Competition

[Steve]

RAP and similar preservation groups stop urban incrementalism.  While that might be great for homeowners trying to lock in their current quality of life for the rest of their life, it prevents that city from urbanizing naturally.  All that is left is silver bullet massive projects like the Jags, Lot J, The District, etc...that never work.  Look at all the projects RAP has effectively and succefully canceled, scaled back, or delayed over the past 10 years.  Then we wonder why Jax isn't urbanizing?  Well there is your answer.

Not sure I agree with that statement. Aside from the CenterState bank project, can you name another project that RAP stopped?

Also, this statement made me laugh: "While that might be great for homeowners trying to lock in their current quality of life for the rest of their life, it prevents that city from urbanizing naturally." Since when should RAP's mission (or any other neighborhood group) be to think about the overall city's urbanization?

[Steve]

BTW, it's not like RAP is some government entity. If they thought they had a legit case for a deviation from the overlay, then present it. The developer withdrew the project on their own.

[Steve]

One more post (sorry to blast): Obviously I'm a little partial as I was on the RAP board in the past, but think this way: Right now I feel like because Riverside and Avondale is a successful working neighborhood (as opposed to Downtown largely), everyone from developers to outside residents seem to think that Riverside and Avondale has some sort of responsibility to densify and urbanize the neighborhood to encourage urbanization. Why is that?

[thelakelander]

Not sure how RAP stops the city from urbanizing naturally. It was already urbanized. Both LaVilla and Brooklyn were pretty urban as recently as the late 1990s and early 2000s. However, that urban was black. We ripped it all down. Here's a few examples of LaVilla that have been demolished since the 1970s/80s. We can blame a historic district a mile south for this.

[Steve]

Not sure how RAP stops the city from urbanizing naturally. It was already urbanized. Both LaVilla and Brooklyn were pretty urban as recently as the late 1990s and early 2000s. However, that urban was black. We ripped it all down. Here's a few examples of LaVilla that have been demolished since the 1970s/80s. We can blame a historic district a mile south for this.

RAP had to be responsible for that awful Acosta Bridge ramp system.

[Kerry]

Maybe if Riverside densified, the people living there who don't like increasing density would in-fill into Brooklyn and LaVilla, which in turn would densify, and the process repeats.  Suburbia sprawls and leaves in its wake hollowed out broken down subdivision.  When urbanism spreads it doesn't leave anything behind.

[thelakelander]

When you say density, I assume you mean like 220 Riverside or Vista Brooklyn style infill? If so, what about if we stop tearing down stuff and making it easier for infill to occur on the surface lots and moonscape inbetween?  Bascially more of a clustered approach as to spreading stuff around over a 4 square mile area like a kicked ant hill?

[Kerry]

I'll reference again Oklahoma City.  The Urbanizing portion of downtown Oklahoma City essentially covers 6 sq miles with densification happing rapidly in at least 6 other parts of the core outside of downtown proper - Plaza District, NW23rd, OU Medical, Western, Capitol Hill, and Stockyard City.  I'm not a preservationist - I'm an urbanist.  If the new is better urban design then bring on the wrecking ball.  One thing that makes OKC and Jax different is the absence of entities like RAP and other preservation groups.

[Tacachale]

I'll reference again Oklahoma City.

[Kerry]

I really could use any city as a reference - OKC and Jax are very similar in almost every way demographically so it makes a good comparison.

[Charles Hunter]

I think part of the concern in knocking down buildings to make way for the new, is that the resultant vacant lot sits vacant for decades before anything happens. In many places downtown, there is still nothing proposed on most of the vacant lots.  Had the old buildings been left standing, and kept in good repair, small businesses could have rented space, leading to increased pedestrian activity, which may have encourage more development - densification.

[thelakelander]

I'll reference again Oklahoma City.  The Urbanizing portion of downtown Oklahoma City essentially covers 6 sq miles with densification happing rapidly in at least 6 other parts of the core outside of downtown proper - Plaza District, NW23rd, OU Medical, Western, Capitol Hill, and Stockyard City.  I'm not a preservationist - I'm an urbanist.  If the new is better urban design then bring on the wrecking ball.  One thing that makes OKC and Jax different is the absence of entities like RAP and other preservation groups.

Are these official local historic districts? If not, they're apples and oranges to Riverside's situation.

I really could use any city as a reference - OKC and Jax are very similar in almost every way demographically so it makes a good comparison.

Make sure you use comparable neighborhoods. Riverside is a local historic district. Here's the list of local historic districts in OKC.

https://www.okc.gov/departments/planning/design-review-and-historic-preservation/historic-preservation

Which of the areas within these boundaries is OKC allowing significant demo of contributing building stock and addition of infill that is out-of-scale and character with the HD?

[jaxnyc79]

"I think our governments will remain virtuous for many centuries; as long as they are chiefly agricultural; and this will be as long as there shall be vacant lands in any part of America. When they get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, they will become corrupt as in Europe." - Thomas Jefferson

I've said this before and I'll propose it again: I believe that in studying and understanding the outcomes we observe, we should probe to discover some underlying ethos.  I've considered that perhaps the Jax ethos is a Jeffersonian one, with deeply and long-held distrusts of urbanization, density, and the idea of a vast and robust public realm.  Sure there are exceptions among residents, but not enough of the urban-prone among the moneyed and influential classes.  Perhaps that changes with Rummel and Khan, but even then, vibrant urbanization is often explained in Jax as some sort of corporate recruitment tool and not as that thing that is vital to the soul of the city.  In other words, if no corporate wanted to move to Jax, does dense, walkable, mixed-use urbanity serve some other purpose to the soul of the city?

By the way, IMO, the overwhelming majority of San Marco and Riverside-Avondale are far from urban.  Yes it's nice they have strip "slivers" that abut sidewalks in certain places, and true, they're not Deerwood, but I don't really think of them as urbanized.  Maybe they're taking small steps in that direction, but they're not there yet and I don't think Jax should pursue its urban ambitions through those neighborhoods. 

I think I'm learning from thelakelander that the road to urban resurgence in Jax might be through a re-discovery, common acceptance, and love for its black heritage.  Until it does this, it will always lag. 

[Steve]

Maybe if Riverside densified, the people living there who don't like increasing density would in-fill into Brooklyn and LaVilla, which in turn would densify, and the process repeats.  Suburbia sprawls and leaves in its wake hollowed out broken down subdivision.  When urbanism spreads it doesn't leave anything behind.

Huh!?!?

Why don't we worry about densifying Brooklyn before we ask 20 year residents of Riverside (who, mind you, VOTED for the historic protection to keep their neighborhood preserved in the style it is) to move out.

[thelakelander]

JaxNYC79, I agree about Riverside and San Marco. Their density levels make them suburbs in cities like Chicago and even LA. LaVilla was truly urban. Brooklyn was urban. We labeled them blight and blew them up. Now there's some infill taking place in these areas but at lower density levels.