(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Business/Jacksonville-Landing/i-qJSXgFs/0/d34ab8ca/L/3-L.jpg)
Quote
What could be accomplished with the Jacksonville Landing if the city left the door open for reusing the structure before demolishing it outright? This artist's rendering shows one innovative idea for the space that focuses on adaptive reuse and selective demolition while still providing riverfront greenspace.
Read more: https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/adaptive-reuse-an-artists-vision-for-the-landing/
I vote for this. Much better than a tear down.
Again, it is focused on the water and not the street - which was the primary design flaw to begin with. 99.9999% of the people access the property from the street. Ultimately the only "fix" is to rotate the whole building 180*. The U should face the street and not the river and words 'The Jacksonville Landing' should read correctly from the street, not the river.
Quote from: Kerry on April 19, 2019, 10:29:40 AM
Again, it is focused on the water and not the street - which was the primary design flaw to begin with. 99.9999% of the people access the property from the street. Ultimately the only "fix" is to rotate the whole building 180*. The U should face the street and not the river and words 'The Jacksonville Landing' should read correctly from the street, not the river.
Lol, this was adaptive reuse. Kind of hard to make the U face the street when it doesn't do that. And if you look, they've replace the "Jacksonville Landing" sign with a "Jacksonville" that does face up Laura Street.
I understand the frustrations with tear-downs expressed on this thread, but I just really despise the Landing as a structure. It would be nice to see something built that is "natively" pedestrian-oriented...better interactions and points of integration with the streetscape. I do prefer issuing permits for construction of something new before tearing it down, however.
To reiterate, this is the city's plan for the space:
(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Business/Jacksonville-Landing/i-hPvBnQP/0/87d38d84/L/183444_standard-L.png)
The reality of cost, economics and redevelopment timeline have to be factored into this topic. What type of use would you to see? Some will be more feasible using an existing building like the Landing instead of building new. So to keep maximum flexibility, issue a RFP for the site and let the responses decide how best to design to meet the requirements.
Quote from: Kerry on April 19, 2019, 10:29:40 AM
Again, it is focused on the water and not the street - which was the primary design flaw to begin with. 99.9999% of the people access the property from the street. Ultimately the only "fix" is to rotate the whole building 180*. The U should face the street and not the river and words 'The Jacksonville Landing' should read correctly from the street, not the river.
There is absolutely nothing to prevent opening storefronts on the street side. It can open up to BOTH sides and your typical Farmer's Market/ Food Hall would normally do that anyway.
This is a wonderful design and a great low cost solution to what to do with the site.
Quote from: Kerry on April 19, 2019, 10:29:40 AM
Again, it is focused on the water and not the street - which was the primary design flaw to begin with. 99.9999% of the people access the property from the street. Ultimately the only "fix" is to rotate the whole building 180*. The U should face the street and not the river and words 'The Jacksonville Landing' should read correctly from the street, not the river.
I think the article nailed it.
Let's think about it a different way. Looking at the sky view, the west side of the U actually follows the street to a degree; it's the east side that doesn't.
As the rendering shows, they have the Main Street Bridge ramp removed. I think that's a good thing...assuming demand is there.
The idea is that "triangle" space can be used for future development. It doesn't have to be a U at the street as they show.
With that said, nothing prevents retail opening up to Independent Drive/Water Street.
Good work! This is fairly similar to a concept I posted about in another Landing thread a couple months back. In quotes below.
"I think one interesting option is to only preserve the two wings that run north from the river and remove the interior of the horseshoe and the wings that run east/west along the river. If you look at the Landing from the river, the wings I am referring to are the only architecturally redeeming features of the Landing, imo. With a new roof color and glass facade on the south face, this could look very incredibly nice (actually fairly similar to a waterfront fish market/restaurant I'm working on elsewhere). There would still be AMPLE opportunity to provide green space, hardscape, public art, fountains, etc; but the park would have a true anchor instead of being dead space like everywhere else along the riverfront."
I know some like it and think it is iconic, but I firmly believe one of the biggest issues with the Landing aesthetically is the roof color. There is a zero percent chance that color would be proposed if the Landing was a brand new development in 2019. Any discussion of re- purposing existing The Landing structure should start with a new roof color.
I also hope people looking at this realize this design is only focused on the structure itself. There is still so much that could be done in the courtyard and pedestrian realm to create a park like setting with various amenities, public art, landscaping, and outdoor furniture.
Good conversation starter for sure, but also know that the final product could look much more appealing.
This plan is similar to what just happened in Tampa with Channelside Bay Plaza, now Sparkman Wharf. There are some interesting ideas that Jax could utilize here.
https://www.bizjournals.com/tampabay/news/2018/11/28/channelside-bay-plaza-shunned-both-the-water-and.html
Quote from: vicupstate on April 19, 2019, 11:39:36 AM
Quote from: Kerry on April 19, 2019, 10:29:40 AM
Again, it is focused on the water and not the street - which was the primary design flaw to begin with. 99.9999% of the people access the property from the street. Ultimately the only "fix" is to rotate the whole building 180*. The U should face the street and not the river and words 'The Jacksonville Landing' should read correctly from the street, not the river.
There is absolutely nothing to prevent opening storefronts on the street side. It can open up to BOTH sides and your typical Farmer's Market/ Food Hall would normally do that anyway.
It could to an extent but the entire exterior of the east side is all loading docks and mechanical. Fixing that would cost more than rebuilding it.
Quote from: Kerry on April 19, 2019, 03:35:48 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on April 19, 2019, 11:39:36 AM
Quote from: Kerry on April 19, 2019, 10:29:40 AM
Again, it is focused on the water and not the street - which was the primary design flaw to begin with. 99.9999% of the people access the property from the street. Ultimately the only "fix" is to rotate the whole building 180*. The U should face the street and not the river and words 'The Jacksonville Landing' should read correctly from the street, not the river.
There is absolutely nothing to prevent opening storefronts on the street side. It can open up to BOTH sides and your typical Farmer's Market/ Food Hall would normally do that anyway.
It could to an extent but the entire exterior of the east side is all loading docks and mechanical. Fixing that would cost more than rebuilding it.
There's plenty of area fronting Independent Drive that could be adapted to face the street.
Quote from: Kerry on April 19, 2019, 03:35:48 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on April 19, 2019, 11:39:36 AM
Quote from: Kerry on April 19, 2019, 10:29:40 AM
Again, it is focused on the water and not the street - which was the primary design flaw to begin with. 99.9999% of the people access the property from the street. Ultimately the only "fix" is to rotate the whole building 180*. The U should face the street and not the river and words 'The Jacksonville Landing' should read correctly from the street, not the river.
There is absolutely nothing to prevent opening storefronts on the street side. It can open up to BOTH sides and your typical Farmer's Market/ Food Hall would normally do that anyway.
It could to an extent but the entire exterior of the east side is all loading docks and mechanical. Fixing that would cost more than rebuilding it.
In what world would that be? Especially if you redeveloped that property, it wouldn't be an issue at all.
Quote from: Kerry on April 19, 2019, 03:35:48 PM
It could to an extent but the entire exterior of the east side is all loading docks and mechanical. Fixing that would cost more than rebuilding it.
This is the type of stuff the Kerrys, Currys and Hughes of the world should not be making decisions about. Issue a RFP and let qualified development teams that would be on the hook for funding redevelopment, come to the table with market ready workable solutions.
Quote from: Tacachale on April 19, 2019, 03:59:25 PM
Quote from: Kerry on April 19, 2019, 03:35:48 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on April 19, 2019, 11:39:36 AM
Quote from: Kerry on April 19, 2019, 10:29:40 AM
Again, it is focused on the water and not the street - which was the primary design flaw to begin with. 99.9999% of the people access the property from the street. Ultimately the only "fix" is to rotate the whole building 180*. The U should face the street and not the river and words 'The Jacksonville Landing' should read correctly from the street, not the river.
There is absolutely nothing to prevent opening storefronts on the street side. It can open up to BOTH sides and your typical Farmer's Market/ Food Hall would normally do that anyway.
It could to an extent but the entire exterior of the east side is all loading docks and mechanical. Fixing that would cost more than rebuilding it.
There's plenty of area fronting Independent Drive that could be adapted to face the street.
(https://www.tampabay.com/storyimage/HI/20181212/ARTICLE/181219969/AR/0/AR-181219969.jpg&MaxW=1200&Q=66)
A cheap solution would be something like this which is what they did at Sparkman's Wharf...
For Independent Drive, shipping containers aren't even necessary. A good chunk of the frontage is already storefront. Throw a public market or food hall in there, add some outdoor seating and you're essentially done.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Business/Jacksonville-Landing/i-Lrb7htZ/0/55f346d1/L/20190310_172518-L.jpg)
This already faces Independent. Just add a use that opens up to Independent Drive and add outdoor seating to the courtyard.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Business/Jacksonville-Landing/i-hsm7GS6/0/0ef16475/L/20190310_172941-L.jpg)
It wouldn't take much to convert this space into some type of public market and it already faces Independent Drive.
Another option would be to kill the mall and reverse the storefronts to face Independent Drive since those walls are basically non load bearing anyway.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Business/Jacksonville-Landing/i-Dq2KfQQ/0/32eba211/L/20170624_115823-L.jpg)
Replace the non load bearing sections of this facade with storefront openings and you have a situation where retail spaces open up to Independent Drive.
The revamp of Jack London Square in Oakland a couple of years ago is a good example of how to activate such a space:
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/San-Francisco-Oakland-2015/i-J4jDQFP/0/5a670fdc/L/DSCF6640-L.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/San-Francisco-Oakland-2015/i-vQr8PzR/0/d31e47b4/L/DSCF6635-L.jpg)
Lake is exactly right. ALL you need is some selective demolition to right-size the building and create more space along the riverwalk, put a new color on the roof, and do some cosmetics on the interior (new interior colors, light fixtures, flooring, etc.) remove the interior walls to open it up. Turn the Independent side to storefronts. Then turn it over to an operator to fill it with Food Hall/Farmer's Market tenants.
Ended up in a short argument with some guy on Instagram (I know, dumb idea) and here was his take in two comments:
He first said Hooters needs to close so they can get the demo done. When I asked what the landing should be replaced with, he said:
Quote
a bulldozer first. A new riverfront area that is not from the 70's! Something that draws people to the downtown area and held tourism.
When I told him that adaptive reuse is cheaper, faster, and proven, and that we need to have a plan before we tear things down, he responded with:
Quote
agree on the fact we should have a plan. BUT if we want majority or locals or anyone else to truly embrace it and to come they aren't going to be interested in a partial re-do. They are going to want completely new, fresh, exciting!
So this is apparently at least one of the mentalities we're up against.
It is the same mentality that got nearly all of LaVilla demolished, not to mention a big chuck of DT.
You can rehab it in such a way that it looks fresh and appealing. All it needs is the HGTV treatment.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on April 22, 2019, 12:28:14 PMSo this is apparently at least one of the mentalities we're up against.
And it's not uncommon...
Totally not uncommon from people with no professional experience in development, running retail, restaurants, museums, etc. That same person will likel marvel at IAW or various places in Savannah or Charleston. At the end of the day, the building itself needs to be taken out of the debate and focus should be placed on the type of uses. It's why a charrette focusing on design ideas and concepts from people with no experience in the field or money in the game is likely not needed.
However, just about everyone will agree that some form of retail, restaurant, dining, or something that attracts people to the site, is needed. For example, many people may want a public market or food hall but have no idea that the costs for pulling off this type of use would significantly drop with reuse of space originally built to accommodate these types of uses. If the dream is high-rise office space or apartments, then obviously, the existing buildings won't work for that. If you want a park that attracts people, you'll likely need to include some form of space dedicated to retail/dining, tour booking, bike rental, restrooms, a visitors center or museum. All are the type of uses that reuse may make more sense than demolishing and building new with more money and a longer development timeline that would put you in the risk of running into a recession and ultimately getting nothing done for another decade.
To keep maximum options open, a RFP needs to be issued for the property, seeking qualified developers or operators of the site to respond with proposals that will accommodate inclusion of mixed-use on the property, with consideration for adaptive reuse as an option.
Quote from: thelakelander on April 22, 2019, 11:07:10 AM
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Business/Jacksonville-Landing/i-Dq2KfQQ/0/32eba211/L/20170624_115823-L.jpg)
Replace the non load bearing sections of this facade with storefront openings and you have a situation where retail spaces open up to Independent Drive.
I'm not a 'tear it down type person' but that is a lot of ground to cover between the sidewalk and the building - well over 90'. I'm a "Good Urbanism first' person and if the choice is between getting rid of bad urbanism and starting over vs. half-ass retrofit urbanism then I say start over. Alas, the City has no intention of actually doing good urbanism (not do I believe is even capable of good urbanism) so I'm torn on this one.
Quote from: Kerry on April 22, 2019, 02:59:38 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on April 22, 2019, 11:07:10 AM
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Business/Jacksonville-Landing/i-Dq2KfQQ/0/32eba211/L/20170624_115823-L.jpg)
Replace the non load bearing sections of this facade with storefront openings and you have a situation where retail spaces open up to Independent Drive.
I'm not a 'tear it down type person' but that is a lot of ground to cover between the sidewalk and the building - well over 90'. I'm a "Good Urbanism first' person and if the choice is between getting rid of bad urbanism and starting over vs. half-ass retrofit urbanism then I say start over. Alas, the City has no intention of actually doing good urbanism (not do I believe is even capable of good urbanism) so I'm torn on this one.
Before the City changed their own interpretation of the lease saying that the Landing's open container/alcohol service footprint was limited to the building itself (and not the entire property as was the interpretation
for more than 30 years), there were plans in place to level out that entire area and create an outdoor beer garden, shuffleboard courts, bocce ball courts and a series of outdoor trellises to provide shade... that would have looked a lot like the Jack London Square image Lakelander posted.
But, sure.... we should tear it all down because 'bad urbanism', 'First Baptist', 'aquarium', insert your dumb excuse here ____
Quote from: thelakelander on April 22, 2019, 11:07:10 AM
For Independent Drive, shipping containers aren't even necessary. A good chunk of the frontage is already storefront. Throw a public market or food hall in there, add some outdoor seating and you're essentially done.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Business/Jacksonville-Landing/i-Dq2KfQQ/0/32eba211/L/20170624_115823-L.jpg)
Replace the non load bearing sections of this facade with storefront openings and you have a situation where retail spaces open up to Independent Drive.
You mean like this? The fact remains that the exterior framing of the retail stall spaces pictured, are carbon copies of the interior framing... meaning the stall spaces were designed to be easily converted into exterior storefronts facing Independent Drive/Hogan Street simply by replacing the stucco facades with floor to ceiling window panes.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Business/Jacksonville-Landing/i-dMpfkbL/0/fcb1cc54/X2/independentstorefront-X2.jpg)
Nah, this building needs to be torn down because '1980's mall', 'u-shaped design is horrible', 'you need to start over', insert your lame excuse here ____
Is there any particular reason (historic, civic, logistic) that the Jacksonville Farmer's Market wouldn't/couldn't move to the Landing in an attempt to make it a Pike's Place style market?
Logistics, costs and they already own the land they sit on. With that said, Jax did have a Pikes Place style market at the foot of Ocean Street. Unfortunately, it was considered blight, razed and replaced with a waterfront surface parking lot as a part of a 1950s downtown revitalization plan:
https://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2015-may-authentic-jacksonville-the-city-market/page/
Quote from: itsfantastic1 on April 22, 2019, 03:23:20 PM
Is there any particular reason (historic, civic, logistic) that the Jacksonville Farmer's Market wouldn't/couldn't move to the Landing in an attempt to make it a Pike's Place style market?
Although the market was originally called the Duval Market & Association that operated at a location across the current railroad tracks from where the market is now, the now Jacksonville Farmers Market has been in its current location since the late 1930's... and is already located in the largest wholesale district south of Pittsburgh.
Beaver Street Fisheries owns the land (and the adjacent and empty former grocery store) and operates the market as a non-profit... subsidizing a portion of the market's operation.
In addition to already owning the land and subsidizing annual operations... JFM also spent over half a million dollars in the last two years to upgrade the facility. BSF chipped in about 3/4 of that cost, with the remainder coming from the Northwest Jacksonville Economic Development Trust Fund.
Given that, I don't see any reason that JFM would be interested in moving.
Although, that doesn't preclude a similar use (albeit more like Pikes Place in Seattle or the Ferry Building in San Francisco... that also features more dining and retail operations) from thriving at the Landing.
Quote from: Kerry on April 22, 2019, 02:59:38 PM
I'm not a 'tear it down type person' but that is a lot of ground to cover between the sidewalk and the building - well over 90'. I'm a "Good Urbanism first' person and if the choice is between getting rid of bad urbanism and starting over vs. half-ass retrofit urbanism then I say start over. Alas, the City has no intention of actually doing good urbanism (not do I believe is even capable of good urbanism) so I'm torn on this one.
This is why a charrette isn't really needed. A 90' setback is neither good or bad urbanism. What makes good or bad urbanism is what is specifically done with the space. A decision to tear down should not be weighted on such opinions.
Quote from: fieldafm on April 22, 2019, 03:21:25 PM
For Independent Drive, shipping containers aren't even necessary. A good chunk of the frontage is already storefront. Throw a public market or food hall in there, add some outdoor seating and you're essentially done.
You mean like this? The fact remains that the exterior framing of the retail stall spaces pictured, are carbon copies of the interior framing... meaning the stall spaces were designed to be easily converted into exterior storefronts facing Independent Drive/Hogan Street simply by replacing the stucco facades with floor to ceiling window panes.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Business/Jacksonville-Landing/i-dMpfkbL/0/fcb1cc54/X2/independentstorefront-X2.jpg)
Nah, this building needs to be torn down because '1980's mall', 'u-shaped design is horrible', 'you need to start over', insert your lame excuse here ____
Don't forget the Horrid Orange Roof as a reason to Tear It Down.
^^ Couldn't the JFM just create a statelite 'annex' in the Landing without moving from the current location?
It's to be expected that a some people who aren't versed in urban development issues would believe things like the idea that tearing down the Landing will make it easier to develop, or that things should be turn down just because they're dingy now. That's just how it goes. What's disappointing is that not only are all of the main decision makers on board with this plan, City Council is just moving in lockstep without question. Not surprising, but extremely disappointing.
I don't believe a charrette is necessary, but it's refreshing that Carlucci is at least saying we should have a better plan and public input before we undertake a huge, expensive decision. As Lake says, the best bet would to start an RFP that includes all the things everybody wants to see at the space - more green space, an opening at Laura Street, and a right-sized retail component - but leave it open enough that developers can choose to renovate the space. The public will be a part of things then, and we'll at least know that we made the decision with all our options open.
One problem with the "Artists' Rendition" is that the view from the River north to Main Street is blocked,as would a southerly River view from Main Street be blocked.
Waterfront Vista. +
What a Crock.Surprised the "Rendition" did not include a Giant Marina,docks in deep water,treacherous currents,vessels flailing attempting to dock
Level the place. Thank you 1980's "Vision",now we embrace River City Visual Scenery Management,open vistas both watery and concrete,Jacksonville's Gracious Southern Front and Back Porch,the privilege of public waterfront land ownership fully nudged to highest and best use,vested,open ( skip "green space"....) Waterway Space far more valuable than any retail building whatsoever or expanded city tax receipts,truly an anchor so to speak on the shore of Downtown,a solid footing for so far elusive yet potentially ideal surrounding development.Oh,and lest we forget....human use,enjoyment,placement.Competing with a lake in Nocatee should be easier than this.
Ummm Main Street crosses the river. How is the view of the river blocked from Main Street?
^^ Remember kids... drunk posting is never good.
Quote from: Tacachale on April 23, 2019, 01:50:29 PM
It's to be expected that a some people who aren't versed in urban development issues would believe things like the idea that tearing down the Landing will make it easier to develop
What sort of crack are you smoking? A vacant lot is easier to develop than one with a building on it. Just like it's easier to paint on a blank canvas than over an existing painting.
Quote from: Tacachale on April 23, 2019, 01:50:29 PMWhat's disappointing is that not only are all of the main decision makers on board with this plan, City Council is just moving in lockstep without question. Not surprising, but extremely disappointing.
I have written to all of my council members. Almost all of them have responded. Their responses, especially a couple, demonstrated that they don't take the issue lightly have been deliberating - on and off - about The Landing for years.
And that's the problem here. We've all been talking about The Landing for years. The idea that somehow all options haven't been considered is :
a) A political move - Smart move by Carlucci
b) A strategic move - The urban hoarders can's stand to throw something away and are desperately grasping at any option other than demo
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on April 26, 2019, 12:07:49 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on April 23, 2019, 01:50:29 PM
It's to be expected that a some people who aren't versed in urban development issues would believe things like the idea that tearing down the Landing will make it easier to develop
What sort of crack are you smoking? A vacant lot is easier to develop than one with a building on it. Just like it's easier to paint on a blank canvas than over an existing painting.
Absolutely, since all of the vacant lots downtown have contributed to the giant building boom going on downtown.
QuoteA vacant lot is easier to develop than one with a building on it.
Let me put it to you like this. There are two houses for sale. One built 10 years ago and one that was just completed. Same block same SF, same style. Which one is going to be cheaper 9.5 times out of 10?
The one that was already built.
Simply making changes to an existing building allows some materials to be re-used. If new construction were justifiable, we would already be seeing it. The lower costs of using existing buildings can make a business viable that isn't with the higher cost of 100% new construciton.
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on April 26, 2019, 12:07:49 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on April 23, 2019, 01:50:29 PM
It's to be expected that a some people who aren't versed in urban development issues would believe things like the idea that tearing down the Landing will make it easier to develop
What sort of crack are you smoking? A vacant lot is easier to develop than one with a building on it. Just like it's easier to paint on a blank canvas than over an existing painting.
You're right - that's why all those dozens other lots in Downtown Jax have cranes on them as we speak.
(https://media1.giphy.com/media/5zs7PKZVNu4toH0jC4/giphy.gif?cid=790b76115cc336894c7872326bdce0f7&rid=giphy.gif)
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on April 26, 2019, 12:07:49 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on April 23, 2019, 01:50:29 PMWhat's disappointing is that not only are all of the main decision makers on board with this plan, City Council is just moving in lockstep without question. Not surprising, but extremely disappointing.
I have written to all of my council members. Almost all of them have responded. Their responses, especially a couple, demonstrated that they don't take the issue lightly have been deliberating - on and off - about The Landing for years.
And that's the problem here. We've all been talking about The Landing for years. The idea that somehow all options haven't been considered is :
a) A political move - Smart move by Carlucci
b) A strategic move - The urban hoarders can's stand to throw something away and are desperately grasping at any option other than demo
Perhaps all options have been "considered", but obviously not seriously, as we're still plowing ahead with perhaps the worst one: demolition with no firm plan. That ensures it stays as yet another vacant lot - sorry, a "blank canvas" - indefinitely. There is zero reason to blow up the Landing before we decide what we're even doing with the property. Well, there's one reason, if you don't actually intend to do anything with the site beyond Bermuda grass.
Sorry if I missed it. Does the city have in place funding to remove the on / off "ramp" for water st. / Independt for the Main Street bridge? I think it would be a good move overall. But I wasn't aware that any funding was in place to do so.
If I remember correctly, a few years ago, FDOT had engineering and design in their work program (5-year plan); but, when the City stopped considering it, the project was dropped. Probably wouldn't take much to bring it back, if the City wants it.
Quote from: Tacachale on April 26, 2019, 12:56:18 PM
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on April 26, 2019, 12:07:49 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on April 23, 2019, 01:50:29 PM
It's to be expected that a some people who aren't versed in urban development issues would believe things like the idea that tearing down the Landing will make it easier to develop
What sort of crack are you smoking? A vacant lot is easier to develop than one with a building on it. Just like it's easier to paint on a blank canvas than over an existing painting.
You're right - that's why all those dozens other lots in Downtown Jax have cranes on them as we speak.
Because it is easier to develop does not mean it __WILL__ be developed today.
Check out Minneapolis' MIll district. It was a sea of parking lots for decades. Finally as the city grew and the demand was there, in a decade it's gone from empty parking lots to a dense, vibrant neighborhood.
Minneapolis is a bad example. The historic mill is still there and the core of Downtown Minneapolis was never pulverized into oblivion to the level of what Jacksonville has experienced. New infill in the Mill District only came after decades of getting right in the core and that spilling over into fringe areas. For that "special" Mill district decade to occur in Jax will first require Jax to finally get it right in other areas to build the spill over synergy.
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on April 28, 2019, 05:59:00 PM
Sorry if I missed it. Does the city have in place funding to remove the on / off "ramp" for water st. / Independt for the Main Street bridge? I think it would be a good move overall. But I wasn't aware that any funding was in place to do so.
It would have to coincide with a return to two-way streets or traffic will be a nightmare.
They may want to but there is no funding committed to it that I'm aware of. That's a FDOT facility so there would need to be some coordination between the agencies for removal to ultimately happen.
Quote from: Kerry on April 29, 2019, 10:16:39 AM
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on April 28, 2019, 05:59:00 PM
Sorry if I missed it. Does the city have in place funding to remove the on / off "ramp" for water st. / Independt for the Main Street bridge? I think it would be a good move overall. But I wasn't aware that any funding was in place to do so.
It would have to coincide with a return to two-way streets or traffic will be a nightmare.
How would it be a nightmare? Not talking about the Ocean St ramp.
Quote from: thelakelander on April 28, 2019, 09:30:09 PM
Minneapolis is a bad example. The historic mill is still there and the core of Downtown Minneapolis was never pulverized into oblivion to the level of what Jacksonville has experienced. New infill in the Mill District only came after decades of getting right in the core and that spilling over into fringe areas. For that "special" Mill district decade to occur in Jax will first require Jax to finally get it right in other areas to build the spill over synergy.
Comparing Jacksonville in any aspect to Minneapolis is like comparing someone that can't swim to Michael Phelps.
Quote from: Steve on April 29, 2019, 12:10:02 PM
Quote from: Kerry on April 29, 2019, 10:16:39 AM
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on April 28, 2019, 05:59:00 PM
Sorry if I missed it. Does the city have in place funding to remove the on / off "ramp" for water st. / Independt for the Main Street bridge? I think it would be a good move overall. But I wasn't aware that any funding was in place to do so.
Not that it is a really big deal, but traffic from the west that currently uses Water Street / Independent Drive would have either use Forsyth Street or continue east on Independent to Newnan to Bay to get to the Main Street Bridge.
It would have to coincide with a return to two-way streets or traffic will be a nightmare.
How would it be a nightmare? Not talking about the Ocean St ramp.
Quote from: Steve on April 29, 2019, 12:10:02 PM
Quote from: Kerry on April 29, 2019, 10:16:39 AM
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on April 28, 2019, 05:59:00 PM
Sorry if I missed it. Does the city have in place funding to remove the on / off "ramp" for water st. / Independt for the Main Street bridge? I think it would be a good move overall. But I wasn't aware that any funding was in place to do so.
It would have to coincide with a return to two-way streets or traffic will be a nightmare.
How would it be a nightmare? Not talking about the Ocean St ramp.
Nightmare might be too strong a word so lets try "inconvenient". The west side of downtown is already screwed up because of the courthouse. This would require people to drive 4 extra blocks. Keep the grid intact as much as possible and downtown streets should have already been returned to two-way.
Quote from: Kerry on April 29, 2019, 07:06:47 PM
Quote from: Steve on April 29, 2019, 12:10:02 PM
Quote from: Kerry on April 29, 2019, 10:16:39 AM
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on April 28, 2019, 05:59:00 PM
Sorry if I missed it. Does the city have in place funding to remove the on / off "ramp" for water st. / Independt for the Main Street bridge? I think it would be a good move overall. But I wasn't aware that any funding was in place to do so.
It would have to coincide with a return to two-way streets or traffic will be a nightmare.
How would it be a nightmare? Not talking about the Ocean St ramp.
Nightmare might be too strong a word so lets try "inconvenient". The west side of downtown is already screwed up because of the courthouse. This would require people to drive 4 extra blocks. Keep the grid intact as much as possible and downtown streets should have already been returned to two-way.
I guess we can agree to disagree. Instead of getting on the bridge at the base of the landing, you'd go straight, curve next to the Ocean street off ramp, make the left on Bay (which you can do on Red), then make the left onto the bridge.
While I'd agree that the one ways suck, especially around the courthouse, I'm not seeing how that makes a difference here. You'd also be able to eliminate the traffic light that controls the "landing ramp" and Main St ramp.