Curry's Plan for the Landing Revealed

[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.

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

Sounds about right. Bonnet Springs Park in DT Lakeland is expected to cost as much as $100 million.
http://www.theledger.com/news/20180220/officials-unveil-detailed-plans-for-bonnet-springs-park-in-lakeland

[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.

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

Not $26 million worth of revenue. Parks are a quality of life investment. You sell the land and put it on the tax rolls if revenue is desired.

[jcjohnpaint]

North Boone Park still has lots of damage existing from the last hurricane.  Check out the crowd control fence replacing the damaged fence off of Park St. Really classy.  There are  still downed lights, fences, and a huge hole in the ground next to the playground. 

[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? 

Not $26 million worth of revenue. Parks are a quality of life investment. You sell the land and put it on the tax rolls if revenue is desired.

Parks, public spaces, or publicly-financed recreation can do both. 

We will see what Curry's team proposes in terms of costs. 

Btw, Anyone on Sleiman's payroll, please disclose on this message board:)

City owns a Northbank riverfront parcel in the heart of the CBD, create additional river access and recreation, not just for residents broadly, but this time for the largest cluster of daytime downtown denizens, the CBD office workers.

It's a nice feature of working in an office adjacent to Bryant Park.  We Midtowners often meet up with colleagues and cohorts at the first sign of spring for lunch or for happy hour at "southwest porch" or "Bryant park grill's" rooftop overlooking the park (yes, you can have commercial interests "in" the park, but the overarching character---the anchor feature---is that it's a park).    In winter, there's the Winter Village and ice-skating.  Hell, LA has outdoor ice skating, don't see why Jax can't have the same thing at this location.  There's movies in the park on summer nights, dancing in the park...I've even attended a 1000+ person pillow fight in Washington Square Park. 

Yes, other Jax parks have needs, but Northbank riverfront green space amidst the largest population cluster in downtown Jax is just plain different and deserves a tad more than the cynicism of this thread.  Sleiman wont do anything with the Landing until he gets his government handout, so I say send him on his way and create a significant, green, active, and waterfront gathering spot for an emerging Downtown community.

[thelakelander]

Is this about beating Sleiman or doing something DT actually needs? Have you ever worked in DT Jax? Residents and workers aren't begging for another grass lawn in DT. There's plenty of parks in DT now that could do everything you describe and more...if the city gave a damn to put money into them and maintain them. Any proposal Curry's team in terms of costs should first include a line item to upgrade and maintain the many underutilized spaces we already have and visit. Btw, Hemming is more central.

[jaxnyc79]

Why, yes I have!  I started my career in downtown Jax.  Just after graduation from UF, i worked for one of the Big 4 Accounting Firms.  Thanks for asking - I guess you'll have to find some other way to shut me up for lack of credibility and complete irrelevance to the topic:)

[jaxnyc79]

I wasn't begging for a lawn when I worked downtown - I really didn't know what to want in downtown Jax, I was just out of school and working hard to impress my bosses at the time.  Now that I've gotten the chance to live in a few places and engage in business travel to a ton more places (including internationally), tons more possibilities for an urban work setting are on my radar than when my world was just downtown Jax.  Central Business District parks, well-designed and maintained, can be inspiring and captivating, offer balance and enrichment to the professional's workday, and can be a key differentiator from office park competition in the 'burbs.  I'm not saying a riverfront green space at the current site of the Landing will address all of Downtown's ills or the lack of priority or strategy at City Hall, but it is not wholly without merit. 

[jaxlongtimer]

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.

Let's analyze this.  The costs of  the lawsuit appear to apply regardless of the plans for this property if the City is determined to gain control before its future is determined.  Buying out the leases may also be the same, as well, if the property needs to be emptied for any future changes.  Even a renovation and redeployment of the current structure would likely require removal of all tenants to facilitate any construction.  If things are as bad as people say, the tenants may welcome a release from their leases .  Razing the ramp, also suggested regardless of the future options, is, per the T-U article, only about $580K, not a major amount in the big scheme of things here.  Razing the building is also pocket change compared to other redevelopment costs.  Based on many plans proposed so far, it looks like some or all of the building gets razed anyway.

So, the only real incremental costs to compare appear to be the costs of renovating the current structure, replacing the current structure with new structures, or replacing the current structure with green space.

Let's say it costs $200 a square foot (possibly a low number given delinquent upkeep and higher finishing standards) to overhaul the 31 year old structure consisting of 126,000 sf (per Wikipedia).  That's a minimum of $25 million.  It doesn't count curing the parking problem, other infrastructure improvements, City incentives that may be demanded by an operator, and a demand for an extended bargain "lease" on the property or a bargain purchase.

Replacing the current structure with new structures will clearly costs over $100 million.  Based on the District, I would guess a developer would ask for at least $25 million in incentives from the City (maybe far more), infrastructure improvements, a parking structure, and again, an extended bargain  "lease" or bargain purchase of the property.

Per Google Maps, the Landing property appears to be no more than about 6.5 acres.  At $25 million, one way or the other, I would think the City could build a hell of a nice green space.  If not, I will take on the contract and deliver for them same.

Some posts appear to continue to overlook the green space option based on current and past City failures to properly vision and manage green spaces.  Based on this approach, we also should kill the Landing rather than keep it going as the City has proven it can't manage that either.  Again, the answer to all of DT's issues is to replace incompetent leadership, not walk away from what may be a great solution.

I also go back to the "chicken and egg" issue.  Demand for green space feeds off surrounding development but surrounding development that feeds off of green space isn't going to happen unless there is such green space.  In such cases, it is for the City to make the first move, especially given the lack of trust in the City and it's track record of failing to deliver on such promises.

I continue to agree that all green spaces should be properly managed and enhanced as Lake advocates but I don't accept that as a reason to overlook this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to do something that will be a legacy for decades to come.

[jaxnyc79]

Is this about beating Sleiman or doing something DT actually needs? Have you ever worked in DT Jax? Residents and workers aren't begging for another grass lawn in DT. There's plenty of parks in DT now that could do everything you describe and more...if the city gave a damn to put money into them and maintain them. Any proposal Curry's team in terms of costs should first include a line item to upgrade and maintain the many underutilized spaces we already have and visit. Btw, Hemming is more central.

Hemming isn't waterfront, and maybe it's changed, but it wasn't much of a green space when I worked downtown.  It felt like a shaded plaza with planters.  It's a nice feature downtown, but given its location at the front door to City Hall, I've always considered it the public space for Jacksonville's Civic District and not so much for the city's CBD.  Ultimately, they represent very different vibes in an urban context.

[jaxnyc79]

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.

Let's analyze this.  The costs of  the lawsuit appear to apply regardless of the plans for this property if the City is determined to gain control before its future is determined.  Buying out the leases may also be the same, as well, if the property needs to be emptied for any future changes.  Even a renovation and redeployment of the current structure would likely require removal of all tenants to facilitate any construction.  If things are as bad as people say, the tenants may welcome a release from their leases .  Razing the ramp, also suggested regardless of the future options, is, per the T-U article, only about $580K, not a major amount in the big scheme of things here.  Razing the building is also pocket change compared to other redevelopment costs.  Based on many plans proposed so far, it looks like some or all of the building gets razed anyway.

So, the only real incremental costs to compare appear to be the costs of renovating the current structure, replacing the current structure with new structures, or replacing the current structure with green space.

Let's say it costs $200 a square foot (possibly a low number given delinquent upkeep and higher finishing standards) to overhaul the 31 year old structure consisting of 126,000 sf (per Wikipedia).  That's a minimum of $25 million.  It doesn't count curing the parking problem, other infrastructure improvements, City incentives that may be demanded by an operator, and a demand for an extended bargain "lease" on the property or a bargain purchase.

Replacing the current structure with new structures will clearly costs over $100 million.  Based on the District, I would guess a developer would ask for at least $25 million in incentives from the City (maybe far more), infrastructure improvements, a parking structure, and again, an extended bargain  "lease" or bargain purchase of the property.

Per Google Maps, the Landing property appears to be no more than about 6.5 acres.  At $25 million, one way or the other, I would think the City could build a hell of a nice green space.  If not, I will take on the contract and deliver for them same.

Some posts appear to continue to overlook the green space option based on current and past City failures to properly vision and manage green spaces.  Based on this approach, we also should kill the Landing rather than keep it going as the City has proven it can't manage that either.  Again, the answer to all of DT's issues is to replace incompetent leadership, not walk away from what may be a great solution.

I also go back to the "chicken and egg" issue.  Demand for green space feeds off surrounding development but surrounding development that feeds off of green space isn't going to happen unless their is such green space.  In such cases, it is for the City to make the first move, especially given the lack of trust in the City and it's track record of failing to deliver on such promises.

I continue to agree that all green spaces should be properly managed and enhanced as Lake advocates but I don't accept that as a reason to overlook this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to do something that will be a legacy for decades to come.

I can get behind this.  Yes, I agree that curry's proposal for the Landing site deserves consideration and has some merit.

[thelakelander]

Why, yes I have!  I started my career in downtown Jax.  Just after graduation from UF, i worked for one of the Big 4 Accounting Firms.  Thanks for asking - I guess you'll have to find some other way to shut me up for lack of credibility and complete irrelevance to the topic:)

I'm not trying to shut you up. I'm offering a counter to your opinion that we need this site to be a park and nothing else. In reality, we don't and the majority aren't asking for it.....especially if it takes up needed financial resources that can be applied to areas of greater need.

[thelakelander]

Is this about beating Sleiman or doing something DT actually needs? Have you ever worked in DT Jax? Residents and workers aren't begging for another grass lawn in DT. There's plenty of parks in DT now that could do everything you describe and more...if the city gave a damn to put money into them and maintain them. Any proposal Curry's team in terms of costs should first include a line item to upgrade and maintain the many underutilized spaces we already have and visit. Btw, Hemming is more central.

Hemming isn't waterfront, and maybe it's changed, but it wasn't much of a green space when I worked downtown.  It felt like a shaded plaza with planters.  It's a nice feature downtown, but given its location at the front door to City Hall, I've always considered it the public space for Jacksonville's Civic District and not so much for the city's CBD.  Ultimately, they represent very different vibes in an urban context.

You're kind of making my point. Hemming, the Main Street Pocket Park, the County Courthouse lawn, the Northbank Riverwalk (on the river), the East Lot (on the river), Friendship Fountain (on the river) can all be a lot of things they aren't, if properly invested, maintained and coordinated with the outer square that surrounds them.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Any proposal Curry's team in terms of costs should first include a line item to upgrade and maintain the many underutilized spaces we already have and visit. Btw, Hemming is more central.

I've been beating that drum on the other threads regarding existing parks and public funding. 

Plenty of money for new;  Zero money for maintenance.

[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.

Let's analyze this.  The costs of  the lawsuit appear to apply regardless of the plans for this property if the City is determined to gain control before its future is determined.  Buying out the leases may also be the same, as well, if the property needs to be emptied for any future changes.  Even a renovation and redeployment of the current structure would likely require removal of all tenants to facilitate any construction.  If things are as bad as people say, the tenants may welcome a release from their leases .  Razing the ramp, also suggested regardless of the future options, is, per the T-U article, only about $580K, not a major amount in the big scheme of things here.  Razing the building is also pocket change compared to other redevelopment costs.  Based on many plans proposed so far, it looks like some or all of the building gets razed anyway.

So, the only real incremental costs to compare appear to be the costs of renovating the current structure, replacing the current structure with new structures, or replacing the current structure with green space.

Let's say it costs $200 a square foot (possibly a low number given delinquent upkeep and higher finishing standards) to overhaul the 31 year old structure consisting of 126,000 sf (per Wikipedia).  That's a minimum of $25 million.  It doesn't count curing the parking problem, other infrastructure improvements, City incentives that may be demanded by an operator, and a demand for an extended bargain "lease" on the property or a bargain purchase.

Replacing the current structure with new structures will clearly costs over $100 million.  Based on the District, I would guess a developer would ask for at least $25 million in incentives from the City (maybe far more), infrastructure improvements, a parking structure, and again, an extended bargain  "lease" or bargain purchase of the property.

Per Google Maps, the Landing property appears to be no more than about 6.5 acres.  At $25 million, one way or the other, I would think the City could build a hell of a nice green space.  If not, I will take on the contract and deliver for them same.

You've basically tied yourself down to two expensive options...Mayor Brown's plan which is DOA with Curry in office and Curry's plan which is really a dream cooked up back when Payton was in office and also DOA if the city doesn't win the suit. Going back to 2003, there are several other options that don't call for either. When egos and political gamesmanship is replaced with innovative thinking and truly analyzing return on investment, there's several other options for revitalization that are available and have merit as well.

Some posts appear to continue to overlook the green space option based on current and past City failures to properly vision and manage green spaces.  Based on this approach, we also should kill the Landing rather than keep it going as the City has proven it can't manage that either.  Again, the answer to all of DT's issues is to replace incompetent leadership, not walk away from what may be a great solution.

A great solution could be to sell the land. That removes the City from the real estate business but also places a high profile site on the tax rolls. Many have more faith in the private sector doing something that makes the private investment a plus than COJ being in the development business.

I also go back to the "chicken and egg" issue.  Demand for green space feeds off surrounding development but surrounding development that feeds off of green space isn't going to happen unless there is such green space.  In such cases, it is for the City to make the first move, especially given the lack of trust in the City and it's track record of failing to deliver on such promises.

I'm personally not a big believer in the "chicken and egg" theory when it comes to revitalization. I'm also not big on forcing general theory on any type of context. There's no more demand for the Landing to be a green space than the east lot right next to it.

I continue to agree that all green spaces should be properly managed and enhanced as Lake advocates but I don't accept that as a reason to overlook this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to do something that will be a legacy for decades to come.

We said the same thing about the Skyway, Prime Osborn and the Landing itself. JTA is now attempting to sell legacy with the AV talk. In reality, none of these things are once-in-a-lifetime opportunities or legacies for decades to come. They all happen to be isolated gimmicks by various administrations and agencies that all lack the proper coordination and funding to create the unified synergy downtown really needs.

[thelakelander]

^Probably because there's no photo op and ribbon cutting ceremony with maintenance. The one decent interactive park that we did have (Kids Kampus), we ruined it with similar legacy, riverfront park talk a decade ago. Now look at it.