Convention Wisdom
Cities keep squandering money on hotels and meeting facilities.
For two decades, American cities have used public dollars to build convention center spaceâ€"far more than demand warranted. The result has been a gigantic nationwide surplus of empty meeting facilities, struggling convention centers, and vacant hotel rooms (see “The Convention Center Shell Game,†Spring 2004). Given the glut, you’d think that cities would stop. Instead, many are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to expand convention centers and open yet more dazzling hotels, arguing that whatever convention business remains will flow to the places with the fanciest amenities. If this dubious rationale proves wrong and the facilities failâ€"it’s telling that the private sector won’t build them on its ownâ€"taxpayers will wind up on the hook, as usual.
The convention business has been waning for years. Back in 2007, before the current economic slowdown, a report from Destination Marketing Association International was already calling it a “buyer’s market.†It has only worsened since. In 2010, conventions and meetings drew just 86 million attendees, down from 126 million ten years earlier. Meantime, available convention space has steadily increased to 70 million square feet, up from 40 million 20 years ago.
Boston exemplifies double-down madness. The city shelled out $230 million to renovate its convention center in the late 1980s. After the makeover produced virtually no economic bounce, Boston concluded that it needed a new $800 million center, projecting that it would help the city rent some 670,000 extra hotel rooms a year by 2009. The new center, which opened in 2004, fell far short of expectations: the actual number of room rentals that it generated in 2009 was slightly more than 300,000. Now Boston tourism officials are proposing to spend $2 billion to double the center’s size and add a convention hotel, to boot. The officials optimistically predict that the expanded facilities would inject $222 million annually into the local economy, including an extra 140,000 room rentals a year. Despite these bullish projections, officials claim that the hotel needs $200 million in subsidies.
Boston is far from alone. Hoping to help its limping convention center, Baltimore paid $300 million to build a city-owned convention hotel, which opened in 2008. The hotel lost $11 million last year and has barely been able to pay its employees or its debt service. Yet Baltimore is now considering a massive $900 million public-private expansion that would add a downtown arena, another convention hotel, and 400,000 feet of new convention space. The projected cost in public money: $400 million.
Convention-hotel mania has swept Texas, too. Dallas just opened a convention hotel financed with $388 million in Build America Bonds, and Arlington and nearby Irving are both proposing new hotels to boost tourism. These facilities will compete with alternatives in places like Austin, which opened a massive 800-room convention hotel in 2003 after a study predicted that it would generate more than 300,000 room rentals annually for the city. But Austin has yet to exceed 200,000 per year.
Perhaps recognizing this weak economic record, convention and tourism officials have been changing their sales pitch. Convention and meeting centers shouldn’t be judged, they now say, by how much business they bring to local hotels, restaurants, and local attractions. Instead, we should see them as helping to establish a tourism brand for their cities. The director of Boston’s convention center, for instance, boasts that it brings the city “tourism impactsâ€â€"purportedly an economic value beyond whatever dollars the convention industry manages to attract.
The main value of such nebulous concepts seems to be to obscure the failure of publicly sponsored facilities to live up to exaggerated projections. As far as city officials are concerned, that failure is nothing that hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars can’t fix.
http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_1_snd-convention-centers.html
Interesting read. Something that Jax shouldn't ignore as we kick around our own convention center issue.
Very interesting. Though I'd argue that a new convention center in downtown Jacksonville would have the potential to generate benefits beyond just dollar amount - specifically, bringing more people and dollars downtown than the current center can do.
You want to see what building a new convention center can do, look at where I live, in Nashville. It's not only sparking tremendous hotel and retail development nearby, but also growing and extending downtown further south. Just this week another 300-400 room hotel has been proposed.
We would be much better served investing that money in our education system.
I just want to get the convention center out of the old terminal before we ruin our chances of creating a workable transportation center.
Quote from: dougskiles on January 06, 2012, 12:50:47 PM
We would be much better served investing that money in our education system.
Doug, firstly I agree with you. My question is what do we do about the significant brain drain we experience from young people moving to DC, ATL, Charlotte, and NYC?? I know the benefits of education help to stabilize the community, safety, families....etc. If everyone that benefits from our expensive new education system moves away, that's not that helpful either.
As for the convention center, I think there are definitely right ways and wrong ways to build it. Other than freight elevators, the actual boxes for the halls, and some utility areas, I think the building should be paid for by private money. Wrap the center in retail, have a lobby paid for by the restaurants that are housed within, and partner with a private hotel chain to reduce buildout costs. However, based on how the courthouese, the transit center, the equestrian center, and countless other City Funded monstrosities around town were built and financed, I doubt that's how we'll build the convention center.
Why doesn't the city look to attract a Gaylord Palms or something similar?
because the City already heavily invested in a large hotel (the Hyatt) that is right next to the proposed convention center location
Needed: Better Benchmarks for Convention Investments
State and local governments regularly invest in sports stadiums, arenas and convention centers. Although these facilities don't make money, the idea is that they more than pay for themselves by generating tax revenue, creating jobs and spurring private development by attracting visitors who would otherwise spend their money somewhere else.
But how do we know if the strategy is working? The convention industry provides perhaps the best example of the need for objective benchmarks to determine whether past projects have succeeded and to inform future public investment decisions.
Rising Supply, Falling Demand
The national supply of convention exhibit space has increased by more than 70 percent over the last 20 years, but the past decade hasn't been kind. According to the now-defunct industry publication Tradeshow Week, attendance at conventions, trade and consumer shows decreased from 126 million in 2000 to 86 million in 2010.
Even such industry leaders as Las Vegas, Orlando, Atlanta and Chicago saw business decline after completing expansions in recent years, according to Prof. Heywood Sanders, who tracks the convention industry. Some opened their expanded facilities during a recession, but all saw business drop.
With hotels--particularly the large, moderately priced kind convention planners favor--proving increasingly difficult to finance, many industry insiders are blaming the downturn on a shortage of rooms proximate to convention centers. The response has been a spate of publicly owned or subsidized hotel development.
But that hasn't cured what ails the industry. Convention hotels in Baltimore, Austin and Phoenix are doing poorly, and St. Louis' convention headquarters hotel is in foreclosure.
Nonetheless, a 1,167-room headquarters hotel just opened in Washington, D.C., and Philadelphia recently unveiled a $787 million convention-center expansion. Convention and/or hotel expansions are also underway in Dallas, Detroit, Indianapolis, Nashville and Orlando.
'Tourism Plus'
The traditional measure of convention center performance is hotel-room nights--the number of nights people stay in hotels as a result of conventions. But in March, Massachusetts Convention Center Authority Executive Director James Rooney told the Boston Globe that measuring success "strictly on the notion of how many hotel room-nights are generated" is "narrow-minded thinking." For months, Rooney has been touting less-tangible benefits of conventions such as the importance of "place making."
A 27-member "Convention Partnership" has been appointed to make recommendations to the state legislature about expanding the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center and building a publicly subsidized headquarters hotel. Though still falling far short of projections, the BCEC is doing better than most these days.
In November, an academic from Great Britain made a presentation to the Convention Partnership on "The 'True' Value of Business Events." Prof. Leo Jago's message was that tourism-based measures such as room nights grossly underestimate the value of business conventions.
The Massachusetts authority hired a local economic-development consulting firm to look at how to measure the impact of this "Tourism Plus" strategy. The firm convened a focus group of business and academic leaders, who agreed that new benchmarks should be added to (rather than replacing) traditional measures of convention performance such as hotel-room nights.
Betting the Farm
But realistic metrics proved elusive. Among the new ones proposed were counting complementary events held in conjunction with conventions and the number of second homes bought in the area by VIPs who attended Boston conventions--not exactly the kind of data on which you base a decision to bet the farm.
Still, the torrent of convention-center expansion and publicly subsidized hotel development continues, with price tags that sometimes top $1 billion--all in a market that almost no one denies is overbuilt.
Achieving consensus over realistic convention center performance measures would help public officials see the market more clearly as they make decisions about current expansion proposals. But it's even more important that the ones that go forward do so with objective performance goals. They might at least prevent some proponents from coming back a decade later and saying that the problem was that they didn't expand enough.
http://www.governing.com/blogs/bfc/better-benchmarks-for-convention-investments-needed.html
OK let's just put a Casino/ Convention center at the Hyatt. Turn Jacksonville Terminal (aka Prime Osborn) into a big multimodal transit center.
LMAO it's basically a recap of the debate lake and I had, just in article form.
There's a difference between having the state kick in for a 1.0M sf + convention center and the city kick in for a 1,500 key flagship hotel...and the state and/or city kicking in for a 400,000 sf concention center with a 500 key hotel (which the city already has times two).
Sure for most cities having more than 500,000 sf is a waste, but having less than 150,000 sf for a city of 1.5 million people in FL on the water with a good climate and decent airport is also a waste. There is an appropriate balance of what would actually be beneficial.
On top of this, if Jacksonville would kick its visitors bureau budget into higher gear and advertise more often, perhaps it could ramp up some tourism and benefit from a bed tax. Right now I think the city obviously has a bed tax, but I doubt it benefits greatly from it as there aren't very many rooms and what the city does have is overbuilt and underoccupied.
I think Jacksonville lags the rest of the state in advertising itself. I believe St. Augustine doubles or triples Jacksonville's budget in that regard. Being a tourist mecca is not an excuse as Jacksonville is still MUCH larger than PVB or St. Augustine, and so should be able to spend more to put itself out there as a place on the map.
Furthermore, the BIG conventions are going to go to Orlando and Las Vegas. The big conventions are going to go to Atlanta, Chicago, Washington and San Diego. The decent-sized conventions are going to go to the rest of the top 15 or so metros with perhaps Nashville and San Antonio included. Finally the rest of the conventions will go to anywhere that offers 200,000 SF of exhibition space or 350,000+ sf of overall meeting space, etc. Whether or not the industry is growing or shrinking, there is a pecking order and a certain amount of conventions that will go to any top 40 or top 50 metro that can support that convention. Right now, Jacksonville can't really support any convention. The city doesn't and shouldn't compete with the top 15-20 metros, Austin, Nashville and San Antonio, BUT it should try to compete with the rest of the top 40/top 50 because it doesn't have to do anything "special" to get that added business besides building a normal sized convention center.
The example of Boston is an outlier. Boston is historically a major money waster and probably 5 of the top 10 largest wasteful projects ever in municipal/even state history have occurred in Boston. Boston will never compete with Orlando, Las Vegas, San Diego, DC, Atlanta or Chicago in the convention arena, but is spending money like it will. To ask Jacksonville to spend far less money on a completely normal sized convention center that already has a 966 key hotel NEXT DOOR is not asking too much and is not a waste.
Surely the difference here is easy to see.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on March 13, 2012, 05:01:47 PM
LMAO it's basically a recap of the debate lake and I had, just in article form.
No it's not. My point then and now is still the same. You can place and design a convention center to be an economic positive on the businesses surrounding it. In no way have I vouched for a convention center being the best ROI for public investment in downtown. In fact, my position has always been investing less in large expensive gimmicks and more on small business growth, urban connectivity, and clustering complementing uses within a compact setting.
Quote from: simms3 on March 13, 2012, 09:37:06 PM
Finally the rest of the conventions will go to anywhere that offers 200,000 SF of exhibition space or 350,000+ sf of overall meeting space, etc.
this is the key...even the third tier cities playing in the convention/meeting market need to have 200,000 square feet of contiguous exhibit space...right now we have about 70,000....if we're not willing to expand, then we're pretty much out of the business.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 13, 2012, 09:46:50 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on March 13, 2012, 05:01:47 PM
LMAO it's basically a recap of the debate lake and I had, just in article form.
No it's not. My point then and now is still the same. You can place and design a convention center to be an economic positive on the businesses surrounding it. In no way have I vouched for a convention center being the best ROI for public investment in downtown. In fact, my position has always been investing less in large expensive gimmicks and more on small business growth, urban connectivity, and clustering complementing uses within a compact setting.
And my point about market demand (which the article also makes) remains the same. It also happens to be reality.
Like I said before, lets cluster a uranium mine with a snow removal company, some overpriced condos, and a bunch of restaurants serving beondeggi, and then tie it all together with a streetcar. I'm sure it'll be a smashing success. Forget the fact that there's absolutely no demand for it, it's the clustering that makes it work, right? Come on, you're smarter than that.
The actual convention center is the least of Jacksonville's problems with competing in that market. We are never going to be an Orlando or a San Diego unless a lot of organic growth happens down there first. People want something to do when they attend conventions, besides for visiting a lifesized reenactment of raccoon city after the outbreak. 'Build it and they will come' doesn't work. If you have any doubts, then I'm still waiting on my explanation of the three previous failed convention centers that were built here, all with the exact (must be planner boilerplate) same promises being made. In the other thread, I even started quoting old 1980s newspaper articles making the same claims being made now. I think we all know how that turned out.
This is what's wrong with planning today. The same damn thing that's already failed 3 times, and each time we hear how the way to fix it is to build an even bigger and more expensive disaster this time. Apparently the problem is only that we didn't waste enough money last time. This is getting to be stomach-turning. It will wind up being one more empty building. The public planning of what should have remained, and should become again to extent possible, private commercial space, is what caused the collapse of downtown in the first place. It's time to exit this overpriced highway already.
Quote from: tufsu1 on March 13, 2012, 10:55:37 PM
Quote from: simms3 on March 13, 2012, 09:37:06 PM
Finally the rest of the conventions will go to anywhere that offers 200,000 SF of exhibition space or 350,000+ sf of overall meeting space, etc.
this is the key...even the third tier cities playing in the convention/meeting market need to have 200,000 square feet of contiguous exhibit space...right now we have about 70,000....if we're not willing to expand, then we're pretty much out of the business.
If we had 1mm square feet, it would still be just another empty building.
The least of our problems with competing in that market is the actual building itself.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on March 14, 2012, 08:57:29 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on March 13, 2012, 09:46:50 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on March 13, 2012, 05:01:47 PM
LMAO it's basically a recap of the debate lake and I had, just in article form.
No it's not. My point then and now is still the same. You can place and design a convention center to be an economic positive on the businesses surrounding it. In no way have I vouched for a convention center being the best ROI for public investment in downtown. In fact, my position has always been investing less in large expensive gimmicks and more on small business growth, urban connectivity, and clustering complementing uses within a compact setting.
And my point about market demand (which the article also makes) remains the same. It also happens to be reality.
Like I said before, lets cluster a uranium mine with a snow removal company, some overpriced condos, and a bunch of restaurants serving beondeggi, and then tie it all together with a streetcar. I'm sure it'll be a smashing success.
Yes, but its not a debate if I never questioned or disagreed with your market demand argument. We are talking about two different things.
QuoteForget the fact that there's absolutely no demand for it, it's the clustering that makes it work, right? Come on, you're smarter than that.
This is where you were confusing and improperly mixing the two points we were discussing. Clustering complementing uses within a compact setting is a completely different topic. You could take the half empty box we have at the old train station "as is" drop it next to the Landing and the restaurants would economically benefit from the increased exposure, even if it were open only three days a week. However, this doesn't mean that spending $100 million on a convention center is economically feasible or the best use of public tax dollars. As I mentioned, two totally separate issues.
QuoteThis is what's wrong with planning today. The same damn thing that's already failed 3 times, and each time we hear how the way to fix it is to build an even bigger and more expensive disaster this time. Apparently the problem is only that we didn't waste enough money last time. This is getting to be stomach-turning. It will wind up being one more empty building. The public planning of what should have remained, and should become again to extent possible, private commercial space, is what caused the collapse of downtown in the first place. It's time to exit this overpriced highway already.
It's not accurate to pin this on planners. There aren't many urban planners out there private or employed by the city, claiming that a convention center is the key to downtown revitalization. The Chamber and Civic Council are big backers. However, I don't believe either of those groups are dominated by planners.
QuoteLike I said before, lets cluster a uranium mine with a snow removal company, some overpriced condos, and a bunch of restaurants serving beondeggi, and then tie it all together with a streetcar. I'm sure it'll be a smashing success.
I know you're joking but in reality you could cluster these uncomplementing uses with complementing uses and create a workable vibrant district. Detroit's Eastern Market is a great example of clustering complementing industrial uses with restaurants, lofts, and wholesale businesses. We should consider this for Beaver Street and perhaps the Springfield Warehouse District. It might not be the ideal market for yuppies but they do work.
Well sure, clustering works as long as there's demand for what's being clustered. I think you already see this downtown with the burgeoning little nightlife district. A convention center may as well be a uranium mine, that's the point. There is no demand for it, and there won't be after it's built. A building by itself doesn't create a business, and the building is not our problem with competing in that business. If we built 1mm square feet tomorrow, who in their right mind is going to relocate a convention here from Las Vegas? Let's be serious.
That business has already shaken out amongst the top 10 players, most of the bigger ones are under long term contracts. It's not changing. And even if it were possible (it's not) for argument's sake, we lack the assets necessary to compete and attract people, none of which have a thing to do with the building. This will be another giant empty building taking up prime riverfront property that should be left to private development.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on March 14, 2012, 09:20:28 AM
Well sure, clustering works as long as there's demand for what's being clustered.
There's always demand for a restaurant/bar to have hungry and thirsty people with cash walking past their front door. A convention center entrance across the street from a place like Marks or Olio has the ability to attract extra exposure to those businesses. I don't understand how someone could not understand this scenario. It's no different from a Cheesecake Factory locating next to a Barnes & Noble and Dillards. However, this scenario has nothing to do with determining if its worth investing in a convention center. Again, completely separate issue that has little to do with clustering and more to do with ROI on public tax dollars.
QuoteI think you already see this downtown with the burgeoning little nightlife district. A convention center may as well be a uranium mine, that's the point. There is no demand for it, and there won't be after it's built. A building by itself doesn't create a business, and the building is not our problem with competing in that business.
I don't believe we have a "district" yet. When we can fill up a full city block with a continuous strip of places we'll approach "district" status, imo. We have potential but we need complementing uses replacing the numerous dead zones between the couple of places that are open. If we do end up investing in a convention center, it will be critical to make sure it's mixed use (I've mentioned this time and time again as well) with retail/entertainment lining the complex's perimeter.
Lake, you're presupposing that the convention center would actually bring any visitors. The whole point of the article being discussed is that this presupposition, which equals the typical "build it and they will come" mentality associated with so many boondoggles, is a false promise. More often than not, cities pay millions for what wind up being empty buildings. Regarding Jacksonville in particular, I think that premise has been pretty thoroughly debunked in (multiple) other threads that have run to dozens of pages on this very issue.
If you build the biggest convention center the world has ever seen, we still are never going to be a player in that business. The building is not why people host conventions in Las Vegas, they go other places because those places have things that we don't have. Like stuff to do around the facility, for starters. We aren't going to be successful with this, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the building. But who knows, it's not like we haven't already tried this three times and failed already. I'm sure the fourth time is bound to be the charm. ::)
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on March 14, 2012, 01:02:13 PM
Lake, you're presupposing that the convention center would actually bring any visitors.
so, you're suggesting that a new convention center would not bring ANY new visitors to downtown?
While in Houston last week, i stayed a couple of blocks from their convention center. I arrived the last day of some petroleum convention. While talking to a bartender at the McCormick and Schmicks in downtown, he was telling me how busy they had been all week because of the convention. I am sure his pockets were happy.
What were the first two times that Jacksonville built a Convention Center? Prime Osborn is the only one I am familiar with.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on March 14, 2012, 01:02:13 PM
Lake, you're presupposing that the convention center would actually bring any visitors. The whole point of the article being discussed is that this presupposition, which equals the typical "build it and they will come" mentality associated with so many boondoggles, is a false promise.
Nope, I'm not presupposing anything. What I'm saying is you can pick up the current center with its current events, place it next to the Hyatt and Bay Street and those businesses would economically benefit from the pedestrian scale connectivity that the current site does not allow. All the rest of the stuff you keep mentioning is irrelevant to this point about pedestrian scale connectivity and clustering.
QuoteIf you build the biggest convention center the world has ever seen, we still are never going to be a player in that business. The building is not why people host conventions in Las Vegas, they go other places because those places have things that we don't have. Like stuff to do around the facility, for starters.
You're describing a benefit of connectivity. Placing complementing uses together within a compact setting works. This theory is evident with Park & King, San Marco Square, SJTC, Avenues Mall, Memorial Park, and even AB's brewery complex. Attempting to relate the concept of pedestrian scale connectivity to market demands and fiscal feasibility for a convention center is a waste. These two issues are apples and oranges.
I believe they will be here the weekend of Jazz Fest. I thought I read it some where.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 14, 2012, 01:43:19 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on March 14, 2012, 01:02:13 PM
Lake, you're presupposing that the convention center would actually bring any visitors. The whole point of the article being discussed is that this presupposition, which equals the typical "build it and they will come" mentality associated with so many boondoggles, is a false promise.
Nope, I'm not presupposing anything. What I'm saying is you can pick up the current center with its current events, place it next to the Hyatt and Bay Street and those businesses would economically benefit from the pedestrian scale connectivity that the current site does not allow. All the rest of the stuff you keep mentioning is irrelevant to this point about pedestrian scale connectivity and clustering.
QuoteIf you build the biggest convention center the world has ever seen, we still are never going to be a player in that business. The building is not why people host conventions in Las Vegas, they go other places because those places have things that we don't have. Like stuff to do around the facility, for starters.
You're describing a benefit of connectivity. Placing complementing uses together within a compact setting works. This theory is evident with Park & King, San Marco Square, SJTC, Avenues Mall, Memorial Park, and even AB's brewery complex. Attempting to relate the concept of pedestrian scale connectivity to market demands and fiscal feasibility for a convention center is a waste. These two issues are apples and oranges.
Yes you are. Even this reply presupposes that there will be any convention business to benefit from clustering. There won't.
We'll have the same one or two local shows combined with a smattering of church luncheons and PTA meeting that we have now. The only difference will be the $100mm we'll be missing. Assuming it actually gets built for that, a slim prospect if the courthouse is any indication. But again, the building doesn't magically create a business, and the building is the last of our problems with why we aren't a competitor in that business. None of the reasons people go to Las Vegas instead of Jacksonville will be fixed by building a new convention center. It's just another boondoggle.
Quote from: tufsu1 on March 14, 2012, 01:12:41 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on March 14, 2012, 01:02:13 PM
Lake, you're presupposing that the convention center would actually bring any visitors.
so, you're suggesting that a new convention center would not bring ANY new visitors to downtown?
Indeed, that is exactly what I'm suggesting. What's worse, history has shown this to be the case.
Several times.
So when is building a bigger more expensive boondoggle going to cease being the solution to the problem of there being no demand for it in the first place? It's a flawed concept, that business has already shaken out, we'll never be a player in it for multiple reasons that have nothing to do with the building itself. As the well written article that started this thread pointed out, all we're doing is squandering money on a pipe dream. Actually Jacksonville is even worse than the article's point, because we've tried this same thing multiple times and don't seem to be learning a lesson here.
Quote from: vicupstate on March 14, 2012, 01:42:41 PM
What were the first two times that Jacksonville built a Convention Center? Prime Osborn is the only one I am familiar with.
The Coliseum, the Jacksonville Beach Convention Center, the Prime Osborne, and now we're going for #4...
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on March 14, 2012, 10:28:49 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on March 14, 2012, 01:12:41 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on March 14, 2012, 01:02:13 PM
Lake, you're presupposing that the convention center would actually bring any visitors.
so, you're suggesting that a new convention center would not bring ANY new visitors to downtown?
Indeed, that is exactly what I'm suggesting.
Thank You. We are all now know exactly where you stand.
Quote from: fsujax on March 14, 2012, 01:16:32 PM
While in Houston last week, i stayed a couple of blocks from their convention center. I arrived the last day of some petroleum convention. While talking to a bartender at the McCormick and Schmicks in downtown, he was telling me how busy they had been all week because of the convention. I am sure his pockets were happy.
If you are just going by visitor numbers in random other cities, then why not build a giant Mosque?
It works for Mecca.
Getting back to topic here - the topic of convention centers, convention hotels and the convention business - there are contexts and the concept of relativity here.
Jacksonville has never had a real convention center. We had a colisseum, and now we have an old leaky train station with a small exhibition hall attached. From my perspective, I have had the opportunity firsthand over the last 6 years to see how the convention industry can bring about economic development and can fill city coffers. I live in arguably one of the top 3 - 5 convention cities depending on how you look at it and depending on the year. The only thing holding my downtown up is the convention business. There is a constant buzz of activity in downtown, which feeds many thousands of hotel rooms, many many restaurants, bars, clubs, and tourist services/retailers. Of course there still aren't enough residents to support retail and services for residents, but there are more conventioneers that stay within a 10 block radius each year than people who pass through your average 1 million person metro.
Now relating this to Jacksonville, we are never going to be that. Boston is never going to be that no matter how hard they try. They missed that ball decades ago. Instead, Jacksonville should AT LEAST just get on the same level as Hartford, Raleigh, Salt Lake City, etc etc. We don't need but 150,000-200,000 SF of exhibition space under one roof, and perhaps another 100,000 SF of additional meeting rooms, and putting this next to the Hyatt, which already has ~125,000 SF of meeting space and you have yourself a nice convention center that is good for at least 75% of conventions. What we have now is really not good for any conventions.
On top of this, no city-funded hotel is necessary as we'll have 966 keys attached (though the Adams Mark was subsidized - now 15 years ago). You have the waterfront right there, which has been made over in a decent fashion. You have some nearby bars and restaurants. You're downtown, so even if there is "nothing" to do downtown, your average tourist will just enjoy walking around. That's what they do. They'll enjoy the bridges and the waterfront. The city would be able to showcase itself to a lot more people - and they will see the actual city and the river and the natural beauty rather than the Southside.
I can promise you the current situation is that most people who visit Jacksonville do not see a nice or interesting side that makes them think more than once about the city. From the airport they come straight through the ghetto, pass a ton of evangelical billboards and rundown weedy and seedy projects and houses, etc. Either this or they come down 9A straight to the southside and they never see "town." This was the case when we got "raving" reviews by CNN when the city hosted the Republican debate this year. Their comments were positive towards the airport, the smooth/new highways, and the cleanliness of the suburbs. Goody. Contrast that to the raving reviews downtown Indy got over the Superbowl. We can at least shoot for Indy style comments rather than "great pristine suburbs."
Now, with just an average convention center downtown on city-owned land already pre-attached to a huge convention hotel, the added people will support local downtown businesses. The added people will add a level of vibrancy. Some more businesses will open downtown to catch some increased demand. Finally some locals will be drawn to one of these conventions and will see the changes downtown. Business leaders from around the country/world will see a more impressive downtown. And locals who come downtown for events will also see a positive change. You may see some people who deep down would like to live downtown but hadn't prior to this because of the dead vibe reconsider.
Nothing negative could come of this, and in fact, built to the right size for Jacksonville, it won't sit empty.
On a final note - the city itself may currently be dull and may not be billed as a city interesting to most people, BUT it's undeniable that the waterfront is pretty, the setting is unique, the airport is fast, cheap, and easy, and the weather is much better than 90% of the rest of the country. These factors in addition to having a substantial state of the art facility that can accomodate them and one that is attached to a large hotel would be enough to convince conventions to come to town and bring all those conventioneers with them.
Please someone come up with a better argument why the city should not seriously consider this.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on March 14, 2012, 10:24:15 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on March 14, 2012, 01:43:19 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on March 14, 2012, 01:02:13 PM
Lake, you're presupposing that the convention center would actually bring any visitors. The whole point of the article being discussed is that this presupposition, which equals the typical "build it and they will come" mentality associated with so many boondoggles, is a false promise.
Nope, I'm not presupposing anything. What I'm saying is you can pick up the current center with its current events, place it next to the Hyatt and Bay Street and those businesses would economically benefit from the pedestrian scale connectivity that the current site does not allow. All the rest of the stuff you keep mentioning is irrelevant to this point about pedestrian scale connectivity and clustering.
QuoteIf you build the biggest convention center the world has ever seen, we still are never going to be a player in that business. The building is not why people host conventions in Las Vegas, they go other places because those places have things that we don't have. Like stuff to do around the facility, for starters.
You're describing a benefit of connectivity. Placing complementing uses together within a compact setting works. This theory is evident with Park & King, San Marco Square, SJTC, Avenues Mall, Memorial Park, and even AB's brewery complex. Attempting to relate the concept of pedestrian scale connectivity to market demands and fiscal feasibility for a convention center is a waste. These two issues are apples and oranges.
Yes you are. Even this reply presupposes that there will be any convention business to benefit from clustering. There won't.
We'll have the same one or two local shows combined with a smattering of church luncheons and PTA meeting that we have now. The only difference will be the $100mm we'll be missing. Assuming it actually gets built for that, a slim prospect if the courthouse is any indication. But again, the building doesn't magically create a business, and the building is the last of our problems with why we aren't a competitor in that business. None of the reasons people go to Las Vegas instead of Jacksonville will be fixed by building a new convention center. It's just another boondoggle.
The clustering of uses has nothing to do with this continued focus on the validity of the convention industry. They are two separate issues. I don't see why you're trying to tie them together. It really isn't that complicated to understand that the more density you have in a compact pedestrian scale setting, the more foot traffic, which equates to better visibility and economic opportunity for adjacent storefronts. What I'm describing works with a convention center, department store, restaurants, movie theater, retail, art galleries, etc.
But people actually go to department stores, restaurants, theaters, etc. There is demand for that. There is no demand here for a convention center. There are two considerations here, a building, and a business. That's why I'm only half-joking when I say why not throw in a uranium mine and a snow removal company. Maybe a buggy whip factory while we're at it?
We missed the boat on being even a small-sized convention destination decades ago, at this point we're just throwing good money after bad. For literally the fourth time. And about this "we've never had a REAL convention center that could attract (fill in the blank)" that's the same argument that's been made each of the three times we've already tried this. The building(s) are not why it's not working, that's the least of our problems.
Nobody is going to be switching their convention from Las Vegas or Orlando to Jacksonville just because it can fit in the building. We lack pretty much every single amenity that would make people want to do that. We'd be much much better off using the same money to seed organic growth downtown and turning the land over to private (non-residential) developers. The bottom line is about attracting visitors, and a vibrant urban scene is the key to that. Conventions don't cut the mustard, you want people permanently living, working, and shopping down there, not just visiting for two days and leaving. That isn't going to do what needs to be done. That, and nobody will actually come to the convention center anyway.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on March 15, 2012, 08:15:11 AM
But people actually go to department stores, restaurants, theaters, etc. There is demand for that. There is no demand here for a convention center.
We know...nobody will go to a convention center.
Ignore the thousands that show up now at the size-limited Prime Osborn for things like the car show, boat show, home & patio show, etc...and the potential business that those attendees could provide for a nearby cluster of retail/restaurants.
According to the JEDC/DVI 2010 State of Downtown Report, there were 12.5 million visits to downtown....more specifically -
Jacksonville Landing - 4 million
Everbank Field - 825,000
Baseball grounds - 500,000
Arena - 450,000
Expo Center (at the Fairgrounds) - 400,000
Florida Theate, TUPAC, museumks (all together) - 660,000
Main Library - 883,000
Metro Park and Riverwalks - 290,000
RAM - 500,000
and then there's all the special downtown events (Jazz Fest, Art Walk, fireworks, etc.) which drew over 1.6 million people.
and on that same page of information, the City and SMG estimate that 164,000 people attended events at the Prime Osborn Convention Center in 2010.
Quote from: tufsu1 on March 15, 2012, 08:23:42 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on March 15, 2012, 08:15:11 AM
But people actually go to department stores, restaurants, theaters, etc. There is demand for that. There is no demand here for a convention center.
We know...nobody will go to a convention center.
Ignore the thousands that show up now at the size-limited Prime Osborn for things like the car show, boat show, home & patio show, etc...and the potential business that those attendees could provide for a nearby cluster of retail/restaurants.
You already got the pimp-hand on this one when we were discussing the same issue last year, and I posted the visitor counts for a few retailers. The annual visitor impact of our handful of mostly local/regional events isn't even equivalent to one half of one Walgreens. Except the Walgreens takes no public money to build, let alone what this thing would cost. A single Walmart gets more visitors in a day than the convention center does in a year.
The money would be FAR better spent attracting a Publix, or really any other retail, together with affordable housing, downtown. Even in terms of the rosiest of rosy economic predictions, the thing would have the economic impact of like 2 days' operation of a single Walmart. Pardon me for being unimpressed, but I don't think that's the best use of what will inevitably wind up being $100mm+.
^ I added to my response..,.you may want to check it out again.
btw, are you now admitting that a convention center would attract some people?
Quote from: tufsu1 on March 15, 2012, 08:37:38 AM
so wait, do you now admit that a convention center would attract some people?
No new people, just the same ones it attracts now.
Quote from: tufsu1 on March 15, 2012, 08:23:42 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on March 15, 2012, 08:15:11 AM
But people actually go to department stores, restaurants, theaters, etc. There is demand for that. There is no demand here for a convention center.
We know...nobody will go to a convention center.
Ignore the thousands that show up now at the size-limited Prime Osborn for things like the car show, boat show, home & patio show, etc...and the potential business that those attendees could provide for a nearby cluster of retail/restaurants.
According to the JEDC/DVI 2010 State of Downtown Report, there were 12.5 million visits to downtown....more specifically -
Jacksonville Landing - 4 million
Everbank Field - 825,000
Baseball grounds - 500,000
Arena - 450,000
Expo Center (at the Fairgrounds) - 400,000
Florida Theate, TUPAC, museumks (all together) - 660,000
Main Library - 883,000
Metro Park and Riverwalks - 290,000
RAM - 500,000
and then there's all the special downtown events (Jazz Fest, Art Walk, fireworks, etc.) which drew over 1.6 million people.
and on that same page of information, the City and SMG estimate that 164,000 people attended events at the Prime Osborn Convention Center in 2010.
Oh yes, DVI, the same source that claimed up until late last year that there were 50k people working on the northbank.
The height of a credible source, clearly.
As is pretty clearly shown by these figures. LMFAO, 4mm visitors to the Landing, REALLY? The main library almost a MILLION visitors? WTF? This is priceless. Tufsu, please post the report where you got that from (so I can go about shredding it). I suspect Stephen will want a bite at this apple too. RAM isn't even in downtown, LOL! DVI cracks me up...
Quote from: tufsu1 on March 15, 2012, 08:37:38 AM
^ I added to my response..,.you may want to check it out again.
btw, are you now admitting that a convention center would attract some people?
The argument isn't whether not it attracks people, but if it helps make downtown a better environment for businesses & residents in general. So far it doesn't seem to. Every week can't be a Jazz Fest, big car show or fireworks display. You're still left with 300 days outta the year where downtown is dead as a door nail & no residents.
Quote from: peestandingup on March 15, 2012, 08:46:22 AM
The argument isn't whether not it attracks people, but if it helps make downtown a better environment for businesses & residents in general. So far it doesn't seem to. Every week can't be a Jazz Fest, big car show or fireworks display. You're still left with 300 days outta the year where downtown is dead as a door nail & no residents.
which is precisely why we need an additional kick start....as you'll note from simms post above, downtown Atlanta is alive at night and on weekends primarily because of the concvention and visitor business....I saw that first hand last month.....and while we'll never be at the size of Atlanta in this regard (which is a good thing) the evidence is already there that Bay Street and the Landing do better when there are meetings at the Hyatt.
now, I'm with Lakelander....there are better things to spend $100+ million on than a convention center....but there's virtually no denying that relocating the convention center to the core will inject some additional life into that part of downtown.
and as for the JEDC/DVI report, it can be found here
http://www.coj.net/departments/jacksonville-economic-development-commission/downtown-development.aspx
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on March 15, 2012, 08:15:11 AM
But people actually go to department stores, restaurants, theaters, etc. There is demand for that. There is no demand here for a convention center. There are two considerations here, a building, and a business. That's why I'm only half-joking when I say why not throw in a uranium mine and a snow removal company. Maybe a buggy whip factory while we're at it?
People actually do go convention centers, just not as much to make them directly profitable or open 24/7, if that's your goal for investing in them. I've even gone to a couple at the Prime Osborn. However, the feasibility of a convention center in Jacksonville is a different discussion from my point on that clustering complementing uses at the pedestrian scale would be economically beneficial for adjacent businesses. Btw, a buggy whip factory would be pretty cool!
QuoteWe missed the boat on being even a small-sized convention destination decades ago, at this point we're just throwing good money after bad. For literally the fourth time. And about this "we've never had a REAL convention center that could attract (fill in the blank)" that's the same argument that's been made each of the three times we've already tried this. The building(s) are not why it's not working, that's the least of our problems.
Nobody is going to be switching their convention from Las Vegas or Orlando to Jacksonville just because it can fit in the building. We lack pretty much every single amenity that would make people want to do that. We'd be much much better off using the same money to seed organic growth downtown and turning the land over to private (non-residential) developers. The bottom line is about attracting visitors, and a vibrant urban scene is the key to that. Conventions don't cut the mustard, you want people permanently living, working, and shopping down there, not just visiting for two days and leaving. That isn't going to do what needs to be done. That, and nobody will actually come to the convention center anyway.
This has nothing to do with what I was talking about (pedestrian scale connectivity). I think you're confusing my posts with some other comments in this thread.
Based on the numbers, 165,000 people is not a lot. Sure, if the convention center was within walking distance of Bay St. & the Landing, that's 165k more people on the street in a semi-clustered environment, but really?
Iif I'm reading this correctly - yes. if we move the CC downtown, we automatically increase foot traffic for DT businesses. Our ROI for a $100M CC with only 165k visitors a year would be horrendous. There's no guarantee that a new CC would bring in new or more guests.
Why build it? Why waste the $$$$? What's the incentive to build it?
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on March 15, 2012, 08:35:08 AM
The money would be FAR better spent attracting a Publix, or really any other retail, together with affordable housing, downtown. Even in terms of the rosiest of rosy economic predictions, the thing would have the economic impact of like 2 days' operation of a single Walmart. Pardon me for being unimpressed, but I don't think that's the best use of what will inevitably wind up being $100mm+.
On the surface, it would be a huge waste of money to subsidize a Publix or any retail in a market that simply can't support it. It's also a huge waste to throw $100mm into a convention center if we're going to treat such of an investment as the "key" to downtown redevelopment. Instead, modify restrictive public policies, invest $40-$50 million in connecting DT and the immediate surrounding neighborhoods with fixed transit and get the hell out of the way of the private sector. The rest will take care of itself. If want this place to grow, its going to have to do it organically and not with gimmicks. We make redevelopment a lot more expensive and difficult than it has to be.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on March 15, 2012, 09:03:40 AM
Based on the numbers, 165,000 people is not a lot. Sure, if the convention center was within walking distance of Bay St. & the Landing, that's 165k more people on the street in a semi-clustered environment, but really?
If I'm reading this correctly - yes. if we move the CC downtown, we automatically increase foot traffic for DT businesses. Our ROI for a $100M CC with only 165k visitors a year would be horrendous. There's no guarantee that a new CC would bring in new or more guests.
Why build it? Why waste the $$$$? What's the incentive to build it?
This is basically my position. From a connectivity standpoint, it will help if it were relocated. From a public ROI standpoint, more impactful things can be done with $100mm and less.
Quote from: tufsu1 on March 15, 2012, 08:55:16 AM
Quote from: peestandingup on March 15, 2012, 08:46:22 AM
The argument isn't whether not it attracks people, but if it helps make downtown a better environment for businesses & residents in general. So far it doesn't seem to. Every week can't be a Jazz Fest, big car show or fireworks display. You're still left with 300 days outta the year where downtown is dead as a door nail & no residents.
which is precisely why we need an additional kick start....as you'll note from simms post above, downtown Atlanta is alive at night and on weekends primarily because of the concvention and visitor business....I saw that first hand last month.....and while we'll never be at the size of Atlanta in this regard (which is a good thing) the evidence is already there that Bay Street and the Landing do better when there are meetings at the Hyatt.
now, I'm with Lakelander....there are better things to spend $100+ million on than a convention center....but there's virtually no denying that relocating the convention center to the core will inject some additional life into that part of downtown.
and as for the JEDC/DVI report, it can be found here
http://www.coj.net/departments/jacksonville-economic-development-commission/downtown-development.aspx
True, but Jacksonville isn't Atlanta. And I'd wager they had lots of things already in place that Jax sorely lacks before you saw the convention center do what it's currently doing.
I think it's putting the cart before the horse. Anyways, Riverside & San Marco didn't need one to make their comebacks. Why not follow their lead? My point is, you could probably build the biggest convention center in the world & it still wouldn't give downtown what it needs: Residents & a pulse. Jax tries to build & develop their way out problems & it obviously doesn't work.
Connect downtown with Riverside, Springfield, San Marco, etc. and it already has its residents. The Northbank hasn't had a significant residential base since the early 20th century. I don't know how we've reached the point where we believe we must subsidize residential growth only in this particular area of the urban core for it to be successful? Brooklyn, LaVilla, Durkeeville, Sugar Hill, Springfield, etc. are all places where a mix of market rate urban housing at different price points, scales and styles can be easily infilled. All we need is the decent transit connectivity that we lost in 1936.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 15, 2012, 09:06:13 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on March 15, 2012, 08:35:08 AM
The money would be FAR better spent attracting a Publix, or really any other retail, together with affordable housing, downtown. Even in terms of the rosiest of rosy economic predictions, the thing would have the economic impact of like 2 days' operation of a single Walmart. Pardon me for being unimpressed, but I don't think that's the best use of what will inevitably wind up being $100mm+.
On the surface, it would be a huge waste of money to subsidize a Publix or any retail in a market that simply can't support it. It's also a huge waste to throw $100mm into a convention center if we're going to treat such of an investment as the "key" to downtown redevelopment. Instead, modify restrictive public policies, invest $40-$50 million in connecting DT and the immediate surrounding neighborhoods with fixed transit and get the hell out of the way of the private sector. The rest will take care of itself. If want this place to grow, its going to have to do it organically and not with gimmicks. We make redevelopment a lot more expensive and difficult than it has to be.
The difference is at least the Publix would attract visitors downtown. That's the whole point you're ignoring here, we could build 1mm square foot convention center and we're not going to start stealing the business away from Las Vegas and Orlando. For the 57th time, the building is the least of our problems with why we aren't competitive in the convention business. And it is indeed a business, not just a building. This is an absolute waste of money.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 15, 2012, 08:55:57 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on March 15, 2012, 08:15:11 AM
But people actually go to department stores, restaurants, theaters, etc. There is demand for that. There is no demand here for a convention center. There are two considerations here, a building, and a business. That's why I'm only half-joking when I say why not throw in a uranium mine and a snow removal company. Maybe a buggy whip factory while we're at it?
People actually do go convention centers, just not as much to make them directly profitable or open 24/7, if that's your goal for investing in them. I've even gone to a couple at the Prime Osborn. However, the feasibility of a convention center in Jacksonville is a different discussion from my point on that clustering complementing uses at the pedestrian scale would be economically beneficial for adjacent businesses. Btw, a buggy whip factory would be pretty cool!
QuoteWe missed the boat on being even a small-sized convention destination decades ago, at this point we're just throwing good money after bad. For literally the fourth time. And about this "we've never had a REAL convention center that could attract (fill in the blank)" that's the same argument that's been made each of the three times we've already tried this. The building(s) are not why it's not working, that's the least of our problems.
Nobody is going to be switching their convention from Las Vegas or Orlando to Jacksonville just because it can fit in the building. We lack pretty much every single amenity that would make people want to do that. We'd be much much better off using the same money to seed organic growth downtown and turning the land over to private (non-residential) developers. The bottom line is about attracting visitors, and a vibrant urban scene is the key to that. Conventions don't cut the mustard, you want people permanently living, working, and shopping down there, not just visiting for two days and leaving. That isn't going to do what needs to be done. That, and nobody will actually come to the convention center anyway.
This has nothing to do with what I was talking about (pedestrian scale connectivity). I think you're confusing my posts with some other comments in this thread.
I don't expect public works to be profitable, that's a flimsy straw man and you know it.
I also don't expect to pay good money for nothing. It may not be directly profitable, but there has to be an ROI of some sort, or WTF is the point? If it's going to cost the taxpayers a fortune, and won't attract new visitors (it won't), then spend the money on street-level retail incentives and affordable housing. That is what will actually make downtown come back.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on March 15, 2012, 10:51:23 AM
The difference is at least the Publix would attract visitors downtown.
At the expense of a market rate Publix and Winn-Dixie already operating in the area...all on the public's dime. We need to worry more about making a self sustaining urban environment than attracting visitors downtown through fooling around with private sector economics we have little knowledge of. Put that money into fixing up the schools, adding public amenities and maintaining public right-of-way and parks.
QuoteThat's the whole point you're ignoring here, we could build 1mm square foot convention center and it's not going to get us any more visitors. The building itself is not why we aren't competitive in the convention business. And it is indeed a business, not just a building. This is an absolute waste of money.
This is exactly the point of why I'm continuing refute your attempts to lump convention center industry feasibility (what you're debating with others) with pedestrian scale clustering (my actual point in this whole thing) together.
1. I didn't say a convention center would attract more visitors than it does today. That's your debate with tufsu1. I said a location switch by clustering complementing uses within a pedestrian scale setting would create a condition that better utilizes existing visitors in a manner that improves the economic conditions of existing adjacent complementing businesses. This concept I continue to attempt to explain in vain is no different from Everbank relocating from one side of town to downtown. Traffic shifts from one area of town to another where there are businesses and retailers that will directly benefit from pedestrian scale clustering.
2. I've continued to say that if you have $100 million in cash to play around with, a convention center would not be the best use of those funds, assuming the goal is to add life to downtown.
QuoteI also don't expect to pay good money for nothing. It may not be directly profitable, but there has to be an ROI of some sort, or WTF is the point? If it's going to cost the taxpayers a fortune, and won't attract new visitors (it won't), then spend the money on street-level retail incentives and affordable housing. That is what will actually make downtown come back.
Jax has made a profession of pissing away money. From the courthouse to the Shipyards. Hell, look at how much money we pay the head of JTA per year for his ineptitude. What's another 100MM?
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on March 15, 2012, 10:58:01 AM
I don't expect public works to be profitable, that's a flimsy straw man and you know it.
I also don't expect to pay good money for nothing. It may not be directly profitable, but there has to be an ROI of some sort, or WTF is the point? If it's going to cost the taxpayers a fortune, and won't attract new visitors (it won't), then spend the money on street-level retail incentives and affordable housing. That is what will actually make downtown come back.
Your whole argument with me has straw all in it. You're continuing to bring up stuff that I actually agree with to a degree. However, none of it has to do with pedestrian scale clustering, which is what I'm talking about. Btw, put in the transit and the affordable housing will come on its own, market rate style (without huge public subsidies for individual projects). However, the market will suggest affordable housing will rise in locations like Brooklyn, LaVilla, and Sugar Hill, instead of on the river.
Quote from: thelakelander on January 06, 2012, 10:21:46 AM
Interesting read. Something that Jax shouldn't ignore as we kick around our own convention center issue.
I agree with lakelander. Our city's leadership is woefully incompetent at figuring out a solution to this mess.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 15, 2012, 11:14:02 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on March 15, 2012, 10:58:01 AM
I don't expect public works to be profitable, that's a flimsy straw man and you know it.
I also don't expect to pay good money for nothing. It may not be directly profitable, but there has to be an ROI of some sort, or WTF is the point? If it's going to cost the taxpayers a fortune, and won't attract new visitors (it won't), then spend the money on street-level retail incentives and affordable housing. That is what will actually make downtown come back.
You're whole argument with me has straw all in it. You're continuing to bring up stuff that I actually agree with to a degree. However, none of it has to do with pedestrian scale clustering, which is what I'm talking about. Btw, put in the transit and the affordable housing will come on its own, market rate style (without huge public subsidies for individual projects). However, the market will suggest affordable housing will rise in locations like Brooklyn, LaVilla, and Sugar Hill, instead of on the river.
There's no straw in mine. In fact I've been pretty clear. The convention center;
1) Doesn't provide meaningful benefits to downtown as it sits,
2) Building a larger building won't change that,
3) It's a waste of money, and a larger building will only be a larger waste of money,
4) The reasons we can't compete as a convention city have little to do with the building,
5) They also have little to do with the location of the building,
6) Clustering will not fix a total lack of demand, e.g. the uranium mine example,
7) (The one we agree on) The money would be better spent fostering organic growth.
Those all go directly to the heart of the issue, and are the points we've debated for a year over the proposed new convention-doggle. An article was posted (that happens to agree with my viewpoint, if you read it) and so naturally the same points were again raised. Not even by me this time, at least initially, but by the article's author. I have thrown up no strawman at all, I've really been very direct about it.
^The majority of your points (and this particular article) have nothing to do with my position on clustering. I'll break them down.
Quote1) Doesn't provide meaningful benefits to downtown as it sits,
This has little to do with my point about clustering but what do you base this opinion on? Are the current events a negative on downtown? Is there a better way to utilize whatever it does generate?
While this has little to do with my point, the current box is in an isolated location that lacks the complementing services to make it a viable facility. Clustering would certainly help the situation (just like it would with most industries) if the city decides to keep a convention center.
Quote2) Building a larger building won't change that,
The size of a CC has nothing to do with my point about pedestrian scale clustering.
Quote3) It's a waste of money, and a larger building will only be a larger waste of money,
The cost of constructing a CC has nothing to do with my point about pedestrian scale clustering.
Quote4) The reasons we can't compete as a convention city have little to do with the building,
Once again, nothing to do with my point about pedestrian scale clustering.
Quote5) They also have little to do with the location of the building,
Location has everything to do with pedestrian scale clustering. It doesn't matter whether its a CC, affordable housing, or retail. Locating complementing things within a compact pedestrian scale setting is the key characteristic of a vibrant urban atmosphere.
Quote6) Clustering will not fix a total lack of demand, e.g. the uranium mine example,
Once again, nothing to do with my point about pedestrian scale clustering. I specifically said, if a CC were built next to the Hyatt, it would help improve the economic conditions of the complementing businesses adjacent to it. This would happen in the same manner than relocating Everbank to downtown will do for the AT&T Tower's mall and food court. However, because a project can benefit others doesn't necessarily mean its economically feasible or the best use of public dollars (ex. subsidizing a Publix downtown).
Quote7) (The one we agree on) The money would be better spent fostering organic growth.
We agree but this also has nothing to do with my point of about clustering.
Your argument starts to fill up with loads of straw when attempting to mix the general ideal of clustering at the pedestrian scale with convention center industry feasibility and demand. What I've been talking about far exceeds the feasibility of a specific building product (in this case a convention center in Jacksonville). However, that's what I've been saying all along.
Not interested as I do not have the time to go back and forth much about it but...
Quotethe building is the least of our problems with why we aren't competitive in the convention business.
As someone who has held events in convention centers nationwide (including the Prime Osborne), I tend to disagree with you. The current size does matter.
Chicago, Orlando and Las Vegas are not apt comparisons (that's like comparing AA baseball with the NY Yankees).
Compound the size issue with this:
Quotecurrent box is in an isolated location that lacks the complementing services to make it a viable facility
and it's plainly obvious to see why the current venue is at such a disadvantage... in a market(Jacksonville) that frankly has a
tremendous amount of natural advantages that most markets(of even larger size) simply cannot touch.
Alright boys have your convention-doggle then. I'll be around in 5 years to rub noses in it.
I look forward to the million visitors a year. Let's see how it goes.
Jekyll Island (a pretty nice retreat place on the Georgia coast) had been losing conventions for years due to the size and condition of their old convention center...so they built a new one....and look waht's happening
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/jekyll-island-convention-center-powerful-134900361.html
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/11/2688063/jekyll-island-going-after-lost.html
Now the ROI may not make sense for Jacksonville, which is why feasibility studies get conducted...but to think that no additional meetings would get booked with a new convention center just doesn't match up with the realities that every other city has seen.
Take a baseball analogy....the Marlins had absolutely awful attendance for years at suburban Joe Robbie Stadium (yes that's what I still call it)....and now they're on pace to break sales records at their shiny new stadium w/ limited parking in a somewhat rough area near Little Havana.
Now of course, long-term a shiny new building doesn't cut it....Baltimore's Camden Yards Stadium and Pittsburgh's PNC Park aren't pulling in the crowds they used to because the teams have been horrible for over a decade.....yet, some great complementing uses (restaurants/bars and residential) have sprung up around them so there's still a cool urban vibe in the areas.
From my perspective, it's pretty obvious that the location of Prime Osborn is a huge reason why Jacksonville lags in landing conventions, especially without a hotel connected or within very close proximity. Building a convention center in the core won't be a silver bullet for downtown, but it will do much to raise Jacksonville's profile as a convention city and do more to put more feet on the street. It shouldn't be an "either/or" proposition when it comes to a convention center and investing in infrastructure that will bring in more businesses and residents. And Jacksonville wouldn't be competing with major convention cities like Orlando and Vegas by building a new convention center, but rather cities like Charlotte, Nashville, Birmingham, Tampa, Memphis, Norfolk, Richmond, Raleigh, etc.
remember...nobody comes downtown and a convention center would be empty
just don't tell that to the 3200 high school kids (plus parents/chaperones) that are here this week for the HOSA compettition....they are using all four major downtown hotels and the Landing has been packed with them for days