Greyhound bus station sold for $2.78 million

[thelakelander]

Anchorage, Alaska is 1,704 square miles and its downtown isn't exactly dead either. Jax is 747 square miles but being serious, much of those 747 square miles aren't developed and will never be developed. Oklahoma City covers 606 square miles and is nationally known for its up and coming downtown and MAPS initiatives (think BPJ on steriods). Houston is 600 square miles and there's cranes all over its skyline and other parts of the city. Basically, we have no excuses that make us unique for not being able to properly revitalize after five decades of continuously trying.

What are specific, measurable goals to start to give Jacksonville the kind of downtown it wants?  A daily average number of pedestrians tracked walking along its streets after a certain hour of the day?  A certain number of street-fronting bars or live-music establishments or sit-down restaurants within a 5 block radius?  A downtown grade based on a citywide survey, to measure regional perception of downtown?  Like has anyone written this down and is DIA being measured based on this?

I'm sure the Mayor's Office and the DIA have some measurable goals for what they want to achieve but vibrancy means different things to different people, cultures and administrations. They could achieve their goals and the place would still be dead, if one's goal of vibrancy is Orange Avenue in Orlando or King Street in Charleston.

Nevertheless, I doubt there's a goal of having a certain number of street-fronting bars or live-music establishments or sit-down restaurants within a fairly compact area. That's pretty easy to achieve if that's the definition of success. Identify your concentrated zone and implement strategies for overcoming whatever market-rate barriers stopping that dream from coming true. The fact that dreams such as developing the Shipyards, possibly giving incentives for the District, and AV transit less connected to helping change the land development form indicates to me that compact clustering isn't necessarily the main priority right now in Jacksonville.

[vicupstate]

The city's strategy over the last 50 years has been 'throw stuff at a wall and see what sticks'.

Looked at another way, it is simlar to investing in your retirement. You can make consistent, regular investments in proven markets and build something sustainable over time. Or you can hop year to year from the Money magazine 'hot stock' to the next and end up without much to show for it in the end. The former is what most cities that have been successful have done. The latter is what JAX has done. Always waiting for a silver bllet project or white knight to save the day. 

There is no consistency from Mayor to Mayor, Council President to President, there is no strategy, what guidelines there are aren't followed consitently.  Focus is over a huge swath of land from Brooklyn to LaVilla to the Northbank, to the Stadium district to the Southbank.

And no, there are not any measurable goals. To be an actual goal, it must have a numeric value that can be measured and a time limit on it. I have never seen any publicized. 

[thelakelander]

As far as the entertainment district stuff goes, Curry has been putting out his hints for months. It's all about working with the Jags and attracting Cordish to build a "Landing 2.0" next to the stadium. Not sure how that will immediately help the heart of the Northbank, but that doesn't appear to be the goal.

[jaxnyc79]

The city's strategy over the last 50 years has been 'throw stuff at a wall and see what sticks'.

Looked at another way, it is simlar to investing in your retirement. You can make consistent, regular investments in proven markets and build something sustainable over time. Or you can hop year to year from the Money magazine 'hot stock' to the next and end up without much to show for it in the end. The former is what most cities that have been successful have done. The latter is what JAX has done. Always waiting for a silver bllet project or white knight to save the day. 

There is no consistency from Mayor to Mayor, Council President to President, there is no strategy, what guidelines there are aren't followed consitently.  Focus is over a huge swath of land from Brooklyn to LaVilla to the Northbank, to the Stadium district to the Southbank.

And no, there are not any measurable goals. To be an actual goal, it must have a numeric value that can be measured and a time limit on it. I have never seen any publicized.

I would agree - I sense there are no measurable goals concerning street-level vibrancy, bustle, and regional perception.  This message-board might be as good as any to become a quasi-community group in advocacy for the kind of Downtown that people on here want.  But it might mean putting forth measures that don't require tons of cost.  Surely there are meaningful ways to change the regional perception of downtown and to get people active on its streets without massively tapping the city's coffers.  It would take organization, consistency, communication and outreach, corporate sponsorships, regulatory easing, strong university partnerships, etc, but surely it can get done.  But the initiative and energy will probably have to come from the grassroots, and not from the DIA or Council.

[jaxnyc79]

...www.ferncreek5.com - saw these developments near Downtown Orlando.
Any reason this sort of product wouldn't work in Cathedral District of downtown Jax, and in Brooklyn, in parts of LaVilla, and on the JEA Generating Station site (formerly known as The District).  Density and Walkability without Verticality.  I think that works for Jax. 

[thelakelander]

^There are developments with townhouses proposed. The District would be the one closest to the core of downtown at the moment.



However, a building product is largely dependent on the price and size of the property assembled.  From my perspective, building density of any kind isn't a real public priority in Jax. The density you do see being built is strictly private sector driven. You're not going to see large blocks pop up in downtown because of land acquisition costs. By the same token, you won't find large blocks being built in downtown Orlando either.

In the District's case, they want the city to buy their Southbank land for them. There's also an 8-unit townhouse project going up at Beaver & Acorn near the farmer's market. You can find a few in duplex and triplex forms on streets in neighborhoods like Murray Hill. Then they're popping up like mushrooms in the Southside. I suspect you'll see more proposed in the urban core, since that is a segment of the market that isn't close to be overbuilt locally.

[TimmyB]

A question was asked about the possibility that Jacksonville being a consolidated city/county was negatively affecting the downtown.  I believe it is and for several reasons, but the biggest one that I see is: if Jacksonville were losing major developments such as the SJTC to the suburbs (just using this development as an example) and the city itself was getting little development, you better believe you'd be seeing someone downtown raising holy hell and getting real focused, real quickly.  As it is now, it's ALL Jacksonville, so who cares?  There is no incentive to build downtown; all the money collected is going into our coffers, so who cares?

We have indeed seen all the old pictures of the vibrant downtown that existed in the 50's and 60's.  Those existed almost everywhere.  Then, the suburbs exploded, which caused the downtowns to decay everywhere.  Once it became obvious to these core cities that something needed to be done to win the battle over the suburbs (80's-90's), things began to happen.  This is why so many of them have made that giant comeback, many of which have been noted on this site in great detail.  But, not here in Jax.  Why not?  See above paragraph.

[Tacachale]

I mean, it's laughable that the city of Jax sends an army of delegates to Toronto, when there's an entire book of lessons learned right down the road in Orlando. 

Nearly every big city Chamber of Commerce takes this kind of trip annually. They didn't go to Orlando merely to learn about downtown development. Also note that the City (taxpayers) pay very little of the trip cost, if any.

When I typed what I typed, I was recalling an article I'd read in the spring.  I located a quote in that article from th JaxDailyRecord: "In an invitation to register, emailed Friday to Mayor Lenny Curry's Chief of Staff Kerri Stewart, Peyton said the focus for this year's trip is downtown development "and Toronto is just the city.""  I'm not making a point on how the trip was funded, just that what Orlando has done to its downtown seems like lower hanging fruit than a place like Toronto in, not just a different state, but a different country.  Jax's downtown is so far from anything decent, that no one really needs to go all the way to an international city to start covering the basics of catalyzing a bit of vibrancy and assembly.

Lack of institutional knowledge and followthrough from one mayoral administration to the next, and a private sector and populace that didn't value downtown as a destination until relatively recently. Neither chamber trips nor looking at St Augustine would fix those systemic problems.

I understand what you're saying, but these can't be issues that were foreign to Orlando either, or other Florida cities which now have budding downtowns.  In fact, given Jax's age, it probably has a history of more downtown (Core City) vibrancy than other parts of Florida - I'm just thinking of all the compelling pics that get posted here of Jax in the 1900s-1950s.  Something just went terribly wrong and the city can't pull itself together to get back on track and start making enough progress to keep it from falling terribly behind.  I wonder if Consolidated Government is a bad thing for Downtown Revitalization.  Anyone ever study this academically?

Anchorage, Alaska is 1,704 square miles and its downtown isn't exactly dead either. Jax is 747 square miles but being serious, much of those 747 square miles aren't developed and will never be developed. Oklahoma City covers 606 square miles and is nationally known for its up and coming downtown and MAPS initiatives (think BPJ on steriods). Houston is 600 square miles and there's cranes all over its skyline and other parts of the city. Basically, we have no excuses that make us unique for not being able to properly revitalize after five decades of continuously trying.

A question was asked about the possibility that Jacksonville being a consolidated city/county was negatively affecting the downtown.  I believe it is and for several reasons, but the biggest one that I see is: if Jacksonville were losing major developments such as the SJTC to the suburbs (just using this development as an example) and the city itself was getting little development, you better believe you'd be seeing someone downtown raising holy hell and getting real focused, real quickly.  As it is now, it's ALL Jacksonville, so who cares?  There is no incentive to build downtown; all the money collected is going into our coffers, so who cares?

We have indeed seen all the old pictures of the vibrant downtown that existed in the 50's and 60's.  Those existed almost everywhere.  Then, the suburbs exploded, which caused the downtowns to decay everywhere.  Once it became obvious to these core cities that something needed to be done to win the battle over the suburbs (80's-90's), things began to happen.  This is why so many of them have made that giant comeback, many of which have been noted on this site in great detail.  But, not here in Jax.  Why not?  See above paragraph.

One of the downsides of consolidation is that it masked the decline of downtown and the urban core. The decline was obscured by robust countywide growth, and there was no longer a mechanism for people in the old city to try to improve on their own. I think most consolidation reviews have noted that. However, consolidation is obviously not the problem in and of itself, as there are a number of consolidated cities with vibrant downtowns, and many non-consolidated cities with dead downtowns. And when we have mayors who are on the ball, we've had success tapping countywide resources for improvements downtown. Again, it comes down to a lack of followthrough over the years.

Orlando isn't that different from Jacksonville when it comes to the urban core. Neither is Tampa. But neither city is particularly vibrant except in comparison to Jacksonville. The cities that have had more success are those that have a long-term plan and stick with it.

In the 90s and early 2000s, we were investing a lot downtown, residential growth was taking off, and we were generally doing a lot of things right. However, neither of the last two mayors before Curry built on that momentum or accomplished much for downtown (it just wasn't a focus for Peyton, and Brown just couldn't pull it off). Curry has a strong downtown focus, but we've basically had to start from scratch, again. The one thing that has finally changed for the better is that the private sector and in general, the public are enthusiastic about revitalizing downtown. This is a sea change from the way things were in the 90s and I have to think that it'll pay off in the long run, even though it'll be uneven at first.

[jaxnyc79]

A question was asked about the possibility that Jacksonville being a consolidated city/county was negatively affecting the downtown.  I believe it is and for several reasons, but the biggest one that I see is: if Jacksonville were losing major developments such as the SJTC to the suburbs (just using this development as an example) and the city itself was getting little development, you better believe you'd be seeing someone downtown raising holy hell and getting real focused, real quickly.  As it is now, it's ALL Jacksonville, so who cares?  There is no incentive to build downtown; all the money collected is going into our coffers, so who cares?

We have indeed seen all the old pictures of the vibrant downtown that existed in the 50's and 60's.  Those existed almost everywhere.  Then, the suburbs exploded, which caused the downtowns to decay everywhere.  Once it became obvious to these core cities that something needed to be done to win the battle over the suburbs (80's-90's), things began to happen.  This is why so many of them have made that giant comeback, many of which have been noted on this site in great detail.  But, not here in Jax.  Why not?  See above paragraph.

I tend to agree with you.  County-wide metrics obscure how dismal the situation in old Jax really is.  The core city really is depressed, and it sometimes takes a crisis to spur real action and attention.  At the same, bond issuances to fund capital projects downtown are probably counting revenue streams from every corner of the county.  Also, only a small group of council reps are from the urban core and actually have lived its realities.  Imagine if a council body of 12 or 14 were all from the core city, preoccupied with issues of renewing aging blocks, and pedestrian comforts, and filling abandoned/vacant lots.

I talked to a former Jax police officer about recent law enforcement articles.  NYC credits "neighborhood policing" with its drastic reductions in crime.  This year, NYC is at roughly 280 homicides. The city of Jax is a tenth the size, with 139 or so homicides in 2017.  NYC did away with stop and frisk a few years ago, and has still seen the homicide rate plummet.  I asked him about neoghborhood policing in Jax.  He mentioned it's been tried, and it's worked, but was too expensive to maintain. 

[thelakelander]

A question was asked about the possibility that Jacksonville being a consolidated city/county was negatively affecting the downtown.  I believe it is and for several reasons, but the biggest one that I see is: if Jacksonville were losing major developments such as the SJTC to the suburbs (just using this development as an example) and the city itself was getting little development, you better believe you'd be seeing someone downtown raising holy hell and getting real focused, real quickly.  As it is now, it's ALL Jacksonville, so who cares?  There is no incentive to build downtown; all the money collected is going into our coffers, so who cares?

We have indeed seen all the old pictures of the vibrant downtown that existed in the 50's and 60's.  Those existed almost everywhere.  Then, the suburbs exploded, which caused the downtowns to decay everywhere.  Once it became obvious to these core cities that something needed to be done to win the battle over the suburbs (80's-90's), things began to happen.  This is why so many of them have made that giant comeback, many of which have been noted on this site in great detail.  But, not here in Jax.  Why not?  See above paragraph.

Two things would have happened if Jax did not consolidate with Duval County.

1. It would have annexed as much suburban growth as possible (ex. Charlotte, Orlando, Tampa, Phoenix, Houston, etc.).

2. It would have stagnated  and lost economic growth to incorporated suburbs (ex. Detroit, Birmingham, Cincinnati, St. Louis, etc.). Either way, suburban growth would have occurred, along with urban decline following WW2. That growth pattern was largely driven by federal and state policies moreso than local.

Either way, DT was going to go through a period of decline. Even NYC couldn't avoid it. Tacachale basically nails why revitalization hasn't kept up with other communities since the 1990s. I'll add that even in the 1990s we made some mistakes. Losing LaVilla and not strategically clustering investment being two major mistakes. Now the interest is back but clustering still seems to be an afterthought.

[jaxnyc79]

A question was asked about the possibility that Jacksonville being a consolidated city/county was negatively affecting the downtown.  I believe it is and for several reasons, but the biggest one that I see is: if Jacksonville were losing major developments such as the SJTC to the suburbs (just using this development as an example) and the city itself was getting little development, you better believe you'd be seeing someone downtown raising holy hell and getting real focused, real quickly.  As it is now, it's ALL Jacksonville, so who cares?  There is no incentive to build downtown; all the money collected is going into our coffers, so who cares?

We have indeed seen all the old pictures of the vibrant downtown that existed in the 50's and 60's.  Those existed almost everywhere.  Then, the suburbs exploded, which caused the downtowns to decay everywhere.  Once it became obvious to these core cities that something needed to be done to win the battle over the suburbs (80's-90's), things began to happen.  This is why so many of them have made that giant comeback, many of which have been noted on this site in great detail.  But, not here in Jax.  Why not?  See above paragraph.

Two things would have happened if Jax did not consolidate with Duval County.

1. It would have annexed as much suburban growth as possible (ex. Charlotte, Orlando, Tampa, Phoenix, Houston, etc.).

2. It would have stagnated  and lost economic growth to incorporated suburbs (ex. Detroit, Birmingham, Cincinnati, St. Louis, etc.). Either way, suburban growth would have occurred, along with urban decline following WW2. That growth pattern was largely driven by federal and state policies moreso than local.

Either way, DT was going to go through a period of decline. Even NYC couldn't avoid it. Tacachale basically nails why revitalization hasn't kept up with other communities since the 1990s. I'll add that even in the 1990s we made some mistakes. Losing LaVilla and not strategically clustering investment being two major mistakes. Now the interest is back but clustering still seems to be an afterthought.

A few years back, I lived in a large luxury apartment building in the West Village of Manhattan.  When I signed the lease, there was an addendum that described that the building and the land had different owners.  Essentially, the apartment building owner was leasing the land - not unlike the situation between the city and The Jacksonville Landing.  Is anyone aware of similar residential arrangements here in Jax?  If land acquisition costs are such a huge barrier to getting anything done in core Jax, and if the city is a significant downtown land-owner, perhaps they could find willing developers who'd own the vertical asset while leasing the land from the city.  Same could be arranged with private land owners in the core as well.

[thelakelander]

Manhattan is such a different type of market. I'm not sure why a private landowner would want to tie up their property that way or if the banks here would fund such a project. With that said, COJ could sell off or provide land it has at a reduced cost to stimulate certain outcomes. That's been successfully pulled off in many places. However, local history clearly indicates we don't always practice the KISS principle. Also as shown by the DIA board's recent action on 324 Broad Street, there's been a willingness to sit and have nothing happen, if responses to RFPs don't come in the ballpark of what COJ thinks its dilapidated properties are worth.

[jaxnyc79]

Manhattan is such a different type of market. I'm not sure why a private landowner would want to tie up their property that way or if the banks here would fund such a project. With that said, COJ could sell off or provide land it has at a reduced cost to stimulate certain outcomes. That's been successfully pulled off in many places. However, local history clearly indicates we don't always practice the KISS principle. Also as shown by the DIA board's recent action on 324 Broad Street, there's been a willingness to sit and have nothing happen, if responses to RFPs don't come in the ballpark of what COJ thinks its dilapidated properties are worth.

You're a landowner and not a builder.  So you let someone with building and property management expertise implement another use, and you, as land lessor, share in the cash flows of what results.  Land-leases tend to be a drag on condo values in NYC, but my building was all rentals.

[thelakelander]

Or you just sell your land, take your cash upfront and be done with it. With that said, we're only talking about very few properties, when you subtract publicly owned land, religious owned property and properties with buildings sitting on them.  This all gets back to practicing that KISS principle. The Northbank is filled with a number of old large underutilized buildings. If we can fill them, the vibrancy created will generate a market for new construction development.

[TimmyB]

A question was asked about the possibility that Jacksonville being a consolidated city/county was negatively affecting the downtown.  I believe it is and for several reasons, but the biggest one that I see is: if Jacksonville were losing major developments such as the SJTC to the suburbs (just using this development as an example) and the city itself was getting little development, you better believe you'd be seeing someone downtown raising holy hell and getting real focused, real quickly.  As it is now, it's ALL Jacksonville, so who cares?  There is no incentive to build downtown; all the money collected is going into our coffers, so who cares?

We have indeed seen all the old pictures of the vibrant downtown that existed in the 50's and 60's.  Those existed almost everywhere.  Then, the suburbs exploded, which caused the downtowns to decay everywhere.  Once it became obvious to these core cities that something needed to be done to win the battle over the suburbs (80's-90's), things began to happen.  This is why so many of them have made that giant comeback, many of which have been noted on this site in great detail.  But, not here in Jax.  Why not?  See above paragraph.

Two things would have happened if Jax did not consolidate with Duval County.

1. It would have annexed as much suburban growth as possible (ex. Charlotte, Orlando, Tampa, Phoenix, Houston, etc.).

2. It would have stagnated  and lost economic growth to incorporated suburbs (ex. Detroit, Birmingham, Cincinnati, St. Louis, etc.). Either way, suburban growth would have occurred, along with urban decline following WW2. That growth pattern was largely driven by federal and state policies moreso than local.

Either way, DT was going to go through a period of decline. Even NYC couldn't avoid it. Tacachale basically nails why revitalization hasn't kept up with other communities since the 1990s. I'll add that even in the 1990s we made some mistakes. Losing LaVilla and not strategically clustering investment being two major mistakes. Now the interest is back but clustering still seems to be an afterthought.

I wasn't suggesting that it should or shouldn't have happened.  I was simply voicing my opinion about how it has hindered Jacksonville's downtown redevelopment.  I still believe it hasn't helped.  You have 800 square miles of one city to build in; why WOULD you build downtown unless someone offered you a huge incentive?