Metro Jacksonville

this gives me a bit of hope about the possibility of sensible leadership on the council.

I hope everyone on this board sends an email to councilman Bishop thanking him for his remarks and his activism on this issue.

Good stuff.

QuoteOne person who isn’t pleased with the way the Courthouse is designed is architect, City Council member and ex-officio DDRB member Bill Bishop. He attended the meeting even though, he said, “I realize I’m not a voting member.”

Bishop pointed out his comments were directed to the City, not the designers. He then said, “I believe we should go up, not out. This design uses too much land that could be sold to other developers.”

Bishop also said he thinks the end product will be “more of the same gray, fake classical stuff that’s already all over Downtown,” and added, “Considering the advances in Courthouse design I don’t think we have to settle for a cartoon version of classic design. This building would have been considered high-tech in 1935.”

Quote
Bishop pointed out his comments were directed to the City, not the designers. He then said, “I believe we should go up, not out. This design uses too much land that could be sold to other developers.”

Mr. Bishop is right.

Given the requirements this city has for courthouse space needs, now and in the future, I believe the CM is wrong.  The footprint of the building is sufficient.  We need to preceed post haste.

I don't think he's arguing about the size of the courthouse.  He's arguing about the design from an architectural and urban planning standpoint.  We're leaving a lot of money and potential on the table by moving forward with a horizontal suburban building.  We are a community that always claims that we're broke, but we continue to do stupid things when it comes to development practices.  For example, if it went up 16 stories instead of 8, we would then be able to sell a few prime blocks of property to the private sector.  On top of that, when developed, we would then collect property taxes on an annual basis from them.  So to sum it up, what Bishop is talking about is much larger than the courthouse.

Exactly, and well said Lakelander....this is a problem and city planning lacks true foresight.

i would use other words for this Bishop guy.  i will only give you my single firsthand experience with him.  it was a couple of years ago at the "business group unveiling" of Peyton's "Big Ideas".  obviously he wasn't a bona fide Councilman yet then.

got into a chat with him about how ignorant I thought these ideas were (time proved me and many others to be right).  Mr. Bishop seemed to practically fall over himself in telling me how wonderful he thought the ideas were.

take it for what its worth.  i do agree with you though that his current comments are to most of our liking.  like everything else in this land-of-missed-opportunity though, be wary of trusting him.

Mr. Bishop's catholic view of what constitutes urban development works both ways in Jacksonville.  A vertical courthouse? Absolutely.  Reinstall the Northbank Riverwalk benches? Mr. Bishop, please tend to the concerns of your own council district.  We have to live and work down here.

What's Redman's view of downtown?  He's not nearly as active as Suzanne Jenkins used to be.

Quote from: Jerry Moran on October 15, 2008, 04:08:20 AM
Mr. Bishop's catholic view of what constitutes urban development works both ways in Jacksonville.  A vertical courthouse? Absolutely.  Reinstall the Northbank Riverwalk benches? Mr. Bishop, please tend to the concerns of your own council district.  We have to live and work down here.

the riverwealk benches ARE a good thing...if you're worried about homeless people sleeping on them, there is a simple solution...place an armrest bar in the middle of the bench!

Quote
the riverwealk benches ARE a good thing...if you're worried about homeless people sleeping on them, there is a simple solution...place an armrest bar in the middle of the bench!

What's the Latin phrase?

(http://www.esnips.com/imageable/medium/63e37554-a076-4ef8-aa5f-53983225375b/?du=a7cf4243-b6ac-4207-a888-aeb2c41276d1&uu=8179168a-bd94-4178-b2e4-7d38e1e196ec&dt=1224111725000&fu=d0c2785c-439b-49d7-8c61-8148e907c73d)

Quote from: Jerry Moran on October 15, 2008, 06:49:51 PM

Quote
the riverwealk benches ARE a good thing...if you're worried about homeless people sleeping on them, there is a simple solution...place an armrest bar in the middle of the bench!

What's the Latin phrase?

(http://www.esnips.com/imageable/medium/63e37554-a076-4ef8-aa5f-53983225375b/?du=a7cf4243-b6ac-4207-a888-aeb2c41276d1&uu=8179168a-bd94-4178-b2e4-7d38e1e196ec&dt=1224111725000&fu=d0c2785c-439b-49d7-8c61-8148e907c73d)

like I said...stick a bar in the middle of the two-person bench....that way, its impossible to lay down.

Lots of cities do it...its like putting little raised bumps on planter ledges to prevent skateboarders.

There is a bar in the middle of that bench yet the guy is still sleeping.  That was Jerry's point.

Quote from: RiversideGator on October 15, 2008, 11:31:56 PM
There is a bar in the middle of that bench yet the guy is still sleeping.  That was Jerry's point.

I'm probably misunderstanding but does Mr Moran mean the benches should be gone and not returned?

Quote from: avonjax on October 16, 2008, 12:08:25 AM

Quote from: RiversideGator on October 15, 2008, 11:31:56 PM
There is a bar in the middle of that bench yet the guy is still sleeping.  That was Jerry's point.

I'm probably misunderstanding but does Mr Moran mean the benches should be gone and not returned?

yes, that is what he means.

I think Tufsu is saying if you put another bar in the middle of that TWO PERSON bench, then it could not be slept on.

Not that I've ever seen that before.

You won't find them sleeping on these types of benches. 

(http://www.bigshinything.com/wp-photos/384622279.jpeg)

(http://www.danlockton.co.uk/research/images/richmondbench.jpg)

I stand corrected. I have seen that.

Quote
like I said...stick a bar in the middle of the two-person bench....that way, its impossible to lay down.

If one of our Citizen-Vagrants decides to devour a downtown flying rat, nothing on this earth, not even an Amendment to a City Ordinance, will prevent him from eventually laying down.

So is the answer to pull up the sidewalks?   It evident we should be dealing with the vagrant issue, as opposed to making the downtown core more hostile to everyone else.  Removing benches is reactionary.  We need to get proactive for a change.

Personally, I think strict vagrancy laws combined with a relocation of all bum facilities (i.e. Sulzbacher, Salvation Army, etc) out of downtown is the best way to go.  Banning all benches seems to be more treating the symptoms instead of curing the disease.

Quote from: RiversideGator on October 16, 2008, 10:54:40 AM
Personally, I think strict vagrancy laws combined with a relocation of all bum facilities (i.e. Sulzbacher, Salvation Army, etc) out of downtown is the best way to go.  Banning all benches seems to be more treating the symptoms instead of curing the disease.

I've been thinking this same thing. However, most people are going to start yelling NIMBY! as soon as you mention a location near their house.

The real symptom is the need for these places in the first place. They themselves are symptoms of a lack of mental health care, or training (ala City Rescue's Program). You can't just give someone food and shelter and expect that they aren’t just going to stick around for it again, and again ... you're just rewarding their vagrancy.

In the short term, a relocation plan could include attempting to relocate many of these services in a centralized industrial location outside of the heart of downtown.  The highly abandoned Dennis Street warehouse district is something that should be considered.  It has ample cheap available space for the expansion of social services and its centrally located (region-wise) on the edge of downtown.  Its also buffered from other land uses by McCoys Creek, warehouses, I-95 and railroad tracks.  Its probably the best spot in town where these uses could expand without heavy opposition.

Agreed.  I think you posted a map with this area circled on it before, Lake.  That is the ideal solution on a local level.  On a statewide/national level, the best thing would be restore vagrancy laws and the old system of secure mental health facilities.

Quote from: Jerry Moran on October 16, 2008, 04:28:32 AM

Quote
like I said...stick a bar in the middle of the two-person bench....that way, its impossible to lay down.

If one of our Citizen-Vagrants decides to devour a downtown flying rat, nothing on this earth, not even an Amendment to a City Ordinance, will prevent him from eventually laying down.

I have always loved the idea of punishing the whole class because one kid is bad.....
I say put razor wire around the parks, pull out the benches, heck the Riverwalks will have to go. I'm picturing something like Escape From New York....