Adaptive Reuse: An Artists' Vision For The Landing

[thelakelander]

I'm not a 'tear it down type person' but that is a lot of ground to cover between the sidewalk and the building - well over 90'.  I'm a "Good Urbanism first' person and if the choice is between getting rid of bad urbanism and starting over vs. half-ass retrofit urbanism then I say start over.  Alas, the City has no intention of actually doing good urbanism (not do I believe is even capable of good urbanism) so I'm torn on this one.

This is why a charrette isn't really needed. A 90' setback is neither good or bad urbanism. What makes good or bad urbanism is what is specifically done with the space. A decision to tear down should not be weighted on such opinions.

[Charles Hunter]

For Independent Drive, shipping containers aren't even necessary. A good chunk of the frontage is already storefront. Throw a public market or food hall in there, add some outdoor seating and you're essentially done.

You mean like this?  The fact remains that the exterior framing of the retail stall spaces pictured, are carbon copies of the interior framing... meaning the stall spaces were designed to be easily converted into exterior storefronts facing Independent Drive/Hogan Street simply by replacing the stucco facades with floor to ceiling window panes.



Nah, this building needs to be torn down because  '1980's mall', 'u-shaped design is horrible', 'you need to start over', insert your lame excuse here ____

Don't forget the Horrid Orange Roof as a reason to Tear It Down.

[vicupstate]

^^ Couldn't the JFM just create a statelite 'annex' in the Landing without moving from the current location? 

[Tacachale]

It's to be expected that a some people who aren't versed in urban development issues would believe things like the idea that tearing down the Landing will make it easier to develop, or that things should be turn down just because they're dingy now. That's just how it goes. What's disappointing is that not only are all of the main decision makers on board with this plan, City Council is just moving in lockstep without question. Not surprising, but extremely disappointing.

I don't believe a charrette is necessary, but it's refreshing that Carlucci is at least saying we should have a better plan and public input before we undertake a huge, expensive decision. As Lake says, the best bet would to start an RFP that includes all the things everybody wants to see at the space - more green space, an opening at Laura Street, and a right-sized retail component - but leave it open enough that developers can choose to renovate the space. The public will be a part of things then, and we'll at least know that we made the decision with all our options open.

[Florida Power And Light]

One problem with the "Artists' Rendition" is that the view from the River north to Main Street is blocked,as would a southerly River view from Main Street be blocked.

Waterfront Vista.   +

What a Crock.Surprised the "Rendition" did not include a Giant Marina,docks in deep water,treacherous currents,vessels flailing attempting to dock

Level the place. Thank you 1980's "Vision",now we embrace River City Visual Scenery Management,open vistas both watery and concrete,Jacksonville's Gracious Southern Front and Back Porch,the privilege of public waterfront land ownership fully nudged to highest and best use,vested,open ( skip "green space"....)  Waterway Space far more valuable than any retail building whatsoever or expanded city tax receipts,truly an anchor so to speak on the shore of Downtown,a solid footing for so far elusive yet potentially ideal surrounding development.Oh,and lest we forget....human use,enjoyment,placement.Competing with a lake in Nocatee should be easier than this.

[thelakelander]

Ummm Main Street crosses the river. How is the view of the river blocked from Main Street?

[fieldafm]

^^ Remember kids... drunk posting is never good.

[bl8jaxnative]

It's to be expected that a some people who aren't versed in urban development issues would believe things like the idea that tearing down the Landing will make it easier to develop

What sort of crack are you smoking?   A vacant lot is easier to develop than one with a building on it.  Just like it's easier to paint on a blank canvas than over an existing painting.   

What's disappointing is that not only are all of the main decision makers on board with this plan, City Council is just moving in lockstep without question. Not surprising, but extremely disappointing.

I have written to all of my council members.  Almost all of them have responded.    Their responses, especially a couple, demonstrated that they don't take the issue lightly have been deliberating - on and off - about The Landing for years.


And that's the problem here.  We've all been talking about The Landing for years.  The idea that somehow all options haven't been considered is :
a) A political move - Smart move by Carlucci
b) A strategic move - The urban hoarders can's stand to throw something away and are desperately grasping at any option other than demo

[Steve]

It's to be expected that a some people who aren't versed in urban development issues would believe things like the idea that tearing down the Landing will make it easier to develop

What sort of crack are you smoking?   A vacant lot is easier to develop than one with a building on it.  Just like it's easier to paint on a blank canvas than over an existing painting.   

Absolutely, since all of the vacant lots downtown have contributed to the giant building boom going on downtown.

[vicupstate]

A vacant lot is easier to develop than one with a building on it.

Let me put it to you like this. There are two houses for sale. One built 10 years ago and one that was just completed. Same block same SF, same style.  Which one is going to be cheaper 9.5 times out of 10?

The one that was already built.   

Simply making changes to an existing building allows some materials to be re-used.  If new construction were justifiable, we would already be seeing it. The lower costs of using existing buildings can make a business viable that isn't with the higher cost of 100% new construciton. 

[Tacachale]

It's to be expected that a some people who aren't versed in urban development issues would believe things like the idea that tearing down the Landing will make it easier to develop

What sort of crack are you smoking?   A vacant lot is easier to develop than one with a building on it.  Just like it's easier to paint on a blank canvas than over an existing painting.   

You're right - that's why all those dozens other lots in Downtown Jax have cranes on them as we speak.

What's disappointing is that not only are all of the main decision makers on board with this plan, City Council is just moving in lockstep without question. Not surprising, but extremely disappointing.

I have written to all of my council members.  Almost all of them have responded.    Their responses, especially a couple, demonstrated that they don't take the issue lightly have been deliberating - on and off - about The Landing for years.

And that's the problem here.  We've all been talking about The Landing for years.  The idea that somehow all options haven't been considered is :
a) A political move - Smart move by Carlucci
b) A strategic move - The urban hoarders can's stand to throw something away and are desperately grasping at any option other than demo

Perhaps all options have been "considered", but obviously not seriously, as we're still plowing ahead with perhaps the worst one: demolition with no firm plan. That ensures it stays as yet another vacant lot - sorry, a "blank canvas" - indefinitely. There is zero reason to blow up the Landing before we decide what we're even doing with the property. Well, there's one reason, if you don't actually intend to do anything with the site beyond Bermuda grass.

[bl8jaxnative]

Sorry if I missed it.  Does the city have in place funding to remove the on / off "ramp" for water st. / Independt for the Main Street bridge?  I think it would be a good move overall.  But I wasn't aware that any funding was in place to do so. 

[Charles Hunter]

If I remember correctly, a few years ago, FDOT had engineering and design in their work program (5-year plan); but, when the City stopped considering it, the project was dropped.  Probably wouldn't take much to bring it back, if the City wants it.

[bl8jaxnative]

It's to be expected that a some people who aren't versed in urban development issues would believe things like the idea that tearing down the Landing will make it easier to develop

What sort of crack are you smoking?   A vacant lot is easier to develop than one with a building on it.  Just like it's easier to paint on a blank canvas than over an existing painting.   

You're right - that's why all those dozens other lots in Downtown Jax have cranes on them as we speak.

Because it is easier to develop does not mean it __WILL__ be developed today.   


Check out Minneapolis' MIll district.  It was a sea of parking lots for decades.  Finally as the city grew and the demand was there, in a decade it's gone from empty parking lots to a dense, vibrant neighborhood.

[thelakelander]

Minneapolis is a bad example. The historic mill is still there and the core of Downtown Minneapolis was never pulverized into oblivion to the level of what Jacksonville has experienced. New infill in the Mill District only came after decades of getting right in the core and that spilling over into fringe areas. For that "special" Mill district decade to occur in Jax will first require Jax to finally get it right in other areas to build the spill over synergy.