Ten Historic Springfield Demolitions

[sheclown]

You are lost.

frequently -- it is a great way to have adventures --

[Debbie Thompson]

But back to Springfield demolitions.  They have to stop! 

Great that there are SRG homes available at pennies on the dollar.  Great that there are a few bargains on historic, bank owned homes.  Thankfully, we got a couple ourselves. We look at them as gifts from God.   But...

the demos...they have to stop!!!!

[iloveionia]

"Dancy Terrace was saved because we concentrated on its history and importance."

Dancy Terrace was saved because of passionate, self-sacrificing, dedicated preservationists.  Sharlene Dano, Pat LaMountain, Chris Farley, Rita Reagan, and I am sure a slew of others. The same is true of it's saving today, just different names of passionate preservationists. 

Springfield, a Nationally Recognized Historic neighborhood is 100% history and importance.  What's saving it?  People.  Passionate, hard-working people.  Regular folk. 'Cause if history were "saving it" then we'd have no problem, would we? 

I value and explore history and believe it is a TOOL for preservation, but it is PEOPLE and their actions that retain (or demolish) history.  Mothballing was enacted to help support preservation.  As PSOS is the responsible neighborhood group for making this happen, some are against it.  Kind of childish if you ask me. 

If MCCD can restrict owner access to their personal property, if MCCD can demolish someone's home, they sure as hell can use less funds and find the less restrictive means to maintain safety and respect history in our neighborhood. 

Talk is cheap and actions speak louder than words.  The south is a way different beast than the north (New England) or the west coast.  A lot of things I plain and simple don't get.  People are supposed to help other people.  The city is supposed to honor history and work together to make communities better. 

Just take those excavators and line 'em up on 1st Street and bulldoze the whole hood all the way up the MLK.  It is virtually what is happening anyway.  Slow death. 

The houses should be saved.  Loud voices, passionate pleas, educated arguments, and a resounding "not on my watch" will save the houses. 

I'm tired of being frustrated.  We need more change.  We will get more change.  Just wish for sooner than later.

[BigNugget]

A friend of mine told me "Never ever ever post on the forums - only the crazy people and the extremists post on the forums."  I know I am going to regret not taking the advice but here goes.  I feel like John P is a lone sane rational voice in a crown of maniacs and I completely agree with him.

First let assign blame where it belongs... the property owners who neglected their property to the point where it was condemned. The city this and evil zoning Kim that.  It's as if someone jumped off of a bridge and then you blamed gravity for their death.  If these properties were even somewhat maintained they wouldn't have been demolished. The city isn't the cause it's the effect.  The cause is irresponsibility.

Second we live in a moist tropical climate and a majority of these structures are made from wood.  Even the best maintained and painted wood in this climate can succumb to decay. Raw untreated wood left to the elements doesn't stand a chance and in relatively short time it's going to be beyond any economic repair. So if you have an old structure and you have to replace 70% of it to make it habitable again is it really still a historic house?  Or is it a mostly new house built to the same shape and dimensions as a historic house?

Third SRG houses. Guess what some people love the aesthetic of living in a historic neighborhood but don't want to deal with the hassle of living in an old house.  They are career people focused on their work without a lot of excess time and energy. They need the convenience of a modern low maintenance house. Guess what will gentrify a neighborhood faster than anything - high income professional people.  The SRG houses are a magnet for the right kind of people to help the neighborhood.

Some of these houses have been neglected to the point that there is no viable way to recover them. Getting rid of the worst of them to make way for authentic modern replacements which will draw in a desirable demographic will increase the value of the authentic historic structures and make them more valuable.

Finally I hate those little Dancey Terrace shitboxes at the end of E 10th st.  I hate driving up 10th st and looking at them. I wish they would either be bulldozed or renovated.  Either way I don't care. 

John P.  Your views are certainly shared by some living in Springfield, no doubt. 

There is also a strong vibe of preservation that asks the question WTF.  If you aren't a preservationist at heart, don't move to a historic district.  We all know that Mack hyped up Springfield as "the hippiest hood in town" and that is certainly true.  But it is hip because it is authentic.  Remove the old houses, build faux new ones, and you've lost your groove.

You are lost. You can enjoy history and old homes and the environement it creates and still accept that some need to go. Like I said we have had inpet city leadership. If it was different and the historic areas were supported like they deserve this would not be a problem. But it is not, they are not, and it is. There are probably not that many more homes that need to go and there are probably many that did not need to go. That is reality!

[sheclown]

Those shit boxes were there when you moved in.  What were you thinking?  That you would help save the neighborhood by gentrifying it? 

Displacing the poor, removing the history? 

It doesn't save the neighborhood when you turn it into suburbia.  It just loses its essence.

[m74reeves]

Report: Nation's Gentrified Neighborhoods Threatened By Aristocratization

WASHINGTONâ€"According to a report released Tuesday by the Brookings Institution, a Washington-based think tank, the recent influx of exceedingly affluent powder-wigged aristocrats into the nation's gentrified urban areas is pushing out young white professionals, some of whom have lived in these neighborhoods for as many as seven years.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-nations-gentrified-neighborhoods-threatened,2419/

[ChriswUfGator]

Some of these houses have been neglected to the point that there is no viable way to recover them. Getting rid of the worst of them to make way for authentic modern replacements which will draw in a desirable demographic will increase the value of the authentic historic structures and make them more valuable.

Finally I hate those little Dancey Terrace shitboxes at the end of E 10th st.  I hate driving up 10th st and looking at them. I wish they would either be bulldozed or renovated.  Either way I don't care. 

Simple solution: move somewhere else. It would be better for you, clearly, and everybody else. You don't belong in a historic district if your solution is to demolish what you don't personally like. Problem solved.

[sheclown]

Report: Nation's Gentrified Neighborhoods Threatened By Aristocratization

WASHINGTONâ€"According to a report released Tuesday by the Brookings Institution, a Washington-based think tank, the recent influx of exceedingly affluent powder-wigged aristocrats into the nation's gentrified urban areas is pushing out young white professionals, some of whom have lived in these neighborhoods for as many as seven years.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-nations-gentrified-neighborhoods-threatened,2419/

hilarious.

[sheclown]

those precious shit boxes.

[BigNugget]

The advice was right "don't engage the crazies that post on the message boards."

So your solution is for me to move. That solves the problem because of course you want all responsible property owners who maintain their property to the best of their ability to move.  People like me are obviously the downfall of the neighborhood. What with all of the lawn mowing and the building maintenance and the improvements over time. Who would want that in a neighborhood?

Ironically no finger is ever pointed at the people and no judgement is ever cast at the people who really caused the problem in the first place; the people who neglected their property to the point where the city has to interview and demolish.

"Springfield Plastics was condemned! The city is SO MEAN!! Isn't it terrible!"

No. The city isn't mean. The owner of Springfield Plastics let his building slide into disrepair and when he wasn't neglecting the property he was applying half-ass, not to code, jerry-rigged patches.

So... take your crooked little fingers that are pointed at the zoning board and turn them and point them toward the irresponsible property owners who let this happen in the first place.

Some of these houses have been neglected to the point that there is no viable way to recover them. Getting rid of the worst of them to make way for authentic modern replacements which will draw in a desirable demographic will increase the value of the authentic historic structures and make them more valuable.

Finally I hate those little Dancey Terrace shitboxes at the end of E 10th st.  I hate driving up 10th st and looking at them. I wish they would either be bulldozed or renovated.  Either way I don't care. 

Simple solution: move somewhere else. It would be better for you, clearly, and everybody else. You don't belong in a historic district if your solution is to demolish what you don't personally like. Problem solved.

[BigNugget]

First lets get one piece of business out of the way.  The machinery used to demolish these neglected structures is called an excavator not a bulldozer. An excavator has tracks and a long on arm with an implement at the end usually a bucket or a claw.  A bulldozer is a tracked vehicle with a large blade at the front used for pushing. 

Used in the proper context: "I think the run down little shitboxes at the end of E. 10th st. are an eyesore and detract from the efforts of responsible property owners. I wish the city would bring in an excavator and knock them down."

So the next time that has to come in and knock down one of these unsalvageable neglected structures; first thing you need to do is find the property owner point your finger at them and judge them because we lost a historic structure because they were irresponsible and also use the correct terminology; excavator.

Thank you.

those precious shit boxes.

[m74reeves]

But seriously, no attacking here, bignugget. I don't agree with all your comments, but that's why there's this forum. You obviously have strong enough feelings to register and comment...even though you say you "don't care."

First let assign blame where it belongs... the property owners who neglected their property to the point where it was condemned. The city this and evil zoning Kim that.  It's as if someone jumped off of a bridge and then you blamed gravity for their death.  If these properties were even somewhat maintained they wouldn't have been demolished. The city isn't the cause it's the effect.  The cause is irresponsibility.

I AGREE THAT THERE ARE NEGLIGENT PROPERTY OWNERS (AND I INCLUDE IN THAT BUNCH OWNER DEVELOPERS). BUT THAT'S JUST A SIMPLE BLANKET STATEMENT...PROPERTY OWNERS ARE NEGLIGENT. WE NEED TO LOOK AT WHY THESE AREN'T BEING MAINTAINED? AND WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT IT?

*SOME BOUGHT THESE HOUSES/LOTS THINKING THAT THEY WOULD FLIP AND MAKE BOOCOO $, AND THEN THE MARKET DROPPED AND THEY CAN'T GET THEIR MONEY OUT OF IT. SO THEY ARE JUST LETTING THEM SIT...NOT PAYING TAXES, NOT MAKING REPAIRS, ETC. OR THEY ARE TRYING TO SELL THESE PROPERTIES FOR THE MOST EXHORBADANT PRICES. BOO.
*SOME PROPERTIES ARE VACANT DUE TO FORECLOSURES. AGAIN, MANY REASONS WHY A PROPERTY ENDS UP HERE...SOMEONE LOST THEIR JOB...SOMEONE FELL PREY TO PREDATORY LENDING (GUESS WHAT-STATISTICS SHOW HIGH #S OF THIS IN SPRINGFIELD)...ETC.
*SOME OWNERS ARE ELDERLY AND DON'T HAVE THE FUNDS/SUPPORT SYSTEM TO KEEP THE HOUSE UP
*SLUMLORDS GETTING THEIR RENT, BUT NOT MAINTAINING ANYTHING
*RENOVATORS THAT START REPAIRS, BUT RUN INTO TROUBLE B/C THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING (AND SOME OF THESE ARE WELL MEANING) OR THEY SHOULD KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING, BUT FORGE AHEAD ANYWAY (SEE POST ON 320 E 6TH)

THAT'S JUST SOME OF THE PROBLEMS THAT OCCUR BEFORE WE HAVE THE CITY HEAPING ON OTHER ISSUES (FINES THAT WILL BANKRUPT ANYBODY, GENERIC CITATIONS W/O CONCRETE WAYS TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS AND GET THE PROPERTY REPAIRED, OFFICERS TRESPASSING ON PEOPLE'S PROPERTY JUST TO FIND SOMETHING TO CITE, ETC.).

WE ALL NEED TO THINK ABOUT WAYS TO COMBAT THIS AND I THINK THERE ARE GROUPS THAT ARE. FOR INSTANCE, PRESERVATION SOS HAS ANNUALLY TAKEN ON A PROJECT TO HELP A NEEDY HOMEOWNER GET A FACELIFT. GOOD FOR THEM. WE NEED TO DO MORE OUTREACH, EDUCATION, ETC AND GET THOSE PROPERTIES IN THE HANDS OF SOMEONE THAT WILL REALLY LOVE THEM AND THE NEIGHBOR.

WHAT HAS EVERYONE'S KNICKERS IN A WAD (MINE INCLUDED) IS THAT THE CITY'S POLICIES AREN'T IMPROVING THE N'HOOD. GUESS WHAT STARTED THE DECLINE? CITY POLICY IN THE 1920'S THAT CHANGED THE ZONING...A MOVE THAT WASN'T UNDONE 'TIL THE LATE '70S. TODAY'S DEMOLITIONS ARE NOT HELPING IMPROVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD. DEMOS DO NOT EQUAL REDEVELOPMENT. I WON'T REHASH EVERY DETAIL, BUT YOU SHOULD READ THROUGH THE THREADS ON SPECIFIC HOUSES. THE CITY IS NOT FOLLOWING ITS OWN POLICIES AND IS INTERPRETING SOME POLICIES IN SCARY WAYS (MAKE SOMEONE HOMELESS? GREAT POLICY COJ!)

Second we live in a moist tropical climate and a majority of these structures are made from wood.  Even the best maintained and painted wood in this climate can succumb to decay. Raw untreated wood left to the elements doesn't stand a chance and in relatively short time it's going to be beyond any economic repair. So if you have an old structure and you have to replace 70% of it to make it habitable again is it really still a historic house?  Or is it a mostly new house built to the same shape and dimensions as a historic house?

no response...i think a contractors take and a look at national trust for historic preservation could be enlightening.

Third SRG houses. Guess what some people love the aesthetic of living in a historic neighborhood but don't want to deal with the hassle of living in an old house.  They are career people focused on their work without a lot of excess time and energy. They need the convenience of a modern low maintenance house. Guess what will gentrify a neighborhood faster than anything - high income professional people.  The SRG houses are a magnet for the right kind of people to help the neighborhood.

I AGREE. NOT EVERYONE HAS THE FUNDS (OR FINANCING ABILITY; IT'S DAMN HARD TO GET A RENOVATION LOAN) OR DESIRE TO PUT SWEAT EQUITY INTO A HISTORIC HOME, SO THESE NEW HOUSES FILL A NEEDED NICHE. BE GREAT TO HAVE MORE TURNKEY PROPERTIES AVAILABLE, BUT SEE SOME OF THE PROBLEMS ABOVE.

GENTRIFICATION IS A TOPIC FOR ANOTHER THREAD.

Some of these houses have been neglected to the point that there is no viable way to recover them. Getting rid of the worst of them to make way for authentic modern replacements which will draw in a desirable demographic will increase the value of the authentic historic structures and make them more valuable.

DEMOLITION IS ALWAYS CHEAPER THAN MAINTAINING A PROPERTY NO MATTER IF THE PROPERTY IS 10 YEARS OLD OR 100 YEARS OLD. BUT CONTINUING TO RAZE HOUSES IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT COSTS THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE LONG RUN ON SO MANY DIFFERENT LEVELS.

IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO SEE WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO PROPERTIES WHERE CITY HAS INITIATED DEMO. I'D BE WILLING TO BET THAT MOST ARE STILL VACANT AND UNDEVELOPED. TO ME THOSE VACANT LOTS ARE LESS VALUABLE THAN ONE WITH A HOUSE ON IT, EVEN IF IT'S DILAPIDATED.

YOU HAVE TO ALSO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT THE HISTORIC DESIGNATION OF THE N'HOOD IS PART OF WHAT GIVES PROPERTIES THEIR VALUE. AND IF YOU CONTINUE TO LOSE THESE OLDER HOUSES, YOU WILL NO LONGER HAVE THE COMPONENT THAT MAKES THIS PLACE INTERESTING AND WORTH SAVING TO BEGIN WITH.

Finally I hate those little Dancey Terrace shitboxes at the end of E 10th st.  I hate driving up 10th st and looking at them. I wish they would either be bulldozed or renovated.  Either way I don't care. 

THIS COULD BE A JEWEL OF A PLACE. HAVE SOME VISION, BUT IN THE MEANTIME I SUGGEST TAKING ANOTHER ROUTE.



SINCERELY,
CRAZY EXTREMIST 

[sheclown]

nah, I like to call them bulldozers.

[strider]

To start with, I am using your post because, truthfully, it was a good one, not to get back at you in anyway.

A friend of mine told me "Never ever ever post on the forums - only the crazy people and the extremists post on the forums."  I know I am going to regret not taking the advice but here goes.  I feel like John P is a lone sane rational voice in a crown of maniacs and I completely agree with him.

I am glad that a few of the “other side” are posting here.  While I know I won;t change your mind about things, I do feel that both sides of the argument needs to be vetted and yes, I am hoping I get you thinking differently about a couple things at least.

First let assign blame where it belongs... the property owners who neglected their property to the point where it was condemned. The city this and evil zoning Kim that.  It's as if someone jumped off of a bridge and then you blamed gravity for their death.  If these properties were even somewhat maintained they wouldn't have been demolished. The city isn't the cause it's the effect.  The cause is irresponsibility.

You are both right and wrong here.  Yes, it is most definitely the property owners responsibility to take care of their property.  However, once a house is in the system, one must start looking at why it is there to understand what is going on.

I could write a book on this alone.  I won't because it all has been posted here and the other forums time and time again. You have to want to be educated on the realities of Springfield, I cant make you do that.

So yes, the cause is the lack of anyone taking responsibility for these houses, but far from being only on the owners.  Once the city accepts the Historic District designation, once the city passes the ordinances governing that historic district, it also accepts responsibility for that historic district and the structures within it.  While the city may like to only have authority over those structures, by it's own laws, it also has the responsibility to insure the purpose of the designation is met, that the houses endure for future generations. This is true whether the owner does their part or not.  The burden of insuring these houses are here for the future is most definitively one the city must carry.

Second we live in a moist tropical climate and a majority of these structures are made from wood.  Even the best maintained and painted wood in this climate can succumb to decay. Raw untreated wood left to the elements doesn't stand a chance and in relatively short time it's going to be beyond any economic repair. So if you have an old structure and you have to replace 70% of it to make it habitable again is it really still a historic house?  Or is it a mostly new house built to the same shape and dimensions as a historic house?

This shows how little you actually know about these old houses and the material they are made from.  As a contractor, I have seen 10 year old houses with much more WDO type damage than many of these 100 year old houses.  It is not that the construction method was so much better nor was it because the construction quality was so much better; the reason why these houses are still here and will be here long after many of the modern 2000's built houses are gone is that the material is naturally resistant to the WDO issues.  Before I offend SRG house owners, your house will be fine as long as you live in it and take care of any issues as they arise.  It is certainly no better or no worse, structurally, than any modern house, including the ones we built.

These old houses have been here for over a hundred years now, many with out proper maintenance for much of their lives and yet they still stand.  A 100 year old 6x6 that has been damaged by termites and lost 20 to 30% of it's internal mass is still stronger than that brand new 6x6 purchased today. 

I have worked on many houses that were “abandoned” for ten to 20 years and actually very little of the structures have been replaced.  Your 70% number would probably be true of a modern house left abandoned for ten years or more.  When we work on a house rehabbed ten years ago the structure we are replacing is most often the structure that was replaced ten years ago. The new material can not hold up without proper maintenance. Even the treated stuff.

Third SRG houses. Guess what some people love the aesthetic of living in a historic neighborhood but don't want to deal with the hassle of living in an old house.  They are career people focused on their work without a lot of excess time and energy. They need the convenience of a modern low maintenance house. Guess what will gentrify a neighborhood faster than anything - high income professional people.  The SRG houses are a magnet for the right kind of people to help the neighborhood.

Let's take a look for a moment what SRG really did.  They came in and bought every single empty lot they could.  They decided that the way to “save” Springfield was to get rid of all the poorer people, get rid of all the ugly old houses and make Historic Springfield as much like a gated community as possible.  This was not about making life better for you, it was about making money.  And that they did.  A shell game with the lots potentially earned them millions.  But again, all of this has been covered time and time again.  You can educate yourself on everything that SRG did to manipulate the market and perhaps even you or not.  Your choice.

I will say that what you said about SRG homes bringing in those high earning professionals was true.  SRG did that and in some ways, it hurt this community.  The expectations at the time, and even I can see why many of the buyers felt this way, was of that gated community.   It wasn't and never will be like that no matter how hard you try to make it so.  Most of the newer buyers today, at least the ones I have met, are often younger, have lower expectations and seem to enjoy the diversity.  No one likes crime, even the people you may not like living next to you. No one wants blight, but in an emerging community, some of that will be around.  Today, the cost of entry into this wonderful community is much, much lower than 7 to 8 years ago and that brings us new owners and renters who are as diverse as the community around them.  A very positive thing, that diversity of race, income and social status.  It guarantees the success of the neighborhood.

Some of these houses have been neglected to the point that there is no viable way to recover them. Getting rid of the worst of them to make way for authentic modern replacements which will draw in a desirable demographic will increase the value of the authentic historic structures and make them more valuable.

This simply shows that you do not get the idea of a historic neighborhood. I also have to ask, what is the basis of stating some have been neglected to the point they can not be saved?  Are you a contractor or an engineer with a lot of historic structure experience?  Or just guess like Municipal Code Compliance does? And even the buyers of the new infill houses (note that they are IN-FILL not the primary structures) often state it was the old historic houses that first attracted them to Springfield.  And yes, the hope of lower maintenance and the rock bottom prices today certainly swayed many of them to the newer in fill. But without the historic homes Springfield would have nothing special to offer. It would be just another new development where no one knew anyone else.  It is the special issues and of course the positives found here that make it so easy to know your neighbors and have fun at First Fridays, not the new houses.

Finally I hate those little Dancey Terrace shitboxes at the end of E 10th st.  I hate driving up 10th st and looking at them. I wish they would either be bulldozed or renovated.  Either way I don't care. 

Based on the above, perhaps Springfield is not for you.  Riverside and Avondale have far fewer issues like Springfield does.  You might be happier as you won't have to see things like Dancy Terrace everyday then.  So, my question to you is, why are you living here?  What was the attraction and why do you stay?

The hard truth about Springfield is that prior to SRG's reign of terror, Springfield was coming around just the way it should. Slow but steady progress was being made both with the residential areas as well as the commercial corridors.  And guess what?  It was the cities good leadership with the auction and the other funding brought into the area that sparked off that progress.  The advent of SRG and it's influence with the city and the community organizations that brought forced growth in selected areas and forced slow down of the commercial areas, all in the name of profit and getting rid of those they did not like.

Of course, it wasn't just SRG, they are just an easy and large target.  But it was the methods used that caused the problems.  The good news is that the real estate  market collapse stopped the nonsense and we are back to the slow and stead growth.  It is imperative though that we have learned from those past mistakes and that we allow things to progress naturally rather than force the issue. 

But back to the actual thread topic.  There will always be a few houses that need to be taken down from excessive damage by fire or very severe neglect.  What we are trying to stop is taking houses for social reasons like someone wants to expand their yard or the house is ugly and has been vacant too long.  That nonsense has to stop and stop today. We need to change how MCC operations and who is in charge for that to happen though.

The two recent houses did not need to go and the city will be paying for allowing that to happen.  We are closing libraries but we are allowing Ms Scott to put the city in a position of liability?  That should upset even you.

[strider]

quote author=BigNugget link=topic=18780.msg334471#msg334471 date=1372513598

Ironically no finger is ever pointed at the people and no judgement is ever cast at the people who really caused the problem in the first place; the people who neglected their property to the point where the city has to interview and demolish.

"Springfield Plastics was condemned! The city is SO MEAN!! Isn't it terrible!"

No. The city isn't mean. The owner of Springfield Plastics let his building slide into disrepair and when he wasn't neglecting the property he was applying half-ass, not to code, jerry-rigged patches.

So... take your crooked little fingers that are pointed at the zoning board and turn them and point them toward the irresponsible property owners who let this happen in the first place.

Perhaps before you post things like the above, you need to do some reading.  There is a thread about Springfield Plastics, here:http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,18043.0.html

As you can see, if you bothered to go educate yourself, is that I freely admitted that the owner should have repaired his building and needed that kick in the rear.  What we take exception to is what the process is and the methods used.  Frankly, it appears that Ms Scott and her minions get off on the misery of others.  Very sad that a department in this city that is intended to help everyone is actually used to hurt people when they often need help the most.

In the case of Springfield plastics, even though the owner is being hindered at every turn, he has found the funding needed and we will be helping him get his building repaired.  While getting what is needed to be done taken care of on his building will be easy, getting it out of MCC's claws will be difficult at best.  If you decide to read the thread in the future, you will see exactly what I mean.  Unless of course, Ms Scott and Company is moved on before we get to that point and things are changed to how the department is supposed to operate.