A Vision For Jacksonville's Southside

[tufsu1]

I thought St. Joe owned the most in the JAX metro area?

JOE does not own much in our area at all...the majority of their land is in the panhandle

[stjr]

As previously discussed on another MJ thread ( http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,6223.0.html ), I would hope the Davis family would seriously consider a plan that leads to most or all of their remaining property becoming publicly preserved land. While they have done much for Jax, this would be the most enduring legacy they could leave the community with.

[AaroniusLives]

What we need is a change in our financial priorities and a promise to actually implement a vision or plan for a change.

A promise isn't enough. You need an actionable plan, and for that, you need the support of the voters and the developers (who basically own politics in Florida.) Jacksonville has plenty of plans and promises not kept thru its long history.

I would also argue that you need the desire for this kind of development. When people chose Jacksonville to live, was having a TOD-focus on development at the top of their minds? Was suburbia? Affordability? If the grand majority of people just want a nice plot of land to homestead upon, and a Wal-Mart to call their own, you're not going to find support for this kind of development.

It's also incredibly unfair to Jacksonville to use Arlington's Orange and Blue line corridors as examples to achieve. In the first place, DC's metropolitan statistical area population is nearly five times as large as Jacksonville's, and is nearly 8 times the regional population. There was/is a pressing, population-driven need for TOD in DC and its surrounding suburbs.

In the next place, the Washington Metro is a gold-plated "Tiffany" transit system. The reason it became the 2nd most used system in the country relates to this high quality standard (conversely, because it's so damned expensive, it's also hard to expand the Metro, which is much wanted and needed up here.) So, you can't compare the truly awesome development that happened in Arlington, due in no small part to the success and middle-class appeal of the Metro, to a less-funded line elsewhere. It's just not fair. If you're promised an Arlington (upper-middle to upper-class urbanity,) and you're missing a key component (a well-funded, complete and expensive transit system,) you're probably going to be annoyed with the eventual results. (Mind you, I don't question the need for TOD...I question the use of Arlington as the model, when there are others that are more applicable.)

Finally, Arlington exists as we know it today because of the political will of the citizens of Metro DC. In both New York City and the District, there were huge, massive political battles fought to minimize or eliminate highways from the central core of the cities. Out of this battle came the plans for the Washington Metro, and the movement of the highway in Arlington north towards the coast, with the Orange Line buried under the main drag. There was, in short, political will to make this occur, on both the macro and the micro levels. The overall region wanted a transit system to link cities to suburbs, and to create places in-between, like Arlington, or Bethesda...and what they are finally trying to do at Tyson's Corner with the Silver Line expansion. Individual cities, counties and districts wanted to use the transit system to create tax revenue through TOD. And individual citizens all over the urban core flat-out didn't want highways cutting through the city.

Does this plan have support at any level, beyond New Urbanist junkies like myself? Is it realistic to implement? Are the images presented as "vision" too lofty for what can actually be achieved? Is it a part of an overall, overarching metro vision, or is it an isolated corridor that connects nothing to nothing?

Let me give you a real-world example. My parents, who live in suburban South Florida, consistently vote against mass transit expansion. Consistently vote against TOD in their 'hood (currently Boca.) Why? Because they moved there for this lifestyle. They chose suburban Florida for the heat and the yards and the gated communities and the shopping plazas, specifically because they didn't want to live in a city. They do not and never will understand how I can possibly live in the depths of an urban environment, how I can pay more for less space, more noise, no car and no Wal-Mart! Mind you, this isn't for lack of trying on my part. And it isn't for lack of intelligence on their part. If given the choice between urbanity and suburbia, they choose suburbia (and indeed, considering the density of SoFla, they have much more of an urban choice they could make, and many examples to choose from...fake downtown, Main Street or real downtown included.)

So, in order for this to work, you have to figure out how many people in Jacksonville are seeking the other side of this choice, who would choose a TOD over suburbia. How many of those would fork over their money to live in this style of development, and would give up space and affordability to live in a walking, pedestrian-friendly place. If you have the necessary critical mass who will make the trade-offs, execute the plan, and provide the choice. But if you don't, if you have people who won't make all of the trade-offs (less space, more money, no yard, less Wal-Marts,) then you have a plan destined to fail.

Mind you, I'm a New Urbanist. I totally support TOD. But I hear this all the time up here in Metro DC, where there's an actual choice between urbanity and suburbia (unlike Florida for the most part, where the "choice" is between horizontal or vertical suburbia.) "I'd live in the city but there's not enough space." "Man, I love the city but I need my car." "I love Ballston (in Arlington,) but it costs twice as much as my place for half the space!" [SIDEBAR: ironically, in the Snowpocalypse, it's actually much, MUCH better to live in the city than the 'burbs.] You do give up space. You do give up drive-thru capabilities. And you do spend more money. The pay-off for some is unmatched. I don't think I could ever not live in a city again...

...and that's why I moved here. There are many people who aren't "city." And that's why they moved there.

[Sportmotor]

What we need is a change in our financial priorities and a promise to actually implement a vision or plan for a change.

A promise isn't enough. You need an actionable plan, and for that, you need the support of the voters and the developers (who basically own politics in Florida.) Jacksonville has plenty of plans and promises not kept thru its long history.

I would also argue that you need the desire for this kind of development. When people chose Jacksonville to live, was having a TOD-focus on development at the top of their minds? Was suburbia? Affordability? If the grand majority of people just want a nice plot of land to homestead upon, and a Wal-Mart to call their own, you're not going to find support for this kind of development.

It's also incredibly unfair to Jacksonville to use Arlington's Orange and Blue line corridors as examples to achieve. In the first place, DC's metropolitan statistical area population is nearly five times as large as Jacksonville's, and is nearly 8 times the regional population. There was/is a pressing, population-driven need for TOD in DC and its surrounding suburbs.

In the next place, the Washington Metro is a gold-plated "Tiffany" transit system. The reason it became the 2nd most used system in the country relates to this high quality standard (conversely, because it's so damned expensive, it's also hard to expand the Metro, which is much wanted and needed up here.) So, you can't compare the truly awesome development that happened in Arlington, due in no small part to the success and middle-class appeal of the Metro, to a less-funded line elsewhere. It's just not fair. If you're promised an Arlington (upper-middle to upper-class urbanity,) and you're missing a key component (a well-funded, complete and expensive transit system,) you're probably going to be annoyed with the eventual results. (Mind you, I don't question the need for TOD...I question the use of Arlington as the model, when there are others that are more applicable.)

Finally, Arlington exists as we know it today because of the political will of the citizens of Metro DC. In both New York City and the District, there were huge, massive political battles fought to minimize or eliminate highways from the central core of the cities. Out of this battle came the plans for the Washington Metro, and the movement of the highway in Arlington north towards the coast, with the Orange Line buried under the main drag. There was, in short, political will to make this occur, on both the macro and the micro levels. The overall region wanted a transit system to link cities to suburbs, and to create places in-between, like Arlington, or Bethesda...and what they are finally trying to do at Tyson's Corner with the Silver Line expansion. Individual cities, counties and districts wanted to use the transit system to create tax revenue through TOD. And individual citizens all over the urban core flat-out didn't want highways cutting through the city.

Does this plan have support at any level, beyond New Urbanist junkies like myself? Is it realistic to implement? Are the images presented as "vision" too lofty for what can actually be achieved? Is it a part of an overall, overarching metro vision, or is it an isolated corridor that connects nothing to nothing?

Let me give you a real-world example. My parents, who live in suburban South Florida, consistently vote against mass transit expansion. Consistently vote against TOD in their 'hood (currently Boca.) Why? Because they moved there for this lifestyle. They chose suburban Florida for the heat and the yards and the gated communities and the shopping plazas, specifically because they didn't want to live in a city. They do not and never will understand how I can possibly live in the depths of an urban environment, how I can pay more for less space, more noise, no car and no Wal-Mart! Mind you, this isn't for lack of trying on my part. And it isn't for lack of intelligence on their part. If given the choice between urbanity and suburbia, they choose suburbia (and indeed, considering the density of SoFla, they have much more of an urban choice they could make, and many examples to choose from...fake downtown, Main Street or real downtown included.)

So, in order for this to work, you have to figure out how many people in Jacksonville are seeking the other side of this choice, who would choose a TOD over suburbia. How many of those would fork over their money to live in this style of development, and would give up space and affordability to live in a walking, pedestrian-friendly place. If you have the necessary critical mass who will make the trade-offs, execute the plan, and provide the choice. But if you don't, if you have people who won't make all of the trade-offs (less space, more money, no yard, less Wal-Marts,) then you have a plan destined to fail.

Mind you, I'm a New Urbanist. I totally support TOD. But I hear this all the time up here in Metro DC, where there's an actual choice between urbanity and suburbia (unlike Florida for the most part, where the "choice" is between horizontal or vertical suburbia.) "I'd live in the city but there's not enough space." "Man, I love the city but I need my car." "I love Ballston (in Arlington,) but it costs twice as much as my place for half the space!" [SIDEBAR: ironically, in the Snowpocalypse, it's actually much, MUCH better to live in the city than the 'burbs.] You do give up space. You do give up drive-thru capabilities. And you do spend more money. The pay-off for some is unmatched. I don't think I could ever not live in a city again...

...and that's why I moved here. There are many people who aren't "city." And that's why they moved there.

Best thing I have seen written in a long time.

[CS Foltz]

Sportmotor................I agree!

[CS Foltz]

tufsu.......you have to take into account..........lip service for how many years, before Delaney to now and all we get is a waste of our resources (Ship Yards $36 Million plus), Trail Ridge still counting,Jaxport Tony Nelson they are guessing what that cost was(Scott Teagle 300k plus, Inspector Generals Office $7 Million plus, AMIO's all 227 @ $27 Million  Year,Vesco, not only a $5 Million Dollar grant but $34 Million plus in a low cost loan of 1.5 % for one and 1.4 % for the other! Don't forget JEDC and the money they hand out..........our tax dollars one more time and I get upset because we don't have anything to show for the Millions that have been handed  out! DO WE? Vision and a plan is one thing.........but I need to find out just what City Hall is on so I can make sure I don't get any big guy!