Do tell what you think is 'outdated' about a centrally organized development pattern? Is it the billions of dollars less in public infrastructure that you don't like or is it the efficient use of resources and the greater diversity that it causes?
My basic point is that focusing revival efforts to 60 or so square blocks of a huge city, maybe 10 - 20 that ever actually housed this romantic "walkable" ideal, and 2 or 3 adjoining neighborhoods is myopic at best.
This would maybe, after the billions in investment recommended by an organization that is basically an investment club, house a city that Jacksonville was at a time being painted idyllic which never truly existed. This would not and does not fit the needs of the current city.
This isnt centrally organized, this is disjointedly organized and focused around sections of town that have UNIQUE problems which are being ignored or cobbled over with solutions that other cities have devised. Larger cities, which we supposedly want to be, create larger problems with the diversity and shared resources you claim to represent. If we are ignoring the problems we have now, what does that bode for this "future central planning"?
Altruism and Efficiency should include everyone, not just fellow investors. There are already areas of town where businesses have developed these things that government have failed to do. So I guess what I am against is the forced nature of your fixation, not the ideals you claim to represent. Here is a tip going forward, automatically responding to anything that isn't lockstep with your recommendations reveal your bias.
Are we re-building Jacksonville as it was in some mythical bygone era, or looking to the future?