Greyhound bus station sold for $2.78 million

[thelakelander]

You have 800 square miles of one city to build in; why WOULD you build downtown unless someone offered you a huge incentive?

Or...you have 800 square miles of one city to build in; why WOULD you build in the suburbs unless someone offered you a huge incentive?

Realistically speaking though, from a private standpoint, you build/invest where there's a market to make money. Doesn't really matter if a city is 1,000 square miles or ten. If you're developing for a profit, you could be based in Jax and developing in Seattle or in Chicago and developing in Jax.

I'm not arguing that consolidation has helped downtown Jacksonville. I'm saying not consolidating wouldn't have done anything for downtown either. Jax would just as likely be another Flint, Toledo, Youngstown or Macon. Basically a municipality abandoned by white and black flight, with all the growth and new tax base happening just outside of its borders.

[jaxnyc79]

You have 800 square miles of one city to build in; why WOULD you build downtown unless someone offered you a huge incentive?

Or...you have 800 square miles of one city to build in; why WOULD you build in the suburbs unless someone offered you a huge incentive?

Realistically speaking though, from a private standpoint, you build/invest where there's a market to make money. Doesn't really matter if a city is 1,000 square miles or ten. If you're developing for a profit, you could be based in Jax and developing in Seattle or in Chicago and developing in Jax.

I'm not arguing that consolidation has helped downtown Jacksonville. I'm saying not consolidating wouldn't have done anything for downtown either. Jax would just as likely be another Flint, Toledo, Youngstown or Macon. Basically a municipality abandoned by white and black flight, with all the growth and new tax base happening just outside of its borders.

Jax is 800 square miles of mostly suburbs and swamp.  I believe consolidation has hurt along with a host of other factors, in part because you have a council from all these far flung corners of the county, who are much more concerned with the rudimentary interests of those far-flung corners, than a compact clustering of programs and projects in the core city.  A council covering 800 square miles probably didn't spend the time to study and reject/redirect all those ill-advised downtown projects that have put the downtown CRA in the red.  And I'd probably want to evaluate whether consolidation has hurt a multitude of other cities around the U.S.  Many downtowns are resurging by overcoming the roadblocks of consolidation.  I'd also argue that not every consolidation is the same.  Consolidating otherwise urban areas (or dense, walkable suburbs) is one thing...Jax consolidation included vast stretches of nothingness, farms, trailer parks, and rural residential, along with zoning policies and transportation programs that said, "sprawl everywhere young men and women." 

[thelakelander]

I think for a true evaluation, you'll need to look outside of consolidation and into cities that have annexed hundreds of miles since 1950 as well. Nearly all cities saw their urban cores fall into decline between the 1950s and 1980s. The reasons are pretty much the same.....white flight, black flight, poor public school systems, subsidizing suburban growth, racism, decline in manufacturing, etc. Since then, some have been more successful than others in bringing life back to their center cities. The most successful, are generally those with consistent goals and leadership. Then there are a few exceptions due to once-in-a-generation events, etc. Nevertheless, even today the overall the urban growth patterns for American cities are pretty consistent across the US, with scale playing a major role in how we perceive them.

[TimmyB]

You have 800 square miles of one city to build in; why WOULD you build downtown unless someone offered you a huge incentive?

Or...you have 800 square miles of one city to build in; why WOULD you build in the suburbs unless someone offered you a huge incentive?

Realistically speaking though, from a private standpoint, you build/invest where there's a market to make money. Doesn't really matter if a city is 1,000 square miles or ten. If you're developing for a profit, you could be based in Jax and developing in Seattle or in Chicago and developing in Jax.

I'm not arguing that consolidation has helped downtown Jacksonville. I'm saying not consolidating wouldn't have done anything for downtown either. Jax would just as likely be another Flint, Toledo, Youngstown or Macon. Basically a municipality abandoned by white and black flight, with all the growth and new tax base happening just outside of its borders.

Flint???  They had ONE major industry (autos) and ONE major company HQ (Buick).  When GM gave their middle finger to Flint and pulled the plug on the Buick HQ, the town died.  It was the 2nd biggest city in Michigan.  Now, it's 7th or 8th, and falling.  Jacksonville in their worst nightmare wouldn't have approached that, consolidation or not.

Either way, we both (all) want the best for our downtown.  I still believe firmly that it's going to take a local big-money person to get involved to really make things happen, and as of yet, I've not seen one.  I've seen people with great vision, but no money.  I've heard of people with great money, but no vision.  I've seen a person with both, but he's not local.  If he were to die tomorrow, would any of his family be here to carry on his vision?  Hardly.  I was really hoping this "end of the year" announcement would be here, but as seems to be the case around here, over-promise, then under-deliver.

[thelakelander]

Flint???  They had ONE major industry (autos) and ONE major company HQ (Buick).  When GM gave their middle finger to Flint and pulled the plug on the Buick HQ, the town died.  It was the 2nd biggest city in Michigan.  Now, it's 7th or 8th, and falling.  Jacksonville in their worst nightmare wouldn't have approached that, consolidation or not.

The funny thing is that their declines are pretty similar when you strip the suburban areas away. Jax was 30.2 square miles before consolidation and Flint was and still remains 33.4 square miles of land area.

https://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2011-mar-census-2010-urban-jacksonville-in-decline

Preconsolidated Jax maxed out with a population of 204,517 residents in 1950. It slightly declined to 201,030 in 1960. According to the Census, despite the city consolidating a few years later, the exact land area of the preconsolidated city had declined to 104,047 by 2010. That's a loss of 100,470 between 1950 and 2010 and 96,983 between 1960 and 2010. Flint's population maxed out at 196,940 in 1960. In 2010 it had fallen to 102,434. A loss of 94,506.

Old Jax also took a hard economic blow with the consolidation of the insurance and banking industry in the 1980s and 1990s. Virtually, all of its major companies headquartered in the old city were lost, leaving a downtown skyline virtually unchanged since the completion of the former Barnett Bank tower (now BOA) in the mid-1990s and a ton of vacant office space to back fill.  During the 20th Century, Jax went from being Florida's largest metro area to a distant 4th behind Miami, Tampa and Orlando.


https://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2015-aug-seven-decisions-that-killed-downtown/page/

The major difference between the two is Jax is a sunbelt city that has had a ton of suburban growth surrounding the old city during the course of this time and Flint has not. Nevertheless, back before the days of sprawl, they were legit peer cities of similar size and scale. So we literally have a Flint in the center of our city surrounded by robust suburbs. Sort of what Detroit is now and what DT Detroit was before Dan Gilbert took interest in it.

Either way, we both (all) want the best for our downtown.  I still believe firmly that it's going to take a local big-money person to get involved to really make things happen, and as of yet, I've not seen one.  I've seen people with great vision, but no money.  I've heard of people with great money, but no vision.  I've seen a person with both, but he's not local.  If he were to die tomorrow, would any of his family be here to carry on his vision?  Hardly.  I was really hoping this "end of the year" announcement would be here, but as seems to be the case around here, over-promise, then under-deliver.

If a person wants to step forward and spend their money to make Jax great....then great. However, we're likely doomed if that's what we pin our hopes for. That's simply not a reality for most cities in the country. In the past, downtown's economy was largely driven by the growth of several corporate headquaters that no longer exist. That model is being played out in Uptown Charlotte right now. However, the models employed by cities like Charleston and even Lakeland can work when there is no big money sugar daddy. They focus on establishing a plan of what you want to be and sticking with it through years of incremental implementation. That's a model that Jax has never attempted to do either. In the end, there's room for all but we have to start somewhere. Some positives have been made in recent years, so hopefully we're already in the process.

[TimmyB]

If that orange in the map is the "old" Jacksonville, I admit, I am shocked!  I thought/assumed it was MUCH bigger than that, pre-consolidation.  Am I misinterpreting that map?  Probably because of what you noted about the sprawl.  You get two miles outside of Flint, you are back into cornfields on I-69 and I-75!  Jacksonville, even beyond that orange section was already far more developed back then.  I just believed that most of what is inside the 295 ring would have been Jacksonville, proper.

[thelakelander]

Yes, the orange area illustrates the boundaries of Jacksonville prior to consolidation.

[thelakelander]

Here's the census numbers for Duval and Genesee Counties since 1900. Prior to WWII, Genesee was slightly larger. The investment of WWII military installments in the 1940s pushed Duval past Genesee for good.

Despite Old Jax declining just as much as Flint since then, Duval has three times as much people as it did in 1950. I'm not too familar with Flint but looking at its stagnantion and decline, I suspect the significant hit with the auto industry started in the late 1970s and continued into the 1980s.

Since then, it hasn't recovered. On the other hand, like the rest of the sunbelt, Duval has continued to grow and economically diversify and now it's light years ahead.

762 Square Miles - Duval
637 Square Miles - Genesee


39,733 - 1900 Duval
41,804 - 1900 Genesee


75,163 - 1910 Duval
64,555 - 1910 Genesee


113,540 - 1920 Duval
125,668 - 1920 Genesee


155,503 - 1930 Duval
211,641 - 1930 Genesee


210,143 - 1940 Duval
227,944 - 1940 Genesee


304,029 - 1950 Duval
270,963 - 1950 Genesee


455,411 - 1960 Duval
374,313 - 1960 Genesee


528,865 - 1970 Duval
444,341 - 1970 Genesee


571,003 - 1980 Duval
450,449 - 1980 Genesee

672,971 - 1990 Duval
430,459 - 1990 Genesee


778,879 - 2000 Duval
436,141 - 2000 Genesee


864,263 - 2010 Duval
425,790 - 2010 Genesee


926,255 - 2016 Duval
408,615 - 2016 Genesee

[TimmyB]

GM used to have their division HQs in various cities, semi-autonomous from world HQ.  When they brought all of those in-house (98 for Buick, I believe), it was the final nail in the coffin.  GM had a market share of around 45% in the 70's and 80's.  Then, they started making decisions based on bean counters, not cars.  The decisions they made devastated cities all over the midwest, but especially in Michigan.  Flint, Saginaw, GR, Kalamazoo, etc. all got clobbered by these decisions.  Buick City in Flint had over 35,000 jobs cut.  Of course, their market share is around 17% these days.  Hard to imagine.

As you mentioned, there was great diversity in Jax AND the fact that they were in the sun belt.  Not happening in Flint.   That town is gone and just like the downtown area we are discussing in Jacksonville, WHY would anyone build there?  There has to be a market for it, first.

[jaxjags]

I think for a true evaluation, you'll need to look outside of consolidation and into cities that have annexed hundreds of miles since 1950 as well. Nearly all cities saw their urban cores fall into decline between the 1950s and 1980s. The reasons are pretty much the same.....white flight, black flight, poor public school systems, subsidizing suburban growth, racism, decline in manufacturing, etc. Since then, some have been more successful than others in bringing life back to their center cities. The most successful, are generally those with consistent goals and leadership. Then there are a few exceptions due to once-in-a-generation events, etc. Nevertheless, even today the overall the urban growth patterns for American cities are pretty consistent across the US, with scale playing a major role in how we perceive them.

Columbus OH is a good example of annexation. Although not a consolidated gov, they have surrounded the old suburbs and country towns with annexation. They too have seen an explosion in the suburbs of new growth and the immediate urban core is ok but only "vibrant" due to the presence of the state government. I still have relatives their and they never talk about going DT, but do praise and visit the Short North area(OSU driven).

[thelakelander]

GM used to have their division HQs in various cities, semi-autonomous from world HQ.  When they brought all of those in-house (98 for Buick, I believe), it was the final nail in the coffin.  GM had a market share of around 45% in the 70's and 80's.  Then, they started making decisions based on bean counters, not cars.  The decisions they made devastated cities all over the midwest, but especially in Michigan.  Flint, Saginaw, GR, Kalamazoo, etc. all got clobbered by these decisions.  Buick City in Flint had over 35,000 jobs cut.  Of course, their market share is around 17% these days.  Hard to imagine.

As you mentioned, there was great diversity in Jax AND the fact that they were in the sun belt.  Not happening in Flint.   That town is gone and just like the downtown area we are discussing in Jacksonville, WHY would anyone build there?  There has to be a market for it, first.

On the good side of things, in Jax there is a market and interest in downtown. Evidence of this is indicated in the limited supply of available downtown housing, the number of proposed projects and the recent openings of several restaurants. In the surrounding neighborhoods, this is visually illustrated with the amount of housing infill and restorations taking place. The challenge here is when it comes to downtown, what the local market is willing to pay in terms of rent is lower than the cost it would take to build new or restore. Eliminating that funding gap is where the need for incentives (ex. Laura Trio/Barnett, Cowford Chophouse, Lofts at LaVilla, etc.) makes sense. For new construction, the city could do the same by offering up land it owns at a reduced rate. To my knowledge, this hasn't occurred at this point. Target these types of deals adjacent to major public/medical projects in the works (ex. JRTC, JEA Headquarters, Baptist Health, etc.) and Jax will be fine.

[thelakelander]

I think for a true evaluation, you'll need to look outside of consolidation and into cities that have annexed hundreds of miles since 1950 as well. Nearly all cities saw their urban cores fall into decline between the 1950s and 1980s. The reasons are pretty much the same.....white flight, black flight, poor public school systems, subsidizing suburban growth, racism, decline in manufacturing, etc. Since then, some have been more successful than others in bringing life back to their center cities. The most successful, are generally those with consistent goals and leadership. Then there are a few exceptions due to once-in-a-generation events, etc. Nevertheless, even today the overall the urban growth patterns for American cities are pretty consistent across the US, with scale playing a major role in how we perceive them.

Columbus OH is a good example of annexation. Although not a consolidated gov, they have surrounded the old suburbs and country towns with annexation. They too have seen an explosion in the suburbs of new growth and the immediate urban core is ok but only "vibrant" due to the presence of the state government. I still have relatives their and they never talk about going DT, but do praise and visit the Short North area(OSU driven).

Columbus is a great example. It's a Midwestern city with late 20th century Sunbelt growth tendencies. The last time I went, the DT wasn't exactly bustling but revitalization was taking place. On the other hand, Short North and the area around OSU was booming.

[TimmyB]

I think for a true evaluation, you'll need to look outside of consolidation and into cities that have annexed hundreds of miles since 1950 as well. Nearly all cities saw their urban cores fall into decline between the 1950s and 1980s. The reasons are pretty much the same.....white flight, black flight, poor public school systems, subsidizing suburban growth, racism, decline in manufacturing, etc. Since then, some have been more successful than others in bringing life back to their center cities. The most successful, are generally those with consistent goals and leadership. Then there are a few exceptions due to once-in-a-generation events, etc. Nevertheless, even today the overall the urban growth patterns for American cities are pretty consistent across the US, with scale playing a major role in how we perceive them.

Columbus OH is a good example of annexation. Although not a consolidated gov, they have surrounded the old suburbs and country towns with annexation. They too have seen an explosion in the suburbs of new growth and the immediate urban core is ok but only "vibrant" due to the presence of the state government. I still have relatives their and they never talk about going DT, but do praise and visit the Short North area(OSU driven).

Columbus is a great example. It's a Midwestern city with late 20th century Sunbelt growth tendencies. The last time I went, the DT was exactly bustling but revitalization was taking place. On the other hand, Short North and the area around OSU was booming.

Oh, God, if we could pick up Columbus and move it to the beach!  What a great town.  All that energy and (for us) we could ride our bikes from north of OSU all the way to downtown as safely as you can imagine, and then, there were tons of safe cycling options down there, as well.  Riverfront parks, designated (and safe) bike lanes, etc.  And, I can only speak anecdotally here, but the DT seemed much more vibrant than ours does, but when you are only there for a couple of days, you don't have any real data to back that up.

[thelakelander]

I've only been through Columbus two or three times over the last decade. The downtown was more lively than Jax's but not anything I'd call vibrant. What I really loved about it though was the compactness, the parks and a lot of the new redevelopment projects, like the park on the former shopping mall site. I really loved the connectivity with Short North. You cross over highways and don't even realize it from the street. There's a lot of urban lessons Jax can learn from Columbus, IMO.

[jaxrox]

Hmmm.. in the name of K.i.S.S., my thoughts here:
The best use to repurpose the Greyhound building imho, a combination pharmacy/small grocery/little lunch counter type restaurant setup, and keep the videogames for a small arcade. I don't think we need more apartments or condos downtown, there's a lot of that already. 4 small businesses like that put into that spot could be really beneficial for the downtown, (plus possible opportunities for some smaller scale business people to get their big break in the thirsty downtown market?) but I know, I know, opinions are like @**h0**$
On a side note, I'm originally from a smaller midwestern city that once had a lot of GM business going on there. I basically watched my hometown wither, languish, and die. The very strip of that highway (sr9) that once held the General Motors plants is now masses of car sales lots, ironically.
Jacksonville has a lot of potential. I guess to sum it up, redevelopment just has to be done right for it to succeed. And the city made many mistakes in that department for years already. I hope they can get it right, but I'm not convinced that they have or will, just yet
Cheers to the new year and a better Jacksonville!