Inside The Claude Nolan Cadillac Building

Started by Metro Jacksonville, November 24, 2010, 03:26:14 AM

Print
Go Down Pages 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 9
User actions

sheclown

#60
February 20, 2014, 01:12:00 PM
LUZ recommended denial of landmarking of Claude Nolan, it goes before Council for final vote next week. Owner wants to mothball and apparently supports landmarking

sheclown

#61
February 21, 2014, 07:39:45 AM
From April of last year. 

After seeing this demolition request, PSOS became active in requesting the landmark of this Klutho building.

The City of Jax has a Request for Proposal out for demolition of 18 buildings. Included in the 18 is Item 6 which is 937 Main Street N., the Claude Nolan Cadillac Building, built by Nolan in 1910, designed by Henry J. Klutho.

sheclown

#62
February 21, 2014, 07:40:31 AM
2.    2013-803   AN ORDINANCE REGARDING CHAPTER 307 (HISTORIC PRESERVATION), ORDINANCE CODE; DESIGNATING THE STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 937 NORTH MAIN STREET, OWNED BY THE 937 MAIN STREET LLC, REAL ESTATE NUMBER 074386-0000, IN COUNCIL DISTRICT 7, JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA, AS A LANDMARK STRUCTURE; DIRECTING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TO ENTER THE LANDMARK DESIGNATION ON THE ZONING ATLAS; DIRECTING THE CHIEF OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES TO NOTIFY EACH APPLICANT, THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE PROPERTY APPRAISER OF THE LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND TO CAUSE SAID DESIGNATION TO BE RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; 1/7/2014 - Read 2nd & Rerefer



REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LAND USE & ZONING: February 19, 2014



The Chair OPENED the Public Hearing and extended the Privilege of the Floor to anyone in the audience desiring to address the Committee.  The Chair CLOSED the Public Hearing.



Recommend to AMEND and APPROVE.  Motion FAILED.



AYES - Holt, Love, ( 2 )



NAYS - Bishop, Boyer, Lumb, Redman, Schellenberg, ( 5 )

icarus

#64
February 21, 2014, 08:10:18 AM
This wouldn't prevent an application for mothball status would it?

strider

#65
February 21, 2014, 08:25:53 AM Last Edit: February 21, 2014, 08:29:22 AM by strider
Mothballing at this time is only an available option if the structure is within a Historic District or is landmark, so if it doesn't get the landmark status it will most likely be torn down.  The good news is that it will be so expensive to tear down that if the city decides to do it, they will most likely have to use Federal funding to afford it in which case, the section 106 review kicks in and may save that building if the city council won't.

I heard it is the facade issue - meaning that the facade has been radically changed from the original Kultho design - that is being used as the excuse.  The art deco facade is historical itself as was brought up by the HPC as a reason it deserved landmarking even though it was modified. In addition, it appears that the facade may at least mostly still exist under the panels used to modify it.

It doesn't cost the city or the public anything to landmark this building.  The owners have expressed interest in having it landmarked and mothballed. (Just told they were there last night) So the question becomes, who personally profits by not having this building landmarked?

"My father says that almost the whole world is asleep. Everybody you know. Everybody you see. Everybody you talk to. He says that only a few people are awake and they live in a state of constant total amazement." Patrica, Joe VS the Volcano.

thelakelander

#66
February 21, 2014, 09:35:19 AM
If the owner is in favor of landmarking, it kind of makes you wonder why anyone else would be opposed enough to take the time to fight it.
"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life." - Muhammad Ali

02roadking

#68
February 21, 2014, 02:46:04 PM
Feb. 19th 2014 picture:         http://vintagejacksonville.net/
Springfield since 1998

sheclown

#71
February 21, 2014, 06:09:26 PM
But should one want to remove that facade and restore it to its original look, it would be easy enough.







Large marble slabs are loosely attached to the original brick facade.

Kay

#72
February 21, 2014, 08:37:58 PM
Was the owner there requesting landmark status?  If the owner is favor what rationale did those council members have for not granting landmark status?

sheclown

#73
February 22, 2014, 09:29:38 AM
Quote from: Kay on February 21, 2014, 08:37:58 PM
Was the owner there requesting landmark status?  If the owner is favor what rationale did those council members have for not granting landmark status?

The owner did not request the landmarking.  Preservation SOS worked with Joel when this came (unexpectedly) on the demo list last April.  The owner is "not opposed" to the landmarking and would like to mothball the structure "for the next 2 or 3 years while we find a use for it."

It is Bill Bishop who tells everyone that "there's nothing here".  And even Lori Boyer says she has received email from Springfield residents who support the landmark designation.

And in the end, they vote against it. 

http://www.coj.net/city-council/city-council-meetings-online/2014-council-video-archive.aspx
(February 19th LUZ archive)

counter starts at 5:00 minutes into the meeting.

sheclown

#74
February 22, 2014, 09:41:41 AM
On page 78 of this book:



Print
Go Up Pages 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 9
User actions