https://www.jacksonville.com/news/20190803/downtown-jacksonville-breaks-5000-resident-mark
Almost as dense as Wauchula when spread out over 3.9 square miles. Getting to 10,000 will make it closer to Orange Park's density if there's no strategy to cluster density. In other words, things will still be sleepy at 10k if other avenues to compact development don't become a top priority.
I'll post a slide from a recent presentation later that compares the numbers of Florida's major downtowns. Nevertheless, Greater Downtown Miami is 3.8 square miles but it has 92,000 residents and 175,000 workers according to their latest report. West Palm Beach is similiar to DT Jax with 5,900 downtown residents. However, DT West Palm is only 0.75 square miles. We need to be talking density instead of a sprawl based approach if we want vibrant streets, sooner rather than later.
Wow, I would've thought the number of people living downtown would've been higher. But then again, Downtown still has a long way to go...
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Miscellaneous/Miscellaneous/i-q9Q8pQq/0/bccbd829/XL/Chamber%20August%202019%20Downtown%20Presentation%20-%20Ennis%20Davis-XL.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Miscellaneous/Miscellaneous/i-Vm3P684/0/1bf94dac/XL/Chamber%20August%202019%20Downtown%20Presentation%20-%20Ennis%20Davis2-XL.jpg)
Is the "Downtown" used for the 5,000 number the full DIA area, including Brooklyn, the Sports Complex, and Southbank?
Quote from: Charles Hunter on August 05, 2019, 07:40:29 AM
Is the "Downtown" used for the 5,000 number the full DIA area, including Brooklyn, the Sports Complex, and Southbank?
Yes.
Why don't they take a page from local TV stations and include Eastside and Springfield in "Downtown" (whenever there is a crime), and there'd be lots more folks living "downtown".
Jacksonville's leadership needs to swallow their pride and speak with Orlando's Thomas Chatham Jr. Over the last five years downtown Orlando has drastically increased their downtown housing stock. By the end of this year it will have more than doubled. This major increase catalyzed the spark that has lead to an unprecedented number of developments on the docket for the next few years. We're talking billions of development in the immediate core.
I already have a hard time recognizing the downtown skyline, but in a few years it will be even more grand as there are 7 high rises currently under construction...
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Jax has torn down more high rises than they've constructed in the last 10 years...
Is it any surprise that a city's whose sole claim to fame is being "the largest land-area city in the lower 48", also has a sprawling downtown? The concept of density is about as foreign as it can get.
I believe there have only been 2 built in the last 20, the Peninsula on the Southbank (residential condos) and the Federal Courthouse (obviously a courthouse)
Midrise construction seems to be the hot deal of the day, and we've got 6 new apartment complexes of that type in the last 5 years. (Lofts at Lavilla, Lofts at Monroe, Lofts at Jefferson, 220 Riverside, RiverHouse, and Vista Brooklyn). These kinda things fit well for Jax, since we don't really have the need for the vertical density since we have so much vacant land in our urban core. Fill it in.
I think a big thing that needs to happen is for the city to stop trying to play landowner/investor/real estate developer. Sell COJ-owned properties to those willing to develop them with realistic projects near the urban core, and let the new owners take care of them.
To Lakelander's earlier point about WBP and Jax density, Look at this list of recently completed projects, projects under construction, and projects planned in West Palm Beach. Downtown is going to get lapped by the number of stuff under construction in Downtown WPB.
http://wpbgis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Shortlist/index.html?appid=5d86c10d29764a7b808101c4ab8631b8
And that is in an environment that has far more competitive suburbs (including the SJTC) than Jax in Palm Beach Gardens, Jupiter, Boca, and Delray.
Quote from: Peter Griffin on August 05, 2019, 10:07:04 AM
I think a big thing that needs to happen is for the city to stop trying to play landowner/investor/real estate developer. Sell COJ-owned properties to those willing to develop them with realistic projects near the urban core, and let the new owners take care of them.
This. Basically, develop your long term vision, modify public policy to facilitate incremental implementation of desired vision, invest in your public spaces and infrastructure, assist in getting a few catalytic sites/projects off the ground in the area that really counts and let the market lead. This can likely be done for a lot less than the amount of hard cash being offered up a mile east.
Quote from: CityLife on August 05, 2019, 10:19:18 AM
To Lakelander's earlier point about WBP and Jax density, Look at this list of recently completed projects, projects under construction, and projects planned in West Palm Beach. Downtown is going to get lapped by the number of stuff under construction in Downtown WPB.
http://wpbgis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Shortlist/index.html?appid=5d86c10d29764a7b808101c4ab8631b8
And that is in an environment that has far more competitive suburbs (including the SJTC) than Jax in Palm Beach Gardens, Jupiter, Boca, and Delray.
One thing Jax really should do is kill the excuses for today's conditions and inaccurate assumptions and benchmarks for what's needed to add life and vitality. The 10,000 residents spread across 4 square miles as a benchmark of anything is a bad mistake. Pack those 10,000 residents into one square mile, and that one square mile is alive. Spread it out across 4 square miles and you have a core with the density of present day Orange Park.
So simply hoping people continue to move into random areas of 4 square miles or fully come down to an empty environment to support one random place that maintains inconsistent hours outside of 9-5 weekdays, isn't going to get it done (if vibrant street life at the pedestrian scale is the key).
Understanding and working with the market, along with clustering as much complementing development, programming to spur foot traffic, with a compact setting is what is ultimately needed. Also, don't sleep on all those hotels. Clustering them is just as (or more) important than full time residents. Unlike residents, they those hotel guests are spending money everyday they're there. When designed right, those hotels also can bring the added retail that can serve as a base for places that are open consistently around the clock.
Now that the Barnett building is nearly completed, has work begun on the trio yet? Is that still a thing? Speaking of creating density, the logical places to start after the trio would be the surface lots next to Jax Center Garage, Burrito Gallery parking lot, Main Street Pocket Park, and the surface lot behind the Omni. Not sure if the City owns any of those, but they're prime spots to spur density.
I believe the logical place for density to start is where it already exists and where there's a few projects already in the works. That's basically the Laura/Hogan Street corridor between Hemming/JEA Tower and Adams between the county courthouse/proposed JEA headquarters and the Laura Trio/Main Street.
For example, looking at Laura with Hyatt Place, VyStar, Barnett/Trio already in the works, the focus should be on activating city owned parcels (Landing, Library retail spaces, Snyder Memorial, Hemming) and working with the owners of the Wells Fargo and BOA Towers to better integrate their existing ground floor retail spaces to the street. Do that, you can have a decent continuous four block stretch of activity before Curry leaves office.
Quote from: Kerry on August 05, 2019, 10:00:44 AM
Is it any surprise that a city's whose sole claim to fame is being "the largest land-area city in the lower 48", also has a sprawling downtown? The concept of density is about as foreign as it can get.
Is Jacksonville leadership too dense to understand density?
Quote from: thelakelander on August 04, 2019, 11:02:11 AM
We need to be talking density instead of a sprawl based approach if we want vibrant streets, sooner rather than later.
Maybe the plan is to make downtown look bigger by continuing to expand its breadth. San Marco, then Lakewood and St Nicholas...eventually once the SJTC is annexed downtown will be booming!
This is a bit misleading in that our downtown parameters include a lot of water, the sports complex and industrial areas. I measured the core, LaVilla, Brooklyn, Southbank (plus old JEA site), sports district all the way east, the parks all the way up to 8th St and I-95 on the west.....My total was 3.65 squire miles. That includes all the water too.
(https://i.ibb.co/mRzmTwm/Downtown-Area.png)
I measured the sports complex, industrial section and river from that same parameters. That removed 1.52 square miles. We should then have an effective downtown area of 2.13 square miles. This figure is far more accurate to use when comparing us to those other downtowns.
That gives us a population density of 2,450 per sq mile.
Employment density can better be discerned by removing just the river. That gives us an area of about 2.6 sq miles and an employment density closer to 21,000.
It should also be noted that everyone of those other downtowns include some sections of urban neighborhoods and not just their business cores (except WPB but I think they are inflating their residential number to include areas beyond the 0.75 sq mile region).
Don't get me wrong. I fully agree with the intent, just not the variables.
P.S. We will be losing about 150 people over the next year or so (unless they relocate to other downtown housing). I can't say more at this time.
QuoteWe will be losing about 150 people over the next year or so (unless they relocate to other downtown housing). I can't say more at this time.
My guess:
Moving some Duval jail inmates to a work camp
Quote from: Jim on August 09, 2019, 03:23:08 PM
This is a bit misleading in that our downtown parameters include a lot of water, the sports complex and industrial areas. I measured the core, LaVilla, Brooklyn, Southbank (plus old JEA site), sports district all the way east, the parks all the way up to 8th St and I-95 on the west.....My total was 3.65 squire miles. That includes all the water too.
(https://i.ibb.co/mRzmTwm/Downtown-Area.png)
I measured the sports complex, industrial section and river from that same parameters. That removed 1.52 square miles. We should then have an effective downtown area of 2.13 square miles. This figure is far more accurate to use when comparing us to those other downtowns.
That gives us a population density of 2,450 per sq mile.
Employment density can better be discerned by removing just the river. That gives us an area of about 2.6 sq miles and an employment density closer to 21,000.
It should also be noted that everyone of those other downtowns include some sections of urban neighborhoods and not just their business cores (except WPB but I think they are inflating their residential number to include areas beyond the 0.75 sq mile region).
Don't get me wrong. I fully agree with the intent, just not the variables.
P.S. We will be losing about 150 people over the next year or so (unless they relocate to other downtown housing). I can't say more at this time.
I get the intent to exclude the river from the calculations, but the river exists and factors into the daily life of living downtown. It is a significant barrier to cross for pedestrians. From a pedestrian point of view, it is almost as big a walkability obstacle as the Riverside/Jefferson/Acosta bridge interchange debacle. If anything, it means downtown Jax has to be even more urban and dense to make up for the massive amount of dead space to be comparable to the other cities mentioned.
Quote from: Jim on August 09, 2019, 03:23:08 PM
This is a bit misleading in that our downtown parameters include a lot of water, the sports complex and industrial areas. I measured the core, LaVilla, Brooklyn, Southbank (plus old JEA site), sports district all the way east, the parks all the way up to 8th St and I-95 on the west.....My total was 3.65 squire miles. That includes all the water too.
(https://i.ibb.co/mRzmTwm/Downtown-Area.png)
I measured the sports complex, industrial section and river from that same parameters. That removed 1.52 square miles. We should then have an effective downtown area of 2.13 square miles. This figure is far more accurate to use when comparing us to those other downtowns.
That gives us a population density of 2,450 per sq mile.
Employment density can better be discerned by removing just the river. That gives us an area of about 2.6 sq miles and an employment density closer to 21,000.
It should also be noted that everyone of those other downtowns include some sections of urban neighborhoods and not just their business cores (except WPB but I think they are inflating their residential number to include areas beyond the 0.75 sq mile region).
Don't get me wrong. I fully agree with the intent, just not the variables.
P.S. We will be losing about 150 people over the next year or so (unless they relocate to other downtown housing). I can't say more at this time.
The 3.95 square mile number comes from DVI. However, I get where you're coming from. I can pull the GIS shapefile later to drill down on land area accuracy. However, for comparisons sake, I'd also need to do the same for the other downtowns (every downtown, excluding Orlando is on a river or bay). Overall the point would be the same. DT Jax at +2k population density would be around the density of Orange Park. Assuming the other downtown organization's provided numbers also change, their densities could be much higher. Ultimately, if compared directly to these other places, in terms of the type of vibrancy people would like to see, we'll need to get pretty close to their population densities.
Jacksonville is odd in having a river running through the downtown. Most cities do not have this. Rivers are physical barriers that create a natural border to a neighborhood. It's strange that Jacksonville insists that it's downtown is on both sides of the river.
There are a few cities that have rivers running through their CBD. But in those cases the rivers are very narrow. Providence and Milwaukee have rivers but they create a gap no more than 125 - 175' wide. Some like San Antonio the river is so narrow that most folks wonder why it's called a river.
The one's with a river in the CBD that wasn't narrow that I could find were Columbus, OH ( apparently that left back on the SCiolo [sic] River is considered downtown-downtown ) at @600 ft, Des Moines with the Des Moines River creating a @400 foot gap. The only other one I could find before it reached the point where it was becoming work was Chicago with a 200 - 300 ft gap with the Chicago River.
Jacksonville probably has the biggest gap in it's downtown from a river.
No River thru CBD:
Austin, TX
Boston, MA
Buffalo, NY
Cincinnati, OH
Cleveland, OH
Colorado Springs, CO
Denver, CO
Kansas City, MO
LIttle Rock, AR
Louisville, KY
Memphis, TN
Minneapolis, MN
New Haven, CT
Omaha, NE
Phoenix, AZ
Raleigh, NC
Richmond, VA
Sacramento, CA
Salt Lake City, UT
St. Louis, MO
St. Paul, MN
Tuscon, AZ
QuoteJacksonville is odd in having a river running through the downtown. Most cities do not have this. Rivers are physical barriers that create a natural border to a neighborhood. It's strange that Jacksonville insists that it's downtown is on both sides of the river.
Jax is no different than many other places. We just annexed the Southbank and started including it as a part of downtown in the declining second half of the 20th century......just like we did with Brooklyn, LaVilla and the Sports District.
Honestly, the Southbank shouldn't even be considered "downtown". Even today, the people who live there (Peninsula, Strand, San Marco Place, etc.) are more connected with San Marco than they are with the Northbank and it's for good reason. Both of them were the City of South Jacksonville. Just because you build a freeway through the place doesn't mean how people interact at ground level won't still resort back to the traditional historical pattern. After all, the intersection of Prudential and Hendricks was once a part of South Jacksonville's CBD. But I do understand the reason of annexing surrounding urban neighborhoods to hide the Northbanks' numbers to the rest of the overall world for marketing sake.
(http://fpc.dos.state.fl.us/general/n033030.jpg)
https://www.floridamemory.com/items/show/142466
(https://www.floridamemory.com/fpc/general/n032624.jpg)
https://www.floridamemory.com/items/show/142072
(http://fpc.dos.state.fl.us/general/n032623.jpg)
https://www.floridamemory.com/items/show/142071
(http://fpc.dos.state.fl.us/rfisher/RF00292.jpg)
https://www.floridamemory.com/items/show/166955
In any event, the need and challenge is still the same. At worst, we're the density of Wauchula. At best, we're the density of Orange Park. Reach the DVI's goal of 10k and it would still have lower density than Baymeadows. We have to work to implement strategies to dramatically increase the density in select areas or risk the sleepy landscape continuing to remain sleepy generations into the future.
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on August 11, 2019, 07:25:21 PM
The one's with a river in the CBD that wasn't narrow that I could find were Columbus, OH ( apparently that left back on the SCiolo [sic] River is considered downtown-downtown ) at @600 ft, Des Moines with the Des Moines River creating a @400 foot gap. The only other one I could find before it reached the point where it was becoming work was Chicago with a 200 - 300 ft gap with the Chicago River.
Jacksonville probably has the biggest gap in it's downtown from a river.
I don't think River North is considered "downtown" Chicago. I believe, that's just the Loop and the Loop doesn't cross the Chicago River. The closest thing I can think of that would be similar to the Northbank/Southbank situation would be the Elizabeth River in Hampton Roads. It would be like Norfolk merging with Portsmouth and them calling both of those CBDs on opposite sides of a wide waterway......downtown.
EDIT: Detroit, Windsor and the Detroit River would be another example but they're in two totally different countries.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Detroit/i-7d8FzJD/0/4b5611f6/XL/20190706_101338-XL.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Detroit/i-D5mj6kC/0/ebba0d5a/XL/20190707_115834-XL.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Detroit/i-SwkSxnk/0/7460346e/XL/20190706_105141-XL.jpg)
Imagine that population number if you include nearby Brooklyn and Riverside; suddenly it's a respectable number. But of course the only urban population that matters only exists in the shadows of tall skyscrapers.... I'm not downplaying that downtown needs more housing and entertainment either.
Quote from: I-10east on August 11, 2019, 10:51:05 PM
Imagine that population number if you include nearby Brooklyn and Riverside; suddenly it's a respectable number. But of course the only urban population that matters only exists in the shadows of tall skyscrapers.... I'm not downplaying that downtown needs more housing and entertainment either.
I thought Brooklyn was included. Maybe not. In any event, the issue is one of density, not numbers. Of course, including Riverside would help the density slightly, but it's not very dense anyway. And no way is it remotely downtown. It's most certainly not in the CBD, which is the problem.
Yes, the issue is less on population and more on building density within the central business district. Moving boundaries to make yourself look better on paper doesn't address or fix the problem.
Quote from: Adam White on August 12, 2019, 03:59:23 AM
Quote from: I-10east on August 11, 2019, 10:51:05 PM
Imagine that population number if you include nearby Brooklyn and Riverside; suddenly it's a respectable number. But of course the only urban population that matters only exists in the shadows of tall skyscrapers.... I'm not downplaying that downtown needs more housing and entertainment either.
I thought Brooklyn was included. Maybe not. In any event, the issue is one of density, not numbers. Of course, including Riverside would help the density slightly, but it's not very dense anyway. And no way is it remotely downtown. It's most certainly not in the CBD, which is the problem.
Brooklyn is included.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 12, 2019, 06:05:41 AM
Yes, the issue is less on population and more on building density within the central business district. Moving boundaries to make yourself look better on paper doesn't address or fix the problem.
Similar to what we did with consolidation yeah? Of course, there were other problems that lent to making the decision to consolidate, but population and density shows a glaring discrepancy...i.e., might have got rid of the political, economic, and financial problems, but population and building density did not show a success as a result of consolidation; we had those problems in 1960-1970, and still have them today. Thus I understand the problem of expanding downtown but the population and density is still low relative to Jax's population size compared to other cities.
https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2019/08/14/city-chamber-back-goal-to-double-downtown.html?iana=hpmvp_jac_news_headline
The map at the LiveDowntownJax.com website, mentioned in the article, has a pretty big "downtown" - besides Southbank, it includes LaVilla, Brooklyn, the Stadium, and The District. https://livedowntownjax.com/map/
Go for it. Should have set such a goal a decade ago when the market was heating up. It's not hard to up the population if we're willing to be inclusive to economic development opportunities and rapidly offer up all COJ owned properties to qualified parties. Now Dan Davis' belief of cracking 10,000 residents within 2 years is a pipe dream. We can't even get a park for the Landing site drawn up by then. We don't have the necessary number of units already under construction to accommodate that extra number and there's not enough in the pipeline that will be under construction and realistically completed by mid-2021. Let's definitely push to speed up the development timeline place. However, let's also be realistic.