I alluded to the fact that there would be growing pressure after "One Spark" for an infusion of cash into downtown. Here is is in print. If I had to guess, I would say there will be a ton of pressure put on the mayor to see the shipyards money go here. Whether or not the council will buy into that is one unanswered question.
(http://i.imgur.com/A0XGA9k.jpg)
http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2014/04/23/as-real-estate-cycle-ramps-up-downtown.html (click link for full article)
But for Downtown Jacksonville, a place where rents are too low to justify even the smallest construction jobs, it will start with public investment, Halverson said. He said some individuals are talking about a patient capital fund for Downtown projects— capital that is willing to wait for and accept low returns in exchange for doing projects for the greater good of the community.
The private sector will not jump in until the city leads the way, he said.
Agree with the article, 100%. The times we are in don't come by very often. The capital markets overall are healthy. Public discussions are being had. Optimism about things is high. This opportunity to get something done and really plant more than just a mustard seed should not be squandered.
Every city that we all love to visit because of their cool downtown (and all that that implies) has at one point or another had to bite the bullet and spend money, public money. And that required a political will. I think Jax is about in this perfect time to follow suit...you don't spend public money when times are bad!
This is another article that talks about the idea Mayor Alvin Brown floated the that private Downtown Investors could help fund the needed capital infusion for downtown revitalization. The idea fell on deaf ears the first time it was floated. Now Haskell is saying the attempt to get that private funding has begun again. This will be a contest of who invests first the city or the private sector. Note, the excerpt below which indicates who was initially tapped to help and who did not. Apparently Haskell is considering the investment, no word on Peter Rummell or Wayne Weaver. Just a reminder how who controls the politics locally influences if and when money funds downtown. I know some don't want to believe that fact, but it's true. Part of the landscape when it comes to finding the mojo Khan is talking about. Lets see if our millionaires whom he declared are without mojo can find some now. lol
http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2014/04/23/patient-capital-fund-in-the-works-for-jacksonville.html
(click link for full article)
Patient capital is investment dollars that doesn't expect high or immediate returns. It's a concept that's been successful in other cities, but hasn't caught on in Jacksonville yet. Mayor Alvin Brown floated the idea in 2012, calling on Peter Rummell, Preston Haskell and Wayne Weaver, among others, but it never gained any traction.
^^^Steve Halverson is CEO of Haskell Co and has no direct person affiliation with Preston Haskell, who is now long since retired from that position. The article doesn't indicate if anyone is considering it.
However, along with Shad Khan, Preston Haskell, Peter Rummell, Wayne Weaver, Tom Petway, and maybe a couple others I'm missing (Bill Walton, for instance, who is kind of removed from the Jax scene from what I understand) are a few of the very few big whig private sector names we have in this city. Any of them banding together to pool capital and create investment would be a good thing, even if it comes with strings attached (I regard all of these guys to be FAR FAR FAR more competent than *anyone* in city government right now). Again, just as if Shad Khan were to turn into Jacksonville's Paul Allen, if this group created a sizable fund and there was real opportunity there, it would peek my interest, for sure.
I don't get why you seem to have a problem with any of this. ???
Simms just read the article and hush and quit trying to decide what it is I am thinking. For me this about helping people realize how the private/political landscape in Jacksonville works as it regards money, development revitalization and most everything else in the core. You know Jacksonville, the place you have plenty to comment about but also the place you don't live. I take that in to account when reading your posting. You are your own full blown peanut gallery. As to the Haskell comment, seriously? Again just read the dang article.
QuoteA group of private investors is considering putting together a patient capital fund, Steve Halverson, CEO of Haskell Co., said Wednesday.
I put no spin on what they wrote. I had hoped you had used the "block" mechanism on the forum by now. For heaven sake please do! Borrowing a word created by Stephendare, stop the Jackassery please!
Can't find the function, but believe me I looked ;) (you clearly haven't blocked me either though!)
So those who support the creative class are clueless Stephen? Got it. Did anyone imagine that support of the creative class would fund downtown revitalization? I didn't and that is not even hinted to in the above article. I can however see how some would think I went after the "guy" who did fund some of the last new enterprise event and pretty much attached his persona to the entire deal. lol That was not my intent, it was rather to lift a veil but people got all up in their "feelies". However, I clearly understand that lifting the veil and pointing out some truths is a big no no in the eyes of some who post here. Got that as well. Now what does any of that have to do with the article I posted above?
Quote from: simms3 on April 23, 2014, 04:33:39 PM
Can't find the function, but believe me I looked ;) (you clearly haven't blocked me either though!)
Never said I was going to Simms. I have pretty thick skin actually, but when the dialog becomes about me and not the topic at hand it wears thin right quick. If anything that is one of the undersides of online discussion on this forum. Tit for tat, attack the poster etc. What a shame.
Perhaps staying on topic is a good idea. Now about funding downtown progress...
QuoteEvery city that we all love to visit because of their cool downtown (and all that that implies) has at one point or another had to bite the bullet and spend money, public money.
Jax HAS spent money, lots of it, with little to show for it. What it has spent has been largely without a overall long-term vision (not to be confused with 'studies', of which there have been many). The spending has been in 'fits and starts', Billion dollar decade, 'River City Renaissance, Better Jax Plan, etc.
That is at least part of the reason why the private money hasn't followed the public investment.
If I were one of the deep pockets in town, I would want strong assurances that the past will not be prologue for the future.
Quote from: vicupstate on April 23, 2014, 05:35:59 PM
QuoteEvery city that we all love to visit because of their cool downtown (and all that that implies) has at one point or another had to bite the bullet and spend money, public money.
Jax HAS spent money, lots of it, with little to show for it. What it has spent has been largely without a overall long-term vision (not to be confused with 'studies', of which there have been many). The spending has been in 'fits and starts', Billion dollar decade, 'River City Renaissance, Better Jax Plan, etc.
That is at least part of the reason why the private money hasn't followed the public investment.
If I were one of the deep pockets in town, I would want strong assurances that the past will not be prologue for the future.
Correct and your words echo much of what I am hearing from others. Right now the new DIA has presented what they call a plan that reaches 20 years into the future. The problem with such plans is that the administration, department leaders and council membership will change over and over during that time. There will be no continuity. To me the DIA plan is a conglomerate of Metrojacksonville ideas interjected with past studies by groups like the JCCI. It offers nothing new idea wise born of the DIA itself and to my eye is a very weak approach to what should be action now. I think Shad Khan should take a look at what our city offers up when it comes to making an area viable. It will only reinforce his current view that the movers and shakers here lack mojo. We continue to fail.
To my eye, the money from the shipyards settlement should go back into the downtown. However I would also like to know that the funding would be wisely used. We don't need more cobblestone round-abouts. lol
^^ what would you like the public sector money to go toward? Infrastructure? Such as? Incentives?
I actually think it should go mostly toward incentives for plans that would get some occupancy in local storefronts and create some activity. I think the city needs to complete the promised inventory of city owned and un-used properties and get them sold and put that into infrastructure. I would also like to see some of the money go to helping the group that wants to open the Snyder church at Hemming park and have it functioning to support the musical arts. Would also like to see some spent on completing the entry to the Brewster Hospital and adding the required handicap ramp at the back so the building can be occupied. I would imagine there would be a use for some of the funds in the "plans" for Hemming park if indeed they are realized as opposed to just talked about.
I have no problem with incentives for downtown. I just want to see them well spent. Of course there will be a tug-o-war over the funds as the city council has now started looking at the new budget. They are not waiting on mayor Brown this time around.
Of course the drainage mess in front of the courthouse is outrageous. I would like to know what happened with the infrastructure funding in that case. I would not be surprised if someone in the city tried to tap these funds for that.
Quote from: stephendare on April 23, 2014, 05:53:05 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on April 23, 2014, 04:34:56 PM
So those who support the creative class are clueless Stephen? Got it. Did anyone imagine that support of the creative class would fund downtown revitalization? I didn't and that is not even hinted to in the above article. I can however see how some would think I went after the "guy" who did fund some of the last new enterprise event and pretty much attached his persona to the entire deal. lol That was not my intent, it was rather to lift a veil but people got all up in their "feelies". However, I clearly understand that lifting the veil and pointing out some truths is a big no no in the eyes of some who post here. Got that as well. Now what does any of that have to do with the article I posted above?
?
What is 'support' really? All the well wishes in the world do not pay bills, nor do they actually install public exhibitions, showings, performances etc. No invention was ever funded by people who were 'for' something but unwilling to raise or spend cash, you know.
I think thats my point.
In order to criticize, I think that its important to have a solution or alternative ready, and I havent heard that.
If a private investment group doesnt form to capitalize redevelopment downtown, should we just leave it abandoned until some nebulous group of outsiders funds it?
Thats what Im asking.
What is your alternative to the emergence of private capital groups who have a local interest in this place and economy?
And if there is an alternative investment group, how would you suggest activating them to achieve these laudable goals?
Why are you asking about an alternative to private capital groups? At no point did I say capital groups were a bad idea. I offered no criticism here on the issue at all. Why do some seem intent upon creating a dialog outside of my comments? lol I have just concluded that we are talking on two different levels in this discussion. Let me be clear, I have no problem with private investment money in this city or the events it holds if that money comes without political strings attached to it. If there are strings attached then people need to be aware of what those may be because it impacts how our city is influenced. On this thread the discussion is focused around private investment being used in downtown incentives/revitalization efforts. That is what I commented to on this thread and I support the idea. Is that clear? lol
Quote from: simms3 on April 23, 2014, 03:30:40 PM
you don't spend public money when times are bad!
I can't disagree more on this issue. If anything public investment is the key when times are bad, as interest rates are low to zero, labor cost are significantly lower, and most suppliers will be looking to cut a deal to move product. In short it's better to spend when things are cheap.
Stephen, over the years I have come to understand that sometimes we miss each others points and that is okay. Of course I can explain more about the strings that tie all things together, but it appears to me that a lot of folks don't want to hear it right now. lol Now you know my feelings have never been the type that put me on the sidelines of all that is Jacksonville only to stand by and say let it rot. Quite the opposite. It's the long history of why things fail in this city that needs to be understood in order for it to ever go forward. That means standing back, putting all the touchy feels behind ourselves and objectively looking at the playing field that is Jacksonville from private, to public and our own perceptions about why things are the way they are in Jacksonville. If people would open their eyes to it and understand it, they would be far better equipped to know how to work to change our system in a way that makes forward motion possible. That means looking at the status quo and the players who have defined our past to give us the status quo of today. If folks are gonna get all defensive about real talk, it's hard to imagine a dialog that will move us beyond hopes, dreams and hot air to the forward motion (mojo) that Jacksonville has lacked for far too long. I have been ready for real talk for years now.
Quote from: stephendare on April 23, 2014, 10:41:15 PM
I agree, but I also think that its time to put a lot of the long knives away.
There will be rich and powerful people and there will be poor and influential people and there are good and bad in both groups. But we do all have to work together.
At the end of the day, we have to work on our process, and that process of how we do things as a city should be fair and universal, no matter who the villains or the angels are.
I feel like we have let the angels slide so many times, and the devils pay their weight in lieu of a fair an universal system for decades now.
And its because we pay attention to 'who', not 'what' or 'how'.
I know you have positive ideas as well as a perfectly virgo instinct for seeing what is being done wrong, and we need all voices frankly.
And I think its good for you and I to have this discussion with each other so that people can see debates placed in their proper proportion of thesis, anti thesis and synthesis.
I would agree. For me it is not seeing the players as angels or devils though. It is more about who has the money and power to have a seat at the table where the real decision making goes down and who never gets to the table. As it stands, those without influence and power don't generally find that seat at the table unless they have a lever to get them there. Just being nice doesn't do it. There has to be a balance of understanding, will and the ability for the average individual to make and attend meetings and functions regularly. Most cannot and the result of that is a system that is not serving the community the way it should. I don't want to go off topic but want to give one example here of how things go out of balance and remain that way. The example is the situation with Kim Scott and those regular citizens that are working hard to expose inequities in a city department while the mayor is not only ignoring concerns about the department and how it functions but instead is giving her a promotion. The back side of that is that we have a city department head that is insulated by friends holding political power. Not only is she insulated, she then uses her power to send out code enforcement officers in retaliation to the focus put on her and start tagging things like lettuce in a public garden. Politics and private influence is what is driving this instance and we can all see the struggle that has ensued when it comes to private citizens being heard. Again, don't want to get off topic here. We can put away the long knives when the powers that be stop attempting to use their own knives to cut off the toes of the average citizens in order to serve a select group. Only fully understanding how influence, money and power works in our city will give the average citizen, small business person and voter the information they need to make informed decisions and take action accordingly.
If one is to make progress in understanding an issue or a problem, one must seek out, among all the aspects of it, the most significant. As we observe the overall scenario of the downtown core and its continued lack of movement toward vibrancy and infill, we must attempt to focus on the three or four significant aspects affecting movement. What are they? Any somewhat complex problem has two or three components that are quite fundamental to its solution, and unless attention and energy is applied to those components, no progress can be made.
To expend too much energy on peripheral components of a problem, those not relevant to the solution, is to waste assets and energy ... and to fail ultimately.
What are the three or four significant components impacting the downtown core revitalization? If progress is to be had, these significant aspects must be discovered and engaged.
A little repetitive, but I always like to make my point.
Quote from: Gamblor on April 23, 2014, 09:33:58 PM
Quote from: simms3 on April 23, 2014, 03:30:40 PM
you don't spend public money when times are bad!
I can't disagree more on this issue. If anything public investment is the key when times are bad, as interest rates are low to zero, labor cost are significantly lower, and most suppliers will be looking to cut a deal to move product. In short it's better to spend when things are cheap.
I get what you're saying. On the private side, a lot of things need to come together for investment during rough times. Of course, depending on who you are, the capital invested, etc, investing at the bottom of the market could work well or may not work well. I must admit, my understanding of public finance is not nearly as clear as my understanding of private sector financial theory and its applications.
I do wonder, though, whether public investment in a thing such as "downtown" can be viewed in the same context as healthcare or energy. For instance, to advance large sweeping programs, many politicians wait for the times to get so bad and people to get so desperate for some sort of change/policy. However, downtown Jax doesn't seem to be viewed by the public the way healthcare or pension reform is. Interest rates are still extremely low even though times are fantastic in most cities now. Construction costs are up, but certainly not in Jax. Concrete and labor are skyrocketing in crane cities happening now in SF, Miami, Houston, NYC, and Boston. I still think in this particular case, when there is optimism in the air, the private guys feel comfortable crawling out of the woodwork, substantive discussions are being had, and the capital markets and local job costs are favorable, now is kind of the time to strike. Not in bad times when the city's tax base shrinks with property value deterioration and taxpayer job losses. Floating bonds and/or spending money on downtown projects, especially in a city like Jax, in those times could prove challenging at the very least.
Quote from: stephendare on April 23, 2014, 11:25:49 PM
Kim Scott is a problem, and I think the mayor backs her at his own political peril.
But surely you agree that development takes money and power, regardless of the pure politics. That is true anywhere in the world. It would seem to make sense that a proposition that requires Money and Power would only include the people who have them.
Successful projects do not require both money and power, but only money.
Quote from: stephendare on April 23, 2014, 11:25:49 PM
Kim Scott is a problem, and I think the mayor backs her at his own political peril.
But surely you agree that development takes money and power, regardless of the pure politics. That is true anywhere in the world. It would seem to make sense that a proposition that requires Money and Power would only include the people who have them.
Let me see how to word this so that my thoughts will not be viewed as oppositional. :) Of course it takes money to drive development. That money and power does not come in it's entirety from those with funding and influence. Much of that power and money is coming from the city itself and that power structure. However the money the city has at its disposal is public money, basically tax dollars. The system was supposedly set up so that our elected officials would represent all of it's citizens equally, since our government is funded to represent us. However the balance of power in Jacksonville is reflective of the balance of power nationally, which is that the politicians are driven by private funding, power and influence. That is why we do not go forward because as Shad Khan so readily noticed, our movers and shakers have no vision and what little vision there is lacks the collective backing to go forward. In our city we have special interests that drive who gets the money for development and everything else depending upon their political connections. The people of Jacksonville are not being represented via our local government. Much of what does happen that is improvement to any degree often happen in the course of one or another agenda being fulfilled that matches the needs and desires of those with money and influence. That's a fact. So a proposition that requires money of course includes those with it and those with power, but that should not equate to them at the helm of Ship Jacksonville.
Quote from: ronchamblin on April 23, 2014, 11:10:35 PM
If one is to make progress in understanding an issue or a problem, one must seek out, among all the aspects of it, the most significant. As we observe the overall scenario of the downtown core and its continued lack of movement toward vibrancy and infill, we must attempt to focus on the three or four significant aspects affecting movement. What are they? Any somewhat complex problem has two or three components that are quite fundamental to its solution, and unless attention and energy is applied to those components, no progress can be made.
To expend too much energy on peripheral components of a problem, those not relevant to the solution, is to waste assets and energy ... and to fail ultimately.
What are the three or four significant components impacting the downtown core revitalization? If progress is to be had, these significant aspects must be discovered and engaged.
A little repetitive, but I always like to make my point.
Ron I do have some ideas as to what the significant issues are that impact our forward progress. I would be interested to hear your ideas of what they are as well of the ideas of others before commenting.
Quote from: ronchamblin on April 23, 2014, 11:38:20 PM
Quote from: stephendare on April 23, 2014, 11:25:49 PM
Kim Scott is a problem, and I think the mayor backs her at his own political peril.
But surely you agree that development takes money and power, regardless of the pure politics. That is true anywhere in the world. It would seem to make sense that a proposition that requires Money and Power would only include the people who have them.
Successful projects do not require both money and power, but only money.
I don't completely agree with that sentiment Ron. Perhaps power is not the right word to put to my views on this. I will replace that word with the word influence. In Jacksonville your money can only take you so far if the system is set up to work against you. Too often the system works against our local entrepreneurs, small developers, small business etc. Who you know can make or break you in Jacksonville regardless of funding.
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on April 23, 2014, 11:56:57 PM
Quote from: ronchamblin on April 23, 2014, 11:38:20 PM
Quote from: stephendare on April 23, 2014, 11:25:49 PM
Kim Scott is a problem, and I think the mayor backs her at his own political peril.
But surely you agree that development takes money and power, regardless of the pure politics. That is true anywhere in the world. It would seem to make sense that a proposition that requires Money and Power would only include the people who have them.
Successful projects do not require both money and power, but only money.
I don't completely agree with that sentiment Ron. Perhaps power is not the right word to put to my views on this. I will replace that word with the word influence. In Jacksonville your money can only take you so far if the system is set up to work against you. Too often the system works against our local entrepreneurs, small developers, small business etc. Who you know can make or break you in Jacksonville regardless of funding.
Some would say that money provides power.
Perhaps I simply wanted to convey that power, in the usual sense, is not necessary to accomplish projects.
I like to think that any significant project requires only money and a viable plan to achieve the project.
I agree that "influence" is a word related to power.
All people have influence, and as the influence increases, we might say that they gain power.
Actually, I was trying to pick on Stephen.
^In this city influence is often key when those with money compete. Remember the big fight betweenWaste Management and another competitor? It was the influence not the money that sealed that deal in Jacksonville. lol
Not gonna comment on the pick on Stephen thingy. lol
QuoteI actually think it should go mostly toward incentives for plans that would get some occupancy in local storefronts and create some activity.
I would recommend that the money NOT go to storefronts, but rather to assist in developments for residents. Build more residential and the commercial will build out the storefronts to provide goods and services that the residents want and need.
I would not spend money to assist in renovations for a church or a park, unless it was tied directly to incentives for residential units. Gotta grow downtown by more than 500 new residents per year.
Quote from: mtraininjax on April 24, 2014, 12:15:45 AM
QuoteI actually think it should go mostly toward incentives for plans that would get some occupancy in local storefronts and create some activity.
I would recommend that the money NOT go to storefronts, but rather to assist in developments for residents. Build more residential and the commercial will build out the storefronts to provide goods and services that the residents want and need.
I would not spend money to assist in renovations for a church or a park, unless it was tied directly to incentives for residential units. Gotta grow downtown by more than 500 new residents per year.
I respectfully don't agree. If we go with the more residents idea, we are not going to see anything happen anytime soon. That turns on great connectivity with public transport, grocery stores etc. . I know that many folks believe having residents downtown first is key. I think that having activity in the storefronts downtown will draw more people into the core and that will lead to more folks being interested in living there. We have plenty of empty residential space in the standing Berkman Plaza. There is a reason for that and for the fact that the second building was never completed. We need activity and action to get people interested and excited about living in the core.
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on April 23, 2014, 11:53:13 PM
Quote from: ronchamblin on April 23, 2014, 11:10:35 PM
If one is to make progress in understanding an issue or a problem, one must seek out, among all the aspects of it, the most significant. As we observe the overall scenario of the downtown core and its continued lack of movement toward vibrancy and infill, we must attempt to focus on the three or four significant aspects affecting movement. What are they? Any somewhat complex problem has two or three components that are quite fundamental to its solution, and unless attention and energy is applied to those components, no progress can be made.
To expend too much energy on peripheral components of a problem, those not relevant to the solution, is to waste assets and energy ... and to fail ultimately.
What are the three or four significant components impacting the downtown core revitalization? If progress is to be had, these significant aspects must be discovered and engaged.
A little repetitive, but I always like to make my point.
Ron I do have some ideas as to what the significant issues are that impact our forward progress. I would be interested to hear your ideas of what they are as well of the ideas of others before commenting.
Sorry about delay. I was away.
Let's see. I will state them in sequence, not necessarily in order of importance:
1) The achievement, by whatever means, of greater foot traffic (population) in the core. As I've said before, achieving this alone, by whatever means, will result in drawing "more" people into the core -- in the form of residents, workers, businesses, visitors etc. This is a goal, and not a process. Every business must have a certain level of foot traffic to survive and prosper. Therefore, as the foot traffic (population) in the core increases, the core will attract and support more types of businesses. Achieving a certain level of food traffic in the core, will move the core toward what we could call a threshold, above which, people will begin to move into the core as residents, workers, and entrepreneurs.
The importance of gaining foot traffic is so important for speeding the journey to vibrancy, that it must be encouraged by all means available .. incentives of all types. I guess i'm talking about a threshold effect. A post threshold level of population will "automatically" apply pressure for new residents, workers, and visitors.
I will suggest a No. 2 soon. So far, what do you think about the importance of the first? And what do you think about the idea of even talking about "significant" components, and their relation to progress ... as compared to peripheral issues that is?
QuoteI think that having activity in the storefronts downtown will draw more people into the core and that will lead to more folks being interested in living there.
With respect to your counterpoint, I don't know a single commercial Realtor who would agree with that point that you build more storefronts to lure more residents. Sure they would love to sell you a storefront, but without traffic to support it, why bother? Downtown is the 8-5 crowd, then after 5 it is left with a few thousand residents. The storefronts that are there now, do you see them expanding their stores and getting bigger as a result of additional storefronts coming downtown? Where is the real growth of downtown? It comes from new residents. Why did Sleiman say he plans to add residential to his Landing venture? Because he knows more residents will expand his offerings for more commercial storefronts.
Berkman II failed because it was built at the tail-end of the Real Estate Boom. If the project was viable and safe, you would see capital return and an entity purchase it, just as someone purchased the half-built condo project on Goodby's Creek. Just as some entity purchased the Old San Jose Development. Just as the condos at Ortega Yacht Club have sold out over the last year, and the land for the others is being discussed for purchase. As the economic cycle returns, real estate will return. But more than a real estate turn is needed for downtown to thrive, it needs more downtown residents. Add the residents, the commercial stores will come to chase down the dollars of the residents.
If you need more proof of chicken/egg - Look at 220 Riverside. The apartments and condos in and around the facility led to Whole Foods and other restaurants announcing that they want to be there to support the people who will reside there. Did the Whole Foods pop up before 220 Riverside broke ground? Nope, only after they had evidence of growth and people to support the store. As more residents pop-up around 220 Riverside, I believe that Park Street will see a renaissance, but there need to be more residential projects to drive this growth. Same goes for downtown.
Let me explain further Diane. The example might make it seem like I'm tooting my own horn, but it is real, and it will illustrate my point about foot traffic. My example is good because I've received no incentives, and am doing these projects with my own limited funds -- and the bank's.
I bought ... borrowed funds for ... a vacant building in 2006 and borrowed to renovate it. I opened the bookstore / cafe in 2008. This brought eight workers into the core, and draws many customers from the suburbs into the core. Therefore, the project has clearly resulted in "increasing the foot traffic" in the core.
This is one project, brought to success via a viable business plan, some work, and some money investment. It's all good.
Two years ago, I bought the adjacent building, most of which was unoccupied. The single tenant moved to Adams street, thereby providing no loss of foot traffic in the core.
Recently, I've started the clean out and basic demo of the building. Soon, the drawings will be complete, and I will seek bank funds to proceed with full renovation. The important thing for my point is that completion of the building, and filling it, will add about four more workers to the core, and perhaps twelve more residents to the core.
These two projects will produce a net addition of over twenty new people into the core, not counting customer draw from the suburbs, thereby increasing the "foot traffic" for other businesses in the core -- one more step forward to what we call vibrancy.
The point is that every other person or investor who does the same kind of projects, will add "population" or "foot traffic" to the core. What happens after twenty people or investors do their projects ... each adding ten or twenty people to the core ... plus their customs from the suburbs? That's a few hundred people permanently added to the core. And many will be customers to other businesses.
The most significant addition of "population" is the project as begun by Steve Atkins .. with the trio and the Barnett. This will be a big addition to the "foot traffic".
All of these projects, small and large, will increase the population ... which will in turn, allow more types of businesses to open and prosper in the core. And as more businesses and services are active in the core, it will become more attractive for new residents to move into the core.
A momentum will increase .. and a threshold will arrive, after which, businesses and residents will be almost competing to engage the core.
These kind of projects are solid. There is no talk ... no hope... no praying. No power is involved.... only an idea, and work, and money. And I don't give a damn about influence. Just get the fuck our of my way and I will do the goddamn project. Time for a beer and a book.
Ron, congrats, you are a pioneer, but then you already know it.
]
Quote from: mtraininjax on April 24, 2014, 01:03:09 AM
Berkman II failed because it was built at the tail-end of the Real Estate Boom. If the project was viable and safe, you would see capital return and an entity purchase it, just as someone purchased the half-built condo project on Goodby's Creek. Just as some entity purchased the Old San Jose Development. Just as the condos at Ortega Yacht Club have sold out over the last year, and the land for the others is being discussed for purchase. As the economic cycle returns, real estate will return. But more than a real estate turn is needed for downtown to thrive, it needs more downtown residents. Add the residents, the commercial stores will come to chase down the dollars of the residents.
Totally agree. Downtown isn't healthcare or pension reform. In Jax, it's a political afterthought for the masses. The time for government to strike is now, when you have influential private sector guys in the picture who seem ready and willing to lend a hand. Political willpower is probably higher now than back in 2009, or even a year ago. Capital markets are still primed for lending on all sides.
Not to say city leadership can take a break from focusing on downtown when times are tough, tax dollars are dried up, and pension obligations are looming. However, city leadership can probably be a little more "proactive" shall we say, now, when there is ability and more support.
Quote from: mtraininjax on April 24, 2014, 01:03:09 AM
QuoteI think that having activity in the storefronts downtown will draw more people into the core and that will lead to more folks being interested in living there.
With respect to your counterpoint, I don't know a single commercial Realtor who would agree with that point that you build more storefronts to lure more residents? Sure they would love to sell you a storefront, but without traffic to support it, why bother? Downtown is the 8-5 crowd, then after 5 it is left with a few thousand residents. The storefronts that are there now, do you see them expanding their stores and getting bigger as a result of additional storefronts coming downtown? Where is the real growth of downtown? It comes from new residents. Why did Sleiman say he plans to add residential to his Landing venture? Because he knows more residents will expand his offerings for more commercial storefronts.
Goodness, does anyone really read what I write? To the first point. Exactly where did I say that "building" more storefronts would lure more residents? Look again, what I said was,
"I think that having activity in the storefronts downtown will draw more people into the core and that will lead to more folks being interested in living there. Not one word about storefront build outs. It would be so love if folks did not automatically scan what is written and then default to their own interpretation which often miss represents the content intent entirely. lmao What is it with that? Not dogging you MTrain by the way. But lord have mercy it would be helpful to dialog on all subjects if folks would digest what is said and if they are not clear on the authors intent just ask. lol
While I am on my rant....yes this is a rant :), why oh why must we site the Landing and Sleiman with every discussion about downtown revitalization? Okay....I fell a little better now. lmao I will come back and tell you precisely what I meant in more detail in just a bit.
In the meantime MTrain and other forum members. I offer an honest statement/question. No one disagrees that more residents in downtown will help drive core revitalization. Right now though we have empty residential space in the core. Developers of course will take that into consideration when considering future residential. Let's stop for a moment and look at precisely where we currently stand. Without projecting what might come to the core in the future my question is this. What in the downtown core as it currently stands would induce folks to consider the core as their home? What is the draw as things stand now. What would be the benefit to a resident as things stand "now"?
(thanks MTrain for putting up with a general rant about folks not digesting what is written by others. lol)
^^^JOBS. Duh next question, ha.
Only a city like Miami can build a ton of "downtown" housing and have a tiny amount of office space in its downtown. But then look at that downtown housing and who's buying those condos. Not a lot of 28 year old working professionals with degrees. Moreso Brazilians, Venezuelans, and Argentinians, Russians, and some New Yorkers. Actually, even in Toronto, a lot of those condos are going to the Chinese. So many upscale condos being built without a correlating amount of office space.
However, on Earth, usually rooftops follow jobs. Jobs have been going to the SS, hence all the new apartments, retail, etc. If we could bring all those jobs downtown, somehow, then you'd have a huge demand to live downtown. Types of jobs matters as well. Jax isn't really a quantified "young professional" type of city. Lots of the white collar jobs that would allow someone to afford downtown rents actually are for 35+ year olds who have families already. That's why I think DB could be a game changer if they came downtown to the Southbank, or wherever.
QuoteRon Therefore, as the foot traffic (population) in the core increases, the core will attract and support more types of businesses. Achieving a certain level of food traffic in the core, will move the core toward what we could call a threshold, above which, people will begin to move into the core as residents, workers, and entrepreneurs.
The importance of gaining foot traffic is so important for speeding the journey to vibrancy, that it must be encouraged by all means available .. incentives of all types. I guess i'm talking about a threshold effect. A post threshold level of population will "automatically" apply pressure for new residents, workers, and visitors.
Ron, forgive me for dissecting your post a bit to give a brief reply (will go into more depth later). Your last statement is bang on. I have highlighted it in bold letters.
Simms, the question I posed is "not what would bring residents downtown". Let me break it down for you, as the downtown landscape currently stands, what is the draw that would induce someone to make downtown their home? The question at this point was not what we can add later on to draw folks. I have a reason for asking. Again, as it is now, what is the draw for a potential resident as the core currently stands. Got it? :)
No bc the premise of your question is silly and your response is such that youre fishing for an answer for a question that in your mind makes sense. Again, not your realm, which might be why everyone who does know what theyre talking about tends to disagree with you or "confront" you on these issues. I think there's a loose screw somewhere, can someone help me find it?
Now back to jobs, which would be an answer to a superior question about bringing residents downtown, perhaps this is what Eummell sees...jobs could be created out of OneSpark. Jobs are really the long term key to the success of downtown. Maybe creating jobs is his evil ulterior political motive, which is what I pieced together before in that other thread and your synapses somehow totally missed.
Cat, I guess I am confused. You did say yesterday that you thought the incentives should go toward getting some occupancy in our storefronts. While of course you did not use the word "build", then what would these incentives to get occupancy in our storefronts be for? Honest question as I think many would read that to mean incentives to build out storefronts to be occupied.
Ed, there is a way to get occupancy and excitement in storefronts that is not about brick and mortar. I plan to answer the question and go into more detail in a bit. My commentary will be based in real experience with the revitalization of another downtown core down south, which I directed and which was successful. I thought out of the box and it worked. ;)
Cool. And they would require incentives?
Quote from: simms3 on April 24, 2014, 03:40:47 PM
No bc the premise of your question is silly and your response is such that youre fishing for an answer for a question that in your mind makes sense. Again, not your realm, which might be why everyone who does know what theyre talking about tends to disagree with you or "confront" you on these issues. I think there's a loose screw somewhere, can someone help me find it?
Now back to jobs, which would be an answer to a superior question about bringing residents downtown, perhaps this is what Eummell sees...jobs could be created out of OneSpark. Jobs are really the long term key to the success of downtown. Maybe creating jobs is his evil ulterior political motive, which is what I pieced together before in that other thread and your synapses somehow totally missed.
And the SF peanut gallery speaks. lol Why or why did I even engage your nonsense considering it was a veiled attempt to insult? That appears to be a need of yours which is beyond my patience level. Won't make that mistake again. lol The only thing that is silly Simms is your continued nonsense and attempt to degrade discussions and divert them to your own ideas to give yourself another platform to share you endless commentary. What is it with you? Won't the folks in SF give you and your ideas the desired attention your require? You continue to comment about this city and you aren't here to live the reality of what is Jacksonville. Start a thread on job creation in the core of Jacksonville if that is what you want to discuss. I am sure it will be enlightening and city leadership will contact you for further insights. ;)
Quote from: stephendare on April 24, 2014, 04:20:37 PM
SIMMS is a pretty long time poster here, and his opinions have been tested by both time and predictive quality Diane. Just saying.
I understand Stephen. However I am no longer going to engage his rhetoric. Just saying. :) Gave him the benefit of doubt by engaging him. My mistake.
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on April 24, 2014, 04:23:27 PM
Quote from: stephendare on April 24, 2014, 04:20:37 PM
SIMMS is a pretty long time poster here, and his opinions have been tested by both time and predictive quality Diane. Just saying.
I understand Stephen. However I am no longer going to engage his rhetoric. Just saying. :) Gave him the benefit of doubt by engaging him. My mistake.
Diane, let's break down your question as you last phrased in (your wording seems to change and I'm not the only one confused by what you say or ask in any given thread).
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on April 24, 2014, 03:32:27 PM
Simms, the question I posed is "not what would bring residents downtown". Let me break it down for you, as the downtown landscape currently stands, what is the draw that would induce someone to make downtown their home? The question at this point was not what we can add later on to draw folks. I have a reason for asking. Again, as it is now, what is the draw for a potential resident as the core currently stands. Got it? :)
It sounds like now you're asking people who currently live downtown, why they live downtown. Maybe some on this board can answer, but I would imagine that jobs is still a central theme of it.
The link below seems to have a few people's individual stories and a good range of articles.
http://downtownjacksonville.org/blog/tag/urban-population/
Granted, traffic in Jax isn't that bad so living downtown and working on the SS is probably not a horrible commute, but as Jax grows, it will be and people will continue to want to live closer to where they work more and more. Is that place going to be downtown? At this rate, no. Will it be the SS? Likely here to stay, but can we spread that job creation around geographically so that one suburban part of town isn't the sole beneficiary of local economic improvements?
This will involve *real* city/chamber leadership, leadership on the private sector, and likely lots of incentives. Too many routine stories of incentives going to average job creation on the SS or westside. Moving Everbank's main staffing to downtown - I was skeptical when it happened, but long term it's probably a good move. We NEED Deutsche Bank downtown. We need OneSpark to grow enough such that something sticks and there becomes more of a culture of homegrown businesses. We need Rummell and Khan and other folks to continue to live in Jax, participate, and continue to be friends with folks outside of Jax.
We need focus from the chamber (this is an area that Atlanta does excel in and I've provided that example a few times on this board - look at the difference between Jax Chamber's boring nondescript mission statement, and that of Atlanta Chamber's; night and day difference and you can see their clear target and goals are being worked towards and achieved whereas we don't even have a clear target/goals).
Jobs jobs jobs. Residential will follow, and then retail will follow. Also, small businesses downtown will probably benefit more from office workers than from residents. Reason? Numbers alone. If we had a decent sized downtown with 100,000 employees, a huge chunk of those employees spend most of their time downtown. They'll want a gym. They'll want lunch. They'll want coffee. They'll want cocktails and dinner after work. They'll want convenience stores and some retail. They could conceivably stick around from 8 AM to 12 PM filling the coffers of downtown businesses. At the moment, only 3,200 people (supposedly) live downtown. We can grow that to 20,000 over decades, but it still won't come close to job creation and office development that can squeeze 100,000 people there.
Conversely, downtown residents may not even work downtown. If they're on the SS, that's where most of their time and money is spent and really only until the weekend is the downtown resident even a big plus for downtown businesses. That is, for those who don't work downtown but choose to live there.
Quote from: simms3 on April 23, 2014, 11:34:54 PM
Quote from: Gamblor on April 23, 2014, 09:33:58 PM
Quote from: simms3 on April 23, 2014, 03:30:40 PM
you don't spend public money when times are bad!
I can't disagree more on this issue. If anything public investment is the key when times are bad, as interest rates are low to zero, labor cost are significantly lower, and most suppliers will be looking to cut a deal to move product. In short it's better to spend when things are cheap.
I get what you're saying. On the private side, a lot of things need to come together for investment during rough times. Of course, depending on who you are, the capital invested, etc, investing at the bottom of the market could work well or may not work well. I must admit, my understanding of public finance is not nearly as clear as my understanding of private sector financial theory and its applications.
I do wonder, though, whether public investment in a thing such as "downtown" can be viewed in the same context as healthcare or energy. For instance, to advance large sweeping programs, many politicians wait for the times to get so bad and people to get so desperate for some sort of change/policy. However, downtown Jax doesn't seem to be viewed by the public the way healthcare or pension reform is. Interest rates are still extremely low even though times are fantastic in most cities now. Construction costs are up, but certainly not in Jax. Concrete and labor are skyrocketing in crane cities happening now in SF, Miami, Houston, NYC, and Boston. I still think in this particular case, when there is optimism in the air, the private guys feel comfortable crawling out of the woodwork, substantive discussions are being had, and the capital markets and local job costs are favorable, now is kind of the time to strike. Not in bad times when the city's tax base shrinks with property value deterioration and taxpayer job losses. Floating bonds and/or spending money on downtown projects, especially in a city like Jax, in those times could prove challenging at the very least.
I agree that getting public support in this city during rough economic times would be very challenging, but I still see it as the proper answer on certain projects. I think we could both make a list of things that the city NEEDs (no want) done. I imagine those list could contain many similar projects. I just feel the proper way to do these sort of projects is to take advantage of the economic climate when we can, and not continue to allow the markets to take advantage of us. To make fair though, while I believe the public sector should shoulder more of the load during bad times, during good times they should "manage" themselves in a way that reserves can be built up so less bonds and borrowing are done during the bad. I realize these maybe my pipe-dream views, as this country is so far from being able to perceive and enter into this sort of civil economic paradigm, but the closer we can come to it the better we will be long term. Really though, it's just about getting as much bang for our tax bucks as we can get....
As for viewing downtown investment like healthcare or pension reform you could very well be right to some degree on how they are "marketed" for change during rough patches. And they're probably are many similarities in the economics, but I think those lack the cyclical nature of infrastructure. Strong healthcare and pensions are something that should be more steady, less flowy in their economics if that makes sense (if it doesn't let me know, and I can try and break my thoughts out more clearly on it)
Lastly since you gave me some really good stuff to think on, I will try to return the favor. We talk a lot here about investment and infrastructure, and there is one big point about infrastructure that I think many forget, which is that it can be a self-full filling prophecy, especially when it is a lack of it. Say for instance over the next 50 years, do we think our economy will move more toward service sector or more toward manufacturing? If we say service and only invest in what service sector needs, then we will never develop the manufacturing end. Of course, putting the investment in does not guarantee it will happen, but not putting the investment in does guarantee that it wont (*cough*landing millennials downtown*cough*). I'm a big believer that it's all about providing options, and having enough options open so that you can weather the storms and shift as the tides do around you.
P.S. Out of curiosity what part of the city are you in? I've lived in the Tenderloin, Sunset, and Marina. I miss the city desperately. I'm going back out in two months for my old roommates wedding. I'm not sure I'll get on the plane back. Also I love hearing you relay the stories of how everyone hates mass transit in SF. Which is true for those who live in the city proper. I always laughed when I'd hear them complain about it (they always compare the scale of SF systems to NYC, which I found to be pretty amusing). Sometimes I'd tell them to take a trip to Jacksonville and find out what bad mass transit really is... Anyway have a good one. Loving the convo.
After taking a break from this conversation I decided to take a look a the many past conversations about the issue of downtown revitalization. I looked JCCI reports, old reports and plans for downtown and LaVilla that were never made manifest but decided to focus on what has appeared on this site alone. It looks like much of the needed discussion has already been had over and over again. Numbers crunched, statistics quoted, discussions of parking problems, the whole ball of wax. It occurred to me that there has been nothing recently added to the conversation that is new. Many good points have been made already over the years but most of them have not been realized. Rather then try and explain what I meant earlier in my own comments on this thread, I will defer to an article done on Metrojacksonville by Ennis Davis. These are the types of things I had in my mind when I said it was not about store front build outs per say but rather about the many other things that can be done to make downtown a more attractive and vibrant place to live, work and play. My commentary was aimed at tackling some of the very same things highlighted in this article and historic overview. Again, we can bring some life into downtown by rethinking our approach and not continually focusing on a "big fix" when so much can be done to create vibrancy that will not overwhelm the city to the point that it keeps running in place waiting for the big thing that will turn the city around. It's not going to be one big thing to my view but many many smaller things that will engage people and investors in such a way that they do see a real future for downtown.
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2012-may-the-basics-of-successful-downtown-revitalization
Quote
The Basics of Successful Downtown Revitalization
Redeveloping a struggling downtown environment doesn't have to be rocket science. More important than focusing on major newspaper headline grabbing gimmick projects is the implementation of a street environment that clusters complementing uses within a compact pedestrian scale setting.
And this.
QuoteWe've been kicking around the idea of downtown revitalization since the 1950s. However, historically, we tend to ignore and overlook the basics in favor of expensive one trick pony developments that have continued to fail to deliver the results we hope for. They say there's nothing new under the sun. We should apply this line of thinking with every single project related to downtown and the surrounding walkable neighborhoods.
So for those who agree the money from the shipyards should be used in downtown, here is a reminder for all of us. This city created a DIA and hired a man to lead it. He came up with a plan that outlines what should be funded first in downtown and what later over the next 20 years. Here is the list. Note, residential was not seen as a first priority and when it is mentioned it contains a goal of 5,000 units to happen between 2020 and 2025. There is also
no mention of jobs on the list of priority spending. It would appear to me that the die has been set and if the plan doesn't match up to all of the ideas and ideals shared by those here. It may be time to start talking with the DIA about changes. All of the discussions had here will have no impact unless focused there or financed by private investors. By the way, the DIA turns on politics and public will as made manifest through....you guessed it, local politicians. Just pointing out the facts. It is also my guess that the "retail enhancement" on the list may be more in line with what I was talking about.
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php?topic=20933.0
Quote
2014-2019
Creative placemaking and public art
Hemming Plaza programming and Snyder Memorial Church reuse
Jacksonville Landing repositioning
Increased bicycle parking
Improved wayfarer signage
Retail enhancement grant program
Lighting improvements
Homeless assistance program
2020-2030
Friendship Park Redesign
Northbank East-West Circulator (a bus)
"Park Once Promotion"
Live-work spaces for artists
Housing incentives and finance (5,000 additional housing units by 2025)
Reinforce the branding of the Elbow
Water launch network
2021-2045
Redesign Metropolitan Park
Improve links to the Emerald Necklace (bike trails between DT and urban neighborhoods)
Improvements to Jesse Ball DuPont Park
Just as we can, by our wisdom, make changes in policies and infrastructure to provide "lubrication"; thus progress, on the path to revitalization, we can, by our complacency, error, or stupidities, make changes in policies and infrastructure to provide obstacles.
My earlier post, which evolved to a rant, as I seem to have become angry for some reason, was intended to identify possible "lubricants", as it is my belief that identifying and initiating the lubricants on a somewhat difficult problem is absolutely necessary if progress is to be made.
In other words, if the existing powers cannot agree on exactly how to proceed on a somewhat difficult and complex problem or objective, they should at least set in place any "lubricants" so that when and if solid pressure is by accident applied by entities engaging the core, then movement or real progress will be more likely achieved.
If some of you suggest that the problem of revitalization we engage here in Jax is not a difficult or complex one, then please note that there has been very little substantive progress over the past decades. If a large a difficult obstacle cannot be moved by direct attack, using specific levers to it, then lubricate the path so that it will slide along when somebody accidentally applies a sensible and somewhat effective pressure to it.
What are some of these lubricants or facilitators?
One "lubricant", as I mentioned earlier is that of achieving, by whatever means, an increased population -- that is, foot traffic -- in the core. The very presence of a higher foot traffic, in the form of residents, workers, and visitors, will be a form of "lubricant" on the road to revitalization, because it will allow more types of businesses to survive in the core -- and will provide an increasingly better environment for residential influx. This idea involves a snowball affect .. a higher population will encourage and draw a higher population ... momentum.
Another "lubricant", actually the second point I was to make on the earlier post, was that of having an effective and efficient "mass transit" system. One can observe our traffic congestion, parking problems, and transit times, and understand critical need for movement in the direction of some kind of effective mass transit; that is, with more frequency and coverage than is currently supplied by the bus system. Having an efficient mass transit will certainly grease the path toward revitalization. Its expensive, but many good and necessary things in life are. The point is that having an effective mass transit, will provide a 24-hour pressure, every day of the year, toward revitalization .. a type of lubricant.
Another lubricant is "incentives" to residents and small investors. The incentives for residents is one method of encouraging population growth ... with the snowballing gains as mentioned earlier.
Ennis and others, being in the business of urban planning have a better term than "lubrication", as he has talked about making changes to infrastructure to encourage progress down the path to vibrancy.
The point is that there are significant steps, and those that are insignificant. The items identified as "lubricants" are significant because they provide continual, year long, pressure toward the primary objective of revitalization. Establishing the lubricants is similar to providing a "slope" to a board game, so that one always has the advantage.
Quote from: Gamblor on April 24, 2014, 08:40:03 PM
P.S. Out of curiosity what part of the city are you in? I've lived in the Tenderloin, Sunset, and Marina. I miss the city desperately. I'm going back out in two months for my old roommates wedding. I'm not sure I'll get on the plane back. Also I love hearing you relay the stories of how everyone hates mass transit in SF. Which is true for those who live in the city proper. I always laughed when I'd hear them complain about it (they always compare the scale of SF systems to NYC, which I found to be pretty amusing). Sometimes I'd tell them to take a trip to Jacksonville and find out what bad mass transit really is... Anyway have a good one. Loving the convo.
Live between Polk and Van Ness in a neighborhood that some call Polk Gulch, some call Russian Hill, and some even call Pacific Heights. I'm halfway between the 1 and the 41, right on the 12 (though I avoid that route). Catty corner to the Jug Shop and a block from Nick's if you can recall the reference (don't know when you lived here...Nick's used to be Pacha SF).
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on April 24, 2014, 11:45:28 PM
2014-2019
Creative placemaking and public art
Hemming Plaza programming and Snyder Memorial Church reuse
Jacksonville Landing repositioning
Increased bicycle parking
Improved wayfarer signage
Retail enhancement grant program
Lighting improvements
Homeless assistance program
2020-2030
Friendship Park Redesign
Northbank East-West Circulator (a bus)
"Park Once Promotion"
Live-work spaces for artists
Housing incentives and finance (5,000 additional housing units by 2025)
Reinforce the branding of the Elbow
Water launch network
2021-2045
Redesign Metropolitan Park
Improve links to the Emerald Necklace (bike trails between DT and urban neighborhoods)
Improvements to Jesse Ball DuPont Park
Improvements to be sure, but I've never seen a more ambiguous, causeless or unmotivated list.
A BUS? Ignoring the building blocks of a great city is going to continue to cost us until the city recognizes that connectivity and mobility go hand in hand. A bus? REALLY? Talk about who rode the 'short bus' at school, or ask how does the domestic help get to and from work? What will be the value of TOD as major developers descend upon the city just so they can build next to this one-of-a-kind attraction? How many visitors stop in downtown just to experience the thrill of riding an authentic JTA bus?
Even if you are just going to settle for a small minded solution like 'a bus' one would think you would be working on a shuttle using curb level, low floor, multi door, all electric technology and that you would spell it out. God knows we can't even do buses right.
I'm afraid to ask what the 'park once promotion' is going to be, motorized rickshaw's would be a step above where we are today. Maybe we can gate downtown and issue pogo sticks? I mean really, read the list, imagine this isn't Jacksonville and you just read this in a tourist brochure for 'Apathyville Bahama's,' bet you can't wait until you go.
I burned out rather quickly in this last round of pep talks and big ideas, I visited each table at the Prime Osborn and chatted them up about the streetcar idea. I know for a FACT that it was on the list, in some cases at the top of a large percentage. Yet when the final results were published, we got more JAX-DRIVIL like 'A BUS.' Damn these people! >:(
TIME TO PULL YOUR HEAD OUT JACKSONVILLE!!!
Quote from: Ocklawaha on April 25, 2014, 04:20:26 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on April 24, 2014, 11:45:28 PM
2014-2019
Creative placemaking and public art
Hemming Plaza programming and Snyder Memorial Church reuse
Jacksonville Landing repositioning
Increased bicycle parking
Improved wayfarer signage
Retail enhancement grant program
Lighting improvements
Homeless assistance program
2020-2030
Friendship Park Redesign
Northbank East-West Circulator (a bus)
"Park Once Promotion"
Live-work spaces for artists
Housing incentives and finance (5,000 additional housing units by 2025)
Reinforce the branding of the Elbow
Water launch network
2021-2045
Redesign Metropolitan Park
Improve links to the Emerald Necklace (bike trails between DT and urban neighborhoods)
Improvements to Jesse Ball DuPont Park
Improvements to be sure, but I've never seen a more ambiguous, causeless or unmotivated list.
A BUS? Ignoring the building blocks of a great city is going to continue to cost us until the city recognizes that connectivity and mobility go hand in hand. A bus? REALLY? Talk about who rode the 'short bus' at school, or ask how does the domestic help get to and from work? What will be the value of TOD as major developers descend upon the city just so they can build next to this one-of-a-kind attraction? How many visitors stop in downtown just to experience the thrill of riding an authentic JTA bus?
Even if you are just going to settle for a small minded solution like 'a bus' one would think you would be working on a shuttle using curb level, low floor, multi door, all electric technology and that you would spell it out. God knows we can't even do buses right.
I'm afraid to ask what the 'park once promotion' is going to be, motorized rickshaw's would be a step above where we are today. Maybe we can gate downtown and issue pogo sticks? I mean really, read the list, imagine this isn't Jacksonville and you just read this in a tourist brochure for 'Apathyville Bahama's,' bet you can't wait until you go.
I burned out rather quickly in this last round of pep talks and big ideas, I visited each table at the Prime Osborn and chatted them up about the streetcar idea. I know for a FACT that it was on the list, in some cases at the top of a large percentage. Yet when the final results were published, we got more JAX-DRIVIL like 'A BUS.' Damn these people! >:(
TIME TO PULL YOUR HEAD OUT JACKSONVILLE!!!
Hello! I agree Ock, I so agree. I also understand the burn out which explains my absences from social media from time to time. Always an uphill battle but so worth it when we think about what a treasure Jacksonville is and all the untapped potential. :)
And I too agree Ock.
I had posted earlier about how an efficient and effective mass transit system would provide a constant enabling pressure to core development -- and would "lubricate" the path down the road to progress toward revitalizing the core. I failed to say that I was referring to some kind of streetcar, rail, or light rail systems, and only implied it by indicating that it would be initially somewhat expensive.
Imagine the solutions to the parking problem downtown -- including the possible elimination of most parking meters and tickets -- if we had in place a streetcar and/or light rail system that would spiderweb out into the suburbs. Imagine the reduction in carbon emissions to the atmosphere as a consequence of fewer autos and buses clogging the streets. Imagine the decrease in demand for the large and ugly parking garages in the core. Imagine the savings in fuel costs to citizens, as they will not have to sit idling in traffic jams, and will not have to pay for fuel for the idling buses. Imagine the improvements in walkability in the core as a consequence of having fewer autos and buses traveling the streets. Imagine the cleaner air for breathing in the core as a consequence of having fewer autos and buses on its streets. Imagine the draw to the core, as a consequence of having exciting and attractive street cars / light rail instead of the boring buses.
In any case, I'm wondering -- If the streetcar or light rail, or something similar, is thought to be so good for the city, and probably is in fact good, perhaps because of some of the items listed above, what are the two primary causes of no action on these systems?
Quote from: ronchamblin on April 25, 2014, 06:05:18 PM
And I too agree Ock.
I had posted earlier about how an efficient and effective mass transit system would provide a constant enabling pressure to core development -- and would "lubricate" the path down the road to progress toward revitalizing the core. I failed to say that I was referring to some kind of streetcar, rail, or light rail systems, and only implied it by indicating that it would be initially somewhat expensive.
Imagine the solutions to the parking problem downtown -- including the possible elimination of most parking meters and tickets -- if we had in place a streetcar and/or light rail system that would spiderweb out into the suburbs. Imagine the reduction in carbon emissions to the atmosphere as a consequence of fewer autos and buses clogging the streets. Imagine the decrease in demand for the large and ugly parking garages in the core. Imagine the savings in fuel costs to citizens, as they will not have to sit idling in traffic jams, and will not have to pay for fuel for the idling buses. Imagine the improvements in walkability in the core as a consequence of having fewer autos and buses traveling the streets. Imagine the cleaner air for breathing in the core as a consequence of having fewer autos and buses on its streets. Imagine the draw to the core, as a consequence of having exciting and attractive street cars / light rail instead of the boring buses.
In any case, I'm wondering -- If the streetcar or light rail, or something similar, is thought to be so good for the city, and probably is in fact good, perhaps because of some of the items listed above, what are the two primary causes of no action on these systems?
You might ask about who benefits financially with the status quo, because they might be lobbying against a new and efficient street car or rail system. Who might benefit financially? The auto fuel industry? The auto industry?
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on April 24, 2014, 04:00:49 PM
Ed, there is a way to get occupancy and excitement in storefronts that is not about brick and mortar. I plan to answer the question and go into more detail in a bit. My commentary will be based in real experience with the revitalization of another downtown core down south, which I directed and which was successful. I thought out of the box and it worked. ;)
Diane, any more about the detail you alluded to above? Also to AuditoreEnterprise, based upon your comments in other threads you would appear to be one of those interested in patient capital investment alluded to in the story which started the thread. Perhaps a contact to Mr Halverson.
I am not exactly sure to what you are saying precisely so I will take my best stab at it. Does downtown need a boom of investment money... yes, but the ultimate goal isn't what I call a superbowl makeover. It just won't sustain long term as the initial glamour of the situation passes (much like i state with sweet pete's) I am not very well versed in what is going on with the shipyards, however it may be good to put something there if it comes down to the berkman 2 like i think it does. Most people don't walk or travel that far down there.. you see a jail and a bunch of factories and turn around. I think maybe some sort of transit that goes down there like a street car will make it a little more connected. Now as for the patient infusion. I think ambitiousness should supersede all because after all no hype no progress. In the long run small sustaining investments will likely out last the billion dollar pipe dreams that some might see necessary.
People talk about going to the volstead, dos gatos, chamblins, artwalk, jazz fest, chomp chomp... 1904... ect. I have never had someone suggest a dinner at the river or university clubs or in the sky cafe in the BOA building.
I am not sure if that is what i was supposed to reply to please feel free to say if not..
Nothing more at this point Ed. :)