Metro Jacksonville

I want to talk about something that's been rolling around in my head for quite a while now. I want you guys to be as objective as you can be looking at this. This subject is one that is blatantly obvious to me and I think my arguments have validity.


It is not often we in Jacksonville talk about gentrification because it just isn't an issue here. When whiter more affluent people want a new place to live Jacksonville responds by cutting down some trees and building a new neighborhood. Now for the controversial bit; Brooklyn has been gentrified. Not gentrification in the traditional sense, where poorer residents were pushed out for richer ones, but gentrification of the highest order wherein an entire 'neighborhood' was manufactured in favor of richer residents.

I had a unique view of the proceedings because I was in a position where I was travelling up and down Park St throughout 2013. When I first started this commute I was struck by the Brooklyn area. Here were grid streets, many old oak trees, and even a gentle elevation change  between Riverside Ave and Park Street. This was just before they started clearing the land and I was enamored with the place. I imagined a large park on the site and perhaps mulit-family brownstone style townhouse along the streets. An oasis in the middle of the urban desolation that is Duval County

Here is the view from Park and Jackson in 2011.

(https://i.imgsafe.org/0d853461e9.png)


I was shocked and disappointed when I started to see trees fall and the tell tale signs of development begin in this beautiful place I had only just discovered.

Here is the view from Park and Jackson in May 2013. Notice the poignant graffiti installation on the bus bench proclaiming "leave room for us" ( Yes, I'm aware no bears lived in Brooklyn pre-development)

(https://i.imgsafe.org/0d8dec12df.png)


I watched over the course of 2013 as this vestige of a gone-by era in Jacksonville rapidly was transformed into horridly ugly ( I'm looking at you The Brooklyn Riverside ) apartment blocs designed for the hipster urbanites of the Riverside/Avondale variety. I would often ride my bike through Brooklyn on the west side of Park St towards downtown, seeing as the east side was blocked off completely. I enjoyed the strange mix of light industrial operations, seemingly very old buildings like the few churches that remain, and homes. There are even a couple of parks tucked back in there, I found. Riding through that slightly rougher area as a white guy I knew I was in a place that I didn't exactly fit in. Even so, I never felt threatened or unsafe even when passing through on foot. I saw the west side of Park St as a reflection of what the east side possibly used to be.

Now, enough with the backstory. On to the current day and my gripes with Brooklyn and people's obsession with it.

First:Brooklyn is not a 'Neighborhood'

  Yes, this might be shocking to you. As frequent visitors to Metro Jacksonville you all should be able to see what constitutes a real neighborhood. What we have in Brooklyn is a development plain and simple. Everything that you see there was built to suit the clientele of the apartments and visitors to the stores and restaurants. It was not designed as a real community. The closest thing to public infrastructure there is so-called Unity Plaza which serves as nothing more than a front porch to 220 Riverside. As a non-resident of the Brooklyn development, I wouldn't feel welcome spending a day reading in Unity Plaza. I'd go to a real public park like Memorial. The connectivity that was offered by the gird of streets in pre-development Brooklyn is gone. Where before Stonewall and Jackson streets went all the way through to Park now Stonewall is a gated off parking lot as is Oak street between Jackson and Leila. Not exactly what you'd expect from an organically grown community.

Second : Brooklyn is still a food desert

One of the most lauded additions to Brooklyn was the Fresh Market. People saw this as a much needed thing for the area with the only other supermarkets being Publix in Riverside and Winn Dixie in Downtown. The people most in need of a place to buy food in that area are arguably the residents on the west side of Park Street. Though I think it would be fair to say those residents can't afford to shop at the upscale Fresh Market. Brooklyn remains a food desert for those on the west side of Park street even though they live within the shadow of a supermarket.


Third : Park Street is a demarcation line of race and income

This is my most glaringly obvious point and the least refutable. The east side of Park St, what is now known as the Brooklyn 'Neighborhood', is predominantly white and rich and the west side is almost entirely black and lower income. There are no two ways about it. The rents at the Brooklyn Riverside and 220 Riverside exclude anyone who is from the other side of Park Street. What must the people who have lived in Brooklyn's west side their entire lives feel looking at what is now across the street?  I think a young black man would just about as comfortable walking through the new Brooklyn as one of those hipsters would be walking through the old Brooklyn. You are not going to see a resident of the Brooklyn development using the parks on the west side of Park St. I would imagine that the people in the development regard the area to the west of Park St. as 'ghetto' or 'dangerous' even though in my experiences I never had any problems over there. I once wanted to show a friend the graffiti wall on the west wall of the park street viaduct I told him to turn down Stonewall St from Park St and he responded with a firm "No' afraid to park his truck there. There is a well used homeless camp under the Park St viaduct. Another example of the haves and the have nots living so close yet so far away from each other.

Brooklyn 2013
(https://s32.postimg.org/q8tbz98x1/BRROK2013.png)

Brooklyn today
(https://s32.postimg.org/bfluectcl/Brook.png)

I implore you to see this objectively, stop white knighting for Brooklyn and see Brooklyn as a development for affluent mostly white residents. I understand that the typical definition of gentrification doesn't apply here. The last houses in Brooklyn that aren't standing today were gone after 2008. The Brooklyn development is gentrification of the highest order. An entire so called 'neighborhood' constructed from nothing and cordoned off from the surrounding area. A place designed for the enjoyment of the more affluent not for the enrichment of the entire community. No consideration of the places historically black past. No respect or acknowledgment of what came before. A shiny facade facing Riverside Avenue ignoring a less desirable and pretty area bounded by Park and Myrtle Streets.


Thanks for reading and sorry for the short novel. I look forward to the conversation.  :)

I definitely wouldn't call Brooklyn rich. I think Brooklyn has under gone a millennialification not gentrification. My office is in Brooklyn and work out at the Y regularly. There is a wide range of people living and hanging out in the area.

I think once Park Street redevelops and Jaxis gets built that Brooklyn will feel more like a neighborhood.

Yeah, it's going through gentrification but it's too late to turn things around now, IMO. It started prior to the developments you see now though. The first wave of its elimination came in the form of a failed urban renewal project in the 1970s. The old townhouses west of Park Street are the remains of that project.

The second massive removal came with the widening of Riverside Avenue around 15 years ago. That took most of the commercial and residential within a block of Forest and Riverside Avenues. The widening of  the I-95/I-10 interchange took out more property, including a small church my parents attended back in the late 1960s. I recall most of the remaining housing stock and churches between Park and Riverside being demolished in the mid 2000s for the Riverside Park development.  After they were torn down, the market fell apart and that development went up in smoke. By the time Brooklyn Riverside and Brooklyn Station came, that side of the neighborhood was already long gone.

Anyway, I doubt the west side will remain much longer. There's not much left and half of it is from the 1970s urban renewal project. Heck, I doubt the entire population left is more than 40 people or so.  I also doubt there's more than 10 houses that were built before the 1970s project still standing. The idea of preserving the small cluster of the remaining one or two blocks of historic structures pretty much died when property owners voted down an opportunity to become a historic district a few years back. Much of the remaining property has already been snapped up for future development.

That was a lot to absorb in one post but let me be blunt - you are so far off base isn't even funny.

First, 220 Riverside and Brooklyn Riverside have a mix of age and race that is probably unmatched by any other apartment complex in Jacksonville - and since these two complex represent about 95% of districts population Brooklyn is probably one of the most racially mixed neighborhoods in Jax.  There is every conceivable demographic represented.  If you don't think so come over and spend a day with me.  If Park is a demarcation line of race, the problem is on the west side of Park.  The east side is racially mixed.

Second, Brooklyn is NOT a food desert.  Fresh Market isn't as expensive as you think it is.  On a lot of items they are less expensive than Publix.  Milk is $2.99 a gallon (sometimes going up to $3.29).  On Tuesday's ground beef and chicken breasts are on sale for $2.99 a pound - $2 a pound less expensive than Publix.  Fresh Market brand chips (all varieties) are $2.50 a bag - and they are darn good.  The list goes on and on.  If you think only white people shop in Fresh Market then you have never stepped in there yourself.  In addition to FM there is the Farmers Market at RAM on Saturdays and the Beaver St Farmers Market.  If all else fails the Publix in Riverside is less than 1 mile from almost every front door in Brooklyn.  What more do you want?

Third, Brooklyn is a neighborhood.  There are only 3 categories of urban development; neighborhoods, districts, and corridors.  If it isn't a neighborhood what is it?  We have retail, dentists, banks, major employers, small employers, 4 parks (Brooklyn Park, J.S. Johnson, Unity Plaza, and Northbank Riverwalk), residential, beauty salon, gym, industrial uses, and at least 9 restaurants.  We could use a few other things but give us a few more years.

Fourth, I'll give you this, Unity Plaza isn't conducive to reading a book.  There is no shade and you have to sit on concrete with no back support.  However, I have seen people laying out on the fake grass and I have played soccer with my two teenage boys there.  However, Unity Plaza wasn't designed to be a passive recreation area - it is a programed event driven facility.  On almost every weekend night and Saturday morning there is some type of live music or event.  If you want passive just cross the street to the Riverwalk.  It is so passive it can be sleep inducing.

I think that about sums it up for me for now.

Quote from: thelakelander on August 02, 2016, 09:53:04 PM
Yeah, it's going through gentrification but it's too late to turn things around now, IMO. It started prior to the developments you see now though. The first wave of its elimination came in the form of a failed urban renewal project in the 1970s. The old townhouses west of Park Street are the remains of that project.

The second massive removal came with the widening of Riverside Avenue around 15 years ago. That took most of the commercial and residential within a block of Forest and Riverside Avenues. The widening of  the I-95/I-10 interchange took out more property, including a small church my parents attended back in the late 1960s. I recall most of the remaining housing stock and churches between Park and Riverside being demolished in the mid 2000s for the Riverside Park development.  After they were torn down, the market fell apart and that development went up in smoke. By the time Brooklyn Riverside and Brooklyn Station came, that side of the neighborhood was already long gone.

Anyway, I doubt the west side will remain much longer. There's not much left and half of it is from the 1970s urban renewal project. Heck, I doubt the entire population left is more than 40 people or so.  I also doubt there's more than 10 houses that were built before the 1970s project still standing. The idea of preserving the small cluster of the remaining one or two blocks of historic structures pretty much died when property owners voted down an opportunity to become a historic district a few years back. Much of the remaining property has already been snapped up for future development.

Yes, I'd say this post makes some good points but misses the historical context (plus, it uses the obnoxious term "white knighting"). Brooklyn has always been dynamic ever since it went from a plantation to a residential neighborhood after the Civil War. I doubt that by 2013 there was much "vestige" of a past era in the eastern section. It was a group of office buildings and a bunch of empty lots created by road widenings and failed projects well before any of the current projects were a twinkle in their developers' eyes.

Saving "old Brooklyn" hasn't been possible for 40 years. What we can do is push for better designs and vision for the projects that are coming, and maybe saving some of the older warehouse buildings, if that's even still possible.

Quote from: Kerry on August 02, 2016, 10:31:50 PM
That was a lot to absorb in one post but let me be blunt - you are so far off base isn't even funny.

First, 220 Riverside and Brooklyn Riverside have a mix of age and race that is probably unmatched by any other apartment complex in Jacksonville - and since these two complex represent about 95% of districts population Brooklyn is probably one of the most racially mixed neighborhoods in Jax.  There is every conceivable demographic represented.  If you don't think so come over and spend a day with me.  If Park is a demarcation line of race, the problem is on the west side of Park.  The east side is racially mixed.

I'd love to spend a day  in Brooklyn. To be honest I haven't even been in either the apartment buildings. I take issue with your claim that the west side has the race problem. It is a historically black area of course its mostly black. Would you be happier if half the residents were priced out of their homes so more races could move there? Which wouldn't happen because of the perception of the area. Which leads me to ask, what is your perception of the west side of Park? You spend much time there?

Quote from: Kerry on August 02, 2016, 10:31:50 PMSecond, Brooklyn is NOT a food desert.  Fresh Market isn't as expensive as you think it is.  On a lot of items they are less expensive than Publix.  Milk is $2.99 a gallon (sometimes going up to $3.29).  On Tuesday's ground beef and chicken breasts are on sale for $2.99 a pound - $2 a pound less expensive than Publix.  Fresh Market brand chips (all varieties) are $2.50 a bag - and they are darn good.  The list goes on and on.  If you think only white people shop in Fresh Market then you have never stepped in there yourself.  In addition to FM there is the Farmers Market at RAM on Saturdays and the Beaver St Farmers Market.  If all else fails the Publix in Riverside is less than 1 mile from almost every front door in Brooklyn.  What more do you want?

I have been in that Fresh Market, mostly to buy water when on bike rides. It is not cheap. Be honest Fresh Market is not geared towards people on a budget.

Quote from: Kerry on August 02, 2016, 10:31:50 PMThird, Brooklyn is a neighborhood.  There are only 3 categories of urban development; neighborhoods, districts, and corridors.  If it isn't a neighborhood what is it?  We have retail, dentists, banks, major employers, small employers, 4 parks (Brooklyn Park, J.S. Johnson, Unity Plaza, and Northbank Riverwalk), residential, beauty salon, gym, industrial uses, and at least 9 restaurants.  We could use a few other things but give us a few more years.

East side of Brooklyn may have a variety of retail and restaurant options but but it's layout is that of a glorified strip mall. It's a develpoment. It didn't grow naturally over the years. I've spent years living in different cities and have seen what real neighborhoods look like. I lived in Denver for a while. There you find large residential areas with clear commercial districts lined on major streets. It's organic, authentic, real communities. You won't find public roads gated off like Stonewall and Oak streets in Brooklyn. Yeah Jackson Street goes through, but that's it. I think the reason Stonewall isn't through street is pretty clear, wouldn't want the riff raff roaming through.

As for the parks. I must ask have you ever actually went to Brooklyn Park or J.S. Johnson? Would you find yourself at either park anytime near sunset? Have you seen many of your neighbors walking over to those parks?

Quote from: Kerry on August 02, 2016, 10:31:50 PMFourth, I'll give you this, Unity Plaza isn't conducive to reading a book.  There is no shade and you have to sit on concrete with no back support.  However, I have seen people laying out on the fake grass and I have played soccer with my two teenage boys there.  However, Unity Plaza wasn't designed to be a passive recreation area - it is a programed event driven facility.  On almost every weekend night and Saturday morning there is some type of live music or event.  If you want passive just cross the street to the Riverwalk.  It is so passive it can be sleep inducing.

Okay, reading a book was just an example I know it's not a passive park. My broader point is that I wouldn't feel very welcome there if I wasn't going to one of the restaurants or attending an event. I mean look at like you were visiting for the first time. Unity Plaza appears as just an extension of 220 Riverside, not a park. Even the signage facing Riverside Avenue looks like it's the name of the development. I feel like it's purpose is so the developers could say, "Hey we're gonna cut down a bunch of trees, cover all this nice open green space so close to downtown and the river with parking lots, but at least we're putting in a 'park' ". Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Unity Plaza a private partnership with COJ. Without digging too much, I'd imagine the land isn't even owned by the city. A quick look at the website says © 2016 Jacksonville Unity Plaza, Inc.. So, am I even welcome there as a non-resident or a patron of a business there? It's owned by a private entity, doesn't look like a public park to me.

Quote from: Kerry on August 02, 2016, 10:31:50 PMI think that about sums it up for me for now.

I'm not here to rustle jimmies ( http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Rustle%20My%20Jimmies (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Rustle%20My%20Jimmies) ) or shit on where you live. Just voicing my opinion on something I've been thinking about

Good insight, thanks for the post! Some great posting fore sure. I would go a step further and say the gentrification process started in LaVilla and worked its way over the Park Street Viaduct into "Brooklyn", yet this area has come back much faster. Probably due to the Courthouse debacle when many private law firms bought property in LaVilla, but decided to dump it when the Courthouse took the better part of the Peyton Administration to complete.

But hey, what is this "Brooklyn" you mention? You mean the extension of Riverside or Downtown? Most TV and Paper reporters cover it as Riverside, or worse, the dreaded "westside". Someone in MJ should give all reporters a "crash course" on where landmarks are located. Technically everyone west of the river, does live on the westside, but to call Chafee road the westside, well, is like calling Ortega Forest, the westside. Ugh!

The East and West Sides of Park Street are interesting for sure. The east side has been leveled or is in the process of changing hands, the west side is largely still in tact. Some of it is because it was not needed in the destruction of Forest/I95/I10 as others have eluded to, but also because of nasty stuff in the ground too. The area over near the new Animal Care and Protective Services has lots of coal ash and nasty stuff in the ground, not conducive to digging or moving for airborne contaminants, and while its across I95 from where we speak, it is conceivable that some of this is in and around the west park street areas.

Over time, these tracts will become more valuable as the land on the east side of Park becomes more valuable, people cash out and well there will be more changes and tear downs of the row homes for newer projects. Who would have ever thought that a Mega-Gate station would go in at the corner of Park and Forest? A couple of years ago, or 5 years ago, people would have laughed at you. Residents will be pushed out and offered ridiculous sums of money to go live elsewhere. It always does.

If downtown can get its act together and take 2 steps forward with the transportation center and more infill in LaVilla, that place could really turn into a special connection with Brooklyn/Riverside.

Here's hoping, and again, great thought and pictures! Well done!

I know the Fresh Market is not always the least expensive, and you are right its a haul to Publix, the Dirty Dixie or Sav-a-lot, but its better than the 18 convenience stores located in Murray Hill along Edgewood.

Quote from: thelakelander on August 02, 2016, 09:53:04 PM
Yeah, it's going through gentrification but it's too late to turn things around now, IMO. It started prior to the developments you see now though. The first wave of its elimination came in the form of a failed urban renewal project in the 1970s. The old townhouses west of Park Street are the remains of that project.

The second massive removal came with the widening of Riverside Avenue around 15 years ago. That took most of the commercial and residential within a block of Forest and Riverside Avenues. The widening of  the I-95/I-10 interchange took out more property, including a small church my parents attended back in the late 1960s. I recall most of the remaining housing stock and churches between Park and Riverside being demolished in the mid 2000s for the Riverside Park development.  After they were torn down, the market fell apart and that development went up in smoke. By the time Brooklyn Riverside and Brooklyn Station came, that side of the neighborhood was already long gone.

Anyway, I doubt the west side will remain much longer. There's not much left and half of it is from the 1970s urban renewal project. Heck, I doubt the entire population left is more than 40 people or so.  I also doubt there's more than 10 houses that were built before the 1970s project still standing. The idea of preserving the small cluster of the remaining one or two blocks of historic structures pretty much died when property owners voted down an opportunity to become a historic district a few years back. Much of the remaining property has already been snapped up for future development.

Informative post.

Quote from: Tacachale on August 02, 2016, 11:01:07 PMYes, I'd say this post makes some good points but misses the historical context (plus, it uses the obnoxious term "white knighting"). Brooklyn has always been dynamic ever since it went from a plantation to a residential neighborhood after the Civil War. I doubt that by 2013 there was much "vestige" of a past era in the eastern section. It was a group of office buildings and a bunch of empty lots created by road widenings and failed projects well before any of the current projects were a twinkle in their developers' eyes.

Saving "old Brooklyn" hasn't been possible for 40 years. What we can do is push for better designs and vision for the projects that are coming, and maybe saving some of the older warehouse buildings, if that's even still possible.

Informative as well. I'm not here on a "save Old Brooklyn Campaign" I just found the area before the development was so interesting and had so much potential. When I first came upon the area I thought of one or two of the blocks being a passive park and a park along McCoy's Creek. But, like you said, better designs and visions.

Yeah, I weighed the use of White Knight. Maybe wasn't the best choice. I just see a lot of stuff on here acting like Brooklyn is the best thing since sliced bread. Like it was a neighborhood that grew into the new cool place to be over time, sort of how Murray Hill has. It was an almost overnight transformation at the hands of developers. It was engineered to be the cool new place. It didn't happen organically.

I must admit I do find it comical when Brooklyn is called a neighborhood.........lets be real here.....it's a strip mall with an apartment building and a retention pond.........lol

Quote from: tpot on August 03, 2016, 12:54:21 AM
I must admit I do find it comical when Brooklyn is called a neighborhood.........lets be real here.....it's a strip mall with an apartment building and a retention pond.........lol

There are people who live in Brooklyn. Although the number of old residents has decreased, there are still people living there (I think - I've not been there in some time). I remember in the 80s when I first became aware of Brooklyn, there were a lot more people (one of the girls in my class was tutoring a kid there).

Quote from: mtraininjax on August 03, 2016, 12:34:39 AM
Good insight, thanks for the post! Some great posting fore sure.

Thanks man. Glad you enjoyed.

FWIW, there are more whites living west of Park St. now than I've ever seen in the last 18 years.

Quote from: lastdaysoffla on August 03, 2016, 12:06:42 AMIt's a develpoment.

Then you might as well call Riverside, Avondale, Ortega, San Marco, Etc. "developments" because they were laid out and built by developers.

The real gentrification hasn't even occurred yet.  Gentrification is the displacement of native populations for more wealthy residents and upscale amenities to serve them.  So far, 2 largely vacant tracts of land have been turned into mixed use developments. These vacant tracts were caused by the failed urban renewal from decades ago that Lake described.  The real gentrification will occur when the houses west of park street are bulldozed for a new doggie yoga studio and vegan cheese shop.

Quote from: acme54321 on August 03, 2016, 07:29:58 AM

Quote from: lastdaysoffla on August 03, 2016, 12:06:42 AMIt's a develpoment.

Then you might as well call Riverside, Avondale, Ortega, San Marco, Etc. "developments" because they were laid out and built by developers.

Thank you.  I hate it when I hear people say stuff like it isn't organic growth and such.  I think what they are trying to refer to is the scale of the development.  At one time builders used a single lot on a block that might contain 20 lots, which resulted in 20 different developers each building a small building on a single lot.  Now we have developments that take up the entire block built by one developer and the scale is at the block level as opposed to the lot level.  This still pales in comparison to suburban development that is built at the 300 acre level.

I wish we could build at the lot level today but for the most part we have a currency system that doesn't allow that type of development anymore.  Look at the new Gate Station as an example.  It could have been built on a 1/4 of their lot, freeing up the rest for other uses, but for some reason Gate decided they have to take up the entire block - which will mostly be empty space (parking).  Likewise, if 5-Points was being proposed today they could never get a lender to finance it because it doesn't have a 500 space surface parking lot and no national retailers pre-leased.

Great - now you have me going off on the globalists tangent with their rigged economy.

Jacksonville doesn't really do gentrification, though Riverside-Avondale is a pretty good example. Jax just does the displacement of poor communities, nothing ever actually gets built after the demolition (Lavilla). Or it gets built 20-40 years later (Brooklyn). I don't think you can place the blame on these new developments, and I certainly don't see the appeal the vacant fields had in those Google Street photos from a few years ago. A huge park? Please! A huge park in the desert between Riverside Ave, train tracks, and the I-10/95 interchange would be a huge empty park (and maintained by the COJ, which might be the worst part).

Riverside/Avondale seems more like a battle between general views of what's acceptable density, scale and mix of uses. Springfield's redevelopment would probably fit the general definition of gentrification better.

However, as a whole, Jacksonville is decades behind its peer cities in dealing and addressing issues like this. We really haven't had the experience of distressed neighborhoods changing demographically overnight like DC's U Street and Columbia Heights. Brooklyn, LaVilla and Sugar Hill are examples of failed urban renewal programs based on polices and redevelopment strategies that were popular in the mid-20th century.

Nationally, there's a big conversation going on about the impact of global warming on distressed inner city communities and populations. In this state, are we even allowed to have a serious discussion on global warming, much less on how it will actually impact low-lying distressed areas of town like Mixontown? Heck, are we even discussing the Mixontowns of Jacksonville at all?

Quote from: Tacachale on August 02, 2016, 11:01:07 PMYes, I'd say this post makes some good points but misses the historical context (plus, it uses the obnoxious term "white knighting"). Brooklyn has always been dynamic ever since it went from a plantation to a residential neighborhood after the Civil War. I doubt that by 2013 there was much "vestige" of a past era in the eastern section. It was a group of office buildings and a bunch of empty lots created by road widenings and failed projects well before any of the current projects were a twinkle in their developers' eyes.

Saving "old Brooklyn" hasn't been possible for 40 years. What we can do is push for better designs and vision for the projects that are coming, and maybe saving some of the older warehouse buildings, if that's even still possible.

Informative as well. I'm not here on a "save Old Brooklyn Campaign" I just found the area before the development was so interesting and had so much potential. When I first came upon the area I thought of one or two of the blocks being a passive park and a park along McCoy's Creek. But, like you said, better designs and visions.

Yeah, I weighed the use of White Knight. Maybe wasn't the best choice. I just see a lot of stuff on here acting like Brooklyn is the best thing since sliced bread. Like it was a neighborhood that grew into the new cool place to be over time, sort of how Murray Hill has. It was an almost overnight transformation at the hands of developers. It was engineered to be the cool new place. It didn't happen organically.

[/quote]

That's the thing - by 2013, when you're talking about, it was already a moonscape. The offices on the river were already there, Riverside and Forest had already been widened, and large tracks of the rest were already empty lots. The western section had long been thinly populated. I just don't see how that situation was better.

I'd also disagree that people here have been unduly supportive of what's happened in Brooklyn. There's understandable enthusiasm that infill is finally happening, and that we're seeing new residences being added near Downtown for the first time since the Great Recession. But there's been healthy skepticism about how things have turned out and are going. People here seemed largely unhappy with the grocery strip mall, for example, and the demolitions on Park Street. It's true those compaints have been mostly over design rather than gentrification, but i think that has more to do with the fact that the people were already displaced long before these developments.

Quote from: thelakelander on August 03, 2016, 10:45:00 AM
Riverside/Avondale seems more like a battle between general views of what's acceptable density, scale and mix of uses. Springfield's redevelopment would probably fit the general definition of gentrification better.

However, as a whole, Jacksonville is decades behind its peer cities in dealing and addressing issues like this. We really haven't had the experience of distressed neighborhoods changing demographically overnight like DC's U Street and Columbia Heights. Brooklyn, LaVilla and Sugar Hill are examples of failed urban renewal programs based on polices and redevelopment strategies that were popular in the mid-20th century.

Nationally, there's a big conversation going on about the impact of global warming on distressed inner city communities and populations. In this state, are we even allowed to have a serious discussion on global warming, much less on how it will actually impact low-lying distressed areas of town like Mixontown? Heck, are we even discussing the Mixontowns of Jacksonville at all?

Riverside is definitely a case of gentrification in that the neighborhood has become more desirable, and property has started filling up and becoming more expensive. In turn, older residents are being priced out. Especially the more northwestern streets and the Kings Street District are like night and day from how they looked just 10 years ago. Arguably, the fights over density and property use are also the result of gentrification - active community organizations and public investments are good signs of gentrifying neighborhoods. It's not as easy to see as there hasn't been as big a demographic shift as some other places, but it's the same pattern.

^Fair point. Riverside has never been a truly distressed community in my eyes, so that perspective is probably clouding my judgement. But yes, property values have jumped over the last decade.

^Growing up in the late 80s we weren't supposed to go to the riverside area.  Friends' families who lived nearby were trying to get farther away. I don't remember much else.

Under the premise "Gentrification is Bad" - how do you prevent it?   And, no, this is not a "defense" of gentrification - I am truly curious how something perceived as bad for the neighborhood could be stopped.
A family with money see residential properties at bargain basement prices - especially compared to the prices in established upscale areas.  They find willing sellers.  They renovate the house.  Another family sees the renovated house, which gives them the impetus to buy another distressed property and fix it up.  Pretty soon, critical mass is reached.  Part (a big part, probably) is that most of the properties being sold are absentee owners who offer low rents to people who couldn't afford to live elsewhere, thus forcing them out.  Would we even be having the conversation if the vast majority of the homes sold to "the gentry" were owner-occupied, and the owners were making handsome profits and able to buy elsewhere?

OK, one thing, the government shouldn't be subsidizing the acquisition of the properties.  And should be enforcing building and property maintenance codes.  And should keep the infrastructure current and operating in older neighborhoods, as well.

Good questions, LDS.

I would agree that the use of 'neighborhood' is a stretch as well due to the entire makeup of residential is transient.  They are all renters with no actual claim to the area other than their 'current' address.

My personal view of 'neighborhood' would include permanent residents.   Brooklyn doesn't have that yet.

QuoteNationally, there's a big conversation going on about the impact of global warming on distressed inner city communities and populations.

Saw a very interesting presentation on the effect of sea level rise on South Florida neighborhoods /
gentrification.

Turns out the original development occurred on a ridge (ancient sand dune?) of relatively high ground. As development progressed affluent communities migrated to (as close as possible to) the coast. Now the "high ground" in S. Florida is largely inhabited by "distressed inner city communities & populations" - and in theory their land is / will be much, more more valuable than is currently perceived.

The thought is that this will set up some conflicts in the future.

Perhaps also in Jax: http://go.usa.gov/x2bZB (http://go.usa.gov/x2bZB)

Quote from: ProjectMaximus on August 03, 2016, 02:19:19 PM
^Growing up in the late 80s we weren't supposed to go to the riverside area.  Friends' families who lived nearby were trying to get farther away. I don't remember much else.

Growing up, how was Riverside viewed locally in comparison to say.....Moncrief, Brentwood or the Eastside? As a kid in the 80s, we'd visit Jax every year or so but we pretty much stuck to the Northside. Riverside looked like money to me back in those days, compared with the across the tracks environments I was used too in various cities of the south.

QuoteRiverside has never been a truly distressed community in my eyes, so that perspective is probably clouding my judgement. But yes, property values have jumped over the last decade.

Why? Because the neighborhood is a destination. People want to be able to walk to restaurants, parks, schools. West Riverside recently was deemed a "B" school, King street is an alcoholic's dream, the entire Riverside Avondale area is a place where people want to live, so much so, that Murray Hill and Brooklyn are now seeing overflow.

If gentrification includes a neighborhood going from cheaper/edgier/more artsy to increasingly expensive/commercial/boring then the 80s/90s Riverside vs. now Riverside (particularly 5 Points) is on its way to qualifying.

Quote from: thelakelander on August 03, 2016, 02:59:28 PM

Quote from: ProjectMaximus on August 03, 2016, 02:19:19 PM
^Growing up in the late 80s we weren't supposed to go to the riverside area.  Friends' families who lived nearby were trying to get farther away. I don't remember much else.

Growing up, how was Riverside viewed locally in comparison to say.....Moncrief, Brentwood or the Eastside? As a kid in the 80s, we'd visit Jax every year or so but we pretty much stuck to the Northside. Riverside looked like money to me back in those days, compared with the across the tracks environments I was used too in various cities of the south.

It's all a matter of perspective. For most, Riverside would have been seen as several steps up from truly distressed neighborhoods in the 80s. And certainly parts of it, especially closer to the river, were objectively money. But compared to what it is today, it wasn't on the same level. Many didn't consider it a "nice" neighborhood.

Things started to change when the artists and bohemians came in. The traditional vanguards of gentrification.

Quote from: bencrix on August 03, 2016, 03:21:54 PM
If gentrification includes a neighborhood going from cheaper/edgier/more artsy to increasingly expensive/commercial/boring then the 80s/90s Riverside vs. now Riverside (particularly 5 Points) is on its way to qualifying.

This reminds me of something I couldn't quite articulate in my original post. Any semblance of grittiness has been wiped away in East Brooklyn. West Brooklyn is all grit. That is one of the clearest distinctions across Park St. The Brooklyn development is all shiny and new, a place where the whiter wealthier hipster sect feels comfortable.

I would like to see a cross section of 220 Riverside and Brooklyn Riverside residents take a walking tour of West Brooklyn. They wouldn't feel comfortable in the 'ghetto' Brooklyn. Even though I've never felt threatened there

Oh and I saw that my thread got shared on the MJ Facebook.

I done good I guess.

So what is your alternative to "gentrification"?  Convince the city to allow no development in an area and leave it a wasteland?  Even complaining about it is a little ridiculous because there isn't much you can do about it.  If some developer goes and buys up a block west of Park St so what?  People sell out for enough $$$.  Supply and demand.  Maybe you can convince the property owners back there to hold out, but I doubt it.  Seems like a lot of wasted energy for nothing in this case.

Quote from: mtraininjax on August 03, 2016, 03:21:08 PM

QuoteRiverside has never been a truly distressed community in my eyes, so that perspective is probably clouding my judgement. But yes, property values have jumped over the last decade.

Why? Because the neighborhood is a destination. People want to be able to walk to restaurants, parks, schools. West Riverside recently was deemed a "B" school, King street is an alcoholic's dream, the entire Riverside Avondale area is a place where people want to live, so much so, that Murray Hill and Brooklyn are now seeing overflow.

Yet we're constantly told (often by folks on this very forum) that people only want Nocatee-type places, that "the market" demands developers only build sprawl, that only auto-centric developments are viable. 

Quote from: Charles Hunter on August 03, 2016, 02:22:09 PM
Under the premise "Gentrification is Bad" - how do you prevent it?   And, no, this is not a "defense" of gentrification - I am truly curious how something perceived as bad for the neighborhood could be stopped.

This is usually accomplished a couple of ways.  If the resident is a home/property owner they directly benefit from increased property value - in some cases measured in hundreds of thousands of dollars.  With many states having caps on property tax increase they get the benefit of the increased value without the increase in property tax.  They can take out an equity loan, sell, or even do a land swap with a developer.  In some cases the owner is even offered a place in the new development for free in exchange for their land.

If the resident is a renter then 'work housing' is an option.  OKC does this.  In downtown and downtown adjacent housing at least 10% of a development is reserved for low income housing.  The City pays the difference between market rate and the reduced rate (the reduced rate is determine by the renters income with some kind of minimum payment required - it is 'worker housing' not Section 8 housing).  It is important to note that specifics units are not marked for low income.  No one knows who is and isn't the low income resident.  In a place like 220 Riverside there would be at least 28 low-income units available with at most 71 units.  Many cities cap the low-income units at 25% (meaning 75% are market rate).  The worst thing to do is what Jax does - 100% low-income and 100% market-rate with nothing in between.

Quote from: thelakelander on August 03, 2016, 02:59:28 PM

Quote from: ProjectMaximus on August 03, 2016, 02:19:19 PM
^Growing up in the late 80s we weren't supposed to go to the riverside area.  Friends' families who lived nearby were trying to get farther away. I don't remember much else.

Growing up, how was Riverside viewed locally in comparison to say.....Moncrief, Brentwood or the Eastside? As a kid in the 80s, we'd visit Jax every year or so but we pretty much stuck to the Northside. Riverside looked like money to me back in those days, compared with the across the tracks environments I was used too in various cities of the south.

Honestly it was probably the same. To clarify my comment, when I said "we weren't supposed to go there" it has some of the same overtones of suburban folks today not wanting to go to downtown or Springfield. To some degree it was a mix of ignorance, racism and over-protection. Now that said, one of my friends went to fix a guy's computer (it was high school so around 2000) somewhere just off King St and it was a crackhouse. He was pretty frightened, there were people strung out looking like death and guns lying around. Heard a few other anecdotes like that, and for sheltered teens that'll leave an impression.

Quote from: stephendare on August 03, 2016, 08:57:50 PM

Quote from: finehoe on August 03, 2016, 08:42:16 PM

Quote from: mtraininjax on August 03, 2016, 03:21:08 PM

QuoteRiverside has never been a truly distressed community in my eyes, so that perspective is probably clouding my judgement. But yes, property values have jumped over the last decade.

Why? Because the neighborhood is a destination. People want to be able to walk to restaurants, parks, schools. West Riverside recently was deemed a "B" school, King street is an alcoholic's dream, the entire Riverside Avondale area is a place where people want to live, so much so, that Murray Hill and Brooklyn are now seeing overflow.

Yet we're constantly told (often by folks on this very forum) that people only want Nocatee-type places, that "the market" demands developers only build sprawl, that only auto-centric developments are viable.

In fact one of the two who keeps saying that is the very poster you are responding to.

mtrain's stance on restaurants in Avondale is absurdly inconsistent.  I was going to call him out, but I've already done it so many times it's just getting sad.  According to him:
Orsay- all things good and right with the world.  Mellow Mushroom- Just plain evil.  Brick- Best restaurant on earth.  Roost- One of the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse. 

Quote from: thelakelander on August 03, 2016, 10:45:00 AM
However, as a whole, Jacksonville is decades behind its peer cities in dealing and addressing issues like this. We really haven't had the experience of distressed neighborhoods changing demographically overnight like DC's U Street and Columbia Heights. 

This is very true.  Even in the 70's, Riverside wasn't a minority-majority neighborhood, and it certainly wasn't a ghetto. It's been a much more slow-motion upscaling there that has spanned decades rather than years.  I think the closest example Jacksonville has to the gentrification going on other cities is Springfield, but that too has been a much longer (and still incomplete) process compared to what's happening other places.

^Based on what I've witnessed in other communities and my knowledge of Jacksonville, I'd agree as well. Springfield is the closest classic local example.

Quote from: thelakelander on August 04, 2016, 11:09:39 AM
^Based on what I've witnessed in other communities and my knowledge of Jacksonville, I'd agree as well. Springfield is the closest classic local example.

What about Murray Hill?

Quote from: FlaBoy on August 04, 2016, 11:14:39 AM

Quote from: thelakelander on August 04, 2016, 11:09:39 AM
^Based on what I've witnessed in other communities and my knowledge of Jacksonville, I'd agree as well. Springfield is the closest classic local example.

What about Murray Hill?

Interesting question. A number of my friends have bought houses in Murray Hill, so it's clearly undergoing gentrification (and has been for some time now). A bit slow and piecemeal, probably.

Quote from: Adam White on August 04, 2016, 11:23:08 AM

Quote from: FlaBoy on August 04, 2016, 11:14:39 AM

Quote from: thelakelander on August 04, 2016, 11:09:39 AM
^Based on what I've witnessed in other communities and my knowledge of Jacksonville, I'd agree as well. Springfield is the closest classic local example.

What about Murray Hill?

Interesting question. A number of my friends have bought houses in Murray Hill, so it's clearly undergoing gentrification (and has been for some time now). A bit slow and piecemeal, probably.

My personal, unqualified take:

I would say MH was in the midst of gentrification in the early-mid 2000s and then was hit really hard by the housing crash in '07-'08.  Now there is a resurgence of new home buyers, but the rental market in this area is still churning. 

As the home purchases grow, along with the densification of businesses along Edgewood and the buy-in difference from just being on the other side of US-17 from Riverside/Avondale, I'd say that we're right on the cusp of another gentrification upswing.

Currently stronger than Springfield because we don't have as much of the stigma that comes with that neighborhood, but I'd say that the Springfield potential is much greater due to the abundance of commercial availability and the potential to be denser with more multi-family entwined with the SFH.

I believe there's a difference between revitalization and gentrification. Is anyone being displaced in Murray Hill?

I think a lot of anti-gentrificationers are typically the same individuals complaining about how terribly neglected a neighborhood is pre-gentrification.  Then someone does something about it other than just handing residents checks and it is like the world is imploding. 

Another point . . . I have lived in neighborhoods in other cities that were "transitioning neighborhoods."  People can be displaced in many different ways, it is not just the lower income residents being displaced in all cases.  Look at Harlem in New York, it was a largely Jewish neighborhood before it was largely wealthy African Americans, then it became more lower income African Americans, now more non-African Americans are moving in.  There are cycles.  Before the Jews it was the Dutch, etc.  Humboldt Park in Chicago used to be largely low income Irish, then it became largely Puerto Rican, when I lived there there were more whites moving back to the neighborhood and there were huge complaints about gentrification, but I'm willing to bet there were also huge complaints by the largely Irish population when the Puerto Ricans started moving in.  My grandma grew up on the west side of Detroit when it was considered nice.  They were displaced because of crime and the declining schools and decline in quality of life.  It's important to understand that neighborhoods often go through cycles and neighborhoods evolve. 

Murray Hill prices....http://www.nefar.com/filebin/pdbdb/33/962_33.pdf (http://www.nefar.com/filebin/pdbdb/33/962_33.pdf)

The west side of Murray Hill has seen real price increases, the east side, some, but not as much.  Currently there are 15 homes for sale in Murray Hill between 100k and 200k, nothing over 200k. Interestingly enough, only 2 properties for sale under 100k.

Compare to Avondale 100-200k only 10 homes, but 43 over 200k, interestingly enough, only 1 under 100k, so yeah, prices are moving up in the area, to the point where it is really happening, even if a Realtor cannot say so.

Riverside is worse, only 17 homes for sale without a contract or pending status over 200k. Only 1 under 100k. Not much on the market and what is there is a lot more expensive than say a Springfield, where the median price is only $37k, but this area is also roped in with Trout River, Panama Park and older communities. More opportunity for home ownership though.

Quote from: thelakelander on August 04, 2016, 12:18:07 PM
I believe there's a difference between revitalization and gentrification. Is anyone being displaced in Murray Hill?

When house prices rise, people are displaced. Renters are moved out, for example.

People also die off or move away. Gentrification doesn't mean forced displacement. It means a change in the makeup - due to economic reasons, of course. And I would argue that the makeup of Murray Hill is changing slowly. If rents go up, only people who make enough to pay them can live there. Or maybe if property prices go up, people start selling up and moving.

Quote from: thelakelander on August 04, 2016, 12:18:07 PM
I believe there's a difference between revitalization and gentrification. Is anyone being displaced in Murray Hill?

Great point.  I think the simple answer is no.

I don't feel as though anyone is being forced out because we haven't seen the increase in property values that our neighbors to the south have, but we're probably at the early stages of that cycle.

Quote from: CCMjax on August 04, 2016, 12:38:31 PM
I think a lot of anti-gentrificationers are typically the same individuals complaining about how terribly neglected a neighborhood is pre-gentrification.  Then someone does something about it other than just handing residents checks and it is like the world is imploding. 

Another point . . . I have lived in neighborhoods in other cities that were "transitioning neighborhoods."  People can be displaced in many different ways, it is not just the lower income residents being displaced in all cases.  Look at Harlem in New York, it was a largely Jewish neighborhood before it was largely wealthy African Americans, then it became more lower income African Americans, now more non-African Americans are moving in.  There are cycles.  Before the Jews it was the Dutch, etc.  Humboldt Park in Chicago used to be largely low income Irish, then it became largely Puerto Rican, when I lived there there were more whites moving back to the neighborhood and there were huge complaints about gentrification, but I'm willing to bet there were also huge complaints by the largely Irish population when the Puerto Ricans started moving in.  My grandma grew up on the west side of Detroit when it was considered nice.  They were displaced because of crime and the declining schools and decline in quality of life.  It's important to understand that neighborhoods often go through cycles and neighborhoods evolve.

It's difficult. But usually the difficulties are more for renters. For owners of homes in many places like Florida, it is mostly all good since property taxes are capped if in Homestead. If property taxes are too expensive, you will at least be compensated at a level much higher than you paid. I understand sentimental and cultural value is possibly lost at times, but as you mentioned, this is the evolution of time more than anything else. Likewise, in places like NYC, Boston, Washington DC, Chicago, etc, or any successful urban area is where we find the highest rents in the country.

Usually gentrification just means wealthier people moving into an area. Rising property values and displacement are often the results of that trend. In Jax, we haven't seen as much of the negative effects of gentrification yet, as it's only gotten to that level in a few areas.

More money is moving into Murray Hill, but I doubt that property values and rents are rising enough right now that people are being displaced, as there's still cheaper property. It could happen eventually. Similarly, in Riverside, I doubt there was much real displacement for many years, even though more and more middle and upper income folks were moving in. But it's definitely been happening the last few years, especially on what were previously poorer streets, as the properties start to fill up and values. And so a lot of people who can't find a home in (or afford) Riverside are going to Murray Hill and elsewhere.

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/jacksonville-gentrification-maps-demographic-data.html

According to this source, Jax has a gentrification rate of 16.2%. Cities above 45% include Atlanta, Seattle, Minneapolis, Washington and Portland. Cities with rates of 10% or below include Detroit, Cleveland, Memphis and El Paso.

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/census/gentrification-in-cities-governing-report.html#citieslist

Looking at their Jax map, urban core census tracts gentrifying since the 2000 census are located in Downtown, Murray Hill and Springfield.

Quote from: thelakelander on August 04, 2016, 01:43:33 PM
Looking at their Jax map, urban core census tracts gentrifying since the 2000 census are located in Downtown, Murray Hill and Springfield.

Interesting.  Downtown?  If newer, more affluent residents replace nobody, is that really gentrification?  ???

Downtown's primary census track goes west to Myrtle, includes public housing between State and Hogans Creek (between I-95 and Boulevard), LaVilla and a portion of the Cathedral District (much of which is senior housing). All of this low income residential would have been there in 2000.

In the last 15 years, new projects added include the Parks, 11 East, the Carling, Metropolitan Lofts, Berkman, Churchwell Lofts, Cityplace, etc. On the other hand, much of the low income residential that was still standing in LaVilla and west of I-95 has been demolished. Combined, that would probably have a significant impact on rise of housing value and displacement of the poor.

^ As recently discussed in another thread, I suppose it all depends on what one thinks of as "downtown".

The census doesn't specify today's neighborhood boundaries, which have been altered for marketing purposes and artificial barriers added to the historic landscape. It only shows these areas by census tract. Thus, the DT census tract didn't split when I-95 was artificially carved through the middle of LaVilla.

QuoteIf newer, more affluent residents replace nobody, is that really gentrification?

Ghosts gotta go somewhere!

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 04, 2016, 11:44:08 AM
As the home purchases grow, along with the densification of businesses along Edgewood and the buy-in difference from just being on the other side of US-17 from Riverside/Avondale, I'd say that we're right on the cusp of another gentrification upswing.

Currently stronger than Springfield because we don't have as much of the stigma that comes with that neighborhood, but I'd say that the Springfield potential is much greater due to the abundance of commercial availability and the potential to be denser with more multi-family entwined with the SFH.

Good take.

Quote from: thelakelander on August 04, 2016, 12:18:07 PM
I believe there's a difference between revitalization and gentrification. Is anyone being displaced in Murray Hill?

From personal experience, in the past 3 years our company has purchased over a dozen SFH in Murray Hill. All but three were vacant and unlivable. Those three had tenants in place, and those tenants remain today. So from our experience, nobody was displaced. (Obviously with the REOs somebody did move out at some point in time...)

It is interesting but Riverside may have had more lower middle class white folks that have seen the area become too expensive as well in some ways or decided to flip in order to make money.

Quotelower middle class white folks

Median sales price of a home is $196,338 as of June 2016, and the average in Riverside is $246,250 YTD. I'd say lower middle class white folks were doing A-OK in Riverside so far this year. I'd hate to see the upper middle class...

Quote from: mtraininjax on August 04, 2016, 04:28:43 PM

Quotelower middle class white folks

Median sales price of a home is $196,338 as of June 2016, and the average in Riverside is $246,250 YTD. I'd say lower middle class white folks were doing A-OK in Riverside so far this year. I'd hate to see the upper middle class...

Median sale price doesn't mean much without context.  What's the median ppsf?

I feel as there has been a lot of young people who rented in Riverside for years but couldn't afford Riverside. So, they are moving to MH. I'm very bullish on the direction of MH.

Well just think, for every person moving into Brooklyn that raises property values, there is a suburban subdivision/apartment complex that is trending the other way.  I can rent a 4 bedroom house by River City Marketplace for $500/mo less than what I pay at 220 Riverside for a 2 bedroom, and Julington Creek isn't far behind.  No way I can afford a 4 bedroom in house in Riverside.

Interesting OP? Yes. But, honestly:

QuoteI implore you to see this objectively, stop white knighting for Brooklyn and see Brooklyn as a development for affluent mostly white residents.

Can't the objectivity flow in two directions? And, at a minimum, shouldn't it? I mean, where's simms3 to tell us about glorious San Francisco and how it has magnificently handled the problem of gentrification? What's that? Oh. You mean they've been awful on the gentrification issue? Well, now. Ain't that a bitch.

It won't surprise many that it looks pretty clear to me lastdaysoffla's post misses the mark. To hell with whether the use of "white knighting" was appropriate or not, I implore lastdaysoffla to tell me what this particular statement means and what, precisely, is the problem with it:

"see Brooklyn as a development for affluent mostly white residents"

I mean, most of the consolidated city consists of white residents -- correct?

So:

Is it your assertion there are too many affluent white residents in the urban core? Probably not.

Is it your assertion this small, cordoned off component of the urban core has some special significance that is being obliterated? Probably not.

Is it your assertion black area residents are clamoring to move there but are being kept out because of redlining? Probably not.

Look, we don't have a gentrification problem in Jacksonville. We don't even have a gentrification issue in Jax. You, yourself, seemed to have admitted this up front before doing a bit of creative backsliding:

QuoteIt is not often we in Jacksonville talk about gentrification because it just isn't an issue here. When whiter more affluent people want a new place to live Jacksonville responds by cutting down some trees and building a new neighborhood. Now for the controversial bit; Brooklyn has been gentrified. Not gentrification in the traditional sense, where poorer residents were pushed out for richer ones, but gentrification of the highest order wherein an entire 'neighborhood' was manufactured in favor of richer residents.

The highest order? Manufactured?

As best I can tell, your problem is you don't like the redevelopment of Brooklyn. You would prefer it was redeveloped in a different way. You would have apparently preferred you and other like-minded people could have dictated to developers what they have to do in order to obtain your social approval, otherwise they risk earning your disapproval or worse -- they preferably would not have been able to build this type of mix in the first place.

Again, interesting post from a "more government, please" type of perspective: yes. Gentrification problem or issue: no. Not even close. Controversial? It should be.

Actually you're wrong in your assertion that I hate the Brooklyn development. All in all I see it as a good thing. I just think it could have been done in way that served to better enrich the community as a whole and not just the people paying for the privilege of being in the new trendy hipster neighborhood.

QuoteIs it your assertion black area residents are clamoring to move there but are being kept out because of redlining? Probably not.

No black residents aren't clamoring to be in the new development. The main reason being a one bedroom goes for over $1000 a month at the Brooklyn Riverside.

Yes the entire new Brooklyn neighborhood was manufactured in one go. The only thing that has been there more than two years is the pond at Unity Plaza. You can't argue that older neighborhoods were built in the time span of two years

Also, I don't have the faintest idea where you get the idea that my post advocates for "more government".

Quote from: lastdaysoffla on August 05, 2016, 01:46:29 PM
Actually you're wrong in your assertion that I hate the Brooklyn development. All in all I see it as a good thing. I just think it could have been done in way that served to better enrich the community as a whole and not just the people paying for the privilege of being in the new trendy hipster neighborhood.

QuoteIs it your assertion black area residents are clamoring to move there but are being kept out because of redlining? Probably not.

No black residents aren't clamoring to be in the new development. The main reason being a one bedroom goes for over $1000 a month at the Brooklyn Riverside.

That is quite the broad brush that you are painting here. One, your claim is absolutely not true. I know a few people who moved into the apartments after they were built. If I didn't find a home in Avondale as fast as I did then I would certainly be living at Riverside 220 right now.

Quote from: lastdaysoffla on August 05, 2016, 01:46:29 PM
No black residents aren't clamoring to be in the new development. The main reason being a one bedroom goes for over $1000 a month at the Brooklyn Riverside.

You do realize what you just insinuated here, right?

I'll leave it at that.

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 05, 2016, 02:51:45 PM

Quote from: lastdaysoffla on August 05, 2016, 01:46:29 PM
No black residents aren't clamoring to be in the new development. The main reason being a one bedroom goes for over $1000 a month at the Brooklyn Riverside.

You do realize what you just insinuated here, right?

I'll leave it at that.

Well it's true. Walk through the Brooklyn west of Park St. nobody over there is paying that much for an apartment. 

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 05, 2016, 02:51:45 PM

Quote from: lastdaysoffla on August 05, 2016, 01:46:29 PM
No black residents aren't clamoring to be in the new development. The main reason being a one bedroom goes for over $1000 a month at the Brooklyn Riverside.

You do realize what you just insinuated here, right?

I'll leave it at that.

Where is the like button?

Wow, didn't know I'd trigger ya'll with a socio-economic reality.

Quote from: lastdaysoffla on August 05, 2016, 01:46:29 PMYou can't argue that older neighborhoods were built in the time span of two years

Actually, I think you could. 

Ever heard of the Florida land boom?  Riverside, Avondale, San Marco, Springfield, Ortega, Etc are the Nocatees and Oakleafs of the turn of the last century. 

Quote from: lastdaysoffla on August 05, 2016, 03:53:33 PM
Wow, didn't know I'd trigger ya'll with a socio-economic reality.

You just spouted off one of the most blatant racist statements I've seen.  It's not a 'trigger' as much as it's a 'what-in-the-actual-fuck-are-you-thinking'.

What you typed:

Quote from: lastdaysoffla on August 05, 2016, 01:46:29 PM
No black residents aren't clamoring to be in the new development. The main reason being a one bedroom goes for over $1000 a month at the Brooklyn Riverside.

What I read: 

Quote from: lastdaysoffla on August 05, 2016, 01:46:29 PM
Black aren't going to live here. Those people can't afford $1k / month rent.

Tell me how I'm wrong in making that distinction.  Please.

Well this escalated quickly.

Quote from: Tacachale on August 05, 2016, 04:22:53 PM
Well this escalated quickly.

I'm hoping it was just lost in context.  We'll see.

Ironic considering the website I pulled info from yesterday.  [note to self:  always check the name of the website, no matter the content]

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 05, 2016, 04:25:58 PM

Quote from: Tacachale on August 05, 2016, 04:22:53 PM
Well this escalated quickly.

I'm hoping it was just lost in context.  We'll see.

Ironic considering the website I pulled info from yesterday.  [note to self:  always check the name of the website, no matter the content]

Ha!

To step back a bit, I imagine lastdaysoffla just misspoke. I assume what they were getting at is that the new developments cater to a demographic that is comparatively affluent and mostly white. The prices won't be doable for older residents of Brooklyn and similar neighborhoods, who, in addition to being mostly black, are also mostly poor. If that's the case, I think it's probably true. It's a somewhat complex thought, and it's easy to see how it could be oversimplified into something you don't mean.

Lol. I'm black and considered renting in Brooklyn. I ended up deciding to go elsewhere and pay a couple hundred more in rent per month. Money wasn't my issue. Knowing my regular work commute to Central Florida and the thought of dealing with I-95 construction between the Fuller Warren, Overland Bridge and JTB were.

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 05, 2016, 04:25:58 PM

Quote from: Tacachale on August 05, 2016, 04:22:53 PM
Well this escalated quickly.

I'm hoping it was just lost in context.  We'll see.

Ironic considering the website I pulled info from yesterday.  [note to self:  always check the name of the website, no matter the content]

Yes, out of context.

Quote from: Tacachale on August 05, 2016, 05:11:47 PM.


Ha!

To step back a bit, I imagine lastdaysoffla just misspoke. I assume what they were getting at is that the new developments cater to a demographic that is comparatively affluent and mostly white. The prices won't be doable for older residents of Brooklyn and similar neighborhoods, who, in addition to being mostly black, are also mostly poor. If that's the case, I think it's probably true. It's a somewhat complex thought, and it's easy to see how it could be oversimplified into something you don't mean.

This is much more along the lines of what I meant to say ^ Thanks for the benefit of the doubt.

I guess it is all perspective. I see the Brooklyn development as creating jobs for people who live on the west side of Park.  There is beauty in people interacting with each other. That area didn't have that 5 years ago.

I'm guessing your concern is that a development like Brooklyn tends to move away from the fabric/spirit of the remaining people in the neighborhood. How do these developments bring in new people without alienating the existing neighbors? I don't know the answer but that would make for a good discussion.

(http://www.yourhomefromhome.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Outside-South-Dock.jpg)

They rebuilt an old neighborhood in Dublin to build new apartment buildings. Google's office and other tech firms are close to this area. So, the units are pricey but the government provided a number low-cost & medium cost units in a lot buildings to integrate different classes together. From what I was told at the time, everybody was able to co-exist with very little issues.

lastdaysoffla, please understand. I'm not attacking you. I said up front: interesting post. I am going after, however, what I believe inspired your post. You're doing what is fashionable these days. Everything is outward-focus. Little introspection, or so it seems to me. That's why I started out by asking, "Can't the objectivity flow in two directions? And, at a minimum, shouldn't it?"

You're posing a question to us that includes a questionable (because it is conclusory) presumption, IMHO. I guess you don't see that or acknowledge it but I see it clearly. Some people on this board have championed affordable housing options in Springfield, for instance. Maybe that would work west of Park Street but, more than likely, let's be honest about this, Brooklyn has been subsumed by Riverside. As a *very* desirable place to live, with an interstate system serving as something of a backyard fence, the die has likely been cast. I don't see that as a bad thing. The urban core desperately needs enclaves that serve to attract taxpaying commercial entities.

You say you don't see how my "more government, please" allegation is applicable to your post but JaxAvondale has (I think) essentially posted the answer for me with this comment re Dublin, Ireland:

So, the units are pricey but the government provided a number low-cost & medium cost units in a lot buildings to integrate different classes together.

Okay? That is likely the only way to try to attain what you would have desired for Brooklyn. And it is one reason I threw some shade at simms3 and San Francisco in my original response. Outrageous government interference out there hasn't been able to do a damn thing about gentrification and the proud black population of that city (among other populations) has been dispersed elsewhere around San Francisco Bay by the enormity of the tech money that resides in the area.

My bottom line: utopian ideas are largely nothing more than masturbation. They will pass in a rush, sure, but ultimately they are a poor substitute for genuine intercourse because they don't work, and they never will. Your initial assertion, the very reason for your post, derives from what I'm sure is a well-meaning place but it has a fatal flaw; it was (and is) utopian.

Quote from: RattlerGator on August 06, 2016, 07:12:25 AM


You say you don't see how my "more government, please" allegation is applicable to your post but JaxAvondale has (I think) essentially posted the answer for me with this comment re Dublin, Ireland:

So, the units are pricey but the government provided a number low-cost & medium cost units in a lot buildings to integrate different classes together.

Okay? That is likely the only way to try to attain what you would have desired for Brooklyn. And it is one reason I threw some shade at simms3 and San Francisco in my original response. Outrageous government interference out there hasn't been able to do a damn thing about gentrification and the proud black population of that city (among other populations) has been dispersed elsewhere around San Francisco Bay by the enormity of the tech money that resides in the area.

My bottom line: utopian ideas are largely nothing more than masturbation. They will pass in a rush, sure, but ultimately they are a poor substitute for genuine intercourse because they don't work, and they never will. Your initial assertion, the very reason for your post, derives from what I'm sure is a well-meaning place but it has a fatal flaw; it was (and is) utopian.

It's not necessarily "more government". In the UK, many developments are required to contain a certain amount of 'affordable housing'. This doesn't necessarily mean it's underwritten by the government - it just means that developes have to include affordable units when they do these large developments. And for good reason - real estate prices are ridiculous and homes are being snatched up by wealthy investors.

I'd not be too surprised to find out they have similar policies in the ROI.

Quote from: thelakelander on August 05, 2016, 05:22:49 PM
Lol. I'm black and considered renting in Brooklyn. I ended up deciding to go elsewhere and pay a couple hundred more in rent per month. Money wasn't my issue. Knowing my regular work commute to Central Florida and the thought of dealing with I-95 construction between the Fuller Warren, Overland Bridge and JTB were.

It's not that bad.  Until last month I worked in Orlando.  I left about 7AM, went across the Acosta Bridge, and hit 95 South.  The only problem is the near daily accident at that stupid Atlantic Blvd exit.  After that, smooth sailing until Lake Mary Blvd in Orlando.

^There were some other factors too. I was also factoring in the Fuller Warren Bridge expansion project getting underway. Since that time, its construction was delayed by a year. A simple switch across the river, resulted in the ability to use a variety of state and local streets as alternatives on I-95's worst days.

Adam, you're taking an incredibly narrow approach on the question.Who the heck is talking about underwriting? If it doesn't necessarily involve more government, who the heck is requiring -- and enforcing the requirement -- that they contain a certain amount of 'affordable housing,' hmmmmm ? ? ?

Yes, that is obviously and necessarily more government, please.

That may be too much of an ideological rant (the triggered safe space retreat for stephendare when he has no response; that, and yawning) but it does happen to be the truth.

Government is already doing that though.  That is what our modern zoning laws are all about.  Suburban developers can't just go build whatever they want.  The local planning department tells them where retail has to go, how many homes per acre they can build, how big those homes can be, how far away they have to be from other types of homes, etc. etc. etc.

Quote from: RattlerGator on August 07, 2016, 08:48:04 PM
Adam, you're taking an incredibly narrow approach on the question.Who the heck is talking about underwriting? If it doesn't necessarily involve more government, who the heck is requiring -- and enforcing the requirement -- that they contain a certain amount of 'affordable housing,' hmmmmm ? ? ?

Yes, that is obviously and necessarily more government, please.

That may be too much of an ideological rant (the triggered safe space retreat for stephendare when he has no response; that, and yawning) but it does happen to be the truth.

Sorry, but I really have no answer to this. People who think like this make me worry about our future as a species.

So, Adam, I've triggered you now? Allergic to the truth, are you?

And Kerry, what government do you know around the South (and most of this nation) dictating to developers that a number low-cost & medium cost units in any building must be provided for the express purpose of integrating different classes together ? ? ?

The point, rather obviously, wasn't government enforcing regulations -- why respond as if it was? *That* type of regulation, however? Oh yeah, more government please.

Can we please remember the context of my comment to lastdaysoffla and my example of the failure of heavy regulations in San Francisco to do a damn thing about gentrification?

Stephendare has this bizarre juvenile need to not only presume stupidity but insist upon it for anyone daring to put forward a contrary thought. That's the tactic of a severe partisan who can't handle adult conversation.

Quote from: RattlerGator on August 09, 2016, 07:46:13 AM
So, Adam, I've triggered you now? Allergic to the truth, are you?

And Kerry, what government do you know around the South (and most of this nation) dictating to developers that a number low-cost & medium cost units in any building must be provided for the express purpose of integrating different classes together ? ? ?

The point, rather obviously, wasn't government enforcing regulations -- why respond as if it was? *That* type of regulation, however? Oh yeah, more government please.

Can we please remember the context of my comment to lastdaysoffla and my example of the failure of heavy regulations in San Francisco to do a damn thing about gentrification?

Stephendare has this bizarre juvenile need to not only presume stupidity but insist upon it for anyone daring to put forward a contrary thought. That's the tactic of a severe partisan who can't handle adult conversation.

I don't understand what you mean by "triggered".

I appreciate when people take exception to the government spending beyond its means. Or spending taxpayer money on what some might find to be frivolous projects. I also understand why people get upset when the government meddles in their private lives or perhaps insists on too many regulations.

What I can't understand is why any reasonable person would take exception to the government trying to ensure people have a place to live. Trying to ensure that people aren't priced out of living in particular areas.

All the government does when it places conditions on planning permission for something like this slightly reduce the insane amount of money the developer is going to make on the project anyway. It's not hurting its profitability. And it's making it possible for a few people to stay in their neighbourhood.

But no... "big government". It's no wonder the world is in the state it is.

Charleston has fostered construction of a significant amount of housing on the uber-gentrifying Peninsula for workforce housing.  It has done so by various means including providing the land or completed unit and requiring that any sale only be to someone else that meets the means test.  In other words it can't simply be flipped for a quick profit, to someone not classified as Workforce.

It has also granted higher unit density (than allowed originally) in exchange for the extra units being devoted to work force. That approach seems to be well received. 

These measures have NOT stopped gentrification, but have allowed for workforce housing on the Peninsula that the market itself would never have provided.               

Quote from: vicupstate on August 09, 2016, 10:51:45 AM
Charleston has fostered construction of a significant amount of housing on the uber-gentrifying Peninsula for workforce housing.  It has done so by various means including providing the land or completed unit and requiring that any sale only be to someone else that meets the means test.  In other words it can't simply be flipped for a quick profit, to someone not classified as Workforce.

It has also granted higher unit density (than allowed originally) in exchange for the extra units being devoted to work force. That approach seems to be well received. 

These measures have NOT stopped gentrification, but have allowed for workforce housing on the Peninsula that the market itself would never have provided.             

There are also schemes were housing is set aside for 'key workers' - police officers, nurses, teachers, etc (I think on the notion that they otherwise might not be able to live near where they work).

We also have a shared ownership scheme where the person buys a mortgage for a percentage of the value of the house - like 25% - and the rest is paid in rent to the housing association. Originally, this was to help key workers and others find their way onto the property ladder.

The over-riding problem in America is that our lending laws are almost exclusively geared towards single-family homes and our zoning ordinances are almost all segregated zoning, and where urban mixed-use zoning is implemented the local government hands out variences like candy on Halloween.  It's too bad nobody wants to build live/work units, homes with granny-flats or garage apartments, or even row houses with basement apartments.  When I watch House Hunter International almost every home they show in Europe would be illegal here or couldn't get a loan to build.

Quote from: Kerry on August 09, 2016, 11:43:59 AM
The over-riding problem in America is that our lending laws are almost exclusively geared towards single-family homes and our zoning ordinances are almost all segregated zoning, and where urban mixed-use zoning is implemented the local government hands out variences like candy on Halloween.  It's too bad nobody wants to build live/work units, homes with granny-flats or garage apartments, or even row houses with basement apartments.  When I watch House Hunter International almost every home they show in Europe would be illegal here or couldn't get a loan to build.

Well, if it makes you feel any better, I had to get a 25 year mortgage (wanted a 30 year) because the bank wouldn't allow me to borrow past my retirement age. If I'd have waited much longer, I might've struggled to get a mortgage!

Quote from: stephendare on August 09, 2016, 12:49:22 PM

Quote from: RattlerGator on August 09, 2016, 07:46:13 AM
So, Adam, I've triggered you now? Allergic to the truth, are you?

And Kerry, what government do you know around the South (and most of this nation) dictating to developers that a number low-cost & medium cost units in any building must be provided for the express purpose of integrating different classes together ? ? ?

The point, rather obviously, wasn't government enforcing regulations -- why respond as if it was? *That* type of regulation, however? Oh yeah, more government please.

Can we please remember the context of my comment to lastdaysoffla and my example of the failure of heavy regulations in San Francisco to do a damn thing about gentrification?

Stephendare has this bizarre juvenile need to not only presume stupidity but insist upon it for anyone daring to put forward a contrary thought. That's the tactic of a severe partisan who can't handle adult conversation.

Not really.  I engage opposing opinions all day.  I just oppose the uninformed and bizarre ones.

No one is 'allergic' to your commentary. No one is triggered by your posts.  They are just long robot responses that try and fit your bizarre political beliefs as an overlay to whatever is being discussed.

I assume you do it for attention.

Clarification: there is no UK legislation or requirement that states that low-cost & medium cost units in any building must be provided.

There is Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 which allows planning authorities (usually local councils) to place conditions on developments. They can be any sort of conditions - and they don't necessarily have to place conditions on developments.

Gentrification is not just about housing and rental pricing, it is about the businesses and services that cater to a poorer population.  To see that, all you have to do is read the various threads over the last decade about Springfield pushing out various businesses, groups of people being told they are not allowed to live there, hear real estate agents tell you they have the right to determine who can live where, and, more recently, how the city conducted itself on behalf of the community over the Ability Housing project.

One underlying mantra I have seen in studies about turning around urban areas is "if you are good enough to work here, you are good enough to live here."  That is far more than making housing affordable, it is the business and transportation needs being met as well.  Springfield should be showing us that the government must be involved because a community left to it's own resources won't make the right decisions. 

What's interesting though is that once  the "wrong" people are in place, the vast majority of people who spoke against them ending wondering what the issue ever was to start with.

Stephendare, your substantive (not) contribution to this thread is noted. I think my point has been clearly made and proven. No gentrification problem or issue in Jax. In a bow to lastdaysoffla, development fits and starts and inevitable displacement? Yes. Yes, also, to vicupstate. Strider's post, however, begs the question not of government involvement but precisely what type and how much -- doesn't it?

If you looked at Governing Magazine's February 2015 piece on gentrificaion and examined their Duval County map:

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/jacksonville-gentrification-maps-demographic-data.html

there, we're told the census district bounded on the north by 103rd Street, on the east by Blanding Blvd., and on the west and south by the I-295 west beltway gentrified between 2000 and the present. Likewise, the 8th Street area of Springfield near I-95 (? ? ?) and an area just south of that in downtown.

What?

Patently absurd and obviously a map incentivized to call for more government, somehow. In Big Duval, this gentrification stuff is clearly an issue in search of a problem and finding none.

Quote from: RattlerGator on August 10, 2016, 07:09:40 AM
...obviously a map incentivized to call for more government, somehow.

Obviously.

Quote from: finehoe on August 10, 2016, 10:58:58 AM

Quote from: RattlerGator on August 10, 2016, 07:09:40 AM
...obviously a map incentivized to call for more government, somehow.

Obviously.

Talk about jumping to an unsupported conclusion.