This is a darn good website, and the forum is a nice place for ideas and give/take. However, there are no concrete solutions being offered to Jacksonville's problems - I'll concentrate on downtown to begin with. The problem is a lack of money. It's a problem in many different ways. For instance, the problem the Jaguar football team had is that the cost of a day's outing for a game is expensive for a lot of folks, and enough folks did not want to spend it on the entertainment value provided.
The problem with downtown is the same. No money. No money to complete Berkman II; no money to do something with the Laura Street Trio (quartet if you include the old Barnett Building). Who is downtown, even during the day? How many restaurants are there serving more than sandwiches and a bit more even during daylight hours? Damn few. This evening I left my office on East Duval Street right at five o'clock and was in Five Points within seven minutes. Hell, downtown doesn't even have traffic during rush hour.
Until someone is willing to take a chance and spend some money downtown, nothing will happen. What needs to be done is to buy all of Mrs. Weaver's condos in Riverside and to use the cash - even though less than the investment she made - to figure out something to do with the Laura Street Quartet to begin revitalization - god knows the teeth-rattling pavers did not - amazingly - do the job.
Seriously, getting EverBank into AT&T is good. We need that times five or more to be anywhere. The new courthouse may spur something, but it's doubtful - there sure hasn't been much near the present location is 50 years. Fifty years!
Once again, unless money is spent and spent wisely, downtown will be nowhere. We can't spend money on stupid pavers, and expect to accomplish a darn thing. What is needed is some sort of attraction, and not some Mickey Mouse - apologies, Walt - thing. BIG. We need big. We need money to do something big whatever it is. Or maybe a few not-so-big things, but a bunch of things a bit less grandiose. What? When? HOW?
You are preaching to the choir. :)
-Josh
I was just about to start a new post, but you beat me to it. Here's what I want to know: how do you revive the Laura Street Trio? How do you get the word out to these big companies wanting to relocate? There is plenty of prime space downtown. The word needs to get out. The Landing: I bet if you put up a jet ski rental somewhere around there, that would help it thrive a little bit, making it become more of a hot spot, especially for those staying in the hotels near there. The Warehouse District: there has been a lot of talk about trying to get this place going, but no follow through. When will this ever get going and how? What kind of business is planned on being brought here? I say do more than just clubs and bars. I'd like to see some exotic shops go up around there as well. Maybe even a voodoo shop, lol! My point being is that there needs to be some action taking place. It's going to take more than just a website to kick the COJ in the pants. I agree, money is an issue. How can the money be raised to do this. Maybe a donations site on here? I don't know. I just wish things would finally come together, because there has been talk about changing Jacksonville when Delaney was in office.
Quote from: WmNussbaum on March 02, 2012, 07:43:34 PM
This is a darn good website, and the forum is a nice place for ideas and give/take. However, there are no concrete solutions being offered to Jacksonville's problems - I'll concentrate on downtown to begin with. The problem is a lack of money.
Money isn't downtown's problem, over regulating and making redevelopment more complicated than it has to be is.
QuoteUntil someone is willing to take a chance and spend some money downtown, nothing will happen.
I think our focus on big time projects has been a detriment to downtown. If we want more private money spent downtown, we have to create an environment that allows small business growth to prosper on a larger level.
QuoteOnce again, unless money is spent and spent wisely, downtown will be nowhere. We can't spend money on stupid pavers, and expect to accomplish a darn thing.
A lot of people would be amazed at how much creative individuals can do with a limited budget when allowed to do what they do best. However, this will require the city to be more accepting of ideas and things that they might not be comfortable with.
QuoteWhat is needed is some sort of attraction, and not some Mickey Mouse - apologies, Walt - thing. BIG. We need big. We need money to do something big whatever it is. Or maybe a few not-so-big things, but a bunch of things a bit less grandiose. What? When? HOW?
No gimmicks are needed. Gimmicks cost a lot of money and fail to solve the underlying issue of creating a self sustaining urban environment. All that's needed is to modify policy, focus on public quality of life amenities (ex. schools, parks, transportation, trash, etc.), and get out of the public's way.
Quote from: Anti redneck on March 02, 2012, 08:57:02 PM
I was just about to start a new post, but you beat me to it. Here's what I want to know: how do you revive the Laura Street Trio?
Provide public money to make their redevelopment feasible.
QuoteHow do you get the word out to these big companies wanting to relocate? There is plenty of prime space downtown. The word needs to get out.
Tax abatement and incentives that level the playing field. As long as it cost more to operate a major business in downtown than the suburbs, the majority of businesses will continue to pick the cheaper option.
QuoteThe Landing: I bet if you put up a jet ski rental somewhere around there, that would help it thrive a little bit, making it become more of a hot spot, especially for those staying in the hotels near there.
This may be unpopular, but sell the Sleiman the land underneath it as a package deal to immediately redevelop the thing, so that it opens up to the rest of downtown.
QuoteThe Warehouse District: there has been a lot of talk about trying to get this place going, but no follow through. When will this ever get going and how? What kind of business is planned on being brought here? I say do more than just clubs and bars. I'd like to see some exotic shops go up around there as well. Maybe even a voodoo shop, lol! My point being is that there needs to be some action taking place.
First, don't dictate what type of business "has to be there." Leave that up the private sector. Focus on the S-Line as a rail connection between downtown and the airport. Place a stop in the warehouse district and the rest will take care of itself on its own.
QuoteIt's going to take more than just a website to kick the COJ in the pants.
Correct. It takes people getting their feet wet and actually getting involved in issues that are important to them. The website should be used as a vehicle to get the news out and promote whatever cause you're already pushing.
QuoteI agree, money is an issue. How can the money be raised to do this. Maybe a donations site on here? I don't know. I just wish things would finally come together, because there has been talk about changing Jacksonville when Delaney was in office.
We've got plenty of money. It just boils down to what is the priority on the public sector side. On the private sector side, its more about opportunity to economically succeed. That's where modifying policy to level the playing field comes into play.
I was just trying to throw some ideas on the Warehouse District, that's all. Just painting a little picture. But yes I do agree though. Get the S-line going.
(http://www.concernedinsa.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/NEW-CONSTURCTION-ALONG-THE-STREETCAR-LINE.jpg)
Not a gimmick or a trick pony, 'STREETCARS - LIGHT RAIL - COMMUTER RAIL,' all enjoy a staggering return on investment as high as $14 dollars of new development for every $1 dollar spent. The fact that when everything is equal, rail ridership is considerably higher then ANY form of bus transit, means that new development will follow the tracks wherever they are built. Jacksonville has the deepest streetcar - interurban - commuter rail - suburban - regional, railroad heritage of any Florida city, and in terms of conventional passenger trains, our history is unmatched by Atlanta, New Orleans and Miami COMBINED!
The truly conservative thing to do would be to quit throwing money at every highway dream that comes down the pike, and invest in 5 +/- local corridors targeted for dense fixed transit TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT. Coordinate some creative development such as AMTRAK-COMMUTER RAIL + NEW CONVENTION CENTER, or EAST BAY STREET, IKEA, BASS PRO, Riverwalk and a 600' public pier with a SKYWAY LINK, or SAN MARCO SQUARE - SKYWAY, or AIRPORT-Busch-Gateway-Springfield-Arena-Downtown with a STREETCAR LINK. This accomplished and we'd be watching the construction cranes swing into action by the end of next year.
CALL IT "A STREETCAR NAMED DEVELOPMENT."
OCKLAWAHA
Is there another person in the city as level headed and clear minded as Lake?
Jacksonville would do quite well to have him in a leadership role with actual authority.
Smart, Polite, Correct on issues, Ethical.
Lake 2012! (if not sooner)
Quote from: buckethead on March 03, 2012, 09:30:20 AM
Is there another person in the city as level headed and clear minded as Lake?
Jacksonville would do quite well to have him in a leadership role with actual authority.
Smart, Polite, Correct on issues, Ethical.
Lake 2012! (if not sooner)
+1
+2! Let me know when he sets up a campaign fund. Maybe we should set up a draft committee.
Jacksonville does not have a lot of money. Towns and neighborhoods without a lot of money need to do exactly as Lake has said - get out of the way and let folks kind of just experiment and do their own thing with the limited resources they have until something starts sticking and momentum starts building.
That being said, that is the harder way. Most towns and neighborhoods, let alone cities CANNOT and ARE NOT willing to get out of the way. That is where deeper pockets, bigger connections and that same bold creative vision executed on a larger scale come in handy.
Charlotte has big money and big connections. Austin the same. Nashville the same. Every city developing for the better, expanding their 21st century economies, growing their young professional/creative classes and revitalizing their downtown and inner core areas are benefiting from deep pockets. Even small towns - arguably River City Company in downtown Chattanooga has more money to throw at projects than Midtown Alliance in Atlanta. Jacksonville doesn't have anything comparable to either.
Birmingham has deeper pocketed locals who support that downtown and surrounding neighbs, and it has a slew of local developers doing some pretty cool and unique things on a slightly larger than small scale. Birmimgham is also able to support a Saks Fifth Avenue and higher end shopping and services than larger Jacksonville, which says a lot right there.
There just isn't a lot of "money" in Jacksonville. There are some wealthy retirees and some wealthy philanthropists, but for all those million dollar homes we have in the metro, probably only half of the occupants can truly afford their mortgage. On top of this, the city's ethos is not focused on education and 21st century. It has tried along with much of FL, but sadly graduates of most colleges aren't flocking to anywhere in FL before looking at most any other city further north. A city needs those young, single college grads and young married couples both working to function as a real city. Jacksonville's young population just isn't as travelled, isn't as highly educated, isn't as ambitious, and isn't as interested in transforming the city as the same demographic in cities outside of FL (I'd say FL as a whole outside of Miami for different reasons is not like the rest of the country in this regard). This is going to sound completely irrelevant, but in my mind something as trivial as what I'm about to say means something. I can't find but maybe two of my friends who stayed in Jacksonville and did not go to college and then begin their careers elsewhere on linkedIn. I'm telling you, Jacksonville is just so far behind the times in many areas. It does not attract money. It does not have money. It is not really growing money outside of sheer population growth. Money makes cities go around - it has always been that way and it will always be that way. Individual neighborhoods and small towns and rural areas just don't rely on sheer money and power and influence and education and the grind like cities do. Money is a HUGE part of the missing equation in Jacksonville.
I have said this on this site multiple times in the past and been shot down, but I will not back away from this.
And money builds on itself. People with money IN CITIES are attracted to other people with money. Cross investing occurs and a dynamic and growing economy is what results. In the SE, virtually all money flows through Atlanta if it is not made here and dispersed. All of the south's VC funds are raised here. The south's largest real estate developers are here, and then spread to other cities like Charlotte and Nashville. Cross-investing occurs. What was once a big finance/RE/government city has now made up nearly all of its employment losses in those areas with gains in healthcare, tech, science, manufacturing and transportation/warehousing. It's able to do this because Tech and Emory are present with some of the largest endowments of universities in the south and producing the fuel to the 21st century boom. Other universities in the area are also helping in a big way. Money from the endowments makes that happen. Then money further flows to these VC funds, which are fueling a boom for loft office space and revitalizing whole neighborhoods that were once run-down (and this money flows to RTP in Raleigh and Austin, which is now seeing a HUGE hotel and rental and office boom). Deep-pocketed developers themselves end up throwing some money into one of these VC funds, as they are rehabbing areas into loft apartments and building new apartments in former warehouse districts, their residential base are the geeks who receive the money.
I see Nashville doing the same thing on its own now. Charlotte has kind of been in the same loop on its own for a good 15-20 years now. Jacksonville just has been completely left out of this money loop. Money and growing money makes the world go round and it certainly helps real estate and the revitilization of downtowns.
Miami has deep-pocketed individuals, which don't seem to benefit that city too much. I mean it took them how long to finally secure enough funding to break ground on that museum down there? BUT corporations are even better than deep-pocketed people. F500s and big private firms create the deep-pocketed people and have even deeperpockets themselves. I look around me, and everything is sponsored by Coke or Delta or UPS or some old rich Jewish/Buckhead family, or Bernie Marcus. Jacksonville has Everbank, Elizabeth Lovett and a few "Jacksonville-wealthy" families, perhaps it benefited a little from Winn Dixie and Fidelity, but it just doesn't have that corporate money backing or that base of extremely deep-pocketed people.
Cities are always in a competition for money because money makes stuff happen. Cities don't even need ingenuity if they have the money...if enough money is thrown at enough things, something will stick. Such is the nature of investing.
It's sad to say that I really have lost faith in Jacksonville. These city leaders will continue to keep the big corporations out. They will continue to hold downtown back. St. Augustine is on the rise while Jacksonville is "staying put". It is so frustrating. Why can't they just change policy? Why can't they just make things more people-friendly? When will they learn?
I will admit, when I state that the city needs to get out of the way, it won't immediately lead to the yuppified, suburbanite loving vision that many may want downtown to become. What it will lead to is a sustainable urban environment where all cultures, races, and income levels get a fair chance to play in the game. On a smaller scale, its what's naturally taking place along King Street and the CoRK/Brewery area right now.
Well it wouldn't happen overnight. But just think of where things would be right now if they had changed all these policies at least 10 years ago.
Yet they continue to hand out building permits for more offices on the southside and JTB like they are candy. Who's trying to stop that??? NOONE
No reason to stop it. Just level the playing field, so that the cost to operate or live in either is about the same, and you'll see a larger percentage go to an area that has historically been unfeasible for them to do so. In addition, if public policy drives more sustainable development, that will improve the quality of the burbs as well as the urban core.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 04, 2012, 07:35:29 AM
No reason to stop it. Just level the playing field, so that the cost to operate or live in either is about the same, and you'll see a larger percentage go to an area that has historically been unfeasible for them to do so. In addition, if public policy drives more sustainable development, that will improve the quality of the burbs as well as the urban core.
Level playing field? In Jax thats a joke. Without a plan...nothing will change..jtb will be the new downtown...and everyone thought all of the cash from the skinner family in local races was'nt going to have to be returned.
How can this be stopped? What needs to be done? Someone needs to say something to Brown or the COJ.
I submit that lots of these things have started happening here. My much younger cousin just left Brooklyn, NY he has been there about eight years after growing up in Jax finishing college. I thought more typical brain drain he gets educated and gets out but surprisingly he is coming back and is interested in downtown, The south bank towers or Springfield. He of course is not expecting it to be like NYC but wants an Urban scene to participate in and we have stared to see that coming about.
Quote from: JeffreyS on March 04, 2012, 09:49:37 AM
I submit that lots of these things have started happening here. My much younger cousin just left Brooklyn, NY he has been there about eight years after growing up in Jax finishing college. I thought more typical brain drain he gets educated and gets out but surprisingly he is coming back and is interested in downtown, The south bank towers or Springfield. He of course is not expecting it to be like NYC but wants an Urban scene to participate in and we have stared to see that coming about.
Have the same exact thing going on with my girlfriend
Quote from: thelakelander on March 04, 2012, 07:35:29 AM
No reason to stop it. Just level the playing field, so that the cost to operate or live in either is about the same, and you'll see a larger percentage go to an area that has historically been unfeasible for them to do so. In addition, if public policy drives more sustainable development, that will improve the quality of the burbs as well as the urban core.
The second part regarding policy sounds good. The first part sounds bad. You can't level the playing field from a cost perspective. Name a city where living or operating in the core is as cheap or cheaper than the burbs. Well - actually I can guarantee you it's cheaper in Jacksonville for retailers. A good Publix-anchored center or the SJTC is going to have much higher rents and in the first case much lower tenant improvement packages. Office to office, parts of the Southside are probably $2-3 more expensive than similar space downtown, though buildings on the SS are newer and thus equipped for the 21st century and they come with free parking.
You can't artificially make downtown desirable by "leveling the price playing field." That's not how it works anywhere. Downtowns/business districts are on the rise because in most cities that's what the people want. Jacksonville is unique in that it doesn't really have the same engaged population outside of this board. It's a city filled with people who don't care.
On top of this, the inner core actually needs to be more expensive than what it is now to pay for things that will provide the appropriate trade-off people/companies are looking for when deciding between urban and suburban. What I mean by this is that A) taxes all across the city should actually be higher (and to give you an example of either how cheap Jax people are or how conservative they are or how out of touch they are or how poor they are they think taxes are still wayyy too high!...it's literally the cheapest city in America!), B) companies/invested parties downtown need to care more than they do and they need to set up a CID whereby they tax themselves more to pay for public improvements, C) Jacksonville just needs a population who cares and who is willing and able to spend the money to be and live downtown.
Yes, not caring is another big part of the problem. You can see it in the trash that people litter public areas with. I live in Avondale and on a given Saturday or Sunday morning see what they could not be bothered to dispose of properly, from beer bottles and cans, and cigarette butts to - you name it. I think that doesn't go in in Town Center, but probably due to sufficient trash receptacles and sufficient staff to keep the place looking like it should.
The two owners of the Landing have blamed low usage on the parking problem. The real problem is that too many folks here think that walking a few blocks to get somewhere is just too much to endure. (But I acknowledge that walking downtown is too often not the nicest experience thanks to the homeless, the inefficient lighting, etc.)
Hey, I just had an idea -quite possibly stupid, but what the hell. Let's all start taking smart-phone photos of folks who are throwing butts on the ground and posting them to a hall of shame. Who amongst us can create the website?
Quote from: simms3 on March 04, 2012, 10:17:04 AM
You can't level the playing field from a cost perspective. Name a city where living or operating in the core is as cheap or cheaper than the burbs. Well - actually I can guarantee you it's cheaper in Jacksonville for retailers. A good Publix-anchored center or the SJTC is going to have much higher rents and in the first case much lower tenant improvement packages. Office to office, parts of the Southside are probably $2-3 more expensive than similar space downtown, though buildings on the SS are newer and thus equipped for the 21st century and they come with free parking.
Zoom out a bit from the development world, which is reactionary, to the planning and policy world, which ultimately drives local market conditions. I'd argue from a planning policy standpoint, that we've bankrupted our urban cores by subsidizing suburban development for the last sixty years. Leveling the playing field is as simply as easy as reducing the subsidies that drive new development further away from our more sustainable urban cores (this not only includes downtown but your older inner ring neighborhoods as well).
QuoteYou can't artificially make downtown desirable by "leveling the price playing field." That's not how it works anywhere.
My focus would not be just "downtown" but we've artificially made several far flung areas more desirable by subsidizing. For example, if we don't invest the billions in a JTB or Outer Beltway, it becomes significantly less feasible for private development to occur along those corridors. If we don't dump the hundreds of millions into infrastructure in a spot like Cecil, it becomes a less attractive option for private sector industrial investment. However, when we do dump money into these places, it typically comes at the expense of places that actually generated the public money to invest in the first place.
QuoteDowntowns/business districts are on the rise because in most cities that's what the people want. Jacksonville is unique in that it doesn't really have the same engaged population outside of this board. It's a city filled with people who don't care.
I totally disagree with this statement. Jacksonville, in general is no different from several of its peer cities. Cities tend to grow organically. There's a certain segment of the population that prefers urban, suburban, rural, etc. and a larger percentage who really don't care as long as their daily lives aren't negatively impacted. Where Jacksonville has really suffered is on the leadership level and decades of poor public decisions that have transformed much of its urban core to a moonscape. Such decisions have limited small business growth opportunities and places a larger burden on big business and money to jump start the redevelopment process, when help from all sectors and demographics is needed.
QuoteOn top of this, the inner core actually needs to be more expensive than what it is now to pay for things that will provide the appropriate trade-off people/companies are looking for when deciding between urban and suburban. What I mean by this is that A) taxes all across the city should actually be higher (and to give you an example of either how cheap Jax people are or how conservative they are or how out of touch they are or how poor they are they think taxes are still wayyy too high!...it's literally the cheapest city in America!),
Or perhaps we should learn to better utilize the tax money that already comes in? It's obvious that we've invested in a growth model that does not work or pay for itself. You actually hit on an example of this horrible growth model at the public level, when you mentioned the city's off-street parking requirements in the Riverside Park development thread. Things like that combine to drive an overall development pattern that doesn't pay for itself. Perhaps it's time to revisit that model before throwing more tax money into the fire?
QuoteB) companies/invested parties downtown need to care more than they do and they need to set up a CID whereby they tax themselves more to pay for public improvements,
Something like this is already in place, although the JEDC is in charge of how the money gets spent. I believe that's where the funds for the Laura Street Streetscape and Friendship Fountain projects came from.
QuoteC) Jacksonville just needs a population who cares and who is willing and able to spend the money to be and live downtown.
This will happen if policy is modified and the city gets out of the way. I have tons of examples where people wanted to get involved, invest there money in downtown specifically but policy has driven them away to other areas. Florida Coastal, half the artist at CoRK, Cameron Kuhn, Sleiman/Landing situation, and even our little food truck event are quick examples that immediately pop in my mind.
QuoteName a city where living or operating in the core is as cheap or cheaper than the burbs.
I said, level the playing field but I would never attempt to provide a direct number, because every development opportunity should be evaluated on an individual basis. With that said, Philadelphia is an example of a city that successfully helped level their playing field via a massive tax abatement program a decade ago. In fact, it was wildly successful for the revitalization of Center City. Others such as Portland and Lexington have successfully implemented urban development boundaries. A few others that are hard pressed, such as Detroit and Youngstown, are going as far as closing off neighborhoods to drive development and investment to other areas to compete against suburban pressures.
Quote from: WmNussbaum on March 04, 2012, 10:53:08 AM
Yes, not caring is another big part of the problem. You can see it in the trash that people litter public areas with. I live in Avondale and on a given Saturday or Sunday morning see what they could not be bothered to dispose of properly, from beer bottles and cans, and cigarette butts to - you name it. I think that doesn't go in in Town Center, but probably due to sufficient trash receptacles and sufficient staff to keep the place looking like it should.
Actually, public roadways like Southside Boulevard and Philips Highway are some of the trashiest I've seen in town. Btw, SJTC is a private development. Trashy public ROW is more likely a result of a struggling public maintenance department that may be stretched too thin. Again, another example of a situation that can be contributed to a horrible development pattern.
QuoteThe two owners of the Landing have blamed low usage on the parking problem. The real problem is that too many folks here think that walking a few blocks to get somewhere is just too much to endure. (But I acknowledge that walking downtown is too often not the nicest experience thanks to the homeless, the inefficient lighting, etc.)
This statement is a perfect example of what has ailed downtown for decades. Instead of acknowledging problems that have been stated by business owners for sixty years, we continue to ignore these issues and suggest that people need to be trained. Perhaps, just for once, it would make sense to listen and attempt to address these types of issues? This downtown redevelopment stuff is really simple. We just tend to overcomplicate the situation.
QuoteThis statement is a perfect example of what has ailed downtown for decades. Instead of acknowledging problems that have been stated by business owners for sixty years, we continue to ignore these issues and suggest that people need to be trained.
Years and years ago the only parking was on the street and it was not sufficient. Store employees took up too many of the metered spots to have space left over for shoppers. Now that isn't the case. There are two fairly large parking garages within easy walking distance of the Landing. One on the NE corner of Bay and Main, and the other on Bay between Bay and Laura. I think it's deplorable that the City reneges on its promises to create closer parking, but with the other space available, was the promise really necessary to begin with? Between the garages and the sites of razed buildings, there is ample parking all over the core area. (It might get a bit tighter when the new courthouse opens in May.)
Ron Chamblin, how about weighing in on this thread?
Speaking of Ron, the problem of the homeless is real. It is a fairly new one - about 10 years or less. It is exacerbated because the jail which regularly releases inmates and Sulzbacher are both close to the old core city. I have no legally or socially acceptable solution to that problem, but it would help if those two institutions were somewhat removed from the area we would like to see thrive again. At lease one person I consider knowledgeable think that the jail - Oops, "pretrial detention facility - may be nearing the end of its useful life. One can only hope.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 04, 2012, 11:32:09 AM
Quote from: simms3 on March 04, 2012, 10:17:04 AM
You can't level the playing field from a cost perspective. Name a city where living or operating in the core is as cheap or cheaper than the burbs. Well - actually I can guarantee you it's cheaper in Jacksonville for retailers. A good Publix-anchored center or the SJTC is going to have much higher rents and in the first case much lower tenant improvement packages. Office to office, parts of the Southside are probably $2-3 more expensive than similar space downtown, though buildings on the SS are newer and thus equipped for the 21st century and they come with free parking.
Zoom out a bit from the development world, which is reactionary, to the planning and policy world, which ultimately drives local market conditions. I'd argue from a planning policy standpoint, that we've bankrupted our urban cores by subsidizing suburban development for the last sixty years. Leveling the playing field is as simply as easy as reducing the subsidies that drive new development further away from our more sustainable urban cores (this not only includes downtown but your older inner ring neighborhoods as well).
I'll just speak from the experience of working for private equity myself. We invest in two types of markets: core gateway markets on the coasts where there is over-regulation and near impossibility of new development, but we are one of a small handful. Then we have opportunistic funds where money is allocated to urbanizing cities such as Atlanta and smaller cities such as Nashville and Savannah and Chattannooga where beyond planning there is an intown boom fueled by universities, growing corporations and improving 21st century economic fundamentals. Local planning policies have never determined our investments. It's ALL about fundamentals for us, and we are not alone.
Charlotte and Nashville sprawl even further than Jacksonville does, yet each has a strong and growing core thanks to a combination of strong local universities, strong corporate leadership and strong mayors who had vision to partner with the private sector and universites. I don't believe either city has ground-breaking policies different from Jacksonville. Both cities will get you on things as little as signage. Both cities have overzealous bureaucracies and "economic" boards, etc. Those cities do have higher taxes. The difference is in the private sector and the people.
QuoteYou can't artificially make downtown desirable by "leveling the price playing field." That's not how it works anywhere.
My focus would not be just "downtown" but we've artificially made several far flung areas more desirable by subsidizing. For example, if we don't invest the billions in a JTB or Outer Beltway, it becomes significantly less feasible for private development to occur along those corridors. If we don't dump the hundreds of millions into infrastructure in a spot like Cecil, it becomes a less attractive option for private sector industrial investment. However, when we do dump money into these places, it typically comes at the expense of places that actually generated the public money to invest in the first place.
Again, there is no city in America that is not continuing to expand and build new highways and roads an schools in the suburbs. Every city has suburbs that are expanding faster than the city and in a much more unsustainable way. We can't stop "subsidizing" the suburbs as you say, or they will turn to crap and NOBODY will move here. Instead we can come up with packages that include funding for the suburbs and the core simultaneously, much like the Better Jacksonville Plan. Atlanta is using this tactic to hopefully pass a $19B transportation bill tax this summer whereby the suburbs will get tons of new roads, but the city will also expand MARTA and the Beltline dramatically so everyone wins. It has yet to be determined if it will pass, but it sure as hell wouldn't if it were 70/30 or greater transit to roads. More people will always want roads over transit anywhere in America
QuoteDowntowns/business districts are on the rise because in most cities that's what the people want. Jacksonville is unique in that it doesn't really have the same engaged population outside of this board. It's a city filled with people who don't care.
I totally disagree with this statement. Jacksonville, in general is no different from several of its peer cities. Cities tend to grow organically. There's a certain segment of the population that prefers urban, suburban, rural, etc. and a larger percentage who really don't care as long as their daily lives aren't negatively impacted. Where Jacksonville has really suffered is on the leadership level and decades of poor public decisions that have transformed much of its urban core to a moonscape. Such decisions have limited small business growth opportunities and places a larger burden on big business and money to jump start the redevelopment process, when help from all sectors and demographics is needed.
Just from my limited experience traveling with my company and my observations living outside of Jacksonville, people in Jacksonville just aren't as engaged as people elsewhere. It's not just a Jacksonville thing, though. It's largely a FL thing. I agree that our local leadership has historically been lacking compared to practically anywhere, even compared to other cities in FL. That being said Jacksonville has always had a larger corporate sector that has had plenty of opportunity to intervene. The city has also had major business leaders that have had opportunity to intervene. Peter Rummell is now basically the head of ULI and resides in Jacksonville, and I know he is a member of some local groups and has spoken, but where is the ACTION?
QuoteOn top of this, the inner core actually needs to be more expensive than what it is now to pay for things that will provide the appropriate trade-off people/companies are looking for when deciding between urban and suburban. What I mean by this is that A) taxes all across the city should actually be higher (and to give you an example of either how cheap Jax people are or how conservative they are or how out of touch they are or how poor they are they think taxes are still wayyy too high!...it's literally the cheapest city in America!),
Or perhaps we should learn to better utilize the tax money that already comes in? It's obvious that we've invested in a growth model that does not work or pay for itself. You actually hit on an example of this horrible growth model at the public level, when you mentioned the city's off-street parking requirements in the Riverside Park development thread. Things like that combine to drive an overall development pattern that doesn't pay for itself. Perhaps it's time to revisit that model before throwing more tax money into the fire?
I was floored by the ratio requirement, but I also commented that in Midtown Atlanta the requirement may be lower but developers are still building to a similar ratio because as urban as it is in contrast, until it gets to DC/NYC/Boston/Seattle densities the car will always rule and people living IN the city will still need a car...or two. I still think Jacksonville is horribly under-taxed. With the little taxes we have coming in, how would you allocate the spending? Too many tough choices need to be made to appease too many groups of people politically split all over the city's 750 square miles.
QuoteB) companies/invested parties downtown need to care more than they do and they need to set up a CID whereby they tax themselves more to pay for public improvements,
Something like this is already in place, although the JEDC is in charge of how the money gets spent. I believe that's where the funds for the Laura Street Streetscape and Friendship Fountain projects came from.
I can promise you that while on the surface it may seem like Jax/downtown is set up similarly, it is not. It truly is not. My neighborhood CID is so advanced that I have a CID card that gives me discounts with shops/businesses within the zone. Not only that, EVERY business district from downtown to the various burbs has its own very involved CID. On top of this there are 8 TIDs separate from the CIDs within the city, and then the county has its own. On top of this are the various economic empowerment zones, one of which I live in as well. The city may be in the poor house, but these zones are plugging and chugging private money into public bond financing and also churning privately taxed money into "public" projects within these zones. The city did not pay one penny for the miles of streetscaping done around me in the past 3 years. It was all tax money, but private tax money that the city had almost no control over as specified in the legal documents setting up and empowering the CIDs. On top of all this and even with the high vacancies, there are still enough corporations, businesses, and deep pockets who can fund these zones. That will make it difficult for Jacksonville - and is an example of when money comes in handy.
QuoteC) Jacksonville just needs a population who cares and who is willing and able to spend the money to be and live downtown.
This will happen if policy is modified and the city gets out of the way. I have tons of examples where people wanted to get involved, invest there money in downtown specifically but policy has driven them away to other areas. Florida Coastal, half the artist at CoRK, Cameron Kuhn, Sleiman/Landing situation, and even our little food truck event are quick examples that immediately pop in my mind.
I agree with all of this. BUT the people of Jacksonville are who keep electing these dolts and I don't hear a public outcry over any of this outside of this board. Maybe the FTU does not even care, but seriously if any of this were to happen in a more engaged city there would be a major outcry if it were truly against the wishes of the people. I'm telling you PEOPLE DON'T CARE.
QuoteName a city where living or operating in the core is as cheap or cheaper than the burbs.
I said, level the playing field but I would never attempt to provide a direct number, because every development opportunity should be evaluated on an individual basis. With that said, Philadelphia is an example of a city that successfully helped level their playing field via a massive tax abatement program a decade ago. In fact, it was wildly successful for the revitalization of Center City. Others such as Portland and Lexington have successfully implemented urban development boundaries. A few others that are hard pressed, such as Detroit and Youngstown, are going as far as closing off neighborhoods to drive development and investment to other areas to compete against suburban pressures.
Philadelphia is probably the best analogy to what could be done in Jax, but keep in mind the tax abatements there covered the entire city limits, which are much smaller than Duval County, but still included far more land outside of Center City than in. Also, there are differences between the two.
1) There were a ton of Center City buildings to choose from, creating liquidity in the market and reducing competition between investors.
2) There has always been a mentality in Philly of preserving the past, and plenty of investors had already been major donors to the Franklin Institute, museums, CC organizations and the like.
3) The fundamentals were already there: a drive, a will, major local universities, major museums and tourist attractions, Walnut St shops, Rittenhouse Square, big corporate headquarters and amazing public transportation.
4) Bottom line rents in CC at the beginning of the program were still pretty high. Even in 1980 dollars rents in some of the newly rehabbed buildings would be akin to some of the nicer developments in Jax today. Cars were also not necessary and it was and is very expensive to own a car in CC. Likewise the infrastructure to support cars, aka garages, did not need to be built.
5) Rents were high because they needed to be and because they could be. Philly has a lot of wealthy young professionals and wealthy families. It was easy to convince Penn grads who stayed in Philly that they needn't move to the Main Line but could just cross the river or stay in the University area. These Penn grads had great jobs and could and would happily afford high rents in a cool building. A little bit different situation than Jax.
6) Combine high rents, good incomes in the area with highly educated young people, great fundamentals, liquidity and tons of choices and you have a great investment and a burgeoning investment community taking advantage of the abatements.
Novare received a tax abatement from the city of Atlanta for its latest barebones multifamily high rise ($2.5M if I remember correctly), and this also helped lower rents - but the 1BRs are still starting at $1,500. This development will not have all the bells and whistles. Could Jax support similar rents?
Unfortunately Jacksonville does not have most or any of these options to play into the tax abatement program. It's not as if rehabbing buildings and new construction are drastically less there than elsewhere, but rents are...and therein lies the problem.
Also, I would weary of copying Detroit and Youngstown on anything they do. We don't know if their policies will work, but historically they have done nothing right in those towns.
WmNussbaum, the Landing situation dealt with "dedicated" parking for potential Landing retail anchors, which has nothing to do with the overall number of non-dedicated parking spaces in downtown garages and on surface streets. Some believe it should be solved by adding to downtown's parking supply. I believe it makes more sense to "dedicate" a certain number of existing spaces within close distance of the shopping center.
Just don't see how retailers will come to the Landing anyway without the fundamentals, parking or not. If downtown were a true tourist district with more hotels and more tourists, then parking would be far less a factor. That being said there are 3 groups who can feed 3 different types of retailers downtown: office workers, residents and tourists. Contrary to popular belief by me earlier in my life and by many on this board, office workers don't do much shopping at all in any downtown. They want sundries, dry cleaning and one-stop shop kiosks at most before they clear out and go home. If their home is a few blocks away, then they are obviously categorized as a downtown resident, as well. The residents want their staples within easy walking, transit, or yes even driving distance with parking. Tourists are totally different and fall into various sub-categories.
We have very few office workers. We have basically no residents. And we don't have many tourists at all.
Parking at the Landing could currently be 1.0 space per 1,000 SF directly in front and free and easy for visitors and still no national/credit retailer will give the Landing a chance.
If Sleiman is smart, then even if he were given all the parking in the world he would not make any major improvements to the center to try to attract tenants without better overall downtown fundamentals and/or MAJOR "subsidies". This is the dirty little secret because he knows nothing he does right now or the city does right now will translate to retailers/tenants 1-2 years from now.
As major downtown owners in NYC and going down from there, we offer major TI allowances for virtually all of our ground floor tenants - even in NYC. It does not automatically translate to a long list of tenants dying to be in one of our developments. They have proformas on their real estate side just like we do, and it comes down to compromises that ensure both parties reach or exceed proforma. This is also the case in NYC. So if it's not a given that a retailer will go in your Fifth Ave space in Manhattan, it's certainly not a given for some lame place in dead downtown Jax.
Again...money drives all decisions :)
Quote from: simms3 on March 04, 2012, 01:31:27 PM
Charlotte and Nashville sprawl even further than Jacksonville does, yet each has a strong and growing core thanks to a combination of strong local universities, strong corporate leadership and strong mayors who had vision to partner with the private sector and universites. I don't believe either city has ground-breaking policies different from Jacksonville. Both cities will get you on things as little as signage. Both cities have overzealous bureaucracies and "economic" boards, etc. Those cities do have higher taxes. The difference is in the private sector and the people.
You mentioned it in your post but left it out in the last sentence. Don't underestimate political leadership. For example, Charlotte is very agressive on incentivizing development deals that Jax would never seriously consider. Just a few years ago they gave tons of incentives to Johnson & Whales University to pick and move to Uptown. When a city has a vision and puts its money where its mouth is, the private sector usually jumps on board.
QuoteAgain, there is no city in America that is not continuing to expand and build new highways and roads an schools in the suburbs.
Sure there is. Most major cities are boxed in by other municipalities. To compete, they find creative ways to improve their quality of life (ex. like the Philly tax abatement program). In some cities like Milwaukee and San Francisco, they've gone as far as closing and removing expressways to replace them with pedestrian scale boulevards and greenways. They just have no control over what goes on outside of their borders.
QuoteEvery city has suburbs that are expanding faster than the city and in a much more unsustainable way. We can't stop "subsidizing" the suburbs as you say, or they will turn to crap and NOBODY will move here. Instead we can come up with packages that include funding for the suburbs and the core simultaneously, much like the Better Jacksonville Plan.
Yes, we have a national wide problem and the chickens are currently coming home to roost. Some cities, such as Harrisburg, PA have already filed for bankruptcy. Others are well on their way. So eventually, we will stop with the subsidies because the cash will run dry due to a ponzi scheme oriented growth pattern. Even the BJP's well ran dry without a significant portion of intended projects ever being completed. Nevertheless, you can stop the unsustainable subsidies and still maintain viable districts throughout. However, policies will have to be modified to encourage more sustainable development within urban cores and suburbs.
QuoteJust from my limited experience traveling with my company and my observations living outside of Jacksonville, people in Jacksonville just aren't as engaged as people elsewhere. It's not just a Jacksonville thing, though. It's largely a FL thing. I agree that our local leadership has historically been lacking compared to practically anywhere, even compared to other cities in FL. That being said Jacksonville has always had a larger corporate sector that has had plenty of opportunity to intervene. The city has also had major business leaders that have had opportunity to intervene. Peter Rummell is now basically the head of ULI and resides in Jacksonville, and I know he is a member of some local groups and has spoken, but where is the ACTION?
From my experience, people want to be engaged but its not so easy for them to do so. Thus, many relocate to areas where their innovation and creativity are embraced on a larger level. Just look at how hostile we've been to the food truck industry here. Something, that if embraced, could easily help put people on the street in areas of downtown that are currently dominated by surface parking lots.
QuoteI was floored by the ratio requirement, but I also commented that in Midtown Atlanta the requirement may be lower but developers are still building to a similar ratio because as urban as it is in contrast, until it gets to DC/NYC/Boston/Seattle densities the car will always rule and people living IN the city will still need a car...or two. I still think Jacksonville is horribly under-taxed. With the little taxes we have coming in, how would you allocate the spending? Too many tough choices need to be made to appease too many groups of people politically split all over the city's 750 square miles.
The best answer here is to look at other cities that spread across hundreds of miles, yet still have fairly decent downtowns. Oklahoma City, Nashville, Charlotte, Columbus, Indianapolis, Memphis, etc. are all good peer cities to evaluate on that level.
QuoteI can promise you that while on the surface it may seem like Jax/downtown is set up similarly, it is not. It truly is not. My neighborhood CID is so advanced that I have a CID card that gives me discounts with shops/businesses within the zone. Not only that, EVERY business district from downtown to the various burbs has its own very involved CID. On top of this there are 8 TIDs separate from the CIDs within the city, and then the county has its own. On top of this are the various economic empowerment zones, one of which I live in as well. The city may be in the poor house, but these zones are plugging and chugging private money into public bond financing and also churning privately taxed money into "public" projects within these zones. The city did not pay one penny for the miles of streetscaping done around me in the past 3 years. It was all tax money, but private tax money that the city had almost no control over as specified in the legal documents setting up and empowering the CIDs. On top of all this and even with the high vacancies, there are still enough corporations, businesses, and deep pockets who can fund these zones. That will make it difficult for Jacksonville - and is an example of when money comes in handy.
This is where getting out of the way of the private sector may make some sense. That would allow entities to do just this without "stepping on the toes" of a public agency who believes this is their turf.
QuoteI agree with all of this. BUT the people of Jacksonville are who keep electing these dolts and I don't hear a public outcry over any of this outside of this board. Maybe the FTU does not even care, but seriously if any of this were to happen in a more engaged city there would be a major outcry if it were truly against the wishes of the people. I'm telling you PEOPLE DON'T CARE.
People care just as much as they do in most Sunbelt cities, Jacksonville's size. Looking back, they cared enough to tax themselves with the BJP, which is still fairly revolutionary for a community with Jax's demographics. However, you've got to have leadership to push a vision through. For whatever reason, we've struggled in this arena.
QuotePhiladelphia is probably the best analogy to what could be done in Jax, but keep in mind the tax abatements there covered the entire city limits, which are much smaller than Duval County, but still included far more land outside of Center City than in. Also, there are differences between the two.
1) There were a ton of Center City buildings to choose from, creating liquidity in the market and reducing competition between investors.
2) There has always been a mentality in Philly of preserving the past, and plenty of investors had already been major donors to the Franklin Institute, museums, CC organizations and the like.
3) The fundamentals were already there: a drive, a will, major local universities, major museums and tourist attractions, Walnut St shops, Rittenhouse Square, big corporate headquarters and amazing public transportation.
4) Bottom line rents in CC at the beginning of the program were still pretty high. Even in 1980 dollars rents in some of the newly rehabbed buildings would be akin to some of the nicer developments in Jax today. Cars were also not necessary and it was and is very expensive to own a car in CC. Likewise the infrastructure to support cars, aka garages, did not need to be built.
5) Rents were high because they needed to be and because they could be. Philly has a lot of wealthy young professionals and wealthy families. It was easy to convince Penn grads who stayed in Philly that they needn't move to the Main Line but could just cross the river or stay in the University area. These Penn grads had great jobs and could and would happily afford high rents in a cool building. A little bit different situation than Jax.
6) Combine high rents, good incomes in the area with highly educated young people, great fundamentals, liquidity and tons of choices and you have a great investment and a burgeoning investment community taking advantage of the abatements.
Novare received a tax abatement from the city of Atlanta for its latest barebones multifamily high rise ($2.5M if I remember correctly), and this also helped lower rents - but the 1BRs are still starting at $1,500. This development will not have all the bells and whistles. Could Jax support similar rents?
Unfortunately Jacksonville does not have most or any of these options to play into the tax abatement program. It's not as if rehabbing buildings and new construction are drastically less there than elsewhere, but rents are...and therein lies the problem.
When I look at this situations, they're easier to tackle when you break apart the causes and effects. Our cause is we've created an uneven playing field to drive development to far flung areas of town and have subsidized billions to do so. That move has been a success but it has drained downtown, the urban core, and COJ's budget. To apply the Philly model here would call for tax abatement, not only in downtown but most of the pre consolidated city. When you combine the two, you do have decent urban fabric to work with. You also have to acknowledge that stimulating small business growth in these areas is just as important (if not more) than large scale development.
QuoteAlso, I would weary of copying Detroit and Youngstown on anything they do. We don't know if their policies will work, but historically they have done nothing right in those towns.
Depends. I'd copy Detroit's streetcar, Campus Martius, and Dequindre Cut projects any day. Those particular solutions towards mass transit and public space planning will work in any community. Detroit's Eastern Market area is also exactly what Jax should attempt to create with the industrial district around the Beaver Street farmers market. However, closing off areas of town won't and probably won't work in Detroit and Youngstown either.
Quote from: simms3 on March 04, 2012, 01:56:58 PM
Just don't see how retailers will come to the Landing anyway without the fundamentals, parking or not. If downtown were a true tourist district with more hotels and more tourists, then parking would be far less a factor. That being said there are 3 groups who can feed 3 different types of retailers downtown: office workers, residents and tourists. Contrary to popular belief by me earlier in my life and by many on this board, office workers don't do much shopping at all in any downtown. They want sundries, dry cleaning and one-stop shop kiosks at most before they clear out and go home. If their home is a few blocks away, then they are obviously categorized as a downtown resident, as well. The residents want their staples within easy walking, transit, or yes even driving distance with parking. Tourists are totally different and fall into various sub-categories.
We have very few office workers. We have basically no residents. And we don't have many tourists at all.
Parking at the Landing could currently be 1.0 space per 1,000 SF directly in front and free and easy for visitors and still no national/credit retailer will give the Landing a chance.
If Sleiman is smart, then even if he were given all the parking in the world he would not make any major improvements to the center to try to attract tenants without better overall downtown fundamentals and/or MAJOR "subsidies". This is the dirty little secret because he knows nothing he does right now or the city does right now will translate to retailers/tenants 1-2 years from now.
As major downtown owners in NYC and going down from there, we offer major TI allowances for virtually all of our ground floor tenants - even in NYC. It does not automatically translate to a long list of tenants dying to be in one of our developments. They have proformas on their real estate side just like we do, and it comes down to compromises that ensure both parties reach or exceed proforma. This is also the case in NYC. So if it's not a given that a retailer will go in your Fifth Ave space in Manhattan, it's certainly not a given for some lame place in dead downtown Jax.
Again...money drives all decisions :)
All this depends on the type of retail. If we're talking about an upscale chain or major department store, that's one thing. If we're talking about attracting more service, entertainment, and dining oriented retail venues than that's another. The Landing will never be a place that's going to attract the same type of chains populating SJTC or Avenues Mall. However, it can be a place that attracts more entertainment and dining oriented venues. Nevertheless, dedicated parking plays a role in both. It would also be a great location for a Beaver Street style public market. That option would not rely so much on dedicated parking but it would net Sleiman his desired leasing rates either.
Also, I think Sleiman's Landing may be the key to transforming the heart of the urban core. It needs to be opened up to Laura Street and that interior mall needs to be flipped inside out. I agree that this should be considered as a package deal with anything concerning the Landing.
QuoteIf their home is a few blocks away, then they are obviously categorized as a downtown resident, as well. The residents want their staples within easy walking, transit, or yes even driving distance with parking.
Which is why if anything is seriously invested into on a public level, it should be a starter fixed transit system. It doesn't need to stretch into the burbs immediately but it should definitely tie downtown in with the surrounding neighborhoods. For example, invest $30 million in a three mile line that ties Springfield/Shands, downtown, and Riverside/Five Points together. Link San Marco Square to the mix via a short skyway extension to Atlantic, and then you immediately have an urban environment where all the expected staples of urban living are available. In addition, like a new suburban highway, fixed transit stimulates infill development. Thus, you make areas like Brooklyn, Lavilla, Sugar Hill, and the Cathedral District viable locations for market rate projects like 220 Riverside and Riverside Park. All of this movement between surrounding districts, leads to more growth in the heart of downtown. You'll get more out of that $30 million investment than dropping $100 million on a new convention center or gimmick like an aquarium.
Lake, let's say we could bend the rules of the Duval County Matrix a little bit, and downtown wasn't as forbidding...Is there any secenario in which we could round up some of the colleges sitting in office parks and centralize them somewhere in the core? I noticed that, in VA Beach, Univ. of Phoenix, Strayer, and the Art Institute were all on top of each other in the same area. We've got tons of schools like this scattered all over town, and that just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Sure, but you'd probably have to be like Charlotte (with Johnson & Wales) and pay them to come to a certain location. As the thread title suggest, Charlotte and North Carolina showed Johnson & Wales the money to get them to close their campuses in Norfolk and Charleston and relocate to a new $82 million campus in Uptown Charlotte, back in 2002. In that case, they enticed the school with $10 million from the State of North Carolina, reduced land, tax breaks, and other incentives. Now the culinary school has 2,500 students living in Uptown Charlotte. Would Jax be willing to toss that type of cash to bring more education facilities downtown?
We didn't do it with Florida Coastal back in 2004. For example, when Florida Coastal wanted to be downtown a few years ago, we should have made that happen. Instead, the parking situation led them to Baymeadows, so that ship has now passed. Personally, I think if we want college investment in downtown and the urban core, JU, FSCJ, and EWC are our best short term opportunities. In addition, something like this is best tackled on an individual basis as the opportunity presents itself.