Current Courthouse

[futurejax]

What happens to it when the new one opens?  IMO the key to the northbank long term is making Bay Street area one long thoroughfare of restaraunts/entertainment/retail/ residences that bridges the Landing to the Sports complex area. Develop the Shipyards area intelligently and now you've got quite a stretch and you eventually improve north from there.  (I'm sure I'm not walking on virgin ground here BTW)  But again, need to get that old courthouse, ideally the courthouse annex, stupid police building and somehow maxwell house out of the way.  But first things first with regards to my opening question.

[jcjohnpaint]

I still think this would be the best place for a convention center with a river front/ hotels/ restaurants etc.  Do to the space it probably would have to be a vertical center, but I see no problem there. 

[thelakelander]

The popular idea for the current courthouse site is a convention center.  However, I'm not sold that trying to spread out development to connect the central Northbank and the Stadium District is the key to revitalization.  To become economically viable long term, Downtown will need to replace the built in economic generating anchors it lost over the last half century (railroad, maritime industry, etc.) in addition to clustering complementing uses in a compact setting and reestablishing connectivity with the surrounding urban neighborhoods.  None of these things sound as sexy as "build a convention center, aquarium, entertainment district, attract tourist, suburbanites, etc." but they are at the crux of what ails downtown, imo.

[ChriswUfGator]

+1 to Lake

Also, if you look at the convention business, every city on the planet jumped on that dumb bandwagon in the 1990s and 2000s, but almost all of them continually lose money on it. The only real winners on the convention front are Las Vegas and Orlando, and that's because they both have other things going on (entertainment, amenities, etc.) that we can never compete with. That ship has already sailed. Vegas and Orlando by themselves account for probably more than half of the convention market, leaving all the others to compete for whatever smaller scraps are left over.

No event of any sufficient size to move our performance meter will locate here, because we will never compete with the entertainment and amenities in a Las Vegas or an Orlando setting. When you look at the prime locations for public events, it's laughable that we have this "build it and they will come" mentality, because they won't come.

I don't care how snazzy of a convention center we build, when you've got an event deciding between Vegas or LA and Jacksonville Florida, what do you think they're going to pick? They'll take the Motel 8 in Vegas over the nicest convention center in the world in Jacksonville, for obvious reasons. This is a cooked goose, that business is already built-out and we can't compete, and we just need to let it go already and focus on what will actually bring this place back.

What made JAX a successful city was not conventions, it was having a variety of centrally located industries and businesses that actually employed people, and we have totally lost focus on that. The convention business is a one-trick pony. It brings people in for a day or two, and in JAX that means they stay in chain-owned hotels (so the money doesn't stay here locally), spend all day in the convention center (run by SMG out of Chicago, so the money doesn't stay here), eating in the restaurant concessions operated by the hotels and by the convention center (so again, the money doesn't stay here), before leaving and resigning us to the other 364 days a year where we still need an actual functioning local economy.

I really would hate to see us sink even more good money after bad by continuing to chase an over-saturated convention industry that we really can't compete in anyway. Take the money and use it on something that actually matters.

[tufsu1]

Also, if you look at the convention business, every city on the planet jumped on that dumb bandwagon in the 1990s and 2000s, but almost all of them continually lose money on it.

This is the same logic that anti-transit people use.

While it is true that most convention centers operate at a deficit, the spinoff revenue created from hotels, restaurants, shopping, & entertainment make up the difference and then some.

btw...nobody is talking about competing with Las vegas and Orlando for major conventions...but how about competing with Charlotte, Nashville, and Tampa for smaller conventions.

The convention industry, like most others, has tiers....the big convention centers are Vegas, Orlando, Chicago, Atlanta, and Detroit (auto show)....then there are the mid-size centers like Baltimore, Philly, DC, and Boston....and then there are the smaller facilities (less than 300,000 square feet), where we can fit in....sadly, with currently less than 100,000 square feet, we are in the micro market.  

[Bativac]

My hope is that they level the building and turn the resulting broken foundation into a surface parking lot... maybe surrounded by a chain link fence with some weeds to give it a little character. And dare I suggest -- a guy with a hot dog cart could operate out on the sidewalk! (Wait, unless Mark's sells hot dogs.)

[thelakelander]

As far as the convention business in Jax goes, I look at it in the same manner as our Amtrak situation.  Its less about competing with Orlando, Chicago or whoever and more about clustering development in a walkable setting to stimulate additional vibrancy.  Both of these things are already here.  However, they are in locations where we don't get the best economic benefit and utilization out of them, thus coordinated relocation makes sense.

[ben says]

My hope is that they level the building and turn the resulting broken foundation into a surface parking lot... maybe surrounded by a chain link fence with some weeds to give it a little character. And dare I suggest -- a guy with a hot dog cart could operate out on the sidewalk! (Wait, unless Mark's sells hot dogs.)

[ChriswUfGator]

Also, if you look at the convention business, every city on the planet jumped on that dumb bandwagon in the 1990s and 2000s, but almost all of them continually lose money on it.

This is the same logic that anti-transit people use.

While it is true that most convention centers operate at a deficit, the spinoff revenue created from hotels, restaurants, shopping, & entertainment make up the difference and then some.

btw...nobody is talking about competing with Las vegas and Orlando for major conventions...but how about competing with Charlotte, Nashville, and Tampa for smaller conventions.

The convention industry, like most others, has tiers....the big convention centers are Vegas, Orlando, Chicago, Atlanta, and Detroit (auto show)....then there are the mid-size centers like Baltimore, Philly, DC, and Boston....and then there are the smaller facilities (less than 300,000 square feet), where we can fit in....sadly, with currently less than 100,000 square feet, we are in the micro market.  

Right, but that's a flawed analysis Tufsu. What really matters is how much money makes it back into the local economy. The reality is very little. All we're really doing is subsidizing a money-losing business so that SMG in Chicago, Omni Hotels in Dallas, and whatever corporate chain restaurants they all operate, can make money. It's us as a local community handing over money to giant corporations thousands of miles away.

If you look at this alleged trickle-down effect, it doesn't exist. The extent of any of these players' local involvement is almost nil, they are remotely-run and hire as few employees as possible at as close to minimum wage as possible to do the physical running of the facility, and then the income is shipped out to support a corporate infrastructure located elsewhere. You or I, nor the rest of this community, will ever see the lion's share of the income generated off this business, despite being forced to fund it as taxpayers. Your normal hotel has a banquet/functions manager and a general manager that make a 6-figure salary, a couple mid-level management types pulling $50k, and then the other 98% making $7/hr with no benefits.

If you just do the math on that, it's already parasitic because that's not a living wage, which means we're all supporting some portion of their healthcare when they visit an ER, and likely some portion of their rent and food and transportation as well depending on what assistance programs they're on. These type of businesses (corporate chain restaurants, hotels, etc.) are exactly what DO NOT give back to a community, because the profits are shipped back to wherever the corporation is located and their involvement with the community is deliberately focused on paying as little to anyone as possible. There is a larger debate here, on the fairness involved in paying someone what you know they can't live on, but I digress.

This is not a substitute, in any way shape or form, for an actual industry (manufacturing, shipping, etc.) that pays a living wage and has roots in the community. We should get out of this taxpayer-subsidized money-losing business, that does nothing but hand out our local tax dollars to foreign corporations.

[ChriswUfGator]

As far as the convention business in Jax goes, I look at it in the same manner as our Amtrak situation.  Its less about competing with Orlando, Chicago or whoever and more about clustering development in a walkable setting to stimulate additional vibrancy.  Both of these things are already here.  However, they are in locations where we don't get the best economic benefit and utilization out of them, thus coordinated relocation makes sense.

You have to compare it, though. Because of its very nature. People who are deciding where to locate an event will most definitely be comparing other cities to JAX when deciding whether or not to hold the event here, so who in their right mind would think that failing to analyze our competitive position in the marketplace before deciding whether or not to stay in the business or make an additional investment is worth it, is somehow a good idea?

Lake, fact is when you look at the marketplace that serves this industry, we are a buggy whip company trying to compete with a Gulfsteam V. I don't care how much money we spend, we are never going to be competitive with the tiny handfull of cities that have managed to corner the market. It's not about the facilities, it's about what else is here. Can we compete with Las Vegas? Really? Who wants to argue that one? It's just not going to happen.

We need to get out of that money-losing business and focus on what can actually work. I know this is heresy to planning types who have been indoctrinated to believe the convention business is the best thing since electricity, but the reality is that only holds true in a number of US cities I can count on my hands and the rest lose money on it with little positive to show for it.

[ChriswUfGator]

Also, if you look at the convention business, every city on the planet jumped on that dumb bandwagon in the 1990s and 2000s, but almost all of them continually lose money on it.

This is the same logic that anti-transit people use.

While it is true that most convention centers operate at a deficit, the spinoff revenue created from hotels, restaurants, shopping, & entertainment make up the difference and then some.

btw...nobody is talking about competing with Las vegas and Orlando for major conventions...but how about competing with Charlotte, Nashville, and Tampa for smaller conventions.

The convention industry, like most others, has tiers....the big convention centers are Vegas, Orlando, Chicago, Atlanta, and Detroit (auto show)....then there are the mid-size centers like Baltimore, Philly, DC, and Boston....and then there are the smaller facilities (less than 300,000 square feet), where we can fit in....sadly, with currently less than 100,000 square feet, we are in the micro market. 

Also one thing I forgot to say is, the small and micro markets can't draw big enough events to make a positive impact on the local economy. If I spend $100mm to bring in $5mm in trickedown, then I don't consider that success. It's actually a net negative. This isn't "bring in some smaller amount of money at any cost" it's about a cost-benefit, e.g. are we getting our money's worth. And this is a money-losing business for the players in this segment of the market. It's simply not worth it, the market is oversaturated as it sits, and almost all lose money on it.

[thelakelander]

As far as the convention business in Jax goes, I look at it in the same manner as our Amtrak situation.  Its less about competing with Orlando, Chicago or whoever and more about clustering development in a walkable setting to stimulate additional vibrancy.  Both of these things are already here.  However, they are in locations where we don't get the best economic benefit and utilization out of them, thus coordinated relocation makes sense.

You have to compare it, though. Because of its very nature. People who are deciding where to locate an event will most definitely be comparing other cities to JAX when deciding whether or not to hold the event here, so who in their right mind would think that failing to analyze our competitive position in the marketplace before deciding whether or not to stay in the business or make an additional investment is worth it, is somehow a good idea?

What about the events that are already here?  What about having meeting space available for home grown events, trade shows, festivals and corportations?  These are things that take place at the Prime Osborn now that provides less economic impact than they should because of the Prime Osborn's isolated location.  I believe there is an argument to be made for relocating this activity to an area where existing downtown businesses and walkability can benefit.

Lake, fact is when you look at the marketplace that serves this industry, we are a buggy whip company trying to compete with a Gulfsteam V. I don't care how much money we spend, we are never going to be competitive with the tiny handfull of cities that have managed to corner the market. It's not about the facilities, it's about what else is here. Can we compete with Las Vegas? Really? Who wants to argue that one? It's just not going to happen.

No, we can't compete against Vegas, but that's only one use of an exhibition hall space.  You need exhibition space for the industry, business and cultural event already here.  Why not make sure that space is in a place that triggers walkable urban synergy? Can you really be a business and industrial hub without a convention facility or adaquate exhibition space?  Is there a major American metro out there today that successfully attracts well paying jobs and quality businesses without an exhibition hall to support them?

We need to get out of that money-losing business and focus on what can actually work. I know this is heresy to planning types who have been indoctrinated to believe the convention business is the best thing since electricity, but the reality is that only holds true in a number of US cities I can count on my hands and the rest lose money on it with little positive to show for it.

I don't think we should be looking at the convention market as a money making business.  The same goes for mass transit.  Instead, more focus should be given to better utilizing our existing assets to grow our economy.  We already have a stake in exhibition space.  However, downtown would be much better off if that space were located adjacent to complementing uses.

[thelakelander]

With all of that said, I'm not arguing that a convention center will revitalize downtown because it won't.  For example, I'd advocate using $100 million to incentivize small business downtown or construct a streetcar before building a convention center.  However, my point is more about better utilizing the assets we already have with the concepts of clustering and connectivity.  Better utilization of our existing business can be a great benefit to the health of downtown.

[copperfiend]

My hope is that they level the building and turn the resulting broken foundation into a surface parking lot... maybe surrounded by a chain link fence with some weeds to give it a little character. And dare I suggest -- a guy with a hot dog cart could operate out on the sidewalk! (Wait, unless Mark's sells hot dogs.)

Funny you should mention this. I have it on good authority that such plans are already being drawn up.

[Bativac]

Also, if you look at the convention business, every city on the planet jumped on that dumb bandwagon in the 1990s and 2000s, but almost all of them continually lose money on it.

This is the same logic that anti-transit people use.

While it is true that most convention centers operate at a deficit, the spinoff revenue created from hotels, restaurants, shopping, & entertainment make up the difference and then some.

btw...nobody is talking about competing with Las vegas and Orlando for major conventions...but how about competing with Charlotte, Nashville, and Tampa for smaller conventions.

The convention industry, like most others, has tiers....the big convention centers are Vegas, Orlando, Chicago, Atlanta, and Detroit (auto show)....then there are the mid-size centers like Baltimore, Philly, DC, and Boston....and then there are the smaller facilities (less than 300,000 square feet), where we can fit in....sadly, with currently less than 100,000 square feet, we are in the micro market.  

Right, but that's a flawed analysis Tufsu. What really matters is how much money makes it back into the local economy. The reality is very little. All we're really doing is subsidizing a money-losing business so that SMG in Chicago, Omni Hotels in Dallas, and whatever corporate chain restaurants they all operate, can make money. It's us as a local community handing over money to giant corporations thousands of miles away.

If you look at this alleged trickle-down effect, it doesn't exist. The extent of any of these players' local involvement is almost nil, they are remotely-run and hire as few employees as possible at as close to minimum wage as possible to do the physical running of the facility, and then the income is shipped out to support a corporate infrastructure located elsewhere. You or I, nor the rest of this community, will ever see the lion's share of the income generated off this business, despite being forced to fund it as taxpayers. Your normal hotel has a banquet/functions manager and a general manager that make a 6-figure salary, a couple mid-level management types pulling $50k, and then the other 98% making $7/hr with no benefits.

If you just do the math on that, it's already parasitic because that's not a living wage, which means we're all supporting some portion of their healthcare when they visit an ER, and likely some portion of their rent and food and transportation as well depending on what assistance programs they're on. These type of businesses (corporate chain restaurants, hotels, etc.) are exactly what DO NOT give back to a community, because the profits are shipped back to wherever the corporation is located and their involvement with the community is deliberately focused on paying as little to anyone as possible. There is a larger debate here, on the fairness involved in paying someone what you know they can't live on, but I digress.

This is not a substitute, in any way shape or form, for an actual industry (manufacturing, shipping, etc.) that pays a living wage and has roots in the community. We should get out of this taxpayer-subsidized money-losing business, that does nothing but hand out our local tax dollars to foreign corporations.

Similar results have been found when the impact of sports teams on local economies has been studied.

This space is right on the river, separated only by a surface parking lot, right? Can't some kind of mixed-use building go in? Assuming you can find somebody who wants to build one. Retail and restaurants in the bottom, office space (because downtown needs more vacant office space, am I right) or residences (because downtown needs more vacant residence space, am I right).

It'd be great for something to go in that can take advantage of the proximity to the river and capitalize on the surrounding entertainment district. But I don't see any private enterprise wanting to build anything that big anytime soon. I have this vision of an empty courthouse building for the next decade, followed by another decade of a fenced-off vacant lot.

But we can dream...