Convention Center, CVB & Tourism

[Urban_Legend]

How much closer to the urban core is the T-U site compared to the Osborn? I know it's a short walk because of the new Riverwalk extension, but if the vacant land in LaVilla ever got "urbanized", the Prime Osborn site would see relatively closer.

[merlin]

One other thing that the TU would have going for it if it moved to the Osbourne would be marketablity. A paper like the TU taking over a Jacksonville historic icon like that, has marketing potential written all over it.

I like that idea, just not sure the current TU site is the right place for a new convention center. I tseems everone envisions all of the "mass" activities happening on the northbank of the river. Would be out of question to somewhat triangulate event spots and incorporate the southbank? Let's expose our river back to being a connector rather than a divider. This would give more reason, along with the new housing over there to promote water taxis and river travel... just some rambling thoughts

[Viper]

How much closer to the urban core is the T-U site compared to the Osborn?  I know it's a short walk because of the new Riverwalk extension, but if the vacant land in LaVilla ever got "urbanized", the Prime Osborn site would see relatively closer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

TU is slightly closer. It sits at the corner of the Acosta bridge and Riverside Ave.

[vicupstate]

It's eight to eight and a half blocks from the Osborn Center to the Landing. The distance from the T-U offices to the Landing is about half that distance. Not only is it half the distance, it is along the riverwalk, thus the cool breeze from the water and the view make the walk cooler and more enjoyable.

I wouldn't be opposed to the Convention Center being on the Southbank, but the only viable options IMO would be the site of the San Marco Riverwalk or maybe the School Board property. The JEA site would be stretching it a bit, but would probably work too.

[scongro]

vic,

In thinking about your idea, I like it more and more. If you think about it, the Times-Union site has zero street presence (Thank you Acosta Ramps). A Convention Center really has zero street presence (most conventions are private; people can't just walk in off the street).

Personally, I think that the Terminal should become what it was built to be - a transportation center. Why is JTA building a facility next to the Prime Osborne? Why not build the facility in the Terminal? Am I missing something?

[bobliocatt]

The idea of switching locations with the T-U, makes a lot of sense and sounds pretty good. The main negative, on the surface, is that it would be an expensive and difficult move to coordinate.

On the other hand, that's about the only logical site left, if its decided that its best to move to a riverfront location. The Shipyards and San Marco Riverwalk sites are planned for private development. Both of these should be under construction before expanding the convention center is even seriously considered, so you can take them off the list.

The city is also better off selling the courthouse site to private development as well, thus returning some of the most expensive riverfront land, back to the tax rolls. That basically on leaves the School Board land, JEA southside station and the active industrial area east of Alltel, as the only available spots for a riverfront center. I don't think these make much sense because they're all farther away from the core and interstate than the Prime Osborn.

Due to the expensive costs, does anyone think, with the right design, an expansion of the center, at its existing location, can be a success?

[Urban_Legend]

^I do, because it could complement the new JTA area. In the plans for the transportation hub, JTA mentioned a hotel, offices, and retail. That would be great development to have near the existing convention center. And after looking at some more aerials, there's more land near the center than I thought. And they could also build UP.

[RiversideGator]

I think the existing convention site could be a success given a reasonable expansion and a hotel adjacent to it to support it. I think if you clean up McCoys Creek and the Brooklyn area it could be very nice and a great attraction. Also, the Prime Osborne is not that far from the downtown core and you have a skyway station just across the street.

[scongro]

Though it is not the cheapest option, I think that Jacksonville has an opportunity to capitalize on the 250,000-300,000 sq ft convention center market. I think we need to come up with something unique. Frankly, I don't see it happening at the current site. We have a few options: I've mentioned near the stadium, southbank, vic's T-U idea (If we extend the skyway to riverside avenue, that is my new favorite), etc.

You know, this is a little unrelated, but with some planning and some motivated people with money, could we turn the Brooklyn area into an urbal shopping district. We have a ton of vacant lots (or lots with non-historical buildings) that can be used for new buildings and parking. Not to mention, there are not any current buildings on Riverside Avenue that address the street well (other than the firehouse at Forest St.). I think that we can create a great urban shopping district there. Wouldn't that be great to have an urban shopping district in Brooklyn with a convention center at 1 Riverside Avenue?

[Urban_Legend]

It would've been great, until the FDOT widened Riverside Avenue....

[RiversideGator]

I think the city will only take the cheapest option on the convention center issue (if any change is made at all), which is to expand the existing center. As to the Brooklyn area new urbanist shopping plus residential area, it could still work north of Riverside Ave. but will require deep pockets and leadership and vision on the part of the mini-mayor (which has been sorely lacking). I also want to thank the DOT for creating a superhighway out of Riverside Ave. Why is it that traffic "engineers" are so incredibly clueless??

[scongro]

The widening of riverside may not be that bad. It is not as if the road will turn into southside blvd. In some ways, it could actually be a good thing. Think about it, you're hungry, you see a restaraunt with some outdoor seating, and you can turn down a cross street.

I think it would have been a disaster had they closed a bunch of the cross streets. By having an intersection every 150-200 feet or so, it keeps traffic speed down a bit.

[Captain Obvious]

FDOT did close down several intersections. In fact, they were planning to cul-du-sac almost all the forest st. intersections except park. The city eventually complained, but FDOT is under no obligation to re-open the streets. I don't know if they've made any promises to do so. We'll see what they do soon.

FDOT does whatever the heck it wants. And what it wants is traffic flow at the expense of good urban design. They've made that perfectly clear over the years.