Why Downtowns Fail and How They Can Come Back

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by Double L

O.K People want to invest in those downtowns for whatever reason that may be. You're missing the point and going off topic. Why do downtowns fail? Because people don't want to invest in them.

Downtown L.A. has recieved something like five billion dollars in investment over the past ten years. This includes new restaurants, stores, condos, adaptive reuse, and more. Downtown San Deigo has boomed more then many cities have throughout their entire Metro. DT Seattle is booming. DT Austin is booming. DT Boston is booming. It seems that people do want to invest in downtown.

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by Double L

I'm happy to see a prospering downtown but let's look at the title of this thread. We are here to talk about downtowns that don't prosper. Why? Because people fail to invest in them.

Originally Posted by Double L

O.K People want to invest in those downtowns for whatever reason that may be. You're missing the point and going off topic. Why do downtowns fail? Because people don't want to invest in them.

Well, as was pointed out on the first page of this thread, the title of the thread is odd and misleading since the article is specifically about downtowns in FLORIDA. The article pretty much sucks, really. It's completely uninformative.

Odd because Florida downtowns have not actually failed because they have never succeeded (in the sense the article is talking about) to begin with. Misleading because Florida downtowns are much different historically than what could be considered traditional downtown centers in the US, yet he makes a broad statement and attempts to support it with irrelevant examples (the Florida cities' downtowns).

The author is equating downtown success/failure specifically with ability/inability to maintain a significant residential population. The problem with his whole premise is that many downtown centers across the nation were not set up as large and cohesive residential centers... especially not Florida downtowns... which is what makes his argument so clumsy and ridiculous actually.

What is most interesting about this topic is that the American cities which have always had a significant residential component to their downtowns (generally our larger urban centers), still do. They always have, and they have never "failed". They have long been set up with the infrastructure and amenities that make living in the core of a city convenient and attractive. Most downtowns simply do not have those qualities. It takes time to change the function of the built environment -- even more so when human habitation is involved in that change -- and to completely introduce a new function to the built environment.

It goes far beyond the notion that "people just don't want to invest in them". There has been significant investment in residential development in downtowns across the nation, but it takes time for those investments to bear the fruit of a vibrant and desirable urban neighborhood, when the downtown has not historically served as a place for a significant population to live in the first place. This is obviously true for Florida cities and assorted sunbelt sprawlers, but it is also the case in many northern industrial cities as well. They are all trying to create neighborhoods where none really existed before (some more successfully than others)... and once again, that takes time. Florida cities are actually doing a pretty good job considering they were mostly built long after the rise of suburbanization and an automobile-centric lifestyle.

[ssiguy]

If down trodden cities want to "come back" there are several different realities that are needed.
First, they must be safe. No one is going to spend good money to live in a violent area where they are afraid to enjoy the amenties the city has. Having low crime not only entices people there but is very essential if they are to remain there. A single person or couple maybe willing to tolerate higher crime for the fun of the city but they will leave as soon as they have their first kid.
Second, it must good schools to encourage families to move there and to stay.
Third, good public transit.
Fourth, a solid economic base
Five, art and cultural to draw people there.
Six, a liberal enviornment. A city that is open to new ideas, cultures, lifestlyes, ethnicities, etc is one that pulls they kind of people in. They are often the type that are more creative and individualistic that help make a city a centre of novel living. It is what sets downtowns apart from the monotony of the suburbs. To entice a young, engaging, dynamic populas the city must let it be none that they are welcome in their dowwntown and that they value the imagination and diversity they bring.

[BevoLJ]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

Obviously there's the matter of definitions of what downtown even is. Even if Double L and Reverberation are right that nobody wants to live "downtown" some do want to live in central cities, which is what former CBD's are transforming into when they aren't business hubs anymore.

In any case I don't think the the critics are factually correct here. I was looking at the census and my impression was that even booming cities like Austin are mostly growing either in the outer suburbs or in the gentrified urban center. Established suburbs and lower density inner city neighborhoods are all losing population or are stagnant-maybe because they are built out and wont go vertical so obviously will show zero percent change, also there are things like changing household sizes or a decline in immigration after the recession?

NIMBYs

They are the whole problem. In most cities the central areas neighborhoods are filled with well established, often wealthy, NIMBYs who don't want all the stuff they cry about developments like added traffic or whatnot. Which keeps pushing the burbs further out and away, while not rising the tax base in those central areas to support the good schools. With out development and added population which is usually switching from family to couples with out kids to fill the schools anyway further lowering funding for good schools in those areas.

There are tons of great positives that come with growth. But when NIMBYs fights any growth or investments for the central areas especially the neighborhoods bordering downtowns, it pushes all the growth further out, along with all the good schools, and then they have their kids and want those schools suddenly so off they go to the burbs. Getting rid of NIMBYs would solve so many problems our cities face today.

I also think many of these inner city neighborhoods with such strong NIMBYs (at least in Austin) are filled with Baby Boomer populations in which their kids are already grown and moved out. Their kids who are now living in the burbs so their grand-kids can attend better schools. The better schools that when the baby boomers kids were in school were closer in the city. It is a cycle that just keeps going and going. And those baby boomers now just want to spend their retirement in quiet neighborhoods, that just so happen to be right next to DT. They don't care about the future of the neighborhoods or care about the quality of the schools in their neighborhoods anymore. Their kids are grown and in the 'new burbs' now.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

If down trodden cities want to "come back" there are several different realities that are needed.
First, they must be safe. No one is going to spend good money to live in a violent area where they are afraid to enjoy the amenties the city has. Having low crime not only entices people there but is very essential if they are to remain there. A single person or couple maybe willing to tolerate higher crime for the fun of the city but they will leave as soon as they have their first kid.
Second, it must good schools to encourage families to move there and to stay.

Items 1 and 2 might be important later in the process. First you have a scattering of secured condos plus urban pioneers and poor people. They pave the way for more singles and couples. Later -- maybe -- you start getting the skittish types and families.

[WilliamTheArtist]

Why downtowns fail,,, I can't speak for all of them, but for Tulsa a lot of it just had to do with a general change in attitudes and ideas for how people wanted to live. People for a time wanted new and suburban. They wanted cars. Many people still do, but now there is a growing number who realize they want an urban lifestyle.

Also, those changing attitudes and desires brought about changes in zoning laws (minimum parking requirements, no mixed use developments allowed in most parts of the city, etc.)

Downtown was also hurt by the car culture infiltrating downtown (tearing down buildings for parking and new buildings and garages being built with no concern for the pedestrian) and parts of downtown being cut off from the city by highways and even being torn down for highways.

And perhaps uniquely in Tulsas case, the loss of our leading downtown industry,,, oil companies, leaving for bigger pastures (often Houston in our case) and emptying out many of the buildings.

I could go on but I think we can all recite a myriad of reasons for many a downtowns failure.

Wasn't just but a few years ago that our downtown imo, hit its low. Lots of buildings, few to no people in most of them. Streets you could walk down the middle of and not be worried that a car would bother you.

Then several things started to happen.

A group of small stalwart businessmen and women started opening a few restaurants and clubs in one area near one end of downtown. Then another place opened and another, a gift shop there, a t-shirt shop, then a bike store, etc. etc. A small entertaiment district began to form. Nearby another area started having small clubs, galleries, restaurants, etc. open. And then another area,,, with usually only a few brave but determined souls really pushing to make things happen in their area and encourage more redevelopment. It was these little guys, often in the smaller buildings that remained and had not been torn down for parking, that got the ball rolling imo.

These areas also started promoting themselves and working to bring people to their areas with events, parades, art walks, art festivals, concerts, etc.

Meanwhile the city built a new arena, and a ballpark downtown. Definitely changed the landscape in a big way.

The city also helped redevelop some of the larger older buildings into hotels, living and mixed use developments by utilizing a low interest loan fund to help these projects get moving. These loans must be repaid and when they are other potential projects are asked to put out their proposals and the best of them are then chosen to have that project move forward. We are now entering the second "payout" if you will, of this fund. The first projects are mostly done, and now the second set are underway.

We have also started expanding our university offereings in and near downtown.

Then there have been some large private donors who have helped to create new parks, streetscaping, new museums, living for teachers, etc.

And lately we have seen new businesses finally starting to move back into downtown. An oil company is building a new 15 story building, an insurance company is building a new headquarters, several architectural companies have moved in, a new hotel, new living, etc.

All the while those first little districts have been growing and are even starting to get to the point where they will begin to merge into block after block after block of lively, pedestrian friendly streets. Also, more and more urban housing keeps going in. 2 grocery stores will open up soon. A small bowling alley opened recently, a new movie theater is in the works. Several new museums will open this year.

Its been a mix of various sorts of large and small private, public and philanthropic projects (and I believe a new trend of more people wanting to live, work, play and experience a good urban, pedestrian friendly environment) that has turned our downtown around.

[Private Dick]

A big problem with many views on this topic is that people have an unrealistic expectation that downtown residential development projects -- where there is little residential population of this type to begin with -- should just immediately attract residents, generate quick ROI, and spring a vibrant neighborhood to life.

It just doesn't happen that way, in cities big, medium, or small.

And when many see that neighborhood not popping into existence right away (or even within the first few years) after money is invested in bringing people back to the city, they deem residential investment in downtowns failures, and attempt to validate their judgments by saying that they would be successful if they had all the benefits of living in the suburbs.

It's just not an accurate portrayal of the situation, and a typical response from such pro-suburb outlets like newgeography.com who are actively engaged in a paranoid fight against the nationwide trend of redeveloping our urban centers. They make the bizarre and ignorant leap to thinking that the trend is somehow attacking their freedom.

[M II A II R II K]

There should be a bit of everything in the downtown area to ensure that people are there at any given time. Sports, Department Stores, Novelty Shops, Theatre, Restaurants, Public Squares, etc.

[WilliamTheArtist]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

A big problem with many views on this topic is that people have an unrealistic expectation that downtown residential development projects -- where there is little residential population of this type to begin with -- should just immediately attract residents, generate quick ROI, and spring a vibrant neighborhood to life.

It just doesn't happen that way, in cities big, medium, or small.

And when many see that neighborhood not popping into existence right away (or even within the first few years) after money is invested in bringing people back to the city, they deem residential investment in downtowns failures, and attempt to validate their judgments by saying that they would be successful if they had all the benefits of living in the suburbs.

It's just not an accurate portrayal of the situation, and a typical response from such pro-suburb outlets like newgeography.com who are actively engaged in a paranoid fight against the nationwide trend of redeveloping our urban centers. They make the bizarre and ignorant leap to thinking that the trend is somehow attacking their freedom.

I get really frustrated with the "anti-urban" sentiment here when they act like are wanting to turn every inch of Tulsa into Manhattan whenever there is some conversation or effort to help downtown and its areas be more urban.

I remind them that there are about 200 square miles in this city that offer some of the best "suburban lifestyle" options around for those that want that. And plenty more in the suburbs. All we are talking about is 1 square mile of downtown and a little bit more in the areas around it to be urban for those citizens of Tulsa who want that lifestyle option. Wouldn't it be nice if our city were able to brag about being able to offer something good of both types? Is asking for a mere ONE percent of the city to be a quality, attractive, lively, pedestrian/transit friendly urban area really too terribly much to ask for? Really? All we are asking for is to be ALLOWED to have the choice (get rid of restrictive zoning mandates) and for a fair share of infrastructure spending proportional to what the suburban areas get per "new home, business, traffic count, etc.".

[Lakelander]

The article and many that have responded in this thread fail to make the realization that Florida has a diverse amount of cities. Some Florida cities have traditional downtowns and some don't. Some have successful downtowns and others don't.


Last day of streetcar operations in 1936

In Jacksonville's case, we do have a traditional downtown that was established and built out well before post WWII suburbanization took over. However, after the Great Fire of 1901, it never had a significant residential population base. Residents lived in a fairly walkable 31 square mile collection of core neighborhoods tied to downtown via a network of +60 miles of streetcar lines.


A downtown aerial before WWII.


Waterfront heading into the 1950s

The downtown core itself, was where the maritime industry interchanged with the railroad. The waterfront was littered with wharfs, rail terminals, and associated industries. The railroad station was the largest in the South during its heyday, basically serving as the gateway to Florida. These two industries employed thousands and attracted thousands, which led to supportive services such as hotels, retails, offices, etc.


Waterfront by the end of the 1950s



Downtown Jax's decline didn't happen because of the growth in the burbs or white flight. It happened because its two original economic anchors were relocated to other areas of town, in an effort to clean up the waterfront and transition the CBD to an insurance industry mecca in the 1950s and 1960s.


When the railroad and maritime terminals were relocated for waterfront surface parking lots and office towers, so did the factories, markets, and warehouses (and their thousands of employees) that were served by them.


Mid 20th century brings one way streets to downtown.

Well, once the steamships, freighters, rail terminals, and passenger rail station left, the hotels fell like a set of dominos in the 1970s. The nail in retail came in the mid-1980s when the city tried to turn the core into an outdoor pedestrian mall. The construction project lasted so long, it ended up forcing JCPenney, May-Cohens, Ivey's to shut down their stores within a few months of each other.



Mixed in with all of this were urban renewal projects which were promoted as economic redevelopment, but really they were to "clear up blight", or to cleanse the area of dense minority populated neighborhoods.


Sugar Hill, which was about a mile north of downtown. An upscale African-American neighborhood completely gone today.


Every structure in this image demolished in the name of "progress"

The last 20 years has seen city hall focus on expensive gimmicks, such as the Landing (a Rouse festival marketplace) to lure suburbanites and policies intended to bring in a certain style of development. At the same time, while downtown has floundered, the neighborhoods the city cared nothing about, came back and now are decent urban districts. In short, downtown Jacksonville's struggles have been the City of Jacksonville itself and the restrictive policies implemented that have limited individual innovation and creativity from taking place within a compact urban setting. For example, we call ourselves the river city, there's miles of riverwalk downtown but its against the law to fish from the riverfront (just in downtown).

This stuff really isn't rocket science. The answer for Jacksonville is simply to modify bad public policy, reestablish reliable transit connectivity with other urban core neighborhoods and then get the hell out of the way of the private sector.

Btw, all the images are from the State Archives of Florida collection.

[Austinlee]

Downtowns outside of NYC are weird... If many of the largest US companies were setup in downtowns, we would have MASSIVE skyscraper districts everywhere. But many of our proudest companies are spread out in suburban office parks.
The only industries that consistently stay and build in downtowns are: Large law firms, Banks, and many older companies that have been there for a long time. I think most cities see their younger, successful companies setting up campus HQs in low height suburban office clusters and tech parks. Shame really...
Many US downtowns have hardly any downtown living options, and even fewer that are middle income/non luxury condos, even though they have daytime work populations of 100,000-200,000+.

[BevoLJ]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

There should be a bit of everything in the downtown area to ensure that people are there at any given time. Sports, Department Stores, Novelty Shops, Theatre, Restaurants, Public Squares, etc.

Don't forget education. Universities in downtowns, which are a much larger investments, I believe are very underestimated for the effects they can have on downtown life. And students are also the most likely to want to live in a dorm type setting and use a bike, feet, or public transit for transportation.

[mhays]

You get middle-income condos/apartments if your city was building them in the 20s, 60s, and 80s, etc., and supply stays ahead of demand. Stuff generally goes downmarket as it ages.

New housing is very hard to make work in a downtown for lower incomes. But you can make it work if your city supports no-car lifestyles, saving tens of thousands per parking space not built. Then you go small on unit size.

That's a growing trend in Seattle....highrises full of 500 square foot units, or even average sizes of 350 or 250 square feet. Some go even lower, like 150, and generally get permitted as bedrooms rather than living units, with their own small kitchens plus shared kitchens and parking in the 0.0 to 0.1 range. And why not....if the whole city is your living space and your "home" is just where you sleep, and you don't want a roommate, a small place sounds good to a lot of people.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by BevoLJ

Don't forget education. Universities in downtowns, which are a much larger investments, I believe are very underestimated for the effects they can have on downtown life. And students are also the most likely to want to live in a dorm type setting and use a bike, feet, or public transit for transportation.

Gotta love colleges. They can contribute a lot to density, with not only great ped/bike/transit usage but also no rush hours. Transportation is designed for continuous activity rather than the busy/slow cycle of offices.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by PA Pride

Downtowns outside of NYC are weird... If many of the largest US companies were setup in downtowns, we would have MASSIVE skyscraper districts everywhere. But many of our proudest companies are spread out in suburban office parks.
The only industries that consistently stay and build in downtowns are: Large law firms, Banks, and many older companies that have been there for a long time. I think most cities see their younger, successful companies setting up campus HQs in low height suburban office clusters and tech parks. Shame really...
Many US downtowns have hardly any downtown living options, and even fewer that are middle income/non luxury condos, even though they have daytime work populations of 100,000-200,000+.

I would add capital-investment-intensive industries like energy and mining as well.

[Lakelander]

Industries that stay in downtowns tend to do so because the environment is economically feasible for them to conduct their core business. In other words, it can come down as it being too expensive and inefficient to relocate facilities where hundreds of millions have already been invested in, even if they wanted too. Government, colleges, medical centers, major financial institutions, etc. all probably fall within this category.

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by Lakelander

The article and many that have responded in this thread fail to make the realization that Florida has a diverse amount of cities. Some Florida cities have traditional downtowns and some don't. Some have successful downtowns and others don't.

In Jacksonville's case, we do have a traditional downtown that was established and built out well before post WWII suburbanization took over. However, after the Great Fire of 1901, it never had a significant residential population base. Residents lived in a fairly walkable 31 square mile collection of core neighborhoods tied to downtown via a network of +60 miles of streetcar lines.

True. I do realize the difference in Florida's cities and their downtown areas, in particular. I am mainly addressing the residential component, since that is what the article focuses on and what cities across the nation are really trying to develop in their downtown cores.

Great photos of Jacksonville, by the way. So much different historically than other Florida cities. Thanks for posting them.

[Bailey]

I wonder how the principles in Richard Florida's The Rise of the Creative Class will ultimately affect city makeups.

The premise of the book is that the talented work force (those that have their pick) may make their decisions based on quality of life and cultural issues (museums, parks, urban areas, diversity, etc.).

I wonder how this will affect areas WITHIN a city that are thought to have higher quality of life issues.

Let's take Houston as an example: The Energy Corridor is slowly growing in West Houston AWAY from everything (suburban in nature). Uptown is anchored around a suburban style retail center (wide two way and very hard to cross streets, long walking distances between buildings, zero cultural institutions) and Downtown, which is desperately trying to make improvements to cement itself as the Cultural Urban Center of the city (one way urban walkable streets, Parks, theater district, mass transit, sporting venues, etc.). They are desperately seeking to add retail and housing but are finding it really tough.

Add to this, the new Exxon Mobil campus with its 18 buildings under construction just north of Houston.

Now, if you are a talented Energy Business grad and you are offered a job by a company in each of these areas- which one are you going to pick?

Let's say you love an urban lifestyle and want to take the Metro Rail to work......how much more would you have to be offered by Exxon Mobil to work in a suburban campus as compared to a downtown high rise?


It's a cycle and right now companies do not have to worry about this situation AT ALL. The talented workforce is not demanding to work in vibrant downtown with retail, restaurant, and housing options within walking distance. Those that absolutely require this pick New York City, Chicago, or Toronto or a city like that.

Hopefully the Gen Y's and Millenniums may start to make a small difference and developers and business will have to adjust but not right now.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Lakelander

Industries that stay in downtowns tend to do so because the environment is economically feasible for them to conduct their core business. In other words, it can come down as it being too expensive and inefficient to relocate facilities where hundreds of millions have already been invested in, even if they wanted too. Government, colleges, medical centers, major financial institutions, etc. all probably fall within this category.

Many companies choose downtowns because it's better for recruitment/retainage, or they want to be close to their customers and related industries. Often it's "want to" rather than "have to."

[Lakelander]

^What you describe would fit my definition of a situation being economically feasible to the profitability of such a company. Whether the location is pedestrian scale or autocentric is typically secondary. If they can't make money, neither situation really matters.

This basically describes my company. We're in the heart of downtown Jacksonville because the City of Jacksonville's Planning and Development Department is one of our main clients. Thus, I have an office a block away from their's.