Petitioning Council to Save the Claude Nolan Building

[sheclown]

Now...all of you who sent email....send thank yous

Clay@coj.net, WBishop@coj.net, RClark@coj.net, Redman@coj.net, LBoyer@coj.net, MattS@coj.net , Gaffney@coj.net, EDLee@coj.net, WAJones@coj.net, : RBrown@coj.net, Holt@coj.net, doylec@coj.net, Gulliford@coj.net, JimLove@coj.net, KimDaniels@coj.net, : JRC@coj.net, Joost@coj.net, GAnderson@coj.net, RLumb@coj.net

[sheclown]

From the minutes of the July 2013 JHPC meeting.

[chris farley]

I quote from Strider on Feb 24th in reply to someone who said 25% of our buildings should go;

"Actually, over 30% of the housing stock in Springfield is gone, the majority since it has been a protected Historic District.  And I would guess something like 40% (if not more) of the old buildings are gone off of Main Street.  In the not to (sic) distant past, an organization thought more like you do and somehow it managed to set Springfield back about ten years.  We know better than to try that again.  Too bad the city doesn't.
In another instance referring to another post he said;  "Posts like this are often latched onto as the truth"

I have been going over and over the report of demolitions put out by the Preservation office and also all of the buildings old, new, contributing or not and sometimes the results are amazing, and maybe someone else will find something different, it is not an easy job. 

Now, Main Street, I am listing the demos as given in the report, you can see the non contributing, (which no one can prevent being demolished) and the contributing ones.  I tried to post those on here in red but it would not happen, they now have an asterisk;

1117   MAIN   STREET      Non-Contributing   
1129   MAIN   STREET      Non-Contributing   B04-47755.000
1148   MAIN   STREET       Non-Contributing   B93-29484.000
1242   MAIN   STREET      Non-Contributing   
1254   MAIN   STREET      Non-Contributing   
1303   MAIN   STREET      Non-Contributing   B05-68928.000
1312    MAIN   STREET      Non-Contributing   B97-42240.000
1336    MAIN   STREET      Non-Contributing   B97-42238.000
1411    MAIN   STREET      Non-Contributing   
1425   MAIN   STREET      Non-Contributing   B04-42972

*1513-1525   MAIN   STREET   Contributing              B91-6269.000
Commercial building, taken down in 91

1527-1533   MAIN   STREET   Non-Contributing   B91-6267.000

*1534   MAIN   STREET      Contributing
House containing a used car business, definitely down before 2000   

*1616-1618   MAIN   STREET   Contributing
Should not have been included in survey, house was demolished in 1985 as the survey was progressing. A photo may be no longer available. All that is in the survey is an address at the moment
   
1644   MAIN   STREET      Non-Contributing      
1648    MAIN   STREET      Non-Contributing   B08-278316
1651   MAIN   STREET      Non-Contributing   
1813        MAIN   STREET      Non-Contributing   
1824   MAIN   STREET      Non-Contributing   B03-20841.000

*1920   MAIN   STREET      Contributing               B95-12326.000
Rooming house taken down in 95

1921   MAIN   STREET      Non-Contributing   B93-22907.000

*1924   MAIN   STREET      Contributing               B02-15708
Rooming House taken down in 02

*1935   MAIN   STREET      Contributing
Taken down in 85, and a fast food restaurant built that same year
   
*2014   MAIN   STREET      Contributing       B90-43997.000
Rooming house taken down in 90

*2034   MAIN   STREET      Contributing
Empty garage building which was ruled to be non contributing when Ms Summers requested demolition permission from the HPC.  Was given permission in 2013.  It said further research showed it outside the district.
   
1620-1628    MAIN   STREET   Non-contributing   B89-3562.000
1648-1654   MAIN   STREET   Non-Contributing   B95-24450.000

You can see out of 27 buildings 8 (7 if you take out 2034) contributing ones have been lost.  They have asterisks and my notes are underneath them.  This is nowhere near the percentages or blame given.

1513-25 taken down in 1991

1534 no permit info available but definitely down before 2000

1616-18  Taken down in 1985 just as the survey was doing the photographs.  Only the corner of the porch can be seen in the 1985 survey photo of 1610.  This address should not have been left in the survey and there are others.

1920 taken down in 95

1924 taken down in 02

1935 taken down in 85, should not have been left in the survey

2014 taken down in 90

2034 taken down in 2013, thought by HPC to be non contributing.

Many of the non contributing buildings were taken down in the 90s.  It was believed you removed blight that way.  There is no way you can prevent a non contributing building (something not picked up in the historic survey) from being demolished.

Now lets look at the contributing ones, note the dates apart from Naomi's garage (and PSOS was present at the meeting when the demolition was approved, all thinking it was non contributing).  The latest one was in 2002, the year I believe SPAR and HSCC merged.  So HSCC was in place when these demolitions happened. At that time it was so difficult to prevent such as action, at one time SPAR filed a lawsuit to save two on Laura but it was ignored.
So when rash statements are made about an organization being responsible for the demolition of 40% of Main, are we talking HSCC also?
You also know, you have a copy,  that the report which shows 534 demolitions includes close to 200 non contributing, also other items, ie the heading is counted, a Dancy house is on there, there are duplicates.  I am not faulting the people doing this I know from experience how difficult it is to tie these things down, but this figure should never have been used and a high one almost got into the Mothballing, a figure of 480.  I do believe we have lost in the area of 300, many taken down during the survey, if you wish I will provide photographic proof.
The reason for my post, it is 12 years since the merger of the two organizations and the anger over people being left out should have gone by now.  Louise DeSpain, cannot be blamed for the demos  of contributing structures on Main, also she did not come into SPAR until about 2002.  Nor SPAR they fought for houses early on when they had financial support.  SPAR until the merger had no paid staff, HSCC did so there was daily coverage and they possibly should have been more involved. 
Strangely 1222 Main was not picked up in the report, but there is a photo of it in the survey files.  Its description is "2 story garage with apartment above, converted into a used car sales office".  There are no listings of owners or residents.  This may be another that did not make it through the survey.
Its time to look forward and stop the finger pointing and putting out bad figures. 
Like trying to rake leaves when they are still falling, that is what it is like trying to prove which buildings made it through the survey, why some were chosen and why some were left out, the landscape keeps changing.  Please lets just look forward I know SPAR is trying very hard.

[thelakelander]

Many of the non contributing buildings were taken down in the 90s.  It was believed you removed blight that way.

Contributing or not, that's a ton of buildings that may have been suitable for reuse by urban pioneers, similar to what's taking place with non-contributing buildings on King Street and the CoRK area in Riverside.

Were the buildings removed, simple storefronts like this?



If so, that would have been a big loss because now we have to virtually rely on new infill construction to gain the character and vibe of a walkable commercial district back.  That process could literally take decades.

[chris farley]

I agree about the loss, but that is the way the system works, but you can see by the dates the demolition has pretty much ceased.  Non contributing are fair game.  I found this out when I first came to Springfield, all the owner has to do is request (and pay) for it.  This does not put SPAR at fault.  When the prospect of the district being designated historic loomed, people took down buildings, I believe on the fear that they would become protected - they may not have been.   That is why there are addresses in the survey but no back up. Some houses were fortunate enough to be moved, ones that were immediately behind Main. Jeff is trying to get back up from Tallahassee for missing stuff, but a lot of it is doubtful.
There was one set similar to the ones you show,  at 1513 Main which was a long commercial building, the 1985 photo looks a little bad, you can see it on SHEC.  Unless a building was made contributing,  I do not have photos.  The two that you show here, still stand, the one on the right has sold recently and a new business has moved in.  They were not considered contributing in the survey, but have survived.
I believe there are 66 buildings currently on Main.
Incidentally I believe there were houses on either side of the ones you show - 2 on the southside - 1618 was one - and one on the north.  I would like to see large houses built on Main, once again.

[strider]

I quote from Strider on Feb 24th in reply to someone who said 25% of our buildings should go;

"Actually, over 30% of the housing stock in Springfield is gone, the majority since it has been a protected Historic District.  And I would guess something like 40% (if not more) of the old buildings are gone off of Main Street.  In the not to (sic) distant past, an organization thought more like you do and somehow it managed to set Springfield back about ten years.  We know better than to try that again.  Too bad the city doesn't.
In another instance referring to another post he said;  "Posts like this are often latched onto as the truth"

I have been going over and over the report of demolitions put out by the Preservation office and also all of the buildings old, new, contributing or not and sometimes the results are amazing, and maybe someone else will find something different, it is not an easy job. 

Now, Main Street, I am listing the demos as given in the report, you can see the non contributing, (which no one can prevent being demolished) and the contributing ones.  I tried to post those on here in red but it would not happen, they now have an asterisk;

1117   MAIN   STREET      Non-Contributing   
1129   MAIN   STREET      Non-Contributing   B04-47755.000
1148   MAIN   STREET       Non-Contributing   B93-29484.000
1242   MAIN   STREET      Non-Contributing   
1254   MAIN   STREET      Non-Contributing   
1303   MAIN   STREET      Non-Contributing   B05-68928.000
1312    MAIN   STREET      Non-Contributing   B97-42240.000
1336    MAIN   STREET      Non-Contributing   B97-42238.000
1411    MAIN   STREET      Non-Contributing   
1425   MAIN   STREET      Non-Contributing   B04-42972

*1513-1525   MAIN   STREET   Contributing              B91-6269.000
Commercial building, taken down in 91

1527-1533   MAIN   STREET   Non-Contributing   B91-6267.000

*1534   MAIN   STREET      Contributing
House containing a used car business, definitely down before 2000   

*1616-1618   MAIN   STREET   Contributing
Should not have been included in survey, house was demolished in 1985 as the survey was progressing. A photo may be no longer available. All that is in the survey is an address at the moment
   
1644   MAIN   STREET      Non-Contributing      
1648    MAIN   STREET      Non-Contributing   B08-278316
1651   MAIN   STREET      Non-Contributing   
1813        MAIN   STREET      Non-Contributing   
1824   MAIN   STREET      Non-Contributing   B03-20841.000

*1920   MAIN   STREET      Contributing               B95-12326.000
Rooming house taken down in 95

1921   MAIN   STREET      Non-Contributing   B93-22907.000

*1924   MAIN   STREET      Contributing               B02-15708
Rooming House taken down in 02

*1935   MAIN   STREET      Contributing
Taken down in 85, and a fast food restaurant built that same year
   
*2014   MAIN   STREET      Contributing       B90-43997.000
Rooming house taken down in 90

*2034   MAIN   STREET      Contributing
Empty garage building which was ruled to be non contributing when Ms Summers requested demolition permission from the HPC.  Was given permission in 2013.  It said further research showed it outside the district.
   
1620-1628    MAIN   STREET   Non-contributing   B89-3562.000
1648-1654   MAIN   STREET   Non-Contributing   B95-24450.000

You can see out of 27 buildings 8 (7 if you take out 2034) contributing ones have been lost.  They have asterisks and my notes are underneath them.  This is nowhere near the percentages or blame given.

1513-25 taken down in 1991

1534 no permit info available but definitely down before 2000

1616-18  Taken down in 1985 just as the survey was doing the photographs.  Only the corner of the porch can be seen in the 1985 survey photo of 1610.  This address should not have been left in the survey and there are others.

1920 taken down in 95

1924 taken down in 02

1935 taken down in 85, should not have been left in the survey

2014 taken down in 90

2034 taken down in 2013, thought by HPC to be non contributing.

Many of the non contributing buildings were taken down in the 90s.  It was believed you removed blight that way.  There is no way you can prevent a non contributing building (something not picked up in the historic survey) from being demolished.

Now lets look at the contributing ones, note the dates apart from Naomi's garage (and PSOS was present at the meeting when the demolition was approved, all thinking it was non contributing).  The latest one was in 2002, the year I believe SPAR and HSCC merged.  So HSCC was in place when these demolitions happened. At that time it was so difficult to prevent such as action, at one time SPAR filed a lawsuit to save two on Laura but it was ignored.
So when rash statements are made about an organization being responsible for the demolition of 40% of Main, are we talking HSCC also?
You also know, you have a copy,  that the report which shows 534 demolitions includes close to 200 non contributing, also other items, ie the heading is counted, a Dancy house is on there, there are duplicates.  I am not faulting the people doing this I know from experience how difficult it is to tie these things down, but this figure should never have been used and a high one almost got into the Mothballing, a figure of 480.  I do believe we have lost in the area of 300, many taken down during the survey, if you wish I will provide photographic proof.
The reason for my post, it is 12 years since the merger of the two organizations and the anger over people being left out should have gone by now.  Louise DeSpain, cannot be blamed for the demos  of contributing structures on Main, also she did not come into SPAR until about 2002.  Nor SPAR they fought for houses early on when they had financial support.  SPAR until the merger had no paid staff, HSCC did so there was daily coverage and they possibly should have been more involved. 
Strangely 1222 Main was not picked up in the report, but there is a photo of it in the survey files.  Its description is "2 story garage with apartment above, converted into a used car sales office".  There are no listings of owners or residents.  This may be another that did not make it through the survey.
Its time to look forward and stop the finger pointing and putting out bad figures. 
Like trying to rake leaves when they are still falling, that is what it is like trying to prove which buildings made it through the survey, why some were chosen and why some were left out, the landscape keeps changing.  Please lets just look forward I know SPAR is trying very hard.

For someone who likes to be thought of as a big advocate for preservation, Chris Farley sure likes to support those that have campaigned and often complained very successfully for the demolition of many a building in Springfield.   Something that she seems to have trouble grasping is the facts support the idea that about a third of the housing stock, AKA Structures, in Historic Springfield have been demolished,.  And using numbers Chris Farley posted on another forum, OVER one third of the Contributing structures have been lost. And let's look at those non-contributing structures. We owned one. The main part of the house was built in the 1880's, with newer additions due to a couple of fires.  In the end, it was covered with stucco so got listed as Non-contributing.  We sold it a couple of weeks ago.  Stucco removed, nicely restored and now a new, young couple are getting to enjoy it.  I guess it was all OK that all those non-contributing structures were taken as Chris Farley obviously doesn't think them important enough to count them as lost structures. I would suspect that the new owners would disagree that their house is not important just because someone mistakenly called it non-contributing.

But this thread is supposed to be about the Claude Nolan buildings.  And that statement I made earlier that Chris Farley quoted ("Posts like this are often latched onto as the truth") still stands for the post it initially referred to and Chris Farley's post above.  The facts are:  The Claude Nolan is not known to be contaminated.  Historic Springfield and Downtown has already lost far too many historic buildings to lose any more.  The Claude Nolan was put on the demolition list by Kimberly Scott, Chief of MCC, for some reason other than "Public Safety".  While some of the people Chris Farley likes to defend, like Louse DeSpain, are gone, others who consistently supported the demolitions still remain in Springfield and some hold positions of influence. She was right that SPAR Council has improved dramatically, and is publicly supporting the Landmarking of the Claude Nolan complex.

Oh, and the point about our non-contributing house?  If that house, wrapped with so much stucco and chicken wire that it audibly signed when we removed it can be made to be a beautiful and desired (sold in days) house again, so can the Claude Nolan buildings.

[chris farley]

I am not in favor of demolition, my history of fighting for houses proves that. My point is that your fingers are always pointed the wrong way.   Your anger at the SPAR and HSCC merger is still not abated.  The original HPC study was done because of the destruction of the historic houses and people's fear that we would lose our designation, all I point out is that SPAR was not responsible for the demolitions and certainly could not have done  anything about the non contributing.  Many good members fought for houses.  You miss the point and the finger pointing needs to stop and lets move forward. 
Your percentage is basis the count of the historic structures, so named in 1985, approx 1800,  these said demolitions of non contributing were not included in that figure.  If you insist on your figure you have to do it as a percentage of all the standing buildings at the time of the survey which I believe was over  2800, which I also believe leads to a  smaller  percentage.  We have definitely lost too much, but not at the fault of a local entity.  As with many things it is a fault of the system. 

[strider]

I am not in favor of demolition, my history of fighting for houses proves that. My point is that your fingers are always pointed the wrong way.   Your anger at the SPAR and HSCC merger is still not abated.  The original HPC study was done because of the destruction of the historic houses and people's fear that we would lose our designation, all I point out is that SPAR was not responsible for the demolitions and certainly could not have done  anything about the non contributing.  Many good members fought for houses.  You miss the point and the finger pointing needs to stop and lets move forward. 
Your percentage is basis the count of the historic structures, so named in 1985, approx 1800,  these said demolitions of non contributing were not included in that figure.  If you insist on your figure you have to do it as a percentage of all the standing buildings at the time of the survey which I believe was over  2800, which I also believe leads to a  smaller  percentage.  We have definitely lost too much, but not at the fault of a local entity.  As with many things it is a fault of the system. 

Here's my original post.

Actually, over 30% of the housing stock in Springfield is gone, the majority since it has been a protected Historic District.  And I would guess something like 40% (if not more) of the old buildings are gone off of Main Street.  In the not to distant past, an organization thought more like you do and somehow it managed to set Springfield back about ten years.  We know better than to try that again.  Too bad the city doesn't.

So, whomever is telling you 25% of the structures must be taken away from a historic district for it to be "viable" has no clue what the reality really is.  We need density.  We need everything from single to multifamily and we need cool, old buildings for the commercial corridor.  And we need as many of each as we can get. Or rather keep. That is how you get those folks willing to work with the old houses, with everyone who lives in the area and get a urban area that grows slowly and steadily and becomes the best the city has to offer.  It takes time though and that is what landmarking this building really does, it gives the building time to find a new place for itself in the future.

If you had been thinking, you would have just ignored the "organization", no one would have connected it to today's SPAR Council.  And, even you must agree that what I said was the truth.,  SPAR Council under the leadership of Louise DeSpain and the control of SRG supported demolition after demolition.  Of CONTRIBUTING houses. It is in the HPC minutes as well as many other places.  You are the one that broadcast that it was SPAR and it seems like you can't let go of the fact you failed to do anything about the it. I said it has changed and SPAR Council is doing much better.  Much thanks for that must go to Michelle Tappouni, a rising star in my opinion and someone Springfield and all of Jacksonville should be thankful for. Meanwhile, part of the old guard, Jack Meeks, has spoken FOR the demolition of a building recently.

I have no anger over the SPAR and HSCC merger that formed SPAR Council.  It was a good idea at the time.  No one had any idea that Louise DeSpain would sell out herself, SPAR Council and Historic Springfield to the highest bidder, Mack Bisette.  Did you?  I also did not think that the HPC, and the City in general would let them get away with it.  But I guess with an SRG controlled person on the HPC at the time, not much else could be expected.

And your "fighting for houses" has always been a bit selective depending upon whom wanted the demolition.  That is also a proven fact. And I did question your real commitment to preservation and the houses because given that you defend the worst offender of preservation this city has seen in generations on a regular basis, it is hard to believe you didn't and don't agree with her stance.

And this:Your percentage is basis the count of the historic structures, so named in 1985, approx 1800,  these said demolitions of non contributing were not included in that figure.  If you insist on your figure you have to do it as a percentage of all the standing buildings at the time of the survey which I believe was over  2800, which I also believe leads to a  smaller  percentage.

I am using the official list of both contributing and non-contributing as used to establish the historic district.  I suggest you go back and recount before you post again.  And the numbers I used for the calculations I presented here are from what YOU posted on another thread/ forum. Are you now saying you were wrong?

Oh, and while some believe we can't lose the Historic Designation, the real truth is other districts have indeed been put on watch lists because of losing too much and due to bad policies.  If things had continued as the old SPAR Council/ SRG/ MCCD wanted them too, who knows were we would be.  Or wouldn't be.  And yes, that last was just for you.

But, back to what is truly important, the Claude Nolan complex. SPAR Council is indeed on board with Landmarking it.  We just need to figure out who is pulling the strings to try to prevent that from happening. 

[Noone]

La Villa is such a vibrant area since everything was destroyed.    A prime example of 'we must destroy to renew'--  renewal that never happened, and destroyed the history and cultural fabric of the area.

+1

[Debbie Thompson]

Yes please. Let's keep this thread about landmarking/preserving the Claude Nolan Building and move other issues to another thread. :-)

We have until the end of March, and NO more public hearings at Council. So...ideas please.

[ChriswUfGator]

Frankly the owner needs to get involved and take legal action. The building in fact meets the criteria for landmarking, the owner is in favor of landmarking, and they've recently landmarked other structures with less of their original historic material remaining than this one, and did so over the owners' objections. And I'm not knocking their decision on that one, it was 100% the right thing to do. But it certainly paints a contrast when they refuse to landmark this one despite it also satisfying the criteria, and the owner of this one isn't even contesting it like the other one was. Seems arbitrary and capricious. But complaining only gets you so far, the owner needs to actually go do something about it at this point.

[sheclown]

Frankly the owner needs to get involved and take legal action. The building in fact meets the criteria for landmarking, the owner is in favor of landmarking, and they've recently landmarked other structures with less of their original historic material remaining than this one, and did so over the owners' objections. And I'm not knocking their decision on that one, it was 100% the right thing to do. But it certainly paints a contrast when they refuse to landmark this one despite it also satisfying the criteria, and the owner of this one isn't even contesting it like the other one was. Seems arbitrary and capricious. But complaining only gets you so far, the owner needs to actually go do something about it at this point.

yes.

[sheclown]

The only chance to speak on this before the final vote will come during the public comment section of the city council meeting next Tuesday night.

[Noone]

Sent a letter to all 19 Jacksonville city council members to support 2013-803 as a Landmark structure that is next to Hogans Creek a tributary that leads to our St. Johns River our American Heritage River a FEDERAL Initiative.

[sheclown]

Notice is hereby given that Council Member Robin Lumb and Council Member Dr. Johnny Gaffney will meet on Wednesday, March 12, 2014 at 1:30 pm in the Lynwood Roberts Room, located at 117 West Duval Street (1st Floor), City Hall St. James Building.  The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss the EH Thompson/Claude Nolan Buildings.

this is open to the public --