What happens to it when the new one opens? IMO the key to the northbank long term is making Bay Street area one long thoroughfare of restaraunts/entertainment/retail/ residences that bridges the Landing to the Sports complex area. Develop the Shipyards area intelligently and now you've got quite a stretch and you eventually improve north from there. (I'm sure I'm not walking on virgin ground here BTW) But again, need to get that old courthouse, ideally the courthouse annex, stupid police building and somehow maxwell house out of the way. But first things first with regards to my opening question.
I still think this would be the best place for a convention center with a river front/ hotels/ restaurants etc. Do to the space it probably would have to be a vertical center, but I see no problem there.
The popular idea for the current courthouse site is a convention center. However, I'm not sold that trying to spread out development to connect the central Northbank and the Stadium District is the key to revitalization. To become economically viable long term, Downtown will need to replace the built in economic generating anchors it lost over the last half century (railroad, maritime industry, etc.) in addition to clustering complementing uses in a compact setting and reestablishing connectivity with the surrounding urban neighborhoods. None of these things sound as sexy as "build a convention center, aquarium, entertainment district, attract tourist, suburbanites, etc." but they are at the crux of what ails downtown, imo.
+1 to Lake
Also, if you look at the convention business, every city on the planet jumped on that dumb bandwagon in the 1990s and 2000s, but almost all of them continually lose money on it. The only real winners on the convention front are Las Vegas and Orlando, and that's because they both have other things going on (entertainment, amenities, etc.) that we can never compete with. That ship has already sailed. Vegas and Orlando by themselves account for probably more than half of the convention market, leaving all the others to compete for whatever smaller scraps are left over.
No event of any sufficient size to move our performance meter will locate here, because we will never compete with the entertainment and amenities in a Las Vegas or an Orlando setting. When you look at the prime locations for public events, it's laughable that we have this "build it and they will come" mentality, because they won't come.
I don't care how snazzy of a convention center we build, when you've got an event deciding between Vegas or LA and Jacksonville Florida, what do you think they're going to pick? They'll take the Motel 8 in Vegas over the nicest convention center in the world in Jacksonville, for obvious reasons. This is a cooked goose, that business is already built-out and we can't compete, and we just need to let it go already and focus on what will actually bring this place back.
What made JAX a successful city was not conventions, it was having a variety of centrally located industries and businesses that actually employed people, and we have totally lost focus on that. The convention business is a one-trick pony. It brings people in for a day or two, and in JAX that means they stay in chain-owned hotels (so the money doesn't stay here locally), spend all day in the convention center (run by SMG out of Chicago, so the money doesn't stay here), eating in the restaurant concessions operated by the hotels and by the convention center (so again, the money doesn't stay here), before leaving and resigning us to the other 364 days a year where we still need an actual functioning local economy.
I really would hate to see us sink even more good money after bad by continuing to chase an over-saturated convention industry that we really can't compete in anyway. Take the money and use it on something that actually matters.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 12, 2011, 09:37:25 AM
Also, if you look at the convention business, every city on the planet jumped on that dumb bandwagon in the 1990s and 2000s, but almost all of them continually lose money on it.
This is the same logic that anti-transit people use.
While it is true that most convention centers operate at a deficit, the spinoff revenue created from hotels, restaurants, shopping, & entertainment make up the difference and then some.
btw...nobody is talking about competing with Las vegas and Orlando for major conventions...but how about competing with Charlotte, Nashville, and Tampa for smaller conventions.
The convention industry, like most others, has tiers....the big convention centers are Vegas, Orlando, Chicago, Atlanta, and Detroit (auto show)....then there are the mid-size centers like Baltimore, Philly, DC, and Boston....and then there are the smaller facilities (less than 300,000 square feet), where we can fit in....sadly, with currently less than 100,000 square feet, we are in the micro market.
My hope is that they level the building and turn the resulting broken foundation into a surface parking lot... maybe surrounded by a chain link fence with some weeds to give it a little character. And dare I suggest -- a guy with a hot dog cart could operate out on the sidewalk! (Wait, unless Mark's sells hot dogs.)
As far as the convention business in Jax goes, I look at it in the same manner as our Amtrak situation. Its less about competing with Orlando, Chicago or whoever and more about clustering development in a walkable setting to stimulate additional vibrancy. Both of these things are already here. However, they are in locations where we don't get the best economic benefit and utilization out of them, thus coordinated relocation makes sense.
Quote from: Bativac on January 12, 2011, 09:45:07 AM
My hope is that they level the building and turn the resulting broken foundation into a surface parking lot... maybe surrounded by a chain link fence with some weeds to give it a little character. And dare I suggest -- a guy with a hot dog cart could operate out on the sidewalk! (Wait, unless Mark's sells hot dogs.)
;D
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 12, 2011, 09:41:12 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 12, 2011, 09:37:25 AM
Also, if you look at the convention business, every city on the planet jumped on that dumb bandwagon in the 1990s and 2000s, but almost all of them continually lose money on it.
This is the same logic that anti-transit people use.
While it is true that most convention centers operate at a deficit, the spinoff revenue created from hotels, restaurants, shopping, & entertainment make up the difference and then some.
btw...nobody is talking about competing with Las vegas and Orlando for major conventions...but how about competing with Charlotte, Nashville, and Tampa for smaller conventions.
The convention industry, like most others, has tiers....the big convention centers are Vegas, Orlando, Chicago, Atlanta, and Detroit (auto show)....then there are the mid-size centers like Baltimore, Philly, DC, and Boston....and then there are the smaller facilities (less than 300,000 square feet), where we can fit in....sadly, with currently less than 100,000 square feet, we are in the micro market.
Right, but that's a flawed analysis Tufsu. What really matters is how much money makes it back into the local economy. The reality is very little. All we're really doing is subsidizing a money-losing business so that SMG in Chicago, Omni Hotels in Dallas, and whatever corporate chain restaurants they all operate, can make money. It's us as a local community handing over money to giant corporations thousands of miles away.
If you look at this alleged trickle-down effect, it doesn't exist. The extent of any of these players' local involvement is almost nil, they are remotely-run and hire as few employees as possible at as close to minimum wage as possible to do the physical running of the facility, and then the income is shipped out to support a corporate infrastructure located elsewhere. You or I, nor the rest of this community, will ever see the lion's share of the income generated off this business, despite being forced to fund it as taxpayers. Your normal hotel has a banquet/functions manager and a general manager that make a 6-figure salary, a couple mid-level management types pulling $50k, and then the other 98% making $7/hr with no benefits.
If you just do the math on that, it's already parasitic because that's not a living wage, which means we're all supporting some portion of their healthcare when they visit an ER, and likely some portion of their rent and food and transportation as well depending on what assistance programs they're on. These type of businesses (corporate chain restaurants, hotels, etc.) are exactly what DO NOT give back to a community, because the profits are shipped back to wherever the corporation is located and their involvement with the community is deliberately focused on paying as little to anyone as possible. There is a larger debate here, on the fairness involved in paying someone what you know they can't live on, but I digress.
This is not a substitute, in any way shape or form, for an actual industry (manufacturing, shipping, etc.) that pays a living wage and has roots in the community. We should get out of this taxpayer-subsidized money-losing business, that does nothing but hand out our local tax dollars to foreign corporations.
Quote from: thelakelander on January 12, 2011, 09:45:48 AM
As far as the convention business in Jax goes, I look at it in the same manner as our Amtrak situation. Its less about competing with Orlando, Chicago or whoever and more about clustering development in a walkable setting to stimulate additional vibrancy. Both of these things are already here. However, they are in locations where we don't get the best economic benefit and utilization out of them, thus coordinated relocation makes sense.
You have to compare it, though. Because of its very nature. People who are deciding where to locate an event will most definitely be comparing other cities to JAX when deciding whether or not to hold the event here, so who in their right mind would think that failing to analyze our competitive position in the marketplace before deciding whether or not to stay in the business or make an additional investment is worth it, is somehow a good idea?
Lake, fact is when you look at the marketplace that serves this industry, we are a buggy whip company trying to compete with a Gulfsteam V. I don't care how much money we spend, we are never going to be competitive with the tiny handfull of cities that have managed to corner the market. It's not about the facilities, it's about what else is here. Can we compete with Las Vegas? Really? Who wants to argue that one? It's just not going to happen.
We need to get out of that money-losing business and focus on what can actually work. I know this is heresy to planning types who have been indoctrinated to believe the convention business is the best thing since electricity, but the reality is that only holds true in a number of US cities I can count on my hands and the rest lose money on it with little positive to show for it.
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 12, 2011, 09:41:12 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 12, 2011, 09:37:25 AM
Also, if you look at the convention business, every city on the planet jumped on that dumb bandwagon in the 1990s and 2000s, but almost all of them continually lose money on it.
This is the same logic that anti-transit people use.
While it is true that most convention centers operate at a deficit, the spinoff revenue created from hotels, restaurants, shopping, & entertainment make up the difference and then some.
btw...nobody is talking about competing with Las vegas and Orlando for major conventions...but how about competing with Charlotte, Nashville, and Tampa for smaller conventions.
The convention industry, like most others, has tiers....the big convention centers are Vegas, Orlando, Chicago, Atlanta, and Detroit (auto show)....then there are the mid-size centers like Baltimore, Philly, DC, and Boston....and then there are the smaller facilities (less than 300,000 square feet), where we can fit in....sadly, with currently less than 100,000 square feet, we are in the micro market.
Also one thing I forgot to say is, the small and micro markets can't draw big enough events to make a positive impact on the local economy. If I spend $100mm to bring in $5mm in trickedown, then I don't consider that success. It's actually a net negative. This isn't "bring in some smaller amount of money at any cost" it's about a cost-benefit, e.g. are we getting our money's worth. And this is a money-losing business for the players in this segment of the market. It's simply not worth it, the market is oversaturated as it sits, and almost all lose money on it.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 12, 2011, 10:10:32 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on January 12, 2011, 09:45:48 AM
As far as the convention business in Jax goes, I look at it in the same manner as our Amtrak situation. Its less about competing with Orlando, Chicago or whoever and more about clustering development in a walkable setting to stimulate additional vibrancy. Both of these things are already here. However, they are in locations where we don't get the best economic benefit and utilization out of them, thus coordinated relocation makes sense.
You have to compare it, though. Because of its very nature. People who are deciding where to locate an event will most definitely be comparing other cities to JAX when deciding whether or not to hold the event here, so who in their right mind would think that failing to analyze our competitive position in the marketplace before deciding whether or not to stay in the business or make an additional investment is worth it, is somehow a good idea?
What about the events that are already here? What about having meeting space available for home grown events, trade shows, festivals and corportations? These are things that take place at the Prime Osborn now that provides less economic impact than they should because of the Prime Osborn's isolated location. I believe there is an argument to be made for relocating this activity to an area where existing downtown businesses and walkability can benefit.
QuoteLake, fact is when you look at the marketplace that serves this industry, we are a buggy whip company trying to compete with a Gulfsteam V. I don't care how much money we spend, we are never going to be competitive with the tiny handfull of cities that have managed to corner the market. It's not about the facilities, it's about what else is here. Can we compete with Las Vegas? Really? Who wants to argue that one? It's just not going to happen.
No, we can't compete against Vegas, but that's only one use of an exhibition hall space. You need exhibition space for the industry, business and cultural event already here. Why not make sure that space is in a place that triggers walkable urban synergy? Can you really be a business and industrial hub without a convention facility or adaquate exhibition space? Is there a major American metro out there today that successfully attracts well paying jobs and quality businesses without an exhibition hall to support them?
QuoteWe need to get out of that money-losing business and focus on what can actually work. I know this is heresy to planning types who have been indoctrinated to believe the convention business is the best thing since electricity, but the reality is that only holds true in a number of US cities I can count on my hands and the rest lose money on it with little positive to show for it.
I don't think we should be looking at the convention market as a money making business. The same goes for mass transit. Instead, more focus should be given to better utilizing our existing assets to grow our economy. We already have a stake in exhibition space. However, downtown would be much better off if that space were located adjacent to complementing uses.
With all of that said, I'm not arguing that a convention center will revitalize downtown because it won't. For example, I'd advocate using $100 million to incentivize small business downtown or construct a streetcar before building a convention center. However, my point is more about better utilizing the assets we already have with the concepts of clustering and connectivity. Better utilization of our existing business can be a great benefit to the health of downtown.
Quote from: Bativac on January 12, 2011, 09:45:07 AM
My hope is that they level the building and turn the resulting broken foundation into a surface parking lot... maybe surrounded by a chain link fence with some weeds to give it a little character. And dare I suggest -- a guy with a hot dog cart could operate out on the sidewalk! (Wait, unless Mark's sells hot dogs.)
Funny you should mention this. I have it on good authority that such plans are already being drawn up.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 12, 2011, 10:02:44 AM
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 12, 2011, 09:41:12 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 12, 2011, 09:37:25 AM
Also, if you look at the convention business, every city on the planet jumped on that dumb bandwagon in the 1990s and 2000s, but almost all of them continually lose money on it.
This is the same logic that anti-transit people use.
While it is true that most convention centers operate at a deficit, the spinoff revenue created from hotels, restaurants, shopping, & entertainment make up the difference and then some.
btw...nobody is talking about competing with Las vegas and Orlando for major conventions...but how about competing with Charlotte, Nashville, and Tampa for smaller conventions.
The convention industry, like most others, has tiers....the big convention centers are Vegas, Orlando, Chicago, Atlanta, and Detroit (auto show)....then there are the mid-size centers like Baltimore, Philly, DC, and Boston....and then there are the smaller facilities (less than 300,000 square feet), where we can fit in....sadly, with currently less than 100,000 square feet, we are in the micro market.
Right, but that's a flawed analysis Tufsu. What really matters is how much money makes it back into the local economy. The reality is very little. All we're really doing is subsidizing a money-losing business so that SMG in Chicago, Omni Hotels in Dallas, and whatever corporate chain restaurants they all operate, can make money. It's us as a local community handing over money to giant corporations thousands of miles away.
If you look at this alleged trickle-down effect, it doesn't exist. The extent of any of these players' local involvement is almost nil, they are remotely-run and hire as few employees as possible at as close to minimum wage as possible to do the physical running of the facility, and then the income is shipped out to support a corporate infrastructure located elsewhere. You or I, nor the rest of this community, will ever see the lion's share of the income generated off this business, despite being forced to fund it as taxpayers. Your normal hotel has a banquet/functions manager and a general manager that make a 6-figure salary, a couple mid-level management types pulling $50k, and then the other 98% making $7/hr with no benefits.
If you just do the math on that, it's already parasitic because that's not a living wage, which means we're all supporting some portion of their healthcare when they visit an ER, and likely some portion of their rent and food and transportation as well depending on what assistance programs they're on. These type of businesses (corporate chain restaurants, hotels, etc.) are exactly what DO NOT give back to a community, because the profits are shipped back to wherever the corporation is located and their involvement with the community is deliberately focused on paying as little to anyone as possible. There is a larger debate here, on the fairness involved in paying someone what you know they can't live on, but I digress.
This is not a substitute, in any way shape or form, for an actual industry (manufacturing, shipping, etc.) that pays a living wage and has roots in the community. We should get out of this taxpayer-subsidized money-losing business, that does nothing but hand out our local tax dollars to foreign corporations.
Similar results have been found when the impact of sports teams on local economies has been studied.
This space is right on the river, separated only by a surface parking lot, right? Can't some kind of mixed-use building go in? Assuming you can find somebody who wants to build one. Retail and restaurants in the bottom, office space (because downtown needs more vacant office space, am I right) or residences (because downtown needs more vacant residence space, am I right).
It'd be great for something to go in that can take advantage of the proximity to the river and capitalize on the surrounding entertainment district. But I don't see any private enterprise wanting to build anything that big anytime soon. I have this vision of an empty courthouse building for the next decade, followed by another decade of a fenced-off vacant lot.
But we can dream...
Quote from: copperfiend on January 12, 2011, 11:53:49 AM
Quote from: Bativac on January 12, 2011, 09:45:07 AM
My hope is that they level the building and turn the resulting broken foundation into a surface parking lot... maybe surrounded by a chain link fence with some weeds to give it a little character. And dare I suggest -- a guy with a hot dog cart could operate out on the sidewalk! (Wait, unless Mark's sells hot dogs.)
Funny you should mention this. I have it on good authority that such plans are already being drawn up.
The Civic Council is supposed to make a presentation on this very issue sometime this month.
I think the only piece left to tackle is which fence company owned by one of Peyton's buddies will get the no-bid contract.
Quote from: thelakelander on January 12, 2011, 10:32:55 AM
As far as the convention business in Jax goes, I look at it in the same manner as our Amtrak situation. Its less about competing with Orlando, Chicago or whoever and more about clustering development in a walkable setting to stimulate additional vibrancy. Both of these things are already here. However, they are in locations where we don't get the best economic benefit and utilization out of them, thus coordinated relocation makes sense.
That's a false comparison. Public transit is a different animal entirely, because the people who directly benefit from public transit are actually the residents of the community whose tax dollars are being invested to build it. The convention business is the direct opposite, because it takes tax dollars from local residents to create a loss-making enterprise that creates indirect revenue streams that are funneled straight to corporations which aren't local and do not reinvest in this community. Our tax dollars are going to support SMG in Philadelphia, the Hyatt and Omni hotel corporations in Chicago and Dallas, and whatever corporate chain restaurants they sell concession space to. None of that stays here in the community, and in direct contraposition to mass transit, we as local residents, do not benefit from it at all.
Can I ride the convention center to work? Does the convention center decrease my commute times or save me time due to decreased highway congestion? Does it save me fuel? The people at the conventions are here from out of town, and they go home when it is over, leaving no permanent impact on the local economy. And even the temporary economic impact is largely gobbled up by the out-of-town corporations who run the convention center, hotels, restaurants, and parking. All we get for it is the bill.
Mass transit and the convention business are completely incomparable, the former directly benefits the community and the latter is nothing more than a taxpayer handout with no tangible local benefit. Unsurprisingly, the only local people who want to see this built are *shocker* SMG/The Munz Cartel and Preston Haskell, the former knows he'll get another opportunity to fleece the taxpayers by running the venue, the latter thinks he's going to get the construction contract to build it. The rest of us who actually live here see this for the asinine idea that it is.
Quote from: thelakelander on January 12, 2011, 10:32:55 AM
What about the events that are already here? What about having meeting space available for home grown events, trade shows, festivals and corportations? These are things that take place at the Prime Osborn now that provides less economic impact than they should because of the Prime Osborn's isolated location. I believe there is an argument to be made for relocating this activity to an area where existing downtown businesses and walkability can benefit.
What events are already here? The Prime-Osborne schedule shows a whopping 4 events, none of which are large enough to draw more than a handful of people. And I think one them is our city-sponsored job fair, so I wouldn't even count that one. The Prime-Osborne's rate structure this year is...get this...FREE. If you bring in an event that will fill a paltry minimum of 200 hotel rooms, they will actually give you the space FOR FREE. Sounds great, right? That will surely make us competitive! So how did this work? Well, we actually lost an event we had competed to get. So what was this prime-time event that snubbed our fantastic convention destination, despite our literally giving the space away for free? The National Association of Beetle Collectors. LMAO!
I mean, if you really want to argue this one then I'll play, but it only gets more embarrassing from here.
The truth is that we cannot compete in the marketplace as it sits, and the building has got nothing to do with it. It's not that people aren't coming because we don't have the space, if you look at the truly successful convention cities like Vegas, San Diego, Orlando, etc., they have huge spaces to accommodate certain large events but the vast majority of the convention business is still comprised of smaller events that are well under the 2,000 person size that our own facilities can handle as it sits, usually under 1,000. Muncie Indiana has a convention center half our size and does 7 times our volume.
The reason nobody chooses Jacksonville isn't because of the facility, it's because this city cannot (and will never) compete with a Las Vegas or a San Diego or an Orlando, or even other small cities, because the problem isn't the building! It's that there is nothing for people to do when they get here. It's funny to us that Tufsu can try with a straight face to argue that Winn-Dixie is a "dining out" option downtown, but convention managers don't find it funny they just go somewhere else. We already cannot compete against other cities for the smaller events that presently fit our facilities, those events just choose the popular convention destinations the same as the large events do, because of all the same reasons that I've listed. All that building a larger building is going to accomplish is to increase the operating losses.
Quote from: thelakelander on January 12, 2011, 10:32:55 AM
No, we can't compete against Vegas, but that's only one use of an exhibition hall space. You need exhibition space for the industry, business and cultural event already here. Why not make sure that space is in a place that triggers walkable urban synergy? Can you really be a business and industrial hub without a convention facility or adaquate exhibition space? Is there a major American metro out there today that successfully attracts well paying jobs and quality businesses without an exhibition hall to support them?
You're confusing cause and effect. What seems to work in cities that have industrial hubs and a functioning economy doesn't work here, exactly because we have destroyed both and there is no organic need for convention space here. Additionally, you'll note the successful convention cities are largely tourist-based economies, which provides natural synergies with the convention business. That model does not work in Jacksonville, because we lack a tourist economy, not to mention the draws (amenities and attractions) that create it.
Quote from: thelakelander on January 12, 2011, 10:32:55 AM
I don't think we should be looking at the convention market as a money making business. The same goes for mass transit. Instead, more focus should be given to better utilizing our existing assets to grow our economy. We already have a stake in exhibition space. However, downtown would be much better off if that space were located adjacent to complementing uses.
Well, if we aren't looking at it as a money-making business, or as something that will provide a greater benefit than its cost to the local economy, then what the hell's the point then? If this is just some grand experiment in wasting money on building infrastructure for a business in which we can never compete, then why stop there? Why don't we build a giant $400mm rocket launch pad instead? So what if there are no rockets! I'm sure if we just build it, we'll put NASA right out of business.
Here if nobody believes me;
http://www.jaxevents.com/calendar.php
If you only check the C.C. box and weed out the luncheons and PTA meetings with 20 people, the actual events are;
1: Jacksonville Boat Show
2: Jacksonville Car & Truck Show
3: Home & Patio Show
4: Jacksonville Women's Show
5: Quilt-Fest 2011
With the exception of the Quilting-Fest and its 50 visitors, every single one of these things is just drawing residents from the surrounding areas to try and sell them something, it's not an actual convention that does anything for the local economy. And if you add all the events together, wow, holy jesus, that's like a whole 3,000 people I can totally see how that justifies spending $400mm on a new convention center. I mean, business is really booming, clearly we need to spend more money to expand.
And if anyone wants to discuss economic impact outside of one-trick-ponies, then consider that $400mm would be enough to provide government incentives to get JU, FCSL, the Art Institute, and probably some portion of UNF, to locate downtown. Think of the *actual* organic and sustainable economic impact something like that would have. A convention center will be a giant waste of money, and will benefit (by my count) exactly 3 local residents (Haskell, Munz, and Rimmer). The rest of us will have nothing to show for it.
Chris, you make some good points on this issue. I look forward to responses to your comments by others. I think the discussion about the convention center may ultimately mimic ones about the Jags. Do we want these things for civic pride and/or quality of life more than for economic development? (Now that I think about it, I would lump the Skyway's original promises of it being a major economic development tool/savior for downtown in the same boat.)
Advocates need to come clean. If the community wants it for civic pride or other intangibles, fine, but let's make the decision on the up and up, not with smoke and mirrors and impossible-to-deliver promises that undermine the community's confidence in it's less than candid leadership. These cycles just breed contempt, cynicism, disdain, suspicion, and resentment by taxpayers and make advocacy for the truly beneficial projects that much harder to gain acceptance.
The public is tired of false and grandiose arguments made just to offer political cover for expensive toys of special interests. I am the first to support creative and visionary projects for our city and am not adverse at supporting and subsidizing some of them for their intangible and/or immeasurable contributions to our psyche and/or quality of life. But, I don't want my intelligence insulted by someone telling me it's an economic panacea for our community when we all know it isn't. Once that happens, the message bearer has lost my attention as I move my focus to what their ulterior motives really are and who they are trying to truly benefit.
Chris, the boat show is usually at MetPark these days. Scratch that off your list. It was getting too big for the convention center.
Edit: It says it's there, so now I'm confused. MetPark has had big boat shows there for the past 2 years at least. it was my understanding that this replaced the Convention Center show. The Donna Deegan thing is actually a really big event.
Quote from: fieldafm on January 12, 2011, 12:32:18 PM
Quote from: copperfiend on January 12, 2011, 11:53:49 AM
Quote from: Bativac on January 12, 2011, 09:45:07 AM
My hope is that they level the building and turn the resulting broken foundation into a surface parking lot... maybe surrounded by a chain link fence with some weeds to give it a little character. And dare I suggest -- a guy with a hot dog cart could operate out on the sidewalk! (Wait, unless Mark's sells hot dogs.)
Funny you should mention this. I have it on good authority that such plans are already being drawn up.
The Civic Council is supposed to make a presentation on this very issue sometime this month.
Where have you heard this?? I'm very interested in learning more about the civic council, but unable to find any info on what they're discussing and doing these days.
San Diego and Baltimore are two similiar-sized cities that each used Conventions and convention facilities to generate a significant engine for DT revitilization. Conventions represent residents from OTHER areas dumping money into YOUR city. How is that a loss?
Yes, conventions centers lose money, that is because they don't collect the money brought in. The hotels, restaurants, bars, shops (and the resulting taxes they pay) receive the 'pay back' NOT the center itself.
The community, through it's taxes pays for the center, but the community through
it's private business and the taxes they pay returns that investment. Also, ROOM taxes have been, and would be, a source to PAY for the center or it's expansion. That is NOT a tax that locals would normally pay.
Orlando and Vegas are on a totally different level and is largely irrelevant. Does Jax compete with LA or NYC for movie production or the fashion industry?
Believe it or not, some corporations and organizations actually want conventioneers to ATTEND the convention and not just go to an amusement park or casino.
Would a convention attendee not buy meals and drinks in the LOCAL establishments in the Bay Street district? Would filling the Hyatt not bring new customers to not only Bay Street but the Landing and Laura Street as well?
How much money spent at SJTC stays in Jacksonville? Nearly every business there is a national chain. How many minimum wage jobs does it produce?
Significant conventions that had previously used Prime Osborn left because they outgrew the facility. Right now Jax is somewhere between Fargo ND and Wichita KS in terms of facilities.
Your posts greatly exgratrate the negative and totally ignore the positive. Just like you through out that $400mm figure which is 2-4 times the actual cost.
Quote from: vicupstate on January 12, 2011, 01:30:06 PM
San Diego and Baltimore are two similiar-sized cities that each used Conventions and convention facilities to generate a significant engine for DT revitilization. Conventions represent residents from OTHER areas dumping money into YOUR city. How is that a loss?
Yes, conventions centers lose money, that is because they don't collect the money brought in. The hotels, restaurants, bars, shops (and the resulting taxes they pay) receive the 'pay back' NOT the center itself.
The community, through it's taxes pays for the center, but the community through
it's private business and the taxes they pay returns that investment. Also, ROOM taxes have been, and would be, a source to PAY for the center or it's expansion. That is NOT a tax that locals would normally pay.
Orlando and Vegas are on a totally different level and is largely irrelevant. Does Jax compete with LA or NYC for movie production or the fashion industry?
Believe it or not, some corporations and organizations actually want conventioneers to ATTEND the convention and not just go to an amusement park or casino.
Would a convention attendee not buy meals and drinks in the LOCAL establishments in the Bay Street district? Would filling the Hyatt not bring new customers to not only Bay Street but the Landing and Laura Street as well?
How much money spent at SJTC stays in Jacksonville? Nearly every business there is a national chain. How many minimum wage jobs does it produce?
Significant conventions that had previously used Prime Osborn left because they outgrew the facility. Right now Jax is somewhere between Fargo ND and Wichita KS in terms of facilities.
Your posts greatly exgratrate the negative and totally ignore the positive. Just like you through out that $400mm figure which is 2-4 times the actual cost.
OK well since Jacksonville isn't located in California, and since we don't have silicon valley and several of the largest cities in the country nearby, I don't think San Diego is really comparable, do you?
And the courthouse was supposed to be $180mm, no? What project is ever built here without being over its projected cost? Your approach to how these things works belies your favorable bias.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 12, 2011, 10:02:44 AM
Right, but that's a flawed analysis Tufsu. What really matters is how much money makes it back into the local economy. The reality is very little. All we're really doing is subsidizing a money-losing business so that SMG in Chicago, Omni Hotels in Dallas, and whatever corporate chain restaurants they all operate, can make money. It's us as a local community handing over money to giant corporations thousands of miles away.
um....the Omni here employs lots of people...the salaries they get are primarily spent locally.
As for small shows not having an impact....also BS....ask the restaurants at the Landing if they can tell when a 1000 person conference is going on at the Hyatt...or for that matter, check the Skyway ridership when there's a home or auto show at the Prime Osborn!
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 12, 2011, 01:34:49 PM
um....the Omni here employs lots of people...the salaries they get are primarily spent locally.
The Omni, and every other downtown hotel, employ a lot of people who are paid under a living wage. Minimum wage type jobs are actually a net negative for a local economy, because the taxpayers wind up subsidizing healthcare, transportation, and essential services for people who are paid that little. A handful of people probably make decent money at a hotel, but most of them are minimum wage restaurant servers, dishwashers, maids for the rooms, etc. That's most of their workforce.
fine Chris...how about the bed taxes....I'm willing to bet those fees and the sales tax revenues generated at dining/retail establishments more than make up the deficit of the convention facility.
Quote from: Captain Zissou on January 12, 2011, 01:28:19 PM
Chris, the boat show is usually at MetPark these days. Scratch that off your list. It was getting too big for the convention center.
Edit: It says it's there, so now I'm confused. MetPark has had big boat shows there for the past 2 years at least. it was my understanding that this replaced the Convention Center show. The Donna Deegan thing is actually a really big event.
there are several boatshows each year...and one is held indoors at the prime
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 12, 2011, 01:41:08 PM
fine Chris...how about the bed taxes....I'm willing to bet those fees and the sales tax revenues generated at dining/retail establishments more than make up the deficit of the convention facility.
WHAT? Ok, Tufsu, so let's do the math on this one...
Of Duval County's 6% hotel tax, 2% is taken off the top by law (2009-817-E) to support the Sports Complex Maintenance Fund. Another 2% of it is then taken off the top to pay debt service on the bonds issued to construct Alltel/EverBank Stadium. This leaves a whopping 2% left over, and out of that amount COJ has to fund the Visit Jacksonville program and cover its entire marketing budget.
But for the sake of argument, let's do the math. At a 2% net, the convention center would have to generate literally TWENTY BILLION DOLLARS worth of taxable room revenue just to BREAK EVEN, and that's not even including interest. And of course the 800lb gorilla in the room is exactly what I've been saying all along, which is that the other 98% of that money goes straight into the pockets of out of state corporations not into our local economy.
So seriously, give me a friggin break...
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 12, 2011, 01:14:01 PM
Here if nobody believes me;
http://www.jaxevents.com/calendar.php
If you only check the C.C. box and weed out the luncheons and PTA meetings with 20 people, the actual events are;
1: Jacksonville Boat Show
2: Jacksonville Car & Truck Show
3: Home & Patio Show
4: Jacksonville Women's Show
5: Quilt-Fest 2011
With the exception of the Quilting-Fest and its 50 visitors, every single one of these things is just drawing residents from the surrounding areas to try and sell them something, it's not an actual convention that does anything for the local economy. And if you add all the events together, wow, holy jesus, that's like a whole 3,000 people I can totally see how that justifies spending $400mm on a new convention center. I mean, business is really booming, clearly we need to spend more money to expand.
I haven't had the opportunity to read the last page and a half of this thread in detail but what happened to the Florida Black Expo? Also, events such as these can be a boost to businesses. For example, some events pull in people who otherwise would never come downtown. In a place with connectivity, people may actually grab a bit to eat or stop in an adjacent restaurant or shop. Btw, I don't endorse spending $400 million for a new convention center. Why would one cost that much?
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 12, 2011, 01:37:27 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 12, 2011, 01:34:49 PM
um....the Omni here employs lots of people...the salaries they get are primarily spent locally.
The Omni, and every other downtown hotel, employ a lot of people who are paid under a living wage. Minimum wage type jobs are actually a net negative for a local economy, because the taxpayers wind up subsidizing healthcare, transportation, and essential services for people who are paid that little. A handful of people probably make decent money at a hotel, but most of them are minimum wage restaurant servers, dishwashers, maids for the rooms, etc. That's most of their workforce.
So are you arguing that we would be better off without hotels due to the fact that they don't pay a living wage? There are many, many citizens of Jacksonville that rely on this industry for their salaries. Without these industries providing jobs, we would be greater "net negative".
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 12, 2011, 01:41:08 PM
fine Chris...how about the bed taxes....I'm willing to bet those fees and the sales tax revenues generated at dining/retail establishments more than make up the deficit of the convention facility.
City of Jacksonville tourist development tax (bed tax) of 6%. 2% goes to Sports Complex maintenance, 2% goes to paying back bonds for Alltel Stadium construction, and 2% goes towards promotion of First Coast (70% of that for Visit Jacksonville, and the other 30% for regional visits).
Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/jacksonville/1124067-poll-do-you-support-regional-sales-2.html#ixzz1AqiL96tU
Above from a post by JSIMMS3 on 11-13-2010.
Seems that the bed tax money is already spoken for.
Now let's do the sales tax math...
So Duval County exercised its "Local Option Sales Tax" and assessed 1% on top of the state's 6% sales tax that gets paid to the Dept. of Revenue in Tallahassee. 1% is what we see locally. So just to break even on a $400mm convention center, the convention center would have to bring in FORTY BILLION DOLLARS in additional taxable sales tax revenue.
I guess with Tufsu's "special" math here that would be a boon for the 8 restaurants actually open downtown, since that would mean each restaurant would need to do FIVE BILLION DOLLARS in sales for these numbers to work, LOL. So I guess each and every individual downtown restaurant would become a Fortune 500 company overnight. Sweet!
Man this convention center is just looking better and better, isn't it? Not only will flying Assmonkeys drop gold bars down the chimney of every citizen of Jacksonville on Christmas eve, but we'll have 8 new Fortune 500 companies located downtown. Freaking awesome, man!
I still think if this kind of thinking is what people are going for, we should just cut to the chase and start building that new launch pad downtown so we can put NASA out of business at the same time we're cornering the convention market. That would be super-brilliant...
QuoteI still think if this kind of thinking is what people are going for, we should just cut to the chase and start building that new launch pad downtown so we can put NASA out of business at the same time we're cornering the convention market. That would be super-brilliant...
Well, Cecil Field does have its Spaceport license, so you never know ;)
Quote from: thelakelander on January 12, 2011, 02:03:25 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 12, 2011, 01:14:01 PM
Here if nobody believes me;
http://www.jaxevents.com/calendar.php
If you only check the C.C. box and weed out the luncheons and PTA meetings with 20 people, the actual events are;
1: Jacksonville Boat Show
2: Jacksonville Car & Truck Show
3: Home & Patio Show
4: Jacksonville Women's Show
5: Quilt-Fest 2011
With the exception of the Quilting-Fest and its 50 visitors, every single one of these things is just drawing residents from the surrounding areas to try and sell them something, it's not an actual convention that does anything for the local economy. And if you add all the events together, wow, holy jesus, that's like a whole 3,000 people I can totally see how that justifies spending $400mm on a new convention center. I mean, business is really booming, clearly we need to spend more money to expand.
I haven't had the opportunity to read the last page and a half of this thread in detail but what happened to the Florida Black Expo? Also, events such as these can be a boost to businesses. For example, some events pull in people who otherwise would never come downtown. In a place with connectivity, people may actually grab a bit to eat or stop in an adjacent restaurant or shop. Btw, I don't endorse spending $400 million for a new convention center. Why would one cost that much?
It'll cost that much because this is Jacksonville. We can't build anything unless it's 5 years late and at least double the projected budget. Hey, look at the bright side, at least you'll have the benefit of it not working right once it's finished!
The Black Expo is still there, I took a second look at the list. So even counting that, we have like 5 or 6 events now (I say 5 or 6 since Tufsu still wants to count the boat show, even though they moved most of the boats over to the park/marina area the last couple years). Point is, that's hardly enough volume to justify additional investment in this money-losing business that does little to nothing to stimulate the local economy. Mark my words, this will wind up being another giant boondoggle.
Can't use that 1% local option in any calculations. It too, is already spoken for. .05% is for the BJP and the first .05% was to cover the revenue lost when the toll were removed.
Got to go back to the public trough for another handout.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 12, 2011, 12:57:02 PM
Mass transit and the convention business are completely incomparable, the former directly benefits the community and the latter is nothing more than a taxpayer handout with no tangible local benefit.
They are comparable in that economic stimulation can be generated when placing these entities within walking distance of complementing uses. Anything that helps to create a 24/7 downtown street atmosphere can be considered a tangible local benefit, assuming a vibrant core is a goal.
QuoteWhat events are already here? The Prime-Osborne schedule shows a whopping 4 events, none of which are large enough to draw more than a handful of people. And I think one them is our city-sponsored job fair, so I wouldn't even count that one. The Prime-Osborne's rate structure this year is...get this...FREE. If you bring in an event that will fill a paltry minimum of 200 hotel rooms, they will actually give you the space FOR FREE. Sounds great, right? That will surely make us competitive! So how did this work? Well, we actually lost an event we had competed to get. So what was this prime-time event that snubbed our fantastic convention destination, despite our literally giving the space away for free? The National Association of Beetle Collectors. LMAO!
I mean, if you really want to argue this one then I'll play, but it only gets more embarrassing from here.
The Prime Osborn is a pretty pathetic facility. There are no complementing uses within a mile of its doors, its not mixed-use and its extremely outdated. No argument here.
QuoteThe truth is that we cannot compete in the marketplace as it sits, and the building has got nothing to do with it. It's not that people aren't coming because we don't have the space, if you look at the truly successful convention cities like Vegas, San Diego, Orlando, etc., they have huge spaces to accommodate certain large events but the vast majority of the convention business is still comprised of smaller events that are well under the 2,000 person size that our own facilities can handle as it sits, usually under 1,000. Muncie Indiana has a convention center half our size and does 7 times our volume.
The building has a lot to do with it. We've lost several home grown events in the last couple of years because of its constraints and that has nothing to do with places like Vegas, Orlando and San Diego. I'll also ask again. Is there an example of a successful business city in America without viable exhibition space in its metropolitan area? If so, I'd be interested to find out more about it.
QuoteAll that building a larger building is going to accomplish is to increase the operating losses.
Go mixed-use and you'll cut down on operating losses. Continue to do things the same way and I agree.
QuoteYou're confusing cause and effect. What seems to work in cities that have industrial hubs and a functioning economy doesn't work here, exactly because we have destroyed both and there is no organic need for convention space here.
So you're basically saying abandon and run off what's left and accept that we'll never be an industrial hub or have a functioning economy?
QuoteWell, if we aren't looking at it as a money-making business, or as something that will provide a greater benefit than its cost to the local economy, then what the hell's the point then?
I've already stated one major benefit, imo.
They are comparable in that economic stimulation can be generated when placing these entities within walking distance of complementing uses. Anything that helps to create a 24/7 downtown street atmosphere can be considered a tangible local benefit, assuming a vibrant core is a goal.Where that falls in the list of our priorities and the ROI compared to other needs, who knows?
Quote from: Ralph W on January 12, 2011, 02:19:17 PM
Can't use that 1% local option in any calculations. It too, is already spoken for. .05% is for the BJP and the first .05% was to cover the revenue lost when the toll were removed.
Got to go back to the public trough for another handout.
Why not go public/private? For example, how bad does Hyatt really want a center next to their struggling hotel? Would a retail developer, such as Regency, Sleiman or Sembler be willing to add some retail/entertainment space near a main entrance that forces all visitors to walk past their investment to enter? Assuming its the current courthouse site is to become a convention center, why not build a cheap box in the center of the site and RFP edges, street fronts and air rights for mixed use development. Is there any room for creative solutions with this issue?
Quote from: thelakelander on January 12, 2011, 02:32:49 PM
Quote from: Ralph W on January 12, 2011, 02:19:17 PM
Can't use that 1% local option in any calculations. It too, is already spoken for. .05% is for the BJP and the first .05% was to cover the revenue lost when the toll were removed.
Got to go back to the public trough for another handout.
Why not go public/private? For example, how bad does Hyatt really want a center next to their struggling hotel? Would a retail developer, such as Regency, Sleiman or Sembler be willing to add some retail/entertainment space near a main entrance that forces all visitors to walk past their investment to enter? Assuming its the current courthouse site is to become a convention center, why not build a cheap box in the center of the site and RFP edges, street fronts and air rights for mixed use development. Is there any room for creative solutions with this issue?
That would be great -- build a simple no-frills convention building in the center and surround it with retail or restaurants or other mixed uses. Get rid of the giant riverfront parking lot.
Anything would be preferable to leaving an empty courthouse building on the site for years. (Except a vacant lot. That would not be preferable.) I hope they don't turn it into a park or something. The last thing downtown Jax needs right there is a park.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 12, 2011, 01:59:44 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 12, 2011, 01:41:08 PM
fine Chris...how about the bed taxes....I'm willing to bet those fees and the sales tax revenues generated at dining/retail establishments more than make up the deficit of the convention facility.
WHAT? Ok, Tufsu, so let's do the math on this one...
Of Duval County's 6% hotel tax, 2% is taken off the top by law (2009-817-E) to support the Sports Complex Maintenance Fund. Another 2% of it is then taken off the top to pay debt service on the bonds issued to construct Alltel/EverBank Stadium. This leaves a whopping 2% left over, and out of that amount COJ has to fund the Visit Jacksonville program and cover its entire marketing budget.
But for the sake of argument, let's do the math. At a 2% net, the convention center would have to generate literally TWENTY BILLION DOLLARS worth of taxable room revenue just to BREAK EVEN, and that's not even including interest. And of course the 800lb gorilla in the room is exactly what I've been saying all along, which is that the other 98% of that money goes straight into the pockets of out of state corporations not into our local economy.
So seriously, give me a friggin break...
If 2% of the Bed taxes paid for the stadium, which if memory serves, was about $167mm to build, obviously an identical 2% could fund a similiar amount of debt. That is probably 80-100% of the cost of a convention center. The land is already in the city's hands, so there is no expense on that end. The boost in sales taxes from the added visitors would add still more revenue. You could also TIF the surrounding property such that the increase in property values would support the center.
BTW, Silicon Valley is like 500 miles from San Diego. 20 years ago, SD was just another overgrown Navy town like Jax is today.
Quote from: vicupstate on January 12, 2011, 03:29:34 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 12, 2011, 01:59:44 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 12, 2011, 01:41:08 PM
fine Chris...how about the bed taxes....I'm willing to bet those fees and the sales tax revenues generated at dining/retail establishments more than make up the deficit of the convention facility.
WHAT? Ok, Tufsu, so let's do the math on this one...
Of Duval County's 6% hotel tax, 2% is taken off the top by law (2009-817-E) to support the Sports Complex Maintenance Fund. Another 2% of it is then taken off the top to pay debt service on the bonds issued to construct Alltel/EverBank Stadium. This leaves a whopping 2% left over, and out of that amount COJ has to fund the Visit Jacksonville program and cover its entire marketing budget.
But for the sake of argument, let's do the math. At a 2% net, the convention center would have to generate literally TWENTY BILLION DOLLARS worth of taxable room revenue just to BREAK EVEN, and that's not even including interest. And of course the 800lb gorilla in the room is exactly what I've been saying all along, which is that the other 98% of that money goes straight into the pockets of out of state corporations not into our local economy.
So seriously, give me a friggin break...
If 2% of the Bed taxes paid for the stadium, which if memory serves, was about $167mm to build, obviously an identical 2% could fund a similiar amount of debt. That is probably 80-100% of the cost of a convention center. The land is already in the city's hands, so there is no expense on that end. The boost in sales taxes from the added visitors would add still more revenue. You could also TIF the surrounding property such that the increase in property values would support the center.
BTW, Silicon Valley is like 500 miles from San Diego. 20 years ago, SD was just another overgrown Navy town like Jax is today.
2% of the bed taxes didn't come close to paying for the stadium, that just pays for some of the interest payments on the public bonds that we're obligated to repay, and THAT's what paid for the stadium. And San Diego has a lot going for it that we don't, namely proximity to other locations that generate convention business. They have a couple of the largest cities (I mean actual largest, not gimmicky "land area" stats when most of it's woods, like us) within driving distance. Jacksonville isn't going to have that luxury, and won't be able to compete.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 12, 2011, 01:59:44 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 12, 2011, 01:41:08 PM
fine Chris...how about the bed taxes....I'm willing to bet those fees and the sales tax revenues generated at dining/retail establishments more than make up the deficit of the convention facility.
WHAT? Ok, Tufsu, so let's do the math on this one...
Of Duval County's 6% hotel tax, 2% is taken off the top by law (2009-817-E) to support the Sports Complex Maintenance Fund. Another 2% of it is then taken off the top to pay debt service on the bonds issued to construct Alltel/EverBank Stadium. This leaves a whopping 2% left over, and out of that amount COJ has to fund the Visit Jacksonville program and cover its entire marketing budget.
But for the sake of argument, let's do the math. At a 2% net, the convention center would have to generate literally TWENTY BILLION DOLLARS worth of taxable room revenue just to BREAK EVEN, and that's not even including interest. And of course the 800lb gorilla in the room is exactly what I've been saying all along, which is that the other 98% of that money goes straight into the pockets of out of state corporations not into our local economy.
So seriously, give me a friggin break...
dude...I'm talking about breaking even on the annual operations cost...not the upfront capital
It is the operating costs of a convention center which most cities run a deficit on....as examples, the Pittsburgh Convention Center runs about a $2 million deficit each year and the much larger one in Philly runs up to $5 million in deficit.
Don't you think we could easily cover that with additional bed and sales tax revenues generated by attendees?
btw Chris...aren't you from Daytona....they recently expanded their center and have taken business from Jax....what do they have as a draw that we can't compete with?
http://www.volusia.org/oceancenter/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_Center
One quick point(Im in favor of a courthouse-site CC incidentally)... the Sports Maintenance Fund is getting the 2% of bed tax money b/c the bonds were retired from the construction of the Prime Osborne.
A riverfront-Hyatt connected Convention Center would absolutely be a big benefit for downtown(and encourage surrounding private infill) b/c of the foot traffic generated from the convention business and subsequent clustering effect.
Dynamite as soon as the last chair is removed!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 12, 2011, 04:45:07 PM
btw Chris...aren't you from Daytona....they recently expanded their center and have taken business from Jax....what do they have as a draw that we can't compete with?
http://www.volusia.org/oceancenter/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_Center
Well, first not to be offensive, but Daytona has much better restaurants than JAX and, well, they have a beach. And the beach is exactly 1 block from the convention center. So is a water park, movie theatres, a mall, more than enough hotel space, attractions, a water park, the boardwalk and concessions, a million different bars and nightclubs, etc., etc. It's (again) not comparable to downtown Jacksonville at all. There is absolutely nothing to do here!
But aside from that, I was against the Ocean Center expansion and though it was a boondoggle, and indeed it has proven to be. And Daytona has a lot more more going for it than JAX does, and I still was against it, I still said it would lose money, and guess what...it is. The locals think it's a joke. Even given every success in the world, you'll never get your money out of it and it's still not the best potential use of funds. Kind of highlights the problem, actually.
Chris, NOTHING that the government does or builds MAKES money. If it were profitable within itself, the private sector would provide it.
As has been explained to you already, the 'profit' in conventions is across the entire private/public spectrum of the subject community. The COLLECTIVE revenue exceeds the expense, but no ONE entity collects that revenue to itself, it is spread across many public and private pockets.
Coliseums don't make money either, should Jax have built one? Or any other city for that matter?
As for San Diego, all of the cities around it like LA, SF, etc. ALL have their OWN convention centers, so that blows that theory.
Quote from: vicupstate on January 12, 2011, 07:00:14 PM
Chris, NOTHING that the government does or builds MAKES money. If it were profitable within itself, the private sector would provide it.
As has been explained to you already, the 'profit' in conventions is across the entire private/public spectrum of the subject community. The COLLECTIVE revenue exceeds the expense, but no ONE entity collects that revenue to itself, it is spread across many public and private pockets.
Coliseums don't make money either, should Jax have built one? Or any other city for that matter?
As for San Diego, all of the cities around it like LA, SF, etc. ALL have their OWN convention centers, so that blows that theory.
I'm not an idiot, Vic. What I'm saying is that, even after you fully account for the trickle-down effect in the most favorable possible fashion, this is still a money-loser. I'm not talking solely operating costs, I mean that when you account for every positive ancillary benefit this provides, we are still getting a negative return on the tax dollars invested. I've already covered this in my posts. So what, then, is the point of building this exactly?
And regarding San Diego, no it doesn't blow my theory, it proves it entirely. Every city tries to get involved in this asinine game, and they all mostly lose on it. The cities that lead the business will continue to lead the business, regardless of what other cities do, for reasons that are outside the control of the municipal governments drinking this "build it and they will come" koolaid. Including the cities surrounding San Diego, which no doubt factored that city's success into their own convention center plans, only to be consternated and out a significant amount of money when their convention center expansions failed to achieve a similar level of success. It's because it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BUILDING. That's been my point from the beginning. FWIW, San Diego is a success because its location originally attracted comicon, that's it. That can't be replicated with a $400mm building, period.
Have any of the mayoral candidates committed to a convention center in their first term?
Which would be the most likely to do so?
I waffle back and forth on the idea, myself. And with the ever-increasing cost of the courthouse, I think it would be wise for us to take a breather before we commit to building another large public facility.
I would rather see the money spent on transit projects and neighborhood revitalization. I would rather see the city commit to helping projects like the Trio get started.
The last convention hall that I visited was in the Gaylord Palms in Orlando. In fact, every convention I have attended in Orlando was in a mega-hotel. So, that leads me to ask the question, if we want 100,000 sf of convention space, could we provide incentives to a hotel instead of building it ourselves?
Quote from: thelakelander on January 12, 2011, 02:32:49 PM
Would a retail developer, such as Regency, Sleiman or Sembler be willing to add some retail/entertainment space near a main entrance that forces all visitors to walk past their investment to enter? Assuming its the current courthouse site is to become a convention center, why not build a cheap box in the center of the site and RFP edges, street fronts and air rights for mixed use development. Is there any room for creative solutions with this issue?
Lake, not to drag through what we spent another thread already discussing, but I would be remiss if I didn't counter this comment with my concerns that the courthouse site may already be a tight fit for a worthwhile center without the additions you suggest above. I am still willing to consider a "well connected" site in proximity to the arena, stadium, baseball and fair grounds,and Metro Park and Shipyards waterfronts.
As previously noted, this also shares parking facilities and provides complimentary meeting/exhibit/entertainment venues for convention planners that, combined, could provide some powerful selling points vs. competitors anywhere else.
For connections, I am thinking a street car line straight from the front door of the convention center down Bay Street through the innards of downtown. If the Shipyards was made into a great public/entertainment/recreational space, you would have convention and downtown convention amenities tied to the river and fully connected to create the hub of activities needed to make some dreams a reality. It seems so obvious to me, I wonder why it's not already in the planning stages. ;D
doug....one of the reasons for promoting a convention center on the courthouse lot is its direct connection to the Hyatt....which would allow us to build less space, as the hotel has meeting and exhibit space too.
Quote from: dougskiles on January 12, 2011, 08:20:21 PM
The last convention hall that I visited was in the Gaylord Palms in Orlando. In fact, every convention I have attended in Orlando was in a mega-hotel. So, that leads me to ask the question, if we want 100,000 sf of convention space, could we provide incentives to a hotel instead of building it ourselves?
One of the largest convention facilities in Orlando is one built by Marriott World Center. Most of the conventions there appear to be self contained on their resort property featuring over 3,000 rooms, golf course, spa, pools, restaurants, and time shares. As you note, Doug, if we chose the site being pushed by many here, why don't we get Hyatt to participate in the project, maybe with a few other hotel partners. Maybe one could tear down/convert the unfinished Berkman tower and connect via the Riverwalk.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 12, 2011, 06:30:42 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 12, 2011, 04:45:07 PM
btw Chris...aren't you from Daytona....they recently expanded their center and have taken business from Jax....what do they have as a draw that we can't compete with?
http://www.volusia.org/oceancenter/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_Center
Well, first not to be offensive, but Daytona has much better restaurants than JAX and, well, they have a beach. And the beach is exactly 1 block from the convention center. So is a water park, movie theatres, a mall, more than enough hotel space, attractions, a water park, the boardwalk and concessions, a million different bars and nightclubs, etc., etc. It's (again) not comparable to downtown Jacksonville at all. There is absolutely nothing to do here!
But aside from that, I was against the Ocean Center expansion and though it was a boondoggle, and indeed it has proven to be. And Daytona has a lot more more going for it than JAX does, and I still was against it, I still said it would lose money, and guess what...it is. The locals think it's a joke. Even given every success in the world, you'll never get your money out of it and it's still not the best potential use of funds. Kind of highlights the problem, actually.
While first I don't exactly think that's true I think you're simply referring to the existing north bank area. This is sort of my entire point of starting this thread. There are a few things going on
right across the street. Is it a lot? No, but you have to start somewhere. So then if say the current courthouse is leveled and is zoned for mixed use, why not then build upon what is across the street with more restaraunts and more bars/clubs/lounges. Make this area the focus point for expanding the core into a legitimate destination for jax nightlife. Give the northbank something to hang it's hat on outside of a few office buildings. Give those souls working in those buildings a reason not to escape in their cars as soon as it's quitting time. Perhaps, over time a snowball effect takes place. People begin to want to stay and or go downtown AT NIGHT, on weekends. Then maybe at some point, some people may actually want to live down there. Again, you have to start somewhere. I'm with you on the convention center thinking it's a net loser. Better to have something there that can benefit the area all year by local businesses for local residents. If the convention center is such a need on the northbank I'd rather it use some of the shipyards acreage, (though not near all of it).
Quote from: stjr on January 12, 2011, 09:41:37 PM
Quote from: dougskiles on January 12, 2011, 08:20:21 PM
The last convention hall that I visited was in the Gaylord Palms in Orlando. In fact, every convention I have attended in Orlando was in a mega-hotel. So, that leads me to ask the question, if we want 100,000 sf of convention space, could we provide incentives to a hotel instead of building it ourselves?
One of the largest convention facilities in Orlando is one built by Marriott World Center. Most of the conventions there appear to be self contained on their resort property featuring over 3,000 rooms, golf course, spa, pools, restaurants, and time shares. As you note, Doug, if we chose the site being pushed by many here, why don't we get Hyatt to participate in the project, maybe with a few other hotel partners. Maybe one could tear down/convert the unfinished Berkman tower and connect via the Riverwalk.
Not to sound like an ass, but the reason is because that doesn't 1: Sell enough Gate Precast which is 2: Installed by Haskell 3: To build the CC that will line Michael Munz / SMG's pockets and 4: Allow space for associated parking for which Rimmer can charge $40/day. Simply put, nobody is interested in having private business develop this, A: Because private companies know it will never generate a return so you'd never get one to do it, and B: Because this is really about a select few local individuals trying to line their pockets on a 1-time basis even when that will saddle the taxpayers with 3 decades worth of debt. That's the reality of how things operate locally.
wow...I didn't know that Michael Munz was SMG
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 12, 2011, 10:43:26 PM
wow...I didn't know that Michael Munz was SMG
O.K. there G.I. Joe! So now you know, and knowing is half the battle. (You been hiding under a rock or something?)
(http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk137/chriswufgator/ad4005d6.jpg)
Chris, I think your concerns about a convention center have merit and appear to be well researched.
But I don't think you strengthen that position with the attacks against Gate, Haskell, Mark Rimmer and Michael Munz.
My apologies for getting completely off the topic, but I went to dalton's website to learn more about them. Check out the video clip about 'immerse yourself here'. It's a new promotional video for visitjacksonville.com.
http://www.daltonagency.com/ (http://www.daltonagency.com/)
QuoteChris, I think your concerns about a convention center have merit and appear to be well researched.
Give me a break. He has produce NO FACTS WHATSOEVER to bolster his cynical rantings.
Charlotte, Indianapolis, Baltimore and yes, San Diego (in 1987 !!) have all used convention centers to bolster their core and their profile as cities.
Exactly what did San Diego have going for it in 1983 that Jax doesn't or COULDN'T in 2011?
Savannah built one when it ALREADY had millions of tourists and a very successful Downtown. I guess they all just wasted there money.
What city of any size, besides JAX, has all but ignored this element for economic development?
QuoteSan Diego voters approved a measure to fund construction of a new convention center in 1983 on land owned by the Port of San Diego. Construction of the original building began in March 1987 and was completed in November 1989. An expansion which doubled the gross square footage of the facility was completed in September 2001. In September 2008 the center took steps to acquire adjacent property for an additional expansion.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Diego_Convention_Center
QuoteThe Gaslamp Quarter is a 16½ block historical neighborhood in downtown San Diego, California. The area is listed as a historic district on the National Register of Historic Places as Gaslamp Quarter Historic District. Its main period of development began in 1867, when Alonzo Horton bought the land in hopes of creating a new city center closer to the bay, and chose 5th Avenue as its main street. After a period of urban decay, the neighborhood underwent urban renewal in the 1980s and 1990s, and is today an energetic business and entertainment district.
QuotePanoramic view of the Gaslamp Quarter from the San Diego Convention Center, with the Hilton Gaslamp Quarter in the center and Petco Park and the Metropolis at the Omni Hotel to the far right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslamp_Quarter,_San_Diego
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 12, 2011, 11:44:25 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 12, 2011, 10:43:26 PM
wow...I didn't know that Michael Munz was SMG
O.K. there G.I. Joe! So now you know, and knowing is half the battle. (You been hiding under a rock or something?)
well since the picture you showed has him listed as the SMG spokesman and there's a certain company logo behind him, I'm willing to bet he's a contract employee (i.e., consultant) and works for Dalton.
but, let's play this out....didn't you say SMG's profits all go to their corporate HQ....so where does Munz get his money from....and where do you think he spends it?
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 13, 2011, 08:00:29 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 12, 2011, 11:44:25 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 12, 2011, 10:43:26 PM
wow...I didn't know that Michael Munz was SMG
O.K. there G.I. Joe! So now you know, and knowing is half the battle. (You been hiding under a rock or something?)
well since the picture you showed has him listed as the SMG spokesman and there's a certain company logo behind him, I'm willing to bet he's a contract employee (i.e., consultant) and works for Dalton.
but, let's play this out....didn't you say SMG's profits all go to their corporate HQ....so where does Munz get his money from....and where do you think he spends it?
I don't really need to explain what a lobbyist is to you, do I?
Quote from: vicupstate on January 13, 2011, 06:08:43 AM
QuoteChris, I think your concerns about a convention center have merit and appear to be well researched.
Give me a break. He has produce NO FACTS WHATSOEVER to bolster his cynical rantings.
Charlotte, Indianapolis, Baltimore and yes, San Diego (in 1987 !!) have all used convention centers to bolster their core and their profile as cities.
Exactly what did San Diego have going for it in 1983 that Jax doesn't or COULDN'T in 2011?
Savannah built one when it ALREADY had millions of tourists and a very successful Downtown. I guess they all just wasted there money.
What city of any size, besides JAX, has all but ignored this element for economic development?
QuoteSan Diego voters approved a measure to fund construction of a new convention center in 1983 on land owned by the Port of San Diego. Construction of the original building began in March 1987 and was completed in November 1989. An expansion which doubled the gross square footage of the facility was completed in September 2001. In September 2008 the center took steps to acquire adjacent property for an additional expansion.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Diego_Convention_Center
QuoteThe Gaslamp Quarter is a 16½ block historical neighborhood in downtown San Diego, California. The area is listed as a historic district on the National Register of Historic Places as Gaslamp Quarter Historic District. Its main period of development began in 1867, when Alonzo Horton bought the land in hopes of creating a new city center closer to the bay, and chose 5th Avenue as its main street. After a period of urban decay, the neighborhood underwent urban renewal in the 1980s and 1990s, and is today an energetic business and entertainment district.
QuotePanoramic view of the Gaslamp Quarter from the San Diego Convention Center, with the Hilton Gaslamp Quarter in the center and Petco Park and the Metropolis at the Omni Hotel to the far right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslamp_Quarter,_San_Diego
You seriously have no clue what you're talking about.
San Diego's center was approved in 1983, but wasn't actually built and opened until 1989, originally a pretty modest facility. It became the beast it is now following a 2001 expansion. The thing you're missing (at this point I think you're missing it intentionally since I've said this all before) is that San Diego's convention success traces back to hosting Comicon from 1970 onwards, when they didn't even have the convention center yet. And the only reason San Diego landed that event initially is because the founder had moved there from Detroit. Their convention center was actually built in large part TO HOST THAT PRE-EXISTING EVENT. It remains their single largest event to this day, and has more to do with the center's success than anything the city has done.
I don't care how many $400mm buildings we build, that success is not replicable in Jacksonville.
And regarding facts, my entire argument is based on fact, which you'd already know if you'd spent 12 seconds actually researching any of this instead of making general sniping statements and demonstrating your proficiency at posting generic wikipedia links.
so wait, are you saying Jax. could be a convention city again? It would seem that Chris differs greatly with opinion.
Quote from: dougskiles on January 13, 2011, 05:34:55 AM
Chris, I think your concerns about a convention center have merit and appear to be well researched.
But I don't think you strengthen that position with the attacks against Gate, Haskell, Mark Rimmer and Michael Munz.
My apologies for getting completely off the topic, but I went to dalton's website to learn more about them. Check out the video clip about 'immerse yourself here'. It's a new promotional video for visitjacksonville.com.
http://www.daltonagency.com/ (http://www.daltonagency.com/)
Well Doug, the truth sometimes hurts. I'm not sure why stating fact automatically gets deemed a personal attack just because it happens to be negative. Why can't it just be the truth? FWIW COJ even knows what's up with this one, it's not even fooling the city administration. Unfortunately what remains to be seen is the next mayor's position in this.
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 13, 2011, 09:07:08 AM
so wait, are you saying Jax. could be a convention city again? It would seem that Chris differs greatly with opinion.
What he actually said was to compliment the new guy's approach of actually trying to bring in events before simply building a giant $400mm convention center and expecting people to show up and start beating down your door to fill it the second it opens. Which never happens. If you actually read his comments, it's clear that both Stephen and the Visit Jacksonville director both feel a new convention center would be a waste when we have nothing to fill it with. His approach is the correct one, although I know this is a novel concept for you planning types, of wanting to focus his efforts on developing the business instead of just dropping hundreds of millions of dollars on another empty building and crossing our fingers that people will show up when it's built. They won't. Frankly that's smart, and it's refreshing to hear the new guy's approach.
Regarding my take on this, I wish the guy the best of luck and think he has the right approach.
Quote from: stephendare on January 13, 2011, 09:34:23 AM
However, the new guy realizes that there is infrastructure that is necessary to support and build that industry here. Hes actually a refreshing, good guy.
Yeah, if you look at this business and the size of most events these facilities host, the vast majority of them are well under the size limit that our current convention center can support. The problem here isn't the building. That's not why nobody comes here, and building a new building won't do anything to address it. The problem isn't the building!
Quote from: stephendare on January 13, 2011, 09:34:23 AM
I cant speak for Dan on the Convention Center. His board is for building a new building, and he works for that board, and he did not indicate that he was against building one.
And regarding that, that's disappointing, but I suppose that's to be expected considering the group involved. Unfortunately, the truth is that if we want to build a new one then at least locate it out at the town center where it has a hope of success, instead of downtown. Nobody wants to hold a convention where there is absolutely nothing to do. The reason Orlando's convention center worked out is because they built it over off of I-Drive where all the stuff is. Had they built it in their (at that time) dead downtown, it would have failed. Again this really isn't complicated, nobody is going to hold a convention in a dead area with nothing to do.
There is zero point in wasting a bunch of money until that is resolved.
Stephen, if you have the time to indulge me, I'd be very curious to know more detail of the Clarkson vs. Diamond battle. I know that in Old Hickory's Town, a 1982 book with a 1985 postscript, there is a reference to a planned "Clarkson office and hotel complex" near the convention center, and that Clarkson was pushing for the convention center Marriott in the mid-to-late 90s that was passed over for the then-Adam's Mark. But I don't know any of the details of the personal battle that caused these projects to evaporate.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 13, 2011, 09:37:51 AM
Yeah, if you look at this business and the size of most events these facilities host, the vast majority of them are well under the size limit that our current convention center can support. The problem here isn't the building. That's not why nobody comes here, and building a new building won't do anything to address it. The problem isn't the building!
correct....if the problem was the building, I would say just grow the market and expand there (which at one time I thought was the best option)....but no, the problem is the location!
and btw....I'm sick of hearing you whine about there being nothing to do in downtown...yesterday I was with 25 university students from New York City....they went to our library to see the new Holocaust exhibit and then went down to the Landing and Riverwalk....even took some pics at the Jackson staute on the roundabout...they all remarked on how beautiful the city was....and one even told me how nice the park outside the library (Hemming Plaza) was!
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 13, 2011, 10:19:47 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 13, 2011, 09:37:51 AM
Yeah, if you look at this business and the size of most events these facilities host, the vast majority of them are well under the size limit that our current convention center can support. The problem here isn't the building. That's not why nobody comes here, and building a new building won't do anything to address it. The problem isn't the building!
correct....if the problem was the building, I would say just grow the market and expand there (which at one time I thought was the best option)....but no, the problem is the location!
and btw....I'm sick of hearing you whine about there being nothing to do in downtown...yesterday I was with 25 university students from New York City....they went to our library to see the new Holocaust exhibit and then went down to the Landing and Riverwalk....even took some pics at the Jackson staute on the roundabout...they all remarked on how beautiful the city was....and one even told me how nice the park outside the library (Hemming Plaza) was!
Yeah, there are pieces down there. Like I have refrained now a couple times in this thread I don't understand why a planner would not want to build upon those pieces, (i.e. the landing moving east towards the existing core strip) I would want more of what's started there, good eats and good beer/wine good time establishments. You could argue that where the current courthouse/annex and gigantic parking lot are located are the most potentially prime pieces of real estate in the city. Make that area a legit destination for walking around, exploring, and getting good food and having a good time creating demand from visitors but most importantly existing jax residents. Then put your convention center somewhere down the street, (within the greater shipyards area). Later work on getting the ridiculous police and detention center the hell out of there too.
Quote from: futurejax on January 13, 2011, 11:00:34 AM
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 13, 2011, 10:19:47 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 13, 2011, 09:37:51 AM
Yeah, if you look at this business and the size of most events these facilities host, the vast majority of them are well under the size limit that our current convention center can support. The problem here isn't the building. That's not why nobody comes here, and building a new building won't do anything to address it. The problem isn't the building!
correct....if the problem was the building, I would say just grow the market and expand there (which at one time I thought was the best option)....but no, the problem is the location!
and btw....I'm sick of hearing you whine about there being nothing to do in downtown...yesterday I was with 25 university students from New York City....they went to our library to see the new Holocaust exhibit and then went down to the Landing and Riverwalk....even took some pics at the Jackson staute on the roundabout...they all remarked on how beautiful the city was....and one even told me how nice the park outside the library (Hemming Plaza) was!
Yeah, there are pieces down there. Like I have refrained now a couple times in this thread I don't understand why a planner would not want to build upon those pieces, (i.e. the landing moving east towards the existing core strip) I would want more of what's started there, good eats and good beer/wine good time establishments. You could argue that where the current courthouse/annex and gigantic parking lot are located are the most potentially prime pieces of real estate in the city. Make that area a legit destination for walking around, exploring, and getting good food and having a good time creating demand from visitors but most importantly existing jax residents. Then put your convention center somewhere down the street, (within the greater shipyards area). Later work on getting the ridiculous police and detention center the hell out of there too.
I agree. I think the site should be developed privately. Our city government has not once managed to get involved in private business without screwing it up and leaving us worse off than we were originally, and this will be no different. Just put it up for sale at a good price and let natural, organic, private market forces determine what to do with it. The only restriction needs to be that it can't be used for a parking lot.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 13, 2011, 11:12:14 AM
Quote from: futurejax on January 13, 2011, 11:00:34 AM
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 13, 2011, 10:19:47 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 13, 2011, 09:37:51 AM
Yeah, if you look at this business and the size of most events these facilities host, the vast majority of them are well under the size limit that our current convention center can support. The problem here isn't the building. That's not why nobody comes here, and building a new building won't do anything to address it. The problem isn't the building!
correct....if the problem was the building, I would say just grow the market and expand there (which at one time I thought was the best option)....but no, the problem is the location!
and btw....I'm sick of hearing you whine about there being nothing to do in downtown...yesterday I was with 25 university students from New York City....they went to our library to see the new Holocaust exhibit and then went down to the Landing and Riverwalk....even took some pics at the Jackson staute on the roundabout...they all remarked on how beautiful the city was....and one even told me how nice the park outside the library (Hemming Plaza) was!
Yeah, there are pieces down there. Like I have refrained now a couple times in this thread I don't understand why a planner would not want to build upon those pieces, (i.e. the landing moving east towards the existing core strip) I would want more of what's started there, good eats and good beer/wine good time establishments. You could argue that where the current courthouse/annex and gigantic parking lot are located are the most potentially prime pieces of real estate in the city. Make that area a legit destination for walking around, exploring, and getting good food and having a good time creating demand from visitors but most importantly existing jax residents. Then put your convention center somewhere down the street, (within the greater shipyards area). Later work on getting the ridiculous police and detention center the hell out of there too.
I agree. I think the site should be developed privately. Our city government has not once managed to get involved in private business without screwing it up and leaving us worse off than we were originally, and this will be no different. Just put it up for sale at a good price and let natural, organic, private market forces determine what to do with it. The only restriction needs to be that it can't be used for a parking lot.
yep
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 13, 2011, 10:19:47 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 13, 2011, 09:37:51 AM
Yeah, if you look at this business and the size of most events these facilities host, the vast majority of them are well under the size limit that our current convention center can support. The problem here isn't the building. That's not why nobody comes here, and building a new building won't do anything to address it. The problem isn't the building!
correct....if the problem was the building, I would say just grow the market and expand there (which at one time I thought was the best option)....but no, the problem is the location!
and btw....I'm sick of hearing you whine about there being nothing to do in downtown...yesterday I was with 25 university students from New York City....they went to our library to see the new Holocaust exhibit and then went down to the Landing and Riverwalk....even took some pics at the Jackson staute on the roundabout...they all remarked on how beautiful the city was....and one even told me how nice the park outside the library (Hemming Plaza) was!
Lol, you have to know you've got a problem with that analysis, tufsu, since you're so assiduously avoiding coming anywhere near Stephen's attempts to set you up on this exact point. If you truly believe location is the problem, then answer his question. Where were conventions held before the construction of the Jacksonville Beach Convention Center and the original Memorial Coliseum in the 50s?
We were the top convention city in the southeast well before those structures were ever constructed to serve that market, so where were these conventions held? What area of town was the convention center located in the 1940s?
Quote from: Wacca Pilatka on January 13, 2011, 09:52:46 AM
Stephen, if you have the time to indulge me, I'd be very curious to know more detail of the Clarkson vs. Diamond battle. I know that in Old Hickory's Town, a 1982 book with a 1985 postscript, there is a reference to a planned "Clarkson office and hotel complex" near the convention center, and that Clarkson was pushing for the convention center Marriott in the mid-to-late 90s that was passed over for the then-Adam's Mark. But I don't know any of the details of the personal battle that caused these projects to evaporate.
You could seriously write an entire book about Downtown reconstruction and the Convention Center battle in the late 70's/early 80's. Godbold's support of Rouse and The Landing was
partially motivated by an appeasement of screwing over the DT merchants/hotelliers of the time by chosing the Jax Terminal site.
Buy me a coup of soup at Chamblins and I'll spend an entire day at the DT library showing you all the literature of those years. Lots of money was poured into DT at the time, and a power struggle naturally ensued. People's fortunes 'grew'(not made) if that gives you an indication of who the winner was.
I do not know where the convention center was in 1960....nor for that matter do I really care....a lot has changed in 50 years and we need to be looking forward 50 more.
In the 1960s or 1970s, Philly built a convention center next to UPenn and the existing arena....then the Warriors moved to California, along came the Spectrum, and the Sixers/Flyers moved to the new arena.
In 1994, the City (with significant cash from the state) built a new convention center downtown....the industry exploded, Philly got lots of new hotels and dining/entertainment establishments, and then the 2000 RNC convention.
Quote from: stephendare on January 13, 2011, 11:26:55 AM
Half of the Downtown Redevelopment Board resigned when the Union Terminal Site was chosen, in fact. ( Believe that was 1982)
yes...because they believed correctly that the Omni location was far better....that said, we all know that moving the center to the Terminal saved the building.....which now gives us the opportunity to return it to its original use.
during the heyday of conventions...in the 1940s....who cares?
we live in a very different world now and the convention industry is totally different.
How about you just show everyone how smart you are and tell us
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 13, 2011, 11:29:04 AM
I do not know where the convention center was in 1960....nor for that matter do I really care....a lot has changed in 50 years and we need to be looking forward 50 more.
In the 1960s or 1970s, Philly built a convention center next to UPenn and the existing arena....then the Warriors moved to California, along came the Spectrum, and the Sixers/Flyers moved to the new arena.
In 1994, the City (with significant cash from the state) built a new convention center downtown....the industry exploded, Philly got lots of new hotels and dining/entertainment establishments, and then the 2000 RNC convention.
Wow...Philly's success sounds an awful lot like Jacksonville in the 1940s and 50s, doesn't it? What happened Tufsu?
I recall most events, conventions and/or associations meeting in Jax taking place in the old exhibit hall attached to the Times Union Center (that wing was torn down and replaced with the Jax Symphony's concert hall which by the way was mostly paid for with private dollars from symphony supporters), the Coliseum, hotel ballrooms (Robert Meyer, George Washington, Thunderbird Hotel in Arlington, Sea Turtle Inn, etc.), and even the armory.
Quote from: stephendare on January 13, 2011, 11:35:32 AM
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 13, 2011, 11:33:47 AM
during the heyday of conventions...in the 1940s....who cares?
we live in a very different world now and the convention industry is totally different.
How about you just show everyone how smart you are and tell us
There wasnt one.
What do you think should be done with the land?
Quote from: stephendare on January 13, 2011, 11:26:55 AM
Half of the Downtown Redevelopment Board resigned when the Union Terminal Site was chosen, in fact. ( Believe that was 1982)
It was 1982. Isn't that also when the Holiday Inn (former Robert Meyer) closed with the final straw for it having been the convention center decision?
Quote from: Wacca Pilatka on January 13, 2011, 11:54:32 AM
Quote from: stephendare on January 13, 2011, 11:26:55 AM
Half of the Downtown Redevelopment Board resigned when the Union Terminal Site was chosen, in fact. ( Believe that was 1982)
It was 1982. Isn't that also when the Holiday Inn (former Robert Meyer) closed with the final straw for it having been the convention center decision?
Yes, Haskell pulled out of Holiday Inn City Center when he and the DT merchants essentially lost the power struggle. Mind you, there was considerable community outcry at the time to restore the Jax Terminal. It's amazing to think the kind of community activism for restoration... when you compare that to the current climate(read apathy/indifference) for restoration of prominent historical structures.
Which side? Haskell and the merchants pushing for a central location for the CC... or the activism engaged in restoring Jax Terminal after the huge fire?
Yeah, I'll try to write some more details of it possibly tomorrow. I'm at work today and all of my literature/notes on the subject are at home... don't want to misquote anything. And since its my bday today, Im sure that after JU basketball and Dos Gatos I won't be in much shape to write out accurate historical accounts of the great power struggle of the Godbold years tonight, lol.
I've mentioned some names here from time to time, especially in some of the Landing and Convention Center threads. There were some very key people that brought certain investors into downtown, and ultimately that group won out over Haskell et al. While preservation of a grand building was accomplished, the merchants and hotelliers of the time got screwed. It was probably the final nail in the coffin of downtown retail. The Landing was just as much centerpiece as it was appeasement.
The fact that Mr Haskell is discussing(and will be presenting on soon) this very issue now, 30 some odd years later lends me to believe we should REALLY listen to him finally.
Thanks, one of these years I'll catch up to your stature!
Nice Nietzsche referance btw ;D You're making my (now)old mind think about philisophy classes again, lol
I'm certain I don't know anywhere near as much as Fieldafm on this, but James Crooks' book on Jacksonville after consolidation has some detail on this situation. As I understand it, a group of developers, I believe led by a Steve Jordan, bought the terminal, held various one-night festivals there, and then promoted the idea of putting a convention center there. Meanwhile, public-private partnerships in which Haskell was a player were engaged in developing a plan for the Northbank that involved the Charter/Southern Bell building, a hotel, a festival marketplace, and a convention center. Godbold sided with the terminal group despite Haskell and the merchants' protests, arguing that development would spread westward through LaVilla toward the terminal. He amplified his support for the Landing, Metro Park, and the Florida Theatre in an effort to appease them. After the decision for the terminal site, half the downtown development board resigned as Stephen noted, Haskell decided to close the Holiday Inn, and according to Crooks, the manager of the St. James Building May Cohen's for the first time began considering closing his store.
Happy birthday Fieldafm
Chris...it is ok to politely disagree on this site...but really, calling my opinions asinine...how does that help anyone?
Note that I didn't bother to debate your assertion that Daytona is far better than Jax...even though that would likely be seen as a stretch by many people.
Quote from: Wacca Pilatka on January 13, 2011, 12:49:00 PM
I'm certain I don't know anywhere near as much as Fieldafm on this, but James Crooks' book on Jacksonville after consolidation has some detail on this situation. As I understand it, a group of developers, I believe led by a Steve Jordan, bought the terminal, held various one-night festivals there, and then promoted the idea of putting a convention center there. Meanwhile, public-private partnerships in which Haskell was a player were engaged in developing a plan for the Northbank that involved the Charter/Southern Bell building, a hotel, a festival marketplace, and a convention center. Godbold sided with the terminal group despite Haskell and the merchants' protests, arguing that development would spread westward through LaVilla toward the terminal. He amplified his support for the Landing, Metro Park, and the Florida Theatre in an effort to appease them. After the decision for the terminal site, half the downtown development board resigned as Stephen noted, Haskell decided to close the Holiday Inn, and according to Crooks, the manager of the St. James Building May Cohen's for the first time began considering closing his store.
Pretty good WP... and Crooks' book is very good for those who haven't read it. There were several key names and investors that brought this all to a forefront(a major player of the Prime Osborn CC was also a major player with Rouse's involvement DT).
Not only did it signal Cohen's demise DT, but also Sears. They were furious at the situation. And, if you were arond back then... the DT Sears store was for quite awhile one of the top performing stores in their nationwide portfolio. It literally had EVERYTHING you needed for anything in life. I have some pictures of those old parties I'll have to find(I was too young to attend mind you, but some family members had a racous time at those events) and post.
Quote from: stephendare on January 13, 2011, 11:53:02 AM
Quote from: stjr on January 13, 2011, 11:45:52 AM
I recall most events, conventions and/or associations meeting in Jax taking place in the old exhibit hall attached to the Times Union Center (that wing was torn down and replaced with the Jax Symphony's concert hall which by the way was mostly paid for with private dollars from symphony supporters), the Coliseum, hotel ballrooms (Robert Meyer, George Washington, Thunderbird Hotel in Arlington, Sea Turtle Inn, etc.), and even the armory.
Thats exactly correct, STJR.
Chris has a fascinating take on the convention center's business history (after some pretty commendable research) that I hope that he will publish shortly on here.
His points and the facts supporting them should be seriously considered by anyone interested in the subject. I happen to wholly concur with his conclusions, which caused me to rethink the entire subject myself.
Well yes, if you look back it's not hard to see how we went from having a quarter million convention visitors annually to almost zero. Ironically, its because we started building convention centers. We had a booming convention business until our local government started engaging in competition with private business and succeeded in ruining the whole thing. So of course now Tufsu's solution is naturally to build an even bigger one.
From the turn of the 20th century forward, Jacksonville's chamber of commerce and hotel owners had successfully fostered the growth of the convention business, with the events being hosted and marketed to the convention planners as convenient packages that included lodging, food, entertainment, and also the space and staffing. When there was an event large enough to create overflow, the private market handled it through cooperation between the convention booking departments at the downtown hotels, and they would get together to provide whatever amount of space and accommodation was needed. It was a conventioneer's dream, all you had to do was make a phone call and a bunch of 5 star hotels took care of everything for you.
So what happened? Well, first, Jacksonville Beach commissioned a study on how to generate visitor growth, which resulted in the construction of the Jacksonville Beach Convention Center. The game plan, in summary, was that downtown Jacksonville had a booming convention business that brought in 200k+ direct convention visitors and another couple hundred thousand indirect visitors (wives, children, family, friends, etc, of visitors, plus presenters, etc.) and Jacksonville Beach was quite literally going to steal that business.
COJ responded by designing the planned original Memorial Coliseum as "flex space" where half the building's purpose was a performance venue, and the other half (accomplished through removable stages, the incorporation of an underlying convention floor, and retractable seating) of its purpose was that it would serve as the convention center. Both the JAX beach and Coliseum structures were completed, and the two cities began competing ferociously against each other for the business that had formerly belonged to private industry.
The decline of the large downtown hotels, which has been previously covered on this site, really happened because of two factors. The first body blow was Haydon Burns' decision to "beautify" downtown by removing everything ugly, notwithstanding the fact that those things were what actually employed people and provided the economic underpinnings of the city. But the hotels largely survived this, because they had a strong revenue stream from the convention business.
However with the opening of the Jacksonville Beach Convention Center and the Coliseum, and with both respective city governments now directly competing with private business by offering rates lower than what could be profitable privately, the last remaining source of profit for the downtown hotels was taken away.
Now you'd think, at least initially that there would be a natural synergy here, as the hotels would still get paying guests in town for convention, right? Wrong. Our city government brought about the construction of an expressway bridge right from the front door of the Coliseum to newly-constructed low-service or no-service motels in Arlington which, thanks to the taxpayer-subsidized expressway that took people straight from the front door of the coliseum to the Arlington hotels, they were able to significantly undercut the downtown hotels' competitive advantage and take the business. And Jacksonville beach is so far out there that whatever convention business was attracted there necessarily meant the visitors stayed out there too. That was, after all, the whole plan; To steal that business, not to cooperate.
This was phase 2 (and final) of the destruction of the downtown hotels. First we took away most the business travelers by running most of the industries out of downtown and off to other parts of the city. The hotels were still surviving, however, on the convention business, until two local governments got into a battle between themselves over who could steal that last remaining revenue source first.
Ultimately, it put the hotels out of business and this in turn wound up killing the convention business that the city had stolen, because there was no longer enough hotel space for the larger events. Large events were forced to go elsewhere, other cities then became fashionable and took away the smaller events too. The Arlington hotels were demolished, following the double whammy of I-95 and the loss convention visitors, as was the Jacksonville Beach Convention Center (after its operating costs nearly threw the City of Jacksonville Beach into bankruptcy) and the Coliseum was replaced by a building whose purpose is primarily a performance venue.
The whole thing was an epic failure. We were the top convention city in the southeast, and all we had to was LEAVE IT ALONE. Instead, government began building these silly convention centers and competing with private business. Of course, some people apparently still don't recognize what a dumbass idea that is, because if the city government wins the competitive advantage (which isn't hard to do, since they're funded by tax dollars and don't have to make a profit) then...guess what...it still loses when the private go under and leave a desolate downtown with a devastated tax base behind.
Of course, when all this was taking place, the Thundertards (many of which are still in power downtown) determined the best solution was to have an even more expensive dedicated convention center, regardless of the fact that we no longer had any real convention business, nor any hotels for people to stay in if we did, nor anything for them to do downtown once they got here. "Build it and they will come!" my ass. The remote location of this new convention center succeeded in killing off the final remaining original hotel downtown, the Robert Myer.
And of course Tufsu's solution, following this history, is let's build an even bigger one! What, like the problem with the previous disaster was that they simply weren't big and expensive enough? LMAO. The problem is that we never should have gotten into that business to begin with, and we shouldn't be in it now. This isn't just a building we're talking about, it's a business. One in which the least of our competitive problems is the building.
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 13, 2011, 12:56:37 PM
Chris...it is ok to politely disagree on this site...but really, calling my opinions asinine...how does that help anyone?
Note that I didn't bother to debate your assertion that Daytona is far better than Jax...even though that would likely be seen as a stretch by many people.
Fair enough, I removed that.
If you want to compare Daytona/Ormomd to downtown Jacksonville, then sorry but you're gonna lose that one. There is really no comparison to a bunch of vacant buildings and closed storefronts. Say what you will about Daytona, the fact is that it has a lot of people, businesses, things to do, etc. You really think downtown Jacksonville compares favorably?
QuoteSo what happened? Well, first, Jacksonville Beach commissioned a study on how to generate visitor growth, which resulted in the construction of the Jacksonville Beach Convention Center. The game plan, in summary, was that downtown Jacksonville had a booming convention business that brought in 200k+ direct convention visitors and another couple hundred thousand indirect visitors (wives, children, family, friends, etc, of visitors, plus presenters, etc.) and Jacksonville Beach was quite literally going to steal that business.
COJ responded by designing the planned original Memorial Coliseum as "flex space" where half the building's purpose was a performance venue, and the other half (accomplished through removable stages, the incorporation of an underlying convention floor, and retractable seating) of its purpose was that it would serve as the convention center. Both the JAX beach and Coliseum structures were completed, and the two cities began competing ferociously against each other for the business that had formerly belonged to private industry.
You have an interesting summation of the subject. About 68% I agree with.
One quick point. Both the Beaches exhibition hall space(now demolished along with Crab Pot... which has been replaced by the wildly successful Jax Beach Town Center thanks to the public-private partnership b/w Jax Beach and Sleiman Enterprises... and yet our current administration thinks its a good idea to publicly feud with the guy over downtown revitilization) and the Coliseum suffered from the SAME problems the Prime Osborne does.... connectivity.
But I disagree with you here
Quoteall we had to was LEAVE IT ALONE.
While other cities were biulding out and modernizing their convention facilities... Jax HAD to either bow out of the convention business(due to not having enough adequate space and modern ammenities) or choose to compete. Unfortunately, the efforts at competing were the problem... not the decision TO compete. You can't stand still while your competitors are moving forward and expect your business to grow. Jacksonville's problem was their solution sucked.
Case in point, Daytona recently expanded their space within the decade.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 13, 2011, 08:39:49 AM
Quote from: vicupstate on January 13, 2011, 06:08:43 AM
QuoteChris, I think your concerns about a convention center have merit and appear to be well researched.
Give me a break. He has produce NO FACTS WHATSOEVER to bolster his cynical rantings.
Charlotte, Indianapolis, Baltimore and yes, San Diego (in 1987 !!) have all used convention centers to bolster their core and their profile as cities.
Exactly what did San Diego have going for it in 1983 that Jax doesn't or COULDN'T in 2011?
Savannah built one when it ALREADY had millions of tourists and a very successful Downtown. I guess they all just wasted there money.
What city of any size, besides JAX, has all but ignored this element for economic development?
QuoteSan Diego voters approved a measure to fund construction of a new convention center in 1983 on land owned by the Port of San Diego. Construction of the original building began in March 1987 and was completed in November 1989. An expansion which doubled the gross square footage of the facility was completed in September 2001. In September 2008 the center took steps to acquire adjacent property for an additional expansion.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Diego_Convention_Center
QuoteThe Gaslamp Quarter is a 16½ block historical neighborhood in downtown San Diego, California. The area is listed as a historic district on the National Register of Historic Places as Gaslamp Quarter Historic District. Its main period of development began in 1867, when Alonzo Horton bought the land in hopes of creating a new city center closer to the bay, and chose 5th Avenue as its main street. After a period of urban decay, the neighborhood underwent urban renewal in the 1980s and 1990s, and is today an energetic business and entertainment district.
QuotePanoramic view of the Gaslamp Quarter from the San Diego Convention Center, with the Hilton Gaslamp Quarter in the center and Petco Park and the Metropolis at the Omni Hotel to the far right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslamp_Quarter,_San_Diego
You seriously have no clue what you're talking about.
San Diego's center was approved in 1983, but wasn't actually built and opened until 1989, originally a pretty modest facility. It became the beast it is now following a 2001 expansion. The thing you're missing (at this point I think you're missing it intentionally since I've said this all before) is that San Diego's convention success traces back to hosting Comicon from 1970 onwards, when they didn't even have the convention center yet. And the only reason San Diego landed that event initially is because the founder had moved there from Detroit. Their convention center was actually built in large part TO HOST THAT PRE-EXISTING EVENT. It remains their single largest event to this day, and has more to do with the center's success than anything the city has done.
I don't care how many $400mm buildings we build, that success is not replicable in Jacksonville.
And regarding facts, my entire argument is based on fact, which you'd already know if you'd spent 12 seconds actually researching any of this instead of making general sniping statements and demonstrating your proficiency at posting generic wikipedia links.
The SD Center has 615,00 sq ft of Exhibition space. If you had READ the quotation, the expansion in 2001 DOUBLED the size. So In 2001 it went form 300,000 to 600,000.
PRime Osburn has 78,000 sq. ft exhibition space,
LESS THAN 1/3 the SIZE of SD's
ORIGINAL size, and about
12% of it's current size.
How can you develop convention business with no place sufficiently big enough to hold them?
BTW, the last CVB Leader in JAX came from, you guessed it, San Diego. I guess after several years of no action, he must have seen the writing on the wall that Jax was NOT serious about tourism deveoopment.
Quote from: vicupstate on January 13, 2011, 01:23:17 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 13, 2011, 08:39:49 AM
Quote from: vicupstate on January 13, 2011, 06:08:43 AM
QuoteChris, I think your concerns about a convention center have merit and appear to be well researched.
Give me a break. He has produce NO FACTS WHATSOEVER to bolster his cynical rantings.
Charlotte, Indianapolis, Baltimore and yes, San Diego (in 1987 !!) have all used convention centers to bolster their core and their profile as cities.
Exactly what did San Diego have going for it in 1983 that Jax doesn't or COULDN'T in 2011?
Savannah built one when it ALREADY had millions of tourists and a very successful Downtown. I guess they all just wasted there money.
What city of any size, besides JAX, has all but ignored this element for economic development?
QuoteSan Diego voters approved a measure to fund construction of a new convention center in 1983 on land owned by the Port of San Diego. Construction of the original building began in March 1987 and was completed in November 1989. An expansion which doubled the gross square footage of the facility was completed in September 2001. In September 2008 the center took steps to acquire adjacent property for an additional expansion.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Diego_Convention_Center
QuoteThe Gaslamp Quarter is a 16½ block historical neighborhood in downtown San Diego, California. The area is listed as a historic district on the National Register of Historic Places as Gaslamp Quarter Historic District. Its main period of development began in 1867, when Alonzo Horton bought the land in hopes of creating a new city center closer to the bay, and chose 5th Avenue as its main street. After a period of urban decay, the neighborhood underwent urban renewal in the 1980s and 1990s, and is today an energetic business and entertainment district.
QuotePanoramic view of the Gaslamp Quarter from the San Diego Convention Center, with the Hilton Gaslamp Quarter in the center and Petco Park and the Metropolis at the Omni Hotel to the far right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslamp_Quarter,_San_Diego
You seriously have no clue what you're talking about.
San Diego's center was approved in 1983, but wasn't actually built and opened until 1989, originally a pretty modest facility. It became the beast it is now following a 2001 expansion. The thing you're missing (at this point I think you're missing it intentionally since I've said this all before) is that San Diego's convention success traces back to hosting Comicon from 1970 onwards, when they didn't even have the convention center yet. And the only reason San Diego landed that event initially is because the founder had moved there from Detroit. Their convention center was actually built in large part TO HOST THAT PRE-EXISTING EVENT. It remains their single largest event to this day, and has more to do with the center's success than anything the city has done.
I don't care how many $400mm buildings we build, that success is not replicable in Jacksonville.
And regarding facts, my entire argument is based on fact, which you'd already know if you'd spent 12 seconds actually researching any of this instead of making general sniping statements and demonstrating your proficiency at posting generic wikipedia links.
The SD Center has 615,00 sq ft of Exhibition space. If you had READ the quotation, the expansion in 2001 DOUBLED the size. So In 2001 it went form 300,000 to 600,000.
PRime Osburn has 78,000 sq. ft exhibition space, LESS THAN 1/3 the SIZE of SD's ORIGINAL size, and about 12% of it's current size.
How can you develop convention business with no place sufficiently big enough to hold them?
You really aren't understanding how this works. San Diego has one event that uses the whole space, and they actually built the building to accommodate that PRE-existing business (a fact which I notice you're intentionally ignoring), they had the business and then built the facility to cater to it. "Build it and they will come" doesn't work, and San Diego actually proves that, as the reason they have been successful is that they had the business before they built the building. Keep ignoring this all you want, everyone else isn't. And FWIW, their book of business is mostly comprised of smaller conventions that would fit in our space. That's not why they don't come here. This isn't just a building, its a business.
If it is true that the current convention center and hotel ballrooms can meet most convention center needs, then we need to consider what is accomplished by building a new center. Is it simply to better locate it? Is it to build it larger to host bigger conventions we can't reach for now?
If it is the former, then I am inclined to agree with those that say we need to develop the area around the existing center as that would seem to be more cost effective and driven by private investment. By the way, it was always intended that that development take place when Osborne was selected. Particularly, a hotel dedicated to servicing the center. (That it didn't happen is another story in the City's mismanaging these projects.) So, why risk millions of taxpayer dollars just to move the facility a few blocks closer to the core of downtown, albeit to what is probably a superior site, for marginal financial gains. The existing site, with improved connections to downtown, such as street cars and proper infill, could overcome many of its locational shortcomings to the benefit of all. (I might add the fact that the Skyway fails to do this with any significant impact currently says much about why I think the Skyway has its own issues. But, that's for other threads.)
If the reason for a new center is the latter, a larger facility, then I am concerned about the most commonly discussed plans for siting it at the soon to be former courthouse as I think that site does not facilitate enough of an enlargement to stand the test of decades of time that the building should serve us. If we want to appeal to that last 10 to 30% of conventions we can't reach now, let's do it right, and build a building large enough to make a significant leap now, but also one that can make future leaps later, as the city and convention business grows. Otherwise, I think we are just repeating the mistakes of the current center and 20 years from now we will be having this discussion all over again.
If there are other compelling reasons to move the center, such as to convert the Osborne into an intermodal mass transit center, then the move should be evaluated, and maybe subsidized, with respect to such benefits.
Quote from: fieldafm on January 13, 2011, 01:04:28 PM
QuoteSo what happened? Well, first, Jacksonville Beach commissioned a study on how to generate visitor growth, which resulted in the construction of the Jacksonville Beach Convention Center. The game plan, in summary, was that downtown Jacksonville had a booming convention business that brought in 200k+ direct convention visitors and another couple hundred thousand indirect visitors (wives, children, family, friends, etc, of visitors, plus presenters, etc.) and Jacksonville Beach was quite literally going to steal that business.
COJ responded by designing the planned original Memorial Coliseum as "flex space" where half the building's purpose was a performance venue, and the other half (accomplished through removable stages, the incorporation of an underlying convention floor, and retractable seating) of its purpose was that it would serve as the convention center. Both the JAX beach and Coliseum structures were completed, and the two cities began competing ferociously against each other for the business that had formerly belonged to private industry.
You have an interesting summation of the subject. About 68% I agree with.
One quick point. Both the Beaches exhibition hall space(now demolished along with Crab Pot... which has been replaced by the wildly successful Jax Beach Town Center thanks to the public-private partnership b/w Jax Beach and Sleiman Enterprises... and yet our current administration thinks its a good idea to publicly feud with the guy over downtown revitilization) and the Coliseum suffered from the SAME problems the Prime Osborne does.... connectivity.
But I disagree with you here
Quoteall we had to was LEAVE IT ALONE.
While other cities were biulding out and modernizing their convention facilities... Jax HAD to either bow out of the convention business(due to not having enough adequate space and modern ammenities) or choose to compete. Unfortunately, the efforts at competing were the problem... not the decision TO compete. You can't stand still while your competitors are moving forward and expect your business to grow. Jacksonville's problem was their solution sucked.
Case in point, Daytona recently expanded their space within the decade.
Your logic relies on the unlikely assumption that, as the business continued growing, the private market wouldn't have expanded capacity to meet demand. What are you basing that assumption on?
Quote from: stephendare on January 13, 2011, 01:25:36 PM
Vic, in the case of San Diego, the opposite dynamic is what actually happened.
Comicon grew so large that they were thinking about leaving San Diego.
San Diego expanded to handle Comicon. Not the other way around.
so they doubled the size of the convention center for just a few days a year....how is that a good investment?
fact is they were able to expand partially because of Comicon...and have used it to grow their overall convention business.
guess that means "build it and they will come" actually worked!
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 13, 2011, 02:02:35 PM
Quote from: stephendare on January 13, 2011, 01:25:36 PM
Vic, in the case of San Diego, the opposite dynamic is what actually happened.
Comicon grew so large that they were thinking about leaving San Diego.
San Diego expanded to handle Comicon. Not the other way around.
so they doubled the size of the convention center for just 4 days a year....how is that a good investment?
fact is they were able to expand partially because of Comicon...and have used it to grow their overall convention business.
guess that means "build it and they will come" actually worked!
So a city with a strong pre-existing convention business that later expanded its space the to meet already-existing demand proves that "build it and they will come" works exactly how?
The expansion is used by Comicon AND OTHER conventions
they built the extra space and then were able to fill it.
well smart guy....convention facilities are often used by multiple events at the same time....
In fact, I organized a conference at the Tampa Convention Center last fall...for one of the days we were basically the only ones in the whole building....but our first and last days overlapped with other meetings.
And according to the info. below, the center is achieving occupancy rates of 75%....pretty hard to do that if you're 100% for 1 week a year and 50% for the other 51.
http://www.visitsandiego.com/pressroom/details.cfm/newsid/89
Quote from: stjr on January 13, 2011, 01:31:55 PM
If it is true that the current convention center and hotel ballrooms can meet most convention center needs, then we need to consider what is accomplished by building a new center. Is it simply to better locate it? Is it to build it larger to host bigger conventions we can't reach for now?
If it is the former, then I am inclined to agree with those that say we need to develop the area around the existing center as that would seem to be more cost effective and driven by private investment. By the way, it was always intended that that development take place when Osborne was selected. Particularly, a hotel dedicated to servicing the center. (That it didn't happen is another story in the City's mismanaging these projects.) So, why risk millions of taxpayer dollars just to move the facility a few blocks closer to the core of downtown, albeit to what is probably a superior site, for marginal financial gains.
Growing the convention center at the current site would come at the expense of using that site for what it was intentionally built for......transportation.
Quote from: stephendare on January 13, 2011, 01:25:36 PM
Vic, in the case of San Diego, the opposite dynamic is what actually happened.
Comicon grew so large that they were thinking about leaving San Diego.
San Diego expanded to handle Comicon. Not the other way around.
We've faced this problem a couple of times in the past few years. Our Comic-Cons grew up and left to go to places that could accommodate their needs.
Quote from: thelakelander on January 13, 2011, 02:37:33 PM
Quote from: stephendare on January 13, 2011, 01:25:36 PM
Vic, in the case of San Diego, the opposite dynamic is what actually happened.
Comicon grew so large that they were thinking about leaving San Diego.
San Diego expanded to handle Comicon. Not the other way around.
We've faced this problem a couple of times in the past few years. Our Comic-Cons grew up and left to go to places that could accommodate their needs.
Well, the problem is that their needs aren't just space. People want attractions and vibrancy when they get there.
In our case, that's the real problem here, and we'd be much better off focusing this energy and money on creating an actual functioning downtown economy first. Otherwise we can build the most expensive giant convention center on the planet and it will still sit empty because nobody will come here.
For the 345,678th time this isn't just a building, its a business. There is more to it than this, guys.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 13, 2011, 01:34:22 PM
Your logic relies on the unlikely assumption that, as the business continued growing, the private market wouldn't have expanded capacity to meet demand. What are you basing that assumption on?
The fact that competing markets were building centralized, large, and modern facilities that were funded by the same mechanism(bonds) funding the Prime Osborn. Take a look around the country, what major convention center city has a private business that has built and runs a facility the size of the Prime Osborn or bigger(besides Sands in Vegas.. and thats technically an apples to orange comparison as they have the business to support TWO large convention centers)?
QuoteFor the 345,678th time this isn't just a building, its a business. There is more to it than this, guys.
It is indeed a business that Jacksonville earnestly wants to be in(and for the record I think they should), but quite simply isn't doing it the right way. The choices are now, as they were then... quit or do it right. My interest stems from the fact that I used to work with a company that ran convention-styled events nationwide. I may be a boring bean counter now, but in my former life I know what it takes to make or lose money in that business.
QuotePeople want attractions
I also think you discount what Jacksonville has to offer visitors from the North(cold) and Southwest(dry). It IS an attractive place to visit. I'll buy you a beer at the Landing one weekend and we'll start talking to the visitors of our beautiful city. I think you'd be surprised at the answers you'll get from visitors. I do it twice a month and its always eye opening. People DO like visiting here, even though our downtown isnt comparable to Atlanta.
i don't really know what i'm talking about, but from where i sit, it looks like we missed the boat on conventions, plain and simple. and now the cicty's basically tryïng to build another boat. i don't think it can possibly work, largely because there are too many other cities that are already established convention locations.
iMO, the city should accept that we've lost that battle and move on to one we may actually be able to win--if there even are any at this point.
Quote from: fieldafm on January 13, 2011, 02:58:14 PM
The fact that competing markets were building centralized, large, and modern facilities that were funded by the same mechanism(bonds) funding the Prime Osborn. Take a look around the country, what major convention center city has a private business that has built and runs a facility the size of the Prime Osborn or bigger(besides Sands in Vegas)?
All the major hotels in Orlando and Las Vegas have the capacity to host large conventions, and there is probably as much done privately as there is publicly. Unlike Jacksonville, these other cities encourage private participation rather than trying to steal the business.
Kind of shoots your assumption in the foot when you consider just a single Orlando hotel, the Peabody, has 300,000 square feet of convention space by itself, doesn't it?
http://www.peabodyorlando.com/press/fact_sheet.cfm
Again, what exactly are you basing this assumption on that private industry wouldn't have expanded to meet growing demand, if we hadn't submarined them and tried to steal their business first?
Quote from: fieldafm on January 13, 2011, 02:58:14 PM
It is indeed a business that Jacksonville earnestly wants to be in(and for the record I think they should), but quite simply isn't doing it the right way. The choices are now, as they were then... quit or do it right. My interest stems from the fact that I used to work with a company that ran convention-styled events nationwide. I may be a boring bean counter now, but in my former life I know what it takes to make or lose money in that business.
Well yes, but we lack the other competitive advantages you need to succeed in that business, and that isn't a 'fixable' problem insofar as you can't generate density, vibrancy, attractions, and a functional downtown economy, overnight just by building a building. Without those things we will continue to be a third rate destination that won't attract events, regardless of how much we spend on a convention center.
Quote from: KuroiKetsunoHana on January 13, 2011, 03:05:42 PM
i don't really know what i'm talking about, but from where i sit, it looks like we missed the boat on conventions, plain and simple. and now the cicty's basically tryïng to build another boat. i don't think it can possibly work, largely because there are too many other cities that are already established convention locations.
iMO, the city should accept that we've lost that battle and move on to one we may actually be able to win--if there even are any at this point.
Ex-f$&?!@g-actly correct.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 13, 2011, 02:43:47 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on January 13, 2011, 02:37:33 PM
Quote from: stephendare on January 13, 2011, 01:25:36 PM
Vic, in the case of San Diego, the opposite dynamic is what actually happened.
Comicon grew so large that they were thinking about leaving San Diego.
San Diego expanded to handle Comicon. Not the other way around.
We've faced this problem a couple of times in the past few years. Our Comic-Cons grew up and left to go to places that could accommodate their needs.
Well, the problem is that their needs aren't just space. People want attractions and vibrancy when they get there.
In our case, that's the real problem here, and we'd be much better off focusing this energy and money on creating an actual functioning downtown economy first. Otherwise we can build the most expensive giant convention center on the planet and it will still sit empty because nobody will come here.
For the 345,678th time this isn't just a building, its a business. There is more to it than this, guys.
I definitely agree with the idea that creating a functional downtown should be top priority. However, I'm not even arguing or evaluating the merits of the convention business. My only real point is that what ever you do (conventions, mass transit, looking for a girl to take home, etc.), you get better utilization and benefit from it when its placed in a compact setting with adjacent complementing uses. So in the event that money is put into a convention center. It should follow the rules of connectivity, complementing uses and clustering so we can get the most bang for our buck.
Quote from: thelakelander on January 13, 2011, 03:19:03 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 13, 2011, 02:43:47 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on January 13, 2011, 02:37:33 PM
Quote from: stephendare on January 13, 2011, 01:25:36 PM
Vic, in the case of San Diego, the opposite dynamic is what actually happened.
Comicon grew so large that they were thinking about leaving San Diego.
San Diego expanded to handle Comicon. Not the other way around.
We've faced this problem a couple of times in the past few years. Our Comic-Cons grew up and left to go to places that could accommodate their needs.
Well, the problem is that their needs aren't just space. People want attractions and vibrancy when they get there.
In our case, that's the real problem here, and we'd be much better off focusing this energy and money on creating an actual functioning downtown economy first. Otherwise we can build the most expensive giant convention center on the planet and it will still sit empty because nobody will come here.
For the 345,678th time this isn't just a building, its a business. There is more to it than this, guys.
I definitely agree with the idea that creating a functional downtown should be top priority. However, I'm not even arguing or evaluating the merits of the convention business. My only real point is that what ever you do (conventions, mass transit, looking for a girl to take home, etc.), you get better utilization and benefit from it when its placed in a compact setting with adjacent complementing uses.
Well then yeah we totally agree with each other on that point.
Unfortunately, when it comes to the convention business, our opportunity to not screw that up vanished four decades ago when we, well, screwed it up. Sad when you consider all we really had to do was leave it the hell alone, but we even managed to botch that. But that opportunity has come and gone, and now it's time to address the larger problems downtown and try and get back on our feet. Any attempt to revisit the convention business will fail, because that industry has already grown and solidified in other places, and also because at the end of the day nobody wants to visit a dead city.
My uncle was the food and beverage manager for the Marriot in Orlando and they have more convention space than the Prime Osborn does... I'm well aware. But they built that AFTER Orlando built its first of two large convention centers.
I applaud your research on the subject. I think most of it is good. Your assumptions going forward however I don't agree with... and there is no point trying to argue back and forth about it as you aren't going to change your mind, nor are you interested in even conceding any points.
I made(and lost) money in the business. And I made(and lost) money at the Prime Osborne.
QuoteSad when you consider all we really had to do was leave it the hell alone, but we even managed to botch that.
You also fail to estimate the impact having a dedicating visitors bureau has on the convention business as a whole... not one major convention city doesn't have one. I just think you're looking at this without exploring all of the complementing arms of the body. You're right about the guts of the body... but a body with no arms or legs wont go anywhere
Quote from: fieldafm on January 13, 2011, 03:03:27 PM
QuotePeople want attractions
I also think you discount what Jacksonville has to offer visitors from the North(cold) and Southwest(dry). It IS an attractive place to visit. I'll buy you a beer at the Landing one weekend and we'll start talking to the visitors of our beautiful city. I think you'd be surprised at the answers you'll get from visitors. I do it twice a month and its always eye opening. People DO like visiting here, even though our downtown isnt comparable to Atlanta.
+1000
Quote from: fieldafm on January 13, 2011, 03:26:18 PM
My uncle was the food and beverage manager for the Marriot in Orlando and they have more convention space than the Prime Osborn does... I'm well aware. But they built that AFTER Orlando built its first of two large convention centers.
I applaud your research on the subject. I think most of it is good. Your assumptions going forward however I don't agree with... and there is no point trying to argue back and forth about it as you aren't going to change your mind, nor are you interested in even conceding any points.
I made(and lost) money in the business. And I made(and lost) money at the Prime Osborne.
QuoteSad when you consider all we really had to do was leave it the hell alone, but we even managed to botch that.
You also fail to estimate the impact having a dedicating visitors bureau has on the convention business as a whole... not one major convention city doesn't have one. I just think you're looking at this without exploring all of the complementing arms of the body. You're right about the guts of the body... but a body with no arms or legs wont go anywhere
Unless I'm missing something, aren't you directly contradicting yourself? You just told me to give you examples of private hotels that have large convention spaces, arguing that private hotels wouldn't expand to accommodate growing demand. A rather silly argument. Then I pointed out that almost all of the major ones do, and that private business would expand as demand requires. Now you say you already knew that, despite having argued the opposite, and have rephrased your point to avoid the reality of private industry clearly expanding to meet convention demand separate from the existence of public convention facilities.
So you'll have to excuse me, but I'm really getting rather confused as to what your point is?
You can't have it both ways and still be right.
Further, taking the Peabody again as an example, that one hotel had more space than the original Orange County Convention Center did, that is clearly an example of a private business expanding to fill convention demand outside of whatever was happening with a public convention space.
Quote from: fieldafm on January 13, 2011, 02:58:14 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 13, 2011, 01:34:22 PM
Your logic relies on the unlikely assumption that, as the business continued growing, the private market wouldn't have expanded capacity to meet demand. What are you basing that assumption on?
Take a look around the country, what major convention center city has a private business that has built and runs a facility the size of the Prime Osborn or bigger(besides Sands in Vegas.. and thats technically an apples to orange comparison as they have the business to support TWO large convention centers)?
That all seems rather clear, doesn't it?
What's the point in changing your argument around just because you don't happen to like that the answer to the question you originally asked doesn't support your view? You were the one who originally brought it up. It appears to me as though you've already made your mind up, and are having a difficult time finding logic to support a foregone conclusion that the facts show is faulty.
By example, here is Marriott World Center's "convention center" which looks to me to be at least double our largest room and maybe more for the entire complex. Quote* New 105,000 square-foot Cypress Ballroom (the largest pillar-free resort ballroom in the country)
* 50,000 square-foot Palms Ballroom
* 40,000 square-foot newly renovated Crystal Ballroom
* 37,000 square-foot newly renovated Grand Ballroom
* Four boardrooms and up to 73 breakout rooms
* 14,000 square feet of dedicated space for Orlando hotel meeting rooms in the exclusive North Tower
The Palms Ballroom recently completed a cutting-edge renovation, connecting with the impressive, 105,000 square-foot Cypress Ballroom (home to the largest pillar-free resort ballroom in the nation) and offer planners 150,000 square-feet of contiguous exhibit space. The stunning ballroom boasts state-of-the-art technology, décor and functionality.
(http://www.marriottworldcenter.com/Portals/1/Images/Photo_Galleries/Meetings/cypress-ballroom.jpg)
(http://www.marriottworldcenter.com/Portals/1/Images/Photo_Galleries/Meetings/Convention-Center-Ext.jpg)
Is it possible that a public/private partnership with a hotel like Hyatt may be a possibility? If they want to fill those +900 rooms, they're going to have to do something.
QuoteIt appears to me as though you've already made your mind up, and are having a difficult time finding logic to support a foregone conclusion that the facts show is faulty.
Hardly. I've been in the business. I know what works and what doesn't and debating about it any further has become boring. I had a slow day at work and added quite a few nickels of discussion on the board today. I'm just simply not interested in adding any more. Maybe if I was in a pissy mood I'd argue all day, but I'm not.
QuoteIt appears to me as though you've already made your mind up, and are having a difficult time finding logic to support a foregone conclusion that the facts show is faulty.
As is my understanding, when the Civic Council introduces their CC plans... this will be a part of their recommendations.
Quote from: fieldafm on January 13, 2011, 04:31:40 PM
QuoteIt appears to me as though you've already made your mind up, and are having a difficult time finding logic to support a foregone conclusion that the facts show is faulty.
Hardly. I've been in the business. I know what works and what doesn't and debating about it any further has become boring. I had a slow day at work and added quite a few nickels of discussion on the board today. I'm just simply not interested in adding any more. Maybe if I was in a pissy mood I'd argue all day, but I'm not.
QuoteIt appears to me as though you've already made your mind up, and are having a difficult time finding logic to support a foregone conclusion that the facts show is faulty.
As is my understanding, when the Civic Council introduces their CC plans... this will be a part of their recommendations.
Well this convention center would mark at least the third time (not counting Jacksonville Beach's near-bankrupting disaster) that our local government has floated this idea that the way to approach the issue is to spend even more money on it. This approach has been applied for the past 50 years, and it hasn't exactly worked out so far has it? In fact, as the result of this very idea you've been propounding, we went from our existing position of a quarter million convention visitors annually to almost zero, haven't we? Do you consider this a success? So at what point do we stop doing the same stuff over and over and wondering why it's not working?
And for the record, this is just a reasoned debate, it's not personal. We can disagree cordially, I don't see why this requires anyone to be in a bad mood, and I'm certainly not. We seem to have lost the capacity for cordial discourse in this society, I am reminded frequently that it seems most people only like you when you agree with them, and I don't quite understand that. Having grown up in a family of several generations of lawyers, you tear each other up in court and go out for a beer afterwards. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't like you, or I'm in a bad mood. How else is anyone supposed to resolve an issue if we can't have reasoned debate?
QuoteIn fact, as the result of this very idea you've been propounding, we went from our existing position of a quarter million convention visitors annually to almost zero, haven't we? Do you consider this a success? So at what point do we stop doing the same stuff over and over and wondering why it's not working?
You need to go back and re-read my posts. NOWHERE did I defend Jax's efforts from 1976 until today. They failed. They did it half-assed. They need to do it the right way. You argue that we should quit the business alltogether, and that's where we disagree.
I've said 5 times in the last week on this board, we should have listened to Preston Haskel et al 30 years ago. We didn't and guess who we're turning to again? The guy that had it right the first time.
Quote from: fieldafm on January 13, 2011, 04:52:28 PM
QuoteIn fact, as the result of this very idea you've been propounding, we went from our existing position of a quarter million convention visitors annually to almost zero, haven't we? Do you consider this a success? So at what point do we stop doing the same stuff over and over and wondering why it's not working?
You need to go back and re-read my posts. NOWHERE did I defend Jax's efforts from 1976 until today. They failed. They did it half-assed. They need to do it the right way. You argue that we should quit the business alltogether, and that's where we disagree.
I've said 5 times in the last week on this board, we should have listened to Preston Haskel et al 30 years ago. We didn't and guess who we're turning to again? The guy that had it right the first time.
That may have been true back then, but the timing is gone now. The market has passed us by, and the industry is already fully developed and mature and built out in other places. What's the point in shutting the barn door after the horse has run off? Just to make ourselves feel better at an outrageous cost? The convention business has fully developed and matured and the infrastructure is already there, the major conventions have long term agreements and contracts with their facilities, etc., etc., etc., this goose is cooked stick a fork in it already.
And the supply side is oversaturated as it sits, there isn't some infinite amount of convention business floating out there, because every city (JAX is always last, right?) already jumped onto this silly bandwagon two decades ago. The convention business was the municipal dot-com rush of the 1990s, and with very few exceptions it almost invariably wound up in total failure. This same issue nearly bankrupted Jacksonville Beach.
So now we come along a couple decades after the "convention-center gold rush" when other municipalities are licking their wounds and trying to pay pack the bonds floated to build these empty $100mm+ convention halls in every city with more than 3 residents in it, and rather than learning from all of these collective mistakes we're instead going to just do the very same disastrous thing? Seriously?
Add to that the fact that we're now starting from nothing, compared to having been in the top 25 when this debate first got going 50 years ago, and it becomes doubly impossible for it to work. You are suggesting that we build yet another buggy-whip factory, but this time it's going to be all different, see, because we'll have Callaway design us some super-lightweight graphite composite buggy whips, and that'll surely make them fly off the shelves, right? I mean, come on, the market has passed us by. It's over now.
The time for this was 50 years ago. It didn't work out. It's time to focus on creating an actual, organic, sustainable local economy downtown that doesn't rely on 60-year old stale pies in the sky and one-trick ponies.
Quote from: stephendare on January 13, 2011, 05:17:48 PM
I agree somewhat Chris, but I think that the business is rebuildable, but I don't think that its a case of putting the cart before the horse. Instead, I think that the only successful strategy is in pursuing the lifestyle based conventions and learning how to help them to grow and develop.
Well I guess theoretically that'd be like managing to corner a specialized niche in a market in which we're otherwise ill-equipped to compete. I guess we can be the official buggy-whip of the Kentucky Derby and get the contract to outfit all the jockeys. Just seems unlikely that this will end well for us. Bottom line, what's your take on this new proposed convention center's prospects for triggering some architecture-induced resurgence in the convention business downtown? I've explained my position, I'm interested in yours.
It seems we can all reach a consensus that the bigger problem is not the construction of a larger and better located convention center but how Jacksonville is marketed (not just as a convention location)
I surely wouldn't deign to compare Jacksonville's portfolio of attractions to Orlando's or Las Vegas', but I'm not from Jacksonville and it's my favorite place to visit.
When I bring people to Jacksonville with me, I make sure to get them on the river, take them on an architectural tour (explaining the Prairie style and its significance, and tying in to the story of the fire), and we spend the predominance of the time in the urban core neighborhoods. I also highlight the close proximity of unspoiled natural areas. We go to Kingsley and Clark's Fish Camp.
Every person I've brought there comes away from that experience citing Jacksonville as a uniquely situated, distinctive, beautiful city. Every one of them. And I don't think they're just humoring me.
When you compare that kind of itinerary to what Stephen noted John Reyes was being forced to push, which sounds like it was centered on Ponte Vedra, it sounds like Jacksonville just does not market itself properly.
Quote from: stephendare on January 13, 2011, 05:27:46 PM
The only way I would support it, is if it were to be the third floor of a multimodal transit station based out of the prime osborne, and the city partnered with a new sports arena and hotel to make it happen.
why do we need a new sports arena?
As long as there is a desire to make the Prime Osborn into a transportation center, Bay Street into a vibrant district and our already subsidized convention center hotel (Hyatt) into a success, location is an issue. We've spent pages discussing the pros and cons of the convention business, but little thought has been given to how it would best fit into the downtown landscape.
Quote from: thelakelander on January 13, 2011, 07:27:06 PM
As long as there is a desire to make the Prime Osborn into a transportation center, Bay Street into a vibrant district and our already subsidized convention center hotel (Hyatt) into a success, location is an issue. We've spent pages discussing the pros and cons of the convention business, but little thought has been given to how it would best fit into the downtown landscape.
I agree, actually I think the downtown itself should be the primary focus. We need to create a functional downtown that is economically self-sustaining without these kind of one trick ponies. I mean a functioning local economy. That is going to mean bringing back industry, commerce, housing space (including the affordable housing that gives some people hives), and the infrastructure necessary to support that. This city lacks the draws to compete and function as a tourist economy but for some asinine reason that's exactly what our leadership has tried to do. We need density, vibrancy, and a functioning economy. All the other "pretty" stuff can take a backseat until that is accomplished.
Gosh darn you all, I have to put something else out there...
First off, the whole 'we failed so let's quit, we can't do it right' attitude is really kind of a weird concept to me. That's like saying 'well, no company can be successful as a discount retailer b/c Wal Mart is just so good at it, so why bother?' The American economic engine kind of survives on 'building a better mousetrap', so to speak.
Ok, so the folks that are against the convention center business(as opposed to doing it right, say competing with the likes of Mobile... who would compare very favorably IMO). You gentleman often repeat many themes that contributed to the decline of downtown. One of them is the commerce generated from out of town guests. Correct? So why now do you not want a dedicated convention/tourism bureau with the necessary tools to bring those out of town guests back into the urban core? There's plenty of hotels downtown that need to be filled(some are subsidized in some way by guv'ment).
Everyone is saying 'well we shouldnt do it b/c its going to lose money'. So does mass transit... and while the ROI for streetcars and Convention Centers are not equal(2 to 1 to about 4 to 1, sorry Ock the 6 to 1 number is kind of inflated), convention business has a net positive impact to our community in the form of out-of-town visitors, taxes(bed tax, sales tax), increased revenue from local merchants(ask Landing merchants how they liked this year's Gator Bowl), and heads in beds.
I think saying that you're in favor of revitilizing the urban core by returning to what made the core successful in the past... but then saying well instead of two arms and two legs like we had the last time, lets just do it with two legs and one arms... is kind of self-defeating no? Isn't that a them oft repeated here... how everything connects together? It's a significant piece of the puzzle, and not including it would be to just repeat mistakes of the past.
I'm a little slow this morning(actually REALLY slow, thank you Cigar City Brewery and my old friend Mr Tangueray) so I don't think my message is being conveyed in a very concise and clear manner... but hopefully you are at least understanding my general themes.
Chris, I agree with a lot of the themes you highlighted on WHY we failed, so let's use that to make it right. Quitting is something our city has done too much. We live in a city that has vast potential, and we have the tools to realize that potential(I know very little in life, but this I am sure of). The ROI is there, otherwise you wouldn't see our peer cities dive head first into this arena. Let's do it right for once.
QuoteEvery person I've brought there comes away from that experience citing Jacksonville as a uniquely situated, distinctive, beautiful city. Every one of them. And I don't think they're just humoring me.
When you compare that kind of itinerary to what Stephen noted John Reyes was being forced to push, which sounds like it was centered on Ponte Vedra, it sounds like Jacksonville just does not market itself properly.
Wacca, on both of these points, you could not be more correct!
I get what you're saying field, I just get kind of skeptical whenever I start hearing these rumblings out of COJ that they're about take a 457'th crack at something that has ended in abject failure the other 456 times. This isn't about quitting, it's about wise use of funds and at what point do we stop throwing good money after bad? FWIW, this happens a lot around here, usually with the direct result of enriching the same little group of 5 or 6 people who constantly suckle the public teat.
Almost invariably when you analyze the situation it becomes apparent that the "new" plan is to blow ourselves up with TNT this time, since last time we used Dynamite and it didn't work out. Well no $h!t. I seriously can't even count the number of times this has happened here. All of the demolitions, vacancies, and the general parking situation downtown is the result of this process repeating itself over and over again. The courthouse, need I say more? The skyway. LaVilla. Brooklyn. Sugar Hill. Springfield. The one-way streets. The homeless. The list is quite literally endless.
At some point, we really need to sit back and do a self-assessment on how we handle civic projects in this City. Because, for us, they never work out. And when that happens, there's this cadre of people who always push to try again using a different type of eplosive this time. Or we'll redesign the buggy-whip out of titanium to make it sell. It's the whole approach that's ass-backwards, including the fact that COJ has continued wasting billions on exactly this type of project in order to generate downtown development that never arrives, because these things only work in a functional downtown, which ours is not.
Look at it this way, we have a nice car that's worth fixing but it is horrible condition. Let's say we found a 600 Pullman mercedes in a barn, it's beat up and has some parts missing, but worth fixing. At some point you'd like it to be a showpiece, but you also would like to actually use it to drive as well. So what do you do first on a limited budget? Are you going to spend your available money on window tint, new carpets, and an expensive stereo? Or are you going to first have the engine rebuilt so the car actually works??
Get where I'm going with this? What's the point in putting a $10k stereo into a car that doesn't run? The convention center and all of the similar ideas that are floated here locally are a moot point, because we have a dead downtown. These kind of things will never work until the city is functional by itself first. We on this board are not representative of the general public, because we can see downtown's potential. Most people are going to come here and realize that we have like 8 restaurants there, and most of them are only open for lunch, and that there's nothing to do, no people there, and that it sucks, and they got $50 worth of parking tickets for the privilege of having nothing to do. Do you think these people will be happy? Do you think they will come back?
This is not the time for this kind of thing. We need to focus on rebuilding the urban economy, and on getting people to live and work downtown. Fix the engine before wasting money on new carpets and a stereo, or you're still going to have a broken car. And guess what, nobody wants to ride in a broken car no matter how nice the stereo is.
QuoteGet where I'm going with this? What's the point in putting a $10k stereo into a car that doesn't run? The convention center and all of the similar ideas that are floated here locally are a moot point, because we have a dead downtown. These kind of things will never work until the city is functional by itself first.
To create a functional city, you have to locate things in a manner that breed that type of environment. Our downtown doesn't work because of a lack of connectivity and clustering complementing uses together in a compact setting. Part of relocating the convention center to the current courthouse site is the act of clustering and putting complementing uses together to create synergy and foot traffic (the things essential for a vibrant downtown). A convention center hotel (Hyatt), entertainment (Bay Street/Florida Theater/river), retail/dining (Landing) are all uses that an exhibition hall could complement. Considering the current courthouse site is within immediate walking distance of these existing subsidized uses, it makes sense to arrange them in a manner to where they can truly feed off each other and generate foot traffic. The other side of this discussion is that the transportation element. To properly revive this economic engine in downtown, the convention center needs to vacate the Prime Osborn site. So this puts us in an either/or position. (A) Relocate in a manner that better utilizes our existing investments, events and urban context, which allows for the return of transportation downtown or (B) call it quits and get out the convention game altogether, thus potentially ruining the other struggling investments we're already subsidizing.
It seems to me that we were once a successful convention town because all of the trains that traveled in the eastern half of the United States came through here. When the trains went away, so did our convention business.
Orlando, Atlanta, San Francisco and Las Vegas get huge amounts of convention business because they have each have a huge number of airline flights coming to their airports everyday.
I don't think it is the quality (or lack thereof) of our convention center, downtown, entertainment district, etc. that makes us a poor candidate for a thriving convention business, but our relative lack of transportation options to get here.
Quote from: thelakelander on January 14, 2011, 11:29:05 AM
QuoteGet where I'm going with this? What's the point in putting a $10k stereo into a car that doesn't run? The convention center and all of the similar ideas that are floated here locally are a moot point, because we have a dead downtown. These kind of things will never work until the city is functional by itself first.
To create a functional city, you have to locate things in a manner that breed that type of environment. Our downtown doesn't work because of a lack of connectivity and clustering complementing uses together in a compact setting. Part of relocating the convention center to the current courthouse site is the act of clustering and putting complementing uses together to create synergy and foot traffic (the things essential for a vibrant downtown). A convention center hotel (Hyatt), entertainment (Bay Street/Florida Theater/river), retail/dining (Landing) are all uses that an exhibition hall could complement. Considering the current courthouse site is within immediate walking distance of these existing subsidized uses, it makes sense to arrange them in a manner to where they can truly feed off each other and generate foot traffic. The other side of this discussion is that the transportation element. To properly revive this economic engine in downtown, the convention center needs to vacate the Prime Osborn site. So this puts us in an either/or position. (A) Relocate in a manner that better utilizes our existing investments, events and urban context, which allows for the return of transportation downtown or (B) call it quits and get out the convention game altogether, thus potentially ruining the other struggling investments we're already subsidizing.
I don't think calling it quits on the convention business would have any effect on anything else, it's not like we have any convention visitors to speak of anyway, is it? And regarding clustering, you and I totally agree. My point here is that you can cluster 5 buggy-whip factories, 10 Asbestos plants, maybe throw in a couple aluminum cookware factories and a snake oil store, and then tie it all together with some restaurants serving calf's brains and Beondegi (edible silkworms) and hell you could even throw in a streetcar, and it won't accomplish anything except wasting money. Because this isn't the 1950s anymore, and we're not in South Korea.
On the other hand, if you cluster light/medium industrial employers, supporting commercial activity, residents, infrastructure, and affordable housing and transportation, well that's a whole different story. I understand the concept of clustering, but it only goes so far if the underlying things being clustered don't work in the local environment.
We need to work on regenerating a sustainable and functional organic local economy in our dead downtown before a convention center or any of these other stale pies in the sky are ever going to work down there. Lake, people want something to do when they get here. "Build it and they will come" doesn't work unless there's some reason for them to come aside from just a building.
Nobody will ride in a broken car, no matter how nice the stereo is. The real problems need to be addressed first.
Quote from: Dog Walker on January 14, 2011, 11:38:23 AM
It seems to me that we were once a successful convention town because all of the trains that traveled in the eastern half of the United States came through here. When the trains went away, so did our convention business.
Orlando, Atlanta, San Francisco and Las Vegas get huge amounts of convention business because they have each have a huge number of airline flights coming to their airports everyday.
I don't think it is the quality (or lack thereof) of our convention center, downtown, entertainment district, etc. that makes us a poor candidate for a thriving convention business, but our relative lack of transportation options to get here.
The convention business actually stuck with us and continued giving Jacksonville second chances through the 1960s, well after the automobile had supplanted rail transportation in this country. The problem is that the business went elsewhere when two local governments competed with each other to steal it from the private hotels, when at that time (exactly because of the decline of rail and ship travel) the convention business had become their main revenue stream.
The result was that the hotels closed, which had a tail-wags-the-dog effect and killed the convention business entirely because larger events no longer had sufficient hotel space and had to go elsewhere. In response, for the past 40 years, we've continued pouring money at this problem under the false assumption that if we just spend more money on another convention center, and another, and another, somehow all of the deficiencies in our competitive position in that business will just get overlooked. Well they won't. This is a business, not just a building!
Trying to make a successful convention business here would be about like trying to build a successful snow removal business. No demand, no business. We've tried to artificially create the demand and it hasn't worked.
Its deeper than that. All of these things should be designed to feed off of each other. There are cities out there that don't have a huge number of airline flights a day that have been successful at making convention centers a part of vibrant downtown environment. Simply put, everything revolves around connectivity and clustering complementing uses within a compact setting.
On a macro level, DT Jax was economically anchored by the transportation industry (maritime & railroad). The connectivity of these two economic anchors created opportunities for complementing uses (manufacturing, distribution, wholesale). With the amount of people living in the area and employed in these industries (all within a compact setting), retail, dining, public market and hospitality uses became viable. Add them up and you have a vibrant walkable community that people want to spend time in. However, within this environment and on a micro level, the grand old hotels that hosted conventions during DT's heyday were also designed with connectivity and clustering of similar uses within their walls. For example, not only were the George Washington and Robert Meyer in the heart of this walkable vibrant environment, they also had retail, dining and hotel rooms all designed and set up to feed off of each other.
Today, we have a subsidized convention center hotel over a mile away from the exhibition hall, which happens to be in a train station. In short, we've replaced urbanism with suburbanism in DT and wonder why things don't work despite the hundreds of millions we've spent in the area. We've screwed up things on so many levels over the years, we could make a bestseller on how to destroy a city without nuclear warfare. No matter what the subject is (ex. convention center, parks, mass transit, etc.), we're going to have to make the concepts of connectivity, complementing and clustering within a compact setting the top priority.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 14, 2011, 11:45:50 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on January 14, 2011, 11:29:05 AM
QuoteGet where I'm going with this? What's the point in putting a $10k stereo into a car that doesn't run? The convention center and all of the similar ideas that are floated here locally are a moot point, because we have a dead downtown. These kind of things will never work until the city is functional by itself first.
To create a functional city, you have to locate things in a manner that breed that type of environment. Our downtown doesn't work because of a lack of connectivity and clustering complementing uses together in a compact setting. Part of relocating the convention center to the current courthouse site is the act of clustering and putting complementing uses together to create synergy and foot traffic (the things essential for a vibrant downtown). A convention center hotel (Hyatt), entertainment (Bay Street/Florida Theater/river), retail/dining (Landing) are all uses that an exhibition hall could complement. Considering the current courthouse site is within immediate walking distance of these existing subsidized uses, it makes sense to arrange them in a manner to where they can truly feed off each other and generate foot traffic. The other side of this discussion is that the transportation element. To properly revive this economic engine in downtown, the convention center needs to vacate the Prime Osborn site. So this puts us in an either/or position. (A) Relocate in a manner that better utilizes our existing investments, events and urban context, which allows for the return of transportation downtown or (B) call it quits and get out the convention game altogether, thus potentially ruining the other struggling investments we're already subsidizing.
I don't think calling it quits on the convention business would have any effect on anything else, it's not like we have any convention visitors to speak of anyway, is it? And regarding clustering, you and I totally agree. My point here is that you can cluster 5 buggy-whip factories, 10 Asbestos plants, maybe throw in a couple aluminum cookware factories and a snake oil store, and then tie it all together with some restaurants serving calf's brains and Beondegi (edible silkworms) and hell you could even throw in a streetcar, and it won't accomplish anything except wasting money.
On the other hand, if you cluster light/medium industrial employers, supporting commercial activity, residents, infrastructure, and affordable housing and transportation, well that's a whole different story. I understand the concept of clustering, but it only goes so far if the underlying things being clustered don't work in the local environment.
As long as you're employing a ton of people in a compact setting, you'll create a decent district with both examples. One may not be upscale but the foot traffic generated will create business opportunities for complementing and supporting uses.
QuoteWe need to work on regenerating a sustainable and functional organic local economy in our dead downtown before a convention center or any of these other stale pies in the sky are ever going to work down there. Lake, people want something to do when they get here. "Build it and they will come" doesn't work unless there's some reason for them to come aside from just a building. Nobody will ride in a broken car, no matter how nice the stereo is. The real problems need to be addressed first.
I agree. We need to do a lot of things. However, we aren't starting from scratch. Your car might be broken because your tires are sitting on the other side of the garage. So a solution might be to properly install the tires and enjoy the stereo. Many things will have to be done in conjunction with one another, giving the current landscape. The key is having and following an overall plan/vision and getting creative to take advantage of all opportunities when they present themselves.
Quote from: thelakelander on January 14, 2011, 12:01:57 PM
Today, we have a subsidized convention center hotel over a mile away from the exhibition hall, which happens to be in a train station. In short, we've replaced urbanism with suburbanism in DT and wonder why things don't work despite the hundreds of millions we've spent in the area. We've screwed up things on so many levels over the years, we could make a bestseller on how to destroy a city without nuclear warfare. No matter what the subject is (ex. convention center, parks, mass transit, etc.), we're going to have to make the concepts of connectivity, complementing and clustering within a compact setting the top priority.
+1
I know this is heresy to you planners, but I agree with your assessment of how downtown died, we de-clustered everything and ran off the economic engines that employed people (shipping, industrial supply and manufacturing, corporate employers, destroyed all the housing stock within miles of downtown, removed most public transit, etc., etc., ad nauseum) frankly it would have been stupefying if our downtown HADN'T died.
But now that we are where we are, the money needs to be spent on reinjecting affordable housing, enticing corporate and industrial employers to relocate there, and rebuilding public transit connectivity. In short, we need to focus resources on getting people back down there, and the commercial infrastructure (restaurants, drycleaners, stores, etc.) that go where people are. That is priority #1.
Until that is all accomplished, all this convention center amounts to is putting a $10k stereo in a broken car instead of rebuilding the engine. Dog Walker is 110% correct, we don't have a snowball's chance in hell of anything like that working here until out downtown is no longer a broken car sitting on 4 flat tires. It isn't very complicated, and actually boils back down to my allegorical example that I'll repeat one more time; Nobody will ride in a broken car, no matter how nice the stereo is.
Quote from: thelakelander on January 14, 2011, 12:10:01 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 14, 2011, 11:45:50 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on January 14, 2011, 11:29:05 AM
QuoteGet where I'm going with this? What's the point in putting a $10k stereo into a car that doesn't run? The convention center and all of the similar ideas that are floated here locally are a moot point, because we have a dead downtown. These kind of things will never work until the city is functional by itself first.
To create a functional city, you have to locate things in a manner that breed that type of environment. Our downtown doesn't work because of a lack of connectivity and clustering complementing uses together in a compact setting. Part of relocating the convention center to the current courthouse site is the act of clustering and putting complementing uses together to create synergy and foot traffic (the things essential for a vibrant downtown). A convention center hotel (Hyatt), entertainment (Bay Street/Florida Theater/river), retail/dining (Landing) are all uses that an exhibition hall could complement. Considering the current courthouse site is within immediate walking distance of these existing subsidized uses, it makes sense to arrange them in a manner to where they can truly feed off each other and generate foot traffic. The other side of this discussion is that the transportation element. To properly revive this economic engine in downtown, the convention center needs to vacate the Prime Osborn site. So this puts us in an either/or position. (A) Relocate in a manner that better utilizes our existing investments, events and urban context, which allows for the return of transportation downtown or (B) call it quits and get out the convention game altogether, thus potentially ruining the other struggling investments we're already subsidizing.
I don't think calling it quits on the convention business would have any effect on anything else, it's not like we have any convention visitors to speak of anyway, is it? And regarding clustering, you and I totally agree. My point here is that you can cluster 5 buggy-whip factories, 10 Asbestos plants, maybe throw in a couple aluminum cookware factories and a snake oil store, and then tie it all together with some restaurants serving calf's brains and Beondegi (edible silkworms) and hell you could even throw in a streetcar, and it won't accomplish anything except wasting money.
On the other hand, if you cluster light/medium industrial employers, supporting commercial activity, residents, infrastructure, and affordable housing and transportation, well that's a whole different story. I understand the concept of clustering, but it only goes so far if the underlying things being clustered don't work in the local environment.
As long as you're employing a ton of people in a compact setting, you'll create a decent district with both examples. One may not be upscale but the foot traffic generated will create business opportunities for complementing and supporting uses.
QuoteWe need to work on regenerating a sustainable and functional organic local economy in our dead downtown before a convention center or any of these other stale pies in the sky are ever going to work down there. Lake, people want something to do when they get here. "Build it and they will come" doesn't work unless there's some reason for them to come aside from just a building. Nobody will ride in a broken car, no matter how nice the stereo is. The real problems need to be addressed first.
I agree. We need to do a lot of things. However, we aren't starting from scratch. Your car might be broken because your tires are sitting on the other side of the garage. So a solution might be to properly install the tires and enjoy the stereo. Many things will have to be done in conjunction with one another, giving the current landscape. The key is having and following an overall plan/vision and getting creative to take advantage of all opportunities when they present themselves.
That sounds nice, but we don't the money to fix the car at once, and in this case the car can't be fixed overnight. Rebuilding a functioning economy in our dead downtown will probably take 5+ years if we started today. Which considering the current administration, we're not starting today.
Do you disagree that, in the current state of downtown, a convention center is not the best use of funds, or that the convention center is about 99.99999% likely to be another total failure without all of the aforementioned pieces that are necessary to attract visitors to that facility? If you and I agree that conventions don't want to visit a dead city and that the economy needs to be rebuilt downtown before that will ever be successful, then I'm not understanding why we don't agree that whatever funds we're discussing spending on a hundred-million-dollar stereo for our broken car needs to be spent on fixing the engine and we can revisit the stereo later. Nobody will ride in a broken car, no matter how nice the stereo is. The problem is really exactly that simple.
Instead of subsidizing affordable housing and tricking employers to relocate, we need to stop looking at DT as an isolated environment and market/build it up with the urban core in general. With that in mind, the key to affordability is to reconnect the DT core with surrounding core neighborhoods. For example, a Brooklyn, LaVilla or New Springfield can become districts where market rate affordable housing opportunities can exist with residents being connected to the rest of the city via reliable fixed mass transit (think DC's version of Columbia Heights). Outside of that, focus should be giving to taking better advantage of what is already in DT, building around anchors that won't relocate (ex. medical, education) and bringing elements of the transportation and maritime related industries back within a compact setting. If we can do these things, we'll find that many issues discussed here will take care of themselves.
Looking at the design of WWII military bases might give some insight to what you have just said. A core function, the particular military mission, was surrounded or at least developed as a crescent, by the infrastructure to support the mission. It included everything possible and kept it as compact as possible. If you wanted a supermarket - there it was; a bowling ally - there it was; a restaurant or bistro or two (not the chow hall) - there it was; entertainment - there it was.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 14, 2011, 12:17:13 PM
That sounds nice, but we don't the money to fix the car at once, and in this case the car can't be fixed overnight. Rebuilding a functioning economy in our dead downtown will probably take 5+ years if we started today. Which considering the current administration, we're not starting today.
Long term rebuilding will take +10 if we started today. However, we're still not starting from scratch. With a little connectivity, things that don't work today can work overnight. Also, we can rebuild without immediately spending millions. Things like eliminating hostile policy changes don't require much capital. Also, taking advantage of public/private partnerships is a great way to move forward on many items we assume can only happen with 100% public capital.
QuoteDo you disagree that, in the current state of downtown, a convention center is not the best use of funds, or that the convention center is about 99.99999% likely to be another total failure without all of the aforementioned pieces that are necessary to attract visitors to that facility?
Orlando, Vegas, Mobile, Birmingham aside, I see there being a benefit to the vibrancy of the Northbank area if we just picked up the Prime Osborn in its current state today and dropped it next to the Hyatt. That benefit is connectivity and clustering compact uses within a compact setting. I see such a move as a great positive for places like the Landing, Hyatt, Northbank Riverwalk and Bay Street because of the synergy generated by connectivity.
With that said, a new convention center would not be my top priority but I see no harm in finding public/private opportunities to get it relocated to the courthouse site, which would then free up the old terminal to be used for what it was originally built for.
QuoteIf you and I agree that conventions don't want to visit a dead city and that the economy needs to be rebuilt downtown before that will ever be successful, then I'm not understanding why we don't agree that whatever funds we're discussing spending on a hundred-million-dollar stereo for our broken car needs to be spent on fixing the engine and we can revisit the stereo later. Nobody will ride in a broken car, no matter how nice the stereo is. The problem is really exactly that simple.
My point with DT is even in its current state, it has assets. What's considered dead now can easily turn around overnight when the proper complementing uses are placed adjacent to it. So over all, I agree that it will take decades to truly transform DT. However, pockets of vibrant street life can be created fairly quickly if the right uses are placed next to others.
The transportation issue adds an extra element to the discussion. You can't discuss the convention situation locally without including it.
9. What is more important to the future of Jacksonville, the Prime Osborn as a convention center or a transportation center?
10. Assuming bringing transportation back to the Jacksonville terminal is more important, how does that impact the convention center discussion/timing?
Quote from: thelakelander on January 14, 2011, 12:31:27 PM
Instead of subsidizing affordable housing and tricking employers to relocate, we need to stop looking at DT as an isolated environment and market/build it up with the urban core in general. With that in mind, the key to affordability is to reconnect the DT core with surrounding core neighborhoods. For example, a Brooklyn, LaVilla or New Springfield can become districts where market rate affordable housing opportunities can exist with residents being connected to the rest of the city via reliable fixed mass transit (think DC's version of Columbia Heights). Outside of that, focus should be giving to taking better advantage of what is already in DT, building around anchors that won't relocate (ex. medical, education) and bringing elements of the transportation and maritime related industries back within a compact setting. If we can do these things, we'll find that many issues discussed here will take care of themselves.
Well, yeah, that's really the problem here. We demolished LaVilla, Brooklyn, Sugar Hill, etc., we basically got rid of all affordable housing within a couple miles of downtown. We also ran off most of the industrial and large commercial tenants, and all the smaller commerce pulled up their tents and left after there were no longer any people down there to serve. Naturally, the hardly-surprising result is that it's completely dead and all we have to show for it is some pretty looking empty buildings. The last thing we need is another one.
I don't see what a convention center is going to do to correct that problem. Why not a Uranium mine instead? I mean, if we're just going to build random business-related structures to serve industries that we can't compete in, then why stop at a convention center? Hell, maybe we can cluster the Uranium mine next to Dog Walker's snow-removal company.
Wouldn't it be a better idea to take the same money and redevelop Brooklyn, LaVilla, Sugar Hill, etc., into affordable housing and connect downtown via streetcar with Riverside, Springfield, and San Marco? After watching the courthouse odyssey, we could probably do all that and have a couple hundred mil left over vs. what it would take for us to build a convention center.
A convention center will be a flop, because it does nothing to address these problems, which aren't fixable through architecture. It's a business problem. The convention center won't do anything one way or the other to address any of this, and it will fail because nobody wants to attend conventions in a dead city where they roll up the sidewalks at 2pm. Again, we need to fix the engine before we bother dumping a hundred-million-dollar stereo into this broken car. If it can't go from point-A to point-B, nobody is going to use it regardless of how nice the stereo is.
Quote from: thelakelander on January 14, 2011, 01:41:34 PM
The transportation issue adds an extra element to the discussion. You can't discuss the convention situation locally without including it.
9. What is more important to the future of Jacksonville, the Prime Osborn as a convention center or a transportation center?
10. Assuming bringing transportation back to the Jacksonville terminal is more important, how does that impact the convention center discussion/timing?
Of course it impacts it, this is all tied together because there is only so much appetite for taxpayer-funded projects, especially when they so regularly turn into disasters. There is only so much money to go around. In this case, taking the convention center money and instead using it to bring passenger rail back to the Terminal would be a far better use that would actually address some of the root problems downtown by bringing people back down there on a regular basis.
One-trick ponies like convention centers don't stimulate the same type of development as a rail-station does because every business owner knows you can't base your success on visitors that are here for a day or two and leave, unless you're something like Orlando or Vegas which we will never be. There is such a long history of faulure with convention centers across the country, that I bet we won't gain a single new business as a result of building one here, excepting whatever catering or restaurant concessions we have to subsidize inside the building as taxpayers.
No business owner is dumb enough to ignore the question about what happens the other 364 days a year after the convention leaves, when there is still no functioning economy downtown. A train station is a different animal, because it brings people in on regular schedules, day, after day, after day, after day, it doesn't just bring in 10,000 people one day and then nothing the next. You can base a business on steady customer flow, not on sporadic and unpredictable customer flow.
This is why these architecture-based solutions to these problems never work, there is this whole other alternate universe that nobody ever considers, which is the actual business aspect of these things.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 14, 2011, 01:55:58 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on January 14, 2011, 12:31:27 PM
Instead of subsidizing affordable housing and tricking employers to relocate, we need to stop looking at DT as an isolated environment and market/build it up with the urban core in general. With that in mind, the key to affordability is to reconnect the DT core with surrounding core neighborhoods. For example, a Brooklyn, LaVilla or New Springfield can become districts where market rate affordable housing opportunities can exist with residents being connected to the rest of the city via reliable fixed mass transit (think DC's version of Columbia Heights). Outside of that, focus should be giving to taking better advantage of what is already in DT, building around anchors that won't relocate (ex. medical, education) and bringing elements of the transportation and maritime related industries back within a compact setting. If we can do these things, we'll find that many issues discussed here will take care of themselves.
Well, yeah, that's really the problem here. We demolished LaVilla, Brooklyn, Sugar Hill, etc., we basically got rid of all affordable housing within a couple miles of downtown. We also ran off most of the industrial and large commercial tenants, and all the smaller commerce pulled up their tents and left after there were no longer any people down there to serve. Naturally, the hardly-surprising result is that it's completely dead and all we have to show for it is some pretty looking empty buildings. The last thing we need is another one.
I don't see what a convention center is going to do to correct that problem. Why not a Uranium mine instead? I mean, if we're just going to build random business-related structures to serve industries that we can't compete in, then why stop at a convention center? Hell, maybe we can cluster the Uranium mine next to Dog Walker's snow-removal company.
You're putting a little too much thought into this. No one (or at least I) has stated that a convention center is going to cure downtown's ills. Neither is moving Amtrak back to the Prime Osborn or turning the Shipyards back into industrial use. There is no one trick pony to rebuild what's been ripped to shreads over the last few decades. However, what a relocated convention center (assuming its the courthouse site) will do is free up space to restore the terminal for transportation use and place complementing uses together (Hyatt, exhibition hall, Landing, Bay Street), allowing them to grow and feed off each other.
QuoteWouldn't it be a better idea to take the same money and redevelop Brooklyn, LaVilla, Sugar Hill, etc., into affordable housing and connect downtown via streetcar with Riverside, Springfield, and San Marco? After watching the courthouse odyssey, we could probably do all that and have a couple hundred mil left over vs. what it would take for us to build a convention center.
Funding would/should come from different sources. Thus, I don't buy the either/or argument. The mobility fee along with other transportation funding mechanisms should give us the opportunity to move forward with fixed transit. At the exact same time, we could be revising policy to allow for a less hostile environment for small business. Perhaps a public (COJ providing the land)/private partnership will help faciliate movement on a "mixed-use" convention facility, if desired? Anyway, all of these things can happen at the same time, imo.
Quote from: thelakelander on January 14, 2011, 02:13:23 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 14, 2011, 01:55:58 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on January 14, 2011, 12:31:27 PM
Instead of subsidizing affordable housing and tricking employers to relocate, we need to stop looking at DT as an isolated environment and market/build it up with the urban core in general. With that in mind, the key to affordability is to reconnect the DT core with surrounding core neighborhoods. For example, a Brooklyn, LaVilla or New Springfield can become districts where market rate affordable housing opportunities can exist with residents being connected to the rest of the city via reliable fixed mass transit (think DC's version of Columbia Heights). Outside of that, focus should be giving to taking better advantage of what is already in DT, building around anchors that won't relocate (ex. medical, education) and bringing elements of the transportation and maritime related industries back within a compact setting. If we can do these things, we'll find that many issues discussed here will take care of themselves.
Well, yeah, that's really the problem here. We demolished LaVilla, Brooklyn, Sugar Hill, etc., we basically got rid of all affordable housing within a couple miles of downtown. We also ran off most of the industrial and large commercial tenants, and all the smaller commerce pulled up their tents and left after there were no longer any people down there to serve. Naturally, the hardly-surprising result is that it's completely dead and all we have to show for it is some pretty looking empty buildings. The last thing we need is another one.
I don't see what a convention center is going to do to correct that problem. Why not a Uranium mine instead? I mean, if we're just going to build random business-related structures to serve industries that we can't compete in, then why stop at a convention center? Hell, maybe we can cluster the Uranium mine next to Dog Walker's snow-removal company.
You're putting a little too much thought into this. No one (or at least I) has stated that a convention center is going to cure downtown's ills. Neither is moving Amtrak back to the Prime Osborn or turning the Shipyards back into industrial use. There is no one trick pony to rebuild what's been ripped to shreads over the last few decades. However, what a relocated convention center (assuming its the courthouse site) will do is free up space to restore the terminal for transportation use and place complementing uses together (Hyatt, exhibition hall, Landing, Bay Street), allowing them to grow and feed off each other.
QuoteWouldn't it be a better idea to take the same money and redevelop Brooklyn, LaVilla, Sugar Hill, etc., into affordable housing and connect downtown via streetcar with Riverside, Springfield, and San Marco? After watching the courthouse odyssey, we could probably do all that and have a couple hundred mil left over vs. what it would take for us to build a convention center.
Funding would/should come from different sources. Thus, I don't buy the either/or argument. The mobility fee along with other transportation funding mechanisms should give us the opportunity to move forward with fixed transit. At the exact same time, we could be revising policy to allow for a less hostile environment for small business. Perhaps a public (COJ providing the land)/private partnership will help faciliate movement on a convention facility, if desired? Anyway, all of these things can happen at the same time, imo.
"mixed-use"
Well, if push came to shove, and the only way we could move the rail center back to the Terminal was by wasting money on a silly convention center, then I'd actually be in favor of the convention center. Don't get me wrong, it won't do a thing to generate growth downtown and it's still going to be a total flop with no more success than the present one, but if that's what it takes to kill this brewing Airport-cum-Railroad / Amtrak boondoggle and bring that activity back downtown, then I would be in favor of it and would view that as just the cost of doing business on the rail station.
That's how strongly I feel about the rail station. If you look at functional cities, they stand on 3 legs. Residential, Commericial, and Transportation. We knocked out two of the legs (Transportation and Residential) and then everyone ran around being consternated for 40 years trying to figure out why the last remaining leg (commercial) didn't hold the stool up and wound up disappearing as well.
Bringing the rail station and streetcar connections to the populated neighborhood back to downtown would partially restore one leg. The redevelopment of all the vacant affordable residential areas we demolished back into affordable residential areas will restore the second leg. The commercial leg will come back on its own, that just follows where the people are. It is that simple.
yes we can dream.
I am a fan of some kind of connectivity. I am afraid this will be a dead zone forever and we have way too many of those in the downtown. I really wish the existing space could become something.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 14, 2011, 02:21:41 PM
Well, if push came to shove, and the only way we could move the rail center back to the Terminal was by wasting money on a silly convention center, then I'd actually be in favor of the convention center. Don't get me wrong, it won't do a thing to generate growth downtown and it's still going to be a total flop with no more success than the present one, but if that's what it takes to kill this brewing Airport-cum-Railroad / Amtrak boondoggle and bring that activity back downtown, then I would be in favor of it and would view that as just the cost of doing business on the rail station.
That's how strongly I feel about the rail station. If you look at functional cities, they stand on 3 legs. Residential, Commericial, and Transportation. We knocked out two of the legs (Transportation and Residential) and then everyone ran around being consternated for 40 years trying to figure out why the last remaining leg (commercial) didn't hold the stool up and wound up disappearing as well.
Bringing the rail station and streetcar connections to the populated neighborhood back to downtown would partially restore one leg. The redevelopment of all the vacant affordable residential areas we demolished back into affordable residential areas will restore the second leg. The commercial leg will come back on its own, that just follows where the people are. It is that simple.
Chris, I would likewise support a new convention center IF a PROPERLY DESIGNED AND FUNCTIONAL intermodal station moved into Osborne (not the nightmare fiasco JTA is currently planning) AND a new convention center was built likewise, WELL DESIGNED AND FUNCTIONAL.
Unfortunately, the City has given us no indications that they have the resources to do so (just see the Courthouse and Monroe Street threads). As I have said before, these decisions should really be under the auspices of a downtown czar/authority that has long term durability and authority to see the vision adhered to and that is coherently executed. JTA, Visit Jacksonville, JEDC, Downtown Vision, FDOT, CoJ Planning, etc. - all working independently and disjointedly aren't going to get the job done right.
At present, until downtown planning is unified and somewhat depoliticized, I find it hard to support either of these projects or any others that might be suggested.
Yeah stjr you're right about JTA's brewing transit boondoggle plans. They're a whole new level of asinine...
It's just more crap that won't work. The main station is laughable actually, they're going to spend all that money just to have it be obsolete the day it opens because it doesn't have enough tracks and is poorly laid out. That's one main reason I'm in favor of the closing of the convention center and reopening it as a rail terminal, it was designed by people who knew a lot more about passenger rail than JTA and is already a successful design. It takes JTA's roomful of monkeys with typewriters (or plotter machines in this case) out of the equation, which is bound to massively increase the chances of success. I said to Ocklawaha at the time, they must really be working hard to screw it up that bad.
My ultimate fear is that the convention center stays (its either relocation or stays, I don't think closing is an option) where it is today and JTA is allowed to build the transportation center in the layout they designed. If this happens, we will have invested hundreds of millions on two inadequate projects.
If anyone cares, it cost about $25 million to develop the old terminal into the Prime Osborn Center. There are also several articles, spanning a couple of decades in the library's special collections department, about it not being the right site and about the Adams Mark doing more damage than good.
Quote from: thelakelander on January 16, 2011, 03:29:53 PM
If anyone cares, it cost about $25 million to develop the old terminal into the Prime Osborn Center. There are also several articles, spanning a couple of decades in the library's special collections department, about it not being the right site and about the Adams Mark doing more damage than good.
What's a ballpark on what it would cost to undo the convention center and turn it back into a train station?
Would have to be more cost effective than this $100mm JTA mess wouldn't it?
Quote from: thelakelander on January 14, 2011, 12:44:17 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 14, 2011, 12:17:13 PM
That sounds nice, but we don't the money to fix the car at once, and in this case the car can't be fixed overnight. Rebuilding a functioning economy in our dead downtown will probably take 5+ years if we started today. Which considering the current administration, we're not starting today.
Long term rebuilding will take +10 if we started today. However, we're still not starting from scratch. With a little connectivity, things that don't work today can work overnight. Also, we can rebuild without immediately spending millions. Things like eliminating hostile policy changes don't require much capital. Also, taking advantage of public/private partnerships is a great way to move forward on many items we assume can only happen with 100% public capital.
QuoteDo you disagree that, in the current state of downtown, a convention center is not the best use of funds, or that the convention center is about 99.99999% likely to be another total failure without all of the aforementioned pieces that are necessary to attract visitors to that facility?
Orlando, Vegas, Mobile, Birmingham aside, I see there being a benefit to the vibrancy of the Northbank area if we just picked up the Prime Osborn in its current state today and dropped it next to the Hyatt. That benefit is connectivity and clustering compact uses within a compact setting. I see such a move as a great positive for places like the Landing, Hyatt, Northbank Riverwalk and Bay Street because of the synergy generated by connectivity.
With that said, a new convention center would not be my top priority but I see no harm in finding public/private opportunities to get it relocated to the courthouse site, which would then free up the old terminal to be used for what it was originally built for.
QuoteIf you and I agree that conventions don't want to visit a dead city and that the economy needs to be rebuilt downtown before that will ever be successful, then I'm not understanding why we don't agree that whatever funds we're discussing spending on a hundred-million-dollar stereo for our broken car needs to be spent on fixing the engine and we can revisit the stereo later. Nobody will ride in a broken car, no matter how nice the stereo is. The problem is really exactly that simple.
My point with DT is even in its current state, it has assets. What's considered dead now can easily turn around overnight when the proper complementing uses are placed adjacent to it. So over all, I agree that it will take decades to truly transform DT. However, pockets of vibrant street life can be created fairly quickly if the right uses are placed next to others.
This. I mean, first and foremost people need to get this, "jeez, there's 12 million things to fix" mentality out of there minds. Because guess what? They're NEVER all going to get fixed. Go to NYC sometime, there's a trillion problems. But they take what works and they keep making those things better while at the same time trying to fix the parts that don't. Like anything else in this world it's all about figuring out your strengths and working to accentuate them. If the courthouse and annex were leveled and private investment brought retail/restaurants/bars in its place while at the same time the parking lot was turned into say partial greenspace with a nice riverwalk and maybe some more of the former how much would just that right there drastically change a lot of the northbank persona? A LOT. And that's not 10 years, that's not 5. Should be more like 3, tops. In short not a long time. Get one area that is thought of as hip, fun, and enjoyable to walk around and build from there.
Quote from: stephendare on January 16, 2011, 11:09:25 PM
Quote
If the courthouse and annex were leveled and private investment brought retail/restaurants/bars in its place while at the same time the parking lot was turned into say partial greenspace with a nice riverwalk and maybe some more of the former how much would just that right there drastically change a lot of the northbank persona? A LOT. And that's not 10 years, that's not 5. Should be more like 3, tops. In short not a long time. Get one area that is thought of as hip, fun, and enjoyable to walk around and build from there.
Thats a complex set of ifs and ands that have to be pulled of simultaneously in order to make one specific outcome work isnt it?
Of course the biggest part of that is the private investment part. Like the only consequential part in fact.
Why would it make sense to tear all of that stuff down without a solid offer on the table for replacement use and value?
It wouldn't, nobody said it would. And why do these events need to be pulled off simultaneously? I am simply suggesting a not so hard to imagine hypothetical playing out that could turn one piece of the northbank into a district for dining and entertainment, (which is already located there in a small amount). And I am presuming the hopefully private investors would be the ones tearing down the structures after purchase.
Quote from: stephendare on January 16, 2011, 11:23:16 PM
I drew the ifs, and, buts, and 'at the same times' from your post, future jax.
And I'm just trying to make a point about this kind of thinking. Anything that has three or more unknowns or uncontrollable factors is unworkable, ive found.
I don't disagree with the vision at all, but I am interested in how you think waterfront green space contributes to a vibrant downtown.
Partial, i.e. a little? Some kind of 'public square' along the river along with dining, nightlife, perhaps some residential mixed in and next to.....Basically, I think it can contribute as one piece of the puzzle. Not
the puzzle itself. Do you not?
There's a ton of foot traffic in DT that's currently hidden from the streets. A quick, affordable turn around would be the change of public policy to allow more signage , outdoor seating or better integration with the sidewalks from businesses already operating in DT. In other words, expose what already exists. This is something that can change the face of a corridor like Laura Street in less than 6 months with minimal investment.
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2010-nov-creating-downtown-vibrancy-by-exposing-secret-retail
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/594975038_2AvC4-M.jpg)
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-5707-p1120008.JPG)
Q. What do the businesses below lack that the ones above don't?
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/1077843050_w9JJs-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/785751028_SXjfF-M.jpg)
A. Sidewalk integration.
We don't need parks, aquariums, a 1000 condos at the Shipyards or a Macy's for this. Just policy change giving businesses the ability to proper expose themselves to potential customers.
I take it that there is something in our ordinance code that prevents restaurants from using public sidewalks? Forget singles and doubles, changing that is a bases-loaded walk. Score a run without a swing of the bat.
If we want to swing the bat a few times, then we need to widen our sidewalks downtown and make the travel lanes for cars smaller. I'm not talking about ripping up streets, just bumping each sidewalk out 2 to 4 feet (depending on how many lanes we have to make narrower). There is no reason a vehicle travel lane for a street with 20 mph speed can't be 10 feet wide instead of 12 feet. It would also help to slow the cars down and make the sidewalks more comfortable.
I'm certain that none of these ideas are new and probably exist in all 100 hundred of the previous 'vision' plans for downtown.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 16, 2011, 03:49:06 PM
What's a ballpark on what it would cost to undo the convention center and turn it back into a train station?
Would have to be more cost effective than this $100mm JTA mess wouldn't it?
Sanford's new $10 million Amtrak station just opened in October 2010.
(http://www.greatamericanstations.com/station-news/SanfordStation.jpg)
(http://media.myfoxorlando.com/photogalleries/101810amtrak-autotrain/1/imgLg/autotrain_0000.jpg)
(http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/2010/Auto-train-station-1-1018.jpg)
- A new Amtrak station is open near Orlando for the more than 244,000 annual Amtrak Auto Train passengers. At about 10,000 square feet, the station in Sanford seats 600 passengers and is about four times larger than its predecessor.
- In addition to the larger passenger lounge, the modern structure contains a ticket counter, café, restrooms, and a gift shop.
Continue reading on Examiner.com: Amtrak opens new Sanford Auto Train station - National Train Travel | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/train-travel-in-national/amtrak-opens-new-sanford-auto-train-station#ixzz1BIE1lr2PWe already have a structure, so there is no need to build a new one. Temporary rail operations should be able to take advantage of the convention center's concourse and a former waiting room within the existing structure. While some track and platform improvements will be needed, its hard imagine this adding up to half of what it cost Sanford to construct a new modern station from scratch.
Quote from: dougskiles on January 17, 2011, 06:59:57 AM
If we want to swing the bat a few times, then we need to widen our sidewalks downtown and make the travel lanes for cars smaller. I'm not talking about ripping up streets, just bumping each sidewalk out 2 to 4 feet (depending on how many lanes we have to make narrower). There is no reason a vehicle travel lane for a street with 20 mph speed can't be 10 feet wide instead of 12 feet. It would also help to slow the cars down and make the sidewalks more comfortable.
Or just keep the curbs in place and when the time comes to resurface the street, add bike lanes or diagonal parking.
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-8080-p1170741.JPG)
In downtown St. Petersburg, a lane was taken out and converted into a separated bike trail.(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/New-Orleans-April-2010/P1330933/832380384_8KBrM-M.jpg)
In New Orleans, this street is an example of simply adding in bike lanes when the time to resurface comes along. If we can coordinate this with public works, we could consider this as another bases loaded walk.
Quote from: stephendare on January 16, 2011, 11:57:55 PM
Quote from: futurejax on January 16, 2011, 11:38:16 PM
Quote from: stephendare on January 16, 2011, 11:23:16 PM
I drew the ifs, and, buts, and 'at the same times' from your post, future jax.
And I'm just trying to make a point about this kind of thinking. Anything that has three or more unknowns or uncontrollable factors is unworkable, ive found.
I don't disagree with the vision at all, but I am interested in how you think waterfront green space contributes to a vibrant downtown.
Partial, i.e. a little? Some kind of 'public square' along the river along with dining, nightlife, perhaps some residential mixed in and next to.....Basically, I think it can contribute as one piece of the puzzle. Not the puzzle itself. Do you not?
I don't know, really. Why do you think it would? What would it contribute that friendship park, the two riverwalks, the landing and metropolitan do not?
I wouldn't think of the Landing as green space. To me Metro park is at least for the time being a little out of bounds; there's no foot traffic down there. Friendship is across the river. I just think if there was say a little greenspace (i'm thinking a decent swatch, not anywhere near the entire area). Located where say the gigantic courthouse parking lot was right now with various commerce around it and along the river it could give an easy focal point of public space on the northbank for people to meet up, hang out, (
watch an outdoor concert, have a picnic, am I dreaming?) and then visit these hypothetical new establishments nearby and then along Bay Street.
Thinking out of the box, how about a mixed use convention center is a green roof? Retail/dining facing the river & Bay Street, exhibition hall in center of site with integrated parking and green roof for additional public space.
Quotewith various commerce around it and along the river it could give an easy focal point of public space on the northbank for people to meet up, hang out, (watch an outdoor concert, have a picnic, am I dreaming?) and then visit these hypothetical new establishments nearby and then along Bay Street.
Further thinking about this, you could also just fix up the Landing's courtyard and the green space in front of the TUPAC and achieve the same thing for millions less.
Quote from: stephendare on January 17, 2011, 09:29:30 AM
Why doesnt this happen spontaneously at friendship, metropolitan park and along the riverwalk?
No connectivity between complementing uses and an ability to ignore PPS's 10 principles for designing a successful public space.
Quote from: stephendare on January 17, 2011, 09:29:30 AM
Why doesnt this happen spontaneously at friendship, metropolitan park and along the riverwalk?
One reason it doesn't happen at Metropolitan Park is because it is always locked. There have been several times when I've been out with my family looking for a place to just hang out on a big lawn and watch the kids play. Metropolitan Park would be great for that, but you can't get in. I'm not sure what is about this city and it's love for fences and gates.
So - there is another 'single' for you. Take down the fence at Metropolitan Park.
Metropolitan Park is also a mile away from the downtown core. Might as well head to Memorial Park in Riverside since both require a car to get to from the core of DT.
Quote from: stephendare on January 17, 2011, 09:29:30 AM
Quote from: futurejax on January 17, 2011, 09:21:08 AM
Quote from: stephendare on January 16, 2011, 11:57:55 PM
Quote from: futurejax on January 16, 2011, 11:38:16 PM
Quote from: stephendare on January 16, 2011, 11:23:16 PM
I drew the ifs, and, buts, and 'at the same times' from your post, future jax.
And I'm just trying to make a point about this kind of thinking. Anything that has three or more unknowns or uncontrollable factors is unworkable, ive found.
I don't disagree with the vision at all, but I am interested in how you think waterfront green space contributes to a vibrant downtown.
Partial, i.e. a little? Some kind of 'public square' along the river along with dining, nightlife, perhaps some residential mixed in and next to.....Basically, I think it can contribute as one piece of the puzzle. Not the puzzle itself. Do you not?
I don't know, really. Why do you think it would? What would it contribute that friendship park, the two riverwalks, the landing and metropolitan do not?
I wouldn't think of the Landing as green space. To me Metro park is at least for the time being a little out of bounds; there's no foot traffic down there. Friendship is across the river. I just think if there was say a little greenspace (i'm thinking a decent swatch, not anywhere near the entire area). Located where say the gigantic courthouse parking lot was right now with various commerce around it and along the river it could give an easy focal point of public space on the northbank for people to meet up, hang out, (watch an outdoor concert, have a picnic, am I dreaming?) and then visit these hypothetical new establishments nearby and then along Bay Street.
Why doesnt this happen spontaneously at friendship, metropolitan park and along the riverwalk?
I don't have
all the answers ;)
but probably mot likely due to the reasons stated in posts above this
Quote from: thelakelander on January 17, 2011, 09:36:38 AM
Thinking out of the box, how about a mixed use convention center is a green roof? Retail/dining facing the river & Bay Street, exhibition hall in center of site with integrated parking and green roof for additional public space.
I like it. I would imagine that a completely 'green' building would help in the attraction of those types of conventions. The opportunity is certainly there for Jacksonville to become the hub of 'green' technology (alternative energy & water quality being the primary focus). We have the natural resources to demonstrate these technologies all around us.
I know, I know, crazy non-sensical dreaming...
Quote from: futurejax on January 17, 2011, 09:43:21 AM
Quote from: stephendare on January 17, 2011, 09:29:30 AM
Quote from: futurejax on January 17, 2011, 09:21:08 AM
Quote from: stephendare on January 16, 2011, 11:57:55 PM
Quote from: futurejax on January 16, 2011, 11:38:16 PM
Quote from: stephendare on January 16, 2011, 11:23:16 PM
I drew the ifs, and, buts, and 'at the same times' from your post, future jax.
And I'm just trying to make a point about this kind of thinking. Anything that has three or more unknowns or uncontrollable factors is unworkable, ive found.
I don't disagree with the vision at all, but I am interested in how you think waterfront green space contributes to a vibrant downtown.
Partial, i.e. a little? Some kind of 'public square' along the river along with dining, nightlife, perhaps some residential mixed in and next to.....Basically, I think it can contribute as one piece of the puzzle. Not the puzzle itself. Do you not?
I don't know, really. Why do you think it would? What would it contribute that friendship park, the two riverwalks, the landing and metropolitan do not?
I wouldn't think of the Landing as green space. To me Metro park is at least for the time being a little out of bounds; there's no foot traffic down there. Friendship is across the river. I just think if there was say a little greenspace (i'm thinking a decent swatch, not anywhere near the entire area). Located where say the gigantic courthouse parking lot was right now with various commerce around it and along the river it could give an easy focal point of public space on the northbank for people to meet up, hang out, (watch an outdoor concert, have a picnic, am I dreaming?) and then visit these hypothetical new establishments nearby and then along Bay Street.
Why doesnt this happen spontaneously at friendship, metropolitan park and along the riverwalk?
I don't have all the answers ;)
but probably mot likely due to the reasons stated in posts above this
Or is it more likely that expecting grass to stimulate economic development might not be so effective?
You can have all the parks downtown you want, they'll sit empty if there are no people there to use them.
^To sum up your last two post, in short.....apply the concepts of connectivity and clustering complementing uses within a compact setting and you'll achieve the vibrancy we've been dreaming about for the last 50 years.
Quote from: stephendare on January 17, 2011, 09:49:44 AM
Of course, in Jacksonville, watch the City make regulations to make all of the above businesses impossible. Watch the simple bike line extension become a public boondoggle that takes 10 years to complete and doesnt work for bikes. Watch the cops find a way to charge bikers for DUI and Dart to close down the fish market because one of the canoers falsely reported drug dealing, watch the parking department install meters for bicycles.
How much of these problems are attributable to the consolidation of Duval County? The needs of the county are so diverse that it becomes impossible to effectively do anything to improve any one particular area.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 17, 2011, 09:48:51 AM
Quote from: futurejax on January 17, 2011, 09:43:21 AM
Quote from: stephendare on January 17, 2011, 09:29:30 AM
Quote from: futurejax on January 17, 2011, 09:21:08 AM
Quote from: stephendare on January 16, 2011, 11:57:55 PM
Quote from: futurejax on January 16, 2011, 11:38:16 PM
Quote from: stephendare on January 16, 2011, 11:23:16 PM
I drew the ifs, and, buts, and 'at the same times' from your post, future jax.
And I'm just trying to make a point about this kind of thinking. Anything that has three or more unknowns or uncontrollable factors is unworkable, ive found.
I don't disagree with the vision at all, but I am interested in how you think waterfront green space contributes to a vibrant downtown.
Partial, i.e. a little? Some kind of 'public square' along the river along with dining, nightlife, perhaps some residential mixed in and next to.....Basically, I think it can contribute as one piece of the puzzle. Not the puzzle itself. Do you not?
I don't know, really. Why do you think it would? What would it contribute that friendship park, the two riverwalks, the landing and metropolitan do not?
I wouldn't think of the Landing as green space. To me Metro park is at least for the time being a little out of bounds; there's no foot traffic down there. Friendship is across the river. I just think if there was say a little greenspace (i'm thinking a decent swatch, not anywhere near the entire area). Located where say the gigantic courthouse parking lot was right now with various commerce around it and along the river it could give an easy focal point of public space on the northbank for people to meet up, hang out, (watch an outdoor concert, have a picnic, am I dreaming?) and then visit these hypothetical new establishments nearby and then along Bay Street.
Why doesnt this happen spontaneously at friendship, metropolitan park and along the riverwalk?
I don't have all the answers ;)
but probably mot likely due to the reasons stated in posts above this
Or is it more likely that expecting grass to stimulate economic development might not be so effective?
You can have all the parks downtown you want, they'll sit empty if there are no people there to use them.
K, and I'm thinking of how to get people to go/stay down there. What are your suggestions for that?
Quote from: dougskiles on January 17, 2011, 09:57:50 AM
How much of these problems are attributable to the consolidation of Duval County? The needs of the county are so diverse that it becomes impossible to effectively do anything to improve any one particular area.
I don't buy the consolidation argument either. Consolidated cities like Nashville, Indianapolis, Lexington and Louisville along with spread out cities like Charlotte, Oklahoma City, Memphis and Columbus prove you can still have a vibrant DT, despite being a community with a variety of interests and neighborhood needs. Over the years, we've spent just as much money in our DT as they have. However, we've found a way to ignore the power of connectivity and clustering within a compact setting while enforcing policies at the same time that limit creativity from taking place within that environment.
Quote from: stephendare on January 17, 2011, 09:49:44 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on January 17, 2011, 09:36:38 AM
Thinking out of the box, how about a mixed use convention center is a green roof? Retail/dining facing the river & Bay Street, exhibition hall in center of site with integrated parking and green roof for additional public space.
Quotewith various commerce around it and along the river it could give an easy focal point of public space on the northbank for people to meet up, hang out, (watch an outdoor concert, have a picnic, am I dreaming?) and then visit these hypothetical new establishments nearby and then along Bay Street.
Further thinking about this, you could also just fix up the Landing's courtyard and the green space in front of the TUPAC and achieve the same thing for millions less.
The River itself is one of the biggest greenspaces that we have, and we simply don't include it in our plans for downtown. Don't get me wrong, Im all for greenspace. I love parks, arboreteums, and all kinds of natural settings. But I think the one design element that we need to plan for above all others is active use and collateral interactivity. For example: Piers marinas, and a huge waterborne fish market. Perhaps an aquatic farm of some sort. Add in a boat rental for the river.
Add an additional dedicated bike lane along the riverwalk that connects Riverside with Downtown. A couple of travel/tour agencies in the same location.
Watch the restaurants open up around the joint because of the access to fresh seafood, boaters at the marina, workers at the aquafarming outfit. customers of the boat rental joint. Watch those restaurants become the destination for the bikeriders. Watch the bikeriders schedule meetups and critical masses using the area as a starting point rather than a destination.
Watch the bike repair shops open up to service the bikeriders.
Watch a couple more bars open, and so on...
This is the kind of thinking that produces working districts and creates vibrancy
Of course, in Jacksonville, watch the City make regulations to make all of the above businesses impossible. Watch the simple bike line extension become a public boondoggle that takes 10 years to complete and doesnt work for bikes. Watch the cops find a way to charge bikers for DUI and Dart to close down the fish market because one of the canoers falsely reported drug dealing, watch the parking department install meters for bicycles.
Love everything you just said here. I guess the $64,000 question is WHY does the city make all of these things so impossible to do? Is there some element that has a monetary stake in seeing that d'town stays asleep for eternity?
^Being nice, it seems we have a tendency to believe downtown can only come back via hundred million dollar one-trick gimmicks. In reality, we'll do better getting out of the way and letting things naturally evolve.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 17, 2011, 09:48:51 AM
Or is it more likely that expecting grass to stimulate economic development might not be so effective?
You can have all the parks downtown you want, they'll sit empty if there are no people there to use them.
don't tell that to St. Louis....their new park has sparked a renaissance downtown.
If you follow the PPS guidelines, almost any public space will attract people.
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 17, 2011, 10:24:17 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 17, 2011, 09:48:51 AM
Or is it more likely that expecting grass to stimulate economic development might not be so effective?
You can have all the parks downtown you want, they'll sit empty if there are no people there to use them.
don't tell that to St. Louis....their new park has sparked a renaissance downtown.
If you follow the PPS guidelines, almost any public space will attract people.
Agreed. However, it can probably be argued that the park isn't the prime attraction. It's just one of the several elements that make the entire urban environment the attraction. The concepts of connectivity and clustering complementing uses within a compact setting clearly applies with this park and the surrounding land uses. Here are a few images I took a couple of months ago.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/St-Louis-August-2010/P1390249/968212129_s7ekF-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/St-Louis-August-2010/P1390271/968212381_3Gwik-M.jpg)
Active spaces within actual park(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/St-Louis-August-2010/P1390274/968212449_wzC9x-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/St-Louis-August-2010/P1390272/968212425_SsrfC-M.jpg)
Retail/Dining within actual park(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/St-Louis-August-2010/P1390287/968212493_gxGnf-M.jpg)
Plaza space for special events to take place within actual park(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/St-Louis-August-2010/P1390295/968212527_zVs2U-M.jpg)
Parks open up to downtown and retail/dining across street.(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/St-Louis-August-2010/P1390343/968212900_vPNEE-M.jpg)
Parks also integrated with cultural uses.Our public spaces won't work until we start to apply some of these same historically successful connectivity and clustering complementing uses within a compact pedestrian oriented setting techniques.
Quote from: futurejax on January 17, 2011, 10:00:39 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 17, 2011, 09:48:51 AM
Quote from: futurejax on January 17, 2011, 09:43:21 AM
Quote from: stephendare on January 17, 2011, 09:29:30 AM
Quote from: futurejax on January 17, 2011, 09:21:08 AM
Quote from: stephendare on January 16, 2011, 11:57:55 PM
Quote from: futurejax on January 16, 2011, 11:38:16 PM
Quote from: stephendare on January 16, 2011, 11:23:16 PM
I drew the ifs, and, buts, and 'at the same times' from your post, future jax.
And I'm just trying to make a point about this kind of thinking. Anything that has three or more unknowns or uncontrollable factors is unworkable, ive found.
I don't disagree with the vision at all, but I am interested in how you think waterfront green space contributes to a vibrant downtown.
Partial, i.e. a little? Some kind of 'public square' along the river along with dining, nightlife, perhaps some residential mixed in and next to.....Basically, I think it can contribute as one piece of the puzzle. Not the puzzle itself. Do you not?
I don't know, really. Why do you think it would? What would it contribute that friendship park, the two riverwalks, the landing and metropolitan do not?
I wouldn't think of the Landing as green space. To me Metro park is at least for the time being a little out of bounds; there's no foot traffic down there. Friendship is across the river. I just think if there was say a little greenspace (i'm thinking a decent swatch, not anywhere near the entire area). Located where say the gigantic courthouse parking lot was right now with various commerce around it and along the river it could give an easy focal point of public space on the northbank for people to meet up, hang out, (watch an outdoor concert, have a picnic, am I dreaming?) and then visit these hypothetical new establishments nearby and then along Bay Street.
Why doesnt this happen spontaneously at friendship, metropolitan park and along the riverwalk?
I don't have all the answers ;)
but probably mot likely due to the reasons stated in posts above this
Or is it more likely that expecting grass to stimulate economic development might not be so effective?
You can have all the parks downtown you want, they'll sit empty if there are no people there to use them.
K, and I'm thinking of how to get people to go/stay down there. What are your suggestions for that?
Well, like I said before, having lived in and visited other large cities with vibrant urban centers, it is immediately obvious (to everyone except COJ) that successful urban areas are like a 3-legged stool, resting on the combination of Residential, Commercial, and Transportation. The rest is fluff, I mean it's nice to have parks or a convention center, but none of that matters without those 3 things because those are the basic legs that support the structure of urban density and without them you'll just have empty parks.
Jacksonville went off the rails in the 1950s and still hasn't come back to sanity yet. If you want to watch it regenerate, then we need to replace what we lost. Which is functional mass transit (Amtrak station in the Prime Osborn, and use streetcars, or extend the skyway, to serve places that are actually occupied, e.g. Riverside, San Marco, Springfield, etc. instead of serving vacant parking lots as it presently does), and affordable housing in the residential areas that Jack Diamond and the other thundertards dumbassedly blew up to build golf courses, offices, hotels, and all the other pies in the sky that never happened. Ironically, actually, when they never happened because of the decline of downtown, which these same idiots caused in the first place.
Wouldn't hurt to get rid of the parking cartel and our meters and asinine enforcement policies, either. Also, encourage maritime industry growth downtown. Get some 50-story glass tower that will be pretty but empty like all the others out of everyone's heads and acknowledge the possibility that the waterfront industrial areas at the former JEA generating station and the shipyards and the current transfer plant by Metro park may well be industrial maritime uses. Zone and encourage the former Lavilla areas as residential, and encourage residential development there immediately.
If COJ just concentrated on this short list, downtown would come back.
Quote from: thelakelander on January 17, 2011, 10:14:11 AM
^Being nice, it seems we have a tendency to believe downtown can only come back via hundred million dollar one-trick gimmicks. In reality, we'll do better getting out of the way and letting things naturally evolve.
+1,000,000
That, friends, is exactly what has plagued downtown for 5 decades. This realization is also the key to the future.