Eliminating Sprawl: Is it possible?

[thelakelander]

Issue no more permits for outlying developments.
New housing must grow from the inside outwards, not the other way around.  Concentric taxation zones would be a more drastic way to handle it.  There is no reason why Real Estate Developers should decide the growth and therefore the entire budget needs of the city without any rhyme or reason.

Lets just say Jacksonville refused to issue permits for outlying developments.  Whats to stop sprawl type developments from taking place in Clay, St. Johns, Baker, etc.  What would you do to deal with that type of situation?  Also, don't forget that all sprawl is not "bad" sprawl.  At one point in time, Springfield and Riverside were early forms of sprawl.

[thelakelander]

Lets just say Jacksonville refused to issue permits for outlying developments.  Whats to stop sprawl type developments from taking place in Clay, St. Johns, Baker, etc.  What would you do to deal with that type of situation?  Also, don't forget that all sprawl is not "bad" sprawl.  At one point in time, Springfield and Riverside were early forms of sprawl.

No roads built to them unless paid for by the developer.  Same with all sewage and electrical service along with a multi year maintenance fee based on the distance from the city center and projected time frames for developent of that tax ring.  ie, if you build so far out that it would take the city 10 more years to naturally develop out that far, then you would have to pay 10 years of maintenance fees up front.   Those closer would pay less.

This could work if the infrastructure were not already in place in adjacent counties or municipalities.  The roads, like Blanding, CR 210 and AIA are already there.  The same goes for water and sewer service.  How could this work without having a pact with neighboring communities to not take advantage of development that would increase their tax base and reduce their reliance on Jacksonville as the core city?

[thelakelander]

Okay, but doesn't that drive more development into neighboring counties?  If the city doesn't offer more to keep dense development competitive with suburban development (price-wise), you'll have the Detroit effect.

[thelakelander]

The cities you named were already densely built out decades ago and were significantly larger than Jax, then and especially now.  Even their inner ring suburbs tend to be denser than Jacksonville's urban core.  Compared head-to-head with Jacksonville, its apples to oranges.  Is there an example of a city with similar recent development patterns as Jacksonville that has recently implemented this plan?  It would be interesting to see the good and bad results of such a decision.

[thelakelander]

Btw, we've kind of hijacked this thread with a subject that would be a pretty good topic on its own.  If you want to discuss this in further detail, go ahead and create a new thread.

[thelakelander]

The cities you named were already densely built out decades ago and were significantly larger than Jax, then and especially now.  Even their inner ring suburbs tend to be denser than Jacksonville's urban core.  Compared head-to-head with Jacksonville, its apples to oranges.  Is there an example of a city with similar recent development patterns as Jacksonville that has recently implemented this plan?  It would be interesting to see the good and bad results of such a decision.

Seattle and San Francisco decided on this strategy relatively recently.

Seattle didnt start implementing these ideas until the 80s.

Neither city ever looked back.

The major difference is Jacksonville is not built out.  Both Seattle and San Francisco, as well as many of their inner ring suburban cities have been built out for decades.  The type of sprawl occuring within Jacksonville today can't and hasn't happened in these cities for a while now.  Such a move may work better for these communities because the proximity to virgin land for low density development is relatively far away from their boundaries, compared to what we face locally.

Thus, its a real challenge for this type of development, that feeds off the core city to take place.  Locally, its litterally a jump across the imaginary county border line (ex. Nocatee, Oakleaf, Julington Creek, etc.)

Can you name some non-built out second tier cities in metropolitan areas, under 2 million residents that have done the same recently?  They may serve as a better comparison for the issue of "virgin land proximity" we face.

[thelakelander]

The point is, competing through excellence is a much better strategy than competing through cheapness.   The roads that we have built which enable sprawl would only lead to higher tax zones in the undeveloped areas, eliminating the incentive.

Ponte Vedra has not developed, nor do they wish to develop an economic centre to their tax free community---referring to one example of the bedroom communities.

Orange Park would like to, as would Middle burg, but they do not have the resources to play leapfrog and compete with our infrastructure and facilities.   At least not now.   Give us another decade on the municipal bankruptcy express and they will.

Besides, it totally isnt a bad strategy to be a great city surrounded by an economic buffer zone of small prosperous towns.

Just a few questions:

1. How would you encourage the market to accept paying for higher priced homes in the inner city as opposed to buying cheaper larger houses in Clay or St. Johns and commuting to the Southside?

2. Lets say we create development boundaries.  What are those boundaries, in your opinion?

[JeffreyS]

The answer to question one is people want to live in Duval but the schools are awful and we need to move our children to Clay or St. Johns. Fix that and people like me will raise our children in the city.

[thelakelander]

Seattle.

Portland.

And dont be fooled by the Bay Area, Lake.

San Francisco cut that shit off in the late 70s, early 80s.   Check out the "City" of South San Francisco.

The City of Berkely, and the rapid development of Marin County and Sausalito.

Those areas were all demanding San Francisco become their city center and taxation infrastructure.   

San Francisco said  Thanks but no thanks.

Two decades earlier they had watched Los Angeles adopt the opposite policy and the ensuing disaster.

It will be difficult to find an exact paralell to jax, because it is a City/County entity, but the principles are the same.

These other cities mentioned all deliberately opted on densification and QOL improvements over sprawl.

Here's where I believe we differ, which could lead to a different set of results.

1. All of these cities are physically limited geographically.

2. All of these cities already had relatively high density levels within their muncipal boundaries.

3. All of these places have suburbs that are denser than Jacksonville's urban core.

4. All already had downtown cores that were dense centers of vibrant activity on their own to continue to build on.

I'm not saying an urban development boundary is not the answer.  I'm just saying we can't completely take a theory that worked in communities that developed under different circumstances locally and expect the same results.  We have an extra set of issues we'll have to overcome.

Btw, San Francisco is a City/County entity, however the county only has 46.7 square miles of land area.

[thelakelander]

they would be less expensive in the inner city.  Exponentially more expensive out in the undeveloped Southside, almost completely unaffordable at the county borders.

The prospective market would have to look at the benefits of redeveloping the phillips highway area adjacent to a vibrant, world class downtown, or hauling their project out to a neighboring county with difficult access to the services and amenities provided at a lower or similar cost in the inner rings of Jacksonville.

Problems:

1. We don't have a vibrant downtown.

2. We don't have a world class urban core.

3. In most cases, redevelopment costs more than building new.

4. The Southside is already developed.

5. The county borders to the south are already developed.

6. Access into the neighborhing counties is not difficult.

[thelakelander]

The answer to question one is people want to live in Duval but the schools are awful and we need to move our children to Clay or St. Johns. Fix that and people like me will raise our children in the city.

This is definately a problem, but its a catch 22.  No matter how much money we throw at the schools, in inner city neighborhoods (because Duval's schools are pretty good outside of the hoods), as long as educated families live outside failing school's boundaries, they will not greatly improve.

[Steve]

I also think that the West Coast (particularly from San Jose North) is like a different country in mindset.  They are very liberal, environmentally friendly people.  These people woudl probably actually use JTA, even on the days when it was an hour late.

On the other hand, we have a very suburban oriented mindset in Jacksonville.  There are those that prefer to live in the burbs, and that is their right.  I'm just not one of those people.

[Traveller]

The answer to question one is people want to live in Duval but the schools are awful and we need to move our children to Clay or St. Johns. Fix that and people like me will raise our children in the city.

Unfortunately, like thelakelander, I believe this is a chicken-egg problem.  Based on books and articles I've read along with personal experience, I'm of the opinion that 90% of what makes a school good or bad is the parents of the students who attend it.  Most everything else stems from this one factor.  Smart, hard working adults generally produce smart, hard working students.  Smart, hard working students study hard, pay attention in class, actually learn what they're being taught, earn good grades, get into good colleges, earn high scores on standardized tests, and put pressure on their classmates to work equally as hard.  Smart, hard working students also attract the best teachers in the region (and don't attack them during class), contributing to even further improvement in the quality of the school.  Smart, hard working parents constantly monitor their kids' progress and supplement their teachers' efforts by attending parent-teacher conferences and providing additional educational opportunities outside of the classroom.

In other words, Duval County schools could be "good" if smart, hard working adults lived in the school district, but these same adults don't want to because of the perception that Duval County schools are "bad", hence the chicken-egg problem.  Most professional adults I know send their kids to Bolles, Episcopal, or BK if they can afford to, or move to Clay or St. Johns Counties if they can't.  The few that do stay in the county and send their kids to public schools send them to Stanton or Paxon, further diluting the quality of student in the overall public school population (with the possible exceptions of Fletcher and Mandarin).  I have read editorials advocating the end of Stanton and Paxon's magnet programs for this very reason (putting the smart kids back in the general public school population), but I believe doing so would only accelerate the flight into St. Johns County due to perception referenced above.

[thelakelander]

These problems are caused by the fact that we are spending all of our money on roads and infrastructure to the new developments in the suburbs.

1. We don't have a vibrant downtown.

2. We don't have a world class urban core.

Thats easy.  Fix it.  We could have a vibrant downtown if we started valuing a higher quality of life.  Many of us already do.  And we really dont have that far to go.  Check out "The City" thread.

Excluding the amount of money that we don't have that will be needed to put things in place, after 20-30 years (that's what it will probably take, if the right moves are made now), then implement the urban development growth boundary?  

3. In most cases, redevelopment costs more than building new.

Concentric Tax Zones would fix that.

Is it smart to assume residents and council members would approve taxing the districts they live in more to encourage people to move to other areas of town?

4. The Southside is already developed.

But its slapped together, low density suburban development.  Take away the smoke and mirrors, and all the big lit corporate signs on those shoddy little strip malls and its nothing to worry about.

Whatever, we want to call it, its still developed and a strong economic engine for the City of Jacksonville.  Its not going anywhere.

5. The county borders to the south are already developed.

And all they got was an orange park mall t shirt and a trip to ghost lights road.

Don't forget the retail base, employment centers, accessible highways and great schools.

6. Access into the neighborhing counties is not difficult.

Access to tuberculosis isnt that difficult either.  Its all about presenting people with contrasting choices.

I agree, but making the alternative choice a realistic choice with the implementation of an urban development growth boundary is a major task in itself.  Take a trip to Detroit and see what happens when a municipality can't pull its act together when its suburbs decide to stop leaching and pull all forms of development their way.

[thelakelander]

I think you are vastly overestimating the difficulty in creating core vibrancy lake.

The only obstacles are beaurocracy and leadership.

No doubt, but things don't happen overnight.  For example, the Portlands, Savannahs and Charlestons we see today are a result of  moves they made 30 years ago.  The Uptown Charlotte seen today is a result of moves made during the late 80s and early 90s.  Orlando's downtown success comes from moves made during the 1990s.  These things still take time, once you do get beaurocracy and leadership in place.

We are spending the amount of money we need to 'fix' downtown on ever single overpass we have built.

Its not about Downtown vs. the Southside or Downtown vs. bridges and highways.  For the most part the funding for these things come from different sources.  Anyway, we have to get outside of this concept that 'fixing' always involves throwing serious money at problems or raising taxes.  In the grand scheme of things it does not take much money to maintain lights, signage, landscaping, parks or strictly follow a downtown master plan.  Sell the under-utilized city owned lots downtown and there will be more than enough money needed to take care of downtown's existing problems.  The extra income from property back on the tax rolls will take care of recurring expenses.