A Case For Downtown Jacksonville

[dougskiles]

Ron, I thought your 'rant' was great.  I always appreciate someone who can express themselves with that kind of passion and eloquence.  I also appreciate that you do so without anonymity.  It shows me that you are willing to back up what you say.  Please keep it coming!

[dougskiles]

Here is a link to the Bank of America study:

http://www.radicalurbantheory.com/misc/beyondSprawl.html

and the executive summary:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
California is at a unique and unprecedented point in its history-a point at which we face profound questions about our future growth that will determine the state's economic vitality and quality of life for the next generation and beyond.

One of the most fundamental questions we face is whether California can afford to support the pattern of urban and suburban development, often referred to as "sprawl," that has characterized its growth since World War II.

There is no question that this pattern of growth has helped fuel California's unparalleled economic and population boom, and that it has enabled millions of Californians to realize the enduring dream of home ownership. But as we approach the 21st century, it is clear that sprawl has created enormous costs that California can no longer afford. Ironically, unchecked sprawl has shifted from an engine of California's growth to a force that now threatens to inhibit growth and degrade the quality of our life.

This report, sponsored by a diverse coalition of organizations, is meant to serve as a call for California to move beyond sprawl and rethink the way we will grow in the future. This is not a new idea, but it is one that has never been more critical or urgent.

Despite dramatic changes in California over the last decade, traditional development patterns have accelerated. Urban job centers have decentralized to the suburbs. New housing tracts have moved even deeper into agricultural and environmentally sensitive areas. Private auto use continues to rise.

This acceleration of sprawl has surfaced enormous social, environmental and economic costs, which until now have been hidden, ignored, or quietly borne by society. The burden of these costs is becoming very clear. Businesses suffer from higher costs, a loss in worker productivity, and underutilized investments in older communities.

California's business climate becomes less attractive than surrounding states. Suburban residents pay a heavy price in taxation and automobile expenses, while residents of older cities and suburbs lose access to jobs, social stability, and political power. Agriculture and ecosystems also suffer.

There is a fundamental dynamic to growth, whether it be the growth of a community or a corporation, that evolves from expansion to maturity. The early stages of growth are often exuberant and unchecked-that has certainly been the case in post-World War II California. But unchecked growth cannot be sustained forever. At some point this initial surge must mature into more managed, strategic growth. This is the point where we now stand in California.

We can no longer afford the luxury of sprawl. Our demographics are shifting in dramatic ways. Our economy is restructuring. Our environment is under increasing stress. We cannot shape California's future successfully unless we move beyond sprawl.

This is not a call for limiting growth, but a call for California to be smarter about how it grows-to invent ways we can create compact and efficient growth patterns that are responsive to the needs of people at all income levels, and also help maintain California's quality of life and economic competitiveness.

It is a tall order-one that calls for us to rise above our occasional isolation as individuals and interest groups, and address these profound challenges as a community. All of us-government agencies, businesses, community organizations and citizens-play a role. Our actions should be guided by the following goals:

To provide more certainty in determining where new development should and should not occur.
To make more efficient use of land that has already been developed, including a strong focus on job creation and housing in established urban areas.
To establish a legal and procedural framework that will create the desired certainty and send the right economic signals to investors.
To build a broad-based constituency to combat sprawl that includes environmentalists, community organizations, businesses, farmers, government leaders and others.
Californians are already taking some of these steps. We have attempted in this report to not only point out the obstacles to sustained growth, but also to highlight the positive actions that are occurring to better manage growth. Our fundamental message is that we must build on these early successes and take more comprehensive and decisive steps over the next few years to meet this challenge. To build a strong, vibrant economy and ensure a high quality of life for the 21st century, we must move beyond sprawl in the few remaining years of the 20th century.

[dougskiles]

^Interestingly, this was written in 1996.

[Steve_Lovett]

Thanks Steve, for your toleration of my rant of yesterday evening.  I must restrain my tendency to get on a roll about certain principles and possibilities, and sometimes my mood at the time takes things too far, to the point of abrasiveness and insensitivity,  and to the point of being against my thoughts of a later mood.
I think there are some good points in what I have written.  However, reality is more complex than the scenario I’ve suggested, and therefore I suggest any readers might realize that my broad brush strokes, although painting an interesting or fun picture, resulted in a picture of simplicity and error, and one having too abrasive a slant, so that the most benefit was to me, as it only satisfied my need to vent my frustrations about our scenario of stagnation.
In the future, I must restrain my tendency to vent on this very instructive and valuable forum at MJ.  Although it is occasionally fun to vent frustration, one must be careful with unintentional harshness and possibly erroneous assumptions affecting those who might be the most effective and dedicated individuals we have in our city environment. 


Give a man a fish, and you will feed him for the day.  Give him a religion, and he will starve to death while he prays for a fish.

Ron - ultimately we all Vote With Our Feet.

To talk passionately about downtown as a "leader" while living at the beach, St Johns County, Jacksonville Golf & Country Club, or Deerwood; and having an office at Southpoint or Gate Parkway is one thing.  To believe, invest personally & professionally, and participate in business "in the trenches" is something else altogether. 

Talk is cheap - and your comments, from your perspective, are fair.

[ariane77]

Diversity is key to rebuilding downtown with the inclusion of "East Jacksonville" Neighborhood. It seems to be over looked in city planning and implementation of various projects. Well I am on a mission to rebuild my neighborhood economically and I agree that creativity and diversity are key!

Let's all try clearing house with removing 80 % our conservative city council and replace them with people who are'nt trying to get some money and push thier church or thier own personal agenda...that's where things will change..it stands with them...if we all pick a bunch of conservative right wing people.....this is what we will have...a dying downtown and city..sorry but the truth hurts

Downtown development does not quite square well with a conservative mindset.  Healthy urban environments depend on cultivating an atmosphere that is creative, diverse and engaging.  Unfortunately, most of our energies are being spent on bland, homogenous and sterile suburban development.  I place partial blame on our leadership that reflects an innate conservative aversion to urban centers - which typically lean left and rely on more government services (e.g. transit).