https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/local/2020/09/07/main-street-bridge-ramp-set-tear-down-jacksonville-landing-site/5711839002/
QuoteWhile the state gears up for demolition of the ramp, the Downtown Investment Authority is moving to bring in design teams who will compete for the winning vision of how to reuse the Landing site.
The current concept calls for most of the site to be public park space with two new buildings set back from the St. Johns River. The maximum height of those building would be mid-rise structures, Boyer has said.
The two buildings would be at back corners of the Landing site, separated far enough apart that there would be a broad opening between them for a view corridor from Laura Street all the way down to the river. Boyer said in order to maximize the amount of public park space, the most likely buildings would be two office buildings or an office building an a hotel.
The DIA plans to contract with three design firms that would get city stipends paying them to flesh out their plans beyond the conceptual stage. Then DIA would select a winning design.
"Iconic is an overused term, but we want them to be meaningful and special buildings because it's a special location in the center of downtown," Boyer said.
Unless I'm misreading this, it sounds like the DIA has already decided on Lenny's Lawn, with three firms bidding on how to best implement Brian Hughes' back of the napkin sketch. Small, mid-rise buildings, either both office (for which there's no market right now), or one office and one hotel. And lots of lawn.
I know this was part of the original plan - even before Shad CONman let the deal fall through, but why continue at this point now that we see what he's capable of. Wasting taxpayer money to tear down and re-build something else for pedestrians because it is needed. It's already here!! This is madness. https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/next-demolition-at-jacksonville-landing-site-will-tear-down-main-street-bridge-on-ramp/ar-BB18MPsh
Could a friendly Moderator merge the two identical threads about the On-Ramp, before they each get a bunch of posts? SandyShoes started the other one.
Could a friendly Moderator merge the two identical threads about the On-Ramp, before they each get a bunch of posts? Ken_FSU started the other one.
Quote from: Ken_FSU on September 07, 2020, 10:47:11 AM
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/local/2020/09/07/main-street-bridge-ramp-set-tear-down-jacksonville-landing-site/5711839002/
QuoteWhile the state gears up for demolition of the ramp, the Downtown Investment Authority is moving to bring in design teams who will compete for the winning vision of how to reuse the Landing site.
The current concept calls for most of the site to be public park space with two new buildings set back from the St. Johns River. The maximum height of those building would be mid-rise structures, Boyer has said.
The two buildings would be at back corners of the Landing site, separated far enough apart that there would be a broad opening between them for a view corridor from Laura Street all the way down to the river. Boyer said in order to maximize the amount of public park space, the most likely buildings would be two office buildings or an office building an a hotel.
The DIA plans to contract with three design firms that would get city stipends paying them to flesh out their plans beyond the conceptual stage. Then DIA would select a winning design.
"Iconic is an overused term, but we want them to be meaningful and special buildings because it's a special location in the center of downtown," Boyer said.
Unless I'm misreading this, it sounds like the DIA has already decided on Lenny's Lawn, with three firms bidding on how to best implement Brian Hughes' back of the napkin sketch. Small, mid-rise buildings, either both office (for which there's no market right now), or one office and one hotel. And lots of lawn.
Yeah, it didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what the plans were, once that napkin sketch came out years ago. There's not really a market for speculative office or hotel space right now, so good luck.
(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Business/Jacksonville-Landing/i-hPvBnQP/0/87d38d84/L/183444_standard-L.png)
Had not noticed before, but Lenny's Lawn includes a Bike / Ped Ramp to the Main Street Bridge.
Wonder if the development of the park is dependent on the success of the two development pads? In other words, if the DIA doesn't get any action on their RFPs, we will continue to have the Lawn, with nothing but grass (and before long, weeds)?
^Probably. If they really want this to be a great public space, they'll need to allocate the funding for it and get it done, regardless of what happens on the private side.
To Charles Hunter Reply #2: I happily defer to Ken_FSU; given the time stamps, his submission of the subject arrived well ahead of mine.
Here's what I'd love a straight answer on.
The mayor's office and the DIA fast-tracked the demolition of the Landing without public input, citing the $100k 2015 Wakefield Beasly/Urban Design Associates study that called for its replacement as "proof" that demolition was the right move.
Yet, when it comes to the actual design of the new Landing, the DIA is perfectly happy to scrap said study, painstakingly created by experts in waterfront revitalization, in favor of a hastily sketched siteplan unilaterally created by the mayor's office.
Here's the quote (https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/citys-vision-for-jacksonville-landing-space) on the origin of the two-pad site plan:
QuoteBrian Hughes, Curry's chief of staff, said Wednesday the rendering came after "a series of conceptual discussions with Mayor Curry" and the executive leadership team.
"The design concept you have is the result of those discussions and was created by a city staff member," Hughes said. He did not identify that staff member.
"Mayor Curry's idea would utilize centrally located property that is on the river and in the heart of Downtown as a riverfront plaza," said Hughes, who called the idea "a front lawn for the core of Downtown."
(https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/sites/default/files/styles/sliders_and_planned_story_image_870x580/public/183444_standard.jpeg)
It's fine that Curry has a vision for the Landing, but he's not Wakefield Beasly/Urban Design Associates, or an accomplished urban planner with a long track record of success in terms of riverfront revitalization.
So then why is the DIA just rolling over and going with his specific plan for the site (small pads for office and maybe hotel - neither of which there's a market for right now), crafted on the back of a napkin by an ANONYMOUS city staffer, instead of going with something more in line with what the 2015 study recommended (mixed-use residential, which there is a market for right now).
Here's what the 2015 study - again, used to justify the demoltion of the Landing - called for (https://www.jacksonville.com/news/20190503/study-from-2015-shows-vision-for-jacksonville-landings-future):
QuoteAfter Mayor Lenny Curry's office pointed to the 2015 study in response to calls for public workshops about the Landing's fate, former Downtown Investment Authority board member Doris Goldstein provided the Times-Union a set of previously unreleased renderings from the study.
Goldstein said those plans deserve a fresh look as a basis for what the city does next after tearing down the Landing.
The 2015 design envisioned a mix of buildings, including apartments and restaurants, a large parcel of park space called a "festival lawn," a public square for small concerts and similar community gatherings, and an extension of Laura Street so it went part-way onto the land occupied now by the Landing.
"There's so much thought and detail worked into these plans that it would be a shame to not seriously learn from them," Goldstein said.
Goldstein, who was the point person for the Downtown Investment Authority during the 2015 design, said that from what she's seen of Curry's plan, it wouldn't bring as much activity to the site as the plan assembled by Urban Design Associates, a Pittsburgh firm with a track record for urban waterfront development.
Goldstein said public comments at the charrettes showed activity during the day and into the night would be crucial to drawing people for repeat visits.
(https://snipboard.io/3l8JUX.jpg)
(https://snipboard.io/LHKZO4.jpg)
(https://snipboard.io/Cxz8Ft.jpg)
(https://snipboard.io/mRZn3H.jpg)
(https://snipboard.io/eKuwSU.jpg)
It's just SO MUCH BETTER and so much more active than what is now being talked about for the site.
Re-quoting the same Lori Boyer quote again, it's just
nothing like what the market study recommended. Even that last line sounds like we're already back-peddling on trying to make the Landing great. We can't bring back the Landing that's already been destroyed, but we've only got one chance to do this thing right, and it just blows my mind that we appear to be throwing out the recommendations of experts and framing the entire RFP around, again, a unilaterally conceived sketch from an anonymous city staffer.
QuoteThe current concept calls for most of the site to be public park space with two new buildings set back from the St. Johns River. The maximum height of those building would be mid-rise structures, Boyer has said.
The two buildings would be at back corners of the Landing site, separated far enough apart that there would be a broad opening between them for a view corridor from Laura Street all the way down to the river. Boyer said in order to maximize the amount of public park space, the most likely buildings would be two office buildings or an office building an a hotel.
The DIA plans to contract with three design firms that would get city stipends paying them to flesh out their plans beyond the conceptual stage. Then DIA would select a winning design.
"Iconic is an overused term, but we want them to be meaningful and special buildings because it's a special location in the center of downtown," Boyer said.
The three design firm thing could be considered a waste as well. We've already been down this particular road multiple times in the past, including the 2015 plan.....which included a public input. At this point, we can go with Alvin Brown's 2015 plan (still crazy to believe this could have been completed by now with $12 million in public incentives) and use public funding for the park space and street grid, while RFPing the pads it included. Overall, this entire thing is an expensive farce and if we continue on the same path, will be a bigger failure than anyone has ever imagined the former Landing to be.
I recall Early 2021 being talked about before. Interesting to get word of a more specific time frame.
The thought that immediately comes to mind hearing the details is that they're really about to
completely waste this space. We absolutely don't need two more office buildings on this site. I'd bet 50 bucks that whatever gets built ends up looking straight outta Gate Parkway, a midrise box in a field that turns into a ghost town once the sun goes down. Why the hell would they propose a hotel on this site when the Hyatt Place proposal is literally
across the street? Hyatt Regency is one block over? The Omni (or whoever buys it) a block in the other direction? If you're going to add a hotel at all, why there?
I really do wonder sometimes how these people ended up in charge. One would think that you can't screw up this many times in a row. Either they get something right eventually, or they're intentionally making the worst possible decisions. This is ridiculous.
QuoteThe two buildings would be at back corners of the Landing site, separated far enough apart that there would be a broad opening between them for a view corridor from Laura Street all the way down to the river. Boyer said in order to maximize the amount of public park space, the most likely buildings would be two office buildings or an office building an a hotel.
Well, at least someone will get to say "I told you so" when someone gets shanked in the park because all the office workers went home and we cheapened out on giving people anything to do after sunset. And then they'll ask, "why is there so much crime at the Landing?"
Ladies and Gentlemen, I'm proud to announce that I've massively simplified Lori Boyer's job. Through great effort (or rather, the hour or so I spent messing around), I've created an iconic master plan for the Jacksonville Landing. It has about as much detail as the plan they're actually working with, so I feel like I'm on the right track. This plan redefines the Landing as a greater neighborhood of the Northbank, one which will be further enhanced through various public-private partnerships and private investment.
(Of course, if you look closely, you'll notice that literally none of it is original, and simply an amalgamation of various previous proposals and studies from the past. Highlights include the UDA proposal for the actual Landing, the Hyatt Place hotel across the street, and the Exhibition Hall proposed by Lake and the Civic Council.)
Now this is a Game Changer for Downtown. Can we just build this and call it a day? Pay for it with the same money bag we used to spend tens of millions to pay off Sleiman and demolish stuff?
(https://i.imgur.com/sYTqqYp.jpg)
^It definitely isn't rocket science if we can remove politics from the urban planning decision making process. Other than it being coordinated under Alvin Brown's administration and with Sleiman, what did people actually hate about this 2015 plan? Many didn't want to see the existing building demoed, but we've passed that point now. So my question would be why not go with this, by allocating money to design and construct the public components now, instead of paying consultants for another redesign?
(https://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/wjct/files/styles/large/public/201905/2212jacksonville_perspovalpark01editpeople_dc_sm_.jpeg)
(https://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/wjct/files/styles/large/public/201905/2212perspviews_sm_laura.jpeg)
(https://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/wjct/files/styles/large/public/201905/2212perspviews_sm_park.jpeg)
Lets get started on it yesterday.
I don't think we need the GENERAL PUBLIC'S input, but maybe the INFORMED PUBLIC. News4jax's posts are just covered in people demanding an aquarium. Has the Jaxson put out an article quantifying how much it would cost to put in an aquarium worth visiting? If not, could you? Maybe that will quiet some of the mandarin crowd.
I wouldn't worry about the aquarium thing. We can't get COJ to put public restrooms in the parks, there's no way it is going to fund a $200 million money losing aquarium. It seems these guys have their heart content on implementing this thing and all the public involvement is going to be tailored to designing this:
(https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/sites/default/files/styles/sliders_and_planned_story_image_870x580/public/183444_standard.jpeg)
Just in case anyone is interested in a trip down memory lane....
https://www.jacksonville.com/photogallery/LK/20190220/NEWS/220009983/PH/1 (https://www.jacksonville.com/photogallery/LK/20190220/NEWS/220009983/PH/1)
Quote from: thelakelander on September 09, 2020, 09:51:07 AM
I wouldn't worry about the aquarium thing. We can't get COJ to put public restrooms in the parks, there's no way it is going to fund a $200 million money losing aquarium.
So you're saying that instead of subsidizing Lot J, we could build an aquarium? Good to know.
If I remember right, the AquaJax concept is supposed to be at the Shipyards. If the Mandarin crowd wants that, they're welcome to donate to it. Now might even be a good time for it now that Khan's contract is off.
I wonder how many people looking these days have actually thought about the 2015 plans recently. Like, if there was a push to get this in front of people, would they like it more than the Curry sketch? Especially once you explain how much more likely it is that someone's going to get stabbed in an empty park because the office workers went home?
Quote from: itsfantastic1 on September 09, 2020, 03:03:00 PM
Just in case anyone is interested in a trip down memory lane....
https://www.jacksonville.com/photogallery/LK/20190220/NEWS/220009983/PH/1 (https://www.jacksonville.com/photogallery/LK/20190220/NEWS/220009983/PH/1)
Wow, I love the 2004 and 2009 plans. I don't think I had seen those before.
Those were Sleiman's original plans. Unfortunately, all they resulted in was a big fight around parking and blocking view corridors of the river.
The trip down memory lane reminds me that it was Tony Sleiman's idea to tear down the Main Street Bridge on-ramp to accommodate the revised plans. Tearing down those ramp has taken life of its own (obviously) even without a concrete plan to develop (and I don't consider what is proposed by Curry to be concrete).
Quote from: Papa33 on September 10, 2020, 10:04:13 AM
I don't consider what is proposed by Curry to be concrete.
No, it's just grass.
...
...
...
Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week.
Quote from: Ken_FSU on September 07, 2020, 10:47:11 AM
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/local/2020/09/07/main-street-bridge-ramp-set-tear-down-jacksonville-landing-site/5711839002/
QuoteWhile the state gears up for demolition of the ramp, the Downtown Investment Authority is moving to bring in design teams who will compete for the winning vision of how to reuse the Landing site.
The current concept calls for most of the site to be public park space with two new buildings set back from the St. Johns River. The maximum height of those building would be mid-rise structures, Boyer has said.
The two buildings would be at back corners of the Landing site, separated far enough apart that there would be a broad opening between them for a view corridor from Laura Street all the way down to the river. Boyer said in order to maximize the amount of public park space, the most likely buildings would be two office buildings or an office building an a hotel.
The DIA plans to contract with three design firms that would get city stipends paying them to flesh out their plans beyond the conceptual stage. Then DIA would select a winning design.
"Iconic is an overused term, but we want them to be meaningful and special buildings because it's a special location in the center of downtown," Boyer said.
Unless I'm misreading this, it sounds like the DIA has already decided on Lenny's Lawn, with three firms bidding on how to best implement Brian Hughes' back of the napkin sketch. Small, mid-rise buildings, either both office (for which there's no market right now), or one office and one hotel. And lots of lawn.
WHY the hell do we need another Park? We have Hemming just a few blocks down from the Riverfront in the heart of downtown; isn't that, or shouldn't that be enough relative to having Parks downtown? Please, please Lori build something iconic down there on ALL of that property and yes you can do that with mid to high rise buildings down there. Think icon yes, but also think creativity and innovation. Need this forums help? Need my help? We're here because you people are doing a shabby and poor job of making our downtown "THE PLACE TO BE," and, "THE PLACE TO GO." Downtown Jax is dead now; at least at times during the year the landing was the focal point and geographic center, along with Hemming Park in the urban core/downtown. And please consider the Landing's previous Owner's proposal with no judgment and/or conviction relative to the spat he and the city had in the past; in my opinion and in my mind his proposal was awesome. This is all for now; I got this crap off my chest. Lastly, DIA and the Mayor and his administration really makes me sick!
Quote from: Lostwave on September 10, 2020, 08:58:06 AM
Quote from: itsfantastic1 on September 09, 2020, 03:03:00 PM
Just in case anyone is interested in a trip down memory lane....
https://www.jacksonville.com/photogallery/LK/20190220/NEWS/220009983/PH/1 (https://www.jacksonville.com/photogallery/LK/20190220/NEWS/220009983/PH/1)
Wow, I love the 2004 and 2009 plans. I don't think I had seen those before.
Yeah, I am "in love" with all of those plans, except for the last one, the recent plan with the city park and the two supposed mid-rise buildings on the end in the corners of the park near the entrance. Those earlier plans are "lick lips" material!
It'll be good to see that on-ramp removed.