The Jacksonville Landing's Redevelopment Plan

[thelakelander]

Why can't the landing area become more than an event place ... so that the area can be enjoyed 24 hours a day, 365 days per year?

Everything else in this discussion aside, I just wanted to point out that these things don't have to be and should never come down to "either or" situations.  The best vibrant environments are capable of hosting several activities 24/7, 365 days a year. Baltimore's Inner Harbor, a place we've attempted to copy several times, does a great job of this:







^The Inner Harbor has a lot of stuff taking place within a very compact area, thus drawing all types of people, races, ages, income levels, etc. on an around the clock basis.

By the way, I don't think there's anything wrong with the proposed line up of uses.  What's shown is not "world-class" or a major destination (I really wish we stop saying stuff like this for what's being proposed) but a small number of apartments and integrated retail/dining are definitely "realistic".  While there are some great layout decisions made, more green space along the river and eliminating the Main Street on-ramp being two of them, we may have over thought ourselves on this one.

We're getting those things accomplished, but replacing the great elements of what many thought could be a decent regional draw with a random mixed-use apartment complex that's been built on the fringe of every big city downtown and densifying suburb for the last 20 years.

[downtownbrown]

so some people hate it.  Some people like it.  The difference between the two groups seems to be those who see the Landing as the perpetural focal point and sole gathering spot, and those who see the Landing as one spot in an area that extends from the TU to EverBank.  Khan has been clear that he wants the Shipyards area to the the "front door".  To me that means it will be the area where the large gatherings take place, the Christmas tree, the huge Florida/Geoergia shindig.  So count me in the latter group.  The new Landing will be part of the whole, not a failed destination.

[tufsu1]

^ there's already a similar sign out front, so it seems likely

You mean this little thing?

no...I mean the sign currently out front...where the Jackson statue used to be

[TheCat]

In case you are interested, comments from facebook.

Some of the highlights:

"Gay!!!!!!! Yea let's take everything away from the river so rich people can park their boats"

"I thought this was a "river city"?! Why would they design away from the river? And putting a street between it as well. That's the only reason I go to The Landing is to dine and enjoy on the river. This will change the face of our city in the worst way!"

"Slimeball Sleiman doesn't deserve a penny of my money. No way."

"Not interested in throwing more taxpayer money into this. If the businessmen can't figure out how to leverage a gorgeous piece of riverfront property, our taxpayer dollars are not going to help."

https://www.facebook.com/MetroJacksonville/posts/10152679543448979?comment_id=10152681392943979&offset=0&total_comments=35&notif_t=feed_comment

[peestandingup]

Agree w Stephen. There's no such thing as a single public & main "meeting place" when it comes to urban environments. There should be several big ones all over (like there are in the entire Riverside/Avondale district). And downtown def has more empty space than you could shake a stick at. What happens if some people don't like whatever the Shipyards turn into? Outta luck I guess.

Besides, if we really wanna go there, Landing already has that title. Its been the established center piece at every holiday, big event, etc. Trashing it & moving the center piece to an unknown entity, which may or may not work out, is asinine. And yes, this plan is effectively trashing the actual good things about the Landing.

It needs a reorganization & making what works prominent, not a total teardown & transformed into a couple standard looking buildings w a handful of restaurants in them w people dodging cars the whole time.

You know what a better way to enjoy our river is besides looking at it through a car's windshield? On foot.

[thelakelander]

so some people hate it.  Some people like it.  The difference between the two groups seems to be those who see the Landing as the perpetural focal point and sole gathering spot, and those who see the Landing as one spot in an area that extends from the TU to EverBank.  Khan has been clear that he wants the Shipyards area to the the "front door".  To me that means it will be the area where the large gatherings take place, the Christmas tree, the huge Florida/Geoergia shindig.  So count me in the latter group.  The new Landing will be part of the whole, not a failed destination.

I think this misses the point.  The Landing is on public property that has been leased, and the original agreement of that lease provides that there will be public space built into the publicly owned waterfront.

Also, this is still Jacksonville, not Khantown or Sleimanburg.  No one person gets 'dibs' on the 'front door' or the 'catbird seat' or anything like that.

The city will do best when there are a hundred people doing significant projects independently of one another.

The City's leasehold right includes holding 10 events per year on the West Parcel. Whatever becomes of the property, the throwing of events will have to be taken into consideration. Counting on the isolated/non centrally located Shipyards to be the grand gathering space for public events is a repeat of the poor failed policies and ideas we've been kicking down the road for the last 60 years.  I hope we can really learn from our past and the success of compact settings in all of these peer cities we claim to be learning from.  You can't develop downtown like a sprawly suburb and expect vibrancy (pedestrian scale vibrancy) to happen anytime soon.....no matter how much money is tossed into the area.

[urbanlibertarian]

stephendare wrote: "The city will do best when there are a hundred people doing significant projects independently of one another."

+1  Unleash the hounds. 

It appears that the consensus is "Mend it, don't (pretty much) end it."  Reconfiguration and added structures, yes.  Significantly changing it from what it currently is, no.

[exnewsman]

The one thing that the current Landing has going for it is its iconic building and shape. It is immediately recognizable to locals and visitors alike and says "this is the place" usually for special events. I don't see anything like that in this new proposal. It's just some buildings. It could be anywhere and still never say "visit me."

If we are about to raze the Landing complex, shouldn't we be getting something more iconic than what we have now. Something that will succeed where this one failed. And I'm not talking about ferris wheels and things like that. If we think of this space as a piece of the puzzle that extends past the Hyatt and to whatever the old courthouse property will become and onward to the Shipyards - then its a district. You have different venues and purposes for people to come. Some live, some work, many stay and play.

Do we really want to entrust the "king of Jacksonville strip malls" with our future riverfront vision. Nothing he's ever down before suggests anything other than bland. We don't need bland. We need spectacular.

Just my 4 cents worth.

[TPC]

I'm not a huge fan of the Landing but I think the new plan is horrible and already outdated looking just like the current version. If your going to build something new, build for the future not the now. Also, the mayor thinking it could be the catalyst for economic development is laughable. So let me get this straight, mediocre condos on top of mediocre shops and restaurants is a catalyst for economic development downtown? If the mayor really wants to make downtown a catalyst for business growth help small business in the core, pressure the owners of vacant store fronts to have interim infill projects, provide affordable housing comparable to the surrounding areas (San Marco, Riverside and Springfield) for young professionals and creatives and be proactive with small businesses starting up and help them rather than be a hinderance ie. getting a beer/wine license. A single downtown project will not be a catalyst, it will be multiple projects consisting of small organic growth with limited interference from the city.

[Jdog]

As someone previously mentioned, I'm not even sure you could get away with calling what's left the "Jacksonville Landing."

Maybe, Two Condos and a Fountain.

Featuring the hot new urban greenspace, The Landing Strip at the Intersection.

I'm with ya Ken! I totally agree with your take on this 'new Landing'. They should redo this proposal. They are turning a gathering place (albeit outdated) into a place with very limited space for non-residents. Like you said, they shouldn't even call it the Jacksonville Landing, maybe the Northbank Residencies. 

It takes a lot to anger me, but this redevelopment plan truly has me fired up. Is the Landing in need of a refresh? Absolutely, I think we can all agree on that. But should that refresh involve bulldozing Jacksonville's signature, most iconic event space and replacing it with what looks like a South Florida retirement community? Absolutely not. I literally hate every single aspect of these renderings and even without seeing the full site plan yet, it blows my mind how poorly thought out this all seems to be.

I hate the way Laura Street effectively cuts the Landing in half. Opening up the Landing to downtown has been discussed for years, but this is the first time that I have ever seen that taken to mean opening it up to vehicular traffic. And for what purpose, to funnel Landing residents into Sleiman's parking garages at the expense of pedestrian experience?

I hate the road alongside the river even more. It's truly ridiculous, and says to me that Sleiman is not serious about the Landing being used as an event space any longer. Why else would you cut the narrow strip of public greenspace off from the vendors and restaurants with a road? And why would you further segment that greenspace into two separate halves by sticking a cheesy shopping center fountain (directly across the river from Friendship Fountain, no less) and shrubbery right in the middle?

I hate the tacky Fort Lauderdale palm trees (which get bonus points for blocking the view of the river for restaurants). I hate the private rooftop swimming pools (we've already bankrolled private pools at the stadium). I hate that the "world class" plan has its hopes set on landing a Starbucks and a drug store. I hate the meager 60,000 square foot allotment for retail, restaurants, and bars (a drug store would eat up a quarter of that space alone).

I hate what this does to our skyline, eliminating the iconic, lit "Jacksonville Landing" signage and copper roof and replacing it with two drab shoeboxes that completely block the view of the flared bottom of the Independent Life building from I-95.

Aside from adding up to 500 new downtown residents, which can surely be done to similar effect elsewhere without sacrificing the Landing, I have a hard time finding any other redeeming value in the proposed plan.

The Landing might be dated, but it's one of our few landmarks that is uniquely and identifiably Jacksonville. It's where we celebrated being awarded the Jaguars in 1993. It's where we ring in the New Year, Christmas, and the 4th of July. It's where the national media often sets up shop when a big sporting event is in town. And it's where Florida-Georgia holds an annual party so large that Hooters routinely grosses $100,000 for the weekend. Bringing it into the 21st century is one thing, and something that we have all supported for years. But replacing it entirely with apartments, two roads, and 950 parking spaces? That is a crime against Jacksonville, and an error in judgement that could set downtown back decades. The Landing is the heart of the city, and this is one project we really can't afford to f**k up.

Agree with everything...

[jaxjags]

The Inner Harbor in Baltimore is actually a quite large space. I have walked/ran it several times. I believe the linear footage along the harbor would actually exceed the distance from Metro Park to I-95. They do have several buildings interrupt the continuous flow, but paths around them are good. Although I do not like the Landing redesign due to blah or "no" architecture, road on river, and not enough green/public space, I believe it would not be an issue to move the large major gathering area to the shipyards. Bay street is already moving that way. Major concerts and events have been staged in this area (Jazz Fest, Superbowl, FL-GA game events, etc.). It is closer to Everbank Field and Arena for tie-in to events at these facilities.

Give the new Landing a more iconic design with more public space and restaurant visibility, and ability for the smaller event that occur, but shift the 'Main Event" site to the Shipyards. I agree that housing in the Landing is a good idea for increasing foot traffic in the central core.  Just make it not look like an office building and try to keep it affordable for young DT workers.

[thelakelander]

The Inner Harbor in Baltimore is actually a quite large space.

^It's actually quite compact in comparison and the incremental line of investment of major destinations within it, is pretty compact as well. I'll have an Inner Harbor vs DT Jax riverfront article up tomorrow. I've been sitting on it for a while, but I'll finish it tonight. It's pretty interesting how both communities have invested in similar attractions since the 1960s, yet achieved totally different results to date. . 

[thelakelander]

Btw, the public hearing date for the closure of the Main Street Bridge on-ramp has been set:


click here for larger version: http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Other/mi/9562820_3WdxxK#!i=3488744525&k=jkX4TXS&lb=1&s=X3

The removal of the on-ramp is essential for the redevelopment of the Landing.

[funwithteeth]

Comic Sans. Really.

[KenFSU]

Has anybody heard any new information about when Khan's proposal for the Shipyards is supposed to be revealed? Is it still expected by early September? I would hope that no decision would be made on the Landing until we figure out what's going on with the Shipyards property, and vice versa.