As has been the rumor, wrecking ball it is.
Details below, but give the clicks/ad views to the Record:
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/citys-vision-for-jacksonville-landing-space
Quote(https://snag.gy/KlPysp.jpg)
City's vision for Jacksonville Landing space
If the city gets full control of the Jacksonville Landing, Mayor Lenny Curry plans to demolish the aging riverfront mall to make room for a sprawling urban park.
That's the idea behind new design renderings obtained this week from the city's Parks and Recreation Department.
The conceptual art for the almost 6-acre site depicts an expansive mix of greenspace and pedestrian paths where the Landing stands.
It comes two weeks after the Office of General Counsel sent Jacksonville Landing Investments Inc. an eviction letter for allegedly breaching terms of the company's lease agreement with the city.
JLI, part of Sleiman Enterprises Inc., owns the three buildings comprising the Landing. The city owns the ground underneath and leases that to Sleiman's company.
JLI assumed the lease from Rouse-Jacksonville Inc. in 2003 and extended it to 2041.
Brian Hughes, Curry's chief of staff, said Wednesday the rendering came after "a series of conceptual discussions with Mayor Curry" and the executive leadership team.
"The design concept you have is the result of those discussions and was created by a city staff member," Hughes said. He did not identify that staff member.
The renderings obtained Tuesday show pedestrian walkways through formal gardens, water features and vegetation, along with expanses of greenspace.
"Mayor Curry's idea would utilize centrally located property that is on the river and in the heart of Downtown as a riverfront plaza," said Hughes, who called the idea "a front lawn for the core of Downtown."
The docks along the St. Johns River, which remain closed after sustaining damage from hurricanes Irma in 2017 and Matthew in 2016, also would be repaired — another sore spot for Sleiman's company.
Flanked on either side by the Main Street Bridge and the Times-Union Center for the Performing Arts, the park would be along the existing Northbank Riverwalk.
The renderings show an entrance ramp for traffic coming from Independent Drive East onto the Main Street Bridge would be removed. A pedestrian and bike path would connect to the bridge from the park.
Away from the river, the design shows symmetrical buildings closer to the streets on either side of the park.
Hughes said the city would "invite economic development that utilizes proximity to natural, public space," and that the move beyond concept would require collaboration between public and private partners.
Love how the City and Sleiman spend millions over the years bringing in leading planners and outside developers to conduct studies of the area and recommend best uses and design for the Landing, and at the end of the day, Curry and his aids just jot down some sketches on the back of a napkin and call it best use.
I'll take Sleiman and the DIA's latest plan 100 times out of 100 over nuking the entire property.
Love the idea of a riverfront park, but the CBD is absolutely retail-starved without the Landing, and we've got 70-acres of badly contaminated land to the east that is much cheaper to fill for parkland than it is to fully remediate for mixed use.
Shocking hubris from the city in their handling of this Landing situation.
Not one for conspiracy theories, but it certainly is starting to feel like they're trying to stack the decks for Cordish.
This reminds me of the "Big Ideas" plan. Not ideal.
This one is better....but....
This is EXACTLY what I was afraid of. Adding another expensive, poorly maintained, under utilized park to the Park Department's budget while the parks we already have languish due to lack of funding.
Wait! Do I see tables and chairs and benches? We all know what happens next... ::)
Yawn. Definitely seems like someone who was involved with the Big Ideas stuff years ago has a seat at the table again. I'd pass. Take the money needed for that space and invest in improving and maintaining the spaces we already have.
Egads.
Didn't know COJ or Curry had any plans at all; wow. Truth be known huh? Wrecking ball it is huh? again...WOW. Here we go. So they had this planned all along or so it seems; so the reason for the hard ball, thug and underhanded tactics against Sleiman by COJ and Curry.
Where are the hot dog carts?
After reading the article, I can't help but think that Sleiman will probably give in and leave. But doesn't the city still owe him that money? (4.7 mil). I don't particularly like the idea of a park. I think commercial/business along with retail is a better offing. We need something there, on that riverfront parcel, that has some muscle. We have a large park a few blocks north of where the landing is, and Metro Park to the east which is not being used to its fullest potential in my opinion. We don't need anymore parks. As aforementioned, put something there that will boost not only business downtown, but also the image of the city core, and which would add to the population of the city core (maybe residential in the way of a low rise tower with retail at ground level), and I think something of a mixed use nature might do the trick if carefully and properly planned.
Quote from: copperfiend on June 14, 2018, 10:42:21 AM
Where are the hot dog carts?
Add a zipline and we have... a game changer... ;D 8)
Quote from: heights unknown on June 14, 2018, 10:43:51 AM
After reading the article, I can't help but think that Sleiman will probably give in and leave. But doesn't the city still owe him that money? (4.7 mil).
We owe Sleiman $4.7 million just for the east parking lot, which the city hilariously sold to Sleiman, refused to close on even after Sleiman began using it, and is now trying to refund him for so they can build the above. This would be on top of anything else we'd have to pay him to buy back the physical Landing. And what we'd have to pay to then demolish said asset. And what we'd have to pay to buy out the existing leases. And what we'd have to pay to remove the Main Street Bridge ramp. And what we'd have to pay to repair and reconfigure the riverwalk and docks. And what we'd have to pay to execute on Curry's vision.
Plus legal fees.
For a f*cking lawn.
Off the tax rolls.
I hope Sleiman doesn't give up. If you read the articles that have come out in the last couple of weeks, the guy clearly wants to put all this nonsense to rest and get to work on the Landing. His lease long outlasts any single mayoral tenure, and in my opinion, legally, any perceived failures at the Landing can be reasonably chalked up to failures on the city's behalf to uphold its end of the contract in terms of access (parking and docks) and security (which has really hurt the Landing's perception).
So much public and private investment is going into adding residential, hotel, and student housing along Laura Street. And the city has talked for years about wanting downtown to be a vibrant 24/7 district. In what universe does it make sense then to anchor Laura with a dusk-to-dawn park, rather than maintain or improve upon the existing complex of retail, restaurants, and bars.
Even more strangely, it sounds like the two structures that Curry has in his sketch on the periphery would be largely residential, overlooking the park that he'd work with a private developer on. It's basically a worse, more pubicly-expensive version of the plan that Sleiman and the DIA already spent years hammering out.
The Landing needs to go.
I am not sure more greenspace (likely to be undermaintained) is the answer.
I like the idea of residential, with restaurants and bars.
The Landing serves it's purpose as sort of the meeting place of downtown. But there is nothing there to do. The idea above looks like the same thing you get with the Landing just without the empty storefronts.
The Florida National Bank served its purpose. It doesn't exist anymore. However, that's not a good reason to blow up the historic Laura Trio. This city tends to be very clueless when it comes to being cost effective with DT revitalization. You can't blame people like Mike Hogan for not wanting to invest more money into it after decades of poor expensive concepts like this.
The structure should stay. COJ should not spend one dime on this site. Sell it, take the profit and new annual property tax revenue and use it as a new dedicated funding source to gix up and maintain the DT parks and public spaces we already have.
I kind of like the open lawn at the end of Laura out to the river. I think that would be pretty cool bookend by some buildings sinilar to what's shown but maybe a little larger.
I do agree that the best solution here would be for the city to sell the land and be done with it.
My position won't be popular, but I wish waterfront, in every location people gather in Jax, was set aside as well-maintained park space and belonged to the people for their enjoyment and their recreation. You'd have the water, then the expansive public green space, and then private property interests could start with views of the waterfront and the public greenspace. So on that principle, I support turning the Landing into a well-maintained and expansive green space with scenic views of the river.
Where's our Ferris Wheel?
^One of these two commercial parcels is reserved for the ferris wheel.
The hope is the other can be used to lure in Club Paris.
should have went with Mooneyham
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on June 14, 2018, 01:34:16 PM
My position won't be popular, but I wish waterfront, in every location people gather in Jax, was set aside as well-maintained park space and belonged to the people for their enjoyment and their recreation. You'd have the water, then the expansive public green space, and then private property interests could start with views of the waterfront and the public greenspace. So on that principle, I support turning the Landing into a well-maintained and expansive green space with scenic views of the river.
I agree.
I don't agree because I'd argue we can do it now and we don't. We already have green space we don't use. The space in front of the performing arts center is a big waste right now. It can be improved with demolishing ramps and buildings. We also love to plan in a vacuum. This site isn't on an island. What's the plan for the outer square? East lot, etc. If you want a bigger lawn (even the best urban parks are mixed use now), do something with the East lot...it would be a lot cheaper. Overall it comes off as the same shortsided piecemeal approach to revitalization that most previous administrations have brought to the table since the 1950s.
It seems to me that if you eliminated the Main St. ramp, did some selected demolition on the existing buildings, turned the interior hallways into lease-able space, you could pretty much turn the existing Landing into something pretty close to what is in Curry's design. Trim the existing footprint down to 140-150k and you could save money and still create more green space.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 14, 2018, 02:34:09 PM
I don't agree because I'd argue we can do it now and we don't. We already have green space we don't use. The space in front of the performing arts center is a big waste right now. It can be improved with demolishing ramps and buildings. We also love to plan in a vacuum. This site isn't on an island. What's the plan for the outer square? East lot, etc. If you want a bigger lawn (even the best urban parks are mixed use now), do something with the East lot...it would be a lot cheaper. Overall it comes off as the same shortsided piecemeal approach to revitalization that most previous administrations have brought to the table since the 1950s.
Give the waterfront back to the people in a fuller and greener way (not just in a way for people to go and spend money in a food court), because the river can sell itself, especially with maintained docks and if Lori Boyer's "Activation Initiative" really takes flight. Let someone repeat the Landing experiment elsewhere downtown, off the river, ideally in a mixed-use context with retail in the lower levels and residential or hotel above, and with an integration with the streets that the Landing has never had. Let this hypothetical retail endeavor happen when it makes market sense downtown, especially if there's housing and hotel uses sitting atop it and around it to give it a local market and a nearby source of foot traffic.
Give the compelling natural landmark back to the people in an accessible way, and build a new retail draw further into downtown and off the immediate waterfront to give any future foot-traffic downtown a bit more depth. Frankly, I've always hated the fact that Jacksonville built a freaking shopping mall right on the water's edge. It just manifested to me how much disdain the City of Jacksonville has historically held for its River, or at least for "democratizing" the River's Access for the Public Good where people actually live and cluster. Unless one crosses a bridge or flies overhead or reads a website, one would hardly know Jax is a River City.
You're right, the city doesn't do it now, but the city's failures are still no reason to abandon ideals. I wish Berkman Plaza were waterfront Green Space, and the Jailhouse were Berkman Plaza. Hopefully you get my drift.
@Lakelander, in previous posts, you've suggested Sleiman run the Landing like many of his "successful strip centers" in suburban Jacksonvillle, with perhaps a much-needed Walgreens or some other retail usage downtown. But the more I've thought about it, Downtown waterfront doesn't need the adornment of luxury high-rises, luxury shopping, 5-star dining, low-end retail, and certainly not a Walgreens. Make the people of Jax (including the non-wealthy) the first priority, the first order responsibility. Then let the luxury high-rises and shopping sit along blocks that overlook our waterfront green spaces reserved the people, and frankly, put Walgreens somewhere in the depths of the core.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 14, 2018, 02:34:09 PM
I don't agree because I'd argue we can do it now and we don't. We already have green space we don't use. The space in front of the performing arts center is a big waste right now. It can be improved with demolishing ramps and buildings. We also love to plan in a vacuum. This site isn't on an island. What's the plan for the outer square? East lot, etc.
Broader still, how does this integrate with the countless other urban park projects that the city is juggling or has made commitments to.
By my count, we've got no fewer than 8 other urban park projects on the table already.
- Hemming Park, which the city has pumped over $2 million into in the last couple years
- Friendship Fountain, budgeted for $1 million+ this year
- The District, approved for $18 million in new public parks and riverfront extension just this week
- Emerald Necklace, seeking funding for a $2 million test mile
- Metropolitan Park, promised to the Jags, necessitating a land swap somewhere
- Veteran's Park, a 10-acre showcase park planned between the city, Jags, and USS Adams group
- Hart Bridge Elevated "High Line," a major part of Curry's Hart Bridge ramp removal plan, directly connected to the above noted Veteran's Park
- Times-Union Center plaza improvements, with a price tag in the millions
Is there any kind of unified master plan tying this all together to make sure all of this new parkspace complements each other and fits into some bigger picture, or do they all just exist in a silo, cannibalizing each other while keeping developable land off the books?
Even bigger question, is there a genuine public demand for all this riverfront park space? The only real frames of reference in urban Jacksonville are Metropolitan Park, which is a ghost-town (though the location is terrible), and Memorial Park in Riverside, which is gorgeous and moderately popular, but it never feels particularly crowded either. Even the riverwalk is surprisingly quiet on the weekends.
I get the sentiment for returning the waterfront to the people, but let's also be realistic here. There's no shortage of publicly accessible waterway in Jacksonville. We've actually got more shoreline than any other city in the country. 22 miles of beaches. 40 miles of intercoastal. Longest stretch of St. Johns River in the state. Miles of public riverwalk. I don't necessarily know if a downtown waterfront park is a major public attraction by itself in Jacksonville like it is in Louisville.
Any Landing development should include public greenspace on the river, but giving the entire plot to the public when there's a possibility that most the public would rather spend their leisure time at the beach, that's not maximizing use of the land either.
It has worked pretty well for downtown Tampa with Curtis Hixon Park. It would be the location of all events downtown. It would render Metro Park useless for the most part and probably end most of the programming at Hemming Plaza which would be diverted to this new park.
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on June 14, 2018, 03:22:35 PM
@Lakelander, in previous posts, you've suggested Sleiman run the Landing like many of his "successful strip centers" in suburban Jacksonvillle, with perhaps a much-needed Walgreens or some other retail usage downtown. But the more I've thought about it, Downtown waterfront doesn't need the adornment of luxury high-rises, luxury shopping, 5-star dining, low-end retail, and certainly not a Walgreens. Make the people of Jax (including the non-wealthy) the first priority, the first order responsibility. Then let the luxury high-rises and shopping sit along blocks that overlook our waterfront green spaces reserved the people, and frankly, put Walgreens somewhere in the depths of the core.
Lol you're talking theory but not applying it to the context and history of the setting. The site is already publicly owned and the riverfront can easily be accessed by anyone at anytime. A return of anything would mean a return to maritime related industry. When it comes to retail, people do need the services and you have a space that could accommodate them facing Independent Drive....not the riverfront. When it's all said and done the sketch represents a path to blow a ton of public money without significantly improving anything.
Quote from: FlaBoy on June 14, 2018, 03:40:14 PM
It has worked pretty well for downtown Tampa with Curtis Hixon Park. It would be the location of all events downtown. It would render Metro Park useless for the most part and probably end most of the programming at Hemming Plaza which would be diverted to this new park.
DT Tampa's layout is different. Curtis Hixon Park would be more applicable to Friendship Fountain and MOSH. It was a remake of the art museum and park on the Hillsborough River.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 14, 2018, 04:00:08 PM
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on June 14, 2018, 03:22:35 PM
@Lakelander, in previous posts, you've suggested Sleiman run the Landing like many of his "successful strip centers" in suburban Jacksonvillle, with perhaps a much-needed Walgreens or some other retail usage downtown. But the more I've thought about it, Downtown waterfront doesn't need the adornment of luxury high-rises, luxury shopping, 5-star dining, low-end retail, and certainly not a Walgreens. Make the people of Jax (including the non-wealthy) the first priority, the first order responsibility. Then let the luxury high-rises and shopping sit along blocks that overlook our waterfront green spaces reserved the people, and frankly, put Walgreens somewhere in the depths of the core.
Lol you're talking theory but not applying it to the context and history of the setting. The site is already publicly owned and the riverfront can easily be accessed by anyone at anytime. A return of anything would mean a return to maritime related industry. When it comes to retail, people do need the services and you have a space that could accommodate them facing Independent Drive....not the riverfront. When it's all said and done the sketch represents a path to blow a ton of public money without significantly improving anything.
C'mon, standing outside the Hooters or in the mall plaza is not the sort of waterfront activation we're talking about. History of the setting is what I thought we're trying to escape, not use as framework for the future. I like the idea of the Landing as core green space in the heart of the business district, presupposing that its high profile keeps up its maintenance.
The waterfront is bigger than the Landing. You could have the Landing and do everything you mention immediately on either side of it for a fraction of the cost. Also we razed the history (the wharfs, docks, seafood markets, warehouses, etc.) 70 years ago. If we preserved it, we could have something as authentic as San Francisco's Embarcadero or Savannah's River Street neither of which are demolishing riverfront sites in their cores for front lawns.
This one is pretty clear. The new Landing is Lot J next to the stadium. We're seriously considering hundreds of millions to.....de-densify downtown. Unbelievable...
Here's a great idea. Let's spend $242 million dredging silt from the bottom of the river and leave all the other desperately needed projects the City of Jacksonville has on it's agenda alone for another time. The proliferation of cheaply made foreign goods into this country needs all the help it can get, dammit.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 14, 2018, 06:58:29 PM
This one is pretty clear. The new Landing is Lot J next to the stadium. We're seriously considering hundreds of millions to.....de-densify downtown. Unbelievable...
To put this into context, the existing Landing is approximately 600 feet from all of the new development on Laura Street.
A two and a half minute walk from the Barnett.
From the Laura Street Trio to Lot J, it's a 16 block, 29 minute walk.
"The best part about living downtown is being able to walk 30 minutes home from the bars, in the dark, past the prison," said no one ever.
Quote from: KenFSU on June 14, 2018, 07:45:52 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on June 14, 2018, 06:58:29 PM
This one is pretty clear. The new Landing is Lot J next to the stadium. We're seriously considering hundreds of millions to.....de-densify downtown. Unbelievable...
To put this into context, the existing Landing is approximately 600 feet from all of the new development on Laura Street.
A two and a half minute walk from the Barnett.
From the Laura Street Trio to Lot J, it's a 16 block, 29 minute walk.
"The best part about living downtown is being able to walk 30 minutes home from the bars, in the dark, past the prison," said no one ever.
Well if lot J is the new Landing that maybe a good thing right? My only issue is the Landing is the only real show piece downtown along with friendship fountain. What really concerns me is will we still be talking about this 20 years from now.
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on June 14, 2018, 03:11:50 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on June 14, 2018, 02:34:09 PM
I don't agree because I'd argue we can do it now and we don't. We already have green space we don't use. The space in front of the performing arts center is a big waste right now. It can be improved with demolishing ramps and buildings. We also love to plan in a vacuum. This site isn't on an island. What's the plan for the outer square? East lot, etc. If you want a bigger lawn (even the best urban parks are mixed use now), do something with the East lot...it would be a lot cheaper. Overall it comes off as the same shortsided piecemeal approach to revitalization that most previous administrations have brought to the table since the 1950s.
Give the waterfront back to the people in a fuller and greener way (not just in a way for people to go and spend money in a food court), because the river can sell itself, especially with maintained docks and if Lori Boyer's "Activation Initiative" really takes flight. Let someone repeat the Landing experiment elsewhere downtown, off the river, ideally in a mixed-use context with retail in the lower levels and residential or hotel above, and with an integration with the streets that the Landing has never had. Let this hypothetical retail endeavor happen when it makes market sense downtown, especially if there's housing and hotel uses sitting atop it and around it to give it a local market and a nearby source of foot traffic.
Give the compelling natural landmark back to the people in an accessible way, and build a new retail draw further into downtown and off the immediate waterfront to give any future foot-traffic downtown a bit more depth. Frankly, I've always hated the fact that Jacksonville built a freaking shopping mall right on the water's edge. It just manifested to me how much disdain the City of Jacksonville has historically held for its River, or at least for "democratizing" the River's Access for the Public Good where people actually live and cluster. Unless one crosses a bridge or flies overhead or reads a website, one would hardly know Jax is a River City.
You're right, the city doesn't do it now, but the city's failures are still no reason to abandon ideals. I wish Berkman Plaza were waterfront Green Space, and the Jailhouse were Berkman Plaza. Hopefully you get my drift.
JaxNYC, I agree with your position 1000%! I would advocate for green space the entire length of both sides of the river. They are ringing the island of Manhattan with green and it's what so many other successful and widely admired cities have done all over the world. There is plenty of land off the river to develop anyone's dreams for other purposes. Further, if we want more people to live Downtown, we need these green spaces to provide the recreational amenities such residents will demand. Green spaces along the river, combined with walk-able nearby residential options, will make Downtown a unique living opportunity in Northeast Florida and allow it to be competitive with gated communities and other urban sprawl options.
And, if Jax is to host festivals, another Super Bowl or any other large outdoor community gatherings in the Downtown area, we will need even more of these green spaces. Maybe not right away, but over the coming decades as our population swells by one, two or more millions. We need to think long term, not a quick fix project that will not stand the test of time.
As for return on investment, this will pay off. The surrounding area is going to be premium real estate beyond anything we have now and the increased taxes on that land will give us great returns on the much lower cost of a park than wasting it on lots of infrastructure and incentives for something more intense with lots of risk and of little value to the greater City. I see this as a major spark for Downtown despite the naysayers on this thread.
I have not been a big fan of Curry's approach to other projects and visions for the Downtown area but this one has me behind him 100%. I am actually stunned that he supports it.
P.S. It wouldn't bother me if they also removed the two buildings shown and made it all green space! 8)
Quote from: Keith-N-Jax on June 14, 2018, 08:55:34 PM
Quote from: KenFSU on June 14, 2018, 07:45:52 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on June 14, 2018, 06:58:29 PM
This one is pretty clear. The new Landing is Lot J next to the stadium. We're seriously considering hundreds of millions to.....de-densify downtown. Unbelievable...
To put this into context, the existing Landing is approximately 600 feet from all of the new development on Laura Street.
A two and a half minute walk from the Barnett.
From the Laura Street Trio to Lot J, it's a 16 block, 29 minute walk.
"The best part about living downtown is being able to walk 30 minutes home from the bars, in the dark, past the prison," said no one ever.
Well if lot J is the new Landing that maybe a good thing right? My only issue is the Landing is the only real show piece downtown along with friendship fountain. What really concerns me is will we still be talking about this 20 years from now.
Your concern has more of a chance happening than anything else. What's likely to happen is (A) Sleiman wins the lawsuit or (B) this thing gets tied up enough in court that it outlasts the current administration.
QuoteAs for return on investment, this will pay off. The surrounding area is going to be premium real estate beyond anything we have now and the increased taxes on that land will give us great returns on the much lower cost of a park than wasting it on lots of infrastructure and incentives for something more intense with lots of risk and of little value to the greater City. I see this as a major spark for Downtown despite the naysayers on this thread.
I can't help but notice that this quote sounds eerily similar to what was being written in papers back in the early 1980s when Rouse was being sold a bill of goods. Everything happening right now, from the Landing to talks of more park space and emerging transit technology, is like a watching a bad sequel. All we need now is someone to suggest we need an aquarium too.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 14, 2018, 10:32:05 PM
QuoteAs for return on investment, this will pay off. The surrounding area is going to be premium real estate beyond anything we have now and the increased taxes on that land will give us great returns on the much lower cost of a park than wasting it on lots of infrastructure and incentives for something more intense with lots of risk and of little value to the greater City. I see this as a major spark for Downtown despite the naysayers on this thread.
I can't help but notice that this quote sounds eerily similar to what was being written in papers back in the early 1980s when Rouse was being sold a bill of goods. Everything happening right now, from the Landing to talks of more park space and emerging transit technology, is like a watching a bad sequel. All we need now is someone to suggest we need an aquarium too.
I would suggest this is different. This green space is going to promote Downtown living which will feed a much more sustainable amount of foot traffic and economic activity to serve as a baseline for doing business Downtown. Relying on tourists/outside visitors requires constant reinvention to keep them returning (basically, the entire premise of the Landing) and/or a population to draw upon much greater than what resides in NE Florida now. Plus, attracting those non-residents requires far better transit options than Jax has committed to (thus the insistence on ever more parking garages) while residences in a walk-able range require almost no such commitments (although better transit needs to come around at some point - the sooner the better!).
Riverside, San Marco and the Beaches all have enough residents to keep things hopping. The visitors come to see what the residents are raving about 8). Admittedly, Town Center started in reverse order, but, smartly, developers are now building in higher density living (i.e. mostly apartments) to insure the long term sustainability of the area once the bloom is off the rose and those outsiders migrate to the next "great thing" (maybe Downtown?).
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on June 14, 2018, 10:46:49 PM
I would suggest this is different. This green space is going to promote Downtown living which will feed a much more sustainable amount of foot traffic and economic activity to serve as a baseline for doing business Downtown.
How do you know? Is this wishful thinking? It's not like we don't already have underutilized green space all over the downtown core. This appears to be a bigger lawn, which is something we already have and don't use well in front of the performing arts center. In addition, the majority of the downtown residential population base doesn't live close by. What's the coordinated plan to cluster complementing development around this site verse any other site in the core?
QuoteRelying on tourists/outside visitors requires constant reinvention to keep them returning (basically, the entire premise of the Landing) and/or a population to draw upon much greater than what resides in NE Florida now.
The festival marketplace concept died nationwide well before 2000. For at least the last 15 years the Landing has been tied up in politics, which has negatively impacted whatever could be done with the site. With current retail and entertainment trends (i.e. food halls, public markets, restaurants, etc.), there are uses the site could be adapted to include. For the sake of downtown Northbank vibrancy, it would be foolish of Jax to drive these types of uses to some place on the fringe like the District or Shipyards. The market isn't strong enough to support multiple first class options. That's why some larger level of coordination needs to take place than continued piecemealing of select sites like this.
QuotePlus, attracting those non-residents requires far better transit options than Jax has committed to (thus the insistence on ever more parking garages) while residences in a walk-able range require almost no such commitments (although better transit needs to come around at some point - the sooner the better!).
I wouldn't worry about attracting suburbanites. I do agree with treating downtown as a urban neighborhood first. However, if we seriously do that and think about what neighborhood park space needs to be, we'd fund the restoration of Springfield Park (a place with playing fields, lawns, playscapes, jogging trails, basketball courts, dog parks, tennis courts, etc. over this.
QuoteRiverside, San Marco and the Beaches all have enough residents to keep things hopping. The visitors come to see what the residents are raving about 8). Admittedly, Town Center started in reverse order, but, smartly, developers are now building in higher density living (i.e. mostly apartments) to insure the long term sustainability of the area once the bloom is off the rose and those outsiders migrate to the next "great thing" (maybe Downtown?).
I also would not worry about Town Center. It's a suburban area. People seeking that type of lifestyle will head to Bartram Park and Durbin Park next before they turn to DT. Simply DT like the core of an urban district that includes the surrounding neighborhoods. Urban neighborhoods don't need front lawns that don't include a mix of uses that breed human scaled interaction. They need good public schools, well maintained parks, reliable transit, walkable streets, supportive retail, etc. You make a viable urban neighborhood that actually works and you'll get the visitors.
When you look at the amount of money we're possibly going to have to shell out (suit, razing buildings, bridges, subsidizing Lot J, The District, etc.) and combine that with the bigger picture, I believe you'll see you can stretch that public dollar a lot more and check off more ROI boxes leaving the Landing right where it is, as opposed to forcing things in based off the build it and they will come approach. Even if we just had to have a "front lawn", why not the parking lot on the other side of Main Street?
Quote from: thelakelander on June 14, 2018, 11:14:23 PM
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on June 14, 2018, 10:46:49 PM
I would suggest this is different. This green space is going to promote Downtown living which will feed a much more sustainable amount of foot traffic and economic activity to serve as a baseline for doing business Downtown.
How do you know? Is this wishful thinking? It's not like we don't already have underutilized green space all over the downtown core. This appears to be a bigger lawn, which is something we already have and don't use well in front of the performing arts center. In addition, the majority of the downtown residential population base doesn't live close by. What's the coordinated plan to cluster complementing development around this site verse any other site in the core?
My hypothesis about the impact of green space is a lot more reasonable, IMHO, than those that suggest other plans for the Landing property will be the savior of DT. It is proven all over the world that green spaces in urban venues are catalysts for surrounding development and a must for attracting permanent residents. As I have noted in other posts, even in the suburban mega developments, developers put out front in their marketing the value of the green spaces they create within their boundaries. People want healthy outlets and Rummell even promoted this for the District (originally termed "Healthy Town").
The space in front of the T-U center is hardly comparable to this plan. And, you refer to the absence of residential living close by. That is exactly my point, its not there now because the green space isn't there. It's a classic chicken and egg issue. Build the green space and watch the demand for residential increase.
QuoteHowever, if we seriously do that and think about what neighborhood park space needs to be, we'd fund the restoration of Springfield Park (a place with playing fields, lawns, playscapes, jogging trails, basketball courts, dog parks, tennis courts, etc. over this.
No argument here. I have said before, fund this project. But, it benefits more Springfield. And, it doesn't showcase our greatest asset, the river. I would suggest these are two distinct projects and one shouldn't take away from or compete with the other. Let's do them both and really give the urban core a shot in the arm!
I think I agree more with Lake here. Mostly, I just don't trust that the city will really put down the money to continuously maintain even more green space, when we've been struggling to maintain what we already have, and are already increasing or improving green space in other parts of the core. Given that this is prime land in the center of the urban core, I think it's overall more of a benefit to put more of that land to use for other things. I think the Wakefield plan, out of all the ones I've seen, looks like the most effective use of the space. When you have the development there, plus the park space the Wakefield plan offers, plus Hemming, plus Confederate and the rest of Hogan Creek, plus the District, plus Khan's Veterans Park, plus the space by the Y, and the future possibility of something on the T-U space, that's a substantial amount of park that already exists or could very soon exist.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on June 14, 2018, 11:39:42 PM
My hypothesis about the impact of green space is a lot more reasonable, IMHO, than those that suggest other plans for the Landing property will be the savior of DT.
I actually hate that people here continue to use the words "game changer" or "savior" of downtown with all of these projects. Honestly, neither the Landing or razing and making this small block a park will do either. I also believe there's a middle ground. For some reason, Jax tends to box itself into 100% retail or 100% green space. There's a ton of middle ground in there that can accomplish more and for cheaper than all of the razing options.
QuoteIt is proven all over the world that green spaces in urban venues are catalysts for surrounding development and a must for attracting permanent residents.
It's not. What is proven around the world is when you cluster, complementing uses within a compact area you create the synergy for pedestrian scale vibrancy. The world lesson is to stop treating the Landing site like a suburban isolated location and look at the Northbank as a larger district. Right off the bat, if we did that, we'd see we already have underutilized green space along the riverfront and a surface parking lot of nearly equal size to the Landing on the other side of Main Street. Don't show a rendering of grass on the Landing without considering what becomes of these spaces and the private spaces surrounding them. This is what the world does not do.
QuoteAs I have noted in other posts, even in the suburban mega developments, developers put out front in their marketing the value of the green spaces they create within their boundaries. People want healthy outlets and Rummell even promoted this for the District (originally termed "Healthy Town").
People want vibrancy. Interactive green space is a part of that but so is walkability, mixed use, retail, commercial, etc. Under no circumstance is anyone talking about having no green space along the river.
QuoteThe space in front of the T-U center is hardly comparable to this plan. And, you refer to the absence of residential living close by. That is exactly my point, its not there now because the green space isn't there. It's a classic chicken and egg issue. Build the green space and watch the demand for residential increase.
There's little residential nearby because the surrounding uses are office and its the heart of the CBD. Ideally your residential should be all those vacant buildings north of Forsyth St to Springfield Park. There's also poor choices for public education and a the prospect of living an urban lifestyle that means a reverse commute for things we expect to walk too is what limits residential. There's poor lighting, poor streetscapes, unmaintained parks, unreliable transit, etc. Then there's the cost of renovating older vacant structures verses what the market is willing to pay to live in a restored structure and a city where getting financial incentives for the gaps isn't the easiest thing to do. These are things that limit residential growth. Not the Landing or making the Landing a grass lawn.
QuoteNo argument here. I have said before, fund this project. But, it benefits more Springfield.
It would greatly benefit downtown. We just have to stop turning downtown's back to the neighborhoods it was once seamlessly integrated with.
QuoteAnd, it doesn't showcase our greatest asset, the river.
Friendship Fountain, the riverwalks, the Landing, etc. are all projects that were supposed to showcase the river. True showcasing is interactivity. If we really want to showcase the river, we allow people to play with it, not just look at it, which we can already do. Playing means fixing the docks, allowing public fishing in certain areas, bringing back maritime uses, etc. Do what we're attempting to do in Mayport. That's true activation and showcasing of the river.
QuoteI would suggest these are two distinct projects and one shouldn't take away from or compete with the other. Let's do them both and really give the urban core a shot in the arm!
I'd suggest downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods are a single cohesive urban core area and should be planned and developed as such. We need a lot of things to make that happen and funding is limited. IMO, it's just foolish to spend as much public money on these single sites to create isolated nodes that have nothing to do with one another or the core itself. We're simply continuing to blow wads of cash all in order to end up with substandard results. I just wish we can use some common sense like the rest of the world when it comes to downtown Jacksonville.
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on June 14, 2018, 01:34:16 PM
My position won't be popular, but I wish waterfront, in every location people gather in Jax, was set aside as well-maintained park space and belonged to the people for their enjoyment and their recreation. You'd have the water, then the expansive public green space, and then private property interests could start with views of the waterfront and the public greenspace. So on that principle, I support turning the Landing into a well-maintained and expansive green space with scenic views of the river.
Playing Devil's advocate, but who is to say that there will actually be a park. Maybe the city reconsiders as a better deal / proposal magically materializes once the Landing is gone.
Quote from: Gunnar on June 15, 2018, 07:44:35 AM
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on June 14, 2018, 01:34:16 PM
My position won't be popular, but I wish waterfront, in every location people gather in Jax, was set aside as well-maintained park space and belonged to the people for their enjoyment and their recreation. You'd have the water, then the expansive public green space, and then private property interests could start with views of the waterfront and the public greenspace. So on that principle, I support turning the Landing into a well-maintained and expansive green space with scenic views of the river.
Playing Devil's advocate, but who is to say that there will actually be a park. Maybe the city reconsiders as a better deal / proposal magically materializes once the Landing is gone.
Since this is basically the Peyton administration 2.0 (virtually the same players), another possibility is that the Landing gets torn down for a glorified lawn for the next 20 years.
Case in point:
1) Kids Kampus at Metro Park. https://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2011-sep-kids-kampus-vanishes (https://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2011-sep-kids-kampus-vanishes). That park was later torn down before the end of the Peyton administration (less than 10 years after it opened). It is rumored that the money Sleiman paid COJ for the Landing parking lot eventually made its way into the funds used to tear out Kids Kampus. Seven years later, its still a lawn.
2) The Courthouse Plaza. https://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2011-jan-courthouse-asphalt-or-green-space-the-choice-is-yours (https://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2011-jan-courthouse-asphalt-or-green-space-the-choice-is-yours). At one point, a plan was advanced to build a 7 lane road in front of the courthouse. MJ advocates helped advanced the abandonment of this asinine plan, in favor of creating a public green space to break up the massive scale of the new Courthouse. Since the Courthouse was opened in 2012, Art In Public Places money related to the courthouse construction (around ~$750k or so) has still yet to be spent... money that could be coupled with private donations from various legal parties (judges, law firms, etc) to actually turn this public space into an active green space. Six years later, its still a lawn.
3) Main Street Pocket Park. https://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2009-may-urban-parks-main-street-pocket-park (https://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2009-may-urban-parks-main-street-pocket-park). Still one of the top 10 worst moves downtown over the last 20 years. A once-thriving Main Street is instead a series of parking lots, dead walls, bums... and a park 'that will eventually spur development in the urban core'. Since 2007, the park is still a glorified lawn for bums to hang out on. No development has been spurred by this green space that was once described in almost magical terms.
Between these three things, and Friendship Fountain (which is again broke).... about ~$35 million has been spent on these projects. Plenty of money gets spent downtown. Unfortunately, most of that money has been a complete waste as the basic fundamentals of urban development (clustering of complementary uses in a contextual and compact setting) have been consistently abandoned in favor of a series of one-off splashes- without any thought into how these
splashes eventual failures fit into a long term, comprehensive goal - creating an attractive, vibrant and walkable urban neighborhood.
Quote from: fieldafm on June 15, 2018, 09:23:22 AM
3) Main Street Pocket Park. https://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2009-may-urban-parks-main-street-pocket-park (https://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2009-may-urban-parks-main-street-pocket-park). Still one of the top 10 worst moves downtown over the last 20 years. A once-thriving Main Street is instead a series of parking lots, dead walls, bums... and a park 'that will eventually spur development in the urban core'. Since 2007, the park is still a glorified lawn for bums to hang out on. No development has been spurred by this green space that was once described in almost magical terms.
That "park" is a huge eyesore.
It's just a gathering spot for the homeless and is littered with garbage.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 14, 2018, 04:03:12 PM
Quote from: FlaBoy on June 14, 2018, 03:40:14 PM
It has worked pretty well for downtown Tampa with Curtis Hixon Park. It would be the location of all events downtown. It would render Metro Park useless for the most part and probably end most of the programming at Hemming Plaza which would be diverted to this new park.
DT Tampa's layout is different. Curtis Hixon Park would be more applicable to Friendship Fountain and MOSH. It was a remake of the art museum and park on the Hillsborough River.
I believe the old Curtis Hixon Convention Center was on the land and when they built the Tampa Convention Center, they demolished it and built the park. The museums were later added. It is also right next to their CBD and is where they do the most programming. It would not be like the Friendship Fountain park. That would be more similar to the University of Tampa's Plant Park that looks out over the CBD. The parks by the Arena sit pretty dead during the day but they have built a lot of parks on their waterfront in recent years.
Do any pieces of Kids Kampus still exist? E.g. are the kid-size versions of the downtown skyscrapers in storage someplace?
Uggh! That is all I have to say about this....for now.
Flaboy, I don't think they can be accurately compared. The Hillsborough River doesn't split DT Tampa. Tampa's layout and growth pattern is totally opposite of DT Jax's. The residential epicenter of DT Tampa is also on the other side of the Selmon. I'm not even sure I'd even compare the UT side of the river to the Southbank. It's an historic area that's seperate from the CBD.
When I mention Friendship Fountain and MOSH, the perspective I'm coming from is that there was already a park and museum there (the old convention center was turned into a park in the early 90s). The old museum was next to it and included a rooftop courtyard/park of its own. A new expanded museum was built and the entire space, including the park, was redesigned. What's there now was completed around 2010. They basically updated a dated musuem and underutilized park next too it. IMO, this would be applicable to MOSH being redone and better integrated with Friendship Fountain. What Jax is proposing at the Landing is to tear down Channelside or Harbour Place to turn it into a grass lawn. That, the expense associated with it and the clear pattern of lack of follow through with the last three DT green spaces built since 2000 should scare the bejesus out of every one.
Quote from: Wacca Pilatka on June 15, 2018, 10:55:07 AM
Do any pieces of Kids Kampus still exist? E.g. are the kid-size versions of the downtown skyscrapers in storage someplace?
Kids Kampus was fine. It used to be full of people. Even suburbanites. Now it's an underutilized lawn. What's with this city and non interactive lawns?
Quote from: thelakelander on June 15, 2018, 11:22:41 AM
Flaboy, I don't think they can be accurately compared. The Hillsborough River doesn't split DT Tampa. Tampa's layout and growth pattern is totally opposite of DT Jax's. The residential epicenter of DT Tampa is also on the other side of the Selmon. I'm not even sure I'd even compare the UT side of the river to the Southbank. It's an historic area that's seperate from the CBD.
When I mention Friendship Fountain and MOSH, the perspective I'm coming from is that there was already a park and museum there (the old convention center was turned into a park in the early 90s). The old museum was next to it and included a rooftop courtyard/park of its own. A new expanded museum was built and the entire space, including the park, was redesigned. What's there now was completed around 2010. They basically updated a dated musuem and underutilized park next too it. IMO, this would be applicable to MOSH being redone and better integrated with Friendship Fountain. What Jax is proposing at the Landing is to tear down Channelside or Harbour Place to turn it into a grass lawn. That, the expense associated with it and the clear pattern of lack of follow through with the last three DT green spaces built since 2000 should scare the bejesus out of every one.
I think that is what Vinik is proposing for half of Channelside right now too. He wants to tear it down and make green space along with a portion of the parking lot there.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 15, 2018, 11:24:50 AM
Quote from: Wacca Pilatka on June 15, 2018, 10:55:07 AM
Do any pieces of Kids Kampus still exist? E.g. are the kid-size versions of the downtown skyscrapers in storage someplace?
Kids Kampus was fine. It used to be full of people. Even suburbanites. Now it's an underutilized lawn. What's with this city and non interactive lawns?
I agree - that's why I was asking whether anyone knew if any of its components still existed so it could be reactivated (at least in part, and possibly somewhere else)
We'll see how Vinik's project turns out. However isn't he spending his own money on the development around the arena? Here, we're talking about a public entity with a poor historical track record of vision and follow through like COJ.
Quote from: Wacca Pilatka on June 15, 2018, 11:40:39 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on June 15, 2018, 11:24:50 AM
Quote from: Wacca Pilatka on June 15, 2018, 10:55:07 AM
Do any pieces of Kids Kampus still exist? E.g. are the kid-size versions of the downtown skyscrapers in storage someplace?
Kids Kampus was fine. It used to be full of people. Even suburbanites. Now it's an underutilized lawn. What's with this city and non interactive lawns?
I agree - that's why I was asking whether anyone knew if any of its components still existed so it could be reactivated (at least in part, and possibly somewhere else)
No
There is talk of adding a playground to Friendship Fountain, but nothing concrete yet (excuse the pun).
What's frustrating is that a private group had approached SMG/COJ/MOSH about doing temporary, tactical urbanism-style improvements on the Times Union Center for Performing Arts Center's lawn and the MOSH property fronting Friendship Fountain.... and that particular group (who has a track record of success) had COJ and DIA turn its back on them (no City funds were requested, only access was needed.. and those projects would have actually been money makers for COJ/SMG/MOSH). Those projects would have already added activity to both of those spaces by now, but they sit empty so that the COJ overlords can come up with some big, expensive masterplan that they'll eventually abandon a few years later (as history suggests)... all while patting themselves on the back about how much is happening downtown (these areas are typically filled with bums on both weekdays and weekends... so kudos for that).
That same group also was ready to sign a lease to activate the empty space on the exterior of the Landing fronting Independent Dr/Hogan Street... but this ridiculous lawsuit by the City complicates that plan.
And no, I'm not bitter ;)
While on the subject of river activation... three years later and still waiting on the public art promised, conceptualized and priced out with an artist from UNF along the Northbank Riverwalk: https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/city-says-it-should-have-been-more-sensitive-about-love-locks-wants-find-way-display-them (https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/city-says-it-should-have-been-more-sensitive-about-love-locks-wants-find-way-display-them)
Quote from: thelakelander on June 15, 2018, 11:59:38 AM
We'll see how Vinik's project turns out. However isn't he spending his own money on the development around the arena? Here, we're talking about a public entity with a poor historical track record of vision and follow through like COJ.
Yes. See: https://www.moderncities.com/article/2018-mar-tampas-waterfront-to-feature-shipping-container-park (https://www.moderncities.com/article/2018-mar-tampas-waterfront-to-feature-shipping-container-park)
^ Thanks for the answer, Mike.
The destruction of Kids Kampus is still totally inexplicable to me.
Anyone remember the Simpsons episode where Springfield got so screwed up by Homer they packed up the whole town and moved it 5 miles down the road? That is what Curry and Khan wants to do with downtown.
Update: I found a ground level rendering of the Park that is replacing the Landing, pretty incredible!!!..........(https://hoodwork-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/story/image/23487/pridedoloresparktrash.png)
Breathtaking.
I wasn't even worried about this plan becoming reality because Jax can't execute any plan...until you posted this picture. Jax could pull THAT one off.
That's a lot of fill dirt....
Quote from: Kerry on June 15, 2018, 02:38:00 PM
I wasn't even worried about this plan becoming reality because Jax can't execute any plan...until you posted this picture. Jax could pull THAT one off.
We certainly could. That's what the Main Street Pocket Park looks like on weekends. It's the bottom of Hogans Creek too.
I don't think Jax is a capable of solving the homeless problem. In retrospect, maybe creating a new downtown somewhere else IS a viable solution. But where?
Quote from: fieldafm on June 15, 2018, 12:03:08 PM
What's frustrating is that a private group had approached SMG/COJ/MOSH about doing temporary, tactical urbanism-style improvements on the Times Union Center for Performing Arts Center's lawn and the MOSH property fronting Friendship Fountain.... and that particular group (who has a track record of success) had COJ and DIA turn its back on them (no City funds were requested, only access was needed.. and those projects would have actually been money makers for COJ/SMG/MOSH). Those projects would have already added activity to both of those spaces by now, but they sit empty so that the COJ overlords can come up with some big, expensive masterplan that they'll eventually abandon a few years later (as history suggests).
Leave it to the city to actually find a way to lose in a no-lose situation.
Quote from: Kerry on June 15, 2018, 03:09:41 PM
I don't think Jax is a capable of solving the homeless problem. In retrospect, maybe creating a new downtown somewhere else IS a viable solution. But where?
"The best way to solve the problem of undesirables is to make a place attractive to everyone else."
- William H. Whyte,
The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces
Quote from: KenFSU on June 15, 2018, 03:13:27 PM
Quote from: fieldafm on June 15, 2018, 12:03:08 PM
What's frustrating is that a private group had approached SMG/COJ/MOSH about doing temporary, tactical urbanism-style improvements on the Times Union Center for Performing Arts Center's lawn and the MOSH property fronting Friendship Fountain.... and that particular group (who has a track record of success) had COJ and DIA turn its back on them (no City funds were requested, only access was needed.. and those projects would have actually been money makers for COJ/SMG/MOSH). Those projects would have already added activity to both of those spaces by now, but they sit empty so that the COJ overlords can come up with some big, expensive masterplan that they'll eventually abandon a few years later (as history suggests).
Leave it to the city to actually find a way to lose in a no-lose situation.
Sadly egos, politics and gamesmanship... and not necessarily results... are what drives downtown 'development'.
The current city administration is only concerned with repaying the monied puppet masters that somehow got them elected. They are running the city's business much like the ways they make political ads. It's hard for me to understand how anyone can't see what is going on with this current regime. Everything from the JEA, the violent crime, infrastructure deterioration, downtown development, etc. Curry is currently running ads about what he has done to fight crime. He only is good for lip service. Sad thing is, he'll probably be re-elected.
But where will people park to go to the park??
In all seriousness, between Friendship Fountain, the old courthouse, the Shipyards/Metro Park, and ancillary land around the Landing, there is plenty of room for riverfront green space. Why have one massive park when you can have a series of small and medium parks connected by a River Walk that also includes restaurants and entertainment? I just can't see adding what amounts to a Memorial Park in the middle of downtown being a major driver of vibrancy, relative to both the financial investment and opportunity costs.
And a comment on complementary uses, notice how busy Memorial Park is on a nice day. That area has housing, retail, entertainment, and business space densely clustered nearby. Memorial Park is not the centerpiece of the area but a complementary amenity. I like the idea of more green space on the St. Johns but the mayor's plan is overkill.
There is no way the city doesnt plan on getting its act together with parks if this is what they plan on doing. The emerald necklace must be in grand plan.
City parks (green space) are so overrated IMO. It's the most overrated aspect about urbanity (in contrast to gleaming high rises, restaurants, nightclubs and bars etc). Don't get me wrong, city parks are a necessity downtown, but don't look for most people to be excited to see another new one. I would go to the mature Memorial Park if I if I wanted to visit an urban park on the river. The Landing to some 'green space' is a step backwards IMO. I would rather see some luxury apts or hotels there.
OK, lots of great comments and hard to argue with most. In fact, if we were all in a room together, we would probably agree more than not on what would fix Downtown.
It appears the biggest problem above all else is not so much MJ posters agreeing on a plan but City shortcomings including, in no particular order:
1. Lack of trust in City government to stick to a plan and execute successfully.
2. Lack of an integrated, coherent, best-practice plan for the urban core built around interactive streets, green spaces and the waterfront.
3. City chasing "savior" projects rather than facilitating lots of smaller projects that would build a more widespread, sustainable, and inclusive vibrant and interactive urban core.
4. Lack of mass transit connectivity within the urban core to support mobility to urban core activities and facilities.
5. Lack of creativity, imagination and long term (i.e. decades) visioning.
Back to green spaces, I sense the foremost argument against more of them is no confidence in the City's ability to maximize benefit from same or that the City will develop and maintain such. I get that. But it shouldn't detract from the fact that green spaces, properly done, are a necessary amenity to spurring urban development. Instead of resisting green spaces, we should be holding the City accountable for doing them right. Incompetence should not be a reason from walking away from this necessary project. Let's get leadership that can do the job and stop tolerating those that can't!
Quote from: I-10east on June 15, 2018, 08:58:42 PM
City parks (green space) are so overrated IMO. It's the most overrated aspect about urbanity (in contrast to gleaming high rises, restaurants, nightclubs and bars etc). Don't get me wrong, city parks are a necessity downtown, but don't look for most people to be excited to see another new one. I would go to the mature Riverside Park if I if I wanted to visit an urban park on the river. The Landing to some 'green space' is a step backwards IMO. I would rather see some luxury apts or hotels there.
Pushing people from Downtown to parks in Riverside and Springfield is not the answer. Living downtown is in large part about walk-ability and your solution doesn't fully make the cut for Downtown.
NYC has parks every few blocks. Check out Bryant Park, Battery Park, and Union Square as examples of parks in the midst of business centered areas of NYC. Residential towers are rising amidst the office buildings of Wall Street and the World Trade Center sites proving residential and office buildings can co-exist. They even have 2 high end shopping malls now in that area that are packed. Remember, we are talking the financial district that used to be M-F, 9 to 5. The enabler, IMHO, is the increasing greening of the waterfront ringing the island. Then there is NY's High Line, which is essentially an elevated rails-to-trails green space that has sparked over $2 billion in development in one of the previously least desirable areas of Manhattan.
Lets not forget the greatest concentration of residential in Manhattan is around 843 acre Central Park. Tell me that green space doesn't pay for itself. Jax probably doesn't have even 10% of that in our Downtown area. By the way, Philadelphia's Fairmount Park lining both sides of the Schuylkill River is 2,052 acres and the National Mall in DC is 309 acres. None of these parks include massive additional amounts of green spaces in those urban cores. Jacksonville has a long way to go regarding green space in our urban core before we should worry about overkill.
And, then there is Greenville, SC. and its 32 acre Falls Park. This excerpt from Wikipedia (which actually greatly understates the ultimate impact of this green space to the present):
QuoteFalls Park on the Reedy, a large regional park in the West End with gardens and several waterfalls, with access to the Swamp Rabbit Trail. Dedicated in 2004, the $15.0 million park is home to the Liberty Bridge, a pedestrian suspension bridge overlooking the Reedy River. The park's development sparked a $75 million public-private development, Riverplace, directly across Main Street. Falls Park has been called the birthplace of Greenville, but in the mid-20th century the area was in severe decline, and the Camperdown Bridge had been built across the Falls, obstructing view. In the mid-1980s, the City adopted a master plan for the park, leading to the removal of the Camperdown Bridge and making way for extensive renovations, to include 20 acres (81,000 m2) of gardens and the Liberty Bridge. While bridges with similar structural concepts have been built in Europe, the Liberty Bridge is unique in its geometry.
I-10, your comments about prioritizing restaurants, bars and night clubs will limit your audience to young people, singles and childless families. However, I would suggest that families with children and middle aged and elder citizens (especially with grandchildren!) would very much love to have a park "across the street" to enjoy, share experiences and recreate in. Nothing is more enjoyable than watching kids with parents sailing model boats in a pool or doing a picnic on a lawn or a couple enjoying a bike ride together or walking through flowering gardens in Central Park on a beautiful day. City-block size Bryant Park manages to have a large lawn, a garden restaurant, a merry-go-round, food carts, a giant movie screen and dozens of checker and chess players at tables surrounding the park perimeter not to mention avid book readers sitting on benches.
Repeat, green spaces are not the problem, it's lousy City execution in the urban core. Let's address the right problem here.
Quote from: I-10east on June 15, 2018, 08:58:42 PM
I would go to the mature Riverside Park if I if I wanted to visit an urban park on the river.
You might end up being a bit disappointed if you go there looking for the river.
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on June 14, 2018, 01:34:16 PM
My position won't be popular, but I wish waterfront, in every location people gather in Jax, was set aside as well-maintained park space and belonged to the people for their enjoyment and their recreation. You'd have the water, then the expansive public green space, and then private property interests could start with views of the waterfront and the public greenspace. So on that principle, I support turning the Landing into a well-maintained and expansive green space with scenic views of the river.
But here is the problem. It won't be well maintained. I think this idea is awful. YIKES!!!!!
Quote from: pierre on June 15, 2018, 09:45:54 AM
Quote from: fieldafm on June 15, 2018, 09:23:22 AM
3) Main Street Pocket Park. https://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2009-may-urban-parks-main-street-pocket-park (https://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2009-may-urban-parks-main-street-pocket-park). Still one of the top 10 worst moves downtown over the last 20 years. A once-thriving Main Street is instead a series of parking lots, dead walls, bums... and a park 'that will eventually spur development in the urban core'. Since 2007, the park is still a glorified lawn for bums to hang out on. No development has been spurred by this green space that was once described in almost magical terms.
That "park" is a huge eyesore.
It's just a gathering spot for the homeless and is littered with garbage.
I believe this would end up being another park like the main street park.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on June 16, 2018, 12:50:43 AM
OK, lots of great comments and hard to argue with most. In fact, if we were all in a room together, we would probably agree more than not on what would fix Downtown.
It appears the biggest problem above all else is not so much MJ posters agreeing on a plan but City shortcomings including, in no particular order:
1. Lack of trust in City government to stick to a plan and execute successfully.
2. Lack of an integrated, coherent, best-practice plan for the urban core built around interactive streets, green spaces and the waterfront.
3. City chasing "savior" projects rather than facilitating lots of smaller projects that would build a more widespread, sustainable, and inclusive vibrant and interactive urban core.
4. Lack of mass transit connectivity within the urban core to support mobility to urban core activities and facilities.
5. Lack of creativity, imagination and long term (i.e. decades) visioning.
Back to green spaces, I sense the foremost argument against more of them is no confidence in the City's ability to maximize benefit from same or that the City will develop and maintain such. I get that. But it shouldn't detract from the fact that green spaces, properly done, are a necessary amenity to spurring urban development. Instead of resisting green spaces, we should be holding the City accountable for doing them right. Incompetence should not be a reason from walking away from this necessary project. Let's get leadership that can do the job and stop tolerating those that can't!
I think you're leaving off or downplaying a few very important elements:
1. The belief that more than enough green space already exists along the riverfront.
2. The belied that the best urban public spaces are interactive, which means they include retail, dining and entertainment, playscapes, fountains, etc. in them and immediately around them
3. Razing a 125,000SF structurally sound iconic building, removing bridge ramps and subsidizing the relocation of retail/entertainment from the heart of the Northbank to Lot J over a mile away will cost millions in tax dollars in an area already underfunded.
When you combine these three elements and the city's track record to the discussion, it really isn't a Landing vs green space debate. It becomes an economic one also situated around what gets the most return of investment and enhances the overall quality of life for the public. Again, when these items are added, the Landing site becomes a smaller part of a larger revitalization process involving downtown from maintaining other public spaces, finding money to two-way streets, enhance streetscapes, improve transit, lighting, incentivize the adaptive reuse of older buildings, activating street fronts at the pedestrian level, etc.
DT Jax could have additional funding (and dedicated funding) to actually do several of these things all over the Northbank with a smart, cost effective approach to the Landing site. You could even get your grass lawn on the east lot or turn everything south of Water Street on Hogan into a pretty cool green public space. Even one or both of the existing Landing buildings housing restaurants could be modified or razed to create a wider interactive space along the width of the narrow portions of the riverwalk and courtyard. What I'm listing here is several options between leaving the Landing "as is" or outright razing for grass that address points 1, 2, and 3 more cost effectively, freeing up cash to could assist with other long underfunded needs in the core.
QuotePushing people from Downtown to parks in Riverside and Springfield is not the answer. Living downtown is in large part about walk-ability and your solution doesn't fully make the cut for Downtown.
Living in Downtown is about pedestrian scale vibrancy not exactly dumping all public resources into one riverfront site that's surrounded by Class A office space and hotels. Residents in downtown already have several park options within a couple of blocks in every direction. Hemming, the Northbank Riverwalk, Springfield Park, Cathedral Park, the Duval County Courthouse lawn, Friendship Fountain, Southbank Riverwalk, Brooklyn Park, Main Street Park, a multitude of pocket parks, etc. Unfortunately, for the most part, they all are underfunded, poorly maintained and not interactive to accomplish the dream you believe parks have the ability to deliver. The two with playing fields, tot lots, etc. are (Springfield Park and Brooklyn Park) are completely off some leader's radar because they aren't riverfront. They all could be greatly enhanced with the $40 to 50 million or whatever it will take to implement this Landing park plan.
QuoteNYC has parks every few blocks. Check out Bryant Park, Battery Park, and Union Square as examples of parks in the midst of business centered areas of NYC. Residential towers are rising amidst the office buildings of Wall Street and the World Trade Center sites proving residential and office buildings can co-exist. They even have 2 high end shopping malls now in that area that are packed. Remember, we are talking the financial district that used to be M-F, 9 to 5. The enabler, IMHO, is the increasing greening of the waterfront ringing the island. Then there is NY's High Line, which is essentially an elevated rails-to-trails green space that has sparked over $2 billion in development in one of the previously least desirable areas of Manhattan.
Lets not forget the greatest concentration of residential in Manhattan is around 843 acre Central Park. Tell me that green space doesn't pay for itself. Jax probably doesn't have even 10% of that in our Downtown area. By the way, Philadelphia's Fairmount Park lining both sides of the Schuylkill River is 2,052 acres and the National Mall in DC is 309 acres. None of these parks include massive additional amounts of green spaces in those urban cores. Jacksonville has a long way to go regarding green space in our urban core before we should worry about overkill.
Scale is very important. Manhattan covers 22 square miles. Philly and DC should not even be in the same sentence when it comes to looking for comparables for DT Jax.
QuoteAnd, then there is Greenville, SC. and its 32 acre Falls Park. This excerpt from Wikipedia (which actually greatly understates the ultimate impact of this green space to the present):
QuoteFalls Park on the Reedy, a large regional park in the West End with gardens and several waterfalls, with access to the Swamp Rabbit Trail. Dedicated in 2004, the $15.0 million park is home to the Liberty Bridge, a pedestrian suspension bridge overlooking the Reedy River. The park's development sparked a $75 million public-private development, Riverplace, directly across Main Street. Falls Park has been called the birthplace of Greenville, but in the mid-20th century the area was in severe decline, and the Camperdown Bridge had been built across the Falls, obstructing view. In the mid-1980s, the City adopted a master plan for the park, leading to the removal of the Camperdown Bridge and making way for extensive renovations, to include 20 acres (81,000 m2) of gardens and the Liberty Bridge. While bridges with similar structural concepts have been built in Europe, the Liberty Bridge is unique in its geometry.
The Falls on Reedy Park is a good applicable example. At 32 acres, it's a little smaller than the parks formerly known as Springfield Park. I have an editorial that will be published in the Times Union concerning the history of downtown's true original "central park". I believe there's a ton of economic opportunity and market-rate infill possibilities if we looked at and considered downtown's real borders. These borders would include the historically black areas we demolished between Beaver Street and Hogans Creek from I-95 to Liberty Street. FSCJ, Springfield Park, the traffic on State and Union, the skyway, the vacant public spaces like the old Armory all at as pretty cool anchors to infill around.
QuoteI-10, your comments about prioritizing restaurants, bars and night clubs will limit your audience to young people, singles and childless families. However, I would suggest that families with children and middle aged and elder citizens (especially with grandchildren!) would very much love to have a park "across the street" to enjoy, share experiences and recreate in. Nothing is more enjoyable than watching kids with parents sailing model boats in a pool or doing a picnic on a lawn or a couple enjoying a bike ride together or walking through flowering gardens in Central Park on a beautiful day. City-block size Bryant Park manages to have a large lawn, a garden restaurant, a merry-go-round, food carts, a giant movie screen and dozens of checker and chess players at tables surrounding the park perimeter not to mention avid book readers sitting on benches.
Repeat, green spaces are not the problem, it's lousy City execution in the urban core. Let's address the right problem here.
Back to Bryant Park and NYC again. This is what got Unity Plaza in trouble. Unrealistic expectations and comparisons with non-applicable context. Nothing in Jax can replicate that scene. It has less to do with the park and more to do with a population density of 73,000 residents per square mile. This means to get the Bryant Park experience in DT Jax, we'd need over 144,000 people living in the area the DIA considers to be Downtown.
Although Bryant is larger than a DT Jax city block or two, it is interactive.
QuoteCity-block size Bryant Park manages to have a large lawn, a garden restaurant, a merry-go-round, food carts, a giant movie screen and dozens of checker and chess players at tables surrounding the park perimeter not to mention avid book readers sitting on benches.
Invest in these things in DT Jax's existing parks (including "around" the Landing) and you'll see downtown's image improved a lot more than just blowing down the Landing and lighting all the public money on fire in that one site.....that's surrounded by Class A office space, not residents.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on June 16, 2018, 12:50:43 AM
Back to green spaces, I sense the foremost argument against more of them is no confidence in the City's ability to maximize benefit from same or that the City will develop and maintain such. I get that. But it shouldn't detract from the fact that green spaces, properly done, are a necessary amenity to spurring urban development. Instead of resisting green spaces, we should be holding the City accountable for doing them right. Incompetence should not be a reason from walking away from this necessary project. Let's get leadership that can do the job and stop tolerating those that can't!
This isn't a necessary project. We have plenty of green spaces now that aren't maintained and/or programmed, so instead of building a new one how about holding the City accountable by not letting them waste more money and use the money for making what we have more successful.
Getting people living downtown is what is going to improve downtown, and another park isn't going to draw them there. The money would be better spent subsidizing a Walgreen's and Publix downtown. Or maybe a City Target. These are the things lacking in downtown that is impeding residents from moving there.
Quote from: Adam White on June 16, 2018, 05:27:18 AM
Quote from: I-10east on June 15, 2018, 08:58:42 PM
I would go to the mature Riverside Park if I if I wanted to visit an urban park on the river.
You might end up being a bit disappointed if you go there looking for the river.
I meant to say Memorial Park, my bad LOL
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on June 16, 2018, 12:50:43 AM
Pushing people from Downtown to parks in Riverside and Springfield is not the answer. Living downtown is in large part about walk-ability and your solution doesn't fully make the cut for Downtown.
NYC has parks every few blocks. Check out Bryant Park, Battery Park, and Union Square as examples of parks in the midst of business centered areas of NYC. Residential towers are rising amidst the office buildings of Wall Street and the World Trade Center sites proving residential and office buildings can co-exist. They even have 2 high end shopping malls now in that area that are packed. Remember, we are talking the financial district that used to be M-F, 9 to 5. The enabler, IMHO, is the increasing greening of the waterfront ringing the island. Then there is NY's High Line, which is essentially an elevated rails-to-trails green space that has sparked over $2 billion in development in one of the previously least desirable areas of Manhattan.
Lets not forget the greatest concentration of residential in Manhattan is around 843 acre Central Park. Tell me that green space doesn't pay for itself. Jax probably doesn't have even 10% of that in our Downtown area. By the way, Philadelphia's Fairmount Park lining both sides of the Schuylkill River is 2,052 acres and the National Mall in DC is 309 acres. None of these parks include massive additional amounts of green spaces in those urban cores. Jacksonville has a long way to go regarding green space in our urban core before we should worry about overkill.
I-10, your comments about prioritizing restaurants, bars and night clubs will limit your audience to young people, singles and childless families. However, I would suggest that families with children and middle aged and elder citizens (especially with grandchildren!) would very much love to have a park "across the street" to enjoy, share experiences and recreate in. Nothing is more enjoyable than watching kids with parents sailing model boats in a pool or doing a picnic on a lawn or a couple enjoying a bike ride together or walking through flowering gardens in Central Park on a beautiful day. City-block size Bryant Park manages to have a large lawn, a garden restaurant, a merry-go-round, food carts, a giant movie screen and dozens of checker and chess players at tables surrounding the park perimeter not to mention avid book readers sitting on benches.
Repeat, green spaces are not the problem, it's lousy City execution in the urban core. Let's address the right problem here.
I'm well aware of the parks in NY, as I was born there. Most city parks in the US were built 100 plus years ago, and are a long time fixtures vs this proposal (which I hope doesn't come to be). I still think that they (city parks) are very overrated, and like I said earlier I TOTALLY GET that they are a necessity, so you never heard me say that all city parks shouldn't exist.
I think that the heyday of city parks were in yesteryear when generally everything was more safe (I'm not gonna get all political, but it is what it is) and now, city parks are generally known for the homeless, sometimes uncleanness, miscreants, protesters etc etc etc. The stories of Central Park (and many other parks in and out of NY) at night are well known. I would take biking out somewhere like Hanna Park over any city park any day.
My argument was for something like luxury apartments or a hotel on site (not nightclubs and bars) esp considering that it's prime real estate that would be better used to generate revenue vs another park. I bet that if the local media does surveys, most would be against Curry's proposal.
Quote from: Gators312 on June 16, 2018, 10:24:25 AMThis isn't a necessary project. We have plenty of green spaces now that aren't maintained and/or programmed, so instead of building a new one how about holding the City accountable by not letting them waste more money and use the money for making what we have more successful.
What's most horrifying to me is that Sleiman blames access and security for the Landing's ailments, and Curry blames tenant mix, yet everyone's in this big rush to knock down the building itself, as if the structure - not three decades of broken promises and political gamesmanship - is the root of the problem.
I try to get away from my desk and walk around a bit every day, and I've walked through the Landing five or six times in the last few weeks. It obviously needs a lot of restoration and a fresh coat of paint, but the bones are rock solid. I'd even go farther and call it a legitimately great space with a lot of character. Historic even, in a city that's already bulldozed too much of its history. Great views. Interesting and varied spaces (front porch, courtyard, balconies, alleys, food court, docks, stairways, inner mall). And the iconic, sweeping signage that's played backdrop to hundreds of thousands of photos. It's a genuine asset that many cities would kill for, and we've somehow positioned the building itself as a liability, just because we haven't been able to get our shit together for 30 years.
Could the Landing be better integrated with Laura Street? Absolutely. Would more greenspace at and surrounding the Landing enhance the venue? For sure. But does the existing structure and layout prevent the Landing's success in terms of attracting tenants and customers? No f*cking way.
Politics, parking, and perception, in that order, are what's holding the Landing back, not the fact that the roof is u-shaped, or that you need to walk through a mall to get to the river.
Knocking the Landing down is a no more sensible solution to the political impasse than knocking down the St. James Building.
Quote from: I-10east on June 16, 2018, 11:17:48 AMI bet they if the local media does surveys, most would be against Curry's proposal.
Not scientific, obviously, but I haven't heard one positive thing on the streets about it. To a person, everyone I've talked to hates it, and feels like it's destined to be overrun by the homeless.
New city council president supports it, so that's a little worrying.
(https://snag.gy/FgPM1K.jpg)
Only silver lining is that I can't imagine the city winning their case against Sleiman, and even if they do, it'll be years before any of this has any chance of becoming a reality.
I'm a big amusement/theme park/rollercoaster guy. IMO urban amusement parks in the US are a microcosm of city parks. Amusement parks can be torn down (because of issues of crime etc) but 99.9 percent of city parks will remain. How many US urban amusement parks are there? Not many in modernity (like the many many many that once was).
The only significant urban amusements that comes to mind are Coney Island (complex of parks) and Elitch Gardens in Denver (with rumors of the latter being replaced with something else).
Go to East Asia, and they have urban amusement parks (many new ones too) everywhere! China, Japan etc has many amusement parks within the area of skyscrapers. Below is one of the many many many urban coaster POVs in China.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atkvOiF6dq0
Quote from: I-10east on June 16, 2018, 11:17:48 AM
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on June 16, 2018, 12:50:43 AM
Pushing people from Downtown to parks in Riverside and Springfield is not the answer. Living downtown is in large part about walk-ability and your solution doesn't fully make the cut for Downtown.
NYC has parks every few blocks. Check out Bryant Park, Battery Park, and Union Square as examples of parks in the midst of business centered areas of NYC. Residential towers are rising amidst the office buildings of Wall Street and the World Trade Center sites proving residential and office buildings can co-exist. They even have 2 high end shopping malls now in that area that are packed. Remember, we are talking the financial district that used to be M-F, 9 to 5. The enabler, IMHO, is the increasing greening of the waterfront ringing the island. Then there is NY's High Line, which is essentially an elevated rails-to-trails green space that has sparked over $2 billion in development in one of the previously least desirable areas of Manhattan.
Lets not forget the greatest concentration of residential in Manhattan is around 843 acre Central Park. Tell me that green space doesn't pay for itself. Jax probably doesn't have even 10% of that in our Downtown area. By the way, Philadelphia's Fairmount Park lining both sides of the Schuylkill River is 2,052 acres and the National Mall in DC is 309 acres. None of these parks include massive additional amounts of green spaces in those urban cores. Jacksonville has a long way to go regarding green space in our urban core before we should worry about overkill.
I-10, your comments about prioritizing restaurants, bars and night clubs will limit your audience to young people, singles and childless families. However, I would suggest that families with children and middle aged and elder citizens (especially with grandchildren!) would very much love to have a park "across the street" to enjoy, share experiences and recreate in. Nothing is more enjoyable than watching kids with parents sailing model boats in a pool or doing a picnic on a lawn or a couple enjoying a bike ride together or walking through flowering gardens in Central Park on a beautiful day. City-block size Bryant Park manages to have a large lawn, a garden restaurant, a merry-go-round, food carts, a giant movie screen and dozens of checker and chess players at tables surrounding the park perimeter not to mention avid book readers sitting on benches.
Repeat, green spaces are not the problem, it's lousy City execution in the urban core. Let's address the right problem here.
I'm well aware of the parks in NY, as I was born there. Most city parks in the US were built 100 plus years ago, and are a long time fixtures vs this proposal (which I hope doesn't come to be). I still think that they (city parks) are very overrated, and like I said earlier I TOTALLY GET that they are a necessity, so you never heard me say that all city parks shouldn't exist.
I think that the heyday of city parks were in yesteryear when generally everything was more safe (I'm not gonna get all political, but it is what it is) and now, city parks are generally known for the homeless, sometimes uncleanness, miscreants, protesters etc etc etc. The stories of Central Park (and many other parks in and out of NY) at night are well known. I would take biking out somewhere like Hanna Park over any city park any day.
My argument was for something like luxury apartments or a hotel on site (not nightclubs and bars) esp considering that it's prime real estate that would be better used to generate revenue vs another park. I bet that if the local media does surveys, most would be against Curry's proposal.
You are so wrong here. I currently live in Manhattan, have lived here for 13 years, and what you're saying could not be further from the truth. Parks in New York City are integral parts of living in and enjoying the city, and I'm sure you've not visited lately, but Central Park is almost always full of people. Of course the park closes at night, as do most parks.
There have been times in NYC's history when Central Park was not well-maintained and was a disappointment. I'm a member of the Central Park Conservancy, funded by public and private concerns, and we take it upon ourselves to see that the Park is stellar...it's a combination of sweat equity and fund-raising. City offices shouldn't be the only one responsible. Jax should distinguish "Parks" from "Sprawl Containment" land, Reduce the number of parks to only a reasonable number of iconic ones, create conservancies for those parks with stakeholders (nearby residents, schools, etc) who can work with City Agencies on the upkeep and planning.
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on June 17, 2018, 07:47:58 AM
Quote from: I-10east on June 16, 2018, 11:17:48 AM
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on June 16, 2018, 12:50:43 AM
Pushing people from Downtown to parks in Riverside and Springfield is not the answer. Living downtown is in large part about walk-ability and your solution doesn't fully make the cut for Downtown.
NYC has parks every few blocks. Check out Bryant Park, Battery Park, and Union Square as examples of parks in the midst of business centered areas of NYC. Residential towers are rising amidst the office buildings of Wall Street and the World Trade Center sites proving residential and office buildings can co-exist. They even have 2 high end shopping malls now in that area that are packed. Remember, we are talking the financial district that used to be M-F, 9 to 5. The enabler, IMHO, is the increasing greening of the waterfront ringing the island. Then there is NY's High Line, which is essentially an elevated rails-to-trails green space that has sparked over $2 billion in development in one of the previously least desirable areas of Manhattan.
Lets not forget the greatest concentration of residential in Manhattan is around 843 acre Central Park. Tell me that green space doesn't pay for itself. Jax probably doesn't have even 10% of that in our Downtown area. By the way, Philadelphia's Fairmount Park lining both sides of the Schuylkill River is 2,052 acres and the National Mall in DC is 309 acres. None of these parks include massive additional amounts of green spaces in those urban cores. Jacksonville has a long way to go regarding green space in our urban core before we should worry about overkill.
I-10, your comments about prioritizing restaurants, bars and night clubs will limit your audience to young people, singles and childless families. However, I would suggest that families with children and middle aged and elder citizens (especially with grandchildren!) would very much love to have a park "across the street" to enjoy, share experiences and recreate in. Nothing is more enjoyable than watching kids with parents sailing model boats in a pool or doing a picnic on a lawn or a couple enjoying a bike ride together or walking through flowering gardens in Central Park on a beautiful day. City-block size Bryant Park manages to have a large lawn, a garden restaurant, a merry-go-round, food carts, a giant movie screen and dozens of checker and chess players at tables surrounding the park perimeter not to mention avid book readers sitting on benches.
Repeat, green spaces are not the problem, it's lousy City execution in the urban core. Let's address the right problem here.
I'm well aware of the parks in NY, as I was born there. Most city parks in the US were built 100 plus years ago, and are a long time fixtures vs this proposal (which I hope doesn't come to be). I still think that they (city parks) are very overrated, and like I said earlier I TOTALLY GET that they are a necessity, so you never heard me say that all city parks shouldn't exist.
I think that the heyday of city parks were in yesteryear when generally everything was more safe (I'm not gonna get all political, but it is what it is) and now, city parks are generally known for the homeless, sometimes uncleanness, miscreants, protesters etc etc etc. The stories of Central Park (and many other parks in and out of NY) at night are well known. I would take biking out somewhere like Hanna Park over any city park any day.
My argument was for something like luxury apartments or a hotel on site (not nightclubs and bars) esp considering that it's prime real estate that would be better used to generate revenue vs another park. I bet that if the local media does surveys, most would be against Curry's proposal.
You are so wrong here. I currently live in Manhattan, have lived here for 13 years, and what you're saying could not be further from the truth. Parks in New York City are integral parts of living in and enjoying the city, and I'm sure you've not visited lately, but Central Park is almost always full of people. Of course the park closes at night, as do most parks.
There have been times in NYC's history when Central Park was not well-maintained and was a disappointment. I'm a member of the Central Park Conservancy, funded by public and private concerns, and we take it upon ourselves to see that the Park is stellar...it's a combination of sweat equity and fund-raising. City offices shouldn't be the only one responsible. Jax should distinguish "Parks" from "Sprawl Containment" land, Reduce the number of parks to only a reasonable number of iconic ones, create conservancies for those parks with stakeholders (nearby residents, schools, etc) who can work with City Agencies on the upkeep and planning.
I'm sure he knows more about the parks in NYC than you do - after all, he has access to YouTube.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 16, 2018, 09:33:08 AM
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on June 16, 2018, 12:50:43 AM
OK, lots of great comments and hard to argue with most. In fact, if we were all in a room together, we would probably agree more than not on what would fix Downtown.
It appears the biggest problem above all else is not so much MJ posters agreeing on a plan but City shortcomings including, in no particular order:
1. Lack of trust in City government to stick to a plan and execute successfully.
2. Lack of an integrated, coherent, best-practice plan for the urban core built around interactive streets, green spaces and the waterfront.
3. City chasing "savior" projects rather than facilitating lots of smaller projects that would build a more widespread, sustainable, and inclusive vibrant and interactive urban core.
4. Lack of mass transit connectivity within the urban core to support mobility to urban core activities and facilities.
5. Lack of creativity, imagination and long term (i.e. decades) visioning.
Back to green spaces, I sense the foremost argument against more of them is no confidence in the City's ability to maximize benefit from same or that the City will develop and maintain such. I get that. But it shouldn't detract from the fact that green spaces, properly done, are a necessary amenity to spurring urban development. Instead of resisting green spaces, we should be holding the City accountable for doing them right. Incompetence should not be a reason from walking away from this necessary project. Let's get leadership that can do the job and stop tolerating those that can't!
I think you're leaving off or downplaying a few very important elements:
1. The belief that more than enough green space already exists along the riverfront.
2. The belied that the best urban public spaces are interactive, which means they include retail, dining and entertainment, playscapes, fountains, etc. in them and immediately around them
3. Razing a 125,000SF structurally sound iconic building, removing bridge ramps and subsidizing the relocation of retail/entertainment from the heart of the Northbank to Lot J over a mile away will cost millions in tax dollars in an area already underfunded.
When you combine these three elements and the city's track record to the discussion, it really isn't a Landing vs green space debate. It becomes an economic one also situated around what gets the most return of investment and enhances the overall quality of life for the public. Again, when these items are added, the Landing site becomes a smaller part of a larger revitalization process involving downtown from maintaining other public spaces, finding money to two-way streets, enhance streetscapes, improve transit, lighting, incentivize the adaptive reuse of older buildings, activating street fronts at the pedestrian level, etc.
DT Jax could have additional funding (and dedicated funding) to actually do several of these things all over the Northbank with a smart, cost effective approach to the Landing site. You could even get your grass lawn on the east lot or turn everything south of Water Street on Hogan into a pretty cool green public space. Even one or both of the existing Landing buildings housing restaurants could be modified or razed to create a wider interactive space along the width of the narrow portions of the riverwalk and courtyard. What I'm listing here is several options between leaving the Landing "as is" or outright razing for grass that address points 1, 2, and 3 more cost effectively, freeing up cash to could assist with other long underfunded needs in the core.
QuotePushing people from Downtown to parks in Riverside and Springfield is not the answer. Living downtown is in large part about walk-ability and your solution doesn't fully make the cut for Downtown.
Living in Downtown is about pedestrian scale vibrancy not exactly dumping all public resources into one riverfront site that's surrounded by Class A office space and hotels. Residents in downtown already have several park options within a couple of blocks in every direction. Hemming, the Northbank Riverwalk, Springfield Park, Cathedral Park, the Duval County Courthouse lawn, Friendship Fountain, Southbank Riverwalk, Brooklyn Park, Main Street Park, a multitude of pocket parks, etc. Unfortunately, for the most part, they all are underfunded, poorly maintained and not interactive to accomplish the dream you believe parks have the ability to deliver. The two with playing fields, tot lots, etc. are (Springfield Park and Brooklyn Park) are completely off some leader's radar because they aren't riverfront. They all could be greatly enhanced with the $40 to 50 million or whatever it will take to implement this Landing park plan.
QuoteNYC has parks every few blocks. Check out Bryant Park, Battery Park, and Union Square as examples of parks in the midst of business centered areas of NYC. Residential towers are rising amidst the office buildings of Wall Street and the World Trade Center sites proving residential and office buildings can co-exist. They even have 2 high end shopping malls now in that area that are packed. Remember, we are talking the financial district that used to be M-F, 9 to 5. The enabler, IMHO, is the increasing greening of the waterfront ringing the island. Then there is NY's High Line, which is essentially an elevated rails-to-trails green space that has sparked over $2 billion in development in one of the previously least desirable areas of Manhattan.
Lets not forget the greatest concentration of residential in Manhattan is around 843 acre Central Park. Tell me that green space doesn't pay for itself. Jax probably doesn't have even 10% of that in our Downtown area. By the way, Philadelphia's Fairmount Park lining both sides of the Schuylkill River is 2,052 acres and the National Mall in DC is 309 acres. None of these parks include massive additional amounts of green spaces in those urban cores. Jacksonville has a long way to go regarding green space in our urban core before we should worry about overkill.
Scale is very important. Manhattan covers 22 square miles. Philly and DC should not even be in the same sentence when it comes to looking for comparables for DT Jax.
QuoteAnd, then there is Greenville, SC. and its 32 acre Falls Park. This excerpt from Wikipedia (which actually greatly understates the ultimate impact of this green space to the present):
QuoteFalls Park on the Reedy, a large regional park in the West End with gardens and several waterfalls, with access to the Swamp Rabbit Trail. Dedicated in 2004, the $15.0 million park is home to the Liberty Bridge, a pedestrian suspension bridge overlooking the Reedy River. The park's development sparked a $75 million public-private development, Riverplace, directly across Main Street. Falls Park has been called the birthplace of Greenville, but in the mid-20th century the area was in severe decline, and the Camperdown Bridge had been built across the Falls, obstructing view. In the mid-1980s, the City adopted a master plan for the park, leading to the removal of the Camperdown Bridge and making way for extensive renovations, to include 20 acres (81,000 m2) of gardens and the Liberty Bridge. While bridges with similar structural concepts have been built in Europe, the Liberty Bridge is unique in its geometry.
The Falls on Reedy Park is a good applicable example. At 32 acres, it's a little smaller than the parks formerly known as Springfield Park. I have an editorial that will be published in the Times Union concerning the history of downtown's true original "central park". I believe there's a ton of economic opportunity and market-rate infill possibilities if we looked at and considered downtown's real borders. These borders would include the historically black areas we demolished between Beaver Street and Hogans Creek from I-95 to Liberty Street. FSCJ, Springfield Park, the traffic on State and Union, the skyway, the vacant public spaces like the old Armory all at as pretty cool anchors to infill around.
QuoteI-10, your comments about prioritizing restaurants, bars and night clubs will limit your audience to young people, singles and childless families. However, I would suggest that families with children and middle aged and elder citizens (especially with grandchildren!) would very much love to have a park "across the street" to enjoy, share experiences and recreate in. Nothing is more enjoyable than watching kids with parents sailing model boats in a pool or doing a picnic on a lawn or a couple enjoying a bike ride together or walking through flowering gardens in Central Park on a beautiful day. City-block size Bryant Park manages to have a large lawn, a garden restaurant, a merry-go-round, food carts, a giant movie screen and dozens of checker and chess players at tables surrounding the park perimeter not to mention avid book readers sitting on benches.
Repeat, green spaces are not the problem, it's lousy City execution in the urban core. Let's address the right problem here.
Back to Bryant Park and NYC again. This is what got Unity Plaza in trouble. Unrealistic expectations and comparisons with non-applicable context. Nothing in Jax can replicate that scene. It has less to do with the park and more to do with a population density of 73,000 residents per square mile. This means to get the Bryant Park experience in DT Jax, we'd need over 144,000 people living in the area the DIA considers to be Downtown.
Although Bryant is larger than a DT Jax city block or two, it is interactive.
QuoteCity-block size Bryant Park manages to have a large lawn, a garden restaurant, a merry-go-round, food carts, a giant movie screen and dozens of checker and chess players at tables surrounding the park perimeter not to mention avid book readers sitting on benches.
Invest in these things in DT Jax's existing parks (including "around" the Landing) and you'll see downtown's image improved a lot more than just blowing down the Landing and lighting all the public money on fire in that one site.....that's surrounded by Class A office space, not residents.
40-50 million for the park? Has Curry announced the project cost already? It doesn't appear to be that big a property so not sure why so expensive.
Lawsuit costs, buying out business leases, paying Sleiman to leave, razing a +125,000SF of buildings, razing a bridge ramp, etc. a few costs to consider that have nothing to do with the costs associated with the design and construction of the space itself. In addition, if the park is going to be worth going to, it could cost tens of millions itself. Just look at Friendship Fountain. We're talking about spending $3 million to fix the fountain less than a decade after it was literally rebuilt.
Razing the bridge ramp was something that was already going to happen, no? Also, keeping the landing comes with a certain garage cost which I imagine would go away. Net-net, if I had to guess, I'd guess the costs of the "Green" Landing initiative aren't as scary as you're making them out to be in support of your case.
No, the ramp from Independent Drive to the Main Street Bridge was not "already going to happen". FDOT looked at it in response to inquiries from the City. I think it passed traffic review, but the City stopped talking about it before "who pays?" could be settled. Or, maybe, that was part of what caused it to 'go away' - if FDOT said that COJ must pay (which I don't know if that is the case).
Quote from: Charles Hunter on June 17, 2018, 10:31:46 AM
No, the ramp from Independent Drive to the Main Street Bridge was not "already going to happen". FDOT looked at it in response to inquiries from the City. I think it passed traffic review, but the City stopped talking about it before "who pays?" could be settled. Or, maybe, that was part of what caused it to 'go away' - if FDOT said that COJ must pay (which I don't know if that is the case).
Correct. The closure of the ramp was tied into the Alvin Brown Landing redevelopment plan. When Curry came in, the Landing (and most other capital improvement projects) was put on ice while Curry worked on the pension issue. Additionally, the DIA had no money to pay for the ramp removal, the state gave no indication that they'd be willing to bankroll the project, and feedback at the FDOT public workshop they had on the ramp removal was
extremely negative due to the pedestrian impact.
Also, good "showcase parks" aren't cheap. For comparisons sake, Curtis Hixon Park in Tampa cost around $26 million back in 2010. Washington Park in Cincinnati was renovated in 2012 for $48 million.
Fix the parks we have first. Hemming, Confederate, Friendship, we dont need another albatross of a park, especially not downtown.
Take these "city leaders" on a field trip and show them the current parks and the needs of them before committing gross negligence on display for the tourists to see.
Buy out Sleiman, raze the structures, do as they did with the Roosevelt Belk, turn it into green space, while you get proposals for redevelopment and turn the site into a positive taxable revenue stream. Win-Win-Win.
Read Ennis' great article about Confederate Park.... http://www.jacksonville.com/jmagazine/20180617/downtown-column-jacksonvilles-original-central-park-deserves-revival
Quote from: thelakelander on June 17, 2018, 11:06:02 AM
Also, good "showcase parks" aren't cheap. For comparisons sake, Curtis Hixon Park in Tampa cost around $26 million back in 2010. Washington Park in Cincinnati was renovated in 2012 for $48 million.
The new Scissortail Park in downtown OKC is just over $100 million - but significantly larger than this proposal.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 17, 2018, 11:06:02 AM
Also, good "showcase parks" aren't cheap. For comparisons sake, Curtis Hixon Park in Tampa cost around $26 million back in 2010. Washington Park in Cincinnati was renovated in 2012 for $48 million.
Doesn't Curtis Hixon host events, perhaps generates some revenue?
Quote from: mtraininjax on June 17, 2018, 12:20:01 PM
Fix the parks we have first. Hemming, Confederate, Friendship, we dont need another albatross of a park, especially not downtown.
Take these "city leaders" on a field trip and show them the current parks and the needs of them before committing gross negligence on display for the tourists to see.
Buy out Sleiman, raze the structures, do as they did with the Roosevelt Belk, turn it into green space, while you get proposals for redevelopment and turn the site into a positive taxable revenue stream. Win-Win-Win.
Read Ennis' great article about Confederate Park.... http://www.jacksonville.com/jmagazine/20180617/downtown-column-jacksonvilles-original-central-park-deserves-revival
I can get behind this
Quote from: Kerry on June 17, 2018, 02:16:02 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on June 17, 2018, 11:06:02 AM
Also, good "showcase parks" aren't cheap. For comparisons sake, Curtis Hixon Park in Tampa cost around $26 million back in 2010. Washington Park in Cincinnati was renovated in 2012 for $48 million.
The new Scissortail Park in downtown OKC is just over $100 million - but significantly larger than this proposal.
Sounds about right. Bonnet Springs Park in DT Lakeland is expected to cost as much as $100 million.
http://www.theledger.com/news/20180220/officials-unveil-detailed-plans-for-bonnet-springs-park-in-lakeland
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on June 17, 2018, 02:38:06 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on June 17, 2018, 11:06:02 AM
Also, good "showcase parks" aren't cheap. For comparisons sake, Curtis Hixon Park in Tampa cost around $26 million back in 2010. Washington Park in Cincinnati was renovated in 2012 for $48 million.
Doesn't Curtis Hixon host events, perhaps generates some revenue?
Not $26 million worth of revenue. Parks are a quality of life investment. You sell the land and put it on the tax rolls if revenue is desired.
North Boone Park still has lots of damage existing from the last hurricane. Check out the crowd control fence replacing the damaged fence off of Park St. Really classy. There are still downed lights, fences, and a huge hole in the ground next to the playground.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 17, 2018, 03:58:37 PM
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on June 17, 2018, 02:38:06 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on June 17, 2018, 11:06:02 AM
Also, good "showcase parks" aren't cheap. For comparisons sake, Curtis Hixon Park in Tampa cost around $26 million back in 2010. Washington Park in Cincinnati was renovated in 2012 for $48 million.
Doesn't Curtis Hixon host events, perhaps generates some revenue?
Not $26 million worth of revenue. Parks are a quality of life investment. You sell the land and put it on the tax rolls if revenue is desired.
Parks, public spaces, or publicly-financed recreation can do both.
We will see what Curry's team proposes in terms of costs.
Btw, Anyone on Sleiman's payroll, please disclose on this message board:)
City owns a Northbank riverfront parcel in the heart of the CBD, create additional river access and recreation, not just for residents broadly, but this time for the largest cluster of daytime downtown denizens, the CBD office workers.
It's a nice feature of working in an office adjacent to Bryant Park. We Midtowners often meet up with colleagues and cohorts at the first sign of spring for lunch or for happy hour at "southwest porch" or "Bryant park grill's" rooftop overlooking the park (yes, you can have commercial interests "in" the park, but the overarching character---the anchor feature---is that it's a park). In winter, there's the Winter Village and ice-skating. Hell, LA has outdoor ice skating, don't see why Jax can't have the same thing at this location. There's movies in the park on summer nights, dancing in the park...I've even attended a 1000+ person pillow fight in Washington Square Park.
Yes, other Jax parks have needs, but
Northbank riverfront green space amidst the largest population cluster in downtown Jax is just plain different and deserves a tad more than the cynicism of this thread. Sleiman wont do anything with the Landing until he gets his government handout, so I say send him on his way and create a significant, green, active, and waterfront gathering spot for an emerging Downtown community.
Is this about beating Sleiman or doing something DT actually needs? Have you ever worked in DT Jax? Residents and workers aren't begging for another grass lawn in DT. There's plenty of parks in DT now that could do everything you describe and more...if the city gave a damn to put money into them and maintain them. Any proposal Curry's team in terms of costs should first include a line item to upgrade and maintain the many underutilized spaces we already have and visit. Btw, Hemming is more central.
Why, yes I have! I started my career in downtown Jax. Just after graduation from UF, i worked for one of the Big 4 Accounting Firms. Thanks for asking - I guess you'll have to find some other way to shut me up for lack of credibility and complete irrelevance to the topic:)
I wasn't begging for a lawn when I worked downtown - I really didn't know what to want in downtown Jax, I was just out of school and working hard to impress my bosses at the time. Now that I've gotten the chance to live in a few places and engage in business travel to a ton more places (including internationally), tons more possibilities for an urban work setting are on my radar than when my world was just downtown Jax. Central Business District parks, well-designed and maintained, can be inspiring and captivating, offer balance and enrichment to the professional's workday, and can be a key differentiator from office park competition in the 'burbs. I'm not saying a riverfront green space at the current site of the Landing will address all of Downtown's ills or the lack of priority or strategy at City Hall, but it is not wholly without merit.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 17, 2018, 09:46:39 AM
Lawsuit costs, buying out business leases, paying Sleiman to leave, razing a +125,000SF of buildings, razing a bridge ramp, etc. a few costs to consider that have nothing to do with the costs associated with the design and construction of the space itself. In addition, if the park is going to be worth going to, it could cost tens of millions itself. Just look at Friendship Fountain. We're talking about spending $3 million to fix the fountain less than a decade after it was literally rebuilt.
Let's analyze this. The costs of the lawsuit appear to apply regardless of the plans for this property if the City is determined to gain control before its future is determined. Buying out the leases may also be the same, as well, if the property needs to be emptied for any future changes. Even a renovation and redeployment of the current structure would likely require removal of all tenants to facilitate any construction. If things are as bad as people say, the tenants may welcome a release from their leases :). Razing the ramp, also suggested regardless of the future options, is, per the T-U article, only about $580K, not a major amount in the big scheme of things here. Razing the building is also pocket change compared to other redevelopment costs. Based on many plans proposed so far, it looks like some or all of the building gets razed anyway.
So, the only real incremental costs to compare appear to be the costs of renovating the current structure, replacing the current structure with new structures, or replacing the current structure with green space.
Let's say it costs $200 a square foot (possibly a low number given delinquent upkeep and higher finishing standards) to overhaul the 31 year old structure consisting of 126,000 sf (per Wikipedia). That's a minimum of $25 million. It doesn't count curing the parking problem, other infrastructure improvements, City incentives that may be demanded by an operator, and a demand for an extended bargain "lease" on the property or a bargain purchase.
Replacing the current structure with new structures will clearly costs over $100 million. Based on the District, I would guess a developer would ask for at least $25 million in incentives from the City (maybe far more), infrastructure improvements, a parking structure, and again, an extended bargain "lease" or bargain purchase of the property.
Per Google Maps, the Landing property appears to be no more than about 6.5 acres. At $25 million, one way or the other, I would think the City could build a hell of a nice green space. If not, I will take on the contract and deliver for them same.
Some posts appear to continue to overlook the green space option based on current and past City failures to properly vision and manage green spaces. Based on this approach, we also should kill the Landing rather than keep it going as the City has proven it can't manage that either. Again, the answer to all of DT's issues is to replace incompetent leadership, not walk away from what may be a great solution.
I also go back to the "chicken and egg" issue. Demand for green space feeds off surrounding development but surrounding development that feeds off of green space isn't going to happen unless there is such green space. In such cases, it is for the City to make the first move, especially given the lack of trust in the City and it's track record of failing to deliver on such promises.
I continue to agree that all green spaces should be properly managed and enhanced as Lake advocates but I don't accept that as a reason to overlook this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to do something that will be a legacy for decades to come.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 17, 2018, 07:07:40 PM
Is this about beating Sleiman or doing something DT actually needs? Have you ever worked in DT Jax? Residents and workers aren't begging for another grass lawn in DT. There's plenty of parks in DT now that could do everything you describe and more...if the city gave a damn to put money into them and maintain them. Any proposal Curry's team in terms of costs should first include a line item to upgrade and maintain the many underutilized spaces we already have and visit. Btw, Hemming is more central.
Hemming isn't waterfront, and maybe it's changed, but it wasn't much of a green space when I worked downtown. It felt like a shaded plaza with planters. It's a nice feature downtown, but given its location at the front door to City Hall, I've always considered it the public space for Jacksonville's Civic District and not so much for the city's CBD. Ultimately, they represent very different vibes in an urban context.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on June 17, 2018, 07:34:07 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on June 17, 2018, 09:46:39 AM
Lawsuit costs, buying out business leases, paying Sleiman to leave, razing a +125,000SF of buildings, razing a bridge ramp, etc. a few costs to consider that have nothing to do with the costs associated with the design and construction of the space itself. In addition, if the park is going to be worth going to, it could cost tens of millions itself. Just look at Friendship Fountain. We're talking about spending $3 million to fix the fountain less than a decade after it was literally rebuilt.
Let's analyze this. The costs of the lawsuit appear to apply regardless of the plans for this property if the City is determined to gain control before its future is determined. Buying out the leases may also be the same, as well, if the property needs to be emptied for any future changes. Even a renovation and redeployment of the current structure would likely require removal of all tenants to facilitate any construction. If things are as bad as people say, the tenants may welcome a release from their leases :). Razing the ramp, also suggested regardless of the future options, is, per the T-U article, only about $580K, not a major amount in the big scheme of things here. Razing the building is also pocket change compared to other redevelopment costs. Based on many plans proposed so far, it looks like some or all of the building gets razed anyway.
So, the only real incremental costs to compare appear to be the costs of renovating the current structure, replacing the current structure with new structures, or replacing the current structure with green space.
Let's say it costs $200 a square foot (possibly a low number given delinquent upkeep and higher finishing standards) to overhaul the 31 year old structure consisting of 126,000 sf (per Wikipedia). That's a minimum of $25 million. It doesn't count curing the parking problem, other infrastructure improvements, City incentives that may be demanded by an operator, and a demand for an extended bargain "lease" on the property or a bargain purchase.
Replacing the current structure with new structures will clearly costs over $100 million. Based on the District, I would guess a developer would ask for at least $25 million in incentives from the City (maybe far more), infrastructure improvements, a parking structure, and again, an extended bargain "lease" or bargain purchase of the property.
Per Google Maps, the Landing property appears to be no more than about 6.5 acres. At $25 million, one way or the other, I would think the City could build a hell of a nice green space. If not, I will take on the contract and deliver for them same.
Some posts appear to continue to overlook the green space option based on current and past City failures to properly vision and manage green spaces. Based on this approach, we also should kill the Landing rather than keep it going as the City has proven it can't manage that either. Again, the answer to all of DT's issues is to replace incompetent leadership, not walk away from what may be a great solution.
I also go back to the "chicken and egg" issue. Demand for green space feeds off surrounding development but surrounding development that feeds off of green space isn't going to happen unless their is such green space. In such cases, it is for the City to make the first move, especially given the lack of trust in the City and it's track record of failing to deliver on such promises.
I continue to agree that all green spaces should be properly managed and enhanced as Lake advocates but I don't accept that as a reason to overlook this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to do something that will be a legacy for decades to come.
I can get behind this. Yes, I agree that curry's proposal for the Landing site deserves consideration and has some merit.
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on June 17, 2018, 07:15:43 PM
Why, yes I have! I started my career in downtown Jax. Just after graduation from UF, i worked for one of the Big 4 Accounting Firms. Thanks for asking - I guess you'll have to find some other way to shut me up for lack of credibility and complete irrelevance to the topic:)
I'm not trying to shut you up. I'm offering a counter to your opinion that we need this site to be a park and nothing else. In reality, we don't and the majority aren't asking for it.....especially if it takes up needed financial resources that can be applied to areas of greater need.
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on June 17, 2018, 07:41:02 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on June 17, 2018, 07:07:40 PM
Is this about beating Sleiman or doing something DT actually needs? Have you ever worked in DT Jax? Residents and workers aren't begging for another grass lawn in DT. There's plenty of parks in DT now that could do everything you describe and more...if the city gave a damn to put money into them and maintain them. Any proposal Curry's team in terms of costs should first include a line item to upgrade and maintain the many underutilized spaces we already have and visit. Btw, Hemming is more central.
Hemming isn't waterfront, and maybe it's changed, but it wasn't much of a green space when I worked downtown. It felt like a shaded plaza with planters. It's a nice feature downtown, but given its location at the front door to City Hall, I've always considered it the public space for Jacksonville's Civic District and not so much for the city's CBD. Ultimately, they represent very different vibes in an urban context.
You're kind of making my point. Hemming, the Main Street Pocket Park, the County Courthouse lawn, the Northbank Riverwalk (on the river), the East Lot (on the river), Friendship Fountain (on the river) can all be a lot of things they aren't, if properly invested, maintained and coordinated with the outer square that surrounds them.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 17, 2018, 07:07:40 PM
Any proposal Curry's team in terms of costs should first include a line item to upgrade and maintain the many underutilized spaces we already have and visit. Btw, Hemming is more central.
I've been beating that drum on the other threads regarding existing parks and public funding.
Plenty of money for new; Zero money for maintenance.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on June 17, 2018, 07:34:07 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on June 17, 2018, 09:46:39 AM
Lawsuit costs, buying out business leases, paying Sleiman to leave, razing a +125,000SF of buildings, razing a bridge ramp, etc. a few costs to consider that have nothing to do with the costs associated with the design and construction of the space itself. In addition, if the park is going to be worth going to, it could cost tens of millions itself. Just look at Friendship Fountain. We're talking about spending $3 million to fix the fountain less than a decade after it was literally rebuilt.
Let's analyze this. The costs of the lawsuit appear to apply regardless of the plans for this property if the City is determined to gain control before its future is determined. Buying out the leases may also be the same, as well, if the property needs to be emptied for any future changes. Even a renovation and redeployment of the current structure would likely require removal of all tenants to facilitate any construction. If things are as bad as people say, the tenants may welcome a release from their leases :). Razing the ramp, also suggested regardless of the future options, is, per the T-U article, only about $580K, not a major amount in the big scheme of things here. Razing the building is also pocket change compared to other redevelopment costs. Based on many plans proposed so far, it looks like some or all of the building gets razed anyway.
So, the only real incremental costs to compare appear to be the costs of renovating the current structure, replacing the current structure with new structures, or replacing the current structure with green space.
Let's say it costs $200 a square foot (possibly a low number given delinquent upkeep and higher finishing standards) to overhaul the 31 year old structure consisting of 126,000 sf (per Wikipedia). That's a minimum of $25 million. It doesn't count curing the parking problem, other infrastructure improvements, City incentives that may be demanded by an operator, and a demand for an extended bargain "lease" on the property or a bargain purchase.
Replacing the current structure with new structures will clearly costs over $100 million. Based on the District, I would guess a developer would ask for at least $25 million in incentives from the City (maybe far more), infrastructure improvements, a parking structure, and again, an extended bargain "lease" or bargain purchase of the property.
Per Google Maps, the Landing property appears to be no more than about 6.5 acres. At $25 million, one way or the other, I would think the City could build a hell of a nice green space. If not, I will take on the contract and deliver for them same.
You've basically tied yourself down to two expensive options...Mayor Brown's plan which is DOA with Curry in office and Curry's plan which is really a dream cooked up back when Payton was in office and also DOA if the city doesn't win the suit. Going back to 2003, there are several other options that don't call for either. When egos and political gamesmanship is replaced with innovative thinking and truly analyzing return on investment, there's several other options for revitalization that are available and have merit as well.
QuoteSome posts appear to continue to overlook the green space option based on current and past City failures to properly vision and manage green spaces. Based on this approach, we also should kill the Landing rather than keep it going as the City has proven it can't manage that either. Again, the answer to all of DT's issues is to replace incompetent leadership, not walk away from what may be a great solution.
A great solution could be to sell the land. That removes the City from the real estate business but also places a high profile site on the tax rolls. Many have more faith in the private sector doing something that makes the private investment a plus than COJ being in the development business.
QuoteI also go back to the "chicken and egg" issue. Demand for green space feeds off surrounding development but surrounding development that feeds off of green space isn't going to happen unless there is such green space. In such cases, it is for the City to make the first move, especially given the lack of trust in the City and it's track record of failing to deliver on such promises.
I'm personally not a big believer in the "chicken and egg" theory when it comes to revitalization. I'm also not big on forcing general theory on any type of context. There's no more demand for the Landing to be a green space than the east lot right next to it.
QuoteI continue to agree that all green spaces should be properly managed and enhanced as Lake advocates but I don't accept that as a reason to overlook this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to do something that will be a legacy for decades to come.
We said the same thing about the Skyway, Prime Osborn and the Landing itself. JTA is now attempting to sell legacy with the AV talk. In reality, none of these things are once-in-a-lifetime opportunities or legacies for decades to come. They all happen to be isolated gimmicks by various administrations and agencies that all lack the proper coordination and funding to create the unified synergy downtown really needs.
^Probably because there's no photo op and ribbon cutting ceremony with maintenance. The one decent interactive park that we did have (Kids Kampus), we ruined it with similar legacy, riverfront park talk a decade ago. Now look at it.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 17, 2018, 09:22:40 PM
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on June 17, 2018, 07:34:07 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on June 17, 2018, 09:46:39 AM
Lawsuit costs, buying out business leases, paying Sleiman to leave, razing a +125,000SF of buildings, razing a bridge ramp, etc. a few costs to consider that have nothing to do with the costs associated with the design and construction of the space itself. In addition, if the park is going to be worth going to, it could cost tens of millions itself. Just look at Friendship Fountain. We're talking about spending $3 million to fix the fountain less than a decade after it was literally rebuilt.
Let's analyze this. The costs of the lawsuit appear to apply regardless of the plans for this property if the City is determined to gain control before its future is determined. Buying out the leases may also be the same, as well, if the property needs to be emptied for any future changes. Even a renovation and redeployment of the current structure would likely require removal of all tenants to facilitate any construction. If things are as bad as people say, the tenants may welcome a release from their leases :). Razing the ramp, also suggested regardless of the future options, is, per the T-U article, only about $580K, not a major amount in the big scheme of things here. Razing the building is also pocket change compared to other redevelopment costs. Based on many plans proposed so far, it looks like some or all of the building gets razed anyway.
So, the only real incremental costs to compare appear to be the costs of renovating the current structure, replacing the current structure with new structures, or replacing the current structure with green space.
Let's say it costs $200 a square foot (possibly a low number given delinquent upkeep and higher finishing standards) to overhaul the 31 year old structure consisting of 126,000 sf (per Wikipedia). That's a minimum of $25 million. It doesn't count curing the parking problem, other infrastructure improvements, City incentives that may be demanded by an operator, and a demand for an extended bargain "lease" on the property or a bargain purchase.
Replacing the current structure with new structures will clearly costs over $100 million. Based on the District, I would guess a developer would ask for at least $25 million in incentives from the City (maybe far more), infrastructure improvements, a parking structure, and again, an extended bargain "lease" or bargain purchase of the property.
Per Google Maps, the Landing property appears to be no more than about 6.5 acres. At $25 million, one way or the other, I would think the City could build a hell of a nice green space. If not, I will take on the contract and deliver for them same.
You've basically tied yourself down to two expensive options...Mayor Brown's plan which is DOA with Curry in office and Curry's plan which is really a dream cooked up back when Payton was in office and also DOA if the city doesn't win the suit. Going back to 2003, there are several other options that don't call for either. When egos and political gamesmanship is replaced with innovative thinking and truly analyzing return on investment, there's several other options for revitalization that are available and have merit as well.
So, I gather you would sell the Landing and its land to Sleiman and leave it to him to take it from there. Do you really think Sleiman, who has a reputation for winning big on his real estate deals, is going to not ask for parking, infrastructure, incentives and a very good deal on the land? He paid only 5 million or so for a building that cost 30+ million to build decades earlier. He will expect that same type of value on anything new he does. What will the City be giving up to make him move forward? For that matter, any other developer is going to ask for the same type and value of concessions from the City. See Rummell and the District - over $50 million from the City. No matter what, the City is going to be out millions. I am just saying the green space option, from a money standpoint, certainly is no more than other options, and maybe much less. Money is not an issue here, IMHO, and, thus, is not a reason for passing up the green space option.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 17, 2018, 09:22:40 PM
QuoteSome posts appear to continue to overlook the green space option based on current and past City failures to properly vision and manage green spaces. Based on this approach, we also should kill the Landing rather than keep it going as the City has proven it can't manage that either. Again, the answer to all of DT's issues is to replace incompetent leadership, not walk away from what may be a great solution.
A great solution could be to sell the land. That removes the City from the real estate business but also places a high profile site on the tax rolls. Many have more faith in the private sector doing something that makes the private investment a plus than COJ being in the development business.
See above. Increased value and turbo charged development around green space can easily equal or exceed the tax roll increase directly on this property over time. People pay big premiums for superior access to both green space and the river. By the way, the Landing was mostly a private investment driven deal and how did that turn out? Berkman Plaza? Adams Mark? Lots of private downtown developments have gone through foreclosure. Plenty of risk to private deals too. That's why smart developers/invetors are going to hedge their risks by milking the City and the taxpayers, unfortunately. See the Stadium/Jaguars, the District, the Shipyards/ Metro Park/Lot J, the Trio, Offshore Power Systems/Blount Island and so many others.
Quote from: thquote author=jaxlongtimer link=topic=34739.msg482114#msg482114 date=1529278447]
QuoteI also go back to the "chicken and egg" issue. Demand for green space feeds off surrounding development but surrounding development that feeds off of green space isn't going to happen unless there is such green space. In such cases, it is for the City to make the first move, especially given the lack of trust in the City and it's track record of failing to deliver on such promises.
I'm personally not a big believer in the "chicken and egg" theory when it comes to revitalization. I'm also not big on forcing general theory on any type of context. There's no more demand for the Landing to be a green space than the east lot right next to it.
East lot, west lot, all around the town... no demand until someone living or developing nearby wants it. I bet all those people starting to move into Vestcor's apartments would like to have some more green space like this. How about we poll the residents currently living in Downtown and ask them whether they would favor this concept? Let's ask the office workers while we are at it if they would enjoy such a space on their lunch hours? And, I again ask, how will Downtown ever attract families with children without parks this size or bigger?
Quote from: thelakelander on June 17, 2018, 09:22:40 PM
QuoteI continue to agree that all green spaces should be properly managed and enhanced as Lake advocates but I don't accept that as a reason to overlook this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to do something that will be a legacy for decades to come.
We said the same thing about the Skyway, Prime Osborn and the Landing itself. JTA is now attempting to sell legacy with the AV talk. In reality, none of these things are once-in-a-lifetime opportunities or legacies for decades to come. They all happen to be isolated gimmicks by various administrations and agencies that all lack the proper coordination and funding to create the unified synergy downtown really needs.
We agree, all these projects were poorly thought out (let's add the Courthouse!) and executed and done for all the wrong reasons, mostly for political/special interests, not for the civic good. I actually think the current thinking for the next convention center at the old courthouse and the attempt to convert the Skyway to AV may repeat this pattern but that is the subject for another thread. Here, I am arguing to change this pattern vis-a-vis the Landing :).
Continuing, none of the cited projects should have been called once-in-a-lifetime opportunities as they are structures that can be re-purposed or replaced. But, as a rule (unfortunately, see Durbin Creek Preserve proposition), most cities consider green space a permanent arrangement. Jax owns this land already. Once it is in private hands, given its valued location, the City will never be able to afford to take it back. (Do you think the land the District will be built on will ever be eligible for a 30 acre park someday?) I compare this situation to FDOT building an interchange, such as at Butler and I-95, with a stop light and then, years later, wishing to make it a full "expressway" interchange. Faced with buildings on all the land around there that they could have had for a few dollars an acre before Butler was built, they couldn't "afford" to buy out the developed properties and, instead, had to build a very expensive flyover and more to stay mostly within the land they already controlled. It's just good real estate management to buy real estate when the stars align as they rarely ever realign the same way again.
I am thinking decades ahead, not just today. One day we will have millions more living in Jax and they will rue the days Jax gave up all the City controlled riverfront lands we are looking at giving up now.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 17, 2018, 09:07:18 PM
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on June 17, 2018, 07:41:02 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on June 17, 2018, 07:07:40 PM
Is this about beating Sleiman or doing something DT actually needs? Have you ever worked in DT Jax? Residents and workers aren't begging for another grass lawn in DT. There's plenty of parks in DT now that could do everything you describe and more...if the city gave a damn to put money into them and maintain them. Any proposal Curry's team in terms of costs should first include a line item to upgrade and maintain the many underutilized spaces we already have and visit. Btw, Hemming is more central.
Hemming isn't waterfront, and maybe it's changed, but it wasn't much of a green space when I worked downtown. It felt like a shaded plaza with planters. It's a nice feature downtown, but given its location at the front door to City Hall, I've always considered it the public space for Jacksonville's Civic District and not so much for the city's CBD. Ultimately, they represent very different vibes in an urban context.
You're kind of making my point. Hemming, the Main Street Pocket Park, the County Courthouse lawn, the Northbank Riverwalk (on the river), the East Lot (on the river), Friendship Fountain (on the river) can all be a lot of things they aren't, if properly invested, maintained and coordinated with the outer square that surrounds them.
Northbank Riverwalk is lovely, but when I last walked its length, it was more a promenade than park, lacking depth of green space on the waterfront. Don't know east lot - is that amidst the cluster of northbank office bldgs?
The Northbank Riverwalk is a linear park or promenade that lacks interactivity outside of the Landing. It's another example of an existing public space that's underutilized and not maintained like it should be. There is depth in areas like Hogan Street south of Water Street and the East lot. The East lot is the surface parking lot directly on the other side of the Main Street Bridge from the Landing. It's between the Landing and Hyatt, one block south of Cowford Chophouse and the Elbow. Half the block between it and Cowford has a parking lot and a small JEA facility sitting on it. It was the location of wharfs housing downtown's public market. Then we went demo crazy.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on June 17, 2018, 10:24:46 PM
So, I gather you would sell the Landing and its land to Sleiman and leave it to him to take it from there. Do you really think Sleiman, who has a reputation for winning big on his real estate deals, is going to not ask for parking, infrastructure, incentives and a very good deal on the land? He paid only 5 million or so for a building that cost 30+ million to build decades earlier. He will expect that same type of value on anything new he does. What will the City be giving up to make him move forward? For that matter, any other developer is going to ask for the same type and value of concessions from the City. See Rummell and the District - over $50 million from the City. No matter what, the City is going to be out millions. I am just saying the green space option, from a money standpoint, certainly is no more than other options, and maybe much less. Money is not an issue here, IMHO, and, thus, is not a reason for passing up the green space option.
I'm totally fine telling millionaires no to public incentives for projects that may not need them. I'm also fine crafting $50 million handouts $10 million deals if retrofitting makes sense, thus freeing up $40 million for improving existing parks, filling financial gaps to restore more vacant historic buildings, two-waying streets, etc. I simply see no logical reason to blow a wad of cash into a site based on a dream, theory or concept, when said funds could bring greater positive impact and return of investment elsewhere. As for Sleiman, I have no problem selling him the land at market value and developing a solution of what the city will or won't do.
QuoteSee above. Increased value and turbo charged development around green space can easily equal or exceed the tax roll increase directly on this property over time. People pay big premiums for superior access to both green space and the river. By the way, the Landing was mostly a private investment driven deal and how did that turn out? Berkman Plaza? Adams Mark? Lots of private downtown developments have gone through foreclosure. Plenty of risk to private deals too. That's why smart developers/invetors are going to hedge their risks by milking the City and the taxpayers, unfortunately.
All of these were heavily subsidized deals...not private. They would not have happened with private money because the market wasn't there to support them. No one is paying big premiums to be near our existing downtown parks. Why would this be any different? Who would pay a big premium to be next to it? Omni/Enterprise Center, SunTrust/Vystar, Wells Fargo Center, etc. already surround it. What's the big development site you're hoping a park at this location leads to infill growth?
QuoteEast lot, west lot, all around the town... no demand until someone living or developing nearby wants it. I bet all those people starting to move into Vestcor's apartments would like to have some more green space like this. How about we poll the residents currently living in Downtown and ask them whether they would favor this concept? Let's ask the office workers while we are at it if they would enjoy such a space on their lunch hours? And, I again ask, how will Downtown ever attract families with children without parks this size or bigger?
You can ask me. I have a downtown office two blocks north of the riverfront. I've never thought about going to the riverwalk for lunch. However, me and my coworkers have been to Hemming a lot, as well as the restaurants facing the courthouse green pretty frequently over the last decade.
Also, Brooklyn Park, another underfunded DT park, is right around the corner from Vesctor's projects. Brooklyn Park has a baseball field, tennis courts, basketball courts, a kid's playground and community center. Given the amount of residential going up near it, I'd recommend putting more money into it if the concern is about families and kids. Especially since we blew up Kids Kampus for a similar lawn.
QuoteJax owns this land already. Once it is in private hands, given its valued location, the City will never be able to afford to take it back. (Do you think the land the District will be built on will ever be eligible for a 30 acre park someday?) I compare this situation to FDOT building an interchange, such as at Butler and I-95, with a stop light and then, years later, wishing to make it a full "expressway" interchange. Faced with buildings on all the land around there that they could have had for a few dollars an acre before Butler was built, they couldn't "afford" to buy out the developed properties and, instead, had to build a very expensive flyover and more to stay mostly within the land they already controlled. It's just good real estate management to buy real estate when the stars align as they rarely ever realign the same way again.
I am thinking decades ahead, not just today. One day we will have millions more living in Jax and they will rue the days Jax gave up all the City controlled riverfront lands we are looking at giving up now.
I believe we have more than enough parks in downtown. Improve what we have now and integrate public space in with larger projects, like the District, and we'll be fine.
^Every project, public or private, has risks and there are no guarantees they will work out as planned. All the solutions on the table have major risks for whoever pursues them. I happen to think green space here is less risky and less costly with greater benefits over the long haul than solutions you are advocating for. That's my opinion for the reasons previously stated. You are certainly entitled to yours.
You may be fine telling millionaires no incentives for their projects but that is hardly the case for politicos in Jax. I won't believe that will happen until I see it. Follow the money. Who do you think gives big money to politco's campaigns? I do think you are also being naive about what will be required to motivate Sleiman or anyone else to redevelop the Landing site and take on the risks associated with same.
You lost me with how you net $40 million from a deal involving the Landing. And, Sleiman paying "market value" for the Landing's land? Well, let me just say, I don't think the City has shown much genius in its real estate dealings over the last 60 years and, if I had to bet, Sleiman will easily get the better of the City when it comes to such a transaction. I find it a bit of a contradiction that you have no confidence in the City developing and maintaining green spaces but you think they will do the right thing negotiating land and development deals when, arguably, the City's track record in that regard is abysmal and far worse than mismanaging green spaces.
I compared 2 acre Brooklyn Park's single baseball field to one in Mandarin. The Brooklyn field is only about 60% of a field I compared it to and the "fence" is a row of trees along McCoy's Creek (no fence visible in the aerial photo to keep kids from wandering into the woods/creek from the playing surfaces). After allowing for the one basketball court, there is almost no land unaccounted for. It also has no parking lot and is literally "across the tracks" from Downtown proper, accessible only by the Park St. Viaduct (no grade level walk available). The tennis courts, community center and playground are in a detached 1.3 acre J.S. Johnson park diagonally across an intersection. Kids have to travel that through the intersection to move about the entire enterprise. Hardly an ideal park set up. In the end, one small baseball diamond and playground and 2 tennis courts sitting on 3.3 acres isn't going to be anywhere near sufficient for vibrant residential development in both Brooklyn and Downtown. Still missing: Dog walks, jogging and bike trails, picnic and large gathering areas, gardens, etc. that might appeal to more to adults.
I used to work Downtown and we headed to the riverfront all the time at lunch. I measured the distance and it was over 2,000 feet and we thought nothing of it. I have also eaten at the Landing (in its better days) traveling by car from work at lunch time from several miles away. Such is the draw of waterfront views. You have your lunch habits and I have mine. The issue isn't specifically us and our habits, it is the wishes of a greater population. My observation is most people are pulled to waterfronts more than not.
As to no one paying premiums to be near Downtown parks, you are playing to my point. We don't really have the kind of green spaces that would motivate people to do so. It's time we started creating ones that do. It's obvious that people pay premiums for green spaces, especially waterfront ones, in every City that has such places.
By the way, I clicked on your own link about Lakeland's Bonnet park and noted that they are estimating development costs of between $250,000 and $500,000/acre ($50 to $100 million for 180 acres - I am just talking about 6 acres here :) ), that it has water frontage and that it is being considered a major boon and attraction for their Downtown and its future. Some pertinent quotes, several of which I think align with my position more than yours:
Quote
...including a welcome center, nature center, event space with a great lawn, walking and biking trails, boating activities and sculpture garden.
...we have to pinch ourselves that this type of property exists next to downtown
...a premier park they hope will be the centerpiece of downtown Lakeland
...incorporated ideas and desires from more than 400 people
‒ The main entrance welcome center that can be reached by walking from downtown through a planned tunnel or by driving and parking. It will house a café, gift shop, exhibition gallery, covered patio and meeting room.
‒ A nature center situated along the shore of Lake Bonnet that will feature a café, gift shop and deck, covered patio, classrooms and a boardwalk along the lakeshore.
"It will be iconic and breathtaking and the place where everyone in Lakeland will want to be"
"We live in a great city, and it's on its way to becoming a remarkable place to come," Lakeland Mayor Bill Mutz said. "We want the park to become an extended passion from the Barnett Family to all of our families for generations to come."
Corey Skeates, Lakeland Chamber of Commerce president, said the park will be a selling point to lure businesses to locate to the Swan City.
"We're trying to drive the younger population here," Skeates said. "This is exactly what we hear from businesses outside of our community — they want more outside activity space. This is right in line with our mission."
‒ The event center will house a space that seats 300 people along with an outdoor trellis area for extra entertaining space, a botanical and sculpture garden and café.
‒ The great lawn will border the event space and will be a place for outdoor concerts that can hold as many as 7,500 spectators. The planners call it the ceremonial front porch of the park.
‒ A two-mile "circulator" walking and biking path.
‒ An elevated walking path through the tree canopy.
‒ An anchor center with a restaurant and possibly an art museum.
Lake, I very much respect your expertise and opinions. You have done much to promote the urban core and push for doing the "right" things. Like all complex issues, there will be times when people respectively disagree on certain points. This issue will be one of them for us :).
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on June 18, 2018, 12:54:59 AM
^Every project, public or private, has risks and there are no guarantees they will work out as planned. All the solutions on the table have major risks for whoever pursues them. I happen to think green space here is less risky and less costly with greater benefits over the long haul than solutions you are advocating for. That's my opinion for the reasons previously stated. You are certainly entitled to yours.
I'm not hear to change your opinion. I'm offering up mine. I don't believe in an either or absolute with this site. I believe we can have improved green space that's integrated with a mix of uses including retail, dining, entertainment and cultural. I believe that over the long haul, an integrated space that's interactive as opposed to passive is better in the long haul for an urban area. In this particular case, since a solid iconic structure and green space already exist, I also believe it's less risky and more affordable to work with what we have.
QuoteYou may be fine telling millionaires no incentives for their projects but that is hardly the case for politicos in Jax. I won't believe that will happen until I see it. Follow the money. Who do you think gives big money to politco's campaigns? I do think you are also being naive about what will be required to motivate Sleiman or anyone else to redevelop the Landing site and take on the risks associated with same.
I'm not talking about picking winners and losers, which is what we do and why downtown will always struggle until our leadership evolves and sticks with strategies that area actually proven in the long run. I'm talking about making sound investments that generate a return on investment. Subsidizing market gaps, etc. to reduce risks are one thing, throwing tax money away is another.
QuoteYou lost me with how you net $40 million from a deal involving the Landing. And, Sleiman paying "market value" for the Landing's land? Well, let me just say, I don't think the City has shown much genius in its real estate dealings over the last 60 years and, if I had to bet, Sleiman will easily get the better of the City when it comes to such a transaction. I find it a bit of a contradiction that you have no confidence in the City developing and maintaining green spaces but you think they will do the right thing negotiating land and development deals when, arguably, the City's track record in that regard is abysmal and far worse than mismanaging green spaces.
Take the people out of it (geez, some really hate this Sleiman guy. Some make him sound like the antichrist :D). You threw out the giving a random $50 million away. Using that as a number, my response was saying there may be logical solutions where $10 million in incentives gets something great done verses a wholesale Jax style razing that will run you $50 million. If that's the case, you just free up $40 million that was going to burned to be spent addressing other areas of need in the urban core.
QuoteI compared 2 acre Brooklyn Park's single baseball field to one in Mandarin. The Brooklyn field is only about 60% of a field I compared it to and the "fence" is a row of trees along McCoy's Creek (no fence visible in the aerial photo to keep kids from wandering into the woods/creek from the playing surfaces). After allowing for the one basketball court, there is almost no land unaccounted for. It also has no parking lot and is literally "across the tracks" from Downtown proper, accessible only by the Park St. Viaduct (no grade level walk available). The tennis courts, community center and playground are in a detached 1.3 acre J.S. Johnson park diagonally across an intersection. Kids have to travel that through the intersection to move about the entire enterprise. Hardly an ideal park set up. In the end, one small baseball diamond and playground and 2 tennis courts sitting on 3.3 acres isn't going to be anywhere near sufficient for vibrant residential development in both Brooklyn and Downtown. Still missing: Dog walks, jogging and bike trails, picnic and large gathering areas, gardens, etc. that might appeal to more to adults.
Compare Brooklyn Park to the sketch at the Landing. It won't have any of the interactive uses that families with kids use. No playing fields, no basketball courts, no tennis courts, no playscapes, and it's not in decent walking distance of where all those Vestcor units are going up that you mentioned. The detachment you mention is literally across a street. So really you have 3.3 acres of existing park space to play with in the middle of a booming residential area. Those 3.3 acres are also directly tied to a play to turn McCoys Creek into a "blue" line type greenway that would connect a series of neighborhoods (thousands of existing residents) and parks to the downtown riverfront. Again, if we're throwing out numbers, there's no money or pot at the end of the rainbow. Spending less in the Landing site does allow for logic of spending more to assist with the enhancement and implementation of other urban core projects.
QuoteI used to work Downtown and we headed to the riverfront all the time at lunch. I measured the distance and it was over 2,000 feet and we thought nothing of it. I have also eaten at the Landing (in its better days) traveling by car from work at lunch time from several miles away. Such is the draw of waterfront views. You have your lunch habits and I have mine. The issue isn't specifically us and our habits, it is the wishes of a greater population. My observation is most people are pulled to waterfronts more than not.
This isn't an either or debate. I've mentioned countless times that we should improve what's there. The disagreement is what actually pulls people to waterfronts. I believe in urban areas it's not a single thing. It's the interactivity and mix of uses that you can't get anywhere else. If that's the case, working with the Landing structure and enhancing the public space already in place certainly has its merits.
QuoteAs to no one paying premiums to be near Downtown parks, you are playing to my point. We don't really have the kind of green spaces that would motivate people to do so. It's time we started creating ones that do. It's obvious that people pay premiums for green spaces, especially waterfront ones, in every City that has such places.
You're making my point again. I've been saying for the entire thread we need to improve the green spaces we already have. However, let's get real. There are sites that can be developed and others that are already developed. Outside of the parking lot at Enterprise Center and the East Lot (which I've also stated you could do a green space there for a much cheaper price and still have the interactivity of a revamped Landing), everything else that's adjacent is built out. The performing arts center, Enterprise Center, SunTrust Tower, Wells Fargo Center...none of them are going anyway regardless of what we do with the Landing site.
QuoteBy the way, I clicked on your own link about Lakeland's Bonnet park and noted that they are estimating development costs of between $250,000 and $500,000/acre ($50 to $100 million for 180 acres - I am just talking about 6 acres here :) ), that it has water frontage and that it is being considered a major boon and attraction for their Downtown and its future. Some pertinent quotes, several of which I think align with my position more than yours:
Quote
...including a welcome center, nature center, event space with a great lawn, walking and biking trails, boating activities and sculpture garden.
...we have to pinch ourselves that this type of property exists next to downtown
...a premier park they hope will be the centerpiece of downtown Lakeland
...incorporated ideas and desires from more than 400 people
‒ The main entrance welcome center that can be reached by walking from downtown through a planned tunnel or by driving and parking. It will house a café, gift shop, exhibition gallery, covered patio and meeting room.
‒ A nature center situated along the shore of Lake Bonnet that will feature a café, gift shop and deck, covered patio, classrooms and a boardwalk along the lakeshore.
"It will be iconic and breathtaking and the place where everyone in Lakeland will want to be"
"We live in a great city, and it's on its way to becoming a remarkable place to come," Lakeland Mayor Bill Mutz said. "We want the park to become an extended passion from the Barnett Family to all of our families for generations to come."
Corey Skeates, Lakeland Chamber of Commerce president, said the park will be a selling point to lure businesses to locate to the Swan City.
"We're trying to drive the younger population here," Skeates said. "This is exactly what we hear from businesses outside of our community — they want more outside activity space. This is right in line with our mission."
‒ The event center will house a space that seats 300 people along with an outdoor trellis area for extra entertaining space, a botanical and sculpture garden and café.
‒ The great lawn will border the event space and will be a place for outdoor concerts that can hold as many as 7,500 spectators. The planners call it the ceremonial front porch of the park.
‒ A two-mile "circulator" walking and biking path.
‒ An elevated walking path through the tree canopy.
‒ An anchor center with a restaurant and possibly an art museum.
It's pretty cool what they are doing there. Did you check to read what you cut and pasted, see a site plan or see the site's history? It's an abandoned CSX railyard on the edge of downtown. They aren't razing anything in the center of their downtown. What they did do is invest in their existing parks first (which blow anything in DT Jax away, btw). This park will be interactive....museums, restaurants, cafes, exhibition galleries, paddle boats, amphitheater, an aviary, trains, etc. Most importantly, it's also being designed to be an inclusive space. It's exactly what's not shown in Curry's plan. It's a Springfield Park or a modified Landing ;).
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Environment/Bonnet-Springs-Park/i-Q5TS5Np/0/053b17d4/XL/Bonnet-Springs-Park-Concept-with-Legend-XL.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Environment/Bonnet-Springs-Park/i-DsKRHFD/0/a2c3df75/X2/Bonnet-Springs-Park-presentation_Page_04-X2.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Environment/Bonnet-Springs-Park/i-XGFZNz3/0/2b2e1854/X2/Bonnet-Springs-Park-presentation_Page_03-X2.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Environment/Bonnet-Springs-Park/i-JSNksCQ/0/e7232701/X2/Bonnet-Springs-Park-presentation_Page_06-X2.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Environment/Bonnet-Springs-Park/i-bzJbpQh/0/597e9257/X2/Bonnet-Springs-Park-presentation_Page_08-X2.jpg)
QuoteLake, I very much respect your expertise and opinions. You have done much to promote the urban core and push for doing the "right" things. Like all complex issues, there will be times when people respectively disagree on certain points. This issue will be one of them for us :).
No worries. Everyone has different opinions and can express them. That's what makes America great.
Btw, here's the old Hogans Creek Master Plan:
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Neighborhoods/Hogans-Creek-Master-Plan/i-j2KLgh5/0/af50035a/XL/aerial-XL.jpg)
This is a real urban park that can stimulate economic development and infill and it already exists. We just need to stop kicking it to the back burner because it isn't on the river.
If Jax wants a park that will spur development and be our version of a waterfront central park, then build it on the vacant lots between Haskel and YMCA in Brooklyn.
^ I think that lot is both too small and not close enough to the core. Because of the roads and railways, Brooklyn feels very far from the core from a pedestrian perspective.
I'm all for making the emerald necklace our flagship urban park. I think it's our best shot at revitalizing the mostly vacant areas between downtown and Springfield.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 17, 2018, 11:35:17 PM
I believe we have more than enough parks in downtown. Improve what we have now and integrate public space in with larger projects, like the District, and we'll be fine.
This! I have two concerns with the Landing plan as presented:
1): How much activity will those buildings create? We can all agree the park proposed is a "passive" park (as opposed to something like a baseball field, skate park, etc.). We have enough of those - they can work IF the buildings on the rendering (which at present look like cocktail napkin drawings), and #2
2): I have ZERO faith we will maintain the place. We've listed all of the parks downtown and I agree, but even look at something like Memorial Park. The maintenance on that place is just okay....and that's with a decently funded and very well connected group (Memorial Park Association) and strong neighborhood group (RAP) watching over it.
Man, the straw man game is strong in these last few pages.
When did this argument become an either/or, where the only two possibilities are:
1) "Bulldoze the Landing, downtown is starved for greenspace!"
2) "Keep the Landing, there's no value in parks!"
Just look at the dearth of publicly owned riverfront land on the Northbank, and tell me this burning desire to replace the Landing with greenspace isn't stupid and politically motivated.
(https://snag.gy/wU0aAc.jpg)
By my count, depending on how you slice it, I'm seeing between 15 and 20 publicly-owned blocks along the northbank riverfront between the Times-Union Center and the stadium that are either available, soon to be available via demolotion, or city-owned parking lot.
FIFTEEN TO TWENTY BLOCKS, on the riverfront, half so badly contaminated that we could build a park on them for a fraction of the cost of cleaning them up.
And the administration's solution to The Great Jacksonville Greenspace Crisis of 2018 that we just figured out we had is to bulldoze one of the only five active, non-contaminated blocks on the northbank riverfront and turn it into another grass field.
This is next level insanity we're talking here, the type of mistake that could set our downtown efforts back another generation.
I don't know how anyone can defend it, particularly when you factor in the cost.
Purely in terms of logistics, regardless of what you think about Sleiman, when you're sitting on 70 acres of contaminated riverfront land that can't be developed for mixed use without $50 million in remediation, why do you pick the clean 6.5 acres to turn into greenspace?
If we want a greener riverfront around Laura Street for downtown workers and residents to enjoy, there are a million ways to do that in and around the Landing without bulldozing it.
And if we're dead set on a showcase urban park for the masses, the westernmost portions of the Shipyards property (where we've previously discussed a signature park as part of the Shipyards development), from Berkman 2 down to around that block below the Baseball Grounds is a million times better.
For lots of reasons.
1) It's central to the CBD, the stadium district and Lot J, and directly across the river from the District
2) If the strategy is to promote infill between the CBD and the stadium district, a signature park gives you as good of a shot as anything (a streetcar running from Brooklyn to the stadium district would be nice too, but let's not get greedy)
3) Berkman 2 becomes a much easier sell when its overlooking said signature park
4) The USS Adams is already scheduled to moor at the site, at that leftmost pier, which adds an additional attraction to the park
5) It's a straight, two-minute water taxi ride back and forth across the river to and from the District, which we're pumping a lot of taxpayer money into; it would be awesome to create synergy with that four acres of public parkspace within eyesight directly across the river
6) It would provide a boost to the new convention center we want to build, adding a great park within direct eyeshot of the convention center, and providing a scenic walk to Lot J, where we presumably want to send many of our conventioneers
7) It satisfies land swap requirements for the Jaguars to develop Metropolitan Park, which the Landing may not
8 ) It encourages residential development to the east of the park along the riverfront, where the Jags want to build condo towers
9) It saves ~20 million in remediation cost to develop that section of the Shipyards as parkspace, rather than mixed use.
Good points. Lots of questionable moves in the works. It's hard to blame people who complain about the amount of public money spent in downtown. Public investment where it improves the quality of life of residents is one thing. When it's not being invested properly to generate the maximum return of investment to develop a cohesive walkable pedestrian scale setting it's another. Hopefully the court saves us from setting ourselves back another generation.
Quote from: KenFSU on June 18, 2018, 11:27:12 PM
Man, the straw man game is strong in these last few pages.
When did this argument become an either/or, where the only two possibilities are:
1) "Bulldoze the Landing, downtown is starved for greenspace!"
2) "Keep the Landing, there's no value in parks!"
Just look at the dearth of publicly owned riverfront land on the Northbank, and tell me this burning desire to replace the Landing with greenspace isn't stupid and politically motivated.
(https://snag.gy/wU0aAc.jpg)
By my count, depending on how you slice it, I'm seeing between 15 and 20 publicly-owned blocks along the northbank riverfront between the Times-Union Center and the stadium that are either available, soon to be available via demolotion, or city-owned parking lot.
FIFTEEN TO TWENTY BLOCKS, on the riverfront, half so badly contaminated that we could build a park on them for a fraction of the cost of cleaning them up.
And the administration's solution to The Great Jacksonville Greenspace Crisis of 2018 that we just figured out we had is to bulldoze one of the only five active, non-contaminated blocks on the northbank riverfront and turn it into another grass field.
This is next level insanity we're talking here, the type of mistake that could set our downtown efforts back another generation.
I don't know how anyone can defend it, particularly when you factor in the cost.
Purely in terms of logistics, regardless of what you think about Sleiman, when you're sitting on 70 acres of contaminated riverfront land that can't be developed for mixed use without $50 million in remediation, why do you pick the clean 6.5 acres to turn into greenspace?
If we want a greener riverfront around Laura Street for downtown workers and residents to enjoy, there are a million ways to do that in and around the Landing without bulldozing it.
And if we're dead set on a showcase urban park for the masses, the westernmost portions of the Shipyards property (where we've previously discussed a signature park as part of the Shipyards development), from Berkman 2 down to around that block below the Baseball Grounds is a million times better.
For lots of reasons.
1) It's central to the CBD, the stadium district and Lot J, and directly across the river from the District
2) If the strategy is to promote infill between the CBD and the stadium district, a signature park gives you as good of a shot as anything (a streetcar running from Brooklyn to the stadium district would be nice too, but let's not get greedy)
3) Berkman 2 becomes a much easier sell when its overlooking said signature park
4) The USS Adams is already scheduled to moor at the site, at that leftmost pier, which adds an additional attraction to the park
5) It's a straight, two-minute water taxi ride back and forth across the river to and from the District, which we're pumping a lot of taxpayer money into; it would be awesome to create synergy with that four acres of public parkspace within eyesight directly across the river
6) It would provide a boost to the new convention center we want to build, adding a great park within direct eyeshot of the convention center, and providing a scenic walk to Lot J, where we presumably want to send many of our conventioneers
7) It satisfies land swap requirements for the Jaguars to develop Metropolitan Park, which the Landing may not
8 ) It encourages residential development to the east of the park along the riverfront, where the Jags want to build condo towers
9) It saves ~20 million in remediation cost to develop that section of the Shipyards as parkspace, rather than mixed use.
"Curry's proposal is not wholly without merit" - hardly so strident as "Bulldoze the Landing, downtown is starving for greenspace." The Landing as signature park space was based on the idea that where possible, the riverfront in the urban core should be lined with green space and publicly accessible. Ideally, the same could have been done with our beachfront.
The "layered" aesthetic: River, Promenade, Landscaped/Manicured Park Space, Sidewalk, Boulevard, and then Private Property Interests like Residential mid-and-high rises along with Commercial Developments could begin on the other side of the boulevard with a view of the publicly accessible park space and waterfront.
I'm all for the Shipyards as riverfront park space as well.
If you want to argue the Shipyards as a priority over the Landing, that's not without merit either, although hopefully plans for Berkman 2 start to redirect attention to next steps for the Shipyards.
In the core the river should be urbanized. In suburbia the riverfront should be publicly owned. Again, Jax gets it ass-backwards.
Quote from: Kerry on June 19, 2018, 08:54:05 AM
In the core the river should be urbanized. In suburbia the riverfront should be publicly owned. Again, Jax gets it ass-backwards.
While Jax certainly gets things wrong, can you find an example where a government owns riverfront property across 840 square miles.
Quote from: Steve on June 19, 2018, 09:17:23 AM
Quote from: Kerry on June 19, 2018, 08:54:05 AM
In the core the river should be urbanized. In suburbia the riverfront should be publicly owned. Again, Jax gets it ass-backwards.
While Jax certainly gets things wrong, can you find an example where a government owns riverfront property across 840 square miles.
In the US that is a hard, but globally it isn't uncommon. The government doesn't have to necessarily own it - just regulate it. I just figured since it is already privately owned we would have to buy it. A few years ago Georgia banned most development within 75 feet of any waterway. Some now want to extend that to 1000'. Ellen Dunham-Jones, New Urbanist Professor at Georgia Tech, has a video where she mentions it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRXW9SMo4AE
I'm a little more absolute. If it was up to me, there would be no private ownership of waterfront land and development would be forbidden between the nearest street and the water (which means a street would roughly follow the riverbank). Basically development|street|green|water|green|street|development. You can see this in practice in some parts of Jax already. For example, Alexandria Place just southeast of San Marco. Imagine all of the waterways in Jax looking like this location. Another I am familiar with is Edgemere Park in Oklahoma City. How these places can exist and planners/developers can think about using waterfront any other way is beyond me.
^I don't understand how that would work financially. Isn't a large portion of Jax's property tax revenue derived from the high values of waterfront property?
Until very recently, Alexandria Place park had stagnant water, poorly maintained park space, and it flooded quite frequently. Let's definitely do that all over town.
Quote from: remc86007 on June 19, 2018, 09:54:56 AM
^I don't understand how that would work financially. Isn't a large portion of Jax's property tax revenue derived from the high values of waterfront property?
The value would just move across the street. They would have open space AND water view so it would probably be even more valuable.
Quote from: Captain Zissou on June 19, 2018, 10:00:01 AM
Until very recently, Alexandria Place park had stagnant water, poorly maintained park space, and it flooded quite frequently. Let's definitely do that all over town.
That is because upstream and downstream isn't built the same way. If it was flooding like that wouldn't happen. Anyhow, if you don't like that example I have literally hundreds of them like River Blvd in the Riverside area, Bayshore in Tampa, S Ocean Blvd and Flagler Dr in Palm Beach, and Beach St in Daytona.
This isn't my idea - it has been done around the world for 10,000 years. I just happen to think it is better than private backyards fronting public water. Anyhow, sorry for the diversion - back to un-urbanizing the urban core.
Have fun footing the bill for those takings claims.
Quote from: MEGATRON on June 19, 2018, 10:34:35 AM
Have fun footing the bill for those takings claims.
Yeah, the mistake was made long ago and fixing it now on a grand scale is cost prohibitive. Doesn't mean we can't start at the core and work our way out, even if all we got from it was the river between the Hart Bridge and I-95 and some creek frontage going inland. As an example, I would replace the current banks of the river in this area with something like this instead of the broken rocks and crappy wall we have now (yes I know that City already has an issue maintaining grass).
This is my last comment on this tangent as we are straying away from the topic. Maybe I'll start a River Urbanization thread.
Not the best example but all I can find right now.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/2d/ea/9a/2dea9acb20718b0025451c3f46003bc1.jpg)
Quote from: Kerry on June 19, 2018, 10:23:58 AM
Quote from: remc86007 on June 19, 2018, 09:54:56 AM
^I don't understand how that would work financially. Isn't a large portion of Jax's property tax revenue derived from the high values of waterfront property?
The value would just move across the street. They would have open space AND water view so it would probably be even more valuable.
No they wouldn't (at least not at the same value). Like it or not, a big part of the value is for people to have their own frontage of the river. These folks don't want the general public to walk in front of their property blocking their view of the river.
I'm not saying it's always right, and yes, there may be a bit of elitism in that view, but this is reality. Property values reflect this because they are based on a percentage of the value of the dirt+improvements (not new news, I know). That dirt becomes much less valuable if you have a section of common land in between (oh and BTW, now the COJ is responsible for the bulkhead....that should go good).
Instead, I think this makes more sense: Throughout the city, but more in the center of the city for all to enjoy, ensure that a fair amount of riverfront property is true quality public parkland. Yes, this means that the city will need to mow the grass more often than they do now. But, let's make those places truly special. If the entire waterfront is a "park" from Clay County to Mayport, it makes it much less special and much more difficult to maintain in a quality manner.
Pre-trial conference on the parking lot was this afternoon.
$4.3 million in taxpayer dollars, just to spite Sleiman on the auxiliary parking lot.
Can you imagine how many storefronts we could fix up, or how many small business grants we could offer, or how many other positive changes we could effect with that money? We could turn could completely redo Hemming and turn it into something out of Savannah with $4 million.
QuoteCity, Landing owners must resolve city's payback for parking lot
After the City of Jacksonville changed its tune on whether Landing Owners Sleiman Enterprises should accept ownership of a parking lot adjacent to the downtown landmark, a 2015 case between the two parties will now focus on exactly how much money the city should pay back to the real estate developer.
Attorneys representing the two entities, in a pre-trial conference on Tuesday, disagreed on whether the city owes the $4.3 million Sleiman Enterprises paid for the parking lot or $4.7 million, which included the parking lot price in addition to $350,000 contractual entitled parking credits.
Full story: https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2018/06/19/city-landing-owners-must-resolve-citys-payback-for.html
Quote from: KenFSU on June 19, 2018, 02:46:24 PM
Pre-trial conference on the parking lot was this afternoon.
$4.3 million in taxpayer dollars, just to spite Sleiman on the auxiliary parking lot.
Can you imagine how many storefronts we could fix up, or how many small business grants we could offer, or how many other positive changes we could effect with that money? We could turn could completely redo Hemming and turn it into something out of Savannah with $4 million.
I only need about $75,000 to bring my idea to market.
Quote from: KenFSU on June 19, 2018, 02:46:24 PM
Pre-trial conference on the parking lot was this afternoon.
$4.3 million in taxpayer dollars, just to spite Sleiman on the auxiliary parking lot.
Can you imagine how many storefronts we could fix up, or how many small business grants we could offer, or how many other positive changes we could effect with that money? We could turn could completely redo Hemming and turn it into something out of Savannah with $4 million.
QuoteCity, Landing owners must resolve city's payback for parking lot
After the City of Jacksonville changed its tune on whether Landing Owners Sleiman Enterprises should accept ownership of a parking lot adjacent to the downtown landmark, a 2015 case between the two parties will now focus on exactly how much money the city should pay back to the real estate developer.
Attorneys representing the two entities, in a pre-trial conference on Tuesday, disagreed on whether the city owes the $4.3 million Sleiman Enterprises paid for the parking lot or $4.7 million, which included the parking lot price in addition to $350,000 contractual entitled parking credits.
Full story: https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2018/06/19/city-landing-owners-must-resolve-citys-payback-for.html
Unreal. While Curry isn't really responsible for this terrible Peyton mess that we're in, just split the difference and move on!
I'm saying that in jest, but this one's insane. It seems like this one is going to go through to Sleiman. But, without a larger Landing Agreement I don't see Sleiman just tossing up a parking garage or anything for that matter.
^I agree. From what I've read about the situation, this going to court shows a lack of leadership in my opinion.
^^ So does this mean that coj gets ownership of the East lot, but has to pay Sleiman back $4.3-4.7mm?
Quote from: vicupstate on June 19, 2018, 05:12:14 PM
^^ So does this mean that coj gets ownership of the East lot, but has to pay Sleiman back $4.3-4.7mm?
Correct, though technically, the city never lost ownership of the lot. Sleiman, in desperate need of parking, paid the city $4.3 million for that parcel years ago, but even after taking Sleiman's money, the city wouldn't close on the sale and officially transfer the land to Sleiman. Sleiman eventually had to sue to try to get his money back. The city was initially resistant, but now they're trying to expedite a refund as part of their effort to boot Sleiman.
Yet Sleiman's the bad guy in the situation.
What a nightmare you can never move forward when you're constantly moving backwards
Quote from: KenFSU on June 19, 2018, 06:31:54 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on June 19, 2018, 05:12:14 PM
^^ So does this mean that coj gets ownership of the East lot, but has to pay Sleiman back $4.3-4.7mm?
Correct, though technically, the city never lost ownership of the lot. Sleiman, in desperate need of parking, paid the city $4.3 million for that parcel years ago, but even after taking Sleiman's money, the city wouldn't close on the sale and officially transfer the land to Sleiman. Sleiman eventually had to sue to try to get his money back. The city was initially resistant, but now they're trying to expedite a refund as part of their effort to boot Sleiman.
Yet Sleiman's the bad guy in the situation.
100% correct. The City never transferred the deed of the parking lot to Sleiman... and instead of holding the money in escrow until the deed passed to JLI (Sleiman), the City instead shifted that money into a capital improvement account and spent it.
That would be like you selling a house to someone but never fixing the broken pipe that you were contractually obligated to fix in your purchase agreement, spending the buyer's earnest money deposit, and then during the three day right of rescission period after closing the buyer gets into the house to move their furniture in only to find that the unfixed leaking pipe has now flooded the kitchen. The buyers want to back out of the deal... but you now have to scramble to refund them back their earnest money because you already spent it on a new Corvette (which you'll never bother to replace the tires nor change the oil on.. and one day will break down on the side of the road because you were too cheap to maintain it).
The City finally wised up as they would have lost that court case in embarrassing fashion, so in order to make Sleiman whole the City (aka we the taxpayers) will have to shift money from somewhere else to pay back the original purchase price and parking credits that were never conveyed to JLI.
Interesting to note- the City has also yet to convey parking credits to Sleiman from the Suntrust Center parking garage across the street as part of the deal to subsidize construction of that garage (in that case, the City picked a winner called Parador Partners... who then turned around and defrauded the City and their tenants in the Suntrust Tower)... which was an amendment to an earlier (politically-motivated) economic development deal with the now bankrupt Cameron Kuhn more than a decade earlier.
These frivolous lawsuits are a waste of taxpayer money and resources. Quit the politics and get something done with the Landing that doesn't involve baseless eviction lawsuits, spending tens of millions for an unnecessary 'green space' or tens of millions for massive redevelopment. Sometimes you have to play nice with people you may not like. I learned that lesson in kindergarten after my teacher scolded me for trying to pick and choose who got to play with me in the sandbox. Perhaps some at City Hall should be read Dr Suese books on their lunch break.
Outside of all the political BS of this latest Landing episode... the parking lot issue also sheds light on the City's historically poor performance on contract performance/management.
I give Curry's administration a lot of credit for restoring a sense of competence and professionalism back at City Hall... but there is still room for improvement. The City has so many obligations and performance standards in a variety of economic development deals that aren't being upheld (by parties on both sides of these transactions). That's an issue that may not be sexy politically... but its something that needs to be cleaned up for the good of the citizens who work hard and pay their taxes, only to occasionally see some of that money go to waste.
Quote from: fieldafm on June 20, 2018, 08:06:02 AM
Outside of all the political BS of this latest Landing episode... the parking lot issue also sheds light on the City's historically poor performance on contract performance/management.
I give Curry's administration a lot of credit for restoring a sense of competence and professionalism back at City Hall...
You're kidding, right?
Quote from: Snaketoz on June 20, 2018, 08:49:48 AM
Quote from: fieldafm on June 20, 2018, 08:06:02 AM
Outside of all the political BS of this latest Landing episode... the parking lot issue also sheds light on the City's historically poor performance on contract performance/management.
I give Curry's administration a lot of credit for restoring a sense of competence and professionalism back at City Hall...
You're kidding, right?
It's perfectly reasonable to debate policy decisions of both the Curry and Brown administration.... but there is no denying the improvements to operations at City Hall under the Curry administration, compared to the Brown administration. That's looking at things from an operational efficiency standpoint, not necessarily policy decisions. I could give dozens of personal examples of organizational bumbling during the Brown administration... and frankly those within City Hall would privately agree.
Quote from: fieldafm on June 20, 2018, 09:08:02 AM
Quote from: Snaketoz on June 20, 2018, 08:49:48 AM
Quote from: fieldafm on June 20, 2018, 08:06:02 AM
Outside of all the political BS of this latest Landing episode... the parking lot issue also sheds light on the City's historically poor performance on contract performance/management.
I give Curry's administration a lot of credit for restoring a sense of competence and professionalism back at City Hall...
You're kidding, right?
It's perfectly reasonable to debate policy decisions of both the Curry and Brown administration.... but there is no denying the improvements to operations at City Hall under the Curry administration, compared to the Brown administration. That's looking at things from an operational efficiency standpoint, not necessarily policy decisions. I could give dozens of personal examples of organizational bumbling during the Brown administration... and frankly those within City Hall would privately agree.
In addition, while the lawsuit over the East Lot was incredibly stupid, Curry didn't cause this one. This one started under Peyton, and then not handled by Brown. Curry wasn't in a huge hurry to handle it either it seems (since we're now 3 years into his term), but at least he is now.
And yes Field - I do agree about the city and contracts. My 2+ years working in the city opened my eyes, but maybe not in a good way.
Quote from: fieldafm on June 20, 2018, 07:53:20 AM
Quote from: KenFSU on June 19, 2018, 06:31:54 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on June 19, 2018, 05:12:14 PM
^^ So does this mean that coj gets ownership of the East lot, but has to pay Sleiman back $4.3-4.7mm?
Correct, though technically, the city never lost ownership of the lot. Sleiman, in desperate need of parking, paid the city $4.3 million for that parcel years ago, but even after taking Sleiman's money, the city wouldn't close on the sale and officially transfer the land to Sleiman. Sleiman eventually had to sue to try to get his money back. The city was initially resistant, but now they're trying to expedite a refund as part of their effort to boot Sleiman.
Yet Sleiman's the bad guy in the situation.
100% correct. The City never transferred the deed of the parking lot to Sleiman... and instead of holding the money in escrow until the deed passed to JLI (Sleiman), the City instead shifted that money into a capital improvement account and spent it.
That would be like you selling a house to someone but never fixing the broken pipe that you were contractually obligated to fix in your purchase agreement, spending the buyer's earnest money deposit, and then during the three day right of rescission period after closing the buyer gets into the house to move their furniture in only to find that the unfixed leaking pipe has now flooded the kitchen. The buyers want to back out of the deal... but you now have to scramble to refund them back their earnest money because you already spent it on a new Corvette (which you'll never bother to replace the tires nor change the oil on.. and one day will break down on the side of the road because you were too cheap to maintain it).
The City finally wised up as they would have lost that court case in embarrassing fashion, so in order to make Sleiman whole the City (aka we the taxpayers) will have to shift money from somewhere else to pay back the original purchase price and parking credits that were never conveyed to JLI.
Interesting to note- the City has also yet to convey parking credits to Sleiman from the Suntrust Center parking garage across the street as part of the deal to subsidize construction of that garage (in that case, the City picked a winner called Parador Partners... who then turned around and defrauded the City and their tenants in the Suntrust Tower)... which was an amendment to an earlier (politically-motivated) economic development deal with the now bankrupt Cameron Kuhn more than a decade earlier.
These frivolous lawsuits are a waste of taxpayer money and resources. Quit the politics and get something done with the Landing that doesn't involve baseless eviction lawsuits, spending tens of millions for an unnecessary 'green space' or tens of millions for massive redevelopment. Sometimes you have to play nice with people you may not like. I learned that lesson in kindergarten after my teacher scolded me for trying to pick and choose who got to play with me in the sandbox. Perhaps some at City Hall should be read Dr Suese books on their lunch break.
Side note - isn't this why Escrow agents exist? Shouldn't the $4.3M go to an escrow agent that holds the money until closing, then if closing never happens the Escrow agent returns the money to the buyer?
How could Sleiman not have done that? What was he thinking?
How are Babies made?
Why does one justify a person's incompetence by bringing up some vague accusations of a former mayor? It's like saying Kim Jong un is an evil person, but what about Hitler? Instead of blaming a one term Democrat, how about the current mayor? He ran on Brown's record and on his promise to curb violent crime. How is that working out? Brown was a Dem and the council is full of R's. What has Curry done that makes him seem operationally efficient? The JEA fiasco? The Landing? Friendship fountain? Memorial Park? The only thing Curry has going for him is the "R" beside his name, and there is no one else the local plutocrats can use to get their agenda handled. If Curry had a "D" beside his name, there would be calls for his head.
Quote from: Snaketoz on June 20, 2018, 10:09:01 AM
Why does one justify a person's incompetence by bringing up some vague accusations of a former mayor? It's like saying Kim Jong un is an evil person, but what about Hitler? Instead of blaming a one term Democrat, how about the current mayor? He ran on Brown's record and on his promise to curb violent crime. How is that working out? Brown was a Dem and the council is full of R's. What has Curry done that makes him seem operationally efficient? The JEA fiasco? The Landing? Friendship fountain? Memorial Park? The only thing Curry has going for him is the "R" beside his name, and there is no one else the local plutocrats can use to get their agenda handled. If Curry had a "D" beside his name, there would be calls for his head.
Not sure that's what anyone was doing. Peyton negotiated the sale of the East Lot to Sleiman, took the money, then basically didn't show up to the closing. You can't really look at this item in any other way.
Quote from: Steve on June 20, 2018, 10:37:25 AM
Quote from: Snaketoz on June 20, 2018, 10:09:01 AM
Why does one justify a person's incompetence by bringing up some vague accusations of a former mayor? It's like saying Kim Jong un is an evil person, but what about Hitler? Instead of blaming a one term Democrat, how about the current mayor? He ran on Brown's record and on his promise to curb violent crime. How is that working out? Brown was a Dem and the council is full of R's. What has Curry done that makes him seem operationally efficient? The JEA fiasco? The Landing? Friendship fountain? Memorial Park? The only thing Curry has going for him is the "R" beside his name, and there is no one else the local plutocrats can use to get their agenda handled. If Curry had a "D" beside his name, there would be calls for his head.
Not sure that's what anyone was doing. Peyton negotiated the sale of the East Lot to Sleiman, took the money, then basically didn't show up to the closing. You can't really look at this item in any other way.
What I'm saying is why bring Brown, Peyton, Jake Godbold, or anyone else into our current situation? We are talking about the here and now. A leader overcomes the mistakes of the past. Where is our leaders? If your predecessor did wrong, lead. My lawn wasn't taken care of by the previous owner. I didn't sit around and complain about him, I fertilized, watered, and nurtured the damn thing. Doesn't that seem logical?
Quote from: Snaketoz on June 20, 2018, 01:33:55 PM
Quote from: Steve on June 20, 2018, 10:37:25 AM
Quote from: Snaketoz on June 20, 2018, 10:09:01 AM
Why does one justify a person's incompetence by bringing up some vague accusations of a former mayor? It's like saying Kim Jong un is an evil person, but what about Hitler? Instead of blaming a one term Democrat, how about the current mayor? He ran on Brown's record and on his promise to curb violent crime. How is that working out? Brown was a Dem and the council is full of R's. What has Curry done that makes him seem operationally efficient? The JEA fiasco? The Landing? Friendship fountain? Memorial Park? The only thing Curry has going for him is the "R" beside his name, and there is no one else the local plutocrats can use to get their agenda handled. If Curry had a "D" beside his name, there would be calls for his head.
Not sure that's what anyone was doing. Peyton negotiated the sale of the East Lot to Sleiman, took the money, then basically didn't show up to the closing. You can't really look at this item in any other way.
What I'm saying is why bring Brown, Peyton, Jake Godbold, or anyone else into our current situation? We are talking about the here and now. A leader overcomes the mistakes of the past. Where is our leaders? If your predecessor did wrong, lead. My lawn wasn't taken care of by the previous owner. I didn't sit around and complain about him, I fertilized, watered, and nurtured the damn thing. Doesn't that seem logical?
The irony is every political challenger runs on the promise to FIX the mistakes made by the person they are trying to replace, and then uses their predecessor failure as an excuse for their own inaction and short-comings.
Quote from: Snaketoz on June 20, 2018, 01:33:55 PM
Quote from: Steve on June 20, 2018, 10:37:25 AM
Quote from: Snaketoz on June 20, 2018, 10:09:01 AM
Why does one justify a person's incompetence by bringing up some vague accusations of a former mayor? It's like saying Kim Jong un is an evil person, but what about Hitler? Instead of blaming a one term Democrat, how about the current mayor? He ran on Brown's record and on his promise to curb violent crime. How is that working out? Brown was a Dem and the council is full of R's. What has Curry done that makes him seem operationally efficient? The JEA fiasco? The Landing? Friendship fountain? Memorial Park? The only thing Curry has going for him is the "R" beside his name, and there is no one else the local plutocrats can use to get their agenda handled. If Curry had a "D" beside his name, there would be calls for his head.
Not sure that's what anyone was doing. Peyton negotiated the sale of the East Lot to Sleiman, took the money, then basically didn't show up to the closing. You can't really look at this item in any other way.
What I'm saying is why bring Brown, Peyton, Jake Godbold, or anyone else into our current situation? We are talking about the here and now. A leader overcomes the mistakes of the past. Where is our leaders? If your predecessor did wrong, lead. My lawn wasn't taken care of by the previous owner. I didn't sit around and complain about him, I fertilized, watered, and nurtured the damn thing. Doesn't that seem logical?
I'm not saying we should sit around and blame the prior Admin. They're gone (and for the record - I don't know why we do it with Washington either. A CEO who blames his predecessor is not going to get much respect from his or her board.
Regardless, we need to fix the stupid.
Quote from: Steve on June 20, 2018, 03:02:28 PM
Quote from: Snaketoz on June 20, 2018, 01:33:55 PM
Quote from: Steve on June 20, 2018, 10:37:25 AM
Quote from: Snaketoz on June 20, 2018, 10:09:01 AM
Why does one justify a person's incompetence by bringing up some vague accusations of a former mayor? It's like saying Kim Jong un is an evil person, but what about Hitler? Instead of blaming a one term Democrat, how about the current mayor? He ran on Brown's record and on his promise to curb violent crime. How is that working out? Brown was a Dem and the council is full of R's. What has Curry done that makes him seem operationally efficient? The JEA fiasco? The Landing? Friendship fountain? Memorial Park? The only thing Curry has going for him is the "R" beside his name, and there is no one else the local plutocrats can use to get their agenda handled. If Curry had a "D" beside his name, there would be calls for his head.
Not sure that's what anyone was doing. Peyton negotiated the sale of the East Lot to Sleiman, took the money, then basically didn't show up to the closing. You can't really look at this item in any other way.
What I'm saying is why bring Brown, Peyton, Jake Godbold, or anyone else into our current situation? We are talking about the here and now. A leader overcomes the mistakes of the past. Where is our leaders? If your predecessor did wrong, lead. My lawn wasn't taken care of by the previous owner. I didn't sit around and complain about him, I fertilized, watered, and nurtured the damn thing. Doesn't that seem logical?
I'm not saying we should sit around and blame the prior Admin. They're gone (and for the record - I don't know why we do it with Washington either. A CEO who blames his predecessor is not going to get much respect from his or her board.
Regardless, we need to fix the stupid.
I think the original comment was just saying that, despite some issues like this, Curry has accomplishments as well and improvements over what he came into office with. I'd say that's fair. I'd also say, there's not enough looking back to build on what came before, and determining what worked and what didn't. That's part of the reason we keep coming into issues like the Landing - it's the kind of lesson we should have learned in the 80s and moved past, but now it feels like we're starting from scratch. Mayors don't have an incentive to build on what their predecessors did.
Quote from: Kerry on June 20, 2018, 02:16:52 PM
Quote from: Snaketoz on June 20, 2018, 01:33:55 PM
Quote from: Steve on June 20, 2018, 10:37:25 AM
Quote from: Snaketoz on June 20, 2018, 10:09:01 AM
Why does one justify a person's incompetence by bringing up some vague accusations of a former mayor? It's like saying Kim Jong un is an evil person, but what about Hitler? Instead of blaming a one term Democrat, how about the current mayor? He ran on Brown's record and on his promise to curb violent crime. How is that working out? Brown was a Dem and the council is full of R's. What has Curry done that makes him seem operationally efficient? The JEA fiasco? The Landing? Friendship fountain? Memorial Park? The only thing Curry has going for him is the "R" beside his name, and there is no one else the local plutocrats can use to get their agenda handled. If Curry had a "D" beside his name, there would be calls for his head.
Not sure that's what anyone was doing. Peyton negotiated the sale of the East Lot to Sleiman, took the money, then basically didn't show up to the closing. You can't really look at this item in any other way.
What I'm saying is why bring Brown, Peyton, Jake Godbold, or anyone else into our current situation? We are talking about the here and now. A leader overcomes the mistakes of the past. Where is our leaders? If your predecessor did wrong, lead. My lawn wasn't taken care of by the previous owner. I didn't sit around and complain about him, I fertilized, watered, and nurtured the damn thing. Doesn't that seem logical?
The irony is every political challenger runs on the promise to FIX the mistakes made by the person they are trying to replace, and then uses their predecessor failure as an excuse for their own inaction and short-comings.
I can't think of the last time that a Jax mayoral candidate successfully ran on such a promise before this time.
I think I can name one-Tommy Hazouri. A good mayor who was beaten because he told the truth about garbage pickup costs and where the money was coming from.
Quote from: Snaketoz on June 20, 2018, 03:49:37 PM
I think I can name one-Tommy Hazouri. A good mayor who was beaten because he told the truth about garbage pickup costs and where the money was coming from.
And that was in 1991. The only other time I can think of was Hans Tanzler beating Lou Ritter... in 1967.
Quote from: Tacachale on June 20, 2018, 04:25:23 PM
Quote from: Snaketoz on June 20, 2018, 03:49:37 PM
I think I can name one-Tommy Hazouri. A good mayor who was beaten because he told the truth about garbage pickup costs and where the money was coming from.
And that was in 1991. The only other time I can think of was Hans Tanzler beating Lou Ritter... in 1967.
Forgot about that one.
Just read this: https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/mayor-currys-focus-for-redevelopment-the-northbank
I am not a big Curry fan but he seems too smart to be serious about this park idea. Hopefully it is just a scary negotiation strategy.
Having just read The Dailey Record article and Curry's well worded comments, I believe this was more of a "trial balloon" to gauge public reaction. He said some like it and some hate it, but that is OK and starts the conversation. My bet is someday the site will include some development and some waterfront interaction.
Quote from: jaxjags on June 21, 2018, 04:57:54 PM
Having just read The Dailey Record article and Curry's well worded comments, I believe this was more of a "trial balloon" to gauge public reaction. He said some like it and some hate it, but that is OK and starts the conversation. My bet is someday the site will include some development and some waterfront interaction.
It would be great if the conversation was open and unbiased. It seems to me if a private owner or group of owners want to do anything in Jacksonville the playing field is not always level. If you are a darling to city hall, your conversation matters. If you are competing against a city hall darling, not only will you have to fight your competitors, you'll also have to face city hall and it's taxpayer funded legal team.
My bet is Sleiman wins.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 21, 2018, 06:53:54 PM
My bet is Sleiman wins.
100% agree.
There's a very long, very public paper trail of both Rouse and Sleiman describing why the Landing's tenant mix isn't first-class, and explaining what city obligations need to be fulfilled in order to get high-end retailers to commit to the Landing.
Sleiman has the lease outlining the parking requirements from the city, meticulous records of potential tenants who have turned down the Landing because of inadequate parking, and a proven track record of success with other commercial real estate properties where parking needs are met.
I also don't think it would be hard to prove that the attempted Landing seizure is politically motivated, either.
Curry has held a grudge against Toney Sleiman and the Landing ever since he appeared in Alvin Brown re-election videos when Curry was running against Brown.
http://floridapolitics.com/archives/6963-latest-alvin-brown-tv-ad-draws-scrutiny
Throw in the general goofiness like the east parking lot debacle and the crumbling docks that the city refuses to repair now, but proudly states they will repair for the new park, and I'm surprised the whole thing hasn't been thrown out already.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 21, 2018, 06:53:54 PM
My bet is Sleiman wins.
I think Sleiman should and will win. I question whether or not the "win" will do any good as far as the Landing goes. Will Curry and company use other means to crowd him out? Even in winning Tony will have lots of enemies in high places.
^The lease is good for another 40 years and Toney is more than comfortable playing the long game.
Peyton iced him out.
Brown was ready to partner with him on redevelopment.
Now he's being iced out again, this time by Curry.
Sleiman's just gonna hold his ground until a favorable leadership comes along.
Absolutely insane:
https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2018/07/02/city-wants-landing-owners-to-start-obtaining.html
Certainly add fuel to the Cordish conspiracy.
Feels like a step toward eventually moving all of the Landing's major events east.
On the surface it sounds like proof that the city is actively working against the success of the Landing because of who the owner is.
I'm not a fan of the Landing or the ownership and even I can see the City is playing the role of 'villain" in this episode.
Quote from: Kerry on July 02, 2018, 06:31:05 PM
I'm not a fan of the Landing or the ownership and even I can see the City is playing the role of 'villain" in this episode.
Agree 100%
Deadline has come and gone, and Sleiman will hold the 4th of July celebration at the Landing without applying for a permit.
https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2018/07/03/despite-city-threats-the-landing-plans-to-hold.html
Will the evil city try to shut down the event tomorrow night?
Will Curry try to imprison the strip mall king for 60 days, as he claims to have the ability to do in the city's letter?
Stay tuned.
Quote
The Jacksonville Landing could be torn down, but other cities are renovating festival marketplaces
By David Bauerlein
Posted Jul 3, 2018 at 8:22 PM
Updated Jul 4, 2018 at 2:07 PM
Fireworks will explode this Fourth of July over The Jacksonville Landing in downtown.
They also will burst over The Waterside District in Norfolk, Va.
While the flash and boom will be the same up high in the sky, those who turn out for the shows will find a big contrast at ground level at the two venues, which were built in the 1980s when cities across the country embraced the "festival marketplace" concept to give suburbanites a reason to go downtown.
The Waterside District recently underwent a $40 million renovation of the building that opened on the Elizabeth River in 1983. The Jacksonville Landing has not undergone a major renovation since it opened in 1987 on the St. Johns River. City leaders have come out in favor of tearing down the Landing to make way for something entirely different.
When the Downtown Investment Authority conducted public workshops in 2015 to solicit ideas for the site's future, some people voiced support for keeping it because it is one of the city's most well-known buildings, provided it can get more people going to it. But there has been no appetite from the city or the Landing's owner to sink the kind of investment into it that had marked renovations elsewhere.
A Look Back: The Jacksonville Landing through the years
Waterside in Norfolk and the Landing were built during the period when the Rouse Company was at the forefront of shaping downtown developments with the festival marketplaces that combined shopping with lots of entertainment intended to attract suburbanites back to the urban core.
If the wrecking ball does level the Landing, it wouldn't be the first demolition of a festival marketplace. The city of Richmond's 6th Street Marketplace opened in 1985, but by 2003, the city moved to demolish the building, returning the street to use by pedestrians and vehicles.
In other cities, the concept has proven to have staying power, such as Waterside in Norfolk and Bayside Marketplace in Miami, which is in the midst of a $30 million renovation. Harborplace in Baltimore, often cited as a model for The Jacksonville Landing, has been undergoing renovation as well.
...
From the Florida Times-Union.
http://www.jacksonville.com/news/20180703/jacksonville-landing-could-be-torn-down-but-other-cities-are-renovating-festival-marketplaces
Waterside, Harborplace and Bayside are three great examples of reuse of similar structures. All have the same design issues we claim have killed the Landing. Unlike the Landing, they continue to be retrofitted with evolving tenant mixes that align with current market trends. They all also have dedicated parking garages! On the other hand, Richmond did demolish their structure. Needless to say, the places that kept their buildings attract a hell of a lot more people to those locations than Richmond does to 6th Street.
6th Street's a bit of a different situation because it was a hybrid of a mall and a festival marketplace, and in the middle of the core city rather than on waterfront property. Richmond had two large department stores downtown, Thalhimers and Miller & Rhoads. 6th Street was built to connect these stores and create a mall between them to compete with the suburban malls; and also to connect to a performing arts center to the south and convention center, hotel, and arena to the north. To that end, it had a long, narrow footprint extending across multiple blocks and separate buildings; to go from one end to the other, you had to leave one structure and cross the street to a separate structure, and ultimately crossed Broad Street via footbridge to the department stores in a symbolic linking of historically segregated neighborhoods. It replaced several blocks of 6th Street downtown.
It ended up satisfying no one because although it was intended to serve as a competitor to suburban malls and revive the grande dame downtown stores, the store bays in its footprint were not deep enough to attract conventional mall retailers - they were the size of store spaces at the festival marketplaces. The festival marketplace concept didn't work because that part of Richmond still had a reputation (not really deserved, IMHO) in the 80s and 90s as dangerous, and the convention business wasn't brisk from what I understand, with relative desolation around the center and its Marriott at the time. (Richmond also repurposed its Main Street train station at the time into a second shopping center - outlet oriented as I recall, but like a festival marketplace thematically since it was in a historic urban building. Not sure if the two malls cannibalized each other. The station is now a functioning train station again.)
The department stores both closed in the early 90s, after their acquisition by national chains. That pretty much killed the Marketplace, though it hung on until 2002 or 2003 or so. I visited there right before it closed. It was a pleasant building, similar in look to Waterside and the Landing (brickwork, decorative green metal roof) and nicely lit with natural light, and the bridge over Broad was beautiful in intent as well as design. But the whole plan was structurally flawed.
Richmond has made a tremendous comeback, and its urban core has become very successful and attractive to new residents with its walkability, historic preservation, and outdoor recreation opportunities. The area around the coliseum and convention center, once rather desolate, has filled in with a walkable tech park area and visitor center. Virginia Commonwealth University's expansion has led to revitalization on Broad Street. The Thalhimers building was repurposed as a performing arts center expansion, Miller & Rhoads as a hotel, and tearing down the structure seemingly made sense in enhancing walkability through the neighborhood.
All of that being said - wholeheartedly agree on adaptive reuse of the Landing, not tearing it down.
https://www.restaurantnews.com/hooters-brings-new-contemporary-design-to-jacksonville-landing-location-062918/
Any plans for the Landing must include resilience for more frequent flooding, the ability to absorb inundations without extensive closures and reconstruction. Wonder if the redecorated Hooters includes this?
Just tear down the entire Landing except for the Hooters. Just a giant park with a centerpiece Hooters.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on July 05, 2018, 04:19:26 PM
Any plans for the Landing must include resilience for more frequent flooding, the ability to absorb inundations without extensive closures and reconstruction. Wonder if the redecorated Hooters includes this?
From what I understand, the Landing building itself did not flood during Irma. It was the lower lying outdoor areas that were underwater.
https://www.jacksonville.com/news/20181017/jacksonville-landing-awaits-city-decision-on-florida-georgia-events
Curry is playing a dangerous game. If the City denies the permit - then what happens? Do they padlock shut the Landing doors? String concertina wire across the openings between Landing buildings? Thousands of FLA/GA fans are going to arrive at the Landing, expecting a party. What happens when they can't get in? What about the food and drink establishments inside the Landing, that probably depend on FLA/GA weekend for a significant portion of their revenues? They and their employees should suffer because Curry and Sleiman are in a measuring contest?
It seems a better option for the City is to let the events go on as scheduled. If the court rules in the City's favor, add the fines to the on-going dispute between the City and the Landing.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on October 17, 2018, 10:43:09 PM
Curry is playing a dangerous game. If the City denies the permit - then what happens? Do they padlock shut the Landing doors? String concertina wire across the openings between Landing buildings? Thousands of FLA/GA fans are going to arrive at the Landing, expecting a party. What happens when they can't get in? What about the food and drink establishments inside the Landing, that probably depend on FLA/GA weekend for a significant portion of their revenues? They and their employees should suffer because Curry and Sleiman are in a measuring contest?
It seems a better option for the City is to let the events go on as scheduled. If the court rules in the City's favor, add the fines to the on-going dispute between the City and the Landing.
Completely agree. The City's actions here aren't just aimed at hurting Sleiman... but also to the small business owners who have invested their life savings into trying to earn a living downtown, serving the thousands of visitors who will be descending upon downtown next week.
Frankly, that's a pretty shameful position. The Landing has been open for 31 years and the FL/GA game has been held in Jacksonville for more than 80 years. In fact, the City's contract with both schools calls for a safety zone at the Landing (where people can receive medical attention). The City does a lot of things right, and this mayoral administration has generally accomplished some good things. But this particular bullying is very poor form on the City's part.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on October 17, 2018, 10:43:09 PM
Curry is playing a dangerous game. If the City denies the permit - then what happens? Do they padlock shut the Landing doors? String concertina wire across the openings between Landing buildings? Thousands of FLA/GA fans are going to arrive at the Landing, expecting a party. What happens when they can't get in? What about the food and drink establishments inside the Landing, that probably depend on FLA/GA weekend for a significant portion of their revenues? They and their employees should suffer because Curry and Sleiman are in a measuring contest?
It seems a better option for the City is to let the events go on as scheduled. If the court rules in the City's favor, add the fines to the on-going dispute between the City and the Landing.
News coverage of the game always shows the scene at the landing. Imagine the negative press if it's boarded up and empty. I say Sleiman should put an enormous banner on the roof blaming the city if he doesn't get his permit. This could be a great opportunity to show the resiliency of the city and its citizens after a the widely televised shooting a couple months ago, but I'm not betting any money that the city will do the right thing.
This is so stupid. Has the Landing applied for these permits in previous years? I assume the answer can only be No. If so, then the city cannot now say that the rules are different or never enforced before, but now will be. If the city has operated in the past as though these permits were not required, the legal argument to change that understanding is very flimsy, it would appear to me.
Some will say that the City is 'doing the right thing'... but this looks more like a veiled attempt at artificially limiting the amount of money the owners of the Landing and the many small business owners who make up the venue can earn during their BUSIEST weekend of the year.
http://news.wjct.org/post/jacksonville-landing-receives-last-minute-permit-fla-ga-events (http://news.wjct.org/post/jacksonville-landing-receives-last-minute-permit-fla-ga-events)
QuoteThe show will go on at The Jacksonville Landing during Florida-Georgia weekend.
Our Florida Times-Union news partner reports the city of Jacksonville issued a special events permit Wednesday for the Landing to once again be a festive gathering spot for fans, but the permit will limit the crowd to no more than 7,500 people at a time.
The Landing will be able to set up outdoor bars serving alcoholic beverages, but the city's permit limits the Landing to five of those bars.
WTF on the 7,500 people???? That's nowhere near the capacity of the actual venue. Has the City ever restricted the number of outdoor bars for events like One Spark, Welcome to Rockville or Jazz Fest?? The answer is, no.
Political games have hurt the Landing for over 30 years. When is it going to end?! Keep in mind, that the Rouse company sued the City of Jacksonville well before they ever sold the Landing to Sleiman Enterprises.
Its no surprise why downtown struggles...
QuoteHas the Landing applied for these permits in previous years?
The answer to that, is 'no'.
This thing just keeps escalating.
Sleiman just announced that he won't be paying his annual lease for the Landing this year, and will instead use the money to undertake repairs that the city has neglected.
https://www.jacksonville.com/news/20181109/battle-over-jacksonville-landing-turns-to-rent-payment
Why would he do that rather than just walk away and let the whole thing be the city's problem?
Quote from: remc86007 on November 10, 2018, 02:15:14 PM
Why would he do that rather than just walk away and let the whole thing be the city's problem?
This 2005 article from the Daily Record provides a good glimpse of Sleiman's mindset on surrendering the Landing.
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."
"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."
"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."
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."
Quote from: Snaketoz on June 21, 2018, 08:15:12 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on June 21, 2018, 06:53:54 PM
My bet is Sleiman wins.
I think Sleiman should and will win. I question whether or not the "win" will do any good as far as the Landing goes. Will Curry and company use other means to crowd him out? Even in winning Tony will have lots of enemies in high places.
Fast forward to Feb. 20, 2019...
I love (not really) that we will end up spending around 20 million to have another one of Curry's empty lots.
After all that posturing they're not posing like best friends. AND the plan is to demolish? You cannot make this stuff up.
Quote from: KenFSU on November 10, 2018, 02:57:53 PM
"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."
[/quote]
10x what I paid for it??? Get outta town. But 3x? Just point me to the bank!
Can you believe this is happening to a city as large and as "bold" as Jacksonville? Can you imagine the thoughts of visitors staying in downtown perhaps considering relocating their businesses here? After doing business during the day they decide to see what there is to do near their hotel at night. Sadly, with Curry's plan they can take a taxi to Lot J to look at the construction site for the JEA's new headquarters, or go to the new park where the Landing used to be and feed the pigeons.
Can we at least wait, to see what happens before we start jumping to conclusions? I know there has been a lot of notoriety related to the Landing, and downtown in general, but can we stop with all the pessimistic view points? I'm just as frustrated with the downtown development as anybody in this forum.
The fact of the matter is that the Landing is just not working, and something needs to change. The Landing has been a blight on the city since Mayor Austin. Not saying that I'm in favor of a park, but unless somebody in this forum works for City Hall, we don't know what is going to happen. Something needs to change. I'm all in favor of knocking this depressing foundation to the ground.
And this does not come down to any particular party either. Every single, Republican and Democratic mayor (including Delaney) has had their hands in the proverbial cookie jar, with regards to the mess of downtown.
Quote from: MikeG1479 on February 21, 2019, 09:58:54 AM
Can we at least wait, to see what happens before we start jumping to conclusions? I know there has been a lot of notoriety related to the Landing, and downtown in general, but can we stop with all the pessimistic view points? I'm just as frustrated with the downtown development as anybody in this forum.
The fact of the matter is that the Landing is just not working, and something needs to change. The Landing has been a blight on the city since Mayor Austin. Not saying that I'm in favor of a park, but unless somebody in this forum works for City Hall, we don't know what is going to happen. Something needs to change. I'm all in favor of knocking this depressing foundation to the ground.
And this does not come down to any particular party either. Every single, Republican and Democratic mayor (including Delaney) has had their hands in the proverbial cookie jar, with regards to the mess of downtown.
As you stated, precedent regardless of political affiliation in Jacksonville dictates pessimism.
I'll tell you why I'm so pessimistic. Tearing down everything in downtown hasn't worked. I've lived here since the mid 40s and remember when downtown was busy, vibrant, and entertaining. If you don't have a plan, don't tear down what you have. If you are optimistic, that's great. I'm using over 70 years of experience to know that the constant demolishing of the past several decades hasn't panned out.
Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got till it's gone.
Quote from: MikeG1479 on February 21, 2019, 09:58:54 AM
Can we at least wait, to see what happens before we start jumping to conclusions? I know there has been a lot of notoriety related to the Landing, and downtown in general, but can we stop with all the pessimistic view points? I'm just as frustrated with the downtown development as anybody in this forum.
The fact of the matter is that the Landing is just not working, and something needs to change. The Landing has been a blight on the city since Mayor Austin. Not saying that I'm in favor of a park, but unless somebody in this forum works for City Hall, we don't know what is going to happen. Something needs to change. I'm all in favor of knocking this depressing foundation to the ground.
And this does not come down to any particular party either. Every single, Republican and Democratic mayor (including Delaney) has had their hands in the proverbial cookie jar, with regards to the mess of downtown.
By all means let's wait and see if they turn DT into a desolate wasteland (outside of Shad's developments) then it will be very easy to correct.
It's kind of like the old saying: Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice, shame on me.
Fool us dozens of times...well at that point we're just enablers.
Im not saying raze every building. Absolutely not! But with the Landing, I think the vast majority are comparing apples and oranges. Im very glad some of the buildings downtown are being converted into loft apartments/ condos. Love the fact FCCJ moved their culinary program downtown, and excited as hell to see the Barnett tower and the Laura Street Trio to take off. Not to mention the rebirth of the Ambassador Hotel (those are all positives). And it annoys me to no end, that previous governments razed some gorgeous buildings throughout downtown, over the past 40-50 years.
I guess my point was, that the Landing has been such a joke for so long time, that I don't care if there is no plan for after it is demolished. Knocking that thing down, is a good start.
Well for the lovers of waterfront green/open space, you will soon get your wish in abundance. City Hall Annex. the old Courthouse, The Landing, The Shipyards, Metro Park or what is left of it.
And just for the record, I was very much against razing the the City Hall Annex and Court House.
Florida / Georgia weekend should be a real blast.... I wonder how many of the existing bars will have an adamant interest in relocating / maintaining a presence downtown. Thinking Hooters in particular as they've been there since the begining. Chicago Pizza and Fionn MacCools would be nice at street level/front.
I'm no fan of the Landing, but tearing it down with no plan to replace it with anything is just stupid. Also, unless Jax does something about the homeless population no amount of green space is going to be used by the middle class in any great numbers. It seems cities have migrated to both ends of the spectrum - some cities barely have any homeless and others are over-run with them. Jax is on the over-run side of the equation. I was in downtown West Palm Beach last Saturday and saw exactly two homeless people (both sitting together on the sidewalk with a donation can).
This will end up costing more then 18 million. The city will absolutely need to help the existing places relocate since they are terminating their leases. I know GLHF bar spent a lot of money trying to get ready to open again. It is not fair to these places.
Quote from: blizz01 on February 22, 2019, 11:00:48 AM
Florida / Georgia weekend should be a real blast.... I wonder how many of the existing bars will have an adamant interest in relocating / maintaining a presence downtown. Thinking Hooters in particular as they've been there since the begining. Chicago Pizza and Fionn MacCools would be nice at street level/front.
The spaces in the Landing largely events to survive. Seems like events are being driven to TIAA Bank Field. So I doubt many of the displaced business owners will spend millions to for new street front build-outs where they'll struggle for day-to-day business after splitting $1.5 million to have their leases terminated.
West Palm beach can afford to give homeless people free bus tickets and cash to go elsewhere. It is a common "solution" to the homeless problem.
Quote from: Kiva on February 22, 2019, 06:15:34 PM
West Palm beach can afford to give homeless people free bus tickets and cash to go elsewhere. It is a common "solution" to the homeless problem.
I have heard that about a lot of cities, including ones far less affluent that Palm Beach. Never seen any proof of it though.
LOL.
Tell me everything, tell me everything right damn now.
Do any of you seriously think they don't have a semblance of a plan ? ? ?
Do any of you seriously doubt some of these places (Hooters, etc.) wouldn't kill to be in that Duval Live! complex at Lot J ? ? ?
So you're really bitching about all of this not being played out in public so nefarious nattering nabobs of negativity have a better opportunity to create confusion and opposition -- is that it?
Hmmmmmmmm . . . .
QuoteDo any of you seriously think they don't have a semblance of a plan ? ? ?
I actually do believe there's a plan. I also actually do believe that downtown will not be better after it's implementation if it has anything to do with anything taking place 1.5 miles away.
Quote from: thelakelander on February 24, 2019, 09:12:20 AM
QuoteDo any of you seriously think they don't have a semblance of a plan ? ? ?
I actually do believe there's a plan. I also actually do believe that downtown will not be better after it's implementation if it has anything to do with anything taking place 1.5 miles away.
Where is the Like button when you need it?
Of course there is a plan - direct as much public resources as possible to the Jags, not to make the City better, but to make Shad Khan richer so he keeps the Jags in Jax. That is the whole plan. The sad part is, Lot J and the Shipyards isn't going to work so we will gut downtown, spend hundreds of millions of dollars we don't have, and the Jags are going to leave anyhow.
Quote from: Kerry on February 25, 2019, 08:03:27 AM
Where is the Like button when you need it?
Of course there is a plan - direct as much public resources as possible to the Jags, not to make the City better, but to make Shad Khan richer so he keeps the Jags in Jax. That is the whole plan. The sad part is, Lot J and the Shipyards isn't going to work so we will gut downtown, spend hundreds of millions of dollars we don't have, and the Jags are going to leave anyhow.
But that won't be Lenny Curry's problem by then, won't it? So that's what makes it worth it! ::)
Quote from: MikeG1479 on February 21, 2019, 09:58:54 AM
Can we at least wait, to see what happens before we start jumping to conclusions? I know there has been a lot of notoriety related to the Landing, and downtown in general, but can we stop with all the pessimistic view points? I'm just as frustrated with the downtown development as anybody in this forum.
The fact of the matter is that the Landing is just not working, and something needs to change. The Landing has been a blight on the city since Mayor Austin. Not saying that I'm in favor of a park, but unless somebody in this forum works for City Hall, we don't know what is going to happen. Something needs to change. I'm all in favor of knocking this depressing foundation to the ground.
And this does not come down to any particular party either. Every single, Republican and Democratic mayor (including Delaney) has had their hands in the proverbial cookie jar, with regards to the mess of downtown.
I can tell you what's going to happen. Jax business as usual. Empty lot or an eyesore poorly maintained park.
Exactly @AvonJax
Monroe seems to think saving The Landing is a suburban issue
https://www.jacksonville.com/news/20190308/nate-monroe-state-of-mayoral-race-is-um-strange
"
He [ Jimmy Hill ]peddles a few suburban myths, like a belief there is not enough parking in downtown, and that The Jacksonville Landing should simply be replaced with something just like The Jacksonville Landing.
"
It's so funny how people can read the same thing and think something totally different. I took Monroe's comment to relate directly to Hill's "suburban myth" belief that retail needs dedicated parking. We actually ran an article on it years ago:
https://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2010-may-the-jacksonville-landing-parking-myths-vs-reality
Funny thing is Hill is actually right if we're talking about the type of retail you find in local malls and strip centers.
With that said, I never read or took Monroe's comment to say the Landing is a suburban issue. I didn't get that from Monroe's editorial or from any of the candidate's position at the televised debate.
The landing is a shithole with no future. I could not care less if all that becomes of it at this point is a surface parking lot.
Quote from: minder on March 10, 2019, 07:27:31 PM
The landing is a shithole with no future. I could not care less if all that becomes of it at this point is a surface parking lot.
Well good news, because that is the most likely outcome.
I walked through the Landing and around the few blocks of downtown surrounding it this afternoon. Despite all the vacancies and mismanagement, it was still the only spot with some resemblance of living souls strolling on the streets. There are a lot of small businesses in there that I was not aware of. What happens to these places and their employees after Sleiman gets his buyout? Will they be assisted with build-out costs associated with relocating to vacant storefronts in DT? Or are they simply out of luck?
Also, Hooters, Fion MacCools and Chicago Pizza all had people eating outdoors. Fion MacCools and Hooters appear to have put some money into recent renovations. Nothing else outside of the Landing property within a three block radius appeared to be open for business. If the Landing is going to be described as the shithole, that doesn't speak well for the rest of downtown which was boarded up and closed.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 10, 2019, 08:41:30 PM
Nothing else outside of the Landing property within a three block radius appeared to be open for business. If the Landing is going to be described as the shithole, that doesn't speak well for the rest of downtown which was boarded up and closed.
Yep - and declustering what The Landing did have isn't going to be better. There is a reason malls developed food courts 25 years ago instead of the food outlets spread around the whole mall like they used to.
Quote from: RattlerGator on February 24, 2019, 08:28:58 AM
Do any of you seriously doubt some of these places (Hooters, etc.) wouldn't kill to be in that Duval Live! complex at Lot J ? ? ?
Any clue how Xfinity Live in Philly is doing on a daily basis? Unlike most of the Cordish projects, it is the one most comparable to what is proposed here, as it sits in a parking lot of the sports complex.
http://cordish.com/portfolio/Xfinity-live
So are we expecting Hooters, Fions and the other businesses to close up shop completely, lay everyone off and then come back in 2023 to spend money on a higher lease and a new tenant build-out a mile away?
At the same time, what are people supposed to do in downtown at nights and during weekends? Considering the billions we've invested in DT since the 1980s, the street life, activate storefronts, etc. in the Northbank don't reflect the money spent to date?
I'm on the road for a variety of things these days, so I get to spend time in downtowns of peer cities across the country quite often. Walking around the Northbank yesterday afternoon around 5pm was just downright depressing. I'm not sure there's even one single block in the core with five businesses maintaining consistent hours at night and on weekends. What's COJ's plan to change this?
Quote from: tufsu1 on March 11, 2019, 09:20:14 AM
Quote from: RattlerGator on February 24, 2019, 08:28:58 AM
Do any of you seriously doubt some of these places (Hooters, etc.) wouldn't kill to be in that Duval Live! complex at Lot J ? ? ?
Any clue how Xfinity Live in Philly is doing on a daily basis? Unlike most of the Cordish projects, it is the one most comparable to what is proposed here, as it sits in a parking lot of the sports complex.
http://cordish.com/portfolio/Xfinity-live
Good question. I've been to Philly quite a few times but never had the urge to leave the core of the city to check out Xfinity Live.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 11, 2019, 10:14:12 AM
Quote from: tufsu1 on March 11, 2019, 09:20:14 AM
Quote from: RattlerGator on February 24, 2019, 08:28:58 AM
Do any of you seriously doubt some of these places (Hooters, etc.) wouldn't kill to be in that Duval Live! complex at Lot J ? ? ?
Any clue how Xfinity Live in Philly is doing on a daily basis? Unlike most of the Cordish projects, it is the one most comparable to what is proposed here, as it sits in a parking lot of the sports complex.
http://cordish.com/portfolio/Xfinity-live
Good question. I've been to Philly quite a few times but never had the urge to leave the core of the city to check out Xfinity Live.
I went to it a few months ago when I went to a Sixers game. It's a pretty cool setup but nothing that makes you want to go back and check it out on a daily basis. Just a cool spot to hangout or tailgate if you don't want to do it outdoors.
Quote from: tufsu1 on March 11, 2019, 09:20:14 AM
Quote from: RattlerGator on February 24, 2019, 08:28:58 AM
Do any of you seriously doubt some of these places (Hooters, etc.) wouldn't kill to be in that Duval Live! complex at Lot J ? ? ?
Any clue how Xfinity Live in Philly is doing on a daily basis? Unlike most of the Cordish projects, it is the one most comparable to what is proposed here, as it sits in a parking lot of the sports complex.
http://cordish.com/portfolio/Xfinity-live
I have only been there once, and it was on a Sunday during a Phillies home game. They had a good crowd but there were also 20,000+ people across the street watching baseball. I was surprised how little else there was around aside from sports stadiums.
I honestly cannot imagine there are huge crowds when there is not an event in one of the nearby facilities.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 11, 2019, 10:14:12 AM
Good question. I've been to Philly quite a few times but never had the urge to leave the core of the city to check out Xfinity Live.
Did you just do what I think you just did there?
The Philly comparison is actually a pretty good comparison to Jacksonville's plan (for what we know) with one exception (I'll get to that). The stadiums are fairly close to downtown but it would be a REALLY long walk (they're further out of City Center than Jacksonville), but not in the burbs like Kansas City or some others.
The one MAJOR exception: Their 4 major sports teams are at home about 170 days a year (figure 35,000 a night for 81 Baseball Games, 70,000 for 10 football Games, and 16,000 for Basketball and Hockey at 40 games each). Jacksonville will have nine days. Sure, they both have concerts and such, but Minor League baseball isn't going to keep this place afloat.
^This is where removing the Hart Bridge ramp through there makes sense. Turn Gator Bowl Boulevard into a highway between downtown and the Southside/Beaches and those parking lots become more feasible for commercial development that doesn't have to totally rely on the things there today.