It is a packed house at 210 W. 7th Street.
Tufsu is here. Planning director Burney is here.
The person, who I think is the social media manager, just finished giving her "how things are going to work" speech.
"Please ask before taking pictures..."
I'm not sure why I'm here. Or, why Brown is here.
Brown is speaking now:
Springfield is very important.
There are challenges but there are also opportunities.
*introduces Dave Roman who is going to give TWO presentations.
Dave Roman:
*I just put in an application for a groundworks trust.
*Not sure when we will find out about this.
*This is really good for us to do to help the opprotunity.
Christina Parish (sp?):
* The national park services sponsors this
* we are one of eight finalist who can get this
* no one in the southeast has received this
* Brown has committed the $25k per year for three years to get the grant
* We should find out September which 2 of the 8 will get the grant.
* National Park Services will give 85 k per year for three years
* the first couple of year the projects will be smaller
* we'll work with community organizations to plant gardens...clean up Hogan's creek.
* Jaguars said they would be a big supporter to help us if we get this.
Dave Roman:
* park service is clear this must be a citizen driven effort.
Darryl Joseph(with the parks department):
* about to kickoff the Hogan's Park Greenway.
* the bid process starts next month to be completed in the spring of 2014
So, a little interesting. This house is packed full of city employees. Brown invited "staff from the city" to the front so everyone could see who is here..
Oh, Kelley Boree(sp?) is here!
Kimberly Scott is here!
24 people at the front. Do you think Kimberly SCott will allow me to take pictures?
What's interesting is the few people who have quickly spoken have set up their speech for us to speak to them in the back of the room.
Brown is taking questions from the audience.
Kim Fryer:
What are you going to do about the unecessary demolitions that are happening. It's got to stop. *crowd erupts in cheers".
Brown:
Yes, this is important but we need to also focus on safety. People who have bought into Springfield are next to broken down homes. They are worried about property values.
Kim Fryer:
I'd love to speak to you in person.
Kim Pryor did great
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/kimatmeeting.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/kimatmeeting.jpg.html)
Reggie fountain demands the city take care of its own ie 9th and main
Michael trautman asks for the city to demolish these houses
Person in Audience:
What is the city's plan to fix the properties that they own and are neglecting like 9th and Main.
Brown:
My goal is to fix that problem. There is an RFP for something. 9th and Main has some major issues...contamination issues. The solution is probably for someone buying it and fixing it. I don't think it's a good idea for a city to allow for properties to become an eye sore.
Mike:
I'm going to take a different POV than Kim. I really think the solution is to...demolish. *in so many words, strategic demolition.*
Brown:
You had a lot of people that came in and bought a bunch of properties....I want a livable community. Getting the developers to invest in Springfield. I call it "patient capital". Take the long view. Attract young people. All those things are important.
Person:
My biggest concern is the big abandoned house next to me. The dealers feel so comfortable dealing at 2pm when I pick up my kids from school.
*when I lived in the suburbs on Atlantic and Hodges the kids always got their drugs from the crazy mom on Aztec blvd." Dealing on the streets, how crass!"
Brown:
I want to lock them up.
Speaker Tosses a black eye at psos. We don't own the drug house btw
Brown is sort of the historic properties are okay as long as they are not an eye sore type of guy
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/brownatmeeting.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/brownatmeeting.jpg.html)
Strange organization of the meeting. Final question is below. Then Alvin will go sit in the back and talk to people personally. Then he will come back up to close the meeting. The city staff is sitting/standing in the back and taking questions.
Person:
What could the people of Springfield do for you?
Brown:
Thank you for that. Give us your ideas. Tell us how to be proactive and not reactive. If you have ideas that are going to help us I'm open to it.
Just spoke to tufsu who said that regardless of whether this is a do and pony show or not its well executed. I tend to agree...though I think the questioning and discussion should be less one on one and more town hallish.
We're congregating back to the "front" and Alvin will close shop. Brown is closing shop. The key is a public private partnership. In Oder to have a great city you have to have great neighborhoods. Thank you for coming out.
There is a big divide in Springfield. That was evident tonight. People just see the neighborhood differently. I think all see a historic district in need of saving. It is the form of that salvation which is of great concern to me tonight.
Brown spoke the old line "salvation by developers".
I guess he doesn't remember SRG and the massive loss of historic fabric that occurred with that particular development plan.
I don't believe that Springfield needs development as much as it needs preservation. But then, I suppose preservationists take the longer view.
Developers will say that they can't promote Springfield with its current state of blight.
And that is the current undertone that Preservation SOS and all who care about the loss of the historic fabric are fighting against.
The "have staff talk to citizens one-on-one" instead of letting citizens speak to the crowd over the PA system, is a great way to defuse "rabble rousing"
We also got a crappy flashlight and a JEA piggy bank.
Dang. I missed out on the piggy bank
Hmm. From the sound of things, it appears Springfield is in the midst of a good old fashioned gentrification battle. The type that many communities across the country went through back in the late 1990s/early 2000s.
Are there architectural standards in Springfield that a "re-developer" would have to follow if they chose to build out?
There are many people who like the "old style" but want the modern details that come with it.
Surely if standards were set with no loopholes, you would get replacement residences that reflect the original glory of Springfield and don't diminish the remaining older ones.
Just a thought.
Quote from: TheCat on July 11, 2013, 06:12:17 PM
The person, who I think is the social media manager, just finished giving her "how things are going to work" speech.
that would have been Deputy Chief of Staff Michelle Barth
Quote from: sheclown on July 11, 2013, 06:28:03 PM
Michael trautman asks for the city to demolish these houses
sorry, but that's not exactly what he said....what he did say was in his opinion the neighborhood experienced the most positive change when many of the new homes were being built....he also said that some homes may need to be demolished as they are beyond saving and nobody will come in to rescue them
and yes, he did admit to being a developer
Quote from: Charles Hunter on July 11, 2013, 07:48:37 PM
The "have staff talk to citizens one-on-one" instead of letting citizens speak to the crowd over the PA system, is a great way to defuse "rabble rousing"
which is exactly what I told TheCat....pretty smart technique when holding a large public workshop....start and end with an open house format
Okay. What did he say ?
Quote from: TheCat on July 11, 2013, 06:29:57 PM
Person in Audience:
What is the city's plan to fix the properties that they own and are neglecting like 9th and Main.
Brown:
My goal is to fix that problem. There is an RFP for something. 9th and Main has some major issues...contamination issues. The solution is probably for someone buying it and fixing it. I don't think it's a good idea for a city to allow for properties to become an eye sore.
Mike:
I'm going to take a different POV than Kim. I really think the solution is to...demolish. *in so many words, strategic demolition.*
Brown:
You had a lot of people that came in and bought a bunch of properties....I want a livable community. Getting the developers to invest in Springfield. I call it "patient capital". Take the long view. Attract young people. All those things are important.
emphasis mine.
Quote from: jaxequality on July 11, 2013, 09:02:08 PM
We also got a crappy flashlight and a JEA piggy bank.
a pretty sweet CFL light bulb piggy bank :)
Quote from: sheclown on July 11, 2013, 09:59:53 PM
Okay. What did he say ?
read above...I amended my post
Quote from: spuwho on July 11, 2013, 09:51:26 PM
Are there architectural standards in Springfield that a "re-developer" would have to follow if they chose to build out?
There are many people who like the "old style" but want the modern details that come with it.
Surely if standards were set with no loopholes, you would get replacement residences that reflect the original glory of Springfield and don't diminish the remaining older ones.
Just a thought.
Infill, which is what you are talking about, is fine. We just think that perhaps the 200 ish empty lots we have now should be built on before we bring in those excavators to create additional empty lots.
And, FYI, the current thinking in most sensible parts of the country is that new infill in historic areas should not mimic the historic styles but be more modern and compliment them.
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 11, 2013, 09:56:14 PM
Quote from: sheclown on July 11, 2013, 06:28:03 PM
Michael trautman asks for the city to demolish these houses
sorry, but that's not exactly what he said....what he did say was in his opinion the neighborhood experienced the most positive change when many of the new homes were being built....and yes, he did admit to being a developer
Look at The Cat's response. He heard what I heard.
I think Michael Troutman said me big time springfiel developer, me have properties, me like John Delaney.
At least Trautmann spoke his mind. I have to hand it to him for doing that. Unlike the whispers of many who ...how did Kim Scott put it...talk to her but don't want the neighbors to get mad at them for promoting demolitions?
As she stated in the paper earlier this week:
Quote
Scott said some Springfield residents privately say they appreciate demolition of some homes, but stay quiet in public to avoid disputes with their neighbors.
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 11, 2013, 09:56:14 PM
Quote from: sheclown on July 11, 2013, 06:28:03 PM
Michael trautman asks for the city to demolish these houses
sorry, but that's not exactly what he said....what he did say was in his opinion the neighborhood experienced the most positive change when many of the new homes were being built....and yes, he did admit to being a developer
Hmm, those heady days of SRG artificially pushing up lot prices, selectively paying too much for some to keep those prices up, the local preservation organization, SPAR Council helping Ms Scott condemn more houses and demolish them as well. SRG running it's own security force through SPAR Council, the so called leadership promoting the persecution of various groups of people and keeping the community divided and working against each other. Giving out misinformation to potential business owners to insure only the "right kind" of people opened businesses. All in the name of profit for a selected few. Yep, heady days for Springfield alright.
Regarding the photos
We were asked at the beginning of the meeting -- by the mayor-- to request permission before taking photos -- especially of people who are in the enforcement biz.
-----------------------
Sorry for the confusion Stephen, Ms Scott didn't speak tonight. I was quoting her from the newspaper.
Perhaps this might shed some light.
????????????
QuoteDo vampires show up on digital cameras?
There are many myths about vampires - the whole garlic thing, crucifixes and holy water, and of course the whole matter of reflections.
According to many tales a vampire will cast no reflection when in front of a mirror; in addition, a vampire's image can not be caught on film. So what then of digital cameras?
Before we tackle that question, we should first know why the myth exists in the first place. Mirrors were thought to show a person's soul. As a vampire has no soul (unless he is Angel) we must logically conclude that there will be no reflection. The same hold true for film and photographs - they too were thought to be creating an image of the soul. (Interestingly enough, some people were even afraid to have a picture taken of them, for fear of having their soul stolen)
Based on these assumptions we must then conclude that a vampire would not show up in a picture taken by a digital camera for any mechanical device that reproduces and image of a being is actually only capturing.
Ha - Springfield is simply not going to happen without a drastic upswing in downtown employment. In fact, none of the core neighborhoods are really going to meet their potential until 100% of the jobs and population growth quits heading in the opposite direction (south).
Springfield is happening, has been happening for over a hundred years, and will continue to happen -- with or without developers and mayors looking for financial backing.
Quote from: sheclown on July 11, 2013, 10:21:08 PM
Regarding the photos
We were asked at the beginning of the meeting -- by the mayor-- to request permission before taking photos -- especially of people who are in the enforcement biz.
again, not quite what I heard...I didn't hear anything about people in the "enforcement biz"...I belive the Mayor used the term "city staff", which applied to the 15-20 city staffers in attendance not involved in code enforcement
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 11, 2013, 10:30:19 PM
Quote from: sheclown on July 11, 2013, 10:21:08 PM
Regarding the photos
We were asked at the beginning of the meeting -- by the mayor-- to request permission before taking photos -- especially of people who are in the enforcement biz.
again, not quite what I heard...I didn't hear anything about people in the "enforcement biz"...I belive the Mayor used the term "city staff", which applied to the 15-20 city staffers in attendance not involved in code enforcement
maybe we were at different meetings.
^^^Trying not to sound too harsh, but Springfield really isn't happening. What's there is forced by a few extremely passionate and organized residents who care so much about the neighborhood, but let's not kid ourselves - the place hasn't "boomed" since the 1910s and aside from kicking and swinging back from rock bottom over the past 20 years hasn't been considered a "nice" place to live since the 1940s or [1950s?].
I hope for the best, and there are certainly so many prime examples in the SE of what Springfield can become if it met its potential, but none of this will happen without natural economic backing in the city, as in downtown. Downtown is like a huge painful gap/wound between the marginally successful Riverside (as compared to similar areas in growing SE cities, or even Birmingham), San Marco, and Springfield. It's the glue that holds the success of all of these neighborhoods. Without office towers brimming with middle to upper income white collar, college educated employees, there is no $$$ or demand to follow the urban pioneers and creative types who first move into a neighborhood like Springfield.
Springfield is perpetually stuck in Purgatory between gays/urban pioneers/creative types moving in and the yuppie 6-figure professionals who take over the neighborhood and finish the job (at which point the urban pioneers are either priced out or "annoyed" out of the neighb and they go stake out the next place). The latter won't come without nearby jobs for them, which as of now are all on the SS and they're all moving to the beach. Springfield has been "the next place" now for decades!
Might I add jobs = infill multifamily construction. There's nothing else that is accounting for Austin's current boom, or Atlanta's current infill boom or Charlotte's, or Nashville's. There's a reason there is so little going up near DT (2 mid-size projects that are totally spec and are "testing" the market in Brookluyn).
Also Inman Park in Atlanta, Elizabeth and Dilworth in Charlotte, and the West End/Hilsboro (or now East Nashville) in Nashville have all been where Springfield is now, but look at the office employment in the nearby downtowns as compared to DT Jax. First comes employment opportunities in downtown, then comes the employed - presumably energetic 20s and 30s singles and transplants, then comes disposable income, as well as traffic, and now there is demand for people to move to Springfield!
Quote from: stephendare on July 11, 2013, 10:44:34 PM
unfortunately the families and yuppies that come next are perpetually turned away by aging goggle boxers that want 'heritage ice cream' days, very few gays and a bunch of seriously out of date notions of whats makes a cool urban district.
Care to elaborate? This sounds interesting!
^^^I had to Google that. Way too intellectual for me to understand... I think you're saying that residents of Springfield are hoping for white picket fence, "tranquil" neighborhood life they see on the Griffins on TV Land? And that this attitude and mentality is more fitting of a suburban community (and likewise a similar mentality is gripping Avondale)? And also that this attitude keeps interesting folks out, which is why the neighborhood is going nowhere? Ok! I think I get the picture. Neighborhoods with at least some edge are always cool ;) Too much edge - nah.
Neither the 'Yuppies' nor anyone else will move in, if there is nothing unique about the place. You can build 'new' anywhere, but you can't build 'historic'. The history is what makes it rare and unique and therefore valuable.
It is why I invested there, rather than in one of the 'OTHER' 839 square miles in Jacksonville. With every demolition of a historic but salvageable property, my property value drops. The opportunity for a modestly priced 'return to up-to-code' liveability is gone, because it is never relatively inexpensive to build from the ground up.
There is enough vacant land in LaVilla/DT/Springfield to equal a small ocean already. Why add to an inventory that is already over-supplied?
I have never seen 'destroy it and they will come' ever work in any size city.
Quote from: vicupstate on July 11, 2013, 11:08:21 PM
Neither the 'Yuppies' nor anyone else will move in, if there is nothing unique about the place. You can build 'new' anywhere, but you can't build 'historic'. The history is what makes it rare and unique and therefore valuable.
It is why I invested there, rather than in one of the 'OTHER' 839 square miles in Jacksonville. With every demolition of a historic but salvageable property, my property value drops.
I agree that continuing demolitions ruins the potential uniqueness of the neighborhood and they should be stopped in 95% of cases (I for one would not want to live immediately adjacent to an absolute fire hazard that nobody is taking care of so I think there are some selfish exceptions no thanks to decades of blight and neglect).
However, it sounds like you literally invested in the concept of "historic". Why not go invest in Detroit, Cleveland and Buffalo and buy up dozens of homes for $10-$20K a pop? Do you live in Springfield, or did you simply invest there? And what if someone came in and wanted to build this somewhere in the hood:
(http://atlanta.curbed.com/uploads/d2e1b9bd00125a9992435e2b3eacc56a.jpeg)
(http://atlanta.curbed.com/uploads/35c92d405ddcc90e8392c2071dcf5550.jpeg)
(http://atlanta.curbed.com/uploads/4ddae13dac35606d2af3d9064b4372a5.jpeg)
Source (http://atlanta.curbed.com/archives/2013/05/16/280-elizabeth-development-vision-unveiled-at-last.php)
Would this destroy the unique and historical appeal in your view, or not? And if not, what if it required the demolition of a couple of buildings that weren't Edgar Allen Poe's home or something outrageously significant?
What about townhomes/falts/lofts such as these:?
(http://metrohippie.com/wp-content/uploads/exteriorup1.gif)
Source (http://www.metrohippie.com/inman-green-in-hotlanta/)
The buildings above are not symbols of edginess at all to Stephen's point, but they are both built or UC now in a very similar but gentrified neighborhood in the southeast - the kind of development that is happening in the SE to such neighborhoods (and BTW another historic district - it's even more historic than Springfield, and now 10x as expensive as a result of the demand!).
Stephen - I think it's hard to find examples of highly desirable neighborhoods that are also still edgy in Sunbelt cities (really only places in NYC, SF, LA, Seattle, Chicago, DC, Baltimore and Philadelphia come to mind). What comes to mind for you?
^^^^then lets see em. build em. go for it. but don't tear down a house unless you are gonna put one up in it's place.
Simms, I think there is a very slim chance that a developer will want to build something like you shared above in Springfield. They demolished LaVilla and it remains barren. If folks in Savannah, Charleston and other historic communities had taken the attitude that demo of historic properties should go unchallenged or that an effort to revive the neighborhoods would be futile, those communities would be much less attractive than they are today. None of the cities you listed above with cheap properties available have the appeal of our location on the coast as well as our snow free winters and more. The quality, style and unique character of old homes cannot truly be copied. Disney properties tried that and it didn't work. I think PSOS and others who are working hard to retain the historic fabric of Springfield are a blessing to Jacksonville. Let it create it's own personality which I think will be something different and perhaps more creative then we can imagine if destruction is curbed and the community given the time.
Quote from: stephendare on July 12, 2013, 12:00:04 AM
So while I might see an area as economically diverse, needing some nudge in a direction towards better repair, healthy improvement, more aesthetically pleasing and less prone to criminal behavior, you might see 'edgy'.
The Mission comes to mind. I think the area could use a little gentrification, quite honestly, but I wouldnt want it to lose its wonderful diversity of culture and vibrancy. Its a fine line.
Stephen/Simms side-discussion -
Yes, you and I have the same concept of edgy. But you and I both know that a city as dense and expensive as SF is literally block by block. Some blocks in the Mission are very desirable in the city, and thus can be pricy - techie hipsters who make $200K and still smell like shit and dress like hobos pay $3-4000+ for 1BRs to live there. Valencia St is the hottest restaurant row in the city right now. A block or two away could be controlled by MS-13 or some rival Mexican gang affiliate. Potrero Hill and Soma also come to mind as cool edgy places.
If you can believe it, Mid-Market and parts of Soma and the 'Loin adjacent to Market between 5th and 9th are the hottest neighborhoods in the city. Most of this area is actually still too edgy for comfort to me if you want to know my "limits" (I have some regrets not moving to Ava Nob Hill, which is on Sutter in the Tendernob...definitely a vibrant 24 hour area, but 2-4 blocks away is a hood many in America consider one of the scariest in the country by a mile...that 2-4 block buffer makes a HUGE difference though - coming from Atl/Jax I wasn't acquainted with the fact that 2 blocks in SF is enough, the sight and smell of Tenderloin that close to me freaked me out and got my heart racing the first time I walked through - in daylight!...now I'll even carefully walk through at night because I've gotten used to it...definitely nothing like that in Jax!). The South in general just doesn't have the setup for the kind of "desirable" edginess you can find in "established" cities, unless you can think of something.
And again - who are we kidding? The demographic in the entire city of SF, the cool parts of Baltimore, Billyburg in Brooklyn (which by New Yorkers' grueling standards is apparently no longer "in"?), etc are all single young professionals and wealthy "young at heart" types who likely don't have families, or large families. Isn't Springfield also filled with traditional military families - like mom, dad and 2-3 kids? Totally different demographic than what you'll see in gentrified and "cool" versions of Springfield elsewhere.
^^^I get out ;) It's impossible not to here since no matter where you go you are surrounded by "humanity" and you can walk across the entire city in 2 hours or less. FYI, nobody but wannabe hippie tourists and bums go to the Haight anymore. :) Stephen you are definitely more "exposed" than most though! I'll take the Mission, Soma or Tendernob any day, but never go as far as living in an environment as seedy and dangerous as the Tenderloin/6th and Market area or some of the areas you have lived in *when* you lived in them! 9th and Folsom isn't bad - clearly never changed and still very cool (and quiet during weeknights - lots of clubs operate on the weekends nearby at least now). 30 floor apartment buildings are topping off at 9th and Market 3 blocks away, so the area is changing and probably going to be "sterilized" to the extent an area can be in SF within 5 years (this was my Mid-Market reference). Sterile in SF terms = still cooler than almost anywhere else you're going to find in other cities. :D
Quote from: stephendare on July 12, 2013, 12:47:35 AM
In fact im looking for a second apartment in Brooklyn. I love Bedford, and i rather fancy something nice and hasidic in Bed-Stu. There's that unmistakable vibe of american culture happening again and its all in Brooklyn, by my lights.
Getting an idea of your tastes, I don't think you want to live in Bed-Stuy...it's all yuppies moving in now. Been that way for some time. I think Brooklyn and SF as a city are practically the same with different architecture. If you want edgy, it's possible wherever you go...but if you want EDGY it's getting more and more difficult to find now (in fact, still traveling to Brooklyn and living in SF I find the latter more dauntingly in your face edgy...I can only imagine what Brooklyn used to be like before the hipsters and Ivy Leaguers started moving in and keeping the graffiti but forcing the poor down to the next block and raising the price of coffee by $2 a cup).
Quote from: simms3 on July 11, 2013, 10:47:36 PM
Might I add jobs = infill multifamily construction. There's nothing else that is accounting for Austin's current boom, or Atlanta's current infill boom or Charlotte's, or Nashville's. There's a reason there is so little going up near DT (2 mid-size projects that are totally spec and are "testing" the market in Brookluyn).
I wasn't aware that Charlotte's job market was booming
Quote from: simms3 on July 11, 2013, 10:38:26 PM
^^^Trying not to sound too harsh, but Springfield really isn't happening. What's there is forced by a few extremely passionate and organized residents who care so much about the neighborhood, but let's not kid ourselves - the place hasn't "boomed" since the 1910s and aside from kicking and swinging back from rock bottom over the past 20 years hasn't been considered a "nice" place to live since the 1940s or [1950s?].
I hope for the best, and there are certainly so many prime examples in the SE of what Springfield can become if it met its potential, but none of this will happen without natural economic backing in the city, as in downtown. Downtown is like a huge painful gap/wound between the marginally successful Riverside (as compared to similar areas in growing SE cities, or even Birmingham), San Marco, and Springfield. It's the glue that holds the success of all of these neighborhoods. Without office towers brimming with middle to upper income white collar, college educated employees, there is no $$$ or demand to follow the urban pioneers and creative types who first move into a neighborhood like Springfield.
Springfield is perpetually stuck in Purgatory between gays/urban pioneers/creative types moving in and the yuppie 6-figure professionals who take over the neighborhood and finish the job (at which point the urban pioneers are either priced out or "annoyed" out of the neighb and they go stake out the next place). The latter won't come without nearby jobs for them, which as of now are all on the SS and they're all moving to the beach. Springfield has been "the next place" now for decades!
I think there is a process by which an area such as Springfield grows and comes back to being the place to be. And I think it takes a long time, it doesn't happen in a few years, it takes decades. One of the biggest issues in Springfield was the fact that a selected few decided to force the issue in the name of profit and weren't smart enough to maintain it. One could argue that if the real estate market hadn't crashed, then Springfield would be there already, but as the growth was artificial and badly controlled, I would have to say Springfield would have crashed all on it's own. This period of artificial growth set Springfield back at least ten years.
Today I think that the newer residents of Springfield, those hard working folks that see the real appeal of living in a historic district, represent the real future of Springfield. They don't make the most money, they understand what it is to struggle a bit and they recognize that the condemned house next door represents future hope when those empty lots means nothing at all. They are willing to give everyone here a chance and are willing to treat all around them with equal respect.
Springfield got held up by the Mack Bisette culture but today, thanks to those newer residents, it is back on the right track. We simply need to keep the Jack Meeks and Michael Trautmans at bay to allow it to happen.
Quote from: simms3 on July 11, 2013, 11:43:20 PM
What about townhomes/falts/lofts such as these:?
(http://metrohippie.com/wp-content/uploads/exteriorup1.gif)
Source (http://www.metrohippie.com/inman-green-in-hotlanta/)
From what I understand, this type of architecture would never get approved in Springfield. I think it should, but it won't.
Quote from: Lunican on July 12, 2013, 08:56:37 AM
Quote from: simms3 on July 11, 2013, 11:43:20 PM
What about townhomes/falts/lofts such as these:?
(http://metrohippie.com/wp-content/uploads/exteriorup1.gif)
Source (http://www.metrohippie.com/inman-green-in-hotlanta/)
From what I understand, this type of architecture would never get approved in Springfield. I think it should, but it won't.
Actually a few years ago I would have agreed with you. Today, there would be a chance. Not by SPAR Council, but thankfully they do not really matter in that regard, but the Historic Planning Staff and the current HPC would strongly consider it.
^It would be a fight but you'd have a better chance of getting something like this on Main or 8th as opposed to some of the "residential" streets. Of all places, this type of stuff is already in Alabama. Came across this yesterday in an area pretty similar to Springfield's Warehouse District. This was the back, which faced railroad tracks but had a clear view of the downtown skyline.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Birmingham-2013/i-zJ893RL/0/M/P1650184-M.jpg)
Quote from: strider on July 12, 2013, 08:42:00 AM
We simply need to keep the Jack Meeks at bay to allow it to happen.
As in the Jack Meeks that has done some of the nicest historic preservation work in all of Springfield? Please elaborate?
Jack Meeks is definitely an agent of gentrification
Quote from: CityLife on July 12, 2013, 09:13:22 AM
Quote from: strider on July 12, 2013, 08:42:00 AM
We simply need to keep the Jack Meeks at bay to allow it to happen.
As in the Jack Meeks that has done some of the nicest historic preservation work in all of Springfield? Please elaborate?
Jack Meeks and his wife, Joanne Tredneck have always supported the SRG philosophy of saving Springfield by ridding it of ugly old houses, fighting multifamily unless it is being done by the "right" people and dividing the community as much as possible into the haves and everyone else.
Yes, they have done a couple of great restorations. The big office building that generates traffic in the middle of a residential block is a PUD that would allow for a labor pool there. The building they just won a HPC award for is under the same PUD. The apartment building they did on 6th St is great looking but as it was claimed to be once a house that was converted, how did they justify leaving it as apartments when they fight others who try to do it? (by the way, they are correct in having it as apartments.) Their personal house is fabulous of course. But no more so than several others.
Because someone does a great restoration does not make their vision the best for the community.
And CityLife, you cut out the "and Michael Trautman" from my quote. Why is that?
Could something like this be built on a residential street in Springfield?
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Other/mi/i-VmNbBn8/0/M/imageHD-M.jpg)
so what is so wrong with gentrification? I think there can be a balance between gentrification and preservation. I am a "gentrifier" should I leave the neighborhood as well? I happen to like Jack and Joanne and think they are great neighbors. No need to attack them.
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 12, 2013, 08:09:01 AM
Quote from: simms3 on July 11, 2013, 10:47:36 PM
Might I add jobs = infill multifamily construction. There's nothing else that is accounting for Austin's current boom, or Atlanta's current infill boom or Charlotte's, or Nashville's. There's a reason there is so little going up near DT (2 mid-size projects that are totally spec and are "testing" the market in Brookluyn).
I wasn't aware that Charlotte's job market was booming
You are quite the ridiculous contrarian sometimes. Charlotte has 2-3x the office space in its downtown as Jax, and notably has a "younger" workforce filling such office space and getting paid much more. Call it equivalent to Jacksonville's SS, except concentrated with more college grads and bigger salaries, and more young single transplants bringing their ideas from cities up north. This gets translated into the south's most concentrated apartment boom (South End along LYNX) and literally in all directions surrounding Uptown and within Uptown - restored homes, new homes, and shops and restaurants opening as a result, providing jobs for hipster coffee roasters/baristas, artists who fill galleries and have a client base to sell to, etc etc.
Just because you think or others think the "whole picture" job market in Charlotte isn't booming doesn't mean that some sectors aren't still showing signs of strong improvement/expansion and that their business districts aren't already at a far higher level of employment than Jacksonville's (which by the way, I don't know anyone who isn't smoking crack who wouldn't say their overall job market is more robust than that of Jacksonville's, which rightly or wrongly is perpetually seen as weak).
I think Jax is potentially "cooler" and has a grittier vibe that can be harnessed for all it's worth, but Charlotte has the missing ingredient that Jax doesn't - the strong downtown core and well paid single/transplant professionals who work in the downtown and desire to live in vibrant cool areas immediately adjacent.
Or these?
(http://p.rdcpix.com/v01/la6c33f44-m0x.jpg)
(http://p.rdcpix.com/v01/l01b01744-m0x.jpg)
(http://p.rdcpix.com/v01/lf84f2244-w0x.jpg)
Quote from: sheclown on July 12, 2013, 09:35:21 AM
Jack Meeks is definitely an agent of gentrification
Can Springfield save its homes without some form of "gentrification"? Whether it be from artists, teachers, or CPA's?
I just found it interesting that a champion of historic preservation and saving the homes railed on a guy that has done some good preservation work and also brings a lot of positive outside attention on Springfield.
Lunican there was house proposed to look something like those to be built on Walnut St between 3rd and 4th. Not sure what happend to it.
Quote from: fsujax on July 12, 2013, 10:28:45 AM
Lunican there was house proposed to look something like those to be built on Walnut St between 3rd and 4th. Not sure what happend to it.
They probably weren't approved!
They were approved and virtually the entire neighborhood supported it. However, it hasn't been built yet due to financing I believe.
I would imagine those homes could get built, but they look very high end. Probably not financially feasible.
The Walnut St house...still held up as the coolest thing since sliced bread and still discussed with uber excitement years later with nothing to show. Can we all agree it's sad that we are drooling for such a house, yet as Lake pointed out this architecture has been built in relative spades in older neighbs in Birmingham for years now! Tallahassee and Gainesville even according to another older thread on MetroJax! The Walnut St house should not be the big deal or the gold pot that we make it. We are so behind...it's not my fault for sounding so negative, reality is reality :(
Quote from: CityLife on July 12, 2013, 10:33:25 AM
They were approved and virtually the entire neighborhood supported it. However, it hasn't been built yet due to financing I believe.
I would imagine those homes could get built, but they look very high end. Probably not financially feasible.
Why did virtually the entire neighborhood have to support it?
Probably because it can't get approved without a precedent setting battle.
Quote from: fsujax on July 12, 2013, 10:24:10 AM
so what is so wrong with gentrification? I think there can be a balance between gentrification and preservation. I am a "gentrifier" should I leave the neighborhood as well?
I'm not sure you are a "gentrifier"? Moving into a neighborhood doesn't qualify one as a "gentrifier." Also, there is a balance if the community and local political will power is interested in seeking it.
For example, Cleveland's Detroit-Shoreway neighborhood has an interesting affordable housing revitalization program. Their version of Springfield's Main Street is now lined with mixed-use adaptive-reuse and infill. I need to study it more, but it appears they've been able to raise the quality-of-life in the neighborhood and add new residents without purposely displacing the existing population. This, despite the neighborhood's two major employers shutting their manufacturing facilities down in recent decades.
When you think about it, our core neighborhoods like Springfield have lost over 50% of their population base since 1950. It should be feasible to revitalize where everyone gets to reap economic benefit.
Quote from: stephendare on July 12, 2013, 10:40:07 AM
Quote from: CityLife on July 12, 2013, 10:28:14 AM
Quote from: sheclown on July 12, 2013, 09:35:21 AM
Jack Meeks is definitely an agent of gentrification
Can Springfield save its homes without some form of "gentrification"? Whether it be from artists, teachers, or CPA's?
I just found it interesting that a champion of historic preservation and saving the homes railed on a guy that has done some good preservation work and also brings a lot of positive outside attention on Springfield.
You have to admit thats a weird pairing of cause and effect, city life. The question most people are wondering is whether or not the neighborhood hood can save its homes without demolishing most of them first.
Its not even a slightly weird pairing of cause in effect. Its quite simple really. Can all of Springfield's historic homes be restored by existing lower income residents? If the answer is no, then you can't really villainize or pejoratively call someone a "gentrifier" that tries to restore historic homes and bring in others to do the same.
Quote from: Lunican on July 12, 2013, 10:43:58 AM
Quote from: CityLife on July 12, 2013, 10:33:25 AM
They were approved and virtually the entire neighborhood supported it. However, it hasn't been built yet due to financing I believe.
I would imagine those homes could get built, but they look very high end. Probably not financially feasible.
Why did virtually the entire neighborhood have to support it?
Probably because it can't get approved without a precedent setting battle.
The neighborhood didn't have to support it for approval. Though nobody knows how it would have gone without neighborhood support.
Quote from: CityLife on July 12, 2013, 10:56:19 AM
Can all of Springfield's historic homes be restored by existing lower income residents? If the answer is no, then you can't really villainize or pejoratively call someone a "gentrifier" that tries to restore historic homes and bring in others to do the same.
Half of Springfield is empty lots waiting for a savior to purchase and develop them. Main Street looks like it hosted Desert Storm. 8th, which is a gateway, looks like General Sherman torched it during his march to the sea. Logistically speaking, there's ample room for all economic levels to be a part of the neighborhood's renaissance.
Anyway, the current demolition efforts aren't helping the community in either way. If anything, it's going to ultimately decrease the neighborhood's value. That hurts existing residents and those who want to displace them. Just look across Hogans Creek at Sugar Hill. Is it better off today than it was 50 years ago after millions of dollars invested in urban renewal?
Agreed and I'm not in any way getting involved in the demolition debate. Merely pointing that a group with the main goal of preservation, shouldn't really be villainizing someone that does good preservation work.
The current efforts regarding the housing efforts are mostly wasted. If those people screaming for demolitions would instead scream, or better yet, work for commercial renewal, the rest would fall into place. Main Street and 8th street are where they are because there is no real contiguous infrastructure because so mich of it was demolished. Any business wanting to open has to consider building a new building, and very few new businesses woud do that, and i dont see any developers stepping up with a historic friendly plan.
Lets the preservationist preserve. If the rest of the community gets focused on the commercial corridors you will start making progress. It has always been, and continues to be the Achilles heal of the efforts to turn the neighborhood around.
Not talking about you Stephen. Was talking about Strider's comment about keeping the Jack Meeks's at bay and SheClown pejoratively calling him a "gentrifier".
Gentrification, in some form or another, is going to happen. The issue is more one of impatience perhaps than malice on the part of most "gentrifiers". So, it is not the actual act of restoring houses and bringing in others to do the same that I take issues with, it is how one tries to accomplish that gentrification. How many houses were taken down simply because others did not like their use or because of supposed criminal use? How often was the "red alert" sounded by SPAR Council against some perceived "wrong" person or group? How does those divisions within a small community like this hurt the future of that community?
Gentrification is not supposed to happen over night. It takes years and years. Even then, today's smart money is on creating a community where everyone can live together without bias against a different life style or economic status. Not long ago one of the often called SPARparians quoted a few studies that she claimed to prove certain points. What was interesting is that she was promoting the concepts of gentrification and the moving out of the lesser, in her mind, economic groups by using studies that proved her wrong. The mantra should be that if you are good enough to work here, you are good enough to live here. That means providing affordable housing options for everyone. Businesses that can meet everyone's needs.
That is not how the old guard people in Springfield, like the Meeks, feel. I can't say that about Michael Trautman, even though he talks the same talk, as he is about to build low income housing in Springfield. But of course, he is the "right kind" of person so it is all OK and called "workforce housing". Like illegal rooming houses that rent to proton patients are OK as they rent to the "right kind" of people.
This is the kind of hypocritical philosophy that drove Springfield to the brink of total disaster, could have cost the city millions in federal lawsuits and left a divided community that has taken years to heal.
As to the lower income groups being able to afford the cost of the houses? That is the real reason the programs like NSP exist. To help equalize the economic groups. Or at least in theory. In practice, it mostly seems to help the rich get richer. Sad really.
Stephen, no, "strategic demolitions" was my phrase not his.
Absolutely, they requested that we ask first before taking pictures. A brazen request that is then justified by including "enforcement officials" in the request for permission photography. Yup, we used "terrorism" to prevent photographs of the director of MCCD.
It goes a little deeper than the quick quip at the beginning of the meeting. A side conversation with a person from the mayor's office bandied about something about Florida Law which may apply in one context but was/is completely irrelevant in last night's context which this person completely recognized but still wanted to talk about photography. The mayor's office is aware that we want to see who is in charge of our city departments and it's making them uneasy.
I can understand. It would be more than a little unsettling to see my image online as NOT the good guy. It doesn't matter though, they are working in a public office and they don't get to live in anonymity. Their decisions directly impact the city. There is that little something about sunshine and sanitation.
I'll bring a sketch artist and then, "We ask that all caricatures of city employees have balanced facial features and practice restraint with emotional expressions in the facial region. And also, terrorism."
Very interesting meeting of which the ultimate purpose was not explicitly stated except to say "I'm alvin...and I care." It was a good meeting. I appreciated the heads of departments being there. It was nice seeing each department standing next to their shoddy table set-ups with unnecessary informational material.
Most importantly, I was disappointed that my over sized "fluorescent bulb" was just a JEA branded plastic piggy bank. The bulb in my bedroom just died and I was so happy to not have to go to the store.
Quote from: TheCat on July 12, 2013, 12:43:57 PM
Stephen, no, "strategic demolitions" was my phrase not his.
Absolutely, they requested that we ask first before taking pictures. A brazen request that is then justified by including "enforcement officials" in the request for permission photography. Yup, we used "terrorism" to prevent photographs of the director of MCCD.
It goes a little deeper than the quick quip at the beginning of the meeting. A side conversation with a person from the mayor's office bandied about something about Florida Law which may apply in one context but was/is completely irrelevant in last night's context which this person recognized but still wanted to talk about photography. The mayor's office is aware that we want to see who is in charge of our city departments and it's making them uneasy.
I can understand. It would be more than a little unsettling to see my image online as NOT the good guy. It doesn't matter though, they are working in a public office and they don't get to live in anonymity. Their decisions directly impact the city. There is that little something about sunshine and sanitation.
I'll bring a sketch artist and then, "We ask that all caricatures of city employees have balanced facial features and practice restraint with emotional expressions in the facial region. And also, terrorism."
Very interesting meeting of which the ultimate purpose was not explicitly stated except to say "I'm alvin...and I care." It was a good meeting. I appreciated the heads of departments being there. It was nice seeing each department standing next to their shoddy table set-ups with unnecessary informational material.
Most importantly, I was disappointed that my over sized "fluorescent bulb" was just a JEA branded plastic piggy bank. The bulb in my bedroom just died and I was so happy to not have to go to the store.
Cat, I find this instruction for people to ask before taking pictures in a public meeting where under the "Sunshine Law" the records and salaries of city employees are public record and said employees are often photographed by media on a regular basis to be purely outrageous. According to city parameters any citizen can take photo's in an open meeting period, as long as they do not disrupt the meeting! Shoot, they can even video meetings! This keep it behind the curtain attitude of this administration is appalling and of deep concern. In the meantime, Ms. Scott who so hates to be photographed is already recorded on video during several council meetings, including the one a few weeks ago. Anyone willing to take the time can view those previous meetings and download whatever footage they would like to. Any private citizen who goes and speaks at a council meeting is asked their name, address and is filmed. That is what is understood in public meetings. This notion that employees or department heads cannot be photographed is absurd.
Oh, I completely agree. I also think it's an unnecessary distraction.
We know it's legal and fine. This person brought up the photography issue as we were discussing Hemming. I have no doubt he was trying to change the subject...among other things.
http://www.myflsunshine.com/pages.nsf/Main/321B47083D80C4CD8525791B006A54E3#11
See the State Attorney General's FAQ page above.
•As a private citizen, can I videotape a public meeting?
A public board may not prohibit a citizen from videotaping a public meeting through the use of nondisruptive video recording devices.
Don't see how any different from photography as long as not disruptive.
Quote from: m74reeves on July 12, 2013, 02:25:17 PM
http://www.myflsunshine.com/pages.nsf/Main/321B47083D80C4CD8525791B006A54E3#11
See the State Attorney General's FAQ page above.
•As a private citizen, can I videotape a public meeting?
A public board may not prohibit a citizen from videotaping a public meeting through the use of nondisruptive video recording devices.
Don't see how any different from photography as long as not disruptive.
Thanks for finding and sharing this.
Quote from: stephendare on July 12, 2013, 02:10:19 PM
Ive asked the mayor's office for a clarification and identification of the law in this, One supposes we will hear back soon.
One supposes. ;) Has DeCamp gotten back to you on the Hemming Park furniture that was removed?
Everything past reply #44 is ponitification by pontificators about other things other than meeting. how about a split thread? There are better notes on the meeting at the spar face book page.
Quote from: John P on July 12, 2013, 02:50:49 PM
Everything past reply #44 is ponitification by pontificators about other things other than meeting. how about a split thread? There are better notes on the meeting at the spar face book page.
It could be called the "Ruminations about Springfield by people who live out of town, what is gentification and is it positive or negative, what happened to Hemming Plaza park benches and what is CoJ photography policy" discussion thread.
^love it. thanks for clarification.
Quote from: stephendare on July 12, 2013, 03:25:42 PM
Quote from: John P on July 12, 2013, 03:14:26 PM
Quote from: John P on July 12, 2013, 02:50:49 PM
Everything past reply #44 is ponitification by pontificators about other things other than meeting. how about a split thread? There are better notes on the meeting at the spar face book page.
It could be called the "Ruminations about Springfield by people who live out of town, what is gentification and is it positive or negative, what happened to Hemming Plaza park benches and what is CoJ photography policy" discussion thread.
I love ruminations. Even these past couple of ruminative posts of yours.
The subject of this thread incidentally is Mayor Brown. "In Springfield" would form the rest of a prepositional phrase and acts as an adjective.
In any case, weve just heard back from the Mayor's office, the City's attorney, and the final word is that the public is free to photograph anyone at a public meeting that they wish to.
Someone from the Mayor's office (who will remain unnamed at present) mentioned an unconnected state Statute that restricts the kind of information that is available from a public information request to the city.
So someone may not get a photo of enforcement officers from the city in a public information request. But they certainly may photograph them in a public arena themselves.
We informed the General Counsel's office that Ms Scott has been disrupting meetings with demands that the public erase photos of her and the GC told us that they would communicate the correct policy to Ms. Scott.
Perfect. We knew this from the first stunt pulled by Scott. Glad she is going to be informed about the law. :)
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 11, 2013, 09:56:14 PM
Quote from: sheclown on July 11, 2013, 06:28:03 PM
Michael trautman asks for the city to demolish these houses
sorry, but that's not exactly what he said....what he did say was in his opinion the neighborhood experienced the most positive change when many of the new homes were being built....he also said that some homes may need to be demolished as they are beyond saving and nobody will come in to rescue them
and yes, he did admit to being a developer
Below is word for word what Michael Trautman said:QuoteHi there, thanks again for coming out to Springfield. My name's Mike Trautman I live at uh 132 West 5th, I want to take a different point of view than Kim did as far as demolition. Uh, been a developer for 20 years in this community and the most progress that took place in that 20 year period was when John Delaney initiated the Springfield uh Development Plan where he came in and did targeted restoration and then uh Bank of America came in with their CDC and started building infill houses. I really think that's the solution for the city to increase their tax base, I think that's the solution to propel this community forward. There's numerous builders that are interested, very interested, in coming to Springfield and I would hope that uh you would encourage and develop uh that strategy along with the necessary demolitions (inaudible words)....numerous structures that are beyond revitalization ....no one's gonna buy them. We'll be staring at the same buildings for 15 years before they fall down.
"numerous structures that are beyond revitalization ....no one's gonna buy them." Really? Says who???
"We'll be staring at the same buildings for 15 years before they fall down." I sure has hell hope so! Because once the old gal is torn down, there's no chance at all for any type of restoration. Just because something may not be the prettiest gal on the block certainly does not mean she should be destroyed.
Thanks
"We'll be staring at the same buildings for 15 years before they fall down."
Yes, please. Can I get that on a t-shirt?
Edited: I have the greatest respect for Mike Trautmann but he and I disagree on the role of government in this issue...especially on the subject of demolitions.
Never said he didn't....I think my paraphrasing closely matches what he said.
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 13, 2013, 08:01:27 PM
Never said he didn't....I think my paraphrasing closely matches what he said.
I want some of whatever you're smoking.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on July 13, 2013, 08:07:11 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 13, 2013, 08:01:27 PM
Never said he didn't....I think my paraphrasing closely matches what he said.
I want some of whatever you're smoking.
In post #22 I said the following:
Quote
sorry, but that's not exactly what he said....what he did say was in his opinion the neighborhood experienced the most positive change when many of the new homes were being built....he also said that some homes may need to be demolished as they are beyond saving and nobody will come in to rescue them
Now, if you had attended the meeting, you could have heard for yourself
Quote from: sheclown on July 11, 2013, 10:03:38 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 11, 2013, 09:56:14 PM
Quote from: sheclown on July 11, 2013, 06:28:03 PM
Michael trautman asks for the city to demolish these houses
sorry, but that's not exactly what he said....what he did say was in his opinion the neighborhood experienced the most positive change when many of the new homes were being built....and yes, he did admit to being a developer
Look at The Cat's response. He heard what I heard.
Over on East 6th St., a contractor/ developer gutted a house, changed all the interior framing, removed the windows, doors and siding. They took the house to about the same condition as the two that were demolished by Ms Scott recently. In this case, they did the work without the proper COA's so the project is in limbo while that is sorted out. But it can be used to illustrate that the two houses most recently taken by Ms Scott could have been restored. If a contractor can start with a house in decent shape and make it need everything these two demolished houses needed and still believe they could make money doing it, there is no excuse to call any house in Springfield "beyond revitalization".
There is some other reason the Michael Trautman's, the Meeks and others support these demolitions. They are just afraid to say it.
Quote from: strider on July 14, 2013, 08:11:18 AM
Quote from: sheclown on July 11, 2013, 10:03:38 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 11, 2013, 09:56:14 PM
Quote from: sheclown on July 11, 2013, 06:28:03 PM
Michael trautman asks for the city to demolish these houses
sorry, but that's not exactly what he said....what he did say was in his opinion the neighborhood experienced the most positive change when many of the new homes were being built....and yes, he did admit to being a developer
Look at The Cat's response. He heard what I heard.
yes...I had posted my response before finishing it...if you go back to Post 22, you can see that I revised it...but it was within minutes of the original post.
I'm sorry that you have an ax to grind here...I was standing right behind Mr. Trautman and had no idea who he is/was....what was clear at the meeting is that there is a big divide in Springfield regarding the issue of demolitions.
Seems to me the practical answer lies somewhere in the middle...for example, I live in a complex downtown held up as one of the better urban development projects built in Jacksonville....but clearly other structures were on the site prior to 2000.
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 14, 2013, 09:31:41 AM
Quote from: strider on July 14, 2013, 08:11:18 AM
Quote from: sheclown on July 11, 2013, 10:03:38 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 11, 2013, 09:56:14 PM
Quote from: sheclown on July 11, 2013, 06:28:03 PM
Michael trautman asks for the city to demolish these houses
sorry, but that's not exactly what he said....what he did say was in his opinion the neighborhood experienced the most positive change when many of the new homes were being built....and yes, he did admit to being a developer
Look at The Cat's response. He heard what I heard.
yes...I had posted my response before finishing it...if you go back to Post 22, you can see that I revised it...but it was within minutes of the original post.
I'm sorry that you have an ax to grind here...I was standing right behind Mr. Trautman and had no idea who he is/was....what was clear at the meeting is that there is a big divide in Springfield regarding the issue of demolitions.
Seems to me the practical answer lies somewhere in the middle...for example, I live in a complex downtown held up as one of the better urban development projects built in Jacksonville....but clearly other structures were on the site prior to 2000.
I'm confused...what does your statement (bolded above) mean? What are you trying to say?
Unfortunately, for every one of the development tufsu1 describes, downtown Jacksonville probably has 20-30 blocks of utter failure (surface parking & vacant weed filled lots). There is a point in time, where demolition of certain structures may make sense. However, let's not kid ourselves. That's not happening in Springfield or Downtown.
Let's see tufsu1. Sheclown states that Mr Trautman asks for demolitions (which he did) you try to say otherwise, she quotes you and then you go back and modify your post and then give Sheclown a hard time about what she said . And I have an ax to grind? Sorry, me thinks you have that a bit backwards.
I think that while it may become necessary to demolish a designated and protected historic structure at times, due to actually being an "extreme and imminent threat to public safety", that is not why the last few houses have gone down. That is not why the vast majority of the 535 houses lost since Springfield got its historic designation were demolished. The main reasons have been nothing but social reasons. They look bad, criminals stay in them, they were once used as rooming houses, the owners didn't fix them up fast enough, if we don't use that NSP funding for demolitions, we will lose it, lot's of demolitions makes me look better to the big bosses, the demolition contractors won't give me those nice Christmas presents if I don't give them more big houses to tear down, I want a bigger yard, I need the lot for my new pool.... it could be one or two of the above or all of them. In any case, few were so bad that they had to come down because they truly were a threat to public safety. When the ordinance charges the entire city with protecting it's historic buildings and it elects to tear them down instead, is it not breaking the law just the same as the guy who robs your car in the middle of the night? The big difference is it is only you and the insurance company who pays for those lost CD's, all taxpayers get to foot the bill when Kimberly Scott illegally tears down a house and the city settles those lawsuits.
^^^^ +1000 strider!
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 11, 2013, 10:30:19 PM
Quote from: sheclown on July 11, 2013, 10:21:08 PM
Regarding the photos
We were asked at the beginning of the meeting -- by the mayor-- to request permission before taking photos -- especially of people who are in the enforcement biz.
again, not quite what I heard...I didn't hear anything about people in the "enforcement biz"...I belive the Mayor used the term "city staff", which applied to the 15-20 city staffers in attendance not involved in code enforcement
He said enforcement. It may have been enforcement duties, not biz, but yes, he asked us not to take pictures without asking first, "especially of people with enforcement duties."
Dear Mayor Brown, thank you for coming to Springfield last week. I was surprised to hear your response to Kim Pryor's question at the meeting. Springfield is a National Historic District. As such, and per COJ Ordinance 307, the City of Jacksonville has an obligation to preserve our historic homes. By law, they are to use the least intrusive means to secure/stabilize the house.
When someone complains about the "ugly" house next door possibly affecting their property values, COJ's immediate response should be, "You are living in/chose to buy in/chose to invest in an historic district. As such, the homes there are protected. One must perform due diligence when choosing to live in/invest in an historic district, because it is the City's responsibility to protect those homes."
If one has a problem with yet-to-be-rehabbed historic homes, they should perhaps rethink an "emerging" historic district such as Springfield as their neighborhood. COJ should not step in and destroy someone else's property to appease a squeaky wheel who should have done some legwork about historic districts before they purchased or invested in one. To those who say "rehab of that house is not economically feasible," I say, "Well, maybe not to YOU it's not. That doesn't mean someone else won't come along to love that house again."
Nor have the recent demolitions Kim Pryor referred to been a matter of public safety. Oh, I know Kim Scott and the rest of MCCD love to throw that around. But the fact is both of the houses demolished recently in Springfield, and indeed many in the past, were structurally sound. And Springfield is a what? A NATIONAL HISTORIC DISTRICT. And the homes are to be protected.
On the day it was demolished as an "emergency," 253 E. 2nd Street had a contract on it for approximately $69,000 that was scheduled to close in a week. Metro North had grant funds to beautifully restore that home. You know their track record, and know it would have been done. However, it was already structurally sound because the earlier owner had obtained a loan to restore it. The house had been completely re-structured inside, new roof material, new trusses. Then, unfortunately, he was unable to continue with the rehab. The porch needed attention. But structurally, the house was all new inside. We have pictures. There was no public safety issue that could not have been remediated timely with this house. Again, rehab was set to start shortly. It's my understanding when Kim Scott was called and told the house was scheduled to close the next week and rehab to begin, her response was along the lines of, "I don't care, it's coming down." Really? Is that how you want MCCD to be run? Would you not prefer a code compliance department that helps people and works to preserve homes, any homes, if possible? The greenest home is one that is already built, after all. And in Springfield, they are located in a NATIONAL HISTORIC DISTRICT and as such are to be protected.
Kim Pryor said she had some ideas to share with you, and would like to meet with you. You said you welcomed her ideas. I trust you will keep your promise to meet with her. There are other ways besides the destruction of our city's history, already in the ordinances and within the power of COJ, to protect both our people and our historic homes.
Sincerely,
Debbie Thompson
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on July 17, 2013, 11:22:53 PM
Dear Mayor Brown, thank you for coming to Springfield last week. I was surprised to hear your response to Kim Pryor's question at the meeting. Springfield is a National Historic District. As such, and per COJ Ordinance 307, the City of Jacksonville has an obligation to preserve our historic homes. By law, they are to use the least intrusive means to secure/stabilize the house.
When someone complains about the "ugly" house next door possibly affecting their property values, COJ's immediate response should be, "You are living in/chose to buy in/chose to invest in an historic district. As such, the homes there are protected. One must perform due diligence when choosing to live in/invest in an historic district, because it is the City's responsibility to protect those homes."
If one has a problem with yet-to-be-rehabbed historic homes, they should perhaps rethink an "emerging" historic district such as Springfield as their neighborhood. COJ should not step in and destroy someone else's property to appease a squeaky wheel who should have done some legwork about historic districts before they purchased or invested in one. To those who say "rehab of that house is not economically feasible," I say, "Well, maybe not to YOU it's not. That doesn't mean someone else won't come along to love that house again."
Nor have the recent demolitions Kim Pryor referred to been a matter of public safety. Oh, I know Kim Scott and the rest of MCCD love to throw that around. But the fact is both of the houses demolished recently in Springfield, and indeed many in the past, were structurally sound. And Springfield is a what? A NATIONAL HISTORIC DISTRICT. And the homes are to be protected.
On the day it was demolished as an "emergency," 253 E. 2nd Street had a contract on it for approximately $69,000 that was scheduled to close in a week. Metro North had grant funds to beautifully restore that home. You know their track record, and know it would have been done. However, it was already structurally sound because the earlier owner had obtained a loan to restore it. The house had been completely re-structured inside, new roof material, new trusses. Then, unfortunately, he was unable to continue with the rehab. The porch needed attention. But structurally, the house was all new inside. We have pictures. There was no public safety issue that could not have been remediated timely with this house. Again, rehab was set to start shortly. It's my understanding when Kim Scott was called and told the house was scheduled to close the next week and rehab to begin, her response was along the lines of, "I don't care, it's coming down." Really? Is that how you want MCCD to be run? Would you not prefer a code compliance department that helps people and works to preserve homes, any homes, if possible? The greenest home is one that is already built, after all. And in Springfield, they are located in a NATIONAL HISTORIC DISTRICT and as such are to be protected.
Kim Pryor said she had some ideas to share with you, and would like to meet with you. You said you welcomed her ideas. I trust you will keep your promise to meet with her. There are other ways besides the destruction of our city's history, already in the ordinances and within the power of COJ, to protect both our people and our historic homes.
Sincerely,
Debbie Thompson
Go Debbie, go Debbie. Good letter!