THE DOWNTOWN DEBATE
EDITOR'S NOTE: Our cover story and June 12 Political Party on the state of downtown Tampa and St. Pete generated comment on our blog, blurbex.com, and letters to the editor. During the panel, the heads of the two downtown partnerships, Don Shea (St. Pete) and Christine Burdick (Tampa), emphasized that they're not in competition with one another: As Burdick put it, our "distinctive but complementary urban centers" benefit residents on both sides of the bay. But as the discussion made clear, comparisons, if invidious, may be inevitable. To hear more from the panelists, who also included developer Greg Minder, architect Chris Vela and St. Pete historic preservation whiz Bob Jeffrey, click on the "Political Party" link under "Events" on weeklyplanet.com, where you can listen to the podcast. To understand why some people insist on seeing the story as one of Tampa vs. St. Pete — not to mention Clearwater — read on.
TAMPA NEVER LEARNS
My grandfather, Thomas Franklin (T.F.) Alexander, came to Tampa in 1910 from South Georgia. My father, Holmes Alexander, was born in 1921, I was born in 1954, and my son was born in 1980, all in Tampa. I moved to St. Petersburg in January 2004. What took me so long to leave?
I believe I am more qualified than most to compare Tampa life to St. Pete life. I spent much of my childhood at the old Tribune building on what was then Lafayette Street — later Kennedy Boulevard — in downtown Tampa, researching the "old" days in the microfilm library. Only someone aware of Tampa's history can appreciate what it means to see all beauty squandered, all hope destroyed in what should have become a modern sub-tropical paradise.
I have nothing against Tampa. Tampa has been very good to me. But I have thought long and hard about this, and the one thing that will never change is the total hopelessness of what living in Tampa means. Tampa is, has been, and will always be a backwater town because of the people who have always run this town and continue to run this town, and it is only getting worse.
Tampa was created by transportation robber barons, and for the last 60-plus years has been controlled by lawyers and military personnel. In stark contrast, St. Petersburg was created by a Russian aristocrat and possesses an innate sense of natural beauty and order about it. Tampa will always be a cultural wasteland because it is incapable of appreciating beauty — especially its natural beauty — and thus will forever be blighted. Suffice it to say, every time there is an opportunity for our city leaders to create an environment that fosters livability and contribute to the public good, they fail; no, they don't even try. It's as if ideas and visions of civic good do not exist in their view of things — only commerce.
The Tampa waterfront prior to the urban renewal projects of the 1960s was a horrifically ugly miasma of railroad yards, docks, wharfs and run-down seafaring businesses — the bay and gulf provided a living, not scenery. The bay suffered from this abuse and often stunk to high heaven — another sweet irony delivered upon the movers and shakers who lived on it. This priceless waterfront real estate was not used for the cultural good; it was sold to the highest bidder for commercialization.
What we got was Curtis Hixon Hall — our first modern commercial center, which completely blocked the waterfront view — and our first modern skyscraper: the Exchange Bank Building. Where are the parks in downtown other than Plant Park, which has always been there? We don't have any! Hello city leaders, how do you expect an inner city population to live and prosper without green spaces? Oh, I almost forgot, we still should own a car so we may drive somewhere, anywhere but downtown, to enjoy them. The Bayshore clique don't need no stinking green spaces for the people. Unfortunately, vibrant cities do. For Tampa, it is now too late and nothing short of a major hurricane can change it.
Further commercialization of the waterfront continued up until an apotheosis only Tampa could achieve: The ugliest skyscraper in the history of the world was built on a piece of prime real estate — the NCNB building — better-known as the "beer can" building. This building has all the beauty of a high-rise maximum security prison. I imagine one day it will be. Now the ugliest building in the world is going to be the home of — you guessed it — the Tampa Museum of Art. Watching poor Tampa and its lickspittle mayors try to fund a museum worthy of a world-class city is an exercise in futility and contempt, depending on which side of the cultural fence one sits. The high irony that this architectural monstrosity is going to house our meager collection of art is more revealing than anyone may imagine without the keen sense of amusement one must cultivate from living their whole life in the cultural desolation which is Tampa.
Everything said about Tampa, its opposite can be applied to St. Petersburg. Beauty lies but a short distance across the bay. There is no doubt that St. Pete is the most beautiful and livable city in our beautiful state. SSSHHH! Don't tell anyone. Keep letting your readership think that there is hope in Tampa — better for us over here on the right side of the bay.
Michael Alexander
St. Petersburg
JUST BREATHE
The discussion last night [Political Party, June 12] didn't hinge on the fact that St. Pete's downtown has more life than Tampa's — everyone knew the stark difference between the two beforehand.
But why so down on Downtown Tampa?
Walking through the area after the discussion was lonesome, of course. But it wouldn't take much to breathe life into its empty sidewalks and streets.
Tampa isn't lame, it's just a self-image problem. The city has its own culture and energy and should start embracing it instead of aping the streetscapes of other cities. What makes St. Pete's downtown so great is that it harnesses the energy of its people, which is what really makes a place unique, not bars and restaurants.
Hopefully, Riverwalk will emphasize this city's pre-existing vibe instead of quashing it. But that might be like hoping the trolley will one day be a viable source of transportation instead of the tourist shuffler it is now.
Matthew Pleasant
Tampa
CRITICAL MESS
I didn't go [Political Party, June 12], but I don't need a panel to confirm that St. Pete is livelier than Tampa. Downtown St. Pete even has more bums than downtown Tampa.
What Tampa needs, no one can provide. It had a downtown once about 50 years ago. It's going to take another decade before there is critical mass again down there. All the faux "Riverwalks" in the world won't make it happen until a vast assortment of retail, restaurant and entertainment investors decide to move in and that won't be happening for many years.
Other Florida downtowns have built condos and no one came, i.e. Ft. Myers, which is just as dead as ever despite many new condo towers. But then it seems like no one in Tampa ever studies other Florida cities. Tampa is by far the lamest of the large ones. Orlando should be Tampa's model, not St. freaking Pete.
Which big Florida city has less of a downtown than Tampa? Not Orlando. Not West Palm Beach. Not Ft. Lauderdale. Not Miami. Not even Jacksonville.
They are all light years ahead of Tampa in creating an urban vibe. Even Sarasota is far more alive than Tampa.
Tampa is the last frontier for the condo builders, but with the market now tanking, it could be too late to spark some energy. Without stores, restaurants, bars, movies, clubs, downtown Tampa will simply not coalesce into a people magnet.
It has an infrastructure of sorts on Franklin Street, although the builders are busy tearing down whatever atmosphere was left from when Tampa had a real downtown. I'm not saying Tampa won't get its shit together. I'm just saying it will take at least 10 years, and meanwhile, there are just too many other cool places to live for those who bring something to the table besides a BMW.
Pete
Via Blurbex.com
THREE-POINT PLAN
Thanks for the article (Cover Story, "Worlds Apart," by Wayne Garcia, June 7-13). I'm from point three in the Tampa Bay triangle: Clearwater. We all have something to learn from each other about good and bad development, about transitioning away from the unwanted and the obsolescent into the fresh, appealing and "affordable" while retaining valued historical elements, paying attention to matters of scale and reshaping the identity and function of our urban centers. All THAT must be achieved in a way that will provide the current and future residents with: a stronger (not weaker) sense of community; an improved lifestyle that matches (not strips away) our ability to support it; and works with the natural environment in terms of the topography, climate/weather, ecological impact … current and future (not against it). No small thing.
Such an effort should not be left solely to developers, local governments, architects and traditional "market forces." Clearly, it is unwise to ignore the economic underpinnings of these growth opportunities, but it is imperative for the citizens to be informed and aware of the implications of these coming changes and to have a larger view about how all projects will work together for the greater good of each city. Citizen input must help guide all these forces to find the right balance between benefits and costs, and I mean that in all aspects of community life not just the economic ones. You have helped to encourage and further the public dialogue. This can only be a healthy thing. Let's hope that even more "interested parties" will show up at your next public forum as follow-up to this article and the others you will be printing.
David Ring
Clearwater
This article appears in Jun 21-27, 2006.
