(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Business/Jacksonville-Landing/i-fKLXTSc/0/5ae2a1b9/L/20190310_173447-L.jpg)
QuoteMost festival marketplaces built in the 1970s and 1980s have struggled, but the Jacksonville Landing may be the first to be outright demolished and not replaced. While other cities have found ways to adapt their old buildings to new uses - some quite successfully - Jacksonville continues to go Godzilla on its downtown. This strategy has been a disaster for downtown - and a huge cost to the taxpayers.
Read More: https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/so-jax-may-be-the-only-city-to-demolish-its-landing/
My son and I went to Miami's Bayside Center last weekend and it was PACKED. In fact, Packed isn't even a good word for it. There were some places it was actually difficult to move through. That was the first time I have actually been to downtown Miami (really just been to the airport and driven by on I-95) and I was blown away. All I can say is WOW!!!
This might be my favorite article ever published on the site.
I've been in Jax since 2005, and this is the single biggest mistake I've ever seen the city make.
It's indefensible, and so clearly politically motivated.
This isn't rocket science here.
1) Toney Sleiman breaks from party lines and backs Alvin Brown in the 2015 mayoral election.
2) The Curry campaign is furious, and accuses Sleiman of endorsing Brown in exchange for a $12 million redevelopment agreement for the Landing. They issue a press release, ironically stating, "Throwing money, nearly $12 million, at special interests while kids are being gunned down in the street because of fewer cops is not simply outrageous it's disgusting." Upon election, the Landing is entirely deprioritized.
3) The mayor takes a secretive trip with Shad Khan and Mark Lamping to visit with Cordish and tour three of their developments, and immediately starts looking into revenue sources for a Landing 2.0 near the stadium.
4) Curry announces to the press that he's "prepared to take the Landing" and that he will "put the screws" to Sleiman until it happens.
5) The city attempts to force an eviction, releases the render of the new grass field, and begins actively screwing with the Landing's business by threatening to cancel events at the venue unless new permitting loopholes are jumped through.
It's not a huge leap to suggest that this may have more to do with settling a personal vendetta and clearing the way for Cordish than doing what's best for the taxpayers of Jacksonville.
And what really sucks is that we'll never know the truth about what changed. Curry wasn't backing down. Sleiman was on the record as saying that adminstrations come and go, he was willing to wait 50 years to make the Landing work, and that a sale was off the table.
Then, three weeks before this whole thing was set to go to trial and we were finally going to get resolution as to who was legally in the right in terms of the provisions of the lease, somebody must have got spooked, the city drops its lawsuit against Sleiman re: the parking lot, and $15 million in taxpayer money was offered to and accepted by Sleiman to simply walk away.
And there's just zero logical jump between "the city needs to take back the Landing from Sleiman" and "the city needs to destroy the Landing by Fall."
What in the actual fuck are we thinking knocking down the Landing without any plan to build something better in its place.
Where's the rush? Where's the fire?
And, if we axed the plan for a convention center in part because we didn't have enough money to do both a convention center and the Cordish development at the stadium complex, where are we going to magincally find the money to redevelop the Landing from scratch?
The Landing has been downtown Jacksonville's premier civic, event, and retail space for the last four decades, and it shouldn't be one person's decision to carelessly wipe the home of Florida-Georgia, and the 4th of July, and the Tree Lighting Ceremony, and the Boat Parade, and political rallies, and free public concerts, and New Year's Eve off the map because they felt the previous owner mismanaged the property.
The settlement is going to happen, but how hard is it for the city to maintain the existing leases, temporarily mothball the unused portions of the Landing, and issue an RFP inclusive of both new development and adaptive reuse? Why are we assuming that there are no developers out there who can create an awesome Landing 2.0 using some of the existing bones at a fraction of the cost of new construction?
This is insane to me, I geniunely hate everything about it.
And I just can't wrap my head around the fact that people think the Landing has no historic value to the city.
Quote from: Kerry on March 20, 2019, 11:04:15 AM
My son and I went to Miami's Bayside Center last weekend and it was PACKED. In fact, Packed isn't even a good word for it. There were some places it was actually difficult to move through. That was the first time I have actually been to downtown Miami (really just been to the airport and driven by on I-95) and I was blown away. All I can say is WOW!!!
Downtown Miami is unrecognizable now when compared to what it was when Bayside opened in the late 1980s. Back in those days, it was pretty similar to Downtown Jacksonville. However, when it booms nationally, it really booms there. Nevertheless, the management at Bayside (along with the City of Miami) have found ways to keep people coming back to Bayside. Part of that has been clustering (like the cruise terminal being nearby). Another part has been renovation (yes, you need to refresh your property after 30 years) and another part has been changing the tenant mix to reflect the current market.
Quote from: KenFSU on March 20, 2019, 11:14:15 AM
The settlement is going to happen, but how hard is it for the city to maintain the existing leases, temporarily mothball the unused portions of the Landing, and issue an RFP inclusive of both new development and adaptive reuse? Why are we assuming that there are no developers out there who can create an awesome Landing 2.0 using some of the existing bones at a fraction of the cost of new construction?
I don't know if you've noticed but it seems the remaining businesses are clearly being driven out of business and forced to leave prior to this deal going through. The local small business owners are really getting the short end of the stick.
QuoteAnd I just can't wrap my head around the fact that people think the Landing has no historic value to the city.
This is the same city that thought Klutho's buildings were crap and now they're masterpieces. We razed those Klutho buildings for Mid-Century architecture and now we consider Mid-Century architecture trash. I think people are so starved for something to happen in downtown that even demolition seems like progress. Unfortunately, without change in the development strategy, we're simply in the midst of the same ole same ole from the 1950s, 70s, 80s and 90s. Continuing to fight visual symptoms rather than addressing the underlying causes.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 20, 2019, 11:28:32 AM
I don't know if you've noticed but it seems the remaining businesses are clearly being driven out of business and forced to leave prior to this deal going through. The local small business owners are really getting the short end of the stick.
Small silver lining:
The DIA is in the process of sitting down with each remaining Landing tenant and a big map of available retail space in the downtown core to try to work relocation out.
Apparently grants are on the table.
Ridiculous that we're subsidizing any of this, but hopefully a few of them land elsewhere in the CBD.
For those remaining committed to The Landing as an architectural footprint worth saving, I am curious to know why you think The Landing failed, and what exactly you think government can do to revive it? It was failing way before Curry or Sleiman came around.
Quote from: downtownbrown on March 20, 2019, 11:49:12 AM
For those remaining committed to The Landing as an architectural footprint worth saving, I am curious to know why you think The Landing failed, and what exactly you think government can do to revive it? It was failing way before Curry or Sleiman came around.
There's a million reasons why it failed, but to me, parking and politics are the big two. Big-name restaurant and retailers won't even consider a location like the Landing unless a certain threshold of dedicated parking spots are available. Not
public parking spots for downtown, but spots exclusively dedicated for Landing customers. Sleiman had some really impressive potential tenants lined up when he took over the Landing, but they never materialized because the city never provided the necessary parking promised in the original lease. A big part of why the Landing failed was because it was never properly set up to succeed in the first place.
Politics needs no explanation, but as long as the city owns the land, the Landing was always going to have to be a joint venture between our local government and Toney Sleiman. It's instead been combative since Sleiman aquired the property, and there's never been a good faith effort by both sides to come together and fix the problem.
Safety and security has often been an issue as well, particularly in these last five years where we've seen everything from brutal stabbings, to gang murders, to a nationally televised mass shooting.
As far as what the city government could have done to revive it, I think just cleaning it up, beautifying the public spaces, and otherwise staying out of the way would have gone a long way. The market could have done a lot of the heavy lifting itself as all the other projects downtown brought new residents and workers into the core.
We're literally tearing down the Landing at a time when it's got its best opportunity to finally succeed. VyStar's adding 1,000 employees to the core. Hyatt Place and Courtyard by Marriott are adding hundreds of travelers within eyesight of the Landing. UNF and FSCJ are adding students. Atkins and Vestcor are adding hundreds of residents. La Quinta and Jones Furniture will be coming online soon. We're subsidizing a 300+ room hotel a few blocks away at Berkman II. Mosh is planning an $80 million expansion right across the Main Street Bridge, with a smaller expansion planned right door to the Landing at the Times-Union Center. Lori Boyer is making plans to activate the riverwalk and make it a more popular destination. Local tourism is exploding.
Now should be the time that we're investing in improving the Landing and making it a true anchor for Laura Street and a central hub for all of this new activity, but instead, we're bulldozing the only 24/7ish retail/restaurant/entertainment/gathering space we have in the CBD and replacing it with a passive park.
It just defies all logic.
The structure isn't the issue.
There's so much potential there.
Quote from: KenFSU on March 20, 2019, 11:40:46 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on March 20, 2019, 11:28:32 AM
I don't know if you've noticed but it seems the remaining businesses are clearly being driven out of business and forced to leave prior to this deal going through. The local small business owners are really getting the short end of the stick.
Small silver lining:
The DIA is in the process of sitting down with each remaining Landing tenant and a big map of available retail space in the downtown core to try to work relocation out.
Apparently grants are on the table.
Ridiculous that we're subsidizing any of this, but hopefully a few of them land elsewhere in the CBD.
So those grants now get added to the running $22 million taxpayer total as well?
Quote from: KenFSU on March 20, 2019, 11:40:46 AM
The DIA is in the process of sitting down with each remaining Landing tenant and a big map of available retail space in the downtown core to try to work relocation out.
Apparently grants are on the table.
Good to hear. Hopefully, instead of spreading them out all over the CDB, they're zeroing in on clustering them together. If not, half of them will close within a year or two from the lack of foot traffic, visibility and programming.
Quote from: downtownbrown on March 20, 2019, 11:49:12 AM
For those remaining committed to The Landing as an architectural footprint worth saving,
You think too much in absolutes. I think you can change the architectural footprint without wholesale demo and come up with a pretty cool, authentic product that also opens the site up for more outdoor uses.
QuoteI am curious to know why you think The Landing failed,
I know I've written a few articles and posts about this. Most people here have the failure thing totally wrong because we've forgotten our history. Quite frankly, just about all of Rouse's festival marketplaces failed. There's nothing Jax could have done to make the original Landing successful because the market was too small for the concept then. Both Rouse and the City knew it. However, Rouse was wooed by public money and promises of a downtown vibrant scene that ultimately never materialized. Thus, within a couple of years after its opening, most of the original tenants abandoned it just like they did in the other festival marketplaces. In the 1990s, the tenant mix was changed a bit to rely more on entertainment and riverfront dining but you can't fill 125,000 square feet of space up on those uses alone in a downtown that was still hemorrhaging office workers, attracting very few new residents and not investing in any of the additional promises like the dedicated parking and other complementing development that would make it rival Baltimore's Inner Harbor. Rouse eventually gave up and Sleiman came in on the cheap. However, Sleiman's entire time has been filled with political fights and an uncertain future, causing the remaining tenants to suffer the most.
Quoteand what exactly you think government can do to revive it? It was failing way before Curry or Sleiman came around.
IMO, the best thing local government could ever do is get its hands out of the cookie jar. Carve out whatever space you feel is necessary along the waterfront for public use and sell the rest of the West and East Lots for a market rate price, take those millions earned and reinvest them into activating the surrounding area.
What about just returning the spot back to the river? It is on in-fill anyhow.
I don't know what would be the point? That would be a more expensive move that accomplishes less ROI on tax dollars.
It is better than a homeless hangout - which is what it will become exclusively.
I hope, and pray to Almighty God that they don't put a park there; we've got hemming a few blocks down. Be innovative and put something else, other than a park, in there to draw the public/citizens to that area of downtown. No, I don't have a clue what they should put there. even if it's an office tower fine, but NO PARK!!! Are they going to raze Hemming Park and put another park in there as well? Sometimes I wonder about the leaders, and others of good old Jacksonville. My goodness.
Its not just the Landing though. Theres plenty of empty storefronts in that part of Downtown that could easily have been scooped up for entertainment purposes if the demand was there and if anything these places might benefit without the landing. The Sports Complex is nothing but asphalt, unless you work downtown, why would you spend anytime in the area beyond an actual event before leaving ASAP if you are visiting for pleasure? Why should the Florida Georgia for instance game remain in Jax when theres literally nothing to do Downtown for visitors? Also why do people seem so intent on pigeon holing Downtown into this small area around the Landing? Potential development at Lot J and to the west in Brooklyn is going to put the core at the centre of it all. There should be more to the area than a few hundred yards around the Landing and the Bank of America Tower.
Update! Council's Finance Committee is on board. Full article: https://www.jacksonville.com/news/20190320/majority-of-city-council-backs-tearing-down-jacksonville-landing
QuoteBrian Hughes, who is chief of staff for Mayor Lenny Curry and also interim CEO of the Downtown Investment Authority, said the city already has fielded inquiries from developers about the Landing site.
He said the redevelopment of that site could move forward in the same way the DIA is seeking to attract private development on downtown land where demolition has been knocking down the old county courthouse and city hall annex along Bay Street.
The DIA board is scheduled to vote at its meeting Wednesday afternoon to hire a real estate specialist to create a development plan and the criteria the city will use while seeking a private developer at the courthouse and city hall annex land.
I really hate the "coulds" that Hughes uses. In other words, let's say you need about a year and a half (this is being nice and aggressive) to hire a real estate specialist, have them perform their study, then have the DIA create an RFP and issue an RFP for the site's future. Assuming no hick-ups, add another six months to a year to allow developers to respond to the RFP, select one to negotiate with and then go through the negotiation process. Assuming no hiccups, give that developer another year and a half to design, finance and successfully get through the permitting process. Add another 18 months to two years for construction. At best, you're looking at two major dead holes in the urban grid for a good five years. At worst, we go into a recession in two to three years and then you end up with another generational kids kampus type screw up.
QuoteHughes said the DIA staff will meet with Landing tenants interested in remaining downtown to show them retail spaces where they can relocate.
"If we have retailers who are successful and want to stay in downtown, we're going to work with them to try to make that happen," Hughes said.
Good but to be realistic, unless the DIA and COJ is going to open up the piggybank, the numbers likely won't work. The benefit of a space like the Landing is it can act as a small business incubator to a degree. Business owners don't have to come in and build out shell spaces, provide public restrooms, bring old empty spaces up to code or pay extra high rents. That's a completely different financial animal from moving into a shell space like the Library garage or the Carling.
QuoteSome residents want the city to keep the mall and re-purpose it for another use. An online petition drive titled "Stop Tearing Down Urban Core Buildings" has gained almost 900 signatures.
But Hughes said the Landing is outdated as a retail facility and the Curry administration favors demolition. He said the replacement for the Landing could be a site with open space for the public plus some buildings for commercial activity.
"Could" suggests a level of either they don't know what they want or they do and aren't being totally revealing about it at this point. Favoring demolition without knowing what they want would be pretty uncreative and shortsighted since the process it will take to study the market, write an RFP, find a developer, etc. (assuming they even go that route) should happen before removing businesses and demolition.
Jax really needs a plan where everyone knows and participate in the implementation of a future vision for downtown. In many cities, they might not be where they want to be now but everyone knows where they're headed or at least trying to go. Such stability actually helps move market rate private development along at a faster pace.
I'm so disappointed today and filled with sadness. Not only for the demise of the landing but also that there was so little voter turnout yesterday that curry's reign of explosives with no redevelopment plans (as a whole) and sheriff williams' less than 50 percent homicide clearance will all be accepted and in continuance. We've got to do better, jax :'( *sigh*
Everytime you read the word "could" also include "could not".
Jax simply has no plan other than throw everything including the kitchen sink at Lot J.
Quote from: Kerry on March 21, 2019, 07:39:18 AM
Everytime you read the word "could" also include "could not".
Jax simply has no plan other than throw everything including the kitchen sink at Lot J.
A communications/media guy with no experience in real estate development or planning is running the Downtown Development agency right now. So it's not exactly surprising to see how poorly all of the moving parts in Downtown Jax have been managed. Ultimately, all roads lead to Khan, so things are going exactly as they want it.
Harrah's or Hard Rock Casino is the only project needed to bring life to downtown 24/7. Drivers would have a reason to pull off I-95 for a visit and other developments would follow without asking for tax incentives.
Quote from: Himsiro on March 22, 2019, 03:30:29 PM
Harrah's or Hard Rock Casino is the only project needed to bring life to downtown 24/7. Drivers would have a reason to pull off I-95 for a visit and other developments would follow without asking for tax incentives.
Ah yes, "my preferred pick of silver-bullet project will singlehandedly be the game-changer that makes Downtown great again."
Haven't heard that one before.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on March 22, 2019, 08:55:59 PM
Quote from: Himsiro on March 22, 2019, 03:30:29 PM
Harrah's or Hard Rock Casino is the only project needed to bring life to downtown 24/7. Drivers would have a reason to pull off I-95 for a visit and other developments would follow without asking for tax incentives.
Ah yes, "my preferred pick of silver-bullet project will singlehandedly be the game-changer that makes Downtown great again."
Haven't heard that one before.
It has worked everywhere that has tried it. [/sarc]
Quote from: marcuscnelson on March 22, 2019, 08:55:59 PM
Quote from: Himsiro on March 22, 2019, 03:30:29 PM
Harrah's or Hard Rock Casino is the only project needed to bring life to downtown 24/7. Drivers would have a reason to pull off I-95 for a visit and other developments would follow without asking for tax incentives.
Ah yes, "my preferred pick of silver-bullet project will singlehandedly be the game-changer that makes Downtown great again."
Haven't heard that one before.
LOL, that's essentially what the Berkman 2 proposal is minus the casino part. It will have the mini amusements, games and ferris wheel that many in the past claim what's needed to save downtown.
^^ That's a bit pretentious
It's been a dream for a while now. Many of the ideas you see now are the same mentioned during the Peyton administration. They went away when Alvin Brown was in office. Now they're back, but a lot more expensive. Here's the Berkman 2 idea from 2011. At the time, the thought was it would cost around $20 million. However, the incentive package currently on the table is $36 million.
QuoteThey also included a land-use suggestion for an interactive destination entertainment park at the Shipyards property. Features in such a park could include "a London Eye type wheel, a coaster, adventure golf, a zip line course and others."
Task force Chair Preston Haskell, in an interview published in today's Daily Record, said the task force has spoken with a national firm that has developed parks in other cities and is "enthusiastic about doing this in Jacksonville."
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/parc-eyes-entertainment-park-shipyards
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/city-council-approves-deal-that-gives-city-possession-of-the-jacksonville-landing
Witness... the excuses!
Quote
Bill Gulliford said demolition would benefit potential developers who would have a clean slate to create something new.
"I'm just tickled to death to see movement on the Landing," Gulliford said. "I don't have any heartburn about demolishing the structures."
Lori Boyer said it was time to "move forward with Jacksonville's future."
She called JLI partner Toney Sleiman, president of shopping center developer Sleiman Enterprises, one of Jacksonville's most successful retail operators and asked if he couldn't make the Landing work, how could the city do so.
Council President Aaron Bowman echoed other claims that the city would end up wasting money on maintenance and repairs if the structures remain.
Bowman said in his role as a vice president at JAXUSA Partnership, the economic development arm of JAX Chamber, he often tells people not to visit the Landing.
Oh, and a bone tied to string at the end here:
Quote
In the next six months, Hughes said to expect the DIA and the administration to aggressively seek proposals for redevelopment.
He said that while the administration favors demolition, there will be time to discuss all possibilities.
"We're not going to say never," said Hughes about using the buildings for another purpose.
"If somebody comes to us with an amazing plan that makes sense given the expertise at DIA and throughout the city, we'll listen," he said.
If they're really aggressive about seeking proposals for redevelopment and discussing all possibilities that come with that, then they need to issue a RFP outlining that desire before moving forward with wholesale demo. Things like the operator assuming responsibilities for programming, maintenance, liabilities, etc. can be included as a requirement. This pretty much covers all of their concerns highlighted above.
Et tu, Lori Boyer?
"given the expertise at DIA and throughout the city"
Are we sure about this?
Quote from: marcuscnelson on March 27, 2019, 10:33:11 AM
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/city-council-approves-deal-that-gives-city-possession-of-the-jacksonville-landing
Witness... the excuses!
Quote
Bill Gulliford said demolition would benefit potential developers who would have a clean slate to create something new.
"I'm just tickled to death to see movement on the Landing," Gulliford said. "I don't have any heartburn about demolishing the structures."
Lori Boyer said it was time to "move forward with Jacksonville's future."
She called JLI partner Toney Sleiman, president of shopping center developer Sleiman Enterprises, one of Jacksonville's most successful retail operators and asked if he couldn't make the Landing work, how could the city do so.
Council President Aaron Bowman echoed other claims that the city would end up wasting money on maintenance and repairs if the structures remain.
Bowman said in his role as a vice president at JAXUSA Partnership, the economic development arm of JAX Chamber, he often tells people not to visit the Landing.
Oh, and a bone tied to string at the end here:
Quote
In the next six months, Hughes said to expect the DIA and the administration to aggressively seek proposals for redevelopment.
He said that while the administration favors demolition, there will be time to discuss all possibilities.
"We're not going to say never," said Hughes about using the buildings for another purpose.
"If somebody comes to us with an amazing plan that makes sense given the expertise at DIA and throughout the city, we'll listen," he said.
ROFLMAO - maybe if the Jax Chamber wasn't telling people NOT to go there. This city is run by self-serving morons.
What happens when they discover the ground under the Landing is contaminated? Will the city also pay for remediation?
Quote from: Lunican on March 27, 2019, 12:06:57 PM
What happens when they discover the ground under the Landing is contaminated? Will the city also pay for remediation?
Depends:
If Buyer=Iguana Investments, then Yes.
Else, No.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 20, 2019, 07:38:10 PM
Update! Council's Finance Committee is on board. Full article: https://www.jacksonville.com/news/20190320/majority-of-city-council-backs-tearing-down-jacksonville-landing
QuoteBrian Hughes, who is chief of staff for Mayor Lenny Curry and also interim CEO of the Downtown Investment Authority, said the city already has fielded inquiries from developers about the Landing site.
He said the redevelopment of that site could move forward in the same way the DIA is seeking to attract private development on downtown land where demolition has been knocking down the old county courthouse and city hall annex along Bay Street.
The DIA board is scheduled to vote at its meeting Wednesday afternoon to hire a real estate specialist to create a development plan and the criteria the city will use while seeking a private developer at the courthouse and city hall annex land.
I really hate the "coulds" that Hughes uses. In other words, let's say you need about a year and a half (this is being nice and aggressive) to hire a real estate specialist, have them perform their study, then have the DIA create an RFP and issue an RFP for the site's future. Assuming no hick-ups, add another six months to a year to allow developers to respond to the RFP, select one to negotiate with and then go through the negotiation process. Assuming no hiccups, give that developer another year and a half to design, finance and successfully get through the permitting process. Add another 18 months to two years for construction. At best, you're looking at two major dead holes in the urban grid for a good five years. At worst, we go into a recession in two to three years and then you end up with another generational kids kampus type screw up.
QuoteHughes said the DIA staff will meet with Landing tenants interested in remaining downtown to show them retail spaces where they can relocate.
"If we have retailers who are successful and want to stay in downtown, we're going to work with them to try to make that happen," Hughes said.
Good but to be realistic, unless the DIA and COJ is going to open up the piggybank, the numbers likely won't work. The benefit of a space like the Landing is it can act as a small business incubator to a degree. Business owners don't have to come in and build out shell spaces, provide public restrooms, bring old empty spaces up to code or pay extra high rents. That's a completely different financial animal from moving into a shell space like the Library garage or the Carling.
QuoteSome residents want the city to keep the mall and re-purpose it for another use. An online petition drive titled "Stop Tearing Down Urban Core Buildings" has gained almost 900 signatures.
But Hughes said the Landing is outdated as a retail facility and the Curry administration favors demolition. He said the replacement for the Landing could be a site with open space for the public plus some buildings for commercial activity.
"Could" suggests a level of either they don't know what they want or they do and aren't being totally revealing about it at this point. Favoring demolition without knowing what they want would be pretty uncreative and shortsighted since the process it will take to study the market, write an RFP, find a developer, etc. (assuming they even go that route) should happen before removing businesses and demolition.
Jax really needs a plan where everyone knows and participate in the implementation of a future vision for downtown. In many cities, they might not be where they want to be now but everyone knows where they're headed or at least trying to go. Such stability actually helps move market rate private development along at a faster pace.
I'm beginning not to like Curry; and this Hughes guy needs to hang up his high heels and get a life.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 20, 2019, 07:38:10 PM
Update! Council's Finance Committee is on board. Full article: https://www.jacksonville.com/news/20190320/majority-of-city-council-backs-tearing-down-jacksonville-landing
QuoteBrian Hughes, who is chief of staff for Mayor Lenny Curry and also interim CEO of the Downtown Investment Authority, said the city already has fielded inquiries from developers about the Landing site.
He said the redevelopment of that site could move forward in the same way the DIA is seeking to attract private development on downtown land where demolition has been knocking down the old county courthouse and city hall annex along Bay Street.
The DIA board is scheduled to vote at its meeting Wednesday afternoon to hire a real estate specialist to create a development plan and the criteria the city will use while seeking a private developer at the courthouse and city hall annex land.
I really hate the "coulds" that Hughes uses. In other words, let's say you need about a year and a half (this is being nice and aggressive) to hire a real estate specialist, have them perform their study, then have the DIA create an RFP and issue an RFP for the site's future. Assuming no hick-ups, add another six months to a year to allow developers to respond to the RFP, select one to negotiate with and then go through the negotiation process. Assuming no hiccups, give that developer another year and a half to design, finance and successfully get through the permitting process. Add another 18 months to two years for construction. At best, you're looking at two major dead holes in the urban grid for a good five years. At worst, we go into a recession in two to three years and then you end up with another generational kids kampus type screw up.
QuoteHughes said the DIA staff will meet with Landing tenants interested in remaining downtown to show them retail spaces where they can relocate.
"If we have retailers who are successful and want to stay in downtown, we're going to work with them to try to make that happen," Hughes said.
Good but to be realistic, unless the DIA and COJ is going to open up the piggybank, the numbers likely won't work. The benefit of a space like the Landing is it can act as a small business incubator to a degree. Business owners don't have to come in and build out shell spaces, provide public restrooms, bring old empty spaces up to code or pay extra high rents. That's a completely different financial animal from moving into a shell space like the Library garage or the Carling.
QuoteSome residents want the city to keep the mall and re-purpose it for another use. An online petition drive titled "Stop Tearing Down Urban Core Buildings" has gained almost 900 signatures.
But Hughes said the Landing is outdated as a retail facility and the Curry administration favors demolition. He said the replacement for the Landing could be a site with open space for the public plus some buildings for commercial activity.
"Could" suggests a level of either they don't know what they want or they do and aren't being totally revealing about it at this point. Favoring demolition without knowing what they want would be pretty uncreative and shortsighted since the process it will take to study the market, write an RFP, find a developer, etc. (assuming they even go that route) should happen before removing businesses and demolition.
Jax really needs a plan where everyone knows and participate in the implementation of a future vision for downtown. In many cities, they might not be where they want to be now but everyone knows where they're headed or at least trying to go. Such stability actually helps move market rate private development along at a faster pace.
With Jacksonville you're preaching to a choir that's out of tune, off key, and can't sing.
Quote from: Himsiro on March 22, 2019, 03:30:29 PM
Harrah's or Hard Rock Casino is the only project needed to bring life to downtown 24/7. Drivers would have a reason to pull off I-95 for a visit and other developments would follow without asking for tax incentives.
Hard Rock Casino is coming to Jax? When did this happen or am I reading this post wrong?
Quote from: heights unknown on March 27, 2019, 09:42:59 PM
Quote from: Himsiro on March 22, 2019, 03:30:29 PM
Harrah's or Hard Rock Casino is the only project needed to bring life to downtown 24/7. Drivers would have a reason to pull off I-95 for a visit and other developments would follow without asking for tax incentives.
Hard Rock Casino is coming to Jax? When did this happen or am I reading this post wrong?
Only in Himsiro's fever dreams.
I promise you in a couple of years the people of Jacksonville will be asking what in the heck happened on the riverfront? And when is something going to be done with the site? In 10 years we will be asking what is going to happen with the former Landing site? The boring greenspace will not attract anyone downtown, I promise. As we watch the space get reworked into something awful we can look back and reminisce about what could have been. I have a terrible feeling NO ONE will invest in the space. The core will move to Riverside and the Sports Complex. I hope I'm wrong but just look at the shipyards and former Southbank site and tell me something will happen faster there. I'm here to tell I will not see anything in my lifetime. All I've seen is the mass destruction of downtown. I have kinda given up everyone. And if there is a downturn in the economy we are doomed to stare are dead spaces all over.
Quote from: avonjax on March 30, 2019, 11:16:39 PM
I promise you in a couple of years the people of Jacksonville will be asking what in the heck happened on the riverfront? And when is something going to be done with the site? In 10 years we will be asking what is going to happen with the former Landing site? The boring greenspace will not attract anyone downtown, I promise. As we watch the space get reworked into something awful we can look back and reminisce about what could have been. I have a terrible feeling NO ONE will invest in the space. The core will move to Riverside and the Sports Complex. I hope I'm wrong but just look at the shipyards and former Southbank site and tell me something will happen faster there. I'm here to tell I will not see anything in my lifetime. All I've seen is the mass destruction of downtown. I have kinda given up everyone. And if there is a downturn in the economy we are doomed to stare are dead spaces all over.
You have every right to feel that way. When politicians are chosen by the monied, special interest few, and re-elected because the general population to too lazy to vote, or too uninterested to care, this is what we get. The regime in power is having the taxpayer paying for the further enrichment of the power brokers. The mayor is just a puppet. He has been led astray by what is in it for him in the future. With a downturn in the economy in the next few years the mayor's handlers will snap-up a bunch of properties at bargain prices. The future is quite scary for those of us out of the good ole boys network.
How long before the drumbeat to "get that valuable vacant land on the river back on the tax rolls"? And then a short-sale to one of the Connected, with no restrictions on what gets built.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on March 31, 2019, 08:51:48 AM
How long before the drumbeat to "get that valuable vacant land on the river back on the tax rolls"? And then a short-sale to one of the Connected, with no restrictions on what gets built.
When the properties go up for sale, what you want to bet the buyer will receive an incentive package that forgives taxes for years, and helps with the development? They'll say "get them back on the tax rolls", but it won't until a succession of cronies turn the properties over a few times raking in millions.
Quote from: avonjax on March 30, 2019, 11:16:39 PM
I promise you in a couple of years the people of Jacksonville will be asking what in the heck happened on the riverfront? And when is something going to be done with the site? In 10 years we will be asking what is going to happen with the former Landing site? The boring greenspace will not attract anyone downtown, I promise. As we watch the space get reworked into something awful we can look back and reminisce about what could have been. I have a terrible feeling NO ONE will invest in the space. The core will move to Riverside and the Sports Complex. I hope I'm wrong but just look at the shipyards and former Southbank site and tell me something will happen faster there. I'm here to tell I will not see anything in my lifetime. All I've seen is the mass destruction of downtown. I have kinda given up everyone. And if there is a downturn in the economy we are doomed to stare are dead spaces all over.
You aren't the only who thinks this. Clearly Jacksonville leadership, be it elected representatives, appointed members of boards, civic leaders, and business leaders, either don't know what walkable urbanism is or don't care about it. The result is a city that continues to sprawl in a world of cities that are densifying. Unless Jacksonville changes it won't be able to compete in a 21st century world. Walkable urbanism isn't just a lifestyle choice, it is an integral part of an economic model. We have to lower the cost of government or go broke. We simply can't afford low density sprawl and an auto-centric culture.
Our job is to either make them care or replace them with people who do care. Now how to do that obviously isn't easy or fast.
I don't think they fully know and understand what it is. I say that because if they didn't care, they wouldn't continue to light money on fire on projects continuously billed as game changers.
For the first time in my life - and I go back a ways here - I've essentially given up hope for downtown Jax. Everytime we get momentum, the city either abandons it, or worse, starts meddling to the point that we take a step back for every one we take forward. Fortunately, we're seeing other neighborhoods really take off even if the loud sucking sound in the center of it all will apparently continue.
I do feel like with the development on the edge of downtown (particularly the areas inf Brooklyn, northern San Marco, and southern Springfield) will help downtown. I'm not sure how long this will take.
I do realize that this is sort of the barbell theory that I've agreed with lake is not realistic though.
Quote from: Steve on April 02, 2019, 10:45:58 AM
I do feel like with the development on the edge of downtown (particularly the areas inf Brooklyn, northern San Marco, and southern Springfield) will help downtown. I'm not sure how long this will take.
I do realize that this is sort of the barbell theory that I've agreed with lake is not realistic though.
Will it help? Yes. At the pace that Riverside helped Brooklyn and Brooklyn helped LaVilla. I guess in another 20 years we can get back to infilling the actual downtown core.
If "downtown" is defined as the Northbank, that barbell theory will take another 20 to 30 years to play out. If that's what Jax wants, that's fine but I don't think people realize a Shipyards alone takes a decade or two to fill out itself before it stimulates enough growth to connect with a district a mile away at the pedestrian scale.
On the other hand, you could funnel a good $20 to $30 million in updating and filling storefronts on Laura/Hogan between Hemming and the Landing or Adams between Pearl and Ocean and have a Clematis Street type environment in the heart of the city before Curry leaves office. The individual projects won't grab media headlines or interest suburbanites but the final product would be a "game changer" and would take 1/4 the revitalization time to pull off.
Quote from: Tacachale on April 02, 2019, 09:43:32 AM
For the first time in my life - and I go back a ways here - I've essentially given up hope for downtown Jax. Everytime we get momentum, the city either abandons it, or worse, starts meddling to the point that we take a step back for every one we take forward. Fortunately, we're seeing other neighborhoods really take off even if the loud sucking sound in the center of it all will apparently continue.
I hold out hope that we can pull ourselves together but my dose of reality came after a 2007 Toronto trip. I've pretty much been a realist ever since when it comes to downtown's future. Fortunately.....like every other city, btw....we are witnessing the transformation of our urban neighborhoods which is due to there being more opportunity for a larger percentage of the population to be a part of rebirth and revitalization. However, we can't become a place where we accept a substandard downtown because we have great neighborhoods surrounding it.
Quote from: thelakelander on April 02, 2019, 11:15:31 AM
If "downtown" is defined as the Northbank, that barbell theory will take another 20 to 30 years to play out. If that's what Jax wants, that's fine but I don't think people realize a Shipyards alone takes a decade or two to fill out itself before it stimulates enough growth to connect with a district a mile away at the pedestrian scale.
On the other hand, you could funnel a good $20 to $30 million in updating and filling storefronts on Laura/Hogan between Hemming and the Landing or Adams between Pearl and Ocean and have a Clematis Street type environment in the heart of the city before Curry leaves office. The individual projects won't grab media headlines or interest suburbanites but the final product would be a "game changer" and would take 1/4 the revitalization time to pull off.
This I completely agree with. When DVI was Started, we seemed to realize the core theory, which is why their original borders were Broad Street, Church Street, Market Street, and Prudential Drive. Now Personally I would have done Liberty vs. Market, State vs. Church, and kept it Northbank only but the concept was in the right direction.
Yesterday, on one of the local TV news stations, I saw a report about a UNF professor's recent study that showed making the 1-way streets downtown 2-way would improve economics and safety. Now, my Google-foo is failing me, as I cannot find the story online. As I recall, the reporter contacted the city, and was told there are no current plans to do so.
I have an article in que that I never finished that focuses on alternative downtown improvements that $18 million in Landing money could have been spent on. According the the DIA's CRA plan from a few years back, the entire two-way street thing would cost a little less than $10 million. In the grand scheme of what we been tossing money to over the last year, that's peanuts. Thus priorities, not capital costs or market dynamics, are a major reason of why I've been a realistic towards what downtown will and won't become any time soon over the last decade. This stuff isn't rocket science and it doesn't take an act of congress to resolve.
Unless, there's a change in administrative direction (I'm wishful that there will be), it is what it is for the next four years. Went through this with the Peyton and Brown administrations. Luckily neither did much to ruin what was still standing. So, if we stay the course, then the hope is that we don't screw up things with all the demos (yes, a structurally sound vacant building is better than a vacant lot), that the Northbank will have an easier opportunity with whoever comes in next.
The political situation in JAX is a huge problem, IMO. First, the local politics is WAY more partisan than most cities, which serves no good purpose. Urbanism and local services are not political in nature to begin with. Partisan politics merely creates needless division and animosity.
Second, no one can serve as Mayor more than eight years, and realistically only four if they are a Democrat. So the turnover is very high and the continuity non-existant. Even the full eight years isn't very long. Also when a Republican wins their first term, noboby of substance even runs against them in four years, because they know the seat will be open the next time. It is a bad cycle and the a very difficult one to break.
Quote from: thelakelander on April 02, 2019, 11:26:44 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on April 02, 2019, 09:43:32 AM
For the first time in my life - and I go back a ways here - I've essentially given up hope for downtown Jax. Everytime we get momentum, the city either abandons it, or worse, starts meddling to the point that we take a step back for every one we take forward. Fortunately, we're seeing other neighborhoods really take off even if the loud sucking sound in the center of it all will apparently continue.
I hold out hope that we can pull ourselves together but my dose of reality came after a 2007 Toronto trip. I've pretty much been a realist ever since when it comes to downtown's future. Fortunately.....like every other city, btw....we are witnessing the transformation of our urban neighborhoods which is due to there being more opportunity for a larger percentage of the population to be a part of rebirth and revitalization. However, we can't become a place where we accept a substandard downtown because we have great neighborhoods surrounding it.
As you often say, Jax is what it is. Downtown is worth continuing to push for, but the unfortunate reality is that we're way behind our peers and are spinning our wheels. For every encouraging sign, there's a discouraging one. I guess the good news is that more people are out here wanting to see a vibrant downtown than I've ever seen, even if the city is just trotting out the same risky silver bullets and failed strategies.
Quote from: vicupstate on April 02, 2019, 01:04:49 PM
The political situation in JAX is a huge problem, IMO. First, the local politics is WAY more partisan than most cities, which serves no good purpose. Urbanism and local services are not political in nature to begin with. Partisan politics merely creates needless division and animosity.
Second, no one can serve as Mayor more than eight years, and realistically only four if they are a Democrat. So the turnover is very high and the continuity non-existant. Even the full eight years isn't very long. Also when a Republican wins their first term, noboby of substance even runs against them in four years, because they know the seat will be open the next time. It is a bad cycle and the a very difficult one to break.
As we discussed the other night, I would be all for changing the make-up of City government. Reduce the number of council members and switch to a City Manager government. I don't know what can be done about JTA and their existence but any City which can't control their own transportation is going to have a difficult time.
My guess is that changing the Charter as significantly as Kerry suggests would require approval by the Legislature. Since the Legislature would be involved anyway, they could also change the law establishing how JTA is set up.
However, although there is merit in his suggestion, I think the chances are slim.
Jacksonville Jaguars President Mark Lamping's thoughts on the Jax Landing:
QuoteAsked his opinion about The Jacksonville Landing site that the city wants to demolish along the Downtown riverfront, Lamping said the central business district is missing a central gathering point.
"You've got this beautiful view by the Main Street Bridge and making that accessible to more and more people, opening up the view corridors from Downtown, having our expectations being broader than just five or six blocks Downtown" is important.
"I think just taking a little pause on the Landing might make a lot of sense because I believe Downtown's better days are ahead of us," he said.
Lamping said that by waiting to decide its use and possibly turning it into a park during that time is advantageous.
"Ultimately, when things really get going, you could really achieve exactly what the community needs in that spot," he said.
Full article: https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/jaguars-remain-committed-to-lot-j-development-near-stadium
Historical Reality:(https://www.floridamemory.com/fpc/reference/rc19364.jpg)
In the past, that gathering point was Hemming Park(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/ljwJsccmjXre7teuZyhgJe9LjJ_UMl8GwxuOsCQSoQ7TMLPUmw7tRXnqrumQcrOQewjOqhO9YcXI0yAKvoDfnVWOpSpIk-Ka2ILoJT8CSYFxxX5MX7_IgfutP8-6_Nt8hqa5zyQF)
For the last 30 years, it's been the Landing's courtyardWhile DT has its issues, places to gather aren't one of them. However, reasons to gather on a consistent basis are.
What a tool and proof positive that no one at the Jags organization knows diddley squat about urban development - hell, they barely know anything about football. All you need is 2,000 employees and great things will follow? Really, explain the 10's of thousands that work downtown NOW and yet nothing amazing is happening - ever. Hell - their very own Lot J vision isn't even taking advantage of the existing workforce. What a jackass.
Here is my favorite line though.
QuoteHe said that to revitalize a neighborhood, "you need to have a base of people that are working there every day. Then hopefully that will lead to people living there."
No, the first thing you need is an actual neighborhood to revitalize. You are trying to revitalize an f'ing parking lot. And again, if all you need are the jobs and then housing will magically follow, where is all the dammed downtown housing for the 10's of thousands of people that already work downtown?
Finally, for those that didn't think JEA was the core component of Lot J, what more proof do you need? Alas, at least Khan remains committed to Lot J, but who the hell knows where they are going to find 2,000 jobs to kick it off with.
^Lampings comments do come off as self serving when it comes to the Landing site and what Lot J will or won't do for DT.
1. Kerry you're right about the 2k employees and they'll come quote. The Northbank has been well over that for over a century. If anything, it would suggest that Lot J be developed at the Landing site to take advantage of that market segment.
2. The Cordish Power & Light comparisons are pretty off-base in terms of context. The Power & Light District is in downtown Kansas City. Not at Arrowhead. The Power & Light District also includes a mix of adaptive reuse of historic buildings and new infill and is sandwiched between Kansas City's financial district and the Crossroads Arts District....all of which are denser than Jax's Northbank, much less a surface parking lot around a stadium a mile away. It's even named after an art deco highrise completed in 1931 that anchors it.
I went into the Old Barnett bank Building today to see what the finished UNF spaces looked like. They were decent, but empty. No one that I could see was using them at all.
However, from the 5th floor you could see directly into the other 2 Laura Street trio buildings, and I want to tell you, for all the hullabaloo surrounding those wonderful structures, they are YEARS away from being activated into the scene. YEARS folks.....
Yeah, once construction starts, you're probably looking at 24-36 months. Before construction can begin, the crews will have to complete the Barnett and the Trio will need to still go through the DDRB process. So yeah, a good three or four years at a minimum. This is why if you care anything about the time it takes to do stuff, you'd keep the Landing, remodel and revamp the mix of uses in it. Given the condition of the buildings, that's likely a one to two year process.
Baltimore is looking to follow our "lead".......
https://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bs-bz-new-harborplace-designs-20231030-ydloudlljzd2hdmklkvhiaghxa-story.html
There's a big difference:
- Baltimore is looking to replace their building and have a plan on that replacement.
- Jacksonville demolished theirs, then said, "Ok, what do we want to do now?"
Quote from: Steve on October 30, 2023, 02:03:54 PM
There's a big difference:
- Baltimore is looking to replace their building and have a plan on that replacement.
- Jacksonville demolished theirs, then said, "Ok, what do we want to do now?"
What they said
56 months ago as the demolition plans were being made.
Lenny Curry:
(https://snipboard.io/oTGmBK.jpg)
Lori Boyer:
(https://snipboard.io/1SK6IQ.jpg)
Four years after the Landing was demolished, here we are.
(https://snipboard.io/Y3WnB4.jpg)
Gotta get this guy fully funded and built quickly in a way that allows for private development on the southern pad while not being beholden to it happening before Phase 2 construction can begin. Will not succeed as half a park anymore than the Skyway succeeded as half a transit system, anymore than the original Landing succeeded as a mall without the promised dedicated parking for the landlord.
(https://64.media.tumblr.com/e1ef98d34a26e2d8669757dfac1d9ae8/tumblr_nn2mgxYU2X1qcxymno3_250.gif)
(https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:500/1*jWkSTwUGEFYOe8sT_dN-oA.jpeg)
Honestly, a park will never attract the amount of people consistently that the Landing did during its heyday. Hopefully, we'll get this thing fully funded and built. Nevertheless, additional work will need to be invested in properties fronting the park to make it a true 24/7 activity center. Hopefully, there's a plan for how to do just that.
Quote from: Steve on October 30, 2023, 02:03:54 PM
There's a big difference:
- Baltimore is looking to replace their building and have a plan on that replacement.
- Jacksonville demolished theirs, then said, "Ok, what do we want to do now?"
No, I think they said: "what do we do now?" They NEVER really had a clue IMO.
Quote from: Steve on October 30, 2023, 02:03:54 PM
There's a big difference:
- Baltimore is looking to replace their building and have a plan on that replacement.
- Jacksonville demolished theirs, then said, "Ok, what do we want to do now?"
One other big difference is Harborplace is owned by an experienced, local, known Baltimore developer who is leading the project.
The Landing was one of Lenny's many follies
To get wistful for a moment, I can't help but wonder what, even if we'd decided to go down this path of replacing the Landing with a park, it'd have looked like if there was any sense of urgency to everything after the demolition. It seems in hindsight that most of the pieces being considered now were things that would have been on the table then anyway. Like Sister Cities Plaza, or the Music Heritage Garden. If we'd at least said "okay we're demolishing the Landing but at the same time we're going to commit to one big project to set up the replacement park for a design to go on top of it" maybe it wouldn't have been such a ridiculous slog to get anything out of it. Instead it's just been one plodding step after another.
I guess that's the issue of city capacity to actually handle all that work at once.
^Yeah, I disagreed with taking The Landing down, as I thought it still had some decent bones and could have been modified and updated; but I think the worst part of the deal was taking it down with absolutely no replacement plan.
COJ sent letters to the last remaining tenants to vacate by June 1, 2019. So here we are nearly 3.5 years later with absolutely nothing in place yet. Given how the City has worked in the past and the piecemeal approach to design and funding, when will the City even have anything in place? The City said 18-24 months from July 2023 for Phase 1, so what does that actually mean? July 2026 at the earliest?
The City had a blank slate to activate the space and maintain some level of vibrancy during the design/funding/construction period. There are so many different types of pop up concepts that could have worked at the site, many of which are relatively cheap and could have given park designers some guidance as to what does and doesn't work on the site.
https://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,37072.msg514618.html#msg514618
I started the above thread two years ago about two waterfront pop-up concepts in Miami that were being used as temporary placeholders for future developments. One of them was open from 2020-2022 and the other closed this year after being open for five years. Neither closed because of a lack of success, but because they were always just a temporary concept. It's a shame that Jax's leaders do not have that kind of foresight or is it just laziness?
(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Jacksonville-Landing/i-c7DBfRz/0/a7777ec9/L/Jacksonville%20Landing%20-%20WB-X2.jpg)
We've put ourselves in a very predictable outcome that was mentioned here in the months prior to its demolition.
We're going to eventually end up with a more expensive version of everything Alvin Brown's redevelopment plan would have accomplished a decade ago. Some buildings may look different and the green space is shaped differently, but the goal of mixed use green space is what the old plan was as well. Except, we've lost a development entity that could actually pull it off (yes, I'm talking about Sleiman himself) and a base of 30 restaurants and retail shops, regularly programmed events to build upon. Some may not like them, but they are very successful in landing retail tenants and development.
All the peaches and cream hopes and visions that people were thinking could happen were not going to because the people leading the charge did not have the professional experience to pull it off. Also much of the stuff in the flashy renderings aren't going to happen anytime soon, if ever, because there was never committed funding (we mentioned this years ago) for it or financial feasibility (the tower was never practical in a city that hasn't had a skyscraper built in the Northbank since 1990).
So a tough, but very predictable outcome to arrive at. Hate to be brunt because I really do believe in downtown's potential and the ability to progress rapidly, but we have to acknowledge and accept the things that did not work, in order to do better and not repeat the mistakes of the past.
Another thing that can be said is it feels like the DT leadership is trying run before walking. Why did we opt to go with a 20+ story tower for the Ford on Bay? Completely unrealistic for quite some time. Meanwhile, some of the other options, still being a reach, are so much more practical. (Minus Southeast but I like the vision lol).
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/news/2022/jan/06/gallery-renderings-of-the-six-projects-proposed-for-the-ford-on-bay/
--
Same can be said for the Landing Skyscraper, the RFP was basically like "hey, build a 30 story tower of whatever" which is just odd to request... If we want to be building tall, the coast line is where to go... citizens want density in different areas than the market and vice-versa.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/1331634506_kNPwKBX-M.jpg)
Or if you don't have a need for 15-story building, you make it available for adaptive reuse instead of blowing up something built at a density and height the market obviously can't support at this point.
I'm seeing a big collapse coming maybe next year or 2025 and it's bad with china spending wildly on infrastructure and transit that sucks alot and a bunch of there high speed trains are fake in their ads they building towers all over and no one can afford to buy an apartment and now the economy is blowing up over there and japan said china is going be alot worse outcome like japan did back in the 90s when they were in a recession . Now we may face that same problem when they go down we and the world goes down too big market crash. So far it is already happening with developers all over halting or not getting banks to lend money for projects just like this one developer from chicago working multiple projects. His projects in tampa and Houston phoenix are being halted for months. https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2023/10/30/more-x-projects-shutting-down-construction.html?cx_testId=39&cx_testVariant=cx_1&cx_artPos=0#cxrecs_s (https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2023/10/30/more-x-projects-shutting-down-construction.html?cx_testId=39&cx_testVariant=cx_1&cx_artPos=0#cxrecs_s) and our laura and trio still will probably suffer reading from times union that place had been under several developers and mayors for decades and still can't be saved most went bankrupt or just couldn't handle the costs. And look at this vidfrom b1m about saving old buildings like the woolworth how much trouble it's been to save it. https://youtu.be/sp3tK8Vqv9w?si=EKs9WtQ-mBagsbQC (https://youtu.be/sp3tK8Vqv9w?si=EKs9WtQ-mBagsbQC) And look at these https://youtu.be/G9VZf4ISG-o?si=r78OWylp2GHLJkT2 (https://youtu.be/G9VZf4ISG-o?si=r78OWylp2GHLJkT2) https://youtu.be/cEtvrHLc174?si=N1-KXPOmX1xCwjS4 (https://youtu.be/cEtvrHLc174?si=N1-KXPOmX1xCwjS4) and this what they do to food over there. https://youtu.be/iJO4jOkF64I?si=Csyu0zREB2I_F7IJ (https://youtu.be/iJO4jOkF64I?si=Csyu0zREB2I_F7IJ) Look at their channel what happens over there will shock you. https://youtu.be/B0JjcOAJzWs?si=2675nKHZIDQMcerM (https://youtu.be/B0JjcOAJzWs?si=2675nKHZIDQMcerM)
Quote from: Skybox111 on November 03, 2023, 12:01:05 AM
I'm seeing a big collapse coming maybe next year or 2025 and it's bad with china spending wildly on infrastructure and transit that sucks alot and a bunch of there high speed trains are fake in their ads they building towers all over and no one can afford to buy an apartment and now the economy is blowing up over there and japan said china is going be alot worse outcome like japan did back in the 90s when they were in a recession . Now we may face that same problem when they go down we and the world goes down too big market crash. So far it is already happening with developers all over halting or not getting banks to lend money for projects just like this one developer from chicago working multiple projects. His projects in tampa and Houston phoenix are being halted for months. https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2023/10/30/more-x-projects-shutting-down-construction.html?cx_testId=39&cx_testVariant=cx_1&cx_artPos=0#cxrecs_s (https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2023/10/30/more-x-projects-shutting-down-construction.html?cx_testId=39&cx_testVariant=cx_1&cx_artPos=0#cxrecs_s) and our laura and trio still will probably suffer reading from times union that place had been under several developers and mayors for decades and still can't be saved most went bankrupt or just couldn't handle the costs. And look at this vidfrom b1m about saving old buildings like the woolworth how much trouble it's been to save it. https://youtu.be/sp3tK8Vqv9w?si=EKs9WtQ-mBagsbQC (https://youtu.be/sp3tK8Vqv9w?si=EKs9WtQ-mBagsbQC) And look at these https://youtu.be/G9VZf4ISG-o?si=r78OWylp2GHLJkT2 (https://youtu.be/G9VZf4ISG-o?si=r78OWylp2GHLJkT2) https://youtu.be/cEtvrHLc174?si=N1-KXPOmX1xCwjS4 (https://youtu.be/cEtvrHLc174?si=N1-KXPOmX1xCwjS4) and this what they do to food over there. https://youtu.be/iJO4jOkF64I?si=Csyu0zREB2I_F7IJ (https://youtu.be/iJO4jOkF64I?si=Csyu0zREB2I_F7IJ) Look at their channel what happens over there will shock you. https://youtu.be/B0JjcOAJzWs?si=2675nKHZIDQMcerM (https://youtu.be/B0JjcOAJzWs?si=2675nKHZIDQMcerM)
Although I recognize we live in global economy, the economic collapse in China has certainly already been going on for quite some time. The system that they engineered for how developers were allowed to operate makes 2008 look regulated beyond comprehension. They are, for the first time really, facing those consequences because they aren't urbanizing like a few decades ago. Secondly, China's building code is a joke.. and they build skyscrapers in urban areas with usable lives as short as 30-40 years. Their real estate market was going to collapse, it was just a matter of time.. and it actually began before the credit crisis.
As for the B1M video, he was demonstrating that this "push" towards office conversions are not economical. That conversion costing wayyyyyy more than if it was demolished and built new. That's the point he's making there. It's not economical to do.
I do think the credit tightening will get worse, but I think everyone likes to think that the next 08 crisis is upon us, anytime we have recessionary measures. 08 was special, it was not caused by some economic imbalance, rather a lack of regulation on housing. If anything, the fact that RE lending is tight now, is helping to prevent another 08 meltdown. Shotty loans can certainly tank an economy (aka China rn.)
That being said, Jacksonville as a local environment faces a demographics issue, rather an economic one. Population growth, which usually follows job growth, can pretty much reverse almost any negative macroeconomic metric. What we struggle with as a city, is tackling tight credit markets when the demand is there. There is demand for retail, (https://www.costar.com/article/1546621985/jacksonvilles-retail-sector-second-in-the-us-for-rent-growth-during-the-third-quarter), and there is demand for housing (because we added 40k+ jobs in 2023 and retail trends typically follow housing trends).
I don't think the picture is pretty, but things aren't doom & gloom... especially locally.
Oh i see.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 20, 2019, 11:20:41 AM
Quote from: Kerry on March 20, 2019, 11:04:15 AM
My son and I went to Miami's Bayside Center last weekend and it was PACKED. In fact, Packed isn't even a good word for it. There were some places it was actually difficult to move through. That was the first time I have actually been to downtown Miami (really just been to the airport and driven by on I-95) and I was blown away. All I can say is WOW!!!
Downtown Miami is unrecognizable now when compared to what it was when Bayside opened in the late 1980s. Back in those days, it was pretty similar to Downtown Jacksonville. However, when it booms nationally, it really booms there. Nevertheless, the management at Bayside (along with the City of Miami) have found ways to keep people coming back to Bayside. Part of that has been clustering (like the cruise terminal being nearby). Another part has been renovation (yes, you need to refresh your property after 30 years) and another part has been changing the tenant mix to reflect the current market.
Looks like Baltimore is demolishing harbor place for this near similar idea like ours except they will have a marketplace but same idea of residential on lot but alot more units. Seems they don't value the waterfront for all of it to be parks as that would be a waste of valuable real estate. With it all a park there would be no high rises to add a large amount of density no shops restaurants and other activities can't make money on a park that stretches all of the whole waterfront when there are hardly any high rises near by of residents like ours shipyards you have the berkman and the doro apartments and four seasons but thats it and there far apart from each other and if you do build residential around the stadium still will be less people using it maybe 900 units or 1200 still low you have the Maxwell plant in the way of a big gap between berkman and four seasons no hotels offices residential restaurants and assuming the mosh actually builds their new museum since they're still struggling to raise more money and time moving on the cost to build it is rising faster than they can fund it. You will have a big park with a restaurant and little eatery but thats it in the middle of nothing of some trees and tennis court. Same with bays street business far away from four seasons there's no connection of other businesses to reach each other. A majority of these residential apartments going in may have a bunch of people who may not use the park. https://www.wbal.com/residents-ask-questions-about-vision-for-new-harborplace/ (https://www.wbal.com/residents-ask-questions-about-vision-for-new-harborplace/)
And same with lavilla with no high density being built there a district that is in the downtown boundary not outside on the other side of the highway would be a low neighborhood like others that would wrap around downtown when we could make it very dense. Having houses little du plexes semi detached houses row hoses and low rise apartments all which you can find all over the city is a waste of valuable density especially having all that next to a transit hub and maybe a train station that will probably in the future connect to the rest of the transit hub and the most busiest highway i95 that is expanding and rearranging a bunch of on and off ramps. A very congested and noisy area for a low rise neighborhood that would be outside of downtown in a much quieter state. Not very dense area when you have houses and low apartment covering a big area when you need a very dense population to utilize transit and being a gateway into downtown. You can find those type of neighborhoods all over the city but you will not find a large amount of high rises throughout. A very big dense skyline in the middle of the entire city of 800 plus square miles.
Quote from: Jax_Developer on November 02, 2023, 03:37:18 PM
Another thing that can be said is it feels like the DT leadership is trying run before walking. Why did we opt to go with a 20+ story tower for the Ford on Bay? Completely unrealistic for quite some time. Meanwhile, some of the other options, still being a reach, are so much more practical. (Minus Southeast but I like the vision lol).
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/news/2022/jan/06/gallery-renderings-of-the-six-projects-proposed-for-the-ford-on-bay/
--
Same can be said for the Landing Skyscraper, the RFP was basically like "hey, build a 30 story tower of whatever" which is just odd to request... If we want to be building tall, the coast line is where to go... citizens want density in different areas than the market and vice-versa.
It's because they are idiots who got sucked in by a flashy proposal. We can't get a first down let alone a touchdown and they get wowed by a pie in the sky unrealistic project because skyscrapers >>> everything.
The Mid-America and Vantrust proposals would almost certainly be well underway by now for sure, they weren't fancy but they were solid infill projects that were achieveable in a dead development environment which is DT Jax. They should have seen the warning signs after seeing Atkins and Southeast wanting to get involved with their phony renderings and the mess they've made of the trio when we seen the Hardwick high-rise proposal.