Florida's Major Downtowns: How Does Jax Compare?

[thelakelander]

So what are you proposing?  DIA drop everything else and focus on 20-30 mixed-use projects in the DVI northbank core?

The same thing I've been saying for years. Modify/update zoning to fit with the 21st century market (this should happen citywide), preserve the building stock that's left, incentivize their re-use, upgrade parks, the streetscape, transit (sorry I do have my doubts about the validity of the U2C still), strategically place/invest in publicly funded projects (ex. JEA, parks, schools) etc. Get your public spaces working and align the policies and regulations with today's market and everything else will naturally incrementally happen on its own for the most part.

Also, I thought downtown Savannah has 20,000+ residents and its historic district is a very different animal and a comparison to Jax's downtown residential base is a stretch, not to mention Savannah is an internationally renowned travel destination keeping it fueled with the agents of vibrancy.

Savannah wasn't world renowned for anything in the 1980s. Neither was Charleston. They were largely considered run down, blighted and high crime Southern cities that had seen much better days. They were a lot like the inner city of Jacksonville back during the 1980s. What you see now is result of decades of revitalization and preservation by those communities. Also, if Savannah doesn't meet someone's fancy, try Greenville, Lakeland, Grand Rapids, Tampa, Mobile, etc. the list goes on. I'm not aware of any of these communities having over 10,000 residents downtown but they turned their fortunes around via clustering, complementing uses within a compact pedestrian scale setting.
 

But I do understand your broader point about complementing uses and clustering.  I still contend that Jax is too focused on the supply side and not enough on the demand side.  A savvy, sophisticated, multi-pronged campaign to present the mojo and positive adventure of urban dwelling to a segment of the region's population where it makes sense (the young, the singles, the students, the empty nesters, the childless) should be happening in parallel with construction and physical rehabilitation planning.  And I don't mean anything '"on the nose," and def not led by FTU editors.

You don't need marketing campaigns for urban dwellers. They typically end up in Riverside, Springfield, Murray Hill, San Marco, etc. because these places offer a mix of housing and entry point business opportunities in walkable settings. Over the last two decades, many shifted to these locations after briefly living in, operating a business or looking to move in downtown. Every now and then, there's an article about a small business owner, their experience in downtown and why they moved to a different walkable setting. Here's one:

Bark moves downtown location to Springfield

...Bark will carry products for dogs, cats and chickens, since many Springfield families own chickens.

The decision to move was natural, she said. In downtown Jacksonville, Bark simply wasn't getting enough traffic. There wasn't enough parking, and payroll cost more than profits to keep it running.

"I don't feel like I failed in downtown," she said. "It's just failing at this moment itself. It will take time to develop, just ike Riverside. Riverside was like that a long time ago."

Springfield is slow to develop, she said, but "every day something new happens." Kelley said that the community in Springfield has been very receptive so far and people are already reaching out to welcome them to the neighborhood.

https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2018/10/31/bark-moves-downtown-location-to-springfield-shares.html

[thelakelander]

So what are you proposing?  DIA drop everything else and focus on 20-30 mixed-use projects in the DVI northbank core?

The same thing I've been saying for years. Modify/update zoning to fit with the 21st century market (this should happen citywide), preserve the building stock that's left, incentivize their re-use, upgrade parks, the streetscape, transit (sorry I do have my doubts about the validity of the U2C still), strategically place/invest in publicly funded projects (ex. JEA, parks, schools) etc. Get your public spaces working and align the policies and regulations with today's market and everything else will naturally incrementally happen on its own for the most part.

I should clarify this particular comment. Within this thread, I wasn't proposing anything. I was highlighting how being spread out could be counterproductive to the ultimate goal. With that said, the things mentioned above are examples of what similar communities have had success in revitalization in more compact areas. For Jax, there's no reason to recreate the wheel.

[jaxnyc79]

So what are you proposing?  DIA drop everything else and focus on 20-30 mixed-use projects in the DVI northbank core?

The same thing I've been saying for years. Modify/update zoning to fit with the 21st century market (this should happen citywide), preserve the building stock that's left, incentivize their re-use, upgrade parks, the streetscape, transit (sorry I do have my doubts about the validity of the U2C still), strategically place/invest in publicly funded projects (ex. JEA, parks, schools) etc. Get your public spaces working and align the policies and regulations with today's market and everything else will naturally incrementally happen on its own for the most part.

So perhaps refine or expand DIA's mandate.  Not sure how what you're saying aligns with the charters of the relevant CRAs over which the DIA has charge and responsibility. DIA is deploying financial resources but some of what you've cited appear to be public works, better left to other funding sources.  JTA ready to leave a big mark on the core with U2C but that's outside of DIA scope. 

Also, I thought downtown Savannah has 20,000+ residents and its historic district is a very different animal and a comparison to Jax's downtown residential base is a stretch, not to mention Savannah is an internationally renowned travel destination keeping it fueled with the agents of vibrancy.

Savannah wasn't world renowned for anything in the 1980s. Neither was Charleston. They were largely considered run down, blighted and high crime Southern cities that had seen much better days. They were a lot like the inner city of Jacksonville back during the 1980s. What you see now is result of decades of revitalization and preservation by those communities. Also, if Savannah doesn't meet someone's fancy, try Greenville, Lakeland, Grand Rapids, Tampa, Mobile, etc. the list goes on. I'm not aware of any of these communities having over 10,000 residents downtown but they turned their fortunes around via clustering, complementing uses within a compact pedestrian scale setting.
 

Here's the issue with lacking a specific and community-accepted definition of success.  Jax might be the envy of Greenville, in a certain respect, because of 60,000+ office workers downtown.  I don't know because I don't live there.  Jax lacks clusters of bars and clubs, but it appears to have a reasonably vital employment base downtown. 

But I do understand your broader point about complementing uses and clustering.  I still contend that Jax is too focused on the supply side and not enough on the demand side.  A savvy, sophisticated, multi-pronged campaign to present the mojo and positive adventure of urban dwelling to a segment of the region's population where it makes sense (the young, the singles, the students, the empty nesters, the childless) should be happening in parallel with construction and physical rehabilitation planning.  And I don't mean anything '"on the nose," and def not led by FTU editors.[/quote]

You don't need marketing campaigns for urban dwellers. They typically end up in Riverside, Springfield, Murray Hill, San Marco, etc. because these places offer a mix of housing and entry point business opportunities in walkable settings. Over the last two decades, many shifted to these locations after briefly living in, operating a business or looking to move in downtown. Every now and then, there's an article about a small business owner, their experience in downtown and why they moved to a different walkable setting. Here's one:

I think a Branding campaign would help to grow your demand base.  I don't think people are born as inherently urban or suburban.  There are features of each lifestyle that can appeal to all sorts of people at various life stages.  We'll just agree to disagree

Bark moves downtown location to Springfield

...Bark will carry products for dogs, cats and chickens, since many Springfield families own chickens.

The decision to move was natural, she said. In downtown Jacksonville, Bark simply wasn't getting enough traffic. There wasn't enough parking, and payroll cost more than profits to keep it running.

"I don't feel like I failed in downtown," she said. "It's just failing at this moment itself. It will take time to develop, just ike Riverside. Riverside was like that a long time ago."

Springfield is slow to develop, she said, but "every day something new happens." Kelley said that the community in Springfield has been very receptive so far and people are already reaching out to welcome them to the neighborhood.[/quote]

https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2018/10/31/bark-moves-downtown-location-to-springfield-shares.html
[/quote]

[thelakelander]

So perhaps refine or expand DIA's mandate.  Not sure how what you're saying aligns with the charters of the relevant CRAs over which the DIA has charge and responsibility. DIA is deploying financial resources but some of what you've cited appear to be public works, better left to other funding sources.  JTA ready to leave a big mark on the core with U2C but that's outside of DIA scope. 

There's two ways to deal with the DIA issue specifically. I expect neither to happen. as mentioned earlier today....

Instead, they spread stuff all over the 4 mile area and call it downtown development.

Our local policies allow them to do this. It's fine if people are willing to accept that downtown will remain sleepy for decades, despite the slick renderings of places a mile away or across the river from it. Reading the FTU editorials, it seems at least those editors expect something that's not going to happen before 2025, given the policy and practices of that policy in place.

Aggressive change is restricting the ability to spread stuff all over the 4 mile area. You can do that by scaling back the area. I don't expect that to happen nor do I expect them to adopt a strategy to stop spreading stuff all over the 4 mile area. Thus, I'm simply saying downtown will remain sleepy until such change via strategy or restriction of the ability to spread things out occurs or another entity addresses these issues.

At this point, I'm just pointing out why you shouldn't be disappointed when things remain the same a decade from now, despite the money being tossed around.

[bl8jaxnative]

. Instead, they spread stuff all over the 4 mile area and call it downtown development.

So what?  This country is full of major cities with downtown's just as big doing the same.  And those that don't have an official downtown just as big, turn around and do the same thing, sprinkling it in other neighborhoods abutting the official downtown.   

St. pete's Tropicana field ain't in their official downtown.  No normal human would not call it downtown.  And St. Pete's been throwing money at infill developments around it.    They're not just doing it inside their wee lil' CBD.

Look at #kcmo.  It's not just the power & light district.  They pushed hard for years for development around their convention center, expanding downtown to the south to include it.  At the same time they're doing that, they've done a lot with the P&L district.  And while that's all been going on they've been working on getting the north end of downtown, a few miles to the north, better connected with the rest of downtown.

Or look Denver, arguably the most vibrant successful downtown in this country of this century.  It's CBD is only a small part of it's downtown success. They've worked to connected surrounding neighborhoods and areas into downtown.  They haven't just focused on downtown.  RINO, Highlands, Central Platte Valley, LoDo, Baker, the old stockyards / union station, Uptown, etc.  They've had various projects in play tieing them all together, not just the official downtown nor the downtown area, but also the neighborhoods adjacent to those next to CBD.    They've juggled it all over a large area and had more success at it than any other city in the nation.


That's not say the idea of focus is a canard.  The issue for Jacksonville is focus.  But it's not because of a downtown.  It's because of the misguided consolidation.  The city of Jacksonville doesn't need a healthy traditional core to be a healthy city financially.   And with thousands, maybe tens of thousands of acres coming up for development from the Skinner family, let alone eTown, commercial development by Deutsche Bank at the Gates Pkwy, etc, etc, etc, the city's going to be just fine $ for many, many moons.

IMHO if you want a core that gets some TLC from city hall, you have to shrink city hall.   Think of it as needing to take away the shiny cell phone from the kid to get them to focus on a book.   As long as they have the phone, they won't care too much about the book.

[jaxnyc79]

^^ interesting

[thelakelander]

. Instead, they spread stuff all over the 4 mile area and call it downtown development.

So what?  This country is full of major cities with downtown's just as big doing the same.  And those that don't have an official downtown just as big, turn around and do the same thing, sprinkling it in other neighborhoods abutting the official downtown.   

St. pete's Tropicana field ain't in their official downtown.  No normal human would not call it downtown.  And St. Pete's been throwing money at infill developments around it.    They're not just doing it inside their wee lil' CBD.

I do get the point you're trying to make. Nevertheless, Tropicana Field does fall within St. Petersburg's official downtown. Check out the big white blob near I-275:



Better yet, look how all of DT St. Petersburg, including Tropicana Field, fits into DT Jax with lots of room to spare.

Look at #kcmo.  It's not just the power & light district.  They pushed hard for years for development around their convention center, expanding downtown to the south to include it.  At the same time they're doing that, they've done a lot with the P&L district.  And while that's all been going on they've been working on getting the north end of downtown, a few miles to the north, better connected with the rest of downtown.

Or look Denver, arguably the most vibrant successful downtown in this country of this century.  It's CBD is only a small part of it's downtown success. They've worked to connected surrounding neighborhoods and areas into downtown.  They haven't just focused on downtown.  RINO, Highlands, Central Platte Valley, LoDo, Baker, the old stockyards / union station, Uptown, etc.  They've had various projects in play tieing them all together, not just the official downtown nor the downtown area, but also the neighborhoods adjacent to those next to CBD.    They've juggled it all over a large area and had more success at it than any other city in the nation.

I think you may have misunderstood Tacachale's point. You can have urban core development without a downtown investment authority being put in charge of it happening. I don't think anyone is saying urban infill, development and growth should be limited to a certain boundary. The discussion was more related to if the DIA's focus and resources should be narrowed or targeted for a specific spot to stimulate a core zone of pedestrian scale vibrancy at a much faster pace than what they're on track to do.

That's not say the idea of focus is a canard.  The issue for Jacksonville is focus.  But it's not because of a downtown.  It's because of the misguided consolidation.  The city of Jacksonville doesn't need a healthy traditional core to be a healthy city financially.   And with thousands, maybe tens of thousands of acres coming up for development from the Skinner family, let alone eTown, commercial development by Deutsche Bank at the Gates Pkwy, etc, etc, etc, the city's going to be just fine $ for many, many moons.

Oh it definitely needs a healthy core for long term fiscal viability. That stuff around Gate Parkway is fools gold, when you start adding up long term cost for maintenance of infrastructure. As a fiscal conservative, I'd wish they double down on the density of projects happening out there, in order to make it more viable to taxpayers in the long run.

IMHO if you want a core that gets some TLC from city hall, you have to shrink city hall.   Think of it as needing to take away the shiny cell phone from the kid to get them to focus on a book.   As long as they have the phone, they won't care too much about the book.

On the surface, no argument here. LaVilla, Sugar Hill, Hansontown, State & Union, Campbell Hill, etc. have all been taken out because of city hall.  On the other hand, Riverside, Murray Hill, Springfield and San Marco are what they are partially because of city hall's fingers not being as deep into their cookie jar of economic access and opportunity. There's something to be said about placing fewer obstacles in front of market trends and development patterns.

[jaxnyc79]

. Instead, they spread stuff all over the 4 mile area and call it downtown development.

So what?  This country is full of major cities with downtown's just as big doing the same.  And those that don't have an official downtown just as big, turn around and do the same thing, sprinkling it in other neighborhoods abutting the official downtown.   

St. pete's Tropicana field ain't in their official downtown.  No normal human would not call it downtown.  And St. Pete's been throwing money at infill developments around it.    They're not just doing it inside their wee lil' CBD.

Look at #kcmo.  It's not just the power & light district.  They pushed hard for years for development around their convention center, expanding downtown to the south to include it.  At the same time they're doing that, they've done a lot with the P&L district.  And while that's all been going on they've been working on getting the north end of downtown, a few miles to the north, better connected with the rest of downtown.

Or look Denver, arguably the most vibrant successful downtown in this country of this century.  It's CBD is only a small part of it's downtown success. They've worked to connected surrounding neighborhoods and areas into downtown.  They haven't just focused on downtown.  RINO, Highlands, Central Platte Valley, LoDo, Baker, the old stockyards / union station, Uptown, etc.  They've had various projects in play tieing them all together, not just the official downtown nor the downtown area, but also the neighborhoods adjacent to those next to CBD.    They've juggled it all over a large area and had more success at it than any other city in the nation.


That's not say the idea of focus is a canard.  The issue for Jacksonville is focus.  But it's not because of a downtown.  It's because of the misguided consolidation.  The city of Jacksonville doesn't need a healthy traditional core to be a healthy city financially.   And with thousands, maybe tens of thousands of acres coming up for development from the Skinner family, let alone eTown, commercial development by Deutsche Bank at the Gates Pkwy, etc, etc, etc, the city's going to be just fine $ for many, many moons.

IMHO if you want a core that gets some TLC from city hall, you have to shrink city hall.   Think of it as needing to take away the shiny cell phone from the kid to get them to focus on a book.   As long as they have the phone, they won't care too much about the book.

When you say shrink city hall, you mean go back to a pre-consolidation government because the city becomes a better steward when it can't rest on its laurels because regardless of its downtown misadventures, it has a reliable tax revenue base from sprawl?

[bl8jaxnative]

The lack of focus is due to incentives.  It is a size thing but not about downtown.  #KCMO, MPLS and others don't have that empty land to lean on for fresh income.   Heck, one can argue that Savannah didn't start to turn it's core around until all the good annexation options were gone.  The same with Greeneville, SC.

[Kerry]

. Instead, they spread stuff all over the 4 mile area and call it downtown development.

The city of Jacksonville doesn't need a healthy traditional core to be a healthy city financially.   And with thousands, maybe tens of thousands of acres coming up for development from the Skinner family, let alone eTown, commercial development by Deutsche Bank at the Gates Pkwy, etc, etc, etc, the city's going to be just fine $ for many, many moons.

You wanna bet?  All that low density sprawl doesn't come close to paying for itself tax wise.  I don't know if I have ever seen a city as broke as Jax is.  It doesn't seem the City has money to pay for anything.

[bl8jaxnative]

. Instead, they spread stuff all over the 4 mile area and call it downtown development.

The city of Jacksonville doesn't need a healthy traditional core to be a healthy city financially.   And with thousands, maybe tens of thousands of acres coming up for development from the Skinner family, let alone eTown, commercial development by Deutsche Bank at the Gates Pkwy, etc, etc, etc, the city's going to be just fine $ for many, many moons.

You wanna bet?  All that low density sprawl doesn't come close to paying for itself tax wise.  I don't know if I have ever seen a city as broke as Jax is.  It doesn't seem the City has money to pay for anything.

The claim that the new development doesn't pay for itself tax wise is at best a canard.   __IF__ it doesn't, the issue is 30 years down the road.  That's something that politicians wouldn't pay attention to.  They don't get judged on that. 

Jacksonville isn't any more "broke" than any other city.  Every department claims it needs more money, isn't getting enough, etc.  There's plenty of money coming in from new development to take care of what the politicians are looking to do.  They're not in a do or die sort of position.

Keep in mind that regorms in India didn't come until the country was literally broke.  They had ran out of currency reserves and had no other choice..  Even then the reforms that happened were limited to a couple sectors.   

The city's relationship with it's traditional downtown won't change as long as it has Towne Center, JAX's vibrant, modern downtown.

[thelakelander]

The lack of focus is due to incentives.  It is a size thing but not about downtown.  #KCMO, MPLS and others don't have that empty land to lean on for fresh income.   Heck, one can argue that Savannah didn't start to turn it's core around until all the good annexation options were gone.  The same with Greeneville, SC.

Are you sure? Kansas City is a big sprawler. That place annexed more than 235 square miles of land area between 1950 and 1970. Its population maxed out at 507k after the last big annexation. It bottomed out to 435k in 1990 before they finally started getting their act together. Now it's up to 488k. Nevertheless, one thing KC didn't do was go godzilla on itself while in decline. Now it's blessed with all those old cool buildings and warehouse districts outside of downtown to replenish (and it's done a great job doing just that). On the other hand, we had WW3 with ourselves and called the resulting moonscape cleaning up blight.

You're also wrong about Savannah. It was 11 square miles in 1940 with a population of 95k residents. It peaked at 149k in 1960 after annexing 30 square miles over a 20 year period. It bottomed out at 131k in 2000. It's now 108 square miles with an estimate of 146k residents. It owes its urban renaissance to preservationist who saved much of its building stock from demo cray crays and the emergence of SCAD.

[thelakelander]

The claim that the new development doesn't pay for itself tax wise is at best a canard.   __IF__ it doesn't, the issue is 30 years down the road.  That's something that politicians wouldn't pay attention to.  They don't get judged on that.

Have a talk with your planning director. He'll tell you all you need to know. They had data back when they were developing the original mobility plan. Whether you want to believe it or not is another issue altogether.

[Adam White]

. Instead, they spread stuff all over the 4 mile area and call it downtown development.

The city of Jacksonville doesn't need a healthy traditional core to be a healthy city financially.   And with thousands, maybe tens of thousands of acres coming up for development from the Skinner family, let alone eTown, commercial development by Deutsche Bank at the Gates Pkwy, etc, etc, etc, the city's going to be just fine $ for many, many moons.

You wanna bet?  All that low density sprawl doesn't come close to paying for itself tax wise.  I don't know if I have ever seen a city as broke as Jax is.  It doesn't seem the City has money to pay for anything.

The claim that the new development doesn't pay for itself tax wise is at best a canard.   __IF__ it doesn't, the issue is 30 years down the road.  That's something that politicians wouldn't pay attention to.  They don't get judged on that. 

Jacksonville isn't any more "broke" than any other city.  Every department claims it needs more money, isn't getting enough, etc.  There's plenty of money coming in from new development to take care of what the politicians are looking to do.  They're not in a do or die sort of position.

Keep in mind that regorms in India didn't come until the country was literally broke.  They had ran out of currency reserves and had no other choice..  Even then the reforms that happened were limited to a couple sectors.   

The city's relationship with it's traditional downtown won't change as long as it has Towne Center, JAX's vibrant, modern downtown.

You like the word "canard", don't you?

[bl8jaxnative]

The claim that the new development doesn't pay for itself tax wise is at best a canard.   __IF__ it doesn't, the issue is 30 years down the road.  That's something that politicians wouldn't pay attention to.  They don't get judged on that.

Have a talk with your planning director. He'll tell you all you need to know. They had data back when they were developing the original mobility plan. Whether you want to believe it or not is another issue altogether.

Anything can be done with accounting.  Amtrak is a great example of it.   You can legally move a lot of costs into different buckets in the end don't properly account for costs.     It's the accounting version of the old Soviet psychopath Beria [sic] who said show me the man and I'll show the crime.   

You're correct in that it's a matter of belief.  This is issue is that the belief's of zealots are driving the results.