, immediately across the street. If extra waterfront public space and less retail square footage is desired, perhaps retrofit the existing structure to the north (including cutting a Laura Street opening), relocate the most successful restaurants (ex. Hooters etc.) then demolish the riverfront structures. After all, the food court is a huge waste and so is most of the specialty retail boutiques.  You could knock out all the interior walls and create several larger spaces with those two floors.

In Baltimore, the most recent Harborplace retrofit converted a portion of the Light Street pavilion's second floor into museum.  Now, the owner is considering eliminating the mall in the Pratt Street pavilion completely:

(http://media.bizj.us/view/img/2768551/harborplace*600xx1642-1098-320-0.jpg)

QuoteNew Harborplace plan would kill its mall vibe

One of the key upgrades Ashkenazy Acquisition Corp. is proposing for Harborplace calls for converting the Pratt Street pavilion from a mall-like space to more traditional street-level retail.

Floor plans included in an Ashkenazy leasing flier show that the company plans to eliminate a central hallway running the full length of the pavilion. Retailers on both the first and second floors would take over that space and move their entrances to Pratt Street and the promenade, or on balconies in the case of second-floor stores.

Ashkenazy would retain some public space in the building to provide access to three stairways and elevators, and stores would also be accessible from those halls. But the plan clearly shows a move away from the mall-style design popular when Harborplace was envisioned as the centerpiece of the Inner Harbor revitalization that began with its opening in 1980.

Full article: http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/blog/real-estate/2014/06/new-plan-for-harborplace-would-kill-its-mall-vibe.html

I am curious if that garage is being built to sustain other weight such as more level (if needed) or residential. 

Quote from: thelakelander on September 09, 2014, 06:27:45 AM
At the end of the day, it's definitely not rocket science and a lot easier than many believe.

Yes, but difficult politically.  What's hilarious is the fact that both public/private leaders want to take all these trips all the time to see what Charlotte's doing with its non-waterfront downtown and see if anything applies to Jax's waterfront (just as an example).  Or taking a trip to Omaha or Kansas City, etc etc.  All of these cities kinda' suck in the grand scheme of things (relatively speaking).  I mean compared to cities we could be learning from - why learn from another city that's learning from another?  Go straight to the source!  If it's how the SE Sunbelt cities have decided to grow up, Charlotte's literally just copy catting Atlanta.  Go to Atlanta!

I'm positive public/private sector leaders from NYC, SF, Chicago, Boston, etc aren't taking trips to other cities to "learn" what they need to be doing with their own.  I'm pretty sure leaders in those cities know what needs to be done (through common sense) and they just work to make sure these things happen!

And IF Jax leaders feel they must travel and tour other cities to learn what to copy or what not to do, why they hell do they not just choose the best places?  Why go to Kansas City or Indianapolis?  I'm pretty sure KC and Indy are trying to emulate Chicago.  So why not go straight to the source: Chicago?

Quote from: thelakelander on September 09, 2014, 06:27:45 AM
Clustering complementing uses within a compact pedestrian scale setting is the common feature in all the best examples out there. All of these places also put the pedestrian and human scale experience as the highest development priority.

Duh, but leaders in Jacksonville have NEVER yet been able to figure that one out, even after all their trips to Kansas City, Charlotte, Indianapolis, etc. 

Quote from: thelakelander on September 09, 2014, 06:27:45 AM
In the Landing's case, one could probably argue that the existing building structure isn't the biggest issue at that site.  It would probably be better for taxpayers having the existing structure updated and retrofitted with new uses.

My argument all along.  And the reason why the Ferry Building IS a prime example for the Landing.

Quote from: thelakelander on September 09, 2014, 06:27:45 AMThe rest of that cash could then go to the public space and incentivizing complementing infill development on the immediate blocks underutilized blocks surrounding it.

However, a proper retrofit of the Landing, including proper programming and carry costs (we are talking PATIENT money here that still needs a proper risk-adjusted return) could easily (and should) be even more expensive than a new multifamily structure.  Type III multifamily in the SE is EXTREMELY cheap to put up (because honestly, it's pretty shitty stuff - we aren't talking concrete and steel, but rather pine).  In contrast, they are building 67 HUD units here in SF for $700K/unit (nearly 10x per unit what it costs to put up class A mid-rise apts in the SE).  Totally embarrassing.

Quote from: thelakelander on September 09, 2014, 06:27:45 AMFor example, stick those 350 apartments on top of the garage that still hasn't gone vertical, immediately across the street.

Lost opportunity for sure - Parador could have partnered with Sleiman/Tony for a promote structure, with the overall partnership bringing more equity in to perhaps reduce those crazy City subsidies that would not be as necessary with a multi component mixed in, and then Senkbeil could have earned a promote on his partnership with Sleiman for providing his multifamily expertise - no equity other than sweat equity invested!...honestly, partnerships like these are what is missing in Jacksonville (to my estimation).  I don't think they're readily used or easily understood, but it's how everything gets done in other cities.

Sleiman/Senkbeil could comingle investments, keeping the same general parameters and rolling proceeds into the Landing deal for a sort of doubling down, if you will (perhaps finding a well-capitalized partner for a preferred stake, playing with debt and finding alternative options out there and really structuring the Landing deal to get it done).  Conversely, had Sleiman/Senbeil partnered with Parador, I would think they would ask for a piece of the upside in the office building, which presumably is "bound to take off now" with all that parking (lol).

Whatever, nobody seems to know how to take advantage of the immense risks posed in the Jax market.  And the city has set way too many precedents of just giving shit away (ala Parador), so why would anyone take the hard road and set up complex partnerships to work things out for everyone's mutual benefit when the city will just cow tow and give tax payer dollars away to short-term bail out someone's position or bad investment?

Quote from: thelakelander on September 09, 2014, 06:27:45 AMrelocate the most successful restaurants (ex. Hooters etc.) then demolish the riverfront structures.

This is partly where a retrofit becomes expensive.  Not all tenants have relocation rights and if they do, most with credit/name recognition and good attorneys bargained for a fee (aka Hooters).  A successful redeveloper of the Landing becomes a true partner with all of his/her tenants and works diligently with them to ensure that a retrofit is both in their best interest and his - or they are aggressive and go a completely different route with a rapid overhaul and a booting/buying out of tenants.

If I were Sleiman, I may not want a Hooters if my programming has changed dramatically.  New tenants (aka the guy who owns Black Sheep, Intuition, or any other local purveyors) *may not* want to be near Hooters either.  You have to really pick and choose where you're going to go and where makes the most sense.  Sacrificing a wee bit of credit and not really getting the rents immediately in return (probably incentivize the hell out of smaller local guys with abatements and % rent to fixed rent conversion, along with hefty TI's and warm vanilla shell deliveries with leeway on "their" architects' plans and how they want to spend their TIs, etc)

I guess you really have to be a believer and an intense active manager, and have the ability to not lose sleep at night.

Quote from: thelakelander on September 09, 2014, 06:27:45 AMAfter all, the food court is a huge waste and so is most of the specialty retail boutiques.  You could knock out all the interior walls and create several larger spaces with those two floors.

I think this part of the Landing has some of if not the most potential as-is.  It's the section of the Landing I see most closely resembling all of the other successful public markets in the country.  You don't always want large bays - in fact, in my vision for the Landing I would avoid them unless I'm going to personally invest in and cultivate a specialty grocer/food store/market like Grassroots, or unless I were going to really shoot my wad on getting something new/credit to town like Sur La Table (which would want prime downstairs space with signage/views outside on both sides and into the atrium).  Maybe you can fit a theater on the 2nd floor?  Theaters aren't really money makers though, unless in most cases you have 16+ screens, which is not happening here.

However, I would bring food uses and some retail downstairs and look at converting upstairs to boutique office space, or even some small boutique hotel (I don't see the latter happening in Jax, but could be worth a shot - would DEF need a hotel expert from another market where such hotels exist).

Quote from: thelakelander on September 09, 2014, 06:27:45 AM
In Baltimore, the most recent Harborplace retrofit converted a portion of the Light Street pavilion's second floor into museum.  Now, the owner is considering eliminating the mall in the Pratt Street pavilion completely:

(http://media.bizj.us/view/img/2768551/harborplace*600xx1642-1098-320-0.jpg)

QuoteNew Harborplace plan would kill its mall vibe

One of the key upgrades Ashkenazy Acquisition Corp. is proposing for Harborplace calls for converting the Pratt Street pavilion from a mall-like space to more traditional street-level retail.

Floor plans included in an Ashkenazy leasing flier show that the company plans to eliminate a central hallway running the full length of the pavilion. Retailers on both the first and second floors would take over that space and move their entrances to Pratt Street and the promenade, or on balconies in the case of second-floor stores.

Ashkenazy would retain some public space in the building to provide access to three stairways and elevators, and stores would also be accessible from those halls. But the plan clearly shows a move away from the mall-style design popular when Harborplace was envisioned as the centerpiece of the Inner Harbor revitalization that began with its opening in 1980.

Full article: http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/blog/real-estate/2014/06/new-plan-for-harborplace-would-kill-its-mall-vibe.html

I'm very familiar with Ashkenazy and know someone there.  They are well-capitalized, have a definite expertise in urban retail, have an incredible cost of capital for their investment strategy(s), and as an investor/landlord are definitely not comparable to anyone in FL outside of perhaps Miami (where AAC has a presence).  They are known for paying record psf pricing for retail in lots of markets and still coming out with pretty robust high double digit (+) returns.

Honestly, Sleiman should have put himself in front of them and begged them to join him in a co-invest.  Or insert other rare but similar firm.  Instead he hastily grabbed a suburban/SE multifamily/REIT expert.



I think it boils down to a lack of experienced real estate guys in Jax.  As I'm writing this, that's my conclusion.  There are a few, but just a few.  And their experience is still pretty limited.  There is a reason why most successful/innovative firms across all types of $$ (small but reputable/successful developer-GPs, private equity, hedge funds, specialty REITs, large-scale lenders, etc) are mostly located in a handful of larger talent-pool cities.

Sleiman over a decade now should have done his DD on who's out there and who he might be able to partner with to finally do something at the Landing.  Sounds like he threw a hasty hail mary, decided on a whim he was fed up and was going to do easy multi, went to nearby Atl and found the first expert he could convince to sit down with him (and granted he did find an expert, someone I certainly would love to sit down with).  Clearly isn't going to focus on retail/special use/hotel/office because he didn't sit down with any other experts in those realms in Atlanta.  And there are quite a few up there - lots of really talented people.  Atlanta seems like it's prime for deals right now, though, and Jax is probably seen as a bit too risky - could be a barrier.  Maybe wait for later in the cycle and hope for someone who knows it's late in the cycle and can work around that.

Heck a few years ago I was talking with some guys at Weingarten and they knew who Sleiman was when I mentioned I was from Jax.  So Sleiman does know people around (granted WRI is also in retail).  He did get one of the foremost experts in multifamily in the entire country!

But I feel like he completely missed the boat on landing someone who knows how to turn the Landing around to what I feel is truly an active community use and profit maker.

Quote from: simms3 on September 09, 2014, 09:53:33 PM
I'm positive public/private sector leaders from NYC, SF, Chicago, Boston, etc aren't taking trips to other cities to "learn" what they need to be doing with their own. 

well then, I'm positive you are wrong

^^^That's really your world isn't it?  I never hear of this sort of thing, though perhaps it goes on.  The most I hear is "well Bloomberg's doing x in NYC and it's worked out well because y", but it doesn't take a convoy of city leaders and front page news articles highlighting the trip to figure this stuff out.  On the RE side of the private sector, lots of people work different markets as a natural part of their job...same dialogue, "we know what's going on in NYC or Boston" or "but that's why we're 'us' and Houston isn't", etc.


Anyway, I promised some pics of the Ferry Building, so I went there for a late lunch today and snapped some crappy pics with my iPhone.  My lunch mate even took a nice Tinder moment for me hehe

Vendors are constantly all around the Ferry Building - like the Landing, the building itself is owned by a partnership led by EOP, however, the land all around the building is mostly public (Port of SF and City of SF land).
(http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/IMG_1472_zpsf974dfca.jpg) (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/IMG_1472_zpsf974dfca.jpg.html)

During a morning/afternoon commute rush or a lunch rush (not in these photos), the crowds crossing The Embarcadero are incredibly thick, people running and jostling, tourists taking their time, etc.
(http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/IMG_1474_zpscc17ffc5.jpg) (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/IMG_1474_zpscc17ffc5.jpg.html)

Still an active ferry terminal serving ~15-20,000 ferry commuters a day.
(http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/IMG_1473_zps36afb587.jpg) (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/IMG_1473_zps36afb587.jpg.html)

The size is very similar to the Landing and there is a single main atrium with 3 little branches that bring people through from the city side to the waterfront side (and you can walk around and remain outdoors)...so very similar set up as the Landing.
(http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/IMG_1475_zps7012f9ec.jpg) (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/IMG_1475_zps7012f9ec.jpg.html)

About 50 retailers/vendors/restaurants in the Ferry Building, so again - very similar in size and scope to the Landing.

Ownership worked very hard and paid a good bit of money and waited patiently for success initially, but right from the start of the building's revival, the list of tenants has been almost entirely local and pretty top notch (i.e. ownership was selective, and vendors were selective in going there, and it's worked out for everyone).

What you see here in the Ferry Building is pretty much how it goes throughout the entire city of SF, which is why it has this incredible reputation for being a truly world class foodie city and why residents are such snobs, but, the Ferry Building offers that nice waterfront setting, has excellent programming, and brings a higher concentration of amazing vendors under the same roof - there's always a nice vibe of people watching, a little bit of hustle combined with a relaxing and inviting atmosphere.

(http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/IMG_1476_zps338ae2a2.jpg) (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/IMG_1476_zps338ae2a2.jpg.html)

(http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/IMG_1478_zps1f3fd54c.jpg) (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/IMG_1478_zps1f3fd54c.jpg.html)

(http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/IMG_1480_zps2730d88a.jpg) (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/IMG_1480_zps2730d88a.jpg.html)

(http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/IMG_1479_zpsc2f1e834.jpg) (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/IMG_1479_zpsc2f1e834.jpg.html)

(http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/IMG_1481_zps50f423b7.jpg) (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/IMG_1481_zps50f423b7.jpg.html)

(http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/IMG_1483_zps0998a5ce.jpg) (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/IMG_1483_zps0998a5ce.jpg.html)

(http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/IMG_1482_zps9d75267d.jpg) (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/IMG_1482_zps9d75267d.jpg.html)

Outdoors is a nice hangout.  Many of the restaurants have openings out to the back (you can enter from inside or from outside on the waterfront), with covered outdoor seating, etc.  It's a nice relaxing spot - great for a "breather" from work life in the financial district.

(http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/IMG_1490_zpsb57dd83b.jpg) (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/IMG_1490_zpsb57dd83b.jpg.html)

(http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/IMG_1491_zpseb7f23f3.jpg) (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/IMG_1491_zpseb7f23f3.jpg.html)

(http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/IMG_1489_zps853674d1.jpg) (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/IMG_1489_zps853674d1.jpg.html)

List of vendors/retailers:

http://www.ferrybuildingmarketplace.com/merchant_list.php


What's not shown is the event space and the office space.  Overall, such a great example for the Landing.  The Landing could be a central hub for Jacksonville's growing group of small craft/quality oriented business owners.  Put them all under one roof, help with programming as landlord, help them out initially, and share in the upside of their success!

Hmm, no road between the Ferry building and the waterfront? Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

Didn't Mike Hogan say at one time that "Downtown is just a neighborhood," when he ran for mayor? If Sleiman's design goes through, that's exactly what it will become. Thank you, Mayor Brown for your efforts to save Downtown, but these plans make your efforts futile.

Perhaps Hogan was right and DT should be treated like an urban neighborhood initially instead of something that suburbanites and tourist will flock too on a regular basis.  However, that would still require some changes to the Landing proposal, due to the centralized premier location.

^ I honestly have no idea why you would say that. All successful downtowns are not treated as neighborhoods, but as centers for economic and commercial activity. With all due respect, please don't twist my words. The post above is exactly what I was talking about earlier. Change the mentality and stop treating Jacksonville like some small town wasteland. Otherwise, there will never be any progress.

Just about every successful downtown that I know of in the US is a successful mixed-use urban neighborhood first, that becomes so unique and exciting at the human scale level, they attract others (tourist, suburbanites, etc.) from environments that don't offer the same quality of life and experience. On the other hand, I can't think of too many good ones that don't have a decent residential base. Efforts to bring back DT Jax will fail if we can't grow it as a mixed-use neighborhood first.

Your argument is valid and maybe by some possible slim chance Sleiman does know what he's doing, but if Downtown becomes just another neighborhood, then it could become quieter than it already is. Might as well put up another infamous Walmart, that Jacksonville already has too many of, where the shipyards are. See where I'm coming from?

Tourism? Leave that to the Warehouse District. You could have your exotic shops and party places around there. It would be perfect for all of that.

Urban neighborhoods? Isn't that what they're trying to do with Riverside and Springfield?

Then you have Downtown, where all the businesses and commercial is going on. Are you getting me? Yeah, some high rises would be great (especially the unfinished one) and eventually some hotels, and some restaurants or shops for residents to go would be nice. I can agree with that much.

Aside from that, the new Landing design is hideous and I think we can all agree on that.

Downtown will never be just another neighborhood. The density, walkability, architectural character, history, location, etc. will always make it unique.  Once more everyday activities start to generate from an increasing population base, you'll see more retail, attractions, etc. start to spring up. With connectivity, other core neighborhoods like Brooklyn, LaVilla, Springfield, Cathedral District, etc. will grow together with DT, creating a large walkable environment. Sort of like what Boston has with the Financial District, North End, Back Bay, Chinatown, etc. or Savannah with all of the revitalized historic neighborhoods surrounding their downtown. As for the Landing, I really have no problem with the mix of proposed uses. It's issues are more design related.

^^^The one thing that I have to disagree with is that for the biggest and best cities in the US, the downtowns are NOT the best place to live.  Sure there IS a resident base, but downtowns are pretty dead save for tourists, events, workers, SOME residents, etc.

Examples:

NYC - Lower Manhattan - MUCH better than 10-15 years ago, but still, for most people it's not ideal
NYC - Midtown - we're not talking Midtown East or Midtown West, but the heart where the office buildings are - aside from a few luxe condos, it's "ew" and retail has been trickling out due to lack of demand (and going to the edges where the people live)

Chicago - the Loop - pretty dead compared to River North or Lincoln Park or Lakeview, but getting better

Boston - Financial District - until the last 2-3 years was very dead aside from tourism and workers, still definitely not where I would want to live in Boston.  Back Bay is really two components but is a different neighborhood altogether

San Francisco - Financial District - I DID live here for a year and was bored.  There are tens of thousands of residents, but it is still boring because the neighborhood caters to workers and tourists, and rightfully so (millions of tourists, 300,000++ workers a day, etc, the residents get drowned out)

Downtown DC - the most boring of all, in general, for sure, with the fewest residents


When you get to the level of these cities, the whole cities are walkable and urban and cool, so it's not "cooler" to be amongst all the office buildings or tourist traps.  It's a negative.


However, the rest of the cities in America aren't consistently walkable/urban and cool, so the downtown area is the only real chance at that and truly is unique and exciting comparatively speaking.  So in Jacksonville's case, as with Atlanta, Miami, Los Angeles, Charlotte, etc definitely need to focus on downtown and bringing residents there.

A place like the Landing won't survive on downtown residents, though.  Even if there are 30,000 downtown residents.  It's much bigger than that, conceptually and figuratively.  It needs tourism and it needs to draw Greater Jax residents.

^All those places are perfect examples of having a residential base first and growing to the level of vibrancy they are.  All have taken more than a century of density growth, redevelopment, and infill to get to where they are today. So all are pretty well integrated with urban districts adjacent to them. Jax was once, just at a much smaller scale, but we've destroyed that and now it will take decades to build things back up again.

As for the Landing, you're right, it won't or should not be designed to rely on just downtown residents. I wasn't saying anything otherwise, in regards to that specific project and site. What happens on specific sites is a slightly different conversation from how downtown should be viewed and developed as a whole. 

Quote from: thelakelander on September 12, 2014, 03:38:05 PM
^All those places are perfect examples of having a residential base first and growing to the level of vibrancy they are.  All have taken more than a century of density growth, redevelopment, and infill to get to where they are today. So all are pretty well integrated with urban districts adjacent to them. Jax was once, just at a much smaller scale, but we've destroyed that and now it will take decades to build things back up again.

As for the Landing, you're right, it won't or should not be designed to rely on just downtown residents. I wasn't saying anything otherwise, in regards to that specific project and site. What happens on specific sites is a slightly different conversation from how downtown should be viewed and developed as a whole.

That could be the problem with downtown, aside from the GOB network. People want results and want results immediately and when they don't get those results right away, they give up. A lot has been tried with downtown, and nothing has ever worked. Anyone else notice that?

^Yes, that's been a big local problem and major reason for downtown's failed revitalization strategies over the last four or five decades.  Instead of incrementally building something that naturally works and jives with the market, we've always looked for the big ticket, one trick pony solution. While we should be focusing on the little things, like lighting the streets properly, improving the interaction between existing storefronts, buildings, and sidewalks to stimulate more foot traffic, enhancing parks, etc., we pin our hopes of things like Khan being a sugar daddy and doing something with the shipyards.  Or saying that downtown revitalization starts and stops with the Landing. While we certainly want to see these places improved, that type of talk only sets people up for grand disappointment.

And each time one of these fails it gives those in burb areas more ammunition to say why bother with downtown because everything that has been tried or suggested fails or never happens.  And regardless of what people think about those outside of the urban core you need them to make downtown succeed as they have to vote people in office; be it mayor or council members who don't see downtown as a dirty word, but instead the engine for the entire region.

Quote from: Anti redneck on September 12, 2014, 06:54:27 AM
Your argument is valid and maybe by some possible slim chance Sleiman does know what he's doing, but if Downtown becomes just another neighborhood, then it could become quieter than it already is. Might as well put up another infamous Walmart, that Jacksonville already has too many of, where the shipyards are. See where I'm coming from?

Tourism? Leave that to the Warehouse District. You could have your exotic shops and party places around there. It would be perfect for all of that.

Urban neighborhoods? Isn't that what they're trying to do with Riverside and Springfield?

Then you have Downtown, where all the businesses and commercial is going on. Are you getting me? Yeah, some high rises would be great (especially the unfinished one) and eventually some hotels, and some restaurants or shops for residents to go would be nice. I can agree with that much.

Aside from that, the new Landing design is hideous and I think we can all agree on that.

+1

I know this might be a little off point, but I had the 'Get Real' show events the last two nights at Moca.  It was nice to have a bunch of artists and collectors come downtown from other cities (NY, Denver, Cleavland, LA, etc).  It was interesting to hear what they had to say and their perceptions about DT.  According to all- They absolutely loved the city, but found downtown to be difficult.  I think the perfect example is when I tried to park in the garage next to Moca, they were charging and extra 5$ for event parking, Moca had no idea (meaning, nobody communicated this- I believe the city) and when I questioned the women (parking attendant) she was extremely rude.  Now I have traveled to large cities around the world and have never been treated so rude (even in NY).  She said it is not my problem and I should deal with my parking agency (whoever that is because she didn't know).  Now she did hand me a card with the city of Jacksonville logo on it.  She turned around and refused to talk to me.  I just had some questions.  Why when I have a parking pass, I have to pay again?  The artists who were downtown had the same issues.  Now, regardless if DT is a quite, but successful neighborhood or bustling mega center- it is failing at both.  The perception of our DT to outsiders is appalling.  There is going to have to be consistent support and investment from our city or nothing is going to happen.  No outsider (no matter how kind) is going to invest in a failed investment. 

Most vibrant downtowns, mega centers, etc.  are still mixed use neighborhoods.  I agree we have a lot to do and most of the things are the stuff we overlook. Your garage experience is an example of this.

Quote from: simms3 on September 11, 2014, 07:57:55 PM
^^^That's really your world isn't it?  I never hear of this sort of thing, though perhaps it goes on.  The most I hear is "well Bloomberg's doing x in NYC and it's worked out well because y", but it doesn't take a convoy of city leaders and front page news articles highlighting the trip to figure this stuff out.  On the RE side of the private sector, lots of people work different markets as a natural part of their job...same dialogue, "we know what's going on in NYC or Boston" or "but that's why we're 'us' and Houston isn't", etc.


Anyway, I promised some pics of the Ferry Building, so I went there for a late lunch today and snapped some crappy pics with my iPhone.  My lunch mate even took a nice Tinder moment for me hehe

Vendors are constantly all around the Ferry Building - like the Landing, the building itself is owned by a partnership led by EOP, however, the land all around the building is mostly public (Port of SF and City of SF land).
(http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/IMG_1472_zpsf974dfca.jpg) (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/IMG_1472_zpsf974dfca.jpg.html)

During a morning/afternoon commute rush or a lunch rush (not in these photos), the crowds crossing The Embarcadero are incredibly thick, people running and jostling, tourists taking their time, etc.
(http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/IMG_1474_zpscc17ffc5.jpg) (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/IMG_1474_zpscc17ffc5.jpg.html)

Still an active ferry terminal serving ~15-20,000 ferry commuters a day.
(http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/IMG_1473_zps36afb587.jpg) (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/IMG_1473_zps36afb587.jpg.html)

The size is very similar to the Landing and there is a single main atrium with 3 little branches that bring people through from the city side to the waterfront side (and you can walk around and remain outdoors)...so very similar set up as the Landing.
(http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/IMG_1475_zps7012f9ec.jpg) (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/IMG_1475_zps7012f9ec.jpg.html)

About 50 retailers/vendors/restaurants in the Ferry Building, so again - very similar in size and scope to the Landing.

Ownership worked very hard and paid a good bit of money and waited patiently for success initially, but right from the start of the building's revival, the list of tenants has been almost entirely local and pretty top notch (i.e. ownership was selective, and vendors were selective in going there, and it's worked out for everyone).

What you see here in the Ferry Building is pretty much how it goes throughout the entire city of SF, which is why it has this incredible reputation for being a truly world class foodie city and why residents are such snobs, but, the Ferry Building offers that nice waterfront setting, has excellent programming, and brings a higher concentration of amazing vendors under the same roof - there's always a nice vibe of people watching, a little bit of hustle combined with a relaxing and inviting atmosphere.

(http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/IMG_1476_zps338ae2a2.jpg) (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/IMG_1476_zps338ae2a2.jpg.html)

(http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/IMG_1478_zps1f3fd54c.jpg) (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/IMG_1478_zps1f3fd54c.jpg.html)

(http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/IMG_1480_zps2730d88a.jpg) (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/IMG_1480_zps2730d88a.jpg.html)

(http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/IMG_1479_zpsc2f1e834.jpg) (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/IMG_1479_zpsc2f1e834.jpg.html)

(http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/IMG_1481_zps50f423b7.jpg) (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/IMG_1481_zps50f423b7.jpg.html)

(http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/IMG_1483_zps0998a5ce.jpg) (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/IMG_1483_zps0998a5ce.jpg.html)

(http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/IMG_1482_zps9d75267d.jpg) (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/IMG_1482_zps9d75267d.jpg.html)

Outdoors is a nice hangout.  Many of the restaurants have openings out to the back (you can enter from inside or from outside on the waterfront), with covered outdoor seating, etc.  It's a nice relaxing spot - great for a "breather" from work life in the financial district.

(http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/IMG_1490_zpsb57dd83b.jpg) (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/IMG_1490_zpsb57dd83b.jpg.html)

(http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/IMG_1491_zpseb7f23f3.jpg) (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/IMG_1491_zpseb7f23f3.jpg.html)

(http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/IMG_1489_zps853674d1.jpg) (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/IMG_1489_zps853674d1.jpg.html)

List of vendors/retailers:

http://www.ferrybuildingmarketplace.com/merchant_list.php


What's not shown is the event space and the office space.  Overall, such a great example for the Landing.  The Landing could be a central hub for Jacksonville's growing group of small craft/quality oriented business owners.  Put them all under one roof, help with programming as landlord, help them out initially, and share in the upside of their success!

I was at the Ferry Building a few weeks ago. Very nice. I found it strange that, besides a few restaurants, all the vendors close in the evening, considering it gets traffic into the night. The Slanted Door was pretty good.

Quote from: jcjohnpaint on September 13, 2014, 10:59:51 AM
I know this might be a little off point, but I had the 'Get Real' show events the last two nights at Moca.  It was nice to have a bunch of artists and collectors come downtown from other cities (NY, Denver, Cleavland, LA, etc).  It was interesting to hear what they had to say and their perceptions about DT.  According to all- They absolutely loved the city, but found downtown to be difficult.  I think the perfect example is when I tried to park in the garage next to Moca, they were charging and extra 5$ for event parking, Moca had no idea (meaning, nobody communicated this- I believe the city) and when I questioned the women (parking attendant) she was extremely rude.  Now I have traveled to large cities around the world and have never been treated so rude (even in NY).  She said it is not my problem and I should deal with my parking agency (whoever that is because she didn't know).  Now she did hand me a card with the city of Jacksonville logo on it.  She turned around and refused to talk to me.  I just had some questions.  Why when I have a parking pass, I have to pay again?  The artists who were downtown had the same issues.  Now, regardless if DT is a quite, but successful neighborhood or bustling mega center- it is failing at both.  The perception of our DT to outsiders is appalling.  There is going to have to be consistent support and investment from our city or nothing is going to happen.  No outsider (no matter how kind) is going to invest in a failed investment. 

I've had these similar type of experiences in "coming of age" cities like Jax, but not in cities like NYC, etc.  I think Atlanta has similarly rude city workers who don't have a clue.  It is definitely an unnecessary problem and I love a good bitch fight so I definitely don't end up leaving those situations without either being "banned" or having some city worker get on the radio all flustered.  Honestly, though,  not to be too blunt, but 99% of the time these are entitled welfare queen-types we're talking about who bring the attitude, and the city hires them as their front force.  It's what you get and it sucks.

I agree, it's the little things like that that add up and make a place like downtown Jax difficult.

Quote from: Bill Hoff on September 13, 2014, 12:19:18 PM
I was at the Ferry Building a few weeks ago. Very nice. I found it strange that, besides a few restaurants, all the vendors close in the evening, considering it gets traffic into the night. The Slanted Door was pretty good.

I think that's for a few reasons:

1) The vendors themselves aren't likely going to sell their wares at night (specialty fungus, specialty teas, specialty oils, fish market, fancy cookware/cutlery from Sur La Table, etc etc)

2) Aside from Sur La Table and Peets, the vendors are small purveyors, not nationals like Whole Foods (which has locations open relatively late i.e. 10-11 throughout the city in many of the neighborhoods including mine).

3) Particularly along the waterfront where there are mainly "diners", romantic strollers, tourists, and workers getting out late, and away from the neighborhoods, themselves, nobody cares about shopping - it's all dining/entertainment at that point.  Westfield Center mall and Union Square shopping is open much later and that's where you go if you want that.

4) Ferry Building is professionally owned/managed and has office and public space, so it needs to be kept lower key at night so as to avoid issues.  This is pretty normal for similar retail operations that are open under a single roof (a la malls).

5) This is along the waterfront.  To you it may seem like constant foot traffic 24 hours a day, but it's by no means a 24 hour neighborhood since it abuts the financial district.  For that you need to wander into the city's denser and/or busier neighborhoods like the Tenderloin/Tendernob, Mission, Russian Hill/Polk Gulch, etc.  You'll find retailers open real late in these areas, as well as lots of 24 hour food/market operations.

To give you an idea of this area's perceived spending habits - I lived in a 4 tower complex within view of the Ferry Building to the "right of" the financial district for a year.  There was a Safeway on the first floor, but it closed at 9!  Aside from the other Safeway near the tourist/waterfront area near Fisherman's Wharf (closes at 10), every other Safeway in the city is 24 hours.  I rarely left work last year before 9 and missed the grocery every time.  Very frustrating.



Can I ask what your takeaways were from the FB and if you think it could translate well to the Landing?  Would that be something you would be interested in having in Jax?

Honestly, the Ferry Building is more or less what The Landing is now - but much better done.

It's basically a line of water front restaurants with a walkable space between the water and restaurants, complimented by a row of indoor shops/vendors.

Sound familiar?

But, it's obviously much more aesthetically pleasing than the outdated Landing, better designed to encourage communal foot traffic, higher quality tenants, and better transit options that stop right outside the front door. And, of course, more people to draw from.

Also of note, everything is on the ground floor, eye level. Not two, like the The Landing.

Quote from: jcjohnpaint on September 13, 2014, 10:59:51 AM
I know this might be a little off point, but I had the 'Get Real' show events the last two nights at Moca.  It was nice to have a bunch of artists and collectors come downtown from other cities (NY, Denver, Cleavland, LA, etc).  It was interesting to hear what they had to say and their perceptions about DT.  According to all- They absolutely loved the city, but found downtown to be difficult.  I think the perfect example is when I tried to park in the garage next to Moca, they were charging and extra 5$ for event parking, Moca had no idea (meaning, nobody communicated this- I believe the city) and when I questioned the women (parking attendant) she was extremely rude.  Now I have traveled to large cities around the world and have never been treated so rude (even in NY).  She said it is not my problem and I should deal with my parking agency (whoever that is because she didn't know).  Now she did hand me a card with the city of Jacksonville logo on it.  She turned around and refused to talk to me.  I just had some questions.  Why when I have a parking pass, I have to pay again?  The artists who were downtown had the same issues.  Now, regardless if DT is a quite, but successful neighborhood or bustling mega center- it is failing at both.  The perception of our DT to outsiders is appalling.  There is going to have to be consistent support and investment from our city or nothing is going to happen.  No outsider (no matter how kind) is going to invest in a failed investment. 

+1 Your not off point. Parking? Docking? The reality of the Downtown Experience.

The reality of the Downtown Experience trip especially for visitors will center around docking and parking. The Landing front and center. With FREE PARKING being the double dip of the trip. jcjohpaint captures the local jocal example that was the concern as recent FREE PARKING legislation was passed by our Jacksonville city council and went through committee and noting these very same concerns. 2014-437 and 2014-438

Visit Jacksonville!

Quote from: Bill Hoff on September 13, 2014, 04:44:32 PM
Honestly, the Ferry Building is more or less what The Landing is now - but much better done.

It's basically a line of water front restaurants with a walkable space between the water and restaurants, complimented by a row of indoor shops/vendors.

Sound familiar?

But, it's obviously much more aesthetically pleasing than the outdated Landing, better designed to encourage communal foot traffic, higher quality tenants, and better transit options that stop right outside the front door. And, of course, more people to draw from.

Also of note, everything is on the ground floor, eye level. Not two, like the The Landing.

Those have been my points all along.  However, the Ferry Building has multiple levels that are in use.  Office and event space above.  Some of those piers adjacent to the Ferry Building also have office and event space, as well as more restaurants.  Bloomberg's offices are in an adjacent pier.

Also, forget about transit - Jax will never be a transit city and if you couldn't tell from The Embarcadero, there are still lots of people in SF (and obviously the Greater Bay Area) that drive.  Whatever the mode of transportation is in any given town, so long as that mode is given access to something it can work.

Where we go beyond the Landing is the fact that many people walk many blocks from elsewhere to get to the Ferry Building.  You don't park in front and even transit is ~4-5 blocks away (unless you count the tourist streetcar that stops in front).  It's a pleasant interesting walk in SF, whereas in Jax, it would not be.  So to Sleiman's point, parking needs to be practically "on-site".  Not only is it bad 2+ blocks for people to walk, I don't think there are many people in NE FL that can even comprehend walking 2+ blocks period.

Basically, all your nits against the Landing are fixable, and largely on ownership to do so, but partially on the city to help.  That's what it boils down to.  I don't think you can blame either side as you have a city that doesn't know what it's doing when it comes to anything and you have a landlord who is probably in over his skis on this kind of deal.

Quote from: simms3 on September 13, 2014, 06:55:17 PM

Quote from: Bill Hoff on September 13, 2014, 04:44:32 PM

Where we go beyond the Landing is the fact that many people walk many blocks from elsewhere to get to the Ferry Building.  You don't park in front and even transit is ~4-5 blocks away (unless you count the tourist streetcar that stops in front).  It's a pleasant interesting walk in SF, whereas in Jax, it would not be.  So to Sleiman's point, parking needs to be practically "on-site".  Not only is it bad 2+ blocks for people to walk, I don't think there are many people in NE FL that can even comprehend walking 2+ blocks period.

I think that if you build something that people want to get to, they will find a way to get there. If you build something at the landing that will truly draw people, they will be more than happy to park a few blocks away and walk. If you build something lackluster, you will need onsite parking and still not draw the same crowds.

Quote from: thelakelander on September 13, 2014, 08:02:33 AM
^Yes, that's been a big local problem and major reason for downtown's failed revitalization strategies over the last four or five decades.  Instead of incrementally building something that naturally works and jives with the market, we've always looked for the big ticket, one trick pony solution. While we should be focusing on the little things, like lighting the streets properly, improving the interaction between existing storefronts, buildings, and sidewalks to stimulate more foot traffic, enhancing parks, etc., we pin our hopes of things like Khan being a sugar daddy and doing something with the shipyards.  Or saying that downtown revitalization starts and stops with the Landing. While we certainly want to see these places improved, that type of talk only sets people up for grand disappointment.

Makes sense Lake.  Attention must be paid to the fundamentals of any problem or issue so as to build a solid foundation or infrastructure; especially for private experimentation and investment.  To sugarcoat with hoopla, to go for the big fix, is often wasteful, and usually results only in temporary and apparent gains ... forcing the scenario into mediocre circling. 

To engage the infrastructure with insight, building incrementally with sound practical moves, will prepare the environment, giving private investors the confidence to experiment with exciting stuff ... with the frivolous ... experiments which might or might not go.  But the solid infrastructure must exist.  Private failure is occasionally to be expected, as most investments and startups are, after all, experiments in varying degrees.

Quote from: ronchamblin on September 14, 2014, 03:53:33 AM

Quote from: thelakelander on September 13, 2014, 08:02:33 AM
^Yes, that's been a big local problem and major reason for downtown's failed revitalization strategies over the last four or five decades.  Instead of incrementally building something that naturally works and jives with the market, we've always looked for the big ticket, one trick pony solution. While we should be focusing on the little things, like lighting the streets properly, improving the interaction between existing storefronts, buildings, and sidewalks to stimulate more foot traffic, enhancing parks, etc., we pin our hopes of things like Khan being a sugar daddy and doing something with the shipyards.  Or saying that downtown revitalization starts and stops with the Landing. While we certainly want to see these places improved, that type of talk only sets people up for grand disappointment.

Makes sense Lake.  Attention must be paid to the fundamentals of any problem or issue so as to build a solid foundation or infrastructure; especially for private experimentation and investment.  To sugarcoat with hoopla, to go for the big fix, is often wasteful, and usually results only in temporary and apparent gains ... forcing the scenario into mediocre circling. 

To engage the infrastructure with insight, building incrementally with sound practical moves, will prepare the environment, giving private investors the confidence to experiment with exciting stuff ... with the frivolous ... experiments which might or might not go.  But the solid infrastructure must exist.  Private failure is occasionally to be expected, as most investments and startups are, after all, experiments in varying degrees.

Yes we love our headlines here. You pick up the paper one morning and the big solution has been figured out by the city. Whew! We don't have to worry about downtown any more! They're going to build X or Y.

We need baby steps. Positive, inexpensive baby steps, like streetlights, awnings, better signage, two-way streets, cheap or free parking, streamlining business startup red tape. Considerate and supportive policies towards old and historic structures. Straightforward stuff, it seems.

Has anything really changed since this was written:

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2008-jul-breathing-life-back-into-the-jacksonville-landing#.VBWhw_ldUpg


I do not think so.  And calling the Landing "outdated" is the same as calling a 100 year old house "outdated".  Of course, in one sense, it is, but the larger picture is that is of a design that is unique to it's era.  How often do you see a picture of Baltimore, Norfolk or even Jacksonville's Downtown's and not see one of the "Landings" in the picture?

As we all seem to know that it is not the Landing itself that is DT's problem.  As we seem to agree that "fixing" the landing will not "fix" DT, what reason does anyone have to tear the Landing down and start over?  Is it that the developer knows he isn't making money on the Landing and will not with a small modification but can pocket a lot if he does the new development?  It is the only thing that makes sense to me.

KISS.  Isn't that the way forward?  Fix the little things that can be fixed and the larger picture will start to emerge and we then can capitalize on it to truly fix DT?  Isn't that exactly what Lake and many other smarter-than-me people have been saying?  So how do we get the city and the Sleimans of Jacksonville to listen? Isn't that the first step?

How do we go from this grand plan of razing the Landing and get to a smaller modification that opens up the center and changes the interior programming? 

I see lots' of ideas of big fixes, I see lots of ideas as to what is wrong, now how do we get from here to the real work of HOW to fix things, not an idea but the hard work part of it?

Quote from: strider on September 14, 2014, 10:35:16 AM
I see lots' of ideas of big fixes, I see lots of ideas as to what is wrong, now how do we get from here to the real work of HOW to fix things, not an idea but the hard work part of it?

You do it quietly and strategically, without all the grandstands and  bandstands and handstands that are so effectively distracting everybody from the hard, aka real, work.

You start with a thorough SWOT analysis of Downtown Jacksonville as a whole and you use that to build a business plan with objectives, strategies and tactics. And then, you work the plan.

You create a brand identity--something we are sorely in need of--and you begin to change our culture from one of scattered, chaotic and siloed visions of grandeur to one of slow and steady progress toward a unified goal.

Quote from: edjax on September 13, 2014, 10:28:51 AM
And each time one of these fails it gives those in burb areas more ammunition to say why bother with downtown because everything that has been tried or suggested fails or never happens.  And regardless of what people think about those outside of the urban core you need them to make downtown succeed as they have to vote people in office; be it mayor or council members who don't see downtown as a dirty word, but instead the engine for the entire region.

Granted, Cameron Kuhn failed downtown, he had so.e extremely nice visions. I do not understand for the life of me on why someone won't just adopt his vision and put them into fruition.

Quote from: Anti redneck on September 15, 2014, 07:01:04 AM

Quote from: edjax on September 13, 2014, 10:28:51 AM
And each time one of these fails it gives those in burb areas more ammunition to say why bother with downtown because everything that has been tried or suggested fails or never happens.  And regardless of what people think about those outside of the urban core you need them to make downtown succeed as they have to vote people in office; be it mayor or council members who don't see downtown as a dirty word, but instead the engine for the entire region.

Granted, Cameron Kuhn failed downtown, he had some extremely nice visions. I do not understand for the life of me on why someone won't just adopt his vision and put them into fruition.

Quote from: Anti redneck on September 15, 2014, 07:01:04 AM

Quote from: edjax on September 13, 2014, 10:28:51 AM
And each time one of these fails it gives those in burb areas more ammunition to say why bother with downtown because everything that has been tried or suggested fails or never happens.  And regardless of what people think about those outside of the urban core you need them to make downtown succeed as they have to vote people in office; be it mayor or council members who don't see downtown as a dirty word, but instead the engine for the entire region.

Granted, Cameron Kuhn failed downtown, he had so.e extremely nice visions. I do not understand for the life of me on why someone won't just adopt his vision and put them into fruition.

Because they failed once already and drove him to bankruptcy.

CCC

Quote from: Tacachale on September 15, 2014, 07:36:20 AM

Quote from: Anti redneck on September 15, 2014, 07:01:04 AM

Quote from: edjax on September 13, 2014, 10:28:51 AM
And each time one of these fails it gives those in burb areas more ammunition to say why bother with downtown because everything that has been tried or suggested fails or never happens.  And regardless of what people think about those outside of the urban core you need them to make downtown succeed as they have to vote people in office; be it mayor or council members who don't see downtown as a dirty word, but instead the engine for the entire region.

Granted, Cameron Kuhn failed downtown, he had so.e extremely nice visions. I do not understand for the life of me on why someone won't just adopt his vision and put them into fruition.

Because they failed once already and drove him to bankruptcy.

Cameron Kuhn; went back to Orlando with his tail between his legs.......yes? Heard nothing more from him, or about him. Dare him to come back and finish the job; he had some great "scraper" proposals on paper before the crash. Did he really go bankrupt?

Quote from: heights unknown on September 16, 2014, 10:27:50 PM
CCC

Quote from: Tacachale on September 15, 2014, 07:36:20 AM

Quote from: Anti redneck on September 15, 2014, 07:01:04 AM

Quote from: edjax on September 13, 2014, 10:28:51 AM
And each time one of these fails it gives those in burb areas more ammunition to say why bother with downtown because everything that has been tried or suggested fails or never happens.  And regardless of what people think about those outside of the urban core you need them to make downtown succeed as they have to vote people in office; be it mayor or council members who don't see downtown as a dirty word, but instead the engine for the entire region.

Granted, Cameron Kuhn failed downtown, he had so.e extremely nice visions. I do not understand for the life of me on why someone won't just adopt his vision and put them into fruition.

Because they failed once already and drove him to bankruptcy.

Cameron Kuhn; went back to Orlando with his tail between his legs.......yes? Heard nothing more from him, or about him. Dare him to come back and finish the job; he had some great "scraper" proposals on paper before the crash. Did he really go bankrupt?

His development company sure did.

http://www.bizjournals.com/orlando/stories/2010/05/03/story5.html

FWIW, outside of bars and restaurants, this is the only store I have ever spent money in at the Landing.

Quotehttp://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/blog/morning-edition/2014/09/store-at-jacksonville-landing-calling-it-quits.html (http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/blog/morning-edition/2014/09/store-at-jacksonville-landing-calling-it-quits.html)
While the fate of the Jacksonville landmark hangs in the balance, one tenant is on the way out.
The Sundrez sundries store at the orange-roofed Jacksonville Landing is locking its doors for the final time.

Quote from: JayBird on September 17, 2014, 10:01:30 AM
FWIW, outside of bars and restaurants, this is the only store I have ever spent money in at the Landing.

Quotehttp://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/blog/morning-edition/2014/09/store-at-jacksonville-landing-calling-it-quits.html (http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/blog/morning-edition/2014/09/store-at-jacksonville-landing-calling-it-quits.html)
While the fate of the Jacksonville landmark hangs in the balance, one tenant is on the way out.
The Sundrez sundries store at the orange-roofed Jacksonville Landing is locking its doors for the final time.

Where am I supposed to go for Emergency Cigars now???

I'm not impressed by Kuhn (and to confirm I just viewed his LinkedIn where he lists out his projects, history, experience, etc), plus someone local to the market is preferred, not someone who has an undeserved ego and flies into Jax in a helicopter with media present in order to make a big splash and appear like a savior/expert.

Remember, he swooped in during a time when your dentist and your landscaper were getting into real estate, too.  Only a relatively few people in this world really understand real estate to begin with, and often they "get" design and they are finance guys by trade.  And amongst them, then it's not one size fits all because RE in Jax is going to be different in many regards to RE in Salt Lake City or Providence, etc.

I have more faith in Sleiman than I do Kuhn.  Sleiman at least knows everyone local that he should, and everyone knows him, for better or for worse.  Kuhn?  Nobody knows and nobody appreciates a hot shot who swoops in unwarranted.

They should take inspiration from the UNF student union but scaled up for the grander downtown skyline. Bake in retail, dining and bar space with apartments to the side and you have a winner. The pedestrian focused opening down the center would connect laura street to the river while still giving an iconic modern image to the riverfront. If you haven't seen the UNF SU check it out here. http://www.dasherhurst.com/portfolio/university-of-north-florida-student-union/

Per article on Daily Record, 14 companies have submitted bids for the redesign. 

Here is story:

Article reprints available.
Find out more.   


Call for plans to redevelop the Landing draws 14 suitors
Thursday, February 26, 10:47 AM EST
By David Chapman, Staff Writer

The latest call for a Jacksonville Landing redevelopment plan brought 14 responses from firms across the country.
After a weeklong delay, bids for the project were opened Wednesday.

The authority and city's procurement department will rank the proposals and narrow the list from 14 to three by mid-March, DIA CEO Aundra Wallace said in a statement.

From there, those three will be interviewed and the top choice selected by the end of the month.

Wallace said the organization is "extremely pleased with the interest shown" from the design community and looked forward to reviewing the proposals.

"The gateway to Downtown's Northbank is the Main Street Bridge," Wallace said. "The Jacksonville Landing is adjacent to that gateway and is a critical component to our redevelopment plans for the Northbank."

The DIA has sought a new vision for Downtown riverfront site, one with a focus on waterfront design and public access space.

Landing owner Toney Sleiman unveiled a design in August, but pushback from the community caused the search for a new direction.

Information on the bidders is limited, but they are:

• RTKL Associates Inc., based in Dallas.

• Perkins Will, Chicago.

• ASD Inc. and Rogers Partners, based in Jacksonville and New York, respectively.

• Eskew Dumez Ripple, New Orleans.

• Wakefield, Beasley & Associates, of Ponte Vedra Beach, in association with Urban Design Associates, of Pittsburgh.

• Cooper Carry Inc., Atlanta.

• The Haskell Co., Jacksonville.

• Niles Bolton Associates Inc., Atlanta.

• KBJ Architects, Jacksonville.

• Gresham, Smith and Partners, Jacksonville.

• LS3P, Charleston.

• Project for Public Spaces, New York.

• NBBJ, Boston.

• EDSA, Fort Lauderdale.

dchapman@jaxdailyrecord.com

@writerchapman

(904) 356-2466

Some really top notch architectural and urban planning firms listed here

Cool to see Project for Public Spaces on that list.

Can someone point me in the right direction to a link of the actual RFP that was put out?

Quote from: KenFSU on February 26, 2015, 04:22:28 PM
Cool to see Project for Public Spaces on that list.

Hmmmmmmm . . . things may be about to get very, very interesting.

Please spare us of anymore Haskell favoritism Jax, I don't want them touching the new Landing, no way. We need a new flavor to work with.

^ they aren't really qualified based on the scope requirements...at least not without a partner

Whichever architect firm wins the bid, just better make sure that there's a gaping corridor aligned with Laura Street, so everyone can see the river; That's the single most important aspect about this new Jacksonville Landing... I'm sorry, just in a grouchy mood today. I just had to make sure that we all are on one accord.  ;)

Frankly, I hate that any part of this is moving forward.  To me, it is a senseless waste of resources and the only person who ends up benefiting is Sleiman himself.

Wow is this real life? So people who come downtown and visit the landing, eat, drink, spend money, watch fireworks, etc and Sleiman is the only one who benefits?

^^sounds like a 'southsider' to me. ??? I mean who exactly does the SJTC benefit if you want to go that route? A better Landing no matter who it directly benefits will indirectly benefit all of Jax.

Quote from: strider on February 27, 2015, 08:38:52 AM
Frankly, I hate that any part of this is moving forward.  To me, it is a senseless waste of resources and the only person who ends up benefiting is Sleiman himself.

I view it as a positive if it results in something that greatly enhances the value and vitality of the Northbank.  As long as that happens, more power to Sleiman making some extra cash on his investment.

Quote from: I-10east on February 27, 2015, 06:23:59 AM
Whichever architect firm wins the bid, just better make sure that there's a gaping corridor aligned with Laura Street, so everyone can see the river; That's the single most important aspect about this new Jacksonville Landing... I'm sorry, just in a grouchy mood today. I just had to make sure that we all are on one accord.  ;)

Opening the complex up to the rest of the Northbank and creating an enhanced and interactive public space along the riverfront are probably two of the most important components of whatever is produced.

Quote from: Marle Brando on February 27, 2015, 08:59:33 AM
^^sounds like a 'southsider' to me. ??? I mean who exactly does the SJTC benefit if you want to go that route? A better Landing no matter who it directly benefits will indirectly benefit all of Jax.

what he said

Quote from: UNFurbanist on October 03, 2014, 04:21:21 PM
They should take inspiration from the UNF student union but scaled up for the grander downtown skyline. Bake in retail, dining and bar space with apartments to the side and you have a winner. The pedestrian focused opening down the center would connect laura street to the river while still giving an iconic modern image to the riverfront. If you haven't seen the UNF SU check it out here. http://www.dasherhurst.com/portfolio/university-of-north-florida-student-union/

This comment is endorsed by Dasher Hurst Architects.  :)

Quote from: TomHurst on February 27, 2015, 10:10:46 AM

Quote from: UNFurbanist on October 03, 2014, 04:21:21 PM
They should take inspiration from the UNF student union but scaled up for the grander downtown skyline. Bake in retail, dining and bar space with apartments to the side and you have a winner. The pedestrian focused opening down the center would connect laura street to the river while still giving an iconic modern image to the riverfront. If you haven't seen the UNF SU check it out here. http://www.dasherhurst.com/portfolio/university-of-north-florida-student-union/

This comment is endorsed by Dasher Hurst Architects.  :)

This made me chuckle.  Well played.

Nice play TomHurst. Great building as well:

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/989015087_aHnCD-L.jpg)

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/989014909_Hup4V-L.jpg)

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/989015247_Moy2n-L.jpg)

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/989015404_SS45m-L.jpg)

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/989015845_JzSus-L.jpg)

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/989015529_kKyS4-L.jpg)

Quote from: thelakelander on February 27, 2015, 09:06:07 AM

Quote from: strider on February 27, 2015, 08:38:52 AM
Frankly, I hate that any part of this is moving forward.  To me, it is a senseless waste of resources and the only person who ends up benefiting is Sleiman himself.

I view it as a positive if it results in something that greatly enhances the value and vitality of the Northbank.  As long as that happens, more power to Sleiman making some extra cash on his investment.

Quote from: I-10east on February 27, 2015, 06:23:59 AM
Whichever architect firm wins the bid, just better make sure that there's a gaping corridor aligned with Laura Street, so everyone can see the river; That's the single most important aspect about this new Jacksonville Landing... I'm sorry, just in a grouchy mood today. I just had to make sure that we all are on one accord.  ;)

Opening the complex up to the rest of the Northbank and creating an enhanced and interactive public space along the riverfront are probably two of the most important components of whatever is produced.

Why I say that only Sleiman will benefit is simply the fact that unless more happens in Downtown, like the trio, the Landing will not be a more powerful draw than it already is, so only Sleiman will benefit by what he can pocket by developing it.  In my opinion, any public money would be far better spent elsewhere.  There are more than just me with this opinion, based on comments on the threads about the Landing.

You could open it up to Laura street without tearing it all down and starting over. So it seems to me that the cost-benefit ratio is better by doing less to the Landing and doing more with the areas around it.  Unless you can make more money off the redevelopment itself.

And I do live in the Urban core where I have seen millions spent with very little to show for it.  I just keep hoping that Jacksonville eventually begins to spend wisely.

My apologies bro, you live in the core u good with me. I agree that more must be done to the area surrounding the landing..specifically those empty lots on water st. near the Omni and TU center. I think the opening down the center of the Landing is the minimal that should be done.

Perhaps one of the concepts from this list of RFP response is a partial retrofit of the existing structure.  I'd have to go back and look at the RFP but I'm not sure it's totally out of the question.

Nevertheless, there is a huge benefit in creating a usable interactive centralized public space along the riverfront....in the heart of the Northbank core. I'd argue moreso than anything happening at the Shipyards or JEA sites. With that said, I don't know how all the public funding requests will work with our limited pool of public resources. Perhaps a different design that also delivers the desire mix of uses, results in less public money being needed to make it happen? Anyway, getting the Laura Street corridor right is critical for Northbank revitalization. So we're going to have to figure out a way to get everything from the Trio and Landing to Hemming, and the vacant storefronts inbetween, turned around simultaneously.

Quote from: thelakelander on February 27, 2015, 11:37:33 AM
Perhaps one of the concepts from this list of RFP response is a partial retrofit of the existing structure.  I'd have to go back and look at the RFP but I'm not sure it's totally out of the question.

I haven't seen the issued RFP, so I have a hard time judging the list of applicants.  There are some big names, some local names and quite a few I'm unfamiliar with. 

Were there any design/cost criteria to consider or was this put out as an open-ended project for design only?

Quote from: thelakelander on February 27, 2015, 11:37:33 AM
So we're going to have to figure out a way to get everything from the Trio and Landing to Hemming, and the vacant storefronts inbetween, turned around simultaneously.

And these projects are going to have to communicate with each other so there's cohesiveness & they compliment one another in a grander scheme. Meaning no one project trying to be a catch-all one-stop "destination", where they're each a jack of all trades master of none.

Things like not having a mini amphitheater at the Landing if the Shipyards is getting one too.

Do you guys think a movie theatre, maybe 6 to 8 screens could be an anchor for a new Landing. I know AMC Regency is right across the bridge, but it may not be nearly as desirable if a new one was built near the river.

Aren't movie theaters kind of a dying thing?  Would hate to tie that much prime space on something like that. 

Quote from: edjax on February 27, 2015, 04:38:52 PM
Aren't movie theaters kind of a dying thing?  Would hate to tie that much prime space on something like that.

Movie Theater Attendance Hits 20-Year Low

http://www.slashfilm.com/box-office-attendance-hits-lowest-level-five-years/

Only movie theatre idea I think would work is more of a programing thing. If they did outdoor public movies on the side of the building that was specially painted for the purpose and had nice places to lay on some grass that might be a cool event. They do stuff like that all over the place in an informal fashion but if it was kind of baked it into the design it could attract urban core residents for sure!

CBS Sunday morning did a special on theatres last Sunday before the Oscars. AMC and others are offering dining options at your seat, others are offering seats that move like a roller coaster or have effects thrown at you for 2 hours. Still others are allowing people to bring in their Ipads and inject themselves and kids into the movie.

No thanks, I can wait at home, have my own snacks and my clean toilet and get whatever movie I want for 5 bucks.

Shortlisted firms announced for Landing Redevelopment.

http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/blog/morning-edition/2015/03/1-local-2-out-of-state-finalists-chosen-for.html?ana=e_jac_rdup&s=newsletter&ed=2015-03-19&u=lGmpCm6f72cVUQWYVYFXzw04bf05fc&t=1426770450

The finalists chosen out of the 14 respondents who submitted plans last month for the 6.6-acre Downtown waterfront site are

• Wakefield Beasley & Associates of Ponte Vedra Beach in association with Urban Design Associates of Pittsburgh
• Eskew+Dumez+Ripple of New Orleans with Baker Klein Engineers as local partner
• Cooper Carry Inc. of Atlanta

^^^From that bizjournal article.

QuoteAn on-ramp to the Main Street Bridge might also be demolished to open up additional usable land for pedestrian access to the bridge

So they might tear down the ramp (with vehicle & pedestrian access already) For a single pedestrian access bridge?? Mind you, it's not like the area is 'pedestrian heaven' and void from vehicles with traffic going around the Andrew Jackson statue roundabout. I don't care what anyone says, if they tear down the ramp, only for new pedestrian access near an automobile roundabout, that would be an absolute counterproductive waste of money.

Quote from: I-10east on March 19, 2015, 06:08:29 PM
^^^From that bizjournal article.

QuoteAn on-ramp to the Main Street Bridge might also be demolished to open up additional usable land for pedestrian access to the bridge

So they might tear down the ramp (with vehicle & pedestrian access already) For a single pedestrian access bridge?? Mind you, it's not like the area is 'pedestrian heaven' and void from vehicles with traffic going around the Andrew Jackson statue roundabout. I don't care what anyone says, if they tear down the ramp, only for new pedestrian access near an automobile roundabout, that would be an absolute counterproductive waste of money.

The removal of the ramp is nothing new. This has been part of the plan for some time now.

^^^Yes, I heard about the removal of the ramp; I was under the assumption that something from the Landing was actually gonna be built there, and not only pedestrian access.

I like the goals they have listed. I'll just be glad when this is done and move on to other projects.

Quote from: TomHurst on March 19, 2015, 02:41:27 PM
Shortlisted firms announced for Landing Redevelopment.

http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/blog/morning-edition/2015/03/1-local-2-out-of-state-finalists-chosen-for.html?ana=e_jac_rdup&s=newsletter&ed=2015-03-19&u=lGmpCm6f72cVUQWYVYFXzw04bf05fc&t=1426770450

The finalists chosen out of the 14 respondents who submitted plans last month for the 6.6-acre Downtown waterfront site are

• Wakefield Beasley & Associates of Ponte Vedra Beach in association with Urban Design Associates of Pittsburgh
• Eskew+Dumez+Ripple of New Orleans with Baker Klein Engineers as local partner
• Cooper Carry Inc. of Atlanta

An Ostrich Farm?  PLEASE!!!!!!!

So we go through all,of this process and we choose a developer.  Said developer says it will require said amount of public monies.  City says we ain't got that kinda money. It then dies on the vine.  Hmmm.  Almost to the point of why bother. I think the continued hype and thinking something will happen and then it never does is almost as demoralizing as just not even bothering anymore. The same with Trio , etc... Ugh. Ok. I am over it now. Great things are happening!!  :)

Quote from: I-10east on March 19, 2015, 06:08:29 PM
^^^From that bizjournal article.

QuoteAn on-ramp to the Main Street Bridge might also be demolished to open up additional usable land for pedestrian access to the bridge

So they might tear down the ramp (with vehicle & pedestrian access already) For a single pedestrian access bridge?? Mind you, it's not like the area is 'pedestrian heaven' and void from vehicles with traffic going around the Andrew Jackson statue roundabout. I don't care what anyone says, if they tear down the ramp, only for new pedestrian access near an automobile roundabout, that would be an absolute counterproductive waste of money.

I agree

A redesign firm for the Landing could be selected by the end of the week.

http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=545165

I personally still do not understand why this is being done at all.  Why waste the time, money and energy on redesigning the Landing when there is so much more to be done that actually might help revitalize Downtown?  The Landing is not the problem with Downtown, Downtown is the problem with the Landing. Wouldn't it be nice if we actually tried to fix something for a change?

^ personally as someone who lives downtown, aside from the nice view of the River, I find it embarrassing. It's like taking a flashback to the 1980's . Something needs to be done with it.

and so what happens when we have a winning design?  Should we just put it in the archives like all of the rest of the DT visions? 

^Or we hope we get a new mayor who's serious about finding funding for all the projects we need to fund.

Quote from: jcjohnpaint on March 31, 2015, 09:13:00 AM
and so what happens when we have a winning design?  Should we just put it in the archives like all of the rest of the DT visions? 

Probably a $500k feasibility study

Quote from: Tacachale on March 31, 2015, 09:14:07 AM
^Or we hope we get a new mayor who's serious about finding funding for all the projects we need to fund.

And you really don't think Curry is that person? 

^^^I was about to say the same thing.

Quote from: edjax on March 31, 2015, 09:36:06 AM

Quote from: Tacachale on March 31, 2015, 09:14:07 AM
^Or we hope we get a new mayor who's serious about finding funding for all the projects we need to fund.

And you really don't think Curry is that person? 

no...from his posts in many threads, I think he thinks Curry is that guy....which I find laughable

Think what you want to think about what I think. I don't know that Curry is "that guy", but here's hoping. We all know for a fact that Alvin is not.

Come on. I never even heard Curry utter the word downtown until a few days before the first debate.

And Alvin talks about downtown all the time, and we can all see what he's done for it.

Whatever is done, they need to incorporate the boating community and improve the docking, you used to be able to raft off 6-8 boats deep; now they only allow 2-3....  I can remember growing up and being downtown a couple of times a month and it being a happening place packed with boats and in turn "boat loads of people".  The place is so rundown now that it has to have a complete overhaul.  Every place in there just looks trashy because of the cheap "improvements" that new tenants try and make.  I would like to see something like the Conch House in St. Augustine in DT Jacksonville.  A place that is interactive and will bring people by land and sea and incorporate good music, food and cocktails on a regular basis   BTW, I'm the stud on the right :) lol this picture was on a regular weekend in 1988.....I am a boat owner now and love this city, but you wont catch me docked at the landing and that sucks because of all the great memories I have there.  Hope that changes

https://scontent-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/t31.0-8/10339357_10204359488056080_3772531333620736616_o.jpg




   

Quote from: Tacachale on March 31, 2015, 11:31:29 AM
And Alvin talks about downtown all the time, and we can all see what he's done for it.

Is downtown better now than 4 years ago?

Quote from: edjax on March 31, 2015, 12:21:08 PM

Quote from: Tacachale on March 31, 2015, 11:31:29 AM
And Alvin talks about downtown all the time, and we can all see what he's done for it.

Is downtown better now than 4 years ago?

Without a doubt. Not where it should be, especially as it concerns the Landing.

Quote from: Tacachale on March 31, 2015, 01:07:50 PM

Quote from: edjax on March 31, 2015, 12:21:08 PM

Quote from: Tacachale on March 31, 2015, 11:31:29 AM
And Alvin talks about downtown all the time, and we can all see what he's done for it.

Is downtown better now than 4 years ago?

Without a doubt. Not where it should be, especially as it concerns the Landing.

Can you attribute the difference between now and four years ago to Alvin Brown? Seems a bit of a stretch. 2011 was a much different landscape on an international level. I certainly don't think Alvin Brown is responsible for the improvement in the general US economy, not sure he's been more than background noise in the natural recovery of downtown.

Quote from: PeeJayEss on March 31, 2015, 03:13:51 PM

Quote from: Tacachale on March 31, 2015, 01:07:50 PM

Quote from: edjax on March 31, 2015, 12:21:08 PM

Quote from: Tacachale on March 31, 2015, 11:31:29 AM
And Alvin talks about downtown all the time, and we can all see what he's done for it.

Is downtown better now than 4 years ago?

Without a doubt. Not where it should be, especially as it concerns the Landing.

Can you attribute the difference between now and four years ago to Alvin Brown? Seems a bit of a stretch. 2011 was a much different landscape on an international level. I certainly don't think Alvin Brown is responsible for the improvement in the general US economy, not sure he's been more than background noise in the natural recovery of downtown.

Not all of it no, but at least he promotes downtown, whereas not sure Lenny ventures there much. Things like Citizens move to downtown and the Hemming Park have nothing really to do with the imrpving national economy now. He has gotten the needle moving in the right direction at least.  What did the prior 2 mayors really do for downtown, that did not involve mega public assistance?

Quote from: PeeJayEss on March 31, 2015, 03:13:51 PM

Quote from: Tacachale on March 31, 2015, 01:07:50 PM

Quote from: edjax on March 31, 2015, 12:21:08 PM

Quote from: Tacachale on March 31, 2015, 11:31:29 AM
And Alvin talks about downtown all the time, and we can all see what he's done for it.

Is downtown better now than 4 years ago?

Without a doubt. Not where it should be, especially as it concerns the Landing.

Can you attribute the difference between now and four years ago to Alvin Brown? Seems a bit of a stretch. 2011 was a much different landscape on an international level. I certainly don't think Alvin Brown is responsible for the improvement in the general US economy, not sure he's been more than background noise in the natural recovery of downtown.

Pretty much, and sadly that's about the most anyone can say about him.

Quote from: edjax on March 31, 2015, 12:21:08 PM

Quote from: Tacachale on March 31, 2015, 11:31:29 AM
And Alvin talks about downtown all the time, and we can all see what he's done for it.

Is downtown better now than 4 years ago?

as noted by others very much so...and while the Brown administration has done some harm in some cases (Jazz Fest anyone), the Mayor has consistently advocates for downtown....he talks to companies about relocating and he is a cheerleader for more sporting events in the core.

I don't have enough evidence to say with any certainty, but it seems from reading this forum for the last 7 (at least) years, that one of the main problems downtown is the City standing in the way of small, local start ups...that and the few private landowners looking for exorbitant rents or other conditions.  A Landing that encouraged local, small businesses with unique and interesting products would be a much bigger draw than some "grand plan" to bring in national players that bilk the city for taxpayer dollars and give little in return, if their plans materialize at all.  The Landing is a mall, as I said 15 years ago to a local "mover/shaker" and until it can provide free parking, convenience and a unique experience compared to Town Center or even San Marco, how is it going to compete?  It is not.  Cosmetic work, a "name" anchor means nothing if people feel it an unsafe costly and generic competitor to The Cheesecake Factory and Nordstroms.  It needs to be a space that capitalizes on the river, makes suburbanites feel safe, is easy and cost free to visit and offers something new.  I lived in Santa Monica, CA for some years and saw a depressed commercial street of wig shops, pawn and dusty ethnic boutiques turn into one of the biggest draws in LA - the Third Street Promenade.  One of the greatest things about it was free 3 hour parking on weekdays, free parking after 6 pm, and free parking all day on weekends.  Kept out the business commuters but allowed people to see a show or have a leisurely lunch without worrying about parking fees and tickets.  Also, mounted policemen, giving assurance of safety and order.  It's now one of the biggest draws in LA for visitors and locals alike.  It started with local vendors and now with the irresistible economic cycle features Sur La Table and Restoration Hardware, but it has retained the local uniqueness with the incredible Santa Monice Farmers Market that attracts top chefs and foodies and tourists every Saturday.  I hope that the Landing can follow that model.  Otherwise, it's a tired downtown mall, where suburbanites feel "unsafe" and no one has a reason to go there rather than that suburban hell off Gate Parkway

 I lived live in Santa Monica, CA Greenville, SC for some years and saw a depressed commercial street of wig shops, pawn shops and dusty ethnic boutiques boarded up storefronts turn into one of the biggest draws in LA SC - the Third Street Promenade Downtown Greenville.  One of the greatest things about it was free 3 2 hour parking on weekdays, free parking after 6 pm, and free parking all day on weekends.

Looks like we'll know more soon. Via Stephanie Brown at WOKV (https://twitter.com/newsandnom/status/590603985658241024 & https://twitter.com/newsandnom/status/590604162414546945):

QuoteNEW: Jax "Professional Service Eval Cmte" to vote Thursday on who could redevelop Jax Landing. Cooper Carry (GA) is top ranked bid.

QuoteCooper Carry hasn't yet given public info about their redevelopment plan. Their bid is not public record until Thursday.

^ Ironic that the only mixed use development listed on Cooper Carry's site is a near-perfect replica of Sleiman's much reviled redesign proposal :D

(http://www.coopercarry.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/night_7173_v1fs.jpg)

Oh lord. Here we go.

Quote from: KenFSU on April 21, 2015, 04:35:57 PM
^ Ironic that the only mixed use development listed on Cooper Carry's site is a near-perfect replica of Sleiman's much reviled redesign proposal :D

(http://www.coopercarry.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/night_7173_v1fs.jpg)

Really??  I saw at least 20 different examples under their Mixed Use Portfolio.  There were many different styles from high rise to mid rise ,etc.

^

Got a link by any chance, Ed?

Maybe I was looking in the wrong place.

The only high and mid-rises that I saw were office towers.

This brochure shows a number of different things:

user-q3nigmw.cld.bz/2015-Cooper-Carry-Mixed-Use

Quote from: KenFSU on April 21, 2015, 05:16:53 PM
^

Got a link by any chance, Ed?

Maybe I was looking in the wrong place.

The only high and mid-rises that I saw were office towers.

I really have no idea how to do links.  Not tech savvy. Just went to their website clicked on Porfolios. Then on the Mixed Use drop down items. It brings up 5 on this page to the right and then you can click to additional pages at bottom to show more of them.  If you click on the thumbnail of each it brings up more details on the particular project.

What city is that on your pic Ken?

Quote from: Keith-N-Jax on April 21, 2015, 07:20:20 PM
What city is that on your pic Ken?

Naples, FL :D

The Mercato.

And, navigation is a little tricky on the site, but I stand corrected.

I've found a few pretty interesting projects on their site.

The repurposing of the Ballston Mall in Arlington is probably a realistic idea of what was proposed:

http://www.coopercarry.com/project/ballston-mall-repositioning/

If Jacksonville were to suddenly strike oil, however, I'd love to see a scaled-down rebuild similar to the proposed East Harlem Media, Entertainment, and Cultural Center, but open to the river.

(http://therealdeal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/East-Harlem-Media-Entertainment-and-Cultural-Center-top.jpg)

http://www.coopercarry.com/project/east-harlem-media-entertainment-center-125th-street/

Thanks, that's a festive looking development

I can't imagine something anywhere near that scale being feasible at the Landing site. If I had to guess, anything that comes out of this will be more in line with what Sleiman proposed.

Not to be rude..but if our city cant keep a space like the landing busy..why are we even thinking about the shipyard area?

good question.....

Quote from: Rob68 on April 22, 2015, 07:42:59 AM
Not to be rude..but if our city cant keep a space like the landing busy..why are we even thinking about the shipyard area?

Your question doesn't seem rude at all.  The Landing is pretty busy now, especially on the weekends, but obviously needs at least a major facelift.  The shipyards is getting the attention now because Shad Kahn wants to have something lively going on between between the sports district and the Elbow district to help improve the gameday experience for Jags games and he's putting his time, effort and some money into making that happen.

Just noticed this morning that Harbinger Sign posted info from their presentation at the PechaKucha event last month that had The Landing as a topic. Not sure if anyone here happened to be there, but I heard there were some great presentations, and I'm glad to see more about this one as it includes pretty much everything I'd like to see happen at The Landing:

http://www.harbingersign.com/signofthefuture/jaxlandingpechakucha/

One of my favorite things is the title of their proposal: Just because #dtjax is on fire, doesn't mean we have to burn The Landing down (yet)

^ awesome article.

Yes great article. Hoping for the best.

Per tweet from Stephanie Brown she said Wakefield Beasley also in the running as the actually scored the same as Cooper Carry.

^ that is correct.  The Wakefiled Beasley team includes Urban Design Associates (UDA) out of Pittsburgh.  Both UDA and Cooper Carry are well qualified design firms in this arena.

Quote from: hiddentrack on April 22, 2015, 08:51:40 AM
Just noticed this morning that Harbinger Sign posted info from their presentation at the PechaKucha event last month that had The Landing as a topic. Not sure if anyone here happened to be there, but I heard there were some great presentations, and I'm glad to see more about this one as it includes pretty much everything I'd like to see happen at The Landing:

There were indeed some good presentations that evening.  Each presentation was 6 minutes and 40 seconds long.  Toney Sleiman and Landing staff were in the audience.

Quote from: Rob68 on April 22, 2015, 07:42:59 AM
Not to be rude..but if our city cant keep a space like the landing busy..why are we even thinking about the shipyard area?

I don't see the Shipyards and the Landing as linked at all. The question of ongoing failure at the Landing seems irrelevant to potential for success at The Shipyards.

They are related if we're talking about putting in similar retail/dining/lodging uses at both locations. The market can only handle so much.

Quote from: Rob68 on April 22, 2015, 07:42:59 AM
Not to be rude..but if our city cant keep a space like the landing busy..why are we even thinking about the shipyard area?

It's app predicated on growing the audience, particularly with downtown residents.  Easy walking distance from Brookyn.  Imagine that place filling up.  Berkman 2 May be completed.  Khan is building residences.  And whatever Healthytown ends up being called, a bunch of people will live in the neighborhood need lifestyle choices. 

Quote from: hiddentrack on April 22, 2015, 08:51:40 AM
Just noticed this morning that Harbinger Sign posted info from their presentation at the PechaKucha event last month that had The Landing as a topic. Not sure if anyone here happened to be there, but I heard there were some great presentations, and I'm glad to see more about this one as it includes pretty much everything I'd like to see happen at The Landing:

http://www.harbingersign.com/signofthefuture/jaxlandingpechakucha/

One of my favorite things is the title of their proposal: Just because #dtjax is on fire, doesn't mean we have to burn The Landing down (yet)

It seesm right on the money to me.

i agree

Design firm for Jacksonville Landing likely to be chosen today.

http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=545304

Wakefield Beasley has been chosen.

http://www.wokv.com/news/news/local/wakefield-beasley-chosen-redevelop-jacksonville-la/nk2gs/

Any pictures?  Who is funding this?

Now we wait!

http://www.wakefieldbeasley.com/portfolio/default.aspx?type=8

Link above are some of their completed and pending mixed use developments. 

Quote from: jcjohnpaint on April 23, 2015, 04:22:06 PM
Any pictures?  Who is funding this?

You (we the taxpayers) are. Wakefield Beasley is an architecture firm. Not a developer. All they are being paid to do is to come up with a plan that works for Sleiman and the city. So at the end of the day, whatever they cook up still needs Sleiman's approval and city money for it to become reality.

right!  This shit gets exhausting! 

Can I get city money to fix up my place?

Stephanie Brown at WOKV has been posting updates on Twitter (https://twitter.com/newsandnom), and sounds like a story will be posted to their site soon. Here are the tweets:

QuoteNEW: I just got off the phone with the CEO of Wakefield Beasley... he broke down their vision for the Jacksonville Landing...

Lamar Wakefield tells me they want to start from scratch with the Jacksonville Landing. Concept is very open air, walkable.

[Wakefield] tells me vision is open air space they can program 250-300 days a year with festivals, markets, etc. Supporting retail, food, etc.

He says focus is concept, don't have specific bldg plan bc they want public feedback, City/Sleiman input. Will be public/private partnership

Wakefield says they've spoken about cost among their group, but not ready to release any potential price tag yet. Will be public/private.

I'm working through my interview w/ Lamar Wakefield of Wakefield Beasley right now, stay w/ WOKV for your 1st look at vision for Jax Landing

Wakefield says the Jax Landing is a unique space bc you have to address the DT/office feel on one side and the river focus on the other.

Vision is to "energize" the Jacksonville Landing space 16hrs a day, according to Wakefield.

Wakefield wants to make the space one that "draws people to dwell"... seasonal festivals, concerts, art shows. All open air.

In order for design to be sustainable/lasting, Wakefield says need to knock down Landing thats there and start over. Not walkable enough now

Focus of Wakefield concept is the open-air, public "venue" to program, but he says they will look at supporting retail, possibly residential

Wakefield says public input on Landing design is "first and foremost"- "That's who's going to make this project successful"

Wakefield says, ideally, they could get the construction phase started in about a year. First focus is public input, design, financing.

I asked Wakefield what he hopes ppl see in the design when the project is up and open.... he says "incredibly inviting"

Wakefield says the style will be "unique and to itself", doesn't want the new Landing to be something that "blends in"

...and here's a link to the WOKV article:

http://m.wokv.com/news/news/local/wakefield-beasley-chosen-redevelop-jacksonville-la/nk2gs/

Quote from: thelakelander on April 23, 2015, 05:44:33 PM

Quote from: jcjohnpaint on April 23, 2015, 04:22:06 PM
Any pictures?  Who is funding this?

You (we the taxpayers) are. Wakefield Beasley is an architecture firm. Not a developer. All they are being paid to do is to come up with a plan that works for Sleiman and the city. So at the end of the day, whatever they cook up still needs Sleiman's approval and city money for it to become reality.

+1

Bring back Starbucks and put them into a riverfront space with open air terrace looking over at San Marco.

Quote from: MusicMan on April 24, 2015, 08:20:23 AM
Bring back Starbucks and put them into a riverfront space with open air terrace looking over at San Marco.

Yes, just call up Starbucks and tell them where to open a location.

Quote from: dp8541 on April 23, 2015, 04:38:50 PM
http://www.wakefieldbeasley.com/portfolio/default.aspx?type=8

Link above are some of their completed and pending mixed use developments.

Ugh... all of their designs are so plain and boring. Everything in their portfolio (even non-mixed use) looks like the same regurgitated crap you see at town centers across the country. Yeah, it'll look better than what's there now, but 10-15 years from now it'll turn into the landing without a more permanent and awe inspiring design.

The one thing the Landing has going for it now is unique architecture. I really hope Wakefield Beasley goes outside of their comfort zone with the design here. I don't care if they tear down what's there, but make it worthwhile.

Quote from: jaxjaguar on April 24, 2015, 11:33:27 AM

Quote from: dp8541 on April 23, 2015, 04:38:50 PM
http://www.wakefieldbeasley.com/portfolio/default.aspx?type=8

Link above are some of their completed and pending mixed use developments.

Ugh... all of their designs are so plain and boring. Everything in their portfolio (even non-mixed use) looks like the same regurgitated crap you see at town centers across the country. Yeah, it'll look better than what's there now, but 10-15 years from now it'll turn into the landing without a more permanent and awe inspiring design.

The one thing the Landing has going for it now is unique architecture. I really hope Wakefield Beasley goes outside of their comfort zone with the design here. I don't care if they tear down what's there, but make it worthwhile.

This was how I felt at first. Pretty much everything there looks like it could just as easily be part of SJTC. But they talked about the importance of public feedback, so hopefully enough people will feel the same about wanting something unique that it will push them beyond what they've done before.

How about something with a modern design?
Someone mentioned all the new buildings being built at UNF that are stunning!

Something like that please.

The designs at the bottom of this page are all mulit-use buildings and very modern designs.

http://www.tritmonk.com/top-and-famous-of-modern-architect/modern-architecture-england-on-tritmonk-building-photo-gallery-for-futuristic-exterior-design-idea-surrey-architec-house-contemporary-surat/

I'm gonna keep pushing this 'Don't block the Wells Fargo Center flare' movement. IMO there should be about a three story height limit directly in front of the Wells Fargo Center; The last thing that we need is some 12 story monstrosity covering up the building's flare (one of Jax's most distinctive building features) from the riverview. 

It looks like Urban Design Associates, who are working with Wakefield Beasley on this project, are also part of the team working on the Tampa Waterfront redevelopment: https://udagoes50.squarespace.com/tampalightning

QuoteWho is funding this?

You and me brother.

Please let the Landing showcase local vendors!!!!  It has to distinguish itself from malls that offer more retail, free parking and a perception of safety, so start with those assets that would appeal to visitors and locals alike - OUR OWN PRODUCTS!!!  A cooperative beer garden sponsored by all the local brewers, St Augustine Distillery, 5 Points Honey, Palm Valley Aquaponics, Azar Sausage, Black Hog Farms, the Jax Food Trucks, local tour kiosks including First Coast Outfitters, downtown tours, and many many more (see Riverside Arts Market, One Spark).

Sounds like something the farmers market could grow to incorporate. It's already filled with local businesses and there's room to expand indoors.

Something like what they did at Florida Polytechnic in Lakeland would be awesome! http://www.architectmagazine.com/design/buildings/florida-polytechnic-university-designed-by-santiago-calatrava_o

Ever been to Mario Batali's Eataly in NYC?  Combination of several distinct markets and restaurants.  I'd love to see a Jax version of that.

Quote from: downtownbrown on April 27, 2015, 09:31:59 AM
Ever been to Mario Batali's Eataly in NYC?  Combination of several distinct markets and restaurants.  I'd love to see a Jax version of that.

I haven't been to the one in NYC, but I have been to the one in Chicago.  http://www.eataly.com/

Something like that would be awesome for locals, and would be more of a tourist draw than an aquarium ever would be.

Quote from: finehoe on April 27, 2015, 12:15:52 PM

Quote from: downtownbrown on April 27, 2015, 09:31:59 AM
Ever been to Mario Batali's Eataly in NYC?  Combination of several distinct markets and restaurants.  I'd love to see a Jax version of that.

I haven't been to the one in NYC, but I have been to the one in Chicago.  http://www.eataly.com/

Something like that would be awesome for locals, and would be more of a tourist draw than an aquarium ever would be.

Agree.  I would go to a market/restaurant/entertainment venue every day.  Someone mentioned Pikes Market in Seattle.  Another great  role model for the Landing.  Make blue crab, local shrimp, and barbecue (Northside's finest!) and you have a real regionally based legitimately authentic venue and tourist attraction. Kick out the national chains.  There is no shortage of local restaurant geniuses in this town.

The Landing will not fare any better until downtown has more residents in place. You can put gold racing stripes on the walls, people still will not come from Mandarin to the Landing. You need people downtown to support downtown. You see that Avondale residents support Avondale shops, same goes for Riverside residents supporting Riverside. You need more people to live downtown for the Landing to truly take off. After 5 its a ghost town and this is where residents come into play.

Quote from: mtraininjax on April 28, 2015, 01:15:06 PM
The Landing will not fare any better until downtown has more residents in place. You can put gold racing stripes on the walls, people still will not come from Mandarin to the Landing. You need people downtown to support downtown. You see that Avondale residents support Avondale shops, same goes for Riverside residents supporting Riverside. You need more people to live downtown for the Landing to truly take off. After 5 its a ghost town and this is where residents come into play.

I agree, but I think Brooklyn is going to change the downtown demo.  It's just a short mosey away.

QuoteIt's just a short mosey away.

so is the downtown Dirty Dixie, how many people who live downtown shop there? Most travel to Publix or fresh market. The Landing needs a supermarket of some sort to support people living downtown. They also need residential mix there on the space. Its a great view of downtown, the real estate would be a top dollar opportunity.

I agree.  I'm just saying the Brooklyn folks will go to the Landing for drinks and food, since they don't have riverfront of their own. 

Brooklyn's residents will have their own food and drinks in all the restaurants and bars that will line Riverside Avenue between Forest and the Acosta Bridge. The riverfront is only a block or two away from all those apartments. I think it will be the other way around until a few more Northbank projects are completed. Northbank residents will be venturing over to Brooklyn. Especially since Brooklyn has a Fresh Market and Riverside is right next door.

Quote from: mtraininjax on April 28, 2015, 01:20:39 PM
The Landing needs a supermarket of some sort to support people living downtown.

There are plenty of locations downtown to build resident-oriented retail.  Turning the Landing into just another strip mall that happens to be on the water would be a mistake.

This is a waste of money. Laura Street Trio should be first if any public funds are spent. All of the great ideas for a Farmer's Market type feel can be done at the current location. If you made this the center of all things local, I swear the place will blow up. Instead, we want to waste money by blowing up the thing through demolition.

I actually agree.  People first.  Vendors second.  Redesign spend third.  The Landing is ready and able to accept new tenants.

^ not if the owner isn't interested in leasing the space

So nothing is planned for the old Vito's space?

Quote from: tufsu1 on April 28, 2015, 09:07:24 PM
^ not if the owner isn't interested in leasing the space

That's not entirely true. They will definitely backfill space to interested parties. If you want a 10-20 year lease, that's another story.

In the past few months, they lost two retailers to the Avenues Mall and one 70+ year old man retired. They aren't kicking people out. Chicago Pizza actually recently completed a small renovation.

QuoteTurning the Landing into just another strip mall that happens to be on the water would be a mistake.

The owner of the building is the king of strip malls in NE Florida. Its all he knows. I doubt you get more than a strip mall with racing stripes in the final design.

People who live downtown already travel to the Publix in Riverside and the Fresh Market in Brooklyn. They don't need to be reminded of where to grocery shop, they've waited long enough for a downtown solution. Only way to grow downtown is provide the residents the basic services needed for after 5 pm. This would be the IDEAL time for an Alvin Brown "Public/Private" partnership, but I seriously doubt he has anything but a box of matches as he defends his job.

Quote from: mtraininjax on April 29, 2015, 12:18:50 AM

QuoteTurning the Landing into just another strip mall that happens to be on the water would be a mistake.

The owner of the building is the king of strip malls in NE Florida. Its all he knows. I doubt you get more than a strip mall with racing stripes in the final design.

People who live downtown already travel to the Publix in Riverside and the Fresh Market in Brooklyn. They don't need to be reminded of where to grocery shop, they've waited long enough for a downtown solution. Only way to grow downtown is provide the residents the basic services needed for after 5 pm. This would be the IDEAL time for an Alvin Brown "Public/Private" partnership, but I seriously doubt he has anything but a box of matches as he defends his job.

I agree that residences come first but it is a catch-22. The retail/grocery won't come until the people are there. The people aren't coming because the retail/grocery isn't there yet.   

You could fill downtown with 10,000 residents and it will struggle to fill all of the Landing's 125k square feet of retail. The Landing was built and designed as a regional draw. Unless we're tearing it down and dramatically reducing the amount of leasable square footage, it's going to have to remain a regional draw that pulls people in, outside of just those who live downtown.

Id rather see the city buy the landing from sleighman. Id rather not hand him any more cash..hes sucked enough from the city...pur some city srrvices and some shopping and a market..mixed use would be better but getting this out of the hands of the stripmall king  would be my primary goal...sorry but its pretty much been a waist of space for years and years...

Quote from: Rob68 on April 29, 2015, 07:44:46 AM
Id rather see the city buy the landing from sleighman. Id rather not hand him any more cash..hes sucked enough from the city...pur some city srrvices and some shopping and a market..mixed use would be better but getting this out of the hands of the stripmall king  would be my primary goal...sorry but its pretty much been a waist of space for years and years...

The problem with that idea is you would have to pay Sleiman what he wants for it, or take it by eminent domain, which would also cost more than it was actually worth.

I still think the city should sell him the land underneath the buildings he owns for fair market value if he's willing to pay that and let him do whatever he wants with it while paying full property taxes.  The landing should be privately owned and developed without city interference if we can make that happen.

Quote from: Murder_me_Rachel on April 29, 2015, 08:50:10 AM

Quote from: vicupstate on April 29, 2015, 06:17:52 AM


I agree that residences come first but it is a catch-22. The retail/grocery won't come until the people are there. The people aren't coming because the retail/grocery isn't there yet.

But isnt the retail/grocery already here??? It's a 60 second drive to Fresh Market and those shops from downtown.  It's a 10 minute bike ride to Publix and 5 Points.  And the ghetto-Dixie isnt THAT bad if you are in a pinch.  Just because  the Fresh Market/Puiblix/5 Points stores arent right acorss from the library or landing doesnt mean it isnt there.  This seems like lazy thinking-- "Gosh, i cant drive/bike/walk an extra 3 minutes."

Well, the Fresh Market has only recently opened, so whatever impact is will eventually have is only beginning to be felt. Also, Obviously it is a step in the right direction. F.M. is more of a specialty/gourmet market and they don't have all the sundry things that a full size grocer would have.

MMR, a downtown should be completely walkable / connected. Go to downtown Orlando, Tampa, Miami, Atlanta, pretty much any other mildly successful downtown and you can find a grocery store/s. It helps encourage the lifestyle of not needing to drive, being able to grab something really quick on your way home from work to avoid traffic (residents that only work downtown), gives hotel visitors a place to walk to for snacks or cheaper pre-made meals. 

I think an urban market would fair really well or the farmers market, if they weren't so set on being in their current location. But at this point, I would be willing to accept any major affordable grocer. My dream scenario would be to: walk across the street to the skyway, be dropped off in-front of a grocer, buy my things for the next 2-3 days, hop back on the skyway to get home.

In the scenario above I could do what many downtown residents in other cities do... get rid of my car. I would be able to live, work, have medical appointments, shop and play without driving anywhere.

^Tampa has a DT grocery store other than the Five Points style Publix (across the Hillsborough River)? I think the best possibility of your dream scenario happening is having a skyway station across the street from Brooklyn's Fresh Market. BRT should help as well. Transit should also be improved between the existing farmers market and the DT core. Years ago, I thought the Beaver Street market should have been relocated but it plays an important role in an area of the urban core than has been largely forgotten.....in the same manner Eastern Market plays in Detroit. Anyway, I mention these because it will be years, before the Northbank can support a full line grocery outside of the few that are already operating. While a full line grocery may not be realistic, given our market conditions, it's ripe for something like a CVS or Walgreens. It would be great to have something like that in or within a block or two of the Landing.

The one in Tampa is more like grassroots in 5-Points, but they are slightly more affordable / carry more premade items (sandwiches, desserts, etc) similar to Fresh Market. It's just another option I think would be suited for the street level shops we have available.

http://duckweedurbanmarket.com/ (http://duckweedurbanmarket.com/)

If we ever see a significant increase in downtown residents, I would prefer seeing smaller stores that lean a little more toward the grocery side than a CVS or Walgreens, but still stock the essentials. One large store servicing a wider area wouldn't be as beneficial as a couple smaller stores that sit within walking distance. Size-wise, I was just reading about Green Zebra (http://www.greenzebragrocery.com) the other day, and from the photos there, they look just right.

I.M.O they just need to focus on The Shipyards. Spending money on The Landing seems like a waste at this point.

Last time I was there, the biggest request of shoppers would have been beer and rolling papers. The facility had been taken over by homeless people and thugs.

Fionn McCools seems to me like the only one keeping that place going, or MAYBE Mavericks.

The Landing is in the heart of downtown. The shipyards is an isolated site with little connectivity to the rest of core (outside of Bay Street and the riverwalk). Placing primary on the Shipyards is like focusing on the Prime Osborn.....in terms of stimulating a true walkable core. You have to get your center right, and the Landing is sitting dab smack dead in the middle of the center.

Quote from: jaxjaguar on April 29, 2015, 10:17:45 AM
The one in Tampa is more like grassroots in 5-Points, but they are slightly more affordable / carry more premade items (sandwiches, desserts, etc) similar to Fresh Market. It's just another option I think would be suited for the street level shops we have available.

http://duckweedurbanmarket.com/ (http://duckweedurbanmarket.com/)

Cool. This place must have opened fairly recently. That's good for Tampa.

It opened a few years ago downtown...in a very small space...it recently expanded

Quote from: tufsu1 on April 28, 2015, 09:07:24 PM
^ not if the owner isn't interested in leasing the space

Correct. Unsalable.

And believe me, folks from far flung places,Northeast US,a host of recognizable 'competitive' markets, and beyond,end up coming here,right now.......again and again- in my perspective,comming here to buy boats (and some,two recently, also on the lookout for "Investment" opportunity....it is interesting to captivate attention,direction ) ,they decide to keep the boat in the area for the time,an unanticipated revision to plan to Soon Go Elsewhere,local cruising.Check us out!!  8)

We carefully usher them to certain safe venue, they end up docking, stepping off the boat, walking the area....the Landing. CLUNK

At some point,unrealized "Potential" will become powerfully debilitating.

Quote from: mtraininjax on April 29, 2015, 12:18:50 AM

QuoteTurning the Landing into just another strip mall that happens to be on the water would be a mistake.

The owner of the building is the king of strip malls in NE Florida. Its all he knows. I doubt you get more than a strip mall with racing stripes in the final design.

People who live downtown already travel to the Publix in Riverside and the Fresh Market in Brooklyn. They don't need to be reminded of where to grocery shop, they've waited long enough for a downtown solution. Only way to grow downtown is provide the residents the basic services needed for after 5 pm. This would be the IDEAL time for an Alvin Brown "Public/Private" partnership, but I seriously doubt he has anything but a box of matches as he defends his job.

Sleiman has a more experienced development/equity partner and has retained an architectural firm who will do the heavy lifting of design work.  I'm not saying I disagree with you necessarily, or that I haven't said much the same thing in the past, but at the end of the day, feasibility and what the market can actually support will have more of an impact on what goes on the site than Sleiman's actual experience.

I've seen developers who put up pre-cast tilt-wall industrial distribution centers out of the blue complete a beautifully executed mixed-use development in an urban environment.  It just depends on a lot - financial backing/who $ comes from and in what structure, vision of developer, experience and vision of developer's team, and most importantly, what the market will be able to support.

If you want high quality finishes, excellent design by international or at least highly reputable national architectural firm, quality materials used, and brilliant execution by top notch leasing/marketing team for residential and commercial components, then you'd expect top dollar rents to be commanded and top dollar residential pricing (would likely be condos over apartments).  But the day that happens in Jacksonville (almost anywhere) is the day I get married into the Royal Family.

Sleiman could find more expensive partner with experience doing more "prestigious" deals, hire a more prestigious design firm, etc, and given that Jax can't support much quality retail anywhere (even on SS) and that Jax can't support big city rents, more money would be sucked up by financial partner and design firm and even less money would then be available to build something.

Quote from: vicupstate on April 29, 2015, 06:17:52 AM
I agree that residences come first but it is a catch-22. The retail/grocery won't come until the people are there.  The people aren't coming because the retail/grocery isn't there yet.

I have held pretty firm in my belief that the primary reason that the people aren't there (or in the urban core in general) is that neither the jobs nor the center of gravity of town are downtown, but rather somewhere on the Southside.

Jax has to build the base for momentum.  The ultimate base is jobs.  There are relatively few jobs downtown.

Leadership in Jacksonville needs to figure out a way to get jobs downtown.  I.e. leadership needs to figure out how to transition companies already based in or moving to Jacksonville from wanting the "cheaper" SS option to wanting a downtown option.  What do these companies want?  They all claim parking is the primary issue for not locating downtown.  I've never heard so much bullshit - it's "intangible" and un-PC to say "downtown sucks and my employees prefer to live and work elsewhere, myself included" and it's an easy scapegoat, but if parking were the issue, you'd have no successful downtowns anywhere.  DT Jax has cheaper and more abundant parking than virtually any other downtown in America, and less traffic to and fro downtown than other cities, even cities of similar size.

What's the true difference in cost between SS Jax and DT Jax for companies moving to Jax from wayyy more expensive locales like NYC?  Someone at the City needs to be a frontman asking these questions and pitching that a company moving from NYC might save $10mm a year by locating off of Gate and only $9.2mm a year by signing a lease downtown, but what's the value of that $800K in terms of recruitment, access to amenities, entertainment, and other firms, etc.  Maybe that's the kind of incentive warranted - if a company is going to move to Jax anyway, and desires a build-to-suit or a lease on the SS, figure out if there is a true cost differential to downtown and offer that as an incentive to get them to move downtown instead.

Momentum for creating a great urban living place will be that much higher if the ultimate justification (aka nearby jobs) is in place.

Quote from: urbanlibertarian on April 29, 2015, 08:44:03 AM
I still think the city should sell him the land underneath the buildings he owns for fair market value if he's willing to pay that and let him do whatever he wants with it while paying full property taxes.  The landing should be privately owned and developed without city interference if we can make that happen.

I totally disagree.  There is nothing wrong with a long term ground lease on valuable waterfront land that demands public access and public regulation and ultimate taxpayer control.  This is common sense.  Giving it away (even for a short term penny) would be a terrible mistake.  Look at the mistake that is the land owned by CSX along the river.  Ugh  As someone who works intimately in this industry, there is *nothing* related to the ground lease itself that is preventing anything from getting done on the site.  If there is a reason and market to get something built yesterday, we would have seen something built yesterday.  Problem isn't ground lease.  Problem is DT Jax as a whole.

Quote from: vicupstate on April 29, 2015, 09:28:33 AM
Well, the Fresh Market has only recently opened, so whatever impact is will eventually have is only beginning to be felt. Also, Obviously it is a step in the right direction. F.M. is more of a specialty/gourmet market and they don't have all the sundry things that a full size grocer would have.

My hunch is that the Fresh Market rides the PR wave that is "downtown store" and "urban format" etc etc - probably gets more publicity that way as being seen as a pioneer and the first new downtown grocer in a while.  But I bet the fact remains that there were no other viable sites, the developer had experience to get it done and likely some sort of working relationship with FM, and at the end of the day, the whole entire driver here is that Ortega through San Marco is underserved for organic/higher end grocers and are a collective large enough market for a mid-size format such as FM and this site provides easy access on the GOING HOME side of the road for drivers to easily and quickly pull in and out from either San Marco or Ortega/Avondale.

And on that note...

Quote from: jaxjaguar on April 29, 2015, 09:30:01 AM
MMR, a downtown should be completely walkable / connected. Go to downtown Orlando, Tampa, Miami, Atlanta, pretty much any other mildly successful downtown and you can find a grocery store/s. It helps encourage the lifestyle of not needing to drive, being able to grab something really quick on your way home from work to avoid traffic (residents that only work downtown), gives hotel visitors a place to walk to for snacks or cheaper pre-made meals. 

I think an urban market would fair really well or the farmers market, if they weren't so set on being in their current location. But at this point, I would be willing to accept any major affordable grocer. My dream scenario would be to: walk across the street to the skyway, be dropped off in-front of a grocer, buy my things for the next 2-3 days, hop back on the skyway to get home.

In the scenario above I could do what many downtown residents in other cities do... get rid of my car. I would be able to live, work, have medical appointments, shop and play without driving anywhere.

I lived in Midtown Atlanta for years.  Lots of grocery options there.  I did walk as much as I had it in me to do, but the South in general just isn't a walking type of region (and there's limited shade and lots of heat).  I only walked because I wanted to "feel" urban.  It was actually more convenient, free, and easier for me to hop in my car, park in the Publix garage, shop, and drive back, park in my garage, and elevator up.  Unless you lived in Plaza Midtown or Savannah Apartments or in Atlantic Station or oddly adjacent to Ansley Park Publix in Atlanta, 95+% chance you still drove (unless you were a freshman/sophomore Georgia Tech student without a car).

If you live in 11 East Forsyth, the Strand, Berkman Plaza, Metropolitan Lofts, etc, MY ASS you're going to be walking to Fresh Market to grocery shop, even if it were a straight shot ped friendly without highways and overpasses.  Jax has no traffic except for 1 hour a day.  You'll get in your car, which is parked in your covered garage underneath or adjacent to your building, drive over hassle free in your AC with your stereo, shop, and drive back.  Fact.

I can think of only a small handful of cities where people walk and grocery shop.  None are in the south.  There are always exceptions to the rule.  And if there are any exceptions to the Jax rule, they are ALL likely to be on this board.  All 5 of them.  LoL

And from experience, walking to grocery shop >>>>>> taking public transit with bags.  It's not common to see people with grocery bags on the NYC, Boston, DC, or SF subways.  People walk to what's near where they live.  If it's a long walk up a hill, the only thing worse is waiting for a bus or train and getting on that train with your groceries - and nobody else appreciates that either.



I also just want to point out that years ago I advocated for the Landing to become something like Pike's Market, the Ferry Building, Chelsea Market, Reading Terminal, Krog St Market/Ponce City Market, etc etc.  :)

Compared to doing a larger mixed-use development involving tearing down the existing structure, intensive site work, and new ground-up construction, a repositioning to something more organic and local with local purveyors and a blind faith financial effort in seeing something evolve over time would be "no frills", relatively speaking, and as we like to say on this site, but it would require a whole different kind of financial backing - more expensive at that.  You wouldn't be able to finance that development - you'd have to find very expensive equity for it (my previous firm would be an excellent partner - they'd require a lot of input and fees, and likely wouldn't do a deal in Jacksonville, but there are others out there).  So from that standpoint, it's FAR more risky, but would involve far less money at the end of the day.

My hope would be that Sleiman and his family would have enough money to bankroll it enough to get it to a point where they could find cheaper equity to recapitalize the project or even traditional financing if it really takes off.

But if we're talking Whole Dollar Profit and "return", it probably makes sense from Sleiman's perspective to do what he's doing.  That's my problem at the end of the day - it's a quicker, more rewarding proposition, but does less for the community on such community-important land.  Wish there were more "developer altruism".

Quote from: thelakelander on April 29, 2015, 10:43:13 AM

Quote from: jaxjaguar on April 29, 2015, 10:17:45 AM
The one in Tampa is more like grassroots in 5-Points, but they are slightly more affordable / carry more premade items (sandwiches, desserts, etc) similar to Fresh Market. It's just another option I think would be suited for the street level shops we have available.

http://duckweedurbanmarket.com/ (http://duckweedurbanmarket.com/)

Cool. This place must have opened fairly recently. That's good for Tampa.

It's been open for several years. The second location going into Channelside opens in September.

QuoteIf you live in 11 East Forsyth, the Strand, Berkman Plaza, Metropolitan Lofts, etc, MY ASS you're going to be walking to Fresh Market to grocery shop, even if it were a straight shot ped friendly without highways and overpasses. 

Simms, (I want to call you by your real name, but I resisted, ha ha), you hit the nail on the head. This is the real issue, and very few of the posters will actually try and bike, walk, scooter from a downtown location to FM in July when its 92 and feels like 102 degrees.

Downtown needs grocery stores close to where people live, 1, maybe 2 blocks to make downtown work for more people. Once people see the basics, grocery, cleaners, yes-more restaurants, there will be more push and demand for downtown.

All these new building concepts of residential downtown need a bodega or small local grocery store, more than a 7-11, but something with fresh fruits and veggies and choices for working professionals who live downtown. No new residential should be without such an option. Of course, this takes backbone, something which our current administration has none, so someone in DIA or other group will need to lead the charge for more downtown to support this growth.

Landing can come back and be a major entry/exit point, and I think residential is an excellent choice there, because the river view is incredible there. But it also needs a way to support its residents.

http://www.pikeplacemarket.org/

Make the Landing inside into a market with farmer's market and craft vendors such as Pike Place Market in Seattle. Also, market some event space in there for special events. Give it that cool vibe and work to bring in some cool local restaurants with the new vibe and I'm telling you it would kill two birds with one stone (new focus/vibe for Landing and fresh groceries).