'Eyesore' hotel in downtown Jacksonville heading for demolition

[ChriswUfGator]

^ Strider, I can't really argue with your thoughts, because the market does control.  This does however work in reverse, so I expect slum lords, halfway houses, and other businesses that offer services to a declining clientele to understand it's the shifting market, and not individuals that are pushing for change. 

Sounds like you're actually agreeing with what he says, but looking forward to the day when it starts working in reverse. As the neighborhood comes up, that will happen. But that's also exactly what happened when it went downhill in the first place. Strider is right on target with his analysis.

[zoo]

Strider is right on target with his analysis

(iyho)

We're talking about a building whose design limits it to only one possible use, and whose location prohibits that use from ever being successful.

it was the economic pressures that the management of the Park View Inn  found themselves in and they had to make that choice to try to just survive as a business or  go under.

The businesses that find themselves in a declining or depressed area have no choice other than catering too the market available to them.

I totally disagree with these comments and find the underlying theory -- "I am a victim and have no control over this situation, so I'm justified in making a decision that requires little investment in time, energy, money on my part" -- is a load of crap. Markets do not shift or change overnight. It takes time. An astute business owner watches for signs of shifting and makes one of 3 choices:

1. Try to prevent the shift from continuing through smart, offensive -- and sometimes costly and requiring support of other individuals/entities invested in the marketplace -- business decisions.

2. Do nothing, stick their head in the sand, and hope the start of the shift just goes away.

3. Adapt to the shift, thus attracting more individuals/businesses in line with the shift, and expediting its progress.

If the Park View Inn owners, and other Downtown interests of the time, had recognized a shift, and developed and implemented a strategy to prevent it, they may have succeeded. Doing nothing (option 2) will likely result in failure. I think some of Springfield's recent/current businesses may be perfect case studies for this.

The 3rd option is ultimately what the Downtown businesses and Park View Inn owners of the time chose. If the shift is in a positive direction, this works out fine, but if, as in this case, the shift is in a negative direction, the owners cannot make such a choice then sit back and attempt to blame environmental factors they helped to create for their own demise.

This is indicative of what is wrong with U.S. culture on a grander scale today. Individuals, businesses, govts making their beds, then blaming others/environment for having to lie in them.

The particular shift in the 60s went in a negative direction for the Downtown and Springfield submarkets. Now the shift in these markets is going the other direction and the same 3 choices, and related outcomes, still apply.

[ChriswUfGator]

We're talking about a building whose design limits it to only one possible use, and whose location prohibits that use from ever being successful.

it was the economic pressures that the management of the Park View Inn  found themselves in and they had to make that choice to try to just survive as a business or  go under.

The businesses that find themselves in a declining or depressed area have no choice other than catering too the market available to them.

I totally disagree with these comments and find the underlying theory -- "I am a victim and have no control over this situation, so I'm justified in making a decision that requires little investment in time, energy, money on my part" -- is a load of crap. Markets do not shift or change overnight. It takes time. An astute business owner watches for signs of shifting and makes one of 3 choices:

1. Try to prevent the shift from continuing through smart, offensive -- and sometimes costly and requiring support of other individuals/entities invested in the marketplace -- business decisions.

2. Do nothing, stick their head in the sand, and hope the start of the shift just goes away.

3. Adapt to the shift, thus attracting more individuals/businesses in line with the shift, and expediting its progress.

If the Park View Inn owners, and other Downtown interests of the time, had recognized a shift, and developed and implemented a strategy to prevent it, they may have succeeded. Doing nothing will result in failure (I think some of Springfield's recent/current businesses may be perfect case studies for this). The 3rd option is ultimately what the Downtown businesses and Park View Inn owners of the time ultimately chose. If the shift is in a positive direction, this works out fine, but if, as in this case, the shift is in a negative direction, the owners cannot make such a choice then sit back and attempt to blame environmental factors they helped to create for their own demise.

This is indicative of what is wrong with U.S. culture on a grander scale today. Individuals, businesses, govts making their beds, then blaming others for having to lie in them.

The particular shift in the 60s went in a negative direction for the Downtown and Springfield submarkets. Now the shift in these markets is going the other direction and the same 3 choices, and related outcomes, still apply.

Your comments are off-base. What can a motel do to change its own circumstances? Nothing.

It can't just pick up and move! Look at all the motels along US-1 that closed down when I-95 was built. Their market changed due to circumstances outside their control, and their traditional business dried up as a result. Same thing happened to Park View. What exactly would you have them do? No amount of advertising or "creativity" by some motel in Jacksonville is going to stop a white-flight problem that plagued the entire country, just the same as no amount of advertising or "creativity" on the part of a US-1 motel was going to make people avoid I-95.

[zoo]

In other words...

"I am a victim and have no control over this situation, so I'm justified in making a decision that requires little investment in time, energy, money on my part"

[jason_contentdg]

^ Sometimes no matter the money, energy, or time you put into something, you still can't change things.  So you think Route 66 would still be booming today had they spent more money/time/effort?

[zoo]

That would have been tough as Ike was obviously a very strong leader -- he got Congress and the American people to support the largest infrastructure investment in this country EVER.

However, suppose the towns along 66 had pooled resources and voice (and hired a lobbyist) to make the argument that it would have been a better approach to put the E/W trans-continental hwy where grading, and some economic development, was already done -- along the existing Route 66? They may have succeeded. Of course, education of the communities along 66 would also have been required b/c I'm sure some would have jumped up and down screaming they didn't want a major highway, but wanted their quaint route to remain the same.

Although I'm not a political history buff, and don't have the details on how the Eisenhower administration determined routes and what hurdles they did/did not have to clear to finalize such decisions, I suspect this may be a perfect example of the process I've already outlined. Towns along 66 could have:

1. Try to prevent the shift from continuing through smart, offensive -- and sometimes costly and requiring support of other individuals/entities invested in the marketplace -- business decisions.

2. Do nothing, stick their head in the sand, and hope the start of the shift just goes away.

3. Adapt to the shift, thus attracting more individuals/businesses in line with the shift, and expediting its progress.

Which route (no pun intended) did the towns along 66 choose? jasoncontentdg seems to think they chose options 1 or 3, and failed. But maybe they chose 2? If it was 1 or 3 and they failed, then you have proven me wrong on perhaps the largest scale possible (although one could argue that the choice, and subsequent premature abandonment, of option 1 due to exhaustion of resources also proves my theory). But if it was option 2, my theory holds.

In any event, I say, YEAH, THE PARK VIEW IS COMING DOWN!

[jason_contentdg]

Keep in mind, my only research on Route 66 was Pixar's Cars, and I just know the talking cars seemed helpless and sad in the flashback.

[downtownparks]

I was in Maine just last week, and Route 1 is alive and kicking up there. Tons of beautiful little town centers, 60s and 70s era hotels still have plenty of cars parked in front of them during tourism season.

[ChriswUfGator]

That would have been tough as Ike was obviously a very strong leader -- he got Congress and the American people to support the largest infrastructure investment in this country EVER.

However, suppose the towns along 66 had pooled resources and voice (and hired a lobbyist) to make the argument that it would have been a better approach to put the E/W trans-continental hwy where grading, and some economic development, was already done -- along the existing Route 66? They may have succeeded. Of course, education of the communities along 66 would also have been required b/c I'm sure some would have jumped up and down screaming they didn't want a major highway, but wanted their quaint route to remain the same.

Although I'm not a political history buff, and don't have the details on how the Eisenhower administration determined routes and what hurdles they did/did not have to clear to finalize such decisions, I suspect this may be a perfect example of the process I've already outlined. Towns along 66 could have:

1. Try to prevent the shift from continuing through smart, offensive -- and sometimes costly and requiring support of other individuals/entities invested in the marketplace -- business decisions.

2. Do nothing, stick their head in the sand, and hope the start of the shift just goes away.

3. Adapt to the shift, thus attracting more individuals/businesses in line with the shift, and expediting its progress.

Which route (no pun intended) did the towns along 66 choose? jasoncontentdg seems to think they chose options 1 or 3, and failed. But maybe they chose 2? If it was 1 or 3 and they failed, then you have proven me wrong on perhaps the largest scale possible (although one could argue that the choice, and subsequent premature abandonment, of option 1 due to exhaustion of resources also proves my theory). But if it was option 2, my theory holds.

In any event, I say, YEAH, THE PARK VIEW IS COMING DOWN!

I think your position amounts to trying to fight the rain, or prevent the tide from rising and falling.

Business adapts to society, not the other way around.

[JaxNative68]

It makes me sad to see our downtown fabric lose buildings, but this one particular building; I will shed no tear for.

zoo:  Thanks for the Intro to Business 101 class notes.  How about giving us some notes from practical business 2009 . . . ones that actually pertain to this building, its history and location.

[downtownparks]

UF, if that were true, neighborhoods like Springfield would never be able to recover. Are you ok with losing all of that history?

[ChriswUfGator]

UF, if that were true, neighborhoods like Springfield would never be able to recover. Are you ok with losing all of that history?

This has got nothing to do with the neighborhood. Springfield can (and eventually will) recover just fine. But a re-gentrification process that won't be complete until 2020 or whatever sure isn't going to help a motel stay in business in 1990, is it?

The place has to deal with the market it has, not what it wants it to be, or what it will be in 30 years.

[zoo]

Business adapts to society, not the other way around.

Adapting to society and what it wants is true.

This is not what you claim in your earlier posts -- you claim businesses have to exist, and come in line with, the markets as they exist. This is what I disagree with, and what I believe can be changed. And apparently I'm not alone in believing businesses can change a market or Bill Cesery, Mack Bissette and Jack Meeks wouldn't be spending what they are spending in Springfield.

Come to think of it, I'm glad businesses like Apple, GE, Dyson, and Volkswagen don't operate under your premise that they should just be as the existing market conditions are. I won't ever agree with you that creativity and innovation can't affect change, because all of the evidence suggests otherwise. Companies can create a market for themselves that doesn't exist, but it does take smart strategy, and an investment of time and money.

Jaxnative, I presume your comment re: business 101 is to bring this thread back to topic, so here goes...

I don't have access to detailed info on the market at the time so I won't take a stab at what the Park View Inn's highest and best use might have been between the 70s and today. But I feel pretty confident in saying it shouldn't have remained a motel/hotel. I'm glad it hasn't (remained a motel/hotel -- at least not officially), and I'm looking forward to its demolition.

[ChriswUfGator]

Business adapts to society, not the other way around.

Adapting to society and what it wants is true.

This is not what you claim in your earlier posts -- you claim businesses have to exist, and come in line with, the markets as they exist. This is what I disagree with, and what I believe can be changed. And apparently I'm not alone in believing businesses can change a market or Bill Cesery, Mack Bissette and Jack Meeks wouldn't be spending what they are spending in Springfield.

Come to think of it, I'm glad businesses like Apple, GE, Dyson, and Volkswagen don't operate under your premise that they should just be as the existing market conditions are. I won't ever agree with you that creativity and innovation can't affect change, because all of the evidence suggests otherwise. Companies can create a market for themselves that doesn't exist, but it does take smart strategy, and an investment of time and money.

Jaxnative, I presume your comment re: business 101 is to bring this thread back to topic, so here goes...

I don't have access to detailed info on the market at the time so I won't take a stab at what the Park View Inn's highest and best use might have been between the 70s and today. But I feel pretty confident in saying it shouldn't have remained a motel/hotel. I'm glad it hasn't (remained a motel/hotel -- at least not officially), and I'm looking forward to its demolition.

I see you're trying to re-frame my point so it sounds like I'm contradicting myself. LOL

Problem is, even if we take the words that you're trying to put in my mouth, rather than what I actually said, then I'm still clearly not contradicting myself. Business adapts to the social conditions around it. Period. That's what I've said all along.

In Park View's case, that meant accepting bums and drug addicts as guests, in order to pay the light bill. The "ideal" or "dream" guest vanished along with the white flight across the bridges. They either accepted what was still available to them in that location, or they would have had no guests at all. You're trying to create some mystical third option where there really wasn't one.

[strider]

Zoo:  But I feel pretty confident in saying it shouldn't have remained a motel/hotel.

And this means that you can always be right.  If a business isn't sucessful in a particular market, then it should just close rather than adapt to the new market it finds itself in.  In the case of the Park View Inn, which was built as a hotel/ motel, then what should it have morphed itself into? There seems to be a lacking of common sense in your statement.

Sorry, Zoo, you lose this one.  Society determines the market.  It may or may not have help from or may or may not be effected by good marketing.  The market determines  whether a particular business model will or will not succeed.  Overly simple, but the basis.

Problem is, even if we take the words that you're trying to put in my mouth, rather than what I actually said, then I'm still clearly not contradicting myself. Business adapts to the social conditions around it. Period. That's what I've said all along.

In Park View's case, that meant accepting bums and drug addicts as guests, in order to pay the light bill. The "ideal" or "dream" guest vanished along with the white flight across the bridges. They either accepted what was still available to them in that location, or they would have had no guests at all. You're trying to create some mystical third option where there really wasn't one.

ChriswUfGator Wins this one! I wouild think that it is the desire of any business that finds itself in a declining market that they can adapt and survive so that they may some day regain the business they once had.  And this does not mean automatically closing it's doors because they (or you) do not like the clients availible to them.  Will 3rd and Main turn it's back on low income residents if they somehow are not successful with the Proton Patient idea? I doubt it as there is money to be made from them (Section and too many bills for Cesery to pay to just shut the place down as you seem to suggest should be done.