The Jacksonville Landing: What Should It Be?
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/2977331686_JNmQFDx-M.jpg)
Sleiman Enterprises wants to redevelop the Jacksonville Landing. Most agree that something should be done. However, there's debate on what the final product should be, who should pay for it and how much public money should be invested in it. Here's a brief look at the rise and fall of the Landing and the variety of opinions facing its future.
Read More: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2014-oct-the-jacksonville-landing-what-should-it-be
I'm in favor of leaving the Landing alone, at least for now. On its best days, it's crowded, vibrant, beautiful, and a tremendous asset to downtown Jacksonville. On slows day, at least it's still functional. We don't need to go knocking down one of downtown's major destinations just for the sake of knocking it down. In the short-term, any public funding would be much better off put toward the Laura Street Trio, a redesign/restoration of Hemming Park, an extension of the Skyway into Brooklyn, small business incentives on the northbank, etc. Anything to increase vibrancy and pedestrian-scale density and use in the surrounding area. The existing Landing would enjoy positive externalaties from any of these projects and could buy itself a ten-year reprieve while other surrounding areas are improved. I'd rather focus on the underlying issues first, rather than attempting to build another one-trick pony to save downtown. Didn't work the first time with the Landing, and it likely wouldn't work a second time either.
Quote from: KenFSU on October 03, 2014, 11:48:36 AM
I'm in favor of leaving the Landing alone, at least for now. On its best days, it's crowded, vibrant, beautiful, and a tremendous asset to downtown Jacksonville. On slows day, at least it's still functional. We don't need to go knocking down one of downtown's major destinations just for the sake of knocking it down. In the short-term, any public funding would be much better off put toward the Laura Street Trio, a redesign/restoration of Hemming Park, an extension of the Skyway into Brooklyn, small business incentives on the northbank, etc. Anything to increase vibrancy and pedestrian-scale density and use in the surrounding area. The existing Landing would enjoy positive externalaties from any of these projects and could buy itself a ten-year reprieve while other surrounding areas are improved. I'd rather focus on the underlying issues first, rather than attempting to build another one-trick pony to save downtown. Didn't work the first time with the Landing, and it likely wouldn't work a second time either.
YES.
Exactly. In my opinion, the Landing is the lowest priority. Focus on the Trio first, then the Shipyards and JEA property. I actually love the idea of turning the Landing into a craft market of sorts. Push out some of the chains and put in some unique dining venues - that could be it! And then just modify the back of the building so it is open to DT. A nice stop-gap solution for the next 20 years as DT hopefully flourishes. The Landing is definitely NOT the thing holding DT back - honestly, it's still the main reason most people go downtown to begin with.
Ken I agree with you. There are other areas that need more attention. The Landing is pack for events and holidays. If anything making the courtyard larger would be a plus. I hope we never get rid of the sign. I love seeing that on TV during football games.
I also agree with Ken. I'd like to see the Landing remodeled, and there's plenty to like in Sleiman's proposal (opening up to Laura Street, removing the Main Street Bridge onramp, more open riverfront space, new residential, etc) but that's a lot of public money for a plan with such serious questions. Considering that we've seen several recent projects that are strong from the design, I'd rather wait on the Landing until we see something that really knocks it out of the park.
A rare conversation. Everyone agrees, and everyone is right.
I agree that the major obstacle the Landing must overcome could be the health of the core surrounding it, moreso than the site itself. There are some challenges regarding dedicated parking, structural layout, width of the riverwalk, etc. but I believe they can be overcome. It's already been said, but whatever it ends up being, it makes some sense to save and include the features that already work and make the site a special place.
I would like to see the on ramp to the main Street bridge go away in front of the landing. The the landing could expand into the surface parking lot on the Eastern side.
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/
Well said Ken.
Quote from: UNFurbanist on October 03, 2014, 04:23:12 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/
Didn't they win an architectural award for this design? It looks pretty cool indeed...
I prefer keeping the icon design we've become know for as a city. Doesn't mean, however, that some improvements are warranted. I think eventually MORE retail is needed, no LESS.
The Laura Street trio could be a spark, as could the Peter Rummell/Mike Balanky proposal for the JEA property. That plan could bring 3-4K more residents to Downtown plus what the Trio brings in both residential, hotel guests and workers.
Then building some waterfront apartments and office space with bottom floor retail on either side of the Landing (not replacing the Landing) give the Landing a new vitality without compromising the visual equity we've built over the past 3 decades with the current structure.
We could have the best of both worlds - keep the icon and still have some new interests for the area. The building though need to be something other than the boxes that Sleiman showed. Was too lackluster to be a "game changer" as he put it. Take the icon to a whole new level. Be inspiring. Step away from the boring "strip mall building" mentality and actually create something people can be proud of.
How can anyone not see that the issue with the success of the Landing is not the Landing itself, but the surrounding area? I think everyone essentially agrees with that. The landing from Mr Sleiman's perspective, if filled with people all the time, would have to be a great revenue producer since the initial outlay was so small (Is he even paying that rent yet?). So then the only reason to take that small outlay and turn it into a very large one in this very risky way (after all, everything that was in the past touted as the next great thing to revitalize Downtown has failed...) is to make money on the process. If that were not true, then he would worry more about what goes on around him rather than changing the Landing.
Which I think can be opened up rather inexpensively and that in itself could be used to at least test some of the theories expressed on these forums. And that would also preserve the skyline because I suspect that 90% of the pictures of Jacksonville's skyline published include the Landing.
I think the Trio is much more important than the Landing. Open the Landing up the the river and make it and open farmer's market. If you took the landing and put it in Seattle, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Same with Hemming Plaza.
If they keep the Landing intact, the y could still open it up to Laura Street. Just open underneath and still leave the roof as is. So those traveling down Laura could see the river and vice versa, but we wouldn't lose that overhead view over the orange half circle roof and sign that we've all come to know.
There must be apartments and condos. More working people needs to live downtown in order to make it work.
Quote from: exnewsman on October 03, 2014, 07:57:42 PM
If they keep the Landing intact, the y could still open it up to Laura Street. Just open underneath and still leave the roof as is. So those traveling down Laura could see the river and vice versa, but we wouldn't lose that overhead view over the orange half circle roof and sign that we've all come to know.
Might be a good option exnewsman.
In my opinion, the most efficient way to open up the center of the Landing, perhaps to a width of forty feet, is to convince the local naval war chief to assign one of the attack aircraft ... one of the few remaining with the 20 mm cannon ... to strafe the landing, attacking it from the north. The pilot could line up on Laura, strafing the middle. If forty feet cannot be achieved with one pass, a second should.
To prevent collateral injury or death, as is always our military's objective, the river must be cleared ... and Laura cleared from Adams south, just in case the pilot fired early. The attack would require the fire department standby to extinguish fires along the edges ... which could be renovated properly following bids when the dust settles.
Yes, I've always thought the Landing was a little claustrophobic. Its much like being trapped in a valley in the North Carolina mountains wherein one can see only perhaps a quarter mile in any direction ... stifling the view, and perhaps the spirit. I prefer to be on an upper range, where I can see for miles, and miles, and miles.
I've got the PERFECT redevelopment idea for the site!
(http://www.railfanguides.us/museums/nctm/IMG_8408.JPG)
Ain't it beautiful?
Do you all remember the unfinished apartments on the other side of the old courthouse? The ones where the garage collapsed? Name escapes me but they recently came out of litigation and are up for sale. If there is no sale the owner will finish developing them himself so there will be apartments/condo's there.
Then the Laura St. Trio is being developed which will include apartments/condo's
So slieman in his ignorant wisdom wants to directly compete with these other places which defeats the purpose of something new for buyers as there is not that big of a market for such.
Slieman pays a pittance to lease the land under the Landing. Land that is prime riverfront property that is very valuable of which slieman makes a pretty penny to use at our expense.
To me the city itself has no business getting into the retail and apartment business
And ask yourselves WHY is slieman ridding all public access from the river to OUR public land?
Do you all really condone that idea?
The proposed plan actually increases public access along the river from 20,000 square-feet to almost 89,000 square-feet.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/3582898016_8NwGwvk-M.jpg)
Where are the piers? Where does the water taxi pick up and let people off? Are there any ramps for the public to launch kayaks or paddle boards?
The floating docks run parallel to the riverwalk in the rendering. In the rendering, the docks are white and riverwalk is gray.
Quote from: Sunbeam on October 06, 2014, 06:25:17 AM
Do you all remember the unfinished apartments on the other side of the old courthouse? The ones where the garage collapsed? Name escapes me but they recently came out of litigation and are up for sale. If there is no sale the owner will finish developing them himself so there will be apartments/condo's there.
That's Berkman 2. Yes, a new developer is working with the new owner (Choate Construction), and negotiations are ongoing with the DIA. I understand that the City Council is eager to get approved plans moving. I don't know what the hold up is. Maybe the DIA is waiting to see what Mr. Khan has in mind.
Sunbeam, I think you have it just about right. IMO - Develop the Shipyards with attractions/bars/restaurants and then let the Landing die. The Shipyards are a way better location as it protrudes out on to the water giving better views to more people. Sleiman will do whatever will make him the most money - he has already proven that. He could care less what downtown becomes - he doesn't live there, his office is in Southpoint, so he doesn't go there unless he has to. As for his "eye" I offer this from his own website:
(http://www.sleiman.com/Portals/Sleiman/Pictures/Villages%20of%20Amelia.png)
Please tell me what is attractive and different about that?
Quote from: JimInJax on October 06, 2014, 02:59:43 PM
Sunbeam, I think you have it just about right. IMO - Develop the Shipyards with attractions/bars/restaurants and then let the Landing die. The Shipyards are a way better location as it protrudes out on to the water giving better views to more people.
That's a sure fire way to kill the Northbank. The Shipyards is located a mile east of the core of downtown and boxed in to the north by the county jail and a coffee roasting industrial complex. The spill over economic potential is virtually zero. At the end of the day, vibrancy is about clustering complementing uses within a compact pedestrian scale setting. Spreading complementing uses too far apart is only a microcosm of the unsustainable land development pattern this region has been subsidizing since WWII.
QuoteSunbeam, I think you have it just about right. IMO - Develop the Shipyards with attractions/bars/restaurants and then let the Landing die. The Shipyards are a way better location as it protrudes out on to the water giving better views to more people. Sleiman will do whatever will make him the most money - he has already proven that. He could care less what downtown becomes - he doesn't live there, his office is in Southpoint, so he doesn't go there unless he has to.
^ The Shipyards might offer more waterfront access to the public, but the Landing is a much more strategically important piece of property. It's at the foot of the Main Street Bridge, adjacent to the T-U Center, and just blocks from the Main Library, the Laura Street Trio, Hemming Park, the Florida Theater, all of the northbank's major office towers, a Skyway station, etc. The Shipyards might as well be ten miles away. Sacrificing the Landing in favor of the Shipyards would equal one step forward and two steps back for overall downtown development.
I agree that the Landing is a better focal point, but I wish people would stop saying that the Shipyards is far, far away. It's an easy mosy connected by the Riverwalk. The Landing just isn't big enough to think of it as the only solution for the Core.
There is no one solution for the core when it comes to investing. Streetcar, Landing, Shipyards, an aquarium, Rummell's Healthy Town, Laura Trio, etc. None of these things are going to turnaround downtown by themselves. However, the dominant concept that should be carried out if we want vibrancy sooner, rather than decades later is to cluster, complementing uses together within a compact pedestrian scale setting. This means, it's actually sound strategy to improve places in close proximity like the Trio, Hemming, and the Landing simultaneously as opposed to spreading limited resources all over the place. The combined resulting foot traffic and activity would then create additional economic opportunity for the spaces adjacent to them.
As for the Shipyards serving as a one-trick revitalization pony, I can't stress enough the importance of packing a limited amount of land area with a mix of complementing land uses. Look at any vibrant downtown and compare them to Jax, 9 times out of 10, you'll find most of their core activity taking place within an amount of land that would only stretch between the Acosta and Hyatt hotel.
Just take a look at the Baltimore Inner Harbor and Chattanooga Riverfront examples below:
Baltimore Inner Harbor
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/3489945923_XXjZ4xV-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/3489945936_SdTgsLj-M.jpg)
Chattanooga Riverfront
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/3213762707_9n9CFNr-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/3213762687_PgD4pVM-M.jpg)
When we start talking about the Shipyards or JEA generation sites as some sort of epicenter of downtown development ("at the expense" of downtown's core, etc.), we really need to discuss how to better link them with downtown via reliable and efficient transit. I say this because they really are outside or on the fringe of the historic walkable downtown core.
While they can become great sites of activity, due to their location, there's not going to be much opportunity in them spurring ancillary pedestrian scale development on the properties surrounding them. So if the goal is downtown vibrancy, we're going to have to properly address the heart of downtown, regardless of what happens with these peripheral industrial brownfield sites.
The below quote, from the Social Life of Small Urban Spaces (1980), seems rather relevant to the Shipyards topic (and quite prescient too):
(http://i.imgur.com/6GygrF7.jpg)
Quote from: JimInJax on October 06, 2014, 02:59:43 PM
He could care less what downtown becomes - he doesn't live there, his office is in Southpoint, so he doesn't go there unless he has to.
Actually, you can find Tony at the Landing almost every day of the week...and most weekends.
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 07, 2014, 10:52:05 AM
Quote from: JimInJax on October 06, 2014, 02:59:43 PM
He could care less what downtown becomes - he doesn't live there, his office is in Southpoint, so he doesn't go there unless he has to.
Actually, you can find Tony at the Landing almost every day of the week...and most weekends.
I'll second that... and add that he also owns a very large condo at Berkman Plaza.
The Landing needs to have a conversation absent of one's pre-conceived notions about Toney Sleiman.
I can say for certain, that things like the trollies, pub crawls, fireworks shows, food truck events and even the Jaxsons Night Market that people have all enjoyed... wouldn't have happened without the financial support of Toney Sleiman.
Quote from: fieldafm on October 07, 2014, 12:13:16 PM
I can say for certain, that things like the trollies, pub crawls, fireworks shows, food truck events and even the Jaxsons Night Market that people have all enjoyed... wouldn't have happened without the financial support of Toney Sleiman.
That's all good to hear. I agree there is an undeserved antipathy towards Sleiman, the person, not necessarily Sleiman the Landing redeveloper. I still contend that Sleiman, while giving it an honest shot, seems a little too politically charged to be the best guy to deal with the City (we need a negotiator, not a martyr/activist/someone who will back a social conservative based on those issues before a pragmatist who will work in the city's overall best interest rather than focusing on social stuff), and I contend that while he can develop a mean retail strip center (including in-house contract work and leasing), he's perhaps a little in over his skis on this deal and should find qualified help/partner up.
Norfolk's Waterside, which was built along the same idea, is also struggling. The real problem is that all of these projects was developed with taxpayer dollars, one way or the other. There was either free land, parking, reduced taxes, etc. None of these projects was developed totally on a developer's dime. That should say enough right there. If a developer is not willing to risk all of his money into a project, that probably means it is not a long-term profitable solution. Beware of developers bearing gifts to city hall. They are after your wallet.
Norfolk pretty much killed Waterside when they turned around and invested $100 million in public funds for MacArthur Center in the late 1990s. Can't expect a festival marketplace like Waterside/Jax Landing to compete with MacArthur Center/Avenues Mall when the bigger mall is literally two blocks away. What Norfolk did is essentially what many people want to see happen with the Shipyards/JEA sites, at the expense of the Landing.
Quote from: Redbaron616 on October 09, 2014, 09:16:58 PM
Norfolk's Waterside, which was built along the same idea, is also struggling. The real problem is that all of these projects was developed with taxpayer dollars, one way or the other. There was either free land, parking, reduced taxes, etc. None of these projects was developed totally on a developer's dime. That should say enough right there. If a developer is not willing to risk all of his money into a project, that probably means it is not a long-term profitable solution. Beware of developers bearing gifts to city hall. They are after your wallet.
This is a very strong argument. For developers to argue that they can't afford it without tax money means that their expected margins are very slim. The slimmer the margin the riskier the investment. Commerce works because there is a great product with ample demand. Government can't create either of those.
^You'd be amazed that the amount of projects nationwide people assume are "market rate" that have included some form of subsidies to become reality. Heck, most of the stuff off JTB has been subsidized with public dollars at the expense of downtown and other areas of town.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 09, 2014, 09:32:01 PM
Norfolk pretty much killed Waterside when they turned around and invested $100 million in public funds for MacArthur Center in the late 1990s. Can't expect a festival marketplace like Waterside/Jax Landing to compete with MacArthur Center/Avenues Mall when the bigger mall is literally two blocks away. What Norfolk did is essentially what many people want to see happen with the Shipyards/JEA sites, at the expense of the Landing.
Waterside coexisted happily with MacArthur for a while, as it shifted its focus to being an entertainment venue (and really had not been that successful as a shopping venue pre-MacArthur anyway). Almost all the retail died and so did the food court, but it had destination and other popular restaurants and bars into the mid-to-late 2000s: Have A Nice Day Café, Jillian's (equivalent to Dave and Buster's, more or less), Joe's Crab Shack, Outback, Hooters, a dueling piano bar, and the deliberately themeless Bar.
Ultimately, it was a string of high-profile crime incidents (both by patrons within venues and among venue owners) that sucked the life out of Waterside.
Quote from: fieldafm on October 07, 2014, 12:13:16 PM
The Landing needs to have a conversation absent of one's pre-conceived notions about Toney Sleiman.
I can say for certain, that things like the trollies, pub crawls, fireworks shows, food truck events and even the Jaxsons Night Market that people have all enjoyed... wouldn't have happened without the financial support of Toney Sleiman.
Agreed, however I've seen the pub crawls, firework shows, food truck events and the Jaxsons Night Market, but I've not seen the 'trollies' yet! If I had, we'd be talking about how to slow down the expansion of the north bank. 8)
Quote from: thelakelander on October 06, 2014, 08:14:08 AM
The floating docks run parallel to the riverwalk in the rendering. In the rendering, the docks are white and riverwalk is gray.
And have the conversation about 2014-305 New docking Rules and Penalties.
One thing should be a certainty. Install elevators that operate with a pass key for residents and/or second floor (assuming there is one) shop keepers, deliveries etc. This way in future the whole place doesn't smell like piss from drunks and daring fools pissing in the elevators. They should be replaced by the long ramp type escalators which are usable by everyone. These are common in world cities and things like loaded shopping carts lock in place when they are pushed onto the moving surface. Wheel chairs simply lock when entering the ramp. A rather long entry and exit area can be built to accommodate such.
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2949/15515377522_91054423a0_z.jpg)
Make the riverfront an amphitheater type space, don't get rid of the concerts, parties, festivals and shows which remain one of the strongest draws The Landing has.
Definitely do NOT get rid of the second floor balconies, for the reason above, in fact expand on that idea with restaurants having flat floors and doorways, and viewing spaces in between having some stadium type bench seating between the restaurant food court door-flat floor spaces. This also provides more shade space for those 100 degree days. The fountain should remain a kid space and perhaps be backed up on the riverfront with a holographic fountain such as the ones in Medellin, made by Georgia Fountains.
An attached Aqua Jax/Marineland aquarium would be a huge draw on the east end.
http://www.youtube.com/v/PrX5huMOUAY?version=3&hl=en_US
Here is an example of a Toronto 'Landing'.
An attached trolley barn/museum space on the west end would likewise be a huge draw. Tony, streetcars are SILENT and could be slipped in with a two car track from Hogan Street. This would tie The Landing to a Water Street or even a Waterfront line with a small green space near the river. Track could be buried in the lawn which is virtually invisible. Poles are 1920's decorative with banners and/or flowers. The single trolley wire is likewise nearly invisible. A 1980 study (which I still haven't found) suggested that properly advertised could attract upwards of 500,000 annual visitors and according to Kenosha Streetcar in WI those visitors are coming from all over the world just to experience a period American streetcar ride. Virtually the entire ridership of Tampa streetcar has been tourist based.
Now add the streetcar to the Aquarium with a Landing/Apartment complex in-between and you'd have a killer successful retail restaurant space with apartments. If your interested I can get you some renderings of this concept made, FREE.
Plans for Miami's version of The Landing begin next year.......details below...
The renovation and expansion of Bayside Marketplace on Miami's waterfront will be much more than a new coat of paint and new restrooms.
Pam Weller, senior general manager at Bayside, said the changes will be very exciting, and the first phase is set to begin next year.
"We've started the design work... a lot of the renovations will be in phases, the first being our food court," said Ms. Weller.
Construction will most likely commence in early 2015, she said, with an eight-month schedule for completion of that phase.
"We've already started getting permits from the city for a portion of that work. We're doing that now until January – pulling permits so we're ready to go," said Ms Weller.
It will mean a rebuild of the food court. The area will be "taken down to the interior walls and completely rebuilt," she said.
"It will have a whole new atmosphere, new wall finishes and decorative lights and flooring," she said. The new perks will also include "soft seating," with stylish couches and benches with cushions built into the design of the revamped food court.
New bathrooms are also on tap as part of Bayside's expansion, she said.
The 27-year-old retail, restaurant and entertainment complex is north of Bayfront Park, on about 17 acres of city-owned waterfront leased to Bayside Marketplace LLC.
Earlier this year new agreements were approved by city commissioners, and OK'd by voters in August, that extend the leases to 99 years and require the company to make at least $27 million to $35 million in renovations to the dual-level open-air market. The deal includes adding about 17,000 square feet of retail, expansion of the parking garages, and allows for construction of SkyRise Miami, a 1,000-foot observation tower.
Work on the tower, on less than 2 acres just north of the Hard Rock Café, continues in earnest as Bayside prepares for its reconstruction.
Hard Rock is a tenant of Bayside and considered a partner in the long success of the commercial venue, according to Ms. Weller.
Hard Rock has welcomed "all the hustle and bustle of building out the tower," she said, noting that much of the work is accomplished in the evening so as to limit disruption to Bayside's customers and tenants.
"We are working hard to make sure tenants are not disrupted," Ms. Weller said. This principle will also apply when reconstruction begins on Bayside itself, she said.
Since the August referendum, Bayside representatives have been meeting weekly with SkyRise Miami workers to coordinate activity at the site, she said.
The addition of SkyRise to the marketplace is "very, very exciting," she said.
Ms. Weller said Bayside is looking forward to the other phases of its renovation, particularly adding 17,000 square feet of retail facing west onto Biscayne Boulevard. Much of the current boomerang-shaped marketplace is oriented toward the water.
"We are looking for the perfect tenants to take that 17,000 square feet," she said. The new floor space is also in the design phase. The goal is to create a complete sidewalk-pedestrian atmosphere, affording more connectivity between Biscayne Boulevard and the waterfront.
Improvements to parking may be included in this phase.
"The parking garage element includes enlarging the height of the garage and adding on new spaces," she said. There is no timetable for that work yet.
Ms. Weller said Bayside attracts 22 million visitors a year.
"We are the number-one tourist destination in the city of Miami," she said, and as such Bayside is very sensitive to limiting the impact of the renovation work on the foot traffic.
"We don't want any of our work to inconvenience anyone," she said. Most of the renovation will be done in the evening and early morning.
"We're very aware of maintaining foot traffic and increasing it... it's near and dear to our hearts," she said.
Bayside Marketplace consists of 189 businesses, which include 140 inline spaces and several kiosks, flower carts, fishing charters, tour boats, etc.
New tenants include the flagship store of Fit2Run, in the south building facing Biscayne Bay.
Burger chain Five Guys is opening this week, in the north building across from Hooters.
Under construction is Bavarian Haus, a sit down restaurant-bar, on the second floor of the north building next to Chili's.
When 2015 rolls around, Bayside will be fully leased, said Ms. Weller.
Other general work is to include new flooring, painting, seating, "all the cosmetic things that will bring us into the 21st Century," she said.
Ms. Weller said the changes at Bayside won't happen overnight but she's eager to make the improvements.
"It's an exciting time, not just with the tower coming but with the shopping center doing as well as it's doing," Ms. Weller said. "We're really excited
Make sense to me that nothing much will be done to the Landing until Healthy Town, or whatever it's going to be called, starts creating a real buzz with real construction and pre-sales. That will surely motivate restauranteurs and retail to re-look at the North Bank. In the end, the Core will be revitalized when private capital chooses to do it, not when politicians will it.
Assuming it even gets off the ground, don't count on Healthy Town having a significant impact on the Landing. That proposal calls for it having more retail/dining than Sleiman's proposed redevelopment.
The Landing is an entirely different animal during big events like FL/GA weekend.
http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/blog/2014/11/sights-and-sounds-from-the-2014georgia-florida.html
Jacksonville should think real hard about what it wants the Landing to be. I'm not sure that type of scene is compatible with the last proposed design showed.
^+1 And be sure to include the key elements of the river and how that is engaged. The Public Trust has been destroyed in this community. Pick and choose the winners and losers. Just ask the Baltimore guys about that one. Environmental Ethics- Vince Seibold. 2014-412 The illegal purchase of two water taxis. 2014-190 and the 900'shortened Southbank Riverwalk. Dozens of other examples. HEY! I have a JEA house on the river to sell you. Palms Fish Camp- A million bucks and you never even open the door. Sign me up!!! Seriously! Next to a FIND project. We are so LOST?
I was sitting next to Toney Sleiman at the April 2014 noticed meeting that was also attended by Don Redman Dist. 4 and Jim Love Dist. 14 that resulted in the active legislation that is 2014-305 New Docking Rules and penalties. MJ is the only place that is showing the NEW DOWNTOWN DOCKING ZONE MAP. IT is the super duper secret Backroom map that is not being made or shown in any media outlet anywhere. It was not part of the recent 10/30/14 Community First FIND subcommittee meeting of the Jacksonville Waterways Commission meeting chaired by Gary Anderson. Why not?
Visit Jacksonville!
is anyone starting to feel sorry for the new guy Aundra Wallace? At the last DIA Board meeting he was going to reach out to Jim Love and John Crescimbeni At Large Group 2 because of 2014-305 at the last RCDPHS committee meeting two weeks ago. Have those meetings taken place?
Just a question. Is the NEW Super Duper Secret Downtown Docking Zone Map a requirement of the submission package for 2014-560 CRA/DIA that has to be approved by council then gets forwarded to the state?
Quote from: downtownbrown on October 22, 2014, 02:22:39 PM
In the end, the Core will be revitalized when private capital chooses to do it, not when politicians will it.
However, that won't stop the private capital from asking the politicians for subsidies and tax breaks.
^^^as they should. Urban developments are inherently public-private and much of the risk associated with buying real estate downtown, doing business downtown, or developing additional real estate downtown is born out of policy makers, both elected and appointed but public official driven nonetheless, and so if the city government is going to create all that risk in the first place (almost always unnecessarily), then it should mitigate it partly through incentives or tax breaks.
Quote from: I-10east on November 04, 2014, 02:21:39 AM
The Landing is an entirely different animal during big events like FL/GA weekend.
http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/blog/2014/11/sights-and-sounds-from-the-2014georgia-florida.html
Definitely. But I wonder if the Shipyards property (assuming it gets done) replaces the Landing as the central gathering point during events like Fla/Ga.
Quoteso if the city government is going to create all that risk in the first place (almost always unnecessarily), then it should mitigate it partly through incentives or tax breaks.
There is a lot of truth to this. If the same 30 years of government policies that have crippled downtown were applied to the Skinner family land on the Southside... you would have never seen major corporations like Merrill Lynch, Bank of America, Florida Blue, Vistakon, Deutsche Bank, CIT, JP Morgan Chase move to Deerwood Park/Tinseltown area. The St Johns Town Center would have never been a regional retail powerhouse. And you wouldnt have had the residential density (specifically mutli-family) that you do today.
If government had a major hand in causing the problems, then they should also have a hand in correcting them. And that's coming from a pretty libertarian person such as myself, that has had the opprotunity to work on development issues like this over the last 13 years.
Make no mistake, the government has subsidized and incentivized exurban and suburban growth patterns for decades.
Quote from: pierre on November 04, 2014, 09:24:47 AM
Quote from: I-10east on November 04, 2014, 02:21:39 AM
The Landing is an entirely different animal during big events like FL/GA weekend.
http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/blog/2014/11/sights-and-sounds-from-the-2014georgia-florida.html
Definitely. But I wonder if the Shipyards property (assuming it gets done) replaces the Landing as the central gathering point during events like Fla/Ga.
I don't see that happening. The one appeal to the Shipyards over anywhere else is it's an empty lot. The current administration likes it because they don't have to deal with all the ancillary issues of a built-out space like Hemming Plaza or the Landing (which is one of the many things the current Special Events office struggles with). They can just throw up county fair-style temporary stages, toilets, mobile vendors, etc., and call it a day. That won't be the case once something goes up on the Shipyards property. If we went with plan for the Landing that didn't keep a viable event space, it's most likely we'd just lose event space in the area altogether.
Quote from: fieldafm on November 04, 2014, 09:32:12 AM
Quoteso if the city government is going to create all that risk in the first place (almost always unnecessarily), then it should mitigate it partly through incentives or tax breaks.
There is a lot of truth to this. If the same 30 years of government policies that have crippled downtown were applied to the Skinner family land on the Southside... you would have never seen major corporations like Merrill Lynch, Bank of America, Florida Blue, Vistakon, Deutsche Bank, CIT, JP Morgan Chase move to Deerwood Park/Tinseltown area. The St Johns Town Center would have never been a regional retail powerhouse. And you wouldnt have had the residential density (specifically mutli-family) that you do today.
If government had a major hand in causing the problems, then they should also have a hand in correcting them. And that's coming from a pretty libertarian person such as myself, that has had the opprotunity to work on development issues like this over the last 13 years.
Make no mistake, the government has subsidized and incentivized exurban and suburban growth patterns for decades.
Very true.
Does anyone know if the new Sushi House has opened in the Landing? I see on the Landings website it was supposed to open mid-September, but I haven't heard anything about it being open....
Quote from: thelakelander on November 04, 2014, 06:09:32 AM
I'm not sure that type of scene is compatible with the last proposed design showed.
I also question whether restaurants and retail are economically sustainable at the Landing without this type of scene taking place a few times per year. Florida/Georgia, New Year's Eve, the Tree Lighting, etc. drive enough revenue for tenets to help them weather quiet weeknights and slower, non-event weekends. I've read that Hooters typically does $100,000 in receipts during Florida/Georgia weekend alone. Neuter the Landing as an event space, which Sleiman's proposal absolutely did by sticking a vehicular road between any restaurants and bars and the skinny strip of public event space, and I'm not sure how these businesses survive.
Can't say I'm surprised by this...it will probably be another decade before any improvements are made to the Landing.
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2014-12-17/story/its-back-drawing-board-redesign-future-jacksonville-landing (http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2014-12-17/story/its-back-drawing-board-redesign-future-jacksonville-landing)
^^^I'm fine with that versus the mistake of a proposed plan that could've been.
Quote from: I-10east on December 17, 2014, 08:20:36 PM
^^^I'm fine with that versus the mistake of a proposed plan that could've been.
I agree, but wish someone would get the "plan" right.
What would have to happen for city to rent the landing land to another developer?
Seems like bringing in a new set of eyes - or even developers with successful riverfront developments - would be wise and could really push downtown forward.
Would have to break the existing million year lease with Sleiman.
I have to agree. While everyone is frustrated with delays and complete redesigns, being a centerpiece of our city, it's important to "get it right". Otherwise we'll be revisiting this 20 years from now when we are dealing with another underutilized development sitting on city owned land.
In order for the Landing to truly be successful, the borders of the 'Landing' must be expanded beyond the structure known as 'The Jacksonville Landing'. The entire waterfront from the Acosta off-ramps at Water St. all the way down to Berkman Phase II should be rebranded as 'The Jacksonville Landing.' This creates more so a district rather than a named building. This would also encompass much more retail and entertainment value than the landing as it currently sits can possibly hold on its own. The Landing (building) has and should always be the icon or central meeting place of Jacksonvillians and cultural events, but the inclusion of an entire district creates that much more of a festive atmosphere and relieves The Landing (building) of trying to be so many more things than it can possibly be at this point. Signage, trolleys, new paths, brick pavements, etc. can be the initial investment. The rebranding the retail, hotels, and biz along the strip likewise..ex. The Hyatt @ The Jacksonville Landing, TUPA @ The Jacksonville Landing, Omni @The Jacksonville Landing, etc.
Also, within this new plan I would like to see the City Hall Annex and Old Courthouse property as an inclusion to this new Jacksonville Landing District. Sooo the landing wants apartments?? Great! There's a City Hall Annex building waiting to wear a new design and welcome residents. Sooo the Landing wants to expand gathering space?? Great! There's a huge Old Courthouse surface lot on the water that's waiting to wear a new green grass coat and bear the weight of a brand-new Waterfront Ampitheatre. This would allow Metropolitan Park to retire its outdated performance venue and make way for an eventual Fairgrounds move to the waterfront in its place...(my own evil plan, lol) ;D ;D. And that Old Courthouse building lot itself?? Would be nice to expand convention center exhibition space and ground floor retail in a brand new building, or how about an intimate 6screen theater all in the vein of a sort of CityWalk like @ Universal Orlando. It could all be done if this damn city would stop thinking so much in the box and look outwards to create a sense of place rather than concentrate all energy into one single building.
Here's the article without the paywall on JBJ.
QuoteCity looks to hire designer to create new Jacksonville Landing plans
Just over three months after Jacksonville Landing co-owner Toney Sleiman unveiled plans for the Downtown site — that were then shot down — the Jacksonville Downtown Investment Authority is looking to spend up to $100,000 to redesign the Landing. The authority's board voted unanimously Wednesday to solicit requests for qualifications from land planning and design firms that want to work on the 6.6-acre Downtown waterfront site.
Proposals will be due by the end of January. Up to five candidates will be invited for interviews before a company is chosen on March 15. "Final selection will be based on perceived suitability for this project, including the ability to develop a good working relationship with the parties," the authority's evaluation criteria say. The selected company will be asked to create a design satisfactory to both the DIA and Sleiman Enterprises, the owner of the buildings. (The city owns the land.)
The plans Sleiman unveiled in August had been viewed by some as uninspired — and the point became moot after the City Council shot down Mayor Alvin Brown's request for $235 million in capital spending, including $11.8 million slated for the Landing. But the city will end up paying for some portion of whatever project takes place, board member Jack Meeks said, so it makes sense to invest in the planning. "Any design that comes out of this is going to be funded by city money," Meeks said. "If it takes another $100,000 to get this right, that's what we need to do."
The city won't know the total cost of the project until the plan is complete, DIA CEO Aundra Wallace said. That plan, according to the RFQ, "will focus on design of the open space, and massing and location of the buildings."Goals for the redevelopment of the property include:
*Open a view corridor from Laura Street to the river.
*Provide open space near the river as part of the riverwalk system.
*Better connect the site to the city and to adjacent properties.
*Design a visually interesting project that engages the public and can become a recognizable symbol for Jacksonville's waterfront.
*Energize and activate the site day and evening.
*Ensure economic sustainability for the site.
An on-ramp to the Main Street Bridge might also be demolished to open up additional usable land for pedestrian access to the bridge. The DIA also passed a motion — which Meeks opposed — to have the planning firm include a parcel of land east of the Main Street Bridge owned by Sleiman Enterprises in the planning process.
http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2014/12/17/dia-sleiman-enterpriesesseek-design-firm-for-new.html
Quote from: Marle Brando on December 17, 2014, 10:33:14 PM
In order for the Landing to truly be successful, the borders of the 'Landing' must be expanded beyond the structure known as 'The Jacksonville Landing'. The entire waterfront from the Acosta off-ramps at Water St. all the way down to Berkman Phase II should be rebranded as 'The Jacksonville Landing.' This creates more so a district rather than a named building. This would also encompass much more retail and entertainment value than the landing as it currently sits can possibly hold on its own. The Landing (building) has and should always be the icon or central meeting place of Jacksonvillians and cultural events, but the inclusion of an entire district creates that much more of a festive atmosphere and relieves The Landing (building) of trying to be so many more things than it can possibly be at this point. Signage, trolleys, new paths, brick pavements, etc. can be the initial investment. The rebranding the retail, hotels, and biz along the strip likewise..ex. The Hyatt @ The Jacksonville Landing, TUPA @ The Jacksonville Landing, Omni @The Jacksonville Landing, etc.
Also, within this new plan I would like to see the City Hall Annex and Old Courthouse property as an inclusion to this new Jacksonville Landing District. Sooo the landing wants apartments?? Great! There's a City Hall Annex building waiting to wear a new design and welcome residents. Sooo the Landing wants to expand gathering space?? Great! There's a huge Old Courthouse surface lot on the water that's waiting to wear a new green grass coat and bear the weight of a brand-new Waterfront Ampitheatre. This would allow Metropolitan Park to retire its outdated performance venue and make way for an eventual Fairgrounds move to the waterfront in its place...(my own evil plan, lol) ;D ;D. And that Old Courthouse building lot itself?? Would be nice to expand convention center exhibition space and ground floor retail in a brand new building, or how about an intimate 6screen theater all in the vein of a sort of CityWalk like @ Universal Orlando. It could all be done if this damn city would stop thinking so much in the box and look outwards to create a sense of place rather than concentrate all energy into one single building.
All great ideas! The city should start thinking of it as a district. There seems to always be this mentality of "we just need one new structure and we'll be the next great city." but in reality it is the context of the whole area that really matters. A new landing that fulfills form and function will be great but DTJax needs more than a new one trick pony.
QuoteCity looks to hire designer to create new Jacksonville Landing plans
Pretty sure MJ would do it for half the price.
So what's the penalty for breaking the "million year lease"?
Is this greement publicly available somewhere?
Quote from: UNFurbanist on December 17, 2014, 11:10:34 PM
Quote from: Marle Brando on December 17, 2014, 10:33:14 PM
In order for the Landing to truly be successful, the borders of the 'Landing' must be expanded beyond the structure known as 'The Jacksonville Landing'. The entire waterfront from the Acosta off-ramps at Water St. all the way down to Berkman Phase II should be rebranded as 'The Jacksonville Landing.' This creates more so a district rather than a named building. This would also encompass much more retail and entertainment value than the landing as it currently sits can possibly hold on its own. The Landing (building) has and should always be the icon or central meeting place of Jacksonvillians and cultural events, but the inclusion of an entire district creates that much more of a festive atmosphere and relieves The Landing (building) of trying to be so many more things than it can possibly be at this point. Signage, trolleys, new paths, brick pavements, etc. can be the initial investment. The rebranding the retail, hotels, and biz along the strip likewise..ex. The Hyatt @ The Jacksonville Landing, TUPA @ The Jacksonville Landing, Omni @The Jacksonville Landing, etc.
Also, within this new plan I would like to see the City Hall Annex and Old Courthouse property as an inclusion to this new Jacksonville Landing District. Sooo the landing wants apartments?? Great! There's a City Hall Annex building waiting to wear a new design and welcome residents. Sooo the Landing wants to expand gathering space?? Great! There's a huge Old Courthouse surface lot on the water that's waiting to wear a new green grass coat and bear the weight of a brand-new Waterfront Ampitheatre. This would allow Metropolitan Park to retire its outdated performance venue and make way for an eventual Fairgrounds move to the waterfront in its place...(my own evil plan, lol) ;D ;D. And that Old Courthouse building lot itself?? Would be nice to expand convention center exhibition space and ground floor retail in a brand new building, or how about an intimate 6screen theater all in the vein of a sort of CityWalk like @ Universal Orlando. It could all be done if this damn city would stop thinking so much in the box and look outwards to create a sense of place rather than concentrate all energy into one single building.
All great ideas! The city should start thinking of it as a district. There seems to always be this mentality of "we just need one new structure and we'll be the next great city." but in reality it is the context of the whole area that really matters. A new landing that fulfills form and function will be great but DTJax needs more than a new one trick pony.
Right on. When will they realize that the one trick pony attitude keeps us in neutral. Just like the 1'000ft tower proposed at the shipyards months ago. I mean really? To look at what exactly?? Our city desperately needs new leaders and decision makers with fresh forward thinking ideas. Instead we go backwards to go forwards.
City looks to hire designer to create new Jacksonville Landing plans. Proposals will be due by the end of January. Up to five candidates will be invited for interviews before a company is chosen on March 15.
http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2014/12/17/dia-sleiman-enterpriesesseek-design-firm-for-new.html
Quote from: Marle Brando on December 17, 2014, 10:33:14 PM
In order for the Landing to truly be successful, the borders of the 'Landing' must be expanded beyond the structure known as 'The Jacksonville Landing'. The entire waterfront from the Acosta off-ramps at Water St. all the way down to Berkman Phase II should be rebranded as 'The Jacksonville Landing.' This creates more so a district rather than a named building. This would also encompass much more retail and entertainment value than the landing as it currently sits can possibly hold on its own. The Landing (building) has and should always be the icon or central meeting place of Jacksonvillians and cultural events, but the inclusion of an entire district creates that much more of a festive atmosphere and relieves The Landing (building) of trying to be so many more things than it can possibly be at this point. Signage, trolleys, new paths, brick pavements, etc. can be the initial investment. The rebranding the retail, hotels, and biz along the strip likewise..ex. The Hyatt @ The Jacksonville Landing, TUPA @ The Jacksonville Landing, Omni @The Jacksonville Landing, etc.
Also, within this new plan I would like to see the City Hall Annex and Old Courthouse property as an inclusion to this new Jacksonville Landing District. Sooo the landing wants apartments?? Great! There's a City Hall Annex building waiting to wear a new design and welcome residents. Sooo the Landing wants to expand gathering space?? Great! There's a huge Old Courthouse surface lot on the water that's waiting to wear a new green grass coat and bear the weight of a brand-new Waterfront Ampitheatre. This would allow Metropolitan Park to retire its outdated performance venue and make way for an eventual Fairgrounds move to the waterfront in its place...(my own evil plan, lol) ;D ;D. And that Old Courthouse building lot itself?? Would be nice to expand convention center exhibition space and ground floor retail in a brand new building, or how about an intimate 6screen theater all in the vein of a sort of CityWalk like @ Universal Orlando. It could all be done if this damn city would stop thinking so much in the box and look outwards to create a sense of place rather than concentrate all energy into one single building.
Super assessment; never thought of the Landing in this vain and I'll bet other Jaxson's haven't either. If the Landing is to be a meeting place, it has to be bigger than just a building, like a district as you say covering a few city blocks (maybe), with numerous attractions within it in addition to the "Landing Building" which would still house shopping and entertainment; but to add a small carnival or fair, apartment, hotel, amphitheater, movie theater, man, this makes a lot of sense to me.
And guess what? If a Landing "district" or "area" as such were created, it would spur such attraction and growth that Jacksonville's residents, in addition to tourists and others (businessmen/businesswomen, etc.), would also want to come, or even move to Jacksonville. Not only would this spur growth downtown, but it would also spur more business, investors, etc., and other things that would make downtown more attractive and "life friendly" with people not only wanting to visit Jacksonville, but also with people wanting to live in downtown Jacksonville.!
Quote from: heights unknown on December 18, 2014, 10:57:53 PM
And guess what? If a Landing "district" or "area" as such were created, it would spur such attraction and growth that Jacksonville's residents, in addition to tourists and others (businessmen/businesswomen, etc.), would also want to come, or even move to Jacksonville. Not only would this spur growth downtown, but it would also spur more business, investors, etc., and other things that would make downtown more attractive and "life friendly" with people not only wanting to visit Jacksonville, but also with people wanting to live in downtown Jacksonville.!
Thanks. I believe a simple plan of action is all it would take. Could even leave the current building as is just cut out center opening up to the river, re-theme, and add more retail for now. And add new retail/restaurants lining Water St. in the lots immediately adjacent to the Omni and across from CSX and TUPA to create a 'streetscape' with retail lining all the way up to the Water St. Garage. Here is your parking solution, and now it wont feel so far away from the Landing (building) with retail lining this path now which in turn would encourage more use for this distant garage. These are just ideas to encourage a 'town center' feel within an actual urban environment vs. the imitation one on Gate Prkwy ::)
Marle; they need to have you on one of those committees either with the developer, planning, etc. Super ideas. And this would also be one of the answers to the downtown Jacksonville revitalization problem; in my opinion, this would, or should put a super shot in the arm for downtown Jacksonville.
I agree. Great ideas and vision, Brando. I hope CC, DVI, DIA, the Chamber, and the mayor are listening.
Well this is an interesting development that some have been suggesting for awhile. Looks like the start-up community is going to set up shop in some vacant parts of the landing. Wonder how this might effect plans of redevelopment with the DIA.
http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2015/07/10/jacksonville-s-innovation-community-to-breathe-new.html
I am interested to see this in action with their estimated August 7th opening. I am still holding out hope this empty space could be used as a sort of farmers market, as has been discussed on here before.
Has anyone saw the recent stretch up proposal of the Landing on the TU? It looks like it's mainly all one building, with some smaller buildings in the front, and medium sized buildings to the west. It's lowrise (not covering up Wells Fargo's flare), it's modern, it says to hell with that 'magical' Laura St breezeway, it has a rooftop pool. I like it!!!(keep in mind, they are just prelim sketches) Ironically I can see the article on my phone, but not on the PC, go fig. Here's the paywall blocked article below.
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2015-07-23/story/new-design-ideas-shown-rebuilding-jacksonville-landing
There is a Laura Street "breezeway" and the architecture is a placeholder....
^^^My bad, I see the breezeway, and I don't know where I've been (considering that it was a placeholder) LOL.
Not one dime in the near future from the city should go towards demolishing the Landing to build that. Not one dime.
Quote from: For_F-L-O-R-I-D-A on July 23, 2015, 06:53:33 PM
Not one dime in the near future from the city should go towards demolishing the Landing to build that. Not one dime.
And why? Explain what you would like to see.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 23, 2015, 06:24:18 PM
There is a Laura Street "breezeway" and the architecture is a placeholder....
Wait, so pretty much the whole thing is a placeholder? wtf? I guess they were waiting for public feedback? Only problem is they are going to get 50 billion different amateur opinions. Those who don't like the current design, you have to admit, it's an improvement from the last one. Hopefully they can keep getting closer to a final design instead of just facing the same amount of opposition each time.
The large square building is a place holder in an architectural sense. The square footage and usage will remain almost exactly the same in their final design but what shape it comes in will be looked over one last time. Also the laura st opening will remain along with the riverfront concepts most likely. Honestly they listen to everyone so that they can say just say that they listened to the public opinion. Whether they follow it or not is a totally different matter. At the end of the day the team they gathered for this are experts and have tackled tons of other similar projects with success so i'm sure their expertise will guide their concepts and not some old lady who wants to see the entire thing be a flower garden. (That was a real suggestion for the entire site)
Flower garden? Wow!
Quote from: CCMjax on July 23, 2015, 06:57:29 PM
Quote from: For_F-L-O-R-I-D-A on July 23, 2015, 06:53:33 PM
Not one dime in the near future from the city should go towards demolishing the Landing to build that. Not one dime.
And why? Explain what you would like to see.
If they want to demolish and rebuilt 100% on Sleiman's dime, go for it. I personally am a fan of the iconic landing sign but the rest of it can go. I just don't believe spending tax payer dollars on the Landing will really change anything DT or be a wise investment without first investing elsewhere or investing simultaneously. The Landing is functional. They could renovate it at a fraction of the cost just to update it from looking straight out of the 1980's instead of going straight to demolition. Come up with some real ideas for adaptive reuse that are economically feasible, not just demo the thing on our dime and build some apartments and restaurants in a normal mixed use project which is built on any other block in DT Orlando, Tampa, St. Pete or even Gainesville. If this is part of a larger plan, with a real vision for Laura St. that includes the Trio, I would be in. What is the vision? "Retail and apartments," but that is about as broad as it gets. What are they looking for this to be? But there are other potential needs such as a convention center that could benefit DT and Jax immediately once built. Look, I think opening up Laura St. to the river is a good thing, I am just not ready to say it should be the priority in this town right now.
(http://jacksonville.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/homepageslider_660x495_scalecrop/landing_43.jpg)
Building aside, the addition of an interactive green space riverfront greenspace west of Main Street is one of the best things that could happen to the core of the Northbank. It's what cities like Chattanooga, Detroit, Tampa and Baltimore have gotten right and something that Jax has always lacked, despite being the "River City".
Random Thoughts
It is hard to tell from the perspective in the picture, but it looks like it blocks the view of the Wells Fargo "pyramid" from across the river. Clever use of viewing angle.
Interesting, the rendering doesn't include the beautiful Paramore Garage.
Looks like it assumes the Main Street Bridge ramp from the roundabout goes away.
so much for iconic. looks like a riverside ave extension. I like the opening of Laura street and the green space but the rest is just boring. Why must we continue to de-cityfi our downtown?
Quote from: thelakelander on July 24, 2015, 06:45:28 AM
(http://jacksonville.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/homepageslider_660x495_scalecrop/landing_43.jpg)
Building aside, the addition of an interactive green space riverfront greenspace west of Main Street is one of the best things that could happen to the core of the Northbank. It's what cities like Chattanooga, Detroit, Tampa and Baltimore have gotten right and something that Jax has always lacked, despite being the "River City".
That is not a very large space though compared to those cities and what they offer. It is just a small strip I am assuming for the little concerts they have now. They should try to remove Hogan St. and just add more green space there. Interesting that they added some buildings right on the river too.
I do think Laura/Bay/Forsythe/Adams Corridor here is the key to revitalization. They need to have a real plan including the Trio though and I would go for this.
It's interesting. Mostly I'm glad to see it's not something gimmicky!
I know it's not a final rendering, but if this is generally what they have in mind, I think I'd rather see the riverfront greenspace run the full length of the property along the river, from the bridge west to the Times-Union Center, with the scale/variety of the buildings along the north end of the property looking more like what's in the rendering between Hogan and Laura.
Just because the area between Laura and the bridge is as big as it is doesn't mean we have to fill it in with one big box of a building that takes up the entire space. I'm sure part of its size is due to parking, but isn't that area's parking part of what the Parador parking garage was supposed to be for?
My thoughts>
1) Rents are nowhere near high enough in Jacksonville to justify solid architecture and use of quality materials, so I think anything new construction will just look like shit, especially right here in the postcard central viewpoint of the city
2) He's itching to get multifamily done because it's the only thing profitable (for new construction), and I don't think this site is a good multifamily site from a public use perspective (and it IS public land that he leases, doesn't own...and it better stay that way so your complaints remain valid on use)
3) I hope he's not trying to put retail all around the building on the ground floor - it will never work and will still sit empty and look bad. Retailers want to be across from each other like they are now, not scattered around a box with no other uses across or around them.
4) Clearly he wants to "outparcel" the restaurants on the river. San Francisco did this with a small section of the Embarcadero. Solid restaurants went in (locals...in fact chains are outright outlawed in most of the city), but just be weary of chain restaurants coming in to these outparcels
5) Think about the experience now as you are walking down the public land that is the riverwalk - is this configuration an improvement or a mistake?
In regards to the out parcels / extending the green-space down the riverfront, it would be neat to see something like the images below put in. You could have the green space available for people to picnic / watch fireworks / etc from and the out parcels below. There would also still be room to walk in front of the buildings on the riverwalk if designed with a glass face like the image below. It could be a modern, iconic design, green space and out parcel all in one.
I feel like if they did something like that in the front you could get away with something less expensive looking behind it...
(http://www.bodew.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/green-roof-architecture.jpg)
(http://www.bodew.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/school-building-design-that-looks-like-a-green-hill.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/20/01/b8/2001b87d95af0e8e505e6ccf4d0d9936.jpg)
(http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/replicate/EXID27063/images/P1020310.JPG)
(http://i.imgur.com/0z3hkBw.jpg)
Quote from: simms3 on July 24, 2015, 11:40:34 AM
... just be weary of chain restaurants coming in to these outparcels
I'm guessing you meant "wary" although "weary" is apt as well. ;D
If this plan ever comes to fruition, it will without a doubt be chain restaurants locating there. I remember reading on more than a few occasions on MJ what a coup having a Cheesecake Factory locating at the Landing would be.
The problem is if these are chains, they have their architecture formula and that certainly is not it. Secondly, you can't really make an architectural statement or cover up a 5-8 story multifamily building from the outparcels alone. Thirdly, if they are local restaurateurs, then Sleiman would be silly to invest that much money in the architecture of a risky business that could fail, and the restaurateur most certainly won't have that money.
The main building that Sleiman constructs needs to be good looking and use quality materials, but it won't. I am absolutely not in favor of demolishing the existing structure when I absolutely believe it can be improved as is. I am not convinced that Toney needs to make the kind of profit he so wants on PUBLIC waterfront land he leases from the city that he clearly thinks he might get with a large apartment development on the site. His proposal belongs near SJTC in my opinion. I want Sleiman to do well and he clearly hasn't yet. But I thought his Landing play was always more about legacy than sheer quick profit, and I think he's seeing it now as a potential rainmaker. I strongly oppose his proposals.
People tend to discount how an iconic, architecturally unique structure can in and of itself become a destination (see the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Spain as a great example). If something like the pictures jaxjaguar posted were to be built at the Landing, it would have more potential to draw both tourists and locals downtown than any docked warship, aquarium or revamped convention center would.
That being said, I won't be holding my breath. :(
Jaxjaguars pictures look alot like Khan's idea for the Jags practice facility. It would be great if the Landing could incorporate some form of this architecture along with the practice fields to tie the whole riverfront area together. We might be on to something here people.
Again the main building is a place holder of sorts for a final design. Not saying it will be radical like the above images (which I love) but at the meeting they were saying it will be more iconic. Also at the meeting, which I take it no one on this forum bothered to go to before dumping all of their hate on this, they mentioned adding tons of other elements that aren't represented in this one picture.
Like giant shades similar to these for example:
(http://static.dezeen.com/uploads/2009/08/masdar_300dpi_mir_10-11.jpg)
There were many very inspiring pictures to the side from the other projects they have tackled in other cities. Trust me, they are trying to make this a destination that everyone in Jax will want to visit along with all tourists from out of town. They talked about a LED lit path that connects to the Main st. bridge. The stage might include a scaled down element similar to the one at millennium park in Chicago. Shade trees everywhere! This simple rendering doesn't cover everything so don't get too pissed off. The cynicism on here is unbearable sometimes. Can't we just be hopeful for once? Though I know many long time natives are tired of being let down, I think this might be different, Jax is changing.
It's a matter of money isn't it? I get it, but you know that private downtown investment fund set to be revealed in fall? Don't you think that this might be a great project for them to get involved with? As far as occupants go, you might be surprised as to who might be clamoring to get a spot at Jax's shinny new toy. Look at 220 Riverside. A fairly benign apartment complex in a long neglected neighborhood next to the vacant lots of LaVila but who whats to open up shop there? A well known chef from out of town and some other great local businesses. Think of what the Landing could do. Especially if we get our act together in regards to Hemming Park, The Elbow, Healthy Town, etc. in the mean time. I'm not saying its the second coming its just another project at the end of the day. All I'm saying is to give it a chance before writing it off so quickly.
You are welcome to use this against me in the future if it is indeed a total bust. ;) I just like to be positive.
^^^All of what you say is nice and I agree (and true, you were the only one at that "charette"). But I'm still opposed to a multifamily project on site.
Frankly, Toney is probably using the money thing to his advantage. He has a playing card because he can tell the city that he won't invest another dime in the project and will merely keep the status quo if they don't allow him to build something he can profit from (i.e. multifamily). But at the same time, I wish he'd throw money into the existing project and do everything you talk about in your reply, without some ticky tacky multifamily building taking up most of the space.
And look at that pool deck and those amenities those residents will get to enjoy there on PUBLIC land in a luxury (ugly) complex that will undoubtedly be made possible with the use of public funds. All I'm saying is that the use (apartments) is highly inappropriate for that site. Toney should be talking to Khan if he wants to put apartments on the waterfront. And I can literally promise you that a mid-rise apartment structure in Jacksonville, FL with some of the lowest rents in the entire world will definitely not be iconic. The best you'll get is 220 Riverside quality (or Strand Quality or those atrocities out there by SJTC called 5000 Town or something like that). And I'm not sorry that my standards are high enough for my hometown whereby what's essentially average suburbany looking stuff (220 Riverside) doesn't cut it for my hometown postcard view. Of course neither does the Parador garage and I literally shed tears over that, but we can't make more mistakes. We cannot just settle when it comes to real estate as important as this.
I'm telling you all as someone who does work in the industry, too, I sympathize with all sides, but I firmly believe that Toney can keep his peak equity down, de-risk the asset by just working with what he has and using as much city funds as possible, and negotiating with the city to do so. It's not the city's nor the taxpayer's issue to destroy public use with private apartments and help someone earn a higher profit and someone else earn a larger promote in the process. They took on what they did, and they need to work within the confines of reason to climb out of their hole.
Think about one thing for a second - if Toney wants to build apartments, which are easy to finance and easy to do and easy to manage and easy to sell, why not build high rise? Maybe not 50 stories, but 30-40? That's not much higher than the SunTrust building, but would help the skyline out at least (rather than a clunky mid-rise).
I'll tell you why.
It's not even remotely feasible in Jax. That requires the use of solid concrete, not cheap Tyvek. That requires more expensive engineering and architectural services. Construction takes longer. Rents in Jax don't even come close to justifying high-rise construction (though they do in Charlotte and Nashville where high rises are going up right and left...so Jax is realllllyyyyyyy far behind). So at best you are going to get a faux stucco monstrosity that Jax rents *can* support. Fight the apartment use, and fight it hard. This is taxpayer/city owned land, not Sleiman's land. I'm sure it's not even currently zoned for residential. Watch for conditional uses and zoning changes. Monitor. This is one of the rare cases in the world I think it's ok to be a NIMBY.
^Well then it won't become anything. And that will be the end of it. simple. We will nitpick the hell out of it and fight it and we won't get a damn thing. The Landing will be the same until the day that the sea swallows the city. (Which honestly isn't far off)
Look, Sleiman owns the building until like 2050 or something, like it or not he is on that site to stay and he wants to make some money. Fine, I can't fault the guy even though I might wish him to be an altruistic saint. But the fact is this still maintains a pretty large public segment with the riverfront park, retail, restaurants, "cultural center", kids play area, Laura st. extension and river walk. I don't see why mixed use residential is a bad thing here. Downtown desperately needs more residential in order to make it a 24/7 activity center. IMO the apartments are actually the best part of this because you might actually have people there past 8pm now. I don't know about you but I find that exciting. If this were a gated community on the water then i would agree with you 100% but the fact remains that it's not. It is a mixed use development on the river. I just don't know how that can possibly be seen as a bad thing.
Quote from: For_F-L-O-R-I-D-A on July 24, 2015, 11:10:01 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 24, 2015, 06:45:28 AM
(http://jacksonville.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/homepageslider_660x495_scalecrop/landing_43.jpg)
Building aside, the addition of an interactive green space riverfront greenspace west of Main Street is one of the best things that could happen to the core of the Northbank. It's what cities like Chattanooga, Detroit, Tampa and Baltimore have gotten right and something that Jax has always lacked, despite being the "River City".
That is not a very large space though compared to those cities and what they offer. It is just a small strip I am assuming for the little concerts they have now.
Chattanooga and Detroit have great examples of spaces smaller that draw crowds due to the unique mix of activities in them and their proximity to other downtown destinations. Here's a few pics:
Detroit's Campus Martius Park(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/3370411283_bKWm7bf-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/3370411821_jtcDPHf-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Detroit-2014/i-kBfsMnZ/0/M/DSCF3053-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Detroit-2014/i-2tztnGZ/0/M/DSCF3062-M.jpg)
The Passage in Chattanooga (http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Chattanooga-Next-City-Vanguard/i-WPtzPCX/0/M/DSCF1643-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Chattanooga-Next-City-Vanguard/i-RR5sqnv/0/M/DSCF1650-M.jpg)
QuoteThey should try to remove Hogan St. and just add more green space there. Interesting that they added some buildings right on the river too.
I agree that Hogan should become a part of an interactive green space south of Water Street. I'd take it one step further. Instead of focusing on how the Landing meets the river between Hogan and Main Street, they should be looking at how everything works together, at a minimum, between the Acosta and failing courthouse parking lot.
Multi-family housing is absolutely essential in making DT a 18 or 24-hour city. In order to attract restaurants, retailers etc you need people living in the area. The problem is no MF developers are willing to take the risk in downtown because there is no real draw (note that the Carling and 11 E are unable to sustain amortizing payments even though they are "stabilized").
This is a prime opportunity to make DT more livable by combining commercial and residential uses to feed off each other. Otherwise we are in the exact same situation with a nicer parcel of land.
Quote from: UNFurbanist on July 24, 2015, 04:06:37 PM
^Well then it won't become anything. And that will be the end of it. simple. We will nitpick the hell out of it and fight it and we won't get a damn thing. The Landing will be the same until the day that the sea swallows the city. (Which honestly isn't far off)
Look, Sleiman owns the building until like 2050 or something, like it or not he is on that site to stay and he wants to make some money. Fine, I can't fault the guy even though I might wish him to be an altruistic saint. But the fact is this still maintains a pretty large public segment with the riverfront park, retail, restaurants, "cultural center", kids play area, Laura st. extension and river walk. I don't see why mixed use residential is a bad thing here. Downtown desperately needs more residential in order to make it a 24/7 activity center. IMO the apartments are actually the best part of this because you might actually have people there past 8pm now. I don't know about you but I find that exciting. If this were a gated community on the water then i would agree with you 100% but the fact remains that it's not. It is a mixed use development on the river. I just don't know how that can possibly be seen as a bad thing.
Agree to disagree. I am very far far far from NIMBY, and I work in the industry as well. I get it. I've worked on deals that are on ground leases with city/state entities, and waterfront at that. I've worked with redevelopment agencies. I've worked on transformative properties that literally remind me exactly of what I envision the Landing could be. I used to live within a quarter mile of perhaps the most applicable property in the entire country - the waterfront Ferry Building in San Francisco.
I want Sleiman to do well, and I truly believe he can. But I think he can do so without apartments on *this* site. I don't believe apartments are appropriate for *this* site. I also know for a damn fact that 200-400 extra occupied apartments won't make a damned bit of difference for street vibrancy and won't alone support the level of retail that will make a difference. You really need like 5-10,000 more apartments for this to happen, and there are still infinite sites, including on the water, with which to put them. Not to mention apartments have no more than 50% the effect that condos do for fulfilling "resident needs" in terms of retail/entertainment.
I carry a very protective view of the waterfront between the Acosta and the Main St bridge. I have less of a protective view of the waterfront outside of these bounds. If it were up to me, that damn CSX building would be bulldozed yesterday. MOSH would have a whole new building that wasn't so closed off and disgustingly ugly.
I view a bland (that's THE BEST you'll get) apartment building on the Landing site like I view the CSX building. And not to mention, whether directly or indirectly, that apartment building will be made possible with the use of taxpayer funding via the city's various pockets. In a more direct fashion, that could include building a "great" "community" complete with top of the line amenities for young professionals in the name of "creating momentum and a place downtown", but effectively subsidized rents to get the building built and proforma'd out where Jax yuppies can afford it. In an indirect way, the apartment is built as part of a greater plan approved by the city with city funding going to certain aspects of the plan, maybe not the apartments itself, but those apartments aren't built in the first place without city subsidy to get the larger plan in motion.
It's ludicrous to even contemplate subsidized luxury/market rate apartments on city/taxpayer owned land. The only thing worse I can think of is subsidized affordable housing on this prime waterfront land. Actually, that's not worse in my mind. I can't stomach subsidies for market rate apartments. Especially apartments that are sure to be top of the market/luxury for the overall market.
And why are we even discussing apartments on this piece of property?!? Land this prime should not have private residences at all, but at minimum it should be luxury CONDOS not apartments for yuppie 20s/30s year olds who are likely transplants and haven't figured out they can buy a home nearby for like $200K. Yea, NO! You *may* get better architecture (in Jax...in other markets condos are undoubtedly where you get your good architecture and apartments are almost always utilitarian) and certainly more "vested" owners with condos than apartments. In a perfect world, developable areas on the waterfront (not where the Landing is) would be condos, and apartments would not be waterfront.
So I completely agree that increasing downtown residency should be an overall goal. I am struggling to understand why it is in taxpayer interest to have multi-family housing built on public land and then leased to a private entity. If Sleiman or a developer wants housing, then why don't we parcel up that space and sell parts of it with development restrictions. The city should maintain ownership of the land along the river, the extension of Laura street to the river, and identified public spaces, i.e. greenspace, gathering areas, the riverwalk. Sell the parcels along Independent Drive with development restrictions regarding interaction with the public spaces, required retail, etc. Am I correct that this would be more closely aligned to the public-private partnership with 220 Riverside and Unity Plaza? If Sleiman isn't interested in the parcels along Independent Drive, then allow other developers to submit proposals. This would at least make some of the land taxable again. Thoughts?
Quote from: DrQue on July 24, 2015, 04:23:10 PM
Multi-family housing is absolutely essential in making DT a 18 or 24-hour city. In order to attract restaurants, retailers etc you need people living in the area. The problem is no MF developers are willing to take the risk in downtown because there is no real draw (note that the Carling and 11 E are unable to sustain amortizing payments even though they are "stabilized").
This is a prime opportunity to make DT more livable by combining commercial and residential uses to feed off each other. Otherwise we are in the exact same situation with a nicer parcel of land.
This is how far away from "18-24" hour city you are. In my mind, Manhattan itself is really only ~18-20 hours, people do sleep everywhere. Sections of Chicago, SF, Boston and LA are also 18-20 hours. It's actually very hard to support a noticeable amount of 24 hour businesses and an environment where you truly see people out and about for 24 hours a day. The densest sections of these cities are all over 100,000 people per square mile. And hint, the 18-20 hour sections of ALL of these areas, Manhattan included, are not the "downtown" areas, but rather the dense and bustling residential neighborhoods (HK, the West/East Village, etc for New York, the Mission in SF, Boystown/Lakeview area for Chicago, and Back Bay for Boston).
I digress, examples for Jax - Uptown Charlotte, Brickell in Miami, Midtown Atlanta, SoBro/Gulch in Nashville, downtown Austin - these areas now all have well over 10,000 condos/apartments in high rises in a confined area mixed in with commercial and entertainment and they are all doing well, but are still very very far from what I would call "bustling". So if you think this ONE avg sized apartment complex will make ANY difference, you need to travel more and put some numbers together. Jax should focus on developing up all of its surface lots and overgrown lots, literally strewn about everywhere in the urban core. It should focus on cleaning up the Shipyards and having that developed. It should NOT subsidize new parking garages anywhere, let alone within view of the waterfront (Parador), and it should NOT subsidize new apartments on waterfront city owned land that is arguably doing OK as it is but has clear paths to simply improve what's already there.
Looks like Toney is already thinking mixed use with his new maker space. I think that's fantastic! But using city money to put up a stucco luxury box with a pool, fancy gym, theater and event space for a bunch of rich-for-the-market transplant yuppies on city-owned public waterfront land is a sheer crime. Let's not act desperate here.
Apartments would have been great on that Parador garage site across the street. They'd still be nice as a use covering up that ugly garage along Hogan Street, sort of like the Bookends garage in Greenville, SC.....but I digress.
Lake, can you think of examples from other cities in which housing such as apartments was built on public land and then leased to a developer? This is in reference to my earlier post. Actually is downtown development even approached this way anymore or are we trying to follow an old model by leasing public land for a private development? Should we be pushing for a private-public partnership similar to Unity Plaza/220 Riverside instead?
Ok, so at this charette, was there any discussion of modifying the existing structure to make it more inviting and creating more greenspace?
I think a huge huge huge huge concern, and rightfully so, is the lack of riverfront public greenspace downtown. If they just modify the existing facility you would likely have to blast an opening through the north end to open it up to Laura St. and then tear down large sections of it on the river, leaving awkward portions of the existing building in place.
I haven't seen any renderings of a modified facility, just tear down and build new renderings. Are there any out there?
So much focus on the landing right now when the Trio is rotting away as we speak down the street.
I also agree with Simms that you don't need to be so focused on packing as many renters on this property as possible when you have surface lots and vacant property taking up huge areas of downtown and La Villa.
Quote from: brainstormer on July 24, 2015, 04:55:13 PM
Lake, can you think of examples from other cities in which housing such as apartments was built on public land and then leased to a developer? This is in reference to my earlier post. Actually is downtown development even approached this way anymore or are we trying to follow an old model by leasing public land for a private development? Should we be pushing for a private-public partnership similar to Unity Plaza/220 Riverside instead?
The Giants are going to build 1,500 units (mostly apartments I'm sure, since that alone would be an outrageous amount of condos in and of itself let alone in one develop, 40% of units will be affordable), with 1.5 million sf office and retail space, and 8 acres of parkland on land they lease from the City. As such, we get to vote on whether we will allow their proposal or not (we vote on *everything* by ballot initiative).
http://www.missionrock.org/about.html
So this sort of thing is actually very common. The Ferry Building in SF is on Port of SF land, and is a ground lease. The differences here are:
1) Jax has *extremely* limited public waterfront land that could be transformed into something meaningful and whereas the Giants' development is miles south of the downtown area and SF already has literally miles of heavily used public waterfront, the Giants are *still* careful to limit heights, include architectural setbacks, and no structures within 100 ft of the waterfront.
So this is not a case where "but other cities are or aren't doing it", this is a case of let's do more stuff like that, just not on this site, which is *THE MOST* central site in Jacksonville
2) Other cities are much more careful about the architecture they choose for such sites, and are in positions to do so. Jax is neither careful about architecture (it actually is the worst city for this of any city I have *any* knowledge of) nor is it remotely even in a position to dictate architecture and enforce it to be improved or significant/bold (just not financially feasible)
So where other cities might develop their precious land, they have the power to ensure it will be quality. Jax doesn't.
Thanks simms. What are typical reasons/benefits for leasing versus selling the land to the developer?
Quote from: thelakelander on July 24, 2015, 04:07:30 PM
Quote from: For_F-L-O-R-I-D-A on July 24, 2015, 11:10:01 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 24, 2015, 06:45:28 AM
(http://jacksonville.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/homepageslider_660x495_scalecrop/landing_43.jpg)
Building aside, the addition of an interactive green space riverfront greenspace west of Main Street is one of the best things that could happen to the core of the Northbank. It's what cities like Chattanooga, Detroit, Tampa and Baltimore have gotten right and something that Jax has always lacked, despite being the "River City".
That is not a very large space though compared to those cities and what they offer. It is just a small strip I am assuming for the little concerts they have now.
Chattanooga and Detroit have great examples of spaces smaller that draw crowds due to the unique mix of activities in them and their proximity to other downtown destinations. Here's a few pics:
Detroit's Campus Martius Park
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/3370411283_bKWm7bf-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/3370411821_jtcDPHf-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Detroit-2014/i-kBfsMnZ/0/M/DSCF3053-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Detroit-2014/i-2tztnGZ/0/M/DSCF3062-M.jpg)
The Passage in Chattanooga
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Chattanooga-Next-City-Vanguard/i-WPtzPCX/0/M/DSCF1643-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Chattanooga-Next-City-Vanguard/i-RR5sqnv/0/M/DSCF1650-M.jpg)
QuoteThey should try to remove Hogan St. and just add more green space there. Interesting that they added some buildings right on the river too.
I agree that Hogan should become a part of an interactive green space south of Water Street. I'd take it one step further. Instead of focusing on how the Landing meets the river between Hogan and Main Street, they should be looking at how everything works together, at a minimum, between the Acosta and failing courthouse parking lot.
Can you expound upon that last point a little more? What would you like to see? It seems in this rendering at least, they have green space along the river headed towards the Hyatt.
QuoteUptown Charlotte, Brickell in Miami, Midtown Atlanta, SoBro/Gulch in Nashville, downtown Austin
SoBro/Gulch is an achievable model, as for the others, it would be 20 years minimum for JAX to look like any of those cities/areas, and most likely significantly longer. You have to crawl before you can walk. You can't skip over the pioneer/early years of the cycle.
I agree that THIS site should probably not have residential itself, but it needs to be developed as a destination such that residential (as well as office, retail, etc.) will want to be a close as possible to it. It needs to be the destination/focal point for all of DT. Laura Street needs to be the 'Main Street' that serves as the retail/restaurant 'spine' that connects the other nodes/anchors (Hemming Plaza). That is why the Barnett/Trio are so important. Get those done and then tackle the vacant church that faces Hemming and the storefronts along Laura between Hemming and the Landing. Convert the office towers to better interact with the street. Program events along Laura. Put residential any and everywhere you can (over stores, the abandoned buildings, just not the Landing itself necessarily). Once it starts to turn, the possibilities for the Landing will grow too. The higher quality materials, the cost of taller construction can then start to be justified.
As crazy as it sounds, maybe the 'flower garden' idea has some merit, but more of a 'Grant Park - Chicago', Charleston White Point Gardens -Battery' idea.
Quote from: brainstormer on July 24, 2015, 05:11:52 PM
Thanks simms. What are typical reasons/benefits for leasing versus selling the land to the developer?
To protect the waterfront!! Because it should be public land! I mean there are a host of reasons, but that's one. This would be public land in literally every city I think I've ever stepped foot in. This is the most central, perhaps the most important piece of land in the entire city. And so yes, it should be protected at all costs and shouldn't be built up with apartments.
Quote from: vicupstate on July 24, 2015, 05:26:57 PM
QuoteUptown Charlotte, Brickell in Miami, Midtown Atlanta, SoBro/Gulch in Nashville, downtown Austin
SoBro/Gulch is an achievable model, as for the others, it would be 20 years minimum for JAX to look like any of those cities/areas, and most likely significantly longer. You have to crawl before you can walk. You can't skip over the pioneer/early years of the cycle.
I think they are all achievable models and I think at the rate Jax crawls (or lays down, frankly), it would easily be a minimum of 20 years for Jax to achieve what any of these areas has achieved in their past 20 year time frame.
If it were up to me, Jax wouldn't even look to other southern cities at all. I think the south does a piss poor job of new urbanism and building up downtowns. I think the west does it best, by far.
Jax should really start to look at San Diego, Denver, Portland, Minneapolis frankly, for inspiration. All of these cities started out with Charlotte and Austin 20 years ago and all of these cities did what Charlotte did x 10 in the same time frame, and executed them more brilliantly. The western US still provides the path for building new cities, in my opinion. The SE in general, FL in particular, tends to fuck things up or do exactly what other western cities are doing, just doing these things rather poorly.
Quote from: For_F-L-O-R-I-D-A on July 24, 2015, 05:13:20 PM
Can you expound upon that last point a little more? What would you like to see? It seems in this rendering at least, they have green space along the river headed towards the Hyatt.
I'd like to see us stop treating our waterfront like a collection of isolated sites. In this case, the planning is for the Landing and the waterfront is being addressed like it only stretches between Hogan and Main Streets. I think when it comes to the waterfront and talk about green space along the river, we should consider everything south of Water Street as one space with various destinations within it. From this perspective, it's just as important to integrate the Landing with the performing arts center and Hyatt, as it is to focus on opening Laura Street up. So when looking at the waterfront, just because the Landing ends at Hogan Street, that doesn't mean a well planned green space (the tax payers will be paying for it anyway) has to end at the same spot.
Not saying he'd sell, because he probably would not, but do you guys believe it would be better for the city to consider buying the Landing from Sleiman (or working with him) to do something like the Ferry Building marketplace in SF? Or is the market for something similar within the existing structure not there?
Quote from: thelakelander on July 24, 2015, 05:50:05 PM
Not saying he'd sell, because he probably would not, but do you guys believe it would be better for the city to consider buying the Landing from Sleiman (or working with him) to do something like the Ferry Building marketplace in SF? Or is the market for something similar within the existing structure not there?
It's funny you mention that, because when I look at the original question posed at the beginning of this thread - "The Jacksonville Landing: What Should It Be?" - my best answer is "owned by someone else."
It's nothing personal, but I think there's so much more achievable at the site than what it seems like Sleiman is happy to settle for.
I know the Shipyards proposal wasn't universally loved, but there was excitement surrounding it. Love it or hate it, we had someone proposing something new and exciting, and it was proposed by someone who gave the impression they were happy to go big and bold. Here it seems like we have something proposed that excites no one.
I'd love to see something like the Ferry Building marketplace on the existing site. I even think the existing structure is fine, though a few changes wouldn't hurt. It's all about filling it with the right merchants. There's a lot of potential there it just needs the right people in charge.
Jacksonville is a city that is going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into this century. I don't see anything so far that gives me the feeling that this project could be the type of thing that moves the city out of the mindset that we need to accept proposals like this. Maybe with someone else in charge we'd have that chance.
Quote from: hiddentrack on July 24, 2015, 06:17:39 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 24, 2015, 05:50:05 PM
Not saying he'd sell, because he probably would not, but do you guys believe it would be better for the city to consider buying the Landing from Sleiman (or working with him) to do something like the Ferry Building marketplace in SF? Or is the market for something similar within the existing structure not there?
It's funny you mention that, because when I look at the original question posed at the beginning of this thread - "The Jacksonville Landing: What Should It Be?" - my best answer is "owned by someone else."
It's nothing personal, but I think there's so much more achievable at the site than what it seems like Sleiman is happy to settle for.
I know the Shipyards proposal wasn't universally loved, but there was excitement surrounding it. Love it or hate it, we had someone proposing something new and exciting, and it was proposed by someone who gave the impression they were happy to go big and bold. Here it seems like we have something proposed that excites no one.
I'd love to see something like the Ferry Building marketplace on the existing site. I even think the existing structure is fine, though a few changes wouldn't hurt. It's all about filling it with the right merchants. There's a lot of potential there it just needs the right people in charge.
Jacksonville is a city that is going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into this century. I don't see anything so far that gives me the feeling that this project could be the type of thing that moves the city out of the mindset that we need to accept proposals like this. Maybe with someone else in charge we'd have that chance.
Ferry Building to me has been and still is the best model for the Landing and there are too many parallels to ignore (time frame for when Ferry Building was redone is similar to when Landing was built, size is similar, real estate structure is similar, layout is similar, setting is similar).
My concern with Sleiman is twofold:
1) Politics related, this is a major Republican donor. I don't think he has a lot of friends on the creative, mom & pop, holistic healer vegan chef realm, though I'm sure he knows a few area farmers
2) He has a super strong relationship with Walgreens corporate and their real estate department, and other similar retailers, through his hefty portfolio and long term experience building crap in the suburbs for them.
This will not help him fill the Landing with local purveyors. Also, this is a guy who deals with investment grade credit tenants long-term leasing the majority of the retail he builds. How do you get someone in that mindset comfortable issuing loans and doing buildouts for mom and pop purveyors who can't guarantee they'll stick around more than a year or pay the rent? There is no financing for that. Sleiman must act like the SBA, essentially, all while still out on a limb with the hard real estate.
I agree, I don't think Sleiman is the right guy. His partner that he brought in a year or two ago is also not the right guy. He brought in a prolific apartment developer who has put up infinite Type 3 Tyvek apartments all around the SE.
Sleiman and his partner are the best pair for putting up a typical Type 3 apartment community with some ground floor retail leased to a Landry's restaurant at best, if that's what we want for the centerpiece of our downtown waterfront.
If you want the Ferry Building, you need a group like EOP (current owners of Ferry Building) with a flamboyant boots on the ground team that will get it done, or you need a local group with vision and absolutely a sugar daddy who is the equity and wants a piece of that and is willing to risk it. Preferably someone fairly liberal and free-spirited who isn't afraid to light up a bowl with a local well-connected group of chefs and creative/artsy retailers who would love an opportunity to have a stall or space in the Landing. You gotta be these people's friend, and you have to spend $$$ on them to get them in there.
You need an amazing design and interior design team. You need to get along really really well with them. I just don't see Sleiman fitting that role.
Quote from: stephendare on July 24, 2015, 06:38:58 PM
QuoteIf you want the Ferry Building, you need a group like EOP (current owners of Ferry Building) with a flamboyant boots on the ground team that will get it done, or you need a local group with vision and absolutely a sugar daddy who is the equity and wants a piece of that and is willing to risk it. Preferably someone fairly liberal and free-spirited who isn't afraid to light up a bowl with a local well-connected group of chefs and creative/artsy retailers who would love an opportunity to have a stall or space in the Landing. You gotta be these people's friend, and you have to spend $$$ on them to get them in there.
You need an amazing design and interior design team. You need to get along really really well with them. I just don't see Sleiman fitting that role.
I don't know much about Sleiman, but it seems to me that he doesn't have much in the way of ideas and is looking for everyone else to pay for the ones he has.
Quote from: stephendare on July 24, 2015, 06:38:58 PM
QuoteIf you want the Ferry Building, you need a group like EOP (current owners of Ferry Building) with a flamboyant boots on the ground team that will get it done, or you need a local group with vision and absolutely a sugar daddy who is the equity and wants a piece of that and is willing to risk it. Preferably someone fairly liberal and free-spirited who isn't afraid to light up a bowl with a local well-connected group of chefs and creative/artsy retailers who would love an opportunity to have a stall or space in the Landing. You gotta be these people's friend, and you have to spend $$$ on them to get them in there.
You need an amazing design and interior design team. You need to get along really really well with them. I just don't see Sleiman fitting that role.
+1
Doesn't that idea work perfectly with the existing building? It certainly can be revamped and made better for hundreds of millions less than what this proposal would cost. Then would not the attention and funding this proposed project would command be better spent by fixing the issues that surround the Landing? Like getting the Laura Trio up and building residential density so that the Landing becomes a more desirable place for businesses to be?
It seems to me that the bottom line is simply that Sleiman's ROI for the current Landing is limited by the leasing of the Landing. Sleiman's ROI on this new Landing he wants would also be limited by the leasing of the new spaces. Since the current ROI is apparently bad, the new landing, without fixing the other issues Downtown, won't be much better and comes with a much higher debt load. So the real profit Sleiman is after is from building the thing and how much he can skim off the tax money he gets from the city.
I've never seen a good argument that justifies the expense for a new Landing. Everything I have read thus far indicates to me the funding would be much better spent elsewhere.
Quote from: strider on July 25, 2015, 07:51:08 AM
Quote from: stephendare on July 24, 2015, 06:38:58 PM
QuoteIf you want the Ferry Building, you need a group like EOP (current owners of Ferry Building) with a flamboyant boots on the ground team that will get it done, or you need a local group with vision and absolutely a sugar daddy who is the equity and wants a piece of that and is willing to risk it. Preferably someone fairly liberal and free-spirited who isn't afraid to light up a bowl with a local well-connected group of chefs and creative/artsy retailers who would love an opportunity to have a stall or space in the Landing. You gotta be these people's friend, and you have to spend $$$ on them to get them in there.
You need an amazing design and interior design team. You need to get along really really well with them. I just don't see Sleiman fitting that role.
+1
Doesn't that idea work perfectly with the existing building? It certainly can be revamped and made better for hundreds of millions less than what this proposal would cost. Then would not the attention and funding this proposed project would command be better spent by fixing the issues that surround the Landing? Like getting the Laura Trio up and building residential density so that the Landing becomes a more desirable place for businesses to be?
It seems to me that the bottom line is simply that Sleiman's ROI for the current Landing is limited by the leasing of the Landing. Sleiman's ROI on this new Landing he wants would also be limited by the leasing of the new spaces. Since the current ROI is apparently bad, the new landing, without fixing the other issues Downtown, won't be much better and comes with a much higher debt load. So the real profit Sleiman is after is from building the thing and how much he can skim off the tax money he gets from the city.
I've never seen a good argument that justifies the expense for a new Landing. Everything I have read thus far indicates to me the funding would be much better spent elsewhere.
He'll make money on the multifamily portion. That rendering looks large - easily 300-400 units. You're right, though, that the same neighborhood/city problems will still be there.
Also, no worries, we are not even close to the hundreds of millions of dollars you mention, regardless of the path he takes. He has no land basis (not that that would be more than a couple mil in Jax anyway), and it would cost nothing for him to tear down the Landing, and probably $150K/unit at most to build the structure or something similar as rendered. It would cost a little to buy out existing leases. Definitely less than $100M, easily, all in. Probably more like $70-80M tops.
Financing would be between Sleiman and a private lender. A project of this size would likely be a large allocation to Jax, from a lender's perspective, but in the grand scheme is not a large loan at all. The retail is where he'll have the issues. The less retail the better for the lender, because the lender is structuring this like a real estate loan, which means it will have covenants.
If he doesn't go this route, and I don't want him to, yes, he can do something creative with the existing structure and seems to be trying to within the bounds of his current financial situation. Clearly to do something that can't be financed and will require a good bit more equity, he needs to find that equity. And it won't be cheap and will likely be a tranche above his own, so he 's really going out on a limb by doing so. There is high yield debt, too. That would be cheaper than this kind of equity, but more restrictions.
He just needs to find the money. That's the big challenge. A bland formulaic apartment deal makes that easier.
Quote from: For_F-L-O-R-I-D-A on July 24, 2015, 05:13:20 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 24, 2015, 04:07:30 PM
Quote from: For_F-L-O-R-I-D-A on July 24, 2015, 11:10:01 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 24, 2015, 06:45:28 AM
(http://jacksonville.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/homepageslider_660x495_scalecrop/landing_43.jpg)
Building aside, the addition of an interactive green space riverfront greenspace west of Main Street is one of the best things that could happen to the core of the Northbank. It's what cities like Chattanooga, Detroit, Tampa and Baltimore have gotten right and something that Jax has always lacked, despite being the "River City".
That is not a very large space though compared to those cities and what they offer. It is just a small strip I am assuming for the little concerts they have now.
Chattanooga and Detroit have great examples of spaces smaller that draw crowds due to the unique mix of activities in them and their proximity to other downtown destinations. Here's a few pics:
Detroit's Campus Martius Park
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/3370411283_bKWm7bf-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/3370411821_jtcDPHf-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Detroit-2014/i-kBfsMnZ/0/M/DSCF3053-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Detroit-2014/i-2tztnGZ/0/M/DSCF3062-M.jpg)
The Passage in Chattanooga
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Chattanooga-Next-City-Vanguard/i-WPtzPCX/0/M/DSCF1643-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Chattanooga-Next-City-Vanguard/i-RR5sqnv/0/M/DSCF1650-M.jpg)
QuoteThey should try to remove Hogan St. and just add more green space there. Interesting that they added some buildings right on the river too.
I agree that Hogan should become a part of an interactive green space south of Water Street. I'd take it one step further. Instead of focusing on how the Landing meets the river between Hogan and Main Street, they should be looking at how everything works together, at a minimum, between the Acosta and failing courthouse parking lot.
Can you expound upon that last point a little more? What would you like to see? It seems in this rendering at least, they have green space along the river headed towards the Hyatt.
So.......if there's not a lot of room to work with where the landing is now, then you go vertical, up to a certain height; you can't block the "WELLS FARGO" building and I don't think they will allow that, but you can go vertical (up to around 200 feet or maybe a little more?).
I think the concern about any vertical element at the Landing site is blocking the view of the "pyramid" at the bottom of Wells Fargo. If you can block that iconic view, it doesn't really matter if you block the rest of the tower, as it is rather unremarkable.
HU - A concern about going high rise is that the market downtown does not support a high rise development right now. They can't even renovate the Trio and Barnett down the street, two beautiful iconic high rises already built where they should be, away from the river. The main attraction of any landing redesign should be the river and green space for the public to enjoy. I was just down there Saturday and after Sweet Pete's I just wanted to take my son to a nice riverfront park down the street and realized Jacksonville doesn't have anything like that downtown. Any buildings on the site should be low to medium rise, inviting, and set back away from the river giving way for lots of outdoor space. I agree with Simms' argument that there shouldn't be sooooo much residential on the property. The buildings don't have to be much, just some restaurants/cafes, maybe some residential on the upper floors, but it doesn't have to be big. Slieman is a business man and is most likely concerned about his profit first and this will likely impact the design a great deal, but I do hope they scale back the buildings on the site even further away from the river. Residential can be located down the street at the Trio/Barnett and along Water Street on the plethora of surface parking/vacant lots away from the river but still close enough to have some views.
But I don't think the landing is super critical right now and should not be the top priority. Although not ideal, it is functioning and has tenants. My comments on its redesign are just me thinking well into the future after the super critical stuff is addressed. The DIA and city of Jacksonville are getting pulled in every direction, it's ridiculous. They will end up spreading their resources too thin . . . again . . . and not executing things properly. Top priority needs to be the Trio, then the Barnett. They are on the verge of being lost forever and becoming surface parking lots (like we need more). The landing is not deteriorating and is not going anywhere. Once these treasures are restored, then the quick hitters that don't cost much but improve the quality of life downtown like streetscape stuff should be addressed. Then the big stuff like the Landing, Shipyards, etc. The Landing can't be a half-ass design. It needs to be right and it needs to have a longer service life than 30 years.
Quote from: CCMjax on July 27, 2015, 01:02:09 PM
But I don't think the landing is super critical right now and should not be the top priority. Although not ideal, it is functioning and has tenants. My comments on its redesign are just me thinking well into the future after the super critical stuff is addressed. The DIA and city of Jacksonville are getting pulled in every direction, it's ridiculous. They will end up spreading their resources too thin . . . again . . . and not executing things properly. Top priority needs to be the Trio, then the Barnett. They are on the verge of being lost forever and becoming surface parking lots (like we need more). The landing is not deteriorating and is not going anywhere. Once these treasures are restored, then the quick hitters that don't cost much but improve the quality of life downtown like streetscape stuff should be addressed. Then the big stuff like the Landing, Shipyards, etc. The Landing can't be a half-ass design. It needs to be right and it needs to have a longer service life than 30 years.
+100
Quote from: thelakelander on October 06, 2014, 06:34:12 AM
The proposed plan actually increases public access along the river from 20,000 square-feet to almost 89,000 square-feet.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/3582898016_8NwGwvk-M.jpg)
Find it interesting that no one has commented on the fact last year's design (3D Rendering) intent looks very similar to the scketched one COJ just paid $100k for...do we see buildings fronting the river? What happened to keeping that entire area open green space for the PUBLIC to enjoy? Now there is a reduction of public access.
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2015-07-23/story/new-design-ideas-shown-rebuilding-jacksonville-landing#
Quote from: Get Real on July 27, 2015, 07:47:41 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on October 06, 2014, 06:34:12 AM
The proposed plan actually increases public access along the river from 20,000 square-feet to almost 89,000 square-feet.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/3582898016_8NwGwvk-M.jpg)
Find it interesting that no one has commented on the fact last year's design (3D Rendering) intent looks very similar to the scketched one COJ just paid $100k for...do we see buildings fronting the river? What happened to keeping that entire area open green space for the PUBLIC to enjoy? Now there is a reduction of public access.
Monday nights, movies in Bryant park. Turn much of the landing space into a breathtaking, well-lit, riverfront park where adjacent to which people want to live, and offices want to relocate. Create a compelling sense of place along the riverfront.(http://[img][img])[/img][/img]
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2015-07-23/story/new-design-ideas-shown-rebuilding-jacksonville-landing#
Again, the one that was just released is not the final design. It was a draft in order to prompt discussion at the public meeting. It also has a lot of ground level elements that aren't exactly represented well in the rendering. Just wait a month or two and we will have an actual final design to look at and complain about.
If it will be a "final design" in a couple months, will there be any opportunity for public input - besides complaining?
I haven't been following the Landing saga as closely this time around as I did a decade ago. Has any thought been given to removing the other Main Street ramp first, retrofitting the existing Landing structure and adding the housing/parking component on the east lot? If designed well, it would be good filler between the Landing and the Hyatt.
Quote from: UNFurbanist on July 27, 2015, 11:22:16 PM
Again, the one that was just released is not the final design. It was a draft in order to prompt discussion at the public meeting. It also has a lot of ground level elements that aren't exactly represented well in the rendering. Just wait a month or two and we will have an actual final design to look at and complain about.
Sources communicated the same last summer, the proposed design and exterior skin were preliminary. The focus was on the right "programmatic solution". Face it, designs will always have critics.
What is interesting, and silent, is the overwhelming outcry from last year regarding more green space and public access. DIA board members and City Council expressed their dissatisfaction with the "public" green space in 2014 and today, all are silent on the fact the designers have proposed retail/commercial structures on the waterfront. Doesn't Jacksonville have enough buildings obstructing the riverfront, did the public sessions not divulge this information or
is this the result of out of town design firms that the City is paying for?
^ I think the new plan has more than enough public open space (whether green or hardscape) along the river. And no, there are very few buildings "obstructing" the riverfront...we do have public riverwalks on both sides after all.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 28, 2015, 07:38:33 AM
I haven't been following the Landing saga as closely this time around as I did a decade ago. Has any thought been given to removing the other Main Street ramp first, retrofitting the existing Landing structure and adding the housing/parking component on the east lot? If designed well, it would be good filler between the Landing and the Hyatt.
Now that makes sense, certainly more than tearing down and building all new. Seems like a lot less expensive too.
Quote from: strider on July 28, 2015, 08:59:02 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 28, 2015, 07:38:33 AM
I haven't been following the Landing saga as closely this time around as I did a decade ago. Has any thought been given to removing the other Main Street ramp first, retrofitting the existing Landing structure and adding the housing/parking component on the east lot? If designed well, it would be good filler between the Landing and the Hyatt.
Now that makes sense, certainly more than tearing down and building all new. Seems like a lot less expensive too.
The shape, color and size of the Landing are iconic and very familiar. Consideration should be given to retaining part of the original structure which would also save limited funds. Regardless of what else, I think the main components are: remove the curved Main Street Bridge on-ramp, open up Laura Street to the river and give us some grassy area...on the river...no road.
The reason I ask about the East lot is because it's cheaper to prepare the land for new construction (then taking out the entire existing complex), fills a key dead space on the riverfront with a use both COJ and Sleiman desires. It's also interesting combining 20 years of redevelopment studies, plans, dreams, cost concerns, and issues into a single alternative, so here goes!
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/453482219_hhWaL-M.jpg)
Jacksonville Landing
As far as the existing Landing structure goes, one can easily argue it's been a fixture in Jax's skyline for nearly 30 years and is iconic in it's own right. Yes, the design is not ideal but let's face it, Miami's Bayside Marketplace is pretty much the same type of structure and design. However, it's filled with retail and restaurants because the downtown surrounding it is healthier. Same goes for Baltimore's recently renovated Harborplace. Same style building by design and age but retrofitted with newer uses....like a museum (Ripley's) to replace retail square footage no longer needed.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/2991294366_7T9kpJZ-M.jpg)
Miami's Bayside Marketplace
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/3424980305_nBzTvwQ-M.jpg)
Baltimore's Harborplace
Thus, is it worth exploring retrofitting the existing structure to open to Laura Street (it's been considered in the past), better embrace Independent Drive (it's been considered in the past) and reconfigure a few spots (like the food court) as spaces for restaurants and limited chain retail (think CVS/Walgreens) by combining existing retail space into a bigger box) that's needed in DT?
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/San-Francisco-2015/i-wVd5tsB/0/M/DSCF6666-M.jpg)
Inside SF's Ferry Building's public market
With the remaining mall, fill it in with public market style local vendors/eateries, etc. Then looking at the public space situation, consider demolishing one/both riverfront buildings and/or integrating everything facing the riverfront, from the courthouse lot to the TU Center as one massive interactive waterfront green space?
(http://media.metrojacksonville.com/images/riverwalk/NorthbankRiverwalk-Linear-Park.jpg)
Include some of those old Northbank riverwalk public space ideas sitting on the self for the green space and dead streets that do exist.
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2013-mar-the-history-of-downtown-jacksonvilles-riverwalks/page/1
(http://bp0.blogger.com/_2o3E7tD3TEA/Rm3bDenkXZI/AAAAAAAAATQ/IgMmTMsjwh4/s400/Hogan+Street+Park-SLIDE2+(2).JPG)
http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=47655
From the outside looking in, it seems you could implement such a strategy incrementally and much cheaper than immediately dropping $12 million in public money to replace the entire complex with a smaller version of DC's National Harbor, Oakland's Jack London Square or any Post Properties infill mixed used development built over the last 20 years.
I'm sure all of this has probably already been vetted, but I'm interested to see what people's opinions are.
There is quite a bit of public access on the river. A grassy amphitheater, a children's fountain area, shade trees over public benches and tables, cafes, the riverwalk and a pedestrian plaza just to name the elements that I remember.
As far as renovating the Landing goes I would be totally in favor of just a 5-10 million dollar (total) facelift as mentioned above because I agree that a lot could be done if the current building was just brought into the 21st century and used differently. That being said, Sleiman obviously doesn't want to go that route and he owns the thing so I don't think we really have a ton of options right now. He is looking to make a big investment to make big money. (Hence the residential) He wants something flashy and new that will attract the type of money he saw in the 80s and this is the way he thinks he can do that.
So IMO I am going to buy into the total overhaul because I don't really have a final say in the matter and I honestly think that there are some good parts of this that will make the area a destination again. I am not going to throw any stones until I see a final design. Also trust me that almost all of the concerns brought up on the forum so far were addressed at the public meeting so the architects are aware and will probably try to incorporate some of that input into the finished draft.
Honestly, I'm more of a fan of the original 2005 renovation plan... the one that was on display for so many years. Cut out the center, add in some midrise residential towers on each side (fronting Water Street) and add is some more retail along the front. Give the whole place a good spruce and maybe upgrade some finishes. I love the look and feel of The Landing and would rather see it preserved and upgraded versus totally rebuilt.
(http://www.jacksonville.com/images/111303/13840_400.jpg) (http://www.jacksonville.com/images/111303/13835_400.jpg) (http://www.jacksonville.com/images/111303/13836_400.jpg)
I am with you Jason.
Quote from: Jason on July 28, 2015, 11:15:32 AM
Honestly, I'm more of a fan of the original 2005 renovation plan... the one that was on display for so many years. Cut out the center, add in some midrise residential towers on each side (fronting Water Street) and add is some more retail along the front. Give the whole place a good spruce and maybe upgrade some finishes. I love the look and feel of The Landing and would rather see it preserved and upgraded versus totally rebuilt.
(http://www.jacksonville.com/images/111303/13840_400.jpg) (http://www.jacksonville.com/images/111303/13835_400.jpg) (http://www.jacksonville.com/images/111303/13836_400.jpg)
I remember seeing that somewhere. I like it except get rid of the buildings right on the river and the buildings on the far left and right sides and have open public spaces. No need to cram everything on to this site. Slieman can get his residential with the outer ring buildings. A large open green space could also be on the east side of the Main Street bridge. I don't think they should skimp on open/green space at all. It works wonders in some other cities.
When the 2005 proposal was made, the whole environment citywide and Downtown were different. The economy was booming, and residential was starting to come back as Parks @ the Cathedral, 11 E and Carling were are practically new. The plans for the Strand, Peninsula, San Marco Place were underway or at least announced, I believe. The BJP projects were just built or about to be as well. There were a whole slew of proposals that never made it out of the ground, but at the time seemed realistic. There was energy, momentum and visible progress. The Super Bowl was still a fresh memory.
At that time, the investment in the Landing made sense. Now, 10 years later, that momentum and energy was essentially lost and is only now starting to be rekindled. I think financing would be much more difficult now.
Implementing the original 2005 proposal has a lot of appeal, but you have to ask yourself, does the demand for the hotels, condos and additional retail exist, for the 'supply' represented in the 2005 proposal?
Quote from: vicupstate on July 28, 2015, 12:02:27 PM
When the 2005 proposal was made, the whole environment citywide and Downtown were different. The economy was booming, and residential was starting to come back as Parks @ the Cathedral, 11 E and Carling were are practically new. The plans for the Strand, Peninsula, San Marco Place were underway or at least announced, I believe. The BJP projects were just built or about to be as well. There were a whole slew of proposals that never made it out of the ground, but at the time seemed realistic. There was energy, momentum and visible progress. The Super Bowl was still a fresh memory.
At that time, the investment in the Landing made sense. Now, 10 years later, that momentum and energy was essentially lost and is only now starting to be rekindled. I think financing would be much more difficult now.
Implementing the original 2005 proposal has a lot of appeal, but you have to ask yourself, does the demand for the hotels, condos and additional retail exist, for the 'supply' represented in the 2005 proposal?
I agree, the demand is not there now. Like I said in earlier posts, my opinions on the Landing are based on what I think they should do after other things are addressed like the Trio and Barnett. It certainly needs to be upgraded, how and when is the question. When is probably not now. If they can upgrade the Landing and address the Trio and Barnett at the same time, more power to them and that would be great. But from what I understand that is not likely. If both can't be accomplished without public help but one can then Trio first!
^Or find ways to spend less on both (from a public perspective) to get them both of them underway.
^Totally agree that the Trio and Barnett are still the most important projects downtown by far.
I think it's a great idea to use what we have and eliminate the buildings on each side for open green spaces. We have so many opportunities for riverfront living other than trying to pack more living spaces into the Landing area. It should be a public use venue. Wouldn't a good spruce up and upgrading be a much less expense than starting all over ?
^ the biggest problem with the current building is the minimal width of the riverwalk by Fionn MacCool's. This could be addressed by widening the riverwalk out about 10 feet in this area. yes it would take some bulkhead work, but it would likely be less expensive than tearing the whole building down and rebuilding it.
I hope that whenever they come up with the final proposals that (1) any plan involving tearing down the entire landing is knock-your-socks off amazing to justify the huge expense, and (2) that there's some kind of plan B involving changes to the existing structure. It shouldn't require a total tear-down to improve the space.
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 29, 2015, 09:21:40 AM
^ the biggest problem with the current building is the minimal width of the riverwalk by Fionn MacCool's. This could be addressed by widening the riverwalk out about 10 feet in this area. yes it would take some bulkhead work, but it would likely be less expensive than tearing the whole building down and rebuilding it.
The last time I walked down that section of the riverwalk, I wondered whether there was some creative way to open up the ground-floor space of that building into something open-air (at least partially, in the area closest to the river), then move any affected tenants somewhere else inside the Landing. It's been a while since I've scoped out all the empty spaces inside, but I'm sure there's somewhere to relocate them.
Quote from: Tacachale on July 29, 2015, 10:07:09 AM
I hope that whenever they come up with the final proposals that (1) any plan involving tearing down the entire landing is knock-your-socks off amazing to justify the huge expense, and (2) that there's some kind of plan B involving changes to the existing structure. It shouldn't require a total tear-down to improve the space.
I'm not entirely opposed to something new, but I hope we get a plan B. There are enough places downtown where we can build something new that this would have to be something very special. Otherwise, I don't see the point in tearing down something that can still function if it gets a little long-overdue attention.
QuoteDowntown Investment Authority's top executive makes case for rebuilding Jacksonville Landing
The Downtown Investment Authority's top executive made the case Wednesday for rebuilding on the site of the Jacksonville Landing, saying a master plan for the property would result in a place "that feels good, that is safe, and that you will want to come back to again and again."
But the DIA board didn't take any votes on the master plan that envisions a mix of a park, a riverfront promenade, and private buildings for apartments, restaurants and shops on about 7 acres of prime, city-owned property.
Aundra Wallace, CEO of the investment authority, gave board members a three-page memo outlining the ideas behind the design. He said the authority is still seeking feedback from the public and is open to making more changes.
"We're not pulling the trigger on this," board Chairman Jim Bailey said. "There's still a lot of work to be done."
The master plan would just determine what parts of the property are for privately-owned buildings and what parts are for parks and open space. There are no figures for what the city's share of the redevelopment cost would be. Last year, the estimated city expense for a similar plan would have been at least $11.8 million.
The city owns the land and leases it to the Sleiman family, which owns the two-story riverfront mall. The proposal before DIA calls for tearing down the mall and building anew.
"It seems to me, at first blush, that it really has a wow factor to it," DIA board member Jack Meeks said after hearing a presentation on where the design stands.
"It's a very intriguing design," board member Oliver Barakat said.
Wallace said 45 percent of the property would be set aside for buildings, and 40 percent would be for a park and open space. The remaining 15 percent would be for sidewalks and roads, including an extension of Laura Street partway into the property.
Full article: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2015-07-29/story/downtown-investment-authoritys-top-executive-makes-case-rebuilding
Can we fine Sleiman for not maintaining the landing? It seems beneficial for him to let it deteriorate if we're going to pay for it. He should not be entitled to ownership if Landing 2.0 is going to happen. It's another public risk + private reward equation.
What would he choose if the options were remodel or eminent domain?
Upsetting to see DIA is not interested in value of new developer.
Quote"It seems to me, at first blush, that it really has a wow factor to it," DIA board member Jack Meeks said after hearing a presentation on where the design stands.
"It's a very intriguing design," board member Oliver Barakat said.
Which intriguing wow factor design are they referring to?
IMO, at this point, it's pretty clear what the scale and feel of the final product will be. There's only so many ways you can squeeze the desired product mix on the site and in a design that is actually feasible for the market. I seriously doubt the replacement structures will be significantly different from the thousands of similar mixed-use products across the country. However, depending on how much cash COJ throws in, the public space could be impressive compared to what currently exists today. So my interest is growing in finding out how much cash is needed from the public sector to pull it off, identifying a realistic funding pot and the desired timeline for redevelopment.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 30, 2015, 09:36:23 AM
IMO, at this point, it's pretty clear what the scale and feel of the final product will be. There's only so many ways you can squeeze the desired product mix on the site and in a design that is actually feasible for the market. I seriously doubt the replacement structures will be significantly different from the thousands of similar mixed-use products across the country. However, depending on how much cash COJ throws in, the public space could be impressive compared to what currently exists today. So my interest is growing in finding out how much cash is needed from the public sector to pull it off, identifying a realistic funding pot and the desired timeline for redevelopment.
If he wants anything close to $11 million from the city like he did before, it better be pretty impressive. As in, not like the last go round.
If it's something in that range, it would be good to have a "Plan B" that involves a some extra buckets of orange paint, a pressure washer, sod, landscaping, extra concrete pavers, etc......Reality is, you can't squeeze blood (cash that doesn't exist) out of a turnip (our budget).
I'd be disappointed if we don't see a plan B that just makes some changes to the existing setup. Otherwise it's quite possible all this effort will lead to nowhere.
Daily Record just released some new details. http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=545875 (http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=545875)
Quote from: UNFurbanist on July 30, 2015, 11:24:32 AM
Daily Record just released some new details. http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=545875 (http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=545875)
Still not seeing what "intriguing design" or "wow factor" the DIA board members are talking about.
The lawn is a nice feature. They should give more thought to straightening up Independent Drive, between Laura and Hogan Streets. The current situation gives too much space to asphalt. Doing so, will create more space to play around with.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 30, 2015, 11:40:49 AM
The lawn is a nice feature. They should give more thought to straightening up Independent Drive, between Laura and Hogan Streets. The current situation gives too much space to asphalt. Doing so, will create more space to play around with.
Good point on straightening up Independent. If they just cut up Hogan half a block and rerouted along that paved dead end, that would free up everything between the little pocket park and the Landing itself. It wouldn't lose anything but the taxi pickup. Might cause some slight traffic issues but it would be worth it to turn more asphalt into usable space.
And I agree, the lawn is a nice feature. I'm not sure it's better than the current Landing courtyard, which looks to be pretty much gone in the rendering.
I wouldn't mind seeing something similar to Grove Arcade in Asheville done with the rectangular building. The outside of the building is lined with store fronts, and inside has 2 crossing corridors that are lined stores and galleries. Offices and residential on top of the stores. It is simple yet elegant. I think that the proposed site layout is ok imo.
(http://c8.alamy.com/comp/A8X3WX/grove-arcade-asheville-north-carolina-A8X3WX.jpg)
(http://images2.mygola.com/grove-arcade_1621816_m.jpg)
(http://www.grovearcade.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/floorplan0215.png)
http://www.grovearcade.com/ (http://www.grovearcade.com/)
I think the Grove was originally intended to be a high rise. The tower was never built. Nevertheless, it's still architecturally impressive. The buildings that rise on this site won't beconstructed with the materials and craftsmanship that was common a century ago.
Can anyone post a higher resolution image of the latest site plan that would show more detail?
If restaurants and retail have struggled to survive at the current version of the Landing, what will prevent that from continuing after the initial excitement from the new construction wears off? It seems to me that the Landing needs other nearby attractions/destinations downtown to draw from to be sustainable. I guess I'm just having a hard time understanding how the current (iconic) configuration of the Landing is the reason it can't maintain visitors. Like others have mentioned, city funds would be better served elsewhere.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 30, 2015, 12:50:48 PM
Nevertheless, it's still architecturally impressive. The buildings that rise on this site won't be constructed with the materials and craftsmanship that was common a century ago.
This much is true, but I think the layout of the building itself would work well for what they're thinking. You could almost think of whole site like a mini walkable district, but rather than having a street grid you'd have a grid of walkways and park space. Then over to the west side of the site, what if we were to eliminate that little strip of Hogan St. and create an outdoor extension of the TU Center. Basically, it would be a permanent outdoor stage that flows from the side of the TU Center, so that you have more room for green space.
If Independent Drive was straightened out, a second roundabout would work well on Hogan street. It would keep traffic moving at a reasonable pace for pedestrians and look visually appealing, especially if decorated with a local art piece. Doing that would give enough space to extend the park into downtown rather than being cut off in that tiny corner.
Quote from: Todd_Parker on July 30, 2015, 01:41:02 PM
If restaurants and retail have struggled to survive at the current version of the Landing, what will prevent that from continuing after the initial excitement from the new construction wears off? It seems to me that the Landing needs other nearby attractions/destinations downtown to draw from to be sustainable. I guess I'm just having a hard time understanding how the current (iconic) configuration of the Landing is the reason it can't maintain visitors. Like others have mentioned, city funds would be better served elsewhere.
The new plan only has around 40k square feet for retail/dining. The existing building has at least 125k square feet.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 30, 2015, 04:30:48 PM
Quote from: Todd_Parker on July 30, 2015, 01:41:02 PM
If restaurants and retail have struggled to survive at the current version of the Landing, what will prevent that from continuing after the initial excitement from the new construction wears off? It seems to me that the Landing needs other nearby attractions/destinations downtown to draw from to be sustainable. I guess I'm just having a hard time understanding how the current (iconic) configuration of the Landing is the reason it can't maintain visitors. Like others have mentioned, city funds would be better served elsewhere.
The new plan only has around 40k square feet for retail/dining. The existing building has at least 125k square feet.
So some loss of space from opening the Landing up and some re-purposing and it could end up being more profitable than a new debt heavy design even in the long run? (leaving off any profit from "developing" the new design).
I assume there's good money to be made by adding residential. Other than that, you probably could get your larger public space by demolishing the riverfront restaurant buildings and reconfiguring the larger mall building to open to Laura and house restaurants and tenants like a CVS, that would require larger retail foot prints than what's currently available. You'd still have your parking issue, but it might not be as bad if you're significantly reducing your retail square foot anyway. With the money saved (assuming you don't pay to tear down the bridge ramp), you could probably build one pretty sweet interactive public space surrounding the complex.