Live Blogging: Mayor Brown in Springfield

[fsujax]

Lunican there was house proposed to look something like those to be built on Walnut St between 3rd and 4th. Not sure what happend to it.

[Lunican]

Lunican there was house proposed to look something like those to be built on Walnut St between 3rd and 4th. Not sure what happend to it.

They probably weren't approved!

[CityLife]

They were approved and virtually the entire neighborhood supported it. However, it hasn't been built yet due to financing I believe.

I would imagine those homes could get built, but they look very high end. Probably not financially feasible.

[simms3]

The Walnut St house...still held up as the coolest thing since sliced bread and still discussed with uber excitement years later with nothing to show.  Can we all agree it's sad that we are drooling for such a house, yet as Lake pointed out this architecture has been built in relative spades in older neighbs in Birmingham for years now!  Tallahassee and Gainesville even according to another older thread on MetroJax!  The Walnut St house should not be the big deal or the gold pot that we make it.  We are so behind...it's not my fault for sounding so negative, reality is reality

[Lunican]

They were approved and virtually the entire neighborhood supported it. However, it hasn't been built yet due to financing I believe.

I would imagine those homes could get built, but they look very high end. Probably not financially feasible.

Why did virtually the entire neighborhood have to support it?

Probably because it can't get approved without a precedent setting battle.

[thelakelander]

so what is so wrong with gentrification? I think there can be a balance between gentrification and preservation. I am a "gentrifier" should I leave the neighborhood as well?

I'm not sure you are a "gentrifier"?  Moving into a neighborhood doesn't qualify one as a "gentrifier."  Also, there is a balance if the community and local political will power is interested in seeking it. 

For example, Cleveland's Detroit-Shoreway neighborhood has an interesting affordable housing revitalization program.  Their version of Springfield's Main Street is now lined with mixed-use adaptive-reuse and infill. I need to study it more, but it appears they've been able to raise the quality-of-life in the neighborhood and add new residents without purposely displacing the existing population. This, despite the neighborhood's two major employers shutting their manufacturing facilities down in recent decades. 

When you think about it, our core neighborhoods like Springfield have lost over 50% of their population base since 1950.  It should be feasible to revitalize where everyone gets to reap economic benefit.

[CityLife]

Jack Meeks is definitely an agent of gentrification

Can Springfield save its homes without some form of "gentrification"? Whether it be from artists, teachers, or CPA's?

I just found it interesting that a champion of historic preservation and saving the homes railed on a guy that has done some good preservation work and also brings a lot of positive outside attention on Springfield.

You have to admit thats a weird pairing of cause and effect, city life.  The question most people are wondering is whether or not the neighborhood hood can save its homes without demolishing most of them first.

Its not even a slightly weird pairing of cause in effect. Its quite simple really. Can all of Springfield's historic homes be restored by existing lower income residents? If the answer is no, then you can't really villainize or pejoratively call someone a "gentrifier" that tries to restore historic homes and bring in others to do the same.

[CityLife]

They were approved and virtually the entire neighborhood supported it. However, it hasn't been built yet due to financing I believe.

I would imagine those homes could get built, but they look very high end. Probably not financially feasible.

Why did virtually the entire neighborhood have to support it?

Probably because it can't get approved without a precedent setting battle.

The neighborhood didn't have to support it for approval. Though nobody knows how it would have gone without neighborhood support.

[thelakelander]

Can all of Springfield's historic homes be restored by existing lower income residents? If the answer is no, then you can't really villainize or pejoratively call someone a "gentrifier" that tries to restore historic homes and bring in others to do the same.

Half of Springfield is empty lots waiting for a savior to purchase and develop them.  Main Street looks like it hosted Desert Storm.  8th, which is a gateway, looks like General Sherman torched it during his march to the sea. Logistically speaking, there's ample room for all economic levels to be a part of the neighborhood's renaissance. 

Anyway, the current demolition efforts aren't helping the community in either way. If anything, it's going to ultimately decrease the neighborhood's value. That hurts existing residents and those who want to displace them.  Just look across Hogans Creek at Sugar Hill.  Is it better off today than it was 50 years ago after millions of dollars invested in urban renewal?

[CityLife]

Agreed and I'm not in any way getting involved in the demolition debate. Merely pointing that a group with the main goal of preservation, shouldn't really be villainizing someone that does good preservation work.

[Demosthenes]

The current efforts regarding the housing efforts are mostly wasted. If those people screaming for demolitions would instead scream, or better yet, work for commercial renewal, the rest would fall into place. Main Street and 8th street are where they are because there is no real contiguous infrastructure because so mich of it was demolished. Any business wanting to open has to consider building a new building, and very few new businesses woud do that, and i dont see any developers stepping up with a historic friendly plan.

Lets the preservationist preserve. If the rest of the community gets focused on the commercial corridors you will start making progress. It has always been, and continues to be the Achilles heal of the efforts to turn the neighborhood around.

[CityLife]

Not talking about you Stephen. Was talking about Strider's comment about keeping the Jack Meeks's at bay and SheClown pejoratively calling him a "gentrifier".

[strider]

Gentrification, in some form or another, is going to happen. The issue is more one of impatience perhaps than malice on the part of most "gentrifiers".  So, it is not the actual act of restoring houses and bringing in others to do the same that I take issues with, it is how one tries to accomplish that gentrification.  How many houses were taken down simply because others did not like their use or because of supposed criminal use? How often was the "red alert" sounded by SPAR Council against some perceived "wrong" person or group?  How does those divisions within a small community like this hurt the future of that community?

Gentrification is not supposed to happen over night.  It takes years and years.  Even then, today's smart money is on creating a community where everyone can live together without bias against a different life style or economic status. Not long ago one of the often called SPARparians quoted a few studies that she claimed to prove certain points. What was interesting is that she was promoting the concepts of gentrification and the moving out of the lesser, in her mind, economic groups by using studies that proved her wrong. The mantra should be that if you are good enough to work here, you are good enough to live here.  That means providing affordable housing options for everyone. Businesses that can meet everyone's needs.

That is not how the old guard people in Springfield, like the Meeks, feel.  I can't say that about Michael Trautman, even though he talks the same talk, as he is about to build low income housing in Springfield.  But of course, he is the "right kind" of person so it is all OK and called "workforce housing".  Like illegal rooming houses that rent to proton patients are OK as they rent to the "right kind" of people. 

This is the kind of hypocritical philosophy that drove Springfield to the brink of total disaster, could have cost the city millions in federal lawsuits and left a divided community that has taken years to heal.

As to the lower income groups being able to afford the cost of the houses?  That is the real reason the programs like NSP exist.  To help equalize the economic groups.  Or at least in theory.  In practice, it mostly seems to help the rich get richer. Sad really.

[TheCat]

Stephen, no, "strategic demolitions" was my phrase not his.

Absolutely, they requested that we ask first before taking pictures. A brazen request that is then justified by including "enforcement officials" in the request for permission photography. Yup, we used "terrorism" to prevent photographs of the director of MCCD.

It goes a little deeper than the quick quip at the beginning of the meeting. A side conversation with a person from the mayor's office bandied about something about Florida Law which may apply in one context but was/is completely irrelevant in last night's context which this person completely recognized but still wanted to talk about photography. The mayor's office is aware that we want to see who is in charge of our city departments and it's making them uneasy. 

I can understand. It would be more than a little unsettling to see my image online as NOT the good guy. It doesn't matter though, they are working in a public office and they don't get to live in anonymity. Their decisions directly impact the city. There is that little something about sunshine and sanitation.

I'll bring a sketch artist and then,  "We ask that all caricatures of city employees have balanced facial features and practice restraint with emotional expressions in the facial region. And also, terrorism."

Very interesting meeting of which the ultimate purpose was not explicitly stated except to say "I'm alvin...and I care." It was a good meeting. I appreciated the heads of departments being there. It was nice seeing each department standing next to their shoddy table set-ups with unnecessary informational material.

Most importantly, I was disappointed that my over sized "fluorescent bulb" was just a JEA branded plastic piggy bank. The bulb in my bedroom just died and I was so happy to not have to go to the store.

[Cheshire Cat]

Stephen, no, "strategic demolitions" was my phrase not his.

Absolutely, they requested that we ask first before taking pictures. A brazen request that is then justified by including "enforcement officials" in the request for permission photography. Yup, we used "terrorism" to prevent photographs of the director of MCCD.

It goes a little deeper than the quick quip at the beginning of the meeting. A side conversation with a person from the mayor's office bandied about something about Florida Law which may apply in one context but was/is completely irrelevant in last night's context which this person recognized but still wanted to talk about photography. The mayor's office is aware that we want to see who is in charge of our city departments and it's making them uneasy. 

I can understand. It would be more than a little unsettling to see my image online as NOT the good guy. It doesn't matter though, they are working in a public office and they don't get to live in anonymity. Their decisions directly impact the city. There is that little something about sunshine and sanitation.

I'll bring a sketch artist and then,  "We ask that all caricatures of city employees have balanced facial features and practice restraint with emotional expressions in the facial region. And also, terrorism."

Very interesting meeting of which the ultimate purpose was not explicitly stated except to say "I'm alvin...and I care." It was a good meeting. I appreciated the heads of departments being there. It was nice seeing each department standing next to their shoddy table set-ups with unnecessary informational material.

Most importantly, I was disappointed that my over sized "fluorescent bulb" was just a JEA branded plastic piggy bank. The bulb in my bedroom just died and I was so happy to not have to go to the store.

Cat, I find this instruction for people to ask before taking pictures in a public meeting where under the "Sunshine Law" the records and salaries of city employees are public record and said employees are often photographed by media on a regular basis to be purely outrageous.  According to city parameters any citizen can take photo's in an open meeting period, as long as they do not disrupt the meeting!  Shoot, they can even video meetings! This keep it behind the curtain attitude of this administration is appalling and of deep concern.  In the meantime, Ms. Scott who so hates to be photographed is already recorded on video during several council meetings, including the one a few weeks ago.  Anyone willing to take the time can view those previous meetings and download whatever footage they would like to.  Any private citizen who goes and speaks at a council meeting is asked their name, address and is filmed.  That is what is understood in public meetings.  This notion that employees or department heads cannot be photographed is absurd.