The Landing owners issue ultimatum for future development

[Jim]

Perhaps I'm being unreasonable or unrealistic. But I don't see why the future of Sleiman's property is anyone's problem but his. Why should the City have to help pay so this guy can make money?

The city owns the land. Sleiman owns the buildings.  In other words, if you want to see the courtyard, green areas, riverwalk, etc. improved, which would help the viability of leasing the buildings, you'll need city involvement.

Then maybe he should buy the land from the city (he probably doesn't have deep pockets to do it); then he'll have more leeway to do what he wants with HIS property that will benefit HIM and of course the city as a whole in the long run. "Pouty Patricia."

He has the money, easily, it's the city that will not sell the land.

Thanks. I think, if I were the City, I'd want to see firm plans from Sleiman before I'd invest a dime. Why bother spending a lot of money if the Landing is just going to sit empty?

He's provided redevelopment plans at least 4 times since buying the Landing. 

[thelakelander]

Perhaps I'm being unreasonable or unrealistic. But I don't see why the future of Sleiman's property is anyone's problem but his. Why should the City have to help pay so this guy can make money?

The city owns the land. Sleiman owns the buildings.  In other words, if you want to see the courtyard, green areas, riverwalk, etc. improved, which would help the viability of leasing the buildings, you'll need city involvement.

Then maybe he should buy the land from the city (he probably doesn't have deep pockets to do it); then he'll have more leeway to do what he wants with HIS property that will benefit HIM and of course the city as a whole in the long run. "Pouty Patricia."

If the city would sell it, he probably would.

[Adam White]

Perhaps I'm being unreasonable or unrealistic. But I don't see why the future of Sleiman's property is anyone's problem but his. Why should the City have to help pay so this guy can make money?

The city owns the land. Sleiman owns the buildings.  In other words, if you want to see the courtyard, green areas, riverwalk, etc. improved, which would help the viability of leasing the buildings, you'll need city involvement.

Then maybe he should buy the land from the city (he probably doesn't have deep pockets to do it); then he'll have more leeway to do what he wants with HIS property that will benefit HIM and of course the city as a whole in the long run. "Pouty Patricia."

He has the money, easily, it's the city that will not sell the land.

Thanks. I think, if I were the City, I'd want to see firm plans from Sleiman before I'd invest a dime. Why bother spending a lot of money if the Landing is just going to sit empty?

He's provided redevelopment plans at least 4 times since buying the Landing.

I don't just mean plans - I mean firm commitments for tenants. I'd want to know that the place is going to be either full or close to capacity before I'd put any money towards redevelopment. Perhaps that's not possible - or maybe he's done that. But I don't like the idea of paying for a massive redevelopment and then letting it sit empty.

[CityLife]

Perhaps I'm being unreasonable or unrealistic. But I don't see why the future of Sleiman's property is anyone's problem but his. Why should the City have to help pay so this guy can make money?

The city owns the land. Sleiman owns the buildings.  In other words, if you want to see the courtyard, green areas, riverwalk, etc. improved, which would help the viability of leasing the buildings, you'll need city involvement.

Then maybe he should buy the land from the city (he probably doesn't have deep pockets to do it); then he'll have more leeway to do what he wants with HIS property that will benefit HIM and of course the city as a whole in the long run. "Pouty Patricia."

He has the money, easily, it's the city that will not sell the land.

Thanks. I think, if I were the City, I'd want to see firm plans from Sleiman before I'd invest a dime. Why bother spending a lot of money if the Landing is just going to sit empty?

He's provided redevelopment plans at least 4 times since buying the Landing.

I don't just mean plans - I mean firm commitments for tenants. I'd want to know that the place is going to be either full or close to capacity before I'd put any money towards redevelopment. Perhaps that's not possible - or maybe he's done that. But I don't like the idea of paying for a massive redevelopment and then letting it sit empty.

The City could definitely make their financial commitments contingent upon firm agreements from prospective tenants.

[thelakelander]

I question the timeline of such a proposal (the last one COJ paid for), considering it included demolishing FDOT bridge ramps, etc.  Nothing happens overnight when you get entities like COJ and FDOT involved. They don't operate in a manner that's conducive to free market dynamics. Considering the city filed a lawsuit that's still active, he should probably go ahead and negotiate long term leases with the existing structure. Doing such, means the existing structure stays for a while, but it doesn't mean the existing structure can't be renovated or upgraded.  With that in mind, I think ProjectMaximus pretty much sums it up.

I'd let him go ahead and negotiate some long term leases. If the city invests properly (Laura Trio-type partnerships) and follows a comprehensive plan then there will be a reason to redevelop. We'll cross that bridge when we get there.

[KenFSU]

That Norfolk property does look like a LOT like the Landing.

Random question:

Is there another major city in the country, particularly in the sunbelt, that enjoys our same combination of riverfront and beaches?

The Hampton Roads...(Norfolk/Virginia Beach).  DT Norfolk is on the Elizabeth River and Virginia Beach serves as Norfolk's version of Jacksonville Beach and the Southside.  Others to consider include Houston/Galveston, Savannah, Charleston, Tampa Bay...

Thanks!

Reason I ask is because our beaches are packed on weekend mornings, and our riverfront is usually very, very quiet. If the St. Johns River and Atlantic Ocean are competing with each other in terms of recreation and entertainment, clearly the beach is winning (at least during temperate months). I was wondering what some of these other cities with more successful, active riverfronts might be doing differently beyond just a higher concentration of residential.

[acme54321]

That Norfolk property does look like a LOT like the Landing.

Random question:

Is there another major city in the country, particularly in the sunbelt, that enjoys our same combination of riverfront and beaches?

The Hampton Roads...(Norfolk/Virginia Beach).  DT Norfolk is on the Elizabeth River and Virginia Beach serves as Norfolk's version of Jacksonville Beach and the Southside.  Others to consider include Houston/Galveston, Savannah, Charleston, Tampa Bay...

Thanks!

Reason I ask is because our beaches are packed on weekend mornings, and our riverfront is usually very, very quiet. If the St. Johns River and Atlantic Ocean are competing with each other in terms of recreation and entertainment, clearly the beach is winning (at least during temperate months). I was wondering what some of these other cities with more successful, active riverfronts might be doing differently beyond just a higher concentration of residential.

Entry fee to enjoying the river is much higher.  You really need a boat to get on the river vs just driving out to the beach.  Other than some scattered parks and the riverwalk public access to River shoreline is pretty limited. 

[thelakelander]

^Bingo. They don't really compete. The general public can play in one while the other requires an upgrade to a higher economic bracket for full utilization.

[CityLife]

Due to the SJR flowing north and looking like chocolate milk, its not the most ideal spot for recreational boating. Then with the strong current its not ideal for waterskiing, wakeboarding, and rafting near downtown.

You really can't compare Jax to riverfront/waterfront cities out of state due to the fact that boaters have much better options nearby. St. Augustine routinely has clearer water and has many options for boaters to eat, drink, and be merry; plus downtown St. A is more accessible from the ICW. Then an hour and 15 minute or so drive from Jax gets you to New Smyrna, which is one of the best boating spots in the state (see Disappearing Island). People in Jax also have the ability to drive to the numerous springs around Lake George (some of the best in the state, imo), Ginnie, Ichnetucknee, etc; and many frequently do.

If Jax really wants to activate its river downtown, it needs to throw some serious $$$'s at creating a unique experience.

[Tacachale]

The St. Johns and tributaries are widely used, but the downtown area isn't a terrific place for small craft or what most people do. Fishing is better and easier around the river mouth, the Timucuan Preserve is more scenic, the Intracoastal and other waterways are slower moving and easier to navigate, and people with their own docks on, say, the Trout, Arlington, or Ortega Rivers are more likely just to stay in those areas when they just want to tool around. I am not really sure what Downtown could do to attract more recreational boaters than it gets now, except maybe a better public marina on the northbank. I'd put other improvements like a (legal) fishing pier and better public access from the land side ahead of trying to attract boaters.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Well, the thing working against DT being a more activated river, in addition to what's already been mentioned, is just the lack of tourism downtown that would support businesses that would generate money from the river.

Like Taca broke down, for the residents, there are plenty of options that are not only better, but closer to home, so why bother going DT in the first place?

Some things that would require a much higher % of tourism would be bringing the gambling boats back downtown.  But they have 45-75 minute steam just to get to the mouth of the St. Johns from the Landing?  Locals just drive to Mayport and are hitting the tables in 45 mintues.  Not enough tourists in hotels to support docking downtown. 

Same with boat rentals (motorized, paddle and sail), and the current sucks. 

Same with dinner cruises - not enough to really cruise around and see. 

I personally think a para-sailing trip would be cool near the core, but I'm not sure where you would actually do it and since there's not one here, the $$$ probably doesn't work anyhow.

So as much as we'd like to see the river through downtown activated, it's not really a good place for it IMO.

[thelakelander]

I disagree. I was pretty impressed by what Montreal had done along the St. Lawrence River (which has a current stronger than anything I've witnessed in downtown Jax) in terms of increasing public access.  I think there's a ton of things we can do.  I've got to run but I'll comment in greater detail when I get some free time this weekend.

[Tacachale]

Well, the thing working against DT being a more activated river, in addition to what's already been mentioned, is just the lack of tourism downtown that would support businesses that would generate money from the river.

Like Taca broke down, for the residents, there are plenty of options that are not only better, but closer to home, so why bother going DT in the first place?

Some things that would require a much higher % of tourism would be bringing the gambling boats back downtown.  But they have 45-75 minute steam just to get to the mouth of the St. Johns from the Landing?  Locals just drive to Mayport and are hitting the tables in 45 mintues.  Not enough tourists in hotels to support docking downtown. 

Same with boat rentals (motorized, paddle and sail), and the current sucks. 

Same with dinner cruises - not enough to really cruise around and see. 

I personally think a para-sailing trip would be cool near the core, but I'm not sure where you would actually do it and since there's not one here, the $$$ probably doesn't work anyhow.

So as much as we'd like to see the river through downtown activated, it's not really a good place for it IMO.

Gambling river boats on the actual St. Johns could be pretty cool. They have those in Cincinnati. It could probably be done without opening the floodgates for on-shore casinos and all that. Dinner cruises at such haven't generally worked super well here, but I think that has a lot to do with Downtown's depressed state. It would probably work when Downtown gets in a stronger state.

I disagree. I was pretty impressed by what Montreal had done along the St. Lawrence River (which has a current stronger than anything I've witnessed in downtown Jax) in terms of increasing public access.  I think there's a ton of things we can do.  I've got to run but I'll comment in greater detail when I get some free time this weekend.

Looking forward to it. Are these things that attract recreational boaters, or what?

[CityLife]

Taca, agreed on the boating point, I suppose I left out that most of the desirable places to boat within Duval County are also away from Downtown. Despite its constraints, there is still a lot that could be done to activate the river for both boaters and land users.

For one, its insane that the City has done nothing with Exchange Island. I'm sure there are challenges with water, sewer, and electric, but if there is a way to get a waterfront bar/restaurant there, it would kill. Creating a unique environmental/outdoor experience would draw quite a few boaters and kayakers as well. Its kayakable from DT, JU, Arlington, and quite a few residential areas as well.

Downtown proper could use improvement to Hogan's/McCoy's creek's, a large free marina, fishing piers, actually programming the riverwalks with entertainment/music/vendors, having kayak/jet ski/boat rentals, and I'm sure numerous other things. Its ridiculous that COJ thinks you just build a riverwalk and they will come.

The North Florida Regional Council was recently working on creating a waterfront masterplan for Duval County, that would largely create projects for COJ and other governments to use for FIND Grants. Anyone know how that is going?

[thelakelander]

I disagree. I was pretty impressed by what Montreal had done along the St. Lawrence River (which has a current stronger than anything I've witnessed in downtown Jax) in terms of increasing public access.  I think there's a ton of things we can do.  I've got to run but I'll comment in greater detail when I get some free time this weekend.

Looking forward to it. Are these things that attract recreational boaters, or what?

I found it to be a creative mix offering a little bit of something for everyone, within a compact setting that takes advantage of the river and old industrial infrastructure.  Here's more detail and images:

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,34116.msg470340.html#msg470340