Boomtown, Main Street and the Downtown Springfield Axis

[thelakelander]

Sometimes its not complicated why certain places develop in a certain pattern.  Sometimes these things have nothing to do with "new urbanist" (I hate when this concept is used in existing urban areas) principals.  Here's short answers to why these certain areas did not develop like San Marco:

But what makes San Marco any different from say, Blanding Boulevard and the San Juan area, which also has these components in place?

Traffic.  Blanding and San Juan carry a much heavier traffic load in a less dense area of town.  Nevertheless, the buildings are filled with businesses. 


see Lake Shore photos here: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/content/view/730/117/

Or Dennis Street by brooklyn?

Dennis Street is an industrial park off the beaten path.  Although centrally located, its too disconnected, which is why I continue to state its better off being an area for social services.

Or the Woodstock district over by Beaver and McDuff?

Demographics, low income levels and declining population base.

Exactly right Lake.  Which is why low rents are not the key factor to creating Communities of Place.

Of course an urban engineer could easily fix these problems by installing alternate traffic routes, or traffic calming obstacles, and a person acquainted with the dynamics of a Community of Interest could easily transform the Woodstock area by carefully choosing the interest base and implementing a cluster based development scheme.

I never said low rents were the only issue in bringing a commercial district back to life, but they are an important one.  I'm still confusd about your view of what a "community of place" actually is, but I believe Springfield is a community that already has a sense of place.  It just hasn't taken over the commercial district yet, because the leasing rates and building conditions make it difficult for start up businesses to move in.

[thelakelander]

I hate when this concept is used in existing urban areas

btw, so do I, but its now the fastest way to convey the set of principles.  Most people simply are not acquainted at all with the works of Jane Jacobs that provided the first framework for these ideas.

I believe you're the first person I ever met who equates "new urbanism" with pre-built urbanism.  The Amelia Parks, Celebrations, Tapestry Parks and Seasides are communities designed with new urbanist principles.  When these things happen in the core, they're simply urban infill.

[thelakelander]

Keep in mind that the Springfielders have a vision of themselves and the neighborhood.

What's the vision?  I don't believe there is one all certain parties have their own.  The community is too diverse agree to a vision of specific uses/users along Main.  Some would like a Publix, but they aren't coming regardless of how many studies the neighborhood does because the demographic numbers simply aren't there.  What you'll eventually see is something like a local neighborhood market spring up.   Nevertheless, there's no organized plan in place to go either way at this point.

Plus none of these concepts are even involved in their conversation, and even if you tried all day long, Lake, you couldnt convince them that any of it was important.   Thats why I don't mind having this stuff online.  They just don't have the mindset to pay any attention to it.

But these ideas were constantly our guiding principles when we were there.  When we left, there wasnt anyone behind to keep the ox in line.

I just don't think you can paint a community as diverse as Springfield with over 6,000 residents with one broad stroke.  To do that you're placing the "triclops i" , "Lunicans" and "Zoos" of Springfield with those who have no vision.  I wish you would have attended the last SAMBA meeting at Shantytown.  The community has all the potential in the world, but the only way it will reach that level is by people who have the will to lead the others to the light.

[thelakelander]

I believe you're the first person I ever met who equates "new urbanism" with pre-built urbanism.  The Amelia Parks, Celebrations, Tapestry Parks and Seasides are communities designed with new urbanist principles.  When these things happen in the core, they're simply urban infill.

'urban infill' doesnt take in the set of ideas that define New Urbanism.

And you havent ever had this conversation with anyone before either.  Its just verbal shorthand.

I have had conversations about New Urbanism throughout the years during college and in the profession.  I've also worked on a few projects where we've applied New Urbanist theories in the design process.  I think you're butchering the terminology.  Its not a big deal to me, but it may confuse those who can't tell the difference between the two.

[thelakelander]

And Lake, the thing that makes a Community of Place is not the layout but the simultaneous nature of all the interactions between the five elements of design and use.

I agree. However, depending on how you define "Community of Place", it can be much larger than retail districts.  Good debate though.  I'll have to hop in later.  I need to get some front page articles in line just in case they're needed after I leave town on Wednesday.

[Driven1]

perhaps instant messages would be best between you two

[tufsu1]

I believe you're the first person I ever met who equates "new urbanism" with pre-built urbanism.  The Amelia Parks, Celebrations, Tapestry Parks and Seasides are communities designed with new urbanist principles.  When these things happen in the core, they're simply urban infill.

'urban infill' doesnt take in the set of ideas that define New Urbanism.

And you havent ever had this conversation with anyone before either.  Its just verbal shorthand.

sorry to weigh in on this so late, but you're both right....new urbanist principles when applied in existing urban areas are infill or redevelopment....but in order to make their movement look better, the new urbanists take credit for infill now as well

check www.cnu.org for more.

[RiversideGator]

Stephen:  The solution for you is clear.  Buy your own building.  Live in one part of it and operate a business in the other part of it.  This avoids the landlord trap and saves money too.  There are several suitable properties for sale on Main Street or East 8th Street.

[thelakelander]

There's a few properties for sale between 7th & 6th Streets for sale.  There's also a couple on East 8th available that have some decent pricing for the amount of square footage offered.  The same goes for several of the warehouses in the warehouse district.  They maybe larger than what you need, but the creative aspect is that you could rent/lease space to businesses that follow along the lines of your vision.  Your old lot on the corner of 8th & Hubbard is also available.  If you're willing to get off the main streets, there's a load of little buildings available throughout the neighborhood.  The key things to remember is

A. Just because a sign isn't on a property, does not mean it isn't for sale.

B. The asking price may be one thing, but it does not mean the land/building owner won't settle for less.

[Driven1]

the area is not sabotaging itself.  i would say there is more "progressing" community spirit in Springfield than anywhere else in the city.  businesses fail (and move and fail and move and fail and move and fail and move again) all the time in all neighborhoods and parts of the city. 

i've always been one to say that my success or failure is NOT dependent on anyone except me and my efforts.  i refuse to place the blame on someone else.  if my business fails, it is because i did not make good management decisions / business moves or i did not put out the right product for the right audience (still, a failed business decision on my part). 

if i were to sit around and blame everyone/everything under the sky it just would not be very grown-up of me.

[thelakelander]

Its really a question of whether or not the area can get its act together and stop sabotaging itself.

I think we stretched this out enough yesterday.  I still don't agree and we'll have to argee to disagree on this, but my opinion remains that there's enough successful businesses operating in Springfield to suggest that the neighborhood is not responsible for keeping Boomtown out, if they really want to be there.  However, whatever business comes in needs to have a sound business plan that can pull that has the ability to attract those who live outside of the historic district's boundaries as well, unless they can survive with low overhead.

[Driven1]

Sir, i prefer to remain quiet. 

You have not heard about me because I have not experienced failure yet.  If I had, you would most certainly know, as protocol would dictate that I be all over this discussion forum and every other website imaginable crying about it, suing others and blaming everyone else for sabotaging me.

PS - Where is Springfield anyway and who on earth is Suzie Wiles?

[Driven1]

Yes, it is a blatant error to equate success only with the accumulation of dollar bills and/or recognition by one's fellow man.

P.S. - With all due respect, I think Savannah, GA is the most gossipy town of the south.

[creeksidebrewery]

Like ZZ Top...

Anyone need a beer? 

[Driven1]

btw.  the Project for Public Spaces is an absolutely amazing resource that I ran across today.
It gives a whole lot of background and support to the ideas represented in this thread.

They have a very vigorous missionary program, and an awesome website:  http://www.pps.org/squares/

Lake actually drew from this site some months ago when he put together an analysis piece for the Pocket Park
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/content/view/669

this is called a "bump"