Metro Jacksonville

Can't say I saw this coming.

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2017-06-21/mayor-lenny-curry-wants-jacksonville-landing-under-city-ownership

Mayor Lenny Curry on Wednesday accused the owners of the struggling Jacksonville Landing of mismanaging the downtown shopping plaza and said he's working to take control of the site.

Curry said his vision for redeveloping the Landing begins with Sleiman Enterprises giving up ownership of the buildings, which sits on 7 acres of prime, waterfront real-estate that it leases from the city.

Curry offered few specific details of his conversations with Sleiman Enterprises, which he described as ongoing negotiations. He said he's made "soft offers" to buy the buildings, but the owners have "drawn a line in the sand." He said city officials are also exploring the possibility that Sleiman Enterprises defaulted on a provision in its lease requiring the mall to have a certain number of retail businesses.

"We've got a plan internally to put the screws and keep pushing this," Curry said during a meeting with the Times-Union editorial board. "The city ought to have that property now and be working a plan to find the best and highest use for it, maybe with a private entity, maybe not."

I like it.  Sleiman has been holding the Landing hostage without much recourse from the city.  Glad the city realized this and is trying to light a fire under him one way or another.

I love it. Sleiman should not hold the city or one of our most recognizable landmarks hostage to mediocrity. If he doesn't want to upgrade it, then sell it back to the city. We are not giving him a windfall of taxpayer dollars to knock it down. Mayor Curry has been doing an amazing job recently trying to actually get things going downtown instead of the normal gridlock on anything important.

Hmm. It's obvious COJ isn't going to work with Sleiman. I believe it would be best for them to sell Sleiman the land underneath the buildings and let him finance his own redevelopment, or he should sell the buildings to the city.  However, either way, it should be down at a market rate level, as opposed to lowballing the other party. My only concern is COJ getting in the real estate development business instead of letting the market play itself out. Whatever we think about Sleiman, he's been pretty successful with his retail developments. On the other hand, COJ has a pretty bad track record at redevelopment over the last few decades.

What are the current lease terms? How much time is left?

Quote from: thelakelander on June 21, 2017, 02:42:44 PM
Hmm. It's obvious COJ isn't going to work with Sleiman. I believe it would be best for them to sell Sleiman the land underneath the buildings and let him finance his own redevelopment, or he should sell the buildings to the city.  However, either way, it should be down at a market rate level, as opposed to lowballing the other party. My only concern is COJ getting in the real estate development business instead of letting the market play itself out. Whatever we think about Sleiman, he's been pretty successful with his retail developments. On the other hand, COJ has a pretty bad track record at redevelopment over the last few decades.

My take on this is that the Mayor does not think Sleiman has been a good faith partner in this in whatever behind the scenes stuff has occurred. I imagine the city buying all this back and wanting to lease it out to a private third party company/organization with more favorable terms.

Quote from: thelakelander on June 21, 2017, 02:42:44 PM
On the other hand, COJ has a pretty bad track record at redevelopment over the last few decades.

Yeah, JAX follows what I call the 'Hindenburg Model' of redevelopment. Of course, there have been a few successes like that Seafood restaurant in LaVilla that people drive for miles to eat at.

Curry is grabbing a tar baby with both hands. I hope he realizes forcing a deep pocketed businessman to do something he has no inclination to do, is not as easy as bossing around a party hack's minions.   

Quote from: billy on June 21, 2017, 02:57:08 PM
What are the current lease terms? How much time is left?

Through 2061.

Well one thing's for sure, it'll be interesting to see how this works out.

Also, for better or worse, we should have sold Sleiman the land underneath the Landing back in 2003 when he first offered to buy it and renovate the Landing ahead of the Jax Super Bowl. I strongly favor selling the land to Sleiman rather than taking taxpayer money away from other projects to buy the Landing from Sleiman. I also don't trust the city to manage or develop the Landing, when they couldn't even handle a restaurant.

Only problem is with COJ doesn't have a good track record with just with anything except demolishing structures. How ever it plays out its time to get this water front property finished. 

Just saw the FTU's article. Let me ask everyone a question.  What's the negative in this happening?

QuoteIf he can't reach a deal with the city, Sleiman says he'll simply remodel the Landing and "run it like a shopping center."

"Yeah, JAX follows what I call the 'Hindenburg Model' of redevelopment. Of course, there have been a few successes like that Seafood restaurant in LaVilla that people drive for miles to eat at.

Curry is grabbing a tar baby with both hands. I hope he realizes forcing a deep pocketed businessman to do something he has no inclination to do, is not as easy as bossing around a party hack's minions."

Hysterical, and so true!     

I see a gloomy future for "The Jacksonville Landing" under this scenario.

Quote from: thelakelander on June 21, 2017, 04:58:37 PM
Just saw the FTU's article. Let me ask everyone a question.  What's the negative in this happening?

QuoteIf he can't reach a deal with the city, Sleiman says he'll simply remodel the Landing and "run it like a shopping center."

I chuckled at this quote when I read the article the first time.

I hope he follows through on his threat.

I don't think this city has ever had -- ever -- an administration so able and so locked in with bigtime state and federal political leadership *and* bigtime corporate support. That's a damn good combination other locales have used to tremendous benefit.

I say put the screws on his azz.

Quote from: KenFSU on June 21, 2017, 05:01:48 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on June 21, 2017, 04:58:37 PM
Just saw the FTU's article. Let me ask everyone a question.  What's the negative in this happening?

QuoteIf he can't reach a deal with the city, Sleiman says he'll simply remodel the Landing and "run it like a shopping center."

I chuckled at this quote when I read the article the first time.

I hope he follows through on his threat.

What has he been doing for the past 15 years?

Sleazeman has been a laughable owner. Aside from the screen for the Super Bowl in the courtyard and swapping / loss of tenants, I can't think of any upgrades that have been made to the building since the mid 90's....

What's preventing the city from claiming eminent domain other than it making them look like the bad guy?

Other than the pension thing being less than optimal Curry has really surprised me.  The guy is actually making things happen  unlike the other recent administeations. I like it.

Quote from: jaxjaguar on June 21, 2017, 06:45:24 PM
Sleazeman has been a laughable owner. Aside from the screen for the Super Bowl in the courtyard and swapping / loss of tenants, I can't think of any upgrades that have been made to the building since the mid 90's....

What's preventing the city from claiming eminent domain other than it making them look like the bad guy?

LOL. That screen looks so bad now compared to the cheap and easy technology he could use to upgrade it.

Quote from: FlaBoy on June 21, 2017, 06:28:48 PM

Quote from: KenFSU on June 21, 2017, 05:01:48 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on June 21, 2017, 04:58:37 PM
Just saw the FTU's article. Let me ask everyone a question.  What's the negative in this happening?

QuoteIf he can't reach a deal with the city, Sleiman says he'll simply remodel the Landing and "run it like a shopping center."

I chuckled at this quote when I read the article the first time.

I hope he follows through on his threat.

What has he been doing for the past 15 years?

I know memories are short and we don't always hear what has happened behind the scenes.

Remember the Fuddrucker's deal? Toney tried to get COJ to execute on their obligation to provide so many parking spaces to support the lease. COJ offered him parking so far away it was meaningless to the tenant and they walked away.

Tenants are asking Toney for easy in/easy out parking around the Landing to make the biz viable. Under the terms of the lease, COJ is on the hook to provide them.

So if COJ won't provide the required parking, Toney then wants to redevelop it.  Problem here is he can't, because he doesn't own the land.

So he feels trapped, unable to get decent leases due to parking, unable to redevelop it, all because COJ isn't cooperating.

We don't know what COJ offered to settle the affair and there are moving parts behind the scenes,

^Both sides deserve a fair share of blame for where we now are. The city let Sleiman down on parking. Sleiman tried to screw the city out of $4.3 million for the east lot, plus property taxes, eight years after he bought it and started collecting parking fees on it. Alvin Brown probably promised a $12.1 million check to Sleiman that the city couldn't cash, and Toney ruined the goodwill and excitement behind a redesign by delivering a design hostile to the general public. And there's been very little give-and-take by either side.

Upon further thought, the worst thing that could happen is for the city to try to forcibly take the Landing back from Sleiman. For multiple reasons, particuarly their poor track record with such ventures and the years of costly litigation that would likely result from such action.

If I'm Curry, I make Sleiman put his money where his mouth is. I offer to sell him the land under the Landing contingent upon a redevelopment plan that the city (Council, DIA, DDRB) has to sign off on. Let Sleiman present his best redevelopment plan, vet it to make sure it's in the public's best interest, give him X amount of time to complete it, and sell him the land. 

I doubt the city sells the land,

QuoteI also don't trust the city to manage or develop the Landing, when they couldn't even handle a restaurant.

The city will not manage it, they will find someone else, wink, wink, wink who has done a good job with managing projects in Jacksonville who has a great entertainment company and knows how to drive more revenue. They also have big A$$ video screens.

City is in the business to collect and levy taxes and provide services to the citizens. They are not restaurant managers.

Right now, I'm leaning toward Sleiman remodeling, signing long term leases and running it like a shopping center.  I'm totally fine seeing what the actual market is for the Landing and using tax dollars to address more pressing needs in the area.  People can call them strip mall kings but their strip malls have tenants.  At this point, that's a much better track record in the retail sector than anything the city has done in the past with redevelopment sites.

Quote from: jaxjaguar on June 21, 2017, 06:45:24 PM
Sleazeman has been a laughable owner. Aside from the screen for the Super Bowl in the courtyard and swapping / loss of tenants, I can't think of any upgrades that have been made to the building since the mid 90's....

What's preventing the city from claiming eminent domain other than it making them look like the bad guy?

Would you move forward with a $100 million renovation if you didn't own the land or have the promised parking to allow it?  He's already provided redevelopment plans at least 3-4 times.

This is a quagmire on both sides.

Eminent domain probably wouldn't work either.  Sleiman would have tenants sign a long term contract and the city would have to honor or pay those out (no major redevelopment or very expensive) and it would be tough for the city to prove it is for the the public good (especially given they don't have any redevelopment plans at all) and Sleiman would certainly appeal it anyway.  Further, ED usually works against the poor, not the rich.  He has the money to fight it, unlike the former citizens of LaVilla back in the 90's.

Quote from: mtraininjax on June 22, 2017, 08:38:05 AM

QuoteI also don't trust the city to manage or develop the Landing, when they couldn't even handle a restaurant.

The city will not manage it, they will find someone else, wink, wink, wink who has done a good job with managing projects in Jacksonville who has a great entertainment company and knows how to drive more revenue. They also have big A$$ video screens.

City is in the business to collect and levy taxes and provide services to the citizens. They are not restaurant managers.

The only problem with this scenario is that the Landing is in direct competition with the 70 acres of riverfront property that the Jaguars are currently in negotiation with the city to develop. Unlike Dan Gilbert, who I think Khan has been inaccurately compared with, Khan seems to be primarily targeting the "front door of the stadium," as he has referred to the riverfront near the stadium. I'm not sure he'd even be interested in managing a property a mile and a half west of the stadium. In time, Khan may become our city's equivalent of Dan Gilbert, but man, Gilbert is on a whole different level. Man's bought close to a 100 buildings in downtown Detroit, totaling over $2 billion.

Gilbert and Khan are night and day.  Gilbert is from Detroit and has taken a personal interest in using his influence and power as a catalyst for that city's revitalization.  I wouldn't compare Khan's potential impact on Jax in any form close to Gilbert's, until Khan does something like relocating Flex-N-Gate's corporate headquarters to downtown Jax.  That's basically what Gilbert did with Quicken Loans, thus bringing thousands (+14,000 workers to DT Detroit) and creating a market for additional development that wasn't present prior to that decision.  On the other hand, Gilbert is about to accidently make downtown Cleveland take an economic hit by running Lebron off in 2018.

Quote from: mtraininjax on June 22, 2017, 08:38:05 AM

QuoteI also don't trust the city to manage or develop the Landing, when they couldn't even handle a restaurant.

The city will not manage it, they will find someone else, wink, wink, wink who has done a good job with managing projects in Jacksonville who has a great entertainment company and knows how to drive more revenue. They also have big A$$ video screens.

City is in the business to collect and levy taxes and provide services to the citizens. They are not restaurant managers.

I believe Peter Rummell has been more involved with what is happening at The Landing than the person you are referring to.

Quote from: thelakelander on June 22, 2017, 11:12:24 AM
On the other hand, Gilbert is about to accidently make downtown Cleveland take an economic hit by running Lebron off in 2018.

To me, the D'Angelo Russell trade and Paul George stuff clearly signals Lebron to the Lakers at the end of next season.

I wonder if he intentionally tanks in the postseason like he did the last time he left Cleveland.

Gilbert's kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place. It took a $115 million dollar payroll, a $54 million luxury tax, and a $40 million loss on the season for the Cavs to win a title. Not sure if I want to spend that, plus Jimmy Butler's salary, plus salary cap increases, to lose to Golden State every year in the finals, at best (Boston's coming up fast). Could conceivably be a quarter billion loss over the next five years to keep this core together and bring in all the additional firepower that James wants.

Quote from: thelakelander on June 22, 2017, 11:12:24 AM
Gilbert and Khan are night and day.  Gilbert is from Detroit and has taken a personal interest in using his influence and power as a catalyst for that city's revitalization.  I wouldn't compare Khan's potential impact on Jax in any form close to Gilbert's, until Khan does something like relocating Flex-N-Gate's corporate headquarters to downtown Jax.  That's basically what Gilbert did with Quicken Loans, thus bringing thousands (+14,000 workers to DT Detroit) and creating a market for additional development that wasn't present prior to that decision.  On the other hand, Gilbert is about to accidently make downtown Cleveland take an economic hit by running Lebron off in 2018.

With Illinois falling apart under the stress of financial ruin, and literally having no other ways to raise revenues, maybe except additional taxes on corporations, now may be the time to see if Khan would like to move his corporate HQ to Jax or Naples lol.

Quote from: FlaBoy on June 22, 2017, 12:00:15 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on June 22, 2017, 11:12:24 AM
Gilbert and Khan are night and day.  Gilbert is from Detroit and has taken a personal interest in using his influence and power as a catalyst for that city's revitalization.  I wouldn't compare Khan's potential impact on Jax in any form close to Gilbert's, until Khan does something like relocating Flex-N-Gate's corporate headquarters to downtown Jax.  That's basically what Gilbert did with Quicken Loans, thus bringing thousands (+14,000 workers to DT Detroit) and creating a market for additional development that wasn't present prior to that decision.  On the other hand, Gilbert is about to accidently make downtown Cleveland take an economic hit by running Lebron off in 2018.

With Illinois falling apart under the stress of financial ruin, and literally having no other ways to raise revenues, maybe except additional taxes on corporations, now may be the time to see if Khan would like to move his corporate HQ to Jax or Naples lol.

This is a great idea; then we could get him to pay for dredging the St. Johns River so he can ship those bumpers all over the world from JaxPort   ::) ::)

Illinois is in some seriously bad shape. If there was ever a time to move the HQ, maybe not the skilled workforce in Champagne, but the HQ for tax purposes, it may be now.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/could-illinois-be-the-first-state-to-file-for-bankruptcy/

QuoteA financial crunch is spiraling into a serious problem for Illinois lawmakers, prompting some observers to wonder if the state might make history by becoming the first to go bankrupt. At the moment, it's impossible for a state to file for bankruptcy protection, which is only afforded to counties and municipalities like Detroit.

Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection could be extended to states if Congress took up the issue, although Stanford Law School professor Michael McConnell noted in an article last year that he believed the precedents are iffy for extending the option to states. Nevertheless, Illinois is in a serious financial pickle, which is why radical options such as bankruptcy are being floated as potential solutions.

Ratings agency Moody's Investor Service earlier this month downgraded Illinois' general obligation bonds to its lowest investment grade rating, citing the state's growing pile of unpaid bills and its mounting pension deficit. Illinois, by the way, has the lowest credit rating of any state. Lower ratings mean higher borrowing costs, since lenders view such borrowers as riskier bets.

Glad to be a Floridian.  8)

Truly odd editorial by the Times-Union board blaming Sleiman for all of the Landing's woes and calling for him to effectively do the right thing and give up the property. They also mention demoing the whole thing, figuring its use out later, and maybe turning it into a park. They also include Curry's tweets about the city owning the Landing without correction or qualification. Really, really strange stance for a newspaper to take, and no t a great look after a secretive closed-door meeting with Curry about the issue a few days ago.

http://jacksonville.com/opinion/editorials/2017-06-22/editorial-it-s-time-sleiman-take-buyout-and-bow-out-landing

I'm all for parks but in that location?? And why is this city obsessed with parks and parking garages is beyond me. 

^With amenities like "shade" and "misters"!

Where's Peyton with his hot dog cart when you need him.

I also take issue with the article's broad, sweeping generalizations about how most residents want to see it torn down and replaced (no poll necessary), and how embarrassed we are as a city by the Landing. Huge difference between underperforming relative your potential and being an active embarrassment to the city.

Quote from: KenFSU on June 22, 2017, 06:53:53 PM
Truly odd editorial by the Times-Union board blaming Sleiman for all of the Landing's woes and calling for him to effectively do the right thing and give up the property. They also mention demoing the whole thing, figuring its use out later, and maybe turning it into a park. They also include Curry's tweets about the city owning the Landing without correction or qualification. Really, really strange stance for a newspaper to take, and no t a great look after a secretive closed-door meeting with Curry about the issue a few days ago.

http://jacksonville.com/opinion/editorials/2017-06-22/editorial-it-s-time-sleiman-take-buyout-and-bow-out-landing

Interesting perspective. Anyway, for those who may not know, I've agreed to provide occasional editorial content, concerning DT, for the TU and my first submittal is due next week.  The Landing situation will be my topic.  I'm one of those downtown advocates who believes the structure can be argued as being a unique and iconic element within the Northbank skyline.  I also believe the city's track record at managing anything downtown related is about as bad as it can be and certainly just as risky as Sleiman's desire to rip the place down and start over with massive public incentives. Let's just say, my perspective will be quite different from Curry's, Sleiman's and the TU's editorial board.

^Looking forward to it, Ennis!

Another thing that I found interesting in the T-U editorial was their characterization of Sleiman's proposed 2014 redesign as "...urban redevelopment abuse. [The Landing] is one piece of Downtown property that should be considered the people's land."

Funny, they sang it's praises in 2014, calling it just what downtown needed.

http://jacksonville.com/opinion/editorials/2014-08-28/story/change-needed-jacksonville-landing

Just so weird to me that they've so clearly taken Curry's side, accusing Sleiman of "slapping the mayor in the face" when Curry is engaged in the same pissing match as Sleiman.

From my perspective, it's sort of a weird Jacksonville thing.  I truly believe if the Landing were owned by anyone other than Sleiman, the city would have burned millions on its redevelopment years ago.

Probably would have been done before the 2005 SB, its a shame they cant work this out, the Landing is a prime piece of real-estate and its almost like an icon for the city. I have brought many out of town visitors there and they love it and wonder why more people are not there.

Quote from: Keith-N-Jax on June 22, 2017, 07:36:31 PM
Probably would have been done before the 2005 SB, its a shame they cant work this out, the Landing is a prime piece of real-estate and its almost like an icon for the city. I have brought many out of town visitors there and they love it and wonder why more people are not there.

Because no one has any interest in the Landing except to give out of towners the requisite northbank riverwalk.

They would prefer to go to SJTC to eat rather than pay to park and choose Hooters.

The Landing needs more urban residential around it for sustainable retail to take hold.

As it stands today, you could rip out the guts, leave the beams and roof in place and make it a semi covered park and its appeal would be the same. Where people take out of towners to walk the northbank.

Wow. Could that editorial be any more one-sided? Totally ignores the multiple times the city has dropped the ball on this property. Furthermore, it totally ignores the city's abysmal record on DT redevelopment generally.

Clearly Curry and some other private party have designs on the Landing. The T-U is all too willing to do their bidding too. Sleiman better lawyer up, although he probably doesn't need me to tell him that.

I'm not sure what angle they will use to try to screw him out of the building, probably something about not adhering to his lease somehow. This clearly isn't just a political pissing contest, but a war about to break out. I realize Sleiman isn't the most popular guy in town but juries often don't look kindly on a city trying to muscle a citizen out of their rightful property.   

Quote from: acme54321 on June 21, 2017, 07:19:26 PM
Other than the pension thing being less than optimal Curry has really surprised me.  The guy is actually making things happen  unlike the other recent administeations. I like it.

that makes one of us

Speaking of weird, why is the Gilbert comparison slammed? It was a damn good and rather obvious comparison. The discussion wasn't about Detroit, it was about an owner of a major sports franchise in CLEVELAND and what it (and he) has meant for Cleveland.

It was a good and proper point unless you're working really hard not to grasp it.

And Ennis, you seem to have a blind spot on this question. Your points seem to center on the city not being the best operator of things downtown: "I also believe the city's track record at managing anything downtown related is about as bad as it can be" is what you wrote.

Um, hello? You do realize it's a new day and the city has partnered extremely well in the proper way down in the sports and entertainment district -- hasn't it? So what does that backward looking point mean in the light of today ? ? ?

I don't care if it's Rummel, Shad, or some other operation or developer -- charge hard, Mayor Curry.

QuoteUm, hello? You do realize it's a new day and the city has partnered extremely well in the proper way down in the sports and entertainment district -- hasn't it? So what does that backward looking point mean in the light of today ? ? ?

I hope Curry is successful getting DT JAX off the dime, but he has barely started. It will take some sustained success on multiple projects to turn the city's reputation around after decades of Landing fiascoes (this may be a new one), Harbormasters, LaVilla Seafood, more lives than a cat Laura Trio plans, Tri-Legacy boondoggle, etc.   

Can't we call just get along?  I for one, believe, the best use is a public park and I hope those with some clout advocate for that.  By the time this thing sorts itself out, there will be retail/restaurant space etc in another part of downtown (i.e. shipyards).

I know it won't be easy, but the city has surplus property, so try to trade Sleiman some city property of comparable value (comparable in dollars) to do what he pleases.  Unfortunately, the property on which the landing sits is priceless and Sleiman knows that, so I think he will hang on.

Quote from: Papa33 on June 23, 2017, 08:55:02 AM
Can't we call just get along?  I for one, believe, the best use is a public park and I hope those with some clout advocate for that.  By the time this thing sorts itself out, there will be retail/restaurant space etc in another part of downtown (i.e. shipyards).

I know it won't be easy, but the city has surplus property, so try to trade Sleiman some city property of comparable value (comparable in dollars) to do what he pleases.  Unfortunately, the property on which the landing sits is priceless and Sleiman knows that, so I think he will hang on.

A park is a bad option.  We have one directly across the river that we cannot properly maintain.  How can we expect the city to maintain 2 major parks directly across from each other?


And if the T-U wants to be a mouth piece for the mayor they should at least have the guts to admit it.

Quote from: Jim on June 23, 2017, 09:43:25 AM

Quote from: Papa33 on June 23, 2017, 08:55:02 AM
Can't we call just get along?  I for one, believe, the best use is a public park and I hope those with some clout advocate for that.  By the time this thing sorts itself out, there will be retail/restaurant space etc in another part of downtown (i.e. shipyards).

I know it won't be easy, but the city has surplus property, so try to trade Sleiman some city property of comparable value (comparable in dollars) to do what he pleases.  Unfortunately, the property on which the landing sits is priceless and Sleiman knows that, so I think he will hang on.

A park is a bad option.  We have one directly across the river that we cannot properly maintain.  How can we expect the city to maintain 2 major parks directly across from each other?


And if the T-U wants to be a mouth piece for the mayor they should at least have the guts to admit it.

You never see two parks on a river or body of water in any city... ;D...that would be unheard of...except it is the norm lol.

Sleiman responded with a letter to the TU:

http://jacksonville.com/opinion/letters-readers/2017-06-22/friday-lead-letter-politics-has-prevented-redevelopment

In order to be successful, a park would have to be activated by what borders it, and by what is actually in it. Right now, there is nothing surrounding it except office buildings. Obviously that provides very limited activation.

Those office buildings aren't going anywhere, so whatever is actually in the park itself would have to be the solitary 'draw' and would have to do so pretty much 24/7.  That is very difficult to do.  There is no reason to think that it would be any more active that the Friendship Fountain, which is to say not very.   

Quote from: Papa33 on June 23, 2017, 08:55:02 AM
Can't we call just get along?  I for one, believe, the best use is a public park and I hope those with some clout advocate for that.  By the time this thing sorts itself out, there will be retail/restaurant space etc in another part of downtown (i.e. shipyards).

I think people underestimate just how far the Shipyards property is from the central business district. For downtown residents and workers in the CBD (Carlling, 11E, FSCJ, Laura Street Trio, etc), it's a legitimate 25-minute walk to the parcel of land designated for retail and restaurant in Khan's Shipyards plan. It'd be a half-mile shorter to walk to Brooklyn.

(https://snag.gy/SaB9kY.jpg)

There is no universe where a public park makes sense for the Landing property. I mean, zero. Four blocks to the north of the Landing, you have Hemming Park, one of the most strategically important spaces in the city. And nine blocks to the east is the proposed site of the new riverfront Veterans Park that will be built as part of the Shipyards project.

Clearly the Times-Union knows that a new riverfront park is coming nearby, it makes zero sense to suggest a park at the Landing as well. Unless (cue conspiracy theory) Curry has a plan up his sleeve to put the Landing back in city control, change the terms of the Met Park land swap from the Shipyards to the Landing, and let Khan develop all of the Shipyards without the requirement for X acres of greenspace. But again, even that makes no sense, as it's much more cost-effective in terms of remediation costs to put the park in that area rather than a clean area.

Finally, I'd argue that the existing Landing courtyard is the most successful "park" in downtown Jacksonville in terms of being a civic gathering spot. The structures are run-down, but it's an important, successful civic space in terms of things like Florida-Georgia weekend, the Christmas Tree lighting, the boat parade, 4th of July, New Year's Eve, presidential speeches, etc.

Quote from: FlaBoy on June 23, 2017, 09:50:31 AM

Quote from: Jim on June 23, 2017, 09:43:25 AM

Quote from: Papa33 on June 23, 2017, 08:55:02 AM
Can't we call just get along?  I for one, believe, the best use is a public park and I hope those with some clout advocate for that.  By the time this thing sorts itself out, there will be retail/restaurant space etc in another part of downtown (i.e. shipyards).

I know it won't be easy, but the city has surplus property, so try to trade Sleiman some city property of comparable value (comparable in dollars) to do what he pleases.  Unfortunately, the property on which the landing sits is priceless and Sleiman knows that, so I think he will hang on.

A park is a bad option.  We have one directly across the river that we cannot properly maintain.  How can we expect the city to maintain 2 major parks directly across from each other?


And if the T-U wants to be a mouth piece for the mayor they should at least have the guts to admit it.

You never see two parks on a river or body of water in any city... ;D...that would be unheard of...except it is the norm lol.

Sleiman responded with a letter to the TU:

http://jacksonville.com/opinion/letters-readers/2017-06-22/friday-lead-letter-politics-has-prevented-redevelopment

I never said it wasn't common.  I'm saying we can't even properly maintain the one we have and we're supposed to somehow manage 2 of them?

And let's not forget that a park there would be a major tax drain on top of the lax losses from removing the current Landing tax revenue.  All around just a bad idea.

Quote from: KenFSU on June 22, 2017, 06:53:53 PM
Truly odd editorial by the Times-Union board blaming Sleiman for all of the Landing's woes and calling for him to effectively do the right thing and give up the property. They also mention demoing the whole thing, figuring its use out later, and maybe turning it into a park. They also include Curry's tweets about the city owning the Landing without correction or qualification. Really, really strange stance for a newspaper to take, and no t a great look after a secretive closed-door meeting with Curry about the issue a few days ago.

http://jacksonville.com/opinion/editorials/2017-06-22/editorial-it-s-time-sleiman-take-buyout-and-bow-out-landing

Some observations about this editorial. First, there are very many fair criticisms to make about the way Sleiman has run the Landing, but the editorial focuses mainly on Sleiman's statement that "We must either undertake a complete redevelopment of the property or enter into new long-term leases of the current facilities to maintain the Landing's economic viability". Of everything Sleiman has said, this is about the most innocuous - if we don't redevelop it, leases should be signed.

Second, they are arguing for tearing down the Landing completely and replacing it with something else. That isn't necessarily a bad idea, but that's exactly what Sleiman has been proposing. I also don't see what so bad about residential units being in the mix- unlike mall space, there's actually a demand for that.

The real problem with Sleiman's plans is that is that all of his proposals have been very underwhelming designs at massive cost to the public, and he's made it clear he'll continue doing as little as possible with the property otherwise. They do touch on this, but don't get into it in depth, and that's the real conversation to have.

All that said, it's nice to see the local paper put forward so strong a stance on downtown issues. That's definitely a refreshing change of pace, so it's understandable there'd be some kinks to work out in their thinking. First comes the interest, then the education.

Count me as someone who believes it does not make sense to turn the Landing into a park.  Instead, turn the block of Hogan Street, between the river, Water Street, the Landing and performing arts center into an interactive park. 

(http://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Neighborhoods/Northbank-Riverwalk/i-vrZBCpC/0/L/DSCF2160-L.jpg)

Vibrancy isn't achieved by continuing to demolish and replace what we have, or spreading things further than what they already are.  You get vibrancy through the infilling of existing underutilized spaces, which also enhances existing destinations adjacent to them.  The empty streets and parking lots along the riverfront are what we should be targeting.

(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Baltimore-April-2016/i-bDSBCVS/0/1a6572ab/L/DSCF9711-L.jpg)

^In Baltimore, they didn't tear down Harborplace when it got old.  The tenant mix was revamped and underutilized spaces adjacent to it were upgraded.  In this case, a park with a visitor's center.  You can see the roof of Harborplace in the background.

Quote from: KenFSU on June 23, 2017, 10:40:37 AM
Finally, I'd argue that the existing Landing courtyard is the most successful "park" in downtown Jacksonville in terms of being a civic gathering spot. The structures are run-down, but it's an important, successful civic space in terms of things like Florida-Georgia weekend, the Christmas Tree lighting, the boat parade, 4th of July, New Year's Eve, presidential speeches, etc.

If it's true that the city owns the land and Sleiman owns the buildings, what's stopping the city from cleaning up and enhancing the outdoor areas, including the courtyard? Why not...

A. Call Sleiman's bluff to revamp the structures/sign long term leases and manage it like a shopping center

B. COJ invest in sprucing up the exterior public spaces surrounding the structures that it already owns

C. Take all that public money possibly being wasted on full redevelopment and using it to address a variety of other downtown issues

Quote from: thelakelander on June 23, 2017, 11:18:14 AM
Count me as someone who believes it does not make sense to turn the Landing into a park.  Instead, turn the block of Hogan Street, between the river, Water Street, the Landing and performing arts center into an interactive park. 

(http://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Neighborhoods/Northbank-Riverwalk/i-vrZBCpC/0/L/DSCF2160-L.jpg)

Vibrancy isn't achieved by continuing to demolish and replace what we have, or spreading things further than what they already are.  You get vibrancy through the infilling of existing underutilized spaces, which also enhances existing destinations adjacent to them.  The empty streets and parking lots along the riverfront are what we should be targeting.

(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Baltimore-April-2016/i-bDSBCVS/0/1a6572ab/L/DSCF9711-L.jpg)

^In Baltimore, they didn't tear down Harborplace when it got old.  The tenant mix was revamped and underutilized spaces adjacent to it were upgraded.  In this case, a park with a visitor's center.  You can see the roof of Harborplace in the background.

Great idea with turning South Hogan into a park.

^I can't take credit for it. We've studied the Landing and its surroundings for decades.  This idea dates back at least a decade. There's even a sketch of it on this site somewhere. The last thing we need is another round of visioning for this property.

If you guys on here can come up with these ideas, then why cant the city? We've been fighting this battle wayyyyy to long, its time to get this done on focus on other areas that need attention in the DT core and surrounding areas.

Quote from: thelakelander on June 23, 2017, 11:47:24 AM
C. Take all that public money possibly being wasted on full redevelopment and using it to address a variety of other downtown issues

Imagine $50 million being used to incentivize residential redevelopment in the core...and the resulting property tax revenue the city would gain from it.

If another 2000 people lived downtown, the prospects of a redeveloped landing would be much brighter.

^Exactly!

Quote from: Keith-N-Jax on June 23, 2017, 01:58:12 PM
If you guys on here can come up with these ideas, then why cant the city? We've been fighting this battle wayyyyy to long, its time to get this done on focus on other areas that need attention in the DT core and surrounding areas.

Because the Landing situation has more to do with local politics and bad blood with the owner.

5PTS VILLAGE

What a squandered opportunity done in poor taste.  Shows quite clearly Sleiman cannot be trusted to produce a product worthy of the landings real estate.

The landing is an embarrassment.  At the end of the day that's on Sleiman.  He needs to go.  Literally anything, ANYTHING, would be better.  Even if the city actually developed and managed something themselves, it literally cannot be worse.

Sleiman needs to go.  the design sucks.  activation and planning jargon needn't ever enter the picture.  its common sense

Lake your article should be "what the TU editorial said"   Don't use such a platform to lend an ounce of support to Sleiman.  Hes been inviting this for years.  Good for Curry

Quote from: jlmann on June 23, 2017, 02:58:00 PM
5PTS VILLAGE

To be fair, I'm pretty sure that's the other Sleiman brother and they don't do business or talk to each other so can't put that one on Toney.

Quote from: jlmann on June 23, 2017, 02:58:00 PM
5PTS VILLAGE

What a squandered opportunity done in poor taste.  Shows quite clearly Sleiman cannot be trusted to produce a product worthy of the landings real estate.

The landing is an embarrassment.  At the end of the day that's on Sleiman.  He needs to go.  Literally anything, ANYTHING, would be better.  Even if the city actually developed and managed something themselves, it literally cannot be worse.

Sleiman needs to go.  the design sucks.  activation and planning jargon needn't ever enter the picture.  its common sense

Lake your article should be "what the TU editorial said"   Don't use such a platform to lend an ounce of support to Sleiman.  Hes been inviting this for years.  Good for Curry

If you think the city couldn't do it worse, I invite you to dine at the LaVilla Seafood Restaurant.  Be warned, you'll leave there just as hungry as you came.  While you are in that neck of the woods, take a peek at the Brewster Hospital and realize that it took what 15 years to get something done with that building, and it still isn't actually occupied.

Drive over to the Duval Courthouse and recall the 'design competition' that produced four plans, none of which was actually built. Remember also the the tens of millions in cost overruns.   

If doing this project is common sense, then the city has shown multiple times that it has none.

Of course, maybe I am misunderstanding and you were actually referring to the City of Jacksonville, NC.  In which case, maybe they could do better.     

Quote
If you think the city couldn't do it worse, I invite you to dine at the LaVilla Seafood Restaurant.  Be warned, you'll leave there just as hungry as you came.  While you are in that neck of the woods, take a peek at the Brewster Hospital and realize that it took what 15 years to get something done with that building, and it still isn't actually occupied.

Drive over to the Duval Courthouse and recall the 'design competition' that produced four plans, none of which was actually built. Remember also the the tens of millions in cost overruns.   

If doing this project is common sense, then the city has shown multiple times that it has none.

Of course, maybe I am misunderstanding and you were actually referring to the City of Jacksonville, NC.  In which case, maybe they could do better

.     

well you should obviously drop by the landing, but you missed the point entirely

fair point by other poster- didn't realize that was his brother, but it certainly looks like a toney sleiman special straight off of ______ Blvd.

JLmann, would you put tens of millions of dollar into a development if you didn't own the land itself?    Would you design a project that requires 600 parking spaces when the city has only provided you 300? 

nope I wouldnt.  another reason sleiman needs to go cuz he isn't either.  making a deal with him was stupid to begin with.

on what occasion besides FL/GA has there ever been more than 300 spaces needed?  the city shoulve upheld their obligation I suppose but parking has never, ever been hard to find at the landing since 2005.  because of the product provided by sleiman

I was sort of joking about the city not being able to do worse.  however my point was that literally any other private party would be an improvement and a party the city you work with.  sleiman is not such an individual and I hope they muscle him out.

no personal vendetta against the guy other than him taking a knee on the landing for how many years now?  if 300 people with cars show up this weekend id be surprised

I understand why many people don't trust Sleiman, but you guys are being totally biased if you're blaming the Landing's current condition on Sleiman 100%. It had gone down the tubes well before Sleiman took over. Why would Rouse sell something that cost them $40 million to build, for only $5 million? What happened to their partnership with the city, that would make them cut bait and get out of town as fast as possible?

How can I like viscupsate post? Anyway as far as DT failure look only to COJ/JTA and there's your answer to why we have let other peer cities the same size surge ahead of us. Put the Landing and other large vacant lands in similar cities and watch them take off.

not 100%, no

but sleiman is the operator.  hes been sitting around for 5yrs+ bitching about parking.  he doesn't need 600 spots or a handout to do his part.  coj is an easy scapegoat but seems pretty clear he overpaid/made a bad investment and has almost been rooting for failure so he can squeeze more money out of coj by holding the landing hostage and trying to weasel out of bad ancillary purchases like a parking lot due to coj not filing docs correctly in the meantime

I'm not sure hes earned the benefit of the doubt with past projects or the landing

^^^ yeah but you seem to think its Sleiman fault non-the-less and how do you know he doesn't need 600 parking spaces?

Rouse thought they needed the dedicated parking COJ agreed to provide them with. Having professional experience designing retail properties myself, I'm more inclined to believe retail developer's position on the value of dedicated parking than those with limited to no experience in that particular industry.

Quote from: thelakelander on June 23, 2017, 03:39:34 PM
I understand why many people don't trust Sleiman, but you guys are being totally biased if you're blaming the Landing's current condition on Sleiman 100%. It had gone down the tubes well before Sleiman took over. Why would Rouse sell something that cost them $40 million to build, for only $5 million? What happened to their partnership with the city, that would make them cut bait and get out of town as fast as possible?

Rouse $40 million minus COJ $20 million over 13 years with 50% of the original tenants at sale.  Thats $8.6 million in accumulated depreciation.  $11 million book value plus the PV of the current leases minus the $5 million Sleiman paid for the building.

Armchair math says Rouse lost around $4-5 million in exiting the locale.

Why would they select leaving at a loss vs staying to make a profit?

Quote from: thelakelander on June 23, 2017, 09:52:41 PM
Why would they select leaving at a loss vs staying to make a profit?

Because Rouse had the same problem Toney had. The inability to retain quality leases. Other issues made retention harder, but they could see the trend in their portfolio.

Quote from: thelakelander on June 23, 2017, 09:52:41 PM
Why would they select leaving at a loss vs staying to make a profit?

I would imagine to mitigate future losses. At the time of the sale, Rouse had lost money on the Landing every single year for over a decade. In the year before they sold to Sleiman, they lost $563,000. There was no indication that things were going to improve.

Parking was one factor, but it's also worth noting that Rouse was increasingly concerned about the viability of a Festival Marketplace in Jacksonville even if there was ample parking. Rouse built the Landing partially on speculation that downtown Jacksonville would experience a boom in convention business and hotel space during the 80s and 90s. This never ended up happening. On average, Rouse's successful festival markets saw 70% of their revenue comes from out of town visitors. The Landing hovered near 30%. Without a strong residential base to make up the difference, the writing was on the wall.

No reason to throw good money after bad in Rouse's case.

In short terms DT Jacksonville sucks and has for quite sometime which falls on the leaders of the city. There's some momentum going on right now through out all sections but this city has lacked leadership for the last 20 years plus.

Interesting read from 2002. 15 years later and we're still debating stuff that led to Rouse getting out of here.   

QuoteThe Landing may be up for sale
Rouse property still losing money
Jul 29, 2002, 12:00am

"It is not an acceptable return on our investment as it stands today," said Paul Fickinger, vice president and group director of operating properties for Columbia, Md.-based The Rouse Co.

Rouse officials declined to release earnings information, but reports to the city show the Landing loses cash.

Rouse reported a loss of $569,197 last year. It has been losing money on the property since at least 1992.

The numbers help give rise to speculation Rouse soon may try to sell the Landing.

So basically, this thing was a loser from the start.

QuoteRouse's highest performing festival malls typically are in strong tourism markets, including Miami, New Orleans, New York City and Boston, Kiddy said.

"You're either going to have to pull in the tourism and convention business or reinvent what the Landing was originally intended to be," Fickinger said.

So they made a bet on the downtown Jacksonville tourism and convention business and failed well before Sleiman rode into downtown.

QuoteFestival malls similar to the Landing, including Rouse's Bayside Marketplace in Miami and the Riverwalk in New Orleans, generate 70 percent of revenues from out-of-market shoppers, namely tourists and convention attendees.

Rouse executives expected similar results at the Landing. But out-of-towners generate 30 percent of the Landing's revenues.

"The project was designed as a festival marketplace, which demands a huge level of tourism traffic," Fickinger said. "[Jacksonville's] tourism and business travel has never been high enough to generate the type of sales this project would require."

At the time of the Landing's 1987 opening, the Prime Osborn Convention Center was open two years and, at 78,500 square feet, was ahead of competitors in convention business. Today, the facility lags behind competitors in size and bookings. Several major shows, including the Cheerleaders of America, which filled 5,500 room nights in 2000, have outgrown the center and headed for markets with bigger facilities.

"It was everybody's understanding Jacksonville was a city on the grow and there would be numerous Class A hotels built Downtown through the late 1980s and 1990s," Fickinger said.

Sounds like the Rouse expectation was the clustering, complementing uses (in this case...hotels) with a compact setting (adjacent to the Landing), to generate tourism oriented pedestrian traffic to support the Landing's retailers. Not attracting suburbanites to downtown. Needless to say, this did not happen in Jacksonville.

QuoteThe Landing also may be losing potential customers to a frustrating parking issue. The city originally agreed to build and maintain an 800-space, short-term parking garage before the Landing's opening.

Instead, the city struck a deal to allow Landing tenants and customers to park in the Daniels Building garage. Adam's Mark took control of it when it opened last year, and Rouse's privileges expire next year.

The city is negotiating with Humana to allow Landing use of 300 weekday and 375 weekend parking spots in its proposed 1,000-space parking garage to front Hogan and Bay streets. But the project is hung up in discussions with JEA concerning underground utilities.

Meanwhile, last year Jacksonville waived Rouse's $100,000 a year lease payments until builders complete the garage or the city fulfills its obligation to provide parking in another way.

Hmm, so Sleiman isn't totally off his rocker?  Rouse (a national retail developer at the time) was frustrated over the parking situation as well. 

Full article: http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/stories/2002/07/29/story1.html

For me, it just solidifies my opinion that the Landing's condition is less about picking sides between Sleiman's and COJ's redevelopment dreams or the structure itself and more about what downtown Jacksonville can and can't support from a market perspective.

Basically, Rouse built a structure based on a model that wasn't sustainable then, and never became sustainable. The city dropped some other balls like parking, but Rouse also never changed strategies or planned for a renovation of the space to enable more sustainable uses. After Sleiman bought it, he has proposed renovations, but they've mostly involved razing and replacing the structure with boring buildings, and they've required massive public subsidies, so they're not any closer to happening. Sleiman also has a much more erratic relationship with the city than Rouse did; since he's owned it, with the city vacillating between opposing everything he wants, to bending over backward to please him, depending on who's in the mayor's office. Not a good environment for any change to occur.

The saddest thing is that there's no reason that things should be like this. With a much smaller renovation and a focus on the things that actually work about the structure (the courtyard and waterfront restaurants) it could be a lot more successful than it is. It's probable that you could bulk up the restaurant space, open up to Laura Street, etc. for just a few million dollars. But Sleiman will clearly never do that, and the city is unlikely to chip in unless and until we elect another mayor like Brown who's willing to break the bank for Sleiman.

Quote from: Tacachale on June 24, 2017, 01:48:54 PM
Basically, Rouse built a structure based on a model that wasn't sustainable then, and never became sustainable. The city dropped some other balls like parking, but Rouse also never changed strategies or planned for a renovation of the space to enable more sustainable uses.

Rouse was a private company in the business of making a profit. Jacksonville wasn't worth their time from that standpoint, so they cut bait like any good business looking out for their investors would.

QuoteAfter Sleiman bought it, he has proposed renovations, but they've mostly involved razing and replacing the structure with boring buildings, and they've required massive public subsidies, so they're not any closer to happening. Sleiman also has a much more erratic relationship with the city than Rouse did; since he's owned it, with the city vacillating between opposing everything he wants, to bending over backward to please him, depending on who's in the mayor's office. Not a good environment for any change to occur.

This situation is why it's hard for me to focus on Sleiman mismanging the complex.  Its future has literally been undecided since he purchased it.  It's pretty difficult for any tenant to make long term investment in the property under such conditions.  An example of this is Hooters. Despite the Landing's ills, it's still their most profitable location in the region.  However, they won't spend money to update it until some direction on if the center will be there or not is made.

QuoteThe saddest thing is that there's no reason that things should be like this. With a much smaller renovation and a focus on the things that actually work about the structure (the courtyard and waterfront restaurants) it could be a lot more successful than it is.

I agree with this.  I spent some time walking around the property this morning.  IMO, the structure is fine.  It's just dirty, outdated and in need of renovation.  However, the property is 30 years old now and has never been updated, so the condition isn't surprising.

QuoteIt's probable that you could bulk up the restaurant space, open up to Laura Street, etc. for just a few million dollars. But Sleiman will clearly never do that, and the city is unlikely to chip in unless and until we elect another mayor like Brown who's willing to break the bank for Sleiman.

If Sleiman is going to sign long-term leases and run it like a shopping center, he's going to have to renovate the structure.  No decent tenant paying a decent amount of rent is going to want to agree to a long term lease with the place staying in its existing condition.  He'd also have to change the tenant mix, so for them to be successful leasing and operating like a shopping center, they won't be following the failed festival marketplace concept either.

I could see a scenario where the place is gutted, the interior mall goes away and that space is partitioned into a lower number of big box spaces.  When you do this, you have the opportunity for retail/dining to face either the courtyard or downtown.  By killing the mall, you create a situation where it also faces and interacts with downtown, without having to demolish the structure.

Also, on the second floor, the food court would be better being restaurants with a riverfront view. That way, they'd maximize leasing revenue potential for a space that can't be generating much right now as a common seating area.  Also, instead of opening it up to Laura Street, the main entrance area facing Laura, is actually a pretty nice open area with high ceilings.  It could easily be transitioned into a small food court/food hall concept with seating spilling out into the interior courtyard and covered plaza facing downtown.

Last, the riverfront buildings are fine where they're at.  Those things could easily fill up with tenants if a decision was made that those buildings would be staying.  The one negative is the width of the riverwalk between the courtyard and Fionn Maccools.  However,  the width would not be a serious issue if the fences separating outdoor dining were removed.

This is why I say, take them up on their threat. Full redevelopment is overkill and it's not the end of the world if there's no opening between Laura and the courtyard.  A renovated and leased shopping center would be a major benefit for downtown.

Quote from: Keith-N-Jax on June 24, 2017, 01:43:47 AM
In short terms DT Jacksonville sucks and has for quite sometime which falls on the leaders of the city. There's some momentum going on right now through out all sections but this city has lacked leadership for the last 20 years plus.

Very true.  When we first visited the city in 2009, we fell in love with it, from the Beaches inward.  Downtown was beautiful to look at, but getting around as a pedestrian or cyclist was a joke and there was nothing to get around to, anyway.  We discovered that almost immediately.  It is such a beautiful setting, with the river and many cool buildings, and bridges, etc.  Unfortunately, that will only entertain you for a short time; you need a little more substance than that.  The Landing could be such a focal point of DT; sadly, it seems that it already is, but for the wrong reasons.

Didnt the new Paramore Garage absolve COJ of any further parking obligations?

Didnt Sleiman come back and want a pedestrian bridge of some kind? (And the city rebuffed)

^No, the Suntrust garage doesn't have required number of dedicated parking spaces.

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2011-09-13/story/jacksonville-landing-says-35-million-grant-parking-garage-not-enough

Okay, so I'm just spitballing here, but what if Curry made a deal with Sleiman and the Florida Times Union, to have him give/sell the Landing back to the city in exchange for the Times Union site, since they want to move out anyway.

In theory, everybody could win. Curry gets the Landing back, Sleiman gets a site he can wipe clean to build a new mall/complex/whatever, and the Union gets rid of the site they didn't want.

Remember this a year ago?

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2016-06-04/story/times-union-building-offered-sale-or-redevelopment

Maybe it's time to see if that deal is still on the table, and if so, can we make it work.

Quote from: marcuscnelson on June 24, 2017, 11:57:56 PM
Okay, so I'm just spitballing here, but what if Curry made a deal with Sleiman and the Florida Times Union, to have him give/sell the Landing back to the city in exchange for the Times Union site, since they want to move out anyway.

Maybe it's time to see if that deal is still on the table, and if so, if can we make it work.

Don't think the Times-Union bites unless Curry throws in a 2018 first round pick and Brook Lopez's expiring contract.

Welcome Marcus!

Doubt it. The Times-Union doesn't make any money in such a deal. Also, it would be more likely Sleiman received a lowball offer than anything else. There's a lot of bad blood between the parties. I can't imagine COJ trying to help Sleiman out.

Curry gets the benefit of a bully pulpit to further vilify an already shrewd character in Sleiman.  The city has consistently reneged on deals with the Landing owners regarding parking.  Sleiman actually tried to cut a deal with the city to forgive the parking in exchange for allowing him to buy the land.  City said No.

The City and its good old boys have been screwing up downtown for years and now I'm supposed to believe that Curry can fix it by taking control of the Landing?  I don't, but many Jacksonville residents seem to think so.   Just a few blocks away ithe symbol to remind us ofs the biggest mismanagement of real estate in Jacksonville history, yet we beg for City government to do something about the Landing.  We are idiots in this town. 

Quote from: thelakelander on June 25, 2017, 07:08:43 AM
Doubt it. The Times-Union doesn't make any money in such a deal. Also, it would be more likely Sleiman received a lowball offer than anything else. There's a lot of bad blood between the parties. I can't imagine COJ trying to help Sleiman out.

I see.

What about if the Times-Union sold their site to the city at market price, and the city swapped the site with Sleiman in exchange for full control over the Landing? That way the TU gets their money and the property off their books, Sleiman gets a new site to do whatever he wants, and the city gets the Landing back.

Although it seems that ego is coming to turn out as a big part of this whole issue, and that's not something easy to resolve.

Quote from: KenFSU on June 25, 2017, 12:32:54 AM

Quote from: marcuscnelson on June 24, 2017, 11:57:56 PM
Okay, so I'm just spitballing here, but what if Curry made a deal with Sleiman and the Florida Times Union, to have him give/sell the Landing back to the city in exchange for the Times Union site, since they want to move out anyway.

Maybe it's time to see if that deal is still on the table, and if so, if can we make it work.

Don't think the Times-Union bites unless Curry throws in a 2018 first round pick and Brook Lopez's expiring contract.

Welcome Marcus!

Thanks! Great to be here. I've been a long time lurker here, and I think it's time to contribute a little.

Quote from: marcuscnelson on June 25, 2017, 09:47:34 AM

Quote from: thelakelander on June 25, 2017, 07:08:43 AM
Doubt it. The Times-Union doesn't make any money in such a deal. Also, it would be more likely Sleiman received a lowball offer than anything else. There's a lot of bad blood between the parties. I can't imagine COJ trying to help Sleiman out.

I see.

What about if the Times-Union sold their site to the city at market price, and the city swapped the site with Sleiman in exchange for full control over the Landing? That way the TU gets their money and the property off their books, Sleiman gets a new site to do whatever he wants, and the city gets the Landing back.

Although it seems that ego is coming to turn out as a big part of this whole issue, and that's not something easy to resolve.

Judging from the strong words coming from both camps, I doubt COJ wants to deal with Sleiman on any riverfront site in the downtown core. So, I can't imagine them wanting him on the Times Union site either.  If the politics and bad feelings could be put aside, it wouldn't be that difficult to revamp the Landing.

So basically we are at a stalemate with a prime location of the DT core stalled until someone's jock strap loosens :) 

^Or both parties could submit their disputes for binding arbitration so we can get past this silliness, but that won't happen.

It seems to me that if this is going to be (as it seems to already) a public opinion battle, I don't see how Sleiman can beat the mayor. Blaming the city is only going to get him so far, and the further the battle devolves publicly, the worse it will be for Sleiman's other business ventures going forward.

Something about the Landing has to change, I know that much. There isn't any attraction there for me. The whole building is so aged and dated. I think whatever replaces it needs to interesting from an architectural standpoint. There was a concept rendering of a redev proposal posted here a year or two ago and it was a rectangle.

QuoteAfter Sleiman bought it, he has proposed renovations, but they've mostly involved razing and replacing the structure with boring buildings, and they've required massive public subsidies, so they're not any closer to happening.

The original plans Sleiman presented did not demo the existing building but instead added several new buildings and uses. I am referring to the "It's About Time' plans. The city did not go along, so everything since then has been demolish and start over.

I personally would he eliminate  the interior mall, open up the courtyard to Laura Street and build a hotel or mixed use building to support the Landing either were the Hogan St. cul de sac is or where the Main St. bridge on ramp is., or perhaps both.   

Quote from: thelakelander on June 24, 2017, 10:33:41 AM
Interesting read from 2002. 15 years later and we're still debating stuff that led to Rouse getting out of here.   

QuoteThe Landing may be up for sale
Rouse property still losing money
Jul 29, 2002, 12:00am

"It is not an acceptable return on our investment as it stands today," said Paul Fickinger, vice president and group director of operating properties for Columbia, Md.-based The Rouse Co.

Rouse officials declined to release earnings information, but reports to the city show the Landing loses cash.

Rouse reported a loss of $569,197 last year. It has been losing money on the property since at least 1992.

The numbers help give rise to speculation Rouse soon may try to sell the Landing.

So basically, this thing was a loser from the start.

QuoteRouse's highest performing festival malls typically are in strong tourism markets, including Miami, New Orleans, New York City and Boston, Kiddy said.

"You're either going to have to pull in the tourism and convention business or reinvent what the Landing was originally intended to be," Fickinger said.

So they made a bet on the downtown Jacksonville tourism and convention business and failed well before Sleiman rode into downtown.

QuoteFestival malls similar to the Landing, including Rouse's Bayside Marketplace in Miami and the Riverwalk in New Orleans, generate 70 percent of revenues from out-of-market shoppers, namely tourists and convention attendees.

Rouse executives expected similar results at the Landing. But out-of-towners generate 30 percent of the Landing's revenues.

"The project was designed as a festival marketplace, which demands a huge level of tourism traffic," Fickinger said. "[Jacksonville's] tourism and business travel has never been high enough to generate the type of sales this project would require."

At the time of the Landing's 1987 opening, the Prime Osborn Convention Center was open two years and, at 78,500 square feet, was ahead of competitors in convention business. Today, the facility lags behind competitors in size and bookings. Several major shows, including the Cheerleaders of America, which filled 5,500 room nights in 2000, have outgrown the center and headed for markets with bigger facilities.

"It was everybody's understanding Jacksonville was a city on the grow and there would be numerous Class A hotels built Downtown through the late 1980s and 1990s," Fickinger said.

Sounds like the Rouse expectation was the clustering, complementing uses (in this case...hotels) with a compact setting (adjacent to the Landing), to generate tourism oriented pedestrian traffic to support the Landing's retailers. Not attracting suburbanites to downtown. Needless to say, this did not happen in Jacksonville.

QuoteThe Landing also may be losing potential customers to a frustrating parking issue. The city originally agreed to build and maintain an 800-space, short-term parking garage before the Landing's opening.

Instead, the city struck a deal to allow Landing tenants and customers to park in the Daniels Building garage. Adam's Mark took control of it when it opened last year, and Rouse's privileges expire next year.

The city is negotiating with Humana to allow Landing use of 300 weekday and 375 weekend parking spots in its proposed 1,000-space parking garage to front Hogan and Bay streets. But the project is hung up in discussions with JEA concerning underground utilities.

Meanwhile, last year Jacksonville waived Rouse's $100,000 a year lease payments until builders complete the garage or the city fulfills its obligation to provide parking in another way.

Hmm, so Sleiman isn't totally off his rocker?  Rouse (a national retail developer at the time) was frustrated over the parking situation as well. 

Full article: http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/stories/2002/07/29/story1.html

For me, it just solidifies my opinion that the Landing's condition is less about picking sides between Sleiman's and COJ's redevelopment dreams or the structure itself and more about what downtown Jacksonville can and can't support from a market perspective.

Doesn't this show the necessity of a new convention center at the old Courthouse and Annex? Maybe even new museums/tourist attractions?

I visited the library to do some research on the Landing earlier today.  A few interesting facts from the 1980s:

1. COJ visited Harborplace when it was under construction and fell in love with the festival marketplace concept.

2. COJ sold Rouse on Jacksonville's potential as a tourism and convention city.

3. Jacksonville was the smallest city Rouse invested in the festival marketplace concept.  They were banking on the Landing being surrounded by additional hotels and tourist.....like Baltimore's Inner Harbor.

4. Although modeled after Harborplace, the Landing's design was unique to Jacksonville.  The horseshoe shaped pavilions take elements of an Old South -- Jacksonville motif, similar to the wharfs that once lined the St. Johns River.  So it can be argued that the orange roof and large roof signage are iconic elements of the Northbank skyline themselves.

5. Originally Rouse thought the Landing's market would be 60% retail/40% dining.  Fat Tuesday's lease was not renewed because the bar attracted to many young people, as opposed to families.

6. By the late 1990s, they realized it should have been more dining and entertainment.  They planned a renovation that would have opened storefronts to face Independent Drive, but for various reasons, construction never began.

But number 2. Never happened decades later, why???????

^Godbold's administration sold them on that. The city's priorities changed after Godbold left office.  Fed up, after 16 years of losing money and waiting for a promise that wasn't close to materializing, Rouse cut bait and sold the place to Sleiman.

Quote from: thelakelander on June 25, 2017, 07:40:14 PM
^Godbold's administration sold them on that. The city's priorities changed after Godbold left office.  Fed up, after 16 years of losing money and waiting for a promise that wasn't close to materializing, Rouse cut bait and sold the place to Sleiman.

So how to we address the issue of having a different 'vision' every 4-8 years depending on whose sitting in the Mayor's seat?

Take the city's hands out of the Landing's redevelopment cookie jar and let Sleiman remodel and run it like a shopping center.  At least this way, the actual market decides its fate. It's pretty obvious that will trend towards dining and entertainment. Time to stop wasting money visioning what it should be.

Curious Ennis, what exactly does that mean when Sleiman says "run it like a shopping center" and how does that differ from current status quo?

Right now, he's not signing long term leases and he gives away free space.  Running it like a shopping center would mean running it like a revenue generating property.  You'd remodel the existing structure and attempt to secure paying tenants, like Hooters, to sign 10 to 15 year leases.  What this means is that the existing complex stays, with upgrades, and that full redevelopment plan discussed during Alvin Brown's term doesn't happen.  It also means if the market says McDonalds, as long as McDonalds is willing to pay the rent, you'll be getting a McDonalds.

Quote from: thelakelander on June 25, 2017, 09:27:31 PM
Right now, he's not signing long term leases and he gives away free space.  Running it like a shopping center would mean running it like a revenue generating property.  You'd remodel the existing structure and attempt to secure paying tenants, like Hooters, to sign 10 to 15 year leases.  What this means is that the existing complex stays, with upgrades, and that full redevelopment plan discussed during Alvin Brown's term doesn't happen.  It also means if the market says McDonalds, as long as McDonalds is willing to pay the rent, you'll be getting a McDonalds.

I can think of plenty of tenants that love strip malls to put there.

McDonalds (with BK not far behind)
Subway
Mattress Firm
Aspen Dental
A Chinese Food take out (or Panda Express)
CVS Drug Store (Walgreens won't go there)
Angel Kids Pediatrics
Newks
Local Computer Store/Cellphone Repair
A card/gift shop that sells Hallmark
AT&T Store
COJ-DMV Express
Game Stop
Little Ceasars
Party Zone
A Dollar Store
Taco Bell
Chik-Fil-A
Tropical Smoothie Cafe
A BAC or Chase branch
Post Office branch with Passport services
Comcast/Xfinity

Go to any strip mall in town and you will find these and more (and more) serving our town wonderfully! <sarcasm>

Maybe they should convert one of the upstairs sections into an IMAX or chain theater.

Quote from: KenFSU on June 25, 2017, 09:14:41 PM
Curious Ennis, what exactly does that mean when Sleiman says "run it like a shopping center" and how does that differ from current status quo?

Quote from: thelakelander on June 25, 2017, 09:27:31 PM
Right now, he's not signing long term leases and he gives away free space.  Running it like a shopping center would mean running it like a revenue generating property.  You'd remodel the existing structure and attempt to secure paying tenants, like Hooters, to sign 10 to 15 year leases.  What this means is that the existing complex stays, with upgrades, and that full redevelopment plan discussed during Alvin Brown's term doesn't happen.  It also means if the market says McDonalds, as long as McDonalds is willing to pay the rent, you'll be getting a McDonalds.

Maybe, but experience says probably not. Sleiman's "running it like a shopping center" spiel was as much of a threat to COJ as a real idea. He's not going to make upgrades of the kind discussed in this thread that would have a real impact on the facility and support uses that can and do work there. The resources required to rebuild spaces into bigger street-facing boxes, renovating the food court, opening up to Laura Street (or turning it into a food hall), etc. are not massive, but they're beyond everything he's ever committed to the structure in 14 years. Seems more likely we'd see the same nickel and dime stewardship, probably accompanied by claims that the market can only support nickel and dime renters unless he receives massive incentives to tear it down.

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on June 25, 2017, 08:21:35 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on June 25, 2017, 07:40:14 PM
^Godbold's administration sold them on that. The city's priorities changed after Godbold left office.  Fed up, after 16 years of losing money and waiting for a promise that wasn't close to materializing, Rouse cut bait and sold the place to Sleiman.

So how to we address the issue of having a different 'vision' every 4-8 years depending on whose sitting in the Mayor's seat?

Removing term limits, and electing better leaders on a more consistent basis.

Quote from: vicupstate on June 25, 2017, 01:48:30 PM

QuoteAfter Sleiman bought it, he has proposed renovations, but they've mostly involved razing and replacing the structure with boring buildings, and they've required massive public subsidies, so they're not any closer to happening.

The original plans Sleiman presented did not demo the existing building but instead added several new buildings and uses. I am referring to the "It's About Time' plans. The city did not go along, so everything since then has been demolish and start over.

I personally would he eliminate  the interior mall, open up the courtyard to Laura Street and build a hotel or mixed use building to support the Landing either were the Hogan St. cul de sac is or where the Main St. bridge on ramp is., or perhaps both.

Yes, that was a pretty interesting plan. It never happened, though.

Those suggestions are all good. Also Ennis' idea about converting the main entrance area to a food hall is interesting too. There's a lot that could be done with the Landing if it were just to receive basic renovations.

Quote from: Tacachale on June 25, 2017, 10:25:58 PM
Maybe, but experience says probably not. Sleiman's "running it like a shopping center" spiel was as much of a threat to COJ as a real idea. He's not going to make upgrades of the kind discussed in this thread that would have a real impact on the facility and support uses that can and do work there. The resources required to rebuild spaces into bigger street-facing boxes, renovating the food court, opening up to Laura Street (or turning it into a food hall), etc. are not massive, but they're beyond everything he's ever committed to the structure in 14 years. Seems more likely we'd see the same nickel and dime stewardship, probably accompanied by claims that the market can only support nickel and dime renters unless he receives massive incentives to tear it down.

The bold part basically means the site is screwed. COJ's track record is worse than Sleiman's. The courthouse site is still sitting vacant, Sax Seafood is a homeless camp, the Shipyards still lie empty +15 years after the Trilegacy debacle and we're still waiting for CW Brown's BBQ plant to start producing jobs and product.  Instead of lighting more public money on fire, calling him on his bluff is about the most fiscally responsible thing COJ can do at this point.  As for Sleiman, the rest of his portfolio looks decent.  IMO, what keeps this particular property from recieving the upgrades it needs is the continued push for full redevelopment.

Quote from: Tacachale on June 25, 2017, 10:32:37 PMThose suggestions are all good. Also Ennis' idea about converting the main entrance area to a food hall is interesting too. There's a lot that could be done with the Landing if it were just to receive basic renovations.

This is basically what Cordish just did with Norfolk's Waterside.

(https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/pilotonline.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/b/ee/beef643d-2374-5f93-9f5f-f3fb68e9c256/590bc6536f44c.image.jpg?resize=1200%2C730)

(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/18402667_1371733499586628_8775970954053695300_n.jpg?oh=b66d577f19bdec22c885001edc0c71cd&oe=59CA28FD)

(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/18952840_1405519252874719_2547468266761920302_n.jpg?oh=acc790eac5d22eb695dac05170e6d9ba&oe=59E2D880)

Quote from: Tacachale on June 25, 2017, 10:32:37 PM

Quote from: vicupstate on June 25, 2017, 01:48:30 PM

QuoteAfter Sleiman bought it, he has proposed renovations, but they've mostly involved razing and replacing the structure with boring buildings, and they've required massive public subsidies, so they're not any closer to happening.

The original plans Sleiman presented did not demo the existing building but instead added several new buildings and uses. I am referring to the "It's About Time' plans. The city did not go along, so everything since then has been demolish and start over.

I personally would he eliminate  the interior mall, open up the courtyard to Laura Street and build a hotel or mixed use building to support the Landing either were the Hogan St. cul de sac is or where the Main St. bridge on ramp is., or perhaps both.

Yes, that was a pretty interesting plan. It never happened, though.

Those suggestions are all good. Also Ennis' idea about converting the main entrance area to a food hall is interesting too. There's a lot that could be done with the Landing if it were just to receive basic renovations.

Anyone have those plans?

I spent some time in the Landing this weekend.

(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Business/Jacksonville-Landing/i-WZLMtzS/0/5b19e857/X2/20170624_120613-X2.jpg)

Take out Village Bread and bring the original Market Hall concept back.  Instead of push carts, line the sides with vendors and fill the space with communal seating.

(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Business/Jacksonville-Landing/i-39LqtZQ/0/0e6b96fd/X2/20170624_130332-X2.jpg)

I guess you could also repurpose the actual food court into such a use, without much modification.  The only problem I see here is the waste of potential revenue generating space.  It seems more income could be made if the second floor was subdivided into a couple of restaurants overlooking the courtyard and river.  The space on the first floor works better as a food court or hall from a profitability standpoint, IMO.

Quote from: thelakelander on June 25, 2017, 10:41:41 PM

Quote from: Tacachale on June 25, 2017, 10:25:58 PM
Maybe, but experience says probably not. Sleiman's "running it like a shopping center" spiel was as much of a threat to COJ as a real idea. He's not going to make upgrades of the kind discussed in this thread that would have a real impact on the facility and support uses that can and do work there. The resources required to rebuild spaces into bigger street-facing boxes, renovating the food court, opening up to Laura Street (or turning it into a food hall), etc. are not massive, but they're beyond everything he's ever committed to the structure in 14 years. Seems more likely we'd see the same nickel and dime stewardship, probably accompanied by claims that the market can only support nickel and dime renters unless he receives massive incentives to tear it down.

The bold part basically means the site is screwed. COJ's track record is worse than Sleiman's. The courthouse site is still sitting vacant, Sax Seafood is a homeless camp, the Shipyards still lie empty +15 years after the Trilegacy debacle and we're still waiting for CW Brown's BBQ plant to start producing jobs and product.  Instead of lighting more public money on fire, calling him on his bluff is about the most fiscally responsible thing COJ can do at this point.  As for Sleiman, the rest of his portfolio looks decent.  IMO, what keeps this particular property from recieving the upgrades it needs is the continued push for full redevelopment.

The city's inconsistent, but many entertainment facilities run by the city and its contractors - the stadium, arena, Baseball Grounds, and apparently the new amphitheater, are all better run than the Landing. They aren't open everyday, but the Landing barely feels like it is either. The Landing being screwed is a matter of perspective. I'd argue it's not screwed now; it's apparently turning a profit for Sleiman despite him running it like he does, and the waterfront restaurants appear to be doing ok. There's no reason to think that won't continue, either under Sleiman, or another.

Quote from: spuwho on June 25, 2017, 09:56:17 PM
McDonalds (with BK not far behind)
Subway
Mattress Firm
Aspen Dental
A Chinese Food take out (or Panda Express)
CVS Drug Store (Walgreens won't go there)
Angel Kids Pediatrics
Newks
Local Computer Store/Cellphone Repair
A card/gift shop that sells Hallmark
AT&T Store
COJ-DMV Express
Game Stop
Little Ceasars
Party Zone
A Dollar Store
Taco Bell
Chik-Fil-A
Tropical Smoothie Cafe
A BAC or Chase branch
Post Office branch with Passport services
Comcast/Xfinity

What a nice, succinct list of loathsome establishments!

But since you mention it, it would be nice to have a full service post office downtown. Also, is there anywhere to buy a smoothie downtown?

I'd argue it doesn't turn a profit currently, based on the information I've received.  Plus a shopping center and something like an amphitheater or stadium are completely different animals. Nevertheless, take the 15-year old conversation of full redevelopment off the table, and I believe we'll discover easy-to-implement possibilities we haven't considered, even under Sleiman's management.

Quote from: remc86007 on June 25, 2017, 11:10:34 PM

Quote from: spuwho on June 25, 2017, 09:56:17 PM
McDonalds (with BK not far behind)
Subway
Mattress Firm
Aspen Dental
A Chinese Food take out (or Panda Express)
CVS Drug Store (Walgreens won't go there)
Angel Kids Pediatrics
Newks
Local Computer Store/Cellphone Repair
A card/gift shop that sells Hallmark
AT&T Store
COJ-DMV Express
Game Stop
Little Ceasars
Party Zone
A Dollar Store
Taco Bell
Chik-Fil-A
Tropical Smoothie Cafe
A BAC or Chase branch
Post Office branch with Passport services
Comcast/Xfinity

What a nice, succinct list of loathsome establishments!

But since you mention it, it would be nice to have a full service post office downtown. Also, is there anywhere to buy a smoothie downtown?

Not to say there's a market for any of these names specifically but here's some other tenants in those same strip malls that many millennials wouldn't mind having...

Longhorn Steakhouse
Target
Panera
Epic Theatres
Five Guys Burgers and Fries
Steak 'N' Shake
Walgreens
Bono's Bar-B-Que
CVS
Monroe's Smokehouse
Earth Fare
PDQ
Jollibee
Potter's House Soul Food Bistro
Native Sun
Jos A Bank
Books-A-Million
Chick-fil-A
Barnes & Noble
Trader Joe's

^Target, Native Sun, Earth Fare, or Trader Joe's opening downtown would be game changing. Too bad the chances of that in the next 5yrs at least seem extremely slim.

While those are all reputable brands and establishments, you guys are seeking what you think looks best, not what would really work.

The Landing doesn't get the drive by traffic like a strip mall on San Jose, Timuquana or Atlantic Blvd would get, so you have to go to the brands that work in low volume settings.  People can't drive over the Main Street Bridge, see the McDonalds sign and say, "hey, lets stop".

You have to go with what will drive foot traffic from either 2 sources, urban workforce or the core residential for your base, and the visit the riverfront walkables as your gravy.

While it is not unexpected to think of the better options, based on the Landing's history thus far, you are going to have to reach to the bottom before you can rise to the top.

Just fill it with bars, vaping shops and tattoo studios and be done with it.

Quote from: spuwho on June 26, 2017, 07:17:29 AM
While those are all reputable brands and establishments, you guys are seeking what you think looks best, not what would really work.

I think you may have missed my basic point.  I'm not suggesting seeking tenants that I think look best.  I'm suggesting not spending tax money on fully redeveloping the site, calling Sleiman's bluff and allowing him to sign long term leases, based on what the market will support.

By now, it should be pretty clear where retailing trends are going:

http://www.moderncities.com/article/2017-jun-top-5-retail-shopping-center-trends

Based on local, national trends, and the Landing's very own history, you should expect less specialty retail and more dining and entertainment.  So whether that dining ends up being Cheesecake Factory verses Hooters, McDonald's or 7-Eleven is for the market and private sector to decide.

QuoteThe Landing doesn't get the drive by traffic like a strip mall on San Jose, Timuquana or Atlantic Blvd would get, so you have to go to the brands that work in low volume settings.  People can't drive over the Main Street Bridge, see the McDonalds sign and say, "hey, lets stop".

I think this is a bit of an assumption.  The Landing is no different from any other retail space in the downtown area, except it has the benefit of clustered pedestrian scale retail/dining space, making it the number destination in downtown, even in its poor state. For example,  Landing Hooters still outperforms all of their suburban locations in this region.  Whatever makes that happen is a market dynamic that should and can be exploited without spending millions to remove Main Street Bridge ramps and demolishing/rebuilding buildings.

QuoteYou have to go with what will drive foot traffic from either 2 sources, urban workforce or the core residential for your base, and the visit the riverfront walkables as your gravy.

Yes. However, I suspect the Landing is driven by the urban workforce and whatever tourism base is here.  It will be years before the Northbank has a core residential base to support 125,000 square feet of retail and dining.  If anything, it needs more Omnis, Hyatts and Laura Trio Courtyard by Marriotts.  It also needs a Skyway that operates on weekends, so guests staying at the Southbank hotels have better access to spend their disposable income at its businesses. Looking forward, the best thing Jax can do for the Landing is continue to grow the residential base and invest in the convention industry in hopes of attracting more visitors downtown.

QuoteWhile it is not unexpected to think of the better options, based on the Landing's history thus far, you are going to have to reach to the bottom before you can rise to the top.

The bottom is most likely restaurant chains....like Hooters, food court/hall style eateries, and limited retail that can be supported by the people downtown, think CVS, 7-Eleven, etc. as opposed to Brooks Brothers and Gap.

Quote from: Adam White on June 26, 2017, 07:54:22 AM
Just fill it with bars, vaping shops and tattoo studios and be done with it.

If that's what the market will support, so be it.  However, I doubt tattoo studios and vaping shops can fill that much space or generate enough business to pay the rent.

Quote from: thelakelander on June 26, 2017, 08:55:49 AM


Yes. However, I suspect the Landing is driven by the urban workforce and whatever tourism base is here.  It will be years before the Northbank has a core residential base to support 125,000 square feet of retail and dining.  If anything, it needs more Omnis, Hyatts and Laura Trio Courtyard by Marriotts.  It also needs a Skyway that operates on weekends, so guests staying at the Southbank hotels have better access to spend their disposable income at its businesses. Looking forward, the best thing Jax can do for the Landing is continue to grow the residential base and invest in the convention industry in hopes of attracting more visitors downtown.

What I pull from all of this is any money spent would be better used on a convention center than on demolishing the Landing. The two were meant to go hand-in-hand.

Get a Fuddruckers in there and everything will work out.

Quote from: thelakelander on June 26, 2017, 08:58:28 AM

Quote from: Adam White on June 26, 2017, 07:54:22 AM
Just fill it with bars, vaping shops and tattoo studios and be done with it.

If that's what the market will support, so be it.  However, I doubt tattoo studios and vaping shops can fill that much space or generate enough business to pay the rent.

I wasn't serious. It was satire.

Quote from: FlaBoy on June 26, 2017, 09:09:34 AM

Quote from: thelakelander on June 26, 2017, 08:55:49 AM


Yes. However, I suspect the Landing is driven by the urban workforce and whatever tourism base is here.  It will be years before the Northbank has a core residential base to support 125,000 square feet of retail and dining.  If anything, it needs more Omnis, Hyatts and Laura Trio Courtyard by Marriotts.  It also needs a Skyway that operates on weekends, so guests staying at the Southbank hotels have better access to spend their disposable income at its businesses. Looking forward, the best thing Jax can do for the Landing is continue to grow the residential base and invest in the convention industry in hopes of attracting more visitors downtown.

What I pull from all of this is any money spent would be better used on a convention center than on demolishing the Landing. The two were meant to go hand-in-hand.

Basically.  The Landing's condition is a symptom of a larger downtown ailment.  Tearing it down and rebuilding doesn't resolve the actual ailment.  COJ would be better served shifting the convention center to the courthouse site.  Doing such would not only benefit the Landing, but the Hyatt, the Laura Trio hotel, Omni and other existing businesses in the Elbow and Northbank core.  It would also make more sense to take whatever money you think we'd need to spend on the Landing and use it to facilitate the conversion of a larger vacant structures into housing.

QuoteThe city's inconsistent, but many entertainment facilities run by the city and its contractors - the stadium, arena, Baseball Grounds, and apparently the new amphitheater, are all better run than the Landing.

If I'm not mistaken the management of all of those facilities is contracted out to SMG or some other party, not the city itself. I suppose the city could 'contract out' management of the Landing if it were the owner, but I would expect that would be a very unusual situation.   

call sleimans bluff.  he hasn't been running it like a strip mall?  what a joke.

all those tenants are just chomping at the bit!  we just have to get to the magical 600 parking spots and we're all coming to fill the landing!!  cuz real estate/development/planning consultants!

if the place could operate as a success with 600 spots, why isn't there anything there now that any one I know would actually want to go to?  Its not like theres zero parking now, but there is zero positive going on at the landing.  because sleiman.

ADDITIONAL parking can help businesses.  this idea that it will single handedly fill the dozens of storefronts there or be some silver bullet catalyst makes no sense.

^I think your bias against Sleiman is showing.  It's not like it was filled to capacity in 2002 and Rouse clearly made dedicated parking an issue, because they would not have come to town if the city didn't agree to provide it.  So history indicates the lack of dedicated parking and vacancy pre-date Sleiman. History also indicates continuous indecision on if the existing structure will remain or be demolished for full redevelopment.  Whether we like or trust the guy doesn't change factual history. History also suggests COJ has a bad track record involving DT redevelopment. If COJ can't even accept history, concerning the needs of a retail development, the future is pretty scary because we're more likely to repeat our past mistakes. So remove the indecision by saying screw full redevelopment, call his bluff and focus on addressing other issues that hold downtown back.  We'll find out real quick what the market may bear, without risking additional subsidies on this site.

Quote from: thelakelander on June 26, 2017, 09:59:51 AM
^I think your bias against Sleiman is showing.  It's not like it was filled to capacity in 2002 and Rouse clearly made dedicated parking an issue, because they would not have come to town if the city didn't agree to provide it.  So history indicates the lack of dedicated parking and vacancy pre-date Sleiman. History also indicates continuous indecision on if the existing structure will remain or be demolished for full redevelopment.  Whether we like or trust the guy doesn't change factual history. History also suggests COJ has a bad track record involving DT redevelopment. If COJ can't even accept history, concerning the needs of a retail development, the future is pretty scary because we're more likely to repeat our past mistakes. So remove the indecision by saying screw full redevelopment, call his bluff and focus on addressing other issues that hold downtown back.  We'll find out real quick what the market may bear, without risking additional subsidies on this site.

I know the parking issue is there, but on weekends in downtown, there are several massive parking garages that are empty most weekend within two blocks of the Landing. Heck, the Landing parking lot is rarely full. Maybe the argument for dedicated parking hurting the Landing can be made for weekdays, although they have a massive lunch crowd within blocks, but not a persuasive argument for weekends.

Also, if you took the $11-12 million to demolish and rebuild the Landing, and put it into incentives similar to the Trio at completion for the Berkman II and old JEA buildings, I bet we would see some movement there on residential.

Quote from: vicupstate on June 26, 2017, 09:32:47 AM

QuoteThe city's inconsistent, but many entertainment facilities run by the city and its contractors - the stadium, arena, Baseball Grounds, and apparently the new amphitheater, are all better run than the Landing.

If I'm not mistaken the management of all of those facilities is contracted out to SMG or some other party, not the city itself. I suppose the city could 'contract out' management of the Landing if it were the owner, but I would expect that would be a very unusual situation.   

Correct, they contract out the management of the facilities. My point is that not all facilities the city owns or contributed to are poorly managed, or as poorly managed as the Landing is.

Now, whether fighting Sleiman on the Landing is a wise use of city resources that could be going to other projects is another question.

Quote from: FlaBoy on June 26, 2017, 10:28:58 AM

Quote from: thelakelander on June 26, 2017, 09:59:51 AM
^I think your bias against Sleiman is showing.  It's not like it was filled to capacity in 2002 and Rouse clearly made dedicated parking an issue, because they would not have come to town if the city didn't agree to provide it.  So history indicates the lack of dedicated parking and vacancy pre-date Sleiman. History also indicates continuous indecision on if the existing structure will remain or be demolished for full redevelopment.  Whether we like or trust the guy doesn't change factual history. History also suggests COJ has a bad track record involving DT redevelopment. If COJ can't even accept history, concerning the needs of a retail development, the future is pretty scary because we're more likely to repeat our past mistakes. So remove the indecision by saying screw full redevelopment, call his bluff and focus on addressing other issues that hold downtown back.  We'll find out real quick what the market may bear, without risking additional subsidies on this site.

I know the parking issue is there, but on weekends in downtown, there are several massive parking garages that are empty most weekend within two blocks of the Landing. Heck, the Landing parking lot is rarely full. Maybe the argument for dedicated parking hurting the Landing can be made for weekdays, although they have a massive lunch crowd within blocks, but not a persuasive argument for weekends.

Also, if you took the $11-12 million to demolish and rebuild the Landing, and put it into incentives similar to the Trio at completion for the Berkman II and old JEA buildings, I bet we would see some movement there on residential.

The issue is dedicated parking. There are businesses that won't even consider a site if there's not confirmed dedicated parking. The existence of other parking in the area is actually part of the problem - with the Parador garage, the city built a garage near the Landing that doesn't resolve the structure's core parking issues. But yes, parking's only one issue, along with bad management and a design that didn't work 30 years ago and has never had a single renovation.

i'm not suggesting coj is a great developer.

i'm suggesting that we've seen what sleiman can and will do.  What landlord would just say, "oh well wish I had more parking, so i'm not going to pursue tenants or control what I can control and run my business well"

my bias against sleiman is that his actions articulate that my quote above is his approach to the landing

I also cant think of one sleiman strip center that is anything more than, well, a crap suburban strip center.

Theres at least a chance coj partners with someone competent who has the taste and ability to deliver the type of product that should be at the landing. 

worst case we get someone who can't run the landing very well and we have a major Jax asset sitting idle compared to what it could be.  Oh wait, that's exactly what we have in sleiman currently

Quote from: FlaBoy on June 26, 2017, 10:28:58 AM

Quote from: thelakelander on June 26, 2017, 09:59:51 AM
^I think your bias against Sleiman is showing.  It's not like it was filled to capacity in 2002 and Rouse clearly made dedicated parking an issue, because they would not have come to town if the city didn't agree to provide it.  So history indicates the lack of dedicated parking and vacancy pre-date Sleiman. History also indicates continuous indecision on if the existing structure will remain or be demolished for full redevelopment.  Whether we like or trust the guy doesn't change factual history. History also suggests COJ has a bad track record involving DT redevelopment. If COJ can't even accept history, concerning the needs of a retail development, the future is pretty scary because we're more likely to repeat our past mistakes. So remove the indecision by saying screw full redevelopment, call his bluff and focus on addressing other issues that hold downtown back.  We'll find out real quick what the market may bear, without risking additional subsidies on this site.

I know the parking issue is there, but on weekends in downtown, there are several massive parking garages that are empty most weekend within two blocks of the Landing. Heck, the Landing parking lot is rarely full. Maybe the argument for dedicated parking hurting the Landing can be made for weekdays, although they have a massive lunch crowd within blocks, but not a persuasive argument for weekends.

The issue with dedicated parking and the impact on leasing is a bit more complicated than this.  Here's an article I wrote seven years ago (btw, it's crazy we're still talking about this) on what dedicated parking in the retail world actually means:

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2010-may-the-jacksonville-landing-parking-myths-vs-reality

With that said, you can resolve the dedicated parking issue by shifting existing spaces in adjacent lots and garages to fill that need, as opposed to adding parking.  However, the logistics of doing such would have to be explored and deals would have to be ironed out with those property owners.

Quote from: Tacachale on June 26, 2017, 11:13:31 AM
The issue is dedicated parking. There are businesses that won't even consider a site if there's not confirmed dedicated parking. The existence of other parking in the area is actually part of the problem - with the Parador garage, the city built a garage near the Landing that doesn't resolve the structure's core parking issues. But yes, parking's only one issue, along with bad management and a design that didn't work 30 years ago and has never had a single renovation.

I question the design of the structure being bad, to the point where the structure needs to be demolished and rebuilt.  The design was fine for a festival marketplace. The problem was Jacksonville was too small to support that type of retail concept and the vibrant downtown environment Rouse and the Godbold administration were hoping for, never materialized. 

We now know that it should be primarily dining and entertainment, as opposed to 60% specialty retail.  That's what the market is right now. However, we probably can't fill up 125,000 square feet of leasable space with those two uses.  Thus, some of the more undesirable spaces may have to be converted into different uses.  As for opening the courtyard up to Laura Street. That's not a need. That's a want that has little to do with what the market can support.  Looking back into the history of the Landing, that idea even pre-dates Sleiman and appears to have come from visionaries, moreso than it being based on the practicality of the market being able to support the product.

Even dating back to the Peyton days, we really haven't had a true conversation on the potential of just renovating the existing structure and changing the tenant mix to meet today's consumer needs.

Quote from: thelakelander on June 26, 2017, 11:34:15 AM

Quote from: Tacachale on June 26, 2017, 11:13:31 AM
The issue is dedicated parking. There are businesses that won't even consider a site if there's not confirmed dedicated parking. The existence of other parking in the area is actually part of the problem - with the Parador garage, the city built a garage near the Landing that doesn't resolve the structure's core parking issues. But yes, parking's only one issue, along with bad management and a design that didn't work 30 years ago and has never had a single renovation.

I question the design of the structure being bad, to the point where the structure needs to be demolished and rebuilt.  The design was fine for a festival marketplace. The problem was Jacksonville was too small to support that type of retail concept and the vibrant downtown environment Rouse and the Godbold administration were hoping for, never materialized. 

We now know that it should be primarily dining and entertainment, as opposed to 60% specialty retail.  That's what the market is right now. However, we probably can't fill up 125,000 square feet of leasable space with those two uses.  Thus, some of the more undesirable spaces may have to be converted into different uses.  As for opening the courtyard up to Laura Street. That's not a need. That's a want that has little to do with what the market can support.  Looking back into the history of the Landing, that idea even pre-dates Sleiman and appears to have come from visionaries, moreso than it being based on the practicality of the market being able to support the product.

Even dating back to the Peyton days, we really haven't had a true conversation on the potential of just renovating the existing structure and changing the tenant mix to meet today's consumer needs.

But you don't question that the design is bad to the point that it's not suitable for the kinds of uses that could actually be successful there, and so needs a renovation that none of its owners have ever done, which is the point.

Quote from: jlmann on June 26, 2017, 11:16:04 AM
i'm not suggesting coj is a great developer.

i'm suggesting that we've seen what sleiman can and will do.

I guess, I'm suggesting that we really haven't. We've seen what he can do when there's been 15 years of indecision on if the existing structure is going to remain, be torn down and if so, replaced with what.  In addition to that, we've seen 14 years of politics between Sleiman and COJ. This game and indecision on the site's future can easily be resolved by getting off the pot. Select no redevelopment and move on to another issue. That ends the back and forth and sets that path for the market taking control.

QuoteWhat landlord would just say, "oh well wish I had more parking, so i'm not going to pursue tenants or control what I can control and run my business well"

I'm not sure that's actually happening.  Why spend millions on remodeling, pursuing long term tenants, if the dominant thought is full redevelopment in the short term?  That type of indecision can screw up a lot of things when it comes to securing long term tenants.

Quotemy bias against sleiman is that his actions articulate that my quote above is his approach to the landing

I also cant think of one sleiman strip center that is anything more than, well, a crap suburban strip center.

You probably can't think of one successful shopping center in Jax that isn't a strip mall of some sorts. 

QuoteTheres at least a chance coj partners with someone competent who has the taste and ability to deliver the type of product that should be at the landing.

What product should be at the Landing? Is this a product that can be supported by the market, or a dream that resulted in the Landing being built and failing in the first place.  Also, based off of our history, it's more likely a publicly financed redevelopment ends up with the site looking like the Shipyards or LaVilla.  Given the history and expertise of the two parties, I'd put my money on the party with actual retail experience and connections, even if those tenants end up not being the ones some dream about. 

Quoteworst case we get someone who can't run the landing very well and we have a major Jax asset sitting idle compared to what it could be.  Oh wait, that's exactly what we have in sleiman currently

It can get worse. Worse case scenario is the Shipyards. Millions of public dollars spent and only a hole along the waterfront to show for it.

Quote from: Tacachale on June 26, 2017, 11:47:45 AM
But you don't question that the design is bad to the point that it's not suitable for the kinds of uses that could actually be successful there, and so needs a renovation that none of its owners have ever done, which is the point.

I believe the structure is suitable for a different tenant mix now.  It's not in danger of falling down.  However, it is dirty and dated. That's were remodeling primarily comes into play.  Yet, if full redevelopment is the goal, don't waste money on remodeling and signing long term leases you'll have to break, within a year or two. 

Basically, a decision needs to be made on the site's future.  My point is that decision should be for COJ to take the idea of full redevelopment off the table and go address more significant issues impacting the downtown core. That puts the Landing's future in the hands of it's owner.  If he wants to make money off of it, he can remodel and run it like a shopping center.  If not, he'll eventually sell than maintaining real estate that continues to stay in the red.

Quote from: jlmann on June 26, 2017, 11:16:04 AM
i'm not suggesting coj is a great developer.

i'm suggesting that we've seen what sleiman can and will do.

You do realize we have not, right?  I mean he's provided 3-4 different redevelopment plans and the city hasn't worked to make any of them happen.  So how can you say we've seen what he can do.

We have seen what he will do IF the city would let it happen.

why does sleiman need a dime or any commitment from the city to operate it as strip center as he described.  He's had 12 years.

has he been proposing he pay for all the landing improvements if he can get his 600 spots?  I'm assuming no, but please correct me.

in my view he's been refusing to do anything until he gets what he wants from the city- money.  sleiman positions it as you do.  the city wont "let" him do anything?

the city wont give him everything he wants seems more accurate.  if sleiman was worth his salt and such a savvy operator he would've done something besides complain for the last 12 years

there's been nothing stopping from running it like a strip center since day one.  sure they owe him parking but he wants more and wont operate in good faith otherwise.

Quote from: Jim on June 26, 2017, 12:08:18 PM

Quote from: jlmann on June 26, 2017, 11:16:04 AM
i'm not suggesting coj is a great developer.

i'm suggesting that we've seen what sleiman can and will do.

You do realize we have not, right?  I mean he's provided 3-4 different redevelopment plans and the city hasn't worked to make any of them happen.  So how can you say we've seen what he can do.

We have seen what he will do IF the city would let it happen.

The plans he's submitted just make it worse. The last several looked awful and required vast subsidies from the city. We're much better off that it didn't work out.

Quote from: thelakelander on June 26, 2017, 11:24:09 AM
The issue with dedicated parking and the impact on leasing is a bit more complicated than this.  Here's an article I wrote seven years ago (btw, it's crazy we're still talking about this) on what dedicated parking in the retail world actually means:

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2010-may-the-jacksonville-landing-parking-myths-vs-reality

Seriously. I began following this site around 2007 and moved back to Jax in 2009. I think the Fuddruckers jokes were abundant since I first arrived.

Quote from: jlmann on June 26, 2017, 12:28:38 PM
why does sleiman need a dime or any commitment from the city to operate it as strip center as he described.  He's had 12 years.

Full redevelopment called for demolishing the structure, building additional green space and removing a Main Street Bridge ramp. Since the city owns the land where all of this would take place, some type of public private partnership would be needed for full redevelopment. I'm under the impression his threat is if the city doesn't assist in full redevelopment, he'll remodel the existing structure on his own dime and operate it like a shopping center. If so, I'd accept that offer.

Quotehas he been proposing he pay for all the landing improvements if he can get his 600 spots?  I'm assuming no, but please correct me.

The unfilled dedicated parking problem predates Sleiman.  However, the dead 2015 redevelopment plan involved COJ paying $11.8 million for building demolition, site and infrastructure improvements and Sleiman paying for the building improvements.

Quote from: jlmann on June 26, 2017, 12:28:38 PM
why does sleiman need a dime or any commitment from the city to operate it as strip center as he described.  He's had 12 years.

has he been proposing he pay for all the landing improvements if he can get his 600 spots?  I'm assuming no, but please correct me.

in my view he's been refusing to do anything until he gets what he wants from the city- money.  sleiman positions it as you do.  the city wont "let" him do anything?

the city wont give him everything he wants seems more accurate.  if sleiman was worth his salt and such a savvy operator he would've done something besides complain for the last 12 years

there's been nothing stopping from running it like a strip center since day one.  sure they owe him parking but he wants more and wont operate in good faith otherwise.

Let's put something to rest, as there are a lot of facts that get glossed over in this discussion. The City's Development Agreement and subsequent operating lease with Rouse signed over 30 years ago, that Sleiman took over and now operates under, REQUIRES the city to provide additional parking. In fact the word 'parking' appears more times than there are pages in the lease (there are over 700 pages in the lease). Parking isn't something that Rouse thought would be nice to have. They required the City to build additional parking as a condition of the developer breaking ground. The City has never lived up to that agreement 30 years later. Most WalMart leases don't go beyond 30 years. Another interesting tidbit, there is also clawback language that indicates that if the People Mover (AKA the Skyway) was ever torn down that there is significant recourse due to the building owner as consideration.


The vast majority of land leases require the landowner's consent before the building could undergo substantial renovations. Sleiman can't just tear the building down without the City of Jacksonville consenting to such action. So in effect, 'the city wont "let" him do anything' in regards to redevelopment. Seeing as though the City owns the land underneath the buildings, I simply can't think of any developer who would ever completely redevelop property on land owned by a local municipality without said municipality pay for any infrastructure improvement needed to support a new building on said land.
As a point of comparison, the Shipyards development and The District development will also require much more public infrastructure improvement paid for by the City of Jacksonville, than any redevelopment proposal that Sleiman has ever presented since taking ownership of the Landing more than a decade ago. Why is it completely reasonable to expect the City to pay for infrastructure improvements to serve The District... but not the Landing? At least in The District's case, the master developer will own the land.


As to what kind of landlord the City has been... take a look at the floating public docks lining the Northbank Riverwalk/Jacksonville Landing. Over half of the available dock space has been in a state of disrepair and are closed off to the public. That's the City of Jacksonville's responsibility. Not only is the City refusing to live up to their 30 year obligation in regards to automobile parking... they aren't even repairing boat parking that presently exists.  That puts things in quite a different perspective if you removed the words 'Toney Sleiman' out of the equation and looked at the situation objectively.

The floating docks at the Shipyards property have a  barge and crane working on them. 
Stay Positive.
2016-305 and an "Amen" to brother Ron and sister Steph

Quote from: ProjectMaximus on June 26, 2017, 12:44:42 PM
Seriously. I began following this site around 2007 and moved back to Jax in 2009. I think the Fuddruckers jokes were abundant since I first arrived.

To that point, just want to quickly note how focused, pleasant, and constructive the discourse has been on MetroJax as of late.

It's quite the throwback :D

Quote from: fieldafm on June 26, 2017, 12:53:32 PM

Quote from: jlmann on June 26, 2017, 12:28:38 PM
why does sleiman need a dime or any commitment from the city to operate it as strip center as he described.  He's had 12 years.

has he been proposing he pay for all the landing improvements if he can get his 600 spots?  I'm assuming no, but please correct me.

in my view he's been refusing to do anything until he gets what he wants from the city- money.  sleiman positions it as you do.  the city wont "let" him do anything?

the city wont give him everything he wants seems more accurate.  if sleiman was worth his salt and such a savvy operator he would've done something besides complain for the last 12 years

there's been nothing stopping from running it like a strip center since day one.  sure they owe him parking but he wants more and wont operate in good faith otherwise.

Let's put something to rest, as there are a lot of facts that get glossed over in this discussion. The City's Development Agreement and subsequent operating lease with Rouse signed over 30 years ago, that Sleiman took over and now operates under, REQUIRES the city to provide additional parking. In fact the word 'parking' appears more times than there are pages in the lease (there are over 700 pages in the lease). Parking isn't something that Rouse thought would be nice to have. They required the City to build additional parking as a condition of the developer breaking ground. The City has never lived up to that agreement 30 years later. Most WalMart leases don't go beyond 30 years. Another interesting tidbit, there is also clawback language that indicates that if the People Mover (AKA the Skyway) was ever torn down that there is significant recourse due to the building owner as consideration.


The vast majority of land leases require the landowner's consent before the building could undergo substantial renovations. Sleiman can't just tear the building down without the City of Jacksonville consenting to such action. So in effect, 'the city wont "let" him do anything'.


As to what kind of landlord the City has been... take a look at the floating public docks lining the Northbank Riverwalk/Jacksonville Landing. Over half of the available dock space has been in a state of disrepair and are closed off to the public. That's the City of Jacksonville's responsibility. Not only is the City refusing to live up to their 30 year obligation in regards to automobile parking... they aren't even repairing boat parking that presently exists.  That puts things in quite a different perspective if you removed the words 'Toney Sleiman' out of the equation and looked at the situation objectively.

+1
It's About Time

Why have the docks in front of the landing been allowed to deteriorate so much? Trying to dock or even just pick someone up is incredibly dangerous. The city is lucky they haven't been sued.

Quote from: jlmann on June 26, 2017, 12:28:38 PM
why does sleiman need a dime or any commitment from the city to operate it as strip center as he described.  He's had 12 years.

has he been proposing he pay for all the landing improvements if he can get his 600 spots?  I'm assuming no, but please correct me.

in my view he's been refusing to do anything until he gets what he wants from the city- money.  sleiman positions it as you do.  the city wont "let" him do anything?

the city wont give him everything he wants seems more accurate.  if sleiman was worth his salt and such a savvy operator he would've done something besides complain for the last 12 years

there's been nothing stopping from running it like a strip center since day one.  sure they owe him parking but he wants more and wont operate in good faith otherwise.

Regarding the parking issue.  Many tenants will not sign leases without dedicated parking.  This has been a problem long before Sleiman bought the facility.  That's partly why Rouse sold their $40 million Landing to Sleiman for just $5 million and bailed out. 

He also doesn't own the land underneath.  He can't just do whatever he wants, it requires the city to work with him.

I'm also starting to wonder if he ran over your dog last week or something.

Quote from: Jim on June 26, 2017, 01:02:26 PM

Quote from: jlmann on June 26, 2017, 12:28:38 PM
why does sleiman need a dime or any commitment from the city to operate it as strip center as he described.  He's had 12 years.

has he been proposing he pay for all the landing improvements if he can get his 600 spots?  I'm assuming no, but please correct me.

in my view he's been refusing to do anything until he gets what he wants from the city- money.  sleiman positions it as you do.  the city wont "let" him do anything?

the city wont give him everything he wants seems more accurate.  if sleiman was worth his salt and such a savvy operator he would've done something besides complain for the last 12 years

there's been nothing stopping from running it like a strip center since day one.  sure they owe him parking but he wants more and wont operate in good faith otherwise.

Regarding the parking issue.  Many tenants will not sign leases without dedicated parking.  This has been a problem long before Sleiman bought the facility.  That's partly why Rouse sold their $40 million Landing to Sleiman for just $5 million and bailed out. 

He also doesn't own the land underneath.  He can't just do whatever he wants, it requires the city to work with him.

I'm also starting to wonder if he ran over your dog last week or something.

This sums it up nicely:

Quote from: fieldafm on June 26, 2017, 12:53:32 PM
...quite a different perspective if you removed the words 'Toney Sleiman' out of the equation

Quote from: remc86007 on June 26, 2017, 12:58:09 PM
Why have the docks in front of the landing been allowed to deteriorate so much? Trying to dock or even just pick someone up is incredibly dangerous. The city is lucky they haven't been sued.

While a portion of the docks have been in disrepair and closed for much longer, at least part of the cause for the current abhorrent state of the the docking facilities can be blamed on the hurricane that came through last year.  To that end, bulkheads in San Marco that were damaged by the hurricane are presently being repaired. The City put forth a temporary fix on a small portion of the downtown docks a few weeks ago, but the vast majority are sitting in a state of dysfunction. Boaters coming down to watch the fireworks during the 4th of July next week will be greeted by a 'thanks, but no thanks' attitude downtown. And we wonder why the river through downtown isnt more active?

To your point Mike, I think a lot of people erroneously view the city's parking obligation as a "nice to have" that Sleiman won't stop whining about, rather than a necessity. They say things like, "there's plenty of parking downtown" and "people can walk." This misses the point though that the type of restaurants and retailers needed to anchor the Landing - the CVSs, and Cheesecake Factories, or whatever - have specific requirements for dedicated parking. If the parking isn't there, the conversation ends. The parking issue isn't Sleiman being whiney, but rather the city handcuffing him to the point that he cannot effectively bring in the types of establishments the Landing needs.

Quote from: KenFSU on June 26, 2017, 01:31:00 PM
To your point Mike, I think a lot of people erroneously view the city's parking obligation as a "nice to have" that Sleiman won't stop whining about, rather than a necessity. They say things like, "there's plenty of parking downtown" and "people can walk." This misses the point though that the type of restaurants and retailers needed to anchor the Landing - the CVSs, and Cheesecake Factories, or whatever - have specific requirements for dedicated parking. If the parking isn't there, the conversation ends. The parking issue isn't Sleiman being whiney, but rather the city handcuffing him to the point that he cannot effectively bring in the types of establishments the Landing needs.

It can be two things at once.

I just think it's wrong to claim the guy is 100% responsible for the mismanagement of the center, when its clear there's been a fight with the property owner since day one.  Both Rouse and Sleiman have dealt with a partner not willing to keep up their end of the bargain so there's blame to go around. IMO, end the fight, make a decision (full redevelopment vs remodel and run like a shopping center) and move on. That's the only way this place will get better anytime soon.

Quote from: Tacachale on June 26, 2017, 02:29:43 PM

Quote from: KenFSU on June 26, 2017, 01:31:00 PM
To your point Mike, I think a lot of people erroneously view the city's parking obligation as a "nice to have" that Sleiman won't stop whining about, rather than a necessity. They say things like, "there's plenty of parking downtown" and "people can walk." This misses the point though that the type of restaurants and retailers needed to anchor the Landing - the CVSs, and Cheesecake Factories, or whatever - have specific requirements for dedicated parking. If the parking isn't there, the conversation ends. The parking issue isn't Sleiman being whiney, but rather the city handcuffing him to the point that he cannot effectively bring in the types of establishments the Landing needs.

It can be two things at once.

There's plenty of blame to go around. Neither side has acted in particularly good faith, and Sleiman has actively turned down parking offers from the city that he considered inadequate. Just disagree with the T-U's and Mayor's characterization that Sleiman's lack of commitment and strong-arming is solely responsible for the Landing's woes when it's clear that the problems run much deeper and in many ways, pre-date Toney altogether.

For dedicated parking to exist, the city will either need to build Sleiman a $10-15 million parking garage (where?) or figure out a way to have dedicated spots from what is already there/being built.

From the article that Ennis quoted earlier in this thead at http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2011-09-13/story/jacksonville-landing-says-35-million-grant-parking-garage-not-enough

QuoteThe city made a deal to provide parking before the Landing opened in 1987, but that still hasn't been fulfilled. Doing that would require the city to provide another 300 parking spaces on weekdays and 375 on nights and weekends.

My initial thought is, we need to at least be able to meet the nights/weekend portion.

QuoteIt [Parador Garage] could also meet the Landing's night and weekend quota and open 200 weekday spots for shoppers. But Barcelo said the location doesn't meet the needs of the top-grade mall tenants the Landing seeks.

It seems they don't want the Parador, even with sufficient dedicated spots.

Quote$3.5 million will be provided by the City of Jacksonville towards the [Parador Garage] project's costs in exchange for 200 daily and 375 night and weekend public spaces on a first come first serve basis to benefit the Jacksonville Landing and other surrounding commercial businesses.

http://www.news4jax.com/news/local/retail-less-parking-garage-proposed-for-downtown

So it looks like the city has the sufficient level of spots for the Landing due to this deal if dedicated strictly to the Landing and not other commercial districts, correct? I don't know what else Sleiman or his attorney could want with it right across the street.

QuoteThe city agreed in 2011 to earmark $3.5 million to help Parador build the garage. The city's payment is in exchange for Parador setting spaces aside 200 spaces on weekdays and 375 spaces on weeknights and weekends for the public. The garage would increase parking options for patrons of the Landing, located across the street from the site. But the Landing has said the garage is not enough to comply with the city's long-standing obligation to provide parking for the riverfront mall.

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-10-11/story/600-space-parking-garage-downtown-jacksonville-wins-final-approval


1) Is the city done with its weekend obligation for the Landing or easily could attain it?

The answer seems to be Yes.

2) The city is 100 spots short of the dedicated weekday amounts, so how could it meet that level?

I think the answer is to do it as part of the Laura Street Trio garage. Won't there be 250 city owned spots there for COJ to distribute as it sees fit? Although not right across the street, this garage will only be two blocks from the Landing.

QuoteThe city would also agree to lease a 550-space parking garage at a cost of $660,000 per year for 20 years. The developer would lease back 250 spaces at a cost of $300,000 per year, according to information presented at a DIA meeting in February.

http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2017/06/06/historic-building-plans-that-commit-city-to.html

Quote from: KenFSU on June 26, 2017, 01:31:00 PM
To your point Mike, I think a lot of people erroneously view the city's parking obligation as a "nice to have" that Sleiman won't stop whining about, rather than a necessity. They say things like, "there's plenty of parking downtown" and "people can walk." This misses the point though that the type of restaurants and retailers needed to anchor the Landing - the CVSs, and Cheesecake Factories, or whatever - have specific requirements for dedicated parking. If the parking isn't there, the conversation ends. The parking issue isn't Sleiman being whiney, but rather the city handcuffing him to the point that he cannot effectively bring in the types of establishments the Landing needs.

Can he not fill up the current dedicated parking spots with those leases at least? Nothing has held him back especially with the Parador Garage. If the place is so full it needs additional parking, that will be a new conversation. I just feel as if there will never be enough parking and we will always be running around, even if the city met the parking agreement, which it seems to be only short of by 100 spots.

Quote from: FlaBoy on June 26, 2017, 03:27:27 PM
For dedicated parking to exist, the city will either need to build Sleiman a $10-15 million parking garage (where?) or figure out a way to have dedicated spots from what is already there/being built.

From the article that Ennis quoted earlier in this thead at http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2011-09-13/story/jacksonville-landing-says-35-million-grant-parking-garage-not-enough

You either need new parking or take existing spots from someone else.

Quote

QuoteThe city made a deal to provide parking before the Landing opened in 1987, but that still hasn't been fulfilled. Doing that would require the city to provide another 300 parking spaces on weekdays and 375 on nights and weekends.

My initial thought is, we need to at least be able to meet the nights/weekend portion.

Dedicated parking is parking that's available 24/7 for that specific use. Not just nights and weekends.

Quote

QuoteIt [Parador Garage] could also meet the Landing's night and weekend quota and open 200 weekday spots for shoppers. But Barcelo said the location doesn't meet the needs of the top-grade mall tenants the Landing seeks.

It seems they don't want the Parador, even with sufficient dedicated spots.

Parador doesn't include parking spaces that are dedicated to the Landing's tenants 24/7.

Quote

Quote$3.5 million will be provided by the City of Jacksonville towards the [Parador Garage] project's costs in exchange for 200 daily and 375 night and weekend public spaces on a first come first serve basis to benefit the Jacksonville Landing and other surrounding commercial businesses.

http://www.news4jax.com/news/local/retail-less-parking-garage-proposed-for-downtown

So it looks like the city has the sufficient level of spots for the Landing due to this deal if dedicated strictly to the Landing and not other commercial districts, correct? I don't know what else Sleiman or his attorney could want with it right across the street.

If dedicated to the Landing, it would suffice.  However, the majority of the spots in that garage are dedicated to Suntrust tenants. 

Quote

QuoteThe city agreed in 2011 to earmark $3.5 million to help Parador build the garage. The city's payment is in exchange for Parador setting spaces aside 200 spaces on weekdays and 375 spaces on weeknights and weekends for the public. The garage would increase parking options for patrons of the Landing, located across the street from the site. But the Landing has said the garage is not enough to comply with the city's long-standing obligation to provide parking for the riverfront mall.

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-10-11/story/600-space-parking-garage-downtown-jacksonville-wins-final-approval


1) Is the city done with its weekend obligation for the Landing or easily could attain it?

The answer seems to be Yes.

Yes, if one ignores the true definition of dedicated parking. Otherwise, no.

Given that I am fairly familiar with the 'Parador Parking Garage', absolutely zero spaces in the garage are dedicated for the sole use of Landing tenants. In fact, the garage is roughly 3/4 full with monthly parking customers.

Quote from: FlaBoy on June 26, 2017, 03:31:55 PMCan he not fill up the current dedicated parking spots with those leases at least? Nothing has held him back especially with the Parador Garage. If the place is so full it needs additional parking, that will be a new conversation. I just feel as if there will never be enough parking and we will always be running around, even if the city met the parking agreement, which it seems to be only short of by 100 spots.

Field's post answers what has held things back.

Quote from: fieldafm on June 26, 2017, 12:53:32 PM

Quote from: jlmann on June 26, 2017, 12:28:38 PM
why does sleiman need a dime or any commitment from the city to operate it as strip center as he described.  He's had 12 years.

has he been proposing he pay for all the landing improvements if he can get his 600 spots?  I'm assuming no, but please correct me.

in my view he's been refusing to do anything until he gets what he wants from the city- money.  sleiman positions it as you do.  the city wont "let" him do anything?

the city wont give him everything he wants seems more accurate.  if sleiman was worth his salt and such a savvy operator he would've done something besides complain for the last 12 years

there's been nothing stopping from running it like a strip center since day one.  sure they owe him parking but he wants more and wont operate in good faith otherwise.

Let's put something to rest, as there are a lot of facts that get glossed over in this discussion. The City's Development Agreement and subsequent operating lease with Rouse signed over 30 years ago, that Sleiman took over and now operates under, REQUIRES the city to provide additional parking. In fact the word 'parking' appears more times than there are pages in the lease (there are over 700 pages in the lease). Parking isn't something that Rouse thought would be nice to have. They required the City to build additional parking as a condition of the developer breaking ground. The City has never lived up to that agreement 30 years later. Most WalMart leases don't go beyond 30 years. Another interesting tidbit, there is also clawback language that indicates that if the People Mover (AKA the Skyway) was ever torn down that there is significant recourse due to the building owner as consideration.


The vast majority of land leases require the landowner's consent before the building could undergo substantial renovations. Sleiman can't just tear the building down without the City of Jacksonville consenting to such action. So in effect, 'the city wont "let" him do anything' in regards to redevelopment. Seeing as though the City owns the land underneath the buildings, I simply can't think of any developer who would ever completely redevelop property on land owned by a local municipality without said municipality pay for any infrastructure improvement needed to support a new building on said land.
As a point of comparison, the Shipyards development and The District development will also require much more public infrastructure improvement paid for by the City of Jacksonville, than any redevelopment proposal that Sleiman has ever presented since taking ownership of the Landing more than a decade ago. Why is it completely reasonable to expect the City to pay for infrastructure improvements to serve The District... but not the Landing? At least in The District's case, the master developer will own the land.


As to what kind of landlord the City has been... take a look at the floating public docks lining the Northbank Riverwalk/Jacksonville Landing. Over half of the available dock space has been in a state of disrepair and are closed off to the public. That's the City of Jacksonville's responsibility. Not only is the City refusing to live up to their 30 year obligation in regards to automobile parking... they aren't even repairing boat parking that presently exists.  That puts things in quite a different perspective if you removed the words 'Toney Sleiman' out of the equation and looked at the situation objectively.

Quote from: fieldafm on June 26, 2017, 03:42:47 PM
Given that I am fairly familiar with the 'Parador Parking Garage', absolutely zero spaces in the garage are dedicated for the sole use of Landing tenants. In fact, the garage is roughly 3/4 full with monthly parking customers.

Wasn't that the point of the $3.5 million provided by the city contingent upon 200 24/7 dedicated parking spots and an additional 175 evening and weekend spots (adding up to 375 spots after 5:30 and weekends)?

The city has come up short on its part for over 20 plus years, I think its time to move on from this and find a solution.

Also, count me among those who think that there's a lot of value in keeping at least at least a portion of the existing structure in place. Despite the checkered history and comparatively short lifespan, the Landing is iconic. Why would we raze one of the most identifiable features of our skyline, simply because it's not being utilized properly? I'd much rather see a renovation than a total redesign.

To me, there are few things more picturesque in Jacksonville than the Landing:

(https://www.iwantabuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/xmas-tree-lighting-landing.jpg)

(http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/wjct/files/styles/x_large/public/201506/1024px-JaxLanding1.JPG)

(http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/d3e441e5447b48fea0ad5c89ceb81e53/the-jacksonville-landing-jacksonville-florida-usa-bd37a7.jpg)

And it's also downtown's primary civic gathering spots for things like...

Florida Georgia weekend:
(http://thejacksonvilleparty.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/landing-700x400.jpg)

The Christmas tree-lighting:
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/5OgU1fPIggo/maxresdefault.jpg)

Political rallies:
(http://mediaweb.actionnewsjax.com/photo/2015/10/24/Trump_campaign_rally_434105_ver1.0_640_360.JPG)

Concerts:
(http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/sites/default/files/_1427729164landing.jpg)

Paint it, pressure wash it, do whatever it takes to modernize it, but why would we tear down such a great space without exhausting every possible effort to make it work?

Parking is an issue at the landing and it always has been. The city should have provided the parking they said the would 25-30 years ago.  But they didn't.  Back to 2017 and the current state of the landing:

Sleiman himself suggests that he could just choose to run it as regular ole strip center if the city wont work with him.

Sleiman would certainly say that providing no additional parking would qualify as the city "not working with him".  So in this hypothetical Sleiman allgedly goes on to manage a reasonably successful strip center.  With no additional parking.  This is according to him.  Otherwise if it couldn't, why suggest it?

Ergo Sleiman is ultimately saying there is some viable retail operation that could be run at the landing in its current form without huge amounts of tax payer dollars being required.

We can blame the last few decades worth of coj employees and politicians.  But they aren't in office now.  Curry is looking at this in 2017 and he correctly sees a partner who has not made a good faith effort to run the landing as he himself says he can with no help for the city.

Major events is really the only time most residents utilize the Landing. Those that work DT weekly usually dont return until Monday morning for work again.

Quote from: Keith-N-Jax on June 26, 2017, 04:34:57 PM
Major events is really the only time most residents utilize the Landing. Those that work DT weekly usually dont return until Monday morning for work again.

To your point, Keith, I remember reading in the Business Journal a year or two back that restaurants at the Landing like Hooters depend on a handful of big events each year - Florida/Georgia, 4th of July, NYE, etc. - to break even and offset losses from this lack of foot traffic during the rest of the year.

If changing the structure itself is off the table in the short term, I wonder if better, more frequent, more consistent programming could be the key to pumping new life into the Landing?

Crazy idea, but what if rather than taking control of the Landing, or committing money to building or remodeling structures the city doesn't own, the city took control of the interior courtyard and riverfront space and essentially operated it as a park:

(https://snag.gy/X2B1DK.jpg)

Dare as I say, make it over and run it as a public-private partnership with Sleiman. Lunch time programming. Daily events. Exercise or art classes. Movie nights. Happy hours after work with live music and open containers in the courtyard. Bigger tentpole events on the weekends. Whatever, as long as people know that there is always going to be activity down there.

We call Hemming "Jacksonville's front porch," but really, the Landing courtyard - particularly if opened up to Laura Street - literally is the front porch of our CBD, and making that public space more active, giving people more reasons to come down, and eventually making that activity visible from Laura street could have a really positive impact on businesses at the Landing.

Quote from: KenFSU on June 26, 2017, 05:09:21 PM

Quote from: Keith-N-Jax on June 26, 2017, 04:34:57 PM
Major events is really the only time most residents utilize the Landing. Those that work DT weekly usually dont return until Monday morning for work again.

To your point, Keith, I remember reading in the Business Journal a year or two back that restaurants at the Landing like Hooters depend on a handful of big events each year - Florida/Georgia, 4th of July, NYE, etc. - to break even and offset losses from this lack of foot traffic during the rest of the year.

If changing the structure itself is off the table in the short term, I wonder if better, more frequent, more consistent programming could be the key to pumping new life into the Landing?

Crazy idea, but what if rather than taking control of the Landing, or committing money to building or remodeling structures the city doesn't own, the city took control of the interior courtyard and riverfront space and essentially operated it as a park:

(https://snag.gy/X2B1DK.jpg)

Dare as I say, make it over and run it as a public-private partnership with Sleiman. Lunch time programming. Daily events. Exercise or art classes. Movie nights. Happy hours after work with live music and open containers in the courtyard. Bigger tentpole events on the weekends. Whatever, as long as people know that there is always going to be activity down there.

We call Hemming "Jacksonville's front porch," but really, the Landing courtyard - particularly if opened up to Laura Street - literally is the front porch of our CBD, and making that public space more active, giving people more reasons to come down, and eventually making that activity visible from Laura street could have a really positive impact on businesses at the Landing.

I have a feeling that is what they want to do...just without Sleiman. I think they want a third party to manage the venue and work closer with the city on programming the venue. It just seems that there is no longer a working relationship between Sleiman and COJ.

For me at least, the reason I rarely go to the landing is because the current mix of tenants does not appeal to me at all. The few places I've gone there have been so poorly managed and dirty that I refuse to return.

It's funny that the Landing's website displays a banner that says "Downtown's Premier Dining & Nightlife Scene" on top of a picture of five fried dishes. I think that is representative of how in-touch the current management (and tenants?) is with the current market.

I'd love it if it was cleaned up and had some places to get craft beer, wine, and good (healthy) food with a good view of the river. Hooters doesn't cut it for me..

Quote from: remc86007 on June 26, 2017, 05:22:02 PM

I'd love it if it was cleaned up and had some places to get craft beer, wine, and good (healthy) food with a good view of the river. Hooters doesn't cut it for me..

There have been better mixes there.  Southend Brewery was on the north end where Fionn McCool's is now and they brewed their own beer on sight.

Jock's and Jill's was a sportsbar.  American Cafe above Hooters.  A handful of bars and clubs, Huey's, Twisted Martini, Huey's II...  rotated in and out of many of the spaces.  All of this was in the early 2000's when I used to bartend down there, and business was decent all week - I'd bring home $100-$200 nightly.  And there seemed to be a lot more going on nightly, the restaurants were more varied, there were just bars if that's all you wanted....  it feels like it was a totally different place than it is now...

But as many have pointed out, it still fills up when there are events going on downtown, I just don't see anything there currently that says, "Hey, we should go to the Landing for..." on a random Tuesday night.

Anybody know why all those places left. I really liked American Café, twisted martini and that place that cooked your food as you watched cant remember the name. WHAT HAPPENED

Quote from: jlmann on June 26, 2017, 04:33:55 PM
Parking is an issue at the landing and it always has been. The city should have provided the parking they said the would 25-30 years ago.  But they didn't.  Back to 2017 and the current state of the landing:

Sleiman himself suggests that he could just choose to run it as regular ole strip center if the city wont work with him.

He said shopping center.  However, it is a shopping center and it should be run like one, as opposed to something we're wasting time and energy conducting visioning sessions for full redevelopment every other year.

QuoteSleiman would certainly say that providing no additional parking would qualify as the city "not working with him".  So in this hypothetical Sleiman allgedly goes on to manage a reasonably successful strip center.  With no additional parking.  This is according to him.  Otherwise if it couldn't, why suggest it?

Call his bluff and let's see what happens.  Seriously, what does Jacksonville have to lose?

QuoteErgo Sleiman is ultimately saying there is some viable retail operation that could be run at the landing in its current form without huge amounts of tax payer dollars being required.

Sounds like it. However, that also means  he's not paying to tear a hole in the middle of it to open the courtyard to Laura Street or paying for public space surrounding it or any of the other add-ons that have come from past visioning efforts.

QuoteWe can blame the last few decades worth of coj employees and politicians.  But they aren't in office now.  Curry is looking at this in 2017 and he correctly sees a partner who has not made a good faith effort to run the landing as he himself says he can with no help for the city.

What's your proof he hasn't made a good faith effort to run the landing? The dude has been lobbying for redevelopment the last 14 years!  Let's see what happens when it's known and accepted that COJ isn't financially assisting in full redevelopment.

Quote from: Keith-N-Jax on June 26, 2017, 04:34:57 PM
Major events is really the only time most residents utilize the Landing. Those that work DT weekly usually dont return until Monday morning for work again.

When the Landing was built, it was supposed to be supported by 70% tourist. For whatever reason, that tourism base still has not materialized three decades after the promises to lure Rouse to town.  It would be a bad business decision to depend on residents for primary support.  They'll need a mix of tourist, downtown workers, residents and suburbanites drawn in with occasional events.

Quote from: remc86007 on June 26, 2017, 05:22:02 PM
For me at least, the reason I rarely go to the landing is because the current mix of tenants does not appeal to me at all. The few places I've gone there have been so poorly managed and dirty that I refuse to return.

It's funny that the Landing's website displays a banner that says "Downtown's Premier Dining & Nightlife Scene" on top of a picture of five fried dishes. I think that is representative of how in-touch the current management (and tenants?) is with the current market.

I'd love it if it was cleaned up and had some places to get craft beer, wine, and good (healthy) food with a good view of the river. Hooters doesn't cut it for me..

I think a lot of people will be surprised to know that Hooters does great business there.  While many who post here may not like places like that, Jacksonville's market suggests it's a good fit. With that said, it being dated, dirty and grimy probably keeps most people away.  These are cosmetic issues that can be resolved without a bulldozer and $12 million in public incentives.

Quote from: Keith-N-Jax on June 26, 2017, 06:20:35 PM
Anybody know why all those places left. I really liked American Café, twisted martini and that place that cooked your food as you watched cant remember the name. WHAT HAPPENED

Every business closing has a different story.  However, at the end of the day, indecision on whether the buildings will be demolished or not, does not help will filling vacant spaces and certainly doesn't result in upgrading the existing structure.  In the case of Twisted Martini, they also opened and closed a second location in Ponte Vedra. American Cafe used to be a chain owned by Morrison Restaurants, then Ruby Tuesday and then Specialty Restaurants LLC.  Specialty filed for bankruptcy a few years ago. I'm not sure the American Cafe chain is still around anymore.

what about converting the Landing into a government facility?  With the Jail, School Board building, we could have a government building Trifecta!

Quote from: Tacachale on June 26, 2017, 11:47:45 AM

Quote from: thelakelander on June 26, 2017, 11:34:15 AM

Quote from: Tacachale on June 26, 2017, 11:13:31 AM
The issue is dedicated parking. There are businesses that won't even consider a site if there's not confirmed dedicated parking. The existence of other parking in the area is actually part of the problem - with the Parador garage, the city built a garage near the Landing that doesn't resolve the structure's core parking issues. But yes, parking's only one issue, along with bad management and a design that didn't work 30 years ago and has never had a single renovation.

I question the design of the structure being bad, to the point where the structure needs to be demolished and rebuilt.  The design was fine for a festival marketplace. The problem was Jacksonville was too small to support that type of retail concept and the vibrant downtown environment Rouse and the Godbold administration were hoping for, never materialized. 

We now know that it should be primarily dining and entertainment, as opposed to 60% specialty retail.  That's what the market is right now. However, we probably can't fill up 125,000 square feet of leasable space with those two uses.  Thus, some of the more undesirable spaces may have to be converted into different uses.  As for opening the courtyard up to Laura Street. That's not a need. That's a want that has little to do with what the market can support.  Looking back into the history of the Landing, that idea even pre-dates Sleiman and appears to have come from visionaries, moreso than it being based on the practicality of the market being able to support the product.

Even dating back to the Peyton days, we really haven't had a true conversation on the potential of just renovating the existing structure and changing the tenant mix to meet today's consumer needs.

But you don't question that the design is bad to the point that it's not suitable for the kinds of uses that could actually be successful there, and so needs a renovation that none of its owners have ever done, which is the point.

I don't question that the design is poor. But Sleiman bought that design. I just bought a house - there are issues with it, but I was aware of those before I signed the contract. I can't really expect the government to come and pay to redesign my house because I'm not happy with it.

I realise that a house and a mall are different, sure. But I don't see why the taxpayer should be responsible for ensuring the success of Sleiman's investment. If the city is responsible for parking - then yeah, sort that out. It makes sense. But if Sleiman wants a different building, then he should pay for it.

Quote from: thelakelander on June 26, 2017, 06:42:02 PM

Quote from: Keith-N-Jax on June 26, 2017, 04:34:57 PM
Major events is really the only time most residents utilize the Landing. Those that work DT weekly usually dont return until Monday morning for work again.

When the Landing was built, it was supposed to be supported by 70% tourist. For whatever reason, that tourism base still has not materialized three decades after the promises to lure Rouse to town.  It would be a bad business decision to depend on residents for primary support.  They'll need a mix of tourist, downtown workers, residents and suburbanites drawn in with occasional events.

Why would a tourist come to downtown Jacksonville ?

^Why would a tourist want to come to downtown Birmingham, Memphis or Louisville? I can't answer that question, but they do.....including me in the past. Back in the 1980s, people said the same thing about Savannah and now it's a major tourist destination. With that said, someone is staying at those downtown hotels and already walking around the place like zombies.  It is possible to strengthen the base we already have.  We just have to acknowledge it exists, understand the economic benefits and make it a priority to grow the base.

Quote from: Gunnar on June 27, 2017, 05:20:54 AM

Quote from: thelakelander on June 26, 2017, 06:42:02 PM

Quote from: Keith-N-Jax on June 26, 2017, 04:34:57 PM
Major events is really the only time most residents utilize the Landing. Those that work DT weekly usually dont return until Monday morning for work again.

When the Landing was built, it was supposed to be supported by 70% tourist. For whatever reason, that tourism base still has not materialized three decades after the promises to lure Rouse to town.  It would be a bad business decision to depend on residents for primary support.  They'll need a mix of tourist, downtown workers, residents and suburbanites drawn in with occasional events.

Why would a tourist come to downtown Jacksonville ?

And our St. Johns River an American Heritage River a FEDERAL Initiative runs through the middle of it. Anyone? Please explain how it will be activated for everyone in our new Downtown zone.

Not just the tourist.

QuoteOne Enterprise Center in downtown Jacksonville has been sold for $15.2 million, less than one-third of what it sold for nine years ago.

Rosecrans 2004 LLC, based in Los Angeles, bought the 22-story building at 225 Water St. John Bell, the Transwestern managing director who represented the seller, said the 317,571-square-foot building is 51 percent occupied. Among the major tenants are Rayonier; Gunster; Smith Hulsey & Busey; and Gresham, Smith and Partners.

But Rayonier will be moving out to its new headquarters under construction in Nassau County.

Bell said he had received many offers from within Florida, across the country and internationally since the property went on the market in February. It's across the street from the Times-Union Center for the Performing Arts and The Jacksonville Landing, and is connected to the Omni Jacksonville Hotel next door.

Don't expect any new buildings other than JEA anytime soon.  Low occupancy doesn't bode well for the Landing in the near future either.  Hopefully having obtained the building so cheap the new owner will be able to upgrade and also offer an attractive lease rate to fill up the building.

hooters may do fine business.  but is the goal of the landing to make every bubba blue collar westsider feel at home?  I would suggest that's an unacceptable outcome for a location like the landing in a city that wants to see its reputation grow in a positive direction.  Do any of our other assets as a city include a grimy hooters?

To me its also a cultural fit for what I think Jax should aspire to.  Sleiman can not or will not deliver that and that's certainly part of my calculus.  and I think correctly part of cojs. 

his attempts at redevelopment show this aint the guy.  can we just give his 5 mil back?

Quote from: jlmann on June 27, 2017, 08:54:07 AM
hooters may do fine business.  but is the goal of the landing to make every bubba blue collar westsider feel at home?

That's a stereotype. I seriously doubt the Landing's Hooters makes its money off of blue collar westsiders.  Same goes for the Hooter's in Tampa's Channel District, which is an urban dining/entertainment complex similar to the Landing. Ultimately, the goal of the Landing should be a place that's successful.  However, the market should play a larger role in determining what success is, as opposed to a few people determining success by it having things that they think are personally acceptable.

QuoteI would suggest that's an unacceptable outcome for a location like the landing in a city that wants to see its reputation grow in a positive direction.  Do any of our other assets as a city include a grimy hooters?

I try to separate personal desires and wants from market reality.  I'm not sure its acceptable for people with no skin in the game to attempt to have significant influence on the outcome of a private facility.  By the same token, that also means I'm fine with that private facility not receiving public funds.  We should put an end to this decades old full redevelopment charade and tell the guy to break out his pressure washer and move on.  Do that and you'll have a clean sparkling Hooters.  Maybe you'll get a McDonald's and CVS too. If these types of establishments don't fit someone's idea of a good time, there's other establishments like Cowford Chophouse, IAW and Bellwether that will accept the additional business.  After all, a vibrant place should have a little something for every demographic.

QuoteTo me its also a cultural fit for what I think Jax should aspire to.  Sleiman can not or will not deliver that and that's certainly part of my calculus.  and I think correctly part of cojs. 

his attempts at redevelopment show this aint the guy.  can we just give his 5 mil back?

I think Jax should embrace it's actual culture/history and market the hell out of it.  If we have an extra 5 mil to spend in downtown, I'd rather see it go to make it feasible to renovate some of our larger vacant structures into additional housing.  Not burn it on a retail center, attempt to implement whatever a few think is cool, only to see it fail because we're still ignoring to build a market that can support the dreams.

Quote from: thelakelander on June 27, 2017, 09:16:28 AM
Maybe you'll get a McDonald's and CVS too. If these types of establishments don't fit someone's idea of a good time, there's other establishments like Cowford Chophouse, IAW and Bellwether that will accept the additional business.  After all, a vibrant place should have a little something for every demographic.

That's one of the most sensible things I've read in a while. I think we should be creating the right conditions for development downtown and worrying less about the "right" kind of development. It should take care of itself.

lol.

if youre at the one consolidated retail development downtown and don't like the establishments that do not cater to anything other than someone who needs toothpaste or a happy meal, you could walk several miles to check out the few disconnected islands of entertainment we have down town.  same thing!

if you commissioned a market study for 5pts by an out of town co. who knew nothing of the area, what would they come back with?  Certainly not what's there.  We need vision, and not sleiman's

Quote from: Adam White on June 27, 2017, 05:15:33 AMI don't question that the design is poor. But Sleiman bought that design. I just bought a house - there are issues with it, but I was aware of those before I signed the contract. I can't really expect the government to come and pay to redesign my house because I'm not happy with it.

I realise that a house and a mall are different, sure. But I don't see why the taxpayer should be responsible for ensuring the success of Sleiman's investment. If the city is responsible for parking - then yeah, sort that out. It makes sense. But if Sleiman wants a different building, then he should pay for it.

Imagine the city owns the land under your house.  Imagine city promised you parking spots for your house because it doesn't come with one.  Imagine you plan to undergo a big expansion and turn your house into a large several story multi-unit facility but you still don't have parking the city promised. 

Imagine your expansion greatly impacts the tax revenue of the city for that property that they own.  Imagine for 15 years the city has balked at every proposal you've tried and their is a court battle over the parking situation.  Now imagine trying to go forward with your redevelopment plans on your own with your own money and without the promised parking that your upcoming home owners will never have.

Quote from: thelakelander on June 27, 2017, 09:16:28 AM

I think Jax should embrace it's actual culture/history and market the hell out of it.  If we have an extra 5 mil to spend in downtown, I'd rather see it go to make it feasible to renovate some of our larger vacant structures into additional housing.  Not burn it on a retail center, attempt to implement whatever a few think is cool, only to see it fail because we're still ignoring to build a market that can support the dreams.

150% right. The historic buildings in desperate need of a plan and some funding to increase our residential DT base like the Laura St Trio/Barnett Bank will be:

1) the current JEA buildings
2) the Ambassador Hotel/old JEA Building
3) Hogan St (Jones Bros. Building, Old Federal Reserve, Old Southern Baptist HQ)

If the Annex is not included or incorporated into a convention center site, I think it is right up there as well. There are many other historic structures that deserve saving, especially the Armory, that are not right in the core but in the peripheral area.

Hopefully we get the Trio/Barnett FINALLY done.

Quote from: Jim on June 27, 2017, 10:13:17 AM

Quote from: Adam White on June 27, 2017, 05:15:33 AMI don't question that the design is poor. But Sleiman bought that design. I just bought a house - there are issues with it, but I was aware of those before I signed the contract. I can't really expect the government to come and pay to redesign my house because I'm not happy with it.

I realise that a house and a mall are different, sure. But I don't see why the taxpayer should be responsible for ensuring the success of Sleiman's investment. If the city is responsible for parking - then yeah, sort that out. It makes sense. But if Sleiman wants a different building, then he should pay for it.

Imagine the city owns the land under your house.  Imagine city promised you parking spots for your house because it doesn't come with one.  Imagine you plan to undergo a big expansion and turn your house into a large several story multi-unit facility but you still don't have parking the city promised. 

Imagine your expansion greatly impacts the tax revenue of the city for that property that they own.  Imagine for 15 years the city has balked at every proposal you've tried and their is a court battle over the parking situation.  Now imagine trying to go forward with your redevelopment plans on your own with your own money and without the promised parking that your upcoming home owners will never have.

Imagine you read this part of my original post:

QuoteIf the city is responsible for parking - then yeah, sort that out. It makes sense. But if Sleiman wants a different building, then he should pay for it.

Quote from: jlmann on June 27, 2017, 10:12:46 AM
lol.

if youre at the one consolidated retail development downtown and don't like the establishments that do not cater to anything other than someone who needs toothpaste or a happy meal, you could walk several miles to check out the few disconnected islands of entertainment we have down town.  same thing!

if you commissioned a market study for 5pts by an out of town co. who knew nothing of the area, what would they come back with?  Certainly not what's there.  We need vision, and not sleiman's

I would argue at this time counting on anyone having a vision is not going to happen. I tend to agree with lakelander as to let market go as it decides. Several good examples:

MD Anderson/Baptist - Many healthcare professionals rent near the facility, thus Ventures apartments and retail as demanded.

Brooklyn - Becomimg an urban suburb with access to DT/5PTs/Riverside, thus another 10 story apt. building and retail as demanded.

Sports/Entertainment District - Becoming a destination, thus breweries, distillaries, resturants, bowling ally, etc.

JTA Hub - Transportation center attracting new appartments.

DT needs a few key projects to really start -  Barnett and Trio - I think organic growth will follow in DT also.

Quote from: jlmann on June 27, 2017, 10:12:46 AM
lol.

if youre at the one consolidated retail development downtown and don't like the establishments that do not cater to anything other than someone who needs toothpaste or a happy meal, you could walk several miles to check out the few disconnected islands of entertainment we have down town.  same thing!

Other than IAW, the places I named are within a two to three block walk of the Landing.  I can name many more that would like the additional business.  There's also vacant retail spots along that walk that should be filled with additional businesses.  Ideally, a vibrant downtown setting will be a walkable one. So the Landing should be one of many viable choices people can select to spend their time and money in, within a compact urban setting.

Quoteif you commissioned a market study for 5pts by an out of town co. who knew nothing of the area, what would they come back with?  Certainly not what's there.  We need vision, and not sleiman's

Why waste time and money doing another publicly financed market study?  Very few established business need publicly financed market studies to tell them when the market is ready for their investment.  Btw, vision and cherry picking business establishments are two different things.  It's not up to us to decide who's worthy of investing in downtown. We have enough vacant space for anyone willing to invest.  Whether it's Hooters or Hawkers shouldn't matter. We're better off worrying about keeping the surrounding streets clean, lights lit and public spaces maintained.

Quote from: jlmann on June 27, 2017, 10:12:46 AM

if you commissioned a market study for 5pts by an out of town co. who knew nothing of the area, what would they come back with?  Certainly not what's there.  We need vision, and not sleiman's

How many businesses failed in order for us to get where we are in 5 points now?

The point being that any 'study' is going to come back with proven winners.  You don't think 5 points would be just as bustling if you replaced some of the unique stores with more recognizable 'brands'?  I'm willing to bet it would, just like any other busy commercial corridor in the USA. 

The fact that we have thriving, unique stores there didn't happen overnight, but the difference with 5 points and the Landing is that people are going to pass through 5 points regardless, not too many people just 'pass through' the Landing.   I'm willing to bet that you could take the same mix of shops from 5 points, magically move them to storefronts in the Landing, and the Landing would be just as dead and what appear to be thriving businesses would be shutting their doors within a year. 

Management isn't as much an issue, IMO, as daily foot traffic.

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on June 27, 2017, 11:31:00 AM

Quote from: jlmann on June 27, 2017, 10:12:46 AM

if you commissioned a market study for 5pts by an out of town co. who knew nothing of the area, what would they come back with?  Certainly not what's there.  We need vision, and not sleiman's

How many businesses failed in order for us to get where we are in 5 points now?

The point being that any 'study' is going to come back with proven winners.  You don't think 5 points would be just as bustling if you replaced some of the unique stores with more recognizable 'brands'?  I'm willing to bet it would, just like any other busy commercial corridor in the USA. 

The fact that we have thriving, unique stores there didn't happen overnight, but the difference with 5 points and the Landing is that people are going to pass through 5 points regardless, not too many people just 'pass through' the Landing.   I'm willing to bet that you could take the same mix of shops from 5 points, magically move them to storefronts in the Landing, and the Landing would be just as dead and what appear to be thriving businesses would be shutting their doors within a year. 

Management isn't as much an issue, IMO, as daily foot traffic.

And daily foot traffic isn't likely to increase without the Landing being part of something larger. Like more restaurants and shops (or offices and other businesses or even residences) in the area. You could pack the Landing with the best possible performers and it would likely still struggle. Might do better than it does now - but I recall how it was busy when it opened. But it died after the novelty wore off.

5 Points is in the heart of a relatively dense neighborhood. The Landing is in the middle of close to nothing.

would 5pts be what it is today with a mcdonalds and cvs etc?

Of course not.  That ranks as one of the more insane things ive read in some time.  Its the opposite! The fact that it isn't filled with crap readily available in the burbs is exactly why it draws people in from surrounding areas and is the city's hotspot.  It's why people go to the beaches town center.  Its why King St has been revitalized.  What market study would tell you to line a mostly vacant street in an area with a lot of low incomes with bars where others have failed?

If you want what yall describe there are hundreds of places outside the core to find it.  Why on earth would you drive in from mandarin to go to a chiles?

so if you fill the landing with more of whats there and add to it with, oooohhhhh, a CVS what market does that serve?  The residents downtown?  Oh yeah. 

Market studies and plans that meet your checklist from Intro to Planning have done so well for Jax.   Of course people will come to hang out at our awesome sports complex to hang out when there aren't events.  Because consultants!  Random, but also reminds me of our whole foods- makes so much sense right?  market study shows its in a place that will pull in sooo many to this destination store.  and yet it is one of the worst, if not the worst performing whole foods in the country.

the fresh market in Brooklyn probably makes sense on paper.  But its not a great fit for the neighborhood.  Which is why its empty with the exception of lunch and half the fresh items are past due.   

I'm sure you guys have a spot on idea of how to approach this in a manner that would delight a planning conference.  it just wont add anything of value to Jacksonville and reinforce our image as a cultural void.

5 pts is not that dense and the population has not increased with the reviltalization and certainly cant be named a factor.  What's been built?  Brooklyn doesn't count as much as they market it as being in riverside

virtually no one lives east of 5pts.  the 3 towers of old folks convalescing shouldn't count.  then outside of the bell and 1661 its equal in density to most burbs as it is all single family with duplexes etc mixed in.

riverside's population hasn't grown and yet it has become something great.  maybe we should pay attention

Quote from: jlmann on June 27, 2017, 01:26:03 PM
would 5pts be what it is today with a mcdonalds and cvs etc?

Of course not.  That ranks as one of the more insane things ive read in some time.  Its the opposite! The fact that it isn't filled with crap readily available in the burbs is exactly why it draws people in from surrounding areas and is the city's hotspot.  It's why people go to the beaches town center.  Its why King St has been revitalized.  What market study would tell you to line a mostly vacant street in an area with a lot of low incomes with bars where others have failed?

If you want what yall describe there are hundreds of places outside the core to find it.  Why on earth would you drive in from mandarin to go to a chiles?

so if you fill the landing with more of whats there and add to it with, oooohhhhh, a CVS what market does that serve?  The residents downtown?  Oh yeah. 

Market studies and plans that meet your checklist from Intro to Planning have done so well for Jax.   Of course people will come to hang out at our awesome sports complex to hang out when there aren't events.  Because consultants!  Random, but also reminds me of our whole foods- makes so much sense right?  market study shows its in a place that will pull in sooo many to this destination store.  and yet it is one of the worst, if not the worst performing whole foods in the country.

the fresh market in Brooklyn probably makes sense on paper.  But its not a great fit for the neighborhood.  Which is why its empty with the exception of lunch and half the fresh items are past due.   

I'm sure you guys have a spot on idea of how to approach this in a manner that would delight a planning conference.  it just wont add anything of value to Jacksonville and reinforce our image as a cultural void.

Sounds like you are just angry at everything (because 'but Sleiman').. but to inject some facts into your rants:

-5 Points has had a McDonalds and a CVS my entire life (I turn 40 soon), in the form of Wendys and Carters Pharmacy. The Shell gas station on Post/Margaret has been around as long as I remember, and the 7-11 (where a Hardees fast food chain formerly operated) does sufficient business for the franchisee to now own multiple 7-11 franchises.  King Street has both a 'McDonalds and a CVS' in the form of Walgreens and Burger King.

-A CVS downtown would serve the substantial weekday working population, the roughly 3,000 residents downtown that use the 7-11 on Forsyth (which is a very profitable store) and the visitors downtown that don't have a C-store they can stop into for needed supplies. As a point of comparison, when Sundries inside the Landing closed (the proprietor retired), a significant drop in foot traffic was reported by merchants.  So yes, there is a need and a market for a CVS. 

-The Fresh Market in Brooklyn is performing significantly above their projections.


-Sleiman!  Consultants!  Planners!  Real Estate People!!  AAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!

oh my lord.  I said I didn't think fresh market was a great fit, they did most of their business at lunch w nonresidents and accordingly their fresh items are going bad and not removed.  Take a decent produce list one night and you'll see.  But yeah they may be beating estimates which is great for corporate wherever theyre located

There is a need for a cvs or the like downtown.  It shouldn't be a focus of the landing redevelopment.  I know it a super complex concept for these 2 statements to be able to both be true in the same universe

the 7-11 was last a pizza palace prior to the change only a few short years ago and has had little to no impact of 5 pts.  Its there because of the revitalization- it had no part in it

the wendys and pharmancy and gas station were there for decades before things turned around for riverside.  thereby actually proving my point: a neighborhood can need and have basic amenities, but they do not cause a neighborhood to become vibrant.  even if you claim they do you're looking at a lead time in the decades based on that example

And when has the consultant set given us anything that's worked out well for the jax core?  the san marco redesign was pretty good, but that just enhanced an already vibrant area

Quote from: jlmann on June 27, 2017, 01:34:40 PM
virtually no one lives east of 5pts.  the 3 towers of old folks convalescing shouldn't count.  then outside of the bell and 1661 its equal in density to most burbs as it is all single family with duplexes etc mixed in.

Exactly where are these dense suburbs you're talking about here?? 

I realize theres a difference, but the areas of only residential streets just arent that dense and there's more commercial mixed in than a burby neighborhood.  I don't know how the factor in kids to a density calculation but there is also a big difference in the demo- way more singles, empty nesters and retirees in riverside.

new areas in nocatee and develpments of that sort look about the same.  because theyre mimicking places like riverside.

there are probably specific spots in the southside/jtb/sjtc area with a comparable density given the droves of 300-400 unit apt complexes. because riverside isn't very big

and again: the simple fact is riverside blew up when people from other parts of town showed up to hang out.  the population isn't that dense and it hasn't changed either

pretty consistent density around jax:

https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=3327e6cc84a84d7194437d7904fb64b3 (https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=3327e6cc84a84d7194437d7904fb64b3)

Riverside "blew up" when people started moving and reinvesting in historic pedestrian friendly communities across the country.  This trend was happening well before I came to town in 2003.  There's also been a change in retailing and dining trends.  Five Points and Park & King are examples of two districts that have changed in recent years, as a result of the market.  No publicly financed market study was needed to draw Hawkers, M Shack, Hoptinger, 7-Eleven, Publix or any of the other businesses that have opened in the vicinity.  However, I'm not sure what a neighborhood commercial district comprised of multiple property owners, like Five Points, San Marco Square, Edgewood Avenue or Main Street, has to do with the Landing's situation.  This is about as much of an apples to oranges comparison that one can make, if attempting to base the argument on market dynamics.

Quote from: jlmann on June 27, 2017, 03:26:14 PM
pretty consistent density around jax:

https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=3327e6cc84a84d7194437d7904fb64b3 (https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=3327e6cc84a84d7194437d7904fb64b3)

^Most second tier american cities don't have many census tracts of +10,000 residents/square mile.  Jacksonville doesn't look much different from Atlanta, Tampa or Orlando at that scale. You'll get more variation breaking things down at 5,000/square mile.

http://www.nytimes.com/projects/census/2010/map.html

^It appears the site isn't functional anymore but here's a screen shot from the interactive NY Times 2010 Census map of Jacksonville's census tracts by population density:

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/1625860251_LP9z6fN-M.jpg)

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2012-dec-jacksonvilles-densest-neighborhoods

Unfortunately, because the map appears not to be working, you can't edit the layers to reflect other demographics, such as employment density, growth percentage, etc.

I was pointing out that the offerings of 5pts are what the landing should be targeting as part of the redevelopment plan that does not include sleiman.

others nit picked my musing on 5pts and I responded.  specifically to the point about density being responsible.

in my mind riverside "blew up" 5-7 yrs ago and really in the last few years- the arrival of hawkers saw things go to the next level in 5pts and its continued ever sense.  also the remaking of walkers into the garage was a turning point for nightlife in the hood.  but your point is fair that broader trends certainly helped.  the publix really helped that trend get traction.

but it wasn't so long ago 5pts was mostly vacant/the stuff that was there was crap.  anyway a publix or the like closer to the river would be awesome.  winn Dixie or harveys or whatever isn't going to cut it for anyone who want to live DT side of beaver/union.  we need a separate development with the basics in conjunction with something with some culture and a soul at the landing.  this isn't a chance to get a cvs on the river.  think about all the cities you love.  I'm guessing you know what I mean when I say they got soul- a specific "ness" that you just feel.  jax doesn't have it.  strip centers wont do it.

having lived in riverside long enough to see all this happens gives me some conviction that the population # hasn't changed that much.  Demographics maybe, sure.  But there has never been a large number of unoccupied residential and the additions since were hardly game changers.

what it has to do with the landing is it reveals what people want in the area of dining and entertainment

which is not anywhere close to these beauties:
http://www.sleiman.com/LeasingInformation/MandarinProperties.aspx (http://www.sleiman.com/LeasingInformation/MandarinProperties.aspx)

look through those properties.  that should be case closed on whether sleiman's involvement is good for the landing.  the guy has never done anything interesting or high end or in an urban setting

But hey maybe we can get a Bealls, a vape shop and a 2nd subway downtown at least!  In 25 years itll be popping off

http://www.sleiman.com/LeasingInformation/SouthsideBaymeadowsProperties/SleimanBuilding.aspx (http://www.sleiman.com/LeasingInformation/SouthsideBaymeadowsProperties/SleimanBuilding.aspx)

lol nice sleiman bldg.  what a talent!  what refined taste!

Quote from: jlmann on June 27, 2017, 04:15:50 PM
I was pointing out that the offerings of 5pts are what the landing should be targeting as part of the redevelopment plan that does not include sleiman.

We'd need more information but based on the type of built context and ownership make-up, the leasing rates may not be comparable. Thus, I'd recommend leaving specific tenant mix decisions up to the retail developer regardless of whether it's Sleiman or someone else.

Quotewhat it has to do with the landing is it reveals what people want in the area of dining and entertainment

More people flock to SJTC and its chains. Both examples highlight certain segments of the market.  For all we know, the Landing's niche could be something significantly different from both what people seek at SJTC and Five Points. Neither of those have 60,000 office workers at their doorstep during the weekdays or immediate access to a few of the largest hotels in the city or the proximity to cultural venues such has the performing arts center.  All of these things could play a significant role in what the Landing's market is, in comparison to some other areas locally.

Quotewhich is not anywhere close to these beauties:
http://www.sleiman.com/LeasingInformation/MandarinProperties.aspx (http://www.sleiman.com/LeasingInformation/MandarinProperties.aspx)

look through those properties.  that should be case closed on whether sleiman's involvement is good for the landing.  the guy has never done anything interesting or high end or in an urban setting

Definitely doubt there's a high end market in Jax to fill 125,000 square feet of space in downtown.  Rouse's downtown experience pretty much confirms this. Nevertheless, for all the complaints about Sleiman and urban shopping, no developer has pulled off a successful urban infill retail project since Downtown Center in the 1960s. Not Regency Centers, not Ben Carter, not Simon, etc.

QuoteBut hey maybe we can get a Bealls, a vape shop and a 2nd subway downtown at least!  In 25 years itll be popping off

If Bealls, Stein Mart, Ross, etc. want to come to downtown and invest in opening a store.....great. They offer products that you can't find in the downtown core.  By the same token, if some of his tenants you omitted like Earth Fare, Barnes & Noble, Trader Joe's, Epic Theatres, Walgreens, Jollibee, etc. want to open in downtown....they're welcome too.

so it seems many here will be happy if literally any store opens that offers a product not currently available downtown.

"EWWW look!  a ross, barns and noble and walgreens- let's go!"

said no one ever.

if we actually put that kinda crap at the landing it'll be a "what were they thinking putting a Walgreens on the river ?!" moment years from now- a la all the other genius decisions we've made with riverfront property through the years- and none as prime as this.

I'm sure there were planners and consultants who made a semi reasonable case each and every time.  Ones with no vision.

who says we need 125k sqft?  of course it doesn't have to be all high end.  my point is that sleimans properties are atrocious and he has no experience with anything even approaching the creative design that would be required

look at the last proposal.

if I had to sum up the view of some on this forum in a single statement it would be "pleasepleaseplease put something, anything there"

Quote from: jlmann on June 27, 2017, 05:05:51 PM
so it seems many here will be happy if literally any store opens that offers a product not currently available downtown.

"EWWW look!  a ross, barns and noble and walgreens- let's go!"

said no one ever.

if we actually put that kinda crap at the landing it'll be a "what were they thinking putting a Walgreens on the river ?!" moment years from now- a la all the other genius decisions we've made with riverfront property through the years- and none as prime as this.

I'm sure there were planners and consultants who made a semi reasonable case each and every time.  Ones with no vision.

Walgreens would be a godsend for the Landing.

Quote from: jlmann on June 27, 2017, 05:05:51 PM
so it seems many here will be happy if literally any store opens that offers a product not currently available downtown.

Yeah, I'd personally be happy if a successful business decides to make an investment in downtown Jacksonville.

Quote"EWWW look!  a ross, barns and noble and walgreens- let's go!

said no one ever.

Who cares?  Even Manhattan has multiple Walgreens and 7-Elevens.  Even downtown Miami has an urban Ross, CVS and Marshall's within three blocks of urban Whole Foods and Macy's.  Under no circumstances should we be limiting the free market from assisting in the revitalization of downtown.

Quoteif we actually put that kinda crap at the landing it'll be a "what were they thinking putting a Walgreens on the river ?!" moment years from now- a la all the other genius decisions we've made with riverfront property through the years- and none as prime as this.

Bayside Marketplace, has a Chili's, Hooter's and Subway, along with a Hard Rock Cafe. No one complains about a Subway being in a riverfront retail center.  However, it rakes in cash from consumers not trying to break the bank at the more expensive eateries.  4th Street Live! in Louisville, a place you'd probably love to see the Landing turn into, has everything from a Guy Fieri's Smokehouse to a Smoothie King.  No one complains about Smoothie King being a tenant.  Regarding the Landing, no one complained when B.Dalton was selling books in the riverfront center.  Nevertheless, there's a whole strip of the Landing that doesn't have riverfront views, that people also claim turns its back to downtown.  Those spaces that face/back up to Independent Drive and downtown would possibly be suitable for some of these types of businesses.

Quote from: jlmann on June 27, 2017, 05:15:28 PM
who says we need 125k sqft?  of course it doesn't have to be all high end.  my point is that sleimans properties are atrocious and he has no experience with anything even approaching the creative design that would be required

The Landing is 125,000 square feet.  I guess if you're advocating for complete demolition and burning millions of public tax dollars in the process, whatever replaces it can be smaller.  I'm also not sold a new "creative design" is a requirement for the Landing's success.  That's a Jacksonville visionary's dream more than anything remotely market based.  Structurally, it needs a good bath and mentally, a firm commitment on a future direction. Most importantly, it needs the vibrant core that was promised to Rouse nearly 40 years ago.

Quotelook at the last proposal.

if I had to sum up the view of some on this forum in a single statement it would be "pleasepleaseplease put something, anything there"

The city's revamp of it wasn't much better.  Forget all of the full redevelopment proposals. Save the cash and address downtown's real issues.

^You can't throw a stone on the Las Vegas strip without hitting a Walgreens either.

There's one right in the middle of City Center, the most swank, expensive private development in U.S. history.

And you can go in there any hour of the day and be sure that the line's going to be 20 minutes long.

Well, I'd rather have something successful and pedestrian than something upscale or chichi and dying on the vine.

Quote from: Adam White on June 27, 2017, 05:39:10 PM
Well, I'd rather have something successful and pedestrian than something upscale or chichi and dying on the vine.

There's a lot to be said for utility.

You have to crawl before you can walk, and DT JAX is barely even crawling.  Getting a Walgreens would be a huge win for the Landing or anywhere in DT JAX.  The residential base is not there, the tourist base is not there, the work force is flat-lining at best.   

Even in a successful DT, 125k SF is a lot of space to fill in one spot.

ANY redevelopment of the Landing from ANYONE is going to require public assistance, or at the VERY least donation of the land.

The best shot would be something that is not necessarily upscale but is unique and not replica-table in the burbs. JAX's version of Pike's Place (Seattle) with a food hall atmosphere along with restaurants and bars included. Ancillary stores like a Walgreens would be appropriate. The Dead space (non revenue generating like the food court seating and the interior mall corridor) would need to be eliminated.   

Even that route would likely need more visitors, more hotel rooms (or at least filling the ones already there), more office workers, and ideally more residences nearby to work long-term.

I didn't think some on here appreciate what a white elephant it is in many respects.           

Something akin to Pikes Place would be great! I think the various seafood and produce shops, bars, cafes, etc. would work really well. Does anyone know why the city is holding onto the property?   What do they lose from selling it?

pikes place is exactly what I was talking about don't know why folks got hung up on the high end comment.  merely pointing out that sleiman has one offering if history is any guide. and one of the main points ive been making is that it should not be something one can find in the burbs. I cant see how anyone thinks sleiman will deliver something like pikes.  and pikes place has a variety of dining incl high end.  the landing should be set up to evolve into to that in time should the market develop, which I would hope people desire for dt in time

a walgreens as part of that, ok sure.  but if he throws a walgreens and mcds they'll have leverage given current landing and be much too prominent.  then pikes place jax or the like never happens. 

it should be done to compliment laura street trio.  developing it to be a tiny improvement over the current state of dt makes no long term sense.

sooo many other places to put a drug store or fast food

Pikes Place is cool but let's be serious. Our "Pike's Place" is the Jacksonville Farmers Market.  Read up on the history of that place, take a serious look at the density around it, the type of vendors, and glance at the pictures of tenant spaces below:

(https://photos.smugmug.com/Learning-From/Seattle/i-TGFjvJd/0/0adfed9d/L/DSCF5935-L.jpg)

(https://photos.smugmug.com/Learning-From/Seattle/i-Bz9DqDV/0/527d4092/L/DSCF5936-L.jpg)

(https://photos.smugmug.com/Learning-From/Seattle/i-JPvpkmZ/0/0eba8cde/L/DSCF5938-L.jpg)

(https://photos.smugmug.com/Learning-From/Seattle/i-QfMk37V/0/3203dda6/L/DSCF5941-L.jpg)

(https://photos.smugmug.com/Learning-From/Seattle/i-DzDhVn9/0/b0b0813c/L/DSCF5945-L.jpg)

(https://photos.smugmug.com/Learning-From/Seattle/i-FndG93p/0/60d4c14a/L/DSCF5949-L.jpg)

(https://photos.smugmug.com/Learning-From/Seattle/i-bhMN47r/0/46879b90/L/DSCF5952-L.jpg)

(https://photos.smugmug.com/Learning-From/Seattle/i-k3MsFn5/0/b7d67b52/L/DSCF5956-L.jpg)

Trying to recreate a large Disneyfied version of that at the Landing will end up being as big of a white elephant as Rouse's festival marketplace concept was.  For something like that to work, we'd need to establish a tourism and residential base to support it first.  Btw, some of you may be too young to remember, but when the Landing first opened, the space where Village Bread is was a smaller disneyfied version of this. It was called Market Hall.  I'll post the original Landing's layout and renderings, so you'll get a better idea of what it was supposed to be.

Quote from: jlmann on June 27, 2017, 01:26:03 PM
would 5pts be what it is today with a mcdonalds and cvs etc?

Of course not.  That ranks as one of the more insane things ive read in some time.  Its the opposite! The fact that it isn't filled with crap readily available in the burbs is exactly why it draws people in from surrounding areas and is the city's hotspot.  It's why people go to the beaches town center.  Its why King St has been revitalized. 

There's a mcdonalds and Walgreens in the Beaches Town Center. There's also a Walgreens in a prime spot on king street. What's your point- its takes all kinds of mixes. There's also a contingent of people who would argue that 5 pts had a far better and "unique" mix of businesses in the 80's than it does now.

I agree with Lake. Focus on getting downtown residential expanded and many of the issues/problems there will take care of themselves.

Focus future spending on that. Leave The Landing and Tony Sleiman to his own devices.  The Mayor should know better.

As soon as 10,000 people live in the Northbank core (NOT SAN MARCO side) you will see massive changes down there. Businesses will want to be there.

The Landing's original festival marketplace concept:

First Floor:
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Business/Jacksonville-Landing/i-KrnhnSr/0/b008a762/XL/20170625_142652-XL.jpg)
Although the Landing is centered around the courtyard, it's inaccurate to say it was designed to turn its back to downtown.  The Market Hall concept faced downtown.

Second Floor:
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Business/Jacksonville-Landing/i-SCQzRfs/0/81b4a79c/XL/20170625_142657-XL.jpg)
If Sleiman wanted to be cheap, he could just revamp the food court into a food hall.  However, revenue-wise, it doesn't make sense to have all that air conditioned common space with riverfront views not generating income.



The Food Hall -- Concept
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Business/Jacksonville-Landing/i-7qjnktV/0/2acc154b/X2/20170625_141419%20-%20Food%20Hall-X2.jpg)

The Food Hall -- Today
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Business/Jacksonville-Landing/i-39LqtZQ/0/0e6b96fd/XL/20170624_130332-XL.jpg)




The Market Hall -- Concept
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Business/Jacksonville-Landing/i-p7hnHM9/0/db4c5226/X2/20170625_141419%20-%20Market%20Hall-X2.jpg)

The Market Hall -- Today
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Business/Jacksonville-Landing/i-WZLMtzS/0/5b19e857/XL/20170624_120613-XL.jpg)





The Gallery Shops -- Concept
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Business/Jacksonville-Landing/i-JhtQTdz/0/de68aa2b/X2/20170625_141441-X2.jpg)

The Gallery Shops -- Today
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Business/Jacksonville-Landing/i-9JFCRF3/0/ea30ac31/XL/20170624_125851-XL.jpg)





The Bull Market -- Concept
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Business/Jacksonville-Landing/i-ZmL5jF3/0/89fb8e5a/X2/20170625_141429-X2.jpg)

The Bull Market -- Today
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Business/Jacksonville-Landing/i-rRKj3p7/0/1ab60f60/XL/20170624_130533-XL.jpg)



Here's my two cents towards remodeling the existing space.

1. The restaurants and cafe spaces are dated but they've done generally well over the years.  It's the only concentrated collection of riverfront eateries in the city.  Renovate and clean it up and that section will do just fine.

2. The gallery shops failed. Downtown can't support that much square footage of specialty retail. This space also does not face the river. Consider carving it up into larger boxes that face Independent Drive.  You may have better luck getting someone like CVS to take up a 10,000 square foot box, as opposed to Gap opening a 1,000 square foot store.  Some of it may also be suitable for other uses such as cultural (decent visitor's center anyone?), entertainment or office. If COJ wants to really help, they could fix up the Hogan Street area south of Independent Drive to be more of an open pedestrian scale plaza/public space. Then you'd have retail facing it to the east, the performing arts center on the west, the river/riverwalk to the south and downtown to the north.

3. The market hall and food hall/court concepts failed.  The idea wasn't bad, there's just way too much space dedicated for these areas.  However, the market hall is a large open two-story space that faces downtown. Consider shifting the food court to this area and making it an open air communal style seating/common area. There could also be outdoor seating spilling its activities out into the downtown side. Then revamp the gallery shops immediately adjacent to it, into spaces to lease to food hall/court tenants.

4. The food court common area has great views but doesn't generate revenue.  The food court is also too large. Move the smaller eateries to the Market Hall...where they'll enjoy the same benefits the food truck court across the street has, and make the second floor space into  a few destination restaurants or entertainment venues.

Quote from: remc86007 on June 26, 2017, 12:58:09 PM
Why have the docks in front of the landing been allowed to deteriorate so much? Trying to dock or even just pick someone up is incredibly dangerous. The city is lucky they haven't been sued.

+1

Look at our FIND money. We are so LOST.

well you guys got it all figure out.

merely pointing out a difference in my comparisons is like saying aesops fables are about animals.  its a comparison.  not equating things as identical.

yes walgreens and mcdonalds exist in places we should mimic.  great job team.

however if you redesign the landing around those type of businesses it will never ever turn into anything better than today.  and just like wendys shell and a pharmacy didn't turn 5 pts around, and you cannot be serious that walgreens had anything to with king st success, a drug store and fast food will not turn the landing around or MEANINGFULLY improve it

riverside is booming, the trio is as close to happening as ever, Brooklyn continues to see projects announced and will start moving n/w over to park st and then lavilla across the bridge is seeing residences and development.  check the mj urban update just posted.  springfieild is finally getting critical mass, a jta center should do good things for that part of dt.  then you have the possibility of the shipyards/metro park to the east and the district happening on the southbank.

And what do all these surround? hmmm

And so, the idea of the forum and sleimans are remarkably short-sighted though I can at least understand sleimans motivation.  Sure the projects happening will see delays and some will take years, but locking up a bunch of the tenants yall describe in long term leases and making the TI they will demand for their strip center absolutely will be a lost opportunity.

the type of ideas that haven't been able to work for decades will be feasible as the projects and revitalization efforts that have been decades in the making turn corners and get critical mass, as they are.

on this topic MJ is a hammer in search of a nail.  And the hammer's motto is "Jax cant have nice things"

The natural focal point of the Landing is the river.  No one has said that a Walgreens or whatever should be a focal point. Only that if they wanted to come in as a tenant and if that's what the market supports, so be it. I also believe "nice" means different things to different people. No one is opposed to having a Pikes Place.

Jax (not just the Landing) should have whatever it can naturally support.  We shouldn't be forcing things on the private sector that may not be market ready just because we think its cool. That's not vision. That's how we end up with expensive white elephants that fail to achieve the desired goal of DT revitalization.

In the end, the Landing was meant to complement a convention center. I have a feeling that may be part of the Mayor's thinking in wanting a Landing refurb in a similar timing to a possible new convention center?

The convention center and skyway were two major public initiatives that help lure Rouse back in the 1980s.  At the time, the Prime Osborn was new and seen as competitive in the convention industry.  The skyway was supposed to connect tourist from the convention center and future downtown hotels to the Landing.  Unfortunately, we quit on the skyway, subsidized jobs to leave downtown and didn't keep up with the times with the Prime Osborn.  Today, the skyway doesn't even run on the weekends.  Figuring out the convention center's future and moving the Laura Trio forward are two important pieces of the Landing's future.

Found this from a guy we know has some sway with the Mayor. The article is from two years ago:

http://floridapolitics.com/archives/186261-economic-development-committee-presents-a-second-better-jacksonville-plan-in-the-making

QuoteThe goal is to have a convention center by the river, on the old courthouse and city hall property. There are salutary economic benefits: low wage jobs and a lot of them. However, getting to yes on it may take time. As Delaney put it, "We're going to have a new convention center in Jacksonville someday."Whether it happens under the current administration is an open question.

Aundra Wallace of the Downtown Investment Authority said  a study is under way for that new convention center, and  concepts are being market tested. A new convention center, close to the amenities of downtown rather than the empty lots of LaVilla, tests better. That said, the Prime Osborn is still suitable for "home and garden shows."

At least one committee member pointed out the obvious: Convention centers flower during economic booms, but when the bad times come, the centers under perform. But Delaney contended that to "move the city forward" a convention center and a Jacksonville Landing reboot would have to happen in tandem.

This pretty much answers my question why Curry is going after Sleiman now. He is planning on building that convention center but he wants an integrated plan with the Landing.

Call me skeptical. COJ doesn't need the Landing to resolve the convention center issue.  In addition, the convention center would be a major undertaking of its own.  I'd personally rather COJ focus on building a convention center correctly and leave retail up to the private sector.  Do things that put people and traffic on the streets and the market will respond on its own.

Quote from: jlmann on June 28, 2017, 12:52:13 PM
well you guys got it all figure out.

It must get really lonely being the only person who knows how everything really works.

nah.  not at all.  plenty of folks outside this forum also know what would be best for the landing.  like our mayor.

fun lil anecdote from a conversation at the coffee shop this morning.   mavericks came up- talking about a show.  immediately out of a this fellows mouth. "id like to go to that show but I don't want to give that place money.  god I wished they'd just bulldoze the landing"
I had a good augh at the timing. the 3-4 others present all agreed re: the landing.  all these people live quite close to the landing and would absolutely go if it had anything to offer.  there also the type of folks to move an area that's being revitalized

don't think they're gonna be running down for a bite a chiles while they pick up shampoo though

Quotegod I wished they'd just bulldoze the landing"

Lol, most people in Jacksonville, especially those with no real skin the game, say that about downtown in general. Take it with a grain of salt.

Quote from: jlmann on June 29, 2017, 09:41:39 AM
"id like to __________, but ___________" 

These are the same people that are single-handedly responsible for not buying tickets to see the Jags and are the sole reason that the Jaguars relocated to LA some 8 years ago....

Oh.... wait a sec....  ::)

JLmann, stop.  Do you honesty think we want nothing but big chains that you can already find on nearly every corner of town anyway?  Is that what you are taking from this conversation?  Have you not read anything else on this forum, or its predecessors, from the past decade?

We are saying the following:

1. Both entities need to work together to solve the Landing issue.

2. The original intention of the Landing failed because market expectations never materialized.

3. The current iteration of the Landing is underutilized.
a. Raze and begin anew or
b. Redevelop or
c. Utilize current space as current market demands.



3a will require substantial investment from both parties and likely a change in ownership of either the Landing or the land itself.
3b requires less investment from the city and likely won't need a change of ownership for the Landing or the land itself.
3c requires no city involvement or change of ownership.

4. Redeveloping the Landing with a concept that requires market forces that do not currently exist is precisely how the current Landing fell into the state it is in.  To redevelopment the Landing as something grandiose or unique requires factors the current region does not have and it will not have on the grounds of a redeveloped Landing alone.  The whole core needs a singular focus.  You need density, you need symbiosis, you need walkability, you need interaction with the river and downtown and you need a downtown that draws people consistently.


All Lake was trying to tell you is if 3a and 3b are not an option, then 3c in whatever fashion the market supports should be implemented.  I highly advise you to read his articles and posts (along with several others posters here) to get a better grasp of what we consider a quality redevelopment of the Landing.  I'll give you a hint though, it sure as hell isn't what you are characterizing it as.

yeah people who live in orange park and julington creek say that.  because they never come to the core.

but its abundantly clear that having something interesting that people might actually want to go to is not a priority to this forum.

who even has skin in the game? the city? they share my position.  sleiman?  yeah not really caring about that given all his management of the site.  hes practically run it into the ground on purpose

if the city can muscle him out they should

all I get from this is that everyone here is resigned to 3c being the only option.  cause we tried once in the 80s

jlmann, I get the feeling that if Lenny Curry (or anyone other than the current owner) wanted to keep the existing structure and renovate, you'd be fine with it. There's a significant amount of bias in your argument against the Landing's owner moreso than anything else.

That aside, everyone has their own opinion but reality is, you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip. The Trio deal just sucked away all the money COJ had for helping restore large historic structures in downtown. Since public funding is limited, count me in the camp that would rather see whatever money tossed into full redevelopment of a retail white elephant, be redirected in assisting a few more Laura Trios get off the ground.  That makes my personal choice C.

If we can bring big vacant/underutilized structures like City Hall Annex, the Ambassador, Old JEA Tower, Enterprise Center, Jones Brothers Furniture, etc., back online housing people with disposable income, the Landing situation will work itself out.

My whole point was basically that I'd be happy if the Landing was successful - whether that meant it was full of bohemian shops or a CVS or whatever. I think a successful Landing would be good for downtown.

I also think that a successful Landing is a pipe dream if it's a standalone project.

Not sure how I didn't know about this, but apparently the Landing has a really nice riverfront arcade, with everything from retro cabinets, to vintage consoles, to new offerings across PS4/Xbox One/Nintendo Switch/PC.

Has anyone checked this place out?

https://www.yelp.com/biz/glhf-game-bar-jacksonville

I've been meaning to. I will as soon as I get a chance. I hope it makes it (or moves somewhere else rather than shuts down).

I've been to GLHF (aforementioned barcade). It's a cool little place connected to Chicago Pizza.
It caters a little more towards the serious PC/console gamers than the "let's have some beers and play Street Fighter" crowd, but that's fine by me.

^ It is in fact part of Chicago Pizza - they carved out space and made the restaurant smaller.

Quote from: tufsu1 on July 05, 2017, 04:53:52 PM
^ It is in fact part of Chicago Pizza - they carved out space and made the restaurant smaller.

I saw the place when I had dinner there last week. Didnt know it existed until I found the bathrooms.

The gaming PC's were 50% occupied when I walked by.

Interesting arrangement.

http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/landing-to-demolish-village-bread-space

Anyone know if this is part of a bigger plan or just isolated to the Village Bread space?

QuoteThe Jacksonville Landing will demolish the closed Village Bread Café and restore it as marketplace space.

"I have lots of ideas," said Landing General Manager Janice Lowe. The city is reviewing a permit application to take out the countertops, cabinets, door and other furnishings and equipment at the 2 Independent Drive E. riverfront retail center Downtown.

Do it Sleiman......turn it into a food hall..... Make it part of a plan to run the Landing like a shopping center!

lol.  "i have a lot of ideas"

we all do Janice, we all do.  its just that none of them will become reality with the current landing and the current leadership, but by all means, dream big!

Quote from: thelakelander on August 11, 2017, 02:03:18 PM
Do it Sleiman......turn it into a food hall..... Make it part of a plan to run the Landing like a shopping center!

8)

so when did the landing not have a food hall?

the second floor is one.  many restaurant spaces downstairs.

nobody went there, nobody wants to, and no businesses will sign leases.  Now put a walgreens or a bealls in there?  LOOK OUT!!

Farmers Market coming soon.....

Quote from: jlmann on August 11, 2017, 04:35:58 PM
so when did the landing not have a food hall?

the second floor is one.  many restaurant spaces downstairs.

nobody went there, nobody wants to, and no businesses will sign leases.  Now put a walgreens or a bealls in there?  LOOK OUT!!

The Landing has a food court....that should be turned into revenue generating restaurant space, IMO.  It has never had a food hall. The difference between a food court and food hall is authenticity...

http://brandxventures.com/2017/07/11/food-halls-vs-food-courts-whats-difference/

ESCALATION.

Curry wants the Landing back "RIGHT NOW."

http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/curry-wants-the-jacksonville-landing-back-right-now

Quote from: KenFSU on August 17, 2017, 12:50:45 PM
ESCALATION.

Curry wants the Landing back "RIGHT NOW."

http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/curry-wants-the-jacksonville-landing-back-right-now

Hopefully something can get done. The Landing in it's current state is an embarrassment.

Are downtown's fortunes so staked on this single property that it requires this kind of escalation and confrontation? 

I'm so confused by Jacksonville's vision for its Downtown.  What's the end goal? 

Here in NYC, no one wants to live near the convention center (Jacob Javitz), no one wants to live by penn station/madison square garden (sports complex), certainly not in the shadow of any of the sports stadiums, not near City Hall or the Courthouses, and definitely not in Times Square (tourist hell). 

When people do live in those places, they're sort of forced there because it's so tough to find rentals at prices most can afford.

If people here in NYC could afford it, they'd live in a low-rise brownstone along tree-lined streets and amidst the pocket parks of the West Village.  Bars and entertainment options are close by (typically small and divey in nature, so not too much commercial intensity), and other neighborhood services like the cleaners and pharmacy and markets are very accessible on foot and close at hand.

Jax doesn't have the population or war for space that New York has, so why set a vision for downtown living that puts people into high-rises with office towers as a backdrop.  If you want downtown to have more residences, look at what is working in Charleston and Savannah. 

Encourage clean, amenity-rich, walkable neighborhoods of single family homes in and around downtown (infill galore).  Integrate multi-family uses in low and mid-rise developments, but with an intensity that doesn't overwhelm everything around it.

Just be Jax.  Not Manhattan.  The world will respect that more in the long run.

Quote from: jaxnyc79 on August 17, 2017, 10:15:06 PM
Are downtown's fortunes so staked on this single property that it requires this kind of escalation and confrontation? 

I'm so confused by Jacksonville's vision for its Downtown.  What's the end goal? 

Here in NYC, no one wants to live near the convention center (Jacob Javitz), no one wants to live by penn station/madison square garden (sports complex), certainly not in the shadow of any of the sports stadiums, not near City Hall or the Courthouses, and definitely not in Times Square (tourist hell). 

When people do live in those places, they're sort of forced there because it's so tough to find rentals at prices most can afford.

If people here in NYC could afford it, they'd live in a low-rise brownstone along tree-lined streets and amidst the pocket parks of the West Village.  Bars and entertainment options are close by (typically small and divey in nature, so not too much commercial intensity), and other neighborhood services like the cleaners and pharmacy and markets are very accessible on foot and close at hand.

Jax doesn't have the population or war for space that New York has, so why set a vision for downtown living that puts people into high-rises with office towers as a backdrop.  If you want downtown to have more residences, look at what is working in Charleston and Savannah. 

Encourage clean, amenity-rich, walkable neighborhoods of single family homes in and around downtown (infill galore).  Integrate multi-family uses in low and mid-rise developments, but with an intensity that doesn't overwhelm everything around it.

Just be Jax.  Not Manhattan.  The world will respect that more in the long run.

It sounds like you're thinking of Springfield and that part of town.

Perhaps.  It would be interesting to see more Springfields, all around the core, and perhaps with more density. Maybe 2 and 3 story townhomes abutting the sidewalks.  Probably wouldn't overwhelm the single family stock there, and would bring in more customers for commercial uses along Main Street.  Oh yeah, and sidewalks with shade, please...

Quote from: jaxnyc79 on August 17, 2017, 10:15:06 PM
Here in NYC, no one wants to live near the convention center (Jacob Javitz)...

When people do live in those places, they're sort of forced there because it's so tough to find rentals at prices most can afford.

I always thought Hell's Kitchen was quite a desirable neighbourhood to live in. I guess that's changed since the late 90s/early 2000s. Certainly didn't used to be that affordable.

Hell's Kitchen isn't at the Jacob Javitz Center and it isn't Times Square.  It's to the west of Times Square, and the feel is markedly different.  It's become a much more desirable place over time, but again, still not as desirable as TriBeCa or West Village...but in NYC, many people go where they can given the density and costs.  I also consider Hudson Yards to be altogether different from Hell's Kitchen.

My point was that Jax isn't really anywhere near the point where it should be forcing high-rise residential.  I understand why it occurs at natural landmarks like the beach, but if the urban core is looking for more filled-in blocks and street-level vibrancy, that can all be done with residential options that make sense for Jax.  I frankly think "complete streets and road diets" all throughout in-town Jax are a better use of resources than incentives to build high-rises.  Amenities too (some of which are underway), like kayak launches, pocket parks, pocket plazas, maybe a grand "Central Park" (with shade), and other such gathering places for the citizenry could do a lot to spur infill and create a sense of vibrancy.

I still want to hold on to the idea that if a place is zoned properly and has rock solid infrastructure for residential infill (including pocket parks, shaded and easily accessible sidewalks, non-contaminated lands, pedestrians and cyclists prioritized over cars, and the perception of low crime and security), then the construction will come and the city won't be in the real estate development business.

Quote from: jaxnyc79 on August 18, 2017, 06:53:46 AM
Hell's Kitchen isn't by the Jacob Javitz Center and it isn't Times Square.  It's to the west of Times Square, and the feel is markedly different.  It's become a much more desirable place over time, but again, still not as desirable as TriBeCa or West Village...but in NYC, many people go where they can given the density and costs.  The West Village brownstones are for the movie stars and hedge fund managers! 

I still want to hold on to the idea that if a place is zoned properly and has rock solid infrastructure for residential infill (including pocket parks, shaded and easily accessible sidewalks, non-contaminated lands, pedestrians and cyclists prioritized over cars, and the perception of low crime and security), then the construction will come and the city won't be in the real estate development business.

I think you'll find that the Javits Center is indeed located in Hell's Kitchen. It is on 34th street.

Edit: but the other option, if it's not in Hell's Kitchen, is for it to be in Chelsea. Where no one wants to live, right?

Your authoritative delineations are actually pretty funny...and pretty sad as well.  Where are you messaging from?  Jacob Javitz starts at the terminus of 34th street, spans along the Hudson River to like 40th or so, and is on the other side of 11th avenue and is disconnected from any neighborhood.  Have you been to the Center in person?  In fact, large chunks of Chelsea are tree-lined streets of brownstones, and West Chelsea has rapidly become industrial buildings repurposed to creative residential uses along the High-Line.   

My point was lost on you, but I was addressing relative desirability in Manhattan; obviously, anywhere in Manhattan is desirable because it's so crowded, and people become a lot less discriminating as a result.

Jax is not in that boat.  I proposed the idea that the city stick to (or maybe begin to focus on) robust infrastructure development to spur in-town growth and vibrancy.  But not the usual infrastructure that lends itself more to cul-de-sacs and subdivisions, but infrastructure that encourages uncontaminated lots, walkability, pedestrian comfort, density and security.

Quote from: jaxnyc79 on August 18, 2017, 08:48:10 AM
Your authoritative delineations are actually pretty funny...and pretty sad as well.  Where are you messaging from?  Jacob Javitz starts at the terminus of 34th street, spans along the Hudson River to like 40th or so, and is on the other side of 11th avenue and is disconnected from any neighborhood.  Have you been to the Center in person?  In fact, large chunks of Chelsea are tree-lined streets of brownstones, and West Chelsea has rapidly become industrial buildings repurposed to creative residential uses along the High-Line.   

My point was lost on you, but I was addressing relative desirability in Manhattan; obviously, anywhere in Manhattan is desirable because it's so crowded, and people become a lot less discriminating as a result.

Jax is not in that boat.  I proposed the idea that the city stick to (or maybe begin to focus on) robust infrastructure development to spur in-town growth and vibrancy.  But not the usual infrastructure that lends itself more to cul-de-sacs and subdivisions, but infrastructure that encourages uncontaminated lots, walkability, pedestrian comfort, density and security.

Your point wasn't lost on me so much as I thought your statement (nobody wants to live near the Javitz [sic] Center) was ridiculous. The Javits Center (note the spelling) is located in the middle of the West Side of Manhattan. Maybe no one wants to live in the center's car park, but I certainly would say the market for property near the center is quite strong.

But - more to the point - I don't think anyone is arguing that the Landing is a) downtown's saviour or b) that people want to or will want to live "near" it. The point is that downtown needs more development, the Landing is in a prime location and the Landing is being sorely mis-managed. It may not be all that great, but it could be a lot better than it is. Some cities don't really have to worry about development. Jacksonville isn't one of those cities. And the current state of the Landing seems like a pretty bad lost opportunity to me.

To answer your question - I'm posting (messaging) from London.

Ah, so you haven't been to the center?  I'm posting from midtown Manhattan.  You have clearly missed the point.  As stated, Manhattan is dense and crowded and every corner of it commands a residential market.  Again, the point was around relative desirability.  Javits (thank you) is no anchor of residential growth, and if "actual" NYers had their druthers, they wouldn't be near that sprawling complex, just as they wouldn't be near Penn station and other high-traffic spots.  But again, the war for space makes everyone a lot less discriminating.  Jax doesn't have this problem and shouldn't create the appearance of it.

This is a fake debate, ha, and certainly not worth engagement with someone 3400 miles away.

Quote from: jaxnyc79 on August 18, 2017, 09:32:07 AM
Ah, so you haven't been to the center?  I'm posting from midtown Manhattan.  You have clearly missed the point.  As stated, Manhattan is dense and crowded and every corner of it commands a residential market.  Again, the point was around relative desirability.  Javits (thank you) is no anchor of residential growth, and if "actual" NYers had their druthers, they wouldn't be near that sprawling complex, just as they wouldn't be near Penn station and other high-traffic spots.  But again, the war for space makes everyone a lot less discriminating.  Jax doesn't have this problem and shouldn't create the appearance of it.

This is a fake debate, ha, and certainly not worth engagement with someone 3400 miles away.

I've been to the centre, yes. My sister lived in NYC for 30 years - she just moved to Minneapolis. I've spent quite a bit of time in NYC and I used to visit all the time when I lived in CT. Of course, none of this means anything to you.

Are you from NYC or are you just another person who moved then and then tells everyone else about what "real" New Yorkers think? My sister was one of those types. In fact, the only people who seem to go on and on about being "from" NYC are the ones who moved there. You don't happen to have a brother named Simms, do you?

Your original post seemed to imply that people are somehow repelled by the center. Like its very existence would keep people from wanting to live near it. I doubt many people choose to live near it because it's there - it is a convention centre after all - but I doubt it has a negative impact on desirability.

The Landing, of course, is not a convention centre. It's a shopping centre and having a thriving shopping centre nearby would likely make residential properties near it more desirable. It's not like Jax has a lot of shopping downtown.

So you've only ever been a visitor/tourist here, not a resident.  Got it.  I'll take your characterizations of desirable neighborhoods to heart with regards to London.  On NYC, I assign very little value to what you're saying. 

Yes, I've lived in Manhattan for 13 years, but have plenty of family in the South and visit several times each year to look after parents and grandparents.  I also lived in Jax for a period of time as a child.  Your sister lived in NYC for 30 years, so it would appear you're significantly older than I am which may partially account for our divergent views.

I know what the Landing is.  But I've also read on these threads that the City may be eyeing the courthouse property for a convention center, which is awfully close to the Landing.  Curry also has a sense of urgency to control the Landing.  My original posting questioned the vision for downtown.  An investment in the Landing as a shopping center at this point makes little sense given the lack of demand. 

Perhaps a convention center would spur some demand.  OK, so is that the vision?

On the other hand, a density of residents nearby might spur demand, but in a place like Jax, I'm not convinced high-rise residential off-the-waterfront really makes much sense. 

Perhaps you convert the Landing into waterfront mixed-use high-rises which incorporate residential, but if the city moves forward with a convention center where the old courthouse is located, I don't think that bodes well long-term for those residences.

Of course, the city could force almost anything to get built with enough tax breaks and grants.  But the city and its marketplace distortions in the name of these ill-conceived notions of what makes for a great downtown are diverting attention from the basics of government service. 

   

Quote from: jaxnyc79 on August 18, 2017, 10:31:56 AM
So you've only ever been a visitor/tourist here, not a resident.  Got it.  I'll take your characterizations of desirable neighborhoods to heart with regards to London.  On NYC, I assign very little value to what you're saying. 

Yes, I've lived in Manhattan for 13 years, but have plenty of family in the South and visit several times each year to look after parents and grandparents.  I also lived in Jax for a period of time as a child.  Your sister lived in NYC for 30 years, so it would appear you're significantly older than I am which may partially account for our divergent views.

I know what the Landing is.  But I've also read on these threads that the City may be eyeing the courthouse property for a convention center, which is awfully close to the Landing.  Curry also has a sense of urgency to control the Landing.  My original posting questioned the vision for downtown.  An investment in the Landing as a shopping center at this point makes little sense given the lack of demand. 

Perhaps a convention center would spur some demand.  OK, so is that the vision?

On the other hand, a density of residents nearby might spur demand, but in a place like Jax, I'm not convinced high-rise residential off-the-waterfront really makes much sense. 

Perhaps you convert the Landing into waterfront mixed-use high-rises which incorporate residential, but if the city moves forward with a convention center where the old courthouse is located, I don't think that bodes well long-term for those residences.

Of course, the city could force almost anything to get built with enough tax breaks and grants.  But the city and its marketplace distortions in the name of these ill-conceived notions of what makes for a great downtown are diverting attention from the basics of government service. 

Ooh...13 years! A "real" New Yorker after all!

I don't see how age would dictate a difference in view on geography. Perhaps if I continued to refer to the East Village as the Lower East Side (for example), that would indicate I have a perspective that is rooted in an older version of the City (as neighbourhoods are renamed and boundaries change over time).

But there is simply no question that the Javits center is either in Hell's Kitchen or Chelsea. And there's no question that property there costs more than it does in, say, Staten Island. And whether or not you can know what all 'real' New Yorkers want in a property, there is no question that the existence of the Javits Center doesn't seem to have a negative impact on property values. And aren't they redeveloping the Hudson Yards? Isn't that meant to be a mixed-use development with what will probably be very expensive flats?

In any event - Jax can do what it wants. I'd personally rather see them make the Landing work than leave it as is. But hey - those are just my 'druthers'.

And I don't think that people wanting to redevelop the Landing means that Jax is trying to be NYC.

Edit: I don't doubt that I am probably a number of years older than you. But I did my math wrong - I think my sister lived in NYC for closer to 25 years.

Quote from: Adam White on August 18, 2017, 09:40:03 AM

You don't happen to have a brother named Simms, do you?

Ha !!! You made my day with that one!

Quote from: RattlerGator on August 18, 2017, 12:09:25 PM

Quote from: Adam White on August 18, 2017, 09:40:03 AM

You don't happen to have a brother named Simms, do you?

Ha !!! You made my day with that one!

We're all just a $70 haircut away from being Simms.

You can cling to your Wikipedia all you want because it's as close as you'll get to living here, but it isn't Chelsea nor is it Hell's Kitchen.  It doesn't belong to a neighborhood.  It's a sprawling commercial complex on the Far West Side.  Staten Island isn't even part of the benchmark for judging the relative desirability of Manhattan neighborhoods.  Sure the area around Javits is more valuable than real estate on Staten Island, just as it's more valuable than real estate in Arlington.   

The point is that a convention complex is likely a major drag on the optimal level of residential desirability of its immediate surroundings.  Manhattan is a different animal (surely you can understand that), in that it is so compelling a place to live, that a range of other factors override the "convention center" drag.  Jax's attempts at inner city residential revitalization are far more uncertain and tenuous.  The city would have to accept that a large convention complex would likely scuttle attempts at residential vibrancy and rebirth for a decent-sized area around the complex.

Quote from: jaxnyc79 on August 18, 2017, 02:06:30 PM
You can cling to your Wikipedia all you want because it's as close as you'll get to living here, but it isn't Chelsea nor is it Hell's Kitchen.  It doesn't belong to a neighborhood.  It's a sprawling commercial complex on the Far West Side.  Staten Island isn't even part of the benchmark for judging the relative desirability of Manhattan neighborhoods.  Sure the area around Javits is more valuable than real estate on Staten Island, just as it's more valuable than real estate in Arlington.   

The point is that a convention complex is likely a major drag on the optimal level of residential desirability of its immediate surroundings.  Manhattan is a different animal (surely you can understand that), in that it is so compelling a place to live, that a range of other factors override the "convention center" drag.  Jax's attempts at inner city residential revitalization are far more uncertain and tenuous.  The city would have to accept that a large convention complex would likely scuttle attempts at residential vibrancy and rebirth for a decent-sized area around the complex.

Wikipedia didn't even exist the first time i visited Hell's Kitchen (or the Javits Center, for the matter). But I guess I'll just defer to the authentic New Yorker (who didn't even know how to spell the name of the Javits Center in the first place).

That said - you should maybe look into getting work as a medium or psychic or whatever. Your ability to read and understand the minds of New Yorkers is truly impressive.

As far as Jax goes, there are so few things downtown (including residences) that the convention centre wouldn't be anything but a positive. Same with the Landing.

Google find me metronewyork-dot-com and metrolondon-dot-com!

Sorry, I'm not able to follow this argument. Jaxnyc79, are you saying that no one wants to live near convention centers, so Jacksonville shouldn't build one?

If that's your argument, well, there are other reasons for building convention centers, in our case the leading reason being that the current one is inadequate.

I don't think Jax is trying to be New York, and it's true that New York is a different animal than most cities, so I'm not sure why it's even part of this discussion.

ha, the thread did veer of course.

That's not at all what I'm saying.  I "questioned" the vision for downtown. What will define a resurgent downtown Jax?  What is the role of the Landing in that resurgence?  Should the City of Jax add Property Management of the Landing as yet another one of its Real Estate ventures?  Does that get Jax closer to its goal?  If the old courthouse property becomes a convention center, will that feed demand for whatever the Landing is to become?  Will the city sink money and resources into a residential redevelopment of the Landing, which IMO, is ill-advised if there is to be a massive new convention center complex so close by? 

Is it necessary for downtown Jax to be some sort of destination theme park for the entire northeast florida region, or maybe it can be a great neighborhood for the residents and businesses that choose to live, work, and play there.  Its distinction among other 'hoods in the region could be that it is totally walkable and prioritizes the pedestrian over the automobile.  I'm not suggesting a right or wrong answer, just presenting food for thought.

I just got back from Vancouver, where the Convention Center sits right on the water in the middle of downtown (sound familiar?).

It is gorgeous, modern building with a huge open plaza on one side. It is surrounded by beautiful high end hotels AND high end residential towers. It's really a rather perfect model upon which Jax could develop the entire area around the old courthouse site, and am amazing historic district, Gastown, is just a few blocks away. 

Vancouver is without a doubt one of the best examples of urban planning and execution. It's the most "easy to be in and deal with" large cities I've ever been to.  And it has water everywhere. Our City planners/leaders/council would do well to go there for a week or two, then come back and do their best to imitate what that City has going on. 

Vancouver is a great example of clustering complementing uses within a compact setting. Unfortunately, our planners don't really plan for downtown and our leaders attending these types of trips don't always have the background expertise to grasp the technical aspects of revitalization. Thus you end up with a riverwalk just because someone saw one in San Antonio or a Landing because the concept worked in Baltimore. However, things don't turn out the same because the context surrounding the projects are completely different and the importance of pedestrian scale compactness on the experience gets lost.

Quote from: thelakelander on August 20, 2017, 09:55:23 AM
Vancouver is a great example of clustering complementing uses within a compact setting. Unfortunately, our planners don't really plan for downtown and our leaders attending these types of trips don't always have the background expertise to grasp the technical aspects of revitalization. Thus you end up with a riverwalk just because someone saw one in San Antonio or a Landing because the concept worked in Baltimore. However, things don't turn out the same because the context surrounding the projects are completely different and the importance of pedestrian scale compactness on the experience gets lost.

I completely agree thelakelander.

1000% agree with Lake. The city has been making such trips for years with little to show for it.

I haven't been to Vancouver but Musicman's description would apply equally to San Diego.

Victoria, British Columbia is a great model too. 

I was just in Vancouver a few months ago, and I agree, both with the fact that it's a great model of a well planned city, and with the fact that the things that make it great aren't necessarily obvious to folks who don't know specifically what to look for, which is most people.

One part of "Vancouverism" that really seems to get them going in the right direction, is training effective city planners, and having them regularly work with the people and government (who don't necessarily have a planning background) about the things they want to see. With that in place, they've stayed successful in planning for decades, and people there really feel part of the whole thing. Here, we don't really keep knowledgeable people, and the level of public input depends entirely on who's in charge at any given time. Maybe we'll get there one day.

Quote from: Jim on August 21, 2017, 02:09:19 PM
Victoria, British Columbia is a great model too. 

Quote from: vicupstate on August 21, 2017, 12:57:07 PM
1000% agree with Lake. (The city has been making such

Quote from: vicupstate on August 21, 2017, 12:57:07 PM
1000% agree with Lake. The city has been making such trips for years with little to show for it.




It's called a vacation at tax payer's expense