QuoteImagine the St. Johns Town Center spread over 1,600 acres with lakes and trees and nature trails surrounding big box retailers, high-end restaurants and entertainment businesses.
That is long-time developer Frank Gatlin's vision for Durbin Lakes in northern St. Johns County. The development is owned by Jacksonville-based Gate Petroleum Co. and the two have teamed up to build 600,000 square-feet of commercial space for the first phase of a massive development in Northern St. Johns County.
Out of the 1,600 acres, Gatlin said that 1,000 acres will be left as wetlands, trees, lakes and open space.
"It's going to be like having a town center inside a park with lakes, trees and nature paths and sidewalks," he said.
That first phase is estimated to cost $125 million, Gatlin said. The four phases of the development could reach about $500 million, he said.
Durbin Lakes could eventually build 2.4 million square feet of retail space, 2.8 million square feet of office space, 999 multifamily units and a hotel as the St. Johns County government has pledged development rights.
Gatlin said the Durbin Lakes will be the first off ramp after Interstate 9B crosses over Interstate 95.
The 9B project is currently under construction and will extend south from Interstate 295 into St. Johns County ending at Racetrack Road.
Full article: http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2016/01/28/could-st-johns-county-be-getting-its-own-version.html
"He said the big-box stores that he plans to build first at the development will be a home improvement center, a discount department store and a membership club."
Just what we needed. A shopping center with a Lowe's/Home Depot, a Beall's/Kohl's and a Sam's Club/BJ's.
They're basically filling the next hole in the market where many of these chains have not already established locations. SR 9B was created to make formerly inaccessible land (like this piece of property), accessible, thus opening the opportunity for new development.
Quote from: thelakelander on January 29, 2016, 09:56:50 AM
They're basically filling the next hole in the market where many of these chains have not already established locations. SR 9B was created to make formerly inaccessible land (like this piece of property), accessible, thus opening the opportunity for new development.
More development of exactly the same kind of thing you can get anywhere else in the metro and state. It's the Jacksonville way.
Quote from: thelakelander on January 29, 2016, 09:56:50 AM
They're basically filling the next hole in the market where many of these chains have not already established locations. SR 9B was created to make formerly inaccessible land (like this piece of property), accessible, thus opening the opportunity for new development.
Yeah. Just like 9A and JTB and Branan Field and so on and so on.
It's just the Jacksonville way.
Likely a part of State Lands/Water Management District "Twelve Mile Swamp" project, which entailed a number of previously untapped "Creative" aspects........'demanding' on District Staff......transfer of Development Rights.Gate involved,along with Planner & Consult gal often cycled in to public office or closely related position,Big Blonde Hair/Land Use Atty.( I no longer care,and am glad the image of That Hair remains yet her name does not come to mind. Can anyone here reveal her name? )
The outward expansion continues.
At this point, predictable that Town Center joins Orange Park Mall,Regency Mall,Penney Farms/First Coast Outer Beltway Mall as 'Previous', the Next One truly Always Better. Sometimes squared, via vast undevelopable acres,and proceedings long underway yet woefully under-reported. :) 8)
Oak Leaf to Silver Leaf
Quote from: thelakelander on January 29, 2016, 09:56:50 AM
They're basically filling the next hole in the market where many of these chains have not already established locations. SR 9B was created to make formerly inaccessible land (like this piece of property), accessible, thus opening the opportunity for new development.
What's the source that 9B was created for development? This seems to be the overall knee jerk, anti-development opinion here on MJ.
What if, as the numbers show, that there was a real need to connect Bartram and North St. Johns to I-95 and I-295?
The attempt to connect FDOT with private landowners is just not there. To acquire the land to make these major transportation connections possible, there certainly is coordination that occurs before the eminent domain process is started.
With 9B beginning at St Johns PKWY, it made sense to add an interchange to get to Racetrack if FDOT saved millions of your taxpayer dollars to acquire the land.
This isn't just Jacksonville development. This is Florida development, and on a broader scale, American development.
Take a look at the comp plans, DRIs and land use patterns and proposals over the last 30 years. You can pretty much tell what's going to come online and where, years in advance. It's pretty clear we invest in transportation infrastructure for more than just faciliating traffic movement. This isn't unique to Jax or suburbs, so no need to get immediately defensive. With that said, who's being anti-development here. I, for one, believe that if you're going to spend the type of money we are on some of these highways, that development serving them should be a lot denser than what we're getting, so that the taxpayer is getting indirect ROI in the black.
Quote from: thelakelander on January 30, 2016, 08:06:52 AM
Take a look at the comp plans, DRIs and land use patterns and proposals over the last 30 years. You can pretty much tell what's going to come online and where, years in advance. It's pretty clear we invest in transportation infrastructure for more than just faciliating traffic movement. This isn't unique to Jax or suburbs, so no need to get immediately defensive. With that said, who's being anti-development here. I, for one, believe that if you're going to spend the type of money we are on some of these highways, that development serving them should be a lot denser than what we're getting, so that the taxpayer is getting indirect ROI in the black.
Denser development just doesn't make financial sense, unfortunately or fortunately, depending who you are and your preferred lifestyle. If it did, we'd see more of it.
This forum is VERY anti-devlopment for any development outside the Urban Core. Sprawl development isn't going anywhere; its here to stay until there isnt a cheaper piece of undeveloped land next door. We can blame FDOT, the landowners, politicians, etc. all we want.
This forum would be better served if the development community (landowners, home builders, developers, planners, etc.) had a voice here. The discussions would be more constructive, informative, and balanced.
Interesting comments. I disagree with a lot of it. I'm slaying dragons at the moment but I will respond in greater detail once I get back in front of the computer.
Quote from: southsider1015 on January 30, 2016, 01:10:19 PM
Denser development just doesn't make financial sense,
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Neighborhoods/Bartram-Park-2013/i-MDRHMt3/0/L/P1630343-L.jpg)
Bartram Park - 2,600 acres designed to include 9,700 residential units, 1.3 million square feet of commercial space, 1.7 million square feet of office space and 300 hotel units. New development is still happening at a rapid pace.(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/4112689864_V32b7qW-L.jpg)
Subdivision inside of Nocatee(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/4112688904_3Fs45ns-L.jpg)
More single family homes inside of another Nocatee subdivision.Some other images from Jax suburbia that were taken earlier this morning:
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Southside-Construction-012016/i-8HmhxVP/0/L/DSCF8528-L.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Southside-Construction-012016/i-twCW3DC/0/L/DSCF8573-L.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Southside-Construction-012016/i-W6xPzTC/0/L/DSCF8575-L.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Southside-Construction-012016/i-3HS9qpr/0/L/DSCF8581-L.jpg)
If "denser" development did not make financial sense, the local examples shown above would not exist. This is a bad myth that should be quickly taken out back and put to sleep.
Quoteunfortunately or fortunately, depending who you are and your preferred lifestyle. If it did, we'd see more of it (density).
It seems the market (not just in Jax, but across the US) has changed to a different type of product and design over the last decade or so. A mix of uses, better walkability, complete and context sensitive streets, better alternative mobility options, smaller lot sizes, connected street networks, density, etc. are all parts of today's marketplace in the US. Locally, what has not kept pace is roadway design standards, transit investment, land use and zoning regulations. Thus, you're seeing new local product being developed in an uncoordinated, disconnected, sprawled and unsustainable development pattern.
QuoteThis forum is VERY anti-devlopment for any development outside the Urban Core. Sprawl development isn't going anywhere; its here to stay until there isnt a cheaper piece of undeveloped land next door. We can blame FDOT, the landowners, politicians, etc. all we want.
While you always have your extreme outliers, you being one of them ;), most tend to want fiscally responsible development and growth for the community. Fiscally responsible development is good for all areas....the urban core, suburbs and rural sections of the region. Btw, outward growth and sprawl aren't the same.
QuoteThis forum would be better served if the development community (landowners, home builders, developers, planners, etc.) had a voice here. The discussions would be more constructive, informative, and balanced.
You'd be amazed at the amount of forum participants and followers from those groups you think aren't present, that actually are ;). You just have to be willing to leave the cul-de-sac to see the diverse, multi-cultural community that exists outside of the white-picket-fence-perspective.
Quote from: southsider1015 on January 30, 2016, 07:23:38 AM
What's the source that 9B was created for development? This seems to be the overall knee jerk, anti-development opinion here on MJ.
What if, as the numbers show, that there was a real need to connect Bartram and North St. Johns to I-95 and I-295?
There was and is a need for that. But it could have been accomplished by adding an interchange at Racetrack Road and I-95. Yes I know, the rest stop is too close. Pretty sure that the rest stop could have been relocated or collector/distributor lanes added (like between Blanding and Collins on 295) for far less.
So, why choose the more expensive, more complicated, environmentally-destructive option? The answer....opening up vacant land to development!
Quote from: southsider1015 on January 30, 2016, 01:10:19 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on January 30, 2016, 08:06:52 AM
Take a look at the comp plans, DRIs and land use patterns and proposals over the last 30 years. You can pretty much tell what's going to come online and where, years in advance. It's pretty clear we invest in transportation infrastructure for more than just faciliating traffic movement. This isn't unique to Jax or suburbs, so no need to get immediately defensive. With that said, who's being anti-development here. I, for one, believe that if you're going to spend the type of money we are on some of these highways, that development serving them should be a lot denser than what we're getting, so that the taxpayer is getting indirect ROI in the black.
Denser development just doesn't make financial sense, unfortunately or fortunately, depending who you are and your preferred lifestyle. If it did, we'd see more of it.
This forum is VERY anti-devlopment for any development outside the Urban Core. Sprawl development isn't going anywhere; its here to stay until there isnt a cheaper piece of undeveloped land next door. We can blame FDOT, the landowners, politicians, etc. all we want.
This forum would be better served if the development community (landowners, home builders, developers, planners, etc.) had a voice here. The discussions would be more constructive, informative, and balanced.
I for one am far from anti-development outside the urban core . . . . but I prefer responsible development. If it is outside the core, I'd like to see communities developed tightly around a central focal point or square. It's amazing, we had it right 100 years ago and it is a style that still makes people happy and something people desire, yet we don't see it nearly enough in these suburban developments. We see impersonations of a real town center, but typically not something that truly functions the way it was originally drawn up. Nocatee sort of accomplishes more of a real community feel with the denser neighborhoods located around the "Town Center" but I think they really shot and missed with their Town Center layout and design. It is not really a focal point to go to and enjoy yourself for a long period of time or hang out in a social setting. It is more of a nice strip shopping center built for convenience and one you want to get in and out of quickly. So I think developers have good intentions with these new communities, but still can't quite get the basics right, which is to have an intimate community feel. I don't see this new development being any different, especially being right off the highway extension and with the big boxes they are talking about coming in.
Land is still relatively cheap right now, thus we continue to see the outward sprawl occur. We all understand that, it is not rocket science. But this is not a sustainable model. It is scary to think about how much land area our metropolitan areas have gobbled up just in the last 50 years. Think about the next 50 . . . then think about the next 500. We obviously cannot continue at this rate, but where does it stop? And when we get to that point, how many billions of dollars will need to be spent fixing the mistakes we are currently making? The reason our cities continue to spread out is because we don't want to spend the energy fixing what's wrong with our current "inner communities." Many cities are doing a very nice job fixing what's already there but Jacksonville is not one of them. As you said, land is cheap.
I'm very pro-development outside the urban core. I wish everyday for $100 Billion of projects to happen all across the city. I also wish for an effective mobility fee ;)
In all seriousness, I was very excited about Tapestry Park and just disappointed by how small it is. I was very excited by the St Johns Town Center's early mixed-use proposals, but disappointed in how it ultimately came to be. I am currently cautiously optimistic about the Hines mixed-use proposal near the town center. I can only hope that in 50 years the SJTC area starts to do what Midtown Atlanta has...ie, densify and urban infill on suburban designs.
CCMjax, with regards to your comment on SJTC, I am very disappointed in the new Promenade lay-out. Why not similar to a urban design of restaurants and shops on first floor and residences above with garage parking. Although the Short Pump Town Center mall (Richmond) is not a town center at all, across the street is a development done in this style. It looks, feels and works like an urban area.
Lake, the denser developments you've shown made financial sense based on their market analyses. There was an overall demand for more residential housing in the area, a demand stronger than the available undeveloped area that denser residential units were needed. So when the numbers work, the funding is approved, and the construction starts.
Just because it made financial sense in one area doesn't mean it should work everywhere. To be critical of a type or density/intensity level of development without understanding the numbers isn't doing much for us.
BTW, Aloft is a hotel (commercial), and most of the other developments I believe are apartments. Those Nocatee SFR units are the cheapest in the area, just an entry-level product to try to cover that market. Not enticing for me and my family by ANY means.
Of course I'm for fiscally-responsible development...who wouldn't be? But that's like saying that I want a fiscally-responsible government; it sounds great, and everyone is for it, but how you get there is personal, with special interests, opinions, and perspectives. It's too easy to just state that, and write something off behind that cause.
I'm all for the Mobility fee, and other methods, like LDRs, to encourage developments. It's a great start to funding infrastructure, something I believe this country/state/city/community is in desperate need of. It needs to be effective, clear, fair, and consistent to work correctly.
The American Car is NOT going anywhere for the next 50-100 years. With autonomous and electric cars now in the immediate future, we'll need to plan for it now. We're not Europe, and we'll likely never be in the transportation sense. Should there be more investments in transit? Absolutely, more investments in infrastructure.
Roadway design standards are always changing; maybe not in the sense that you're talking about, but the design vehicles haven't changed much in terms of size.
11' wide lanes are now the standard lane width for FDOT urban roadways:
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/rddesign/PPMManual/2016/Volume2/V2Chap06-exh.pdf (http://www.dot.state.fl.us/rddesign/PPMManual/2016/Volume2/V2Chap06-exh.pdf)
Of all the criticism made here about ANY developments, I've yet to read an opposing opinion from a landowner, developer, politician, bureaucrat, etc. about why a project is happening the way it is. You're right; I would be amazed if I read their opinions here.
Also, can you better explain how outward development isn't sprawl? What is "good" outward development?
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 30, 2016, 05:10:35 PM
Quote from: southsider1015 on January 30, 2016, 07:23:38 AM
What's the source that 9B was created for development? This seems to be the overall knee jerk, anti-development opinion here on MJ.
What if, as the numbers show, that there was a real need to connect Bartram and North St. Johns to I-95 and I-295?
There was and is a need for that. But it could have been accomplished by adding an interchange at Racetrack Road and I-95. Yes I know, the rest stop is too close. Pretty sure that the rest stop could have been relocated or collector/distributor lanes added (like between Blanding and Collins on 295) for far less.
So, why choose the more expensive, more complicated, environmentally-destructive option? The answer....opening up vacant land to development!
A 9B interchange directly with Racetrack would be WAY too close to the interchange with I-95. Take a look at SR 115/MLK Pkwy for a better understanding of why you want to completely avoid locating interchanges too close. Too much weaving/merging movements going on in the same area. See JTB/I-295 and JTB/Kernan for another example.
If you were inferring that 9B be aligned in a different fashion to connect to I-95, please explain. How would CD roads help? Why is it too complicated? With existing US 1 and I-95 so close to each other, there weren't an unlimited amount of interchange location and spacing options.
Again, without knowing the details of the acquisition deal between FDOT and Gate or landowners, it's difficult to say which is more expensive. Are you aware of the price of freshwater wetland mitigation credits these days? It's back to expensive prices when development was booming.
If you've ever done business with FDOT, in any shape or form, they are the MOST dollar sensitive government agency I've ever witnessed. EVERY decision/policy/detail has some type of price component to it, whether it be procurement, acquisition, design standards, guardrail type, etc. Nothing can sole-sourced, two quotes are required for just about any dollar spent, and their financial tracking is pretty involved. The alignment of 9B should have been analyzed to a level of detail that your head might spin, and to think that FDOT had an interest in spending any more money than necessary just to make Gate happy is ridiculous.
Quote from: southsider1015 on January 31, 2016, 10:50:15 AM
Also, can you better explain how outward development isn't sprawl? What is "good" outward development?
I know youre asking Ennis but to me he's clearly differentiating between Sprawl vs Smart Growth. You surely are aware of planners' pushing for more sustainable and walkable suburbs.
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/features/00/earthpulse/sprawl/index_flash.html
Quote from: ProjectMaximus on January 31, 2016, 11:14:58 AM
Quote from: southsider1015 on January 31, 2016, 10:50:15 AM
Also, can you better explain how outward development isn't sprawl? What is "good" outward development?
I know youre asking Ennis but to me he's clearly differentiating between Sprawl vs Smart Growth. You surely are aware of planners' pushing for more sustainable and walkable suburbs.
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/features/00/earthpulse/sprawl/index_flash.html
Right, I'm familiar with the Smart Growth concepts. Nocatee does capture these elements to some extent, but I believe many here have contended that Nocatee should be considered sprawl because of it's location. I was thinking he might of meant something else.
I think the term "sprawl" is thrown around here on MJ and in other circles like its candy. Everyone is a "planner" these days, without any formal education or a broad and depth understanding of what it really is. It's almost always said with a negative connotation, even though the usage might be totally off basis in the literal sense.
Honestly, I've always been interested in urban planning, and I've thought about formal education and certification (AICP).
Quote from: southsider1015 on January 31, 2016, 11:25:41 AM
I think the term "sprawl" is thrown around here on MJ and in other circles like its candy. Everyone is a "planner" these days, without any formal education or a broad and depth understanding of what it really is. It's almost always said with a negative connotation, even though the usage might be totally off basis in the literal sense.
This is true.
Quote from: southsider1015 on January 31, 2016, 11:25:41 AM
Honestly, I've always been interested in urban planning, and I've thought about formal education and certification (AICP).
You are welcome to join us on our learning trip to Baltimore. We'll have a couple urban planners and transit guys leading the tours!
Quote from: southsider1015 on January 31, 2016, 10:50:15 AM
Lake, the denser developments you've shown made financial sense based on their market analyses. There was an overall demand for more residential housing in the area, a demand stronger than the available undeveloped area that denser residential units were needed. So when the numbers work, the funding is approved, and the construction starts.
Yes. This basically proves the point I was trying to make. You said more density in this market did not make financial sense. I then presented examples from various suburban areas of the region that suggested otherwise.
QuoteJust because it made financial sense in one area doesn't mean it should work everywhere. To be critical of a type or density/intensity level of development without understanding the numbers isn't doing much for us.
I never specified the type of building product or the specific amount of density. I only stated, we need to increase density to become more fiscally sustainable in the long term. Increased density and land use coordination can be achieved in a variety of ways and forms. Also, you're making an assumption that I've come to an option without understanding the numbers.
QuoteBTW, Aloft is a hotel (commercial), and most of the other developments I believe are apartments. Those Nocatee SFR units are the cheapest in the area, just an entry-level product to try to cover that market. Not enticing for me and my family by ANY means.
Needing more density doesn't apply to residential uses only. I used the Aloft as an example, because most of your hotels aren't built as sprawling motor lodges anymore. Even in the suburbs, they've evolved into more efficient multi-story footprints taking up much less land. If our local land use and zoning regulation would have kept up with the evolution of building design over the last few decades, our commercial areas would be denser as well. Such increased density would result in less public money having to be spent to widen roads because the setting would be more conducive to alternative forms of mobility. At a local level, this means extra money could be shifted to other areas and public needs that enhance our quality-of-life.
QuoteOf course I'm for fiscally-responsible development...who wouldn't be? But that's like saying that I want a fiscally-responsible government; it sounds great, and everyone is for it, but how you get there is personal, with special interests, opinions, and perspectives. It's too easy to just state that, and write something off behind that cause.
This is where some formal training and education would help. Fiscally-responsible development is possible. However, to get there, we have to acknowledge areas of where we've failed, fallen out of date, where technology requires change, etc. and then work to adapt to become more economically accommodating.
QuoteI'm all for the Mobility fee, and other methods, like LDRs, to encourage developments. It's a great start to funding infrastructure, something I believe this country/state/city/community is in desperate need of. It needs to be effective, clear, fair, and consistent to work correctly.
I agree.
QuoteThe American Car is NOT going anywhere for the next 50-100 years. With autonomous and electric cars now in the immediate future, we'll need to plan for it now. We're not Europe, and we'll likely never be in the transportation sense. Should there be more investments in transit? Absolutely, more investments in infrastructure.
I agree.
QuoteRoadway design standards are always changing; maybe not in the sense that you're talking about, but the design vehicles haven't changed much in terms of size.
11' wide lanes are now the standard lane width for FDOT urban roadways:
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/rddesign/PPMManual/2016/Volume2/V2Chap06-exh.pdf (http://www.dot.state.fl.us/rddesign/PPMManual/2016/Volume2/V2Chap06-exh.pdf)
I'm actually looking forward to seeing what type of changes FDOT makes with their new complete streets policy:
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/rddesign/CSI/Default.shtm
http://www.flcompletestreets.com/Files/FINAL-CSI-Implementation-Plan.pdf
QuoteAlso, can you better explain how outward development isn't sprawl? What is "good" outward development?
Riverside is the result of outward development. However, none of us would refer to it as "sprawl". Here's some pretty good definitions of what "sprawl" is and what its characteristics are:
QuoteWhat is Sprawl?
"Sprawl is defined as the process in which the spread of development across the landscape far outpaces population growth. The landscape sprawl creates has four dimensions:
a population that is widely dispersed in low-density development;
rigidly separated homes, shops, and workplaces;
a network of roads marked by huge blocks and poor access;
a lack of well-defined thriving activity centers, such as downtown's and town centers;
a lack of transportation choices other than personal cars,
and difficulty of walking as a result of housing locations."
--Smart Growth America
"Sprawl is irresponsible, often poorly-planned development that destroys green space, increases traffic and air pollution, crowds schools, and drives up taxes." --The Sierra Club
"Sprawl features rapid geographic expansion of metropolitan areas in a "leapfrog," low density pattern, segregation of distinct land uses, heavy dependence on automobile travel with extensive road construction, architectural and social homogeneity, shift of capital investment and economic opportunity from the city center the the periphery, and relatively weak regional planning."
--Rollins School of Public Heath, Emory University
"Sprawl is a regional pattern of real estate development that is characterized by:
Low density;
Unlimited and non-continuous outward expansion;
Spatial segregation of different land uses;
Consumption of outer suburban agricultural lands and environmentally sensitive lands;
Travel dominance by motor vehicle;
Lack of integrated land use planning."
--10,000 Friends of Pennsylvania
source: http://www.ei.lehigh.edu/envirosci/enviroissue/sprawl/whatissprawl.html
Last, I'd offer up Baldwin Park (suburban Orlando) as an example of good outward development in Florida that would not be classified as sprawl. Its layout, mix of land uses and integration into the existing street network defies the general characteristics of "sprawl" that are listed above.
This development is happening in SJC? Don't they still charge pretty hefty impact fees to the developers?
Didn't our very own city council put a moratorium on our Mobility fees because they prevent developments like this from happening?
Perplexing....
Quote from: southsider1015 on January 31, 2016, 11:14:04 AM
A 9B interchange directly with Racetrack would be WAY too close to the interchange with I-95.
I was suggesting that 9B didn't need to be built at all. Northern St. Johns County could have been better served by an I-95 interchange with Racetrack Road.
and yes, I am quite familiar with FDOT. I have worked on projects for and with them for over 20 years.
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 31, 2016, 07:57:42 PM
Quote from: southsider1015 on January 31, 2016, 11:14:04 AM
A 9B interchange directly with Racetrack would be WAY too close to the interchange with I-95.
I was suggesting that 9B didn't need to be built at all. Northern St. Johns County could have been better served by an I-95 interchange with Racetrack Road.
and yes, I am quite familiar with FDOT. I have worked on projects for and with them for over 20 years.
There isn't enough room for an interchange at racetrack and I-95. There are houses from Bartram on the NE quad of the intersection. The rest area is very close on the sw quad. The queue length off of I-95S at rush hour,while not blanding-eqsue would be larger than the OSA queue that spills onto I-95 and hoses up the I-95/I-295. Also, CR210 is pretty much at an acceptable LOS now with the latest improvements. Add fully developed Shearwater and the crystal lagoon neighborhood to the mix and CR210 craps out again. The fact that 9-B will essentially connect CR2209 straight to I-95, gives much relief to the overall system with future connectivity south of CR210.
If you want less SJC development (i.e. sprawl) there is one super important thing that has to be done, and that is improve the DCPS system. I have 5 school aged kids and I am in SJC because the quality of the public education is simply better than Duval. No insult to the hard working teachers of Duval and Duval graduates (I was one myself).