TU kickbacks article

[riverside planner]

What aggravates the parking problem is that almost everything south of King St. was built before many people had cars and there was seldom any provision made for parking cars on the properties.  Makes it tight.

People who live in cities just have to get used to people that they don't know parking in front of their houses.  It literally comes with the territory.

True, but King Street was built as a NEIGHBORHOOD scale commercial district.  While it has become a destination in recent years, it was never designed to serve as such. 

[stephendare]

What aggravates the parking problem is that almost everything south of King St. was built before many people had cars and there was seldom any provision made for parking cars on the properties.  Makes it tight.

People who live in cities just have to get used to people that they don't know parking in front of their houses.  It literally comes with the territory.

True, but King Street was built as a NEIGHBORHOOD scale commercial district.  While it has become a destination in recent years, it was never designed to serve as such.

Im sorry, Riverside Planner, but this is one of the most ridiculous assertions Ive heard.

King Street was built as a residential/commercial/industrial district during a time when Jacksonville was one of the largest tourist draws in the United States.

From its inception as a trolley based expansion of the city, the neighborhood aimed at providing prosperity, upper scale density and high volume shopping to the vacationing millions that visited the city, famous for its climate, incredibly developed entertainment options and bordellos.

Please, can we abandon this fantasy of Jacksonville as a pastoral, quiet little town with nothing more going on in it than the occasional church service followed by a mint julip mixer?

[Dashing Dan]

So along with streetcars I guess we should be bringing back bordellos too?

[stephendare]

So along with streetcars I guess we should be bringing back bordellos too?

they'd be a damn sight more useful than frozen yogurt places, I bet.

Although I think that the internet has made them largely obsolete.

[stephendare]

Before we engage in much more historic revisionism, lets not forget that the original name of Riverside Avenue was 'Commercial Street'---and that was when the streetcars were built.  The name wasnt changed until the turn of the century, despite the fact that Forbes had named the area 'riverside' thirty years earlier.

Park Street, from Five Points to King Street was called 'the great white way' because of the commercial development and the brilliantly illuminated street lights.

Within five blocks of the King Street District,t there were 5 major manufacturers, and JC Penney opened up a dairy plant with hundreds of trucks.

It is the height of fantasy to try and retroactively describe this neighborhood as a quiet, small scale residential area.

[fieldafm]

At some point alternative modes of mobility will have to be seriously addressed, planned for, and advocated with the same passion or risk endangering the character of the area to create additional capacity for the automobile.

It's really amazing that the conversation is getting so blurred in this debate.  Literally almost every non-work-related conversation I have engage in has revolved around this issue for at least the past week, and everybody keeps going back to the same place. 

Which is not surprising... even at the forum-style meeting RAP held months ago, whenever someone brought up alternative forms of transportation, people just became more angry and kept getting back to yelling about people peeing in front yards.

The conversation about planning and ADVOCATING for different ways of moving people around the neighborhood is at a tipping point.  The proverbial can cannot be kicked down the road any longer.  More infill is happening, and before you know it(even sooner than that based on the interest I have been hearing about some empty sites) new construction is going to take hold... and by then, it will be too late.

[stephendare]

At some point alternative modes of mobility will have to be seriously addressed, planned for, and advocated with the same passion or risk endangering the character of the area to create additional capacity for the automobile.

It's really amazing that the conversation is getting so blurred in this debate.  Literally almost every non-work-related conversation has revolved around this issue for at least the past week, and everybody keeps going back to the same place. 

The conversation about planning and ADVOCATING for multi-modal forms of moving people around the neighborhood is at a tipping point.  The proverbial can cannot be kicked down the road any longer.  More infill is happening, and before you know it(even sooner than that based on the interest I have been hearing about some empty sites) new construction is going to take hold... and by then, it will be too late.

You are exactly right, Field.  As of yesterday afternoon, the interest in this area is astonishing.

[riverside planner]

What aggravates the parking problem is that almost everything south of King St. was built before many people had cars and there was seldom any provision made for parking cars on the properties.  Makes it tight.

People who live in cities just have to get used to people that they don't know parking in front of their houses.  It literally comes with the territory.

True, but King Street was built as a NEIGHBORHOOD scale commercial district.  While it has become a destination in recent years, it was never designed to serve as such.

Im sorry, Riverside Planner, but this is one of the most ridiculous assertions Ive heard.

King Street was built as a residential/commercial/industrial district during a time when Jacksonville was one of the largest tourist draws in the United States.

From its inception as a trolley based expansion of the city, the neighborhood aimed at providing prosperity, upper scale density and high volume shopping to the vacationing millions that visited the city, famous for its climate, incredibly developed entertainment options and bordellos.

Please, can we abandon this fantasy of Jacksonville as a pastoral, quiet little town with nothing more going on in it than the occasional church service followed by a mint julip mixer?

Believe me I harbor no delusions about Jacksonville as a "pastoral, quiet little town".  While I wholeheartedly agree that we need truly multimodal transportation, I was on the steering committee for the Riverside Avondale Zoning Overlay and bring that knowledge, as well as my experiences as a resident of the greater Park & King area to the table.  Parking was not an issue when this area developed, but it is now.  The Overlay is far from perfect, I recognize that, but it is also clear that new commercial construction triggers the need to address parking. 

[fieldafm]

but it is also clear that new commercial construction triggers the need to address parking.

The Park and King area can in fact support much more commercial density than it has now, while still being a great place to live if the proper parking management policies are put into place and viable alternative modes of transportation are offered.  Riverside/Avondale is not unique in this respect.  A trip to Williamsburg, Georgetown, Lakeview, etc etc etc shows that with proper policies... mixed use density can co-exist.  To continue to ignore this will hurt the neighborhood.  Alternatives to heavy auto-centric movement needs to have happened yesterday(not today or tomorrow).

If Kickbacks doesn't kickstart this conversation in earnest... we will all be very sorry a year down the road.  I sincerly hope that won't happen.

[stephendare]

only if you are planning for a cars only scenario.

Frankly I am surprised at the number of people who claim to be for sustainable, walkable human scale neighborhoods, who are subscribing to this nonsense.

Riverside Planner, as you know, I like and respect you both personally and professionally, so by no means are my comments on this subject directed at you.

But this path of thinking will lead, inevitably to the destruction of the historic housing stock.  It is axiomatic.  You cannot sustain both a walkable neighborhood (which means that most of your daily needs and wants are within walking distances------making embedded commercial development not only necessary, but actually the very point of 'walkable) and a car storage based neighborhood at the same time.

The neighborhood was never originally designed for cars, it was designed for street cars. 

It seems pretty damned obvious that the solution which allows for dense development, keeps the historic housing stock intact, lowers the overall cost of living in the neighborhood by allowing carless households is the very model that the neighborhood was designed for originally.

This 21st century demand that car storage take precedence over walkability is the very axiom that led previous generations to start the wholesale demolitions in the first place.

[BridgeTroll]

The neighborhood was never originally designed for cars, it was designed for street cars. 

While this is true and undeniable... it is also true and undeniable that there is not and there has not been streetcars for what... a hundred years?  Since the demise of the streetcars the 'hood has changed a bit.  To restore the original historic density without addressing the fact that the 'hood has changed is clearly causing issues that need to be addressed.  To simply say to the residents... "too bad" is short sighted, counter productive and will lead to stiffer more organized and vocal opposition to the goal we are all seeking... which is a dense, walkable, neighborhood destination.

[fieldafm]

To simply say to the residents... "too bad" is short sighted

That is not my personal goal one bit.  As a matter of fact, its the residents who benefit the most from more diverse transportation options. 

To restore the original historic density without addressing the fact that the 'hood has changed

It was this change that has in fact hurt the neighborhood and will be very detrimental if people's reality continues to be complete auto-centric mobility. 

Burying one's head in the sand on this issue is not a viable solution.

[urbanlibertarian]

Since streetcars are not coming anytime soon it would appear that shuttle buses would be needed to get folks from where we want them to park to the King St establishments they want to go to.  Where DO we want them to park?  Do we want JTA involved in this solution?

[cline]

Since streetcars are not coming anytime soon it would appear that shuttle buses would be needed to get folks from where we want them to park to the King St establishments they want to go to.  Where DO we want them to park?  Do we want JTA involved in this solution?

In the short term I think that some sort of private shuttle service would be a solution.  There could potentially be some sort of Park-N-Ride in one of the surrounding parking lots (St. Vincents, for example) with a shuttle up through the strip.  I believe this idea is being kicked around already.

In the long term, I think that Streetcar is the way to go.  It is a shame that the mobility fee is pretty much dead in the water.  That could have allowed Streetcar to be built quicker than you might imagine.  There is still hope though. 

As for JTA, I don't think they should be involved in anything transit-related that we wanted to see become a success.

[stephendare]

The neighborhood was never originally designed for cars, it was designed for street cars. 

While this is true and undeniable... it is also true and undeniable that there is not and there has not been streetcars for what... a hundred years?  Since the demise of the streetcars the 'hood has changed a bit.  To restore the original historic density without addressing the fact that the 'hood has changed is clearly causing issues that need to be addressed.  To simply say to the residents... "too bad" is short sighted, counter productive and will lead to stiffer more organized and vocal opposition to the goal we are all seeking... which is a dense, walkable, neighborhood destination.

this is dumb.  in reality, a group of residents simply changed the rules of engagement less than three years ago, and are now trying to enforce a pretty stretched definition of those changed rules on the commercial real estate.  Are you suggesting that we are to say to the commercial landowners 'too bad' instead?

Sounds nice and fair.