Metro Jacksonville

You could see this one coming a mile away.

QuoteJacksonville Landing bill moves forward without preservation funds, but mayor considers a veto

By Tia Mitchell

The Jacksonville Landing moved one step closer to getting $6 million from the city to try to solve its parking problem, but Mayor John Peyton is considering a rare use of his veto pen.

The City Council’s Finance Committee approved the project Monday. The bill was amended so that $3.5 million to help finance the land for a parking lot doesn’t come from the Downtown Historic Preservation and Revitalization trust fund but instead to what committee members considered a more palatable source: money set aside in February for renovations at Metropolitan Park.

Finance Committee members pointed out that the Metro Park money was slated for Landing parking anyway, until it was diverted three months ago.

Ron Barton, executive director of the Jacksonville Economic Development Commission, argued during Monday’s committee meeting that there is no imminent need for the city to pay for Landing parking and that both the historic preservation and Metro Park money should not be touched.

Though the bill was approved by the Finance Committee, it faces another committee vote before it comes before the full council on May 25.

Full article: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2010-05-17/story/jacksonville-landing-bill-moves-forward-without-preservation-funds-mayor

I give up on this place.

After 37 years, it isn't time to do something about the city commitment to the Landing?  Metro Park renovation (or whatever they want to do) can stand to slow down.

Needless to say, I agree 100% with taking the money from the Metropolitan Park fund and using it for what it was originally intended for.  Resolving the Landing parking obligation and saving the historic preservation fund could give DT to viable major destinations within a two block walk of each other along Laura Street.  That's how you create synergy and feeds right into DVI's most recent study.  I wonder when and if DVI will come out and take a public stand on this issue?

As for the garage talk, its really silly and overlooks the fact that the last thing DT needs is more parking and garages.  We have more than enough existing spaces.  We just need to better utilize what's already in place.  Sprucing up this existing lot, not only solves the Landing parking issue but also creates a new foot traffic pattern along Hogan Street and helps expose the restaurants and retail in the base of the Omni.

Any idea on how much money the city would make annually by finally living up to our decades old obligation?  Also, how does that ROI compare to spending the money a mile away from downtown in Metropolitan Park?

QuoteIn addition to the $3.5 million payment, the city would also agree to give Sleiman’s company $2.5 million for parking validations when people shop or eat at the Landing over the next 20 years.

Also, what's the negative in validating parking for people who shop and eat at the center?  Are we afraid that such moves may actually make the center vibrant with retail shops and restaurants, thus discrediting the need for meters in general?

Quote from: thelakelander on May 17, 2010, 09:58:54 PM
As for the garage talk, its really silly and overlooks the fact that the last thing DT needs is more parking and garages.  We have more than enough existing spaces.  We just need to better utilize what's already in place.  Sprucing up this existing lot, not only solves the Landing parking issue but also creates a new foot traffic pattern along Hogan Street and helps expose the restaurants and retail in the base of the Omni.

If the City builds or contributes to the garage, the City should retain the air rights over it and make sure the garage design facilitates the City "developing" a high rise over the garage so it can recoup its money in the future when this land is much more valuable than now.  Also, the garage should be required to have retail facing the street at ground level on all street facing sides.  With this, at least the block won't just be another garage.

You really dont have wonder now if you had in the past. I mean the Landing is the one place your going to take a visitor on their first visit here. Its gotta start there and then branch out. Peyton has been a nightmare for this city, a city already decades behind.

Quote from: stjr on May 17, 2010, 10:10:35 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on May 17, 2010, 09:58:54 PM
As for the garage talk, its really silly and overlooks the fact that the last thing DT needs is more parking and garages.  We have more than enough existing spaces.  We just need to better utilize what's already in place.  Sprucing up this existing lot, not only solves the Landing parking issue but also creates a new foot traffic pattern along Hogan Street and helps expose the restaurants and retail in the base of the Omni.

If the City builds or contributes to the garage, the City should retain the air rights over it and make sure the garage design facilitates the City "developing" a high rise over the garage so it can recoup its money in the future when this land is much more valuable than now.  Also, the garage should be required to have retail facing the street at ground level on all street facing sides.  With this, at least the block won't just be another garage.

Just get it done so we can move on to the next project,,please!!!

One problem with the garage.  In addition to the fact that we don't need more parking in DT, the city wants it built on a lot neither it or Sleiman owns.  Screw the garage, buy the lot, call it a day and start collecting rent.  Its been 23 years already.  How difficult can providing dedicated parking be?

Obviously as hard as bus shelters.

what a tool Peyton is. The city should be forced to uphold it's end of the deal, yesterday.

I bet the Mayor folds and has to do the right thing.  Now the JEDC better get the Barnett and trio deal done.

Call me a cynic.  Sleiman gets the City to buy him a parking lot already being used.  Then the City also has to give him $2.5 million to validate Landing patron's parking tickets!  Give me a break.  This is a way for Sleiman to make more money not improve the Landing.  Again, this is not a suburbia mall or strip center.  The extra $2.5 million is ridiculous.  I thought the problem was that people weren't coming because there is no parking.  Now people won't come unless they don't have to pay for parking. 

Unless they can tie this money to actual Landing improvements that benefit downtown as well as the Landing, I hope the Mayor vetoes it. 

Quote from: Kay on May 18, 2010, 07:08:58 AM
Call me a cynic.  Sleiman gets the City to buy him a parking lot already being used.

We have more parking spaces than people in DT.  Is anyone willing to make a case that more parking is needed in DT to the deteriment of future projects like the streetcar or pedestrian scale walkability and connectivity?  At this point, even the JEDC hasn't presented a case for why another expensive pedestrian killing garage is needed. 

Nobody needs to invest in a new garage or spend $8.2 million in Metropolitan Park.  All the city needs to do is put personal feelings and politics aside and live up to its obligation to provide dedicated parking for the center.  How can we really expect this area to come back when the city won't even keep the promises it makes?  With this in mind, it should not matter if the Landing's owner is Sleiman, Regency Centers or Gate.  The city made a promise 23 years ago to get Rouse here and should live up to that promise.  With a goal of revitalizing DT, it also doesn't make sense for the city to keep ignoring the issue or shifting money to projects a mile outside of DT that will not benefit the area at all.

QuoteThen the City also has to give him $2.5 million to validate Landing patron's parking tickets!  Give me a break.  This is a way for Sleiman to make more money not improve the Landing.  Again, this is not a suburbia mall or strip center.  The extra $2.5 million is ridiculous.  I thought the problem was that people weren't coming because there is no parking.  Now people won't come unless they don't have to pay for parking.

That is the problem but parking validation is a great idea, imo.  Most retail centers in DT areas have them.  What's the worse that can happen?  Sleiman being successful...which means DT benefits as well?  Nevertheless, I'd like to see the overall numbers on this deal.  All we keep hearing about is what Sleiman is getting.  Assuming the deal goes through, how much money will Sleiman have to pay the city annually in rent payments?  I ask because I'm wondering what the "real" numbers are.

Quote from: Kay on May 18, 2010, 07:08:58 AM
Unless they can tie this money to actual Landing improvements that benefit downtown as well as the Landing, I hope the Mayor vetoes it. 

I'm with Kay on this

I dont know about you guys, but this is purely a power struggle between Sleiman and Peyton. It is getting really old. I do not support taking the money from historic preservation, but I do support taking the money out of Metro Park improvements. The Landing could be a major source of revenue for the City. It could also have major spill over effects for the "core". On the one hand you have DVI talking about investing in the "core" and quit speading what little money there is too thin, on the other hand the City is going to invest $8.2 million in Metro Park which will do nothing for the "core".  What direction are we going?

In circles with only a dead core to show after continuing to waste millions of tax dollars in the process.  It is a power struggle and unfortunately, downtown's health is being affected by it.

Who owns the surface lot directly across the street from The Landing? That is the solution to this problem.
Build a 3 or 4 floor garage there and you have ample parking for current users and enough overflow for The Landing, less than one block away.

QuoteSprucing up this existing lot, not only solves the Landing parking issue but also creates a new foot traffic pattern along Hogan Street and helps expose the restaurants and retail in the base of the Omni.

Exactly!  Anyone questioning this, I'd be happy to stand next to you at the base of the Andrew Jackson statue and point out this very same thing.  It's easy to see if you're staring right at it(especially if you know what's hiding behind all those walls).  Maybe the mayor needs to take this very same tour.  

Sleiman is very serious about getting two national chains.  Very serious!  He also understands that frontage to Hogan once the Andrew Jackson statue is moved is critical to this corner as well.  Track him down next time you're at the Landing(he's there frequently).  Spend 5 minutes with him and you'll understand that he gets it.  He is a businessman that understands commercial development.  The same can't be said for many of the downtown puppet master 'public servants' that are too busy hanging on to their personal grudges like spoiled children.

QuoteAlso, how does that ROI compare to spending the money a mile away from downtown in Metropolitan Park?

Well, spending 8 million dollars on a space where about 190-200k people visit a year equates to spending about $40 per person in taxpayer money.  The Landing gets somewhere over 4 million in attendance annually(the football stadium gets around 740k in comparison).  It doesn't take a financial analyst to figure that out.

QuoteYou really dont have wonder now if you had in the past. I mean the Landing is the one place your going to take a visitor on their first visit here. Its gotta start there and then branch out. Peyton has been a nightmare for this city, a city already decades behind.

Amen.  Why in the world would you spend money on Laura Street, only to turn your back on the very thing that anchors Laura Street.  And the very thing that is the only signficant draw to the core of the city?

Quote from: MusicMan on May 18, 2010, 08:51:19 AM
Who owns the surface lot directly across the street from The Landing? That is the solution to this problem.
Build a 3 or 4 floor garage there and you have ample parking for current users and enough overflow for The Landing, less than one block away.

If they do build a garage on the empty lot across from the landing, i sure hope they make the first floor into retail space.

The basic deal was negotiated 23 years ago.  Good, Bad or Ugly it is time for the city to live up to it's own bargain.  That said the city should collect rent and Sleiman hopefully will make more money and improve DT at the same time.

Quote from: JeffreyS on May 18, 2010, 09:06:25 AM
The basic deal was negotiated 23 years ago.  Good, Bad or Ugly it is time for the city to live up to it's own bargain.  That said the city should collect rent and Sleiman hopefully will make more money and improve DT at the same time.

Refresh our memories - what, exactly, WAS the "basic deal"?  Is the agreement posted somewhere online?

The City needs to live up to its obligation, whatever it is.  Tony Sleiman knows what he's doing; scary that he's apparently dealing with a group (City Council) that, as a whole, is clueless.

Quote from: Miss Fixit on May 18, 2010, 09:09:34 AM

Quote from: JeffreyS on May 18, 2010, 09:06:25 AM
The basic deal was negotiated 23 years ago.  Good, Bad or Ugly it is time for the city to live up to it's own bargain.  That said the city should collect rent and Sleiman hopefully will make more money and improve DT at the same time.

Refresh our memories - what, exactly, WAS the "basic deal"?  Is the agreement posted somewhere online?

The City needs to live up to its obligation, whatever it is.  Tony Sleiman knows what he's doing; scary that he's apparently dealing with a group (City Council) that, as a whole, is clueless.

The only disagreement about the obligation is the city claims it needs to be new garage the Landing claims it should be used for an existing one.
3.5 mil city obligation about 1 mil rent Landing obligation.

QuoteThe current agreement between the city and the Landing says the city will provide $3.5 million if a parking garage is built that provides 300 daytime spaces for the Landing and 375 nighttime spaces. Barton's letter said that after Orlando developer Cameron Kuhn defaulted on that agreement, the city's financial obligation shifted to pay the $3.5 million to The Landing only after The Landing built its own parking garage.

http://jacksonville.com/business/2010-04-20/story/jedc-chief-proposes-solution-jacksonville-landings-parking-needs (http://jacksonville.com/business/2010-04-20/story/jedc-chief-proposes-solution-jacksonville-landings-parking-needs)

Parking garages are expensive to build.  A couple of years ago it cost around $20k per space to construct a garage.  Assuming the city is to provide 300 spaces that comes out to an investment of $6 million.  Who is supposed to pay the extra $2.5 million (in addition to the cost of land...$5 million in this case) for a new parking garage?  Again, no new garage is needed.  Due to bad blood and politics, this has turned into a game of semantics with DT being held as the hostage.  What is needed is dedicated parking, which was the city's obligation in getting Rouse to come to town in the first place.

HAHAHA this city is a joke. I knew this was going to happen. Anything that has to do with downtown is always a "debate." Screw metro park and that back the 3.5 million and use it for its intended purposes. The mayor and the city council are IDIOTS. I pray long and hard for this city. ATLEAST the historic preservation fund will not be tocuhed and JEDC can get the laura street trio deal done. This city is a disaster. Spwral will continue in Jacksonville because nobody was to deal with the circus we call downtown.

Looks like the council made the right decision in this case.  The historic money remains untouched and the project with the least impact on DT is where the money comes from.  Nevertheless, things like this show why downtown continues to struggle despite a national trend of people moving back to cities.

Has the Laura Street developer been identified?

Quote from: Kay on May 18, 2010, 07:08:58 AM
Call me a cynic.  Sleiman gets the City to buy him a parking lot already being used.  Then the City also has to give him $2.5 million to validate Landing patron's parking tickets!  Give me a break.  This is a way for Sleiman to make more money not improve the Landing.  Again, this is not a suburbia mall or strip center.  The extra $2.5 million is ridiculous.  I thought the problem was that people weren't coming because there is no parking.  Now people won't come unless they don't have to pay for parking. 

Unless they can tie this money to actual Landing improvements that benefit downtown as well as the Landing, I hope the Mayor vetoes it. 

Keep in mind a few things:

1 - In 1987, the city agreed to provide The Landing parking.  Like it or not, they ageed to.  Personally, I would have just sold the land to the landing owner, and not done a parking agreement, but that's me.

2 - Parking Validation is VERY common among large scale developments in downtowns.  Horton Plaza, which is a mall in San Diego and has been a huge contributor to the revitalization of the Gaslamp District, has done validated parking for a LONG time.

3 - The problem has VERY little to do with "people aren't coming to the landing".  The problem is that large-scale tenants will not come to the landing without dedicated parking.  I am in the came that downtown does not have an issue with number of parking spaces.  It has an issue with the public and private policies that govern these spaces.  If Sleiman has these spaces, he can then market this (and BTW, absolve the city of a 23 year old problem, and he also starts paying rent at that time)

Furthermore, and this is a vibe held by many people that we seem to be against Toney Sleiman making money.  Who cares?  If he is successful, then Downtown is successful.  What's so bad about that.  This discussion of "giving him a parking lot without a guarantee of revitalization" is nonsense, IMO.  First and foremost, it absolves a city of a 23 year old obligation, and assuming they take the funds from Met Park, it scales back a project that will do VERY little for downtown.

Where is the dedicated parking to be located? 

The surface lot behind the Omni/under the Skyway track?  Part of the existing Omni garage?  The surface lot in front of said garage/adjacent to the Omni facing Water St.?

Or would someone really try to squeeze in yet another garage on the parcel that holds the Landing's current surface lot?

The lot is the existing surface lot behind the Omni.

Quote from: thelakelander on May 18, 2010, 10:24:50 AM
The lot is the existing surface lot behind the Omni.

Brilliant!  There's a Skyway stop there, and you can walk the block and come down Laura or walk through the Omni lobby to get over to Water.  The increased foot traffic would be good for Juliette's in there as well.

I love Jacksonville, but things like this make me hate it. Cant wait for peyton to disapper and some of those city council members.

If the Mayor vetoes, can we call a vote of no confidence and have him ousted...please?

I think the better play is to get 13 council members to vote for it, and he can't veto.

They need STREETCARS down Water Street.

(http://i937.photobucket.com/albums/ad214/mattius92/DowntownTransportationPlan-1.jpg)

The BLUE is streetcar, and that semi-circle orange thing is the landing... guess what that wonderful blue line runs right next to the semi-circle of orange which is our lovely landing.

We dont need more parking we just need access from parking that already exists to the landing that already exists.

Quote from: Mattius92 on May 18, 2010, 12:52:18 PM
They need STREETCARS down Water Street.

(http://i937.photobucket.com/albums/ad214/mattius92/DowntownTransportationPlan-1.jpg)

The BLUE is streetcar, and that semi-circle orange thing is the landing... guess what that wonderful blue line runs right next to the semi-circle of orange which is our lovely landing.

We dont need more parking we just need access from parking that already exists to the landing that already exists.

you may need to redraw that blue line and draw a small blue circle in front of the landing as the roudabout will be there now. i wonder if the roundabout is big enough for a streetcar to go around it?

Naww, a roundabout wont fit, but it wouldn't really be needed, you just hop on and off in front of the landing.

Roundabout's already there.

Quote from: Mattius92 on May 18, 2010, 01:00:56 PM
Naww, a roundabout wont fit, but it wouldn't really be needed, you just hop on and off in front of the landing.

i was saying that since there is now a roundabout, the blue line would have to be changed to accommodate that. even still i doubt this city is smart enough to put a real trolley/streetcar in jacksonville.

Ok, where's Ock, he is the streetcar/rail man.

I have a question, streetcar lines cant be that expensive, probably no more then building a new parking garage, and building a garage will only fix one problem, while streetcar can help solve several problems in DT Jax.

Where is this roundabout all of you are talking about??

Hanjin1...i really doubt JEDC cares if the roundabout is built to accomodate a streetcar. Considering their reaction to streetcars (JTA's streetcar study) in general....they could care less.

I would not worry about the roundabout.  It can be slightly modified to accommodate a streetcar line down Independent Drive.

why exactly do we need a roundabout in the first place?

Anyone have any additional knowledge or opinions on this quote below?  I pulled it from Jacksonville.com

QuoteIf you do a littlew checking you'll find that the money was actually paid to the City by Humana for the sole purpose of providing the funding for the City to meet it's 23 year old obligation to provide parking dedicated to the Landing (Ord # 2006-957). You'll find out that the money could be used for no other purpose and was to remain in the account until the Landing parking obligation was met. The Mayor moved that money earlier this year to his Met Park project. All the council did yesterday was put it back where it belongs.

This story is so full of inacurate statements and outright lies from the Adminsitration and JEDC that it is almost criminal. If the Mayor veto's this don't be surprised if there is a lawsuit and even a grand jury investigation.

I've been curious about this...if it is true that the Mayor/COJ took the $ from the account in order to fund the improvements at Metro Park then I take back all of my previous objections/concerns.

Someone needs to review the actual documents that provide the basis of COJ's obligations regarding parking.  There is a HUGE difference between reimbursing $3.5 million of the cost of a newly constructed parking garage and handing over $3.5 million to allow someone to purchase an existing lot.  And where does the obligation to pay for parking vouchers come from?

Quote from: stephendare on May 18, 2010, 02:34:51 PM
The mayor's office denies that this is true

Which makes one even more suspicious  ;)

Here you go.

2006-957

AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE (I) SIXTH AMENDMENT TO DISPOSITION, DEVELOPMENT AND LEASE AGREEMENT ("SIXTH AMENDMENT") BETWEEN THE CITY OF JACKSONVILLE ("CITY"), JACKSONVILLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION ("JEDC") AND JACKSONVILLE LANDING INVESTMENTS, LLC ("JLI") TO AMEND THE CITY'S LEASE WITH JLI FOR THE LAND UNDERLYING THE JACKSONVILLE LANDING BUILDINGS AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE SALE OF THE LANDING "EAST PARCEL" SURFACE PARKING LOT AND LAND UNDER THE MAIN STREET BRIDGE RAMPS ON THE NORTH BANK TO JLI FOR $4,700,000; (II) PARKING OBLIGATION TERMINATION AND MUTUAL LIMITED RELEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY, JEDC AND JLI TO TERMINATE THE CITY'S PARKING OBLIGATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE LANDING AND RELEASE THE PARTIES' RESPECTIVE PRIOR OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE LANDING LEASE EXCEPT AS SET FORTH IN THE SIXTH AMENDMENT; (III) RELEASE AND CONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY, JEDC, JLI, HUMANA MEDICAL PLAN, INC. ("HUMANA"), HUMANA HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, INC. ("HHIC"), AND PROJECT RIVERWATCH LLC, A COMPANY OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY CAMERON KUHN ("KUHN"), TO APPROVE OF THE CITY'S AND JLI'S RELEASE OF HUMANA AND HUMANA'S ASSIGNMENT TO KUHN OF HUMANA'S RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS UNDER ITS AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY AND JEDC TO CONSTRUCT A PARKING GARAGE ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BAY AND HOGAN STREETS TO ACCOMMODATE 300 DAILY AND 375 NIGHT AND WEEKEND PUBLIC PARKING SPACES FOR LANDING PATRONS; (IV) SECOND AMENDMENT TO REDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY, JEDC AND KUHN, TO CARRY OVER TO KUHN THE $3,000,000 GARAGE CONSTRUCTION GRANT AND $500,000 PARKING VALIDATION GRANT THAT THE CITY WOULD HAVE PAID TO HUMANA UPON COMPLETION OF THE PARKING GARAGE, AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INCENTIVES TO KUHN OF UP TO $500,000 FOR THE RELOCATION OF UTILITIES; (V) FIRST AMENDMENT TO PARKING RIGHTS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY, JEDC, JLI AND KUHN, TO CARRY OVER TO KUHN THE ABOVE $500,000 PARKING VALIDATION GRANT UPON COMPLETION OF THE GARAGE, PLUS $132,250 PER YEAR BEGINNING IN THE SIXTH YEAR AFTER THE GARAGE COMPLETION AND CONTINUING UNTIL MARCH 2031, FOR THE PARKING VALIDATION PROGRAM TO PROVIDE REDUCED LUNCHTIME PARKING RATES AND FREE NIGHT AND WEEKEND PARKING TO LANDING PATRONS; AND (VI) SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY, JEDC, HUMANA AND HHIC, SETTLING HUMANA'S OBLIGATIONS UNDER TWO PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS WITH THE CITY AND PROVIDING FOR HUMANA'S PAYMENT OF $2,558,000 TO THE CITY TOGETHER WITH THE CONVEYANCE TO THE CITY OF A VACANT PARKING LOT LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FORSYTH AND MAIN STREETS; APPROPRIATING THE PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF THE LANDING EAST PARCEL AND HUMANA SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO THE ACCOUNTS SET FORTH IN THE ORDINANCE; WAIVING SECTIONS 122.421 THROUGH 122.429, ORDINANCE CODE, REQUIRING (1) THE REAL ESTATE DIVISION TO COORDINATE ALL CITY PROPERTY SALES, (2) A DECLARATION BY COUNCIL THAT THE LAND IS SURPLUS TO THE CITY'S NEEDS, (3) COMPETITIVE BIDDING, AND (4) DEPOSIT OF SALES PROCEEDS IN THE RECREATION LANDS AND PARKS ACQUISITION AND MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND; PROVIDING THAT THE REASON FOR THE FOREGOING WAIVER IS THAT (A) THE SALE OF THE LANDING EAST PARCEL IS PURSUANT TO A PURCHASE AND DEVELOPMENT OPTION CONTAINED IN THE ORIGINAL LANDING LEASE, (B) THE SALE IS BEING ADMINISTERED BY THE JEDC, (C) THE JEDC HAS OBTAINED A RECENT APPRAISAL OF THE PROPERTY IN THE AMOUNT OF THE SALES PRICE, AND (D) THE SALE AND THE RELATED TRANSACTIONS DESCRIBED ABOVE WILL RESOLVE THE CITY'S OUTSTANDING PARKING OBLIGATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE LANDING; PROVIDING FOR THE CARRYOVER OF FUNDS TO FUTURE FISCAL YEARS; AMENDING THE 2005-2010 FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM APPROVED BY ORDINANCE 2005-808-E TO AUTHORIZE PRIORITY 1 STATUS FOR THE PROJECTS ENTITLED "DOWNTOWN GREENING INITIATIVE," "MAIN STREET BRIDGE AND PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS," AND "FRIENDSHIP FOUNTAIN IMPROVEMENTS"; AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE ABOVE AGREEMENTS AND TRANSACTIONS, AND AUTHORIZING TECHNICAL CHANGES TO THE DOCUMENTS; DESIGNATING THE JEDC AS CONTRACT MONITOR; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE

http://citycirc.coj.net/coj/2006/Minutes/187-AUGUST-22-2006.htm

Here are some old articles from the Metjax days.

QuoteCity, Kuhn, Humana, Landing close on development deal

February 9, 2007

by Mike Sharkey

Staff Writer

Months after announcing the deal, the City, Jacksonville Landing, Inc., the Kuhn Companies and Humana closed Thursday on the commercial real estate agreement that will pave the way for major changes in the area around the Landing and the SunTrust building, formerly the Humana building.

“Kuhn’s acquisition of the Humana building is the most significant,” said Ron Barton, executive director of the Jacksonville Economic Development Commission, at Thursday’s JEDC meeting. “This allows us to move forward on the River Watch project. It’s a much more significant development because it will have a residential, commercial and retail component. It’s one thing to put these documents together. It’s another to actually close.”

None of the principals from any of the four parties attended the closing. John Germany, an attorney with the Office of General Counsel, works closely with the JEDC. He said it’s common in deals with multiple partners for the attorneys for each party to attend the signing.

River Watch at City Centre is a two-building, $100 million project that includes the renovations of the SunTrust building and the construction of an adjacent office tower on the surface parking lot just west of it. The first few floors of the new tower will be a parking garage, and those spaces will satisfy the City’s obligation to provide parking for the Landing.

Mayor John Peyton said he was glad to see the deal done and even happier to end the decades-old parking issue at the Landing.

“I am thrilled that the parking issues with the Jacksonville Landing that have existed for 20 years have been resolved and that development of the River Watch at City Centre project is moving forward, adding to the transformation and growth of our urban core,” said Peyton. “The offerings of new residential, office and retail [space] will continue to invigorate Downtown and respond to our vision for Downtown.”

When completed, the River Watch at City Centre will consist of a 33-story residential tower with 188 riverfront units, 78 loft-style units, a deck, 16,000 square feet of retail space and a 1,050-space parking garage. Kuhn is currently marketing the 23-story SunTrust tower as office condominiums.

“We are ready to move forward on the development of the River Watch at City Centre project and look forward to satisfying the growing residential, office and retail needs of Jacksonville’s Downtown,” said Kuhn Vice President of Development George Moore.

The closing also included a $2.5 million payment from Humana to the City that resolves past parking obligations Humana didn’t fulfill, including an agreement to build a parking garage on the lot at the corner of Bay Street and Hogan Street.

http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=46855

QuoteMore parking at Landing a step closer

August 4, 2006

By JOE LIGHT

The Times-Union

Officials from the Mayor's Office and the owners of The Jacksonville Landing have finalized agreements that they hope will ultimately resolve a dispute that has stumped mayoral administrations for decades and held up several downtown projects.

If the Jacksonville Economic Development Commission approves the plan, which it will consider Aug. 10, it would release at least two downtown development projects from political limbo and end years of wrangling between the city and owners of the Landing.

Both the redevelopment of the Landing and the construction of a condominium tower adjacent to the SunTrust building are awaiting agreements to be signed before moving forward.

"We're still working on some tiny wording but I think we're close," said Mitchell Legler, an attorney for the Landing owners, on Thursday afternoon. "None of the negotiations have been hostile. Every party has been cooperative."

The final agreements closely mirror the tentative deal announced by the Mayor's Office in March, according to Legler and George Moore, vice president of Kuhn Development.

Kuhn Development, which intends to build a parking garage and condominium tower across from the Landing, would reserve 300 daytime parking spaces and 375 night and weekend spaces in its garage for Landing patrons.

Jacksonville Landing Investments LLC, which owns the open-air mall under the leadership of developer Toney Sleiman, would have the right to buy the surface parking lot next to the Landing for $4.7 million, the fair market value pegged by a city appraiser.

For his part, Sleiman, who at one time planned a $250 million renovation of the Landing, hasn't decided what to build on the parking lot next to the Landing, Legler said.

Landing owners have been in talks with the owners of the Hyatt next door to see if a project could be done jointly, but Sleiman might wait for the real estate market to improve, Legler said.

The amount of land that Sleiman could develop might also increase, if Mayor John Peyton proceeds with a plan to remove traffic ramps branching off the Main Street bridge. If the city removes the ramps, the land underneath them would be reappraised, and Sleiman would pay for the land's increase in value.

"We are in an unusual real estate environment right now so we can't tell you what would be appropriate for that property," Legler said. "We might wait until the world evolves a little."

The parking deal required contracts between multiple parties, all of whom have an interest in the property, which lies in the heart of downtown.

Although Sleiman owns the Landing, he leases the land that it sits on from the city. His lease requires the city to provide several hundred parking spaces in addition to those next to the Landing, but despite several attempts, the city hasn't been able to fulfill the obligation.

In one attempt in 2001, Humana, which owns the land on which Kuhn wants to build his tower, agreed to provide parking in a garage on the SunTrust site in exchange for about $3.5 million from the city once the garage opened.

Kuhn officials, who intend to buy the site before the end of the year, would get the same deal under the new agreement, said city attorney John Germany. The city would also give up to $500,000 to move utilities from the site, which is now a parking lot.

In a settlement, health services provider Humana will pay the city about $2.56 million. In a news release, the Mayor's Office announced its intention to use the money from the settlement and the land sale to fund various mayoral initiatives, such as the modification of the Main Street bridge and Friendship Fountain and the greening of downtown.

Cameron Kuhn, who runs Kuhn Development, has said that he intends to break ground on his new tower by the end of the year, but the lengthy negotiations may have upset that timeline, Moore said.

"Every time we've told somebody that we'll be done by a particular date, it hasn't come through," he said. "We'd love to start by that time, but we'll have to see what the JEDC and City Council have to say."

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/080406/met_4226552.shtml

QuoteJEDC OKs Landing parking agreement

August 11, 2006

By JOE LIGHT

The Times-Union

The Jacksonville Economic Development Commission approved several projects at its meeting on Thursday.

The Jacksonville Landing deal: Commissioners approved the agreements between the owners of the open-air mall, the city, Humana and the Kuhn Cos.

If approved by City Council, city officials say the agreements would end a decades-old failure of the city to provide adequate parking for Landing patrons, something required by the Landing owner's lease.

In the new deal: Kuhn Cos. would dedicate parking in a garage planned for a condo tower across the street. The city would pay Kuhn $3.5 million for parking and another $500,000 to move utilities from where the garage would go. The Landing owners, who actually lease the land the mall sits on, would purchase the surface parking lot that currently serves the mall for $4.7 million.

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/081106/bus_4336792.shtml

Quote from: Keith-N-Jax on May 17, 2010, 10:12:00 PM
You really dont have wonder now if you had in the past. I mean the Landing is the one place your going to take a visitor on their first visit here. Its gotta start there and then branch out. Peyton has been a nightmare for this city, a city already decades behind.

How much time does he have left in office?

at least 1 more year...and maybe 18 months depending on whether voters approve a measure to move elections to the fall

Did Toney kick little Johnny's puppy when they were kids?  sheesh
tufsu1 - I heard Council is considering amending the referendum so the 2011 election would stay in the spring, and the Mayor/Council elected then would serve the extra months to move the 2015 election to the fall.

C'mon people (that is - the Council) settle this

John Peyton via Jax Daily Record

QuoteWhat’s it going to take to make Downtown a success?

There are a lot of things we should focus on and we need to use this down market as a time to get organized and to plan to execute when the money becomes available.

We need to focus on walkability and the Laura Street project is a good first start. Laura Street and Bay Street offer the best opportunities for what I call “pockets of success.”

We also need to focus on the public spaces. We will be hard pressed to convince someone to come here and invest capital dollars if the City doesn’t step up and take care of everything around it.

We have to have a conversation about the convention center. What we have today is not successful. It is missing the three key ingredients. You need plenty of exhibition space, you need an entertainment district and you need an adjoining hotel.

Because the Hyatt offers (almost) 1,000 rooms on the river and the land next to it is coming available, we should seriously consider a convention center being in that location. The conventioneer traffic would be great for Bay Street and Laura Street and the Landing.

We need to think carefully about how we program the shipyard property because that land is going to come back into our domain. How we connect Downtown to the Sports Complex is going to be critical to our success.

I also think we’re going to have to subsidize affordable workforce housing initially.

The challenge we have now is we’re in an environment where resources are so limited. The notion of issuing a $300 million dollar bond for a convention center is not in the cards right now, but this is a good time to plan and build community consensus around what we want to do and how we want to do it.

I have enlisted the help of some key business leaders to help foster that and I’ve enlisted the help of the Civic Council. I think that kind of planning needs to be done outside of City Hall.

The discouraging thing is from statements he has made over the last few days, Mayor Peyton seems dug in on the MetroPark money issue.  Even though, every major study done on downtown emphasizes that spreading out the money/development over too large an area is the wrong idea. 

Call me naive but I think this time
The council will approve it
The Mayor will sign it
The Landing will use it to get some popular tenates it could not sign previously.

Remember where you are - Jacksonville.

I'm with Jeffrey on this one.  Too big an issue to just veto. 

Furthermore, the city's loudest critics (MetroJacksonville.com) is garnering quite a bit of respect these days and they'd be ill advised not to listen.

Quote from: stephendare on May 19, 2010, 12:05:33 PM
Thanks Jason, and we never forget that the respect is coming from the strength of our arguments, not the size of our hammer. ;)

Now that more like it, if Metro Jacksonville and the crew were in charge of city planning I think things would be much different.

I figured it was the execution, our political leaders dont always seem to work with our planners. However anyone could use help, even Bill Killingsworth.

That would be about par for the course with John Boy! It has allways amazed me that his pet projects somehow seem to come up with the funding or his network just happens to get projects that the taxpayer gets to fund, but something like the Landing is a sink or swim situation! Silly Johnny! Smoke and Mirrors won't last forever!

I have to take more time to dissect it, because ordinances are never written in plain English, but it seems to me a lot of amendment six is dependent upon The Landing getting parking in the non-existent parking garage which will now never be built by Cameron Kuhn.  Am I reading that right? If so, how is the obligation fulfilled if the garage was never built?

They're interpretation is that they only owe the money in a very finite sense as part of a parking garage construction project.  The problem with that is that the ordinance recognizes they have an obligation to provide the Landing dedicated parking... the solution to the problem as the amendment states was to wrap it up with Kuhn's proposed parking garage plans.  Just b/c Kuhn failed to live up to his end of the bargain doesnt let the city off the hook for the parking obligation... they simply have to find a different solution.  

The Landing has offered you the simplest solution available.  Now, just get it done.  Get the rent money that would then start flowing from this agreement.  All the while, helping to better anchor all the money being spent on Laura Street.  

The 190k people that won't have their Metro Park experience vastly improved without more 'flex space' will still probably come back for the 12 events next year as well.  I surmise that a few liquored-up concert goers don't really care about flex space.

What I have the most problem with is that Sleiman requested that the taxpayers to the tune of $2.5 million subsidize Landing patrons parking.  He will own the lot.  He can choose to allow his patrons free parking.  I do not think taxpayers money should go towards that. 

Quote from: stephendare on May 19, 2010, 12:47:47 PM
Mattius, there is a very brilliant man in charge of the City Planning, Bill Killingsworth.  Its the execution and lack of political vision that cripples this place.  JTA could use some help however, as could our Chamber and development community.

Luckily we have the likes of you, Ennis, and Bob around here, eh? :)

Talk about a dream team!

Quote from: Kay on May 19, 2010, 03:13:12 PM
What I have the most problem with is that Sleiman requested that the taxpayers to the tune of $2.5 million subsidize Landing patrons parking.  He will own the lot.  He can choose to allow his patrons free parking.  I do not think taxpayers money should go towards that. 

Is the $2.5 million to validate shopper parking at this lot or at city owned lots in general?  Also, does anyone know how much Sleiman will have to pay in rent once the parking situation is finally taken care of?  I'm interested to see what the true numbers of this deal look like.

The money Humana paid, should have sat in escrow for the Landing owners, Sleiman or Roush or another owner. The fact that the owner of the Landing has never received the money is really an issue, but why does Tony need parking now? City tore up Laura street, so that to get to his parking lot you have to go East on Bay and loop back around, not exactly parking friendly, and yet it sits empty most of the time. He should be marketing for people to use the water taxi and park on the southbank.

The center needs "dedicated" parking to have a better chance at attracting a couple of anchor national tenants.  This is something the city promised to Rouse and has still not provided.  However, DT does not need more parking, which is why its better to utilize an existing lot (like the one Sleiman wants) instead of building another garage.

QuoteThe center needs "dedicated" parking to have a better chance at attracting a couple of anchor national tenants.  This is something the city promised to Rouse and has still not provided.  However, DT does not need more parking, which is why its better to utilize an existing lot (like the one Sleiman wants) instead of building another garage.

Sleiman touts this dedicated parking as the golden egg that will completely revitilize The Landing.  I'd like to know what restaurants have come to him and explicitly said they would definitely locate at the Landing IF there was dedicated parking.  Has there been 2, 3, 50???  Sleiman makes it sounds like restaurants are beating down his door if he gets a dedicated park lot.  I'm not sure I buy it.

I have often thought the same thing. I wish Sleiman would put it out there. It can only help his case. If he has then I guess I missed it. I am sure I will be corrected.

Quote from: fsujax on May 20, 2010, 08:29:09 AM
I have often thought the same thing. I wish Sleiman would put it out there. It can only help his case. If he has then I guess I missed it. I am sure I will be corrected.

you haven't missed anything fsujax

I owe you some money.

You want me to pay it.

After I continually refuse/neglect to pay it, you tell me you need the money to feed yourself and your family. Without the money you will starve.

That complaint turns out to be untrue, and your family eats well in spite of the false claim of potential starvation.

I still owe you the money.

From the COJ/Jax Landing perspective, this is what matters. The city owes the landing dedicated parking. (< That is a period)

Quote from: cline on May 20, 2010, 08:25:31 AM

QuoteThe center needs "dedicated" parking to have a better chance at attracting a couple of anchor national tenants.  This is something the city promised to Rouse and has still not provided.  However, DT does not need more parking, which is why its better to utilize an existing lot (like the one Sleiman wants) instead of building another garage.

Sleiman touts this dedicated parking as the golden egg that will completely revitilize The Landing.  I'd like to know what restaurants have come to him and explicitly said they would definitely locate at the Landing IF there was dedicated parking.  Has there been 2, 3, 50???  Sleiman makes it sounds like restaurants are beating down his door if he gets a dedicated park lot.  I'm not sure I buy it.

Sleilman has put out there that dedicated parking has been an obstacle to signing some national chains yes.

But it really isn't relevant the city committed to this or they didn't.  23 years is enough time to live up to the commitment or prove in court that you are not responsible for the parking money.  At this point the city has not lived up to the commitment even while the council has affirmed their responsibility by trying to pass funding several times in the past.

The time has long passed for debating the whys and should we the city signed up for this or they didn't and while I have not read the contract the city own behavior indicates to me they signed. End of story.

Quote from: cline on May 20, 2010, 08:25:31 AM

QuoteThe center needs "dedicated" parking to have a better chance at attracting a couple of anchor national tenants.  This is something the city promised to Rouse and has still not provided.  However, DT does not need more parking, which is why its better to utilize an existing lot (like the one Sleiman wants) instead of building another garage.

Sleiman touts this dedicated parking as the golden egg that will completely revitilize The Landing.  I'd like to know what restaurants have come to him and explicitly said they would definitely locate at the Landing IF there was dedicated parking.  Has there been 2, 3, 50???  Sleiman makes it sounds like restaurants are beating down his door if he gets a dedicated park lot.  I'm not sure I buy it.

This is bigger than Sleiman and the burden of proof should not be on him to get the city to live up to it's promises.  Rouse said the same thing and the city made a promise to provide dedicated parking for the site 23 years ago and the situation is still unresolved.  At some point, its ethical to keep your word.  With that in mind, although its been proven that dedicated parking is an important part of retail site selection and even if you don't agree with that reality, the city finally living up to their promise will trigger annual rent payments on the waterfront property.  There is no other investment out there on the table that will immediately stimulate income to a financially strapped community with the potential to improve the downtown environment around it.

QuoteThere is no other investment out there on the table that will immediately stimulate income to a financially strapped community with the potential to improve the downtown environment around it.

That's a pretty compelling statement Lake!

I know this is bigger than Sleiman and I agree the City should live up to its word. All I am saying it would help Sleiman to put names out there. I know the Landing is revenue ready and the City should embrace that!

QuoteAll I am saying it would help Sleiman to put names out there. I know the Landing is revenue ready and the City should embrace that!

That was all I was getting at.  Its easy for him to say I have various "unnamed" businesses wanting to move in here once I get dedicated parking.  He could probably leverage the City much better if he named names (that is, if he has any actual names).

As for the City living up to it's obligation- perhaps they should.  But why hasn't Sleiman taken this to court to force the City to pay?

I would guess there are no national chains who would commit in writing to open shop in the landing should x amount of dedicated parking spaces become available.

More likely, this has been a point of contention when trying to recruit potential tenants historically.

Understand, I am no fan of Slieman. As I understand it, he got access to a property at the foot of JTB through eminent domain litigation from the city of Jax Beach. I have seen him as an insider and perhaps even a bit of a scoundrel since.

(Perhaps my own cynical misperception)

The parking issue is the fault of the city. JEA doesn't need to consult me regarding electricity uses to determine that I must honor my obligation to pay the bill.

Quote from: cline on May 20, 2010, 10:05:10 AM
As for the City living up to it's obligation- perhaps they should.

Lol.

QuoteBut why hasn't Sleiman taken this to court to force the City to pay?

One would hope getting the city to live up to its word and its so-called commitment to improve DT would not have to wind up with the owner of DT's top destination taking them to court.  DT's future is worse than we can imagine if something as simple as this requires a full out court case.

QuoteAs for the City living up to it's obligation- perhaps they should.

Perhaps??  

How many potential future public/private partnerships will this impact (or has this already impacted).  Why would anyone want to enter contract with our city when the city may 'perhaps'  fulfill their end of the commitment?

This issue is far bigger than The Landing.  It potentially impacts all of downtown's development for years to come...frustrating considering Mayor Peyton has been so vocal in his support for downtown development.

^^Very good point. With all the land the City owns..it could really be disasterous....Lavilla...anyone.

QuoteOne would hope getting the city to live up to its word and its so-called commitment to improve DT would not have to wind up with the owner of DT's top destination taking them to court.  DT's future is worse than we can imagine if something as simple as this requires a full out court case.

Yes, one would hope.  But reality is different.  Perhaps that is what Sleiman should do though if this is so important to him.  You would think that if the garage would be the door that brought in the PF Chaings and Cheesecake Factories and the masses of people that Sleiman would pursue any means necessary to get his parking.  That may require forcing the City's hand in court.  Why has he been OK with this lingering on for years and years.

QuoteWell you could give them my cell number and Id be glad to go give them a piggy back ride or something.

Im sorry Mister Sleiman, we really just need.....

Well I tell you what.  If you will sign this lil ole peice of paper here, I bet I could get that big ole huggy bear mayor to build you a Bang up Parking garage!  He owes me one after all!

Huggy Bear Mayor?  Of the City Council Care Bears?  You must be outta your cotton pickin mind toney!  Or think that we are!  Huggy and the Care Bears have been dangling that garage in front of you for going on 23 years!  They arent going to build you no garage!  (laughter, demeaning laughter breaks out.)

No I swear!  If you will just sign this itsy bitsy old letter, They'd prolly do it tomorrow!

Probably?  (more demeaning snickers break out)

Look!  Jes sign the damn thing!

Let me see that.   (scans for a moment in disbelief)  Toney!  You old hooker!  This is a contract guaranteeing that we will come out here for sure if Huggy builds you a parking garage.  How are we going to sign a guarantee if we havent even agreed its a sure thing?  (tears up the contract)

LOL, thanks for that.  Been having a rough morning but this certainly put a smile on my face!  

Quotewhy has he been OK with this lingering on for years and years.

LOL, ask him... or better yet, don't ask him.  The conversation would take up a long part of your day  ;)

FSU,  I don't think Sleiman needs to list tenants to help his case.  He has already said that the parking spaces will enable him to sign major tenants and improve vacancy rates.  That's enough to set him up for hundreds of 'I told you so's from Johnny Boy and his band of miscreants.  If the city gives him the money for the lot, they will be released from their obligation, the Landing will have to pay significant rent annually, and they can make as many pot shots, wise cracks, and snide remarks about old Toney as they can stand, until the cows come home.

I will pitch in for some lawn chairs and a jug o' moonshine for the whole mayor's office so they can just post up on Water street and laugh themselves silly at the whole Sleiman family if they can't sign a tenant.  This situation is a whole Hatfield and McCoy scenario anyway, so the chance to mock Toney for eternity should be incentive enough for John Boy to let Ole Toney have his parking lot.

Quote from: cline on May 20, 2010, 10:42:52 AM

QuoteOne would hope getting the city to live up to its word and its so-called commitment to improve DT would not have to wind up with the owner of DT's top destination taking them to court.  DT's future is worse than we can imagine if something as simple as this requires a full out court case.

Yes, one would hope.  But reality is different.  Perhaps that is what Sleiman should do though if this is so important to him.  You would think that if the garage would be the door that brought in the PF Chaings and Cheesecake Factories and the masses of people that Sleiman would pursue any means necessary to get his parking.  That may require forcing the City's hand in court.  Why has he been OK with this lingering on for years and years.

Perhaps he will at some point.  He tried for a while to get them to sell him the east lot and only after being continuously ignored, once litigation talk started they came around.

Quote
Friday, February 24, 2006

Peyton: Landing doesn't have option on parking lot

Mayor John Peyton said Friday that City Hall's position is that the owners of the Jacksonville Landing do not have an option to purchase the parking lot east of the Downtown mall.

The city and the Landing's owner, Jacksonville Landing Investments LLC, had been negotiating a complicated deal under which JLI would buy the property under the Landing, which it leases, as well as the end of Hogan Street, where it would build a parking garage.

But the city backed out of that deal earlier this month, citing a preference for an ambitious Downtown redevelopment plan affecting both sides of the river. That prompted JLI to exercise one option to extend its lease on the property and another to buy the parking lot to the east.

But Peyton said the city looks at the lease agreement in a different light.

"The city believes they do not have the option to purchase" the lot, Peyton said.

Since the Landing opened in 1987 the city has owed its developers, and now JLI, 600 parking spaces. JLI wants a parking garage adjacent to the Landing, but Peyton's redevelopment plans call for maintaining the public access to the river at the end of Hogan Street.

http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/stories/2006/02/20/daily38.html?jst=b_ln_hl

QuoteFebruary 25, 2006

Mayor says Landing owner has no right to lot

Attorneys for the Mayor's Office do not believe that Jacksonville Landing Investments LLC, which owns The Jacksonville Landing, has an option to buy a parcel of land east of the open-air mall, said Mayor's Office spokeswoman Susie Wiles.

Two weeks ago, JLI officials sent a letter to the city exercising what they claim is their option to purchase the land, which is now a surface parking lot. That move followed the mayor's decision not to sell the land underneath and around the Landing, after JLI, which is owned by the family of developer Toney Sleiman, had negotiated for more than a year with the city for the property.

JLI attorney Mitchell Legler said that he had not been notified of the city's position.

"It is our vehement position that the Landing has the right to acquire that property," he said. "If the city objects to that right, then the appropriate response would be litigation."

Joe Light/The Times-Union

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/022506/bus_21203026.shtml

We all know how this ended.  Maybe its just me, but it would be nice to show that we can move forward on such a simple issue without drawing blood.

A brief timeline:

(http://jacksonville.com/images/081900/met_jaxLandingRendering.jpg)

1993 - The city hired PQH Architects to design a 600 space riverfront garage with retail lining the riverfront. PQH was 60% complete with construction documents when the city and Rouse agreed to use the Daniel Building's 600 space garage for the Landing.

1999 - The city gives the Daniel Building and its 600 space garage to Adams Mark. Today that garage serves the Hyatt Hotel's guest and employees.

2000 - Highwood Properties announces plan to construct a 10 story office building and 6 story, 1,147 space garage. The city would lease 300 spaces for the Landing. Deal dies when Highwood sells property to Capital Partners.

(http://www.jacksonville.com/images/110502/met_humanagarage11_241.jpg)

2002 - City and Humana agree to construct 1,100 space garage, in which Humana would set aside 300 during the week and 375 spaces for the Landing on the weekends. Nothing ever happens when Humana consolidates and eliminates most of its positions at its downtown office.

2003 - Toney Sleiman buys the Landing and announces plans to expand the center to include a 120 slip marina, 6-8 story condo buildings, a boutique hotel, additional retail space and a 25 story office tower. 3 parking garages would be built along with the phased expansion. Two 960 space garages and one 1,100 space garage.

Feb 2006 - After two years of negotiations, the Big Idea plan is announced, along with pulling the rug from under Sleiman. Mayor's plan includes demolishing most of the Landing and replacing it with limited specialty retail space and park with a merry-go-round in the middle.

March 2006 - Mayor sends letter to Sleiman offering to solve the city's parking obligations by taking Kuhn's offer to provide 375 spaces for the Landing.

(http://www.kuhncompanies.com/userimages/b9b0a888bd2e05091392c70aad81114b.jpg)
Kuhn's proposed Riverwatch at City Centre tower & parking garage.

Summer 2007 - Kuhn's real estate empire falls apart before the Riverwatch project breaks ground.

August 2008 - Riverwatch tower and garage site sold at forclosure auction to JDI Realty of Chicago.

2008 - Early 2010 - Two things remain constant: Downtown struggles and no dedicated parking for the Landing.

May 2010 - Where we are today.

QuoteMayor's plan includes demolishing most of the Landing and replacing it with limited specialty retail space and park with a merry-go-round in the middle.

That says a lot right there....

They should add a cruise terminal for smaller cruise ships at the landing, while still building a Mayport facility for large cruise ships. This would generate even more revenue from the Landing. Add Streetcars and a garage for the cruise terminal and we could really see some changes around there.

If the city takes care of their parking obligation, this would place the emphasis on Sleiman to move forward on flipping the interior mall spaces to face the green space at Hogan & Water.  Such a project could be designed to be the first phase of this long lost proposal.

(http://bp0.blogger.com/_2o3E7tD3TEA/Rm3bDenkXZI/AAAAAAAAATQ/IgMmTMsjwh4/s400/Hogan+Street+Park-SLIDE2+(2).JPG)

Privately-funded public park proposed for Northbank
http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=47655

With the TU Performing Arts Center, the river, Omni and over 4 million already visiting the Landing annually, one could assume that this could become a pretty popular spot.

Quote from: fieldafm on May 20, 2010, 01:05:49 PM

QuoteMayor's plan includes demolishing most of the Landing and replacing it with limited specialty retail space and park with a merry-go-round in the middle.

That says a lot right there....

Here are some old conceptual sketches.....

(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-8225-big_idea_1.jpg)
Overall Big Ideas plan

(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-8226-big_idea_2.jpg)
Revitalized Landing

Don't forget he hot dog vendor carts on the Main St bridge.

Wow Jacksonville would really benefit from a redesign like that. It would make the North and Southbank river walks amazing. And poeple would actually like to go to downtown Jacksonville to hang out, and even live.

Ohhhh...Mattius92...you have no idea what you may start with a comment like the above. Obviously you werent around when this plan was first introduced. haha

What was the Harbor Master's House in the Big Idea--actual relocation of a historic house (the yellow one pictured, I presume)?  Other than the paint color that looks like some sort of cross-breed of the Broward house on Heckscher and St. Luke's.

Sidewalks have ALWAYS attracted me, in fact I LOVE SIDEWALKS, hell, I've woken up on some of the best of them!

OCKLAWAHA

Oh, I'm very familiar with the Big Nightmare.. err Idea  :)

I've seen some ideas come across my desk over the years... I'm glad that one never did.

You poeple...

Hey I am current with events from around 2007 to now, anything older then that is like unknown to me.

And yall dont like to walk along the river, I didn't say it was going to be an everyday thing, but come on, if there is things to do along our river. Hell I am going to do it.

Take Baltimore's Inner Harbor. Its on water it is walkable, and its totally amazing. Dont see anything like that here, but it dont mean it cant happen.

Also Tampa's TECO Streetcar line is SWEEET. USF is looking more and more appealing everyday.

I wish they would take the money for the garage and update the landing instead.  

Quote from: stephendare on May 20, 2010, 02:20:12 PM
(http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs549.snc3/30056_402298741669_548811669_4230261_8198626_n.jpg)

That looks disturbingly real  :)

And it took me a disturbingly long time to get the Fox Leeman joke.  My goodness does my brain go on autopilot when tax season ends.

Quote from: TheProfessor on May 20, 2010, 02:26:08 PM
I wish they would take the money for the garage and update the landing instead. 

Sleiman plans to do some updating once he has the ability (dedicated parking) to land anchor tenants.

I hope so.  It will take a lot of work to get the Landing into the 21st century, but I'm sure Sleiman has deep pockets.

Quote from: Wacca Pilatka on May 20, 2010, 02:31:21 PM
And it took me a disturbingly long time to get the Fox Leeman joke. 

Haha...you and me both, Wacca.

Quote from: thelakelander on May 20, 2010, 02:49:47 PM

Quote from: TheProfessor on May 20, 2010, 02:26:08 PM
I wish they would take the money for the garage and update the landing instead. 

Sleiman plans to do some updating once he has the ability (dedicated parking) to land anchor tenants.

I sure hope so....but think the reality is Sleiman will update only once he has the anchor tenants

Okay. Either way we'll be collecting money that can be invested back into the city that's not being collected now.

Yes.  Any development is a step in the right direction!

Lake do you have more photos of the mayors aborted plan to clean the downtown clock with his merry-go-round and such?

I actually think the elements as depicted in the 2 photos you posted are quite superior to the current crop of blah, blah, blah.  Peyton's buildings evoke a atmosphere of "Flagler-Florida," the "Great Florida Boom" of the 1920's, and our own "Dixieland" park and "Subtropical Exposition".

While I would totally fight any plan to take down currently functioning venues, such features scattered along either side of the Riverwalk would improve it tremendously.  Imagine that "house" as our visitors center and small cruise port... What about the merry-go-round? Just a carnie event or a World Class unit that would have aficionados coming from all parts. Reconstruct one of our expo buildings near the arts market or as a new venue, move the maritime museum in.  Make a steamboat,  "The City of Jacksonville" no doubt, complete with a steam Calliope (and I bet You, Lunican and I know where we could get one built!  In fact I have the prints!

Got to say, it is out of the box.

OCKLAWAHA

Ocklawaha, I'm trying to track down more pics of the Big Idea that were posted on MetJax but I'm not having any luck.

The problem with the Big Idea was more the overall concept which may as well have been drawn on a cocktail napkin and conceived as an idea int he time frame it took to drink down the bear it was sitting under.

We can green up the River Walk if that's the charm found in those renders.  But ripping up the Landing to install a merry-go-round or adding hot dog and cotton candy vendors on a working drawbridge just screams "I have no idea what I'M doing".

And the whole thing was conceptualized and presented to the media without a single dime considered for or any affected retailers, business, government agencies, etc...informed or contacted regarding it.

Oh Jim, I remember that so well...thats how I first got involved with MetroJacksonville

That's what started it off for a lot of members.

It was just such an asinine idea that people had to speak out.

Its what really got the whole thing off on a larger level of public participation.  You can thank city hall for creating this online monster.  Its unfortunate that we're still debating this Landing issue today.

Quote from: Ocklawaha on May 20, 2010, 07:39:17 PM
Lake do you have more photos of the mayors aborted plan to clean the downtown clock with his merry-go-round and such?

I actually think the elements as depicted in the 2 photos you posted are quite superior to the current crop of blah, blah, blah.  Peyton's buildings evoke a atmosphere of "Flagler-Florida," the "Great Florida Boom" of the 1920's, and our own "Dixieland" park and "Subtropical Exposition".

While I would totally fight any plan to take down currently functioning venues, such features scattered along either side of the Riverwalk would improve it tremendously.  Imagine that "house" as our visitors center and small cruise port... What about the merry-go-round? Just a carnie event or a World Class unit that would have aficionados coming from all parts. Reconstruct one of our expo buildings near the arts market or as a new venue, move the maritime museum in.  Make a steamboat,  "The City of Jacksonville" no doubt, complete with a steam Calliope (and I bet You, Lunican and I know where we could get one built!  In fact I have the prints!

Got to say, it is out of the box.

OCKLAWAHA

I'm not really a fan of copying old architecture from eras gone bye.  From a personal architectural perspective, what you design should reflect the time you live in and the materials available in today's society.  As generations pass, people should look at what we've done in the same light preservationists treasure the works of Architects like Klutho, FLW, Sullivan and Kahn.

Anyway, I don't recall too many images being put out there of the Big Idea.  That plan went south pertty quick.  Nevertheless, how about a hot dog cart on the Main Street bridge?  This should surely get you walking across it.

(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/images/urban_issues/peyton_struggles__the_big_idea/big_idea_3.jpg)

For those interested in the old Big Idea project, here is a review:

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2008-dec-peytons-struggles-the-big-idea

at least they had a decent idea with putting the Main St Bridge on a road diet...I think a 2-lane or 3-lane (1 reversible) bridge would be great...and would allow for bike lanes and a wider sidewalk.

Quote from: tufsu1 on May 20, 2010, 10:26:43 PM
at least they had a decent idea with putting the Main St Bridge on a road diet...I think a 2-lane or 3-lane (1 reversible) bridge would be great...and would allow for bike lanes and a wider sidewalk.

That would be nice, with the Acosta bridge right down the river, they could very well narrow the bridge, and widen the sidewalk.

Thinking about it, how important is the Main Street bridge (transportation wise) that they couldn't just convert the whole thing to a pedestrian bridge.

right now the Main St Bridge carries more traffic than the Acosta...but the combined capacity of both bridges would still be enough even if Main St Bridge was 2-3 lanes

Quote from: tufsu1 on May 20, 2010, 10:26:43 PM
at least they had a decent idea with putting the Main St Bridge on a road diet...I think a 2-lane or 3-lane (1 reversible) bridge would be great...and would allow for bike lanes and a wider sidewalk.

Why not keep the lane count as is and widen the sidewalks out away from roads? 

Quote from: Mattius92 on May 20, 2010, 10:31:46 PMThinking about it, how important is the Main Street bridge (transportation wise) that they couldn't just convert the whole thing to a pedestrian bridge.

It's far more important to motor traffic than using it as a whole for pedestrian traffic.

I recall the data not long ago showing it carried about as much motor traffic per day as the Acosta bridge does.

However the Acosta is 6 lanes and is considered a freeway, the Main Street bridge isn't. The Acosta can totally handle all of the traffic off the Main Street Bridge and more, take the Fuller Warren its a 6 lane highway bridge, and it handles 100,000 cars a day almost just fine.

You need to know that getting downtown more ped friendly will be a big thing that will help bring more residential and office development to downtown.

QuoteWhy not keep the lane count as is and widen the sidewalks out away from roads?

That was Peyton's last idea for the Main Street Bridge but I don't know what came of it.  To be honest, it would be a better investment in DT than Metropolitan Park.

Quote from: Mattius92 on May 20, 2010, 10:43:03 PM
However the Acosta is 6 lanes and is considered a freeway, the Main Street bridge isn't. The Acosta can totally handle all of the traffic off the Main Street Bridge and more, take the Fuller Warren its a 6 lane highway bridge, and it handles 100,000 cars a day almost just fine.

You need to know that getting downtown more ped friendly will be a big thing that will help bring more residential and office development to downtown.

Certainly but the cost of increasing pedestrian access should not come with the complete closure of a major motor traffic bridge.  Especially when the same volume of pedestrian access can be created without the need to close a single lane.

You also have a lot of agencies to deal with, not just JTA, when it comes to closing off the main street bridge to vehicle traffic.

Main Street bridge investment? Maybe, if it connected to something with a plan. The southbank is more disjointed than the northbank. Focus people, focus on downtown.

^Agree 100%.

The North and South Banks need to be created as one. Like a master riverbank redevelopment plan. And we can keep the Main Street bridge for vehicular traffic but widening the sidewalks on it would be smart.

We did create a River Walk redevelopment plan several years back.

Lake, you still have all that stuff handy?

Here you go:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v84/lakelander/Jacksonville%202006/jpeg-for-forum.jpg)

Wow I remember this from metjax, that was a while back and we still havent moved anywhere. Kinda like being in traffic for life with no exits. This is how our river front should look and were still debating about parking.

we certainly need rail. And the southbank plan is really neat. However I dont think any of it has been done.

Quote from: Mattius92 on May 20, 2010, 11:45:18 PM
However I dont think any of it has been done.

It hasn't.  City Hall prefers to spend $100k's to millions on consultants and plans and then do nothing with them instead of giving serious considerations to the ideas we've presented over the years for free.

Quote from: stephendare on May 20, 2010, 11:42:13 PM
Well thats not completely true, Keith.  Think of how different the conversation is now.  BRT gone.  Rail a near reality.

Stephen until they are laying down rail I will feel no different. I'm hopeful.

Stephen the Landing remain unchanged, friendship fountain still broke, shipyards empty, jea site empty, brooklyn park empty, lavilla destroyed and fenced off, klutho park and so on and so on. Like I said I am hopeful, but lets not kid ourselves ok.

Sometimes I dont know what to think about this city, but when I drive across the fuller warren bridge at night I always like what I see, but know it could be better. Anyway its going to be interesting to see what happens now with the Landing. Its time to get this done and move on to the next project. BTW nicely said Stephen.

Quote from: Jim on May 20, 2010, 10:38:39 PM

Quote from: tufsu1 on May 20, 2010, 10:26:43 PM
at least they had a decent idea with putting the Main St Bridge on a road diet...I think a 2-lane or 3-lane (1 reversible) bridge would be great...and would allow for bike lanes and a wider sidewalk.

Why not keep the lane count as is and widen the sidewalks out away from roads?  

because honestly it doesn't feel very safe right now...the lanes just aren't wide enough, especially without a separator for oncoming traffic....the steel grates are quite slippery in wet weather.

Quote from: Keith-N-Jax on May 20, 2010, 11:35:14 PM
Wow I remember this from metjax, that was a while back and we still havent moved anywhere. Kinda like being in traffic for life with no exits. This is how our river front should look and were still debating about parking.

5 years is not a very long time when it comes to planning....often, it takes 10-20 years to implement even the best ideas.

Unfortunately, we're not starting from scatch.  Its taken us over 40 years to get to this point.

Quote from: tufsu1 on May 21, 2010, 08:31:03 AM

Quote from: Jim on May 20, 2010, 10:38:39 PM

Quote from: tufsu1 on May 20, 2010, 10:26:43 PM
at least they had a decent idea with putting the Main St Bridge on a road diet...I think a 2-lane or 3-lane (1 reversible) bridge would be great...and would allow for bike lanes and a wider sidewalk.

Why not keep the lane count as is and widen the sidewalks out away from roads? 

because honestly it doesn't feel very safe right now...the lanes just aren't wide enough, especially without a separator for oncoming traffic....the steel grates are quite slippery in wet weather.

The lanes are 10 feet wide.  That's not wide enough for non-truck, low volume, low speed traffic?

Perhaps major traffic should be rerouted via the Acosta/Jefferson/Broad connection, considering JTA is preparing to rebuild those streets?

10 foot lanes are the minimum recommended for non-local streets....all I'm saying is 4 10' lanes with opposing traffic not separated is not the best...A new bridge would typically be designed with 11 or 12' lanes, a separator of some form, and paved shoulders (or bike lane).

Since the traffic demands don't require 4 lanes, why not downsize the road?

It would seem if the idea was to reduce the amount of lanes, a significant portion of traffic would have to be diverted.  With the Mayor on his way out in a year, I think the Main Street thing may be dead now.  If it comes back to life, I would hope that two-waying Main and Ocean would be included.  Especially the block between State and Union.

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/770863523_8auWN-M.jpg)

Quote from: tufsu1 on May 21, 2010, 08:33:29 AM

Quote from: Keith-N-Jax on May 20, 2010, 11:35:14 PM
Wow I remember this from metjax, that was a while back and we still havent moved anywhere. Kinda like being in traffic for life with no exits. This is how our river front should look and were still debating about parking.

Its been 30 yrs plus and running. Its time to stop with the BS!!

5 years is not a very long time when it comes to planning....often, it takes 10-20 years to implement even the best ideas.

Quote from: thelakelander on May 20, 2010, 11:02:55 PM
Here you go:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v84/lakelander/Jacksonville%202006/jpeg-for-forum.jpg)

The Southbank plan was and still is amazing.  Funny that it is still a progressive idea years ahead of what our current administration has come up with, despite the years they have had to wise up. 

My only addition to the plan would be to add density to RCBC and the surrounding area.  That restaurant is sprawled out across that lot.  We could make that a West Palm Beach Cityplace type development.  We could build that out around RCBC, use phased construction and relocate them, or have a very temporary closure of the restaurant. 

If it had different uses, it wouldn't have to be a competitor of the Landing, it could compliment it.  Think of two entertainment complexes straddling the St Johns with frequent ferry trips between the two and an expanded pedestrian walkway on the west side of the Main Street Bridge.  Heck, that might even create enough foot traffic for a hot dog cart!!

Let's go ahead and assume that The Landing gets its dedicated parking.  I can already see Sleiman's next argument coming:  "I'm not going to reconfigure The Landing since I don't own the land that it sits on".  He won't even spend money right now to paint it.

good point cline

QuoteThey just have the misfortune of being inadequate at a time where something extraordinary is crucial.

That sums it up quite nicely.

Everyone looks like a genious when times are good.  All you have to do is follow the herd with the biggest pile of money.  It's when times are most difficult that oppurtunity is most ripe.  True brilliance is shown when the challenge is greatest.

I truly believe we have a very bright future.  We can be the 'bold new city of the South' again.

With the future of the Landing still somewhat in the air, seems to me painting it is pretty unimportant.  If I were Sleiman, I wouldn't be hitting up Sherwin Williams any time soon; instead I'd be trying to get the parking situation squared away, and filling up all those empty slots with tenants.  If prospective tennants made mention of the need of a paint job..., then, maybe.

kells904...have you been there lately...a paint job is sorely needed

Quote from: cline on May 21, 2010, 10:39:32 AM
Let's go ahead and assume that The Landing gets its dedicated parking.  I can already see Sleiman's next argument coming:  "I'm not going to reconfigure The Landing since I don't own the land that it sits on".  He won't even spend money right now to paint it.

In a worst case scenario, nothing changes from today except that the city lives up to its obligation, starts collecting rent and an existing lot/sidewalk/plaza is improved.  What's wrong with that?

Quote from: tufsu1 on May 21, 2010, 10:44:43 AM
good point cline

who can blame him and what does the city gain by holding on to the land besides lost taxes,,,good point huh!

Quote from: tufsu1 on May 21, 2010, 11:11:33 AM
kells904...have you been there lately...a paint job is sorely needed

That would be silly, from a business perspective.

Sleiman acquired a majority shareholder's interest in JLI Investments Corp., nothing more. He's not personally obligated on the lease, and as you noted he doesn't even own the property. So if COJ screws him on parking (again), then we really have to assume that his end-game is probably a corporate BK liquidation by JLI Corp., or some other method for walking away, which is entirely possible given the ownership structure.

He's a smart guy, he's not going to keep throwing money into a property which has never made money at any point during its entire existence, especially when COJ is intentionally keeping him hamstrung from making the changes needed to generate a profit. At some point he's going to say "If COJ wants to run the place, then they can pay for it."

With all that in mind, he'd be an idiot to go dumping money into the place until the disputes are resolved.

QuoteIn a worst case scenario, nothing changes from today except that the city lives up to its obligation, starts collecting rent and an existing lot/sidewalk/plaza is improved.  What's wrong with that?

Nothing.  My comment was more directed to those that seem to think that by providing parking, The Landing will now become the St. Johns Town Center of downtown.  But hey, if the City needs to spend a few million for parking to get The Landing on the tax rolls then go for it.

Okay.  Yes, the Landing and the SJTC are two different styles of retail development.  The Landing's future is really more dining/entertainment based than traditional retail.  In any event, anything to improve the Landing also improves downtown.  Aside from being ethical and keeping your word (this is enough to resolve the deal to me), if the goal is to improve DT, ignoring the Landing makes little sense.

Who said that. Maybe we should do nothing and hope UPS delivers a thriving core via the mainstreet bridge. Better yet I'll stop through Baltimore on my way back, pack up their water front district and bring it. 11 hr drive vs 30 yrs plus waiting, which would u guys like?

I don't think anyone has any illusion that parking is the Landing's only issue and that resolving it solves all of it's issues.  But it is the biggest issue.  They need to at least be able to have conversations with prospective anchor tenants.  They can't event do that now.   The city has an obligation and they need to fulfill it, period.

Quote from: tufsu1 on May 21, 2010, 11:11:33 AM
kells904...have you been there lately...a paint job is sorely needed

No, I haven't been there lately.  Right now I live within driving distance of Norfolk's Waterside, where, for some idiot reason, they've decided to close down its biggest money makers. Anyway, everytime i've been to the landing in the last few years, I haven't noticed the need for paint; I noticed the need for more people.  If you paint it, they will NOT come.

We can stop arguing the why's and what the Landing will do next. The story is the city made a deal and should honor it.
I am really surprised people here are wonder why the Landing would want to be paid what is due.

Quote from: JeffreyS on May 21, 2010, 01:32:07 PM
We can stop arguing the why's and what the Landing will do next. The story is the city made a deal and should honor it.

It is hardly ever that simple...keep in mind there have been several amendments to the original deal.

As for bringing more people Kells....the place does just fine on weekends and special events (as the JEDC info. attests)....and the recent street closures for the roundabout haven't seemed to have a big effect.

I would suggest that more people will come when the reputation of the Landing (and dowtown) begins to change...national retailers can help that, but I'm willing to bet that parking won't be their only issue....guessing that facility upkeep will also be a concern.

Well you have to start somewhere Tufsu and parking is fine with me. Dedicated parking is not subjective you have it or you don't. A much more clear cut issue than is the paint fresh enough.

Quote from: JeffreyS on May 21, 2010, 01:46:21 PM
Well you have to start somewhere Tufsu and parking is fine with me. Dedicated parking is not subjective you have it or you don't. A much more clear cut issue than is the paint fresh enough.

it isn't like the Landing doesn't have dedicated parking....remember, they already have over 300 spaces in the adjacent lot.

Which begs these questions....

Are those spaces already "dedicated" already to current users?
Have they offered those spaces to prosepctive tenants before?

If you are saying that the city does not have the obligation then they should not pay or find a good reason to pay.  If they are already on the hook then they should pay.  The city so far to my knowledge has not denied owing the parking to the Landing. So the what will the Landing  do or should have done is not relevant.

TUFSU, The Landing has over 125k sf of retail. When you get time, count the number of spaces in a Walmart, Target or similar etail center parking lot and compare. That should give you your answer. Once I'm able to get on a computer, I'll go into greater detail.

Quote from: kells904 on May 21, 2010, 01:29:33 PM

Quote from: tufsu1 on May 21, 2010, 11:11:33 AM
kells904...have you been there lately...a paint job is sorely needed

No, I haven't been there lately.  Right now I live within driving distance of Norfolk's Waterside, where, for some idiot reason, they've decided to close down its biggest money makers. Anyway, everytime i've been to the landing in the last few years, I haven't noticed the need for paint; I noticed the need for more people.  If you paint it, they will NOT come.

Kells, I live in Grafton and am exceptionally confused at what's going on with Waterside.  Before all these closures, Waterside was (as Lake has pointed out) a fine example of how the Landing could improve with adjacent dedicated parking.

Personally, I like the Landing and look forward to going to several businesses there when I am in town.  I do notice that maintenance is not what it once was, but not to the degree that it would keep me from going there.  I still think it's an attractive facility with great views (however dated it may be and despite its poor integration with the rest of downtown).  When I bring people with me to Jacksonville, as I usually do, they've liked it too, though I tend to get dismayed at the empty spaces and nostalgic for its eariler days.

Quote from: thelakelander on May 21, 2010, 02:29:21 PM
TUFSU, The Landing has over 125k sf of retail. When you get time, count the number of spaces in a Walmart, Target or similar etail center parking lot and compare. That should give you your answer. Once I'm able to get on a computer, I'll go into greater detail.

I know Lake, but

1. Wal-Mart and Target have ridiculous amounst of parking (even for Black Friday)
2. I didn't think we were talking about opening a Wal-Mart or Target in the Landing (although for better or worse, that would bring the crowds)

A Target in the Landing?  That's one of the best ideas I've heard for a while! 

I'm only half kidding - I spend most of my time downtown, in Springfield, San Marco and Riverside/Avondale but NEVER go to the Landing - nothing there worth visiting.  But a downtown Target would be a draw......

Quote from: tufsu1 on May 21, 2010, 02:42:58 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on May 21, 2010, 02:29:21 PM
TUFSU, The Landing has over 125k sf of retail. When you get time, count the number of spaces in a Walmart, Target or similar retail center parking lot and compare. That should give you your answer. Once I'm able to get on a computer, I'll go into greater detail.

I know Lake, but

1. Wal-Mart and Target have ridiculous amounst of parking (even for Black Friday)
2. I didn't think we were talking about opening a Wal-Mart or Target in the Landing (although for better or worse, that would bring the crowds)

Now that I'm in front of a computer, I can elaborate in more detail.  300 spaces are significantly limited for 125k sf of specialty retail and dining.

Don't worry about Target or Walmart, those places have well over 1,000 spaces for themselves only.  Cheesecake Factory and PF Changs at SJTC most likely eat up 300 of the thousands of spaces at the SJTC.  Here, Sleiman is only asking for 300 to bring the center's total up to 600.  

However, it seems like some of you keep ignoring the fact that this has been an issue since Day 1, going back to the center's opening in the late 1980s.  I understand the need to validate excuses for not keeping our word but at some point its only right to live up to a promise the city made to bring the center here in the first place.  

All the arguments against (at least on this site) are built upon feelings, theories and guess work instead of facts.  These are things that have kept us circling the wagons for decades with nothing to show but failure as the result.  If not, we would not be having this conversation today.  Its time to listen to people who specialize in this business for a change instead of people who mean well, but are novices regarding how the retail industry really works.

lake...............dead on target! Not to mention that Johnny has money stashed.....like about $80 Million plus! Of course we can't use that since hiz honer don't see the lite!

Quote from: cline on May 21, 2010, 10:39:32 AM
Let's go ahead and assume that The Landing gets its dedicated parking.  I can already see Sleiman's next argument coming:  "I'm not going to reconfigure The Landing since I don't own the land that it sits on". 

To be fair, he's stated this for years.  He wanted to move forward with a $250 million renovation with the condition that the city fulfill it's parking obligation and sell the land under the Landing.

I don't know about you but if I were going to move forward with a $250 million dollar project, I'd want adequate parking and the land I'm building on.  

People in the retail industry, who play with their own money, keep saying dedicated parking is an issue.  Look around and nearly every major retail center has adequate parking or located in an area with significant foot traffic.  The problem is people who are novices in this industry, yet in a decision making position, keep "assuming" and "visualizing" Rouse, Sleiman, whoever's next argument.  So instead, we keep investing money on scattered, poorly thoughtout projects and end up shocked when things don't turn out like "assumed." Let's provide the dedicated parking and put the ball in the professional's court for a change.

Quote from: CS Foltz on May 21, 2010, 05:49:14 PM
lake...............dead on target! Not to mention that Johnny has money stashed.....like about $80 Million plus! Of course we can't use that since hiz honer don't see the lite!

I was waiting for you to bring this up....its called a rainy day fund, and most local and state governments have them...in fact, Panama City (with less than 50,000 residents) has over $15 million in reserves....also, in the non-profit world, it is recommended to have 6 months to 1 year in reserves.

In any case, the City's deficit for FY 2011 is now thought to be about $22 million (versus the $60+ million you've been mentioning)....and the Mayor has permission to access about $13 milion of the reserves...so the remaining deficit will only be $9 million.

Quote from: Jim on May 20, 2010, 08:14:41 PM
Ocklawaha, I'm trying to track down more pics of the Big Idea that were posted on MetJax but I'm not having any luck.

The problem with the Big Idea was more the overall concept which may as well have been drawn on a cocktail napkin and conceived as an idea int he time frame it took to drink down the bear it was sitting under.

We can green up the River Walk if that's the charm found in those renders.  But ripping up the Landing to install a merry-go-round or adding hot dog and cotton candy vendors on a working drawbridge just screams "I have no idea what I'M doing".

And the whole thing was conceptualized and presented to the media without a single dime considered for or any affected retailers, business, government agencies, etc...informed or contacted regarding it.

Oh make no mistake about it, I would NEVER suggest we embrace this "Big Disaster" over what we have currently on the ground or on the drawing boards.  All I'm thinking is that the early Florida style architecture of the elements in those renderings would fit nicely into creating something more identifiably "local" then the current widget mill designs we seem to rubber stamp all over town.

Lake said he isn't a big fan of taking designs of earlier era's, and I understand this to a point. If we didn't reconstruct the City Wall in St. Augustine, none of us would have a clue what it was like. We rebuilt Fort Caroline for the same purpose, visitors, children and their families, who may only have an hour or two of their lives to study or experience our history are best taught through total immersion. One can understand the ancient Florida communities by having walked through them, touching, feeling, smelling, seeing...

We have so destroyed our landmark structures with the exception of Jacksonville Terminal, and the Water Works that it is impossible for us to comprehend the grandeur that Jacksonville once exhibited. What other city can boast that many key structures were burned 4 times in the War of Yankee Aggression? The Charleston Earthquake of 1886?  The Great Jacksonville Fire of 1901? The Hail Storm of 1911? Hurricane's of 1960/64? Idiot Political Plague of 2003-date? 

Certainly we wouldn't have to make a blueprint accurate copy of any historic building, rather something that shouted elements from some of our greatest structural design achievements. Select a few theme area's and borrow heavily from history in a "Southbank Dixieland District" or "Northbank Expo District"...etc.  Wouldn't a building similar to either of these great venues of the past beat anything we have along the Riverwalk's today?

Hot Dog Carts on the bridge is the best we can do? What about that parking lot and that Main Street Bridge? Why not reconstruct the bridge with the twin 12' auto lanes + a single track, 10' STREETCAR lane right down the center? Why not use the extra couple of feet for pedestrian enhancements? Carry the car line from Springfield, directly down a two way Main Street, over the bridge and onto Riverplace to San Marco and South towards San Jose in phases. Vintage Streetcars weigh similar to modern buses, and the track structure is light enough that bridges generally don't need to be retro-fitted.

Once the streetcar is in place, direct connections with a Water Street car line would enhance the parking not only for the Landing, but the Hyatt, Omni, TU Center, Riverwalk's, and any other retail or entertainment package that located downtown. No longer would zoning have to require business and developers to build XX parking spaces for XX square footage, rather with rail enhancements, remote lots and city owned parking garages could be put to real use as alternatives to conventional storefront thinking.  It's win-win, the developer get's by with having to invest less in non-productive square footage or amenities, the city get's more parking tenants.

Another "perk" worth watching is the global carbon credits for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  The program is currently limited to "developing countries," but there is talk that it could be expanded to include everyone. These new "Carbon Credits," are credits that can be sold to the highest bidder under a new system that allows municipal governments and transit agencies to sell their "clean" credits to large polluters. These dirty industries will be fined on a global scale but rather then pay 100% in cash, they can buy transit or municipal credits at a slight discount and trade them for face value. Thus the industry saves money and the transit or municipality has a marketable new revenue source.  However it only works if the Transit agency or municipality is "GREEN", and in this case RAIL= GREEN.

QuoteBOGOTA MOVES TOWARD RAIL TRANSIT:
In recognition of this feat, TransMilenio, Bogota Colombia's Transit System last year became the only large transportation project approved by the United Nations to generate and sell carbon credits. Developed countries that exceed their emissions limits under the Kyoto Protocol, or that simply want to burnish a “green” image, can buy credits from TransMilenio to balance their emissions budgets, bringing Bogotá an estimated $100 million to $300 million so far, analysts say.

Indeed, the city has provided a model of how international programs to combat climate change can help expanding cities â€" the number of cars in China alone could increase sevenfold by 2030, according to the International Energy Agency â€" pay for transit systems that would otherwise be unaffordable.

(Gee I wonder how this happened?   ;D   ;))


OCKLAWAHA

Quote from: Wacca Pilatka on May 21, 2010, 02:34:04 PM
Kells, I live in Grafton and am exceptionally confused at what's going on with Waterside.  Before all these closures, Waterside was (as Lake has pointed out) a fine example of how the Landing could improve with adjacent dedicated parking.

City officials said they wanted Waterside to be more "family friendly", as I recall, but every time I've been to Waterside for some sort of event, they fully facilitate me getting hammered with cheap beer or sample after sample of wine.  Jillian's is just about deserted now; there's little else.  I assume the idea was to push the bar crawlers over to Granby St (what Bay St. could be someday), but the young people were pissed (some cried 'racism', but...we all know the word "racism" is more commonly used these days than "the").  Bar Norfolk, Blackfinn, Diesel and Have A Nice Day made Waterside relevant throughout the year, not just during "Harborfest" or whatever else.  Who knows if that was the right thing to do or not.  That's ok though; this ain't my town.  I'm on the tail end of an extended visit.

Quote from: thelakelander on May 21, 2010, 08:10:52 PM
Let's provide the dedicated parking and put the ball in the professional's court for a change.

I'll be waiting with baited breath.

 That's cool. I wouldn't expect it any other way. ;D

Out of curiosity, I decided to take a look at Sleiman's tenant list at their properties.  While all are not ideal for the Landing and downtown, it is an impressive list that shows this company has their foot in the door with many retailers.  Perhaps, they just might know what they are talking about.


Bono's BBQ.
Quizno's Classic Subs
O'Charley's
LongHorn Steakhouse
Huddle House
Papa John's
Rally's
Chick-Fil-A
Chili's Grill & Bar
McDonald's
Firehouse Subs
Sierra Grille
Times Grill
Ale House
Panda Express
Stonewood Tavern & Grille
Player's Grille
Cruiser's Grill
Panera Bread
Taco Bell
Steak n Shake
Burger King


WalMart
Target
Home Depot
Publix
Winn-Dixie
Kohl's
Office Depot
Office Max
Bed Bath and Beyond
HH Gregg
Best Buy
Books A Million
Border's Books
Barnes & Nobles Booksellers
BJ's Wholesale Club
ACE Hardware
Ross Dress For Less
Jos A. Bank
World Market
Walgreens
CVS Pharmacy
Pier One
Sprint PCS
Petco
Beall's Department Store

http://www.sleiman.com/


Since Rouse also believed they needed dedicated parking to attract and keep first tier retailers at the Landing, I would have dug up their tenant mix if they were not bought out by General Growth Properties a couple of years ago.  In any event, for those who will make jokes about some of the chains on the list above, just know that General Growth's tenants also include chains like Crate & Barrel, Cheesecake Factory, Pottery Barn and Coach.  Old Rouse festival marketplaces they took over still have tenants like Hard Rock Cafe, Bubba Gump Shrimp Co., Johnny Rockets and Uno Chicago Grill.

If I wanted to know how to build a trolley from the ground up, I'd ask Ocklawaha for advice.  I'd call Lunican if I had a question about the Metro Jacksonville website.  If I had to run a traffic model, I'd call Tufsu1.  If I had a desire to open up a restaurant, I'd have a few questions for Stephendare or Jerry Moran.  If I wanted to know about the bar business, I'd give Rockstar or Triclops i a call.  If I'm trying to attract some retailers to a shopping center, I think I'd listen to a Sleiman, Rouse or Ben Carter over the Mayor's Office or JEDC.  On the other hand, if I wanted a pocket park, scattered development and a lack of downtown synergy, I'd definitely visit City Hall.  Anyway, I guess that's just me.

If someone knows where to find the retail tenants the JEDC has signed to leases, feel free to post for comparison's sake.

^He shoots he scores.

There is no arguing that that is an impressive list of tenants.  However, it is easy to attract these types of tenants when your specialty is cookie-cutter suburban strip malls.  Those are the places these types of tenants look for in Jacksonville (unfortunately).  Suburban strip malls are a far-cry from the "specialty retail" that The Landing has to offer.  I am skeptical that some of the tenants will be willing to make the transition (i.e. take a chance) to locate at The Landing even if they are guaranteed "X" amounts of parking spots.  

That being said, I think it was great that Sleiman was able to get Chicago Pizza to open up at The Landing, I just don't know if some of the others will follow suit though.  

Way to miss the point.

Quote from: thelakelander on May 22, 2010, 01:28:56 PM
 While all are not ideal for the Landing and downtown, it is an impressive list that shows this company has their foot in the door with many retailers.  Perhaps, they just might know what they are talking about.

I don't think I missed Lake's point, it was taken.  I am well aware that some retailers are better suited for The Landing than others.  I wouldn't remotely expect an Ace Hardware or Office Depot to open up at The Landing, however, a Times Grille or Ale House would be suited for that type of place.  My question is would they?  We are talking about a venue that offer specialty retail - not "regular ole" Jax which retail, which consists primarily of strip malls and faux town centers (STJC).

You do know that Rouse had the same concerns and they developed several urban retail centers.

QuoteUnderground Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia

Harborplace, Baltimore, Maryland

Faneuil Hall, Boston, Massachusetts

Navy Pier, Chicago, Illinois

Aloha Tower Marketplace, Honolulu, Hawaii

Jacksonville Landing, Jacksonville, Florida

The Grove at Farmers Market, Los Angeles, California

Hollywood and Highland, Los Angeles, California

Bayside Marketplace, Miami, Florida

Jackson Brewery, New Orleans, Louisiana

Riverwalk, New Orleans, Louisiana

South Street Seaport, New York City

Waterside, Norfolk, Virginia

Jack London Square, Oakland, California

Arizona Center, Phoenix, Arizona

Station Square, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Westfield Horton Plaza, San Diego, California

Ghirardelli Square, San Francisco, California

Pier 39, San Francisco, California

St. Louis Union Station, St. Louis, Missouri

Union Station (Washington, D.C.), Washington, D.C.

Tower City Center. Cleveland, Ohio

Here is a list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Festival_marketplace

That's a pretty damaging list to the thought that parking issue doesn't have legs to stand on.

Anyway, there's no argument that some chains prefer certain site selection criteria over others.  Nevertheless, most (especially restaurants, which is what the Landing is after) don't care if the site is urban or suburban as long as a market meets their basic site selection criteria.  In most circumstances (unless you have a ton of foot traffic), that includes having adequate dedicated parking.

With that said, I'm more skeptical of a redevelopment plan by novices that ignores basic site selection criteria over listening to experienced companies who recruit retailers on an everyday basis.

Quote from: cline on May 22, 2010, 02:02:23 PM
I don't think I missed Lake's point, it was taken.  I am well aware that some retailers are better suited for The Landing than others.  I wouldn't remotely expect an Ace Hardware or Office Depot to open up at The Landing, however, a Times Grille or Ale House would be suited for that type of place.  My question is would they?  We are talking about a venue that offer specialty retail - not "regular ole" Jax which retail, which consists primarily of strip malls and faux town centers (STJC).

This has less to do with the Landing or Sleiman and more to do with specific chains and their location requirements.  In this case, pick your selected chain and run a search on their site selection criteria.  Another way to get a general idea is to visit their website and look at their location list.  You'll find that some chains have urban locations, some don't and some have a mix.  For example, Times Grill is a new chain and they don't have any while Barnes & Nobles, Steak n Shake and CVS have suburban and urban locations.  Yet, regardless of where they are located, you'll find they're either in areas with significant foot traffic or places with dedicated parking nearby.  

Quote from: cline on May 22, 2010, 01:49:03 PM
There is no arguing that that is an impressive list of tenants.  However, it is easy to attract these types of tenants when your specialty is cookie-cutter suburban strip malls.  Those are the places these types of tenants look for in Jacksonville (unfortunately).  Suburban strip malls are a far-cry from the "specialty retail" that The Landing has to offer.  I am skeptical that some of the tenants will be willing to make the transition (i.e. take a chance) to locate at The Landing even if they are guaranteed "X" amounts of parking spots. 

That being said, I think it was great that Sleiman was able to get Chicago Pizza to open up at The Landing, I just don't know if some of the others will follow suit though. 

There was quite a lot of interest from several big name retailers and restaurants that wanted a Landing location but never committed because of the parking issue.  It's not a Jacksonville issue, it's not a Sleiman issue, it's not a facility issue...it's a parking issue.

Fuddruckers is one of the most visible.  Built out began with a franchisee owner but his business went south and construction stalled.  Corporate would have taken over the project but it didn't meat their parking criteria.

Quote from: cline on May 22, 2010, 02:02:23 PM
I wouldn't remotely expect an Ace Hardware or Office Depot to open up at The Landing, however, a Times Grille or Ale House would be suited for that type of place.  My question is would they?  We are talking about a venue that offer specialty retail - not "regular ole" Jax which retail, which consists primarily of strip malls and faux town centers (STJC).

Above I mentioned actually visiting a selected chain's site and digging up their site selection criteria.  Here is the selection criteria for Times Grill.

Quote
Real Estate Requirements

Preferred Locations

• Neighborhood Shopping Centers
• Mixed Use Properties
• Entertainment Complexes
• Lifestye Centers

Desired Demographics


1 Mile  2 Miles  3 Miles
Population  6,000  10,000  20,000
Population Daytime  10,000  35,000  75,000
Median HH Income  $45,000  $55,000  $55,000


Site Requirements

Size
• Approximately 3,700 to 4,200 sq. ft. freestanding or end cap with 400 to 600 sq. ft. patio

Visibility
• Unrestricted from primary street

Signage
• Two building signs and monumental or pylon sign

Storefront
• 50 ft minimum

Parking
• 20 cars per 1,000 sq ft and 3 dedicated spaces for Times To Go

Electrical
• 600 amp, 3 phase power

HVAC
• 1 ton per 110 sq ft

http://www.timesgrill.com/content/view/37/94/

If I'm Sleiman and trying to pull these guys to the Landing, this tells me...

1. The Landing is a mixed-use/entertainment center = check!

2. A one mile radius around the Landing would include all of DT, plus parts of Brooklyn, Springfield, San Marco and some other neighborhoods.  Three miles pulls in a good chunk of the urban core.  I don't have that number in front of me, but I'm confident it would meet the population requirements listed above.

3. DT has +50k workers, so the daytime population is easily meet.  However, I'm not sure about the median household income numbers.

4. Parking - They would need between 77-87 dedicated spaces.  The Landing has none at this point.

So, it seems like with dedicated parking, the only number that would need to be looked at in detail is household income.

I'm quite certain the household income requirement would be met.  Do a 3 mile reach from the Landing and look how much of downtown, St Nichols, San Marco, Riverside, Avondale and SpringField it consumes.  I bet those areas could offset the lowered income levels of Durkeeville, Lackawana and East Jax.

I decided to estimate some of the demographics Lakelander's post was missing. Unfortunately, I don't have access to data specifically in radial increments. However, zip codes 32202, 32204, 32205, 32206, 32207, and 32209 reasonably approximate a 3-mile radius. It's not perfect, but it's a decent match.

Consequently we have the following table (using 2008 census estimates):
Zip    -    Pop     -  Median Income
32202   5550    $12,400.00
32204   8529    $29,994.00
32205   32976   $43,293.00
32206   23200   $21,496.00
32207   37019   $44,531.00
32209   43490   $27,797.00

So the Landing has a rough 3-mile radius of around 150,700 residents with a median income of $33,400. (Note: for obvious reasons this isn't true median income, but it's the best I know how to do with free data. I suspect the result is fairly accurate.)

Really not trying to be a cheerleader here... but out of Lake's list, Sleiman brought some of these companies INTO Jacksonville.  Not listed above is a national restaurant and a big national retailer that either have a lease option signed or is in the process of building out a location... both new to Jacksonville.  

I'm on one side of this business, and I can say if someone came to me with the same type of demand the Mayor's office has floated(sign an agreement so I can get money from the city)... it would just tell me they have no idea how business works and the conversation would end very quickly.  

I once was part of a group that tried to acquire a very large property to develop(I spent 6 months personally putting together a proposal before we ever went to the property owner)... during negotiations to buy the property word got out that a very large retailer had sent out a scout team to the property next door.  As soon as that got out, the deal went South b/c the property in question tripled in price overnight.  Discretion is of upmost importance in the early stages of many commercial development projects.  

Believe me, you would never know who Walmart's real estate team was if your paths ever crossed.   :)

*Just before someone says it, Walmart has no interest in the Landing lol

Quote from: Jim on May 22, 2010, 02:43:46 PM

Quote from: cline on May 22, 2010, 01:49:03 PM
There is no arguing that that is an impressive list of tenants.  However, it is easy to attract these types of tenants when your specialty is cookie-cutter suburban strip malls.  Those are the places these types of tenants look for in Jacksonville (unfortunately).  Suburban strip malls are a far-cry from the "specialty retail" that The Landing has to offer.  I am skeptical that some of the tenants will be willing to make the transition (i.e. take a chance) to locate at The Landing even if they are guaranteed "X" amounts of parking spots.  

That being said, I think it was great that Sleiman was able to get Chicago Pizza to open up at The Landing, I just don't know if some of the others will follow suit though.  

There was quite a lot of interest from several big name retailers and restaurants that wanted a Landing location but never committed because of the parking issue.  It's not a Jacksonville issue, it's not a Sleiman issue, it's not a facility issue...it's a parking issue.

Fuddruckers is one of the most visible.  Built out began with a franchisee owner but his business went south and construction stalled.  Corporate would have taken over the project but it didn't meat their parking criteria.

It wasn't a franchisee problem with Fuddruckers.  It was that the parent company (Magic Brands LLC) went bankrupt.  

Quote4. Parking - They would need between 77-87 dedicated spaces.  The Landing has none at this point.

Aren't there around 300 spots dedicated to The Landing in the current adjacent parking lot?

They didn't file for Chapter 11 until last month.   The problem I'm speaking off took place almost 2 years ago.

EDIT:
But those are COJ owned and the Landing can't dedicate 80 as dedicated solely to Times Grill.

Quote from: ClineYes, but I believe the initial delays were caused by corporate having money problems.

At any rate, I guess another question would be (and this may be a whole other topic) if COJ was to give The Landing its parking, how would it ensure that 70-80 spots in the new lot were dedicated solely to Times Grill, for instance.  How would they enforce that?  The spots in the new lot wouldn't be any more "dedicated" than the spots in the existing lot.

No more than it can be enforced with any strip mall, entertainment complex, regional mall, etc...   But you'd have the volume of spaces to ensure than each tenant has X amount of available spaces.

Say you have 100 spaces total and you're looking a a chain that wants 80 but you already have a few smaller tenants who are "allocated" 30 total between them.  So even though you have 100 total, you'd only have 70 that could be "allocated" from your pool of spaces to the new chain.

While the Landing may have 300 right now (and city owned at that), it's very likely that all 300 are accounted for.  Possibly even twice over.

I accidentally deleted my post (quoted below) that you were referring to while trying to modify it.  Sorry about that.

QuoteYes, but I believe the initial delays were caused by corporate having money problems.

At any rate, I guess another question would be (and this may be a whole other topic) if COJ was to give The Landing its parking, how would it ensure that 70-80 spots in the new lot were dedicated solely to Times Grill, for instance.  How would they enforce that?  The spots in the new lot wouldn't be any more "dedicated" than the spots in the existing lot.

^Probably the same way every other retail center (SJTC, Regency, Avenues, etc.) has a certain number of spaces set aside per square foot that they are trying to lease.  The 300 spaces now, are there for the existing tenants.  Even with 300 additional spaces (bringing the total up to 600), what can take place at the Landing is going to be limited compared to the grand redevelopment Sleiman proposed when he first purchased the center.  

I think we all can agree that a more vibrant Landing would be a great thing for downtown.  With additional dedicated parking, the center would have a much better chance at upgrading tenant mix within the existing structure and give the city the opportunity to collect rental income on prime waterfront property.  At some point, when the market comes back and another administration is in city hall, that same lot could accommodate additional retail development and a multilevel garage.  

Quote from: Jim on May 22, 2010, 04:30:08 PM
While the Landing may have 300 right now (and city owned at that), it's very likely that all 300 are accounted for.  Possibly even twice over.

Sleiman owns the East lot now.  However, the Landing has 600 less spaces than it had a decade ago.  When the Adams Mark came to town, the city gave them the Daniel Building's spaces.  I think we can all agree that the tenant mix hasn't been the same.

Correct... the parking garage at Adams Mark was originally earmarked for the Landing.

You know, its funny... take a look at the City of Jacksonville Beach.  They begged people to redevelop the center of Jax Beach for the better part of two decades.  When they began to work with Sleiman Enterprises, things got done. 

Jax Beach wanted revitilization and they got it.  Kinda makes you wonder if Jacksonville really wants a better downtown?

QuoteDowntown must have consistent, energized and ambitious civic, business and government leadership with a shared vision, greater ambition and a willingness to consider new ways of thinking about Downtown. We have often sold ourselves short, adopting a “get by” attitude toward Downtown’s revitalization and many other aspects of our city.

-Turning the Corner: Rethinking Downtown

It really seems like many want downtown redevelopment, as long as Sleiman isn't a part of the process. Bring Ben Carter downtown and I'd bet he'd get his dedicated parking with no debate.

Absolutely!  Great point about Ben Carter!!

Meanwhile.... a once proud downtown crumbles into obscurity.

I can understand the misconceptions people have about commercial development b/c they don't understand how the business works.  Heck, I have no idea about farming so I couldn't logically speak to the trials and tribulations of the agricultural industry.  My grandfather had a farm growing up, but the only thing I knew about farming was that 1) he did it 2) he taught me how to drive a tractor 3) he taught me that I didnt want to do it for a living and 4) his pigs, cows and oranges sure were tasty.

You can't just go putting out potential tenants name in the paper if you don't even have at the least a lease-option signed.  Even then, you don't publicly spout off names.  So to go to a realtor/restaurant and say 'sign this and I'll betcha we can get you what you want from the guvment'... well, that's just not how business is done.

Also, to the point that people are worried that Sleiman just wants the parking lot to resell it in the future... well, it just isn't common for a company like Sleiman Enterprises or Regency(or others) to buy land, develop the land, sign tenants, and then sell off the property.  Over the last few years, people have been selling some properties but this is mainly due to a bad economy and the company needing the immediate cash b/c their credit lines have been eliminated or signficantly reduced.  Commercial development is usually a long term investment... not unlike the reason you would buy a mutual fund that focuses on dividend earnings.  You usually don't buy something for the dividends it would pay you over the next 10-20 years, just to sell it a year later.  You want the recurring income over the years.

Why ruin our Holiday with this. :),,jus kidding. Wake me when the nightmare is ova.

Quote from: stephendare on May 31, 2010, 03:52:18 PMIn addition, Peyton said...that adding parking would detract from the goal of making Downtown more viable as a walkable, vibrant urban environment.

Making Downtown a more pedestrian friendly and walkable environment was one of Peyton’s earlier talking points in the presentation to more than 80 members of the civic organization.

Is he intentionally patronizing this city? 

I am not following that one. Would detract? The only detracting from the goal of the city becoming a walkable, vibrant, and urban environment is the COJ itself.

Quote from: stephendare on May 31, 2010, 03:52:18 PM
In addition, Peyton said he believes the Landing has sufficient parking in and around the area and that adding parking would detract from the goal of making Downtown more viable as a walkable, vibrant urban environment.

“I don’t accept parking as the problem,” said Peyton.

can't say I disagree

Quote from: Keith-N-Jax on May 31, 2010, 07:47:30 PM
I am not following that one. Would detract? The only detracting from the goal of the city becoming a walkable, vibrant, and urban environment is the COJ itself.

it is quite simple really....the provision of more parking (especially when subsidized) makes it all the easier for people to continue to drive.

But when those spaces are required to attract business in the first place...well, car before the cart in this case.

You don't get people without businesses.  So the only way to get the ball rolling is to get outside people inside...that means cars and parking.  And after 23 years, someone needs to get off their ass, fulfill the obligation and then they can carry on about walkability and urban vibrancy.

This is what happens when you have novices telling the retail industry what it needs to be successful. If anyone wonders why our DT can't turn the corner despite billions invested, the Landing situation is a great example why. Hopefully the council will step up and override this guy.

Quote from: stephendare on May 31, 2010, 09:22:00 PM

Quote from: tufsu1 on May 31, 2010, 09:19:36 PM

Quote from: Keith-N-Jax on May 31, 2010, 07:47:30 PM
I am not following that one. Would detract? The only detracting from the goal of the city becoming a walkable, vibrant, and urban environment is the COJ itself.

it is quite simple really....the provision of more parking (especially when subsidized) makes it all the easier for people to continue to drive.

Cart before the horse.  People still have to drive to the downtown in order for it to have enough numbers to be vibrant.  The narcoleptic planning department over at JTA has already decided for downtown that nothing useful in the way of mass transit is available for outlying areas is available.

fine by me...as long as we all realize that more (and/or low cost) parking will make it harder for existing and future transit services to succeed.

But you must understand that without businesses and the people they attract...mass transit is an empty facility.

Indeed it is a bit of a catch-22.   But the goal is garner a valid reason to get people downtown.  If at first they travel by car, they see how great DT is, the core population grows and mass transit gains traction...as it were.

Keep in mind, they don't need more parking, just dedicated parking. The only people trying to add to the parking supply is Peyton and the JEDC.

Mass transit really has nothing to do with this particular issue. It's just a curve ball that keeps us from dealing with the actual problem.

Exactly, lakelander, Sleiman wants to take existing parking and dedicate it to the Landing. The JEDC and Peyton are the ones insisting on a new parking garage - which would probably have to be subsidized because there isn't demand for another 600 spaces DT.  So, Peyton is arguing with himself.

Quote from: thelakelander on May 31, 2010, 09:59:11 PM
Keep in mind, they don't need more parking, just dedicated parking. The only people trying to add to the parking supply is Peyton and the JEDC.

Absolutely!  Peyton wants Sleiman to build another parking garage... which this city needs like another vacant lot DT.  All the Landing needs is dedicated parking for national tenants.  Something that Rouse also wanted 23 years ago. 

This is really a case of Alice in Wonderland verses the real world. One side has a track record of downtown failures and the other is a retail industry powerhouse. What would make anyone believe the JEDC knows what they are talking about? Whatever it is must be laced with extra ingredients.

Maybe if streetcars ran by the Landing from Riverside to Springfield and the stadium, we wouldn't need to discuss parking at all.  ;)

The place would still need dedicated parking to land anchor retailers. Mass transit won't help this issue anytime soon.

Quote from: stjr on May 31, 2010, 10:32:34 PM
Maybe if streetcars ran by the Landing from Riverside to Springfield and the stadium, we wouldn't need to discuss parking at all.  ;)

For you, I and the other 2,300 members here, that's a grand idea.  But for national retailers and restaurants...they have other requirements that don't exactly mesh with our urban ideologies.

+1

All this back and forth is making me dizzy. Gotta be more to this than just parking. City seems to be against the one and only true destination DT. Are we missing something here?

Politics and bad blood.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Interesting snipet from the Daily Record

QuoteRegarding the Landing, the Council Auditor’s Office offered a 14-point amendment to the legislation. Landing attorney Mitch Legler agreed to a majority of it. According to Legler, he agrees with the substance of the auditor’s recommendations and only disagrees with minor verbiage.

The only real issue seemed to be the potential sale of the land on which Sleiman intends to build a surface lot. If Sleiman decides to construct a vertical parking structure, he must find temporary parking for up to 36 months. If he sells the land, the City gets repaid with interest that will be the prime rate plus 1 percent.

http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=531135 (http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=531135)

^That would only make sense if the lot is sold separately from the rest of the Landing complex.  If Sleiman sells the entire center to another retail company, the parking lot will still be needed for the Landing's tenants.

Thank God. Let's get something done. The council has approved. peyton will veto, then the council will override and we will live happily ever after.

Quote from: duvaldude08 on June 02, 2010, 11:46:49 AM
Thank God. Let's get something done. The council has approved. peyton will veto, then the council will override and we will live happily ever after.

I agree, why cant they just get it over with, they need a parking garage so build it.

Less than a week to go!

(http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/articles/06_03_10/8a.jpg)

That's not the lot.  i believe it is the lot across Hogan from this one.  The one behind the Wachovia building.  I could be wrong, but I think that's the one.

You're right.  Its the lot behind the Wachovia.  Neither Sleiman or the city owns Kuhn's old parcel.

That's just the pic from today's Daily Record... just used it for effect. :)

Quote from: fieldafm on May 31, 2010, 10:19:31 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on May 31, 2010, 09:59:11 PM
Keep in mind, they don't need more parking, just dedicated parking. The only people trying to add to the parking supply is Peyton and the JEDC.

Absolutely!  Peyton wants Sleiman to build another parking garage... which this city needs like another vacant lot DT.  All the Landing needs is dedicated parking for national tenants.  Something that Rouse also wanted 23 years ago. 

..........and the city agreed to do.

The Jacksonville city government cannot be trusted. The police, firemen and storm water fee payers will probably agree.

Overstreet.............in a short word......your right!

Progress has finally been made.  Council passed the Landing parking bill tonight.  Now the ball is in the Mayor's court.  Will he attempt to veto?

According to First Coast News, hizzoners office will veto - but the bill passed 17-0, enough to override, if nobody flips

How many council votes are needed to override a veto?

QuoteSection 6.05 Municipal Code
Any resolution or ordinance so disapproved by the mayor shall become effective only if, subsequent to its return, it shall be adopted by two-thirds of all the members of the council present at any meeting

Two-thirds of 19 would be ... 13 votes (could be 12 if 18 are present)

Quote from: Charles Hunter on June 08, 2010, 11:18:12 PM
According to First Coast News, hizzoners office will veto - but the bill passed 17-0, enough to override, if nobody flips

well that's good, shows they realize it is time to finally honor the promise made decades ago.

The you have the mayor thinking Met Park is worth the renovations, but when you compare the Jazz fest's 3s from then to where it is now, it'd be a nobrainer!

On FCN last night, Sleiman said with the extra dedicated parking, he estimates he things will look different for the Landing in six months. 

Time will tell,,will see.

Quote from: thelakelander on June 09, 2010, 06:19:00 AM
On FCN last night, Sleiman said with the extra dedicated parking, he estimates he things will look different for the Landing in six months. 

I'll be waiting with baited breath

well, if Sleiman gets his parking....he better land something BIG at the Landing. Keeping fingers crossed.

LOL. Look on the bright side. Everyone will have every opportunity to rub his face in the mud if he can't deliver.

I know....but I want him to succeed. So I am rooting for him and the Landing.

I am pulling for the Landing to capitalize on this.  Wouldn't it be great if Tony already has something up his sleeve.

There shouldn't be a single soul on this MB that doesn't want to the Landing or anything for that matter to succeed Downtown.

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/local/news-article.aspx?storyid=157171&catid=3

If this goes through, this will cause a lot more pedestrian traffic to use the Hogan street entrance.  I hope Sleiman improves that entrance and opens it up more towards Hogan Street.  This could give more reason for the city to develop the park that MJ has been advocating.  Good things good things.

From the First Coast news article:

Quote"Parking will do it. In mid-July, I'm going up to New England. I've got appointments with a couple of chains up there talking about coming to Jacksonville," Sleiman said of his plans, adding that he hopes to have the lot secured in about six months.

Let's start the guessing....maybe Legal Sea Food?

Peyton's method's just bother me. I am so glad this is his last year in office and hopefully we dont make another 8 years mistake at election time. He says he's for downtown, but he goes against everything that anyone is trying to do. If it's not part of his agenda, peyton wants nothing to with it. Peyton is not interested in whats best for the city, he's only interested in what he wants.

Never heard of it, are they any good?

Never tried them but they have a ton of locations in the NE and only one in Florida.

(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-7893-p1120147.JPG)

www.legalseafoods.com/Restaurants

I'd definitely be okay with a Legal Seafood. Of course if he could convince Giacomo's from Boston to open up down here I'd be forever grateful.

I went to a Legal Seafood in Atlanta. It was real good, though you did need to spend a little more cash than you would at St. Johns Seafood.

Still getting over celebratory parties last night...


Legal Seafood is a pretty good seafood chain(as chains go)... similar price points as a Mitchells Fish Market.  Legal Seafood actually sells a cookbook with their recipes too.

I wouldn't get too wrapped up in speculating about Legal Seafood as a potential tenant though.

Littlepage gets it.

QuoteIn another unanimous vote, the council took the final step in ending a dispute that has lasted for more than 20 years - how to meet the city's obligation to provide parking for the Jacksonville Landing.

The Landing's owner, Toney Sleiman, has been arguing ever since he bought the downtown landmark that he needed the promised parking to attract the nationally known restaurant and entertainment chains that would bring customers to the Landing and make it a success.

With this deal, Sleiman gets $3.5 million from the city to purchase a surface lot at the corner of Bay and Hogan streets. The 300 parking spaces there will do the trick, Sleiman says.

Now that the city's parking obligation is met, the burden is on Sleiman to perform.

After the vote, he told me he was meeting next month with a nationally known brewery about putting a brew pub in the Landing.

For downtown to succeed, the Landing needs to succeed and that would be a step in the right direction.

http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/401026/ron-littlepage/2010-06-09/economy-should-benefit-city-council-action

The city Council was not business as usual yesterday Kudos.

Ohhhh...maybe a Gordon Biersch! that would be fun.

Wow Mr. Littlepage I'm shocked.

Quote from: fsujax on June 10, 2010, 07:54:13 AM
Ohhhh...maybe a Gordon Biersch! that would be fun.

you mean like 7 Bridges, Ragtime, or A1A AleWorks (all owned by Gordon Biersch)?

yes. GB we do not have. The Landing needs someting the SJTC doesn't have.

Im glad its finally resovled after 23 years. I think it could have been resovled a long time ago, but I dont think the Landing's previous owner really made an uproar about it like sleimen. Way to go  :D

BTW, in Abel Harding's latest musings in the Times Union today....

QuoteBarton said the recent approval of the Landing parking lot purchase took $3 million of the $8 million allocated for the first phase of rennovations at Metropolitan Park.

"I'm reminded of Joni Mitchell," Barton said, referring to Mitchell's "Big Yellow Taxi", which speaks of a parking lot.



The Landing, with a unanimous vote of the City Council behind them supporting the parking plan, would no doubt beg to disagree.

Talk about the freaking pot calling the kettle black!!!

I went to Kids Kampus today at 11:30am.  There was a mother and her son, and that was it.  I realize not all schools are out yet... but, just out of curiousity Im going to drive back next Thursday at lunchtime and see if there are even less people than the mother/son combo from today.  If I could place a bet in Vegas, Im taking the under  ;).

I wonder "paradise" Barton is referring to?

I'd really like to know what the obession is over turning kids kampus into flex space and how would such an investment positively impact the downtown core.

Makes me wonder if Sleiman will try and go after a Margaritaville. Just a thought.

Quote from: thelakelander on June 10, 2010, 03:17:16 PM
I'd really like to know what the obsession is over turning kids campus into flex space and how would such an investment positively impact the downtown core.

And I'm pretty sure Peyton has no logical explanation for it aside from that fact that he wants to do it. I am 28 years old and I have been to metro park 3 times in my life. Once for a concert when I was 12, once on a field trip, and once 2 years ago for the Longshore Association picnic. I'm sure I'm not the only that has visited there on a limited basis.

duvaldude:

Was it a field trip to MOSH?  That's the only time I ever went there...think it was third grade, and I'm 29 now. 

The idea that the Peyton regime is almost over makes my inner child happy.  Ding dong the witch is dead (almost).

Quote from: fieldafm on June 10, 2010, 02:56:46 PM
I went to Kids Kampus today at 11:30am.  There was a mother and her son, and that was it.  I realize not all schools are out yet... but, just out of curiousity Im going to drive back next Thursday at lunchtime and see if there are even less people than the mother/son combo from today.  If I could place a bet in Vegas, Im taking the under  ;).

Since they turned off the water features last month (in anticipation of redevelopment), you're probably right.

Quote from: tufsu1 on June 10, 2010, 05:12:27 PM

Quote from: fieldafm on June 10, 2010, 02:56:46 PM
I went to Kids Kampus today at 11:30am.  There was a mother and her son, and that was it.  I realize not all schools are out yet... but, just out of curiousity Im going to drive back next Thursday at lunchtime and see if there are even less people than the mother/son combo from today.  If I could place a bet in Vegas, Im taking the under  ;).

Since they turned off the water features last month (in anticipation of redevelopment), you're probably right.

I would counter that even when the water features were working, Kids Kampus didn't do justice to the term 'underutilized'.

Quote from: kells904 on June 10, 2010, 04:53:22 PM
duvaldude:

Was it a field trip to MOSH?  That's the only time I ever went there...think it was third grade, and I'm 29 now.  

The idea that the Peyton regime is almost over makes my inner child happy.  Ding dong the witch is dead (almost).

Yes. somebody please drop a house on him now (ding dong the wicked witch is dead) It really sad that we have lost  8 years of progress dealing with Peyton's foolishness. Now his last year in office he wants to make look like he's doing something. NOTHING in regards to this city has changed since Peyton took office (until recently). Im sure Nat Glover would not have been perfect, as no one is, but I think we'd be further ahead if he had won versus Peyton. Hopefully we make the right decision this time.

When are they going to the Friendship fountains renovations? I work over at prudential and I looked out the window one day and the fountain was off. I got excited, but then a day later they were back on.

Hopefully they get the parking, it can't hurt. 

I think what downtown needs is some serious bum control.  Ordinances against begging, sleeping on benches, loitering.... and actually ENFORCE them.  I know it doesn't make money but maybe focus on getting rid of the riff-raff more and handing out parking tickets less. 

Perhaps the mayor's 8 years of do-nothingness has mobilized the voters to actually start paying attention?

The security downtown will come when there's a more significant presence there to protect.  And I'm willing to bet the homeless problem will reduce itself a little because some of them don't wanna be seen, so the heightened security I think would be on the way would have fewer urban outdoorsmen to shoo.  Best of luck to Mr. Sleiman to make this all work.

I haven't had the time to read this thread in a while, nor keep up with the issue. So has the opportunity for the mayor to veto come and gone or is the parking issue in the clear now?

As I understand it the bill assed and was sent to the Mayor. He can sign it or veto it or do nothing and it becomes law after 30 days without his signature.

Knowing Johnny and his penchant for pet projects, more than likely he will do nothing! Then it will become effective after 30 days ................so either way I think Toney will come out ahead.....or atleast I think so!

The Mayor just Vetoed the Landing Parking bill.

Quote from: dganson on June 22, 2010, 04:40:51 PM
The Mayor just Vetoed the Landing Parking bill.

Oh, good Lord.

Horrible.  I guess we shouldn't be so surprised of his shortsightedness.

I hope the delay was not to get some of the council to turn.

I'm still waiting for one of the local media outlets to put something about it on their website

Nice kudos to the council.

That cheers me up.

John, let this be a sign, you're not always right, if ever.

Peyton needs the money to pay for the 200,000 here and there he and his idiot staff have to pay for 8 years of mistakes. Why would you pay for road construction that cannot be used. All of those people still have their jobs, so they can be around to make the same mistakes again. Procurement, Public Works, HR, where does the inept mayor look for a bright spot?

A Johnny Boy beat down leaves the ball in Toney's court.  So Mr. Sleiman show us whatcha got.

THANK YOU JESUS. The man upstairs heard my prayers. Take that Johnny boy!!!

I believe Peyton had some sincere and legitimate concerns about this project.  Time will tell if they were well founded.  Remember, he turned out to be right about Trail Ridge and last year's budget, both overruled/grandstanded by the all knowing City Council succumbing to popular demand.

We need to keep in mind that Peyton is (a) lame duck, (b) professes no desire to further seek political office and (c) is not really beholden to anyone for his next paycheck.  As such, while he has made some mistakes, particularly in his more inexperienced early years, and his judgment may be off the mark occasionally (no one bats a 1,000), at this point I am more willing to give his views greater credibility.  What motivation does he have to not recommend what he sincerely believes is in the City's best interest versus a political hack on the City Council or in the mayor's race for 2011.  He certainly could not have stepped up to be a mayor at a more difficult time for the City given the economy and manipulations by the State legislature of City revenues and expenses.

More tough choices are to follow once again when the budget comes up.  We will see who has realistic answers to please everyone on that with the backbone to stand up for them.

QuoteWhat motivation does he have to not recommend what he sincerely believes is in the City's best interest versus a political hack on the City Council or in the mayor's race for 2011.

.... a decades long family feud.

Quote from: fieldafm on June 22, 2010, 10:37:24 PM
.... a decades long family feud.

And, what would that be?  Give us the juicy details.

Quote from: stjr on June 22, 2010, 10:32:04 PM
I believe Peyton had some sincere and legitimate concerns about this project.  Time will tell if they were well founded.  Remember, he turned out to be right about Trail Ridge and last year's budget, both overruled/grandstanded by the all knowing City Council succumbing to popular demand.

it pains me to say this stjr....but on this we agree

Quote from: tufsu1 on June 22, 2010, 10:48:19 PM
it pains me to say this stjr....but on this we agree

Tufsu, if you are so pained, I have the cure for you:  JTA and FDOT issues  ;D

Actually, aside from that, I think you will find we see other issues in similar lights more often than not.  Maybe I need to make more of an effort to identify them for you.  ;)

Well we'll see.  The council finally resolved a 23-year-old issue that has plagued this retail center since the Landing's day one opening.  Half of Peyton's veto points made no sense (in terms of resolving the dedicated parking issue) and the Council put in safe guards to protect the city's interest.  Now the ball is in Sleiman's court to deliver.  A year from now, we'll know who was right and who was wrong.

Quote from: thelakelander on June 22, 2010, 11:02:30 PM
Now the ball is in Sleiman's court to deliver.  A year from now, we'll know who was right and who was wrong.

My guess is Sleiman comes out a winner either way.  Property on the cheap, if Peyton is right, and a home run for the Landing (which he also bought on the cheap) if it gets him a full house of tenants.

And, who will remember which City Council names to hold accountable should Peyton be right?  Most in town don't even know their names.

It's not about Sleiman being a winner or a loser.  The hope is that DT wins by living up to a decades old promise that could possible strengthen its premier attraction and better integrate it with the DT core.  My hope is that he is highly successful because that means DT benefits as well.  Imo, this is a prime example of working to better utilize existing assets.

With this finally taken care of, maybe the city can focus on a plan to modify some of the toxic public policies that hold DT back and work to better integrate the office tower retail spaces with the public streets surrounding them.

Quote from: thelakelander on June 22, 2010, 11:13:27 PM
With this finally taken care of, maybe the city can focus on a plan to modify some of the toxic public policies that hold DT back and work to better integrate the office tower retail spaces with the public streets surrounding them.

The issue has been beaten to death.  The 'merits' of Peyton's veto have been proven incorrect on this site.  Lake's statement is something we all need to latch on to going forward.  Productive policy change can happen if we all get involved!

Quote from: stjr on June 22, 2010, 10:47:47 PM

Quote from: fieldafm on June 22, 2010, 10:37:24 PM
.... a decades long family feud.

And, what would that be?  Give us the juicy details.

Honestly, its unproductive to go into it.  This round, Peyton lost and now maybe WE as a community will all win b/c of it.

I hope that Sleiman can now deliver on attracting a national tenant.

Quote from: stephendare on June 23, 2010, 09:00:19 AM
Trail Ridge is a terrible example, incidentally.  They made out with a potential billion dollar profit off of energy generation, and not one of our knuckleheads did a thing about it.

That's actually a very good point.

So does this mean the plans of "opening" up the Landing to Water Street is still in the can? *that was Water St. they were talking about opening the building structure to, right?*

Quote from: comncense on June 23, 2010, 09:38:48 AM
So does this mean the plans of "opening" up the Landing to Water Street is still in the can? *that was Water St. they were talking about opening the building structure to, right?*

Yes. From the last thing I remember He promised renovations if the city would provide him the 3.5 million for parking.

Quote from: duvaldude08 on June 23, 2010, 09:40:56 AM

Quote from: comncense on June 23, 2010, 09:38:48 AM
So does this mean the plans of "opening" up the Landing to Water Street is still in the can? *that was Water St. they were talking about opening the building structure to, right?*

Yes. From the last thing I remember He promised renovations if the city would provide him the 3.5 million for parking.

I think common is asking about opening the courtyard to Water.  I may be wrong.  That is not on the table right now.  Sleiman is interested in getting storefronts to address Water and some patio seating where Andrew Jackson currently sits.

Ahh ok. Yup that's what I was referring to Zissou.

So hopefully this isn't too off-topic, but the parking lot north of the Omni is what we're dealing with here, yes?  That said, are the Omni and that other tower with which it shares a lobby going to have to 'open up' to the foot traffic that will (hopefully) be generated through there for people to get from the parking lot to the Landing?

Having that parking lot and garage so close to a Skyway stop (albeit not connected) will eventually help boost ridership there, no?

Or am I thinking of the wrong lot?

Its the lot OPPOSITE this one

(http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/articles/06_03_10/8a.jpg)


Couple of points... Sleiman does have skin in the game(he is putting up something over $2mm in cash to purchase the lot) and the city does have a safeguard in place if the lot is sold in the future(interest is paid back at prime plus 1%).

Doc, yes the Omni would be really wise to face their street level restaurants outside.

Duval, a total reconfiguration of the building was cognizant on being able to buy the land UNDER the building.  That being said, once the Andrew Jackson Statue is removed... outdoor seating will hopefully soon follow.

Thanks field.

I wonder why they couldn't just agree on that lot in your picture.  Would've been that much closer.  Could've even used part of the parking deck under that one building-that-never-got-built-but-still-could-one-day on that parcel.

^A third party owns the lot in the picture, meaning a realistic deal involving that lot would have cost significantly more to only achieve the same thing.

...and now I know!

"And knowing is half the battle..."

Quote from: stephendare on June 23, 2010, 09:00:19 AM
Trail Ridge is a terrible example, incidentally.  They made out with a potential billion dollar profit off of energy generation, and not one of our knuckleheads did a thing about it.

that's because the City would have lost its shirt in a lawsuit...and, after losing out on the first "good" deal offered by WMI, they finally figured it out!

This is the lot in question.

(http://i439.photobucket.com/albums/qq113/mgeary77/Landingparkinglot.jpg)

We must not forget that Sleiman is sly.  He is very manipulative in just about all of his deals, and he is the one responsible for half of our awful strip centers we so despise.  I am giving Mayor Peyton the benefit of the doubt on this because while Peyton is certainly not a great mayor and very shortsighted with vision, he is shrewd with business/money and he may know something that we do not.  Regardless, I would more than love to see the Landing have parking and be opened up just the like the rest of us.

Subro, that's the wrong lot.  It's the surface lot between the Omni and the skyway station on the corner of Hogan and Bay.

Quote from: simms3 on June 23, 2010, 10:47:34 AM
We must not forget that Sleiman is sly.  He is very manipulative in just about all of his deals, and he is the one responsible for half of our awful strip centers we so despise.  I am giving Mayor Peyton the benefit of the doubt on this because while Peyton is certainly not a great mayor and very shortsighted with vision, he is shrewd with business/money and he may know something that we do not.  Regardless, I would more than love to see the Landing have parking and be opened up just the like the rest of us.

Regardless of what people may think about Sleiman personally, his company is a successful retail developer and the people running the city are novices in this specific area.  The same thing Sleiman has been begging for is the same exact thing Rouse (another successful retail developer at one point) claimed the center needed.  So this is much larger than Sleiman.  This is retail 101.  To a degree, I think people's personal attitudes of those that that don't run in their social circles is one of the significant issues holding this city back.

Quote from: thelakelander on June 23, 2010, 10:49:01 AM
Subro, that's the wrong lot.  It's the surface lot between the Omni and the skyway station on the corner of Hogan and Bay.

Thanks for clarifying. So it's this lot:

(http://i439.photobucket.com/albums/qq113/mgeary77/Landingparkinglot2-1.jpg)

Quote from: thelakelander on June 23, 2010, 10:49:01 AM
Subro, that's the wrong lot.  It's the surface lot between the Omni and the skyway station on the corner of Hogan and Bay.

But that is a privately owned lot, isn't it? They charge people like 5 bucks a day to park there.

I take it back. Its not 5 bucks a day...its 10 bucks a day! Thats what the sign says..

This makes me very happy... now lets get moving on the trio and bank hotel. This would shut me up for a couple of months. lol

Quote from: jbroadglide on June 23, 2010, 11:09:25 AM
I take it back. Its not 5 bucks a day...its 10 bucks a day! Thats what the sign says..

Correct.  Sleiman is purchasing the lot from its current owner.

And I don't know how recently this has been enacted, but the 'traditional' Landing parking lot on the other side of the M.S.B. now has a $5.00 flat rate after 4:00pm.  Noticed that last night.

Wonder if that'll be the same in the new lot once it all gets wrapped up.

Quote from: Doctor_K on June 23, 2010, 11:59:35 AM
And I don't know how recently this has been enacted, but the 'traditional' Landing parking lot on the other side of the M.S.B. now has a $5.00 flat rate after 4:00pm.  Noticed that last night.

Wonder if that'll be the same in the new lot once it all gets wrapped up.

I would hope that that 5.00 price would go down once the new parking lot is in order. Hopefully they are both a flat $2.00 or something like that.

don't count on it...rght now Sleiman has an agreement to market the Omni lot for Landing parking....there are even signs to that effect on weekends....and they still charge $5

That sucks. sometimes its best to park at a meter at night and just walk two blocks. Im not paying 5.00 if Im only gonna be out there for 30 minutes. But If I plan on spending a couple of hours out there, then the 5.00 thing isnt bad and you probably come out about the same if you were getting charged per hour. (give or take)

I would never park in one of those lots on the weekend or at night, when i can park for free on the street. What trips me out is during Jaguar season I see people paying $10-$20 to park in a lot near Washington St, Adams St area, etc. and then I park on the street right in front of the lot for free at a meter. It just amazes me.

Parking's free at night too?  Huh...

When do things get started, now that this is a done deal?

after 6pm every night!

Quote from: fsujax on June 23, 2010, 12:38:47 PM
after 6pm every night!

and the little known secret is the parking folks leave work around 5pm...so usually you can get away free after then

Touche.

I meant regarding the newly-acquired parking lot and tangible progress regarding the Landing itself.

Does the Landing have a parking validation program?

Certain restaurants do, yes.

really...which ones?

I ask because it is not advertised/pomoted anywhere at the Landing

http://www.jacksonvillelanding.com/directions-parking

Koja and Bennys used to... maybe they don't anymore.  

Also, part of the money in this particular bill will go for a parking validation program.  Something like $2.2 million over 20 years.

So has Sleiman made any statements since the latest news?

Quote from: comncense on June 28, 2010, 11:32:25 AM
So has Sleiman made any statements since the latest news?

I heard from one of his employees that he plans to re-paint the building soon

On a side note, the roundabout will open (at least partially) this week

I think the Landing needs more than paint these days

I wish they'd go through with opening the view of the courtyard to Water Street. It would be nice to be able to see the "going on's" from outside of the building area. It probably would draw more people into the Landing I'd think. I'd like to see them bring in other types of bands other than the country and Southern Rock bands they usually have playing there. If anyone has ever been to Vegas, I'd like to see the Landing's courtyard area turn into something like Carnival Court outside of Harrah's Casino

Quote from: comncense on June 29, 2010, 09:22:10 AM
If anyone has ever been to Vegas, I'd like to see the Landing's courtyard area turn into something like Carnival Court outside of Harrah's Casino

Without the con artists selling timeshares.

Quote from: copperfiend on June 29, 2010, 09:33:34 AM

Quote from: comncense on June 29, 2010, 09:22:10 AM
If anyone has ever been to Vegas, I'd like to see the Landing's courtyard area turn into something like Carnival Court outside of Harrah's Casino

Without the con artists selling timeshares.

That's a pretty general statement... I don't think I've ever come across anyone selling timeshares during all of my visits to Vegas.

I went to Vegas once, and came back married to a Franciscan Nun!

Not bad for a long haired, noble fared, maggot infested, drug crazed, leaping gnome, hippie freak!

TRUE!


OCKLAWAHA

Is that a for real story, Ock ? ;)

Quote from: comncense on June 30, 2010, 10:39:14 PM

Quote from: copperfiend on June 29, 2010, 09:33:34 AM

Quote from: comncense on June 29, 2010, 09:22:10 AM
If anyone has ever been to Vegas, I'd like to see the Landing's courtyard area turn into something like Carnival Court outside of Harrah's Casino

Without the con artists selling timeshares.

That's a pretty general statement... I don't think I've ever come across anyone selling timeshares during all of my visits to Vegas.

Did you leave your hotel? Did you also not come across guys that don't speak English handing out business cards for call girls.

^ How does the hustle guys on the sidewalk handing out tickets and strip club cards equal vacation time shares though? And yes, I'm a very frequent Vegas traveler. I just said, I've never encountered anyone trying to sell me a time share. I'd probably say my chances are higher getting that in Orlando than in Vegas.

I suppose prostitutes could be construed as a form of time share.

I'm always glad to help!

Quote from: buckethead on July 02, 2010, 08:51:13 AM
I suppose prostitutes could be construed as a form of time share.

I'm always glad to help!

ROFL.

And it's worth the lunch and the sales pitch!

Quote from: thelakelander on May 17, 2010, 10:06:08 PM

QuoteIn addition to the $3.5 million payment, the city would also agree to give Sleiman’s company $2.5 million for parking validations when people shop or eat at the Landing over the next 20 years.

Also, what's the negative in validating parking for people who shop and eat at the center?  Are we afraid that such moves may actually make the center vibrant with retail shops and restaurants, thus discrediting the need for meters in general?

Yes. We can't change anything, because if doing something different works, that's an admission that we were wrong before! And we can't have that!

actually the problem is in having the City reimburse the Landing for discounted parking....since Sleiman owns 1 lot now and will be purchasing the other soon (with City money) he can do whatever he wants with parking costs....there will be no need for additional public subsidy for those lots.

Quote from: tufsu1 on July 12, 2010, 11:17:07 AM
actually the problem is in having the City reimburse the Landing for discounted parking....since Sleiman owns 1 lot now and will be purchasing the other soon (with City money) he can do whatever he wants with parking costs....there will be no need for additional public subsidy for those lots.

Good point, but I still think there's a lot of "We're not going to fix this because don't want to embarrass ourselves by admitting we were doing it wrong before" mentality involved.

This is good. Getting jumped in front of the Landing at 7:30 on a Monday. Where is the police presence downtown?

Man beaten in front of The Jacksonville Landing, 1 attacker taunting him because he was 'old'

Source URL: http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2010-08-18/story/man-beaten-front-jacksonville-landing-one-attacker-taunting-him-because

Posted: August 18, 2010 - 12:06pm

By Dan Scanlan

The only thing the 44-year-old victim said he heard one of his attackers exclaim after he was beaten Monday night in front of The Jacksonville Landing was, "That will teach you old people waiting for the bus at night," according to the police report.

Now police are looking for two to four young men who left the Jacksonville man with a swollen eye and an injured shoulder after the 7:30 p.m. attack.

Police said the man was just waiting for a bus in front of the Landing at 2 Independent Drive when the men ran up and attacked him. They stole his cell phone, 1988 Marengo High School class ring and $370 in cash before running off and one of them yelling the comment as he fled. The victim was treated at St. Vincent's Medical Center.

That is a lot of cash to be carrying around. I wonder if they saw him with it, and that is what prompted the mugging. Not that it justifies it. I just think when more details come out, it won't seem like it was just random violence, but an idea for easy money.

Well its evident they were not in front of the Landing. The reason being is, despite what one may think, downtown is not the most dangerous area in Jacksonville. Being that there is not many in people even in our downtown after work hours, I am not shocked there wasnt policy presence. However, for situations that do occur every now and then, we need to make downtown safe. Even if they are not patroling, maybe the Landing should have some off duty cops in the area at night for safety

Quote from: Lucasjj on August 18, 2010, 04:43:24 PM
That is a lot of cash to be carrying around. I wonder if they saw him with it, and that is what prompted the mugging. Not that it justifies it. I just think when more details come out, it won't seem like it was just random violence, but an idea for easy money.

Yeah they may have been wacthing him. I mean how lucky can a criminal get that the mugg someone who actually has that much cash on them?

Quote from: duvaldude08 on August 18, 2010, 04:47:58 PM
maybe the Landing should have some off duty cops in the area at night for safety

haven't we learned yet that off-duty cops are worse than muggers?

Well we spent a lot of the weekend at the Landing, and while we only saw a couple of police officers we did see several security guards. They seemed much more interested in harassing the people at the landing who were actually spending money there! They told several adults they could not be in the fountain in bathing suits, only their street clothes (apparently only children were allowed on the "landing beach" in bathing suits). They also were very active in letting people know where they could and could not sit- there was a limited amount of shade, most being around the band stand and that was apparently another big no, sitting or leaning on/against the bandstand. I was really surprised by the number of people these security guards managed to tick off and drive away from the Landing, bit homeless sitting on the Riverwalk benches and digging through the trash cans, asking for money was just fine.

Quote from: uptowngirl on September 07, 2010, 07:45:43 AM
Well we spent a lot of the weekend at the Landing, and while we only saw a couple of police officers we did see several security guards. They seemed much more interested in harassing the people at the landing who were actually spending money there! They told several adults they could not be in the fountain in bathing suits, only their street clothes (apparently only children were allowed on the "landing beach" in bathing suits). They also were very active in letting people know where they could and could not sit- there was a limited amount of shade, most being around the band stand and that was apparently another big no, sitting or leaning on/against the bandstand. I was really surprised by the number of people these security guards managed to tick off and drive away from the Landing, bit homeless sitting on the Riverwalk benches and digging through the trash cans, asking for money was just fine.

There's a reason they made a spoof movie about mall cops. Little mind + Big ego = Comedy.

Unfortunately it's not going to be so funny for Tony & crew to try and get visitors back there if that's the end-user experience that awaits them. There are already enough reasons not to go down there, adding a couple obnoxious security guards with napoleon complexes to the list isn't going to help matters.

I went to the Landing and everything inside was nice.  Outside however there was a (I guessing) urban outdoors man yelling and cursing at a group of two couples because they put money in the meter on a holiday this really bugged him.  They said "oh well we should have known that" and he still proceeded to yell on and on until one of the Men told him to mind his own business.  That set him off wanting to fight.  The people moved on inside. They were never in any danger as the men were young and big but you could see these people were not happy with their venture into downtown before they even made it to lunch.
My five year old was scared by the yelling and we kept our distance.

Last time I was downtown, I went to a party across from the Landing, but we had to park under the Main Street Bridge as the street was torn up.  Lo and behold, my dad and I were walking to the car and this must have been right after a triathlon or some athletic event because there were two chicks with their numbers still attached (we had seen members of this group walking into the Landing on our way over to our spot) going at it.  The fight was pretty serious even though it was two women and one was hurt.  There were guys trying to break it up and other women there and the whole time the guys were also on the verge of fighting.  It was not pleasant to be around AT ALL, and my dad and I hightailed it out, but the security and a cop or two were walking up as we were driving off.

Seems like the Landing may have some security issues: all of our stories that are recent to a couple of weeks, the guy at the bus stop who was beat, etc.

IMO the landing just plain needs a complete makeover, especially on the inside.  It seems like a building that can't really decide what it wants to be.   

the building's fine--sleiman's just a total bleeding wanker who wants to promote it solely as a night spot and doesn't seem bothered by the fact that any business in it that doesn't serve alcohol is failing.

not all ov the landing's problems are his fault, ov course, but if he'd aggregate his fecal matter, it'd be doïng a lot better.

as fart as the security guard sgo, i just don't know.  i've never had or seen any problems with any ov them.  on the other hand, i haven't spent much time there in a while--maybe there's been a lot ov turnover; i know that a lot ov the longtime security was less than thrilled with some ov the policy changes when the contract was bought (i forget the details, but about two years ago, one ov the big companies bought out the small one that had the landing's contract--they kept the same people, but changed all the rules).

Quote from: stephendare on June 23, 2010, 11:03:42 AM

Quote from: simms3 on June 23, 2010, 10:47:34 AM
We must not forget that Sleiman is sly.  He is very manipulative in just about all of his deals, and he is the one responsible for half of our awful strip centers we so despise.  I am giving Mayor Peyton the benefit of the doubt on this because while Peyton is certainly not a great mayor and very shortsighted with vision, he is shrewd with business/money and he may know something that we do not.  Regardless, I would more than love to see the Landing have parking and be opened up just the like the rest of us.

http://www.youtube.com/v/jvkMVRG996M

We should start calling him "Sprawlman" instead of Sleiman.

i am still waiting on the big annoucement! i'm getting a little impatient.

Have they even closed on the property yet? 

I heard today that Twisted Martini wanted to open something new but Sleiman raised their rent....so they walked.

Then the restaurants complained about less traffiic since Twisted closed and Toney had to go back groveling....the Twisted folks said "not interested"

Luckily, the owner of Vitos & Bennys picked up the lease option...apparently they plan to open an Irish Pub in the space....they will open up for FL-GA and then close for renovations.

On a similar note, Hooters usually opens another location at The Landing for FL-GA weekend...apparently Sleiman wanted too much for the old brewery space so they also said no thanks.

Irish pub sounds good.

QuoteHave they even closed on the property yet?

No

QuoteI heard today that Twisted Martini wanted to open something new but Sleiman raised their rent....so they walked.

Then the restaurants complained about less traffiic since Twisted closed and Toney had to go back groveling....the Twisted folks said "not interested"

Luckily, the owner of Vitos & Bennys picked up the lease option...apparently they plan to open an Irish Pub in the space....they will open up for FL-GA and then close for renovations.

On a similar note, Hooters usually opens another location at The Landing for FL-GA weekend...apparently Sleiman wanted too much for the old brewery space so they also said no thanks.

Thats an interesting slant.  Especially about the Twisted situation.

Hooters temporarily expanded their space for the game two years ago b/c the old Dona Marias location was vacant.  The space you're refering to(which gets rented out for private parties) is also being rented out for a private party for FL/GA this year.

Southend brewery was a great place - it's such a shame that places like that couldn't stay solvent.  I went to the one in Charleston, SC a few times also - good brew.

You could possibly get something similar...

Quote from: fieldafm on October 22, 2010, 10:16:50 PM
Hooters temporarily expanded their space for the game two years ago b/c the old Dona Marias location was vacant.  The space you're refering to(which gets rented out for private parties) is also being rented out for a private party for FL/GA this year.

Hooters also used the old Ruby Tuesday space (now Chicago Pizza) in 2007

Forgot about that... you're right.

I wouldnt say though that there was some big screw job going on with the Blue/brewhouse space for FL/GA... the landlord had two scenarios and chose the one that was better financially.  That's not exactly breaking news for the single biggest weekend of the year.

BTW, a lot of the restaurants got SCREWED last year when COJ/JSD/ETC made it almost impossible to get INTO The Landing the Friday of 09 FL/GA weekend.  That's not going to happen again this year.

I agree....he should seek the highest and best offer

and yes....last year's thing was soley to show FL and GA that the City could control traffic and drinking....so they'd renew the contract....now its a free for all again

Can someone answer a few questions for me? ::

Shouldn't we blame Sleiman and the city for the Landing's woes?  Points:
-Sleiman knows how to do a shopping center
-He has a ground lease, which usually are for 99 years and allows the "tenant" to build whatever zoning permits on the ground
-Sleiman has received incentives if I remember correctly right?

-The city still has not honored its contract to build a garage
-The city is not very business friendly at least for downtown (policy wise)


The Twisted Martini "was" the Landing as it has stood the past few years.  Why would Sleiman do *anything* to jeopardize chasing them away?  Also I can't symathize very much with someone who has contributed to the majority of ugly strip centers in town, including an ugly one on Roosevelt with crappy tenants and a crappy design (the old St. Johns Theater was better there than what is there now).  I have heard of Sleiman being shady before and very bullheaded.

Should we consider it a good thing that he is in control of the Landing?  Or do we think someone else could do a better job and should try to wrest control/take over the lease?

Ok, first off... you havent been to the Landing in perhaps a long time.  It is very busy on the weekends.  I can post pictures from each of the last 6 weeks(except last week b/c I was in Tallahassee for the FSU game) and it has been bustling with people.  During the Denver and Philadelphia/Jags games I encountered many out of town people patronizing the Landing talking about what an asset is it for the city.  So, the people that complain about it are kind of off putting.

Quote-He has a ground lease, which usually are for 99 years and allows the "tenant" to build whatever zoning permits on the ground

Its a standard leasehold agreement.  The city reneged on the promise of selling the land.  That killed a lot of the incentive to immediately dump money into reconfiguring the building.  And with the commercial real estate market the way it is today... lets not chastise someone for not wanting to come off some major cash for big capital spending projects, especially in downtown Jacksonville.  Sleiman is anything but dumb.  I think the building will get reconfigured eventually, but the stars have to align first.

Quote-Sleiman has received incentives if I remember correctly right?

For buying the parking lot and parking voucher payments, yes.  Which hasn't happened just yet.  For anything else, no.

QuoteThe Twisted Martini "was" the Landing as it has stood the past few years.

Twisted was kind of a dump.  Thats my opinion.  It just wasnt relevant.  The pictue tufsu painted about the Twisted situation is not as accurate as you would believe.  What is going to replace the space is going to be pretty awesome IMO.

Quoteincluding an ugly one on Roosevelt with crappy tenants and a crappy design

OMG, you're right.  The last thing the neighborhood needs is a Pet Supermarket, La Nop, Pinch A Penny and a Crispers.  I mean Lord knows no one in Ortega/Riverside-Avondale/Westside has pets(the area has a higher pet owner population per capita than anywhere in the city), we already have great Mexican restaurants like West Inn and Dona Marias and dont need anymore(whoops, they both closed), and no one in the area has pools(I do).

Do I miss St Johns Theatre?  Yeah, it holds all kind of nostalgia for myself and my family(my aunt and uncle met there).  But I sure do love La Nop and getting the pool's ph levels checked is pretty darn convenient.

QuoteI have heard of Sleiman being shady before and very bullheaded.

And how exactly has he screwed you over? 
Regency tried putting a WalMart at the beach that people protested over and Aqua East sued over.  Are they also shady?  Or are they not shady now b/c there is a better Publix in the neighborhood? 

The city of Jacksonville Beach wouldnt think Sleiman is shady, just check out their town center.

QuoteShould we consider it a good thing that he is in control of the Landing?  Or do we think someone else could do a better job and should try to wrest control/take over the lease?

Go ahead and make an offer then... money talks.  There wasnt exactly a line of buyers when Rouse jumped ship.


I mean, c'mon man... why don't you let us all know what vendetta you hold against Sleiman?

Side bar: The Landing is currently experiencing a new and indelicate issue, a plumbing matter of some sort. I've breezed in and out over the past few weeks and there is what seems like a raw sewage smell inside centered around the central thruway! Very disgusting and not the least bit appetizing to the routine user much less the out of town guest! Needs to be resolved asap, me thinks!

that's not a new smell...its been happening on occassion for years

Field:

OK so I criticized Toney as so many people have.  You are defending him as adamantly as I criticized him...so my vendetta which isn't as strong as you think it is is probably as strong as your apparent loyalty to the guy.  Maybe I spoke too soon, but I'm just going off of hearsay from people who have dealt with him.  (and yes in case you were wondering i'm partial to Regency)

And yes I hate that strip mall that took the place of the theater.  Sure my parents and just about everyone else in the neighborhood can more conveniently go to Pinch a Penny there rather than God forsaken Orange Park, but nothing else imo is redeemable there.  And the center is ugly as sin.  I had a lot of memories from the crappy theater there and grew up with the Kents whose family owned that theater and a few others so I was disappointed to see it replaced with the current building.

I also have been to the Landing with Twisted and since Twisted left and I noticed a huge difference.  Sure Twisted is not my thing, I would never go there...ew, but it brought crowds.

I also don't want to be quick to place full blame for the Landing's shortcomings on the City.  It's a touchy subject.  I realize the parking is 90% the city's fault, but I think even that is semi complicated.  Don't forget how prime the current parking lot is where the Riverwatch was planned.  If that development had gone through (and I am sure even had Kuhn not gone bankrupt he is happy that something of that scale did not get built with his name attached) the parking situation would have been largely solved and an awesome development would have simultaneously gone in (with parking on the non-river side and an attractive building covering it up from the river side).

So answer me this...Sleiman does not hold a ground lease?  If Sleiman holds a standard lease of the Landing building, what is the term?  If Sleiman does hold a ground lease, what is preventing him from doing what he wants/should with the building?  He could essentially demolish part of the Landing in that case and build his own freakin parking! (of course the city still has failed to uphold their parking contract and nobody is denying that)

Also, you are right and Sleiman is shrewd, which is why I think we shouldn't excuse him as the complete victim here.  He has dealt with the city a million times and knew what he was getting into with the Landing.  He knew of the ongoing failure of the city to uphold its end of the bargain and supply dedicated parking and he knew most if not all of the individuals in City Hall with which he would be dealing with.  He took on the challenge knowing all the risks, so what exactly is going to happen and why should we completely sympathize with Sleiman?  I for one am taking the stand of not sympathizing with the city or with Sleiman.

Quote from: simms3 on October 23, 2010, 08:08:35 PM
-He has a ground lease, which usually are for 99 years and allows the "tenant" to build whatever zoning permits on the ground

His lease is under 50 years, not 99, which according to him has specifically been a financing issue.  This was uncovered during a MetroJacksonville interview with him in 2006.

Quote from: Steve on October 25, 2010, 03:19:58 PM

Quote from: simms3 on October 23, 2010, 08:08:35 PM
-He has a ground lease, which usually are for 99 years and allows the "tenant" to build whatever zoning permits on the ground

His lease is under 50 years, not 99, which according to him has specifically been a financing issue.  This was uncovered during a MetroJacksonville interview with him in 2006.

BINGO!!!  That means, more than likely, funding a large buildout will be heavily reliant on cash.

QuoteI also don't want to be quick to place full blame for the Landing's shortcomings on the City.  It's a touchy subject.  I realize the parking is 90% the city's fault, but I think even that is semi complicated.  Don't forget how prime the current parking lot is where the Riverwatch was planned.  If that development had gone through (and I am sure even had Kuhn not gone bankrupt he is happy that something of that scale did not get built with his name attached) the parking situation would have been largely solved and an awesome development would have simultaneously gone in (with parking on the non-river side and an attractive building covering it up from the river side).

If the Riverwatch building was ever started, it would resemble Berkman II today.
If it ever got built, it would be largely empty and had been foreclosed on.
It was a mixed blessing it never got built.

QuoteAlso, you are right and Sleiman is shrewd, which is why I think we shouldn't excuse him as the complete victim here.  He has dealt with the city a million times and knew what he was getting into with the Landing.  He knew of the ongoing failure of the city to uphold its end of the bargain and supply dedicated parking and he knew most if not all of the individuals in City Hall with which he would be dealing with.  He took on the challenge knowing all the risks, so what exactly is going to happen and why should we completely sympathize with Sleiman?  I for one am taking the stand of not sympathizing with the city or with Sleiman.

I never said he was a victim.  He was shrewd enough to finally get the city to live up to its parking obligation... even in the face of an ongoing feud b/w two families.

You can choose two options, hate on the guy and root for the centerpiece of downtown to fail... or root for the guy, which in turn is rooting for the success of the city's identified ground zero of downtown revitlization.

Quote from: Ethylene on October 25, 2010, 01:47:57 PM
Side bar: The Landing is currently experiencing a new and indelicate issue, a plumbing matter of some sort. I've breezed in and out over the past few weeks and there is what seems like a raw sewage smell inside centered around the central thruway! Very disgusting and not the least bit appetizing to the routine user much less the out of town guest! Needs to be resolved asap, me thinks!

Seriously - that smell is foul. There must be a serious ongoing issue, but it needs to be taken care of!

Moving on...the Landing is an embarrassment to the city at this point. I would never take a visitor there as it gives off such a horrible impression of Jacksonville. It attracts a very low class crowd, the work force in the restaurants are shady, and it doesn't look like anything has been renovated since the mid 90's. It's going to take more than a parking lot to save this dump.

^Yet its about the only place in DT where you'll find people on a regular basis.  So if it sucks, that's a larger indictment on downtown in general.  It will take more than parking to get the best utilization out of it.  Dedicated parking is to help lure additional tenants.  If you want the place renovated, then the city should seriously consider a deal that sells the guy the land underneath it and also demolishes the central portion to open the courtyard to Laura Street.  Until that is done, don't expect significant improvement to take place on the property.

http://jaxdailyrecord.com/downtowntoday.php?dt_date=2010-11-10

Perhaps this drainage work can mitigate the foul odor issue.

That links to a blurb about the Peacemaker... my dad and I toured the ship yesterday, and it was fascinating.  They basically live and operate like the pilgrims once did.  Its free and I would encourage anyone to take a tour.

Quote from: fieldafm on November 17, 2010, 10:04:40 PM
They basically live and operate like the pilgrims once did. 

where do they find native americans to exploit?

Quote from: KuroiKetsunoHana on November 18, 2010, 03:31:05 PM

Quote from: fieldafm on November 17, 2010, 10:04:40 PM
They basically live and operate like the pilgrims once did. 

where do they find native americans to exploit?

You should really tour the ship before you make fun... they were all wonderfully nice and goodwilled people that you would be honored to make aquaintance with.

5 months have gone by and this administration is dragging its feet as much as humanely possible to release this money.

The feud continues....

QuoteMayor, council in a time crunch to salvage deal with Jacksonville Landing


Jacksonville Mayor John Peyton apparently will be standing by to sign a bill he doesn't like Tuesday night so plans to improve parking at The Jacksonville Landing don't evaporate at midnight.

The city and Landing owner Toney Sleiman don't have an agreement yet that would fulfill a pledge the city made in the 1980s to provide parking for the downtown shopping center.

Instead, they have a deadline of midnight Tuesday to use or lose an agreement the City Council made last year to give Sleiman $3.5 million toward the purchase of a 300-space parking lot at Hogan and Bay streets. That purchase would conclude the city's obligation.

full article: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2011-02-21/story/mayor-council-time-crunch-salvage-deal-jacksonville-landing

Will these idiots ever solve this problem? It's getting to the point that, I don't even care how it's paid for, just get the damn thing done already!!!

Its a joke at this point.

I say let it fail.  The city, which owns the underlying property can then demolish the thing and work some forward-thinking developers to build something that will work and that will will work with the remaining fabric downtown.  I heard yesterday that Flamers has flamed out in the Landing's food court, leaving only four remaining businesses.  Sleiman is doing his best to chase the remaining tenants out by selling his own beer during major events, while undercutting his tenants prices.  He also charges admission to the "mall" on rare occasions, such as the Florida-Georgia game. 

The problem isn't parking. :o

regrettably, johnn y's right.  sleiman's such a useless tool that he's essentially pooping all over the dinner table.  while the city has screwed up here too, sleiman has dug his own hole.  there are businesses that i'll hate to see go, but the way the landing's beïng managed, there's really no way to save them--so it's better to start fresh.

If developers were chomping at the bit for riverfront land to develop in downtown then there would be something at the Shipyards and that JEA site on the Southbank. I think the city should hold up it's end of the bargain to give the Landing a fair chance at success, and if it ends up bust so be it. I don't think anyone benefits by the Landing failing.

The Landing parking deal is dead.

QuoteThe deal that would allow Jacksonville Landing owner Toney Sleiman to have purchased additional downtown parking space died this afternoon when the City Council failed to override a veto by Mayor John Peyton.

Unlike last month, when it voted 13-0 to approve a bill that would have given $3.5 million to Sleiman to allow him to buy a 300-space lot at the corner of Hogan and Bay streets, the council fell four votes short of overturning the promised veto.

Peyton said he didn't approve of the bill because it didn't add parking spaces downtown but instead simply rearranged them from other businesses.

http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/403455/mike-marino/2011-03-08/council-cant-override-peyton-veto-landing-parking-deal

...OMFG.

Well, let's hope we elect someone smart here for mayor.

Oh please, let's not add to downtown's existing supply of parking spaces and lots.  We have to many, we need to better utilize what's already in place, while getting rid of a few.  The Landing issue should be put on the back burner until a new administration is in place.

Quote from: Steve on March 08, 2011, 09:30:31 PM
Well, let's hope we elect someone smart here for mayor.

for Toney Sleiman that would be Mike Hogan

remember, City Council overrode the Mayor's veto earlier this year without a problem...maybe they actually figured out the deal wasn't so good after all

Quote from: tufsu1 on March 08, 2011, 09:41:46 PM

Quote from: Steve on March 08, 2011, 09:30:31 PM
Well, let's hope we elect someone smart here for mayor.

for Toney Sleiman that would be Mike Hogan

remember, City Council overrode the Mayor's veto earlier this year without a problem...maybe they actually figured out the deal wasn't so good after all

That's right.  Sleiman has poured a lot of money into Mike Hogan's campaign chest for mayor. 

Quote from: tufsu1 on March 08, 2011, 09:41:46 PM

Quote from: Steve on March 08, 2011, 09:30:31 PM
Well, let's hope we elect someone smart here for mayor.

for Toney Sleiman that would be Mike Hogan

remember, City Council overrode the Mayor's veto earlier this year without a problem...maybe they actually figured out the deal wasn't so good after all

Seems like the deal changed from the original form.  In any event, regardless of whether it was good or not, let's hope no one seriously believes that downtown needs more parking to resolve the Landing's issues.

agreed

agreed. the landing does not need anymore parking.

All the landing needs is "dedicated" parking.  However, this doesn't mean we need additional parking in downtown.

Quote from: thelakelander on March 09, 2011, 04:44:55 AM
All the landing needs is "dedicated" parking.  However, this doesn't mean we need additional parking in downtown.

The landing does not need dedicated parking..there are plenty of parking downtown near by....lots..jacksonville is just full of people who want to park at the front door....it is called downtown....you would'nt get that kind of parking in any major city...why here?

Every major retail center in a sprawlbug with no significant foot traffic needs dedicated parking to lure national chains. This is not a knock on Jax residents, it's retail 101.

Quote from: thelakelander on March 09, 2011, 07:52:16 AM
Every major retail center in a sprawlbug with no significant foot traffic needs dedicated parking to lure national chains. This is not a knock on Jax residents, it's retail 101.

Umm..if you have'nt noticed...."The landing is not a major shopping center".....there is'nt enough going on there for them to have their own parking...live like the rest of downtown and let your people use the same parking as everyone else...

We have noticed GG and we also noticed it not having dedicated parking it can commit to an anchor chain. Coincidence?  Lake in the past has posted the minimum dedicated spots different chains require his point has been proven.

It's over 125,000 square feet of retail space.  Its not SJTC but its no family dollar or gas station either.  I'd challenge you to find one second tier American city (along the likes of Jacksonville) that has that has a single urban retail center with that much retail space and no dedicated parking.

If you're interested in understanding the dedicated parking issue and how it can impact national chain recruitment, visit this link:  

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2010-may-the-jacksonville-landing-parking-myths-vs-reality (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2010-may-the-jacksonville-landing-parking-myths-vs-reality)

Outside of major events, I have never not been able to find a parking spot either at the Landing parking lot or very close by.

QuoteThe landing does not need dedicated parking..there are plenty of parking downtown near by....lots..jacksonville is just full of people who want to park at the front door....it is called downtown....you would'nt get that kind of parking in any major city...why here?

GG, I'd suggest you have a better understanding of commercial real estate before making statements like this.  What you are saying is simply not true.

QuoteOh please, let's not add to downtown's existing supply of parking spaces and lots.  We have to many, we need to better utilize what's already in place, while getting rid of a few.  The Landing issue should be put on the back burner until a new administration is in place

What's really silly is now that $3.5mm is going to be thrown back at MetroPark... where no one goes now nor in the future.

That 3.5mm could have been spent honoring a 20+ year agreement to the ONE major destination downtown, or any NUMBER of high impact projects in our core... yet, it will be spent on Metro Park which has less than 200k visitors per year.  That number has been declining for 7 straight years.

What a legacy...

March 22nd(or now early voting began Monday), vote Audrey Moran

Quote from: fieldafm on March 09, 2011, 08:54:25 AM

QuoteThe landing does not need dedicated parking..there are plenty of parking downtown near by....lots..jacksonville is just full of people who want to park at the front door....it is called downtown....you would'nt get that kind of parking in any major city...why here?

GG, I'd suggest you have a better understanding of commercial real estate before making statements like this.  What you are saying is simply not true.

QuoteOh please, let's not add to downtown's existing supply of parking spaces and lots.  We have to many, we need to better utilize what's already in place, while getting rid of a few.  The Landing issue should be put on the back burner until a new administration is in place

What's really silly is now that $3.5mm is going to be thrown back at MetroPark... where no one goes now nor in the future.

That 3.5mm could have been spent honoring a 20+ year agreement to the ONE major destination downtown, or any NUMBER of high impact projects in our core... yet, it will be spent on Metro Park which has less than 200k visitors per year.  That number has been declining for 7 straight years.

What a legacy...

March 22nd(or now early voting began Monday), vote Audrey Moran

Perhaps we can convince Brown to put that 3.5m back into some that makes sense, and finally kill anymore metpark improvements.

Maybe put that 3.5m toward the Trio revitalization.

Well on today in the dailty record, that the Landing garage would include 200 spaces for Landing Patorns during the day and 375 spaces on the evenings and weekends. What do you guys think about that? Do you think this will help solve the issue? Even if the are spaces for "public use", honestly who would use those spaces besides Landing patrons on evenings and weekends anyways? Im THINKING this may work. But hey what do I. Chime in someone  ;D

I don't think parking has ever been the real issue at the Landing...there may not be parking at the front door like so many lazy people scream for but there are plenty of parking spaces within a minutes walk.

I agree with you GG.  I think the parking excuse is just that.  An urban retail facility like the Landing will only thrive when downtown becomes a true urban environment - which would mean many more people working and living downtown.

Plus, we have thousands of people within a short public transit ride away if we would just build/extend the system.  Then we wouldn't need cars or garages to get there.

It is not parking as in the total number but as dedicated.  So they can put up signs that say reserved for cheesecake factory.

Bingo Jeffrey.  The lack of sufficient dedicated parking is a direct negative impact on the recruitment of major retail chains at the Landing.  Although, I'll also say that dedicated parking isn't the only issue negatively impacting the center. 

In any event, the parking being proposed actually does nothing for the Landing.  Since they aren't "dedicating" the required set number of parking spaces (proven by the fluctuating day/night time number), the garage will have no impact.  Assuming this garage is forced to be designed with street retail on Bay, Hogan and Independent Drive, the only good thing that will come out of this is having another surface parking lot disappear.

Maybe..just maybe when downtown has so many people living there that the landing is so busy that there must be dedicated parking but history so far has'nt proven that to be needed...i've been going there since the beginning and never have i had an issue with parking and noone i know has ither...within a block or two there is parking...this is not atlanta...it's jacksonville and we have not done enough with this city to suck up the cost of a parking garage at the doors of the landing..it's crazy and a waist of money when there are parking spots all over the place..iknow one good start for the landing would be that the owner stop his nasty attitude and start kissing some ass...his place is waisting and he's got and attitude with everyone...That place will survive but only with more people living downtown...period.

Yeah, but downtown with enough street traffic and residents to render dedicated parking meaningless is decades away.  When we get to that point, then we can redevelop a lot of our garages into new uses.  In the meantime, we've got to bridge the gap.

I think the owner of the landing should suck it up and try to use creative problem solving to get people to his mall.  It is not the city's job to boost his business and it seems like there are so many events held there that he should be happy. 

It is the city's job to supply the center with dedicated parking. It's part of the deal the city made to get Rouse to build the Landing in DT 22 years ago. It's a shame this discussion is still going on in 2011.

Quote from: thelakelander on June 25, 2011, 08:51:53 AM
It is the city's job to supply the center with dedicated parking. It's part of the deal the city made to get Rouse to build the Landing in DT 22 years ago. It's a shame this discussion is still going on in 2011.

Thanks Lakelander. I think everyone seems to forget that part. I dont think the city should be let off the hook so easy. Whether parking is the "real" issue or not with the landing, bottom line we  promised the parking and we should deliver. Period. I really hope this is deferred though so that the new administration can take a look at it. Because what is currently on the table is not really solving the issue.