The Jacksonville Landing: What Should It Be?

[brainstormer]

Thanks simms. What are typical reasons/benefits for leasing versus selling the land to the developer?

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

Building aside, the addition of an interactive green space riverfront greenspace west of Main Street is one of the best things that could happen to the core of the Northbank. It's what cities like Chattanooga, Detroit, Tampa and Baltimore have gotten right and something that Jax has always lacked, despite being the "River City".

That is not a very large space though compared to those cities and what they offer. It is just a small strip I am assuming for the little concerts they have now.

Chattanooga and Detroit have great examples of spaces smaller that draw crowds due to the unique mix of activities in them and their proximity to other downtown destinations. Here's a few pics:

Detroit's Campus Martius Park









The Passage in Chattanooga

They should try to remove Hogan St. and just add more green space there. Interesting that they added some buildings right on the river too.

I agree that Hogan should become a part of an interactive green space south of Water Street. I'd take it one step further. Instead of focusing on how the Landing meets the river between Hogan and Main Street, they should be looking at how everything works together, at a minimum, between the Acosta and failing courthouse parking lot.

Can you expound upon that last point a little more? What would you like to see? It seems in this rendering at least, they have green space along the river headed towards the Hyatt.

[vicupstate]

Uptown Charlotte, Brickell in Miami, Midtown Atlanta, SoBro/Gulch in Nashville, downtown Austin

SoBro/Gulch is an achievable model, as for the others, it would be 20 years minimum for JAX to look like any of those cities/areas, and most likely significantly longer.  You have to crawl before you can walk. You can't skip over the pioneer/early years of the cycle.

I agree that THIS site should probably not have residential itself, but it needs to be developed as a destination such that residential (as well as office, retail, etc.) will want to be a close as possible to it.  It needs to be the destination/focal point for all of DT. Laura Street needs to be the 'Main Street' that serves as the retail/restaurant 'spine' that connects the other nodes/anchors (Hemming Plaza).  That is why the Barnett/Trio are so important. Get those done and then tackle the vacant church that faces Hemming and the storefronts along Laura between Hemming and the Landing. Convert the office towers to better interact with the street. Program events along Laura. Put residential any and everywhere you can (over stores, the abandoned buildings, just not the Landing itself necessarily).  Once it starts to turn, the possibilities for the Landing will grow too.  The higher quality materials, the cost of taller construction can then start to be justified.

As crazy as it sounds, maybe the 'flower garden' idea has some merit, but more of a 'Grant Park - Chicago', Charleston White Point Gardens -Battery' idea.     

 

[simms3]

Thanks simms. What are typical reasons/benefits for leasing versus selling the land to the developer?

To protect the waterfront!!  Because it should be public land!  I mean there are a host of reasons, but that's one.  This would be public land in literally every city I think I've ever stepped foot in.  This is the most central, perhaps the most important piece of land in the entire city.  And so yes, it should be protected at all costs and shouldn't be built up with apartments.

[simms3]

Uptown Charlotte, Brickell in Miami, Midtown Atlanta, SoBro/Gulch in Nashville, downtown Austin

SoBro/Gulch is an achievable model, as for the others, it would be 20 years minimum for JAX to look like any of those cities/areas, and most likely significantly longer.  You have to crawl before you can walk. You can't skip over the pioneer/early years of the cycle.

I think they are all achievable models and I think at the rate Jax crawls (or lays down, frankly), it would easily be a minimum of 20 years for Jax to achieve what any of these areas has achieved in their past 20 year time frame.

If it were up to me, Jax wouldn't even look to other southern cities at all.  I think the south does a piss poor job of new urbanism and building up downtowns.  I think the west does it best, by far.

Jax should really start to look at San Diego, Denver, Portland, Minneapolis frankly, for inspiration.  All of these cities started out with Charlotte and Austin 20 years ago and all of these cities did what Charlotte did x 10 in the same time frame, and executed them more brilliantly.  The western US still provides the path for building new cities, in my opinion.  The SE in general, FL in particular, tends to fuck things up or do exactly what other western cities are doing, just doing these things rather poorly.

[thelakelander]

Can you expound upon that last point a little more? What would you like to see? It seems in this rendering at least, they have green space along the river headed towards the Hyatt.

I'd like to see us stop treating our waterfront like a collection of isolated sites. In this case, the planning is for the Landing and the waterfront is being addressed like it only stretches between Hogan and Main Streets. I think when it comes to the waterfront and talk about green space along the river, we should consider everything south of Water Street as one space with various destinations within it. From this perspective, it's just as important to integrate the Landing with the performing arts center and Hyatt, as it is to focus on opening Laura Street up. So when looking at the waterfront, just because the Landing ends at Hogan Street, that doesn't mean a well planned green space (the tax payers will be paying for it anyway) has to end at the same spot.

[thelakelander]

Not saying he'd sell, because he probably would not, but do you guys believe it would be better for the city to consider buying the Landing from Sleiman (or working with him) to do something like the Ferry Building marketplace in SF? Or is the market for something similar within the existing structure not there?

[hiddentrack]

Not saying he'd sell, because he probably would not, but do you guys believe it would be better for the city to consider buying the Landing from Sleiman (or working with him) to do something like the Ferry Building marketplace in SF? Or is the market for something similar within the existing structure not there?

It's funny you mention that, because when I look at the original question posed at the beginning of this thread - "The Jacksonville Landing: What Should It Be?" - my best answer is "owned by someone else."

It's nothing personal, but I think there's so much more achievable at the site than what it seems like Sleiman is happy to settle for.

I know the Shipyards proposal wasn't universally loved, but there was excitement surrounding it. Love it or hate it, we had someone proposing something new and exciting, and it was proposed by someone who gave the impression they were happy to go big and bold. Here it seems like we have something proposed that excites no one.

I'd love to see something like the Ferry Building marketplace on the existing site. I even think the existing structure is fine, though a few changes wouldn't hurt. It's all about filling it with the right merchants. There's a lot of potential there it just needs the right people in charge.

Jacksonville is a city that is going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into this century. I don't see anything so far that gives me the feeling that this project could be the type of thing that moves the city out of the mindset that we need to accept proposals like this. Maybe with someone else in charge we'd have that chance.

[simms3]

Not saying he'd sell, because he probably would not, but do you guys believe it would be better for the city to consider buying the Landing from Sleiman (or working with him) to do something like the Ferry Building marketplace in SF? Or is the market for something similar within the existing structure not there?

It's funny you mention that, because when I look at the original question posed at the beginning of this thread - "The Jacksonville Landing: What Should It Be?" - my best answer is "owned by someone else."

It's nothing personal, but I think there's so much more achievable at the site than what it seems like Sleiman is happy to settle for.

I know the Shipyards proposal wasn't universally loved, but there was excitement surrounding it. Love it or hate it, we had someone proposing something new and exciting, and it was proposed by someone who gave the impression they were happy to go big and bold. Here it seems like we have something proposed that excites no one.

I'd love to see something like the Ferry Building marketplace on the existing site. I even think the existing structure is fine, though a few changes wouldn't hurt. It's all about filling it with the right merchants. There's a lot of potential there it just needs the right people in charge.

Jacksonville is a city that is going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into this century. I don't see anything so far that gives me the feeling that this project could be the type of thing that moves the city out of the mindset that we need to accept proposals like this. Maybe with someone else in charge we'd have that chance.

Ferry Building to me has been and still is the best model for the Landing and there are too many parallels to ignore (time frame for when Ferry Building was redone is similar to when Landing was built, size is similar, real estate structure is similar, layout is similar, setting is similar).

My concern with Sleiman is twofold:

1) Politics related, this is a major Republican donor.  I don't think he has a lot of friends on the creative, mom & pop, holistic healer vegan chef realm, though I'm sure he knows a few area farmers

2) He has a super strong relationship with Walgreens corporate and their real estate department, and other similar retailers, through his hefty portfolio and long term experience building crap in the suburbs for them.

This will not help him fill the Landing with local purveyors.  Also, this is a guy who deals with investment grade credit tenants long-term leasing the majority of the retail he builds.  How do you get someone in that mindset comfortable issuing loans and doing buildouts for mom and pop purveyors who can't guarantee they'll stick around more than a year or pay the rent?  There is no financing for that.  Sleiman must act like the SBA, essentially, all while still out on a limb with the hard real estate.

I agree, I don't think Sleiman is the right guy.  His partner that he brought in a year or two ago is also not the right guy.  He brought in a prolific apartment developer who has put up infinite Type 3 Tyvek apartments all around the SE.


Sleiman and his partner are the best pair for putting up a typical Type 3 apartment community with some ground floor retail leased to a Landry's restaurant at best, if that's what we want for the centerpiece of our downtown waterfront.

If you want the Ferry Building, you need a group like EOP (current owners of Ferry Building) with a flamboyant boots on the ground team that will get it done, or you need a local group with vision and absolutely a sugar daddy who is the equity and wants a piece of that and is willing to risk it.  Preferably someone fairly liberal and free-spirited who isn't afraid to light up a bowl with a local well-connected group of chefs and creative/artsy retailers who would love an opportunity to have a stall or space in the Landing.  You gotta be these people's friend, and you have to spend $$$ on them to get them in there.

You need an amazing design and interior design team.  You need to get along really really well with them.  I just don't see Sleiman fitting that role.

[Adam White]

If you want the Ferry Building, you need a group like EOP (current owners of Ferry Building) with a flamboyant boots on the ground team that will get it done, or you need a local group with vision and absolutely a sugar daddy who is the equity and wants a piece of that and is willing to risk it.  Preferably someone fairly liberal and free-spirited who isn't afraid to light up a bowl with a local well-connected group of chefs and creative/artsy retailers who would love an opportunity to have a stall or space in the Landing.  You gotta be these people's friend, and you have to spend $$$ on them to get them in there.

You need an amazing design and interior design team.  You need to get along really really well with them.  I just don't see Sleiman fitting that role.

I don't know much about Sleiman, but it seems to me that he doesn't have much in the way of ideas and is looking for everyone else to pay for the ones he has.

[strider]

If you want the Ferry Building, you need a group like EOP (current owners of Ferry Building) with a flamboyant boots on the ground team that will get it done, or you need a local group with vision and absolutely a sugar daddy who is the equity and wants a piece of that and is willing to risk it.  Preferably someone fairly liberal and free-spirited who isn't afraid to light up a bowl with a local well-connected group of chefs and creative/artsy retailers who would love an opportunity to have a stall or space in the Landing.  You gotta be these people's friend, and you have to spend $$$ on them to get them in there.

You need an amazing design and interior design team.  You need to get along really really well with them.  I just don't see Sleiman fitting that role.

+1

Doesn't that idea work perfectly with the existing building?  It certainly can be revamped and made better for hundreds of millions less than what this proposal would cost.  Then would not the attention and funding this proposed project would command be better spent by fixing the issues that surround the Landing?  Like getting the Laura Trio up and building residential density so that  the Landing becomes a more desirable place for businesses to be?

It seems to me that the bottom line is simply that Sleiman's ROI for the current Landing is limited by the leasing of the Landing. Sleiman's ROI on this new Landing he wants would also be limited by the leasing of the new spaces.  Since the current ROI is apparently bad, the new landing, without fixing the other issues Downtown, won't be much better and comes with a much higher debt load.  So the real profit Sleiman is after is from building the thing and how much he can skim off the tax money he gets from the city.

I've never seen a good argument that justifies the expense for a new Landing.  Everything I have read thus far indicates to me the funding would be much better spent elsewhere.

[simms3]

If you want the Ferry Building, you need a group like EOP (current owners of Ferry Building) with a flamboyant boots on the ground team that will get it done, or you need a local group with vision and absolutely a sugar daddy who is the equity and wants a piece of that and is willing to risk it.  Preferably someone fairly liberal and free-spirited who isn't afraid to light up a bowl with a local well-connected group of chefs and creative/artsy retailers who would love an opportunity to have a stall or space in the Landing.  You gotta be these people's friend, and you have to spend $$$ on them to get them in there.

You need an amazing design and interior design team.  You need to get along really really well with them.  I just don't see Sleiman fitting that role.

+1

Doesn't that idea work perfectly with the existing building?  It certainly can be revamped and made better for hundreds of millions less than what this proposal would cost.  Then would not the attention and funding this proposed project would command be better spent by fixing the issues that surround the Landing?  Like getting the Laura Trio up and building residential density so that  the Landing becomes a more desirable place for businesses to be?

It seems to me that the bottom line is simply that Sleiman's ROI for the current Landing is limited by the leasing of the Landing. Sleiman's ROI on this new Landing he wants would also be limited by the leasing of the new spaces.  Since the current ROI is apparently bad, the new landing, without fixing the other issues Downtown, won't be much better and comes with a much higher debt load.  So the real profit Sleiman is after is from building the thing and how much he can skim off the tax money he gets from the city.

I've never seen a good argument that justifies the expense for a new Landing.  Everything I have read thus far indicates to me the funding would be much better spent elsewhere.

He'll make money on the multifamily portion.  That rendering looks large - easily 300-400 units.  You're right, though, that the same neighborhood/city problems will still be there.

Also, no worries, we are not even close to the hundreds of millions of dollars you mention, regardless of the path he takes.  He has no land basis (not that that would be more than a couple mil in Jax anyway), and it would cost nothing for him to tear down the Landing, and probably $150K/unit at most to build the structure or something similar as rendered.  It would cost a little to buy out existing leases.  Definitely less than $100M, easily, all in.  Probably more like $70-80M tops.

Financing would be between Sleiman and a private lender.  A project of this size would likely be a large allocation to Jax, from a lender's perspective, but in the grand scheme is not a large loan at all.  The retail is where he'll have the issues.  The less retail the better for the lender, because the lender is structuring this like a real estate loan, which means it will have covenants.


If he doesn't go this route, and I don't want him to, yes, he can do something creative with the existing structure and seems to be trying to within the bounds of his current financial situation.  Clearly to do something that can't be financed and will require a good bit more equity, he needs to find that equity.  And it won't be cheap and will likely be a tranche above his own, so he 's really going out on a limb by doing so.  There is high yield debt, too.  That would be cheaper than this kind of equity, but more restrictions.

He just needs to find the money.  That's the big challenge.  A bland formulaic apartment deal makes that easier.

[heights unknown]

Building aside, the addition of an interactive green space riverfront greenspace west of Main Street is one of the best things that could happen to the core of the Northbank. It's what cities like Chattanooga, Detroit, Tampa and Baltimore have gotten right and something that Jax has always lacked, despite being the "River City".

That is not a very large space though compared to those cities and what they offer. It is just a small strip I am assuming for the little concerts they have now.

Chattanooga and Detroit have great examples of spaces smaller that draw crowds due to the unique mix of activities in them and their proximity to other downtown destinations. Here's a few pics:

Detroit's Campus Martius Park









The Passage in Chattanooga

They should try to remove Hogan St. and just add more green space there. Interesting that they added some buildings right on the river too.

I agree that Hogan should become a part of an interactive green space south of Water Street. I'd take it one step further. Instead of focusing on how the Landing meets the river between Hogan and Main Street, they should be looking at how everything works together, at a minimum, between the Acosta and failing courthouse parking lot.

Can you expound upon that last point a little more? What would you like to see? It seems in this rendering at least, they have green space along the river headed towards the Hyatt.

So.......if there's not a lot of room to work with where the landing is now, then you go vertical, up to a certain height; you can't block the "WELLS FARGO" building and I don't think they will allow that, but you can go vertical (up to around 200 feet or maybe a little more?).

[Charles Hunter]

I think the concern about any vertical element at the Landing site is blocking the view of the "pyramid" at the bottom of Wells Fargo.  If you can block that iconic view, it doesn't really matter if you block the rest of the tower, as it is rather unremarkable.

[CCMjax]

HU - A concern about going high rise is that the market downtown does not support a high rise development right now.  They can't even renovate the Trio and Barnett down the street, two beautiful iconic high rises already built where they should be, away from the river.  The main attraction of any landing redesign should be the river and green space for the public to enjoy.  I was just down there Saturday and after Sweet Pete's I just wanted to take my son to a nice riverfront park down the street and realized Jacksonville doesn't have anything like that downtown.  Any buildings on the site should be low to medium rise, inviting, and set back away from the river giving way for lots of outdoor space.  I agree with Simms' argument that there shouldn't be sooooo much residential on the property.  The buildings don't have to be much, just some restaurants/cafes, maybe some residential on the upper floors, but it doesn't have to be big.  Slieman is a business man and is most likely concerned about his profit first and this will likely impact the design a great deal, but I do hope they scale back the buildings on the site even further away from the river.  Residential can be located down the street at the Trio/Barnett and along Water Street on the plethora of surface parking/vacant lots away from the river but still close enough to have some views.