Jax. Business Journal - Shameful!

[simms3]

The other reason why a larger landlord as opposed to your average small DT Jax landlord is better for organic growth/small businesses is that with their opportunistic investments they are willing to take on more risks to make a certain return.

They'll give out hefty tenant improvement allowances, even put in additional landlord work, and potentially put new tenants on a percentage rent scheme that converts to base minimum rent after meeting a certain breakpoint.  Not only does this take risk off the tenant, allowing a small tenant to focus on growth and success, it makes it easier for banks to lend to the tenant because risk is heavily shared by the landlord.

Organic growth is great and necessary before you have a big city, but that organic growth is often still fostered by big money and experienced developers who know what they're doing.  The city needs the right ingredients to attract the right developers and you'll have everything you need and want happening simultaneously.

To add: a good landlord with a good creative team or a good marketing firm/good brokers will also do the heavy lifting of advertising for its tenants.  Especially if its tenants are on % rent and showing signs of promise and growth...if it can drive tenant sales, the landlord will then benefit greatly during a base rent conversion.

[Steve_Lovett]

Count me as one who has no problem with the JBJ's stance.

I don't think anyone was saying downtown has NOTHING - but it does lag behind most all peer city's downtowns with respect to urban renewal and revitalization. It has some pressing issues and is faced with the need to make really good policy, land-use, and budget decisions.

To this end, I don't think that whatever challenges exist downtown are solved mainly by marketing. Saying "downtown is important" through marketing spin when policy doesn't follow through with a prioritized downtown rings hollow. Very fine well-intentioned people blogging and hosting dinners downtown doesn't change the fact that more than 50% of the city's INCREDIBLE waterfront (and greatest asset) is behind a chain-link fence and inaccessible to the public (as one example). Marketing emphasis (and investment) can be distracting when there are tangible opportunities for incremental "on the ground" improvements and policy changes that are badly needed. But marketing and storytelling is easier - and to the credit of many, when you don't know what to do that's where they can start.

Remindes me of the quote from the legendary former UCLA Basketball coach, John Wooden. He said "don't confuse activity with achievement".

[Miss Fixit]

JBJ is right on. I love downtown and frequent its businesses, museums and government offices every day of the week.
Every time I travel, however, I come home more saddened by how little we have to offer suburbanites and visitors to our once great city.

Not only do we lag behind our peer cities (those of similar size) we compare badly with relatively tiny towns like Fargo, North Dakota (population 105,000) and Rapid City, South Dakota (68,000) and even truly tiny New Ulm, Minnesota (14,000). I visited all three last week and will post photos and more info in a few days.

These little cities are all vibrant and full of downtown residents and visitors. They have a couple of important things in common: they preserved their historic building stock and have lovely, well used public spaces that are heavily programmed.

[tufsu1]

so Miss Fixit...are you saying downtown has nothing worth marketing (to suburbanites, urbanites, or visitors)?

[Miss Fixit]

so Miss Fixit...are you saying downtown has nothing worth marketing (to suburbanites, urbanites, or visitors)?

Of course not.  I don't think anyone else posting on this thread has said that, either.  I simply agree with others that our priorities have long been mixed up when it comes to downtown - we have spent millions of dollars over the past ten years on the wrong initiatives.

[tufsu1]

I agree...nobody on the thread has said that...the JBJ editorial, however, did!

[tufsu1]

the absurdium argument was made by the JBJ, not me.

[Captain Zissou]

Tufsu, you've made your point, can we move on??

Maybe the JBJ is exaggerating, but most of the posters are contributing some valid points on this thread. Your attempts to call people downtown haters are just cluttering an otherwise good discussion.

I think a good takeaway for the city is that marketing a poor product wont change its fate. If we spend that money on helping small businesses downtown and improving the visitor experience, the marketing will take care of itself.  A day center for the homeless, relaxed regulations on signage and other impediments to small business owners, better programming of public spaces, removal of toxic parking policies, issuing RFP's for vacant city-owned land, and increased regulation and enforcement on surface parking lot owners would all do far more towards reviving downtown than the millions the city has wasted on marketing and removing gum from the sidewalks.

[ben says]

^ exactly!

[Tacachale]

I can't read the entire article, so I don't know what exactly it says, or even what it's really talking about specifically, but any initiative or development like this ought to include a reasonable budget for marketing. It should not be the "hot air" and obfuscation many here are talking about; good marketing is believable and tied to the reality of the product.

That said, as I don't know the specifics of this particular campaign I can't say if it's a good idea or what the price tag is. And clearly it can't replace fixing problems in the first place.

As an example, Orlando successfully markets its downtown to the community as a place to visit, live, and do business. Not long ago they were in no better a position than downtown Jacksonville, and their downtown faces mouse-eared obstacles much larger than what we've got to deal with.

[tufsu1]

Tufsu, you've made your point, can we move on??

Maybe the JBJ is exaggerating, but most of the posters are contributing some valid points on this thread. Your attempts to call people downtown haters are just cluttering an otherwise good discussion.

I think a good takeaway for the city is that marketing a poor product wont change its fate. If we spend that money on helping small businesses downtown and improving the visitor experience, the marketing will take care of itself.  A day center for the homeless, relaxed regulations on signage and other impediments to small business owners, better programming of public spaces, removal of toxic parking policies, issuing RFP's for vacant city-owned land, and increased regulation and enforcement on surface parking lot owners would all do far more towards reviving downtown than the millions the city has wasted on marketing and removing gum from the sidewalks.

I apologize if my comments have been interpreted that way.  I agree that there are many things we can do to make downtown better and that a marketing campaign isn't at the top of the list.  I am sorry if my initial post (or subsequent responses) on the subject did not make this clear.  That said, I still firmly believe the JBJ editorial was misguided in that it implied thereisn't anything downtown worth marketing.