Bostwick Building To Be Demolished?

[mtraininjax]

The LAST thing (besides tearing it down) we need to do with this building is make it another piece of civic property. Police, fire, court, tax, federal, state, jail, SAO, public defender, city hall.....the majority of downtown is a civic center, filled with civic type businesses that revolve around downtown being a civic center (law offices...).

How shortsighted this vision is? We have a need to fix the Pension crisis, forget government if we cannot fix it, no one will be able to function in a government as more and more of our taxes go to fund pensions. Keane does NOT have to sell the building back to the city, he can sell it to the highest offer. He knows what he is doing, as with past sales.

Perhaps you have no idea that under Peyton, the city began sending departments outside of downtown, they moved code enforcement to the Art Museum area, and expanded offices for services to the suburbs. Then under Brown, rightly so, they have moved people back downtown, with the empty space we are all paying for in City Hall and other buildings. Yes, there are still some services in the suburbs, not everyone wants to go to the same building for tax collecting. Rightly so there are options for driver's licenses too. Brown is on track with bringing government back downtown and the technology has allowed people to do more online too. I applaud his decisions to centralize operations, once again, after Peyton de-centralized them.  No need for a half-empty city hall. We pay for the lights and AC even when no one is using the space!

[bornnative]

Lake.

This needs to be mothballed, that way the roof could be temporarily covered and the structure perhaps reinforced from the inside.

It does not qualify for mothballing at this point b/c it is not landmarked, but that is easily fixed if the owners are involved and onboard. 

Mothballing it abates the nuisance, at least temporarily, from the city's point of view.

The owners have no apparent interest in mothballing, or in pursuing any kind of landmark status, unless it is within the context of a purchase agreement - and to that end, it is my understanding that they have declined cash offers because they would prefer to pursue demolition and maintain ownership of the parcel versus sell the property as is for less than their target price.

[thelakelander]

That's unfortunate but that type of thinking is partially why the building remains in its decayed state today.  During the boom, the owners had an unrealistic target asking price that made it unfeasible for market rate redevelopment.

[ben says]

The LAST thing (besides tearing it down) we need to do with this building is make it another piece of civic property. Police, fire, court, tax, federal, state, jail, SAO, public defender, city hall.....the majority of downtown is a civic center, filled with civic type businesses that revolve around downtown being a civic center (law offices...).

How shortsighted this vision is? We have a need to fix the Pension crisis, forget government if we cannot fix it, no one will be able to function in a government as more and more of our taxes go to fund pensions. Keane does NOT have to sell the building back to the city, he can sell it to the highest offer. He knows what he is doing, as with past sales.

Perhaps you have no idea that under Peyton, the city began sending departments outside of downtown, they moved code enforcement to the Art Museum area, and expanded offices for services to the suburbs. Then under Brown, rightly so, they have moved people back downtown, with the empty space we are all paying for in City Hall and other buildings. Yes, there are still some services in the suburbs, not everyone wants to go to the same building for tax collecting. Rightly so there are options for driver's licenses too. Brown is on track with bringing government back downtown and the technology has allowed people to do more online too. I applaud his decisions to centralize operations, once again, after Peyton de-centralized them.  No need for a half-empty city hall. We pay for the lights and AC even when no one is using the space!

This isn't really a thread on the pension crisis. This is a thread on saving the Bostwick Building. IMO, handing it over to some city employees or ancillaries is as nearsighted as you can get... My idea, handing it (or realistically, selling it!) over to something/someone different is the key for longterm organic growth and stability.

[Pinky]

The LAST thing (besides tearing it down) we need to do with this building is make it another piece of civic property. Police, fire, court, tax, federal, state, jail, SAO, public defender, city hall.....the majority of downtown is a civic center, filled with civic type businesses that revolve around downtown being a civic center (law offices...).

How shortsighted this vision is? We have a need to fix the Pension crisis, forget government if we cannot fix it, no one will be able to function in a government as more and more of our taxes go to fund pensions. Keane does NOT have to sell the building back to the city, he can sell it to the highest offer. He knows what he is doing, as with past sales.

Perhaps you have no idea that under Peyton, the city began sending departments outside of downtown, they moved code enforcement to the Art Museum area, and expanded offices for services to the suburbs. Then under Brown, rightly so, they have moved people back downtown, with the empty space we are all paying for in City Hall and other buildings. Yes, there are still some services in the suburbs, not everyone wants to go to the same building for tax collecting. Rightly so there are options for driver's licenses too. Brown is on track with bringing government back downtown and the technology has allowed people to do more online too. I applaud his decisions to centralize operations, once again, after Peyton de-centralized them.  No need for a half-empty city hall. We pay for the lights and AC even when no one is using the space!

This isn't really a thread on the pension crisis. This is a thread on saving the Bostwick Building. IMO, handing it over to some city employees or ancillaries is as nearsighted as you can get... My idea, handing it (or realistically, selling it!) over to something/someone different is the key for longterm organic growth and stability.

...Which is exactly what the present owners intend to do; *sell it*.  It's not the place of the city government to "hand it over" to anybody, it's a privately owned piece of property.  I mean, if the city doesn't like something you're choosing to do with something you own, do you think they can (or should be able to) decide to just give it to someone else??  All the city can do is compel the owner to either maintain it in a safe (code compliant) state or tear it down.  In this case the owner apparently believes that the land would be more attractive to a potential buyer without a dilapidated structure on it, and has chosen to demolish it.  It's completely within his rights to do so; HE OWNS IT. 

I really don't understand how some of y'all view private property ownership rights..  If somebody wants to buy a piece of property and then for whatever reason allow it to fall into disrepair, it's their right to do so.  Is it stupid for them to do so?  Perhaps.  Is it an ugly blight upon our downtown?  Perhaps.  Is it anybody's business besides the owner of the property?  Nope.

(I mean, Jeez- if you don't wash your car regularly, should some governmental agency be able to give it to someone else with better car hygiene habits? )

ITS PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY. 

[vicupstate]

The LAST thing (besides tearing it down) we need to do with this building is make it another piece of civic property. Police, fire, court, tax, federal, state, jail, SAO, public defender, city hall.....the majority of downtown is a civic center, filled with civic type businesses that revolve around downtown being a civic center (law offices...).

How shortsighted this vision is? We have a need to fix the Pension crisis, forget government if we cannot fix it, no one will be able to function in a government as more and more of our taxes go to fund pensions. Keane does NOT have to sell the building back to the city, he can sell it to the highest offer. He knows what he is doing, as with past sales.

Perhaps you have no idea that under Peyton, the city began sending departments outside of downtown, they moved code enforcement to the Art Museum area, and expanded offices for services to the suburbs. Then under Brown, rightly so, they have moved people back downtown, with the empty space we are all paying for in City Hall and other buildings. Yes, there are still some services in the suburbs, not everyone wants to go to the same building for tax collecting. Rightly so there are options for driver's licenses too. Brown is on track with bringing government back downtown and the technology has allowed people to do more online too. I applaud his decisions to centralize operations, once again, after Peyton de-centralized them.  No need for a half-empty city hall. We pay for the lights and AC even when no one is using the space!

This isn't really a thread on the pension crisis. This is a thread on saving the Bostwick Building. IMO, handing it over to some city employees or ancillaries is as nearsighted as you can get... My idea, handing it (or realistically, selling it!) over to something/someone different is the key for longterm organic growth and stability.

...Which is exactly what the present owners intend to do; *sell it*.  It's not the place of the city government to "hand it over" to anybody, it's a privately owned piece of property.  I mean, if the city doesn't like something you're choosing to do with something you own, do you think they can (or should be able to) decide to just give it to someone else??  All the city can do is compel the owner to either maintain it in a safe (code compliant) state or tear it down.  In this case the owner apparently believes that the land would be more attractive to a potential buyer without a dilapidated structure on it, and has chosen to demolish it.  It's completely within his rights to do so; HE OWNS IT. 

I really don't understand how some of y'all view private property ownership rights..  If somebody wants to buy a piece of property and then for whatever reason allow it to fall into disrepair, it's their right to do so.  Is it stupid for them to do so?  Perhaps.  Is it an ugly blight upon our downtown?  Perhaps.  Is it anybody's business besides the owner of the property?  Nope.

(I mean, Jeez- if you don't wash your car regularly, should some governmental agency be able to give it to someone else with better car hygiene habits? )

ITS PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY. 

No one should be allowed to let a property deteriorate to the point that is is unsafe to even walk by it on the sidewalk. Neither is it alright to let a building deteriorate such that the surrounding property is devalued by it's poor condition.  Nor is it alright to let a lawn or vacant lot become overgrown to the point that it is a breeding ground for snakes, vermin, etc.

Private property rights are not unlimited, just like any other right that we enjoy.  The private property owner's rights ARE limited at the point at which OTHER's rights are impaired. 

BTW, the city could not 'take' the Bostwick or any other building without paying fair market value.

[JFman00]

The LAST thing (besides tearing it down) we need to do with this building is make it another piece of civic property. Police, fire, court, tax, federal, state, jail, SAO, public defender, city hall.....the majority of downtown is a civic center, filled with civic type businesses that revolve around downtown being a civic center (law offices...).

How shortsighted this vision is? We have a need to fix the Pension crisis, forget government if we cannot fix it, no one will be able to function in a government as more and more of our taxes go to fund pensions. Keane does NOT have to sell the building back to the city, he can sell it to the highest offer. He knows what he is doing, as with past sales.

Perhaps you have no idea that under Peyton, the city began sending departments outside of downtown, they moved code enforcement to the Art Museum area, and expanded offices for services to the suburbs. Then under Brown, rightly so, they have moved people back downtown, with the empty space we are all paying for in City Hall and other buildings. Yes, there are still some services in the suburbs, not everyone wants to go to the same building for tax collecting. Rightly so there are options for driver's licenses too. Brown is on track with bringing government back downtown and the technology has allowed people to do more online too. I applaud his decisions to centralize operations, once again, after Peyton de-centralized them.  No need for a half-empty city hall. We pay for the lights and AC even when no one is using the space!

This isn't really a thread on the pension crisis. This is a thread on saving the Bostwick Building. IMO, handing it over to some city employees or ancillaries is as nearsighted as you can get... My idea, handing it (or realistically, selling it!) over to something/someone different is the key for longterm organic growth and stability.

...Which is exactly what the present owners intend to do; *sell it*.  It's not the place of the city government to "hand it over" to anybody, it's a privately owned piece of property.  I mean, if the city doesn't like something you're choosing to do with something you own, do you think they can (or should be able to) decide to just give it to someone else??  All the city can do is compel the owner to either maintain it in a safe (code compliant) state or tear it down.  In this case the owner apparently believes that the land would be more attractive to a potential buyer without a dilapidated structure on it, and has chosen to demolish it.  It's completely within his rights to do so; HE OWNS IT. 

I really don't understand how some of y'all view private property ownership rights..  If somebody wants to buy a piece of property and then for whatever reason allow it to fall into disrepair, it's their right to do so.  Is it stupid for them to do so?  Perhaps.  Is it an ugly blight upon our downtown?  Perhaps.  Is it anybody's business besides the owner of the property?  Nope.

(I mean, Jeez- if you don't wash your car regularly, should some governmental agency be able to give it to someone else with better car hygiene habits? )

ITS PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY. 

Actually, it IS other people's business and CAN be taken. With the sweeping 2005 Kelo v. New London judgement, eminent domain can be used to take private property (single family homes) and be given to another private entity (Pfizer) on the basis of economic development (increased tax revenue, jobs, revitalization). SCOTUS found that "public purpose" constitutes "public use", in accordance with the 14th amendment.

Some of the more notable results have been in NYC, with eminent domain being used on (very arguably) blighted private properties for the construction of the Atlantic Yards project (high density mixed-use and a sports arena) in Brooklyn and the 6.8 million sf expansion of Columbia University in West Harlem.

Long story short, it would be very easy to envision a situation where Jax could utilize eminent domain to acquire the building. It would just require a compelling "public purpose" (redevelopment) rather than a "public use" (road or transit ROW).

[ben says]

^ Yup!

[fsujax]

I was thinking that as well. Not sure how the City could go about it, unless someone steps up with a development plan.

[sheclown]

Short of taking the property, the city could mothball it through Code Enforcement.  This would protect it while the other moves are worked out.

[Timkin]

^  That would be a First ever in the history of Jacksonville if that actually was pursued.  The same thing can be said for Annie Lytle.   It needed thousands (NOT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS) of work when it was purchased in 1980 from the School Board.  It never got any basic maintenance work done and today it needs millions of dollars worth of work. Why? because its owner and subsequent owner did zero to maintain it.  That is neglect any way you slice it.  A home-owner would be fined (cite the endless number of cases in Springfield)  but if you are a particular person in this City, YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH ANYTHING, Just as this owner is... MCCD steps in when it is obvious that it is crumbling , does their rolling fines routine, yada yada yada. same ol same ol same ol.   If you think the City actually cares about the Bostwick building enough to stop a demolition, sadly.. you're mistaken.  They have proven this countless times by leveling most of LaVilla, Brooklyn and Downtown.

I don't  know how to stop this nonsense . I would gladly contribute to a fund to save the Bostwick Building AND help out to Mothball it if that became an actual allowable option.  The owner does not want to do it , so it is not likely going to happen.

If Annie Lytle had not been designated a local landmark, I doubt anything would have stood in the way of it being demolished.  Im sure the then, owner regrets deeply having done that.

If MCCD was worth their salt , they would prevent this kind of thing.    A few thousand spent 20 years ago would have a Bostwick building in far better shape today.    Annie Lytle's Saving grace is her very durable construction of very thick brick walls, poured , reinforced concrete Floors and Roof, otherwise it would never have stood with no maintenance in the last 50 years. 

When we take out the Bostwick building, the replacement will be something far less interesting... most likely a vacant lot. 

I would be shocked to breathless , if the City actually did something right for once and refused to let the building get leveled.  Its not likely. (Citing Worman's Deli which no more needed to be demolished than my house does)


It is so disheartening, that the people left to make the choices for these places just do not care.

[ben says]

^ What we need is a legal-based, non profit organization that deals with exactly this subject. Staffed with qualified individuals who have the drive and desire to see places like Bostwick and Anne Little fixed and back to their former glory.

If I were: a) out of law school and b) had the funds to do something like this, I'd do it...

Hopefully these buildings can hold on just a bit longer

[Timkin]

^  Agree... Although I doubt rescue will come in time for this one.

[blizz01]

Bostwick Building owners seek City’s permission for demolition

Sad - I wist that someone would find a creative & cost-effective way to preserve the exterior walls/facade.

What has long been rumored is now official: an application for a permit to demolish the Bostwick Building has been filed with the City.
The application was filed by the building’s owners, said Amy Harrell, Downtown Vision Inc. director of district services, Wednesday at the organization’s monthly board of directors meeting.

The building is old enough to be designated historic, but not legally protected as such.

Harrell said there is no longer a roof on the structure and City fines have accrued to the point that the owners wish to have the building removed from the site along East Bay Street at the foot of the Main Street Bridge.

Former City urban planner and Riverside Avondale Preservation coordinator Jennifer Hewett-Apperson was hired by DVI to replace Harrell, who is resigning effective Aug. 29. She said the permit application will be reviewed by the City’s Historic Preservation Commission, who will have 60 days to make a recommendation on the permit.

If the commission defers the issue and makes no recommendation before the deadline, there will be an additional 90-day period during which an application for the building’s designation as a historic landmark may be filed by the owner or another party, including the City.

“If it is torn down, we send a message that it’s OK to tear down historic buildings Downtown,” said DVI board member Oliver Barakat.

He suggested that DVI advocate for the preservation of the building.

“This is an entrance to Downtown. If it comes down and there’s silence, the message is history is not important Downtown,” Barakat said.

Former DVI board member Jim Bailey, the publisher of Financial News & Daily Record, attended the meeting. He said that even though Henry Klutho â€" the architect who designed many of Jacksonville’s historic buildings constructed after the Great Fire of 1901 â€" at one time had an office on the second floor of the building, it has deteriorated to a point preservation or repair would be extremely expensive.

“With no designated funding source it won’t matter, at some point it will become a hazard and end up in the street like the Center Theater,” Bailey said, referring to the razed, historic Downtown theater whose roof collapsed in 2002.

DVI Executive Director Terry Lorince said the organization will review the situation and likely will issue a position statement in regard to the demolition permit application.

In other news, the board voted to elect John Ream, principal of Connect Integrated Marketing, as a small property owner/tenant. Ream purchased a two-story building along East Bay Street and renovated it into an apartment and office space, where his marketing firm is located.

The board also voted to renew the terms of members Debbie Buckland, Mike Jennings, Dan King, Vince McCormack and Robert Arleigh White.

The DVI board of directors’ public meeting is scheduled at noon the fourth Wednesday of each month in the 23rd-floor conference room at SunTrust Tower.


mmarbut@baileypub.com

@drmaxdowntown

356-2466

http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/downtowntoday.php?dt_date=2012-08-23

[Ocklawaha]

Historic Ybor City macaroni factory preserved

Seems to me since the roof is apparently gone, we could salvage this plan by retaining the walls, within those walls we could place a garden, interactive fountain and a historic marker. Bottom line, the old building is preserved and it's windows and doors once again shed light on a cool destination interior. Add a hot dog cart and bada-bing, bada-biff, we have a new downtown destination.

Interactive fountains, and water screens in Medellin, Colombia, (made in Georgia)