Mayor Curry wants the Landing back

[thelakelander]

For me at least, the reason I rarely go to the landing is because the current mix of tenants does not appeal to me at all. The few places I've gone there have been so poorly managed and dirty that I refuse to return.

It's funny that the Landing's website displays a banner that says "Downtown's Premier Dining & Nightlife Scene" on top of a picture of five fried dishes. I think that is representative of how in-touch the current management (and tenants?) is with the current market.

I'd love it if it was cleaned up and had some places to get craft beer, wine, and good (healthy) food with a good view of the river. Hooters doesn't cut it for me..

I think a lot of people will be surprised to know that Hooters does great business there.  While many who post here may not like places like that, Jacksonville's market suggests it's a good fit. With that said, it being dated, dirty and grimy probably keeps most people away.  These are cosmetic issues that can be resolved without a bulldozer and $12 million in public incentives.

[thelakelander]

Anybody know why all those places left. I really liked American Café, twisted martini and that place that cooked your food as you watched cant remember the name. WHAT HAPPENED

Every business closing has a different story.  However, at the end of the day, indecision on whether the buildings will be demolished or not, does not help will filling vacant spaces and certainly doesn't result in upgrading the existing structure.  In the case of Twisted Martini, they also opened and closed a second location in Ponte Vedra. American Cafe used to be a chain owned by Morrison Restaurants, then Ruby Tuesday and then Specialty Restaurants LLC.  Specialty filed for bankruptcy a few years ago. I'm not sure the American Cafe chain is still around anymore.

[Shirt Tail Johnson]

what about converting the Landing into a government facility?  With the Jail, School Board building, we could have a government building Trifecta!

[Adam White]

The issue is dedicated parking. There are businesses that won't even consider a site if there's not confirmed dedicated parking. The existence of other parking in the area is actually part of the problem - with the Parador garage, the city built a garage near the Landing that doesn't resolve the structure's core parking issues. But yes, parking's only one issue, along with bad management and a design that didn't work 30 years ago and has never had a single renovation.

I question the design of the structure being bad, to the point where the structure needs to be demolished and rebuilt.  The design was fine for a festival marketplace. The problem was Jacksonville was too small to support that type of retail concept and the vibrant downtown environment Rouse and the Godbold administration were hoping for, never materialized. 

We now know that it should be primarily dining and entertainment, as opposed to 60% specialty retail.  That's what the market is right now. However, we probably can't fill up 125,000 square feet of leasable space with those two uses.  Thus, some of the more undesirable spaces may have to be converted into different uses.  As for opening the courtyard up to Laura Street. That's not a need. That's a want that has little to do with what the market can support.  Looking back into the history of the Landing, that idea even pre-dates Sleiman and appears to have come from visionaries, moreso than it being based on the practicality of the market being able to support the product.

Even dating back to the Peyton days, we really haven't had a true conversation on the potential of just renovating the existing structure and changing the tenant mix to meet today's consumer needs.

But you don't question that the design is bad to the point that it's not suitable for the kinds of uses that could actually be successful there, and so needs a renovation that none of its owners have ever done, which is the point.

I don't question that the design is poor. But Sleiman bought that design. I just bought a house - there are issues with it, but I was aware of those before I signed the contract. I can't really expect the government to come and pay to redesign my house because I'm not happy with it.

I realise that a house and a mall are different, sure. But I don't see why the taxpayer should be responsible for ensuring the success of Sleiman's investment. If the city is responsible for parking - then yeah, sort that out. It makes sense. But if Sleiman wants a different building, then he should pay for it.

[Gunnar]

Major events is really the only time most residents utilize the Landing. Those that work DT weekly usually dont return until Monday morning for work again.

When the Landing was built, it was supposed to be supported by 70% tourist. For whatever reason, that tourism base still has not materialized three decades after the promises to lure Rouse to town.  It would be a bad business decision to depend on residents for primary support.  They'll need a mix of tourist, downtown workers, residents and suburbanites drawn in with occasional events.

Why would a tourist come to downtown Jacksonville ?

[thelakelander]

^Why would a tourist want to come to downtown Birmingham, Memphis or Louisville? I can't answer that question, but they do.....including me in the past. Back in the 1980s, people said the same thing about Savannah and now it's a major tourist destination. With that said, someone is staying at those downtown hotels and already walking around the place like zombies.  It is possible to strengthen the base we already have.  We just have to acknowledge it exists, understand the economic benefits and make it a priority to grow the base.

[Noone]

Major events is really the only time most residents utilize the Landing. Those that work DT weekly usually dont return until Monday morning for work again.

When the Landing was built, it was supposed to be supported by 70% tourist. For whatever reason, that tourism base still has not materialized three decades after the promises to lure Rouse to town.  It would be a bad business decision to depend on residents for primary support.  They'll need a mix of tourist, downtown workers, residents and suburbanites drawn in with occasional events.

Why would a tourist come to downtown Jacksonville ?

And our St. Johns River an American Heritage River a FEDERAL Initiative runs through the middle of it. Anyone? Please explain how it will be activated for everyone in our new Downtown zone.

Not just the tourist.

[vicupstate]

One Enterprise Center in downtown Jacksonville has been sold for $15.2 million, less than one-third of what it sold for nine years ago.

Rosecrans 2004 LLC, based in Los Angeles, bought the 22-story building at 225 Water St. John Bell, the Transwestern managing director who represented the seller, said the 317,571-square-foot building is 51 percent occupied. Among the major tenants are Rayonier; Gunster; Smith Hulsey & Busey; and Gresham, Smith and Partners.

But Rayonier will be moving out to its new headquarters under construction in Nassau County.

Bell said he had received many offers from within Florida, across the country and internationally since the property went on the market in February. It's across the street from the Times-Union Center for the Performing Arts and The Jacksonville Landing, and is connected to the Omni Jacksonville Hotel next door.

Don't expect any new buildings other than JEA anytime soon.  Low occupancy doesn't bode well for the Landing in the near future either.  Hopefully having obtained the building so cheap the new owner will be able to upgrade and also offer an attractive lease rate to fill up the building.

[jlmann]

hooters may do fine business.  but is the goal of the landing to make every bubba blue collar westsider feel at home?  I would suggest that's an unacceptable outcome for a location like the landing in a city that wants to see its reputation grow in a positive direction.  Do any of our other assets as a city include a grimy hooters?

To me its also a cultural fit for what I think Jax should aspire to.  Sleiman can not or will not deliver that and that's certainly part of my calculus.  and I think correctly part of cojs. 

his attempts at redevelopment show this aint the guy.  can we just give his 5 mil back?

[thelakelander]

hooters may do fine business.  but is the goal of the landing to make every bubba blue collar westsider feel at home?

That's a stereotype. I seriously doubt the Landing's Hooters makes its money off of blue collar westsiders.  Same goes for the Hooter's in Tampa's Channel District, which is an urban dining/entertainment complex similar to the Landing. Ultimately, the goal of the Landing should be a place that's successful.  However, the market should play a larger role in determining what success is, as opposed to a few people determining success by it having things that they think are personally acceptable.

I would suggest that's an unacceptable outcome for a location like the landing in a city that wants to see its reputation grow in a positive direction.  Do any of our other assets as a city include a grimy hooters?

I try to separate personal desires and wants from market reality.  I'm not sure its acceptable for people with no skin in the game to attempt to have significant influence on the outcome of a private facility.  By the same token, that also means I'm fine with that private facility not receiving public funds.  We should put an end to this decades old full redevelopment charade and tell the guy to break out his pressure washer and move on.  Do that and you'll have a clean sparkling Hooters.  Maybe you'll get a McDonald's and CVS too. If these types of establishments don't fit someone's idea of a good time, there's other establishments like Cowford Chophouse, IAW and Bellwether that will accept the additional business.  After all, a vibrant place should have a little something for every demographic.

To me its also a cultural fit for what I think Jax should aspire to.  Sleiman can not or will not deliver that and that's certainly part of my calculus.  and I think correctly part of cojs. 

his attempts at redevelopment show this aint the guy.  can we just give his 5 mil back?

I think Jax should embrace it's actual culture/history and market the hell out of it.  If we have an extra 5 mil to spend in downtown, I'd rather see it go to make it feasible to renovate some of our larger vacant structures into additional housing.  Not burn it on a retail center, attempt to implement whatever a few think is cool, only to see it fail because we're still ignoring to build a market that can support the dreams.

[Adam White]

Maybe you'll get a McDonald's and CVS too. If these types of establishments don't fit someone's idea of a good time, there's other establishments like Cowford Chophouse, IAW and Bellwether that will accept the additional business.  After all, a vibrant place should have a little something for every demographic.

That's one of the most sensible things I've read in a while. I think we should be creating the right conditions for development downtown and worrying less about the "right" kind of development. It should take care of itself.

[jlmann]

lol.

if youre at the one consolidated retail development downtown and don't like the establishments that do not cater to anything other than someone who needs toothpaste or a happy meal, you could walk several miles to check out the few disconnected islands of entertainment we have down town.  same thing!

if you commissioned a market study for 5pts by an out of town co. who knew nothing of the area, what would they come back with?  Certainly not what's there.  We need vision, and not sleiman's

[Jim]

I don't question that the design is poor. But Sleiman bought that design. I just bought a house - there are issues with it, but I was aware of those before I signed the contract. I can't really expect the government to come and pay to redesign my house because I'm not happy with it.

I realise that a house and a mall are different, sure. But I don't see why the taxpayer should be responsible for ensuring the success of Sleiman's investment. If the city is responsible for parking - then yeah, sort that out. It makes sense. But if Sleiman wants a different building, then he should pay for it.

Imagine the city owns the land under your house.  Imagine city promised you parking spots for your house because it doesn't come with one.  Imagine you plan to undergo a big expansion and turn your house into a large several story multi-unit facility but you still don't have parking the city promised. 

Imagine your expansion greatly impacts the tax revenue of the city for that property that they own.  Imagine for 15 years the city has balked at every proposal you've tried and their is a court battle over the parking situation.  Now imagine trying to go forward with your redevelopment plans on your own with your own money and without the promised parking that your upcoming home owners will never have.

[FlaBoy]

I think Jax should embrace it's actual culture/history and market the hell out of it.  If we have an extra 5 mil to spend in downtown, I'd rather see it go to make it feasible to renovate some of our larger vacant structures into additional housing.  Not burn it on a retail center, attempt to implement whatever a few think is cool, only to see it fail because we're still ignoring to build a market that can support the dreams.

150% right. The historic buildings in desperate need of a plan and some funding to increase our residential DT base like the Laura St Trio/Barnett Bank will be:

1) the current JEA buildings
2) the Ambassador Hotel/old JEA Building
3) Hogan St (Jones Bros. Building, Old Federal Reserve, Old Southern Baptist HQ)

If the Annex is not included or incorporated into a convention center site, I think it is right up there as well. There are many other historic structures that deserve saving, especially the Armory, that are not right in the core but in the peripheral area.

Hopefully we get the Trio/Barnett FINALLY done.

[Adam White]

I don't question that the design is poor. But Sleiman bought that design. I just bought a house - there are issues with it, but I was aware of those before I signed the contract. I can't really expect the government to come and pay to redesign my house because I'm not happy with it.

I realise that a house and a mall are different, sure. But I don't see why the taxpayer should be responsible for ensuring the success of Sleiman's investment. If the city is responsible for parking - then yeah, sort that out. It makes sense. But if Sleiman wants a different building, then he should pay for it.

Imagine the city owns the land under your house.  Imagine city promised you parking spots for your house because it doesn't come with one.  Imagine you plan to undergo a big expansion and turn your house into a large several story multi-unit facility but you still don't have parking the city promised. 

Imagine your expansion greatly impacts the tax revenue of the city for that property that they own.  Imagine for 15 years the city has balked at every proposal you've tried and their is a court battle over the parking situation.  Now imagine trying to go forward with your redevelopment plans on your own with your own money and without the promised parking that your upcoming home owners will never have.

Imagine you read this part of my original post:

If the city is responsible for parking - then yeah, sort that out. It makes sense. But if Sleiman wants a different building, then he should pay for it.