The Jacksonville Landing: What Should It Be?

Started by Metro Jacksonville, October 03, 2014, 03:00:02 AM

Print
Go Down Pages 1 ... 9 10 11
User actions

Tacachale

#150
July 30, 2015, 09:57:57 AM
I'd be disappointed if we don't see a plan B that just makes some changes to the existing setup. Otherwise it's quite possible all this effort will lead to nowhere.
Do you believe that when the blue jay or another bird sings and the body is trembling, that is a signal that people are coming or something important is about to happen?

finehoe

#152
July 30, 2015, 11:36:12 AM
Quote from: UNFurbanist on July 30, 2015, 11:24:32 AM
Daily Record just released some new details. http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=545875

Still not seeing what "intriguing design" or "wow factor" the DIA board members are talking about.

thelakelander

#153
July 30, 2015, 11:40:49 AM
The lawn is a nice feature. They should give more thought to straightening up Independent Drive, between Laura and Hogan Streets.  The current situation gives too much space to asphalt. Doing so, will create more space to play around with.
"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life." - Muhammad Ali

Tacachale

#154
July 30, 2015, 11:59:45 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 30, 2015, 11:40:49 AM
The lawn is a nice feature. They should give more thought to straightening up Independent Drive, between Laura and Hogan Streets.  The current situation gives too much space to asphalt. Doing so, will create more space to play around with.

Good point on straightening up Independent. If they just cut up Hogan half a block and rerouted along that paved dead end, that would free up everything between the little pocket park and the Landing itself. It wouldn't lose anything but the taxi pickup. Might cause some slight traffic issues but it would be worth it to turn more asphalt into usable space.

And I agree, the lawn is a nice feature. I'm not sure it's better than the current Landing courtyard, which looks to be pretty much gone in the rendering.
Do you believe that when the blue jay or another bird sings and the body is trembling, that is a signal that people are coming or something important is about to happen?

Fallen Buckeye

#155
July 30, 2015, 12:21:43 PM
I wouldn't mind seeing something similar to Grove Arcade in Asheville done with the rectangular building. The outside of the building is lined with store fronts, and inside has 2 crossing corridors that are lined stores and galleries. Offices and residential on top of the stores. It is simple yet elegant. I think that the proposed site layout is ok imo.







http://www.grovearcade.com/

thelakelander

#156
July 30, 2015, 12:50:48 PM
I think the Grove was originally intended to be a high rise. The tower was never built. Nevertheless, it's still architecturally impressive. The buildings that rise on this site won't beconstructed with the materials and craftsmanship that was common a century ago.
"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life." - Muhammad Ali

floridaal

#157
July 30, 2015, 01:01:11 PM
Can anyone post a higher resolution image of the latest site plan that would show more detail?

Todd_Parker

#158
July 30, 2015, 01:41:02 PM
If restaurants and retail have struggled to survive at the current version of the Landing, what will prevent that from continuing after the initial excitement from the new construction wears off? It seems to me that the Landing needs other nearby attractions/destinations downtown to draw from to be sustainable. I guess I'm just having a hard time understanding how the current (iconic) configuration of the Landing is the reason it can't maintain visitors. Like others have mentioned, city funds would be better served elsewhere.

Fallen Buckeye

#159
July 30, 2015, 03:39:23 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 30, 2015, 12:50:48 PM
Nevertheless, it's still architecturally impressive. The buildings that rise on this site won't be constructed with the materials and craftsmanship that was common a century ago.

This much is true, but I think the layout of the building itself would work well for what they're thinking. You could almost think of whole site like a mini walkable district, but rather than having a street grid you'd have a grid of walkways and park space. Then over to the west side of the site, what if we were to eliminate that little strip of Hogan St. and create an outdoor extension of the TU Center. Basically, it would be a permanent outdoor stage that flows from the side of the TU Center, so that you have more room for green space.

jaxjaguar

#160
July 30, 2015, 04:21:41 PM
If Independent Drive was straightened out, a second roundabout would work well on Hogan street. It would keep traffic moving at a reasonable pace for pedestrians and look visually appealing, especially if decorated with a local art piece. Doing that would give enough space to extend the park into downtown rather than being cut off in that tiny corner.

thelakelander

#161
July 30, 2015, 04:30:48 PM
Quote from: Todd_Parker on July 30, 2015, 01:41:02 PM
If restaurants and retail have struggled to survive at the current version of the Landing, what will prevent that from continuing after the initial excitement from the new construction wears off? It seems to me that the Landing needs other nearby attractions/destinations downtown to draw from to be sustainable. I guess I'm just having a hard time understanding how the current (iconic) configuration of the Landing is the reason it can't maintain visitors. Like others have mentioned, city funds would be better served elsewhere.
The new plan only has around 40k square feet for retail/dining. The existing building has at least 125k square feet.
"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life." - Muhammad Ali

strider

#162
July 30, 2015, 05:45:22 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 30, 2015, 04:30:48 PM
Quote from: Todd_Parker on July 30, 2015, 01:41:02 PM
If restaurants and retail have struggled to survive at the current version of the Landing, what will prevent that from continuing after the initial excitement from the new construction wears off? It seems to me that the Landing needs other nearby attractions/destinations downtown to draw from to be sustainable. I guess I'm just having a hard time understanding how the current (iconic) configuration of the Landing is the reason it can't maintain visitors. Like others have mentioned, city funds would be better served elsewhere.
The new plan only has around 40k square feet for retail/dining. The existing building has at least 125k square feet.


So some loss of space from opening the Landing up and some re-purposing and it could end up being more profitable than a new debt heavy design even in the long run? (leaving off any profit from "developing" the new design).
"My father says that almost the whole world is asleep. Everybody you know. Everybody you see. Everybody you talk to. He says that only a few people are awake and they live in a state of constant total amazement." Patrica, Joe VS the Volcano.

thelakelander

#163
July 30, 2015, 06:22:16 PM
I assume there's good money to be made by adding residential. Other than that, you probably could get your larger public space by demolishing the riverfront restaurant buildings and reconfiguring the larger mall building to open to Laura and house restaurants and tenants like a CVS, that would require larger retail foot prints than what's currently available. You'd still have your parking issue, but it might not be as bad if you're significantly reducing your retail square foot anyway. With the money saved (assuming you don't pay to tear down the bridge ramp), you could probably build one pretty sweet interactive public space surrounding the complex.
"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life." - Muhammad Ali
Print
Go Up Pages 1 ... 9 10 11
User actions