The Decline and Fall of the Jacksonville Downtown
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/images/downtown_destruction/newgg8.jpg) August 5, 2006: A few hours earlier today I had the pleasure of sitting in the basement of the Park Place building on Hemming Park with Ennis Davis(-- the inimitable Lakelander of MetroJacksonville.com fame) comparing older photos of Downtown Jacksonville with largely depressing contemporary aerial shots. http://www.metrojacksonville.com/content/view/194 (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/content/view/194)
Please stop this torture!
Lets all make sure to elect those that are against the continued rape of what's left of downtown's history.
I knew Jax was a step behind, but seeing that we were elbow to elbow w/ so many other cities in the 50's and where we are now... Ouch! We took a huge step back... Sad stuff.
Having researched Jacksonville's downtown over the past 40 years in my book, Jacksonville, the Consolidation Story from Civil Rights to the Jaguars (University Press of Florida, 2004), I partially agree with Steve Dare in what has happened downtown, but also largely disagree about the causes. To my mind, the politicians are much less to blame than the average Jacksonville resident, who equipped with an automobile, deserted downtown for the suburbs to live and began shopping at the regional malls. In the 1960s, downtown was still the hub of the metro area with hotels, restaurants, theaters and department stores. All of the department stores moved to the malls and closed downtown. People who worked downtown went home and then to the malls and suburban theaters and restaurants, leaving downtown desolate. There was a racial component to the deteriorating of downtown as white shoppers preferred the mall shops to the stores where blacks also could shop. But most important was the suburban sprawl after WWII which came to a head here in the 1960s. This was a phenomonon through out urban America, and Jacksonville was part of the mix.
These same people tore down the Sears on the Bay Street, they tore down the old Post office on Forsyth Street, they also built the old Main Public Library on top of what used to be the County Courthouse. These are the same knuckleheads that would have torn down the Main Public Library, if given a chance. Instead they were able to destroy the Rhodes Building and build a new library.
Every blacktop parking lot used to be something else, something bigger and grander, but alas, these buildings lost their spirit too and if the developers take control of downtown, we won't recognize it soon enough as well.
I believe it happened because rational people trade off housing costs and transportation costs when selecting where to live. In Jacksonville, during the days of cheap oil, it was inexpensive to get a piece of property in the suburbs and commute to downtown for work. Unfortunately, the jobs followed people into the suburbs and we now have the Southside and other employment centers that are not in the downtown core. All of this disinvestment really took a toll on the existing building stock. New construction is cheaper and less risky than rehab, and politicians must be thinking that demolition will bring vibrancy to our downtown core faster. I disagree, as I feel that we are in danger of losing the character that makes Jax unique.
I see they solved the parking problem.
Quote from: stephendare on April 22, 2008, 01:27:31 PM
you are totally right EP. What did you think of the photo comparisons in the story?
The photo comparisons made me sick. You can see the progression of cars becoming more important that humans. Its starts with the destruction of retail and office space to make room for parking garages and surface lots. To get more cars into the city as fast as possible, because all of the employees live outside of it, freeways are built that completely ruin the urban fabric. Look at all of that spaghetti coming off of the Main St. bridge. When did it become necessary to have 8 exits off of one bridge? It looks like a broom.
My sister owns a "historic building" in Norwalk, Ohio. When applying for help to restore the building, she was told that the cost of restoring the facade was too great and so it would not be done. Basically, she was told the previous owners had too much money to spend and kept the building well maintained and updated. Today, those updates are simply not the "in" fashion. What this illustrates is simply this: A reasonably prosperous downtown means that many of the older historic buildings either have been updated and have lost their unique character or they have been replaced. While many have grumbled about how much has been lost in the above pictures, has anyone noticed the good? Like the old, commercial waterfront - would you still prefer that to what we have today? Just stop and look at our city at night sometime - best seen from the water. It is one of the best looking night cityscapes I have seen in this country.
With progress, and that was part of what happened to downtown, simply progress, also comes both good and bad. How many of us love the "new" city hall? Great, historic building. It wasn't always there, you know. At some point, just about each and every "historic" building replaced another building of some type. Just consider if they were not allowed to tear down some historic building when they built the empire state building or the Guggenheim museum or ...the list could get very long. Yes, I know that Europe is filled with many, many historic buildings and that many cities seem prosperous even with saving it's hundreds of years old buildings. But don't forget to figure in a couple of world wars. There are plenty of empty places to build new after a war so why would they need to tear anything down? OK, that is stretching it a bit, but you get the point. Not every old building got saved in Europe either. And don't forget that this is the US of A. We are "brand new" in many ways even after a few hundred years. And we do save many, many historic buildings through out the country. It should not surprise you that a reasonably successful city would be very much comprised of every conceivable architectural style from every possible era - in fact, I for one would be very disappointed if it didn't. Aren't any of you wondering what new building is being designed today that someone will be calling historic in fifty or a hundred years? Don’t forget that the new library will probably be on someone’s “must save†list someday.
All that said, don’t stop complaining or nothing will get saved. And yes, it is time to return to the “old ways†and have a pedestrian friendly downtown again. We all know it is time because we all are lamenting the loss of the old historic buildings. Instead, save what is really worth saving and then lets see what new and exciting “historic building of the future†they will build next.
I guess the main difference in Jacksonville is that these buildings are not being torn down to make way for structures such as the Empire State Building or the Guggenheim museum, or any structure at all. Look at that photo, all you see is parking lots.
How about a casino or two, perhaps a dog track? the baptist would roll over. lol
I think the important thing to pull from the older photos is a need to make downtown a little more open and airy. Obviously commerce helps make a downtown work, but I also believe that more open "commons" spaces creates areas that are more enjoyable for people. Why not take the parking areas and turn them into parks with trees? Why not move parking areas to the outer parts of downtown and have the JTA move more "trolley buses" through downtown?
Quote from: theduvalprogressive on September 28, 2013, 04:11:33 PM
I think the important thing to pull from the older photos is a need to make downtown a little more open and airy. Obviously commerce helps make a downtown work, but I also believe that more open "commons" spaces creates areas that are more enjoyable for people. Why not take the parking areas and turn them into parks with trees? Why not move parking areas to the outer parts of downtown and have the JTA move more "trolley buses" through downtown?
I know what you are saying but if we look at areas like Hemming Park it becomes quite clear that the city has a problem maintaining what we have. I don't know if creating more space that may readily become overgrown is the answer, but I know what you are thinking. Put's me in mind of the public squared in Savannah, which I think enhance their historic core.
We've already made downtown more open and airy. There's underutilized green spaces, surface parking lots and vacant overgrown lots all over the place. Moreso than green space, downtown could use a few more actual buildings.
Nothing happens until residents move into the core.
Nothing happens until businesses move into the core.
The current less than favorable conditions in the core... the stagnation in the core.... will not burst by itself to vibrancy and infill. Observe the stagnation over decades. Only when the short sighted political mediocrities we've voted into office force or encourage the taxpayer base to fund incentives to encourage residents and businesses into the core, will we see significant strides toward full vibrancy and infill. Once a certain threshold of core population and activity has been achieved, we will see residents, businesses, and visitors "competing" to enter the core.
Apparently none of the short sighted political mediocrities have found it within their vision and ability to convey to their constituents that a vibrant city core will benefit the suburban population too.
The mediocrities we've had for decades in our conservative establishment continue to feed upon the comforts of religion and the good old boy culture. Comfort and complacency precludes one's searching the far distances for challenges and much needed goals. Too many of our mediocrities in office have no vision toward worthy goals for the core... and therefore perform no action to it. Observe ..... stagnation over decades. Shameful.
One thing most downtown advocates and officials continue to overlook is that residents are already in the core. Upwards of an additional 80,000 or so outside of the 4,000 specifically staying in downtown. We need to do a much better job of connecting them to downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods to create the type of urban synergy that stimulates market rate business and additional residential infill opportunities. With that in mind, I do believe we need to get more aggressive with our incentive offerings. Not just for downtown but for core walkable neighborhoods like New Town, Springfield and the Eastside. Something dramatic like paying to move to certain areas (Detroit and Cincinnati do this) or a core wide 10-year tax abatement program (Philly did this) is worth considering, IMO.
I believe Cleveland has a 15 year tax abatement program.
Quote from: ronchamblin on September 28, 2013, 08:39:26 PM
Nothing happens until residents move into the core.
Nothing happens until businesses move into the core.
The current less than favorable conditions in the core... the stagnation in the core.... will not burst by itself to vibrancy and infill. Observe the stagnation over decades. Only when the short sighted political mediocrities we've voted into office force or encourage the taxpayer base to fund incentives to encourage residents and businesses into the core, will we see significant strides toward full vibrancy and infill. Once a certain threshold of core population and activity has been achieved, we will see residents, businesses, and visitors "competing" to enter the core.
Apparently none of the short sighted political mediocrities have found it within their vision and ability to convey to their constituents that a vibrant city core will benefit the suburban population too.
The mediocrities we've had for decades in our conservative establishment continue to feed upon the comforts of religion and the good old boy culture. Comfort and complacency precludes one's searching the far distances for challenges and much needed goals. Too many of our mediocrities in office have no vision toward worthy goals for the core... and therefore perform no action to it. Observe ..... stagnation over decades. Shameful.
Quote from: thelakelander on September 28, 2013, 09:33:35 PM
One thing most downtown advocates and officials continue to overlook is that residents are already in the core. Upwards of an additional 80,000 or so outside of the 4,000 specifically staying in downtown. We need to do a much better job of connecting them to downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods to create the type of urban synergy that stimulates market rate business and additional residential infill opportunities. With that in mind, I do believe we need to get more aggressive with our incentive offerings. Not just for downtown but for core walkable neighborhoods like New Town, Springfield and the Eastside. Something dramatic like paying to move to certain areas (Detroit and Cincinnati do this) or a core wide 10-year tax abatement program (Philly did this) is worth considering, IMO.
The "connection" objective between the core and the adjacent growing centers makes good sense, as has been advocated by Ock and others over the years. Connecting via interesting transit methods ... anything other than standard buses and gas powered trolley cars on rubber tires.... will make increasingly more sense as the core resident and business population increases. Of course the transit projects requires money, as does the incentives.
If the plans and objectives about incentives and measured transit make good sense, I expect that most concerned and enlightened citizens will agree to small and measured tax increases. I sense that part of the area's stagnation is due to the lack of adequate funding to accomplish the goals necessary for a first rate city -- the accomplishment of which will provide more jobs for its citizens.... especially in and around the core.
Quote from: ronchamblin on September 29, 2013, 01:42:11 AM
The "connection" objective between the core and the adjacent growing centers makes good sense, as has been advocated by Ock and others over the years. Connecting via interesting transit methods ... anything other than standard buses and gas powered trolley cars on rubber tires.... will make increasingly more sense as the core resident and business population increases. Of course the transit projects requires money, as does the incentives.
Getting your transit connectivity right will cost you a lot less than adding the amount of infill needed for DT to become vibrant on its own. Just look at the Trio project. It will be a cool decade by the time it goes from concept to opening day. It will also cost $40 million to construct. Same goes for 220 Riverside. Less than 300 units and it's taken a decade to get it off the ground. If we think infill residential is the ultimate key to adding life to downtown, then given our annual absorption rate, expect it to be a few decades before we reach that 10,000 mark, so many people like to toss out.
Also, when talking about incentives for development, there's different funding pots out there. Many of which, don't involve physically giving away cash.
QuoteIf the plans and objectives about incentives and measured transit make good sense, I expect that most concerned and enlightened citizens will agree to small and measured tax increases.
You don't need tax increases to have a more reliable transit system here. Again, we can take advantage of funding mechanisms already in place, as well as do better with what we already have coming in.
QuoteI sense that part of the area's stagnation is due to the lack of adequate funding to accomplish the goals necessary for a first rate city -- the accomplishment of which will provide more jobs for its citizens.... especially in and around the core.
I believe the area's stagnation is more related to us foolishly demoing most of the existing building stock. We've literally killed the chance for urban pioneers to lead the way in downtown revitalization, like they've done with Five Points and King Street. We've forced ourselves to rely on expensive, infill projects and the market hasn't reached the point where these things are viable without public incentives.
Quote from: thelakelander on September 29, 2013, 07:17:25 AM
Quote from: ronchamblin on September 29, 2013, 01:42:11 AM
The "connection" objective between the core and the adjacent growing centers makes good sense, as has been advocated by Ock and others over the years. Connecting via interesting transit methods ... anything other than standard buses and gas powered trolley cars on rubber tires.... will make increasingly more sense as the core resident and business population increases. Of course the transit projects requires money, as does the incentives.
Getting your transit connectivity right will cost you a lot less than adding the amount of infill needed for DT to become vibrant on its own. Just look at the Trio project. It will be a cool decade by the time it goes from concept to opening day. It will also cost $40 million to construct. Same goes for 220 Riverside. Less than 300 units and it's taken a decade to get it off the ground. If we think infill residential is the ultimate key to adding life to downtown, then given our annual absorption rate, expect it to be a few decades before we reach that 10,000 mark, so many people like to toss out.
Also, when talking about incentives for development, there's different funding pots out there. Many of which, don't involve physically giving away cash.
QuoteIf the plans and objectives about incentives and measured transit make good sense, I expect that most concerned and enlightened citizens will agree to small and measured tax increases.
You don't need tax increases to have a more reliable transit system here. Again, we can take advantage of funding mechanisms already in place, as well as do better with what we already have coming in.
QuoteI sense that part of the area's stagnation is due to the lack of adequate funding to accomplish the goals necessary for a first rate city -- the accomplishment of which will provide more jobs for its citizens.... especially in and around the core.
I believe the area's stagnation is more related to us foolishly demoing most of the existing building stock. We've literally killed the chance for urban pioneers to lead the way in downtown revitalization, like they've done with Five Points and King Street. We've forced ourselves to rely on expensive, infill projects and the market hasn't reached the point where these things are viable without public incentives.
Smart thought out comment! +1000
Good comments Lake.
All the right moves should and can be made simultaneously. Incentives for resident/business infill so that we can creep toward the threshold of activity needed to create a strong "desire" to enter the core.... establishing creative transit connectivity ..... better use of existing funding assets, while entertaining measured tax increases if necessary.... better vision - more determined and focused decisions regarding the core...... promoting a mood of temporary sacrifice, thereby counteracting the pressure of complacency and comfort as lived by the religious/GOB conservatives (everybody.. get off your asses attitude -- kill the enemy, which is stagnation).... excepting the consequences of the horrible demos, and establishing a strong army against additional.
Quote from: ronchamblin on September 29, 2013, 10:34:04 AM
Good comments Lake.
All the right moves should and can be made simultaneously. Incentives for resident/business infill so that we can creep toward the threshold of activity needed to create a strong "desire" to enter the core.... establishing creative transit connectivity ..... better use of existing funding assets, while entertaining measured tax increases if necessary.... better vision - more determined and focused decisions regarding the core...... promoting a mood of temporary sacrifice, thereby counteracting the pressure of complacency and comfort as lived by the religious/GOB conservatives (everybody.. get off your asses attitude -- kill the enemy, which is stagnation).... excepting the consequences of the horrible demos, and establishing a strong army against additional.
"promoting a mood of temporary sacrifice, thereby counteracting the pressure of complacency and comfort as lived by the religious/GOB conservatives"
I take this as a little jab at religion ronchamblin? Are you by chance related to the Bookmine stores?
Quote from: jcjohnpaint on September 28, 2013, 10:33:10 PM
I believe Cleveland has a 15 year tax abatement program.
Cleveland has done a great job with their urban core they have revitalized old warehouses and made them into apartment they have filled many old buildings and are beginning build upwards into their skyline they have done all the right things
Quote from: thelakelander on September 28, 2013, 09:33:35 PM
One thing most downtown advocates and officials continue to overlook is that residents are already in the core. Upwards of an additional 80,000 or so outside of the 4,000 specifically staying in downtown.
What about encouraging a downtown branch of the University of North Florida or Jacksonville University, as an urban campus? Other cities have done this, including San Antonio, Texas, with University of Texas San Antonio. Richmond, Virginia is slightly smaller in metro population than Jacksonville, but Virginia Commonwealth University adds greatly to the synergy of their downtown area, giving it the feel of a much larger city. Same with Savannah and SCAD. We could do a lot better in this area.
Quote from: thelakelander on September 28, 2013, 09:33:35 PMWe need to do a much better job of connecting them to downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods to create the type of urban synergy that stimulates market rate business and additional residential infill opportunities.
The Riverside neighborhood needs to be better connected to downtown, via pedestrian, bicycle, and transit options. It doesn't help the walkability factor that much of downtown consists of vacant lots used for car parking, and urban blight. Also, there needs to be more diversity of housing in the immediate downtown area. Besides the Carling, Berkman Plaza, 11 East, and a few others, which are priced out of the range of most working people and students, there aren't many options available. There are many buildings in the immediate downtown area whose upper floors could easily be converted to housing, but they remain empty.
FSCJ, JU (http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=548937) and UNF (http://jacksonville.com/news/2016-12-15/jacksonville-bringing-college-life-back-downtown) are all investing in DT but none of them will have the impact of a VCU or SCAD anytime soon. SCAD has close to 10k undergraduates since its founding in 1978. VCU has been around since 1838 and has more than 30k undergraduates. Both Savannah's and Richmond's cores feel larger because they are. Those cities where largely developed during an era when cities were built to be walkable. On the other hand, much of Jax's growth since 1950 has been outside of its core, which has declined during the same time period. With that said, out of the local schools investing in DT, I believe FSCJ has the greatest opportunity for large scale change. Their main campus is already downtown and they're renovating long abandoned historic buildings into student housing.
http://jacksonville.com/business/2017-01-17/permit-issued-downtown-dorms-fscj
Quote from: thelakelander on January 17, 2017, 05:45:29 AM
FSCJ, JU (http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=548937) and UNF (http://jacksonville.com/news/2016-12-15/jacksonville-bringing-college-life-back-downtown) are all investing in DT but none of them will have the impact of a VCU or SCAD anytime soon. SCAD has close to 10k undergraduates since its founding in 1978. VCU has been around since 1838 and has more than 30k undergraduates. Both Savannah's and Richmond's cores feel larger because they are. Those cities where largely developed during an era when cities were built to be walkable. On the other hand, much of Jax's growth since 1950 has been outside of its core, which has declined during the same time period. With that said, out of the local schools investing in DT, I believe FSCJ has the greatest opportunity for large scale change. Their main campus is already downtown and they're renovating long abandoned historic buildings into student housing.
http://jacksonville.com/business/2017-01-17/permit-issued-downtown-dorms-fscj
I agree to a point. There is going to be a time in the near future when UNF is going to
have to keep growing due to the lack of space at UCF, USF, FIU, and FAU. Delaney has attempted to keep enrollment down in order to build a better base of students academically. This has seen mixed results since the UNF graduation rate is still abysmal but aspects like requiring first year students to live on campus have been fruitful. Nevertheless, for the size of the Jacksonville market, UNF has stayed very small with 16,000 students in comparison to UCF with 63,000 and USF with 45,000. FSU and UF both have 30,000+ undergrad populations. FIU has an undergrad population of 40,000.
I think UNF should end up around 25,000-26,000 undergraduate students in the next 20 years by necessity and be comparable in size to what FAU is currently. The interesting thing will be to see where that growth occurs. It may be down in the Town Center area at the current campus but we will get to watch UCF and USF create their downtown campuses in the meantime. We have an advantage with UF's Medical School already in the urban core and I believe UF will invest in Jacksonville a lot more in the near future as UF Health expands to its limits in Gainesville. USF is moving all its health related fields to downtown Tampa. Could there one day be a partnership between UNF undergrad and nursing graduate programs and UF Health? Likewise, seeing the downtown Orlando partnership between UCF and Valencia will be fascinating for us.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/features/education/os-valencia-downtown-campus-20160622-story.html
I know I am talking a lot of partnerships, and it is complicated, but with the FSCJ campus already downtown with UF Health, there is real potential for synergy in this area and our health care destination (especially with MD Andersen/Baptist and Florida Blue downtown, and even just the Mayo name in town).
Tacachale can provide better insight on UNF's plans but from what I understand, we should expect the lion's share of their future growth to be happening at their main campus.
This has seen mixed results since the UNF graduation rate is still abysmal but aspects like requiring first year students to live on campus have been fruitful.
UNF is changing that housing requirement for Freshmen in Fall 2017
Per UNF website:
For these reasons, UNF encourages, but does not require, freshmen to live on campus.
Quote from: FlaBoy on January 17, 2017, 09:32:05 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on January 17, 2017, 05:45:29 AM
FSCJ, JU (http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=548937) and UNF (http://jacksonville.com/news/2016-12-15/jacksonville-bringing-college-life-back-downtown) are all investing in DT but none of them will have the impact of a VCU or SCAD anytime soon. SCAD has close to 10k undergraduates since its founding in 1978. VCU has been around since 1838 and has more than 30k undergraduates. Both Savannah's and Richmond's cores feel larger because they are. Those cities where largely developed during an era when cities were built to be walkable. On the other hand, much of Jax's growth since 1950 has been outside of its core, which has declined during the same time period. With that said, out of the local schools investing in DT, I believe FSCJ has the greatest opportunity for large scale change. Their main campus is already downtown and they're renovating long abandoned historic buildings into student housing.
http://jacksonville.com/business/2017-01-17/permit-issued-downtown-dorms-fscj
I agree to a point. There is going to be a time in the near future when UNF is going to have to keep growing due to the lack of space at UCF, USF, FIU, and FAU. Delaney has attempted to keep enrollment down in order to build a better base of students academically. This has seen mixed results since the UNF graduation rate is still abysmal but aspects like requiring first year students to live on campus have been fruitful. Nevertheless, for the size of the Jacksonville market, UNF has stayed very small with 16,000 students in comparison to UCF with 63,000 and USF with 45,000. FSU and UF both have 30,000+ undergrad populations. FIU has an undergrad population of 40,000.
I think UNF should end up around 25,000-26,000 undergraduate students in the next 20 years by necessity and be comparable in size to what FAU is currently. The interesting thing will be to see where that growth occurs. It may be down in the Town Center area at the current campus but we will get to watch UCF and USF create their downtown campuses in the meantime. We have an advantage with UF's Medical School already in the urban core and I believe UF will invest in Jacksonville a lot more in the near future as UF Health expands to its limits in Gainesville. USF is moving all its health related fields to downtown Tampa. Could there one day be a partnership between UNF undergrad and nursing graduate programs and UF Health? Likewise, seeing the downtown Orlando partnership between UCF and Valencia will be fascinating for us.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/features/education/os-valencia-downtown-campus-20160622-story.html
I know I am talking a lot of partnerships, and it is complicated, but with the FSCJ campus already downtown with UF Health, there is real potential for synergy in this area and our health care destination (especially with MD Andersen/Baptist and Florida Blue downtown, and even just the Mayo name in town).
Partially correct and partially incorrect. UNF will grow eventually, probably to around 25k students, but the current plan is not to do so until there are sufficient facilities and resources, and it can be done without lowering the enrollment standards. Hopefully this doesn't change, as the small class size and interaction with professors is one of UNF's biggest draws and something that sets us apart from the other SUS institutions. 16k students is not "small" by any objective standard, except in Florida where almost all the schools have followed the "get real big and have football" model.
You are wrong that the low enrollment has seen "mixed results" in terms of the academic profile. Our academic profile has grown exponentially in the last 10 to 15 years. The on-campus housing requirement for freshmen was actually one area that didn't work out, which is the main reason it was dropped this year. The four-year and six-year graduation rate are still an issue, but that's not likely to change simply by adding students (especially if we have to lower admissions standards to accept them).
Growth certainly shouldn't happen based on what the other schools are doing. UCF was one of the biggest universities in the country when it hit 40,000, and that didn't stop it from growing to 50,000 and 60,000. Most of those schools see those huge population gains not on their main campus, but on satellite campuses and online (in my opinion, this is in large part just a way to make money off students who pay fees but don't get the full benefit from them on the main campus, but I digress). UNF doesn't have any real satellite campuses, other than perhaps MOCA Jax, and there aren't any current plans that I'm aware of.
However, there's interest in having a bigger downtown presence, but not at the expense of building out the main campus and continuing to grow the academic profile. Long range, what I'd expect to see would be a space where they could host some specific classes to serve people around the urban core. For example MBA courses for downtown workers who can't easily make it to the main campus for 6 pm classes, etc. That'll have to be the next administration's project.