This nation just went through one of the largest urban redevelopment booms in recent times but DT Jax went backward.
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/sizing-up-downtown
If anything, this shows maintaining status quo while your peers continue to move forward only results in you losing ground. Wake up Jax before the gulf is too large to overcome.
I don't think you're going to get any disagreement from me or anyone else that downtown has really stagnated during the "Peyton years."
However, I don't think it's fair to say that Jax went backwards or lost any ground. The TU's graphics (and accompanying article) definitely had an overly negative slant. A lot of that slant is well deserved, although they clearly overemphasized the negative and de-emphasized the positive. Crime is the same or down, homeless population is the same, residential population is way up, tax base is way up, restaurant and bars are the same.
It's certainly fair to say that things have moved too slowly, or like you said, maintained the status quo. Especially given the significant booms in so many other cities, it's really sad to see Jax treading water. But decline? Heck no. Lack of progress, yes.
The residential population doubled in four years. I think if the bar restaurant section had included 09 it would have looked better. Over all just stagnate.
Quote from: Joe on December 13, 2009, 08:29:54 PM
I don't think you're going to get any disagreement from me or anyone else that downtown has really stagnated during the "Peyton years."
However, I don't think it's fair to say that Jax went backwards or lost any ground. The TU's graphics (and accompanying article) definitely had an overly negative slant. A lot of that slant is well deserved, although they clearly overemphasized the negative and de-emphasized the positive. Crime is the same or down, homeless population is the same, residential population is way up, tax base is way up, restaurant and bars are the same.
It's certainly fair to say that things have moved too slowly, or like you said, maintained the status quo. Especially given the significant booms in so many other cities, it's really sad to see Jax treading water. But decline? Heck no. Lack of progress, yes.
Significantly less events, a decline in office employment and stagnant in retail over the last decade. Residential growth has doubled (although too spread out to make a significant impact), but what major city DT population did not significantly grow during the previous boom (okay, maybe Buffalo or Rochester)? When compared to typical peer city (ex. Charlotte, Oklahoma City, Norfolk, Louisville, Indianapolis, Raleigh, Hartford, etc.) trends over the same time period, status quo or stagnant equates to losing ground. We have a lot of work to do.
Tourism is way down and that strange thing called "mental health" crimes has very dramatically changed.
I agree that there's a lot of work to do. But Jax's downtown was also way worse off than almost all of our peer cities in the late 90s, (when there were only 800 residents, almost exclusively low-income. Find a peer city that compares to that one).
I think Jax would have seen significant improvement if Carlucci or Weinstein had won the mayor's race instead of Peyton - no doubt about it. But it's not the complete doom-and-gloom that the TU is painting either.
I think the most relevant points highlighted in the TU are as follows:
- Declining office occupancy
- Need for much more residential
- Too much land owned by the city
- Lack of a DDA and the subsequent mismanagement of the TIFs.
- In addition, I think the TU comments section clearly illustrates that vagrants and parking are HUGE problems for the suburbanite's image of downtown.
I'm not sure that anything can be done about the first two problems in light of macroeconomic conditions. But I am optimistic that the next mayor will basically have to be better for downtown than Peyton.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 13, 2009, 08:44:03 PM
Significantly less events
note that this stat only applies to the Prime Osborn facility.
The office employment is quite high, though declining. I wonder if that number includes Springfield, including Shands and Swisher, etc. and maybe San Marco too. Charlotte has about the same level of employment (55K) but has a ton of high rises by comparison (and low vacancy).
Does anyone know the physical boundaries of the numbers in the TU article?
Quote from: Joe on December 13, 2009, 08:29:54 PM
However, I don't think it's fair to say that Jax went backwards or lost any ground. The TU's graphics (and accompanying article) definitely had an overly negative slant. A lot of that slant is well deserved, although they clearly overemphasized the negative and de-emphasized the positive. Crime is the same or down, homeless population is the same, residential population is way up, tax base is way up, restaurant and bars are the same.
It's certainly fair to say that things have moved too slowly, or like you said, maintained the status quo. Especially given the significant booms in so many other cities, it's really sad to see Jax treading water. But decline? Heck no. Lack of progress, yes.
If your peers are advancing and you are standing still, then you ARE declining. Not to mention that in several areas there IS a numerical decline.
I don't think Jax went backwards, it progressed in some ways, but remained stagnant and sedentary more than anything else. There's pockets of progress and leaping forward and there's pockets of emptiness with no growth or progression, which in my mind is not moving forward at all (when a lot is empty or nothing changes, that doesn't mean it's moving backward, it means it didn't move forward or didn't move at all).
"HU"
Vic, DT's boundaries are I-95 (west), State/Arlington Expressway (north), river (east) and I-95 (south). The Northbank, Southbank and Brooklyn are the neighborhoods included.
You people need some philosophy from the old hippie here:
SECOND PLACE = "THE FIRST LOSER!"
Think about this when you try and rationalize the Peyton Years with the usual Jacksonville drivel of "almost, could have, should have, would have, didn't have, and RIGHT BEHIND TAMPA... and Orlando... and St. Petersburg... and West Palm... and Fort Lauderdale... and Miami... and ? PALATKA ANYONE?
Being a second place city is just unacceptable to me, what about you?
OCKLAWAHA
Quote from: Joe on December 13, 2009, 09:45:16 PM
I agree that there's a lot of work to do. But Jax's downtown was also way worse off than almost all of our peer cities in the late 90s, (when there were only 800 residents, almost exclusively low-income. Find a peer city that compares to that one).
Tampa, Norfolk and Raleigh would be three.
QuoteYou people need some philosophy from the old hippie here:
SECOND PLACE = "THE FIRST LOSER!"
Think about this when you try and rationalize the Peyton Years with the usual Jacksonville drivel of "almost, could have, should have, would have, didn't have, and RIGHT BEHIND TAMPA... and Orlando... and St. Petersburg... and West Palm... and Fort Lauderdale... and Miami... and ? PALATKA ANYONE?
Being a second place city is just unacceptable to me, what about you?
Ocklawaha, I heart you. You always stir the pot!
Quote"The only city that lost buildings and ground during the great High!"
That line, while delivered as a joke, is actually pretty telling. I think that's what most interesting about Jacksonville's development over the last decade is that the city/county/region resisted the urban infill trend most of the country embraced.
QuoteTourism is way down and that strange thing called "mental health" crimes has very dramatically changed.
Tourism, and the relentless need to attract it, is part of the problem, specifically in Jacksonville and broadly in Florida. Orlando is the great big hole of tourism in the state. That's where the tourist go most, and first. The rest of the state needs to work on creating diversified economies in metros where people want to live, work and play...and then the tourists will come. Moreover, from a branding perspective, to be non-touristy is to separate yourself somewhat from the rest of the state, and thus, give yourself a selling point. The best thing South Florida ever did for itself was to diversify their economy after Disney opened. Tourism is a part of the mix, but not the whole deal.
QuoteThis nation just went through one of the largest urban redevelopment booms in recent times but DT Jax went backward.
Moreover, this redevelopment boom was markedly different from the previous 1980s moment (which Jacksonville mos def experienced.) For most of the cities that went through this period, they created a new foundation of sustainable development. Unlike the "festival marketplaces," office skyscrapers and stadiums from the 1980s, the downtowns laid down new cloth to stitch future development along. That's probably the largest tragedy of Jacksonville sitting out the 2000s.
Toronto has to have one of the most livable downtowns of any city in North America? Why?
For the last couple of decades it has been a requirement that any new non-public, office building going up has to have a percentage of the square footage devoted to RESIDENCES and to RETAIL. All in the same building or directly adjacent to it. There are grocery stores on the street front of huge financial office towers because there are people LIVING in those buildings. There are also trams and buses running frequently at all hours.
Of course, they did have the advantage of having Jane Jacobs living there, keeping an eye on their planning.
I've come to realize something, this city spends all of it's money on road repair. If you go to a real city, quite often their roads suck! You know why? Because they spend the money on things that make sense. Who the hell cares if we have the best streets in Florida or America for that matter if no one is driving on them?
Good point Johnny.
Dog Walker that sounds like great zoning.
Quote from: Joe on December 13, 2009, 09:45:16 PM
I think the most relevant points highlighted in the TU are as follows:
- Declining office occupancy
- Need for much more residential
- Too much land owned by the city
- Lack of a DDA and the subsequent mismanagement of the TIFs.
- In addition, I think the TU comments section clearly illustrates that vagrants and parking are HUGE problems for the suburbanite's image of downtown.
I'm not sure that anything can be done about the first two problems in light of macroeconomic conditions. But I am optimistic that the next mayor will basically have to be better for downtown than Peyton.
Having the city own so much property might not be so bad if they could do something useful with it. I imagine a lot of that land must the shipyards and other vacant properties. At least if government offices were there they could support some of the restaurants in the area. Not to say that they need to put government offices on the riverfront by any means, but they need to make something happen with all this empty land.
this is a tough response for me. Im wandering if its as simple as supply and demand. The city seems to have written off dt to the transient population with only Jacksonville Baptist maintaining a strong presence. I tried to
buy a building downtown, lived at the metropolitian for 2.5 years. support downtown culture. But it became unattainable and in oct 2008 bought a house in riverside. Is this a sign of failing to become a part of the urban jacksonville population? My experience in riverside has been great. Jacksonville is perhaps too large geographically and too small in population. I feel strong the next administration will be worse for downtown urban development, anyhow there is a strong art movement in the urban neighborhoods.
Jacksonville offers the best values (in more ways than one) than anywhere else in Florida. For the bleak future implied to downtown florida, its my opinon Jacksonville will grow significantly in the near future. Theres a lot of discontent in many urban areas throughout th country.
To me, having grown up in Jax, the beginning of the end was when no one tried to keep Barnett downtown. When the leaders allowed Barnett to move from downtown to the Barnett Office Park on the Southside, it opened the flood gates to anyone who wanted to leave downtown for greener pastures. The bank HQs that are located all over town are like a sharp stick in the eye "reminder" of what the leaders allowed to happen.
When the banks left, the retail followed suit, and can anyone imaging what the impact would be on downtown, had we been able to develop the same concept as St. Johns Town Center downtown? Think of the traffic, nightlife and growth. Forget what happens downtown now, we need to retrace the bread-crumb path and find out how we veered off course, and go back to the early days when land was plentiful and there was a vision from DDA of downtown. Peyton has shown he has no vision, and is a rudderless ship. I expect nothing from him through 2011.
So the banks and retail left us, without them, the insurance is sure to leave as well. BCBSF downtown is their government processing facility, the not for profit version now resides in a 7 building complex on the Southside, with Merrill Lynch (BofA) across the street. A prolific amount of growth has taken place around this terminus, the likes of which, Downtown must now compete with.
Can Downtown Jax survive? It can, it has the river and it is something it has to sell to companies who would rather be on the southside. The leaders of downtown must now compete with pine trees around town, and costs being considered, have to offer more than what can be found around town to get downtown to grow.
Before suburban malls, downtown was the place to shop. The big and little stores were all located in downtown. When you got to town either by bus or car, you parked and walked. We never thought, "Oh it's too far (hot, rainiy, cold) to walk" The reason was that as you walked you passed shops, restaurants, juice stands, hotels, offices and you were busy looking, shopping. Department stores may have had offices in their upper floor space but at the street level really great shop windows displayed the merchandise in clever and attractive ways.
The big department stores were all in downtown and had the high end merchandise. Cohens, Furchgots, Levy-Wolf. JC Penneys, Sears, Woolworths had everything else. Little shops were scattered around and newsstands, restaurants were in every block. Every holiday was exciting in town. Stores were decorated, window displays showed the latest and best. No one ever worried about walking on the streets because with so many other shoppers, business people also walking it was exciting and interesting. There were no trashy sidewalks because there was too much pride to allow that to happen. Our bankers, lawyers, other professionals all had offices in town.
Downtown began to fail when suburban malls attracted the shoppers and stores in town left or failed. As they lost their customers they turned to cheaper and cheaper merchandise. Stores became dirty, customer service failed and no one wanted to shop downtown. Professional people left for the suburbs. And no one really tried to make a complete plan to turn it around. We went through a phase of thinking that attracting one megastore or building a bunch of high rise buildings would make a difference. Nope. The real understanding of what made downtown interesting and vibrant was gone. Although planners drew up grand schemes, business people and citizen involvement in those plans was limited. Towns that have made the comeback did so with the help of many people. They wanted not only the money to repair or redesign but the encouragement of an organic process to bring in entrepreneurs.
Lindab - Nowadays we can buy anything online, and no matter if it is cheap or expensive, so stores will not save downtown. We need to bring the businesses with the workers downtown. The people living and working in downtown are not enough to attract new people to buy and live down there. Some of the empty-nesters in the TU say they are afraid of downtown at night because it is so desolate, stores will not help with this, as they are closed at that hour.
We need more businesses and we need a City government that is willing to invest in downtown and incentivize the companies to come downtown. The Daily Record had a great article yesterday about new lawyers who had opened new offices in the wake of the downturn. I know there are businesses coming and being born from the downturn, the key is getting them to relo downtown and incentivize them with leases or with energy savings. With a growing core, we can spend money on transit, sidewalks, real planning, but we cannot do this with a contracting core.
Yesterday I was in a local department store at Roosevelt mall. The place was jammed. People weren't buying on-line. They were in that store. Markdowns were terrific; much cheaper than paying for shipping on a product that you can only examine virtually.
We have business downtown. You are right that it isn't a lot and it is exciting that a law office is willing to commit to downtown. But, my point is that you need a reason for people to walk the sidewalks from place to place. Offices don't provide all of that. Office workers come at 8:00 and leave at 6:00. They eat lunch not supper.
Mostly, we need a plan which doesn't waft away as political leaders come and go. We need a plan that addresses all the elements and people of vision and diverse background to make it happen.
It is activity downtown that starts with workers/ residents. Activity needs doors you can walk into block after block. Inside the Wachovia building is great how would anyone on the street know? Not enough mixed use that is open to the street. This is not some thing that can be fixed in one grand swoop you need to have the spaces fill in from many sources. What is happening on Bay is great but it will take time now that it has started. Laura street improvements will hopefully make Hemming to the Landing feel walkable and the Landing to the night spots on Bay feel walkable.
QuoteMostly, we need a plan which doesn't waft away as political leaders come and go. We need a plan that addresses all the elements and people of vision and diverse background to make it happen.
You cannot fix downtown with a one-brush stroke applies to all theory. There will not be 1 plan, but many, because we as a city have shown that 1 plan is not enough, as we had that 1 plan, and now we have NO plan. I think the TU has done a good job to show that the City has no plan, but has put all the development of late, on the backs of individuals and entreprenuers. We cannot succeed with that restrictive mentality.
So in 2011, we need new leadership, plain and simple.
Quote from: mtraininjax on December 17, 2009, 11:59:18 AM
QuoteMostly, we need a plan which doesn't waft away as political leaders come and go. We need a plan that addresses all the elements and people of vision and diverse background to make it happen.
You cannot fix downtown with a one-brush stroke applies to all theory. There will not be 1 plan, but many, because we as a city have shown that 1 plan is not enough, as we had that 1 plan, and now we have NO plan. I think the TU has done a good job to show that the City has no plan, but has put all the development of late, on the backs of individuals and entreprenuers. We cannot succeed with that restrictive mentality.
So in 2011, we need new leadership, plain and simple.
I tend to agree with you mtrain, but I think it highlights the difference between "strategy" and "tactics" -- and makes the issue regarding the DDA and the anemic JEDC come to light. "Leadership" should develop an overarching strategy -- a very borad-based approach to revitalizing downtown -- i.e. encourage influx of residents, highlight riverfront, etc. It would then be up to JEDC/former-DDA to provide the tactical approach -- e.g. work with JTA, FDOT, etc. regarding downtown connectivity, dreaming up incentives for residential/mixed-use development -- and so forth.
As it is now, we have the mayor setting strategy (if you could call it that I suppose), but no organization to truly follow through with the tactical portion to make sure it all ties together correctly.
Lastly, as with any good business strategy, it must be RELENTLESSLY pursued with resources, intestinal fortitude, etc.
Brought my parents downtown today. We were walking the southbank, and I just now discovered that there is actually shops and things inside that Wachovia building after about 3 years in the area. The only indication is a dinky little sign outside. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's overlooked it. Point is, what is there should be more visible.
Most of DT's towers have shops or at least a restaurant or deli in them, even on the Southbank. Unfortunately, from outside you can't tell. Some type of program that better exposed the existing street level retail uses within the office buildings would be a huge boost to street level vibrancy and activity. In this case, you don't even have to recruit new places open. You just better utilize and expose what's already there and well hidden.
Simply leave downtown alone.The rest of the region (after all-have you not heard??? We are now a holistic "region") does ot really care for downtown issues.This can not be fixed.The state of downtown is reflective of regional technique,wich is one of expansion,booster "growth".In the midst of an entrenched,insipid anti Duval theme.A Landing Pinball Arcade full of the local population is not an endearing image to the majority of "First Coast" residents.
The spurt of downtown development activity during the past decade is more reflective of the nationwide bubble frenzy-the ShipYards deal and the broad participation of Tri Legacy in other far reaching city matters a comedy of errors.The FTU editors finally allow "reporting" on 'suburban angst' and the loss of downtown jobs to outlying areas only upon the TPO sprawl (read:'alternative') inducing beltway deemed safely 'in place'.
Just simply stop speculating and messing with downtown.It appears that is all we can do.Let it be,and let it evolve.
north miami...that is a really cyncial and misguided viewpoint....regionalism and strong downtowns are not mutually exclusive....in fact, often it is just the opposite....I provide Portland, Minneapolis, and Nashville as examples.
Just imagine how many more champions there would be if folks in Clay, St. Johns, Nassau, etc. recognized the importance of downtown Jax to the First Coast region.
QuoteJust simply stop speculating and messing with downtown.It appears that is all we can do.Let it be,and let it evolve.
Lessaiz Faire of downtown? Downtowns do not fix themselves, they were built by people, managed by people, and for the last 30 years, the people have let companys leave downtown. Downtown is like an animal, a living breathing animal, you have to feed it, groom it, and love it for it to give back to you.
Godbold is right, as Downtown goes, so goes our entire city.
A short example of what happens to a downtown area when left alone...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwBX-6Y54Yc