QuoteIf you're thinking about having lunch at the Jacksonville Landing food court, that isn't an option.
The food court, on the second floor of the 31-year-old Downtown shopping center, is closed.
The escalator to the second floor is blocked and a sign says to call the management office for access.
Two workers at the Landing said the food court closed in October. One said it had been closed for about a month.
Landing officials could not be reached for comment.
Full article: https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/photo-gallery/food-court-at-the-jacksonville-landing-closed
Wah wah.
I am actually amazed it was still open recently. I went one time about 7-8 years ago and there was maybe two spots operational.
It closed a month ago and no one noticed?
Benny's Seafood and Steak has closed.
https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2019/01/10/the-landing-loses-another-tenant.html?iana=hpmvp_jac_news_headline
So what restaurants are still at the Landing? Hooters and Fuddruckers?
^^^LOL. In other Landing news, Chicago Pizza wanna reopen the arcade GLHF. It was a fun place, before the idiot from Baltimore had to kill people and shut it down.
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/jacksonville-landing-chicago-pizza-wants-to-reopen-game-bar-closed-since-shooting
QuoteThe property owner Jacksonville Landing Investments, a subsidiary of Sleiman Enterprises, says the restaurant's closure is part of a larger plan to revitalize the shopping center.
"As we work to program the future of the Jacksonville Landing, our goal is to incorporate the best and most relevant operators for downtown today and the future," said Michael McNaughton, The Jacksonville Landing COO.
What plan is this?
The plan to create creepy empty space in hopes of enticing The Walking Dead to film here?
Quote from: vicupstate on January 10, 2019, 09:09:51 PM
So what restaurants are still at the Landing? Hooters and Fuddruckers?
There has never been a Fuddruckers at the Landing. That would be a dream come true though!
Quote from: ralpho37 on January 11, 2019, 12:17:00 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on January 10, 2019, 09:09:51 PM
So what restaurants are still at the Landing? Hooters and Fuddruckers?
There has never been a Fuddruckers at the Landing. That would be a dream come true though!
It's coming.
You just gotta be patient.
Lol is Fuddruckers still in business as a chain?
Quote from: I-10east on January 10, 2019, 08:09:21 PM
Benny's Seafood and Steak has closed.
https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2019/01/10/the-landing-loses-another-tenant.html?iana=hpmvp_jac_news_headline
Honestly surprised it lasted as long as it did.
Quote from: ralpho37 on January 11, 2019, 12:17:00 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on January 10, 2019, 09:09:51 PM
So what restaurants are still at the Landing? Hooters and Fuddruckers?
There has never been a Fuddruckers at the Landing. That would be a dream come true though!
Just wait it's a game changer.
Quote from: vicupstate on January 10, 2019, 09:09:51 PM
So what restaurants are still at the Landing? Hooters and Fuddruckers?
Hooters
Chicago Pizza
Fionn MacCools
sadly no Fuddruckers yet
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 16, 2019, 11:13:30 AM
Quote from: vicupstate on January 10, 2019, 09:09:51 PM
So what restaurants are still at the Landing? Hooters and Fuddruckers?
Hooters
Chicago Pizza
Fionn MacCools
AKA tufsu's Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday night dinner spots.
^ you got the days wrong :)
An apple a day is still down stairs selling fresh grab an go. I believe.
Quote from: JeffreyS on January 18, 2019, 02:33:58 PM
An apple a day is still down stairs selling fresh grab an go. I believe.
Apple A Day and Hooters are probably the only remaining original tenants...or is the cookie shop still open too?
Quote from: Wacca Pilatka on January 18, 2019, 04:10:53 PM
Quote from: JeffreyS on January 18, 2019, 02:33:58 PM
An apple a day is still down stairs selling fresh grab an go. I believe.
Apple A Day and Hooters are probably the only remaining original tenants...or is the cookie shop still open too?
Cookie shop is still open. My office provides them regular business.
Those three should win a longevity award. Surviving +30 years in a shopping mall in Jax is an accomplishment.
A miracle that place stayed open as long as it did. The entire area came across as the land that time forgot.
I'll never forget when the Landing opened; the smell, the clothing shops, the fudge shop, when you first walked in the girls at the fudge shop chanting and singing about fudge, and all of the neat food shops on the second floor, along with karaoke that I used to attend up there as well. There is promise and potential in the Landing I believe; just need the right ownership, vision, planning, etc., in its regard to get it moving again along with the rest of downtown Jax. Let's not give up yet. The Landing should be an integral part of downtown and should remain there for the long haul.
It would be interesting to see what current ownership can achieve with the city as a partner, as opposed to the city doing everything it can to make the place fail.
Another day, another Landing closure.
Cinco De Mayo.
https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2019/01/29/jacksonville-landing-loses-another-eatery.html?iana=hpmvp_jac_news_headline
Just a week after the City rejected Sleiman's $100k annual lease check.
Good times at the Landing.
Glad we can all work together for the greater good of downtown.
Quote from: KenFSU on January 29, 2019, 03:09:16 PM
Another day, another Landing closure.
Cinco De Mayo.
https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2019/01/29/jacksonville-landing-loses-another-eatery.html?iana=hpmvp_jac_news_headline
Just a week after the City rejected Sleiman's $100k annual lease check.
Good times at the Landing.
Glad we can all work together for the greater good of downtown.
This story is reported by the JBJ. So, you'll have to forgive them for being about a month late in picking up on this.
Cinco De Mayo closed about a month and a half ago... right after the City didn't allow the Landing to conduct any programming on site during the annual boat lighting parade.
The Mayor's office attack on Toney Sleiman has been 'successful' in 'doing something about the Landing'... unfortunately, that 'something' has involved small business owners closing up shop and their employees are now left jobless. Sleiman Enterprises, meanwhile, is expanding as a company and developing new shopping centers. Perhaps instead of 'doing something', the Mayor's office should focus on something other than attacking hard working downtown business owners.
I don't understand what the mayor's goal is with the landing. Sleiman has to be running quite a loss if he's writing $1.2 mil in rent checks every year for it, but I guess he figures it is worth holding up his end of the lease so he has the property when something eventually happens.
The landing has a propaganda page and facebook feed, maybe the mayor should get on that so we can hear his side of the story /s
https://www.facebook.com/LandingFacts/
http://landingfacts.com/
A few observations...
- Sleiman supported Brown
- A successful Landing competes with Lot J
- Khan is major Curry backer
- Curry has a petty vindictive streak
- This administration has no reservation spending millions to demo perfectly good buildings
- Curry wants a park so nothing else matters
Can't wait for this thing to be settled in court. Time to move past the politics and let the market determine the Landing's fate.
Quote from: thelakelander on January 30, 2019, 08:21:49 AM
Can't wait for this thing to be settled in court. Time to move past the politics and let the market determine the Landing's fate.
I'm pretty sure the politics will eliminate it before the market gets a chance to decide it's fate.
^I think that will depend on who wins the case.
How can Sleiman lose?
If Sleiman wins the case, whenever it is even heard, but all the tenants have closed shop in the mean time, what does he do then?
Waterside in Norfolk was completely closed when Cordish converted it a few years back. Much easier to renovate or modify an empty space as opposed to an occupied one. Sleiman is a major retail developer with properties all over the place and outside of Jax. It's not like an empty Landing is going to bankrupt Sleiman.
Quote from: remc86007 on January 29, 2019, 07:49:04 PM
I don't understand what the mayor's goal is with the landing. Sleiman has to be running quite a loss if he's writing $1.2 mil in rent checks every year for it, but I guess he figures it is worth holding up his end of the lease so he has the property when something eventually happens.
The JBJ article stated that the $100,000 check was the "annual lease check", not monthly.
With good attorneys I think they can show that Curry (Boy wonder) has sabotaged any hope that Tony can make the Landing successful. I never liked Curry, but I think what he's done to keep his benefactors happy is a disgrace. He will do anything to keep $had happy.
Quote from: thelakelander on January 30, 2019, 10:15:39 AM
Waterside in Norfolk was completely closed when Cordish converted it a few years back. Much easier to renovate or modify an empty space as opposed to an occupied one. Sleiman is a major retail developer with properties all over the place and outside of Jax. It's not like an empty Landing is going to bankrupt Sleiman.
If the Landing loses most of its tenants and Cordish builds what can only be considered a direct competitor, with tax dollars to boot, how does Sleiman justify to himself much less a lender or potential tenant, investing in a total reboot of the Landing?
Yes, he will be fine financially if he did nothing with the property, but he didn't get wealthy investing in white elephants either.
[/quote]
The JBJ article stated that the $100,000 check was the "annual lease check", not monthly.
[/quote]
That makes more sense. I should have read past the headline...
The Landing has started hitting back. Follow this site for their point of view and updates on what they have planned:
http://landingfacts.com/
A couple minor quibbles about the Landing fight-back site - 1. I prefer timelines to have the oldest entry at the top, so you get newer info as you scroll down, and 2. With, I think, one exception, clicking on the old development plans does not yield a larger image, it just gives you that image by itself at about the same size.
I don't understand the animosity Curry has for Sleiman. Was he short-changed by a store in a Sleiman shopping center?
As someone once said, "Why can't we just get along?"
I believe the animosity is between the local establishment and Sleiman. IMO, Curry is just the latest figurehead. The Peyton administration took a similar position almost as soon as he purchased the place. The biggest tragedy in this is the Brown administration. They had 4 years to address it. $12 million was the incentives request at the time. Peanuts compared to several less impactful redevelopment proposals in the core over the last year.
Quote from: vicupstate on January 30, 2019, 03:22:20 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on January 30, 2019, 10:15:39 AM
Waterside in Norfolk was completely closed when Cordish converted it a few years back. Much easier to renovate or modify an empty space as opposed to an occupied one. Sleiman is a major retail developer with properties all over the place and outside of Jax. It's not like an empty Landing is going to bankrupt Sleiman.
If the Landing loses most of its tenants and Cordish builds what can only be considered a direct competitor, with tax dollars to boot, how does Sleiman justify to himself much less a lender or potential tenant, investing in a total reboot of the Landing?
Yes, he will be fine financially if he did nothing with the property, but he didn't get wealthy investing in white elephants either.
That's exactly what the administration wants... Well ultimately they want a park, but in the interim a starved Landing that can't compete on multiple fronts accomplishes the same goal of limiting Lot J's competition.
The irony here is that the city is pursuing a new white elephant at the expense of an already built elephant.
No matter what the Lot J becomes the site is still in a disadvantage to the Landing. Waterside went vacant after a big urban mall was built two blocks away. The new product is popular because it's essentially a food hall concept on Norfolk's waterfront and not chain retail/entertainment oriented. So regardless of what Lot J becomes, the Landing still has an advantage to be a place for certain types of retail, dining, entertainment, cultural use, etc. with the centralized riverfront setting and the density of class A office space and thousands of hotel rooms nearby. With that said, it is certainly in the best interest of Lot J for the Landing to be closed, demolished and turned into a park to eliminate the Landing's location advantage.
Quote from: I-10east on January 10, 2019, 08:09:21 PM
Benny's Seafood and Steak has closed.
https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2019/01/10/the-landing-loses-another-tenant.html?iana=hpmvp_jac_news_headline
According to this article, Benny's had not paid rent since 2012. How could you go under if you pay no rent for 9 years? Incredible! Only in Jacksonville. I want a place that will rent free to me for 9 years!
https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2019/02/15/jacksonville-landing-owners-sue-bennys-steak.html?iana=hpmvp_jac_news_headline
(https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2019/02/15/jacksonville-landing-owners-sue-bennys-steak.html?iana=hpmvp_jac_news_headline)
Quote from: Kiva on February 17, 2019, 04:34:16 PM
Quote from: I-10east on January 10, 2019, 08:09:21 PM
Benny's Seafood and Steak has closed.
https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2019/01/10/the-landing-loses-another-tenant.html?iana=hpmvp_jac_news_headline
According to this article, Benny's had not paid rent since 2012. How could you go under if you pay no rent for 9 years? Incredible! Only in Jacksonville. I want a place that will rent free to me for 9 years!
https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2019/02/15/jacksonville-landing-owners-sue-bennys-steak.html?iana=hpmvp_jac_news_headline
(https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2019/02/15/jacksonville-landing-owners-sue-bennys-steak.html?iana=hpmvp_jac_news_headline)
I'd be happy not paying rent for seven years.
Quote from: Kiva on February 17, 2019, 04:34:16 PM
Quote from: I-10east on January 10, 2019, 08:09:21 PM
Benny's Seafood and Steak has closed.
https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2019/01/10/the-landing-loses-another-tenant.html?iana=hpmvp_jac_news_headline
According to this article, Benny's had not paid rent since 2012. How could you go under if you pay no rent for 9 years? Incredible! Only in Jacksonville. I want a place that will rent free to me for 9 years!
https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2019/02/15/jacksonville-landing-owners-sue-bennys-steak.html?iana=hpmvp_jac_news_headline
(https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2019/02/15/jacksonville-landing-owners-sue-bennys-steak.html?iana=hpmvp_jac_news_headline)
The business owner and landlord had an arrangement, as other businesses have had there. When that arrangement was no longer attractive to the landlord, it was ended.
Well something is happening with the landing, curry posted a picture with sleiman on twitter...
Quote from: jagsonville on February 20, 2019, 01:58:13 PM
Well something is happening with the landing, curry posted a picture with sleiman on twitter...
Promises from Curry until the election is over, then 4 years of bullcrap after? Hope I'm wrong.
Take this for whatever its worth!
Quote
Jacksonville, Florida, February 20, 2019 – For decades, the location of the Jacksonville Landing has served as a central fixture in the city's downtown. As the future of downtown continues to be envisioned, it is important for stakeholders to always consider new possibilities. With that in mind, Jacksonville Landing Investments (JLI) and Mayor Curry on behalf of Jacksonville have entered into a Settlement Agreement for the terms by which the Jacksonville Landing and the property at its location would see their best and highest use realized. Both parties agree that with the future of Jacksonville shining so bright, now is the time to forge this path forward.
"For years, Jacksonville Landing Investments and Sleiman Enterprises have contributed immeasurably to development and job creation in and around Jacksonville," said Mayor Lenny Curry. "The Landing has been a fixture in the community much like the Sleiman organization, who stepped in at a time when the property's future was in doubt upon the exit of the original developer. On behalf of the citizens of Jacksonville, I appreciate their willingness to work with me so that Jacksonville can consider an alternate path forward for the location of the Landing."
"Mayor Curry is having success in Jacksonville and in downtown," said Toney Sleiman on behalf of JLI. "The JLI team and the entire Sleiman organization want to see that success continue and we are ready to see this process come to a mutually agreed conclusion."
Pending the presentation of the settlement agreement, all parties have agreed that this will be the only statement outside of legal proceedings regarding the Landing and the adjoining land parcels.
Who would have thought it.
Thoughts on the wording of the release?
(https://snag.gy/O3cemX.jpg)
NO NO NO NO NO NO.
This doesn't sound good.
The city is paying Sleiman out, $15 million, for full rights to the property.
PLUS, $1.5 million to tenants for lease termination and relocation.
This sounds like a $16.5 million public bulldoze to me :(
Edit: $1.5 million to demolish the landing.
$18 million in public money to destroy an iconic downtown building.
Terrible idea.
I guess they think it would compete with the shiny new Lot J renderings and we can't have that. Maybe one day we will actually build something in this city instead of tearing things down.
Where will tufsu eat dinner now!?
This is monstrously dumb. It will also hurt DVI's stats that they post every year. A good 10-20 of the downtown restaurants and bars they list as an asset to downtown were in this building
So silly. $18 million to raze when the plan was $12 million in incentives to raze and rebuild a couple of years ago. Still no word on how many more millions for a park for it's replacement and for Lot J to get off the ground a mile away. I'll repeat it, we really don't have a clue about revitalization. But we'll light millions on fire in the process.
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/city-agrees-to-take-back-jacksonville-landing-in-dollar18-million-deal
Paying the tab for businesses to relocate out of downtown.
That's a new one.
#Jacksonville
This makes me want to post a Kerry-esque negative rant. I thought JEA to Lot J was going to be the boondoggle of the year, but this might take the cake.
Sleiman paid ~$5M back in the day and ~$100k a year for 15 years. He is making 150% profit for allowing the Landing to go downhill and the city is footing the bill.
^Does this include the millions involved with the east parking lot? What are the chances that council has a backbone and says no to this ridiculous deal?
QuoteSleiman paid ~$5M back in the day and ~$100k a year for 15 years. He is making 150% profit for allowing the Landing to go downhill and the city is footing the bill.
Actually he paid $5.7 mm to be exact but I don't think he has paid ANY rent. As long as the long promised parking wasn't being provided, he was not obligated to pay.
Quote from: thelakelander on February 20, 2019, 04:38:43 PM
^Does this include the millions involved with the east parking lot? What are the chances that council has a backbone and says no to this ridiculous deal?
If I understood correctly, the litigation over the East lot is not affected by this agreement.
In 2015 the city sued JLI for failing to close on a $4.7 million purchase and sale agreement for what is referred to as the East Parcel, a surface level parking lot next to the Landing.
As of Wednesday, a two-day nonjury trial in the 4th Judicial Circuit Court was still scheduled for July 29-30.
According to a copy of the settlement, "for avoidance of doubt, this Agreement does not address JLI's claims for repayment of amounts paid by it to the City in contemplation of JLI's possible acquisition of that property known as the East Parcel."
This is somehow hilarious.
C'mon Curry, I thought you were supposed to be smarter than this. This is ludicrous.
For once, I'm pretty happy that I live in SJC and these aren't my taxpayer dollars being wasted. Worst we've got going on down here are some suburbanites upset about a proposed apartment complex. Meanwhile the city is about to blow almost 20 million more on destroying its own downtown.
So that $18 million could easily become $23 million?! Wow, talk about bad negotiating. Taxpayers would be better off with COJ selling the land underneath the Landing for market value, taking the millions in immediate profit and long term revenue from it being on the tax rolls and investing them in downtown.
This site in 16 years:
Reply #755 on: Feb 20th 2035 at 04:26:00 PM:
Anyone have any idea when the old Landing is going to be redeveloped into more than a patch of grass surrounded by a couple of 3/4 empty parking lots.
Quote from: Captain Zissou on February 20, 2019, 04:33:12 PM
This makes me want to post a Kerry-esque negative rant. I thought JEA to Lot J was going to be the boondoggle of the year, but this might take the cake.
Sleiman paid ~$5M back in the day and ~$100k a year for 15 years. He is making 150% profit for allowing the Landing to go downhill and the city is footing the bill.
This IS the JEA to Lot J boondoggle - Phase 1B
Lenny "Boy Wonder" Curry was thought of by many as an undeserving, Republican party paid-for shill. Now, he has removed all doubt. This city is for sale to the highest bidder, with the taxpayers footing any shortcomings. I knew Tony couldn't lose this case.
Quote from: Snaketoz on February 20, 2019, 05:36:32 PM
Lenny "Boy Wonder" Curry was thought of by many as an undeserving, Republican party paid-for shill. Now, he has removed all doubt. This city is for sale to the highest bidder, with the taxpayers footing any shortcomings. I knew Tony couldn't lose this case.
Gotta make the Jags profitable somehow - or they might leave.
This is beyond dumb, but I wonder if this ties into Curry's convention center cop-out? Maybe we're about to have an even more expansive RFP???
Who am I kidding. We're just destroying anything that gets in the way of Lot J. Parks and parking lots for all.
Parksonville!
Quote from: thelakelander on February 20, 2019, 04:38:43 PMWhat are the chances that council has a backbone and says no to this ridiculous deal?
What's lower than 0%?
I'm sure they'll acknowledge the high price tag before ultimately chalking it up as a small price to pay to fix a decades-old problem.
Much like they did with the Berkman II incentive package.
Speaking of which, for those keeping track at home, we're now up to
six new publicly subsidized Landings - the Jacksonville Landing ($18 million), Dave and Busters on Steroids ($35 million), the Rimrock Devlin mixed-use project ($60 million between Coastline and Courthouse Annex Demolition), the Shipyards ($25 million just to remove the ramps), Lot J ($XXX million), the District ($60 million), plus whatever public ask might come from Morris for their new Landing.
And at least half of those projects contain the city's new signature urban park.
(https://i.imgflip.com/2u79n8.jpg)
It is kind of surreal watching a city implode right before your eyes
Quote from: Kerry on February 20, 2019, 06:19:12 PM
It is kind of surreal watching a city implode right before your eyes
To be fair, the Landing isn't overly tall.
Traditional demolition should work just fine.
Quote from: KenFSU on February 20, 2019, 06:29:19 PM
Quote from: Kerry on February 20, 2019, 06:19:12 PM
It is kind of surreal watching a city implode right before your eyes
To be fair, the Landing isn't overly tall.
Traditional demolition should work just fine.
I meant in an existential sense. A city committed to sprawl in a rapidly urbanizing world.
Quote from: KenFSU on February 20, 2019, 03:31:17 PM
Who would have thought it.
Thoughts on the wording of the release?
(https://snag.gy/O3cemX.jpg)
It's like he's daring Anna Brosche to come within 15 points of his mayoral election victory.
Quote from: Kerry on February 20, 2019, 06:31:26 PM
Quote from: KenFSU on February 20, 2019, 06:29:19 PM
Quote from: Kerry on February 20, 2019, 06:19:12 PM
It is kind of surreal watching a city implode right before your eyes
To be fair, the Landing isn't overly tall.
Traditional demolition should work just fine.
I meant in an existential sense. A city committed to sprawl in a rapidly urbanizing world.
Dumb bell theory bruh, look it up.
Brooklyn is one end of the dumb bell.
The Orange Park mall is the other.
Connected by gondolas and a JEA satellite office built into the USS Adams.
Give it a month, there will be even more Landings springing forth out of the St. Johns River.
Quote from: Captain Zissou on February 20, 2019, 04:33:12 PM
This makes me want to post a Kerry-esque negative rant. I thought JEA to Lot J was going to be the boondoggle of the year, but this might take the cake.
Sleiman paid ~$5M back in the day and ~$100k a year for 15 years. He is making 150% profit for allowing the Landing to go downhill and the city is footing the bill.
WOW! An equity firm would be proud of Sleiman's return on this deal.
IF there's a bright side to this for the Downtown core, I'd guess COJ would actually put a decent amount of effort into making & keeping the park attractive to visitors.
Also, the few remaining businesses at The Landing will be looking for new locations, possibly filling some vacant spaces Downtown. Ie, hopefully Hooters & Fionn McCools can find a good fit.
Quote from: Bill Hoff on February 20, 2019, 07:43:32 PMAlso, the few remaining businesses at The Landing will be looking for new locations, possibly filling some vacant spaces Downtown. Ie, hopefully Hooters & Fionn McCools can find a good fit.
I can't speak for Fionn McCools, but for Hooters, the day-to-day business wasn't keeping the lights on. Instead, they - like many of the Landing's current and former tenants - generated a
huge portion of their annual revenues from a few key events. Florida-Georgia. July 4th. New Year's Eve. The Tree Lighting ceremony and boat parade, etc. In the absence of the Landing as Jacksonvile's central civic space for these types of events, I'm not sure that it's as easy as just moving down the street.
If Lot J becomes downtown Jacksonville's premier retail center, it's a loss, but there will be other retail. But if we bulldoze the Landing and displace all of these civic events from the heart of downtown a mile east to the stadium district, we might as well just give up.
Maybe Tony Sleiman should be running for mayor. Or at least head of the city budget office. He made Curry look just like the schmuck he is.
What visitors? Take a look at the surrounding land uses. They're mostly Class A office space and a performing arts center that's not active seven days a week. Based off the context, we're likely to see a park just as active as the green space in front of the performing arts center has been since the 1980s. A park in that space will need some retail, dining, entertainment elements to consistently make it attractive to more than just the homeless. If we're talking that, then we seriously need to slow down on the 100% demo talk and see if some form of reuse is workable. Plus, even if COJ put decent effort into keeping it clean, one could argue those efforts would have been better used on existing public spaces. Good call on the businesses. However, at this point, there's nothing suggesting that any of these businesses will stick to downtown or if we even have spaces to accommodate them their build-outs because that will take more than $1.5 million to terminate lease agreements.
Quote from: Snaketoz on February 20, 2019, 08:57:29 PM
Maybe Tony Sleiman should be running for mayor. Or at least head of the city budget office. He made Curry look just like the schmuck he is.
I'm not going to call Curry names although I don't find this decision making much sense. With that said, Sleiman certainly comes out as the winner hands down. COJ could benefit from his financial prowess.
Quote from: KenFSU on February 20, 2019, 08:27:39 PM
Quote from: Bill Hoff on February 20, 2019, 07:43:32 PMAlso, the few remaining businesses at The Landing will be looking for new locations, possibly filling some vacant spaces Downtown. Ie, hopefully Hooters & Fionn McCools can find a good fit.
I can't speak for Fionn McCools, but for Hooters, the day-to-day business wasn't keeping the lights on. Instead, they - like many of the Landing's current and former tenants - generated a huge portion of their annual revenues from a few key events. Florida-Georgia. July 4th. New Year's Eve. The Tree Lighting ceremony and boat parade, etc. In the absence of the Landing as Jacksonvile's central civic space for these types of events, I'm not sure that it's as easy as just moving down the street.
If Lot J becomes downtown Jacksonville's premier retail center, it's a loss, but there will be other retail. But if we bulldoze the Landing and displace all of these civic events from the heart of downtown a mile east to the stadium district, we might as well just give up.
I doubt most of these businesses relocate. They'll need a lot more than a combined $1.5 million in lease buyouts to build-out new locations. The Northbank will simply suffer the loss and we'll fund it at the expense of more pressing public needs.
Turn the Landing in a food hall and everybody will be happy.
http://mercadodesanmiguel.es
It would be so easy and a lot cheaper. It makes too much sense which is why it can't happen.
Quote from: Bill Hoff on February 20, 2019, 07:43:32 PM
IF there's a bright side to this for the Downtown core, I'd guess COJ would actually put a decent amount of effort into making & keeping the park attractive to visitors.
Attractive to the homeless too! I'm sure they too will appreciate a nice riverfront park for them to congregate in. The park on Main Street by the library is filling up..... Will this new park also be void of benches like Hemming Plaza?
Ironic, that Curry's campaign slogan is "Jacksonville on the Rise." Let's see...
Demo old city hall
Demo old courthouse
Demo Hart bridge ramps
Demo JEA/Florida Power & Light Power Park
Demo old Gulf Life building for Jax Fire & Rescue
Maybe demo JEA Tower & adjacent former Ivey's department store
Demo old Greyhound station...
I will say if the Landing is to go, I am supportive of making it a green riverfront park. Most any City with a waterfront like ours would drool over such an opportunity. I don't buy having major developments pushed right up to the edges of the river. We need green space to enhance the rest of Downtown, serve as a gathering spot for events and attract more residential development. Among many cities, New York isn't allowing it (with great success) and neither should we.
Manhattan's master greenway plan:
https://www.nycgovparks.org/sub_things_to_do/facilities/images/manhattan-waterfront-greenway.pdf (https://www.nycgovparks.org/sub_things_to_do/facilities/images/manhattan-waterfront-greenway.pdf)
Partial section of greenway at Battery Park, in the core of the financial district, now being surrounded by increasing numbers of residential towers:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/62/Battery_Park.JPG/300px-Battery_Park.JPG)
East river section:
(http://greatruns.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/East-River-Greenway.jpg)
West river section:
(http://commoning.designforcommons.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/18/2018/06/west-river-greenway-300x200.jpg)
East Harlem new addition, 7 acres at cost of $100 million:
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/NCk8ZO7aWIjd8nM5d5_Ycu36U8Q=/0x0:624x404/920x613/filters:focal(263x153:361x251):format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/58024363/image002.0.jpg)
We've had this discussion before but its laughable to compare anything in DT Jax with NYC. Totally different context and density. Some here were saying the same thing about Unity Plaza when Alex Coley and others were comparing it to Bryant Park. Said the same thing and we see how that one turned out.
This little space will have a similar fate as every other green space established by Jax in the downtown core in since 1950, if it's not largely designed to be integrated with retail and dining space nearby. There's no density (or plan to increase immediate density) or reason to draw many people there (this is where some commercial space would help) outside of isolated special events.
Lake, I see two things:
1. Chicken and egg, i.e. does density follow amenities or visa versa. I suggest the former in this case.
2. Execution: The failures regularly highlighted here are not necessarily the fault of the plan, but of poor execution due to half-hearted implementation, failure to consistently support and/or maintain the plan, poor planning, inadequate funding, lack of doing proper homework, cronyism over the civic good, etc. Jax leadership certainly excels in this regard. Rather than kill the plan, let's get a team in who can do it right. I see this as the biggest differential between Jax and every other city that manages to make these projects work with the same or less going for them than Jax.
Unity Plaza was poorly conceived and executed and is certainly not comparable, in my view, to a riverfront park on this most prime piece of property downtown. I agree it is laughable to compare Unity Plaza to Bryant Park on many levels (let's start with Unity's lack of a sizable lawn). I used New York because it's fame and dense building stock make it easy to show off that green space can be valued even in the presence of some of the planet's most valuable and intensely developed real estate. I could pick almost any city in the world, large or small, with water on par with Jax, and would venture to say I would find more proportionally larger waterfront green space by far than what we have in Jax presently.
Quote1. Chicken and egg, i.e. does density follow amenities or visa versa. I suggest the former in this case.
I don't believe in chicken and egg theories for places that have been in existence for nearly 200 years. We have existing context. The density around this site isn't changing. It's Class A office buildings, a seldom used performing arts center a bridge, and parking decks. This means, park with nothing in it or anything else, the site serves as a central location to an environment that will generally close up shop after 5pm on weekdays and not even be open on weekends. It is what it is. To change that dynamic, you'll need an integrated mix of uses that has the ability to draw people from outside the general vicinity on a consistent basis. Something like a food hall, cultural attraction, etc. There's nothing wrong with green space, but for it to be a draw, the other mixes of uses will be needed.
Quote2. Execution: The failures regularly highlighted here are not necessarily the fault of the plan, but of poor execution due to half-hearted implementation, failure to consistently support and/or maintain the plan, poor planning, inadequate funding, lack of doing proper homework, cronyism over the civic good, etc. Jax leadership certainly excels in this regard. Rather than kill the plan, let's get a team in who can do it right. I see this as the biggest differential between Jax and every other city that manages to make these projects work with the same or less going for them than Jax.
I agree in general that execution is bad. However, I see this as a continuing example of bad execution, poor planning and lack of doing proper homework. If the plan is bad, it doesn't matter who the team is. We have to think and invest more holistically outside of the Landing site and to date, it's not really evident that we do. This is the biggest difference between Jax and the Nashvilles, Orlandos and Charlottes of the region. They're pretty calculated and coordinated in what they do. We're not.
"..................... so that Jacksonville can consider an alternate path forward for the location of the Landing."
I saw this one coming a mile away. IMO it was always in the plans to Demo the existing structure from the get go when the city went after Sleiman. I just don't get this city sometimes. I thought Laura street trio was the turning point for the core, then we go and do this. Unreal.
It always felt like the Landing's only good function in it's current state was as a "town square" for events like Fla-Ga and NYE. I assume part of all of these moves is that a goal that Lot J becomes that in future years.
Whether that is realistic or not is a legit question.
I see Lot J doing to downtown what malls did to downtown shopping decades ago. Moving the heart of entertainment east will only help those with a vested interest there. What will the people staying in hotels do? It will be years before there will be anywhere to go or anything to do downtown. We should have been maintaining the Landing, making it better. How many sites do we have close to the heart of the city that is so right for a hub for night life? There is no need to remove contaminants, the infrastructure is there, and it has so much potential. This is a sad day for Cowford.
QuoteI could pick almost any city in the world, large or small, with water on par with Jax, and would venture to say I would find more proportionally larger waterfront green space by far than what we have in Jax presently.
I would say the opposite is true. The District is nothing but vacant land right now and will have plenty of public waterfront when completed. The Shipyards and Metro park as well. There is already Friendship Fountain and the Riverwalks (North and South). The T-U property will likely have new public water frontage as well.
On a sort of related note, is anyone aware of how business at the Cowford Chophouse is doing?
Quote from: vicupstate on February 21, 2019, 09:46:06 AM
QuoteI could pick almost any city in the world, large or small, with water on par with Jax, and would venture to say I would find more proportionally larger waterfront green space by far than what we have in Jax presently.
I would say the opposite is true. The District is nothing but vacant land right now and will have plenty of public waterfront when completed. The Shipyards and Metro park as well. There is already Friendship Fountain and the Riverwalks (North and South). The T-U property will likely have new public water frontage as well.
I guess our differences arise from what standard we are judging this by. I am looking for dozens or more of, ideally, contiguous/connected acres directly on the water front, not 3 acres here, 4 acres there, a small area in front of the Times Union center in-between. What you and Lake are suggesting hardly compares to some of the pictures I posted from NYC.
QuoteThe density around this site isn't changing. It's Class A office buildings, a seldom used performing arts center a bridge, and parking decks. This means, park with nothing in it or anything else, the site serves as a central location to an environment that will generally close up shop after 5pm on weekdays and not even be open on weekends. It is what it is. To change that dynamic, you'll need an integrated mix of uses that has the ability to draw people from outside the general vicinity on a consistent basis. Something like a food hall, cultural attraction, etc. There's nothing wrong with green space, but for it to be a draw, the other mixes of uses will be needed.
Lake, I understand your point. However, the Battery Park greenway would appear to have faced similar conditions/obstacles, being surrounded by Wall Street. Today, there is significant residential and retail development there. And, much of it is blocks away from the green spaces. But, people are walking in droves to the greenways. If urban living is about promoting walkability, why would we not expect downtown residents to walk 5 or more blocks to our greenways. In the end, like my comment above about what standards to use, here it may be about what assumptions we make.
Overall, I think we all agree that it takes a basket of things to make Downtown work. I am not suggesting that extensive and sizable greenways alone will fix it but do think they are an essential and necessary ingredient, one which I don't see currently included in a vision for Downtown.
NYC is such a bad example to use for our scale and context. May as well use Paris or Barcelona. How old is Battery Park and the greenways? What was there prior to their construction and prior to the construction of what they replaced? Much of Manhattan is landfill and the population density is of a level that will never happen here. It's apples and oranges when talking about the Landing. With that said, things don't have to be an either/or situation. The Landing is essentially a poor maintained riverfront plaza with commercial space integrated into it now.
Quote from: thelakelander on February 21, 2019, 12:02:13 PM
NYC is such a bad example to use for our scale and context. May as well use Paris or Barcelona. How old is Battery Park and the greenways? What was there prior to their construction and prior to the construction of what they replaced? Much of Manhattan is landfill and the population density is of a level that will never happen here. It's apples and oranges when talking about the Landing. With that said, things don't have to be an either/or situation. The Landing is essentially a poor maintained riverfront plaza with commercial space integrated into it now.
I explained previously why I used in NYC as an example. How about St. Louis?
(https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/stltoday.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/0/36/03697c2b-361a-5b14-baa6-fe97ca15eddf/5aea176f42864.image.jpg?resize=1200%2C675)
Hong Kong?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/35/Tai_Po_Waterfront_Park_Aerial_view_201707.jpg/1280px-Tai_Po_Waterfront_Park_Aerial_view_201707.jpg)
San Diego?
(https://blog.sandiego.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Waterfront-Park-Grand-Opening-IMG_8435.jpg)
Louisville?
(https://res.cloudinary.com/dostuff-media/image/upload//c_fill,g_faces,h_630,w_1200/v1528740139/event-9533894.jpg)
Brooklyn?
(https://imgs.6sqft.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/05151735/07_WEST_halfres-e1522957248429.jpg)
1. St Louis - Is that real? That's just a sketch showing a park over an active railyard paralleling I-64. The real space is the land around the St. Louis Arch. That's urban renewal and what was one of the most interesting and compact areas of St. Louis. I saw an extensive photo thread of what was there years ago.
2. Hong Kong - I get what you're dreaming of but that's totally out of scale and not what's in store for the small Landing site. For that vision to happen, most of the buildings along the riverfront would have to razed, which is unrealistic and unnecessary.
3. Louisville - Louisville is a city that would be more comparable to Jax. The scene you show is essentially Metropolitan Park. Curry is handing that over to Khan to put buildings on it. Waterfront Park would be more like a well maintained and invested Metropolitan Park. It's not actually in the center of downtown because I-64 hugs the riverfront.
4. San Diego is a good example. The pic you show is across the street from the Embarcadero. It would be like turning the Landing's riverfront surface parking lot into a green space. That would be way more cheaper than spending $18 million for the right to raze the Landing. That $18 million could actually go into making a pretty nice green space on the land next door. Also, here's some other shots from their waterfront that I took a few months back. It's a pretty pedestrian friendly waterfront that mixes green space with attractions, retail and dining:
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/San-Diego-March-2018/i-8ZK6mpX/0/37def347/M/20180319_143529-M.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/San-Diego-March-2018/i-CX7jdDZ/0/cbc4863a/M/20180320_134408-M.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/San-Diego-March-2018/i-7Mdhfp4/0/ed7e3238/M/20180320_134538-M.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/San-Diego-March-2018/i-KSwcbMG/0/1e0e9e26/M/20180320_134605-M.jpg)
5. Brooklyn - The density makes the context and how people respond and activate the space totally different. However, if you're just talking about the activities that take place in the waterfront setting across the street, that can be done by leaving the Landing's main building up and removing the two smaller riverfront buildings. Given it has more retail space than what's needed, it's not a bad option because existing tenants could be relocated within a portion of the main building as opposed to being forced to close.
Here's my take on this situation: The city should have provided garage parking for the landing from the beginning but at this point that's neither here nor there and certainly not Curry's fault. Sleiman bought the landing knowing it didn't have a garage. In 2007 be bought land from the city which could have become a garage but instead he never took title while charging for surface parking. He never asked the city to build a garage on that lot and when the city gave money for the parador garage right next door which the landing could use at night and on weekends he scoffed and said that solution wasn't good enough. In addition even though he has plenty of money he has purposefully not invested a dime into the place in 15 years. Sleiman could have easily made the landing into a marketplace but he clearly has no interest. He has used the black eye it represents for the city and the ridiculously long lease agreement as bargaining chips. Curry is someone that likes to get things done/facing re-election and although the amount of money being thrown around is ridiculous, he is in a bad spot with the landing and it's perception for Jacksonville. So here we are, should we have a run down landing for the foreseeable future with an unrealistic owner who only wants to tear it down to build a 5-6 story mixed use development with tons of city incentives? Or do we pay a ton of city money to buy him out, tear it down and RFP now and see what other investors will propose. Personally, its been 15 years and Sleiman ain't it.
What makes you sure there's an RFP coming outside of one for demolition contractors and park design services? Also getting rid of Sleiman and demolishing the building, kicking out tenants and demolishing the property or three different items. So the last two don't equate to being the best and only way to move forward.
Quote from: thelakelander on February 21, 2019, 06:39:52 PM
What makes you sure there's an RFP coming outside of one for demolition contractors and park design services?
I'd be shocked if there was a formal RFP issued.
If the plan is to RFP for redevelopment, why do you need to knock down the buildings first? Shouldn't all options - including working with the existing structure - be left on the table? Isn't there the chance to the winning developer would be willing to pay for demolition?
Mayor seems dead set on greenspace.
It's almost like the Jags can't legally develop Met Park without the city making a good faith effort to shift the greenspace to an equally prominent riverfront location.
But I'm sure that's got nothing to do with it...
Another thought for this being green space occurred to me. If we assume the river's propensity to flood its banks is going to increase, areas immediately along the river may better serve as buffers to flooding Downtown, essentially parks when dry and wetlands in flood conditions. What is the elevation of the Landing property? How did it hold up under Irma's flooding? Seems to me that area was under several feet of water.
Honestly, the Landing coming down is no big deal in my opinion. I've never been impressed with it for as far back as I can remember: never enjoyed the food court, never liked the structural design, and never liked the fact that given it turns its back on downtown, it's this sort of strip mall on the waterfront. When Sleiman acquired, I had little hope of anything really transpiring to change it. Sleiman has put uninspired strip stucco monoliths all across the city.
I'm fine with the city adding usable park space on that part of the river in that part of downtown. I quite like the idea. Yes, I know the city has plenty of other park space it should be maintaining. But when I worked downtown years ago, I often imagined the hideous looking Landing gone, and something like Memorial Park in Riverside, right there in the center of the cluster of the tallest buildings in the city. I don't know what the decision-makers there will ultimately decide, but if we're talking about Memorial Park II in the heart of the CBD, but with sweeping river views and adjacency (unlike Hemming), then I'm all for it. And if the people of Jax are scared off from riverfront green spaces in the heart of their city because of a homeless and mental health problem they've failed to tackle, then the people of Jax absolutely do not deserve a vibrant downtown or anything close to it. They should remain behind their gates and their garages, and watch TV shows about high-energy urban vibrancy.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on February 21, 2019, 09:21:13 PM
Another thought for this being green space occurred to me. If we assume the river's propensity to flood its banks is going to increase, areas immediately along the river may better serve as buffers to flooding Downtown, essentially parks when dry and wetlands in flood conditions. What is the elevation of the Landing property? How did it hold up under Irma's flooding? Seems to me that area was under several feet of water.
The Landing didn't flood. The building's floor elevation is well above the street's.
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on February 21, 2019, 09:24:09 PMAnd if the people of Jax are scared off from riverfront green spaces in the heart of their city because of a homeless and mental health problem they've failed to tackle, then the people of Jax absolutely do not deserve a vibrant downtown or anything close to it.
I think you can support riverfront greenspace in our urban core without supporting the wholesale removal of one of the only retail and dining destinations in downtown Jacksonville that isn't closed nights and weekends. Removing Laura Street's anchor tenant and the closest thing the northbank has to a 24/7 destination and replacing it with a sun-up to sun-down park isn't the recipe for improving vibrancy. It's a recipe for killing it.
Hell, between the Times-Union center's lawn, South Hogan, and opening up the Landing and removing the Main Street Bridge ramps, you could probably build some amazing park space right into the existing Landing.
I just don't see the need to demolish it, and I'll never agree with the arguments that the bones of the Landing are the reason we're where we're at it today, rather than stubborness, politics, and failure to provide adequate parking necessary to lure anchor tenants.
It's an iconic structure that - speaking of brand - genuinely is part of Jacksonville's identity.
When Grandma's sick, and she can't stop fighting with Grandpa, you know what you don't do?
You don't kill Grandma.
You find a way to work it out, and then move forward.
Because Grandma's part of the family, part of your history, and you've invested a lot into her.
It'd be like Wayne Weaver deciding in the mid-2000s, "The Jags are only drawing 40,000 fans a game. Better bulldoze the stadium."
Hate everything about this.
Such a beautiful space, with so much untapped potential, we'll miss her when she's gone.
(http://www.904happyhour.com/images/Jax+Landing+1.jpg)
I hope an RFP will be issued but time will tell, even if one is issued I don't expect any proposals that will impress anyone anyways. No one is going to make the same mistake as Rouse and build an urban mall downtown. Most likely it will look something like Tapestry Park, 5-6 stories, apartments enveloping a garage and retail on the bottom, whoopty doo. The only thing the landing is good at is a gathering spot for special events which can easily be accomplished with an active greens space. In its current state its just a poorly maintained ghost town with a couple subpar restaurants. Im not going to miss it at all.
Quote from: KenFSU on February 21, 2019, 10:29:52 PM
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on February 21, 2019, 09:24:09 PMAnd if the people of Jax are scared off from riverfront green spaces in the heart of their city because of a homeless and mental health problem they've failed to tackle, then the people of Jax absolutely do not deserve a vibrant downtown or anything close to it.
I think you can support riverfront greenspace in our urban core without supporting the wholesale removal of one of the only retail and dining destinations in downtown Jacksonville that isn't closed nights and weekends. Removing Laura Street's anchor tenant and the closest thing the northbank has to a 24/7 destination and replacing it with a sun-up to sun-down park isn't the recipe for improving vibrancy. It's a recipe for killing it.
Hell, between the Times-Union center's lawn, South Hogan, and opening up the Landing and removing the Main Street Bridge ramps, you could probably build some amazing park space right into the existing Landing.
I just don't see the need to demolish it, and I'll never agree with the arguments that the bones of the Landing are the reason we're where we're at it today, rather than stubborness, politics, and failure to provide adequate parking necessary to lure anchor tenants.
It's an iconic structure that - speaking of brand - genuinely is part of Jacksonville's identity.
When Grandma's sick, and she can't stop fighting with Grandpa, you know what you don't do?
You don't kill Grandma.
You find a way to work it out, and then move forward.
Because Grandma's part of the family, part of your history, and you've invested a lot into her.
It'd be like Wayne Weaver deciding in the mid-2000s, "The Jags are only drawing 40,000 fans a game. Better bulldoze the stadium."
Hate everything about this.
Such a beautiful space, with so much untapped potential, we'll miss her when she's gone.
(http://www.904happyhour.com/images/Jax+Landing+1.jpg)
If demand is there for places to eat, establishments will rise elsewhere
in fact, instead of just a linear strip along the waterfront, maybe a strip of restaurants can be built off the river to start to create a corridor of activity deeper into downtown rather than just along the river.
QuoteIf demand is there for places to eat, establishments will rise elsewhere
^It's a little more complex than that. The Landing is an entertainment center. A significant draw to retail/dining/entertainment businesses, etc. there is that it is a place with programming for consistently scheduled special events. Without that component, the retailers there will struggle since downtown doesn't have consistent foot traffic and many of the available storefronts aren't located on streets with higher vehicular AADTs.
Quotein fact, instead of just a linear strip along the waterfront, maybe a strip of restaurants can be built off the river to start to create a corridor of activity deeper into downtown rather than just along the river.
This is essentially what the Landing is. Perhaps reuse of some of the Landing's buildings should be considered for this as opposed to demolishing everything and rebuilding something similar?
Quote from: thelakelander on February 23, 2019, 03:18:11 PM
QuoteIf demand is there for places to eat, establishments will rise elsewhere
^It's a little more complex than that. The Landing is an entertainment center. A significant draw to retail/dining/entertainment businesses, etc. there is that it is a place with programming for consistently scheduled special events. Without that component, the retailers there will struggle since downtown doesn't have consistent foot traffic and many of the available storefronts aren't located on streets with higher vehicular AADTs.
Quotein fact, instead of just a linear strip along the waterfront, maybe a strip of restaurants can be built off the river to start to create a corridor of activity deeper into downtown rather than just along the river.
This is essentially what the Landing is. Perhaps reuse of some of the Landing's buildings should be considered for this as opposed to demolishing everything and rebuilding something similar?
Relax dude. Yes, I know there are layers upon layers of complexity but I'm keeping things brief. Landing is a failure and a current blight. Whatever comes in its place can also have programming and some foot traffic generators.
QuoteWhatever comes in its place can also have programming and some foot traffic generators.
The Landing is simply a name and retail concept. Let's not confuse these things with the concepts programming and generating foot traffic. You don't have to kick out a large chunk of downtown's remaining businesses that are open at night and on the weekends to create a place with programming and foot traffic generators. Adaptive reuse should be on the table before asking taxpayers to spend millions more for something taxpayers may not even want. That's the main point I'm trying to make here.
Since the original title of this thread was about the food court being closed...I totally miss me some Flamer's burgers. If you owned Flamer's and are reading this, please open up another one in Jacksonville! I'm too old to drag out the grill and charcoal anymore.
Quote from: KenFSU on February 21, 2019, 10:29:52 PM
Such a beautiful space, with so much untapped potential, we'll miss her when she's gone.
(http://www.904happyhour.com/images/Jax+Landing+1.jpg)
What are the people in that photo doing? If they're watcing a live band or something, there's no reason why that couldn't happen in a park. Nothing too worthwhile happens in the Landing that can't happen in a decent park - watching fireworks, concerts, etc. It's not like those people are there shopping.
I'm not saying we SHOULD build a park - but that Landing is shit. There's nothing there and it's serving no real purpose as it is. I don't think a photo of a bunch of drunks watching something is necessarily a good case for the Landing's continued existence - a picture of the empty courtyard is more accurate, as it's empty the vast majority of the time.
Quote from: Adam White on February 25, 2019, 03:14:56 AM
Quote from: KenFSU on February 21, 2019, 10:29:52 PM
Such a beautiful space, with so much untapped potential, we'll miss her when she's gone.
(http://www.904happyhour.com/images/Jax+Landing+1.jpg)
What are the people in that photo doing? If they're watcing a live band or something, there's no reason why that couldn't happen in a park. Nothing too worthwhile happens in the Landing that can't happen in a decent park - watching fireworks, concerts, etc. It's not like those people are there shopping.
I'm not saying we SHOULD build a park - but that Landing is shit. There's nothing there and it's serving no real purpose as it is. I don't think a photo of a bunch of drunks watching something is necessarily a good case for the Landing's continued existence - a picture of the empty courtyard is more accurate, as it's empty the vast majority of the time.
You're missing several of the points here. First, shit or not, it's not a matter of waving a wand and turning the Landing into a park. The current proposal is for spending $18 million, on a building that's assessed at $4 million and that no one else is trying to bid on, just to buy and demolish it, and then spending however many additional millions it would take to turn it into a park. And
then to subsidize an equivalent venue a mile away.
Of that money, $1.5 million is to buy out leases to close some of the only businesses in Downtown that are open at night and on weekends.
And then, there's no indication that there will be events at this park. Everything points to the events shifting a mile away to Lot J.
^This. I couldn't have said it better myself!
Btw, for those demanding a park, why is there no focus on the Landing's East Lot? It's been a waterfront surface parking lot ever since the city's historic public fish market was razed back in the 1950s for revitalization and redevelopment by the Haydon Burns administration. If COJ has $18 million to light on fire, a nice park could be built there for that price tag.
Quote from: Tacachale on February 25, 2019, 08:37:59 AM
Quote from: Adam White on February 25, 2019, 03:14:56 AM
Quote from: KenFSU on February 21, 2019, 10:29:52 PM
Such a beautiful space, with so much untapped potential, we'll miss her when she's gone.
(http://www.904happyhour.com/images/Jax+Landing+1.jpg)
What are the people in that photo doing? If they're watcing a live band or something, there's no reason why that couldn't happen in a park. Nothing too worthwhile happens in the Landing that can't happen in a decent park - watching fireworks, concerts, etc. It's not like those people are there shopping.
I'm not saying we SHOULD build a park - but that Landing is shit. There's nothing there and it's serving no real purpose as it is. I don't think a photo of a bunch of drunks watching something is necessarily a good case for the Landing's continued existence - a picture of the empty courtyard is more accurate, as it's empty the vast majority of the time.
You're missing several of the points here. First, shit or not, it's not a matter of waving a wand and turning the Landing into a park. The current proposal is for spending $18 million, on a building that's assessed at $4 million and that no one else is trying to bid on, just to buy and demolish it, and then spending however many additional millions it would take to turn it into a park. And then to subsidize an equivalent venue a mile away.
Of that money, $1.5 million is to buy out leases to close some of the only businesses in Downtown that are open at night and on weekends.
And then, there's no indication that there will be events at this park. Everything points to the events shifting a mile away to Lot J.
I think you completely missed my point.
I don't think a park is a good idea or a good use of the space. I just think the Landing isn't much to miss. If there was a plan to do something worthwhile with the Landing, then great. But hosting an event every once in a while isn't really doing much of anything. It's easy to post a picture of a rammed courtyard and give the impression that the Landing was vibrant and happening - but it wasn't.
I'd like to see some sort of development where the picture is an accurate reflection of the weekly goings on in the place - not an exception to the rule.
If a park is going to be anything other than a passive park (which is 100% of the parks in Jax) then the City better get ready for a 9 figure price tag. Oklahoma City spent over $200,000,000 on their new downtown parks and Tulsa just dropped $465,000,000 on their new riverfront park - yes $465 million.
Tulsa Gathering Place
https://www.gatheringplace.org/
Oklahoma City Myriad Gardens
https://oklahomacitybotanicalgardens.com/
Oklahoma City Scissortail Park
https://www.okc.gov/government/maps-3/projects/downtown-public-park
Jax is so far behind the rest of America it isn't even funny anymore. And yes, those parks are way larger than the Landing site, which is yet another signs of how far behind Jax is. We shouldn't even be talking about a downtown park this small.
Quote from: Kerry on February 25, 2019, 09:28:56 AM
If a park is going to be anything other than a passive park (which is 100% of the parks in Jax) then the City better get ready for a 9 figure price tag. Oklahoma City spent over $200,000,000 on their new downtown parks and Tulsa just dropped $465,000,000 on their new riverfront park - yes $465 million.
Tulsa Gathering Place
https://www.gatheringplace.org/
Oklahoma City Myriad Gardens
https://oklahomacitybotanicalgardens.com/
Oklahoma City Scissortail Park
https://www.okc.gov/government/maps-3/projects/downtown-public-park
Jax is so far behind the rest of America it isn't even funny anymore. And yes, those parks are way larger than the Landing site, which is yet another signs of how far behind Jax is.
A park just seems like it will end up as another un-maintained wasteland downtown. And I hate to say it, but once the homeless start hanging out there, it will seem even more unattractive to most city residents.
The Landing sucks - and has for a long time. But I don't think a park is the answer.
Quote from: Adam White on February 25, 2019, 09:22:19 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on February 25, 2019, 08:37:59 AM
Quote from: Adam White on February 25, 2019, 03:14:56 AM
Quote from: KenFSU on February 21, 2019, 10:29:52 PM
Such a beautiful space, with so much untapped potential, we'll miss her when she's gone.
(http://www.904happyhour.com/images/Jax+Landing+1.jpg)
What are the people in that photo doing? If they're watcing a live band or something, there's no reason why that couldn't happen in a park. Nothing too worthwhile happens in the Landing that can't happen in a decent park - watching fireworks, concerts, etc. It's not like those people are there shopping.
I'm not saying we SHOULD build a park - but that Landing is shit. There's nothing there and it's serving no real purpose as it is. I don't think a photo of a bunch of drunks watching something is necessarily a good case for the Landing's continued existence - a picture of the empty courtyard is more accurate, as it's empty the vast majority of the time.
You're missing several of the points here. First, shit or not, it's not a matter of waving a wand and turning the Landing into a park. The current proposal is for spending $18 million, on a building that's assessed at $4 million and that no one else is trying to bid on, just to buy and demolish it, and then spending however many additional millions it would take to turn it into a park. And then to subsidize an equivalent venue a mile away.
Of that money, $1.5 million is to buy out leases to close some of the only businesses in Downtown that are open at night and on weekends.
And then, there's no indication that there will be events at this park. Everything points to the events shifting a mile away to Lot J.
I think you completely missed my point.
I don't think a park is a good idea or a good use of the space. I just think the Landing isn't much to miss. If there was a plan to do something worthwhile with the Landing, then great. But hosting an event every once in a while isn't really doing much of anything. It's easy to post a picture of a rammed courtyard and give the impression that the Landing was vibrant and happening - but it wasn't.
I'd like to see some sort of development where the picture is an accurate reflection of the weekly goings on in the place - not an exception to the rule.
The Landing does get crowds like that some of the time. It also has several businesses that are open nights and weekends as well as concerts in the courtyard. The current plans as we've heard them would ensure that none of that happens in this space at any time.
Quote from: Adam White on February 25, 2019, 09:36:20 AM
Quote from: Kerry on February 25, 2019, 09:28:56 AM
If a park is going to be anything other than a passive park (which is 100% of the parks in Jax) then the City better get ready for a 9 figure price tag. Oklahoma City spent over $200,000,000 on their new downtown parks and Tulsa just dropped $465,000,000 on their new riverfront park - yes $465 million.
Tulsa Gathering Place
https://www.gatheringplace.org/
Oklahoma City Myriad Gardens
https://oklahomacitybotanicalgardens.com/
Oklahoma City Scissortail Park
https://www.okc.gov/government/maps-3/projects/downtown-public-park
Jax is so far behind the rest of America it isn't even funny anymore. And yes, those parks are way larger than the Landing site, which is yet another signs of how far behind Jax is.
A park just seems like it will end up as another un-maintained wasteland downtown. And I hate to say it, but once the homeless start hanging out there, it will seem even more unattractive to most city residents.
The Landing sucks - and has for a long time. But I don't think a park is the answer.
Yea, building another park in Jax seems fruitless. We can't even properly maintain what we already have so adding more to maintain seems like it will only make the situation worse. And yes, Jax has to do something about the homeless. As I said in another thread - other cities seem to be able to do it successfully.
I wonder if the Landing closing (and the City propping up Lot J) will have a chilling effect on already announced hotel developments near-by.
Quote from: thelakelander on February 25, 2019, 08:53:08 AM
^This. I couldn't have said it better myself!
Btw, for those demanding a park, why is there no focus on the Landing's East Lot? It's been a waterfront surface parking lot ever since the city's historic public fish market was razed back in the 1950s for revitalization and redevelopment by the Haydon Burns administration. If COJ has $18 million to light on fire, a nice park could be built there for that price tag.
That would be a nice spot for a park, under present conditions. Meaning, if there were still some kind of big facility drawing foot traffic across the street rather than just a bunch of office buildings...
Quote from: Tacachale on February 25, 2019, 09:48:07 AM
Quote from: Adam White on February 25, 2019, 09:22:19 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on February 25, 2019, 08:37:59 AM
Quote from: Adam White on February 25, 2019, 03:14:56 AM
Quote from: KenFSU on February 21, 2019, 10:29:52 PM
Such a beautiful space, with so much untapped potential, we'll miss her when she's gone.
(http://www.904happyhour.com/images/Jax+Landing+1.jpg)
What are the people in that photo doing? If they're watcing a live band or something, there's no reason why that couldn't happen in a park. Nothing too worthwhile happens in the Landing that can't happen in a decent park - watching fireworks, concerts, etc. It's not like those people are there shopping.
I'm not saying we SHOULD build a park - but that Landing is shit. There's nothing there and it's serving no real purpose as it is. I don't think a photo of a bunch of drunks watching something is necessarily a good case for the Landing's continued existence - a picture of the empty courtyard is more accurate, as it's empty the vast majority of the time.
You're missing several of the points here. First, shit or not, it's not a matter of waving a wand and turning the Landing into a park. The current proposal is for spending $18 million, on a building that's assessed at $4 million and that no one else is trying to bid on, just to buy and demolish it, and then spending however many additional millions it would take to turn it into a park. And then to subsidize an equivalent venue a mile away.
Of that money, $1.5 million is to buy out leases to close some of the only businesses in Downtown that are open at night and on weekends.
And then, there's no indication that there will be events at this park. Everything points to the events shifting a mile away to Lot J.
I think you completely missed my point.
I don't think a park is a good idea or a good use of the space. I just think the Landing isn't much to miss. If there was a plan to do something worthwhile with the Landing, then great. But hosting an event every once in a while isn't really doing much of anything. It's easy to post a picture of a rammed courtyard and give the impression that the Landing was vibrant and happening - but it wasn't.
I'd like to see some sort of development where the picture is an accurate reflection of the weekly goings on in the place - not an exception to the rule.
The Landing does get crowds like that some of the time. It also has several businesses that are open nights and weekends as well as concerts in the courtyard. The current plans as we've heard them would ensure that none of that happens in this space at any time.
Again, my post has nothing to do with the current plans. It was a response to the picture. But okay.