Reinvigorating the Jacksonville Landing

[JaxArchitect]

Downtown needs to focus on building a residential base. It is time to change the codes in the city to promote adaptive reuse to change many of the buildings currently empty in downtown into residences. I think the renaissance in Riverside that is spilling into Brooklyn will soon make this a prime period to focus on building the residential base in downtown.

If you bring the people, then there will be retail that follows. Likewise, businesses will want to be in downtown. Several cities have focused on residential growth and have seen incredible success.

As for the Landing, the mall needs to go one way or another. However, there is an identity crisis that needs to be dealt with. Is the Landing for Night Clubs? Families? Sports Bars? High end restaurants? There is no identity currently so it attracts no one. You cannot market to all of these groups. Rather you need to focus on a a true market. I believe that the Landing can do well if it does serve as a high end restaurant destination and some family programming during the day as "the town center" concept. Send the bars to Bay St.

Exactly!

[KenFSU]

Maybe it's just me, but the actual Landing signage on the outer horseshoe is one of the more iconic features of the waterfront.

Does the signage go away post renovation?

[Wacca Pilatka]

It's not just you.  I'd like the signage to stay.

[thelakelander]

Yes, the sign and the entire building it's attached to would be torn down.

[JeffreyS]

Downtown needs to focus on building a residential base. It is time to change the codes in the city to promote adaptive reuse to change many of the buildings currently empty in downtown into residences. I think the renaissance in Riverside that is spilling into Brooklyn will soon make this a prime period to focus on building the residential base in downtown.

If you bring the people, then there will be retail that follows. Likewise, businesses will want to be in downtown. Several cities have focused on residential growth and have seen incredible success.

As for the Landing, the mall needs to go one way or another. However, there is an identity crisis that needs to be dealt with. Is the Landing for Night Clubs? Families? Sports Bars? High end restaurants? There is no identity currently so it attracts no one. You cannot market to all of these groups. Rather you need to focus on a a true market. I believe that the Landing can do well if it does serve as a high end restaurant destination and some family programming during the day as "the town center" concept. Send the bars to Bay St.

I know everyone is in love with this post but it happens to be wrong.  I wish we could make short term strides in residential but that is all it is wishing. In terms of enough new residents to radically change the purchasing power of DT in five years. 

You invest in quality of life and slowly residential follows. Shedding any retail would not be healthy for downtown.  The makeover for the Landing should be considered an aesthetic QOL investment and needs to retain retail.

[chipwich]

Maybe it's just me, but the actual Landing signage on the outer horseshoe is one of the more iconic features of the waterfront.

Does the signage go away post renovation?

Completely Agree.  The Landing's Signage is it's signature and quite a notable advertisement for Jacksonville.

I am sure if anyone can pull off a refurbishment of the Landing, it would be Sleiman.  He and his team certainly have the know-how, resources, and connections to bring in the right mix of retailers to make it happen. 

I am hopeful he will be able to pull it off, but just like other failed, or flat-lined "marketplace" concepts around the country, I think the Landing is plagued with functional and locational obsolescence.  I am not sure opening the center to Laura Street is going to do that much to help it.

The land it sits on is simply too small, too narrow, and has little room to grow.  So Sleiman is  a good developer, and maybe he can work around the size of the project and rework the square footage to a more functional, modern retail destination, but you still run into the biggest hurdle of all, which is the odd location of the Landing.

The Landing is surrounded by office buildings with no street level retail, and almost connectivity for anything else in downtown.  You loose the majority of the population after 6 PM.  Then after 6 PM, you have travel at least two lifeless blocks to reach any retail or nightlife on Bay or Forsyth Street.  The place is an island.  Retail requires critical mass to survive. 

For the Landing to be successful, the City needs to incentive the owners of the surrounding office buildings to renovate and reorient their first floor space towards street oriented retail.  Otherwise, tearing down the middle of the Landing, destroying its notable signage and opening it up to Laura Street would be just a wasteful and futile endeavor.

A build it and they will come attitude simply cannot work for a project whose land, layout and square footage will not allow for something so grandiose that it can work as a stand alone retail project.

[finehoe]

...the two residential towers are afterthoughts and not an integral part of the masterplan.  The footprint is not large enough to provide a ramped parking structure within them so they'll never get enough parking to support residential, at least not anything beyond a couple of stories.

True enough.  However....

Real Estate Trend: Parking-Free Apartment Buildings

A wave of new residential construction projects in places like Seattle, Boston, and Miami are showing that, yes, modern American cities can build housing without any car parking on site.

Officials in Boston gave their approval last week to what Curbed called the city's "first big-time parking-less condo," a 175-unit project named Lovejoy Wharf. The "plan was met with disbelief in some quarters," according to Curbed, but the city's redevelopment authority approved it unanimously.

Portland developers have been building housing sans parking for a few years. Last summer, NPR reported that about 40 percent of Portland's under-construction housing was parking-free. Portland's zoning rules have allowed zero-parking developments since the aughts, but builders and lenders weren't pursuing that type of project until recently, the Oregonian reports. Unfortunately, the city pulled the rug out from under parking-free housing this summer, responding to car owners who feared increased competition for curbside parking spots. Portland's new rule requires some parking in apartment buildings with more than 30 units.

Meanwhile, other cities are marching ahead. In Seattle, parking-free housing developments are becoming more common. Mark Knoll, CEO of Blueprint Capital, led the development of a 30-unit building with no parking in one of the city's "urban villages." These designated areas, chosen for their walkability and proximity to transit, have special zoning rules that allow Seattle developers to forgo parking. These relaxed parking requirements were set in motion by Washington state's Growth Management Act in the 1990s, which was intended to combat urban sprawl. Since the new zoning rules came online in Seattle in 2010, between 20 and 30 parking-free projects have been developed, Knoll estimates.

Car parking is expensive: Each space in a city garage costs tens of thousands of dollars to build and hundreds of dollars annually to maintain. Eliminating on-site parking brings down the cost of apartment construction, Knoll estimates, between 20 and 30 percent. That makes it possible for developers to deliver more affordable housing. Knoll's California Avenue development, for instance, is targeted at people making 60 percent of area median income, or about $15 per hour.

"There's been quite a few developments [of this type] and they're quite popular," said Knoll. "There's a waiting list for these types of housing."

Parking-free housing is attracting buyers at the upper end of the spectrum too. Luxury apartments and condos are now appearing in cities like Miami and Portland without any car parking. Miami's under-development, 352-unit Centro Lofts will have just five Car2Go spaces, covered bicycle parking, and a space for a future bike sharing station. No storage for private cars. That doesn't seem to be hurting demand, according to the Miami Herald:

If you think this sort of thing won't fly in auto-centric Miami, guess again. Half of Centro's 352 units are sold even though the building hasn't broken ground. Prices start at $220,000 and top out in the mid-$400,000s.

"These types of projects are really the wave of the future,'' Oscar Rodriguez, the developer, told the Herald.

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2013/12/10/real-estate-trend-parking-free-apartment-buildings/

[fsujax]

Save the sign. I like it. Our skyline is dark enough and without it another iconic sign will be gone forever.

[I-10east]

^The proposed layout is pretty conceptual at this point.  However, the biggest money loser at the Landing is probably the second floor food court. Most of it cost ownership to keep it open as opposed generating revenue for them. Phase I would involve the construction of two, two-story buildings for additional restaurants, in place of the demolished structure.

If they phase out the food court, I can easily see that area being turned into a club, ala Maverick's.

[I-10east]

Save the sign. I like it. Our skyline is dark enough and without it another iconic sign will be gone forever.

I agree.

[mtraininjax]

Sleiman will sell the rights of the signage and Pepsi will call it the "The Jacksonville Landing, Pepsi docks"

[For_F-L-O-R-I-D-A]

Downtown needs to focus on building a residential base. It is time to change the codes in the city to promote adaptive reuse to change many of the buildings currently empty in downtown into residences. I think the renaissance in Riverside that is spilling into Brooklyn will soon make this a prime period to focus on building the residential base in downtown.

If you bring the people, then there will be retail that follows. Likewise, businesses will want to be in downtown. Several cities have focused on residential growth and have seen incredible success.

As for the Landing, the mall needs to go one way or another. However, there is an identity crisis that needs to be dealt with. Is the Landing for Night Clubs? Families? Sports Bars? High end restaurants? There is no identity currently so it attracts no one. You cannot market to all of these groups. Rather you need to focus on a a true market. I believe that the Landing can do well if it does serve as a high end restaurant destination and some family programming during the day as "the town center" concept. Send the bars to Bay St.

I know everyone is in love with this post but it happens to be wrong.  I wish we could make short term strides in residential but that is all it is wishing. In terms of enough new residents to radically change the purchasing power of DT in five years. 

You invest in quality of life and slowly residential follows. Shedding any retail would not be healthy for downtown.  The makeover for the Landing should be considered an aesthetic QOL investment and needs to retain retail.

I think it is the other way around. Create a solid group of residents, then invest in retail. If you have residents and business downtown, retail will come. Can you throw some future incentives at retail to get it going at that point? Sure. But for most of downtown, retail can come in but it will fail without people. Most of the retail closes anyway currently at 5 pm and is not open on weekends. You need residents. I am not for a cent at this point being put into the Landing, there are far more pressing issues. I am in favor of the current process of thinking about how things can be improved and letting them figure it out (although most of their problems revolve around marketing IMO).

There is an overlay district for converted use in downtown, however, being able to do something and incentivizing that process are two different animals. I think once Brooklyn gets up and going the time will be right to focus on residential in downtown. There is so much space in previous beautiful office buildings even just on Adams and Forsyth from Hogan to Main. Most of the space sits empty (even if there is some retail on the street). You are then able to save our historical buildings which tell a magnificent story and many cities (such as Tampa and Miami) have mostly torn down.

There is never enough money for this stuff. Right now the ad valorem tax benefits are maxed out in Jacksonville through Florida law. You need to incentivize the system by creating a streamlined process that is not held to the same code new construction would be. Parking is usually one of the big impediments to reuse in downtown centers because it is held to the same standard as new construction. It is almost impossible to overcome. Right now, 99% of the year, there is enough parking after 5 pm in downtown because there is no one in downtown. Parking can work itself out but it is killing reuse (Between public garages, what used to be LaVilla, and even FBC and their four parking garages).

Arguably, the most important factor is the expedited approval process for adaptive reuse projects. Usually, projects must go before the city council and go through a public comment and hearing. This process can take weeks and even months to get through even without controversy over the proposal. Waive that process for just adaptive reuse within an area the city wants to focus on creating more residential development within (Adams and Forsyth). It will be approved by the city planning department and have to meet the standards (both within the tax code for historic preservation tax credits and some basic codes that should/need to be enforced) and that person can start work the following day after its approval. That is a huge incentive for developers, cutting down legal costs, and really making a project like that desirable, especially with a little momentum for this type of living in the area.

That is exactly what LA did with its downtown. In 2000, no one lived downtown and the historic parts of downtown were run down and crime infested. Then, they streamlined their process and now that area is considered "one of the coolest" places to live in LA just 13 years later. Also, they have no more adaptive reuse stock left in the area so they incorporated more areas in the streamlined districts, however, in downtown, most of the buildings built now are brand new towers. Jax needs to focus on a dense block, get that going for residential use, and it will spread. Other cities have proven that. That is why getting the Laura St. Trio and Barnett Bank Buildings up and running is far more important than pouring city money into the Landing.

[ProjectMaximus]

But how do we get affordable residential in the current downtown climate? Both the carling and 11 east are struggling financially despite massive incentives.

[Bolles_Bull]

Downtown needs to focus on building a residential base. It is time to change the codes in the city to promote adaptive reuse to change many of the buildings currently empty in downtown into residences. I think the renaissance in Riverside that is spilling into Brooklyn will soon make this a prime period to focus on building the residential base in downtown.

If you bring the people, then there will be retail that follows. Likewise, businesses will want to be in downtown. Several cities have focused on residential growth and have seen incredible success.

As for the Landing, the mall needs to go one way or another. However, there is an identity crisis that needs to be dealt with. Is the Landing for Night Clubs? Families? Sports Bars? High end restaurants? There is no identity currently so it attracts no one. You cannot market to all of these groups. Rather you need to focus on a a true market. I believe that the Landing can do well if it does serve as a high end restaurant destination and some family programming during the day as "the town center" concept. Send the bars to Bay St.

I know everyone is in love with this post but it happens to be wrong.  I wish we could make short term strides in residential but that is all it is wishing. In terms of enough new residents to radically change the purchasing power of DT in five years. 

You invest in quality of life and slowly residential follows. Shedding any retail would not be healthy for downtown.  The makeover for the Landing should be considered an aesthetic QOL investment and needs to retain retail.

Exactly.  Example, look at the town center and all the new residential that is popping up around it.  Create a place people want to live and the housing will follow demand.  We need to improve QOL first.

[fieldafm]

I can afford most housing options currently being offered downtown.  I chose not to live there b/c you have all of the inconveniences of urban living... and none of the benefits.  Friends of mine that live downtown drive over to 5 Points to shop at Publix, or eat dinner at someplace not named Burrito Gallery or Fionn MacCools.  That's not really an environment where people want to live.  That's the crux of the issue to me.