The impact of zoning in Jacksonville

[stephendare]

Springfield you posted this once before, and its basically incorrect.

Think about it for a moment.  The man is being quoted in 1931.  Can you remember anything else that might have been going on at that time?

hmm.  lets see.  we were 16 months into something that would end up being called "The Great Depression".

Most of the writing that blames the downfall of Springfield on "Zoning" rather than "White Flight" was written by Rita Reagan as she was struggling to present a case for 'downzoning' the neighborhood to return it to single family homes.

It would be very difficult to make that case however, in the absence of a political campaign, and instead relying on the facts and raw data.

btw.  wanna guess what the man was referring to in 1931 about a neighborhood being 'restricted'?

[stephendare]

There is one thing that I think can be firmly blamed on zoning.

drunk driving.

Zoning separated the use of property for so called 'sin houses' out of 'decent family neighborhoods'.

The unintended consequences were that instead of going to the corner neighborhood pub, as generations of Americans had since before the Revolution, getting squiffed and then stumbling a few blocks home......suddenly one had to drive many miles to get access to alcohol and dancing.

Which meant (and still does in many places) drunk driving became the norm.

[fsu813]

creative logic indeed. i'd blame the individual drinker rather than zoning, but that's just me.

[strider]

When I first came to Springfield, I heard that the zoning changes is what caused the decline of Springfield.  The amount of commercial infill, the heavier uses on Main Street and of course, all of the rooming houses.  The fact is, the commercial infill was needed when built because people walked to get their groceries, they wanted to walk for getting to work and even for their entertainment and the heavier uses on Main were here because this is also where the people were.  Even many of the rooming houses were here because they filled a need and back then, they weren’t considered a problem.

After the sixties and seventies, the middle class left the urban core for the suburbs and Springfield declined.  Yes, the businesses changed and evolved as the clientele did and by the eighties, Springfield was pretty wild.  In the nineties, the people who took an interest in Springfield also often grew up in the ‘burbs with that outlook on what a community should be.  The houses were the big draw and so the community network of small businesses were looked on as a liability.  Of course by then, the businesses that were left were much too crude to be considered of value so the changing of the zoning laws to make it harder for businesses to be here made perfect sense to the newcomer’s. 

The interesting thing is that the zoning changes in effect made the area more like the ‘burbs rather than the walk-able urban core it was.  The zoning changes requested and gotten by the community attempted to eliminate the commercial infill along with the less desirable legal uses. Today many residents like Three Layers, the Meeks building and others, but if the zoning was adhered to very strictly, none of these places would be here. 

We also hear about density, yet most seem to agree that density is needed in the urban core.  Springfield should be more multifamily then yet many push for only single family.  I think that is a throwback to the ‘burb mentality.

We need businesses of all types now, we need that infill commercial still and we need a higher and very diverse density of residents to make Springfield even close to what it once was…less of course the old social issues….which will actually make Springfield better than it ever was before.

[sheclown]

What we don't need is a Main Street that looks and feels like a war zone.

[thelakelander]

Interesting.  Strider you may be right, considering what you described happened nationwide with older inner city neighborhoods.  Without factual proof, its hard to suggest that Springfield would be any different.  Anyway, the discussion made me look up a few commercial properties to see how old they actually are and how they fit into what has been mentioned here. 

I just spent about five minutes looking up the construction date of a couple of commercial, multifamily and mixed-use properties in the SE quad of Springfield.  Without a doubt, a significant number were constructed before 1925 (the quoted year of allowing commercial uses into a single family residential neighborhood sending it into decline).

Here are a few:

year built: 1912


year built: 1919


year built: 1916


year built: 1921


These images confirm a few things:

1. Either the property appraiser's site is lying about their age or the quote by Springfield Girl (the 1925 zoning thing) is inaccurate.

2. Springfield was never a "single-family" neighborhood.  Without cars at the time of early development, did single family neighborhoods with no commercial uses even exist back then in Jacksonville?

3. Under the current zoning overlay, none of these significant historic contributing buildings (pictured above) can be built without rezoning.  So what's in place/allowed will not even produce a historically accurate urban community, which helps hurt commercial revitalization in the area (less building and population density = smaller market for walkable commercial options).

4. It seems like the zoning overlay was either crafted by zoning novices or written in an attempt to turn one of Jacksonville's densest districts into something that it never was.

I know that the city is currently looking at updating the zoning code to make it more user friendly and mass transit supportive.  A second look at the zoning overlay should be one of the top priorities on that list.  A more form-based code that allows more historically accurate building design and mixes of uses should be considered.  Especially, if the community wants to benefit and set itself up for better mass transit options in the future.

[stjr]

and what caused jacksonvilles or los angeles to sprawl?

That's easy.  We never saw a zoning, land use designation, or master plan that we didn't change the first time a power broker asked us to!

Sprawl and "bad zoning" is mostly the result of a complete failure to stick to the original zoning and land use rules by allowing too many "exceptions" or "loop holes" to be exploited to the detriment of all the other properties surrounding the subject area.  This process is magnified by expanding existing roads or building new ones and using this as a further excuse to "rezone" some more.

The result is sprawl begetting sprawl further facilitated by the destabilization and destruction of the character of well established existing neighborhoods through still more inappropriately processed zoning changes.  We need to stop this sprawl treadmill by being firmer in applying the incumbent zoning code.  If real changes are deemed necessary, they should be in the context of a well thought out and deliberated new master zoning plan, not unplanned, uncoordinated, special interest, and corrosive piecemeal changes to incumbent zoning plans.

On the one hand, I understand the concerns some may have with the "Hometown Democracy" amendment coming up to make rezoning and land use changes next to impossible.  On the other hand, I understand the frustration and disappointment over zoning borne of a dramatic failure by public officials to deliver on the promises of existing zoning plans relied on by most property owners.

[billy]

How do you feel about a revised zoning provision to allow residential or live/work units in current Light Industrial structures that are at least fifty years old? 

[stjr]

How do you feel about a revised zoning provision to allow residential or live/work units in current Light Industrial structures that are at least fifty years old? 

Billy, if you are asking me, I couldn't answer specific to your situation.  Why?  One needs to have all the facts on the entire "area", whatever definition is used to define that.  I go back to my general comments, that piecemeal changes should have to meet a higher bar to be accepted or be part of a new, well thought out master plan for the subject "area". 

If the change you are proposing is in an industrial area where the existing businesses are going to be concerned about being run off by new and previously unplanned residential intrusion leading to complaints about their business activities, that is deserving of consideration since they built/bought their business based on certain expected zoning classes.  It's the reverse of residents complaining about commercial intrusion into a residential area.

The best results should come from a well designed and thoughtful master plan that has been put through a full vetting process.  If it's time to make a wholesale change to the zoning pattern in a neighborhood, it should be through this greater process.  I believe the remaking of an area "on the fly" through piecemeal zoning is unlikely to achieve the best results, whatever the requested changes may be.

By the way, if by "light industrial", you mean warehouses, I can tell you that there are plenty of warehouse facilities, particularly ambient storage, that are good for far longer than 50 years.  If such facilities dominate an area, I would think it might only be worthwhile to rezone if all the businesses in that area consent to that being the higher and better use of their buildings and they agree that the neighborhood is ripe for total redevelopment.  Additionally, City planners should be convinced that such a change in neighborhood use fits in with the broader plans for the City and is supported by the existence of necessary infrastructure appropriate for the changed use.

[strider]

1. Either the property appraiser's site is lying about their age or the quote by Springfield Girl (the 1925 zoning thing) is inaccurate.

It has been my experience that if you go to the library and research the buildings, you will find that the majority of the time, the buildings and houses are older than what is on the property appraisers data base or even the records in the Historic Department, though the later seem to be more accurate.

If memory serves me correctly, there were zoning changes made, but it had to do with more intensive uses.  By that 1925 date, many of the more well to do had moved to the suburb of Riverside and the remaining middle class had less say in what the city did or didn’t do.

2. Springfield was never a "single-family" neighborhood. Without cars at the time of early development, did single family neighborhoods with no commercial uses even exist back then in Jacksonville?

Mr. Smith got up in the morning, had his housekeeper make him coffee and then walked to the factory four blocks over.  On the way he perhaps stopped into the café for a quick breakfast with friends and then onto work as a manager.  On the way home, he stopped off and bought flowers for his wife then walked home to the waiting dinner.  After dinner, he walked the family to the corner drug store and got them ice cream sundaes for desert.

Today Mr. Smith would have to drive as everything would be across town.  And he would be late for dinner due to traffic.  Oh, and no house keeper and the wife was late getting home from work and picking up the kids too so Pizza for dinner.  Yep, we have progressed.

I think the answer is no, every urban core in pretty much every urban area was the same.  Commercial infill made it a community.  In some cases, like larger cities, the infill gave it the special flare that reflected the majority of the residents heritage, like Chinatowns and the various little Italy’s. While this is just my opinion, I think without the commercial infill, those areas would not have been of any lasting note, the commercial infill promoted the heritage themes.

3. Under the current zoning overlay, none of these significant historic contributing buildings (pictured above) can be built without rezoning. So what's in place/allowed will not even produce a historically accurate urban community, which helps hurt commercial revitalization in the area (less building and population density = smaller market for walkable commercial options).

I agree, but the purpose should not be to recreate a historically accurate urban community but one that blends the best of both. Cars and commuting are a part of our lives and must be included in the mix.  However, it would seem the same basic building blocks need to be used.

4. It seems like the zoning overlay was either crafted by zoning novices or written in an attempt to turn one of Jacksonville's densest districts into something that it never was.

If I was accurate at all in my earlier post, the current zoning tries to make it a suburb rather than a true urban core.  Perhaps that was born out of fear…of crime, of people they don’t understand, being out of their comfort level, etc. … as much as anything.

I know that the city is currently looking at updating the zoning code to make it more user friendly and mass transit supportive. A second look at the zoning overlay should be one of the top priorities on that list. A more form-based code that allows more historically accurate building design and mixes of uses should be considered. Especially, if the community wants to benefit and set itself up for better mass transit options in the future.

I agree and we all should work towards zoning that promotes a new type of walk-able community.  Higher density living, an overlay that deals more and in better ways with the structures, including better guidelines for new construction and insures all residents are allowed for.

[thelakelander]

How do you feel about a revised zoning provision to allow residential or live/work units in current Light Industrial structures that are at least fifty years old? 

I'm for it.  Most of the old industrial facilities are physically obsolete for the uses they were intended to house.

[billy]

I think there is a safeguard provided by this type of provision. Unlike a rezoning to a residential or mixed use category, it would protect the current permitted uses in an uncertain market.
An owner would not have to worry if an existing use were grandfathered.

How do you feel about a revised zoning provision to allow residential or live/work units in current Light Industrial structures that are at least fifty years old? 

[billy]

I also feel this would be a benefit to numerous buildings in the Springfield Warehouse District/ New Springfield, Fairfield, East Jacksonville, as well as the West Riverside/ Murray Hill area.
There are also eligible buildings west of I-95.

Keep in mind that fifty years old means anything constructed to 1959.

[Dog Walker]

A lot of the industrial/warehouse buildings in the city core are obsolete because they cannot be accessed by the larger trucks we use now and the rail spurs on which they were built before big trucks came along have been abandoned.  North Riverside is full of buildings like this too.

These buildings are prime candidates for re-purposing.

[Springfield Girl]

Of course there were always some commercial uses, I never said anything different. Springfield had neighborhood shops but most people still used downtown as it was close. People walked and rode the streetcar. The gentleman who built and first lived in my home had two shops downtown and he walked to and from work everyday. His grandson still lives in PV and gave us a lot of info. The change in the 20's rezoned the whole neighborhood commercial and this is when the undesirable uses started showing up. Main St. was filled with beautiful homes that were torn down only to be replaced with car lots. The mansions on Klutho Park were torn down to build the Jewish center. There were duplexes and multi family homes built but not to the extent people now like to claim. The history is out there in written and picture form. I researched this neighborhood for years. My daughter did her IB dissertation on Historic Springfield and collected data on the neighborhood for two years. All you have to do is look at the many photos and postcards to see what Springfield was. There is a old picture of the Pearl that it took us a while to figure out the location as it was a narrow residential street at the time.