1325 Laura -- demolition hearing at HPC

[CS Foltz]

I had thought that all fast track demo's were on hold for further revue or did I miss something? Someone help me out here..............please!

[sheclown]

This is NOT 1325 Laura.  At least not at this moment.

[sheclown]

I had thought that all fast track demo's were on hold for further revue or did I miss something? Someone help me out here..............please!

me too.

[sheclown]

Commissioner Mansfield speaks out at the last HPC meeting:

[sheclown]

[sheclown]

..and then this from the historic planning staff?

[sheclown]

[iloveionia]

It's about time!!! The Historic Preservation Commission should have ALWAYS been speaking up for preservation!!!!! Jennifer made it clear that in 30 days they wanted 3 contractor estimates to secure the home. Joel's report jumps the gun, why would he do that? This weeks meeting should produce those estimates where by the commission could then make a recommendation. I still don't have an understanding why this property even came to the table. There is a verbal agreement between planning and code that while the mothball legislation is being written and going through it's process that no houses come forward. Clearly this has not been abided by.

While I empathize with the neighbors, there is an inbetween option (the one between "restore or demolish") and it is mothballing, and it is more than just boarding a home, it means making it safe and reasonable to look at. MCCD CAN do this, and they have in the past. There is obviously money to demolish, then there is money to secure.

Brenda did not speak up publically at HPC meeting. She told me in writing "I will be opposing the demolition." She may very well have submitted a SPAR stance in writing, but I feel strongly that SPAR, as the neighborhood organization for "preservation and revitalization," that Brenda should have spoken during the public comments at the HPC meeting last month.

Lastly, I think it is ridiculous that the owner states that if he is allowed to demolish this house that he will restore the other 2. That is BS. I am told he said the same when 1321 was demolished, that he would restore the other 3. Again, don't even know why the word DEMOLITION comes up in a NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD.

[buckethead]

Lastly, I think it is ridiculous that the owner states that if he is allowed to demolish this house that he will restore the other 2.

That doesn't seem like a wise way to endear one's self to a Historic Preservation Commission.

It almost sounds like blackmail. I'm sure the owner said it in a nicer way, but effectively it sounds like he is determined to have nothing to do with the house.

Reading the minutes of the meeting, it seems there was some fire damage to the structure, but it isn't clear to what extent.

I took the opportunity to have a gander at the property and it really is a huge task to bring that house back to life. There are some lovely timbers in the roof framing, which is not the norm in Florida, even in antique buildings.

My guess is the floor joists are similar. 3x8 heart pine timbers, IMO, make this structure worthy of saving.

I would consider using rigid insulation over the roof deck and leaving the rafters and ceiling joists exposed.

It would look awesome.

[iloveionia]

Thanks Bucket.
Read the text at the top of page 4 from Joel's report. The owner expresses his intent.

[strider]

Perhaps it is time for those of us who care about these houses to realize something.  Nothing has changed.  We thought we had started a change of policy, but it is becoming apparent that we were just told the policy was changing.

For years, we have been fed this rhetoric that the local leaders were for preservation.  We believed them. While an average of 1.5 historic houses were take each and every month.  A few of us outted the leadership for what was truly going on, their speaking of being for preservation  in public and supporting ,if not helping, demolition in private. 

Louise DeSpain single handedly did as much harm to this Historic District through her tenure at SPAR Council as any city official from any of the city departments.  Or even our council person.  She gave creditability to the notion that the people of Historic Springfield do not care about the historic houses, which is exactly what the City wants to hear. 

The current leadership within Springfield, meaning SPAR Council and it’s supporters, who are obviously still recognized by most city officials, including MCCE and the Dr. Gaffney,  as being the leadership of Historic Springfield, obviously agrees with the past ideals and so the demolitions continue and will continue.

The city will listen to whomever is speaking what they want to hear.  The city, meaning MCCE and others do not want to be bothered with the effort it takes to preserve this community so  if SPAR Council is the one speaking against preservation in those private meetings, that is who the city will  listen to.

The city is ultimately at fault here.  400 to 500 houses lost since 1985, the year we became a historic district.  I am ashamed of that fact.  The city should be.  I fear it is not.  The city is not into historic districts for the preservation of the houses but rather whatever funding they can get from having historic districts.  The only way to get the city to do the right thing here will be hitting the city  the only way it matters to the  city officials, the budget.

We need to do several things to be successful in our fight to save what houses are left.  We need to stop SPAR Council in it’s tracks.  No more demolitions for social reasons period, regardless of who owns what or who lives where.  We need to recognize that the only language the city will ultimately understand is the language of money.  We need to  hit them there, and do it now.  We should have done it over the Macris demolition, but we bought into the being nice thing and now we have a bigger problem. 

When we lose a small battle like the Macris house, it makes it ten times harder to win the next one.  The laws are on the books that state in part that the city is responsible for preserving the houses within the historic district.  They have avoided this edict as much as possible for years.  It may take the courts to  show them the way back.

[wsansewjs]

I am a 24 years old homeowner (a condo, in fact) in Southside area. I always wanted to buy a house in Springfield and restore to its former glory. Since the recession has hit, the value of my condo has plummeted about 65% of its original value.

For you as the amazing Springfield homeowners, do you think it is a feasible time to buy a house in Springfield and then restore using renovation loans, and/or investment funds to restore a house there? The way Springfield is going, it is going to be the next Avondale or Riverside in my opinion, therefore I want to be part of that.

-Josh

[sheclown]

Certainly.

Let's just hope there are homes left there for you to restore.

[Bativac]

Am I reading this right? The Historic Planning Staff recommends demolishing the building?

My wife and I are starting to feel like we dodged a bullet by buying in an older St Nicholas neighborhood instead of Springfield. Our 60 year old home isn't exactly "historic" but we don't have to worry about the guy next door tearing his house down.....

[wsansewjs]

Certainly.

Let's just hope there are homes left there for you to restore.

I hope so! If Audrey wins, I will have to come visit her office personally, and have a meeting with her or one of her staff in expressing this issue, or there might be a better person who can represent all of us who are Springfield-supporter.

-Josh