Curry's Plan for the Landing Revealed

[I-10east]

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.

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.

I'm well aware of the parks in NY, as I was born there. Most city parks in the US were built 100 plus years ago, and are a long time fixtures vs this proposal (which I hope doesn't come to be). I still think that they (city parks) are very overrated, and like I said earlier I TOTALLY GET that they are a necessity, so you never heard me say that all city parks shouldn't exist.

I think that the heyday of city parks were in yesteryear when generally everything was more safe (I'm not gonna get all political, but it is what it is) and now, city parks are generally known for the homeless, sometimes uncleanness, miscreants, protesters etc etc etc. The stories of Central Park (and many other parks in and out of NY) at night are well known. I would take biking out somewhere like Hanna Park over any city park any day. 

My argument was for something like luxury apartments or a hotel on site (not nightclubs and bars) esp considering that it's prime real estate that would be better used to generate revenue vs another park. I bet that if the local media does surveys, most would be against Curry's proposal. 

[KenFSU]

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.

What's most horrifying to me is that Sleiman blames access and security for the Landing's ailments, and Curry blames tenant mix, yet everyone's in this big rush to knock down the building itself, as if the structure - not three decades of broken promises and political gamesmanship - is the root of the problem.

I try to get away from my desk and walk around a bit every day, and I've walked through the Landing five or six times in the last few weeks. It obviously needs a lot of restoration and a fresh coat of paint, but the bones are rock solid. I'd even go farther and call it a legitimately great space with a lot of character. Historic even, in a city that's already bulldozed too much of its history. Great views. Interesting and varied spaces (front porch, courtyard, balconies, alleys, food court, docks, stairways, inner mall). And the iconic, sweeping signage that's played backdrop to hundreds of thousands of photos. It's a genuine asset that many cities would kill for, and we've somehow positioned the building itself as a liability, just because we haven't been able to get our shit together for 30 years.

Could the Landing be better integrated with Laura Street? Absolutely. Would more greenspace at and surrounding the Landing enhance the venue? For sure. But does the existing structure and layout prevent the Landing's success in terms of attracting tenants and customers? No f*cking way.

Politics, parking, and perception, in that order, are what's holding the Landing back, not the fact that the roof is u-shaped, or that you need to walk through a mall to get to the river.

Knocking the Landing down is a no more sensible solution to the political impasse than knocking down the St. James Building.

I bet they if the local media does surveys, most would be against Curry's proposal.

Not scientific, obviously, but I haven't heard one positive thing on the streets about it. To a person, everyone I've talked to hates it, and feels like it's destined to be overrun by the homeless.

New city council president supports it, so that's a little worrying.



Only silver lining is that I can't imagine the city winning their case against Sleiman, and even if they do, it'll be years before any of this has any chance of becoming a reality.

[I-10east]

I'm a big amusement/theme park/rollercoaster guy. IMO urban amusement parks in the US are a microcosm of city parks. Amusement parks can be torn down (because of issues of crime etc) but 99.9 percent of city parks will remain. How many US urban amusement parks are there? Not many in modernity (like the many many many that once was).

The only significant urban amusements that comes to mind are Coney Island (complex of parks) and Elitch Gardens in Denver (with rumors of the latter being replaced with something else).

Go to East Asia, and they have urban amusement parks (many new ones too) everywhere! China, Japan etc has many amusement parks within the area of skyscrapers.  Below is one of the many many many urban coaster POVs in China.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atkvOiF6dq0

[jaxnyc79]

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.

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.

I'm well aware of the parks in NY, as I was born there. Most city parks in the US were built 100 plus years ago, and are a long time fixtures vs this proposal (which I hope doesn't come to be). I still think that they (city parks) are very overrated, and like I said earlier I TOTALLY GET that they are a necessity, so you never heard me say that all city parks shouldn't exist.

I think that the heyday of city parks were in yesteryear when generally everything was more safe (I'm not gonna get all political, but it is what it is) and now, city parks are generally known for the homeless, sometimes uncleanness, miscreants, protesters etc etc etc. The stories of Central Park (and many other parks in and out of NY) at night are well known. I would take biking out somewhere like Hanna Park over any city park any day. 

My argument was for something like luxury apartments or a hotel on site (not nightclubs and bars) esp considering that it's prime real estate that would be better used to generate revenue vs another park. I bet that if the local media does surveys, most would be against Curry's proposal.

You are so wrong here.  I currently live in Manhattan, have lived here for 13 years, and what you're saying could not be further from the truth.  Parks in New York City are integral parts of living in and enjoying the city, and I'm sure you've not visited lately, but Central Park is almost always full of people.  Of course the park closes at night, as do most parks. 

There have been times in NYC's history when Central Park was not well-maintained and was a disappointment.  I'm a member of the Central Park Conservancy, funded by public and private concerns, and we take it upon ourselves to see that the Park is stellar...it's a combination of sweat equity and fund-raising.  City offices shouldn't be the only one responsible.  Jax should distinguish "Parks" from "Sprawl Containment" land, Reduce the number of parks to only a reasonable number of iconic ones, create conservancies for those parks with stakeholders (nearby residents, schools, etc) who can work with City Agencies on the upkeep and planning. 

[Adam White]

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.

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.

I'm well aware of the parks in NY, as I was born there. Most city parks in the US were built 100 plus years ago, and are a long time fixtures vs this proposal (which I hope doesn't come to be). I still think that they (city parks) are very overrated, and like I said earlier I TOTALLY GET that they are a necessity, so you never heard me say that all city parks shouldn't exist.

I think that the heyday of city parks were in yesteryear when generally everything was more safe (I'm not gonna get all political, but it is what it is) and now, city parks are generally known for the homeless, sometimes uncleanness, miscreants, protesters etc etc etc. The stories of Central Park (and many other parks in and out of NY) at night are well known. I would take biking out somewhere like Hanna Park over any city park any day. 

My argument was for something like luxury apartments or a hotel on site (not nightclubs and bars) esp considering that it's prime real estate that would be better used to generate revenue vs another park. I bet that if the local media does surveys, most would be against Curry's proposal.

You are so wrong here.  I currently live in Manhattan, have lived here for 13 years, and what you're saying could not be further from the truth.  Parks in New York City are integral parts of living in and enjoying the city, and I'm sure you've not visited lately, but Central Park is almost always full of people.  Of course the park closes at night, as do most parks. 

There have been times in NYC's history when Central Park was not well-maintained and was a disappointment.  I'm a member of the Central Park Conservancy, funded by public and private concerns, and we take it upon ourselves to see that the Park is stellar...it's a combination of sweat equity and fund-raising.  City offices shouldn't be the only one responsible.  Jax should distinguish "Parks" from "Sprawl Containment" land, Reduce the number of parks to only a reasonable number of iconic ones, create conservancies for those parks with stakeholders (nearby residents, schools, etc) who can work with City Agencies on the upkeep and planning.

I'm sure he knows more about the parks in NYC than you do - after all, he has access to YouTube.

[jaxnyc79]

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.

40-50 million for the park?  Has Curry announced the project cost already?  It doesn't appear to be that big a property so not sure why so expensive.

[thelakelander]

Lawsuit costs, buying out business leases, paying Sleiman to leave, razing a +125,000SF of buildings, razing a bridge ramp, etc. a few costs to consider that have nothing to do with the costs associated with the design and construction of the space itself. In addition, if the park is going to be worth going to, it could cost tens of millions itself. Just look at Friendship Fountain. We're talking about spending $3 million to fix the fountain less than a decade after it was literally rebuilt.

[jaxnyc79]

Razing the bridge ramp was something that was already going to happen, no?  Also, keeping the landing comes with a certain garage cost which I imagine would go away.  Net-net, if I had to guess, I'd guess the costs of the "Green" Landing initiative aren't as scary as you're making them out to be in support of your case. 

[Charles Hunter]

No, the ramp from Independent Drive to the Main Street Bridge was not "already going to happen".  FDOT looked at it in response to inquiries from the City.  I think it passed traffic review, but the City stopped talking about it before "who pays?" could be settled.  Or, maybe, that was part of what caused it to 'go away' - if FDOT said that COJ must pay (which I don't know if that is the case).

[KenFSU]

No, the ramp from Independent Drive to the Main Street Bridge was not "already going to happen".  FDOT looked at it in response to inquiries from the City.  I think it passed traffic review, but the City stopped talking about it before "who pays?" could be settled.  Or, maybe, that was part of what caused it to 'go away' - if FDOT said that COJ must pay (which I don't know if that is the case).

Correct. The closure of the ramp was tied into the Alvin Brown Landing redevelopment plan. When Curry came in, the Landing (and most other capital improvement projects) was put on ice while Curry worked on the pension issue. Additionally, the DIA had no money to pay for the ramp removal, the state gave no indication that they'd be willing to bankroll the project, and feedback at the FDOT public workshop they had on the ramp removal was extremely negative due to the pedestrian impact.

[thelakelander]

Also, good "showcase parks" aren't cheap. For comparisons sake, Curtis Hixon Park in Tampa cost around $26 million back in 2010. Washington Park in Cincinnati was renovated in 2012 for $48 million.

[mtraininjax]

Fix the parks we have first. Hemming, Confederate, Friendship, we dont need another albatross of a park, especially not downtown.

Take these "city leaders" on a field trip and show them the current parks and the needs of them before committing gross negligence on display for the tourists to see.

Buy out Sleiman, raze the structures, do as they did with the Roosevelt Belk, turn it into green space, while you get proposals for redevelopment and turn the site into a positive taxable revenue stream. Win-Win-Win.

Read Ennis' great article about Confederate Park.... http://www.jacksonville.com/jmagazine/20180617/downtown-column-jacksonvilles-original-central-park-deserves-revival

[Kerry]

Also, good "showcase parks" aren't cheap. For comparisons sake, Curtis Hixon Park in Tampa cost around $26 million back in 2010. Washington Park in Cincinnati was renovated in 2012 for $48 million.

The new Scissortail Park in downtown OKC is just over $100 million - but significantly larger than this proposal.

[jaxnyc79]

Also, good "showcase parks" aren't cheap. For comparisons sake, Curtis Hixon Park in Tampa cost around $26 million back in 2010. Washington Park in Cincinnati was renovated in 2012 for $48 million.

Doesn't Curtis Hixon host events, perhaps generates some revenue? 

[jaxnyc79]

Fix the parks we have first. Hemming, Confederate, Friendship, we dont need another albatross of a park, especially not downtown.

Take these "city leaders" on a field trip and show them the current parks and the needs of them before committing gross negligence on display for the tourists to see.

Buy out Sleiman, raze the structures, do as they did with the Roosevelt Belk, turn it into green space, while you get proposals for redevelopment and turn the site into a positive taxable revenue stream. Win-Win-Win.

Read Ennis' great article about Confederate Park.... http://www.jacksonville.com/jmagazine/20180617/downtown-column-jacksonvilles-original-central-park-deserves-revival

I can get behind this