Cities keep squandering money on hotels and meeting facilities

[thelakelander]

The money would be FAR better spent attracting a Publix, or really any other retail, together with affordable housing, downtown. Even in terms of the rosiest of rosy economic predictions, the thing would have the economic impact of like 2 days' operation of a single Walmart. Pardon me for being unimpressed, but I don't think that's the best use of what will inevitably wind up being $100mm+.

On the surface, it would be a huge waste of money to subsidize a Publix or any retail in a market that simply can't support it.  It's also a huge waste to throw $100mm into a convention center if we're going to treat such of an investment as the "key" to downtown redevelopment.  Instead, modify restrictive public policies, invest $40-$50 million in connecting DT and the immediate surrounding neighborhoods with fixed transit and get the hell out of the way of the private sector.  The rest will take care of itself.  If want this place to grow, its going to have to do it organically and not with gimmicks.  We make redevelopment a lot more expensive and difficult than it has to be.

[thelakelander]

Based on the numbers, 165,000 people is not a lot.  Sure, if the convention center was within walking distance of Bay St. & the Landing, that's 165k more people on the street in a semi-clustered environment, but really?

If I'm reading this correctly - yes.  if we move the CC downtown, we automatically increase foot traffic for DT businesses.  Our ROI for a $100M CC with only 165k visitors a year would be horrendous.  There's no guarantee that a new CC would bring in new or more guests.

Why build it?  Why waste the $$$$?  What's the incentive to build it?

This is basically my position.  From a connectivity standpoint, it will help if it were relocated.  From a public ROI standpoint, more impactful things can be done with $100mm and less.

[peestandingup]

The argument isn't whether not it attracks people, but if it helps make downtown a better environment for businesses & residents in general. So far it doesn't seem to. Every week can't be a Jazz Fest, big car show or fireworks display. You're still left with 300 days outta the year where downtown is dead as a door nail & no residents.

which is precisely why we need an additional kick start....as you'll note from simms post above, downtown Atlanta is alive at night and on weekends primarily because of the concvention and visitor business....I saw that first hand last month.....and while we'll never be at the size of Atlanta in this regard (which is a good thing) the evidence is already there that Bay Street and the Landing do better when there are meetings at the Hyatt.

now, I'm with Lakelander....there are better things to spend $100+ million on than a convention center....but there's virtually no denying that relocating the convention center to the core will inject some additional life into that part of downtown.

and as for the JEDC/DVI report, it can be found here

http://www.coj.net/departments/jacksonville-economic-development-commission/downtown-development.aspx

True, but Jacksonville isn't Atlanta. And I'd wager they had lots of things already in place that Jax sorely lacks before you saw the convention center do what it's currently doing.

I think it's putting the cart before the horse. Anyways, Riverside & San Marco didn't need one to make their comebacks. Why not follow their lead? My point is, you could probably build the biggest convention center in the world & it still wouldn't give downtown what it needs: Residents & a pulse. Jax tries to build & develop their way out problems & it obviously doesn't work.

[thelakelander]

Connect downtown with Riverside, Springfield, San Marco, etc. and it already has its residents.  The Northbank hasn't had a significant residential base since the early 20th century.  I don't know how we've reached the point where we believe we must subsidize residential growth only in this particular area of the urban core for it to be successful?  Brooklyn, LaVilla, Durkeeville, Sugar Hill, Springfield, etc. are all places where a mix of market rate urban housing at different price points, scales and styles can be easily infilled.  All we need is the decent transit connectivity that we lost in 1936.

[ChriswUfGator]

The money would be FAR better spent attracting a Publix, or really any other retail, together with affordable housing, downtown. Even in terms of the rosiest of rosy economic predictions, the thing would have the economic impact of like 2 days' operation of a single Walmart. Pardon me for being unimpressed, but I don't think that's the best use of what will inevitably wind up being $100mm+.

On the surface, it would be a huge waste of money to subsidize a Publix or any retail in a market that simply can't support it.  It's also a huge waste to throw $100mm into a convention center if we're going to treat such of an investment as the "key" to downtown redevelopment.  Instead, modify restrictive public policies, invest $40-$50 million in connecting DT and the immediate surrounding neighborhoods with fixed transit and get the hell out of the way of the private sector.  The rest will take care of itself.  If want this place to grow, its going to have to do it organically and not with gimmicks.  We make redevelopment a lot more expensive and difficult than it has to be.

The difference is at least the Publix would attract visitors downtown. That's the whole point you're ignoring here, we could build 1mm square foot convention center and we're not going to start stealing the business away from Las Vegas and Orlando. For the 57th time, the building is the least of our problems with why we aren't competitive in the convention business. And it is indeed a business, not just a building. This is an absolute waste of money.

[ChriswUfGator]

But people actually go to department stores, restaurants, theaters, etc. There is demand for that. There is no demand here for a convention center. There are two considerations here, a building, and a business. That's why I'm only half-joking when I say why not throw in a uranium mine and a snow removal company. Maybe a buggy whip factory while we're at it?

People actually do go convention centers, just not as much to make them directly profitable or open 24/7, if that's your goal for investing in them.  I've even gone to a couple at the Prime Osborn.  However, the feasibility of a convention center in Jacksonville is a different discussion from my point on that clustering complementing uses at the pedestrian scale would be economically beneficial for adjacent businesses.  Btw, a buggy whip factory would be pretty cool!

We missed the boat on being even a small-sized convention destination decades ago, at this point we're just throwing good money after bad. For literally the fourth time. And about this "we've never had a REAL convention center that could attract (fill in the blank)" that's the same argument that's been made each of the three times we've already tried this. The building(s) are not why it's not working, that's the least of our problems.

Nobody is going to be switching their convention from Las Vegas or Orlando to Jacksonville just because it can fit in the building. We lack pretty much every single amenity that would make people want to do that. We'd be much much better off using the same money to seed organic growth downtown and turning the land over to private (non-residential) developers. The bottom line is about attracting visitors, and a vibrant urban scene is the key to that. Conventions don't cut the mustard, you want people permanently living, working, and shopping down there, not just visiting for two days and leaving. That isn't going to do what needs to be done. That, and nobody will actually come to the convention center anyway.

This has nothing to do with what I was talking about (pedestrian scale connectivity).  I think you're confusing my posts with some other comments in this thread.

I don't expect public works to be profitable, that's a flimsy straw man and you know it.

I also don't expect to pay good money for nothing. It may not be directly profitable, but there has to be an ROI of some sort, or WTF is the point? If it's going to cost the taxpayers a fortune, and won't attract new visitors (it won't), then spend the money on street-level retail incentives and affordable housing. That is what will actually make downtown come back.

[thelakelander]

The difference is at least the Publix would attract visitors downtown.

At the expense of a market rate Publix and Winn-Dixie already operating in the area...all on the public's dime.  We need to worry more about making a self sustaining urban environment than attracting visitors downtown through fooling around with private sector economics we have little knowledge of.  Put that money into fixing up the schools, adding public amenities and maintaining public right-of-way and parks.

That's the whole point you're ignoring here, we could build 1mm square foot convention center and it's not going to get us any more visitors. The building itself is not why we aren't competitive in the convention business. And it is indeed a business, not just a building. This is an absolute waste of money.

This is exactly the point of why I'm continuing refute your attempts to lump convention center industry feasibility (what you're debating with others) with pedestrian scale clustering (my actual point in this whole thing) together. 

1. I didn't say a convention center would attract more visitors than it does today.  That's your debate with tufsu1.  I said a location switch by clustering complementing uses within a pedestrian scale setting would create a condition that better utilizes existing visitors in a manner that improves the economic conditions of existing adjacent complementing businesses.  This concept I continue to attempt to explain in vain is no different from Everbank relocating from one side of town to downtown.  Traffic shifts from one area of town to another where there are businesses and retailers that will directly benefit from pedestrian scale clustering.

2. I've continued to say that if you have $100 million in cash to play around with, a convention center would not be the best use of those funds, assuming the goal is to add life to downtown.

[cline]

I also don't expect to pay good money for nothing. It may not be directly profitable, but there has to be an ROI of some sort, or WTF is the point? If it's going to cost the taxpayers a fortune, and won't attract new visitors (it won't), then spend the money on street-level retail incentives and affordable housing. That is what will actually make downtown come back.

Jax has made a profession of pissing away money.  From the courthouse to the Shipyards.  Hell, look at how much money we pay the head of JTA per year for his ineptitude.  What's another 100MM?

[thelakelander]

I don't expect public works to be profitable, that's a flimsy straw man and you know it.

I also don't expect to pay good money for nothing. It may not be directly profitable, but there has to be an ROI of some sort, or WTF is the point? If it's going to cost the taxpayers a fortune, and won't attract new visitors (it won't), then spend the money on street-level retail incentives and affordable housing. That is what will actually make downtown come back.

Your whole argument with me has straw all in it.  You're continuing to bring up stuff that I actually agree with to a degree.  However, none of it has to do with pedestrian scale clustering, which is what I'm talking about.  Btw, put in the transit and the affordable housing will come on its own, market rate style (without huge public subsidies for individual projects).  However, the market will suggest affordable housing will rise in locations like Brooklyn, LaVilla, and Sugar Hill, instead of on the river. 

[Jaxson]

Interesting read.  Something that Jax shouldn't ignore as we kick around our own convention center issue.

I agree with lakelander.  Our city's leadership is woefully incompetent at figuring out a solution to this mess.

[ChriswUfGator]

I don't expect public works to be profitable, that's a flimsy straw man and you know it.

I also don't expect to pay good money for nothing. It may not be directly profitable, but there has to be an ROI of some sort, or WTF is the point? If it's going to cost the taxpayers a fortune, and won't attract new visitors (it won't), then spend the money on street-level retail incentives and affordable housing. That is what will actually make downtown come back.

You're whole argument with me has straw all in it.  You're continuing to bring up stuff that I actually agree with to a degree.  However, none of it has to do with pedestrian scale clustering, which is what I'm talking about.  Btw, put in the transit and the affordable housing will come on its own, market rate style (without huge public subsidies for individual projects).  However, the market will suggest affordable housing will rise in locations like Brooklyn, LaVilla, and Sugar Hill, instead of on the river. 

There's no straw in mine. In fact I've been pretty clear. The convention center;

1) Doesn't provide meaningful benefits to downtown as it sits,

2) Building a larger building won't change that,

3) It's a waste of money, and a larger building will only be a larger waste of money,

4) The reasons we can't compete as a convention city have little to do with the building,

5) They also have little to do with the location of the building,

6) Clustering will not fix a total lack of demand, e.g. the uranium mine example,

7) (The one we agree on) The money would be better spent fostering organic growth.

Those all go directly to the heart of the issue, and are the points we've debated for a year over the proposed new convention-doggle. An article was posted (that happens to agree with my viewpoint, if you read it) and so naturally the same points were again raised. Not even by me this time, at least initially, but by the article's author. I have thrown up no strawman at all, I've really been very direct about it.

[thelakelander]

^The majority of your points (and this particular article) have nothing to do with my position on clustering.  I'll break them down.

1) Doesn't provide meaningful benefits to downtown as it sits,

This has little to do with my point about clustering but what do you base this opinion on?  Are the current events a negative on downtown?  Is there a better way to utilize whatever it does generate? 

While this has little to do with my point, the current box is in an isolated location that lacks the complementing services to make it a viable facility.  Clustering would certainly help the situation (just like it would with most industries) if the city decides to keep a convention center.

2) Building a larger building won't change that,

The size of a CC has nothing to do with my point about pedestrian scale clustering.

3) It's a waste of money, and a larger building will only be a larger waste of money,

The cost of constructing a CC has nothing to do with my point about pedestrian scale clustering.

4) The reasons we can't compete as a convention city have little to do with the building,

Once again, nothing to do with my point about pedestrian scale clustering.

5) They also have little to do with the location of the building,

Location has everything to do with pedestrian scale clustering.  It doesn't matter whether its a CC, affordable housing, or retail.  Locating complementing things within a compact pedestrian scale setting is the key characteristic of a vibrant urban atmosphere.

6) Clustering will not fix a total lack of demand, e.g. the uranium mine example,

Once again, nothing to do with my point about pedestrian scale clustering.  I specifically said, if a CC were built next to the Hyatt, it would help improve the economic conditions of the complementing businesses adjacent to it.  This would happen in the same manner than relocating Everbank to downtown will do for the AT&T Tower's mall and food court.  However, because a project can benefit others doesn't necessarily mean its economically feasible or the best use of public dollars (ex. subsidizing a Publix downtown).

7) (The one we agree on) The money would be better spent fostering organic growth.

We agree but this also has nothing to do with my point of about clustering.

Your argument starts to fill up with loads of straw when attempting to mix the general ideal of clustering at the pedestrian scale with convention center industry feasibility and demand.  What I've been talking about far exceeds the feasibility of a specific building product (in this case a convention center in Jacksonville).  However, that's what I've been saying all along. 

[fieldafm]

Not interested as I do not have the time to go back and forth much about it but...

the building is the least of our problems with why we aren't competitive in the convention business.

As someone who has held events in convention centers nationwide (including the Prime Osborne), I tend to disagree with you.  The current size does matter.

Chicago, Orlando and Las Vegas are not apt comparisons (that's like comparing AA baseball with the NY Yankees).

Compound the size issue with this:

current box is in an isolated location that lacks the complementing services to make it a viable facility

and it's plainly obvious to see why the current venue is at such a disadvantage... in a market(Jacksonville) that frankly has a tremendous amount of natural advantages that most markets(of even larger size) simply cannot touch.

[ChriswUfGator]

Alright boys have your convention-doggle then. I'll be around in 5 years to rub noses in it.

I look forward to the million visitors a year. Let's see how it goes.

[tufsu1]

Jekyll Island (a pretty nice retreat place on the Georgia coast) had been losing conventions for years due to the size and condition of their old convention center...so they built a new one....and look waht's happening

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/jekyll-island-convention-center-powerful-134900361.html

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/11/2688063/jekyll-island-going-after-lost.html

Now the ROI may not make sense for Jacksonville, which is why feasibility studies get conducted...but to think that no additional meetings would get booked with a new convention center just doesn't match up with the realities that every other city has seen.

Take a baseball analogy....the Marlins had absolutely awful attendance for years at suburban Joe Robbie Stadium (yes that's what I still call it)....and now they're on pace to break sales records at their shiny new stadium w/ limited parking in a somewhat rough area near Little Havana.

Now of course, long-term a shiny new building doesn't cut it....Baltimore's Camden Yards Stadium and Pittsburgh's PNC Park aren't pulling in the crowds they used to because the teams have been horrible for over a decade.....yet, some great complementing uses (restaurants/bars and residential) have sprung up around them so there's still a cool urban vibe in the areas.