Quote(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Business/Jacksonville-Landing/i-6X9rBSn/0/a9df756b/L/20170624_131423-L.jpg)
After years of legal disputes and disagreements between various revitalization strategies between the City of Jacksonville and Jacksonville Landing Investments (JLI), an $18 million deal for the city to acquire and raze the underutilized marketplace has been proposed. Here are a few reasons why taxpayers should be concerned.
Read More: https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/landing-to-be-razed-are-taxpayers-screwed/
I was hoping the Landing could be reimagined as something similar to the Milwaukee Public Market. But it does not sound like that is possible at this point.
What we are going to be left with is a bigger version of the "park" across from the library. A shame.
We can barely keep the grass properly maintained in the space in front of the courthouse. Hemming still hasn't been updated since it was redone in the 1980s. The Main Street pocket park is homeless central. Kids Kampus (which was popular) was never maintained and destroyed. We've had green space in front of the performing arts center and done nothing with it for decades. Is Metropolitan Park still open?
A good park will also cost good money. Washington Square in Cincinnati cost $46 million in 2012. Millennium Park in Chicago was $475 million. It's hard to imagine we'd fund anything more than sod, some winding sidewalks and a few trees. Logically, people should be seriously concerned if we can do this right based on history and the surrounding context.
If the choice is between the Landing as it currently is and a park...well, I don't know which I prefer. Probably a park. But as you mention, it will take money to maintain it. And let's be honest - it's likely to just turn into a nice waterfront location for Jacksonville's homeless population to hang out in.
Does anyone know how much Sleiman asked for in incentives when his "It's about Time" proposal was made in 2005. I don't remember it ever being made public, because Peyton was adamantly against the idea completely. That was always the best plan in terms of redevelopment, IMO.
Second, was there any detail on what the two buildings shown in Curry's plan were to be or include? How tall were they?
By any measure, the entire history of the Landing has been a total cluster and this is just the latest chapter. However, given the city is hell-bent on closing the Landing in favor of Lot J, it might be best to just be done with it, rather than let it die a slow death. The fact is, it is already in the process of doing just that. I temper that feeling a lot though, because I know the city will probably replace it with something very sub-par and not even maintain it.
This is insane, another park that won't be maintained?
Toney must have read this article.
https://www.jacksonville.com/opinion/editorials/2017-06-22/editorial-it-s-time-sleiman-take-buyout-and-bow-out-landing (https://www.jacksonville.com/opinion/editorials/2017-06-22/editorial-it-s-time-sleiman-take-buyout-and-bow-out-landing)
Quote from: vicupstate on February 21, 2019, 10:50:41 AM
Does anyone know how much Sleiman asked for in incentives when his "It's about Time" proposal was made in 2005. I don't remember it ever being made public, because Peyton was adamantly against the idea completely. That was always the best plan in terms of redevelopment, IMO.
I swear there was something with a bunch of details, but I can't find it for the life of me.
Quote from: vicupstate on February 21, 2019, 10:50:41 AM
Second, was there any detail on what the two buildings shown in Curry's plan were to be or include? How tall were they?
Nope!
I still can't help but laugh that we're going to watch downtown get screwed over even more because Curry can't help but ask taxpayers to hold his beer and watch this.
It's not necessarily bad to want a park, but like Lake said, we have a
long history of not maintaining them. Making another park the centerpiece of our city that it's questionable if we can even afford in the first place, much less maintain, is less a gamble and more the definition of insanity.
It looks like Curry's plan at this point is:
- Get JEA to award their HQ to Lot J
- Tear down the Hart ramps and build the convention center at the Shipyards
- Tear down the Landing and turn it into a park to remove competition from Lot J and get credit for doing anything at all
- Let Rimrock Devlin build their apartment & "food hall" next to the Hyatt as a consolation prize for not having a convention center downtown
- Either retire wealthily or run for higher office as a "results-oriented" candidate and get elected while we stand around looking at the shambles downtown is in at the end of the next decade while Shad begins considering a move to London anyway
Does The Jaxson have an easily accessible list of other downtown improvement proposals with costs?
If we have another $8+ million to throw around, what is the most effective way to spend it?
Isn't there a height restriction on the Landing property? If we give a ground lease to someone to develop the Water Street side of the property and they put a couple 3-4 story office or mixed use buildings on the property, what kind of annual revenue can we expect? I think that's a best case scenario and we're looking at a low single digit ROI on $18M. The more likely outcome is a public beach for homeless people.
^If we're doing all that, it would be cheaper to not pay $18 million to kick tenants out and get Sleiman to leave and use portions of the existing facility and upgrade the existing poorly maintained riverfront park/courtyard/front porch/former Jackson statue/Hogan Street dead end that's all been the responsibility of COJ's to take care of since 1987.
Even a real park costs money. I'd be surprised if we don't take the cheap way out like we're doing with the Hart Bridge ramp removal project.
Call me a dreamer, but it would seem natural to have a marina and fishing pier of sorts right there on the river...there's really nothing promoting the ability to enjoy the river, launching kayaks, etc., etc. And how fun would it be to be a downtown dweller with your boat nearby so you could get out easily and float around watching fireworks, catching the football game, etc out on the water? Granted, with the parking needed it would be a small operation, but probably about as much traffic as that part of the river could bear.
Quote from: sandyshoes on February 22, 2019, 12:57:23 PM
Call me a dreamer, but it would seem natural to have a marina and fishing pier of sorts right there on the river...there's really nothing promoting the ability to enjoy the river, launching kayaks, etc., etc. And how fun would it be to be a downtown dweller with your boat nearby so you could get out easily and float around watching fireworks, catching the football game, etc out on the water? Granted, with the parking needed it would be a small operation, but probably about as much traffic as that part of the river could bear.
Have you been down there lately? The existing marina supply is never full and there's an existing kayak launch on the southbank and by the Y in Brooklyn. You can't put a pier there because it would interfere with the navigational channel.
To quote a favorite character: "Oh. Well, that's different. Nevermind".
Quote from: sandyshoes on February 22, 2019, 12:57:23 PM
Call me a dreamer, but it would seem natural to have a marina and fishing pier of sorts right there on the river...there's really nothing promoting the ability to enjoy the river, launching kayaks, etc., etc. And how fun would it be to be a downtown dweller with your boat nearby so you could get out easily and float around watching fireworks, catching the football game, etc out on the water? Granted, with the parking needed it would be a small operation, but probably about as much traffic as that part of the river could bear.
You don't need a pier when it's 40' deep right off of the seawall.
Quote from: acme54321 on February 22, 2019, 03:07:19 PM
Quote from: sandyshoes on February 22, 2019, 12:57:23 PM
Call me a dreamer, but it would seem natural to have a marina and fishing pier of sorts right there on the river...there's really nothing promoting the ability to enjoy the river, launching kayaks, etc., etc. And how fun would it be to be a downtown dweller with your boat nearby so you could get out easily and float around watching fireworks, catching the football game, etc out on the water? Granted, with the parking needed it would be a small operation, but probably about as much traffic as that part of the river could bear.
You don't need a pier when it's 40' deep right off of the seawall.
It would be helpful if fishing was allowed there, or somewhere in downtown.
I am at a complete loss on this. How can the city even fathom blowing $18mm with no real return?
What about the opportunity cost of having this waterfront land off the tax rolls?
Also the currents downtown are too strong to encourage casual kayaking etc.
Nate Monroe picks up on Lake's editorial here. Lots of good questions raised about the efficacy of this deal.
Only thing he left out was Curry's 2015 quote when he ran against Alvin Brown in which he questioned Brown spending about $12 million on the Landing by saying the money would be better spent on kids programs. So, does that also apply to spending $18 million now?
https://www.jacksonville.com/news/20190222/nate-monroe-sleimans-exit-from-landing-offers-promise---and-peril (https://www.jacksonville.com/news/20190222/nate-monroe-sleimans-exit-from-landing-offers-promise---and-peril)
The article illustrates that this issue is really just a symptom of a larger problem. The city is run by a cliche of people that call all the shots. That wouldn't be terrible or particularly unique, except that in JAX's case they are not susceptible to political pressure, nor are they very competent. They do it for the sake of power alone, without much thought to the broader end results.
Quote from: DrQue on February 22, 2019, 03:23:35 PM
I am at a complete loss on this. How can the city even fathom blowing $18mm with no real return?
What about the opportunity cost of having this waterfront land off the tax rolls?
Also the currents downtown are too strong to encourage casual kayaking etc.
Is it currently on the tax rolls?
Honestly, I'm OK with some waterfront green space. However, I think the city should RFP and sell off the majority of the site.
Quote from: acme54321 on February 23, 2019, 11:40:56 AM
Quote from: DrQue on February 22, 2019, 03:23:35 PM
I am at a complete loss on this. How can the city even fathom blowing $18mm with no real return?
What about the opportunity cost of having this waterfront land off the tax rolls?
Also the currents downtown are too strong to encourage casual kayaking etc.
Is it currently on the tax rolls?
The land is not, the building should be.
The potential users of the site are lining up - The Jacksonville Aquarium
Quote
From First Coast News
"It is a perfect location," Erika Sepega, who is AquaJax's treasurer and on the board of directors, said. "Having the Jacksonville Landing kind of open up as an opportunity is really amazing."
"People travel all around the world just to go see aquariums," Sepega said. "So to have something that's iconic, something that can bring people to our downtown, would really be amazing."
A feasibility study for the aquarium estimated it would draw more than 800,000 visitors each year, though Sepega called that a conservative estimate. That means tourists spending money in Jacksonville in addition to jobs created.
Sepega said ideally, the city would donate land or provide tax incentives while the aquarium itself would be funded privately through donations. She said they plan to reach out to the city to express interest in the Landing property soon.
The aquarium would operate in partnership with the Jacksonville Zoo and Gardens, running boats in between the two properties, which makes the riverfront location ideal.
https://www.firstcoastnews.com/article/news/local/organization-eyes-downtown-sites-including-landing-for-future-aquarium/77-fe1733c1-0187-489a-9a72-fda795b9e005
Quote from: vicupstate on February 23, 2019, 06:29:52 AM
The article illustrates that this issue is really just a symptom of a larger problem. The city is run by a cliche of people that call all the shots. That wouldn't be terrible or particularly unique, except that in JAX's case they are not susceptible to political pressure, nor are they very competent. They do it for the sake of power alone, without much thought to the broader end results.
Nate wrote something of a disappointing opinion piece, and did so clearly from a bitch and moan perspective. I love Ennis but his susceptibility for wallowing in this sort of nonsense is lamentable. Are taxpayers screwed ? ? ? Do you mean in the coming or the going, Ennis, hmmmmm ? ? ?
Lenny Curry is just like every prior Jacksonville mayor apparently. Wrong. Shad Khan has not changed the dynamic in this city apparently. Wrong. Toney Sleiman has fleeced the city apparently. Wrong. Jacksonville can't do anything right apparently. Wrong.
Y'all have been on quite a bitch-and-moan incorrectly roll. Kudos.
This quote is quite telling, likely in a way Monroe never contemplated:
Sleiman is getting far more than the buildings are worth, and almost certainly more than he could have netted in any private-sector transaction.What, to any reasonable person, does this (it's called context, ladies and gentlemen) say about The Landing, its location, and its prospects ? ? ?
Remember, because no one was available in 2003, Sleiman got The Landing for the bargain basement price of $5 million. Hello? Logic: how do it work ? ? ?
If you want to understand the incredible benefit of having Shad Khan in town and Lenny Curry as Mayor, consider this with respect to Toney Sleiman and the Jacksonville Landing: Sleiman paid about $5 million for the buildings back in 2003. No one in town had the bankroll or the vision to do *anything* with The Landing so Sleiman comes in, undercapitalized, to tread water and gets that bargain basement price. And here we are more than 15 years later essentially paying him $10 million to go away (15 million minus the 5 million he previously paid Rouse). He's netting less than $1 million a year for being a placeholder; a good deal for him, to be sure, but in no way is the city getting fleeced. Alvin Brown, after all, was willing to *give* him $12 million and Sleiman, still undercapitalized, would *STILL* be driving the train on some kind of redevelopment effort.
So:
"City Hall is poised to pay Sleiman $15 million to walk away from his company's stewardship of The Jacksonville Landing"Good !!! This cleans everything up and allows for a good deal to be made with a minimum of complicating players involved in the mix.
Most frustrating to me, however, is the slavish insistence on a cluster of retail in the current location when Jacksonville-specific facts indicate the Sports and Entertainment district *are* the reasonable location for that cluster. Thousands visiting the Arena, the Stadium, the Amphitheater throughout the year. A
Duval Live! type of entertainment center about to be built, a high-end hotel at The Shipyards along with the possibility of a Convention Center -- you have to be some kind of a blinkered slave to *not* see how this potential approach / probable eventuality is clearly preferable.
It's high time to put down the bitch-and-moan slave mentality preferring generic, cookie-cutter urban solutions while blindly pushing a stale approach in a unique city with an opportunity to build something few American cities possess, and certainly none in Florida.
Go ahead, Lenny Curry, make that lemonade bwah !!!
After a couple of civic events on the lawn at Curry Park - say 4th of July and FL/GA Pep Rally, but any events with lots of people - the Parks Department will be asking the City to replace all that grass with some sort of paving material. It will be too big a hit on their already strained budget to keep replacing grass after big events, and keeping it alive. Similarly, to any plant material except [palm] trees.
Curry doesn't know where he is going, but is determined to set a speed record getting there. This park idea is nothing more than the old Esplanade idea from 30+ years ago. I, for one don't feel that Sleiman has fleeced the city at all. I think the city has done their best to fleece Sleiman. They refused to repair the river walk and bulkhead in front of the Landing as they were contractually obligated to do, screwed him on parking, voided his lease, made him get special permits during events, and made it almost impossible for the Landing to survive. There were plenty of people with the capital to buy the place back in 2003. Only Sleiman was willing to take a gamble. It's tough to fight for survival when you have the taxpayer backed government and market forces against you. I'm glad Sleiman gets paid.
Quote from: RattlerGator on February 24, 2019, 08:13:03 AM
Quote from: vicupstate on February 23, 2019, 06:29:52 AM
The article illustrates that this issue is really just a symptom of a larger problem. The city is run by a cliche of people that call all the shots. That wouldn't be terrible or particularly unique, except that in JAX's case they are not susceptible to political pressure, nor are they very competent. They do it for the sake of power alone, without much thought to the broader end results.
Nate wrote something of a disappointing opinion piece, and did so clearly from a bitch and moan perspective. I love Ennis but his susceptibility for wallowing in this sort of nonsense is lamentable. Are taxpayers screwed ? ? ? Do you mean in the coming or the going, Ennis, hmmmmm ? ? ?
Lenny Curry is just like every prior Jacksonville mayor apparently. Wrong. Shad Khan has not changed the dynamic in this city apparently. Wrong. Toney Sleiman has fleeced the city apparently. Wrong. Jacksonville can't do anything right apparently. Wrong.
Y'all have been on quite a bitch-and-moan incorrectly roll. Kudos.
LOL, RattlerGator, glad to hear from you again ;D
I love you but you've clearly missed the general point again. Much of this simply boils down to Jax clearly having no true coordinated plan or implementation strategy of achieving a dream of building a vibrant downtown core. Every four years, some different guy comes into office and does their own thing, leaving downtown in a Frankenstein-like condition where after millions in taxpayer subsidies have been handed out, we're no where closer to the goal than we were in 1980.
QuoteThis quote is quite telling, likely in a way Monroe never contemplated:
Sleiman is getting far more than the buildings are worth, and almost certainly more than he could have netted in any private-sector transaction.
What, to any reasonable person, does this (it's called context, ladies and gentlemen) say about The Landing, its location, and its prospects ? ? ?
It says nothing actually. A bland structurally sound warehouse or culturally iconic building could be worth less than $1 million in overall value but still be utilized for uses that bring vibrancy. Across the country, many of your popular public markets are housed in such structures.
QuoteRemember, because no one was available in 2003, Sleiman got The Landing for the bargain basement price of $5 million. Hello? Logic: how do it work ? ? ?
I don't recall it being that way. You don't know who was available. Rouse didn't stick up a for sale sign. Regardless of that, if not for 15 years of political football, the place could have been fixed up years ago and the millions being flushed down the toilet now could have been going to opening new businesses, getting new projects off the ground, etc. Instead, we're going to spend +$20 million on resolve a self inflicted fight with an undetermined additional number for whatever is next....that no one knows about accept (further cements the comment about no vidion or coordinated direction to achieve it).
QuoteIf you want to understand the incredible benefit of having Shad Khan in town and Lenny Curry as Mayor, consider this with respect to Toney Sleiman and the Jacksonville Landing: Sleiman paid about $5 million for the buildings back in 2003. No one in town had the bankroll or the vision to do *anything* with The Landing so Sleiman comes in, undercapitalized, to tread water and gets that bargain basement price. And here we are more than 15 years later essentially paying him $10 million to go away (15 million minus the 5 million he previously paid Rouse). He's netting less than $1 million a year for being a placeholder; a good deal for him, to be sure, but in no way is the city getting fleeced. Alvin Brown, after all, was willing to *give* him $12 million and Sleiman, still undercapitalized, would *STILL* be driving the train on some kind of redevelopment effort.
Sleiman has money. He's not undercapitalized. That's a pretty ignorant assumption. Also, we all know you have a thing for Khan, but let's not make the issue of razing perfectly fine taxpayer funded structures about the Jags. This is simply about the logic in first paying millions to kick existing businesses out of downtown and razing structurally sounds buildings without seriously considering adaptive reuse or a plan that keeps these businesses open, workers employed and a part of the downtown scene long term.
QuoteSo:
"City Hall is poised to pay Sleiman $15 million to walk away from his company's stewardship of The Jacksonville Landing"
Good !!! This cleans everything up and allows for a good deal to be made with a minimum of complicating players involved in the mix.
My question to you is can Sleiman be removed without taxpayers also being forced to remove the businesses? Believe it or not, downtown is absolutely a better place with Hooters, Coastal Cookies, An Apple A Day, Fion MacCool's, etc. being a part of the scene than not. The Northbank already has very few businesses open at nights and weekends. It needs more, not less.
QuoteMost frustrating to me, however, is the slavish insistence on a cluster of retail in the current location when Jacksonville-specific facts indicate the Sports and Entertainment district *are* the reasonable location for that cluster. Thousands visiting the Arena, the Stadium, the Amphitheater throughout the year. A Duval Live! type of entertainment center about to be built, a high-end hotel at The Shipyards along with the possibility of a Convention Center -- you have to be some kind of a blinkered slave to *not* see how this potential approach / probable eventuality is clearly preferable.
It's actually pretty foolish to address the clustering of urban retail, entertainment, etc. in an autocentric manner. A Duval Live! should have nothing to do with what is allowed to open in the downtown core one mile west. People shouldn't have to drive to the stadium to being eat on the riverfront, go to happy hour or go to a bar. If that's the plan, then downtown Jax will certainly become a national laughing stock.
Regarding having visions where everyone can see where you're going and participate in getting you there.....I'm in Texas at the moment. Houston clearly has a plan:
(http://www.asakurarobinson.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/west-axo-692x300.jpg)
http://www.downtowndistrict.org/projects-initiatives/plan-downtown/
http://www.downtowndistrict.org/static/media/uploads/attachments/plan_downtown_report_final_spreads_sm.pdf
Quote from: RattlerGator on February 24, 2019, 08:13:03 AM
Most frustrating to me, however, is the slavish insistence on a cluster of retail in the current location when Jacksonville-specific facts indicate the Sports and Entertainment district *are* the reasonable location for that cluster. Thousands visiting the Arena, the Stadium, the Amphitheater throughout the year. A Duval Live! type of entertainment center about to be built, a high-end hotel at The Shipyards along with the possibility of a Convention Center -- you have to be some kind of a blinkered slave to *not* see how this potential approach / probable eventuality is clearly preferable.
You're exactly right. People will
VISIT the stadium, arena, baseball grounds, Duval Live...etc
People actually
LIVE and
WORK near Laura Street and the current CBD. After hundreds of millions of dollars of public and private investment, Lot J/Shipyards may have 30% of the daily repeat users or residents in the CBD. Short of 24/7 programming, you'll never get the built in audience of the CBD, so it makes more sense to capitalize on the momentum we already have around Laura street and Hemming Park.
Quote from: thelakelander on February 24, 2019, 09:17:55 AM
Regarding having visions where everyone can see where you're going and participate in getting you there.....I'm in Texas at the moment. Houston clearly has a plan:
The strangest thing about that is that we've seemingly put together at least attempts for plans in the past, but recent administrations have just not bothered with it. I get that Jacksonville is a big city, and there's more than just downtown, but no one ever seems to actually want more than either lip service or whatever Shad asked for at the last meeting.
Quote from: Captain Zissou on February 25, 2019, 09:18:59 AM
You're exactly right. People will VISIT the stadium, arena, baseball grounds, Duval Live...etc
People actually LIVE and WORK near Laura Street and the current CBD. After hundreds of millions of dollars of public and private investment, Lot J/Shipyards may have 30% of the daily repeat users or residents in the CBD. Short of 24/7 programming, you'll never get the built in audience of the CBD, so it makes more sense to capitalize on the momentum we already have around Laura street and Hemming Park.
Ding ding ding!
Throwing away decades of work on trying to get people downtown in order to pay for Shad Khan to start all over a mile away is ridiculous. If he wants it, he should have to pay for it, and not at the expense of our urban core.
Fyi.
Another vacant parcel: Community pushes back against Landing demolition
https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2019/02/25/another-vacant-parcel-community-pushes-back.html?
Listen to the audio segment here, it's amazing.
100ish locals giving their brief thoughts on what they'd like to see the Landing replaced with.
https://www.wokv.com/news/local/what-could-the-future-hold-for-the-jacksonville-landing-site/fqkesxT70lpGRnWX6wCsbO/
Some of these ideas are just priceless - semi-automatic gun ranges, a homeless shelter, a mega parking garage.
Many totally defy the fundamental laws of space (Amazon HQ2? a theme park larger than Universal?).
My favorite theme though is how many of these ideas for the Landing basically mirror what's already there. Restaurants. Retail. Indoor/outdoor shopping center. Which begs an obvious question.
Notice by the way how many people advocate for a park.
Quote from: KenFSU on February 25, 2019, 04:28:14 PM
Listen to the audio segment here, it's amazing.
100ish locals giving their brief thoughts on what they'd like to see the Landing replaced with.
https://www.wokv.com/news/local/what-could-the-future-hold-for-the-jacksonville-landing-site/fqkesxT70lpGRnWX6wCsbO/
Some of these ideas are just priceless - semi-automatic gun ranges, a homeless shelter, a mega parking garage.
Many totally defy the fundamental laws of space (Amazon HQ2? a theme park larger than Universal?).
My favorite theme though is how many of these ideas for the Landing basically mirror what's already there. Restaurants. Retail. Indoor/outdoor shopping center. Which begs an obvious question.
Notice by the way how many people advocate for a park.
Lol! Yeah we got some comments on social media that I'm pretty sure are plants. I'm surprised they haven't figured out to create a Jaxson account yet.
Never forget this. 18,000,000 of taxpayers money for what? NOTHING! ZILCH! ZERO! Believe me, no one will drive to downtown to visit another park on the river. It will need constant maintenance, be covered with the homeless and frighten the people who will be staying in the existing hotels and the new ones that are planned. I have seen a lifetime of Jacksonville stupidity. This goes on the list. I don't mind the 18 million but I do mind the state of disaster this will end up being. The "tear it down and they will build" fantasy of the so-called leaders in Jacksonville has NEVER produced anything worthwhile. Just look a few blocks east and across the river and what do you see? YEARS of empty riverfront. And you will see years of empty parking lot where the Annex building once stood. Stop kidding yourselves this is Jax. It's obvious I'm disgusted.
Quote from: KenFSU on February 25, 2019, 04:28:14 PM
My favorite theme though is how many of these ideas for the Landing basically mirror what's already there.
Huh? I didn't notice anyone calling to replace the landing with something that's 85% vacant.
No one has said they wan't a vacant or mismanaged property.
At this point,having resided in Jacksonville since the early 80's,currently just three miles from Downtown,I realize it's not a matter of my tax payments,but rather,more a matter of why I would even want to be anywhere near here at this point,the endless Downtown Loop,among other Loop. After all,so many moving to "Jacksonville" in fact land in adjacent counties. I left Clay to move to Duval,something about "Downtown" inclines now to shift far away.
Another tenant and downtown business has been kicked out in the name of progress:
QuoteAlmost seven months after an Aug. 26 mass shooting at Chicago Pizza at The Jacksonville Landing, the restaurant and bar are done.
Co-owner Taya Comastro said Landing management told them they had to vacate the riverfront site by Thursday, according to Times-Union news partner First Coast News.
It comes less than a month after Sleiman Enterprises, which owns the Landing, agreed with city officials to terminate its lease on the property and demolish the structure. That left the future of many of the remaining tenants at the facility up in the air.
QuoteChicago Pizza owners had wondered as late as March 3 what their future would be, posting on their Facebook page that they did not know how long they had at that site. They said they would have celebrated its 10th anniversary during the weekend of the Nov. 2 Florida-Georgia college football game.
Comastro said they were asked to pay a fee or leave, and they chose the latter since they didn't know how much longer the Landing will stay open.
Full article: https://www.jacksonville.com/news/20190314/chicago-pizza-shut-for-good-at-jacksonville-landing
Now just you wait sir, I'm totally sure that the empty lot will call forward waves of developers to magically turn the Landing into the most bestest thing!
Begging your pardon, but I'm about to comment after only briefly perusing this thread...has The Landing been deemed structurally unsound? Is it necessary to tear it completely down? With some modification, it could make a hell of another performing arts venue, and add to the number of events currently being scheduled at the same time as the Symphony Hall and the T-U Center. (I know, the parking issue rears its ugly head yet again...just trying to think of other possibilities). Thanks for your kind indulgence.
No, the Landing has not been deemed structurally unsound. It's just as solid as anything else in the city. Those in charge or advising the mayors office have a tendency to believe that redevelopment and highest and best use generally calls for demolition first. It's an old school, Robert Moses type of style of thinking from the 1950s, 60s and 70s.
There are several reason for removing The Landing:
a) It's a sprawling 1980s suburban shopping mall occupying prime space in the CBD
b) The Landing blocks the heart of the CBD from connecting with the river, a key factor in vibrant downtown across the country.
c) A property half it's size in the same location should be generating 10 times the revenue for the city.
c) The architecture does not fit it's surroundings.
d) There's nothing meaningfully significant about it.
e) New construction allows for a wide variety of options and is incredibly more efficient.
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on March 16, 2019, 10:55:38 AM
There are several reason for removing The Landing:
a) It's a sprawling 1980s suburban shopping mall occupying prime space in the CBD
b) The Landing blocks the heart of the CBD from connecting with the river, a key factor in vibrant downtown across the country.
c) A property half it's size in the same location should be generating 10 times the revenue for the city.
c) The architecture does not fit it's surroundings.
d) There's nothing meaningfully significant about it.
e) New construction allows for a wide variety of options and is incredibly more efficient.
"Prime space" for a big passive lot? Because that's the city's big plan for it.
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on March 16, 2019, 10:55:38 AM
There are several reason for removing The Landing:
a) It's a sprawling 1980s suburban shopping mall occupying prime space in the CBD
b) The Landing blocks the heart of the CBD from connecting with the river, a key factor in vibrant downtown across the country.
c) A property half it's size in the same location should be generating 10 times the revenue for the city.
c) The architecture does not fit it's surroundings.
d) There's nothing meaningfully significant about it.
e) New construction allows for a wide variety of options and is incredibly more efficient.
a) I'll point you to Tacachale's response for that.
b) So we have to tear down the entire thing when a riverfront plaza, such as the one already in existence at the landing, could do the same job? A patch of grass next to water by itself doesn't do anything for a vibrant downtown.
c) You have no proof of this.
c) It's called being distinct and not having everything look the same. A vibrant downtown tends to have distinction.
d) There's nothing meaningfully significant about anything. A new building by itself won't solve that problem.
e) First, you're wrong. New construction is more expensive and not really any more efficient than renovating the existing structure. Second, why does the existing structure need to be demolished before even planning a replacement? I could say demolishing your house allows for a wide variety of options and is incredibly more efficient. Should I bring the wrecking ball around tomorrow before I've even had ideas on what to put there?
These are all pretty bad reasons for using public money to demolish with no vetted plan for the future.
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on March 16, 2019, 10:55:38 AM
There are several reason for removing The Landing:
a) It's a sprawling 1980s suburban shopping mall occupying prime space in the CBD
Local folklore. At 1.4 million square feet and spanning a distance from the river to State Street (if overlayed over DT), Regency Square Mall is a sprawling suburban shopping mall occupying prime space. The Landing is roughly 125,000 square feet (The Dillards at SJTC is bigger) and is an example of a urban retail structure. Actually, all of the Rouse festival marketplaces are examples of retail projects designed for urban districts. Now you may not like the way it looks, but that's not reason enough to spend millions razing.
Quoteb) The Landing blocks the heart of the CBD from connecting with the river, a key factor in vibrant downtown across the country.
False. Several streets in downtown connect you to the riverfront. The Landing does as well. I just walked through it from Laura the other day. Now, if someone simply wants to be able to see the river from Hemming Park, that's another story. Overall, it's a poor reason to raze an entire structure though, since opening up a view corridor can be easily done without taking out 125,000 square feet of useable space.
Quotec) A property half it's size in the same location should be generating 10 times the revenue for the city.
Poor management by the property owner (this includes COJ who owns the grounds surrounding the buildings) is not a reason to demolish. It's simply a reason to get better management in position.
Quotec) The architecture does not fit it's surroundings.
Bad reason. Love or hate of architecture is subjective to personal opinion. And what type of architecture fits the surroundings? JEA's block wall of a substation a block or two away? The tilt wall parking garage across the street?
Quoted) There's nothing meaningfully significant about it.
Not true. From a national perspective, James Rouse and what the festival marketplace concept meant in the 1980s, is more important that anything Henry J. Klutho did locally. Even locally, you'll struggle to find one person who hasn't lived in the city for a few years that's not familiar with it, taking family members or friends to it, taken or met a date there, been arrested there, etc. Quite frankly, it's a locally iconic landmark in a city that has very few places that has catered to a diverse range of cultures, social classes, racial groups, etc. Let it stand 50 years and for sure, it's a historic site every sense of the meaning.
Quotee) New construction allows for a wide variety of options and is incredibly more efficient.
False. This totally depends on what you're trying to do with the site. It can be more efficient to reuse certain elements for some uses and it can be more efficient to demo and start over for others.
My lofty imagination is running away and picturing The Landing as our own "Metropolitan Opera House"...how amazing would it be to have another world-class concert/performance hall with a stunning courtyard on the river, to enjoy a glass of beverage during intermission. All The Met has is a big fountain. WE have the river! The Landing is already horseshoe-shaped; just fill in the center with acoustics, etc., [someone with an architectural degree take over, please]. Yes, yes, parking. I hear you. I don't want to stop dreaming of possibilities.
Got to hand it to New York City... There seems to be no limits to the imaginative ideas for keeping the city vibrant and exciting. Imagine something like this, the just opened 150 foot tall "Vessel," a new tourist attraction creating unparalleled views of their waterfront, on the site of the Landing. As a footnote, this development is connected to the equally imaginative and invigorating Highline:
(https://media.nexstardigitalmedia.com/nxsglobal/feedsite/photo/2019/03/16/031519-hudsonyards-1280x720_77697265_ver1.0_640_360.jpg)
(https://media2.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2019_11/2788006/190315-vessel-hudson-yards-ew-400p_44155563abe3b2d848cbc0c53f1607cd.fit-860w.jpg)
I will start a separate thread on this but it is part of the just opened $25 billion Hudson Yards Project in West Manhattan, the largest private real estate development in US history:
https://www.nbc4i.com/news/inside-edition/new-york039s-039vessel039-is-giving-tourists-a-new-view-of-the-city/1853786313 (https://www.nbc4i.com/news/inside-edition/new-york039s-039vessel039-is-giving-tourists-a-new-view-of-the-city/1853786313)
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/vessel-maze-vertical-structure-opens-nyc-s-hudson-yards-n983866 (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/vessel-maze-vertical-structure-opens-nyc-s-hudson-yards-n983866)
About the creator and the design as art:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/thomas-heatherwick-vessel-hudson-yards/ (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/thomas-heatherwick-vessel-hudson-yards/)
Pretty project. Now lets break things down apples to apples to show you how screwed up things are here:
NYC
2017 City Population: 8,622,698
2017 Metro Population: 20,320,876
Jax
2017 City Population: 892,062
2017 Metro Population: 1,504,980
Jax's city population is roughly 10% of NYC's. Jax's metro population is 7% of NYC's.
NYC Vessel Construction Costs: $200 million
Comparable Jax Construction Cost (7-10% of $200 million): $14 to $20 million.
What this means: Our equivalent is paying $23 million get Sleiman out and demolish the Landing. In other words, NYC gets the Vessel. Jax gets a dirt lot to dream about what could one day be there.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 17, 2019, 09:55:49 PM
Jax gets a dirt lot to dream about what could one day be there.
...so we bought lottery tickets?
Quote from: marcuscnelson on March 17, 2019, 10:21:50 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on March 17, 2019, 09:55:49 PM
Jax gets a dirt lot to dream about what could one day be there.
...so we bought lottery tickets?
Last week's losing lottery tickets ... at a premium
Apparently the city is at least considering a Landing replacement that is pure park.
No mixed use or retail component at all.
Even a good park costs money that we're not going to spend. If the Landing goes, we're more likely to see a second coming of an underutilized and poorly maintained Metropolitan Park or Friendship Fountain than anything close to resembling a +$100 million Millennium Park.
That thing isn't handicap accessible
City Council commitee votes 6-1 to proceed with the plan to buy out Sleiman and demolish the Landing. Garrett Dennis the lone No vote.
Quote from: KenFSU on March 18, 2019, 07:32:06 PM
Apparently the city is at least considering a Landing replacement that is pure park.
No mixed use or retail component at all.
Is there any reason to believe that the Landing lot will become anything other than a park? Perhaps we can use those driver-less clown cars as planters when that system is abandoned in a few years.
Quote from: KenFSU on March 18, 2019, 07:32:06 PM
Apparently the city is at least considering a Landing replacement that is pure park.
No mixed use or retail component at all.
I've been operating on the assumption that that's what it'll be.
Quote from: vicupstate on March 19, 2019, 02:29:29 PM
City Council commitee votes 6-1 to proceed with the plan to buy out Sleiman and demolish the Landing. Garrett Dennis the lone No vote.
This is the same council that rejected the earlier plan to spend $12 million to demolish the Landing and replace it with a mixed-use development. Apparently the problem before was not having enough big grass field.
If Lenny accepted climate change and rising seas, he might try to sell it as a "floodplain buffer". But, since those are just hoaxes by the Chinese ...
Quote from: Tacachale on March 19, 2019, 03:08:50 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on March 19, 2019, 02:29:29 PM
City Council commitee votes 6-1 to proceed with the plan to buy out Sleiman and demolish the Landing. Garrett Dennis the lone No vote.
This is the same council that rejected the earlier plan to spend $12 million to demolish the Landing and replace it with a mixed-use development. Apparently the problem before was not having enough big grass field.
Or the problem is that it was Brown who proposed the $12 million solution and not Curry. If Curry proposed Brown's deal, everyone would be talking about how great of a deal it was.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 19, 2019, 03:33:29 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on March 19, 2019, 03:08:50 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on March 19, 2019, 02:29:29 PM
City Council commitee votes 6-1 to proceed with the plan to buy out Sleiman and demolish the Landing. Garrett Dennis the lone No vote.
This is the same council that rejected the earlier plan to spend $12 million to demolish the Landing and replace it with a mixed-use development. Apparently the problem before was not having enough big grass field.
Or the problem is that it was Brown who proposed the $12 million solution and not Curry. If Curry proposed Brown's deal, everyone would be talking about how great of a deal it was.
Yep. If it is not an idea from the chosen few, it can't happen.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 19, 2019, 03:33:29 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on March 19, 2019, 03:08:50 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on March 19, 2019, 02:29:29 PM
City Council commitee votes 6-1 to proceed with the plan to buy out Sleiman and demolish the Landing. Garrett Dennis the lone No vote.
This is the same council that rejected the earlier plan to spend $12 million to demolish the Landing and replace it with a mixed-use development. Apparently the problem before was not having enough big grass field.
Or the problem is that it was Brown who proposed the $12 million solution and not Curry. If Curry proposed Brown's deal, everyone would be talking about how great of a deal it was.
Well, some people would. Both are shit deals. That one was just cheaper and not just field.
Not sure if it's been reported, but as part of the settlement with Sleiman, the parking lot east of the Landing is reverting back to city ownership.
This is a seperate parcel from the city-owned Landing property, which we technically owed Sleiman over $5 million with interest for.
When you factor that piece in, the cost of the Landing settlement itself is closer to $10 million.
Certainly doesn't make it any better.
Look for the mayor to continue his WOR* at the Main Street Bridge once the demo is complete in the fall.
*War on Ramps
(https://snag.gy/kfyhca.jpg)
Quote from: KenFSU on March 19, 2019, 04:10:22 PM
Not sure if it's been reported, but as part of the settlement with Sleiman, the parking lot east of the Landing is reverting back to city ownership.
This is a seperate parcel from the city-owned Landing property, which we technically owed Sleiman over $5 million with interest for.
When you factor that piece in, the cost of the Landing settlement itself is closer to $10 million.
Certainly doesn't make it any better.
Look for the mayor to continue his WOR* at the Main Street Bridge once the demo is complete in the fall.
*War on Ramps
(https://snag.gy/kfyhca.jpg)
I don't think that's correct.
Quote from: Tacachale on March 19, 2019, 04:19:29 PM
Quote from: KenFSU on March 19, 2019, 04:10:22 PM
Not sure if it's been reported, but as part of the settlement with Sleiman, the parking lot east of the Landing is reverting back to city ownership.
This is a seperate parcel from the city-owned Landing property, which we technically owed Sleiman over $5 million with interest for.
When you factor that piece in, the cost of the Landing settlement itself is closer to $10 million.
Certainly doesn't make it any better.
Look for the mayor to continue his WOR* at the Main Street Bridge once the demo is complete in the fall.
*War on Ramps
(https://snag.gy/kfyhca.jpg)
I don't think that's correct.
Which part?
The outstanding liability to Sleiman?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Sleiman paid the city $4.5ish million for the lot, and then the city kept the money and never transferred the title to Sleiman.
Was going to go to court seperately prior to the settlement.
Quote from: KenFSU on March 19, 2019, 04:26:19 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on March 19, 2019, 04:19:29 PM
Quote from: KenFSU on March 19, 2019, 04:10:22 PM
Not sure if it's been reported, but as part of the settlement with Sleiman, the parking lot east of the Landing is reverting back to city ownership.
This is a seperate parcel from the city-owned Landing property, which we technically owed Sleiman over $5 million with interest for.
When you factor that piece in, the cost of the Landing settlement itself is closer to $10 million.
Certainly doesn't make it any better.
Look for the mayor to continue his WOR* at the Main Street Bridge once the demo is complete in the fall.
*War on Ramps
(https://snag.gy/kfyhca.jpg)
I don't think that's correct.
Which part?
The outstanding liability to Sleiman?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Sleiman paid the city $4.5ish million for the lot, and then the city kept the money and never transferred the title to Sleiman.
Was going to go to court seperately prior to the settlement.
Yes, that part. We're looking into it. You are probably correct about the ramps.
History escapes me. Why exactly did the council kill Brown's $11.8 million Landing deal, which also involved ramp removal? What's changed to make the current deal a better one?
Quote from: Tacachale on March 19, 2019, 04:32:37 PM
Quote from: KenFSU on March 19, 2019, 04:26:19 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on March 19, 2019, 04:19:29 PM
Quote from: KenFSU on March 19, 2019, 04:10:22 PM
Not sure if it's been reported, but as part of the settlement with Sleiman, the parking lot east of the Landing is reverting back to city ownership.
This is a seperate parcel from the city-owned Landing property, which we technically owed Sleiman over $5 million with interest for.
When you factor that piece in, the cost of the Landing settlement itself is closer to $10 million.
Certainly doesn't make it any better.
Look for the mayor to continue his WOR* at the Main Street Bridge once the demo is complete in the fall.
*War on Ramps
(https://snag.gy/kfyhca.jpg)
I don't think that's correct.
Which part?
The outstanding liability to Sleiman?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Sleiman paid the city $4.5ish million for the lot, and then the city kept the money and never transferred the title to Sleiman.
Was going to go to court seperately prior to the settlement.
Yes, that part. We're looking into it. You are probably correct about the ramps.
Looking forward to seeing what you uncover!
...
Also, looking at all this available riverfront land, just throwing out a random question to anyone who may have an opinion:
Can someone with a better understanding of Cordish's business model than me speculate as to why it makes more sense to build in an isolated area at the sports complex and rely on a new office tenant to support the restaurant and retail, rather than moving in on some of these riverfront tracts (the Courthouse, the Landing, and all of the surface lots between the two) and building these same components on clean land, in a more desirable location, with more of a built-in employment and population base?
More specifically, what does Cordish/Iguana lose if they built Jacksonville Live! where the Landing is, the Iguana convention center at the Old Courthouse site, office space for JEA in the CBD, a hotel east of Berkman II, residential infill throughout the northbank, etc.? How's it more advantageous to start from scratch by the stadium?
Makes perfect sense to build near the sports complex in cities like Arlington where you've got 80+ Rangers games a year, or in Philly where you've got 80+ NBA/NHL games, but we're talking what, 9 NFL games a year? Plus 20 or 30 concerts.
Between the Landing, Old Courthouse site, and all the city-owned asphalt lots, couldn't Cordish build a pretty epic Power & Light-ish "district" from Hogan to Liberty, with plenty of room to grow toward the stadium as the market dictates?
Solves the mass transit issue.
Doesn't necessitate environmental remediation.
Doesn't require building a population base from scratch.
It's all still close enough to create synergy.
Just feels so prohobitive from every angle - pollution, transportation, population, infrastructure - to build at the sport complex, can't wrap my head around why Cordish/Lamping wouldn't be jumping on better land with more built-in advantage if they really wanted to succeed in Jacksonville.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 19, 2019, 04:37:40 PM
History escapes me. Why exactly did the council kill Brown's $11.8 million Landing deal, which also involved ramp removal?
Sleiman's design was supremely unpopular.
The City Council tabled the request and asked Sleiman to work with the DIA on a better plan for the property.
By the time Sleiman was done developing new concepts, priorities had changed, Curry was in office, and the Landing was put on the backburner.
Quote from: KenFSU on March 19, 2019, 04:53:18 PM
Also, looking at all this available riverfront land, just throwing out a random question to anyone who may have an opinion:
Can someone with a better understanding of Cordish's business model than me speculate as to why it makes more sense to build in an isolated area at the sports complex and rely on a new office tenant to support the restaurant and retail, rather than moving in on some of these riverfront tracts (the Courthouse, the Landing, and all of the surface lots between the two) and building these same components on clean land, in a more desirable location, with more of a built-in employment and population base?
More specifically, what does Cordish/Iguana lose if they built Jacksonville Live! where the Landing is, the Iguana convention center at the Old Courthouse site, office space for JEA in the CBD, a hotel east of Berkman II, residential infill throughout the northbank, etc.? How's it more advantageous to start from scratch by the stadium?
Makes perfect sense to build near the sports complex in cities like Arlington where you've got 80+ Rangers games a year, or in Philly where you've got 80+ NBA/NHL games, but we're talking what, 9 NFL games a year? Plus 20 or 30 concerts.
Between the Landing, Old Courthouse site, and all the city-owned asphalt lots, couldn't Cordish build a pretty epic Power & Light-ish "district" from Hogan to Liberty, with plenty of room to grow toward the stadium as the market dictates?
Solves the mass transit issue.
Doesn't necessitate environmental remediation.
Doesn't require building a population base from scratch.
It's all still close enough to create synergy.
Just feels so prohobitive from every angle - pollution, transportation, population, infrastructure - to build at the sport complex, can't wrap my head around why Cordish/Lamping wouldn't be jumping on better land with more built-in advantage if they really wanted to succeed in Jacksonville.
Seems Khan and Iguana's interest are primarily centered around creating an inclusive entertainment experience around the stadium and Cordish is only here because of that relationship. You could also call them the 21st century version of James Rouse who was wooed to town with similar flashy promises that were ultimately never met. However, Iguana and Cordish aren't stupid. The Sports district is a ghost town on most days. This is why the Hart Bridge ramps need to come down. That area is too isolated and empty to survive on its on. It needs the continuous flow and access to expressway traffic that will drive past its front door regardless of if something is going on there or not.
In a weird sort of way, the Northbank suffers from a similar fate. Most traffic through the urban core goes around downtown instead of through it. Picking a "main" street and funneling more vehicular traffic through downtown on it would actually help fill vacant storefronts.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 19, 2019, 05:21:06 PM
Seems Khan and Iguana's interest are primarily centered around creating an inclusive entertainment experience around the stadium and Cordish is only here because of that relationship. You could also call them the 21st century version of James Rouse who was wooed to town with similar flashy promises that were ultimately never met. However, Iguana and Cordish aren't stupid. The Sports district is a ghost town on most days. This is why the Hart Bridge ramps need to come down. That area is too isolated and empty to survive on its on. It needs the continuous flow and access to expressway traffic that will drive past its front door regardless of if something is going on there or not.
In a weird sort of way, the Northbank suffers from a similar fate. Most traffic through the urban core goes around downtown instead of through it. Picking a "main" street and funneling more vehicular traffic through downtown on it would actually help fill vacant storefronts.
To me, I think it's a combination of both the "game changer" syndrome our city constantly suffers from combined with what I'd imagine to be a bit of a Disney complex on Khan's part. Curry has fallen into the trap of believing that somehow betting
everything on one project means that said project will be the single shot in the arm necessary to make everything else fall into place, at great reward to himself and his allies.
Meanwhile Khan likely wants to have total control over everything that would be in and between a district like what he wants at Lot J and the Shipyards. Piecemeal projects with unpredictable elements that have even the
potential to be unfavorable to his own design are out of the question. Khan has absolutely no problem at all with bending city officials to his will, nor would other NFL owners in similar positions across the country. He wants an urban playground for his dreams to flourish at the least personal cost to him, not the dirty work of genuinely having to rebuild an urban core.
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on March 16, 2019, 10:55:38 AM
There are several reason for removing The Landing:
a) It's a sprawling 1980s suburban shopping mall occupying prime space in the CBD
b) The Landing blocks the heart of the CBD from connecting with the river, a key factor in vibrant downtown across the country.
c) A property half it's size in the same location should be generating 10 times the revenue for the city.
c) The architecture does not fit it's surroundings.
d) There's nothing meaningfully significant about it.
e) New construction allows for a wide variety of options and is incredibly more efficient.
Ok. In ten years while we are discussing what the next great plan for the empty trashed riverfront space that was once the Jacksonville Landing will be, give me a shout. Since Curry just won reelection plan on the wrecking ball to hit very, very soon. To me and my inner cynic, this is the final nail in the coffin for that part of downtown. We've been discussing the empty space on the Northbank for what, 20 years now and what has happened? NOTHING! The Hart ramps will come down, maybe in 2020 and how much longer before any progress there? Sorry guys. We will never catch up. The little town that can't.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on March 19, 2019, 06:08:30 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on March 19, 2019, 05:21:06 PM
Seems Khan and Iguana's interest are primarily centered around creating an inclusive entertainment experience around the stadium and Cordish is only here because of that relationship. You could also call them the 21st century version of James Rouse who was wooed to town with similar flashy promises that were ultimately never met. However, Iguana and Cordish aren't stupid. The Sports district is a ghost town on most days. This is why the Hart Bridge ramps need to come down. That area is too isolated and empty to survive on its on. It needs the continuous flow and access to expressway traffic that will drive past its front door regardless of if something is going on there or not.
In a weird sort of way, the Northbank suffers from a similar fate. Most traffic through the urban core goes around downtown instead of through it. Picking a "main" street and funneling more vehicular traffic through downtown on it would actually help fill vacant storefronts.
To me, I think it's a combination of both the "game changer" syndrome our city constantly suffers from combined with what I'd imagine to be a bit of a Disney complex on Khan's part. Curry has fallen into the trap of believing that somehow betting everything on one project means that said project will be the single shot in the arm necessary to make everything else fall into place, at great reward to himself and his allies.
Meanwhile Khan likely wants to have total control over everything that would be in and between a district like what he wants at Lot J and the Shipyards. Piecemeal projects with unpredictable elements that have even the potential to be unfavorable to his own design are out of the question. Khan has absolutely no problem at all with bending city officials to his will, nor would other NFL owners in similar positions across the country. He wants an urban playground for his dreams to flourish at the least personal cost to him, not the dirty work of genuinely having to rebuild an urban core.
Maybe Curry's legacy will be tearing down the remainder of DT.
Quote from: avonjax on March 19, 2019, 08:41:56 PM
The Hart ramps will come down, maybe in 2020 and how much longer before any progress there? Sorry guys. We will never catch up. The little town that can't.
The Hart ramps will eventually come down in a few years but Curry's second term will be up before a fraction of the stuff illustrated in Iguana's annual renderings come to fruition. Even if there were a market for everything and permitting was pulled today, it still take a few years. I mean, we've been looking at Iguana renderings for nearly five years already. Time flies when discussing future potential.
QuoteCan someone with a better understanding of Cordish's business model than me speculate as to why it makes more sense to build in an isolated area at the sports complex and rely on a new office tenant to support the restaurant and retail, rather than moving in on some of these riverfront tracts (the Courthouse, the Landing, and all of the surface lots between the two) and building these same components on clean land, in a more desirable location, with more of a built-in employment and population base?
I have been asking myself that exact same question for years. There is zero correlation between JaxLive (or whatever it all called) and the stadium - zero. It really just shows that Khan and company have zero vision of their own. They just go to the owner meetings and copy what the other owners are doing and I wouldn't be surprised if the NFL itself was behind it. What happens to this development if the Jags do leave? I see it as another tool to hold the City hostage to future demands.
You're right, Bill.
The settlement does not include the adjacent parking lot.
That piece is still moving forward to court.
So, really, it's the opposite of what I originally said.
Instead of thinking of it as a $10 million settlement ($13 million including demo and relocation), we could be looking at over $22 million in taxpayer dollars when all is said and done if the courts rule in Sleiman's favor on the lot.
Fixed it for you!
Quote from: KenFSU on March 20, 2019, 01:14:56 PM
Instead of thinking of it as a $10 million settlement ($13 million including demo and relocation), we WILL be looking at over $22 million in taxpayer dollars when all is said and done if the courts rule in Sleiman's favor on the lot.
It doesn't matter if they rule in his favor or not. Either way, he's getting something between $4.2 million and $4.5 million for the East Lot. Maybe Alvin Brown was a better negotiator than we gave him credit for. ;)
Fion MacCools, Hooters and Compass Bank are the three tenants that will get lease buyout money. Of the 31 tenants remaining, only 4 had long term leases. The 4th, Chicago Pizza, was behind in rent and recently evicted:
https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2019/03/20/three-jacksonville-landing-tenants-to-receive.html?iana=hpmvp_jac_news_headline
Anybody know where Adrian Pickett will end up? I think the guy is a genius.
No idea. Hopefully the majority of the remaining 27 businesses are assisted to find spots in the Northbank that can create a compact retail/dining cluster to stimulate enough foot traffic for their survival.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 20, 2019, 02:32:07 PM
Fion MacCools, Hooters and Compass Bank are the three tenants that will get lease buyout money. Of the 31 tenants remaining, only 4 had long term leases. The 4th, Chicago Pizza, was behind in rent and recently evicted:
https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2019/03/20/three-jacksonville-landing-tenants-to-receive.html?iana=hpmvp_jac_news_headline
Does the $1.5 mm get split between those three
No. Sleiman could end up with some of it.
Quote from: downtownbrown on March 20, 2019, 02:42:54 PM
Anybody know where Adrian Pickett will end up? I think the guy is a genius.
+1