Stephen, Just out of curiosity, what part of Riverside do you live in?
Quote from: stephendare on December 06, 2011, 04:32:44 PM
Neither Doglover nor Dogwalker are from that immediate area.
Do not presume to know me or where I live. I do live in that area. But you haven't told us, what part of Riverside do you live in?
Everyone's presumption that if what happens in Jacksonville off your individual block is non of your business is silly. I can understand fairness on any street.
Quote from: JeffreyS on December 07, 2011, 06:36:23 PM
Everyone's presumption that if what happens in Jacksonville off your individual block is non of your business is silly. I can understand fairness on any street.
I agree completely, but it seems like anytime anyone posts anything about the urban core that stephendare disagrees with, one of his first tactics is to say something like "and you live where exactly"..he did it to me earlier in this thread...so I was just curious, since mr. dare seems to be THE authority on riverside, especially this specific situation, does he even live in Riverside?
I have seen him do that. I think he lives in Springfield.
My recolection is of you giving people a hard time about wanting to be in the suburbs so they shouldn't be bothering the core. I could be wrong.
ah, so here are my missing posts...in case anyone is wondering, I did not start this thread, it was pulled from another thread...
Quote from: stephendare on December 07, 2011, 10:46:08 PM
Similarly, the urban core and transition neighborhoods were never designed nor meant for bucolic silence or low density of the suburbs, and they should not be subjected to, nor forced to comply with suburban standards.
We provide these different kinds of zonings so that people have options and alternatives. People who dont like the city can live in the country. People who dont like suburbs can live in downtowns. People that dont like the hustle and bustle of the city can live in the suburbs.
Actually, Stephen, have to disagree with you on this one, at least from a historical perspective and especially as regards the particular situation in Riverside Avondale. Riverside was platted in 1868 and, although its outer boundary was adjacent to the shipping docks and lumber businesses in nearby Brooklyn, Riverside was intended to be a purely residential suburb. Even after Riverside was incorporated into the city when the trolley was extended in the 1880s, it remained entirely residential and/or farmland until the 5 Points shopping corridor was developed in the 1920s. Avondale was most assuredly intended to be upscale residential ("Riverside's Residential Ideal, where only the correct and well-to-do people would live.") The Park & King commerial corridor was largely the creation of the trolley, as I understand it, and the portion we now think of as Upper King (Intuition, Bold City) was on the other side of a small African-American development called Silvertown; the light industrial uses, etc., that we associate with that area were not part of the original Riverside or Avondale developments.
All the commercial zoning we have in Riverside today is a direct consequence of the boneheaded rezoning implemented after Jacksonville's consolidation, when planners decided the best way to "save" struggling historic neighborhoods was to turn them into commerical zones that would attract new development. (Brooklyn, anyone?) Prior to the 1968 consolidation, Riverside was 85% residential. After consolidation, the area stretching from Park Street to the river between Five Points and King Street was reclassified as an office and institutional zone, and Riverside suddenly had the highest allowable density zone in the city. As you might imagine, this change didn't occur because the residents asked for it--indeed, the zoning now made single family houses permissable only by exemption. Much as we've all come to appreciate the mixed-use nature of the community today, all those cute bungalows that are zoned CRO, on Park Street, for example, were unquestionably built as residences and Riverside likely would have remained low density if the zoning hadn't been changed in one fell swoop.
Quote from: stephendare on December 07, 2011, 10:25:07 PM
No hard feelings. Sometimes I get people mixed up with their past claims as well. Most notably Notnow. Somewhere along the way I got the fellow mistaken with an old poster named John Cocktosen, and I am constantly embarrassing myself with claims that he posted something or another that he absolutely did not post....not even once.
Such is the case on this claim, I believe.
;)
But what a great name!
Sorry, I just had to say that. Please continue...
From the research I've done on Jax over the years, here's my perspective of the city's older inner ring neighborhoods. While some areas were originally platted in the 19th century, they remained fairly rural and undeveloped during their early years. After the Great Fire of 1901, Jacksonville underwent a huge period of growth up through the Great Depression. By 1930, a city that literally burned to the ground 29 years earlier, had 130,000 residents within a 26 square mile area.
During this period, neighborhoods like Springfield and Riverside were completely transformed as downtown grew into a true central business district. It is during this period when growth (stimulated by streetcars) created the majority of the historic residences we all fight to preserve today. This same period also saw the development of commercial districts to serve those residents, like Park & King and Five Point, in Riverside's case. By the same token, this same period also saw rapid industrial growth along the CSX "A" line in the neighborhood.
Sanborn maps and city directories indicate the older industrial buildings along King and Rosselle date back to the late 1910s/early 1920s. For example, the building housing Bold City was originally a part of the Schell-Sasse manufacturing Company in the 1920s. The white brick building at King & Rosselle was a Pepsi-Cola bottling factory between 1933 and 1946. The CoRK warehouse also dates back to the 1920s.
The building Intuition is in was constructed around 1960. In 1930, that site had a Grooms Doughnut factory on it. Right across the tracks, Leggett Heating and Air Conditioning site opened as the Dinsmore Dairy Company in 1930 and the Metro (further down the tracks) was a part of the Foremost Dairies ice cream factory. Although they aren't valued like the residential architecture, a good chunk of the commerical and industrial buildings throughout the city are just as historic because they were mostly developed during the same period of rapid growth.
Also, when speaking suburbs 100 years ago verses suburbs today, the density scale is completely different. Although Riverside/Avondale was originally developed as a primarily residential suburb (with a few neighborhood commercial districts), the density was still more than five times as dense to what Jacksonville's newer suburban areas are today. This was simply due to it being fully developed before WWII, when local development patterns really began to transition from pedestrian/transit to automobile orientation. Even today, after years of density decreases partially due to reduced family size and additional commercial development, Riverside still has census tracks with population densities as high as 7,000 people per square mile. Considering a few of those tracks include chunks of the river, I suspect they're actually denser. On the flip end, majority of the Southside's census tracks are below 3,000 people per square mile.
I'm posting this to illustrate that single family or low rise housing doesn't necessarily equal low density. Savannah doesn't have many tall buildings but it averaged nearly 12,000 people/square mile in 1920. Riverside hasn't been a low density neighborhood in over a century. Its possible to stay within the intent of the overlay and see a dramatic increase in population and density over time. Simply, put a house or commercial building on every remaining vacant lot in the neighborhood and you'll have a pretty dense pedestrian scale community. Both scenes below are possible in certain areas of Riverside, while also keeping in line with the overlay.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/575310095_h5YDv-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/719190620_hwi6P-M.jpg)
So, I'll sum this up by claiming that when discussing Riverside's character, it isn't a high vs. low density or an urban vs. suburban topic. At its lowest, it's a medium density community currently. I also don't think anyone can rightfully claim increased density can't happen within the overlay or that the overlay is meant to preserve low density development patterns.
lakelander is always the voice of reason. I want to be him when I grow up ;)
I agree, Lake is a welcome voice of intelligent reason, and in terms of researching our city's history, he's got to be getting up there on the Wayne Wood level.
What I was attempting to point out is that the mixed-use zoning we see today, with commercial (whether medical office or restaurant) directly abutting residential, simply wasn't part of the mix that was "planned" for our historic urban neighborhoods. Yes, there were 2,500 residents in Riverside by 1895, but that was probably because, outside of Springfield and some hearty souls who were in Arlington, that was as far out as you could go and still be convenient to downtown in a non-car world. (In fact, Riverside prospered because, pre-trolley, folks could take ride their naptha launches on the river to their offices downtown.) Even in the 1920s, commercial businesses designed to serve local residents were limited to the trolley-route corridors, and the rest was residential. (I'll have to check with Wayne, but I don't think all the cool industrial businesses you cite on Upper King were even remotely deemed part of "Riverside" until probably new zoning maps kicked in the '60s.)
Our vision of density and mixed-use is just fundamentally different today. I, for one, enjoy the vitality it represents. But one can't just state that "transition neighborhoods" were designed from the get-go to be extensions of the urban core, with all the heavy utilization that entails. I would still insist that's a byproduct of the Consolidation rezoning. Just look to the Book of Jacksonville, published in 1895, which has this to say about Riverside:
Quote"The people of Riverside take great pride in their suburb. They are ambitious that their premises shall be always neat and attractve, their houses painted, and their lawns green, and growing, and blooming. They have their little social sets, independent of the rest of the City. It is not necessary to seek diversion "up town" in order to pass a pleasant evening. They are quite sufficient within themselves. They form a unique community. By reason of the care exercised among the promoters of the settlement as to who shall and who shall not settle amohng them, the lawless element is almost entirely elimiated. In fact, there is nothing congenial in Riverside to tough characters, there is nothing to attract them; they could not live in comfort and content, they would be so entirely out of their element, hence the commission of crime there is very reare; it is no place for criminals. Peace and quiet reign in Riverside, and when the toll and traffic of the day are done the bgod people may seek repose with the certainty of being undisturbed, and compose themselves to pleasant dreams."
I believe Riverside was pretty rural until the streetcar was extended into the neighborhood around 1887. I'm not sure about the original plat of the industrial area around King and Rosselle. Silvertown was platted around 1887 but it didn't extend to the tracks. However, looking at the street pattern, I'd be surprised if it was not platted at the same time as the rest of the neighborhood west of Stockton and North of Forbes.
Riverside's land use development pattern is pretty much the same as Jacksonville's other older neighborhoods. Commercial and mixed use along former streetcar lines (original TOD) and single family/apartments/duplexes the further you get away from old streetcar routes. Along the railroad tracks, a mix of industrial uses are scattered and clustered in certain spots throughout town.
I also don't know if we ever had true "transition neighborhoods" outside of LaVilla and the Cathedral District. Old aerials and Sanborn maps indicate linear or clustered commercial districts along former streetcar lines through a number of inner city neighborhoods. In fact, its pretty similar to what you'll find in neighborhoods in cities as large as Chicago to those as small as Savannah. Without the Sanborns in front of me, I'd suspect that northeast of Margaret, other than the Park Street strip, the majority of mixed use and commercial would have been along Oak and Edison and Riverside (north of Edison) before WWII. Most of the stuff along Park and Riverside, in what's known as Brooklyn today, would have come from zoning changes after the streetcar era.
Quote from: stephendare on January 12, 2012, 10:43:09 PM
The neighborhood, as platted out by stockton et al was always mixed use, transit driven and commercial/residentially diverse.
Yes, the neighborhood, like the rest developed during an era before cars was mixed use. None would have been able to fully function without some sort of commercial component. One of the coolest things about old Jax is to get up on a Saturday and drive the old streetcar routes through various neighborhoods in town. You'll quickly discover that just about every single neighborhood has some sort of small commercial cluster around a streetcar junction. It's a cool long lost development pattern that I'd love to see come back to Jax one day. In fact, I think a lot of our older neighborhoods are doomed until the connectivity that built them comes back.
However, the term "mixed use" means more than residential on top, retail on bottom. They can be next door in the form of neighbors. You'll find this along the streetcar lines like Oak Street. Mixed use can also mean a commercial strip bordering a residential strip, such as Park & King or College & Stockton. To a degree, I think our use of trying to classify zoning uses into strict terminology has created a misunderstanding of the term. To a similar degree, the same is true with modern day terminology of transit systems. Hybrid situations do and have always existed. Luckily, I believe the intent of the overlay does a good job preserving the neighborhood's historic development pattern.
Where exactly does it do a destructive balance? Also, destructive in terms of scale or location?
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Other/mi/i-S4jZwfK/0/L/riverside-overlay-skv4-L.jpg)
Strictly looking at the overlay, it appears to accommodate historic commercial clusters while also preserving the residential areas of the neighborhood. Also speaking of the map above, I went ahead and added the conceptual mobility plan streetcar route to it. It actually fits the overlay's higher density sections like a glove.
It appears your issue about the overlay focuses on transitioning commercial/residential uses as opposed to what is allowed within the various districts. In every situation, you can apply for a zoning exception if you believe you're situation creates a hardship if all requirements of the overlay are met. However, this is no different from any other zoning district within the city (DT, Durkeeville, Southside, Riverside, Mandarin, etc.).
I think one ends up easily shooting themselves in the foot when they're in violation the code in general before seeking to find a solution to their situation. This is why taking the due diligence to understanding zoning's impact on your desired property is critical before making a significant financial investment. Its sort of like outright buying a property without at least paying for a phase one environmental assessment. You're asking for trouble if you go into a situation blindfolded. With that said, I see the three or four Park & King business situations being completely different animals that must be addressed on their individual merits.
Personally, I don't think the overlay "in general" is a problem. The avenues are there for exceptions if a potential hardship exists. Also "intent" can be argued multiple ways for specific situations. I think the real problem is its difficult for the average person (resident or business owner) to find and understand the city's zoning code in general.
So your problems with exceptions don't necessarily apply to the overlay, since the same process is applied to the entire city. So am I right in saying you'd like to see the exception process removed from the entire zoning code (not just the overlay district)?
In general, exceptions are there to protect an area's quality of life. Especially, when more intensive land uses abut residential uses. They keep incompatible uses (ex. building a stage for concerts or liquor store next to a house, etc.) from outright popping up and taking away from an area's quality of life. In such a case, the entity who wants to put in the intense use would have to develop a plan to mitigate the negatives it may cause on the surrounding area and then apply for an exception.
I love urbanism as much as the next guy but that doesn't mean I'd want to invest in a house, only to have my next door neighbor wake up and decided he wants to turn his property into an arsenic coating wood preservative business.
When addressing exceptions, I need specifics. For example, in the Loft's case, I think their situation deals with an "extra condition" that they agreed to use their rear for parking only. That stretch of street happens to be within the commercial design standards character area. According to the overlay, your minimum allowable rear setback is 15' (Sec. 656.399.20).
link: http://library.municode.com/HTML/12174/level4/TITXVIILAUS_CH656ZOCO_PT3SCDIRE_SPORIAVZOOV.html#TITXVIILAUS_CH656ZOCO_PT3SCDIRE_SPORIAVZOOV_S656.399.20BUST
So unless, I'm missing something, the overlay doesn't stop commercial entities from using the rear of their properties. Anyone with such a stipulation must have applied for something else and as a part of their agreement, agreed to limiting what they could do with a particular space. That's not an exception issue. That's just a poor deal of negotiation on their part.
IMO there's nothing wrong with the overlay and the zoning in general; they've just been invoked in some wrongheaded ways. As far as I can tell no one is really clear on the deal with the Loft/Rogue back area, but as soon as there's a noise complaint, the Urban Silence Brigade comes out in full force to shut them down, claiming the writing's on the wall and totally supports them.
With Kickbacks, it's abundantly obvious that the situation is a gray area. Moreover, the owner has made suggestions on alternative ways to mitigate the parking issue beyond building more spaces, which I'd argue is in the spirit of the overlay. But rather than let him spend his own money doing what he feels will make his culturally significant business more successful, the neighborhood organization is fighting tooth and nail to make him reduce the size of the expansion, invoking the overlay. Just not cool.
QuoteThe problem is that we have simply forgotten the old methods of getting along, the old tolerances for social noise, the old solutions for all of these issues. We seem to be expecting a vibrant walkable neighborhood to be just like the suburbs but with more gingerbread architecture and fabulous mousses at the local restaurants (that all close promptly at 8)
Stephen, the straw is beginning to stick out of the edges of the argument you are making. I don't think anyone who lives in our walkable neighborhoods expects it to be like the suburbs (what a horrible thought!) except maybe the crazy who lives across from Intuition. In the suburbs he would probably be the president of the home owners association.
I think the expectation that one would not be kept awake in the small hours of the morning by amplified music or industrial activities is not unreasonable even in our dense, historic neighborhoods. It would not have been tolerated or expected in the 1890's either especially with open windows and no air-conditioning.
Quote from: thelakelander on January 12, 2012, 11:11:23 PM
One of the coolest things about old Jax is to get up on a Saturday and drive the old streetcar routes through various neighborhoods in town. You'll quickly discover that just about every single neighborhood has some sort of small commercial cluster around a streetcar junction. It's a cool long lost development pattern that I'd love to see come back to Jax one day. In fact, I think a lot of our older neighborhoods are doomed until the connectivity that built them comes back.
You are on to something here. And perhaps this idea deserves its own thread. Are the maps of the old streetcar lines available? And do they show the stops? I would love to see historic markers/signs placed at each one of these locations, along with the historic route on the sign. We have been talking for sometime at SMPS about putting in more historic markers, particularly for a walking/biking tour. This would be a great complement to it.
Here's a map of the old streetcar lines:
(http://lightrailjacksonville.webs.com/JACKSONVILLE%20TRACTION%20MAP%20CITY%20GIS%20PROOF-small.PNG)
The red routes are the original streetcar lines abandoned in 1936. The light blue linework are some of Ock's ideas for future streetcar routes.
source: http://lightrailjacksonville.webs.com/jacksonvilletrolleyhistory.htm
Lake, Is there a way to get a more detailed copy of the streetcar map? Your idea of driving or biking the old line routes is very appealing, but the map is too difficult to read when you zoom in on the image.
There were a lot more routes than I thought. What a pity that they were destroyed.
+1
And is there a list somewhere of the actual stops/stations?
I'm not sure there were stations. Ock, can you verify if there were stations and stops?
Quote from: Dog Walker on January 15, 2012, 10:55:11 AM
Lake, Is there a way to get a more detailed copy of the streetcar map? Your idea of driving or biking the old line routes is very appealing, but the map is too difficult to read when you zoom in on the image.
There were a lot more routes than I thought. What a pity that they were destroyed.
Ock should have a detailed copy. If not, I'll try and get one from COJ later this week.
Quote from: stephendare on January 15, 2012, 09:04:50 PM
Quote from: Dog Walker on January 15, 2012, 10:55:11 AM
Lake, Is there a way to get a more detailed copy of the streetcar map? Your idea of driving or biking the old line routes is very appealing, but the map is too difficult to read when you zoom in on the image.
There were a lot more routes than I thought. What a pity that they were destroyed.
The wisdom of the original planners of the neighborhood is actually quite impressive, DogWalker. Transit dependent, mixed use, embedded retail, and walkable. Without all of those lines the neighborhood wouldn't have worked.
It is literally the opposite of how most of us preservationist types have been taught to view the development of the historic districts here in jacksonville.
That's why I live in Riverside. Almost 100% of my life can be accomplished on foot or by bicycle. My dentist is in Southside and we don't have a hardware store in RAHD. All of this thanks to how the area was originally planned.
Don't know what you mean by that last. We've always known that Springfield, San Marco and Riverside/Avondale were streetcar suburbs. I own/have owned at least five commercial buildings that were built on the streetcar lines to serve the needs of the neighborhoods.
Transit oriented development is nothing new
Quote from: Dog Walker on January 15, 2012, 10:55:11 AM
There were a lot more routes than I thought. What a pity that they were destroyed.
13,828,904 passengers rode the streetcar system in 1912 on 42 miles of track. By the time the system ceased operations in 1936, it had over 60 miles of track spreadout across the urban core.
How could they possibly have believed that buses were going to be better than that?! 20/20 hindsight on our part, I guess.
(SIGH!)
^They didn't. The replacement of the streetcar system with buses was a part of a national scheme by General Motors.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Pacific-Electric-Red-Cars-Awaiting-Destruction.gif/375px-Pacific-Electric-Red-Cars-Awaiting-Destruction.gif)
Pacific Electric Railway streetcars stacked at a junkyard on Terminal Island, March 1956QuoteThe General Motors streetcar conspiracy (also known as the National City Lines conspiracy) refers to allegations and convictions in relation to a program by General Motors (GM) and a number of other companies to purchase and dismantle streetcars (trams/trolleys) and electric trains in many cities across the United States and replace them with bus services. The lack of clear information about exactly what occurred has led to intrigue, inaccuracy and conspiracy theories and for some claim that it was the primary reason for the virtual elimination of effective public transport in American cities by the 1970s; in reality there were other factors which led to this outcome. The story has been explored many times in print, film and other media, notably in Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Taken for a Ride and The End of Suburbia.
During the period from 1936 to 1950, National City Lines and Pacific City Lines, with investment from General Motors, Firestone Tire, Standard Oil of California, Phillips Petroleum, Mack Trucks, and the Federal Engineering Corporation bought over 100 electric surface-traction systems into bus systems in 45 cities including Baltimore, Newark, Los Angeles (mainly the "Yellow Cars"), New York City, Oakland and San Diego. In 1946, Edwin J. Quinby, a retired naval lieutenant commander alerted transportation officials across the country to what he called "a careful, deliberately planned campaign to swindle you out of your most important and valuable public utilitiesâ€"your Electric Railway System". GM and other companies were subsequently convicted in 1949 of conspiring to monopolize the sale of buses and related products via a complex network of linked holding companies including National City Lines and Pacific City Lines. They were also indicted, but acquitted of conspiring to monopolize the ownership of these companies.
By the time of the 1973 oil crisis, controversial new testimony was presented to a United States Senate inquiry into the causes of the decline of streetcar systems in the US. This alleged that there was a wider conspiracyâ€"by GM in particularâ€"to destroy effective public transport systems in order to increase sales of automobiles and that this was implemented with great effect to the detriment of many cities.
Only a few US cities have surviving effective rail-based urban transport systems based on tram, metro, or elevated train; notable survivors include New York City, Newark, New Jersey, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Boston and Chicago. There is now general agreement that GM and other companies were indeed actively involved in a largely unpublicized program to purchase many streetcar systems and convert them to buses, which they often supplied. There is also acknowledgment that the Great Depression, the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, labor unrest, market forces, rapidly increasing traffic congestion, taxation policies that favored private vehicle ownership, urban sprawl, and general enthusiasm for the automobile played a major or possibly more significant role. One author recently summed the situation up as follows: "Clearly, GM waged a war on electric traction. It was indeed an all out assault, but by no means the single reason for the failure of rapid transit. Also, it is just as clear that actions and in-actions by government contributed significantly to the elimination of electric traction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracyQuoteThe demise of our streetcars were indeed connected to "The Great Streetcar Holocaust," which was engineered by 4 major players. General Motors, Standard Oil, Phillips Petroleum and Firestone all conspired to kill the traction companies nationwide. Our system was one of the early victims of this plot which started with Motor Transit Company, which was owned by National City Lines, which was owned by the conspirators.
Many streetcar and interurban (LRT) lines were owned by utility companies, and the highway lobby donated huge sums to make sure the big dog utilities got divided from the transportation firms. Just before Jacksonville Traction Company vanished forever, The Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, an antitrust law was passed to sweep away any financial backing the streetcar companies still had. It was all downhill after the passage of that act.
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,5431.msg84910.html#msg84910
^also keep in mind that streetcars were there (nationwide) before cars. Back then there was no other good way to go that distance, nowadays ridership in public transit is proportionally much much lower than it was back then.