Good article by Abel Harding in today's TU.
Quote"Do we want to invest in our downtown in such a way that it becomes a great place, and an economic engine for our community," asked Steve Lovett, a partner at the design firm Ervin Lovett Miller. "Or, do we want to subsidize its existence and poor performance?"
Lovett argues that revitalization is imperative for one basic reason - it provides the opportunity for a burgeoning tax base that doesn't require the extensive infrastructure development required elsewhere in the county.
In other words, a vibrant downtown could ease the property tax burden of homes and businesses around the city. It can also improve the quality of life throughout the city.
That's why its somewhat inexplicable that the city - while paying lip service to downtown - has continued to subsidize companies that expand in other areas of town. In recent months, Jacksonville provided incentives for one company, Digital Risk LLC, to locate on Gate Parkway, and another, Xorail, to expand its location in the same area. Additionally, the city awarded subsidies to Adecco Group North America to add jobs. But the incentives included no requirement that the company remain downtown - and it left for a locale on the crowded Southside.
The reasoning behind Southside expansions? Companies say parking is too expensive downtown and the city refuses to bankroll it.
But something doesn't add up here. A recent Times-Union story showed how Jacksonville has spent more than $12 million to cover losses on mostly empty downtown parking garages. And taxpayers are predicted to spend millions more in coming years.
It would seem there would be a way that empty garages already receiving taxpayer dollars could be used to negotiate with employers to lure them downtown.
Full article: http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/400904/abel-harding/2010-10-10/better-link-river-could-bring-more-people-downtown
lake, nice article and it just points out a situation that we allready know! Lack of vision on the part of the current administration. City can give all of the incentives they want, but they are in the wrong direction and substance inorder to revitilize downtown. There are people with some kind of an idea of what should be done and how to do it,(Bill Killingsworth comes to mind) but those in power are not looking at the big picture! Time for a change!
I don't see it as a lack of vision. More likely, in my view, the promotion of economic (industrial/manufacture/IT/Admin) development in dispersed locations is directly linked to land ownership.
That has been the way in Jax for decades. (Centuries?) It is economic cronyism and good ol' boyism that keeps downtown in a state of malaise.
Lack of vision?... no.
Vision directly opposed to the common best interest?... perhaps closer to the mark.
Quote from: buckethead on October 10, 2010, 08:21:51 AM
Vision directly opposed to the common best interest?... perhaps closer to the mark.
Therein lies my issue's! Either way something is not right, whether we can prove it in a court of law or not! I am thinking we need more accountable and transparent government, not more back room deals conducted in smoke filled rooms. The quickest way to achieve that is to replace current people with people who truely represent the people who voted them into office, not the current crop of retreads or political wannabe's! Least ways thats how I see it!
I think we need less "connected" leaders. If you're a praying person, this would be a good thing to pray for.
Quote from: buckethead on October 10, 2010, 09:24:26 AM
I think we need less "connected" leaders. If you're a praying person, this would be a good thing to pray for.
You do have a point! Operative word there is "connected" and right there is the heart of the problem!
Let's also see what we can do about a rather apathetic population and not lay blame solely at the feet of "connected" leaders. Only 20% of the population voted in 2007 to elect the current administration.
Connections in this city are no longer based on corporate/philanthropic experience. They are based more on church and politics. We need to get back to connections to business leaders in San Marco and Ortega who work downtown and who's investments are either downtown or in city-wide affairs (and nobody in these two neighborhoods or those in between goes to FBC). Connections can be a good thing for our city if they are the right connections. Unfortunately they have drifted to whackos from spread out parts of the city conniving together and catering to Duval's lowest common denominator and too many people have simply not cared enough to change that, hence the 20% voter turnout.
We need city leaders with stronger connections to Preston Haskell, Tom Petway, Betsy Lovett, Rob Clements, and anyone else who knows from experience how a real city works and who already invests heavily in the city.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 10, 2010, 04:34:49 PM
QuoteOut of 100 people moving to Jacksonville and just about any American city nowadays, perhaps only 15-20 are looking to move to an older more urban area. The rest really highly desire a single family home or townhome in the suburbs, and so that's where much of the money is for developers.
I don't think this is true. You can have old and new in an established area. From my experience, the majority of people try to get most bang out of their buck money wise. Get that same product in the city at a similar price, with good schools and decent amenities and more people will choose that alternative. Uptown Charlotte, Dallas and Houston, inside the loop, are great examples of this. So in my humble opinion, this issue rest soley on the leadership of this city. If they really want the urban core to bloom, they'll have to put their money where their mouth is.
Even the cities that are considered the best in this country have a proportionately small number of downtown residents when compared with the rest of a city. This coming week, me and another hundred or so are going to Indianapolis for the Chamber Leadership Trip (we went to KC last year). Indianapolis's downtown is, by all accounts, a vibrant business, residential, and convention city. Of the 1.7 million people in greater Indy, there are approximately 9,000 downtown units with a downtown population of around 28,000 -- and that's considered a great success.
But -- a downtown's residential population is only one aspect...
What a vibrant downtown does is far reaching. According to recent studies, a few decades ago, downtown Jacksonville contributed 13.5% of the city's ad valorem tax revenue. Today, it barely contributes 3%. Based upon today's $980-million budget, that's a tax revenue deficit of around $105-million that falls fully on the shoulders of suburban residential taxpayers. If things continue as they are, it will get worse. Downtown's throughout the country produce disproportionately higher revenues than suburban areas, and there are many examples of downtown renewal & revitalization in cities far more disadvantaged than Jacksonville -- and the benefits in those cities are manifest in great, desirable downtowns, improved urban & suburban neighborhoods, and more sustainable public-sector revenue streams.
One could argue that to continue as Jacksonville has becomes a lose-lose proposition for our central city and suburbs -- and that Jacksonville will be less-and-less desirable & competitive in aspects of economy, education, and quality of life.
Quote from: Steve_Lovett on October 10, 2010, 05:51:10 PM
What a vibrant downtown does is far reaching. According to recent studies, a few decades ago, downtown Jacksonville contributed 13.5% of the city's ad valorem tax revenue. Today, it barely contributes 3%. Based upon today's $980-million budget, that's a tax revenue deficit of around $105-million that falls fully on the shoulders of suburban residential taxpayers. If things continue as they are, it will get worse. Downtown's throughout the country produce disproportionately higher revenues than suburban areas, and there are many examples of downtown renewal & revitalization in cities far more disadvantaged than Jacksonville -- and the benefits in those cities are manifest in great, desirable downtowns, improved urban & suburban neighborhoods, and more sustainable public-sector revenue streams.
One could argue that to continue as Jacksonville has becomes a lose-lose proposition for our central city and suburbs -- and that Jacksonville will be less-and-less desirable & competitive in aspects of economy, education, and quality of life.
Great point, we had front page article detailing this recently. I always try to comment on FTU articles such as this river one by pointing out similar numbers. There might be 20 comments in these words, more or less, "Yea more money down the drain. I the taxpayer refuse to pour more money into downtown." Myself or someone else will then come along and try to explain why this view is too simple and inadvertently wrong (this view actually harms the suburban taxpayer). Nobody listens and continues to spew the same view. I now have begun to say, "please read all posts before chiming in; if you are going to spit out the same viewpoint, then save it. Please add something new or rebut what has been said." That's also futile.
I worry that our biggest enemy in getting anything done is the average voter who not due necessarily to his own fault does not know anything about planning or city budgets. These people are on full display at the FTU.
I think Indy does a better job providing access to its canal and promoting it as a destination than we do with our full size riverfront (downtown).
Quote from: Steve_Lovett on October 10, 2010, 05:51:10 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on October 10, 2010, 04:34:49 PM
QuoteOut of 100 people moving to Jacksonville and just about any American city nowadays, perhaps only 15-20 are looking to move to an older more urban area. The rest really highly desire a single family home or townhome in the suburbs, and so that's where much of the money is for developers.
I don't think this is true. You can have old and new in an established area. From my experience, the majority of people try to get most bang out of their buck money wise. Get that same product in the city at a similar price, with good schools and decent amenities and more people will choose that alternative. Uptown Charlotte, Dallas and Houston, inside the loop, are great examples of this. So in my humble opinion, this issue rest soley on the leadership of this city. If they really want the urban core to bloom, they'll have to put their money where their mouth is.
Even the cities that are considered the best in this country have a proportionately small number of downtown residents when compared with the rest of a city. This coming week, me and another hundred or so are going to Indianapolis for the Chamber Leadership Trip (we went to KC last year). Indianapolis's downtown is, by all accounts, a vibrant business, residential, and convention city. Of the 1.7 million people in greater Indy, there are approximately 9,000 downtown units with a downtown population of around 28,000 -- and that's considered a great success.
There's too much focus on downtown. When I speak about this topic, places like Brooklyn, Springfield and LaVilla are just as important and central as the Northbank in the grand scheme of things. In addition, the urban examples I mentioned above (Charlotte, Houston, Dallas,etc.) exceed the small artificial boundaries of "downtown." For example, while in Indy this week, try and check out Old Northside or Broad Ripple. Here you'll find that urban living in these communities can be just as exciting and walkable as urban living in the Wholesale District itself.
I would guess that someone at that end did have a plan and managed to come up with funding right?
Quote from: thelakelander on October 10, 2010, 06:41:20 PM
Quote from: Steve_Lovett on October 10, 2010, 05:51:10 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on October 10, 2010, 04:34:49 PM
QuoteOut of 100 people moving to Jacksonville and just about any American city nowadays, perhaps only 15-20 are looking to move to an older more urban area. The rest really highly desire a single family home or townhome in the suburbs, and so that's where much of the money is for developers.
I don't think this is true. You can have old and new in an established area. From my experience, the majority of people try to get most bang out of their buck money wise. Get that same product in the city at a similar price, with good schools and decent amenities and more people will choose that alternative. Uptown Charlotte, Dallas and Houston, inside the loop, are great examples of this. So in my humble opinion, this issue rest soley on the leadership of this city. If they really want the urban core to bloom, they'll have to put their money where their mouth is.
Even the cities that are considered the best in this country have a proportionately small number of downtown residents when compared with the rest of a city. This coming week, me and another hundred or so are going to Indianapolis for the Chamber Leadership Trip (we went to KC last year). Indianapolis's downtown is, by all accounts, a vibrant business, residential, and convention city. Of the 1.7 million people in greater Indy, there are approximately 9,000 downtown units with a downtown population of around 28,000 -- and that's considered a great success.
There's too much focus on downtown. When I speak about this topic, places like Brooklyn, Springfield and LaVilla are just as important and central as the Northbank in the grand scheme of things. In addition, the urban examples I mentioned above (Charlotte, Houston, Dallas,etc.) exceed the small artificial boundaries of "downtown." For example, while in Indy this week, try and check out Old Northside or Broad Ripple. Here you'll find that urban living in these communities can be just as exciting and walkable as urban living in the Wholesale District itself.
I agree with you, Ennis. It's not an either/or. Downtown shouldn't be a focus at the expense of other neighborhoods. There are synergistic benefits to stronger neighborhoods AND downtown. The fact that once-desirable neighborhoods like Arlington, Springfield, LaVilla, Durkeeville, and (many) others have fallen into disrepair while growth (and accompanying infrastructure) has gone to the far reaches of the county and region has/will prove expensive to capitalize and maintain, and the sustainability of this pattern of growth is questionable.
I intend to see BroadRipple and hopefully old Northside in Indy this week.
Gentlemen...........what focus on downtown? BRT.......whopee! While I understand the lack of revenue from a decaying downtown, what is taking place?.............Anything at all? I do not say suburbia is the answer, but when the suburb's are paying their fair share (Then some!) Why don't we have an integrated plan that takes all of COJ into account?
Quote from: simms3 on October 10, 2010, 06:26:34 PM
Quote from: Steve_Lovett on October 10, 2010, 05:51:10 PM
What a vibrant downtown does is far reaching. According to recent studies, a few decades ago, downtown Jacksonville contributed 13.5% of the city's ad valorem tax revenue. Today, it barely contributes 3%. Based upon today's $980-million budget, that's a tax revenue deficit of around $105-million that falls fully on the shoulders of suburban residential taxpayers. If things continue as they are, it will get worse. Downtown's throughout the country produce disproportionately higher revenues than suburban areas, and there are many examples of downtown renewal & revitalization in cities far more disadvantaged than Jacksonville -- and the benefits in those cities are manifest in great, desirable downtowns, improved urban & suburban neighborhoods, and more sustainable public-sector revenue streams.
One could argue that to continue as Jacksonville has becomes a lose-lose proposition for our central city and suburbs -- and that Jacksonville will be less-and-less desirable & competitive in aspects of economy, education, and quality of life.
Great point, we had front page article detailing this recently. I always try to comment on FTU articles such as this river one by pointing out similar numbers. There might be 20 comments in these words, more or less, "Yea more money down the drain. I the taxpayer refuse to pour more money into downtown." Myself or someone else will then come along and try to explain why this view is too simple and inadvertently wrong (this view actually harms the suburban taxpayer). Nobody listens and continues to spew the same view. I now have begun to say, "please read all posts before chiming in; if you are going to spit out the same viewpoint, then save it. Please add something new or rebut what has been said." That's also futile.
I worry that our biggest enemy in getting anything done is the average voter who not due necessarily to his own fault does not know anything about planning or city budgets. These people are on full display at the FTU.
I think Indy does a better job providing access to its canal and promoting it as a destination than we do with our full size riverfront (downtown).
Perhaps Jacksonville's leaders haven't yet been effective at articulating why a well-conceived investment in downtown is beneficial to the regional economy and taxpayers/residents throughout the city....
Very interesting.
Too true to boot!
Quote from: Steve_Lovett on October 10, 2010, 07:05:37 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on October 10, 2010, 06:41:20 PM
Quote from: Steve_Lovett on October 10, 2010, 05:51:10 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on October 10, 2010, 04:34:49 PM
QuoteOut of 100 people moving to Jacksonville and just about any American city nowadays, perhaps only 15-20 are looking to move to an older more urban area. The rest really highly desire a single family home or townhome in the suburbs, and so that's where much of the money is for developers.
I don't think this is true. You can have old and new in an established area. From my experience, the majority of people try to get most bang out of their buck money wise. Get that same product in the city at a similar price, with good schools and decent amenities and more people will choose that alternative. Uptown Charlotte, Dallas and Houston, inside the loop, are great examples of this. So in my humble opinion, this issue rest soley on the leadership of this city. If they really want the urban core to bloom, they'll have to put their money where their mouth is.
Even the cities that are considered the best in this country have a proportionately small number of downtown residents when compared with the rest of a city. This coming week, me and another hundred or so are going to Indianapolis for the Chamber Leadership Trip (we went to KC last year). Indianapolis' downtown is, by all accounts, a vibrant business, residential, and convention city. Of the 1.7 million people in greater Indy, there are approximately 9,000 downtown units with a downtown population of around 28,000 -- and that's considered a great success.
There's too much focus on downtown. When I speak about this topic, places like Brooklyn, Springfield and LaVilla are just as important and central as the Northbank in the grand scheme of things. In addition, the urban examples I mentioned above (Charlotte, Houston, Dallas,etc.) exceed the small artificial boundaries of "downtown." For example, while in Indy this week, try and check out Old Northside or Broad Ripple. Here you'll find that urban living in these communities can be just as exciting and walkable as urban living in the Wholesale District itself.
I agree with you, Ennis. It's not an either/or. Downtown shouldn't be a focus at the expense of other neighborhoods. There are synergistic benefits to stronger neighborhoods AND downtown.
We've gotten away from the point I was trying to originally make. That point was that downtown and the adjacent neighborhoods aren't mutually exclusive. They are one and of the same. All are elements that make up the urban core and thus a holistic view must be applied to any revitalization strategy. Sort of like Five Points and Park & King being two distinct commercial strips, with their own individual needs at ground level, yet both help make up the neighborhood of Riverside.
Going back to Simms3's post, when the holistic concept is applied, we look past attempting to define the number of housing units, businesses and entertainment options within the JEDC's definition of downtown's borders. While it would be great if we could magically boost those numbers overnight, in reality it could take decades. Nevertheless, by taking a holistic approach to the situation, better connectivity with the existing adjacent urban neighborhoods immediately expands downtown's residential base and spreads the possibility of urban living with the city. This is what is happening in cities like Charlotte now. You can't afford or don't want to live in a highrise in Uptown Charlotte? No problem. You also have the option of buying a loft, townhouse or single family house in South End and still being within walking distance of a rail line or multiuse path that provides you direct reliable access to everything in Uptown.
This is the phenomenon I was trying to get at in my original response to the post above. Provide an affordable opportunity for urban living, where cost of living prices and amenities start to equal out with the burbs, and I think we'll be surprised at how the general population would react.
QuoteI intend to see BroadRipple and hopefully old Northside in Indy this week.
Have fun. Indy is an interesting city in relation to Jax. It's consolidated like us, yet it has fairly compact and vibrant downtown core. However like us to a degree, that core is surrounded by surface parking lots and mass transit could be improved.
Lake, great points. I have to play brief devil's advocate and just mention that our most urban cities with the best public transit and walkability are also the most expensive. If we could make the most of our urban core and maintain good prices, we would be set. Even in Atlanta and Houston, two sprawled metropolises in the south, the intown living prices are much higher than here in Jax (whereas the suburbs are much much cheaper). I know that there is a magic boundary whereby two identical apartments could be $500+ apart depending on which side of the perimeter they are on, and tack on another $500+ if it's in Midtown. Hopefully Jax doesn't have to see the price increases that most cities go through once they become larger and more urban.
Definitely agree that putting 100% of our eggs in one neighborhood's basket would be a complete waste because everywhere else would bring it down.
Going back to cost, though, there has to be a balance. Housing prices per square foot and taxes (in most cities, but since we're consolidated it does not apply) are more expensive in the city, as are certain other costs like shopping and dining. Many people who live in a city also basically have to send their kids to a private school because usually inner city schools are pretty horrible. (Man if we just cured the education problem, we could EASILY convince so many families to come back to the city) However, you don't always have to maintain a yard, in some cities you don't need a car, and you can save significantly in transportation costs, as well as time and frustration. Many people, unfortunately, don't think that way, and usually it does end up being more expensive to live "in" the city rather than the burbs.
Quote from: simms3 on October 10, 2010, 06:26:34 PM
I think Indy does a better job providing access to its canal and promoting it as a destination than we do with our full size riverfront (downtown).
I've never been to Indy. I did participate in the JCCI study River Dance-Putting the River in River City. I just recently participated in the River Summit. When you hear presentations of whats going on outside of Duval county you are left shaking your head.
Abel in his headline captures the present potential.
Good
Better
Best
A Better link to river may bring people downtown. I couldn't agree more. That is why one of the first legislative actions that needs to be taken by the administration and city council is to immediately separate the Promised Downtown Public Pier from the other 40 plus acres that was Shipyards/Landmar. If the current administration fails to do so then that is why it should be one of the top city council and mayoral campaign issues in the next election.
Also because this community and the issues of regional transportation and commerce are no longer limitted to Duval county the issue of the Promised Downtown Public Pier could be expanded to incude the senate and governors race. Its not a stretch to make this connection.
The recent River Summit highlighted by presentations by Visit Florida and another presentation by Greenways and Trails then culminating with Abel's story of a river link to bring people downtown couldn't be more timely.
MJ has done a great job in showing how the potential link to the river could occur with McCoys Creek, Hogans Creek, Public Pier, Ford Plant, Exchange Island.
How would Indy embrace these potential River access points? Of these 5 I'd say start with the Pier.
Quote from: simms3 on October 11, 2010, 12:07:39 AM
Lake, great points. I have to play brief devil's advocate and just mention that our most urban cities with the best public transit and walkability are also the most expensive.
Only in areas where significant gentrification has occurred. However, the same could be said of Riverside/Avondale, San Marco or Jacksonville Beach.
QuoteIf we could make the most of our urban core and maintain good prices, we would be set.
If you expand the connectivity, areas like Brentwood, New Springfield, Panama Park, Eastside and Durkeeville could become neighborhoods that offer affordable walkable living opportunities with the amenities of downtown Jacksonville a couple of rail stops (or a direct bike ride via a bike trail) away.
QuoteEven in Atlanta and Houston, two sprawled metropolises in the south, the intown living prices are much higher than here in Jax (whereas the suburbs are much much cheaper). I know that there is a magic boundary whereby two identical apartments could be $500+ apart depending on which side of the perimeter they are on, and tack on another $500+ if it's in Midtown.
Get out of Midtown and check out the area around MARTA's Ashby station, Castleberry Hill, Inman Park or Cabbagetown. Different price points but all still offer residents different styles of urban living through the connectivity of reliable mass transit. In DC, the same goes for Columbia Heights. A walkable neighborhood with affordable housing (as far as DC goes) with direct access to vibrant spots like Dupont Circle, Chinatown and Downtown DC.
QuoteHopefully Jax doesn't have to see the price increases that most cities go through once they become larger and more urban.
This is a pretty interesting topic. With the fall of the real estate market, those intown prices aren't as high as you would think. For example, one of our MJ co-founders has been working out of Chicago for a few weeks each month. The rental rate of his apartment in the Loop is nearly identical to that of my Southside condo and they're roughly the same size. However, what we typically overlook in comparing these places are our transportation costs. If you factor in your transportation costs with the cheap housing in Suburban Jax, you may be spending more money then those in these other places.
QuoteDefinitely agree that putting 100% of our eggs in one neighborhood's basket would be a complete waste because everywhere else would bring it down.
Going back to cost, though, there has to be a balance. Housing prices per square foot and taxes (in most cities, but since we're consolidated it does not apply) are more expensive in the city, as are certain other costs like shopping and dining. Many people who live in a city also basically have to send their kids to a private school because usually inner city schools are pretty horrible. (Man if we just cured the education problem, we could EASILY convince so many families to come back to the city) However, you don't always have to maintain a yard, in some cities you don't need a car, and you can save significantly in transportation costs, as well as time and frustration. Many people, unfortunately, don't think that way, and usually it does end up being more expensive to live "in" the city rather than the burbs.
Education, mass transit, vibrant urban living, good parks, etc. are all related, imo. If you can attract a more educated population to a particular location, over time the conditions of the schools serving that location will improve. The keys are clustering multiple resources in a particular spot and time. None of this stuff fell apart overnight and it won't change overnight. We have to be prepared to invest in solutions that could take more than a decade to eventually play out.
QuoteThis is a pretty interesting topic. With the fall of the real estate market, those intown prices aren't as high as you would think. For example, one of our MJ co-founders has been working out of Chicago for a few weeks each month. The rental rate of his apartment in the Loop is nearly identical to that of my Southside condo and they're roughly the same size. However, what we typically overlook in comparing these places are our transportation costs. If you factor in your transportation costs with the cheap housing in Suburban Jax, you may be spending more money then those in these other places.
That's a very good point. Transportation costs are very high in this city compared to many other metro areas. Jacksonville has something like the third highest commute time in the country... behind LA and I believe the 2nd is Houston.
I still think that if you have a family of four with two young kids, it is cheaper to live in the suburbs. Many people want to live in an urban, gentrifying neighborhood, true, but families with young kids are always thinking kids first and will most likely not want to live in a cheaper urban neighborhood for if anything perceived safety reasons (heck even Ortega, San Marco, and Avondale have considerably higher crime than your typical suburban subdivision filled with families). Their only two other options are a nice urban neighborhood, which can be expensive and they'll still have to send their kids to private school (Stanton and Paxon are great if in IB, but that's lottery), OR they can bite the bullet and live in some sterile WGV neighborhood with cheap home prices AND a "free" good public school. The extra transportation costs (time, money, frustration, stress) are not so great that they end up being more expensive than paying more for a nice urban neighborhood and sending kids to private school.
Plus at least right now Jax only has longer commute times due more to distances travelled to work and not necessarily time spent in traffic. For a city its size it has a fair share of traffic, but decades to go before it sees truly amazing traffic that some cities with populations above 4 million already see. Even here in Atlanta where the traffic can be horrendous at ANY given hour of the day, people from Washington D.C., a similar sized metro, think it's a breeze. (Same amount of car traffic there, but instead of 20 lane highways they are 6-8 lanes, and think old Woodrow Wilson bridge)
The idea is not to stamp out the suburbs. You can have suburbs that are on commuter lines that work within comp plans. Smart growth is not one size fits all. Jax however has great suburbs, rural areas, industrial parks and even a few great core neighborhoods what we do not have is a great urban center. Our tax base would benefit greatly from core development because the infrastructure is largely in place.
P.S. Cheaper is rarely better.
QuoteI still think that if you have a family of four with two young kids, it is cheaper to live in the suburbs.
In Jacksonville, this situation is more complex. Factor in transportation costs and living in Jax's burbs aren't so cheap. However, you really can't compare suburban vs urban living options in Jax because we don't offer much in terms of urban living. Jacksonville lacks the basic amenities that make urban living worth living. There's a limited supply of housing types, bad mass transit, poor schools and parks no one would want their kids playing in. There are a few historic districts, but a healthy urban core needs historic and modern fabric.
QuoteMany people want to live in an urban, gentrifying neighborhood, true, but families with young kids are always thinking kids first and will most likely not want to live in a cheaper urban neighborhood for if anything perceived safety reasons (heck even Ortega, San Marco, and Avondale have considerably higher crime than your typical suburban subdivision filled with families).
I can answer this question since I'm the type you're describing here. Crime wasn't the issue in my case. Growing up in what many would call "a hood," you learn that crime is everywhere and you really don't become a victim unless you do things that make you a target. Anyway, my decision to live in the Southside basically boiled down to this city having a lack of urban amenities one would expect that would come with paying more for less square footage. The location of my job at the time (Ponte Vedra) also played a role in the decision.
QuotePlus at least right now Jax only has longer commute times due more to distances travelled to work and not necessarily time spent in traffic. For a city its size it has a fair share of traffic, but decades to go before it sees truly amazing traffic that some cities with populations above 4 million already see. Even here in Atlanta where the traffic can be horrendous at ANY given hour of the day, people from Washington D.C., a similar sized metro, think it's a breeze. (Same amount of car traffic there, but instead of 20 lane highways they are 6-8 lanes, and think old Woodrow Wilson bridge)
We get nowhere comparing Jax's traffic conditions to cities 5-10 times its size. Compare Jax to its actual peers (Louisville, Birmingham, Richmond, Charlotte, Norfolk, Memphis, etc.) and you'll see that we do have congestion issues, especially along specific corridors. Its time that we use solutions like mass transit, not only for traffic but urban sustainable economic development as well. The last thing we want is to do nothing until traffic and brain drain really get out of hand.
Regarding a lack of urban housing types, here's an example. Let's say you want to live in a town or rowhouse within a pedestrian friendly area. This option gives you some private yard space and you don't have people living above or below you. Outside of the Parks at Cathedral complex, you'll be hardpressed to find this building type in the urban core. Head to a peer city, such as Charlotte, and you'll find thousands of units at prices that are competitive with those offered in the burbs.
Examples of this style of housing in inner city Charlotte
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-6141-p1140397.JPG)
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-6153-p1140428.JPG)
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-6158-p1140430.JPG)
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-6157-p1130807.JPG)
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-6137-p1130811.JPG)
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-6159-p1130785.JPG)
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-1425-p1010039.jpg)
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-3002-flickr-weldonweaver.jpg)
^Want to head to Uptown? No problem, the nearby LRT, streetcar line, multiuse path and the bike facility network will take you there. This type of option is now available in many similar sized spread out sunbelt sprawlers such as Salt Lake City, Austin, Houston, Memphis and soon Norfolk. If you're going to pay more for a smaller housing unit to live the urban lifestyle, most would expect that options like these would become a part of the balancing out. In Jax, we don't have this choice.
I went to Indy several years back, probably between 2000 and 2002. It was very impressive and there were several residential options available. I picked up fliers and some classifieds, and the intown rental prices seemed very reasonable. I think that was pretty helpful in their success.
My fear is that the Jax delegation will think Circle Centre (urban mall owned by Simon that was heavily subsidized by the City) is the reason for Indy's success. The true source of revitilization is much more complicated than that.
Many of the Jax residential options are pricey waterfront options. Plus the urban amenties are missing. The market needs to correct for this in order to get urban pioneers to invest in DT.
Additionally, I think the first wave of Jax DT pioneers got burned. First, the city backed off of it's commitment to DT generally, and then the R.E. crash occurred. This will only make it that much more difficult in the future to recruit the next 'wave' of pioneers.
I grew up in Indy. My family lived in the burbs there. We live in the burbs here.
The down town turn around started in the 70's and 80's with the White River State Park,the Zoo and the first areans/stadiums. It took them forty years to get where they are now. If Jacksonville decides to do the same thing. It will take a long time too.
Quote from: Overstreet on October 12, 2010, 02:13:44 PM
I grew up in Indy. My family lived in the burbs there. We live in the burbs here.
The down town turn around started in the 70's and 80's with the White River State Park,the Zoo and the first areans/stadiums. It took them forty years to get where they are now. If Jacksonville decides to do the same thing. It will take a long time too.
IF we started tomorrow, yeah.............a very long time! Tomorrow is not here yet, just lips flapping to this point! City Hall, ie. the next Mayor, has to take the lead, because thats the primary job of the Mayor! Lost possibilities are just that.......lost and gone forever! Time for a change!
Link to the River. Two stories in the Times Union today.
The first story in the metro section by Tia Mitchell about the mayorial forum at UNF and mayoral candidate Rick Mullaney spoke of revitalizing downtown and said the solution is creating an entertainment district.
Does this mean that the 680' Promised Downtown Public Pier will be separate and outside the JEDC and next to the entertainment district? It should.
The second story in the business section by David Bauerlein is about the Chambers visit to Indianapolis. Hugh Greene, Chamber chairman and CEO of Baptist said Jacksonville has built in advantages with natural assets like the St. Johns River.
Where was Baptist and the Chamber when the OFWB was a viable option for the people of Jacksonville?
What is the Chambers position on the Promised Downtown Public Pier?
Make no mistake about it. The Promised Downtown Public Pier should be one of the biggest city wide city council and campaign issues in the upcoming spring election. Keep score.
Alright.
"The first story in the metro section by Tia Mitchell about the mayorial forum at UNF and mayoral candidate Rick Mullaney spoke of revitalizing downtown and said the solution is creating an entertainment district."
This sounds ominous to me. COJ should only be facilitating DT development, not trying create something.
Imagine being stuck in Oklahoma City........
Oklahoma City Chesapeake Boathouse
A Flagship on the River
Brightening the river bank just south of downtown Oklahoma City,The Chesapeake Boathouse anchors a new water sports hub that draws paddlers of all stripes from around the state.Designed by architect Rand Elliot to look like a sleek rowing shell,it's one of the region's finest examples of a once -blighted area transformed in to a tourism destination also popular with locals.
The City's next boathouse opens this fall.
chesapeakeboathouse.org
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on October 20, 2010, 04:08:31 PM
This sounds ominous to me. COJ should only be facilitating DT development, not trying create something.
Bingo! And Public Access is its Name'0
The Mayor, any city council member right now could introduce legislation that could keep the pier separate from the other 40 plus acres that was Shipyards/Landmar which was a disaster. Remember its just dumb luck that we are getting this back. Not skill.
Where is Gaffney on this issue? The pier is in his district. His opponent in District 7 is interested in the pier and is definately interested in Hogans Creek which is also in District 7.
There is no way in hell that I'm voting for any Mayor that is just turning there back to this immediate opportunity for Public Access and Economic opportunity.
Somebody ask Mullaney if the Promised Downtown Public Pier would be outside the control of JEDC and the Entertainment District?
chesapeakeboathouse.org-Nice facility for $3.5 million. Good stuff. It can and already should be happening in Jacksonville now. We are a port city. 14 ports in the state of Florida. One local company will donate containers that could be retrofitted for the immediate creation of jobs on our 680' Downtown Promised Public Pier and immediately creat a buzz in the state.
NM, and everyone else. Just notice that when the local TV stations showcase our Downtown riverfront in the morning, afternoon and evening news broadcasts that our river is empty. Every day we are reminded how you are not allowed to participate.
Anybody want to see McCoys Creek, Hogans Creek, The Pier, Exchange Club Island?
Quote from: north miami on October 20, 2010, 04:31:15 PM
Imagine being stuck in Oklahoma City........
Oklahoma City Chesapeake Boathouse
A Flagship on the River
Brightening the river bank just south of downtown Oklahoma City,The Chesapeake Boathouse anchors a new water sports hub that draws paddlers of all stripes from around the state.Designed by architect Rand Elliot to look like a sleek rowing shell,it's one of the region's finest examples of a once -blighted area transformed in to a tourism destination also popular with locals.
The City's next boathouse opens this fall.
chesapeakeboathouse.org
And it did not even require a Chamber $$$visit$$$ to Ocklahoma City to learn of the Boathouse effort..................
I wonder if the Boathouse effort would even be recognized as worthy of note.