Speculative homes planned for historic Springfield

[thelakelander]

It's nice to see some infill coming back to Springfield.

Speculative homes planned for historic Springfield

JWB Real Estate Capital is hedging its next bet on Springfield, with plans to start speculative construction on single-family houses in the historic neighborhood in the coming months.
That's right: Speculative construction. In Springfield.

In July, JWB bought 41 lots throughout Springfield, for about $11,000 per lot, where it plans to build homes that resemble the historic properties that define the area. The homes will be three and four bedrooms, between 1,800 and 2,200 square feet.

full article: http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2013/10/15/jwb-real-estate-capital-plans.html

[KuroiKetsunoHana]

i disagree.  i still maintain that we need to get every existing house fixed before we've any right flooding the neighbourhood with new ones.  i realize that that isn't entirely realistic, but we can definitely do better than we've been doïng, and speculative construction will only worsen the situation.

[icarus]

Far from it. The infill will raise the market value of the existing housing stock ... thereby making it more financially feasible to get the loans or capital necessary to restore the existing stock, i.e. you have a chance in hell of recovering the rehab costs.

[thelakelander]

^Yeah, infill only helps when it comes down to getting loans and capital necessary for adjacent properties.

[KuroiKetsunoHana]

it also seems to me that a lot ov the infill we get in springfield falls into a sort ov uncanny valley--an attempt at historical appropriateness is clearly beïng made, but the end result falls far enough short that it looks almost as wrong as something purely modern would.

[GoldenEst82]

In the full article they say they are building these as rentals.
Good News for those families who can't borrow.

They will be priced between 1,200-1,400 a month.
Not so great.

To qualify for a rental, you usually have to prove income of 3x the rental amount.
That is 3600 a month at the cheapest=3600/4wks/40hrs= 22.50 an hour.

I DO have to give them props on the rehab/rentals though. I have been taking note of their rental posts on CL. They look like they do a good job on the rehabs- and usually, reasonably(ish) priced.

But, ya know either wages WILL go up, or the rents WILL have to go down, because there are only so many 22.50p/h jobs in Jacksonville.

[HangingMoth]

I think the new construction is definitely a positive for the neighborhood. But it would be nice to see some 'newer' architectural designs in the mix, instead of the typical faux historic designs. Maybe the neighborhood isn't that far along yet for that sort of creativity. 

[thelakelander]

In the full article they say they are building these as rentals.
Good News for those families who can't borrow.

They will be priced between 1,200-1,400 a month.
Not so great.

To qualify for a rental, you usually have to prove income of 3x the rental amount.
That is 3600 a month at the cheapest=3600/4wks/40hrs= 22.50 an hour.

I DO have to give them props on the rehab/rentals though. I have been taking note of their rental posts on CL. They look like they do a good job on the rehabs- and usually, reasonably(ish) priced.

But, ya know either wages WILL go up, or the rents WILL have to go down, because there are only so many 22.50p/h jobs in Jacksonville.

That's the hard reality of the world we live in.  If rents were lower, no one would build because the ROI would not be worth the initial capital needed to build.  This is a major reason downtown doesn't have more housing.  There's a financing gap and the only way it can be overcome is with some form of public incentives or subsidies.

With that said, I assume these are at least 3 bedroom homes they are constructing, so they'd be available to households that have two or more people working as well.

[jason_contentdg]

Shudder that the article mentions that the homes will need to copy the existing ones. Building a home with modern amenities - storage and closets, smarter wiring, insulation and energy efficiency that is a copy of an original early 1900's home does nothing but lessen the value of that historic home. The market for older homes will always be there and putting up cheaper knock offs of them, craftsmanship wise and detailing wise is a real shame in my opinion.

Why not build something for this era, this time and place (as the national historic guidelines require) for an audience that wants to live in an urban walkable neighborhood, but doesn't want to live in a faux historic home or a true historic home. Let those grand old lady's be fixed up, let that be the only way to live in an old victorian or a craftsman - give them back their value. Don't cheapen it.

[thelakelander]

^I definitely agree!

[Tacachale]

^This is something I don't understand. Is there some code or regulation that's requiring the homes to be "faux-historic", or is it just what the builders want to do? If it's the latter, that will certainly change when tastes do, hopefully sooner than later. If it's the former, we need to do something about it.

[HangingMoth]

Springfield is one of a handful of neighborhoods in Jax that has the opportunity to meld the historic with the new. It's a shame that this isn't taken advantage of... it seems redundant that so many actual historic structures are torn down only to be replaced by replicas. 

[thelakelander]

^This is something I don't understand. Is there some code or regulation that's requiring the homes to be "faux-historic", or is it just what the builders want to do? If it's the latter, that will certainly change when tastes do, hopefully sooner than later. If it's the former, we need to do something about it.

Builders want to make money. In general, they don't care whether the project is urban, suburban, faux-historic or modern. This basically boils down to time is money and it's a much easier path to get an approved COA from COJ going faux-historic.  Until that changes, don't expect much from building community.

[Bill Hoff]

While I'm fine with a more modern house design, a la the Walnut House designed by Content Design, I'll take the other side of the argument.

People move to historic neighborhoods in large part due to aesthetics. People like the look of traditional historic homes. Builders know that and give people what they want.

But this is a Jax issue, not a specific neighborhood.. There was a chance for more modern design in Riverside recently (and still is) in the cul-de-sac behind the bank on King Street. But, again, traditional style houses are being built.

Concerning the article, I wonder why they chose the 2 specific lots to start building on. They own many lots which are probably more viable.

[Tony B]

Where are they building the first two?  I didn't see it mentioned in the article.