Saying good bye to old courthouse

[JFman00]

Isn't that what Metro Park, Friendship Fountain and the river walks are? Let's maximize their potential before we create more vacant land.

I tried to find pictures of Metro Park, but only found aerial shots and pictures from concerts. Here's what actual urban parks near waterfronts look like:




Guess what those San Fransisco parks are? Vacant land.

Buckingham Fountain in Chicago is but one part of the 319 acre Grant Park. Friendship Fountain *is* essentially the 11 acre park.

Both those parks are indistinguishable suburban parks. One way to get in, parking lot bigger than the park, pedestrian hostile (1.4 mile walk along empty private lots, parking lots and along an elevated expressway from the Landing to Metro Park).

Guess what city doesn't make this list: America's Coolest River Walks?

It should be shameful that the nicest park on the water Jacksonville has is the pathetically small Memorial Park.

EDIT: Looking at it more, unless something magnificent happens with the Shipyards site, it's probably too late for Jacksonville to have any sort of meaningful open public space on the water (one actually integrated into the urban fabric). I apologize for the unreasonably high expectations.

[ChriswUfGator]

Who the hell is going to swim in THAT river?

[Ocklawaha]

I'm not advocating more empty space, I'm advocating a riverfront chain of parks.  East Bay is dying, and as a resident of East Bay I think that a park would do more to help our neighborhood (and all of downtown) than more empty, obsolete buildings.

Me thinkith that you have tipped your hand.

[Pinky]

I'm not advocating more empty space, I'm advocating a riverfront chain of parks.  East Bay is dying, and as a resident of East Bay I think that a park would do more to help our neighborhood (and all of downtown) than more empty, obsolete buildings.

Me thinkith that you have tipped your hand.

They're obsolete.  That's why we spent 150 bazillion dollars building new ones.  And as far as waiting for someone to come in and throw away huge sums of money to try to re-purpose them, it just isn't happening.  1/3 of the annex has NO WINDOWS.  Do you want to live there?  The courthouse doesn't even function as a courthouse, much less anything else.  Both buildings are literally falling apart. 

But I'm glad you've brought this up, so that I may rant for a few minutes..  There is a real tendancy among a number of posters here to ignore simple economic reality, and propose "solutions" that simply do not fly in the real world.  Say we had a herd of swine nobody wanted.  Economic reality says they're bacon.  But without a doubt, *some* folks here would go on endlessly that all "someone" needed to do is retrofit them with wings and they'd make for an excellent package delivery service.  There would be endless pontificating about how clever and trainable pigs are, how their crap falling from the sky would be excellent fertilizer, and undoubtedly, some chucklehead would point out that if that became a problem, we could just build a trolley/streetcar/light rail that the pigs could ride instead.  Newsflash kids- Daddy Warbucks ain't coming to build SwinEx any sooner than "somebody" is gonna re-use the old courthouse.  (Nor, sadly, The Bostwick, or any of the other hundreds of crumbling buildings that litter our downtown.  It just doesn't make economic sense to do so.

[Tacachale]

You're right, let's tear down all the old buildings downtown that will never be adapted, like, I don't know, 11E, the St. James Building, the former Klutho library, the Carling, and Old St. Andrew's Church.

[mtraininjax]

We will not do anything until there is a plan in place, again, city hurting for money, why not sell the land to developers, who can create a better use for the space? City has a hole in their budgets, called PENSIONS, and the last buildings the city has been in charge of, Courthouse, did not turn out so well.....

[simms3]

I'm not advocating more empty space, I'm advocating a riverfront chain of parks.  East Bay is dying, and as a resident of East Bay I think that a park would do more to help our neighborhood (and all of downtown) than more empty, obsolete buildings.

Me thinkith that you have tipped your hand.

They're obsolete.  That's why we spent 150 bazillion dollars building new ones.  And as far as waiting for someone to come in and throw away huge sums of money to try to re-purpose them, it just isn't happening.  1/3 of the annex has NO WINDOWS.  Do you want to live there?  The courthouse doesn't even function as a courthouse, much less anything else.  Both buildings are literally falling apart. 

But I'm glad you've brought this up, so that I may rant for a few minutes..  There is a real tendancy among a number of posters here to ignore simple economic reality, and propose "solutions" that simply do not fly in the real world.  Say we had a herd of swine nobody wanted.  Economic reality says they're bacon.  But without a doubt, *some* folks here would go on endlessly that all "someone" needed to do is retrofit them with wings and they'd make for an excellent package delivery service.  There would be endless pontificating about how clever and trainable pigs are, how their crap falling from the sky would be excellent fertilizer, and undoubtedly, some chucklehead would point out that if that became a problem, we could just build a trolley/streetcar/light rail that the pigs could ride instead.  Newsflash kids- Daddy Warbucks ain't coming to build SwinEx any sooner than "somebody" is gonna re-use the old courthouse.  (Nor, sadly, The Bostwick, or any of the other hundreds of crumbling buildings that litter our downtown.  It just doesn't make economic sense to do so.

LoL agreed.  The courthouse is

a) not historic or even remotely attractive
b) not adaptible
c) situated poorly on the site
d) in a prime location for a much higher and better use
e) in a city with no developers (private money) and no city money
f) probably has massive carrying costs

Blow that sucker down and clear the land...this is one smart instance of clearing land as opposed to a historic building that actually can be repurposed.

I remember liking Steve Lovett's plan for the site.

[Pinky]

Stephen-  Surely you have more to contribute to this topic than rhetorical questions, no?  And if you sincerely don't grasp the notion of "simple economic reality", I suggest you look it up; the decline of Downtown will make a whole lot more sense to you afterwards.

Furthermore, are you suggesting that 80,000 people have fled downtown because of a *shortage* of empty, derelict eyesore buildings??  You've got the cart in front of your horse here Amigo; Simple Economic Reality says that there are no shortage of empty derelict buildings (which subsequently fall into disrepair become blighted and eventually torn down) BECAUSE 80,000 PEOPLE HAVE FLED DOWNTOWN.  Capisce?

What Downtown needs are some compelling reasons for people to return.  Do you sincerely believe that a beautiful riverfront park in the middle of downtown wouldn't be more effective at attaining that goal than having more empty derelict buildings?  Really?? 

[Pinky]

You're right, let's tear down all the old buildings downtown that will never be adapted, like, I don't know, 11E, the St. James Building, the former Klutho library, the Carling, and Old St. Andrew's Church.

I live in the Churchwell lofts, and like it so much that I've bought several units in the building.  I don't dispute that there are exceptions to the rule, and that's why I haven't suggested that every single empty but still viable building in town be razed.  What I *have* suggested here is that Jacksonville has no shortage of buildings that because of their configuration, architectural significance, location and individual circumstance are much more appropriate candidates for re-use, and that given that reality and the need to do SOMETHING to attract people back to Downtown, that these two buildings could and should be removed to make way for a park.

[Pinky]

We will not do anything until there is a plan in place, again, city hurting for money, why not sell the land to developers, who can create a better use for the space? City has a hole in their budgets, called PENSIONS, and the last buildings the city has been in charge of, Courthouse, did not turn out so well.....

We found $25,000,000 to build an Equestrian Center a few years ago, to attract the .001% of Jacksonville residents who are Horse Owners to visit a remote corner of the Westside.  Is it so unreasonable to suggest that our esteemed mayor find 1/10th of that to provide a huge boost to downtown?  Maybe we could use some of the money we'd surely have to hand over to private developers to get them develop the site? 

[Timkin]

 I hope if these buildings ARE in fact taken out that instead of them ending up in a landfill , in their entirety  that the marble and usable parts of them are utilized elsewhere.

Landfills can only hold so many buildings.

Pinky.. just curious for clarification.. Are you saying that every derelict / empty building should go?  or mainly , are you speaking of the Courthouse / Annex?

[Pinky]

I hope if these buildings ARE in fact taken out that instead of them ending up in a landfill , in their entirety  that the marble and usable parts of them are utilized elsewhere.

Landfills can only hold so many buildings.

Pinky.. just curious for clarification.. Are you saying that every derelict / empty building should go?  or mainly , are you speaking of the Courthouse / Annex?

I am speaking only and specifically of the old Courthouse and Annex.  As I stated above, there are plenty of buildings which lend themselves to creative re-use, I LIVE IN ONE OF THEM, but the Courthouse and Annex would be better off becoming a park in hope of attracting people to the downtown area and thereby helping to create the economic climate which might support the aforementioned re-use of other structures. 

[Pinky]

Oh, and yes Timken, I totally agree with you regarding salvaging as much of the valuable materials out of the buildings, and suggested doing so as a way to mitigate the cost of tearing them down in my first post in this thread. 

[Timkin]

Oh, and yes Timken, I totally agree with you regarding salvaging as much of the valuable materials out of the buildings, and suggested doing so as a way to mitigate the cost of tearing them down in my first post in this thread. 

I some how missed that in reading the thread the first time.  My apologies.

[WmNussbaum]

Contract provisions are all negotiable, but a typical contract with a demolition company give the company the right to keep anything in the building being razed.

Use the site for a park? First, the city can't keep the ones it has in anything better than deplorable condition, so what would be different about the courthouse/annex site? And keep in mind that the parking lot is built on pilings and the river runs under it.  Second, what would attract folks to this park? Unless there is something there that people would want to spend money on to see/do/consume, it wouldn't be much of a magnet.

What ideas do we have for something in the way of see/do/consume? Like food trucks in the parking lot on weekends and the former courthouse converted into the city's biggest flea market - parking in a defined segment of the lot. Move RAM there and operate it 12 months a year,rain or shine. And here's my favorite: Entice a Dekalb County Market type of operation to come. (Google it and see if that wouldn't be a see/do/consume place all in one.)