Downtown Development Update: What's rising, what's delayed

[thelakelander]

Unlike Savannah and Charleston, both of which have annexed quite a bit of suburban land, its highly likely that if consolidation did not happen and if we maintained our 30-square-mile developed limits, the city would have eventually fallen into the economic fall that a Detroit, Youngstown, OH experienced. We'd have more historic building stock, but not the resources or tax base to do much about it.

[jaxjags]

Before I retired, I did business in both Savannah and Charleston at least twice a month. Yes, SCAD in Savannah and tourism in both are big employment drivers in the DT areas. I was surprised when many young, employed people said they preferred Jax DT. It was real DT with office buildings and "real jobs". Surprisingly a lot of Savannah and Charleston residents did not like the tourism (short term rentals being a huge problem). I agree recruiting more business DT is the best approach. Corp and regional HQ may be difficult being in the same state as Miami. Small, medium sized and our own suburban companies need to be targeted. Stop supporting the suburbs completely. Most of those businesses would move or build without the support. We need to press forward with the current plan to make DT a safe, clean, well maintained and enjoyable place to live and visit.

[Ken_FSU]

Met Park Marina is now open, with the restaurant and Marina Shop looking to be getting close as well:

https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/news/2026/aug/12/met-park-marina-opens-expanding-boat-access-to-downtown-near-everbank-stadium/

[Jax_Developer]

Another one from 2015. Its been over a decade since this editorial was written. The problem is still the same. At some point, there needs to be some real strategy implemented to address the issue:

During the late 20th century, changes in the nation's business policies and practices dramatically impacted our central business districts. Some, like Charlotte and Houston, came out as winners. Others like New Orleans and Jacksonville were dealt blows they're still working hard to overcome today. Ever wonder why Downtown Jacksonville has too much office space on its hands? Believe it or not, it has nothing to do with local leadership or the popularity of our rapidly growing suburbs.

https://archive.metrojacksonville.com/article/2015-aug-seven-decisions-that-killed-downtown

Great article. Thanks for linking.

[thelakelander]

Thanks! When you look at the skyline, the impact of the loss of large companies locally headquarters is clearly visible. We went from a rapidly growing skyline to one frozen in the 1990s as mergers and acquisitions sent our jobs and civic pride to cities like Houston and Charlotte. Now we have an increasing glut of aging buildings and space we need to backfill.

[Aristocles]

Continuing about downtown Charleston and Savannah, what I noticed about both is the continuity of neighborhood through the areas considered to be downtown. Meaning, you go from what would definitely be considered a neighborhood to what's definitely considered downtown without crossing an obvious fault line of abandoned properties bordering the downtown like in Jax. In Charleston you're definitely downtown when you're on King Street, and in Savannah when you're on Broughton. But then, as you head further away from those streets, when do you "leave downtown"? Maybe there's technically a block you enter or street you cross when you're not considered in downtown anymore, but otherwise you'll never know it. The streets are all densely developed with houses, stores and other uses so you have the sense that the whole inner city is being used and lived in, rather than abandoned. This isn't to say that there aren't blocks that are mostly offices and very empty at night, but they tend to be small areas like that here and there, not block after block after block of office buildings and parking lots like we have in downtown here.
Also, an observation about Atlanta, a much larger city and one with a big corporate community in downtown and midtown. For years it had parking lots all over much of downtown and midtown, like Jax. But they became filled in with multifamily housing to the point that, especially on the east side of Midtown by Piedmont Avenue, you get the continuity of neighborhood that you get in Charleston and Savannah. As you go east of Peachtree towards and then across Piedmont the high density downtown-type of development slowly gets lower and eventually fades into the single family home neighborhood of Virginia Highland, with perfect continuity.
Now, what's the policy implication for Jax? Identify the areas around the downtown that are underdeveloped and try to fill them with the urban style development that will allow the downtown to blend with the areas around it. Actually this is already being done, particularly by Gateway Jax.
One more thing: it may be emotionally hard to take, but don't worry about what the skyline looks like. Make the downtown good, not tall. In fact, tall buildings can be bad in many cases. They require large amounts of parking and utilities, are expensive to construct, and aren't feasible in any except the most in demand locations. Instead, try to fill up downtown with buildings that look like Vandeveer and you'll get a place that's much better.
 

[thelakelander]

Continuing about downtown Charleston and Savannah, what I noticed about both is the CONTINUITY OF NEIGHBORHOOD through the areas considered to be downtown. Meaning, you go from what would definitely be considered a neighborhood to what's definitely considered downtown without crossing an obvious fault line of abandoned properties bordering the downtown like in Jax. In Charleston you're definitely downtown when you're on King Street, and in Savannah when you're on Broughton. But then, as you head further away from those streets, when do you "leave downtown"? Maybe there's technically a block you enter or street you cross when you're not considered in downtown anymore, but otherwise you'll never know it. The streets are all densely developed with houses, stores and other uses so you have the sense that the whole inner city is being used and lived in, rather than abandoned. This isn't to say that there aren't blocks that are mostly offices and very empty at night, but they tend to be small areas like that here and there, not block after block after block of office buildings and parking lots like we have in downtown here.

This is the physical impact of those cities being economically stagnant during the second half of the 20th century. Much of the urban renewal that booming Sunbelt cities like Jacksonville experienced, did not take place as much in the stagnant cities. Locally, we lost significant building stock in all of the neighborhoods surrounding downtown...LaVilla, Hansontown, Cathedral District, East Jacksonville, Brooklyn, etc. These are areas where infill is needed (already underway in LaVilla and Brooklyn). Minneapolis, Houston, and Charlotte are all decent examples for Jax to follow, as they experienced a similar amount of urban renewal but have been very successful at turning those 1970s and 1980s blocks of surface parking lots into vibrant mixed-use neighborhoods on the edge of the their traditional business districts. 

Now, what's the policy implication for Jax? Identify the areas around the downtown that are underdeveloped and try to fill them with the urban style development that will allow the downtown to blend with the areas around it. Actually this is already being done, particularly by Gateway Jax.

Its really easy since we have an economy. Have a coordinated plan for the future, linked to funding for incremental public infrastructure investment and stick to it. This should also involve being more intentional to save and incorporate unique elements of our remaining built environment, which ultimately results in vibrant settings that have a unique sense of place. Pearl Square by Gateway Jax is an example of this. I'd also throw in being strategic with the incentives process to take advantage of opportunities to boost the vision and overall market.

Many people talk about how downtown Detroit has changed over the last 20 years. While they had a plan, it was boosted by key local companies investing by relocating their corporate headquarters from the burbs, back to that city's core, which helped the market for infill and adaptive reuse for lodging, housing, retail, dining, etc. They also got strategic with incentives and essentially paid professionals to move to the core.

One more thing: it may be emotionally hard to take, but don't worry about what the skyline looks like. Make the downtown good, not tall. In fact, tall buildings can be bad in many cases. They require large amounts of parking and utilities, are expensive to construct, and aren't feasible in any except the most in demand locations. Instead, try to fill up downtown with buildings that look like Vandeveer and you'll get a place that's much better.

Yes, if we focus on mastering the basics, the skyline will take care of itself.

[jcjohnpaint]

So gets us back to the original point: is investing in housing and amenities DT worth it, or should we incentivize businesses to locate DT from SS or outside the city. I really think the loss of a corporate workforce downtown sucks, but it is a national reality. I still read Philly and Pittsburgh news since my family is there and they suffer it too, but if DT is not (a location), who would want their company there, especially if the cost and convenience is better in the suburbs. It's just business. The ones that stay are locals that want to support DT, but why would BOA care? Boosting residential units downtown will also bring the amenities and sense of place. When that happens, businesses won't even need the incentives. If you get a large HQ relocation, so be it.
I also bring this up because it is the rationale for many on City Council. Some even compared areas around the Town Center not asking for incentives for housing. It is a stupid comparison, but that is how they think.

[thelakelander]

So gets us back to the original point: is investing in housing and amenities DT worth it, or should we incentivize businesses to locate DT from SS or outside the city.

^This is where the master plan no one wants to do is needed. This town has no real unified community vision for what it wants downtown to be. Without vision, we'll keep spinning in circles and waste a ton of public money in the process. When there's a visioning process that includes real community involvement and consensus building, we'll be able to develop a targeted strategy to turn the vision into reality.

I really think the loss of a corporate workforce downtown sucks, but it is a national reality. I still read Philly and Pittsburgh news since my family is there and they suffer it too, but if DT is not (a location), who would want their company there, especially if the cost and convenience is better in the suburbs. It's just business.

Can't speak to Philly and Pittsburgh or the private sector but the city can make sure its public jobs stay in the core. This means not only keeping entities like DCPS in downtown, but also getting strategic around where to place them. From a private perspective, this is what Dan Gilbert did with his own business empire in downtown Detroit.

The ones that stay are locals that want to support DT, but why would BOA care?

Perhaps some strategy should go into investing in and building up your own local companies. Just like the Independent Life, Gulf Life, Barnett Bank, etc., they'll care more because this is their home. You can still see this today with EverBank, FIS, CSX, and VyStar.

Some even compared areas around the Town Center not asking for incentives for housing. It is a stupid comparison, but that is how they think.

Very stupid because the construction of highways like Butler Blvd and I-295 East Beltway to create economic development opportunities is the exact definition of public incentives. Town Center is still a cow pasture today if billions in public funds aren't used to make that land more accessible.

[jcjohnpaint]

Perhaps some strategy should go into investing in and building up your own local companies. Just like the Independent Life, Gulf Life, Barnett Bank, etc., they'll care more because this is their home. You can still see this today with EverBank, FIS, CSX, and VyStar

This is interesting. I would love a story on this, or what a Masterplan should look include to make it watertight. What needs to be included. My fear is that once companies get big enough, they fold into a more powerful company and relocate. How is this built into the incentives? Would a Masterplan address this?

[jaxlongtimer]

Continuing about downtown Charleston and Savannah, what I noticed about both is the continuity of neighborhood through the areas considered to be downtown. Meaning, you go from what would definitely be considered a neighborhood to what's definitely considered downtown without crossing an obvious fault line of abandoned properties bordering the downtown like in Jax.

I totally agree with your observation, Aristocles.  Unfortunately, I think Downtown has two issues to overcome in this regard (as there are many others as frequently discussed on the Jaxson):

(1) Geography.  The core is surrounded by the river on two sides, Hogan's creek mostly to the north and I-95 to the west.  Finding more ways to connect past these points needs to looked at.  More watertaxi crossings for the river, improved street, pedestrian and bicycle paths north and west (and, for the latter two, over the river also).  Some of this is being addressed with the Emerald Trail and the Fuller Warren multiuse path now in place but more may be needed.

(2) Downtown Connectivity.  Aside from (1) above, the Core is poorly connected to surrounding areas due to little or no real robust mass transit connecting the innards of the greater urban core and virtually no effort by the likes of DIA and Downtown Vision to "invite" surrounding areas to participate in the Core.  They are too inward focused and appear to totally ignore areas on the fringe of their "jurisdictions."  This makes the Core essentially an island that stands or falls on its own merits, not one that collaborates with others in the greater urban area to make 1 + 1 = 3 or more.

No one thinks of the issues like this because we have no overall strategy and no master plan.  We just randomly ping pong about town, usually chasing one-off projects, without thinking much about such synergies.

[Aristocles]

I don't think geography and downtown connectivity are problems in Jax. Neither Savannah nor Charleston have much mass transit and Charleston with its rivers has about the worst connectivity imaginable this side of Manhattan (which I might add is a pretty vibrant downtown ). About Lakelander saying Charleston and Savannah didn't participate in urban renewal because they were stagnant, maybe this is true and maybe not - I don't have the data. Lots of cities that are stagnant now participated in urban renewal but when urban renewal was going on (1949 until 1973) they may not have been (e.g., Youngstown, Dayton, Flint, etc.). But I'm wondering if this is a side issue because my understanding was Charleston and Savannah were ideologically opposed to urban renewal while most other cities weren't, with this opposition allowing them to dodge the bullet that hit so many other places.
Anyway, a huge problem is we subsidize urban fringe development. Lakelander has it absolutely right when he says that if we didn't subsidize projects like 295E Town Center would still be pasture. Subsidies like these encourage businesses to take advantage of them by leaving congested cores for pastures made greener at taxpayer's expense. I'm not opposed to urban fringe development, but if you want to do it, pay the freight. Don't sit there building 600 home subdivisions with one access point onto two lane arterials and then say "people neeeeeeeed another $700 million in tax money to widen these arterials because of the crazy traffic". If the people doing the building were more responsible for the costs of doing it, inner city locations would become more advantageous costwise with less outflow of business from the center of town. And for crying out loud, design things more in a grid. I know everyone wants to live on his very own cul de sac but I'm sick of big subdivisions having one access point out to the same stinking road everyone else has to use, so you end up having to wait through three cycles of the light just to make it through the intersection. Street grids help alleviate this by giving drivers alternative routes.
Meanwhile, notwithstanding the losses there still seems to be a lot in downtown Jax that could provide demand for the Vandeveer-type buildings. FSCJ, FIS, City of Jax, Duval County and Federal Courthouses, State of Florida offices, U of Jax Law School, the three hospitals (UF, St. Vincent, Baptist), DCPS, and the future U of F Jax campus could all be demand generators. Young professionals would primarily be the tenants, as well as people at the other end of their careers (e.g., Ashley Street senior citizen housing). While many people in the middles of their careers tend to get married, have families and want more space and therefore might not be good as a market for high-density downtown housing, when they eventually become empty nesters they might want to move back into town. Also for people wanting to live downtown but wanting home ownership, the apartment buildings could be converted into condominiums to the extent the market demands.
Everybody's talking about the need for a downtown plan. Agreed, and I feel like I'm writing some of its policies here.

[thelakelander]

^Youngstown, Dayton and Flint (at least those three), were economically sound until the steel and auto industries started shutting down their plants and mills in the late 1970s and 80s. Youngstown is well known for Black Monday in 1977 when Youngstown Sheet and Tube abruptly closed, laying off thousands at once. Another 50,000 manufacturing jobs went away in that city over the next 5 years. Michael Moore has a pretty good documentary about GM's 1980s closings in Flint and their failed revitalization attempts from that era. Those three cities in particular, were peers of Jax through the 1960s. Savannah and Charleston had already been surpassed decades earlier. Savannah and Charleston have a different story than the rust belt cities.

[Jax_Developer]

IMO, a big factor that has hurt Jacksonville's shift to recreation is largely because our downtown is set back pretty far from the Beaches (unlike other FL & SE downtowns). The River is certainly a working waterfront and I believe this effect is understated in these conversations.

Savannah is similar sure but they also have a top 3 US port... so the economic conversation is apples & oranges.

[thelakelander]

^Downtown Norfolk is a decent comparable to downtown. Its a similar distance from Virginia Beach, as DT Jax is to Jax Beach. Its been a few years since I was there but its downtown was more compact and active at the time. It had a decent amount of well maintained waterfront parks as well. Here are a few pictures from July 2023: