The city moves to terminate the Landing's lease agreement.

[BenderRodriguez]

https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/city-says-it-is-terminating-jacksonville-landing-lease-agreement

[KenFSU]

So, where last we left off, Tony Sleiman presented a 2014 plan that was almost universally hated.

Sleiman's plan replaced the existing Landing with two large, oppressive apartment blocks, separated from the river by a road, with a boring strip of greenspace fronting the water.

In a word, it was awful.



If you'll recall, the DIA then spent $100,000 to hire Wakefield, Beasley and Associates to develop a master plan for the Landing.

Their plan also included a large residential block on the east side of Laura, but removed the road, added in more retail, and activated the riverfront with restaurants and cafes.

The general feeling from the city was that it was a step in the right direction, but not quite good enough.

Sleiman loved the new plans however and was on board to finance the $70+ million in redevelopment, contingent on the city spending the $12 million for public infrastructure improvements that Alvin Brown had committed too.

By this time, however, Curry and Sleiman had started to feud, cap spending was largely frozen until the pension bill was passed, and that $12 million was off the table.

John Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind." Looking at the Wakefield plan with 2018 eyes, and keeping in mind all other development going on or proposed from the Northbank, to Lot J, etc, if the two options are 1) go back to the Wakefield plan, work with Sleiman, and build it out as proposed as soon as possible, 2) potentially let this thing drag on in litigation for years to come as the Landing rots away, which would you favor?

As a reminder, here's what the plan looked like:

[Tacachale]

The city doesn't have hundreds of millions of dollars to subsidize every millionaire's pet project. We have to pick what we give incentives to. I'd say if you had a choice between funding any one of these proposals, none of which are guaranteed to end up looking like the flashy proposals, and pretty much anything else, you'd take the latter.

[thelakelander]

I wouldn't choose between them. Razing the Landing was always overkill and the market can't support what's been proposed in the stadium district. I'd keep most of my money in my pocket and invest in things that actually build density and generate pedestrian activity. I'd invest in upgrading the Landing but that upgrade would clean and make use of the existing structure and surrounding underutilized open green spaces.

[jaxnyc79]

If Jax doesn't fix its dead-zone streetscape issues, all the money spent will be for naught.  Look at the Adams Mark > Now Hyatt...massive hotel right in the heart of our downtown...a total zero...opens up to nothing...isn't a draw unless you're staying there...a total failure of 900+ rooms in my opinion.  Activate the streetscapes and open things up to the sidewalk...turn downtown sidewalks and streetscapes into public living rooms...see a monumental impact at a fraction of the cost.

[Kerry]

The existing structure at the Landing isn't even useful as a redo.  The whole place was built to be viewed from the river or from Friendship Park.  First, it faces the wrong way.  If it is going to be U shaped it should have had the U facing north.  All the retail should have fronted the street and courtyard - not an interior hallways that frankly looks like the employee corridor at a regular mall.  Second, the existing structure prevents a good terminal view coming down Laura Street,  The whole middle would have to be removed.  Third, it doesn't go vertical enough.  It should be at least 2 times taller than it is.

[Marle Brando]

I believe where the city has failed is continuing to look at The Landing as a building, and not as an entire district, like Gaslamp in San Diego. The Jacksonville Landing should be inclusive of The Times Union Center, the CSX lots, Omni lots, Berkman, Berkman 'Hotel', the Hyatt, new convention center etc. These should all be rebrands as..The Hyatt@The jax landing, The Times Union Center@ jax landing, Hotel Indigo@The Jax Landing, etc. Also build on the CSX, and Ommi Lots. Maybe garages with ground retail, restaurants. Open the existing Landing structure up to the street. Parkspace along the river and along river on new convention center plot would be ideal. It could all be so simple.

[thelakelander]

The existing structure at the Landing isn't even useful as a redo.  The whole place was built to be viewed from the river or from Friendship Park.  First, it faces the wrong way.  If it is going to be U shaped it should have had the U facing north.  All the retail should have fronted the street and courtyard - not an interior hallways that frankly looks like the employee corridor at a regular mall.  Second, the existing structure prevents a good terminal view coming down Laura Street,  The whole middle would have to be removed.  Third, it doesn't go vertical enough.  It should be at least 2 times taller than it is.

You can do 90% of what you mentioned without removing most of the existing structural elements. However,  going vertical is an expensive want, not necessarily a market driven need. The remakes of Landing siblings in Baltimore and Norfolk serve as great examples for Jax.

[Tacachale]

I feel bad for the businesses that are in there. They'll be the real losers here, unfortunately.

[thelakelander]

Downtown may be the biggest loser. Regardless of what people think about the Landing, it's probably still DT's largest draw. It's so centralized, its state (including the dated  riverwalk, deteriorated docks and underutilized green spaces) makes or breaks the general image and vibe of DT to the average visitor. It will be a visual and economic black eye until it is properly addressed.

[KenFSU]

Of all of the big-ticket projects downtown - the Landing, Shipyards, Lot J, the District - the Landing is, for a couple of reasons, the one that I'd be most supportive of publicly subsidizing.

First, it's the project that has the most direct, immediate impact on downtown redevelopment. You cannot get any more central than the Landing. Lot J could be fully built out tomorrow, but in the absence of a decade of infill and/or great public transit linking it to the CBD, it will still be an island unto itself. A greatly improved Landing would not only have positive externalities on the urban core proper from day one, but would likely also catalyze even more development in the area.

Second, in terms of our downtown redevelopment goals, it's perhaps the most strategically important property there is. The Landing anchors Laura Street (ground zero for our redevelopment) and complements a dozen other ongoing projects along or near that corridor - the Barnett, the Trio, 20 West, the new retail garage, Hemming Park, Hotel Indigo, Jones Furniture, the Sister Cities Plaza Hotel, Lori Boyer's plans for the Times-Union Center/Hogan Street, Ron's apartments, potentially Snyder Memorial, etc. Going vertical is always a risk, but the real estate is so great that I don't think the market risk is even a fraction of what it would be for the ancillary properties on the outskirts of downtown.

Third, though I fully agree that giving the Landing a fresh coat of paint and making use of the structure as is (particularly adding a food hall element) should help in theory, we're still bound to a lease with Sleiman through 2056, and minor upgrades clearly aren't going to be enough on their own to get him to invest a dime more than the bare minimum needed to keep the lights on. Sleiman is stubborn, he feels slighted by the city (in terms of parking, security, and the disgraceful state of the docks, he's not entirely wrong), and he ain't budging on what he wants.

I see this thing going one of three ways:

1) Sleiman refuses to vacate. We let it go to court, it drags on for years, and downtown suffers as a result as both parties do the bare minimum necessary to keep the roof from collapsing, as the remaining tenets leave.

2) Curry succeeds in forcing Sleiman out. If this happens, there's a very good chance - much better than people realize - that the Landing gets the wrecking ball, existing leases be damned.

3) As co-owners of the property (the city owning the land and Sleiman owning the buildings), Sleiman and the City work together on a redevelopment plan that makes everyone happy and execute on it quickly to help continue, rather than stifle, the momentum mounting along Laura Street.

$12 million ain't cheap, but compared to the alternatives, I think it's worth it.

Even if it means putting Lot J on ice for a year.

Or, just sell the damn land to Sleiman outright under the condition that he executes on a mutually agreeable redevelopment plan.

[thelakelander]

I believe where the city has failed is continuing to look at The Landing as a building, and not as an entire district, like Gaslamp in San Diego. The Jacksonville Landing should be inclusive of The Times Union Center, the CSX lots, Omni lots, Berkman, Berkman 'Hotel', the Hyatt, new convention center etc. These should all be rebrands as..The Hyatt@The jax landing, The Times Union Center@ jax landing, Hotel Indigo@The Jax Landing, etc. Also build on the CSX, and Ommi Lots. Maybe garages with ground retail, restaurants. Open the existing Landing structure up to the street. Parkspace along the river and along river on new convention center plot would be ideal. It could all be so simple.

It should be viewed as a district but the Landing is one of several sites within it. The district is the CBD, Northbank, Northbank Riverfront, etc.

[thelakelander]

I predict it will be tied up in court for years and DT will continue to have a black eye in the heart of its revitalization dreams. The black eye will outlive Curry's mayoral administration. I agree in its importance but I wouldn't spend $12 million in public money on implementating that last plan. We can go to SJTC or a new strip mall with a stick built apartment complex in any decent sized city's suburbs for that experience.

[Tacachale]

Yep, no reason to think it won't be caught up for years in court. Sleiman has no incentive to give in, and there's no way the case is clear cut enough that it'll be over quickly. In the meantime, the two sides will continue failing to invest on their respective obligations in the building.

And yes, it would be nuts to give $12 million for any of these plans. None of them are worth it. And it would be even crazier, if the city ends up with the property, to spend even more money to tear it all down and rebuild it. It would be better to give a much smaller amount of money to fix up the current building in ways that would make it relevant for modern businesses and visitors. Sadly, the easiest option appears to be the least likely to happen.

[KenFSU]

Sleiman's response:

http://www.jacksonville.com/news/20180526/jacksonville-landing-owners-fire-back-at-city