Was just perusing the internet this morning and came across the New Horizon Mall in Calgary. First let me say that I know this mall is a disaster for several reasons but if something like this was built on a smaller scale, maybe like 50 to 75 stores, I think this would be a huge hit in Jax if built near downtown. It would allow local businesses to compete with national retailers at the area malls and shopping centers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjIaMNl9fxQ&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR3xyr0DBCeqxQudNAkr7bUPHZayBld2WmeYM-bUlyO2T2AzNoD663PnibE
Why do you think it would be a huge hit?
The Landing's retail didn't exactly take the world by storm and that was attached to riverfront dining options in walking distance of the CBD. Riverside, Avondale, Murray Hill, San Marco, and Springfield already provide opportunity to local businesses.
Nothing will beat the Town Center in Jacksonville for quite some time. Things like Tanger Outlets pop up all over and do well in the middle of nowhere, wheras indoor malls are dying all across the country. Heck, even the Avenues can hardly keep up with Town Center. It's just an outdated model that doesn't work like it used to. IDK why outdoor malls do better, but they're the current winner and trend.
Quote from: remc86007 on November 26, 2018, 10:11:45 AM
Why do you think it would be a huge hit?
The Landing's retail didn't exactly take the world by storm and that was attached to riverfront dining options in walking distance of the CBD. Riverside, Avondale, Murray Hill, San Marco, and Springfield already provide opportunity to local businesses.
The Landing is a special kind of failure with so many problems I couldn't even begin to list them here. However, something like this would be far less expensive to build. The entire mall in Calgary with over 500 stores costs $200 million. With a smaller footprint it could easily fit in Brooklyn or the Southbank, or for that matter on the East San Marco lot. Retail space is in limited supply in the core (and no more is going to be built in Riverside) and this would allow a large amount of local retailers to cluster together while keeping their overhead costs low. It could even be built as an outdoor center although I would do it so every business was on the perimeter with a door to the sidewalk.
Quote from: jax_hwy_engineer on November 26, 2018, 10:20:27 AM
Nothing will beat the Town Center in Jacksonville for quite some time. Things like Tanger Outlets pop up all over and do well in the middle of nowhere, wheras indoor malls are dying all across the country. Heck, even the Avenues can hardly keep up with Town Center. It's just an outdated model that doesn't work like it used to. IDK why outdoor malls do better, but they're the current winner and trend.
The indoor mall was the trend - invented in 1955 and for all practical purposes dead by 2000. Outdoor malls have been around for millennia.
Anyone want to take a guess the last time an enclosed mall was built ANYWHERE in the United States?
Four Years Ago.
Source on that was from a Logistics and Supply Chain conference I attended two months ago.
Quote from: Steve on November 26, 2018, 10:52:51 AM
Anyone want to take a guess the last time an enclosed mall was built ANYWHERE in the United States?
Four Years Ago.
Source on that was from a Logistics and Supply Chain conference I attended two months ago.
Have you been to Calgary in the winter. Very cold as in 10-20 below zero occasionally and 0 degrees not uncommon. Thus the need for indoor malls. The indoor mall in Edmonton is a tourist attraction for the area. Indoor wave pool, amusement park with a roller coaster and all.
Quote from: Kerry on November 26, 2018, 10:51:33 AM
Quote from: jax_hwy_engineer on November 26, 2018, 10:20:27 AM
Nothing will beat the Town Center in Jacksonville for quite some time. Things like Tanger Outlets pop up all over and do well in the middle of nowhere, wheras indoor malls are dying all across the country. Heck, even the Avenues can hardly keep up with Town Center. It's just an outdated model that doesn't work like it used to. IDK why outdoor malls do better, but they're the current winner and trend.
The indoor mall was the trend - invented in 1955 and for all practical purposes dead by 2000. Outdoor malls have been around for millennia.
Indoor malls existed before 1955. A look at any of the enclosed shopping arcades in European cities shows that. I totally get that the modern American form of the indoor mall was invented in 1955 (or 1956 - my sister lives in Edina, MN, the home of the original). But I think it's safe to say that modern outdoor malls don't really resemble the ones that "have been around for millennia".
Quote from: jaxjags on November 26, 2018, 03:56:34 PM
Quote from: Steve on November 26, 2018, 10:52:51 AM
Anyone want to take a guess the last time an enclosed mall was built ANYWHERE in the United States?
Four Years Ago.
Source on that was from a Logistics and Supply Chain conference I attended two months ago.
Have you been to Calgary in the winter. Very cold as in 10-20 below zero occasionally and 0 degrees not uncommon. Thus the need for indoor malls. The indoor mall in Edmonton is a tourist attraction for the area. Indoor wave pool, amusement park with a roller coaster and all.
Canada is an entirely different market. Even putting the weather aside, the US just has too much retail space overall. As of 2017, the US has23.5 SqFt Gross Leasable Area Per Capita. Canada has 16.4SqFt. In comparison, the UK has 4.6, and mainland Europe is well below even that.
BTW, this thing is HARDLY an economic boom:
"The mall opened its doors on May 1, 2018, As of September 2018, only 9 out of the over 500 retail spaces have opened for business"
https://calgaryherald.com/business/local-business/eerily-empty-new-horizon-mall-delays-grand-opening-developer-remains-upbeat
Quote from: Steve on November 26, 2018, 04:33:13 PM
Quote from: jaxjags on November 26, 2018, 03:56:34 PM
Quote from: Steve on November 26, 2018, 10:52:51 AM
Anyone want to take a guess the last time an enclosed mall was built ANYWHERE in the United States?
Four Years Ago.
Source on that was from a Logistics and Supply Chain conference I attended two months ago.
Have you been to Calgary in the winter. Very cold as in 10-20 below zero occasionally and 0 degrees not uncommon. Thus the need for indoor malls. The indoor mall in Edmonton is a tourist attraction for the area. Indoor wave pool, amusement park with a roller coaster and all.
Canada is an entirely different market. Even putting the weather aside, the US just has too much retail space overall. As of 2017, the US has23.5 SqFt Gross Leasable Area Per Capita. Canada has 16.4SqFt. In comparison, the UK has 4.6, and mainland Europe is well below even that.
BTW, this thing is HARDLY an economic boom:
"The mall opened its doors on May 1, 2018, As of September 2018, only 9 out of the over 500 retail spaces have opened for business"
https://calgaryherald.com/business/local-business/eerily-empty-new-horizon-mall-delays-grand-opening-developer-remains-upbeat
In Kerry's defence, he
did say he was aware it was a disaster for many reasons.
Just spittballing here so don't blame old glenn if this idea is "half baked", but your bulletin got my gears cranking! :o
What if we could bring the town center to the downtown??? It would solve a few conumdrums. Now here me out. Clifton turned me on to this concept knowing i am a bit of a "futuroligist".
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2018/11/4/18061316/elon-musk-boring-company-la-tunnel-video&ved=2ahUKEwiK9_WghvPeAhUhrlkKHSISByMQFjAMegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw0YdNrepuwGKfwFdsqZazxS&cf=1
Elon munsks has proven that it is possible to dig a hole and send a tube full of people from one corner of the city to the other. Picture it. Mini town centers all over jacksonville connecting to the jewel of the southside! :o :o all it would take is a little vision and some investors looking to earn a kings ransome!!!
Quote from: Glenn VL on November 26, 2018, 05:08:22 PM
Just spittballing here so don't blame old glenn if this idea is "half baked", but your bulletin got my gears cranking! :o
What if we could bring the town center to the downtown??? It would solve a few conumdrums. Now here me out. Clifton turned me on to this concept knowing i am a bit of a "futuroligist".
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2018/11/4/18061316/elon-musk-boring-company-la-tunnel-video&ved=2ahUKEwiK9_WghvPeAhUhrlkKHSISByMQFjAMegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw0YdNrepuwGKfwFdsqZazxS&cf=1
Elon munsks has proven that it is possible to dig a hole and send a tube full of people from one corner of the city to the other. Picture it. Mini town centers all over jacksonville connecting to the jewel of the southside! :o :o all it would take is a little vision and some investors looking to earn a kings ransome!!!
Glenn, you have been sorely missed.
If nothing else the comments have been a great example of the 'Can Do' attitude Jax so sorely needs.
This place sounds like a retail condo flea market. What's so revolutionary about the concept? Plus at 50 to 75 stores, wouldn't it be smaller than the present day Landing building?
Quote from: Kerry on November 26, 2018, 07:05:53 PM
If nothing else the comments have been a great example of the 'Can Do' attitude Jax so sorely needs.
Kind of funny coming from the guy who practically criticises everything posted on this site. Except for the Canadian mall thing, of course.
Quote from: thelakelander on November 26, 2018, 08:18:15 PM
This place sounds like a retail condo flea market. What's so revolutionary about the concept? Plus at 50 to 75 stores, wouldn't it be smaller than the present day Landing building?
It is a bit more upscale than a flea market. I'm not going to entertain the Landing comparison become the Landing has so many basic design flaws it was never going to be successful.
What are the design flaws that can't be fixed? It's already more successful than this Calgary example. Also, you can do several things with that structurally sound building. It's the same general structure as Bayside in Miami, Harborplace in Baltimore and Waterside in Norfolk. All of them are vibrant by any standard we'd use locally. The remake of Watetside is about as impressive as one can come up with for the reuse of a space that supposedly had too many "design flaws" to overcome.
The Landing needs a new owner, someone who specializes in this sort of property. The current owner has never quite been able to make it work.
Oh, and a Starbucks. I went to The Landing almost every day I worked downtown when it had a Starbucks. It got me in the door.
I no longer go.
Quick poll: If the upstairs food court at The Landing featured Jacksonville home grown products and stores (i.e. Sweet Theory, French Pantry, Southern Roots, Bold Bean, Nacho Taco, Ajeen and Juice, etc...) would THAT draw folks in?
MusicMan, basically you're saying the structure is fine? You're also saying if the tenant mix was modified to something that aligns with current retailing trends, there would be more people visiting the structure?
If this is the case, seems the public would be better off not sinking millions into a complete demo.
I do agree that the structure and the tenant mix in the particular locations wasn't well thought out. Easily fixable though.
The ironic thing was that I do believe Sleiman's original landing plan from 2004-2005ish would have worked. The guy WAS capable of coming up with a plan.
Now, that was when money was free and every bank was just printing cash from the branch it seemed.
Sleiman is more capable than Khan or anyone at COJ in doing anything retail, IMO based on their previous professional experience. However, the most significant obstacle regarding the Landing has been the political battle/bad relationships between him and the city. If Brown knew what he was doing, by now the Landing would likely look a lot different than it does today.
Quote from: thelakelander on November 27, 2018, 10:07:32 AM
Sleiman is more capable than Khan or anyone at COJ in doing anything retail, IMO based on their previous professional experience. However, the most significant obstacle regarding the Landing has been the political battle/bad relationships between him and the city. If Brown knew what he was doing, by now the Landing would likely look a lot different than it does today.
Not a good sign when the only administration Sleiman got along with was the one that was incapable of pulling off what he wanted.
Quote from: Tacachale on November 27, 2018, 10:45:26 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on November 27, 2018, 10:07:32 AM
Sleiman is more capable than Khan or anyone at COJ in doing anything retail, IMO based on their previous professional experience. However, the most significant obstacle regarding the Landing has been the political battle/bad relationships between him and the city. If Brown knew what he was doing, by now the Landing would likely look a lot different than it does today.
Not a good sign when the only administration Sleiman got along with was the one that was incapable of pulling off what he wanted.
Can't argue that. For a guy that likes to donate and be chummy with political candidates, it sure hasn't worked well here.
- He jumped in with Mike Hogan who basically campaigned that, "we're not spending a dime on anything whatsoever." Hogan Lost
- He jumped in with Alvin Brown a year in and tried to get chummy with him while Brown couldn't balance the City's checkbook to save his life. He lost.
- Unless someone comes out of the woodwork in the next 60 days, Curry is GOING to win re-election. If he plans on holding on to this building and wants to re-do it, then Sleiman and Curry are going to have to figure this out. Or, this political football is going to be punted more times then the Jags do.
So real quick - here are the basic design flaws.
The building is oriented the wrong direction. The U should have opened to the street, not the river. Better yet, it should have never been U shapped because it destroys sightlines
The stores should have had entrances to the exterior of the building, not an interior hallway.
It was built at least 15' to close to the river. There is practically no room to walk along the river.
With minimal downtown population it should have been built with a parking garage from day 1. It should have never opened without it.
We know so much more about walkable urbanism today and if the Landing was being built today there is no way it would ever be built like it is.
Quote from: Kerry on November 27, 2018, 11:20:09 AM
The building is oriented the wrong direction. The U should have opened to the street, not the river. Better yet, it should have never been U shapped because it destroys sightlines
Fixable. The building has stores on both sides of the U. It isn't the design's fault that they poorly used the outside of the U.
Quote from: Kerry on November 27, 2018, 11:20:09 AM
The stores should have had entrances to the exterior of the building, not an interior hallway.
It was done as a Mall - not uncommon in 1987. Also Fixable
Quote from: Kerry on November 27, 2018, 11:20:09 AM
It was built at least 15' to close to the river. There is practically no room to walk along the river.
This I completely agree with. I wouldn't tear it down over it, but I agree.
Quote from: Kerry on November 27, 2018, 11:20:09 AM
With minimal downtown population it should have been built with a parking garage from day 1. It should have never opened without it.
This isn't a design flaw of the building, but considering the city was supposed to do this since the 1980's I agree it should have happened.
Quote from: Kerry on November 27, 2018, 11:20:09 AM
We know so much more about walkable urbanism today and if the Landing was being built today there is no way it would ever be built like it is.
No arguments, but also not hard to address many of these things. It also isn't the key issue with the Landing. Take the Wells Fargo Center across the street. The double sidewalk nonsense is crazy. I don't see anyone trying to tear it down though to fix that.
Quote from: Kerry on November 27, 2018, 11:20:09 AM
So real quick - here are the basic design flaws.
The building is oriented the wrong direction. The U should have opened to the street, not the river. Better yet, it should have never been U shapped because it destroys sightlines
Just about every festival marketplace was designed this way. So are the majority of our class A office towers. The fix is easy. Just make a few of the walls transparent. As a part of the recent revamp of Miami's Bayside, they literally removed walls and made a portion of the complex open air.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Miami/Miami-October-2018/i-CdLBgTJ/0/f9048a29/L/20181025_155547-L.jpg)
It would be very easy to do something similar with the Market Hall area that opens up to Independent Drive.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Business/Jacksonville-Landing/i-KrnhnSr/0/b008a762/L/20170625_142652-L.jpg)
QuoteThe stores should have had entrances to the exterior of the building, not an interior hallway.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Business/Jacksonville-Landing/i-Dq2KfQQ/0/32eba211/L/20170624_115823-L.jpg)
This could be a pretty awesome space with storefronts and reuse/programming of the underutilized courtyard area shown here/Another easy cheap fix. Keep the structure, eliminate the interior mall and just add storefront entrances (this happens with older failed enclosed malls all across the state and country). IMO, we should do the same to the Wells Fargo Center across the street as well (Charlotte has been good at doing this with its office tower lobbies on Tryon Street.
QuoteIt was built at least 15' to close to the river. There is practically no room to walk along the river.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Business/Jacksonville-Landing/i-4MHhfjt/0/d1a49177/L/20170624_131530-L.jpg)
Another easy cheap fix. Lose/modify the outdoor fenced seating that eats into the riverwalk space (and move the stairwell near the Main Street Bridge) and you'll have ample room for the riverwalk to walk or bike. There's at least 15 to 20 feet to play with there, which is just as wide or wider than any stretch of the riverwalk thorough Brooklyn. I believe all those storefront openings are already garage roll-up doors. Open them and you'd have a similar condition that Hawkers has in Five Points...except with a riverwalk that's double the size in width.
QuoteWith minimal downtown population it should have been built with a parking garage from day 1. It should have never opened without it.
No argument here. COJ failed on this, since the parking garage was promised to lure Rouse here in the first place. With that said, overcoming parking is an easy fix. We aren't exactly Manhattan when it comes to density. There's opportunity to maximize use at existing lots and garages and dedicated parking needs can be reduced with a change in the type of tenant mix.
QuoteWe know so much more about walkable urbanism today and if the Landing was being built today there is no way it would ever be built like it is.
Do we? If we did, we wouldn't be proposing to move this type of complex to a stadium parking lot that will be adjacent to a six lane at-grade highway between two freeway ramps.....over a mile from the walkable core. I believe we knew a lot more about walkable urbanism a century ago than we do today or in the 1980s when the Landing was built. With that said, flip the storefronts facing Independent Drive and that same structure is just as walkable as anything we can design today and for a significant fraction of the cost that a complete demo and rebuild will take.
Btw, here's a picture of the Harborplace revamp from a few years ago. Some vacant retail space become consolidated into a museum. Other spaces had outdoor storefronts and seating added to better integrate with the pedestrian experience.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Baltimore-April-2016/i-XqZxHvx/0/62362d92/L/baltimore-L.jpg)
Here's a 2015 rendering for the proposed revamp of the other building.
(http://www.trbimg.com/img-560dc2a5/turbine/bs-bz-harborplace-20151001)
"The plan presented Thursday by Seattle-based architects from MG2 proposes eliminating the interior mall in the Pratt Street pavilion and allowing the public to enter stores from both sides of the building."
https://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bs-bz-harborplace-20151001-story.html
(https://media.bizj.us/view/img/8009852/harborplace-1*1024xx1024-576-0-29.jpg)
Let me add - even if it was revamped to have the retail facing the street, the building is way too far from the street. There is simply too much wasted space between the structure and the sidewalk.
Quote from: Kerry on November 27, 2018, 02:25:24 PM
Let me add - even if it was revamped to have the retail facing the street, the building is way too far from the street. There is simply too much wasted space between the structure and the sidewalk.
Not sure I think that's a development challenge, as you can do a ton with that space. If I were building that structure yes I'd move it back from the river. These sound like excuses versus actual problems with the building.
The building is sitting in the wrong spot on the land. It is too close to the river and too far from the street. How can you fix it without tearing it down, and is the fix more expensive than just starting over? If you don't fix the root cause to any problem then you are just treating the symptoms.
And they would still need to do something about the terminating vistas on Laura Street and Water Street. They are abysmal. Almost as if the developer really had no concept or idea about what they were doing.
http://www.placemakers.com/2012/04/12/get-to-know-the-awkwardly-named-terminated-vista/
Quote from: Kerry on November 27, 2018, 03:00:00 PM
The building is sitting in the wrong spot on the land. It is too close to the river and too far from the street. How can you fix it without tearing it down, and is the fix more expensive than just starting over? If you don't fix the root cause to any problem then you are just treating the symptoms.
And they would still need to do something about the terminating vistas on Laura Street and Water Street. They are abysmal. Almost as if the developer really had no concept or idea about what they were doing.
http://www.placemakers.com/2012/04/12/get-to-know-the-awkwardly-named-terminated-vista/
Again, I'd also fix a ton of other buildings downtown too. But, that isn't keeping them from being redeveloped. Are we really trying to make the argument that if hypothetically the building was 15 feet back off the river and closer to the street that all of our problems would be solved here?
The original plan from the 2000's was to cut a hole in the building at Laura street so someone going down Laura would be able to see to the river. I thought that was a great idea.
Again, this was the 1980s. Look at Horton Plaza in San Diego. The thing was built as a fortress that took up like 6 blocks downtown. It would have been more friendly if they built a moat around it and had a single drawbridge. They've fixed it some but it's still not amazing.
It's also not a huge problem in the Gaslamp District.
Quote from: Steve on November 27, 2018, 03:34:35 PM
Quote from: Kerry on November 27, 2018, 03:00:00 PM
The building is sitting in the wrong spot on the land. It is too close to the river and too far from the street. How can you fix it without tearing it down, and is the fix more expensive than just starting over? If you don't fix the root cause to any problem then you are just treating the symptoms.
And they would still need to do something about the terminating vistas on Laura Street and Water Street. They are abysmal. Almost as if the developer really had no concept or idea about what they were doing.
http://www.placemakers.com/2012/04/12/get-to-know-the-awkwardly-named-terminated-vista/
Again, I'd also fix a ton of other buildings downtown too. But, that isn't keeping them from being redeveloped. Are we really trying to make the argument that if hypothetically the building was 15 feet back off the river and closer to the street that all of our problems would be solved here?
Actually Yes - I am making the argument that setbacks play a huge role in successful walkable urbanism. That can't be fixed at the Landing with the current structure. The whole eastside is loading docks and mechanical systems. It was destined for failure while it was still on paper in some architect's office.
Quote from: Kerry on November 27, 2018, 02:25:24 PM
Let me add - even if it was revamped to have the retail facing the street, the building is way too far from the street. There is simply too much wasted space between the structure and the sidewalk.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Neighborhoods/Downtown-Jacksonville-January/i-qZZfqxQ/0/cf8d6063/L/DSCF3820-L.jpg)
Lol are you serious? It's set back 20 feet from the curb at Laura Street and ranges from 20 to 100 between Laura and the green space at the corner of Hogan and Independent Drive. You can either activate the dead space into interactive outdoor plaza, bier garden, etc. that DT doesn't have or use a portion of it as complimenting infill development. What you describe isn't a negative.....it's an opportunity.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/-1/Armature-Works-August-2018/i-DLhHxP8/0/80d19d4a/L/20180808_200657-L.jpg)
Quote from: Kerry on November 27, 2018, 03:00:00 PM
The building is sitting in the wrong spot on the land. It is too close to the river and too far from the street. How can you fix it without tearing it down, and is the fix more expensive than just starting over? If you don't fix the root cause to any problem then you are just treating the symptoms.
And they would still need to do something about the terminating vistas on Laura Street and Water Street. They are abysmal. Almost as if the developer really had no concept or idea about what they were doing.
http://www.placemakers.com/2012/04/12/get-to-know-the-awkwardly-named-terminated-vista/
Ever been to Chicago or an old seaport city? Their buildings and wharves are literally in their rivers. Too far from the street or two close to the river.....it's hard to make a sound case for either one these observations being are market related or root problems to why the center is what it is today or what it can be in the future.
Quote from: Kerry on November 27, 2018, 04:17:10 PM
Quote from: Steve on November 27, 2018, 03:34:35 PM
Quote from: Kerry on November 27, 2018, 03:00:00 PM
The building is sitting in the wrong spot on the land. It is too close to the river and too far from the street. How can you fix it without tearing it down, and is the fix more expensive than just starting over? If you don't fix the root cause to any problem then you are just treating the symptoms.
And they would still need to do something about the terminating vistas on Laura Street and Water Street. They are abysmal. Almost as if the developer really had no concept or idea about what they were doing.
http://www.placemakers.com/2012/04/12/get-to-know-the-awkwardly-named-terminated-vista/
Again, I'd also fix a ton of other buildings downtown too. But, that isn't keeping them from being redeveloped. Are we really trying to make the argument that if hypothetically the building was 15 feet back off the river and closer to the street that all of our problems would be solved here?
Actually Yes - I am making the argument that setbacks play a huge role in successful walkable urbanism. That can't be fixed at the Landing with the current structure. The whole eastside is loading docks and mechanical systems. It was destined for failure while it was still on paper in some architect's office.
The complex is actually three buildings, so you could demo one of the smaller ones on the river if you wanted a bigger space there but I doubt that's necessary for the site to be a vibrant and interactive one. Nevertheless, your argument about setbacks can quickly become a pretty bad one because the devil is in the details of how you use a specific space. IMO, the Landing is a mixed-use structure in what should be a linear urban waterfront park that includes the entire length of the riverwalk. There's a million things you can do with a structurally sound space like that, loading docks, mechanical systems and all. All you need is a little vision and open mindedness. That goes a long way to setting some places apart from others.
sorry - misread Lakelands comment so deleted my response to it.
I prefer to activate that space with retail - not checkers.
Then add a retail space or kiosk. However, the market can't support 100% filling of what's already available.
Anyone know if COJ has done anything like this so developers can get a sense of where the City wants to go with downtown retail?
https://agenda.okc.gov/sirepub/cache/2/n4eucsibgyztryjfgagte43v/379918911272018053747900.PDF
The link doesn't work. However, I doubt the city knows where it wants to go with retail or where the market is willing to take it.
See if this one works.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwingov43vXeAhVPq1MKHcX7BzkQFjACegQIBxAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fagenda.okc.gov%2Fsirepub%2Fview.aspx%3Fcabinet%3Dpublished_meetings%26fileid%3D3799189&usg=AOvVaw2i4oIPivg4ajn-NGfIU99q
In short....no, not that I'm aware of.
Isn't this Calgary mall basically a glorified flea market? It sure does look like it (with the small booths, and symmetrical aisle layout).
Yeah, that's what it looks like.
This reminds me of the big resurgence in condo construction and sales happening over the last decade in major cities all over North America and which has left Jacksonville behind for some reason ;) .Many properties have been bought by international investors for residency issues, for instance getting their children a better shot being admitted to a particular grad school, but they don't live their full time or at all and it becomes sub-leased or vacant. According to the video about this mall an incredible 99% of the slots available at this struggling space have been sold! With those kind of numbers you would think there would be investors clamoring to get a foothold and open a business before someone else capitalizes on the opportunity but not here leading me to believe ulterior motives in investing in a project like this.