But this site is about creating urban density and encouraging development and planning, not listening to a couple of misguided people state and restate their suburban HOA theories and complaints.
Bigger picture here, Matt.
We arent a site that encourages the private community/suburban mindset.
Im all for a couple of representatives from corporate land being put into the mix. A chilis and a Panera surrounded by thirty small restaurants and 20 shops of a local variety would be a great mix for the neighborhood you know?
Springfield was originally designed as a neighborhood that supported what we would call 'mixed use'.
It was built before there was anything called 'zoning', and the great houses supported the offices of many magnates who conducted business from the front door of their estates.
Similarly, people lived in mom and pops all up and down main street, and there wasnt really a legal distinction between the commercial strip and the residential strip, it was simple one of convenience, access and of course the old sense of Class.
Its silly to talk about the 'problem' of living next to a commercial enterprise, IMHO.
Anyone have any idea when the first 'zoning' laws came into existence?
Stephen, ancient Rome had crude zoning laws. Certain activities were not allowed within the old walls, but had to take place "sub urbis", or outside the city from which we get our word suburban.
Tanning of hides (stinky!) and burials and cremations had to take place outside the city.
Inside the city, they had big apartment blocks called "insulae" (islands) that had shops, wineshops and restaurants on the ground floor. Many of the grandest houses were built as hollow squares with all of the rooms facing into a courtyard. On the street side there were shops built into the wall of the house, facing out onto the street. Now there is mixed use!
Certain other areas of the city were set aside for temples and government buildings and no other uses were permitted. Sounds a bit like our downtown, doesn't it.
Comparing Rome to Jacksonville... lol
Houston is an armpit of a city because of it's lack of zoning. I don't think zoning is bad in itself, but it has been very badly done in most American cities and has contributed heavily to our dependence on the automobile.
No one should be allowed to plan or vote on zoning without reading and understanding Jacob's book, "The Life and Death of Great American Cities".
QuoteHe refers quite often to the city of Houston Texas, which literally has no zoning laws at all as the basis of much of his discussion.
Houston is a great example of sprawl caused by lack of zoning.
In Jacksonville's case I would say the building of I-95, the Arlington Expressway and JTB contributed greatly.
The first zoning laws were set up in the 20's....often to prevent non-compatible land uses from locating near each other and/or to clean up cities...a few notes:
1. The Euclid v. Ambler case (outside of Cleveland) was a landmark decsion
2. New York City set up zoning laws to clean up tenement houses
Quoteand what caused jacksonvilles or los angeles to sprawl?
I wonder, too, about the density comparison. Even though they are both sprawled cities, seems a reasonable conclusion that LA is much denser. Imagine if you took 6.67 x the sprawled land area that contains the Jacksonville MSA's approx 1.2M people (b/c LA MSA contains approx 8M people) -- wonder how much bigger the Jacksonville-densed Los Angeles would be.
Quote2. New York City set up zoning laws to clean up tenement houses
Hmmm, why would they need to do that? ;-)
We're pretty far from the topic of Panera on Main Street. So I went ahead and split the zoning discussion into its own thread.
Quote from: stephendare on November 10, 2009, 03:44:57 PM
and what caused jacksonvilles or los angeles to sprawl?
The same thing that caused New York to sprawl across New Jersey, Chicago into Chicagoland and San Francisco into San Jose. A lethal combination of highway construction and auto oriented zoning ordinances that complemented them.
Quote from: zoo on November 10, 2009, 04:23:16 PM
Quoteand what caused jacksonvilles or los angeles to sprawl?
I wonder, too, about the density comparison. Even though they are both sprawled cities, seems a reasonable conclusion that LA is much denser. Imagine if you took 6.67 x the sprawled land area that contains the Jacksonville MSA's approx 1.2M people (b/c LA MSA contains approx 8M people) -- wonder how much bigger the Jacksonville-densed Los Angeles would be.
Probably the same thing that has impacted Miami. Both of these regions have always had a limited supply of land to work with. LA is boxed in by mountains and the Pacific Ocean, Miami by the Everglades and the Atlantic Ocean. Thus land values are higher and its not economically feasible to waste large tracts on super low density sprawl and ruralism.
Also, LA was a dense major city before highways took over the country. LA had 1,970,358 living in its city limits in 1950. Jax, on the other hand, had 204,275.
I copied this straight from COJ.net -
The development of Springfield was barely completed when it began to decline in the last 1920's. The Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance passed by the city in 1925 classified the entire Springfield section as "Business A," resulting in the depreciation of residential property values. City Planning Engineer George W. Simons described Springfield's problems in May 1931.
Many former residents, during the past four or five years, have left Springfield to live in other areas where property is restricted. Tenement dwellers have entered Springfield and the property, generally speaking, is depreciating and when this state starts its rate of progress is rapid. Poorly placed business has sprung up at scattered points and with each new business the sphere of effective depreciation widens. There are still in this area many beautiful homes of old families and working people--homes representing a life time of labor and saving, which are constantly faced with the thoughts of adjacent filling stations or stores. Why shouldn't these people be protected? Why shouldn't the beauty and distinctiveness of Hubbard Street, Silver Street, Boulevard, and Perry Street, as well as that of several cross streets, be preserved?
A half century later, these same ills still plague Springfield, having been accentuated by the changing demographics and general urban decay that since the 1950's has caused our nation's inner-city neighborhoods to decline. A local preservation organization, Springfield Preservation and Restoration(SPAR), was founded in 1975 to counteract this trend. In 1979, SPAR successfully led a campaign to down-zone Springfield, which became the first neighborhood in Jacksonville to change most its commercial zoning back to residential. Other organizations, such as the Greater Springfield Business Association and Springfield Neighborhood Housing Services, have greatly contributed to efforts to restore this once proud neighborhood. In 1987, Springfield was listed in the National Register of Historic Places as Jacksonville's second Historic District. With thousands of vintage houses, proximity to Downtown, and recent escalation of property values, Springfield is destined to re-emerge as one of Jacksonville's successful residential neighborhoods.
creative logic indeed. i'd blame the individual drinker rather than zoning, but that's just me.
When I first came to Springfield, I heard that the zoning changes is what caused the decline of Springfield. The amount of commercial infill, the heavier uses on Main Street and of course, all of the rooming houses. The fact is, the commercial infill was needed when built because people walked to get their groceries, they wanted to walk for getting to work and even for their entertainment and the heavier uses on Main were here because this is also where the people were. Even many of the rooming houses were here because they filled a need and back then, they weren’t considered a problem.
After the sixties and seventies, the middle class left the urban core for the suburbs and Springfield declined. Yes, the businesses changed and evolved as the clientele did and by the eighties, Springfield was pretty wild. In the nineties, the people who took an interest in Springfield also often grew up in the ‘burbs with that outlook on what a community should be. The houses were the big draw and so the community network of small businesses were looked on as a liability. Of course by then, the businesses that were left were much too crude to be considered of value so the changing of the zoning laws to make it harder for businesses to be here made perfect sense to the newcomer’s.
The interesting thing is that the zoning changes in effect made the area more like the ‘burbs rather than the walk-able urban core it was. The zoning changes requested and gotten by the community attempted to eliminate the commercial infill along with the less desirable legal uses. Today many residents like Three Layers, the Meeks building and others, but if the zoning was adhered to very strictly, none of these places would be here.
We also hear about density, yet most seem to agree that density is needed in the urban core. Springfield should be more multifamily then yet many push for only single family. I think that is a throwback to the ‘burb mentality.
We need businesses of all types now, we need that infill commercial still and we need a higher and very diverse density of residents to make Springfield even close to what it once was…less of course the old social issues….which will actually make Springfield better than it ever was before.
What we don't need is a Main Street that looks and feels like a war zone.
Interesting. Strider you may be right, considering what you described happened nationwide with older inner city neighborhoods. Without factual proof, its hard to suggest that Springfield would be any different. Anyway, the discussion made me look up a few commercial properties to see how old they actually are and how they fit into what has been mentioned here.
I just spent about five minutes looking up the construction date of a couple of commercial, multifamily and mixed-use properties in the SE quad of Springfield. Without a doubt, a significant number were constructed before 1925 (the quoted year of allowing commercial uses into a single family residential neighborhood sending it into decline).
Here are a few:
year built: 1912
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/698574195_F8Q7o-M.jpg)
year built: 1919
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/698568258_KsJ7n-M.jpg)
year built: 1916
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/698568459_itjD2-M.jpg)
year built: 1921
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/698567941_YApon-M.jpg)
These images confirm a few things:
1. Either the property appraiser's site is lying about their age or the quote by Springfield Girl (the 1925 zoning thing) is inaccurate.
2. Springfield was never a "single-family" neighborhood. Without cars at the time of early development, did single family neighborhoods with no commercial uses even exist back then in Jacksonville?
3. Under the current zoning overlay, none of these significant historic contributing buildings (pictured above) can be built without rezoning. So what's in place/allowed will not even produce a historically accurate urban community, which helps hurt commercial revitalization in the area (less building and population density = smaller market for walkable commercial options).
4. It seems like the zoning overlay was either crafted by zoning novices or written in an attempt to turn one of Jacksonville's densest districts into something that it never was.
I know that the city is currently looking at updating the zoning code to make it more user friendly and mass transit supportive. A second look at the zoning overlay should be one of the top priorities on that list. A more form-based code that allows more historically accurate building design and mixes of uses should be considered. Especially, if the community wants to benefit and set itself up for better mass transit options in the future.
Quote from: stephendare on November 10, 2009, 03:44:57 PM
and what caused jacksonvilles or los angeles to sprawl?
That's easy. We never saw a zoning, land use designation, or master plan that we didn't change the first time a power broker asked us to!
Sprawl and "bad zoning" is mostly the result of a complete failure to stick to the original zoning and land use rules by allowing too many "exceptions" or "loop holes" to be exploited to the detriment of all the other properties surrounding the subject area. This process is magnified by expanding existing roads or building new ones and using this as a further excuse to "rezone" some more.
The result is sprawl begetting sprawl further facilitated by the destabilization and destruction of the character of well established existing neighborhoods through still more inappropriately processed zoning changes. We need to stop this sprawl treadmill by being firmer in applying the incumbent zoning code. If real changes are deemed necessary, they should be in the context of a well thought out and deliberated new master zoning plan, not unplanned, uncoordinated, special interest, and corrosive piecemeal changes to incumbent zoning plans.
On the one hand, I understand the concerns some may have with the "Hometown Democracy" amendment coming up to make rezoning and land use changes next to impossible. On the other hand, I understand the frustration and disappointment over zoning borne of a dramatic failure by public officials to deliver on the promises of existing zoning plans relied on by most property owners.
How do you feel about a revised zoning provision to allow residential or live/work units in current Light Industrial structures that are at least fifty years old?
Quote from: billy on November 11, 2009, 01:27:52 AM
How do you feel about a revised zoning provision to allow residential or live/work units in current Light Industrial structures that are at least fifty years old?
Billy, if you are asking me, I couldn't answer specific to your situation. Why? One needs to have all the facts on the entire "area", whatever definition is used to define that. I go back to my general comments, that piecemeal changes should have to meet a higher bar to be accepted or be part of a new, well thought out master plan for the subject "area".
If the change you are proposing is in an industrial area where the existing businesses are going to be concerned about being run off by new and previously unplanned residential intrusion leading to complaints about their business activities, that is deserving of consideration since they built/bought their business based on certain expected zoning classes. It's the reverse of residents complaining about commercial intrusion into a residential area.
The best results should come from a well designed and thoughtful master plan that has been put through a full vetting process. If it's time to make a wholesale change to the zoning pattern in a neighborhood, it should be through this greater process. I believe the remaking of an area "on the fly" through piecemeal zoning is unlikely to achieve the best results, whatever the requested changes may be.
By the way, if by "light industrial", you mean warehouses, I can tell you that there are plenty of warehouse facilities, particularly ambient storage, that are good for far longer than 50 years. If such facilities dominate an area, I would think it might only be worthwhile to rezone if all the businesses in that area consent to that being the higher and better use of their buildings and they agree that the neighborhood is ripe for total redevelopment. Additionally, City planners should be convinced that such a change in neighborhood use fits in with the broader plans for the City and is supported by the existence of necessary infrastructure appropriate for the changed use.
Quote1. Either the property appraiser's site is lying about their age or the quote by Springfield Girl (the 1925 zoning thing) is inaccurate.
It has been my experience that if you go to the library and research the buildings, you will find that the majority of the time, the buildings and houses are older than what is on the property appraisers data base or even the records in the Historic Department, though the later seem to be more accurate.
If memory serves me correctly, there were zoning changes made, but it had to do with more intensive uses. By that 1925 date, many of the more well to do had moved to the suburb of Riverside and the remaining middle class had less say in what the city did or didn’t do.
Quote2. Springfield was never a "single-family" neighborhood. Without cars at the time of early development, did single family neighborhoods with no commercial uses even exist back then in Jacksonville?
Mr. Smith got up in the morning, had his housekeeper make him coffee and then walked to the factory four blocks over. On the way he perhaps stopped into the café for a quick breakfast with friends and then onto work as a manager. On the way home, he stopped off and bought flowers for his wife then walked home to the waiting dinner. After dinner, he walked the family to the corner drug store and got them ice cream sundaes for desert.
Today Mr. Smith would have to drive as everything would be across town. And he would be late for dinner due to traffic. Oh, and no house keeper and the wife was late getting home from work and picking up the kids too so Pizza for dinner. Yep, we have progressed.
I think the answer is no, every urban core in pretty much every urban area was the same. Commercial infill made it a community. In some cases, like larger cities, the infill gave it the special flare that reflected the majority of the residents heritage, like Chinatowns and the various little Italy’s. While this is just my opinion, I think without the commercial infill, those areas would not have been of any lasting note, the commercial infill promoted the heritage themes.
Quote3. Under the current zoning overlay, none of these significant historic contributing buildings (pictured above) can be built without rezoning. So what's in place/allowed will not even produce a historically accurate urban community, which helps hurt commercial revitalization in the area (less building and population density = smaller market for walkable commercial options).
I agree, but the purpose should not be to recreate a historically accurate urban community but one that blends the best of both. Cars and commuting are a part of our lives and must be included in the mix. However, it would seem the same basic building blocks need to be used.
Quote4. It seems like the zoning overlay was either crafted by zoning novices or written in an attempt to turn one of Jacksonville's densest districts into something that it never was.
If I was accurate at all in my earlier post, the current zoning tries to make it a suburb rather than a true urban core. Perhaps that was born out of fear…of crime, of people they don’t understand, being out of their comfort level, etc. … as much as anything.
QuoteI know that the city is currently looking at updating the zoning code to make it more user friendly and mass transit supportive. A second look at the zoning overlay should be one of the top priorities on that list. A more form-based code that allows more historically accurate building design and mixes of uses should be considered. Especially, if the community wants to benefit and set itself up for better mass transit options in the future.
I agree and we all should work towards zoning that promotes a new type of walk-able community. Higher density living, an overlay that deals more and in better ways with the structures, including better guidelines for new construction and insures all residents are allowed for.
Quote from: billy on November 11, 2009, 01:27:52 AM
How do you feel about a revised zoning provision to allow residential or live/work units in current Light Industrial structures that are at least fifty years old?
I'm for it. Most of the old industrial facilities are physically obsolete for the uses they were intended to house.
I think there is a safeguard provided by this type of provision. Unlike a rezoning to a residential or mixed use category, it would protect the current permitted uses in an uncertain market.
An owner would not have to worry if an existing use were grandfathered.
Quote from: billy on November 11, 2009, 01:27:52 AM
How do you feel about a revised zoning provision to allow residential or live/work units in current Light Industrial structures that are at least fifty years old?
I also feel this would be a benefit to numerous buildings in the Springfield Warehouse District/ New Springfield, Fairfield, East Jacksonville, as well as the West Riverside/ Murray Hill area.
There are also eligible buildings west of I-95.
Keep in mind that fifty years old means anything constructed to 1959.
A lot of the industrial/warehouse buildings in the city core are obsolete because they cannot be accessed by the larger trucks we use now and the rail spurs on which they were built before big trucks came along have been abandoned. North Riverside is full of buildings like this too.
These buildings are prime candidates for re-purposing.
Of course there were always some commercial uses, I never said anything different. Springfield had neighborhood shops but most people still used downtown as it was close. People walked and rode the streetcar. The gentleman who built and first lived in my home had two shops downtown and he walked to and from work everyday. His grandson still lives in PV and gave us a lot of info. The change in the 20's rezoned the whole neighborhood commercial and this is when the undesirable uses started showing up. Main St. was filled with beautiful homes that were torn down only to be replaced with car lots. The mansions on Klutho Park were torn down to build the Jewish center. There were duplexes and multi family homes built but not to the extent people now like to claim. The history is out there in written and picture form. I researched this neighborhood for years. My daughter did her IB dissertation on Historic Springfield and collected data on the neighborhood for two years. All you have to do is look at the many photos and postcards to see what Springfield was. There is a old picture of the Pearl that it took us a while to figure out the location as it was a narrow residential street at the time.
If the Jewish Center had a decent use, it would be more benefical to the community than the single family homes it replaced but picking and choosing historical eras is a different discussion for another day.
Did we throw the baby out with the bath water with the overlay? Car dealerships are one thing but it also basically outlaws small shops and multifamily development from occuring off of Main and 8th. That's not consistent with the historical development pattern of the community, no matter what era from the past we pick and choose to what Springfield should resemble. The density and mix of uses are a couple of important ingredients that made the community a walkable and special place.
Part of the reason for the commercial district's struggles also deals with the decreasing population and density numbers. It was built and developed to serve a population base that is no longer there today. Shouldn't the zoning be working to densify the hood, not only on Main and 8th, but also the secondary streets?
Quote from: Springfield Girl on November 10, 2009, 05:32:59 PM
I copied this straight from COJ.net -
The development of Springfield was barely completed when it began to decline in the last 1920's. The Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance passed by the city in 1925 classified the entire Springfield section as "Business A," resulting in the depreciation of residential property values. City Planning Engineer George W. Simons described Springfield's problems in May 1931.
Many former residents, during the past four or five years, have left Springfield to live in other areas where property is restricted. Tenement dwellers have entered Springfield and the property, generally speaking, is depreciating and when this state starts its rate of progress is rapid. Poorly placed business has sprung up at scattered points and with each new business the sphere of effective depreciation widens. There are still in this area many beautiful homes of old families and working people--homes representing a life time of labor and saving, which are constantly faced with the thoughts of adjacent filling stations or stores. Why shouldn't these people be protected? Why shouldn't the beauty and distinctiveness of Hubbard Street, Silver Street, Boulevard, and Perry Street, as well as that of several cross streets, be preserved?
A half century later, these same ills still plague Springfield, having been accentuated by the changing demographics and general urban decay that since the 1950's has caused our nation's inner-city neighborhoods to decline. A local preservation organization, Springfield Preservation and Restoration(SPAR), was founded in 1975 to counteract this trend. In 1979, SPAR successfully led a campaign to down-zone Springfield, which became the first neighborhood in Jacksonville to change most its commercial zoning back to residential. Other organizations, such as the Greater Springfield Business Association and Springfield Neighborhood Housing Services, have greatly contributed to efforts to restore this once proud neighborhood. In 1987, Springfield was listed in the National Register of Historic Places as Jacksonville's second Historic District. With thousands of vintage houses, proximity to Downtown, and recent escalation of property values, Springfield is destined to re-emerge as one of Jacksonville's successful residential neighborhoods.
This is the same information provided in Wayne Wood's Architectural Heritage book in regards to Springfield's decline.
Yeah, I agree, that doesn't make any sense.
Most of Springfield's mixed-use and commercial development was already in place well before the neighborhood began its decline. A lot of it was actually built at or around the same time as the single-family residential structures. The neighborhood was always mixed-use, right from the beginning. This is easily verified by checking the construction dates for commercial properties on the property appraiser's website.
The thing that triggered the decline was pretty clearly the great depression. Jacksonville at that time would have been particularly hard-hit, being Florida's shipping and banking capital. I suspect a lot of people who owned the giant mansions in Springfield either wanted or needed to downsize. I also suspect that the 800lb gorilla in the room, in form of the new "Restricted" developments, which Stephen touched on earlier, played a larger part than anyone wants to acknowledge in current times.
I also believe the neighborhood would have rebounded, along with the rest of the country, were it not for the construction of the interstate system and our local expressways, which had the effect of cordoning off Springfield from downtown and making it instead more homogenous with the Moncrief area, which suffered (and continues to suffer) severe economic blight.
White flight and race riots contributed more to Springfield's downturn than anything else.
White flight and race riots were much later. The zoning in the 20's allowed gas stations and the like to be built on residential blocks which families did not want to live next to. People started moving at that time to the newer and more desirable Riverside, Avondale and San Marco Neighborhoods. It is very well documented. Most neighborhoods have a thirty year life. This is also well documented. A neighborhood starts out nice, new and desirable. As new lifestyles and types of architecture become popular the older neighborhoods go into decline and people want the new and shiny. Once people tired of the suburban lifestyle and architecture, historic neighborhoods and urban areas became popular again. Look at areas that were built in the 70's. They are at the bottom of their cylce of desirability. It seems there are two schools of opinion here. Some want to see Springfield in it's early incarnation as Jacksonville's first suburb and others want it to be a dense urban environment. If downtown was booming I could maybe see it as the latter but I personally enjoy my residential neighborhood. As I've stated before we have two large commercial corridors running through Springfield that will keep it from being a typical suburban subdivison and most people I talk with are happy to keep it that way. If I wanted to live in a neighborhood that is interspersed with commercial buildings I would have moved to Riverside. You guys are always talking about organic growth and that is what is happening. The people moving here have done so primarily for the single family residences. If there was demand for multi family that would be what was selling. The market will determine what this neighborhood and every other will be. If Springfield loses that residential feel I have a big beautiful house that I will be willing to sell. I'm sure it would make great aprtments.
In fairness, SG, the same thing happens, over and over and over.
When Riverside and San Marco lost their shine, they moved to San Jose, then Southside Estates, then Arlington, ect, ect, ect.
Zoning may have had an impact, but really the fact of the matter is, if you think about the communities that were built in the 80s, many of them are starting to falter now.
There may be MANY justifications for the move, but at the end of the day, dont discount the fact that they wanted something new and shiny.
Is that the current Florence Court Apartments?
^It never was a single family hood. Its an urban district and former streetcar suburb. Like LaVilla, East Jacksonville, Sugar Hill, Durkeeville and other neighborhoods from that time period, its always been mixed use.
Quote from: stephendare on November 12, 2009, 02:06:26 PM
But the fantastic version being promulgated seems to imply that there was a neighborhood with about 5 thousand small plantations whose daily needs were supplied by a loving deity who apparently dropped goods and services like Manna from the sky---presumably into the hands of the maids and scullery workers provided by elfin magic. Perhaps they lived under staircases or in little boxes? Maybe they all resided in genie bottles which only needed to be rubbed to invoke them? No one ever satisfactorily explains this.....
sounds like you just did.
Quote from: stephendare on November 12, 2009, 12:47:11 PM
heres main street in the early 40s, looking towards springfield.
Does it really look like a low density, single family environment?
(http://fpc.dos.state.fl.us/rfisher/RF00264.jpg)
no....but since that's downtown, it is irrelevant
Simple....
The argument being stated (which has ben disproven) is that Springfield's decline came about because it was no longer a single family neighborhood.
The picture you posted is of downtown (at the Main St Bridge)....I can't even see Springfield in the picture.
amazing pictures. thank you posting them.
The issue isn’t that some want a quiet residential suburb and others what a vibrant hip urban community….oh wait, maybe it is…
The truth is, you can’t have all of both. Another truth is, you can’t have the walk able area many want without an urban density to support the businesses you want here. You also can’t get that density without some compromises along the way and then add in today’s economic challenges and we have a dilemma. Ask for the right things here now and Springfield will get nothing. Try to keep out what some think are the wrong businesses, and Springfield will slide backwards as the residents get tired of waiting for that great commercial corridor they were promised.
Rather than see this as a problem, let’s see it as a huge opportunity. Perhaps we can have enough of both to satisfy most everyone after all. We can’t say commercial infill is bad and then say three layers is wonderful in the same sentence anymore. We must embrace what works today and not wait for something that probably won’t work for ten years. We must start being real.
QuoteAsk for the right things here now and Springfield will get nothing.
Sorry, as usual, we'll have to disagree, but your black-and-white scenario seems to be working on some, so you may as well keep it up.
Springfield "asked" and got:
3 Layers
Premier Pharmacy
Mike & Wafaa's
Walgreen's (suburban design sucks, tho)
$1.3M in renovations at Winn-Dixie
City Kidz
Uptown Market
... and I'm sure there are others I'm missing.
Does anyone appreciate these places? I do, and they are obviously here b/c after studying the market, they thought the business model could work. Obviously, other business models still work here, too. It's a continuum that, right now, is in flux. I hope it continues to shift more toward the kind of businesses like those in the list, and away from an "improved" BP that still sells crack pipes, or a Speedway that allows pros to troll its lot.
That doesn't mean I don't want businesses, and it doesn't mean I want the suburbs. If I wanted suburbs, I'd live in Southside or North Shore.
Quote from: stephendare on November 12, 2009, 01:56:12 PM
The Dancy Terrace development was basically a series of boarding houses.
Here is a group of boarders, including Percy Leon Thomas between 1910 and 1914, before his marriage to Stella DeSha of Waldo, Florida.
(http://learnyeats.com/DancyT/images/PLTon7th.jpg)
Actually, Dancy was initially built by the railroad, as employee housing. Also, upon further review, that photo is not of a Dancy Terrace home. Its bricked out, and has too many windows in the front porch. Plus, the porch columns are the wrong size.
Anyway, not to split hairs too much, here is a family photo from my wifes family, of one of the Dancy houses right after it was built in 1911. I was told this is the oldest known photo of any of the Dancy homes.
They may later have become boarding houses, and the most certainly became low income, and later section 8 housing, but the original intent was for Employees.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2547/4100607522_0ea0913349_b.jpg)
QuoteAsk for the right things here now and Springfield will get nothing.
We can’t say commercial infill is bad and then say three layers is wonderful in the same sentence anymore.
Perhaps I didn’t say it very well, but this is what I meant by these statement:
We like Premier Pharmacy. We have also heard we have too many bus stops. What if removing the “too many bus stops†took away a large part of Premiers business? That would be an example of “asking for the right thing and getting nothing“. Except the loss of a business we like.
Someone wants to buy a old infill commercial building that has been empty for decades. He looks around and sees Three Layers, The Meeks building, the other offices on Walnut. He thinks having his office there would be a good idea and yet, when he inquires about it, he gets told he can’t have an office in the residential area. By the local organization that consistently speaks praises for the Meeks building, Three Layers, etc., which I belive, all had to have PUD's or exceptions to be there anyway. He starts telling his business associates to stay away from Springfield.
A man wants to open a car wash in a facility that was built to be a car wash. He needs an exception to do it and it gets denied. A few years later, an extended stay hotel gets built that just didn’t need an exception but a PUD to get build and that has a much larger “negative†impact than a car wash on noise, traffic and the like and everyone thinks it is great. So he thinks perhaps Springfield is being more progressive and asks for the exception again. The local organizations says it is against it because it is against the overlay, forgetting of course that so was 3rd and Main otherwise it would not have required a PUD.
Is it any wonder that some think that a few in Springfield are trying to
selectively enforce the zoning laws to more control who can live and have businesses in Springfield than what is OK or not with the overlay? Zoo, you did forget to add to your list the thrift store, the pawn shops, Yang’s and several others. I find it interesting that every time you and a few others make a list like that, the same few businesses are on it and the same ones are not. Actually, Zoo, what you are “saying†is far more “black and white†than what I am suggesting.
Quote from: stephendare on November 13, 2009, 09:26:02 AM
Yes. Much more black and white.
I find it funny that we say we would like nicer, more upscale businesses and you guys try to somehow make nice and more upscale into white. Who are the racists here?
I'm looking into it. I had already started my planning and talked to the landlord but found out a friend may beat me to the punch as they want the same location and have more money than I do. I am looking into other options now.
now we get racism, this thread is such a joke. This coming from someone who owns a house and lives Springfield EVERYDAY!
I don't know who owns those businesses and race would have never crossed my mind. I don't know who this small group of people is that is supposedly going to meetings to stop businesses. I know Louise helped the BP open and she is very disappointed now that she did as they have become a problem to the neighbors. I know nothing about the fish market and did not know who the owner of the car wash was until after the HPC meeting where it was recommended for denial. I do know Robert that has opened Kristee's at 9th and Main. He is black and I haven't seen any opposition to his business. Strider and Sheclown are white and there is a lot of opposition to their business. It is ridiculous for you to make this about race.
Springfieldgirl:
QuoteQuote from: stephendare on Today at 09:26:02 AM
Yes. Much more black and white.
I find it funny that we say we would like nicer, more upscale businesses and you guys try to somehow make nice and more upscale into white. Who are the racists here?
The point is that a few who are among the minority social economic group of the groups that comprise Springfield seem to be the ones trying to control who and what gets opened. While there is always a chance that race plays a part in it, however, I do not believe it is an intended part, rather an unintended consequence of the issue.
Back to the idea that many seem to say they want a urban setting, but seem to push for things that make it more like the familiar suburb. It even seems like the current zoning plays to that idea of Springfield being more of a suburban community that a true urban one. I would propose that if left to their own resources, SPAR Council would "enforce" the overlay in such a way that Historic Springfield would become this island unto itself and therefore the community would find itself cut off from everything it needs to stay viable.
Will the city issue a stop work order on a job that is progressing legally, and above board? Does race come into play in issuing a stop order? I thought that sort of thing was outlawed many years ago.
Asking a sincere question, has the fish market submitted plans, or pulled permits? Are they required to?
Are they a store, market w/ seating, or a restaurant? Will they sell alcohol? Will it be available to go?
Aside from the garish use of color, I really dont have an opinion about them one way or the other. Does anyone have any actual information on them?
Quote from: strider on November 13, 2009, 10:20:36 AM
Springfieldgirl:
QuoteQuote from: stephendare on Today at 09:26:02 AM
Yes. Much more black and white.
I find it funny that we say we would like nicer, more upscale businesses and you guys try to somehow make nice and more upscale into white. Who are the racists here?
While there is always a chance that race plays a part in it, however, I do not believe it is an intended part, rather an unintended consequence of the issue.
Thank you for being intellectually honest on this issue. I actually kind of agree with you.
Everyone. This thread is a discussion about zoning. Lets get it back on track.
QuoteBack to the idea that many seem to say they want a urban setting, but seem to push for things that make it more like the familiar suburb. It even seems like the current zoning plays to that idea of Springfield being more of a suburban community that a true urban one. I would propose that if left to their own resources, SPAR Council would "enforce" the overlay in such a way that Historic Springfield would become this island unto itself and therefore the community would find itself cut off from everything it needs to stay viable.
Is there any truth to this? If so, how do we change it? How do we stop the "selective" enforcement if that is indeed what is going on?
It is not selective enforcement. Read the planning staff's report, I feel it explains things very well. Zoning itself is selective though, if not our neighborhoods would be a free for all. I think if everyone used common sense these decisions would be very easy. I always ask myself, would I want to live next door to this use and I think if everyone would answer this question honestly we would not have the problems we do now. The past has proven that when undesirable uses are forced on a neighborhood, residents move out and the neighborhood declines and suffers.
Quote from: thelakelander on November 13, 2009, 10:26:28 AM
Everyone. This thread is a discussion about zoning. Lets get it back on track.
Lake, can you split out the fish market info. I wasnt aware SPAR had taken a stance on that place, and as I really dont know anything about it, I would be curious to know more.
Thanks!
Quote from: Springfield Girl on November 13, 2009, 10:54:19 AM
It is not selective enforcement. Read the planning staff's report, I feel it explains things very well. Zoning itself is selective though, if not our neighborhoods would be a free for all. I think if everyone used common sense these decisions would be very easy. I always ask myself, would I want to live next door to this use and I think if everyone would answer this question honestly we would not have the problems we do now. The past has proven that when undesirable uses are forced on a neighborhood, residents move out and the neighborhood declines and suffers.
I’m not sure what planning staff’s report you are talking about?
Yes, I agree everyone should use some common sense, however, I feel we will disagree on what constitutes common sense.
Common sense says that if 3rd and Main is a more intrusive use than the car wash, then perhaps the car wash should be reasonable considered. Common sense says that if a community has accepted three other commercial in fills as good, then when someone asks about a fourth one, he should not just be told ‘it’s against the overlayâ€. Common sense says that if a use is permissible, the community should not be working against it. Common sense says that to do so sends potential business owners and investors elsewhere.
A quote from the thread about the car wash:
Quoteone girl wanted to open a business related with kids but claimed she was rejected by community representation and decided to take her thing somewhere else. The other lady was with Fresh Ministries on the Eastside (literally across the tracks). She sensed the same "gulf" in communication and vision that I have described on these threads over the last few days. She encouraged more dialogue. Many had a fear that the area could develop a negative reputation in the eyes of the commercial sector if Springfield remains a difficult place to open a business due to continued outright "community opposition" before dialogue has taken place.
While this thread is about zoning laws and their effects on the community, this quote applies as how zoning is enforced is truly what effects the community, perhaps even more so than the actual zoning laws themselves.
Ennis the building which houses the Pearl is much earlier than 1912, I believe it is c 1901, they took down houses to build it. I have a copy of a May 1911 newspaper which shows it as a drugstore, along with the building at the NE corner of 8th and Main and another at the nw corner of 3rd and Walnut, all owned.run by the same man who lived over the one at 8th and Main. The Pearl building is the one that is in that early postcard looking up Main - it had awnings and trim, the trolley is on a single track. To the right of the Postcard you can see a little of Latimer's grocery store that stood on the SE corner of Main and 1st. Main Steet started really commercializing right after fire.
wait...so back in the early 1900s people tore down existing houses to build up commercial buildings....who knew ;)
Some were moved i.e. one of the ones in Hoyt Terrace, if you go into American Memories, to their panoramic maps you can get 1888, but the best is 1893. It is said that there were only 100 houses in Springfield prior to the fire, I believe this map - hand drawn - says differently. At that time the street car was only electrified up to the waterworks, but by 1897 - it was up to 8th street. Where Carls now stands used to be stables for the mules which pulled the cars, but became like a terminus
Thanks Chris. I thought some of those buildings were older but, at the moment, all I had to go by was what the property appraiser had listed.
If you have a library card you can access the Sanborn Maps online, I think.
Quote from: strider on November 13, 2009, 09:24:21 AM
QuoteAsk for the right things here now and Springfield will get nothing.
We can’t say commercial infill is bad and then say three layers is wonderful in the same sentence anymore.
Someone wants to buy a old infill commercial building that has been empty for decades. He looks around and sees Three Layers, The Meeks building, the other offices on Walnut. He thinks having his office there would be a good idea and yet, when he inquires about it, he gets told he can’t have an office in the residential area. By the local organization that consistently speaks praises for the Meeks building, Three Layers, etc., which I belive, all had to have PUD's or exceptions to be there anyway. He starts telling his business associates to stay away from Springfield.
Maybe someone should ask Mr. Meeks how he got a single family home, that’s located next door to his business on Laura st rezoned for commercial use. I was told its going to be a law office.
Most likely a zoning exception, variance or rezoning to a PUD. Its quite common and is fine for the neighborhood,considering the code is poorly written. The problem is when we start with the against the overlay nonsense for permissible uses by exception. Permissible by exception just means that project should be evaluated on an individual basis on whether it is a positive or negative on the surrounding area.
Ennis I did a lot of research on the buildings between 7th and 8th when I was treasurer of SAMBA. In 1911 there was a pullout section to the newspaper for Springfield for 10 years after the fire, the building that had happened was incredible. The photos in it are grainy but Kevin's at the corner of 7th and Main had lovely wrought iron balconys all the way around as did the the GRAY (name) building c. 1907 halfway up the block, but theirs just across the front. On 8th after the Drugstore was a very large nursery, but no fire station. I will share the stuff with you since I am interested in putting back buidlings as much as possible. I know Kevin would wish to put back the balconys. It is also important that all of the transoms are saved and restored, note the ones hidden under all kinds of crap pretty much all the way up the west side of that block, you can see their outlines and the dropped ceilings in the storefronts.
The drugstores I talked of previously were named J.Daniel Boone (they manufactured soda fountain equiment under that name as well) and the owner's name was McDonald. Sadly the one on Walnut was only pulled down about 8 years ago,
There are errors in the directories - that is to be understood - some of our buildings and houses are much older than those records show. Shec is working on this.
Strangley enough although commercial stuff was being built, incredible mansions were also built at the same time on Mail , there are photos of them.
Billy sadly the early Sanborns did not always cover all of the Springfield buildings, it is like an octopus you have to keep following tenticles. I try following bodies also that is how I have been able to find streets as they changed names.
Quote from: stephendare on November 10, 2009, 03:29:09 PM
DogWalker.
As tedious as this sounds, Im actually hugely interested in the construction and layout of both greek and roman cities.
A very dear friend, Kortland Bottger (archaeology and classical studies) and I spent many many hours together examining the layouts and planning behind the classical world.
But the polis/forum/walls and stratified military/noble/slave/prols layouts dont really correspond to our modern notion of zoning.
You may not realize this, but modern cities were not 'zoned' until the late 20s. The practice became nearly universal during the Roosevelt Administration.
Michael Llewyn, a sometime contributor to this site, and a professor at Florida Coastal School of Law is a master on the subject, and has produced the most intelligently argued papers on the downsides of zoning.
He refers quite often to the city of Houston Texas, which literally has no zoning laws at all as the basis of much of his discussion.
I just got back from Houston. I go there for a week or so every one or two months. When I move around the city, I am astounded by the way there is no method to the madness. While I agree with your assesment of what would constitute a good example of mixed use, I do not desire for Jacksonville to model itself after Houston: the ugliest beautiful city in the world.
Re the Meeks building, it is my understanding of the overlay that these houses may have cottage type industries in them, there are restrictions on signage, number of clients in and out, but I think it allows for this. Maybe I am wrong there are many small businesses in houses. When I was at SAMBA I read the 33206 phone book and walked Spriongfield finding businesses, I think I came up with 189 - amazing number in houses i.e. travel agent, speech therapy etc. Note the two at the top of Silver and 8th, one was real estate and one a beauty spa
The property appraiser's GIS website's zoning layer is down, but if the property isn't zoned CN-S, they would have had to apply for an exception or rezone to PUD.
For those interested in what the overlay says, use this link: http://library8.municode.com/default-now/home.htm?infobase=12174&doc_action=whatsnew
The beginning of the overlay section is Sec. 656.365
QuoteRe the Meeks building, it is my understanding of the overlay that these houses may have cottage type industries in them, there are restrictions on signage, number of clients in and out, but I think it allows for this.
The commercial Meeks property on Laura had been down-zoned to RMD-S and had last been used as a church. Mr. Meeks had to get a PUD for several reasons. One of which is the staffing company that is run out of the building. It was my understanding that this PUD is such that a regular old labor pool could be done there. Not saying that will happen, but that it could.
As to the house next door, it was also RMD-S and is also now a PUD. Obviously he applied for it and was probably approved without question from the community. If the neighborhood doesn't complain and/ or supports a zoning change, it typically happens.
In RMD-S, Mr. Meeks could have opened a low density group care home, but not the offices he has now, even by exception.
QuoteNote the two at the top of Silver and 8th, one was real estate and one a beauty spa
I can’t speak for everyone one you found, but these two are zoned CRO-S and so the uses are permissible uses under the overlay, not as "cottage industries"...I realize you mean what zoning is calling "Home occupations ",… but cottage industries does have a nicer ring to it...
Once the GIS maps are back up, you can see that in most cases either CCG-S or CRO-S is often carried down the various streets off of Main and 8th for the first 1/2 block, sometimes a little more. Also, in some cases, the commercial infill was left CRO-S as well….I think only if the building was still a viable commercial structure and use.
In Richmond (where I am right now), there is a zoning called "urban business" in which the bottom floor of a dwelling can be retail/commercial and the upper floors are residential. This is spread out throughout the urban core on selected streets. Apparently, there is also the zoning called R6 which means that the corner building on each block can be retail/commercial on the 1st floor. This is how much of "The Fan" is zoned and that is a very vibrant urban neighborhood.
Do we know what other cities do?
Love the Fan. Here are a few images I took back in 2007.
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-3061-p1020540.jpg)
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-3065-p1020537.jpg)
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-3067-p1020576.jpg)
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-3052-p1020531.jpg)
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-3045-p1020549.jpg)
15 years ago, The Fan was a blighted area.
I think you'll agree when I say its more like a Riverside on steroids now.
absolutely.
Quote from: strider on November 14, 2009, 05:26:13 PM
QuoteRe the Meeks building, it is my understanding of the overlay that these houses may have cottage type industries in them, there are restrictions on signage, number of clients in and out, but I think it allows for this.
The commercial Meeks property on Laura had been down-zoned to RMD-S and had last been used as a church. Mr. Meeks had to get a PUD for several reasons. One of which is the staffing company that is run out of the building. It was my understanding that this PUD is such that a regular old labor pool could be done there. Not saying that will happen, but that it could.
As to the house next door, it was also RMD-S and is also now a PUD. Obviously he applied for it and was probably approved without question from the community. If the neighborhood doesn't complain and/ or supports a zoning change, it typically happens.
In RMD-S, Mr. Meeks could have opened a low density group care home, but not the offices he has now, even by exception.
You're right. Both Meeks properties have been rezoned to PUD.
http://apps.coj.net/PAO_PropertySearch/Basic/Detail.aspx?RE=0708670000
http://apps.coj.net/PAO_PropertySearch/Basic/Detail.aspx?RE=0708660000
I think everyone would agree that the Meeks properties are great additions to the neighborhood. They are good proof of why zoning exceptions and PUD rezoning should be seriously evaluated before drawing the line in the sand and refusing pending investment in Springfield before true dialogue has taken place. The more properties and proposals we can take serious and find a way to properly accomodate/integrate into the urban landscape, the quicker our commercial corridors will revitalize.
Quote from: Matt M on November 17, 2009, 10:53:14 AM
It is interesting to see what projects where the stance of "we are just asking for you to enforce the law" is taken by certain individuals and organizations and the ones where it is not.
In fairness, when Meeks was working on his Office thats on the corner, Strider was wholly against it, for many of the same reasons that several are against the car wash, including traffic, and non-residential use in a residential area.
It has only been in recent years that he has become so enlightened.
Don't know about Strider's position, but I am in favor of ALL projects that are permissible by exception or going PUD to be evaluated with proper dialogue and planning before the rejection hammer comes down. Imo, there's nothing worse than abandonment and parking lots. We have too many of those and should be working to fill up vacant properties as quickly as possible. Let's keep this on the topic of zoning.
Quote from: stephendare on November 17, 2009, 11:59:38 AM
Shouldnt strider be able to speak for himself dan?
What is your post about? To project your opinion of his opinions?
The thread is about zoning.
No that's not how they roll around Springfield...or at least not around 1321 N. Main anyway.
Next they'll find some old code fine that was vacated and use it to de-validate him as a greedy slumlord.
Nobody's allowed to have any ideas for the neighborhood. That's against the rules. You didn't get that memo?
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 17, 2009, 02:05:01 PM
Quote from: stephendare on November 17, 2009, 11:59:38 AM
Shouldnt strider be able to speak for himself dan?
What is your post about? To project your opinion of his opinions?
The thread is about zoning.
No that's not how they roll around Springfield...or at least not around 1321 N. Main anyway.
Next they'll find some old code fine that was vacated and use it to de-validate him as a greedy slumlord.
Nobody's allowed to have any ideas for the neighborhood. That's against the rules. You didn't get that memo?
seriously? if you believe that springfield sucks that bad, why for goodness sake do you spend so much time and energy on it? if people don't like how "they roll" - good news, main street is done, "roll" right on out. no one is forcing anyone to go to springfield and no one is forcing anyone to stay - since obviously it would be such a punishment to some.
zoning in springfield was most likely put in place with good intentions, just like everything else, sometimes it works positive, sometimes not.
so people are so weak and feable and unable to think for themselves that they let a group (not really even that big of a group) consume so much of their lives? again, if someone doesn't like the way something is done, use all of that "bitching" energy to change it. fish or cut bait.
well if you (collectively speaking) have money riding on it, perhaps action would work a little better than whining and hoping someone else fixes the problem.
Quote from: stephendare on November 17, 2009, 11:59:38 AM
Shouldnt strider be able to speak for himself dan?
What is your post about? To project your opinion of his opinions?
The thread is about zoning.
Are you Joes keeper Stephen?
My point, quite simply, is that Joe was against the Meeks Project, and his stated reasons to me at the time (6+ years ago), was that it will increase traffic, and it is incompatible with the residential surroundings. He told me that he also worried that it would be little more than a temp agency, which was incompatible with the overlay.
I thought the historical perspective was pertinent to the discussion, since its clear Joe now feels different. Im really not busting Joes balls, so much as wondering what precipitated his change of views on things, and if Jack were to propose that project now, if he would object still.
Personally I take it in a case by case, and try to not pass judgment until I have enough of the facts to form an opinion.
i could care less about spar. i don't belong, it is what it is. i in essense have no dog in this fight. if i were as displeased about their "workings" and felt so wronged by them, it just seems that sitting around waiting for someone else to change it it seems futile.
The tendency to whining and complaining may be taken as the surest sign symptom of little souls and inferior intellects. ~Lord Jeffrey
Quote from: stephendare on November 17, 2009, 04:33:33 PM
I just find that not letting people speak for themselves usually turns into a flame war, and keeps anything positive from happening.
I will take you at your work, as you would certainly know about flame wars.
Anyone have any opinions on the Impact of Zoning in Jacksonville? ;)
There is a difference between a PUD and an exception. I'm not totally sure about this, but I believe that the exception is for this one business, this one point in time, this one space. A PUD, on the other hand, gives carte blanche for the life of the property.
So, Silas, if granted the exception, may put his car wash on line. But that is it.
If Silas were granted a PUD, on the other hand, he could change uses in the future and is not compelled by his original plans. And if he sold the property, the new owner gets the PUD to do with as he pleases.
If I am wrong about a PUD, I'd like to find out. It certainly seems germane to the zoning discussion.
(I also believe that was Joe's objection -- the permanent nature of a PUD)
Yes, there is a huge difference between an exception and a PUD. I think you did a pretty good job of explaining the two.
QuoteThere is a difference between a PUD and an exception. I'm not totally sure about this, but I believe that the exception is for this one business, this one point in time, this one space. A PUD, on the other hand, gives carte blanche for the life of the property.
I really haven’t changed my opinion of things, Dan. If Mr. Meeks was just asking for his PUD today, I would ask the same questions as I would have the same concerns as to if he was doing a high end “labor pool†or not and if permanently changing zoning from residential to full commercial PUD was a good idea or not. In other words, I would express my concerns today as I did then. Asking those kinds of questions and getting answers to those kinds of concerns seems like the responsible thing to do.
There are both good and bad uses for the infill commercial. I do believe that businesses more like Three Layers would be the best choice for the true commercial infill, but then again, the offices work out OK too. Each needs to be reviewed on it’s own merits based on the actual use, the actual location and even what the future might hold. The real issue is simply to make sure the proposals are heard and evaluated properly, not simply dismissed out of hand.
The overlay, IMO, if followed by the letter without ever allowing any exceptions or PUD's would result in a loss of the Urban qualities and a Springfield that looked and felt more like a 'burb. The Richmond zoning Sheclown talked about seems like an ideal fit here and one that we somehow have to educate the city about.
QuoteIn Richmond (where I am right now), there is a zoning called "urban business" in which the bottom floor of a dwelling can be retail/commercial and the upper floors are residential. This is spread out throughout the urban core on selected streets. Apparently, there is also the zoning called R6 which means that the corner building on each block can be retail/commercial on the 1st floor. This is how much of "The Fan" is zoned and that is a very vibrant urban neighborhood.
We also need to lose the dismissive statement "its against the intent of the overlay" , IMHO. In favor of thoughtful discussions.
interesting....yeah, that's the word I would use, too. ::)
Quote from: Matt M on November 17, 2009, 08:02:16 PM
It is interesting to me how some individuals and organizations trust one person with the responsibilities of managing a PUD and all the possibilities of its future impact on the community, but not another with something like an exception.
The problem I've got is that a self-annointed group of 20 people, who refuse to stand for election and have no accountability to anyone, has taken it upon themselves to determine for everyone else what is and isn't acceptable. And I have an even bigger problem that people get duped into listening to that group. You are totally correct Matt, in that the current setup is arbitrary and ripe for abuse.
In case no one has noticed, they're against EVERYTHING new. Well except VanHorn, but we all know how that turned out. People should support zoning exceptions like this Carwash. It will bring traffic to other neighborhood businesses and everybody wins. These same people crafted an overlay, which they now hide behind whenever it's convenient, that allows for the picking and choosing of who gets to open what usually based on nothing more than who likes who. The whole setup needs to change.
Stephen, I'm really glad that you are introducing this topic.
Apparently, we have judged that density is negative, (and consequently zoning in elbow room for ourselves as a protection against it) and now we have the empty downtown to show for it.