Several meetings have been held during the past few weeks about the problem of Hemming Plaza. I’ve attended some of the meetings, and have been asked to be a part of a subcommittee charged with the purpose of recommending a solution to the problem. There is a meeting today, Wednesday afternoon. I have written some thoughts below so that I might clarify my position on the park problem. Given the difficulty of the park problem, I might give this material to the meeting group, perhaps modified according to input from my MJ friends, instead of attempting to convey it via speaking, as it is somewhat long. In any case, I would appreciate any criticism of my views about the park problem. You can even be brutal. Our objective is to finally solve the park problem with action, instead of simply talking about the problem every year.
What is the problem? The park was designed and built to be used by all citizens. There is a segment of the population which cannot use the park because of the overwhelming and continual presence of another segment of the population. I shall call this latter segment the “habitual occupiersâ€. The excluded segment, those prevented from using the park, is made up of the local workers who might wish to use the park for lunch and breaks, many city core residents who might wish to relax in the park, and city core visitors who might wish to visit the park.
The fact that the overwhelming majority of the habitual occupiers is black is considered by some to be of significance. A casual visit to the park seems to indicate that the habitual occupiers consist of about 90% black. However, even if the habitual occupiers were little old lady knitting groups, or businessmen’s clubs, or all Orthodox Jews, Neo Nazis, or an all-white younger set milling around all day, they too, by their overwhelming and continual presence in the park, would be guilty of preventing other citizens from using it.
How do the habitual occupiers actually prevent others from using the park? The overwhelming presence of 70 to 100 individuals making up any kind of a homogenous group, no matter the color or kind of organization, is intimidating to most potential park visitors. And too, the fact that all of the tables and benches are already taken up by the habitual occupiers is enough to turn a potential park visitor away.
It has been suggested that if the park were to be programed with events or activities every day, then the event alone would solve the problem simply because the habitual occupiers could be easily asked to move out so that the event could proceed. This would be somewhat effective as long as the momentum of events could be maintained. However, people must work, so it is unlikely that weekday events could be maintained. It seems feasible however that activities and events on weekends might be maintained for a while. But what happens when the momentum or interest subsides after several months of programming weekend activities? The park will again be overwhelmed by the same set of occupiers. I suggest that the programming of the park should be instituted for the weekends, but in conjunction with other actions discussed herein. These several actions will together result in solving the park problem.
The unreasonable, overwhelming, excessive, and habitual daily occupation of the park by the same set of occupiers, which results in preventing other citizens from using the park, should give the city and its citizens the right to take actions which will remove these habitual occupiers. However, the actions taken must be of a kind which does not infringe on their rights. The park is after all open to all citizens.
The pressure to affect removal of the current set of habitual occupiers must come from several fronts. There are programs in effect which attempt to assist some of these individuals so that they might achieve a better living situation. Each individual removed in this manner is to be celebrated as the best method of solving the problem. But this is a long term approach, and some of the habitual occupiers will not respond to this kind of assistance. It has been suggested that the city provide some kind of “day center†so that these individuals, some being homeless, will have a place to bathe, read, use computers, etc. Currently their day center consists of the library and Hemming Park. This is not good for the city core.
The short term approach of enforcing the current set of park rules, along with the creation of some new rules, is perhaps one of the potentially most effective methods of decreasing the park population. Strict and aggressive enforcement of park rules will result in the banning of individuals from the park, which over time will decrease the park population to a level which will not offer the intimidating scenario which prevents other citizens from entering the park. The banned individuals will of necessity find other places to loiter. They will tire of being harassed and banned by the park officers, and some will find other things to do, other places to hang out.
As the park occupier population decreases to a reasonable level, the park image will be less intimidating to the potential visitor. It is quite calming and pleasing to see the occasional game of chess in the park, the discussion of several individuals, the couple eating lunch, or sitting with their child, the old man warming in the sun. And any classic park must have the beautiful oak trees, as they alone offer great beauty to the park visitor, whether they are in the park or observing it from a distance.
As little as possible should be changed in the park, as it is quite beautiful. Any diseased trees should be replaced with young trees. Any ledges not conducive to visual needs for park enforcement could be modified or removed. Although it might be necessary to remove certain tables and benches for some reason, to remove many of these functional conveniences only admits that we are changing the park, degrading it, because we are impatient to solve the problems by creative and effective methods.
The park design, including any changes, should be performed for the long term, anticipating its use by many of the citizens who will eventually be able to use the park as we succeed in decreasing the current population of occupiers to a reasonable level. To destroy the beauty or classic function of the park in an attempt to solve the current problem would be a shame, and would be wasteful of funds, time, and energy. We need to make small adjustments to the park, not radical changes in an effort to solve a problem which should be solved by other methods. No matter what we do to the park, including removing all of the conveniences and trees so that it is bare lawn, if we do not enforce the rules, the same set of habitual occupiers will continue to occupy, standing in the park, talking, cursing, fighting, selling drugs, and intimidating the average citizen who would like to be in the park.
To see two or three dozen citizens enjoying the park, sitting on benches, playing chess at the tables, sunning on the ledges, relaxing alone on a bench, is calming and adds to the essence and beauty of a park. The occasional word or conversation with a stranger can be a very pleasant experience. However, to look upon the park and see several crowds or homogeneous groups, standing, all day, appearing to have taken control of the park, is intimidating. It is unfair to those who wish to use the park for a brief period, which is how it should be used, and not as a daytime camp, an all-day occupation for those who cannot see, and perhaps do not care, how they are destroying one of our city core’s best attributes, and how their very presence is hindering our efforts to revitalize our downtown. Currently, the park is a negative for the city core. We must make it a positive.
Along with the strict enforcement of the existing park rules, and the initiation of some new rules, perhaps the mayor could have a face to face talk with the current set of occupiers. Along with preparing them for upcoming aggressive enforcement of new rules, he could convince some of them to respect the purpose of the park, and the other citizens who wish to use it. He could explain to them the negative image they are creating, and how they are making it much more difficult to revitalize the city core. Perhaps he could explain how the much needed revitalization success will provide more jobs so that they will not feel it necessary to loiter in the park all day. Perhaps we could engage some of these individuals with conversation about a solution so that some of them will assist in achieving it.
QuoteThe fact that the overwhelming majority of the habitual occupiers is black is considered by some to be of significance. A casual visit to the park seems to indicate that the habitual occupiers consist of about 90% black. However, even if the habitual occupiers were little old lady knitting groups, or businessmen’s clubs, or all Orthodox Jews, Neo Nazis, or an all-white younger set milling around all day, they too, by their overwhelming and continual presence in the park, would be guilty of preventing other citizens from using it.
"Too many people are using the park
And they are the wrong people"
That's what this statement says to me.
There is no answer. Ask san Fran, Seattle, DC, NYC, or any other city. Mitigation can be accomplished with more people living and working downtown... on a permanent basis. A walking and regular police patrol on foot might help a bit but this would probably cause other issues...
Who does this sound like?
Quotethe same set of habitual occupiers will continue to occupy, standing in the park, talking, cursing, fighting, selling drugs, and intimidating the average citizen who would like to be in the park.
and...
QuoteIt is unfair to those who wish to use the park for a brief period, which is how it should be used, and not as a daytime camp, an all-day occupation for those who cannot see, and perhaps do not care, how they are destroying one of our city core’s best attributes,
I wonder if we're over complicating Hemming Plaza like we tend to do towards downtown revitalization? Whatever happened to the day center that the Peyton administration discussed? If the goal is to reduce the amount of homeless in the park, then provide an alternative because the park and library are currently serving as the day center.
If the goal is to attract a wider mix of people to the space, then here are a few things to consider providing:
1. Outdoor Public Restrooms - Other than under the Acosta Bridge on the riverwalk, there are none in the Northbank. This is a common complaint of many visiting DT for an extended period of time.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/1694974497_H223jW3-M.jpg)
The Portland Loo
2. Tot Lot/Playground equipment - The library and museum play host to several school field trips throughout the year. Hemming would be a natural location for those groups to picnic/eat lunch during these occassions. In addition, we should consider the fact that more than single yuppies and empty nesters desire urban living. Believe it or not, there are people with young children who don't want to live in the burbs (I'm one of them). Currently, outside of Metropolitan Park, there's no place for this type of recreation in the Northbank.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/1138053952_uwBUh-M.jpg)
Lake Eola Park - Downtown Orlando
3. Programming - This one has been mentioned several times but programming the space on a regular basis will keep a mix of residents using the park. However, programming must embrace multiple demographics, cultures, etc. to pull users in around the clock.
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-6011-p1140120.JPG)
Detroit's Campus Martius Park. Programming includes more than festivals. Being a centralized meeting place for tours and other events also qualifies.
4. Retail - A quick visit to revamped urban public squares around the country illustrates that several have included some form of permanent retail/dining right in the middle of these spaces. This should be considered for Hemming, perhaps in the vicinity of the skyway stop. Such a facility can generate revenue for the city, while also attracting users to the park and skyway.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/968212449_wzC9x-M.jpg)
A restaurant in downtown St. Louis' award winning CityGarden. Adding something like a bike rental shop in the park is another form of retail that can attract people to the space around the clock.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/1429770490_q3qpDSN-M.jpg)
The Bike Station in downtown Long Beach, CA.
If it were up to me, I'd implement all four of the things mentioned above as a solution for improving the quality of the space and its attractiveness to a larger population. However, this calls for adding more amenities than attempting to take away in an effort to remove a certain group.
Also, here are two articles that everyone sitting on the Hemming Plaza task force should be required to read:
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2007-dec-ten-principles-for-creating-successful-squares
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2012-feb-eleven-principles-for-creating-great-community-places
QuoteAlong with preparing them for upcoming aggressive enforcement of new rules, he could convince some of them to respect the purpose of the park, and the other citizens who wish to use it. He could explain to them the negative image they are creating, and how they are making it much more difficult to revitalize the city core. Perhaps he could explain how the much needed revitalization success will provide more jobs so that they will not feel it necessary to loiter in the park all day. Perhaps we could engage some of these individuals with conversation about a solution so that some of them will assist in achieving it.
Perhaps we ought to have Dr. Gaffney introduce legislation which prohibits more than 50 people of color being in the park at one time?
I see a sign....you have to be this white to enter.
Quote from: sheclown on February 08, 2012, 07:49:15 AM
Perhaps we ought to have Dr. Gaffney introduce legislation which prohibits more than 50 people of color being in the park at one time?
I see a sign....you have to be this white to enter.
I guess I read a different post from Ron.
QuoteThe overwhelming presence of 70 to 100 individuals making up any kind of a homogenous group, no matter the color or kind of organization, is intimidating to most potential park visitors.
QuoteHowever, the actions taken must be of a kind which does not infringe on their rights. The park is after all open to all citizens.
QuoteThe fact that the overwhelming majority of the habitual occupiers is black is considered by some to be of significance.
QuoteHowever, even if the habitual occupiers were little old lady knitting groups, or businessmen’s clubs, or all Orthodox Jews, Neo Nazis, or an all-white younger set milling around all day, they too, by their overwhelming and continual presence in the park, would be guilty of preventing other citizens from using it.
So even though the majority of the homeless there are black, a fact, I didn't read any racist tones in the post.
I seriously doubt if a group of little old ladies were knitting in the park, or a group of families with small children, or a group of suits eating sprouts, we'd be having this discussion.
The only way to encourage "better. -- ie. more mainstream" usage of the park is to do as MJ has been saying for years..see reply #3. Anything else, does indeed, endanger civil rights.
Tread softly in Hemming Park. We've been down this road before and it was messy.
After looking at historical pictures of the park. I wish the City would restore it to its original look. Too much brick and concrete and nasty water oaks are in the park now. Looking at the old pictures it is hard to find a bunch of tables and benches. It looks like benches were added in the 50's or 60's. Let's make the park green again.
Quote from: fsujax on February 08, 2012, 08:29:21 AM
After looking at historical pictures of the park. I wish the City would restore it to its original look. Too much brick and concrete and nasty water oaks are in the park now. Looking at the old pictures it is hard to find a bunch of tables and benches. It looks like benches were added in the 50's or 60's. Let's make the park green again.
Agree 100%. I think the park gives off a very cold industrialized feel.
I'm with Lake on this...add some regular programming (like bring back the Friday farmers market)....then add urban retail kiosks and a small playground area....and finally public restrooms can be added once the "vagrant" issue has been dealt with.
I took some time on Satutrday in Atlanta and walked around Piedmont Park...in addition to the all the walking paths and large lawn spaces, they've redone the public swimming pool in the park and added several cool playgrounds....these areas were packed with young families...and judging by the lack of available street parking nearby, I would say that most drove to the park from other areas of the city/metro area.
They were removed for the Superbowl; I'm assuming legally. Could legislation be enacted to prevent people from bringing duffel bags into the park? The segment population won't enter the park without their personal belongings.
What about checking I.D.s? Criminals won't enter the park, and if you don't have an I.D you don't enter.
What if parking meters with 1hr time limits were installed next to each table? (A light bulb just went off in city hall!)
Quote from: downtownjag on February 08, 2012, 09:18:39 AM
They were removed for the Superbowl; I'm assuming legally. Could legislation be enacted to prevent people from bringing duffel bags into the park? The segment population won't enter the park without their personal belongings.
What about checking I.D.s? Criminals won't enter the park, and if you don't have an I.D you don't enter.
These solutions would also deter just about anyone else carrying a bag, backpack, etc. Also, not many people are going to want to deal with showing I.D. to enter access Hemming. I really don't see Hemming as problem that requires over regulation.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on February 08, 2012, 09:24:27 AM
What if parking meters with 1hr time limits were installed next to each table? (A light bulb just went off in city hall!)
Orlando has converted a section of parking meters downtown for panhandlers to be able to operate.
Lake Eola Park actually serves as a pretty good example. There are homeless in the area... but there is a nice playground and some cool small restaurants along the park that activate pedestrian activity that masks vagrant presence.
Thanks Sheclown for raising a valid possible problem with racist and civil rights issues. As you've seen, the Non-Red post supported my view, which or course does not necessarily make it the correct view, only giving it weight.
However, I still believe that "any" group, any color, any homogeneous ethnic population, even any group or any population of "whites" who, by their association by way of similar interests or professional or trade identities, who by their insensitivities to the needs and wishes of others to use the park, do occupy the park excessively, habitually, overwhelmingly, every day, all day, are guilty of preventing its use by other citizens such as local workers, the casual city core visitor, and the local residents, who are intimidated by the image of any homogeneous group, white or black, taking control of the park, occupying the park, commandeering the park, possessing the park, perpetually.
It is similar to a scenario wherein city hall permitting gave continual permission for events and activities continually, and every day, to a special group so they could possess the park for their activities, because this scenario too, would prevent the park's use by the average citizen who wanted to simply enjoy the park, the trees, the calm essence of a park, to read, to play chess, to converse with other individuals without being offended continually by the noise of perpetual events and activities.
My wish is to avoid the racial focus, which is understandably tempting for some, as there is indeed some validity for the racial concern, and focus on the real and perhaps more honest aspect, which is simply the habitual and continual occupation of the park by a homogeneous population of individuals who happen to be black.
I realize that there are perhaps four or five parallel actions which can and are being performed to solve the park problem, some being long term, some being short. I am for strict and aggressive enforcement of any rules, old or new, so that those citizens who wish to also use the park, can do so. Any necessary changes to the park should also be made, but hopefully the changes will include the best ideas according the most ideal and classic southern park essence, and not according to quick fix actions which only degrade the beauty and function of the park. I personally think the current park is quite beautiful, and only requires some small changes to improve its beauty and function.
I think programming is the answer. During the Jazz Festival or during Art Walk nobody talks about the homeless issue. Now we obviously can't have a Jazz Festival everyday, but more activities there will make it more inclusive for all.
Quote from: exnewsman on February 08, 2012, 09:36:48 AM
I think programming is the answer. During the Jazz Festival or during Art Walk nobody talks about the homeless issue. Now we obviously can't have a Jazz Festival everyday, but more activities there will make it more inclusive for all.
Programming is a partial solution. However, to expect a continual momentum of activities and events to solve the habitual occupy problem is perhaps expecting too much on the ability of those scheduling the activities to keep up with the demand. But yes, I agree that any events and activities programmed and held would assist the overall situation.
Here are 'homeless donation meters' that are becoming prevelant in other localities
(http://www.freakonomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/homeless-meter-225x300.jpg)
QuoteOrlando OKs 'homeless meters,' an alternative to giving change to panhandlers
October 19, 2010|By Mark Schlueb, Orlando Sentinel
Orlando commissioners OK'd a plan Monday to install old parking meters repurposed to accept donations for the homeless around downtown, near spots where panhandlers beg passersby for spare change.
City leaders say the 15 meters will give downtown workers and visitors an alternative to giving money to panhandlers. The money will be donated to a homeless charity.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-10-19/news/os-homeless-meters-20101019_1_homeless-meters-donation-meters-panhandling-downtown (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-10-19/news/os-homeless-meters-20101019_1_homeless-meters-donation-meters-panhandling-downtown)
QuoteWalking around downtown Orlando, Fla., feels like strolling through "The Truman Show" 's fictional town of Seahaven. But spotless sidewalks, a tidy business district, lush parks and lakes belie a real city with real problems, in particular a burgeoning homeless population that local officials are struggling to control. After a law banning begging outright was struck down by the courts, the city tried regulating panhandlers by issuing them ID cards, then by confining them to three- by 15-foot "panhandling zones" painted on sidewalks. But it wasn't enough, so this summer Orlando tried a supply-side solution, cracking down on churches and activists who had been feeding large groups of homeless people in downtown parks. Now it's not just the panhandlers who risk getting arrested, it's the people trying to help them.
Advocates say anti-feeding ordinances are the latest in a series of municipal efforts to legislate against homelessness. A report this year by the National Coalition for the Homeless (NCH) found double-digit increases since 2002 in laws prohibiting begging, sitting and lying in public places. A week before Orlando passed its ordinance, Las Vegas outlawed giving food to even a single indigent in any city park. The law defines an indigent as a person who appears "to be entitled to apply for or receive" government assistance. "It's revoltingly immoral. It literally enforces a class regime by defining criminal behavior based on income," says Lee Rowland, a public advocate with the ACLU of Nevada, which filed suit in August against the Vegas feeding ban.
"Cities figure that if you quit feeding the homeless, they'll go away," says NCH executive director Michael Stoops. But in Orlando they've kept coming, drawn by warm weather and low-skill service- industry jobs. The homeless population, including seasonal agricultural workers, is estimated at about 7,000; the city has shelter capacity for about 2,000.
Activist and church groups tried to fill the gap with food programs. The largest, run by a group called Food Not Bombs, began giving away meals once a week at Lake Eola, one of Orlando's most pristine parks. Their well-intentioned efforts led to some negative side effects for nearby residents. Police say that crime, along with reports of trespassing and lewd behavior, spiked after many of the large feedings, which often drew hundreds of homeless into some of the nicest parts of downtown. "I was having to pick up human waste from my yard and shoo people out from sleeping in my bushes," says Robert Harding, a local attorney whose office is around the corner from Lake Eola Park.
While the ordinance has reduced the size and frequency of feedings, Food Not Bombs is finding ways around it by feeding from the backs of cars parked across from parks. More than once, it's thumbed its nose at the city by feeding in front of municipal buildings, even city hall, which raises the issue of whether the ban is even enforceable--just as the city prepares to defend it in court. Supported by the ACLU, Food Not Bombs sued to overturn the ban earlier this fall. Food, says the group's head Ben Markeson, "is a right, not a privilege." The city may look like a movie set, but the people lining up for sandwiches aren't actors.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2006/11/05/ok-sister-drop-that-sandwich.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2006/11/05/ok-sister-drop-that-sandwich.html)
Seeing as though Mayor Brown loves his photo opps....
Why not institute a lunch with the mayor day once a week with Hemming Plaza!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He could meet with City Hall employees for lunch in Hemming. It could be a different department each week, and it could be used as a productivity/communication enhancment tool designed to 'increase efficiency in City Hall and improve morale among COJ employees'.
Quote from: fieldafm on February 08, 2012, 09:31:31 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on February 08, 2012, 09:24:27 AM
What if parking meters with 1hr time limits were installed next to each table? (A light bulb just went off in city hall!)
Orlando has converted a section of parking meters downtown for panhandlers to be able to operate.
Lake Eola Park actually serves as a pretty good example. There are homeless in the area... but there is a nice playground and some cool small restaurants along the park that activate pedestrian activity that masks vagrant presence.
Sort of tongue-in-cheek, but the suggestion is to limit the time that, to use the word of the day, 'occupiers' can
freely occupy the benches and tables.
^ Smart idea, Fieldafm.
As for Ron, I would suggest simply leaving the issue of race out of your essay. Behavior is the issue. For the purpose of changing the behavior, race is of little consequence.
Individual perceptions about race simply are what they are.
I was at Hemming yesterday around one. I was not kept from using the park in any way. I hear what you are saying and it is just incorrect when people held back by fear of interacting with a group that is not their normal group they are holding themselves back. I could see if it felt like a rambunctious unregulated space but it just doesn't. There are police, suits, dresses and homeless present most week days.
I am not saying the fear of stepping out of ones comfort zone isn't real.
Quote from: JeffreyS on February 08, 2012, 10:15:34 AM
I was at Hemming yesterday around one. I was not kept from using the park in any way. I hear what you are saying and it is just incorrect when people held back by fear of interacting with a group that is not their normal group they are holding themselves back. I could see if it felt like a rambunctious unregulated space but it just doesn't. There are police, suits, dresses and homeless present most week days.
This has been my experience also...
Quote from: ronchamblin on February 08, 2012, 09:48:34 AM
Quote from: exnewsman on February 08, 2012, 09:36:48 AM
I think programming is the answer. During the Jazz Festival or during Art Walk nobody talks about the homeless issue. Now we obviously can't have a Jazz Festival everyday, but more activities there will make it more inclusive for all.
Programming is a partial solution. However, to expect a continual momentum of activities and events to solve the habitual occupy problem is perhaps expecting too much on the ability of those scheduling the activities to keep up with the demand. But yes, I agree that any events and activities programmed and held would assist the overall situation.
Having a retail/dining presence within the park itself, as well as surrounding land uses integrating with the park's borders could be considered a form of continuous programming.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/837078449_RLyno-M.jpg)
Downtown Mobile, Alabama's Cathedral Square is an example where surrounding restaurants offer sidewalk dining on the edges of the park's borders, thus bringing a mix of people into the space throughout the day.(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Cincinnati-2009/P1220991/559900816_ffEoP-M.jpg)
Downtown Cincinnati's Fountain Square was recently renovated to allow retailers to open up into the space, thus flooding it with diverse turnover and use throughout the slowest days.(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Cincinnati-2009/P1220998/559900918_uuG4c-M.jpg)
Cincinnat's Fountain Square.(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Elements-of-Urbanism-Detroit/P1270207/594987589_RuYB6-M.jpg)
Downtown Detroit's Campus Martius Park includes an Au Bon Pain bakery and cafe right in the center of it. Who doesn't like fresh pastries and bread?(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Elements-of-Urbanism-Detroit/P1270201/594988720_uPcgq-M.jpg)
Detroit's Campus Martius Park.(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Elements-of-Urbanism-Detroit/P1270114/594998232_DsNbd-M.jpg)
Detroit's International Riverwalk includes space for Kiosk rental and a kids carousel as amenities that appeal to different segments of society.(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Elements-of-Urbanism-Detroit/P1270110/594998715_CzpB9-M.jpg)
Detroit International Riverfront's kids carousel.(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Toronto-June-2007/P1010637/463389127_3YdLe-M.jpg)
If investing in a permanent retail facility is viewed as long term because of capital costs, take a page out of Toronto's book. Toronto allows the edges of their public spaces to be used as mobile food truck lots, which packs parks like Phillips Square full of people throughout the weekdays.(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Toronto-June-2007/P1010730/463389806_Wvtx4-M.jpg)
When that option isn't viable because of site context, they also allow mobile vendors to set up in other public spaces, such as their waterfront.Hemming's main problem and obstacle may be that there's too much focus on getting rid of one segment of the population enjoying the "space" instead of adding amenities to make it a "place."
Quote from: thelakelander on February 08, 2012, 10:23:25 AMHemming's main problem and obstacle may be that there's too much focus on getting rid of one segment of the population enjoying the "space" instead of adding amenities to make it a "place."
I think you're spot on here - a lot of the focus seems to be "how do we get these people out of here" instead of "how do we get more people in here." I've heard suggestions like "get rid of the benches and tables" which seems to be the opposite of what you want for a public space.
The food truck thing is a good idea. Are we allowed to do that downtown?
^Public policy and regulation makes it difficult and cost prohibitive in public locations.
Someone may have mentioned this, the obvious solution is to use the same methods one uses to keep birds from perching in inconvenient places, thin spikes.
http://www.birdbgone.com/products/bird-spikes/
Judging by a lot of these comments, Ron, you may want to think about some caveats to talk about to keep the discussion on a productive path. A few to consider might be:
1.Every city's downtown has a problem with vagrants, from downtowns at our level or worse, to the most thriving. We shouldn't be solipsistic, rather we should look at how other cities deal with problems such as Hemming Plaza.
2.There is a difference between "homelessness" as a condition/ the "homeless" population, and problematic behaviors that are the real trouble here. You can crack down on panhandling, public drunkenness, etc. downtown, without cracking down on the homeless (and of course, many panhandlers and drunks are not homeless).
3. Race should not be an issue here. If anyone brings that up at the meeting, tell them to shut right up. That will only cause more problems than it could ever address. It's a load of baloney to think these issues are the result of certain percentage of the park's users being of a certain color or another. Are you really saying that if the park was 90% full of black office workers, middle-class families, and nuns, that we'd be having this issue? I've frequented the park in Lincolnville in St. Augustine, which is often around 90% black, but no overwhelming number of homeless. Not even comparable to Hemming Plaza's issues. I've also frequented Jarboe Park in Neptune Beach, which may approach 90% white on any given day. Again, not remotely comparable. Seriously, this is a dead end.
This helped make St Pete's downtown the best in Florida.
http://www.stpete.org/socialservices/homelessness/ordinanceslaws.asp
^Gainesville did a similar thing. In addition to the panhandling and sleeping in public ordinance, they also added a limit on the number of free meals distributed. That ordinance was eventually lifted.
They also were voted one of the meanest cities in America towards the homeless.
if only we could be more like gainesville. ;D no matter how you slice it, if the goal is a more inclusive use of a public facility, youre not going to encourage use of the plaza until you clear out the bunch of people who are loitering and occupying the facility (not to mention dont pay for it via taxes, but i digress). that said, i belive the best way to effectute change is not through hard-core police enforcement, but a combination of enforcement of regulations regarding loitering and encouragement of casual visiting through events, both special and regular (easiest would be to stop banning food trucks in this city and encourage them in pod, maybe the first around the plaza- you would have to be blind or living in a cave to argue that their positive effect/ following hasn't been proven for years in almost every major city in this country). once you reach a tipping point, the homeless, etc. will leave, just like when the plaza reached the opposite tipping point, and all of the non-homeless, etc. left. doesnt happen overnight in either instance...
Gainesville has a much worse problem with this than either Jax or St. Pete, and it's all over the city. Gainesville is why I don't give money to panhandlers under any circumstance.
It's notable that these ordinances (except for the free meals thing, which seems over the top) target specific problematic behaviors, rather than the homeless population in and of itself.
It does seem that this kind of cracking down should be done in tandem with increased services for the homeless, such as day facilities (preferably out of downtown). And of course by finding ways to increase other use, as climber says.
*Returning the park to green space is a good idea long term. Not completely green but like the Friendship fountain renovation. Adding a small playground would make it family friendly. Family friend draws families. Not sure if its big enough area to do that.
*A day center would be good but only if exisiting laws or new laws were enforced to make homeless use it instead of the library and park. Enhanced no loitering law, id checks, or whatever.
*Public restrooms are a nonissue. Tourists and visitors can use Library, cafes, hotel, Landing bathrooms. Office workers would rather wait to use thier own office bathrooms than use a public one. Maybe in 10 years once downtown has more action it would be needed but not now.
*ALL OF THESE IDEAS ARE JUST BANDAIDES. Nothing substantial will change until the shelters are deconsolidated from downtown. Homeless hangout in downtown because that where they get their free meals and get bed if they choose to. Tallyand, Myrtle ave, McDuff ave, Arlington, Beach blvd, Gateway mall have lowend commercial and industrial areas where shelters could be relocated without people raising hell. The BEST money the city could spend on downtown revitalization is relocating one or two of the shelters to other areas of the city.
Quote from: John P on February 08, 2012, 12:17:20 PM
*Returning the park to green space is a good idea long term. Not completely green but like the Friendship fountain renovation. Adding a small playground would make it family friendly. Family friend draws families. Not sure if its big enough area to do that.
There's a ton of space for the inclusion of many amenities. It covers a full city block. That's a lot of space to work with.
Quote*Public restrooms are a nonissue. Tourists and visitors can use Library, cafes, hotel, Landing bathrooms. Office workers would rather wait to use thier own office bathrooms than use a public one. Maybe in 10 years once downtown has more action it would be needed but not now.
They are an issue in if you're not familiar with the area (there's no signage specifying you can use private facilities) or get caught down there when everything is closed. In that event you're screwed. That also helps solidify downtown as a pedestrian hostile environment worth avoiding if you have the means. If you done something like a walking tour downtown, this is something that stands out.
Quote*ALL OF THESE IDEAS ARE JUST BANDAIDES. Nothing substantial will change until the shelters are deconsolidated from downtown. Homeless hangout in downtown because that where they get their free meals and get bed if they choose to. Tallyand, Myrtle ave, McDuff ave, Arlington, Beach blvd, Gateway mall have lowend commercial and industrial areas where shelters could be relocated without people raising hell. The BEST money the city could spend on downtown revitalization is relocating one or two of the shelters to other areas of the city.
The issue with deconsolidation is who's neighborhood is going to be sacrificed and who will be funding the new facilities? Gateway Mall/Norwood is a commercial heart of several residential districts (ex. Norwood, Brentwood, etc.). Move the facilities there and you'll doom those areas. The same goes for Arlington, McDuff, Myrtle, etc. That's a political time bomb that will eventually end in nothing being done, a lot of hurt feelings, and a space still underutilized.
In reality, even the most vibrant places still have the "undesirable" element in the mix. They just happen to not stand out because the focus of those environments is on diversifying the amenity mix and not isolating specific economic groups.
QuoteThe issue with deconsolidation is who's neighborhood is going to be sacrificed and who will be funding the new facilities?
Nocatee?
QuoteGainesville has a much worse problem with this than either Jax or St. Pete, and it's all over the city. Gainesville is why I don't give money to panhandlers under any circumstance.
Maybe. They did have a pretty concentrated population that hung out in the downtown area. The free meals limit ordinance was developer driven which I thought was interesting. I think that Gainesville has a large population of younger folks that are basically vagabonds and travel from town to town for fun and are homeless basically by choice. I have no data to back that up, just from observations.
On a separate note I was at a McDonalds across the street from the Avenues on Philips and there was a guy in there probably in his twenties and he told me that he had just hopped off the freight train and had come from Portland, Maine (the FEC tracks run directly behind the store). I think that was kinda strange yet cool. He was "ridin' the rails"
Thanks Lake. What wonderful and helpful feedback from all. I plan to digest it all much more closely this evening. I wish I had started the thread a few days ago. I will use the quite insightful feedback to adjust my thoughts toward a more balanced view. Perhaps, after the meeting, we can continue.
But Tacachale, when you said "Are you really saying that if the park was 90% full of black office workers, middle-class families, and nuns, that we'd be having this issue?" it informs me that you misunderstood the principle I've been trying to convey. Yes, I am really saying that "any" homogeneous group, if they do in fact habitually occupy and take over the park, every day, for whatever reasons of meetings etc, then they too should be confronted and enticed to refrain from their unreasonable use of the park.
I realize that my reluctant drift into the dreaded racial corner because of the percentages in the park offers me to criticism by those who might be inclined to avoid the idea of race, or criticism by those who possess a good measure of emotional emphasis on racial aspects. My objective is to attempt looking directly at the facts, and to offer the idea that the "habitual occupation" as held by the current set of occupiers, is not to be confronted because of the percentage of blacks, but because of the "unreasonable occupation" by the current population.
I can understand how some might be inclined to criticize me as being too concerned with the racial aspect, but they do so perhaps because they wish to cleanse themselves of racist assumptions. We all know of the very sensitive issue of race. I hope we, in our enthusiasm to be pure and objective, do not point fingers at some who are attempting to solve a problem which happens to have within it a component of a homogeneous group of blacks, because "any" group behaving as the current habitual occupiers, no matter the ethnicity, would deserve the same attention and solution.
The Hemming Park problem has components both simple and complex. I think there will be several parallel actions and programs which will be needed to actually solve the problem for the long term.
I have just never had any problem there granted I am Six Four and male. I just think the crowd isn't the problem because based on activities at the time you see the crowd change.
I agree Jeffrey. I too am not at all intimidated by the park environment. I have friends there and frequently enjoy talking and simply relaxing. Although I personally enjoy seeing the dozens of people in the park, I realize that there are too many citizens who avoid the park, and this avoidance is understandable.
What are the complex components with Hemming Plaza? The way I see it, it works just fine for the environment we've designed it and its surroundings for. If the goal is the desire of more diversity, the answer is a simple one. That solution is the addition of a mix of human scale friendly amenities and programming to make it place worth visiting to a larger segment of the population. You can't regulate urban vibrancy. However, history has proven time and time again, when the focus is placed on making a space a special place, there will be little need to chase out homeless, suits, little old ladies, or anything else. The additional mix of people will handle the issue naturally.
Quote from: thelakelander on February 08, 2012, 01:55:47 PM
What are the complex components with Hemming Plaza? The way I see it, it works just fine for the environment we've designed it and its surroundings for. If the goal is the desire of more diversity, the answer is a simple one. That solution is the addition of a mix of human scale friendly amenities and programming to make it place worth visiting to a larger segment of the population. You can't regulate urban vibrancy. However, history has proven time and time again, when the focus is placed on making a space a special place, there will be little need to chase out homeless, suits, little old ladies, or anything else. The additional mix of people will handle the issue naturally.
Agreed Lake. But the peope addressing the park problem are also interested in, and pushing for, short term solutions. The long term solutions are indeed simple, because they can be planned and initiated in good time. The short term solutions become a little complex because of the various issues such as how the short term actions might conflict and sometimes hinder the long term solutions. But I think you're absolutely correct in your ideas about getting more into the core so that the the "more" will displace by natural pressures the unwanted elements. Perhaps implementation of ideas such as yours can produce faster short term results that most anticipate. As I've said before, the solution will involve multiple actions, including programming the park, so that we will see a gradual increase in activities which will overshadow the problem of habitual occupation.
Quote from: ronchamblin on February 08, 2012, 01:25:33 PM
Thanks Lake. What wonderful and helpful feedback from all. I plan to digest it all much more closely this evening. I wish I had started the thread a few days ago. I will use the quite insightful feedback to adjust my thoughts toward a more balanced view. Perhaps, after the meeting, we can continue.
But Tacachale, when you said "Are you really saying that if the park was 90% full of black office workers, middle-class families, and nuns, that we'd be having this issue?" it informs me that you misunderstood the principle I've been trying to convey. Yes, I am really saying that "any" homogeneous group, if they do in fact habitually occupy and take over the park, every day, for whatever reasons of meetings etc, then they too should be confronted and enticed to refrain from their unreasonable use of the park.
I realize that my reluctant drift into the dreaded racial corner because of the percentages in the park offers me to criticism by those who might be inclined to avoid the idea of race, or criticism by those who possess a good measure of emotional emphasis on racial aspects. My objective is to attempt looking directly at the facts, and to offer the idea that the "habitual occupation" as held by the current set of occupiers, is not to be confronted because of the percentage of blacks, but because of the "unreasonable occupation" by the current population.
I can understand how some might be inclined to criticize me as being too concerned with the racial aspect, but they do so perhaps because they wish to cleanse themselves of racist assumptions. We all know of the very sensitive issue of race. I hope we, in our enthusiasm to be pure and objective, do not point fingers at some who are attempting to solve a problem which happens to have within it a component of a homogeneous group of blacks, because "any" group behaving as the current habitual occupiers, no matter the ethnicity, would deserve the same attention and solution.
The Hemming Park problem has components both simple and complex. I think there will be several parallel actions and programs which will be needed to actually solve the problem for the long term.
There's speaking honestly about race, and there's blaming problems on race. The problem with Hemming Plaza isn't really that there's unreasonable occupation by a "homogeneous group". We would not be talking about this at all if there was occupation by a group of rich people (or nuns or whatever) that was 90% black. We
would still be talking about it if there was over-occupation by vagrants regardless of their demographics, even if they were 65% white, 30% black, and 5% Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American or Alaska Native, and "Other", which is about the figure for the city as a whole.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on February 08, 2012, 09:24:27 AM
What if parking meters with 1hr time limits were installed next to each table? (A light bulb just went off in city hall!)
I was just about to post exactly the same thing. "Sitting meters" by all of the tables and "loafer rails" ( the pointy one) on all of the masonry edges. $.50 per hour would pay for a lot of park amenities.
Quote from: John P on February 08, 2012, 12:17:20 PM
[1] Returning the park to green space is a good idea long term. Not completely green but like the Friendship fountain renovation. Adding a small playground would make it family friendly. Family friend draws families. Not sure if its big enough area to do that.
[2]A day center would be good but only if exisiting laws or new laws were enforced to make homeless use it instead of the library and park. Enhanced no loitering law, id checks, or whatever.
[3]Public restrooms are a nonissue. Tourists and visitors can use Library, cafes, hotel, Landing bathrooms. Office workers would rather wait to use thier own office bathrooms than use a public one. Maybe in 10 years once downtown has more action it would be needed but not now.
[4]ALL OF THESE IDEAS ARE JUST BANDAIDS. Nothing substantial will change until the shelters are deconsolidated from downtown. Homeless hangout in downtown because that where they get their free meals and get bed if they choose to. Tallyrand, Myrtle ave, McDuff ave, Arlington, Beach blvd, Gateway mall have lowend commercial and industrial areas where shelters could be relocated without people raising hell. The BEST money the city could spend on downtown revitalization is relocating one or two of the shelters to other areas of the city.
[1] I agree about re-greening Hemming Plaza. The current incarnation of Hemming Plaza was a misguided attempt to turn an urban retail setting into a suburban mall experience.
[2] A day center is long past due for our city.
[3] Public restrooms are necessary (pardon the pun). I do not believe that the exisiting facilities (cafes, stores, and even the library.) should be used by people who are not there to use the facilities' services. Maintenance and upkeep of these restrooms is difficult enough as it is.
Quote from: ronchamblin on February 08, 2012, 02:45:52 PM
Agreed Lake. But the peope addressing the park problem are also interested in, and pushing for, short term solutions. The long term solutions are indeed simple, because they can be planned and initiated in good time. The short term solutions become a little complex because of the various issues such as how the short term actions might conflict and sometimes hinder the long term solutions.
This would probably be my suggestions towards short and long term solutions for Hemming Plaza.
Short term: (0-2 years):1. Focus on adding amenities verses trying to rid the park of the people who are there now.
2. Coordinate with JEDC, Mayor's Office, Council, DVI, COJ Special Events, etc. for continuous programming of events.
3. Modify public policy to allow for the addition of mobile food truck vendors.
4. Work with JTA to allow vendor kiosks at skyway station.
5. Either reopen existing restrooms or install something like the Portland Loo in Hemming.
6. Secure retail/dining operation in old Shelby's Coffeehouse space that spills its operations out into the sidewalk fronting Laura Street.
7. Modify public policy to encourage surrounding property owners to interact with the sidewalk frontage surrounding Hemming.
8. Install a small playground somewhere along the edge (Monroe or Duval) to attract more diversity into the space.
Long term: (+2 years):1. COJ should reconfigure City Hall and City Hall Annex to once again include retail/dining uses that spill out into Hemming's north border.
2. Add a permanent anchor in the park that's open 7 days a week (ex. small restaurant, bike shop, information center, etc.).
3. Open a day center somewhere on the edge of downtown.
4. Consider losing a good chunk of the concrete and replacing it with greenery.
Maybe it's just me but Hemming Park like the revitalization of downtown in general seems so simple to me, based on what has worked and failed in other communities, as well as Jax, the last half century. The most difficult part isn't the short or long term solutions, it's getting stakeholders to focus on the anything other than vagrants and the homeless (both of which exist in every single major downtown in America).
Quote from: ronchamblin on February 08, 2012, 02:30:40 AM
Several meetings have been held during the past few weeks about the problem of Hemming Plaza. I’ve attended some of the meetings, and have been asked to be a part of a subcommittee charged with the purpose of recommending a solution to the problem. There is a meeting today, Wednesday afternoon. I have written some thoughts below so that I might clarify my position on the park problem. Given the difficulty of the park problem, I might give this material to the meeting group, perhaps modified according to input from my MJ friends, instead of attempting to convey it via speaking, as it is somewhat long. In any case, I would appreciate any criticism of my views about the park problem. You can even be brutal. Our objective is to finally solve the park problem with action, instead of simply talking about the problem every year.
What is the problem? The park was designed and built to be used by all citizens. There is a segment of the population which cannot use the park because of the overwhelming and continual presence of another segment of the population. I shall call this latter segment the “habitual occupiersâ€. The excluded segment, those prevented from using the park, is made up of the local workers who might wish to use the park for lunch and breaks, many city core residents who might wish to relax in the park, and city core visitors who might wish to visit the park.
The fact that the overwhelming majority of the habitual occupiers is black is considered by some to be of significance. A casual visit to the park seems to indicate that the habitual occupiers consist of about 90% black. However, even if the habitual occupiers were little old lady knitting groups, or businessmen’s clubs, or all Orthodox Jews, Neo Nazis, or an all-white younger set milling around all day, they too, by their overwhelming and continual presence in the park, would be guilty of preventing other citizens from using it.
How do the habitual occupiers actually prevent others from using the park? The overwhelming presence of 70 to 100 individuals making up any kind of a homogenous group, no matter the color or kind of organization, is intimidating to most potential park visitors. And too, the fact that all of the tables and benches are already taken up by the habitual occupiers is enough to turn a potential park visitor away.
It has been suggested that if the park were to be programed with events or activities every day, then the event alone would solve the problem simply because the habitual occupiers could be easily asked to move out so that the event could proceed. This would be somewhat effective as long as the momentum of events could be maintained. However, people must work, so it is unlikely that weekday events could be maintained. It seems feasible however that activities and events on weekends might be maintained for a while. But what happens when the momentum or interest subsides after several months of programming weekend activities? The park will again be overwhelmed by the same set of occupiers. I suggest that the programming of the park should be instituted for the weekends, but in conjunction with other actions discussed herein. These several actions will together result in solving the park problem.
The unreasonable, overwhelming, excessive, and habitual daily occupation of the park by the same set of occupiers, which results in preventing other citizens from using the park, should give the city and its citizens the right to take actions which will remove these habitual occupiers. However, the actions taken must be of a kind which does not infringe on their rights. The park is after all open to all citizens.
The pressure to affect removal of the current set of habitual occupiers must come from several fronts. There are programs in effect which attempt to assist some of these individuals so that they might achieve a better living situation. Each individual removed in this manner is to be celebrated as the best method of solving the problem. But this is a long term approach, and some of the habitual occupiers will not respond to this kind of assistance. It has been suggested that the city provide some kind of “day center†so that these individuals, some being homeless, will have a place to bathe, read, use computers, etc. Currently their day center consists of the library and Hemming Park. This is not good for the city core.
The short term approach of enforcing the current set of park rules, along with the creation of some new rules, is perhaps one of the potentially most effective methods of decreasing the park population. Strict and aggressive enforcement of park rules will result in the banning of individuals from the park, which over time will decrease the park population to a level which will not offer the intimidating scenario which prevents other citizens from entering the park. The banned individuals will of necessity find other places to loiter. They will tire of being harassed and banned by the park officers, and some will find other things to do, other places to hang out.
As the park occupier population decreases to a reasonable level, the park image will be less intimidating to the potential visitor. It is quite calming and pleasing to see the occasional game of chess in the park, the discussion of several individuals, the couple eating lunch, or sitting with their child, the old man warming in the sun. And any classic park must have the beautiful oak trees, as they alone offer great beauty to the park visitor, whether they are in the park or observing it from a distance.
As little as possible should be changed in the park, as it is quite beautiful. Any diseased trees should be replaced with young trees. Any ledges not conducive to visual needs for park enforcement could be modified or removed. Although it might be necessary to remove certain tables and benches for some reason, to remove many of these functional conveniences only admits that we are changing the park, degrading it, because we are impatient to solve the problems by creative and effective methods.
The park design, including any changes, should be performed for the long term, anticipating its use by many of the citizens who will eventually be able to use the park as we succeed in decreasing the current population of occupiers to a reasonable level. To destroy the beauty or classic function of the park in an attempt to solve the current problem would be a shame, and would be wasteful of funds, time, and energy. We need to make small adjustments to the park, not radical changes in an effort to solve a problem which should be solved by other methods. No matter what we do to the park, including removing all of the conveniences and trees so that it is bare lawn, if we do not enforce the rules, the same set of habitual occupiers will continue to occupy, standing in the park, talking, cursing, fighting, selling drugs, and intimidating the average citizen who would like to be in the park.
To see two or three dozen citizens enjoying the park, sitting on benches, playing chess at the tables, sunning on the ledges, relaxing alone on a bench, is calming and adds to the essence and beauty of a park. The occasional word or conversation with a stranger can be a very pleasant experience. However, to look upon the park and see several crowds or homogeneous groups, standing, all day, appearing to have taken control of the park, is intimidating. It is unfair to those who wish to use the park for a brief period, which is how it should be used, and not as a daytime camp, an all-day occupation for those who cannot see, and perhaps do not care, how they are destroying one of our city core’s best attributes, and how their very presence is hindering our efforts to revitalize our downtown. Currently, the park is a negative for the city core. We must make it a positive.
Along with the strict enforcement of the existing park rules, and the initiation of some new rules, perhaps the mayor could have a face to face talk with the current set of occupiers. Along with preparing them for upcoming aggressive enforcement of new rules, he could convince some of them to respect the purpose of the park, and the other citizens who wish to use it. He could explain to them the negative image they are creating, and how they are making it much more difficult to revitalize the city core. Perhaps he could explain how the much needed revitalization success will provide more jobs so that they will not feel it necessary to loiter in the park all day. Perhaps we could engage some of these individuals with conversation about a solution so that some of them will assist in achieving it.
Firstly, as a black citizen, I am not offended by the above comments. I, however, believe that he is using kid gloves when addressing a common fear among people of all races. We already have had Jesse Jackson say that even he has crossed the street to void blacks who appeared threatening or intimidating (Even Rev. Jesse Jackson once said, "I hate to admit it, but I have reached a stage in my life that if I am walking down a dark street late at night and I see that the person behind me is white, I subconsciously feel relieved." - http://townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/2007/01/04/a_christmas_story_--_in_the_mall_parking_lot/page/full/) There is going to be a racial component to this because there are a few bad apples who make it difficult for us to loolk beyond color when considering crime and safety. I routinely wear shirt and tie, but have noticed that white couples tend to grab each other or hold hands immediately when I walk toward them on the street. If you have seen me in person, I am one of the least likely to try something crazy like that in public. Even more threatening in many people's minds is when they see a large group of young black men in public (See: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120131215631AALpldk). It is what it is, folks...
I appreciate the honesty of dialogue on this web site. I hope that political correctness, however, does not shame us into mincing our words.
Quote from: JeffreyS on February 08, 2012, 01:39:20 PM
I have just never had any problem there granted I am Six Four and male. I just think the crowd isn't the problem because based on activities at the time you see the crowd change.
me too. only not the six four/male part.
great suggestions Lake.
Great incoming feedback and ideas. I'm still working so I'll just convey a little about the meeting, which went for 1.5 hours, with about twelve present. Our objective was to arrive at some agreements on decisions about whether to remove all or some of the tables and chairs, whether to increase the JSO efforts in the park, etc etc.
Some amount of time was used to discuss whether or not the removal of some or all of the tables and benches would result in a decrease in the excessive occupation of the park by the usual individuals. Actually, the vote on this issue seemed to waiver back and forth, ending with the idea of experimenting with the removal of some of the table sets, especially in the northeast corner.
Another project was to initiate a survey to be tendered to all individuals in the park so that we could determine use characteristics helpful to arriving at solutions. A similar survey was conducted by the Salzbacher center several years ago.
An additional survey, seeking opinions from the surrounding businesses and other entities is also to be initiated, asking them what they want to see in the park, desired changes etc.
The JSO officer at the meeting got a lot of flak about the apparent non-aggressive behavior of the officers in the park. Enforcement of the existing rules was highly suggested as a method of solution, as this might allow for the banning of certain individuals for one year each, thus gradually decreasing the park population over time.
But....... I am anxious to review everyone's posts tonight so I can digest them all. We are to have next week a final (I think) meeting within which we will sort out the final recommendations. Overall I am not too encouraged by the results of meetings so far, although we've made some progress.
This is all, in my opinion, way over thought. Not to mention the "I've never had a problem there" argument is downplaying and avoiding the obvious issues. I'd like to know, based on Ron's comment, what laws are already in place but perhaps unenforced. Finally, I would argue till blue in the face that there is a huge difference between a majority of little old ladies, indie rock, suits, etc and the population that's there now. COME ON.
Removing seats and tables is a horrible idea. How diverse is this committee in terms of race, culture, profession, and age? Is there an urban planner on the committee suggesting that removing amenities is a sound principle for enhancing the area? Seems like the committee is still suck in the same mode of thinking that has led to downtown becoming a smoldering failure over the last 40 years, despite billions invested into it. Making the park more hostile to all by removing amenities only solidifies its ability to not be attractive to anyone other than vagrants. If focusing on making it a fun place with a mix of amenities that appeal to a wide variety of people isn't going to be done, then the simple solution is to put up a fence and keep everyone out. That would certainly solve the "problem" and be in line with many of the past decisions made regarding downtown.
Well I guess I knew in the end the answer was going to be let's make the area worse to see if it makes the area more white. Rip out a little more of Jacksonville's amenities to solve a problem that does not even exist. I know you have convinced yourself it is not about race but I suggest some more soul searching. I will still use the on e or twice a month untill there is no place to sit.
It was actually voted to remove tables and benches... From a park?! Who is on this task force and when is the next meeting????
I agree with Lake. Was gonna post something similar, but then I though "why bother"?? Meaning, if you guys debated for hours about removing tables/chairs & ramping up law enforcement in a public park, then you've already failed.
Concentrate on the bigger picture here & stop trying to micro-manage all of these symptoms that were brought on by the failed downtown policies & over-management. If not, then please for the sake of the city get out of the way & let some urban planners with experience (not all of it in Jax) do it for you. Because this is embarrassing.
How about at the next meeting, Ron comes up with the audacious idea of tripling the number of chairs, benches and tables in the park?
If you want someone other than the habitual occupiers to visit the park then there should at least be ample places to sit down to enjoy their surroundings, watch the daily show put on by their "counterparts", eat a sandwich and drink a beverage without having to fumble or just read the book newly purchased from Ron's bookstore.
The more egregious of the "occupiers" can be quickly and quietly removed by the police for ignoring existing rules/laws. Many say that the police should be walking the beat rather than riding. Just one in the park, all day, without parking his car on the sidewalk, would go a long way.
A few more trash receptacles as well as a responsible park custodian would help, too.
This whole "race issue" is a "straw man argument"; the simple fact is that the homeless and vagrant situation downtown is a *serious* impediment to the revitalization of the core. In all the time I've lived downtown it is by far the most commonly cited reason why friends and acquaintances are reluctant to even visit downtown, much less make a huge wager by moving here. The alley behind our building reeks of urine, there is frequently feces on the sidewalk, my girlfriend and son are routinely hassled and frightened by clearly deranged homeless people while walking in and out of our building. These are not "suits" nor "grannies", so really, knock it off with all the straw man arguments. The same goes for the preposterous "I live downtown and have never been attacked by them" line. I drive a car every day but haven't had a fatal accident; does that mean that fatal accidents are not real?
Bottom line: Whats needed in Hemming Plaza, and downtown in general, are cops that will move these people along. There are laws against loitering and vagrancy, we simply need enforcement of them.
I had a bum asking me for a dollar when I came out of Riverside Publix one day. Then later on in the same day there was a weirdo giving me grief on the Riverwalk and thankfully Officer Duckworth drove up in the golf cart and he started talking to him instead. Then a couple days later on a trek through Main Street, and really I should know better, I stopped to make a phone call by a gas station and when they all saw me on my iPhone, a few approached me and kept staring until I walked away while still on the phone. Awkward every single time.
Quote from: ThugBilt on February 09, 2012, 01:41:44 AM
This whole "race issue" is a "straw man argument"; the simple fact is that the homeless and vagrant situation downtown is a *serious* impediment to the revitalization of the core. In all the time I've lived downtown it is by far the most commonly cited reason why friends and acquaintances are reluctant to even visit downtown, much less make a huge wager by moving here. The alley behind our building reeks of urine, there is frequently feces on the sidewalk, my girlfriend and son are routinely hassled and frightened by clearly deranged homeless people while walking in and out of our building. These are not "suits" nor "grannies", so really, knock it off with all the straw man arguments. The same goes for the preposterous "I live downtown and have never been attacked by them" line. I drive a car every day but haven't had a fatal accident; does that mean that fatal accidents are not real?
Bottom line: Whats needed in Hemming Plaza, and downtown in general, are cops that will move these people along. There are laws against loitering and vagrancy, we simply need enforcement of them.
A public restroom would also go a long way in reducing urine in alleys.
Quote from: thelakelander on February 09, 2012, 05:46:38 AM
Quote from: ThugBilt on February 09, 2012, 01:41:44 AM
This whole "race issue" is a "straw man argument"; the simple fact is that the homeless and vagrant situation downtown is a *serious* impediment to the revitalization of the core. In all the time I've lived downtown it is by far the most commonly cited reason why friends and acquaintances are reluctant to even visit downtown, much less make a huge wager by moving here. The alley behind our building reeks of urine, there is frequently feces on the sidewalk, my girlfriend and son are routinely hassled and frightened by clearly deranged homeless people while walking in and out of our building. These are not "suits" nor "grannies", so really, knock it off with all the straw man arguments. The same goes for the preposterous "I live downtown and have never been attacked by them" line. I drive a car every day but haven't had a fatal accident; does that mean that fatal accidents are not real?
Bottom line: Whats needed in Hemming Plaza, and downtown in general, are cops that will move these people along. There are laws against loitering and vagrancy, we simply need enforcement of them.
A public restroom would also go a long way in reducing urine in alleys.
Agreed. And it is the only humane thing to do to solve this problem for both the people without resources and those with them.
Are the police supposed to arrest every homeless person in downtown...i hear lot of bitching but no real solution here..how many on here are homeless and on the street or mental and on the streets? And putting everyone in jail is just stupid...theyll be released in a fewhours because theres no room.
Quote from: ThugBilt on February 09, 2012, 01:41:44 AM
This whole "race issue" is a "straw man argument"; the simple fact is that the homeless and vagrant situation downtown is a *serious* impediment to the revitalization of the core. In all the time I've lived downtown it is by far the most commonly cited reason why friends and acquaintances are reluctant to even visit downtown, much less make a huge wager by moving here. The alley behind our building reeks of urine, there is frequently feces on the sidewalk, my girlfriend and son are routinely hassled and frightened by clearly deranged homeless people while walking in and out of our building. These are not "suits" nor "grannies", so really, knock it off with all the straw man arguments. The same goes for the preposterous "I live downtown and have never been attacked by them" line. I drive a car every day but haven't had a fatal accident; does that mean that fatal accidents are not real?
Bottom line: Whats needed in Hemming Plaza, and downtown in general, are cops that will move these people along. There are laws against loitering and vagrancy, we simply need enforcement of them.
So you want to do away with people loitering at parks??? Race is the issue if it were a bunch of white people sitting around there would be no meetings to fret about if a black man felt comfortable to visit. If this was the gathering place for a large group of Hasidic Jews no one would be ploting to steal the seats so that a Catholic could sit.
While I do have to admit I have not read every word in this thread, It does seem as this is nothing but a case of use it or lose it. The group that everyone likes, let's call them the "cool kids", isn't comfortable with those that are using the park and so are trying to find ways of excluding them. The sad part is that once the unwanted are gone, the odds are the park will still not be used by the group complaining the loudest. In fact they will still complain about the next group using the park, even if they are old ladies knitting at all hours of the day.
Like many have mentioned, every time I have been down at the park at say lunch time, the types of people using the park are very mixed. Of course, the" unwanted" are often the only ones in the park the majority of time. The only other people downtown then are working. Either in a building or going to somewhere and do not have time to sit in the park. Almost no none else is down there. There is really no reason to be there other than work.
Want to see that change? Then listen to the Lakelander's of the city and make the changes needed to make that happen. Removing benches, more law enforcement and the like will not change a thing. Use it or lose it.
Lets cut the bs. The bottom line is that the park is overrun by homeless people and "regular" people dont want to spend their free time hanging out with homeless people. Call it whatever you like. If you want to attract "regular" citizens to the park without any new programming, attractions or whatever then you have to get rid of the huge group of homeless people that everyone else doesnt want to be around. If 75 homeless people camped out on 1 strech of the riverwalk all day guess what? People wouldnt want to use that part of the riverwalk either. The unwashed, unrefined and possibly crazy make people uncomfortable. That's the way it is. Lakelander, you are barking up the wrong tree with the public restrooms. The alley smells like urine because its a quick and easy. Last time I checked all the shelters have bathroom access and the small daycenters that are already there do too. Access to bathrooms isnt the problem its the mental health of people that would rather take a dump on the sidewalk than in the woods or a public bathroom. You can thank Reagan in the 80s for emptying out our mental hospitals. Those people live in shelters now.
Quote from: John P on February 09, 2012, 08:54:58 AM
Lets cut the bs. The bottom line is that the park is overrun by homeless people and "regular" people dont want to spend their free time hanging out with homeless people. Call it whatever you like. If you want to attract "regular" citizens to the park without any new programming, attractions or whatever then you have to get rid of the huge group of homeless people that everyone else doesnt want to be around. If 75 homeless people camped out on 1 strech of the riverwalk all day guess what? People wouldnt want to use that part of the riverwalk either. The unwashed, unrefined and possibly crazy make people uncomfortable. That's the way it is. Lakelander, you are barking up the wrong tree with the public restrooms. The alley smells like urine because its a quick and easy. Last time I checked all the shelters have bathroom access and the small daycenters that are already there do too. Access to bathrooms isnt the problem its the mental health of people that would rather take a dump on the sidewalk than in the woods or a public bathroom. You can thank Reagan in the 80s for emptying out our mental hospitals. Those people live in shelters now.
THANK YOU.
John P, the bottom line is there's no reason for most of society to spend anytime in that park when a special event isn't going on. It's overrun by "homeless and vagrants" because everyone else has abandoned it and downtown the last half century. Just look at the history of the general area.
It was the place to be when storefronts opened on all four sides of it. It was a place where major events and speeches were held on a regular basis. It was about the only green space in downtown, outside of Springfield Park/Hogans Creek for several years.
Now, other than Subway, the museum, and library, the remaining park edges are pretty much dead. A chunk of special events that should be in the park are now on the riverfront and at Metropolitan Park. If you want to change the park's environment, you add the things that were taken away, back to the mix. This is basic urbanism and it's been proven over and over again in communities all across the country. I've even provided in this thread several examples where adding amenities (as opposed to taking them away) improves these spaces. When you get more activity happening, people who don't bothered with these things move on to the next dead space no one else cares about.
Why do we think that following the same principle won't work in Jacksonville and Hemming Plaza? Why do we keep attempting to chart our own course with unproven solutions that are simply based off opinion instead of facts?
Btw, take a look at the public space across the street (right in front of the courthouse). It's not "over run by vagrants and homeless", yet no one uses it either. Why? Because there's simply no reason to go there. It's just a space, not a "place."
As for public restrooms, that's not just for the homeless, that's for all of us. Any decent sized park that we want people to use around the clock should have basic restroom facilities. This is a no-brainer if the focus becomes designing a space for human scale comfortability and enjoyment, which in turn stimulates the vibrancy everybody claims they want to see.
IF EVERYONE IS SOO INTO THIS SUBJECT; WHY DON'T WE ALL MEET DOWN THERE FOR LUNCH ONE DAY AND SEE WHAT WE COME UP WITH?
I'm game. I can see the park from my office window.
I'm so tired of un-innovative thinking running everything. If you do what you've always done, you'll get what you always got.
We've made Hemming plaza (and downtown) so cold and hostile. It's the solution to everything. If we close off sidewalk access, keep stores private and out of sight from citizens, close down unwanted shops, prohibit vendors, remove seats from public parks, we just might make it shitty and miserable enough that no one, not even transients, would want to come. Then we'll have a crappy place that even we don't want to go to, but at least there won't be "undesirables".
Lake's right. It's time to try something completely different. Instead of closing off and shutting down, let's open up and come alive.
Thank you, John P.
Enough with the political correctness. Hemming Plaza is just a place for the homeless, bums, and vagrants to sit down and hang out in the shade during the day. Then at night, they sprawl out around downtown and start the panhandling. There's a sign right outside my building that says panhandling is illegal, but I have yet to ever see it enforced.
As for me personally, the bums don't deter me from the park. And I'll be honest, I don't know what the answer is.
But I do think that one possible solution would be making the park more kid-friendly. At least 3-4 days a week there are School Buses lined up on Monroe St. taking kids on field trips to the Library. What if the Teachers had the option to let their Students have lunch in the park after visiting the Library? What if the City designated certain areas of the park with activities catered towards schoolchildren? What if the kids could then learn about the history of the city and the park while eating lunch and then playing games? This would be a much better utilization of the space in my opinion and over time, hopefully deter the bums from the space.
Perhaps the solution is a whole array of solutions, ranging from implementing suggestions such as Lakelanders' above, to enforcing laws against problematic behaviors such as panhandling, sleeping in a right-of-way, etc., to increasing services for the homeless (like a day center) outside of downtown.
There are plenty of services to help the Homeless. The problem IS the Homeless. As odd as it may sound, so many of them like the independence of living on the streets, are addicted to drugs/alcohol, and are perfectly fine with panhandling around for their next fix. It's not our responsibility to change what they want to do with their lives. You can't help someone that won't help themselves. This further complicates the issue.
Quote from: thelakelander on February 09, 2012, 09:29:55 AM
I'm game. I can see the park from my office window.
I'm on Adams, so it's an easy walk for me too
Quote from: Jameson on February 09, 2012, 10:49:24 AM
There are plenty of services to help the Homeless. The problem IS the Homeless. As odd as it may sound, so many of them like the independence of living on the streets, are addicted to drugs/alcohol, and are perfectly fine with panhandling around for their next fix. It's not our responsibility to change what they want to do with their lives. You can't help someone that won't help themselves. This further complicates the issue.
I agree but introducing regular programming and making it more appealing to everyone like lakelander said is a good idea also. The problem is there is no kind of regular programing that can duplicate the use of the park a la Art walk. Thats when homeless leave because its filled with vendors and patrons. The farmers market just moved from hemming plaza to the Landing last year to get more customers. Small programming wont make homeless leave or blend in. Only large programming. Long term the answer is more use and crack down on homeless. Greater restrictions and more rules for them. If youre not in work traing and rehab and if you dont pass drug alcohol tests then you dont get meals or beds. Homeless who dont want to change or follow these reasonable rules will leave town. 1 way bus tickets are a good idea too. Either Jax is serious about fixing the issue or not. Enough wishy washy half way measures.
Hope you are reading this Ron Chamblin.
Quote from: downtownjag on February 09, 2012, 11:01:46 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on February 09, 2012, 09:29:55 AM
I'm game. I can see the park from my office window.
I'm on Adams, so it's an easy walk for me too
I am up for it but I would most likely need one days notice.
Quote from: JeffreyS on February 09, 2012, 11:13:41 AM
Quote from: downtownjag on February 09, 2012, 11:01:46 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on February 09, 2012, 09:29:55 AM
I'm game. I can see the park from my office window.
I'm on Adams, so it's an easy walk for me too
I am up for it but I would most likely need one days notice.
Me also... Are the 'dog vendors still at opposite corners of the park?
I agree but introducing regular programming and making it more appealing to everyone like lakelander said is a good idea also. The problem is there is no kind of regular programing that can duplicate the use of the park a la Art walk. Thats when homeless leave because its filled with vendors and patrons. The farmers market just moved from hemming plaza to the Landing last year to get more customers. Small programming wont make homeless leave or blend in. Only large programming. Long term the answer is more use and crack down on homeless. Greater restrictions and more rules for them. If youre not in work traing and rehab and if you dont pass drug alcohol tests then you dont get meals or beds. Homeless who dont want to change or follow these reasonable rules will leave town. 1 way bus tickets are a good idea too. Either Jax is serious about fixing the issue or not. Enough wishy washy half way measures.
Hope you are reading this Ron Chamblin.
Take Lake's theory and put it in perspective:
SJTC - there's a water feature (park) in the middle surrounded by stores, has a kiosk in the middle and anytime you go there - lot's of positive activity going on.
In front of Dicks, there are two fake, grassy areas bordered by masonry walls and opening out to a parking lot and into Dick's SG - no one hangs out there. Why? There's no activity around it to bring you in.
As it's been told time and time again on this site - the grassy area in front of Dicks is a pass-thru, while the koi pond is more of a destination. Where would you rather go?
If you apply it towards Hemming, add a kiosk in the middle, fully surround it with stores/coffee shops/restaurants you get the fish pond. If you leave it as is, you have the area in front of Dicks.
Quote from: John P on February 09, 2012, 11:12:28 AM
Quote from: Jameson on February 09, 2012, 10:49:24 AM
There are plenty of services to help the Homeless. The problem IS the Homeless. As odd as it may sound, so many of them like the independence of living on the streets, are addicted to drugs/alcohol, and are perfectly fine with panhandling around for their next fix. It's not our responsibility to change what they want to do with their lives. You can't help someone that won't help themselves. This further complicates the issue.
I agree but introducing regular programming and making it more appealing to everyone like lakelander said is a good idea also. The problem is there is no kind of regular programing that can duplicate the use of the park a la Art walk. Thats when homeless leave because its filled with vendors and patrons. The farmers market just moved from hemming plaza to the Landing last year to get more customers. Small programming wont make homeless leave or blend in. Only large programming. Long term the answer is more use and crack down on homeless. Greater restrictions and more rules for them. If youre not in work traing and rehab and if you dont pass drug alcohol tests then you dont get meals or beds. Homeless who dont want to change or follow these reasonable rules will leave town. 1 way bus tickets are a good idea too. Either Jax is serious about fixing the issue or not. Enough wishy washy half way measures.
Hope you are reading this Ron Chamblin.
Programming will work but programming is much more than special events. You need a series of little things that draw a diverse range of people through the space throughout the day. Think accessible restrooms, shops that spill out into the space, food truck vendors, retail kiosks, bike stations, etc, perhaps a children's playground which would encourage field trips to the library to include picnics in the park. You then anchor these everyday little steps with a routine network of larger events like Art Walk, Jazz Fest, etc. So in short, there is no single short term solution. There are a lot of little simple things that can be done to move the environment/atmosphere forward but continuing to remove amenities such as benches and tables isn't one of them.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on February 09, 2012, 11:22:27 AM
Take Lake's theory and put it in perspective:
SJTC - there's a water feature (park) in the middle surrounded by stores, has a kiosk in the middle and anytime you go there - lot's of positive activity going on.
In front of Dicks, there are two fake, grassy areas bordered by masonry walls and opening out to a parking lot and into Dick's SG - no one hangs out there. Why? There's no activity around it to bring you in.
As it's been told time and time again on this site - the grassy area in front of Dicks is a pass-thru, while the koi pond is more of a destination. Where would you rather go?
If you apply it towards Hemming, add a kiosk in the middle, fully surround it with stores/coffee shops/restaurants you get the fish pond. If you leave it as is, you have the area in front of Dicks.
Bingo. Give people a reason to be there and most of the problems associated with the space will resolve themselves naturally. It worked that way in Detroit, St. Louis, Orlando and a host of other communities that have recently upgraded public spaces within their downtown areas. There's no reason to believe it can't work in Jacksonville.
I'm sure if Hemming was surrounded by as many stores and restaurants as the SJTC there would all kinds of activity there. Kiosk or no kiosk. All someone needs to do is make a quick call to Maggiano's and convince them to move to downtown. Seeing as though they're hurting for business so badly at the SJTC, I'm sure they'll be more than willing.
(http://www.physec.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Jacksonville-Courthouse.jpg)
Shouldn't this public space across from Hemming be beaming with activity and yuppies? After all, there's no vagrants hanging out there. Nevertheless, it still sits empty. What's the solution for this one? Remove the areas designed for seating?
here's an article about how San Fran has removed benches to fight homelessness...and the backlash it has generated
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/us/in-san-francisco-a-push-for-public-benches.html?_r=2&smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto
and here's another....this one puts placemaking into computer terminlogy...hardware being the physical space and software being the activities/programming of that space
http://www.urbanophile.com/2012/01/31/the-software-of-placemaking-by-rod-stevens/
I like the idea of adding storefronts to the areas surrounding Hemming Plaza, but aside from the library and the museum, aren't most of the other buildings government and 'closed by 5pm' stores? I guess what I'm asking is, where would we add in the retail, restaurants...etc even if we wanted to?
On a side note, the "Make a Scene Downtown" after work networking events were good while they lasted. A couple of times they had them in Hemming Plaza.
Potential spots include the Seminole Club, former Shelby's Coffee, and Snyder Memorial. Long term, the city needs to transition some of its ground level frontage in city hall and city hall annex back to retail/dining, etc. Other opportunities include allowing mobile food trucks, adding kiosks, vendors, or a structure in the park itself.
Btw, considering the size of offices in the Ed Ball Building and the fact that hundreds of jobs have/are/will be eliminated, there should be city office space reduction opportunities.
Quote from: John P on February 09, 2012, 08:54:58 AM
Lets cut the bs. The bottom line is that the park is overrun by homeless people and "regular" people dont want to spend their free time hanging out with homeless people. Call it whatever you like. If you want to attract "regular" citizens to the park without any new programming, attractions or whatever then you have to get rid of the huge group of homeless people that everyone else doesnt want to be around. If 75 homeless people camped out on 1 strech of the riverwalk all day guess what? People wouldnt want to use that part of the riverwalk either. The unwashed, unrefined and possibly crazy make people uncomfortable. That's the way it is. Lakelander, you are barking up the wrong tree with the public restrooms. The alley smells like urine because its a quick and easy. Last time I checked all the shelters have bathroom access and the small daycenters that are already there do too. Access to bathrooms isnt the problem its the mental health of people that would rather take a dump on the sidewalk than in the woods or a public bathroom. You can thank Reagan in the 80s for emptying out our mental hospitals. Those people live in shelters now.
That's exactly what I'm saying. Strip away all these straw man distractions and that's what you get. And yes, I advocate arresting people who violate city ordinances, over and over if necessary. Eventually it'll get old and the behavior will stop.
Is this about clearing the homeless or making the park more vibrant? Removing seats and benches solves neither.
Quote from: ThugBilt on February 09, 2012, 01:26:39 PM
That's exactly what I'm saying. Strip away all these straw man distractions and that's what you get. And yes, I advocate arresting people who violate city ordinances, over and over if necessary. Eventually it'll get old and the behavior will stop.
So criminalize homelessness>arrest homeless>put in jail>release next day back on streets in same situation>arrested for being homeless>put in jail>released back on streets in same situation>arrested for being homeless>rinse repeat.
It's time we stop only seeing 1 tree in front of us. There is a forest of ideas to try. Ideas we know have worked other places.
The homeless situation is a whole other issue that needs to be addressed in a much deeper way. It's more than Hemming Plaza, and if you focus all your energy and effort on just the homeless in Hemming Plaza then you haven't done anything to make people go to the plaza, and you haven't done anything to deal with the homeless.
(Note: I use homeless as the term, despite the fact that a survey concluded the majority weren't homeless)
LOL... Comnsense, you are suggesting exactly what Hemming Park used to be. I started to post this yesterday, but ended up deleting it because I thought I sounded like a cranky old lady remembering the "good old days" but...Hemming Park used to be surrounded by Woolworth and JC Penney (now the courthouse location), May Cohen (City Hall), Iveys (JEA Bldg.) There was a Luggage Shop where the Library now stands. I forget what was next to it. Rosenblums, LaRosa Shoes, Lerner were all neary by. Sears where the Omni is, 2 blocks away. There were public restrooms in the park.
What killed downtown shopping? The department stores opened locations in suburban malls with acres of free parking, and eventually the downtown stores withered and died because people didn't want to pay for parking and walk in the cold and heat when they could park free and shop in conditioned space. But with the SJTC not enclosed, and being so successful, it seems people don't HAVE to have air conditioning any more to shop.
One way to solve it is to open stores downtown that don't exist in the malls. Wonderful stores. Offer tax incentives or something to open them. Free parking. I know, hard right? I don't have answers, just chiming in.
Quote from: Bridges on February 09, 2012, 01:58:03 PM
Quote from: ThugBilt on February 09, 2012, 01:26:39 PM
That's exactly what I'm saying. Strip away all these straw man distractions and that's what you get. And yes, I advocate arresting people who violate city ordinances, over and over if necessary. Eventually it'll get old and the behavior will stop.
So criminalize homelessness>arrest homeless>put in jail>release next day back on streets in same situation>arrested for being homeless>put in jail>released back on streets in same situation>arrested for being homeless>rinse repeat.
It's time we stop only seeing 1 tree in front of us. There is a forest of ideas to try. Ideas we know have worked other places.
The homeless situation is a whole other issue that needs to be addressed in a much deeper way. It's more than Hemming Plaza, and if you focus all your energy and effort on just the homeless in Hemming Plaza then you haven't done anything to make people go to the plaza, and you haven't done anything to deal with the homeless.
(Note: I use homeless as the term, despite the fact that a survey concluded the majority weren't homeless)
Jesus, what's with you people? Another straw man.. NOBODY said anything about "criminalizing homelessness", rather simply enforcing existing quality of life ordinances. Try this "cycle" out: Homeless person loiters in Hemming, is drunk and disorderly, is arrested, has an unpleasant trip to jail, returns to park, repeats behavior, is again arrested and suffers CONSEQUENCES for his/her actions, eventually associates anti-social behaviors with negative outcomes, finds something better to do than be a nuisance.
Quote from: ThugBilt on February 12, 2012, 07:51:11 AM
Quote from: Bridges on February 09, 2012, 01:58:03 PM
Quote from: ThugBilt on February 09, 2012, 01:26:39 PM
That's exactly what I'm saying. Strip away all these straw man distractions and that's what you get. And yes, I advocate arresting people who violate city ordinances, over and over if necessary. Eventually it'll get old and the behavior will stop.
So criminalize homelessness>arrest homeless>put in jail>release next day back on streets in same situation>arrested for being homeless>put in jail>released back on streets in same situation>arrested for being homeless>rinse repeat.
It's time we stop only seeing 1 tree in front of us. There is a forest of ideas to try. Ideas we know have worked other places.
The homeless situation is a whole other issue that needs to be addressed in a much deeper way. It's more than Hemming Plaza, and if you focus all your energy and effort on just the homeless in Hemming Plaza then you haven't done anything to make people go to the plaza, and you haven't done anything to deal with the homeless.
(Note: I use homeless as the term, despite the fact that a survey concluded the majority weren't homeless)
Jesus, what's with you people? Another straw man.. NOBODY said anything about "criminalizing homelessness", rather simply enforcing existing quality of life ordinances. Try this "cycle" out: Homeless person loiters in Hemming, is drunk and disorderly, is arrested, has an unpleasant trip to jail, returns to park, repeats behavior, is again arrested and suffers CONSEQUENCES for his/her actions, eventually associates anti-social behaviors with negative outcomes, finds something better to do than be a nuisance.
According to Sheriff Rutherford, getting arrested can be a temporary improvement in living conditions for a homeless person and therefore not much of a deterrent to bad behavior. IMO increased economic activity is what will improve the situation and that is gradually happening. As others have said, I don't mind sharing my DT neighborhood with the homeless. I knew that was part of the deal when I moved here from Jax Beach.
Quote from: ThugBilt on February 12, 2012, 07:51:11 AM
Jesus, what's with you people? Another straw man.. NOBODY said anything about "criminalizing homelessness", rather simply enforcing existing quality of life ordinances. Try this "cycle" out: Homeless person loiters in Hemming, is drunk and disorderly, is arrested, has an unpleasant trip to jail, returns to park, repeats behavior, is again arrested and suffers CONSEQUENCES for his/her actions, eventually associates anti-social behaviors with negative outcomes, finds something better to do than be a nuisance.
lol, ok.
Look, every time there is a thread or discussion or argument about Hemming Plaza it turns into this "arrest the homeless"/"get the vagrants out" discussion. And we get nowhere because that is not only not the main problem, but also an issue that has to be dealt with entirely on its own.
That's why discussions of how to help Hemming Plaza always fail. Its problem is so narrowly defined by those who think they understand it. But for once can we take a process improvement strategy to the problem. We haven't gotten anywhere since we focused only on the "undesirables". Lake is right, let's try to focus on the park itself, how do we make it a destination, etc. And just maybe we might see different outcomes.
Quote from: ThugBilt on February 12, 2012, 07:51:11 AM
Jesus, what's with you people? Another straw man.. NOBODY said anything about "criminalizing homelessness", rather simply enforcing existing quality of life ordinances. Try this "cycle" out: Homeless person loiters in Hemming, is drunk and disorderly, is arrested, has an unpleasant trip to jail, returns to park, repeats behavior, is again arrested and suffers CONSEQUENCES for his/her actions, eventually associates anti-social behaviors with negative outcomes, finds something better to do than be a nuisance.
I think they could arrest the drunk and disorderly as well there just isn't much of that happening at Hemming. The people at Hemming mostly aren't homeless either. The one thing they are that is off putting to so many is black. Nice people not causing problems who happen to be black end of story. The beginning of this thread even states that the problem is that it is the park is occupied by a certain segment. I'll insert the quote
QuoteThe fact that the overwhelming majority of the habitual occupiers is black is considered by some to be of significance. A casual visit to the park seems to indicate that the habitual occupiers consist of about 90% black. However, even if the habitual occupiers were little old lady knitting groups, or businessmen’s clubs, or all Orthodox Jews, Neo Nazis, or an all-white younger set milling around all day, they too, by their overwhelming and continual presence in the park, would be guilty of preventing other citizens from using it.
Does that pass the smell test to anyone. Seriously if it were little old ladies or a businessman's group you high minded people would still be afraid of this homogenous group. Just admit you want to steal the seats and diminish Hemming Plaza because Black People like to use the park. Loitering is what you do at a park. Nobody is going buy your straw man drivel well no one who has been to hemming.
Quote from: JeffreyS on February 12, 2012, 09:18:20 AM
Quote from: ThugBilt on February 12, 2012, 07:51:11 AM
Jesus, what's with you people? Another straw man.. NOBODY said anything about "criminalizing homelessness", rather simply enforcing existing quality of life ordinances. Try this "cycle" out: Homeless person loiters in Hemming, is drunk and disorderly, is arrested, has an unpleasant trip to jail, returns to park, repeats behavior, is again arrested and suffers CONSEQUENCES for his/her actions, eventually associates anti-social behaviors with negative outcomes, finds something better to do than be a nuisance.
I think they could arrest the drunk and disorderly as well there just isn't much of that happening at Hemming. The people at Hemming mostly aren't homeless either. The one thing they are that is off putting to so many is black. Nice people not causing problems who happen to be black end of story. The beginning of this thread even states that the problem is that it is the park is occupied by a certain segment. I'll insert the quote
QuoteThe fact that the overwhelming majority of the habitual occupiers is black is considered by some to be of significance. A casual visit to the park seems to indicate that the habitual occupiers consist of about 90% black. However, even if the habitual occupiers were little old lady knitting groups, or businessmen’s clubs, or all Orthodox Jews, Neo Nazis, or an all-white younger set milling around all day, they too, by their overwhelming and continual presence in the park, would be guilty of preventing other citizens from using it.
Does that pass the smell test to anyone. Seriously if it were little old ladies or a businessman's group you high minded people would still be afraid of this homogenous group. Just admit you want to steal the seats and diminish Hemming Plaza because Black People like to use the park. Loitering is what you do at a park. Nobody is going buy your straw man drivel well no one who has been to hemming.
I feel/felt the same way.
Sorry about my absence. I think, although I must check, that the next meeting about the park, to which anyone interested can come, is this Wednesday at 10:00 a.m. at city hall. I just read the remaining posts, which include some excellent ideas and criticisms which, along with my recent thoughts, have given me the pressure to change some of my opinions, and reverse a couple. It is refreshing to realize that a rather old brain is still malleable enough to respond to the insightful ideas and criticisms.
I now realize, and this was suggested by at least two MJ posters, that the park “problem†is indeed a difficult one, and will not respond to a quick fix, but the solution will involve several changes, programs and actions. My naïve opinions have brought me through stages of optimism and confidence in my own ability to perceive a solution, and to my current condition of being somewhat discouraged because of my realization that there is no easy solution. My walk into the park Sunday morning, talking with one of the park occupiers, allowed no return to optimism, but only more discouragement as to the ease of solution.
In any case, it looks like two somewhat opposing camps have emerged, one suggesting that we aggressively enforce the rules with the view that eventually the occupier population, via banning individuals, will decrease to a manageable level. This view also suggests, to some degree, that we make the park less enjoyable or inviting to the occupiers, and other citizens unfortunately, by removing some tables and benches, some trees, etc.
The other view suggests that we increase amenities and introduce programming to the park so that the influx of activities and events, along with things such as retail kiosks, food carts, meetings, music, perhaps a small playground, speeches, etc etc, will result in the gradual displacement of the occupiers from the park.
Whereas I was formerly attracted to the first opinion, the weight of the arguments as set forth by several of the MJ posters, especially the persistent opinion of the Lakelander, have caused me to reverse by opinion.
As to why I believe the latter plan is the best, I must first of all suggest that although there will always be the need to occasionally ban an individual from the park because of obvious illegal behavior, the very act of persistent and aggressive JSO or Security Officer harassment and banning, with the objective of reducing the occupier population, would not only perpetuate a mood of conflict and tension for all involved, but it would introduce a program that would never end because we will not have forged ahead with real solutions. And who among us could be proud of having to solve a problem in such a manner, suspecting all along that the solution lies in more positive actions.
And while speaking with a British fellow on Sunday, a physician who works in Jax, who has lived in Britain, and travelled all over Europe, he asked me directly, “Who, exactly, finds the park population offensive or unacceptable?†I thought a moment about this question. And then he said “Ron…. These people do not have anything ….. in many cases only the items in their bags, …. and you are trying to take away one of the only positive or comfortable things they have?†Of course he acknowledged that many of the occupiers are not homeless, although certainly unemployed in most cases. In any case, I’m sure some of us have similar feelings for and about some of the unfortunates in the park.
The second suggestion, that of increasing amenities and programming will, by its anticipated effectiveness, preclude the necessity of spending money and time on the stressful act of aggressive rule enforcement and banning individuals in order to decrease their population. The increased park activities and the appearance of other citizens as a result of programming and creative changes to the park, will produce a condition less inviting for the occupier types. As we succeed with the programming idea, the park “problem†will decrease to one of insignificance over the next year or two.
This is not to say that the programming alone will solve the problem. Continuing with the efforts to provide a day center facility, continuing to engage needy individuals with assistance via a one-on-one basis, and continuing to provide a better job environment will in the long run, decrease the occupier population to a level we can accept.
Several MJ’s have mentioned the need for a public restroom. And one or two have mentioned that perhaps a public restroom should be built only when the park has been somewhat “normalizedâ€. I agree that eventually we should have a public restroom, but that a restroom installed now would be a disaster. If we are to present a park which is to be attractive and inviting to visitors, we should think about the visitors who come into the park area when all else is closed, on holidays, or in the evenings. If the library is closed, the lack of a restroom in the area places a strain on any retail which happens to be open. I realize that restrooms offer problems, but surely there is some way to work them through. Of course, as the park environment assumes the image and activity level we all desire, then the restroom problem will likely decrease to insignificance. In any case, the restroom idea seems to be down the road. Imagine the visitor who comes into the park area while all is closed. On certain days and times, doesn’t the complete absence of a public restroom discourage people from visiting the downtown core?
The removal of some or all of the park tables and benches has always been an issue. As related to our short term goal of getting some relief from the excessive occupation of the park, it does make sense to decrease the density of the tables and benches so that their decreased density will discourage tight groups of occupiers to “commandeer†an area. The decrease in the density areas of tables and benches can be done by the removal of some of these items or, as some have suggested, spreading them out to other areas. But, as some have suggested, the removal of all or most would make the park less inviting to other citizens, an action which does not agree with our long term goal.
There have been suggestions about “flattening†the park, about making it green with grass areas, removing a fountain, removing some or most of the trees, opening up the park for better visibility and safety. It has been suggested that the different levels and steps prevent some types of activities and events.
To achieve a more open feeling and establishing green, the size of the space taken up by the Confederate statue could be reduced, its pool could be removed and replaced with grass, leaving only the statue. Currently, each side of the pool area is fifty feet. Do we need the pool to protect the statue? Anyone can walk through the pool. Several areas in the park could be grassed gradually, providing slopes which might be more attractive than the solid brick. Of course the dog waste issue would have to be enforced so that everyone cleans up after their visit.
Although my initial opinion was that the park is beautiful and therefore should be left alone, I now agree that it could stand some changes. The trees are especially beautiful, provide enough shade, and leave enough sun between on cold days. But although the park is beautiful, it seems that the different levels, ledges, fountains, steps, and statues not only provide hiding places, but these structures also cut people off, restricting the freedom to walk with relaxed freedom in any direction. The different levels and steps seem to cause unnecessary restrictions and complexity. But in my opinion the park is basically beautiful, and although some might wish for radical change, we have time to do it, as any proposed radical changes seem not to be critical to the success of our current effort in the park.
Again, changes to the park is only one aspect to the solution, the primary aspect at this point seems to be the idea of programming activities and events, and the encouragement of kiosks, “anything†viable to encourage people activity, so that the current population of occupiers will be less inclined to be in the park all the time.
Overall, we should focus on the long term, and not destroy the park thinking that certain aspects of our destruction will solve the current problem. We should imagine the best attributes of a city park and slowly work to achieve these attributes. We should have confidence that our programming and increased people activity will succeed. Our vision should be such that we can plan our park to accommodate its heavy use in the future, by all kinds of citizens.
The appearance of the “unwanted elements†in the park, although awkward, uncomfortable, and offensive to many, is a constant expression of truth, a reminder of reality. These unfortunate individuals are not hiding under bridges and overpasses, in the woods, out of sight, as if they were lepers. We need expressions of honesty and truth about our society, and about our city, so we should perhaps at least give these people credit for offering these things, for reminding us by their presence, that all is not right.
Ron, a few things. Since I've been in Jacksonville one thing I've noticed is our city's tendency to make public policy decisions based on fear and limited opinion of those serving on small scale committees, instead of well researched facts or even attempting to truly engage the community in the decision making process. The result of this over the decades has been devastating to the health and quality of downtown and many urban core communities.
From a planning perspective, I'd like to say that there is nothing new under the sun. There is no issue that Jacksonville faces today that has not been addressed in another American community with similar demographics. Thus, looking outside of our borders can provide us with success and failure methods in addressing a public space like Hemming Plaza.
QuoteIn any case, it looks like two somewhat opposing camps have emerged, one suggesting that we aggressively enforce the rules with the view that eventually the occupier population, via banning individuals, will decrease to a manageable level. This view also suggests, to some degree, that we make the park less enjoyable or inviting to the occupiers, and other citizens unfortunately, by removing some tables and benches, some trees, etc.
My challenge for anyone with this view is to identify a public square similar to Hemming in another community were this was done and the space became a vibrant activity center as a result.
QuoteThe removal of some or all of the park tables and benches has always been an issue. As related to our short term goal of getting some relief from the excessive occupation of the park, it does make sense to decrease the density of the tables and benches so that their decreased density will discourage tight groups of occupiers to “commandeer†an area. The decrease in the density areas of tables and benches can be done by the removal of some of these items or, as some have suggested, spreading them out to other areas. But, as some have suggested, the removal of all or most would make the park less inviting to other citizens, an action which does not agree with our long term goal.
On the surface, removing benches work when solutions based on opinions are placed in higher regards to facts. However, in reality it doesn't work. In fact, tufsu1 posted an article of this policy failing in San Francisco in this exact thread.
"Indeed, the homeless still hang out in United Nations Plaza, a 2.6-acre pedestrian mall whose benches were removed 10 years ago."full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/us/in-san-francisco-a-push-for-public-benches.html?_r=3&smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto
What makes people believe a proven failed policy will work in Jacksonville?
QuoteTo achieve a more open feeling and establishing green, the size of the space taken up by the Confederate statue could be reduced, its pool could be removed and replaced with grass, leaving only the statue. Currently, each side of the pool area is fifty feet. Do we need the pool to protect the statue? Anyone can walk through the pool. Several areas in the park could be grassed gradually, providing slopes which might be more attractive than the solid brick. Of course the dog waste issue would have to be enforced so that everyone cleans up after their visit.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/594988720_uPcgq-M.jpg)
Flexible green space in downtown Detroit's Campus Martius Park.In a city that doesn't have many water features, perhaps its best to keep the fountains or improve them? Nearly have the park is a paved flat area for special events. It would be cheaper (if money were a concern) to simply replace the paving with sod. That would give you a decent "green flex space" area within the park.
QuoteSeveral MJ’s have mentioned the need for a public restroom. And one or two have mentioned that perhaps a public restroom should be built only when the park has been somewhat “normalizedâ€. I agree that eventually we should have a public restroom, but that a restroom installed now would be a disaster.
Why would a restroom in the space now be a disaster? If the goal is to want better utilization of the space its going to have to become more attractive and accommodating to the average human. If we look at the situation and search for solutions that have been implementing outside of Duval County, we'll discover how other communities have already addressed this issue and successfully moved on. A few weeks back, we even covered one solution on Metro Jacksonville called the Portland Loo.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/1694974497_H223jW3-M.jpg)
full article: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2012-feb-portland-loo-success-where-others-have-failed
I have been critical of some of the posted solutions so maybe I ought to make some suggestions for others to rip.
1. Add WiFi to the park this may help to change the homogenous face of the occupiers and add functionality.
2. Add a few patron only roped off seating areas in the park that could be served by waiters of the surrounding establishments even the hot dog carts.
3. I like the bathroom idea. If we are going to try the drive people too the park approach as opposed to the drive people from the park.
quote: Lakelander:
Ron, a few things. Since I've been in Jacksonville one thing I've noticed is our city's tendency to make public policy decisions based on fear and limited opinion of those serving on small scale committees, instead of well researched facts or even attempting to truly engage the community in the decision making process. The result of this over the decades has been devastating to the health and quality of downtown and many urban core communities.
From a planning perspective, I'd like to say that there is nothing new under the sun. There is no issue that Jacksonville faces today that has not been addressed in another American community with similar demographics. Thus, looking outside of our borders can provide us with success and failure methods in addressing a public space like Hemming Plaza.
I agree, Lake, that the scenarios at other locations can serve to show us solutions which have worked. This look at history makes sense because the dynamics are surely quite similar. Actually you have been a source for offering some of those histories. And that is why we have made some progress toward a consensus here. This MJ forum is one method of broadening the dialogue about the park, avoiding its restriction to a dozen or so committee members.
Quote: Lakelander.
My challenge for anyone with this view is to identify a public square similar to Hemming in another community were this was done and the space became a vibrant activity center as a result.
We both agree that the aggressive rule enforcement is not the way to go, especially as a hope for eventual permanent solution. This was made clear in my most recent post.
Quote: Lakelander.
On the surface, removing benches work when solutions based on opinions are placed in higher regards to facts. However, in reality it doesn't work. In fact, tufsu1 posted an article of this policy failing in San Francisco in this exact thread.
"Indeed, the homeless still hang out in United Nations Plaza, a 2.6-acre pedestrian mall whose benches were removed 10 years ago."
full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/us/in-san-francisco-a-push-for-public-benches.html?_r=3&smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto
What makes people believe a proven failed policy will work in Jacksonville?
We agree again Lake. I've always worked against removal of the tables and benches. Not only does this remove one of the most pleasing and functional aspects of a park, it will never solve the problem we've addressed. People believe that a proven failed policy will work in Jax because they have not been educated otherwise, which is one reason why we are all having this discussion.
Quote: Lakelander.
In a city that doesn't have many water features, perhaps its best to keep the fountains or improve them? Nearly ... have the park is a paved flat area for special events. It would be cheaper (if money were a concern) to simply replace the paving with sod. That would give you a decent "green flex space" area within the park.
Why would a restroom in the space now be a disaster? If the goal is to want better utilization of the space its going to have to become more attractive and accommodating to the average human. If we look at the situation and search for solutions that have been implementing outside of Duval County, we'll discover how other communities have already addressed this issue and successfully moved on. A few weeks back, we even covered one solution on Metro Jacksonville called the Portland Loo.
I stand by my view that to install a public restroom right now in the park would be a disaster. This view was given some weight by one of the homeless I spoke with in the park Sunday morning. He said that the restroom would be trashed and junked by the group currently occupying the park. My suggestion was to install public restrooms eventually, as anyone can see that not having one is a solid negative for anyone visiting the downtown area around the park. However, there will come a time, as we approach the goals we seek in the park, when a public restroom would survive as a viable asset for all to use.
Quote: JeffreyS.
I have been critical of some of the posted solutions so maybe I ought to make some suggestions for others to rip.
1. Add WiFi to the park this may help to change the homogeneous face of the occupiers and add functionality.
2. Add a few patron only roped off seating areas in the park that could be served by waiters of the surrounding establishments even the hot dog carts.
3. I like the bathroom idea. If we are going to try the drive people too the park approach as opposed to the drive people from the park.
JeffreyS, I wish I had thought of No. 1 and 2. The WiFi makes sense. And the idea of roping off a segment of tables for a customer group from an adjacent restaurant, or even as catered from a distance restaurant, is viable, and would certainly be one more method of engaging the park in a very positive way. And of course, we agree that public bathrooms should eventually be in the park because doing so would certainly remove a big negative.
I agree that increasing the spaces with grass would be a good thing. This could be done without excessive cost, and it would allow for some pleasant slopes of greenery to go along with the beautiful oaks. I do love the trees, as they add to the "parkness", and hope we can simply replace the diseased trees with young ones, just as we do with people.
QuoteI stand by my view that to install a public restroom right now in the park would be a disaster. This view was given some weight by one of the homeless I spoke with in the park Sunday morning. He said that the restroom would be trashed and junked by the group currently occupying the park. My suggestion was to install public restrooms eventually, as anyone can see that not having one is a solid negative for anyone visiting the downtown area around the park. However, there will come a time, as we approach the goals we seek in the park, when a public restroom would survive as a viable asset for all to use.
I agree that a traditional restroom would be trashed. The Portland Loo example shown is one that is designed to be trash proof. Hard to believe but so far it appears to be working well in the city's that have invested in them. However, if the goal is to better utilize the space it's going to have to include basic public health necessities such as restrooms.
Quote1. There's no running water inside. There's no sink, just a spigot on the outside that pours cold water. This eliminates the possibility to vagrants attempting to wash their laundry in the facility.
2. There are no mirrors. Urban history has proven that people tend to smash mirrors.
3. The structure is designed with an open top and bottom. This enables law enforcement to know when there is more than one set of feet inside. In addition, the openings allow sound to flow, letting pedestrians hear the grunts and splashes of the person inside and the person inside hear the footsteps and conversation of pedestrians. Nobody is interested in sitting on such a toilet for long.
4. The structure includes a graffiti-proof coating eliminating the possibility of tagging.
5. The Loo's walls and doors are made from heavy-gauge stainless steel with the idea that somebody could attempt to beat it with a bat.
It can be pulled off. It just needs to be designed for the proper environment. Just some food for thought.
Quote from: thelakelander on February 13, 2012, 10:31:37 AM
QuoteI stand by my view that to install a public restroom right now in the park would be a disaster. This view was given some weight by one of the homeless I spoke with in the park Sunday morning. He said that the restroom would be trashed and junked by the group currently occupying the park. My suggestion was to install public restrooms eventually, as anyone can see that not having one is a solid negative for anyone visiting the downtown area around the park. However, there will come a time, as we approach the goals we seek in the park, when a public restroom would survive as a viable asset for all to use.
I agree that a traditional restroom would be trashed. The Portland Loo example shown is one that is designed to be trash proof. Hard to believe but so far it appears to be working well in the city's that have invested in them. However, if the goal is to better utilize the space it's going to have to include basic public health necessities such as restrooms.
Quote1. There's no running water inside. There's no sink, just a spigot on the outside that pours cold water. This eliminates the possibility to vagrants attempting to wash their laundry in the facility.
2. There are no mirrors. Urban history has proven that people tend to smash mirrors.
3. The structure is designed with an open top and bottom. This enables law enforcement to know when there is more than one set of feet inside. In addition, the openings allow sound to flow, letting pedestrians hear the grunts and splashes of the person inside and the person inside hear the footsteps and conversation of pedestrians. Nobody is interested in sitting on such a toilet for long.
4. The structure includes a graffiti-proof coating eliminating the possibility of tagging.
5. The Loo's walls and doors are made from heavy-gauge stainless steel with the idea that somebody could attempt to beat it with a bat.
It can be pulled off. It just needs to be designed for the proper environment. Just some food for thought.
Thanks Lake. I missed the link in your post No. 97. The Portland Loo solution is something that might be quite the thing for Hemming, even now. I will bring it up at the meeting. Unless somebody can come up with any solid reason to "not" use something of this nature, we might see it or something similar in the park.
My intention is to write a summation of everyone's input on this thread, and thereby assume some consensus, and submit it tomorrow to some key individuals at city hall who are involved in the "park problem". They can consume it however they wish. So if anyone has any more criticism or ideas not covered yet, please get them into the thread today or this evening.
This was an interesting experiment in attempting to use the MJ forum to arrive at some consensus about the solution of a problem. Most of the MJ posts were quite informative to me, as I digested each. Everyone's posts allowed me to emerge from the wasteful meandering in opinion, and to arrive a some convictions, which of course are necessary in the end.
I know you are a bit under the gun so I will try to pick a few more ideas out. However if you do have time lots of good info on the Project for Public Spaces website.
http://www.pps.org/ (http://www.pps.org/)
Another idea you may be able to leverage is increased use of the Kings ave parking garage for the new courthouse employees and jurors and even other city groups. Those people would exit the skyway into Hemming plaza. I applaud you and your groups efforts to make another part of downtown more vibrant.
^That's a terrific idea, I would definitely bring up the Courthouse using the Kings Ave garage and connecting to Hemming Plaza by skyway. That would definitely inject some new action into Hemming, while at the same time eliminating the cost of either paying for more expensive parking nearby, or paying for a shuttle out to the stadium complex.
People continue to make straw man arguements. Because stricter enforcement of rules to push homeless out are advocated for does not mean benches and tables being removed. Here it is plain and simple. Make a place equally as attractive to homeless and start aggressively puish them out and they will go to the equally attractive place. At the same time regular programming can be added to increase vibrancy. I think the WIFI idea is very good. I also think Sheriff Rutherfords idea of a homeless release center in Ray Holts district is a good idea. Ray has already agreed to it. This way habiutal troublemakers have to REALLY want to return to downtown and they will probably be less eager to be arrested.
QuoteI also think Sheriff Rutherfords idea of a homeless release center in Ray Holts district is a good idea. Ray has already agreed to it. This way habiutal troublemakers have to REALLY want to return to downtown and they will probably be less eager to be arrested.
As to the idea of Sheriff Rutherford's, my concern is that though out history detention centers or interment camps of any type or by any other name, for supposed good or bad reasons, have never worked out to well for anyone concerned. It is done for the same reasons though out history. A group some fear or do not like is moved somewhere else. Why would anyone really believe the idea will work out now and for this reason?
Use the park or lose it.
Quote from: Tacachale on February 13, 2012, 04:49:56 PM
^That's a terrific idea, I would definitely bring up the Courthouse using the Kings Ave garage and connecting to Hemming Plaza by skyway.
the problem with that theory is most people would get off at Central Station...it is, after all, slightly closer to the courthouse front door...and often skyway trains from the southbank require transfers at Central Station to get to Hemming and FSCJ anyway.
The north south line runs direct now. Are you sure central would be closer to the new court house?
it is about 3.5 blocks from the station to the front door either way...but if you add the skyway time to get from Central to Hemming, it would be longer total time...plus folks will see the new courthouse as they come across the Acosta Bridge, so many will likely get off at the first stop after crossing the river.
^Yes, Central Station and Hemming Plaza are an equal distance (2.5 blocks) from the front door of the courthouse's main entrance. However, Hemming Plaza is a one block walk from the old federal courthouse (i'm not sure of what courthouse functions are going in there).
I think the only thing going in there is there the State Attorney...although that is a huge building solely for Angela Corey
(Pardon me if I repeat anything that has already been offered)
If I understand where Ron and his folks are coming from, it is from the point of bringing potential customers in that have stated they are uncomfortable or scared of the crowd that they see at the plaza. Right or wrong in their opinions, its the objective to get their money downtown. Once that happens, they should realize its actually pretty nice place.
The issue proposed is that there are certain people who are loitering in the park en masse and all day long, but isn' that what the park is designed for?
Why complain that people are occupying a park when the whole thing is built specifically to be "occupied"? There are tables and chairs, so people will seat in them until they HAVE to go. There are electrical outlets, shade and the protection of police. If they don't have any where better to be, then why not stay? It is the same sort of silliness when a coffee shop complains people stay to long. You give them a cheap drinking option, comfortable chair and wifi.. of course their going to stay. If not for other obligations, I'd never leave Chamblins. In that light, the plaza is a stunning success.
Here are my thoughts about the area. Adjacent to the plaza is MoCA, the library and city hall. Three neat places that don't really cost anything to visit. Right now, the plaza only serves as a walking corridor to connect them. Why not adapt the design to work with the surrounding institutions?
The library's challenges have changed since so much of the population use it for free internet access. Fine. But the library offers a fantastic children's and teen's wing, with programs to match. They also offer free concerts for all ages. I think parents from all around bring their youngsters if there was a little more offered. The more I am thinking of is in a greater connection with the neighboring places.
The MoCA has much to offer young and old as well. I was taken to the Cummer as a kid on a monthly basis. The gallery itself was a draw but so was the gardens (and the nearby duck park). There was much happiness in having a neat inside place and fun outside place to go in the same trip.
As for city hall, I know its primary a business office, but the dome and the chance to display Jacksonville related photos, history and art is underutilized on the first floor as a draw for citizens to come see their hall.
That whole area could make an excellent "family day" sort of thing. Obviously bars and clubs next to the plaza aren't likely, nor is unique stores, as draw to bring people downtown to the plaza area, so how about something for a family? If you want people to live downtown, you got to give them a grocery, shops and a place to walk with the kids.
I would suggest that the park ultimately be redesigned so that the area across the street from the library and MoCA become a park/playground for children or an outdoor cafe (possibly both if Shelby's is forever gone). The fountains and pools are pretty (not really, probably looked better on paper) but useless except to limit flex space for people to stretch out. Seeing kids and parents playing in the middle of down town would be great for the city's rep.
More immediately though, I suggest increasing the number of tables but space them out in the open area next to the people mover station. If the tables and chairs were bolted down, they could be taken up when the city wants to use the space for a big event. The greatest concentration of people is currently in the northeast area where there is the greatest concentration of sitting (tables and edge of fountain). If the hang out spot was in the west side where I mentioned, there would be more space for people to occupy thus allow for more elbow room room for people to feel comfortable (and looks more appealing). Definitely don't take away seats to remove one overwhelming element, instead add more, spaced out sensibly to dilute the appearance of a crowded place and make others feel welcome. That is what happens during art walk, jazz festival and such.
Great comment!
AKIRA great suggestion adding seating could really dilute the situation. I would like to see a few areas reserved for waited tables.
I like the direction of the forum; that is, toward more positives, toward long term improvements, and less to the negative options of aggressive rule enforcement, banning, and the destruction of the park. A park is built to be used and occupied by all kinds of people. How boring it would be to see only well dressed, well fed, and well behaved people in the park. There are limits to everything of course. There is a balance. But the edge of any thing or spectrum is often more interesting.
Quote from: thelakelander on February 13, 2012, 07:44:24 PM
^Yes, Central Station and Hemming Plaza are an equal distance (2.5 blocks) from the front door of the courthouse's main entrance. However, Hemming Plaza is a one block walk from the old federal courthouse (i'm not sure of what courthouse functions are going in there).
I didnt consider central station. Looking at the route I'd probably still take it to Hemming if it was one train, which it easily could be.
Either way the Kings Garage/Skyway solution is a good idea for the courthouse for the other reasons I mention, and it would bring at least some new people (out of several hundred weekly) to Hemming.
^Yes, its a great solution that should be a no-brainer for all involved with downtown.
QuoteThe appearance of the “unwanted elements†in the park, although awkward, uncomfortable, and offensive to many, is a constant expression of truth, a reminder of reality. These unfortunate individuals are not hiding under bridges and overpasses, in the woods, out of sight, as if they were lepers. We need expressions of honesty and truth about our society, and about our city, so we should perhaps at least give these people credit for offering these things, for reminding us by their presence, that all is not right.
*smile*
if the idea of putting a public restroom in hemming Plaza doesn't work out, consider installing one in the Main St pocket park behind the library
apparently there was a meeting of the Council's Ad Hoc Committee on Hemming Plaza today....council members on the committee are Lee, Gulliford, and Redman.
Recommendations were made by, among others, Parks & Rec Director designee Kelly Boree...I'll get a list of the recommendations later today
is there any discussion of restoring it back to its original design?
Quote from: fsujax on February 15, 2012, 03:31:22 PM
is there any discussion of restoring it back to its original design?
From your mouth to God's ears! The current incarnation of Hemming Plaza looks too much like a wanna be mall courtyard from the 1980s for it to really fit into downtown - IMHO...
I heard they voted to remove some benches and relocate a few others in an attempt to disperse the people in the park.
Quote from: stephendare on February 15, 2012, 04:38:24 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on February 15, 2012, 04:21:57 PM
I heard they voted to remove some benches and relocate a few others in an attempt to disperse the people in the park.
It was much worse than that.
Today we actually heard serious discussion to attempt to make it illegal to play chess, checkers, or card games in order to drive the park users out.
There was also discussion about turning off all electricity to the park to prevent jerry's kids from being able to recharge their phones or any other electrical devices.
To be frank its gotten to the point where it sounds like a group of people doing their politest utmost to bring back the third reich.
of the agenda, 75% of the suggestions were about how to liquidate the homeless and criminals, 25% of it was about programming other uses in the park itself, and literally no time was taken up discussing the actual park design in such a way that it complements the surrounding area or institutions.
no disussion about bike and scooter friendliness, no discussion about what amenities people would like to see in the park, no contemplation of any other issue than how to drive out all human creatures presently using the park.
And the lack of insight into why the park is designed the way that it is was pretty shocking.
For example, the room voted on 're configuring' the seating groups so that people cant actually talk to each other.
No one seemed to either realize or care that the seating is grouped the way that it is because of where the shade in the park is.
Under the new proposal we will be relocating about half of the seating into the open sun blasted area of the park, so that people who might want to sit down in Hemming will have to bring asbestos underwear and a portable tent in order to survive the nuclear energy of the summertime florida sun.
Its just maddening.
That's unacceptable. It's Lumb, Lee and Redman on this thing? What persons from COJ are involved?
When is the next public comment on the issue?
Is the intention of this sub-committee to introduce legislation before Council?
I should know better... but what is DVI's position on the proposal? It sounds like no one other than Jerry is holding much sway. Surely there are other stakeholders (like the people here!) who should have an opportunity to input. Aside from the great work that Ron has done already, I mean.
Listen to Dennis Lee talking at the meeting.
http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/406107/ron-littlepage/2012-02-15/help-way-hemming-plaza (http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/406107/ron-littlepage/2012-02-15/help-way-hemming-plaza)
I have updated my solutions list.
1. Add more seating and rope sections off for waited tables by the area restaurants.
2. Add WiFi to the park to keep downtown business people connected during lunch.
3. Utilize Kings avenue garage and skyway for Jurors at the new courthouse they will have to funnel through Hemming.
4. Bring back the Friday farmers market.
5. Encourage Mocha and UNF who both teach art at the location to have daily painting and drawing classes in the plaza.
Nothing expensive nothing destructive.
Quote from: tufsu1 on February 15, 2012, 12:46:20 PM
if the idea of putting a public restroom in hemming Plaza doesn't work out, consider installing one in the Main St pocket park behind the library
(http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa111/Ocklawaha/Toilet-Paper-zero-trees-small.jpg)
Once again I'll mention the Colombian method for public restrooms. It's simple really, you hire homeless people to keep it clean and work for tips. A "PLEASE TIP ME if I did a good job" sign is all it takes. They'll also sell you some toilet paper, folded and packaged in a little box like Chiclets for their equivalent of a quarter.
Ugh, horrible decisions.
I have a copy of the committee's recommendations...it primarily involves having DVI and the City do a survey (possibly using survey monkey)...most of the questions seem good
at the bottom there is a list of improvement recommendations...which I would hope wouldn't be implemented until AFTER the survey results have been analyzed....these include
- close a portion of the park to complete improvements
- remove distressed trees and under story from planters and replace w/ low growing plants (use local garden clubs to maintain)
- move benches to park perimeter and eliminate groupings
- remove some tables/chairs from northeast corner of park
- if permanent tables/chairs are removed, temporary ones should be utilized
- recommend police/security presence
- several programming ideas, including schools @ stage, art classes, MOCA exhibits, library readings, expos for clubs
I forgot today to mention the Portland Loo outdoor restroom idea, although on Tuesday, via email I offered the idea to Denise Lee, including the link to the unit as posted by the Lakelander. And tufsu1, your idea of placing the restroom on the main street park near the library is something to seriously consider, as it might offer an option to Hemming for some occupiers. I plan to broach this at the next meeting.
Some responses to posts:
Quote from: fsujax on February 15, 2012, 03:31:22 PM
is there any discussion of restoring it back to its original design?
Not really. There was discussion about small changes such as lowering some of the plant areas to provide more visibility. There was some talk about the removal of any trees that are diseased. But overall, there is no aggressive push to radically change the park. Eventually some of the brick areas might be removed to make grass areas. The lack of money was viewed as one reason to not to do radical changes at this time.
Even though I think of the park as being beautiful, I can envision being happy with a radical change as long as sufficient trees remain. In my opinion the trees give the park a kind of beauty we need in the area. In the meeting it was mentioned that one reason the cost of radical change would be so expensive is that beneath all of that brick is a lot of utilities, even an old underground restroom, thus complicating the process of radical change.
Quote from: thelakelander on February 15, 2012, 04:21:57 PM
I heard they voted to remove some benches and relocate a few others in an attempt to disperse the people in the park.
There was a vote to relocate some of the tables and benches, especially those in the northeast corner, to test the idea of spreading them out so that there would be less of a tendency of individuals to crowd together, as if they were taking over an area. This “spreading†experiment might also provide more tables and benches for individuals desiring a small measure of privacy.
Quote: Stephen Dare
"Today we actually heard serious discussion to attempt to make it illegal to play chess, checkers, or card games in order to drive the park users out."
Although there was a discussion about making it illegal to play chess and other games at the tables, there was no serious discussion of this option. This is a park. People should be able to play chess in a park. I'm sure the option of banning chess or games is not to be taken.
Quote: Stephen Dare
"There was also discussion about turning off all electricity to the park to prevent jerry's kids from being able to recharge their phones or any other electrical devices."
There was indeed a discussion about turning the electricity off in the park at night. Initially, along with Stephen, I thought this rather ridiculous. How much electricity can be used by someone charging their cellphone or computer? Why not provide this convenience for those who need very small amounts of electricity? But of course, the park is closed at night so, legally, nobody can be in the park to use the electricity anyway. I can envision someone plugging in their electric blanket during a freezing night, hidden behind a ledge. The thinking is that providing electricity at night would only encourage attempts to sleep and camp in the park at night. In any case, it looks like the electricity will be turned off at night.
Quote: Stephen Dare
"Of the agenda, 75% of the suggestions were about how to liquidate the homeless and criminals, 25% of it was about programming other uses in the park itself, and literally no time was taken up discussing the actual park design in such a way that it complements the surrounding area or institutions."
At a previous meeting we discussed methods of programming, with the view that we would return again to this subject in more detail. The persistent problem of the “occupying†individuals was a focus. We discussed methods to decrease the negative impact of a commandeering group taking over a segment of the park, or giving the appearance of doing so. Although banning those who break the rules was established as being necessary, nobody suggested that we aggressively enforce rules and banning for the sole purpose of decreasing the occupy population. Stephen brought up some very good points, questioning various assumptions and adding some particulars to enlighten, as he has been familiar with the park over decades. The meeting was two hours long, not enough time to cover everything we wanted to discuss. The next meeting is in two weeks.
Jerry Moran and others pushed for the installation of cameras. Most agreed that cameras would be a good thing, as experience has shown that people act better when they know they are on camera. My guess is that cameras will eventually be installed in the park, and will be monitored by either the JSO, or a security agency.
DVI seems to support most of what is proposed so far, especially the emphasis on programming the park, and making small changes to the park layout to accomplish objectives regarding the habitual occupiers. For the most part DVI encourages positive changes, and does not focus excessively on the expulsion of the individuals who seem to always occupy the park.
Quote from: JeffreyS on February 15, 2012, 06:28:58 PM
I have updated my solutions list.
1. Add more seating and rope sections off for waited tables by the area restaurants.
2. Add WiFi to the park to keep downtown business people connected during lunch.
3. Utilize Kings avenue garage and skyway for Jurors at the new courthouse they will have to funnel through Hemming.
4. Bring back the Friday farmers market.
5. Encourage Mocha and UNF who both teach art at the location to have daily painting and drawing classes in the plaza.
Nothing expensive nothing destructive.
All items look good JeffreyS. However, if you remember, the Friday farmer’s market in the park was relocated to the landing because of a decline in the quality of the vendors and products, and therefore the market’s customers. However, this is not to say that a return of the market to Hemming could not be initiated, with perhaps some guidelines to insure the quality of the food and products offered.
Quote from: tufsu1 on February 15, 2012, 08:52:09 PM
I have a copy of the committee's recommendations...it primarily involves having DVI and the City do a survey (possibly using survey monkey)...most of the questions seem good
at the bottom there is a list of improvement recommendations...which I would hope wouldn't be implemented until AFTER the survey results have been analyzed....these include
- close a portion of the park to complete improvements
- remove distressed trees and under story from planters and replace w/ low growing plants (use local garden clubs to maintain)
- move benches to park perimeter and eliminate groupings
- remove some tables/chairs from northeast corner of park
- if permanent tables/chairs are removed, temporary ones should be utilized
- recommend police/security presence
- several programming ideas, including schools @ stage, art classes, MOCA exhibits, library readings, expos for clubs
That’s about right. However, I don’t think we intend to remove the tables from the northeast corner, but only to reposition them to another area in the park. There is a growing consensus that we do not want to actually decrease the number of tables or benches in the park at this time, but only to relocate some in order to experiment with spreading them out.
thanks for the info. Ron...I'm glad your recap of the meeting makes it sound less detrimental than originally feared.
I'm more curious as to how Moran thinks that people act more 'reasonably' when they know they're on camera. He's posted more than enough YouTube clips to negate his own comment. Aside from the fact that every reality TV program goes against that entire train of thought.
Quote from: stephendare on February 15, 2012, 11:05:09 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on February 15, 2012, 11:01:21 PM
I'm more curious as to how Moran thinks that people act more 'reasonably' when they know they're on camera. He's posted more than enough YouTube clips to negate his own comment. Aside from the fact that every reality TV program goes against that entire train of thought.
not to mention every single crime study ever implemented on the subject. London saw a net zero drop in any kind of crime despite having the most videocameras of any other city on earth.
You mean the cameras didn't stop the criminals? Unheard of.
How is their violent crime department doing? You know, with all of their gun laws and such....
[you don't have to answer that, I've already made my mind up]
I must say, I'm not too crazy about a public restroom at the Main Street pocket park. Main Street is a highway. No need from an urban planning perspective to put your pedestrians in more harms way with fast moving vehicular traffic, especially children. Hemming or bust, imo.
Quote from: stephendare on February 15, 2012, 11:05:09 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on February 15, 2012, 11:01:21 PM
I'm more curious as to how Moran thinks that people act more 'reasonably' when they know they're on camera. He's posted more than enough YouTube clips to negate his own comment. Aside from the fact that every reality TV program goes against that entire train of thought.
I think it's been proven that Jax typically does not care about facts when it comes to downtown development and revitalization. The process is a simple one that many places have provided examples of what and what not to do. Cities have been designed and planned since the ancient Greek and Roman days. The basic comforts of the pedestrian are still generally the same. Despite this, we continue to pursue failed policies, which waste significant public resources.
not to mention every single crime study ever implemented on the subject. London saw a net zero drop in any kind of crime despite having the most videocameras of any other city on earth.
Hot Mess.com is all I have to say.
I've been in Jacksonville for 27 years now. Hemming Park/Plaza has had the same or similar discussion the whole time.
^It's because we keep worrying about the visual effect and not attempting to resolve the cause. Shifting/removing benches, security cameras, shooting the homeless, etc. aren't going to do one bit of good in making that park a place that attracts people. However, making the park and the surrounding environment worth visiting on a daily basis to a wide range of residents in our overall community will. Expect the same tired decades old results until we veer our outlook and policy decision making from the same tired path.
Maybe it's just me... but in a city that has a budget problem, and in a park with constant police and DVI downtown ambassador presence... why exactly are security cameras needed?
Seems to me that would be priority #249,978 on a list of bigger issues.
My opinion is the more games of checkers and chess the better. It gives people something to do with their minds, something to socialize over and is simply pleasant to watch. After observing a few games I have learned there are some sharp minds, much sharper than mine, in that plaza on a daily basis.
Every table ought to have a board attached. I would go so far as to say that the library should have simple chess and checkers sets to check out. Maybe even other board games. I can imagine that procedures and protocol for that would have to be worked out, but if the library lends things other than books, like CDs, videotapes, zines, JEA home assessment equipement, then why not? In Europe (and who doesn't like Europe? :)) boarding gaming is much more prevalent. There are a few very active board game clubs here in Jax.
In reference to the shade in the northeast corner, I believe Stephen is absolutely correct. People flock to it. Shade is slightly less of an issue than in the past because of the library/MoCA and the Fed courthouse blocking some sun, but high noon is still high noon; truly brutal in the summer. If the west end is going to become a larger, spread out, and more elusive during the traditional lunch time (when the business population can hang out), then the area will need some shade. A few trees could go a long way. I know that is more of a long term thing, but that sort of thing is what have to be done to make the plaza into something that flows with the immediate surroundings and and the populations willing to use it.
I'm not sure why cameras would be needed in one of the safest areas in town. IF there are shenanigans afoot, they are probably happening within groups of densely packed people or out of the way alleys. Again, a better design will keep folks from bunching up and make all things easier to see.
The plaza was built backwards. The whole thing would flow much better if west and east ends were flipped around and the amenities (tables, shade) currently found in the northeast corner quadruped within the west end. I'm sure the architecture drawings for the project looked great, but were probably not realistic considering the challenges and changes in neighboring businesses/institutions.
It was probably designed to be more open on the west end because that's where JCPenney and Woolworth's were open at the time.
Quote from: stephendare on February 15, 2012, 10:48:34 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on February 15, 2012, 10:27:56 PM
thanks for the info. Ron...I'm glad your recap of the meeting makes it sound less detrimental than originally feared.
Yes. That is your tendency isnt it. ;)
I do like to provide a balance to those who seemingly like to blow everything out of proportion
and your post above (#151) seems to provide that same calmer, reflective view...so thank you
please do not confuse me with others....I rarely said anything about the economic situation in 2007...and I sure didn't comment much on the SPAR threads
the other things you point out are a matter of interpretation....as I noted then, total downtown employment weas estimated to be about 54,000 (19,000 of which were in the core)....those are numbers that DVI, JEDC, Civic Council, etc. would support....Modis pulled out after the discussion where you and Chriss claimed the building was mostly vacant.....and while we're on the subject of occupancy, I think you'll find that even the latest commercial real estate reports show northbank vacancy aroubnd 25% (about 20% for the whole of downtown).
and yes, I stated that folks could pick up dinner at Burger King and Winn Dixie...but I never once claimed those as fine dining establishments.
You're right...clearly you're not keeping score ;)
Chorus of complaints prompts Fort Lauderdale to weigh homeless options
By Mike Clary, Sun Sentinel
7:28 p.m. EST, February 15, 2012
FORT LAUDERDALEâ€"
The homeless encampment in the heart of downtown Fort Lauderdale has worn out its welcome.
The city commission on Tuesday will consider crafting an ordinance that would discourage the homeless from congregating in Stranahan Park, in response to a drop in foot traffic at nearby restaurants, businesses and the county's Main Library.
"There is no question that merchants and businesses in downtown are asking for and deserve relief," said Mayor Jack Seiler. "The city has made it clear we will do everything possible."
Chris Wren, executive director of the Downtown Development Authority, said there are no statistics on how the growing numbers of homeless is affecting businesses. But, he said, "with folks hanging out and milling all about, people feel uncomfortable walking to the food court. And people tell me they are starting to not want to drop their kids off at the library.''
Stranahan Park, on the southeast corner of Andrews Avenue and Broward Boulevard, "is the literal heart, the center of our city, and we should find a way to deal with this properly and respectfully," Wren said.
But city attorney Harry Stewart warned there's no easy way to clear the downtown park of scores of homeless who have made the public space off-limits to most residents and visitors.
"Homelessness is not a crime, panhandling is a form of free speech," he said. "Now we have to find a balance."
On sunny afternoons, 100 or more men and women lounge or sleep on the tattered lawn, often surrounded by backpacks, suitcases, piles of clothing, blankets and boxes of belongings. On days when shelters, churches or other groups offer free food, the litter left behind can be extensive.
The announcement this week that a once-popular restaurant in the library would close, in part because of the presence of the homeless out front, has made addressing the situation a hot-button issue. And some in the community say the growing daytime encampment poses another threat: to the city's reputation.
"I have not heard that it has tainted the city's reputation yet, but there is a risk of it doing so," said Seiler. "To have a large homeless population right in the heart of downtown is not good for the city's image."
Stewart said any law used to move the homeless would be based on "an overriding governmental interest," the basis of a law that bans panhandling or soliciting on beaches, beach sidewalks and within 150 feet of Atlantic Boulevard or Seabreeze Boulevard. That law is predicated on the importance of the beaches to the city's economic well-being, and has withstood legal challenges.
"Many of the homeless congregate in Stranahan Park as a resting place, a meeting place and a feeding place," said Harriet Buchbinder, treasurer of the Friends of the Fort Lauderdale Libraries. "While these are all justifications for using the park, their large and growing number creates an intimidating aura for those who wish to visit the downtown area and enjoy cultural and educational facilities and events.
"As a resort area, this is really a turn-off."
Any law that could move them out will come too late for Ymelda Luna Singh, who said she will close her Charcuterie Too restaurant at month's end, and for other businesses that have been hurt by the homeless presence.
"We have lost rental business over the years," said Susan McClellan, an architect and member of the Fort Lauderdale Women's Club, which meets in a 1917 clubhouse in the park available for parties and social events. "We have members who feel intimidated by the unwieldy population out there. We always tell people who rent, 'Have your party inside, and you need to have security.'"
At Café Verdi, which faces the park from its location on Southwest 1st Avenue, manager Javier Moran said he was accosted by a man with a knife when he tried to protect a patio diner from a panhandler about a year ago.
"It affects business," said Moran, "and the city doesn't seem to understand."
Even some of those who spend their days in the park recognize their presence can be worrisome to others.
"It can be intimidating, that's understandable," said Lockie Jones, 55, a resident of the Broward Outreach Shelter in Pompano Beach who came to the park Tuesday to get a haircut from friend Luther Burgess. "But city hall is right across the street. Maybe they should deal with it if it's that bad.''
In addition to crafting an ordinance, Seiler said the city has urged police to strictly enforce laws against minor crimes and has removed some benches to reduce the places where the homeless sleep. The city has also explored busing them back to their hometowns in a program similar to one run by Broward County.
Homeless advocate Sean Cononie said he understands that a homeless population, even though largely non-violent, can have a negative impact on business. "People are scared of them," he said.
Cononie said he recently proposed to public officials that a permanent home for the area homeless be created on a vacant lot in Dania Beach. "It's a perfect spot where they can receive services and not be picked on."
He said officials have not responded.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/broward/fl-stranahan-homeless-fallout-20120215,0,880880.story
Hey, here's the answer. Someone needs to call the CARE line and tell MCCD that the plumbing in the park is broken, you can smell the urine. MCCD will then condemn the park as being unsafe and tell everyone the tables are about to fall over. Eventually they will tear it down. Problem solved for all. It is how Jacksonville seems to roll after all.
Hey, if we can keep the problematic people in Hemming, we will have fewer problems elsewhere. Plus Hemming is closer to the jail and courthouse than other parts of Jacksonville.
Perfect!
Fascinating discussion...just read through the thread. Two points.
1. Actions have consequences. When the city made the decision to close Hemming Plaza at night it forced vagrants into outlying neighborhoods. They can now be found sleeping in other parks at night, including the band stand at Klutho Park. A short-term solution with only Hemming in mind does not solve Jacksonville's larger downtown and urban core issues. We need a serious solution for dealing with vagrancy in Jacksonville. That has to be part of the solution.
2. The lack of public facilities downtown is somewhat shocking. Why we wouldn't have a public loo is mind-boggling. Heck, copy the European model, and require 25 cents to enter if you must. But give folks somewhere to use a restroom. It might have the added benefit of improving the downtown Library experience.
I agree you can not solve our vagrancy issue with a single block policy.
Here's the solution: Send JTA down there to hire up some new drivers since it seems they don't give 2 shits who they put behind the wheel.
Ft Lauderdale...."the homeless have worn out their welcome".
They are hardly "guests" -- they are citizens.
In all of the plans, all of the schemes to save downtown....let's not lose sight of that.
Even the poor are Americans, belong to this country and this country belongs to them.
We are losing our humanity. Some places more quickly than others.
Quote from: sheclown on February 19, 2012, 09:52:55 PM
Ft Lauderdale...."the homeless have worn out their welcome".
They are hardly "guests" -- they are citizens.
In all of the plans, all of the schemes to save downtown....let's not lose sight of that.
Even the poor are Americans, belong to this country and this country belongs to them.
We are losing our humanity. Some places more quickly than others.
ABSOLUTELY! At least we haven't bowed to pressure from the 'clean extreme' as Orlando has... This has been an ongoing battle for several years now.
(http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/news2011/food-bombs-arrests-0609.jpg)
QuoteOver the past week, twelve members of food activist group Food Not Bombs have been arrested in Orlando for giving free food to groups of homeless people in a downtown park. They were acting in defiance of a controversial city ordinance that mandates permits for groups distributing food to large groups in parks within two miles of City Hall. Each group is allowed only two permits per park per year; Food Not Bombs has already exceeded their limit. They set up their meatless buffet in Lake Eola knowing that they would likely be arrested as a result.
The law was first passed in 2006, after local residents claimed that Orlando Food Not Bomb's twice-daily homeless feeding was becoming disruptive. A federal court ruled the ordinance unconstitutional in 2008, deciding that Food Not Bomb's activities are a protected form of free speech. But in April, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the earlier ruling. They agreed that feeding the homeless constitutes free speech, but argued that the Orlando ordinance does not infringe unreasonably on the group's rights. (An editorial in the Orlando Sentinel supported with the court's decision this morning. They note that "at least 10 organizations regularly serve food to the hungry downtown" without defying the law.)
Orlando Food Not Bombs maintains that the restrictions are unconstitutional and unjust. They have said that they plan to continue feeding the homeless despite the arrests.
Has there ever been a time in this country's history when we were afraid to feed the poor?
QuoteWith silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/250px-Statue_of_Liberty_7.jpg)
Beautiful quote sheclown. I find myself thinking occasionally about how our "system" has evolved a design which, by perhaps natural evolution as guided by man's habits of personal enrichment, and by the inclination of legislators and the comfortable elites to close their eyes to the needs and realities of the poor, applies subtle but continuous and ultimately powerful pressure and persuasion, to keep those who are down, down perpetually. The design and habits of doing things in our society, in our economic and banking systems is set, by subtle machinations and unspoken rules, to promote and allow gains for those who need it the least. Thus, the continued existence of a rather large population in poverty.
I know I'm late to the party, but I think taking tables and seating out of Hemming is plain stupid. The scary negroes* are not going to magically vanish, so the only real result will be fewer tables and seats left over for everyone else.
*Please imagine the phrase "scary negroes" being said in a bitterly sarcastic tone, accompanied by eye rolling and jazz hands.
@DeadGirlsDontDance --- You are one of my favorite metrojacksonville posters. I think that they based Lana's character on 'Archer' after you. Keep up the good fight!
A question....
How many murders have happened in Hemming Park? How many rapes, assaults? Do we have any crime figures? Armed robberies? What exactly is going on at the park? What does JSO say? What do their stats tell us?
Public spaces will be dominated by the people who live adjacent to those public spaces. Because of this, Hemming Plaza is merely a reflection of the life that exists around this space. For example, when I went to Washington Square Park in New York, the people there were NYU students, Greenwich Village residents and tourists. This park was full of life because the area around it was also thriving. Sure, office workers were supposed to make Hemming Plaza a more welcoming place, but these commuters drive into downtown in the morning, may grab a hot dog in the plaza for lunch, and then drive back out to the suburbs. This leaves us with those people who inhabit these spaces...
Quote from: sheclown on February 20, 2012, 05:50:40 PM
A question....
How many murders have happened in Hemming Park? How many rapes, assaults? Do we have any crime figures? Armed robberies? What exactly is going on at the park? What does JSO say? What do their stats tell us?
Don't know, but here are the stats for the 32202 neighborhood. Note that '100' is the national norm, and the scores show the relationship between the neighborhood and the national norm.
2010 Crime Rate Indexes Jacksonville, FL 32202 Florida United States
Total Crime Risk 333
Murder Risk 113
Rape Risk 218
Robbery Risk 302
Assault Risk 628
Burglary Risk 425
Larceny Risk 329
Motor Vehicle Theft Risk 260
Quote from: Jaxson on February 20, 2012, 06:05:31 PM
Public spaces will be dominated by the people who live adjacent to those public spaces. Because of this, Hemming Plaza is merely a reflection of the life that exists around this space. For example, when I went to Washington Square Park in New York, the people there were NYU students, Greenwich Village residents and tourists. This park was full of life because the area around it was also thriving. Sure, office workers were supposed to make Hemming Plaza a more welcoming place, but these commuters drive into downtown in the morning, may grab a hot dog in the plaza for lunch, and then drive back out to the suburbs. This leaves us with those people who inhabit these spaces...
You nailed it move the shelters and services that provide some of what home does and you will reduce the amount of homeless/jobless from the area. I still contend it is much ado about nothing. If you want the park to attract more people make the services and design more attractive.
Quote from: JeffreyS on February 20, 2012, 08:09:07 PM
Quote from: Jaxson on February 20, 2012, 06:05:31 PM
Public spaces will be dominated by the people who live adjacent to those public spaces. Because of this, Hemming Plaza is merely a reflection of the life that exists around this space. For example, when I went to Washington Square Park in New York, the people there were NYU students, Greenwich Village residents and tourists. This park was full of life because the area around it was also thriving. Sure, office workers were supposed to make Hemming Plaza a more welcoming place, but these commuters drive into downtown in the morning, may grab a hot dog in the plaza for lunch, and then drive back out to the suburbs. This leaves us with those people who inhabit these spaces...
You nailed it move the shelters and services that provide some of what home does and you will reduce the amount of homeless/jobless from the area. I still contend it is much ado about nothing. If you want the park to attract more people make the services and design more attractive.
Ok. Where do you move the shelters and services? What neighborhood would accept them? Dude, the political reality is that the shelters and services aint goin nowhere. They were here when I moved DT and I'm cool with it.
Shelters and missions open where the people who need them live. Something to do with the fact than the homeless, the mentally challenged and the poorest of the poor seldom have cars so it didn't make sense to open a shelter on the Southside when the homeless were already downtown. (After all, it's not like JTA would get them there for free, if they could get them there at all.) Downtown is where they have always lived, you know, where, by the way, no one else wanted to be. Remember, you all moved out to the burbs. They, these unwanted, were here, by the way, when the stores were still here and the streets and parks were filled with people enjoying them. Even the groups of people you like to see. You all, the cool kids, moved away and stopped using the stores and now you want to move the people out who are still downtown and using the parks because they are not who you want to see and then, wanna bet you still won't use the parks? Because there are still no stores to bring you downtown and you still shop out in the burbs where you live.
Wake up - Jacksonville has to stop treating only the symptoms and start treating the disease.
If we can have satellite Tax Collector offices, or libraries, certainly we can spread the love around town and have satellite social services.
We DO need to DE-centralize social services so that whatever part of town you live in, there you are served. Shelters, medical care, social services, day centers, each city council district ought to have their fair share.
And they ought to be small and personal. And they ought to partner with churches.
QuoteWake up - Jacksonville has to stop treating only the symptoms and start treating the disease.
Sounds good, who wants to pass the hat? Or go to Alvin and he'll tell you, OK, where do I cut from? What service do I cut to make some other group unhappy? Another round of police and fire cuts? Without enough funding, social services will always be a problem lurking in the background. Sad to say, but if an epidemic breaks out, then that becomes the issue to fix for that day.
Still waiting on the master plan for Jacksonville from Alvin, I still don't think he has one.
Social services are often a place where a public/ private partnership can work. Also, sometimes it is just a matter of allowing something and the private sector can pay for it. Like sober living facilities and even low income housing. Many smaller non-profits are totally self sustaining without receiving any outside assistance.
However, I was more referring to the idea that moving the unwanted was treating a symptom while getting real downtown development or street car might just be treating the disease.
When is the next public comment on this issue???
As long as it isn't the week of March 5th, I will certainly make an appearance.
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/02/defense-loitering/1313/ (http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/02/defense-loitering/1313/)
QuoteIn Defense of Loitering
Not long after American inner cities started to empty of street life in the 1960s and 70s, government officials went for the benches. Benches encourage people to sit still. And sitting still is a quasi-crime in urban America commonly known as “loitering.†You may recognize its related anti-social behaviors: standing still, milling about and strolling a little too slowly.
It’s hard to remember how we got here, to criminalizing a leisurely pursuit that’s embraced on most European streets. But the cycle went something like this: Residents moved out of cities and stopped using their public spaces and streets. The only people still walking them were deemed riffraff: the homeless, jobless and, officials feared, gang members and prostitutes.
And so cities took away the benches (or made them un-sittable) and put up signs warning of anti-loitering fines. We went to great lengths to discourage the wrong people from hanging around, but this of course discouraged everyone else as well.
“It’s almost like we created a word that celebrates the fact that we’ve forgotten how to design cities,†says Dan Burden, the executive director of the Walkable and Livable Communities Institute. “When we can create a place that’s so void of human life because people don’t want to go there, then this natural surveillance that occurs when people feel comfortable going there and watching over it themselves disappears.â€
The problem is inherent in the word itself: loitering. The exact same activity â€" casual strolling, sitting, gathering in public â€" should be an active goal of cities known by another name: lingering.
Burden travels around North America preaching the distinction between these two terms (and Canadian communities get it much more than American ones do, he says). We should be celebrating street life, not discouraging it. And this shift in mindset requires a fundamental shift in vocabulary, too.
“We’ve gotten so bad,†Burden says, “there are towns I go to that I can’t find a single place that I feel comfortable lingering in because it just feels like I’m doing something where everybody will say ‘why is that guy sitting there?’â€
And Burden looks suspiciously like he might be an aging hippie.
Anti-loitering ordinances (designed with aging hippies, gang members and bums in mind) have been created by communities over the years with varying degrees of dubious legality. They often appear to provide cover to police for not-so-subtle racial profiling. And they’ve been written with vague prohibitions against such shady activity as “remaining in any one place with no apparent purpose.†Ordinances, though, are just one tactic. Removing street furniture â€" or putting in only awful examples of it â€" can work just as well.
Lingering, on the other hand, is both a means to an end and a desirable end in itself. People who linger create vibrant public places and welcoming streetscapes. They also increase the safety of an area, with more eyes on the street. And leisurely foot traffic can lead to more street commerce, more connected communities, and spontaneous exchanges.
“The great thoughts, the great ideas that sprout really come form the street, where people are seeing things, where they bump into other people,†Burden says. “Einstein used to say that his best ideas came on his walk home from the university every day.â€
Look at the most famous scenes, Burden adds, in celebrated photos, paintings and books. They often involve people in public places… lingering.
When Burden talks about this idea, he likes to show groups this older photo he took in Pioneer Square in Portland, Oregon. He likes to point to the guy on the bench at the left:
(http://cdn.theatlanticcities.com/img/upload/2012/02/23/linger__.jpg)
Just look at him. He’s got a tattoo. His shirt is nowhere to be seen. He looks like he might not have a job to attend to at this particular moment. And yet he’s surrounded by all these classy ladies in skirts.
“He’s totally outnumbered,†Burden says. “I think that’s the point.â€
Maybe the guy is an outlier, and if the square were full of partially clothed characters like him, some of the other people in this image might not be comfortable sitting here. As a society, though, it’s possible we have a greater capacity to accommodate social outliers in our midst than we think. It’s OK if benches draw bums. Because if they also draw enough workers at lunchtime and moms with strollers, there's room for everyone.
A lot of West Coast cities, Burden says, are grasping this. And rejuvenated public places like the High Line and Bryant Park in New York are great examples, as well. But in other communities, like Detroit, he says we’ll need to start by creating “oases†for lingering, and build out from there.
“Until we change the vocabulary,†Burden says, “then we’ll know we haven’t gotten there yet. The last loitering sign I see in America, I want to photograph it and say ‘this is it.’ Maybe the new signs will say ‘please linger.’â€
Dan Burden lives here in Florida and is one of the most original thinkers about urban design you will ever meet.
The N.E. Florida Sierra Club had him up for a seminar a few years ago and invited all of the planning departments in North Florida to attend. It was packed. The participants kept having "Ah Hah" moments and a lot of his thinking has subsequently shown up in their designs.
His ideas are simple, practical and always make you wonder why you didn't think of them first. That's the sure sign of a genius.
I expect another meeting on Hemming in a week or two. During the last meeting, there was a weak consensus to make a recommendation to remove all tables and chair sets from the park, to purchase new lightweight tables and chairs, chain them at the west end of the park, and place them in the park each day between… say… 11:00 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. The benches will remain, but will be dispersed to decrease the image of a group commandeering the park.
I questioned the removal of the tables and chairs, and since the meeting, my opinion against their removal has become stronger. I consider that the table removal decision is being done partially so that some can say.. “At least we’ve done something.â€.. which is certainly not a good reason to do anything.
By removing the tables and chairs, we are destroying certainly the function and charm of the park. I had hoped to avoid this somewhat radical step, as I look upon it as a partial destruction of the park’s essence, a move that will make the park less attractive to the potential park visitor. We should envision the ideal park, as it would in the future be desired and enjoyed by all citizens, and then strive to achieve that vision. We should look forward to when the park will have a very practical need for these tables and chairs, when we have accomplished, by more realistic and less damaging methods, a reasonable occupier population. We should not attempt to make the park undesirable for any population segment by destroying its utility, charm, and beauty, because doing so will make it undesirable for the entire population.
Two actions will bring immediate relief to the park problem. One is to enforce the rules so that the troublemakers and illegals can gradually be banned from the park. Over time this action will improve the average behavior of all individuals in the park, therefore making the park less intimidating to anyone wishing to enter the park.
I have noticed a decrease already in the occupier population since the JSO officers have been consistently engaging the park during the last two weeks? One of the homeless fellows said that the troublemakers and the drug dealers feel uncomfortable with the JSO in the park, so they have gone elsewhere, many to the Main street park near the library.
The second thing we can do is to program the park with events and activities. Also, a possible method of increasing the mix in the park, is to ask all area businesses to encourage workers to take their lunches into the park. This should be an active and continual effort.
But, regarding the tables and chairs, I asked the committee what would happen if a visiting family with a couple of kids was sitting at one of these proposed temporary tables when 2:30 arrived. The reaction was that the family could sit there as long as they wished. But what if, at the table, was a couple of the occupier types? Things could become a little awkward if there was a visiting family sitting at a table, and the next table was being used by a habitual occupier, and the officer informed only the latter that the tables are to be chained at 2:30 p.m.
I asked what would happen if an out-of-town family wandered into the park at 3:30 p.m. This family would most likely assume that only the benches were available. I suppose that if they wanted to sit at a table, then someone would then set up the tables. I suppose that if the party requesting the use of a table and chair set was perceived to be an undesirable, then they would be informed that the tables and chairs are set up only for the lunch hours. The temporary table scenario will require loads of discretionary decisions from anyone in charge of the park. All of this will go on as there are dozens of occupier types standing around and sitting on the ledges.
On Thursday, a friend and me ate lunch at one of the tables in the northeast corner. It was nice, with people all around. The wind was blowing. Our table was solid, and the chairs too. I wondered how the proposed removable tables and chairs would feel, and if the wind would blow them over. I thought… how nice it was to see all the people in the park…. how interesting……. how honest…. how beautiful. And I thought about how odd it would look in the future, when and if the tables are gone, to see all these same people standing around in small groups, having been deprived of tables.
With the tables gone, there is nothing to prevent individuals from playing cards and chess while sitting on the ledges around the raised areas and the fountains. The habitual occupiers will continue to gather and group anywhere they wish, to stand in the sun, or in the shade, as it is a park open to all citizens. And as far as I know, it will still be possible for anyone to bring into the park a table and chair set, which they could use for playing chess, cards or dominos.
My position is to envision the best attributes for the park, and to build those attributes into the park, so that the park will, by these improvements, increasingly and continually be a positive draw for anyone wishing to use the park â€" workers, visitors, retirees, residents, the unemployed, the occasional homeless, and yes, the crazy individual who simply wants to relax in the park amongst the trees and people. All the while, we should attempt to decrease the impact of the habitual occupiers by programming, rule enforcement, and the continued efforts of case workers from the various shelters and programs, to facilitate individuals to a platform of self-sufficiency.
Somewhat related to the park, I have just hired for full time work, an individual from the park who has been homeless for three years, living outside in the wild. He will now have health care, and he can afford to have some dental work. The primary reason I am able to hire this individual is that he has demonstrated to me excellent skills in the construction trade, and I happen to need someone with these skills. I doubt if anyone else in the park has these skills. I have attempted in the past to hire certain individuals from the park, but unfortunately I cannot afford the time and money to educate individuals so that they can be reasonably productive in the work world.
How did he end up living in the woods? He lost his house, his work truck, his tools, his bank account, all of his belongings, because of an arrogant, inept, and indifferent JSO / legal system. This is not to say that all aspects of the JSO or the legal/court system exhibit these negative attributes. It is however, saying that he was unfortunate in having to engage individuals within these local governmental entities who happened to possess high levels of indifference and arrogance, and low levels of competence and integrity, attributes which, perhaps because of the very nature of these governmental entities, exists more often than we deserve. Unless this individual is hiding some surprising deficiencies which can derail the current track to recovery, he will be back on his feet within a year, with truck, tools, and his own place to live.
I have additional comments about the recent Hemming Park meeting, and will continue after some sleep.
Quote from: ronchamblin on February 25, 2012, 04:12:00 AM
...During the last meeting, there was a weak consensus to make a recommendation to remove all tables and chair sets from the park, to purchase new lightweight tables and chairs, chain them at the west end of the park, and place them in the park each day between… say… 11:00 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. The benches will remain, but will be dispersed to decrease the image of a group commandeering the park.
I questioned the removal of the tables and chairs, and since the meeting, my opinion against their removal has become stronger. I consider that the table removal decision is being done partially so that some can say.. “At least we’ve done something.â€.. which is certainly not a good reason to do anything.
By removing the tables and chairs, we are destroying certainly the function and charm of the park. I had hoped to avoid this somewhat radical step, as I look upon it as a partial destruction of the park’s essence, a move that will make the park less attractive to the potential park visitor. We should envision the ideal park, as it would in the future be desired and enjoyed by all citizens, and then strive to achieve that vision. We should look forward to when the park will have a very practical need for these tables and chairs, when we have accomplished, by more realistic and less damaging methods, a reasonable occupier population. We should not attempt to make the park undesirable for any population segment by destroying its utility, charm, and beauty, because doing so will make it undesirable for the entire population.
What a terrible, short-sighted, draconian plan.
That's Jacksonville! Are there some historic buildings they can tear down while they're at it??
Lol, don't give them any ideas Bativac. It's unfortunate that the removal of benches is even being discussed. No where has that worked in attracting more people to a public space like Hemming. I really don't understand how solutions that have never worked can be seriously considered within a large group of people. Furthermore, it appears that it will even cost money. Take that cash and spend it on more amenities. If anyone is downtown today, check the park out. Watch how lively it will be with all the children in it and lets see if they actually use those benches and seats.
Ron... we have a right to know who is forming this "weak consensus". We all should know who is trying to remove furniture from the park.
\
Quote from: BridgeTroll on February 25, 2012, 08:03:06 AM
Ron... we have a right to know who is forming this "weak consensus". We all should know who is trying to remove furniture from the park.
Quote: Lakelander
“ I really don't understand how solutions that have never worked can be seriously considered within a large group of people.â€
BT, I hope you aren’t going to assassinate these people. The “weak consensus†is the image produced by the fact that during the recent meetings, the persuasion has flipped flopped between keeping the tables, simply dispersing them so that there might be a reduced “commandeering†appearance, and the complete removal of the tables and chairs. The mood has frustratingly wavered back and forth. I was rather surprised that the last meeting saw things move in the direction of removing entirely the tables and chairs.
But, to answer your question, and I respect all of these people, the voters for the removals were basically Vicky at UPS, Jerry at La Cena, Terry at DVI, and about four others. I sense that the fundamental complexity of the overall problem in the park has caused feelings of frustration, and therefore, some may have voted simply to get something done, whether in the end it is right or wrong.
I suspect that if anyone were to voice a strong argument toward keeping the tables and chairs, everyone would be persuaded, such is the nature of the beast at this point. Being a solo person, I am not good at face-to-face meetings, and therefore must attempt persuasion via writing.
But to continue with Lake's comment, isn’t it interesting to contemplate how a decision can be made by a committee of a dozen or so intelligent individuals, a decision which, if reviewed a year later, after the consequences of it can be clearly observed, can only be viewed as a stupid decision.
In order to be fair however, if we are blame a committee for making a stupid decision, we must confirm the stupid decision was made while the committee had on the table the same resources and information as we have during our criticism of a year or two after the decision.
There must be some flaw in the dynamics of a committee process, which can, if allowed to go unchecked, be quite influential in allowing for a committee of intelligent individuals to arrive at a stupid decision.
Perhaps a committee can be swayed to a stupid decision by voices of influence, by persistent and high voices, by personality, by boldness, by frustration of time passing, by ignorance as to the fundamentals at work, by haste, and by one’s silence when one should speak.
Can the Skyway be considered a stupid decision? How about the demo decisions for certain buildings in the core? How about the one way streets? How about the proposed Convention Center? The perpetuation of the parking meters? The removal of the park tables and chairs? How about the lack of practical incentives for small business in the city core? How about unwarranted incentives for corporate entry into the core? How about excessive and extended incentives for suburban sprawl? There are some good examples I’m sure, but I’ve not been around the core as long as some of the MJ persons.
In any case, the realization that a committee can make a stupid decision gives me incentive to argue against not only the removal of the tables and chairs, but to argue against some of the other ideas proposed for the park. But then, this attitude is quite normal, as it works toward a committee’s correct decision.
Quote from: ronchamblin on February 25, 2012, 08:46:16 AM
Can the Skyway be considered a stupid decision? How about the demo decisions for certain buildings in the core? How about the one way streets? How about the proposed Convention Center? The perpetuation of the parking meters? The removal of the park tables and chairs? How about the lack of practical incentives for small business in the city core? How about unwarranted incentives for corporate entry into the core? How about excessive and extended incentives for suburban sprawl? There are some good examples I’m sure, but I’ve not been around the core as long as some of the MJ persons.
I think many or most of the above items that have come to pass had negative aspects that were pointed out at the time the activities were done, and many of those negative aspects have been seen in the years since.
I don't think it takes anyone of special insight to see that if you have a public space with amenities, and you remove those amenities, you aren't going to get increased use of that space. What about in five years, when Hemming Plaza becomes empty and unused, except by the homeless people who are now on the ground, camped out? "We need to do something. Let's fence off the park."
This sounds like having a playground with too many kids in it, and the solution is to tear down the playground so the sight of so many kids doesn't scare off other kids.
But it feels so "Jacksonville." It feels right in step with the Jacksonville state of mind.
Quote from: ronchamblin on February 25, 2012, 08:46:16 AM
But to continue with Lake's comment, isn’t is interesting to contemplate how a decision can be made by a committee of a dozen or so intelligent individuals, a decision which, if reviewed a year later, after the consequences of it can be clearly observed, can only be viewed as a stupid decision.
In order to be fair however, if we are blame a committee for making a stupid decision, we must confirm the stupid decision was made while the committee had on the table the same resources and information as we have during our criticism of a year or two after the decision.
There must be some flaw in the dynamics of a committee process, which can, if allowed to go unchecked, be quite influential in allowing for a committee of intelligent individuals to arrive at a stupid decision.
Perhaps a committee can be swayed to a stupid decision by voices of influence, by persistent and high voices, by personality, by boldness, by frustration of time passing, by ignorance as to the fundamentals at work, by haste, and by one’s silence when one should speak.
The ultimate fatal flaw is most likely the committee process and the make up of the committee itself. It appears the committee may be stocked with people who mean well and want better but lack the professional background and experience in this particular urban arena. I don't mean that in disrespect but as a society, we specialize at certain things and when there is not enough diversity (how many actual park users are on the committee), small groups can quickly settle on concepts that do more harm than good. Btw, this has plagued downtown Jacksonville for decades. After 60 years of poor results, perhaps it's time to admit failure in the process and attempt to revamp it.
QuoteCan the Skyway be considered a stupid decision?
Depends. Can the technology be considered stupid? No, it works just fine. Can the route implementation and policy making to not integrate this mode of transportation be considered stupid? Yes. I say yes, because there were enough examples out there at the time to illustrate how to plan successful mass transit and our own initial studies correctly suggested initial links with ridership generating anchors such as Shands. Furthermore, I'd also say the continued decision parallel the skyway with several bus routes to the point where they compete for the same limited ridership base is also foolish and inefficient.
QuoteHow about the demo decisions for certain buildings in the core?
Its good to look at these on an individual basis but on an overall level, yes. This is once again the result of a no-collaborative process where committees are stacked with individuals who did not represent the end users or ask the community what they wanted before making significant environment impacting decisions.
QuoteHow about the one way streets?
To evaluate this, you have to first understand what those who were designing one way streets were trying to achieve. They wanted to move automobile traffic. They succeeded.
QuoteHow about the proposed Convention Center?
This one is yet to be decided. It can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on its planning process, implementation and funding. The devil, like most subjects, is in the details.
QuoteThe perpetuation of the parking meters?
With this, I'd say not listening to business owner and customer complaints on parking over the last couple of decades has been pretty foolish. Melissa Ross asked me about this on the downtown discussion last night. She asked how do you change things for the better? My answer was a short and simple one. Try actually addressing the concerns that have been expressed by many for decades instead of telling people they need to be trained.
QuoteThe removal of the park tables and chairs?
This is really foolish because we can easily evaluate peer communities that have done just this through simple google searches. However, like many of the things you bring up, a more collaborative planning process that allows a greater cross section of community participation would stop an idea like this, dead on its tracks.
QuoteHow about the lack of practical incentives for small business in the city core? How about unwarranted incentives for corporate entry into the core? How about excessive and extended incentives for suburban sprawl? There are some good examples I’m sure, but I’ve not been around the core as long as some of the MJ persons.
All of these things can easily be resolved with a collaborative planning process that involves the community as a whole. However, on the political side of things it means checking personal egos at the door. I think the process behind the BJP is a decent local model to follow on a grand scale. The planning department's recent visioning process was good as well. Unfortunately, they didn't have the authorization to address downtown, which was seen as the JEDC's turf.
QuoteIn any case, the realization that a committee can make a stupid decision gives me incentive to argue against not only the removal of the tables and chairs, but to argue against some of the other ideas proposed for the park. But then, this attitude is quite normal, as it works toward a committee’s correct decision.
In you're position, the best you can do is bring logic to the table that focuses on the successes and failures of various actions being proposed that have been implemented in peer communities. There's nothing new under the sun and nothing socially unique about Hemming Plaza's issues that a Savannah, Orlando, Charlotte, San Deigo, Nashville, etc. hasn't dealt with. Everything considered by any committee should be properly fact checked. If we can eliminate making policy decisions on the personal opinions of a group (our committee process in general, not just the Hemming Plaza committee) with limited representation of the community as a whole, we'll discover the solutions to many of our problems are not as difficult as we make them out to be.
Should we take him out? ......... Moran I mean.
Quote from: thelakelander on February 25, 2012, 07:30:27 AM
It's unfortunate that the removal of benches is even being discussed. No where has that worked in attracting more people to a public space like Hemming. I really don't understand how solutions that have never worked can be seriously considered within a large group of people.
This is clearly a product of the committee not truly understand (or maybe they do) what their main goal is. If it's making the park an attraction, destination, relaxing communal space, pleasing pass through, interactive with the surrounding space in such a way that it encourages positive activity, then yes it's a horrible idea.
However, if the main goal is to remove a certain segment of the park population, they're moving in the right direction. Of course, this also means eliminating all other segments of the population, and the destruction of the park. But if the end goal is no unwanted segments, then it seems this would be a logical step.
The committee makeup is determining this. A certain member has waged a well known personal war on the current people in the park for years. His goals couldn't seem more clear: rid the park of them at all costs, even if it means destroying the park.
well Mr. Dare....I just had a nice conversation with Ron Chamblin, while buying some stuff at his store.....and we talked a bit about Hemming....while I have not been to one of the meetings, I do know some of the players involved.
QuoteBT, I hope you aren’t going to assassinate these people. The “weak consensus†is the image produced by the fact that during the recent meetings, the persuasion has flipped flopped between keeping the tables, simply dispersing them so that there might be a reduced “commandeering†appearance, and the complete removal of the tables and chairs. The mood has frustratingly wavered back and forth.
QuoteIt appears the committee may be stocked with people who mean well and want better but lack the professional background and experience in this particular urban arena. I don't mean that in disrespect but as a society, we specialize at certain things and when there is not enough diversity (how many actual park users are on the committee), small groups can quickly settle on concepts that do more harm than good.
I agree with Lake... I think it is important to identify those who think removing furniture will help solve the problem. These people need to be convinced that there are better methods to achieve the goals they seek.... the same way we should convince some who might think vilification and character assassination might change their minds.
You mention the word frustration and I think this is a key word. These people are business people who have taken a huge risk having businesses in an admittedly tenuous downtown. They do not feel like their concerns are being addressed and are now grasping at drastic measures. This is what happens when concerns seem to fall on deaf ears.
JSO actively walking the park has seemed to show some results. It does not have to be confrontational... but simply a presence...
Quote from: BridgeTroll on February 25, 2012, 11:01:38 AM
You mention the word frustration and I think this is a key word. These people are business people who have taken a huge risk having businesses in an admittedly tenuous downtown. They do not feel like their concerns are being addressed and are now grasping at drastic measures. This is what happens when concerns seem to fall on deaf ears.
Great point.
Quote from: Bridges on February 25, 2012, 10:51:28 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on February 25, 2012, 07:30:27 AM
It's unfortunate that the removal of benches is even being discussed. No where has that worked in attracting more people to a public space like Hemming. I really don't understand how solutions that have never worked can be seriously considered within a large group of people.
This is clearly a product of the committee not truly understand (or maybe they do) what their main goal is. If it's making the park an attraction, destination, relaxing communal space, pleasing pass through, interactive with the surrounding space in such a way that it encourages positive activity, then yes it's a horrible idea.
However, if the main goal is to remove a certain segment of the park population, they're moving in the right direction. Of course, this also means eliminating all other segments of the population, and the destruction of the park. But if the end goal is no unwanted segments, then it seems this would be a logical step.
The committee makeup is determining this. A certain member has waged a well known personal war on the current people in the park for years. His goals couldn't seem more clear: rid the park of them at all costs, even if it means destroying the park.
Except removing benches and chairs to reduce vagrant population density in a space no one else doesn't want to spend time in fails as well. I'd challenge someone to name one space like Hemming Plaza where removing amenities has stopped the homeless from congregating. Even in this thread, an example (San Francisco) has been given where this exact strategy has failed. What thread of reality does the committee have to suggest that it would be different for Jax? It's not even different a block away. The Main Street pocket park (one we said right here should have never been built..) has very few amenities and people are still comfortably hanging out on the planters.
Btw, if the goal is trying to attract yuppies and suburbanites to hang out in Hemming, they'll never make it that far if the Main Street pocket park becomes the new hangout. After all, its in a more high profile location (in terms of vehicular traffic).
Quote from: stephendare on February 25, 2012, 11:02:09 AM
Quote from: tufsu1 on February 25, 2012, 10:52:16 AM
well Mr. Dare....I just had a nice conversation with Ron Chamblin, while buying some stuff at his store.....and we talked a bit about Hemming....while I have not been to one of the meetings, I do know some of the players involved.
But didnt you just a few days ago describe the same things that Ron Chamblin just posted as 'overly dramatic'?
Or have you changed you mind about what is going on in the committee meetings that you havent attended once?
Mr. Dare...to clarify, in the post you are referring to, I thanked Ron Chamblin for bringing levity to the situation.
I believe that once Jacksonville truly embraces Hemming Plaza for its historic role as the heart of our city, we will find the right role for Hemming Plaza in our future. Take a look at Times Square in New York. It went through some rough times that would make our troubles look tame. New Yorkers, however, understood that Times Square was an internationally known symbol of their city. I believe that the same, to a smaller extent, applies to Hemming Park in our city. We have had numerous gatherings, events, speeches in Hemming Park/Plaza over the years. This same energy can return if we can, in addition to the downtown advocates who will always speak out, enlist the support of the suburbanites who most likely have never even been downtown, much less visited Hemming Park...
On a side note, I think that Hemming Plaza could stand to use more promotion in our city. I would wager that most folks in Jacksonville do not have the same warm sentiments about Hemming Plaza. Relative to our population, precious few people have knowledge of May-Cohen, Woolworth, Penney's, Morrison's or have memories of the glory days of downtown. These people, when they think of a downtown gathering place will immediately think to the Jacksonville Landing. Imagine if there was an event in Hemming Plaza of the same caliber of the televised lighting of the Christmas tree at the Landing. Right now, all we have are memories of the past and dreams for the future, but we struggle to connect the two with a strong vision for this under-appreciated public place.
(I plan today to present via email to Denise Lee the below material)
I read the opinion piece in the TU today; a repeat of words expressed by most of us over many months. The next meeting about the park, to which everyone is invited, is tomorrow at city hall at 10:00 a.m.
I was disappointed at the last meeting when the vote approved the removal of all table/chair sets. In my view, this is a move of frustration, a move to do something, even if it is wrong. Although it is probable that removal of all table/chair sets will reduce somewhat the problem of the appearance of an unwanted group occupying the park, it is radical, and results in fewer amenities for other citizens. The idea of having temporary tables and chairs might be tolerable, but the overall impact cannot be as good as having fixed table/chair sets. Feeling a solid table/chair set is much better than sitting upon the lightweight sets. The cost of the temporary sets, and the cost of installation, removal, and storage is a factor to consider.
I’ve eaten in the park several times since the last meeting. I’ve enjoyed the beauty of the park, the trees, the calm, the reality as portrayed by all who were there; the individuals playing chess, cards, and dominoes; the retirees, the unemployed, the homeless, all sitting, standing, chatting, relaxing on benches. A lunch break in the park now provides an honest image of a city, a reality which few should wish to avoid, as it is truth, and therefore it is beautiful. Admittedly, the number of individuals occupying the tables is excessive, as it leaves fewer tables for use by locals. However, there are always tables available, as I observed several tables being used by what appeared to be local workers.
It is apparent that the increased police presence has already significantly reduced the unwanted elements, those who argue loudly, who openly consume alcohol or deal drugs, who gamble, who break the rules of the park. Continued police presence, and continued banning of troublemakers when necessary, will reduce even further the number of troublemakers and those participating in illegal activities; and this, over time will reduce the overall “occupation†crowd significantly. A dynamic police presence, even if only one or two officers, is critical to continued improvement of the park.
Any gradual destruction of the park by the removal of its most attractive and useful attributes and amenities will not only cost money, but it will be the subject of regret in the future, as these actions will not alone solve the “problemâ€. Real progress toward ultimate solutions can be made by enforcing the park rules, banning deserving individuals from the park when rules are broken, by engaging certain occupiers with assistance so that they might get employment, by removing some of the distressed trees, replacing with young live oaks, by promoting and programming events and activities, and by encouraging locals to eat in the park. If local workers and residents can be encouraged to visit the park more often, we can begin to encroach upon the spaces frequently occupied by the so-called problem element.
We should keep the park attractive and functional to the maximum so that as we decrease the number of individuals who excessively occupy the park, the park will be continually inviting, and ready to entice future visitors and locals who wish to enjoy it.
The idea of installing cameras in the park would be wasteful, not gaining enough benefit to warrant the initial cost, or the cost of monitoring.
If money is to be spent on the park, let it be on improvements, on enhancements, and not on its destruction by gradual removal of amenities. Doing the latter will only ensure continued mediocrity, and will have only minimal effect on the continued occupation by the so-called unwanted elements.
Stephen. I heard from the underground that you were at the meeting today. I was unable to attend. Can you relay the significant developments so that more of us can see which way the wind is blowing on this thing? Thanks. :)
Just have to convey this Hemming incident. Yesterday, about two o’clock I purchased two hotdogs from the N/E vendor, taking the first cooked dog to one of the only tables available, intending to get the other when it was ready.
It was crowded, perhaps 100 occupier types in the park. I sat down at a table, and within less than a minute, an older fellow, of white hair, began to walk toward my table. He had no teeth. I thought… well, this might be interesting…. a real live homeless wants to have a talk…. perhaps about life in the wild, which I always enjoy.
The fellow sat down across the table. I waited for him to say something, but he only stared at my hotdog, his eyes only on the dog for the longest time. In an effort to break the stare, I said “What are you up to today?†Not taking his eyes off of the dog, he said “I’d like some of what you have there.â€
At that point, a fellow about fifteen feet away said, “Jimmy…. let that man alone… he’s trying to eat lunch.†When I’m hungry, I’m like most other animals, best left to alone to eat. So I got up with my dog and drink, and walked to the stand to get my other dog. I laughingly informed the dog man what had happened. The fellow was still at the table, staring off into the distance. The dog man said....â€Yea… we have a problem with that kind of thing all the time.â€
I wondered if the situation would have been different if the tables had been removed according to the proposed plan, and if I had been sitting on a ledge, or if the table had been one of the planned temporary tables. Would the hungry, gazing, toothless fellow, still come to me with the attempt to panhandle food, or money for food?
In any case, this incident reminded why local workers do not have lunch in the park. Then I began to wonder if it would make sense to aggressively encourage local workers to eat in the park so that the ratio of occupier-to-local workers sitting around would be more favorable to the local workers. In this way, there would be fewer scenarios where a lone worker, by his or her single appearance, would be an attractive target for the panhandlers. The confidence of the panhandler would have been less if there were twenty or so local workers eating in the park. This attempt to improve the ratio in the park is the goal of the park programming we've been talking about.
There were no officers nearby at the time. On another day, I will attempt to determine if this fellow’s behavior could have been cause for banning him from the park. In my opinion, he should be banned from the park, as continued banning of these types would eventually reduce the problem to a tolerable level.
Of course, I could have simply told him to leave my table, which would have solved the immediate problem, but not the long term problem. Next time, I will take Jerry Moran with me, being prepared however, to protect my dog from the chemical warfare.
A man asked for a hot dog?
He was hungry. I have a really soft spot for a person who is hungry.
A person wanting money? Not so much. But hungry?
I think it would have been one dog for me and one dog for him.
Yes, I do realize that feeding seagulls attracts more seagulls, but I'm weak that way.
*runs to library restroom to wash bird poop out of hair*
Quote from: buckethead on March 17, 2012, 07:43:07 AM
A man asked for a hot dog?
He was hungry. I have a really soft spot for a person who is hungry.
A person wanting money? Not so much. But hungry?
I think it would have been one dog for me and one dog for him.
Yes, I do realize that feeding seagulls attracts more seagulls, but I'm weak that way.
*runs to library restroom to wash bird poop out of hair*
Yes BH, he was indeed hungry, and although his hunger is somewhat a result of his own doing, some would argue that it is perhaps more a result of our society’s doing. Hunger, a fundamental and powerful pressure within all animals, becomes at times painful, some gaining relief from it by killing and eating other animals. Therefore, I feel fortunate at having escaped the possible occasion of being eaten in the park.
But yes, the hungry individual in the park is a problem, as we all wish to offer relief to those having it. Too bad our objective for the park cannot be achieved by giving food or money to those who need or want these things.
Quote from: ronchamblin on March 17, 2012, 01:27:22 AM
I wondered if the situation would have been different if the tables had been removed according to the proposed plan, and if I had been sitting on a ledge, or if the table had been one of the planned temporary tables. Would the hungry, gazing, toothless fellow, still come to me with the attempt to panhandle food, or money for food?
In any case, this incident reminded why local workers do not have lunch in the park. Then I began to wonder if it would make sense to aggressively encourage local workers to eat in the park so that the ratio of occupier-to-local workers sitting around would be more favorable to the local workers. In this way, there would be fewer scenarios where a lone worker, by his or her single appearance, would be an attractive target for the panhandlers. The confidence of the panhandler would have been less if there were twenty or so local workers eating in the park. This attempt to improve the ratio in the park is the goal of the park programming we've been talking about.
I think this is an unrealistic way of looking at the situation. If there were no tables, there would be less opportunity for anyone to want to spend time eating lunch in the park. If tables are shifted to non-shaded spots, it creates a negative situation for anyone wanting to sit in them when temperatures rise. Plus, as long as the ledges are still there and there's nothing there to attract a larger segment of the population, the situation you encountered will still happen. The individual will either sit next to you or stand over you.
Btw, I'd fit into the category of people the committee would like to eat lunch in the park. My office is a block away. I simply don't go because there is no logical reason for me to do so. I can order take out at any of the places around and spend the entire hour at my desk playing on Metro Jacksonville in privacy. Or I can choose to skip lunch altogether and head home early. A space like Hemming is going to have to include built in activities that attract people. It's also needs adjacent land uses spilling out into it. Removing the few amenitites it does has (like benches) makes the possibility of people visiting it even less. Doing something as simple as allowing food trucks to surround it at lunch or placing children's playground equipment in it creates a condition that attracts more diversified usage of the space.
Once again, I'd suggest to any committee member that whatever solution you're considered, attempt to find case studies in other communities because every major city in this country has dealt with a Hemming Plaza situation. There's lots of examples where smart programming works but very few where removing amenities does. If that's the case, why continue to do things that simply don't work?
Also, has any consideration been given to why no one utilizes the outdoor plaza in front of the courthouse across the street? It has ledges and benches yet no one hangs out there.
Quote from: ronchamblin on March 17, 2012, 09:12:30 AM
But yes, the hungry individual in the park is a problem, as we all wish to offer relief to those having it. Too bad our objective for the park cannot be achieved by giving food or money to those who need or want these things.
Unfortunately, for the group, their objective can not be accomplished without addressing the environmental factors that have created the atmosphere the group desires to change. One of the special characteristics of an urban environment that Jacksonville has failed to consider is that no one issue lives in isolation. At some point, if the city doesn't want the park and library serving these roles, we're going to need a day center. Even with programming, you still have the problem, it's just going to shift to the Main Street pocket park.
Partial quote from Lake:
"I think this is an unrealistic way of looking at the situation."
If by this you mean "I think that removing the tables and chairs from the park is an unrealistic way of looking at the situation.", I agree with you.
Again, the more successful we are at getting "regular" people into the park, by whatever means, we will begin to change the ratio of "occupiers-to-regulars" to a ratio giving the panhandlers less confidence to bother others, causing the "occupiers" to be less comfortable in the park, removing from them the feeling that the park is "their" turf. The goal of a "ratio change" is critical, and is the main reason for the planned "programming" efforts. I like the idea of energetic encouragement of local workers to frequent the park for lunches and breaks, as this action would always be a "ratio changing" success, one which over time will bring good long term results.
It's unrealistic in terms of believing that removing benches will result in reducing the ratio of "occupiers-to-regulars" or "giving panhandlers less confidence to bother others." If this has been successfully done (meaning the space becomes vibrant) and that example can be brought to the table, then I'll be the first to admit I'm off base. The bench configuration or layout of the park isn't the cause of the problem and shuffling them around won't change it because the urban environmental conditions (little programming, limited amenities inside of it, a lack of complementing land uses opening up to it, etc.) are still the same.
I honestly don't see why the average downtown worker is going to want to frequent the space on limited lunch breaks when there's simply no reason or incentive to do so. The only thing possibly drawing anyone to the space on a regular basis is the hot dog vendor but there are hot dog vendors on every major downtown street corner.
Agreed Lake. I certainly hope the final decision will be to allow the tables, chairs, and benches to remain. The results we need will be achieved via positive moves, enhancing, bringing activity, and not destructive or desperate moves to "do something" no matter what.
I find this whole thread so interesting. It started out with complaining about people who took up the tables and chairs all the time and, now that the city says fine, we'll take them away, now all of a sudden we want to keep them. I never wanted to see them go away, but this is a perfect example of getting what you asked for, and then not liking it. There is no way to regulate how long someone sits in a chair, so if you don't want them camped out in the chiar all day, fine, we'll just take away the chair.
Lake is right. The solution is a daytime drop in center, not taking away benches. The homeless will just sit on the ground, or in the pocket park, or somewhere else, because they have nowhere else to go.
What costs $900k? That's much more than moving benches.
The solution sounds worse than the problem. It seems to me the JSO and DVI Ambassadors should be able to keep relative peace in the park.
If anyone mentions taking out the trees, please do not let them, even if you have to chain yourself to said tree. H.P. is one of the few places to get a respite from the sun in DT Jax.
QuoteWe are going to de amenitize the park, close it down for a couple of months (so that 'those people' will 'go somewhere else') and voila! Presto!
A few events heavily publicized with pictures taken and SUCCESS!
How it's done on Jacksonville. Let's not use common sense to find the solutions, let's use quick slight of hand tricks to make it look like we did something, while not doing anything at all, but make sure we spend a lot of tax payer money while we successfully accomplish nothing. It sounds like this commission somehow forgot the definition of a park.
This should be easy. There are people who post on this forum and in this very thread that are much smarter than I. Like Lakelander, for instance. If the right someones would listen to them, perhaps Jacksonville could actually move forward for a change.
There are a few on City Council who seem to be seriously trying. As this does have to go through city council perhaps they can be and will be a voice of reason and stop the slight of hand.
It sounds like they plan to do exactly what everyone on metrojacksonville recommended...add programming and do some minor site adjustments. $900k includes programming and is just the price of doing business in government.
Well, not really John P. They talked about how the large trees make it easy to step out of sight. And they talked about changing the park's terrain and layout. You can bet the trees will be gone so it's easy to see everything. In fact, if you want it to be easy to see everything, you may as well cut down the trees, flatten it all out, and plant grass. Just what we need, another "pocket park" with one small tree, grass and one bench. Yeah, that's the ticket.
I think the park is absolutely beautiful as it is. Programming would help, but you can't program the park all day every day. However, for $900,000, you can pay a patrolman to patrol only the park, all day, for literally years. Just a thought that makes as much if not more sense than tearing up what they already did to make it pretty.
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on March 21, 2012, 09:34:22 PM
Well, not really John P. They talked about how the large trees make it easy to step out of sight. And they talked about changing the park's terrain and layout. You can bet the trees will be gone so it's easy to see everything. In
Ill take that bet. The trees wont be cut down.
The infrastructure of the park is just fine and the mature trees are probably the park's best amenity. From reading the quotes in the article it doesn't sound like they've realized the influence of the surrounding land uses on the park or the benefit of adding built in destination generators. If the group's vision is tunnel oriented, we'll end up paying a large expense for something that ultimately creates a worse situation with less amenities.
Emails. Send your ideas to the City Council, Lake, et al. I just wrote to Councilwoman Lee.
And John P, I disagree about the trees. Heard a news story on FCN just last week about Hemming Plaza, and talking about how those trees have supposedly reached the end of their life expectancy, etc, etc. Don't know how that's possible. I don't remember when they re-did Hemming...when City Hall was moved?....but I know the park didn't have those trees 40 years ago. Don't see how they can be ready to die now. But that was the news story about them.
For some reason, this is like the only place where trees and buildings prematurely reach the end of their life expectancy on a routine basis. Hemming was renovated in the mid 1980s. So they may be approaching 25-30 years of age.
So, I'm browsing an old thread, bumped and updated yesterday by Stephen, and my ignorance is showing. Is public wireless readily available in Hemming Plaza, provided free by the City? There is unsecured wireless within broadcast range of Hemming, and anyone can hook up? Then why aren't all kinds of people hanging out there with PC's? Or are they? I haven't worked downtown in over two years, so just asking. Maybe they are concerned about safety, but this could be a draw on nice days, couldn't it? Do people even know? I didn't. Or am I being naive?
Re: Wireless Cities. Jacksonville was the first one with plans. Now, nothing.
Lindab, 11/20/09 <Quote>Several years ago I was in Gainesville in the vicinity of their main library. There is a small park fronting the library and it was full of people using the free wi-fi being broadcast to the area. You could attract a lot more people to downtown and to Hemming Park if wi-fi were made available to the park . <end quote>
Stephen Dare, yesterday <quote> Downtown is now by well covered with City of Jacksonville wireless access. <end quote>
In my opinion, the reason why Hemming Park/Plaza was such a vibrant place in downtown's heyday was because it was one part of a destination for many Jacksonville residents. An abundance of retail and dining attracted well-dressed shoppers and encourage them to make a day of their visit to downtown. For many today, the government complex around Hemming Plaza is filled with quick transactions where people tend to make it an in-and-out venture. The other life that exists around the park are workers who are parked in their cubicles and the most interaction that they have with Hemming Plaza is during their lunch break. Otherwise, they are like ships passing in the light as they clock in at the beginning of the day and head home when the proverbial whistle blows. Furthermore, I must add that the Jacksonville Landing has supplanted Hemming Plaza as the gathering place for people in the city. Look, for example, at the Christmas tree lighting and other events that draw more people to the Landing because it has retail and the dining to make it a place to congregate. This kind of void has existed in Hemming Plaza for years as we struggle to find a new role for it in the new century. For all of the folks with fond memories of the old Hemming Park and for the sake of our city, it is time to write a new chapter...
During the Wednesday meeting, the partially completed survey was reviewed. It will run for several more days. Denise Lee was impressed by the survey, stating that it offers something solid, something other than the personal opinions of the members of the committee. I was relieved by most of the directions toward which the survey pointing the committee.
However, I was surprised when near the end of the meeting, someone introduced again the idea of removable tables and chairs, in spite of the fact that the partial survey results show the following:
REMOVE ALL TABLES AND CHAIRS:
10% Much More Interested
8% Somewhat More Interested
70% Not At All More Interested
ADD MOVABLE SEATING:
10% Much More Interested
19% Somewhat More Interested
57% Not At All More Interested
Of course, the above two questions focus on the act of "removing all of the current tables and chairs and replacing them with removable (temporary) lightweight tables and chairs", which are to be chained on the edge of the park until needed by lunch crowds or visiting individuals.
I’m going to oppose the above because not only is this suggestion against the wishes of the majority as shown by the survey, but it also has to be one of the most wasteful and inappropriate decisions we could make. Who wants to sit upon lightweight tables and chairs? Who wants to endure the awkwardness and wait of requesting that tables and chairs be unchained and brought out in mid-afternoon so that they can sit upon them? Who wants to see the chained tables and chairs on the edge of the park? Who wants to continue to pay for the expense of unchaining and moving from storage, and then moving back, and chaining?
It was suggested that some parks have changed to the removable tables and chairs. Okay, have the temporaries been successful .... really? And is their enough similarity to Hemming to offer a valid comparison?
One or two committee members continue to state, and I cringe upon hearing it, “We’ve got to do SOMETHING about the park.†While this kind of attitude indicates frustration, it also increases the probability that something stupid is about to be done; that is, our hard earned money is going to be spent doing that “somethingâ€, even though it makes absolutely no sense to do it, and will result in no long term solution.
I my view, there is no need to do much to the park. Remove any diseased trees, and if desired replace them with youngsters. Enhance the park by making small changes, inexpensive changes. To some, spending money on the park seems to be the solution, as long as we spend the money. Hogwash.
(I will continue about what went on in the meeting later…. it is late.)
Thanks for the update Ron. When you get the opportunity, could you elaborate on what changes are being considered that will cost $900,000 and require the closing of the entire park for months?
hopefully, they take out those God awful water oaks!
Quote from: stephendare on March 22, 2012, 11:07:02 AM
Meanwhile, I am at UPS store and parked at a meter that only gives you thirty minutes.
at the request of the UPS owner, nearby meters were reduced from 1-2 hours....there was a concern that short-term drop-in customers couldn't find spaces because of semi-long-term parkers.
Back to the park. It's beautiful. For goodness sake, leave it alone. More security. Provide daytime assistance for the homeless that gather there because they have nowhere else to go. Cheap plastic chairs and tables chained up? AWFUL!!!!! Whose idea was THAT?
Would it be nice to have a summer concert series in the park. Plenty of local bands would benefit if the concerts are planned right.
The park was beautiful when it was first built. Look at all the old pictures full of flowers, shrubs, stately palms, grass it looked like Florida. Today it looks ugly.
Quote from: stephendare on March 22, 2012, 11:07:02 AM
Quote from: fsujax on March 22, 2012, 08:31:09 AM
hopefully, they take out those God awful water oaks!
If I don't finish my business within the next 18 minutes and get the hell out of downtown, then Im going to get another 15 dollar ticket.
No doubt I will have to forgo the pleasures of the park today.
pay $5 and you can spend the whole day downtown. thats cheap
Quote from: fsujax on March 22, 2012, 01:42:59 PM
The park was beautiful when it was first built. Look at all the old pictures full of flowers, shrubs, stately palms, grass it looked like Florida. Today it looks ugly.
Hemming Plaza today looks very dated, and not in a good way. Its last major revamp attempted to turn it into a facsimile of the suburban shopping centers - down to the surrounding the Confederate monument with fountains. Overall, in my opinion, it does not look like a historic urban park with a story to tell but it does look like a brick and concrete attempt to beautify an area that already had character. Most importantly, it appears that all of the city powers are powerless when it comes to crafting solutions to this situation.
How about putting a parking meter next to each chair? Want to sit? Okay, just 25 cents for a half hour during the work day. Meter expired? Move on!
Just joking. Maybe. I guess a bunch of meters would just make the place uglier.
Pipe classical music all over the park 24/7. Okay, maybe a show tune or two - just no hard rock or rap (not that rap qualifies as music).
Can all the pamphlet boxes be eliminated? How about charging a fair amount of money to put one on a public sidewalk, right-of-way, etc.? (Does anyone know if fees are charged now?) I think some are legitimate - like the T-U and Folio - but I am sick of seeing all the cars-for-sale, apartments-for-rent crap around town. I think I'm going to start saving my dog's poop bags and emptying them into some of those ugly boxes.
Build a kiosk with some refrigeration and rent out cheaply and short-term to a florist. Seeing flowers for sale while you're walking around really lifts your spirits. Get the local florists' association to help with getting members to sign up for a week or so.
Quote from: stephendare on March 22, 2012, 06:34:32 PM
Quote from: John P on March 22, 2012, 04:34:38 PM
Quote from: stephendare on March 22, 2012, 11:07:02 AM
Quote from: fsujax on March 22, 2012, 08:31:09 AM
hopefully, they take out those God awful water oaks!
If I don't finish my business within the next 18 minutes and get the hell out of downtown, then Im going to get another 15 dollar ticket.
No doubt I will have to forgo the pleasures of the park today.
pay $5 and you can spend the whole day downtown. thats cheap
actually, you can't. not in the actual downtown, john.
And compared to the prices in the suburbs,-----which is free, incidentally--- its not cheap.
Not even when you pull back and look at it in the larger picture.
The downtown parking also costs 1.2 million dollars annually to enforce. All of us pay that price. And thats not including the lease rape that happens to the downtown businesses who are forced to additionally pay outrageous amounts to the parking garages in order to complete their commercial leases. 25% of the total lease pricing downtown is paid for parking.
Its not cheap.
And if you want to know why most people will not use Hemming Park, the parking enforcement element of downtown is the reason. Not the configuration of the benches in the park.
But thanks for being asinine anyways, I suppose.
There is a flipside to that, though: it's hard enough to find on-street parking Downtown even with the meters. If on-street parking were free, it would be close to impossible. I'm just going on my own experience (and it's 5 years out-of-date), but I always found it challenging (at the very least) to find parking downtown. At least meters cause people to move.
That said, a 30 minute limit is a bit harsh. I think an hour or two would be more reasonable.
The key to finding on street parking is to park on side streets and walk a block or two to your desired destination. You'll have no problem ever finding a space west of Julia Street, north of Church and east of Main (assuming you're north of Forsyth). Even during the day, you could lay down in half of these streets and not worry about getting ran over by a car. I have a few people in my office who continuously circle the block waiting for someone to move from a space near the front door, instead of parking and walking a block. Completely silly, imo.
I looked at the park today again. The oak trees dont block anything. There are bushes on top of the planters and some small crepes and bushes that need trimming that do block sight, but the oak trees do not.
Good article in the Sunday Paper by Littlepage regarding Hemming Plaza. I don't agree with him, but he did make some good points.
QuoteEven during the day, you could lay down in half of these streets and not worry about getting ran over by a car.
Have you seen the average teenager at the wheel? Texting in one hand and talking on the phone in the other. They might as well think they are driving on the Autobahn, let alone pay attention to the road ahead. I have also seen way too many people going the wrong direction down our so-called 1-way streets. Driving downtown is as bad as it is in the burbs!
The below email was sent to me from Dan MacDonald, who is Denise Lee’s assistant:
“It was decided that with the final report being submitted to the AD Hoc Hemming Plaza Committee that there is no need for any further sub-committee meeting at this time. The Ad Hoc Committee offered its thanks and congratulations for the serious work done by the members of the sub-committee. Its recommendations will be an important part of the final report that is presented to City Council President Stephen Joost.â€
It looks like however that the meeting of the AD Hoc committee, to which “all interested parties†are invited, will be held on April 18th in the Don Davis room at city hall, at 10:00 a.m. I presume that this might be the last meeting before submittal of the final report to the City Council. Therefore, if any of you want to impress upon the city council members who will be present; that is, Denise Lee, Don Redman, and Bill Gilliford, the 18th would be a good time to do so. The meeting notice suggested that if anyone has questions about the 18th meeting, to contact Marilyn Allen at 630-1404.
My gut feeling is that we are seeing a momentum, on MJ and other environments, carrying the eventual decisions further from complete tree removal, complete table/chair removal; the two items seeming to gain the most opposition. The tree question seems to be the most volatile item, whereas as long as the benches remain, some might tolerate the use of removable tables and chairs, something which I hope not to see.
Many seem too, to wish avoidance of spending much money on the park, partially because doing so would mean removal of certain amenities according to an old plan most of us disagree with; amenities such as trees and permanent tables and chairs.
Lastly, I have to agree with Lake’s (Ennis’) persistent push for restrooms in the park. What does the visitor think, on a Sunday, or in the evening, or even in the day, when they must face a non-restroom environment? If not for now, surely in the future, when we’ve achieved a better balance of park “peopleâ€, we can place a restroom in the park.
Most probably realize that not having a public restroom in the park area places a burden on the surrounding businesses, and even on the library, who do have restrooms. Not only do the area’s small businesses pay maximum property taxes (zero property tax abatements) in spite of experimenting with and enduring the current low-foot-traffic city core, they must also provide and maintain, in spite of attempts to avoid and control it, restrooms for the public. Having a restroom in the park, or near it, would avoid the occasional defecating and urinating throughout the area, behaviors apparently necessary not only from what we call the homeless, but also from the average citizen who finds themselves in the area on a “closed†day or night with nowhere to go. Yes, while being closed, I’ve seen the average citizen, dressed quite well, use the alleyway near the Snyder Memorial church for a restroom. Do you think that not having a restroom in the park is a negative for the overall image of the park environment, causing people to avoid it? You bet. Will a restroom in or near the park require a special design, and creative plan for security? I think so. Now might not be the time to place a public restroom in or near the park. But soon, I hope it will be.
One more thing and I’ll shut up. Our objective, no matter what, on this park thing, should be to increase the positives and decrease the negatives. Although the persistence of the imbalance of park users “is†a negative, our decisions should not be persuaded excessively by this fact, but should, by assuming an eventual solution to it, be persuaded by our vision for the ideal, the vision of a park ready to serve all, at any time, by the best we can place in it, including the shade of oaks amongst the hot concrete of the city core.
QuoteWhat does the visitor think, on a Sunday, or in the evening, or even in the day, when they must face a non-restroom environment?
We have this already, its called the Jacksonville Public Library Main Branch. ;D
QuoteIt was decided that with the final report being submitted to the AD Hoc Hemming Plaza Committee that there is no need for any further sub-committee meeting at this time.
So, no meeting next Wednesday?
THAT was the final garbage that will be presented to Council?
What a joke, except it's not funny.
Quote from: ronchamblin on April 10, 2012, 09:33:21 AM
Lastly, I have to agree with Lake’s (Ennis’) persistent push for restrooms in the park. What does the visitor think, on a Sunday, or in the evening, or even in the day, when they must face a non-restroom environment? If not for now, surely in the future, when we’ve achieved a better balance of park “people”, we can place a restroom in the park.
I was recently told that there used to be restrrooms down below the park...and that they are still there....would be interesting to find out if this is true
Quote from: tufsu1 on April 10, 2012, 11:28:34 AM
Quote from: ronchamblin on April 10, 2012, 09:33:21 AM
Lastly, I have to agree with Lake’s (Ennis’) persistent push for restrooms in the park. What does the visitor think, on a Sunday, or in the evening, or even in the day, when they must face a non-restroom environment? If not for now, surely in the future, when we’ve achieved a better balance of park “peopleâ€, we can place a restroom in the park.
I was recently told that there used to be restrrooms down below the park...and that they are still there....would be interesting to find out if this is true
There definately were restrooms there. Hemming used to be the main transfer station for most bus lines in the city. I was told the remnants(not completely working restrooms mind you) were just paved over when they poured all the new concrete during the changeover from Hemming Park to Hemming Plaza. That wouldn't be shocking if that were true. It's amazing what's buried underneath most structures downtown (including trains and old cargo ships).
Quote from: ronchamblin on April 10, 2012, 09:33:21 AM
The below email was sent to me from Dan MacDonald, who is Denise Lee’s assistant:
“It was decided that with the final report being submitted to the AD Hoc Hemming Plaza Committee that there is no need for any further sub-committee meeting at this time. The Ad Hoc Committee offered its thanks and congratulations for the serious work done by the members of the sub-committee. Its recommendations will be an important part of the final report that is presented to City Council Preswident Stephen Joost.â€
Bulls***!
They don't deserves ANY thanks or congratulations.
-Josh
Quote from: mtraininjax on March 26, 2012, 03:18:39 PM
QuoteEven during the day, you could lay down in half of these streets and not worry about getting ran over by a car.
Have you seen the average teenager at the wheel? Texting in one hand and talking on the phone in the other. They might as well think they are driving on the Autobahn, let alone pay attention to the road ahead. I have also seen way too many people going the wrong direction down our so-called 1-way streets. Driving downtown is as bad as it is in the burbs!
Where did you get that load of lard from?
-Josh
Josh - You've been downtown before and never seen anyone go the wrong way on a 1-way street? I've seen people head West on Forsyth Street from Laura, even though there are countless signs that state ONE WAY, and before Laura was 2-way, I used to see people head up it the wrong way. It does happen, which is the scary thought.
And its not just teenagers, just yesterday I saw a woman jogging while talking on the phone. Really?
Quote from: mtraininjax on April 10, 2012, 12:10:55 PM
Josh - You've been downtown before and never seen anyone go the wrong way on a 1-way street? I've seen people head West on Forsyth Street from Laura, even though there are countless signs that state ONE WAY, and before Laura was 2-way, I used to see people head up it the wrong way. It does happen, which is the scary thought.
And its not just teenagers, just yesterday I saw a woman jogging while talking on the phone. Really?
FWIW, I know I've done it myself!
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2012/04/high-cost-losing-urban-trees/1716/ (http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2012/04/high-cost-losing-urban-trees/1716/)
QuoteThe High Cost of Losing Urban Trees
Every tree in urban Tennessee provides an estimated $2.25 worth of measurable economic benefits every year. Might not seem like a lot, but with 284 million urban trees in the state, the payoff's pretty big.
Through energy savings, air and water filtering and carbon storage, the urban trees of Tennessee account for more than $638 million in benefits, according to a report [PDF] conducted by the Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and released earlier this year.
The biggest savings are attributed to carbon storage, which the authors of the report value at an estimated $350 million. Collectively, the state's urban trees store about 16.9 million tons, with each ton stored worth about $20.70 to the state every year. Air and water filtration is also one of the functional benefits of urban trees, and the report estimates the value of this work at $204 million per year. The trees are credited with removing 27,100 tons of pollutants each year, including ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. And because of the shading they provide, these urban trees are credited with saving about $66 million in energy costs annually.
And these valuations don't even consider the aesthetic value of having streets and parks lined with red maples and yellow poplars. Those benefits are a little more difficult to quantify, which is why this study, a pilot, focused on the more measurable benefits urban trees can provide. The method used for estimating tree values is commonly used and was developed by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers.
Similar pilot studies have been or are being conducted in Indiana, Wisconsin, New Jersey, and Colorado. Indiana's street trees, for example, have been found [PDF] to provide about $38 million in tangible benefits every year, including stormwater treatment, energy use reduction, air quality improvement and carbon sequestration. They were also estimated to provide about $41 million in aesthetic values and impacts on property values. (That study counted about 52 million trees in the state, but it's unclear how many are "urban.")
The authors behind the Tennessee report also note that the state's trees are under threat from a variety of invasive species and diseases. They argue that more work needs to be done to prevent these threats from reducing the urban tree canopy and the benefits it provides. If every urban tree in the state were to die, the cost of replacing them is estimated at $79.5 billion. While that's an unlikely event, the high cost underlines the economic value that trees provide, whether in functional and utilitarian ways or in those less tangible.
Photo credit: Lucas Jackson / Reuters
Keywords: Tennessee, Urban Trees
Nate Berg is staff writer at The Atlantic Cities. He lives in Los Angeles. All posts »
What are the chances of JTA/COJ could get together and do this on one of the N/S streets adjoining Hemming?
http://theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/03/los-angeles-seeks-pedestrians/1410/ (http://theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/03/los-angeles-seeks-pedestrians/1410/)
(http://cdn.theatlanticcities.com/img/upload/2012/03/05/20120305-plaza1/largest.jpg)
Pretty cool. I'd say Monroe (between Pearl and Hogan) would be a better candidate than Hogan or Laura Street for something like this.
Every time we hear the city cry poor mouth there seems to be enough money available. Who knows where it comes from.
Since we seem to have funds, I recommend Monroe St. be closed from the courthouse to Jefferson and a new jail and sheriff's office be built on the blocks from Adams to Church with a huge parking garage for "official" vehicles under the entire structure. Utilize what used to be Monroe from Jefferson as the secured entry point to the structure, with a key card or encrypted garage door opener.
Since the State attorney is going to get her high flying secure walkway to the courthouse there needs to be another from the jail to balance the books. Can't have the accused and their handlers exposed to the elements and the threatening riff-raff.
From the courthouse to Hemming I recommend Monroe be closed and redeveloped into a walking Mall with a dedicated PCT (trolley) shuttling between the Skyway and the courthouse for everyone. Five minute headway should do it.
Parking will be at the King St. garage and the parking and ride to and from will be free. Council members can park there too. (Somebody wrote a letter to the editor stating exactly what I wrote in a post last week here on MJ). There are also other lots adjacent to other Skyway stations that can be utilized. Since we seem to have money in the city coffers, all that parking for courthouse or city business can be free, too.
What?? Traffic is too convoluted to knock out more roadway?? Driving and parking downtown is always tedious and convoluted. Deal with it.
Quote from: JFman00 on April 10, 2012, 10:35:36 PM
What are the chances of JTA/COJ could get together and do this on one of the N/S streets adjoining Hemming?
http://theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/03/los-angeles-seeks-pedestrians/1410/ (http://theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/03/los-angeles-seeks-pedestrians/1410/)
(http://cdn.theatlanticcities.com/img/upload/2012/03/05/20120305-plaza1/largest.jpg)
Was just there, studied it and talked to the business owners along that stretch. That particular road closure would work better in one of the intown neighborhoods(San Marco Square or Neptune Beach would be the best candidate IMO)
There's an interesting letter to editor in today's T-U.
If the park/plaza is to become much of anything, it needs to be larger and that can't happen unless a bordering street or two are closed permanently. Duval in front of City Hall is only about 1 lane wide, so why not close it? I doubt it would affect traffic flow too badly. It would be a short walk from either Laura or Hogan or across the park/plaza from Monroe to the front entrance to CH.
Now I realize that might mean that some members of the Council might have to make that trek, but if we put a few guards armed with Uzis along the route, they probably would be safe.
Why does it need to be larger? It was fine for over a century until we started treating it as a red-headed stepchild. It's a pretty decent sized square in comparison to its peers around the country.
IMO, you don't need to close a street. Extending the tree canopy from Hemming to the new courthouse would make Monroe from Laura to Pearl a natural pedestrian-centric connecting artery to the only other 'pedestrian centric(that term is used loosely)' artery downtown now in Laura Street.
Quote from: fieldafm on April 11, 2012, 08:32:11 AM
IMO, you don't need to close a street. Extending the tree canopy from Hemming to the new courthouse would make Monroe from Laura to Pearl a natural pedestrian-centric connecting artery to the only other 'pedestrian centric(that term is used loosely)' artery downtown now in Laura Street.
Not to use this as a cynical attempt to ignite discussion on a thread I started (that's not even about Jax), but I think this might be an option for (some) streets downtown:
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,14785.0.html (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,14785.0.html)
Hemming Park before the Great Fire of 1901:
(http://web.uflib.ufl.edu/spec/pkyonge/jacksonville/jax6c.jpg)
Hemming Park after the Great Fire of 1901:
(http://web.uflib.ufl.edu/spec/pkyonge/jacksonville/jax7c.jpg)
I participated in the Urban Land Institute's Jane's Walk on Sunday. A number of architects and planning professionals toured downtown and brainstormed ideas for improving the pedestrian experience there.
We started in Hemming Park. The consensus was that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the park itself. The problem is with the park's "edges." Government offices that are closed on the weekends and shut down at 5 pm on weekdays; vacant buildings; little retail. Suggestions included increased programming, especially on Fridays from 5 to 8 pm (perhaps a band and food trucks in the area closest to the Skyway); activities and amenities for families and children on the side of the park close to MOCA and the main library; and incentives for additional retail in the block across from City Hall.
Just imagine what might happen if the City provided $1 million in grants to encourage new retail around the park rather than spending those funds on an unnecessary redesign ....
^You're absolutely right. You're suggestions are absolutely correct as well. If we can reactivate the dead spaces surrounding it at a pedestrian scale level, it will be humming again in no time.
Jacksonville doesn't repair with good ideas, they deface with badly misspent money.
Quote from: Miss Fixit on May 09, 2012, 11:05:59 AM
I participated in the Urban Land Institute's Jane's Walk on Sunday. A number of architects and planning professionals toured downtown and brainstormed ideas for improving the pedestrian experience there.
We started in Hemming Park. The consensus was that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the park itself. The problem is with the park's "edges." Government offices that are closed on the weekends and shut down at 5 pm on weekdays; vacant buildings; little retail. Suggestions included increased programming, especially on Fridays from 5 to 8 pm (perhaps a band and food trucks in the area closest to the Skyway); activities and amenities for families and children on the side of the park close to MOCA and the main library; and incentives for additional retail in the block across from City Hall.
Just imagine what might happen if the City provided $1 million in grants to encourage new retail around the park rather than spending those funds on an unnecessary redesign ....
I hope ULI is in communication with the Hemming plaza committee and City council about their recommendations.
Quote from: John P on May 10, 2012, 09:21:10 AM
Quote from: Miss Fixit on May 09, 2012, 11:05:59 AM
I participated in the Urban Land Institute's Jane's Walk on Sunday. A number of architects and planning professionals toured downtown and brainstormed ideas for improving the pedestrian experience there.
We started in Hemming Park. The consensus was that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the park itself. The problem is with the park's "edges." Government offices that are closed on the weekends and shut down at 5 pm on weekdays; vacant buildings; little retail. Suggestions included increased programming, especially on Fridays from 5 to 8 pm (perhaps a band and food trucks in the area closest to the Skyway); activities and amenities for families and children on the side of the park close to MOCA and the main library; and incentives for additional retail in the block across from City Hall.
Just imagine what might happen if the City provided $1 million in grants to encourage new retail around the park rather than spending those funds on an unnecessary redesign ....
I hope ULI is in communication with the Hemming plaza committee and City council about their recommendations.
EXCELLENT group to get involved in
Quote from: Miss Fixit on May 09, 2012, 11:05:59 AM
I participated in the Urban Land Institute's Jane's Walk on Sunday. A number of architects and planning professionals toured downtown and brainstormed ideas for improving the pedestrian experience there.
We started in Hemming Park. The consensus was that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the park itself. The problem is with the park's "edges." Government offices that are closed on the weekends and shut down at 5 pm on weekdays; vacant buildings; little retail. Suggestions included increased programming, especially on Fridays from 5 to 8 pm (perhaps a band and food trucks in the area closest to the Skyway); activities and amenities for families and children on the side of the park close to MOCA and the main library; and incentives for additional retail in the block across from City Hall.
Just imagine what might happen if the City provided $1 million in grants to encourage new retail around the park rather than spending those funds on an unnecessary redesign ....
absolutely agree.