The impact of zoning in Jacksonville

[thelakelander]

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


year built: 1919


year built: 1916


year built: 1921


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.

[stjr]

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.

[billy]

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? 

[stjr]

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.

[strider]

1. 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.

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?

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[thelakelander]

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.

[billy]

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.

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]

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.

[Dog Walker]

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.

[Springfield Girl]

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.

[thelakelander]

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?

[iluvolives]

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.

[ChriswUfGator]

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.

[sheclown]

White flight and race riots contributed more to Springfield's downturn than anything else.

[Springfield Girl]

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.