Florida's Major Downtowns: How Does Jax Compare?

[thelakelander]

A meaningful indicator of demand health is market rate projects moving forward with no or little public subsidies. Regarding downtown, there are more examples of this taking place within the multifamily residential and leisure sectors now than at anytime since consolidation. There are a number of reasons how we hurt this from naturally taking place during the last real estate boom and why we're late to the table now. However, it's best to facilitate as much of this market rate economic growth as possible before the next recession is upon us. Unfortunately, we tend to focus more on the big gimmick projects with 15 to 20 year buildouts (assuming there's no recession...which is unrealistic) that likely won't come to fruition as illustrated in the renderings needed to build support for their subsidization.

Why is downtown Jax a better option for the professional 30-something with discretionary income versus Gate Parkway?  Let's keep answering that question and investing in additional reasons.

I'm not sure Gate Parkway has anything to do with downtown's health. Why should someone who works in that area stay downtown and commute as opposed to living nearby? These markets are more mutually exclusive than we think they are. How can a sprawler like Orlando have twenty Gate Parkways and still manage to breathe walkable vibrancy into its downtown? Scale and targeted concentration of complementing adaptive reuse and infill development has a big part to do with it.

I'd actually love to see more densification and walkable infill development along the JTB corridor. When JTA and the Mayors Office talk about the JRTC and Shipyards serving as a "barbell economic development approach to downtown", the "barbells" should be linking denser census tracts of the city with reliable transit and supportive landuse. Being in the middle, downtown will benefit by default and the added accessibility will open up market rate opportunities to additional areas along the path. The South End in Charlotte, which you are pretty familiar with now, is a great recent example of this. What's happening to Midtown Houston along their Red Line between DT and Texas Medical Center is another.

[jaxnyc79]

A meaningful indicator of demand health is market rate projects moving forward with no or little public subsidies. Regarding downtown, there are more examples of this taking place within the multifamily residential and leisure sectors now than at anytime since consolidation. There are a number of reasons how we hurt this from naturally taking place during the last real estate boom and why we're late to the table now. However, it's best to facilitate as much of this market rate economic growth as possible before the next recession is upon us. Unfortunately, we tend to focus more on the big gimmick projects with 15 to 20 year buildouts (assuming there's no recession...which is unrealistic) that likely won't come to fruition as illustrated in the renderings needed to build support for their subsidization.

Why is downtown Jax a better option for the professional 30-something with discretionary income versus Gate Parkway?  Let's keep answering that question and investing in additional reasons.

I'm not sure Gate Parkway has anything to do with downtown's health. Why should someone who works in that area stay downtown and commute as opposed to living nearby? These markets are more mutually exclusive than we think they are. How can a sprawler like Orlando have twenty Gate Parkways and still manage to breathe walkable vibrancy into its downtown? Scale and targeted concentration of complementing adaptive reuse and infill development has a big part to do with it.

I'd actually love to see more densification and walkable infill development along the JTB corridor. When JTA and the Mayors Office talk about the JRTC and Shipyards serving as a "barbell economic development approach to downtown", the "barbells" should be linking denser census tracts of the city with reliable transit and supportive landuse. Being in the middle, downtown will benefit by default and the added accessibility will open up market rate opportunities to additional areas along the path. The South End in Charlotte, which you are pretty familiar with now, is a great recent example of this. What's happening to Midtown Houston along their Red Line between DT and Texas Medical Center is another.

I know you disagree, but I believe communities have exploited opportunities to draw professionals away from dense, multi-family suburbia to emerging downtown and urban districts.  That's how Gate is relevant.  When the next DB comes to town, and is considering where to locate office space, a very real and significant factor will be where its talent pipeline either lives or will want to live in close proximity to the office.  Plenty of companies are relocating to mixed-use "urban" environments to appeal to a young and fresh talent pipeline.  In that sense, there is a competition between a downtown and an ex-urb.  I'd take the competition even more seriously if I'm spending taxpayer dollars on downtown - if city government keeps skin in the game on new developments and wants an accelerated return on investment, I'd try to competitively position my investments as much as possible.

[jaxnyc79]

A meaningful indicator of demand health is market rate projects moving forward with no or little public subsidies. Regarding downtown, there are more examples of this taking place within the multifamily residential and leisure sectors now than at anytime since consolidation. There are a number of reasons how we hurt this from naturally taking place during the last real estate boom and why we're late to the table now. However, it's best to facilitate as much of this market rate economic growth as possible before the next recession is upon us. Unfortunately, we tend to focus more on the big gimmick projects with 15 to 20 year buildouts (assuming there's no recession...which is unrealistic) that likely won't come to fruition as illustrated in the renderings needed to build support for their subsidization.

Why is downtown Jax a better option for the professional 30-something with discretionary income versus Gate Parkway?  Let's keep answering that question and investing in additional reasons.

I'm not sure Gate Parkway has anything to do with downtown's health. Why should someone who works in that area stay downtown and commute as opposed to living nearby? These markets are more mutually exclusive than we think they are. How can a sprawler like Orlando have twenty Gate Parkways and still manage to breathe walkable vibrancy into its downtown? Scale and targeted concentration of complementing adaptive reuse and infill development has a big part to do with it.

I'd actually love to see more densification and walkable infill development along the JTB corridor. When JTA and the Mayors Office talk about the JRTC and Shipyards serving as a "barbell economic development approach to downtown", the "barbells" should be linking denser census tracts of the city with reliable transit and supportive landuse. Being in the middle, downtown will benefit by default and the added accessibility will open up market rate opportunities to additional areas along the path. The South End in Charlotte, which you are pretty familiar with now, is a great recent example of this. What's happening to Midtown Houston along their Red Line between DT and Texas Medical Center is another.

South end is far closer to Charlotte's CBD than JTB is to the Jax CBD - although it depends on what JTB you're referring to.  JTB is not really a district to me - it spans from roughly I-95 to the Beach.  Are you looking to turn the entire stretch into walkable, mixed-use, infill?  I think the city has its hands more than full downtown.

[heights unknown]

Y'all are answering the question in a more complicated manner in my opinion. Based on the info provided, that is comparison, statistics provided etc., Jax, though larger in size than all of the major Florida City downtowns, in my opinion does not measure up, stack up, or adequately compare. Fewer residents, workers, hotels, bars, etc., speaks volumes of our "falling very short," compared to the other Florida major city downtowns. Don't get me wrong...I love me some Jax, love our skyline, love our downtown, and we are light years better and ahead than a decade ago. But as I've said many times, not only our skyline, but our downtown is just not indicative of a City of close to 1 million people. No, buildings do not make a city, nor the size and prosperity of a downtown, it's the people as we all know. And the people, namely the leaders of Jax need to pull together to help us look, act, and be the 1 million or so people City that we soon will be, and are fastly and close to becoming.

It's not a matter of how much investment. It's a matter of how compact said investment is. All of these other areas you're comparing have more compact investment over the last 30 years. They have pedestrian scale synergy created from those compact investments that we don't. Moving forward, our challenge isn't getting investment to take place in the urban core. It's finding ways from multiple angles to make those investments take place in a more, compact and pedestrian friendly manner.

Well said Lake and I agree. But City planners, leaders, and all others involved that get paid the big bucks to coup in that investment so to speak, and to help our urban core and downtown prosper, need to snap to it and let's get the ball rolling and "git er done!" I clearly understand what you're saying; however, we are not Miami, Orlando, etc., no compact investment here; so then, come up with something that will fit the bill for our "non compact" urban core and downtown to help it to succeed,  prosper, and be vital and viable for our citizens and visitors alike.

[Steve]

I know you disagree, but I believe communities have exploited opportunities to draw professionals away from dense, multi-family suburbia to emerging downtown and urban districts.  That's how Gate is relevant.  When the next DB comes to town, and is considering where to locate office space, a very real and significant factor will be where its talent pipeline either lives or will want to live in close proximity to the office.  Plenty of companies are relocating to mixed-use "urban" environments to appeal to a young and fresh talent pipeline.  In that sense, there is a competition between a downtown and an ex-urb.  I'd take the competition even more seriously if I'm spending taxpayer dollars on downtown - if city government keeps skin in the game on new developments and wants an accelerated return on investment, I'd try to competitively position my investments as much as possible.

The money spent on downtown revitalization is really pennies in the scheme of things compared to giant highway projects needed to keep up with suburban demand.

There certainly is competition between downtown and any thriving suburb - and competition is a good thing. But, even in a great downtown, the downtown isn't going to win every corporate relocation. Likewise, even in a downtown that isn't great they'll win a few from the suburbs (VyStar's relocation is an example).

I listened to an urban planner once say, "1/3 of the people will generally pick to live in an urban area, 1/3 will pick to live in the suburb, and 1/3 of the people will pick whichever one suits them best". I think that's largely true; the problem is we're losing that last 1/3 in many cases (though Riverside helps sway that number, and I think San Marco is going to start winning a lot as more housing comes online. As the neighborhoods around downtown densify, I think it will paint a much better picture for companies relocating here to choose downtown. Even if downtown isn't there yet, the neighborhoods around there can help sway that conversation.

But, there will always be a percentage of people (or companies) that will almost always choose the suburbs.

Now, I do think the occupancy number is legit. Assuming Vista Brooklyn does happen (signs are certainly pointing up since they bought the property and filed a permit) I think how quickly that fills up is going to show demand. I predict they'll do really well there, especially if the retail they land is solid (though you can look at 220 to show that even if the retail isn't there people will still rent).

[thelakelander]

I know you disagree, but I believe communities have exploited opportunities to draw professionals away from dense, multi-family suburbia to emerging downtown and urban districts.  That's how Gate is relevant.

I don't disagree that suburbs all across the country are subsidized at the expense of their historic urban cores, including Gate. There's no Gate Parkway or SJTC without the public spending billions on highways like JTB, I-295, Southside Boulevard, etc. to open up cheap land to new development opportunities. However, this isn't unique to Jacksonville. Thus, Jax should not use the emergence of the JTB corridor as an excuse for its downtown looking the way it does. There's a Gate in every large and mid-sized city across the country. Yet, thousands have still been able to be successful in bringing their downtowns back to life in considerably less time. Scale, density and clustering are a few important things that play a role in the shorter revitalization process.

[jaxnyc79]

I know you disagree, but I believe communities have exploited opportunities to draw professionals away from dense, multi-family suburbia to emerging downtown and urban districts.  That's how Gate is relevant.  When the next DB comes to town, and is considering where to locate office space, a very real and significant factor will be where its talent pipeline either lives or will want to live in close proximity to the office.  Plenty of companies are relocating to mixed-use "urban" environments to appeal to a young and fresh talent pipeline.  In that sense, there is a competition between a downtown and an ex-urb.  I'd take the competition even more seriously if I'm spending taxpayer dollars on downtown - if city government keeps skin in the game on new developments and wants an accelerated return on investment, I'd try to competitively position my investments as much as possible.

The money spent on downtown revitalization is really pennies in the scheme of things compared to giant highway projects needed to keep up with suburban demand.

There certainly is competition between downtown and any thriving suburb - and competition is a good thing. But, even in a great downtown, the downtown isn't going to win every corporate relocation. Likewise, even in a downtown that isn't great they'll win a few from the suburbs (VyStar's relocation is an example).

I listened to an urban planner once say, "1/3 of the people will generally pick to live in an urban area, 1/3 will pick to live in the suburb, and 1/3 of the people will pick whichever one suits them best". I think that's largely true; the problem is we're losing that last 1/3 in many cases (though Riverside helps sway that number, and I think San Marco is going to start winning a lot as more housing comes online. As the neighborhoods around downtown densify, I think it will paint a much better picture for companies relocating here to choose downtown. Even if downtown isn't there yet, the neighborhoods around there can help sway that conversation.

But, there will always be a percentage of people (or companies) that will almost always choose the suburbs.

Now, I do think the occupancy number is legit. Assuming Vista Brooklyn does happen (signs are certainly pointing up since they bought the property and filed a permit) I think how quickly that fills up is going to show demand. I predict they'll do really well there, especially if the retail they land is solid (though you can look at 220 to show that even if the retail isn't there people will still rent).

Understand your point, but if you subscribe to this "one-third convention," then there's a horrible imbalance to Gate Parkway, making it all the more pertinent to build the case to some of those Gate Parkway transplants as to why they should strongly consider Downtown.  And yes, the case is tough (or perhaps impossible) to make at the moment, but that's why I'm advocating for investment in demand stimulation, whether through re-branding, or other means.  Yes there are people who live downtown, but identify your target market currently not downtown but potentially could be downtown and start to position your downtown accordingly - perhaps through newly-constructed engagements/enticements/amusements and through the right narrative.  Yes, I've heard the argument that government road projects are just as much a subsidy of suburban construction as incentives packages downtown.  Not sure I quite buy that.  In a place like Jax, where infrastructure has often lagged suburban development, the demand is already there and exercised before the city and state play catch-up with roads and drainage and other projects.  If the government investments are ex-post, is it really the same thing as what happens downtown[/quote]

[thelakelander]

Well said Lake and I agree. But City planners, leaders, and all others involved that get paid the big bucks to coup in that investment so to speak, and to help our urban core and downtown prosper, need to snap to it and let's get the ball rolling and "git er done!" I clearly understand what you're saying; however, we are not Miami, Orlando, etc., no compact investment here; so then, come up with something that will fit the bill for our "non compact" urban core and downtown to help it to succeed,  prosper, and be vital and viable for our citizens and visitors alike.

Physically and historically, we're compact......if we're talking about the actual historic downtown core (Northbank between Broad and Liberty). Building upon that can create a quick turnaround at the pedestrian scale, leading to additional growth opportunities. In recent decades, we have not, we aren't now and likely won't be during Curry's second term. So for the next few years, it is what it is and realistic expectations of what the downtown will be in....say....in 2023...should be tempered.

The DIA hopes what they call the CBD (Northbank + Brooklyn + LaVilla + Southbank) will have +13k residents by 2025. That breaks down to around 3,500 residents per square mile.  In comparison, both Downtown Orlando and Uptown Charlotte were a little over 6,800 residents per square mile in 2010, according to the US census.  So, if we're lucky and the Shipyards and District are built-out as proposed, in 2025, unless we have something else up our sleeve, we'll be half as vibrant as what Downtown Orlando and Uptown Charlotte were eight years ago.

[jaxnyc79]

I know you disagree, but I believe communities have exploited opportunities to draw professionals away from dense, multi-family suburbia to emerging downtown and urban districts.  That's how Gate is relevant.

I don't disagree that suburbs all across the country are subsidized at the expense of their historic urban cores, including Gate. There's no Gate Parkway or SJTC without the public spending billions on highways like JTB, I-295, Southside Boulevard, etc. to open up cheap land to new development opportunities. However, this isn't unique to Jacksonville. Thus, Jax should not use the emergence of the JTB corridor as an excuse for its downtown looking the way it does. There's a Gate in every large and mid-sized city across the country. Yet, thousands have still been able to be successful in bringing their downtowns back to life in considerably less time. Scale, density and clustering are a few important things that play a role in the shorter revitalization process.

Kernan and Loretto and many other parts of Jax happened well before the roads caught up.  Once those taxpayers were living in those areas en masse, the city and state sort of had to invest in auto-centric infrastructure there because those people work and pay taxes and the politicians had to be responsive to that constituency.  When you approved developments there, you sort of had to eventually add infrastructure, even if you were slow to do it (which, in fact, Jax was).  Is it possible that Jax could have forced infill in and around the core a long time ago with strict Land Use Requirements?  But then again, it would have raised some thorny property rights concerns?  So instead of strict Land Use Planning at the outset, we've decided to spend money making downtown appealing, but also spend money fulfilling our obligations to taxpaying occupants of the periphery.   

[thelakelander]

A meaningful indicator of demand health is market rate projects moving forward with no or little public subsidies. Regarding downtown, there are more examples of this taking place within the multifamily residential and leisure sectors now than at anytime since consolidation. There are a number of reasons how we hurt this from naturally taking place during the last real estate boom and why we're late to the table now. However, it's best to facilitate as much of this market rate economic growth as possible before the next recession is upon us. Unfortunately, we tend to focus more on the big gimmick projects with 15 to 20 year buildouts (assuming there's no recession...which is unrealistic) that likely won't come to fruition as illustrated in the renderings needed to build support for their subsidization.

Why is downtown Jax a better option for the professional 30-something with discretionary income versus Gate Parkway?  Let's keep answering that question and investing in additional reasons.

I'm not sure Gate Parkway has anything to do with downtown's health. Why should someone who works in that area stay downtown and commute as opposed to living nearby? These markets are more mutually exclusive than we think they are. How can a sprawler like Orlando have twenty Gate Parkways and still manage to breathe walkable vibrancy into its downtown? Scale and targeted concentration of complementing adaptive reuse and infill development has a big part to do with it.

I'd actually love to see more densification and walkable infill development along the JTB corridor. When JTA and the Mayors Office talk about the JRTC and Shipyards serving as a "barbell economic development approach to downtown", the "barbells" should be linking denser census tracts of the city with reliable transit and supportive landuse. Being in the middle, downtown will benefit by default and the added accessibility will open up market rate opportunities to additional areas along the path. The South End in Charlotte, which you are pretty familiar with now, is a great recent example of this. What's happening to Midtown Houston along their Red Line between DT and Texas Medical Center is another.

South end is far closer to Charlotte's CBD than JTB is to the Jax CBD - although it depends on what JTB you're referring to.

South End would be inside Uptown Charlotte if Charlotte classified Uptown as 3.9 square miles of its urban core. In this (as well as the Houston example), I was referring to using transit to tie end points together that also stimulate TOD between the two. By looking at things a bit more regionally, you can fuel urban development not only in your CBD but also other areas outside of it.


 

JTB is not really a district to me - it spans from roughly I-95 to the Beach.

JTB between Philips (Southpoint) and the SJTC area is considered to be an Edge City.

Are you looking to turn the entire stretch into walkable, mixed-use, infill?

The JTB corridor reminds me a lot of the I-8/Mission Valley corridor north of San Diego. With integrated multimodal transportation infrastructure investment and supportive land use policies, the area around JTB could be much more.

I think the city has its hands more than full downtown.

You got to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. The DIA is in charge of downtown. However, that doesn't mean COJ should ignore the potential of the rest of the city.

[thelakelander]

Kernan and Loretto and many other parts of Jax happened well before the roads caught up.  Once those taxpayers were living in those areas en masse, the city and state sort of had to invest in auto-centric infrastructure there because those people work and pay taxes and the politicians had to be responsive to that constituency.

This isn't how suburbia developed in the US historically. Much of our suburbs of today is built upon the back of racism, redlining, subsidization of white flight through the GI bill, and politically connected people using highway construction to make their inherited landholdings accessible for development.

When you approved developments there, you sort of had to eventually add infrastructure, even if you were slow to do it (which, in fact, Jax was).

Jax actually has a transportation network for a city much larger than its size. Some of it is due to the naval and port facilities. Some of it is due to encourage suburban development and growth. 

Is it possible that Jax could have forced infill in and around the core a long time ago with strict Land Use Requirements?  But then again, it would have raised some thorny property rights concerns?

The type of infrastructure investment, what you select to subsidize, land use and zoning policies, market dynamics, etc. all play a role in how a community develops. Portland looks a lot different today than many of its peer communities because of policy decisions leadership made back in the 1970s. You hit the countryside in Lexington, KY a lot quicker than you do in other cities its size because of their growth boundary that was established years ago. I'm not saying Jax should carbon copy these places. However, I am saying we can do a lot of things differently and much better than we have in the past to better maximize our potential.

So instead of strict Land Use Planning at the outset, we've decided to spend money making downtown appealing, but also spend money fulfilling our obligations to taxpaying occupants of the periphery.

I don't think I'm totally understanding or agreeing with this. Jax isn't special or unique. In general, several cities face the same issues overall. Jax has simply screwed up on its efforts to revitalize its downtown so far, which is why other places have moved further along in that particular area. However, not all is lost. Things can change, when and if the community wants to see change happen.

[rls929]

You start with downtown because it has the largest concentration of employees.  All you have to do is give them another option to driving an hour home every night - something Jax has failed miserably at doing.  I've spent the last 2 weeks near Naperville, IL. and what downtown Naperville has accomplished should make Jax City officials ashamed of themselves.

https://downtownnaperville.com/

Or, closer to home, downtown Greenville, SC >>> https://www.visitgreenvillesc.com/about-greenville/photo-gallery/downtown-greenville/

[heights unknown]

Well said Lake and I agree. But City planners, leaders, and all others involved that get paid the big bucks to coup in that investment so to speak, and to help our urban core and downtown prosper, need to snap to it and let's get the ball rolling and "git er done!" I clearly understand what you're saying; however, we are not Miami, Orlando, etc., no compact investment here; so then, come up with something that will fit the bill for our "non compact" urban core and downtown to help it to succeed,  prosper, and be vital and viable for our citizens and visitors alike.

Physically and historically, we're compact......if we're talking about the actual historic downtown core (Northbank between Broad and Liberty). Building upon that can create a quick turnaround at the pedestrian scale, leading to additional growth opportunities. In recent decades, we have not, we aren't now and likely won't be during Curry's second term. So for the next few years, it is what it is and realistic expectations of what the downtown will be in....say....in 2023...should be tempered.

The DIA hopes what they call the CBD (Northbank + Brooklyn + LaVilla + Southbank) will have +13k residents by 2025. That breaks down to around 3,500 residents per square mile.  In comparison, both Downtown Orlando and Uptown Charlotte were a little over 6,800 residents per square mile in 2010, according to the US census.  So, if we're lucky and the Shipyards and District are built-out as proposed, in 2025, unless we have something else up our sleeve, we'll be half as vibrant as what Downtown Orlando and Uptown Charlotte were eight years ago.

Thanks Lake. I'll take that. I guess it's better than nothing because those cities had vibrant downtowns 8 years ago; to get to that level would be progress coupled with success for Jax in my opinion.

[Tacachale]

The size of the official downtown isn't the issue. The issue is a failure to cluster within that area. There would be no issue if we'd stuck to plans to develop in clusters as we do in the successful urban core neighborhoods. Development in the Stadium District and Brooklyn is a good thing especially when they're done to enhance those areas specifically and better connect them to adjacent districts. But it wouldn't have the same impact on the Downtown Core that developments within the core would have, and shouldn't be treated as if it would. That's been our bigger issue.

Size is an issue if DIA funds are being spread too thin, due to the large area it is responsible for. Development will happen in adjacent urban districts (like it does in other cities), without additional public fingers in the cookie jar if the market and local public policies support it.

Funding isn't the issue either. Cities like Tampa that have a smaller downtown also have districts like the Channelside and Ybor that have  leadership and planning, and soak up funding that could go to downtown proper. The difference is that the model forces the city to cluster in the individual areas and focus on what each district needs individually. The same thing could be accomplished with one authority that's structured to cluster and distribute funding among the districts. In fact, it could even be a better model. But it's not going to happen if we're just moving the money around anywhere in the 4 square mile area and call it all Downtown investment.

[thelakelander]

But it's not going to happen if we're just moving the money around anywhere in the 4 square mile area and call it all Downtown investment.

Yeah, it's not going to happen but it sounds like you're saying the same thing as me. I'm just approaching things from a cause and effect perspective. We've expanded "downtown's" borders to stretch over 4 square miles. That was a political decision made at the local level. We've established an entity (the DIA) to revitalize "downtown" by utilizing a variety of financial resources to spur economic development in said area. Because the area of focus is too large, said means of funding and investment are spread too thin for a model that naturally forces more clustered investment. Yes, we can create additional strategies to alter that, but the whole idea of creating additional strategies is also a result of the original decision. With that said, none of this is going to change and there's no reason to expect the current administration to adopt a different development model. However, when people wonder why things are the way they are today and attempt to compare to other cities, it's good to know the outcome isn't always market rated. Much of it is local policy decisions that create an environment where resulting tools are used in a manner that can be counterproductive to quickly stimulating vibrancy at a pedestrian scale level.