Author Topic: Suburban Density: Bartram Park  (Read 2168 times)

Metro Jacksonville

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2644
    • MetroJacksonville.com
Suburban Density: Bartram Park
« on: May 14, 2013, 03:04:54 AM »
Suburban Density: Bartram Park



It's the opposite of Riverside/Avondale and an urbanite's kryptonite. However, this development is designed to pack in 9,700 residential units and 2 million square feet of commercial/office space: Bartram Park

Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2013-may-suburban-density-bartram-park

spuwho

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5104
Re: Suburban Density: Bartram Park
« Reply #1 on: May 14, 2013, 08:08:42 AM »
an urbanite's kryptonite

Having lived in all quite happily, urban, suburban and ex-urban settings, each have pros and cons.

Please stop referring to one as a nemesis to the other.

One of those quirks of this site, where we defend transit as never having to pay its way because its a public service, but complain about cul-de-sac's as subsidized.

Can't have it both ways. For every "urbanite" complaining about subsidized cul-de-sacs is an "ex-urbanite" complaining about gas taxes going to transit.

The stories are good about city planning and how we approach them, I dig them, just drop the "us vs them" approach if possible.

Lunican

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4013
Re: Suburban Density: Bartram Park
« Reply #2 on: May 14, 2013, 08:34:31 AM »
The scientific research station at the South Pole is less hostile for people on foot.

thelakelander

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33283
    • Modern Cities
Re: Suburban Density: Bartram Park
« Reply #3 on: May 14, 2013, 08:50:38 AM »
Spuwho, I'm not sure I'm following your stance.  An "urbanite" is simply a city dweller. City dwellers tend to prefer a certain type of environment where walkability happens to be a major amenity or draw.  I think you may be putting a little more into my words in this story than they are meant to be.  I never said urban, suburban and ex-urban settings were a nemesis to one another.  I've always been and still remain an advocate of creating environments that are fiscally sustainable.  You can achieve this in a variety of settings.

Quote
One of those quirks of this site, where we defend transit as never having to pay its way because its a public service, but complain about cul-de-sac's as subsidized.

I can't defend individual sentiment mentioned by discussion board members because every one has their own opinion.  However, we rarely if ever, do what's described with our researched content featured on the front page.  Our arguments always revolve around fiscal sustainability.  So any argument about transit not "directly" paying its way is done in the form of it paying for itself and more through indirect sources (ex. economic development, lower mobility capital and O&M costs for taxpayers, etc.  Complaints about subsidizing bad development are also fiscal stimulated.  When you funnel thousands of people into single arterials, that tends to directly lead to hundreds of millions having to be funneled to widen that arterial.  In the grand scheme of things, you don't always end up in the black, employing such fiscal tactics.

Quote
Can't have it both ways. For every "urbanite" complaining about subsidized cul-de-sacs is an "ex-urbanite" complaining about gas taxes going to transit.

As you know, I'm a huge fan of the mobility plan and fee.  One of the major reasons is the inclusion of mobility zones and the fiscal structuring of mobility projects within those zones.  If allowed to work as originally designed, the ex-urbanite's funds go to improve mobility needs specifically designed for their immediate context.  The same goes for the urban community.  On a grand scale, that basically eliminates this particular argument.

Quote
The stories are good about city planning and how we approach them, I dig them, just drop the "us vs them" approach if possible.

For me, there is no us verse them.  The goal is to simply create a sustainable citywide environment. With that in mind, we can do a better job with our urban core, suburbs and rural areas.  As for this article, I'm simply highlighting the features of a suburban setting of dense housing design and how it differs from an urban one (from a point of view that favors fiscal sustainability for the taxpayer).  If this one bothers you, you'll probably hate tomorrow's follow-up story.....Dallas' State Thomas Neighborhood: An Urban Bartram Park ;).
"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.” - Muhammad Ali

fsquid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1680
Re: Suburban Density: Bartram Park
« Reply #4 on: May 23, 2013, 12:07:44 AM »
while it is nice to have the cut through when needed, I do not get the point of the area.

avonjax

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 847
Re: Suburban Density: Bartram Park
« Reply #5 on: September 15, 2013, 10:11:33 AM »
Ok. Sterile and bland.