(https://photos.moderncities.com/photos/i-WF28sRN/1/L/i-WF28sRN-L.jpg)
Quote
Construction on the long anticipated McCoys Creek restoration and Emerald Trail is now underway.
Read more: https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/mccoys-creek-restoration-project-now-underway/
I didn't realize that they were going to close McCoys Creek Blvd for this. Looks like a good start to the whole thing.
Are they going to completely dredge the creek and remove the toxic sludge or just remove retaining walls to let it naturally meander more?
This project should be transformative for the whole McCoy's Creek area and even more so once it incorporates the Emerald Trail. This is a project that the City is doing that I wholeheartedly endorse!
Quote from: acme54321 on August 04, 2021, 11:24:52 AM
I didn't realize that they were going to close McCoys Creek Blvd for this. Looks like a good start to the whole thing.
Are they going to completely dredge the creek and remove the toxic sludge or just remove retaining walls to let it naturally meander more?
I believe this is a full restoration so they will clean out the creek bottom and bring it back to a natural state with a few exceptions such as under the CSX and I-95 bridges and the Times Union Building where its not feasible to do so. However, in the case of the latter, I understand they plan to widen the creek as much as the property owners can tolerate and "sunshine" it when the building above is ultimately removed.
This could be a huge asset to the area, can't wait to watch it happen. It could really be transformative for the North Riverside / Mixontown area.
The main negative is the threat of gentrification. It's already occurring and there's nothing in place from a local policy perspective to stop it.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 07, 2021, 05:55:11 PM
The main negative is the threat of gentrification. It's already occurring and there's nothing in place from a local policy perspective to stop it.
Ha!....
Don't worry, I ain't gonna move from Avondale Impaired Waterway to Downtown.
About five years ago I knew the last time I would ever paddle under the Times Union building should be...... well..... about then.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 07, 2021, 05:55:11 PM
The main negative is the threat of gentrification. It's already occurring and there's nothing in place from a local policy perspective to stop it.
Lake, curious... what policies could be used to keep it from being gentrified? I gather rising property values are at the root of the "problem" so how does one put a lid on them and also insure that low income persons can compete, no matter the price.
I am guessing that building incentivized housing that must cater to low income residents is one way. But, that may not be feasible as property values rise so much that developers and the City can't come to terms. Housing subsidies might be another but in a hot real estate market I don't know how they could ever keep up. Is there such a thing as zoning districts restricted to low income housing? Would that pass a legal test?
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on August 07, 2021, 10:02:19 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 07, 2021, 05:55:11 PM
The main negative is the threat of gentrification. It's already occurring and there's nothing in place from a local policy perspective to stop it.
Lake, curious... what policies could be used to keep it from being gentrified? I gather rising property values are at the root of the "problem" so how does one put a lid on them and also insure that low income persons can compete, no matter the price.
I am guessing that building incentivized housing that must cater to low income residents is one way. But, that may not be feasible as property values rise so much that developers and the City can't come to terms. Housing subsidies might be another but in a hot real estate market I don't know how they could ever keep up. Is their such a thing as zoning districts restricted to low income housing? Would that pass a legal test?
Hilarious.
Relax. Jacksonville projected to become majority non white.
A shift may press on current residents.
No matter what the color or Net Income of Downtown Waterway Residents, the creek natural system improvements will be for broad benefit.
And if for some reason the Downtown Trail momentum came to a screeching halt, the River System and " Neighborhood " would bumble along just fine.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on August 07, 2021, 10:02:19 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 07, 2021, 05:55:11 PM
The main negative is the threat of gentrification. It's already occurring and there's nothing in place from a local policy perspective to stop it.
Lake, curious... what policies could be used to keep it from being gentrified? I gather rising property values are at the root of the "problem" so how does one put a lid on them and also insure that low income persons can compete, no matter the price.
I am guessing that building incentivized housing that must cater to low income residents is one way. But, that may not be feasible as property values rise so much that developers and the City can't come to terms. Housing subsidies might be another but in a hot real estate market I don't know how they could ever keep up. Is their such a thing as zoning districts restricted to low income housing? Would that pass a legal test?
St. Johns County is doing something like that. (https://www.staugustine.com/story/news/2020/07/07/st-johns-county-commission-approves-workforce-housing-zoning/42040545/) I'd argue that the area's general development practices, plus the likelihood of that new development being in car-centric middle of nowhere means it's unlikely to be all
that useful, but to their credit they've done
something.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on August 07, 2021, 10:02:19 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 07, 2021, 05:55:11 PM
The main negative is the threat of gentrification. It's already occurring and there's nothing in place from a local policy perspective to stop it.
Lake, curious... what policies could be used to keep it from being gentrified? I gather rising property values are at the root of the "problem" so how does one put a lid on them and also insure that low income persons can compete, no matter the price.
I am guessing that building incentivized housing that must cater to low income residents is one way. But, that may not be feasible as property values rise so much that developers and the City can't come to terms. Housing subsidies might be another but in a hot real estate market I don't know how they could ever keep up. Is there such a thing as zoning districts restricted to low income housing? Would that pass a legal test?
I think one solution would be to relax zoning restrictions to allow the development of denser housing. 85% of housing in Mixon Town are in structures with 4 units or less and once this project is finished, there's nothing to stop the rapid appreciation in price of these units as the demand for housing picks up in the area. The city should provide incentives and tax credits to developers who incorporate affordable and workforce housing in their projects.
Reynoldstown in Atlanta is an example of a neighborhood similar to Mixon Town that rapidly gentrified after the Beltline opened. Now they're working reactively to try and stop the same thing from happening in other neighborhoods. Hopefully we can be proactive in addressing this before it's too late.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on August 07, 2021, 10:02:19 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 07, 2021, 05:55:11 PM
The main negative is the threat of gentrification. It's already occurring and there's nothing in place from a local policy perspective to stop it.
Lake, curious... what policies could be used to keep it from being gentrified? I gather rising property values are at the root of the "problem" so how does one put a lid on them and also insure that low income persons can compete, no matter the price.
I am guessing that building incentivized housing that must cater to low income residents is one way. But, that may not be feasible as property values rise so much that developers and the City can't come to terms. Housing subsidies might be another but in a hot real estate market I don't know how they could ever keep up. Is there such a thing as zoning districts restricted to low income housing? Would that pass a legal test?
Limiting displacement and loss of history means implementing several tools to address several issues. For example, I had a Mixontown resident call me last week. They were upset that several properties had recently been purchased and razed and wanted to know what they could do to stop this. Well, although the neighborhood is just as old and historically significant as Springfield and Riverside, it isn't protected legally. As the trail system develops, if this situation largely spearheaded by real estate investors isn't address, it will become the next Brooklyn in another decade or so. Basically being largely leveled with small lots being assembled into larger properties that then become Brooklyn Stations, 220 Riversides, Brooklyn Riversides, Vista Brooklyns, etc. So being proactive and designating sites individually as local landmarks or the entire neighborhood as a historic district (local or national register.....depending on what the neighborhood goals are), would be a form of policy change that helps protect historic sense of place and character by making it difficult for that type of development pattern to gain steam.
If there is an area where new development and infill is desired, perhaps there's a need to allow for greater density on these sites, in order to help protect older built out areas.
If housing affordability and ownership are major concerns, one tool to better address the issue would be rezoning the area to implement policies that support the development of affordable housing. These could include limiting maximum lot size, making it easier for missing middle multifamily, or eliminating off-street parking requirements. Other tools could include forms of property tax abatement, land banking, tackling issues around heirs property, etc.
If a major goal is to stimulate local business development on commercial corridors, becoming a part of the Florida Main Street program could be an appropriate proactive response. I could go on and on, but if the community can be progressive and open minded, there are several things that can be implemented simultaneously to limit long term displacement while revitalization occurs.
^ Ennis, thanks for the insights. All good info. Unfortunately, I don't know if Jax is up to the task given its "free market" attitude to development.
There's a push in the Eastside to do many of these things. They aren't waiting for city hall to lead. So far, the city and many others seem willing to partner and help. Hopefully, their work can be a good model for additional neighborhoods.
Interesting proposals, Lake, especially limiting parcel size to prevent consolidating many small parcels into mega-parcels.
I confess to watching more than one of the renovation shows on HGTV, and the theme of some of them is to renovate run-down homes and sell them to people moving into the neighborhood at higher values to start (or encourage) a chain reaction of more value-increasing renovations, in which they participate. The most notable example of this is "Good Bones" from Indianapolis, where the show's protagonists work in inner-ring neighborhoods. In every episode I've seen, they purchase properties that have been vacant (abandon) for some time, so they aren't directly displacing anyone. But, I wonder how the increasing property values affect long-time residents, especially renters.
I understand the adverse effect if rents go up and renters are forced out because they cannot afford the new rents. I am less clear on how it is 'bad' if a long-term home-owner in one of these neighborhoods sees an opportunity to make a profit and achieve their suburban dream (or whatever it is). Of course, this also contributes to the rising property values that can squeeze out less affluent renters. But, I don't know how this form of gentrification can be stopped by legislation.
How does one reconcile an attempt at increased density while preserving the nature of an area, especially if the area is single family homes? Doesn't preserving character via a historic designation artificially restrict the supply of homes and lead to an inevitable increase in value, especially as community improvements aimed at improving the area are completed?
How can we do both?
Quote from: itsfantastic1 on August 09, 2021, 12:32:51 PM
How does one reconcile an attempt at increased density while preserving the nature of an area, especially if the area is single family homes? Doesn't preserving character via a historic designation artificially restrict the supply of homes and lead to an inevitable increase in value, especially as community improvements aimed at improving the area are completed?
How can we do both?
Eventually there's going to come a time, and Jax is significantly farther out from this than other cities, where we'll have to choose between preserving low-density historic neighborhoods like Riverside, San Marco, and Mixon Town or upzoning these neighborhoods to satisfy the increasing demand for housing within the urban core and entire city in general.
If the urban core is able to get back to the pre-1970's numbers of around 200k people, these conversations will start to become more prevalent
Quote from: Charles Hunter on August 09, 2021, 09:24:09 AM
Interesting proposals, Lake, especially limiting parcel size to prevent consolidating many small parcels into mega-parcels.
I confess to watching more than one of the renovation shows on HGTV, and the theme of some of them is to renovate run-down homes and sell them to people moving into the neighborhood at higher values to start (or encourage) a chain reaction of more value-increasing renovations, in which they participate. The most notable example of this is "Good Bones" from Indianapolis, where the show's protagonists work in inner-ring neighborhoods. In every episode I've seen, they purchase properties that have been vacant (abandon) for some time, so they aren't directly displacing anyone. But, I wonder how the increasing property values affect long-time residents, especially renters.
I understand the adverse effect if rents go up and renters are forced out because they cannot afford the new rents. I am less clear on how it is 'bad' if a long-term home-owner in one of these neighborhoods sees an opportunity to make a profit and achieve their suburban dream (or whatever it is). Of course, this also contributes to the rising property values that can squeeze out less affluent renters. But, I don't know how this form of gentrification can be stopped by legislation.
It's best if the renter can prosper enough to one day own their own place, as opposed to continuing to make owners of rental properties richer at their and their children's expense. Ultimately, the goal is for a population that has been intentionally held down economically through public policy, redlining, depressed property values and lack of infrastructure investment to economically prosper over the long term. With that in mind, a very important part of any neighborhood withintrification plan is the implementation of tools that lead to financial gain and generational wealth.
Quote from: itsfantastic1 on August 09, 2021, 12:32:51 PM
How does one reconcile an attempt at increased density while preserving the nature of an area, especially if the area is single family homes? Doesn't preserving character via a historic designation artificially restrict the supply of homes and lead to an inevitable increase in value, especially as community improvements aimed at improving the area are completed?
How can we do both?
In a city like Jax, the older neighborhoods tend to be a mix. There are also large swaths of town (like downtown) that are either obsolete industrial property, vacant lots or surface parking lots. On the other hand, the suburban areas are littered with half empty strip malls, former Kmarts and old office complexes. These are prime areas where new infill and higher density can be encouraged, which will help alleviate the redevelopment pressure on older neighborhoods seeking to maintain their historic sense of place.
Quote from: Zac T on August 09, 2021, 01:42:33 PM
Quote from: itsfantastic1 on August 09, 2021, 12:32:51 PM
How does one reconcile an attempt at increased density while preserving the nature of an area, especially if the area is single family homes? Doesn't preserving character via a historic designation artificially restrict the supply of homes and lead to an inevitable increase in value, especially as community improvements aimed at improving the area are completed?
How can we do both?
Eventually there's going to come a time, and Jax is significantly farther out from this than other cities, where we'll have to choose between preserving low-density historic neighborhoods like Riverside, San Marco, and Mixon Town or upzoning these neighborhoods to satisfy the increasing demand for housing within the urban core and entire city in general.
If the urban core is able to get back to the pre-1970's numbers of around 200k people, these conversations will start to become more prevalent
We're probably more than a century a way from this being a real issue in Jax. At our low level of density and population loss since 1950, we could double or triple our urban core population without upping density.....and that's not even considering the surface parking lot filled downtown and Sports & Entertainment District. If there's a push upzone Riverside, San Marco, and Mixon Town, it will be because that's where a segment of the population simply desires to live. It won't be because Jax will be built out.
Agree. Difference between JAX and Nashville, with multi story buildings being built in areas like Avondale, Riverside, etc. today.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 09, 2021, 04:43:37 PM
Quote from: Zac T on August 09, 2021, 01:42:33 PM
Quote from: itsfantastic1 on August 09, 2021, 12:32:51 PM
How does one reconcile an attempt at increased density while preserving the nature of an area, especially if the area is single family homes? Doesn't preserving character via a historic designation artificially restrict the supply of homes and lead to an inevitable increase in value, especially as community improvements aimed at improving the area are completed?
How can we do both?
Eventually there's going to come a time, and Jax is significantly farther out from this than other cities, where we'll have to choose between preserving low-density historic neighborhoods like Riverside, San Marco, and Mixon Town or upzoning these neighborhoods to satisfy the increasing demand for housing within the urban core and entire city in general.
If the urban core is able to get back to the pre-1970's numbers of around 200k people, these conversations will start to become more prevalent
We're probably more than a century a way from this being a real issue in Jax. At our low level of density and population loss since 1950, we could double or triple our urban core population without upping density.....and that's not even considering the surface parking lot filled downtown and Sports & Entertainment District. If there's a push upzone Riverside, San Marco, and Mixon Town, it will be because that's where a segment of the population simply desires to live. It won't be because Jax will be built out.
Do you see demand shifting back towards the urban core in the future? I'm thinking of a place like Atlanta which has had that increased demand for urban living and a push to rezone their neighborhoods to accommodate it however most of suburban Atlanta is out of the city limits. In Jax's case where the majority of our suburbs are within our city limits, do you think we'll simply encourage higher density developments in the suburbs and rural areas as opposed to a push to do so within the urban core? Considering our lack of decent public transportation, wouldn't doing so exacerbate certain problems such as traffic congestion compared to simply encouraging higher densities within the central neighborhoods that are already easy to get around without a car?
Genuine questions and I don't mean to hijack the thread
I believe there are major different dynamics at play between Atlanta and Jax. Metro Atlanta is five times bigger and growing faster. Also, the city of Atlanta is only 136 square miles and basically built out. Combined, these create a situation where the city needs to allow higher density to take advantage of growth and potential tax base revenue that would flow to adjacent cities and suburbs instead. At 35 square miles, the city of Miami has this issue too.
On the other hand, Jax's 30 square mile urban core has lost 50% of its population since 1950. The Jax is also nearly 800 square miles and significantly smaller. Because of this, the development pressure (and scale of development) faced in places like Atlanta and Miami will not be the same in Jax for decades to come.