Live Blogging: Mayor Brown in Springfield

[sheclown]

Regarding the photos

We were asked at the beginning of the meeting -- by the mayor-- to request permission before taking photos -- especially of people who are in the enforcement biz.

-----------------------

Sorry for the confusion Stephen, Ms Scott didn't speak tonight.  I was quoting her from the newspaper.

[sheclown]

Perhaps this might shed some light.

Do vampires show up on digital cameras?
There are many myths about vampires - the whole garlic thing, crucifixes and holy water, and of course the whole matter of reflections.

According to many tales a vampire will cast no reflection when in front of a mirror; in addition, a vampire's image can not be caught on film. So what then of digital cameras?

Before we tackle that question, we should first know why the myth exists in the first place. Mirrors were thought to show a person's soul. As a vampire has no soul (unless he is Angel) we must logically conclude that there will be no reflection. The same hold true for film and photographs - they too were thought to be creating an image of the soul. (Interestingly enough, some people were even afraid to have a picture taken of them, for fear of having their soul stolen)

Based on these assumptions we must then conclude that a vampire would not show up in a picture taken by a digital camera for any mechanical device that reproduces and image of a being is actually only capturing.

[simms3]

Ha - Springfield is simply not going to happen without a drastic upswing in downtown employment.  In fact, none of the core neighborhoods are really going to meet their potential until 100% of the jobs and population growth quits heading in the opposite direction (south).

[sheclown]

Springfield is happening, has been happening for over a hundred years, and will continue to happen -- with or without developers and mayors looking for financial backing.

[tufsu1]

Regarding the photos

We were asked at the beginning of the meeting -- by the mayor-- to request permission before taking photos -- especially of people who are in the enforcement biz.

again, not quite what I heard...I didn't hear anything about people in the "enforcement biz"...I belive the Mayor used the term "city staff", which applied to the 15-20 city staffers in attendance not involved in code enforcement

[sheclown]

Regarding the photos

We were asked at the beginning of the meeting -- by the mayor-- to request permission before taking photos -- especially of people who are in the enforcement biz.

again, not quite what I heard...I didn't hear anything about people in the "enforcement biz"...I belive the Mayor used the term "city staff", which applied to the 15-20 city staffers in attendance not involved in code enforcement

maybe we were at different meetings.

[simms3]

^^^Trying not to sound too harsh, but Springfield really isn't happening.  What's there is forced by a few extremely passionate and organized residents who care so much about the neighborhood, but let's not kid ourselves - the place hasn't "boomed" since the 1910s and aside from kicking and swinging back from rock bottom over the past 20 years hasn't been considered a "nice" place to live since the 1940s or [1950s?].

I hope for the best, and there are certainly so many prime examples in the SE of what Springfield can become if it met its potential, but none of this will happen without natural economic backing in the city, as in downtown.  Downtown is like a huge painful gap/wound between the marginally successful Riverside (as compared to similar areas in growing SE cities, or even Birmingham), San Marco, and Springfield.  It's the glue that holds the success of all of these neighborhoods.  Without office towers brimming with middle to upper income white collar, college educated employees, there is no $$$ or demand to follow the urban pioneers and creative types who first move into a neighborhood like Springfield.

Springfield is perpetually stuck in Purgatory between gays/urban pioneers/creative types moving in and the yuppie 6-figure professionals who take over the neighborhood and finish the job (at which point the urban pioneers are either priced out or "annoyed" out of the neighb and they go stake out the next place).  The latter won't come without nearby jobs for them, which as of now are all on the SS and they're all moving to the beach.  Springfield has been "the next place" now for decades!

[simms3]

Might I add jobs = infill multifamily construction.  There's nothing else that is accounting for Austin's current boom, or Atlanta's current infill boom or Charlotte's, or Nashville's.  There's a reason there is so little going up near DT (2 mid-size projects that are totally spec and are "testing" the market in Brookluyn).

Also Inman Park in Atlanta, Elizabeth and Dilworth in Charlotte, and the West End/Hilsboro (or now East Nashville) in Nashville have all been where Springfield is now, but look at the office employment in the nearby downtowns as compared to DT Jax.  First comes employment opportunities in downtown, then comes the employed - presumably energetic 20s and 30s singles and transplants, then comes disposable income, as well as traffic, and now there is demand for people to move to Springfield!

[simms3]

unfortunately the families and yuppies that come next are perpetually turned away by aging goggle boxers that want 'heritage ice cream' days, very few gays and a bunch of seriously out of date notions of whats makes a cool urban district.

Care to elaborate?  This sounds interesting!

[simms3]

^^^I had to Google that.  Way too intellectual for me to understand...  I think you're saying that residents of Springfield are hoping for white picket fence, "tranquil" neighborhood life they see on the Griffins on TV Land?  And that this attitude and mentality is more fitting of a suburban community (and likewise a similar mentality is gripping Avondale)?  And also that this attitude keeps interesting folks out, which is why the neighborhood is going nowhere?  Ok!  I think I get the picture.  Neighborhoods with at least some edge are always cool   Too much edge - nah.

[vicupstate]

Neither the 'Yuppies' nor anyone else will move in, if there is nothing unique about the place.  You can build 'new' anywhere, but you can't build 'historic'. The history is what makes it rare and unique and therefore valuable. 

It is why I invested there, rather than in one of the 'OTHER' 839 square miles in Jacksonville.  With every demolition of a historic but salvageable property, my property value drops.  The opportunity for a modestly priced 'return to up-to-code' liveability is gone, because it is never relatively inexpensive to build from the ground up. 

There is enough vacant land in LaVilla/DT/Springfield to equal a small ocean already.  Why add to an inventory that is already over-supplied?   

I have never seen 'destroy it and they will come' ever work in any size city. 

[simms3]

Neither the 'Yuppies' nor anyone else will move in, if there is nothing unique about the place.  You can build 'new' anywhere, but you can't build 'historic'. The history is what makes it rare and unique and therefore valuable. 

It is why I invested there, rather than in one of the 'OTHER' 839 square miles in Jacksonville.  With every demolition of a historic but salvageable property, my property value drops. 

I agree that continuing demolitions ruins the potential uniqueness of the neighborhood and they should be stopped in 95% of cases (I for one would not want to live immediately adjacent to an absolute fire hazard that nobody is taking care of so I think there are some selfish exceptions no thanks to decades of blight and neglect).

However, it sounds like you literally invested in the concept of "historic".  Why not go invest in Detroit, Cleveland and Buffalo and buy up dozens of homes for $10-$20K a pop?  Do you live in Springfield, or did you simply invest there?  And what if someone came in and wanted to build this somewhere in the hood:






Source

Would this destroy the unique and historical appeal in your view, or not?  And if not, what if it required the demolition of a couple of buildings that weren't Edgar Allen Poe's home or something outrageously significant?

What about townhomes/falts/lofts such as these:?


Source


The buildings above are not symbols of edginess at all to Stephen's point, but they are both built or UC now in a very similar but gentrified neighborhood in the southeast - the kind of development that is happening in the SE to such neighborhoods (and BTW another historic district - it's even more historic than Springfield, and now 10x as expensive as a result of the demand!).


Stephen - I think it's hard to find examples of highly desirable neighborhoods that are also still edgy in Sunbelt cities (really only places in NYC, SF, LA, Seattle, Chicago, DC, Baltimore and Philadelphia come to mind).  What comes to mind for you?

[jaxequality]

^^^^then lets see em. build em. go for it. but don't tear down a house unless you are gonna put one up in it's place.

[Cheshire Cat]

Simms, I think there is a very slim chance that a developer will want to build something like you shared above in Springfield.  They demolished LaVilla and it remains barren.  If folks in Savannah, Charleston and other historic communities had taken the attitude that demo of historic properties should go unchallenged or that an effort to revive the neighborhoods would be futile, those communities would be much less attractive than they are today.  None of the cities you listed above with cheap properties available have the appeal of our location on the coast as well as our snow free winters and more.  The quality, style and unique character of old homes cannot truly be copied.   Disney properties tried that and it didn't work.  I think PSOS and others who are working hard to retain the historic fabric of Springfield are a blessing to Jacksonville. Let it create it's own personality which I think will be something different and perhaps more creative then we can imagine if destruction is curbed and the community given the time. 

[simms3]

So while I might see an area as economically diverse, needing some nudge in a direction towards better repair, healthy improvement, more aesthetically pleasing and less prone to criminal behavior, you might see 'edgy'.

The Mission comes to mind.  I think the area could use a little gentrification, quite honestly, but I wouldnt want it to lose its wonderful diversity of culture and vibrancy.  Its a fine line.

Stephen/Simms side-discussion -

Yes, you and I have the same concept of edgy.  But you and I both know that a city as dense and expensive as SF is literally block by block.  Some blocks in the Mission are very desirable in the city, and thus can be pricy - techie hipsters who make $200K and still smell like shit and dress like hobos pay $3-4000+ for 1BRs to live there.  Valencia St is the hottest restaurant row in the city right now.  A block or two away could be controlled by MS-13 or some rival Mexican gang affiliate.  Potrero Hill and Soma also come to mind as cool edgy places.

If you can believe it, Mid-Market and parts of Soma and the 'Loin adjacent to Market between 5th and 9th are the hottest neighborhoods in the city.  Most of this area is actually still too edgy for comfort to me if you want to know my "limits" (I have some regrets not moving to Ava Nob Hill, which is on Sutter in the Tendernob...definitely a vibrant 24 hour area, but 2-4 blocks away is a hood many in America consider one of the scariest in the country by a mile...that 2-4 block buffer makes a HUGE difference though - coming from Atl/Jax I wasn't acquainted with the fact that 2 blocks in SF is enough, the sight and smell of Tenderloin that close to me freaked me out and got my heart racing the first time I walked through - in daylight!...now I'll even carefully walk through at night because I've gotten used to it...definitely nothing like that in Jax!).  The South in general just doesn't have the setup for the kind of "desirable" edginess you can find in "established" cities, unless you can think of something.

And again - who are we kidding?  The demographic in the entire city of SF, the cool parts of Baltimore, Billyburg in Brooklyn (which by New Yorkers' grueling standards is apparently no longer "in"?), etc are all single young professionals and wealthy "young at heart" types who likely don't have families, or large families.  Isn't Springfield also filled with traditional military families - like mom, dad and 2-3 kids?  Totally different demographic than what you'll see in gentrified and "cool" versions of Springfield elsewhere.