RAP-->Costs? Benefits?

[Know Growth]

Well you also have a basic problem in as much as the RAP traffic and parking committee is chaired by a person who has personal distaste for transit.

I'm chairing RAP's transportation committee.  And I don't have a personal distaste for transit.  It doesn't help when people post on this board bashing RAP but don't know what is really going on.  I'm pretty sick of it.  For example, no one to my knowledge at a staff or board level has said one word on this forum about Mellow Mushroom, yet RAP is being denigrated for what exactly?

[Ocklawaha]

Love the streetcar route.  Would so totally benefit all the historic neighborhoods, even San Marco, as the Skyway would hook up with it.  And the trip would be so cool, people would love riding it.  Springfield, Brooklyn, Riverside AND Avondale would benefit from the route.

The map has been drawn and redrawn over the last 32 years, but this is the basic idea. I actually prefer, rather then using Park Street from Water to Forest, that we use the original route which would run from Water to Lee to West Bay to Myrtle to Forest, through the original subway. The reason for this is the opportunity to put the streetcars in a position to expand northward into Durkeeville, Moncrief, etc...  From Forest we could jog southward on Riverside to Post, to Oak, to King, to Park. Doing this with the streetcar opens up to west side of Riverside via some future southward extension along Park, Post, or College; and toward Fairfax via the original route from King to St. Johns to Aberdeen to Herschel to FAIRFAX.

PROPHECY?  "The horse is here to stay but the automobile is only a novelty, a fad.”

- President of Michigan Savings Bank, 1901

[Kay]

Ock:  I'm interested in how we can incorporate the area of Riverside west of Park St.

[thelakelander]

Initially, a neighborhood shuttle or circulator between the commuter rail corridor on the west side of Park to the streetcar corridor on the east side, complemented by bike corridors.  Perhaps a fixed connector as a part of a larger expansion west of Riverside to neighborhoods like Murray Hill in later phases.

[wowowow]

Cont...

Similarly, RAP seems to be pursuing a strictly limited selection of aesthetics as their entire historic preservation ethos.

Hence the treatment of windows, old photos, roofing materials etc.x

But nothing about the historic methods of dealing with traffic capacity, or the business infrastructure that made the in habitation, elegance, spacious properties and density possible in the first place.

Which is as much of a long term problem as the destruction of Kluthos drainage system in Springfield was.


Riverside Avondale is in the final stages of the aesthetic restoration of residential structures which pleases the narrow concerns of the architectural enthusiasts in the neighborhood.

But in truth the neighborhood is undergoing a restoration which is larger than, and eclipses those narrow definitions.

Riverside and Avondale are right at about half of their former glory once you take in the equally important elements on which the neighborhood was designed----primarily the considerations of industrial/commercial employment centers which creates the residential workforce housing that forms so much of the greater riverside Avondale fabric and the commercial retail and service clusters which served the upper and middle class areas of the area.

In fact there has been a lopsided tilt to the redevelopment and restorations, and the commercial development is generating approximately 30 % of the volume and activity that they did in the past.

For the neighborhood to become completely functional, walkable, self sustaining, and profitable to the residents of these neighborhoods, these commercial properties will have to be restored to their full functions as well.

That has not only not happened, yet, but it faces additional hurdles to overcome inasmuch as so much of this commercial property has been destroyed----so that even if you filled to capacity and highest use every single property that is still standing, you would still only have about eighty percent of the economic power that the neighborhood enjoyed in the past.

There is a balance between density and economic activity that is perilous to ignore, and that balance was seriously challenged by the unsuccessful retrofitting of the neighborhood for an ever increasing burden of automobile traffic.  The neighborhood was never designed for auto centric transit and had to start making choices in the late fifties about the future.

The decision makers of the time chose further retrofitting in favor of the automoble, and the result was the rapid degrading of the historic structural stock to the point that much of the neighborhood was standing on the brink of destruction to make way for the highway which was the ultimate retrofitting of the area.

The policies being pursued by RAP to solve the same problems that emerged much later in the process of neighborhood vitality sixty years in the past will result in the demolition of additional structure to provide parking that streetcars and alternate transportation would render unnecessary.

Not to mention that a new unspoken strategy is being formed.  Simply prevent the economic revitalization and restoration of the commercial districts upon which the neighborhood traditionally depended.

So you see, Bensays, we have been at this juncture before, and last time, our predecessors chose wrongly and inadvertently destroyed the historic neighborhood

Stephen --

Your insight on urban and suburban issues has generally been quite astute, that is, until your pontificating in recent months that the Riverside Avondale Historic District needs more commercial density. I am embarrassed for you that you have spoken with such zeal about that which you are historically so incorrect.

First, Riverside and Avondale were originally built as residential neighborhoods. The three commercial corridors (5 Points, Park and King, and Avondale Shopping Center) were built well after the residential portions of the neighborhood were developed. They were commercial intrusion from the outset. Many great old mansions were torn down to build the 5 Points commercial zone in the 1920s. Park and King was the same, and in fact, King Street still has several of its old residential homes remaining, sprinkled within the commercial district that grew up around them, e.g. next to Kickbacks. Avondale had no commercial businesses whatsoever when it was developed. The Avondale Shopping Center came in the decade after Avondale was developed and on land that was not part of the original Avondale subdivision. Notice the sharp demarcation between residential and commercial at Talbot Street.

Second, Avondale was built for cars, not based on trolleys. The subdivision was marketed to upper income families who had automobiles. Virtually every house had a driveway and a garage. The trolley line which served Ortega was three blocks distant from the Avondale Shopping Center. Angled parking for cars was built into the shopping center, with apparently just the right amount of parking spaces to support the commercial district without having cars spill over into the residential area.

Third, your statement that "Riverside and Avondale are right at about half of their former glory once you take in the equally important elements on which the neighborhood was designed----primarily the considerations of industrial/commercial employment centers" is complete balderdash. You are making assertions that fit your thesis but are opposite from the truth.

Fourth, three of the four founders of RAP were professional transportation planners, and if you would bother to study the history of RAP, you would see that transportation planning has been at the forefront of this organization for over 35 years.

You recently seem bent on trying to prove that intensive commercial development, e.g., Kickbacks and the Mellow Mushroom along with their inherent increase in traffic and parking problems, are not only good for the residential neighborhood but have a manifest birthright to be there. Stop. Riverside and Avondale were originally designed and built as residential neighborhoods. Commercial intrusion has been damaging the the quality of living in these communities for many years, especially in the last five decades, which has resulted in several hundreds homes being demolished.

I thought much higher of you several years ago when you were championing "quality of life" issues for neighborhoods. I apologize if I am mistaken, but it appears to many people that you are currently encouraging businesses to maximize their profits at the expense of those who actually live in the neighborhood.

It would be nice to hear you acknowledge that if it had not been for RAP's thousands of quality-of-life initiatives over the last 35 years, Riverside and Avondale would not be the nationally recognized residential showcases that they are today.

Wayne Wood

[Jimmy]

Thank you, Dr. Wood.  Your perspective adds a lot to the discussion.  To any discussion, I've found.

I'm very thankful for RAP and its work over the years to preserve and improve the Riverside Avondale area.  I don't agree with every decision or position taken by RAP, but since it's a large group made up of lots of people, it's hard to get them and it to line up with the wishes of every person on every question.  On balance, I agree with RAP more than I disagree.

All this reminds me that my membership has lapsed and I need to renew.  It's painfully easy to criticize something from the sidelines.  If you can do that anonymously on the internet, it's even less (personally) painful and much easier.  The better course of action is to roll up your sleeves and get to work making whatever change you want to see in your neighborhood and city.  Some here are doing that and those who are have much more credibility when they speak on these issues.  IMHO, of course.

[grimss]

Thank you, Dr. Wood.  Your perspective adds a lot to the discussion.  To any discussion, I've found.

Amen.

[thelakelander]

Thanks for your insight Wayne.  This discussion should get pretty interesting.  I'm getting ready for church but I'll chime in with my two cents later this afternoon.

[strider]

I am certainly no expert in planning nor am I fully informed about the history of Riverside/ Avondale or even Springfield for that matter.  I read Mr. Wood's post with interest as I always felt that Riverside was car based and Avondale certainly looks fully car based.  It make sense when you look at Springfield history.  Prior to cars, the wealthier among the residents owned their own horses and carriages. The move to cars for them was a natural. As roads became more prevalent, the move to “greener pastures” was also natural.  Some of the best houses in Springfield were built by the same people who built those larger houses in Riverside.  Case in point, the gorgeous house at Pearl and 7th.  One of the most often seen pictures of that house shows the owners new car.  Shortly after, the family built in Riverside.  Avondale certainly looks like the car based communities we see all over. Yes, some of the old thinking is there, but isn't that natural?  As community planning progressed to full on car based, some of the old would naturally be carried forward at first.  Just a layman's view of things.

I do have issues with the concern of commercial intrusion.  I think it is part of the natural evolution of a community.  An area, like Springfield, develops as a wealthier residential community.  As time goes by, the area also will welcome the working class as they are needed by the community.  After a while, the density is high enough that commercial enterprises want to come.  By then some of the wealthier have moved on and the big old houses they leave behind become fairly cheap to buy.  Often too expensive to be maintained by the average resident and so they come down for that new commercial that the majority of the residents will welcome.  They welcomed it because it saved them time and money to have that walkable commercial strip.

Many bemoan the loss of the great houses that once lined Main Street in Springfield and yet those same also wish for a great walkable Main Street commercial corridor.  You can't have the latter anywhere (except perhaps a real downtown) without the loss of at least the majority of the houses along those  corridors.  Was Riverside and Avondale really any different?  Is not commercial intrusion nothing but a natural evolutionary process of a community?  Heck, even where I grew up, the wealthy moved in, then the working class and then the commercial.  And it was a real suburb, with 95% of the development coming after WWII. 

It just seems to my layman's eye that the issue is not commercial intrusion, but population and modern transit options. Kickbacks is not a villain out to destroy a community.  It is a business that offers a product that enough residents of Jacksonville want so it seeks to grow. The key difference as I see it is using the term Jacksonville, meaning the whole of the city, as opposed to decades ago the wording would have been most likely the community, meaning the area immediately around the commercial area.  Today, a business like Kickbacks can draw from the Beaches for clientele, not just it's home area.  Heck, if a business can't draw from all of Jacksonville today, it won't survive.  And if areas like Riverside do not have enough successful commercial, it ends up like Springfield and a lessor place for the lack of it.  In today's world, a successful commercial corridor seems to promote residential growth, less crime and higher land values. 

This layman's view is that car based planning has reached it's peak.  We can not continue to sustain it in a practical manor.  And yet, the talk about going backwards to street car doesn't seem like the right thing either.  Something new is needed.

I look at Dancy Terrace as an example.  Most see it and want to save it.  As one of the last of it's type, this little Bungalow Court is and has been for decades, in jeopardy of being lost.  Most think it's best chance is to be used as some kind of unique commercial area, housing artists and the like.  Yet that can not happen without first having a thriving commercial corridor.  In the past, attempts have been made at renovating these into quite nice little bungalows.  This has not been successful due to the end cost of what are small houses that offer no or very little parking.  The truth is they were never intended to the upwardly mobile, they were built for the working class. But how does that translate to today's world? When even the poor among us have cars, what does that leave for Dancy Terrace?  The lowest of the low income would certainly welcome the housing here. If JTA was better, that would actually stand a chance of working.  So, without new ideas, Dancy Terrace seems destined to be lost. Unless a commercial use is found.  Even then, hey, there's a parking issue.

I think I know what to do with Dancy terrace, do you?  It would not be popular, but it would be workable.  That is my point here.  New ideas are needed for Riverside, Avondale and Springfield. To make what we have work for today and tomorrow (using what we have is the ultimate green, after all).  No one is going to stop the natural evolution of the commercial areas within these older urban areas.  The planners here need to come up with the new ideas to make it all work.  The streetcar system in use in other cities may not be what is needed here in Jacksonville.  Just like the streetcar system from a hundred years ago won't really work today either. 

It took a hundred years to get here, it certainly will take decades to get to the solutions many seem to want.  What do we do with all the cars in the meantime?  As we can see, the Kickbacks and the Mellow Mushrooms are going to do what natural evolution says they must. We can't stop it, we just have to be creative in problem solving from here on out.

We had a start of a plan, remember that mobility fee, but we actually need the foresight to move forward.  We need to also recognize than some will suffer a bit until things get worked out.  Some residents in Riverside might have cars parked in front of their houses at times.  They might have to pick up an extra bit of trash occassionally. Just the way it is.  In the end, it will work out.  But only with new solutions rather than a rehash of the old.

Just one layman's viewpoint.

[grimss]

hu·bris/ˈ(h)yo͞obris/
Noun:   
Excessive pride or self-confidence.
(in Greek tragedy) Excessive pride toward or defiance of the gods, leading to nemesis.

[tufsu1]

Love the streetcar route.  Would so totally benefit all the historic neighborhoods, even San Marco, as the Skyway would hook up with it.  And the trip would be so cool, people would love riding it.  Springfield, Brooklyn, Riverside AND Avondale would benefit from the route. 

and I appreciate Ock's efforts in drawing these up...but it would be really helpful if we all spoke with one voice....streetcar routes have been laid out by JTA, the TPO, and the CIty...let's stick with the plan!

[tufsu1]

Ock:  I'm interested in how we can incorporate the area of Riverside west of Park St.

this may somewhat contradict my post above....but...

I think many of us would be fine running the streetcar route down Park....but that's going to be real tough with the limited ROW, on-street parking, and relatively heavy traffic.

If you can help us find a way to do that, great!

then the route can run through 5 Points to Park & King....and then down King to St. Vincents area....which could then allow for future extension to the Shoppes of Avondale.

[Timkin]

Thank you, Dr. Wood.  Your perspective adds a lot to the discussion.  To any discussion, I've found.

Amen.

Welcome to the forum, Dr. Wood.  !   

[thelakelander]

Hopefully this 1923 plan by Telfair Stockton's company will put an end to this debate about whether the initial Avondale subdivision was a streetcar suburb or not.



Notice there are two streetcar routes (scroll the map below).  The one penetrating the heart of Avondale transitioning from St Johns Avenue to Herschel was completed in 1908 to Ortega Village.  The other is the Murray Hill streetcar line paralleling Demere (now Roosevelt) and the ACL railroad.  It was constructed in 1914.  Every single lot in this development was within walking distance of a streetcar line.  Sure the streets could accommodate cars because cars were designed to fit streets.  However, this place came with transit and sidewalks and those same streets accommodated carriages and bicycles as well.  In short, this development was a multimodal friendly TOD!

Also, the original Avondale plat was the southern 220 acres of a development that never took off called Edgewood.  Edgewood was proposed in 1884, the same year the railroad between Jacksonville and Palatka opened.  This 1,000 acre development was intended to be a self contained city with its own stores, schools and residential areas centered around the rail line.  It stretched from the river to Lenox Avenue.  It never took off but the northern half was replatted as Murray Hill Heights around 1906.  What we call the "First Block" was also known as Edgewood Village, which served as a commercial center and streetcar stop for both Avondale and Murray Hill. 

I also believe many today underestimate the impact of the Great Fire on the development of our city the first three decades of the 20th century.  While the original Avondale plat between Seminole and Talbot was restricted to residential development, the areas around it were not.  There is no way this area of town would have developed to the level it did without the four commercial districts (Edgewood Village, Shops of Avondale, McDuff Avenue, and Park & Dancy) on its peripheral. 



Riverside/Avondale's commercial districts are just as contributing to the quality, character, sense of place and historic integrity as its residential areas and architecture.  Without that commercial component, this place doesn't make the list of being a top neighborhood.  With that in mind, neither residents or businesses should be favored over one another.  There needs to be balance that respects the needs of both because whether we like it or not, this area was designed and organically grew as a mixed use pedestrian scale community.  The future is multimodal or bust.

[thelakelander]

I am certainly no expert in planning nor am I fully informed about the history of Riverside/ Avondale or even Springfield for that matter.  I read Mr. Wood's post with interest as I always felt that Riverside was car based and Avondale certainly looks fully car based.  It make sense when you look at Springfield history.  Prior to cars, the wealthier among the residents owned their own horses and carriages. The move to cars for them was a natural. As roads became more prevalent, the move to “greener pastures” was also natural.  Some of the best houses in Springfield were built by the same people who built those larger houses in Riverside.  Case in point, the gorgeous house at Pearl and 7th.  One of the most often seen pictures of that house shows the owners new car.  Shortly after, the family built in Riverside.  Avondale certainly looks like the car based communities we see all over. Yes, some of the old thinking is there, but isn't that natural?  As community planning progressed to full on car based, some of the old would naturally be carried forward at first.  Just a layman's view of things.

From a planner's view, this is incorrect.  Both Springfield and Avondale are what they are today because a combination of the streetcar lines built to connect them to the rest of the city and the influx of growth in the area, during the rebuilding of Jacksonville after the Great Fire.  The streetcar lines were already in place by the time Henry Ford introduced his Model T on October 8, 1908.  Heck, in 1912, the local streetcar network recorded 13.8 million passengers that year despite the city's population being around 75,000.


A streetcar crossing the McGirts Creek, now the Ortega River, a decade or so before Telfair Stockton purchased 220 acres along his trolley company's line for the development of Avondale.

Cars were designed for fit streets that were already in place.  While these neighborhoods were designed in a manner to accommodate cars, it is incorrect that they were developed for cars to serve as the primary choice of travel.  The world back then was very different than what it is today.  These places were designed for the pedestrian and thus, multimodal in nature. 

As these sections of town increase in population, we're going to have to get past the flawed notion of looking at the automobile as the primary mobility option.