Florida's Major Downtowns: How Does Jax Compare?

[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.

[Adam White]

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.

Honestly, I think all I really care about is dense, mixed-use, walkable living with local flavors and proprietorships all attempting to make their appeal with the depths of their distinction/uniqueness.  I don't care if that happens at the beach, in Mandarin, or in Downtown.  So remind me, why are we saving Downtown again?  Is it that we want a vibrant, 24-hour CBD?  Or the city's walkable "activity" zone needs to exist amidst our tallest towers?  What is it that we're saving here and why should it exist in a smaller zone than what is on a map today?  What if Five Points or Brooklyn wind up as the 24-hour, walkable activity-zone, and the Central Business District just turns into a really nice, differentiated office park with some tall residential towers for baby boomers seeking low-maintenance living.  Is this a problem?

One thing I think that matters about Downtown is that it is the 'center' (more or less) of the region. So if it is built up and becomes vibrant again, everyone will be able to access it with relative ease. And, presumably, over time the development will radiate out from this center.

[thelakelander]

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.

Honestly, I think all I really care about is dense, mixed-use, walkable living with local flavors and proprietorships all attempting to make their appeal with the depths of their distinction/uniqueness.  I don't care if that happens at the beach, in Mandarin, or in Downtown.  So remind me, why are we saving Downtown again?

I think you may be confusing the term "downtown" or the area controlled by the "Downtown Investment Authority" as the only place in the community that should be walkable, 24/7, etc. Honestly, the entire city needs to be saved and made to be more multimodal friendly, not just downtown. There's a strong economic reason to why we should encouraging more density in areas of the city that can support it. At a minimum, this would not only include downtown, it would also involve the entire pre-consolidated city (that was originally built to be walkable and twice as dense as it is today) and other nodes (ex. TOD around transit hubs, redevelopment of failed strip malls, etc.) throughout the county and region.

Is it that we want a vibrant, 24-hour CBD?  Or the city's walkable "activity" zone needs to exist amidst our tallest towers?

More density equals a more financially viable and sustainable community. At some point, you'll sprawl yourself into municipal bankruptcy when forced to support too much aging infrastructure, after your tax base and new suburban growth starts sprawling into neighboring counties and communities. Detroit is a good example. A city with enough infrastructure built for a population twice its size. However, after 50 years of white flight (people didn't abandon the metro, they just moved right outside of city limits), the remaining dwindling tax base can't support the maintenance of aging infrastructure built for the population who abandoned it. So, you want a vibrant downtown and urban core to also maximize the tax base needed to support the city as a whole, long term.

What is it that we're saving here and why should it exist in a smaller zone than what is on a map today?

The only thing the maps deal with is how and where the extra money and focus is spent by downtown development authorities takes place. People repeatedly talk about how vibrant other city's downtowns are in comparison. There's a big reason for this. It's not like Jacksonville has not invested hundreds of millions in its downtown over the past few decades. It's that our investments have been spread out over 3.9 miles while most other places have had more concentrated infill and development associated with the assistance of development authorities focusing on those more compact areas.

What if Five Points or Brooklyn wind up as the 24-hour, walkable activity-zone, and the Central Business District just turns into a really nice, differentiated office park with some tall residential towers for baby boomers seeking low-maintenance living.  Is this a problem?

What if it did? If that's what Jax wants, so be it. However, even this not a realistic outcome based off the policies and investment strategies currently in place. What's more realistic is Lot J will be the Landing 2.0, a convention center at the Shipyards will become a larger Prime Osborn with the same obstacles to overcome and the District will be just as vibrant as the developments around the Southbank Riverwalk ended up being. I guess what I'm trying to say is the public policies are screwed up for what we say we want to see downtown become (vibrant and pedestrian friendly) and they lead to the opposite outcome (a temporary node of activity that goes stale a decade later due to a lack of pedestrian scale synergy with other incremental complementing development), despite the hundreds of millions of investment.

[thelakelander]

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.

[jaxnyc79]

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.

Honestly, I think all I really care about is dense, mixed-use, walkable living with local flavors and proprietorships all attempting to make their appeal with the depths of their distinction/uniqueness.  I don't care if that happens at the beach, in Mandarin, or in Downtown.  So remind me, why are we saving Downtown again?

I think you may be confusing the term "downtown" or the area controlled by the "Downtown Investment Authority" as the only place in the community that should be walkable, 24/7, etc. Honestly, the entire city needs to be saved and made to be more multimodal friendly, not just downtown. There's a strong economic reason to why we should encouraging more density in areas of the city that can support it. At a minimum, this would not only include downtown, it would also involve the entire pre-consolidated city (that was originally built to be walkable and twice as dense as it is today) and other nodes (ex. TOD around transit hubs, redevelopment of failed strip malls, etc.) throughout the county and region.

The point I was making is that the lifestyle elements I seek are not geographically confined to a traditional sense of the word downtown, although those lifestyle elements are often associated with "downtown living."  For argument's sake, let's say that someday I found all the lifestyle features listed in my previous post in, say, Riverside, then would the city need to continue to use taxpayer dollars to make the CBD into some sort of 24/7, pulsing hub of vitality.  In Montreal, the CBD is rather boring and staid.  All the fun is elsewhere in the core city.  This more compact area you've referenced, what exactly would the plans for it be?  That it be the city's entertainment hub - that it be the pulse of the city at midnight, with night crawlers and revelers moving from restaurants to bars to dance halls and stage performances?  What if that vibe turns up elsewhere, and the Elbow, despite our hopes and dreams, winds up as a veritable dustbowl, because we soon discover that the coolest zones in the city don't want to be forced to exist among towers of suits and paper-pushers.

Is it that we want a vibrant, 24-hour CBD?  Or the city's walkable "activity" zone needs to exist amidst our tallest towers?

More density equals a more financially viable and sustainable community. At some point, you'll sprawl yourself into municipal bankruptcy when forced to support too much aging infrastructure, after your tax base and new suburban growth starts sprawling into neighboring counties and communities. Detroit is a good example. A city with enough infrastructure built for a population twice its size. However, after 50 years of white flight (people didn't abandon the metro, they just moved right outside of city limits), the remaining dwindling tax base can't support the maintenance of aging infrastructure built for the population who abandoned it. So, you want a vibrant downtown and urban core to also maximize the tax base needed to support the city as a whole, long term.

What is it that we're saving here and why should it exist in a smaller zone than what is on a map today?

The only thing the maps deal with is how and where the extra money and focus is spent by downtown development authorities takes place. People repeatedly talk about how vibrant other city's downtowns are in comparison. There's a big reason for this. It's not like Jacksonville has not invested hundreds of millions in its downtown over the past few decades. It's that our investments have been spread out over 3.9 miles while most other places have had more concentrated infill and development associated with the assistance of development authorities focusing on those more compact areas.

What if Five Points or Brooklyn wind up as the 24-hour, walkable activity-zone, and the Central Business District just turns into a really nice, differentiated office park with some tall residential towers for baby boomers seeking low-maintenance living.  Is this a problem?

What if it did? If that's what Jax wants, so be it. However, even this not a realistic outcome based off the policies and investment strategies currently in place. What's more realistic is Lot J will be the Landing 2.0, a convention center at the Shipyards will become a larger Prime Osborn with the same obstacles to overcome and the District will be just as vibrant as the developments around the Southbank Riverwalk ended up being. I guess what I'm trying to say is the public policies are screwed up for what we say we want to see downtown become (vibrant and pedestrian friendly) and they lead to the opposite outcome (a temporary node of activity that goes stale a decade later due to a lack of pedestrian scale synergy with other incremental complementing development), despite the hundreds of millions of investment.

[jaxnyc79]

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.

Honestly, I think all I really care about is dense, mixed-use, walkable living with local flavors and proprietorships all attempting to make their appeal with the depths of their distinction/uniqueness.  I don't care if that happens at the beach, in Mandarin, or in Downtown.  So remind me, why are we saving Downtown again?

I think you may be confusing the term "downtown" or the area controlled by the "Downtown Investment Authority" as the only place in the community that should be walkable, 24/7, etc. Honestly, the entire city needs to be saved and made to be more multimodal friendly, not just downtown. There's a strong economic reason to why we should encouraging more density in areas of the city that can support it. At a minimum, this would not only include downtown, it would also involve the entire pre-consolidated city (that was originally built to be walkable and twice as dense as it is today) and other nodes (ex. TOD around transit hubs, redevelopment of failed strip malls, etc.) throughout the county and region.

The point I was making is that the lifestyle elements I seek are not geographically confined to a traditional sense of the word downtown, although those lifestyle elements are often associated with "downtown living."  For argument's sake, let's say that someday I found all the lifestyle features listed in my previous post in, say, Riverside, then would the city need to continue to use taxpayer dollars to make the CBD into some sort of 24/7, pulsing hub of vitality.  In Montreal, the CBD is rather boring and staid.  All the fun is elsewhere in the core city.  This more compact area you've referenced, what exactly would the plans for it be?  That it be the city's entertainment hub - that it be the pulse of the city at midnight, with night crawlers and revelers moving from restaurants to bars to dance halls and stage performances?  What if that vibe turns up elsewhere, and the Elbow, despite our hopes and dreams, winds up as a veritable dustbowl, because we soon discover that the coolest zones in the city don't want to be forced to exist among towers of suits and paper-pushers.

Is it that we want a vibrant, 24-hour CBD?  Or the city's walkable "activity" zone needs to exist amidst our tallest towers?

More density equals a more financially viable and sustainable community. At some point, you'll sprawl yourself into municipal bankruptcy when forced to support too much aging infrastructure, after your tax base and new suburban growth starts sprawling into neighboring counties and communities. Detroit is a good example. A city with enough infrastructure built for a population twice its size. However, after 50 years of white flight (people didn't abandon the metro, they just moved right outside of city limits), the remaining dwindling tax base can't support the maintenance of aging infrastructure built for the population who abandoned it. So, you want a vibrant downtown and urban core to also maximize the tax base needed to support the city as a whole, long term.

No argument here on the perils of sprawl - but that's not at issue in this series of posts - we aren't discussing how to combat development and highway projects on the periphery of the metro, we're talking about re-defining "downtown" into more compact terms

What is it that we're saving here and why should it exist in a smaller zone than what is on a map today?

The only thing the maps deal with is how and where the extra money and focus is spent by downtown development authorities takes place. People repeatedly talk about how vibrant other city's downtowns are in comparison. There's a big reason for this. It's not like Jacksonville has not invested hundreds of millions in its downtown over the past few decades. It's that our investments have been spread out over 3.9 miles while most other places have had more concentrated infill and development associated with the assistance of development authorities focusing on those more compact areas.

What if Five Points or Brooklyn wind up as the 24-hour, walkable activity-zone, and the Central Business District just turns into a really nice, differentiated office park with some tall residential towers for baby boomers seeking low-maintenance living.  Is this a problem?

What if it did? If that's what Jax wants, so be it. However, even this not a realistic outcome based off the policies and investment strategies currently in place. What's more realistic is Lot J will be the Landing 2.0, a convention center at the Shipyards will become a larger Prime Osborn with the same obstacles to overcome and the District will be just as vibrant as the developments around the Southbank Riverwalk ended up being. I guess what I'm trying to say is the public policies are screwed up for what we say we want to see downtown become (vibrant and pedestrian friendly) and they lead to the opposite outcome (a temporary node of activity that goes stale a decade later due to a lack of pedestrian scale synergy with other incremental complementing development), despite the hundreds of millions of investment.

[jaxnyc79]

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.

Honestly, I think all I really care about is dense, mixed-use, walkable living with local flavors and proprietorships all attempting to make their appeal with the depths of their distinction/uniqueness.  I don't care if that happens at the beach, in Mandarin, or in Downtown.  So remind me, why are we saving Downtown again?

I think you may be confusing the term "downtown" or the area controlled by the "Downtown Investment Authority" as the only place in the community that should be walkable, 24/7, etc. Honestly, the entire city needs to be saved and made to be more multimodal friendly, not just downtown. There's a strong economic reason to why we should encouraging more density in areas of the city that can support it. At a minimum, this would not only include downtown, it would also involve the entire pre-consolidated city (that was originally built to be walkable and twice as dense as it is today) and other nodes (ex. TOD around transit hubs, redevelopment of failed strip malls, etc.) throughout the county and region.

The point I was making is that the lifestyle elements I seek are not geographically confined to a traditional sense of the word downtown, although those lifestyle elements are often associated with "downtown living."  For argument's sake, let's say that someday I found all the lifestyle features listed in my previous post in, say, Riverside, then would the city need to continue to use taxpayer dollars to make the CBD into some sort of 24/7, pulsing hub of vitality.  In Montreal, the CBD is rather boring and staid.  All the fun is elsewhere in the core city.  This more compact area you've referenced, what exactly would the plans for it be?  That it be the city's entertainment hub - that it be the pulse of the city at midnight, with night crawlers and revelers moving from restaurants to bars to dance halls and stage performances?  What if that vibe turns up elsewhere, and the Elbow, despite our hopes and dreams, winds up as a veritable dustbowl, because we soon discover that the coolest zones in the city don't want to be forced to exist among towers of suits and paper-pushers.

Is it that we want a vibrant, 24-hour CBD?  Or the city's walkable "activity" zone needs to exist amidst our tallest towers?

More density equals a more financially viable and sustainable community. At some point, you'll sprawl yourself into municipal bankruptcy when forced to support too much aging infrastructure, after your tax base and new suburban growth starts sprawling into neighboring counties and communities. Detroit is a good example. A city with enough infrastructure built for a population twice its size. However, after 50 years of white flight (people didn't abandon the metro, they just moved right outside of city limits), the remaining dwindling tax base can't support the maintenance of aging infrastructure built for the population who abandoned it. So, you want a vibrant downtown and urban core to also maximize the tax base needed to support the city as a whole, long term.

No argument here on the perils of sprawl - but that's not at issue in this series of posts - we aren't discussing how to combat development and highway projects on the periphery of the metro, we're talking about re-defining "downtown" into more compact terms

What is it that we're saving here and why should it exist in a smaller zone than what is on a map today?

The only thing the maps deal with is how and where the extra money and focus is spent by downtown development authorities takes place. People repeatedly talk about how vibrant other city's downtowns are in comparison. There's a big reason for this. It's not like Jacksonville has not invested hundreds of millions in its downtown over the past few decades. It's that our investments have been spread out over 3.9 miles while most other places have had more concentrated infill and development associated with the assistance of development authorities focusing on those more compact areas.

What if Five Points or Brooklyn wind up as the 24-hour, walkable activity-zone, and the Central Business District just turns into a really nice, differentiated office park with some tall residential towers for baby boomers seeking low-maintenance living.  Is this a problem?

What if it did? If that's what Jax wants, so be it. However, even this not a realistic outcome based off the policies and investment strategies currently in place. What's more realistic is Lot J will be the Landing 2.0, a convention center at the Shipyards will become a larger Prime Osborn with the same obstacles to overcome and the District will be just as vibrant as the developments around the Southbank Riverwalk ended up being. I guess what I'm trying to say is the public policies are screwed up for what we say we want to see downtown become (vibrant and pedestrian friendly) and they lead to the opposite outcome (a temporary node of activity that goes stale a decade later due to a lack of pedestrian scale synergy with other incremental complementing development), despite the hundreds of millions of investment.

Understood, but I'm starting to think that the lack of verve in core Jax, or the slowness in achieving core city bustle, is not so much about government policies, as perhaps the lack of grassroots spunk.  I say people first - blame them first.  What social networks or special interest groups have spurred (or maintained) downtown resurgences in other places?  Late-stage singles, students, artists, gays, immigrants used to clustered living (and a city government that celebrates these immigrants).  In Jax, these groups don't appear to be very organized, with a strong and unified voice in city politics, and as a result they're not the ostensible drivers of excitement in the core...or at least that's my impression.  Instead, the most public advocates for downtown appear to be guys in suits sitting on Chamber of Commerce or Bizjournal-sponsored panels, whose value for downtown derives from a desire to entice outside organizations to relocate to Jax.  (By the way, given some of downtown's aspirations might take 5-10 years to actualize, it might make sense to start to re-brand and build demand for downtown among high schoolers, countywide).  Not sure how you do it. 

Maybe that's all changing - the constituents of a vibrant core are now moving into place and the type of downtown we all want is on the horizon - but maybe that "right" kind of demand was just missing for a while.     

Yes, the city has made missteps in its investments, like most places, but I don't know if there's been some sort of active effort to crush any and all sprouts of downtown vitality.  Perhaps the demand just hasn't been there.  We talk a lot on here about whether buildings go on this lot versus a lot a mile down the road, or where the city is spending enough money to create supply in the face of weak demand ...we don't talk as much about the ethos of the community, what that means for an aggregate demand for all kinds of downtown product, and whether that's really the biggest impediment to our hopes fulfilled.  Just putting out food for thought.

[Adam White]

I'm...so...confused

[thelakelander]

The point I was making is that the lifestyle elements I seek are not geographically confined to a traditional sense of the word downtown, although those lifestyle elements are often associated with "downtown living."  For argument's sake, let's say that someday I found all the lifestyle features listed in my previous post in, say, Riverside, then would the city need to continue to use taxpayer dollars to make the CBD into some sort of 24/7, pulsing hub of vitality.

Building upon the existing density of downtown presents an opportunity for a massive increase in tax revenue that a community can't achieve in Riverside. It also offers the option of including urban amenities that will never be present in Riverside on a large scale. For example, public access to the riverfront or high-rise mixed-use space. Ideally, the Jax's urban core can be developed over time to offer a variety of lifestyle choices for multiple cultures, ages, economic classes, etc. A healthy Riverside might be attractive to one, while another can have a similar quality of life in a neighborhood like Brentwood or Moncrief.

In Montreal, the CBD is rather boring and staid.  All the fun is elsewhere in the core city.

I love Montreal. It's one of my favorite North American cities. I agree there are a lot of fun areas outside of the CBD. However, here's a few pics I took within the CBD last year. If the Northbank in Downtown Jacksonville could become this boring at street level, we're not having this conversation today:

This more compact area you've referenced, what exactly would the plans for it be?

The Northbank around 1940.

Jax's historical downtown CBD is the Northbank. The rough boundary would be the Broad Street, the river, Hogans Creek/Liberty Street and State Street.  In the map below it would be the Central Core, Church and Cathedral Districts.


https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/the-cawton-report-boyer-working-to-streamline-downtown-zoning-rules

That it be the city's entertainment hub - that it be the pulse of the city at midnight, with night crawlers and revelers moving from restaurants to bars to dance halls and stage performances?  What if that vibe turns up elsewhere, and the Elbow, despite our hopes and dreams, winds up as a veritable dustbowl, because we soon discover that the coolest zones in the city don't want to be forced to exist among towers of suits and paper-pushers.

I wouldn't equate 24/7 vibrancy to being an entertainment hub. Alone, entertainment districts tend to be pretty dead most of the day. 24/7 hubs offer a mix of uses for all segments of life within a walkable setting.  One of the things I love about Montreal, Toronto, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, DC, etc. is that a pedestrian can move between their CBDs and vibrant core neighborhoods seamlessly and without the need of a car. I believe Jax offers a similar opportunity. However, a reversal of how leaders view local history and re-use of existing older building stock will need to take place. Ideally, we need infill to replace surface parking lots as opposed to turning vacant buildings into empty lots for future redevelopment.

[jaxnyc79]

The point I was making is that the lifestyle elements I seek are not geographically confined to a traditional sense of the word downtown, although those lifestyle elements are often associated with "downtown living."  For argument's sake, let's say that someday I found all the lifestyle features listed in my previous post in, say, Riverside, then would the city need to continue to use taxpayer dollars to make the CBD into some sort of 24/7, pulsing hub of vitality.

Building upon the existing density of downtown presents an opportunity for a massive increase in tax revenue that a community can't achieve in Riverside. It also offers the option of including urban amenities that will never be present in Riverside on a large scale. For example, public access to the riverfront or high-rise mixed-use space. Ideally, the Jax's urban core can be developed over time to offer a variety of lifestyle choices for multiple cultures, ages, economic classes, etc. A healthy Riverside might be attractive to one, while another can have a similar quality of life in a neighborhood like Brentwood or Moncrief.

Good answer.  I think it important to establish the value proposition for money spent in one zone over others.

In Montreal, the CBD is rather boring and staid.  All the fun is elsewhere in the core city.

I love Montreal. It's one of my favorite North American cities. I agree there are a lot of fun areas outside of the CBD. However, here's a few pics I took within the CBD last year. If the Northbank in Downtown Jacksonville could become this boring at street level, we're not having this conversation today:

I'm not a big fan of Montreal's CBD, and have been 5 or so times for work, but of course it's far more active than the Jacksonville Northbank.  The question is, how much are you willing to sacrifice for that given scare resources and ample opportunity costs.

[thelakelander]

No argument here on the perils of sprawl - but that's not at issue in this series of posts - we aren't discussing how to combat development and highway projects on the periphery of the metro, we're talking about re-defining "downtown" into more compact terms

I'm not talking about re-defining "downtown" into more compact terms. I was trying to explain visually how spreading out a Downtown Development Authority's investment resources over a large area results in much slower revitalization of that area verses a community that does the exact same in a more compact area. Our traditional downtown/central business district is the Northbank. For political and marketing reasons during the area's late 20th century decline, we've re-defined "downtown" to include adjacent neighborhoods like Brooklyn, LaVilla, and Southbank (originally a separate city altogether). In many ways, like the loss of LaVilla or the countless building demolitions you don't see in Riverside, that larger redefinition has been more negative than positive.

Understood, but I'm starting to think that the lack of verve in core Jax, or the slowness in achieving core city bustle, is not so much about government policies, as perhaps the lack of grassroots spunk.  I say people first - blame them first.  What social networks or special interest groups have spurred (or maintained) downtown resurgences in other places?  Late-stage singles, students, artists, gays, immigrants used to clustered living (and a city government that celebrates these immigrants).  In Jax, these groups don't appear to be very organized, with a strong and unified voice in city politics, and as a result they're not the ostensible drivers of excitement in the core...or at least that's my impression.

I'd argue the grassroots spunk is saving Jax's ass. Riverside, Springfield, Murray Hill, CoRK Arts District, Rail Yard District, Baymeadow's emergence into an Indian district are all on-going results of grassroots spunk.

Instead, the most public advocates for downtown appear to be guys in suits sitting on Chamber of Commerce or Bizjournal-sponsored panels, whose value for downtown derives from a desire to entice outside organizations to relocate to Jax.  (By the way, given some of downtown's aspirations might take 5-10 years to actualize, it might make sense to start to re-brand and build demand for downtown among high schoolers, countywide).  Not sure how you do it. 

Maybe that's all changing - the constituents of a vibrant core are now moving into place and the type of downtown we all want is on the horizon - but maybe that "right" kind of demand was just missing for a while.     

Yes, the city has made missteps in its investments, like most places, but I don't know if there's been some sort of active effort to crush any and all sprouts of downtown vitality.  Perhaps the demand just hasn't been there.  We talk a lot on here about whether buildings go on this lot versus a lot a mile down the road, or where the city is spending enough money to create supply in the face of weak demand ...we don't talk as much about the ethos of the community, what that means for an aggregate demand for all kinds of downtown product, and whether that's really the biggest impediment to our hopes fulfilled.  Just putting out food for thought.

Downtown revitalization is simple. We can start by identifying what has traditionally stopped or limited the types of renaissances taking place just outside of downtown from happening within it. I believe one would discover things like availability of affordable existing building stock, housing stock, zoning regulations, walkability, etc. will rise to the top of that list. If these things are the issues, then the next thing to do is implement policies and development strategies to alleviate them.

[thelakelander]

Good answer.  I think it important to establish the value proposition for money spent in one zone over others.

I agree. However, I believe you can reduce the amount of money spent subsidizing by modifying local policies that are counterproductive to market rate growth and trends. Creating opportunities for more to participate in the revitalization process is also an overlooked issue in the downtown revitalization discussion. Those who have been freezed out are using their money and creativity to bring places like Murray Hill and the Rail Yard District back to life.

I'm not a big fan of Montreal's CBD, and have been 5 or so times for work, but of course it's far more active than the Jacksonville Northbank.  The question is, how much are you willing to sacrifice for that given scare resources and ample opportunity costs.

Right now, we're talking about hundreds of millions going to the Shipyards, $400 million to relocate the jail, another $40 million for a risky Berkman 2 project featuring a ferris wheel. Revitalization doesn't require these types of public expenditures. In many ways, it's investing in and maintaining the basic quality-of-life elements (ex. public education, parks, streets, transit, etc.), and making sure local public policies facilitate market-rate rate private investment.

[jaxnyc79]

No argument here on the perils of sprawl - but that's not at issue in this series of posts - we aren't discussing how to combat development and highway projects on the periphery of the metro, we're talking about re-defining "downtown" into more compact terms

I'm not talking about re-defining "downtown" into more compact terms. I was trying to explain visually how spreading out a Downtown Development Authority's investment resources over a large area results in much slower revitalization of that area verses a community that does the exact same in a more compact area. Our traditional downtown/central business district is the Northbank. For political and marketing reasons during the area's late 20th century decline, we've re-defined "downtown" to include adjacent neighborhoods like Brooklyn, LaVilla, and Southbank (originally a separate city altogether). In many ways, like the loss of LaVilla or the countless building demolitions you don't see in Riverside, that larger redefinition has been more negative than positive.

Understood, but I'm starting to think that the lack of verve in core Jax, or the slowness in achieving core city bustle, is not so much about government policies, as perhaps the lack of grassroots spunk.  I say people first - blame them first.  What social networks or special interest groups have spurred (or maintained) downtown resurgences in other places?  Late-stage singles, students, artists, gays, immigrants used to clustered living (and a city government that celebrates these immigrants).  In Jax, these groups don't appear to be very organized, with a strong and unified voice in city politics, and as a result they're not the ostensible drivers of excitement in the core...or at least that's my impression.

I'd argue the grassroots spunk is saving Jax's ass. Riverside, Springfield, Murray Hill, CoRK Arts District, Rail Yard District, Baymeadow's emergence into an Indian district are all on-going results of grassroots spunk.

Grassroots saving Jax's ass as it relates to Downtown bustle?  Stretch number one.  I'm not saying there aren't some doing something, but there's been no salvation as far as I can tell.  We'll have to disagree there.  Baymeadows is Little India? - Stretch number two.  We have different viewpoints on scale, I suppose.

Instead, the most public advocates for downtown appear to be guys in suits sitting on Chamber of Commerce or Bizjournal-sponsored panels, whose value for downtown derives from a desire to entice outside organizations to relocate to Jax.  (By the way, given some of downtown's aspirations might take 5-10 years to actualize, it might make sense to start to re-brand and build demand for downtown among high schoolers, countywide).  Not sure how you do it. 

Maybe that's all changing - the constituents of a vibrant core are now moving into place and the type of downtown we all want is on the horizon - but maybe that "right" kind of demand was just missing for a while.     

Yes, the city has made missteps in its investments, like most places, but I don't know if there's been some sort of active effort to crush any and all sprouts of downtown vitality.  Perhaps the demand just hasn't been there.  We talk a lot on here about whether buildings go on this lot versus a lot a mile down the road, or where the city is spending enough money to create supply in the face of weak demand ...we don't talk as much about the ethos of the community, what that means for an aggregate demand for all kinds of downtown product, and whether that's really the biggest impediment to our hopes fulfilled.  Just putting out food for thought.

Downtown revitalization is simple. We can start by identifying what has traditionally stopped or limited the types of renaissances taking place just outside of downtown from happening within it. I believe one would discover things like availability of affordable existing building stock, housing stock, zoning regulations, walkability, etc. will rise to the top of that list. If these things are the issues, then the next thing to do is implement policies and development strategies to alleviate them.

Not simple if you consider the demand side of the equation.  If you look at the aggregate amount of resources invested in cities all over this country to revitalize/restore their downtowns, I don't see how you can say it's simple.  Downtowns were in the doldrums for many years, and yes they're making a comeback, but not without missteps everywhere and not without tons of money spent, and also not without complex social costs like gentrification driving out (or pricing out) long-time residents.  Race, Class, Income Inequality, Property Rights, the role of government, a frontier America ethos, auto-reliance...all are factors in getting downtown to move and to be sustained.

[thelakelander]

Grassroots saving Jax's ass as it relates to Downtown bustle?  Stretch number one.  I'm not saying there aren't some doing something, but there's been no salvation as far as I can tell.  We'll have to disagree there.  Baymeadows is Little India? - Stretch number two.  We have different viewpoints on scale, I suppose.

From personal experience and background knowledge, there are several business and new residents in these adjacent communities that were initially interested in opening and helping revitalize downtown. For various obstacles and challenges too difficult to overcome, they've been froze out of that process. However, their desire to be in and contribute to a walkable vibrant setting didn't disappear. They're simply making those investments in neighboring communities. Knowing the history and the cause and effect that public policy and access to the decision making table can have on the built environment, I'd say it's a huge stretch to blame them for downtown's current state.  As for Baymeadows, it's a great example of an aging suburban community being re-energized through the clustering of newcomers to the city. It's a stretch to blame cultural groups for not clustering living in a place where city leaders purposefully removed the population and razed the affordable historic residential building stock that was there.

Not simple if you consider the demand side of the equation.  If you look at the aggregate amount of resources invested in cities all over this country to revitalize/restore their downtowns, I don't see how you can say it's simple.  Downtowns were in the doldrums for many years, and yes they're making a comeback, but not without missteps everywhere and not without tons of money spent, and also not without complex social costs like gentrification driving out (or pricing out) long-time residents.  Race, Class, Income Inequality, Property Rights, the role of government, a frontier America ethos, auto-reliance...all are factors in getting downtown to move and to be sustained.

Here's the 2017 State of Downtown Annual Report: https://indd.adobe.com/view/04bab683-8609-4cf8-b87e-926bbb865ffb

DT Jax has a 96% residential occupancy rate. There's thousands of new residential units proposed or currently under construction. There's more than 800 additional hotel rooms under construction or proposed. Many of these developments aren't asking for public incentives. The neighborhoods surrounding it are more popular and in demand as well. Downtown has a lot of challenges and issues to overcome. Right now, demand isn't one of them.

[jaxnyc79]

Grassroots saving Jax's ass as it relates to Downtown bustle?  Stretch number one.  I'm not saying there aren't some doing something, but there's been no salvation as far as I can tell.  We'll have to disagree there.  Baymeadows is Little India? - Stretch number two.  We have different viewpoints on scale, I suppose.

From personal experience and background knowledge, there are several business and new residents in these adjacent communities that were initially interested in opening and helping revitalize downtown. For various obstacles and challenges too difficult to overcome, they've been froze out of that process. However, their desire to be in and contribute to a walkable vibrant setting didn't disappear. They're simply making those investments in neighboring communities. Knowing the history and the cause and effect that public policy and access to the decision making table can have on the built environment, I'd say it's a huge stretch to blame them for downtown's current state.  As for Baymeadows, it's a great example of an aging suburban community being re-energized through the clustering of newcomers to the city. It's a stretch to blame cultural groups for not clustering living in a place where city leaders purposefully removed the population and razed the affordable historic residential building stock that was there.

Not simple if you consider the demand side of the equation.  If you look at the aggregate amount of resources invested in cities all over this country to revitalize/restore their downtowns, I don't see how you can say it's simple.  Downtowns were in the doldrums for many years, and yes they're making a comeback, but not without missteps everywhere and not without tons of money spent, and also not without complex social costs like gentrification driving out (or pricing out) long-time residents.  Race, Class, Income Inequality, Property Rights, the role of government, a frontier America ethos, auto-reliance...all are factors in getting downtown to move and to be sustained.

Here's the 2017 State of Downtown Annual Report: https://indd.adobe.com/view/04bab683-8609-4cf8-b87e-926bbb865ffb

DT Jax has a 96% residential occupancy rate. There's thousands of new residential units proposed or currently under construction. There's more than 800 additional hotel rooms under construction or proposed. Many of these developments aren't asking for public incentives. The neighborhoods surrounding it are more popular and in demand as well. Downtown has a lot of challenges and issues to overcome. Right now, demand isn't one of them.

Aw come on, thelakelander.  I'm as much an advocate for downtown as anyone, and I've actually lived in downtowns much of my adult life.  I do think the tide is turning in Jax, but 96% among the existing stock (some of which have individuals relying on direct government support for subsistence) is not a meaningful indicator of demand health.  How about that stock relative to the rest of the city, or the growth in that stock relative to the growth of rental stock city-wide, or prospects for new growth driven by market demand without significant taxpayer subsidy.  Again, the demand tide is likely turning, but it's been anemic for a very long time, and the city has to be careful not to finance a robust supply pipeline with little investment in demand stimulation.  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.