Brooklyn 'Gentrification'

[PeeJayEss]

Jacksonville doesn't really do gentrification, though Riverside-Avondale is a pretty good example. Jax just does the displacement of poor communities, nothing ever actually gets built after the demolition (Lavilla). Or it gets built 20-40 years later (Brooklyn). I don't think you can place the blame on these new developments, and I certainly don't see the appeal the vacant fields had in those Google Street photos from a few years ago. A huge park? Please! A huge park in the desert between Riverside Ave, train tracks, and the I-10/95 interchange would be a huge empty park (and maintained by the COJ, which might be the worst part).

[thelakelander]

Riverside/Avondale seems more like a battle between general views of what's acceptable density, scale and mix of uses. Springfield's redevelopment would probably fit the general definition of gentrification better.

However, as a whole, Jacksonville is decades behind its peer cities in dealing and addressing issues like this. We really haven't had the experience of distressed neighborhoods changing demographically overnight like DC's U Street and Columbia Heights. Brooklyn, LaVilla and Sugar Hill are examples of failed urban renewal programs based on polices and redevelopment strategies that were popular in the mid-20th century.

Nationally, there's a big conversation going on about the impact of global warming on distressed inner city communities and populations. In this state, are we even allowed to have a serious discussion on global warming, much less on how it will actually impact low-lying distressed areas of town like Mixontown? Heck, are we even discussing the Mixontowns of Jacksonville at all?

[Tacachale]

Yes, I'd say this post makes some good points but misses the historical context (plus, it uses the obnoxious term "white knighting"). Brooklyn has always been dynamic ever since it went from a plantation to a residential neighborhood after the Civil War. I doubt that by 2013 there was much "vestige" of a past era in the eastern section. It was a group of office buildings and a bunch of empty lots created by road widenings and failed projects well before any of the current projects were a twinkle in their developers' eyes.

Saving "old Brooklyn" hasn't been possible for 40 years. What we can do is push for better designs and vision for the projects that are coming, and maybe saving some of the older warehouse buildings, if that's even still possible.

Informative as well. I'm not here on a "save Old Brooklyn Campaign" I just found the area before the development was so interesting and had so much potential. When I first came upon the area I thought of one or two of the blocks being a passive park and a park along McCoy's Creek. But, like you said, better designs and visions.

Yeah, I weighed the use of White Knight. Maybe wasn't the best choice. I just see a lot of stuff on here acting like Brooklyn is the best thing since sliced bread. Like it was a neighborhood that grew into the new cool place to be over time, sort of how Murray Hill has. It was an almost overnight transformation at the hands of developers. It was engineered to be the cool new place. It didn't happen organically.

[/quote]

That's the thing - by 2013, when you're talking about, it was already a moonscape. The offices on the river were already there, Riverside and Forest had already been widened, and large tracks of the rest were already empty lots. The western section had long been thinly populated. I just don't see how that situation was better.

I'd also disagree that people here have been unduly supportive of what's happened in Brooklyn. There's understandable enthusiasm that infill is finally happening, and that we're seeing new residences being added near Downtown for the first time since the Great Recession. But there's been healthy skepticism about how things have turned out and are going. People here seemed largely unhappy with the grocery strip mall, for example, and the demolitions on Park Street. It's true those compaints have been mostly over design rather than gentrification, but i think that has more to do with the fact that the people were already displaced long before these developments.

[Tacachale]

Riverside/Avondale seems more like a battle between general views of what's acceptable density, scale and mix of uses. Springfield's redevelopment would probably fit the general definition of gentrification better.

However, as a whole, Jacksonville is decades behind its peer cities in dealing and addressing issues like this. We really haven't had the experience of distressed neighborhoods changing demographically overnight like DC's U Street and Columbia Heights. Brooklyn, LaVilla and Sugar Hill are examples of failed urban renewal programs based on polices and redevelopment strategies that were popular in the mid-20th century.

Nationally, there's a big conversation going on about the impact of global warming on distressed inner city communities and populations. In this state, are we even allowed to have a serious discussion on global warming, much less on how it will actually impact low-lying distressed areas of town like Mixontown? Heck, are we even discussing the Mixontowns of Jacksonville at all?

Riverside is definitely a case of gentrification in that the neighborhood has become more desirable, and property has started filling up and becoming more expensive. In turn, older residents are being priced out. Especially the more northwestern streets and the Kings Street District are like night and day from how they looked just 10 years ago. Arguably, the fights over density and property use are also the result of gentrification - active community organizations and public investments are good signs of gentrifying neighborhoods. It's not as easy to see as there hasn't been as big a demographic shift as some other places, but it's the same pattern.

[thelakelander]

^Fair point. Riverside has never been a truly distressed community in my eyes, so that perspective is probably clouding my judgement. But yes, property values have jumped over the last decade.

[ProjectMaximus]

^Growing up in the late 80s we weren't supposed to go to the riverside area.  Friends' families who lived nearby were trying to get farther away. I don't remember much else.

[Charles Hunter]

Under the premise "Gentrification is Bad" - how do you prevent it?   And, no, this is not a "defense" of gentrification - I am truly curious how something perceived as bad for the neighborhood could be stopped.
A family with money see residential properties at bargain basement prices - especially compared to the prices in established upscale areas.  They find willing sellers.  They renovate the house.  Another family sees the renovated house, which gives them the impetus to buy another distressed property and fix it up.  Pretty soon, critical mass is reached.  Part (a big part, probably) is that most of the properties being sold are absentee owners who offer low rents to people who couldn't afford to live elsewhere, thus forcing them out.  Would we even be having the conversation if the vast majority of the homes sold to "the gentry" were owner-occupied, and the owners were making handsome profits and able to buy elsewhere?

OK, one thing, the government shouldn't be subsidizing the acquisition of the properties.  And should be enforcing building and property maintenance codes.  And should keep the infrastructure current and operating in older neighborhoods, as well.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Good questions, LDS.

I would agree that the use of 'neighborhood' is a stretch as well due to the entire makeup of residential is transient.  They are all renters with no actual claim to the area other than their 'current' address.

My personal view of 'neighborhood' would include permanent residents.   Brooklyn doesn't have that yet.

[bencrix]

Nationally, there's a big conversation going on about the impact of global warming on distressed inner city communities and populations.

Saw a very interesting presentation on the effect of sea level rise on South Florida neighborhoods /
gentrification.

Turns out the original development occurred on a ridge (ancient sand dune?) of relatively high ground. As development progressed affluent communities migrated to (as close as possible to) the coast. Now the "high ground" in S. Florida is largely inhabited by "distressed inner city communities & populations" - and in theory their land is / will be much, more more valuable than is currently perceived.

The thought is that this will set up some conflicts in the future.

Perhaps also in Jax: http://go.usa.gov/x2bZB

[thelakelander]

^Growing up in the late 80s we weren't supposed to go to the riverside area.  Friends' families who lived nearby were trying to get farther away. I don't remember much else.

Growing up, how was Riverside viewed locally in comparison to say.....Moncrief, Brentwood or the Eastside? As a kid in the 80s, we'd visit Jax every year or so but we pretty much stuck to the Northside. Riverside looked like money to me back in those days, compared with the across the tracks environments I was used too in various cities of the south.

[mtraininjax]

Riverside has never been a truly distressed community in my eyes, so that perspective is probably clouding my judgement. But yes, property values have jumped over the last decade.

Why? Because the neighborhood is a destination. People want to be able to walk to restaurants, parks, schools. West Riverside recently was deemed a "B" school, King street is an alcoholic's dream, the entire Riverside Avondale area is a place where people want to live, so much so, that Murray Hill and Brooklyn are now seeing overflow.

[bencrix]

If gentrification includes a neighborhood going from cheaper/edgier/more artsy to increasingly expensive/commercial/boring then the 80s/90s Riverside vs. now Riverside (particularly 5 Points) is on its way to qualifying.

[Tacachale]

^Growing up in the late 80s we weren't supposed to go to the riverside area.  Friends' families who lived nearby were trying to get farther away. I don't remember much else.

Growing up, how was Riverside viewed locally in comparison to say.....Moncrief, Brentwood or the Eastside? As a kid in the 80s, we'd visit Jax every year or so but we pretty much stuck to the Northside. Riverside looked like money to me back in those days, compared with the across the tracks environments I was used too in various cities of the south.

It's all a matter of perspective. For most, Riverside would have been seen as several steps up from truly distressed neighborhoods in the 80s. And certainly parts of it, especially closer to the river, were objectively money. But compared to what it is today, it wasn't on the same level. Many didn't consider it a "nice" neighborhood.

Things started to change when the artists and bohemians came in. The traditional vanguards of gentrification.

[lastdaysoffla]

If gentrification includes a neighborhood going from cheaper/edgier/more artsy to increasingly expensive/commercial/boring then the 80s/90s Riverside vs. now Riverside (particularly 5 Points) is on its way to qualifying.

This reminds me of something I couldn't quite articulate in my original post. Any semblance of grittiness has been wiped away in East Brooklyn. West Brooklyn is all grit. That is one of the clearest distinctions across Park St. The Brooklyn development is all shiny and new, a place where the whiter wealthier hipster sect feels comfortable.

I would like to see a cross section of 220 Riverside and Brooklyn Riverside residents take a walking tour of West Brooklyn. They wouldn't feel comfortable in the 'ghetto' Brooklyn. Even though I've never felt threatened there

[lastdaysoffla]

Oh and I saw that my thread got shared on the MJ Facebook.

I done good I guess.