Retail-less parking garage proposed for Downtown

[thelakelander]

Another garage in downtown Indianapolis.  Nothing special but you would never know it was a garage while walking down the sidewalk.

[thelakelander]

The Landing has two entrances on Independent Street, so how is it 'walled off'? You make it sound like it's a Supermax prison or something. JFMan mentioned the distance between the street and the entrances, making it 'not particularly urban' I disagree, if anything that's flexible courtyard space that is used during special events. The Landing is situated on the river, and it has a U-shaped core surrounding a courtyard with fountain, so it's not gonna have the typical 'NY square block' layout. I don't see anything suburban about the Landing at all; Every urban shopping area doesn't have to be squared off with straight parasol-lined sidewalks and traffic being a spit away.

Isn't "shopping center" inherently suburban? It is "walled off." You can't see the businesses from the street. The only indication of businesses to the passerby is a sign with all listed (much like a suburban shopping center). There is a food court upstairs. There are two sets of doors, but the visual impact is still the same to the passerby. You see a wall with no visible activity going on. I'd say suburban is a pretty reasonable argument to make. Its not organic, it is a contrived commercial development, a small mall on a river downtown. That's not necessarily a negative. I think the Landing is the best use of riverfront property that we have in Jacksonville, and certainly the Northbank. I believe the argument - and I agree with this - is that the Landing could be improve (better tied in with the urban fabric of the city) by opening up its street side. Then you can see activity from the street.

I'd fall in the camp of saying the Landing is an urban retail center.  I think we forget that it was designed to be an 1980s style "festival marketplace" which is different from a suburban strip mall or 21st century urban retail center.

A festival marketplace is a realization by James W. Rouse and the Rouse Company in the United States of an idea conceived by Benjamin C. Thompson of Benjamin Thompson and Associates for European style markets taking hold in the United States in an effort to revitalize downtown areas in major US cities in the late 20th century. Festival marketplaces were a leading downtown revitalization strategy in American cities during the 1970s and 1980s. The guiding principles are a mix of local tenants instead of chain stores, design of shop stalls and common areas to energize the space, and uncomplicated architectural ornament in order to highlight the goods.
In the second half of the 20th century, Rouse and his company became major developers of suburban strip shopping centers and pioneered large shopping malls. In many cities, these were seen as escalating the failure of retail businesses and causing further deterioration of older, downtown core areas.

In the late 1970s, Rouse and his company responded to critics of their suburban development by studying inner cities for similar development potential despite the widely held belief of investors and developers that downtown areas were both dirty and dangerous and not desirable destinations for their residents. In response, inspired by projects such as Ghirardelli Square in San Francisco, the Rouse Company worked with architects, urban planners, and city governments to develop the festival marketplace concept as a way to reverse the negative trends and to attract both suburban residents and out-of-town visitors to the downtown areas.

A typical festival marketplace would include local involvement in the creation of a safe and trendy attraction intended to serve as a major catalyst for other redevelopment. Generally, a festival marketplace offers major restaurants, specialty retail shops, and an international food court. Often, there is an exciting nightlife with music, dancing and live entertainment. The more successful projects seemed to benefit from waterfront locations and secure parking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Festival_marketplace

The Landing is no different from Norfolk's Waterside, Miami's Bayside, Baltimore's Harborplace, Boston's Faneuil Hall and NYC's South Street Seaport.  It's an urban center that basically focuses on its self instead of making a real effort to blend in with the environment surrounding it.  Just like the office towers built during that era.

[fsujax]

Which could in our case be easily changed!

[JeffreyS]

I really believe the pedestrian level engagement is more important than the facade and pedestal capability.

[thelakelander]

Another Fort Lauderdale garage image at street level...

[Tacachale]

Is anyone at this hearing?

[simms3]

I really believe the pedestrian level engagement is more important than the facade and pedestal capability.

Agreed.  A temporary corner market/urban grocer anchoring a pocket park that could host food trucks, bands and events would be 1000% more useful to 1000x more people (and could still generate some semblance of revenue for the partnership that owns the land/remaining office condos in SunTrust).

That surface lot is huge, but I could foresee the above on half the land, and the other half being a 2/2.5 level garage (not high enough to be visible) with street level retail or convertible space and enough parking spaces to take the number of spaces on the lot and put them on half the land.  Build it to be expandable as a pedestal for something in the future and you have the most adaptable site (and in the meantime you are still maintaining your parking revenue and supplementing that with alternative revenue and potential pop-ups in otherwise un-leasable retail space in the garage).  Design the garage to be expandable horizontally and vertically and able to support somewhere between 20 and 40 stories above it.

[fieldafm]

Is anyone at this hearing?

I was, as was FSUJax.

They deferred approval and will be scheduling a public workshop to vet alternative design concepts.

It was made clear that the developer would not entertain ground level retail whatsoever.  It is unacceptable for someone receiving taxpayer assistance to not even meet the Code.

People need to show up en masse when this public workshop is held. 

[JeffreyS]

Just left the meeting the DDRB deferred the conceptual review. They are going to try and schedule a workshop for next week and do both the conceptual and final approval next month. I took notes and will expand on my thoughts more tonight. I just wanted to convey my basic observations.
1. This was a feeler by the the developer to see what the minimum was they needed to do.
2. The DDRB feels pretty strongly that the deviation from retail is a bad idea and that the aesthetics need to disguise that this is a parking garage.
3. Haskel already has alternate plans.
4. The client is very resistant to adding retail.
5. IMO if the DDRB stands firm on this they developer will comply.

Good job with your comments Field.

[carpnter]

Is anyone at this hearing?

I was, as was FSUJax.

They deferred approval and will be scheduling a public workshop to vet alternative design concepts.

It was made clear that the developer would not entertain ground level retail whatsoever.  It is unacceptable for someone receiving taxpayer assistance to not even meet the Code.

People need to show up en masse when this public workshop is held.

I suspect the developer's resistance to ground level retail is that a majority of the space would be unused and remain empty.  There is quite a bit of empty space downtown right now and they may not want space that cannot generate money. 

[JeffreyS]

I think there is good reason for the client to be skeptical of retail. However if he wants to operate on such a significant plot of land in this community and get 3.5 million dollars to do so he may need to be a bit accommodating.

He already owns the site and needs to parking the city has the leverage here.

[CityLife]

Great job going to the meeting Jeffrey, Mike, and FSUJax. And also to Ennis for writing a great article on MJ and a very well thought out letter to the DDRB.

Kudos to the DDRB for scheduling the workshop to let the public express opinions and concerns.

[Tacachale]

Thanks, all, for the input.

The developer has every right to be skeptical of retail in this environment. And we have every right to demand that something built in our city partially with our money consider the future. Retail may sit largely empty for a period of time. But if it's built without retail, it will sit empty forever.

Did anyone bring up the craziness of giving $3.5 million to a garage across the street from the Landing, that doesn't fulfill the city's parking obligation to the Landing?

[CityLife]

If the developers don't want to comply with the regulations, DDRB, and the will of the general public, they are always welcome to sell the property for its fair market value. Which btw shouldn't be affected by this, since they are proposing such a poor product.

PSS is looking for office space and aren't ruling out Downtown or new construction. So sell the parcel to them and let the city give them the $3.5 million to build an office building on top of the parking garage. Then throw in any additional incentives that they would have received for relocating downtown anyways on top of that.

[fieldafm]

I suspect the developer's resistance to ground level retail is that a majority of the space would be unused and remain empty.  There is quite a bit of empty space downtown right now and they may not want space that cannot generate money. 

If he can't make money building to code... then don't build it. 

No way in the world should someone get taxpayer assistance to build a subpar product in the heart of downtown that is not contextually sensitive to the surrounding environment.  Downtown would live with the reprecussions of such a decision for decades.  That is not acceptable. 

It was clear that retail will not be considered. 

Did anyone bring up the craziness of giving $3.5 million to a garage across the street from the Landing, that doesn't fulfill the city's parking obligation to the Landing?

That is not in the purview of a DDRB meeting.