It's nice to see some infill coming back to Springfield.
QuoteSpeculative homes planned for historic Springfield
JWB Real Estate Capital is hedging its next bet on Springfield, with plans to start speculative construction on single-family houses in the historic neighborhood in the coming months.
That's right: Speculative construction. In Springfield.
In July, JWB bought 41 lots throughout Springfield, for about $11,000 per lot, where it plans to build homes that resemble the historic properties that define the area. The homes will be three and four bedrooms, between 1,800 and 2,200 square feet.
full article: http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2013/10/15/jwb-real-estate-capital-plans.html
i disagree. i still maintain that we need to get every existing house fixed before we've any right flooding the neighbourhood with new ones. i realize that that isn't entirely realistic, but we can definitely do better than we've been doïng, and speculative construction will only worsen the situation.
Far from it. The infill will raise the market value of the existing housing stock ... thereby making it more financially feasible to get the loans or capital necessary to restore the existing stock, i.e. you have a chance in hell of recovering the rehab costs.
^Yeah, infill only helps when it comes down to getting loans and capital necessary for adjacent properties.
it also seems to me that a lot ov the infill we get in springfield falls into a sort ov uncanny valley--an attempt at historical appropriateness is clearly beïng made, but the end result falls far enough short that it looks almost as wrong as something purely modern would.
In the full article they say they are building these as rentals.
Good News for those families who can't borrow.
They will be priced between 1,200-1,400 a month.
Not so great.
To qualify for a rental, you usually have to prove income of 3x the rental amount.
That is 3600 a month at the cheapest=3600/4wks/40hrs= 22.50 an hour.
I DO have to give them props on the rehab/rentals though. I have been taking note of their rental posts on CL. They look like they do a good job on the rehabs- and usually, reasonably(ish) priced.
But, ya know either wages WILL go up, or the rents WILL have to go down, because there are only so many 22.50p/h jobs in Jacksonville.
I think the new construction is definitely a positive for the neighborhood. But it would be nice to see some 'newer' architectural designs in the mix, instead of the typical faux historic designs. Maybe the neighborhood isn't that far along yet for that sort of creativity.
Quote from: GoldenEst82 on October 15, 2013, 03:58:40 PM
In the full article they say they are building these as rentals.
Good News for those families who can't borrow.
They will be priced between 1,200-1,400 a month.
Not so great.
To qualify for a rental, you usually have to prove income of 3x the rental amount.
That is 3600 a month at the cheapest=3600/4wks/40hrs= 22.50 an hour.
I DO have to give them props on the rehab/rentals though. I have been taking note of their rental posts on CL. They look like they do a good job on the rehabs- and usually, reasonably(ish) priced.
But, ya know either wages WILL go up, or the rents WILL have to go down, because there are only so many 22.50p/h jobs in Jacksonville.
That's the hard reality of the world we live in. If rents were lower, no one would build because the ROI would not be worth the initial capital needed to build. This is a major reason downtown doesn't have more housing. There's a financing gap and the only way it can be overcome is with some form of public incentives or subsidies.
With that said, I assume these are at least 3 bedroom homes they are constructing, so they'd be available to households that have two or more people working as well.
Shudder that the article mentions that the homes will need to copy the existing ones. Building a home with modern amenities - storage and closets, smarter wiring, insulation and energy efficiency that is a copy of an original early 1900's home does nothing but lessen the value of that historic home. The market for older homes will always be there and putting up cheaper knock offs of them, craftsmanship wise and detailing wise is a real shame in my opinion.
Why not build something for this era, this time and place (as the national historic guidelines require) for an audience that wants to live in an urban walkable neighborhood, but doesn't want to live in a faux historic home or a true historic home. Let those grand old lady's be fixed up, let that be the only way to live in an old victorian or a craftsman - give them back their value. Don't cheapen it.
^I definitely agree!
^This is something I don't understand. Is there some code or regulation that's requiring the homes to be "faux-historic", or is it just what the builders want to do? If it's the latter, that will certainly change when tastes do, hopefully sooner than later. If it's the former, we need to do something about it.
Springfield is one of a handful of neighborhoods in Jax that has the opportunity to meld the historic with the new. It's a shame that this isn't taken advantage of... it seems redundant that so many actual historic structures are torn down only to be replaced by replicas.
Quote from: Tacachale on October 15, 2013, 05:24:08 PM
^This is something I don't understand. Is there some code or regulation that's requiring the homes to be "faux-historic", or is it just what the builders want to do? If it's the latter, that will certainly change when tastes do, hopefully sooner than later. If it's the former, we need to do something about it.
Builders want to make money. In general, they don't care whether the project is urban, suburban, faux-historic or modern. This basically boils down to time is money and it's a much easier path to get an approved COA from COJ going faux-historic. Until that changes, don't expect much from building community.
While I'm fine with a more modern house design, a la the Walnut House designed by Content Design, I'll take the other side of the argument.
People move to historic neighborhoods in large part due to aesthetics. People like the look of traditional historic homes. Builders know that and give people what they want.
But this is a Jax issue, not a specific neighborhood.. There was a chance for more modern design in Riverside recently (and still is) in the cul-de-sac behind the bank on King Street. But, again, traditional style houses are being built.
Concerning the article, I wonder why they chose the 2 specific lots to start building on. They own many lots which are probably more viable.
Where are they building the first two? I didn't see it mentioned in the article.
1900 blocks of Perry & Hubbard.
I really don't mind "faux historic" buildings in principle, especially when it's of basic housing that is vernacular or relatively simple in form and details. Consider how well some of the faux colonial houses fit in in St. Augustine... a lot of tourists think they're looking at something built in 1814 when it was really 1964. It's a relatively easy stylistic vocabulary to get (mostly) right, and as a result, the city appears to have far more "colonial" structures than the 30 or so authentic ones that have survived to present.
What I do mind, and frankly don't understand, is when designers of what's supposed to be contextually sensitive infill so often bungle the scale, dimensions, and proportions of the building and its various components. It definitely goes uncanny valley enough that you wonder why they even tried. It just doesn't seem that hard, but maybe it's a matter of experience and background. I know certain eras of American architecture well enough that I can imitate them on 'paper' (or Sketchup, etc.) pretty darn well and know when something is 'off'. Some designers/builders are great at this. As long as Springfield can attract those who are, bring it on. Some of these designers, though, need a few more years of being out in the field sketching historic buildings before they're allowed to design variations, but that's just my humble opinion.
Love that it's starting North of 8th.
Any idea what the construction timetable is?
I disagree that it's going to damage the value of the existing historic stock. I think the opposite will happen; adding quality infill with good neighbors will make the area a more attractive place to live. That will increase property values. Increased property values will make it financially viable to restore historic structures thereby saving them.
Rent vs Sell - right now you'll get a better return on capital renting out property than selling it. As soon as that equation changes these houses will be for sale.
Quote from: Bill Hoff on October 15, 2013, 06:47:43 PM
1900 blocks of Perry & Hubbard.
Faux- historic is going to be likely more attractive to a more-money-than-time professional person that doesn't want to deal with the personality quirks of an authentic historic house and would rather live in a modern low maint house but is attracted to the personality of a historic neighborhood.
The SRG and Low Country houses remind me of the retro-styled modern cars; Mini Cooper, Mustang, VW Bug. They have the style and positive personality traits of the originals but without the negatives.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 15, 2013, 05:34:08 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on October 15, 2013, 05:24:08 PM
^This is something I don't understand. Is there some code or regulation that's requiring the homes to be "faux-historic", or is it just what the builders want to do? If it's the latter, that will certainly change when tastes do, hopefully sooner than later. If it's the former, we need to do something about it.
Builders want to make money. In general, they don't care whether the project is urban, suburban, faux-historic or modern. This basically boils down to time is money and it's a much easier path to get an approved COA from COJ going faux-historic. Until that changes, don't expect much from building community.
^It's not uncommon to find a great mix in housing styles in many popular historic districts across the country.
In general, I believe it comes down to cost for both the developer and buyer, moreso than design style. For every person looking for a faux-historic looking house, you have one that wouldn't mind a different style within the same urban setting. A good chunk of the population tends to make purchases based on value, amenities, convenience and attraction to a certain area or atmosphere. By the same token, many developers create products that are easy to get approved, while being cost effective enough to maximize profits. In Jax, it's much easier to not rock the boat, if you're not interested in doing just that.
Sorry, but development & speculation are part of what did this neighborhood in. More of that isn't gonna solve the major underlying issues. At this point, this place needs organic growth, cheap storefront rents & cheap housing, with programs to get these homes in the hands of people who want to actually live in them.
Trying to raise prices artificially, when the neighborhood clearly isn't ready for that, is a recipe for more of the same stagnation.
Infill development is also a component of organic growth. Nothing happened in this neighborhood that didn't happen across the city and the rest of the country. There are very little negatives, if any, to having new housing built on current abandoned and overgrown lots. More people living within a compact area actually improves market conditions for commercial opportunities.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 15, 2013, 09:50:51 PM
Infill development is also a component of organic growth. Nothing happened in this neighborhood that didn't happen across the city and the rest of the country.
Oh, not quite like Springfield though. Seriously, they were asking $200K for places that were being held together with termites. Basically zero value, all speculation.
Certainly there is room for both faux historic and modern homes in Springfield, and from talking to numerous people I know there is certainly a large sector that is looking for something modern, sustainable, and different from what's available in our urban core. I think a trip up to east atlanta for a tour of what is essentially Springfield, except the current infill has a large mix of modern homes next to vintage historic and newer traditional homes, would be very interesting and a pretty darn good photo essay could come out of it. Ennis, want to talk about it?
I just think Springfield has an excellent opportunity to be different than the other core neighborhoods - and it can actually be the turning point. Developers coming in and only building faux historic has been done over and over again and Springfield hasn't turned the corner yet (and I know there are other issues out there). Why not try and give the potential buyer something different?
Great news. I love the old houses. And I love the new infill houses. And I'd like some modern designs thrown into the mix as well. Bring it all on! (Sorry, I know this bucks the metrojax supertrend of bitching about absolutely everything).
Now lets work on a real coffee shop and some casual restaurants to Main Street.
Let's brainstorm here....Carmine's. Bold Bean Coffee. French Pantry. Taco Lu.
Quote from: jason_contentdg on October 16, 2013, 09:48:32 AM
Certainly there is room for both faux historic and modern homes in Springfield, and from talking to numerous people I know there is certainly a large sector that is looking for something modern, sustainable, and different from what's available in our urban core. I think a trip up to east atlanta for a tour of what is essentially Springfield, except the current infill has a large mix of modern homes next to vintage historic and newer traditional homes, would be very interesting and a pretty darn good photo essay could come out of it. Ennis, want to talk about it?
Sounds good to me. Atlanta is one of those cities where you can find a decent mix of housing styles integrated into revitalizing historic districts.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/2088908275_3nFcdC9-M.jpg)
Atlanta's Old 4th Ward
Good discussion. Here's some other thoughts too:
http://www.myspringfield.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=2391
I suppose it's subjective.
1200 to 1400 rents......in Springfield?
From Rentometer dot com:
Your results are based on average rents in 32206:
(30) 3-bedroom rentals
...in a 0.45 mile radius.
Median rent: $795
Average rent: $885
(28) 4-bedroom rentals
...in a 1.17 mile radius.
Median rent: $973
Average rent: $1087
I know Alex and Gregg from JWB, good, smart people! Their mentor is a great one and they have done some amazing things with houses all over town. We will see if they can "Push" the market up with these dwellings and raise the values. They will probably all look very similar, because JWB sees great economies of scale when they can use the same paint, same materials, same plans. Plus it also makes it easier on workers to know what they are building every day, week and month.
When I rent to people I don't look at 3x their GROSS income, I use a multiplier of 4x Gross. So a 1400 dollar rental requires that the "household" earn at least $5600 in Gross income. When times get tough, I don't care if the loan sharks are after you, JEA is threatening to cut off the power, or your mama needs a loan, I am the first payment to be made. I have the power to kick you out and put the rent damages on your credit for 10 years. I am the most important payment you will ever make!
Quote from: Duvaltopia on October 16, 2013, 09:48:54 AM
(Sorry, I know this bucks the metrojax supertrend of bitching about absolutely everything).
There are definitely some reasonable people on MJ, but certainly there's still many 'TU-like' antagonists who will find a reason to complain about everything, even positive things to the city. So I tend to agree with you; Although to be fair, it was even worse a couple of years ago than it is now.
Quote from: mtraininjax on October 17, 2013, 07:27:23 AM
1200 to 1400 rents......in Springfield?
From Rentometer dot com:
Your results are based on average rents in 32206:
(30) 3-bedroom rentals
...in a 0.45 mile radius.
Median rent: $795
Average rent: $885
(28) 4-bedroom rentals
...in a 1.17 mile radius.
Median rent: $973
Average rent: $1087
I know Alex and Gregg from JWB, good, smart people! Their mentor is a great one and they have done some amazing things with houses all over town. We will see if they can "Push" the market up with these dwellings and raise the values. They will probably all look very similar, because JWB sees great economies of scale when they can use the same paint, same materials, same plans. Plus it also makes it easier on workers to know what they are building every day, week and month.
When I rent to people I don't look at 3x their GROSS income, I use a multiplier of 4x Gross. So a 1400 dollar rental requires that the "household" earn at least $5600 in Gross income. When times get tough, I don't care if the loan sharks are after you, JEA is threatening to cut off the power, or your mama needs a loan, I am the first payment to be made. I have the power to kick you out and put the rent damages on your credit for 10 years. I am the most important payment you will ever make!
mtra there are higher rentals than that in Springfield
SRG built "riverside average" style homes in Springfield so at least the style was different than the typical Springfield house. What is interesting is that a few houses got remodeled in the SRG style with approval from HPC when those modifications took the house away from it's original style. We built two houses that people looked at and told us how well we had rehabbed that old house. While it was original our goal, once we met it, we started to realize that it was wrong and we needed to build more modern houses so that they were obviously in-fill. That in-fill should not blend but rather compliment the old historic houses.
Unfortunately, financial matters are dictating the style the more recent infills have been built to. Generic, rather plain and therefore inexpensive to build, by comparison anyway. When I drive around the neighborhood today, the in-fills built by all the newer builders here all look basically the same. I can;t tell who built what. I guess at least the are recognizable as infill that way.
I was also surprised at the locations chosen for the first builds by JWB. Perhaps they are going for if it works here, it will work anywhere approach? They own some great lots so perhaps they are hoping to save them for better SF prices.
Quote from: jason_contentdg on October 15, 2013, 05:03:03 PM
Shudder that the article mentions that the homes will need to copy the existing ones. Building a home with modern amenities - storage and closets, smarter wiring, insulation and energy efficiency that is a copy of an original early 1900's home does nothing but lessen the value of that historic home. The market for older homes will always be there and putting up cheaper knock offs of them, craftsmanship wise and detailing wise is a real shame in my opinion.
Why not build something for this era, this time and place (as the national historic guidelines require) for an audience that wants to live in an urban walkable neighborhood, but doesn't want to live in a faux historic home or a true historic home. Let those grand old lady's be fixed up, let that be the only way to live in an old victorian or a craftsman - give them back their value. Don't cheapen it.
I agree completely, Jason. Our HPC has misinterpreted the historic guidelines for years. Their insistence on faux historic construction is detrimental to revitalization of Springfield, and negatively impacts the value of existing historic homes. I'm not saying we shouldn't allow ANY faux historic, but let's get creative!
Quote from: Bill Hoff on October 15, 2013, 06:47:43 PM
1900 blocks of Perry & Hubbard.
1900 Perry is literally across the street from UF Health. Perhaps they view UF Health as having a pool of potential buyers/renters?
Quote from: mtraininjax on October 17, 2013, 07:27:23 AM
When I rent to people I don't look at 3x their GROSS income, I use a multiplier of 4x Gross. So a 1400 dollar rental requires that the "household" earn at least $5600 in Gross income. When times get tough, I don't care if the loan sharks are after you, JEA is threatening to cut off the power, or your mama needs a loan, I am the first payment to be made. I have the power to kick you out and put the rent damages on your credit for 10 years. I am the most important payment you will ever make!
I have been renting my whole adult life- and I get that a lot of landlords get F*ed by bad tenants. I have no problem with income requirements, credit checks or deposits.
But people (and families) have to live somewhere.
I pay 700 a month to live in a 1100sqft piece of swiss cheese- with high energy bills that definitely do not help my family's quality of life.
I have been screwed out of 2 deposits of over a thousand dollars each- by landlords who violate the law regarding deposits- because they know there is nothing someone like me can do about it. When I cited statute to my previous landlord he laughed in my face.
Lots of renters are taken advantage of because they do not have the means to legally pursue anybody.
I am sure I am not unique.
Anyone looking to get into the rental property business should realize that the safest bet is the one that applies to the most people. With the economy as it is- there are only a finite amount of families that make qualifying income for 1200-1400 rent- and of that demographic- how many would want to move to Springfield over the SSide, ICW area, or Mandarin?
I'll tell you EXACTLY who
does want to live in Spr or DT. Artists. Young people starting business'. Families who want to live next to the cultural offerings of an urban center.
Though these types usually don't make a min of 22.50 p/h, though.
Back OT: IMO, Springfield should take anything and everything that comes its way- as long as we stop tearing down what's already there. All the core areas could use new infill- but Spr needs to keep its historic fabric in place.
The statute provides for your attorney's fees if you have to sue a landlord over the return of a security deposit, it generally doesn't cost the client a dime.
QuoteI'll tell you EXACTLY who does want to live in Spr or DT. Artists. Young people starting business'. Families who want to live next to the cultural offerings of an urban center. Though these types usually don't make a min of 22.50 p/h, though.
And I hope people CAN afford these, but I think JWB is trying to push the market at 1200-1400 when the market is less. But, hey, newbies to Jax will see these and think they are close to King Street only to realize that they are a ways from the pizza/beer/pub district and be screwed for a year with a lease they can barely afford.
Tenants have rights, the lease protects both parties as do the Florida Statutes Chapter 83. JaxLegal Aid can also help, if there are funds. I love hearing about landlords who get screwed, because there are many bad ones out there.
Go get 'em!
Quote from: GoldenEst82 on October 17, 2013, 03:54:25 PM
Back OT: IMO, Springfield should take anything and everything that comes its way- as long as we stop tearing down what's already there. All the core areas could use new infill- but Spr needs to keep its historic fabric in place.
^^Hoo-rah.
Certainly there are enough vacant lots for infill. Bring it on.
However, I would prefer to see our vacant homes rehabbed first.
There are funds available to make that happen, however new-build prevails.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 17, 2013, 06:21:25 PM
The statute provides for your attorney's fees if you have to sue a landlord over the return of a security deposit, it generally doesn't cost the client a dime.
My Partner's Mom filed the paperwork. I have no idea what happened after I gave her all the relevant documents. I borrowed the deposit for my current house from her- with expectation that I would repay her with former houses' deposit.
I am still paying her back.
As a fact, I am stuck in this swiss cheese house because I won't borrow from her again, in order to have the average 1400-2000 it takes to move.
(I do have dog, so I have that deposit included in that figure, but you would have a dog too, considering the areas a 700 p/m rent puts you.)
Quote from: GoldenEst82 on October 18, 2013, 01:53:35 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 17, 2013, 06:21:25 PM
The statute provides for your attorney's fees if you have to sue a landlord over the return of a security deposit, it generally doesn't cost the client a dime.
My Partner's Mom filed the paperwork. I have no idea what happened after I gave her all the relevant documents. I borrowed the deposit for my current house from her- with expectation that I would repay her with former houses' deposit.
I am still paying her back.
As a fact, I am stuck in this swiss cheese house because I won't borrow from her again, in order to have the average 1400-2000 it takes to move.
(I do have dog, so I have that deposit included in that figure, but you would have a dog too, considering the areas a 700 p/m rent puts you.)
How long has it been since you moved?
Quote from: Miss Fixit on October 17, 2013, 10:25:07 AM
Quote from: jason_contentdg on October 15, 2013, 05:03:03 PM
Shudder that the article mentions that the homes will need to copy the existing ones. Building a home with modern amenities - storage and closets, smarter wiring, insulation and energy efficiency that is a copy of an original early 1900's home does nothing but lessen the value of that historic home. The market for older homes will always be there and putting up cheaper knock offs of them, craftsmanship wise and detailing wise is a real shame in my opinion.
Why not build something for this era, this time and place (as the national historic guidelines require) for an audience that wants to live in an urban walkable neighborhood, but doesn't want to live in a faux historic home or a true historic home. Let those grand old lady's be fixed up, let that be the only way to live in an old victorian or a craftsman - give them back their value. Don't cheapen it.
I agree completely, Jason. Our HPC has misinterpreted the historic guidelines for years. Their insistence on faux historic construction is detrimental to revitalization of Springfield, and negatively impacts the value of existing historic homes. I'm not saying we shouldn't allow ANY faux historic, but let's get creative!
I totally agree MissFixit and Jason. Let's give architects some room to breathe. Let's be authentic in Springfield, if nothing else. Let's build a house for today that looks like today.
And for the LOVE OF GOD let's stop spending HOURS and HOURS of HPC time discussing window placement on a house which an architect designed and a homeowner paid for and just build the damn thing. We are in a nuclear war locked and loaded against historic houses and we waste time second guessing new construction. Quality is all that should matter.
Oooph Da.
Quote from: sheclown on October 18, 2013, 06:37:56 PM
We waste time second guessing new construction. Quality is all that should matter.
Exactly. We need to get the empty historic homes restored, and we also need new construction to fill the empty lots.
Quote from: GoldenEst82 on October 18, 2013, 09:15:35 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 18, 2013, 05:42:22 PM
How long has it been since you moved?
August 2012.
Well you're still well within the SOL, don't just take a loss on it...
Quote from: mtraininjax on October 17, 2013, 07:27:23 AM
(http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120928190503/villains/images/6/63/Snidely_in_tv_series.jpg)
It looks like I would have to go through small claims court...
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0000-0099/0083/Sections/0083.49.html (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0000-0099/0083/Sections/0083.49.html)
I need to get with my partners mom and see if an action was already filed.
May as well add my 2 cents to housing styles. As I drive through Springfield, there are a few houses that are not historic, and not faux historic. Houses built in the style of 1960's - 1980's suburban ranchers. There's one at 10th and Liberty, a brick one. There's one at Perry and 10 or 11th (a bad shade of blue.) And there's the famous ugly hexagonal house on Hubbard around 9th or 10th. Probably a few more. To me, they stand out like sore thumbs.
I also understand the argument about faux historic homes, though. Here's my thoughts. If you are going to mix it up, build loft style like Lake did on 7th to mimic the commercial buildings scattered around the neighborhood like Lane and Steve's house, and Chevara and Orin's. Build Klutho-esque homes like Jason designed for Walnut. (Wish that one had gotten built. So cool.) These designs would complement the historic homes, because the loft style exists elsewhere in the neighborhood. And while Riverside has more Prairie Style homes than Springfield, we do have Klutho's own home on W. 9th and we could build more of those and be in keeping with the aesthetics of the neighborhood.
There are those in riverside too, prior to the 1970s there wasn't much historic oversight.
But even the historic houses in Springfield exhibit a range of different styles. What is so bad about diversity in housing styles? If you want all houses to look the same, then there are plenty of subdivisions to pick from. (fwiw: I think the hexagonal houses are typical "Springfield" ... not sure I like the blue ranch at 10th and Perry though... ).
The sad part is that we lost so many houses. We can choose to paint over past mistakes as it has been done before by naming the new "replica" house styles after the architects whose work was destroyed to make space for them, or we can celebrate Springfield as a diverse neighborhood welcoming experimentations with new and innovative housing ideas that fit in with the existing historic fabric and bridge the gaps left behind by demolitionists with something that will be considered worth preserving 100 years down the road like the existing historic housing stock.
True. We get hung up on matching the scale and massing but there is a wide range of housing sizes and styles to begin with.
I will say this, the one thing they all had in common was quality construction.