Oral Explosion Coming to San Marco

[Steve]

On the note of the worst named eatery in Jacksonville, the building is not award winning, but not everyone will be.  I'm not as concert with the materials used and it's archtectural qualities as how it meets the street.

I'd rather stucco crap that met the street well over something like Two Prudential Plaza or Independent Square, which might look great from the skyline, but terrible to someone walking on the sidewalk.

[Joe]

From a landuse perspective, this project seems quite reasonable. (i.e. if I were a city councilman, planner, or activist I wouldn't have any legitimate objections to its construction).

However, from a standpoint of beauty and/or architecture, I certainly don't like it. It's quite bland, and I don't see anything "progressive" about it at all. It's just an inverted strip mall box with a trendy pseudo-contemporary industrial embellishment that probably won't age well at all.

Again, I have no interest in complaining about its construction. A project is a project, and that's great. But I scoff at the notion that this is great design. My apologies if the architect who designed this reads this forum, because for all I know, he doesn't have any pretenses about the design either. However, it's worth emphasizing that the crud some people call "progressive" is neither progressive, nor particularly welcomed by non-architects.  

[ChriswUfGator]

There are thousands of people who live in Inner City Jax who don't have to travel to places like Baymeadows, Orange Park and Deerwood on a regular basis.  By the same token, there are thousands of people who live in the burbs and commute to Downtown Charleston because they can't afford the historic district's housing costs.  There are thousands more, that live in the city and have no reason to ever go downtown.  It ultimately depends on your personal situation.  

I agree, that urban Jax does not offer the same quality of life that one would get in a city with a vibrant urban core.  This is where I believe we can improve the easiest.  But it will take a change in zoning (the entire core needs to embrace the land design principles used by Oral Explosions).   

I call B.S. on the inner city lack of mobility. To the extent that it exists, which isn't much, it's only applicable to those who can't afford cars, and because public transportation is really not a viable option here for holding down a job. Most inner-city types, in my experience with renting to them, work for minimum wage in call centers, which are all located off Baymeadows/Southside. So I 100% disagree with your assessment on that one.

As to Charleston, sure downtown is expensive. So is San Fran, New York, Boston, or any other walking city. That isn't the point. The point is, you can easily live there without a car. I don't see where I said that suburbs don't exist, or that people won't commute from suburbs to a downtown. Of course that will happen, that's not the point. The point is, these places offer an urban lifestyle where don't need a car, and they don't have sprawl that requires even those living in urban areas to go somewhere else. To the extent that you want to analyze sprawl in walking cities, it revolves around people in the suburbs commuting downtown, not people in any area having to commute to other random areas in order to get anything done. There's a clear difference there, and I'm not sure why you're arguing this.

[wwanderlust]

If this building was multi-level and mixed use, I could get over the bland design...

[cline]

As to Charleston, sure downtown is expensive. So is San Fran, New York, Boston, or any other walking city. That isn't the point. The point is, you can easily live there without a car.

You are correct, you could easily live in these places without a car however, you can't ignore the affordability aspect.  I'm sure there are many, many other people that would want to live in these environments but cannot afford it.   

[thelakelander]

I call B.S. on the inner city lack of mobility. To the extent that it exists, which isn't much, it's only applicable to those who can't afford cars, and because public transportation is really not a viable option here for holding down a job. Most inner-city types, in my experience with renting to them, work for minimum wage in call centers, which are all located off Baymeadows/Southside. So I 100% disagree with your assessment on that one.

There are people right here on this site, that live in inner city neighborhoods and work in Downtown, the port or other businesses based in the urban core.  Many of them don't have to travel to the burbs on a regular occassion.

As to Charleston, sure downtown is expensive. So is San Fran, New York, Boston, or any other walking city. That isn't the point. The point is, you can easily live there without a car. I don't see where I said that suburbs don't exist, or that people won't commute from suburbs to a downtown. Of course that will happen, that's not the point. The point is, these places offer an urban lifestyle where don't need a car, and they don't have sprawl that requires even those living in urban areas to go somewhere else.

My only point is that we can easily offer the same lifestyle by reconnecting our inner city neighborhoods with pedestrian friendly development (ie. Oral Explosions).  However, this will never happen if we don't get to where we demand certain principles with every new project that comes online.

To the extent that you want to analyze sprawl in walking cities, it revolves around people in the suburbs commuting downtown, not people in any area having to commute to other random areas in order to get anything done. There's a clear difference there, and I'm not sure why you're arguing this.

Because I don't agree.

[copperfiend]

You can still have a walkable core and horrid sprawl.  Chicagoland is a great example.  

True. But I have friends that live in Andersonville and they literally don't have to leave the neighborhood for anything.

[thelakelander]

True. But I have friends that live in Andersonville and they literally don't have to leave the neighborhood for anything.

It was once that way in Jax (The original city).  It can be that way again.  Neighborhoods like Riverside, Avondale, Springfield and San Marco are well on their way.  We just have to work to better connect them with pedestrian friendly infill and attractive mass transit options.

[stephendare]

Lake and Chris are saying the same thing, it appears to me, just quibbling over semantic details that seem to be putting them at cross purposes.

Chris, we all agree that Jacksonville's urban core is not self contained and therefore not truly a 'walkable community'.  It needs basic services in order to be that.

We also totally agree that the transit system is FUBAR and only serves the people desperate for transit who have no other choices.

We also all agree that the city planners intentionally choose road based sprawl causing transportation plans that impede rather than encourage the development of truly walkable communities.

In fact, Ennis is probably the most tireless advocate in the city of a transit plan based around tying transportation to recentralization

And Chris is entirely correct in the comparison of downtown to other urban cores.

But there are two seperate discussion happening which is confusing the issue.

Chris, there are actually a few other easily solved issues which are preventing the development of the urban and historic neighborhoods. They involve regulation, taxation, traffic design and 'investment' strategies.

Ennis is trying to make the point that a properly constituted transit plan that ties together San Marco, Riverside/Avondale/Five Points, Downtown and Springfield would create a super district that would be entirely self contained.

It would not be a walkable one, but it would be a manageble one, and compared to any other district in the city with the exception of the beaches, this Supercore district would be the most self contained, easiest densified and least overall expensive in which to reside because of the elimination of the auto as a requirement to live there.

Neither of you are disagreeing with each others points, you are simply not speaking to the same conversations.

[copperfiend]

True. But I have friends that live in Andersonville and they literally don't have to leave the neighborhood for anything.

It was once that way in Jax (The original city).  It can be that way again.  Neighborhoods like Riverside, Avondale, Springfield and San Marco are well on their way.  We just have to work to better connect them with pedestrian friendly infill and attractive mass transit options.

I would love to see it that way again. It's just frustrating seeing so many opportunities slip away.

[thelakelander]

Lake and Chris are saying the same thing, it appears to me, just quibbling over semantic details that seem to be putting them at cross purposes.

Yes, I think the confusion may be on how to properly define Jacksonville.  Although areas like Baymeadows may be within the consolidated limits, they are really suburbs based on their era of development, street layouts and development patterns.  The city that existed before consolidation is what I consider to be the "city" and what I believe can be walkable and vibrant again.  Here you have infrastructure in place that was built for double the population of what exists there today.  

Using Boston as an example, Mandarin is Lowell, MA for all intents and purposes.  A historic independent community that has been gobbled up by the larger city's sprawl.  Old Jax (the city before 1968) is Boston with 50% of its building stock demolished and rail transit shut down.

If you want a vibrant city (Old Jax), we need to reconnect the neighborhoods with viable transit and make sure all infill development is built with urban principles in mind.  Regardless of what people think about the architectural design, the layout is an example one incorporating the pedestrian friendly principles we need on a larger scale.

[stephendare]

Lake and Chris are saying the same thing, it appears to me, just quibbling over semantic details that seem to be putting them at cross purposes.

Yes, I think the confusion may be on how to properly define Jacksonville.  Although areas like Baymeadows may be within the consolidated limits, they are really suburbs based on their era of development, street layouts and development patterns.  The city that existed before consolidation is what I consider to be the "city" and what I believe can be walkable and vibrant again.  Here you have infrastructure in place that was built for double the population of what exists there today.  

Using Boston as an example, Mandarin is Lowell, MA for all intents and purposes.  A historic independent community that has been gobbled up by the larger city's sprawl.  Old Jax (the city before 1968) is Boston with 50% of its building stock demolished and rail transit shut down.

If you want a vibrant city (Old Jax), we need to reconnect the neighborhoods with viable transit and make sure all infill development is built with urban principles in mind.  Regardless of what people think about the architectural design, the layout is an example one incorporating the pedestrian friendly principles we need on a larger scale.

Hold onto that explanation Lake, its one of the best points (among many great ones) youve made in a while.

[ChriswUfGator]

As to Charleston, sure downtown is expensive. So is San Fran, New York, Boston, or any other walking city. That isn't the point. The point is, you can easily live there without a car.

You are correct, you could easily live in these places without a car however, you can't ignore the affordability aspect.  I'm sure there are many, many other people that would want to live in these environments but cannot afford it.   

There's an offset that you're not considering, though. And it's that whatever you're paying in additional housing expense, you're probably saving on the back end by not having a car. You don't have to pay $2k/yr for insurance, you don't have a $300/mo car payment, you don't have to pay for maintenance, tires, oil changes, car washes, or $4/gallon gas.

That all goes a long way towards offsetting higher rents, and in all likelihood you may very well be saving money over living in the suburbs. Especially if you have a significant other, and would be otherwise a two-vehicle household. In most cases, I suspect it's actually more economical.

[copperfiend]

Lake and Chris are saying the same thing, it appears to me, just quibbling over semantic details that seem to be putting them at cross purposes.

Yes, I think the confusion may be on how to properly define Jacksonville.  Although areas like Baymeadows may be within the consolidated limits, they are really suburbs based on their era of development, street layouts and development patterns.  The city that existed before consolidation is what I consider to be the "city" and what I believe can be walkable and vibrant again.  Here you have infrastructure in place that was built for double the population of what exists there today.  

Using Boston as an example, Mandarin is Lowell, MA for all intents and purposes.  A historic independent community that has been gobbled up by the larger city's sprawl.  Old Jax (the city before 1968) is Boston with 50% of its building stock demolished and rail transit shut down.

If you want a vibrant city (Old Jax), we need to reconnect the neighborhoods with viable transit and make sure all infill development is built with urban principles in mind.  Regardless of what people think about the architectural design, the layout is an example one incorporating the pedestrian friendly principles we need on a larger scale.

Part of those 50% of buildings would include several colleges and universities.

[ChriswUfGator]

Part of those 50% of buildings would include several colleges and universities.

Right. There is no effort to prevent sprawl around here, and that carries over into education. The colleges and universities are all separated from each other by tens of miles, none of them are downtown or near any urban neighborhoods (they're all in the burbs), and none of them are anywhere near any kind of viable public transport. Having the law school and the med school move into any of the hundred vacant buildings downtown, or onto any of the hundred vacant blocks where stupid-azzed code enforcement has ripped down some nice 120yr old building, would have been a step in the right direction. But instead, the city made it so expensive that they went elsewhere, which made the sprawl even worse. Now I commute 17 miles each way to school, and my partner commutes 20 miles each way to UNF.

Sure I could live near the Baymeadows area, but it still wouldn't be walkable. I'd still have to get in the car and drive long distances to get anything done. This place is a mess, and until 1: The sprawl is addressed, and 2: We have some kind of viable public transport that runs on-time and doesn't take 2 hours to go 15 miles, then it's going to keep getting worse.