Bostwick Building To Be Demolished?

[downtownjag]

Wonder what the cost of mothballing vs demolition would be in this case?

   The walls of the building are  thick mason walls.   What is failing is the roof and the insides. so remove the failed parts of it .  Looks like it is fairly well boarded otherwise. Unless I am missing something this is a similar case to another building with no roof at all , just the outside walls. Does this condition render the building  about to collapse and fall all over the streets or is this another case of demo by neglect for the sake of making the downtown area a bit more toothless, with the tab absorbed by us, just because someone deems it is time for it to go.

I'm with Ken on his post.  This needs to come to a halt.  It is absurd, and once these places are destroyed, the chances that anything appreciable is put in their place is slim to none.

A contracting group looked at restoring last year for their uses and found that there are foundation problems as well.  It's a massive money pit.  Too bad, because I love the building, but absent some city incentives I don't think it makes sense for anyone. 

[blizz01]

How sickening.

[mtraininjax]

Stephen, the resurrection will be a Public-Private effort.

[bornnative]

A contracting group looked at restoring last year for their uses and found that there are foundation problems as well.  It's a massive money pit.  Too bad, because I love the building, but absent some city incentives I don't think it makes sense for anyone.
[/quote]


Which contracting group eyed it?

[Timkin]

How sickening.

It is scary to see that much potential vacant space.  Parking Garages and empty lots.  How can we justify all of these parking garages in a nearly vacant downtown space?

[comncense]

...just depressing. smh  Beautiful building and such an ideal location being that it's the first thing you see once you get off of the Main Street Bridge. I guess we'll have to get used to seeing a grass and concrete filled parking lot there now...

[Kaiser Soze]

I think the Botswick building is one to be saved as long as it does not have structural issues that may result in a collapse.  If its a danger, it has to come down.

[Timkin]

I think the Botswick building is one to be saved as long as it does not have structural issues that may result in a collapse.  If its a danger, it has to come down.

agree. I hope it is not that far gone.  The walls do not appear to be buckling .

[copperfiend]

It will be sad if it has to be torn down.

[strider]

To begin with, everyone has to recognize that Municipal Code Enforcement has no expertise when it comes to determining if a building is structurally sound or not.  They only know if it meets some criteria that they use to determine whether it is safe or not.  Their idea of safe, by the way, means basically it needs to be able to get a certificate of occupancy.  And even then, whether they will close their case or not is anyone's guess.  In other words, it is easy for a structure to be condemned but often difficult to get it re certified by MCCD for use.

The rolling fines are indeed the kiss of death.  Once they start, they attach to any and all properties owned by the owner of the building being fined.  Meaning that if that building happens to be in a person's name, the person's private home also gets the fines.  At this point in time, I think we can safely say that the purpose of the rolling fines is not to get the owner's attention.  Let's face it, we can be sure that the owners know they own the building at this stage, so then it is to get it to the point where MCCD can get the building torn down.  It is the true purpose of rolling fines.

Meanwhile if this building is condemned, then no one, not even MCCD has permission to enter the building.  MCCD can give the owner and his agents permission, but sometimes withhold that permission.

It is sad that this building, which I suspect was once very cool inside has suffered this much damage.  One can see the issues starting from just driving by.  That said, it can be saved without the drama many believe.  The codes allow for historic buildings (landmarks) to be done in ways that are just as good in the end as bringing the building up to full current code but often less expensive.

[WmNussbaum]

One of the really cool things I've always liked about code enforcement in Jacksonville is that the special master who determines who is right, owner or city, is a lawyer with the General Counsel's office. Now I ask you, what could be more fair than that? The code enforcement "board" was replaced years ago with the code enforcement "assistant general counsel who wants to keep his job."

As for the Bostwick Building and the Annie Lytle (sp?) schoolhouse, the facts must be faced. As much as we would like them to be restored to their former glory, it ain't going to happen. Both are too far gone and would require too much money to restore in just about any economy - and especially the one we're in right now. The school is an especially difficult (impossible?) situation what with I-95 passing within a few feet of it. 

[Timkin]

One of the really cool things I've always liked about code enforcement in Jacksonville is that the special master who determines who is right, owner or city, is a lawyer with the General Counsel's office. Now I ask you, what could be more fair than that? The code enforcement "board" was replaced years ago with the code enforcement "assistant general counsel who wants to keep his job."

As for the Bostwick Building and the Annie Lytle (sp?) schoolhouse, the facts must be faced. As much as we would like them to be restored to their former glory, it ain't going to happen. Both are too far gone and would require too much money to restore in just about any economy - and especially the one we're in right now. The school is an especially difficult (impossible?) situation what with I-95 passing within a few feet of it. 

No argument that you may well be correct .   I suppose the same holds true for all of the landmarks sitting empty.  So why don't we just make more empty lots .  That is certain to make Jacksonville even more attractive. 

Conversely in both of these cases, either building, even if intact would be required to meet modern code. so their present condition would not prevent them from being saved.  The economy might.

If it was my call ( and it is clearly not ) I would spend the money to secure these structures and mothball them ( that is , provided that they are not about to collapse and fall into the street ,or cause harm to someone walking by) .

Especially with the method of construction of Annie Lytle ( not to hijack the thread, just that I , respectively disagree)  The building is not in danger of falling in on itself or causing harm to someone , unless of course that someone is trespassing in said building , knowing full well they should not be and do it anyway.

If the economy is the issue , then NONE OF OUR LANDMARKS have a snowball's chance in hell of being saved.  Not PS 4 , Not the Bostwick , or the Trio, or Springfield homes , or any of these places.  So lets spend untold millions to just raze them , replace them with blighted empty lots , and call it a day.  At least the demolition companies  will make money. 

Only in Jacksonville Florida, and maybe Detroit. 

[vicupstate]

Amen Timken.  The ONLY reason this demolition by neglect continues to happen is because the local officials allow it and encourage it. In cities that actually care about their history, demolition permits are more difficult than an act of Congress. 

Buildings that lean more than the Tower of Pisa can't get a demolition permit in Charleston, when the owner wants one. But let the paint chip on a house in Springfield and the fines pile up and the bulldozers crank up, even if the owner pleads for the chance to save it.

The fines on this place should have been levied when there was STILL a good chance to save it.  Then the owner would have TAKEN the 2007 offer Lakelander spoke of.           

[bornnative]

One of the really cool things I've always liked about code enforcement in Jacksonville is that the special master who determines who is right, owner or city, is a lawyer with the General Counsel's office. Now I ask you, what could be more fair than that? The code enforcement "board" was replaced years ago with the code enforcement "assistant general counsel who wants to keep his job."

As for the Bostwick Building and the Annie Lytle (sp?) schoolhouse, the facts must be faced. As much as we would like them to be restored to their former glory, it ain't going to happen. Both are too far gone and would require too much money to restore in just about any economy - and especially the one we're in right now. The school is an especially difficult (impossible?) situation what with I-95 passing within a few feet of it.

I've seen this sentiment in lots of other replies, both in this thread and others.  Can anyone point me to, or demonstrate from their own experience, some actual estimated costs that show that these projects are not economically viable?  I wouldn't feign expertise in historic rehabilitation or even urban new construction, but it seems like a lot of people jump to the "it's too bad this isn't economically viable to save" conclusion.  On houses in Springfield, perhaps I can understand, since the costs to mothball/rehab/demolish are pretty well documented and probably fall within a relatively narrow range regardless of actual square footage, but when talking about large, unique structures such as Bostwick or Lytle, surely someone must be able to give some guidance on the cost structures.  In the end, the "not viable" conclusion may be correct, but I'd love to see more than conjecture and assumption on the point.

[Lunican]

It can be saved, you just have to want to.