Author Topic: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing before examining adaptive reuse  (Read 7648 times)

CityLife

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1790
Thank you for doing this Wacca. Great idea!

Wacca Pilatka

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2187
Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing
« Reply #91 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?
« Last Edit: July 30, 2019, 02:01:34 PM by Wacca Pilatka »
The tourist would realize at once that he had struck the Land of Flowers - the City Beautiful!

Henry J. Klutho

heights unknown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1750
  • HEIGHTS UNKNOWN (DAMMIT!)
    • FRESH START SOCIAL SERVICES
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).
PLEASE FEEL FREE TO ACCESS MY PERSONAL FACEBOOK PAGE AT: https://www.facebook.com/garrybernardcoston.personal, or, access my Social Service Agency Facebook page if you love supporting charities/social entities at: https://www.facebook.com/FRESHSTARTSOCIALSERVICEAGENCY/; thank you!!!

Peter Griffin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 42
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)

Bill Hoff

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 968
Re: Florida Times-Union: Don’t demolish the Landing
« Reply #94 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.

Wacca Pilatka

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2187
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.
The tourist would realize at once that he had struck the Land of Flowers - the City Beautiful!

Henry J. Klutho

KenFSU

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3922
^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.

thelakelander

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 29753
    • Modern Cities
^Acreage might not be an issue if combined with the wasteland formerly known as city hall annex and the county courthouse. However, vibrancy will.
"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: 29753
    • Modern Cities
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.

"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.” - Muhammad Ali

Charles Hunter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2687
^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.

Bill Hoff

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 968
^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.

thelakelander

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 29753
    • Modern Cities
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.
"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.” - Muhammad Ali

KenFSU

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3922
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

thelakelander

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 29753
    • Modern Cities
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?
"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.” - Muhammad Ali

KenFSU

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3922
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.



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



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.