There are presently a bakers dozen of buildings downtown that are owned by the city.
The Snyder Memorial, is one of the many that springs to mind.
There are also a good amount of local organizations of the type that bring in street traffic and night time business.
The city needs to fill the downtown with five year no rent agreements to fill up the spaces and turn the economic downturn into lemonade.
The Alhambra, The River City Band, the Southern Music Museum, Nokturnal Escape and several other proven draws lack housing.
The buildings are just sitting there, not making any money.
This doesnt take anything except breaking the paralysis at the top.
So what person within the city handles the city property, who knows them, who can approach them with these ideas.
Try giving Paul Crawford or Ron Barton a call.
The mayor was going to have to sign off on a small restaurant space I was leasing for someone. I think that's a little over the top.
Quote from: stephendare on September 04, 2009, 11:31:32 AM
There are presently a bakers dozen of buildings downtown that are owned by the city.
The Snyder Memorial, is one of the many that springs to mind.
There are also a good amount of local organizations of the type that bring in street traffic and night time business.
The city needs to fill the downtown with five year no rent agreements to fill up the spaces and turn the economic downturn into lemonade.
The Alhambra, The River City Band, the Southern Music Museum, Nokturnal Escape and several other proven draws lack housing.
The buildings are just sitting there, not making any money.
This doesnt take anything except breaking the paralysis at the top.
This seems like a good idea. I am wary however, of giving any official the power to give city owned space to one entity, while excluding another.
I would be willing to start a business with 5 years rent free promised to me.
Any ideas?
I was going to lease space in the Ed Ball building for a small sandwich shop. I contacted the powers that be and they told me ultimately it comes down to mayoral approval bc it's city property.
That seems quite unwise. How can one person have control over assets owned by the taxpayers of a city?
Quote from: downtownjag on September 05, 2009, 02:10:19 PM
I was going to lease space in the Ed Ball building for a small sandwich shop. I contacted the powers that be and they told me ultimately it comes down to mayoral approval bc it's city property.
So did you pursue it? What happened after that?
If our city government had any creativity they would put together a series of "contests." People and companies could produce and submit business plans for various spaces in buildings downtown. The proposals would have to include a financial plan, a design component, a need/demand component for the business, the economic impact and perhaps a few other things. A panel comprised of half city officials, and half downtown residents, would then select the "winners" to occupy the various spaces. A winning plan would receive free rent for 3 years with an option to stay and pay rent if the business is successful. Seriously, I thought of this in like 5 minutes, and I don't even get a city paycheck!
Again, why do we pay some of these people six figures to put together surveys that just reiterate that downtown is lacking and not the economic engine it should be. Fix it already! Get off your ass and fix it! Ugh!
As much as I'd love to see downtown flourish, I don't agree with the idea of giving anyone 5 years of rent free occupancy. I feel there's a more reasonable approach, if the city wanted to actually do anything with those buildings, and actually wanted to bring life to the area. The powers that be, make deals all of the time, look at the outlandish deal with Cecil field; paying out millions for this company to set up shop...but where's the incentive for any business to set up shop downtown. As I said, I don't agree with the rent free, but it sure could be a very reasonable rental agreement.
I've never started my own business, but I'm guessing that monthly rent/leasing costs are a prime factor in businesses making it more than a year because it is an uncontrolled cost. Why do you think people often start their businesses in their own homes? Or look at Three Layers. Didn't Shawn and Jeff live at their business so that they weren't paying for both a business building and a house to live in?
I remember a discussion about the building at 5 W Forsyth. I believe the lease was 2 million or something out of this world. Who has that kind of money when you can rent a room in a strip mall for practically nothing. So guess what, the building is still empty and so is our downtown. Stephen is right. You must generate foot traffic and cluster businesses to even start to make progress. I bet if the Shelby Cafe in the library had been given free rent, they might still be around. Isn't free rent = no rent? And when free rent provides an economic impact for the city, then I say that it is actually a greater asset to the city than no rent.
Quotefive year no rent agreements
That is just not good business. The City can offer business grants and other programs that help people start new businesses, but giving away rent, sets a bad example going forward. I agree that more needs to happen with the buildings, but free rent is not the way to do it.
Do you see any banks giving away free rent for the empty houses blotting the landscape? Do you think Sleiman would be in business very long, especially at the Landing, if he gave away free rent for 60 months to tenants, just to keep the landing stocked with vendors?
The City does a horrible job at anything other than services. Planning is....a joke, so have them give the buildings to Keane and the Police Fire & Pension group and let them market the buildings. So far they have done well with their investments and John has a good mind for business and for downtown.
^ The incubator idea is that you give a little away to increase the activity in an area. The increased activity raises the values of your other properties and the likelihood they will be rented.
I have no problem with the incubator idea, but you cannot give someone 60 months of free rent in a business setting. If you can't get a business up and running in a few months, you are in the wrong business.
Quote from: mtraininjax on September 07, 2009, 07:48:50 AM
I have no problem with the incubator idea, but you cannot give someone 60 months of free rent in a business setting. If you can't get a business up and running in a few months, you are in the wrong business.
Due to the nature of small business downtown, it is a risky proposition. Should such a plan be implemented, I see it as a nice reward for taking an extra level of risk. It could become a crutch to an unsavvy businessperson, which would be unfortunate.
I also don't like the idea of on person, or even a small group of people deciding who benefits from the incintive. It should be done in a way that shows no favoritism, and prevents good ol' boyism.
I leave it to those more aware than me to design, but these principles should be followed.
True. I did gather that before. There are differences, however.
Their decision is a market based decision, made by private investors acting in their own self interest.
In the case of the city owned by the public, with a small group or even one person being able to grant favors for personal/political gain. I wish my cynicism was unfounded.
What mall developers/managers often did was sign up anchor tenants first....they offered them the land, and the retailer constructed the building....and usually, it was then turned over to the mall owner.
Of course it should be noted that many of these mall owners are now severly cash-strapped, as retailers have closed up shop.
Not exactly the model I'd like to see a municipal government use
I do see it as a useful way to get carcasses downtown.
When people are exposed to vibrant urban living, the result is invariably increased demand for space. This could most certainly serve as a catalyst to bring life to the downtown area. As I mentioned before, I did a stint at The Strand, and one of my biggest concerns was the ghost town effect. There was much beauty downtown, but it was desolate and unwelcoming.
Some businesses that attract those from the burbs, as well as some form of indigent control (as insensitive as it may sound) are vital to appealing to money spending visitors who might consider a longer stay.
Hemming Plaza is too valuable to be utilized as a homeless shelter. It will take strong leadership, supported by citizens who wish to revitalize our city.
Aside from the tallest of buildings, the city looks almost "frightening" from I-95 once you get across the river. Very few strangers to our city would want to exit off I-95 into something that looks like that - those big & tall buildings do a great job of hiding the graveyard from a frontal, north facing view from the Southbank, but any other direction is deplorable.
I've spoken to several different owners, or agents of owners of these vacant buildings downtown - they are mostly all "sitting" and "waiting" for someone else to do something before they feel it's worth it to rehab or (unfortunately) knock down and rebuild. The consequence of this is numerous abandoned buildings sitting around, with the owners waiting for their neighbor buildings to "go first."
Prime example would be the Ambassador hotel in conjunction with the new courthouse. It would make a fantastic property with beautiful architecture now, but (as it were), first we need some other entity to come in and "make" it that way?? In the meantime, it's just going to sit there.
The good news is that it would probably only take a handful of these buildings to be rehabbed and put to use before a domino effect takes place, therefore spreading throughout major sections of town.
This is why the original idea is such a good one, if done with fairness as well as forsight.
Reward thos willing to take the risk. Our city need New Founders!
Understood. Though I don't favor the words "risk," that is the reality - it shouldn't be the case when a prospective business stakeholder considers downtown.
Quote from: stephendare on September 07, 2009, 01:41:26 PM
TUFSU1
You really don't know what you are talking about, despite how authoritative you sound.
My Belk Family (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,5611.msg89977.html#msg89977) has been in this business a few generations, and this is how pedestrial traffic is created. Without foot traffic, retail space is valueless. This is something that mall planners and Saint John Town Center developers get that infrastructure planners don't.
so are you implying that Dillards didn't construct their building at STJC?
Avoid any interests in downtown. its a waste of time. Stephen, you should know this from your own experience. Those buildings are for sale in the millions. its probably all centered around the courthouse. As ive described before, i spent 3 years, 2 request for proposals to attain a dilapidated building needing 500 grand to legally walk in, and the city demanded $300,000. they found an assessor who appraised it as such. Concentrate your interests in Springfield, riverside. Those buildings will go for 100s of millions once the courthouse goes up.
Theres NO foot traffic downtown of business concern.
Where can we find a list of these buildings (with addresses)?
This certainly sparks the imagination about what could be possible.
i hear ya stephen. Im aligned with jim drapers vision, "Lets just tear it all down and make it a pasture."