Our History Disappearing Right Before Our Eyes

[thelakelander]

How do you feel about Charleston?  There, you can't tear anything down that's older the 50 years......period.

[iloveionia]

"Preservation is about deciding what's important, figuring out how to protect it, and passing along an appreciation for what was saved to the next generation."

From: http://www.nps.gov/history/preservation.htm

Without this "interference" from the government, state, and local councils we lose our history.  We have an obligation to speak for the houses (and structures) that can not literally speak for themselves.  We have to be advocates for our history for generations to come.

In Jax, two of the following criteria must for met for consideration:
· It has value as a significant reminder of the cultural, historical, architectural, or archaeological heritage of the city, state or nation;
· Its location is the site of a significant local, state or national event;
· It is identified with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the development of the city, state or nation;
· It is identified as the work of a master builder, designer, or architect whose individual work has influenced the development of the city, state or nation;
· Its value as a building is recognized for the quality of architecture, and it retains sufficient elements showing its architectural significance;
· It has distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style valuable for the study of a period, method of construction, or use of indigenous materials;
· Its suitability for preservation or restoration.

For more information refer to: http://www.coj.net/departments/planning-and-development/community-planning-division/default/historic-designation.aspx

As Sheclown asserts, if all homes in Jax had the ability to be mothballed to protect them from the elements and vandals, landmarking might not be necessary.  Jacksonville is reactive, rather than proactive and obliterates history without any consideration for historical or sustainable value. 

Last year the Florida Trust listed two of Jacksonville's structures on the most endangered list (a list it creates yearly for the state preservation conference):  The Laura Street Trio and the Firestation #5 top this list.  For more details refer to: http://www.floridatrust.org/endangered-sites/

We've (City of Jacksonville) a long way to go in regards to preservation.

Thank you Ennis and Metrojacksonville for this article and helping to bring awareness to our hidden historical homes and structures. 

Save the houses.

[sheclown]

Save the houses

[sheclown]

Besides. I see provisions made for asbestos testing and a "wet demolition" but nothing to indicate that lead is being tested and adequately dealt with in demolishing pre-1978 structures.

If you cannot scrape more than a couple square feet of pre-1978 house without squirting it with water, why isn't it being dealt with by the bid specs and the demo contractor? 

What pollutants are being sent spiraling into the neighbor with each demo.  And neighbor ... Be careful what you petition for.  From what I can tell, no one is taking precautions when they knock down the blight next door

[Josh]

Landmark or national historic status is nothing more than the seizing of private property because somehow the public believes it belongs to them. Never mind that the public (or government) has never put a dime into one of these buildings. Somehow they believe it belongs to them and they are going to take it. This adds considerable burden onto the current owner who is no longer allowed to do as he wishes to his property.

"You didn't build it!" is so 2012.

[MEGATRON]

Landmark or national historic status is nothing more than the seizing of private property because somehow the public believes it belongs to them. Never mind that the public (or government) has never put a dime into one of these buildings. Somehow they believe it belongs to them and they are going to take it. This adds considerable burden onto the current owner who is no longer allowed to do as he wishes to his property.

Really?  The government hasnt put a dime into them?  So when they didnt burn to the ground, when they werent vandalized by criminals, when the windows werent completely destroyed by burglars, when the building next door didnt burn down because of faulty construction techniques, when the water was run to them, when they were able to stay air conditioned because of a public electrical utility that ended up keeping it mildew free, when the trash was taken away and the rat population controlled, and no one was allowed to playfully explode dynamite or land helicopters, that wasnt provided by the government?

Aren't those services that are paid for via a variety of taxes, including property taxes. 

[John P]

The residents of San marco have a chnace to become a historic district but dont want to. That is their choice and let by gones be by gones. They get mcmansions. But why is the first house a big deal? It is old and and built by somebodys grandfather, ALL homes are I hate to tell you.

[Josh]

The residents of San marco have a chnace to become a historic district but dont want to. That is their choice and let by gones be by gones. They get mcmansions. But why is the first house a big deal? It is old and and built by somebodys grandfather, ALL homes are I hate to tell you.

Well for starters, whatever replaces that first house won't be nearly as unique or well-built. Most likely it will just become blight in the form of an overgrown, empty lot. Also, it's a waste of resources and a negative impact on the environment to tear it down.

[MEGATRON]

Landmark or national historic status is nothing more than the seizing of private property because somehow the public believes it belongs to them. Never mind that the public (or government) has never put a dime into one of these buildings. Somehow they believe it belongs to them and they are going to take it. This adds considerable burden onto the current owner who is no longer allowed to do as he wishes to his property.

Really?  The government hasnt put a dime into them?  So when they didnt burn to the ground, when they werent vandalized by criminals, when the windows werent completely destroyed by burglars, when the building next door didnt burn down because of faulty construction techniques, when the water was run to them, when they were able to stay air conditioned because of a public electrical utility that ended up keeping it mildew free, when the trash was taken away and the rat population controlled, and no one was allowed to playfully explode dynamite or land helicopters, that wasnt provided by the government?

Aren't those services that are paid for via a variety of taxes, including property taxes.

dude, do you 'get' this whole government thing?

I get that the government does not actually pay for anything itself.  We pay taxes such that the government can't fund certain services.

[HangingMoth]

I think the idea of historical designation is that certain buildings (commercial or residential) tell the story of a particular time, place or culture. The preservation of these buildings are in the interest of the "public," therefore, the public should have some say in how they are maintained. I think with all that people tend to destroy, intentionally or not, a few places should be preserved for future generations. If someone "owns" a historically designated property, they might want to reconsider their role. "Caretaker" might be a more appropriate designation, since that building was probably around well before you and hopefully be around (with the help of historical designation) long after your gone.

[Tacachale]

I have to believe that in most cases historic designations are sought by the landowners themselves for a variety of reasons. In the case of the first two buildings here, for instance, landmarking would prevent the government from bulldozing the buildings out from under them. Future buyers are aware of the designations when they purchase the property. When it's the wish of the property owner, it's hard to see it as an infringement of their rights.

[MEGATRON]

Landmark or national historic status is nothing more than the seizing of private property because somehow the public believes it belongs to them. Never mind that the public (or government) has never put a dime into one of these buildings. Somehow they believe it belongs to them and they are going to take it. This adds considerable burden onto the current owner who is no longer allowed to do as he wishes to his property.

Really?  The government hasnt put a dime into them?  So when they didnt burn to the ground, when they werent vandalized by criminals, when the windows werent completely destroyed by burglars, when the building next door didnt burn down because of faulty construction techniques, when the water was run to them, when they were able to stay air conditioned because of a public electrical utility that ended up keeping it mildew free, when the trash was taken away and the rat population controlled, and no one was allowed to playfully explode dynamite or land helicopters, that wasnt provided by the government?

Aren't those services that are paid for via a variety of taxes, including property taxes.

dude, do you 'get' this whole government thing?

I get that the government does not actually pay for anything itself.  We pay taxes such that the government can't fund certain services.

Ok Megatron you don't get to post on anymore of these 'politics' threads until we finish up 9th grade civics.  This does not include reading the cliff's notes of bad Ayn Rand derived blogviations.

May I suggest, something along the lines of John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Montesquieu, or more importantly, Adam Smith?

Read them thoroughly before you post again if you would like to be taken seriously.

Care to explain how I am wrong.  I must have missed your analysis.

[MEGATRON]

I have to believe that in most cases historic designations are sought by the landowners themselves for a variety of reasons.

That would be the minority.  If a landowner wants to preserve a historic building, that landowner can do so willingly and voluntarily without the aid of the government.  Unless there is some additional benefit to the landowner, why would it want such a designation?

[Tacachale]

^What is your evidence that it's a minority? For example the creation of the Riverside, Avondale and Springfield historic districts were initiatives of the people of those neighborhoods. Those alone probably make up a majority of historic designations in Jacksonville. There are plenty of benefits to the designation, such as not having the government knock down your building against your wishes.

[MEGATRON]

Its really an issue for grownups megatron.
You don't seem to understand what government means--at least not ours anyways.

So it really wouldnt be productive to discuss an issue of governance with you.  It would just hijack a thread that you have decided to start posting in for some reason.
[/quote]Weak. but I did not mean to hijack the thread.  Please carry on.