Convention Center Wars

[Steve]

Looking at this from my layman's perspective, a big convention center seems a lot like a professional sports team. Great for the tourism brochure, expensive for the taxpayers. Why not simply work with Hyatt to build a real exhibit hall on the courtyard property? It seems like the most cost effective method.

I think Jacksonville has a lot to offer but it's not even a second tier city for meeting planners and no convention center will change that.

Here's my reason for wanting the convention center: It helps retail/restaurant businesses in the core, particularly early in the week. Most bars wouldn't have a problem filling the place Thursday/Friday/Saturday. The problem is the business has to pay rent every day of the week. Monday/Tuesday/Wednesday are popular days for business conventions....you know the ones where business travelers have an expense account and don't mind staying out late because the wife and kids are out of town and they don't REALLY have work the next day.

This is one of the biggest things boosting San Diego's Gaslamp District.

I believe we could easily add a no-frills exhibition hall to the Hyatt and accomplish this for a fraction of the costs and amount of minimal criteria for the convention center RFP.

No argument there. Stick the thing on the back of the Hyatt, leave room for ground level retail on Bay Street, and call it a day. If you take both blocks of the old Courthouse and City Hall, I bet you get 250k SqFt, which is kind of the magic number.

[Charles Hunter]

Taking down the Hart Ramps will remove the visual barrier between the stadium area, and Lot J, and the Metro Park/Shipyards/River area.  But, it will make the pedestrian barrier worse.  To handle traffic to/from the Hart Bridge, existing stadium area activities, and the proposed development in the area, Gator Bowl Boulevard will need six lanes for auto and truck traffic (remember, it is a critical link to Talleyrand, per the failed infrastructure grant proposal), plus a center left-turn lane, plus bike lanes (hopefully buffered).  It might be a State Road, as it will provide the link for SR 228 between downtown and the Hart Bridge.  It is possible it could qualify for 11 foot (instead of 12') lanes; so 7 times 11 is 77 feet. Buffered bike lanes are 7 feet wide, so add 14 feet = 91 feet.  The current GB Blvd. is five lanes, assuming 12' lanes, with no bike lanes = 60 feet. 

If there were no new development around the stadium/Met Park, 4 lanes might be enough. But with the intensity of development Khan is proposing, 6 travel lanes will be needed.

I purposely left out any benefit from JTA's autonomous shuttles.  I don't think they will be able to operate in mixed traffic for several years. So, if they are going to provide service, add 2 more lanes - another 16 feet (assuming they can operate in eight-foot lanes).

[thelakelander]

One positive of delay on this is the potential coordination of whatever JTA is planning along with what Curry and Khan may be dreaming up. Quite frankly, if the bridge is going to come down, the street level boulevard should not end up looking like a standard FDOT facility. The concept shown in the past looks pretty basic and not totally ideal for a C6 context classification, which is what the area would be if the stuff drawn on those renderings comes to fruition. IMO, the sidewalks should be much wider, bike facilities should be physically separated from travel lanes and transit should have dedicated lanes. With that said, you're right....the result is a much wider at-grade arterial roadway that increases the amount of conflict points between pedestrians and motorized traffic. Oh...and I still don't see what freight has to do with any of this. There's already a ramp to Talleyrand and it's not exactly swamped to max capacity.

[Charles Hunter]

Lake, I agree with you, and definitely on the wider sidewalks and a separated cycle track.  My comment about freight was somewhat facetious.  But, determining the truck percentage will be important in determining the potential lane widths.  If the percentages are low, it may be possible for at least some of the lanes to be 10'.  That sort of detail (truck %) should come out of the PD&E Study that should be done before any work is done.

[KenFSU]

Also....what is this "dumb bell" approach to revitalization?  If it's some concept of development in Brooklyn and the Sports District first and that spilling over into the downtown core, then that's one of the most craziest things I've heard. I can't think of one peer city that has successfully revitalized their downtown with such an approach.

Unfortunately, you are correct, Lake

Lamping and Curry both use the term, Lamping in particular starting at last year's State of the Franchise event.

The way it's positioned is that Brooklyn is one "end" of the dumbbell, the stadium district is the other "end," and by building a strong "weight" on each side, connectivity between them should naturally develop.

Lavilla is used as proof that the Brooklyn end is spurring linear growth down the "bar."

It's fully as silly as it seems.

[KenFSU]

One positive of delay on this is the potential coordination of whatever JTA is planning along with what Curry and Khan may be dreaming up. Quite frankly, if the bridge is going to come down, the street level boulevard should not end up looking like a standard FDOT facility. The concept shown in the past looks pretty basic and not totally ideal for a C6 context classification, which is what the area would be if the stuff drawn on those renderings comes to fruition. IMO, the sidewalks should be much wider, bike facilities should be physically separated from travel lanes and transit should have dedicated lanes. With that said, you're right....the result is a much wider at-grade arterial roadway that increases the amount of conflict points between pedestrians and motorized traffic. Oh...and I still don't see what freight has to do with any of this. There's already a ramp to Talleyrand and it's not exactly swamped to max capacity.

Here's what's being discussed:

[KenFSU]

P.S. Hmmm, the same week that the Courthouse convention center is put on hold, the city issues an RFQ for Hart Bridge Ramp Removal.

https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/the-cawton-report-city-takes-step-to-remove-hart-bridge-ramps-moratorium-on-internet-cafes

[thelakelander]

Also....what is this "dumb bell" approach to revitalization?  If it's some concept of development in Brooklyn and the Sports District first and that spilling over into the downtown core, then that's one of the most craziest things I've heard. I can't think of one peer city that has successfully revitalized their downtown with such an approach.

Unfortunately, you are correct, Lake

Lamping and Curry both use the term, Lamping in particular starting at last year's State of the Franchise event.

The way it's positioned is that Brooklyn is one "end" of the dumbbell, the stadium district is the other "end," and by building a strong "weight" on each side, connectivity between them should naturally develop.

Lavilla is used as proof that the Brooklyn end is spurring linear growth down the "bar."

It's fully as silly as it seems.

It sounds pretty self serving. It also ignores the dense amount of projects popping up between Main and Julia streets in the heart of the city. Vystar's purchase (after being recruited to TIAA Bank Field), Hotel Indigo, JEA's plans for a new headquarters, the Ambassador, Jones Brothers, 20 West Adams, Barnett, Trio, etc. The momentum is already there.

For a fraction of the costs being invested into these fringe projects, they could kick short-term Northbank redevelopment into overdrive by simply targeting a few key sites and working with existing office tower owners to revamp their structures at street level. If the politics were placed aside with the Landing, even that site could easily help anchor what's already taking place around it.

When you see what's playing out with the Landing/Lot J, JEA's recruitment, Vystar's failed recruitment, the CC location debate, etc. it seems like they're trying to take the natural momentum of activity already happening in the Northbank and tilt that market to the Shipyards. That's not a dumbell approach. That's robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Another problem with that type of strategy is that it places too much focus on big gimmick one-trick-pony type projects that don't align with the true market, as opposed to a more organic approach of investing less money and modifying restrictive policies to spur several smaller projects within a compact setting. For example, why only rezone the Shipyards? Perhaps zoning should be modified in the entire CBD to encourage redevelopment. Why is the sports district included as an Opportunity Zone but the Northbank is not?

[thelakelander]

Here's what's being discussed:

Btw, this looks like your typical arterial highway. Where are the mid block crossings or street grid that's been illustrated in Iguana's plans? Also, an expressway ramp at A. Philip Randolph means eastbound traffic will be coming at a pretty swift speed, increasing pedestrian safety issues between A. Philip Randolph and the Hart Bridge. Hopefully, some more work will be done. It would suck to spend $50 million to get Beach Boulevard as opposed to a true multimodal friendly street.

[acme54321]

Right, this looks just as bad as what's there today for pedestrians.   I imagine right now all they care about is getting those ramps down and this is the cheapest plan they could come up with.

[Kerry]

For the first time in my life - I am genuinely speechless.  The only thing keeping me from laughing out loud in frustration is knowing that none of this ever going to happen.

[downtownbrown]

ever the optimist!  But I agree.

[vicupstate]

This never was about improving the core. This has always been about improving the Sports district, primarily for the benefit of Khan.

That RPF for the courthouse was a ruse from the start. It was to take that site OFF THE TABLE as an option to LOT J.

PAY NO ATTENTION to the the man behind the curtain!!

[tufsu1]

Here's my reason for wanting the convention center: It helps retail/restaurant businesses in the core, particularly early in the week. Most bars wouldn't have a problem filling the place Thursday/Friday/Saturday. The problem is the business has to pay rent every day of the week.

exactly....this argument that there aren't enough dining and entertainment options downtown for a convention center is just stupid...of course there aren't...but does anyone think that those wouldn't open up if we actually started building a convention center. Its not like the center would open overnight...it would likely take 24+ months to build...plenty of time for the private market to step up. But right now they have no incentive.

[KenFSU]

Taken yesterday, via a Reddit user.

Seems appropriate.