Bostwick Building To Be Demolished?

[Pinky]

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)

Umm - Two things:

One.  That's "preserved"?  It appears to be a derelict building, the roof of which has caved in, with some foliage growing inside.  Furthermore, it looks like the walls are crumbling at some places as well.  Am I misunderstanding something here?

Two.  What's this "we" business??  The Bostwick Building has a private owner.  There's no "we"; only "he", and "he" seems to want to tear his building down. 

[thelakelander]

A good example is the loft residence at 11th & Market in Springfield.  The roof had caved in but the walls were sound.  The exterior walls were kept, a new roof added and an interior constructed.








Paul Davis Restoration is essentially doing the same thing a block away at Liberty and 11th.

[sheclown]

exactly Lake.

[aubureck]

What was the outcome of the HPC meeting yesterday?

[Timkin]

If "HE" wants to expend the money to demo the building ( Or is that now on the taxpayer) then it should be taken by eminent domain.

I keep wanting to believe that the City will do the right thing.

But not holding my breath.

[Timkin]

Umm - Two things:

One.  That's "preserved"?  It appears to be a derelict building, the roof of which has caved in, with some foliage growing inside.  Furthermore, it looks like the walls are crumbling at some places as well.  Am I misunderstanding something here?

Two.  What's this "we" business??  The Bostwick Building has a private owner.  There's no "we"; only "he", and "he" seems to want to tear his building down. 

"WE"  the taxpayers fund the salaries of the City.  "WE" pay these bone heads to assess fines and liens on derelict buildings people like "HE" owns.   If  "HE" had maintained his building..  that is just the basics, like keeping a roof on his building , A.  HE would most likely be able to sell the building to someone else who WILL do something with it other than demolish it, and B. "HE" wouldn't be applying to have it now ,bulldozed. That is, removed , forever from the city.

  Just because someone owns a property does NOT give them the right to willfully neglect it to the point that it has to be demolished.

Again we sing the same old tune.  If Jacksonville had 10 % of the historic building stock it once had, then losing this one small building might not be so bad.  The fact is they have mindlessly razed so many buildings , many of them with no structural defect whatsoever and replaced them with a derelict lot,  a slab of the former building, and a bunch of weeds and garbage.    Now you can claim its his to do with as he pleases.  I just love to hear this.. its so TYPICAL .  But it is hindering to our very very few remaining pieces of history.   

" HE "  like many building owners , is negligent.  "He" has let his building sit and rot and now wants to have it removed.  We are supposed to have ordinances in place to prevent this from happening.  I ll be damned if it doesn't any way, and folks like you , think its A-okay because "its his building" .


Amazingly sad.   And even more sad, is  "WE" the voting , taxpaying public, allows this shit to continue, and pay these idiots to continue taking buildings out.    And people like you think its okay, because , after all, its not our building.

No , its not our building. But it is our heritage.  Maybe you do not care about it.  I very definitely do.

[bill]

Umm - Two things:

One.  That's "preserved"?  It appears to be a derelict building, the roof of which has caved in, with some foliage growing inside.  Furthermore, it looks like the walls are crumbling at some places as well.  Am I misunderstanding something here?

Two.  What's this "we" business??  The Bostwick Building has a private owner.  There's no "we"; only "he", and "he" seems to want to tear his building down. 

"WE"  the taxpayers fund the salaries of the City.  "WE" pay these bone heads to assess fines and liens on derelict buildings people like "HE" owns.   If  "HE" had maintained his building..  that is just the basics, like keeping a roof on his building , A.  HE would most likely be able to sell the building to someone else who WILL do something with it other than demolish it, and B. "HE" wouldn't be applying to have it now ,bulldozed. That is, removed , forever from the city.

  Just because someone owns a property does NOT give them the right to willfully neglect it to the point that it has to be demolished.

Again we sing the same old tune.  If Jacksonville had 10 % of the historic building stock it once had, then losing this one small building might not be so bad.  The fact is they have mindlessly razed so many buildings , many of them with no structural defect whatsoever and replaced them with a derelict lot,  a slab of the former building, and a bunch of weeds and garbage.    Now you can claim its his to do with as he pleases.  I just love to hear this.. its so TYPICAL .  But it is hindering to our very very few remaining pieces of history.   

" HE "  like many building owners , is negligent.  "He" has let his building sit and rot and now wants to have it removed.  We are supposed to have ordinances in place to prevent this from happening.  I ll be damned if it doesn't any way, and folks like you , think its A-okay because "its his building" .


Amazingly sad.   And even more sad, is  "WE" the voting , taxpaying public, allows this shit to continue, and pay these idiots to continue taking buildings out.    And people like you think its okay, because , after all, its not our building.

No , its not our building. But it is our heritage.  Maybe you do not care about it.  I very definitely do.

If you care so much then why not buy the building and fix it up? Did not think so, so shut up.

[thelakelander]

Several groups had looked into trying to buy the building and fix it up over the years.  Unfortunately, the family wants a price that makes fixing up (what they let fall a part over the years) financially unfeasible.  If it goes, the lot will sit empty and overgrown because of the same reason. Unrealistic expectations that have nothing to do with actual market value.

[riverside planner]

What was the outcome of the HPC meeting yesterday?

They deferred a decision to the September meeting to buy some time.  The owner's presentation about the history of this site and building with his family led at least one commissioner to comment that he had made the case for why the building should be saved.  The owner now claims to "only" be asking the assessed value for sale of the building.  An interesting factoid is that the first building permit issued after the Great Fire in 1901 was for the construction of this building.

[acme54321]

Someone should try to convince Shad Khan to buy this place.... it's pretty much a billboard for his team as it is!

[fsujax]

What is the assessed value of the building?

[Josh]

Several groups had looked into trying to buy the building and fix it up over the years.  Unfortunately, the family wants a price that makes fixing up (what they let fall a part over the years) financially unfeasible.  If it goes, the lot will sit empty and overgrown because of the same reason. Unrealistic expectations that have nothing to do with actual market value.

I know they were asking a lot before, but aren't they asking for only $200k for the property now? Obviously it will cost a fortune to repair, plus there are the looming daily fines, but still.

[thelakelander]

I'm not sure what they are asking for now.  It's been five years since a development group I was helping of was interesting in it.

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2007-oct-inside-the-bostwick-building



At that point, they wanted a ton of money for it and there was only so much you could do to generate enough return to make it a feasible redevelopment project, given the amount of work that had to go into it.

[Ocklawaha]

Umm - Two things:

One.  That's "preserved"?  It appears to be a derelict building, the roof of which has caved in, with some foliage growing inside.  Furthermore, it looks like the walls are crumbling at some places as well.  Am I misunderstanding something here?

The building in the image has indeed been preserved, I posted the photo thinking that a connection would be made between the state of a 'roofless' Bostwick Building. The one in the photo has seen a total restoration.

Two.  What's this "we" business??  The Bostwick Building has a private owner.  There's no "we"; only "he", and "he" seems to want to tear his building down.

The 'we' should be pretty easy to figure out IF this were made into a pocket-park with walls and fountains. 'WE' as in the city obtains the property and improves it without any more destruction.

Hope that helps.

[Ocklawaha]

I ll be damned if it doesn't any way, and folks like you , think its A-okay because "its his building" .


Amazingly sad.   And even more sad, is  "WE" the voting , taxpaying public, allows this shit to continue, and pay these idiots to continue taking buildings out.    And people like you think its okay, because , after all, its not our building.

No , its not our building. But it is our heritage.  Maybe you do not care about it.  I very definitely do.

If you care so much then why not buy the building and fix it up? Did not think so, so shut up.

Easy there boys and girls, this is obviously a subject that strikes some emotional cords, but there is no need to consume each other as we discuss mutually agreeable solutions.