Bostwick Building To Be Demolished?

[Timkin]

 

Wow,  a McD's downtown. How lucky can one town get? Our twin Golden Arches would be close competition for the single arch in St. Louis.

We do have a BK, so it's not like we're nowhere. And we did have a Wendy's - at what is now the SE corner of the library. It folded long before the library was built - guess the location wasn't a good one there on Main Street.

Here's an idea: The City builds a fast food structure in Hemming Plaza; it totally controls the exterior appearance. Then lease it out for 5 or 10 year periods to whichever franchisee comes up with the most rent. It wouldn't be the Tavern on the Green (Central Park, N.Y. - now gone), but then we aren't - and hopefully don't aspire to be - NYC. Obviously it would not have drive-through - but maybe a take-out pedestrian window.

um... okay   

[Timkin]

The point seems lost on some of you...

Why be a city that looks like the typical McDonalds restaurant, massive parking lot, drive through (God forbid we should have to walk), slick plastic inside and outside, when we COULD be a city that stands out in the crowd, like those rare 5 star restaurants one occasionally finds? Authentic, old, new, mixed, urban, walkable, sustainable, auto-free zones, patrolled, lighted, stunning, inviting, participating, welcoming, all come to mind in a flash.

Like a crazy Russian friend of mine that tried in vain to sell me a painting of 'Stalin Crossing the Volga,' which is as bad as a painting of 'Hitler Crossing the Vistula,' there is something authentic about 'Washington Crossing the Delaware.' In the same manner the Lords of City Hall seem content to use a poor imitation of 'CITY.' Could it be that the fools that make these decisions haven't passed 'Finger Paint 101?'

There are any number of ways to get there but making Jacksonville look like Hiroshima at the end of WWII isn't one of them. 


Post WWII Japan


Post Consolidation Jacksonville

ANY QUESTIONS?

Not lost on me.  But certainly seems like many are hell-bent on making downtown into vacant lot and parking garage heaven.

[Ocklawaha]

Yeah, just sit for a moment, and flip back and forth from the two photos above...

JAPAN

JACKSONVILLE

JAPAN

JACKSONVILLE

It will actually make you sick.

[Timkin]

It does, Ock.   We are filling landfills with our historic places.

"WE" meaning the city just to clarify !!!

[simms3]

I have already touched upon the development front and why nobody will buy this thing.  The pricing is off, the feasibility to make it work is not there, the financing is almost certainly not there and there is no support from the city, which is really what is needed (and potentially another reason to demolish, so there's no cry for creative city financing for rehab in the future).

Simms, I like a lot of what you post, so I'm not sure why this particular chain of logic irritates me so.  While I don't dispute your comfort or perceived legitimacy to hold court on matters regarding Jacksonville, which you have previously discussed in this thread, it's disappointing to me that you seem to offer your analysis with such a sense of finality.

To your above points:
- pricing is negotiable, especially with a highly distressed seller
- feasibility is a matter of perception, market context, and investor will, not the result of a concrete procedural analysis
- while your financing conclusion is likely valid, you seem to discount the relatively small scope & scale of this project...it can easily be within the financial capability of a determined investor to privately fund (we're not talking a $100M renovation of the LST here, but rather more likely a $2-5M rehab)
- it seems counterproductive to automatically assume that COJ is monolithic in their position on this particular building.  I understand that the trend within our local gov't has not been friendly to historic preservation generally, but there are some significant differences between the Bostwick and houses in Springfield, so it seems unwarranted to automatically overlay the particulars of Springfield's ongoing challenges to this building.

In short, you may be right, but we're not going to get very far by judging every historic/preservation/rehab situation through the same lens or painting the details of the individual situations with the broad strokes of assumption.  This is what the City often does, this is one of the reasons how we got where we are, and we can't address that problem by having our conversations in the same context.

Who on this thread is saying something different than me?  And let's see if someone either now or in retrospect later can even confirm whether any legitimate offers were made on the building.  We're all kind of confirming the same general points here, and none of them bode well for the building and none shed good light on the city.

[GatorNation]

I'm not an architect, and I don't know all that much about historic buildings, but I've always liked this one . . . a lot.  The problem is that it's not salvageable.  I, along with 3 of my business partners, toured it sometime in 2009 (asking price, if I recall correctly, was around $1M). We ultimately decided that we would be willing to take title to the land if the owner would pay us.  The building is literally falling apart . . . just look at the first photo posted (on the western side of the building) or walk by it sometime and you'll see what I'm talking about.

The City should have stepped in years ago and "saved" this building by assessing fines/liens and auction off to highest bidder.  But it's not the City's fault that the building is in the condition that it's in today.  That responsibility lies solely with the property owner . . . just wish the City would have done something to stop the bleeding before it was too late

[strider]

I'm not an architect, and I don't know all that much about historic buildings, but I've always liked this one . . . a lot.  The problem is that it's not salvageable.  I, along with 3 of my business partners, toured it sometime in 2009 (asking price, if I recall correctly, was around $1M). We ultimately decided that we would be willing to take title to the land if the owner would pay us.  The building is literally falling apart . . . just look at the first photo posted (on the western side of the building) or walk by it sometime and you'll see what I'm talking about.

The City should have stepped in years ago and "saved" this building by assessing fines/liens and auction off to highest bidder.  But it's not the City's fault that the building is in the condition that it's in today.  That responsibility lies solely with the property owner . . . just wish the City would have done something to stop the bleeding before it was too late

And that is hindering at it's best.   And forgetting that the city within it's own codes is charged with protecting buildings like this. Any and every loss of a historic building, other than by fire or natural disaster, is typically demolition by reckless policy rather than just neglect.  If the owner does not or can not step up and do the right thing, then it should be on the city to do it.  I do agree that there are times that the city needs to step up and take the property and sell it to someone who will take care of it.  However, it is a difficult thing as some within the city could very easily take advantage of that concept, stomping all over private property rights for nothing but profit.  So, what this comes down to is that we have to all realize by helping the owner maintain the building we are not just helping the owner, but the entire community. By recognizing that most owners want to do the right thing, we can help the entire community.  By helping rather than hindering, we will learn which owners are just overwhelmed and which ones should lose their property.  And perhaps convince them to donate it or assist them in seling it at a reasonable cost.

All that said, we can not nor should we save every single old building.  If we did, we would never have new and cool buildings built today that will become the historic building others love to see someday.  Of course, here in Jacksonville it is rare that anything new and cool gets built after a demolition.  Meaning that perhaps our hindering all these years has lost us the right to pick and choose and so we need to fight for every building left.  Even this one.  Even if it eventually is nothing saved but two walls.

[thelakelander]

Jacksonville constantly advertises itself as the city with the largest park system in America.  And it has great nature preserves, but it has abysmal urban parks.  Also, Atlanta has rocked at preservation compared to Jax, and so have most other cities.  Granted, most cities had more to begin with, I'd say there are few if any cities that destroyed such a large percentage of their past as Jacksonville.  And to boot, the city hasn't replaced that lost building fabric with anything that has gotten the city anywhere.  In fact, most of what the city has demolished is currently surface parking and weed-filled lots.  This is simply not the case elsewhere, and it's unfortunate.

And also to boot, Jacksonville's whole being revolves around the waterfront, and it had a real history there, a real unique waterfront that for decades allowed the city to exist.  There are obvious reasons as to why the industry moved upshore, but the city never HAD to completely wipe out the very thing that gave it soul, that allowed it to exist, and that gave it its identity.  The Bostwick Building is a final standing reminder of this past.  It should not be allowed to go.

Simms3,

Speaking of Atlanta, what's the story on this house in Midtown?

[Timkin]

I'm not an architect, and I don't know all that much about historic buildings, but I've always liked this one . . . a lot.  The problem is that it's not salvageable.  I, along with 3 of my business partners, toured it sometime in 2009 (asking price, if I recall correctly, was around $1M). We ultimately decided that we would be willing to take title to the land if the owner would pay us.  The building is literally falling apart . . . just look at the first photo posted (on the western side of the building) or walk by it sometime and you'll see what I'm talking about.

The City should have stepped in years ago and "saved" this building by assessing fines/liens and auction off to highest bidder.  But it's not the City's fault that the building is in the condition that it's in today.  That responsibility lies solely with the property owner . . . just wish the City would have done something to stop the bleeding before it was too late

And that is hindering at it's best.   And forgetting that the city within it's own codes is charged with protecting buildings like this. Any and every loss of a historic building, other than by fire or natural disaster, is typically demolition by reckless policy rather than just neglect.  If the owner does not or can not step up and do the right thing, then it should be on the city to do it.  I do agree that there are times that the city needs to step up and take the property and sell it to someone who will take care of it.  However, it is a difficult thing as some within the city could very easily take advantage of that concept, stomping all over private property rights for nothing but profit.  So, what this comes down to is that we have to all realize by helping the owner maintain the building we are not just helping the owner, but the entire community. By recognizing that most owners want to do the right thing, we can help the entire community.  By helping rather than hindering, we will learn which owners are just overwhelmed and which ones should lose their property.  And perhaps convince them to donate it or assist them in seling it at a reasonable cost.

All that said, we can not nor should we save every single old building.  If we did, we would never have new and cool buildings built today that will become the historic building others love to see someday.  Of course, here in Jacksonville it is rare that anything new and cool gets built after a demolition.  Meaning that perhaps our hindering all these years has lost us the right to pick and choose and so we need to fight for every building left.  Even this one.  Even if it eventually is nothing saved but two walls.

First off we have not saved every old building or even 10 % of them so that statement holds absolutely NO merit.  Sadly, I do not expect for this trend to get better. 

Secondly the condition of the Bostwick Building is just as much the City's fault as it is the owner's that this building has been allowed to be neglected to the point that it may be on the verge of being beyond saving ,either by whole or in part.  This is another shining example of a building that could have been, at one time , inexpensively maintained, that is,  to put a roof on it, rather than being left to rack and ruin and now costing millions and exceeding market value of the property to save it.  This is just one of the many examples of eventual demolition by neglect.

A poster said that they wish we had to bear the expense of the up keep of a building such as this and keep it nice even if it sits vacant.  To that I say, If I took on that responsibility , then I would do my level best to do just that. At some point in time, the owner became negligent.  The City does nothing until its time to call in the wrecking ball.. A practice perfected in Jacksonville.

A roof, replaced 20 years ago for a fraction of the cost could have prevented the issue "WE"  meaning the City, "WE" meaning the taxpayers that fund the City, "We" the community  are faced with, and that is , losing yet another piece of our past.

You know, if we had even 1/3 of what we had downtown  50 years ago ,still standing today,  this might not be such a bitter pill to swallow.

    I guess if there is a  bright spot in this sad reality , it is that 100 years from now, anyone living today including myself, reading the material we post here, won't be around to care.  It is unfortunate that you can go to London, and Paris and various other Cities in the world, and see examples of buildings hundreds of years old, still in use, and still cared for.  Why? Very simple.. they CARE about their historic fabric.   We do the exact opposite happen here and it is nauseating.  It is , even tougher to MAKE PEOPLE CARE than it is to SAVE BUILDINGS.  Without the first, the second does not have a chance.  It is really that simple.

There is next to nothing , built in recent years in downtown Jacksonville, that will be historically significant when it get to the age this building now is.  By that time, the buildings we know as Historic will have been long gone, all of them, because of the age-old mentality that runs in this City. 

[simms3]

That's right near where I live.  I used to know more about it when I could keep my ear to the ground, and if I remember correctly some investor from NYC recently purchased it for about $1M.  It's known as "the castle", which is odd because there are several other houses around there that actually have castle-like features.  It's one of the last remaining "houses" in Peachtree Pointe, and it can't be torn down due to Landmark Status.  I think the owners have plans to renovate it into event space, but nothing has happened to it and it just sits there sandwiched.  It was once artist apts and a coffee shop back in the 60s/70s.  It's in bad shape, but nothing like the shape Bostwick is in.

Before the whole area around it turned into a vertical office park, the area was the Bohemian hub of the South and was the location of Atlanta's original art community and gay community.  It's no coincidence the High family house was nearby, before that, too, was torn down for the current museum.

[Timkin]

Its a sweet old house!!

[KenFSU]

The only two buildings that came down for anything really significant were the Heard Bank for the city's tallest and the Rhodes building for the new Main Library.

Pretty cool pic:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/35547288@N00/605029944/in/photostream/

[I-10east]

I'm NOT saying that this is the case with the Bostwick, but what historical building lovers gotta realize is that some buildings simply become obsolete, so much so that the negatives outweigh the positives even if the building isn't in ruins. The Heard Building was only a one star in the historical registry (compared to the Jax Terminal which is a four star). The Holiday Inn City Center/Robert Meyer (no historical value if I'm not mistaken) is an example of an obsolete building. Hell, even the Singer Building in NY (tallest legally demoed building) although it had great architecture, it was obsolete. So this imaginary world where every single historical building that's still standing tall doesn't exist. Am I advocating for constant destruction of every historic building? No. Has Jax destroyed some historical buildings that could have been put to use today? Yes.

[Tacachale]

^I think most people understand that. With the Bostwick, though, we have a perfectly good building that has been allowed to decay. Plus, in downtown Jacksonville we've lost so many of our buildings that people are protective over the ones that are left. It's not like we're exactly hurting for space down there. From up at the top of the AT&T building last night at Art Walk, no fewer than 5 surface lots plus a garage are visible just looking south.

[Timkin]

I'm NOT saying that this is the case with the Bostwick, but what historical building lovers gotta realize is that some buildings simply become obsolete, so much so that the negatives outweigh the positives even if the building isn't in ruins. The Heard Building was only a one star in the historical registry (compared to the Jax Terminal which is a four star). The Holiday Inn City Center/Robert Meyer (no historical value if I'm not mistaken) is an example of an obsolete building. Hell, even the Singer Building in NY (tallest legally demoed building) although it had great architecture, it was obsolete. So this imaginary world where every single historical building that's still standing tall doesn't exist. Am I advocating for constant destruction of every historic building? No. Has Jax destroyed some historical buildings that could have been put to use today? Yes.

I would completely agree with this EXCEPT  Jacksonville has maybe (at best) 15-20% of its historic structures remaining. of those , possibly 5-7% are in great shape, the remainder are either barely whole , or crumbling.   We have never taken strides to save our historic places, to compare even with other major cities, let alone other countries. 

Eventually everything has an end, I suppose.  Everything becomes 'obsolete' .  We live in a throw-away world where it is , over the long haul more expensive and shorter-lived. I guess it is thought that this way creates more jobs.  I seriously doubt that to be the case.