Author Topic: The city moves to terminate the Landing's lease agreement.  (Read 15331 times)

KenFSU

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3389
Re: The city moves to terminate the Landing's lease agreement.
« Reply #30 on: May 28, 2018, 02:28:26 PM »
My first thought is that this is Curry's effort to bury the Landing to get more support for the Lot J / Khan development in the sports district.

Just like with the tax plan - if he can be the one seen as getting that done, he can pat himself on the back know that he's completely off the hook 10 years when/if it fails.

It's an interesting conspiracy theory. The Landing and Cordish's Jacksonville Live will be direct competitors. In terms of entertainment dollars, sure, but even more importantly, in terms of public events. The Landing and its tenets live and die based on a handful of public events hosted at the venue each year - Florida/Georgia weekend, New Year's Eve, 4th of July, Tree Lighting/Boat Parade, free concerts, political rallies, etc.

These are the same types of events that are typically held at Cordish venues in other cities, and you know Khan is going to be gunning for these dates. Getting the Landing out of the way would make Jacksonville Live the city's de facto public event space.

The dates raise a bit of an eyebrow as well. June 2017, the mayor comes out and says he wants to get the Landing away from Sleiman and under city control. Less than a month later, he's on a plane with Khan and Lamping, secretly visiting Cordish developments in Baltimore, KC, and St. Louis.

Who knows to what extent the eviction and Lot J are or are not connected, but I don't see how both co-exist unless the Landing evolves into something more modern, utilitarian, and/or residential.

I think this is perhaps the highest stake, yet most underdiscussed aspect of this whole thing. A strong Jacksonville Landing keeps the CBD and downtown businesses central to all of our biggest public events. A neutered or demolished Jacksonville Landing likely shifts everything east toward the stadium and Lot J, to the detriment of the CBD and true downtown business.
Big League City! 100 Years of Football in Jacksonville, with foreword by Shad Khan, now available!
http://www.amazon.com/Big-League-City-Football-Jacksonville/dp/0990342409/

Non-RedNeck Westsider

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4495
  • Politically Agnostic
Re: The city moves to terminate the Landing's lease agreement.
« Reply #31 on: May 28, 2018, 03:23:47 PM »
I don't think they can co-exist - we're not big enough, but I can see the reality of trying to create a market around a new entertainment district, that for all intents and purposes is just undeveloped (but contaminated) land. 

IMO, it's quite workable if you can get people to live there, which I think they can in the form of your standard, southside/Brooklyn style luxury apartments.  What it's not going to end up is what most of us would consider 'urban' development, but hopefully more bodies to the east of the core can help build up the core itself - but that would take a strong government that is capable of planning for the future - which we don't have - we have a mayor that only cares about what happens RIGHT NOW.

That said, and Ennis is going to probably tell me I'm crazy, I see 3-4 apartment complexes and the beginning of some sort of development on Lot J within the next 5-6 years.  It's going to be a developer creating a market and not vice-versa.  I see the Landing following in the footsteps of Berkaman II and an even larger perceived gap created between the districts after the courthouse annex comes down.   
A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.
-Douglas Adams

Kerry

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 734
Re: The city moves to terminate the Landing's lease agreement.
« Reply #32 on: May 28, 2018, 06:58:57 PM »
If Khan doesn't scrap 100% of every thing they have presented so far Lot J is going to fail no matter what happend at The Landing.  No one wants to live/play in a Towers in the Park(ing lot) environment.
Third Place

Steve

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2401
Re: The city moves to terminate the Landing's lease agreement.
« Reply #33 on: May 29, 2018, 10:17:39 AM »
If Khan doesn't scrap 100% of every thing they have presented so far Lot J is going to fail no matter what happend at The Landing.  No one wants to live/play in a Towers in the Park(ing lot) environment.

I disagree. A high rise building can be awesome at street level. One of the best I've ever seen is the Empire State Building. It was the tallest in the world for 40 years, yet doesn't seem that tall when you're standing next to it.

Conversely, 220 Riverside is 5 stories and functions like hell at the street level.

Kerry

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 734
Re: The city moves to terminate the Landing's lease agreement.
« Reply #34 on: May 29, 2018, 11:34:03 AM »
If Khan doesn't scrap 100% of every thing they have presented so far Lot J is going to fail no matter what happend at The Landing.  No one wants to live/play in a Towers in the Park(ing lot) environment.

I disagree. A high rise building can be awesome at street level. One of the best I've ever seen is the Empire State Building. It was the tallest in the world for 40 years, yet doesn't seem that tall when you're standing next to it.

Conversely, 220 Riverside is 5 stories and functions like hell at the street level.

I am talking about street interaction.  Everything I have seen from Khan is buildings surrounded by parking (or green space).  220 has it's problem, but a sea of parking isn't one of them.
Third Place

Steve

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2401
Re: The city moves to terminate the Landing's lease agreement.
« Reply #35 on: May 29, 2018, 12:34:01 PM »
If Khan doesn't scrap 100% of every thing they have presented so far Lot J is going to fail no matter what happend at The Landing.  No one wants to live/play in a Towers in the Park(ing lot) environment.

I disagree. A high rise building can be awesome at street level. One of the best I've ever seen is the Empire State Building. It was the tallest in the world for 40 years, yet doesn't seem that tall when you're standing next to it.

Conversely, 220 Riverside is 5 stories and functions like hell at the street level.

I am talking about street interaction.  Everything I have seen from Khan is buildings surrounded by parking (or green space).  220 has it's problem, but a sea of parking isn't one of them.

Well, I don't think you can redevelop every lot around the stadium in one phase. Plus, many of these around the country are similar in layout. Give me a few to upload images, but if you want check out New England's Patriot Place, Phily's Xfinity Live, and St Louis Ballpark Village.

I'm not saying that these are particularly great urban design spaces. In all three cases, they developed a parking lot into a mixed use location. Personally, I think the office tower thought is great (assuming the market supports it). It's a great way to get more revenue, it's keeps restaurant uses busy at lunch (At least during the week), and the tenants are unlikely to complain about late night noise.

Infill Urban Development? No. Fail? I'm not sure you can say that based on the design. St John's Town center is about as un-urban as you can get, but I'm not sure you can say it's a failure.

jaxnyc79

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 438
Re: The city moves to terminate the Landing's lease agreement.
« Reply #36 on: May 29, 2018, 01:32:53 PM »
If Khan doesn't scrap 100% of every thing they have presented so far Lot J is going to fail no matter what happend at The Landing.  No one wants to live/play in a Towers in the Park(ing lot) environment.

I disagree. A high rise building can be awesome at street level. One of the best I've ever seen is the Empire State Building. It was the tallest in the world for 40 years, yet doesn't seem that tall when you're standing next to it.

Conversely, 220 Riverside is 5 stories and functions like hell at the street level.

I am talking about street interaction.  Everything I have seen from Khan is buildings surrounded by parking (or green space).  220 has it's problem, but a sea of parking isn't one of them.

Well, I don't think you can redevelop every lot around the stadium in one phase. Plus, many of these around the country are similar in layout. Give me a few to upload images, but if you want check out New England's Patriot Place, Phily's Xfinity Live, and St Louis Ballpark Village.

I'm not saying that these are particularly great urban design spaces. In all three cases, they developed a parking lot into a mixed use location. Personally, I think the office tower thought is great (assuming the market supports it). It's a great way to get more revenue, it's keeps restaurant uses busy at lunch (At least during the week), and the tenants are unlikely to complain about late night noise.

Infill Urban Development? No. Fail? I'm not sure you can say that based on the design. St John's Town center is about as un-urban as you can get, but I'm not sure you can say it's a failure.

Street Interactions will be key, in my opinion.  Before any area can be successfully and sustainably revitalized, the City of Jax must ask the question of whether the adjacent streets are at a standard to support walkable, urban development.  Any parking lot or field developments need to first implement a street grid.

Steve

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2401
Re: The city moves to terminate the Landing's lease agreement.
« Reply #37 on: May 29, 2018, 01:52:50 PM »
No Dispute. The renderings of Lot J show a large parking lot organized in a grid-like approach. It's a relatively small development in terms of land (compared to the sea of parking), but the idea is that it would fit in with future development.

This is obviously based on future renderings.

KenFSU

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3389
Re: The city moves to terminate the Landing's lease agreement.
« Reply #38 on: May 29, 2018, 02:04:01 PM »
The Jaguars consider dense, pedestrian-friendly development to be key to Lot J and the Shipyards.

Quote
The way Khan hopes to make the city more attractive – not just to visitors, but also to NFL players – is by making the future development around the stadium dense and walkable.

But in order to do so, the emphasis on vehicle access and parking availability will have to take a back seat. When asked what the team plans to do to alleviate parking needs, Parekh acknowledged that the public transportation options in Jacksonville are lacking, but said the redevelopment will focus more on making the area pedestrian-friendly

“One of the reasons we’re looking to take down the expressway and one of the reasons we’re looking to (build) over this parking is that people don’t want to have to walk through giant asphalt parking lots,” Parekh said, adding that building parking garages and looking at parking options in other parts of the city could help with the problem. “But I think you sacrifice density if you making parking and navigating for vehicles the priority."

via: https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2018/05/16/jaguars-top-lawyer-addresses-lot-j-contamination.html
Big League City! 100 Years of Football in Jacksonville, with foreword by Shad Khan, now available!
http://www.amazon.com/Big-League-City-Football-Jacksonville/dp/0990342409/

tufsu1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10877
Re: The city moves to terminate the Landing's lease agreement.
« Reply #39 on: May 29, 2018, 07:39:25 PM »
Xfinity Live in Philadelphia is very underwhelming - unfortunately my fear is the one proposed for Lot J will be much closer to that than to Ballpark Village

Steve

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2401
Re: The city moves to terminate the Landing's lease agreement.
« Reply #40 on: May 30, 2018, 09:23:09 AM »
Xfinity Live in Philadelphia is very underwhelming - unfortunately my fear is the one proposed for Lot J will be much closer to that than to Ballpark Village

I think the initial phase will be closer to that. It's the city's job to make sure that development doesn't just stop at Lot J. Lot J should be a piece of a bigger pie.

Steve

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2401
Re: The city moves to terminate the Landing's lease agreement.
« Reply #41 on: May 30, 2018, 09:31:10 AM »
Just saw that Judge Virginia Norton is the one handling the original lawsuit. I worked with her in like 2003 when I worked for the COJ and she was an Assistant General Counsel. Very smart woman.

Not sure how each side will argue their case, but I"m confident Norton will make the right decision.

Tacachale

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6951
Re: The city moves to terminate the Landing's lease agreement.
« Reply #42 on: May 30, 2018, 10:22:46 AM »
You can't place all the blame on Sleiman. Most of his centers are pretty decent. They just happen to be strip malls in the suburbs. With that said, downtown would be lucky to have half of the tenants taking up space in most of his centers. I really wouldn't mind both of them working together and him running the Landing like he would any other property he owns. If the indecision caused by the continued disputes went away, the Landing would be completely different.

Sleiman deserves a lot of the blame. He's avoided renovating and maintenance for years in hopes of getting one of his "redevelopment" plans off the ground. All his proposals for years have involved razing the entire building and replacing it with something else, with a huge subsidy from the city to do it. I don't believe that if the city said they were dropping the suits tomorrow and agreed to maintain the surrounding area, that anything would change for the Landing.

It's a shame, because it really wouldn't need a huge investment from either party to renovate the place and get it reasonably functional. That predated the city's current conflict with Sleiman.
Do you believe that when the blue jay or another bird sings and the body is trembling, that is a signal that people are coming or something important is about to happen?

jaxnyc79

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 438
Re: The city moves to terminate the Landing's lease agreement.
« Reply #43 on: May 30, 2018, 10:41:33 AM »
You can't place all the blame on Sleiman. Most of his centers are pretty decent. They just happen to be strip malls in the suburbs. With that said, downtown would be lucky to have half of the tenants taking up space in most of his centers. I really wouldn't mind both of them working together and him running the Landing like he would any other property he owns. If the indecision caused by the continued disputes went away, the Landing would be completely different.

Sleiman deserves a lot of the blame. He's avoided renovating and maintenance for years in hopes of getting one of his "redevelopment" plans off the ground. All his proposals for years have involved razing the entire building and replacing it with something else, with a huge subsidy from the city to do it. I don't believe that if the city said they were dropping the suits tomorrow and agreed to maintain the surrounding area, that anything would change for the Landing.

It's a shame, because it really wouldn't need a huge investment from either party to renovate the place and get it reasonably functional. That predated the city's current conflict with Sleiman.

I also agree with this assessment.  Sleiman didn't really even buy the Landing, he thought he was buying the right to a generous stimulus package from Taxpayers.  Because he's not getting that stimulus package, it would appear his strategy is to let the place rot into such an embarassing reflection on the city, that the Mayoral Administration and Council would be guilted or cornered into giving him a stimulus package.  I'm sort of over the garage argument, and not just because downtown appears to be awash in dead-zone garages, but also because there was no garage when he bought the place decades ago.  A shopping village in the heart of the CBD should be able to make do and draw people without suburban-style parking conveniences.

vicupstate

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
Re: The city moves to terminate the Landing's lease agreement.
« Reply #44 on: May 30, 2018, 10:48:02 AM »
No one would invest in a building if there is a reasonable expectation that it is going to be demolished. No one in their right mind would sign a long-term lease for space that is in such a state of uncertainty. 

The city needs to either sell the land to Sleiman with the understanding that no further obligations exist in terms of parking, etc. or buy the building from him  The bad blood is wide and deep and they are never going to be able to do any kind of joint venture or partnership.   

BTW, what ever came of this lawsuit:

By 2015, the “east parcel” of the property became the subject of a separate lawsuit between the city and JLI over unpaid property taxes and the purchase of an adjacent parking lot.
"The problem with quotes on the internet is you can never be certain they're authentic." - Abraham Lincoln