Jacksonville - Why?

[DONTBELIEVETHEHYPE]

Is a graphic master plan what is necessary to address the realities of my original post?  Will that put Jacksonville in position to realize its potential?

To use an example, how is the need for a convention center identified and prioritized?  Who determines the best location of a convention center?  How is that done?  Who's hands is that put in?  Do we know that one hotel and a few recently established nightclubs is a strong enough influence to justify one convention center location over another?

Do similar questions apply to every issue surrounding Jacksonville's downtown and it's importance within the city?

[Coolyfett]

On a micro-economic scale, look at projects like 11 east.  Vestcor came in and turned that building into great apartments.  Right now I live in Metropolitan Lofts, an old warehouse building.  One12 is another example, albeit never finished due to the condition of the market.  These projects, orchestrated by different developers, cumulativley revive downtown.  Remember the "invisible hand" from economics?  That's my take on downtown development. 

The hunger for downtown is out there, right now the building I live in is over 95% occupied.  The problem is that not enough developers realize Jacksonville needs more apartments downtown, not condo's.  A condo is a longterm commitment, but apartments let people try it out first.  Even that temporary commitment to downtown will give those considering a longterm investment more confidence in that decision.  And the culture, which we desperately need here.  Condo's are a great source of revenue, if they can be sold, but an active apartment community is a good investment too.

That's a really good post man!!! Apartments & Condos, instead of just condos. Is FCCJ still going to go state? Would that create dorm rooms? Just asking, I am not too sure of the scale of what FCCJ was trying to do.

[thelakelander]

Another question, or series of questions.  Does urban renewal really start with local culture?

I'm not a fan of urban renewal.  However, I'm of the belief that true urban revitalization starts with small private sector organic growth.

What is your definition of urban renewal?  How do you differentiate the definition between urban renewal and urban revitilization?

Urban Renewal typically involves the destruction of existing businesses, the relocation of people, and the use of eminent domain as a legal instrument to reclaim private property for city-initiated development projects.

On the other hand, to me revitalization can involve bringing a community back to life by respecting existing assets (history, building fabric, residents, etc.), incorporting and using them as building pieces for a new vibrant community.

You made reference to a long term plan on one hand.  And, on this hand the need for small private sector growth?  Explain what you think of these two ideals more fully, and how or if they work together.

Take East Bay, for example.  The city's long term vision is to see this area become a "district" dominated by restaurants, nightclubs, bars and other entertainment oriented businesses.  This will not happen without private sector investment and risks made by businesses like Mark's and TSI.  So to reach your goal, you have to first make the enviroment attractive for small businesses to cluster together to create that district.  Making it attractive can be done by incorporating many of the things Stephen Dare outlined in reply #30.

[JeffreyS]

Remember, One12 was originally a Major Corporate Headquarters building.  So were each of the Laura Trio buildings.  The Carling was a hotel.  Downtown didn't thrive in the 1920's because it was a strong residential destination.  It was a premier place for business in the southeast, and the retail, cultural, residential activity naturally followed.

A great point though I believe residential activity would serve as a catalyst if not as potent as a more vibrant mix of businesses would.

[thelakelander]

Is a graphic master plan what is necessary to address the realities of my original post?  Will that put Jacksonville in position to realize its potential?

Along with the master plan, its your road map to your long term dream or vision.  I believe that if you create one and make sure its followed you'll have more success than attempting to redevelopment with no clear long term development strategy in place.

To use an example, how is the need for a convention center identified and prioritized?

Need should be determined by market studies, age of the facility and its success compared to competing facilities across the country.

Who determines the best location of a convention center?

Location should be determined by multiple things.  These should include an evaulation of sites large enough to host a facility, financial conditions, public/private opportunities, existing development patterns and infrastructure.

How is that done?  Who's hands is that put in?

In Jacksonville, I believe the CVB determined the need and now its up to the council and Mayor's Office to determine the best site.

Do we know that one hotel and a few recently established nightclubs is a strong enough influence to justify one convention center location over another?

Imo, urban connectivity should be a high priority in determining a potential site.  A new convention center without a large convention hotel and complementing development is useless.  Looking at oour existing urban landscape, we already have a 966 unit hotel with 100,000 square feet of conference space.  We also have a nightlife district and major retail/dining complex located next door to it.  On top of that, the city already owns a large site adjacent to that large hotel and its 100k square feet of convention space.  

We can all agree that Downtown is pretty dead.  A look around the country also proves that convention centers are more attractive when located in areas with restaurants, retail and entertainment within immediate walking distance.  So why create the wheel?  

Can a dead DT like Jax's really support two +900 room hotels, two Landings and two entertainment districts?  Is it better to focus on making your existing assests stronger or turn your back on the existing community to provide incentives to a new one that will complete with the existing?   When I ask myself these questions, the answer becomes pretty simple to me.

Do similar questions apply to every issue surrounding Jacksonville's downtown and it's importance within the city?

I think downtown has to work for itself first.  If it can become a viable neighborhood, every thing else will fall in line.  

I believe every project in downtown should face similar questions to ensure that its properly integrated into the urban core.  This way it will be easier to stimulate synergy between nearby development instead of having a core with isolated pockets of activity.

[DONTBELIEVETHEHYPE]

Another question, or series of questions.  Does urban renewal really start with local culture?

I'm not a fan of urban renewal.  However, I'm of the belief that true urban revitalization starts with small private sector organic growth.

What is your definition of urban renewal?  How do you differentiate the definition between urban renewal and urban revitilization?

Urban Renewal typically involves the destruction of existing businesses, the relocation of people, and the use of eminent domain as a legal instrument to reclaim private property for city-initiated development projects.

On the other hand, to me revitalization can involve bringing a community back to life by respecting existing assets (history, building fabric, residents, etc.), incorporting and using them as building pieces for a new vibrant community.

You made reference to a long term plan on one hand.  And, on this hand the need for small private sector growth?  Explain what you think of these two ideals more fully, and how or if they work together.

Take East Bay, for example.  The city's long term vision is to see this area become a "district" dominated by restaurants, nightclubs, bars and other entertainment oriented businesses.  This will not happen without private sector investment and risks made by businesses like Mark's and TSI.  So to reach your goal, you have to first make the enviroment attractive for small businesses to cluster together to create that district.  Making it attractive can be done by incorporating many of the things Stephen Dare outlined in reply #30.

Given your definitions I would favor the description of revitilization too, given that Jacksonville seems to have something to revitilize.

East Bay seems to have a Vision as an entertainment district without the context of how it works with the rest of the downtown.  Wasn't it more or less established for the Super Bowl?  How do we know the vision is the most sensible in the context of the entire downtown area?  

[thelakelander]

I don't think that scrupulous adherence to the masterplan is useful for anything other than keeping some of our egregious dumbasses from executing a crackpot scheme that they thought up after 9 Dewars and waters and outraged discussion at the Club.

Its all we got that might protect us from our most dangerous domestic enemy.

I'm not saying the city's plan is the best thing out there, because it isn't.  But you do need a long range plan if you really want to see the place become vibrant again.  Unlike what we have, that plan should identify proposed public improvements in the core, address transit issues and determine areas where infill and preservation of existing building fabric should be encouraged.   Without an idea of how things will ultimately go together, you'll end up with what we have right now.  A big mess.

[thelakelander]

Given your definitions I would favor the description of revitilization too, given that Jacksonville seems to have something to revitilize.

East Bay seems to have a Vision as an entertainment district without the context of how it works with the rest of the downtown.  Wasn't it more or less established for the Super Bowl?  How do we know the vision is the most sensible in the context of the entire downtown area?  

This is why I believe you need a vision plan graphically laid out to ensure that everything being developed  is sensible in the context of the downtown area.  Without one, you're going to end up with a mutilated Frankenstein.

[DONTBELIEVETHEHYPE]

Is a graphic master plan what is necessary to address the realities of my original post?  Will that put Jacksonville in position to realize its potential?

Along with the master plan, its your road map to your long term dream or vision.  I believe that if you create one and make sure its followed you'll have more success than attempting to redevelopment with no clear long term development strategy in place.

To use an example, how is the need for a convention center identified and prioritized?

Need should be determined by market studies, age of the facility and its success compared to competing facilities across the country.

Who determines the best location of a convention center?

Location should be determined by multiple things.  These should include an evaulation of sites large enough to host a facility, financial conditions, public/private opportunities, existing development patterns and infrastructure.

How is that done?  Who's hands is that put in?

In Jacksonville, I believe the CVB determined the need and now its up to the council and Mayor's Office to determine the best site.

Do we know that one hotel and a few recently established nightclubs is a strong enough influence to justify one convention center location over another?

Imo, urban connectivity should be a high priority in determining a potential site.  A new convention center without a large convention hotel and complementing development is useless.  Looking at oour existing urban landscape, we already have a 966 unit hotel with 100,000 square feet of conference space.  We also have a nightlife district and major retail/dining complex located next door to it.  On top of that, the city already owns a large site adjacent to that large hotel and its 100k square feet of convention space.  

We can all agree that Downtown is pretty dead.  A look around the country also proves that convention centers are more attractive when located in areas with restaurants, retail and entertainment within immediate walking distance.  So why create the wheel?  

Can a dead DT like Jax's really support two +900 room hotels, two Landings and two entertainment districts?  Is it better to focus on making your existing assests stronger or turn your back on the existing community to provide incentives to a new one that will complete with the existing?   When I ask myself these questions, the answer becomes pretty simple to me.

Do similar questions apply to every issue surrounding Jacksonville's downtown and it's importance within the city?

I think downtown has to work for itself first.  If it can become a viable neighborhood, every thing else will fall in line.  

I believe every project in downtown should face similar questions to ensure that its properly integrated into the urban core.  This way it will be easier to stimulate synergy between nearby development instead of having a core with isolated pockets of activity.

I really question your last statement.  Let me follow up.

How can any downtown, or any neighborhood function as an autonomous entity without understanding how it fits within its larger context?  How can downtown be successful if it's not consciously identified communitywide as a priority?  And, what of the priority if public policy runs counter to downtown's success?

[thelakelander]

I agree, of course certain areas of master plans should be flexible.  For example, the uses and specific locations for private sector projects should be flexible.  Short and long term fixed mass transit routes/corridors should not.

I'm not saying the city's plan is the best thing out there, because it isn't.  But you do need a long range plan if you really want to see the place become vibrant again.  Unlike what we have, that plan should identify proposed public improvements in the core, address transit issues and determine areas where infill and preservation of existing building fabric should be encouraged.   Without an idea of how things will ultimately go together, you'll end up with what we have right now.  A big mess.

I would give qualified agreement, except that its a problem to think that one generation has the foresight to plan with great precision for the needs and aesthetics of the next generation.

For example, I simply am not grateful to the Haydon Burns Administration for solving the race mixing problem and deciding for us that riverfront commerce was no longer necessary.

Flexibility, keeping options open and the eternal qualities are the best things we can plan for.

For example we can plan aggressively to salvage our past.  We can plan for density by funding the conditions that help it to happen, we can plan to seperate industry from residential for health reasons, and we can establish principles like street access, live oak tree canopies, and design elements.

But doesnt Jack Diamond's crackpot dynamiting idea have inclusion in Jeannie Fewell's masterplan?

[thelakelander]

I think downtown has to work for itself first.  If it can become a viable neighborhood, every thing else will fall in line.  

I believe every project in downtown should face similar questions to ensure that its properly integrated into the urban core.  This way it will be easier to stimulate synergy between nearby development instead of having a core with isolated pockets of activity.

I really question your last statement.  Let me follow up.

How can any downtown, or any neighborhood function as an autonomous entity without understanding how it fits within its larger context?  How can downtown be successful if it's not consciously identified communitywide as a priority?  And, what of the priority if public policy runs counter to downtown's success?

Downtown is really a high density urban neighborhood.  However, sometimes we try to force it to work for suburbanites instead of it being a self sustaining viable mixed-use community.  Btw, I'm not saying it should be cut off from its surroundings or that we should not work to better connect it to nearby neighborhoods.  I'm just saying we'll get farther by focusing on making it neighborhood as opposed to a suburbanite's theme park for sporting, entertainment and cultural events.

[ProjectMaximus]

Would you say that downtown business is what creates a demand for people to live downtown?  Why is that part of the equation never discussed?  I agree that Metropolitan Lofts, 11E, and Carling are good projects.  I hope they're as successful as you say.  But doesn't downtown residential development traditionally serve those who work downtown?

Isn't a focus on downtown residential, retail, artwalk, bars, football games, etc. focusing on the byproduct of a great downtown, rather than what establishes it and creates it in the first place?  Am I mistaken to think the first step might want to be making sure downtown is a place where as many highly educated well paid people work?

Remember, One12 was originally a Major Corporate Headquarters building.  So were each of the Laura Trio buildings.  The Carling was a hotel.  Downtown didn't thrive in the 1920's because it was a strong residential destination.  It was a premier place for business in the southeast, and the retail, cultural, residential activity naturally followed.

I'm not sure, but aren't our downtown working population numbers pretty high? Many people do work downtown, most just choose not to live there. Still a good question, though, DONTBELIEVE. And very nice thread you started, too.

A great point though I believe residential activity would serve as a catalyst if not as potent as a more vibrant mix of businesses would.

Shouldn't residential, corporate, and retail all grow together, little by little? We can't necessarily expect to have a thriving yet discrete entertainment district, distinct from any established residential base. Nor can we expect potential downtown residents to relocate en masse without the likewise accumulation of businesses for them to work and play.

I'm sorry if what I'm saying is simply common sense (I have no expertise to offer on this subject besides common sense) but it seems each component must grow just enough to increase demand in the other areas to keep momentum going until we ultimately reach our goals for the core. Trying to focus too much on, or expecting, one factor to be the solution won't really get anything going. You'll either have a bunch of empty offices, unsold or unrented housing units, or closing businesses.

It seems development would be most organic if the private sector drives the revitalization and responds strictly to demand. The government's role would be to make downtown appealing to private development and create an environment that allows businesses to survive.

All of that said, looking at my initial assertion that there already is a healthy downtown work force, I think we can afford to up the ante now on the "live" and "play" opportunities in the core...particularly with more economic housing options (cheaper, low-end condos, and as mentioned already, more rental units). DONTBELIEVE, you're probably right that downtown corporate business is probably left out of discussion too often. No doubt, having more large companies with a presence there will only help the CBD's growth. But the way I see it right now, we need more entertainment and residential options to eliminate the current imbalance.

How can any downtown, or any neighborhood function as an autonomous entity without understanding how it fits within its larger context?  How can downtown be successful if it's not consciously identified communitywide as a priority?  And, what of the priority if public policy runs counter to downtown's success?

Was it a priority of the community at large to create thriving business parks along JTB and Southside? Each neighborhood in Jacksonville owes whatever success it has to much more than just a community-wide decision to support its growth. Yes, downtown is a central location, and yes, the great downtowns across the country generally attract people from outlying areas, but I dont think there's any reason it cannot grow on its own. If anything, the central location, history, and natural geographic advantage should serve to aid its own rebirth...in theory.

[DONTBELIEVETHEHYPE]

I think downtown has to work for itself first.  If it can become a viable neighborhood, every thing else will fall in line.  

I believe every project in downtown should face similar questions to ensure that its properly integrated into the urban core.  This way it will be easier to stimulate synergy between nearby development instead of having a core with isolated pockets of activity.

I really question your last statement.  Let me follow up.

How can any downtown, or any neighborhood function as an autonomous entity without understanding how it fits within its larger context?  How can downtown be successful if it's not consciously identified communitywide as a priority?  And, what of the priority if public policy runs counter to downtown's success?

Downtown is really a high density urban neighborhood.  However, sometimes we try to force it to work for suburbanites instead of it being a self sustaining viable mixed-use community.  Btw, I'm not saying it should be cut off from its surroundings or that we should not work to better connect it to nearby neighborhoods.  I'm just saying we'll get farther by focusing on making it neighborhood as opposed to a suburbanite's theme park for sporting, entertainment and cultural events.

Isn't the "high density urban neighborhood" demand created first by a strong dense business presence in a city's CBD, with cultural venues, residential development, and bars/restaurantes a byproduct?  

Aren't larger issues of public transportation, and growth management critical to direct the desired types of businesses and uses downtown?

[Ocklawaha]

For example, I simply am not grateful to the Haydon Burns Administration for solving the race mixing problem and deciding for us that riverfront commerce was no longer necessary.

Me either, howevr, FYI, they still have a sale on axe handles at Ace Hardware on Atlantic...

OCKLAWAHA
"Medium John Diamond, the pirate, has a little captain in him!"

[BridgeTroll]

I'm just saying we'll get farther by focusing on making it neighborhood as opposed to a suburbanite's theme park for sporting, entertainment and cultural events.

As a suburbanite my self I agree Lake... The downtown needs to be a self sufficient entity without the reliance on folks like me to spend my time and money there. I and many like me will visit the downtown for the people and atmosphere but planners cannot rely on our participation.  This is one of the issues with the Landing.  Someone decided that it would be a place a suburbanite might come to spend money... They clearly do not most of the time.  When we are asked what the problem with the Landing is most suburbanites cite parking... If the Landing were self sufficient for downtown dwellers... parking is no longer the issue.