Metro Jacksonville

To all your people in Riverside/Avondale, feel like you know Riverside/Avondale, have a stake in Riverside/Avondale....

What are your honest thoughts of RAP?

Are they "worth" it? Are they a "good" organization? What are the perceived benefits? Costs? Are we happy to have them around? Do they perform a valuable function/service?

Interested what everyone thinks. There's been tons of negative news about RAP in the past 1-3 years. With the recent downfall of SPAR, it would be interested to see where everyone lies on this "issue" (if you could even call it that).

RAP is very beneficial to the neighborhood.  That's really not even a question worth asking.

Don't take disagreement over transportation and parking/zoning issues as anything more than it is. 

I don't disagree, nor do I take them for granted. My question is a little broader than that. To say nobody has issues with RAP would be naive at best. The amount of negativity (on this forum, at least) towards RAP far outweighs the "good things" I read. Transportation and zoning are HUGE issues, and if we have issues with them, how should we remedy them? It seems like RAP is losing membership and running out of innovative ideas to market themselves. Furthermore, I think this Kickbacks/MM debacle has really hampered their ability to present themselves in a positive light. Let's say you had a hypothetical meeting with the "boss"...what would you tell them?

If it weren't for RAP, as I understand it, there would be a freeway through lovely Boone Park, and Riverside/Avondale would not exist as it does today.  I lived in Riverside in the early 1970's when St. Vincents and Riverside Hospital were eating every house in sight, and no one cared much about the old houses.  Don't knock preservation organizations. You may not agree with everything they do, but without them, count on it, no one in the rest of the City would stand up for your neighborhood or care about it.  If you have issues with RAP, let them know.  Get involved and make changes.  But don't make the mistake of thinking they didn't save your neighborhood from what the City did to LaVilla and Brooklyn, and much of downtown, when no one stood up for those areas.  RAP stood up to the "urban renewal" craze and got people interested in historic preservation.

Don't let neighborhood squabbles about parking around restaurants or people complaining about not being able to do whatever they want without restriction completely distract you.  There is a common good.

Quote from: ben says on May 01, 2012, 09:13:07 PM
To all your people in Riverside/Avondale, feel like you know Riverside/Avondale, have a stake in Riverside/Avondale....

What are your honest thoughts of RAP?

Interested what everyone thinks. There's been tons of negative news about RAP in the past 1-3 years. With the recent downfall of SPAR, it would be interested to see where everyone lies on this "issue" (if you could even call it that).

I just got a news letter from SPAR yesterday.
http://secure.campaigner.com/Campaigner/Public/t.show?S1gP--DHBf-pSJU13

Quote from: Debbie Thompson on May 02, 2012, 09:14:11 AM
If it weren't for RAP, as I understand it, there would be a freeway through lovely Boone Park, and Riverside/Avondale would not exist as it does today.  I lived in Riverside in the early 1970's when St. Vincents and Riverside Hospital were eating every house in sight, and no one cared much about the old houses.  Don't knock preservation organizations. You may not agree with everything they do, but without them, count on it, no one in the rest of the City would stand up for your neighborhood or care about it.  If you have issues with RAP, let them know.  Get involved and make changes.  But don't make the mistake of thinking they didn't save your neighborhood from what the City did to LaVilla and Brooklyn, and much of downtown, when no one stood up for those areas.  RAP stood up to the "urban renewal" craze and got people interested in historic preservation.

Don't let neighborhood squabbles about parking around restaurants or people complaining about not being able to do whatever they want without restriction completely distract you.  There is a common good.

+1 Well said.

I'm not RAP bashing, in fact, I like RAP, and think they're a great organization. Maybe I started this thread off on the wrong foot. In an era of dwindling funds, financing, and interest...how can RAP market itself better? I walk around my neighborhood, and by and large, what I hear of RAP is: bashing about transportation, zoning, and the hypocrisy going on with MM and Kickbacks. How can RAP market itself better? Get more financing? More interest?

Furthermore, I don't think a lot of people even know what RAP does..

Outside of seeing RAP signs on the front of houses, and going to RAM a few times a year, not so sure the average citizen living in this neck of the woods knows what the benefit of RAP is.

It's difficult to convey what RAP, SMPS, SPAR, etc does.

Much more than just historic preservation orgs, they're general "catch alls" for their communities and touch commercial, residential, and general QOL issues.

Quote from: Bill Hoff on May 02, 2012, 10:03:20 AM
It's difficult to convey what RAP, SMPS, SPAR, etc does.

Much more than just historic preservation orgs, they're general "catch alls" for their communities and touch commercial, residential, and general QOL issues.

I couldn't agree more. I think therein lies the issue. If I ask someone on the street, "Hey, do you know what RAP does for you?" Most of the time, the answer is "Hmmm, well, come to think of it, I have no idea."

That's what I'm getting at. If RAP marketed itself better to it's own residents, and people actually knew what the hell it did, and all the thoughts on RAP wasn't transportation/zoning, I think we'd all be a little better off.

RAP did a lot of good things in the 1970's.  It's time is past and needs to be disbanded.  RAP does not know what RAP does.

Quote from: Kaiser Soze on May 02, 2012, 10:27:18 AM
RAP does not know what RAP does.

This is what I hear from people inside and outside of the organization. Too disorganized, too all over the place, no clear focus.

I agree wholeheartedly with Debbie.  RAP saved and continues to save R/A from the indifference that many hold regarding historic preservation.  Any city/neighborhood that values its history and succeeds in preserving it, has such an organization in place.

The issues they deal with are by their very nature controversial.  Therefore, there will always be those for and against the  organization, and the issues they take a stand on.   Their job is not to be popular, it is to preserve the unique and worthy elements that made R/A a special place to begin with. 

To think that any neighborhood or city (historic or not), is not going  to experience growing pains and controversy is very naive. There is no utopia where everyone agrees on the way to move forward.

Anyone that doesn't understand RAP and what it does just needs to surf their website for 5-10 minutes or read their publications. It's not rocket science and it is not hidden from view from those that care to take an interest in knowing.   

Quote from: vicupstate on May 02, 2012, 10:50:48 AM
Their job is not to be popular, it is to preserve the unique and worthy elements that made R/A a special place to begin with. 

Bullshit.  Its Historic Preservation's job to preserve the historic elements of Avondale and Riverside.  RAP should be there to help its constituents (i.e., Riverside/Avondale residents) in understanding the historic preservation process.  That's its job.   Unfortunately, instead of assisting residents, it acts as another roadblock.

QuoteIf you have issues with RAP, let them know.  Get involved and make changes.  But don't make the mistake of thinking they didn't save your neighborhood from what the City did to LaVilla and Brooklyn, and much of downtown, when no one stood up for those areas.  RAP stood up to the "urban renewal" craze and got people interested in historic preservation.

What RAP was in the 70s and 80s is so very different than what it has become in our era. But think back about who was living in our area back then and the Avondale Strip or King Street, it was nothing like it is today, yet RAP still has some of curmudgeons who are from the 70s and 80s thinking they can use their influence to restrict change. They cannot any longer and they are afraid of how the area is changing.

What really rubs me the absolute wrong way with RAP and worse with the City Historic Preservation, is that whatever RAP says, goes with the City enforcing it. So you cannot do hardly anything to improve your house in RA without getting a Certificate of Appropriateness first. You cannot even get 1 window replaced in the RA "historic" area, because to get a permit for window in the RA area, you have to have the COA, which means that some bureaucrat (and they know who they are) has the power to knit pick the mullions on a window that I am using as a replacement. Anything requiring a permit has to have a COA with it from RA and the Historic Preservation.

So great that they saved a road from going through Boone Park, they have no evolved into reaching their hands through my spine to tell me how I can fix and improve my house in the "historic" area. Sure, I don't want someone painting their house Neon Glowing Yellow with Rose colored shutters, but telling us how and who we can use for projects is out of line. Some of their power, and that of the City Historic area, needs to be removed and given back to the homeowners, for ultimately we all bitch and moan about properties falling into disrepair, but it stars with the homeowner and we ultimately know what is best for our own house.

I have some great friends on the board of RAP and some wonderful friends who work there, but I guess I really have been rubbed the wrong way by the City and they enforce the RAP COA. Which is why so many people do things to houses with a COA, because RAP and the CITY make it so hard to fix your homes.

Quote from: ben says on May 02, 2012, 10:31:43 AM

Quote from: Kaiser Soze on May 02, 2012, 10:27:18 AM
RAP does not know what RAP does.

This is what I hear from people inside and outside of the organization. Too disorganized, too all over the place, no clear focus.

I assure you, this exact complaint is not unique to RAP. : )

Quote from: Bill Hoff on May 02, 2012, 01:05:14 PM

Quote from: ben says on May 02, 2012, 10:31:43 AM

Quote from: Kaiser Soze on May 02, 2012, 10:27:18 AM
RAP does not know what RAP does.

This is what I hear from people inside and outside of the organization. Too disorganized, too all over the place, no clear focus.

I assure you, this exact complaint is not unique to RAP. : )

Sure, but that does not defend RAP's actions.

We can say that SPAR saved Springfield from the same fate as LaVilla.  And yet, SPAR Council (SPAR and Historic Springfield Community Council merged together) spent years trying to knock down houses with MCCD and that combined with other shenanigans, set Springfield  back a good ten years.  So an organization that once did positives can end up being a big negative.  It is just the people who get involved who make that difference.

RAP is certainly no different.  If you feel that RAP has lost it's way, change the people in charge. Can't get that accomplished?  Then follow Springfield's lead and start a new organization to do what needs done.  Otherwise, live with what you have allowed to happen.

Frankly, from the outside, the only issues I see with RAP at the moment is the commercial development ones.  The entire issue reminds me of SPAR Council a few years ago with the car wash.  Nothing based on fact, just fear mongering at it's best.  People do that, not an organization.  Don't like it?  Change the people.

Glad people are starting to throw some real answers around instead of the "RAP is awesome, can do no wrong, leave them alone!!!"

Quote from: strider on May 02, 2012, 01:27:49 PM
We can say that SPAR saved Springfield from the same fate as LaVilla.  And yet, SPAR Council (SPAR and Historic Springfield Community Council merged together) spent years trying to knock down houses with MCCD and that combined with other shenanigans, set Springfield  back a good ten years.  So an organization that once did positives can end up being a big negative.  It is just the people who get involved who make that difference.

RAP is certainly no different.  If you feel that RAP has lost it's way, change the people in charge. Can't get that accomplished?  Then follow Springfield's lead and start a new organization to do what needs done.  Otherwise, live with what you have allowed to happen.

Frankly, from the outside, the only issues I see with RAP at the moment is the commercial development ones.  The entire issue reminds me of SPAR Council a few years ago with the car wash.  Nothing based on fact, just fear mongering at it's best.  People do that, not an organization.  Don't like it?  Change the people.

I agree about the commercial issues. I also agree with mtrain: it's just too damn hard to get something done when it comes to the outside of your home.

Quote from: Kaiser Soze on May 02, 2012, 01:21:59 PM

Quote from: Bill Hoff on May 02, 2012, 01:05:14 PM

Quote from: ben says on May 02, 2012, 10:31:43 AM

Quote from: Kaiser Soze on May 02, 2012, 10:27:18 AM
RAP does not know what RAP does.

This is what I hear from people inside and outside of the organization. Too disorganized, too all over the place, no clear focus.

I assure you, this exact complaint is not unique to RAP. : )

Sure, but that does not defend RAP's actions.

+1

Over the last several decades RAP and its members have played a huge part in making Riverside-Avondale one of best places to live Florida. They are absolutely a force for good in the neighborhoods and Jax in general. The fact that they sometimes come in on the wrong side (or at least the other side) of a disagreement doesn't undermine all the good they've done and continue to do.

QuoteOver the last several decades RAP and its members have played a huge part in making Riverside-Avondale one of best places to live Florida. They are absolutely a force for good in the neighborhoods and Jax in general. The fact that they sometimes come in on the wrong side (or at least the other side) of a disagreement doesn't undermine all the good they've done and continue to do.

No one is saying destroy RAP, but they have gone to either the extreme left or extreme right and its time for them to come back, closer to the middle and understand that the neighborhood is changing, and there is a ground swell for change and they can either go the way of the do-do bird, SPAR, or embrace change and get out in front of it.

Changing the members in RAP is like re-arranging the deck chairs on the titanic, still have the same issue at City, where they enforce the RAP "suggestions". If you can educate me on how to get civil servants fired, like Ross Perot, I'm all ears.

While it's sometimes hard to understand why the nit picking about a window, it is important to realize maintaining the historic character of a house is important in an historic district.  It can go too far if, as one of my neighbors said at an HPC meeting, it's easier to get a house approved to be torn down in Springfield than it is to get a window approved. 

That said, we in Springfield are having more trouble keeping the bulldozers at bay and away from our historic homes than anything else.  I'd be glad if all we were worried about is what kind of window we could install over here.  And I'd love to have to argue about where people are to park because a restaurant is so popular.  Count your blessings, Riverside/Avondale, and quitcher bitchen about it so much! You could have so much more to worry about.

I see nothing inappropriate about needing an COA to make exterior changes to a home in a historic area.  Who else is to provide that review, the Home Depot sales staff?  If safeguards are not in place, the historic elements can and will be compromised.  You should not expect to receive a permit the day you apply for one in such areas. 

There was no Historic overlay in the '70's and '80's for R/A, so that is not an appropriate comparison.  Do you want to repeal the overlay, and let 'the market' determine what is appropriate? 

There are ways to streamline/standardize approval processes, so that they are not as oneorous.  One way is for RAP to submit to the city examples of designs/styles that are considered appropriate as shown.  If the applicant requests use of one of the pre-approved designs, the city can sign off without further review or votes by boards.  Examples would be windows, fencing, doors, etc.   Of course, there would need to be a sufficient variety within each category.     

There are historic neighborhoods all over the country and these issues are universal among them, study the ones that do the best job and steal their ideas.   

Quote from: Debbie Thompson on May 02, 2012, 02:53:52 PM
While it's sometimes hard to understand why the nit picking about a window, it is important to realize maintaining the historic character of a house is important in an historic district.  It can go too far if, as one of my neighbors said at an HPC meeting, it's easier to get a house approved to be torn down in Springfield than it is to get a window approved. 

That said, we in Springfield are having more trouble keeping the bulldozers at bay and away from our historic homes than anything else.  I'd be glad if all we were worried about is what kind of window we could install over here.  And I'd love to have to argue about where people are to park because a restaurant is so popular.  Count your blessings, Riverside/Avondale, and quitcher bitchen about it so much! You could have so much more to worry about.

+1,000

QuoteThat said, we in Springfield are having more trouble keeping the bulldozers at bay and away from our historic homes than anything else.  I'd be glad if all we were worried about is what kind of window we could install over here.  And I'd love to have to argue about where people are to park because a restaurant is so popular.  Count your blessings, Riverside/Avondale, and quitcher bitchen about it so much! You could have so much more to worry about.

Debbie - Maybe you have hit on the key to a thriving neighborhood. Its not the people in the homes, its the business that the people support. Main Street has slowly decayed and moved further and further out, along with it the people too. While Avondale and Riverside maintain people, and a mix of new people and old, the area has begun to thrive. Perhaps Springfield is looking for more of a mix of new and young. Personally, I would never live there, my father had a duplex for sale for many years on Liberty and I remember helping him fix it and I was scared of the area back then. I have no problem walking my dog around Avondale, no fear, yet. With our mix of new and old, we have new commercial coming to the area. Maybe Springfield needs more commercial to bring more people to its table?

The window issue is a big one to me, any change to the integrity of the outside of your house will cause you to receive a call from Code Enforcement. The secret old fogeys are out looking for ways to stop change in the neighborhood.

QuoteOf course, there would need to be a sufficient variety within each category.     

LOL! Yeah, RAP has some lovely copies of copies of copies of pictures of the way your house looked like, sometime close to when it was built. Between the dark and light splotches, you can make out bits an pieces of the front of the way your house looked, sort of.

If your house did not have a white roof when constructed, sorry, even though white may repel more heat and drive down the electricity use for more efficiency, you cannot have white shingles on your roof. If your house did not have a metal roof, sorry, you need to put back the shingles, even though many of the metal/plastic roofs last longer than shingles and are better for the economy.

What was good for the neighborhood in the 70s and 80s has not kept pace with the changes to energy efficiency. So those old leaky windows have to be replaced with the same old wooden windows, with the same mullion panels, its almost as if Riverside and Avondale is like living in a Condo where all the faces must look the same. Its such a draconian area when it comes to change. No wonder all the old biddies are having a conniption fit to the Kickback's and MM controversies. They see this as the first wave to change to RAP, and rightly they should.

No one is saying throw out RAP, all I am saying is come back closer to the middle and work with people instead of saying its Our (RAP) way or go to Springfield.

Quote from: vicupstate on May 02, 2012, 02:58:19 PM
There are ways to streamline/standardize approval processes, so that they are not as oneorous.  One way is for RAP to submit to the city examples of designs/styles that are considered appropriate as shown.

I don't want RAP involved with a determination as to what is or is not historically accurate.

Look, I don't care one way or the other, mostly I'm just stirring the pot on this one.  Enjoy.

QuoteIf your house did not have a white roof when constructed, sorry, even though white may repel more heat and drive down the electricity use for more efficiency, you cannot have white shingles on your roof. If your house did not have a metal roof, sorry, you need to put back the shingles, even though many of the metal/plastic roofs last longer than shingles and are better for the economy.

If you're worried about UV repellent for your roof, ILO white shingles, you can install the mylar-backed insulation panels in your attic or even go with a spray in closed-cel foam.  They didn't have that option when your house was built.

I wouldn't worry too much about shingles lasting longer or being better than metal.  With each you can get up to a 50 year warranty and just over 85% recycled content.  It's strictly aesthetic.

QuoteWhat was good for the neighborhood in the 70s and 80s has not kept pace with the changes to energy efficiency. So those old leaky windows have to be replaced with the same old wooden windows, with the same mullion panels, its almost as if Riverside and Avondale is like living in a Condo where all the faces must look the same.

Sounds more like money's the issue.  You can still buy custom windows with limitless possibilities on mullion arrangement and sticking profiles.  And don't worry, you would have zero problem getting a custom manufacturer to install the Low E, Double Insulated glass that you so desperately crave.

Quote
No one is saying throw out RAP, all I am saying is come back closer to the middle and work with people instead of saying its Our (RAP) way or go to Springfield.

No one is saying that Pella has all your window ansewers and that what you do under the facade of your home is up to you.  Before giving up on RAP maybe everyone should start looking for some other options.

And the pot is stirred.

QuoteBefore giving up on RAP maybe everyone should start looking for some other options.

Again, NOT GIVING UP ON RAP, but I would like to see RAP move off their our way or no way pendulum.

If you need work done with a permit in RAP land, you have to have a COA first. The office of permits will laugh at you, and they have to me, if you don't have one first. Or do the work off the books and hope you don't get caught, as if anyone does that in this day and age....

Quote from: mtraininjax on May 02, 2012, 03:50:26 PM

QuoteBefore giving up on RAP maybe everyone should start looking for some other options.

Again, NOT GIVING UP ON RAP, but I would like to see RAP move off their our way or no way pendulum.

If you need work done with a permit in RAP land, you have to have a COA first. The office of permits will laugh at you, and they have to me, if you don't have one first. Or do the work off the books and hope you don't get caught, as if anyone does that in this day and age....

I highly doubt if you came in with a design from a custom window maker that they would laugh you out.  And $$$ wise, I haven't had extensive practice costing out windows, but say you were to re-do your entire front elevatoin, you could probably have a custom shop get the price comparable to Pella or Anderson.

With regards to the roofing, they are only concerned with the outward appearance, so I can understand why they would be against using metal over shingle, or shingle over terra cotta, etc.   But you should have ZERO problem correcting the insulation differences via the new methods we have that weren't available even a decade ago. 

You want solar panels for your home?  They make shingles with photovoltaic cells, now.  I would assume that the genius behind it was a free thinker trapped in an HOA subdivision.

Solar Water Heater?  During your next re-roof, they'll install the panels, much like a radiator, between the trusses and under the sheathing.  All concealed.

QuoteI highly doubt if you came in with a design from a custom window maker that they would laugh you out.  And $$$ wise, I haven't had extensive practice costing out windows, but say you were to re-do your entire front elevatoin, you could probably have a custom shop get the price comparable to Pella or Anderson.

This is the severity of the craziness, if your windows are wood, you must have wood mullions. You cannot add non-wood mullions to the window, as it would violate the COA. They laugh at you at the Permit office if you should up for a permit without a COA in this historic district. What if I want to use non-wood options, too bad son, you are SOL!

QuoteSolar Water Heater?

Why bother, natural gas is a deal right now with far fewer headaches.

I have the JEA insulation of 18-24 inches in the attic. Problem is that the idiots who added our roof 20-30 years ago never heard of a ridgeline vent to allow the heat, as it rises, to escape. So the heat builds and builds and builds, yes I could turn my old attic fan into a venting option when the heat gets above 120 degrees, but then I run the risk of sucking out all the new JEA insulation. So I am pretty much waiting for oil to drop down so I can get a new roof, with my beautiful COA, dipped in gold for the hacks at the City.

Quote from: mtraininjax on May 02, 2012, 04:17:51 PM
This is the severity of the craziness, if your windows are wood, you must have wood mullions. You cannot add non-wood mullions to the window, as it would violate the COA. They laugh at you at the Permit office if you should up for a permit without a COA in this historic district. What if I want to use non-wood options, too bad son, you are SOL!

I don't think that I fully understand the issue here?  You have wood and want vinyl/fiberglass?  With vinyl, I undersatnd RAPs position.  They're nondescript windows with flat mulls and look kinda cheesy, IMO.

You have several different options with fiberglass windows, including full customization of window patterns, glazing material and mullion profiles.  You would have to go with a national distrubutor, but you should be able to find identical windows that match the rest of your home.

QuoteI have the JEA insulation of 18-24 inches in the attic. Problem is that the idiots who added our roof 20-30 years ago never heard of a ridgeline vent to allow the heat, as it rises, to escape. So the heat builds and builds and builds, yes I could turn my old attic fan into a venting option when the heat gets above 120 degrees, but then I run the risk of sucking out all the new JEA insulation. So I am pretty much waiting for oil to drop down so I can get a new roof, with my beautiful COA, dipped in gold for the hacks at the City.

Can't you just pull a permit to have the roofing contractor add the ridge vents?

  I highly doubt that the attic fan would pull the insulation, but if it's truly a concern, you cover it with a netting to prevent it from escaping.  If your fan does pull the insulation, I would be more concerned with the shear force that bad boy is putting on the house.  Did you use the fan off of your:

(http://blogcentral.timesheraldonline.com/picture_this/08-13%20Fan%20boat.jpg)   ;D

QuoteThey're nondescript windows with flat mulls and look kinda cheesy, IMO.

The aging RAP members driving by at 30 mph will be able  to tell the difference, I am sure of it. Get real!

The house came with the attic fan, the monster attic fan, an antique itself. No need to start a fire, just let it sit and be, as part of the house.

My roof is due to be replaced this year or next, so we'll just add vents when it is done.

QuoteI don't think that I fully understand the issue here?

I want the option, the choice to manage the house as I can 1) afford it, and 2) make it more energy efficient.  Finding wood windows is not a problem, being able to afford them when you have 50 windows in your house, is another.

Quote from: strider on May 02, 2012, 01:27:49 PM
We can say that SPAR saved Springfield from the same fate as LaVilla.  And yet, SPAR Council (SPAR and Historic Springfield Community Council merged together) spent years trying to knock down houses with MCCD and that combined with other shenanigans, set Springfield  back a good ten years.  So an organization that once did positives can end up being a big negative.  It is just the people who get involved who make that difference.

RAP is certainly no different.  If you feel that RAP has lost it's way, change the people in charge. Can't get that accomplished?  Then follow Springfield's lead and start a new organization to do what needs done.  Otherwise, live with what you have allowed to happen.

Frankly, from the outside, the only issues I see with RAP at the moment is the commercial development ones.  The entire issue reminds me of SPAR Council a few years ago with the car wash.  Nothing based on fact, just fear mongering at it's best.  People do that, not an organization.  Don't like it?  Change the people.

Set back 10 years? That is totally revisionist. During that time millions of dollars were invested in the neighborhood and more progress was made than ever. Stop grinding your axe man. RAP proves that no matter how well a organization functions there will always be criticisism. There is no better neighborhood organization in Jacksonville than RAP period. It was said before that it comes with the territory. Unhappy people are loud people. Unhappy people have the option of getting involved or complaining. Get invoklved http://www.riversideavondale.org/index.php?s=involved

Quote
The aging RAP members driving by at 30 mph will be able  to tell the difference, I am sure of it. Get real!

Aesthetics.  The neighbor walking the dog down the street will.  Then he'll want to replace his windows with the new, efficient style, but he doesn't have quite as much as you, so he ends up putting in a vinyl version with a different mull pattern, say a 4 over 4.  Then the next guy puts in an aluminum version of a 4 over 4.  Then the last guy just puts in the rotm 1 over 1 white aluminum window.  You know, to save money.

This is a point that I would agree wholly with RAP on.

QuoteI want the option, the choice to manage the house as I can 1) afford it, and 2) make it more energy efficient.  Finding wood windows is not a problem, being able to afford them when you have 50 windows in your house, is another.

Have you had someone quote you to just replace the glass?  The awesome thing about the old windows to historians is the wavy glass that doesn't do shit to keep hot or cold out or in.  But....  All of the glass is held in with the old fashioned glazing (in most cases).  You can cut out each lite panel and replace it with the LowE insulated glass without having to rip out the entire window.  It can be done without a permit - it's a repair, not a replacement.   There.  Problem solved.

Heard it all before but the facts still do not agree. I looks like RAP is the next neighborhood organization in the crosshairs which is too bad. This is the solution to your heartache http://www.riversideavondale.org/index.php?s=involved

Agree

Quote from: John P on May 02, 2012, 04:54:44 PM

Quote from: strider on May 02, 2012, 01:27:49 PM
We can say that SPAR saved Springfield from the same fate as LaVilla.  And yet, SPAR Council (SPAR and Historic Springfield Community Council merged together) spent years trying to knock down houses with MCCD and that combined with other shenanigans, set Springfield  back a good ten years.  So an organization that once did positives can end up being a big negative.  It is just the people who get involved who make that difference.

RAP is certainly no different.  If you feel that RAP has lost it's way, change the people in charge. Can't get that accomplished?  Then follow Springfield's lead and start a new organization to do what needs done.  Otherwise, live with what you have allowed to happen.

Frankly, from the outside, the only issues I see with RAP at the moment is the commercial development ones.  The entire issue reminds me of SPAR Council a few years ago with the car wash.  Nothing based on fact, just fear mongering at it's best.  People do that, not an organization.  Don't like it?  Change the people.

Set back 10 years? That is totally revisionist. During that time millions of dollars were invested in the neighborhood and more progress was made than ever. Stop grinding your axe man. RAP proves that no matter how well a organization functions there will always be criticisism. There is no better neighborhood organization in Jacksonville than RAP period. It was said before that it comes with the territory. Unhappy people are loud people. Unhappy people have the option of getting involved or complaining. Get invoklved http://www.riversideavondale.org/index.php?s=involved

When any organization, regardless of its good intentions, sells out for the dollars, and make no mistake, SPAR Council undoubtedly did that, then the entire community suffers.   It suffers from the lack of new business because the new business that tries to open gets told it can't, or worse, is publicly ridiculed for even trying.  It suffers because the community spends the majority of its precious resources fighting battles it is destined never to win and it pits resident against resident.   When a developer spends his money, he expects his wishes to be served. In Springfield, they were.  What most did not realize at the time was that it wasn't at the poor peoples expense, it was at their, the upwardly mobile middle classes, expense.  When those values were overly and artificially inflated, who paid that price? 

Those are the facts of Springfield from about 2002 to 2011.  I am probably being being optimistic about the ten year set back.  Not talking about what was done, because of course, things were accomplished, but I am certainly talking about all the things that never were because people were too busy calling each other names and not worrying about if SPAR Council was putting out real and correct information or just making it up as they went along.  Or perhaps they should have been worrying about the gross number of houses taken down by either MCCD or the good members of SPAR Council, all with SPAR Council's approval, of course.  Any doubt that this type of issue sets back the real development of a community?

The good news is that for 2012, there is a spirit of working together again.  The path is still a bit precarious, but it is there  and we are indeed moving forward.

The point of this within this thread and RAP is that the same  "sound bites" have been heard from RAP and some of  it's membership against things as we have heard from SPAR Council .  The mind set might be the same.  If nothing else is to be learned from the bad decade of SPAR Council and Springfield, it should be that working towards negative things and negative goals (IE, Against everything not in your "Click" and that you do not understand  and fear) ends in sadness.  It is working in positive ways that actually moves a community forward.  The old help not hinder approach.

It is important to note that RAP does not and never will set the standards under which things are approved or not approved for a COA. They can only advise.  Now, in the past, the HPC listened because, for instance, Bill Leuthood served on both RAP's design and review and the HPC.  However, Bill was, at least when I was there, a voice of reason.

Basically, if you allowed RAP to get HPC to disapproval something that was legal per the guidelines (please note, the overlay has nothing to do with the guidelines) then the fault lies with the applicant for not doing his homework and not having the common sense to stand up and say what the guidelines allow and that his choices were indeed within the guidelines.  Now, if the applicant ignores the guidelines when making his choice of windows, for instance, how could anyone expect the outcome to be nothing but not approved.

All the information one needs to make the intelligent choices is available directly from the Historic Planning Department. Those are the folks you really need to win over, not RAP or SPAR Council.

Quote from: strider on May 02, 2012, 06:55:38 PM
All the information one needs to make the intelligent choices is available directly from the Historic Planning Department. Those are the folks you really need to win over, not RAP or SPAR Council.

You mean these people?

Joel McEachin
City Planner Manager
Phone (904) 255-7835
mceachin@coj.net

Lisa Sheppard
City Planner III
Phone (904) 255-7843
Sheppard@coj.net

Autumn Martinage
City Planner I
Phone (904) 255-7849
ATucker@coj.net

Samantha Paull
City Planner I
Phone (904) 255-7852
spaull@coj.net

Scherrie Reed
Clerical Support Aide III
Phone (904) 255-7859
Scherrie@coj.net

Martin Kennelly
Historic Preservation Code Inspector
Phone (904) 255-7862
Kennelly@coj.net

Staff is always helpful if you are within the guidelines; if not, prepare to convince these folks:
Jacksonville Historic Preservation Commission

J. Richard Moore, Jr., Chairman
Mr. Moore is an attorney and is a partner in the law firm of Rahaim, Watson, Dearing & Moore, P.A. He is a past President of the San Marco Preservation Society (2007-2008). He has served on the Commission since 2008 and has served as Chairman since July 2011.

Angela Schifanella, Vice Chairman
Ms. Schifanella is an architect that also lives in the Avondale area. She has served on the Commission since 2008 and has served as Vice Chairman since July 2011.

Jennifer Mansfield, Secretary
Ms. Mansfield is an attorney and is a partner in the law firm of Holland & Knight, P.A. She is a resident of Riverside and restored her home. She is a former Chair of the Design Review Committee of Riverside Avondale Preservation, Inc. (RAP). She has served on the Commission since 2010 and has served as Secretary since July 2011.

Joseph F. Thompson
Mr. Thompson is an architect and is employed by Gresham, Smith, & Partners. He is also a LEED AP®. He has served on the Commission since 2006 and is a past Chairman of the Commission.

David B. Case
Mr. Case is an architect and is employed by Richard Skinner & Associates. He is also a LEED AP®. He has served on the Commission since 2008 and is a past Chairman of the Commission.

John Allmand
Mr. Allmand is an architect and is also a LEED AP®. He also serves as the current President of the Murray Hill Preservation Association. He has served on the Commission since 2010.

Yep and yep.  Except that in the past year, staff has been given more broad leeway in determining things rather than sending everything to HPC.  A good thing as if you are asking for things within the guidelines ( and you should be), many times staff can handle that COA which saves you time and money.   The current cost to take something to the HPC is $270.00 to $370.00.  It is doubled if you fail to get that COA to start with and you are obviously going to have to take it to the HPC even if it was something you could have gotten the free staff approval for.

About windows:  There is going to be a "Windows 101" seminar at Restore Jacksonville Conference on Saturday morning.

Old windows can be easily retrofitted to more energy efficient.  Double panes in Florida are a waste of money as far as energy savings go.  Old glass can be fitted with clear film that makes the pane Low-E.

The real energy problem with our old windows is that they leak air like crazy.  Over the years the wood has shrunk and worn.

I'm going to go to the window seminar to find out how to properly weatherstrip my old windows to stop the air infiltration.

I wanted to replace a 10-foot tall fence in my backyard with an 8-foot tall fence in order to at least come close to my neighbors' fences.  You would have thought I was tearing down my house.  Staff actually told me that shorter fences in the backyard were necessary because the houses were designed to allow neighbors' to look into each others' houses.  I shit you not.  Oh, RAP opposed me.

Quote from: Kaiser Soze on May 03, 2012, 09:53:21 AM
I wanted to replace a 10-foot tall fence in my backyard with an 8-foot tall fence in order to at least come close to my neighbors' fences.  You would have thought I was tearing down my house.  Staff actually told me that shorter fences in the backyard were necessary because the houses were designed to allow neighbors' to look into each others' houses.  I shit you not.  Oh, RAP opposed me.

???

Why seek their approval anyway? I have learned after living in Springfield for a few years that some don't have to follow the rules, they do whatever the hell they want to their houses, add-ons, trailers, etc. and nothing happens. So i have decided I will do whatever I want.

Quote from: fsujax on May 03, 2012, 10:01:24 AM
Why seek their approval anyway? I have learned after living in Springfield for a few years that some don't have to follow the rules, they do whatever the hell they want to their houses, add-ons, trailers, etc. and nothing happens. So i have decided I will do whatever I want.

Because the City will exercise its enforcement powers and require you to remove whatever you installed.

well, it hasnt happend in Springfield. It's funny how they chose who to go after and who to ignore.

But you say you have a 10' fence. 

You want an 8' fence.

RAP thinks it needs to be ___________.

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 03, 2012, 10:10:16 AM
But you say you have a 10' fence. 

You want an 8' fence.

RAP thinks it needs to be ___________.

Four

I'm pretty sure the people on the corner of St. Johns and Talbot just erected a 6' fence- it definitely wasn't 4'.  They went through the COA process.  Who at RAP told you it had to be 4'?

Quote from: cline on May 03, 2012, 10:21:17 AM
I'm pretty sure the people on the corner of St. Johns and Talbot just erected a 6' fence- it definitely wasn't 4'.  They went through the COA process.  Who at RAP told you it had to be 4'?

You make a good point.  Some people don't know what the codes actually say, or are confusing it with something else in the code.  It is a good idea to ask the person in question to show you the text they are quoting from.  If they can't they really don't have a leg to stand on.

Quote from: cline on May 03, 2012, 10:21:17 AM
I'm pretty sure the people on the corner of St. Johns and Talbot just erected a 6' fence- it definitely wasn't 4'.  They went through the COA process.  Who at RAP told you it had to be 4'?

You can have six feet in the back yard, but the front yard must be 4 feet.  The fence at my house extends from the front edge of my house to the property boundary then to the back fence.  Staff said the front portion (its about 10-feet in length) must be 4 feet tall.  I was fine with that.  But staff also wanted the first half of my backyard fence to also be 4' because it could be seen from the road.

I called RAP to discuss.  No one ever called back.  Yet they showed up an opposed what I was asking for, which was four feet in the front, four feet at the turn with a gradual increase to 10 feet.  This was four years ago, pre Carmen.

Quote from: vicupstate on May 03, 2012, 10:30:55 AM

Quote from: cline on May 03, 2012, 10:21:17 AM
I'm pretty sure the people on the corner of St. Johns and Talbot just erected a 6' fence- it definitely wasn't 4'.  They went through the COA process.  Who at RAP told you it had to be 4'?

You make a good point.  Some people don't know what the codes actually say, or are confusing it with something else in the code.  It is a good idea to ask the person in question to show you the text they are quoting from.  If they can't they really don't have a leg to stand on.

http://www.coj.net/departments/planning-and-development/docs/community-planning-division/default/final-fencing-guidelines-policies.aspx (http://www.coj.net/departments/planning-and-development/docs/community-planning-division/default/final-fencing-guidelines-policies.aspx)

It appears that you could have asked for a fence higher than 6' with approval.  Is that what you did and RAP opposed it, and then the board voted it down? 

Quote from: vicupstate on May 03, 2012, 10:40:57 AM
It appears that you could have asked for a fence higher than 6' with approval.  Is that what you did and RAP opposed it, and then the board voted it down?

Yes, RAP and City staff opposed.  Board approved a compromise.

My point is this.  We bought a beautiful old home that needed a ton of work.  I'm a Jax native from this area and was excited about working on an older home.  First job was the 10' fence that was rotten at the bottom and held vertical with vines.  Call RAP.  No return call.  Call again and leave a message with details of my plans.  Again, no response.  Have HPC hearing on COA.  RAP rep shows up, does not say a word to me, but gets up there and fights like hell in opposition to my plan.

Is that what RAP is about?  It is in my eyes and in the eyes of many other folks in this area.  They should be helping the folks in this neighborhood.  Unfortunately, that has not been my experience.

Just curious, did you call or meet and discuss your plans with a city planner before submitting the COA?

Quote from: cline on May 03, 2012, 10:55:09 AM
Just curious, did you call or meet and discuss your plans with a city planner before submitting the COA?

I discussed with a planner on HP staff when I submitted the COA. 

Quote from: Kaiser Soze on May 03, 2012, 11:00:52 AM

Quote from: cline on May 03, 2012, 10:55:09 AM
Just curious, did you call or meet and discuss your plans with a city planner before submitting the COA?

I discussed with a planner on HP staff when I submitted the COA. 

Well that sucks.  Presumably, city staff would advise you during the COA application so that everything is in order so that when it gets to HPC there are no issues.  It sounds like that's what you tried.  That's frustrating.

Quote from: cline on May 03, 2012, 11:23:55 AM

Quote from: Kaiser Soze on May 03, 2012, 11:00:52 AM

Quote from: cline on May 03, 2012, 10:55:09 AM
Just curious, did you call or meet and discuss your plans with a city planner before submitting the COA?

I discussed with a planner on HP staff when I submitted the COA. 

Well that sucks.  Presumably, city staff would advise you during the COA application so that everything is in order so that when it gets to HPC there are no issues.  It sounds like that's what you tried.  That's frustrating.

I was not near as frustrated with the City staff as I was RAP.

Quote from: fsujax on May 03, 2012, 10:01:24 AM
Why seek their approval anyway? I have learned after living in Springfield for a few years that some don't have to follow the rules, they do whatever the hell they want to their houses, add-ons, trailers, etc. and nothing happens. So i have decided I will do whatever I want.

well, it hasnt happend in Springfield. It's funny how they chose who to go after and who to ignore.

No, it isn't funny.  Many "cool kids", those that sided with SPAR Council's various hate campaigns, often seemed immune to those enforcement issues. They did what they wanted when they wanted. Including getting permission (or not, in at least one case) to tear down a house. 

There are many, many folks out there who are in the system  and who have been taken to task not because they failed to get a COA but because someone decided something they did was beyond their COA.  In one case, it was clearly not because what the person was doing was bad but because that person has foster kids. The threads are here and on  MySpringfield.  We are perhaps the contractor least likely to do something against the guidelines and yet we get called in to Martin Kennelly several times a project.  Not because of what we are doing, but because of who we are.  And once called out, the inspector often feels he has to find something or he isn't doing his job. So some little thing that means nothing becomes something.  You just can't let things get to you, you simply need to know the codes and the rules and all is OK in the end.  This is the end result of any complaint driven system.  It gets abused by those with an ax to grind.

Things are getting better in Springfield. If these issues are also in Riverside/ Avondale, then you just have to do your homework and then set out to change the people who control RAP.  Or start a new org.  If you remove the existing organizations power base, then they can not do harm anymore.  First though, you have to identify what the issues really are.  In RAP's case, it seems to be the commercial development issues and secondly the concentration on the little details and losing sight of the real and larger picture.  Common among all who deal with and work in the historic departments.  That is why there are hours spent on the window mullions while a demolition decision about a house in Springfield was often over in minutes.  Priorities often get a bit mixed up and that is what you need to try to change.

Quote from: Kaiser Soze on May 03, 2012, 10:35:08 AM

Quote from: cline on May 03, 2012, 10:21:17 AM
I'm pretty sure the people on the corner of St. Johns and Talbot just erected a 6' fence- it definitely wasn't 4'.  They went through the COA process.  Who at RAP told you it had to be 4'?

You can have six feet in the back yard, but the front yard must be 4 feet.  The fence at my house extends from the front edge of my house to the property boundary then to the back fence.  Staff said the front portion (its about 10-feet in length) must be 4 feet tall.  I was fine with that.  But staff also wanted the first half of my backyard fence to also be 4' because it could be seen from the road.

I called RAP to discuss.  No one ever called back.  Yet they showed up an opposed what I was asking for, which was four feet in the front, four feet at the turn with a gradual increase to 10 feet.  This was four years ago, pre Carmen.

Four years ago, RAP was a very different organization. Its Executive Director, Bonnie Grissett, had been there for almost two decades and was the sole employee; she was, understandably, overwhelmed at times by the workload, and didn't always get back to the folks who called. The Design Review committee, whose members were tasked with attending the JHPC meetings to voice RAP's opposition or support for a particular project, was an odd mix of realtors, zoning gurus, and, yes, old biddies. Now the Design Review process has been revamped to be more homeowner-centric (i.e. offering guidance and help rather than unwelcome opinions and obstruction), and is under the able purview of Laura Lavernia, RAP's Preservation and Education Coordinator, who really knows her stuff. I can certainly understand your frustration over what happened four years ago, but I can tell you from first-hand experience that, under Carmen, RAP is a different and decidedly better organization.

Quote from: grimss on May 03, 2012, 11:40:52 AM

Quote from: Kaiser Soze on May 03, 2012, 10:35:08 AM

Quote from: cline on May 03, 2012, 10:21:17 AM
I'm pretty sure the people on the corner of St. Johns and Talbot just erected a 6' fence- it definitely wasn't 4'.  They went through the COA process.  Who at RAP told you it had to be 4'?

You can have six feet in the back yard, but the front yard must be 4 feet.  The fence at my house extends from the front edge of my house to the property boundary then to the back fence.  Staff said the front portion (its about 10-feet in length) must be 4 feet tall.  I was fine with that.  But staff also wanted the first half of my backyard fence to also be 4' because it could be seen from the road.

I called RAP to discuss.  No one ever called back.  Yet they showed up an opposed what I was asking for, which was four feet in the front, four feet at the turn with a gradual increase to 10 feet.  This was four years ago, pre Carmen.

Four years ago, RAP was a very different organization. Its Executive Director, Bonnie Grissett, had been there for almost two decades and was the sole employee; she was, understandably, overwhelmed at times by the workload, and didn't always get back to the folks who called. The Design Review committee, whose members were tasked with attending the JHPC meetings to voice RAP's opposition or support for a particular project, was an odd mix of realtors, zoning gurus, and, yes, old biddies. Now the Design Review process has been revamped to be more homeowner-centric (i.e. offering guidance and help rather than unwelcome opinions and obstruction), and is under the able purview of Laura Lavernia, RAP's Preservation and Education Coordinator, who really knows her stuff. I can certainly understand your frustration over what happened four years ago, but I can tell you from first-hand experience that, under Carmen, RAP is a different and decidedly better organization.

From where I sit, RAP has moved beyond historic preservation and into traffic planning.

Preserving a neighborhood is more than just preserving the buildings. 

RAP is also taking JEA to task for the way Lewis Tree Service butchers the tree canopy in the area, for example.  They worked with JSO and the merchants in 5 Points to clean up the graffiti in the area and keep it off.  They make available a MP3 format self-quided tour of the district.  They put on Luminria and support the 5 Points Wine Festival so that there are fun activities that draw people to the area.

Strider, The two examples I am thinking of probably don't even know that SPAR exists, and I assure they aren't part of the "cool kids" crowd that you are referring to. Somone needed to go after JEA and their moron tree trimmers! good for RAP.

Quote from: stephendare on May 03, 2012, 01:25:41 PM

Quote from: Kaiser Soze on May 03, 2012, 11:42:31 AM

Quote from: grimss on May 03, 2012, 11:40:52 AM

Quote from: Kaiser Soze on May 03, 2012, 10:35:08 AM

Quote from: cline on May 03, 2012, 10:21:17 AM
I'm pretty sure the people on the corner of St. Johns and Talbot just erected a 6' fence- it definitely wasn't 4'.  They went through the COA process.  Who at RAP told you it had to be 4'?

You can have six feet in the back yard, but the front yard must be 4 feet.  The fence at my house extends from the front edge of my house to the property boundary then to the back fence.  Staff said the front portion (its about 10-feet in length) must be 4 feet tall.  I was fine with that.  But staff also wanted the first half of my backyard fence to also be 4' because it could be seen from the road.

I called RAP to discuss.  No one ever called back.  Yet they showed up an opposed what I was asking for, which was four feet in the front, four feet at the turn with a gradual increase to 10 feet.  This was four years ago, pre Carmen.

Four years ago, RAP was a very different organization. Its Executive Director, Bonnie Grissett, had been there for almost two decades and was the sole employee; she was, understandably, overwhelmed at times by the workload, and didn't always get back to the folks who called. The Design Review committee, whose members were tasked with attending the JHPC meetings to voice RAP's opposition or support for a particular project, was an odd mix of realtors, zoning gurus, and, yes, old biddies. Now the Design Review process has been revamped to be more homeowner-centric (i.e. offering guidance and help rather than unwelcome opinions and obstruction), and is under the able purview of Laura Lavernia, RAP's Preservation and Education Coordinator, who really knows her stuff. I can certainly understand your frustration over what happened four years ago, but I can tell you from first-hand experience that, under Carmen, RAP is a different and decidedly better organization.

From where I sit, RAP has moved beyond historic preservation and into traffic planning.

Unarguable.  What makes it worse is that the policies that they are pushing will end up destroying historic fabric, and preventing a true restored historic commercial/residential outcome.

Stephen, while I see what you're saying, and more or less agree, could you please explain how these "policies...are preventing a true restored historic commercial/residential outcome."?

Quote from: vicupstate on May 03, 2012, 10:40:57 AM
It appears that you could have asked for a fence higher than 6' with approval.  Is that what you did and RAP opposed it, and then the board voted it down?

The fencing guidelines have various gaps and needs to be revised, ideally. SPAR met with Planning Dept last year to clarify a few things and it was evident that this particular subject needs an update.

Forgot!  RAP is also behind the move to put community gardens across the street from the Willowbranch Library and RAP started RAM, which has to be one of the most successful efforts to help businesses, local farmers, artists and budding restaurateurs to happen in Jacksonville in many years.

QuoteRAP is also taking JEA to task for the way Lewis Tree Service butchers the tree canopy in the area, for example.

Yeah, good luck with that. By the time you get to the tree butchers, they have inflicted the damage, and then the contractor hides behind JEA as the ones who "told them what to do". JEA should do their own dirty work, or at the least, have representatives onsite with the butchers to address community issues.

QuoteRiverside Avondale is in the final stages of the aesthetic restoration of residential structures which pleases the narrow concerns of the architectural enthusiasts in the neighborhood.

+1

Stephen, you are preaching to the choir when you say that R/A needs to put streetcars back in; the very element that made it grow in the first place. 

Automobiles were rich men's toys when most of Riverside was built.  Accommodating automobiles here is really difficult and high intensity commercial uses in what were originally very low intensity, local (walking distance) commercial uses puts an even greater burden on the surrounding residential areas.  High intensity commercial uses just aren't compatible with all of the old commercial areas in R/A.  It takes conversion areas like the Publix Plaza and 1661 to deal with those uses.

It's a really tough problem.  We all like the amenities that our neighborhood provides, but don't like the auto centric problems that result from their popularity.  People blocking my driveway are going to make me hostile and I am far from being sensitive about cars parked in front of my house.  Loud horseplay, radio music and door slamming at 3AM aren't real happy making either.  But I sure can't blame them for wanting to enjoy the same places I do.  Can't shout, "Southsiders go home!"  I admire their taste.

Transit, even if we have to start with St. Augustine tourist type trams, is absolutely the best answer and simply must come if we are not to choke on parked cars.  Fixed rail streetcars put back where they were in the first place is the best solution by far.  I hate having to break out the car to go the the Shoppes of Avondale or Fairfax.

But how do we force the solutions to start?  I don't have any answers either.  Start a Riverside/Avondale Transit Authority on our own maybe?  JTA sure isn't helping with any solutions.

QuoteBut how do we force the solutions to start?

Street parking with only one side for parking. Take away the parking, people are forced to resort to other options to get there. As it is now, with cars on both sides of Pine and Riverside, you cannot fit more than 1 car down the road, imagine if Emergency Vehicles needed the access. I don't see the draconian extent that Neptune Beach has gone to of eliminating parking on 1st street after 10 PM, but there will need to be an elimination of parking to drive more pedicab solutions, walking or mass transit.

You could take a 3 block diameter around the epicenter of Ingleside and St. Johns and mandate single side of the street parking. Few people will be willing to walk from almost Herschel or Challen or Shadowlawn to get to the shops. We are a very lazy town, but something like this, imo is coming to the neighborhood. I think the pedicabs would be awesome (like the ones you see at the Jags games and concerts at the arena).

Didn't know they even HAD a traffic and parking committee, but then I don't pay much attention to their inner workings.  I'm not a committee person.  Same as you, I really like and admire a lot of the individuals I know who are involved with RAP, but don't know most of their volunteers.

Quote from: mtraininjax on May 03, 2012, 03:56:55 PM

QuoteBut how do we force the solutions to start?

Street parking with only one side for parking. Take away the parking, people are forced to resort to other options to get there. As it is now, with cars on both sides of Pine and Riverside, you cannot fit more than 1 car down the road, imagine if Emergency Vehicles needed the access. I don't see the draconian extent that Neptune Beach has gone to of eliminating parking on 1st street after 10 PM, but there will need to be an elimination of parking to drive more pedicab solutions, walking or mass transit.

You could take a 3 block diameter around the epicenter of Ingleside and St. Johns and mandate single side of the street parking. Few people will be willing to walk from almost Herschel or Challen or Shadowlawn to get to the shops. We are a very lazy town, but something like this, imo is coming to the neighborhood. I think the pedicabs would be awesome (like the ones you see at the Jags games and concerts at the arena).

Don't you think that would kill many of the very businesses that are attracting the activity before the City would come up with a solution?  I like the idea of making the parking so difficult that solutions would be demanded, but worry about the timing.

QuoteDon't you think that would kill many of the very businesses that are attracting the activity before the City would come up with a solution?

I don't think so, people still go to the beaches in Neptune Beach, even if people cannot park along the street. The area seems to thrive. I see something similar to the no parking on one side, or maybe the City will get crazy and forbid all parking in that zone on the street after a certain time of night. I think Neptune's is 10 PM, then you get a ticket. Hey, the City needs money.

The lot that Frank owns at Bluefish might as well be paved in gold. That is how valuable it has become.

A mobility fee would be a great start.

Quote from: stephendare on May 03, 2012, 03:51:07 PM

Quote from: Dog Walker on May 03, 2012, 03:45:58 PM
Stephen, you are preaching to the choir when you say that R/A needs to put streetcars back in; the very element that made it grow in the first place. 

Automobiles were rich men's toys when most of Riverside was built.  Accommodating automobiles here is really difficult and high intensity commercial uses in what were originally very low intensity, local (walking distance) commercial uses puts an even greater burden on the surrounding residential areas.  High intensity commercial uses just aren't compatible with all of the old commercial areas in R/A.  It takes conversion areas like the Publix Plaza and 1661 to deal with those uses.

It's a really tough problem.  We all like the amenities that our neighborhood provides, but don't like the auto centric problems that result from their popularity.  People blocking my driveway are going to make me hostile and I am far from being sensitive about cars parked in front of my house.  Loud horseplay, radio music and door slamming at 3AM aren't real happy making either.  But I sure can't blame them for wanting to enjoy the same places I do.  Can't shout, "Southsiders go home!"  I admire their taste.

Transit, even if we have to start with St. Augustine tourist type trams, is absolutely the best answer and simply must come if we are not to choke on parked cars.  Fixed rail streetcars put back where they were in the first place is the best solution by far.  I hate having to break out the car to go the the Shoppes of Avondale or Fairfax.

But how do we force the solutions to start?  I don't have any answers either.  Start a Riverside/Avondale Transit Authority on our own maybe?  JTA sure isn't helping with any solutions.

Well you also have a basic problem in as much as the RAP traffic and parking committee is chaired by a person who has personal distaste for transit.

The person has professional credentials, and so RAP at least tried to make good decisions--but the individual is demonstrably mistaken regarding the underlying problems.

Perhaps rethinking the committee would be a good start. ;)

I'm chairing RAP's transportation committee.  And I don't have a personal distaste for transit.  It doesn't help when people post on this board bashing RAP but don't know what is really going on.  I'm pretty sick of it.  For example, no one to my knowledge at a staff or board level has said one word on this forum about Mellow Mushroom, yet RAP is being denigrated for what exactly?   

Quote from: Dog Walker on May 03, 2012, 03:45:58 PM
It's a really tough problem.  We all like the amenities that our neighborhood provides, but don't like the auto centric problems that result from their popularity.  People blocking my driveway are going to make me hostile and I am far from being sensitive about cars parked in front of my house.  Loud horseplay, radio music and door slamming at 3AM aren't real happy making either.  But I sure can't blame them for wanting to enjoy the same places I do.  Can't shout, "Southsiders go home!"  I admire their taste.

Transit, even if we have to start with St. Augustine tourist type trams, is absolutely the best answer and simply must come if we are not to choke on parked cars.  Fixed rail streetcars put back where they were in the first place is the best solution by far.  I hate having to break out the car to go the the Shoppes of Avondale or Fairfax.

But how do we force the solutions to start?  I don't have any answers either.  Start a Riverside/Avondale Transit Authority on our own maybe?  JTA sure isn't helping with any solutions.

+1

Lakelander beat me to it--isn't this what the now-moribund mobility fee was supposed to accomplish?  Place a fee (or tax, though I know that's a dirty word in some quarters) on new businesses opening up in the neighborhood that could be used towards transportation solutions, i.e. a new business opening in the neighborhood (like Mellow Mushroom for example) seeking to profit from that old Riverside/Avondale razzle dazzle has to pay their fair share into a pot that could be used to build or maintain a streetcar line, bike lanes, etc.  Sounds like a good and fair plan to me and one that could also alleviate some of the growing pains of a thriving community from both a business and residential stand point.

Quote from: Kay on May 03, 2012, 05:16:40 PM
I'm chairing RAP's transportation committee.  And I don't have a personal distaste for transit.  It doesn't help when people post on this board bashing RAP but don't know what is really going on.  I'm pretty sick of it.  For example, no one to my knowledge at a staff or board level has said one word on this forum about Mellow Mushroom, yet RAP is being denigrated for what exactly?

How about Kickbacks?  To say that RAP is not inserting itself on various matters regarding the parking issue is false.  And to say that people on this board do not know what's going on is also false.

Stephen,  the individual you are talking about, not Kay, uses a bicycle as his major means of transportation and puts it on the front of JTA buses when he goes downtown.  He is the Chair of the Mayor's Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee and a member of Bike Jacksonville.

I think you may have misinterpreted comments about JTA and the Skyway to indicate distaste for transit in general.

Kaiser,

RAP is not "anti-business", quite the contrary.  What they are is "pro-neighborhood" and very concerned with the impact that mass parking in residential neighborhoods has on every residents quality of life.  They are working hard with the business people to help business grow and succeed without destroying the peace of people living near them.

They could very easily sued the City and had the Kickbacks exemption overturned.  They have some very high-powered and capable attorneys on their board and getting zoning exemptions overturned in court is not difficult.  Instead they chose to work with the owners of Kickbacks to come to a compromise that worked and protects the neighbors as much as possible from adverse impact.

Quote from: Dog Walker on May 03, 2012, 05:58:56 PM
getting zoning exemptions overturned in court is not difficult. 

Really?

Stephen, you don't speak for me and what you've written about my thoughts on transit are total bullshit.

Welcome aboard RAP, let's build a streetcar line! Ready, willing and able to help, let's make this a reality AGAIN!

Quote from: Kaiser Soze on May 03, 2012, 06:12:37 PM

Quote from: Dog Walker on May 03, 2012, 05:58:56 PM
getting zoning exemptions overturned in court is not difficult. 

Really?

Yes, really.  Ask any land use attorney.  It is especially true when the exemption was granted by an appointed board and not voted on by the elected representatives as was the case with Kickbacks.

Quote from: Dog Walker on May 04, 2012, 07:31:52 AM

Quote from: Kaiser Soze on May 03, 2012, 06:12:37 PM

Quote from: Dog Walker on May 03, 2012, 05:58:56 PM
getting zoning exemptions overturned in court is not difficult. 

Really?

Yes, really.  Ask any land use attorney.  It is especially true when the exemption was granted by an appointed board and not voted on by the elected representatives as was the case with Kickbacks.

Whoever told you that is full of crap.  And I have a pretty solid understanding of land use law.

Love the streetcar route.  Would so totally benefit all the historic neighborhoods, even San Marco, as the Skyway would hook up with it.  And the trip would be so cool, people would love riding it.  Springfield, Brooklyn, Riverside AND Avondale would benefit from the route. 

Quote from: Dog Walker on May 03, 2012, 05:58:56 PM
RAP is not "anti-business", quite the contrary.  What they are is "pro-neighborhood" and very concerned with the impact that mass parking in residential neighborhoods has on every residents quality of life.  They are working hard with the business people to help business grow and succeed without destroying the peace of people living near them.

Everyone that moves into Avondale understands that it is a mixed use area (or they should).  It is not a purely residential neighborhood.  If you want a pure residential neighborhood, move to Ortega or Ortega Forest.

As for RAP, if we wanted to be part of a damn HOA, we would have moved somewhere out in the burbs.  Unfortunately, folks like yourself and Kay think RAP speaks for all of us.  Its does not.  It speaks for a minority of RA's residents.  Stop using your historic preservation platform as a bully pulpit to regulate all things under the sun. Its not the purpose for which RAP was created.  Regrettably, too many council members think RAP speaks with the voice of our neighborhood. 

Maybe you should move out of the historic district then, say Ortega Forest.  Mixed use is wonderful and why most of us have moved here.  Doesn't mean that ALL uses are appropriate.

Quote from: Dog Walker on May 04, 2012, 10:56:28 AM
Maybe you should move out of the historic district then, say Ortega Forest.  Mixed use is wonderful and why most of us have moved here.  Doesn't mean that ALL uses are appropriate.

So, its RAP's job to determine what is appropriate???

Again, if I wanted to live in a purely residential neighborhood, I would have bought in Ortega Forest.  Instead, I wanted to live in a mixed use neighborhood.  It does not bother me that Kickback's or Mellow Mushroom want to expand or start something new.  I was aware that that may happen when I purchased my home.

QuoteKay think RAP speaks for all of us.

Wow, talk about a lightening rod.

Quote from: Kay on May 03, 2012, 05:16:40 PM

Quote from: stephendare on May 03, 2012, 03:51:07 PM

Quote from: Dog Walker on May 03, 2012, 03:45:58 PM
Well you also have a basic problem in as much as the RAP traffic and parking committee is chaired by a person who has personal distaste for transit.

I'm chairing RAP's transportation committee.  And I don't have a personal distaste for transit.  It doesn't help when people post on this board bashing RAP but don't know what is really going on.  I'm pretty sick of it.  For example, no one to my knowledge at a staff or board level has said one word on this forum about Mellow Mushroom, yet RAP is being denigrated for what exactly?

Quote from: Debbie Thompson on May 04, 2012, 09:36:26 AM
Love the streetcar route.  Would so totally benefit all the historic neighborhoods, even San Marco, as the Skyway would hook up with it.  And the trip would be so cool, people would love riding it.  Springfield, Brooklyn, Riverside AND Avondale would benefit from the route.

The map has been drawn and redrawn over the last 32 years, but this is the basic idea. I actually prefer, rather then using Park Street from Water to Forest, that we use the original route which would run from Water to Lee to West Bay to Myrtle to Forest, through the original subway. The reason for this is the opportunity to put the streetcars in a position to expand northward into Durkeeville, Moncrief, etc...  From Forest we could jog southward on Riverside to Post, to Oak, to King, to Park. Doing this with the streetcar opens up to west side of Riverside via some future southward extension along Park, Post, or College; and toward Fairfax via the original route from King to St. Johns to Aberdeen to Herschel to FAIRFAX.

Quote

PROPHECY?  "The horse is here to stay but the automobile is only a novelty, a fad.”

- President of Michigan Savings Bank, 1901

Ock:  I'm interested in how we can incorporate the area of Riverside west of Park St.

Initially, a neighborhood shuttle or circulator between the commuter rail corridor on the west side of Park to the streetcar corridor on the east side, complemented by bike corridors.  Perhaps a fixed connector as a part of a larger expansion west of Riverside to neighborhoods like Murray Hill in later phases.

Quote from: stephendare on May 03, 2012, 02:58:13 PM
Cont...

Similarly, RAP seems to be pursuing a strictly limited selection of aesthetics as their entire historic preservation ethos.

Hence the treatment of windows, old photos, roofing materials etc.x

But nothing about the historic methods of dealing with traffic capacity, or the business infrastructure that made the in habitation, elegance, spacious properties and density possible in the first place.

Which is as much of a long term problem as the destruction of Kluthos drainage system in Springfield was.


Riverside Avondale is in the final stages of the aesthetic restoration of residential structures which pleases the narrow concerns of the architectural enthusiasts in the neighborhood.

But in truth the neighborhood is undergoing a restoration which is larger than, and eclipses those narrow definitions.

Riverside and Avondale are right at about half of their former glory once you take in the equally important elements on which the neighborhood was designed----primarily the considerations of industrial/commercial employment centers which creates the residential workforce housing that forms so much of the greater riverside Avondale fabric and the commercial retail and service clusters which served the upper and middle class areas of the area.

In fact there has been a lopsided tilt to the redevelopment and restorations, and the commercial development is generating approximately 30 % of the volume and activity that they did in the past.

For the neighborhood to become completely functional, walkable, self sustaining, and profitable to the residents of these neighborhoods, these commercial properties will have to be restored to their full functions as well.

That has not only not happened, yet, but it faces additional hurdles to overcome inasmuch as so much of this commercial property has been destroyed----so that even if you filled to capacity and highest use every single property that is still standing, you would still only have about eighty percent of the economic power that the neighborhood enjoyed in the past.

There is a balance between density and economic activity that is perilous to ignore, and that balance was seriously challenged by the unsuccessful retrofitting of the neighborhood for an ever increasing burden of automobile traffic.  The neighborhood was never designed for auto centric transit and had to start making choices in the late fifties about the future.

The decision makers of the time chose further retrofitting in favor of the automoble, and the result was the rapid degrading of the historic structural stock to the point that much of the neighborhood was standing on the brink of destruction to make way for the highway which was the ultimate retrofitting of the area.

The policies being pursued by RAP to solve the same problems that emerged much later in the process of neighborhood vitality sixty years in the past will result in the demolition of additional structure to provide parking that streetcars and alternate transportation would render unnecessary.

Not to mention that a new unspoken strategy is being formed.  Simply prevent the economic revitalization and restoration of the commercial districts upon which the neighborhood traditionally depended.

So you see, Bensays, we have been at this juncture before, and last time, our predecessors chose wrongly and inadvertently destroyed the historic neighborhood

Stephen --

Your insight on urban and suburban issues has generally been quite astute, that is, until your pontificating in recent months that the Riverside Avondale Historic District needs more commercial density. I am embarrassed for you that you have spoken with such zeal about that which you are historically so incorrect.

First, Riverside and Avondale were originally built as residential neighborhoods. The three commercial corridors (5 Points, Park and King, and Avondale Shopping Center) were built well after the residential portions of the neighborhood were developed. They were commercial intrusion from the outset. Many great old mansions were torn down to build the 5 Points commercial zone in the 1920s. Park and King was the same, and in fact, King Street still has several of its old residential homes remaining, sprinkled within the commercial district that grew up around them, e.g. next to Kickbacks. Avondale had no commercial businesses whatsoever when it was developed. The Avondale Shopping Center came in the decade after Avondale was developed and on land that was not part of the original Avondale subdivision. Notice the sharp demarcation between residential and commercial at Talbot Street.

Second, Avondale was built for cars, not based on trolleys. The subdivision was marketed to upper income families who had automobiles. Virtually every house had a driveway and a garage. The trolley line which served Ortega was three blocks distant from the Avondale Shopping Center. Angled parking for cars was built into the shopping center, with apparently just the right amount of parking spaces to support the commercial district without having cars spill over into the residential area.

Third, your statement that "Riverside and Avondale are right at about half of their former glory once you take in the equally important elements on which the neighborhood was designed----primarily the considerations of industrial/commercial employment centers" is complete balderdash. You are making assertions that fit your thesis but are opposite from the truth.

Fourth, three of the four founders of RAP were professional transportation planners, and if you would bother to study the history of RAP, you would see that transportation planning has been at the forefront of this organization for over 35 years.

You recently seem bent on trying to prove that intensive commercial development, e.g., Kickbacks and the Mellow Mushroom along with their inherent increase in traffic and parking problems, are not only good for the residential neighborhood but have a manifest birthright to be there. Stop. Riverside and Avondale were originally designed and built as residential neighborhoods. Commercial intrusion has been damaging the the quality of living in these communities for many years, especially in the last five decades, which has resulted in several hundreds homes being demolished.

I thought much higher of you several years ago when you were championing "quality of life" issues for neighborhoods. I apologize if I am mistaken, but it appears to many people that you are currently encouraging businesses to maximize their profits at the expense of those who actually live in the neighborhood.

It would be nice to hear you acknowledge that if it had not been for RAP's thousands of quality-of-life initiatives over the last 35 years, Riverside and Avondale would not be the nationally recognized residential showcases that they are today.

Wayne Wood

Thank you, Dr. Wood.  Your perspective adds a lot to the discussion.  To any discussion, I've found.

I'm very thankful for RAP and its work over the years to preserve and improve the Riverside Avondale area.  I don't agree with every decision or position taken by RAP, but since it's a large group made up of lots of people, it's hard to get them and it to line up with the wishes of every person on every question.  On balance, I agree with RAP more than I disagree.

All this reminds me that my membership has lapsed and I need to renew.  It's painfully easy to criticize something from the sidelines.  If you can do that anonymously on the internet, it's even less (personally) painful and much easier.  The better course of action is to roll up your sleeves and get to work making whatever change you want to see in your neighborhood and city.  Some here are doing that and those who are have much more credibility when they speak on these issues.  IMHO, of course.

Quote from: Jimmy on May 06, 2012, 08:19:31 AM
Thank you, Dr. Wood.  Your perspective adds a lot to the discussion.  To any discussion, I've found.

Amen.

Thanks for your insight Wayne.  This discussion should get pretty interesting.  I'm getting ready for church but I'll chime in with my two cents later this afternoon.

I am certainly no expert in planning nor am I fully informed about the history of Riverside/ Avondale or even Springfield for that matter.  I read Mr. Wood's post with interest as I always felt that Riverside was car based and Avondale certainly looks fully car based.  It make sense when you look at Springfield history.  Prior to cars, the wealthier among the residents owned their own horses and carriages. The move to cars for them was a natural. As roads became more prevalent, the move to “greener pastures” was also natural.  Some of the best houses in Springfield were built by the same people who built those larger houses in Riverside.  Case in point, the gorgeous house at Pearl and 7th.  One of the most often seen pictures of that house shows the owners new car.  Shortly after, the family built in Riverside.  Avondale certainly looks like the car based communities we see all over. Yes, some of the old thinking is there, but isn't that natural?  As community planning progressed to full on car based, some of the old would naturally be carried forward at first.  Just a layman's view of things.

I do have issues with the concern of commercial intrusion.  I think it is part of the natural evolution of a community.  An area, like Springfield, develops as a wealthier residential community.  As time goes by, the area also will welcome the working class as they are needed by the community.  After a while, the density is high enough that commercial enterprises want to come.  By then some of the wealthier have moved on and the big old houses they leave behind become fairly cheap to buy.  Often too expensive to be maintained by the average resident and so they come down for that new commercial that the majority of the residents will welcome.  They welcomed it because it saved them time and money to have that walkable commercial strip.

Many bemoan the loss of the great houses that once lined Main Street in Springfield and yet those same also wish for a great walkable Main Street commercial corridor.  You can't have the latter anywhere (except perhaps a real downtown) without the loss of at least the majority of the houses along those  corridors.  Was Riverside and Avondale really any different?  Is not commercial intrusion nothing but a natural evolutionary process of a community?  Heck, even where I grew up, the wealthy moved in, then the working class and then the commercial.  And it was a real suburb, with 95% of the development coming after WWII. 

It just seems to my layman's eye that the issue is not commercial intrusion, but population and modern transit options. Kickbacks is not a villain out to destroy a community.  It is a business that offers a product that enough residents of Jacksonville want so it seeks to grow. The key difference as I see it is using the term Jacksonville, meaning the whole of the city, as opposed to decades ago the wording would have been most likely the community, meaning the area immediately around the commercial area.  Today, a business like Kickbacks can draw from the Beaches for clientele, not just it's home area.  Heck, if a business can't draw from all of Jacksonville today, it won't survive.  And if areas like Riverside do not have enough successful commercial, it ends up like Springfield and a lessor place for the lack of it.  In today's world, a successful commercial corridor seems to promote residential growth, less crime and higher land values. 

This layman's view is that car based planning has reached it's peak.  We can not continue to sustain it in a practical manor.  And yet, the talk about going backwards to street car doesn't seem like the right thing either.  Something new is needed.

I look at Dancy Terrace as an example.  Most see it and want to save it.  As one of the last of it's type, this little Bungalow Court is and has been for decades, in jeopardy of being lost.  Most think it's best chance is to be used as some kind of unique commercial area, housing artists and the like.  Yet that can not happen without first having a thriving commercial corridor.  In the past, attempts have been made at renovating these into quite nice little bungalows.  This has not been successful due to the end cost of what are small houses that offer no or very little parking.  The truth is they were never intended to the upwardly mobile, they were built for the working class. But how does that translate to today's world? When even the poor among us have cars, what does that leave for Dancy Terrace?  The lowest of the low income would certainly welcome the housing here. If JTA was better, that would actually stand a chance of working.  So, without new ideas, Dancy Terrace seems destined to be lost. Unless a commercial use is found.  Even then, hey, there's a parking issue.

I think I know what to do with Dancy terrace, do you?  It would not be popular, but it would be workable.  That is my point here.  New ideas are needed for Riverside, Avondale and Springfield. To make what we have work for today and tomorrow (using what we have is the ultimate green, after all).  No one is going to stop the natural evolution of the commercial areas within these older urban areas.  The planners here need to come up with the new ideas to make it all work.  The streetcar system in use in other cities may not be what is needed here in Jacksonville.  Just like the streetcar system from a hundred years ago won't really work today either. 

It took a hundred years to get here, it certainly will take decades to get to the solutions many seem to want.  What do we do with all the cars in the meantime?  As we can see, the Kickbacks and the Mellow Mushrooms are going to do what natural evolution says they must. We can't stop it, we just have to be creative in problem solving from here on out.

We had a start of a plan, remember that mobility fee, but we actually need the foresight to move forward.  We need to also recognize than some will suffer a bit until things get worked out.  Some residents in Riverside might have cars parked in front of their houses at times.  They might have to pick up an extra bit of trash occassionally. Just the way it is.  In the end, it will work out.  But only with new solutions rather than a rehash of the old.

Just one layman's viewpoint.

hu·bris/ˈ(h)yo͞obris/
Noun:   
Excessive pride or self-confidence.
(in Greek tragedy) Excessive pride toward or defiance of the gods, leading to nemesis.

Quote from: Debbie Thompson on May 04, 2012, 09:36:26 AM
Love the streetcar route.  Would so totally benefit all the historic neighborhoods, even San Marco, as the Skyway would hook up with it.  And the trip would be so cool, people would love riding it.  Springfield, Brooklyn, Riverside AND Avondale would benefit from the route. 

and I appreciate Ock's efforts in drawing these up...but it would be really helpful if we all spoke with one voice....streetcar routes have been laid out by JTA, the TPO, and the CIty...let's stick with the plan!

Quote from: Kay on May 04, 2012, 10:35:09 PM
Ock:  I'm interested in how we can incorporate the area of Riverside west of Park St.

this may somewhat contradict my post above....but...

I think many of us would be fine running the streetcar route down Park....but that's going to be real tough with the limited ROW, on-street parking, and relatively heavy traffic.

If you can help us find a way to do that, great!

then the route can run through 5 Points to Park & King....and then down King to St. Vincents area....which could then allow for future extension to the Shoppes of Avondale.

Quote from: grimss on May 06, 2012, 08:36:00 AM

Quote from: Jimmy on May 06, 2012, 08:19:31 AM
Thank you, Dr. Wood.  Your perspective adds a lot to the discussion.  To any discussion, I've found.

Amen.

Welcome to the forum, Dr. Wood.  !   

Hopefully this 1923 plan by Telfair Stockton's company will put an end to this debate about whether the initial Avondale subdivision was a streetcar suburb or not.

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/History/Avondale-suburb-plat/i-7jf6dgr/0/XL/Avondale-1923-plat-close-XL.jpg)

Notice there are two streetcar routes (scroll the map below).  The one penetrating the heart of Avondale transitioning from St Johns Avenue to Herschel was completed in 1908 to Ortega Village.  The other is the Murray Hill streetcar line paralleling Demere (now Roosevelt) and the ACL railroad.  It was constructed in 1914.  Every single lot in this development was within walking distance of a streetcar line.  Sure the streets could accommodate cars because cars were designed to fit streets.  However, this place came with transit and sidewalks and those same streets accommodated carriages and bicycles as well.  In short, this development was a multimodal friendly TOD!

Also, the original Avondale plat was the southern 220 acres of a development that never took off called Edgewood.  Edgewood was proposed in 1884, the same year the railroad between Jacksonville and Palatka opened.  This 1,000 acre development was intended to be a self contained city with its own stores, schools and residential areas centered around the rail line.  It stretched from the river to Lenox Avenue.  It never took off but the northern half was replatted as Murray Hill Heights around 1906.  What we call the "First Block" was also known as Edgewood Village, which served as a commercial center and streetcar stop for both Avondale and Murray Hill. 

I also believe many today underestimate the impact of the Great Fire on the development of our city the first three decades of the 20th century.  While the original Avondale plat between Seminole and Talbot was restricted to residential development, the areas around it were not.  There is no way this area of town would have developed to the level it did without the four commercial districts (Edgewood Village, Shops of Avondale, McDuff Avenue, and Park & Dancy) on its peripheral. 

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/History/Avondale-suburb-plat/i-pX7QRCp/0/X2/Avondale-1923-plat-X2.jpg)

Riverside/Avondale's commercial districts are just as contributing to the quality, character, sense of place and historic integrity as its residential areas and architecture.  Without that commercial component, this place doesn't make the list of being a top neighborhood.  With that in mind, neither residents or businesses should be favored over one another.  There needs to be balance that respects the needs of both because whether we like it or not, this area was designed and organically grew as a mixed use pedestrian scale community.  The future is multimodal or bust.

Quote from: strider on May 06, 2012, 10:46:22 AM
I am certainly no expert in planning nor am I fully informed about the history of Riverside/ Avondale or even Springfield for that matter.  I read Mr. Wood's post with interest as I always felt that Riverside was car based and Avondale certainly looks fully car based.  It make sense when you look at Springfield history.  Prior to cars, the wealthier among the residents owned their own horses and carriages. The move to cars for them was a natural. As roads became more prevalent, the move to “greener pastures” was also natural.  Some of the best houses in Springfield were built by the same people who built those larger houses in Riverside.  Case in point, the gorgeous house at Pearl and 7th.  One of the most often seen pictures of that house shows the owners new car.  Shortly after, the family built in Riverside.  Avondale certainly looks like the car based communities we see all over. Yes, some of the old thinking is there, but isn't that natural?  As community planning progressed to full on car based, some of the old would naturally be carried forward at first.  Just a layman's view of things.

From a planner's view, this is incorrect.  Both Springfield and Avondale are what they are today because a combination of the streetcar lines built to connect them to the rest of the city and the influx of growth in the area, during the rebuilding of Jacksonville after the Great Fire.  The streetcar lines were already in place by the time Henry Ford introduced his Model T on October 8, 1908.  Heck, in 1912, the local streetcar network recorded 13.8 million passengers that year despite the city's population being around 75,000.

(http://leehighclassof1950.com/ortega2.gif)
A streetcar crossing the McGirts Creek, now the Ortega River, a decade or so before Telfair Stockton purchased 220 acres along his trolley company's line for the development of Avondale.

Cars were designed for fit streets that were already in place.  While these neighborhoods were designed in a manner to accommodate cars, it is incorrect that they were developed for cars to serve as the primary choice of travel.  The world back then was very different than what it is today.  These places were designed for the pedestrian and thus, multimodal in nature. 

As these sections of town increase in population, we're going to have to get past the flawed notion of looking at the automobile as the primary mobility option.

Quote from: grimss on May 06, 2012, 05:31:26 PM
hu·bris/ˈ(h)yo͞obris/
Noun:   
Excessive pride or self-confidence.
(in Greek tragedy) Excessive pride toward or defiance of the gods, leading to nemesis.

;)   

Quote from: stephendare on May 06, 2012, 01:24:15 PM

Quote from: wowowow on May 06, 2012, 12:54:24 AM

Quote from: stephendare on May 03, 2012, 02:58:13 PM

Your wonderful work documenting the architectural history of the city and the great fire and so many other things has been trailblazing and inspirational to so many in this town and simply cannot be appreciated enough!

However, I have also found with dismay over the past couple of years that several of your printed assumptions regarding the history of development and decline in this city have been taken as gospel rather than opinion, and have led to serious misconceptions regarding the same.

I am sorry if my reliance on the hard researched facts rather than your opinion disappoints you, but I am afraid that you should get used to it.  And I say that with affection.

Riverside Avondale was a streetcar suburb, as documented here in another thread at great length.  It was neither designed for nor developed by cars, and in fact Avondale was developed by Telfair Stockton, the owner of the streetcar company that served the area.

I am not sure how you missed these obvious facts when researching your book, but in all fairness your research took place at a time before the internet really opened up and indexed previously hard to coordinate facts.

Stephen Dare

Thank you for your affection.

But oh my goodness! You are berating me for my research because it was done before the Internet existed. So the Internet is your source for facts? There is a lot of great info on the Internet (as well as a lot of errors!), and it is handy for people who do quick "research" without studying numerous primary sources in depth. Please don't refer to this as your "hard researched facts." I have visited MetroJAX several times today, trying to discover the depth of your research methods and to find any sources for your facts.

You have referenced your post, "Telfair Stockton, Street Car Magnate and Developer of Streetcar Suburbs," as the only proof that Avondale was a "streetcar suburb."  Your only source for this statement is a 1925 article by Charles Donald Fox that you found on the Internet. Sorry, but your skimming this Internet source failed to grasp the truth.

You quoted his 1925 article correctly:  ". . . to Telfair Stockton must go the credit for having been Florida's first successful sub-division operator. Making a beginning in what then was a remote section outside the city limits of Jacksonville, this organization brought success to a project which had previously failed. To-day that section is a part of Jacksonville and is served by first-class street car service. Thus through the efforts of this master realty expert success was made of failure and Jacksonville has a thriving community section."

You interpreted this to mean "both Telfair Stockton himself and the author seem to be saying that streetcars had made Avondale succeed after years of failure." (your words.) This is not correct.

As Lakelander notes above, the "failure" that the 1925 author was referring to was "Edgewood," a subdivision started in the 1880s by James Randall Challen, that never took off. Telfair Stockton purchased the old failed subdivision of Edgewood and it became part of the new subdivision of Avondale. Avondale was immediately successful. 402 of the 750 lots were sold in the first two years. It was never a failure.

Telfair Stockton was not "Street Car Magnate and Developer of Streetcar Suburbs,"  and he was not "the owner of" the local Avondale streetcar company. His brother J.N.C. Stockton built the street car that ran through Avondale a decade before Avondale was built, in order to get people to his (J.N.C. Stockton's) new suburb of Ortega. I think you are confused about the names of the Stockton brothers.

Avondale was not a so-called "streetcar suburb" just because it had a streecar. It was designed to attract the new upper class who owned  automobiles. Of course the streetcars were a significant but secondary mode of transportation, as was pedestrian traffic. On the other hand, much of Riverside was could be called a "streetcar suburb" because it truly was developed around the streetcar line  (but Telfair Stockton had nothing to do with the development of Riverside.)

This is similar to another of your Internet-researched posts in MetroJacksonville: "Thomas Telfair Stockton, Founder of the Times Union."
Thomas Telfair Stockton was not the founder of the Times Union.  He was also not the founder of Avondale. That was his brother, Telfair Stockton.

J.J. Daniels  and John N.C. Stockton were the principal owners of the Florida Publishing Company, which purchased the Times-Union from Charles H. Jones, who founded the Times-Union in 1883. Three of the Stockton brothers were major sharehoders of the Florida Publishing Company, which purchased the Times-Union in 1888:  Telfair,  T.T. (Thomas Telfair), and John N.C. Stockton. Two of the brothers worked at the newspaper:  John N.C. Stockton was the publisher and  and T.T. (Thomas Telfair) was the newspaper's business manager.

Wayne Wood

Wayne, if you don't mind, I'd like to provide a different perspective on a couple of comments.

Quote from: wowowow on May 06, 2012, 12:54:24 AM
First, Riverside and Avondale were originally built as residential neighborhoods. The three commercial corridors (5 Points, Park and King, and Avondale Shopping Center) were built well after the residential portions of the neighborhood were developed. They were commercial intrusion from the outset.

Sanborn maps and city directories indicate these areas were sparsely populated for years prior to the installation of streetcar lines and the influx in population growth after the Great Fire.  I'd argue that in some cases, they were not commercial intrusion but a natural part of the organic growth of a community that rapidly increased in population and density in a relatively short time period.  Without these neighborhood commercial districts rising at the same time as the majority of the residences in the district were being constructed, the district we know and love today would not exist or be as vibrant.  With that in mind, the preservation and restoration of the area's commerical zones are just as important to its character as the preservation of its residential architectural structures.

QuoteThe Avondale Shopping Center came in the decade after Avondale was developed and on land that was not part of the original Avondale subdivision. Notice the sharp demarcation between residential and commercial at Talbot Street.

From what I can tell (via Sanborns, City Directories, and files in the library's Special Collections department), some of the retail along St. Johns Avenue was initially developed during the same time period as Telfair Stockton's initial Avondale development between Talbot and Seminole.  For example, the Emly Benham building Mellow Mushroom wants to buy was constructed in 1922.

Nevertheless, the sharp demarcation between residential and commercial between these two areas can also be contributed to the initial Avondale development (beween Talbot and Seminole) having deed restrictions to keep out apartments, offices, commercial, etc.  This would be no different today than our land use regulations allowing a Publix anchored shopping center on one block and single family homes immediately adjacent to it on another block.

Thus, naturally, the commercial to support the residential needs would then rise on the peripheral.  Similar to this, Polk County doesn't allow strip clubs.  Thus the need/desire/market for such activity still exists so several strip clubs have opened up on the opposite side of the county line.  Same concept but different uses in a different community.

Like the Shops of Avondale, there's another sharp demarcation between residential and commercial at Edgewood and Plymouth, the northern border of the original Avondale development.  We tend to overlook it because of the railroad tracks, the widening of Demere Street into Roosevelt Boulevard and that part of the old Edgewood development now known as Murray Hill.

QuoteSecond, Avondale was built for cars, not based on trolleys. The subdivision was marketed to upper income families who had automobiles. Virtually every house had a driveway and a garage.

It was certainly built to accommodate cars just like it accommodated bicycles, and pedestrians.  However, there's no doubt that it was built around streetcar lines already in place.  In essence, that makes it a TOD (Transit Oriented Development).  Based on the era of time and the transportation technology of that time period, it's probably most accurate to claim it was a multimodal development where residents had a variety of mobility options for short and long trips.  In the long run, I believe that's the direction we must return to from a transportation planning standpoint.  Not only for Riverside/Avondale, but the majority of pre-consolidated Jacksonville in general.

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/History/Avondale-suburb-plat/i-7jf6dgr/0/XL/Avondale-1923-plat-close-L.jpg)

QuoteThe trolley line which served Ortega was three blocks distant from the Avondale Shopping Center. Angled parking for cars was built into the shopping center, with apparently just the right amount of parking spaces to support the commercial district without having cars spill over into the residential area.

No denying this.  However, the period of time was a different one.  The boutiques of the shops today were not there initially.  Instead there were grocery stores, cleaners, drug stores, meat markets, etc. to support the every day needs of nearby residences.  It would not be surprising if most of the mobility trips made to the shops during the neighborhood's early years were on foot instead of car or trolleys.  Documents in the special collections department also refer to an express bus line being implemented in Murray Hill and Avondale in 1933.  Unfortunately, I have not been able to dig up the exact route of this system at this point.

QuoteYou recently seem bent on trying to prove that intensive commercial development, e.g., Kickbacks and the Mellow Mushroom along with their inherent increase in traffic and parking problems, are not only good for the residential neighborhood but have a manifest birthright to be there. Stop. Riverside and Avondale were originally designed and built as residential neighborhoods. Commercial intrusion has been damaging the the quality of living in these communities for many years, especially in the last five decades, which has resulted in several hundreds homes being demolished.

I'd argue that the redevelopment of the area's commercial strips are positives instead of negatives.  We just need to find the correct balance that doesn't allow either use (residential or commerical) to intrude on the other.  This is where we need to be seeking, planning, and implementing multimodal transportation solutions, just like the area's original developers did 100 years ago.  If we can do that, the area will be even better than it is today and those on both sides of the table will prosper.

Lake, Stephen, I respect your diligence and research as I have, in far smaller measure, been engaged intermittently in my own historical enthusiasms. It is tremendously gratifying to believe you've discovered something others have not. However, what my own efforts have taught me is to never disregard how much harder--and more intense and authentic--the process of research was in the pre-Internet era, and certainly NEVER to believe that what I've found on the Internet is actually"new" information.

To your credit, Lake, I know you've assiduously hunted down primary source documents, and I assume Stephen has done the same. However, I must note that in Wayne's world, such primary research is not even a question; he's hunted it ALL down, collating and making sense of everything that was available--and probably helping put it in the form that you're now accessing (despite not having the Internet to "index previously hard to coordinate facts.") To assume your "modern" assessment is more accurate than Wayne's "historical" assessment is dangerous. As Wayne noted, there's lots of room for misinterpretation and error when you're piecing together disparate bits of information.

As an aside, I'd like to share one of my most treasured research sessions with Wayne. I've developed a passion for learning more about "Rochester House" (now known as "River House") on River Blvd. in the St. Johns Quarter of Riverside.  Once Wayne realized my interest was sincere, he took me out to an anonymous office strip mall off JTB to view and interpret for myself what are the only property records to survive the Great Fire of 1901. (These are the bound records that two brave souls stored in a boat and rowed across the St. Johns to escape the flames.) He introduced me to one of the caretakers of the records (who let me explore to my heart's content) and never once tried to prejudice my opinion (as sometimes happens here).

My point is that Wayne is CONSTANTLY enriching his own knowledge of our neighborhood and our city; he's not wedded to any theories he developed 40 years ago; to accuse him of such is a tremendous insult that speaks more to your own hubris than his.

Quote from: thelakelander on May 06, 2012, 07:53:47 PM
I'd argue that the redevelopment of the area's commercial strips are positives instead of negatives.  We just need to find the correct balance that doesn't allow either use (residential or commerical) to intrude on the other.  This is where we need to be seeking, planning, and implementing multimodal transportation solutions, just like the area's original developers did 100 years ago.  If we can do that, the area will be even better than it is today and those on both sides of the table will prosper.

Lake, I certainly agree with you here. Our vibrant commercial strips play a key role in attracting new people to our neighborhood. However, I don't believe the commercial districts are the only--or even the primary--determinent in anyone's decision to buy here. That also means the needs of the commercials districts shouldn't automatically trump the rights of the residents.

Quote from: grimss on May 06, 2012, 08:52:43 PM
Lake, Stephen, I respect your diligence and research as I have, in far smaller measure, been engaged intermittently in my own historical enthusiasms. It is tremendously gratifying to believe you've discovered something others have not. However, what my own efforts have taught me is to never disregard how much harder--and more intense and authentic--the process of research was in the pre-Internet era, and certainly NEVER to believe that what I've found on the Internet is actually"new" information.

Grimms, let me separate myself from this particular quote and response.  You won't find one instance on this forum or in person where I have ever disregarded anyone's process of research whether it was internet or pre-internet era.  I incorporate all methods of research into shaping my opinion on all issues and regularly fact check various sources against once another.  With that being said, we all have our various perspectives and opinions on the facts.  I don't think I've disrespected anyone here in my presentation and understanding of the documentation and material I've researched that has led me to my point of view.  If so, it certainly isn't intended.  I'm only providing a view of the situation and material from my understanding of my studies.

Quote from: grimss on May 06, 2012, 08:56:14 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on May 06, 2012, 07:53:47 PM
I'd argue that the redevelopment of the area's commercial strips are positives instead of negatives.  We just need to find the correct balance that doesn't allow either use (residential or commerical) to intrude on the other.  This is where we need to be seeking, planning, and implementing multimodal transportation solutions, just like the area's original developers did 100 years ago.  If we can do that, the area will be even better than it is today and those on both sides of the table will prosper.

Lake, I certainly agree with you here. Our vibrant commercial strips play a key role in attracting new people to our neighborhood. However, I don't believe the commercial districts are the only--or even the primary--determinent in anyone's decision to buy here. That also means the needs of the commercials districts shouldn't automatically trump the rights of the residents.

If there is one thing I'd like to drive home in this conversation is that this should not be a debate over commercial districts automatically trumping the rights of residents or vise versa.  Both of these uses are a part of several things that combine the make the neighborhood the special place it is today.  The key to the area's success should focus on providing the correct balance that provides fair opportunity to all. 

We should never start off looking at a place like Kickbacks or Mellow Mushroom as a bad thing.  Your final product is what you make it.  View these proposals and others like them as opportunities to enhance the neighborhood and then work with building owners for solutions that actually do just this.  The same goes for the residential side of things.

With that said, in any urban area, there is not one particular thing that makes or breaks it.  A community's sense of place and the mixture of its uses combine to create the atmosphere that attracts people of all ages, races, cultural and economic backgrounds.

Quote from: thelakelander on May 06, 2012, 09:02:58 PM

Quote from: grimss on May 06, 2012, 08:52:43 PM
Lake, Stephen, I respect your diligence and research as I have, in far smaller measure, been engaged intermittently in my own historical enthusiasms. It is tremendously gratifying to believe you've discovered something others have not. However, what my own efforts have taught me is to never disregard how much harder--and more intense and authentic--the process of research was in the pre-Internet era, and certainly NEVER to believe that what I've found on the Internet is actually"new" information. Grimms, let me separate myself from this particular quote and response.  You won't find one instance on this forum or in person where I have ever disregarded anyone's process of research whether it was internet or pre-internet era.  I incorporate all methods of research into shaping my opinion on all issues and regularly fact check various sources against once another.  With that being said, we all have our various perspectives and opinions on the facts.  I don't think I've disrespected anyone here in my presentation and understanding of the documentation and material I've researched that has led me to my point of view.  If so, it certainly isn't intended.  I'm only providing a view of the situation and material from my understanding of my studies.

Lake, I have nothing but respect for the diligence you've shown in researching historical facts and creating compelling narratives from said facts. Indeed that, and other wonderful qualities you exhibit, is why I unhesitatingly recommended you for service on the board of the Jacksonville Historical Society. (It goes without saying that I am thrilled you accepted such service.) I am merely cautioning that we all have a tendency to assume the information we've unearthed is better than what someone else has found, and in the case of Dr. Wood's efforts, we should all have the respect to tread lightly.

QuoteI am merely cautioning that we all have a tendency to assume the information we've unearthed is better than what someone else has found, and in the case of Dr. Wood's efforts, we should all have the respect to tread lightly.

^However, I must point out I have not even done this.  My response to Wayne's comments is to provide a different perspective based on the same stack of facts.  I love Wayne, and respect his work.  I have stacks and stacks of Wayne's work right on my desk and use them as resources regularly.  I also have no ill will for RAP and believe that the community would not be what it is today without the hard work of the organization and the neighborhood's residents.  Nevertheless, this doesn't mean all of our opinions on the same stack of facts or topics will come out to be the same.  Independence is what makes life worth living and places like Riverside/Avondale special.

I just want to say that developing urban areas with businesses that are within walking distance is actually just what we need from a practical point of view. 

I lived in Europe for five years and there is a reason that developing neighborhoods with local businesses are so successful there...It is functional and convenient. 

I recently moved back to Jacksonville after living abroad for 20 years.  I was pleasantly surprised by the maturity in the Jacksonville urban areas compared to other less matured cities.  I believe that mimicking the "village" style neighborhoods in Europe can be beneficial for all urban areas. 

I left Europe and moved to Alaska, where they have a very strict zoning such as Mr. Wood appears to be suggesting.  I think his heart is in the right place and he articulates his opinion quite convincingly, but I believe people want to go back to the "tribe" feeling where we are all part of a whole.  People are very lonely and we need a way to connect close to home. 

Having dealt with this very type of segregation of some businesses when I lived in  Alaska, I am not impressed with the idea of removing resturants like "Mellow Mushroom" etc....  The outcome is inconvenient at best.  One can only drive to dinner, shopping and local conveniences that could be at your fingertips in your very neighborhood are far removed, take time away from your family to travel to and have not "close to home feel".  It is especially difficult for families who have to take the very inept transit system.  I can only give you the negatives that exist in the "reality" of living business being autonomous from neighborhoods. 

If we were to emulate a village setting, like they have in Europe, you would have a "central part of an urban area that has all the amenities of shopping, food and necessity right in one place.  Then you have the neighborhood circling the shops.  Some have the shops at the beginning of a small village, like that of Avondale, Riverside and San Marco.  These urban conveniences allowed families to take walks to eat, play, shop and find entertainment. 
Twenty one years ago, I actually chose to live in San Marco and at that time it was less developed than it is now.  I saved on gas, I was more healthy and it promoted an esoteric community of friends that always met at local restaurants and supported local businesses and also saved on gas and protected the environment with one action.  I only found this to be positive.

I hope more neighborhoods can get on board with this in Jacksonville.  I know that the more upscale neighborhoods like Ponte Vedra in Jacksonville, are already far ahead of this theme and it seems to be working quite splendidly for them.  When you have communities like the Country Clubs and amenities surrounding you, not only do you feel more of a sense of family, but you are enjoying the joys of life that existed and were in place for a very long time before we tried to "restructure and separate". 

I appreciate everyone's opinion on this thread, and hope that others will chime in as well with their experiences.
Sincerely, Bella

Dear Dr. Wood.  Perhaps I share my confusion with the United States Supreme Court:

QuoteU.S. Supreme Court
ORTEGA CO. v. TRIAY, 260 U.S. 103 (1922)
260 U.S. 103

ORTEGA CO.
v.
TRIAY.
No. 75.

Argued Oct. 18, 19, 1922.
Decided Nov. 13, 1922.

Messrs. Herman Ulmer and W. T. Stockton, both of Jacksonville, Fla., for appellant. [260 U.S. 103, 104]   Messrs. Peter O. Knight, of Tampa, Fla., and J. L. Doggett, of Jacksonville, Fla., for appellee.

Mr. Justice McKENNA delivered the opinion of the Court.

It would be curious indeed for the Court to have made such a grave error in the case, especially since 1922 was the same time that William Telfair Stockton was also selling Avondale homes.

Shocking stuff indeed for them to have arbitrarily chosen the name of the wrong brother as part of their finding.

Perhaps a terse letter blasting this sloppiness to the Supreme Court is in order.

For your convenience, here is the mailing order.

QuoteJustice (or Chief Justice) (Justice's Full Name)
Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543

[/quote]
The Supreme Court got it right.  A terse letter blasting their sloppiness is not in order.

W.T. Stockton was NOT Telfair Stockton. William T. Stockton was Telfair Stockton's nephew, the son of J.N.C. Stockton who was the founder of the Ortega Co.

William T. Stockton was an attorney admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme, and if you read your above citation carefully, you'll see that he was representing the appellant in this case, which was the Ortega Co.  His father J.N.C. Stockton passed away just 9 months before this case was argued. [citation Gold's History of Duval County, Florida, pp.665-675.]

I'm sorry this discussion has gotten rather tedious. If it results in nothing more than your starting to use simple footnotes for your historical assertions and encouraging your contributors to do the same, then MetroJacksonville's credibility would be greatly enhanced.

Wayne Wood

Actually Dr Wood... The discussion is enlightening.   On a side note, I remember my Grandmother saying they purchased their Ortega home ( actually closer to Venetia) from the Stocktons.  I do not know if this is the same folks as you mention above , but given the time frame they purchased (1940)  , I would bet it had to be.

Thank you sir, for your contributions .

Quote from: thelakelander on May 06, 2012, 07:53:47 PM

I'd argue that the redevelopment of the area's commercial strips are positives instead of negatives.  We just need to find the correct balance that doesn't allow either use (residential or commerical) to intrude on the other.  This is where we need to be seeking, planning, and implementing multimodal transportation solutions, just like the area's original developers did 100 years ago.  If we can do that, the area will be even better than it is today and those on both sides of the table will prosper.

Lakelander --

Thanks for your thoughtful discourse. I especially appreciate you citing the reference you have used in forming your conclusions, which are among the same ones I rely on. I find nothing in your discussion to really disagree with, except that I would argue that IF there had been no streetcar line passing through the original Avondale subdivision, it would still have been built, exactly as it was. It was an amazing real estate deal, and Telfair Stockton was the quintessential promoter. The streetcars were an amenity, not Avondale's raison d'etre.

The small commercial shopping areas are the crown jewels of the Riverside Avondale Historic District. They give the neighborhood a human scale and contribute to its pedestrian/bicycling friendliness, which I extolled in the first book I ever wrote back in 1976. Finding the correct balance between commercial and residential is the key, as you have said. The R/A neighborhood is primarily and unequivocally a residential neighborhood. When commercial businesses intrude into the residential areas, the desirable residential qualities of the neighborhood go down quickly. At one point there was an effort to rezone much of the area between the Avondale Shopping Center and Boone Park, so the resulting extension of the commercial strip would have gobbled up many homes. RAP helped to defeat this. I'm glad, aren't you?

If a new business overburdens the parking capacity of any of these neighborhood commercial districts, it not only does it hurt the existing businesses but it causes adverse quality-of-life problems for the nearby residents. Balance is the key.

Wayne Wood

Quote from: stephendare on May 06, 2012, 10:19:01 PM

Quote from: grimss on May 06, 2012, 09:13:49 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on May 06, 2012, 09:02:58 PM

Quote from: grimss on May 06, 2012, 08:52:43 PM

Even so, It just doesn't explain away why Telfair Stockton is listed as the President of North Jacksonville Street Railway.

Let me list the citation again:

North Jacksonville Street Railway, Town & Improvement Co.

Plant and equipment - Miles of track (electric), 6.4; gauge 5 ft; 4 cars; power rented from city of Jacksonville.

Parks and Amusement Resorts - Roosevelt Park, at northern limits of city.

Officers - Pres. Telfair Stockton; Sec. Samuel P. Holmes; Treas. Ernest C. Budd; Gen. Man. L.A. Sohier; Supt. E.T. Smith.

Directors - Telfair Stockton, E.C. Budd, S.P. Holmes, H. Mason, F.C. Elwes.

General Office and Repair Shop at car barn, Roosevelt Park, Jacksonville, FL

Date of Information, March 1907.

Telfair Stockton WAS indeed the president of the North Jacksonville Street Railway, Town & Improvement Co..

That streetcar line went through Springfield!

He did not own the street car line that went through Avondale, which was one of the central points in your earlier post which argued that Telfair Stockton created Avondale to serve his streetcar business.

Quote from: wowowow on May 06, 2012, 10:36:59 PM
Lakelander --

Thanks for your thoughtful discourse. I especially appreciate you citing the reference you have used in forming your conclusions, which are among the same ones I rely on. I find nothing in your discussion to really disagree with, except that I would argue that IF there had been no streetcar line passing through the original Avondale subdivision, it would still have been built, exactly as it was. It was an amazing real estate deal, and Telfair Stockton was the quintessential promoter. The streetcars were an amenity, not Avondale's raison d'etre.

Thanks.  I don't disagree with this.  I believe the accessibility of the streetcar was an amenity just like the development's public parks and proximity to the river were.  These amenities (and others) combined with the real estate deal resulted in the crown jewel that remains today.

QuoteAt one point there was an effort to rezone much of the area between the Avondale Shopping Center and Boone Park, so the resulting extension of the commercial strip would have gobbled up many homes. RAP helped to defeat this. I'm glad, aren't you?

Yes.  What year did this happen?

QuoteIf a new business overburdens the parking capacity of any of these neighborhood commercial districts, it not only does it hurt the existing businesses but it causes adverse quality-of-life problems for the nearby residents. Balance is the key.

My key purpose for participating in these threads is to help promote potential solutions that define what that balance should be and concepts that gain better utilization of parking capacity and multimodal use.

this has been a very interesting and enlightening thread.  Thank you Dr. Wood for clarifying the various roles that members of the Stockton family played in the development of streetcars and neighborhoods in Jacksonville!

I agree tufsu1!  The last few pages have been a great read.  I enthusiastically welcome Dr Wood to the forums and hope he gives us all the opportunity to hear more!

Fascinating!

+1000.

Can't believe I missed all this great discussion over the weekend. Guess I should look at metrojacksonville over the weekends. It is great to have Dr Wood providing his insight on the site. The history of our historic neighborhoods and streetcars is indeed an interesting one. I think to me it is apparent that streetcars played at least some role in the development of these neighborhoods. Probably more so in Springfield that anywhere. Lake is absolutely right, these neighborhoods are original TOD's, now if we could just get good transit up and running again, the circle will be complete. Folks from Springfield could hop on a streetcar and go to Riverside, without having to take their cars, thus reducing automobile trips and reducing the demand for parking. It would work both ways.

Both Lake and Dr. Woods have put forth good discussions here, each promoting his view of whether Avondale, for instance, was built as a street car or car based community.  It seems they are both right in the end.   It seems like Avondale was a transitional community, one that was developed at a time when cars were really just  beginning to assert their influence.  However, how long was it that even well off families only had one car?  How many years would it be from the time Avondale was developed to when families had two or more cars? If you were developing a community with cars in mind turn of the century, how many cars would you expect a family to have?

In 1910, would anyone think a family needed more than one?  Or would you think cars would be used by one and the rest of the family still use that streetcar? In how many families did the car mostly sit during the week and the public transportation was used for going to that job?  The end result, I think, is that when developments like Avondale were laid out, no one imagined that a family of four would ever have four cars.  That street cars would always be a part of the urban communities.  Cars were certainly a large part of the equation, but so were the already in place streetcars.

Well, that's what this layman has gotten from the discussion.

I do have a question about commercial development.  If these communities were laid out with commercial areas in mind, why is it that invariably when you look at the history of say the corner of Pearl and 7th in Springfield, you find that houses built in about 1905 were torn down in about 1920 to build that much needed and wanted commercial? Didn't Dr. Woods say the same was true for Avondale?  That houses were torn down to provide that needed commercial development? Or was Avondale laid out with an area set aside for that commercial development?

And what of the future?  What new plans are being created to allow a community developed in 1912 to be truly utilized in 2012?  When the typical family living in Avondale has multiple cars and most wanting to visit not only the commercial areas but even family and friends will drive there.  Even if there is a workable public transportation system in Avondale, what about those coming from areas not served by public transportation? Do you expect them to go out of their way to use that streetcar or to just keep driving to their destination? What incentives do you propose to entice people to stop driving to Kickbacks or Mellow Mushroom?  Do you really think just building a streetcar system is enough?

In the meantime, it does seem like stopping development like Mellow Mushroom will ultimately stop development like Streetcars.  Eventually, the commercial developers learn to go elsewhere and there will be no need for streetcars.

Quote from: strider on May 07, 2012, 08:22:17 AM
Both Lake and Dr. Woods have put forth good discussions here, each promoting his view of whether Avondale, for instance, was built as a street car or car based community.  It seems they are both right in the end.   It seems like Avondale was a transitional community, one that was developed at a time when cars were really just  beginning to assert their influence.  However, how long was it that even well off families only had one car?  How many years would it be from the time Avondale was developed to when families had two or more cars? If you were developing a community with cars in mind turn of the century, how many cars would you expect a family to have?

In 1910, would anyone think a family needed more than one?  Or would you think cars would be used by one and the rest of the family still use that streetcar? In how many families did the car mostly sit during the week and the public transportation was used for going to that job?  The end result, I think, is that when developments like Avondale were laid out, no one imagined that a family of four would ever have four cars.  That street cars would always be a part of the urban communities.  Cars were certainly a large part of the equation, but so were the already in place streetcars.

Well, that's what this layman has gotten from the discussion.

Bingo!  When the discussion went back and forth with Dashing Dan a week ago about this, this is the point I was trying to make.  While the development did accommodate the automobile (in addition to every single lot being within walking distance of the two existing streetcar lines), there was no way to come to the conclusion in 1920 that the majority of families would have multiple automobiles in 2012.  In addition, there was no way to predict that walkable commercial districts developed to provide the basic necessities for nearby residents would transition into regional boutique shopping, entertainment, and dining districts.  In 1920, it also would have been difficult to believe that the streetcar system would disappear from the network of mobility options.  Today, that would be similar to making an argument that cars will no longer exist 20 years from now. 

What you have during the 1920s is a neighborhood designed to accommodate and benefit from multiple modes of mobility.  The mode choice was dependent on the type of trip one decided to make.  Over the last 50 years, we (as a society) have addressed mobility, primarily from an autocentric viewpoint.  However, in this particular neighborhood, it's historic context, layout and building density, isn't conducive to automobile-based dominant transportation planning.  We're going to have to seriously consider making alternative modes of transportation a higher priority from a transportation planning standpoint to effectively deal with the pressure of redevelopment.

QuoteI do have a question about commercial development.  If these communities were laid out with commercial areas in mind, why is it that invariably when you look at the history of say the corner of Pearl and 7th in Springfield, you find that houses built in about 1905 were torn down in about 1920 to build that much needed and wanted commercial? Didn't Dr. Woods say the same was true for Avondale?  That houses were torn down to provide that needed commercial development? Or was Avondale laid out with an area set aside for that commercial development?

Avondale was roughly bounded by the river, Seminole, Demere (Roosevelt) and Talbot.  This neighborhood, designed as a part of the City Beautiful Movement, was a deed restricted community where apartments, commercial, offices, etc. were not allowed.  The Shops of Avondale fall on the other side of Talbot, just like Murray Hill's first block on Edgewood falls on the other side of Roosevelt.  Just because you restrict a use within a certain boundary does not mean the use isn't needed or that the market won't respond to that policy.  In Avondale's case, the market responded by local residents and businesses building commercial uses just outside of that deed restricted community.  This original deed restricted section of Avondale still does not really have commercial intrusion to this day.  Also, the area was sparsely populated in the early 20th century.  With the influx of growth after the Great Fire, while there were instances of houses being torn down for commercial (and newer houses), there were undeveloped properties that commercial uses were built on as well.

QuoteAnd what of the future?  What new plans are being created to allow a community developed in 1912 to be truly utilized in 2012?  When the typical family living in Avondale has multiple cars and most wanting to visit not only the commercial areas but even family and friends will drive there.  Even if there is a workable public transportation system in Avondale, what about those coming from areas not served by public transportation? Do you expect them to go out of their way to use that streetcar or to just keep driving to their destination? What incentives do you propose to entice people to stop driving to Kickbacks or Mellow Mushroom?  Do you really think just building a streetcar system is enough?

When we helped COJ develop the Mobility Plan, the solution for the city in general was multimodal based.  A streetcar in the area would only be a part of a network that would include better sidewalks, context sensitive streets, commuter rail, BRT, and bike facilities working in a manner where all modes complemented each other and the skyway and local bus system.  This was coupled with land use changes that would allow many trips made by car today to be made by alternative modes of transportation.  When effectively developed, depending on the location within the city, one's primary choice of mobility would be by foot (hard to believe for many who have grown up with the automobile as the primary choice of transportation).

QuoteIn the meantime, it does seem like stopping development like Mellow Mushroom will ultimately stop development like Streetcars.  Eventually, the commercial developers learn to go elsewhere and there will be no need for streetcars.

Actually, a streetcar route between Riverside and Downtown would be an effective commercial reliever for Riverside.  Based on what has taken place in peer communities like Charlotte and Salt Lake City, Brooklyn would become the choice destination for retail and entertainment.  A combination of streetcar connectivity, a centralized location, and cheap developable land and buildings available, is a strong catalyst for market rate investment.

QuoteWhile the development did accommodate the automobile (in addition to every single lot being within walking distance of the two existing streetcar lines), there was no way to come to the conclusion in 1920 that the majority of families would have multiple automobiles in 2012.

This is only partially related to this point but I found it interesting.  At the meeting a couple weeks ago at Grace Church someone pointed out the fact that the majority of the homes in Avondale have only single-car driveways.  Because of this, some of these residents that have more than one car (probably the majority) park one car on the street- presumably because they do not want to take the time and/or effort to shuffle cars.  It would be an interesting study to see how many of the cars parked on the streets belong to residents as opposed to patrons of the Shoppes.

Quote from: stephendare on May 07, 2012, 10:24:29 AM
This whole nonsensical claim that Riverside/Avondal was 'developed for the automobile' is based solely on the presence of a  small number of garages attached to the houses, with a slightly deeper concentration in the four block wide subdivision of avondale.

The presence of garages would be a good proof that some of the houses were designed for the owners of automobiles.  That is the architectural reality.

But house design is simply not the same thing as claiming that a streetcar suburb, developed by streetcar company officials, in the era of streetcar suburb construction across the united states, and populated by a bakers dozen of streetcar industry associated men was actually developed for cars.

I think a lot of this discussion about whether it is a streetcar suburb or designed for automobiles is pure semantics.  A streetcar suburb (however one wants to describe its characteristics) can certainly be designed, developed and marketed to attract owners of automobiles.  Based on my research, I truly do believe that Avondale is an example of this.  However, this part of the consersation isn't even worth spending the time to go back and forth on. 

The original plat, the time period it was constructed in, the architecture, and historic imagery clearly indicate a community designed with a number of mobility options being available as viable choices for its residents.  No matter what side of fence one falls on, everyone agrees with this because its a fact. 

IMO, as the commercial areas continue to transition and redevelop, this is where the focus should be in regards to transportation and land use planning in the area....creating an environment where people have viable multimodal transportation options at their disposal.  This is one of the most effective ways to relieve the pressure of trying to accommodate a number of automobiles into an area that wasn't designed for 2012 auto capacity.  This method is also one that is the most cost effective and enhances the area's quality of life.

QuoteIMO, as the commercial areas continue to transition and redevelop, this is where the focus should be in regards to transportation and land use planning in the area....creating an environment where people have viable multimodal transportation options at their disposal.  This is one of the most effective ways to relieve the pressure of trying to accommodate a number of automobiles into an area that wasn't designed for 2012 auto capacity.  This method is also one that is the most cost effective and enhances the area's quality of life.

Yes. +1000

Personally, I'm not opposed to implementing some form of street trolley system through the historic district, but I do have a couple of questions about how it would work here. I hope those of you who are more fluent in "streetcar" can help answer them.

1) Along St. Johns Avenue, on the portion that runs through the shops, there's no room to run a trolley down a center landscaped median, as shown in some of Ock's pretty streetcar shots. I understand that autos and trolleys can and do share traffic lanes, and that trolleys would probably share bus stops, but in Portland, for example, most on-street parking was removed from the streets on which the trolleys run. Am I correct in assuming that parking on at least one side of St. Johns would have to be sacrificed for a trolley lane? If there's compensating off-street capacity somewhere, I guess this wouldn't cause too many problems, but it's certainly something to know upfront.

2) What's the impact of overhead wires? Would installation of the connectors impact the tree canopy in any way? Any impact on underground utilities?

3) What would be the projected cost of implementing a functional system that connects to downtown? A Dallas study projected capital costs for a modern streetcar system using overhead electric at $45m-$90m every 3 miles, (http://www.dallascityhall.com/forwardDallas/pdf/Streetcar.pdf), with an operating cost per hour of $122 (as compared to $167/hr for LRT and $80/90/hr for bus).  It's four miles from the Landing to the intersection of St. Johns and Dancy. Could the trolley operate in two directions on the same track, or would a "return" trolley lane need to be built nearby--maybe Park Street? If so, that's 8+ miles of track. How would it be financed? Given that the mobility fee got shot down, and pools of funding from federal and state entities is dwindling rapidly, what other funding mechanisms could we turn to? It doesn't seem like property tax increases would be enough.

4) Projected impact of construction related to the system's implementation? How much disruption would be required, and for how long?

I hope I don't sound cynical--that's not my intention. Everything I can find on-line suggests modern streetcar systems have helped spur commercial development and an increase in residential values. The Portland experience is particularly notable (http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?a=321180&c=35953). One can definitely apprecite how much this would help Brooklyn, as well. I'm just trying to wrap my head around what's really involved in implementing something like this here.  (If this has already been detailed in some other thread, just point me in the right direction. Thanks.)

grimms, I'm sure the rail guys like Ock will provide you with greater detail but here's my quick response:

Quote from: grimss on May 07, 2012, 12:29:39 PM
Personally, I'm not opposed to implementing some form of street trolley system through the historic district, but I do have a couple of questions about how it would work here. I hope those of you who are more fluent in "streetcar" can help answer them.

1) Along St. Johns Avenue, on the portion that runs through the shops, there's no room to run a trolley down a center landscaped median, as shown in some of Ock's pretty streetcar shots. I understand that autos and trolleys can and do share traffic lanes, and that trolleys would probably share bus stops, but in Portland, for example, most on-street parking was removed from the streets on which the trolleys run. Am I correct in assuming that parking on at least one side of St. Johns would have to be sacrificed for a trolley lane? If there's compensating off-street capacity somehere, I guess this wouldn't cause too many problems, but it's certainly something to know upfront.

Currently, there is no plan to extend a fixed streetcar line into the Shops of Avondale.  However, the North Florida TPO, JTA and COJ Mobility Plan do have long range plans for a streetcar connecting Park & King and Five Points to Downtown.  Funding via the mobility fee could have such a project operational by the end of this decade.

Thinking in turns of designing an integrated multimodal transportation network, in the short term, other mobility options should be vetted for the Shops that provide direct connectivity with the fixed streetcar starter route.  Btw, the mobility plan also provides additional funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects in the area.

Quote2) What's the impact of overhead wires? Would installation of the connectors impact the tree canopy in any way? Any impact on underground utilities?

Overhead wires should not have any impact on the tree canopy for the route between Park & King and Downtown.  There should be minimal impact to underground utilities as well but that's a question that would be vetted in detail once studies progress to the level of engineering.

Quote3) What would be the projected cost of implementing a functional system that connects to downtown? A Dallas study projected capital costs for a modern streetcar system using overhead electric at $45m-$90m every 3 miles, (http://www.dallascityhall.com/forwardDallas/pdf/Streetcar.pdf), with an operating cost per hour of $122 (as compared to $167/hr for LRT and $80/90/hr for bus).

Streetcar system costs can range depending on the type of system.  The streetcar line proposed between Park & King and Downtown is estimated to cost in the range of $50 million.  That's roughly $14 million/mile for the 3.5 mile route, which would terminate at Bay & Newnan (Bay Street entertainment district/Florida Theater/Hyatt).  If you went with a heritage streetcar system (think New Orleans Canal Street), you could probably get the cost per mile below $10 million per mile.

QuoteIt's four miles from the Landing to the intersection of St. Johns and Dancy. Could the trolley operate in two directions on the same track, or would a "return" trolley lane need to be built nearby--maybe Park Street? If so, that's 8+ miles of track.

A street car can travel on the same bidirectional track with occasional passing sidings.  An example of this is Tampa's TECO Streetcar.  To keep costs down initially, I'd suggest doing the same thing instead of one way loops.

QuoteHow would it be financed? Given that the mobility fee got shot down, and pools of funding from federal and state entities is dwindling rapidly, what other funding mechanisms could we turn to? It doesn't seem like property tax increases would be enough.

The mobility fee moratorium is supposed to last only one year.  Unless council extends it for another year, it will sunset this fall and then projects like Kickbacks and Mellow Mushroom would pay into it for their negative transportation impacts.  This pot of money would eventually build up to fund the construction of the streetcar and commuter rail down the CSX A line.  I think the best short term thing any of us can do is advocate to our council representatives to let the moratorium expire this year.  IMO, this is our best bet to have a funding mechanism generate cash for needed transportation improvements (without raising taxes) anytime soon.

Quote4) Projected impact of construction related to the system's implementation? How much disruption would be required, and for how long?

Ock can answer this better than me but construction impact would be pretty insignificant unless some entity attempted to combine its construction with a more expense complete streets makeover (ex. like rebuilding Park Street).

QuoteI hope I don't sound cynical--that's not my intention. Everything I can find on-line suggests modern streetcar systems have helped spur commercial development and an increase in residential values. The Portland experience is particularly notable (http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?a=321180&c=35953). One can definitely apprecite how much this would help Brooklyn, as well. I'm just trying to wrap my head around what's really involving in implementing something like this here.  (If this has already been detailed in some other thread, just point me in the right direction. Thanks.)

You don't sound cynical.  The more questions, dialogue and public vetting, the better.

http://www.jtafla.com/JTAFuturePlans/Streetcars


This is a study that was conducted by JTA. There is also newer technology that will allow streetcars to operate with no overhead wires. However, it is pretty expensive. Think Disney technology.

Old Riverside, that portion between Stockton St. and the River, certainly was not car centric.  Cars were rich mens toys until the Model-T came on the market around 1915.  Most of the houses in this part of Riverside were built before that and made NO provision for automobiles at all.  That's why we have to share driveways and park in the street.  Any garages around here were built much later and are frequently accessed from the alleys.  There isn't much room for driveways between the houses around here.

Thank you, Ock, Lake and fsujax. Info is much appreciated.

Quote from: grimss on May 07, 2012, 12:29:39 PM
3) What would be the projected cost of implementing a functional system that connects to downtown? A Dallas study projected capital costs for a modern streetcar system using overhead electric at $45m-$90m every 3 miles, (http://www.dallascityhall.com/forwardDallas/pdf/Streetcar.pdf), with an operating cost per hour of $122 (as compared to $167/hr for LRT and $80/90/hr for bus).  It's four miles from the Landing to the intersection of St. Johns and Dancy. Could the trolley operate in two directions on the same track, or would a "return" trolley lane need to be built nearby--maybe Park Street? If so, that's 8+ miles of track. How would it be financed? Given that the mobility fee got shot down, and pools of funding from federal and state entities is dwindling rapidly, what other funding mechanisms could we turn to? It doesn't seem like property tax increases would be enough.

First off, we are NOT talking about modern streetcar. The vehicles have two strikes against them for our desired application, 1. they look like something from outer space - hardly a fit in a historic district, 2. They cost 2 to 3 times what a heritage reproduction or a rebuilt vintage streetcar costs.

Most rail transit studies come in way high in cost because they include a complete makeover of the surrounding streets, from paint to parking bumpers, and from signals to trash cans. As we have been pointing out here at MJ for a number of years, we simply do not need all of those whistles and bells. Being a railroad consultant myself, I can tell you that the track can be laid for $4-5 million per mile, add another million per mile for overhead lines and poles, and maybe another for decorative 'heritage' style poles, and finally another million for stations/stops, etc... We could easily have a state of the art heritage system that rivaled New Orleans in every way EXCEPT for the age of our cars for around $8 - 12 million per mile.

The streetcar only needs a single track with passing sidings spaced to accommodate a fairly frequent schedule. Such side tracks use a 'spring switch' (just as the Disney horsecar uses on Main Street USA). The spring switch allows cars to enter into the switch and take the desired route, while a car running out of the switch simply glides over it, the rails pushed aside as the wheels click over it and always returning to the original position without the need for a crew member to get off the cars.

I find the Dallas O&M cost estimates interesting as it is pretty well documented that streetcars cost LESS then buses or light-rail. I'd like to know what they are including that wouldn't be found elsewhere? On a per passenger seat mile basis, streetcar is MUCH cheaper then bus, as 1. the streetcars are larger, typically holding around 100 passengers seated and standing and 2. Streetcars can run entrain meaning a single operator for two coupled cars, or three, or...

The Mobility Fee didn't get shot down, it was in fact passed by the City Council. What happened is that they put a moratorium on collecting the fee for one year because they mistakenly thought it would spur sudden growth from area builders. The Mobility Fee replaces the older system of building 'impact fee's' which were anything but fair.

Under the impact fee system a person wanting to build a new store on a 4 lane road might be told since the road has excess capacity they wouldn't need to pay for improvements. The next guy who came along, along with his estimated customer traffic might have to pay for 2 new highway lanes as his project might take the road over capacity. The third guy that comes along might get a free pass because the second guy had to enlarge the road! This was anything but equal. The mobility plan not only makes everyone and every project equal, it actually lowers the average cost for builders.

Lastly, streetcars typically create economic development which more then offset's their cost. Portland is now counting somewhere around $9 Billion in new construction along the streetcar and MAX light-rail lines. The national average is a ROI of $14 to $1, so technically one might say streetcar is good even if it never carried a passenger!

Quote4) Projected impact of construction related to the system's implementation? How much disruption would be required, and for how long?

Streetcar is a shallow dig version of Light-Rail. This means while light-rail might dig up and reroute utilities, streetcar is unobtrusive with a street dig of no more then 12 inches +/-. So no major utility relocation's, no major street digs, and a construction time of about 1 city block per week, usually done in 2 to 4 block 'months.'

QuoteI hope I don't sound cynical--that's not my intention. Everything I can find on-line suggests modern streetcar systems have helped spur commercial development and an increase in residential values. The Portland experience is particularly notable (http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?a=321180&c=35953). One can definitely apprecite how much this would help Brooklyn, as well. I'm just trying to wrap my head around what's really involved in implementing something like this here.  (If this has already been detailed in some other thread, just point me in the right direction. Thanks.)

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2012-feb-mass-transit-deja-vu

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2007-jul-bring-back-jacksonville-traction

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2007-jul-bring-back-jacksonville-traction-the-plan

I found your questions to be sincere and not the least bit cynical, thank you for the opportunity to share with you why I think this is a WIN-WIN for our city, something we need to do ASAP.

OCKLAWAHA

^ Thank you. I'll start reading!

Quote from: stephendare on May 08, 2012, 10:22:25 AMyou certainly have become a lot more productive since your JaxOutLoud days, Jimmy!  Remarkably so.  It definitely is a far cry from the days of posting intensely inappropriate videos of a prominent attorney's aging mother in an attempt to embarrass the man!  Or all that crazy semi slanderous gossip that used to always get pasted onto the website.

I for one am very proud of you, and the good work that you are doing in the community! From your participation in RAP to your work on the anti discrimination bill! Its great to see someone grow.  I certainly hope that you keep this in mind when considering other people trying to get a grasp of the community around them.  Ive often found that dialogue changes people.  People can improve! IMHO of course!

Actually I've always been personally quite productive before, during, and after JaxOutLoud.  As to the contents of JaxOutLoud, I would never presume to judge an entire website by the antics of a few posters.  Even if they happened to have also been mods or admins.  You see that sort of foolishness everywhere on the internet.  I've been happy enough to be able to keep up and separate the wheat from the chaff.

By and large I'd say we've all come a long way and learned much since our time at MetJax.  And clearly there is more yet to learn and much more yet to do.

Quote from: Jimmy on May 08, 2012, 10:53:56 AM
As to the contents of JaxOutLoud, I would never presume to judge an entire website by the antics of a few posters.  Even if they happened to have also been mods or admins. 

good point!

JOL had some good points :)

Jimmy is a great man !

Tim ain't no slouch, himself. ;)

I enjoy your input Jimmy, glad to have you aboard, it's been too long... We should gather the whole gang together again an do dinner some time. Tim? Stephen? Come on down!

OCK

Just read the 11 pages very interesting.

The out-of-pocket cost for a family is $65 per year.  For that you get what? I just checked the website for the neighborhood improvement association where I lived previously.  There it's $10 per year.  I'd pay $10 a year to be a member of RAP.  It's not worth $65, which looks more like the dues for a professional society. 

I submit that the high cost of entry makes it an exclusive club, which helps to explain its arrogance.  The organization is hardly representative of the neighborhood (or should I say neighborhoods).

This thread is a really good discussion. We obviously have some well informed posters. I would like to commend Mr. Wood and Mr. Dare for their valuable input. Lake's insight is particularly impressive.

As for RAP itself no doubt this neighborhood would not be as great without them and I appreciate Kay and others participating here even when it is contentious. I think they found a reasonable solution in the Kickbacks situation and I was very critical of them earlier in the process.

I would like to see RAP add as a stated goal  the restoration of the historic streetcar lines in Riverside.  Preservation of the past preparation for the future.

Quote from: JeffreyS on May 09, 2012, 08:27:19 AM
I would like to see RAP add as a stated goal  the restoration of the historic streetcar lines in Riverside.  Preservation of the past preparation for the future.

+1.

Quote from: JeffreyS on May 09, 2012, 08:27:19 AM
This thread is a really good discussion. We obviously have some well informed posters. I would like to commend Mr. Wood and Mr. Dare for their valuable input. Lake's insight is particularly impressive.

As for RAP itself no doubt this neighborhood would not be as great without them and I appreciate Kay and others participating here even when it is contentious. I think they found a reasonable solution in the Kickbacks situation and I was very critical of them earlier in the process.

I would like to see RAP add as a stated goal  the restoration of the historic streetcar lines in Riverside.  Preservation of the past preparation for the future.

We have it as a goal!!!

Quote from: JeffreyS on May 09, 2012, 08:27:19 AM
...As for RAP itself no doubt this neighborhood would not be as great without them and I appreciate Kay and others participating here even when it is contentious. I think they found a reasonable solution in the Kickbacks situation...

Agree wholeheartedly.

Quote from: Kay on May 09, 2012, 10:27:46 AM

Quote from: JeffreyS on May 09, 2012, 08:27:19 AM
This thread is a really good discussion. We obviously have some well informed posters. I would like to commend Mr. Wood and Mr. Dare for their valuable input. Lake's insight is particularly impressive.

As for RAP itself no doubt this neighborhood would not be as great without them and I appreciate Kay and others participating here even when it is contentious. I think they found a reasonable solution in the Kickbacks situation and I was very critical of them earlier in the process.

I would like to see RAP add as a stated goal  the restoration of the historic streetcar lines in Riverside.  Preservation of the past preparation for the future.

We have it as a goal!!!

That is great however I don't see it stated on the website or on the 18 page RAP strategic plan document. I am not questioning what you have said rather how many people including your membership and in city government know you are advocating it.

The closest I could find was this statement in the strategic plan.

Quote• Traffic: RAP will hire a consultant who specializes in transportation and traffic
management to put together a long-term master plan to deal with traffic and parking problems. RAP will seek adoption of this transportation master plan by both local and state government.

Again I think RAP has been the best QOL organization in Jax over the last 30 years

QuoteIf a new business overburdens the parking capacity of any of these neighborhood commercial districts, it not only does it hurt the existing businesses but it causes adverse quality-of-life problems for the nearby residents. Balance is the key.

Isn't this the RUB here in Avondale? A balance? We all thought the Avondale Strip was going to hell when Mojo #4 came in and knocked out 2 Retail shops, but in fact, the area is thriving and doing better than ever. I don't see where Parking has become a larger issue, from before it arrived. There is no wild west after dark, no gangs patrolling the area, just people having fun and learning to cope with urban issues. Other areas of town are jealous to have this level of activity, San Marco has had a sign that Publix is coming for years now with a lovely fence around it, their road is torn up for blocks from Landon Avenue to the Square. I know people who own retail in San Marco, and they would rather have the issues that Avondale is "supposedly" having.

Now that 'town is gone, we have lost a restaurant in the area, yet I still see cars everywhere, is it easier to find a parking space now with 'town gone? Or are we just complaining for the sake of change coming to the neighborhood. I already offered Valentino parking in my driveway and in front of my house, cause I can walk or bike down there. If you want to live in Avondale, its changing and if you don't, Brooklyn is nice and boring and you can get a lot more for your money right now. Start the cult, move to Brooklyn and enjoy river views from blocks away.

Quote from: JeffreyS on May 09, 2012, 12:54:03 PM

Quote from: Kay on May 09, 2012, 10:27:46 AM

Quote from: JeffreyS on May 09, 2012, 08:27:19 AM
This thread is a really good discussion. We obviously have some well informed posters. I would like to commend Mr. Wood and Mr. Dare for their valuable input. Lake's insight is particularly impressive.

As for RAP itself no doubt this neighborhood would not be as great without them and I appreciate Kay and others participating here even when it is contentious. I think they found a reasonable solution in the Kickbacks situation and I was very critical of them earlier in the process.

I would like to see RAP add as a stated goal  the restoration of the historic streetcar lines in Riverside.  Preservation of the past preparation for the future.

We have it as a goal!!!

That is great however I don't see it stated on the website or on the 18 page RAP strategic plan document. I am not questioning what you have said rather how many people including your membership and in city government know you are advocating it.

The closest I could find was this statement in the strategic plan.

Quote• Traffic: RAP will hire a consultant who specializes in transportation and traffic
management to put together a long-term master plan to deal with traffic and parking problems. RAP will seek adoption of this transportation master plan by both local and state government.

Again I think RAP has been the best QOL organization in Jax over the last 30 years

That is the strategic goal and we have a transportation committee who has identified specific goals/outcomes.  Our next step is to vet it with the community hopefully via a consultant and get those goals into a specific plan/policies.  Stay tuned.