Author Topic: Mayors Office: It's Time To Move Forward With Demolishing Landing  (Read 5152 times)

Steve

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3025
Re: Mayors Office: It's Time To Move Forward With Demolishing Landing
« Reply #60 on: May 07, 2019, 09:50:13 AM »
The answer is still the same - Lot J.  Without it the Jags leave town.

Regardless of that...do you honestly think that Lot J, even if fully developed, would become unsustainable if the Landing was redeveloped into something truly amazing?

There’s 1.5 million in the metro area. Lot J isn’t going to compete, it would compliment.

KenFSU

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3937
Re: Mayors Office: It's Time To Move Forward With Demolishing Landing
« Reply #61 on: May 07, 2019, 10:57:29 AM »
The answer is still the same - Lot J.  Without it the Jags leave town.

Regardless of that...do you honestly think that Lot J, even if fully developed, would become unsustainable if the Landing was redeveloped into something truly amazing?

There’s 1.5 million in the metro area. Lot J isn’t going to compete, it would compliment.

Really the only area that they're destined to compete in is events, both civic and commercial.

The Landing has historically been home base for everything from political rallies, to 4th of July and News Years celebrations, to the tree lighting and boat parade, to Florida/Georgia weekend, etc.

Many businesses at the Landing have said over the years that these events provide a huge portion of their annual revenue and allow them to be sustainable for the rest of the year, and the surrounding businesses have also seen a lot of residual impact.

I think whichever developement/space the Landing's previous events end up getting relocated to will have a natural, but certainly not insurmountable, advantage.

Otherwise, agree that there's plenty of room for both to be successful.

They're a mile and a half apart, and realistically serve different audiences (the CBD and northbank residents vs. the transient sports complex crowd).

While the downtown core continues to add more multifamily and workforce housing, I think future development of the Shipyards area beyond Lot J is going to end up being similar to Power & Light over the next decade, in that it will largely be additional luxury residential (see: One Light, Two Light, Three Light) propped up by bloated tax abatements.

I think bulldozing the Landing is its own horrifying mistake that we've all beaten to death and should continue to beat to death until the last minute, but to me, I think the only way you could prove that the decision was driven by development at the sports complex would be if the city attempted to use Curry's Landing park plan to statisfy a land swap with Metro Park.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2019, 11:01:27 AM by KenFSU »

Kerry

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1477
Re: Mayors Office: It's Time To Move Forward With Demolishing Landing
« Reply #62 on: May 07, 2019, 11:12:36 AM »
The answer is still the same - Lot J.  Without it the Jags leave town.

Regardless of that...do you honestly think that Lot J, even if fully developed, would become unsustainable if the Landing was redeveloped into something truly amazing?

There’s 1.5 million in the metro area. Lot J isn’t going to compete, it would compliment.

I think Lot J is going to be a monumental failure regardless of anything (or in our case 'nothing') happening downtown.  The Jags can't even run a football and they sure as hell aren't urban developers.
Third Place

Steve

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3025
Re: Mayors Office: It's Time To Move Forward With Demolishing Landing
« Reply #63 on: May 07, 2019, 11:25:57 AM »
The answer is still the same - Lot J.  Without it the Jags leave town.

Regardless of that...do you honestly think that Lot J, even if fully developed, would become unsustainable if the Landing was redeveloped into something truly amazing?

There’s 1.5 million in the metro area. Lot J isn’t going to compete, it would compliment.

I think Lot J is going to be a monumental failure regardless of anything (or in our case 'nothing') happening downtown.  The Jags can't even run a football and they sure as hell aren't urban developers.

Maybe it will be a failure, maybe it won’t. But, either way it won’t compete with the Landing

KenFSU

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3937
Re: Mayors Office: It's Time To Move Forward With Demolishing Landing
« Reply #64 on: May 07, 2019, 11:47:38 AM »
^Depends on your definition of "monumental failure."

For the Jags/Cordish, no chance.

Their typical development agreements virtually guarantee an ROI.

For the city of Jacksonville, TBD, but it depends on the objective.

The Power & Light District has been very popular, but hasn't generated nearly the revenues that Kansas City projected, forcing them to refinance their bond payments and steal $10 million from the general fund every year just to service their debts for the project (https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article9530081.html).

That said, for KC, the objective was to catalyze downtown redevelopment, and even though it came at a hefty price to taxpayers, I think Power & Light has been a success on that front. There are cranes everywhere in Downtown KC, and the entire area has exploded on the back of Power & Light.

For Jacksonville, Lot J/Shipyards is also going to be very expensive.

If, as a city, our leading priority is to enhance the sports district and finally open up the Shipyards to development, then yes, the project can certainly be successful in achieving that goal.

But if our main objective is to catalyze downtown Jacksonville, then we're clearly much better off dumping that money into something else closer to the CBD.

All comes back to opportunity cost, master planning, and having faith in our city leaders to set the right high-level goals and prioritize the projects best suited to achieve them.

thelakelander

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 29957
    • Modern Cities
Re: Mayors Office: It's Time To Move Forward With Demolishing Landing
« Reply #65 on: May 07, 2019, 11:57:30 AM »
While the downtown core continues to add more multifamily and workforce housing, I think future development of the Shipyards area beyond Lot J is going to end up being similar to Power & Light over the next decade, in that it will largely be additional luxury residential (see: One Light, Two Light, Three Light) propped up by bloated tax abatements.

I do agree that the market is big enough to support development at the Landing site and Lot J since it is much smaller than originally discussed and envisioned. Unfortunately, I don't see Lot J being anything like the Power & Light District. The context is totally different. The Power & Light District is situated like a glove between Downtown Kansas City and the Crossroads Art District, creating a seamless transition between two vibrant older pedestrian scale urban districts. At best....for a few decades, Lot J is Xfinity Live or Patriot's Place in Foxboro.

Quote
I think bulldozing the Landing is its own horrifying mistake that we've all beaten to death and should continue to beat to death until the last minute, but to me, I think the only way you could prove that the decision was driven by development at the sports complex would be if the city attempted to use Curry's Landing park plan to statisfy a land swap with Metro Park.

I also question the park swap thing. The Landing site is roughly 7 acres. Metropolitan Park is like three times the size of it. If finding land for a land swap is real, we'd need a hell of a lot more land and COJ would angling to turn the East Lot into green space instead of trying to profit by making it a monthly permit waterfront surface parking lot.
"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.” - Muhammad Ali

thelakelander

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 29957
    • Modern Cities
Re: Mayors Office: It's Time To Move Forward With Demolishing Landing
« Reply #66 on: May 07, 2019, 12:01:40 PM »
That said, for KC, the objective was to catalyze downtown redevelopment, and even though it came at a hefty price to taxpayers, I think Power & Light has been a success on that front. There are cranes everywhere in Downtown KC, and the entire area has exploded on the back of Power & Light.

I wonder if this narrative is more self promotional story-telling than anything else. I'm on the road a lot these days. Quite frankly, there are cranes all over the place in several major markets Jax likes to compare itself too. I get the impression, the cranes have more to do with national urban revitalization trends and the culmination of two decades worth of decent urban infill and investment moreso than Cordish's development being the major catalyst.
"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.” - Muhammad Ali

vicupstate

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3198
Re: Mayors Office: It's Time To Move Forward With Demolishing Landing
« Reply #67 on: May 07, 2019, 01:00:29 PM »
The answer is still the same - Lot J.  Without it the Jags leave town.

Regardless of that...do you honestly think that Lot J, even if fully developed, would become unsustainable if the Landing was redeveloped into something truly amazing?

There’s 1.5 million in the metro area. Lot J isn’t going to compete, it would compliment.

Really the only area that they're destined to compete in is events, both civic and commercial.

The Landing has historically been home base for everything from political rallies, to 4th of July and News Years celebrations, to the tree lighting and boat parade, to Florida/Georgia weekend, etc.

Many businesses at the Landing have said over the years that these events provide a huge portion of their annual revenue and allow them to be sustainable for the rest of the year, and the surrounding businesses have also seen a lot of residual impact.

I think whichever developement/space the Landing's previous events end up getting relocated to will have a natural, but certainly not insurmountable, advantage.

Otherwise, agree that there's plenty of room for both to be successful.

They're a mile and a half apart, and realistically serve different audiences (the CBD and northbank residents vs. the transient sports complex crowd).


I think you directly contradict yourself here. On one hand you say those events have been crucial to the Landing's survival yet you say with those events gone, the Landing (or what might replace it) can still prosper.  I don't see the Landing and Lot J serving different audiences at all. There aren't enough residences on the Northbank to support a Dollar General, much less a significant development. People drive to the Landign for those events and with Lot J built, they will drive there INSTEAD.   
"The problem with quotes on the internet is you can never be certain they're authentic." - Abraham Lincoln

thelakelander

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 29957
    • Modern Cities
Re: Mayors Office: It's Time To Move Forward With Demolishing Landing
« Reply #68 on: May 07, 2019, 01:30:37 PM »
There is a Family Dollar that opened on State and Union a couple of years ago. My guess is like the new retail in Brooklyn, it pulls its customer base from traffic not necessarily related specifically to downtown and the Northbank. IMO, the DT retail narrative needs to be reframed. Most DTs of Jax's scale can't support a significant amount of retail off their residential population alone. Their primary retail streets tend to be corridors where retail can survive from other nearby neighborhoods, through traffic and clustering of other uses like office employment density and hotels. If Jax had a DT vision plan that addressed retail, streets like State and Union, Broad, Riverside Ave, Main Street, etc. would be looked at differently.

Whether the Landing and Lot J compete or compliment each other depends on the future use of the Landing site. If that use is the same old entertainment oriented plan, then they would compete. If we're talking about filling the Landing site with a mix of locally specific uses like a visitors center, museums, food hall, public market, some restaurant and select retail space, then they'd complement because Lot J isn't going to be anything like that. It's going to be this:

https://m.xfinitylive.com/home

^Something niche that won't appeal to all segments of the local population.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2019, 01:36:51 PM by thelakelander »
"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.” - Muhammad Ali

Steve

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3025
Re: Mayors Office: It's Time To Move Forward With Demolishing Landing
« Reply #69 on: May 09, 2019, 12:02:45 PM »
Damn the Torpedoes, full speed ahead!

Quote
The city of Jacksonville now has complete ownership of The Jacksonville Landing and all but three of the tenants have until June 1 to move out of the riverfront shopping mall.

Negotiations are underway with BBVA Compass bank, Hooters Restaurant and Fionn MacCool’s Irish Pub and Restaurant for their departure.

Despite demolition detractors, Mayor Lenny Curry and City Council legislation enacted March 26 have given the go-ahead to the city’s Department of Public Works to demolish the structure in favor of a more open, active riverfront development.

https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/the-mendenhall-report-whats-next-with-the-landing-demolition

thelakelander

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 29957
    • Modern Cities
Re: Mayors Office: It's Time To Move Forward With Demolishing Landing
« Reply #70 on: May 09, 2019, 12:05:12 PM »
Fixed it for you....

Quote
The city of Jacksonville now has complete ownership of The Jacksonville Landing and all but three of the tenants have until June 1 to move out of the riverfront shopping mall.

Negotiations are underway with BBVA Compass bank, Hooters Restaurant and Fionn MacCool’s Irish Pub and Restaurant for their departure.

Despite demolition detractors, Mayor Lenny Curry and City Council legislation enacted March 26 have given the go-ahead to the city’s Department of Public Works to demolish the structure in favor of a more open, active riverfront development.

https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/the-mendenhall-report-whats-next-with-the-landing-demolition

Who wants Coastal Cookies, Hooters and Fionns when you can have this!





« Last Edit: May 09, 2019, 12:08:35 PM by thelakelander »
"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.” - Muhammad Ali

itsfantastic1

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 95
Re: Mayors Office: It's Time To Move Forward With Demolishing Landing
« Reply #71 on: May 09, 2019, 12:44:48 PM »
I'm confused by several things from the article:

Quote
A DIA board, appointed by former Mayor Alvin Brown, who served from 2011-15, undertook a $100,000 design process with Atlanta-based Wakefield Beasley & Associates and Urban Design Associates that incorporated six public input sessions.

Lawsuits with former Landing owner Jacksonville Landing Investments Landing LLC stopped the public unveiling of the final plan.

Hughes has since released the 2015 development renderings to prove to incoming council member Matt Carlucci and other critics that a public charrette process on Landing redevelopment already has been done.

Did the DIA have public sessions that had public input back when Slieman owned it? If the design is released, how in the world would that force a private business to build exactly that? It sounds like something is going on behind the scenes that we just aren't being told. It seems like they don't want public input because the plans from 2015 are what has been worked one with a different developer out of public view. Potentially very shady and unethical, but this is a tad better than the "we are just tearing this down for hope of development"

Quote
Both the more detailed 2015 design and the simplified Public Works sketch released last year show the same concept — two bifurcated developable pads with activated green space.

“The discussion points are about how much green, how much hardscape, how many trees, where is the art, how big are the pads that are developable (and) what are the economics behind that,” Hughes said.

Despite Curry's and the 2015 design barely being related (at least from what is presented publicly), it sounds like the city is going to demolish everything, make certain parts of the land privately owned/developable and keep the rest as a park/landscaping decorations for the private lands. In a vacuum, wouldn't this be part of good urban design?

thelakelander

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 29957
    • Modern Cities
Re: Mayors Office: It's Time To Move Forward With Demolishing Landing
« Reply #72 on: May 09, 2019, 02:21:25 PM »
I'm confused by several things from the article:

Quote
A DIA board, appointed by former Mayor Alvin Brown, who served from 2011-15, undertook a $100,000 design process with Atlanta-based Wakefield Beasley & Associates and Urban Design Associates that incorporated six public input sessions.

Lawsuits with former Landing owner Jacksonville Landing Investments Landing LLC stopped the public unveiling of the final plan.

Hughes has since released the 2015 development renderings to prove to incoming council member Matt Carlucci and other critics that a public charrette process on Landing redevelopment already has been done.

Did the DIA have public sessions that had public input back when Slieman owned it? If the design is released, how in the world would that force a private business to build exactly that? It sounds like something is going on behind the scenes that we just aren't being told. It seems like they don't want public input because the plans from 2015 are what has been worked one with a different developer out of public view. Potentially very shady and unethical, but this is a tad better than the "we are just tearing this down for hope of development"

Basically, the historical storytelling from Hughes and Curry about the 2015 charrette process is a bunch of baloney. At the time, Sleiman owned the Landing and had proposed redeveloping with a specific type of uses. What's shown is what he wanted. The charrette focused on making the uses he wanted fit better on the site. Now that COJ owns the site, you don't necessarily have to start off with razing the place to for an apartment complex or hotel. Perhaps a food hall, public market or visitors center integrated into an interactive public space makes more sense. Unfortunately, we may never know.


Quote
Quote
Both the more detailed 2015 design and the simplified Public Works sketch released last year show the same concept — two bifurcated developable pads with activated green space.

“The discussion points are about how much green, how much hardscape, how many trees, where is the art, how big are the pads that are developable (and) what are the economics behind that,” Hughes said.

Despite Curry's and the 2015 design barely being related (at least from what is presented publicly), it sounds like the city is going to demolish everything, make certain parts of the land privately owned/developable and keep the rest as a park/landscaping decorations for the private lands. In a vacuum, wouldn't this be part of good urban design?

1. They don't show the same thing. The 2015 example is an actual project, that had a real developer, a real cost and a real construction timeline. It's also a space that is specifically designed to attract a mix of people during the day, at night and on weekends. The Curry sketch is the complete opposite. The two smaller blobs aren't real buildings/projects and the park itself isn't interactive. Instead, it's a passive lawn.  Full developed, they'd resemble these two scenes:

2015 - This plan was basically a smaller version of DC's National Harbor:


2018 - The Curry plan is basically what Daytona Beach has along the Halifax River just north of US 92:


Which one do you think would attract more people at night and on weekends?


Quote
Despite Curry's and the 2015 design barely being related (at least from what is presented publicly), it sounds like the city is going to demolish everything, make certain parts of the land privately owned/developable and keep the rest as a park/landscaping decorations for the private lands. In a vacuum, wouldn't this be part of good urban design?

In a vacuum, it's a good sound bite. That's about it. Outside of spending millions to tear down an active structure (admittedly mismanaged), you have no assurances of anything happening anytime soon. The city doesn't have a plan beyond demolition or funding committed to even make it a park. As such, we're more than likely looking at a Shipyards site part 2. This makes the process...bad urban planning considering the Northbank needs a vibrant interactive anchor at that site now and not maybe 10 or 20 years down the road. You have some things already happening like the Trio, VyStar and Hyatt Place investing in the immediate area. Smart urban planning would involve quickly stimulating this site to dramatically change the vibrancy of this core area overnight.
"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.” - Muhammad Ali

tufsu1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10997
Re: Mayors Office: It's Time To Move Forward With Demolishing Landing
« Reply #73 on: May 09, 2019, 10:36:48 PM »
I think bulldozing the Landing is its own horrifying mistake that we've all beaten to death and should continue to beat to death until the last minute, but to me, I think the only way you could prove that the decision was driven by development at the sports complex would be if the city attempted to use Curry's Landing park plan to statisfy a land swap with Metro Park.

ding ding ding - we have a winner!

Kerry

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1477
Re: Mayors Office: It's Time To Move Forward With Demolishing Landing
« Reply #74 on: May 10, 2019, 11:04:29 AM »
That said, for KC, the objective was to catalyze downtown redevelopment, and even though it came at a hefty price to taxpayers, I think Power & Light has been a success on that front. There are cranes everywhere in Downtown KC, and the entire area has exploded on the back of Power & Light.

I wonder if this narrative is more self promotional story-telling than anything else. I'm on the road a lot these days. Quite frankly, there are cranes all over the place in several major markets Jax likes to compare itself too. I get the impression, the cranes have more to do with national urban revitalization trends and the culmination of two decades worth of decent urban infill and investment moreso than Cordish's development being the major catalyst.

This!

Power and Light in KC, Blue Dome in Tulsa, Bricktown in OKC, Old Town in Wichita, and 20 places areound downtown Dallas are all just part of the reurbanization if America's cuties.  They weren't magic bullet catalists that spawned anything - they are the result, not the cause.

This is where Jax leadership and the Jags fail by not understanding how these things came to be in the first place.  They think we can just by-pass the 20 year process and build the end product.  It doesn't work that way.  It is the same reason new Chinese city are uninhabited.
Third Place