The Jacksonville Landing's Redevelopment Plan

[edjax]

Just wish we could afford Simms. Damn.

[tufsu1]

Again I am fine with the mix of uses...multi-family residential with some commercial is what downtown needs....and unlike Simms, I feel there are many good properties in the List portfolio...Post Walk in Tampa's Hyde Park for example. 

[Tacachale]

^I agree, I really don't see the problem with a residential element; in fact it would be a great addition so long as it didn't take away the other elements.

[simms3]

Just wish we could afford Simms. Damn.

Aww, I can appreciate your vitriolic hatred towards me.  #hatersgonnahate

Too bad you have never had anything substantive to say about me, my posts, or half of the discussions that take place.  Always a personal nit.  I say it's time to up your game.

Again I am fine with the mix of uses...multi-family residential with some commercial is what downtown needs....and unlike Simms, I feel there are many good properties in the List portfolio...Post Walk in Tampa's Hyde Park for example. 

I should clarify - I want to see more residential downtown.  But I am staunchly opposed to residential on this site *unless* it truly doesn't take away the main purpose of this site and its sense of public ownership (and I think that will be very difficult to do because the best residential that can be built now in Jax is that lame proposal we've already seen).

There is nothing in the Post portfolio that is "bad", but there is *nothing* that I feel belongs on this site.  In my opinion, there is nothing truly "urban" about any property in the Post portfolio, or Tom's new portfolio.

The Landing, as-is now, looks better as a postcard forefront setting than any Type III stick multifamily they'll be able to design for that site.  The best look you'll get is something that is an iteration of 220 Riverside, which does not belong there, at all, in my most humble opinion.

If it takes the city stepping in in a major way to keep the Landing as a sort of public use with shops and restaurants and event space and stalls, then that's what should happen, no matter how long it takes.  I don't want this site, the most prominent in the city, used up by an iteration of a multifamily development described as "urban" that really could be in any major sunbelt city, both in a downtown or in a suburban setting (as is the case already).

I really hope somebody's standards in the city of Jax are as high as mine.  We will take away an opportunity to do something truly unique if we let multifamily take over this site, especially multifamily that can go anywhere else in our urban core, on the SS, anywhere in Orlando, Tampa, Atlanta, Charlotte, Austin, Nashville, etc.  This site, along with the bones and history that is there, is way better than that.

[arb]

I should clarify - I want to see more residential downtown.  But I am staunchly opposed to residential on this site *unless* it truly doesn't take away the main purpose of this site and its sense of public ownership (and I think that will be very difficult to do because the best residential that can be built now in Jax is that lame proposal we've already seen).

There is nothing in the Post portfolio that is "bad", but there is *nothing* that I feel belongs on this site.  In my opinion, there is nothing truly "urban" about any property in the Post portfolio, or Tom's new portfolio.

The Landing, as-is now, looks better as a postcard forefront setting than any Type III stick multifamily they'll be able to design for that site.  The best look you'll get is something that is an iteration of 220 Riverside, which does not belong there, at all, in my most humble opinion.

If it takes the city stepping in in a major way to keep the Landing as a sort of public use with shops and restaurants and event space and stalls, then that's what should happen, no matter how long it takes.  I don't want this site, the most prominent in the city, used up by an iteration of a multifamily development described as "urban" that really could be in any major sunbelt city, both in a downtown or in a suburban setting (as is the case already).

I really hope somebody's standards in the city of Jax are as high as mine.  We will take away an opportunity to do something truly unique if we let multifamily take over this site, especially multifamily that can go anywhere else in our urban core, on the SS, anywhere in Orlando, Tampa, Atlanta, Charlotte, Austin, Nashville, etc.  This site, along with the bones and history that is there, is way better than that.

Couldn't have been said any better.

[mtraininjax]

Simms is right about the Landing and Sleiman is trying to jump into something he is not good at, residential housing. When was the last time Sleiman built a massive complex of residential as compared to bunch of retail store fronts? The man is out of his league and he wants to "practice" with the crown jewel of Jacksonville? It is the one iconic item of downtown, besides our tall skyscrapers and the bridges, that is added to postcards and MNF pictures. Tear it down and build a brick shit-house instead?

The Landing was built under the premise of retail shopping, restaurants, night life with concerts using the river as the back drop. If Sleiman can't make this work, have him say he cannot make it work and sell it to some other carnival worker who can make it work. There is no harm in acknowledging failure Tony, just drop it and get back to what you are good at doing, turning trees into strip malls and ruining neighborhoods with the concept that "every store looks the same". Not downtown baby, not my downtown!

[downtownbrown]

I wonder if the panic level about the Landing decreases when people envision Berkman 2 complete, old courthouse demolished, the southbank JEA project that will include another multi-use destination, and of course, Khan's Shipyards development.  Remember, Khan promised to reveal his plans before the season opener.  This week!!

My guess is that within the full context of these many projects, the complete demolition and redesign of the Landing becomes less important.  The Landing, as currently designed, could flourish and attract better dining and retail if more people live in and around the core.

Having said that, I agree with Bob Rhodes that the redesign process should be completely open and NOT dominated by Toney. 

[Tacachale]

The Landing is never going to meet the full potential of the space with its current design. And the proposed design won't meet that potential either, regardless of what else comes up in the area (especially in comparatively isolated places like the Shipyards and the Southside Generator site). We need to get things right when they're still on nice, cheap paper before we invest millions more taxpayer dollars.

[downtownbrown]

I guess it all depends on the definition of "full potential".  If it has anything to do with Return on Investment, redesign of the existing footprint vs. complete demo and rebuild will always be part of the conversation.

[KenFSU]

I guess it all depends on the definition of "full potential".  If it has anything to do with Return on Investment, redesign of the existing footprint vs. complete demo and rebuild will always be part of the conversation.

The Landing is Jacksonville's front doorstep, and arguably the signature piece of real estate in the city. ROI should certainly be a consideration, but in the case of the Landing, the "return" should be thought of first and foremost in terms of quality of life enhancement, civic pride, and marketing opportunity, rather than apartment revenue on a balance sheet.

[urbanlibertarian]

Ok.  What if we let Slieman do his dramatic change to the current Landing and a Landing-ish (restaurant, bar, retail, etc.) development were done on the old courthouse parking lot east of the Hyatt.  Still a prime riverfront location AND closer to the thriving Elbow entertainment disctrict AND across the street from the Hyatt?

[downtownbrown]

I guess it all depends on the definition of "full potential".  If it has anything to do with Return on Investment, redesign of the existing footprint vs. complete demo and rebuild will always be part of the conversation.

The Landing is Jacksonville's front doorstep, and arguably the signature piece of real estate in the city. ROI should certainly be a consideration, but in the case of the Landing, the "return" should be thought of first and foremost in terms of quality of life enhancement, civic pride, and marketing opportunity, rather than apartment revenue on a balance sheet.

I agree, but we have a City Council that seems very reluctant to fund any projects with debt, and a population that doesn't want to pay taxes (and doesn't care about downtown, except in theory).  So ROI is going to play a big part in the discussions.  The only hope is that Real Money with a Real Vision decides to "fix" Jacksonville. Pretty short list there.  And we need political leadership.  Why hasn't the Landing project been opened to urban developers and designers?  Has has been mentioned, Sleiman is a strip mall builder, not an urban designer.  He is out of his depth.

[thelakelander]

A breakdown of the $11.8 million being requested from taxpayers:

$3.24 million - demolish the Landing and prepare site for construction of new buildings

$1.83 million - landscaping, park benches, and trash receptacles

$3.5 million - stage, water fountain, shade canopies, and public art for public space

$2.21 million - streets encircling buildings and paver-surfaced pedestrian areas

$1 million - engineering and architectural services.

About $580k is needed to tear the Main Street Bridge ramp down. However, at the moment, no one has committed money to paying for it.

http://members.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2014-09-02/story/demolition-jacksonville-landing-site-would-cost-38-million-get-it-ready

[ronchamblin]

Two assumed objectives for the landing seem to limit options for a new design.   

For example, are the two objectives below, primary, and actually necessary? .... 

1)  Keeping the overall height low so as to not obscure the river view from other buildings 

2)  Opening up Laura to the river.

If these objectives are to be sought, then what great and magical projects can follow?  Is the design somewhat limited to what has been proposed -- which is a relatively low, two-piece configuration ... one piece being on the east of Laura, the other on the west?

If one doesn't like the apparent "boring" design, then one might consider removing the primary objectives above.

Are we attempting to create some horrendous splash of magic architecture in order to "save" downtown?  While the landing area is significant in some respects, isn't downtown more than the landing?  Might we consider ending our effort to "make" downtown with some goddamn miracle at the landing?  If we must make a miracle, which is indeed possible, then we might consider more space to do so, either in height, which means blocking the view for other buildings, or in density, which means blocking Laura Street's view and access to the river ... or both.

[Tacachale]

Opening up Laura Street to pedestrians (and visibility) should definitely be a necessity. The Landing has never fully taken off with it's back to downtown and it never will.