(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Orlando/Orlando-October-2018/i-dT2XSx3/0/6279ee7f/L/20181013_222313-L.jpg)
QuoteIs what Jacksonville considers to be downtown too spread-out for its own good? Ever wonder how downtown compares in scale and size to other central business districts in Florida? Does pedestrian scale density really matter when it comes to downtown redevelopment and vibrancy? Take a look the maps and information below and let us know your opinion!
Full article: https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/floridas-major-downtowns-how-does-jax-compare/
Thanks for your steady, informative, nuanced and cogent research, writing and commentary, Lake. I have been "lurking" on this site (and it's predecessor) for a few years, mostly out of wanting to observe, read and learn. My wife and I purchased our desired condo in The Plaza in July. We have just begun shifting our belongings with our permanent relocation slated for a February permanent move. You'll have new neighbors. We are moving from Arlington,VA, by choice. Cost is a significant factor. Climate makes a difference, too. Living here eight years gives us experience and perspective on the pedestrian, bike and transit-oriented locale. Two notable features here is lots of access and high expectations of local, elected officials.
We have hope for Jacksonville's urban development and see real potential by maximizing the river as the definitive asset it is for the downtown. Regarding the JaxMag photos and overlays, the distance/area in downtown JAX is a challenge. Thanks for spotlighting the population and square mileage factors, which (in basic math) calculate for density. I was in town last week and pleased with signs of development. Progress requires multi-faceted efforts, and the "storefront by storefront" headway really matters. The big projects catapult the progress, so it takes both. There's much that's possible, and when we arrive we hope to inch up the population density by adding two to the numerator.
Thanks for allowing me to be part of the public conversation here. Soon to arrive...and hopeful.
Quote from: Pastor Eric Wester on December 19, 2018, 09:27:39 PM
Thanks for your steady, informative, nuanced and cogent research, writing and commentary, Lake. I have been "lurking" on this site (and it's predecessor) for a few years, mostly out of wanting to observe, read and learn. My wife and I purchased our desired condo in The Plaza in July. We have just begun shifting our belongings with our permanent relocation slated for a February permanent move. You'll have new neighbors. We are moving from Arlington,VA, by choice. Cost is a significant factor. Climate makes a difference, too. Living here eight years gives us experience and perspective on the pedestrian, bike and transit-oriented locale. Two notable features here is lots of access and high expectations of local, elected officials.
We have hope for Jacksonville's urban development and see real potential by maximizing the river as the definitive asset it is for the downtown. Regarding the JaxMag photos and overlays, the distance/area in downtown JAX is a challenge. Thanks for spotlighting the population and square mileage factors, which (in basic math) calculate for density. I was in town last week and pleased with signs of development. Progress requires multi-faceted efforts, and the "storefront by storefront" headway really matters. The big projects catapult the progress, so it takes both. There's much that's possible, and when we arrive we hope to inch up the population density by adding two to the numerator.
Thanks for allowing me to be part of the public conversation here. Soon to arrive...and hopeful.
Welcome to Jax, Pastor!
Ditto! Welcome to Jax!
Pretty nice analysis and I agree that downtown Jax, just like the rest of the City, is simply too spread out. Earlier this year my son and I decided to walk from 220 to the Ballpark to catch a baseball game. It took almost 45 minutes. Even our urbanism is sprawled out. It is impossible to have walkable urbanism if the sheer distance doesn't make walking possible.
I disagree (sort of). I don't think it's an issue that the area is large - I think it's an issue of density. No one complains that Manhattan is too large, for example. Density, combined with effective mass-transit systems, makes all the difference.
No one really cares too much about walking long(er) distances if there is a lot of stuff to see and do between point A and point B.
The problem Jax faces with an area so large is that it can't quickly build density with current resources because the land area is too large....resulting in our limited resources being spread too thin. The other cities appear to have had faster turnarounds because all of their downtown redevelopment resources have been funneled into significantly smaller areas of land. In terms of changing the image and stimulating around the clock activity, it's better to get 5 continuous blocks right as opposed to having 20 blocks is sparsely spread out activity.
Until we do the same, don't expect DT Jax to become vibrant at the pedestrian scale level for the foreseeable future. Instead, we'll continue to be what we've been the 1980s. A fairly quiet core with a few isolated nodes of inconsistent activity. Now there's nothing wrong with this if it what the community wants. It's just tiresome to see civic leaders and local media continue attempting to sell every gimmick as the "game changer", 10k residents as some magic number or demolition of vacant buildings as economic development.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 20, 2018, 09:39:21 AM
The problem Jax faces with an area so large is that it can't quickly build density with current resources because the land area is too large....resulting in our limited resources being spread too thin. The other cities appear to have had faster turnarounds because all of their downtown redevelopment resources have been funneled into significantly smaller areas of land. In terms of changing the image and stimulating around the clock activity, it's better to get 5 continuous blocks right as opposed to having 20 blocks is sparsely spread out activity.
Until we do the same, don't expect DT Jax to become vibrant at the pedestrian scale level for the foreseeable future. Instead, we'll continue to be what we've been the 1980s. A fairly quiet core with a few isolated nodes of inconsistent activity. Now there's nothing wrong with this if it what the community wants. It's just tiresome to see civic leaders and local media continue attempting to sell every gimmick as the "game changer", 10k residents as some magic number or demolition of vacant buildings as economic development.
Totally get it. I think my point was more that with density, we wouldn't be questioning whether or not the DT was too big. But given how empty it is now (and all the literal empty parking lot space), it is likely more challenging. It would seem that the best approach would be to concentrate on one or two areas (like the elbow or whatever it is) and see what happens. Eventually, it may spread?
Yes. Also in a weird way, one can argue that the neighborhoods "annexed" into downtown would have been more dense and better off if left alone. For example, if Springfield were "annexed" into downtown the same way Brooklyn, LaVilla or East Jacksonville was, would it be as intact as it is today?
Quote from: thelakelander on December 20, 2018, 09:39:21 AM
The problem Jax faces with an area so large is that it can't quickly build density with current resources because the land area is too large....resulting in our limited resources being spread too thin. The other cities appear to have had faster turnarounds because all of their downtown redevelopment resources have been funneled into significantly smaller areas of land. In terms of changing the image and stimulating around the clock activity, it's better to get 5 continuous blocks right as opposed to having 20 blocks is sparsely spread out activity.
Until we do the same, don't expect DT Jax to become vibrant at the pedestrian scale level for the foreseeable future. Instead, we'll continue to be what we've been the 1980s. A fairly quiet core with a few isolated nodes of inconsistent activity. Now there's nothing wrong with this if it what the community wants. It's just tiresome to see civic leaders and local media continue attempting to sell every gimmick as the "game changer", 10k residents as some magic number or demolition of vacant buildings as economic development.
I've got mixed feelings on this. I believe the vastness of Jax's downtown could be an opportunity in the long-run. Downtown's size is likely a symptom of Jax being the old guy in the room versus other Florida cities, and that should be an opportunity to be seized. At some point in the future, Jax could potentially have a mega-historic CBD, along with a mega-zone for walkability, active streetscapes, and clustered mixed-use living, versus peer cities in the Sunshine State.
Having said that, it's much harder to create and manage a perception of vibrancy when so much of the area defined as downtown sits idle and forlorn. Downtown's vastness presents some major "branding" challenges.
I also worry that the city tries to commit resources to "revitalization projects" in too many different places, and as a result, loses focus and fails to create the sustained "spark" of bustle in any single area.
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on December 20, 2018, 01:46:10 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on December 20, 2018, 09:39:21 AM
The problem Jax faces with an area so large is that it can't quickly build density with current resources because the land area is too large....resulting in our limited resources being spread too thin. The other cities appear to have had faster turnarounds because all of their downtown redevelopment resources have been funneled into significantly smaller areas of land. In terms of changing the image and stimulating around the clock activity, it's better to get 5 continuous blocks right as opposed to having 20 blocks is sparsely spread out activity.
Until we do the same, don't expect DT Jax to become vibrant at the pedestrian scale level for the foreseeable future. Instead, we'll continue to be what we've been the 1980s. A fairly quiet core with a few isolated nodes of inconsistent activity. Now there's nothing wrong with this if it what the community wants. It's just tiresome to see civic leaders and local media continue attempting to sell every gimmick as the "game changer", 10k residents as some magic number or demolition of vacant buildings as economic development.
I've got mixed feelings on this. I believe the vastness of Jax's downtown could be an opportunity in the long-run. Downtown's size is likely a symptom of Jax being the old guy in the room versus other Florida cities, and that should be an opportunity to be seized. At some point in the future, Jax could potentially have a mega-historic CBD, along with a mega-zone for walkability, active streetscapes, and clustered mixed-use living, versus peer cities in the Sunshine State.
The "downtown border" is a fake one. Urbanism and walkability in these other communities doesn't abruptly end at what their city describes as their official downtown or puts under the authority of a "DIA or "DDA". Tampa's Ybor, Miami's Wynwood, etc. all fall outside of their "DDA" controlled central business districts, yet they're still walkable (moreso than anything in DT Jax) and have a high amount of infill taking place. In Jax, Springfield, Riverside/Avondale, San Marco, Murray Hill, etc. are local examples of this. The only difference we have that these places don't is that our "DIA" has control over 3.9 square miles of the urban core and their's does not. That simply means, their downtown authorities make their investments in more concentrated areas, leading to those concentrated areas becoming significantly denser and walkable. So potential totally depends on if one believes revitalization is better with COJ's hands deeper into the cookie jar or not. Or in other words, would Five Points or 8th & Main be better today if they were under DIA (or the old DDA) control? Part of me feels like if these places were considered a part of downtown, half the buildings would have been demolished during their down years.
QuoteHaving said that, it's much harder to create and manage a perception of vibrancy when so much of the area defined as downtown sits idle and forlorn. Downtown's vastness presents some major "branding" challenges.
Yes, this is where having a smaller area to focus on, leads to more compact development that creates pedestrian scale synergy at a similar pace. This doesn't mean that good infill development can't still take place outside of "fake urbanism border". However, it does mean that the extra focus of a "downtown development authority" on a compact area changes that limited land mass literally overnight in comparison to what Jax has experienced.
QuoteI also worry that the city tries to commit resources to "revitalization projects" in too many different places, and as a result, loses focus and fails to create the sustained "spark" of bustle in any single area.
We're 60 years in the downtown revitalization game at this point. Unfortunately, this is exactly what has happened and continues to take place today.
The size of the official downtown isn't the issue. The issue is a failure to cluster within that area. There would be no issue if we'd stuck to plans to develop in clusters as we do in the successful urban core neighborhoods. Development in the Stadium District and Brooklyn is a good thing especially when they're done to enhance those areas specifically and better connect them to adjacent districts. But it wouldn't have the same impact on the Downtown Core that developments within the core would have, and shouldn't be treated as if it would. That's been our bigger issue.
Size is an issue if DIA funds are being spread too thin, due to the large area it is responsible for. Development will happen in adjacent urban districts (like it does in other cities), without additional public fingers in the cookie jar if the market and local public policies support it.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 20, 2018, 05:07:21 PM
Size is an issue if DIA funds are being spread too thin, due to the large area it is responsible for. Development will happen in adjacent urban districts (like it does in other cities), without additional public fingers in the cookie jar if the market and local public policies support it.
Honestly, I think all I really care about is dense, mixed-use, walkable living with local flavors and proprietorships all attempting to make their appeal with the depths of their distinction/uniqueness. I don't care if that happens at the beach, in Mandarin, or in Downtown. So remind me, why are we saving Downtown again? Is it that we want a vibrant, 24-hour CBD? Or the city's walkable "activity" zone needs to exist amidst our tallest towers? What is it that we're saving here and why should it exist in a smaller zone than what is on a map today? What if Five Points or Brooklyn wind up as the 24-hour, walkable activity-zone, and the Central Business District just turns into a really nice, differentiated office park with some tall residential towers for baby boomers seeking low-maintenance living. Is this a problem?
You start with downtown because it has the largest concentration of employees. All you have to do is give them another option to driving an hour home every night - something Jax has failed miserably at doing. I've spent the last 2 weeks near Naperville, IL. and what downtown Naperville has accomplished should make Jax City officials ashamed of themselves.
https://downtownnaperville.com/
Y'all are answering the question in a more complicated manner in my opinion. Based on the info provided, that is comparison, statistics provided etc., Jax, though larger in size than all of the major Florida City downtowns, in my opinion does not measure up, stack up, or adequately compare. Fewer residents, workers, hotels, bars, etc., speaks volumes of our "falling very short," compared to the other Florida major city downtowns. Don't get me wrong...I love me some Jax, love our skyline, love our downtown, and we are light years better and ahead than a decade ago. But as I've said many times, not only our skyline, but our downtown is just not indicative of a City of close to 1 million people. No, buildings do not make a city, nor the size and prosperity of a downtown, it's the people as we all know. And the people, namely the leaders of Jax need to pull together to help us look, act, and be the 1 million or so people City that we soon will be, and are fastly and close to becoming.
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on December 20, 2018, 09:54:58 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on December 20, 2018, 05:07:21 PM
Size is an issue if DIA funds are being spread too thin, due to the large area it is responsible for. Development will happen in adjacent urban districts (like it does in other cities), without additional public fingers in the cookie jar if the market and local public policies support it.
Honestly, I think all I really care about is dense, mixed-use, walkable living with local flavors and proprietorships all attempting to make their appeal with the depths of their distinction/uniqueness. I don't care if that happens at the beach, in Mandarin, or in Downtown. So remind me, why are we saving Downtown again? Is it that we want a vibrant, 24-hour CBD? Or the city's walkable "activity" zone needs to exist amidst our tallest towers? What is it that we're saving here and why should it exist in a smaller zone than what is on a map today? What if Five Points or Brooklyn wind up as the 24-hour, walkable activity-zone, and the Central Business District just turns into a really nice, differentiated office park with some tall residential towers for baby boomers seeking low-maintenance living. Is this a problem?
One thing I think that matters about Downtown is that it is the 'center' (more or less) of the region. So if it is built up and becomes vibrant again, everyone will be able to access it with relative ease. And, presumably, over time the development will radiate out from this center.
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on December 20, 2018, 09:54:58 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on December 20, 2018, 05:07:21 PM
Size is an issue if DIA funds are being spread too thin, due to the large area it is responsible for. Development will happen in adjacent urban districts (like it does in other cities), without additional public fingers in the cookie jar if the market and local public policies support it.
Honestly, I think all I really care about is dense, mixed-use, walkable living with local flavors and proprietorships all attempting to make their appeal with the depths of their distinction/uniqueness. I don't care if that happens at the beach, in Mandarin, or in Downtown. So remind me, why are we saving Downtown again?
I think you may be confusing the term "downtown" or the area controlled by the "Downtown Investment Authority" as the only place in the community that should be walkable, 24/7, etc. Honestly, the entire city needs to be saved and made to be more multimodal friendly, not just downtown. There's a strong economic reason to why we should encouraging more density in areas of the city that can support it. At a minimum, this would not only include downtown, it would also involve the entire pre-consolidated city (that was originally built to be walkable and twice as dense as it is today) and other nodes (ex. TOD around transit hubs, redevelopment of failed strip malls, etc.) throughout the county and region.
QuoteIs it that we want a vibrant, 24-hour CBD? Or the city's walkable "activity" zone needs to exist amidst our tallest towers?
More density equals a more financially viable and sustainable community. At some point, you'll sprawl yourself into municipal bankruptcy when forced to support too much aging infrastructure, after your tax base and new suburban growth starts sprawling into neighboring counties and communities. Detroit is a good example. A city with enough infrastructure built for a population twice its size. However, after 50 years of white flight (people didn't abandon the metro, they just moved right outside of city limits), the remaining dwindling tax base can't support the maintenance of aging infrastructure built for the population who abandoned it. So, you want a vibrant downtown and urban core to also maximize the tax base needed to support the city as a whole, long term.
QuoteWhat is it that we're saving here and why should it exist in a smaller zone than what is on a map today?
The only thing the maps deal with is how and where the extra money and focus is spent by downtown development authorities takes place. People repeatedly talk about how vibrant other city's downtowns are in comparison. There's a big reason for this. It's not like Jacksonville has not invested hundreds of millions in its downtown over the past few decades. It's that our investments have been spread out over 3.9 miles while most other places have had more concentrated infill and development associated with the assistance of development authorities focusing on those more compact areas.
QuoteWhat if Five Points or Brooklyn wind up as the 24-hour, walkable activity-zone, and the Central Business District just turns into a really nice, differentiated office park with some tall residential towers for baby boomers seeking low-maintenance living. Is this a problem?
What if it did? If that's what Jax wants, so be it. However, even this not a realistic outcome based off the policies and investment strategies currently in place. What's more realistic is Lot J will be the Landing 2.0, a convention center at the Shipyards will become a larger Prime Osborn with the same obstacles to overcome and the District will be just as vibrant as the developments around the Southbank Riverwalk ended up being. I guess what I'm trying to say is the public policies are screwed up for what we say we want to see downtown become (vibrant and pedestrian friendly) and they lead to the opposite outcome (a temporary node of activity that goes stale a decade later due to a lack of pedestrian scale synergy with other incremental complementing development), despite the hundreds of millions of investment.
Quote from: heights unknown on December 21, 2018, 01:03:50 AM
Y'all are answering the question in a more complicated manner in my opinion. Based on the info provided, that is comparison, statistics provided etc., Jax, though larger in size than all of the major Florida City downtowns, in my opinion does not measure up, stack up, or adequately compare. Fewer residents, workers, hotels, bars, etc., speaks volumes of our "falling very short," compared to the other Florida major city downtowns. Don't get me wrong...I love me some Jax, love our skyline, love our downtown, and we are light years better and ahead than a decade ago. But as I've said many times, not only our skyline, but our downtown is just not indicative of a City of close to 1 million people. No, buildings do not make a city, nor the size and prosperity of a downtown, it's the people as we all know. And the people, namely the leaders of Jax need to pull together to help us look, act, and be the 1 million or so people City that we soon will be, and are fastly and close to becoming.
It's not a matter of how much investment. It's a matter of how compact said investment is. All of these other areas you're comparing have more compact investment over the last 30 years. They have pedestrian scale synergy created from those compact investments that we don't. Moving forward, our challenge isn't getting investment to take place in the urban core. It's finding ways from multiple angles to make those investments take place in a more, compact and pedestrian friendly manner.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 21, 2018, 08:47:55 AM
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on December 20, 2018, 09:54:58 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on December 20, 2018, 05:07:21 PM
Size is an issue if DIA funds are being spread too thin, due to the large area it is responsible for. Development will happen in adjacent urban districts (like it does in other cities), without additional public fingers in the cookie jar if the market and local public policies support it.
Honestly, I think all I really care about is dense, mixed-use, walkable living with local flavors and proprietorships all attempting to make their appeal with the depths of their distinction/uniqueness. I don't care if that happens at the beach, in Mandarin, or in Downtown. So remind me, why are we saving Downtown again?
I think you may be confusing the term "downtown" or the area controlled by the "Downtown Investment Authority" as the only place in the community that should be walkable, 24/7, etc. Honestly, the entire city needs to be saved and made to be more multimodal friendly, not just downtown. There's a strong economic reason to why we should encouraging more density in areas of the city that can support it. At a minimum, this would not only include downtown, it would also involve the entire pre-consolidated city (that was originally built to be walkable and twice as dense as it is today) and other nodes (ex. TOD around transit hubs, redevelopment of failed strip malls, etc.) throughout the county and region.
QuoteThe point I was making is that the lifestyle elements I seek are not geographically confined to a traditional sense of the word downtown, although those lifestyle elements are often associated with "downtown living." For argument's sake, let's say that someday I found all the lifestyle features listed in my previous post in, say, Riverside, then would the city need to continue to use taxpayer dollars to make the CBD into some sort of 24/7, pulsing hub of vitality. In Montreal, the CBD is rather boring and staid. All the fun is elsewhere in the core city. This more compact area you've referenced, what exactly would the plans for it be? That it be the city's entertainment hub - that it be the pulse of the city at midnight, with night crawlers and revelers moving from restaurants to bars to dance halls and stage performances? What if that vibe turns up elsewhere, and the Elbow, despite our hopes and dreams, winds up as a veritable dustbowl, because we soon discover that the coolest zones in the city don't want to be forced to exist among towers of suits and paper-pushers.
QuoteIs it that we want a vibrant, 24-hour CBD? Or the city's walkable "activity" zone needs to exist amidst our tallest towers?
More density equals a more financially viable and sustainable community. At some point, you'll sprawl yourself into municipal bankruptcy when forced to support too much aging infrastructure, after your tax base and new suburban growth starts sprawling into neighboring counties and communities. Detroit is a good example. A city with enough infrastructure built for a population twice its size. However, after 50 years of white flight (people didn't abandon the metro, they just moved right outside of city limits), the remaining dwindling tax base can't support the maintenance of aging infrastructure built for the population who abandoned it. So, you want a vibrant downtown and urban core to also maximize the tax base needed to support the city as a whole, long term.
QuoteWhat is it that we're saving here and why should it exist in a smaller zone than what is on a map today?
The only thing the maps deal with is how and where the extra money and focus is spent by downtown development authorities takes place. People repeatedly talk about how vibrant other city's downtowns are in comparison. There's a big reason for this. It's not like Jacksonville has not invested hundreds of millions in its downtown over the past few decades. It's that our investments have been spread out over 3.9 miles while most other places have had more concentrated infill and development associated with the assistance of development authorities focusing on those more compact areas.
QuoteWhat if Five Points or Brooklyn wind up as the 24-hour, walkable activity-zone, and the Central Business District just turns into a really nice, differentiated office park with some tall residential towers for baby boomers seeking low-maintenance living. Is this a problem?
What if it did? If that's what Jax wants, so be it. However, even this not a realistic outcome based off the policies and investment strategies currently in place. What's more realistic is Lot J will be the Landing 2.0, a convention center at the Shipyards will become a larger Prime Osborn with the same obstacles to overcome and the District will be just as vibrant as the developments around the Southbank Riverwalk ended up being. I guess what I'm trying to say is the public policies are screwed up for what we say we want to see downtown become (vibrant and pedestrian friendly) and they lead to the opposite outcome (a temporary node of activity that goes stale a decade later due to a lack of pedestrian scale synergy with other incremental complementing development), despite the hundreds of millions of investment.
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on December 21, 2018, 09:25:11 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on December 21, 2018, 08:47:55 AM
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on December 20, 2018, 09:54:58 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on December 20, 2018, 05:07:21 PM
Size is an issue if DIA funds are being spread too thin, due to the large area it is responsible for. Development will happen in adjacent urban districts (like it does in other cities), without additional public fingers in the cookie jar if the market and local public policies support it.
Honestly, I think all I really care about is dense, mixed-use, walkable living with local flavors and proprietorships all attempting to make their appeal with the depths of their distinction/uniqueness. I don't care if that happens at the beach, in Mandarin, or in Downtown. So remind me, why are we saving Downtown again?
I think you may be confusing the term "downtown" or the area controlled by the "Downtown Investment Authority" as the only place in the community that should be walkable, 24/7, etc. Honestly, the entire city needs to be saved and made to be more multimodal friendly, not just downtown. There's a strong economic reason to why we should encouraging more density in areas of the city that can support it. At a minimum, this would not only include downtown, it would also involve the entire pre-consolidated city (that was originally built to be walkable and twice as dense as it is today) and other nodes (ex. TOD around transit hubs, redevelopment of failed strip malls, etc.) throughout the county and region.
QuoteThe point I was making is that the lifestyle elements I seek are not geographically confined to a traditional sense of the word downtown, although those lifestyle elements are often associated with "downtown living." For argument's sake, let's say that someday I found all the lifestyle features listed in my previous post in, say, Riverside, then would the city need to continue to use taxpayer dollars to make the CBD into some sort of 24/7, pulsing hub of vitality. In Montreal, the CBD is rather boring and staid. All the fun is elsewhere in the core city. This more compact area you've referenced, what exactly would the plans for it be? That it be the city's entertainment hub - that it be the pulse of the city at midnight, with night crawlers and revelers moving from restaurants to bars to dance halls and stage performances? What if that vibe turns up elsewhere, and the Elbow, despite our hopes and dreams, winds up as a veritable dustbowl, because we soon discover that the coolest zones in the city don't want to be forced to exist among towers of suits and paper-pushers.
QuoteIs it that we want a vibrant, 24-hour CBD? Or the city's walkable "activity" zone needs to exist amidst our tallest towers?
More density equals a more financially viable and sustainable community. At some point, you'll sprawl yourself into municipal bankruptcy when forced to support too much aging infrastructure, after your tax base and new suburban growth starts sprawling into neighboring counties and communities. Detroit is a good example. A city with enough infrastructure built for a population twice its size. However, after 50 years of white flight (people didn't abandon the metro, they just moved right outside of city limits), the remaining dwindling tax base can't support the maintenance of aging infrastructure built for the population who abandoned it. So, you want a vibrant downtown and urban core to also maximize the tax base needed to support the city as a whole, long term.
QuoteNo argument here on the perils of sprawl - but that's not at issue in this series of posts - we aren't discussing how to combat development and highway projects on the periphery of the metro, we're talking about re-defining "downtown" into more compact terms
QuoteWhat is it that we're saving here and why should it exist in a smaller zone than what is on a map today?
The only thing the maps deal with is how and where the extra money and focus is spent by downtown development authorities takes place. People repeatedly talk about how vibrant other city's downtowns are in comparison. There's a big reason for this. It's not like Jacksonville has not invested hundreds of millions in its downtown over the past few decades. It's that our investments have been spread out over 3.9 miles while most other places have had more concentrated infill and development associated with the assistance of development authorities focusing on those more compact areas.
QuoteWhat if Five Points or Brooklyn wind up as the 24-hour, walkable activity-zone, and the Central Business District just turns into a really nice, differentiated office park with some tall residential towers for baby boomers seeking low-maintenance living. Is this a problem?
What if it did? If that's what Jax wants, so be it. However, even this not a realistic outcome based off the policies and investment strategies currently in place. What's more realistic is Lot J will be the Landing 2.0, a convention center at the Shipyards will become a larger Prime Osborn with the same obstacles to overcome and the District will be just as vibrant as the developments around the Southbank Riverwalk ended up being. I guess what I'm trying to say is the public policies are screwed up for what we say we want to see downtown become (vibrant and pedestrian friendly) and they lead to the opposite outcome (a temporary node of activity that goes stale a decade later due to a lack of pedestrian scale synergy with other incremental complementing development), despite the hundreds of millions of investment.
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on December 21, 2018, 09:30:31 AM
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on December 21, 2018, 09:25:11 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on December 21, 2018, 08:47:55 AM
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on December 20, 2018, 09:54:58 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on December 20, 2018, 05:07:21 PM
Size is an issue if DIA funds are being spread too thin, due to the large area it is responsible for. Development will happen in adjacent urban districts (like it does in other cities), without additional public fingers in the cookie jar if the market and local public policies support it.
Honestly, I think all I really care about is dense, mixed-use, walkable living with local flavors and proprietorships all attempting to make their appeal with the depths of their distinction/uniqueness. I don't care if that happens at the beach, in Mandarin, or in Downtown. So remind me, why are we saving Downtown again?
I think you may be confusing the term "downtown" or the area controlled by the "Downtown Investment Authority" as the only place in the community that should be walkable, 24/7, etc. Honestly, the entire city needs to be saved and made to be more multimodal friendly, not just downtown. There's a strong economic reason to why we should encouraging more density in areas of the city that can support it. At a minimum, this would not only include downtown, it would also involve the entire pre-consolidated city (that was originally built to be walkable and twice as dense as it is today) and other nodes (ex. TOD around transit hubs, redevelopment of failed strip malls, etc.) throughout the county and region.
QuoteThe point I was making is that the lifestyle elements I seek are not geographically confined to a traditional sense of the word downtown, although those lifestyle elements are often associated with "downtown living." For argument's sake, let's say that someday I found all the lifestyle features listed in my previous post in, say, Riverside, then would the city need to continue to use taxpayer dollars to make the CBD into some sort of 24/7, pulsing hub of vitality. In Montreal, the CBD is rather boring and staid. All the fun is elsewhere in the core city. This more compact area you've referenced, what exactly would the plans for it be? That it be the city's entertainment hub - that it be the pulse of the city at midnight, with night crawlers and revelers moving from restaurants to bars to dance halls and stage performances? What if that vibe turns up elsewhere, and the Elbow, despite our hopes and dreams, winds up as a veritable dustbowl, because we soon discover that the coolest zones in the city don't want to be forced to exist among towers of suits and paper-pushers.
QuoteIs it that we want a vibrant, 24-hour CBD? Or the city's walkable "activity" zone needs to exist amidst our tallest towers?
More density equals a more financially viable and sustainable community. At some point, you'll sprawl yourself into municipal bankruptcy when forced to support too much aging infrastructure, after your tax base and new suburban growth starts sprawling into neighboring counties and communities. Detroit is a good example. A city with enough infrastructure built for a population twice its size. However, after 50 years of white flight (people didn't abandon the metro, they just moved right outside of city limits), the remaining dwindling tax base can't support the maintenance of aging infrastructure built for the population who abandoned it. So, you want a vibrant downtown and urban core to also maximize the tax base needed to support the city as a whole, long term.
QuoteNo argument here on the perils of sprawl - but that's not at issue in this series of posts - we aren't discussing how to combat development and highway projects on the periphery of the metro, we're talking about re-defining "downtown" into more compact terms
QuoteWhat is it that we're saving here and why should it exist in a smaller zone than what is on a map today?
The only thing the maps deal with is how and where the extra money and focus is spent by downtown development authorities takes place. People repeatedly talk about how vibrant other city's downtowns are in comparison. There's a big reason for this. It's not like Jacksonville has not invested hundreds of millions in its downtown over the past few decades. It's that our investments have been spread out over 3.9 miles while most other places have had more concentrated infill and development associated with the assistance of development authorities focusing on those more compact areas.
QuoteWhat if Five Points or Brooklyn wind up as the 24-hour, walkable activity-zone, and the Central Business District just turns into a really nice, differentiated office park with some tall residential towers for baby boomers seeking low-maintenance living. Is this a problem?
What if it did? If that's what Jax wants, so be it. However, even this not a realistic outcome based off the policies and investment strategies currently in place. What's more realistic is Lot J will be the Landing 2.0, a convention center at the Shipyards will become a larger Prime Osborn with the same obstacles to overcome and the District will be just as vibrant as the developments around the Southbank Riverwalk ended up being. I guess what I'm trying to say is the public policies are screwed up for what we say we want to see downtown become (vibrant and pedestrian friendly) and they lead to the opposite outcome (a temporary node of activity that goes stale a decade later due to a lack of pedestrian scale synergy with other incremental complementing development), despite the hundreds of millions of investment.
Understood, but I'm starting to think that the lack of verve in core Jax, or the slowness in achieving core city bustle, is not so much about government policies, as perhaps the lack of grassroots spunk. I say people first - blame them first. What social networks or special interest groups have spurred (or maintained) downtown resurgences in other places? Late-stage singles, students, artists, gays, immigrants used to clustered living (and a city government that celebrates these immigrants). In Jax, these groups don't appear to be very organized, with a strong and unified voice in city politics, and as a result they're not the ostensible drivers of excitement in the core...or at least that's my impression. Instead, the most public advocates for downtown appear to be guys in suits sitting on Chamber of Commerce or Bizjournal-sponsored panels, whose value for downtown derives from a desire to entice outside organizations to relocate to Jax. (By the way, given some of downtown's aspirations might take 5-10 years to actualize, it might make sense to start to re-brand and build demand for downtown among high schoolers, countywide). Not sure how you do it.
Maybe that's all changing - the constituents of a vibrant core are now moving into place and the type of downtown we all want is on the horizon - but maybe that "right" kind of demand was just missing for a while.
Yes, the city has made missteps in its investments, like most places, but I don't know if there's been some sort of active effort to crush any and all sprouts of downtown vitality. Perhaps the demand just hasn't been there. We talk a lot on here about whether buildings go on this lot versus a lot a mile down the road, or where the city is spending enough money to create supply in the face of weak demand ...we don't talk as much about the ethos of the community, what that means for an aggregate demand for all kinds of downtown product, and whether that's really the biggest impediment to our hopes fulfilled. Just putting out food for thought.
I'm...so...confused
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on December 21, 2018, 09:25:11 AM
The point I was making is that the lifestyle elements I seek are not geographically confined to a traditional sense of the word downtown, although those lifestyle elements are often associated with "downtown living." For argument's sake, let's say that someday I found all the lifestyle features listed in my previous post in, say, Riverside, then would the city need to continue to use taxpayer dollars to make the CBD into some sort of 24/7, pulsing hub of vitality.
Building upon the existing density of downtown presents an opportunity for a massive increase in tax revenue that a community can't achieve in Riverside. It also offers the option of including urban amenities that will never be present in Riverside on a large scale. For example, public access to the riverfront or high-rise mixed-use space. Ideally, the Jax's urban core can be developed over time to offer a variety of lifestyle choices for multiple cultures, ages, economic classes, etc. A healthy Riverside might be attractive to one, while another can have a similar quality of life in a neighborhood like Brentwood or Moncrief.
QuoteIn Montreal, the CBD is rather boring and staid. All the fun is elsewhere in the core city.
I love Montreal. It's one of my favorite North American cities. I agree there are a lot of fun areas outside of the CBD. However, here's a few pics I took within the CBD last year. If the Northbank in Downtown Jacksonville could become this boring at street level, we're not having this conversation today:
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Next-City-Montr%C3%A9al-2017-Alumni-Track/i-xWjV8hN/0/7d818262/L/20170601_151759-L.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Next-City-Montr%C3%A9al-2017-Alumni-Track/i-vQnF9jr/0/36e015bc/L/20170601_174107-L.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Next-City-Montr%C3%A9al-2017-Alumni-Track/i-5B2MTzx/0/ebf934a9/L/20170602_210147-L.jpg)
QuoteThis more compact area you've referenced, what exactly would the plans for it be?
(https://photos.smugmug.com/History/Florida-State-Archives/Jacksonville-Howard-Lawson/i-2KPPB6D/0/d5be5818/L/oldjax009-L.jpg)
The Northbank around 1940.Jax's historical downtown CBD is the Northbank. The rough boundary would be the Broad Street, the river, Hogans Creek/Liberty Street and State Street. In the map below it would be the Central Core, Church and Cathedral Districts.
(https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/sites/default/files/210777_standard.jpeg)
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/the-cawton-report-boyer-working-to-streamline-downtown-zoning-rules
QuoteThat it be the city's entertainment hub - that it be the pulse of the city at midnight, with night crawlers and revelers moving from restaurants to bars to dance halls and stage performances? What if that vibe turns up elsewhere, and the Elbow, despite our hopes and dreams, winds up as a veritable dustbowl, because we soon discover that the coolest zones in the city don't want to be forced to exist among towers of suits and paper-pushers.
I wouldn't equate 24/7 vibrancy to being an entertainment hub. Alone, entertainment districts tend to be pretty dead most of the day. 24/7 hubs offer a mix of uses for all segments of life within a walkable setting. One of the things I love about Montreal, Toronto, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, DC, etc. is that a pedestrian can move between their CBDs and vibrant core neighborhoods seamlessly and without the need of a car. I believe Jax offers a similar opportunity. However, a reversal of how leaders view local history and re-use of existing older building stock will need to take place. Ideally, we need infill to replace surface parking lots as opposed to turning vacant buildings into empty lots for future redevelopment.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 21, 2018, 10:06:52 AM
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on December 21, 2018, 09:25:11 AM
The point I was making is that the lifestyle elements I seek are not geographically confined to a traditional sense of the word downtown, although those lifestyle elements are often associated with "downtown living." For argument's sake, let's say that someday I found all the lifestyle features listed in my previous post in, say, Riverside, then would the city need to continue to use taxpayer dollars to make the CBD into some sort of 24/7, pulsing hub of vitality.
Building upon the existing density of downtown presents an opportunity for a massive increase in tax revenue that a community can't achieve in Riverside. It also offers the option of including urban amenities that will never be present in Riverside on a large scale. For example, public access to the riverfront or high-rise mixed-use space. Ideally, the Jax's urban core can be developed over time to offer a variety of lifestyle choices for multiple cultures, ages, economic classes, etc. A healthy Riverside might be attractive to one, while another can have a similar quality of life in a neighborhood like Brentwood or Moncrief.
QuoteGood answer. I think it important to establish the value proposition for money spent in one zone over others.
QuoteIn Montreal, the CBD is rather boring and staid. All the fun is elsewhere in the core city.
I love Montreal. It's one of my favorite North American cities. I agree there are a lot of fun areas outside of the CBD. However, here's a few pics I took within the CBD last year. If the Northbank in Downtown Jacksonville could become this boring at street level, we're not having this conversation today:
QuoteI'm not a big fan of Montreal's CBD, and have been 5 or so times for work, but of course it's far more active than the Jacksonville Northbank. The question is, how much are you willing to sacrifice for that given scare resources and ample opportunity costs.
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on December 21, 2018, 09:43:14 AMNo argument here on the perils of sprawl - but that's not at issue in this series of posts - we aren't discussing how to combat development and highway projects on the periphery of the metro, we're talking about re-defining "downtown" into more compact terms
I'm not talking about re-defining "downtown" into more compact terms. I was trying to explain visually how spreading out a Downtown Development Authority's investment resources over a large area results in much slower revitalization of that area verses a community that does the exact same in a more compact area. Our traditional downtown/central business district is the Northbank. For political and marketing reasons during the area's late 20th century decline, we've re-defined "downtown" to include adjacent neighborhoods like Brooklyn, LaVilla, and Southbank (originally a separate city altogether). In many ways, like the loss of LaVilla or the countless building demolitions you don't see in Riverside, that larger redefinition has been more negative than positive.
QuoteUnderstood, but I'm starting to think that the lack of verve in core Jax, or the slowness in achieving core city bustle, is not so much about government policies, as perhaps the lack of grassroots spunk. I say people first - blame them first. What social networks or special interest groups have spurred (or maintained) downtown resurgences in other places? Late-stage singles, students, artists, gays, immigrants used to clustered living (and a city government that celebrates these immigrants). In Jax, these groups don't appear to be very organized, with a strong and unified voice in city politics, and as a result they're not the ostensible drivers of excitement in the core...or at least that's my impression.
I'd argue the grassroots spunk is saving Jax's ass. Riverside, Springfield, Murray Hill, CoRK Arts District, Rail Yard District, Baymeadow's emergence into an Indian district are all on-going results of grassroots spunk.
QuoteInstead, the most public advocates for downtown appear to be guys in suits sitting on Chamber of Commerce or Bizjournal-sponsored panels, whose value for downtown derives from a desire to entice outside organizations to relocate to Jax. (By the way, given some of downtown's aspirations might take 5-10 years to actualize, it might make sense to start to re-brand and build demand for downtown among high schoolers, countywide). Not sure how you do it.
Maybe that's all changing - the constituents of a vibrant core are now moving into place and the type of downtown we all want is on the horizon - but maybe that "right" kind of demand was just missing for a while.
Yes, the city has made missteps in its investments, like most places, but I don't know if there's been some sort of active effort to crush any and all sprouts of downtown vitality. Perhaps the demand just hasn't been there. We talk a lot on here about whether buildings go on this lot versus a lot a mile down the road, or where the city is spending enough money to create supply in the face of weak demand ...we don't talk as much about the ethos of the community, what that means for an aggregate demand for all kinds of downtown product, and whether that's really the biggest impediment to our hopes fulfilled. Just putting out food for thought.
Downtown revitalization is simple. We can start by identifying what has traditionally stopped or limited the types of renaissances taking place just outside of downtown from happening within it. I believe one would discover things like availability of affordable existing building stock, housing stock, zoning regulations, walkability, etc. will rise to the top of that list. If these things are the issues, then the next thing to do is implement policies and development strategies to alleviate them.
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on December 21, 2018, 10:12:48 AMGood answer. I think it important to establish the value proposition for money spent in one zone over others.
I agree. However, I believe you can reduce the amount of money spent subsidizing by modifying local policies that are counterproductive to market rate growth and trends. Creating opportunities for more to participate in the revitalization process is also an overlooked issue in the downtown revitalization discussion. Those who have been freezed out are using their money and creativity to bring places like Murray Hill and the Rail Yard District back to life.
QuoteI'm not a big fan of Montreal's CBD, and have been 5 or so times for work, but of course it's far more active than the Jacksonville Northbank. The question is, how much are you willing to sacrifice for that given scare resources and ample opportunity costs.
Right now, we're talking about hundreds of millions going to the Shipyards, $400 million to relocate the jail, another $40 million for a risky Berkman 2 project featuring a ferris wheel. Revitalization doesn't require these types of public expenditures. In many ways, it's investing in and maintaining the basic quality-of-life elements (ex. public education, parks, streets, transit, etc.), and making sure local public policies facilitate market-rate rate private investment.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 21, 2018, 10:26:08 AM
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on December 21, 2018, 09:43:14 AMNo argument here on the perils of sprawl - but that's not at issue in this series of posts - we aren't discussing how to combat development and highway projects on the periphery of the metro, we're talking about re-defining "downtown" into more compact terms
I'm not talking about re-defining "downtown" into more compact terms. I was trying to explain visually how spreading out a Downtown Development Authority's investment resources over a large area results in much slower revitalization of that area verses a community that does the exact same in a more compact area. Our traditional downtown/central business district is the Northbank. For political and marketing reasons during the area's late 20th century decline, we've re-defined "downtown" to include adjacent neighborhoods like Brooklyn, LaVilla, and Southbank (originally a separate city altogether). In many ways, like the loss of LaVilla or the countless building demolitions you don't see in Riverside, that larger redefinition has been more negative than positive.
QuoteUnderstood, but I'm starting to think that the lack of verve in core Jax, or the slowness in achieving core city bustle, is not so much about government policies, as perhaps the lack of grassroots spunk. I say people first - blame them first. What social networks or special interest groups have spurred (or maintained) downtown resurgences in other places? Late-stage singles, students, artists, gays, immigrants used to clustered living (and a city government that celebrates these immigrants). In Jax, these groups don't appear to be very organized, with a strong and unified voice in city politics, and as a result they're not the ostensible drivers of excitement in the core...or at least that's my impression.
I'd argue the grassroots spunk is saving Jax's ass. Riverside, Springfield, Murray Hill, CoRK Arts District, Rail Yard District, Baymeadow's emergence into an Indian district are all on-going results of grassroots spunk.
QuoteGrassroots saving Jax's ass as it relates to Downtown bustle? Stretch number one. I'm not saying there aren't some doing something, but there's been no salvation as far as I can tell. We'll have to disagree there. Baymeadows is Little India? - Stretch number two. We have different viewpoints on scale, I suppose.
QuoteInstead, the most public advocates for downtown appear to be guys in suits sitting on Chamber of Commerce or Bizjournal-sponsored panels, whose value for downtown derives from a desire to entice outside organizations to relocate to Jax. (By the way, given some of downtown's aspirations might take 5-10 years to actualize, it might make sense to start to re-brand and build demand for downtown among high schoolers, countywide). Not sure how you do it.
Maybe that's all changing - the constituents of a vibrant core are now moving into place and the type of downtown we all want is on the horizon - but maybe that "right" kind of demand was just missing for a while.
Yes, the city has made missteps in its investments, like most places, but I don't know if there's been some sort of active effort to crush any and all sprouts of downtown vitality. Perhaps the demand just hasn't been there. We talk a lot on here about whether buildings go on this lot versus a lot a mile down the road, or where the city is spending enough money to create supply in the face of weak demand ...we don't talk as much about the ethos of the community, what that means for an aggregate demand for all kinds of downtown product, and whether that's really the biggest impediment to our hopes fulfilled. Just putting out food for thought.
Downtown revitalization is simple. We can start by identifying what has traditionally stopped or limited the types of renaissances taking place just outside of downtown from happening within it. I believe one would discover things like availability of affordable existing building stock, housing stock, zoning regulations, walkability, etc. will rise to the top of that list. If these things are the issues, then the next thing to do is implement policies and development strategies to alleviate them.
Not simple if you consider the demand side of the equation. If you look at the aggregate amount of resources invested in cities all over this country to revitalize/restore their downtowns, I don't see how you can say it's simple. Downtowns were in the doldrums for many years, and yes they're making a comeback, but not without missteps everywhere and not without tons of money spent, and also not without complex social costs like gentrification driving out (or pricing out) long-time residents. Race, Class, Income Inequality, Property Rights, the role of government, a frontier America ethos, auto-reliance...all are factors in getting downtown to move and to be sustained.
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on December 21, 2018, 10:40:51 AM
Grassroots saving Jax's ass as it relates to Downtown bustle? Stretch number one. I'm not saying there aren't some doing something, but there's been no salvation as far as I can tell. We'll have to disagree there. Baymeadows is Little India? - Stretch number two. We have different viewpoints on scale, I suppose.
From personal experience and background knowledge, there are several business and new residents in these adjacent communities that were initially interested in opening and helping revitalize downtown. For various obstacles and challenges too difficult to overcome, they've been froze out of that process. However, their desire to be in and contribute to a walkable vibrant setting didn't disappear. They're simply making those investments in neighboring communities. Knowing the history and the cause and effect that public policy and access to the decision making table can have on the built environment, I'd say it's a huge stretch to blame them for downtown's current state. As for Baymeadows, it's a great example of an aging suburban community being re-energized through the clustering of newcomers to the city. It's a stretch to blame cultural groups for not clustering living in a place where city leaders purposefully removed the population and razed the affordable historic residential building stock that was there.
QuoteNot simple if you consider the demand side of the equation. If you look at the aggregate amount of resources invested in cities all over this country to revitalize/restore their downtowns, I don't see how you can say it's simple. Downtowns were in the doldrums for many years, and yes they're making a comeback, but not without missteps everywhere and not without tons of money spent, and also not without complex social costs like gentrification driving out (or pricing out) long-time residents. Race, Class, Income Inequality, Property Rights, the role of government, a frontier America ethos, auto-reliance...all are factors in getting downtown to move and to be sustained.
Here's the 2017 State of Downtown Annual Report: https://indd.adobe.com/view/04bab683-8609-4cf8-b87e-926bbb865ffb
DT Jax has a 96% residential occupancy rate. There's thousands of new residential units proposed or currently under construction. There's more than 800 additional hotel rooms under construction or proposed. Many of these developments aren't asking for public incentives. The neighborhoods surrounding it are more popular and in demand as well. Downtown has a lot of challenges and issues to overcome. Right now, demand isn't one of them.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 21, 2018, 11:06:43 AM
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on December 21, 2018, 10:40:51 AM
Grassroots saving Jax's ass as it relates to Downtown bustle? Stretch number one. I'm not saying there aren't some doing something, but there's been no salvation as far as I can tell. We'll have to disagree there. Baymeadows is Little India? - Stretch number two. We have different viewpoints on scale, I suppose.
From personal experience and background knowledge, there are several business and new residents in these adjacent communities that were initially interested in opening and helping revitalize downtown. For various obstacles and challenges too difficult to overcome, they've been froze out of that process. However, their desire to be in and contribute to a walkable vibrant setting didn't disappear. They're simply making those investments in neighboring communities. Knowing the history and the cause and effect that public policy and access to the decision making table can have on the built environment, I'd say it's a huge stretch to blame them for downtown's current state. As for Baymeadows, it's a great example of an aging suburban community being re-energized through the clustering of newcomers to the city. It's a stretch to blame cultural groups for not clustering living in a place where city leaders purposefully removed the population and razed the affordable historic residential building stock that was there.
QuoteNot simple if you consider the demand side of the equation. If you look at the aggregate amount of resources invested in cities all over this country to revitalize/restore their downtowns, I don't see how you can say it's simple. Downtowns were in the doldrums for many years, and yes they're making a comeback, but not without missteps everywhere and not without tons of money spent, and also not without complex social costs like gentrification driving out (or pricing out) long-time residents. Race, Class, Income Inequality, Property Rights, the role of government, a frontier America ethos, auto-reliance...all are factors in getting downtown to move and to be sustained.
Here's the 2017 State of Downtown Annual Report: https://indd.adobe.com/view/04bab683-8609-4cf8-b87e-926bbb865ffb
DT Jax has a 96% residential occupancy rate. There's thousands of new residential units proposed or currently under construction. There's more than 800 additional hotel rooms under construction or proposed. Many of these developments aren't asking for public incentives. The neighborhoods surrounding it are more popular and in demand as well. Downtown has a lot of challenges and issues to overcome. Right now, demand isn't one of them.
Aw come on, thelakelander. I'm as much an advocate for downtown as anyone, and I've actually lived in downtowns much of my adult life. I do think the tide is turning in Jax, but 96% among the existing stock (some of which have individuals relying on direct government support for subsistence) is not a meaningful indicator of demand health. How about that stock relative to the rest of the city, or the growth in that stock relative to the growth of rental stock city-wide, or prospects for new growth driven by market demand without significant taxpayer subsidy. Again, the demand tide is likely turning, but it's been anemic for a very long time, and the city has to be careful not to finance a robust supply pipeline with little investment in demand stimulation. Why is downtown Jax a better option for the professional 30-something with discretionary income versus Gate Parkway? Let's keep answering that question and investing in additional reasons.
A meaningful indicator of demand health is market rate projects moving forward with no or little public subsidies. Regarding downtown, there are more examples of this taking place within the multifamily residential and leisure sectors now than at anytime since consolidation. There are a number of reasons how we hurt this from naturally taking place during the last real estate boom and why we're late to the table now. However, it's best to facilitate as much of this market rate economic growth as possible before the next recession is upon us. Unfortunately, we tend to focus more on the big gimmick projects with 15 to 20 year buildouts (assuming there's no recession...which is unrealistic) that likely won't come to fruition as illustrated in the renderings needed to build support for their subsidization.
QuoteWhy is downtown Jax a better option for the professional 30-something with discretionary income versus Gate Parkway? Let's keep answering that question and investing in additional reasons.
I'm not sure Gate Parkway has anything to do with downtown's health. Why should someone who works in that area stay downtown and commute as opposed to living nearby? These markets are more mutually exclusive than we think they are. How can a sprawler like Orlando have twenty Gate Parkways and still manage to breathe walkable vibrancy into its downtown? Scale and targeted concentration of complementing adaptive reuse and infill development has a big part to do with it.
I'd actually love to see more densification and walkable infill development along the JTB corridor. When JTA and the Mayors Office talk about the JRTC and Shipyards serving as a "barbell economic development approach to downtown", the "barbells" should be linking denser census tracts of the city with reliable transit and supportive landuse. Being in the middle, downtown will benefit by default and the added accessibility will open up market rate opportunities to additional areas along the path. The South End in Charlotte, which you are pretty familiar with now, is a great recent example of this. What's happening to Midtown Houston along their Red Line between DT and Texas Medical Center is another.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 21, 2018, 12:19:41 PM
A meaningful indicator of demand health is market rate projects moving forward with no or little public subsidies. Regarding downtown, there are more examples of this taking place within the multifamily residential and leisure sectors now than at anytime since consolidation. There are a number of reasons how we hurt this from naturally taking place during the last real estate boom and why we're late to the table now. However, it's best to facilitate as much of this market rate economic growth as possible before the next recession is upon us. Unfortunately, we tend to focus more on the big gimmick projects with 15 to 20 year buildouts (assuming there's no recession...which is unrealistic) that likely won't come to fruition as illustrated in the renderings needed to build support for their subsidization.
QuoteWhy is downtown Jax a better option for the professional 30-something with discretionary income versus Gate Parkway? Let's keep answering that question and investing in additional reasons.
I'm not sure Gate Parkway has anything to do with downtown's health. Why should someone who works in that area stay downtown and commute as opposed to living nearby? These markets are more mutually exclusive than we think they are. How can a sprawler like Orlando have twenty Gate Parkways and still manage to breathe walkable vibrancy into its downtown? Scale and targeted concentration of complementing adaptive reuse and infill development has a big part to do with it.
I'd actually love to see more densification and walkable infill development along the JTB corridor. When JTA and the Mayors Office talk about the JRTC and Shipyards serving as a "barbell economic development approach to downtown", the "barbells" should be linking denser census tracts of the city with reliable transit and supportive landuse. Being in the middle, downtown will benefit by default and the added accessibility will open up market rate opportunities to additional areas along the path. The South End in Charlotte, which you are pretty familiar with now, is a great recent example of this. What's happening to Midtown Houston along their Red Line between DT and Texas Medical Center is another.
I know you disagree, but I believe communities have exploited opportunities to draw professionals away from dense, multi-family suburbia to emerging downtown and urban districts. That's how Gate is relevant. When the next DB comes to town, and is considering where to locate office space, a very real and significant factor will be where its talent pipeline either lives or will want to live in close proximity to the office. Plenty of companies are relocating to mixed-use "urban" environments to appeal to a young and fresh talent pipeline. In that sense, there is a competition between a downtown and an ex-urb. I'd take the competition even more seriously if I'm spending taxpayer dollars on downtown - if city government keeps skin in the game on new developments and wants an accelerated return on investment, I'd try to competitively position my investments as much as possible.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 21, 2018, 12:19:41 PM
A meaningful indicator of demand health is market rate projects moving forward with no or little public subsidies. Regarding downtown, there are more examples of this taking place within the multifamily residential and leisure sectors now than at anytime since consolidation. There are a number of reasons how we hurt this from naturally taking place during the last real estate boom and why we're late to the table now. However, it's best to facilitate as much of this market rate economic growth as possible before the next recession is upon us. Unfortunately, we tend to focus more on the big gimmick projects with 15 to 20 year buildouts (assuming there's no recession...which is unrealistic) that likely won't come to fruition as illustrated in the renderings needed to build support for their subsidization.
QuoteWhy is downtown Jax a better option for the professional 30-something with discretionary income versus Gate Parkway? Let's keep answering that question and investing in additional reasons.
I'm not sure Gate Parkway has anything to do with downtown's health. Why should someone who works in that area stay downtown and commute as opposed to living nearby? These markets are more mutually exclusive than we think they are. How can a sprawler like Orlando have twenty Gate Parkways and still manage to breathe walkable vibrancy into its downtown? Scale and targeted concentration of complementing adaptive reuse and infill development has a big part to do with it.
I'd actually love to see more densification and walkable infill development along the JTB corridor. When JTA and the Mayors Office talk about the JRTC and Shipyards serving as a "barbell economic development approach to downtown", the "barbells" should be linking denser census tracts of the city with reliable transit and supportive landuse. Being in the middle, downtown will benefit by default and the added accessibility will open up market rate opportunities to additional areas along the path. The South End in Charlotte, which you are pretty familiar with now, is a great recent example of this. What's happening to Midtown Houston along their Red Line between DT and Texas Medical Center is another.
South end is far closer to Charlotte's CBD than JTB is to the Jax CBD - although it depends on what JTB you're referring to. JTB is not really a district to me - it spans from roughly I-95 to the Beach. Are you looking to turn the entire stretch into walkable, mixed-use, infill? I think the city has its hands more than full downtown.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 21, 2018, 09:17:57 AM
Quote from: heights unknown on December 21, 2018, 01:03:50 AM
Y'all are answering the question in a more complicated manner in my opinion. Based on the info provided, that is comparison, statistics provided etc., Jax, though larger in size than all of the major Florida City downtowns, in my opinion does not measure up, stack up, or adequately compare. Fewer residents, workers, hotels, bars, etc., speaks volumes of our "falling very short," compared to the other Florida major city downtowns. Don't get me wrong...I love me some Jax, love our skyline, love our downtown, and we are light years better and ahead than a decade ago. But as I've said many times, not only our skyline, but our downtown is just not indicative of a City of close to 1 million people. No, buildings do not make a city, nor the size and prosperity of a downtown, it's the people as we all know. And the people, namely the leaders of Jax need to pull together to help us look, act, and be the 1 million or so people City that we soon will be, and are fastly and close to becoming.
It's not a matter of how much investment. It's a matter of how compact said investment is. All of these other areas you're comparing have more compact investment over the last 30 years. They have pedestrian scale synergy created from those compact investments that we don't. Moving forward, our challenge isn't getting investment to take place in the urban core. It's finding ways from multiple angles to make those investments take place in a more, compact and pedestrian friendly manner.
Well said Lake and I agree. But City planners, leaders, and all others involved that get paid the big bucks to coup in that investment so to speak, and to help our urban core and downtown prosper, need to snap to it and let's get the ball rolling and "git er done!" I clearly understand what you're saying; however, we are not Miami, Orlando, etc., no compact investment here; so then, come up with something that will fit the bill for our "non compact" urban core and downtown to help it to succeed, prosper, and be vital and viable for our citizens and visitors alike.
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on December 21, 2018, 01:26:15 PM
I know you disagree, but I believe communities have exploited opportunities to draw professionals away from dense, multi-family suburbia to emerging downtown and urban districts. That's how Gate is relevant. When the next DB comes to town, and is considering where to locate office space, a very real and significant factor will be where its talent pipeline either lives or will want to live in close proximity to the office. Plenty of companies are relocating to mixed-use "urban" environments to appeal to a young and fresh talent pipeline. In that sense, there is a competition between a downtown and an ex-urb. I'd take the competition even more seriously if I'm spending taxpayer dollars on downtown - if city government keeps skin in the game on new developments and wants an accelerated return on investment, I'd try to competitively position my investments as much as possible.
The money spent on downtown revitalization is really pennies in the scheme of things compared to giant highway projects needed to keep up with suburban demand.
There certainly is competition between downtown and any thriving suburb - and competition is a good thing. But, even in a great downtown, the downtown isn't going to win every corporate relocation. Likewise, even in a downtown that isn't great they'll win a few from the suburbs (VyStar's relocation is an example).
I listened to an urban planner once say, "1/3 of the people will generally pick to live in an urban area, 1/3 will pick to live in the suburb, and 1/3 of the people will pick whichever one suits them best". I think that's largely true; the problem is we're losing that last 1/3 in many cases (though Riverside helps sway that number, and I think San Marco is going to start winning a lot as more housing comes online. As the neighborhoods around downtown densify, I think it will paint a much better picture for companies relocating here to choose downtown. Even if downtown isn't there yet, the neighborhoods around there can help sway that conversation.
But, there will always be a percentage of people (or companies) that will almost always choose the suburbs.
Now, I do think the occupancy number is legit. Assuming Vista Brooklyn does happen (signs are certainly pointing up since they bought the property and filed a permit) I think how quickly that fills up is going to show demand. I predict they'll do really well there, especially if the retail they land is solid (though you can look at 220 to show that even if the retail isn't there people will still rent).
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on December 21, 2018, 01:26:15 PMI know you disagree, but I believe communities have exploited opportunities to draw professionals away from dense, multi-family suburbia to emerging downtown and urban districts. That's how Gate is relevant.
I don't disagree that suburbs all across the country are subsidized at the expense of their historic urban cores, including Gate. There's no Gate Parkway or SJTC without the public spending billions on highways like JTB, I-295, Southside Boulevard, etc. to open up cheap land to new development opportunities. However, this isn't unique to Jacksonville. Thus, Jax should not use the emergence of the JTB corridor as an excuse for its downtown looking the way it does. There's a Gate in every large and mid-sized city across the country. Yet, thousands have still been able to be successful in bringing their downtowns back to life in considerably less time. Scale, density and clustering are a few important things that play a role in the shorter revitalization process.
Quote from: Steve on December 21, 2018, 01:40:34 PM
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on December 21, 2018, 01:26:15 PM
I know you disagree, but I believe communities have exploited opportunities to draw professionals away from dense, multi-family suburbia to emerging downtown and urban districts. That's how Gate is relevant. When the next DB comes to town, and is considering where to locate office space, a very real and significant factor will be where its talent pipeline either lives or will want to live in close proximity to the office. Plenty of companies are relocating to mixed-use "urban" environments to appeal to a young and fresh talent pipeline. In that sense, there is a competition between a downtown and an ex-urb. I'd take the competition even more seriously if I'm spending taxpayer dollars on downtown - if city government keeps skin in the game on new developments and wants an accelerated return on investment, I'd try to competitively position my investments as much as possible.
The money spent on downtown revitalization is really pennies in the scheme of things compared to giant highway projects needed to keep up with suburban demand.
There certainly is competition between downtown and any thriving suburb - and competition is a good thing. But, even in a great downtown, the downtown isn't going to win every corporate relocation. Likewise, even in a downtown that isn't great they'll win a few from the suburbs (VyStar's relocation is an example).
I listened to an urban planner once say, "1/3 of the people will generally pick to live in an urban area, 1/3 will pick to live in the suburb, and 1/3 of the people will pick whichever one suits them best". I think that's largely true; the problem is we're losing that last 1/3 in many cases (though Riverside helps sway that number, and I think San Marco is going to start winning a lot as more housing comes online. As the neighborhoods around downtown densify, I think it will paint a much better picture for companies relocating here to choose downtown. Even if downtown isn't there yet, the neighborhoods around there can help sway that conversation.
But, there will always be a percentage of people (or companies) that will almost always choose the suburbs.
Now, I do think the occupancy number is legit. Assuming Vista Brooklyn does happen (signs are certainly pointing up since they bought the property and filed a permit) I think how quickly that fills up is going to show demand. I predict they'll do really well there, especially if the retail they land is solid (though you can look at 220 to show that even if the retail isn't there people will still rent).
Understand your point, but if you subscribe to this "one-third convention," then there's a horrible imbalance to Gate Parkway, making it all the more pertinent to build the case to some of those Gate Parkway transplants as to why they should strongly consider Downtown. And yes, the case is tough (or perhaps impossible) to make at the moment, but that's why I'm advocating for investment in demand stimulation, whether through re-branding, or other means. Yes there are people who live downtown, but identify your target market currently not downtown but potentially could be downtown and start to position your downtown accordingly - perhaps through newly-constructed engagements/enticements/amusements and through the right narrative. Yes, I've heard the argument that government road projects are just as much a subsidy of suburban construction as incentives packages downtown. Not sure I quite buy that. In a place like Jax, where infrastructure has often lagged suburban development, the demand is already there and exercised before the city and state play catch-up with roads and drainage and other projects. If the government investments are ex-post, is it really the same thing as what happens downtown[/quote]
Quote from: heights unknown on December 21, 2018, 01:35:02 PMWell said Lake and I agree. But City planners, leaders, and all others involved that get paid the big bucks to coup in that investment so to speak, and to help our urban core and downtown prosper, need to snap to it and let's get the ball rolling and "git er done!" I clearly understand what you're saying; however, we are not Miami, Orlando, etc., no compact investment here; so then, come up with something that will fit the bill for our "non compact" urban core and downtown to help it to succeed, prosper, and be vital and viable for our citizens and visitors alike.
Physically and historically, we're compact......if we're talking about the actual historic downtown core (Northbank between Broad and Liberty). Building upon that can create a quick turnaround at the pedestrian scale, leading to additional growth opportunities. In recent decades, we have not, we aren't now and likely won't be during Curry's second term. So for the next few years, it is what it is and realistic expectations of what the downtown will be in....say....in 2023...should be tempered.
The DIA hopes what they call the CBD (Northbank + Brooklyn + LaVilla + Southbank) will have +13k residents by 2025. That breaks down to around 3,500 residents per square mile. In comparison, both Downtown Orlando and Uptown Charlotte were a little over 6,800 residents per square mile in 2010, according to the US census. So, if we're lucky and the Shipyards and District are built-out as proposed, in 2025, unless we have something else up our sleeve, we'll be half as vibrant as what Downtown Orlando and Uptown Charlotte were eight years ago.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 21, 2018, 01:42:45 PM
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on December 21, 2018, 01:26:15 PMI know you disagree, but I believe communities have exploited opportunities to draw professionals away from dense, multi-family suburbia to emerging downtown and urban districts. That's how Gate is relevant.
I don't disagree that suburbs all across the country are subsidized at the expense of their historic urban cores, including Gate. There's no Gate Parkway or SJTC without the public spending billions on highways like JTB, I-295, Southside Boulevard, etc. to open up cheap land to new development opportunities. However, this isn't unique to Jacksonville. Thus, Jax should not use the emergence of the JTB corridor as an excuse for its downtown looking the way it does. There's a Gate in every large and mid-sized city across the country. Yet, thousands have still been able to be successful in bringing their downtowns back to life in considerably less time. Scale, density and clustering are a few important things that play a role in the shorter revitalization process.
Kernan and Loretto and many other parts of Jax happened well before the roads caught up. Once those taxpayers were living in those areas en masse, the city and state sort of had to invest in auto-centric infrastructure there because those people work and pay taxes and the politicians had to be responsive to that constituency. When you approved developments there, you sort of had to eventually add infrastructure, even if you were slow to do it (which, in fact, Jax was). Is it possible that Jax could have forced infill in and around the core a long time ago with strict Land Use Requirements? But then again, it would have raised some thorny property rights concerns? So instead of strict Land Use Planning at the outset, we've decided to spend money making downtown appealing, but also spend money fulfilling our obligations to taxpaying occupants of the periphery.
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on December 21, 2018, 01:30:03 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on December 21, 2018, 12:19:41 PM
A meaningful indicator of demand health is market rate projects moving forward with no or little public subsidies. Regarding downtown, there are more examples of this taking place within the multifamily residential and leisure sectors now than at anytime since consolidation. There are a number of reasons how we hurt this from naturally taking place during the last real estate boom and why we're late to the table now. However, it's best to facilitate as much of this market rate economic growth as possible before the next recession is upon us. Unfortunately, we tend to focus more on the big gimmick projects with 15 to 20 year buildouts (assuming there's no recession...which is unrealistic) that likely won't come to fruition as illustrated in the renderings needed to build support for their subsidization.
QuoteWhy is downtown Jax a better option for the professional 30-something with discretionary income versus Gate Parkway? Let's keep answering that question and investing in additional reasons.
I'm not sure Gate Parkway has anything to do with downtown's health. Why should someone who works in that area stay downtown and commute as opposed to living nearby? These markets are more mutually exclusive than we think they are. How can a sprawler like Orlando have twenty Gate Parkways and still manage to breathe walkable vibrancy into its downtown? Scale and targeted concentration of complementing adaptive reuse and infill development has a big part to do with it.
I'd actually love to see more densification and walkable infill development along the JTB corridor. When JTA and the Mayors Office talk about the JRTC and Shipyards serving as a "barbell economic development approach to downtown", the "barbells" should be linking denser census tracts of the city with reliable transit and supportive landuse. Being in the middle, downtown will benefit by default and the added accessibility will open up market rate opportunities to additional areas along the path. The South End in Charlotte, which you are pretty familiar with now, is a great recent example of this. What's happening to Midtown Houston along their Red Line between DT and Texas Medical Center is another.
South end is far closer to Charlotte's CBD than JTB is to the Jax CBD - although it depends on what JTB you're referring to.
South End would be inside Uptown Charlotte if Charlotte classified Uptown as 3.9 square miles of its urban core. In this (as well as the Houston example), I was referring to using transit to tie end points together that also stimulate TOD between the two. By looking at things a bit more regionally, you can fuel urban development not only in your CBD but also other areas outside of it.
QuoteJTB is not really a district to me - it spans from roughly I-95 to the Beach.
JTB between Philips (Southpoint) and the SJTC area is considered to be an Edge City.
QuoteAre you looking to turn the entire stretch into walkable, mixed-use, infill?
The JTB corridor reminds me a lot of the I-8/Mission Valley corridor north of San Diego. With integrated multimodal transportation infrastructure investment and supportive land use policies, the area around JTB could be much more.
QuoteI think the city has its hands more than full downtown.
You got to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. The DIA is in charge of downtown. However, that doesn't mean COJ should ignore the potential of the rest of the city.
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on December 21, 2018, 02:05:20 PMKernan and Loretto and many other parts of Jax happened well before the roads caught up. Once those taxpayers were living in those areas en masse, the city and state sort of had to invest in auto-centric infrastructure there because those people work and pay taxes and the politicians had to be responsive to that constituency.
This isn't how suburbia developed in the US historically. Much of our suburbs of today is built upon the back of racism, redlining, subsidization of white flight through the GI bill, and politically connected people using highway construction to make their inherited landholdings accessible for development.
QuoteWhen you approved developments there, you sort of had to eventually add infrastructure, even if you were slow to do it (which, in fact, Jax was).
Jax actually has a transportation network for a city much larger than its size. Some of it is due to the naval and port facilities. Some of it is due to encourage suburban development and growth.
QuoteIs it possible that Jax could have forced infill in and around the core a long time ago with strict Land Use Requirements? But then again, it would have raised some thorny property rights concerns?
The type of infrastructure investment, what you select to subsidize, land use and zoning policies, market dynamics, etc. all play a role in how a community develops. Portland looks a lot different today than many of its peer communities because of policy decisions leadership made back in the 1970s. You hit the countryside in Lexington, KY a lot quicker than you do in other cities its size because of their growth boundary that was established years ago. I'm not saying Jax should carbon copy these places. However, I am saying we can do a lot of things differently and much better than we have in the past to better maximize our potential.
QuoteSo instead of strict Land Use Planning at the outset, we've decided to spend money making downtown appealing, but also spend money fulfilling our obligations to taxpaying occupants of the periphery.
I don't think I'm totally understanding or agreeing with this. Jax isn't special or unique. In general, several cities face the same issues overall. Jax has simply screwed up on its efforts to revitalize its downtown so far, which is why other places have moved further along in that particular area. However, not all is lost. Things can change, when and if the community wants to see change happen.
Quote from: Kerry on December 21, 2018, 12:04:13 AM
You start with downtown because it has the largest concentration of employees. All you have to do is give them another option to driving an hour home every night - something Jax has failed miserably at doing. I've spent the last 2 weeks near Naperville, IL. and what downtown Naperville has accomplished should make Jax City officials ashamed of themselves.
https://downtownnaperville.com/
Or, closer to home, downtown Greenville, SC >>> https://www.visitgreenvillesc.com/about-greenville/photo-gallery/downtown-greenville/ (https://www.visitgreenvillesc.com/about-greenville/photo-gallery/downtown-greenville/)
Quote from: thelakelander on December 21, 2018, 01:56:15 PM
Quote from: heights unknown on December 21, 2018, 01:35:02 PMWell said Lake and I agree. But City planners, leaders, and all others involved that get paid the big bucks to coup in that investment so to speak, and to help our urban core and downtown prosper, need to snap to it and let's get the ball rolling and "git er done!" I clearly understand what you're saying; however, we are not Miami, Orlando, etc., no compact investment here; so then, come up with something that will fit the bill for our "non compact" urban core and downtown to help it to succeed, prosper, and be vital and viable for our citizens and visitors alike.
Physically and historically, we're compact......if we're talking about the actual historic downtown core (Northbank between Broad and Liberty). Building upon that can create a quick turnaround at the pedestrian scale, leading to additional growth opportunities. In recent decades, we have not, we aren't now and likely won't be during Curry's second term. So for the next few years, it is what it is and realistic expectations of what the downtown will be in....say....in 2023...should be tempered.
The DIA hopes what they call the CBD (Northbank + Brooklyn + LaVilla + Southbank) will have +13k residents by 2025. That breaks down to around 3,500 residents per square mile. In comparison, both Downtown Orlando and Uptown Charlotte were a little over 6,800 residents per square mile in 2010, according to the US census. So, if we're lucky and the Shipyards and District are built-out as proposed, in 2025, unless we have something else up our sleeve, we'll be half as vibrant as what Downtown Orlando and Uptown Charlotte were eight years ago.
Thanks Lake. I'll take that. I guess it's better than nothing because those cities had vibrant downtowns 8 years ago; to get to that level would be progress coupled with success for Jax in my opinion.
Quote from: Tacachale on December 20, 2018, 04:43:57 PM
The size of the official downtown isn't the issue. The issue is a failure to cluster within that area. There would be no issue if we'd stuck to plans to develop in clusters as we do in the successful urban core neighborhoods. Development in the Stadium District and Brooklyn is a good thing especially when they're done to enhance those areas specifically and better connect them to adjacent districts. But it wouldn't have the same impact on the Downtown Core that developments within the core would have, and shouldn't be treated as if it would. That's been our bigger issue.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 20, 2018, 05:07:21 PM
Size is an issue if DIA funds are being spread too thin, due to the large area it is responsible for. Development will happen in adjacent urban districts (like it does in other cities), without additional public fingers in the cookie jar if the market and local public policies support it.
Funding isn't the issue either. Cities like Tampa that have a smaller downtown also have districts like the Channelside and Ybor that have leadership and planning, and soak up funding that could go to downtown proper. The difference is that the model forces the city to cluster in the individual areas and focus on what each district needs individually. The same thing could be accomplished with one authority that's structured to cluster and distribute funding among the districts. In fact, it could even be a better model. But it's not going to happen if we're just moving the money around anywhere in the 4 square mile area and call it all Downtown investment.
QuoteBut it's not going to happen if we're just moving the money around anywhere in the 4 square mile area and call it all Downtown investment.
Yeah, it's not going to happen but it sounds like you're saying the same thing as me. I'm just approaching things from a cause and effect perspective. We've expanded "downtown's" borders to stretch over 4 square miles. That was a political decision made at the local level. We've established an entity (the DIA) to revitalize "downtown" by utilizing a variety of financial resources to spur economic development in said area. Because the area of focus is too large, said means of funding and investment are spread too thin for a model that naturally forces more clustered investment. Yes, we can create additional strategies to alter that, but the whole idea of creating additional strategies is also a result of the original decision. With that said, none of this is going to change and there's no reason to expect the current administration to adopt a different development model. However, when people wonder why things are the way they are today and attempt to compare to other cities, it's good to know the outcome isn't always market rated. Much of it is local policy decisions that create an environment where resulting tools are used in a manner that can be counterproductive to quickly stimulating vibrancy at a pedestrian scale level.
Quote from: Tacachale on December 23, 2018, 09:53:40 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on December 20, 2018, 04:43:57 PM
The size of the official downtown isn't the issue. The issue is a failure to cluster within that area. There would be no issue if we'd stuck to plans to develop in clusters as we do in the successful urban core neighborhoods. Development in the Stadium District and Brooklyn is a good thing especially when they're done to enhance those areas specifically and better connect them to adjacent districts. But it wouldn't have the same impact on the Downtown Core that developments within the core would have, and shouldn't be treated as if it would. That's been our bigger issue.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 20, 2018, 05:07:21 PM
Size is an issue if DIA funds are being spread too thin, due to the large area it is responsible for. Development will happen in adjacent urban districts (like it does in other cities), without additional public fingers in the cookie jar if the market and local public policies support it.
Funding isn't the issue either. Cities like Tampa that have a smaller downtown also have districts like the Channelside and Ybor that have leadership and planning, and soak up funding that could go to downtown proper. The difference is that the model forces the city to cluster in the individual areas and focus on what each district needs individually. The same thing could be accomplished with one authority that's structured to cluster and distribute funding among the districts. In fact, it could even be a better model. But it's not going to happen if we're just moving the money around anywhere in the 4 square mile area and call it all Downtown investment.
So it sounds like you don't take issue with the size of Downtown or even the geographic coverage of potential incentives arrangements. Rather, you believe the DIA should spend more time funding more dense, catalytic, mixed-use developments?
The DIA could spend 100% of their time focusing on the real downtown if there was not a policy in place making them responsible for a 3.9 square mile area we call "downtown". Everything to overcome the issue of a "downtown" entity's tools and resources being spread out too thin all stems from a policy decision that was counterproductive to the quick implementation of a vibrant pedestrian scale district. To compare the success of DT Jax with and other city's revitalization needs to take issues like this into consideration.
THE END IS NEAR!!! ALL HOPE HAS BEEN LOST FOR JAX!!!
No hope is lost. Just don't expect a downtown with streets filled with pedestrians until we do the things needed to make that happen.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 23, 2018, 05:26:00 PM
The DIA could spend 100% of their time focusing on the real downtown if there was not a policy in place making them responsible for a 3.9 square mile area we call "downtown". Everything to overcome the issue of a "downtown" entity's tools and resources being spread out too thin all stems from a policy decision that was counterproductive to the quick implementation of a vibrant pedestrian scale district. To compare the success of DT Jax with and other city's revitalization needs to take issues like this into consideration.
I see what you mean now. I guess it would make more sense to restrict the definition of 'downtown' to a more compact area and focus on that. Once it is successful and the density starts to radiate out from it, the definition of 'downtown' could be expanded. It sounds like we did it backwards.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 23, 2018, 05:26:00 PM
The DIA could spend 100% of their time focusing on the real downtown if there was not a policy in place making them responsible for a 3.9 square mile area we call "downtown". Everything to overcome the issue of a "downtown" entity's tools and resources being spread out too thin all stems from a policy decision that was counterproductive to the quick implementation of a vibrant pedestrian scale district. To compare the success of DT Jax with and other city's revitalization needs to take issues like this into consideration.
I'm sorry, what is the "real" downtown? And are you saying the DIA's focus is scattered because of the convention center RFP mishap or because it appears to support Khans plans to the east? Or would you rather the city limit its incentives awards to a "strip" or "corridor" that becomes...well, becomes what? What corridor (including its property owners and investors) wins that designation?
The real downtown is the actual dense central business district. It's the place that was fully built out at the pedestrian scale prior to WW2. It's home to all the old large office towers, hotels and flagship department stores. It's the place people first think about when they claim "downtown" isn't as vibrant as downtowns in other cities. It has little to do with the Jags or convention center. LaVilla and Brooklyn are adjacent black neighborhoods that were largely razed as recently as the 1990s and 2000s. The Southbank was a part of the City of South Jacksonville. Much of that riverfront was shipyards prior to 1960s/70s urban renewal.
I often think of the term "downtown" as more symbology than lifestyle attribute, and as the focal point or pulse or heartbeat of the city area it represents. It's not unreasonable to think that downtown Jax is somewhat larger than those of other Florida municipalities because the geographic span of the city it epitomizes is so much more vast. If you want to narrow the DIA's scope, that's all well and good, but if that's the case, then to what ends is DIA giving out incentives? To make the current high-rise CBD more of a mixed-use zone with more high-rise residential, to incentivize entertainment uses, to make it 24-hour, to lower vacancies? I'm trying to understand why the DIA's scope is really an issue. Frankly, I still believe downtown Jax has brand sickness, in that outside investors and developers just don't take it seriously nor do they take its representation seriously. Consequently downtown isn't on the radars of relevant pools of capital. The capital pool interested in downtown is too shallow, and from what I can tell, relatively little is being done to change that perception in a compelling way. In national real estate circles, Jax is still known as a place for laid-back country club and beachside living. No one recognizes its core or inner city as having any real or meaningful mojo. So exciting new development product fails to surface except from long-standing good ole boys like rummel who suck the incentives well dry and are one of only a few interested players.
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on December 25, 2018, 03:21:30 PM
I often think of the term "downtown" as more symbology than lifestyle attribute, and as the focal point or pulse or heartbeat of the city area it represents. It's not unreasonable to think that downtown Jax is somewhat larger than those of other Florida municipalities because the geographic span of the city it epitomizes is so much more vast. If you want to narrow the DIA's scope, that's all well and good, but if that's the case, then to what ends is DIA giving out incentives?
I don't think it matters what you call or brand it, the city's historic CBD isn't the sports district, Brooklyn or LaVilla. If your CBD needs an extra layer of government to assist in revitalization, no problem. However, expect their efforts to take longer if they're also charged with being the keeper of a much larger area.
QuoteI'm trying to understand why the DIA's scope is really an issue.
At this point, I don't know how to further explain how being spead too thin can negatively impact the effort of what an entity is charged to do and how that would directly lead to the actual central business district being sleepy despite billions spent on downtown revitalization since 1950.
QuoteFrankly, I still believe downtown Jax has brand sickness, in that outside investors and developers just don't take it seriously nor do they take its representation seriously.
The brand would be better if the actual CBD was. Why the CBD isn't already, after +50 years of revitalization efforts, has a lot to do with poor policy practices, including scale.
QuoteConsequently downtown isn't on the radars of relevant pools of capital. The capital pool interested in downtown is too shallow, and from what I can tell, relatively little is being done to change that perception in a compelling way. In national real estate circles, Jax is still known as a place for laid-back country club and beachside living. No one recognizes its core or inner city as having any real or meaningful mojo. So exciting new development product fails to surface except from long-standing good ole boys like rummel who suck the incentives well dry and are one of only a few interested players.
I don't think this is true. While I can't speak for the past, most of the developments under way right now are by outside investment groups and developers. Unfortunately, the big gimmick stuff requiring millions in incentives gets the press coverage.
CBD and downtown aren't always interchangeable terms
Some healthy CBDs are mere high rise office parks
^^^Give an example please? Because most equate the CBD (usually the tallest buildings in the city) as downtown; Los Angeles is an example.
Downtown Jacksonville is just fine as it is.
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on December 25, 2018, 07:18:25 PM
CBD and downtown aren't always interchangeable terms
Some healthy CBDs are mere high rise office parks
I'm not talking about the name of a place. I'm talking about the proper application of public policy.
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on December 26, 2018, 01:26:13 AM
Downtown Jacksonville is just fine as it is.
I'm sure there are those that are fine with it and would not like to see another dime spent there.
Quote from: I-10east on December 26, 2018, 12:06:30 AM
^^^Give an example please? Because most equate the CBD (usually the tallest buildings in the city) as downtown; Los Angeles is an example.
Many cities have a central business district located away from commercial or cultural city centers or downtowns. London's downtown or city center is a cultural or historic hub whereas its CBDs are elsewhere. Midtown Manhattan is more of a CBD than downtown Manhattan. Berlin has multiple CBDs as do Asian megacities. My point was that downtowns (as cultural and historic hubs) do exist as much more than just central business districts in many places around the world. A city can define its downtown and its ambitions for its center in many ways. One can have a gleaming sky-scraping Office Park filled with workers and low vacancy rates, only used for office work, and still consider it a successful business district. Still others will say, we want downtown to be more than a successful office park. Rather, it should be our cultural and social and historical hub as well as our chief center of business. If scoping in a stadium district which represents the only time the region assembles in mass Unity to support its home team or to dance to its favorite musical acts, accomplishes the social hub objective, then so be it. Same thing with scoping in a historic black neighborhood; if the city believes it to be a defining feature of the region's history and identity< go for it. Yes Jax has torn down tons of LaVilla buildings, but the Prime Osborn is there and is pretty amazing in my opinion, and if the zone around that architectural gem is kept it as part of the city's center (aka downtown), that's not insane to me.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 26, 2018, 06:59:47 AM
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on December 25, 2018, 07:18:25 PM
CBD and downtown aren't always interchangeable terms
Some healthy CBDs are mere high rise office parks
I'm not talking about the name of a place. I'm talking about the proper application of public policy.
You're talking names first - DIA should focus on "the real downtown "
I think you've misunderstood the entire point I've been trying to make out. Call it uptown, financial district, CBD, downtown....the name itself doesn't matter. Instead I'm talking about what it takes to quickly breathe life back into the city's historic heart of mixed-use activity and how an entity established to do just that, can struggle in it's efforts when spread too thin (due to also being charged with covering areas outside of that heart).
Maybe I can better explain it through Downtown Vision's map:
(http://downtownjacksonville.org/Libraries/Header_Titles_Images/Downtown_Boundaries_Map_1.sflb.ashx)
The DIA's boundaries are highlighted in blue. Highlighted in orange, DVI's boundaries are more reflective of the traditional downtown. Most of the cities mentioned as leaving DT Jax in the dust officially recognize and concentrate their downtown revitalization efforts in areas closer in size to DVI's boundary, not the DIA's.
When people say that downtown Jacksonville is not active or vibrant, it's not the sports complex or the shipyards near the Mathews Bridge they're talking about. It's not Brooklyn either. It's that historic urbanized heart of the city highlighted in orange. If the DIA's focus and resources were limited to activating the area within DVI's boundaries, it would be a hell of a lot more vibrant and active than it is today. That vibrancy would have a direct positive impact on the image an outsider has towards downtown. So when we ponder why is DT Jax so slow in comparison to peer communities, scale and inclusion of residential and industrial areas that have never been downtown (or whatever someone wants to call it) has to be considered. That's basically, the main point I was trying to get across in regards to the conversation.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 26, 2018, 08:04:51 AM
I think you've misunderstood the entire point I've been trying to make out. Call it uptown, financial district, CBD, downtown....the name itself doesn't matter. Instead I'm talking about what it takes to quickly breathe life back into the city's historic heart of mixed-use activity and how an entity established to do just that, can struggle in it's efforts when spread too thin (due to also being charged with covering areas outside of that heart).
I get the gist of your point; I'm just taking issue with some of the point and also clarifying the communication of some of it. Your initial link referenced size and scale of downtown Jax versus other Florida metros and whether DIA is spread too thin because of downtown's size. I would've compared the mandate, governance, and operation of DIA versus other City Authorities as a more meaningful analysis of whether it's spread too thin. You've possibly done this in prior content and I missed it. I don't believe Jax's 3.9 square miles and some incremental spatial excess over other Florida downtowns to be that big a deal. I can maybe agree with the point that DIA should narrow its mandate and perhaps start to focus its resources on just, say, the new innovation corridor or some other narrowly defined DIA sub-zone of Downtown, whilst the rest of downtown benefits from that sub-zone's ripple effect. Issue with that of course is suddenly this narrow zone sees an even greater spike in real estate pricing and maybe the barriers to entry for non-insiders gets a tad higher.
The lakelander - are you an investor in the elbow or landing, or economically linked with those places personally? No big deal if you are, just curious.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 26, 2018, 08:25:35 AM
Maybe I can better explain it through Downtown Vision's map:
(http://downtownjacksonville.org/Libraries/Header_Titles_Images/Downtown_Boundaries_Map_1.sflb.ashx)
The DIA's boundaries are highlighted in blue. Highlighted in orange, DVI's boundaries are more reflective of the traditional downtown. Most of the cities mentioned as leaving DT Jax in the dust officially recognize and concentrate their downtown revitalization efforts in areas closer in size to DVI's boundary, not the DIA's.
When people say that downtown Jacksonville is not active or vibrant, it's not the sports complex or the shipyards near the Mathews Bridge they're talking about. It's not Brooklyn either. It's that historic urbanized heart of the city highlighted in orange. If the DIA's focus and resources were limited to activating the area within DVI's boundaries, it would be a hell of a lot more vibrant and active than it is today. That vibrancy would have a direct positive impact on the image an outsider has towards downtown. So when we ponder why is DT Jax so slow in comparison to peer communities, scale and inclusion of residential and industrial areas that have never been downtown (or whatever someone wants to call it) has to be considered. That's basically, the main point I was trying to get across in regards to the conversation.
Again, I do understand. In the past, the city has been obsessed with gateways into the DVI definition of core. And so the coverage of revitalization efforts is vast. It's unclear to me how the city defines ultimate success, block by block, in the Northbank core. If we change the DIA's mandate to strictly involve re-purposing and re-use of historic building stock in an area defined by (whatever you want), then I can get behind that.
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on December 26, 2018, 08:32:37 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on December 26, 2018, 08:04:51 AM
I think you've misunderstood the entire point I've been trying to make out. Call it uptown, financial district, CBD, downtown....the name itself doesn't matter. Instead I'm talking about what it takes to quickly breathe life back into the city's historic heart of mixed-use activity and how an entity established to do just that, can struggle in it's efforts when spread too thin (due to also being charged with covering areas outside of that heart).
I get the gist of your point; I'm just taking issue with some of the point and also clarifying the communication of some of it. Your initial link referenced size and scale of downtown Jax versus other Florida metros and whether DIA is spread too thin because of downtown's size. I would've compared the mandate, governance, and operation of DIA versus other City Authorities as a more meaningful analysis of whether it's spread too thin. You've possibly done this in prior content and I missed it.
You're free to do that. I'd be interested to see what you can find. Whatever it is, for the other cities, it will be within the confines of a much more limited land area. The maps I put together are basically the boundaries their "DIA" counterparts work within.
QuoteI don't believe Jax's 3.9 square miles and some incremental spatial excess over other Florida downtowns to be that big a deal. I can maybe agree with the point that DIA should narrow its mandate and perhaps start to focus its resources on just, say, the new innovation corridor or some other narrowly defined DIA sub-zone of Downtown, whilst the rest of downtown benefits from that sub-zone's ripple effect.
I don't believe these are mutually exclusive points. If you can maybe agree on the DIA possibly narrowing its focus/start, etc., you've basically agreed that there is some type of negative impact in previously spreading its resources across a much larger area.
QuoteIssue with that of course is suddenly this narrow zone sees an even greater spike in real estate pricing and maybe the barriers to entry for non-insiders gets a tad higher.
Is it? Has this been the case with the other communities? DIA aside, demolition of existing building stock is perhaps the biggest entry barrier for non-insiders in downtown Jax. When small storefronts are continuously razed for surface parking lots, you basically start to limit your market to those who can afford or have the political capital to construct larger projects. As a result, your craft breweries, art studios, galleries, start-up restaurants, end up going to places where cheap building stock (in comparison) still exists (ex. Five Points, Edgewood Avenue, CoRK Arts District, Rail Yard District, 8th & Main, etc.).
QuoteThe lakelander - are you an investor in the elbow or landing, or economically linked with those places personally? No big deal if you are, just curious.
No. I do own some properties in Springfield. I am a planner though. In my professional experience, clustering, complementing uses within a compact pedestrian scale setting creates synergy and vibrancy faster in walkable districts as opposed to spreading your efforts too thin. Thus, I'm a true believer that instead of recreating the wheel, if downtown Jax is to become vibrancy now, as opposed to 30 years from now, a more concentrated effort of investment is required.
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on December 26, 2018, 08:40:44 AMAgain, I do understand. In the past, the city has been obsessed with gateways into the DVI definition of core. And so the coverage of revitalization efforts is vast.
The negative of not being willing to accept and promote your historical identity (the obsession of urban renewal), ended up with the elimination of LaVilla, Hansontown, Brooklyn, and the wharves. Durkeeville, Springfield and the Rail Yard District would all be moonscape by now, if they had been "annexed" like these nationally significant black neighborhoods were. More reason to limit the scope, IMO!
QuoteIt's unclear to me how the city defines ultimate success, block by block, in the Northbank core. If we change the DIA's mandate to strictly involve re-purposing and re-use of historic building stock in an area defined by (whatever you want), then I can get behind that.
Unfortunately, it's highly unlikely that a higher focus on re-purposing and re-use of historic building stock takes place. Right now, I don't think the Northbank core is a priority. If something pops up....cool but the focus is the stadium area for the foreseeable future. We actually talk about razing the city hall annex and old county courthouse as if that's economic development and revitalization.
For anyone still confused by the names, we did an article on them a while ago. There are multiple definitions of "Downtown" that are in use. It's a source of confusion between both average people and the agency itself.
https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/the-urban-core-and-downtown-some-definitions/
IMO, and I'm pretty sure Ennis agrees, the issue we face isn't the definition of "downtown", the structure of DIA, or the funding. It's that neither DIA nor anyone else has a built in mechanism for improvements specifically to the traditional Downtown Core. Instead, they spread stuff all over the 4 mile area and call it downtown development.
QuoteInstead, they spread stuff all over the 4 mile area and call it downtown development.
Our local policies allow them to do this. It's fine if people are willing to accept that downtown will remain sleepy for decades, despite the slick renderings of places a mile away or across the river from it. Reading the FTU editorials, it seems at least those editors expect something that's not going to happen before 2025, given the policy and practices of that policy in place.
Aggressive change is restricting the ability to spread stuff all over the 4 mile area. You can do that by scaling back the area. I don't expect that to happen nor do I expect them to adopt a strategy to stop spreading stuff all over the 4 mile area. Thus, I'm simply saying downtown will remain sleepy until such change via strategy or restriction of the ability to spread things out occurs or another entity addresses these issues.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 26, 2018, 09:54:55 AM
QuoteInstead, they spread stuff all over the 4 mile area and call it downtown development.
Our local policies allow them to do this. It's fine if people are willing to accept that downtown will remain sleepy for decades, despite the slick renderings of places a mile away or across the river from it. Reading the FTU editorials, it seems at least those editors expect something that's not going to happen before 2025, given the policy and practices of that policy in place.
Aggressive change is restricting the ability to spread stuff all over the 4 mile area. You can do that by scaling back the area. I don't expect that to happen nor do I expect them to adopt a strategy to stop spreading stuff all over the 4 mile area. Thus, I'm simply saying downtown will remain sleepy until such change via strategy or restriction of the ability to spread things out occurs or another entity addresses these issues.
Maybe a refresh is needed, but repurposing the St James into city hall, a new public library, the museum of modern art, a re-fashioning of hemming plaza, the Carling, 11E, the Adams Mark, have all been high-profile northbank core initiatives failing to create the spark. Now Barnett and trio are coming online. Maybe we haven't hit some threshold number of projects to create the vitality people want, but it's not that there's been no focus on Northbank core spark, theyve just failed to create or sustain momentum. I'm just not convinced that Jax has enough of the kinds of residents for its core to keep up with what's happening in other cities - or if it does - those residents aren't being targeted effectively. Again, notwithstanding that there is some demand for downtown, it's just not enough for Jax to keep up. I'm not purporting to have all the answers by any stretch, it's just that if an investor decides to show an interest in the stadium district or in projects in LaVilla, I don't see how the city just ignores that. The city didn't put any RFPs out for Lot J or even for the Vestcor projects (as far as I can tell), but that's where the limited set of investors and developers appear to be focused. Again, Barnett and Laura Street are now happening and I remember reading on these threads how they were the transformative projects the Northbank core needed, and now that these once pipe dreams are actually materializing, we are now saying the Northbank won't be transformed any time soon.
In all honesty, the reason I return to these message threads is that I still believe there is a ton of untapped potential in Jax. It is in the fastest growing state in the country, and out of the other major cities in the state, Jax arguably has the largest pre-WWII, pre-auto-centricity, grid-patterned street network and historic core of any of its state peers. That's a huge opportunity for greatness in my opinion. Yes, the opportunity is being wasted, and the message isn't out there enough. Sadly, A lot of building stock has been razed, but the fact that the city has 20 or 30 square miles of relatively narrow grid patterned streets and urban blocks that offer inherent walkability here in the sunshine state, is huge in my opinion.
I wish there was a zoning overhaul of the entire pre-WWII urban and suburban areas to require complete streets and dense, mixed-use walkable land uses.
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on December 26, 2018, 10:09:14 AM
Maybe a refresh is needed, but repurposing the St James into city hall, a new public library, the museum of modern art, a re-fashioning of hemming plaza, the Carling, 11E, the Adams Mark, have all been high-profile northbank core initiatives failing to create the spark.
1. City Hall --- replaced a department store and storefront retail facing four blocks with a single access office only open M-F during office hours......that's not going to spark anything outside of a few hot dog vendors during weekday lunches.
2. Public Library --- great building that took out a block of retail and historic buildings, as opposed to taking out a surface parking lot. Includes two retail spaces that sit empty because of restrictions related to use, signage and operation hours outside of library's limited hours.
3. MOCA Jacksonville --- great!
4. Hemming Plaza --- Hemming needs activation of the "outer square" moreso than anything.
5. Carling + 11 East --- great projects but less than 300 units combined. The apartment complex I moved to off Southside Boulevard had more units and residents.
6. Adams Mark ---- Architecture aside, it's probably the most active spot in the Northbank outside of the Landing. Brings in out of town tourist because its conference space is better than the Prime Osborn's, includes a few restaurants and outside of the Omni, probably the only place one can find breakfast in downtown on a weekend.
We're screwed if we're counting on these to provide the spark that gets DT over the hump. What we need is these and about 20 or 30 more complementing projects within walking distance of them.
QuoteNow Barnett and trio are coming online. Maybe we haven't hit some threshold number of projects to create the vitality people want, but it's not that there's been no focus on Northbank core spark, theyve just failed to create or sustain momentum.
We have not hit a threshold and it's unrealistic to think 300 multifamily units are going to sustain any type of momentum. Using that minimum 10,000 number local leaders like to toss around, we'd need something like an additional 5,000 more units within a few blocks of them. To channel growth into an area to sustain momentum and create synergy is where additional focus is required. Looking forward, there are some projects that will help. The Barnett, Trio, Hotel Indigo, VyStar, Hyatt Place, etc. are all positive because they all activate dead and underutilized spaces near currently high density occupied sites. IMO, they'll bring more life to the real downtown than the District and Shipyards ever will. Luckily, they all appear to moving forward now, which increases their likelihood of happening before the economy falls apart. Will they be enough? I doubt it. Here's where properly addressing additional issues like the Landing's future, the convention center, JEA headquarters, other large vacant sites like the old JEA tower, Furchgott's, etc., two-waying streets, modifying zoning, etc. can help sustain momentum.
QuoteI'm just not convinced that Jax has enough of the kinds of residents for its core to keep up with what's happening in other cities - or if it does - those residents aren't being targeted effectively. Again, notwithstanding that there is some demand for downtown, it's just not enough for Jax to keep up.
Jax has more residents in downtown than Savannah has in its popular historic district. With focus, complementing uses such as student housing, hotels, strategically located cultural facilities, etc. can help activate the streetscape. I'll say it again, demand isn't an issue for downtown Jax. Focus and economic access for a larger pool of players to participate in its rebirth are.
QuoteI'm not purporting to have all the answers by any stretch, it's just that if an investor decides to show an interest in the stadium district or in projects in LaVilla, I don't see how the city just ignores that.
There's no need to ignore development opportunities and I'm certainly not saying we should. We're not ignoring investors restoring properties and building infill housing in Springfield. We're not ignoring investors snapping up properties in the Eastside or building strip malls in the Southside.
QuoteThe city didn't put any RFPs out for Lot J or even for the Vestcor projects (as far as I can tell), but that's where the limited set of investors and developers appear to be focused.
Investors are all over town. Even in downtown. Several of the projects mentioned in this thread are examples. We have our challenges but not attracting investors isn't one of them.
QuoteAgain, Barnett and Laura Street are now happening and I remember reading on these threads how they were the transformative projects the Northbank core needed, and now that these once pipe dreams are actually materializing, we are now saying the Northbank won't be transformed any time soon.
Part of this problem is locally it sounds like we have no real idea of how much it takes to make a place vibrant at the pedestrian level. Every single major project proposed, we've got someone going around claiming its a game changer. In reality, none of them are. Clustering as many of them together within a walkable setting is. So the Barnett and Laura Street Trio are nice but that adds up to a small limited service hotel and about 200 apartments. Figure out how to get about 20 to 30 similar sized projects between the Acosta Bridge and the Hyatt, and then we can start talking game changing.
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on December 26, 2018, 10:25:10 AM
In all honesty, the reason I return to these message threads is that I still believe there is a ton of untapped potential in Jax. It is in the fastest growing state in the country, and out of the other major cities in the state, Jax arguably has the largest pre-WWII, pre-auto-centricity, grid-patterned street network and historic core of any of its state peers. That's a huge opportunity for greatness in my opinion. Yes, the opportunity is being wasted, and the message isn't out there enough. Sadly, A lot of building stock has been razed, but the fact that the city has 20 or 30 square miles of relatively narrow grid patterned streets and urban blocks that offer inherent walkability here in the sunshine state, is huge in my opinion.
Miami/South Florida, Tampa Bay and then Jacksonville when it comes to scale of pre-WWII grid-patterned street networks, historic core size, etc. in the state. However, the architecture, period of development, natural landscape, infrastructure, bridges, etc. make it unique. It's a mix of the Midwest and the Sunbelt rolled up in one. I can only imagine what places like Charlotte and Atlanta would resemble if they have Jax's bones to work with. Despite how negative I may sound in this thread, I agree that Jax has a huge opportunity for greatness and it will still exist after the current mayoral administration leaves office.
So what are you proposing? DIA drop everything else and focus on 20-30 mixed-use projects in the DVI northbank core?
Also, I thought downtown Savannah has 20,000+ residents and its historic district is a very different animal and a comparison to Jax's downtown residential base is a stretch, not to mention Savannah is an internationally renowned travel destination keeping it fueled with the agents of vibrancy.
But I do understand your broader point about complementing uses and clustering. I still contend that Jax is too focused on the supply side and not enough on the demand side. A savvy, sophisticated, multi-pronged marketing campaign to present the mojo and positive adventure of urban dwelling to a segment of the region's population where it makes sense (the young, the singles, the students, the empty nesters, the childless) should be happening in parallel with construction and physical rehabilitation planning. And I don't mean anything '"on the nose," and def not led by FTU editors.
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on December 26, 2018, 11:18:59 AM
So what are you proposing? DIA drop everything else and focus on 20-30 mixed-use projects in the DVI northbank core?
The same thing I've been saying for years. Modify/update zoning to fit with the 21st century market (this should happen citywide), preserve the building stock that's left, incentivize their re-use, upgrade parks, the streetscape, transit (sorry I do have my doubts about the validity of the U2C still), strategically place/invest in publicly funded projects (ex. JEA, parks, schools) etc. Get your public spaces working and align the policies and regulations with today's market and everything else will naturally incrementally happen on its own for the most part.
QuoteAlso, I thought downtown Savannah has 20,000+ residents and its historic district is a very different animal and a comparison to Jax's downtown residential base is a stretch, not to mention Savannah is an internationally renowned travel destination keeping it fueled with the agents of vibrancy.
Savannah wasn't world renowned for anything in the 1980s. Neither was Charleston. They were largely considered run down, blighted and high crime Southern cities that had seen much better days. They were a lot like the inner city of Jacksonville back during the 1980s. What you see now is result of decades of revitalization and preservation by those communities. Also, if Savannah doesn't meet someone's fancy, try Greenville, Lakeland, Grand Rapids, Tampa, Mobile, etc. the list goes on. I'm not aware of any of these communities having over 10,000 residents downtown but they turned their fortunes around via clustering, complementing uses within a compact pedestrian scale setting.
QuoteBut I do understand your broader point about complementing uses and clustering. I still contend that Jax is too focused on the supply side and not enough on the demand side. A savvy, sophisticated, multi-pronged campaign to present the mojo and positive adventure of urban dwelling to a segment of the region's population where it makes sense (the young, the singles, the students, the empty nesters, the childless) should be happening in parallel with construction and physical rehabilitation planning. And I don't mean anything '"on the nose," and def not led by FTU editors.
You don't need marketing campaigns for urban dwellers. They typically end up in Riverside, Springfield, Murray Hill, San Marco, etc. because these places offer a mix of housing and entry point business opportunities in walkable settings. Over the last two decades, many shifted to these locations after briefly living in, operating a business or looking to move in downtown. Every now and then, there's an article about a small business owner, their experience in downtown and why they moved to a different walkable setting. Here's one:
QuoteBark moves downtown location to Springfield
...Bark will carry products for dogs, cats and chickens, since many Springfield families own chickens.
The decision to move was natural, she said. In downtown Jacksonville, Bark simply wasn't getting enough traffic. There wasn't enough parking, and payroll cost more than profits to keep it running.
"I don't feel like I failed in downtown," she said. "It's just failing at this moment itself. It will take time to develop, just ike Riverside. Riverside was like that a long time ago."
Springfield is slow to develop, she said, but "every day something new happens." Kelley said that the community in Springfield has been very receptive so far and people are already reaching out to welcome them to the neighborhood.
https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2018/10/31/bark-moves-downtown-location-to-springfield-shares.html
Quote from: thelakelander on December 26, 2018, 11:55:56 AM
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on December 26, 2018, 11:18:59 AM
So what are you proposing? DIA drop everything else and focus on 20-30 mixed-use projects in the DVI northbank core?
The same thing I've been saying for years. Modify/update zoning to fit with the 21st century market (this should happen citywide), preserve the building stock that's left, incentivize their re-use, upgrade parks, the streetscape, transit (sorry I do have my doubts about the validity of the U2C still), strategically place/invest in publicly funded projects (ex. JEA, parks, schools) etc. Get your public spaces working and align the policies and regulations with today's market and everything else will naturally incrementally happen on its own for the most part.
I should clarify this particular comment. Within this thread, I wasn't proposing anything. I was highlighting how being spread out could be counterproductive to the ultimate goal. With that said, the things mentioned above are examples of what similar communities have had success in revitalization in more compact areas. For Jax, there's no reason to recreate the wheel.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 26, 2018, 11:55:56 AM
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on December 26, 2018, 11:18:59 AM
So what are you proposing? DIA drop everything else and focus on 20-30 mixed-use projects in the DVI northbank core?
The same thing I've been saying for years. Modify/update zoning to fit with the 21st century market (this should happen citywide), preserve the building stock that's left, incentivize their re-use, upgrade parks, the streetscape, transit (sorry I do have my doubts about the validity of the U2C still), strategically place/invest in publicly funded projects (ex. JEA, parks, schools) etc. Get your public spaces working and align the policies and regulations with today's market and everything else will naturally incrementally happen on its own for the most part.
Quote
So perhaps refine or expand DIA's mandate. Not sure how what you're saying aligns with the charters of the relevant CRAs over which the DIA has charge and responsibility. DIA is deploying financial resources but some of what you've cited appear to be public works, better left to other funding sources. JTA ready to leave a big mark on the core with U2C but that's outside of DIA scope.
Also, I thought downtown Savannah has 20,000+ residents and its historic district is a very different animal and a comparison to Jax's downtown residential base is a stretch, not to mention Savannah is an internationally renowned travel destination keeping it fueled with the agents of vibrancy.
Savannah wasn't world renowned for anything in the 1980s. Neither was Charleston. They were largely considered run down, blighted and high crime Southern cities that had seen much better days. They were a lot like the inner city of Jacksonville back during the 1980s. What you see now is result of decades of revitalization and preservation by those communities. Also, if Savannah doesn't meet someone's fancy, try Greenville, Lakeland, Grand Rapids, Tampa, Mobile, etc. the list goes on. I'm not aware of any of these communities having over 10,000 residents downtown but they turned their fortunes around via clustering, complementing uses within a compact pedestrian scale setting.
QuoteHere's the issue with lacking a specific and community-accepted definition of success. Jax might be the envy of Greenville, in a certain respect, because of 60,000+ office workers downtown. I don't know because I don't live there. Jax lacks clusters of bars and clubs, but it appears to have a reasonably vital employment base downtown.
But I do understand your broader point about complementing uses and clustering. I still contend that Jax is too focused on the supply side and not enough on the demand side. A savvy, sophisticated, multi-pronged campaign to present the mojo and positive adventure of urban dwelling to a segment of the region's population where it makes sense (the young, the singles, the students, the empty nesters, the childless) should be happening in parallel with construction and physical rehabilitation planning. And I don't mean anything '"on the nose," and def not led by FTU editors.[/quote]
You don't need marketing campaigns for urban dwellers. They typically end up in Riverside, Springfield, Murray Hill, San Marco, etc. because these places offer a mix of housing and entry point business opportunities in walkable settings. Over the last two decades, many shifted to these locations after briefly living in, operating a business or looking to move in downtown. Every now and then, there's an article about a small business owner, their experience in downtown and why they moved to a different walkable setting. Here's one:
QuoteI think a Branding campaign would help to grow your demand base. I don't think people are born as inherently urban or suburban. There are features of each lifestyle that can appeal to all sorts of people at various life stages. We'll just agree to disagree
Bark moves downtown location to Springfield...Bark will carry products for dogs, cats and chickens, since many Springfield families own chickens.
The decision to move was natural, she said. In downtown Jacksonville, Bark simply wasn't getting enough traffic. There wasn't enough parking, and payroll cost more than profits to keep it running.
"I don't feel like I failed in downtown," she said. "It's just failing at this moment itself. It will take time to develop, just ike Riverside. Riverside was like that a long time ago."
Springfield is slow to develop, she said, but "every day something new happens." Kelley said that the community in Springfield has been very receptive so far and people are already reaching out to welcome them to the neighborhood.[/quote]
https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2018/10/31/bark-moves-downtown-location-to-springfield-shares.html
[/quote]
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on December 26, 2018, 12:19:41 PM
So perhaps refine or expand DIA's mandate. Not sure how what you're saying aligns with the charters of the relevant CRAs over which the DIA has charge and responsibility. DIA is deploying financial resources but some of what you've cited appear to be public works, better left to other funding sources. JTA ready to leave a big mark on the core with U2C but that's outside of DIA scope.
There's two ways to deal with the DIA issue specifically. I expect neither to happen. as mentioned earlier today....
Quote from: thelakelander on December 26, 2018, 09:54:55 AM
QuoteInstead, they spread stuff all over the 4 mile area and call it downtown development.
Our local policies allow them to do this. It's fine if people are willing to accept that downtown will remain sleepy for decades, despite the slick renderings of places a mile away or across the river from it. Reading the FTU editorials, it seems at least those editors expect something that's not going to happen before 2025, given the policy and practices of that policy in place.
Aggressive change is restricting the ability to spread stuff all over the 4 mile area. You can do that by scaling back the area. I don't expect that to happen nor do I expect them to adopt a strategy to stop spreading stuff all over the 4 mile area. Thus, I'm simply saying downtown will remain sleepy until such change via strategy or restriction of the ability to spread things out occurs or another entity addresses these issues.
At this point, I'm just pointing out why you shouldn't be disappointed when things remain the same a decade from now, despite the money being tossed around.
Quote from: Tacachale on December 26, 2018, 09:43:54 AM
. Instead, they spread stuff all over the 4 mile area and call it downtown development.
So what? This country is full of major cities with downtown's just as big doing the same. And those that don't have an official downtown just as big, turn around and do the same thing, sprinkling it in other neighborhoods abutting the official downtown.
St. pete's Tropicana field ain't in their official downtown. No normal human would not call it downtown. And St. Pete's been throwing money at infill developments around it. They're not just doing it inside their wee lil' CBD.
Look at #kcmo. It's not just the power & light district. They pushed hard for years for development around their convention center, expanding downtown to the south to include it. At the same time they're doing that, they've done a lot with the P&L district. And while that's all been going on they've been working on getting the north end of downtown, a few miles to the north, better connected with the rest of downtown.
Or look Denver, arguably the most vibrant successful downtown in this country of this century. It's CBD is only a small part of it's downtown success. They've worked to connected surrounding neighborhoods and areas into downtown. They haven't just focused on downtown. RINO, Highlands, Central Platte Valley, LoDo, Baker, the old stockyards / union station, Uptown, etc. They've had various projects in play tieing them all together, not just the official downtown nor the downtown area, but also the neighborhoods adjacent to those next to CBD. They've juggled it all over a large area and had more success at it than any other city in the nation.
That's not say the idea of focus is a canard. The issue for Jacksonville is focus. But it's not because of a downtown. It's because of the misguided consolidation. The city of Jacksonville doesn't need a healthy traditional core to be a healthy city financially. And with thousands, maybe tens of thousands of acres coming up for development from the Skinner family, let alone eTown, commercial development by Deutsche Bank at the Gates Pkwy, etc, etc, etc, the city's going to be just fine $ for many, many moons.
IMHO if you want a core that gets some TLC from city hall, you have to shrink city hall. Think of it as needing to take away the shiny cell phone from the kid to get them to focus on a book. As long as they have the phone, they won't care too much about the book.
^^ interesting
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on December 26, 2018, 01:05:18 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on December 26, 2018, 09:43:54 AM
. Instead, they spread stuff all over the 4 mile area and call it downtown development.
So what? This country is full of major cities with downtown's just as big doing the same. And those that don't have an official downtown just as big, turn around and do the same thing, sprinkling it in other neighborhoods abutting the official downtown.
St. pete's Tropicana field ain't in their official downtown. No normal human would not call it downtown. And St. Pete's been throwing money at infill developments around it. They're not just doing it inside their wee lil' CBD.
I do get the point you're trying to make. Nevertheless, Tropicana Field does fall within St. Petersburg's official downtown. Check out the big white blob near I-275:
(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Miscellaneous/Downtown-Jacksonville-Comparison-Maps/i-M9pGSzG/0/f35fec1b/L/St%20Petersburg-L.jpg)
Better yet, look how all of DT St. Petersburg, including Tropicana Field, fits into DT Jax with lots of room to spare.
(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Miscellaneous/Downtown-Jacksonville-Comparison-Maps/i-CVCmCxN/0/4daa18dc/L/Jacksonville%20-%20St%20Petersburg-L.jpg)
QuoteLook at #kcmo. It's not just the power & light district. They pushed hard for years for development around their convention center, expanding downtown to the south to include it. At the same time they're doing that, they've done a lot with the P&L district. And while that's all been going on they've been working on getting the north end of downtown, a few miles to the north, better connected with the rest of downtown.
Or look Denver, arguably the most vibrant successful downtown in this country of this century. It's CBD is only a small part of it's downtown success. They've worked to connected surrounding neighborhoods and areas into downtown. They haven't just focused on downtown. RINO, Highlands, Central Platte Valley, LoDo, Baker, the old stockyards / union station, Uptown, etc. They've had various projects in play tieing them all together, not just the official downtown nor the downtown area, but also the neighborhoods adjacent to those next to CBD. They've juggled it all over a large area and had more success at it than any other city in the nation.
I think you may have misunderstood Tacachale's point. You can have urban core development without a downtown investment authority being put in charge of it happening. I don't think anyone is saying urban infill, development and growth should be limited to a certain boundary. The discussion was more related to if the DIA's focus and resources should be narrowed or targeted for a specific spot to stimulate a core zone of pedestrian scale vibrancy at a much faster pace than what they're on track to do.
QuoteThat's not say the idea of focus is a canard. The issue for Jacksonville is focus. But it's not because of a downtown. It's because of the misguided consolidation. The city of Jacksonville doesn't need a healthy traditional core to be a healthy city financially. And with thousands, maybe tens of thousands of acres coming up for development from the Skinner family, let alone eTown, commercial development by Deutsche Bank at the Gates Pkwy, etc, etc, etc, the city's going to be just fine $ for many, many moons.
Oh it definitely needs a healthy core for long term fiscal viability. That stuff around Gate Parkway is fools gold, when you start adding up long term cost for maintenance of infrastructure. As a fiscal conservative, I'd wish they double down on the density of projects happening out there, in order to make it more viable to taxpayers in the long run.
QuoteIMHO if you want a core that gets some TLC from city hall, you have to shrink city hall. Think of it as needing to take away the shiny cell phone from the kid to get them to focus on a book. As long as they have the phone, they won't care too much about the book.
On the surface, no argument here. LaVilla, Sugar Hill, Hansontown, State & Union, Campbell Hill, etc. have all been taken out because of city hall. On the other hand, Riverside, Murray Hill, Springfield and San Marco are what they are partially because of city hall's fingers not being as deep into their cookie jar of economic access and opportunity. There's something to be said about placing fewer obstacles in front of market trends and development patterns.
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on December 26, 2018, 01:05:18 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on December 26, 2018, 09:43:54 AM
. Instead, they spread stuff all over the 4 mile area and call it downtown development.
So what? This country is full of major cities with downtown's just as big doing the same. And those that don't have an official downtown just as big, turn around and do the same thing, sprinkling it in other neighborhoods abutting the official downtown.
St. pete's Tropicana field ain't in their official downtown. No normal human would not call it downtown. And St. Pete's been throwing money at infill developments around it. They're not just doing it inside their wee lil' CBD.
Look at #kcmo. It's not just the power & light district. They pushed hard for years for development around their convention center, expanding downtown to the south to include it. At the same time they're doing that, they've done a lot with the P&L district. And while that's all been going on they've been working on getting the north end of downtown, a few miles to the north, better connected with the rest of downtown.
Or look Denver, arguably the most vibrant successful downtown in this country of this century. It's CBD is only a small part of it's downtown success. They've worked to connected surrounding neighborhoods and areas into downtown. They haven't just focused on downtown. RINO, Highlands, Central Platte Valley, LoDo, Baker, the old stockyards / union station, Uptown, etc. They've had various projects in play tieing them all together, not just the official downtown nor the downtown area, but also the neighborhoods adjacent to those next to CBD. They've juggled it all over a large area and had more success at it than any other city in the nation.
That's not say the idea of focus is a canard. The issue for Jacksonville is focus. But it's not because of a downtown. It's because of the misguided consolidation. The city of Jacksonville doesn't need a healthy traditional core to be a healthy city financially. And with thousands, maybe tens of thousands of acres coming up for development from the Skinner family, let alone eTown, commercial development by Deutsche Bank at the Gates Pkwy, etc, etc, etc, the city's going to be just fine $ for many, many moons.
IMHO if you want a core that gets some TLC from city hall, you have to shrink city hall. Think of it as needing to take away the shiny cell phone from the kid to get them to focus on a book. As long as they have the phone, they won't care too much about the book.
When you say shrink city hall, you mean go back to a pre-consolidation government because the city becomes a better steward when it can't rest on its laurels because regardless of its downtown misadventures, it has a reliable tax revenue base from sprawl?
The lack of focus is due to incentives. It is a size thing but not about downtown. #KCMO, MPLS and others don't have that empty land to lean on for fresh income. Heck, one can argue that Savannah didn't start to turn it's core around until all the good annexation options were gone. The same with Greeneville, SC.
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on December 26, 2018, 01:05:18 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on December 26, 2018, 09:43:54 AM
. Instead, they spread stuff all over the 4 mile area and call it downtown development.
The city of Jacksonville doesn't need a healthy traditional core to be a healthy city financially. And with thousands, maybe tens of thousands of acres coming up for development from the Skinner family, let alone eTown, commercial development by Deutsche Bank at the Gates Pkwy, etc, etc, etc, the city's going to be just fine $ for many, many moons.
You wanna bet? All that low density sprawl doesn't come close to paying for itself tax wise. I don't know if I have ever seen a city as broke as Jax is. It doesn't seem the City has money to pay for anything.
Quote from: Kerry on December 26, 2018, 03:14:00 PM
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on December 26, 2018, 01:05:18 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on December 26, 2018, 09:43:54 AM
. Instead, they spread stuff all over the 4 mile area and call it downtown development.
The city of Jacksonville doesn't need a healthy traditional core to be a healthy city financially. And with thousands, maybe tens of thousands of acres coming up for development from the Skinner family, let alone eTown, commercial development by Deutsche Bank at the Gates Pkwy, etc, etc, etc, the city's going to be just fine $ for many, many moons.
You wanna bet? All that low density sprawl doesn't come close to paying for itself tax wise. I don't know if I have ever seen a city as broke as Jax is. It doesn't seem the City has money to pay for anything.
The claim that the new development doesn't pay for itself tax wise is at best a canard. __IF__ it doesn't, the issue is 30 years down the road. That's something that politicians wouldn't pay attention to. They don't get judged on that.
Jacksonville isn't any more "broke" than any other city. Every department claims it needs more money, isn't getting enough, etc. There's plenty of money coming in from new development to take care of what the politicians are looking to do. They're not in a do or die sort of position.
Keep in mind that regorms in India didn't come until the country was literally broke. They had ran out of currency reserves and had no other choice.. Even then the reforms that happened were limited to a couple sectors.
The city's relationship with it's traditional downtown won't change as long as it has Towne Center, JAX's vibrant, modern downtown.
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on December 26, 2018, 03:05:02 PM
The lack of focus is due to incentives. It is a size thing but not about downtown. #KCMO, MPLS and others don't have that empty land to lean on for fresh income. Heck, one can argue that Savannah didn't start to turn it's core around until all the good annexation options were gone. The same with Greeneville, SC.
Are you sure? Kansas City is a big sprawler. That place annexed more than 235 square miles of land area between 1950 and 1970. Its population maxed out at 507k after the last big annexation. It bottomed out to 435k in 1990 before they finally started getting their act together. Now it's up to 488k. Nevertheless, one thing KC didn't do was go godzilla on itself while in decline. Now it's blessed with all those old cool buildings and warehouse districts outside of downtown to replenish (and it's done a great job doing just that). On the other hand, we had WW3 with ourselves and called the resulting moonscape cleaning up blight.
You're also wrong about Savannah. It was 11 square miles in 1940 with a population of 95k residents. It peaked at 149k in 1960 after annexing 30 square miles over a 20 year period. It bottomed out at 131k in 2000. It's now 108 square miles with an estimate of 146k residents. It owes its urban renaissance to preservationist who saved much of its building stock from demo cray crays and the emergence of SCAD.
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on December 26, 2018, 04:10:49 PM
The claim that the new development doesn't pay for itself tax wise is at best a canard. __IF__ it doesn't, the issue is 30 years down the road. That's something that politicians wouldn't pay attention to. They don't get judged on that.
Have a talk with your planning director. He'll tell you all you need to know. They had data back when they were developing the original mobility plan. Whether you want to believe it or not is another issue altogether.
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on December 26, 2018, 04:10:49 PM
Quote from: Kerry on December 26, 2018, 03:14:00 PM
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on December 26, 2018, 01:05:18 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on December 26, 2018, 09:43:54 AM
. Instead, they spread stuff all over the 4 mile area and call it downtown development.
The city of Jacksonville doesn't need a healthy traditional core to be a healthy city financially. And with thousands, maybe tens of thousands of acres coming up for development from the Skinner family, let alone eTown, commercial development by Deutsche Bank at the Gates Pkwy, etc, etc, etc, the city's going to be just fine $ for many, many moons.
You wanna bet? All that low density sprawl doesn't come close to paying for itself tax wise. I don't know if I have ever seen a city as broke as Jax is. It doesn't seem the City has money to pay for anything.
The claim that the new development doesn't pay for itself tax wise is at best a canard. __IF__ it doesn't, the issue is 30 years down the road. That's something that politicians wouldn't pay attention to. They don't get judged on that.
Jacksonville isn't any more "broke" than any other city. Every department claims it needs more money, isn't getting enough, etc. There's plenty of money coming in from new development to take care of what the politicians are looking to do. They're not in a do or die sort of position.
Keep in mind that regorms in India didn't come until the country was literally broke. They had ran out of currency reserves and had no other choice.. Even then the reforms that happened were limited to a couple sectors.
The city's relationship with it's traditional downtown won't change as long as it has Towne Center, JAX's vibrant, modern downtown.
You like the word "canard", don't you?
Quote from: thelakelander on December 26, 2018, 04:15:17 PM
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on December 26, 2018, 04:10:49 PM
The claim that the new development doesn't pay for itself tax wise is at best a canard. __IF__ it doesn't, the issue is 30 years down the road. That's something that politicians wouldn't pay attention to. They don't get judged on that.
Have a talk with your planning director. He'll tell you all you need to know. They had data back when they were developing the original mobility plan. Whether you want to believe it or not is another issue altogether.
Anything can be done with accounting. Amtrak is a great example of it. You can legally move a lot of costs into different buckets in the end don't properly account for costs. It's the accounting version of the old Soviet psychopath Beria [sic] who said show me the man and I'll show the crime.
You're correct in that it's a matter of belief. This is issue is that the belief's of zealots are driving the results.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 26, 2018, 04:12:20 PM
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on December 26, 2018, 03:05:02 PM
The lack of focus is due to incentives. It is a size thing but not about downtown. #KCMO, MPLS and others don't have that empty land to lean on for fresh income. Heck, one can argue that Savannah didn't start to turn it's core around until all the good annexation options were gone. The same with Greeneville, SC.
Are you sure? Kansas City is a big sprawler. That place annexed more than 235 square miles of land area between 1950 and 1970. Its population maxed out at 507k after the last big annexation. It bottomed out to 435k in 1990 before they finally started getting their act together. Now it's up to 488k. Nevertheless, one thing KC didn't do was go godzilla on itself while in decline. Now it's blessed with all those old cool buildings and warehouse districts outside of downtown to replenish (and it's done a great job doing just that). On the other hand, we had WW3 with ourselves and called the resulting moonscape cleaning up blight.
You're also wrong about Savannah. It was 11 square miles in 1940 with a population of 95k residents. It peaked at 149k in 1960 after annexing 30 square miles over a 20 year period. It bottomed out at 131k in 2000. It's now 108 square miles with an estimate of 146k residents. It owes its urban renaissance to preservationist who saved much of its building stock from demo cray crays and the emergence of SCAD.
Correct. They're not perfectly boxed and have annexed. It's not that there's a complete absence of annexation nor a sole focus on downtown. Those are very good points.
KCMO's interesting. I'd love to better understand the dynamics there. A lot of land was annexed yet 3/4ths of the growth has happened outside of it, Lees Summit, Overland Park, etc. A lot of that sits empty. Maybe it was a distraction and focus a generation or two ago but it doens't seem to be today. What growth has occured in these areas hasn't been enough to offset the massive slide the core areas have undergone.
The danger on focusing on the lack of purity in the claim is getting lost in the weeds. Savannah hasn't had a great economy and they're a small city, less than 150,000. That's night and day compared to having 900,000 and being one of the fastest growing cities in the nation. It naturally lends itself to focusing on an area like downtown.
Note that Greenville, SC isn't a pure play either. More often than not, you'll find cities that have annexed. Chattanooga's like Greeneville in that while they've been able to annex, they've reached practical limits. Geography limits a bunch of growth, both the mountains and the Georgia state line. And the suburban communities to the east of Chattanooga haven't just fought annexation, sections of east Chattanooga have tried to leave ( de-annexation ) the city! IMHO that lends itself to city officials wanting to and being interested in revitalizing the core.
That's not to take away from all the different pieces that need to happen. There are a lot of factors in play. Maybe the more important story with Savannah isn't size but all the NGOs - all the civic groups - that were needed over the decades to finally get things to move in the right direction? Maybe size is a catalyst but not a cause?
Either way with Jacksonville you're looking at a city pushing to a million people. That's ginormous. Less than a dozen cities in the US have more. Most major cities in the country have less than half that population.
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on December 29, 2018, 01:18:09 PM
KCMO's interesting. I'd love to better understand the dynamics there. A lot of land was annexed yet 3/4ths of the growth has happened outside of it, Lees Summit, Overland Park, etc. A lot of that sits empty. Maybe it was a distraction and focus a generation or two ago but it doens't seem to be today. What growth has occured in these areas hasn't been enough to offset the massive slide the core areas have undergone.
I don't see KCMO being any different from the majority of cities in the US that did not consolidate with their core county....and for that matter Jacksonville. Suburban growth has still happened since WW2, regardless of if the suburb is in city limits (due to consolidation...like Jax or annexation...like KC/Tampa) or if they're incorporated (Ex. Overland Park) or unincorporated (ex. northern St. Johns County).
QuoteThe danger on focusing on the lack of purity in the claim is getting lost in the weeds. Savannah hasn't had a great economy and they're a small city, less than 150,000. That's night and day compared to having 900,000 and being one of the fastest growing cities in the nation. It naturally lends itself to focusing on an area like downtown.
Note that Greenville, SC isn't a pure play either. More often than not, you'll find cities that have annexed. Chattanooga's like Greeneville in that while they've been able to annex, they've reached practical limits. Geography limits a bunch of growth, both the mountains and the Georgia state line. And the suburban communities to the east of Chattanooga haven't just fought annexation, sections of east Chattanooga have tried to leave ( de-annexation ) the city! IMHO that lends itself to city officials wanting to and being interested in revitalizing the core.
That's not to take away from all the different pieces that need to happen. There are a lot of factors in play. Maybe the more important story with Savannah isn't size but all the NGOs - all the civic groups - that were needed over the decades to finally get things to move in the right direction? Maybe size is a catalyst but not a cause?
I think the danger in such discussion and analysis is trying to paint Jacksonville's situation and challenges as unique. They aren't. How you address walkability is the same, regardless of what a city's size or taxation structure is. If you want a vibrant pedestrian scale setting, you cluster it as much as possible in a pedestrian oriented fashion. If we don't care, then spread it around and stop selling the public on subsidized investments that won't deliver what's being promised.
QuoteEither way with Jacksonville you're looking at a city pushing to a million people. That's ginormous. Less than a dozen cities in the US have more. Most major cities in the country have less than half that population.
Jacksonville consolidated with its core county. In reality, it's the 40th largest urban area in the country. Nevertheless, whether the number is 100,000 (the original city of Jax) or 900,000 (Duval County), the method to quickly revitalize a pedestrian scale setting or neighborhood does not change.
"Original City of Jax" meaning, the old city limits? I guess if they ever wanted to rescind consolidation, they would have to sit, discuss, and assess what the new city limits would be. Jax has certainly sprawled out since 1967 or 68. But I'll bet with new city limits we could squeeze a good population of around 400,000 into the new city limits.
Yes, the pre-consolidated city, which was roughly 30 square miles. It's declined about 50% in population since 1950.