Mayor Curry wants the Landing back

[jaxnyc79]

You can cling to your Wikipedia all you want because it's as close as you'll get to living here, but it isn't Chelsea nor is it Hell's Kitchen.  It doesn't belong to a neighborhood.  It's a sprawling commercial complex on the Far West Side.  Staten Island isn't even part of the benchmark for judging the relative desirability of Manhattan neighborhoods.  Sure the area around Javits is more valuable than real estate on Staten Island, just as it's more valuable than real estate in Arlington.   

The point is that a convention complex is likely a major drag on the optimal level of residential desirability of its immediate surroundings.  Manhattan is a different animal (surely you can understand that), in that it is so compelling a place to live, that a range of other factors override the "convention center" drag.  Jax's attempts at inner city residential revitalization are far more uncertain and tenuous.  The city would have to accept that a large convention complex would likely scuttle attempts at residential vibrancy and rebirth for a decent-sized area around the complex.

[Adam White]

You can cling to your Wikipedia all you want because it's as close as you'll get to living here, but it isn't Chelsea nor is it Hell's Kitchen.  It doesn't belong to a neighborhood.  It's a sprawling commercial complex on the Far West Side.  Staten Island isn't even part of the benchmark for judging the relative desirability of Manhattan neighborhoods.  Sure the area around Javits is more valuable than real estate on Staten Island, just as it's more valuable than real estate in Arlington.   

The point is that a convention complex is likely a major drag on the optimal level of residential desirability of its immediate surroundings.  Manhattan is a different animal (surely you can understand that), in that it is so compelling a place to live, that a range of other factors override the "convention center" drag.  Jax's attempts at inner city residential revitalization are far more uncertain and tenuous.  The city would have to accept that a large convention complex would likely scuttle attempts at residential vibrancy and rebirth for a decent-sized area around the complex.

Wikipedia didn't even exist the first time i visited Hell's Kitchen (or the Javits Center, for the matter). But I guess I'll just defer to the authentic New Yorker (who didn't even know how to spell the name of the Javits Center in the first place).

That said - you should maybe look into getting work as a medium or psychic or whatever. Your ability to read and understand the minds of New Yorkers is truly impressive.

As far as Jax goes, there are so few things downtown (including residences) that the convention centre wouldn't be anything but a positive. Same with the Landing.

[JBTripper]

Google find me metronewyork-dot-com and metrolondon-dot-com!

[Tacachale]

Sorry, I'm not able to follow this argument. Jaxnyc79, are you saying that no one wants to live near convention centers, so Jacksonville shouldn't build one?

If that's your argument, well, there are other reasons for building convention centers, in our case the leading reason being that the current one is inadequate.

I don't think Jax is trying to be New York, and it's true that New York is a different animal than most cities, so I'm not sure why it's even part of this discussion.

[jaxnyc79]

ha, the thread did veer of course.

That's not at all what I'm saying.  I "questioned" the vision for downtown. What will define a resurgent downtown Jax?  What is the role of the Landing in that resurgence?  Should the City of Jax add Property Management of the Landing as yet another one of its Real Estate ventures?  Does that get Jax closer to its goal?  If the old courthouse property becomes a convention center, will that feed demand for whatever the Landing is to become?  Will the city sink money and resources into a residential redevelopment of the Landing, which IMO, is ill-advised if there is to be a massive new convention center complex so close by? 

Is it necessary for downtown Jax to be some sort of destination theme park for the entire northeast florida region, or maybe it can be a great neighborhood for the residents and businesses that choose to live, work, and play there.  Its distinction among other 'hoods in the region could be that it is totally walkable and prioritizes the pedestrian over the automobile.  I'm not suggesting a right or wrong answer, just presenting food for thought.

[MusicMan]

I just got back from Vancouver, where the Convention Center sits right on the water in the middle of downtown (sound familiar?).

It is gorgeous, modern building with a huge open plaza on one side. It is surrounded by beautiful high end hotels AND high end residential towers. It's really a rather perfect model upon which Jax could develop the entire area around the old courthouse site, and am amazing historic district, Gastown, is just a few blocks away. 

Vancouver is without a doubt one of the best examples of urban planning and execution. It's the most "easy to be in and deal with" large cities I've ever been to.  And it has water everywhere. Our City planners/leaders/council would do well to go there for a week or two, then come back and do their best to imitate what that City has going on. 

[thelakelander]

Vancouver is a great example of clustering complementing uses within a compact setting. Unfortunately, our planners don't really plan for downtown and our leaders attending these types of trips don't always have the background expertise to grasp the technical aspects of revitalization. Thus you end up with a riverwalk just because someone saw one in San Antonio or a Landing because the concept worked in Baltimore. However, things don't turn out the same because the context surrounding the projects are completely different and the importance of pedestrian scale compactness on the experience gets lost.

[jaxnyc79]

Vancouver is a great example of clustering complementing uses within a compact setting. Unfortunately, our planners don't really plan for downtown and our leaders attending these types of trips don't always have the background expertise to grasp the technical aspects of revitalization. Thus you end up with a riverwalk just because someone saw one in San Antonio or a Landing because the concept worked in Baltimore. However, things don't turn out the same because the context surrounding the projects are completely different and the importance of pedestrian scale compactness on the experience gets lost.

I completely agree thelakelander.

[vicupstate]

1000% agree with Lake. The city has been making such trips for years with little to show for it.

I haven't been to Vancouver but Musicman's description would apply equally to San Diego.

[Jim]

Victoria, British Columbia is a great model too. 

[Tacachale]

I was just in Vancouver a few months ago, and I agree, both with the fact that it's a great model of a well planned city, and with the fact that the things that make it great aren't necessarily obvious to folks who don't know specifically what to look for, which is most people.

One part of "Vancouverism" that really seems to get them going in the right direction, is training effective city planners, and having them regularly work with the people and government (who don't necessarily have a planning background) about the things they want to see. With that in place, they've stayed successful in planning for decades, and people there really feel part of the whole thing. Here, we don't really keep knowledgeable people, and the level of public input depends entirely on who's in charge at any given time. Maybe we'll get there one day.

[Keith-N-Jax]

Victoria, British Columbia is a great model too. 

1000% agree with Lake. (The city has been making such

1000% agree with Lake. The city has been making such trips for years with little to show for it.




It's called a vacation at tax payer's expense