Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Jacksonville Landing Charette

490 views

Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Jacksonville Landing Charette

  1. 1. APA Florida 2009 Conference Re-Imagining the Jacksonville Landing: An Interactive Charrette
  2. 2. Re-Imagining the Jacksonville Landing • Participants were asked to develop programmatic and design concepts that would allow the Landing to once again flourish. Agenda Overview • Tour / Overview • Four tables of participants • Provided with maps and facilitators • Programming • Visioning • Presentations
  3. 3. Site Design Considerations General points of consideration • Relationship to river and downtown • Function / form • Connectivity • Market factors (local, regional and state) – Physical flexibility to adapt to a changing market – Preserve and increase existing employment base • Destinations – Aquarium – Convention center – Maritime museum
  4. 4. Tour and Overview Janice Lowe Rachel Nudge
  5. 5. Tour and Overview
  6. 6. Tour and Overview
  7. 7. Tour and Overview
  8. 8. Tour and Overview
  9. 9. Tour and Overview
  10. 10. Tour and Overview
  11. 11. Tour and Overview
  12. 12. Tour and Overview
  13. 13. Tour and Overview
  14. 14. Tour and Overview
  15. 15. Tour and Overview
  16. 16. Tour and Overview
  17. 17. Tour and Overview
  18. 18. Tour and Overview
  19. 19. Tour and Overview
  20. 20. Tour and Overview
  21. 21. Tour and Overview
  22. 22. Tour and Overview
  23. 23. Visioning Sessions
  24. 24. Visioning Sessions
  25. 25. Visioning Sessions
  26. 26. Visioning Sessions
  27. 27. Visioning Sessions
  28. 28. Visioning Sessions
  29. 29. Visioning Sessions
  30. 30. Group 1 Results • Group 1 – Strengths • Group 1 – Weaknesses – Events – No parking – Location/view – No interconnectivity/ – River/water taxi permeability – Iconic roof (do not – No residential change) – Service issues – Central courtyard – Surrounding road – Laura Street roundabout network/ramps for main – Proximity to bridge – street bridge picturesque landmark – Internal pedestrian/retailing – Trolley – Poor access to bridge
  31. 31. Group 1 Results • Group 1 – Opportunities • Group 1 – Threats – Mixed-use program, more – Stigma (negative) diversity – High tenant turnover – Utilize waterfront better, marina – Lack of activity/destination options – Green space/plaza between Times Union Center and – No parking remedy Landing – Perception of crime – Building demolition for Laura Street side, open up to river – Relocate food court to extended Laura Street – Residential
  32. 32. Group 1 Results • Group 1- Big Ideas – River stage/big events – Add a marina – Add residential – Laura Street centered food court – Eliminate ramps – Green space – Office tenants – Parking garage with residential above – Permanent boat/vessel display/museum – Big attraction – Relocate maritime museum
  33. 33. Group 2 Results • Group 2 – Strengths • Group 2 – Weaknesses – Waterfront – Retail – Landmark – Accessibility (ADA) – Times Union Center for – Service areas the Arts – Lack of parking – Location (general) – Bridge access – Daylighting (interior – View shed (City/Water) space) – Quality of maintenance – Convention hotels – Water taxi
  34. 34. Group 2 Results • Group 2 – Opportunities • Group 2 – Threats – Green Infrastructure – Stigma (negative) (urban plazas) – Traffic patterns – Historical value (maritime – Safety museum) – Blighted (riverfront) – “Green” building – high performance – Additional waterfront dining – Courtyard (center) – Under-bridge lighting
  35. 35. Group 2 Results • Group 2 – Big Ideas – Parking garage/waterfront restaurants over existing parking lot – View shed to river from Laura Street – “Double façade building” front door to river and front door to downtown
  36. 36. Group 3 Results • Group 3 – Strengths • Group 3 – Weaknesses – Abundance of parking – Abundance of parking (positive and negative) (positive and negative) – Focal point extending into – Lack of adjacent synergy river from landing – Long prohibitive walking distances between downtown districts – Pedestrian access issues
  37. 37. Group 3 Results • Group 3 – Opportunities • Group 3 – Threats – Laura Street – pedestrian – Lack of adjacent synergy mall – Long prohibitive walking – Building more critical distances between mass adjacent to site downtown districts – Focal point extending into river from Landing – Pedestrian access issues – Opening center of Landing into river to invite visitors
  38. 38. Group 3 Results • Group 3 – Big Ideas – Within ¼ mile of Laura Street pedestrian-shed – develop critical mass of mixed use to promote synergy – Redesign exterior to make more inviting – “funk it up” stores facing north face outside – Need major anchor at edges – Issues are much bigger than the Landing – Contextual problems of downtown, not an isolated design issue – More adjacent street infrastructure, more pedestrian and transit friendly – Incremental/practical approach that is realistic for the marketplace (incentive based)
  39. 39. Group 4 Results • Group 4 – Strengths • Group 4 – Weaknesses – River – Roundabout – Boat traffic – Parking lots – Future Laura Street improvements – On-street parking – Elevated views
  40. 40. Group 4 Results • Group 4 – Opportunities • Group 4 – Threats – Increase views from Laura – Hogan street extension Street – Street frontage (Landing) – Attraction – Zip line – Include residential – Open up the middle of the building – Shut down Water Street and Independent Drive for events only – Imax Theatre
  41. 41. Group 4 Results • Group 4 – Big Ideas – Open the view to the river – Close part of Laura Street and International Drive (except for events) – No roundabout – Increase residential – Attraction (aquarium, museum, zip line, Imax) – Main Street gateway – Roof access / views – Expand marina
  42. 42. Results Summary • Open center of building for river vista • Add mixed use • Integrate into Laura Street improvements • Maximize river views • Parking garage • Major attraction needed • Marina expansion • Green space • Waterfront dining • Remove Main Street Bridge ramps
  43. 43. Results Summary
  44. 44. Results Summary
  45. 45. Results Summary
  46. 46. Results Summary
  47. 47. Results Summary
  48. 48. Results Summary
  49. 49. Results Summary
  50. 50. Results Summary
  51. 51. Results Summary First Floor
  52. 52. Results Summary Upper Floors
  53. 53. Results Summary Upper Floors
  54. 54. Results Summary Upper Floors
  55. 55. Acknowledgements • APA – Stephen Tocknell, Chair First Coast Section APA – Heather Jones – Tony Robbins • Jacksonville Landing – Rachel Nudge – Janice Lowe • Charrette Facilitators – Christopher D. Flagg – Shawn Bliss – Fred Jones – Duncan Ross, photographer
  56. 56. APA Florida 2009 Conference Re-Imagining the Jacksonville Landing: An Interactive Charrette

×