The Jaxson

Jacksonville by Neighborhood => Downtown => Topic started by: Tacachale on May 24, 2019, 05:41:07 PM

Title: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Tacachale on May 24, 2019, 05:41:07 PM
Excellent editorial from the Florida Times-Union board today:

Quote

Friday Editorial: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse

By Times-Union Editorial Board
Posted May 24, 2019 at 2:01 AM   
When it comes to old buildings, there should be no “one policy fits all” approach.

At one end of the scale are dilapidated structures that just need to be torn down because they have little worth saving and minimal historic importance; think of the old county courthouse and city hall (both of which were used up figuratively and literally).

At the other end of the scale are marvelous architectural gems that should be nurtured until they can be reinvented in some way.

Think of Snyder Memorial Church near Hemming Park or buildings with great structural integrity like the armory in Springfield near Hogans Creek; other good examples are the former Haydon Burns Library (now the Jessie Ball DuPont Center), the old Barnett Bank, the Laura Street Trio and the Ambassador Hotel.

And then there are buildings in the middle that require some evaluation and thought.

Like The Jacksonville Landing.

The Landing creates some deep feelings locally. The location is the icon, not the orange roof. While we’re not especially fond of the building, it has some nostalgic value.

Mayor Lenny Curry’s administration is on record as supporting demolition of the former structure. We’re not going to lead a crusade to save it, but we do support doing a thorough cost-benefit analysis of comparing adaptable reuse versus demolition.

What if the proposed uses for a new Landing could be provided by a major remodeling job that actually saves money for the taxpayers?


That happened when the old Civic Auditorium was converted into the Times-Union Center for the Performing Arts — and when the old Gator Bowl was converted into an NFL-ready football stadium.

Just such a proposal has been presented — with great detail — in a piece on the Jaxson website titled “Adaptive Reuse: An artists’ vision for the Landing.” It offers a compromise proposal with some demolition and mostly reuse; the concept has been successfully carried out in other former festival marketplaces around the country.


https://www.jacksonville.com/opinion/20190524/friday-editorial-dont-demolish-landing-before-examining-adaptive-reuse
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: thelakelander on May 24, 2019, 05:53:21 PM
Disagree about city hall annex (Haydon Burns is literally the same architectural style) but I do agree with seriously vetting the numbers. Isn't the mayor an accountant? This should be easy for him.....right?
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Ken_FSU on May 24, 2019, 08:17:20 PM
The mayor's gonna mayor, but what really makes me kind of lose all hope is the 15-1 City Council vote in favor of demolition with no due dilligence, no replacement plan in place, and no revenue source identified for next steps (including a vote from the incoming head of the DIA). I think that's probably the most damning aspect of this entire story.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: athomasson86 on May 24, 2019, 08:47:16 PM
I think there's something shady politicking going on behind the scenes. It simply doesn't make sense to demolish The Landing. So, we can give financial reasons for why we shouldn't demolish it, we can give emotional reasons (nostalgia, sense of place, etc), we can even show that the majority of people don't want it demolished (at least not without a better replacement plan)... but it seems like it's still going to be demolished no matter what. As someone who has grown up here and loves seeing the Landing reflected on the St. John's at night, hearing about the unstoppable demolition of the Landing is extremely frustrating. 
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Tacachale on May 24, 2019, 10:16:09 PM
Don’t give up hope just yet. Still time to contact the mayor and city council members. Public pressure has worked to fight recent moves like the sale of JEA and the JEA headquarters. And even if the Landing does come down, it’ll be harder for the leadership to push the next demolition through.

http://www.coj.net/mayor/contact-us

http://www.coj.net/city-council.aspx#digital_river_frame_1


Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: bl8jaxnative on May 27, 2019, 05:42:17 PM
"
we do support doing a thorough cost-benefit analysis of comparing adaptable reuse versus demolition.
"

Demo's going to cost less than $3million.  Adaptive reuse will cost in order of 30 to 130 times that.   
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: thelakelander on May 27, 2019, 05:46:25 PM
Quote
Demo's going to cost less than $3million.

Not exactly. We don't even know if there's asbestos to address and the bank hasn't agreed to a lease buyout yet. Whatever the mayor's office thought they'd get out of the bank is certainly going up. Same goes for the demo costs.

Quote
Adaptive reuse will cost in order of 30 to 130 times that.

I don't think anyone would expect COJ to pay to revamp and reuse the building. This would be a private sector cost with great economic benefit on the downtown core. It would be no different from Vestcor coming along and asking COJ for land in LaVilla to build townhouses on or the Jags doing Lot J on COJ property. Demo in isolation for another wasteland does the exact opposite.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Jagsdrew on May 27, 2019, 06:32:51 PM
Renowned architect I.M. Pei once said, we live in a disposable culture of designing and constructing buildings with the intention of destroying them. Preservation and reuse is how architecture is appreciated and how you grow vibrancy.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: MusicMan on May 27, 2019, 09:38:52 PM
"Demo's going to cost less than $3million.  Adaptive reuse will cost in order of 30 to 130 times that. "

What the hell are you talking about?  $90 million to $390 million?  Please stop, your making yourself appear stupid.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Captain Zissou on May 28, 2019, 09:15:20 AM
Please stop, your making yourself appear stupid.

You're*
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Kerry on May 28, 2019, 09:32:05 AM
Renowned architect I.M. Pei once said, we live in a disposable culture of designing and constructing buildings with the intention of destroying them. Preservation and reuse is how architecture is appreciated and how you grow vibrancy.
I.M. Pei might have said that but he sure didn't believe it.  He wholesale destroyed entire city blocks and often times replaced them with nothing more than giant courtyards.  Too bad he died before someone could kick him in the nuts.

Maybe he was talking about his Boston City Hall that is so universally hated that Harvard and MIT have an annual competition to design a replacement.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: avonjax on May 28, 2019, 05:20:57 PM
Quote
Demo's going to cost less than $3million.

Not exactly. We don't even know if there's asbestos to address and the bank hasn't agreed to a lease buyout yet. Whatever the mayor's office thought they'd get out of the bank is certainly going up. Same goes for the demo costs.

Quote
Adaptive reuse will cost in order of 30 to 130 times that.

I don't think anyone would expect COJ to pay to revamp and reuse the building. This would be a private sector cost with great economic benefit on the downtown core. It would be no different from Vestcor coming along and asking COJ for land in LaVilla to build townhouses on or the Jags doing Lot J on COJ property. Demo in isolation for another wasteland does the exact opposite.
Lakelander what stake does bl8jaxnative have in the demo? Does he own a demo company? I don't get his crazy claims.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: tufsu1 on May 28, 2019, 05:55:30 PM
Maybe he was talking about his Boston City Hall that is so universally hated that Harvard and MIT have an annual competition to design a replacement.

Just curious - was it hated when built...and are you referring to the building, the plaza, or both?
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: thelakelander on May 28, 2019, 06:08:52 PM
Quote
Demo's going to cost less than $3million.

Not exactly. We don't even know if there's asbestos to address and the bank hasn't agreed to a lease buyout yet. Whatever the mayor's office thought they'd get out of the bank is certainly going up. Same goes for the demo costs.

Quote
Adaptive reuse will cost in order of 30 to 130 times that.

I don't think anyone would expect COJ to pay to revamp and reuse the building. This would be a private sector cost with great economic benefit on the downtown core. It would be no different from Vestcor coming along and asking COJ for land in LaVilla to build townhouses on or the Jags doing Lot J on COJ property. Demo in isolation for another wasteland does the exact opposite.
Lakelander what stake does bl8jaxnative have in the demo? Does he own a demo company? I don't get his crazy claims.
I don't get it either. I'd love to hear his alternative vision for the property after demo, his thoughts on how much it will cost to implement and how it will benefit downtown economically.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Kerry on May 28, 2019, 06:12:05 PM
Maybe he was talking about his Boston City Hall that is so universally hated that Harvard and MIT have an annual competition to design a replacement.

Just curious - was it hated when built...and are you referring to the building, the plaza, or both?

It depends on who you ask.  The general public hated it from day one.  The architecture community gave him an award.

Just for fun...

https://www.citylab.com/design/2019/05/revisiting-im-pei-plan-oklahoma-city-urban-renewal-architecture/589666/?utm_source=newsletter&silverid=%25%25RECIPIENT_ID%25%25&utm_campaign=citylab-daily-newsletter&utm_medium=email
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Steve on May 29, 2019, 09:54:06 AM
Maybe he was talking about his Boston City Hall that is so universally hated that Harvard and MIT have an annual competition to design a replacement.

Just curious - was it hated when built...and are you referring to the building, the plaza, or both?

It depends on who you ask.  The general public hated it from day one.  The architecture community gave him an award.

Just for fun...

https://www.citylab.com/design/2019/05/revisiting-im-pei-plan-oklahoma-city-urban-renewal-architecture/589666/?utm_source=newsletter&silverid=%25%25RECIPIENT_ID%25%25&utm_campaign=citylab-daily-newsletter&utm_medium=email

Regardless of any of that, IM Pei didn't design Boston's City Hall. It was a professor and student from Columbia that went on to open their firm after winning the design competition for this thing.

Regardless, some buildings really stand the test of time. Jacksonville's City Hall is one of them. This one, on the other hand, is awful.

I get the whole Brutalist architecture, but this just doesn't work from a plaza standpoint, building standpoint, or anything.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: KenFSU on June 17, 2019, 04:33:48 PM
$450,000 in taxpayer money will be spent to buy out BBVA's lease.

https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/city-reaches-buyout-deal-with-landings-last-business

Let's do some quick math.

Fionn MacCool's lease was bought out for $550,000.

Taxpayers paid $303,000 to boot Hooters from their newly refurbished space.

And there's currently $178k remaining in the $1.5 million fund set up to buy out leases and help relocate tenants, which the city does not expect to award per the article.

So, with $1.5 million approved by City Council in part to help downtown businesses relocate as the result of the closure, and approximately 30 businesses being forced from the Landing, a grand total of $19,000 max was distributed to help small business owners find a new place to set up shop.

1% of the budget spent on relocation.

$600 per business, max.

Great job to all involved.



Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Kerry on June 17, 2019, 06:11:41 PM
Jacksonville: the only city in America trying to reurbanize downtown by kicking existing businesses out.  Bold move Cotton.  Let's see if it works.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: thelakelander on June 17, 2019, 06:51:51 PM
Been in London the past couple of days and have spent some time in quite a few public markets. Many of these spaces not dramatically different from the Landing that have been reused a number of times over centuries. It's a shame that the city is so clueless when it comes to stuff like this. $22 million and counting and all Jax will have to show for it is 30 less businesses, hundreds of jobs lost and a blank hole where 125,000 square feet of perfectly fine flexible space could have been used for literally anything to help activate the core. What's funny is the group I'm with never goes downtown. Discussing it at dinner last night, half of them weren't even aware. They represent the type of suburban residents some so desperately want to attract in DT but some have complained about London (too much walking, taking trains, not wanting to eat anything other than American fare, etc.). They didn't go to the Landing and they certainly aren't going to a dirt field or passive lawn but we continue to focus on them more than the people who are already there and want to be there. Being a resident, it sucks but in reality we'll likely get what we deserve and it won't be what the mayor is selling.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Kerry on June 18, 2019, 08:26:13 AM
Lakelander, you keep reinforcing my belief that the problem with trying to urbanize Jacksonville is cultural.  I even see it members of my own family that grew up in Jacksonville.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Adam White on June 18, 2019, 08:46:11 AM
Lakelander, you keep reinforcing my belief that the problem with trying to urbanize Jacksonville is cultural.  I even see it members of my own family that grew up in Jacksonville.

But 'culture' is mutable. Jacksonville hasn't always been the way it is. Decades of failed plans and bad ideas have got us to where we are today - maybe some bold leadership and successes will change the outlook of the average Jacksonvillian naysayer.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Kerry on June 18, 2019, 08:56:44 AM
If Jacksonville is going to urbanize it is going to have to happen without the help of City Hall.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Snufflee on June 18, 2019, 02:52:20 PM
Lakelander, you keep reinforcing my belief that the problem with trying to urbanize Jacksonville is cultural.  I even see it members of my own family that grew up in Jacksonville.

I am going to agree with Kerry here, maybe "cultural" isn't the perfect word but I can't think of another word to replace it with. My wife's family is all North/West Side. To have a conversation with them on growth, urban development, good schools and the like is akin to Satan himself bursting out of the pulpit at Sunday Church followed by a string of racial slurs that include uppity and something something Cubans from Miami. Not to mention that Shad Khan certainly can't be trusted.. not in any business sense but based on where he is from.

Its like talking to brick walls, and these are folks who range from 35 - 75. I know its anecdotal, but it is a cluster of diseased cells in a city with so much potential.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: KenFSU on June 18, 2019, 09:29:19 PM
From Cordish's YouTube channel, of all places:

https://youtu.be/90KAu9zv72c
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Adam White on June 19, 2019, 04:52:58 AM
Lakelander, you keep reinforcing my belief that the problem with trying to urbanize Jacksonville is cultural.  I even see it members of my own family that grew up in Jacksonville.

I am going to agree with Kerry here, maybe "cultural" isn't the perfect word but I can't think of another word to replace it with. My wife's family is all North/West Side. To have a conversation with them on growth, urban development, good schools and the like is akin to Satan himself bursting out of the pulpit at Sunday Church followed by a string of racial slurs that include uppity and something something Cubans from Miami. Not to mention that Shad Khan certainly can't be trusted.. not in any business sense but based on where he is from.

Its like talking to brick walls, and these are folks who range from 35 - 75. I know its anecdotal, but it is a cluster of diseased cells in a city with so much potential.

Y'all need to read Freakonomics.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Snufflee on June 19, 2019, 08:42:47 AM
Lakelander, you keep reinforcing my belief that the problem with trying to urbanize Jacksonville is cultural.  I even see it members of my own family that grew up in Jacksonville.

I am going to agree with Kerry here, maybe "cultural" isn't the perfect word but I can't think of another word to replace it with. My wife's family is all North/West Side. To have a conversation with them on growth, urban development, good schools and the like is akin to Satan himself bursting out of the pulpit at Sunday Church followed by a string of racial slurs that include uppity and something something Cubans from Miami. Not to mention that Shad Khan certainly can't be trusted.. not in any business sense but based on where he is from.

Its like talking to brick walls, and these are folks who range from 35 - 75. I know its anecdotal, but it is a cluster of diseased cells in a city with so much potential.

Y'all need to read Freakonomics.

I prefer Bullshit Jobs and Debt the First 5000 Years as modern economic analysis and Das Kapital as well as System of Economical Contradictions.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Kerry on June 19, 2019, 09:37:17 AM
Lakelander, you keep reinforcing my belief that the problem with trying to urbanize Jacksonville is cultural.  I even see it members of my own family that grew up in Jacksonville.

I am going to agree with Kerry here, maybe "cultural" isn't the perfect word but I can't think of another word to replace it with. My wife's family is all North/West Side. To have a conversation with them on growth, urban development, good schools and the like is akin to Satan himself bursting out of the pulpit at Sunday Church followed by a string of racial slurs that include uppity and something something Cubans from Miami. Not to mention that Shad Khan certainly can't be trusted.. not in any business sense but based on where he is from.

Its like talking to brick walls, and these are folks who range from 35 - 75. I know its anecdotal, but it is a cluster of diseased cells in a city with so much potential.

Y'all need to read Freakonomics.

It is only Jacksonville though.  Every other city, town, village in the entire country is already urbanizing, and has been for 20 years or more.  Then we have Jacksonville.  How does Freakonomics explain that?
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: sanmarcomatt on June 19, 2019, 09:48:53 AM

It is only Jacksonville though.  Every other city, town, village in the entire country is already urbanizing

But I find hamlets are still behind the times on urbanizing so we have that going for us.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Kerry on June 19, 2019, 10:17:43 AM
I tried to explain it another post awhile back but I think it comes down to a lack of competition.  Competition for jobs, companies, tourist, and citizens at the regional level and no competition within the city.

We don't have any natural resources to mine and no primary industries to compete with.  We maybe at one time had banking but we surrendered to Charlotte decades ago.  San Marco doesn't compete with 5-Points for businesses, which in turn doesn't compete with Avondale, which in turn doesn't compete with Springfield (because all of them have anti-growth populations and civic groups).

We don't have any suburbs that compete thanks to consoludation (actually - did any towns even get absorbed into Jax other than the 3 beach communities that eventually broke away again).

We have a lack of higher education.  JU, UNF, and FSCJ - that's it.  You might not like the comparison but Oklahoma City has 19 (and that doesn't include for-profit schools).  Metro-Atlanta has 57.  Hell, Daytona Beach even has 4.

In short - we don't have anyone to compete with for anything - so we just get fat and lazy.

To add to this - my wife works at a major Jacksonville employer and they have hundreds of positions they can't fill because they can't get people to move here so they are staffed with huge amounts of contractors.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Adam White on June 19, 2019, 10:19:27 AM
Lakelander, you keep reinforcing my belief that the problem with trying to urbanize Jacksonville is cultural.  I even see it members of my own family that grew up in Jacksonville.

I am going to agree with Kerry here, maybe "cultural" isn't the perfect word but I can't think of another word to replace it with. My wife's family is all North/West Side. To have a conversation with them on growth, urban development, good schools and the like is akin to Satan himself bursting out of the pulpit at Sunday Church followed by a string of racial slurs that include uppity and something something Cubans from Miami. Not to mention that Shad Khan certainly can't be trusted.. not in any business sense but based on where he is from.

Its like talking to brick walls, and these are folks who range from 35 - 75. I know its anecdotal, but it is a cluster of diseased cells in a city with so much potential.

Y'all need to read Freakonomics.

It is only Jacksonville though.  Every other city, town, village in the entire country is already urbanizing, and has been for 20 years or more.  Then we have Jacksonville.  How does Freakonomics explain that?

Read the book.

The issue is that people won't change their behaviours without incentive to do so - but they do when there is sufficient incentive. People from Jacksonville are no different than people from anywhere else.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Kerry on June 19, 2019, 10:32:43 AM
Thanks Adam.  I'll take a look but it sounds like exactly what I wrote about lacking competition.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Captain Zissou on June 19, 2019, 10:36:04 AM
San Marco doesn't compete with 5-Points for businesses, which in turn doesn't compete with Avondale, which in turn doesn't compete with Springfield (because all of them have anti-growth populations and civic groups).

What kind of competition are you looking for?  Weekly brawls in memorial park?  The competitive spirit is alive and well in all three, I can assure you.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: thelakelander on June 19, 2019, 10:37:24 AM
Definitely agree with Adam White. People in Jax are no different than people in Tampa, Pensacola or Macon. Unfortunately, Jax hasn't had the leadership in place long enough that get's urbanity or at least knows the right resources that do...or been willing to put its money where its mouth is. You want change as a city? Develop a vision, stick to it and invest in yourself. Get the basics right and everything else will naturally take care of itself. No need to waste time and money trying to teach people living in Oceanway about the merits of a vibrant downtown.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Adam White on June 19, 2019, 10:37:29 AM
Thanks Adam.  I'll take a look but it sounds like exactly what I wrote about lacking competition.

It's a fascinating book - it's basically about using economic theory to explain things that aren't really economics. It more or less explores human behaviour. The book has had its fair share of criticism and some of the conclusions might be questionable, but the idea is very interesting.

There is a Jacksonville connection, too - they do a bit about Stetson Kennedy (though they later addressed the fact that a lot of what he said was made up).
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Adam White on June 19, 2019, 10:38:58 AM
Definitely agree with Adam White. People in Jax are no different than people in Tampa, Pensacola or Macon. Unfortunately, Jax hasn't had the leadership in place long enough that get's urbanity or at least knows the right resources that do...or been willing to put its money where its mouth is. You want change as a city? Develop a vision, stick to it and invest in yourself. Get the basics right and everything else will naturally take care of itself. No need to waste time and money trying to teach people living in Oceanway about the merits of a vibrant downtown.

I think people in Jacksonville are jaded or perhaps have grown up in a city that doesn't do anything other then tear stuff down. But with the right leadership and a bit of sustained success, those opinions will change. People aren't just going to decide things can be different - they need to be shown they can be different.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: thelakelander on June 19, 2019, 10:43:38 AM
I agree. This is exactly what played out in Central Florida 10 to 15 years ago.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Charles Hunter on June 19, 2019, 12:02:21 PM

<snip>

We don't have any suburbs that compete thanks to consoludation (actually - did any towns even get absorbed into Jax other than the 3 beach communities that eventually broke away again).

<snip>


Huge detour from the point of this thread, but the separate status of the 3 Beaches cities and Baldwin, was built into the Consolidation referendum.   I do not recall any other incorporated areas in 1968 that were absorbed by the Jacksonville-Duval merger.  I think thelakelander has written about this, but, absent consolidation, at least some of the neighborhoods adjacent to he 1967 city limits likely would have been annexed into Jacksonville; while more distant neighborhoods may have sought to incorporate to supplement inadequate services from Duval County.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Kerry on June 19, 2019, 12:09:44 PM
Thanks Charles.  It is just odd that there were no other towns around.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Steve on June 19, 2019, 01:47:04 PM
San Marco doesn't compete with 5-Points for businesses, which in turn doesn't compete with Avondale, which in turn doesn't compete with Springfield (because all of them have anti-growth populations and civic groups).

I actually thought your point was good except for this point. I'd add Murray Hill to this list and between the four of them, I definitely feel like their is some good competition.

In terms of other cities, I do think you make a point. To Charles' point, the beaches and Baldwin never "broke away". Their status today was part of the consolidation vote, where they basically utilize the Consolidated City of Jacksonville for services that a county government would ordinarily provide.

However, in cities that are much smaller geographically, there's much more of an incentive to not let retail go to places like Town Center where they wouldn't pay city taxes. Here's that a non-issue.

Do I think it's an issue? Yes. Insurmountable, no.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Kerry on June 19, 2019, 02:01:55 PM
I bring up the internal competition of our existing commercial areas because I don't see it.  Every time a business wants to expand or contruct a new building it is met with overwhelming resistance.  I don't see that happening in other cities I am familiar with.

I have been in Chicagoland for the past 6 months and every railroad suburb is refurbishing their downtowns, adding housing at a staggering rate, recruiting employers and small businesses.  And these aren't all big towns like Naperville and Aurora.  These are small towns like Lisle and Wheaton and Glen Ellyn which are more in scale to 5 Points, San Marco, and Avondale except they are their own towns.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: pierre on June 19, 2019, 02:09:26 PM
San Marco doesn't compete with 5-Points for businesses, which in turn doesn't compete with Avondale, which in turn doesn't compete with Springfield (because all of them have anti-growth populations and civic groups).

What kind of competition are you looking for?  Weekly brawls in memorial park?  The competitive spirit is alive and well in all three, I can assure you.

Old time baseball games? Although I feel like Springfield would be the heavy favorite.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Steve on June 19, 2019, 03:23:56 PM
I bring up the internal competition of our existing commercial areas because I don't see it.  Every time a business wants to expand or contruct a new building it is met with overwhelming resistance.  I don't see that happening in other cities I am familiar with.

I have been in Chicagoland for the past 6 months and every railroad suburb is refurbishing their downtowns, adding housing at a staggering rate, recruiting employers and small businesses.  And these aren't all big towns like Naperville and Aurora.  These are small towns like Lisle and Wheaton and Glen Ellyn which are more in scale to 5 Points, San Marco, and Avondale except they are their own towns.

Honestly if I thought about "competition", I think Jacksonville would be best served if Downtown, R/A, San Marco, Springfield, Murray Hill, Durkeeville, etc. were to work together to create competition versus the true suburban parts of town. For example, if I'm a Riverside resident, a new retail store is much more preferred in San Marco vs. Town Center. I really don't much care if it goes to San Marco vs. Riverside (I might say, "aw darn", but it's nowhere near the feeling if a place in Riverside closes up and moves to Town Center).
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Captain Zissou on June 19, 2019, 03:42:30 PM
Honestly if I thought about "competition", I think Jacksonville would be best served if Downtown, R/A, San Marco, Springfield, Murray Hill, Durkeeville, etc. were to work together to create competition versus the true suburban parts of town.
This right here.  I think some of the business owners are already doing this, but the city government is the main obstacle to this.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Kerry on June 19, 2019, 04:41:41 PM
That would be great but good luck getting RAP to support growth.  The biggest obsticle isn't the City, it is the preservation groups.  If RAP was pro-growth there would be a new apartment building and retail under construction on King St right now.  Even Murray Hill came out in force against their first new construction in a generation.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: thelakelander on June 19, 2019, 04:58:41 PM
Thanks Charles.  It is just odd that there were no other towns around.

Murray Hill, South Jacksonville (San Marco), East Jacksonville, Fairfield and Mandarin were all incorporated municipalities at some point in the past. However, by consolidation that had either already been absorbed by Jacksonville or had lost their incorporated status.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: thelakelander on June 19, 2019, 05:34:33 PM
San Marco doesn't compete with 5-Points for businesses, which in turn doesn't compete with Avondale, which in turn doesn't compete with Springfield (because all of them have anti-growth populations and civic groups).

However, in cities that are much smaller geographically, there's much more of an incentive to not let retail go to places like Town Center where they wouldn't pay city taxes. Here's that a non-issue.

In Florida, from my knowledge the cities simply annex the land where newest mall or lifestyle center wants to go. They haven't been much different from Jax. Most have just gotten their act together regarding their downtowns since the 1990s. It's been pretty crazy to see how Florida cities have annexed land to get to properties and developments they view as beneficial to their bottom line. Now there is a legal way for cities to annex property without the property even being contiguous with their limits.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: avonjax on June 20, 2019, 07:30:28 AM
Can someone make a list of the demolition that has taken place since Curry has become mayor? Another Ed Austin maybe? The scars will be with us for decades. He sure will change the look of Jacksonville but for the worst.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Steve on June 20, 2019, 09:48:41 AM
Can someone make a list of the demolition that has taken place since Curry has become mayor? Another Ed Austin maybe? The scars will be with us for decades. He sure will change the look of Jacksonville but for the worst.

The difference is with Ed Austin, I don't think they "got it" because many cities besides Jacksonville believed demolition was the right thing to do (though many cities had figured it out).

Now, nearly every city understands that demolition for vacant lots doesn't help. We just don't seem to see it.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Tacachale on June 20, 2019, 10:14:50 AM
Can someone make a list of the demolition that has taken place since Curry has become mayor? Another Ed Austin maybe? The scars will be with us for decades. He sure will change the look of Jacksonville but for the worst.

The difference is with Ed Austin, I don't think they "got it" because many cities besides Jacksonville believed demolition was the right thing to do (though many cities had figured it out).

Now, nearly every city understands that demolition for vacant lots doesn't help. We just don't seem to see it.

100%. Austin also built and renovated things (TUCPA, St. James Building, the stadium, zoo expansion) and got us the Jaguars.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: KenFSU on July 01, 2019, 02:27:08 PM
https://www.jacksonville.com/news/20190701/1-million-jacksonville-landing-demolition-set-for-fall

Good news, the iconic orange roof will be carefully removed and sold for scrap!
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: thelakelander on July 01, 2019, 04:09:36 PM
Lol, so we really don't have a clue. Businesses kicked out over the last month and now downtown is a complete ghost town at night and on weekends. But we at least now know that a RFP to figure out what to do next won't be put out until the end of 2019 at the earliest. The clock is ticking and we're now on the record for looking at a hole of inactivity for at least the rest of 2019.

Btw, they're unilaterally making a decision to limit economic opportunity by razing first with no clue of what really comes next...

Quote
As for The Jacksonville Landing, Curry, who started his second term Monday, told reporters the city will put out a request for proposals after the demolition of the Landing at the end of 2019 to determine the Downtown riverfront property’s “highest and best use.”

The city has contracted with  Plant City-based D.H Griffin Wrecking Co Inc. to demolish the closed shopping center for $1.074 million beginning in September. City officials say the demolition should be complete by the end of December.

The mayor’s office has been vague about what will replace the Landing. Curry said he’d like to see a public green space incorporated into a final design, and city Chief Administrative Officer Brian Hughes said in May there will “likely” be at least two developable pads for mixed-use space.

“Contrary to what some have said, I’ve never suggested that should just be a green space. It’s my opinion that part of that should be a green space,” Curry said. “That’s my opinion at this point. I don’t get to unilaterally make that decision, but I’d like to see a piece of green space there and what will the market bear there — what iconic thing can we put there that will serve Jacksonville well.”

Full article: https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/mayor-expect-deal-with-shad-khan-on-lot-j-development-by-end-of-summer

Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Tacachale on July 01, 2019, 04:19:59 PM
Lol, so we really don't have a clue. Businesses kicked out over the last month and now downtown is a complete ghost town at night and on weekends. But we at least now know that a RFP to figure out what to do next won't be put out until the end of 2019 at the earliest. The clock is ticking and we're now on the record for looking at a hole of inactivity for at least the rest of 2019.

Btw, they're unilaterally making a decision to limit economic opportunity by razing first with no clue of what really comes next...

Quote
As for The Jacksonville Landing, Curry, who started his second term Monday, told reporters the city will put out a request for proposals after the demolition of the Landing at the end of 2019 to determine the Downtown riverfront property’s “highest and best use.”

The city has contracted with  Plant City-based D.H Griffin Wrecking Co Inc. to demolish the closed shopping center for $1.074 million beginning in September. City officials say the demolition should be complete by the end of December.

The mayor’s office has been vague about what will replace the Landing. Curry said he’d like to see a public green space incorporated into a final design, and city Chief Administrative Officer Brian Hughes said in May there will “likely” be at least two developable pads for mixed-use space.

“Contrary to what some have said, I’ve never suggested that should just be a green space. It’s my opinion that part of that should be a green space,” Curry said. “That’s my opinion at this point. I don’t get to unilaterally make that decision, but I’d like to see a piece of green space there and what will the market bear there — what iconic thing can we put there that will serve Jacksonville well.”

Full article: https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/mayor-expect-deal-with-shad-khan-on-lot-j-development-by-end-of-summer

This quote:

Quote

“Contrary to what some have said, I’ve never suggested that should just be a green space. It’s my opinion that part of that should be a green space,”

.

This is literally the only thing the city has suggested for this space, and it's mostly just grass:

(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Business/Jacksonville-Landing/i-hPvBnQP/0/87d38d84/L/183444_standard-L.png)

And whether the mayor thinks it should be green space, it will be a green space for some time.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Charles Hunter on July 01, 2019, 05:15:13 PM
^
Quote
“Contrary to what some have said, I’ve never suggested that should just be a green space. It’s my opinion that part of that should be a green space,” Curry said.

Look at the drawing again, "part of that" is green space, there are two buildings there. Well, a very large part of it is green space.

Quote
And whether the mayor thinks it should be green space, it will be a green space for some time.  Perhaps some green weeds.

You are giving them more credit than I do. I think it will be more brown (dead grass and dirt) than it will be green.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: thelakelander on July 01, 2019, 07:23:02 PM
It's hard to believe the city put down new sod at the shipyards less than ten years ago. The Landing will be a great place to park and watch an occasional fireworks show without ever getting out of your car.

(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Neighborhoods/Miscellaneous-Downtown-2019/i-BsSvXKp/0/66c1595f/L/20190630_115534-L.jpg)
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Kiva on July 01, 2019, 07:52:22 PM
^
Quote
“Contrary to what some have said, I’ve never suggested that should just be a green space. It’s my opinion that part of that should be a green space,” Curry said.

Look at the drawing again, "part of that" is green space, there are two buildings there. Well, a very large part of it is green space.

Quote
And whether the mayor thinks it should be green space, it will be a green space for some time.  Perhaps some green weeds.

You are giving them more credit than I do. I think it will be more brown (dead grass and dirt) than it will be green.
Well, our favorite mayor recently said "You will not recognize Downtown in four years." He didn't say it would be better, he just said unrecognizable. Dead grass instead of the Landing counts! https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/currys-next-four-years-mayor-says-hes-going-to-make-downtown-a-destination
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Ken_FSU on July 01, 2019, 08:15:20 PM
Quote
The mayor’s office has been vague about what will replace the Landing. Curry said he’d like to see a public green space incorporated into a final design, and city Chief Administrative Officer Brian Hughes said in May there will “likely” be at least two developable pads for mixed-use space.

“Contrary to what some have said, I’ve never suggested that should just be a green space. It’s my opinion that part of that should be a green space,” Curry said. “That’s my opinion at this point. I don’t get to unilaterally make that decision, but I’d like to see a piece of green space there and what will the market bear there — what iconic thing can we put there that will serve Jacksonville well.”

So I know there's no plan yet, but I'm a little confused about the above and what we'll actually RFP.

Do you guys get the impression that we'll RFP the entire property for master development, perhaps with a list of requirements similar to the convention center RFP (e.g. X amount of greenspace, x amount of retail, etc.)?

Or will the city define the layout, map out the pads, manage all the greenspace, and just RFP development of the specific pads?

Who determines what the market will bear?

Hopefully not the same people who determined what the market could bear for the convention center RFP.

Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: thelakelander on July 01, 2019, 08:29:36 PM
^To me it sounds like you could see two RFP rounds. An initial RFP to help determine highest and best use....similar to what's being done with the courthouse site now....but something a downtown master plan should have addressed years ago. Once that study reveals whatever they want it too, a second RFP will be created to find the entity to do just that. The downfall of this is as witnessed in the past, all responses can be rejected and then you're back to square one. Overall, this entire thing is simply lighting tax money on fire while downtown deals with a self inflicted dead hole in its heart for the years that this unnecessary process will consume.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Kerry on July 02, 2019, 08:54:01 AM
"What the market will bear" is code for "don't do anything that will compete with Lot J".
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: thelakelander on July 02, 2019, 09:09:39 AM
Basically the "market will bear" whatever they want it to say in the "highest and best" use RFP they'll create. It's so silly it's 2019 and we're still dealing with this type of foolishness.

If they really wanted to know what the highest and best use would be or cared about public input, they would have worked to get that information before spending $22 million to pay off Sleiman, kicking out 30 existing businesses and razing the place. As a result of not really caring, we're now dealing with a situation where foot traffic in downtown may be at an all time low.....despite two of the largest urban revitalization periods in U.S. history taking place since 2000.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: I-10east on July 05, 2019, 11:42:13 AM
I'm with everyone saying that hastily demoing the Landing is a huge mistake. The fireworks show last night was bittersweet with it being the last one with the Landing still being there. Our riverfront skyline will look very weird without the Landing.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: sandyshoes on July 05, 2019, 12:28:02 PM
I-10, I agree with you.  Ok, here's my last shot - and before I get crucified again by a particular poster on this forum, no I am not personally in a financial position to make any of this happen.  That said...everyone bemoans the absence of downtown retail shopping.  How about getting 3 or 4 main retailers (Dillards, Belk, maybe even a Target?) as anchors and see how that does while the parking is worked on.  Gauge the customer flow/peak hours, and see what else is possible.  I say keep it retail, b/c not all restaurants are going to last, as we know - the quality of the product begins to suffer at some point and there we go again, empty real estate.  If you have clothing, etc. that downtown workers especially need, make it easier for them to get to it instead of fighting the traffic back to their neighborhoods and in some cases having to run to a mall before it closes, while the family is waiting for dinner...ditto a Target to take care of whatever junior HAS to have for school TOMORROW, some basic household stuff...anything to make it easier for downtown workers.  Put in parking meters if you need to.  But plan it with room for parking, do not use all the retail space until you see how the anchor stores do.  Then later, maybe add a grocery store.  But keep the parking in mind as that is the issue.  I'm done, I would hate to see The Landing go away; the riverfront would look as if it lost both front teeth.  Thanks for letting me have my opinion too. 
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: I-10east on July 06, 2019, 08:08:17 PM
^^^Those sound like some great ideas in which I wish that the city would take into consideration (among with another proposals). It makes no sense tearing down something iconic to Jax as the Landing with ZILCH in place of it. Sadly that "saving the Landing" ship has sailed, and IMO (and yours, and many others) the city is about to do something stupid, and we are taking a major step backwards. 
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: bl8jaxnative on July 07, 2019, 04:01:19 PM

That mullet is iconic.    That doesn't mean you shouldn't shave it off.   
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: itsfantastic1 on July 08, 2019, 11:04:09 AM
Remember when the city wanted the companies to perform their own asbestos inspection...

Quote
Landing demolition project engineer Nikita Reed announced in a prebid meeting May 23 that the city was asking the bid winner to perform the asbestos inspection, to the surprise of many of the contractors in the room.

Dee Ann Miller, the press officer for Florida’s Department of Environmental Protection, said in an email May 23 that the city’s order is contrary to federal rules.

“EPA’s National Emission Standards for Asbestos, 40 CFR 61.145(b), is a federal rule that requires the owner or operator of a demolition or renovation activity to thoroughly inspect the facility for the presence of asbestos,” she wrote.


(https://media1.tenor.com/images/2f845d95916e218c1ef074cee907db7a/tenor.gif)
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: KenFSU on July 08, 2019, 11:55:34 AM

That mullet is iconic.    That doesn't mean you shouldn't shave it off.   

(https://media1.tenor.com/images/569e4b32cf2198a22b8a6f1602637750/tenor.gif)
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Captain Zissou on July 08, 2019, 12:52:06 PM
There is a giant steaming pile in the stairwell of the 9 story garage on Bay street across from Wells Fargo Center, the new lawn where the courthouse used to be is already overgrown, and I saw a homeless man walking down the middle of Bay at 11 just shouting to anyone willing to listen.  Tell me again about how we spent $25M to shut down 30 businesses.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Kerry on July 08, 2019, 05:54:12 PM
Was in Chattanooga on Saturday.  It was the first time my wife had been there.  Direct quote from her after seeing downtown Chattanooga:  For Jax being as big as it we don't have **** compared to this.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Bill Hoff on July 08, 2019, 06:01:18 PM
Was in Chattanooga on Saturday.  It was the first time my wife had been there.  Direct quote from her after seeing downtown Chattanooga:  For Jax being as big as it we don't have **** compared to this.

Yea, but we have more suburbs. SO EAT THAT CHATTANOOGA!
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: thelakelander on July 08, 2019, 08:10:42 PM
Was in Chattanooga on Saturday.  It was the first time my wife had been there.  Direct quote from her after seeing downtown Chattanooga:  For Jax being as big as it we don't have **** compared to this.
These days, DT Jax likely comes short of most places with a pulse. For all the potential that it has, it will struggle to truly benefit from it as long as we keep doing the same silly things that have continuously failed since 1950.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Todd_Parker on July 08, 2019, 08:23:17 PM
The sad thing is that all of this non-activity is taking place during what we’ve been told is the greatest economy in the history of all economies.

Looking forward to seeing downtown Jax during the next recession.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: MusicMan on July 10, 2019, 08:40:27 AM
I'm guessing DOT will have to the change the big green directional sign on I 95 Northbound that steers people to "The Landing" to
"Vacant Weed Covered (Waterfront) Lot." 

But then again, that could cause confusion cause there are so many......
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing
Post by: Wacca Pilatka on July 10, 2019, 10:47:03 AM
Does anyone know what will happen to the silhouettes of figures from Jacksonville history that hang in the food court at the Landing?  Hopefully these won't just be destroyed in the demolition like Klutho's lunettes on the old city hall...
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: MusicMan on July 10, 2019, 11:05:39 AM
Wacca you are making an important point:

THERE ARE A LOT OF INTERESTING AND VALUABLE ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS AT THE LANDING THAT AT THE LEAST SHOULD BE SALVAGED.
All the large hanging lamps along the front are really nice and should be offered for sale or free prior to putting them in the landfill. And no doubt there are many more items within.

Any way to force this issue (salvage before demolition) on the COJ?
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: thelakelander on July 10, 2019, 11:50:16 AM
I believe the demolition company gets to keep and profit off the salvageable material:

Quote
One way or another, the distinctive orange-colored metal roof covering the Jacksonville Landing will likely get a second life after a contractor starts demolishing the mall in a few months.

The $1 million demolition job is expected to start in the fall and finish by the end of the year, city spokeswoman Nikki Kimbleton said.

D.H. Griffin Wrecking Co. Inc., which won the contract to tear down the mall, has a long-standing practice to salvage materials when possible to avoid dumping them in a landfill.

The big metal roof panels, which have been shown in countless television broadcasts, would fit the bill for that kind of salvage. The metal probably would be sold as scrap rather than re-used as a roof.

https://www.jacksonville.com/news/20190701/1-million-jacksonville-landing-demolition-set-for-fall

Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: CityLife on July 10, 2019, 12:28:37 PM
Quote
The $1 million demolition job is expected to start in the fall and finish by the end of the year, city spokeswoman Nikki Kimbleton said.

Is this a demolition job or an extraction job? The German Army dismantled the Amber Room in only 2 days. Have imagine there is a lot of valuable materials at The Landing if the demolition timeline is that long and open ended.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing
Post by: Wacca Pilatka on July 10, 2019, 12:46:06 PM
I wonder if any of this material will make its way to Eco Relics after the salvage process.

Also, what will become of the Jacksonville historical/informational markers along the riverfront that Rouse installed?
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: thelakelander on July 10, 2019, 12:46:54 PM
Quote
The $1 million demolition job is expected to start in the fall and finish by the end of the year, city spokeswoman Nikki Kimbleton said.

Is this a demolition job or an extraction job? The German Army dismantled the Amber Room in only 2 days. Have imagine there is a lot of valuable materials at The Landing if the demolition timeline is that long and open ended.

Yes, it is a prefectly fine building. So fine and structurally sound that Hooters and Fionn Maccool's both spent a good sum of money to update their spaces within the last 18 months. It makes sense that many of its materials would be reusable, have some resale and recycling value. What doesn't make sense is why COJ would take this path.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing
Post by: Wacca Pilatka on July 10, 2019, 12:50:15 PM
Years ago on this site, there was a lot of discussion about the idea of a Jacksonville Walk of Fame.  I'd gladly buy some of those silhouettes in salvage and donate them to the City for such a venture, but lack faith that the City wouldn't do something absurd to waste or discard them.  See, e.g., the LaRose shoe collection and the City Hall lunettes, to say nothing of the current wanton destruction of the Landing and the 60s City Hall.  Maybe donation to Groundwork Jacksonville would be an option?
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: thelakelander on July 10, 2019, 01:18:52 PM
^Right now, COJ already owns them!
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing
Post by: Wacca Pilatka on July 10, 2019, 01:24:24 PM
LOL.  Yes, but if the current sequential result of that ownership is to let the demolition company keep and profit the salvageable material, then I'm wondering if concerned citizens (or whatever category I fall into) conceivably could request in advance to purchase certain salvageable features. 

I am in all seriousness picturing those silhouettes resurfacing along the Emerald Necklace trail with some sort of enhancement explaining the significance of Abraham Lincoln Lewis, W.B. Barnett, Klutho, etc. etc.

I have contacted D.H. Griffin about this.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Charles Hunter on July 10, 2019, 04:01:37 PM
I'm guessing DOT will have to the change the big green directional sign on I 95 Northbound that steers people to "The Landing" to
"Vacant Weed Covered (Waterfront) Lot." 

But then again, that could cause confusion cause there are so many......

I heard from a friend at DOT, that the Landing messages will be covered up on all directional signs this fall. Not so sure about the "Weed Covered Lot" as a replacement, though. Probably because, as you said, that refers to too many locations.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Kerry on July 11, 2019, 08:53:53 AM
We'll see if the City gets around to removing the wayfinder signs directing drivers to The Landing as well as the recently installed ones along the Riverwalk.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: fieldafm on July 11, 2019, 10:04:11 AM
We'll see if the City gets around to removing the wayfinder signs directing drivers to The Landing as well as the recently installed ones along the Riverwalk.

The Riverwalk wayfaring signs have never listed the Landing as a destination (they list MOSH, the YMCA, RAM, dining/retail, etc... but never the Landing). The paper maps within the sign holders are the only thing that reference the Landing.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: sandyshoes on July 11, 2019, 01:44:33 PM
Combine the two Arts high schools into one spectacular space, enough room for several events/performances at one time.  If FSCJ could do it with the former Grande Boulevard Mall in Deerwood, it could work!  Shad Kahn could pull some strings. 
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing
Post by: Bativac on July 11, 2019, 03:11:57 PM
I am in all seriousness picturing those silhouettes resurfacing along the Emerald Necklace trail with some sort of enhancement explaining the significance of Abraham Lincoln Lewis, W.B. Barnett, Klutho, etc. etc.

I admire this positive, hopeful thinking!

...We all know those silhouettes are going to end up in the dumpster.

Jacksonville is so fiercely ignorant of its own history that it wouldn't surprise me to hear public outcry over money being spent to install those silhouettes anywhere.
Title: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Kerry on July 11, 2019, 04:04:20 PM
We'll see if the City gets around to removing the wayfinder signs directing drivers to The Landing as well as the recently installed ones along the Riverwalk.

The Riverwalk wayfaring signs have never listed the Landing as a destination (they list MOSH, the YMCA, RAM, dining/retail, etc... but never the Landing). The paper maps within the sign holders are the only thing that reference the Landing.

Hmmm, I could have swore is saw The Landing on at least one of them.  Alas, I know there are several wayfinding sign with The Landing on them.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing
Post by: Wacca Pilatka on July 11, 2019, 04:56:58 PM
I am in all seriousness picturing those silhouettes resurfacing along the Emerald Necklace trail with some sort of enhancement explaining the significance of Abraham Lincoln Lewis, W.B. Barnett, Klutho, etc. etc.

I admire this positive, hopeful thinking!

...We all know those silhouettes are going to end up in the dumpster.

Jacksonville is so fiercely ignorant of its own history that it wouldn't surprise me to hear public outcry over money being spent to install those silhouettes anywhere.

I have heard back from the demolition company.  They were willing to hear my offer to purchase the silhouettes.

I have also contacted Groundwork about potential installation along the Emerald Trail and contributing to language/cost for historical placards and/or an audio tour covering the significance of everyone on the silhouettes.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Charles Hunter on July 11, 2019, 04:59:44 PM
^ crowd fund?
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing
Post by: Wacca Pilatka on July 11, 2019, 05:37:01 PM
I'm all for it.  Waiting to see if the demo people accept my offer on the silhouettes themselves and what I hear from Groundwork.

I'd love for the silhouettes to remain downtown along the lines of the Jacksonville Walk of Fame idea Ocklawaha proposed long ago, but based on the city's history of neglecting assets like this, I'd rather contribute them to a charity.  I want them to remain on public display and for people to know the significance of everyone pictured.

Rouse really did a good job of historical homework and creating that sense of place when establishing these marketplaces.  E.g., naming the pushcart market that was in the Landing at the beginning Dawson & Buckles in honor of Jacksonville's first merchants.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing
Post by: Wacca Pilatka on July 12, 2019, 08:09:09 AM
^ If the wrecking company tells me yes, Groundwork is on board.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: CityLife on July 12, 2019, 08:34:43 AM
Thank you for doing this Wacca. Great idea!
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing
Post by: Wacca Pilatka on July 30, 2019, 01:50:30 PM
Update...

The demolition company was willing to sell me the silhouettes, but upon securing the property last week after receiving its notice to proceed, it was discovered that the city had already removed them from the Landing.

I would like to contact the city to see if there is any way I can procure them and pay for their installation along the Emerald Trail.  Any idea what the department would be for this sort of thing?  I assume Public Works?
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: heights unknown on July 30, 2019, 02:16:40 PM
Curry needs to go back to India; oh, let me stop, that sounds racist, and he is not from India anyway, but his name is (the spice curry).
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Peter Griffin on July 30, 2019, 02:32:20 PM
Curry needs to go back to India; oh, let me stop, that sounds racist, and he is not from India anyway, but his name is (the spice curry).
damn, Drumpf is epically owned now!  8) 8)
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing
Post by: Bill Hoff on July 30, 2019, 04:53:19 PM
Update...

The demolition company was willing to sell me the silhouettes, but upon securing the property last week after receiving its notice to proceed, it was discovered that the city had already removed them from the Landing.

I would like to contact the city to see if there is any way I can procure them and pay for their installation along the Emerald Trail.  Any idea what the department would be for this sort of thing?  I assume Public Works?

Now that COJ has possession, they'd likely be more open to Groundwork Jax taking possession of them than a private citizen.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Wacca Pilatka on July 30, 2019, 10:48:36 PM
Yes, I understand...I dont want possession, just to assure installation in a public place with interpretive information.  I hope the city is open to that.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: KenFSU on August 07, 2019, 04:02:53 PM
^To me it sounds like you could see two RFP rounds. An initial RFP to help determine highest and best use....similar to what's being done with the courthouse site now....but something a downtown master plan should have addressed years ago. Once that study reveals whatever they want it too, a second RFP will be created to find the entity to do just that. The downfall of this is as witnessed in the past, all responses can be rejected and then you're back to square one. Overall, this entire thing is simply lighting tax money on fire while downtown deals with a self inflicted dead hole in its heart for the years that this unnecessary process will consume.

Sounds like they're trying to skip the RFP for highest and best use altogether and just use their original design.

From the sounds of the below, it sure feels like the mayor's office is trying to move forward with the big grass lawn with two pads, and instead of letting the development community create a master plan the new Landing, the city will use the Curry design and simply conduct a market study to determine the best tenant mix for two private pads.

https://www.wokv.com/news/local/city-proposing-million-for-design-engineering-landing-site/rIjhFoYJ8i4jg1J6UHyBkL/

Amazing.

I know acreage always comes up when I mention this, but I continue to hear numerous people connected to the city that are convinced this greenspace insistence ties back to an eventual land swap of some sort with Met Park.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: thelakelander on August 07, 2019, 04:05:47 PM
^Acreage might not be an issue if combined with the wasteland formerly known as city hall annex and the county courthouse. However, vibrancy will.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: thelakelander on August 07, 2019, 04:16:23 PM
Quote
The CIP shows an additional $2 million split between Fiscal Year 20-21 and 21-22, to use for land acquisition and site prep.

Btw, I hate to be right about what was going to happen, since it means a dead hole in the middle of the city for the foreseeable future. Basically, at a minimum, you're looking past 2022 for vertical implementation and if it is for this plan, what eventually rises after a recession won't amount to much anyway.

(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Business/Jacksonville-Landing/i-hPvBnQP/0/87d38d84/L/183444_standard-L.png)
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Charles Hunter on August 07, 2019, 06:30:05 PM
^Acreage might not be an issue if combined with the wasteland formerly known as city hall annex and the county courthouse. However, vibrancy will.

Acreage also won't be a problem with the current administration in Washington, which seems to think our predecessors set aside parklands just so the cronies of the current administration can develop and profit off them.  Could probably get away with claiming the green space currently around TU Center.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Bill Hoff on August 07, 2019, 11:18:02 PM
^Acreage might not be an issue if combined with the wasteland formerly known as city hall annex and the county courthouse. However, vibrancy will.

At yesterday's Urban Core CPAC meeting, a DIA representative shared that they will use a firm to professionally market the parcel for development nationally. He mentioned they've learned that not using a professional = bad results.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: thelakelander on August 08, 2019, 05:55:04 AM
I know I'm preaching to the choir but I'm not impressed. No coordinated or publicly vetted and cohesive vision for the area = bad results.  It doesn't matter who's on tap to get more tax money to market the site.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: KenFSU on August 08, 2019, 11:00:13 AM
I know acreage always comes up when I mention this, but I continue to hear numerous people connected to the city that are convinced this greenspace insistence ties back to an eventual land swap of some sort with Met Park.

Curry addressed the rumor:

https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/curry-metropolitan-park-not-headed-to-landing
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: thelakelander on August 08, 2019, 11:10:38 AM
Can't believe much of what Curry says publicly as face value these days but it makes sense. The Landing site is significantly smaller and the only thing moving forward at the stadium is Lot J, which is across the street from Metropolitan Park. With that being said, when the time comes, is there an area where you'd like to see a replacement park?
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: KenFSU on August 08, 2019, 11:45:17 AM
With that being said, when the time comes, is there an area where you'd like to see a replacement park?

To me, if we let Khan develop Met Park for his Phase II, the western half of the Shipyards makes the most sense as a replacement waterfront park.

(https://snag.gy/h3yYZH.jpg)

This is the portion that's the most heavily contaminated with arsenic and lead.

(https://bobcat.grahamdigital.com/image/upload/view?width=1280&height=720&method=crop&url=https://media.news4jax.com/photo/2015/11/06/Arsenic-Shipyards-jpg_307509_ver1.0.jpg)

It's still not the most central location, but it's central enough to be accessible from both the CBD and the sports complex, we're realistically a decade away from seeing any development of the property, we've got $15 million set aside for remediation that could be put into a park instead if we don't remediate for commercial/residential use, and I don't know if there's another great alternative on the riverfront.

Ideally, we would have had the land cleaned up and ready for development ahead of this economic cycle, and we'd have a nice mixed-use project coming along with plenty of public greenspace.

But that ain't happening anytime soon.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Steve on August 08, 2019, 12:04:57 PM
LONG Term, it could be really cool:

 - While thankfully even Curry backed off the "I'm moving the Jail now" thing, it's not far fetched to think in 7-10 years there could be legit progress on a new jail/replacement for the Police Memorial Building. That opens a few blocks up for development.
 - The surface parking lot next to Maxwell House could be developed.
 - Hopefully, something will happen with Berkman II
 - By then (again, 7-10 years), something will happen on the old courthouse site
 - Perhaps the east side of the shipyards would be developed or in work.
 - A greenway along Hogan's creek could link it to Confederate/Klutho Park

My point is, if you have a long term vision (and can actually work to make it happen), it actually could be an awesome public space.

Now, given that in 2019 we still don't understand the concept of density and clustering what I just typed is likely a pipe dream.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Charles Hunter on August 08, 2019, 12:10:05 PM
I know acreage always comes up when I mention this, but I continue to hear numerous people connected to the city that are convinced this greenspace insistence ties back to an eventual land swap of some sort with Met Park.

Curry addressed the rumor:

https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/curry-metropolitan-park-not-headed-to-landing

Right. Because he has been so honest about other things "not on his radar", like selling JEA.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Charles Hunter on August 08, 2019, 12:13:22 PM
I think KenFSU's suggestion of the western part of the Shipyards is a good one. But, it must be developed as a park, and not as "flex space" that can becomes a parking lot for every Sports Complex event, and for the police station.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: KenFSU on August 08, 2019, 04:21:42 PM
Fences are up around the Landing :(

Also, Peterbrooke relocated off of Laura Street.

One step forward...
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: blizz01 on August 08, 2019, 05:51:08 PM
Side question, have Fionn MacCool's, Hooters, and/or Chicago Pizza made mention of future intentions - if any, downtown? 
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: avonjax on August 08, 2019, 06:23:24 PM
^Acreage might not be an issue if combined with the wasteland formerly known as city hall annex and the county courthouse. However, vibrancy will.

At yesterday's Urban Core CPAC meeting, a DIA representative shared that they will use a firm to professionally market the parcel for development nationally. He mentioned they've learned that not using a professional = bad results.

That's so reassuring especially with all the people stampeding to develop all the grassy lots in DT. I have no faith in this being developed for many many years if ever.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Charles Hunter on August 08, 2019, 07:06:10 PM
Rating criteria for the Landing RFP
Professional capability 10%
Financial Resources 10%
Design 2%
Contributions to Curry Campaign 78%
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: tufsu1 on August 08, 2019, 09:48:29 PM
Also, Peterbrooke relocated off of Laura Street.

this was weird - they are now inside the lobby of the VyStar tower - past history has shown that retail without street frontage doesn't do well.

Hoping this is just a temporary move while VyStar updates the Life of the South building
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: thelakelander on August 08, 2019, 11:14:50 PM
Hopefully they can survive. There is literally no reason for anyone to walk south of Bay Street right now to mistakenly discover a hidden candy shop.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Steve on August 09, 2019, 09:10:17 AM
Unless something changed, Peterbrooke's move is temporary. VyStar previously stated Peterbrooke is moving back to 100 N Laura once they gut and renovate the first floor.

I'm pretty sure they also mentioned they wanted a second retail tenant, specifically a restaurant open for dinner/drinks.

If there is any group downtown that I think actually gets it, it's VyStar. I can't believe I'm saying that because they were the last local bank/credit union to even have a presence downtown I believe.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: thelakelander on August 09, 2019, 09:31:53 AM
Yes, my comment was more about surviving losses associated with the hidden temporary location. I'm reminded how the construction of Hemming Plaza killed all the retail around it before its completion.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Steve on August 09, 2019, 10:52:54 AM
Yes, my comment was more about surviving losses associated with the hidden temporary location. I'm reminded how the construction of Hemming Plaza killed all the retail around it before its completion.

I would absolutely hope that VyStar and Peterbrooke worked out some sort of deal understanding that their visibility is going to be trash for a little while. But your point is valid (case in point Candy Apple Cafe and Sweet Pete’s). Now I can’t speak for the inner circumstances (maybe them leaving was desired, I don’t know).

I feel like given this example is a deal between two private businesses and considering COJ’s track record on urban revitalization, likely the businesses get it more than COJ.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing
Post by: Wacca Pilatka on August 13, 2019, 03:23:41 PM
If anyone's interested in the saga of the Landing historical figure silhouettes, I'm in contact with the City Engineer's office to track down where they are and to see if it's still possible to donate them to Groundwork as intended.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: Ken_FSU on August 26, 2019, 10:57:51 AM
Yes, my comment was more about surviving losses associated with the hidden temporary location. I'm reminded how the construction of Hemming Plaza killed all the retail around it before its completion.

I would absolutely hope that VyStar and Peterbrooke worked out some sort of deal understanding that their visibility is going to be trash for a little while. But your point is valid (case in point Candy Apple Cafe and Sweet Pete’s). Now I can’t speak for the inner circumstances (maybe them leaving was desired, I don’t know).

I feel like given this example is a deal between two private businesses and considering COJ’s track record on urban revitalization, likely the businesses get it more than COJ.

Was in the building today.

Here's the temporary space, in the back lobby.

Not great for visibility, obviously.

(https://snipboard.io/ayZlsH.jpg)

They're definitely moving back to the Laura Street location when construction is completely, and VyStar is apparently being super cooperative in the interim.

If you walk by the VyStar Tower, there's large Peterbrooke signage at all entrances to the building, and they've got lots of signage up on the 100 North Laura building as well.

Seems like a solid relationship.
Title: Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse
Post by: heights unknown on September 11, 2019, 04:18:16 PM
I would love, on a Monday morning, to make a trip to Jacksonville, and wait for the Mayor (Curry) to come in, speak to him as he's entering the building and wish him good morning, look him in the eye, then tell him, "Mayor, this is for the Landing and what you've done to it;" and then let out the most loud and hellish, primal scream that anyone has ever heard and will not want to hear again. And then thank him, shake his hand and walk away. I hate what he did to the landing. At least have a plan in place for the property before demolishing; what a pompous ass bum.