https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/city-says-it-is-terminating-jacksonville-landing-lease-agreement
So, where last we left off, Tony Sleiman presented a 2014 plan that was almost universally hated.
Sleiman's plan replaced the existing Landing with two large, oppressive apartment blocks, separated from the river by a road, with a boring strip of greenspace fronting the water.
In a word, it was awful.
(https://snag.gy/4w2GJO.jpg)
If you'll recall, the DIA then spent $100,000 to hire Wakefield, Beasley and Associates to develop a master plan for the Landing.
Their plan also included a large residential block on the east side of Laura, but removed the road, added in more retail, and activated the riverfront with restaurants and cafes.
The general feeling from the city was that it was a step in the right direction, but not quite good enough.
Sleiman loved the new plans however and was on board to finance the $70+ million in redevelopment, contingent on the city spending the $12 million for public infrastructure improvements that Alvin Brown had committed too.
By this time, however, Curry and Sleiman had started to feud, cap spending was largely frozen until the pension bill was passed, and that $12 million was off the table.
John Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind." Looking at the Wakefield plan with 2018 eyes, and keeping in mind all other development going on or proposed from the Northbank, to Lot J, etc, if the two options are 1) go back to the Wakefield plan, work with Sleiman, and build it out as proposed as soon as possible, 2) potentially let this thing drag on in litigation for years to come as the Landing rots away, which would you favor?
As a reminder, here's what the plan looked like:
(https://snag.gy/L1TJF5.jpg)
(https://snag.gy/T8axEO.jpg)
(https://snag.gy/wgkGK2.jpg)
(https://snag.gy/E7whbt.jpg)
(https://snag.gy/VX8hAH.jpg)
The city doesn't have hundreds of millions of dollars to subsidize every millionaire's pet project. We have to pick what we give incentives to. I'd say if you had a choice between funding any one of these proposals, none of which are guaranteed to end up looking like the flashy proposals, and pretty much anything else, you'd take the latter.
I wouldn't choose between them. Razing the Landing was always overkill and the market can't support what's been proposed in the stadium district. I'd keep most of my money in my pocket and invest in things that actually build density and generate pedestrian activity. I'd invest in upgrading the Landing but that upgrade would clean and make use of the existing structure and surrounding underutilized open green spaces.
If Jax doesn't fix its dead-zone streetscape issues, all the money spent will be for naught. Look at the Adams Mark > Now Hyatt...massive hotel right in the heart of our downtown...a total zero...opens up to nothing...isn't a draw unless you're staying there...a total failure of 900+ rooms in my opinion. Activate the streetscapes and open things up to the sidewalk...turn downtown sidewalks and streetscapes into public living rooms...see a monumental impact at a fraction of the cost.
The existing structure at the Landing isn't even useful as a redo. The whole place was built to be viewed from the river or from Friendship Park. First, it faces the wrong way. If it is going to be U shaped it should have had the U facing north. All the retail should have fronted the street and courtyard - not an interior hallways that frankly looks like the employee corridor at a regular mall. Second, the existing structure prevents a good terminal view coming down Laura Street, The whole middle would have to be removed. Third, it doesn't go vertical enough. It should be at least 2 times taller than it is.
I believe where the city has failed is continuing to look at The Landing as a building, and not as an entire district, like Gaslamp in San Diego. The Jacksonville Landing should be inclusive of The Times Union Center, the CSX lots, Omni lots, Berkman, Berkman 'Hotel', the Hyatt, new convention center etc. These should all be rebrands as..The Hyatt@The jax landing, The Times Union Center@ jax landing, Hotel Indigo@The Jax Landing, etc. Also build on the CSX, and Ommi Lots. Maybe garages with ground retail, restaurants. Open the existing Landing structure up to the street. Parkspace along the river and along river on new convention center plot would be ideal. It could all be so simple.
Quote from: Kerry on May 26, 2018, 08:02:35 AM
The existing structure at the Landing isn't even useful as a redo. The whole place was built to be viewed from the river or from Friendship Park. First, it faces the wrong way. If it is going to be U shaped it should have had the U facing north. All the retail should have fronted the street and courtyard - not an interior hallways that frankly looks like the employee corridor at a regular mall. Second, the existing structure prevents a good terminal view coming down Laura Street, The whole middle would have to be removed. Third, it doesn't go vertical enough. It should be at least 2 times taller than it is.
You can do 90% of what you mentioned without removing most of the existing structural elements. However, going vertical is an expensive want, not necessarily a market driven need. The remakes of Landing siblings in Baltimore and Norfolk serve as great examples for Jax.
I feel bad for the businesses that are in there. They'll be the real losers here, unfortunately.
Downtown may be the biggest loser. Regardless of what people think about the Landing, it's probably still DT's largest draw. It's so centralized, its state (including the dated riverwalk, deteriorated docks and underutilized green spaces) makes or breaks the general image and vibe of DT to the average visitor. It will be a visual and economic black eye until it is properly addressed.
Of all of the big-ticket projects downtown - the Landing, Shipyards, Lot J, the District - the Landing is, for a couple of reasons, the one that I'd be most supportive of publicly subsidizing.
First, it's the project that has the most direct, immediate impact on downtown redevelopment. You cannot get any more central than the Landing. Lot J could be fully built out tomorrow, but in the absence of a decade of infill and/or great public transit linking it to the CBD, it will still be an island unto itself. A greatly improved Landing would not only have positive externalities on the urban core proper from day one, but would likely also catalyze even more development in the area.
Second, in terms of our downtown redevelopment goals, it's perhaps the most strategically important property there is. The Landing anchors Laura Street (ground zero for our redevelopment) and complements a dozen other ongoing projects along or near that corridor - the Barnett, the Trio, 20 West, the new retail garage, Hemming Park, Hotel Indigo, Jones Furniture, the Sister Cities Plaza Hotel, Lori Boyer's plans for the Times-Union Center/Hogan Street, Ron's apartments, potentially Snyder Memorial, etc. Going vertical is always a risk, but the real estate is so great that I don't think the market risk is even a fraction of what it would be for the ancillary properties on the outskirts of downtown.
Third, though I fully agree that giving the Landing a fresh coat of paint and making use of the structure as is (particularly adding a food hall element) should help in theory, we're still bound to a lease with Sleiman through 2056, and minor upgrades clearly aren't going to be enough on their own to get him to invest a dime more than the bare minimum needed to keep the lights on. Sleiman is stubborn, he feels slighted by the city (in terms of parking, security, and the disgraceful state of the docks, he's not entirely wrong), and he ain't budging on what he wants.
I see this thing going one of three ways:
1) Sleiman refuses to vacate. We let it go to court, it drags on for years, and downtown suffers as a result as both parties do the bare minimum necessary to keep the roof from collapsing, as the remaining tenets leave.
2) Curry succeeds in forcing Sleiman out. If this happens, there's a very good chance - much better than people realize - that the Landing gets the wrecking ball, existing leases be damned.
3) As co-owners of the property (the city owning the land and Sleiman owning the buildings), Sleiman and the City work together on a redevelopment plan that makes everyone happy and execute on it quickly to help continue, rather than stifle, the momentum mounting along Laura Street.
$12 million ain't cheap, but compared to the alternatives, I think it's worth it.
Even if it means putting Lot J on ice for a year.
Or, just sell the damn land to Sleiman outright under the condition that he executes on a mutually agreeable redevelopment plan.
Quote from: Marle Brando on May 26, 2018, 08:24:41 AM
I believe where the city has failed is continuing to look at The Landing as a building, and not as an entire district, like Gaslamp in San Diego. The Jacksonville Landing should be inclusive of The Times Union Center, the CSX lots, Omni lots, Berkman, Berkman 'Hotel', the Hyatt, new convention center etc. These should all be rebrands as..The Hyatt@The jax landing, The Times Union Center@ jax landing, Hotel Indigo@The Jax Landing, etc. Also build on the CSX, and Ommi Lots. Maybe garages with ground retail, restaurants. Open the existing Landing structure up to the street. Parkspace along the river and along river on new convention center plot would be ideal. It could all be so simple.
It should be viewed as a district but the Landing is one of several sites within it. The district is the CBD, Northbank, Northbank Riverfront, etc.
I predict it will be tied up in court for years and DT will continue to have a black eye in the heart of its revitalization dreams. The black eye will outlive Curry's mayoral administration. I agree in its importance but I wouldn't spend $12 million in public money on implementating that last plan. We can go to SJTC or a new strip mall with a stick built apartment complex in any decent sized city's suburbs for that experience.
Yep, no reason to think it won't be caught up for years in court. Sleiman has no incentive to give in, and there's no way the case is clear cut enough that it'll be over quickly. In the meantime, the two sides will continue failing to invest on their respective obligations in the building.
And yes, it would be nuts to give $12 million for any of these plans. None of them are worth it. And it would be even crazier, if the city ends up with the property, to spend even more money to tear it all down and rebuild it. It would be better to give a much smaller amount of money to fix up the current building in ways that would make it relevant for modern businesses and visitors. Sadly, the easiest option appears to be the least likely to happen.
Sleiman's response:
http://www.jacksonville.com/news/20180526/jacksonville-landing-owners-fire-back-at-city
Quote from: KenFSU on May 26, 2018, 08:40:42 PM
Sleiman's response:
http://www.jacksonville.com/news/20180526/jacksonville-landing-owners-fire-back-at-city
Bad link
http://www.jacksonville.com/news/20180526/jacksonville-landing-owners-fire-back-at-city-leadership
What a HOT mess!
I'm no lawyer, but I don't think the city can just negate a lease. The current administration is reminding me of the old days, pre consolidation, when the good ole boys ran Jacksonville. It's back to what can we do to help enrich our friends instead of what's good for the city. This Landing fiasco and the JEA privatizing and hiring of the interim JEA CEO proves that this is one screwed-up ball of confusion administration. I put it all on the mayor.
Quote from: Snaketoz on May 27, 2018, 09:19:32 AM
I'm no lawyer, but I don't think the city can just negate a lease. The current administration is reminding me of the old days, pre consolidation, when the good ole boys ran Jacksonville. It's back to what can we do to help enrich our friends instead of what's good for the city. This Landing fiasco and the JEA privatizing and hiring of the interim JEA CEO proves that this is one screwed-up ball of confusion administration. I put it all on the mayor.
Back in October, the city sent Sleiman a letter stating that he was in breach of contract for the five reasons listed below. They gave him 30 days to bring the Landing into compliance with the original terms (an impossible task). The city's justification for terminating the lease on Friday is that Sleiman failed to operate the Landing as a first-class retail facility, full of high-quality tenets, in line with similar properties in Philly, Baltimore, Boston, etc.
(https://snag.gy/u0mXej.jpg)
Where this all falls apart, and likely ends up in a years-long, self-destructive legal battle, is that Sleiman can and has filed a suit against the city claiming that they are actually the ones in violation of the original lease with Rouse by not providing 800 promised parking spaces, security, and upkeep. Sleiman also believes that the city has actively tried to undercut the Landing, both in shutting down Florida/Georgia festivies on multiple occasions for code violations, and for sabotaging attempts to bring a 12,000 sf chocolate factory to the Landing as an anchor tenet.
Personally, all things considered, I think Sleiman has the upper hand. At the end of the day, the types of first-class retail tenets that the city expects Sleiman to recruit require the type of
dedicated, 24/7 parking that the city has defaulted on since 1987. In addition to parking, nautical access (also guaranteed by the city in the original lease) has also been cut off, with 75% of the docks lying in disrepair since 2016. Lack of a police presence, also guaranteed in the lease, has resulted in all kinds of safety issues over the years, up to and including shootings and murder. This has also hurt the Landing's reputation and ability to attract new tenets.
Both sides need to play ball, neither side has put in the effort that they should, but at the end of the day, when we're talking strictly about the lack of first-class retail tenets, Sleiman has a paper trail of his efforts to recruit such tenets, and it's always come back to the parking issue.
Doesn't matter that there's plenty of parking downtown, on the streets and in public garages.
What matters is that the
dedicated, Landing-specific, 800 spaces that the city promised to provide as a condition of Rouse building the Landing were never constructed, which has handicapped the venue's ability to draw in tenets ever since.
It's never gonna happen, the pissing match is too strong, but this could all be solved by getting Sleiman, Curry, and the DIA at a table, identifying the three major issues holding the Landing back, taking another look at the last 15 years of plans and studies. and plotting a path forward.
Quote from: KenFSU on May 27, 2018, 12:21:54 PM
Quote from: Snaketoz on May 27, 2018, 09:19:32 AM
I'm no lawyer, but I don't think the city can just negate a lease. The current administration is reminding me of the old days, pre consolidation, when the good ole boys ran Jacksonville. It's back to what can we do to help enrich our friends instead of what's good for the city. This Landing fiasco and the JEA privatizing and hiring of the interim JEA CEO proves that this is one screwed-up ball of confusion administration. I put it all on the mayor.
Back in October, the city sent Sleiman a letter stating that he was in breach of contract for the five reasons listed below. They gave him 30 days to bring the Landing into compliance with the original terms (an impossible task). The city's justification for terminating the lease on Friday is that Sleiman failed to operate the Landing as a first-class retail facility, full of high-quality tenets, in line with similar properties in Philly, Baltimore, Boston, etc.
(https://snag.gy/u0mXej.jpg)
Where this all falls apart, and likely ends up in a years-long, self-destructive legal battle, is that Sleiman can and has filed a suit against the city claiming that they are actually the ones in violation of the original lease with Rouse by not providing 800 promised parking spaces, security, and upkeep. Sleiman also believes that the city has actively tried to undercut the Landing, both in shutting down Florida/Georgia festivies on multiple occasions for code violations, and for sabotaging attempts to bring a 12,000 sf chocolate factory to the Landing as an anchor tenet.
Personally, all things considered, I think Sleiman has the upper hand. At the end of the day, the types of first-class retail tenets that the city expects Sleiman to recruit require the type of dedicated, 24/7 parking that the city has defaulted on since 1987. In addition to parking, nautical access (also guaranteed by the city in the original lease) has also been cut off, with 75% of the docks lying in disrepair since 2016. Lack of a police presence, also guaranteed in the lease, has resulted in all kinds of safety issues over the years, up to and including shootings and murder. This has also hurt the Landing's reputation and ability to attract new tenets.
Both sides need to play ball, neither side has put in the effort that they should, but at the end of the day, when we're talking strictly about the lack of first-class retail tenets, Sleiman has a paper trail of his efforts to recruit such tenets, and it's always come back to the parking issue.
Doesn't matter that there's plenty of parking downtown, on the streets and in public garages.
What matters is that the dedicated, Landing-specific, 800 spaces that the city promised to provide as a condition of Rouse building the Landing were never constructed, which has handicapped the venue's ability to draw in tenets ever since.
It's never gonna happen, the pissing match is too strong, but this could all be solved by getting Sleiman, Curry, and the DIA at a table, identifying the three major issues holding the Landing back, taking another look at the last 15 years of plans and studies. and plotting a path forward.
I'm inclined to agree with your assessment. As much as I despise Sleiman's portfolio of crap strip malls and pole signs all around the region, the Landing is a fairly high-profile symbol of the health and vitality of the COJ, and Curry's Administration is beginning to show a penchant for public showdown over resolution. Meanwhile, outsiders visiting downtown don't have all this back-story - they see a crap center in the heart of downtown, and walk away with the impression that the city doesn't look after itself - a reflection on both the property owner and the Mayoral Administration. Surely there's a relatively inexpensive way to turn the entrance to the Landing into a stretch of vintage storefronts so that you quickly have the feel of a walkable, urban-style village along the city's streets...Activate the Streets...Turn the Landing inside-out.
Also, if you look at the Jacksonville Landing Facebook page, it's actually quite comical to read the comments on visitors' experiences at the venue. Someone described it as a waterfront homeless shelter with mic nights:).
I was initially proud of the Landing. I took out of town visitors there numerous times when it first opened. I am sad to say that now, I don't know of anyone who would even consider going there, day or night. I has a high gag factor in my opinion. The mayor should be leading and not blaming. The Landing is a bad joke. It has/had so much potential. We need to stop electing candidates for office who promise to "keep our taxes low", and start electing people who will promise to pull us UP, out of the dark ages. What would help Jacksonville most? A bunch of incentives to companies in already developed parts of town, or spending money and restoring this piece of real estate that can and should be the catalyst for turning a neglected downtown into a thriving center? If we had some progressive ideas from our politicians, perhaps we wouldn't need to bribe companies to move here.
Looking through his portfolio you can see how lackluster all of his properties are. Basically just a bunch of generic Publix strip malls. His old proposals are no surprise based on what he currently owns. Someone with more money and more vision needs to build a multi use space there.
The cities old suggestion of low income housing for that space is silly too. This is prime real estate and people will pay whatever to live there if it's a quality building that's a one stop shop / entertaining center
You can't place all the blame on Sleiman. Most of his centers are pretty decent. They just happen to be strip malls in the suburbs. With that said, downtown would be lucky to have half of the tenants taking up space in most of his centers. I really wouldn't mind both of them working together and him running the Landing like he would any other property he owns. If the indecision caused by the continued disputes went away, the Landing would be completely different.
I don't blame Sleiman at all. He is a businessman and took on the Landing with that in mind. Since he took over, the city has been more of a hindrance than a help. They want Tony to assume all the liabilities and blame while they wait on the sidelines waiting to cash in.
As far as his malls are concerned, his business bought malls from another era and for the most part has modernized the existing footprint and improved them. If the city would live up to their agreement, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Curry is acting like he is saving us taxpayers from the evil Sleiman, while doing nothing to live up to the city's agreements. Lenny, fulfill the city's agreements on the original contract before you blame Tony.
Sadly, to the detriment of downtown, it seems like Curry has no interest in working things out with Sleiman. If he did, he would have followed up on the October 2017 letter with a good faith effort to work out the differences. Instead, his solution has been to put Sleiman on notice and then quietly try to buy the buildings from him (not sure on a dollar figure, or where those funds would have come from). When that didn't work, he moved to evict. His only solutions seem to be buy out or kick out.
My first thought is that this is Curry's effort to bury the Landing to get more support for the Lot J / Khan development in the sports district.
Just like with the tax plan - if he can be the one seen as getting that done, he can pat himself on the back know that he's completely off the hook 10 years when/if it fails.
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on May 27, 2018, 01:14:48 PM
Also, if you look at the Jacksonville Landing Facebook page, it's actually quite comical to read the comments on visitors' experiences at the venue. Someone described it as a waterfront homeless shelter with mic nights:).
LOLOL...y'all need to really stop; THAT was too funny. Waterfront homeless shelter with karaoke mic nights. Oh lord.
Seems to be a thing of, "whose gahunnas hang the lowest, spurt the furthest, and are the biggest," (snicker); funnies aside, they both need to come together for the good of the city and the public/taxpayers, come to a consensus, middle ground, and then shake hands, sign a new "fresh start" agreement, move ahead, don't look back, and move on. (Pipe dreams huh?). In a more better world, that would be the case; but we're in modern times when the order of the day is, "hack his or her's head off, laugh about it, chalk up one for yourself, and business as usual." They need to really get together at the table or else give em boxing gloves and whoever wins, has the landing and the property.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 28, 2018, 01:21:01 PM
My first thought is that this is Curry's effort to bury the Landing to get more support for the Lot J / Khan development in the sports district.
Just like with the tax plan - if he can be the one seen as getting that done, he can pat himself on the back know that he's completely off the hook 10 years when/if it fails.
It's an interesting conspiracy theory. The Landing and Cordish's Jacksonville Live will be direct competitors. In terms of entertainment dollars, sure, but even more importantly, in terms of public events. The Landing and its tenets live and die based on a handful of public events hosted at the venue each year - Florida/Georgia weekend, New Year's Eve, 4th of July, Tree Lighting/Boat Parade, free concerts, political rallies, etc.
These are the same types of events that are typically held at Cordish venues in other cities, and you know Khan is going to be gunning for these dates. Getting the Landing out of the way would make Jacksonville Live the city's de facto public event space.
The dates raise a bit of an eyebrow as well. June 2017, the mayor comes out and says he wants to get the Landing away from Sleiman and under city control. Less than a month later, he's on a plane with Khan and Lamping, secretly visiting Cordish developments in Baltimore, KC, and St. Louis.
Who knows to what extent the eviction and Lot J are or are not connected, but I don't see how both co-exist unless the Landing evolves into something more modern, utilitarian, and/or residential.
I think this is perhaps the highest stake, yet most underdiscussed aspect of this whole thing. A strong Jacksonville Landing keeps the CBD and downtown businesses central to all of our biggest public events. A neutered or demolished Jacksonville Landing likely shifts everything east toward the stadium and Lot J, to the detriment of the CBD and true downtown business.
I don't think they can co-exist - we're not big enough, but I can see the reality of trying to create a market around a new entertainment district, that for all intents and purposes is just undeveloped (but contaminated) land.
IMO, it's quite workable if you can get people to live there, which I think they can in the form of your standard, southside/Brooklyn style luxury apartments. What it's not going to end up is what most of us would consider 'urban' development, but hopefully more bodies to the east of the core can help build up the core itself - but that would take a strong government that is capable of planning for the future - which we don't have - we have a mayor that only cares about what happens RIGHT NOW.
That said, and Ennis is going to probably tell me I'm crazy, I see 3-4 apartment complexes and the beginning of some sort of development on Lot J within the next 5-6 years. It's going to be a developer creating a market and not vice-versa. I see the Landing following in the footsteps of Berkaman II and an even larger perceived gap created between the districts after the courthouse annex comes down.
If Khan doesn't scrap 100% of every thing they have presented so far Lot J is going to fail no matter what happend at The Landing. No one wants to live/play in a Towers in the Park(ing lot) environment.
Quote from: Kerry on May 28, 2018, 06:58:57 PM
If Khan doesn't scrap 100% of every thing they have presented so far Lot J is going to fail no matter what happend at The Landing. No one wants to live/play in a Towers in the Park(ing lot) environment.
I disagree. A high rise building can be awesome at street level. One of the best I've ever seen is the Empire State Building. It was the tallest in the world for 40 years, yet doesn't seem that tall when you're standing next to it.
Conversely, 220 Riverside is 5 stories and functions like hell at the street level.
Quote from: Steve on May 29, 2018, 10:17:39 AM
Quote from: Kerry on May 28, 2018, 06:58:57 PM
If Khan doesn't scrap 100% of every thing they have presented so far Lot J is going to fail no matter what happend at The Landing. No one wants to live/play in a Towers in the Park(ing lot) environment.
I disagree. A high rise building can be awesome at street level. One of the best I've ever seen is the Empire State Building. It was the tallest in the world for 40 years, yet doesn't seem that tall when you're standing next to it.
Conversely, 220 Riverside is 5 stories and functions like hell at the street level.
I am talking about street interaction. Everything I have seen from Khan is buildings surrounded by parking (or green space). 220 has it's problem, but a sea of parking isn't one of them.
Quote from: Kerry on May 29, 2018, 11:34:03 AM
Quote from: Steve on May 29, 2018, 10:17:39 AM
Quote from: Kerry on May 28, 2018, 06:58:57 PM
If Khan doesn't scrap 100% of every thing they have presented so far Lot J is going to fail no matter what happend at The Landing. No one wants to live/play in a Towers in the Park(ing lot) environment.
I disagree. A high rise building can be awesome at street level. One of the best I've ever seen is the Empire State Building. It was the tallest in the world for 40 years, yet doesn't seem that tall when you're standing next to it.
Conversely, 220 Riverside is 5 stories and functions like hell at the street level.
I am talking about street interaction. Everything I have seen from Khan is buildings surrounded by parking (or green space). 220 has it's problem, but a sea of parking isn't one of them.
Well, I don't think you can redevelop every lot around the stadium in one phase. Plus, many of these around the country are similar in layout. Give me a few to upload images, but if you want check out New England's Patriot Place, Phily's Xfinity Live, and St Louis Ballpark Village.
I'm not saying that these are particularly great urban design spaces. In all three cases, they developed a parking lot into a mixed use location. Personally, I think the office tower thought is great (assuming the market supports it). It's a great way to get more revenue, it's keeps restaurant uses busy at lunch (At least during the week), and the tenants are unlikely to complain about late night noise.
Infill Urban Development? No. Fail? I'm not sure you can say that based on the design. St John's Town center is about as un-urban as you can get, but I'm not sure you can say it's a failure.
Quote from: Steve on May 29, 2018, 12:34:01 PM
Quote from: Kerry on May 29, 2018, 11:34:03 AM
Quote from: Steve on May 29, 2018, 10:17:39 AM
Quote from: Kerry on May 28, 2018, 06:58:57 PM
If Khan doesn't scrap 100% of every thing they have presented so far Lot J is going to fail no matter what happend at The Landing. No one wants to live/play in a Towers in the Park(ing lot) environment.
I disagree. A high rise building can be awesome at street level. One of the best I've ever seen is the Empire State Building. It was the tallest in the world for 40 years, yet doesn't seem that tall when you're standing next to it.
Conversely, 220 Riverside is 5 stories and functions like hell at the street level.
I am talking about street interaction. Everything I have seen from Khan is buildings surrounded by parking (or green space). 220 has it's problem, but a sea of parking isn't one of them.
Well, I don't think you can redevelop every lot around the stadium in one phase. Plus, many of these around the country are similar in layout. Give me a few to upload images, but if you want check out New England's Patriot Place, Phily's Xfinity Live, and St Louis Ballpark Village.
I'm not saying that these are particularly great urban design spaces. In all three cases, they developed a parking lot into a mixed use location. Personally, I think the office tower thought is great (assuming the market supports it). It's a great way to get more revenue, it's keeps restaurant uses busy at lunch (At least during the week), and the tenants are unlikely to complain about late night noise.
Infill Urban Development? No. Fail? I'm not sure you can say that based on the design. St John's Town center is about as un-urban as you can get, but I'm not sure you can say it's a failure.
Street Interactions will be key, in my opinion. Before any area can be successfully and sustainably revitalized, the City of Jax must ask the question of whether the adjacent streets are at a standard to support walkable, urban development. Any parking lot or field developments need to first implement a street grid.
No Dispute. The renderings of Lot J show a large parking lot organized in a grid-like approach. It's a relatively small development in terms of land (compared to the sea of parking), but the idea is that it would fit in with future development.
This is obviously based on future renderings.
The Jaguars consider dense, pedestrian-friendly development to be key to Lot J and the Shipyards.
QuoteThe way Khan hopes to make the city more attractive – not just to visitors, but also to NFL players – is by making the future development around the stadium dense and walkable.
But in order to do so, the emphasis on vehicle access and parking availability will have to take a back seat. When asked what the team plans to do to alleviate parking needs, Parekh acknowledged that the public transportation options in Jacksonville are lacking, but said the redevelopment will focus more on making the area pedestrian-friendly
"One of the reasons we're looking to take down the expressway and one of the reasons we're looking to (build) over this parking is that people don't want to have to walk through giant asphalt parking lots," Parekh said, adding that building parking garages and looking at parking options in other parts of the city could help with the problem. "But I think you sacrifice density if you making parking and navigating for vehicles the priority."
via: https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2018/05/16/jaguars-top-lawyer-addresses-lot-j-contamination.html
Xfinity Live in Philadelphia is very underwhelming - unfortunately my fear is the one proposed for Lot J will be much closer to that than to Ballpark Village
Quote from: tufsu1 on May 29, 2018, 07:39:25 PM
Xfinity Live in Philadelphia is very underwhelming - unfortunately my fear is the one proposed for Lot J will be much closer to that than to Ballpark Village
I think the initial phase will be closer to that. It's the city's job to make sure that development doesn't just stop at Lot J. Lot J should be a piece of a bigger pie.
Just saw that Judge Virginia Norton is the one handling the original lawsuit. I worked with her in like 2003 when I worked for the COJ and she was an Assistant General Counsel. Very smart woman.
Not sure how each side will argue their case, but I"m confident Norton will make the right decision.
Quote from: thelakelander on May 27, 2018, 06:35:13 PM
You can't place all the blame on Sleiman. Most of his centers are pretty decent. They just happen to be strip malls in the suburbs. With that said, downtown would be lucky to have half of the tenants taking up space in most of his centers. I really wouldn't mind both of them working together and him running the Landing like he would any other property he owns. If the indecision caused by the continued disputes went away, the Landing would be completely different.
Sleiman deserves a lot of the blame. He's avoided renovating and maintenance for years in hopes of getting one of his "redevelopment" plans off the ground. All his proposals for years have involved razing the entire building and replacing it with something else, with a huge subsidy from the city to do it. I don't believe that if the city said they were dropping the suits tomorrow and agreed to maintain the surrounding area, that anything would change for the Landing.
It's a shame, because it really wouldn't need a huge investment from either party to renovate the place and get it reasonably functional. That predated the city's current conflict with Sleiman.
Quote from: Tacachale on May 30, 2018, 10:22:46 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on May 27, 2018, 06:35:13 PM
You can't place all the blame on Sleiman. Most of his centers are pretty decent. They just happen to be strip malls in the suburbs. With that said, downtown would be lucky to have half of the tenants taking up space in most of his centers. I really wouldn't mind both of them working together and him running the Landing like he would any other property he owns. If the indecision caused by the continued disputes went away, the Landing would be completely different.
Sleiman deserves a lot of the blame. He's avoided renovating and maintenance for years in hopes of getting one of his "redevelopment" plans off the ground. All his proposals for years have involved razing the entire building and replacing it with something else, with a huge subsidy from the city to do it. I don't believe that if the city said they were dropping the suits tomorrow and agreed to maintain the surrounding area, that anything would change for the Landing.
It's a shame, because it really wouldn't need a huge investment from either party to renovate the place and get it reasonably functional. That predated the city's current conflict with Sleiman.
I also agree with this assessment. Sleiman didn't really even buy the Landing, he thought he was buying the right to a generous stimulus package from Taxpayers. Because he's not getting that stimulus package, it would appear his strategy is to let the place rot into such an embarassing reflection on the city, that the Mayoral Administration and Council would be guilted or cornered into giving him a stimulus package. I'm sort of over the garage argument, and not just because downtown appears to be awash in dead-zone garages, but also because there was no garage when he bought the place decades ago. A shopping village in the heart of the CBD should be able to make do and draw people without suburban-style parking conveniences.
No one would invest in a building if there is a reasonable expectation that it is going to be demolished. No one in their right mind would sign a long-term lease for space that is in such a state of uncertainty.
The city needs to either sell the land to Sleiman with the understanding that no further obligations exist in terms of parking, etc. or buy the building from him The bad blood is wide and deep and they are never going to be able to do any kind of joint venture or partnership.
BTW, what ever came of this lawsuit:
By 2015, the "east parcel" of the property became the subject of a separate lawsuit between the city and JLI over unpaid property taxes and the purchase of an adjacent parking lot.
The City of Jacksonville is arguing that Sleiman, et al hasn't used all reasonable efforts to lease storefronts, while bemoaning that there is a lack of high-quality merchants, that the Landing is not a first class retail facility and there are spaces that appear to be occupied but which are closed during normal business hours (somehow the City expects a painting studio, bars and a dance studio to somehow flourish from Monday through Friday between the hours of 10am to 4pm?).
I look around downtown and see tons of City-owned property that is in a serious lack of disrepair which also do not feature high-quality merchants and spaces that appear to be occupied but which are closed during normal business hours... and personally encounter a governing body that hasn't used all reasonable efforts to lease those properties. Go figure.
How can one expect "high end" retail shops to lease space at that dump? The building is old and dilapidated.. and only about 300' of the 1,000' dock is usable for boaters. Either due to Hurricane damage, or the water taxi. I don't know who's responsible for the docks, but c'mon man.... Hurricane Matthew was 2 years ago. Fix the thing.
Quote from: fieldafm on May 30, 2018, 10:59:50 AM
I look around downtown and see tons of City-owned property that is in a serious lack of disrepair...
Surely that's a good thing?
Quote from: SMoody9310 on May 30, 2018, 11:32:20 AM
How can one expect "high end" retail shops to lease space at that dump? The building is old and dilapidated.. and only about 300' of the 1,000' dock is usable for boaters. Either due to Hurricane damage, or the water taxi. I don't know who's responsible for the docks, but c'mon man.... Hurricane Matthew was 2 years ago. Fix the thing.
The city's responsible for the docks and Riverwalk. They're not doing maintenance, because they argue Sleiman's dropping the ball on his end. Sleiman's not doing maintenance on his end, because he argues the city's dropping the ball on
their end. And round and round we go.
QuoteI don't know who's responsible for the docks
That would be the City of Jacksonville... expressly agreed upon in the same lease they claim the Landing to be violating due to 'not exhausting 'all reasonable efforts to lease storefronts'. Just a few short blocks away, the office spaces in the Florida Theatre, the retail spaces at the Main Library and the entire Snyder Memorial building (all owned by the City, who is also responsible for leasing said spaces) remain empty. In the case of the Library spaces and the Snyder Memorial.... one cannot even lease the space without the City first issuing an RFP (which they have not done in a decade for either space).
Quote from: Tacachale on May 30, 2018, 11:53:23 AM
Quote from: SMoody9310 on May 30, 2018, 11:32:20 AM
How can one expect "high end" retail shops to lease space at that dump? The building is old and dilapidated.. and only about 300' of the 1,000' dock is usable for boaters. Either due to Hurricane damage, or the water taxi. I don't know who's responsible for the docks, but c'mon man.... Hurricane Matthew was 2 years ago. Fix the thing.
The city's responsible for the docks and Riverwalk. They're not doing maintenance, because they argue Sleiman's dropping the ball on his end. Sleiman's not doing maintenance on his end, because he argues the city's dropping the ball on their end. And round and round we go.
And the building certainly wasn't 'dilapidated' when Sleiman bought it.
If you were in Sleiman's shoes and had spent millions on the Landing with the understanding you would get parking, Riverwalk upkeep, etc., how much would you spend on upkeep? That would be throwing good money after bad. Sleiman didn't get where he is being a fool. He is a shrewd businessman. If Curry is able to outlast him in court and is able to oust him from the landing, I bet someone out of the politically connected sect that put him in office will get a parking lot, get maintenance to dock, and lots of help from the city. So predictable.
Quote from: Snaketoz on May 30, 2018, 12:05:43 PM
If you were in Sleiman's shoes and had spent millions on the Landing with the understanding you would get parking, Riverwalk upkeep, etc., how much would you spend on upkeep? That would be throwing good money after bad. Sleiman didn't get where he is being a fool. He is a shrewd businessman. If Curry is able to outlast him in court and is able to oust him from the landing, I bet someone out of the politically connected sect that put him in office will get a parking lot, get maintenance to dock, and lots of help from the city. So predictable.
Well, Sleiman's interest isn't in upkeep or maintenance. He wants a payday to renovate it (ie, to tear it down). The bigger issue is that ever since Sleiman has owned the building, the plans of the day depend entirely on Sleiman's relationship with the sitting mayor. He doesn't get along with one mayor, so nothing happens; then he gets along great with the next mayor, so we almost give away the farm to pay for the Landing; then he
really doesn't get along with the next mayor, and we're in the current situation.
Quote from: Tacachale on May 30, 2018, 12:20:27 PM
The bigger issue is that ever since Sleiman has owned the building, the plans of the day depend entirely on Sleiman's relationship with the sitting mayor.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 28, 2018, 03:23:47 PM
...but that would take a strong government that is capable of planning for the future - which we don't have - we have a mayor that only cares about what happens RIGHT NOW.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 30, 2018, 12:32:35 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on May 30, 2018, 12:20:27 PM
The bigger issue is that ever since Sleiman has owned the building, the plans of the day depend entirely on Sleiman's relationship with the sitting mayor.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 28, 2018, 03:23:47 PM
...but that would take a strong government that is capable of planning for the future - which we don't have - we have a mayor that only cares about what happens RIGHT NOW.
Truth.
Quote from: Tacachale on May 30, 2018, 12:20:27 PM
Quote from: Snaketoz on May 30, 2018, 12:05:43 PM
If you were in Sleiman's shoes and had spent millions on the Landing with the understanding you would get parking, Riverwalk upkeep, etc., how much would you spend on upkeep? That would be throwing good money after bad. Sleiman didn't get where he is being a fool. He is a shrewd businessman. If Curry is able to outlast him in court and is able to oust him from the landing, I bet someone out of the politically connected sect that put him in office will get a parking lot, get maintenance to dock, and lots of help from the city. So predictable.
Well, Sleiman's interest isn't in upkeep or maintenance. He wants a payday to renovate it (ie, to tear it down). The bigger issue is that ever since Sleiman has owned the building, the plans of the day depend entirely on Sleiman's relationship with the sitting mayor. He doesn't get along with one mayor, so nothing happens; then he gets along great with the next mayor, so we almost give away the farm to pay for the Landing; then he really doesn't get along with the next mayor, and we're in the current situation.
Every business and every working person wants a payday. Evidently, Sleiman didn't contribute enough to Curry's campaign.
Quote from: Tacachale on May 30, 2018, 12:20:27 PM
Quote from: Snaketoz on May 30, 2018, 12:05:43 PM
If you were in Sleiman's shoes and had spent millions on the Landing with the understanding you would get parking, Riverwalk upkeep, etc., how much would you spend on upkeep? That would be throwing good money after bad. Sleiman didn't get where he is being a fool. He is a shrewd businessman. If Curry is able to outlast him in court and is able to oust him from the landing, I bet someone out of the politically connected sect that put him in office will get a parking lot, get maintenance to dock, and lots of help from the city. So predictable.
Well, Sleiman's interest isn't in upkeep or maintenance. He wants a payday to renovate it (ie, to tear it down). The bigger issue is that ever since Sleiman has owned the building, the plans of the day depend entirely on Sleiman's relationship with the sitting mayor. He doesn't get along with one mayor, so nothing happens; then he gets along great with the next mayor, so we almost give away the farm to pay for the Landing; then he really doesn't get along with the next mayor, and we're in the current situation.
All of Sleiman's plans have not involved demolition. Back in Peyton's day, the plan was to expand around the existing structure until people complained about blocking viee corridor. However, Peyton's big ideas plan had a new center on the Southbank and the Landing shown as green space with a merry go round in it. A few years later Sleiman had a plan that called for flipping the mall retail to face Independent Drive. I don't know what changed with that one because it was the most realistic.
Quote from: thelakelander on May 30, 2018, 02:00:15 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on May 30, 2018, 12:20:27 PM
Quote from: Snaketoz on May 30, 2018, 12:05:43 PM
If you were in Sleiman's shoes and had spent millions on the Landing with the understanding you would get parking, Riverwalk upkeep, etc., how much would you spend on upkeep? That would be throwing good money after bad. Sleiman didn't get where he is being a fool. He is a shrewd businessman. If Curry is able to outlast him in court and is able to oust him from the landing, I bet someone out of the politically connected sect that put him in office will get a parking lot, get maintenance to dock, and lots of help from the city. So predictable.
Well, Sleiman's interest isn't in upkeep or maintenance. He wants a payday to renovate it (ie, to tear it down). The bigger issue is that ever since Sleiman has owned the building, the plans of the day depend entirely on Sleiman's relationship with the sitting mayor. He doesn't get along with one mayor, so nothing happens; then he gets along great with the next mayor, so we almost give away the farm to pay for the Landing; then he really doesn't get along with the next mayor, and we're in the current situation.
All of Sleiman's plans have not involved demolition. Back in Peyton's day, the plan was to expand around the existing structure until people complained about blocking viee corridor. However, Peyton's big ideas plan had a new center on the Southbank and the Landing shown as green space with a merry go round in it. A few years later Sleiman had a plan that called for flipping the mall retail to face Independent Drive. I don't know what changed with that one because it was the most realistic.
Presumably it got washed away by the dream of demolishing the entire building with a big subsidy, as that's all he's pitched for a lot of years now.
He along with every other major politico and DT advocate. If it were anyone else owning that place, it would have been torn down with city money years ago. This whole thing is less about economics, what's best for the site, etc. and more about bad blood, and deciding winners and losers in the game of DT redevelopment.
Quote from: Tacachale on May 30, 2018, 02:53:47 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on May 30, 2018, 02:00:15 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on May 30, 2018, 12:20:27 PM
Quote from: Snaketoz on May 30, 2018, 12:05:43 PM
If you were in Sleiman's shoes and had spent millions on the Landing with the understanding you would get parking, Riverwalk upkeep, etc., how much would you spend on upkeep? That would be throwing good money after bad. Sleiman didn't get where he is being a fool. He is a shrewd businessman. If Curry is able to outlast him in court and is able to oust him from the landing, I bet someone out of the politically connected sect that put him in office will get a parking lot, get maintenance to dock, and lots of help from the city. So predictable.
Well, Sleiman's interest isn't in upkeep or maintenance. He wants a payday to renovate it (ie, to tear it down). The bigger issue is that ever since Sleiman has owned the building, the plans of the day depend entirely on Sleiman's relationship with the sitting mayor. He doesn't get along with one mayor, so nothing happens; then he gets along great with the next mayor, so we almost give away the farm to pay for the Landing; then he really doesn't get along with the next mayor, and we're in the current situation.
All of Sleiman's plans have not involved demolition. Back in Peyton's day, the plan was to expand around the existing structure until people complained about blocking viee corridor. However, Peyton's big ideas plan had a new center on the Southbank and the Landing shown as green space with a merry go round in it. A few years later Sleiman had a plan that called for flipping the mall retail to face Independent Drive. I don't know what changed with that one because it was the most realistic.
Presumably it got washed away by the dream of demolishing the entire building with a big subsidy, as that's all he's pitched for a lot of years now.
I don't think it's entirely fair to characterize Sleiman as the main proponent for complete demolition.
He's pitched ideas in the past that involved expansion of the current Landing, or removal of the north structure only.
Yes, he's advocated a complete demo, but the city has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on multiple studies and redevelopment plans of their own for the Landing, particularly in the last five years, and all have come back with the recommendation to demolish the existing structure as well.
It's actually kind of ironic, considering where we now find ourselves with the Landing, that Sleiman and the city haven't been too far off, conceptually, in recent years.
Sleiman's last major action was to spend $150k of his own money to commission a redevelopment study from Bergmann Associates. Bergmann suggested scrapping the current Landing, opening up a new Landing to the river, and focusing on two main structures on each side of Laura. The rightmost structure would be primarily residential and garage.
(https://snag.gy/4w2GJO.jpg)
The DIA wasn't entirely sold, and decided to spend $100k of city money to conduct their own independent redevelopment study through Wakefield Beasley. Sleiman had nothing to do with the city's study, and Wakefield came back with a shockingly similar recommendation to the Bergmann plan (albeit much improved in terms of river interaction).
(https://snag.gy/T8axEO.jpg)
Different administration, we'd probably be seeing construction right now.
But hey, at least Hooters is getting some new high-tops~!
Sleiman should win his lawsuit. I think the city is more to blame than Sleiman. 1. They (COJ) agreed to "continuously operate and manage, a parking garage with 800 spaces, for short term parking for the Landing". 2. The city is responsible for all exterior common areas, including labor, materials, and equipment. 3. The city is responsible for the docks, within what is required by state and federal laws.
Now tell me how, Tony is supposed to attract and keep 1st class tenants when the city has failed so miserably in maintaining the Landing? This should be a slam dunk for Sleiman in an impartial court.
Quote from: KenFSU on May 30, 2018, 04:56:06 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on May 30, 2018, 02:53:47 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on May 30, 2018, 02:00:15 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on May 30, 2018, 12:20:27 PM
Quote from: Snaketoz on May 30, 2018, 12:05:43 PM
If you were in Sleiman's shoes and had spent millions on the Landing with the understanding you would get parking, Riverwalk upkeep, etc., how much would you spend on upkeep? That would be throwing good money after bad. Sleiman didn't get where he is being a fool. He is a shrewd businessman. If Curry is able to outlast him in court and is able to oust him from the landing, I bet someone out of the politically connected sect that put him in office will get a parking lot, get maintenance to dock, and lots of help from the city. So predictable.
Well, Sleiman's interest isn't in upkeep or maintenance. He wants a payday to renovate it (ie, to tear it down). The bigger issue is that ever since Sleiman has owned the building, the plans of the day depend entirely on Sleiman's relationship with the sitting mayor. He doesn't get along with one mayor, so nothing happens; then he gets along great with the next mayor, so we almost give away the farm to pay for the Landing; then he really doesn't get along with the next mayor, and we're in the current situation.
All of Sleiman's plans have not involved demolition. Back in Peyton's day, the plan was to expand around the existing structure until people complained about blocking viee corridor. However, Peyton's big ideas plan had a new center on the Southbank and the Landing shown as green space with a merry go round in it. A few years later Sleiman had a plan that called for flipping the mall retail to face Independent Drive. I don't know what changed with that one because it was the most realistic.
Presumably it got washed away by the dream of demolishing the entire building with a big subsidy, as that's all he's pitched for a lot of years now.
I don't think it's entirely fair to characterize Sleiman as the main proponent for complete demolition.
He's pitched ideas in the past that involved expansion of the current Landing, or removal of the north structure only.
Yes, he's advocated a complete demo, but the city has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on multiple studies and redevelopment plans of their own for the Landing, particularly in the last five years, and all have come back with the recommendation to demolish the existing structure as well.
It's actually kind of ironic, considering where we now find ourselves with the Landing, that Sleiman and the city haven't been too far off, conceptually, in recent years.
Sleiman's last major action was to spend $150k of his own money to commission a redevelopment study from Bergmann Associates. Bergmann suggested scrapping the current Landing, opening up a new Landing to the river, and focusing on two main structures on each side of Laura. The rightmost structure would be primarily residential and garage.
(https://snag.gy/4w2GJO.jpg)
The DIA wasn't entirely sold, and decided to spend $100k of city money to conduct their own independent redevelopment study through Wakefield Beasley. Sleiman had nothing to do with the city's study, and Wakefield came back with a shockingly similar recommendation to the Bergmann plan (albeit much improved in terms of river interaction).
(https://snag.gy/T8axEO.jpg)
Different administration, we'd probably be seeing construction right now.
But hey, at least Hooters is getting some new high-tops~!
Both were highly underwhelming. The DIA's version was never going to significantly differ from Sleiman's because the general design parameters were basically the same. It's the same product, just slightly packaged and rendered differently. At the end of the day, both take what should be a unique destination in the heart of downtown and transform the site into a 220 Riverside, hotel, etc. with limited street level retail and a more centered Unity Plaza.
In reality, the architecture, the shape, orange roof, illuminated signage, location, etc. make the place iconic. It's warts can be fixed without throwing the baby out with the bath water and extra millions of tax dollars. Both Norfolk and Baltimore have recently taken similar self contained Rouse buildings and repurposed them for present times. Jax can do the same if it stops itself from overcomplicating the situation.
Quote from: Snaketoz on May 30, 2018, 06:01:58 PM
Sleiman should win his lawsuit. I think the city is more to blame than Sleiman. 1. They (COJ) agreed to "continuously operate and manage, a parking garage with 800 spaces, for short term parking for the Landing". 2. The city is responsible for all exterior common areas, including labor, materials, and equipment. 3. The city is responsible for the docks, within what is required by state and federal laws.
Now tell me how, Tony is supposed to attract and keep 1st class tenants when the city has failed so miserably in maintaining the Landing? This should be a slam dunk for Sleiman in an impartial court.
The Landing has lost many of its tenants, and while the City owns underlying real estate, Sleiman is responsible for the buildings and tenant recruitment and retention. In the course of the litigation, the current tenants' opinions of Sleiman and the reasons for non-renewal by pre-existing tenants will probably be relevant. Also, if the City is asserting that Sleiman has failed to recruit world-class retailers, I would be interested to understand how world-class retailers are defined, what retailers meet that definition, and their documented reasons for not doing a deal with the Landing. If those reasons are of the type that would be addressed or managed by Sleiman Enterprises based on its description of responsibilities in the Lease, then perhaps the City has a point. I can't imagine retailers citing a lack of boat docks - no one is expecting patronage from that. I feel like that's been missing in all the coverage - what do the current and FORMER tenants think of the situation with the Landing. Has Sleiman been managing in good faith, or engaging in sub-par management to force the City's hand in working out an incentive deal.
The Landing was dated and largely vacant before Sleiman purchased it. It would be interesting to see how a world class retailer is defined. Depending on that definition, market dynamics come into play. It's not like world class retailers are beating down Downtown's door to get into all the other vacant storefronts outside of the Landing.
I'd like to explore the idea that Sleiman really isn't putting his all into making this work. I'm thinking of all the retailers in his strip malls all around this city. I feel if Sleiman came to the city with lease commitments from, say,"Dollar Tree," or "Ross Dress for Less," or "JoAnn's Fabric," or "TJ Maxx," I feel the city would have worked with him on dedicated parking and publicizing that parking for shoppers. I'm mentioning those names as examples...not sure whether they already have a presence in the core. My point is that Sleiman isn't leveraging his existing retail network to bring his own brand of vibrancy to the Landing, and is instead letting it go to the dogs to secure a major incentives package from the City, and do something very different with the Landing to expand his repertoire.
You can't get lease commitments from retailers requiring dedicated parking when the promised dedicated parking has never been provided. You also can't get lease commitments for an existing facility when both parties have promoted redevelopment plans that call for the center's razing. To get lease commitments, razing would have to be off the table and a dedicated parking solution figured out. In general, these things would seem pretty simple but all hell breaks loose when politics, bad blood and poor relationships get involved.
I have a hard time seeing a private development doing well long term with the ground lease that they are on. That's always going to be looming over whatever's there.
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on May 30, 2018, 07:48:07 PM
I feel if Sleiman came to the city with lease commitments from, say,"Dollar Tree," or "Ross Dress for Less," or "JoAnn's Fabric," or "TJ Maxx," I feel the city would have worked with him on dedicated parking and publicizing that parking for shoppers.
It was never Sleiman's responsibility, nor should it be, to "prove" anything to the city in order to earn parking. It was the city's
contractual obligation, via the letter of the lease, to provide - in perpetuity - an 800-space best-in-class garage, specifically dedicated to the Landing, that was nearby, safe, staffed, well-lit, and open from an hour before the Landing opened until an hour after the Landing closed.
It was an obligation that predated Sleiman by 16 years.
Doesn't matter if Toney Sleiman is Mother Teresa or the devil himself, the lease is the lease is the lease:
(https://snag.gy/lsCbe9.jpg)
(https://snag.gy/iOSkxu.jpg)
(https://snag.gy/gI15k7.jpg)
Which is what makes this whole thing so fucking maddening, pardon my language.
How can you take someone to court for breaching a lease that you've been in clear, flippant violation of for 30 years and expect to win? Rouse was promised an 800-space garage in 1987, which the city backed out on, and Sleiman was promised the same parking when he bought the landing for $5 million in 2003.
Even more importantly, how can you attempt to evict someone for failure to sign first-class tenets when your own breach of contract is the root cause of said failure. Cheesecake Factory and PF Chang's were, pre-Town Center, the prime targets for the Landing. Sleiman very publicly reached out to both. And the Landing was a non-starter for both, because of parking. The 300 dedicated spaces required for just those two restaurants to even consider opening at the Landing were 60 more spaces than Sleiman currently has for the entire Landing. Doesn't the city think this is something that might, you know, come up in court?
If you're into economic game theory, the entire situation is classic prisoner's dilemma.
QuoteThe prisoner's dilemma is a paradox in decision analysis in which two individuals acting in their own self-interest pursue a course of action that does not result in the ideal outcome. The typical prisoner's dilemma is set up in such a way that both parties choose to protect themselves at the expense of the other participant. As a result of following a purely logical thought process, both participants find themselves in a worse state than if they had cooperated with each other in the decision-making process.
Everyone loses if this thing goes to trial.
Reggie Gaffney, bless his heart, has spent the week trying to mediate a resolution, and the response from the mayor's office has basically been, "see you in court."
All parties involved need to look at the full range of possible outcomes.
Outcome 1 - The city "wins" their case against Sleiman. For their efforts, they get years of legal fees and stalled downtown development, and the right to spend $10 million to buy the Landing back from Sleiman, pay out the remaining leases, and then turn around and spend millions more to knock the whole damn thing down again. Without exaggeration, it could be 2025 and $15 million by the time a new RFP is even issued for the property.
Outcome 2 - Sleiman "wins" his case against the city. Worst case for us, the judge and jury actually - you know - read the original lease, and award Toney Sleiman tens of millions of dollars in damages dating back to 2003 for our failure to provide him the infrastructure he needed to make the Landing successful. Best case scenario for us, the city gets off with *just* having to build a $60 million parking garage, the trust is irrevocably broken between Jacksonville and Sleiman, and the Landing situation remains in stalemate for another decade.
Outcome 3 - Sleiman, Curry, and the DIA sit down at a conference room table like adults, leave their egos at the door, and do what's best for the damn city by working something out that everyone can live with. Not everyone is going to love every aspect of it, but it will be better than the alternative. Work could be in the budget as soon as next year, an improved Landing could come online right alongside the Trio, and Curry and Sleiman both come out looking like champs.
There's so much more to lose than to gain for Curry in particular (and, by proxy, the city) by taking this thing to court.
Every single piece of communication related to the Landing from Curry has already been subpoenaed by Sleiman; if there's anything fishy at all, it's gonna come out in August unless this thing is settled.
And let's not forgot, Curry wants his legacy to be downtown redevelopment via private-public parternship. A convention center and Lot J development will both need to rely on leases not dissimilar to the city's lease with Sleiman/JLI. Do we
really want potential investors to think that we're the type of city who backs out of our obligations before attempting hostile takeovers of private development? What does Cordish think watching this clownshow?
Work. It. Out.
I've never seen or read the lease, until the portion of it that you just posted. Interestingly, in the passage you posted, "Rouse" is cited, which was the original developer, yes? Did the City's "garage" obligation to Rouse transfer to Rouse's assignees/transferees, including Sleiman, upon acquisition? Also, all this first-class nonsense is frustrating in the lease..."first-class garage," I mean come on. Having said that, was the city's obligation to deliver a garage tied to Rouse/Sleiman's obligation to deliver "first-class" tenants? At any rate, we're all conjecturing, and no goals of litigation will really be advanced by this message board. We can just wait and see. I'm no ardent fan of the Curry Administration, I just can't imagine them going to court if the only clear failure to perform here is the city not delivering a "first-class" garage dedicated to the Landing.
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on May 31, 2018, 01:14:57 AM
I've never seen or read the lease, until the portion of it that you just posted. Interestingly, in the passage you posted, "Rouse" is cited, which was the original developer, yes? Did the City's "garage" obligation to Rouse transfer to Rouse's assignees/transferees, including Sleiman, upon acquisition? Also, all this first-class nonsense is frustrating in the lease..."first-class garage," I mean come on. Having said that, was the city's obligation to deliver a garage tied to Rouse/Sleiman's obligation to deliver "first-class" tenants? At any rate, we're all conjecturing, and no goals of litigation will really be advanced by this message board. We can just wait and see. I'm no ardent fan of the Curry Administration, I just can't imagine them going to court if the only clear failure to perform here is the city not delivering a "first-class" garage dedicated to the Landing.
Yes, Rouse was the original developer (as well as a lot of other festival marketplaces around the country, including the Baltimore Inner Harbor project). The garage was required to be provided to them and that transferred to Sleiman.
My honest opinion is Sleiman has done nothing, but it may not matter because of the garage.
Does the Baltimore inner harbor or other festival marketplace projects have similar contracts in regards to dedicated parking garage or parking lots? Did their parking garage get built and therefore they have been more successful? If so then build the garage.
Also in both renderings, one of the ramps to the main street bridge is gone. How likely is that to happen? Has there been a DOT study on that portion of any redevelopment? Is that a major sticking point between the two sides?
Quote from: RatTownRyan on May 31, 2018, 08:56:26 AM
Does the Baltimore inner harbor or other festival marketplace projects have similar contracts in regards to dedicated parking garage or parking lots? Did their parking garage get built and therefore they have been more successful? If so then build the garage.
Also in both renderings, one of the ramps to the main street bridge is gone. How likely is that to happen? Has there been a DOT study on that portion of any redevelopment? Is that a major sticking point between the two sides?
The Baltimore Inner Harbor has a dedicated garage that opened in 1983, shortly after Rouse's festival marketplace opened there (http://harborparkgarage.com/).
On the ramps, the DOT was on board with their removal and held public workshops to get feedback on impact in 2014. But, when Landing redevelopment talk stalled, so did the ramp talks. Eventually,, the ask shifted east toward the Hart Bridge ramps as Shipyards redevelopment talks heated up.
I've said time and time again there is no need to reinvent the wheel and demo anything. As Lake said, refurbish what you already have existing as it does have an iconic look to it. Give it more of a local feel with store fronts and overall programming. I believe at one point on this site someone had pitched doing a fish market, farmers market, activities that bring demand and have a local feel to it. I for one would LOVE that idea and would truly give visitors an idea of what makes Jax great. But yet here we are again, going in circles.
conspiracy time:
does the judge have connections to the curry network? does she have future political aspirations? the city may feel like they have a good case here for a reason
Quote from: jlmann on May 31, 2018, 10:21:56 AM
conspiracy time:
does the judge have connections to the curry network? does she have future political aspirations? the city may feel like they have a good case here for a reason
The judge for the previous lawsuit is Virginia Norton. If she is given this case as well, then I can say definitely not. I'm partial here as I worked with her when we were both COJ employees (me an intern then full time in the IT department, her an Assistant General Counsel).
Not only is she intelligent, I'm confident her ruling will be fair in regard to the law.
^
good to know. though these thoughts are only natural given, well, Jacksonville
Business Journal is reporting that COJ is evicting JLI (Jacksonville Landing Investments), Sleiman's org division at the landing....
WOW!!! Should I recant on moving to Jax? City government under Curry seems dirty and conniving. Wow.
So the city is officially moving forward with plans to take it to court and try to get Sleiman evicted. And the more I read about it, the more it blows my mind.
Per the T-U today:
QuoteThe fate of the Jacksonville Landing will be decided in state court after the city filed a fresh claim seeking to evict the Sleiman family from the downtown mall so the city can take possession of the copper-topped buildings.
Among the arguments made by the city is that Jacksonville Landing Investments has failed to uphold the lease agreement's requirement for the Landing to be "at or above the prevailing level of quality" in place at The Gallery at Market Street East in Philadelphia, Harborplace in Baltimore, Faneuil Hall Marketplace in Boston, and Santa Monica Place in California.
Sleiman's main bone of contention is that the city never provided the 800 dedicated spaces required in the lease for the Landing, preventing him from bringing in the types of high-quality tenets the city is attempting to evict him for not having.
Does the city not expect ANYONE involved in the case to do a detailed forensic analysis (i.e. a ten-second Google search) of the parking situation at these four facilities mentioned in the lawsuit that we expect the Landing to be at or above?
Gallery at Market Street East - Autopark at Gallery Mall (850 spots); open 6 AM to midnight
Harborplace - Harborpark Garage (1,300 spots) and Inner Harbor Garage (800 spots); open 24/7
Faneuil Hall Marketplace - 75 State Street Garage (900 spots); open 24/7
Santa Monica Place - Structures 7 (820 spots) and 8 (1,040 spots); open 24/7
All four spots have official garages, open at or near 24 hours a day.
Doesn't anybody think this is something that might, you know, come up in court?
Literally all Sleiman needs to do is show up in court with a list of parking requirements for a handful of "first-class retailers," and it should be case closed, while opening the city up to a potential civil suit for 15 years of damages.
Though interestingly, per the lease,
if the city were to win its case against Sleiman, he'd lose the entire Landing outright. His buildings would belong to the city, and we wouldn't owe him a dime.
Again, prisoners dilemma. Both sides have everything to lose by taking this to court.
The most logical, responsible action by all parties involved is to sit down and settle this thing like adults.
Why is everyone suddenly on Sleimans side? Did everyone forget about the huge garage across the street and the lot that extends under the main Street bridge to the Hyatt? The landing wasn't getting close to filling up those spaces aside from major event days (New year's, Florida Georgia, etc), so why would the city build another garage when the newest one across the street and the lot connected to the landing aren't consistently filled up??
Sleiman didn't do jack to the Landing to improve it the entire time he owned it, aside from installing the outdated video board in the courtyard. He expected to have a cash cow that he could just sit on and do the bare minimum to because of the location. Unfortunately, for us and him this site and downtown in general needs a LOT of love. Whoever takes over the space needs to be willing to pump in the upper tens of millions into it without much help from the city. It also needs someone with a clear vision and the drive to maintain it. Sleiman is not that person. His submitted solution is nothing more than a glorified South side apartment complex, which is not what that space needs.
The garage across the street is for Suntrust. Parked in there a few weeks back and had to park on the top floor. The rest of the thing was literally dedicated parking for Suntrust tenants. Hell I'm not sure the Landing would match Rouse's top centers even if it had dedicated parking the city never delivered on. Downtown Jax can't support them. That dream sailed away long before Sleiman arrived on the scene. Also, a few of those centers also ended up in decline as retail and consumer trends changed over the last few decades. Gallery at Market St was crap last time I was in Philly and Harborplace is like on its second or third makeover. There is a logical way out of this mess but this is Jax. You'll drive yourself crazy believing these guys will sit down and work out their differences over a beer.
The landing is a dump and embarrassment. Sleiman hasn't invested a dime in it in 15 years of ownership. He has presented a couple bland plans looking for large government incentives and far fetched demands like removing Main Street bridge ramps. I think he has been using the ridiculously long land lease terms to force the city's hand but Curry isn't playing those games. Hurricane Irma excuses are lame and Sleiman knew upon purchasing the landing in 2003 that no garage plans were in place. The way I see the judgement is like this: no garage/no property tax payments equals a wash but a crappy run down facility/dock repairs favoring the city since the place has been a dump far longer than the effects of Irma. I would love for curry and sleiman to sit down like big boys and work things out but a final judgement is in the best interest of Jacksonville. We either get someone else to do something positive with the landing or Sleiman gets his garage and hopefully stipulations to improve the landing afterwards.
Quote from: jaxjaguar on June 01, 2018, 05:42:01 PM
Why would the city build another garage when the newest one across the street and the lot connected to the landing aren't consistently filled up??
Because Jacksonville is
legally obligated to do so. Specifically, as a condition of Rouse building and operating the Landing, the city contractually agreed to provide an 800-space,
dedicated parking garage to the Landing, opened and staffed from at least 7:00 AM until at least 1:00 AM. The same lease, with the same legal requirements, was transferred fully intact to Toney Sleiman in 2003. 15 years later, the city is still in violation of that contract, and the Landing still has only 240 dedicated parking spots. It's open and shut, there are zero shades of grey here. Whether the Landing needs it or doesn't need, or could fill it or couldn't fill it, is totally immaterial. The lease is the lease.
QuoteWhoever takes over the space needs to be willing to pump in the upper tens of millions into it without much help from the city.
As long as the city owns the land and refuses to sell, this expectation is unrealistic, and there will always need to be a public/private partnership.
Quote from: jagsonville on June 01, 2018, 06:35:15 PM
Hurricane Irma excuses are lame and Sleiman knew upon purchasing the landing in 2003 that no garage plans were in place.
The city, not Sleiman, is the one using the hurricane (Matthew, not Irma) as an excuse as to why the Landing's docks have been crumbled and floating in the St. Johns River since 2016.
And absolutely untrue about Sleiman knowing when he purchased the Landing in 2003 that no garage plans were in place. He's been beating the parking drum since day one. Parking was a condition of the lease that he took over, and the city pumped him full of promises about figuring it out.
Sleiman was so convinced that parking was the missing component at the Landing that he was even willing to partner with the city to help them fulfill their parking obligation.
Here he is, in 2003, via the Jax Business Journal, before purchasing the Landing:
QuoteLocal developer Toney Sleiman clarified his plans for The Jacksonville Landing today, announcing his company's intention to buy the area's land from the city and stressing the need for more Downtown parking and a close relationship with the city as linchpins for the project's success.
At a Florida Public Relations Association event, Sleiman and business partner Mike Tolbert said they want to have a "hands-on, local, aggressive approach" to the development, saying direct ownership of the land around and beneath the Landing itself, which Sleiman already owns, is a key to achieving that goal.
Sleiman said next year he also plans to make external improvements to many of the city's aging parking garages and is in the process of getting a permit to build transient marina facilities at the festival marketplace.
Landing redevelopment will happen in three phases, Sleiman said, with the first due to begin in March, if Jacksonville City Council approves the plans and to be completed by the Super Bowl in 2005. While Sleiman and Tolbert would not comment on which retailers might be occupying space in the remodeled building, they suggested that top-line restaurants are at the top of their list.
But parking, they stressed, was a concern, referring to a recent core-Downtown study suggesting the area was short 4,500 parking spaces.
Shortly after purchasing the Landing, via the Daily Record:
Quote"You can make downtown successful with parking," said Sleiman. "Parking is very important. It's the key, not just for the Landing but for all of downtown."
After a short presentation and a minimum of discussion, the JEDC unanimously approved Sleiman Enterprises as a "qualified rental operator," a required step before the company can take over management of the Landing.
"We're going to do a lot," said Sleiman, a principal and developer with the company. "We're going to turn it around."
"I'm dead serious," said Sleiman. "I'm going to change it. We're brewing with excitement over this project."
If an executive wants to move his business downtown, Sleiman said, he may be ready to close the deal until he learns parking for his employees is "four blocks down and three blocks over. Then he goes back to the suburbs."
Parking is available, he said. The lot at the Humana building, land on the east side between the bridge and the Daniels Building, space between the T-U Center and the Landing. There's also some space in the service area of the Landing.
"If you look at the big lot next to the Humana building, let's make it happen somehow," said Sleiman. "Private-public partnership, get everybody downtown involved. Let's do a 3,000-4,000 space parking lot downtown."
But the city never followed through on their obligation, nearly giving Sleiman the Landing property and the adjacent Hogan Street corridor in 2005 in return for defaulting:
QuoteCity reaches deal with Landing owner
By GREGORY RICHARDS
The Times-Union
Jacksonville and the owner of The Jacksonville Landing have made a deal allowing plans to redevelop the downtown mall to proceed, according to a top city official.
"We've reached an agreement in principle," Susie Wiles, spokesman for Mayor John Peyton, said of the city and developer Toney Sleiman.
Through the deal, Sleiman would acquire the property the Landing currently rests on, which is now leased from the city. Sleiman would also acquire two other pieces of property:
The parking lot east of the Landing, between the mall and the Adam's Mark hotel.
The land west of the Landing, between the mall and the Times-Union Center for the Performing Arts. This will require the closing of Hogan Street south of Water Street.
In exchange for the land, the city would be relieved of debt owed to Sleiman for not providing additional parking to the Landing, per prior agreement. No cash will be changing hands, Wiles said.
The city backed out of that deal, attempted to work out a three-way parking deal with Cameron Kuhn before the River Watch Tower went belly up, and by 2009, Sleiman was still practically begging for the parking required in the original lease and complaining about lost tenets as a result:
QuoteSleiman: A man with a plan for The Jacksonville Landing
Jacksonville Landing owner Toney Sleiman is convinced that many of the challenges facing the venue could be eliminated with improved parking, and its an obstacle he's determined to overcome.
When Sleiman's company, Sleiman Enterprises Inc., bought the Rouse Co.-developed property for $5.1 million in 2003, he had plans to transform it. HIs $250 million plan included expanding the existing retail and entertainment space to 1 million square feet, adding a parking garage, a boutique hotel, an office building and condominiums on the west side of the Main Street bridge and another commercial building and a parking garage on the east side of the bridge that is now the site of The Landing's 260-space parking lot.
Sleiman maintains that the city has not fulfilled a parking obligation first made before the Landing even opened, and amended on numerous occasions.
Despite the challenges the Landing has faced, Sleiman has no regrets about buying the facility and does not intend to sell it. He still hopes to fulfill his original plans one day, but he's reworking his vision, while maintaining one of his original goals to create more parking.
Sleiman also wants to remove the white coquina façade on the west side of the building and create entries directly into the center from the street level. He's also negotiating with several national chain restaurants to move into the Landing, but those deals are contingent on Sleiman creating more parking.
It's not a new pattern, or a new excuse by Sleiman to cover his ass for the lack of current success for the Landing. His story and demands haven't changed. Partner with him on the garage in the lease, or sell him the land.
Did we make a mistake agreeing to partner with him on the Landing in 2003? Also immaterial, we're locked into a lease with him for another 40 years.
We gotta find a way to make it work.
There's such a long paper trail that I just don't see how the city thinks they can win this thing in court.
Quote from: KenFSU on June 01, 2018, 08:19:59 PM
There's such a long paper trail that I just don't see how the city thinks they can win this thing in court.
[puts on tinfoil hat]
The city doesn't want to 'win' in court.
Step 1: Tie this property up in litigation. This isn't a win-case, it's a keep it in court for the foreseeable future case.
Step 2: Use the bad press on Toney Sleiman to help support funding for Khan and his ideas by the stadium.
Step 3: After shovels are in the dirt for Khan, then pull Sleiman's largest, most iconic tenant by offering them a better space with better terms
Step 4: Curry pulls muscle while patting himself on the back for developing "downtown" as he exits office.
^largest most iconic tenant... Aside from Hooters & Finn McCools, I don't think any of them are "iconic". Sadly even the tenants in the landing are the places that attract trashiness. I don't see Khan/Lamping being interested in any of them aside from maaaaybe Mavericks for smaller scale concerts/events that daily place is too big for.
Either way I kind of agree with your tinfoil theory. Make Tony look bad while development by the stadium steals his final remaining customers forcing him to give up the landing to save his wallet.
The solution, clearly, is to redevelop the site as a BBQ sauce factory/bottling plant. Maybe the CoJ can help out with funding it.
Quote from: Adam White on June 02, 2018, 06:39:14 AM
The solution, clearly, is to redevelop the site as a BBQ sauce factory/bottling plant. Maybe the CoJ can help out with funding it.
Tony Sleiman needs to be elected to city council, get on the finance committee, and problem solved.
Quote from: Snaketoz on June 02, 2018, 08:51:15 AM
Quote from: Adam White on June 02, 2018, 06:39:14 AM
The solution, clearly, is to redevelop the site as a BBQ sauce factory/bottling plant. Maybe the CoJ can help out with funding it.
Tony Sleiman needs to be elected to city council, get on the finance committee, and problem solved.
I knew it seemed too easy.
COJ isn't bankrupting Sleiman with these suits.
In all honesty, what's stopping the city from just building the freaking parking garage and seeing what Sleiman actually does? We make the money on the property regardless. What's stopping anyone from greenlighting it at this point? It's right there in the building agreement. We've spent more going Dutch on Daily's Place and the Video boards. Surely a paltry $2-$3mil on a barely minimum 600-spot parking deck can be squeezed into the budget somewhere. Right? Put it right next to the skyway and give it its very own stop. That way they can also put those god-awful autonomous people-movers in play.
QuoteIn all honesty, what's stopping the city from just building the freaking parking garage and seeing what Sleiman actually does?
This means Sleiman would have a chance at success. Perhaps there's sentiment out there would rather success not happen if he actually financially benefits from it.
Quote from: BenderRodriguez on June 03, 2018, 05:06:24 PMSurely a paltry $2-$3mil on a barely minimum 600-spot parking deck can be squeezed into the budget somewhere.
Multiply that by 10, and we're talking closer to the actual cost of the 800 spot garage noted in the lease.
Quote from: KenFSU on June 03, 2018, 11:08:26 PM
Quote from: BenderRodriguez on June 03, 2018, 05:06:24 PMSurely a paltry $2-$3mil on a barely minimum 600-spot parking deck can be squeezed into the budget somewhere.
Multiply that by 10, and we're talking closer to the actual cost of the 800 spot garage noted in the lease.
A "first class" facility, right?
Quote from: thelakelander on June 03, 2018, 07:25:38 PM
QuoteIn all honesty, what's stopping the city from just building the freaking parking garage and seeing what Sleiman actually does?
This means Sleiman would have a chance at success. Perhaps there's sentiment out there would rather success not happen if he actually financially benefits from it.
You are correct sir! Lenny is only the puppet dangling from the strings of the politically connected. I think their plan is to wrestle the Landing away from Sleiman using city money. Somebody wants that property and they don't want Tony to be successful.
I don't know the details about this mess, but as a casual observer, I think it's a bad look for the city to evict having seemingly not held up their end of the contract. Real confidence inspiring for future developers.
Regardless of who is obligated to provide what, if 800 parking spaces was all that was standing between me and untold financial success and wealth I would build it myself then send the City the bill. I would fight it out in court while I had cash rolling in - not how Sleiman is doing it.
Quote from: Adam White on June 04, 2018, 08:17:16 AM
Quote from: KenFSU on June 03, 2018, 11:08:26 PM
Quote from: BenderRodriguez on June 03, 2018, 05:06:24 PMSurely a paltry $2-$3mil on a barely minimum 600-spot parking deck can be squeezed into the budget somewhere.
Multiply that by 10, and we're talking closer to the actual cost of the 800 spot garage noted in the lease.
A "first class" facility, right?
Really, any class.
You can't build an 800-spot garage in 2018 for less than $20 million.
A first-class garage, with ground floor retail and modern amenities, would be closer to $30 million.
Quote from: Kerry on June 04, 2018, 10:30:53 AM
Regardless of who is obligated to provide what, if 800 parking spaces was all that was standing between me and untold financial success and wealth I would build it myself then send the City the bill. I would fight it out in court while I had cash rolling in - not how Sleiman is doing it.
When you don't own the land the Landing is standing on?
Quote from: Snaketoz on June 04, 2018, 11:27:35 AM
Quote from: Kerry on June 04, 2018, 10:30:53 AM
Regardless of who is obligated to provide what, if 800 parking spaces was all that was standing between me and untold financial success and wealth I would build it myself then send the City the bill. I would fight it out in court while I had cash rolling in - not how Sleiman is doing it.
When you don't own the land the Landing is standing on?
Absolutely - this is a MAJOR point of contention with Sleiman, and would be tough for anyone. It's hard for a financier to give you money to develop land you don't own. They potentially will with something like a 99 year lease, but otherwise they usually won't.
Personally, I don't think Sleiman is the guy for the Landing, but this is 100% correct and not Sleiman's responsibility to develop it himself on land he doesn't own.
Quote from: Kerry on June 04, 2018, 10:30:53 AM
Regardless of who is obligated to provide what, if 800 parking spaces was all that was standing between me and untold financial success and wealth I would build it myself then send the City the bill. I would fight it out in court while I had cash rolling in - not how Sleiman is doing it.
Bingo. I had drafted the same posting this weekend, but then abandoned it because frankly, with issues like the Landing litigation, I'm finding the hurdles standing in the way of my idealized view of Downtown Jax to be so great and the progress so languid, that I find myself caring less.
I can't understand why Sleiman would even want his firm and brand attached to the current decrepit state of the Landing, all because of the garage. If all that's stood in the way of Landing Glory is a garage, then why, in nearly a generation of owning the building structures, has he never sued the city for nonperformance of its obligations under the lease? And as a businessman, if it's taken nearly a generation to get a garage, what is he holding on to? Sue the city for nonperformance, have the city make you whole on your purchase plus some reasonable return on investment, and return it back to the city? I can't, for the life of me, understand why a so-called thriving real estate development business, is holding on to this dump and expecting to continue some real estate objective with a defaulting counterparty.
He has sued. There's also been points in the past where he and the city have worked together. If Alvin Brown didn't lose his reelection, we'd probably have a redeveloped Landing by now. Politics and public strategy change with each mayoral term. For Sleiman, Curry winning over Brown has made him and the Landing a loser in the downtown revitalization game.
^And Sleiman isn't the first Landing owner to sue either. The parking issue isn't between the city and Toney Sleiman, it's between the city and the Jacksonville Landing. A lot of people like to position the situation as Sleiman irrationally demanding a garage from the city, but the argument actually predates Sleiman's purchase of the building by at least 16 years.
The Rouse Company fled Jacksonville and offloaded the Landing in large part because of the parking issue.
After years of false promises, Rouse finally lost patience and took the parking issue court. The city was forced to waive Rouse's $100k lease payments and told that if it didn't build the promised garage for Rouse by February 2004 at the latest, they would be liable for monthly payments to Rouse for damages.
When Rouse saw the opportunity to exit, they sold to Sleiman, who was told that the city had a plan in place for the garage.
Here's City Council President Lad Daniels in 2003 on the city providing parking, when Sleiman was set to take on the Landing lease:
Quote"There's no question about that. It's a no-brainer," he said. "The Landing is never going to work without parking and we should be prepared to meet that obligation. It's an essential part of the package."
Fair or unfair, the parking garage isn't Sleiman's responsibility.
Quote from: KenFSU on June 04, 2018, 03:19:05 PM
^And Sleiman isn't the first Landing owner to sue either. The parking issue isn't between the city and Toney Sleiman, it's between the city and the Jacksonville Landing. A lot of people like to position the situation as Sleiman irrationally demanding a garage from the city, but the argument actually predates Sleiman's purchase of the building by at least 16 years.
The Rouse Company fled Jacksonville and offloaded the Landing in large part because of the parking issue.
After years of false promises, Rouse finally lost patience and took the parking issue court. The city was forced to waive Rouse's $100k lease payments and told that if it didn't build the promised garage for Rouse by February 2004 at the latest, they would be liable for monthly payments to Rouse for damages.
When Rouse saw the opportunity to exit, they sold to Sleiman, who was told that the city had a plan in place for the garage.
Here's City Council President Lad Daniels in 2003 on the city providing parking, when Sleiman was set to take on the Landing lease:
Quote"There's no question about that. It's a no-brainer," he said. "The Landing is never going to work without parking and we should be prepared to meet that obligation. It's an essential part of the package."
Fair or unfair, the parking garage isn't Sleiman's responsibility.
So the City was in default when Sleiman acquired the property, and yet Sleiman forged ahead with the acquisition in the hopes that the city would suddenly change course and come into conformance? Did Sleiman's arrangements with Alvin Brown include the city finally budgeting for, designing, RFP-ing and delivering on the long-standing promise of a garage, or did they decide "to hell with the garage, let's go after a much more grandiose project?" If the garage was in the arrangement between Brown and Sleiman, was Jacksonville simply too broke to make good on the arrangements?
While I believe much of Sleiman's suburban portfolio is either uninspired or hideous, and that it's a sad state of affairs in downtown Jax that all it can attract is a strip mall mogul for its signature waterfront complex, I don't have anything against him personally. I was unaware that he had already proactively sued the city on the garage issue - just not sure why he bought into a deal with a defaulting counterparty in 2003 and suddenly expected conformance after 16 years of nonconformance...huh?
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on June 04, 2018, 04:36:38 PM
Quote from: KenFSU on June 04, 2018, 03:19:05 PM
^And Sleiman isn't the first Landing owner to sue either. The parking issue isn't between the city and Toney Sleiman, it's between the city and the Jacksonville Landing. A lot of people like to position the situation as Sleiman irrationally demanding a garage from the city, but the argument actually predates Sleiman's purchase of the building by at least 16 years.
The Rouse Company fled Jacksonville and offloaded the Landing in large part because of the parking issue.
After years of false promises, Rouse finally lost patience and took the parking issue court. The city was forced to waive Rouse's $100k lease payments and told that if it didn't build the promised garage for Rouse by February 2004 at the latest, they would be liable for monthly payments to Rouse for damages.
When Rouse saw the opportunity to exit, they sold to Sleiman, who was told that the city had a plan in place for the garage.
Here's City Council President Lad Daniels in 2003 on the city providing parking, when Sleiman was set to take on the Landing lease:
Quote"There's no question about that. It's a no-brainer," he said. "The Landing is never going to work without parking and we should be prepared to meet that obligation. It's an essential part of the package."
Fair or unfair, the parking garage isn't Sleiman's responsibility.
So the City was in default when Sleiman acquired the property, and yet Sleiman forged ahead with the acquisition in the hopes that the city would suddenly change course and come into conformance? Did Sleiman's arrangements with Alvin Brown include the city finally budgeting for, designing, RFP-ing and delivering on the long-standing promise of a garage, or did they decide "to hell with the garage, let's go after a much more grandiose project?" If the garage was in the arrangement between Brown and Sleiman, was Jacksonville simply too broke to make good on the arrangements?
While I believe much of Sleiman's suburban portfolio is either uninspired or hideous, and that it's a sad state of affairs in downtown Jax that all it can attract is a strip mall mogul for its signature waterfront complex, I don't have anything against him personally. I was unaware that he had already proactively sued the city on the garage issue - just not sure why he bought into a deal with a defaulting counterparty in 2003 and suddenly expected conformance after 16 years of nonconformance...huh?
It dates back further then that. He got royally F-ed by John Peyton in 2005ish (rumor is because Herb Peyton and Tony's Dad didn't like each other - not even kidding) when Peyton, who had been publicly backing Sleiman and his renovation plans (which were pretty good actually). Sleiman was willing to spend a lot of money (likely other peoples since the bank were still handing out money like it was Monopoly money) on the place, as long as the city kicked in for parking, and he wanted to buy the land at market rate.
Not buying any of this - again, if all that stood between me and untold wealth was a parking garage I would have already built it - I don't care whose responsibility it was. Even if I ended up losing my lease, I would still own an 800 space parking garage in the core of downtown Jax. And just in case everything went south on me, I would build it with flat decks so it could be converted to housing.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/say-goodbye-to-garages-as-developers-imagine-a-driverless-future-1517317200
^You don't have to buy it because it's not your investment money on the line. Rouse wanted out of Jax so bad, they would have sold the Landing to you, COJ and anyone else around town. The fact Sleiman paid $5 million for a property that cost over $40 million to construct let's us know how bad Rouse wanted out after being tricked into building something Jax could never support in the first place.
Btw, was this ever discussed here? I think I completely missed this April 2018 article:
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/sleiman-sees-more-redevelopment-plans-for-the-landing
Or this:
http://landingfacts.com/timeline-jacksonville-landing-lawsuit/
Quote from: thelakelander on June 04, 2018, 06:33:27 PM
Btw, was this ever discussed here? I think I completely missed this April 2018 article:
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/sleiman-sees-more-redevelopment-plans-for-the-landing
I just assumed that was a PR stunt
^That's probably the case. I still see the talk of redevelopment as only being a demo and a rebuild. On that end, when I see places like San Francisco's Ferry Building and Norfolk's Waterside being revamped and offering things Jax currently wishes it had, I do believe more vision is needed. The structure isn't what ails the Landing. It's vision and local politics.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 04, 2018, 06:50:47 PM
^That's probably the case. I still see the talk of redevelopment as only being a demo and a rebuild. On that end, when I see places like San Francisco's Ferry Building and Norfolk's Waterside being revamped and offering things Jax currently wishes it had, I do believe more vision is needed. The structure isn't what ails the Landing. It's vision and local politics.
Don't think Sleiman's vision is the one that delivers any sort of ideal on the spectrum with something like the Ferry building, and I don't think a visionary for downtown Jax would premise any sort of enhancement on a parking garage, and let the whole zone, the most salient zone you've got, turn into a black eye for the city, one that might take a generation to recover from. To me, a big reason a $40 million at cost shopping complex was sold for $5 million is that implied in the cost is that you'd have to make improvements to make it work in place of the city's defaults. Use that massive discount and solve the parking problem yourself, and once things are humming, sue the city for nonconformance. You love the city, don't let your structures turn into a shanty
I thought Rouse sold The Landing because they were going out of business - which they did soon after the sale.
Part of this is a misrepresentation of history...
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on June 04, 2018, 08:35:57 PM
Don't think Sleiman's vision is the one that delivers any sort of ideal on the spectrum with something like the Ferry building, and I don't think a visionary for downtown Jax would premise any sort of enhancement on a parking garage,
In the retail world dedicated parking is a real thing. All the vision in the world won't land you certain types of tenants if you don't have the dedicated parking or foot traffic they require. I think we all can agree that DT Jax and the Landing don't have the foot traffic necessary to fill +100k square feet of retail. Would anyone say that Rouse didn't have vision because their festival marketplace concept included dedicated parking for their tenant and consumers? After all, their marketplace concept was one of the most successful urban redevelopment retail concepts of the 1980s. Many of their former centers in popular tourist destinations are still successful today....and in many cases, they include dedicated parking.
Quoteand let the whole zone, the most salient zone you've got, turn into a black eye for the city, one that might take a generation to recover from.
I remember going to the Landing when it first opened. I also remember it right before Sleiman took over. IMO, compared to what it was in the 1980s, it was already outdated and largely vacant. The real decline came just as soon as most of the original tenants bailed as soon as their first lease was up. Since 2003, it's been constant redevelopment and parking negotiation talk. It's spanned three mayoral terms, so the discussion has been start and stop depending on who was in office and what their position was towards Sleiman. Again, if Brown would have been reelected, I'm pretty sure the Landing would be in the process of being redeveloped as we speak.....and dedicated parking would have been a part of it.
QuoteTo me, a big reason a $40 million at cost shopping complex was sold for $5 million is that implied in the cost is that you'd have to make improvements to make it work in place of the city's defaults.
No, Rouse wanted out and Sleiman offered to buy them. If a higher offer came, I'm sure Rouse would have taken the money, parking problem be damned.
QuoteUse that massive discount and solve the parking problem yourself, and once things are humming, sue the city for nonconformance. You love the city, don't let your structures turn into a shanty
Where would you have built a garage? The city owns the land. You can't just plop something up on someone else's property if they aren't a willing partner.
Quote from: Kerry on June 04, 2018, 10:18:29 PM
I thought Rouse sold The Landing because they were going out of business - which they did soon after the sale.
They were acquired by General Growth Properties for $12.6 billion a year after they sold the Landing to Sleiman. The deal included 37 malls and other retail properties totaling 40 million square feet. These properties included Chicago's Water Tower Place, Boston's Fanueil Hall Marketplace and Manhattan's South Street Seaport. So for some reason they held onto their profitable centers and sold off the money losers like the Landing.
Parking for the Landing or any other project Downtown wouldn't be so much of an issue if we had some decent mass transit circulating/delivering people from large edge parking garages/lots surrounding and/or already within the Downtown core (or God forbid, actually transporting people from the burbs!) like most cities strive to do - along with those who might actually desire to try and live sans automobile altogether. This would be best for Downtown on many levels and would be far cheaper than continuing to build a dedicated garage for every Downtown project on land that would be better used for supporting greater density and activity in the core.
IMHO, a big reason Downtown suffers is that every other block has to host a parking garage effectively acting as a black hole for any urban energy that might be otherwise developed.
You're right. Unfortunately, our mass transit situation seems like a much larger issue to tackle at this point.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 04, 2018, 11:36:43 PM
You're right. Unfortunately, our mass transit situation seems like a much larger issue to tackle at this point.
It's only a larger issue because our elected leaders refuse to prioritize it. If they were the "business-like" leaders they claim to be, they would see that investing in some mass transit would give a much higher ROI than building more parking garages! Only in Jax... :-\
The biggest problem with mass transit is getting the people to use it. You would have to tax people using downtown parking, or use some sort of other method to compel people to park their cars and use the public transit. Then, the few remaining downtown merchants would be hurt due to drivers avoiding downtown. It's a vicious circle. You can't spend on mass transit unless you know it's self-supporting. Jacksonville is so spread-out mass transit will never work unless you make it more attractive.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on June 04, 2018, 11:47:23 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on June 04, 2018, 11:36:43 PM
You're right. Unfortunately, our mass transit situation seems like a much larger issue to tackle at this point.
It's only a larger issue because our elected leaders refuse to prioritize it. If they were the "business-like" leaders they claim to be, they would see that investing in some mass transit would give a much higher ROI than building more parking garages! Only in Jax... :-\
That and we have a tendency to always go against the grain. The nation goes LRT and we go Skyway people mover. We failed and it set us back a generation. We're still trying to overcome that situation now by attempting to advance another revolutionary solution. Maybe it works and we're popular for a day or two....maybe it fails and sets us back two more generations...
Quote from: Snaketoz on June 05, 2018, 06:06:20 AM
The biggest problem with mass transit is getting the people to use it. You would have to tax people using downtown parking, or use some sort of other method to compel people to park their cars and use the public transit. Then, the few remaining downtown merchants would be hurt due to drivers avoiding downtown. It's a vicious circle. You can't spend on mass transit unless you know it's self-supporting. Jacksonville is so spread-out mass transit will never work unless you make it more attractive.
There's no need or logic to investing in a transit system to cover the entire city. Heck half of the city is wetlands, swamp and forest. Another good chunk is sprawl. If you want a fixed transit spine, you build by starting where you have the density, land use and supportive destinations first. Then expand incrementally over time. Previously, the biggest problem is we can't stick with the basics. For example, if the desired mode were LRT, I truly believe if you stick with the basics and get a decent starter in the five to ten mile range going, we'd be fine. Charlotte, San Diego, St. Louis, Houston, Salt Lake City, Denver, etc. are all examples of this. Now we're moving away from that concept and trying to get in ahead of what may happen in the future with emerging technologies. So a lot of the tried and true things that make traditional transit work will need to be reevaluated.
For what it is worth; from wikipedia. It looks like Sleiman was the one who was supposed to build the garage and not the City.
In 2003, the Rouse Company announced it would sell the Jacksonville Landing to local developer Toney Sleiman for $5.1 million.[5] The Florida Times-Union revealed that Sleiman, who bought the buildings but not the city-owned land, would not have to pay the $100,000 rent required by the City of Jacksonville for the land until the city provided the 800 parking spaces it had promised the previous owners.[6]
In 2010, the 23-year obligation was finally resolved. The Jacksonville City Council passed a bill to contribute $3.5 million toward Sleiman's purchase of an existing parking lot across from the Landing. That money included a 20-year parking validation program at a cost of $2.5 million to the city. Mayor John Peyton vetoed the bill, but the council voted unanimously to override the veto.[7]
Quote from: Kerry on June 05, 2018, 07:27:59 AM
For what it is worth; from wikipedia. It looks like Sleiman was the one who was supposed to build the garage and not the City.
In 2003, the Rouse Company announced it would sell the Jacksonville Landing to local developer Toney Sleiman for $5.1 million.[5] The Florida Times-Union revealed that Sleiman, who bought the buildings but not the city-owned land, would not have to pay the $100,000 rent required by the City of Jacksonville for the land until the city provided the 800 parking spaces it had promised the previous owners.[6]
In 2010, the 23-year obligation was finally resolved. The Jacksonville City Council passed a bill to contribute $3.5 million toward Sleiman's purchase of an existing parking lot across from the Landing. That money included a 20-year parking validation program at a cost of $2.5 million to the city. Mayor John Peyton vetoed the bill, but the council voted unanimously to override the veto.[7]
The acquisition of the (existing) Enterprise Center parking lot never materialized (lots of politics involved with the former Jacksonville Economic Development Commission and Mayor's office derailed that deal), and the City then redirected that $3.5mm to Parador Partners to build their own parking garage adjacent to the Suntrust Building (3/4 of that garage is dedicated to Suntrust tenants). The Landing still got their parking validation money... but the money to build a dedicated parking facility never came to fruition (still after 30 years). Parador initially claimed that they would not be using their heavily subsidized parking garage to flip the property, but then secretly struck a behind-closed-doors deal to revoke the clawback language in that development agreement... allowing them to flip the majority of the office condos they owned in the Suntrust Building along with their sparkling new parking garage for a massive profit. In effect, the City (aka John and Jane taxpayer) subsidized a property flipper. Parador also fleeced their office condo tenants by overbilling them for multiple maintenance charges and pocketed the extra cash in the form of kickbacks from a shady contractor, and the main principal of Parador was found guilty of felony fraud for his role in this extortion.
This is what happens when politicians pick winners and losers in downtown development. Meanwhile, the Landing still struggles.... mainly due to politics. For crying out loud, the City won't even maintain the landscaping (their responsibility) or fix the damn docks.
QuoteIt looks like Sleiman was the one who was supposed to build the garage and not the City.
Absolutely FALSE.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on June 04, 2018, 11:34:16 PM
Parking for the Landing or any other project Downtown wouldn't be so much of an issue if we had some decent mass transit circulating/delivering people from large edge parking garages/lots surrounding and/or already within the Downtown core (or God forbid, actually transporting people from the burbs!) like most cities strive to do - along with those who might actually desire to try and live sans automobile altogether. This would be best for Downtown on many levels and would be far cheaper than continuing to build a dedicated garage for every Downtown project on land that would be better used for supporting greater density and activity in the core.
IMHO, a big reason Downtown suffers is that every other block has to host a parking garage effectively acting as a black hole for any urban energy that might be otherwise developed.
Reading through the lease and development agreement between COJ and Rouse, it is clear that Rouse entered into the agreement with the understanding that downtown Jax would look a lot different today than its actual present-day state. There is language involving more hotel capacity, more residential capacity than what exists today.... and along with the dedicated parking issue (still unresolved after 30 plus years, and Rouse sued the City for damages decades before Sleiman ever sued the City over the exact same issue), there is also a provision that the lease could be terminated and financial damages would be due to Rouse if the Skyway ever was torn down or ceased operations. Rouse was very concerned with dedicated parking, a functional (fixed) mass transit system downtown, having proper security and being part of a growing downtown that would have many more residents, office workers and hotel rooms than what exists today. The City is not very good as a real estate developer, the development agreement they entered into with Rouse is a very good example of this fact. The City has consistently failed to live up to their responsibilities in regards to that agreement... both in micro-level Landing-specific issues and more macro-level downtown development issues.
Frankly, COJ is wasting time (and taxpayer money) with these lawsuits and motions to evict.
Seems to me the City has a problem with finishing what it starts. Jacksonville never finished the Landing with the requisite parking, so the Landing flamed out rather quickly and the City has been looking to scrap the whole thing and start over ever since. Jacksonville never finished the Skyway, which would function much better if it extended to UF Health, down Bay Street, into Brooklyn and San Marco, so now the City is in the process of scrapping that in favor of an untested mode of public transit.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 04, 2018, 10:31:47 PM
Part of this is a misrepresentation of history...
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on June 04, 2018, 08:35:57 PM
Don't think Sleiman's vision is the one that delivers any sort of ideal on the spectrum with something like the Ferry building, and I don't think a visionary for downtown Jax would premise any sort of enhancement on a parking garage,
In the retail world dedicated parking is a real thing. All the vision in the world won't land you certain types of tenants if you don't have the dedicated parking or foot traffic they require. I think we all can agree that DT Jax and the Landing don't have the foot traffic necessary to fill +100k square feet of retail. Would anyone say that Rouse didn't have vision because their festival marketplace concept included dedicated parking for their tenant and consumers? After all, their marketplace concept was one of the most successful urban redevelopment retail concepts of the 1980s. Many of their former centers in popular tourist destinations are still successful today....and in many cases, they include dedicated parking.
Quoteand let the whole zone, the most salient zone you've got, turn into a black eye for the city, one that might take a generation to recover from.
I remember going to the Landing when it first opened. I also remember it right before Sleiman took over. IMO, compared to what it was in the 1980s, it was already outdated and largely vacant. The real decline came just as soon as most of the original tenants bailed as soon as their first lease was up. Since 2003, it's been constant redevelopment and parking negotiation talk. It's spanned three mayoral terms, so the discussion has been start and stop depending on who was in office and what their position was towards Sleiman. Again, if Brown would have been reelected, I'm pretty sure the Landing would be in the process of being redeveloped as we speak.....and dedicated parking would have been a part of it.
QuoteTo me, a big reason a $40 million at cost shopping complex was sold for $5 million is that implied in the cost is that you'd have to make improvements to make it work in place of the city's defaults.
No, Rouse wanted out and Sleiman offered to buy them. If a higher offer came, I'm sure Rouse would have taken the money, parking problem be damned.
QuoteUse that massive discount and solve the parking problem yourself, and once things are humming, sue the city for nonconformance. You love the city, don't let your structures turn into a shanty
Where would you have built a garage? The city owns the land. You can't just plop something up on someone else's property if they aren't a willing partner.
I'll do a property survey of downtown, evaluate availabilities, perform some due diligence, and come back to you with a proposal on how I would've taken the savings from a discounted/distressed real estate transaction to establish dedicated parking to give a moribund shopping center a shot at viability. All of that as an alternative to getting something on the cheap and in a state of distress, and then once my name is tied to it, waiting for a nonconfirming counterparty to suddenly be spurred into action. I thought this was a message board, but if it's an RFP bulletin for projects, let me come back to you.
Look, I'm constantly critical of the city of Jax, but I also feel a lazy and imprudent city and Sleiman deserve each other. I do, however, expect more of the private sector. Municipalities are often disasters administratively and from time to time, in part because of the diverse and distracted constituencies they serve. Sleiman bought in to an investment with a defaulting counterparty and lack of "good control," and in the absence of additional welfare from an already defaulting counterparty, has decided to do little to enhance it and instead is really sticking it to the people and the branding of their fair city. All This while the city has subsidized his very wealth because of subsidizing the suburban sprawl along which his monuments to sprawl sit (right, the city subsidizes sprawl to the detriment of downtown, yes)?
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on June 05, 2018, 10:58:42 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on June 04, 2018, 10:31:47 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on June 04, 2018, 10:31:47 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on June 04, 2018, 10:31:47 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on June 04, 2018, 10:31:47 PM
tl;dr
With $35M in market rate savings, land could have been purchased and a garage could have been built, and we'd be having a different discussion right now.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 04, 2018, 10:31:47 PM
Part of this is a misrepresentation of history...
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on June 04, 2018, 08:35:57 PM
Don't think Sleiman's vision is the one that delivers any sort of ideal on the spectrum with something like the Ferry building, and I don't think a visionary for downtown Jax would premise any sort of enhancement on a parking garage,
In the retail world dedicated parking is a real thing. All the vision in the world won't land you certain types of tenants if you don't have the dedicated parking or foot traffic they require. I think we all can agree that DT Jax and the Landing don't have the foot traffic necessary to fill +100k square feet of retail. Would anyone say that Rouse didn't have vision because their festival marketplace concept included dedicated parking for their tenant and consumers? After all, their marketplace concept was one of the most successful urban redevelopment retail concepts of the 1980s. Many of their former centers in popular tourist destinations are still successful today....and in many cases, they include dedicated parking.
Quoteand let the whole zone, the most salient zone you've got, turn into a black eye for the city, one that might take a generation to recover from.
I remember going to the Landing when it first opened. I also remember it right before Sleiman took over. IMO, compared to what it was in the 1980s, it was already outdated and largely vacant. The real decline came just as soon as most of the original tenants bailed as soon as their first lease was up. Since 2003, it's been constant redevelopment and parking negotiation talk. It's spanned three mayoral terms, so the discussion has been start and stop depending on who was in office and what their position was towards Sleiman. Again, if Brown would have been reelected, I'm pretty sure the Landing would be in the process of being redeveloped as we speak.....and dedicated parking would have been a part of it.
QuoteTo me, a big reason a $40 million at cost shopping complex was sold for $5 million is that implied in the cost is that you'd have to make improvements to make it work in place of the city's defaults.
No, Rouse wanted out and Sleiman offered to buy them. If a higher offer came, I'm sure Rouse would have taken the money, parking problem be damned.
QuoteUse that massive discount and solve the parking problem yourself, and once things are humming, sue the city for nonconformance. You love the city, don't let your structures turn into a shanty
Where would you have built a garage? The city owns the land. You can't just plop something up on someone else's property if they aren't a willing partner.
That's just it, the discount to cost had a reason for being, and that was the lack of a garage. Rouse wanted out because the Landing was an impaired asset, and wasn't getting any better for lacking dedicated parking for patronage. So, acquire the asset at a discount due to the impairment, address and fix the impairment, and then the asset is in a position to start to recover, yes?
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on June 05, 2018, 10:58:42 AM
I'll do a property survey of downtown, evaluate availabilities, perform some due diligence, and come back to you with a proposal on how I would've taken the savings from a discounted/distressed real estate transaction to establish dedicated parking to give a moribund shopping center a shot at viability. All of that as an alternative to getting something on the cheap and in a state of distress, and then once my name is tied to it, waiting for a nonconfirming counterparty to suddenly be spurred into action. I thought this was a message board, but if it's an RFP bulletin for projects, let me come back to you.
Yes, it's a message board that's been around since the time Sleiman purchased the place. Many of the older members here have seen history play out real time. So if new interpretations pop up that don't align with what took place don't take it too hard if a post or two pops in to try and add a little history and understanding back into the discussion.
QuoteLook, I'm constantly critical of the city of Jax, but I also feel a lazy and imprudent city and Sleiman deserve each other. I do, however, expect more of the private sector. Municipalities are often disasters administratively and from time to time, in part because of the diverse and distracted constituencies they serve. Sleiman bought in to an investment with a defaulting counterparty whose viability is under threat because the land underneath is owned by the defaulting counterparty, and has decided to do nothing to really stick it to the people. All This while the city has subsidized his very wealth because of subsidizing the suburban sprawl along which his monuments to sprawl sit (right, the city subsidizes sprawl to the detriment of downtown, yes)?
Ok I'm not really debating this. I'm just questioning the reality of someone spending millions of their money on land they don't own (with an owner they're in dispute with) and calling that a good investment. I fail to see the logic in doing so.
How do you know the amount Rouse took was directly tied to the cost of a garage? Perhaps it had less to do with a garage and more to do with Rouse not believing Jax was a viable market for their product? After all, they were sold on downtown being just as vibrant as Baltimore's Inner Harbor...back in the 1980s! +30 years have passed and we're still nowhere close.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 05, 2018, 11:20:59 AM
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on June 05, 2018, 10:58:42 AM
I'll do a property survey of downtown, evaluate availabilities, perform some due diligence, and come back to you with a proposal on how I would've taken the savings from a discounted/distressed real estate transaction to establish dedicated parking to give a moribund shopping center a shot at viability. All of that as an alternative to getting something on the cheap and in a state of distress, and then once my name is tied to it, waiting for a nonconfirming counterparty to suddenly be spurred into action. I thought this was a message board, but if it's an RFP bulletin for projects, let me come back to you.
Yes, it's a message board that's been around since the time Sleiman purchased the place. Many of the older members here have seen history play out real time. So if new interpretations pop up that don't align with what took place don't take it too hard if a post or two pops in to try and add a little history and understanding back into the discussion.
QuoteLook, I'm constantly critical of the city of Jax, but I also feel a lazy and imprudent city and Sleiman deserve each other. I do, however, expect more of the private sector. Municipalities are often disasters administratively and from time to time, in part because of the diverse and distracted constituencies they serve. Sleiman bought in to an investment with a defaulting counterparty whose viability is under threat because the land underneath is owned by the defaulting counterparty, and has decided to do nothing to really stick it to the people. All This while the city has subsidized his very wealth because of subsidizing the suburban sprawl along which his monuments to sprawl sit (right, the city subsidizes sprawl to the detriment of downtown, yes)?
Ok I'm not really debating this. I'm just questioning the reality of someone spending millions of their money on land they don't own (with an owner they're in dispute with) and calling that a good investment. I fail to see the logic in doing so.
Well why but the property in the first place. Was he not aware the land underneath was owned by the city when he bought in? If he doesn't see any bifurcation between the structures and land, then what exactly did he ever pay to own? The better the structures and once the impairment issue is addressed, the better the prospects for good quality tenants and rising lease payments. And doesn't Sleiman have a lease that will outlive his life expectancy...that's as good as owned.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 05, 2018, 11:26:41 AM
How do you know the amount Rouse took was directly tied to the cost of a garage? Perhaps it had less to do with a garage and more to do with Rouse not believing Jax was a viable market for their product? After all, they were sold on downtown being just as vibrant as Baltimore's Inner Harbor...back in the 1980s! +30 years have passed and we're still nowhere close.
My post said rouse wanted out because the Landing was a flop and wasn't getting any better due to the lack of dedicated patronage.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 05, 2018, 11:20:59 AM
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on June 05, 2018, 10:58:42 AM
I'll do a property survey of downtown, evaluate availabilities, perform some due diligence, and come back to you with a proposal on how I would've taken the savings from a discounted/distressed real estate transaction to establish dedicated parking to give a moribund shopping center a shot at viability. All of that as an alternative to getting something on the cheap and in a state of distress, and then once my name is tied to it, waiting for a nonconfirming counterparty to suddenly be spurred into action. I thought this was a message board, but if it's an RFP bulletin for projects, let me come back to you.
Yes, it's a message board that's been around since the time Sleiman purchased the place. Many of the older members here have seen history play out real time. So if new interpretations pop up that don't align with what took place don't take it too hard if a post or two pops in to try and add a little history and understanding back into the discussion.
Yes, I've noticed the board has been around a long time and its old guard condescend to newcomers attempting to take a fresh look at problems and stalemates. And perhaps there's no way to verify 100% accuracy in real time, but the old guard might be well-served in taking a friendlier tone to different points of view because with the current state of downtown Jax, there's no monopoly on solutions.
QuoteLook, I'm constantly critical of the city of Jax, but I also feel a lazy and imprudent city and Sleiman deserve each other. I do, however, expect more of the private sector. Municipalities are often disasters administratively and from time to time, in part because of the diverse and distracted constituencies they serve. Sleiman bought in to an investment with a defaulting counterparty whose viability is under threat because the land underneath is owned by the defaulting counterparty, and has decided to do nothing to really stick it to the people. All This while the city has subsidized his very wealth because of subsidizing the suburban sprawl along which his monuments to sprawl sit (right, the city subsidizes sprawl to the detriment of downtown, yes)?
Ok I'm not really debating this. I'm just questioning the reality of someone spending millions of their money on land they don't own (with an owner they're in dispute with) and calling that a good investment. I fail to see the logic in doing so.
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on June 05, 2018, 11:27:17 AM
Well why but the property in the first place. Was he not aware the land underneath was owned by the city when he bought in? If he doesn't see any bifurcation between the structures and land, then what exactly did he ever pay to own? The better the structures and once the impairment issue is addressed, the better the prospects for good quality tenants and rising lease payments. And doesn't Sleiman have a lease that will outlive his life expectancy...that's as good as owned.
It could be as simple as he thought it was a good deal, his proposed revitalization plan would work and he saw COJ as a partner he could work with to resolve the issue amicably.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 05, 2018, 11:39:13 AM
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on June 05, 2018, 11:27:17 AM
Well why but the property in the first place. Was he not aware the land underneath was owned by the city when he bought in? If he doesn't see any bifurcation between the structures and land, then what exactly did he ever pay to own? The better the structures and once the impairment issue is addressed, the better the prospects for good quality tenants and rising lease payments. And doesn't Sleiman have a lease that will outlive his life expectancy...that's as good as owned.
It could be as simple as he thought it was a good deal, his proposed revitalization plan would work and he saw COJ as a partner he could work with to resolve the issue amicably.
You don't do a deal with a defaulting counterparty premised upon adding obligations to that counterparty. Sleiman should give up his investment, ask to be made whole, and let someone else come in with financial models and wherewithal to fix the impairment issue. Those fixes should be financed by funding sources other than a defaulting city. If that buyer doesn't exist, then the city government can be directly responsible for the oft-televised dump on the riverbank.
Or just sell the guy the land underneath the building at market value, take the cash and move on. At that point, it would be in his best interest to make money off the site.
Parking garages do not make money, they are giant money pits. Building one would have more than eliminated any 'discount' that Sleiman got on the purchase of the building. Then he would be saddled with the operating and maintenance costs of the garage. Also, even with a brand new garage next door, the Landing even in 2005, needed renovations and significant work to address the long dated appearance. Only at that point could he expect to attract better tenants. Even when the Landing was new and fresh and had national tenants, it did not make money.
Rouse was probably glad to get Sleiman's offer and probably could not have gotten a better one.
You also have to remember that in 2005, the 2008 crash hadn't happened and 13 years of municipal mediocrity that has happened since, had not occurred yet. I think Sleiman bought the Landing thinking the city would step up to the plate. He was wrong, but that doesn't mean he is or was sitting on a gold mine that he could easily mine.
Point isn't to make money on the Parking Structure per se, but the parking structure is a facilitator asset. It exists to support a surge in patronage. Came across an article citing multi-story parking structure costs of $19,700 per space.
Rouse built Landing for $37.5 million (apparently the Taxpayers contributed $20 million of that, but didn't get around to additional capital for a dedicated Parking Structure)...so Rouse was 45% of the Thing?
Assuming some straight-line depreciation on the Buildings, Landing was probably on Rouse's books at $7.9 million in 2003? All the $5.1 million in sales proceeds from Sleiman went to Rouse, or did Rouse share that with the City of Jax in a 45/55 split?
City was a counterparty in default on the parking garage, had suffered big losses on its $20 million in contributions during construction (perhaps because of its default on the parking garage), was potentially leasing the land underneath the Building below market value so there were additional opportunity costs there, and then post-sale, Sleiman went to a broke City and asked for additional obligations from the City because without that, he would let the Thing turn into a black eye and embarrassment?
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on June 05, 2018, 12:51:40 PM
Point isn't to make money on the Parking Structure per se, but the parking structure is a facilitator asset. It exists to support a surge in patronage. Came across an article citing multi-story parking structure costs of $19,700 per space.
Rouse built Landing for $37.5 million (apparently the Taxpayers contributed $20 million of that, but didn't get around to additional capital for a dedicated Parking Structure)...so Rouse was 45% of the Thing?
Assuming some straight-line depreciation on the Buildings, Landing was probably on Rouse's books at $7.9 million in 2003? All the $5.1 million in sales proceeds from Sleiman went to Rouse, or did Rouse share that with the City of Jax in a 45/55 split?
City was a counterparty in default on the parking garage, had suffered big losses on its $20 million in contributions during construction (perhaps because of its default on the parking garage), was potentially leasing the land underneath the Building below market value so there were additional opportunity costs there, and then post-sale, Sleiman went to a broke City and asked for additional obligations from the City because without that, he would let the Thing turn into a black eye and embarrassment?
The $5.1 mm all went to Rouse. They sold the building, the city owned the land which was not part of the transaction. The city was to receive rent for the land but did not because the parking had never been provided. That continued under Sleiman's ownership. The city was not broke in 2005, and the BJP projects were still getting underway and a few completed already. The Delaney administration was just barely in the rear-view mirror, when many things had been happening DT (11 E., The Carling, The Strand, The Peninsula, among others). The city actually seemed to have it's shit together for the most part (yes, I know that is hard to believe).
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on June 05, 2018, 11:48:08 AMSleiman should give up his investment, ask to be made whole, and let someone else come in with financial models and wherewithal to fix the impairment issue.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 05, 2018, 12:19:10 PM
Or just sell the guy the land underneath the building at market value, take the cash and move on. At that point, it would be in his best interest to make money off the site.
^This.
It's the cleanest, most sensible solution for all parties involved.
Sleiman has historically had zero interest in selling the Jacksonville Landing, nor should he be forced to under duress. He has, however, had excessive interest in purchasing the land from the city at fair market value and then redeveloping the property. Sleiman has been vocal in his demands from day one - either provide the parking guaranteed in the lease, or sell him the land, thus voiding the lease. He hasn't hidden the fact that he's prepared to wait a very, very long time for one of these things to happen before doing any renovation of the Landing.
From the Jax Daily Record, 2005:
QuoteSleiman: Landing not for sale
by Mike Sharkey
Staff Writer
Despite upwards of a dozen offers over the past 16 months, some more serious than others, Landing owner Toney Sleiman is not at all interested in selling the riverfront mall and he'd really like to squelch that persistent rumor.
"I've had 10-12 people call me, wanting to meet with me, trying to make offers," said Sleiman. "The Landing is not for sale. I have told them I am not at that point and that I'm not interested. I don't buy properties and flip them. I'm a developer."
Sleiman is currently involved in a three-way negotiation with the Rouse Company out of Baltimore and the City to finalize a redevelopment deal. Sleiman bought the Landing from Rouse in August 2003 for $5.1 million and he is negotiating to buy the 11.2 acres the property sits on from the City (the last figure on the table was $13.2 million).
Once that deal is complete, Sleiman said he will begin not only revitalizing the Landing by remodeling it and luring big-name tenants, he has even more grandiose plans.
"I want to make the Landing the No. 1 spot in the southeast. That's my goal," said Sleiman, who also owns many other commercial properties all over the First Coast. "I am doing this for my mother who came to Jacksonville in 1917. My family has been here for 85 years. The Landing is not for sale and I am going to bring life back to downtown. That's why we are pushing for the new 4 a.m. drinking law."
Sleiman declined to provide names, but he did say he is negotiating with and has verbal agreements with several nationally-recognized retail chains and restaurants willing to set up shop at the Landing — under one condition.
"What has to happen first? I have to get some parking. Until I get more parking, the Landing will stay as it is," said Sleiman. "When I get parking, though, watch what I do. I have commitments from national retail chains and restaurants that have said they will come to the Landing when I get parking. When I get them, everything else happens."
Although the process seems to be dragging — dealing with an out-of-town owner and some public funding is certainly contributing to the length of the negotiations — Sleiman isn't in a hurry. His other properties are generating revenue and he understands how slowly the financial and bureaucratic wheels can grind. And, Sleiman has both time on his side and a proven track record to fall back on.
"I'm very patient. I've got 52 years left on my lease. I'll get impatient in 50 years," he said. "I probably buy more commercial property in Jacksonville than anyone. I have never sold anything without developing it. I have been working this deal for 16 months. It is not for sale. I do not need the money.
"The Landing is absolutely, 100 percent not for sale. Even if I got an offer for 10 times what I paid for it, it's not for sale."
The city was fully on board with selling Sleiman the land, and per legal requirements, issued an RFP for the property.
The RFP closed in December 2005.
Again, from the Daily Record:
QuoteSleiman: The only Landing land bidder?
Landing owner Toney Sleiman doesn't expect any competition for the land underneath the Landing when bids have to be in to the City's Procurement department by next Wednesday.
"Like any other bidder, I have to submit my bid," said Sleiman, who has a multi-decade lease on the Landing and aggressive plans to renovate the riverfront mall which opened in 1987.
Opening the land to an open Request for Proposals means the parcel is open to bids from other developers. Jeanne Miller, the deputy director of the Jacksonville Economic Development Commission, said the City was required to issue an RFP for the land because it's located inside downtown's Community Development Area.
Although technically an open bidding process, the City expects Sleiman's Jacksonville Landing Investments to end up with the land.
Sleiman said the open bid process is fine with him despite the fact it's practically a foregone conclusion his bid will be selected.
"The City can't just give it to a developer," he said. "This is fair to everyone and it's a good law."
The land offered in the RFP is appraised at $15.76 million. If, as expected, Sleiman claims it, the purchase would clear the way for Sleiman to move forward with plans to expand the mall from 180,000 square feet to more than 1 million square feet.
Sleiman said he will proceed with the renovations as soon as this stage of the process is complete and he receives approval from City Council.
"I am ready to go," he said. "When I get City Council approval, I will be ready to rock and roll."
All of the proposals received will be evaluated by Mayor John Peyton's chief of staff Steve Diebenow and staff from the City's Procurement Department.
Sleiman was excited and ready to go on a $250 million redevelopment. Members of the City Council were excited and ready to go. And everyone had a finish line in sight to rally around - Super Bowl XXXIX.
Then, John Peyton basically shut the whole thing down, striking down an incentive package that was more city-friendly than others like San Marco Place, the Strand, Adam's Mark, etc, and keeping discussions off the JEDC agenda, claiming that the 500+ new jobs that Sleiman had promised for the Landing weren't up to his standards. "We are well past the days of where any job is a good job," Peyton said.
After the city's reversal, the Jacksonville Business Journal ran a poll in early 2006, and 75% of respondents sided with Sleiman.
QuotePoll: Landing reversal will hurt City's negotiations
Voters in a Jacksonville Business Journal poll think the City will suffer in its dealings with developers because of its reversal on selling the property under The Jacksonville Landing. And the vote wasn't close.
Readers were asked if the city's rejection of the proposed deal to sell the riverfront property under The Landing to Jacksonville Landing Investments LLC will hurt future negotiations. Of the 161 respondents, 75 percent said it will hurt the city, while only a quarter said no.
"You bet it will!" wrote one reader. "After two years of moving forward on a supposedly done deal, you can't abruptly stop on one without affecting others, large or small. And that kind of negativity in business dealings gets noticed on a very broad scale."
If we're not willing to come to the table with him, just sell the guy the damn property like we were prepared to do 13 years ago.
It beats the alternative, which is to spend $100 million subsidizing adjacent, complementary projects along Laura, only to torpedo the anchor tenant.
Classic biting off your nose to spite your face.
Bravo Ken, X 10
^The most utterly insane part of the entire story to me is that Jake Godbold personally lobbied Rouse to build a festival marketplace in Jacksonville, despite the market being half the size that Rouse typically developed in, and despite their concerns about parking and foot traffic. He ultimately sold Rouse on Jacksonville based on promises of a new convention center in the urban core, a massive parking garage, and bleeding edge public transit via the Skyway. It was all ultimately overhyped, nearly all of the original retail tenets left the minute their leases expired, and within a decade of opening, Rouse was running an average negative cashflow of $750k.
Now here we are, 30 years later, and Curry is pitching Cordish (who typically doesn't develop in markets our size) the exact same bill of goods for 2018's equivalent of a festival marketplace. No immediate parking, but a garage "down the line." A (currently nonexistent) new convention center in the urban core to draw visitors in from. JTA's new clown car system connecting the urban core to Lot J via an improved Bay Street. With a larger footprint and significantly less foot traffic than the Jacksonville Landing.
It's almost like we don't learn from our mistakes.
At the same time, Curry basically wants to give up on the Landing as a retail/dining/entertainment complex and move those efforts a mile east to the desolate stadium district, right when enough residential and hotel is finally coming online to actually give the Landing a fighting shot at success with a little TLC.
To me, there's no universe where public efforts should go toward Lot J before they go to the Landing. The Landing is downtown ground zero, and with such limited retail space in place along Laura Street and those streets running perpendicular, the Landing's role as a retail center is crucial.
Also, interesting guest editorial in the Times-Union on Sunday, pushing how important public/private partnerships will be in transforming downtown Jacksonville, all the while completely ignoring the Landing:
http://www.jacksonville.com/opinion/20180603/guest-column-partnerships-power-downtown-development
Yeah Jacob Gordon, CEO of DOWNTOWN VISION, WHERE is the landing out of all of this hoopla and success relative to downtown prosperity, success and change?
Quote from: heights unknown on June 06, 2018, 02:17:18 AM
Yeah Jacob Gordon, CEO of DOWNTOWN VISION, WHERE is the landing out of all of this hoopla and success relative to downtown prosperity, success and change?
You are never going to hear a peep out of Downtown Vision about the Landing or any other issue. They are an arm of the city, so to do so would be talking back against their boss. There is no independent voice for DT land owners, residents, tenants and other shareholders. That is part of the problem.
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on June 05, 2018, 12:51:40 PM
Rouse built Landing for $37.5 million .....
Assuming some straight-line depreciation on the Buildings, Landing was probably on Rouse's books at $7.9 million in 2003? All the $5.1 million in sales proceeds from Sleiman went to Rouse, or did Rouse share that with the City of Jax in a 45/55 split?
It really does not matter how much it cost to build the landing or how much its book value is - if it is an investment property, the ROI is all that matters. So you have the transaction cost (purchase price + associated costs), necessary renovations and risk also needs to be priced in accordingly.
If Sleiman had purchased the Landing under value, there would afaik have been a gain on bargain-purchase on his income statement.
I'm not able to find the articles right now, but my recollection is that Sleiman really screwed up the RFP process back in 2005.
His offer was that the City should give him the land for free, plus a little extra cash for his trouble...
There was a competing offer, and the City just couldn't justify giving away the property.
Had Sleiman made a good faith offer at that time, I think we'd be in a much different place right now.
In my opinion what killed Jax is the Jaguars. Drove by the stadium last night and the whole time was just thinking to myself how much public and private money has been sunk into that thing with nothing to show for it except tons of paved and grass parking lots.
Quote from: lowlyplanner on June 06, 2018, 10:21:18 AM
I'm not able to find the articles right now, but my recollection is that Sleiman really screwed up the RFP process back in 2005.
His offer was that the City should give him the land for free, plus a little extra cash for his trouble...
There was a competing offer, and the City just couldn't justify giving away the property.
Had Sleiman made a good faith offer at that time, I think we'd be in a much different place right now.
No. It was the Peyton-Sleiman feud.
Quote from: lowlyplanner on June 06, 2018, 10:21:18 AM
I'm not able to find the articles right now, but my recollection is that Sleiman really screwed up the RFP process back in 2005.
His offer was that the City should give him the land for free, plus a little extra cash for his trouble...
There was a competing offer, and the City just couldn't justify giving away the property.
Had Sleiman made a good faith offer at that time, I think we'd be in a much different place right now.
No, he offered to get a third party appraiser, and pay the appraiser's value of the land.
Quote from: Kerry on June 06, 2018, 10:27:56 AM
In my opinion what killed Jax is the Jaguars. Drove by the stadium last night and the whole time was just thinking to myself how much public and private money has been sunk into that thing with nothing to show for it except tons of paved and grass parking lots.
Not sure we can disagree more on this. It's not like the stadium wasn't there before 1995. The city spent $53 Million in 1993-1995 to renovate for the Jaguars, and the Jaguars were responsible for overruns.
GREAT TAKE KERRY
Quote from: Kerry on June 06, 2018, 10:27:56 AM
In my opinion what killed Jax is the Jaguars. Drove by the stadium last night and the whole time was just thinking to myself how much public and private money has been sunk into that thing with nothing to show for it except tons of paved and grass parking lots.
This is probably a topic for another thread. But I disagree completely.
I put a lot more blame on consolidation of government and the obsessions in this city with low taxes and cars/roads.
Quote from: Kerry on June 06, 2018, 10:27:56 AM
In my opinion what killed Jax is the Jaguars.
12th fastest growing city in the nation.
Fastest growing city on the East Coast.
5th fastest growing economy in the United States.
We're practically on life support.
Quote from: KenFSU on June 06, 2018, 04:08:25 PM
Quote from: Kerry on June 06, 2018, 10:27:56 AM
In my opinion what killed Jax is the Jaguars.
12th fastest growing city in the nation.
Fastest growing city on the East Coast.
5th fastest growing economy in the United States.
We're practically on life support.
(https://i5.walmartimages.com/asr/f3fa2056-3cd0-4f8d-9c55-0ce0edf67aa7_1.5b4311cf8c33d66746a83710cf2e344c.jpeg?odnHeight=450&odnWidth=450&odnBg=FFFFFF)
Quote from: KenFSU on June 06, 2018, 04:08:25 PM
Quote from: Kerry on June 06, 2018, 10:27:56 AM
In my opinion what killed Jax is the Jaguars.
12th fastest growing city in the nation.
Fastest growing city on the East Coast.
5th fastest growing economy in the United States.
We're practically on life support.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/samanthasharf/2018/02/28/full-list-americas-fastest-growing-cities-2018/#61112f157feb
I'm having difficulty finding anything backing up your exact claims, but Forbes puts us as 16th in the country, accounting for all growth factors. And if you count "East Coast" as having a beach on the Atlantic Ocean (probably the strictest definition), then yes, we're the highest on that list with that caveat.
Not arguing, just backing up the fact that we're definitely NOT a dead city
Quote from: jax_hwy_engineer on June 06, 2018, 04:31:23 PM
Quote from: KenFSU on June 06, 2018, 04:08:25 PM
Quote from: Kerry on June 06, 2018, 10:27:56 AM
In my opinion what killed Jax is the Jaguars.
12th fastest growing city in the nation.
Fastest growing city on the East Coast.
5th fastest growing economy in the United States.
We're practically on life support.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/samanthasharf/2018/02/28/full-list-americas-fastest-growing-cities-2018/#61112f157feb
I'm having difficulty finding anything backing up your exact claims, but Forbes puts us as 16th in the country, accounting for all growth factors. And if you count "East Coast" as having a beach on the Atlantic Ocean (probably the strictest definition), then yes, we're the highest on that list with that caveat.
Not arguing, just backing up the fact that we're definitely NOT a dead city
Should have included a source, thanks for keeping me honest!
Here's where I pulled those two stats from:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-24/only-four-of-top-15-fastest-growing-u-s-cities-on-a-coast
13th largest in 2017 by raw number:
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2018/estimates-cities.html
Despite the nice projects and renderings Kerry has been posting, Jax is outperforming OKC's MSA in growth according to the census bureau since 2010. Whether it's good growth is debatable but it isn't dying.
Perhaps we should all throw in the towel and move to Detroit.
Quote from: Snaketoz on June 06, 2018, 07:55:37 PM
Perhaps we should all throw in the towel and move to Detroit.
Have you seen what is going on in Detroit the last couple of years, because that isn't such a bad idea.
I'll save it for the "Cool Developments in Other Cities" thread.
Quote from: Kerry on June 07, 2018, 09:17:53 AM
Quote from: Snaketoz on June 06, 2018, 07:55:37 PM
Perhaps we should all throw in the towel and move to Detroit.
Have you seen what is going on in Detroit the last couple of years, because that isn't such a bad idea.
I'll save it for the "Cool Developments in Other Cities" thread.
Agreed!
Sign me up for a penthouse in Book Tower when it's finished.
Lots of good stuff happening in a small area of Detroit for outsiders. Let's just hope that type of prosperity can be extended to the rest of the city and long time disenfranchised residents.
Just visited Armature Works in Tampa (in Tampa Heights abt 2 miles from the central biz district). Oh what the landing could one day hope to be.
http://armatureworks.com/eat-drink/
I've been wanting to check it out. I'd love to see how the retrofit of the old streetcar barn turned out.
It turned out very well. Bike share and river taxi are located right outside along with great views of the river and downtown. Inside is not 100% complete, but they have one full service restaurant operational (one more is in the works) and about 10 food vendors with a few bars scattered around. On a Sunday afternoon it was crowded but not packed to the point it was unenjoyable. Even had a wedding going on in their private event space.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 07, 2018, 10:09:59 AM
Lots of good stuff happening in a small area of Detroit for outsiders. Let's just hope that type of prosperity can be extended to the rest of the city and long time disenfranchised residents.
A *very* small area of Detroit; it's bizarre, this need to overhype what is happening in Detroit. A phenomenal city, gutted, is making use of some incredible building stock downtown. Good for them, but get real.
Almost equally bizarre to me is the very surprising and misguided relevance that links The Landing to the Lot J effort. Ummmmm . . . that's not just a no but a hell no.
The Arena has X number of events a year that will directly feed into the Lot J
Duval Live! facility. So, too, the Baseball Grounds. And Daily's Place. And, yes, most especially the T.I.A.A. with our Jaguars football weekends, Florida-Georgia Week, the Bowl Game, and other college football games.
That's four different spaces with specific events probably occupying one-third to one-half of the days of the year. And that doesn't even begin to address the potential for the space to be a draw on its own, something that far, far exceeds anything The Landing could ever hope to be.
What the hell, people, what the hell? For synergy alone, The Landing is penny-ante BS compared to what is being considered for Lot J.
^As a known Shad Khan apologist, your motives are pretty obvious. This area is very suspect. The capital investment is extremely high and the crowds needed for this to be successful just don't seem to be supported by the Jax demographics. In the off chance that this is fully built out and successful, the Landing will surely go under and downtown will be worse off for it.
^I don't see a universe in which Lot J and the Landing would not be competing for tenants and events. During something like Florida-Georgia, there would probably be enough crowds to go around, but even on game days they'll be in competition. The Landing could probably survive it by adapting, but that would take more resources than either side is apparently comfortable devoting to it.
Quote from: Tacachale on June 11, 2018, 03:50:20 PM
^I don't see a universe in which Lot J and the Landing would not be competing for tenants and events. During something like Florida-Georgia, there would probably be enough crowds to go around, but even on game days they'll be in competition. The Landing could probably survive it by adapting, but that would take more resources than either side is apparently comfortable devoting to it.
Even though Sleiman and Lot J will likely be competing for events and tenants, I think they're ultimately both serving two totally different audiences 90% of the time.
For better or worse, the Lot J entertainment complex is going to be drive and park for the foreseeable future, potentially for over a decade until residential infill starts happening. It's going to pull in people going to events in the stadium complex who - let's face it - are primarily coming in from outside the urban core and who probably wouldn't be headed to the Landing or CBD, even if Lot J wasn't a thing.
The Landing, meanwhile, is mostly pulling in business from people who are already downtown. Either they work down here during the week, or they live downtown, or they're out walking the riverwalk, etc.
What's ironic to me is that Sleiman's vision for the Landing is more like Lot J - a destination that people drive to and park at - and Lamping's vision for Lot J is more like the Landing - a dense, pedestrian scale development with limited parking that actively serves workers and residents living in the sports complex.
If I'm Sleiman, it seems like it might be smart to see the writing on the wall and start pivoting from the Landing as a be-all, end-all destination for suburbanites, with tenants like the Cheesecake Factory and PF Chang's, to a more utilitarian Landing that superserves a growing residential and business population in the urban core.
Bring in tenants like Starbucks/Bold Bean, or Walgreens, or Subway, or Panera, or Chick Fil-A, mixed with some local restaurants (Taco Lu, Safe Harbor, Als, whatever) and breweries, and I think you've got something that the existing downtown population can use 365 days a year, event day or non-event day instead of having to rely on tourists and drivers.
I also think you could make it successful without changing a thing structurally.
I don't think utilitarian matches Sleiman's vision though.
^If there were a Safe Harbor and Taco Lu in the Landing, it would be in a very different condition than it is.
Quote from: KenFSU on June 11, 2018, 04:36:03 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on June 11, 2018, 03:50:20 PM
^I don't see a universe in which Lot J and the Landing would not be competing for tenants and events. During something like Florida-Georgia, there would probably be enough crowds to go around, but even on game days they'll be in competition. The Landing could probably survive it by adapting, but that would take more resources than either side is apparently comfortable devoting to it.
Even though Sleiman and Lot J will likely be competing for events and tenants, I think they're ultimately both serving two totally different audiences 90% of the time.
For better or worse, the Lot J entertainment complex is going to be drive and park for the foreseeable future, potentially for over a decade until residential infill starts happening. It's going to pull in people going to events in the stadium complex who - let's face it - are primarily coming in from outside the urban core and who probably wouldn't be headed to the Landing or CBD, even if Lot J wasn't a thing.
The Landing, meanwhile, is mostly pulling in business from people who are already downtown. Either they work down here during the week, or they live downtown, or they're out walking the riverwalk, etc.
What's ironic to me is that Sleiman's vision for the Landing is more like Lot J - a destination that people drive to and park at - and Lamping's vision for Lot J is more like the Landing - a dense, pedestrian scale development with limited parking that actively serves workers and residents living in the sports complex.
If I'm Sleiman, it seems like it might be smart to see the writing on the wall and start pivoting from the Landing as a be-all, end-all destination for suburbanites, with tenants like the Cheesecake Factory and PF Chang's, to a more utilitarian Landing that superserves a growing residential and business population in the urban core.
Bring in tenants like Starbucks/Bold Bean, or Walgreens, or Subway, or Panera, or Chick Fil-A, mixed with some local restaurants (Taco Lu, Safe Harbor, Als, whatever) and breweries, and I think you've got something that the existing downtown population can use 365 days a year, event day or non-event day instead of having to rely on tourists and drivers.
I also think you could make it successful without changing a thing structurally.
I don't think utilitarian matches Sleiman's vision though.
I think you'd have to do a lot to it to make it work no matter the tenants. A lot of interior remodeling in the very least. But, much cheaper than tearing the thing down in favor of some stick-built apartments and a road on the riverfront.
Quote from: KenFSU on June 11, 2018, 04:36:03 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on June 11, 2018, 03:50:20 PM
^I don't see a universe in which Lot J and the Landing would not be competing for tenants and events. During something like Florida-Georgia, there would probably be enough crowds to go around, but even on game days they'll be in competition. The Landing could probably survive it by adapting, but that would take more resources than either side is apparently comfortable devoting to it.
Even though Sleiman and Lot J will likely be competing for events and tenants, I think they're ultimately both serving two totally different audiences 90% of the time.
90% of the year, the Sports District won't have enough people in it to sustain something of the Landing's size without pulling people in on non-event days and nights. Anything added at the Shipyards/Stadium area will compete with downtown for the same tenants and consumer base. The market isn't strong enough to support something mutually exclusive.
QuoteWhat's ironic to me is that Sleiman's vision for the Landing is more like Lot J - a destination that people drive to and park at - and Lamping's vision for Lot J is more like the Landing - a dense, pedestrian scale development with limited parking that actively serves workers and residents living in the sports complex.
They're both the same thing. Lot J will have a big ass garage and there's tons of surface parking surrounding it. The full build out in those renderings isn't happening soon, regardless of what's being said. If so, half the place will be sitting empty and they'll be lighting their money (or taxpayer's money) on fire.
QuoteIf I'm Sleiman, it seems like it might be smart to see the writing on the wall and start pivoting from the Landing as a be-all, end-all destination for suburbanites, with tenants like the Cheesecake Factory and PF Chang's, to a more utilitarian Landing that superserves a growing residential and business population in the urban core.
Bring in tenants like Starbucks/Bold Bean, or Walgreens, or Subway, or Panera, or Chick Fil-A, mixed with some local restaurants (Taco Lu, Safe Harbor, Als, whatever) and breweries, and I think you've got something that the existing downtown population can use 365 days a year, event day or non-event day instead of having to rely on tourists and drivers.
I also think you could make it successful without changing a thing structurally.
Before the suits, I would have said Sleiman was in control to beat Lot J to the punch. It will be years before anything on Lot J opens its doors. Sleiman could simply clean up and retrofit the existing building without significant expense. The riverfront spots seem to keep tenants, so it could easily continue to be what it is, filled with businesses like Hooters. For the mall, all he needs to do is look at these two projects:
https://watersidedistrict.com/
http://armatureworks.com/
Knock out most of the partition walls and carve up the old mall with a mix of public market/food hall space, limited retail facing the central courtyard/Independent Drive and a couple of big box spaces that could be used for a mix of event space, retail, office and cultural uses. Tenants in a public market/food hall space may not have the same dedicated parking requirements as chains. Repurposing space for tenants that may not require as much dedicated parking would free up the parking already in hand for a few extra chains as anchors. The biggest problem I see is that the city owns the land surrounding the Landing. It doesn't maintain its property like a first class center either. If COJ isn't a willing redevelopment partner (new building or retrofit of the old) the Landing will struggle.
QuoteI don't think utilitarian matches Sleiman's vision though.
You can be transformative with existing infrastructure. Waterside is the same thing as the Landing. It sucked like the Landing until it was revamped to conform with 21st century urban retail, dining and entertainment trends. Unfortunately, I believe the current administration also wants the place gone.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 11, 2018, 09:30:31 PM
90% of the year, the Sports District won't have enough people in it to sustain something of the Landing's size without pulling people in on non-event days and nights. Anything added at the Shipyards/Stadium area will compete with downtown for the same tenants and consumer base. The market isn't strong enough to support something mutually exclusive.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like it's the Landing's competition to lose.
I've been working downtown for about 8 months now, and I've just seen no evidence whatsoever that the existing downtown customer base has any interest in trekking down to the sports complex for lunch, or even for after work drinks at Intuition. It's just too far removed from downtown proper. Even Olio seems to be pushing it for my friends and coworkers, and that's 10 blocks west of Lot J (almost a mile).
Strictly due to the location, I think a serviceable Jacksonville Landing will always be fine, regardless of what Khan does with Lot J.
However, I do think the prospect of a great Landing should probably scare Khan quite a bit.
Personally, I'm pretty scared that we're going to finance the Cordish development on the back of unrealistic TIF projections, and end up have to dip into the general fund for years to make up the difference until the market catches up.
And I'm even more scared that the mayor is going to eliminate the biggest retail center in a downtown already short on active retail space, and try to replace it with a Cordish development a mile and a half away.
Lot J will get financed but yes, when it comes to location and direct impact on the Northbank, the Landing wins hands down. Get it right and Laura Street would actually end up being pretty decent from a vibrancy standpoint once VyStar, Hotel Indigo, FSCJ, the Barnett and Trio projects come online.
However, even with a retrofit of the existing structure, COJ would still have to be a willing partner or at least not sabotage the effort. The parking situation (which COJ claims it's fulfilled) needs to be resolved and the poorly maintained grounds surrounding the place would have to be upgraded as a part of a retrofit to better tie it into downtown. Yet right now, it seems like some would rather see the place fail than succeed if that means Sleiman personally benefits from the success.
The latest move by COJ to prevent Sleiman's success at the Landing....https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2018/06/13/city-seeks-to-dismiss-2015-parking-lot-case.html
Another example of a possibility for the landing in Tampa. They demo'ed some of the buildings on the water (which were blocking the view of the water) and are adding a wharf with a 1 acre courtyard, food vendors in shipping containers and beer garden to open this fall. Office and fixed commercial to come in the future. Jax could take some ideas between Armature Works and this new channelside for possible changes to the landing. Something like Armature Works could likely be completed in the existing structure of the landing.
https://www.tbo.com/news/business/realestate/Channelside-Bay-Plaza-to-be-remade-as-Sparkman-Wharf-with-waterfront-lawn-beer-garden-outdoor-dining-and-loft-style-offices_170322184
^ agreed - this is a great example - just takes visionary ownership
I have spent time recently in Milwaukee for work. I have had lunch at the Public Market there. Something like that at the Landing would be terrific.
Conversion to a food hall would be the obvious next step in the evolution of the Landing but I have my concerns about it with Sleiman running the show like how capable would he be in attracting new interesting vendors when he has trouble getting new interesting vendors as is particularly with the legal issues he's facing. Or would there be preferential treatment lease-wise to established brick and mortars at his other properties setting up shop at the Landing? Plus the perceived problems of parking could limit the success of such a venture at this location since visitor and residential numbers right now are what they are.
Even with those obstacles, the Landing really needs to plant the first flag as a pioneer because they can possibly miss out on this trend. The concept of a full-fledged food hall coming to Jacksonville is a near certainty and there is that mysterious company buying all this property on Park St. Hmm...intact abandoned industrial buildings ripe for reconfiguration, ample parking available, close to the core, not far from trendy neighborhoods; this mirrors the settings of many newly established food halls around the country like Armature Works, Union Market in DC, Industrial City in the other Brooklyn, etc. An older industrial area missing out is just a typical missed opportunity with little consequence but a Jacksonville Landing missing out on a possibly transformative moment will leave a black eye the city would rather not present to visitors.
Shocker, the city is trying to block Curry from having to give sworn testimony on the Landing situation, and isn't being cooperative with Sleiman's admittedly broad document request.
QuoteOn May 25, JLI served subpoenas to Mayor Lenny Curry and city Chief Administrative Officer Sam Mousa directing them to present themselves for depositions Aug. 16 and 17, respectively, and to provide a range of documents related to the city's business relationship with JLI.
The request from JLI includes "every document in existence since August 1, 2003 in the possession or control of the consolidated government of the City of Jacksonville that relates in any way to the lease between the City and JLI, regardless of whether those documents have any relevance to an issue in this case."...
The city filed, on June 4, objections to the document requests, on the grounds the request is overly broad and burdensome.
The city also requested that the subpoena served on Curry be quashed and that the court issue a protective order to prevent JLI from deposing him, based on his position as a high-ranking public official and that JLI has not exhausted all other means to gather the information sought in the subpoena.
No details as to why, but the circuit judge just recused herself three days before initial court proceedings.
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/dispute-between-jacksonville-landing-city-gets-new-judge
Prior to her judgeship, Judge Norton was an attorney in the General Counsel's office. There, perhaps, is an appearance of impropriety.
Quote from: KenFSU on August 07, 2018, 01:40:38 PM
Shocker, the city is trying to block Curry from having to give sworn testimony on the Landing situation, and isn't being cooperative with Sleiman's admittedly broad document request.
QuoteOn May 25, JLI served subpoenas to Mayor Lenny Curry and city Chief Administrative Officer Sam Mousa directing them to present themselves for depositions Aug. 16 and 17, respectively, and to provide a range of documents related to the city's business relationship with JLI.
The request from JLI includes "every document in existence since August 1, 2003 in the possession or control of the consolidated government of the City of Jacksonville that relates in any way to the lease between the City and JLI, regardless of whether those documents have any relevance to an issue in this case."...
The city filed, on June 4, objections to the document requests, on the grounds the request is overly broad and burdensome.
The city also requested that the subpoena served on Curry be quashed and that the court issue a protective order to prevent JLI from deposing him, based on his position as a high-ranking public official and that JLI has not exhausted all other means to gather the information sought in the subpoena.
No details as to why, but the circuit judge just recused herself three days before initial court proceedings.
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/dispute-between-jacksonville-landing-city-gets-new-judge
I wonder what Sleiman is trying to expose? Could there be documentation of the COJ working to undermine the thing during the current or previous mayoral administrations?
^If I'm Sleiman, I want everything I can get my hands on from December 2016 to October 2017.
Something changed dramatically during that period, and who knows, there might just be a paper trail.
In December 2016, Curry told the Times-Union board that he wasn't focusing on the Landing, there was nothing he could do about it, and his focus for riverfront downtown redevelopment would stretch from the old Courthouse to the stadium.
But then this Cordish thing started to swirl, Curry took that secret trip with Shad Khan and Mark Lamping, he was literally on the phone with Mousa from Khan's plane asking about financing, and around the same time, he threatens to take the Landing by force.
That's a pretty big coincidence.
It's debatable to what extent the retail/restaurant portion of the Landing would be a direct competitor to a Cordish development in the stadium district.
But the Landing is a huge competitor in terms of event dates (Florida-Georgia, 4th of July, New Year's Eve, etc.).
Cordish and the Jags certainly stand to benefit from the closure of the Landing, so I'd want to see the details too if I was Sleiman.
Quote from: KenFSU on August 08, 2018, 09:06:12 AM
^If I'm Sleiman, I want everything I can get my hands on from December 2016 to October 2017.
Something changed dramatically during that period, and who knows, there might just be a paper trail.
In December 2016, Curry told the Times-Union board that he wasn't focusing on the Landing, there was nothing he could do about it, and his focus for riverfront downtown redevelopment would stretch from the old Courthouse to the stadium.
But then this Cordish thing started to swirl, Curry took that secret trip with Shad Khan and Mark Lamping, he was literally on the phone with Mousa from Khan's plane asking about financing, and around the same time, he threatens to take the Landing by force.
That's a pretty big coincidence.
It's debatable to what extent the retail/restaurant portion of the Landing would be a direct competitor to a Cordish development in the stadium district.
But the Landing is a huge competitor in terms of event dates (Florida-Georgia, 4th of July, New Year's Eve, etc.).
Cordish and the Jags certainly stand to benefit from the closure of the Landing, so I'd want to see the details too if I was Sleiman.
When I was at UF in the early 2000s, the Landing was the place to be for Florida-Georgia. This past October, I was in Jax and asked a store clerk about FL-GA and where people celebrate, and she told me few people go to the Landing any longer. They all gather near the stadium for a big outdoor party. Is that the case?
In a sense, the Landing is a competitor to a potential Cordish development. In another sense, a Cordish development is looking to appeal to masses of people from all over Jax who come together in the Stadium Complex for either games or events. With succinct timing, they come in with just enough time to park and get to their seats, and they leave shortly after event conclusion. Cordish will get a decent-sized chunk of these gathering throngs a reason to linger in and around the Stadium Complex. I don't know if they ever would have been a target audience for the Landing.
If I'm Sleiman and COJ is trying to accuse me of running the place into the ground, in order to evict, I'd counter by proving I've been undermined by the same entity since the day I acquired it (something Sleiman has suggested in various reports). In that case, I'd want everything since 2003 that could assist in validating my position.
Any rumors of the city pushing this even harder now? I would think they'd want to strike while the iron was hot given the OPTICS of the recent shootings. I would think part a of that is the various city departments cracking down on the serious code violations by one of their tenants.
The timing, and wording, of the JFRD citation seems to support this. Won't be surprised if there are more high profile citations coming up.
I don't see how the Landing or Chicago Pizza can survive this with the lawsuits and all.
I don't think this kills the Landing. Although there has been a lot of media coverage, it's not the first shooting at a shopping center.