Cities keep squandering money on hotels and meeting facilities

[tufsu1]

Finally the rest of the conventions will go to anywhere that offers 200,000 SF of exhibition space or 350,000+ sf of overall meeting space, etc. 

this is the key...even the third tier cities playing in the convention/meeting market need to have 200,000 square feet of contiguous exhibit space...right now we have about 70,000....if we're not willing to expand, then we're pretty much out of the business.

[ChriswUfGator]

LMAO it's basically a recap of the debate lake and I had, just in article form.

No it's not.  My point then and now is still the same.  You can place and design a convention center to be an economic positive on the businesses surrounding it.  In no way have I vouched for a convention center being the best ROI for public investment in downtown.  In fact, my position has always been investing less in large expensive gimmicks and more on small business growth, urban connectivity, and clustering complementing uses within a compact setting.

And my point about market demand (which the article also makes) remains the same. It also happens to be reality.

Like I said before, lets cluster a uranium mine with a snow removal company, some overpriced condos, and a bunch of restaurants serving beondeggi, and then tie it all together with a streetcar. I'm sure it'll be a smashing success. Forget the fact that there's absolutely no demand for it, it's the clustering that makes it work, right? Come on, you're smarter than that.

The actual convention center is the least of Jacksonville's problems with competing in that market. We are never going to be an Orlando or a San Diego unless a lot of organic growth happens down there first. People want something to do when they attend conventions, besides for visiting a lifesized reenactment of raccoon city after the outbreak. 'Build it and they will come' doesn't work. If you have any doubts, then I'm still waiting on my explanation of the three previous failed convention centers that were built here, all with the exact (must be planner boilerplate) same promises being made. In the other thread, I even started quoting old 1980s newspaper articles making the same claims being made now. I think we all know how that turned out.

This is what's wrong with planning today. The same damn thing that's already failed 3 times, and each time we hear how the way to fix it is to build an even bigger and more expensive disaster this time. Apparently the problem is only that we didn't waste enough money last time. This is getting to be stomach-turning. It will wind up being one more empty building. The public planning of what should have remained, and should become again to extent possible, private commercial space, is what caused the collapse of downtown in the first place. It's time to exit this overpriced highway already.

[ChriswUfGator]

Finally the rest of the conventions will go to anywhere that offers 200,000 SF of exhibition space or 350,000+ sf of overall meeting space, etc. 

this is the key...even the third tier cities playing in the convention/meeting market need to have 200,000 square feet of contiguous exhibit space...right now we have about 70,000....if we're not willing to expand, then we're pretty much out of the business.

If we had 1mm square feet, it would still be just another empty building.

The least of our problems with competing in that market is the actual building itself.

[thelakelander]

LMAO it's basically a recap of the debate lake and I had, just in article form.

No it's not.  My point then and now is still the same.  You can place and design a convention center to be an economic positive on the businesses surrounding it.  In no way have I vouched for a convention center being the best ROI for public investment in downtown.  In fact, my position has always been investing less in large expensive gimmicks and more on small business growth, urban connectivity, and clustering complementing uses within a compact setting.

And my point about market demand (which the article also makes) remains the same. It also happens to be reality.

Like I said before, lets cluster a uranium mine with a snow removal company, some overpriced condos, and a bunch of restaurants serving beondeggi, and then tie it all together with a streetcar. I'm sure it'll be a smashing success.

Yes, but its not a debate if I never questioned or disagreed with your market demand argument.  We are talking about two different things.

Forget the fact that there's absolutely no demand for it, it's the clustering that makes it work, right? Come on, you're smarter than that.

This is where you were confusing and improperly mixing the two points we were discussing.  Clustering complementing uses within a compact setting is a completely different topic.  You could take the half empty box we have at the old train station "as is" drop it next to the Landing and the restaurants would economically benefit from the increased exposure, even if it were open only three days a week.  However, this doesn't mean that spending $100 million on a convention center is economically feasible or the best use of public tax dollars.  As I mentioned, two totally separate issues.

This is what's wrong with planning today. The same damn thing that's already failed 3 times, and each time we hear how the way to fix it is to build an even bigger and more expensive disaster this time. Apparently the problem is only that we didn't waste enough money last time. This is getting to be stomach-turning. It will wind up being one more empty building. The public planning of what should have remained, and should become again to extent possible, private commercial space, is what caused the collapse of downtown in the first place. It's time to exit this overpriced highway already.

It's not accurate to pin this on planners.  There aren't many urban planners out there private or employed by the city, claiming that a convention center is the key to downtown revitalization.  The Chamber and Civic Council are big backers.  However, I don't believe either of those groups are dominated by planners.

[thelakelander]

Like I said before, lets cluster a uranium mine with a snow removal company, some overpriced condos, and a bunch of restaurants serving beondeggi, and then tie it all together with a streetcar. I'm sure it'll be a smashing success.

I know you're joking but in reality you could cluster these uncomplementing uses with complementing uses and create a workable vibrant district.  Detroit's Eastern Market is a great example of clustering complementing industrial uses with restaurants, lofts, and wholesale businesses.  We should consider this for Beaver Street and perhaps the Springfield Warehouse District.  It might not be the ideal market for yuppies but they do work.

[ChriswUfGator]

Well sure, clustering works as long as there's demand for what's being clustered. I think you already see this downtown with the burgeoning little nightlife district. A convention center may as well be a uranium mine, that's the point. There is no demand for it, and there won't be after it's built. A building by itself doesn't create a business, and the building is not our problem with competing in that business. If we built 1mm square feet tomorrow, who in their right mind is going to relocate a convention here from Las Vegas? Let's be serious.

That business has already shaken out amongst the top 10 players, most of the bigger ones are under long term contracts. It's not changing. And even if it were possible (it's not) for argument's sake, we lack the assets necessary to compete and attract people, none of which have a thing to do with the building. This will be another giant empty building taking up prime riverfront property that should be left to private development.

[thelakelander]

Well sure, clustering works as long as there's demand for what's being clustered.

There's always demand for a restaurant/bar to have hungry and thirsty people with cash walking past their front door.  A convention center entrance across the street from a place like Marks or Olio has the ability to attract extra exposure to those businesses.  I don't understand how someone could not understand this scenario.  It's no different from a Cheesecake Factory locating next to a Barnes & Noble and Dillards.  However, this scenario has nothing to do with determining if its worth investing in a convention center.  Again, completely separate issue that has little to do with clustering and more to do with ROI on public tax dollars.

I think you already see this downtown with the burgeoning little nightlife district. A convention center may as well be a uranium mine, that's the point. There is no demand for it, and there won't be after it's built. A building by itself doesn't create a business, and the building is not our problem with competing in that business.

I don't believe we have a "district" yet.  When we can fill up a full city block with a continuous strip of places we'll approach "district" status, imo.  We have potential but we need complementing uses replacing the numerous dead zones between the couple of places that are open.  If we do end up investing in a convention center, it will be critical to make sure it's mixed use (I've mentioned this time and time again as well) with retail/entertainment lining the complex's perimeter.

[ChriswUfGator]

Lake, you're presupposing that the convention center would actually bring any visitors. The whole point of the article being discussed is that this presupposition, which equals the typical "build it and they will come" mentality associated with so many boondoggles, is a false promise. More often than not, cities pay millions for what wind up being empty buildings. Regarding Jacksonville in particular, I think that premise has been pretty thoroughly debunked in (multiple) other threads that have run to dozens of pages on this very issue.

If you build the biggest convention center the world has ever seen, we still are never going to be a player in that business. The building is not why people host conventions in Las Vegas, they go other places because those places have things that we don't have. Like stuff to do around the facility, for starters. We aren't going to be successful with this, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the building. But who knows, it's not like we haven't already tried this three times and failed already. I'm sure the fourth time is bound to be the charm. 

[tufsu1]

Lake, you're presupposing that the convention center would actually bring any visitors.

so, you're suggesting that a new convention center would not bring ANY new visitors to downtown?

[fsujax]

While in Houston last week, i stayed a couple of blocks from their convention center. I arrived the last day of some petroleum convention. While talking to a bartender at the McCormick and Schmicks in downtown, he was telling me how busy they had been all week because of the convention. I am sure his pockets were happy.

[vicupstate]

What were the first two times that Jacksonville built a Convention Center?  Prime Osborn is the only one I am familiar with. 

[thelakelander]

Lake, you're presupposing that the convention center would actually bring any visitors. The whole point of the article being discussed is that this presupposition, which equals the typical "build it and they will come" mentality associated with so many boondoggles, is a false promise.

Nope, I'm not presupposing anything.  What I'm saying is you can pick up the current center with its current events, place it  next to the Hyatt and Bay Street and those businesses would economically benefit from the pedestrian scale connectivity that the current site does not allow.  All the rest of the stuff you keep mentioning is irrelevant to this point about pedestrian scale connectivity and clustering.

If you build the biggest convention center the world has ever seen, we still are never going to be a player in that business. The building is not why people host conventions in Las Vegas, they go other places because those places have things that we don't have. Like stuff to do around the facility, for starters.

You're describing a benefit of connectivity.  Placing complementing uses together within a compact setting works.  This theory is evident with Park & King, San Marco Square, SJTC, Avenues Mall, Memorial Park, and even AB's brewery complex.  Attempting to relate the concept of pedestrian scale connectivity to market demands and fiscal feasibility for a convention center is a waste.  These two issues are apples and oranges.

[fsujax]

I believe they will be here the weekend of Jazz Fest. I thought I read it some where.

[ChriswUfGator]

Lake, you're presupposing that the convention center would actually bring any visitors. The whole point of the article being discussed is that this presupposition, which equals the typical "build it and they will come" mentality associated with so many boondoggles, is a false promise.

Nope, I'm not presupposing anything.  What I'm saying is you can pick up the current center with its current events, place it  next to the Hyatt and Bay Street and those businesses would economically benefit from the pedestrian scale connectivity that the current site does not allow.  All the rest of the stuff you keep mentioning is irrelevant to this point about pedestrian scale connectivity and clustering.

If you build the biggest convention center the world has ever seen, we still are never going to be a player in that business. The building is not why people host conventions in Las Vegas, they go other places because those places have things that we don't have. Like stuff to do around the facility, for starters.

You're describing a benefit of connectivity.  Placing complementing uses together within a compact setting works.  This theory is evident with Park & King, San Marco Square, SJTC, Avenues Mall, Memorial Park, and even AB's brewery complex.  Attempting to relate the concept of pedestrian scale connectivity to market demands and fiscal feasibility for a convention center is a waste.  These two issues are apples and oranges.

Yes you are. Even this reply presupposes that there will be any convention business to benefit from clustering. There won't.

We'll have the same one or two local shows combined with a smattering of church luncheons and PTA meeting that we have now. The only difference will be the $100mm we'll be missing. Assuming it actually gets built for that, a slim prospect if the courthouse is any indication. But again, the building doesn't magically create a business, and the building is the last of our problems with why we aren't a competitor in that business. None of the reasons people go to Las Vegas instead of Jacksonville will be fixed by building a new convention center. It's just another boondoggle.

[ChriswUfGator]

Lake, you're presupposing that the convention center would actually bring any visitors.

so, you're suggesting that a new convention center would not bring ANY new visitors to downtown?

Indeed, that is exactly what I'm suggesting. What's worse, history has shown this to be the case.

Several times.

So when is building a bigger more expensive boondoggle going to cease being the solution to the problem of there being no demand for it in the first place? It's a flawed concept, that business has already shaken out, we'll never be a player in it for multiple reasons that have nothing to do with the building itself. As the well written article that started this thread pointed out, all we're doing is squandering money on a pipe dream. Actually Jacksonville is even worse than the article's point, because we've tried this same thing multiple times and don't seem to be learning a lesson here.