I wanted to start this thread to at least get the conversation started on what I feel like is the most unspoken barrier to unlock Jacksonville's growth potential. For this conversation, I'm including the beaches because they are a relevant factor in this situation we find ourselves in.
First & Foremost, the current situation we find ourselves in now is the result of NIMBY pressures. It has been said on this forum before, but Jacksonville has some of the most intense NIMBY'ism in the state of Florida. This isn't wide sweeping, and there are areas that act completely different. There's several reasons for that... one being that poorer neighborhoods don't have the resources/care to fight bad developments. But to me there's one factor that holds above all... space.
You see we tout our land area as an overall benefit to the city (in most cases) but a negative consequence of that is the lack of utilities to support intense development. I'm not referring to the Westside or the Northside, there are neighborhoods in Jacksonville that have homes going for close to a million with the entire 'area' on septic systems. The debate about septic can be had another day, but the fact remains that dense residential & commercial development is impossible with it. What this means is... the actual area that intense development can occur is actually fairly small. Plus, the more people nearby, the more people are opposed to the project, typically. The result is a an odd situation where citizens want to protect the integrity of their SFH neighborhoods, yet these neighborhoods are a significant portion of where sewer has been made readily available. Moreover, JEA, for a long time, allowed single-user systems... which is completely banned today for example. So there are several large chains around town, that literally ran sewer lines through neighborhoods, without any future hookup obligations for those residents they go past.
What this means is... a MASSIVE percentage of our zoning code is completely irrelevant to the high percentage of land that we have in duval. The density standards held up by the Florida Health Department will force almost any project outside of our sewer area to be very low density residential. Link: (https://www.jea.com/About/Procurement/Formal_Procurement_Opportunities/075-18_Appendix_A_Sewage_Pumping_Lift_Station_Map.aspx)
Why does that matter you may ask? Well... we have a dire need for new housing in Jacksonville, more importantly denser housing to sustain our city. What urban neighborhoods with full utilities do we have that could easily fill that gap? You know, area's closer to downtown that are intended to be denser than your average suburbia... those areas are: San Marco, Avondale, Riverside, Springfield, St. Nicholas. Well... out of all of those options... only Springfield has demonstrated that they are willing to see their neighborhood transform for the better. The other neighborhoods simply already have enough "nice things" that the citizens there are completely unwilling to give into reason.
Want to develop a quadplex in RAP? Well that's too bad, you need an exception from the Head of the Planning Department. Well what about in San Marco? Forget it, they'll force a PUD due to all their setback & other requirements. What about St. Nicholas or like a Murray Hill? Where there isn't an overlay? Good luck. There are virtually zero lots that fit the city's requirements here, because historic plats were once much smaller per lot.
So why even have Quad's in the code? Surely they don't think we can put them in Sandalwood or Holiday Hills right? Well you're right, because the code requires RMD to even utilize quads... On where they can actually go... the only answer being the urban neighborhoods that the city is now trying to fix like New Town... BUT! There's rarely capacity for the sewer in many of those neighborhoods... so you can't actually build a quad there too bc you can't hookup in MANY places.
This is one example of many I could bring up. The reason why this matters is that we have a huge issue locally with the mentality of "well my microenvironment (San Marco, Beaches, etc.) is nice, so why change it?" And we see this the most evidently at the beaches. Yes... Jax Beach which had condos selling at $1000 PSF is completely against any intense development. In fact, the beaches is so bad... it is at California, New York levels of insanity when it comes to the zoning code there. Want to make the beaches extremely unaffordable? Keep our current trends going and you'll see the beaches start to rival some South Florida spots for affordability. It's already transforming rapidly. When you take a walk along our ocean and see so many parking lots & vacant oceanfront parcels, you just know something is terribly wrong that's causing that. I'm sure there will still be people that defend this choice.
But what's the irony there? Why does that matter? Well we are so focused as a city on "protecting" these vital areas of tourism... However, the views around how we should develop the Riverfront are largely similar to those at the beach. We want to make sure things are "done right" and that we "preserve these assets for future generations" not realizing that the delay & inability to act is what creates the narratives that these places have. The beaches for example, will likely never break out of its elitist wave, meaning the ocean will not be visited by as many people, no matter how you shake it. Jax Beach will still have the same 5-6 bar locations in 10-20 years. Maybe we will get one or two more if we are lucky. The Riverfront is being touted as this generational asset, but by having tight controls over what & the timeline of it, you remove the ability to allow the free market to support it. Just like the Beaches. Instead, the local powers wish to "control" how it's done so that the end result closely aligns with 'their' vision. That's how DT is able to get around such a loose zoning such as CBD. They just don't allow any of the land to be made available without some insane RFP with arbitrary scoring. For the land of the free, that's a very non-USA way of going about it.
In reality, the problems around zoning are much deeper. You see people have options when they exist in a free market and Jacksonville is simply too complicated for many developers to get into the market and create any meaningful difference. They'd rather go further south where the zoning is much more robust due to the smaller geographies that these departments oversee. Our market really only caters to single family subdivisions, larger multi-family projects, and larger commercial developments. Only in premium submarkets can you see exceptions and even then... not many because of our physical barriers. The time component of dealing with all of our BS downtown, to then be forced to build what that "vision" is... is insane!
What needs to happen is the residents of Jacksonville either need to wise up to the massive holes of reasoning in our zoning & planning code, or we all need to accept that there will be no meaningful changes to our development pattern. When you have parking lots every few blocks on the beach, but you also prevent the ability to build a parking garage, that's when you know people are being selfish & using BS reasons to keep their little area an oasis, for themselves. This same sentiment exists in San Marco and Avondale/Riverside as well. This sentiment has 100% carried into downtown's development, with the same leaders of the before mentioned areas leading the charge downtown. The control that the city exerts downtown with the acres of land, parks, etc is just another edition of what we have seen unfold in Jax Beach. A few key players controlling the development pattern for generations to come. Until there is conversation on the true causes of our situation, Jacksonville will continue to prove itself as one of the best markets for single family home suburbia growth. The small bandaids through legislation really don't amount to anything with the key causes being so taboo. Hence why developers here LOVE LOVE LOVE PUD's... if you have the bucks to spend, you can get around virtually any zoning/planning code you want!
Another example for fun:
I built a 300 unit apartment complex in Normandy & I built a 300 unit apartment complex where The Station is (one block from a skyway station). For simplicity sake, both developments are zoned RMD-D with no special exceptions.
For both examples, I have to build the exact same number of parking spaces. Roughly 500. Think about how that makes any sense.
I agree with everything said. One of the things that's fascinated me is the fact that some of the districts Downtown such as the Cathedral District and LaVilla have such restrictive height restrictions. Not that there's a shortage of available space to build up DT but still goes to show the widespread thinking in Jax regarding height and density of new developments.
The fact that there's even a conversation on whether the Lofts at Southbank fit the context of the area due to it being 10 stories rather than it containing self-storage is crazy. Right down the street are 400ft+ towers and this is supposed to become a dense part of Downtown. There's a widespread mentality that cities can only grow within the context of their historical environment by restricting their ability to evolve and expand over time. You can both respect the historical context while still being able to build a dense and thriving urban fabric and sometimes that means in-demand low-density areas will evolve into high-density neighborhoods.
Hopefully, the new administration will be serious about overhauling the current zoning codes and allowing for denser housing in more parts of the city
Why swat at the hornet's nest when there's development milk and honey in several urban core neighborhoods waiting to be gathered? Come to LaVilla, Durkeeville, Sugar Hill, Hansontown, etc. You can already do missing middle in these places for the most part. In many cases, they've lost 50% of their population since 1950. Come be a part of rebuilding the density of the urban core. These places need housing units of all types and incomes, in order to revitalize their urban commerical districts. Just respect the cultural heritage, historic identity and be inclusive in the overall economic opportunity.
Agreed that the 10-story counter was pretty silly for the Southbank storage deal. Really weak point for them to use there given the area... lol.
Quote from: thelakelander on April 06, 2024, 05:05:53 PM
Why swat at the hornet's nest when there's development milk and honey in several urban core neighborhoods waiting to be gathered? Come to LaVilla, Durkeeville, Sugar Hill, Hansontown, etc. You can already do missing middle in these places for the most part. In many cases, they've lost 50% of their population since 1950. Come be a part of rebuilding the density of the urban core. These places need housing units of all types and incomes, in order to revitalize their urban commerical districts. Just respect the cultural heritage, historic identity and be inclusive in the overall economic opportunity.
I'm glad you asked. First off, all of these neighborhoods are on plats which are smaller than modern zoning code. Therefore, in order to utilize middle housing, you actually require an assemblage in almost every situation. Secondly, these same neighborhoods that you mentioned are almost 90% zoned RMD-A or less, on purpose. Not RMD-B/C/D. You can try to utilize code that allows lots of record to build middle housing, but again that
requires an assemblage in 90%+ cases, because of the plats being undersized. You are getting a duplex, at best. So all those neighborhoods you mentioned, besides LaVilla, don't qualify.
(RMD-A does not allow for quad's). You can try to do townhomes, but the way Florida is set up, you need larger sites to make that option the most economically viable. The townhome sites are not under single ownership, and you must set up an HOA if you have any surface water retention, an almost certainty in Florida. Or tanks... either way an added development cost... That makes my third point. The added development costs in doing these plans make it harder to operate in areas with lower values. Meaning, we have seen this in the few parts of town that have the values to sustain it, but we need affordable development options in affordable neighborhoods. Zoning exceptions & rezonings inherently make sites much more expensive to build.
LaVilla being the exception, and nearly impossible to source land from due to the various government agencies that own a large percentage of the neighborhood. Add onto that a pretty heft fee for doing a small project per square foot to meet the DT requirements... the economics dwindle fast, and it's why there have been very few smaller projects that have gone through the DIA/DDRB process and been successfully built.
Added: Also the sewer capacity has been an issue in some of these mentioned areas and has prevented projects outside of single family homes.
Also I don't intend this to be critical of those operating the system now in anyway. Simply put, I can't remember the last time I've seen a City Council Member propose an area be rezoned, or that a part of our zoning code needs amending for their district. The powers which dictate how things are governed are very complex, but I think there's been a huge lack of oversight to this topic since I have done work here at least. If you go back in the history of the legislation, it wasn't uncommon for City Council members to push for area's to be rezoned or implement some type of overlay to achieve a better solution.
I think there are parts of town that really need to be looked again with a more modern perspective. I believe last large zoning modifications were done back in 2008. There maybe are some smaller examples since then. (CCBD being one of them).
Quote from: Jax_Developer on April 06, 2024, 05:42:03 PM
I'm glad you asked. First off, all of these neighborhoods are on plats which are smaller than modern zoning code. Therefore, in order to utilize middle housing, you actually require an assemblage in almost every situation.
What's the product you're envisioning? Sometimes assemblage is required, which is the case in any city, but speaking from personal experience there's a lot of opportunity in these neighborhoods, if willing to refine the end product to the context. There are also property owners willing to partner on various tracks of land. Relationship building and trust in various communities are the big key here I'm finding.
QuoteSecondly, these same neighborhoods that you mentioned are almost 90% zoned RMD-A or less, on purpose. Not RMD-B/C/D. You can try to utilize code that allows lots of record to build middle housing, but again that requires an assemblage in 90%+ cases, because of the plats being undersized. You are getting a duplex, at best.
In some of these neighborhoods, a duplex, triplex or quad is the perfect product....just build them on multiple available parcels. As you know, the older industrial areas and pockets where urban renewal has been dominant are where you'll find the larger tracts. In some cases, you'll just need to apply for a PUD for the time being. As long as you're swimming in the same direction with that particular community's vision, you'll get support. Now, in the Eastside, we're working on a zoning overlay to allow for some product that currently can't be built now. I agree that COJ's zoning code needs to be overhauled, but in the meantime, for those in the business, there are opportunities to capitalize.
QuoteSo all those neighborhoods you mentioned, besides LaVilla, don't qualify. (RMD-A does not allow for quad's). You can try to do townhomes, but the way Florida is set up, you need larger sites to make that option the most economically viable. The townhome sites are not under single ownership, and you must set up an HOA if you have any surface water retention, an almost certainty in Florida. Or tanks... either way an added development cost... That makes my third point. The added development costs in doing these plans make it harder to operate in areas with lower values. Meaning, we have seen this in the few parts of town that have the values to sustain it, but we need affordable development options in affordable neighborhoods. Zoning exceptions & rezonings inherently make sites much more expensive to build.
I hear all that you're saying. I'm in the development game too. I'm no fan of our zoning code. Yet, I'm also finding lots of opportunities when combining products with context, cultural heritage and economics.
Quote from: thelakelander on April 06, 2024, 08:27:22 PM
Quote from: Jax_Developer on April 06, 2024, 05:42:03 PM
I'm glad you asked. First off, all of these neighborhoods are on plats which are smaller than modern zoning code. Therefore, in order to utilize middle housing, you actually require an assemblage in almost every situation.
What's the product you're envisioning? Sometimes assemblage is required, which is the case in any city, but speaking from personal experience there's a lot of opportunity in these neighborhoods, if willing to refine the end product to the context. There are also property owners willing to partner on various tracks of land. Relationship building and trust in various communities are the big key here I'm finding.
I'm not implying that I have the silver bullet. What I'm pointing out is... what can you build in most of these ares? The simple answer is... in 90% of these areas the only viable end products are single family & duplexes. Triplex, Quadplex, Townhomes... all don't make the cut in these areas. There are plats which don't have enough frontage, lot area, or both... There are exceptions of course, there are some corner lots in these areas that fit the cut. Other than that, you are then relying on assemblage... which is my issue. You should be able to build a quad on a 50x100 lot in an urban neighborhood. There's no code that allows that & your setbacks will insure a the build tailors towards single family standards... Yes, you can build closer to the lot line for every single family code than you can for multiple dwelling structures on the exact same lot. Make that make sense because it doesn't to me!
Quote from: thelakelander on April 06, 2024, 08:27:22 PM
Quote from: Jax_Developer on April 06, 2024, 05:42:03 PM
QuoteSecondly, these same neighborhoods that you mentioned are almost 90% zoned RMD-A or less, on purpose. Not RMD-B/C/D. You can try to utilize code that allows lots of record to build middle housing, but again that requires an assemblage in 90%+ cases, because of the plats being undersized. You are getting a duplex, at best.
In some of these neighborhoods, a duplex, triplex or quad is the perfect product....just build them on multiple available parcels. As you know, the older industrial areas and pockets where urban renewal has been dominant are where you'll find the larger tracts. In some cases, you'll just need to apply for a PUD for the time being. As long as you're swimming in the same direction with that particular community's vision, you'll get support. Now, in the Eastside, we're working on a zoning overlay to allow for some product that currently can't be built now. I agree that COJ's zoning code needs to be overhauled, but in the meantime, for those in the business, there are opportunities to capitalize.
Right I agree on the end product... but I disagree with the "just build them on multiple available parcels" statement. Inherently, the assemblage in these areas also eliminates a huge portion of lots that "could" otherwise work. PUD's are the embodiment of a failed zoning code, meaning the lack of comprehensive zonings/processes for exemptions lead some areas to become "PUD Happy" to find workable solutions. PUD's should not be looked at as an acceptable alternative option, and really should only be sought to be utilized for the unique projects in our metro. If we make PUD's become the goto option locally, another barrier for smaller projects, city wide, has to be factored into your costs.
My frustration can be summed up below:
Part 1). Lack of developable land, more than 50% of our land area will be confined to rural development patterns
Part 2). The areas that actually can sustain development, have "barriers" in place to prevent change
Part 3). You realize those "barriers" seem somewhat intentional based on how the code all interacts
Part 4). You then put together these "barriers" and realize that our developable area for higher density stuff,
is extremely smallLike I mentioned in my previous post, there has been zero effort to go about implementing changes outside of CCBD & it sounds like the Eastside. I'm glad to hear on that for the Eastside, but it makes me wonder why this conversation isn't more seriously had in some of the areas you said Lake. These barriers are fairly unique too... some areas it's the plat, others its the zoning, others its the sewer access... All of this information is readily available and the constraints of the current zoning code with these items make the issues in these areas very apparent.
JD, has the development community worked together to propose specific changes to the zoning code to enable this kind of development? Or, are they waiting for a council member or the Planning Director to propose something? With some of the council members being friendly to developers, it seems that one (or more) of them would introduce and champion legislation to achieve the goals you are talking about.
Quote from: Jax_Developer on April 07, 2024, 09:33:45 AM
I'm not implying that I have the silver bullet. What I'm pointing out is... what can you build in most of these ares? The simple answer is... in 90% of these areas the only viable end products are single family & duplexes. Triplex, Quadplex, Townhomes... all don't make the cut in these areas. There are plats which don't have enough frontage, lot area, or both... There are exceptions of course, there are some corner lots in these areas that fit the cut. Other than that, you are then relying on assemblage... which is my issue.
Without revealing too much too early, in one of those non LaVilla/Eastside neighborhoods, there is a potential project that could accommodate as much as 60 market rate townhome units and some retail. I know, because I've laid it out. In general, I try to work within the historic development pattern of the neighborhoods. I find its the best way to get positive movement and consensus on market rate projects within our urban context. Also, the churches tend to have a lot of land in these communities. I've been approached by more than one, with significant assemblage already in hand, seeking advance on how to develop or partner on development of their properties. With them, trust is a major factor. In many cases, they are looking for groups that look like them and understand their culture and social network.
QuoteYou should be able to build a quad on a 50x100 lot in an urban neighborhood. There's no code that allows that & your setbacks will insure a the build tailors towards single family standards... Yes, you can build closer to the lot line for every single family code than you can for multiple dwelling structures on the exact same lot. Make that make sense because it doesn't to me!
I'm not defending the code because its pretty bad. However, if you can find precedence of quads existing in one of these neighborhoods, that can be used to argue for a PUD. I agree that our use of PUDs are an indicator of a broken policy. However, when they make sense, they aren't hard to get passed but yes, time is money.
QuoteMy frustration can be summed up below:
Part 1). Lack of developable land, more than 50% of our land area will be confined to rural development patterns
Part 2). The areas that actually can sustain development, have "barriers" in place to prevent change
Part 3). You realize those "barriers" seem somewhat intentional based on how the code all interacts
Part 4). You then put together these "barriers" and realize that our developable area for higher density stuff, is extremely small
I have these conversations with a lot of residents in various historic African American neighborhoods when discussing what their local government staff, elected officials, developers, etc. should or should not be doing in their neighborhoods. I'm going to ask you the same thing that I normally ask them. I get the frustration. So what are you going to do about it?
QuoteLike I mentioned in my previous post, there has been zero effort to go about implementing changes outside of CCBD & it sounds like the Eastside. I'm glad to hear on that for the Eastside, but it makes me wonder why this conversation isn't more seriously had in some of the areas you said Lake.
The question "so what are you going to do about it" in the Eastside, resulted in them pursuing a culturally appropriate zoning overlay for their community before the stadium investment is made. Intended to protect that neighborhood's built environment and sense of place, it includes looking at revamping policy to allow for various forms of missing middle that are historically present in the community but not allowed under the existing LDC. It also is intended to guide higher density infill and adaptive reuse opportunity on larger parcels on the edge of the community (i.e. think Union Terminal Warehouse).
In the last 12 months, I've been approached by other neighborhoods like LaVilla, North Riverside, Durkeeville, Moncrief and Grand Park, to be specific, about how they can pursue a similar path. The conversations are very serious at the neighborhood level. All are tied of being treated like sewers in this town. Historically, they have not had the organization or influence to make much of a difference at city hall. That appears to be changing. Overall, there's a lot going on at ground level in these communities. Yet, the news isn't as sexy as learning about the next Fuddruckers opening in downtown, for local media to cover.
QuoteThese barriers are fairly unique too... some areas it's the plat, others its the zoning, others its the sewer access... All of this information is readily available and the constraints of the current zoning code with these items make the issues in these areas very apparent.
I get the impression that the Deegan administration knows things can be improved and that is an ultimate goal.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on April 07, 2024, 02:09:36 PM
JD, has the development community worked together to propose specific changes to the zoning code to enable this kind of development?
In the Eastside, members of the development community were involved pushing the planning department and city to embrace a national register historic district designation (now complete) and zoning overlay (in progress) for their neighborhood. That push dates back to at least 2019/2020.
My advice for anyone in the development world attempting to do something in neighborhoods they aren't historically linked with or residents of, is to first work with that actual community. The community should always drive while the rest of us go along for the ride. The opportunity for prosperity is there for all. That approach will save a lot of well meaning folk (developers, nonprofits, politicians, etc.) from getting their heads publicly chopped off.
QuoteOr, are they waiting for a council member or the Planning Director to propose something? With some of the council members being friendly to developers, it seems that one (or more) of them would introduce and champion legislation to achieve the goals you are talking about.
IMO, no one should be waiting for their council member or the Planning Director to do anything. That's the best way to end up with nothing after a 4 term is served. They all work on behalf of the community. We're going to have to put in our own work, guide and support our elected representatives and city staff to assist in working on our behalf.
NIMBY is a just position and Engagement.
The more Attacked, the more Revealed.
On the State/ County Citizens Comp Plan Future Land Use Map ( et al) aspects, we see moves by the Legislature and Governor to Blockade Citizen Involvement/ Substantial Deviation Legal Maneuvering.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on April 07, 2024, 02:09:36 PM
JD, has the development community worked together to propose specific changes to the zoning code to enable this kind of development? Or, are they waiting for a council member or the Planning Director to propose something? With some of the council members being friendly to developers, it seems that one (or more) of them would introduce and champion legislation to achieve the goals you are talking about.
The two items I have had conversations with the respective council members was on TOD's and small-scale developments in the DIA overlay. Hence, why I am very critical of JTA because I was told by council members that the TOD overlays were completely outside of their control. The small-scale developments in the DIA overlay have been extremely difficult to make the economics work, and they have been constantly tweaking the incentives to make "something" stick for the smaller scaled projects. (Also why I feel for the DIA at times.. they are trying.)
I'd be more than happy to get involved Lake. The issue is, the conversations that I would need to be involved in to make any type of difference is something that today's council members just won't get back to you on. A lot of political baggage associated with these plays in today's world. You need an "in" as with many things in Jacksonville. The larger developers also could give a crap about what is being said here. For them, the size of their projects allow PUD's & council members to get involved for brownie points. Also as you mentioned, is it really my place to dictate how these neighborhoods should be changed? I'd like to better understand which communities can sustain these changes because my positions are all based on patterns & I understand the reality is different. The other issue being... that several neighborhoods 'know' they are the right spot but refuse to adapt.
Quote from: Jax_Developer on April 08, 2024, 07:51:42 AM
I'd be more than happy to get involved Lake. The issue is, the conversations that I would need to be involved in to make any type of difference is something that today's council members just won't get back to you on. A lot of political baggage associated with these plays in today's world.
From my experience, the successful changes tend to bubble up from the constituents. You basically have to build up some influence within the district the council member represents, then come to them and provide them with the vision and support necessary to push things through.
QuoteYou need an "in" as with many things in Jacksonville. The larger developers also could give a crap about what is being said here. For them, the size of their projects allow PUD's & council members to get involved for brownie points. Also as you mentioned, is it really my place to dictate how these neighborhoods should be changed?
No, its not our place to dictate what should happen to various neighborhoods. However, they are more than willing to share their vision for those who will listen. Once that's done and there's understanding, its pretty easy to swim in the same direction. Sanborn maps are another undervalued resource that's helpful to get to know neighborhoods and acceptable density levels. In 1950, our urban core was twice as dense as it is today. The old Sanborns reveal where missing middle development was strongest. Repeating that plays into historic preservation.
QuoteI'd like to better understand which communities can sustain these changes because my positions are all based on patterns & I understand the reality is different. The other issue being... that several neighborhoods 'know' they are the right spot but refuse to adapt.
Even understanding this can reveal where the best spots for certain types of investment should be made. If there's a market for a product and a neighborhood refuses that product, there's likely some honey spots in the immediate vicinity of said neighborhood. For example, the revitalization of Murray Hill and Edgewood Avenue is partially a result of many of those small businesses not being able to conduct similar business in Riverside Avondale.
Jax_Developer, I read through all of this and very much agree with you on a lot, possibly all of these things.
Some notes:
1. Some people with influence/sway are working through some legislation as we speak to change code to allow quad-plexes by right in RLD-40 zoning within the Urban Priority Area. Rumor is that Joe Carlucci was all about this until he learned it would be coming to San Marco as well. Jimmy Peluso is all about this.
2. Everything is worse than you even say. Even within "inner ring" areas of Jacksonville that are well within the bounds of being total infill, there are conservation easements on some extremely well-situated and DRY land. Non-profits that everyone donates to such as North Florida Land Trust and others are still busy buying up land to "conserve" (as if we don't already have enough ill-maintained parks strewn all over). This is going to be the next shoe to drop once everything being developed now is built up and we need to keep adding housing somewhere. It's going to hit a boiling point but by the time people realize how much land, good land, is now untouchable, it will be too late.
At that point, you won't be able to "build up" in the urban core, or inner ring, or "build outward". You'll be seeing Southern St. Johns County and Nassau County being the only places you can build at that point in time.
3. A follow-up to this is even land within Duval or northern St. Johns now ripe for development - can only be developed at 2500 ppsm, AND with no yards. You can't have yards because you have to "preserve" a certain percentage of the land and then where you can develop it has to basically be 40-50' shallow lots. The entire Davis land right now is being mapped out for 2500 ppsm. For context, Avondale is 5-7K ppsm at its densest and it's not even really all that dense by city standards.
4. Jax Beach is PATHETIC. It's so sad what height limits are doing to that place. It is the one place where condo resales are routinely $1000psf and higher and developers could build high-rises there and we could have a lot of density, and you just can't do anything but 3-story townhouses. It truly will be the same 5-7 bars in the next 10+ years.
The purported goal in the 2000s when all of this was passed was to keep affordability (this was one of the stated goals, along with keeping "character", which is a weaponized word with no objective meaning since by default it's subjective). A desirable area like the Jax Beaches will never be affordable at this point, being limited in size with tons of demand, so keeping it lower density does nothing to affect affordability and everything to keep it looking very under-utilized.
5. Finally, height limits. All over the place. In most other cities I've been in, worked in etc, people are excited about height and often excited about development (the attitudes people in Jax now have towards downtown are the attitudes people have in general about cool new things getting built). In Jax, it truly reminds me of San Francisco, where height was thrown around all the time in neighborhoods. They have shadow regulations there, so better believe that's coming to Jax as well. If your building casts a shadow that is too large for certain percentage of the year, your project can be denied.
If you want to build 10 stories along JTB, as prior proposals have shown, you'll get Glen Kernan residents, or other people, coming out of the woodwork protesting. It truly is unreal. I work in real estate, land & development in particular, and have watched a number of deals I worked on get tanked due to height restrictions (we are talking needed 4 stories, could only do 3, killed the deal). Non-coastal areas. Along major thoroughfares. Truly incredible.
Jax is really nuts. Gotta lower those bars, a lot, here. And it's a mentalities thing. So many people with cringy opinions, such as Lofts at Southbank being way out of character at 10 stories, in the middle of downtown. It truly is an "only in Jacksonville" thing. I've never understood it and I'm multi-generational from here.
The only other thing I'll add is that all across the country anti-development sentiments are really growing. "Neighborhood groups" are gaining a lot of power. Preservation groups, etc.
It's certainly not getting any easier. We used to be able to build whole cities, bridges, nice neighborhoods, etc etc, all before zoning really existed in any meaningful way, and as the years wear on, real estate is becoming more and more "democratic", which in my opinion it should not be.
I respectfully disagree with Lakelander on his sentiments about it being "better" to engage the communities at every substep of the process, but agree that in this day and age you kind of need to.
I've seen so much that I'm a huge pendulum swinger at this point - get rid of zoning, get rid of wetlands credits, get rid of regulations, just make it easier. All of this has taken creativity out of the development industry, made things so cost prohibitive, and inserted heavy politics into every step of the process, and building things should not be this complicated. In my opinion it's all very anti-human and it ultimately affects the working man more than the rich by elevating all of the costs and limiting supply.
Quote from: simms3 on April 08, 2024, 05:29:12 PM
I've seen so much that I'm a huge pendulum swinger at this point - get rid of zoning, get rid of wetlands credits, get rid of regulations, just make it easier. All of this has taken creativity out of the development industry, made things so cost prohibitive, and inserted heavy politics into every step of the process, and building things should not be this complicated. In my opinion it's all very anti-human and it ultimately affects the working man more than the rich by elevating all of the costs and limiting supply.
Sounds like what I've heard about (but cannot confirm) about Houston. Houston aside - really NO zoning rules?
About the 'mixed-use' development on the Southbank - my impression is the opposition is primarily to the mini-storage component. In other words, if this were a 10-story residential tower with ground-floor retail, there would be little to no opposition. I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the rezoning the developer is seeking is because of the mini-storage. Perhaps, instead of starting with the mini-storage facility, and getting it rejected, and coming back a year later after grafting on a few floors of residential, he started with a residential project with some mini-storage included, he might be moving forward now.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on April 08, 2024, 08:31:08 PM
Quote from: simms3 on April 08, 2024, 05:29:12 PM
I've seen so much that I'm a huge pendulum swinger at this point - get rid of zoning, get rid of wetlands credits, get rid of regulations, just make it easier. All of this has taken creativity out of the development industry, made things so cost prohibitive, and inserted heavy politics into every step of the process, and building things should not be this complicated. In my opinion it's all very anti-human and it ultimately affects the working man more than the rich by elevating all of the costs and limiting supply.
Sounds like what I've heard about (but cannot confirm) about Houston. Houston aside - really NO zoning rules?
Yeah Houston has no zoning ordinances. Hence why Houston might be the best example of a city with new construction middle housing in a Southeast State as of today. It's very common to see quad's or townhomes in between two single family home lots. They get away with it by having good checks & balances elsewhere.
To Simms point, Houston does have a lot of similarities to Jax in this very particular discussion. They are the second largest US City by land mass in the lower 48. They have wildly different neighborhoods with vastly different development patterns. Houston is basically the city that gobbled up the surrounding towns... hence the sheer amount of diversity in how the city was built made any singular code extremely hard to follow for everyone's benefit. It doesn't sound all that different from Jacksonville's situation to me, and maybe we could learn how Houston has implemented a no zoning approach with other checks & balances.
How things are currently, when you combine the COJ Zoning Code, COJ Subdivision Code, FDEP/SJWMD Code, the Florida Health Department Code, and a few other fun things like traffic code... they just don't interact well. It needs to be addressed but this conversation would involve so much political baggage it's extremely unlikely to ever happen. Hence, why housing here will continue to get more expensive, even though we saw record high deliveries the past several years.
The current multi-family delivery schedule will drop more than 60% in our metro by 2025, even more in 2026. Are we prepared for another pandemic-level rise in rents?
Houston has parking regulations, which pretty much forces certain types of uses in certain locations and areas of town. Many would still say that Houston is also a sprawling mess. However, if you want to see what Jax will be 30 years from now if every urban development dream we have actually came true......it would be present day Houston.
Quote from: simms3 on April 08, 2024, 05:20:26 PM
Jax is really nuts. Gotta lower those bars, a lot, here. And it's a mentalities thing. So many people with cringy opinions, such as Lofts at Southbank being way out of character at 10 stories, in the middle of downtown. It truly is an "only in Jacksonville" thing. I've never understood it and I'm multi-generational from here.
Quote from: simms3 on April 08, 2024, 05:29:12 PM
The only other thing I'll add is that all across the country anti-development sentiments are really growing. "Neighborhood groups" are gaining a lot of power. Preservation groups, etc.
I would hope that you're not trying to say that San Marco Preservation is against the 10 story aspect of the project, because that is not true. SMPS welcomes increased density in the downtown area, but agrees with the DDRB staff that the building should have stepbacks or other mechanisms to help it better transition from the smaller uses around it.
For me personally, I take greater issue with the 3 story Extended Stay across the street surrounded by surface parking. At the time I'm sure it was a "if we don't let the developer do this then no one will ever want to build here" situation, but now that's 2 acres that is not adding to the vibrancy of the area.
Quote from: Captain Zissou on April 09, 2024, 09:55:48 AM
For me personally, I take greater issue with the 3 story Extended Stay across the street surrounded by surface parking.
Agree one hundred percent. That location could have easily been an apartment complex by now similar to Soba/Riverhouse/Artea and would have added so much more to the Southbank.
Also, for what it is worth, Houston isn't some laisse-faire free for all when it comes to land use and development. People that live in Houston can still designate a neighborhood as a historical neighborhood with all the familiar restrictions that come with that. So, the problems people perceive from the San Marco/Riverside etc. historical overlay can exist in Houston as well. https://planning.org/planning/2020/jan/the-z-word/
https://jaxtoday.org/2024/02/20/opinion-southbank-storage-units-are-a-bad-deal/
"Further, the size of the building, 10 stories, is vastly out of scale with surrounding buildings, which do not exceed five stories. In fact, this 10-story building, with roughly half of its frontage made up of blank, windowless walls, directly abuts the oldest remaining residential building from the city of South Jacksonville — 1451 Home St., built in 1909."
This is the reference a few of us have on the whole 10-stories attitude that has been going around. I Agree with you though Captain, the Extended Stay is the biggest offender in the Southbank lol.
--
As it relates to Houston, I'm simply saying that the interaction of our zoning code with the various other codes makes the effective build product here very one dimensional. I'm not saying having zero regulation makes sense, but does our zoning code combined with everything else really make sense? I'd strongly argue no.
There are still plenty of areas in Houston with deed restrictions, whether that's Historic, HOA or something else... that act similarly to zoning in these situations... nonetheless it doesn't change the point that Houston has removed their zoning code, and has allowed other code to act as necessary backstops against poor developments.
Also, Houston is top 3 in our country on building duplex, triplex, quadplex & townhome units. So, they have figured something out... the only MSA's competing with them is Dallas, TX & Phoenix AZ.
(ADDED)Some more interesting insight: https://kinder.rice.edu/urbanedge/houston-and-everywhere-else-lot-size-matters
At least this person's problem is with the storage units, from a WJXT story. Granted, he does not represent
all the opinions on the project, but it is a data point.
Quote
"It'll create a problem we don't need to create at this point," President of Peninsula Condominium Association Jeff Schembera said.
Schembera said he wants people to consider the tight space in this location.
"When you add in 100 new apartments which is fine. But then you add in five or 600 storage units it's really going to be tight. You are talking about large vehicles, moving vans...When they deliver food, the restaurants and the chefs over there, they park in the middle of the street right now – where are they going to park when you have moving vans here," Schembera said.
He's also concerned if this is approved, it will attract more storage units to this area.
https://www.news4jax.com/news/local/2024/04/08/were-fighting-a-good-fight-san-marco-residents-keep-pushing-back-against-planed-self-storage-unit/
Quote from: Jax_Developer on April 09, 2024, 11:49:38 AM
https://jaxtoday.org/2024/02/20/opinion-southbank-storage-units-are-a-bad-deal/
"Further, the size of the building, 10 stories, is vastly out of scale with surrounding buildings, which do not exceed five stories. In fact, this 10-story building, with roughly half of its frontage made up of blank, windowless walls, directly abuts the oldest remaining residential building from the city of South Jacksonville — 1451 Home St., built in 1909."
I have said this before, but I guess not many Jaxons have been to Peachtree Street north of DT ATL.
Jacksonville is Imploding.....