https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/local/2024/06/06/jacksonville-downtown-development-needs-big-incentives/73960312007/
Put like that, this sounds surprisingly less concerning, actually. The equivalent public investment of Lot J for about 1500 apartments, a hotel, retail, and support for public spaces in the heart of Downtown? Not bad.
In order of importance to Downtown, I'd prioritize them as:
1. Laura Street Trio
2. Pearl Street District
3. Related Tower
^Same. Honestly, given the lack of synergy with other buildings and such with Related I'd say if you have to drop one that would be it. The other two are critical to the overall downtown success.
1/2 - Laura Street Trio and Pearl Street District.
I could argue that Pearl Street is more important than the Trio but both are up there. Coming in light years in last place.......
......
......
......
......
Related Tower
Quote from: Steve on June 07, 2024, 08:49:03 AM
^Same. Honestly, given the lack of synergy with other buildings and such with Related I'd say if you have to drop one that would be it. The other two are critical to the overall downtown success.
Especially because the Related deal would also give them right of first refusal on the MOSH site. Might as well set that down for now, move MOSH and then move forward one singular plan for the whole area instead of half being a plan and half being in limbo. Market might improve in the meantime so that so much incentive isn't as necessary.
Agreed that Related is the least important in terms of what has been mentioned here, but arguably it is the most important if our goal is to ever develop the flashy hi-rise parcels downtown. Most out of town developers doubt DT's ability to pull high enough rents. Related could prove that to be wrong (or right). Southbank will need to demonstrate positive economics before the Northbank.
^Isn't Pearl Street's tower taller than Related? Plus its in the Northbank and no where near the river.
I mean on the river will always have higher rents. That is a foregone conclusion.
To me the market establishment will be based on a high rise on N Pearl Street.
No, Related is the tallest building. Also pretty sure that Gateway is not providing parking to the same ratio that Related is. They were smart & bought that parking garage nearby. I don't see anywhere near 500 parking spaces on any plans currently.
Also, very hard to compare Gateway to anything in the past or future. They are banking on turning around the entire area... aka they are building enough retail to "fix" the demand issues where they are located. That's a much larger & longer play. It's also not farfetched to assume that Gateway will be able to charge more premium rents being directly above a potential grocer & other retail. Not to mention the scale.
None of the flashy DT parcels are large enough to replicate Gateway, maybe the Jail, nor will any of them be *that* close to retail that matters for quite some time. Related's project, if built, will demonstrate what economics are possible with a single site.
The Gateway project is representative of what should have been done decades ago if we had a vision strategy built around clustering complimenting uses within a compact setting. Every block is an individual component, they just happen to add up to a cohesive urban environment. The cohesive urban environment is what is needed to tip the scale. It makes the market better for individual projects throughout LaVilla, the Northbank core and State & Union. It actually works hand-in-hand with the Trio by serving as anchors of activity within a stone's throw of JWJ Park. If I were the DIA, I'd try to strategically flood the walkable blocks and public spaces in between them with additional public realm investment ASAP. Build a compact core with life, within five years, which in turn, enhances numbers for everyone.
On the other hand, heavily subsidized random unconnected projects, will still struggle to stimulate the synergy that downtown has lacked. If I were the DIA, I'd also look real close at how to change the Southbank atmosphere from that of a suburban Houston office park. Doing so, will help that isolated Related project and stimulate more pedestrian scale adjacent development in the long-term as well. Without a more holistic approach, my fear is that all the Related project does is prove that we can build a luxury high rise if the taxpayer pays for it.
Agree with everyone above.
Of these three projects, I'd put the Trio and Gateway Jax as 1a and 1b, with the Related project coming in at a very, very, very, very distant n.
I'd probably go as far as to say that - with so many other projects needing public dollars - $40 million in cash incentives for luxury residential on the Southbank that isn't going to move the needle in downtown vibrancy in any significant way would be a hard pass for me. Especially when you throw in the right of first refusal for MOSH, and general uncertainty about the museum's move and timeline.
Those dollars could just work so much harder if complimenting some of the other projects that are going on over on the Northbank.
In my humble opinion, James Weldon Johnson Park is key to this whole thing, and the connective glue that could tie a lot of this investment together with projects like Gateway Jax and the Trio.
Downtown will not succeed without a plan to transform this space - which is currently as bad as I have ever seen it - into an active, vibrant, programmed, 365-day a year space that people other than vagrants are drawn too.
The city should be genuinely embarrassed about what its key public space has turned into. People shitting on the sidewalks. Vagrants laying on the sidewalks and screaming obscenities at everyone who walks by. People openly doing drugs in the park after security leaves for the day. It's a disgusting, hostile environment.
Any discussion about the Trio, and Gateway Jax, and "fixing" the CBD has to include plans to "fix" and activate that key, central, connective space. Put the $40 million into a true active redesign of JWJP with a healthy programming budget, incentivizing a bar/restaurant for Snyder Memorial, bringing the Main Library's retail bays back to life and opening to the streets, fixing that decrepit Magnificat/Chamblins Apartment/rotting billboard situation, etc.
Can't have a healthy downtown if it's this rotten in its core.
Definitely agree. I'd argue that in terms of public space improvements that need to be prioritized, JWJ Park should be just as high a priority as Riverfront Plaza.
Also feel like the riverfront will take care of itself without incentives if the core around the park was vibrant.
I hear ya Lake. I do think that we have to respect the immense effort Gateway went through to obtain a uniform title in such a close cluster. It just won't happen again. Same goes for Trevato in Brooklyn. These are once in a lifetime opportunities for these neighborhoods. The economics & reasoning for it really should not be used for comparisons to other projects...
The question should be, are the incentives we are dealing now going to change the landscape in a few years? Because... well we actually can't build the Trio or Gateway or anything without incentives. I haven't seen any discussion around this actually and that's the most concerning aspect of the DT incentives in my opinion.
The Related tower is a great case study. A single use, single site, apartment tower... which has been teased for many other city-owned parcels for quite some time & is what the DIA wants (per Boyer).
I think I'm trying to say that the benefit is the stimulation of an urban environment where you don't need large taxpayer subsidized projects like Related to be a case study.
Although, I'm not crazy about it or giving them a first right of refusal to the MOSH site , we'll always be able to subsidize a Related-like high rise. The point would not be for Gateway to happen again. It would be that the project goes a long way to creating a vibrant urban environment where other infill development projects can happen in the Northbank without Related, Trio and Gateway-like subsidies. It means other projects like the Ambassador, Jones Brothers and those that have not been announced yet, become more viable beacuse there's life an activity on the adjacent blocks. The ability to change the Northbank landscape is why I'd rate it much higher in importance than a single tower that most of its occupants will eventually end up having to drive across the river or into San Marco to enjoy a walkable, mixed use neighborhood. I know what Related gets us. We've seen it with the Peninsula, Strand and other Southbank residential projects. But we've been waiting 50 years for significant Northbank investment, that promises to pump up the area of the CBD that is the city's traditional downtown core.
I believe, it's more important to have a lively downtown than it is to have a tower. I also believe the failed high rise projects were never really feasible and always knew they'd go belly up, despite the flashy renderings and press releases. We're simply not ready for them. However, if we can focus on the urban redevelopment basics and get them right, the market will respond appropriately.
Anyway, hopefully all three projects will be a success.
I should clarify that I'm simply speaking from an angle where our most prominent real estate has been essentially pre-determined due to the obvious processes around purchasing city owned assets downtown. I do agree with what you are saying Lake. Gateway will be a big shot of adrenaline to the Northbank. That shot will also take years to unfold. Gateway's vision is much grander. It will certainly boost the surrounding area, but the trickle to the Riverfront will take quite some time. Related is a much more simplistic project that can be "replicated" on future DT sites if they can pull of the rents they want... & that ties into my next point.
The major issue with urban housing is - it is expensive! Most of our highest paying jobs (for renters) are not DT, coupled with the competition DT faces with the beaches for people who want the lifestyle & commute. Why would someone choose to pay more to live further from work, and further from our natural assets? This basic idea applies to any DT development. We saw the effects of that with the Doro's lease up & now new unit mix.
In fact Gateway sort of proves my previous points about how parking prevents development downtown. The ability for them to utilize the lighthouse garage, essentially makes the economics of apartments DT much more feasible. Gateway probably has the lightest incentive package per the size of it in the last several years at least. I bet they will be able to be just as profitable as other projects, with slightly more competitive rents. The irony is the city could address this with all the parking they currently own/lease.
Quote from: Jax_Developer on June 09, 2024, 12:08:39 PMThe major issue with urban housing is - it is expensive! Most of our highest paying jobs (for renters) are not DT, coupled with the competition DT faces with the beaches for people who want the lifestyle & commute. Why would someone choose to pay more to live further from work, and further from our natural assets?
This is something that I've always been very curious about, but have never seen quantified.
Our office is downtown, and almost everyone commutes in from the beaches.
Younger employees tend to live in apartments near the ocean, and older employees tend to live in places like PVB.
I love our urban core, but from a residential perspective, I don't think I could break the habit of surfing before work and walking my dog on the beach in the evening.
We say the St. Johns River is our greatest natural resource, but I do wonder to what extent riverfront development in Jacksonville is handicapped by having to compete with the beaches.
I get the appeal of the "tropical" lifestyle of the Beaches, especially to transplants from inland or colder parts of the country, but, to me, I am fine with getting limited doses of that on vacations. Maybe this is because I was raised here and, like Orlando theme parks, I have had enough beach visitations to last my lifetime ;D.
Between the increasing heat of the blazing sun (like this week), rising oceans, stronger storms and the exposure to same, increasing crowding and traffic on limited highway infrastructure, higher costs of living, insurance and taxes and way more maintenance due to the effects of salt, I would take in-town and on the river or its tributaries any day. To add, if you like substantial lush landscapes and tree canopies and the much more varied wildlife they bring, inland is the way to go 8).
The bonus in town is the opportunity to have shorter commutes and be closer to more of the cultural, entertainment, sporting, recreational, governmental and shopping venues about the City.
When the "big one" comes here one day or people can't get or afford insurance, no pun intended, the tide may turn pretty quickly.
Today, the real issue is the Beaches have their act together far better than Downtown or the urban core. Nicely landscaped streets, building standards they enforce, vibrant "town centers" or other shopping nodes with quaint stores, lots of good dining options, etc. As noted on our posts before, sometimes it is the little things that count, not hundred million and billion dollar projects.
Quote from: Ken_FSU on June 09, 2024, 03:06:24 PM
Quote from: Jax_Developer on June 09, 2024, 12:08:39 PMThe major issue with urban housing is - it is expensive! Most of our highest paying jobs (for renters) are not DT, coupled with the competition DT faces with the beaches for people who want the lifestyle & commute. Why would someone choose to pay more to live further from work, and further from our natural assets?
This is something that I've always been very curious about, but have never seen quantified.
Our office is downtown, and almost everyone commutes in from the beaches.
Younger employees tend to live in apartments near the ocean, and older employees tend to live in places like PVB.
I love our urban core, but from a residential perspective, I don't think I could break the habit of surfing before work and walking my dog on the beach in the evening.
We say the St. Johns River is our greatest natural resource, but I do wonder to what extent riverfront development in Jacksonville is handicapped by having to compete with the beaches.
Now think about the population of people who aren't in our limited social networks and bubbles. People who live in Springfield, Riverside, Eastside, San Marco, Durkeeville, Murray Hill, etc. or those that would like to reside in or near downtown if there was space for them. I believe we have to view things a bit more holistically and inclusive for the future of downtown and the urban core neighborhoods. Some of these other markets are there for the taking. It's okay to build upon that base, even if it means there's no market rate luxury towers for a small segment of the population immediately going up. So for me, I don't worry about competing with the beach, SJTC or St Johns County. Like every other city that has them, those places aren't necessarily competition. Just focus on making the core a vibrant, walkable neighborhood. That element is something that will drive a market by itself in a place where everywhere else requires a car and lots of driving. There are plenty of Downtown's that are light years ahead of downtown Jax, in terms of vibrancy, managing just well without luxury high rise towers going up first.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on June 09, 2024, 04:24:01 PM
I get the appeal of the "tropical" lifestyle of the Beaches, especially to transplants from inland or colder parts of the country, but, to me, I am fine with getting limited doses of that on vacations. Maybe this is because I was raised here and, like Orlando theme parks, I have had enough beach visitations to last my lifetime ;D.
I'm a Floridian that falls into this camp. I may take the beaches for granted but like Central Florida's theme parks, the beaches come a dime a dozen to this long time Floridian.
Nevertheless, I've never seen them as having a negative impact on downtown or the riverfront's development. The beaches didn't blow up the wharves and the seafood markets like Pike's Place for riverfront parking lots in the 1950s. The beaches didn't raze the Landing or implode a tower like City Hall Annex, that could have easily been converted into a hotel, affordable or market rate housing. The beaches also didn't level LaVilla in the 1990s and screw up the Brooklyn's built environment with new autocentric infill development. The beaches also aren't responsible for not being able to get long time riverfront park plans implemented.
All of these items are self inflicted wounds that limit the market and slow the revitalization process. We have to look at past mistakes and accept that we are responsible for the downtown landscape we see today. Luckily, they are all correctable.
Jax's cultural identity is also dramatically different from the beaches. So different, that the urban core and beaches actually compliment each other, which benefits the local regional economy as a whole. The diversity of Jax's landscape, neighborhood settings, social scenes, etc., is actually something that appealed to me over other areas of Florida like Orlando and Tampa.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 09, 2024, 05:51:14 PM
Quote from: Ken_FSU on June 09, 2024, 03:06:24 PM
Quote from: Jax_Developer on June 09, 2024, 12:08:39 PMThe major issue with urban housing is - it is expensive! Most of our highest paying jobs (for renters) are not DT, coupled with the competition DT faces with the beaches for people who want the lifestyle & commute. Why would someone choose to pay more to live further from work, and further from our natural assets?
This is something that I've always been very curious about, but have never seen quantified.
Our office is downtown, and almost everyone commutes in from the beaches.
Younger employees tend to live in apartments near the ocean, and older employees tend to live in places like PVB.
I love our urban core, but from a residential perspective, I don't think I could break the habit of surfing before work and walking my dog on the beach in the evening.
We say the St. Johns River is our greatest natural resource, but I do wonder to what extent riverfront development in Jacksonville is handicapped by having to compete with the beaches.
Now think about the population of people who aren't in our limited social networks and bubbles. People who live in Springfield, Riverside, Eastside, San Marco, Durkeeville, Murray Hill, etc. or those that would like to reside in or near downtown if there was space for them. I believe we have to view things a bit more holistically and inclusive for the future of downtown and the urban core neighborhoods. Some of these other markets are there for the taking. It's okay to build upon that base, even if it means there's no market rate luxury towers for a small segment of the population immediately going up. So for me, I don't worry about competing with the beach, SJTC or St Johns County. Like every other city that has them, those places aren't necessarily competition. Just focus on making the core a vibrant, walkable neighborhood. That element is something that will drive a market by itself in a place where everywhere else requires a car and lots of driving. There are plenty of Downtown's that are light years ahead of downtown Jax, in terms of vibrancy, managing just well without luxury high rise towers going up first.
I'm from the Beach, most of my family is still there, and I doubt I'll ever live there again. I also lived in PVB for a while and there is a greater chance of me taking a job chauffeuring Jason Aldean to Hillsdale College in a Cybertruck than there is of me ever living there again. Different strokes for different folks, is what I'm saying. We'll be much better off trying to plan and develop Downtown and the Urban Core for the many folks who already have an interest in that type of environment rather than setting them up to compete with the suburbs.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 09, 2024, 10:27:58 PM
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on June 09, 2024, 04:24:01 PM
I get the appeal of the "tropical" lifestyle of the Beaches, especially to transplants from inland or colder parts of the country, but, to me, I am fine with getting limited doses of that on vacations. Maybe this is because I was raised here and, like Orlando theme parks, I have had enough beach visitations to last my lifetime ;D.
I'm a Floridian that falls into this camp. I may take the beaches for granted but like Central Florida's theme parks, the beaches come a dime a dozen to this long time Floridian.
Nevertheless, I've never seen them has having a negative impact on downtown or the riverfront's development. The beaches didn't blow up the wharves and the seafood markets like Pike's Place for riverfront parking lots in the 1950s. The beaches didn't raze the Landing or implode a tower like City Hall Annex, that could have easily been converted into a hotel, affordable or market rate housing. The beaches also didn't level LaVilla in the 1990s and screw up the Brooklyn's built environment with new autocentric infill development. The beaches also aren't responsible for not being able to get long time riverfront park plans implemented.
All of these items are self inflicted wounds that limit the market and slow the revitalization process. We have to look at past mistakes and accept that we are responsible for the downtown landscape we see today. Luckily, they are all correctable.
Jax's cultural identity is also dramatically different from the beaches. So different, that the urban core and beaches actually compliment each other, which benefits the local regional economy as a whole. The diversity of Jax's landscape, neighborhood settings, social scenes, etc., is actually something that appealed to me over other areas of Florida like Orlando and Tampa.
A big part of the reason Downtown has continued to struggle is that a significant portion of movers and shakers think the best way forward is to attract suburbanites. That's great for cultural attractions and special events, etc., but on a day-to-day level, it's setting the area up for perpetual failure by setting standards it can't and shouldn't ever fulfill.
Quote from: Tacachale on June 09, 2024, 10:41:42 PM
A big part of the reason Downtown has continued to struggle is that a significant portion of movers and shakers think the best way forward is to attract suburbanites.
Unfortunately, a significant portion of the movers and shakers have been suburbanites themselves historically. Its a good example of why more diversity is needed in the traditional decision-making process. I believe that we've finally reached a period in the city's history where things will improve for the better.
It's certainly hard to quantify Ken. I'm a transplant, and while we may not be as numerous locals, there are more than 600,000 people that have 100% moved here since 2000 out of 1.7M in the metro today. While I completely respect the previous errors of downtown in context of this situation... we have seen the demand play out as a metro. The only market that can sustain 5+ story housing is the beaches but they have of course prevented that from happening with code. This is also a 20+ year trend, in which they have less housing at the beaches now than 20 years ago.
Local opinion matters, but roughly a 1/3 of our population are some form of transplant & the desires of that segment should be considered important. The beaches will always pull from the economic vibrance of DT, and the goal should be to find complimentary uses for the riverfront. (Marinas, entertainment, places to eat.) None of that exists at the beach unless you wanna goto the same 4-5 dive bars.
Your point about who is in control Lake, is the crux of our development patterns. Another 10,000 acres of housing near the beaches will continue to economically drain other parts of town.
I don't believe suburban growth is economically draining downtown Jax anymore than it is doing such in downtown Orlando, Lakeland, Tampa, St. Pete, etc. (all of which are booming, despite more significant suburban development than NE Florida). There's enough room for all demographic areas to share in economic prosperity. However, what clearly has limited the downtown market is the political and civic leadership decision-making over the decades. If we can get that right, we'll be fine. I believe we've reached that point but it will take some time for it to play out from a market perspective. That's a step we can't skip. Its also a reason to use incentives to push a few of these projects to completion.
Maybe the city should commission a study to help make a decision. /s
Quote from: thelakelander on June 10, 2024, 08:31:20 AM
I don't believe suburban growth is economically draining downtown Jax anymore than it is doing such in downtown Orlando, Lakeland, Tampa, St. Pete, etc. (all of which are booming, despite more significant suburban development than NE Florida). There's enough room for all demographic areas to share in economic prosperity. However, what clearly has limited the downtown market is the political and civic leadership decision-making over the decades. If we can get that right, we'll be fine. I believe we've reached that point but it will take some time for it to play out from a market perspective. That's a step we can't skip. Its also a reason to use incentives to push a few of these projects to completion.
Yes & no. Those other markets are really quite different than ours. I operate in St. Pete also. They really don't have available land, while we have a lot of it (in the wrong places mainly). I mean... we literally gave incentives for workforce housing near Cecil. The problems stems from the line we hear often "Jacksonville is the largest city by land mass in the lower 48"... well yeah that's actually a bad thing for dense housing. Our planning body covers 5-10x the geography that any other city in Florida covers. One code & one set of decision makers.
So for the past 20 years in Jacksonville, it has been pretty easy to build in areas with:
1). Better Schools
2). Modern Infrastructure
3). Better Natural Amenities
4). Lower Crime
5). More Space
St. Johns slowing down on re-zonings will increase Jacksonville's pricing in the LR. The Beaches not allowing for dense housing has caused an apartment boom near the intercostal. The desirable suburbs set the pricing threshold for DT in Jacksonville.
Quote from: Jax_Developer on June 10, 2024, 09:15:46 AM
Yes & no. Those other markets are really quite different than ours. I operate in St. Pete also. They really don't have available land, while we have a lot of it (in the wrong places mainly).
I grew up down there and have projects in the area as well. The burbs are places like Pasco, Hernando, Eastern Hillsborough (i.e. Brandon, Bloomingdale, Riverview, etc.), Manatee. Much larger market but the growth patterns are the same.
QuoteI mean... we literally gave incentives for workforce housing near Cecil. The problems stems from the line we hear often "Jacksonville is the largest city by land mass in the lower 48"... well yeah that's actually a bad thing for dense housing. Our planning body covers 5-10x the geography that any other city in Florida covers.
They give incentives too. They just may come from another city or county in the region, since they aren't consolidated. Lakeland and Polk have reeled in several logistics centers that were destined for Tampa and Orlando via incentives and playing up their centralized location. I do believe that locally we get caught in the consolidation thing. Its actually a huge advantage for Jacksonville when utilized right.
QuoteOne code & one set of decision makers.
One government should be a good thing. You just need competent decision makers. If we can get there on the decision making side, I think that one code would change to something more diverse that reflects the diverse context and market nuances within the city limits.
QuoteSo for the past 20 years in Jacksonville, it has been pretty easy to build in areas with:
1). Better Schools
2). Modern Infrastructure
3). Better Natural Amenities
4). Lower Crime
5). More Space
This isn't Jax specific. Its a national problem we struggle to overcome and properly address.
QuoteSt. Johns slowing down on re-zonings will increase Jacksonville's pricing in the LR. The Beaches not allowing for dense housing has caused an apartment boom near the intercostal. The desirable suburbs set the pricing threshold for DT in Jacksonville.
Ultimately, land use policy and public investment play a major role in driving our growth patterns, pricing thresholds and ability to offer products to meet people at where they are at economically. I agree that these are things in local control that should be addressed. This is a big reason why I'm a fan of the CBA. Although it won't solve all of our ills, its something than can be used to help address land use policy and public investment in certain areas that have traditionally lacked the necessary resources.
QuoteI grew up down there and have projects in the area as well. The burbs are places like Pasco, Hernando, Eastern Hillsborough (i.e. Brandon, Bloomingdale, Riverview, etc.), Manatee. Much larger market but the growth patterns are the same.
QuoteThey give incentives too. They just may come from another city or county in the region, since they aren't consolidated. Lakeland and Polk have reeled in several logistics centers that were destined for Tampa and Orlando via incentives and playing up their centralized location. I do believe that locally we get caught in the consolidation thing. Its actually a huge advantage for Jacksonville when utilized right.
QuoteOne government should be a good thing. You just need competent decision makers. If we can get there on the decision making side, I think that one code would change to something more diverse that reflects the diverse context and market nuances within the city limits.
However in our situation, consolidation has not worked out well for our DT & several other parts of town. CityLife has commented on this before as well... Our planning staff, commission, etc. are all stretched to cover more than any other municipality in Florida. There's no way you can convince me that our local code/government is set up to be anywhere near as fluid as Orlando, Tampa, or St. Pete. In the time I have worked here, there have been 0 meaningful zoning changes to speak of through legislation. Meanwhile... all three cities listed above have implemented several overlays & code changes over the same time period.
QuoteThis isn't Jax specific. Its a national problem we struggle to overcome and properly address.
This isn't true. While many of the Southeast cities continue mass suburbia, we are building more urban housing now than in decades. Most major urban centers have better schools, and more modern infrastructure. That's why many people choose to pay more to live in cities. Our DT lacks all the major components that drive demand to downtown or urban living. We also happen to have a river, so we also do have the bonus of a nature component.
All in all,
I hate to say it, but a new fancy shiny tower, with amazing views, right on the Southbank, might end up getting a lot more attention than what it is being compared to on the Northbank. You can park in your private garage, go up the elevator to your fancy unit with a view, and never interact with the street-level shenanigans that come with downtowns, since they will goto at the Publix in San Marco. The Northbank will certainly be more impactful, but will it sell a lifestyle like Related? Probably not. Time will tell.
Quote from: Jax_Developer on June 10, 2024, 11:37:09 AM
All in all, I hate to say it, but a new fancy shiny tower, with amazing views, right on the Southbank, might end up getting a lot more attention than what it is being compared to on the Northbank. You can park in your private garage, go up the elevator to your fancy unit with a view, and never interact with the street-level shenanigans that come with downtowns, since they will goto at the Publix in San Marco. The Northbank will certainly be more impactful, but will it sell a lifestyle like Related? Probably not. Time will tell.
For a small portion of the population, this might be the case. As you've stated, 600,000 people have recently moved to the area from other parts of the country, and I would guess that plenty of those are from large mid-atlantic to northeastern cities. If there was a thriving downtown with 18 hour daily activities, dining, shopping, and great public spaces, I think downtown would draw many of those transplants in. Gateway's project will incorporate a grocery store, high end dining and retail, fitness, and other amenities that will make the area a live, work, play community and create the environment that many of these transplants are used to. There are also a number of people living in the urban core communities who would move downtown if it offered the same dining and retail that they experience now.
If someone wanted the Related experience you detailed, they could already achieve it at the Strand, Berkman, San Marco Place, or the Peninsula. There is nothing like what Gateway is proposing that currently exists in downtown.
Quote from: Jax_Developer on June 10, 2024, 11:37:09 AM
However in our situation, consolidation has not worked out well for our DT & several other parts of town. CityLife has commented on this before as well... Our planning staff, commission, etc. are all stretched to cover more than any other municipality in Florida. There's no way you can convince me that our local code/government is set up to be anywhere near as fluid as Orlando, Tampa, or St. Pete. In the time I have worked here, there have been 0 meaningful zoning changes to speak of through legislation. Meanwhile... all three cities listed above have implemented several overlays & code changes over the same time period.
How is not consolidating working out for Detroit, Toledo or Buffalo? All are a mess economically. I'm not trying to convince anyone that our comprehensive plan is out of date and should be overhauled. I'm 100% in favor of updating our archaic zoning policies. However, that would be the case, with or without consolidation. Regardless of the form of government, if we don't have competent decision makers at the wheel, we're screwed. Also, about staff being stretched to thin, that's another local decision. We have plenty of budget to hire more staff....if that's a city hall priority. These are items I find it hard to fault the government structure for, as I've worked with small disfunctional municipal agencies as well.
QuoteQuoteThis isn't Jax specific. Its a national problem we struggle to overcome and properly address.
This isn't true. While many of the Southeast cities continue mass suburbia, we are building more urban housing now than in decades. Most major urban centers have better schools, and more modern infrastructure. That's why many people choose to pay more to live in cities. Our DT lacks all the major components that drive demand to downtown or urban living. We also happen to have a river, so we also do have the bonus of a nature component.
Sorry, I could have misunderstood what you were trying to say but I can't think of one city where it is harder to develop in areas with good schools, new public infrastructure, low crime, more available land, etc, than those suffering from high crime, bad schools, lack of infrastructure investment, land, etc. Addressing the inequitable "tale of two zip codes" is a national problem that keeps people like me employed.
QuoteAll in all, I hate to say it, but a new fancy shiny tower, with amazing views, right on the Southbank, might end up getting a lot more attention than what it is being compared to on the Northbank. You can park in your private garage, go up the elevator to your fancy unit with a view, and never interact with the street-level shenanigans that come with downtowns, since they will goto at the Publix in San Marco. The Northbank will certainly be more impactful, but will it sell a lifestyle like Related? Probably not. Time will tell.
Related will only have 410 residential units and one restaurant. Gateway will have over 1,000 units and significantly more retail/dining that's integrated into the surrounding urban environment. Each comes with a tower. Related at 25 floors and Gateway at 22 floors. Gateway's will likely break ground first. Other than personal preference regarding architecture or location, there's not much difference in height to amount to anything that we haven't already experienced in the past with the Strand, Peninsula, Berkman, etc. While pretty cool to have a larger skyline that lights up at night (which both will add too) we need significant impact at the pedestrian level to really transform the urban environment. Regardless of its its a high-rise, or 6-story stick frame infill, getting things designed right at the pedestrian level will be one of the most important elements required to activate downtown in a manner that draws a large amount of people from all sorts of backgrounds and economic levels.
Can someone update the most recent status of the Gateway project and what is the next major milestone?
A mid-2024 ground breaking on the 22-story tower was the last I heard.
Quote from: Captain Zissou on June 10, 2024, 12:34:13 PM
Quote from: Jax_Developer on June 10, 2024, 11:37:09 AM
All in all, I hate to say it, but a new fancy shiny tower, with amazing views, right on the Southbank, might end up getting a lot more attention than what it is being compared to on the Northbank. You can park in your private garage, go up the elevator to your fancy unit with a view, and never interact with the street-level shenanigans that come with downtowns, since they will goto at the Publix in San Marco. The Northbank will certainly be more impactful, but will it sell a lifestyle like Related? Probably not. Time will tell.
For a small portion of the population, this might be the case. As you've stated, 600,000 people have recently moved to the area from other parts of the country, and I would guess that plenty of those are from large mid-atlantic to northeastern cities. If there was a thriving downtown with 18 hour daily activities, dining, shopping, and great public spaces, I think downtown would draw many of those transplants in. Gateway's project will incorporate a grocery store, high end dining and retail, fitness, and other amenities that will make the area a live, work, play community and create the environment that many of these transplants are used to. There are also a number of people living in the urban core communities who would move downtown if it offered the same dining and retail that they experience now.
If someone wanted the Related experience you detailed, they could already achieve it at the Strand, Berkman, San Marco Place, or the Peninsula. There is nothing like what Gateway is proposing that currently exists in downtown.
The Strand & Peninsula are the only two that are even remotely relevant in this conversation, and both of them are market leaders for pricing on the Southbank. Moreover, both are almost 20 years old now, so what you're implying is not entirely accurate. Most units in the Peninsula have been extensively renovated. Is someone in Jacksonville going to pay top dollar for a 20-year old product? Probably not, unless it's PVB.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 10, 2024, 01:50:55 PM
Quote from: Jax_Developer on June 10, 2024, 11:37:09 AM
However in our situation, consolidation has not worked out well for our DT & several other parts of town. CityLife has commented on this before as well... Our planning staff, commission, etc. are all stretched to cover more than any other municipality in Florida. There's no way you can convince me that our local code/government is set up to be anywhere near as fluid as Orlando, Tampa, or St. Pete. In the time I have worked here, there have been 0 meaningful zoning changes to speak of through legislation. Meanwhile... all three cities listed above have implemented several overlays & code changes over the same time period.
How is not consolidating working out for Detroit, Toledo or Buffalo? All are a mess economically. I'm not trying to convince anyone that our comprehensive plan is out of date and should be overhauled. I'm 100% in favor of updating our archaic zoning policies. However, that would be the case, with or without consolidation. Regardless of the form of government, if we don't have competent decision makers at the wheel, we're screwed. Also, about staff being stretched to thin, that's another local decision. We have plenty of budget to hire more staff....if that's a city hall priority. These are items I find it hard to fault the government structure for, as I've worked with small disfunctional municipal agencies as well.
QuoteQuoteThis isn't Jax specific. Its a national problem we struggle to overcome and properly address.
This isn't true. While many of the Southeast cities continue mass suburbia, we are building more urban housing now than in decades. Most major urban centers have better schools, and more modern infrastructure. That's why many people choose to pay more to live in cities. Our DT lacks all the major components that drive demand to downtown or urban living. We also happen to have a river, so we also do have the bonus of a nature component.
Sorry, I could have misunderstood what you were trying to say but I can't think of one city where it is harder to develop in areas with good schools, new public infrastructure, low crime, more available land, etc, than those suffering from high crime, bad schools, lack of infrastructure investment, land, etc. Addressing the inequitable "tale of two zip codes" is a national problem that keeps people like me employed.
QuoteAll in all, I hate to say it, but a new fancy shiny tower, with amazing views, right on the Southbank, might end up getting a lot more attention than what it is being compared to on the Northbank. You can park in your private garage, go up the elevator to your fancy unit with a view, and never interact with the street-level shenanigans that come with downtowns, since they will goto at the Publix in San Marco. The Northbank will certainly be more impactful, but will it sell a lifestyle like Related? Probably not. Time will tell.
Related will only have 410 residential units and one restaurant. Gateway will have over 1,000 units and significantly more retail/dining that's integrated into the surrounding urban environment. Each comes with a tower. Related at 25 floors and Gateway at 22 floors. Gateway's will likely break ground first. Other than personal preference regarding architecture or location, there's not much difference in height to amount to anything that we haven't already experienced in the past with the Strand, Peninsula, Berkman, etc. While pretty cool to have a larger skyline that lights up at night (which both will add too) we need significant impact at the pedestrian level to really transform the urban environment. Regardless of its its a high-rise, or 6-story stick frame infill, getting things designed right at the pedestrian level will be one of the most important elements required to activate downtown in a manner that draws a large amount of people from all sorts of backgrounds and economic levels.
In most markets, the locations with better schools, more space & amenities are often NIMBY. Ponte Vedra Beach is a great example locally & Atlantic Beach more recently. Even today, you can goto both areas and find empty lots, large & small. That's why Jacksonville benefits when St. Johns slows down building. If you asked the average person, they would likely choose St. Johns over Jacksonville. Same goes for the 10,000+ acres rezoned north of Nocatee. These locations will certainly become NIMBY areas in 10-20 years. We're already seeing it with St. Johns County.
Lake I do agree with you on Gateway particularly. That project should yield the greatest impact! But, again... they have pull more off. It can certainly happen, and I am rooting for it... If you look at the tallest buildings under construction nationwide, a good percentage of them have a project profile that is extremely similar to Related. "Cool" housing with a view is very desirable in today's market.
QuoteIf you asked the average person, they would likely choose St. Johns over Jacksonville. Same goes for the 10,000+ acres rezoned north of Nocatee.
Only if we consider the average person of a certain homogeneous demographic. I literally have no desire to be in St. Johns County. Nothing there appeals to me that wasn't in much larger supply from where I came from in Central Florida. I wouldn't touch the place with a ten-foot pole. Nothing against those that are attracted to that type of lifestyle, it's just not my cup of tea. DT Jax will never out sprawl....sprawl cookie cutter subdivisions and autocentric strip malls.
There's hundreds of thousands out here who share the same sentiment. I'd agrue that it would be good for the future of downtown (and the urban core) to focus on appealing to a different market and demographic. Appeal to the segment of the market that is already there, nearby or attracted to what makes the area unique. This means also revamping the zoning code to facilitate a different growth pattern and finally investing in the public infrastructure, parks, schools, etc. at a similar level as we've done in the burbs since WWII. The tall buildings will eventually be viable again when there's a reason for a larger segment of the population to spend time and money in the vicinity.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 11, 2024, 08:34:12 AM
QuoteIf you asked the average person, they would likely choose St. Johns over Jacksonville. Same goes for the 10,000+ acres rezoned north of Nocatee.
Only if we consider the average person of a certain homogeneous demographic. I literally have no desire to be in St. Johns County. Nothing there appeals to me that wasn't in much larger supply from where I came from in Central Florida. I wouldn't touch the place with a ten-foot pole. Nothing against those that are attracted to that type of lifestyle, it's just not my cup of tea. DT Jax will never out sprawl....sprawl cookie cutter subdivisions and autocentric strip malls.
There's hundreds of thousands out here who share the same sentiment. I'd agrue that it would be good for the future of downtown (and the urban core) to focus on appealing to a different market and demographic. Appeal to the segment of the market that is already there, nearby or attracted to what makes the area unique. This means also revamping the zoning code to facilitate a different growth pattern and finally investing in the public infrastructure, parks, schools, etc. at a similar level as we've done in the burbs since WWII. The tall buildings will eventually be viable again when there's a reason for a larger segment of the population to spend time and money in the vicinity.
By "Only if we consider the average person of a certain homogeneous demographic" do you mean white people? Because in Florida, more than 50% of the state is white non-hispanic. I can assure you that St. Johns attracts people outside of an average white American. Even so, I mentioned average & if you take demographics out of this completely, pricing proves my point. I don't think DT is competing with St. Johns for housing families, but they certainly are housing more than just families in St. Johns with the thousands of apartments that were built there between 2018-2023.
^No, I never said anything about race. Homogeneous demographic = people who like suburban living.
Quote from: Jax_Developer on June 11, 2024, 08:43:40 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on June 11, 2024, 08:34:12 AM
QuoteIf you asked the average person, they would likely choose St. Johns over Jacksonville. Same goes for the 10,000+ acres rezoned north of Nocatee.
Only if we consider the average person of a certain homogeneous demographic. I literally have no desire to be in St. Johns County. Nothing there appeals to me that wasn't in much larger supply from where I came from in Central Florida. I wouldn't touch the place with a ten-foot pole. Nothing against those that are attracted to that type of lifestyle, it's just not my cup of tea. DT Jax will never out sprawl....sprawl cookie cutter subdivisions and autocentric strip malls.
There's hundreds of thousands out here who share the same sentiment. I'd agrue that it would be good for the future of downtown (and the urban core) to focus on appealing to a different market and demographic. Appeal to the segment of the market that is already there, nearby or attracted to what makes the area unique. This means also revamping the zoning code to facilitate a different growth pattern and finally investing in the public infrastructure, parks, schools, etc. at a similar level as we've done in the burbs since WWII. The tall buildings will eventually be viable again when there's a reason for a larger segment of the population to spend time and money in the vicinity.
By "Only if we consider the average person of a certain homogeneous demographic" do you mean white people? Because in Florida, more than 50% of the state is white non-hispanic. I can assure you that St. Johns attracts people outside of an average white American. Even so, I mentioned average & if you take demographics out of this completely, pricing proves my point. I don't think DT is competing with St. Johns for housing families, but they certainly are housing more than just families in St. Johns with the thousands of apartments that were built there between 2018-2023.
While I didn't bring up race, I will also add that Jacksonville's racial and ethic demographics are different from Florida's as well. White non-hispanic is already the minority and its going to continue to shrink as we grow to become a more multicultural community. This is actually a huge plus, if this reality is catered to in relationship to downtown's future. It's something that no other suburban county in this region can mimick.
Even in the urban core, we could use thousands of more multifamily units, missing middle housing, etc. at various price points and development types to cater to the demand. Considering our urban core is built for two or three times as many people than it holds today, it's a huge market opportunity that could be unleashed through the help of zoning modifications and additional investment in public infrastructure, parks, schools, etc.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 11, 2024, 11:24:52 AM
Quote from: Jax_Developer on June 11, 2024, 08:43:40 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on June 11, 2024, 08:34:12 AM
QuoteIf you asked the average person, they would likely choose St. Johns over Jacksonville. Same goes for the 10,000+ acres rezoned north of Nocatee.
Only if we consider the average person of a certain homogeneous demographic. I literally have no desire to be in St. Johns County. Nothing there appeals to me that wasn't in much larger supply from where I came from in Central Florida. I wouldn't touch the place with a ten-foot pole. Nothing against those that are attracted to that type of lifestyle, it's just not my cup of tea. DT Jax will never out sprawl....sprawl cookie cutter subdivisions and autocentric strip malls.
There's hundreds of thousands out here who share the same sentiment. I'd agrue that it would be good for the future of downtown (and the urban core) to focus on appealing to a different market and demographic. Appeal to the segment of the market that is already there, nearby or attracted to what makes the area unique. This means also revamping the zoning code to facilitate a different growth pattern and finally investing in the public infrastructure, parks, schools, etc. at a similar level as we've done in the burbs since WWII. The tall buildings will eventually be viable again when there's a reason for a larger segment of the population to spend time and money in the vicinity.
By "Only if we consider the average person of a certain homogeneous demographic" do you mean white people? Because in Florida, more than 50% of the state is white non-hispanic. I can assure you that St. Johns attracts people outside of an average white American. Even so, I mentioned average & if you take demographics out of this completely, pricing proves my point. I don't think DT is competing with St. Johns for housing families, but they certainly are housing more than just families in St. Johns with the thousands of apartments that were built there between 2018-2023.
While I didn't bring up race, I will also add that Jacksonville's racial and ethic demographics are different from Florida's as well. White non-hispanic is already the minority and its going to continue to shrink as we grow to become a more multicultural community. This is actually a huge plus, if this reality is catered to in relationship to downtown's future. It's something that no other suburban county in this region can mimick.
Even in the urban core, we could use thousands of more multifamily units, missing middle housing, etc. at various price points and development types to cater to the demand. Considering our urban core is built for two or three times as many people than it holds today, it's a huge market opportunity that could be unleashed through the help of zoning modifications and additional investment in public infrastructure, parks, schools, etc.
https://www.jacksonville.gov/departments/office-of-economic-development/about-jacksonville/demographics
I'm just following the stats online. The demographics for our combined metro are of course more skewed. Nonetheless, it is a bold claim to say that St. Johns does not contribute to the economic drain in Jacksonville. Quite literally, there are thousands of people from Jacksonville who have packed up from their 1980-1990's built subdivisions, and have moved to their 2010-2020's built subdivisions. It's a textbook example. Properties like Related speak to a different audience that really only the Vista Brooklyn & the Strand currently see. Both having some of the highest rents in the city for apartments.
I've mentioned this before, and others have too, but this project could prove that the Southbank CRA should be sunsetted. There really isn't the need for incentives there if they are able to achieve rents near $3 psf. Throw the extra funding towards the Northbank where it is really needed.
Again, only if Related is right about their pro forma.
I find it hard to believe that St. Johns is impacting anything we can and can't do in downtown. Historically, downtown's biggest challenges have been self inflicted wounds and it's impossible to talk market realities in downtown without accounting for our mistakes there.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 11, 2024, 11:24:52 AM
Quote from: Jax_Developer on June 11, 2024, 08:43:40 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on June 11, 2024, 08:34:12 AM
QuoteIf you asked the average person, they would likely choose St. Johns over Jacksonville. Same goes for the 10,000+ acres rezoned north of Nocatee.
Only if we consider the average person of a certain homogeneous demographic. I literally have no desire to be in St. Johns County. Nothing there appeals to me that wasn't in much larger supply from where I came from in Central Florida. I wouldn't touch the place with a ten-foot pole. Nothing against those that are attracted to that type of lifestyle, it's just not my cup of tea. DT Jax will never out sprawl....sprawl cookie cutter subdivisions and autocentric strip malls.
There's hundreds of thousands out here who share the same sentiment. I'd agrue that it would be good for the future of downtown (and the urban core) to focus on appealing to a different market and demographic. Appeal to the segment of the market that is already there, nearby or attracted to what makes the area unique. This means also revamping the zoning code to facilitate a different growth pattern and finally investing in the public infrastructure, parks, schools, etc. at a similar level as we've done in the burbs since WWII. The tall buildings will eventually be viable again when there's a reason for a larger segment of the population to spend time and money in the vicinity.
By "Only if we consider the average person of a certain homogeneous demographic" do you mean white people? Because in Florida, more than 50% of the state is white non-hispanic. I can assure you that St. Johns attracts people outside of an average white American. Even so, I mentioned average & if you take demographics out of this completely, pricing proves my point. I don't think DT is competing with St. Johns for housing families, but they certainly are housing more than just families in St. Johns with the thousands of apartments that were built there between 2018-2023.
While I didn't bring up race, I will also add that Jacksonville's racial and ethic demographics are different from Florida's as well. White non-hispanic is already the minority and its going to continue to shrink as we grow to become a more multicultural community. This is actually a huge plus, if this reality is catered to in relationship to downtown's future. It's something that no other suburban county in this region can mimick.
Even in the urban core, we could use thousands of more multifamily units, missing middle housing, etc. at various price points and development types to cater to the demand. Considering our urban core is built for two or three times as many people than it holds today, it's a huge market opportunity that could be unleashed through the help of zoning modifications and additional investment in public infrastructure, parks, schools, etc.
I always find it interesting how demographics are interpreted. No matter where, a shrinking white population is always considered a "huge plus" because diversity. On the other side of the coin, if an area is mostly black and sees the black population shrink because of others moving in, then it's considered gentrification and a negative impact for the area. Given the low crime rates, quality schools, income and health demographics of St Johns County, wouldn't we want more of that in DT vs what's already around the area which is - high crime, poor health, terrible schools?
The only thing that makes us consider leaving town is the schools. All cities have crime and out of control sprawl. Some of these cities have it much worse and still have much better cores.
Quote from: jcjohnpaint on June 11, 2024, 02:02:05 PM
The only thing that makes us consider leaving town is the schools. All cities have crime and out of control sprawl. Some of these cities have it much worse and still have much better cores.
Atlanta being exhibit A. Booming core plus endless sprawl. Don't know much about their public school system but the traffic literally sent me packing back home to Jax in 2011.
Quote from: jcjohnpaint on June 11, 2024, 02:02:05 PM
The only thing that makes us consider leaving town is the schools. All cities have crime and out of control sprawl. Some of these cities have it much worse and still have much better cores.
Recently went through the process of navigating school entry, as my oldest is coming of age. I'm in a poorly rated school district, so the local zoned school wasn't an option. We toured public schools, charter schools, and private schools. Think 7 total, some more than once. I learned that there are A LOT of school choice options, so not difficult to find a quality school if you have means to transport kids to and from. But because there are a lot, it's also more complicated and thus can be intimidating. Of the schools toured, we would have been comfortable at 4 of them, and got into 3 of those - one private, one charter, one public (via school preference). We chose the public.
Quote from: WarDamJagFan on June 11, 2024, 01:14:48 PM
I always find it interesting how demographics are interpreted. No matter where, a shrinking white population is always considered a "huge plus" because diversity. On the other side of the coin, if an area is mostly black and sees the black population shrink because of others moving in, then it's considered gentrification and a negative impact for the area. Given the low crime rates, quality schools, income and health demographics of St Johns County, wouldn't we want more of that in DT vs what's already around the area which is - high crime, poor health, terrible schools?
It is interesting. I mean, based on our upbringing and culture, we all come with our biases. However, as a Black person, I don't view things the way you just described. What I like about Duval diversifying has very little to do with white or black. I love the fact that we are becoming a multicultural community that allows people here to experience a number of cultural experiences that are different from our upbringing. To me, this is something that the other counties don't have at their disposal. Some of the best Indian food around can be found off Baymeadows. 103rd Street is home to a number of Hispanic establishments. University is becoming home to a number of Eastern European places. Gullah Geechee experiences can be found in the Eastside and NW Jax. The old school Jax low country experience can be found off Heckscher. We should embrace where we're headed and that means a challenge for downtown's future is making sure we plan a space that embraces our actual demographics. For those that don't appreciate multiculturalism and what it brings, its perfectly okay to move to St. Johns County or places like Wildlight in Nassau. We should have a freedom of choice in where we want to reside and the context that comes with those decisions.
As for gentrification, I also view it as something totally different. No matter the color of someone's skin, I'm not a fan of holding a community down for decades via discriminatory public policy and investment and then leaving that population open to be picked off by others who are in better financial position that come in and attempt to erase those communities. For me, that's pretty unethical. So my approach (to combat displacement) revolves around finding ways to provide less priviledged communitites with the power to prosper and preserve their own neighborhoods.....if that's what they desire.
Quote from: WarDamJagFan on June 11, 2024, 02:30:34 PM
Quote from: jcjohnpaint on June 11, 2024, 02:02:05 PM
The only thing that makes us consider leaving town is the schools. All cities have crime and out of control sprawl. Some of these cities have it much worse and still have much better cores.
Atlanta being exhibit A. Booming core plus endless sprawl. Don't know much about their public school system but the traffic literally sent me packing back home to Jax in 2011.
I've never liked Atlanta. It's a cool place to visit and its changed a lot the last 20 years but I find the historical urban context and unconnected street grid of paved goat's paths quite depressing.
Quote from: fsu813 on June 11, 2024, 03:19:14 PM
Quote from: jcjohnpaint on June 11, 2024, 02:02:05 PM
The only thing that makes us consider leaving town is the schools. All cities have crime and out of control sprawl. Some of these cities have it much worse and still have much better cores.
Recently went through the process of navigating school entry, as my oldest is coming of age. I'm in a poorly rated school district, so the local zoned school wasn't an option. We toured public schools, charter schools, and private schools. Think 7 total, some more than once. I learned that there are A LOT of school choice options, so not difficult to find a quality school if you have means to transport kids to and from. But because there are a lot, it's also more complicated and thus can be intimidating. Of the schools toured, we would have been comfortable at 4 of them, and got into 3 of those - one private, one charter, one public (via school preference). We chose the public.
I know the process well. Almost moved to San Marco once to be in the Hendricks Elementary zone. My boys ended up being fed through the Mandarin schools. Even with public schools, solutions can be found throughout Duval. St. Johns and Clay were never an option because the sprawl and distance from the urban core wasn't appealing. I would have moved back home to Central Florida if they were the only option, as we could have had access to 10 Red Lobsters and Chick-Fil-A drive thrus instead of 1 or 2, while still being 30 to 40 minutes from multiple vibrant downtown districts.
On this note, I did look at the Orange County public school system once when I was working down there a few years ago. In the end, Duval's public school system was better.
Quote from: Jax_Developer on June 11, 2024, 12:15:05 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on June 11, 2024, 11:24:52 AM
Quote from: Jax_Developer on June 11, 2024, 08:43:40 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on June 11, 2024, 08:34:12 AM
QuoteIf you asked the average person, they would likely choose St. Johns over Jacksonville. Same goes for the 10,000+ acres rezoned north of Nocatee.
Only if we consider the average person of a certain homogeneous demographic. I literally have no desire to be in St. Johns County. Nothing there appeals to me that wasn't in much larger supply from where I came from in Central Florida. I wouldn't touch the place with a ten-foot pole. Nothing against those that are attracted to that type of lifestyle, it's just not my cup of tea. DT Jax will never out sprawl....sprawl cookie cutter subdivisions and autocentric strip malls.
There's hundreds of thousands out here who share the same sentiment. I'd agrue that it would be good for the future of downtown (and the urban core) to focus on appealing to a different market and demographic. Appeal to the segment of the market that is already there, nearby or attracted to what makes the area unique. This means also revamping the zoning code to facilitate a different growth pattern and finally investing in the public infrastructure, parks, schools, etc. at a similar level as we've done in the burbs since WWII. The tall buildings will eventually be viable again when there's a reason for a larger segment of the population to spend time and money in the vicinity.
By "Only if we consider the average person of a certain homogeneous demographic" do you mean white people? Because in Florida, more than 50% of the state is white non-hispanic. I can assure you that St. Johns attracts people outside of an average white American. Even so, I mentioned average & if you take demographics out of this completely, pricing proves my point. I don't think DT is competing with St. Johns for housing families, but they certainly are housing more than just families in St. Johns with the thousands of apartments that were built there between 2018-2023.
While I didn't bring up race, I will also add that Jacksonville's racial and ethic demographics are different from Florida's as well. White non-hispanic is already the minority and its going to continue to shrink as we grow to become a more multicultural community. This is actually a huge plus, if this reality is catered to in relationship to downtown's future. It's something that no other suburban county in this region can mimick.
Even in the urban core, we could use thousands of more multifamily units, missing middle housing, etc. at various price points and development types to cater to the demand. Considering our urban core is built for two or three times as many people than it holds today, it's a huge market opportunity that could be unleashed through the help of zoning modifications and additional investment in public infrastructure, parks, schools, etc.
https://www.jacksonville.gov/departments/office-of-economic-development/about-jacksonville/demographics
I'm just following the stats online. The demographics for our combined metro are of course more skewed. Nonetheless, it is a bold claim to say that St. Johns does not contribute to the economic drain in Jacksonville. Quite literally, there are thousands of people from Jacksonville who have packed up from their 1980-1990's built subdivisions, and have moved to their 2010-2020's built subdivisions. It's a textbook example. Properties like Related speak to a different audience that really only the Vista Brooklyn & the Strand currently see. Both having some of the highest rents in the city for apartments.
I've mentioned this before, and others have too, but this project could prove that the Southbank CRA should be sunsetted. There really isn't the need for incentives there if they are able to achieve rents near $3 psf. Throw the extra funding towards the Northbank where it is really needed. Again, only if Related is right about their pro forma.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 11, 2024, 01:04:35 PM
I find it hard to believe that St. Johns is impacting anything we can and can't do in downtown. Historically, downtown's biggest challenges have been self inflicted wounds and it's impossible to talk market realities in downtown without accounting for our mistakes there.
SJC may be causing some flight of certain demographics, but Duval is more than making up for it with newcomers. Even in the urban core where there was 60 years of population loss, the population is growing again. Now, it's possible there's a symmetry between the folks who like SJC and those who would like one of these new developments, and that has impacted the lack of these developments going up. At the end of the day, we just don't have are a lot of Downtown units of any stripe. IMO, all these projects are worthy, so if a good deal is passed I'm happy.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 11, 2024, 03:50:28 PM
Quote from: WarDamJagFan on June 11, 2024, 01:14:48 PM
I always find it interesting how demographics are interpreted. No matter where, a shrinking white population is always considered a "huge plus" because diversity. On the other side of the coin, if an area is mostly black and sees the black population shrink because of others moving in, then it's considered gentrification and a negative impact for the area. Given the low crime rates, quality schools, income and health demographics of St Johns County, wouldn't we want more of that in DT vs what's already around the area which is - high crime, poor health, terrible schools?
It is interesting. I mean, based on our upbringing and culture, we all come with our biases. However, as a Black person, I don't view things the way you just described. What I like about Duval diversifying has very little to do with white or black. I love the fact that we are becoming a multicultural community that allows people here to experience a number of cultural experiences that are different from our upbringing. To me, this is something that the other counties don't have at their disposal. Some of the best Indian food around can be found off Baymeadows. 103rd Street is home to a number of Hispanic establishments. University is becoming home to a number of Eastern European places. Gullah Geechee experiences can be found in the Eastside and NW Jax. The old school Jax low country experience can be found off Heckscher. We should embrace where we're headed and that means a challenge for downtown's future is making sure we plan a space that embraces our actual demographics. For those that don't appreciate multiculturalism and what it brings, its perfectly okay to move to St. Johns County or places like Wildlight in Nassau. We should have a freedom of choice in where we want to reside and the context that comes with those decisions.
As for gentrification, I also view it as something totally different. No matter the color of someone's skin, I'm not a fan of holding a community down for decades via discriminatory public policy and investment and then leaving that population open to be picked off by others who are in better financial position that come in and attempt to erase those communities. For me, that's pretty unethical. So my approach (to combat displacement) revolves around finding ways to provide less priviledged communitites with the power to prosper and preserve their own neighborhoods.....if that's what they desire.
As a white guy from the suburbs I can state with full confidence that there are *far* more people who'd consider a shrinking white population or growing black population in their neighborhood as a negative than a plus. That's a big reason they move to homogenous places like St. Johns County.
QuoteHowever in our situation, consolidation has not worked out well for our DT & several other parts of town. CityLife has commented on this before as well... Our planning staff, commission, etc. are all stretched to cover more than any other municipality in Florida. There's no way you can convince me that our local code/government is set up to be anywhere near as fluid as Orlando, Tampa, or St. Pete. In the time I have worked here, there have been 0 meaningful zoning changes to speak of through legislation. Meanwhile... all three cities listed above have implemented several overlays & code changes over the same time period.
Consolidation itself has NEVER been the problem with DT. Incompetent and term-limited leadership has been. Pure and simple. The Consolidation crutch is just that, a crutch and a lame excuse. JAX has spent MORE than enough money to make DT a huge success. It has just spent it badly and without vision, consistency and most of all good policy.
Indianapolis, Norfolk and Nashville are all examples of consolidated cities that have very successful downtowns and have consolidated government with hundreds of square miles in theirs limits.
1) Gateway should break ground in September on the 7 story mixed use adjacent to the porter house. The 22 story tower and other 7 story tower should follow late 24/early 25.
2) Gateway's residents should mostly come from suburban high end apartments that have been built around the city (think the jtb/295 corridor) the last 10-15 years. Charge a couple hundred bucks for the same bedroom unit (that will have less square feet) but offer an amazing pedestrian experience, high end design and amenities, and the ability to walk to 20 high end F&B concepts, retail, services, grocer, etc within a couple blocks.
Quote from: Alex Sifakis on June 11, 2024, 11:20:58 PM
but offer an amazing pedestrian experience, high end design and amenities, and the ability to walk to 20 high end F&B concepts, retail, services, grocer, etc within a couple blocks.
Hell, if Gateway can pull that off (I'm think the equivalent of Taverna/Michael's for F&B; Publix/Whole Food for grocer; and Lululemon/Banana Republic for retail) My partner and I will gladly leave the Southbank and be some of Gateway's first residents.
Quote from: vicupstate on June 11, 2024, 06:50:18 PM
QuoteHowever in our situation, consolidation has not worked out well for our DT & several other parts of town. CityLife has commented on this before as well... Our planning staff, commission, etc. are all stretched to cover more than any other municipality in Florida. There's no way you can convince me that our local code/government is set up to be anywhere near as fluid as Orlando, Tampa, or St. Pete. In the time I have worked here, there have been 0 meaningful zoning changes to speak of through legislation. Meanwhile... all three cities listed above have implemented several overlays & code changes over the same time period.
Consolidation itself has NEVER been the problem with DT. Incompetent and term-limited leadership has been. Pure and simple. The Consolidation crutch is just that, a crutch and a lame excuse. JAX has spent MORE than enough money to make DT a huge success. It has just spent it badly and without vision, consistency and most of all good policy.
Indianapolis, Norfolk and Nashville are all examples of consolidated cities that have very successful downtowns and have consolidated government with hundreds of square miles in theirs limits.
Here at the Jaxson, I have learned that surrounding areas don't contribute to downtowns. Even though downtowns, quite literally, are formed from concentrations of positive economics, here in Jacksonville, DT exists in a vacuum. It's not the fact that we haven't reformed our planning code in 15+ years, or that we never built out water/sewer after consolidation, or the lack of mitigation banks for our district, or that we are constantly rezoning rural land for apartments...
Leadership has come & gone for decades. DT hasn't been a warzone forever, and I personally know people that used to frequently visit downtown post consolidation. Things can change & they have. If you think consolidation is just a crutch, you are a part of the problem frankly. Think I'm wrong? Look up your examples and you'll find a much more robust system with much more effort on zoning & building policy. You also completely discount the complexities of dealing with wetlands. You also won't see PUD's like we do here, which quite literally indicates a failed zoning policy.
For the people that disagree..
Were you upset when our cities core office market moved to Baymeadows/Southside? Were you at the council meetings? That market is now twice the size of DT. What followed? Everything else. I can guarantee you that there was almost zero opposition.
Quote from: Jax_Developer on June 12, 2024, 08:40:50 AM
Here at the Jaxson, I have learned that surrounding areas don't contribute to downtowns. Even though downtowns, quite literally, are formed from concentrations of positive economics, here in Jacksonville, DT exists in a vacuum. It's not the fact that we haven't reformed our planning code in 15+ years, or that we never built out water/sewer after consolidation, or the lack of mitigation banks for our district, or that we are constantly rezoning rural land for apartments...
I think you've misunderstood the historical information we've been sharing since 2005 or so, or maybe haven't looked that far back in Jax's history to get a full grasp on how we've arrived where we are today. The surrounding area, especially the urban core neighborhoods that are 1/2 as dense as they are today, have impacted what downtown is today. In addition, decades of poor public policy decisions and investments in downtown have as well. The loss of most of our big homegrown companies that employed thousands in downtown-based corporate headquarters throughout the 1980s and 90s have left a last impact on the office market as well. Luckily, we're not the only city that has had to overcome these challenges, so there's a slew of best practices solutions that we could apply to our local context.
To talk market realities and growth patterns of today, the impact of these things must be considered and addressed. Ignoring how we got here, and not directly addressing those issues, has resulted in the downtown environment we see today. I think that history is one of the most important things that we've tried to get across over the years.
QuoteLeadership has come & gone for decades. DT hasn't been a warzone forever, and I personally know people that used to frequently visit downtown post consolidation. Things can change & they have. If you think consolidation is just a crutch, you are a part of the problem frankly. Think I'm wrong? Look up your examples and you'll find a much more robust system with much more effort on zoning & building policy. You also completely discount the complexities of dealing with wetlands. You also won't see PUD's like we do here, which quite literally indicates a failed zoning policy.
Downtown's decline has been an incremental one that began as far back as the 1940s. Everything that employed thousands of workers within a compact area, from the railroads and manufacturing companies, to the port and the loss of big companies like Independent Life, Gulf Life, Charter, Jacksonville Terminal Company, Jacksonville Shipyards, American Heritage Life, Barnett Bank, Florida National Bank, etc. have had an impact. As these places consolidated, reduced their workforce, relocated, etc., the economy they supported has declined, resulting in the loss of retailers, restaurants, department stores, hotels, etc. This loss has been supplemented with shortsighted public policy decisions such as incentivizing companies to relocate to the Southside and urban renewal of once super dense and walking neighborhoods like LaVilla. Today, there is no longer a critical mass to support a lot of things that people want to see and despite that, there's still a market of people still attracted to downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods. Reinvestment is a must and its going to have to be subsidized for some time until a critical mass of life and activity can be generated. There are several things at the local level that must be done, including overhauling our zoning code and better coordinating the efforts of COJ, the DIA, JTA and other entities to ensure that they all are swimming in the same direction to achieve a unified vision. Everything I've mentioned here will have to be addressed, regardless of the governmental structure or the growth rate of Florida's suburban counties (i.e. St. Johns is no different to Jax than what Lake and Osceola Counties are to Orlando).
Quote from: Jax_Developer on June 12, 2024, 08:58:48 AM
For the people that disagree..
Were you upset when our cities core office market moved to Baymeadows/Southside? Were you at the council meetings? That market is now twice the size of DT. What followed? Everything else. I can guarantee you that there was almost zero opposition.
We've talked extensively over the years about the subsidization of the Southside with federal, state and local dollars, at the expense of the preconsolidated city neighborhoods. Our local policies and public investment guide growth. Again, this is one of the major reasons why we should invest in our urban core schools, parks, streets, libraries, revamp zoning, etc. in a manner that increases infill growth opportunities within the urban core.
Lake, I respect your opinions greatly. However, this is one where we just won't see eye to eye. There are zero legitimate arguments, in my opinion, that justify our consolidation from a planning & zoning standpoint, today. Zero. I don't necessarily need to be well versed in all of Jacksonville's history, which I do have an extreme interest in, to look at what is here today. Corporations don't leave for any reason, in fact they move when there are better opportunities. That is a failure of the consolidated government anyway you paint it.
Zero policy reform in 15+ years & a suburban office park that has been the catalyst for our growth for 20+ years... these are facts that can conclude some pretty basic pieces of information. It didn't happen overnight either. Just like Gateway, JTB was a catalyst project for the Skinner family. Their land instantly became worth a ton more & we see the outcome today. Rezoning is still happening 50 years later... I mean...
It would be one thing to address this, and correct course, but we are here debating on if suburbia has caused decline in DT...
Let's stop trying to recreate city economics that have been proven by research done on a national scale. Alex is literally here stating his target audience are the folks off 295/JTB...
(Lack of utilites is again a failure of the consolidated government, the single largest issue for developing existing urban neighborhoods.)
Yes, like the jail issue, I'm pretty sure we're not going to see eye to eye on this one. No hard feelings!
QuoteIt would be one thing to address this, and correct course, but we are here debating on if suburbia has caused decline in DT...
Let's stop trying to recreate city economics that have been proven by research done on a national scale. Alex is literally here stating his target audience are the folks off 295/JTB...
I can't express how many times I've already stated that there's a market downtown and in the urban core....we just don't have the housing supply. I'm actually one of the people Alex described as their market. When I moved to town, I had three days to find a place. Two days to look and decide and then attempt to secure a lease on the third day.
My desire was downtown and/or a walkable urban core neighborhood. What I was looking for (a townhouse or rowhouse) was not in existance. I ended up off Southside Boulevard that first year in town because that was the only area that had what I needed that was available that weekend. St. Johns was never an option (i.e. I won't have taken the job if I had to be that far out), but Southside worked because it was a 15 minute drive from where I needed to be.
Of course Lake. I'm glad there are different opinions out there than mine.
For reference, I for some reason chose to live DT! I'm certainly one of it's believers. I know you are too.
All my friends, who are under 30, live in suburbia apartment complexes lol.
Most of my old downtown coworkers, who moved in from other cities and initially decided to live downtown, eventually ended up in Riverside, Springfield or San Marco. The adjacent neighborhoods offered more of the urban lifestyle and amenities that they were looking for.
When I worked in Ponte Vedra, the majority of that group lived in the beaches, St. Augustine or Nocatee. Same profession, but two totally different cultures of personal and lifestyle preferences.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 12, 2024, 01:47:50 PM
Same profession, but two totally different cultures of personal and lifestyle preferences.
#Saltlife v #Porchlife
The Hatfields and McCoys of our time.
gateway-jax-buys-276-acre-site-downtown-from-fscj-for-future
Interesting move for Gateway. It would be extra interesting if they picked up the properties on the other side of main.
QuoteLeadership has come & gone for decades. DT hasn't been a warzone forever, and I personally know people that used to frequently visit downtown post consolidation. Things can change & they have. If you think consolidation is just a crutch, you are a part of the problem frankly. Think I'm wrong? Look up your examples and you'll find a much more robust system with much more effort on zoning & building policy. You also completely discount the complexities of dealing with wetlands. You also won't see PUD's like we do here, which quite literally indicates a failed zoning policy.
There is absolutely NOTHING in the city charter that precludes JAX from pursuing ANY and ALL of the zoning and building policies that you claim are needed to replicate the success of those cities. There simply has not been the leadership that realized what was needed and pursued it. The discussion of Baymeadows, et al is meaningless. ALL cities have suburban office markets, including the consolidated cities I mentioned. What has held JAX back is a lack of understanding of what makes a vibrant urban environment and/or a lack of commitment to bring it about. Also adding immensely to the problem is term limits (particularly on the mayor) and the uber partisan nature of JAX city politics.
Quote from: acme54321 on June 13, 2024, 05:57:52 PM
gateway-jax-buys-276-acre-site-downtown-from-fscj-for-future
Interesting move for Gateway. It would be extra interesting if they picked up the properties on the other side of main.
They already own the two blocks across the street on Main!
Quote from: acme54321 on June 13, 2024, 05:57:52 PM
gateway-jax-buys-276-acre-site-downtown-from-fscj-for-future
Interesting move for Gateway. It would be extra interesting if they picked up the properties on the other side of main.
Decimals are important - 2
.76-acre site - bound by Laura, State, and Main Streets
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/news/2024/jun/12/gateway-jax-buys-276-acre-site-downtown-from-fscj-for-future-use/
Quote from: fsu813 on June 12, 2024, 02:03:01 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on June 12, 2024, 01:47:50 PM
Same profession, but two totally different cultures of personal and lifestyle preferences.
#Saltlife v #Porchlife
The Hatfields and McCoys of our time.
Love this :D
Really interesting discussion.
In terms of demographics, I think what I was ultimately getting at with my anecdote about younger and older coworkers living at the Beaches and PVB respectively and whether downtown is handicapped by having to compete with the beaches is this:
Perhaps it's unrealistic, but when I think of what a rapidly developing downtown Jacksonville might look like if some of these proposed projects over the years had to come to life, I think of what I see in places like Midtown Atlanta, urban Nashville, Tampa's Water Street, downtown Kansas City, etc. In most of these booming urban areas, the contagious residential and retail growth seems to be primarily driven by young professionals with disposable income, and older empty nesters or retirees with disposable income. Market rate (and above) housing driving higher end retail and entertainment.
Jacksonville has grown a lot, but we still don't have the volume of high paying jobs that other cities our size do. In a city without a ton of available housing near the ocean, a $3,000 apartment at Rise Doro might be more attractive to this demographic. In the absence of a great urban environment, and with finite professional jobs in the city, I think we'd be foolish in our downtown planning to not view places like the beaches, SJTC, or even (::shudder:: ) SJC as competition for injecting economic vitality into the city center. I don't see how downtown Jax reaches critical mass without displacing some residents from some of these areas.
It's why I love the Gateway vision. Feels like, if completed, it will can fulfill that overblown Lot J-style promise of creating a new urban neighborhood that draws in that key demo from other urban and suburban centers that things like retail and amenities tend to follow.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 13, 2024, 09:51:25 PM
Quote from: acme54321 on June 13, 2024, 05:57:52 PM
gateway-jax-buys-276-acre-site-downtown-from-fscj-for-future
Interesting move for Gateway. It would be extra interesting if they picked up the properties on the other side of main.
They already own the two blocks across the street on Main!
Well then!
Does Gateway own the JTA TOD blocks between State and Union adjacent to the Rosa Parks station? I noticed the fence around those blocks has "Gateway" banners.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on June 14, 2024, 09:34:47 AM
Does Gateway own the JTA TOD blocks between State and Union adjacent to the Rosa Parks station? I noticed the fence around those blocks has "Gateway" banners.
I believe the TOD sites are 99-year ground leases. Same goes for the "other" Corner Lot TOD project that is in planning.
--
Well said Ken. We will never displace the masses, but there are certainly groups of people in these areas that would rather live in a DT or urban enviroment that choose to live where they are for various reasons.
$20 million for affordable housing and to fight homelessness? Removed from the mayor's budget by City Council.
$60 million in incentives, including $40 million in cash from the general fund, for luxury housing on the Southbank? Approved 17-0 by the City Council.
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/news/2024/oct/08/council-gives-final-approval-to-incentives-for-related-groups-southbank-high-rise/
With a constrained city budget in the coming years and limited completion grants to go around, I just have a very, very tough time justifying taking $40+ from every local taxpayer and using it for a couple hundred luxury residential units. Even if there's $1.01 in ROI over a 30-year period, just seems like a wildly tone deaf thing to commit so much public cash to when we're in the midst of an affordable housing crisis in Jacksonville.