Times Union Editorial - Downtown: A picture of progress

[bl8jaxnative]

   Once you get 10k people living within a mile of the CBD, the retail, hotel, convention center, and "vibrancy" will take care of itself.



That's an odd idea considering most every major American city post WWII had downtown populations multiples higher than that and yet their downtown fell apart and died.

[Steve]

Jacksonville's did not, but I think I understand what you're saying, even if I don't agree. You can't compare what happened in the 1950s to every urban area in America to what has been proven to work in almost all downtowns in America now.

[Tacachale]

I don't think we need to pay for a study but it would reveal this:

1. there is not enough residential downtown,

There is more people living in "downtown" now than it was in 1950.

2. the population of the city is geographically more spread out than just about any other city,

There's actually still some decent dense pockets within a three to four mile radius of DT. That residential population base is likely in the range of 100k to 75k residents (more than enough to build upon)

and 3. our city's "vibrancy" is divided among downtown, the urban neighborhoods, the beaches, "the jewel of the Southside," etc.

Which is exactly the same in every major metropolitan area across the country.

Once you get 10k people living within a mile of the CBD, the retail, hotel, convention center, and "vibrancy" will take care of itself.

10k being a magic number is also a false one. That number is totally dependent on how the environment is designed and how dense it is. 10k spread out between the Northbank, Southbank, Sports District, LaVilla and Brooklyn won't end up creating the scene everyone expects with that number. 10k in each of those districts would. What's more important is clustering enough density and mix of uses within a compact, pedestrian scale setting. This is the one thing that Jacksonville has continued to fail to prioritize with its various downtown revitalization strategies. Instead, we've found ways to spend big money to de-densify and expect different results. That is the definition of madness.

Redevelopment isn't difficult. Especially when there's a market clearly identifying itself (multi-family residential, hotels, etc.). Find ways to make it easier for these projects to happen and target the pedestrian hostile gaps between them. Pile as much complimenting activity into a compact pedestrian scale area as possible and you'll see synergy created between the uses that will lead to market rate retail, entertainment and dining opportunities.

I would agree with what thelakelander has said - not sure why everyone is obsessed with the 10K residents number.  Frankly, if downtown would spend some money helping businesses open up to street frontage and reduce or eliminate dead space, downtown would be immensely more inviting and might start to feel vibrant even when falling short of the 10K figure.  By the way, I hope getting a ton of big box chain stores downtown isn't the sign that downtown has "arrived." 

The study I referenced wasn't necessarily about the current state versus target state of downtown - it was more a study of how vulnerable Jax is to falling behind lifestyle trends, and why the city fails to timely execute on so many of its past studies.  Then again, if studies merely exist for Jax to ignore, then perhaps there's little to no more cause for any sort of study, no matter how well-intentioned.  Turns out, Jax ignores RFPs as well - so I suppose entirely new tacts will have to be discovered.

I do believe Downtown has some momentum - and I believe Riverside/Five Points, Brooklyn, San Marco (East and West), Springfield, and perhaps even St. Nicholas have the potential to be very nice complements to a rising CBD.  I'm in Charlotte now and the number of projects here throughout the core city is a large multiple of that which is happening in Jax - but Jax does have this really compelling and signature river, and if only it could find some way to deliver that asset to throngs of people every single day, downtown would be right where it should be.

The 10k number is something that's kind of morphed over time. Originally when it was thought up, it meant 10k within the core area of Downtown - not including the Southbank, Brooklyn, Stadium District, etc. The thinking is that that number would be enough to support many of the things we want to see downtown (retail, entertainment, etc.) That number of people within a compact, walkable area would certainly make downtown pretty bustling.

Today some treat it as if 10k people across the entire official Downtown business district - including the Southbank, Brooklyn, Stadium District - would be some kind of magic bullet. It would certainly help - there are about 4k people across the area today, and things are much healthier than they were in the 80s and 90s when there was practically no one - it wouldn't do the same for Downtown as it would if those people were clustered within a walkable area. That's a problem when we're considering how best to spend money on Downtown. The smaller projects that cost a lot less incentive money are really having a bigger impact on the Downtown core's vibrancy than the prospective developments on the fringes.

[Tacachale]

   Once you get 10k people living within a mile of the CBD, the retail, hotel, convention center, and "vibrancy" will take care of itself.



That's an odd idea considering most every major American city post WWII had downtown populations multiples higher than that and yet their downtown fell apart and died.

Jacksonville's did not, but I think I understand what you're saying, even if I don't agree. You can't compare what happened in the 1950s to every urban area in America to what has been proven to work in almost all downtowns in America now.

Not a viable comparison. Downtowns that formerly had 20k people might collapse when the number dropped to 10k. Especially with the other factors like the tax base moving to the burbs, surrounding neighborhoods also collapsing, etc. In Jax, historically few people lived in the Downtown core, but many lived in the adjacent neighborhoods and Downtown was the commercial center. As people and commerce left Downtown it declined even though the Downtown population didn't change much.