http://jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=530697
Interesting.
I like the idea.
And tell him to bring some miniature golf too.
I'm not crazy about the long term success of one trick pony style development at the Shipyards. However, I would like to here more about how such a development would connect and integrate with the rest of the core.
You could make it similar to the Navy Pier in Chicago.
I don't particularly care for it either. If downtown ever really took off, that land would be much much more valuable and better served for mixed-use development such as what was planned previously.
I agree with Tripoli. This is gimmicky and nothing more than an upgraded Metpark. I spent a few days in downtown San Diego last year and not once did anyone recommend i go see the Wave house. They recommended the Gas Lamp district, the aircraft carrier, and other attractions. We need to focus more on these types of things than some tourist trap.
i think it would be pretty cool to have. i would like mixed use development as well, but like the previous poster said that downtown would have to take off first for this to happen. i think this would help to make downtown a destination. a place to go after a football or baseball game to play around and eat. i think this would do good and then maybe it will help spur on development
Are there any examples of what's described successfully operating in a downtown environment like DT Jax? My guess is that such a project would cost millions to construct and fail before stimulating additional development. We ought to think about adding the necessary components to make DT a sustainable neighborhood before figuring out how to lure suburbanites there for a few hours of fun. The Landing, Southbank Riverwalk and Prime Osborn gives us a glimpse into the future of how such an isolated project would turn out.
^ I agree 100%. No need for amusement park rides on our city owned riverfront. We've all seen what has become of city managed property development.... NOTHING!
Quote from: thelakelander on April 08, 2010, 10:37:25 AM
Are there any examples of what's described successfully operating in a downtown environment like DT Jax? My guess is that such a project would cost millions to construct and fail before stimulating additional development. We ought to think about adding the necessary components to make DT a sustainable neighborhood before figuring out how to lure suburbanites there for a few hours of fun. The Landing, Southbank Riverwalk and Prime Osborn gives us a glimpse into the future of how such an isolated project would turn out.
I don't know much about it, but would Elitch's Gardens in Denver make for a good parallel? I realize that's not waterfront, not in the heart of downtown, and is a larger-scale development.
Urban Denver is a different animal. The basic components needed for a viable urban community are already in place.
Quote from: thelakelander on April 08, 2010, 12:49:31 PM
Urban Denver is a different animal. The basic components needed for a viable urban community are already in place.
Chelsea Piers, NYC (http://www.chelseapiers.com/)
Waste of waterfront land, in my opinion.
Quote from: thelakelander on April 08, 2010, 10:37:25 AM
Are there any examples of what's described successfully operating in a downtown environment like DT Jax? My guess is that such a project would cost millions to construct and fail before stimulating additional development. We ought to think about adding the necessary components to make DT a sustainable neighborhood before figuring out how to lure suburbanites there for a few hours of fun. The Landing, Southbank Riverwalk and Prime Osborn gives us a glimpse into the future of how such an isolated project would turn out.
Subtropical Expo?
Just to play devils advocate a bit. I think an amusement park on this site could be viable if done right... kind of like Jax's version of the Santa Monica pier. The fair brings people out in droves downtown(and they are rumored to be relocating to the Equestrian Center if the city has its way), why couldnt an atraction like this not work as well if paired with restaurants and commercial infill?
Anyone know why the old amusement park in Jax Beach closed? I always surmised it was due to the property value of the beachfront property.
It works in London!
London's Eye is one ferris wheel, which operates as the city's observation tower.....they surely don't have a wave pool.
Our weather would be better for a wave pool.
Didn't it get hit by hurricane? My guess is it wasn't feasible to rebuild. With all the parks struggling in the country, it seems like that would not be the best use for a 44 acre waterfront site. Also the other two places mentioned are already vibrant communities. That vibrancy allows for some uses to find more success than places that don't have the basics in place.
I'd like to see one state of the art attraction, rather than trying to make it a year round carnival, like a fresh water and salt water world class aquarium, maybe with a nice imax attached like New Orleans. Then use the remainder of the site for mixed use development with density in both residential and commercial.
I am out of my league with many of the posters on these sorts of topics. It seems to me, though, that the highest and best use of this land wouldn't be an "attraction" of any kind. For example, I want a great aquarium downtown. I think that's a perfect idea. I don't think it needs to actually be on the riverfront though. If a world-class aquarium were right next to the Florida Theatre instead of on the waterfront, it wouldn't be any less alluring.
There is only so much riverfront land. It seems that the potential value for development of that land would ultimately be much higher with a "non-attraction" there. I could be wrong.
^ Well for an attraction of size, you need existing clear land. Well normally, although I could see the city allowing some more buildings to be demolished, unfortunately. We have plenty of spaces around downtown to infill with non-major destination type developments.There's no reason again, why you can't use the site for an attraction, and mixed-use, especially if you go vertical. Just my opinion, though.
Vertical is what I would envision.. and some sort of an attraction could work well with it, but I don't think this particular attraction is what I would have in mind.
Quote from: Tripoli1711 on April 08, 2010, 04:20:53 PM
Vertical is what I would envision.. and some sort of an attraction could work well with it, but I don't think this particular attraction is what I would have in mind.
Carter's idea? I would agree, hard to build over a carnival type attraction.
Yes. Exactly. I guess I wasn't particular enough. An "attraction" blended in with a mixed-use development would be great for that site. But an "attraction" of this sort would almost certainly have to stand alone. Hence my objection because I don't think that much riverfront land downtown should be taken up by roller coasters which would be just as attractive elsewhere.
Quote from: Tripoli1711 on April 08, 2010, 04:24:36 PM
Yes. Exactly. I guess I wasn't particular enough. An "attraction" blended in with a mixed-use development would be great for that site. But an "attraction" of this sort would almost certainly have to stand alone. Hence my objection because I don't think that much riverfront land downtown should be taken up by roller coasters which would be just as attractive elsewhere.
Agreed.
I agree with Jason, an aquarium and entertainment district would be good use of space.
I look to the development in Newport, Kentucky (newport on the levee), across the river from downtown Cincinnati as a great use of space that helped to continually revive downtown Cincinnati. I haven't been there in many years, but I remember it being a nicely done shopping/entertainment district. You can also look to the the developments of the stadiums, underground railroad museum, contemporary arts center and so on, mixed with living, on the Cincinnati side of the river as great examples of developments to draw people to downtown.
During my time in Cincinnati (96-02) I saw a definite shift from the downtown as an area with a few things - to the downtown as a place to be and live.
I don't like the idea. A Hard Rock amusement park opened in Myrtle Beach and closed almost immediately. Myrtle Beach gets more tourists in a day than Jax gets all year.
I see this as the one trick pony idea that has been tried before and always fails. Build a place the LOCALS want to be and live, and the tourists will follow later.
Quote from: thelakelander on April 08, 2010, 03:58:27 PM
Didn't it get hit by hurricane? My guess is it wasn't feasible to rebuild. With all the parks struggling in the country, it seems like that would not be the best use for a 44 acre waterfront site. Also the other two places mentioned are already vibrant communities. That vibrancy allows for some uses to find more success than places that don't have the basics in place.
I'll have to ask my dad, he'd know in a hearbeat... hurricane though rings a bell now that you say that.
You guys and gals should read the article and the accompanying Q&A in a different section.. the man has a vision, and knows the challenges/opportunities downtown faces
QuoteCarter, developer of the St. Johns Town Center, said he envisions a wave pool, carousel, ferris wheel, roller coaster, restaurants, arts and seafood markets and other family-friendly attractions on the 40 riverfront acres along East Bay Street.
This is where I keep harking back to some kind of Jacksonville adaptation of the Santa Monica pier... not just some amusement park on the site, but rather an amusement park connected to some kind of seafood market, restaurant, etc.
He mentions the Town Center as being a project that was almost 7 years soup to nuts. If you read the comments below, clearly he realizes that residential numbers must be increased first before this particular project bears fruit.
QuoteJacksonville’s average age is 33 years old and that’s perfect for urban revival. We have to focus on getting that age group Downtown. Retail follows demographics. What you’ve got right now is a daytime population of 60,000 people, but there’s not enough to keep them there, so they are going home (after work). Interestingly enough, that’s about the same office population that’s around St. Johns Town Center.
Every successful downtown that has come back has come back because of young people. I don’t think the 18- to 25- year-olds today are interested in gated communities. They’re interested in a different kind of lifestyle.
One of the things I said to the mayor is he needs to be going after technical schools, cosmetology schools, computer skills training and arts and graphics. All of those people are urban-minded and they’re in the right age bracket. I would love to see a focus on taking advantage of the recession and lower office rents and the availability of space to bring two or three schools Downtown. We’re working with one in Atlanta that has 300 students. If there were three of those here, you’d have 900 young professionals who are spending all day Downtown and are more likely to stick around after work because they’re looking for entertainment.
Aka... working with FBC for a Baptist College, the defunct Florida Coastal downtown campus, etc...
QuoteI think there has been too much focus on Brooklyn, Southbank and Northbank. We need to focus on the city’s center. Southbank is successful. Brooklyn on the riverfront is successful. I think what we need to focus on is the urban core. That’s Laura Street, Bay Street and the river.
For the life of me, I don’t understand why the Riverside Arts Market is not sitting right Downtown on the riverfront. That’s one of the successful new things that’s going on. Why is it located two miles from Downtown?
I read it. However, I'd funnel elements of this type of vision into the redevelopment of the Landing and use the Shipyards as the site of another economic generator.
What do you think the Shipyards best use would be Lake?
I do very much agree about the Landing, but you know more than anyone that unless the city allows Sleiman to own the adjacent Hogan street land area to build a parking garage... its a moot point.
I think it would be much easier to get the city to resolve the Landing issues than to subsidize and make a competitive project, with a couple of amusement park rides, work right down the street.
Imo, the best use for the Shipyards site would be mixed use. If I were in charge of calling the shots, I'd go ahead and extend an urban street grid into the site, while carving out and developing sufficient public space. Thinking vertically, from that point, instead of going make or break on one large risky development, you could have several decent sized parcels for a variety of things.
As for specific uses, I think its too early to pin point at this time. Instead, I'd focus on things that have the potential to be long term economic generators for an urban community over things overly focused on tourism.
http://www.aqua.org/directions.html
Baltimore's aquarium is on the water -- I remember when it was built -- everyone thought wtf? Why in that crappy place.
Now...
QuoteWhat is the Aquarium's economic impact on the region?
The Aquarium is Maryland’s largest paid tourist attraction, and the economic impact of Aquarium visitors on the State of Maryland has been tremendous. A study by the Maryland Department of Economic and Employment Development determined that the Aquarium annually generates nearly $220 million in revenues, 2,000 jobs, and $6.8 million in State and local taxes.
The Aquarium's success has contributed to the development of more than 3,000 new hotel rooms in Baltimore.
How and when did the Aquarium get its start?
QuoteThe Aquarium actually "began" in the mid-1970s when Baltimore Mayor William Donald Schaefer and Commissioner of Housing and Community Development Robert C. Embry conceived and championed the idea of an aquarium as a vital component of Baltimore's overall Inner Harbor redevelopment.
In 1976, Baltimore City residents voted for the Aquarium on a bond referendum, and groundbreaking took place on August 8, 1978.
In November of 1979, the United States Congress voted it a "National" Aquarium.
The grand opening was on August 8, 1981.
I believe it really contributed to the Chesapeake's cleanup. And it certainly "made" the Inner Harbor.
Something else, doesn't Baltimore have it's convention center like right there at the inner harbor as well? Seems like draws like an aquarium (or something of like ilk) and a convention center mixed in with mixed use developements is what makes the inner harbor. And then look at Fells Point......really too far of a walk from the inner harbor, but still sort of positioned like Springfield. Though Springfield will always be missing the deep water!
About Baltimore's convention center:
QuoteHistory
As was the case with Harborplace, which opened in 1980; the Maryland Science Center, which opened in 1976; and the National Aquarium in Baltimore, which opened in 1981, the Convention Center was intended to be a catalyst for tourism, an important part of the City's post-manufacturing economic development plans. An Abell Foundation report in June, 2005 describes the Convention Center as having been "built as an economic development tool to attract to Baltimore conventions, trade shows, and meetings that would leave in the city millions of dollars spent on lodging, food, entertainment, and other services." (Controversy, 2005, p. 3) A report on economic development in the area, entitled Subsidizing the Low Road: Economic Development in Baltimore, states that "public and non-profit facilities such as the Maryland Science Center, the World Trade Center, the Convention Center, and the National Aquarium," (Subsidizing, 2002, p. 11) were part of then-mayor Schaefer's "focus on real estate, retailing and tourism sectors," (p. 10) as areas for growth, as well as his utilization of "'public/private partnerships' to pursue economic development." (p. 11)
During the next two decades, due in part to the success of the Convention Center and the other attractions, Oriole Park at Camden Yards, Sports Legends Museum at Camden Yards, M&T Bank Stadium, Power Plant Live!, and the Reginald F. Lewis Museum of Maryland African-American History, have joined the area, creating a ten-block plus entertainment and cultural destination at Baltimore's Inner Harbor, further increasing tourist dollars flowing into the region.
A June 2005 Greater Baltimore Committee report on tourism in Baltimore illustrates the importance of tourism in the current Baltimore region's economy:
Hospitality and tourism and the convention industry are vital components of the region’s economy. According to the Baltimore Area Convention and Visitors Association (BACVA), spending from domestic travelers in 2002 was $8.476 billion statewide; $2.8 billion in Baltimore alone. This spending supported $719 million in state and local taxes while providing over 44,000 regional jobs.(Voices, 2005)
One convention that has been reported by the Baltimore Business Journal to have had a major economic impact in 2002-2005 for Baltimore is Otakon, a convention that focuses on Anime and other facets of East Asian culture. The convention has resided in the Baltimore Convention Center since 1999.
The Convention Center is also viewed as important to the recent development on Baltimore's West Side. According to Ronald M. Kreitner, executive director of West Side Renaissance Inc., the "Convention Center will help contribute to the success of the theatres and the retail," referring to the development of the France-Merrick Performing Arts Center/Hippodrome Theatre, as well as new retail ventures in the area. (Renaissance, 2003)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_Convention_Center
Quote from: thelakelander on April 08, 2010, 06:53:31 PM
I think it would be much easier to get the city to resolve the Landing issues than to subsidize and make a competitive project, with a couple of amusement park rides, work right down the street.
Imo, the best use for the Shipyards site would be mixed use. If I were in charge of calling the shots, I'd go ahead and extend an urban street grid into the site, while carving out and developing sufficient public space. Thinking vertically, from that point, instead of going make or break on one large risky development, you could have several decent sized parcels for a variety of things.
As for specific uses, I think its too early to pin point at this time. Instead, I'd focus on things that have the potential to be long term economic generators for an urban community over things overly focused on tourism.
What? Come on, that's not thinking like a true Jacksontuckian!
We have a loooooong history of stunting our own development by taking over prime waterfront property for nonsensical and ridiculous uses. We already have a waterfront jail, a waterfront courthouse, a waterfront city government building, a waterfront school board, and until just recently a waterfront power plant. I mean seriously, why break the trend now? Let's take over that prime spot and put up a waterfront bus station, or maybe a waterfront sewage plant, just so people don't get confused. Waterfront homeless shelter? Maybe a waterfront trash dump?
Just thinking creatively here...
How about something along the lines of "River Walk" in San Antonio? Only more family oriented but along the same general venue?
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 08, 2010, 07:59:12 PM
What? Come on, that's not thinking like a true Jacksontuckian!
We have a loooooong history of stunting our own development by taking over prime waterfront property for nonsensical and ridiculous uses. We already have a waterfront jail, a waterfront courthouse, a waterfront city government building, a waterfront school board, and until just recently a waterfront power plant. I mean seriously, why break the trend now? Let's take over that prime spot and put up a waterfront bus station, or maybe a waterfront sewage plant, just so people don't get confused. Waterfront homeless shelter? Maybe a waterfront trash dump?
Just thinking creatively here...
Perhaps without intent, Chris has managed to critique Jacksontuckian's and at the same time make a statement far beyond Jacksontuckey bordering on Neanderthal.
Would one consider an internaitonal airport and a sewage plant in the same sentence?
How about a railroad station?
A FREEway?
Parking Garage?
If our citizens can't see beyond this and understand "a bus station" as a vital part of a modern urban fabric as well as one of the front doors of the community, then we need more help then any of us thought.
Chris, I may be tooling around downtown in a brand new Silver Eagle 45' motor coach in the next few weeks, you really should get with me and i'll take you for an educational ride... REALLY!
Frankly I should extend this offer to anyone who would like to experience the new Silver Eagle coaches.OCKLAWAHA
Oh I get that it's necessary, Ock! But so's a courthouse, a jail, a powerplant, a school board, etc...
That doesn't make them the best use of prime waterfront property. That was my only point. I'm not saying we don't need a bus station, I was just poking some fun at our long local history of siting otherwise appropriate and necessary uses in completely inappropriate locations. Especially up and down both sides of the river.
Your new coach sounds fantastic, Ock, those things are like rolling mansions now. Congrats on the trip, and I'd take a ride with you anytime.
me too! MJ Road Trip!
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 08, 2010, 07:59:12 PM........We have a loooooong history of stunting our own development by taking over prime waterfront property for nonsensical and ridiculous uses. We already have a waterfront jail, a waterfront courthouse, a waterfront city government building, a waterfront school board, and until just recently a waterfront power plant. .......
Waterfront used to be the lower side of town across the country. Remeber the ship yards and docks covered both sides of the river from the Acosta Bridge to Arlington and beyond. Much of that uses started a long time ago when the city was primarily a transportation hub and industrial city. The gentrification takes a little longer. Remember they are trying. The big and small ship yards are gone. They moved city hall to Heming plaza...sort of. They took down the outdated power plant. They are moving the courthouse. They tore down the jail annex. Those functions are slowly moving away from the river.
Quote from: thelakelander on April 08, 2010, 06:53:31 PM
I think it would be much easier to get the city to resolve the Landing issues than to subsidize and make a competitive project, with a couple of amusement park rides, work right down the street.
Imo, the best use for the Shipyards site would be mixed use. If I were in charge of calling the shots, I'd go ahead and extend an urban street grid into the site, while carving out and developing sufficient public space. Thinking vertically, from that point, instead of going make or break on one large risky development, you could have several decent sized parcels for a variety of things.
As for specific uses, I think its too early to pin point at this time. Instead, I'd focus on things that have the potential to be long term economic generators for an urban community over things overly focused on tourism.
How big is the Shipyards site, and how many/what size parcels can be split up in this footprint?
Aritcle today about Sleiman and parking again...
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2010-04-08/story/mayor%E2%80%99s-office-balks-landing-owner%E2%80%99s-plea-parking-subsidy (http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2010-04-08/story/mayor%E2%80%99s-office-balks-landing-owner%E2%80%99s-plea-parking-subsidy)
Around 44 acres and about a city block deep. Its nice to see Sleiman make a move on that parking lot. Imo, its better to use and improve what's already in place then turning another block into parking.
QuoteSleiman said the move will open up space for outdoor cafes. He said he would renovate the Landing so it has storefront entrances, rather than the solid wall that now faces the area with the statue.
He doesn't have an estimate for what that work would cost and said it's all contingent on getting more parking.
"For this to be successful, I've got to get the parking," he said. "If we go like we're going now, it's not going to be good."
This is great news and some progressive (while obvious to most of us) thinking. Richard Clark sounds like the only guy with his head on straight in the Mayor's office about this.
The inside of the Landing is pretty depressing right now. Outside entrances are a must.
Quote from: thelakelander on April 09, 2010, 09:04:14 AM
Around 44 acres and about a city block deep. Its nice to see Sleiman make a move on that parking lot. Imo, its better to use and improve what's already in place then turning another block into parking.
Does the 'block deep' include the piers?
I don't know much about the footprint of the shipyards site, its never been a property I've had the opportunity to study unfortunately. Only time I've set foot on the site was for the Super Bowl when they had live music in the old wharehouses.
Put a St Johns River Nature Center on the site. And an IMAX theater.
This would be a facility that combines "small tank" hands on
experiences for kids with demo's of the various types of fish and animals that live in the river for the sportsmen
and older folks. The site would also celebrate the rivers importance both economically and historically. It also
provides for a fantastic opportunity to bring together the type of public/private partnership that are critical to
long term viability. These types of venues can be used year round, have changing exhibits, have outdoor spaces, would draw every school kid and family within 125 miles, and is cheaper than building a full scale aquarium. Think of it as a small scale zoo on that site which features the amazing creatures that make the river so awesome.....manatees you can touch, river otters, huge redfish,........... all in smaller tanks where you can see them clearly.
After a day touring the center you could eat, then catch an IMAX, then stroll over to the stadium or arena to catch another event there, and finish up with a meal on site or at The Landing.
Top it of with a IMAX thetare that plays both first run movies and the typical IMAX fare and you have a winner.
I get what you're saying MusicMan, but save for an Imax theatre you're describing a treasure we already have downtown in MOSH.
Quote from: copperfiend on April 09, 2010, 09:44:10 AM
The inside of the Landing is pretty depressing right now. Outside entrances are a must.
actually I disagree...one of the best ideas was filling many of tha vacant spaces with art galleries...this is happening all over downtown and is a great short-term solution.
May one ask just where the proposed patrons are to park?
CS....the lack of parking in downtown is more perception than reality....The Landing's issue is that national retailers want to know there is dedicated parking for their patrons...and all The Landing can guarantee is about 200 spaces.
The amusement park on the river idea isn't exactly new to Jacksonville. As some have mentioned, it did exist in Jacksonville Beach at one point, but there was also one on the banks of the St. Johns River after the turn of the last century.
QuoteDowntown, at perched on the edge of the St. Johns River, in the area now occupied by the Crowne Plaza Hotel and Treaty Oak Park, was Dixieland Amusement Park and Ostrich Farm, which opened in 1907. Billed as the “Coney Island of the South,†Dixieland featured amusements not seen anywhere else in the region and drew thousands of visitors daily. Favorite features were the 160-foot wooden roller coaster, hot air balloon rides, parachute jumps, a toboggan and the Flying Jenny, a large merry-go-round that boasted 56 brilliantly painted wooden animals.
Read more at Suite101: Dixieland Amusement Park and Ostrich Farm: Jacksonville’s “Coney Island of the South†was a Top Tourist Draw http://americanhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/dixieland_amusement_park_and_the_ostrich_farm#ixzz0kh3WdXpQ (http://americanhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/dixieland_amusement_park_and_the_ostrich_farm#ixzz0kh3WdXpQ)
This board is so confusing.
If this had been announced for Jax Beach, which I think would be a great location, the big wigs on this board would have jumped on saying " aw man that would have been awesome in the core. Then setup a train station next to it and it will be a hit". Some have chimed in they want and aquarium downtown. I like the idea but as carter said in the article he is talking about is $20 million. Do you know how much 1 big tank is at a bigtime aquarium costs?
Are people upset with the parcel of land selected or the actual project? So many on here want to run before Jax can even crawl. I think it is a great idea. there is NO REASON to go downtown right now. NONE. This is SOMETHING. Get enough somethings together and you are on your way to all the glorious things folks want for this town.
St. Auggie, the same was said about the Landing, Prime Osborn and Southbank Riverwalk. DT isn't going to come back with expensive one trick ponies and gimmicks that lure suburbanites for a half a day. Like the rest, they come to life when they are designed and built out to become self sustaining neighborhoods on their own. We've been doing the gimmicks for over 30 years now and things have not worked while other cities have spent less and surpassed us in the process. Its time to take a different approach.
^Do you think that downtown could support both a major retail site/minature carnival at the Shipyards plus the Landing? Both basically offer the same thing and would be similar to building a new convention center at the courthouse site while keeping the Prime Osborn open to compete against it. At the end of the day, the market can only support so much. It would seem that the site would be better used on something that could last for a while and be an economic generator instead of a gimmick to lure suburbanites. Examples of long term generators could be an urban college campus, a working waterfront, mixed-use integrated with recreational space, etc. I just don't see how a small amusement park would work or be the best use there regardless of who is behind it.
I understand where you're coming from. Although I don't think DT or the Jax market could support another major retail center, if that were the goal, it would make better sense to consolidate these types of uses around the Landing. With that in mind, it would be great for the city to work with Sleiman to secure the existing lot on Hogan. In the short term, it fulfills the city's parking obligation and gives the Landing the ability to really market to national tenants. Plus, it would mean an additional $1.2 million annually would be paid to the city. In the long term, it (and the old Kuhn lot across the street) could be developed to compliment the Landing with additional retail space.
Was the Landing intended to be larger, then downsized in scope? I ask because "Old Hickory's Town" suggests it was intended to have 120-140 retail spaces, e.g., more comparable in size to Fanueil Hall Marketplace or Harborplace. Instead it is about equivalent to Norfolk's Waterside.
I would rather see the Shipyards site used as park space on an interim basis...that way when the residential market kicks up again, it can again be marketed for development.
I went to the landing when it had first opened, back when I was a kid. We were taking my pop's boat from Daytona to park behind our place in Astor, and stopped in for lunch. It was really quite nice back then, it had a sharper image, banana republic, other stuff like that. When I ultimately moved here many years later, I went back and was shocked it was the same place, nothing but those oriental gift/junk shops, cell phone accessories, and football apparel. Not sure how or why, but the place was pretty upscale when it opened, and must have fallen on its face later. Probably gradually.
Since then, a whole lot more retail has been built in other parts of town. I agree with Lake and don't think the city could support yet another mall at this point. The market for that is already pretty well saturated. I personally think the answer for the landing is going to have to be as some kind of entertainment destination, a' la' Church Street Station or Ybor City in the 90's, rather than as a retail center like everyone keeps trying to make it back into. It already tried and failed at that (repeatedly), time for a new business model.
(http://www.ubergizmo.com/photos/2009/1/aquarium-phonebooth.jpg)
Behold, the rendering of the Jacksonville Aquarium Complex.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3218/2884604566_d95126742b.jpg)
Our plan for a deluxe seating IMAX fell just a bit short
(http://www.funny-games.biz/images/pictures/2128-broken-roller-coaster.jpg)
In spite of our best engineering, the roller coaster never lived up to it's expectations either.
(http://image.guim.co.uk/Guardian/news/gallery/2007/jul/18/china.pollution/GD3997075@A-man-collects-dead-f-7985.jpg)
The "RIVER DISCOVERY PARK" was a real eye opener.
(http://dianaplauche.com/sitebuilder/images/sign_jax_beer-135x140.jpg)
All sponsored by the local brewery...
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1026/1362896580_36f071439b.jpg)
Just as Lakelander predicted, the new festival shopping complex failed to attract a following.
(http://www.emeraldecocity.com/Pictures/Parking%20Lot%20Solar%20Radiator.jpg)
JTA couldn't understand why their newest transit solution was unpopular.
(http://neworleanssightseeingtours.com/wp-content/gallery/new-orleans-casinos/boomtown-casino.jpg)
Meanwhile with the SPAR villains subdued, Stephendare opened his new "BOOMTOWN CASINO".
OCKLAWAHA
If someone buys the property from COJ and develops it with private money and no tax exemptions, let them try whatever they think will work.
Does the city even own the property? Has it gone into foreclosure already? At this point, no one has offered to buy anything on the waterfront except Sleiman.
From Misty's comments, I get the impression it is still in bankruptcy court.
Quote from: thelakelander on April 10, 2010, 10:49:51 PM
Does the city even own the property? Has it gone into foreclosure already? At this point, no one has offered to buy anything on the waterfront except Sleiman.
well to be fair, Sleiman's not either...he's offereing to buy a parking lot a block off the water.
A few years ago, Sleiman offered to buy the land under the Landing buildings - Peyton turned down the offer. Sleiman wanted to buy the land so he could move ahead with renovation and expansion plans, including opening up the building to Laura Street.
It that what you were referring to, Lake?
Quote from: thelakelander on April 10, 2010, 10:49:51 PM
Does the city even own the property? Has it gone into foreclosure already? At this point, no one has offered to buy anything on the waterfront except Sleiman.
The city will be getting it back. As for the future use of the site I remember that when it was Shipyards the project was to include 16 acres of Public space and 150 boat slips all private. When Landmar took over the 16 acres of Public space was reduced to 8. Now the city will get the entire 44 acre site back.
Right now I would hope that Mayor Peyton if the site reverts back to him while he is still in office would immediately use the 680' Public Pier that is next to Berkman Plaza, Plaza at Berkman for access and economic opportunity. Just focus on the pier.
Imagine using different size containers on the pier and operating 10 seperate businesses. This is from Fred Kent and the power of 10 concept. Some containers could be a Food container (remember the hot dog cart on the Main St. bridge), Art container (Partner with the Riverside Arts Market), Exercise container (Partner with the Y on Riverside), Sportsman's container (Partner with Suns, Jaguars and Fishing community), Think of a couple of others. The anchor container should be a Blue Crowley container (Mayor Peyton's Blueprint for Prosperity)
At the last Jacksonville Waterways Commission meeting I asked the Commission if they would sponsor a resolution to support using the 680' Public Pier for access and economic opportunity when it reverts back to the city. The pier is in Dist.7.
We are getting a floating dock at the Riverside Arts market. There was a floating dock during Super Bowl XXXIX. Bring it back and complete the loop. You will immediately connect the Southbank with the Northbank. Watch when the river taxi leaves the Chart House it can easily stop at the 680' Public Pier.
Again, This is just the 680' pier. A small piece of the 44 acre site.
Bingo, Charles. I was referring to the land underneath the Landing's building that Sleiman wanted to purchase a couple of years back. If I recall correctly, the city gave him the middle finger and said that they didn't want to sell anymore waterfront property. So now they want to sell the Shipyards? What's changed?
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 10, 2010, 03:00:48 PM
I went to the landing when it had first opened, back when I was a kid. We were taking my pop's boat from Daytona to park behind our place in Astor, and stopped in for lunch. It was really quite nice back then, it had a sharper image, banana republic, other stuff like that. When I ultimately moved here many years later, I went back and was shocked it was the same place, nothing but those oriental gift/junk shops, cell phone accessories, and football apparel. Not sure how or why, but the place was pretty upscale when it opened, and must have fallen on its face later. Probably gradually.
The Bannana Republic was where the jewelry store is now(next to Starbucks) and Shaper Image was where Sundries is... my how times have changed. We used to go the Landing frequently on weekends and I vividly remember waiting in line to sit in the massaging chair at Sharper Image, lol.
The Landing, clearly is not the retail destination it was envisioned to be... but it is still an outstanding entertainment and restraurant venue in a setting second to none.
Quote from: thelakelander on April 11, 2010, 08:47:50 AM
Bingo, Charles. I was referring to the land underneath the Landing's building that Sleiman wanted to purchase a couple of years back. If I recall correctly, the city gave him the middle finger and said that they didn't want to sell anymore waterfront property. So now they want to sell the Shipyards? What's changed?
I think anyone thinking rationally about the subject would agree that decision not to sell that land to Sleiman was quite simply not a good decision.
Not selling the school board land when the opportunity presented itself was another unwise move.
Lake, are you saying you're not in favor of the city selling the Shipyards property once the foreclosure proceedings are complete?
I'm in favor of selling the land underneath the Landing to Sleiman. I'm also in favor of carving up the Shipyards site, keeping a portion of the property for public use and selling individual parcels to multiple parties, as opposed to giving the whole thing for one mega project.
Quote from: thelakelander on April 11, 2010, 12:41:26 PM
I'm in favor of selling the land underneath the Landing to Sleiman. I'm also in favor of carving up the Shipyards site, keeping a portion of the property for public use and selling individual parcels to multiple parties, as opposed to giving the whole thing for one mega project.
lake I agree............that should be a win win for the city and Sleiman, which means won't happen while this Administration is in office!
Quote from: thelakelander on April 11, 2010, 12:41:26 PM
I'm in favor of selling the land underneath the Landing to Sleiman. I'm also in favor of carving up the Shipyards site, keeping a portion of the property for public use and selling individual parcels to multiple parties, as opposed to giving the whole thing for one mega project.
I would agree with that assesment. I wouldnt quite discount Carter's idea, but regardless of how the space is used I would think it would be a travesty if a public pier was not part of any plan that was implemented. Especially with a convention center potentially going into the old courthouse site. Again, I envision
some kind of Jacksonville version of the Santa Monica Pier... not something as grandiose as say St Petersburg's pier, but the Santa Monica 'model' would be adaptible in that space.
Honestly, I just want at the least a good fishing spot that would offer the same viewing promenade as the old Fuller Warren could have become.
Noone, I can't quite envision this container idea you've put forth a few times. Do you have any examples you could point to? In my mind, all I can picture is a bunch of POD-type storage containers.
QuoteI envision some kind of Jacksonville version of the Santa Monica Pier... not something as grandiose as say St Petersburg's pier, but the Santa Monica 'model' would be adaptable in that space.
All things being equal, I would have actually preferred something along this line at Jax Beach. The whole boardwalk, midway, & amusement park(s) seemed to have always gone hand in hand with a beach "shore" setting - which we are fortunate enough to have as well. I still contend that we missed a golden opportunity when the pier was rebuilt. While the "new" pier is nice, it leaves a little to be desired as it certainly has a "generic" feel. The old pier seemed to have more charm and/or character. Those old Jax Beach photos always make me wish that we could turn back to "the way it was"......
As far as the pier goes, I agree that it should be a part of any plan regardless of what that plan is. In fact, if the city does take over the property, it should go ahead and develop the pier and riverwalk extension on it's own.