Jacksonville Landing: The Civic Council Speaks
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/2977331725_B95Jjjd-M.jpg)
A statement concerning the proposed redevelopment of the Jacksonville Landing, on behalf of the Jacksonville Civic Council (JCC), by Downtown Task Force Chairman Bob Rhodes.
Read More: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2014-aug-jacksonville-landing-the-civic-council-speaks
(http://i.imgur.com/Njxefzr.gif)
Of course Toney says how funny we were going to get more community involvement now. Bottomline in my opinion he rushed the crappy design out last week as he knew the $11.8 was going to be up for debate with the City Finance Committee and he wanted something out to the public showing how diligent he has been to try and save it and get people talking about it again so he could secure the money. He may be sleazy, but not stupid.
Yes, it's a work in process. If anyone has ideas for how the design could be improved, feel free to suggest. I'm pretty sure they are reading Metro Jacksonville.
This is bang on. The Landing should be the centerpiece of downtown. With that, we "deserve a design that is iconic and inspiring." It should showcase the river not put it across the street. The fact that that idea was put to paper and released to the public blows my mind...
Quote from: InnerCityPressure on August 28, 2014, 12:04:45 PM
The fact that that idea was put to paper and released to the public blows my mind...
Not really. IMO, actually putting something on paper and saying, "This is what we're going to do." is an easy, surefire way to get people to actually respond to something. Use free labor to generate some renderings and to get a clearer idea of what the 'public' wants.
Once you get somewhat of a consensus and a prelim design, then you pay the professionals to fine-tune it.
The Civic Council has asked for community engagement and suggestions for the Landing. Clearly, most agree that Sleiman's design wasn't up to snuff, with lackluster architecture, stingy retail space, and those horrible roads running through the center and separating a predominantly residential Landing from the leftover scraps adjacent greenspace.
With the original plan out of the way for now, what does everyone think that a redesigned Landing should include in order to be, as the JCC says, "the unique downtown venue that our citizens deserve," "the downtown destination that reflects the true nature of the city," and "the single most critical project in regards to transforming downtown Jacksonville." What should it not include.
Mixed use?
Ideas for layout or architecture?
Any similar sites around the country (or world) that you think should be looked at for inspiration?
The last thing we need is to let the "King of the Strip Mall" decide what Jacksonville's Downtown waterfront should look like. We need something unique and special to Jacksonville - not a couple of apartment buildings with some retail. What will that do for the city? You could put that anywhere.
I've always liked the look of Paseo Marítimo de la Playa Poniente in Benidorm, Spain.
http://www.thecoolhunter.net/article/detail/1898/urban-spaces--we-need-more-of-them
What's most needed is a riverfront pedestrian space (like the current courtyard) that's surrounded by restaurants/retail (like the current courtyard-facing segment of the Landing), but is accessible from and integrated with Laura Street.
Pluses of all of the proposed projects have been opening up access to Laura Street and taking out the unnecessary Main Street ramp in favor of building space. We just need them to do it in a way that will really create the vibrancy we want. Additionally, the mixed-use residential element is a great, it just shouldn't take away everything that already works about the Landing.
Awesome read.
Take what we have now, and split it down the middle with Laura Street running down the center to the river (for pedestrians only). Build a band shell over the river at the end of Laura Street, creating a larger amphitheater that will attract events like St. Augustine is getting over Jacksonville right now. Fill out the two structures with bars and restaurants with balconies overlooking the amphitheater and river on the first two floors from the center out to the wings. In the center, go up another three floors with apts/condos - potentially with an elevated breezeway over Laura Street - and on the wings go up another 7-10 floors with retail, apts/condos and office space.
Just spitballing here but I think this is probably better than the last proposal I saw.
Quote from: Tacachale on August 28, 2014, 04:35:19 PM
What's most needed is a riverfront pedestrian space (like the current courtyard) that's surrounded by restaurants/retail (like the current courtyard-facing segment of the Landing), but is accessible from and integrated with Laura Street.
Pluses of all of the proposed projects have been opening up access to Laura Street and taking out the unnecessary Main Street ramp in favor of building space. We just need them to do it in a way that will really create the vibrancy we want. Additionally, the mixed-use residential element is a great, it just shouldn't take away everything that already works about the Landing.
Completely agree. The existing riverfront courtyard has been the Landing's biggest success, and all future development of the space should center around an equally great, central, riverfront plaza. This area should continue to be the signature event space in the city, and when you peer down Laura Street from Hemming Plaza, you should be able to see the band playing at the Landing or the Christmas Tree in the courtyard, not Sleiman's dinky fountain.
Other random ideas:
- Mixed use is a fantastic idea, as long as you don't let residential and parking don't get in the way of commercial.
- The Landing is often the first place that tourists come in Jacksonville, and the space should include ways to educate visitors (and remind residents) about our great city and make them feel welcome. A video board, similar to the one that currently exists, presenting Jacksonville-themed facts and media (Jacksonville in Motion comes to mind) would be awesome.
- One of the most offensive aspects of the Sleiman design was the private rooftop pools. Any vertical development of the site should include public space on top of the buildings. Whether that be building mini-urban parks overlooking the central plaza (other cities are doing some amazing things with rooftop greenspace), or constructing rooftop restaurants or bars, or even utilizing the space for both depending on time of day, the site lines are too stunning to leave unoccupied or to waste on private apartment-dwellers. Unique rooftop space would be something the suburbs simply cannot offer.
- Wi-Fi and quality, free-standing food vendors would be great (think the coffee and breakfast carts at Bryant Park).
from what I hear, there may not be any $ coming from City Council this year either. The Mayor's proposed CIP budget is based on borrowing and Council doesn't seem enthuse with the idea.
First, I need to ask why Hogan continues to the river? Why isn't it terminated at Bay with the current "stub" converted to a pedestrian plaza integrated with and leveraging the Preforming Arts Center? and what about the parking lot east of the Main Street Bridge? If these two spaces are integrated into the Plan, the total area to work with is nearly two times larger. Why are we considering design of an iconic space without reference to these underutilized spaces fronting the river? A street stub and a surface parking lot? Really? This is the best use of St. John's riverfront land this city can come up with for a second go-round of the Landing? If so then it seems Slieman's proposal is simply aspiring to the low bar being set.
The Jacksonville Landing was originally designed and built by the Rouse Company whom also designed/built the Bayside Marketplace in Miami. If you've ever been there, you know that it's an amazing place. I, for one, would be super happy to see a design just like that.
https://www.google.com/search?q=bayside+marketplace+miami&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=Tm8AVK7hK8SxggS5mILQDQ&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1439&bih=707 (https://www.google.com/search?q=bayside+marketplace+miami&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=Tm8AVK7hK8SxggS5mILQDQ&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1439&bih=707)
Quote from: marty904 on August 29, 2014, 08:19:44 AM
The Jacksonville Landing was originally designed and built by the Rouse Company whom also designed/built the Bayside Marketplace in Miami. If you've ever been there, you know that it's an amazing place. I, for one, would be super happy to see a design just like that.
Miami commissioners signed off Thursday on a 99-year deal with the operators of Bayside Marketplace and the developer of SkyRise Miami to refurbish the rundown retail and entertainment center and build a 1,000-foot observation tower on the bay.
"Bayside is 1970s thinking executed in the 1980s,'' said Miami Commissioner Marc Sarnoff, whose district includes downtown. "It's time for Bayside to come into the year 2015. If you want an extension, you need to upgrade your facility substantially.''
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/11/20/3767826/developer-plans-1000-foot-bayfront.html#storylink=cpy
Quote from: stephendare on August 29, 2014, 08:48:19 AM
hmm. I wonder why no one has told them that observation towers are so 1990s?
Maybe not.
QuoteBreathtaking views rise to unprecedented heights for the Washington, D.C. area. A graceful presence of steel and glass, capped by a dramatic observation deck
http://www.centralplace.com/
^That's an actual functional building (a decent one, btw) with an observation level. Basically, the 42nd floor of BOA, The top of the JEA Building, or the balcony level in the old Courthouse Annex that everyone wants to demolish now. A far cry from the 1960s Goerge Jetson needle debated here (which ultimately was proven to be unpractical and vanished away). ;)
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/271550-jetsons.jpg)
Lol. Khan's not my sugar daddy. I'm still not sold on the dream of the shipyards being the big one trick DT revitalization pony many view it to be.
Tower's obsolete!? Beg to differ.
https://www.google.com/search?q=cn+tower+toronto (https://www.google.com/search?q=cn+tower+toronto)
The CN Tower in Toronto is a huge tourist destination. Besides restaurants with fantastic views you can test your fear of heights by walking out onto glass floors on one of the observation decks that are over 1000' up. Took me ten minutes to work up the nerve.
A 1000' tower in Miami, you could probable see Bimini on a clear day and the view of the Keys and Biscayne Bay would be spectacular.
Quote from: stephendare on August 29, 2014, 09:33:17 AM
unpractical = not owned by Khan. ;)
If it was practical (read profitable) I think Khan would still consider it.
As to Dog Walker's post above, most of us weren't saying that observation towers are obsolete. If there's a good view, then the desire will always be there. We just pointed out that the desire in Jax. can easily be met using the top floor of the existing Bank of America tower. There's already a cafeteria/lounge up there and virtually nobody knows it.
Jacksonville is not a city for an observation tower. Also, the developer of the tower in Miami is a rich man horny for that kind of deal. Maybe it will work, but I don't think it's 100% based in reality - there are some hormones associated. I've seen it time and time again.
Observation towers are sort of in the Ferris Wheel camp. Most can now agree, with all the ferris wheels out there, that they haven't met expectations in most places. Unless he can get that operator out of Europe (who now operates the deck in the JHC in Chicago), I don't see smooth sailing.
No offense to Jacksonville, but it's one of the most boring "nothing to see" cityscapes in the world. Miami is not.
Back to reality and on to the Landing:
Sleiman
Quotesaid he and others visited other cities — Miami, Atlanta, Charlotte, N.C., and Louisville, Ky. — to see what they've done downtown.
http://members.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2014-08-23/story/exclusive-jacksonville-landing-owners-propose-demolition-new-vision
That quote scares me. Also, he signed on a Post/former Weeks executive to the redevelopment team. That means he is leaning on a guy that has expertise in developing suburban apartments and flex industrial/office space, in sunbelt markets.
What Sleiman [should] do is spend up (if it even takes that...he hired a c-level executive - the CIO of all people, but any VP level guy will be cheaper no matter where he comes from) and lean on someone who has experience doing *anything* development/mixed-use/politically charged/entitlement heavy related in a real urban market, like anywhere in the NE, in CA, in Chicago, in the Pacific NW, etc.
The only significant real estate group in the SE that has large-scale experience doing urban mixed-use with a focus on retail is Jamestown Properties out of Atlanta.
http://www.jamestownlp.com/
There is no other group *based* in the SE that has the applicable track record that Jamestown has (and Jamestown's CIO and COO office in NYC, where Jamestown's primary investment market is). Toney should have poached someone there. They have in-house construction expertise, in-house design expertise, in-house capital markets guys, in-house development guys, an in-house creative department that is un-rivaled in real estate in the sunbelt, and frankly it's probably a top 3-5 in the entire industry nationally (their creative/marketing that is).
If Toney swept through Atlanta, and all he could join forces with was a Post guy, then I think we can gauge where he prefers to see this go (he wants a piece of the multifamily pie!). But if he wanted to truly overcome the challenge of repositioning downtown's most centric/pivotal/arguably important piece of real estate by turning it into a sustainable and unique attraction for tourists & locals alike, he should have hired someone who who has experience with those particular challenges.
I only say this both as someone intimately familiar with the real estate industry, and as someone familiar with Atlanta-based real estate firms, including Jamestown (and Post to a degree). As CIO of one of the most successful apartment development firms in the country, with a fair amount of recent urban infill projects, Tom is no slouch and is certainly one of the smartest guys in real estate. But real estate is a big world handled by only a few people, and thus when most professionals get to the point Tom is at, they have developed a niche expertise. In Tom's case, he certainly understands real estate finance and development principles, but mainly how they apply to multifamily.
He doesn't have an extensive background doing retail or doing urban mixed-use or trophy repositioning projects. The proposal Toney did kick out the door, procedurally, looks like a Post [anywhere SE/TX] project. NOT like what I envision a maximized Landing to be.
I feel there are still a lot of other RE professionals Toney, and now Tom, should meet before getting serious. At this point, poach some associates/Jr VPs from other companies who have relevant experience. That's what I say. A maximized Landing could be a beast of an asset. Enough to support a true team of professionals. It could also be a marquee for Sleiman and a way for him to break out of NNN development and into something larger - like a fund-based model or one where he can win some separate account money for development/multifamily with Tom now working alongside him. He shouldn't squander this opportunity by "only" leaning on Tom for this one deal, looking at it from the perspective of completing it and flipping out. He should think BIG and long term, as a developer/operator.
My long $0.02.
^ the DIA Economic Feasibility report made it clear that multi-family residential is a big need for downtown. Sleiman is reacting to that plan, primarily because he won't get incentives if he doesn't. Again, the mix of uses seems fine, it is the design that needs work.
IMO the Landing land in front of the Wells Fargo Building should have a height restriction (I believe that Ken alluded to that earlier). I think the WFB's flare at the bottom is very distinctive to the skyline, and whatever is built south of it should have a height restriction (two maybe three floors). The Landing's loftier section should be in front of 76 Laura.
The latest renderings (thank God was rejected) has a lop-sided ratio of stuff to do (very lacking) which is very disproportionate to all of that abundant tenant space. IMO Unity Plaza/Brooklyn etc will have a much better ratio with stuff to do there.
Quote from: simms3 on August 29, 2014, 01:20:00 PM
<snip>
What Sleiman [should] do is spend up (if it even takes that...he hired a c-level executive - the CIO of all people, but any VP level guy will be cheaper no matter where he comes from) and lean on someone who has experience doing *anything* development/mixed-use/politically charged/entitlement heavy related in a real urban market, like anywhere in the NE, in CA, in Chicago, in the Pacific NW, etc.
<snip>
I only say this both as someone intimately familiar with the real estate industry, and as someone familiar with Atlanta-based real estate firms, including Jamestown (and Post to a degree). As CIO of one of the most successful apartment development firms in the country, with a fair amount of recent urban infill projects, Tom is no slouch and is certainly one of the smartest guys in real estate. But real estate is a big world handled by only a few people, and thus when most professionals get to the point Tom is at, they have developed a niche expertise. In Tom's case, he certainly understands real estate finance and development principles, but mainly how they apply to multifamily.
My long $0.02.
simms3 - send Toney your resume' :)
Quote from: tufsu1 on August 29, 2014, 02:15:42 PM
^ the DIA Economic Feasibility report made it clear that multi-family residential is a big need for downtown. Sleiman is reacting to that plan, primarily because he won't get incentives if he doesn't. Again, the mix of uses seems fine, it is the design that needs work.
Yes, the residential component is a major plus. Just not at the expense of the things that already work with the (current) Landing.
Not saying resi shouldn't be part of the mix, though if I had my way, I'd not require it. Easier to make it pencil out with multifamily, however, I personally don't think this location is entirely appropriate for housing. But that's just me.
I have many more problems with the proposal and with what's coming from Team Toney than just the design or mix of uses. That's why I didn't focus my comments on either, but rather the team itself.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on August 29, 2014, 03:08:49 PM
simms3 - send Toney your resume' :)
Too content where I am, and not at the title level Toney needs. I just jumped ship to a new firm, and am very happy and challenged...I'd be way too expensive, too ;) If Toney is going to hire associates and analysts and create a new platform, he shouldn't hire associates/analysts from NYC, SF, DC, or Boston. He can find a talent pool in Atlanta or Charlotte or Houston or Dallas with a more equivalent pay grade and a higher chance of moving to Jax ;)
Toney should spend the big bucks on finding more senior level guys, like he did, but I hope he can find a complement to Tom.
I don't even remember what the Landing was like before Sleiman bought it. I remember it was a lot better, though.
Quote from: I-10east on August 29, 2014, 02:33:24 PM
IMO the Landing land in front of the Wells Fargo Building should have a height restriction (I believe that Ken alluded to that earlier).
It does. The height restriction is 75'.
Quote from: Anti redneck on August 29, 2014, 04:42:07 PM
I don't even remember what the Landing was like before Sleiman bought it. I remember it was a lot better, though.
It was in worse shape than what it is now. The Landing's glory days were well over before this century started.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 29, 2014, 04:54:47 PM
Quote from: Anti redneck on August 29, 2014, 04:42:07 PM
I don't even remember what the Landing was like before Sleiman bought it. I remember it was a lot better, though.
It was in worse shape than what it is now.
MUCH worse.
Quote from: KenFSU on August 28, 2014, 01:33:20 PM
The Civic Council has asked for community engagement and suggestions for the Landing. Clearly, most agree that Sleiman's design wasn't up to snuff, with lackluster architecture, stingy retail space, and those horrible roads running through the center and separating a predominantly residential Landing from the leftover scraps adjacent greenspace.
With the original plan out of the way for now, what does everyone think that a redesigned Landing should include in order to be, as the JCC says, "the unique downtown venue that our citizens deserve," "the downtown destination that reflects the true nature of the city," and "the single most critical project in regards to transforming downtown Jacksonville." What should it not include.
Mixed use?
Ideas for layout or architecture?
Any similar sites around the country (or world) that you think should be looked at for inspiration?
Here's what came out of the APA's Jacksonville Landing 2009 charrette:
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/735956689_UPxFh-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/735956693_778NR-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/735956705_DsHmn-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/735955921_7L7aG-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/735955934_A83JL-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/735955936_Zg9Wv-M.jpg)
more background and graphics: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2009-dec-re-imagining-the-jacksonville-landing#.VADwFfldViY
That was a better designed, certainly need to keep the courtyard and river front dinning.
Quote from: Tacachale on August 29, 2014, 05:19:13 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 29, 2014, 04:54:47 PM
Quote from: Anti redneck on August 29, 2014, 04:42:07 PM
I don't even remember what the Landing was like before Sleiman bought it. I remember it was a lot better, though.
It was in worse shape than what it is now.
MUCH worse.
How was it worse than now? How is it better than before?
Quote from: Anti redneck on August 29, 2014, 07:02:15 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on August 29, 2014, 05:19:13 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 29, 2014, 04:54:47 PM
Quote from: Anti redneck on August 29, 2014, 04:42:07 PM
I don't even remember what the Landing was like before Sleiman bought it. I remember it was a lot better, though.
It was in worse shape than what it is now.
MUCH worse.
How was it worse than now? How is it better than before?
It was less of an activity center in the couple of years before Sleiman took over. He's programmed the courtyard better, added the big screen, and added a couple of successful night spots like Mavericks. Immediately pre-Sleiman, when the mix was more oriented toward retail and less toward dining and nightlife and courtyard entertainment, it was distinctly more desolate in feel than it is today, if not in number of tenants or percentage of occupied space.
I also think it's a plus that he has added a few tenants with distinctive and distinctly local products. Love, love, love River City Gourmet Shoppe, and it's nice to be able to buy high-quality photos of the city, glass etchings, etc. from the artists who have Landing businesses now. To me, that's truer to the concept of a festival marketplace than still seeing a Waldenbooks.
Quote from: simms3 on August 29, 2014, 03:43:03 PM
I just jumped ship to a new firm, and am very happy and challenged...I'd be way too expensive, too ;) If Toney is going to hire associates and analysts and create a new platform, he shouldn't hire associates/analysts from NYC, SF, DC, or Boston. He can find a talent pool in Atlanta or Charlotte or Houston or Dallas with a more equivalent pay grade and a higher chance of moving to Jax ;)
wow...you must have a very impressive 5-7 year resume
Quote from: Wacca Pilatka on August 29, 2014, 07:24:53 PM
Quote from: Anti redneck on August 29, 2014, 07:02:15 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on August 29, 2014, 05:19:13 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 29, 2014, 04:54:47 PM
Quote from: Anti redneck on August 29, 2014, 04:42:07 PM
I don't even remember what the Landing was like before Sleiman bought it. I remember it was a lot better, though.
It was in worse shape than what it is now.
MUCH worse.
How was it worse than now? How is it better than before?
It was less of an activity center in the couple of years before Sleiman took over. He's programmed the courtyard better, added the big screen, and added a couple of successful night spots like Mavericks. Immediately pre-Sleiman, when the mix was more oriented toward retail and less toward dining and nightlife and courtyard entertainment, it was distinctly more desolate in feel than it is today, if not in number of tenants or percentage of occupied space.
I also think it's a plus that he has added a few tenants with distinctive and distinctly local products. Love, love, love River City Gourmet Shoppe, and it's nice to be able to buy high-quality photos of the city, glass etchings, etc. from the artists who have Landing businesses now. To me, that's truer to the concept of a festival marketplace than still seeing a Waldenbooks.
Well put. They've done a good job keeping the courtyard-fronting spaces open and periodic activity in the courtyard. It hadn't really "worked" in many years before that.
I do hope that if ANY public money put into this is returned..profits from the landing should be put back into the city and not into sleaz mans pocket...im sick of seeing community cash end up in private pockets and if theres no oversight on him we are the stupid ones..personnally id rather see the landing owned by the community and not a money hungry developer...NO MORE PUBLIC CASH for the landing unless we have a stake with returns.
Quote from: tufsu1 on August 29, 2014, 10:03:45 PM
Quote from: simms3 on August 29, 2014, 03:43:03 PM
I just jumped ship to a new firm, and am very happy and challenged...I'd be way too expensive, too ;) If Toney is going to hire associates and analysts and create a new platform, he shouldn't hire associates/analysts from NYC, SF, DC, or Boston. He can find a talent pool in Atlanta or Charlotte or Houston or Dallas with a more equivalent pay grade and a higher chance of moving to Jax ;)
wow...you must have a very impressive 5-7 year resume
Nice jab, but meaningless. And yes, I've worked hard on getting where I am, people in my boat aren't turning around and moving back to the small towns they came from, just yet ;) (if ever in my case, sadly). Does it not make sense to you that I'm way more expensive and difficult to "move" in SF than in Atlanta? That's not being snobby, but I'm not taking a 50% pay cut just to move cross country to a cheaper city. Lots of people in Atlanta might consider a 10% pay cut to move to a slightly cheaper city that has a beach and a river.
Toney has a couple of options here, and he's acting on one:
1) Make this more of a multifamily deal, develop it, lease it, and get out (unless he's looking for a coupon, but I think he's grown impatient and wants a good return). The retail/public space does become more of a "chore" and afterthought, which is obvious up until this point. Then return to what he does best.
In this case, he's essentially hired a very expensive, very knowledgeable multifamily consultant to get this deal done (and maybe Toney gets horny for the kinds of things that come with developing multi - like working with Fannie/Freddie as lenders, return or even yield potentials, similar formulaic development parameters, and he keeps Tom and becomes the "apartment king" around Jax)
2) Really make a go of it. Tackle the challenge that the Landing isn't really supposed to be a "multi" deal even though the city has imo stupidly mandated that there be resi. Focus on the retail and public aspect of it, maybe throw in premier and/or boutique office on 1-2 floors above, which I would much rather see here than resi. Multi becomes more of the afterthought, frankly, because it's a little bit easier in this situation and just allows the damn thing to more easily pencil out and receive financing.
Develop the Landing and then operate it as part of your portfolio - really make it the marquee of a new platform, one where Sleiman Enterprises does complex deals and either becomes a great partner and receives fees and promotes on interesting deals with more sophisticated capital groups who would consider coming to town knowing they have a knowledgeable experienced partner in Sleiman, or even becomes more of the LP and operates funds or larger separate accounts for more sophisticated investors with more $$$.
In this case, you have a multi expert, but you got nothin else. If you want a platform whereby you're doing more complex deals and partnering with more sophisticated RE groups, you need a couple of analysts, an associate or two, and another VP level guy who has more retail or office experience, maybe a generalist.
All I was saying is that this setup rarely if ever exists in smaller cities like Jax because complex deals don't happen frequently, and if they do, it's outside "big city" firms that do them. Usually a firm out of Atlanta, or similar, will swoop in and redevelop the Landing, using a Sleiman himself as a local partner in a JV to help navigate local political/regulatory waters and leverage relationships (clearly Toney is a fail at this so far).
Seeing as how the Landing is basically THE gathering place for all special moments and events in Jacksonville, I think that aspect of it should be kept but greatly enhanced. The courtyard is pretty small and feels closed in so opening it up to Laura St makes sense. Hogan St should also be closed to connect the Landing with the Times-Union Center and add additional park/gathering space.
If the Landing is gonna be demolished, another iconic structure should take its place. Something like Times Square South in Atlanta would be pretty cool. All the video boards and bright lights alone could cause the new Landing to be successful. It'd be something people want to see and people would come downtown just for that.
Whatever is built there it should be:
River-oriented, bar and restaurant loaded, with a large crowd-friendly courtyard and nearby ample parking.
Please don't destroy the main purpose of the Landing.
FYI: http://www.wokv.com/news/news/local/jacksonville-landing-renovations-no-longer-main-co/nhTSf/
To make the change happen, Toney Sleiman with Sleiman Enterprises was seeking $11.8 million from the City. While the Mayor included that in his budget proposal as a project for which the City would borrow money to complete, the Finance Committee cut any new borrowing authorization.
Sleiman says with 49 years left on the lease, he's still working other avenues for funding, but is now moving forward.
"I'm still going to work on it, but it's not my main concern right now," he says.
Sleiman tells us he's focusing now instead on his main business, shopping centers.
"I'm getting out there and working on a lot of shopping center deals," he says.
A special committee looking at capital projects and borrowing is still meeting, although the budget was approved early this morning. The chance of having the funding for this project restored this year, however, is not high because of the large bill and the Council's unwillingness this year to take on an increase in debt.
Well that was a quick change in priority!
"I'll make you all pay with more shopping centers"! And a sigh of relief from our city council ::)
This way he can say since you won't fund my plans for the Landing you need to extend the Mobility Plan moratorium for ever so I can build more shopping centers.
Just sell Toney the land under the Landing, already, and let him do his redevelopment with private money.
So let me see if I understand this. The guy that wants to re develop doesn't own the building or just doesn't own the land it sits on?
He owns the building, but the city owns the land.
Ok now it makes a bit more sense. Thanks
I wonder how the City Council's reluctance to fund downtown projects affects Shad Khan's thinking about the Shipyards. If I were Shad, I'd want to see the city acting as co-developer of the surrounding neighborhood.
That's a good point Downtownbrown. They need to pump some funding into something otherwise the list of projects will stack up a mile high and then what? they end up looking biased towards one person or the other. I would imagine though Shad has the capital to do pretty much whatever he wants with or without the city's help. I do think that the city's reluctance to assist others in major endeavors such as the landing will affect his decision on that project. I will be curious to see what he says when that announcement comes.
Quote from: thelakelander on September 24, 2014, 08:37:02 PM
Well that was a quick change in priority!
A quick pivot is a valuable ability.
On Madden, the guys with 92+ agility are awesome.
Now, let's build some strip malls on the outer beltway!