Metro Jacksonville

Five Drastic Steps To Revive Downtown Jacksonville

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/1011666527_tLgsu-M.jpg)

Desperate times call for desperate measures. While there is no single silver bullet project that will solve all of downtown's ills, here are five major initiatives worth considering.

Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2010-nov-five-drastic-steps-to-revive-downtown-jacksonville

All of this makes more than just plain common sense! For a number of years, we have had white papers and visions put down on paper and to this point, the only things that have made money are the consulting firms that deal with what ifs! Property taxes were just raised, for the second year in a row, and the so-called "Revenue Neutral" aspect really is another weight on the backs of the taxpaying public! So maybe, just maybe, since what we have done to this point is not working, could it be time to think outside of the box? Maybe!

great article and great list!

What buildings downtown does the city have to give away?  The old city hall annex, I suppose, and the existing courthouse once the new courthouse is finished?  Any others?

The property tax concept for new development seems like a good one - but how do you treat businesses who have invested in property downtown already?  Would they have their tax rates frozen, too?  I think we have to look at ways to retain existing businesses as well as attract new ones.

I'll have to look at the Philly model in more detail, but I believe it applied to more than just new business and construction. I know for a fact, residential, adaptive reuse and renovation counted as well.  None of these steps will work 100% on their own but when combined, they deliver strong positive results.

*sigh* I wish Jacksonville could get it together. I would like to think that there's a possibility that things could change once new leadership gets into office but sometimes that almost seems like believing in fairy tales...

Tax abatement districts usually freeze taxable VALUES (not necessarily RATES) at the current level.  Then, any new construction or added value from any renovations are not taxed.  The existing companies would benefit from not paying taxes an any expansion or renovation they did. PLUS, they would gain new customers from the newcomers moving in.  Thirdly, they would benefit from not paying increased taxes on the new appreciation in their property, that would result from increased vibracy/marketablity that the changes made in the area.   

The city doesn't own a lot of BUILDINGS downtown (other than those already mentioned), but it DOES own a lot of LAND.

Last year I asked the JEDC to pursue extending Enterprise Zone Employment Credits from only 2 years to a longer period, or even indefinitely.  The Credit enables businesses that are located in the Zone to reduce their monthly sales tax remittances by up to 30% of gross payoll for employees that live in the Enterprise Zone.  

For example, if a qualified worker is paid $2000 a month, the employer can deduct $600 from what it has to pay to the State in sales tax collections for that month.  Not exactly welfare, the credit helps businesses in depressed areas hire and retain local residents, and that lays a foundation for making or revitalizing a community. 

JEDC took no effective action on my behalf.

Quote from: Jerry Moran on November 09, 2010, 02:13:00 PM
Last year I asked the JEDC to pursue extending Enterprise Zone Employment Credits from only 2 years to a longer period, or even indefinitely.  The Credit enables businesses that are located in the Zone to reduce their monthly sales tax remittances by up to 30% of gross payoll for employees that live in the Enterprise Zone.  

For example, if a qualified worker is paid $2000 a month, the employer can deduct $600 from what it has to pay to the State in sales tax collections for that month.  Not exactly welfare, the credit helps businesses in depressed areas hire and retain local residents, and that lays a foundation for making or revitalizing a community. 

JEDC took no effective action on my behalf.

I was actually just doing some research over the last week about a potential medical research economic enterprise zone... and the problem is the 24 month rule is state-mandated, so JEDC really doesnt have much say in the matter.  I agree with you though.

Use the River. Its empty. This morning I was watching WJCT 4 and Richard Nunn, Bruce Hamilton, Stacy Spanos and they are always with the tower cam panning our Downtown and this happens morning, noon, and night.

Its gut renching to watch when there is nothing happening on our waterway. Just watch for yourself and come to your own conclusions. Who will be the city council member or Mayor that is going to immediately change that with legislation?

Its an election year. If they say no then I wouldn't vote for them.

If Annie Lyltle can be land locked then our St. Johns River our American Heritage River can be WATER locked within our Downtown Jacksonville Overlay Zoning District.

It happened with Shipyards/Landmar. It was just dumb luck that we have gotten it back.

QuoteI was actually just doing some research over the last week about a potential medical research economic enterprise zone... and the problem is the 24 month rule is state-mandated, so JEDC really doesnt have much say in the matter.  I agree with you though.

It's the JEDC's job to lobby the State.  It could have been done.  I checked Audrey Gibson's list of bills she sponsored.  Nothing there about the Enterprise Zone.

Great steps indeed. Unfortunately they require the cooperative actions of several agencies, some of which get their mandates from places outside of Duval County. Different funding types, different political structures, differing mandates, all intersect across our central core.

No more consultants, no more studies. The impacted entities need to come together and sort the business at hand.

Everyone knows what we have to do, no one wants to provide leadership in what we need to do.

The time for throwing ideas (or consultant studies) against the wall and see what sticks is over.

^This all sounds like something a new mayor could be a major player in helping turn things around.

In Lakeland we used the State of Florida's Community Contribution Tax Incentive Program to provide an incentive for Burdines and JCPenney to donate their property to our agency (CRA).  It provided a 50% tax credit against the companies' Florida corporate income tax.  That State program has been amended since that time and now provides a much smaller incentive and so would not likely be attractive to the donors.

Regardless, it does require a number of programs, incentives and improvements in order to bring about revitalization.

I have always thought since Ive been here a short time, is turn the Downtown landing into a Farmers market..Take the abandon buildings and refurbish them into storefront properties and inexpensive lofts. The tax break makes so much sense..Now we just have to get a deaf city council to listen!

ALL PHOTO'S "El Hueco" (pronounced El Waco) in Medellin, Colombia, translates as The Hollow, or Hole.

I'm posting these because El Hueco has got to be one of the coolest shopping experiences in the America's. Basically Medellin took about 6 blocks of old office and retail buildings downtown and started hacking passage ways, tunnels and little bridges between them. The floors were divided into what we would probably call Flea Market size stores, though there are larger stores throughout too. It is actually a maze in which you could spend endless hours just exploring, if not shopping. It is dotted with food courts, old Mezzanine and grand entries or ball rooms, have been converted into a collection of an "architect's delight" of every style, shape and size.
For the safety minded, there ARE fire escapes throughout, but that would really ruin the fun. They also have micro police and medical stations, bank and other services.

The magic of El Hueco, is the apparent utter confusion of floors, levels, passages, tunnels, etc... It has become one of South America's number 1 shopping experiences, and all of this within a couple of miles from 4 massive malls. Imagine JACKSONVILLE? Would this be cool or what? We just have to crawl out of our own hueco. Hell just our tunnels would make a very cool El Hueco.

I say we tax any large corporation that does'nt locate downtown. It's their way of helping our city. If you come downtown you don't have to pay the fees..if you locate anywhere other than downtown...you'll get a nice big fine. It only makes sense since so many large corporations actually got city tax breaks to locate somewhere off JTB or some other place. It sounds crazy but times are tough and it's time to think outside of the box that the republican right wing conservatives have got this city in. We are dying and they thinks its funny.

I think you know that has zero chance of being implementable.

But try this instead....it will cost x to build/locate elsewhere in town, but fees will be waived for locating downtown.

I know but radical ideas are a start to the great ideas. I've seen this city screw those of us that call this home and I'm tired of it. The conservative base that rules this city is "exactly" the reason why we are sooo behind and unevolved. If Wayne Weaver didn't have so much money there's no way someone else would have put an NFL team here. This could be the greatest city of the south and it'll never be if left to the conservative religious of this area.

i know several banks in the area get huge breaks on all kinds of stuff. How about charging the NFL a fee just for being here. Lets say 10 million a year...that's just a tip for many of the players..how about the fact that our school board sits on some of the most expensive properly in the city...they should be in a strip mall somewhere. The idea that the city would pay for some company to mow grass is ridiculous with the amount of youth in trouble today. I see kids going to jail and they are out the next day doing the same thing and nothing for them to do. I"m also a supporter of the idea that when a child goes to a public school the parents either do work at each child's school for at least 10 hrs a month. If not they get fined. Why does this city not have a national maritime school here...we have such a beautiful river and it's just ignored...a few tall ships downtown at all times would be beautiful and brings some positive attention to this city..there are lots of ideas out here...some crazy some not...but unless we put it out here...we are doomed to sit and let others determin our history.

Quote from: Garden guy on November 17, 2010, 08:46:45 AM
i know several banks in the area get huge breaks on all kinds of stuff. How about charging the NFL a fee just for being here. Lets say 10 million a year...that's just a tip for many of the players..how about the fact that our school board sits on some of the most expensive properly in the city...they should be in a strip mall somewhere. The idea that the city would pay for some company to mow grass is ridiculous with the amount of youth in trouble today. I see kids going to jail and they are out the next day doing the same thing and nothing for them to do. I"m also a supporter of the idea that when a child goes to a public school the parents either do work at each child's school for at least 10 hrs a month. If not they get fined. Why does this city not have a national maritime school here...we have such a beautiful river and it's just ignored...a few tall ships downtown at all times would be beautiful and brings some positive attention to this city..there are lots of ideas out here...some crazy some not...but unless we put it out here...we are doomed to sit and let others determin our history.

indentured servitude is illegal I believe

oh here we go again! its all FBC fault!

QuoteHow about charging the NFL a fee just for being here. Lets say 10 million a year

Taxing a large business that is struggling to compete financially in this market for the 'priveledge' of struggling in Jacksonville?
Wouldn't a more logical approach involve accurately understanding the challenges and opportunities said business creates, and partner with said business in a way that creates a positive symbiotic relationship for the community as a whole?

QuoteI say we tax any large corporation that does'nt locate downtown.

Yes, Fortune 500/1000 companies cannot wait to relocate to a place that wants to tax the hell out of them.
Wouldn't a more logical approach be to make impact fees more accurately the 'impact' of development, and make downtown actually WORTH the cost to be located in?

QuoteI see kids going to jail and they are out the next day doing the same thing and nothing for them to do.

So, juvenile chain gains are the solution?
You should go downtown more often.  Inmates currently pick up trash along the riverwalk, maintain flower beds along the riverwalk, and also do set up/break down work for events at the Landing.  Inmates also pick up trash along state roadways as well.  If you haven't noticed in the last year, mowing grass has been an item drastically reduced in the city budget.

QuoteI"m also a supporter of the idea that when a child goes to a public school the parents either do work at each child's school for at least 10 hrs a month. If not they get fined.

Penalizing a single mom that works two jobs?
Why not create INCENTIVES for parents to become more actively involved in their schools?  Penalizing single parents, or parents with multiple jobs isn't the answer.

I guess Im the type of person that believes incentives, not necessarily penalties create the results desired.  I mean, those parking meters are working out great for downtown aren't they?

My hat's off to the Metro Jax team for another inspiring article.  It's hard for the layman like me to judge these suggestions but they do seem compelling.  The hope lies in electing a new Mayor who will consider these ideas.

QuoteThe hope lies in electing a new Mayor who will consider these ideas.

+1

Much of our taxes are waisted on the mindless processes that government has put upon itself. A simple decision takes months because everyone needs to have thier ass kissed and validated. Many of our city governments are ran on an 19th century way of running things...aka the good ole boy system that is so prevalent. We have all seen the waist and loss and the ass kissing and back slapping. We've all seen contracts handed out to family memebers and friends of this person or that person in payment for whatever. This is a small town and news spreads like fire here. They all thing they are hiding truthes but that can't happen here. We've probably grown too much too fast..who knows?
     Our urban center is a ghost and unless something really cool happens soon we are all in the shit. I personally would love to live in an area downtown that was pedestrian only...I've seen many cities do this and it seems to creat an area of blossom for many businesses. I also thought about  a new fee!!!!...how about a fee to all large corporations that don't locate downtown..lol..I'm just sick of seeing the income of some of the executives of some of the big corp boys...it really is stupid what they make...if a company can pay them that then they can pay a hefty fee for not locating your company in our downtown...boy that'd piss somebody off..ok..well you guys have a great day..i've got some yard work to get done before the rain..

I'm disappointed to see the convention center on this list, when so many other more worthwhile issues need to be addressed first, like getting rid of one-way streets, and skyway connectivity. A convention center would do absolutely nothing for development downtown, and given the state of the rest of downtown, is guaranteed to fail in attracting any new business. This particular pie-in-the-sky is well past its sell-by date, we've been chasing this for 60 years, with only a series of ever-greater failures to show for it. Why, then, are we not learning that the solution cannot be to spend even more money on the same thing this time? If that was the issue, why hasn't it worked so far?

As we debated extensively in the other thread, 3/4th's of all conventions are small enough to fit in our existing convention center, and despite this it is nevertheless a total failure with a whopping 4 small annual events. Why? Because the building doesn't matter, that's not what attracts people. A building isn't why convention-goers travel to Orlando, Las Vegas, San Diego, etc., instead of Jacksonville. The issue that we cannot overcome, regardless of how much we spend on a building, is that people want something to do when they get there.

As I said before, wasting money on a convention center in downtown Jacksonville without spending a decade first addressing the actual problems is like blowing your entire car-repair budget on a $10k stereo without first fixing the engine. Nobody is going to ride in a broken car, no matter how nice the stereo is.

This marks the first time I have ever seen MetroJacksonville susbscribe to one of these pie-in-the-sky city-beautiful / revitalization boondoggles that never work out, and which are only ever floated because professors teaching planning courses continue to claim this type of project is a successful stimulant based on data that stops in the 1980s. And San Diego was actually the exact opposite of what your inclusion of that city as an example would imply, because they got the convention business quite by accident (the founder of ComiCon moved there from Detroit for personal reasons) before they ever built their convention center. That success had nothing whatsoever to do with building a building, and architecture cannot replicate what occurred there. Accordingly, the use of San Diego is a false comparison.

And just to follow up on one point, if the real motivation behind this convention center is to free up the Terminal for the return of passenger rail, then that is a worthwhile project. I just lament that we have to grease everyone's palms with another taxpayer-funded boondoggle in order to achieve that relatively simple objective. Why can't we simply restore the terminal to passenger use without wasting a ton of money and valuable riverfront property on a convention center that is an unavoidable failure before the first spade of dirt is turned?

^^^I've read your other posts on that other thread concerning Jax getting a new Convention Center. I admit, at first I was more in the "pro convention center crowd", but after reading your posts, you actually swayed my thinking against building a Convention Center. You brought up tons of valid points concerning to Convention business, and far as I'm concerned the CONS outweight the PROS. That 'pie in the sky' and 'build it and they will come' mentality concerning every urban problem is what's really gonna sink DT Jax into an oblivion even furthermore; I actually think that there's also alot of false hope with alot of aspects of fixed transit too, but I'm not gonna even go there today.    

We can debate the merits of participating in the convention industry till we're blue in the face but the point of a riverfront convention center in this particular article centers around connectivity with our existing already subsidized complementing assets.

QuoteOne thing that every vibrant American downtown has is pedestrian oriented connectivity. That's one of the major things downtown Jacksonville lacks. While it is certainly debatable that a larger convention center will spur growth in the local convention industry, the positive impact of a center anchoring the heart of the Northbank is not. San Diego's experience suggests that a well placed convention center does have the ability to anchor a vibrant urban setting.

Connectivity and clustering complementing uses is anything but pie in the sky.  It works not only for convention centers, but mass transit, walkability and even baby making.  What's mentioned in this article has nothing to do with a built it and they will come approach or creating people on sidewalks from magical pixi dust.  Its all about location an existing asset to stimulate compact walkability in a small setting that now is currently spread out across the Northbank.

Well we agree that connectivity and clustering are important factors, no doubt.

But just as important is WHAT we are clustering and connecting. I already covered this, albeit facetiously, in that other thread. As did several other posters like DogWalker. You can't simply ignore WHAT you are clustering and expect that clustering and connectivity are going to outweigh the decision to build a cluster around a highly specialized structure that there is no demand for in the market, and that is wholly inappropriate for the environment in question.

As I said before, if the goal here is apparently just to build structures designed to serve commercial markets in which we can't compete, then why just stop at a convention center? Hell, why not a Uranium mine? We can cluster the Uranium mine with DogWalker's snow removal company, a few buggy-whip factories, an Asbestos plant, maybe throw in an Aluminum cookware factory, and then top it all off with some restaurants serving calf's brains and Beondegi and even a streetcar! I'm sure clustering and connectivity will make it a smashing success.

No amount of clustering can overcome there being no market for a highly specialized structure, Lake.

Again your focus is more on trying to gain market share in a specialize area of the market we're not in.  My focus is more set in on the reality of our current built environment.  

1. We currently have a convention center in what should be our transportation center.

2. We currently don't get the proper economic utilization out of the few events we already have.

3. We have a struggling entertainment district, festival retail marketplace and 966-unit convention center hotel that are all heavily subsidized us.

4. We currently don't get the proper economic utilization out of these investments that we should be enjoying given our significant investments.

5. We currently have a dismal disjointed mass transit network and an Amtrak station in complete isolation.

6. DT won't come back until a viable transportation network is redeveloped within its boundaries, bringing lost connectivity back.

7. If we want a viable transportation center, the convention center needs to be removed from that facility.

At this point, we have to make a decision.

A. Don't do anything and continue to fail at everything (transit, convention, Hyatt, Landing, Bay Street, etc.).

B. Bring transportation back, completely get out the convention industry and run off the remaining events, trade shows, etc. that we have now. Also risk losing our shirts in the Hyatt investment.

C. Work to put each asset in its proper place in the form of connectivity and clustering complementing uses together.

My choice is and will remain C, given the state of our current landscape.  I have no problem with placing the amount of people attending periodic events like Magnet Mania and the Black Expo in the middle of the Northbank.  My recommendation would be that if this is done, seek public/private partnerships and design the space to be mixed use instead of the one and done box we have now.  We'll have to choose to disagree on this one.  

Is there any reason that events like the Home and Patio Show or Magnet Mania could not be held in the Veteran's Memorial Arena?  How do the sq/ft compare?  The Arena is an underused facility with plenty of parking around it.

Quote from: stephendare on January 25, 2011, 09:08:16 AM

Quote from: I-10east on January 25, 2011, 09:06:36 AM
^^^I read your other posts on that other thread concerning Jax getting a new Convention Center. I admit, at first I was more in the "pro convention center crowd", but after reading your posts, you actually swayed my thinking against building a Convention Center. You brought up tons of valid points concerning to Convention business, and far as I'm concerned the CONS outweight the PROS. That 'pie in the sky' and 'build it and they will come' mentality concerning every urban problem is what's really gonna sink DT Jax into an oblivion;

+1

I honestly don't understand how thinking people can not see what a Convention Center has done for Baltimore, Indianapolis, Charlotte and yes, San Diego, and then just dismiss out of hand that one could have the same effect in Jacksonville.

Consider this from CHARLOTTE in 2010. 

QuoteThe largest convention in Charlotte's history began taking shape Thursday, as exhibitors unpacked their wares and visitors started arriving for the 139th annual National Rifle Association Meetings and Exhibits.

Organizers estimate the meeting -- one of the largest conventions nationally -- could bring 70,000 people to Charlotte  for the three-day event.

The convention officially opens Friday, but several preliminary events take place today. The NRA meeting closes Sunday.

At midday Thursday, exhibitors were very busy at the Convention Center. The job of unloading crates of merchandise was completed in the morning, and the exhibitors are scheduled to unpack and set up their wares this afternoon. At least a dozen people stood in line shortly after noon at the Exhibitor Check-In line.

Hotel rooms in the Charlotte area are at a premium this weekend.

"There are still some rooms available, but it usually depends on last-minute cancellations," said Erica Ross, of ConferenceDirect, which is handling lodging for the NRA. "Many of the hotels are fully booked."

Ross said the pressure to find rooms is heightened by two other weekend events in Charlotte -- UltraSwim, which is bringing some of the nation's top swimmers to the city for four days of competition; and Saturday's commencement exercises at UNC Charlotte.

A public information officer for the NRA said this weekend's event has attracted 460 exhibitors. She said the organization had to turn away a number of others who wanted to attend, because of a lack of space.

"This dwarfs anything I've seen," said a woman who works in special events for the Convention Center. The woman, asking not to be identified, said she has worked at most major conventions in Charlotte and described the NRA event as "a really, really big deal."

The center of activity is the Convention Center, and motorists headed into center city can expect plenty of traffic, both vehicular and pedestrian, clogging the streets today and especially Friday.

Tractor trailers delivering merchandise and other materials for NRA booths began arriving Wednesday, and a steady stream of trucks lined the East Stonewall Street exit for many hours during the day. More of the same is expected today, when exhibitors will be setting up booths.

On Thursday morning, crews used forklifts on the Convention Center floor to open wooden crates and prepare items -- including a stuffed grizzly bear -- for exhibits. Red, white and blue curtains hung between booths.

While the NRA event is bringing some big names, such as former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, it also is attracting a large number of related events.

The media will be heavily represented, with crews from CNN and Fox TV very visible in the uptown area. And a number of nationally syndicated radio programs, such as Jason Lewis (heard in Charlotte on WBCN, 1660 AM), will originate from Charlotte on Friday and over the weekend.



Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/05/13/1432390/palin-beck-headline-nra-convention.html##ixzz1C3jBQLpx

BTW, last time I checked Charlotte didn't have riverfront OR a beach.  It will take a few more decades of global warming before it does either. 

Of course, it does have a great DT, but that didn't happen until after restaurants, clubs and entertainment venues started opening up there.  Before that you could roll up the streets at 5pm.  No doubt the opening of the new, much larger convention center in 1995 help bring in those establishments.   

BTW, the 'left' does Conventions in Charlotte too, the NAACP had it's national convention almost as soon as the new Convention Center opened its doors.
 

Quote from: thelakelander on January 25, 2011, 09:42:17 AM
Again your focus is more on trying to gain market share in a specialize area of the market we're not in.  My focus is more set in on the reality of our current built environment.  

1. We currently have a convention center in what should be our transportation center.

2. We currently don't get the proper economic utilization out of the few events we already have.

3. We have a struggling entertainment district, festival retail marketplace and 966-unit convention center hotel that are all heavily subsidized us.

4. We currently don't get the proper economic utilization out of these investments that we should be enjoying given our significant investments.

5. We currently have a dismal disjointed mass transit network and an Amtrak station in complete isolation.

6. DT won't come back until a viable transportation network is redeveloped within its boundaries, bringing lost connectivity back.

7. If we want a viable transportation center, the convention center needs to be removed from that facility.

At this point, we have to make a decision.

A. Don't do anything and continue to fail at everything (transit, convention, Hyatt, Landing, Bay Street, etc.).

B. Bring transportation back, completely get out the convention industry and run off the remaining events, trade shows, etc. that we have now. Also risk losing our shirts in the Hyatt investment.

C. Work to put each asset in its proper place in the form of connectivity and clustering complementing uses together.

My choice is and will remain C, given the state of our current landscape.  I have no problem with placing the amount of people attending periodic events like Magnet Mania and the Black Expo in the middle of the Northbank.  My recommendation would be that if this is done, seek public/private partnerships and design the space to be mixed use instead of the one and done box we have now.  We'll have to choose to disagree on this one.  

Lake, I respect you and like you very much personally, but we have very different views on this topic.

I mean, listen to what you're suggesting here. This discussion is really a pretty damning microcosm of what is wrong with the whole "build it and they will come" philosophy in general. You're arguing, and with a straight face I might add, that the best way out of our previous expensive boondoggles like the Hyatt is by building yet another new and even more expensive boondoggle to support the first money-losing boondoggles, so we can (maybe) avoid losing our investment.

That's called "doubling down" or "gambler's logic" in Vegas, and it doesn't turn out any better at the craps table than it does in urban planning. So at what point does this stop? Or do we just keep figuring out a way to throw ever increasing amounts of public money at these things, hoping the next boondoggle will support the previous one, and then the next, and then the next again, when the reality is that what you see with the Hyatt is the only possible outcome of building a commercial structure in a market where there is no demand for it?

You are, despite all actual evidence to the contrary, continuing to assume that by simply building the structure, the demand will magically materialize. Well, it doesn't. The successful convention cities became that way through factors that had nothing to do with the building. Orlando has Disney. Las Vegas is Las Vegas. Etc., etc., etc. So let me ask you this; If we built Las Vegas' convention center in Jacksonville tomorrow, would we then have Las Vegas' convention business? Do you really think the building controls the business? Don't you see how absurd that logic is?

And part B of your support for this is that you're actually arguing that the best way out of our current boondoggles is to build another boondoggle that might, maybe, we hope, support the prior boondoggles. This is the problem, in a nutshell, with using taxpayer funds to build commercial structures in a market where there isn't sufficient demand. It will never get better, and it will never work, no matter how many times you try to prop up the losses in this psuedo-ponzi-scheme with additional investment, because you always wind up coming back to the basic fact that it never had a viable market.

Quote from: Dog Walker on January 25, 2011, 10:02:04 AM
Is there any reason that events like the Home and Patio Show or Magnet Mania could not be held in the Veteran's Memorial Arena?  How do the sq/ft compare?  The Arena is an underused facility with plenty of parking around it.

My main concern would be no connectivity.  Moving something to the sports district does nothing to improve the connectivity with a convention center hotel and adjacent entertainment/dining district.  The placement of our arena is a fine example of how we overlook the importance of clustering complementing uses within a compact setting and its impact on creating foot traffic and synergy.  I'd offer up our isolated arena as what not to do and Orlando's as what to do, when the land is available.  Here are a few shots of Orlando's new arena.  Take note of the ability to integrate a public structure with street level retail within an urban setting.

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Orlando-December-2010/P1430889/1138048861_wcPNC-S.jpg) (http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Orlando-December-2010/P1430894/1138049015_8rSv5-S.jpg)

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Orlando-December-2010/P1430895/1138049091_nn7RW-S.jpg) (http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Orlando-December-2010/P1440076/1138063765_vTbMb-S.jpg)

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Orlando-December-2010/P1440079/1138063930_pcwUP-S.jpg) (http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Orlando-December-2010/P1440071/1138063418_GgZju-S.jpg)

Quote from: vicupstate on January 25, 2011, 10:11:47 AM

Quote from: stephendare on January 25, 2011, 09:08:16 AM

Quote from: I-10east on January 25, 2011, 09:06:36 AM
^^^I read your other posts on that other thread concerning Jax getting a new Convention Center. I admit, at first I was more in the "pro convention center crowd", but after reading your posts, you actually swayed my thinking against building a Convention Center. You brought up tons of valid points concerning to Convention business, and far as I'm concerned the CONS outweight the PROS. That 'pie in the sky' and 'build it and they will come' mentality concerning every urban problem is what's really gonna sink DT Jax into an oblivion;

+1

I honestly don't understand how thinking people can not see what a Convention Center has done for Baltimore, Indianapolis, Charlotte and yes, San Diego, and then just dismiss out of hand that one could have the same effect in Jacksonville.

Consider this from CHARLOTTE in 2010. 

QuoteThe largest convention in Charlotte's history began taking shape Thursday, as exhibitors unpacked their wares and visitors started arriving for the 139th annual National Rifle Association Meetings and Exhibits.

Organizers estimate the meeting -- one of the largest conventions nationally -- could bring 70,000 people to Charlotte  for the three-day event.

The convention officially opens Friday, but several preliminary events take place today. The NRA meeting closes Sunday.

At midday Thursday, exhibitors were very busy at the Convention Center. The job of unloading crates of merchandise was completed in the morning, and the exhibitors are scheduled to unpack and set up their wares this afternoon. At least a dozen people stood in line shortly after noon at the Exhibitor Check-In line.

Hotel rooms in the Charlotte area are at a premium this weekend.

"There are still some rooms available, but it usually depends on last-minute cancellations," said Erica Ross, of ConferenceDirect, which is handling lodging for the NRA. "Many of the hotels are fully booked."

Ross said the pressure to find rooms is heightened by two other weekend events in Charlotte -- UltraSwim, which is bringing some of the nation's top swimmers to the city for four days of competition; and Saturday's commencement exercises at UNC Charlotte.

A public information officer for the NRA said this weekend's event has attracted 460 exhibitors. She said the organization had to turn away a number of others who wanted to attend, because of a lack of space.

"This dwarfs anything I've seen," said a woman who works in special events for the Convention Center. The woman, asking not to be identified, said she has worked at most major conventions in Charlotte and described the NRA event as "a really, really big deal."

The center of activity is the Convention Center, and motorists headed into center city can expect plenty of traffic, both vehicular and pedestrian, clogging the streets today and especially Friday.

Tractor trailers delivering merchandise and other materials for NRA booths began arriving Wednesday, and a steady stream of trucks lined the East Stonewall Street exit for many hours during the day. More of the same is expected today, when exhibitors will be setting up booths.

On Thursday morning, crews used forklifts on the Convention Center floor to open wooden crates and prepare items -- including a stuffed grizzly bear -- for exhibits. Red, white and blue curtains hung between booths.

While the NRA event is bringing some big names, such as former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, it also is attracting a large number of related events.

The media will be heavily represented, with crews from CNN and Fox TV very visible in the uptown area. And a number of nationally syndicated radio programs, such as Jason Lewis (heard in Charlotte on WBCN, 1660 AM), will originate from Charlotte on Friday and over the weekend.



Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/05/13/1432390/palin-beck-headline-nra-convention.html##ixzz1C3jBQLpx

BTW, last time I checked Charlotte didn't have riverfront OR a beach.  It will take a few more decades of global warming before it does either. 

Of course, it does have a great DT, but that didn't happen until after restaurants, clubs and entertainment venues started opening up there.  Before that you could roll up the streets at 5pm.  No doubt the opening of the new, much larger convention center in 1995 help bring in those establishments.   

BTW, the 'left' does Conventions in Charlotte too, the NAACP had it's national convention almost as soon as the new Convention Center opened its doors.
 

I already poked holes in all your apples and oranges comparisons in the other thread. Charlotte, like San Diego, had a market for that, and it had nothing to do with the building. Perhaps you'd like to point out where in Jacksonville we have the corporate headquarters of Bank of America (largest bank in the United States), Wachovia, Nucor Steel, Duke Energy, Lowe's, Time-Warner Cable, ESPN, Belk Department Stores, Harris Teeter, Muzak, Compass Bank, Family Dollar, B.F.Goodrich, SPX Corp., NASCAR, for christsakes Vic half the fortune 500 is in Charlotte.

They have natural, organic, demand, like we had back in the 1950s and 1960s, when not coincidentally we actually WERE successful in the convention business. We don't have that anymore, and it's a completely false comparison.

Quote from: stephendare on January 25, 2011, 10:14:40 AM
Charlotte also worked for a decade beforehand making sure that their city was filled with the kind of social and entertainment fabric that a convention would want to come to, and started a modern conversation about mass transit.

Without those things being in place, plus a convention team that was on the ball, there would be no economic benefit to the convention center.

Charlotte did what we should be doing.  Clustering the hell out of everything, including a convention center.  Think that convention center wasn't built around what eventually became the LRT line on purpose? Think the museums, arena and entertainment complexes that were recently developed were not placed in their specific locations adjacent to the convention center and LRT stations on purpose?  Uptown is what it is today because that city systematically developed everything with an idea of how each individual part fit into an overall setting.  Just about everything developed actually complements adjacent uses. The result of that is a place where an assortment of activity takes place on an around the clock basis.  They literally built a city that works on top of surface parking lots during the same period we destroyed one.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 25, 2011, 10:21:20 AM
Lake, I respect you and like you very much personally, but we have very different views on this topic.

I mean, listen to what you're suggesting here. This discussion is really a pretty damning microcosm of what is wrong with the whole "build it and they will come" philosophy in general. You're arguing, and with a straight face I might add, that the best way out of our previous expensive boondoggles like the Hyatt is by building yet another new and even more expensive boondoggle to support the first money-losing boondoggles, so we can (maybe) avoid losing our investment.

That's called "doubling down" or "gambler's logic" in Vegas, and it doesn't turn out any better at the craps table than it does in urban planning. So at what point does this stop? Or do we just keep figuring out a way to throw ever increasing amounts of public money at these things, hoping the next boondoggle will support the previous one, and then the next, and then the next again, when the reality is that what you see with the Hyatt is the only possible outcome of building a commercial structure in a market where there is no demand for it?

No.  I'm arguing many of our investments are boondoggles because of a lack of connectivity.  At this point, we still have enough building fabric, existing assets and things still open for a quick turnaround if we make sure all future investments are located in a compact setting with existing complementing investments.  I'm simply not of the belief that all is lost and we need to wipe the slate clean and start over.  That's what we've been doing the past 4 decades.

QuoteYou are, despite all actual evidence to the contrary, continuing to assume that by simply building the structure, the demand will magically materialize. Well, it doesn't. The successful convention cities became that way through factors that had nothing to do with the building. Orlando has Disney. Las Vegas is Las Vegas. Etc., etc., etc. So let me ask you this; If we built Las Vegas' convention center in Jacksonville tomorrow, would we then have Las Vegas' convention business? Do you really think the building controls the business? Don't you see how absurd that logic is?

I don't understand why you keep tossing up competing with Vegas and Orlando as a reason for not wanting events already here like Magnet Mania and the Black Expo in the heart of our DT.  Forget about the other cities that are in a different tier.  Let's focus on getting better utilization out of what we already have and setting these things up to grow within our own environment.

QuoteAnd part B of your support for this is that you're actually arguing that the best way out of our current boondoggles is to build another boondoggle that might, maybe, we hope, support the prior boondoggles. This is the problem, in a nutshell, with using taxpayer funds to build commercial structures in a market where there isn't sufficient demand. It will never get better, and it will never work, no matter how many times you try to prop up the losses in this psuedo-ponzi-scheme with additional investment, because you always wind up coming back to the basic fact that it never had a viable market.

I'm attempting to bring a little creativity and vision into this discussion.  Short trerm "boondoggles" can turn into money makers and successes when we build them up with complementing uses.  Metrorail in Miami was called MetroFAIL when it was first completed in the 1980s.  Eventually they figured out how to integrate land use with that system, make money off of leasing land around transit stations and transit oriented developments have popped up like mushrooms.

My question is, what's wrong with developing a public/private partnership to get a better facility constructed in a place that complements existing assets?  Why must it be a solid box like so many places?  Why can't you make it more feasible to construct and add everyday life by integrating a mix of uses into the project's design?  If we took everything as status quo, there would be no creative ideas like the mobility plan to solve "the it will never work" problems.

Quote from: thelakelander on January 25, 2011, 10:53:20 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 25, 2011, 10:21:20 AM
Lake, I respect you and like you very much personally, but we have very different views on this topic.

I mean, listen to what you're suggesting here. This discussion is really a pretty damning microcosm of what is wrong with the whole "build it and they will come" philosophy in general. You're arguing, and with a straight face I might add, that the best way out of our previous expensive boondoggles like the Hyatt is by building yet another new and even more expensive boondoggle to support the first money-losing boondoggles, so we can (maybe) avoid losing our investment.

That's called "doubling down" or "gambler's logic" in Vegas, and it doesn't turn out any better at the craps table than it does in urban planning. So at what point does this stop? Or do we just keep figuring out a way to throw ever increasing amounts of public money at these things, hoping the next boondoggle will support the previous one, and then the next, and then the next again, when the reality is that what you see with the Hyatt is the only possible outcome of building a commercial structure in a market where there is no demand for it?

No.  I'm arguing many of our investments are boondoggles because of a lack of connectivity.  At this point, we still have enough building fabric, existing assets and things still open for a quick turnaround if we make sure all future investments are located in a compact setting with existing complementing investments.  I'm simply not of the belief that all is lost and we need to wipe the slate clean and start over.  That's what we've been doing the past 4 decades.

QuoteYou are, despite all actual evidence to the contrary, continuing to assume that by simply building the structure, the demand will magically materialize. Well, it doesn't. The successful convention cities became that way through factors that had nothing to do with the building. Orlando has Disney. Las Vegas is Las Vegas. Etc., etc., etc. So let me ask you this; If we built Las Vegas' convention center in Jacksonville tomorrow, would we then have Las Vegas' convention business? Do you really think the building controls the business? Don't you see how absurd that logic is?

I don't understand why you keep tossing up competing with Vegas and Orlando as a reason for not wanting events already here like Magnet Mania and the Black Expo in the heart of our DT.  Forget about the other cities that are in a different tier.  Let's focus on getting better utilization out of what we already have and setting these things up to grow within our own environment.

QuoteAnd part B of your support for this is that you're actually arguing that the best way out of our current boondoggles is to build another boondoggle that might, maybe, we hope, support the prior boondoggles. This is the problem, in a nutshell, with using taxpayer funds to build commercial structures in a market where there isn't sufficient demand. It will never get better, and it will never work, no matter how many times you try to prop up the losses in this psuedo-ponzi-scheme with additional investment, because you always wind up coming back to the basic fact that it never had a viable market.

I'm attempting to bring a little creativity and vision into this discussion.  Short trerm "boondoggles" can turn into money makers and successes when we build them up with complementing uses.  Metrorail in Miami was called MetroFAIL when it was first completed in the 1980s.  Eventually they figured out how to integrate land use with that system, make money off of leasing land around transit stations and transit oriented developments have popped up like mushrooms.

My question is, what's wrong with developing a public/private partnership to get a better facility constructed in a place that complements existing assets?  Why must it be a solid box like so many places?  Why can't you make it more feasible to construct and add everyday life by integrating a mix of uses into the project's design?  If we took everything as status quo, there would be no creative ideas like the mobility plan to solve "the it will never work" problems.

Can Ennis run for mayor in 2015?

Quote from: thelakelander on January 25, 2011, 10:32:24 AM

Quote from: stephendare on January 25, 2011, 10:14:40 AM
Charlotte also worked for a decade beforehand making sure that their city was filled with the kind of social and entertainment fabric that a convention would want to come to, and started a modern conversation about mass transit.

Without those things being in place, plus a convention team that was on the ball, there would be no economic benefit to the convention center.

Charlotte did what we should be doing.  Clustering the hell out of everything, including a convention center.  Think that convention center wasn't built around what eventually became the LRT line on purpose? Think the museums, arena and entertainment complexes that were recently developed were not placed in their specific locations adjacent to the convention center and LRT stations on purpose?  Uptown is what it is today because that city systematically developed everything with an idea of how each individual part fit into an overall setting.  Just about everything developed actually complements adjacent uses. The result of that is a place where an assortment of activity takes place on an around the clock basis.  They literally built a city that works on top of surface parking lots during the same period we destroyed one.

Right, and because they did all that, and also because they encouraged business development downtown, they attracted actual, organic, sustainable, economic activity, and with that comes a vibrant urban environment. That's what makes it all work there. What you are suggesting is that we skip all of that, which for Charlotte represents four decades worth of work, and just skip straight to building the convention center in our dead downtown. Do you REALLY think that's going to work out like it did in Charlotte?

Again, the convention center feeds off organic demand, and as with any other commercial structure, merely building a building can't create demand or magically go *poof* and generate a viable market. This is why so many of these things turn out so poorly, there's the urban planning side of it, and then there's the business side of it. Buildings aren't business. Unless you're in the profession of constructing them, which industry incidentally are the only ones (Preston Haskell) floating this idea as beneficial. I guess in the truest sense, it would be beneficial. To them.

I still think my Uranium mine and DogWalker's Snow Removal Company are far more likely to be successful than this proposed convention center, if we're talking about operating losses and success at its stated purpose. At least there's a small chance we might actually mine some Uranium, and it did snow here in the 1990s, which gives it a better shot of success than the proposed convention center. At least we've never tried a Uranium mine before, while this will be our third failed convention center. Fourth if you count Jacksonville Beach.

Doesn't matter to me.  My focus in this debate is to suggest that a well run, well placed convention center, featuring a mix of uses on site, can be a part of an organic urban environment.  I'll leave the merits and inner workings of the industry on a national level to you guys.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 25, 2011, 11:04:47 AM

Quote from: thelakelander on January 25, 2011, 10:32:24 AM

Quote from: stephendare on January 25, 2011, 10:14:40 AM
Charlotte also worked for a decade beforehand making sure that their city was filled with the kind of social and entertainment fabric that a convention would want to come to, and started a modern conversation about mass transit.

Without those things being in place, plus a convention team that was on the ball, there would be no economic benefit to the convention center.

Charlotte did what we should be doing.  Clustering the hell out of everything, including a convention center.  Think that convention center wasn't built around what eventually became the LRT line on purpose? Think the museums, arena and entertainment complexes that were recently developed were not placed in their specific locations adjacent to the convention center and LRT stations on purpose?  Uptown is what it is today because that city systematically developed everything with an idea of how each individual part fit into an overall setting.  Just about everything developed actually complements adjacent uses. The result of that is a place where an assortment of activity takes place on an around the clock basis.  They literally built a city that works on top of surface parking lots during the same period we destroyed one.

Right, and because they did all that, and also because they encouraged business development downtown, they attracted actual, organic, sustainable, economic activity, and with that comes a vibrant urban environment. That's what makes it all work there. What you are suggesting is that we skip all of that, which for Charlotte represents four decades worth of work, and just skip straight to building the convention center in our dead downtown. Do you REALLY think that's going to work out like it did in Charlotte?

We shouldn't skip anything. They actually did a lot of things at the same time, all promoting and fulfilling an unified vision.  Two of those things include the planning of a convention center and rail during the mid-1990s.  So it would make sense that both of these projects now complement each other and the surrounding environment. My suggestion is we learn how to multitask as well.

QuoteAgain, the convention center feeds off organic demand, and as with any other commercial structure, merely building a building can't create demand or magically go *poof* and generate a viable market. This is why so many of these things turn out so poorly, there's the urban planning side of it, and then there's the business side of it. Buildings aren't business. Unless you're in the profession of constructing them, which industry incidentally are the only ones (Preston Haskell) floating this idea as beneficial. I guess in the truest sense, it would be beneficial. To them.

I still think my Uranium mine and DogWalker's Snow Removal Company are far more likely to be successful than this proposed convention center, if we're talking about operating losses and success at its stated purpose. At least there's a small chance we might actually mine some Uranium, and it did snow here in the 1990s, which gives it a better shot of success than the proposed convention center. At least we've never tried a Uranium mine before, while this will be our third failed convention center. Fourth if you count Jacksonville Beach.

Are the local events we have today like Magnet Mania and the Black Expo not organic?  Can you not reduce/eliminate operating losses (I'll admit, I have not seen the numbers) through the use of creative public/private partnerships and incorporating a mix of uses on site?

Quote from: thelakelander on January 25, 2011, 11:08:49 AM
Doesn't matter to me.  My focus in this debate is to suggest that a well run, well placed convention center, featuring a mix of uses on site, can be a part of an organic urban environment.  I'll leave the merits and inner workings of the industry on a national level to you guys.

You know, maybe you're right.

So if these are the elements of success, then why don't we build a gigantic life-sized recreation of a huge Muslim temple downtown as well? It works out pretty damn well for Mecca, you know they get like 2 million visitors a year from all over the world! So if we just build the building and establish connectivity between it and other things, then that's all it takes to guarantee success, right? What works in Mecca must work here, as long as it's properly clustered, right?

All these other factors, like the little problem that we're just trying to copy/mimic things that work in other cities for reasons that don't exist or don't carry over here, or the fact that this will be our 3rd or 4th failed convention center, just don't matter, right? So if we build Mecca downtown and cluster it with other things, then we're guaranteed to have 2 million visitors a year? Sweet! Lake, I've met you many times in real life, and like you personally. You're a heck of a lot smarter than this...

Quote from: thelakelander on January 25, 2011, 11:17:56 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 25, 2011, 11:04:47 AM

Quote from: thelakelander on January 25, 2011, 10:32:24 AM

Quote from: stephendare on January 25, 2011, 10:14:40 AM
Charlotte also worked for a decade beforehand making sure that their city was filled with the kind of social and entertainment fabric that a convention would want to come to, and started a modern conversation about mass transit.

Without those things being in place, plus a convention team that was on the ball, there would be no economic benefit to the convention center.

Charlotte did what we should be doing.  Clustering the hell out of everything, including a convention center.  Think that convention center wasn't built around what eventually became the LRT line on purpose? Think the museums, arena and entertainment complexes that were recently developed were not placed in their specific locations adjacent to the convention center and LRT stations on purpose?  Uptown is what it is today because that city systematically developed everything with an idea of how each individual part fit into an overall setting.  Just about everything developed actually complements adjacent uses. The result of that is a place where an assortment of activity takes place on an around the clock basis.  They literally built a city that works on top of surface parking lots during the same period we destroyed one.

Right, and because they did all that, and also because they encouraged business development downtown, they attracted actual, organic, sustainable, economic activity, and with that comes a vibrant urban environment. That's what makes it all work there. What you are suggesting is that we skip all of that, which for Charlotte represents four decades worth of work, and just skip straight to building the convention center in our dead downtown. Do you REALLY think that's going to work out like it did in Charlotte?

We shouldn't skip anything. They actually did a lot of things at the same time, all promoting and fulfilling an unified vision.  Two of those things include the planning of a convention center and rail during the mid-1990s.  So it would make sense that both of these projects now complement each other and the surrounding environment. My suggestion is we learn how to multitask as well.

QuoteAgain, the convention center feeds off organic demand, and as with any other commercial structure, merely building a building can't create demand or magically go *poof* and generate a viable market. This is why so many of these things turn out so poorly, there's the urban planning side of it, and then there's the business side of it. Buildings aren't business. Unless you're in the profession of constructing them, which industry incidentally are the only ones (Preston Haskell) floating this idea as beneficial. I guess in the truest sense, it would be beneficial. To them.

I still think my Uranium mine and DogWalker's Snow Removal Company are far more likely to be successful than this proposed convention center, if we're talking about operating losses and success at its stated purpose. At least there's a small chance we might actually mine some Uranium, and it did snow here in the 1990s, which gives it a better shot of success than the proposed convention center. At least we've never tried a Uranium mine before, while this will be our third failed convention center. Fourth if you count Jacksonville Beach.

Are the local events we have today like Magnet Mania and the Black Expo not organic?  Can you not reduce/eliminate operating losses (I'll admit, I have not seen the numbers) through the use of creative public/private partnerships and incorporating a mix of uses on site?

O.K., so if we agree that what made Charlotte successful, not only as an urban environment, but also as host city to an active convention center, are all things that do not exist here but which must be created, then I again do not understand why we would not prioritize creating the kind of economic activity that makes all this stuff tick, BEFORE wasting a ton of money on a convention center that we all know won't work without those prerequisites.

It's not like there is an unlimited money supply to go around. Back to my broken-car example, I'm not saying that we should never have a good stereo, the problem is that right now the engine doesn't work, and we have a limited budget. There is no logic whatsoever in spending a bunch of money on a new stereo before you fix the motor. Nobody will ride in a broken car, no matter how nice the stereo is. We have a dead downtown that we could plop Las Vegas or Orlando's half-billion-dollar convention centers in the middle of, and it wouldn't do a damned thing. The building is not why people don't come here. They want vibrancy and things to do when they get here, and presently we have nothing of the sort. And all of that has to be generated organically, separate from a convention center.

Maybe in time we can support a convention center, but for right now that money needs to be spent in other places, or else it will wind up as yet another failure in a series of failed convention centers here in Jacksonville. And regarding our measly 4 or 5 events like "Magnet Collectors" and the Black Expo, give me a break, those don't come close to 1% utilizing our existing facility, that is hardly a justification for building a bigger one.

 

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 25, 2011, 11:18:26 AM

Quote from: thelakelander on January 25, 2011, 11:08:49 AM
Doesn't matter to me.  My focus in this debate is to suggest that a well run, well placed convention center, featuring a mix of uses on site, can be a part of an organic urban environment.  I'll leave the merits and inner workings of the industry on a national level to you guys.

You know, maybe you're right.

So if these are the elements of success, then why don't we build a gigantic life-sized recreation of a huge Muslim temple downtown as well? It works out pretty damn well for Mecca, you know they get like 2 million visitors a year from all over the world! So if we just build the building and establish connectivity between it and other things, then that's all it takes to guarantee success, right? What works in Mecca must work here, as long as it's properly clustered, right?

All these other factors, like the little problem that we're just trying to copy/mimic things that work in other cities for reasons that don't exist or don't carry over here, or the fact that this will be our 3rd or 4th failed convention center, just don't matter, right? So if we build Mecca downtown and cluster it with other things, then we're guaranteed to have 2 million visitors a year? Sweet!

Well if we have a large Muslim population already downtown, maybe we should build a Temple.;D

You're reaching on that one, since I've already stated a ton of times that we already have events that we're not properly utilizing.  So, like it or not, we're already in the game.  So let's stop reaching and stick with te reality of what we're already playing with.

QuoteLake, I've met you many times in real life, you're a heck of a lot smarter than this...

You're railing off hot air at this point.  You're claiming things I've never stated and attempting to shoot down an entire industry and all I'm saying is even a well managed, well run convention center hosting the events we already have, can help in the effort to create an 24/7 downtown environment.  This is exactly the same argument for relocating Amtrak back downtown and kicking the CC out of the terminal to allow for a more compact transportation hub.  You may not agree with me using a convention center in this debate about the impact of connectivity and clustering compact uses to promote urban synergy but you can't prove that it doesn't work.  Regardless of the use, if you connect it with complementing uses in a compact setting, you can spur complementing activity.  Give me your uranium mine and I'll show you how to form an industrial district.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 25, 2011, 11:26:59 AM
O.K., so if we agree that what made Charlotte successful, not only as an urban environment, but also as host city to an active convention center, are all things that do not exist here but which must be created, then I again do not understand why we would not prioritize creating the kind of economic activity that makes all this stuff tick, BEFORE wasting a ton of money on a convention center that we all know won't work without those prerequisites.

We already have assets in place to work with.  Why not multitask to improve upon these assets?  We are a city of nearly 900,000 residents.  We should be more than capable enough to tackle several issues at the same time.  Last, but not least (I'm starting to sound like a broken record), if you don't want to waste money, go public/private and mixed use.

QuoteIt's not like there is an unlimited money supply to go around. Back to my broken-car example, I'm not saying that we should never have a good stereo, the problem is that right now the engine doesn't work, and we have a limited budget. There is no logic whatsoever in spending a bunch of money on a new stereo before you fix the motor. Nobody will ride in a broken car, no matter how nice the stereo is. We have a dead downtown that we could plop Las Vegas or Orlando's half-billion-dollar convention centers in the middle of, and it wouldn't do a damned thing. The building is not why people don't come here. They want vibrancy and things to do when they get here, and presently we have nothing of the sort. And all of that has to be generated organically, separate from a convention center.

Yes, buildings don't bring people.  You create vibrancy be clustering complementing uses within a compact setting. I think I've said that before a couple of times. ;)

QuoteMaybe in time we can support a convention center, but for right now that money needs to be spent in other places, or else it will wind up as yet another failure in a series of failed convention centers here in Jacksonville.  And regarding our measly 4 or 5 events like "Magnet Collectors" and the Black Expo, give me a break, those don't come close to 1% utilizing our existing facility, that is hardly a justification for building a bigger one.

Again, think public/private.  We have the land, so for all we know that could be our public contribution in a creative deal.  Btw, our events that outgrew our facility and left town were small at one point as well.

Drop by Three Layers tonight, we can discuss and I'll answer whatever questions you have.  I have some things I need to attend to.

Quote from: thelakelander on January 25, 2011, 11:34:00 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 25, 2011, 11:18:26 AM

Quote from: thelakelander on January 25, 2011, 11:08:49 AM
Doesn't matter to me.  My focus in this debate is to suggest that a well run, well placed convention center, featuring a mix of uses on site, can be a part of an organic urban environment.  I'll leave the merits and inner workings of the industry on a national level to you guys.

You know, maybe you're right.

So if these are the elements of success, then why don't we build a gigantic life-sized recreation of a huge Muslim temple downtown as well? It works out pretty damn well for Mecca, you know they get like 2 million visitors a year from all over the world! So if we just build the building and establish connectivity between it and other things, then that's all it takes to guarantee success, right? What works in Mecca must work here, as long as it's properly clustered, right?

All these other factors, like the little problem that we're just trying to copy/mimic things that work in other cities for reasons that don't exist or don't carry over here, or the fact that this will be our 3rd or 4th failed convention center, just don't matter, right? So if we build Mecca downtown and cluster it with other things, then we're guaranteed to have 2 million visitors a year? Sweet!

Well if we have a large Muslim population already downtown, maybe we should build a Temple.;D

You're reaching on that one, since I've already stated a ton of times that we already have events that we're not properly utilizing.  So, like it or not, we're already in the game.  So let's stop reaching and stick with te reality of what we're already playing with.

QuoteLake, I've met you many times in real life, you're a heck of a lot smarter than this...

You're railing off hot air at this point.  You're claiming things I've never stated and attempting to shoot down an entire industry and all I'm saying is even a well managed, well run convention center hosting the events we already have, can help in the effort to create an 24/7 downtown environment.  This is exactly the same argument for relocating Amtrak back downtown and kicking the CC out of the terminal to allow for a more compact transportation hub.  You may not agree with me using a convention center in this debate about the impact of connectivity and clustering compact uses to promote urban synergy but you can't prove that it doesn't work.  Regardless of the use, if you connect it with complementing uses in a compact setting, you can spur complementing activity.  Give me your uranium mine and I'll show you how to form an industrial district.

I'm not inventing arguments or blowing hot air, Lake, I'm just questioning what exactly would make this work (the 3rd or 4th go around, this time) when there is no viable market here. You do acknowledge that the convention business we have at the existing center is rather paltry and doesn't properly utilize or support that facility, correct? So then I'm not following you on how that would justify the construction of a bigger one?

At the end of the day, your gist is really "build it and they will come" that's what this all boils down to. We both know the demand isn't here for it. And that just doesn't work. You can't go *poof* and magically create business demand and a viable market just by constructing a building. Because that's not how the convention business, or really ANY business for that matter, works. And I think that's where we disagree on this issue.

So I would pose to you a series of questions;

1: Do you believe the convention business we have now appropriately supports or utilizes our existing facility?

2: Do we have the demand to justify the continued existence of the present facility?

3: Where is the demand to justify the construction of a larger facility, when we can't fill the one we have?

4: Why didn't the former convention center in the original Memorial Coliseum work out?

(After all, it was quite large, and connected by expressway to hotel space.)

5: Why didn't the Jacksonville Beach Convention Center work?

(After all, it was also quite large, and near to supporting hotel space.)

6: Why DID the original private model of convention hosting by private hotels work?

7: What happened to our number of convention visitors (originally 200k-250k) when we took that business from the private hotels by building a series of public convention centers?

8: Is this an abnormal result when government gets into private business?

9: Is there any event at the current convention center that couldn't be hosted by a large private hotel with convention rooms, like the Hyatt?

Quote from: thelakelander on January 25, 2011, 09:42:17 AM
Again your focus is more on trying to gain market share in a specialize area of the market we're not in.  My focus is more set in on the reality of our current built environment. 


A. Don't do anything and continue to fail at everything (transit, convention, Hyatt, Landing, Bay Street, etc.).




^^^ That's it right there. Unfortunately that has been the trend here for a while. If and when JTA builds that Transportation Center then what? Opportunity lost again.

QuoteCharlotte also worked for a decade beforehand making sure that their city was filled with the kind of social and entertainment fabric that a convention would want to come to, and started a modern conversation about mass transit.

As I stated in my original post, DT Charlotte was DEAD in 1995.  1995 was years before the Light Rail or the restaurant/entertainment infux, or nearly all of the permanent housing that exceeds 10,000 today.

   

Quote from: vicupstate on January 25, 2011, 12:10:03 PM

QuoteCharlotte also worked for a decade beforehand making sure that their city was filled with the kind of social and entertainment fabric that a convention would want to come to, and started a modern conversation about mass transit.

As I stated in my original post, DT Charlotte was DEAD in 1995.  1995 was years before the Light Rail or the restaurant/entertainment infux, or nearly all of the permanent housing that exceeds 10,000 today.

Downtown Charlotte was never dead like Jacksonville is dead, they still had economic generators downtown, which ultimately was why things turned out one way there and differently here. We actively chased off our former economic engines (corporate headquarters, transportation, industrial).

QuoteBank of America (largest bank in the United States), Wachovia, Nucor Steel, Duke Energy, Lowe's, Time-Warner Cable, ESPN, Belk Department Stores, Harris Teeter, Muzak, Compass Bank, Family Dollar, B.F.Goodrich, SPX Corp., NASCAR

Okay, so the NAACP went to Charlotte because they are the home of NASCAR?  The NRA went to Charlotte because of banks?

I don't buy it.   

Those Fortune 500 companies didn't pay for the convention center, and they are not the primary users either.  So what exactly is your point? No matter what city I choose to use as an example, you will pick some totally irrelevant reason as to why it proves nothing.


Maybe they went there because they had the facilities and they where centrally located and it was a different location from previous ones.  Many organizations will NOT repeat a location.  Every year a different city is choosen, because they want to provide a unique experience each year.

Your basic premise (not just on a convention center, but just about any topic) is that Jacksonville is totally and wholly incapable of doing anything right, so why even try to do anything.   If pessimism was prosperity, Jax wouldn't have any problems.     

Stephan, why don't you ask the Omni or the Hyatt if they would protest a 'public' convention center being built.  No one would be happier to see one open than them.   

Quote from: vicupstate on January 25, 2011, 12:31:57 PM

QuoteBank of America (largest bank in the United States), Wachovia, Nucor Steel, Duke Energy, Lowe's, Time-Warner Cable, ESPN, Belk Department Stores, Harris Teeter, Muzak, Compass Bank, Family Dollar, B.F.Goodrich, SPX Corp., NASCAR

Okay, so the NAACP went to Charlotte because they are the home of NASCAR?  The NRA went to Charlotte because of banks?

I don't buy it.  

Those Fortune 500 companies didn't pay for the convention center, and they are not the primary users either.  So what exactly is your point? No matter what city I choose to use as an example, you will pick some totally irrelevant reason as to why it proves nothing.


Maybe they went there because they had the facilities and they where centrally located and it was a different location from previous ones.  Many organizations will NOT repeat a location.  Every year a different city is choosen, because they want to provide a unique experience each year.

Your basic premise (not just on a convention center, but just about any topic) is that Jacksonville is totally and wholly incapable of doing anything right, so why even try to do anything.   If pessimism was prosperity, Jax wouldn't have any problems.      

Stephan, why don't you ask the Omni or the Hyatt if they would protest a 'public' convention center being built.  No one would be happier to see one open than them.  

WTF are you talking about with this NAACP and NRA stuff? Who said anything about that?

You just jumped the shark, three freighters, and a couple jet skis. WTF does that have to with anything?

In the 19th Century, the British went to China for the Opium, too! But I don't see WTF that has to do with a convention center in Jacksonville?

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 25, 2011, 12:29:14 PM

Quote from: vicupstate on January 25, 2011, 12:10:03 PM

QuoteCharlotte also worked for a decade beforehand making sure that their city was filled with the kind of social and entertainment fabric that a convention would want to come to, and started a modern conversation about mass transit.

As I stated in my original post, DT Charlotte was DEAD in 1995.  1995 was years before the Light Rail or the restaurant/entertainment infux, or nearly all of the permanent housing that exceeds 10,000 today.

Downtown Charlotte was never dead like Jacksonville is dead, they still had economic generators downtown, which ultimately was why things turned out one way there and differently here. We actively chased off our former economic engines (corporate headquarters, transportation, industrial).

Let me clarify.  DT  Charlotte was deserted after 5pm.  That's how Jax has been for decades, only now it isn't even doing that well between 9am -5pm.  If something isn't done to bring some life to DT, then the life that does exist during businesss hours will eventually die out as well.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 25, 2011, 12:36:27 PM

Quote from: vicupstate on January 25, 2011, 12:31:57 PM

QuoteBank of America (largest bank in the United States), Wachovia, Nucor Steel, Duke Energy, Lowe's, Time-Warner Cable, ESPN, Belk Department Stores, Harris Teeter, Muzak, Compass Bank, Family Dollar, B.F.Goodrich, SPX Corp., NASCAR

Okay, so the NAACP went to Charlotte because they are the home of NASCAR?  The NRA went to Charlotte because of banks?

I don't buy it.  

Those Fortune 500 companies didn't pay for the convention center, and they are not the primary users either.  So what exactly is your point? No matter what city I choose to use as an example, you will pick some totally irrelevant reason as to why it proves nothing.


Maybe they went there because they had the facilities and they where centrally located and it was a different location from previous ones.  Many organizations will NOT repeat a location.  Every year a different city is choosen, because they want to provide a unique experience each year.

Your basic premise (not just on a convention center, but just about any topic) is that Jacksonville is totally and wholly incapable of doing anything right, so why even try to do anything.   If pessimism was prosperity, Jax wouldn't have any problems.      

Stephan, why don't you ask the Omni or the Hyatt if they would protest a 'public' convention center being built.  No one would be happier to see one open than them.  

WTF are you talking about with this NAACP and NRA stuff? Who said anything about that?

You just jumped the shark, three freighters, and a couple jet skis. WTF does that have to with anything?

In the 19th Century, the British went to China for the Opium, too! But I don't see WTF that has to do with a convention center in Jacksonville?

Did you even READ my original POST?


70,000 people spent three days in Charlotte because they had the facilities to hold that NRA convention. A similair impact was felt with the NAACP convention.

Do you think those 70,000 people spent any money in those three days?  

The whole point was to show the econominc impact that conventions, and by extention, convention centers, can have.  They justify their existance by their economic impact.

What do you not comprehend about that?   That is completely germane to the topic.  

Quote from: vicupstate on January 25, 2011, 12:37:10 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 25, 2011, 12:29:14 PM

Quote from: vicupstate on January 25, 2011, 12:10:03 PM

QuoteCharlotte also worked for a decade beforehand making sure that their city was filled with the kind of social and entertainment fabric that a convention would want to come to, and started a modern conversation about mass transit.

As I stated in my original post, DT Charlotte was DEAD in 1995.  1995 was years before the Light Rail or the restaurant/entertainment infux, or nearly all of the permanent housing that exceeds 10,000 today.

Downtown Charlotte was never dead like Jacksonville is dead, they still had economic generators downtown, which ultimately was why things turned out one way there and differently here. We actively chased off our former economic engines (corporate headquarters, transportation, industrial).

Let me clarify.  DT  Charlotte was deserted after 5pm.  That's how Jax has been for decades, only now it isn't even doing that well between 9am -5pm.  If something isn't done to bring some life to DT, then the life that does exist during businesss hours will eventually die out as well.

Right, I agree with you there. A lot of urban areas underwent a decline during this period, Charlotte was no different. But Jacksonville is vastly different. We aren't talking about a decline and rebirth, as happened elsewhere. Downtown Jacksonville pretty much up and died, due to a series of catastrophically bad decisions by local government leaders who didn't understand the economic forces behind the decline they were causing, didn't understand how to fix it, and didn't understand what had made the urban core successful in the first place.

As the direct result of this group's decisions, we now have a dead downtown of which 4/5th's is demolished or vacant, a lot of what is left is empty parking garages, and what few remaining employers are down there are fleeing left and right because of these same decisions. The only thing the current administration seems willing or able to do to fix it is to buy up a bunch of the buildings and turn the entire former city into one giant bloated City Hall.

And those same people are still around, and their latest magic bullet is...you guess it...this proposed convention center. At what point do we say, we've given your ideas a chance, they don't work, it's time for fresh ideas?

Quote from: vicupstate on January 25, 2011, 12:44:20 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 25, 2011, 12:36:27 PM

Quote from: vicupstate on January 25, 2011, 12:31:57 PM

QuoteBank of America (largest bank in the United States), Wachovia, Nucor Steel, Duke Energy, Lowe's, Time-Warner Cable, ESPN, Belk Department Stores, Harris Teeter, Muzak, Compass Bank, Family Dollar, B.F.Goodrich, SPX Corp., NASCAR

Okay, so the NAACP went to Charlotte because they are the home of NASCAR?  The NRA went to Charlotte because of banks?

I don't buy it.  

Those Fortune 500 companies didn't pay for the convention center, and they are not the primary users either.  So what exactly is your point? No matter what city I choose to use as an example, you will pick some totally irrelevant reason as to why it proves nothing.


Maybe they went there because they had the facilities and they where centrally located and it was a different location from previous ones.  Many organizations will NOT repeat a location.  Every year a different city is choosen, because they want to provide a unique experience each year.

Your basic premise (not just on a convention center, but just about any topic) is that Jacksonville is totally and wholly incapable of doing anything right, so why even try to do anything.   If pessimism was prosperity, Jax wouldn't have any problems.      

Stephan, why don't you ask the Omni or the Hyatt if they would protest a 'public' convention center being built.  No one would be happier to see one open than them.  

WTF are you talking about with this NAACP and NRA stuff? Who said anything about that?

You just jumped the shark, three freighters, and a couple jet skis. WTF does that have to with anything?

In the 19th Century, the British went to China for the Opium, too! But I don't see WTF that has to do with a convention center in Jacksonville?

Did you even READ my original POST?


70,000 people spent three days in Charlotte because they had the facilities to hold that NRA convention. A similair impact was felt with the NAACP convention.

Do you think those 70,000 people spent any money in those three days?  

The whole point was to show the econominc impact that conventions, and by extention, convention centers, can have.  They justify their existance by their economic impact.

What do you not comprehend about that?   That is completely germane to the topic.  

They do not justify their existence with economic impact, first off.

Secondly, let's distill your silly argument down to its implied premise. Let me ask you a simple question;

Do you think that if we built an exact replica of Charlotte's, or Las Vegas', or Orlando's, convention center, in downtown Jacksonville, that we will suddenly have their convention business? Why? That is quite literally your exact argument, what do you have to justify it?

Do you think there are any other factors regarding why someone would choose those places over Jacksonville maybe?

Quote from: stephendare on January 25, 2011, 12:38:37 PM
Vic.

I owned a restaurant in downtown while the convention center was having conventions.

In order to work with the convention center you have to pay an annual 500 dollar fee, so that you can have the privilege of bidding against other people who also had to pay the 500 dollar fee for catering.

The jobs usually go to the catering companies, none of which were based in downtown Jacksonville.

Hotels are for anything that has to possibility of putting asses in beds, even if it means taking a systemically lower profit margin.  

Ask the hotels whether or not they would prefer that the Visitors and Convention Center were required to book whole conventions in their hotels instead, and see which option they would choose first.

Is the CVB going to forbid convention goers from eating in your restuarant?

The hotels cannot host conventions of the size.  The get the business they can but they can't compete on the higher tiers.  The pie would not just be divided more times, it would grow much bigger.  That is the whole point.

Do you honestly think that if a major sized convention center went on the current courthouse lot, that the Landing, Bay Street, the Hyatt, the Omni, and eventually (with proper planning by the CVB and the city) Laura Street would not see a quantum increase in business?  

Quote from: thelakelander on January 25, 2011, 11:50:11 AM
Drop by Three Layers tonight, we can discuss and I'll answer whatever questions you have.  I have some things I need to attend to.

I can certainly discuss this in person, and would enjoy it, but given that the article was posted publicly, I'm interested in a public discussion of the reasons that would justify its conclusions. It really distills back down to this basic and unsupported "build it and they will come" philosopy that one only finds in an urban planning context that is disconnected from the business realities and what that entails. You cannot just go *poof* and create a viable market with just a building. It doesn't work, as all available evidence shows.

And I find that people routinely compare apples and oranges to justify these arguments, as you did when you used San Diego as your example. San Diego actually proves the exact opposite of your premise, as they developed the convention business organically and then later built the building once they had sufficient demand to justify it, and this prudent approach led to their success, the same as ignoring that prudent approach will lead to our failure.

Quote from: vicupstate on January 25, 2011, 12:50:25 PM

Quote from: stephendare on January 25, 2011, 12:38:37 PM
Vic.

I owned a restaurant in downtown while the convention center was having conventions.

In order to work with the convention center you have to pay an annual 500 dollar fee, so that you can have the privilege of bidding against other people who also had to pay the 500 dollar fee for catering.

The jobs usually go to the catering companies, none of which were based in downtown Jacksonville.

Hotels are for anything that has to possibility of putting asses in beds, even if it means taking a systemically lower profit margin.  

Ask the hotels whether or not they would prefer that the Visitors and Convention Center were required to book whole conventions in their hotels instead, and see which option they would choose first.

Is the CVB going to forbid convention goers from eating in your restuarant?

The hotels cannot host conventions of the size.  The get the business they can but they can't compete on the higher tiers.  The pie would not just be divided more times, it would grow much bigger.  That is the whole point.

Do you honestly think that if a major sized convention center went on the current courthouse lot, that the Landing, Bay Street, the Hyatt, the Omni, and eventually (with proper planning by the CVB and the city) Laura Street would not see a quantum increase in business?  

No, there would be little to no increase in business, because the Convention Center itself would be as empty as the rest of downtown. For the 364,567th time, the reasons that people do not come here have little to do with the building.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 25, 2011, 12:53:18 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on January 25, 2011, 11:50:11 AM
Drop by Three Layers tonight, we can discuss and I'll answer whatever questions you have.  I have some things I need to attend to.

I can certainly discuss this in person, and would enjoy it, but given that the article was posted publicly, I'm interested in a public discussion of the reasons that would justify its conclusions. It really distills back down to this basic and unsupported "build it and they will come" philosopy that one only finds in an urban planning context that is disconnected from the business realities and what that entails. You cannot just go *poof* and create a viable market with just a building. It doesn't work, as all available evidence shows.

And I find that people routinely compare apples and oranges to justify these arguments, as you did when you used San Diego as your example. San Diego actually proves the exact opposite of your premise, as they developed the convention business organically and then later built the building once they had sufficient demand to justify it, and this prudent approach led to their success, the same as ignoring that prudent approach will lead to our failure.

Cool.   Unfortunately, I can't sit around and go in circles online all day.  Later tonight, I'll go back and answer the questions that deal with connectivity and clustering complementing businesses together and how a convention center can be a part of that puzzle.  I'll leave all the curve ball national convention/Vegas/Orlando talk that has nothing to do with these core urban revitalization principles up to someone else to debate.

Jax has already paid for a convention center hotel and Bay Street and the Landing.  It already owns the land too.  The cost is $100mm, not 400mm.  Let's deal with the facts, for starters.  

If Charlotte lands the Democratic National Convention, which will utilize their Convention Center and it's hotel, the economy impact will be $150mm.  That ain't chump change, and the media exposure ain't nothing to sneeze at either.

I'm not saying that a Convention center is necessary Priority ONE at this time.  But there has been NO evidence provided in these threads, that leveraging a Convention Center in the same way that San Diego, Charlotte, Indy, Baltimore, etc. have done, could not work in Jax.    

Quote from: vicupstate on January 25, 2011, 01:01:17 PM
Jax has already paid for a convention center hotel and Bay Street and the Landing.  It already owns the land too.  The cost is $100mm, not 400mm.  Let's deal with the facts, for starters.  

If Charlotte lands the Democratic National Convention, which will utilize their Convention Center and it's hotel, the economy impact will be $150mm.  That ain't chump change, and the media exposure ain't nothing to sneeze at either.

I'm not saying that a Convention center is necessary Priority ONE at this time.  But there has been NO evidence provided in these threads, that leveraging a Convention Center in the same way that San Diego, Charlotte, Indy, Baltimore, etc. have done, could not work in Jax.    

How do you know the convention center would be $100mm? Source/Link please...

Chris...in reading your convention center posts over a few threads, can you clarify something in your position for me? Do you hold that Jacksonville doesn't need a convention center period, or that what we currently have is more than sufficient?

Does anyone have actual verifable stats regarding P.O. visitors?  There seems to be quite a misrepresentation of the number of events and their size.  Clearly the Boat show, car show, home and Patio show... to name a few... can not be hosted at the Hyatt nor the Omni.  I have been to all three of these and they are pretty well attended.  There are a few "lesser" events that Hyatt nor Omni could handle.  

I see 21 events scheduled for this year... in a poor facility... in an abandoned part of town... connected to nothing.

http://www.jaxevents.com/primeosborn.php

Most conventions provide no  more than one meal per day in-house, if they provide any meals.

If someone is coming from outside of Jax, they aren't going to know your reputation eihter way, but they can walk across Bay Street just the same.  

The Hyatt cannot handle a convention of the size I am speaking of.  If they could, why did they basically fund the candidate (Weinstein in '03) that wanted to build a convention center next to them.

Exactly how is it that the Gator Bowl can pack the Landing, but a similiar sized Convention would not?

Quote from: Clem1029 on January 25, 2011, 01:05:10 PM
Chris...in reading your convention center posts over a few threads, can you clarify something in your position for me? Do you hold that Jacksonville doesn't need a convention center period, or that what we currently have is more than sufficient?

I think, at most, we need maybe a medium/small sized civic hall without all of the buerocracy and string-pulling that exists with a contract-managed convention center, where the service industry downtown doesn't benefit from it and the profits are made by out of town corporations. Let the private market host the events presently at the convention center, and have a civic auditorium for the public speeches and whatnot.

The Hyatt presently has facilities sufficient to host the events scheduled for the Prime Osborn, and is about bankrupt (like the other downtown hotels) because there isn't enough revenue. Closing the Prime Osborn would provide a revenue source to the Hyatt, which would provide convention services that we don't have to pay for as taxpayers, and then we get the added benefit of being able to reopen the train station.

It's a win on multiple levels, and won't require the taxpayers to continue funding a convention facility that is in direct competition with the private Hyatt facilities that we already also paid to build, with the result that both are failing at taxpayer expense.

Quote from: vicupstate on January 25, 2011, 01:11:41 PM
Exactly how is it that the Gator Bowl can pack the Landing, but a similiar sized Convention would not?

This is so simple you had to know the answer before you asked the question.

Answer: The stadium actually attracts people because an NFL team and well-known college teams play there. So there is an attraction, that doesn't carry over to convention centers. Until an NFL team starts playing inside the convention center, I think you're unlikely to see this particular apple start tasting like an orange.

Secondly, even the stadium is a pretty large failure when you analyze it. It doesn't pay for itself, and is supported by a variety of special taxes. And the only reason we have the Jaguars is because of ridiculous taxpayer subsidies, and even then we routinely suffer blackouts in recent years, even after them pulling out multiple seating sections, because not enough people attend the games.

QuoteThe Hyatt presently has facilities sufficient to host the events scheduled for the Prime Osborn,

Really?  Boat show?  Car show?  Home and Patio?  Really?

http://www.jaxevents.com/primeosborn.php

Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 25, 2011, 01:22:31 PM

QuoteThe Hyatt presently has facilities sufficient to host the events scheduled for the Prime Osborn,

Really?  Boat show?  Car show?  Home and Patio?  Really?

http://www.jaxevents.com/primeosborn.php

The boat show would actually be better off at the Hyatt, since in recent years most of the boats are at the in-water portion that's not at the Prime Osborn anyway. You could tie up the boats in front of the Hyatt, or put in some floating docks, it would actually be a lot better because it would all be in one place then. So you're totally wrong on that one. Regarding the car show, sure, that could be hosted at the Hyatt and Landing, and the Home and Patio show also. Let me ask you this; How many visitors do you think these shows attract?

Those are TWO different boat shows...

QuoteLet me ask you this; How many visitors do you think these shows attract?

Good question.  Does anyone have real verifiable numbers?  The three I listed seem very well attended.  Boat shows are so popular we get two downtown every year.

Quote
At 200,000 square feet, the exhibit space in the Tampa center is the size that Jacksonville planners say would be ideal for the First Coast. That would allow the local convention and visitors bureau to solicit 85 percent of the convention market; with the 78,500 square feet at the Prime Osborn, the bureau can go after only 10 percent of the market, bureau chief John Reyes has said.

Quote
Steve Hayes, executive vice president of the Tampa Bay convention bureau, said Tampa has looked at doubling its exhibit space to 400,000 square feet. The project is estimated to cost from $111 million to $125 million.

http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/053107/bus_173777883.shtml

Tampa was getting 200,000 SF for 111-125mm.

Quote
Tradeshow Week ranks the Prime Osborn Convention Center 172nd nationally in exhibit hall space behind smaller cities such as Corpus Christi, Texas, Deluth, Minn., and Lafayette, La.

Space limits and/or lack of an adjacent hotel have cost Jack- sonville at least 38 meetings and conventions since 1998, according to the Jacksonville & the Beaches Convention and Visitors Bureau.

The projected economic impact that got away: $56 million.

The city hosted 284 events last fiscal year. But the CVB estimates Jacksonville's limitations confine it to competing for about 5 percent of the potential U.S. convention business -- and that could be an optimistic figure.

http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/041205/opi_18451618.shtml

Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 25, 2011, 01:27:27 PM

QuoteLet me ask you this; How many visitors do you think these shows attract?

Good question.  Does anyone have real verifiable numbers?  The three I listed seem very well attended.  Boat shows are so popular we get two downtown every year.

Well I can tell you that the Prime Osborn has 78,500 square feet of convention space and the Hyatt has 110,000 square feet of convention space. The Hyatt could easily host everything the Prime Osborn hosts now, not counting the spillover space available at the Landing that they could coordinate with Sleiman on if they needed it. That would be a direct stimulus to private business downtown, unlike the current center which directly competes with it.

I also have been to the boat shows and the home and patio show, and while they are well-attended, those events would fit in the Hyatt's 110,000 square feet as well as they fit in the Prime-Osborn's 78,500. Our convention center really isn't that large, the Hyatt has as much space and we don't have to subsidize it as taxpayers.

http://www.hyattregencyjacksonville.com/venues-meetings (http://www.hyattregencyjacksonville.com/venues-meetings)

Kind of blows your argument up, doesn't it?

The 110,000 is combined space... not one large exhibit hall.

Overview
Stage your important events in our expansive Jacksonville meeting facility; at 110,000 square feet it’s the largest in Northeast Florida. Whether you're planning a simple one-day meeting or an elaborate weeklong conference, you will find that our spacious downtown Jacksonville convention center hotel offers everything to meet your needs, including:

QuoteCreative catering, including Personal Preference Dining®, for small groups or large parties
110,000 square feet of flexible function space including a 27,984 square foot Grand Ballroom, 20,876 square feet of pre-function space and 21,120 square feet of unique outdoor terrace space overlooking the beautiful St. Johns River.
Meeting space designed for small meetings, several meeting rooms feature windows overlooking the St. Johns River.
Spacious hospitality suites with outdoor terraces
Experienced meeting and event planners, ready to help take care of the details from the initial planning phases to the day of the event.
A Meeting Concierge at your side from start to finish during your meeting.
Innovative event technology and meeting services, with our on-site experts Audio Visual to ensure flawless execution and high impact event.
Business Center with computer terminals, fax machines and printers.
966 newly renovated, luxuriously appointed guestrooms
Minutes from the Prime Osborn III Convention Center with over 265,000 square feet of meeting and exhibit space.

Never tried to get a boat or car up an elevator or escalator but I would love to get it on video,...

Largest rooms

P.O.... 78,500 sf
Hyatt... 28,000 sf

Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 25, 2011, 01:39:45 PM
The 110,000 is combined space... not one large exhibit hall.

Overview
Stage your important events in our expansive Jacksonville meeting facility; at 110,000 square feet it’s the largest in Northeast Florida. Whether you're planning a simple one-day meeting or an elaborate weeklong conference, you will find that our spacious downtown Jacksonville convention center hotel offers everything to meet your needs, including:

QuoteCreative catering, including Personal Preference Dining®, for small groups or large parties
110,000 square feet of flexible function space including a 27,984 square foot Grand Ballroom, 20,876 square feet of pre-function space and 21,120 square feet of unique outdoor terrace space overlooking the beautiful St. Johns River.
Meeting space designed for small meetings, several meeting rooms feature windows overlooking the St. Johns River.
Spacious hospitality suites with outdoor terraces
Experienced meeting and event planners, ready to help take care of the details from the initial planning phases to the day of the event.
A Meeting Concierge at your side from start to finish during your meeting.
Innovative event technology and meeting services, with our on-site experts Audio Visual to ensure flawless execution and high impact event.
Business Center with computer terminals, fax machines and printers.
966 newly renovated, luxuriously appointed guestrooms
Minutes from the Prime Osborn III Convention Center with over 265,000 square feet of meeting and exhibit space.

Never tried to get a boat or car up an elevator or escalator but I would love to get it on video,...

So you have the event in two different rooms instead of one large one, I think people can figure out how to walk down a hallway, don't you? And the Hyatt has ground-level space, that whole ugly Ziggurat thing next to the building is meeting space. Never seen a car go up a level, really? Ever been in a parking garage?

The existing events don't fully utilize the Prime Osborn either...

Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 25, 2011, 01:41:58 PM
Largest rooms

P.O.... 78,500 sf
Hyatt... 28,000 sf

What does the largest room have to do with anything? You can't use two rooms? I didn't realize the boat show was somehow planning to put a 400' boat inside the building? Wow must be an amazing display!

Oh, and one more thing, if BridgeTroll's silly argument reflected reality, then perhaps someone would care to explain why, back before we built any convention center at all and when the business was handled solely by the private hotels downtown, which model I'm suggesting we return to, we had 200k+ out of town convention visitors a year, and why after building several convention centers of increasingly greater size that number has somehow now dwindled to almost nothing? If space is really the issue here, why did this happen?

Anyone?

400' boat??  I realize that is smaller than you are used to but most of the boats at the shows are usually well south of 100'.  Car and boat shows do not want their exhibits in a parking garage as you are well aware...  :)

Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 25, 2011, 01:48:29 PM
400' boat??  I realize that is smaller than you are used to but most of the boats at the shows are usually well south of 100'.  Car and boat shows do not want their exhibits in a parking garage as you are well aware...  :)

Haha, I have never had a boat over 40' but I wish. I'm not suggesting that we actually hold the events in a parking garage, although now that you mention it, if we included parking garages, then downtown Jacksonville has more space than Orlando, Tampa, Las Vegas, San Diego, LA, Charlotte, and every other convention hall in the U.S. combined! Maybe we SHOULD start marketing our parking garages as convention space! (tongue in cheek)

But what I meant with the Hyatt is that the designers factor this kind of thing into the design, the building will have freight elevators or, more likely, ramps, that will allow for transporting large display items up and down levels in the convention space. I would almost guarantee there's a ramp and large entrance/exit doors, they all have that. The Hyatt could accomodate every event of the sizes presently held at the Prime-Osborn, they'd just need to put together 2 rooms to do it, or actually probably not since most of the events at the Prime Osborn still don't take up every square inch of space. I think most of us could stomach a 50 foot walk from one space to the next.

I give up out of sheer frustration now... my posts aren't showing up/getting deleted(?) for some reason.

Have at it...

QuoteI would almost guarantee there's a ramp and large entrance/exit doors, they all have that. The Hyatt could accomodate every event of the sizes presently held at the Prime-Osborn,

Again... I do not think this is the case.  There IS a freight elevator... but it will not handle a boat or a car... much less 50 or 60. 

http://www.jacksonville.hyatt.com/hyatt/images/hotels/jaxrj/floorplan.pdf

http://www.jacksonville.hyatt.com/hyatt/images/hotels/jaxrj/capacity.pdf

http://www.jacksonville.hyatt.com/hyatt/images/hotels/jaxrj/factsheet.pdf

I think there is a need for a convention center.  There are currently 21 events at a crappy facility located nowhere.  How many events would we have in a modern facility located...somewhere?

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 25, 2011, 01:17:18 PM

Quote from: Clem1029 on January 25, 2011, 01:05:10 PM
Chris...in reading your convention center posts over a few threads, can you clarify something in your position for me? Do you hold that Jacksonville doesn't need a convention center period, or that what we currently have is more than sufficient?

I think, at most, we need maybe a medium/small sized civic hall without all of the buerocracy and string-pulling that exists with a contract-managed convention center, where the service industry downtown doesn't benefit from it and the profits are made by out of town corporations. Let the private market host the events presently at the convention center, and have a civic auditorium for the public speeches and whatnot.

The Hyatt presently has facilities sufficient to host the events scheduled for the Prime Osborn, and is about bankrupt (like the other downtown hotels) because there isn't enough revenue. Closing the Prime Osborn would provide a revenue source to the Hyatt, which would provide convention services that we don't have to pay for as taxpayers, and then we get the added benefit of being able to reopen the train station.

It's a win on multiple levels, and won't require the taxpayers to continue funding a convention facility that is in direct competition with the private Hyatt facilities that we already also paid to build, with the result that both are failing at taxpayer expense.

OK, at the risk of putting words into your mouth (and please let me know if I'm missing something), your position combined with pieces of other downtown suggestions would look something like the following - kill off the transportation center boondoggle, convert PO back to the terminal, enhance transit, and let events at the PO just figure out how to utilize other space elsewhere downtown for their functions?

Just trying to wrap my head around how the pieces fit together.

Yes it is.  I imagine some of the events now held at the Prime could move to the Hyatt.  The 3 major ones certainly cannot despite Chris's assertions that boats and cars will go up the elevators.  Continuous space is most certainly another issue.  Hyatt simply does not have enough of that.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 25, 2011, 02:17:00 PM

QuoteI would almost guarantee there's a ramp and large entrance/exit doors, they all have that. The Hyatt could accomodate every event of the sizes presently held at the Prime-Osborn,

Again... I do not think this is the case.  There IS a freight elevator... but it will not handle a boat or a car... much less 50 or 60.  

http://www.jacksonville.hyatt.com/hyatt/images/hotels/jaxrj/floorplan.pdf

http://www.jacksonville.hyatt.com/hyatt/images/hotels/jaxrj/capacity.pdf

http://www.jacksonville.hyatt.com/hyatt/images/hotels/jaxrj/factsheet.pdf

Sure there is a ramp, it's the cement parking garage entrance ramp, you bring the car up the garage and through that ramp. The boat show would be largely outdoors anyway, you do that in the water, in the public area around the building, and at the Landing if needed, and the smaller boats (which is what the Prime Osborn has anyway) would fit inside. That's why they designed that ramp access into it, they all have something like this. Although it looks like they added some kind of offices in the middle of the ramp, so they might have screwed themselves on that one. Also, the 27k square foot ballroom drawings show collapsible walls between it and the 8 meeting rooms, and it's then surrounded by another 20k+ square feet of preconvention space. So added together this facility does look like it would have comparable single-room space to the Prime Osborn.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 25, 2011, 02:27:53 PM
Yes it is.  I imagine some of the events now held at the Prime could move to the Hyatt.  The 3 major ones certainly cannot despite Chris's assertions that boats and cars will go up the elevators.  Continuous space is most certainly another issue.  Hyatt simply does not have enough of that.

Who said cars don't go up freight elevators? Really? What about across ramps?

And why couldn't the Home and Patio show move to the Hyatt? I didn't realize display windows and doors, model sun rooms, and patio furniture couldn't go in a freight elevator or across a ramp either? What evidence do you have to back up your claim that patio furniture can't ride in elevators?

Quote from: Clem1029 on January 25, 2011, 02:25:26 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 25, 2011, 01:17:18 PM

Quote from: Clem1029 on January 25, 2011, 01:05:10 PM
Chris...in reading your convention center posts over a few threads, can you clarify something in your position for me? Do you hold that Jacksonville doesn't need a convention center period, or that what we currently have is more than sufficient?

I think, at most, we need maybe a medium/small sized civic hall without all of the buerocracy and string-pulling that exists with a contract-managed convention center, where the service industry downtown doesn't benefit from it and the profits are made by out of town corporations. Let the private market host the events presently at the convention center, and have a civic auditorium for the public speeches and whatnot.

The Hyatt presently has facilities sufficient to host the events scheduled for the Prime Osborn, and is about bankrupt (like the other downtown hotels) because there isn't enough revenue. Closing the Prime Osborn would provide a revenue source to the Hyatt, which would provide convention services that we don't have to pay for as taxpayers, and then we get the added benefit of being able to reopen the train station.

It's a win on multiple levels, and won't require the taxpayers to continue funding a convention facility that is in direct competition with the private Hyatt facilities that we already also paid to build, with the result that both are failing at taxpayer expense.

OK, at the risk of putting words into your mouth (and please let me know if I'm missing something), your position combined with pieces of other downtown suggestions would look something like the following - kill off the transportation center boondoggle, convert PO back to the terminal, enhance transit, and let events at the PO just figure out how to utilize other space elsewhere downtown for their functions?

Just trying to wrap my head around how the pieces fit together.

Yup, that's exactly what I believe to be the only sensible way to handle this.

And despite BridgeTroll's assertions, the one event that the Prime Osborn hosts that would be a space challenge for the Hyatt would be the boat show, and that single event by itself is hardly a legitimate reason to keep this taxpayer-supported failed convention center going with millions of dollars of operating losses paid out of our taxes.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 25, 2011, 02:35:55 PM
And why couldn't the Home and Patio show move to the Hyatt? I didn't realize display windows and doors, model sun rooms, and patio furniture couldn't go in a freight elevator or across a ramp either? What evidence do you have to back up your claim that patio furniture can't ride in elevators?

You are well aware that I said nothing about patio furniture.  The Boat show that occurs at the Prime in an Indoors show.  It is designed for indoor convention facilities and they have noted more than once that the P.O. is inadequate for their show.  My guess is that if the Hyatt was adequate... they would have had it there long ago.  Ya think?

QuoteAnd despite BridgeTroll's assertions, the one event that the Prime Osborn hosts that would be a space challenge for the Hyatt would be the boat show,

OK.  Why dont they use the Hyatt now?

Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 25, 2011, 02:45:32 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 25, 2011, 02:35:55 PM
And why couldn't the Home and Patio show move to the Hyatt? I didn't realize display windows and doors, model sun rooms, and patio furniture couldn't go in a freight elevator or across a ramp either? What evidence do you have to back up your claim that patio furniture can't ride in elevators?

You are well aware that I said nothing about patio furniture.  The Boat show that occurs at the Prime in an Indoors show.  It is designed for indoor convention facilities and they have noted more than once that the P.O. is inadequate for their show.  My guess is that if the Hyatt was adequate... they would have had it there long ago.  Ya think?

No I don't think, because the Hyatt doesn't have the luxury of being taxpayer-supported so that it can give away its convention space for free, like the Prime Osborn does. That's kind of the whole point here, isn't it? To eliminate the taxpayer-funded element of this and let the private market handle it.

The only event on the Prime Osborn's calendar that would be a space challenge at the Hyatt is the boat show, and that one event is not a justification for continuing to fund this failed convention center. The operating losses, maintenance, upfront payments on management contracts, all of that comes out of tax revenues, and all of that could be outright eliminated and picked up by the private sector, which would also allow us to convert the terminal back into a terminal.

QuoteThe operating losses, maintenance, upfront payments on management contracts, all of that comes out of tax revenues, and all of that could be outright eliminated and picked up by the private sector, which would also allow us to convert the terminal back into a terminal.

This sounds like the same argument made by those who oppose rail... :)

Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 25, 2011, 02:47:30 PM

QuoteAnd despite BridgeTroll's assertions, the one event that the Prime Osborn hosts that would be a space challenge for the Hyatt would be the boat show,

OK.  Why dont they use the Hyatt now?

Because the Hyatt can't afford to give its space away for free at taxpayer expense, like the Prime Osborn does. This is kind of the whole problem isn't it, how is private business supposed to compete with a taxpayer-funded facility that literally gives the space away for free to any event that will bring 200 people? How can you compete with free? Should we place private business in the position of having to compete against free, that's only free because it's taxpayer supported? The whole thing's a mess.

But to answer your question, the only reason the Prime Osborn has anything at all in it is because it's literally given away free with the City picking up the tab, to any event that brings in 200 overnight visitors.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 25, 2011, 02:52:37 PM

QuoteThe operating losses, maintenance, upfront payments on management contracts, all of that comes out of tax revenues, and all of that could be outright eliminated and picked up by the private sector, which would also allow us to convert the terminal back into a terminal.

This sounds like the same argument made by those who oppose rail... :)

Rail has benefits. Unlike this convention center. I support rail.

Maybe someone could explain to me how I can ride the convention center to work?

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 25, 2011, 02:53:31 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 25, 2011, 02:47:30 PM

QuoteAnd despite BridgeTroll's assertions, the one event that the Prime Osborn hosts that would be a space challenge for the Hyatt would be the boat show,

OK.  Why dont they use the Hyatt now?

Because the Hyatt can't afford to give its space away for free at taxpayer expense, like the Prime Osborn does. This is kind of the whole problem isn't it, how is private business supposed to compete with a taxpayer-funded facility that literally gives the space away for free to any event that will bring 200 people? How can you compete with free? Should we place private business in the position of having to compete against free, that's only free because it's taxpayer supported? The whole thing's a mess.

But to answer your question, the only reason the Prime Osborn has anything at all in it is because it's literally given away free with the City picking up the tab, to any event that brings in 200 overnight visitors.

Again... do we have any verifiable attendance figures?  How about what the city charges per event versus what the Hyatt charges?  Chris is saying we are giving this away free and Hyatt cannot compete... but we really have no numbers. 

Chris... do you have links or number so we can talk apples to apples?

QuoteBecause the Hyatt can't afford to give its space away for free at taxpayer expense, like the Prime Osborn does.

With all due respect... you should stop arguing right now and start formulating more of your opinions from conversations with those in the business.

You are so far off.  The space/cost factor is a major problem at the CC.  It's too expensive for the limited space it has.  You have to realize a certain cost per square foot to make a mid-size convention worthwhile/profitable.  If you can't squeeze out certain margins, its not worth the time and effort to put an event on in certain venues.  The Prime Osborne simply cannot compete in that arena in its present form.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 25, 2011, 11:50:18 AM

Quote from: thelakelander on January 25, 2011, 11:34:00 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 25, 2011, 11:18:26 AM

Quote from: thelakelander on January 25, 2011, 11:08:49 AM
Doesn't matter to me.  My focus in this debate is to suggest that a well run, well placed convention center, featuring a mix of uses on site, can be a part of an organic urban environment.  I'll leave the merits and inner workings of the industry on a national level to you guys.

You know, maybe you're right.

So if these are the elements of success, then why don't we build a gigantic life-sized recreation of a huge Muslim temple downtown as well? It works out pretty damn well for Mecca, you know they get like 2 million visitors a year from all over the world! So if we just build the building and establish connectivity between it and other things, then that's all it takes to guarantee success, right? What works in Mecca must work here, as long as it's properly clustered, right?

All these other factors, like the little problem that we're just trying to copy/mimic things that work in other cities for reasons that don't exist or don't carry over here, or the fact that this will be our 3rd or 4th failed convention center, just don't matter, right? So if we build Mecca downtown and cluster it with other things, then we're guaranteed to have 2 million visitors a year? Sweet!

Well if we have a large Muslim population already downtown, maybe we should build a Temple.;D

You're reaching on that one, since I've already stated a ton of times that we already have events that we're not properly utilizing.  So, like it or not, we're already in the game.  So let's stop reaching and stick with te reality of what we're already playing with.

QuoteLake, I've met you many times in real life, you're a heck of a lot smarter than this...

You're railing off hot air at this point.  You're claiming things I've never stated and attempting to shoot down an entire industry and all I'm saying is even a well managed, well run convention center hosting the events we already have, can help in the effort to create an 24/7 downtown environment.  This is exactly the same argument for relocating Amtrak back downtown and kicking the CC out of the terminal to allow for a more compact transportation hub.  You may not agree with me using a convention center in this debate about the impact of connectivity and clustering compact uses to promote urban synergy but you can't prove that it doesn't work.  Regardless of the use, if you connect it with complementing uses in a compact setting, you can spur complementing activity.  Give me your uranium mine and I'll show you how to form an industrial district.

I'm not inventing arguments or blowing hot air, Lake, I'm just questioning what exactly would make this work (the 3rd or 4th go around, this time) when there is no viable market here. You do acknowledge that the convention business we have at the existing center is rather paltry and doesn't properly utilize or support that facility, correct? So then I'm not following you on how that would justify the construction of a bigger one?

Before saying anything, how did we respond to connectivity and clustering with the 1st and 2nd tries?

At this point, we have 21 events scheduled at the Prime Osborn that we won't get much economic benefit in DT from because of its complete isolation.  Those 21 events would suggest that some type of market is here, so how can we best benefit and nuture that existing market?

In addition, it's generally accepted that the convention center needs to go to make room for a viable compact transportation center.  So the option of nuturing that market in the existing facility means it will be at the expense of having a viable transportation center.  

QuoteAt the end of the day, your gist is really "build it and they will come" that's what this all boils down to. We both know the demand isn't here for it. And that just doesn't work. You can't go *poof* and magically create business demand and a viable market just by constructing a building. Because that's not how the convention business, or really ANY business for that matter, works. And I think that's where we disagree on this issue.

I think its proven without a doubt that there is a small market here.  That's not even worth debating since there are 21 scheduled events this year.  Instead, we should be focusing on how can we utilize our existing markets/assets in a manner that promotes the vision of a vibrant downtown community.

Source: http://www.jaxevents.com/primeosborn.php

QuoteSo I would pose to you a series of questions;

1: Do you believe the convention business we have now appropriately supports or utilizes our existing facility?

I think our existing facility is an outdated isolated place that needs to be converted back into a transportation center.  Since a viable transportation center is clearly a larger benefit, that should be priority one.  However, to move forward on that priority we need to address the convention center issue.  Considering the possibility of a public/private partnership and having an available piece of property in hand that is adjacent to our subsidized Hyatt, Bay Street and Landing (all complementing elements the current location lacks), it makes all the sense in the world to look into placing a new facility on that site.

Quote2: Do we have the demand to justify the continued existence of the present facility?

Since my number one priority is removing the convention center to make way for a transportation center, I have to ask myself if its worth investing in a new exhibition hall or letting our larger venues move elsewhere?  Given the economic impact of a connected, clustered walkable setting, I believe its worth it to build a new exhibition hall as a part of the mixed use development in the core of the city.  I really would like to see all the people attending these 21 events (even if each event only averaged 500) walking pass the front door of downtown bars, retailers and restaurants to get to that facility.

Quote3: Where is the demand to justify the construction of a larger facility, when we can't fill the one we have?

These three questions are eerily similar and so will my answers. Priority 1 (transportation center) changes the question to keep/better benefit from existing market or abandon it and lose most of those 21 events.  I prefer to develop an affordable solution to keep them, yet relocate them to an environment that better supports and works with our existing assets.

Quote4: Why didn't the former convention center in the original Memorial Coliseum work out? (After all, it was quite large, and connected by expressway to hotel space.)

Don't care.  That has nothing to do with the immediate issue at hand, which is to benefit from connectivity and clustering of existing assets or not.  Btw, "connected to hotel by expressway" is not pedestrian connectivity, which really applies to an urban environment.  Without pedestrian connectivity, you can't have a vibrant urban environment.

Quote5: Why didn't the Jacksonville Beach Convention Center work?

(After all, it was also quite large, and near to supporting hotel space.)

Don't care.  That has nothing to do with the immediate issue at hand, which is to benefit from connecivity and clustering of existing assets or not.  This applies not only to the convention center but the transportation center as well.

Quote6: Why DID the original private model of convention hosting by private hotels work?

Don't care.  That has nothing to do with the immediate issue at hand, which is to benefit from connectivity and clustering of existing assets or not.  If you want to advocate restructuring how the industry works, feel free.  That's not my argument.  What ever you all decide on that, just make sure the publicly or privately funded solution is developed in a compact pedestrian friendly setting that allows the use to create synergy with the surrounding walkable uses.

Quote7: What happened to our number of convention visitors (originally 200k-250k) when we took that business from the private hotels by building a series of public convention centers?

Don't care.  See last my last three answers.  If you're advocating restructuring the business, see my reply to question 6.

Quote8: Is this an abnormal result when government gets into private business?

Don't care.  See last my last four answers.  If you're advocating restructuring the business, see my reply to question 6.

Quote9: Is there any event at the current convention center that couldn't be hosted by a large private hotel with convention rooms, like the Hyatt?

Yes, the Hyatt is not a large facility. Both the state's Fire-Rescue Convention & Exposition and the State Cheer & Dance Championships left the Prime Osborn due to space constraints.  The Fire-Rescue event needed more than 100,000 square feet to clear exhibits from the lobby area.  Before they bolted, they were using 117,300 sf at the PO.  All of the Hyatt's facilities combined are 110,000sf and the largest column free space is a little over 20k.  In other words, the Hyatt as a premier convention facility in the country's 12th largest city equals peanuts.

Two other events that may outgrow the Prime Osborn in upcoming years include the Car & Truck Show and Spring Home & Patio Show.  Since the Hyatt is a much smaller space, I doubt they could consider shrinking their revenue stream down by squeezing into it as opposed of just going some place large enough to accommodate their needs.

source: http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/stories/2007/04/23/story2.html

As you can see, we're having two different converstations, which makes for an illogical debate.  You're focus appears to be on the merits of the industry as a whole and what needs to be done to allow it to florish, in your opinion.  I'm not talking about convention center industry merits or whether it should be public or private.  Hell, Hyatt could build their own privately funded box for all I care (I wouldn't complain).  I'm talking about whatever you do, it needs to done in a "walkable" (since you through an expressway into one of your replies) environment that contains a compact setting of complementing uses.

Quote from: fieldafm on January 25, 2011, 03:26:20 PM

QuoteBecause the Hyatt can't afford to give its space away for free at taxpayer expense, like the Prime Osborn does.

With all due respect... you should stop arguing right now and start formulating more of your opinions from conversations with those in the business.

You are so far off.  The space/cost factor is a major problem at the CC.  It's too expensive for the limited space it has.  You have to realize a certain cost per square foot to make a mid-size convention worthwhile/profitable.  If you can't squeeze out certain margins, its not worth the time and effort to put an event on in certain venues.  The Prime Osborne simply cannot compete in that arena in its present form.

LMAO, quoted so it doesn't disappear. You'll be eating that soon enough.

And Field, you seriously have no clue when it comes to this convention center stuff. One would think you'd just stop while you're ahead. What I said was completely accurate, and if you knew anything about the state of this business in Jacksonville you'd know that the Prime Osborn indeed does give away their space for free to any event that brings in 200 or more people. If the cost consideration is a major factor, considering the space is given away free to most events, then that's even further reason not to proceed with building a larger convention center.

Lol, so let me see if I follow your argument, the Prime Osborn is giving itself away for free and has next to zero utilization, so your solution is naturally to build an even bigger one. After all the supply/demand situation on convention space that you literally can't give away in Jacksonville clearly warrants a larger more expensive building?

You are seriously making no sense. Also, Ad Hominem is generally the first sign of an argument out of gas...

Quote from: stephendare on January 25, 2011, 03:31:35 PM
Actually SMG has been advertising a deal on the Convention Center for a few months.  If you can guarantee 200 hotel rooms, theyve been offering the Prime Osborn for free.

I personally verified this, and it has been a topic of discussion about the Center in a few meetings.

I'd love to get all that out of the PO, which will allow us to create a useable transportation center. Because this is ridiculous:

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/744225810_Jk9o3-M.jpg)

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/744225864_WsJrk-M.jpg)

All of this nonsense because we can't properly address this convention center location issue?

And Lake, while I parse through the rest of your answers, I need to correct something you said in your first paragraph, because while there may be 21 scheduled events at the Prime Osborn, almost all of them are silly PTA Meetings and similar tiny events that people hold there because the space is free. When you look at what the actual CONVENTIONS are, because it is after all a CONVENTION CENTER and not a multimillion-dollar loss-producing PTA Meeting Hall, then there are a whopping total of 5 actual events.

Kind of disinginuous to just use the total number, when that includes a PTA meeting and church luncheons.

Well, let's get those PTO meetings out of the PO and into to heart of DT.  By the way, the Hyatt is heavily subsidized.  We have something like +$20 million sitting in that box.

QuoteAnd Field, you seriously have no clue when it comes to this convention center stuff

Quotethe Prime Osborn is giving itself away for free

Hmm, I guess the two events I held at the Prime Osborn(one I made money, one I lost money on) somehow clouds my opinion on the matter.  Thank you for clarifying my resume for me.

I have been involved in about 26 events held at convention centers througout the country in my brief life.

Field, can you share with us why you chose to host your events at the Prime Osborn as opposed to the Hyatt, Omni or Hampton Inn?

Quote from: thelakelander on January 25, 2011, 04:22:02 PM
Field, can you share with us why you chose to host your events at the Prime Osborn as opposed to the Hyatt, Omni or Hampton Inn?

Size of the exhibition hall.

Quote from: thelakelander on January 25, 2011, 03:31:18 PM
At this point, we have 21 events scheduled at the Prime Osborn that we won't get much economic benefit in DT from because of its complete isolation.  Those 21 events would suggest that some type of market is here, so how can we best benefit and nuture that existing market?

There are 21 things on the calendar. Unfortunately, that's a bit disingenuous when all but 4 or 5 of them are PTA Meetings or Church Luncheons that use the space because it is free. That's kind of silly, since I didn't realize we were taxpayer-subsidizing a multimillion-dollar loss-producing Church Luncheon center, did you?

By including the total number without mentioning that most of these "events" would fit in your average conference room, were you implying that a PTA Meeting or a Church Luncheon is an appropriate reason to maintain a 78,000 square foot facility? I hope not.

Quote from: thelakelander on January 25, 2011, 03:31:18 PM
In addition, it's generally accepted that the convention center needs to go to make room for a viable compact transportation center.  So the option of nuturing that market in the existing facility means it will be at the expense of having a viable transportation center. 

I agree with the transportation center use. I just don't think that requires us to waste hundreds of millions of dollars building a new convention center. Where's the law that says we can't close this one and make it a rail center, without spending money on a new one?

Quote from: thelakelander on January 25, 2011, 03:31:18 PM

QuoteAt the end of the day, your gist is really "build it and they will come" that's what this all boils down to. We both know the demand isn't here for it. And that just doesn't work. You can't go *poof* and magically create business demand and a viable market just by constructing a building. Because that's not how the convention business, or really ANY business for that matter, works. And I think that's where we disagree on this issue.

I think its proven without a doubt that there is a small market here.  That's not even worth debating since there are 21 scheduled events this year.  Instead, we should be focusing on how can we utilize our existing markets/assets in a manner that promotes the vision of a vibrant downtown community.

Source: http://www.jaxevents.com/primeosborn.php

Yes, there is a very small market here. So small, in fact, that it doesn't justify the construction of a multi-hundred-million-dollar convention center. That's the point. Where's the business to justify that investment? 21 events, 16 of which are PTA Meetings and Church Luncheons justify that investment?

Quote from: thelakelander on January 25, 2011, 03:31:18 PM

Quote
1: Do you believe the convention business we have now appropriately supports or utilizes our existing facility?

I think our existing facility is an outdated isolated place that needs to be converted back into a transportation center.  Since a viable transportation center is clearly a larger benefit, that should be priority one.  However, to move forward on that priority we need to address the convention center issue.  Considering the possibility of a public/private partnership and having an available piece of property in hand that is adjacent to our subsidized Hyatt, Bay Street and Landing (all complementing elements the current location lacks), it makes all the sense in the world to look into placing a new facility on that site.

A public/private partnership is not what's planned. Another repeat of a failed publicly-funded convention center is planned. And it will fail, like the previous 3 have, for the same reasons. Regarding the rail Terminal, I agree it should be converted back to that use. I'm just not sure why you appear to be bifurcating and falsely excluding the possibility of converting it back to a rail terminal without the unnecessary requirement of building a new convention center boondoggle being artificially tacked onto the discussion?

Quote from: thelakelander on January 25, 2011, 03:31:18 PM

Quote2: Do we have the demand to justify the continued existence of the present facility?

Since my number one priority is removing the convention center to make way for a transportation center, I have to ask myself if its worth investing in a new exhibition hall or letting our larger venues move elsewhere?  Given the economic impact of a connected, clustered walkable setting, I believe its worth it to build a new exhibition hall as a part of the mixed use development in the core of the city.  I really would like to see all the people attending these 21 events (even if each event only averaged 500) walking pass the front door of downtown bars, retailers and restaurants to get to that facility.

You didn't answer the question.  Does the current level of business even justify maintaining a convention center at all, let alone building a new one? It's really a "yes" or "no" question, and we've certainly had time to try the experiment haven't we? We've been doing this convention center thing since the 1950s. If this strategy was going to pay off, wouldn't it have worked sometime in the past 60 years?

Quote from: thelakelander on January 25, 2011, 03:31:18 PM

Quote3: Where is the demand to justify the construction of a larger facility, when we can't fill the one we have?

These three questions are eerily similar and so will my answers. Priority 1 (transportation center) changes the question to keep/better benefit from existing market or abandon it and lose most of those 21 events.  I prefer to develop an affordable solution to keep them, yet relocate them to an environment that better supports and works with our existing assets.

Well, I understand what clustering and complementing uses are, and how they work. But the use also has to complement the general market, or it will still fail. Case in point, I've asked repeatedly a question that is only partially rhetorical, give us some actual examples of situations where this "build it and they will come" routine has ever actually worked in the convention business.

The examples you've referenced, when you look at them, not only do not support that argument but they actually tend to prove the reverse, as was already discussed in this thread with San Diego and Charlotte.

Quote from: thelakelander on January 25, 2011, 03:31:18 PM

Quote4: Why didn't the former convention center in the original Memorial Coliseum work out? (After all, it was quite large, and connected by expressway to hotel space.)

Don't care.  That has nothing to do with the immediate issue at hand, which is to benefit from connectivity and clustering of existing assets or not.  Btw, "connected to hotel by expressway" is not pedestrian connectivity, which really applies to an urban environment.  Without pedestrian connectivity, you can't have a vibrant urban environment.

So you don't care why the same type of facility has failed in the same city 3 times in the past? Seriously?

Those who fail to learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them. You really kind of summed up my objections to this whole project,. In the planning world, you guys can sit around and say "Don't care" when it comes to analyzing the business realities of why a plan was doomed to fail, because it's all funded with our tax dollars. Unfortunately, the rest of us have to pay for that, and we don't have the luxury of saying "Don't care" when we're carrying the cost of some decision made by people who declared they "Don't care" about why the exact same kind of plan has already failed three times in Jacksonville before.

Quote from: thelakelander on January 25, 2011, 03:31:18 PM

Quote5: Why didn't the Jacksonville Beach Convention Center work?

(After all, it was also quite large, and near to supporting hotel space.)

Don't care.  That has nothing to do with the immediate issue at hand, which is to benefit from connecivity and clustering of existing assets or not.  This applies not only to the convention center but the transportation center as well.

Again, it's nice you can say "Don't care" and all, but that's really the whole problem here. It has everything to do with the current situation, because the current situation is no different than the prior situations. There is no demand for this structure that you're touting at the same time you're declaring "Don't care" about the business realities and why the structure won't actually succeed.

I won't think it's appropriate to even consider spending this kind of money until I am assured that people have analyzed the reasons why this exact plan has thrice failed in this city, and until we have determined whether or not a convention center is even feasible. Simply saying you don't care to analyze the business realities of the proposal, and don't care about why these proposals have already failed catastrophically not once, not twice, but 3 separate times here (twice in Jacksonville, and once in Jacksonville beach), is ridiculous and demonstrates that this is likely going to fail a fourth time.

Quote from: thelakelander on January 25, 2011, 03:31:18 PM

Quote6: Why DID the original private model of convention hosting by private hotels work?

Don't care.  That has nothing to do with the immediate issue at hand, which is to benefit from connectivity and clustering of existing assets or not.  If you want to advocate restructuring how the industry works, feel free.  That's not my argument.  What ever you all decide on that, just make sure the publicly or privately funded solution is developed in a compact pedestrian friendly setting that allows the use to create synergy with the surrounding walkable uses.

Unbelievable. You really "Don't care" to analyze why this plan has already failed three times before? And it is directly related to everything we're discussing with the current proposal. Unless you're content with creating another failed empty building downtown? I thought we didn't exactly have any shortage of those already?

Quote from: thelakelander on January 25, 2011, 03:31:18 PM

Quote7: What happened to our number of convention visitors (originally 200k-250k) when we took that business from the private hotels by building a series of public convention centers?

Don't care.  See last my last three answers.  If you're advocating restructuring the business, see my reply to question 6.

Again, unbelievable that you can say "Don't Care!" to someone asking whether the planners responsible for floating this new proposed convention center have any idea why the previous centers failed, and why we lost a steady and growing stream of convention business in Jacksonville. Until you, and the other proponents of this project, can answer these questions with something other than "Don't care" I think it is plainly obvious to anyone why this is likely to fail. For the 4th time.

Quote from: thelakelander on January 25, 2011, 03:31:18 PM

Quote8: Is this an abnormal result when government gets into private business?

Don't care.  See last my last four answers.  If you're advocating restructuring the business, see my reply to question 6.

You should care.

But as I said above, I suppose we're going for another failure and everyone seems OK with that. But what do I know, it's only tax dollars, and it's not like we've already tried this and failed 3 times previously. Oh wait.

Quote from: thelakelander on January 25, 2011, 03:31:18 PM

Quote9: Is there any event at the current convention center that couldn't be hosted by a large private hotel with convention rooms, like the Hyatt?

Yes, the Hyatt is not a large facility. Both the state's Fire-Rescue Convention & Exposition and the State Cheer & Dance Championships left the Prime Osborn due to space constraints.  The Fire-Rescue event needed more than 100,000 square feet to clear exhibits from the lobby area.  Before they bolted, they were using 117,300 sf at the PO.  All of the Hyatt's facilities combined are 110,000sf and the largest column free space is a little over 20k.  In other words, the Hyatt as a premier convention facility in the country's 12th largest city equals peanuts.

The space is column-free with the ancillary rooms (1-8 on the diagram) are combined with the main ballroom. They are only separated by collapsible accordion walls. Diagrams here;

http://jacksonville.hyatt.com/hyatt/images/hotels/jaxrj/capacity.pdf;jsessionid=179FCCB3DE9C6CCF2E966C80968F054D.atg01-prd-atg2

Which means the Hyatt's largest column-free space is still at least 27,984 square feet, with an additional 35,219 square feet available in the immediately surrounding same-level area, for a total space of 63,203 square feet, although separated by load-bearing walls. But the Prime Osborn's 78k isn't column-free, either. To get the Prime Osborn's full 78,500 square feet, you have to similarly combine Exhibit Halls A and B, and the space is not column-free either. This is all clearly shown on the diagrams here;

http://www.visitjacksonville.com/includes/media/docs/convention-center-II.pdf

Considering our current convention business, this space would be MORE than adequate.

Quote from: thelakelander on January 25, 2011, 03:31:18 PM
Two other events that may outgrow the Prime Osborn in upcoming years include the Car & Truck Show and Spring Home & Patio Show.  Since the Hyatt is a much smaller space, I doubt they could consider shrinking their revenue stream down by squeezing into it as opposed of just going some place large enough to accommodate their needs.

source: http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/stories/2007/04/23/story2.html

I don't think the risk of losing two small events, both of which would probably locate other places within the city, is worth building a new convention center for several hundred million dollars. It's not even close to being worth it. And regarding the two shows, they aren't going anywhere, the surrounding major cities all have their own car/truck shows and home shows. There are no feasible options for relocating those, and the grumbling is simply designed to further this silly goal of taking a fourth crack at the same plan that has already failed thrice, without by your own admission understanding the cause of the prior failures.

Quote from: thelakelander on January 25, 2011, 03:31:18 PM
As you can see, we're having two different converstations, which makes for an illogical debate.  You're focus appears to be on the merits of the industry as a whole and what needs to be done to allow it to florish, in your opinion.  I'm not talking about convention center industry merits or whether it should be public or private.  Hell, Hyatt could build their own privately funded box for all I care (I wouldn't complain).  I'm talking about whatever you do, it needs to done in a "walkable" (since you through an expressway into one of your replies) environment that contains a compact setting of complementing uses.

We're having the same conversation, I just feel you're bifurcating the debate so that the new convention center is somehow tied to reopening the rail station, and the option of closing the center and reopening the rail station without building a new $400mm boondoggle is being falsely excluded. It really all is the same debate, partitioning it off like that isn't accomplishing much.

So I guess I'm still left wondering how and why you could/would propose taking a 4th crack at building yet another convention center, without first studying the state of that industry and first determining whether there is or would be any market demand to support it? Instead, it seems that you have no good answers to several of the questions I posed, especially when those answers may conflict with your desire to proceed with the construction of the new convention center. Which itself should be a red flag that this is quite likely to become another repeat of what has already failed here three times.

QuoteA public/private partnership is not what's planned. Another repeat of a failed publicly-funded convention center is planned.

You should wait to hear what the Community Council recommends... a public-private venture is what is being discusssed.

Its all pie in the sky talk right now, but they want to advance the conversation for many of the same reasons that Lake is advocating.

Quote from: fieldafm on January 25, 2011, 04:25:21 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on January 25, 2011, 04:22:02 PM
Field, can you share with us why you chose to host your events at the Prime Osborn as opposed to the Hyatt, Omni or Hampton Inn?

Size of the exhibition hall.

So, using every nook and cranny of the Hyatt was not an option.  How many people attended your event?  Was it PTA meeting or church luncheon size (I'm assuming this must be in the range of 15 - 30 people)?

Quote from: fieldafm on January 25, 2011, 04:19:17 PM

QuoteAnd Field, you seriously have no clue when it comes to this convention center stuff

Quotethe Prime Osborn is giving itself away for free

Hmm, I guess the two events I held at the Prime Osborn(one I made money, one I lost money on) somehow clouds my opinion on the matter.  Thank you for clarifying my resume for me.

I have been involved in about 26 events held at convention centers througout the country in my brief life.

If you'd been involved in events at the Prime Osborn where you had to pay for the space, and you weren't aware that they routinely give that space away for free, then hell I actually feel bad for you since it appears you got a significantly worse deal than most other people who use that facility. And, FWIW, even a worse deal than people on message boards who call up SMG and ask if they have any deals on the convention space.

I guess I was mainly objecting to the implied assumption in some of what you write that just because you weren't personally aware of it, that somehow means it doesn't exist. Why would I make up a rental incentive for meeting space at the Prime Osborn? I mean, seriously, isn't that kind of a random and strange thing to believe someone is making up? The options can't just be either A: Agree with me, or B: You're making it up, since after all it's hardly impossible that I didn't make it up and I don't agree. lol

Quote from: thelakelander on January 25, 2011, 04:45:25 PM

Quote from: fieldafm on January 25, 2011, 04:25:21 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on January 25, 2011, 04:22:02 PM
Field, can you share with us why you chose to host your events at the Prime Osborn as opposed to the Hyatt, Omni or Hampton Inn?

Size of the exhibition hall.

So, using every nook and cranny of the Hyatt was not an option.  How many people attended your event?  Was it PTA meeting or church luncheon size (I'm assuming this must be in the range of 15 - 30 people)?

OK, I get your point, but is this handful of events worth building a $400mm convention center?

We aren't San Diego, we don't have ComiCon here bringing people in from across the country, what we actually have are paltry handful of small events, including a car and boat show with a few thousand people that are almost all locals from the surrounding areas. Is that really worth the investment we're discussing?

Quote from: fieldafm on January 25, 2011, 04:39:31 PM

QuoteA public/private partnership is not what's planned. Another repeat of a failed publicly-funded convention center is planned.

You should wait to hear what the Community Council recommends... a public-private venture is what is being discusssed.

Its all pie in the sky talk right now, but they want to advance the conversation for many of the same reasons that Lake is advocating.

A true public/private partnership wouldn't bother me nearly as much as what we always wind up with here locally. In case nobody has noticed, Jacksonville's definition of a public/private partnership is normally that the taxpayers get the bill while the private company makes the money. That's not a true public/private partnership. Take the Jaguars for an example of how a public/private partnership normally works around here, we paid to build the stadium, pay to maintain it, helped him pay the startup costs, we continually pay and pay, and then Weaver drops a bomb every couple years about moving somewhere else and we pay some more.

That said, I guess I'll reserve judgment, but my understanding is that this is a deal that is designed to benefit Hyatt and will be managed by SMG and funded by us. If it fails, the taxpayers are the losers. I guess I will wait to see the proposed design.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 25, 2011, 04:36:24 PM
There are 21 things on the calendar. Unfortunately, that's a bit disingenuous when all but 4 or 5 of them are PTA Meetings or Church Luncheons that use the space because it is free. That's kind of silly, since I didn't realize we were taxpayer-subsidizing a multimillion-dollar loss-producing Church Luncheon center, did you?

By including the total number without mentioning that most of these "events" would fit in your average conference room, were you implying that a PTA Meeting or a Church Luncheon is an appropriate reason to maintain a 78,000 square foot facility? I hope not.

Can you provide a source for attendence numbers?  I think this will make or break your argument.

QuoteI agree with the transportation center use. I just don't think that requires us to waste hundreds of millions of dollars building a new convention center. Where's the law that says we can't close this one and make it a rail center, without spending money on a new one?

Where's the law that says we can't relocate it?  However, we do agree on costs.  Although there is no reason for this thing to cost hundreds of millions, I still prefer a public/private partnership.

QuoteYes, there is a very small market here. So small, in fact, that it doesn't justify the construction of a multi-hundred-million-dollar convention center. That's the point. Where's the business to justify that investment? 21 events, 16 of which are PTA Meetings and Church Luncheons justify that investment?

Where did you pull the multi-hundred million number from when there is no real project even planned at this point?

QuoteA public/private partnership is not what's planned. Another repeat of a failed publicly-funded convention center is planned. And it will fail, like the previous 3 have, for the same reasons. Regarding the rail Terminal, I agree it should be converted back to that use. I'm just not sure why you appear to be bifurcating and falsely excluding the possibility of converting it back to a rail terminal without the unnecessary requirement of building a new convention center boondoggle being artificially tacked onto the discussion?

I'd like to keep the small market and events we have.  You've presented nothing so far that would indicate we can do this without keeping the Prime Osborn in tact at the current location.

QuoteYou didn't answer the question.  Does the current level of business even justify maintaining a convention center at all, let alone building a new one? It's really a "yes" or "no" question.

Although you've provided me with no data on actual event attendence numbers.....Yes.  

QuoteWell, I understand what clustering and complementing uses are, and how they work. But the use also has to complement the general market, or it will still fail. Case in point, I've asked repeatedly a question that is only partially rhetorical, give us some actual examples of situations where this "build it and they will come" routine has ever actually worked in the convention business.

You keep going back to stuff I have not advocated.  We already have a market.  I prefer to better promote and utilize it.  "Build it and they will come" does not apply with my statements.

QuoteSo you don't care why the same type of facility has failed in the same city 3 times in the past? Seriously?

Those who fail to learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them. You really kind of summed up my objections to this whole project,. In the planning world, you guys can sit around and say "Don't care" when it comes to analyzing the business realities of why a plan was doomed to fail, because it's all funded with our tax dollars. Unfortunately, the rest of us have to pay for that, and we don't have the luxury of saying "Don't care" when we're carrying the cost of some decision made by people who declared they "Don't care" about why the exact same kind of plan has already failed three times in Jacksonville before.

Yes, we're doomed to repeat mistakes if we don't learn from them.  What past publicly funded (btw, I'm advocating public/private) convention center in DT has complementing uses clustered adjacent to it in a compact setting?  None.

QuoteThe space is column-free with the ancillary rooms (1-8 on the diagram) are combined with the main ballroom. They are only separated by collapsible accordion walls. Diagrams here;

http://jacksonville.hyatt.com/hyatt/images/hotels/jaxrj/capacity.pdf;jsessionid=179FCCB3DE9C6CCF2E966C80968F054D.atg01-prd-atg2

Which means the Hyatt's largest column-free space is still at least 27,984 square feet, with an additional 35,219 square feet available in the immediately surrounding same-level area, for a total space of 63,203 square feet, although separated by load-bearing walls. But the Prime Osborn's 78k isn't column-free, either. To get the Prime Osborn's full 78,500 square feet, you have to similarly combine Exhibit Halls A and B, and the space is not column-free either. This is all clearly shown on the diagrams here;

http://www.visitjacksonville.com/includes/media/docs/convention-center-II.pdf

Considering our current convention business, this space would be MORE than adequate.

What is our business?  How much actual space do our current events need?  You've never answered that.  Everything has been an opinion without proof to back it.  Its general accepted that the Hyatt doesn't have adequate exhibition hall space.  Attempting to prove it does is a pretty silly endeavor.

I'm skipping questions 6,7 & 8 because they aren't relevent as far as connectivity and clustering is concerned. You're debating yourself on that stuff.

Quote from: thelakelander on January 25, 2011, 03:31:18 PM
Two other events that may outgrow the Prime Osborn in upcoming years include the Car & Truck Show and Spring Home & Patio Show.  Since the Hyatt is a much smaller space, I doubt they could consider shrinking their revenue stream down by squeezing into it as opposed of just going some place large enough to accommodate their needs.

source: http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/stories/2007/04/23/story2.html

I don't think the risk of losing two small events, both of which would probably locate other places within the city, is worth building a new convention center for several hundred million dollars. It's not even close to being worth it. And regarding the two shows, they aren't going anywhere, the surrounding major cities all have their own car/truck shows and home shows. There are no feasible options for relocating those, and the grumbling is simply designed to further this silly goal of taking a fourth crack at the same plan that has already failed thrice, without by your own admission understanding the cause of the prior failures.[/quote]

Spreading them out or risking losing them to other parts of the city or elsewhere goes against the whole purpose of promoting connectivity and complementing uses within a compact setting in DT.  We'll just agree to disagree here.

QuoteWe're having the same conversation, I just feel you're bifurcating the debate so that the new convention center is somehow tied to reopening the rail station, and the option of closing the center and reopening the rail station without building a new $400mm boondoggle is being falsely excluded. It really all is the same debate, partitioning it off like that isn't accomplishing much.

So I guess I'm still left wondering how and why you could/would propose taking a 4th crack at building yet another convention center, without first studying the state of that industry and first determining whether there is or would be any market demand to support it? Instead, it seems that you have no good answers to several of the questions I posed, especially when those answers may conflict with your desire to proceed with the construction of the new convention center. Which itself should be a red flag that this is quite likely to become another repeat of what has already failed here three times.

I've made my points and I'm resting my case.  No where in recent history was connectivity ever a priority, we've seen no event numbers or space requirements to see if the Hyatt could host all current events and the $400 million number is an outright fabrication. If you don't agree with my view that's fine.  We'll both still sleep good tonight.

QuoteIf you'd been involved in events at the Prime Osborn where you had to pay for the space, and you weren't aware that they routinely give that space away for free, then hell I actually feel bad for you since it appears you got a significantly worse deal than most other people who use that facility.

If you can address me in a tone that assumes more candor, I'll be happy to answer your questions.  You make it seem like I'm so kind of idiot that couldn't add my way out of a paper bag.  

Call them up, say you have a boat show that will have 300 attendees and find out yourself how much cash you'll have to pony up.  I can assure you the answer is greater than zero.

As far as your 200 number, say you have a wedding that you want to hold there(been to a few of those there)... you're going to have to guarantee a certain amount for catering(which is high) until you start getting deals on rental rates.

Lake,
My events needed a signficant amount of open square feet.  I have been involved in these types of shows that had attendance anywhere from 1840 paid tickets(at the Prime Osborn incidentally) to 17,168 paid tickets.  
The two PO events had 1840 and 3620 paid attendees respectively.  Roughly 2500 was my break-even number on a scaled back event.

Mobile(who I think is Jax's best comparison/competition) was far more profitable when comparing cost/sq ft

QuoteWe aren't San Diego, we don't have ComiCon here bringing people in from across the country,

ComiCon was a homegrown event.  Our homegrown events have moved.  You should really consider that in your arguments.  Even though no one is advocating for a convention center of that size, the San Diego convention facilities and the complementing assets clustered around the facility (Gaslamp/Sports District for instance) actually highlight Lake's points quite nicely.  

Quote from: fieldafm on January 25, 2011, 05:22:58 PM

QuoteIf you'd been involved in events at the Prime Osborn where you had to pay for the space, and you weren't aware that they routinely give that space away for free, then hell I actually feel bad for you since it appears you got a significantly worse deal than most other people who use that facility.

If you can address me in a tone that assumes more candor, I'll be happy to answer your questions.  You make it seem like I'm so kind of idiot that couldn't add my way out of a paper bag.  

Call them up, say you have a boat show that will have 300 attendees and find out yourself how much cash you'll have to pony up.  I can assure you the answer is greater than zero.

As far as your 200 number, say you have a wedding that you want to hold there(been to a few of those there)... you're going to have to guarantee a certain amount for catering(which is high) until you start getting deals on rental rates.

Lake,
My events needed a signficant amount of open square feet.  I have been involved in these types of shows that had attendance anywhere from 1840 paid tickets(at the Prime Osborn incidentally) to 17,168 paid tickets.  
The two PO events had 1840 and 3620 paid attendees respectively.  Roughly 2500 was my break-even number on a scaled back event.

Mobile(who I think is Jax's best comparison/competition) was far more profitable when comparing cost/sq ft

QuoteWe aren't San Diego, we don't have ComiCon here bringing people in from across the country,

ComiCon was a homegrown event.  Our homegrown events have moved.  You should really consider that in your arguments.  Even though no one is advocating for a convention center of that size, the San Diego convention facilities and the complementing assets clustered around the facility (Gaslamp/Sports District for instance) actually highlight Lake's points quite nicely.  

Lol, take your own advice. You were the one who got all snarky, not me. And you were the one who, as I warned, didn't know what you were talking about when it comes to the Prime Osborn giving its space away. So while I appreciate your lecture on my tone, I'm just fine thanks, no assistance necessary.

Quote from: thelakelander on January 25, 2011, 05:12:35 PM
Can you provide a source for attendence numbers?  I think this will make or break your argument.

Sure thing!

Well, to start with, the largest show is the Jacksonville Home and Patio Show, which runs for 4 days. The show's largest turnout ever in its 40+ year run was a paltry 40k people, most of which I think we all know are locals;

http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/downtowntoday.php?dt_date=2010-09-30

So that's a whopping 10k a people a day for 4 days. So, since you've just declared this will make or break my argument, let's compare this to a typical private-sector economic impact, that doesn't require us to spend taxpayer funds, shall we? Ready?

So the largest show Jacksonville has attracts the same number of visitors on a daily basis as A SINGLE WALMART. Just ONE Walmart attracts 10k unique visitors per day;

http://www.amiba.net/pdf/Chicago_walmart_economic_impact_study.pdf

And that's today, tomorrow, the day after, the rest of the month, next month, the month after, etc. So for all of the taxpayer money invested, our convention center's largest show has an economic impact roughly equal to 4 days' worth of visitors at a SINGLE Walmart supercenter.

Now, Lake, again since you claimed this would make or break my argument, let's expound on that. The other shows at the Prime Osborn are smaller, which I can attest to personally having to been to most of them. But for the purposes of argument, I'm going to say our 5 actual events all draw the same number of visitors as the largest event, our tax dollars invested have the same economic impact in terms of unique visitors as one week's average operation of a single WalMart store.

Seems like a great use of $100mm+ in tax dollars to me? And by "great" I of course mean "awful."

And regarding $400mm being a "fabrication" give me a break. We couldn't build a county courthouse for that, why would you think the same clowns doing the same stuff with another building is possibly going to turn out any differently? For christsakes, $36.5 million barely bought us a seawall at the shipyards, lol.

So anyway, according to your statement, I just made my argument, no? (Don't worry, it's clear what your pre-determined position on this 4th attempt at a Convention Boondoggle is, I'm not actually going to hold you to the "make your argument" statement.)

I have been following this for days.  It's better back-and-forth then a Williams sister's tennis match!  Great arguments and, overall, very well argued by both sides.  Beautiful work, Gentlemen.  I would like to really thank ChriswUfGator and Lake for providing me with more intellectual content and substantive perspective on these issues then I have ever gotten anywhere else.  And just when I was beginning to believe civil public discourse was dead!  As a result, I have really begun to re-examine my support for a new convention facility being built in the immediate future. The real pity we will never see this kind of in-depth exchange between those currently vying for public office.   

QuoteAnd you were the one who, as I warned, didn't know what you were talking about when it comes to the Prime Osborn giving its space away

Call them up... tell them the kind of event you want to run... we'll say a one day boat show with an estimated
500 ticketed attendees that requires ticket windows, exhibition hall A and B, roll-in the day before, food(you wont see a dime of that revenue), room 201 on the mezzanine level(to coordinate your own staff's affairs-you'll have to pay seperately for their staff's services), chairs, booths, security, restricted parking lot access by the loading dock and insurance requirements.  They'll also take a percentage of your gate.  These are all standard things you have to pay for at ANY convention center, INCLUDING our very own.

They don't just unlock the door and say 'come on in.'  If all you did was collect money from both vendors and attendees, then there would be a gun show at the Prime Osborn every weekend.  Shooters wouldn't even exist.  They'd just open for business rent-free at the Prime Osborn every Saturday.  

Quote from: pwhitford on January 25, 2011, 07:20:00 PM
I have been following this for days.  It's better back-and-forth then a Williams sister's tennis match!  Great arguments and, overall, very well argued by both sides.  Beautiful work, Gentlemen.  I would like to really thank ChriswUfGator and Lake for providing me with more intellectual content and substantive perspective on these issues then I have ever gotten anywhere else.  And just when I was beginning to believe civil public discourse was dead!  As a result, I have really begun to re-examine my support for a new convention facility being built in the immediate future. The real pity we will never see this kind of in-depth exchange between those currently vying for public office.   

All I can say is, be careful.  It is addictive.  Even better than watching House reruns, which is what I used to do before I discovered Metro Jacksonville.  You are right on about this being the only real game in town for true public debate.  More in depth analysis, less name calling than anything else that is even close.  The comments you read on the TU are a complete embarassment to our city.  This stuff is real.

I'm really glad I missed this discussion today.....it is ridiculous!

That said, here are a few comments

1. Go to the car show in a few weeks....you'll see they use all the available space in the Prime and several car companies don't come....they also get thousands of attendees each day

2. So the Prime is offering free space if you book hotel rooms....the Hyatt (and other hotels) will pretty much do the same thing....the conference I organized at the Hyatt in 2009 came with over 25,000sf of free space, based on 800 room nights booked and $55,000 in food sales.

3. I recently went to the MLK breakfast....close to 2,000 people attended....the largest ballroom in the Hyatt couldn't handle that.

(http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l18djtAtR31qami65o1_500.jpg)

I'm glad Walmart was mentioned.  An average Walmart is about 260,000 square feet of retail or more than twice the size of the Jacksonville Landing, which is mostly empty.  That's probably more retail square footage than all the open retail remaining in downtown today combined.

That's also larger than the amount of space needed for a convention center.  If you added a "whopping" 10k people/day to downtown's deserted streets you would have an environment that would not roll up and disappear after 5pm.  If you could do something that bought in the amount of people a Walmart attracts on a regular basis, you'd look like a frickin genius.

So if that is the candlestick being held up to measure whether we should invest in a public/private partnership to fund an new convention center in the right spot, I'd do it in a heartbeat. That type of foot traffic would fill up the empty bays in the Landing, Bay Street and more.

Wow 2,000 people tufsu, thats worth spending a few hundred million...

That's like the economic impact of half of one Walgreens...I'll try not to get too impressed.

Guys, we can slice and dice this however we want, and we'll never be a San Diego or Orlando with two million visitors a year, and I'm sorry but those are the kind of numbers you're talking about to get any kind of reasonable return on the tax dollars invested. And I'm equally sorry to say this, but it'll never happen here in the foreseeable future, because about the last reason why conventions don't come here is the building, they want something to do when they get here not just sit in the middle of a dead downtown with 8 restaurants, not including Winn-Dixie (I added that especially for Tufsu...long story).

We'd be far better off taking the money and using it to get a Sams or a Costco or one of the stores that are popular nowadays to move downtown, than we would be spending a couple hundred million dollars to attract less visitors than a single Walmart or Publix. It's really quite ridiculous.

The couple of hundred million for a box is still a fabrication.  You've got to develop something pretty elaborate to come up with such a figure or purposely put a chunk of money in someone's pocket.  Even Indianapolis' convention center expansion project cost $275 million.  However, it got more than 566,000 new square feet of exhibition space in 11 new exhibit halls and more than 70 new meeting rooms.  

http://www.wishtv.com/dpp/news/local/marion_county/New-Indiana-Convention-Center-set-to-open-

By the way, what is the cost to construct a Walmart Supercenter?  Just wondering.

Quote from: thelakelander on January 25, 2011, 09:47:36 PM
I'm glad Walmart was mentioned.  An average Walmart is about 260,000 square feet of retail or more than twice the size of the Jacksonville Landing, which is mostly empty.  That's probably more retail square footage than all the open retail remaining in downtown today combined.

That's also larger than the amount of space needed for a convention center.  If you added a "whopping" 10k people/day to downtown's deserted streets you would have an environment that would not roll up and disappear after 5pm.  If you could do something that bought in the amount of people a Walmart attracts on a regular basis, you'd look like a frickin genius.

So if that is the candlestick being held up to measure whether we should invest in a public/private partnership to fund an new convention center in the right spot, I'd do it in a heartbeat. That type of foot traffic would fill up the empty bays in the Landing, Bay Street and more.

Well, Lake, then why don't we cut to the chase here, and just spend the money on incentivizing a couple popular retail outlets to move downtown, instead of this retarded convention center? We apparently agree the impact of ACTUAL economic activity outweighs the rosiest predictions for this boondoggle, so why not hand Walmart or Costco or Dillards or one of the popular stores $50mm and say "Move in!"? Then create a tax abatement zone, and use the rest of the money we didn't waste on this silly convention center on establishing transit, incentivizing the private development of the Barnett and Laura Trio, and redeveloping LaVilla ajd Brooklyn, and throw in getting rid of one way streets, parking meters, and asinine zoning and signage restrictions, and watch downtown come back.

Or, we can build an empty convention center that won't do a thing to address the real problems...

Quote from: thelakelander on January 25, 2011, 09:54:55 PM
The couple of hundred million for a box is still a fabrication.  You've got to develop something pretty elaborate to come up with such a figure or purposely put a chunk of money in someone's pocket.  Even Indianapolis' convention center expansion project cost $275 million.  However, it got more than 566,000 new square feet of exhibition space in 11 new exhibit halls and more than 70 new meeting rooms. 

http://www.wishtv.com/dpp/news/local/marion_county/New-Indiana-Convention-Center-set-to-open-

By the way, what is the cost to construct a Walmart Supercenter?  Just wondering.

Lake, yeah, the courthouse was $400mm and that was after they CUT THE BUDGET. $36.5mm for a seawall and a chainlink fence at the shipyards. I mean, come on, really? The same clowns are going to be doing the same things with this building, you're delusional if you think it'll turn out any differently.

To jump in the middle of this, Chris makes a valid point.   Think back about 8 years ago when they opened up a 'Outlet Mall' at WGV - that development was still fledgling, but someone put their eggs in the basket and spent a lot of money on the 'strip mall.'

Fast forward to today and we have several thriving businesses, new development and residential nearby that 'clustered' as the project kept expanding.  IT WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE WHEN IT STARTED!  If you did, how's is typed... incencitised(sic) a major business that would draw customers, then you get an immediate impact.  It won't fill hotels, but it will fill restaurants and bars - ask the people at Blackfin (by far the worst, overpriced chain restaurant I've been to in a while) because people come whethere they mean to or not.  The convention business is a gimmick, albiet one that works, but we really need something that makes our people want to go downtown before we try to attract outsiders.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 25, 2011, 09:54:22 PM
Well, Lake, then why don't we cut to the chase here, and just spend the money on incentivizing a couple popular retail outlets to move downtown, instead of this retarded convention center? We apparently agree the impact of ACTUAL economic activity outweighs the rosiest predictions for this boondoggle, so why not hand Walmart or Costco or Dillards or one of the popular stores $50mm and say "Move in!"?

So you want a Costco in DT?  Why bother.  Just give Ted Pappas a wrecking ball and the money to turn DT into green space so we can see the courthouse from whatever street we enter downtown from.

QuoteThen create a tax abatement zone, and use the rest of the money we didn't waste on this silly convention center on establishing transit, incentivizing the private development of the Barnett and Laura Trio, and throw in getting rid of one way streets, parking meters, and asinine zoning and signage restrictions, and watch downtown come back.

Or create a public/private partnership to develop a mixed use center adjacent to the Hyatt.  Use the Hyatt's facility as the meeting and ballrooms and the center of the courthouse site as an exhibition hall.  Sell the Bay Street frontage for private mixed use development that features retail/dining at street level to complement the rest of the district.  Along the riverfront, set the base of the structure back for a public plaza that could play host to outdoor special events and markets.  Then as the area becomes popular, sell the building's air rights for future vertical development.  With this option, you should have additional money for the other things you just suggested as well.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 25, 2011, 10:01:07 PM
Lake, yeah, the courthouse was $400mm and that was after they CUT THE BUDGET. $36.5mm for a seawall and a chainlink fence at the shipyards. I mean, come on, really? The same clowns are going to be doing the same things with this building, you're delusional if you think it'll turn out any differently.

I know you don't have an architectural educational background so I'm going to give you a pass on this one.  The courthouse and an exhibition hall are two different building types.  Comparing the two is like comparing the cost of developing a medical center with one of Sleiman's strip malls.  If you're paying $400mm for less than 200,000sf you're getting raped with no lube.

And FWIW, it costs $15mm-$20mm to build a Walmart;

http://www.thetranscript.com/ci_13858568?IADID=Search-www.thetranscript.com-www.thetranscript.com

Not that I'm a big fan of Walmart, but the numbers are going to similarly outweigh the impact of a convention center with all large retail stores, if you don't like Walmart then let's focus on a Target or a Publix or something. A $20mm private investment has ten times the impact of this silly boondoggle.

Quote from: thelakelander on January 25, 2011, 10:05:43 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 25, 2011, 10:01:07 PM
Lake, yeah, the courthouse was $400mm and that was after they CUT THE BUDGET. $36.5mm for a seawall and a chainlink fence at the shipyards. I mean, come on, really? The same clowns are going to be doing the same things with this building, you're delusional if you think it'll turn out any differently.

I know you don't have an architectural educational background so I'm going to give you a pass on this one.  The courthouse and an exhibition hall are two different building types.  Comparing the two is like comparing the cost of developing a medical center with one of Sleiman's strip malls.  If you're paying $400mm for less than 200,000sf you're getting raped with no lube.

Lol, yeah, and how about $36mm for a cement seawall and a chainlink fence at the shipyards?

My point wasn't that these things SHOULD cost this much, only that they always do. It's Jacksonville.

Let's at least be realistic about how this is going to go. We can't build a doghouse for $100mm here...

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on January 25, 2011, 10:02:58 PM
To jump in the middle of this, Chris makes a valid point.   Think back about 8 years ago when they opened up a 'Outlet Mall' at WGV - that development was still fledgling, but someone put their eggs in the basket and spent a lot of money on the 'strip mall.'

Fast forward to today and we have several thriving businesses, new development and residential nearby that 'clustered' as the project kept expanding.  IT WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE WHEN IT STARTED!  If you did, how's is typed... incencitised(sic) a major business that would draw customers, then you get an immediate impact.  It won't fill hotels, but it will fill restaurants and bars - ask the people at Blackfin (by far the worst, overpriced chain restaurant I've been to in a while) because people come whethere they mean to or not.  The convention business is a gimmick, albiet one that works, but we really need something that makes our people want to go downtown before we try to attract outsiders.

How many events are actually local?  Some of the events put together by forum members here appear to be local oriented.  To develop a sustainable urban core you need foot traffic from a variety of sources.  Gimmick or not, a well placed convention center can contribute to the foot traffic needed to create the environment that attracts locals and visitors.  Although, that's not saying a ton of different uses can't do the exact same thing.

Quote from: thelakelander on January 25, 2011, 10:03:25 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 25, 2011, 09:54:22 PM
Well, Lake, then why don't we cut to the chase here, and just spend the money on incentivizing a couple popular retail outlets to move downtown, instead of this retarded convention center? We apparently agree the impact of ACTUAL economic activity outweighs the rosiest predictions for this boondoggle, so why not hand Walmart or Costco or Dillards or one of the popular stores $50mm and say "Move in!"?

So you want a Costco in DT?  Why bother.  Just give Ted Pappas a wrecking ball and the money to turn DT into green space so we can see the courthouse from whatever street we enter downtown from.

QuoteThen create a tax abatement zone, and use the rest of the money we didn't waste on this silly convention center on establishing transit, incentivizing the private development of the Barnett and Laura Trio, and throw in getting rid of one way streets, parking meters, and asinine zoning and signage restrictions, and watch downtown come back.

Or create a public/private partnership to develop a mixed use center adjacent to the Hyatt.  Use the Hyatt's facility as the meeting and ballrooms and the center of the courthouse site as an exhibition hall.  Sell the Bay Street frontage for private mixed use development that features retail/dining at street level to complement the rest of the district.  Along the riverfront, set the base of the structure back for a public plaza that could play host to outdoor special events and markets.  Then as the area becomes popular, sell the building's air rights for future vertical development.  With this option, you should have additional money for the other things you just suggested as well.

It's already a giant greenspace, if you count the weeds growing in the 60-70% of downtown that is nothing but vacant lots! Who said anytning about tearing anytning down? I'd make them go into the old Furchgott's building or something, all the major stores have urban formats. Ted Pappas, Haskell, Diamond, etc., are incidentally the same ones who completely destroyed downtown and are now the same ones still around and pushing for this convention center as the latest disastrous pie-in-the-sky. It's been 40 years, haven't you had enough?

Quote from: thelakelander on January 25, 2011, 09:54:55 PM
The couple of hundred million for a box is still a fabrication.  You've got to develop something pretty elaborate to come up with such a figure or purposely put a chunk of money in someone's pocket.  Even Indianapolis' convention center expansion project cost $275 million.  However, it got more than 566,000 new square feet of exhibition space in 11 new exhibit halls and more than 70 new meeting rooms.  

http://www.wishtv.com/dpp/news/local/marion_county/New-Indiana-Convention-Center-set-to-open-

By the way, what is the cost to construct a Walmart Supercenter?  Just wondering.

Everbank Field, in its current configuration cost $181 million to build.

A typical Super Walmart in Jax costs around $8-10 million to build.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 25, 2011, 10:07:16 PM
Not that I'm a big fan of Walmart, but the numbers are going to similarly outweigh the impact of a convention center with all large retail stores, if you don't like Walmart then let's focus on a Target or a Publix or something. A $20mm private investment has ten times the impact of this silly boondoggle.

but generally things like Publix and WalMart don't create new economic activity in a region...since convention centers bring people in from outside the area, they do!

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 25, 2011, 10:10:06 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on January 25, 2011, 10:05:43 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 25, 2011, 10:01:07 PM
Lake, yeah, the courthouse was $400mm and that was after they CUT THE BUDGET. $36.5mm for a seawall and a chainlink fence at the shipyards. I mean, come on, really? The same clowns are going to be doing the same things with this building, you're delusional if you think it'll turn out any differently.

I know you don't have an architectural educational background so I'm going to give you a pass on this one.  The courthouse and an exhibition hall are two different building types.  Comparing the two is like comparing the cost of developing a medical center with one of Sleiman's strip malls.  If you're paying $400mm for less than 200,000sf you're getting raped with no lube.

Lol, yeah, and how about $36mm for a cement seawall and a chainlink fence at the shipyards?

My point wasn't that these things SHOULD cost this much, only that they always do. It's Jacksonville.

Let's at least be realistic about how this is going to go. We can't build a doghouse for $100mm here...

But it's a nice state-of-the-art seawall. :D  Seriously though, if we want to talk about dirty politics and changing that culture that can be a different topic altogether, imo.  However, much larger centers can and have been constructed with budgets well under the $400mm figure.

Quote from: tufsu1 on January 25, 2011, 10:14:52 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 25, 2011, 10:07:16 PM
Not that I'm a big fan of Walmart, but the numbers are going to similarly outweigh the impact of a convention center with all large retail stores, if you don't like Walmart then let's focus on a Target or a Publix or something. A $20mm private investment has ten times the impact of this silly boondoggle.

but generally things like Publix and WalMart don't create new economic activity in a region...since convention centers bring people in from outside the area, they do!

The generally accepted number is about a 3 to 1 dollar impact of convention centers... not quite what rail does, but still a decent investment.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 25, 2011, 10:13:57 PM
Ted Pappas, Haskell, Diamond, etc., are incidentally the same ones who completely destroyed downtown and are now the same ones still around and pushing for this convention center as the latest disastrous pie-in-the-sky. It's been 40 years, haven't you had enough?

Yes.  That's why I've been preaching connectivity and clustering within a compact setting.  Those are the elements that have been missing from the DT discussion over the last 40 years.  We've been promoting suburbanizing downtown instead of building up its urban fabric.

Quote from: tufsu1 on January 25, 2011, 10:14:52 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 25, 2011, 10:07:16 PM
Not that I'm a big fan of Walmart, but the numbers are going to similarly outweigh the impact of a convention center with all large retail stores, if you don't like Walmart then let's focus on a Target or a Publix or something. A $20mm private investment has ten times the impact of this silly boondoggle.

but generally things like Publix and WalMart don't create new economic activity in a region...since convention centers bring people in from outside the area, they do!

That's assuming the convention center attracts some big out-of-town conventions, which considering all the competitive disadvantages we face in that business, is extremely unlikely. The likely outcome is that this boondoggle is going to attract the same smallish local and regional events that we get now, nothing more. The building is not why we aren't cornering the market from Vegas and Orlando, tufsu, the building is really about the least of our problems.

Quote from: thelakelander on January 25, 2011, 10:10:57 PM
...Although, that's not saying a ton of different uses can't do the exact same thing.

Then what's the push for another convention center, if the Hyatt has the capacity to host smaller events?  BTW, no one has mentioned the goings on that happen at the Morocco Shriner's Center.  They host/hose several widely publicized, in local media, events each year.  Why doesn't the POC get any opportunity for these?

IMO, I don't think we need to push for a convention center.  If you want the core to grow, you need to be pushing for something that most of the people in J'ville suburbs can relate to:  (you said it, not me)  Super Target, Wal Mart, Cost Co, Best Buy, et.....   If you can give someone from the SS a novelty to go visit (read a store that's downtown that's now cool because it's not the store all the other p & N's go to), then they'll realize that there is more than Best Buy - there's actually some other place to go, then that'll generate buzz, then that'll generate foot traffic, then that will bring more business where you want it, then you can build your GD convention center.

Why do you think that the RCMP was successful?  Layout - NO!  Walkabilty - NO!  Magic Fairy Dust-Nuggets - NO! (quoting SD whenever he can't think of anything else) Location - NO!  Walmart and Gander Moutain -DING DING!  People flocked because it was something they knew and then they ventured around.

QuoteTed Pappas, Haskell, Diamond, etc., are incidentally the same ones who completely destroyed downtown and are now the same ones still around and pushing for this convention center as the latest disastrous pie-in-the-sky.

With all due respect, in your research of the convention center history in Jax... did you not come across the competing(and ultimately correct) camp of Haskell and the downtown merchants that advocated for a centrally located convention center that better utilized the hotels and retail fronts downtown?  

Well, yes, Haskell was originally right about a central location he pushed for the convention center downtown, although it had nothing to do with wise urban planning and everything to do with the fact that he'd bought the hotel next to where he thought it was going to go, because he thought he had an inside track on the deal. The best stock trade I ever made was SIRI in at 8 cents and out at 80. That doesn't make me a satellite radio visionary. I just wanted to make a buck on the deal.

There was no need, and is no need, for a convention center at all. Haskell was trying to feather his nest.

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on January 25, 2011, 10:23:30 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on January 25, 2011, 10:10:57 PM
...Although, that's not saying a ton of different uses can't do the exact same thing.

Then what's the push for another convention center, if the Hyatt has the capacity to host smaller events?  BTW, no one has mentioned the goings on that happen at the Morocco Shriner's Center.  They host/hose several widely publicized, in local media, events each year.  Why doesn't the POC get any opportunity for these?

You probably missed this one (its a few pages back), but if we want a compact transportation center we need to get the convention center out of the building the transportation center needs to be in.  If there is a desire to keep the existing convention events in downtown....in downtown, then we need to talk possible relocation.  If we want to call it quits, then so be it.  

QuoteIMO, I don't think we need to push for a convention center.  If you want the core to grow, you need to be pushing for something that most of the people in J'ville suburbs can relate to:  (you said it, not me)  Super Target, Wal Mart, Cost Co, Best Buy, et.....

If you want the core to grow you need to reestablish the connectivity between the various urban neighborhoods and bring the economic anchors (transportation/maritime) that established DT back on some level.  It needs to be a self sustaining community.  

QuoteIf you can give someone from the SS a novelty to go visit (read a store that's downtown that's now cool because it's not the store all the other p & N's go to), then they'll realize that there is more than Best Buy - there's actually some other place to go, then that'll generate buzz, then that'll generate foot traffic, then that will bring more business where you want it, then you can build your GD convention center.

Forget about the guy on the Southside.  Trying to make DT attractive to suburbanites instead focusing around self sustaining economic generators is one of the issues that has kept DT in decline for so long.

Alright, another  question here...are there good examples of major cities either a) having a functional convention business without a center/exhibition hall or b) abandoning an existing insufficient convention center to hotel/private market solutions?

I asked that a couple of weeks ago and don't believe an answer was ever given.  I'm still interested in this as well.

Lke, I TOTALLY agree with you about the need to bring the transit center back down there. I've said a million times that successful urban environments are like a 3-legged stool, it's the combination of commercial, residential, and transportation that supports density, and we knocked two of the three legs out and spent 50 years being consternated as to why the stool fell over. The transit center would restore one sorely needed leg, and restoring the demolished and vacant affoedable residential areas would restore another. What leg does a convention center restore?

There has to be a way to get this done without wasting a ton of money on another silly boondoggle.

Quote from: thelakelander on January 25, 2011, 10:34:21 PM
You probably missed this one (its a few pages back), but if we want a compact transportation center we need to get the convention center out of the building the transportation center needs to be in.  If there is a desire to keep the existing convention events in downtown....in downtown, then we need to talk possible relocation.  If we want to call it quits, then so be it.

I'm saying call it quits.  There are other facilities availble, let them do what they do.  If the locals are going to come back, it's not going to be because of a convention center.  Bring J'ville back to the core and let the rest take care of itself.

QuoteIf you want the core to grow you need to reestablish the connectivity between the various urban neighborhoods and bring the economic anchors (transportation/maritime) that established DT back on some level.  It needs to be a self sustaining community.

Semi-true.  You need to bring the sprawl back to the core.  They left for a reason, and you need to give them a reason to come back, whether it's Wal-Mart, Cineplex, Bowling America, Fuddruckers ;), etc....  They will come back to visit for the same reasons they left to begin with - lack of [insert blank]

QuoteForget about the guy on the Southside.  Trying to make DT attractive to suburbanites instead focusing around self sustaining economic generators is one of the issues that has kept DT in decline for so long.

It's one in the same.  The suburbanites left to pursue cheap houses and Targets.  We have the opportunity to bring them back with the same bait.

The convention center part just places a use with already have within an environment where we can breed synergy with complementing existing uses.  This should be evaluated as a mixed use facility and funded through public private partnerships.  This could help establish a stronger commercial base within the core of DT.

If we can get JTA to rid themselves of their office building wet dream, maybe they can turn their attention to actually designing a compact transportation system with the first phase being bringing Amtrak back downtown.  Land use regulations have already been modified and we should get some money out of the mobility fee and other sources to fund initial transit lines extending to adjacent neighborhoods.  If the impact of rail that our peer cities have enjoyed, happen here, the market will take care of the residential issue.

They did so in large part b/c of the location of the convention center at the Jax Terminal.  The writing was on the wall.  They weren't dumb.  The Sears store downtown was one of the most successful in the country up until the mid 70's.  You don't shut down a cash cow and move it to Regency unless you correctly recognize a disturbing trend.

The downtown merchants put their chips all in when the dealer decided to deal the opposing players pocket Aces.  All thats left to do at that point is go to a different casino where the game was more fair.

QuoteIncidentally, it was RAP who won that battle, not just Bucky Clarkson.

On several occcassions, I have tipped my hat to the preservationist movement at the time.  My uncle has pictures from the parties they put on to save the terminal.  I've been bugging him to scan them so I can post them up.

Steve Wilson was the main beneficiary of the current convention center(you wouldn't be suprised by who was squarely in his camp).  Wilson also was the person who essentially spearheaded Rouse's interest in The Landing... and that is admirable to mention.

but..

QuoteHaskell was trying to feather his nest.

Two major investors were potentially poised to increase their wealth(someone always benefits financially from a large public works project no matter what city you live in)... the difference was the input of the people in the business of doing business downtown were ignored and b/c of that the wrong person increased their wealth.  I don't have a problem with someone benefitting financially... this isn't a Communist society where the government owns all the property and means of production, private property and private contractors are going to be involved.

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on January 25, 2011, 10:44:48 PM
I'm saying call it quits.  There are other facilities availble, let them do what they do.  If the locals are going to come back, it's not going to be because of a convention center.  Bring J'ville back to the core and let the rest take care of itself.

While there aren't facilities for several events (as mentioned by a few that have attempted to book them), DT isn't going to come back from any one single thing, including a convention center.  Multiple things have to be done and planned accordingly with one another.  The art of multi-tasking is probably one of the main things we can learn from a city like Charlotte or Orlando.

Quote

QuoteIf you want the core to grow you need to reestablish the connectivity between the various urban neighborhoods and bring the economic anchors (transportation/maritime) that established DT back on some level.  It needs to be a self sustaining community.

Semi-true.  You need to bring the sprawl back to the core.  They left for a reason, and you need to give them a reason to come back, whether it's Wal-Mart, Cineplex, Bowling America, Fuddruckers ;), etc....  They will come back to visit for the same reasons they left to begin with - lack of [insert blank]

No thanks.  Keep your sprawl on the westside.  We've been bringing it to the core for 40 years now.  People didn't leave for Wal-Mart, Bowling America and Fuddruckers.  Our urban core's decline is much more complex than that.

Quote from: thelakelander on January 25, 2011, 10:50:58 PM
No thanks.  Keep your sprawl on the westside.  We've been bringing it to the core for 40 years now.  People didn't leave for Wal-Mart, Bowling America and Fuddruckers.  Our urban core's decline is much more complex than that.

Let's focus on this issue for a moment.  What was the reason for the exodus of downtown?

[before you answer, my guesses are:  cost of living, cost of visiting, lack of amenities, perception]

And when you answer that (hopefully without a drawn out link) you can answer me, "Why can't we use the same strategies to bring people back downtown?"

QuoteIsnt it vaguely possible that they were wrong for advocating a Convention Center in the first place?

Vaguely?  I can here your point... but that would also discount what Jacksonville has to offer out of town guests as a point of destination for tourists and business travelers.  I think in large part, the citizens of our fair city take for granted the physical assets Jacksonville has been blessed with.  I can consider it, but in the final analysis I would conclude that the answer is that we were right to seek out the convention business... we just mismanaged how we got there.

I spend a lot of time downtown on the weekends talking to out of town guests.  I go out of my way to do so, actually.  You'd gain a new appreciation of our city based on what others have to say about it.  

People do want to visit here and enjoy their stay.  Hell we have a great climate, great beaches, cheap hotels, friendly people and excellent golf.  

You and others always talk about the decline of tourism in this city.  So the question I ask you is, do you feel tourism should play an important role in our economy going forward?

I truly believe that Jacksonville could be a major mid market player in the convention business.  The inadequate facilities(and inadequate location), IMO is the major bottleneck in that equation.

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on January 25, 2011, 11:00:35 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on January 25, 2011, 10:50:58 PM
No thanks.  Keep your sprawl on the westside.  We've been bringing it to the core for 40 years now.  People didn't leave for Wal-Mart, Bowling America and Fuddruckers.  Our urban core's decline is much more complex than that.

Let's focus on this issue for a moment.  What was the reason for the exodus of downtown?

[before you answer, my guesses are:  cost of living, cost of visiting, lack of amenities, perception]

And when you answer that (hopefully without a drawn out link) you can answer me, "Why can't we use the same strategies to bring people back downtown?"

From our studies, it goes something like this.  Downtown's economy was originally based off the connection of rail and maritime related industries.  In short, this connection led to supporting commerce and hotels.

The downfall:

1950s - wharfs/maritime industries removed from waterfront and replaced with parking lots.

1960s - Jax terminal falls into decline, closing for good in 1971 as Amtrak relocates to the Northside.

1970s - DT hotels begin to close as anchors that bought in visitors (rail/maritime) have been relocated.

1980s - DT retail finally free falls after decades of decline after economic generators relocated.

1990s/2000s - DT continues fall despite hundreds of millions spent. Still lacks built in economic generators.

There are other factors in this as well, but the loss of thousands of well paying jobs and complementing services these economic generators bought to downtown appears to be the bull in the china shop.

Solution - forget the subsidizing one trick ponies.  Start investing in things that build long term stability.  Get your economic generators back and many things that come with a sustainable walkable environment will begin to bloom on their own.

Quote from: thelakelander on January 25, 2011, 11:12:00 PM
From our studies, it goes something like this.  Downtown's economy was originally based off the connection of rail and maritime related industries.  In short, this connection led to supporting commerce and hotels.

The downfall:

1950s - wharfs/maritime industries removed from waterfront and replaced with parking lots.

Shipyards, Port Terminals - Bring the waterfront back to the forefront.  How can we be the 'River City' if we don't emphasize the river?

Quote1960s - Jax terminal falls into decline, closing for good in 1971 as Amtrak relocates to the Northside.

I love the idea of a multi-model complex where the PO is currently.  One of the better ideas that I've seen on this site.

Quote1970s - DT hotels begin to close as anchors that bought in visitors (rail/maritime) have been relocated.

With the resurgence of the focus on the river, wouldn't they move back downtown.  I know the thought of 'If you build it...', but what about the thought of, 'If it's already here, I might as well....'

Quote1980s - DT retail finally free falls after decades of decline after economic generators relocated.

They followed the masses and the masses have the money.  Guess what?  The masses aren't a big fan of sprawl anymore and they need a reason to come back.  We need to give them that reason.  Your economic generator, while not the same thing your daddy was used to, could be given ample reason to move back to the core.  QOL - f that - we'll give you  a 40th floor view of the entire city for the same price as you can get in any generic tech-mall and we'll throw in a Pollo Tropical at Newnan and Bay St...

Quote1990s/2000s - DT continues fall despite hundreds of millions spent. Still lacks built in economic generators.

If you throw money in a fire, it'll burn.  You need to put wood in the fire and money in the bank.  Everyone knows that wood will burn. They will buy wood when they're cold to warm and they'll buy wood when it's warm out so they won't be cold during the winter.  Spend the money wisely, and you'll still have the wood to burn.  How much did the city spend on round-a-bouts and Andrew Jackson statues?  How much did they spend on a useless park on Laura St.?  How much did they spend on tryihng to keep corps downtown?  In that simple answer, I think you'll find the problem.  
Solution - forget the subsidizing one trick ponies.  Start investing in things that build long term stability.  Get your economic generators back and many things that come with a sustainable walkable environment will begin to bloom on their own.
[/quote]

Ok, so Lake, you've provided a list that I agree covers some of the bases on why downtown failed, and Stephen's list filled in most of the rest. So let me ask you a simple question that really is quite dispositive on this issue;

1: Which one of these barriers preventing downtown from being successful would a convention center remove?

(Answer: None)

This is why I cannot understand your position on the convention center, much less your 2 + 2 = 73 argument on how it will somehow revitalize downtown. This isn't a mystery. We know the reasons why downtown failed, and we know that it continues to decline because these same barriers still remain in place. A convention center has nothing to do with the true problems, and you know that as well as I do.

Look at it this way, we have diagnosed that the patient has the flu, and your response is that we should try putting in a knee replacement. Yes, clearly that will fix it. Or take my broken car example again, I know the engine is broken, you know the engine is broken, and we even know exactly what's wrong with the engine. So how could installing a $100mm stereo make any difference when the engine is still broken? Nobody is going to ride in our broken car, no matter how nice the stereo is.

This does nothing to address the factors which continue to cause downtown's decline. Accordingly, it won't revitalize anything. The money would be far better spent on generating actual sustainable private-sector economic activity downtown, and on removing the artificial barriers we have placed on commerce downtown, none of which have anything to do with a convention center.

I fail to see why we cannot put the rail terminal back downtown without first having to throw a multimillion-dollar handout to the same clowns who wrecked the place to begin with, especially when it's as clear as day to everyone, including you, that it wouldn't do a thing to fix the root causes behind the still-ongoing decline of downtown. You and Stephen just posted pretty comprehensive lists stating the causes of the decline, and "lack of a convention center" wasn't on even your own list. Nor does it do anytning to address the factors behind the decline.

We all seem to agree that the best use of the Jacksonville Terminal is for transportation - and that keeping the convention center only adds to the challenge of creating a sensible multi-modal center.  So then the question becomes, where do we provide convention space?  I remember reading that the City of Jacksonville is planning to relocate the fairgrounds to the Cecil Commerce Center area.  For a little refresher of what was discussed in Metro Jacksonville:

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2009-dec-moving-fairgrounds-to-cecil-field-a-bad-idea (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2009-dec-moving-fairgrounds-to-cecil-field-a-bad-idea)

Regardless of what happens with that, we can't forget about the availability of space that exists at the fairgrounds currently.  It is not quite what the Prime Osborn has, and is not as conveniently configured, but it could also be better utilized and I'm sure would pick up the slack from some of the events that would not be able to use the Prime Osborn any longer.

http://www.jacksonvillefair.com/expo/facility.php (http://www.jacksonvillefair.com/expo/facility.php)

(http://i53.tinypic.com/aze688.jpg)

(http://i55.tinypic.com/2jfg1zr.jpg)

Chris, the funny thing is after all of these pages of going back and forth, I never said that a convention center WOULD revitalize downtown or that it failing as a reason for downtown's decline.  What I did say in my argument about making connectivity and clustering complementing uses within a compact setting (my main point) is that a convention center COULD be a PART of a plan to create synergy with existing complementing uses around the courthouse site.  I've repeatedly stated that its not the highest priority on my list of things to do but that given our current state and landscape, public/private partnership of having it relocated should be explored.

Doug, if we're going to relocate we have to deal with the exhibition hall size limitation and connectivity issue for better utilization out of the events we do have.  The fairgrounds poses the same negative issues that come with the larger Prime Osborn site.

All in all, Matt Carlucci made this statement in the Mullaney 34-point thread about the skyway situation.  I believe it applies to several other problems we face downtown as well, including the thought about completely getting out of the convention industry and making the limitations and lack of proper event utilization on the impact of adjacent businesses we have now worse.

Quote from: mfc on January 25, 2011, 11:13:55 PM
Recently I visited Charlotte a city that Jacksonville should take notes from. I met with one of their downtown planners and the exec director of their tourist development group. They all love our skyway but say the problem is we must connect it to our surrounding areas. It is not that it doesn't go anywhere, it just needs a farther reach. Interestingly enough the downtown planner said that although they hear very little about Jacksonville in competitive business circles he would do anything for Charlotte to have our river, historic district possibilities and retail spaces we have. He also said our people mover should be stretched down to the stadium as well as surrounding areas. While I was there I rode their rail system. It is a tremendous asset to the development of their downtown or as they call it their uptown district. The property taxes generated from this district is huge and those dollars are responsible for enhancing their education system and other quality of life factors. I say all this to say that we can not retreat our way to prosperity. Audrey Moran is the one candidate who understands this and has the courage to move our city forward. The no new tax crowd will hold us back. Just my opinion.  

Well, I'm certainly not trying to put words in anyone's mouth, I was just going based on the front page of MetroJacksonville, which you'll note is presently carrying a headline article written by you and entitled "Five Steps to Revive Downtown Jacksonville." Now, when one reads this article, they will immediately note that one of the 5 main bullet-points is "Build a Riverfront Convention Center."

This entire debate has really flowed forth from that assertion in that article, both explicit and implied, that building a convention center would do anything to revitalize downtown, despite having nothing to do with the factors behind downtown's ongoing decline. Isn't it somewhat counterproductive to prescribe a solution that we know doesn't address the problem? I've never heard of a knee replacement surgery fixing an inner ear problem, have you?

I am not understanding why this money would not be better spent addressing the actual problems downtown, which have nothing to do with a convention center. I think your strongest argument is that freeing up the terminal building for relocating passenger rail back downtown. But then it dawned on me that your article and position have seemingly excluded the option of reopening the rail terminal without being required to build an expensive new convention center somewhere else, which is in reality probably our best option.

If the real concern is that the very same clown circus (Pappas, Diamond, Haskell, etc.) that originally blew up downtown Jacksonville by demanding a neverending series of nest-feathering boondoggles is not going to go along with the rail project unless we sacrifice another several hundred million taxpayers dollars to another boondoggle that's designed, built, and profited upon by them, then we really should take steps to address that problem separately in a logical way.

Chris, read the full section about the CC including the text under the images again. I'm not in front of a computer right now but I believe it focuses on the connectivity and clustering of complementing uses in a compact setting issue I've been preaching for years on this site. Nothing more, nothing less.

Lake, come on, you're completely ignoring the lessons you wrote about in your article in the Urban Issues section;

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2011-jan-downtown-revitalization-a-broken-record

Let's review some of the quotes from your other article, and see if anything sounds eerily familiar...

QuoteThe convention center is expected to spawn a hotel, perhaps a couple of hotels, restaurants and related development near the now-deserted banks of McCoys Creek.

FTU Downtown: Development plans will expand the city core to several new areas 3/26/83

Hmm, why does that say 1983 on it? Must be a mistake, I thought this was 2011? Oh, and here's a real gem;

QuoteDowntown is headed for a "complete turnaround."  Projects like the convention center and the Jacksonville Landing would bring more people to the area and that would bring back the big-name merchants.  In the next two to five years you're going to see downtown just absolutely explode.

Larry Hazouri - Downtown Merchant's Associates President 10/2/86

Wow, I guess downtown did completely explode. In the literal sense. Now we have a lot of great vacant lots.

But, really, let's all read and understand the lessons inherent in those 20 year-old quotes. Fact is, they clearly understood the concepts of clustering complementing uses around the center, but that didn't actually work out did it? Why? Because there is never going to be enough convention business here to stimulate any real development, regardless of how nice our convention center is, until we have enough urban vibrancy to attract visitors. Which, at this point, would take a decade even if we went in TODAY and remedied the items we agree have caused the decline of downtown. Until then, the building is the least of our problems. Nobody wants to hang out in a dead former city with nothing to do.

This building is a waste of money. All of the things being promised now are the very same things that were all promised 20 years ago. And then again 20 years before that. They never materialize. It's easy to say the issue with the Prime Osborn is that it is located in a desolate/deserted area of downtown, but that's 20/20 hindsight, as the area only became that way AFTER the current convention center located there. At the time, it was a fully developed commercial / light industrial area.

Despite the alleged miracle tonic of the convention center, the surrounding areas all eventually failed and/or were demolished for asinine policy reasons or plans for other asinine pies-in-the-sky. It is now surrounded by nothing but vacant lots.

So doesn't it strike you, reading those quotes, that all the same tired old bullshit is being regurgitated again?

Hey Chris...welcome to the republican ran city of jacksonville fl...just like republicans everywhere...just kick the can down the street and let someone else deal with the problems in front of them...like a bunch of birds with their heads in the sand...this city has the possibilities of greatness yet the conservative population and leadership will halt that form happening for many years to come...sorry the truth sucks does'nt it?

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 26, 2011, 08:02:12 AM
Lake, come on, you're completely ignoring the lessons you wrote about in your article in the Urban Issues section;

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2011-jan-downtown-revitalization-a-broken-record

Let's review some of the quotes from your other article, and see if anything sounds eerily familiar...

QuoteThe convention center is expected to spawn a hotel, perhaps a couple of hotels, restaurants and related development near the now-deserted banks of McCoys Creek.

FTU Downtown: Development plans will expand the city core to several new areas 3/26/83

Hmm, why does that say 1983 on it? Must be a mistake, I thought this was 2011? Oh, and here's a real gem;

QuoteDowntown is headed for a "complete turnaround."  Projects like the convention center and the Jacksonville Landing would bring more people to the area and that would bring back the big-name merchants.  In the next two to five years you're going to see downtown just absolutely explode.

Larry Hazouri - Downtown Merchant's Associates President 10/2/86

Wow, I guess downtown did completely explode. In the literal sense. Now we have a lot of great vacant lots.

But, really, let's all read and understand the lessons inherent in those 20 year-old quotes. Fact is, they clearly understood the concepts of clustering complementing uses around the center, but that didn't actually work out did it? Why? Because there is never going to be enough convention business here to stimulate any real development, regardless of how nice our convention center is, until we have enough urban vibrancy to attract visitors. Which, at this point, would take a decade even if we went in TODAY and remedied the items we agree have caused the decline of downtown. Until then, the building is the least of our problems. Nobody wants to hang out in a dead former city with nothing to do.

This building is a waste of money. All of the things being promised now are the very same things that were all promised 20 years ago. And then again 20 years before that. They never materialize. It's easy to say the issue with the Prime Osborn is that it is located in a desolate/deserted area of downtown, but that's 20/20 hindsight, as the area only became that way AFTER the current convention center located there. At the time, it was a fully developed commercial / light industrial area.

Despite the alleged miracle tonic of the convention center, the surrounding areas all eventually failed and/or were demolished for asinine policy reasons or plans for other asinine pies-in-the-sky. It is now surrounded by nothing but vacant lots.

So doesn't it strike you, reading those quotes, that all the same tired old bullshit is being regurgitated again?

I would really recommend that the next time you look into a historical study of events in Jacksonville, also look at the location of where things took place.  Take advantage of the old city directories, sanborn maps and newspaper clippings from the vertical files of the library's special collections department.  We can expose a ton of different issues, events and conclusions to those events but one thing centrally relates to all of them.  No matter how you spin it, downtown flourished because it was a compact pedestrian friendly zone where a number of organic uses feed off of each other.  This connectivity, not the transportation, maritime, convention center, retail, stadiums, aquariums, green space, affordable housing, etc. concepts is the central theme that every individual use must play its role in the ultimate creation of a vibrant urban district.  

Now take a look at the quotes you copied and ask yourself if any attempt to connect these projects with surrounding complementing uses at a pedestrian level scale was considered and implemented.  So moving forward, try to attempt to keep the concept of connectivity as a main design priority for whatever is pushed within the urban environment.  Now, I'll go back and reply in more detail to your earlier comment this morning.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 25, 2011, 10:22:45 PM

Quote from: tufsu1 on January 25, 2011, 10:14:52 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 25, 2011, 10:07:16 PM
Not that I'm a big fan of Walmart, but the numbers are going to similarly outweigh the impact of a convention center with all large retail stores, if you don't like Walmart then let's focus on a Target or a Publix or something. A $20mm private investment has ten times the impact of this silly boondoggle.

but generally things like Publix and WalMart don't create new economic activity in a region...since convention centers bring people in from outside the area, they do!

That's assuming the convention center attracts some big out-of-town conventions, which considering all the competitive disadvantages we face in that business, is extremely unlikely. The likely outcome is that this boondoggle is going to attract the same smallish local and regional events that we get now, nothing more. The building is not why we aren't cornering the market from Vegas and Orlando, tufsu, the building is really about the least of our problems.

you are so very wrong....as has been noted here many times, we get a decent # of visitors to this town (football games for example)....most leave with a favorable impression.

btw...I also saw the comment way back in the thread about Charlotte making major downtown improvements 10 years before building a convention center in 1995....that is simply not true....in fact, the opening of the convention center was one of the key catalysts for the improvement.

I don't think anybody on here is suggesting we build a convention center tomorrow....heck, we couldn't start until the courthouse buildings are vacated anyway....but we should begin the planning for it now, so we can do a real cost-benefit analysis.

Quote from: tufsu1 on January 26, 2011, 08:21:59 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 25, 2011, 10:22:45 PM

Quote from: tufsu1 on January 25, 2011, 10:14:52 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 25, 2011, 10:07:16 PM
Not that I'm a big fan of Walmart, but the numbers are going to similarly outweigh the impact of a convention center with all large retail stores, if you don't like Walmart then let's focus on a Target or a Publix or something. A $20mm private investment has ten times the impact of this silly boondoggle.

but generally things like Publix and WalMart don't create new economic activity in a region...since convention centers bring people in from outside the area, they do!

That's assuming the convention center attracts some big out-of-town conventions, which considering all the competitive disadvantages we face in that business, is extremely unlikely. The likely outcome is that this boondoggle is going to attract the same smallish local and regional events that we get now, nothing more. The building is not why we aren't cornering the market from Vegas and Orlando, tufsu, the building is really about the least of our problems.

you are so very wrong....as has been noted here many times, we get a decent # of visitors to this town (football games for example)....most leave with a favorable impression.

btw...I also saw the comment way back in the thread about Charlotte making major downtown improvements 10 years before building a convention center in 1995....that is simply not true....in fact, the opening of the convention center was one of the key catalysts for the improvement.

I don't think anybody on here is suggesting we build a convention center tomorrow....heck, we couldn't start until the courthouse buildings are vacated anyway....but we should begin the planning for it now, so we can do a real cost-benefit analysis.

Tufsu, you sound like a broken record from the Times-Union articles I linked in 1983, regurgitating the same tired old promises about how convention centers are better than fairy dust for stimulating economic development and maybe curing cancer too. Did you read the 25 year-old quotes I posted in this thread, making the same claims about the prior convention center boondoggles that you're making now? How'd that work out?

Quote from: thelakelander on January 26, 2011, 08:16:13 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 26, 2011, 08:02:12 AM
Lake, come on, you're completely ignoring the lessons you wrote about in your article in the Urban Issues section;

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2011-jan-downtown-revitalization-a-broken-record

Let's review some of the quotes from your other article, and see if anything sounds eerily familiar...

QuoteThe convention center is expected to spawn a hotel, perhaps a couple of hotels, restaurants and related development near the now-deserted banks of McCoys Creek.

FTU Downtown: Development plans will expand the city core to several new areas 3/26/83

Hmm, why does that say 1983 on it? Must be a mistake, I thought this was 2011? Oh, and here's a real gem;

QuoteDowntown is headed for a "complete turnaround."  Projects like the convention center and the Jacksonville Landing would bring more people to the area and that would bring back the big-name merchants.  In the next two to five years you're going to see downtown just absolutely explode.

Larry Hazouri - Downtown Merchant's Associates President 10/2/86

Wow, I guess downtown did completely explode. In the literal sense. Now we have a lot of great vacant lots.

But, really, let's all read and understand the lessons inherent in those 20 year-old quotes. Fact is, they clearly understood the concepts of clustering complementing uses around the center, but that didn't actually work out did it? Why? Because there is never going to be enough convention business here to stimulate any real development, regardless of how nice our convention center is, until we have enough urban vibrancy to attract visitors. Which, at this point, would take a decade even if we went in TODAY and remedied the items we agree have caused the decline of downtown. Until then, the building is the least of our problems. Nobody wants to hang out in a dead former city with nothing to do.

This building is a waste of money. All of the things being promised now are the very same things that were all promised 20 years ago. And then again 20 years before that. They never materialize. It's easy to say the issue with the Prime Osborn is that it is located in a desolate/deserted area of downtown, but that's 20/20 hindsight, as the area only became that way AFTER the current convention center located there. At the time, it was a fully developed commercial / light industrial area.

Despite the alleged miracle tonic of the convention center, the surrounding areas all eventually failed and/or were demolished for asinine policy reasons or plans for other asinine pies-in-the-sky. It is now surrounded by nothing but vacant lots.

So doesn't it strike you, reading those quotes, that all the same tired old bullshit is being regurgitated again?

I would really recommend that the next time you look into a historical study of events in Jacksonville, also look at the location of where things took place.  Take advantage of the old city directories, sanborn maps and newspaper clippings from the vertical files of the library's special collections department.  We can expose a ton of different issues, events and conclusions to those events but one thing centrally relates to all of them.  No matter how you spin it, downtown flourished because it was a compact pedestrian friendly zone where a number of organic uses feed off of each other.  This connectivity, not the transportation, maritime, convention center, retail, stadiums, aquariums, green space, affordable housing, etc. concepts is the central theme that every individual use must play its role in the ultimate creation of a vibrant urban district.  

Now take a look at the quotes you copied and ask yourself if any attempt to connect these projects with surrounding complementing uses at a pedestrian level scale was considered and implemented.  So moving forward, try to attempt to keep the concept of connectivity as a main design priority for whatever is pushed within the urban environment.  Now, I'll go back and reply in more detail to your earlier comment this morning.

Yeah, you get an A for effort, but no cigar. There's a whole colony of cockroaches in your ointment on that post, because this wasn't some mysterious hypothetical situation that nobody knows about. The convention center they were referencing in those quotes did wind up getting built, in the McCoy's creek area just like the quotes reference, and it's the very same failed existing convention center we still have now. And considering I drive by it about 3 times a week, I guess I must be extra-unfamiliar with where it is.

So, back on earth, this thing was actually built. As of 2011, it has been in operation for a solid 25 years now. So having just reviewed the chatter and quotes from local officials making the same promises of fairy dust and magic development wands that were made about the current convention center, including how it will spawn a clustering develop-splosion, I will ask you a second time; Doesn't this all sound strangely similar?

I'll give you that people in the 80s were severely car-culture oriented, and pedestrian considerations were probably the farthest thing from anyone's mind. But then I don't think that factor by itself would make or break a convention center project anyway. Most of the successful convention centers in the country aren't walkable, look at Orlando's way out off I-Drive. There's a lot more to that business than juzt a building. Or a sidewalk.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 26, 2011, 06:54:48 AM
Well, I'm certainly not trying to put words in anyone's mouth, I was just going based on the front page of MetroJacksonville, which you'll note is presently carrying a headline article written by you and entitled "Five Steps to Revive Downtown Jacksonville." Now, when one reads this article, they will immediately note that one of the 5 main bullet-points is "Build a Riverfront Convention Center."

Well before we go any further, let's actually hold hands and read through the text that follows this title in this particular article to truly comprehend what it states.

Beginning text in article (article text in blue)

Desperate times call for desperate measures. While there is no single silver bullet project that will solve all of downtown's ills, here are five major initiatives worth considering.

This would imply that no one individual project can revive downtown.  However, here is a list of five things worth considering to move us forward in our efforts.  Since you have an issue with the convention center showing up on this list, let's just skip right to it.

5. BUILD A RIVERFRONT CONVENTION CENTER

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/567311626_A2Fvb-M.jpg)
The San Diego Convention Center anchors the waterfront and the vibrant Gaslamp District.

One thing that every vibrant American downtown has is pedestrian oriented connectivity. That's one of the major things downtown Jacksonville lacks. While it is certainly debatable that a larger convention center will spur growth in the local convention industry, the positive impact of a center anchoring the heart of the Northbank is not. San Diego's experience suggests that a well placed convention center does have the ability to anchor a vibrant urban setting.

This opening statement sets the tone that pedestrian oriented connectivity is the key here.  It even agrees with your view that the true merits of the convention industry are debatable.  Let's move forward to the next set of text written under this topic.

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/567311739_xBKTY-M.jpg)

In 1989, the long-awaited San Diego Convention Center opened its doors for business, the first in a series of infrastructure improvements that would transform San Diego's once neglected waterfront into the sophisticated urban mecca it is today.
Source: http://www.sandiego.org/nav/Media/AboutConVis/HistoryofCONVIS

This image illustrates what sits directly across the street from the front door of the San Diego Convention Center.  Like a mall, synergy at the pedestrian level can be created when you place complementing uses directly adjacent to one another.  Let's move to the next line of text in this section of the article.

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/755529032_uJLK2-M.jpg)

In addition, getting the convention center out of the LaVilla allows the old terminal to be converted back into its original use. That's a use that could easily rise to the top of this list itself.

This brief statement suggests that getting the center out of the Prime Osborn allows for the old terminal to be used as a transportation center.  It also indicates that a transportation center can be a drastic step to help revive downtown as well.

Now that we have put what was actually said in this article within its context, let's take a look at the rest of your comments in this post.

QuoteThis entire debate has really flowed forth from that assertion in that article, both explicit and implied, that building a convention center would do anything to revitalize downtown, despite having nothing to do with the factors behind downtown's ongoing decline. Isn't it somewhat counterproductive to prescribe a solution that we know doesn't address the problem? I've never heard of a knee replacement surgery fixing an inner ear problem, have you?

The assertion in the article implies that the relocation of the convention center could help begin to reestablish pedestrian level connectivity and synergy within the core of downtown. Connectivity is the core of what a downtown needs to be vibrant.  This is what it had and had ripped apart.  Its also what has been missing in all the redevelopment gimmicks over the last 30 years.  Connectivity is a central factor and getting better placement out of our existing assets (even a convention center) is a form of helping restore urban vibrancy.

QuoteI am not understanding why this money would not be better spent addressing the actual problems downtown, which have nothing to do with a convention center. I think your strongest argument is that freeing up the terminal building for relocating passenger rail back downtown. But then it dawned on me that your article and position have seemingly excluded the option of reopening the rail terminal without being required to build an expensive new convention center somewhere else, which is in reality probably our best option.

At this point its highly debatable if what you suggest (complete abandonment) is the best option in the long run.  Its been asked a couple of times to cite a good example of a major central city without a viable exhibition hall.  To make the argument you're pushing, I think you're going to have to provide at least one logical example that can be evaluated.  With that said, nowhere in this article does it imply that the five things mentioned are the only things worth considering to revitalize downtown.  If you want to write a guest article highlight more, feel free.  We actively encourage this.

QuoteIf the real concern is that the very same clown circus (Pappas, Diamond, Haskell, etc.) that originally blew up downtown Jacksonville by demanding a neverending series of nest-feathering boondoggles is not going to go along with the rail project unless we sacrifice another several hundred million taxpayers dollars to another boondoggle that's designed, built, and profited upon by them, then we really should take steps to address that problem separately in a logical way.

Wow, I don't know how you've come to this conclusion from the text displayed in this article but I can assure you, this assertion only rest and has been cooked up in your head.  Hopefully, me explaining the reasoning behind what I originally wrote helps shed some light on the intent of the actual article.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 26, 2011, 08:44:23 AM
Yeah, you get an A for effort, but no cigar. There's a whole colony of cockroaches in your ointment on that post, because this wasn't some mysterious hypothetical situation that nobody knows about. The convention center they were referencing in those quotes did wind up getting built, in the McCoy's creek area just like the quotes reference, and it's the very same failed existing convention center we still have now. And considering I drive by it about 3 times a week, I guess I must be extra-unfamiliar with where it is.

You are an attorney, so this idea of connectivity may be hard to grasp (educational differences) but the current center is a mile from everything else.  In what vibrant downtown you know of where pedestrian scale connectivity isn't needed for an active street life?

QuoteSo, back on earth, this thing was actually built. As of 2011, it has been in operation for a solid 25 years now. So having just reviewed the chatter and quotes from local officials making the same promises of fairy dust and magic development wands that were made about the current convention center, including how it will spawn a clustering develop-splosion, I will ask you a second time; Doesn't this all sound strangely similar?

You're still missing the main concept.  The main concept isn't a convention center box.  Its placing complementing uses immediately adjacent to each other and designing them in a manner that breeds walkability.   A convention center hotel (existing), a dining/retail marketplace (existing), entertainment district (existing) and an exhibition hall (existing but a mile away from everything else) are complementing uses.  If you want these things to organically feed off each other, try actually grouping them together. 

QuoteI'll give you that people in the 80s were severely car-culture oriented, and pedestrian considerations were probably the farthest thing from anyone's mind. But then I don't think that factor by itself would make or break a convention center project anyway. Most of the successful convention centers in the country aren't walkable, look at Orlando's way out off I-Drive. There's a lot more to that business than juzt a building. Or a sidewalk.

I-Drive is way more walkable than downtown Jacksonville.  It may have a suburban design, but it does have hotels attached to the convention center and an assortment of retail and dining options in close proximity.

Were there any Hotels where convention goers might stay?

Lake, in response to your posts, Beirut is more walkable than Downtown Jacksonville, you got me there...

But I don't follow how a new convention center is going to fix that? Why exactly would we need to build a new convention center to promote downtown walkability? I still can't figure out why that artificial knee won't fix my ear problem, either. Why would we need a convention center to bring passenger rail back downtown? Why would we need a convention center to promote walkability? These are totally separate initiatives that can be implemented with or without the others.

Your industry, locally, is artificially tying all of these unrelated things together into some pre-determined and unnecessary package, when we could just as easily cherry pick the good and necessary focus points out of the package and decline to spend money on the silly ones. I don't understand why these things are somehow required to be lumped into some package deal to build an expensive convention center to promote walkability or passenger rail?

I think the fact that I'm NOT a planner/architect is probably what makes this so clear for me. These are all really separate issues, that for whatever reason have been pre-packaged for the public into a silly conglomeration that doesn't naturally fit together, when each individual initiative could just as well be considered and implemented separately. What possible reason would there be why we can't start promoting walkability or passenger rail at the terminal without building a new convention center 2 miles away down Bay Street? How are any of those things really requirements for doing any of the others?

These are really totally unconnected things, Lake, that are getting lumped together for no good reason that my layman non-planner mind can get itself around. Of course, I suppose I should listen to the same group or 3 or 4 expert planners, architects, and contractors that are suggesting this new convention center, as after all, haven't the exact same handful of people behind this idea done such a great job with the existing convention center? They also did such a great job with downtown revitalization, didn't they? I can't imagine why anyone would be the least bit hesitant to throw open arms around the latest proposal out of that clown circus.

There were none.  To compare the Prime Osborn location in the 1980s and the courthouse site location of today is apples and oranges.  That immediate area of LaVilla had a little building density but the majority of it was industrial.  Thus, by placing a convention center in the middle of an industrial district you're down to hoping that it would spur the complementing development by itself or you're planning to subsidize the rest of it, since there was no viable market at the time.  In other words, such a plan chases after fool's gold because there are too many "what if and when" steps.  

In this particular case, the complementing development is already in place but could use an economic boost.  By simple placing the events that are at the Prime Osborn now, into the core, you immediately add extra thousands of people to those empty sidewalks lining our struggling and vacant retail spaces.  By generating the additional foot traffic, you organically create an environment where the core enjoys more life and energy, which creates additional economic opportunities for small businesses within the heart of downtown.  With that said, will placing a convention center box adjacent to Bay Street and the Landing spur massive infill development (which was foolishly expected at the Prime Osborn site)?  Probably not.  However, it would help support the concept of Bay Street as an entertainment district and the Landing by providing the additional foot traffic that makes it feasible to fill up the existing empty storefronts between our currently open, but struggling ones.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 26, 2011, 09:52:49 AM
Lake, in response to your posts, Beirut is more walkable than Downtown Jacksonville, you got me there...

But I don't follow how a new convention center is going to fix that? Why exactly would we need to build a new convention center to promote downtown walkability?

You don't.  Never claimed that you had too.  But to say that a well placed pedestrian scaled facility in close proximity to complementing uses won't promote walkability just isn't true.

QuoteI still can't figure out why that artificial knee won't fix my ear problem, either. Why would we need a convention center to bring passenger rail back downtown?

You don't. You could go with JTA's plan.  It's just not smart investment to spend $170 million on a transportation center that forces a rail rider to walk four blocks to transfer to a bus or the skyway.  That option gets you a failed convention center and transportation center.

QuoteWhy would we need a convention center to promote walkability? These are totally separate initiatives that can be implemented with or without the others.

You don't.  However, we're already in the game.  We already have a convention center and events taking place in it.  Small businesses in the core don't get the benefit of those attending these events walking past their front door because the site is so isolated.  Assuming we're not outright closing the Prime Osborn, our two realistic choices of moving forward are keeping the CC at the terminal or relocating it.  Keeping it at the terminal hurts the transportation center concept and doesn't solve the CC's connectivity problems.  Relocating offers you a chance to correct several mistakes on multiple levels.

QuoteYour industry, locally, is artificially tying all of these unrelated things together into some pre-determined and unnecessary package, when we could just as easily cherry pick the good and necessary focus points out of the package and decline to spend money on the silly ones. I don't understand why these things are somehow required to be lumped into some package deal to build an expensive convention center to promote walkability or passenger rail?

Its not my industry.  Its politics.  There are people from all of our industries involved in why Jacksonville is what it is today.

QuoteI think the fact that I'm NOT a planner/architect is probably what makes this so clear for me. These are all really separate issues, that for whatever reason have been pre-packaged for the public into a silly conglomeration that doesn't naturally fit together, when each individual initiative could just as well be considered and implemented separately.

They are separate issues.  However, they all combine to create the environment that we call downtown today.  Thus, we have to plan and look at these issues from a birds eye view as well.

QuoteWhat possible reason would there be why we can't start promoting walkability or passenger rail at the terminal without building a new convention center 2 miles away down Bay Street? How are any of those things really requirements for doing any of the others?

We can bring Amtrak back to the terminal pretty quick, if it we're a higher priority.  However, if we want a workable viable transportation center, the convention center needs to go.  There has been no discussion of getting out the game, so the true choices are stay or relocate.  Out of those, I chose to relocate.  I'd chose this even if we had the option of calling it quits because I don't think that makes sense given the information debated in this thread.

QuoteThese are really totally unconnected things, Lake, that are getting lumped together for no good reason that my layman non-planner mind can get itself around. Of course, I suppose I should listen to the same group or 3 or 4 expert planners, architects, and contractors that are suggesting this new convention center, as after all, haven't the exact same handful of people behind this idea done such a great job with the existing convention center?

You're still failing to consider the role connectivity plays into this topic and downtown revitalization as a whole.  Until that happens, going back and forth like this is worthless.

QuoteThey also did such a great job with downtown revitalization, didn't they? I can't imagine why anyone would be the least bit hesitant to throw open arms around the latest proposal out of that clown circus.

Connnectivity.....connectivity.....connectivity.  Once we grasp this concept at a pedestrian scale level and apply it to whatever DT topic is being discussed, we'll struggle.

Quote from: stephendare on January 26, 2011, 09:32:42 AM
To be fair, its not accurate to look at what presently surrounds the old Union Terminal building in order to get an idea of density, connectivity or clustering at the time that it was built.

In 1984 that was still an extremely dense area, and it had the added benefit of being a connective corner from LaVilla to Riverside.  

Toward the back of "Old Hickory's Town" there's a picture of the floodlit Union Station, circa 1982 or so, and the amount of density around it is astonishing.  That's a maddening picture to look at today.

Stephen, I'd be fascinated to hear more about the political effects on Clarkson's proposals during the 1980s.  I know I saw as early as 1985 that he had a hotel and office building project on the table near the Prime, and of course he had the late 90s Marriott plan fall through.  Didn't he also propose a downtown Courtyard-type hotel a few years after that?

QuotePublic Arenas, Publicly run concert halls, Stadiums etc are only active part of the time, and while they have great crowds on the days that they are active, they shut down all activity on the days that they arent.  They are like an occasionally turned on 220 outlet into a district without a surge protector.

Designing active use into these buildings is the only real way to make them a continuously sustainable element of a district.

Unless I am mistaken... this is exactly what Lake is proposing.  A convention center that exposes street level merchants along the sidewalks... a walkable full time interactive building with the rest of Bay Street and the Hyatt.

Stephen, the Robert Meyer was a mile away from the Prime Osborn.  Its connectivity problems are no different from the one we have today with the Hyatt.  If we really wanted the Prime Osborn to be the convention center site, we should have selected Clarkson's site over the Hyatt.  However, I'm sure politics once again became a higher priority in the site selection process than urban connectivity and clustering.  These things really need to be just as adjacent to each other as they were when we had places like the George Washington.  Litterally, in the same building, next door to each other or within the same block.  

Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 26, 2011, 10:16:59 AM

QuotePublic Arenas, Publicly run concert halls, Stadiums etc are only active part of the time, and while they have great crowds on the days that they are active, they shut down all activity on the days that they arent.  They are like an occasionally turned on 220 outlet into a district without a surge protector.

Designing active use into these buildings is the only real way to make them a continuously sustainable element of a district.

Unless I am mistaken... this is exactly what Lake is proposing.  A convention center that exposes street level merchants along the sidewalks... a walkable full time interactive building with the rest of Bay Street and the Hyatt.

That's exactly what's been discussed since we started this site a few years back, when it comes to this particular issue.  It must be mixed-use if we don't want a huge dead zone in that location when there's no convention in town.  I spoke with Stephen about it last night at Three Layers.  I think we see eye to eye on this particular point of this issue.

Exactly... No one is looking for a giant square box that simply occupies space 5 days out of the week.

The convention center discussion really needs to focus on avoiding the most likely course of action for Jacksonville:

The convention center stays where it is (booking 5 shows a year), JTA builds their sprawling transportation ranch around the convention center (adding brand new office space to a market already struggling), then someday a new convention center is built on the JEA southbank site, and then everyone wonders why nothing works. Why aren't people walking from the Hyatt to the Southbank convention center??

+1

Quote from: stephendare on January 25, 2011, 11:23:19 PM

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on January 25, 2011, 11:00:35 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on January 25, 2011, 10:50:58 PM
No thanks.  Keep your sprawl on the westside.  We've been bringing it to the core for 40 years now.  People didn't leave for Wal-Mart, Bowling America and Fuddruckers.  Our urban core's decline is much more complex than that.

Let's focus on this issue for a moment.  What was the reason for the exodus of downtown?

[before you answer, my guesses are:  cost of living, cost of visiting, lack of amenities, perception]

And when you answer that (hopefully without a drawn out link) you can answer me, "Why can't we use the same strategies to bring people back downtown?"

1.  The so called 'beautification' of the Haydon Burns Administration.  It ended up destroying the Wharves and closing downtown off to all waterbased commerce, killing off half of the downtown economy. (mid 50s to early 60s)

2.  The illegalization of prostitution in 1953, killed off the bordellos, an important part of the hospitality based hotel economy.

3.  Ed Ball's War on his own Rail Union, ending up in the complete cancellation of Passenger Rail going south.

4.  The closing of the Union Terminal and moving of all passenger trains out of downtown to the Northside.  This destroyed most of the downtown tourism. (1974) This led to the demolition of 13 of the grand hotels downtown.

5 The formation of the DDA which developed a 1979 plan to redevelop Hemming Park as Hemming Plaza which killed off four million square feet of retail in only one year. (1984) This led to the demolition of half of the retail space downtown.

Unfair taxation.  Downtown was taxed like crazy for crazy things.

1  Special Ad Valorem Taxes that taxed the value of everything in a business.  This led to merchants moving all of their expensive merchandise to the suburbs where they wouldnt be taxed, but theoretically could be ordered for customers and driven in for delivery.  This turned all of downtown into a discount and cut rate prices zone.  All of the nice shops ended up transferring out to the suburbs.

2.  Real estate taxes that were levied on all unoccupied floor spaces of the highrise buildings.  This meant that a vacant building generated the same amount of liability no matter how little income was coming in.  The larger the building the greater the tax payment.  With all the area being forced into a discount mentality, this meant that the buildings were worth less than an empty lot, which could at least be turned into a parking lot that generated revenues.  The old guys were financially forced to tear down the structures or go broke.

3. Ad Valorem taxes on office furnishings.  The suburbs didnt have these taxes.  It became increasingly common for downtown businessmen to take any valuable furnishings, art, or decor out of the offices and replace them with shitty second hand furniture in order to avoid being taxed on the higher value.

4.  Free Parking at the regional shopping malls, with no parking enforcement.  This was one of the most cited causes for the dropoffs in downtown retail right up until the disastrous Hemming Park nightmare.

5.  The 1979 redevelopment plan that created structural barriers between downtown and the surrounding black neighborhoods.

6.  The 1992 recession which closed many stores and spaces downtown, which were then filled with homeless and transient service centers, making downtown into a homeless services center.

7.  Mark Rimmers Parking Plan of 2002, which criminalized most parking and heavily fined downtown customers combined with increased enforcement of arcane parking regulations in an attempt to force motorists into his parking garages.

8.  The demolition of La Villa.

This is, without a doubt, the most thoroughly depressing and mystifying catalog of human folly and deprivation I have read related to the life of a city, ever.  I don't know how witnessing it didn't rip the very heart out of those of you who had to live through any part of it.  I've only been here since '03 and I thought I knew what was what.  I didn't know the half of it ...

Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 26, 2011, 10:16:59 AM
Unless I am mistaken... this is exactly what Lake is proposing.  A convention center that exposes street level merchants along the sidewalks... a walkable full time interactive building with the rest of Bay Street and the Hyatt.

Exactly how IT WORKS in Oklahoma City, walk across the street in any direction, to the west, is the fabulous Myriad Gardens, several blocks of lakes, gardens and a "crystal bridge" that contains a tropical forest year round. To the east and your facing the Amtrak station, just beyond Amtrak under the railroad is the Bricktown Canal and Entertainment District, as well as The Deep Deuce Jazz historic sites. To the north, walk over the Skybridges to either the Sheraton Inn or Renaissance Hotels and the Skyscrapers of downtown. To the south you can walk from C-Center into the Oklahoma City Arena... Any questions?

OCKLAWAHA

Quote from: stephendare on January 26, 2011, 11:54:21 AM
Corporate workforces were slashed by 75% across the board.  

really?

Quote1  Special Ad Valorem Taxes that taxed the value of everything in a business.  This led to merchants moving all of their expensive merchandise to the suburbs where they wouldnt be taxed, but theoretically could be ordered for customers and driven in for delivery.  This turned all of downtown into a discount and cut rate prices zone.  All of the nice shops ended up transferring out to the suburbs.

2.  Real estate taxes that were levied on all unoccupied floor spaces of the highrise buildings.  This meant that a vacant building generated the same amount of liability no matter how little income was coming in.  The larger the building the greater the tax payment.  With all the area being forced into a discount mentality, this meant that the buildings were worth less than an empty lot, which could at least be turned into a parking lot that generated revenues.  The old guys were financially forced to tear down the structures or go broke.

3. Ad Valorem taxes on office furnishings.  The suburbs didnt have these taxes.  It became increasingly common for downtown businessmen to take any valuable furnishings, art, or decor out of the offices and replace them with shitty second hand furniture in order to avoid being taxed on the higher value.

Point of information, what ad valorem taxes were charged downtown that didn't apply state wide as these are all state based taxes as far as I know?  Aren't property (real and personal) taxes ad valorem taxes?  I don't get these three points.

Quote from: stephendare on January 26, 2011, 12:57:05 PM
it was a local ad valorem, similar to the special ad valorem that is presently assessed on downtown property owners to support the BID (Downtown Vision)

Tax increment district?  I don't recall anything more than the add on to fund Downtown Vision.  And, as I recall, that was voluntarily imposed by mutual agreement of the property owners downtown.  What year was that created, by the way?  Does it go back that far?

Points one and three sound like the personal property (that would include the office furnishings, for example) tax.  That applies to businesses everywhere in Florida.  

Likewise, the application of real estate taxes to the value of empty space is governed by state law and regulation.

Sorry, this explanation doesn't jive with my experience with property (ad valorem) taxes.  Maybe his complaint is over the valuations by the tax appraiser, especially regarding empty square footages in buildings.

If he is referring to occupational taxes imposed by the City, I, again, don't recall a differential between downtown and the entire City limits of Jacksonville.

I do recall that there may be a slightly higher tax rate in the "urban services district" (i.e. the old City limits).  Maybe that's the difference but that would be the rate only, not what it applies to.  Again, I think the amount of  it would also have been a nominal amount, especially for the larger players downtown.

"....while average wages for employees rose by 3 percent in 1996, the average salary, stock options, benefits, and bonuses for corporate chieftains grew by 39 percent to $2.3 million. Further, top executives in manufacturing firms made 34 times what average workers did in 1974. By 1995, that figure had exploded to 159 times the pay of the average worker.9 Thus, the disparity in pay between the top executives and the workers in their firms is widening instead of narrowing. Little wonder that workers are discouraged and asking why the divide is so wide."

And the above example is about 15 years old - I can't imagine it has gotten any better in the intervening years.

Stephen...none of the info. you have provided shows 75% reduction in the corporate workforce nationally

Yes there was a recession in the early 1990's and unemploymet went up (I believe around 10%)....but had 75% of corporate jobs been lost, we would have seen unemployment figures of well over 25%, worse than the Great Depression.

Stephen, FYI, I had updated my last post with the following while you were responding:

Quote
I do recall that there may be a slightly higher tax rate in the "urban services district" (i.e. the old City limits).  Maybe that's the difference but that would be the rate only, not what it applies to.  Again, I think the amount of  it would also have been a nominal amount, especially for the larger players downtown.

you didn't say anything about corporate workforces nationally...so what did you mean by this?

Quote from: stephendare on January 26, 2011, 11:54:21 AM
I forgot to mention the national 'downsizing' era that happened in the early 90s as a result of computerization of the corporations.  Corporate workforces were slashed by 75% across the board.  This was a serious problem downtown and marked the beginning of the end of Downtown's skyscraper economy.

also, guess I didn't interpret this as only applying to corporate office towers.

so...wildly assumptive?  try this....if unemployment went up from 5% to say 25% purely because of the so-called 75% reduction in corporate workforce, then corporate jobs would be approx. 27% of the national total...which seems entirely reasonable (if not low) to me

QuoteIve been active in this city since the early 80s, and as much as I would like to tell you that the answers boil down to a political ideology, I can't.  Not honestly.  It boils down to thoughtless greed, unbridled corruption (across the entire political spectrum), uninformed idealism and a serious case of the stupids.

Totally agreed, and I'm a registered Democrat. While their may be some truth to the idea that those who vote "left" are those who embrace "diversity" more, and thus are those who would appreciate the modern, gentrified city center, there are plenty of Democrats living in suburbia, unwilling to give up their Drive-In Dystopias. (And wasn't the project of suburbia a Democratic initiative, to reward the country after WWII? Was it not the Democrats who invented the modern, disastrous, entirely segregated "projects?")

Moreover, I suspect that a great deal of "Democrats" don't vote Republican because of the radical lurch to the right that began in the 1970s. Remember, a modern conservative is poorly defined, and certainly doesn't match the ideology (broad brush, obviously their are many shades of red under that tent) of non-governmental interference. The Defense of Marriage Act is a great example: that's not conservatism. That's right-winged liberalism. The never-ending chipping away at a woman's right to choose is another example. If the Republicans went back to the mantra of actually smaller government, and market driven policy, I suspect they'd have a lot of voters defect from the Blue. (Alternatively, if we, the people, could agree that a middle ground approach beats polarized stupidity...or that sometimes you need Big Government and other times you don't, we might be in a better, more sane place...But we've spent too much time on politics as it is...)

There's also a strong conservative argument for getting government out of the way as it pertains to development, or at the very least, limiting the role to an appropriate size. Miami spent billions for 30 years with minimal pedestrian results, while Miami Beach skyrocketed to vibrancy because of market demand.

Great thread on the convention center issue.

Anyone going to the Civic Council presentation tonight at the Skyline cafe?

BTW nice picture of the river.

I will be there.

Quote from: Noone on April 19, 2011, 06:51:20 AM
Great thread on the convention center issue.

Anyone going to the Civic Council presentation tonight at the Skyline cafe?

BTW nice picture of the river.

just to correct...it is an IMPACTjax (your professional group of Chamber) event / presentations by Don Shea and Ed Burr

Government Affairs: "Downtown and Drinks" Forum on Downtown Revitalization
DATE:  Tuesday, April 19th (Tomorrow)
TIME:  5:30 - 7:00 p.m.
RSVP: Click here
COST: Free for IMPACTjax members, $10 for future members!
LOCATION: Skyline Café, 50 N. Laura St.  (42nd Floor, Bank of America Tower)
EVENT DESCRIPTION:  Do you wish our downtown had more bars, restaurants, shops, businesses and residential space?  Have you wondered what our business and political leaders are doing to attract more businesses to our city's core?  If so, plan to attend "Downtown and Drinks"!  Ed Burr, Civic Council member and former Chamber chairman, and Don Shea, Executive Director of the Civic Council, will bring IMPACTjax members up to speed on the latest efforts and proposals for how to revitalize downtown, as well as take your questions and concerns on this critical issue.  While participating in this important discussion, grab a cocktail and enjoy a sweeping, bird's eye view of the St. Johns River from the 42nd floor of the Bank of America tower!  Skyline Café, our host, will provide a cash bar and complimentary hors d'oeuvres.  Don't miss this event!

tufsu1, Appreciate that. Looking forward to seeing you.

I went. I saw. I asked.
If a convention center is built. How will the River be used?

VIA the TU:

QuoteA.M. Briefing: Jacksonville Chamber taps Houston for leadership trip
Posted: April 18, 2011 - 11:52pm

By The Times-Union and news services

The Jacksonville Regional Chamber of Commerce has picked Houston as the city for its 31st annual Leadership Trip.

"We selected Houston as our destination this year because we consider it an aspirational city for Jacksonville," chamber chair-elect Tom Van Berkel said in the announcement Monday.

The chamber's trip will be Sept. 27-29. Some topics that will be covered during meetings with counterparts in Houston will be job growth, port business, downtown revitalization and education reform. For more information, call (904) 366-6646 or go to www.OpportunityJacksonville.com.

David Bauerlein/The Times-Union

I think this is an excellent choice as Houston has the reputation as being a city where property owners have a great deal of freedom to decide just how they want to improve and develop their property.  It's also reputed to be VERY quick and easy to start a business there.