"Downtowns To Be Hollowed Out"

[jcjohnpaint]

^ There is another component to a great Downtown that we are not discussing much.... tourism.  This would support more hotels, restaurants and entertainment venues. 

A driver of tourism (and Downtown living) should be our riverfront and other green spaces along with our cultural institutions such as the theaters, performing arts groups, museums, musical (above and beyond the jazz fest) and multi-cultural events*, etc.  City leaders don't seem to talk much about these contributors and how they could boost the urban core, especially compared to sporting events.  Another missed opportunity.

*I have been to cities that have major events at least once a month.  It is another reason to have expanded green spaces.

I agree. DT JAX was stagnate when there were 50-60k jobs DT and refilling office buildings alone will not reverse that.  Build a DT that people won't to visit and you will inherently build a place where people want to live as well.  See Chattanooga, Charleston, Greenville for examples. Charlotte had tons of office buildings but DT was one dimensional until the nightlife/residential components were added.

Even the loop in Chicago is dead after 5.

[Ken_FSU]

Yeah, I think you're a dinosaur.

I just hit 40.

It was only a matter of time before I started yelling at clouds.

I'm not saying there aren't jobs that benefit from people being in the same space. But the argument I hear more is one about the detrimental effect this is going to have on other aspects of the economy - basically, it's going to hurt people/companies that have profited from people being going into an office daily.

Agree here that this sentiment is rather goofy. I don't worship the free market, but I am a believer in the invisible hand. Or, in dinosaur terms, a believer that life finds a way. Office towers turn residential. Lost lunch business for restaurants becomes new Doordash orders to homes. New lines of work spring up to replace those displaced by a remote or hybrid work culture. I don't think a fear of upsetting the historical infrastructure alone is a compelling reason to oppose WFH.

COVID was a disruptor. For years we've been hearing about how technology was going to allow us flexibility, etc. But very few employers had the guts to actually do it. Then they had to and it worked in many cases.

I don't dispute that it's worked in many cases. I'm just personally skeptical that when things shake out long-term, we're going to be in a better place than we were before in terms of employment, equity, income inequality, economic growth, and mental health.

I also worry that the aspects of work-from-home that we celebrate at 3% unemployment when the economy is roaring and employers are bending over backwards to accommodate hires are going to turn much darker when the tide turns the other way, AI eliminates 40% of white collar labor, and employers have all the power. I've got friends who work remotely for Fortune 50s, and they've got software on their laptops that allows their supervisors to peek in on them at any time. There's something a little too dystopian about completely eliminating that line, to the point that your supervisor is inside of your home watching you. It's such a slippery slope, exacerbated (like the rapid arrival of AI) by a complete unwillingness of lawmakers to thoughtfully regulate and provide safeguards for citizens.

All of this reminds me of when the record companies started complaining about MP3s and the rise of file sharing. The old model no longer worked and the people who had been making a killing off that model had to figure out a way to adapt or they went under.

You can't stop progress.

This is actually the kind of scenario that I fear. Circumstances are quite similar, if you liken the music industry to the U.S. economy. The music industry was on fire in the late 90s and early 2000s, to the tune of $22 billion in annual physical music sales. New artists were emerging every month. Everyone was making money. And then Napster came along. Record companies weren't complaining because of the MP3 format, they were complaining because consumers had discovered an easy, anonymous way to steal music instead of buy it. As a kid who spent long summer afternoon mowing lawns to afford $25 CDs that the music industry and record stores were illegally colluding on in the 90s, I can't say I had much sympathy, but that's another story. Virtually overnight, music sales fell by 60%.

The industry was forced to adapt and was dragged kicking and screaming into the digital age, but can we really say that the music industry and the musicians/workers came out better on the other side? Power now lies in the hands of a two or three major platforms who pay artists pennies on the dollar per 10,000 streams. Beyond the Taylor Swifts, Bad Bunnies, and Drakes, new music and new artists are enjoying an increasingly small portion of market share (40% down, with over 70% of streams coming from old music), and albums have become increasingly meaningless, disposable commodities.

Short term, consumers benefit. Long-term, the industry and music fans probably lose.

In either case though, I guess the genie's already out of the bottle.

Hopefully you're right, and I'm wrong.

[Adam White]

Yeah, I think you're a dinosaur.

I just hit 40.

It was only a matter of time before I started yelling at clouds.

I'm not saying there aren't jobs that benefit from people being in the same space. But the argument I hear more is one about the detrimental effect this is going to have on other aspects of the economy - basically, it's going to hurt people/companies that have profited from people being going into an office daily.

Agree here that this sentiment is rather goofy. I don't worship the free market, but I am a believer in the invisible hand. Or, in dinosaur terms, a believer that life finds a way. Office towers turn residential. Lost lunch business for restaurants becomes new Doordash orders to homes. New lines of work spring up to replace those displaced by a remote or hybrid work culture. I don't think a fear of upsetting the historical infrastructure alone is a compelling reason to oppose WFH.

COVID was a disruptor. For years we've been hearing about how technology was going to allow us flexibility, etc. But very few employers had the guts to actually do it. Then they had to and it worked in many cases.

I don't dispute that it's worked in many cases. I'm just personally skeptical that when things shake out long-term, we're going to be in a better place than we were before in terms of employment, equity, income inequality, economic growth, and mental health.

I also worry that the aspects of work-from-home that we celebrate at 3% unemployment when the economy is roaring and employers are bending over backwards to accommodate hires are going to turn much darker when the tide turns the other way, AI eliminates 40% of white collar labor, and employers have all the power. I've got friends who work remotely for Fortune 50s, and they've got software on their laptops that allows their supervisors to peek in on them at any time. There's something a little too dystopian about completely eliminating that line, to the point that your supervisor is inside of your home watching you. It's such a slippery slope, exacerbated (like the rapid arrival of AI) by a complete unwillingness of lawmakers to thoughtfully regulate and provide safeguards for citizens.

All of this reminds me of when the record companies started complaining about MP3s and the rise of file sharing. The old model no longer worked and the people who had been making a killing off that model had to figure out a way to adapt or they went under.

You can't stop progress.

This is actually the kind of scenario that I fear. Circumstances are quite similar, if you liken the music industry to the U.S. economy. The music industry was on fire in the late 90s and early 2000s, to the tune of $22 billion in annual physical music sales. New artists were emerging every month. Everyone was making money. And then Napster came along. Record companies weren't complaining because of the MP3 format, they were complaining because consumers had discovered an easy, anonymous way to steal music instead of buy it. As a kid who spent long summer afternoon mowing lawns to afford $25 CDs that the music industry and record stores were illegally colluding on in the 90s, I can't say I had much sympathy, but that's another story. Virtually overnight, music sales fell by 60%.

The industry was forced to adapt and was dragged kicking and screaming into the digital age, but can we really say that the music industry and the musicians/workers came out better on the other side? Power now lies in the hands of a two or three major platforms who pay artists pennies on the dollar per 10,000 streams. Beyond the Taylor Swifts, Bad Bunnies, and Drakes, new music and new artists are enjoying an increasingly small portion of market share (40% down, with over 70% of streams coming from old music), and albums have become increasingly meaningless, disposable commodities.

Short term, consumers benefit. Long-term, the industry and music fans probably lose.

In either case though, I guess the genie's already out of the bottle.

Hopefully you're right, and I'm wrong.

I just turned 51. What the f*ck happened?

I think change is inevitable and things will work themselves out. The city centers of the future will necessarily be different than the ones we're used to. But that's not necessarily a bad thing - we just have to get used to it. Look at Jax - downtown is a bit of a basket case and has been for decades. It didn't take a pandemic to do that! In a lot of ways, it's practically a blank slate. It's up to our leaders to figure out a way to turn it into something worthwhile.

[jaxlongtimer]

Here is a timely and extensive article on issues facing downtowns today and how to address them.  I would say Jax is not doing any of the suggested fixes, effectively.

The real reasons stores such as Walmart and Starbucks are closing in big cities

New York
CNN
 —
Nordstrom. Walmart. Whole Foods. Starbucks. CVS.

These big chains and others have closed stores in major US cities recently, raising alarm about the future of retail in some of the country’s most prominent downtowns and business districts.

Several forces are pushing chains out of some city centers: a glut of stores, people working from home, online shopping, exorbitant rents, crime and public safety concerns, and difficulty hiring workers.

To reinvent downtown retail, drastic changes may be required.

That means denser neighborhoods with a broader mix of affordable housing, experiential retail, restaurants, entertainment, parks and other amenities, which won’t happen overnight.

“Once [these cities] become true urban neighborhoods, then you will find retailing start to come back in different ways and forms,” said Terry Shook, a founding partner at consulting firm Shook Kelly.

How policymakers remake their downtowns — with retail as a crucial attraction — will be crucial to cities’ fiscal health and regional economies....
....‘Downtown is for People’

There’s no easy fix to slow the exodus of retail chains from cities.

Replacing a Nordstrom with another department store, or swapping out a CVS for a different drug store chain, is unlikely to be sustainable, experts say.

“It’s a really tough problem for cities and economic developers,” said Chris Wheat, the president of the JPMorgan Chase Institute. “How do you make these live, work and play neighborhoods? That was a question before the pandemic, but it’s become more salient now.”

It hearkens back to urbanist Jane Jacobs’ influential 1958 essay “Downtown is for People,” in which she argued a vibrant street life was crucial for neighborhood safety and community.

It is this model, focused on the vitality of the streets and the people who inhabit them, that’s needed to create lively and exciting communities and shopping areas.

Streets could be blocked to cars on weekends and other hours. Cities can also host street fairs, food festivals, live music, art exhibits and other events to draw foot traffic downtown.

These so-called “placemaking” investments —which Bowles notes are “not massive, billion-dollar” invesments — could be supported by special business improvement districts, where local stakeholders fund the maintenance and promotion of the area.

Bringing streets to life

If the future of shopping is not giant department stores, a wider mix of stores will be needed to make downtowns more appealing.

Traditionally, retail landlords seek out the longest leases. But that makes it difficult for new stores to open.

Cities can provide financial incentives to encourage landlords to offer temporary and more flexible leases and loosen regulations to speed up the permitting process for them.

This will allow for pop-up stores, seasonal retailers and a mix of food and drink vendors.

People enter a Bed Bath & Beyond retail store in New York, NY, September 4, 2022. The home goods retailer Bed Bath & Beyond announced that it will close 150 stores and cut 20% of its labor force due to weak sales and high inventory supplies.

“Can retail be more responsive?” said Paco Underhill, the founder of behavioral research and consulting firm Envirosell. “Can you have a space that is Crocs during summer and Canada Goose during winter?”

Then there are more intractable challenges, such as improving public transit and creating more affordable housing in downtown areas.

Zoning laws need to be updated to allow for redevelopment of some vacant office buildings and commercial real estate into affordable housing.

The density of housing that will replace some office and commercial spaces matters, said David Dixon from Stantec. People want to shop just minutes from their homes, and a critical mass of housing is needed to sustain surrounding retailers.

“A vibrant downtown, full of housing, can bring its streets to life,” he said. “It’s a much larger story than the fate of retailers themselves.”
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/12/business/stores-closing-cities-downtown-retail/index.html

[thelakelander]

They could have changed the publish date of this article to 1985 and it would have still been applicable. These types of places left downtown Jax 40 years ago. So we should serve well for these communities now experiencing this to not use us as the revitalization example.

[Jax_Developer]

https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/news/2023/may/15/conceptual-project-could-transform-at-least-five-downtown-blocks-off-union-street/

Interesting. As others have mentioned in the past, seems that most vibrant 21st century DT's are really just residential districts now with shopping and dining. 

[thelakelander]

^They are unique neighborhoods where a mix of uses come together in a pedestrian friendly manner. If we focus on downtown's unique assets and invest in it as a mixed-use neighborhood, most of the high profile things people want to see, will happen more naturally.

[simms3]

Yea there was also an article this weekend in Bloomberg about the rise of daytime drug/alcohol use with remote work.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-13/remote-work-comes-with-daytime-drug-and-drinking-habits#xj4y7vzkg

Over the past several years I have seen quite a few articles detailing the rise of this habit, and admittedly, whenever I'm home working I grab alcohol from the fridge fairly as well.  I have quite a bit of self control and might have one cold one, but we all know there is a lot of people out there lacking self control and I totally think this is another big negative side effect of WFH.

One day we are going to correct for WFH if we can get a handle on our culture in this country.  We are definitely in decline and this weird obsession with promoting what is very obviously an inferior mode of "work" is part of the problem.  We are also promoting AI super fast without having any conversations about potential bad side effects for society.  We live in a technocratic culture/society now and the masses are assuming all of these leaders also have real wisdom, which is obviously proven to be not true (in my mind at least).  It's a horror show.  Faustian bargain.

As I've said before, the World Economic Forum leaders are really the ones driving this because they want a one world government and they don't want people driving in cars.  They also want people isolated and living in some sort of fear of something.  That's how they get their agendas through, and in the guise of "increased freedom" and then something more benign than "new world order", such as "helping climate change".

We can walk and chew gum at the same time - we can promote nice office space and support and attract residential uses around it, having a mixed-use downtown that still functions as a center of commerce.

[Jax_Developer]

^They are unique neighborhoods where a mix of uses come together in a pedestrian friendly manner. If we focus on downtown's unique assets and invest in it as a mixed-use neighborhood, most of the high profile things people want to see, will happen more naturally.

Obviously conceptual, but what strikes me is the proposed density. I do agree with you on that.. Nashville being a great example.

Yea there was also an article this weekend in Bloomberg about the rise of daytime drug/alcohol use with remote work.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-13/remote-work-comes-with-daytime-drug-and-drinking-habits#xj4y7vzkg

Over the past several years I have seen quite a few articles detailing the rise of this habit, and admittedly, whenever I'm home working I grab alcohol from the fridge fairly as well.  I have quite a bit of self control and might have one cold one, but we all know there is a lot of people out there lacking self control and I totally think this is another big negative side effect of WFH.

One day we are going to correct for WFH if we can get a handle on our culture in this country.  We are definitely in decline and this weird obsession with promoting what is very obviously an inferior mode of "work" is part of the problem.  We are also promoting AI super fast without having any conversations about potential bad side effects for society.  We live in a technocratic culture/society now and the masses are assuming all of these leaders also have real wisdom, which is obviously proven to be not true (in my mind at least).  It's a horror show.  Faustian bargain.

As I've said before, the World Economic Forum leaders are really the ones driving this because they want a one world government and they don't want people driving in cars.  They also want people isolated and living in some sort of fear of something.  That's how they get their agendas through, and in the guise of "increased freedom" and then something more benign than "new world order", such as "helping climate change".

We can walk and chew gum at the same time - we can promote nice office space and support and attract residential uses around it, having a mixed-use downtown that still functions as a center of commerce.

I'm on the younger side and I do agree with you on most of that. I have a lot of friends that prefer WFH, and I am personally not a believer in it for the long-term. I believe the harm done to the office sector has been much more damaging than what most people realize.. & to many cities in the US. There have been several reports in the last few weeks, hinting at another significant drop in the office sector coming up. Crazy to think because for so long, office demand is what drove the mammoth buildings all across the US. Now, the whole sector is somewhat in an 08-like event.

[thelakelander]

^I personally prefer a mix and the freedom not to have to work a traditional 8am to 5pm weekday schedule. At this point, I've achieved this option in my career and really enjoy the freedom and flexibility. As a business owner, I can totally understand a company not wanting to pay for large blocks of office space if it can operate just fine without such an investment. It's also why I believe it is very important for the city, state and allied agencies to keep their administrative operations in downtown (i.e. DCPS, JSO, etc.).

[Adam White]

I love how the kind of people who complain about the so-called "nanny state" complain that workers need to be in the office because apparently they can't be trusted to work from home without getting drunk. FFS.

Maybe take off the tinfoil hat and stop worry about plots to instal a "one world government".

[Jax_Developer]

I love how the kind of people who complain about the so-called "nanny state" complain that workers need to be in the office because apparently they can't be trusted to work from home without getting drunk. FFS.

Maybe take off the tinfoil hat and stop worry about plots to instal a "one world government".

Unless you code, or do something that requires little to zero human interaction, there's a hard argument to make saying professions like bankers, lawyers, etc. can really WFH if they are trying to "be their best". Most execs now do a hybrid model, if anything, which to me is probably where the balance lies. There's also a difference in remote work vs. WFH.. in my opinion.

If your ambition is to work in a lower to mid tier corporate role forever, then yeah I could see the appeal WFH brings. Big business will never be done that way. Functioning Execs (those not just there for sales or connections) will never be allowed to work that way. I'd argue that's almost human nature. Why work for someone you never know or see? Some % of people I'm sure wouldn't mind. Also, this is somewhat of a privileged conversation point to argue for anyway. (Think about how many labor workers simply don't have that choice.)

The conversation gets real niche, and there's not a single right way to look at it. What is easy to say though is that we don't live in a pure capitalist society, and you shouldn't get ruffled at the fact that your decisions have been influenced by public policy.. probably since you were a little kid. Tax breaks for having kids, tax breaks for big oil & cars, tax breaks for you name it.. the list is insane and those breaks promote behavior. If the idea of a government overload seems farfetched, then what would you call all that? I'm not a one world order guy, but I mean wheres the line in your eyes there?

Just remember that we are extremely lucky to be in the US, and the daily decisions of WFH that seem to be so nuanced are not even questions elsewhere in the world. The idea that the US govt would incentivize, or want, people to not WFH, or to WFH, is as simple as implementing the necessary incentives to drive that behavior.. and that's common practice here.

[Tacachale]

Speaking for myself, work from home is really nice but like anything, there are drawbacks. During COVID our original hurdle was that no one had equipment that was easily transportable. We mostly resolved that but it was an expense. The big one that we never resolved is that stuff tends to take longer if you have to message someone rather than being able to just walk over to them. A simple conversation turns into a phone or video call -- on the extreme end, I've had to set meetings with people to resolve what would have been a 1 minute conversation at their desk.

I roll my eyes at the claim that WFH reduces collaboration, as we collaborated just fine when we were all at home. And my wife who's worked from home for years and has staff all over the state feels the same way. But with the limitations of remote work, it does tend to make that collaboration take longer, require more meetings and in some cases less productive meetings.

Personally, my preferred mode would be 2 days in the office and 3 at home, with one of those days having the entire team in-office. I feel like that's the best of both worlds, but obviously many have other opinions. And obviously some jobs aren't cut out for remote work. But in jobs where it could go one way or the other, I don't know anyone who thinks 5 days in the office 8-5 is objectively a better system, except for the CEO types who keep getting quoted about it.

[Tacachale]

I love how the kind of people who complain about the so-called "nanny state" complain that workers need to be in the office because apparently they can't be trusted to work from home without getting drunk. FFS.

Maybe take off the tinfoil hat and stop worry about plots to instal a "one world government".

Bahaha!

I love how the kind of people who complain about the so-called "nanny state" complain that workers need to be in the office because apparently they can't be trusted to work from home without getting drunk. FFS.

Maybe take off the tinfoil hat and stop worry about plots to instal a "one world government".

Unless you code, or do something that requires little to zero human interaction, there's a hard argument to make saying professions like bankers, lawyers, etc. can really WFH if they are trying to "be their best". Most execs now do a hybrid model, if anything, which to me is probably where the balance lies. There's also a difference in remote work vs. WFH.. in my opinion.

If your ambition is to work in a lower to mid tier corporate role forever, then yeah I could see the appeal WFH brings. Big business will never be done that way. Functioning Execs (those not just there for sales or connections) will never be allowed to work that way. I'd argue that's almost human nature. Why work for someone you never know or see? Some % of people I'm sure wouldn't mind. Also, this is somewhat of a privileged conversation point to argue for anyway. (Think about how many labor workers simply don't have that choice.)

The conversation gets real niche, and there's not a single right way to look at it. What is easy to say though is that we don't live in a pure capitalist society, and you shouldn't get ruffled at the fact that your decisions have been influenced by public policy.. probably since you were a little kid. Tax breaks for having kids, tax breaks for big oil & cars, tax breaks for you name it.. the list is insane and those breaks promote behavior. If the idea of a government overload seems farfetched, then what would you call all that? I'm not a one world order guy, but I mean wheres the line in your eyes there?

Just remember that we are extremely lucky to be in the US, and the daily decisions of WFH that seem to be so nuanced are not even questions elsewhere in the world. The idea that the US govt would incentivize, or want, people to not WFH, or to WFH, is as simple as implementing the necessary incentives to drive that behavior.. and that's common practice here.

Obviously government incentives can drive behavior, as can marketing, corporate decisions, etc. But to say this is the result of a "one world order" is silly. Most US cities are now made up of car-reliant suburban sprawl with single-family homes and segregated zoning. Is that the result of some nefarious overlord? No, it's mainly the result of local government decisions that have been propagated for 70 years. Even the people who in charge of those governments today don't know this. And I certainly don't think that people wanting not to have to go to an office everyday, wanting to have more transit options, etc. are the result of some kind of Illuminati delta wave signal or whatever. I do mostly agree with Simms on the AI thing, though maybe not for the same reasons.

[Jax_Developer]

I was only responding to the idea that we operate freely, without influence from the govt. That's simply not true. I don't prescribe to a one world order, however I do think nations do have an agenda of their own.. free from the will of the people.

In a truly capitalist society, there wouldn't be incentives or tax breaks. In a truly capitalist society, we'd still have child labor.. and people making 3 cents an hour..

Local governments also are not given enough permissions to influence a "country." The national government, does. Local governments did not propagate cars & big oil for 70 years. If anything, that reasoning more correlates to the idea that there is this secret web of local leaders all connected together making decisions.. when in reality its a much smaller group making more impactful decisions at the top with local leaders working within their allowed confines.