Inside The Claude Nolan Cadillac Building

[Cliffs_Daughter]

90.

Come on, I don't even LIVE in Jax anymore, and I am concerned with the constant need to tear down what doesn't suit their tastes or resemble a modern big-box model. 

[thelakelander]

Don't worry, you'll get past 100. I'm going to set your petition up as a front page article before I hit the sack tonight.

[Debbie Thompson]

Thanks, Lakelander!  We are up to 102!

[sheclown]

The first time it is at LUZ,

http://www.coj.net/city-council/city-council-meetings-online/2014-council-video-archive.aspx#LUZ

the link above is the first LUZ meeting minutes.  The Claude Nolan building discussion starts at 17:06.  The biggest concern is that the owner is not present. 

So the owner does show up at the Feb 19th meeting.

"from an architectural standpoint this thing has no social redeeming value"  Bishop says.

[sheclown]

I did make a mistake when I said all three buildings were attached.  After the meeting I drove by and the smallest building is not attached to the other two.  I wrote Lori Boyer and explained this.

[thelakelander]

"from an architectural standpoint this thing has no social redeeming value"  Bishop says.

CM Bishop is certainly entitled to his opinion.......just like every other person in town. With an architectural education myself, I'd argue that the prairie school red brick warehouse along Orange Street is unique to Jacksonville and has character worthy of preservation.  Also, whether one likes Art Deco or not, the altered style of the showroom building along Main has helped make South Beach an internationally known destination.

[edjax]

How about from a leadership standpoint Mr. Bishop has no redeeming value.  See how that works councilman.

[JaxUnicorn]

I just sent this to City Council.  It didn't format quite right on this forum, but you get the idea....

Kim <jaxunicorn@gmail.com>

Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 11:12 AM
To: Clay@coj.net, WBishop@coj.net, RClark@coj.net, Redman@coj.net, LBoyer@coj.net, MattS@coj.net, "Gaffney, Johnny" <Gaffney@coj.net>, EDLee@coj.net, WAJones@coj.net, "Brown, Reggie" <RBrown@coj.net>, Holt@coj.net, doylec@coj.net, Gulliford@coj.net, JimLove@coj.net, "Daniels, Kimberly" <KimDaniels@coj.net>, JRC@coj.net, Joost@coj.net, GAnderson@coj.net, "Lumb, Robin" <RLumb@coj.net>

To the Members of Jacksonville's City Council:

I applaud your February 11, 2014 City Council Meeting decision approving (13-5) Ordinance 2013-804 to landmark 1481 West 6th Street, a structure that met the minimum two (2) of seven (7) Landmark criteria.

I implore you to do the same for 2013-803.

• I support Ordinance 2013-803 100%.
• Ordinance 2013-803 seeks to designate 937 North Main Street (also referred to as the Claude Nolan building) as a Landmark. 
• Jacksonville Ordinance Code, Section 307.104 is very clear when it comes to landmark designation.  Section 307.104(j) lists the criteria to landmark.
  
  
  • There are seven (7) criteria to be used when determining Landmark Status.
  
  


• If an owner objects to the landmark designation, four (4) of the seven (7) criteria must be met.
• If the owner does not object to the landmark designation, only two (2) of the seven (7) criteria must be met
• The owner of 937 North Main Street AGREES with the landmark designation.
• 937 North Main Street meets four (4) of the listed seven (7) criteria (more than required).


• Per the report prepared by Jacksonville's  Planning and Development Department (attached)
• Per the Jacksonville Historic Preservation Commission Public Hearing
• Section 307.104(l) dictates how City Council shall address the application.


• "The City Council shall consider the same criteria set forth in subsection (j) of this Section."
• Unless there is evidence that disproves the information provided in the Report of the Planning and Development Department Application for Designation as a City of Jacksonville Landmark (attached) and the knowledge and recommendation of Jacksonville's Historic Preservation Commission, the only legal decision is to APPROVE the application.

Thank you for your time.

Kim Pryor

[sheclown]

So, then, does the burden fall on the city council to prove that it DOESN'T meet the criteria that Joel and his staff say it does?  That the JHPC says it does?

[sheclown]

thelakelander
November 20, 2009, 06:53:33 AM

Looking at the Confederate Park rendering, it looks like the front half of Klutho's Claude Nolan building (Main & Orange) has been chopped off to make room for a right turn lane and island on Orange.  The small Klutho warehouse behind it is also gone.  If those two go, they should probably go ahead and tear down the middle section as well.  Also, is the city assuming that they will take over the Park View Inn site? 

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2009-nov-hogans-creek-park-master-plan

[Debbie Thompson]

Interesting timeline.  From Stephen in Nov 2009.  "He was not a part of this discussion, nor was he asked if he was interested in donating building, land or even his well wishes to the idea of snatching his land for this use."

At some point MCCD "magically" declares the building to be "unsafe" due to "cracks" (see Steve Patterson comment to his jacksonville.com article about the building) although it's clearly standing tall and strong.  (when was that?) 

In April 2013, put out for demo bid.  Because it's been declared "unsafe" COJ does not have to compensate the owner through Eminent Domain.  They can just take the building.  Preservationists stand up and fight for the building.

February 2014, although supported by the Historic Preservation department, the land owner, and hundreds of local residents, LUZ has recommended denial of the request to landmark this historic building. 

It's important to note it is NOT necessary to take this building down to mitigate the damage from the gasification plant. 

Parkview Inn already grabbed and demolished.  Could have been apartments.  Now this historic building clearly has a target on it.

Yeah, just a theory, but it is a very interesting timeline.   Does someone benefit from this? 

[JaxUnicorn]

In April 2013, put out for demo bid.  Because it's been declared "unsafe" COJ does not have to compensate the owner through Eminent Domain.  They can just take the building.  Preservationists stand up and fight for the building.

True that.  However, demolishing the structure does not mean the City then owns the property via some Eminent Domain practice....unless the owner doesn't pay the lien and the City finally decides to foreclose on the lien.  They've not done that yet that I'm aware of, so why demolish at all?

It's important to note it is NOT necessary to take this building down to mitigate the damage from the gasification plant. 

We in Springfield's SW quadrant know this all too well.  We are in an ASH SITE and the City elected to mitigate that by replacing the exposed soil around the structures on the property.  The soil underneath our homes (crawlspace) and hardscapes (i.e. brick patios), and the soil around trees and plants the owner did not want to remove is still contaminated.  The same could be done for the Claude Nolan property.

[Debbie Thompson]

True, but with the building gone, and a demo lien on it, the land is not worth what it would be with an historic building on it.  :-)

[icarus]

True that.  However, demolishing the structure does not mean the City then owns the property via some Eminent Domain practice....unless the owner doesn't pay the lien and the City finally decides to foreclose on the lien.  They've not done that yet that I'm aware of, so why demolish at all?

There are already almost $80k in tax liens on the property and the property can be called up for auction at any time by any number of tax certificate holders.

[Debbie Thompson]

Getting off the subject...still needs saving.   :-)