Five Drastic Steps To Revive Downtown Jacksonville

[thelakelander]

We can debate the merits of participating in the convention industry till we're blue in the face but the point of a riverfront convention center in this particular article centers around connectivity with our existing already subsidized complementing assets.

One thing that every vibrant American downtown has is pedestrian oriented connectivity. That's one of the major things downtown Jacksonville lacks. While it is certainly debatable that a larger convention center will spur growth in the local convention industry, the positive impact of a center anchoring the heart of the Northbank is not. San Diego's experience suggests that a well placed convention center does have the ability to anchor a vibrant urban setting.

Connectivity and clustering complementing uses is anything but pie in the sky.  It works not only for convention centers, but mass transit, walkability and even baby making.  What's mentioned in this article has nothing to do with a built it and they will come approach or creating people on sidewalks from magical pixi dust.  Its all about location an existing asset to stimulate compact walkability in a small setting that now is currently spread out across the Northbank.

[ChriswUfGator]

Well we agree that connectivity and clustering are important factors, no doubt.

But just as important is WHAT we are clustering and connecting. I already covered this, albeit facetiously, in that other thread. As did several other posters like DogWalker. You can't simply ignore WHAT you are clustering and expect that clustering and connectivity are going to outweigh the decision to build a cluster around a highly specialized structure that there is no demand for in the market, and that is wholly inappropriate for the environment in question.

As I said before, if the goal here is apparently just to build structures designed to serve commercial markets in which we can't compete, then why just stop at a convention center? Hell, why not a Uranium mine? We can cluster the Uranium mine with DogWalker's snow removal company, a few buggy-whip factories, an Asbestos plant, maybe throw in an Aluminum cookware factory, and then top it all off with some restaurants serving calf's brains and Beondegi and even a streetcar! I'm sure clustering and connectivity will make it a smashing success.

No amount of clustering can overcome there being no market for a highly specialized structure, Lake.

[thelakelander]

Again your focus is more on trying to gain market share in a specialize area of the market we're not in.  My focus is more set in on the reality of our current built environment.  

1. We currently have a convention center in what should be our transportation center.

2. We currently don't get the proper economic utilization out of the few events we already have.

3. We have a struggling entertainment district, festival retail marketplace and 966-unit convention center hotel that are all heavily subsidized us.

4. We currently don't get the proper economic utilization out of these investments that we should be enjoying given our significant investments.

5. We currently have a dismal disjointed mass transit network and an Amtrak station in complete isolation.

6. DT won't come back until a viable transportation network is redeveloped within its boundaries, bringing lost connectivity back.

7. If we want a viable transportation center, the convention center needs to be removed from that facility.

At this point, we have to make a decision.

A. Don't do anything and continue to fail at everything (transit, convention, Hyatt, Landing, Bay Street, etc.).

B. Bring transportation back, completely get out the convention industry and run off the remaining events, trade shows, etc. that we have now. Also risk losing our shirts in the Hyatt investment.

C. Work to put each asset in its proper place in the form of connectivity and clustering complementing uses together.

My choice is and will remain C, given the state of our current landscape.  I have no problem with placing the amount of people attending periodic events like Magnet Mania and the Black Expo in the middle of the Northbank.  My recommendation would be that if this is done, seek public/private partnerships and design the space to be mixed use instead of the one and done box we have now.  We'll have to choose to disagree on this one.  

[Dog Walker]

Is there any reason that events like the Home and Patio Show or Magnet Mania could not be held in the Veteran's Memorial Arena?  How do the sq/ft compare?  The Arena is an underused facility with plenty of parking around it.

[vicupstate]

^^^I read your other posts on that other thread concerning Jax getting a new Convention Center. I admit, at first I was more in the "pro convention center crowd", but after reading your posts, you actually swayed my thinking against building a Convention Center. You brought up tons of valid points concerning to Convention business, and far as I'm concerned the CONS outweight the PROS. That 'pie in the sky' and 'build it and they will come' mentality concerning every urban problem is what's really gonna sink DT Jax into an oblivion;

+1

I honestly don't understand how thinking people can not see what a Convention Center has done for Baltimore, Indianapolis, Charlotte and yes, San Diego, and then just dismiss out of hand that one could have the same effect in Jacksonville.

Consider this from CHARLOTTE in 2010. 

The largest convention in Charlotte's history began taking shape Thursday, as exhibitors unpacked their wares and visitors started arriving for the 139th annual National Rifle Association Meetings and Exhibits.

Organizers estimate the meeting -- one of the largest conventions nationally -- could bring 70,000 people to Charlotte  for the three-day event.

The convention officially opens Friday, but several preliminary events take place today. The NRA meeting closes Sunday.

At midday Thursday, exhibitors were very busy at the Convention Center. The job of unloading crates of merchandise was completed in the morning, and the exhibitors are scheduled to unpack and set up their wares this afternoon. At least a dozen people stood in line shortly after noon at the Exhibitor Check-In line.

Hotel rooms in the Charlotte area are at a premium this weekend.

"There are still some rooms available, but it usually depends on last-minute cancellations," said Erica Ross, of ConferenceDirect, which is handling lodging for the NRA. "Many of the hotels are fully booked."

Ross said the pressure to find rooms is heightened by two other weekend events in Charlotte -- UltraSwim, which is bringing some of the nation's top swimmers to the city for four days of competition; and Saturday's commencement exercises at UNC Charlotte.

A public information officer for the NRA said this weekend's event has attracted 460 exhibitors. She said the organization had to turn away a number of others who wanted to attend, because of a lack of space.

"This dwarfs anything I've seen," said a woman who works in special events for the Convention Center. The woman, asking not to be identified, said she has worked at most major conventions in Charlotte and described the NRA event as "a really, really big deal."

The center of activity is the Convention Center, and motorists headed into center city can expect plenty of traffic, both vehicular and pedestrian, clogging the streets today and especially Friday.

Tractor trailers delivering merchandise and other materials for NRA booths began arriving Wednesday, and a steady stream of trucks lined the East Stonewall Street exit for many hours during the day. More of the same is expected today, when exhibitors will be setting up booths.

On Thursday morning, crews used forklifts on the Convention Center floor to open wooden crates and prepare items -- including a stuffed grizzly bear -- for exhibits. Red, white and blue curtains hung between booths.

While the NRA event is bringing some big names, such as former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, it also is attracting a large number of related events.

The media will be heavily represented, with crews from CNN and Fox TV very visible in the uptown area. And a number of nationally syndicated radio programs, such as Jason Lewis (heard in Charlotte on WBCN, 1660 AM), will originate from Charlotte on Friday and over the weekend.



Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/05/13/1432390/palin-beck-headline-nra-convention.html##ixzz1C3jBQLpx

BTW, last time I checked Charlotte didn't have riverfront OR a beach.  It will take a few more decades of global warming before it does either. 

Of course, it does have a great DT, but that didn't happen until after restaurants, clubs and entertainment venues started opening up there.  Before that you could roll up the streets at 5pm.  No doubt the opening of the new, much larger convention center in 1995 help bring in those establishments.   

BTW, the 'left' does Conventions in Charlotte too, the NAACP had it's national convention almost as soon as the new Convention Center opened its doors.
 

[ChriswUfGator]

Again your focus is more on trying to gain market share in a specialize area of the market we're not in.  My focus is more set in on the reality of our current built environment.  

1. We currently have a convention center in what should be our transportation center.

2. We currently don't get the proper economic utilization out of the few events we already have.

3. We have a struggling entertainment district, festival retail marketplace and 966-unit convention center hotel that are all heavily subsidized us.

4. We currently don't get the proper economic utilization out of these investments that we should be enjoying given our significant investments.

5. We currently have a dismal disjointed mass transit network and an Amtrak station in complete isolation.

6. DT won't come back until a viable transportation network is redeveloped within its boundaries, bringing lost connectivity back.

7. If we want a viable transportation center, the convention center needs to be removed from that facility.

At this point, we have to make a decision.

A. Don't do anything and continue to fail at everything (transit, convention, Hyatt, Landing, Bay Street, etc.).

B. Bring transportation back, completely get out the convention industry and run off the remaining events, trade shows, etc. that we have now. Also risk losing our shirts in the Hyatt investment.

C. Work to put each asset in its proper place in the form of connectivity and clustering complementing uses together.

My choice is and will remain C, given the state of our current landscape.  I have no problem with placing the amount of people attending periodic events like Magnet Mania and the Black Expo in the middle of the Northbank.  My recommendation would be that if this is done, seek public/private partnerships and design the space to be mixed use instead of the one and done box we have now.  We'll have to choose to disagree on this one.  

Lake, I respect you and like you very much personally, but we have very different views on this topic.

I mean, listen to what you're suggesting here. This discussion is really a pretty damning microcosm of what is wrong with the whole "build it and they will come" philosophy in general. You're arguing, and with a straight face I might add, that the best way out of our previous expensive boondoggles like the Hyatt is by building yet another new and even more expensive boondoggle to support the first money-losing boondoggles, so we can (maybe) avoid losing our investment.

That's called "doubling down" or "gambler's logic" in Vegas, and it doesn't turn out any better at the craps table than it does in urban planning. So at what point does this stop? Or do we just keep figuring out a way to throw ever increasing amounts of public money at these things, hoping the next boondoggle will support the previous one, and then the next, and then the next again, when the reality is that what you see with the Hyatt is the only possible outcome of building a commercial structure in a market where there is no demand for it?

You are, despite all actual evidence to the contrary, continuing to assume that by simply building the structure, the demand will magically materialize. Well, it doesn't. The successful convention cities became that way through factors that had nothing to do with the building. Orlando has Disney. Las Vegas is Las Vegas. Etc., etc., etc. So let me ask you this; If we built Las Vegas' convention center in Jacksonville tomorrow, would we then have Las Vegas' convention business? Do you really think the building controls the business? Don't you see how absurd that logic is?

And part B of your support for this is that you're actually arguing that the best way out of our current boondoggles is to build another boondoggle that might, maybe, we hope, support the prior boondoggles. This is the problem, in a nutshell, with using taxpayer funds to build commercial structures in a market where there isn't sufficient demand. It will never get better, and it will never work, no matter how many times you try to prop up the losses in this psuedo-ponzi-scheme with additional investment, because you always wind up coming back to the basic fact that it never had a viable market.

[thelakelander]

Is there any reason that events like the Home and Patio Show or Magnet Mania could not be held in the Veteran's Memorial Arena?  How do the sq/ft compare?  The Arena is an underused facility with plenty of parking around it.

My main concern would be no connectivity.  Moving something to the sports district does nothing to improve the connectivity with a convention center hotel and adjacent entertainment/dining district.  The placement of our arena is a fine example of how we overlook the importance of clustering complementing uses within a compact setting and its impact on creating foot traffic and synergy.  I'd offer up our isolated arena as what not to do and Orlando's as what to do, when the land is available.  Here are a few shots of Orlando's new arena.  Take note of the ability to integrate a public structure with street level retail within an urban setting.

[ChriswUfGator]

^^^I read your other posts on that other thread concerning Jax getting a new Convention Center. I admit, at first I was more in the "pro convention center crowd", but after reading your posts, you actually swayed my thinking against building a Convention Center. You brought up tons of valid points concerning to Convention business, and far as I'm concerned the CONS outweight the PROS. That 'pie in the sky' and 'build it and they will come' mentality concerning every urban problem is what's really gonna sink DT Jax into an oblivion;

+1

I honestly don't understand how thinking people can not see what a Convention Center has done for Baltimore, Indianapolis, Charlotte and yes, San Diego, and then just dismiss out of hand that one could have the same effect in Jacksonville.

Consider this from CHARLOTTE in 2010. 

The largest convention in Charlotte's history began taking shape Thursday, as exhibitors unpacked their wares and visitors started arriving for the 139th annual National Rifle Association Meetings and Exhibits.

Organizers estimate the meeting -- one of the largest conventions nationally -- could bring 70,000 people to Charlotte  for the three-day event.

The convention officially opens Friday, but several preliminary events take place today. The NRA meeting closes Sunday.

At midday Thursday, exhibitors were very busy at the Convention Center. The job of unloading crates of merchandise was completed in the morning, and the exhibitors are scheduled to unpack and set up their wares this afternoon. At least a dozen people stood in line shortly after noon at the Exhibitor Check-In line.

Hotel rooms in the Charlotte area are at a premium this weekend.

"There are still some rooms available, but it usually depends on last-minute cancellations," said Erica Ross, of ConferenceDirect, which is handling lodging for the NRA. "Many of the hotels are fully booked."

Ross said the pressure to find rooms is heightened by two other weekend events in Charlotte -- UltraSwim, which is bringing some of the nation's top swimmers to the city for four days of competition; and Saturday's commencement exercises at UNC Charlotte.

A public information officer for the NRA said this weekend's event has attracted 460 exhibitors. She said the organization had to turn away a number of others who wanted to attend, because of a lack of space.

"This dwarfs anything I've seen," said a woman who works in special events for the Convention Center. The woman, asking not to be identified, said she has worked at most major conventions in Charlotte and described the NRA event as "a really, really big deal."

The center of activity is the Convention Center, and motorists headed into center city can expect plenty of traffic, both vehicular and pedestrian, clogging the streets today and especially Friday.

Tractor trailers delivering merchandise and other materials for NRA booths began arriving Wednesday, and a steady stream of trucks lined the East Stonewall Street exit for many hours during the day. More of the same is expected today, when exhibitors will be setting up booths.

On Thursday morning, crews used forklifts on the Convention Center floor to open wooden crates and prepare items -- including a stuffed grizzly bear -- for exhibits. Red, white and blue curtains hung between booths.

While the NRA event is bringing some big names, such as former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, it also is attracting a large number of related events.

The media will be heavily represented, with crews from CNN and Fox TV very visible in the uptown area. And a number of nationally syndicated radio programs, such as Jason Lewis (heard in Charlotte on WBCN, 1660 AM), will originate from Charlotte on Friday and over the weekend.



Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/05/13/1432390/palin-beck-headline-nra-convention.html##ixzz1C3jBQLpx

BTW, last time I checked Charlotte didn't have riverfront OR a beach.  It will take a few more decades of global warming before it does either. 

Of course, it does have a great DT, but that didn't happen until after restaurants, clubs and entertainment venues started opening up there.  Before that you could roll up the streets at 5pm.  No doubt the opening of the new, much larger convention center in 1995 help bring in those establishments.   

BTW, the 'left' does Conventions in Charlotte too, the NAACP had it's national convention almost as soon as the new Convention Center opened its doors.
 

I already poked holes in all your apples and oranges comparisons in the other thread. Charlotte, like San Diego, had a market for that, and it had nothing to do with the building. Perhaps you'd like to point out where in Jacksonville we have the corporate headquarters of Bank of America (largest bank in the United States), Wachovia, Nucor Steel, Duke Energy, Lowe's, Time-Warner Cable, ESPN, Belk Department Stores, Harris Teeter, Muzak, Compass Bank, Family Dollar, B.F.Goodrich, SPX Corp., NASCAR, for christsakes Vic half the fortune 500 is in Charlotte.

They have natural, organic, demand, like we had back in the 1950s and 1960s, when not coincidentally we actually WERE successful in the convention business. We don't have that anymore, and it's a completely false comparison.

[thelakelander]

Charlotte also worked for a decade beforehand making sure that their city was filled with the kind of social and entertainment fabric that a convention would want to come to, and started a modern conversation about mass transit.

Without those things being in place, plus a convention team that was on the ball, there would be no economic benefit to the convention center.

Charlotte did what we should be doing.  Clustering the hell out of everything, including a convention center.  Think that convention center wasn't built around what eventually became the LRT line on purpose? Think the museums, arena and entertainment complexes that were recently developed were not placed in their specific locations adjacent to the convention center and LRT stations on purpose?  Uptown is what it is today because that city systematically developed everything with an idea of how each individual part fit into an overall setting.  Just about everything developed actually complements adjacent uses. The result of that is a place where an assortment of activity takes place on an around the clock basis.  They literally built a city that works on top of surface parking lots during the same period we destroyed one.

[thelakelander]

Lake, I respect you and like you very much personally, but we have very different views on this topic.

I mean, listen to what you're suggesting here. This discussion is really a pretty damning microcosm of what is wrong with the whole "build it and they will come" philosophy in general. You're arguing, and with a straight face I might add, that the best way out of our previous expensive boondoggles like the Hyatt is by building yet another new and even more expensive boondoggle to support the first money-losing boondoggles, so we can (maybe) avoid losing our investment.

That's called "doubling down" or "gambler's logic" in Vegas, and it doesn't turn out any better at the craps table than it does in urban planning. So at what point does this stop? Or do we just keep figuring out a way to throw ever increasing amounts of public money at these things, hoping the next boondoggle will support the previous one, and then the next, and then the next again, when the reality is that what you see with the Hyatt is the only possible outcome of building a commercial structure in a market where there is no demand for it?

No.  I'm arguing many of our investments are boondoggles because of a lack of connectivity.  At this point, we still have enough building fabric, existing assets and things still open for a quick turnaround if we make sure all future investments are located in a compact setting with existing complementing investments.  I'm simply not of the belief that all is lost and we need to wipe the slate clean and start over.  That's what we've been doing the past 4 decades.

You are, despite all actual evidence to the contrary, continuing to assume that by simply building the structure, the demand will magically materialize. Well, it doesn't. The successful convention cities became that way through factors that had nothing to do with the building. Orlando has Disney. Las Vegas is Las Vegas. Etc., etc., etc. So let me ask you this; If we built Las Vegas' convention center in Jacksonville tomorrow, would we then have Las Vegas' convention business? Do you really think the building controls the business? Don't you see how absurd that logic is?

I don't understand why you keep tossing up competing with Vegas and Orlando as a reason for not wanting events already here like Magnet Mania and the Black Expo in the heart of our DT.  Forget about the other cities that are in a different tier.  Let's focus on getting better utilization out of what we already have and setting these things up to grow within our own environment.

And part B of your support for this is that you're actually arguing that the best way out of our current boondoggles is to build another boondoggle that might, maybe, we hope, support the prior boondoggles. This is the problem, in a nutshell, with using taxpayer funds to build commercial structures in a market where there isn't sufficient demand. It will never get better, and it will never work, no matter how many times you try to prop up the losses in this psuedo-ponzi-scheme with additional investment, because you always wind up coming back to the basic fact that it never had a viable market.

I'm attempting to bring a little creativity and vision into this discussion.  Short trerm "boondoggles" can turn into money makers and successes when we build them up with complementing uses.  Metrorail in Miami was called MetroFAIL when it was first completed in the 1980s.  Eventually they figured out how to integrate land use with that system, make money off of leasing land around transit stations and transit oriented developments have popped up like mushrooms.

My question is, what's wrong with developing a public/private partnership to get a better facility constructed in a place that complements existing assets?  Why must it be a solid box like so many places?  Why can't you make it more feasible to construct and add everyday life by integrating a mix of uses into the project's design?  If we took everything as status quo, there would be no creative ideas like the mobility plan to solve "the it will never work" problems.

[fieldafm]

Lake, I respect you and like you very much personally, but we have very different views on this topic.

I mean, listen to what you're suggesting here. This discussion is really a pretty damning microcosm of what is wrong with the whole "build it and they will come" philosophy in general. You're arguing, and with a straight face I might add, that the best way out of our previous expensive boondoggles like the Hyatt is by building yet another new and even more expensive boondoggle to support the first money-losing boondoggles, so we can (maybe) avoid losing our investment.

That's called "doubling down" or "gambler's logic" in Vegas, and it doesn't turn out any better at the craps table than it does in urban planning. So at what point does this stop? Or do we just keep figuring out a way to throw ever increasing amounts of public money at these things, hoping the next boondoggle will support the previous one, and then the next, and then the next again, when the reality is that what you see with the Hyatt is the only possible outcome of building a commercial structure in a market where there is no demand for it?

No.  I'm arguing many of our investments are boondoggles because of a lack of connectivity.  At this point, we still have enough building fabric, existing assets and things still open for a quick turnaround if we make sure all future investments are located in a compact setting with existing complementing investments.  I'm simply not of the belief that all is lost and we need to wipe the slate clean and start over.  That's what we've been doing the past 4 decades.

You are, despite all actual evidence to the contrary, continuing to assume that by simply building the structure, the demand will magically materialize. Well, it doesn't. The successful convention cities became that way through factors that had nothing to do with the building. Orlando has Disney. Las Vegas is Las Vegas. Etc., etc., etc. So let me ask you this; If we built Las Vegas' convention center in Jacksonville tomorrow, would we then have Las Vegas' convention business? Do you really think the building controls the business? Don't you see how absurd that logic is?

I don't understand why you keep tossing up competing with Vegas and Orlando as a reason for not wanting events already here like Magnet Mania and the Black Expo in the heart of our DT.  Forget about the other cities that are in a different tier.  Let's focus on getting better utilization out of what we already have and setting these things up to grow within our own environment.

And part B of your support for this is that you're actually arguing that the best way out of our current boondoggles is to build another boondoggle that might, maybe, we hope, support the prior boondoggles. This is the problem, in a nutshell, with using taxpayer funds to build commercial structures in a market where there isn't sufficient demand. It will never get better, and it will never work, no matter how many times you try to prop up the losses in this psuedo-ponzi-scheme with additional investment, because you always wind up coming back to the basic fact that it never had a viable market.

I'm attempting to bring a little creativity and vision into this discussion.  Short trerm "boondoggles" can turn into money makers and successes when we build them up with complementing uses.  Metrorail in Miami was called MetroFAIL when it was first completed in the 1980s.  Eventually they figured out how to integrate land use with that system, make money off of leasing land around transit stations and transit oriented developments have popped up like mushrooms.

My question is, what's wrong with developing a public/private partnership to get a better facility constructed in a place that complements existing assets?  Why must it be a solid box like so many places?  Why can't you make it more feasible to construct and add everyday life by integrating a mix of uses into the project's design?  If we took everything as status quo, there would be no creative ideas like the mobility plan to solve "the it will never work" problems.

Can Ennis run for mayor in 2015?

[ChriswUfGator]

Charlotte also worked for a decade beforehand making sure that their city was filled with the kind of social and entertainment fabric that a convention would want to come to, and started a modern conversation about mass transit.

Without those things being in place, plus a convention team that was on the ball, there would be no economic benefit to the convention center.

Charlotte did what we should be doing.  Clustering the hell out of everything, including a convention center.  Think that convention center wasn't built around what eventually became the LRT line on purpose? Think the museums, arena and entertainment complexes that were recently developed were not placed in their specific locations adjacent to the convention center and LRT stations on purpose?  Uptown is what it is today because that city systematically developed everything with an idea of how each individual part fit into an overall setting.  Just about everything developed actually complements adjacent uses. The result of that is a place where an assortment of activity takes place on an around the clock basis.  They literally built a city that works on top of surface parking lots during the same period we destroyed one.

Right, and because they did all that, and also because they encouraged business development downtown, they attracted actual, organic, sustainable, economic activity, and with that comes a vibrant urban environment. That's what makes it all work there. What you are suggesting is that we skip all of that, which for Charlotte represents four decades worth of work, and just skip straight to building the convention center in our dead downtown. Do you REALLY think that's going to work out like it did in Charlotte?

Again, the convention center feeds off organic demand, and as with any other commercial structure, merely building a building can't create demand or magically go *poof* and generate a viable market. This is why so many of these things turn out so poorly, there's the urban planning side of it, and then there's the business side of it. Buildings aren't business. Unless you're in the profession of constructing them, which industry incidentally are the only ones (Preston Haskell) floating this idea as beneficial. I guess in the truest sense, it would be beneficial. To them.

I still think my Uranium mine and DogWalker's Snow Removal Company are far more likely to be successful than this proposed convention center, if we're talking about operating losses and success at its stated purpose. At least there's a small chance we might actually mine some Uranium, and it did snow here in the 1990s, which gives it a better shot of success than the proposed convention center. At least we've never tried a Uranium mine before, while this will be our third failed convention center. Fourth if you count Jacksonville Beach.

[thelakelander]

Doesn't matter to me.  My focus in this debate is to suggest that a well run, well placed convention center, featuring a mix of uses on site, can be a part of an organic urban environment.  I'll leave the merits and inner workings of the industry on a national level to you guys.

[thelakelander]

Charlotte also worked for a decade beforehand making sure that their city was filled with the kind of social and entertainment fabric that a convention would want to come to, and started a modern conversation about mass transit.

Without those things being in place, plus a convention team that was on the ball, there would be no economic benefit to the convention center.

Charlotte did what we should be doing.  Clustering the hell out of everything, including a convention center.  Think that convention center wasn't built around what eventually became the LRT line on purpose? Think the museums, arena and entertainment complexes that were recently developed were not placed in their specific locations adjacent to the convention center and LRT stations on purpose?  Uptown is what it is today because that city systematically developed everything with an idea of how each individual part fit into an overall setting.  Just about everything developed actually complements adjacent uses. The result of that is a place where an assortment of activity takes place on an around the clock basis.  They literally built a city that works on top of surface parking lots during the same period we destroyed one.

Right, and because they did all that, and also because they encouraged business development downtown, they attracted actual, organic, sustainable, economic activity, and with that comes a vibrant urban environment. That's what makes it all work there. What you are suggesting is that we skip all of that, which for Charlotte represents four decades worth of work, and just skip straight to building the convention center in our dead downtown. Do you REALLY think that's going to work out like it did in Charlotte?

We shouldn't skip anything. They actually did a lot of things at the same time, all promoting and fulfilling an unified vision.  Two of those things include the planning of a convention center and rail during the mid-1990s.  So it would make sense that both of these projects now complement each other and the surrounding environment. My suggestion is we learn how to multitask as well.

Again, the convention center feeds off organic demand, and as with any other commercial structure, merely building a building can't create demand or magically go *poof* and generate a viable market. This is why so many of these things turn out so poorly, there's the urban planning side of it, and then there's the business side of it. Buildings aren't business. Unless you're in the profession of constructing them, which industry incidentally are the only ones (Preston Haskell) floating this idea as beneficial. I guess in the truest sense, it would be beneficial. To them.

I still think my Uranium mine and DogWalker's Snow Removal Company are far more likely to be successful than this proposed convention center, if we're talking about operating losses and success at its stated purpose. At least there's a small chance we might actually mine some Uranium, and it did snow here in the 1990s, which gives it a better shot of success than the proposed convention center. At least we've never tried a Uranium mine before, while this will be our third failed convention center. Fourth if you count Jacksonville Beach.

Are the local events we have today like Magnet Mania and the Black Expo not organic?  Can you not reduce/eliminate operating losses (I'll admit, I have not seen the numbers) through the use of creative public/private partnerships and incorporating a mix of uses on site?

[ChriswUfGator]

Doesn't matter to me.  My focus in this debate is to suggest that a well run, well placed convention center, featuring a mix of uses on site, can be a part of an organic urban environment.  I'll leave the merits and inner workings of the industry on a national level to you guys.

You know, maybe you're right.

So if these are the elements of success, then why don't we build a gigantic life-sized recreation of a huge Muslim temple downtown as well? It works out pretty damn well for Mecca, you know they get like 2 million visitors a year from all over the world! So if we just build the building and establish connectivity between it and other things, then that's all it takes to guarantee success, right? What works in Mecca must work here, as long as it's properly clustered, right?

All these other factors, like the little problem that we're just trying to copy/mimic things that work in other cities for reasons that don't exist or don't carry over here, or the fact that this will be our 3rd or 4th failed convention center, just don't matter, right? So if we build Mecca downtown and cluster it with other things, then we're guaranteed to have 2 million visitors a year? Sweet! Lake, I've met you many times in real life, and like you personally. You're a heck of a lot smarter than this...