Curry's Plan for the Landing Revealed

[Kerry]

I don't think Jax is a capable of solving the homeless problem.  In retrospect, maybe creating a new downtown somewhere else IS a viable solution.  But where?

[KenFSU]

What's frustrating is that a private group had approached SMG/COJ/MOSH about doing temporary, tactical urbanism-style improvements on the Times Union Center for Performing Arts Center's lawn and the MOSH property fronting Friendship Fountain.... and that particular group (who has a track record of success) had COJ and DIA turn its back on them (no City funds were requested, only access was needed.. and those projects would have actually been money makers for COJ/SMG/MOSH). Those projects would have already added activity to both of those spaces by now, but they sit empty so that the COJ overlords can come up with some big, expensive masterplan that they'll eventually abandon a few years later (as history suggests).

Leave it to the city to actually find a way to lose in a no-lose situation.

[KenFSU]

I don't think Jax is a capable of solving the homeless problem.  In retrospect, maybe creating a new downtown somewhere else IS a viable solution.  But where?

"The best way to solve the problem of undesirables is to make a place attractive to everyone else."
    - William H. Whyte, The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces

[fieldafm]

What's frustrating is that a private group had approached SMG/COJ/MOSH about doing temporary, tactical urbanism-style improvements on the Times Union Center for Performing Arts Center's lawn and the MOSH property fronting Friendship Fountain.... and that particular group (who has a track record of success) had COJ and DIA turn its back on them (no City funds were requested, only access was needed.. and those projects would have actually been money makers for COJ/SMG/MOSH). Those projects would have already added activity to both of those spaces by now, but they sit empty so that the COJ overlords can come up with some big, expensive masterplan that they'll eventually abandon a few years later (as history suggests).

Leave it to the city to actually find a way to lose in a no-lose situation.

Sadly egos, politics and gamesmanship... and not necessarily results... are what drives downtown 'development'.

[Snaketoz]

The current city administration is only concerned with repaying the monied puppet masters that somehow got them elected.  They are running the city's business much like the ways they make political ads.  It's hard for me to understand how anyone can't see what is going on with this current regime.  Everything from the JEA, the violent crime, infrastructure deterioration, downtown development, etc.  Curry is currently running ads about what he has done to fight crime.  He only is good for lip service. Sad thing is, he'll probably be re-elected.

[DrQue]

But where will people park to go to the park??

In all seriousness, between Friendship Fountain, the old courthouse, the Shipyards/Metro Park, and ancillary land around the Landing, there is plenty of room for riverfront green space. Why have one massive park when you can have a series of small and medium parks connected by a River Walk that also includes restaurants and entertainment? I just can't see adding what amounts to a Memorial Park in the middle of downtown being a major driver of vibrancy, relative to both the financial investment and opportunity costs.

And a comment on complementary uses, notice how busy Memorial Park is on a nice day. That area has housing, retail, entertainment, and business space densely clustered nearby. Memorial Park is not the centerpiece of the area but a complementary amenity. I like the idea of more green space on the St. Johns but the mayor's plan is overkill.

[JaGoaT]

There is no way the city doesnt plan on getting its act together with parks if this is what they plan on doing. The emerald necklace must be in grand plan.

[I-10east]

City parks (green space) are so overrated IMO. It's the most overrated aspect about urbanity (in contrast to gleaming high rises, restaurants, nightclubs and bars etc). Don't get me wrong, city parks are a necessity downtown, but don't look for most people to be excited to see another new one. I would go to the mature Memorial Park if I if I wanted to visit an urban park on the river. The Landing to some 'green space' is a step backwards IMO. I would rather see some luxury apts or hotels there.

[jaxlongtimer]

OK, lots of great comments and hard to argue with most.  In fact, if we were all in a room together, we would probably agree more than not on what would fix Downtown.

It appears the biggest problem above all else is not so much MJ posters agreeing on a plan but City shortcomings including, in no particular order:
1. Lack of trust in City government to stick to a plan and execute successfully.
2. Lack of an integrated, coherent, best-practice plan for the urban core built around interactive streets, green spaces and the waterfront.
3. City chasing "savior" projects rather than facilitating lots of smaller projects that would build a more widespread, sustainable, and inclusive vibrant and interactive urban core.
4. Lack of mass transit connectivity within the urban core to support mobility to urban core activities and facilities.
5. Lack of creativity, imagination and long term (i.e. decades) visioning.

Back to green spaces, I sense the foremost argument against more of them is no confidence in the City's ability to maximize benefit from same or that the City will develop and maintain such.  I get that.  But it shouldn't detract from the fact that green spaces, properly done, are a necessary amenity to spurring urban development.  Instead of resisting green spaces, we should be holding the City accountable for doing them right.  Incompetence should not be a reason from walking away from this necessary project.  Let's get leadership that can do the job and stop tolerating those that can't!

City parks (green space) are so overrated IMO. It's the most overrated aspect about urbanity (in contrast to gleaming high rises, restaurants, nightclubs and bars etc). Don't get me wrong, city parks are a necessity downtown, but don't look for most people to be excited to see another new one. I would go to the mature Riverside Park if I if I wanted to visit an urban park on the river. The Landing to some 'green space' is a step backwards IMO. I would rather see some luxury apts or hotels there.

Pushing people from Downtown to parks in Riverside and Springfield is not the answer.  Living downtown is in large part about walk-ability and your solution doesn't fully make the cut for Downtown.

NYC has parks every few blocks.  Check out Bryant Park, Battery Park, and Union Square as examples of parks in the midst of business centered areas of NYC.  Residential towers are rising amidst the office buildings of Wall Street and the World Trade Center sites proving residential and office buildings can co-exist.  They even have 2 high end shopping malls now in that area that are packed.  Remember, we are talking the financial district that used to be M-F, 9 to 5.  The enabler, IMHO, is the increasing greening of the waterfront ringing the island.  Then there is NY's High Line, which is essentially an elevated rails-to-trails green space that has sparked over $2 billion in development in one of the previously least desirable areas of Manhattan.

Lets not forget the greatest concentration of residential in Manhattan is around 843 acre Central Park.  Tell me that green space doesn't pay for itself.  Jax probably doesn't have even 10% of that in our Downtown area.  By the way, Philadelphia's Fairmount Park lining both sides of the Schuylkill River is 2,052 acres and the National Mall in DC is 309 acres.  None of these parks include massive additional amounts of green spaces in those urban cores.  Jacksonville has a long way to go regarding green space in our urban core before we should worry about overkill.

And, then there is Greenville, SC. and its 32 acre Falls Park.  This excerpt from Wikipedia (which actually greatly understates the ultimate impact of this green space to the present):

Falls Park on the Reedy, a large regional park in the West End with gardens and several waterfalls, with access to the Swamp Rabbit Trail. Dedicated in 2004, the $15.0 million park is home to the Liberty Bridge, a pedestrian suspension bridge overlooking the Reedy River. The park's development sparked a $75 million public-private development, Riverplace, directly across Main Street. Falls Park has been called the birthplace of Greenville, but in the mid-20th century the area was in severe decline, and the Camperdown Bridge had been built across the Falls, obstructing view. In the mid-1980s, the City adopted a master plan for the park, leading to the removal of the Camperdown Bridge and making way for extensive renovations, to include 20 acres (81,000 m2) of gardens and the Liberty Bridge. While bridges with similar structural concepts have been built in Europe, the Liberty Bridge is unique in its geometry.

I-10, your comments about prioritizing restaurants, bars and night clubs will limit your audience to young people, singles and childless families. However, I would suggest that families with children and middle aged and elder citizens (especially with grandchildren!) would very much love to have a park "across the street" to enjoy, share experiences and recreate in.  Nothing is more enjoyable than watching kids with parents sailing model boats in a pool or doing a picnic on a lawn or a couple enjoying a bike ride together or walking through flowering gardens in Central Park on a beautiful day.  City-block size Bryant Park manages to have a large lawn, a garden restaurant, a merry-go-round, food carts, a giant movie screen and dozens of checker and chess players at tables surrounding the park perimeter not to mention avid book readers sitting on benches.

Repeat, green spaces are not the problem, it's lousy City execution in the urban core.  Let's address the right problem here.

[Adam White]

I would go to the mature Riverside Park if I if I wanted to visit an urban park on the river.

You might end up being a bit disappointed if you go there looking for the river.

[avonjax]

My position won't be popular, but I wish waterfront, in every location people gather in Jax, was set aside as well-maintained park space and belonged to the people for their enjoyment and their recreation.  You'd have the water, then the expansive public green space, and then private property interests could start with views of the waterfront and the public greenspace.  So on that principle, I support turning the Landing into a well-maintained and expansive green space with scenic views of the river. 

But here is the problem. It won't be well maintained. I think this idea is awful. YIKES!!!!!

[avonjax]

3) Main Street Pocket Park. https://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2009-may-urban-parks-main-street-pocket-park. Still one of the top 10 worst moves downtown over the last 20 years.  A once-thriving Main Street is instead a series of parking lots, dead walls, bums... and a park 'that will eventually spur development in the urban core'.  Since 2007, the park is still a glorified lawn for bums to hang out on. No development has been spurred by this green space that was once described in almost magical terms.

That "park" is a huge eyesore.

It's just a gathering spot for the homeless and is littered with garbage.

I believe this would end up being another park like the main street park.

[thelakelander]

OK, lots of great comments and hard to argue with most.  In fact, if we were all in a room together, we would probably agree more than not on what would fix Downtown.

It appears the biggest problem above all else is not so much MJ posters agreeing on a plan but City shortcomings including, in no particular order:
1. Lack of trust in City government to stick to a plan and execute successfully.
2. Lack of an integrated, coherent, best-practice plan for the urban core built around interactive streets, green spaces and the waterfront.
3. City chasing "savior" projects rather than facilitating lots of smaller projects that would build a more widespread, sustainable, and inclusive vibrant and interactive urban core.
4. Lack of mass transit connectivity within the urban core to support mobility to urban core activities and facilities.
5. Lack of creativity, imagination and long term (i.e. decades) visioning.

Back to green spaces, I sense the foremost argument against more of them is no confidence in the City's ability to maximize benefit from same or that the City will develop and maintain such.  I get that.  But it shouldn't detract from the fact that green spaces, properly done, are a necessary amenity to spurring urban development.  Instead of resisting green spaces, we should be holding the City accountable for doing them right.  Incompetence should not be a reason from walking away from this necessary project.  Let's get leadership that can do the job and stop tolerating those that can't!

I think you're leaving off or downplaying a few very important elements:

1. The belief that more than enough green space already exists along the riverfront.
2. The belied that the best urban public spaces are interactive, which means they include retail, dining and entertainment, playscapes, fountains, etc. in them and immediately around them
3. Razing a 125,000SF structurally sound iconic building, removing bridge ramps and subsidizing the relocation of retail/entertainment from the heart of the Northbank to Lot J over a mile away will cost millions in tax dollars in an area already underfunded.

When you combine these three elements and the city's track record to the discussion, it really isn't a Landing vs green space debate. It becomes an economic one also situated around what gets the most return of investment and enhances the overall quality of life for the public. Again, when these items are added, the Landing site becomes a smaller part of a larger revitalization process involving downtown from maintaining other public spaces, finding money to two-way streets, enhance streetscapes, improve transit, lighting, incentivize the adaptive reuse of older buildings, activating street fronts at the pedestrian level, etc.

DT Jax could have additional funding (and dedicated funding) to actually do several of these things all over the Northbank with a smart, cost effective approach to the Landing site. You could even get your grass lawn on the east lot or turn everything south of Water Street on Hogan into a pretty cool green public space. Even one or both of the existing Landing buildings housing restaurants could be modified or razed to create a wider interactive space along the width of the narrow portions of the riverwalk and courtyard. What I'm listing here is several options between leaving the Landing "as is" or outright razing for grass that address points 1, 2, and 3 more cost effectively, freeing up cash to could assist with other long underfunded needs in the core.

Pushing people from Downtown to parks in Riverside and Springfield is not the answer.  Living downtown is in large part about walk-ability and your solution doesn't fully make the cut for Downtown.

Living in Downtown is about pedestrian scale vibrancy not exactly dumping all public resources into one riverfront site that's surrounded by Class A office space and hotels. Residents in downtown already have several park options within a couple of blocks in every direction. Hemming, the Northbank Riverwalk, Springfield Park, Cathedral Park, the Duval County Courthouse lawn, Friendship Fountain, Southbank Riverwalk, Brooklyn Park, Main Street Park, a multitude of pocket parks, etc. Unfortunately, for the most part, they all are underfunded, poorly maintained and not interactive to accomplish the dream you believe parks have the ability to deliver.  The two with playing fields, tot lots, etc. are (Springfield Park and Brooklyn Park) are completely off some leader's radar because they aren't riverfront. They all could be greatly enhanced with the $40 to 50 million or whatever it will take to implement this Landing park plan.

NYC has parks every few blocks.  Check out Bryant Park, Battery Park, and Union Square as examples of parks in the midst of business centered areas of NYC.  Residential towers are rising amidst the office buildings of Wall Street and the World Trade Center sites proving residential and office buildings can co-exist.  They even have 2 high end shopping malls now in that area that are packed.  Remember, we are talking the financial district that used to be M-F, 9 to 5.  The enabler, IMHO, is the increasing greening of the waterfront ringing the island.  Then there is NY's High Line, which is essentially an elevated rails-to-trails green space that has sparked over $2 billion in development in one of the previously least desirable areas of Manhattan.

Lets not forget the greatest concentration of residential in Manhattan is around 843 acre Central Park.  Tell me that green space doesn't pay for itself.  Jax probably doesn't have even 10% of that in our Downtown area.  By the way, Philadelphia's Fairmount Park lining both sides of the Schuylkill River is 2,052 acres and the National Mall in DC is 309 acres.  None of these parks include massive additional amounts of green spaces in those urban cores.  Jacksonville has a long way to go regarding green space in our urban core before we should worry about overkill.

Scale is very important. Manhattan covers 22 square miles. Philly and DC should not even be in the same sentence when it comes to looking for comparables for DT Jax.

And, then there is Greenville, SC. and its 32 acre Falls Park.  This excerpt from Wikipedia (which actually greatly understates the ultimate impact of this green space to the present):

Falls Park on the Reedy, a large regional park in the West End with gardens and several waterfalls, with access to the Swamp Rabbit Trail. Dedicated in 2004, the $15.0 million park is home to the Liberty Bridge, a pedestrian suspension bridge overlooking the Reedy River. The park's development sparked a $75 million public-private development, Riverplace, directly across Main Street. Falls Park has been called the birthplace of Greenville, but in the mid-20th century the area was in severe decline, and the Camperdown Bridge had been built across the Falls, obstructing view. In the mid-1980s, the City adopted a master plan for the park, leading to the removal of the Camperdown Bridge and making way for extensive renovations, to include 20 acres (81,000 m2) of gardens and the Liberty Bridge. While bridges with similar structural concepts have been built in Europe, the Liberty Bridge is unique in its geometry.

The Falls on Reedy Park is a good applicable example. At 32 acres, it's a little smaller than the parks formerly known as Springfield Park. I have an editorial that will be published in the Times Union concerning the history of downtown's true original "central park". I believe there's a ton of economic opportunity and market-rate infill possibilities if we looked at and considered downtown's real borders. These borders would include the historically black areas we demolished between Beaver Street and Hogans Creek from I-95 to Liberty Street. FSCJ, Springfield Park, the traffic on State and Union, the skyway, the vacant public spaces like the old Armory all at as pretty cool anchors to infill around.

I-10, your comments about prioritizing restaurants, bars and night clubs will limit your audience to young people, singles and childless families. However, I would suggest that families with children and middle aged and elder citizens (especially with grandchildren!) would very much love to have a park "across the street" to enjoy, share experiences and recreate in.  Nothing is more enjoyable than watching kids with parents sailing model boats in a pool or doing a picnic on a lawn or a couple enjoying a bike ride together or walking through flowering gardens in Central Park on a beautiful day.  City-block size Bryant Park manages to have a large lawn, a garden restaurant, a merry-go-round, food carts, a giant movie screen and dozens of checker and chess players at tables surrounding the park perimeter not to mention avid book readers sitting on benches.

Repeat, green spaces are not the problem, it's lousy City execution in the urban core.  Let's address the right problem here.

Back to Bryant Park and NYC again. This is what got Unity Plaza in trouble. Unrealistic expectations and comparisons with non-applicable context. Nothing in Jax can replicate that scene. It has less to do with the park and more to do with a population density of 73,000 residents per square mile. This means to get the Bryant Park experience in DT Jax, we'd need over 144,000 people living in the area the DIA considers to be Downtown.

Although Bryant is larger than a DT Jax city block or two, it is interactive.

City-block size Bryant Park manages to have a large lawn, a garden restaurant, a merry-go-round, food carts, a giant movie screen and dozens of checker and chess players at tables surrounding the park perimeter not to mention avid book readers sitting on benches.

Invest in these things in DT Jax's existing parks (including "around" the Landing) and you'll see downtown's image improved a lot more than just blowing down the Landing and lighting all the public money on fire in that one site.....that's surrounded by Class A office space, not residents.

[Gators312]

Back to green spaces, I sense the foremost argument against more of them is no confidence in the City's ability to maximize benefit from same or that the City will develop and maintain such.  I get that.  But it shouldn't detract from the fact that green spaces, properly done, are a necessary amenity to spurring urban development.  Instead of resisting green spaces, we should be holding the City accountable for doing them right.  Incompetence should not be a reason from walking away from this necessary project.  Let's get leadership that can do the job and stop tolerating those that can't!

This isn't a necessary project.  We have plenty of green spaces now that aren't maintained and/or programmed, so instead of building a new one how about holding the City accountable by not letting them waste more money and use the money for making what we have more successful.   

Getting people living downtown is what is going to improve downtown, and another park isn't going to draw them there.  The money would be better spent subsidizing a Walgreen's and Publix downtown.  Or maybe a City Target.  These are the things lacking in downtown that is impeding residents from moving there. 

[I-10east]

I would go to the mature Riverside Park if I if I wanted to visit an urban park on the river.

You might end up being a bit disappointed if you go there looking for the river.

I meant to say Memorial Park, my bad LOL