McCoys Creek restoration project now underway

[Zac T]

How does one reconcile an attempt at increased density while preserving the nature of an area, especially if the area is single family homes? Doesn't preserving character via a historic designation artificially restrict the supply of homes and lead to an inevitable increase in value, especially as community improvements aimed at improving the area are completed?

How can we do both?

Eventually there's going to come a time, and Jax is significantly farther out from this than other cities, where we'll have to choose between preserving low-density historic neighborhoods like Riverside, San Marco, and Mixon Town or upzoning these neighborhoods to satisfy the increasing demand for housing within the urban core and entire city in general.

If the urban core is able to get back to the pre-1970's numbers of around 200k people, these conversations will start to become more prevalent

[thelakelander]

Interesting proposals, Lake, especially limiting parcel size to prevent consolidating many small parcels into mega-parcels.

I confess to watching more than one of the renovation shows on HGTV, and the theme of some of them is to renovate run-down homes and sell them to people moving into the neighborhood at higher values to start (or encourage) a chain reaction of more value-increasing renovations, in which they participate. The most notable example of this is "Good Bones" from Indianapolis, where the show's protagonists work in inner-ring neighborhoods. In every episode I've seen, they purchase properties that have been vacant (abandon) for some time, so they aren't directly displacing anyone. But, I wonder how the increasing property values affect long-time residents, especially renters.

I understand the adverse effect if rents go up and renters are forced out because they cannot afford the new rents. I am less clear on how it is 'bad' if a long-term home-owner in one of these neighborhoods sees an opportunity to make a profit and achieve their suburban dream (or whatever it is).  Of course, this also contributes to the rising property values that can squeeze out less affluent renters. But, I don't know how this form of gentrification can be stopped by legislation.

It's best if the renter can prosper enough to one day own their own place, as opposed to continuing to make owners of rental properties richer at their and their children's expense. Ultimately, the goal is for a population that has been intentionally held down economically through public policy, redlining, depressed property values and lack of infrastructure investment to economically prosper over the long term. With that in mind, a very important part of any neighborhood withintrification plan is the implementation of tools that lead to financial gain and generational wealth.

[thelakelander]

How does one reconcile an attempt at increased density while preserving the nature of an area, especially if the area is single family homes? Doesn't preserving character via a historic designation artificially restrict the supply of homes and lead to an inevitable increase in value, especially as community improvements aimed at improving the area are completed?

How can we do both?

In a city like Jax, the older neighborhoods tend to be a mix. There are also large swaths of town (like downtown) that are either obsolete industrial property, vacant lots or surface parking lots. On the other hand, the suburban areas are littered with half empty strip malls, former Kmarts and old office complexes. These are prime areas where new infill and higher density can be encouraged, which will help alleviate the redevelopment pressure on older neighborhoods seeking to maintain their historic sense of place.

[thelakelander]

How does one reconcile an attempt at increased density while preserving the nature of an area, especially if the area is single family homes? Doesn't preserving character via a historic designation artificially restrict the supply of homes and lead to an inevitable increase in value, especially as community improvements aimed at improving the area are completed?

How can we do both?

Eventually there's going to come a time, and Jax is significantly farther out from this than other cities, where we'll have to choose between preserving low-density historic neighborhoods like Riverside, San Marco, and Mixon Town or upzoning these neighborhoods to satisfy the increasing demand for housing within the urban core and entire city in general.

If the urban core is able to get back to the pre-1970's numbers of around 200k people, these conversations will start to become more prevalent

We're probably more than a century a way from this being a real issue in Jax. At our low level of density and population loss since 1950, we could double or triple our urban core population without upping density.....and that's not even considering the surface parking lot filled downtown and Sports & Entertainment District. If there's a push upzone Riverside, San Marco, and Mixon Town, it will be because that's where a segment of the population simply desires to live. It won't be because Jax will be built out.

[jaxjags]

Agree. Difference between JAX and Nashville, with multi story buildings being built in areas like Avondale, Riverside, etc. today.

[Zac T]

How does one reconcile an attempt at increased density while preserving the nature of an area, especially if the area is single family homes? Doesn't preserving character via a historic designation artificially restrict the supply of homes and lead to an inevitable increase in value, especially as community improvements aimed at improving the area are completed?

How can we do both?

Eventually there's going to come a time, and Jax is significantly farther out from this than other cities, where we'll have to choose between preserving low-density historic neighborhoods like Riverside, San Marco, and Mixon Town or upzoning these neighborhoods to satisfy the increasing demand for housing within the urban core and entire city in general.

If the urban core is able to get back to the pre-1970's numbers of around 200k people, these conversations will start to become more prevalent

We're probably more than a century a way from this being a real issue in Jax. At our low level of density and population loss since 1950, we could double or triple our urban core population without upping density.....and that's not even considering the surface parking lot filled downtown and Sports & Entertainment District. If there's a push upzone Riverside, San Marco, and Mixon Town, it will be because that's where a segment of the population simply desires to live. It won't be because Jax will be built out.

Do you see demand shifting back towards the urban core in the future? I'm thinking of a place like Atlanta which has had that increased demand for urban living and a push to rezone their neighborhoods to accommodate it however most of suburban Atlanta is out of the city limits. In Jax's case where the majority of our suburbs are within our city limits, do you think we'll simply encourage higher density developments in the suburbs and rural areas as opposed to a push to do so within the urban core? Considering our lack of decent public transportation, wouldn't doing so exacerbate certain problems such as traffic congestion compared to simply encouraging higher densities within the central neighborhoods that are already easy to get around without a car?

Genuine questions and I don't mean to hijack the thread

[thelakelander]

I believe there are major different dynamics at play between Atlanta and Jax. Metro Atlanta is five times bigger and growing faster. Also, the city of Atlanta is only 136 square miles and basically built out. Combined, these create a situation where the city needs to allow higher density to take advantage of growth and potential tax base revenue that would flow to adjacent cities and suburbs instead. At 35 square miles, the city of Miami has this issue too.

On the other hand, Jax's 30 square mile urban core has lost 50% of its population since 1950. The Jax is also nearly 800 square miles and significantly smaller. Because of this, the development pressure (and scale of development) faced in places like Atlanta and Miami will not be the same in Jax for decades to come.