The Jacksonville Landing's Redevelopment Plan

[KenFSU]

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

Seems pretty high relative what Sleiman presented.

[IrvAdams]

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.

Absolutely. It would be a steady draw to the river. There's a terrific view there.

[downtownbrown]

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.

exactly right.  The Landing footprint simply isn't big enough to define Downtown.  This ain't Mayberry.  The Landing ought to be seen in context of the entire Riverfront, North and South, from the Stadium to Brooklyn.  A little stamp in the middle of it all might be a visual focal point, but it can't hold the variety and scope of an entire downtown ecosystem.

[JimInJax]

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.

It has almost nothing to do with design. It has to do with the draw of the venue. Other than a bar or restaurant, almost any of which can be done in other parts of the city (with free / better parking options) what is it that makes The Landing unique enough to bring people downtown? The answer is NOTHING; THAT is the problem. The only reason I go there is because it is someplace I can go by boat. Otherwise, I would probably never go there.

[downtownbrown]

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.

It has almost nothing to do with design. It has to do with the draw of the venue. Other than a bar or restaurant, almost any of which can be done in other parts of the city (with free / better parking options) what is it that makes The Landing unique enough to bring people downtown? The answer is NOTHING; THAT is the problem. The only reason I go there is because it is someplace I can go by boat. Otherwise, I would probably never go there.

It has something to do with design.  The Landing could be the attractive anomally in the gestalt of downtown.  The problem is that there is no gestalt.  Yet.

[Jdog]

Curious...If in a designing pase, any sense in thinking about the Adams a part of the project?

[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.

It has almost nothing to do with design. It has to do with the draw of the venue. Other than a bar or restaurant, almost any of which can be done in other parts of the city (with free / better parking options) what is it that makes The Landing unique enough to bring people downtown? The answer is NOTHING; THAT is the problem. The only reason I go there is because it is someplace I can go by boat. Otherwise, I would probably never go there.

A space that attracts people and business is the draw of the venue. Business aren't going to go (or at least succeed) in a place they can't make money. The current design is, and always has been, too limited for the space to reach its full potential.

[simms3]

I see the Ferry Building as the perfect analogy of the Landing.

1) It's owned by EOP (balance sheet), but on Port of SF land (i.e. ground lease).
2) It's had its ups and downs over the years, but an opportunity led to its present state.
3) Required tons of patience on the part of ownership to breathe life into the space.  Required tons of money, too.  Took time to get tenants and vendors, and make them happy.
4) Sense of public ownership.
5) Mixed-use with class A office space on top floor
6) Event space - a wedding happens there almost every day
7) Waterfront, with public waterfront access.
8 ) Bookends downtown and offers a "setting" for the backdrop, which is high-rises
9) Roughly < 300,000 SF size range, altogether



The differences are that the city/port was a fantastic partner and ownership was well capitalized and had the necessary experience.  SF is admittedly on a different level, but before 1989 the whole waterfront was actually really dirty and crime-ridden, and not touristy at all.

I can see that throwing up some multi is the only way to get this to work, financially (and receive financing), "now", and I can see an argument for there being no point in "trying" since the city itself (i.e. leadership) sucks and won't seem to ever get its act together, but owning the Landing is not my problem.  It's Toney's.  He picked up something that has a *sense of public ownership* and I hope the media follows this closely, scrutinizes everything, and that the city allows public input.

The $30mm used for the scoreboards could have been invested nicely here, but then that would make the city an official partner and investor, oh wait...the city helped Khan's personal investment in the Jags that way without becoming an official investor!  Wait, the irony...(I guess the city owns the stadium and the Jags lease it, so it's "different").

Other cities that have a feature like the Ferry Building without all of those similarities to the Landing:

Philly - Reading Terminal
NYC - Chelsea Market
LA - Grand Central Market
Chicago - Chicago French Market
Atlanta - soon to be Ponce City Market and Krog Street Market
Boston - soon to be Boston Public Market

I like Chelsea Market because it's a mix of uses with office above, like the Ferry Building.  Ferry Building is literally directly analogous to the Landing, though.  In almost every way.  I'll try to snap pics this weekend since I need a break from being bad

[strider]

Was the Landing ever successful as a retail/ restaurant venue? If yes, then what changed?  If no, then why is it still here?  (Actually, I suspect it is still here because it was once, maybe is successful enough.) Is it the Landing and it's design that is an issue here or is it everything around it? Or, in this case today, the lack of everything around it?  It just seems to me that while this proposal is to "fix" the Landing, it is not the Landing that is broken but rather Downtown. If that is the case, no amount of Millions spent on "fixing" the Landing will work, now will it? The Landing needs to be left alone and not be the first thing "fixed".  Let's get the Laura Trio up and running, let's get other retail Downtown and then let's look at if a fix is even needed. Let's spend those millions on better things that will not just help the Landing but all of Downtown.

[Tacachale]

^The design can't really be separated from everything around it, because it's closed off from everything else, with its entire back to downtown. As a mall (sorry, "festival marketplace"), it was more successful than it currently is back when it opened, mostly because it was new. But it never did live up to the hopes for it, and the fact that it's an isolated space has a lot to do with that, among other factors.

It's always been successful during special events, and as a restaurant and bar destination it's actually been doing a lot better than it has in a long time. Sleiman took the initiative to keep the courtyard spots occupied by those uses, to his credit. However, much of the rest of the mall is closed.

[IrvAdams]

Was the Landing ever successful as a retail/ restaurant venue? If yes, then what changed?  If no, then why is it still here?  (Actually, I suspect it is still here because it was once, maybe is successful enough.) Is it the Landing and it's design that is an issue here or is it everything around it? Or, in this case today, the lack of everything around it?  It just seems to me that while this proposal is to "fix" the Landing, it is not the Landing that is broken but rather Downtown. If that is the case, no amount of Millions spent on "fixing" the Landing will work, now will it? The Landing needs to be left alone and not be the first thing "fixed".  Let's get the Laura Trio up and running, let's get other retail Downtown and then let's look at if a fix is even needed. Let's spend those millions on better things that will not just help the Landing but all of Downtown.

I don't know enough about the migratory patterns of Jacksonville and surrounding area consumers to be able to tell you why the Landing fell out of favor, but I can clearly remember that for years after it opened it was definitely successful as a retail and restaurant/bar destination. There used to be lines of people gathering at the Landing entertainment venues. Hard to find a parking space.

Your points are well taken regarding whether the Landing is indeed 'broken'. In other words, even if you (re)build it, will they come?

In my opinion, opening it up to Laura Street is huge. People need to be drawn in to overcome the isolation of the structure.

[simms3]

You can't just go through the motions.  Places I mentioned above aren't successful simply because they "are", or because they're located where they're located.  They were all at one point in the worst parts of town, abandoned and neglected.  Now they are all major tourist destinations and successful private investments.

You have to have the right vision, the right kind of [patient] money, a good partner in the city, and the right experience.  THESE are the ingredients that are missing.

If MJ is any indication, there is a pent up demand and market for "artisan" stuff, new restaurants, new ideas, event space, nightlife, etc.  Redone and reimagined appropriately, Sleiman + well chosen partner can capitalize on this, and the city would be wise to make sure it gets done, even if that means becoming a public partner to a fuller extent.

The Ferry Building gets ~15% of its revenue from events, such as weddings.  That is a huge percentage.  Food vendors from Napa/Sonoma were originally brought in, practically paid to come in.  Now they are paying $200++ PSF in rent.  Office space above was initially non-competitive to the towers, but it was done well, molded to fit its unique setting/history, and now has a law firm paying close to $100 PSF in rent.

It sounds like even posters here are giving up.  This building has POTENTIAL in the form it is already in.  Just needs new architecture, programming, outreach, etc.

[strider]

It also seems to me that to simply open up the back of the landing could be done relatively inexpensively by adding walls inside the structure and not removing the basic roof and exterior wall structures.  If there is a lot of space not being used, the loss of SF would not hurt and as many here seem to think that it must be more open,  then creating  open passageways (both floors)  would be an easy way to test those waters.  Certainly not the kind of cost the various proposals are demanding and it would add a new "thing" to the Landing.  A look-out from the second floor to Downtown up Laura or over the river.  Would that not be a change that fits this - "Redone and re-imagined appropriately" - and kicks it off?

[KenFSU]

1. Early warning signs. 18

Was the Landing ever successful as a retail/ restaurant venue? If yes, then what changed?  If no, then why is it still here?  (Actually, I suspect it is still here because it was once, maybe is successful enough.) Is it the Landing and it's design that is an issue here or is it everything around it? Or, in this case today, the lack of everything around it?  It just seems to me that while this proposal is to "fix" the Landing, it is not the Landing that is broken but rather Downtown. If that is the case, no amount of Millions spent on "fixing" the Landing will work, now will it? The Landing needs to be left alone and not be the first thing "fixed".  Let's get the Laura Trio up and running, let's get other retail Downtown and then let's look at if a fix is even needed. Let's spend those millions on better things that will not just help the Landing but all of Downtown.

The lack of foot traffic has always been a problem for the Landing, particularly during the work week. The 18-tenet food court was slashed in half within two or three years of the grand opening (this was pre-BOA Tower, keep in mind), and retailers like Sharper Image and Brookstone bailed within five. Retail and restaurant turnover at the Landing has historically outpaced that at places like the Avenues and Regency as well. Those that have survived have been able to do so by leveraging additional traffic from events like Florida-Georgia, 4th of July, New Year's, etc. Hooters pulls in $100,000 typically during FL-GA weekend alone.

When people say that the Landing is fine with just restaurants and shops and doesn't need to be the central event space in Jacksonville, they miss the point that without these events, the restaurants and stores likely would not survive.

[simms3]

^^^I think supplementing what you have said, which is very true, with the idea that the city needs to be a good partner - in addition to occasional big events that draw crowds downtown in general, a healthy downtown would do wonders to help the Landing.  And a re-imagined Landing and a growing/healthy downtown can happen simultaneously and for many of the same reasons, basically hinging on good decision making and a matter of priorities.

More office workers would translate to larger lunch time crowds.  More residents would translate to regular weekend foot traffic.  And nothing would help more than robust tourism - conventioneers, tourists, vacationers, business travelers, etc.

The city doing things better on its end to emphasize downtown, improve and expand an economy that would bring more office space downtown, incentivize more private residential development, and at least attempt to compete in the CVB business with other cities would basically solve every single problem ever brought up on this forum.  LoL