The Old Silver Dollar Nightclub Demolished at 7th and Main.

[finehoe]

A weed filled slab.

They should replace the image of Jackson on his steed with "a weed filled slab":

[thelakelander]

I think thats a major reason that property flipping and historic preservation simply do not mix.

Historic preservation and adaptive reuse won't work without the private sector being involved unless we're going to rely on the city to fund the restoration of most of the structures over 50 years old. Since that's not going to happen and we don't have enough Weavers in town willing to set good money on fire for the good of the community, we'll have to find methods to make them worthwhile investments for a larger segment of the population. The mobility plan and fee is one of those ways, but we can't get council to stop tinkering with it.

[thelakelander]

A property flipper is a small portion of the market, though, thankfully.

Solid, conservative home investments are the real key to historic preservation.

A person or family which views a historic property as both a place where their family will reside for thirty years as well as the resale value sees more value inherently than a simple flipper.

This won't save the decaying commercial buildings in downtown, Main and a host of other older mixed-use commercial districts (ex. McDuff, Phoenix, Pearl in Brentwood, etc.). Not enough people and not enough people with enough money to dry up in those dreams. We'll also need those who invest for the sake of seeking a return on their investments. With that in mind, figuring out ways to make investing in these properties more economically feasible will be critical to all of Jax's older areas.

[thelakelander]

Historic preservation is typically defined as the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of an historic property.  I wouldn't classify it as a primarily homes investment type of thing.

Nevertheless, I was coming from the perspective of a private sector investor and the real issues faced when it comes to bringing back buildings like 1648 Main, which was adaptive reuse as opposed to historic preservation although the financial realities of the market remain the same.

[thelakelander]

hmm.  sounds like a polysyllabic retreat.  And if you wouldnt classify the historic preservation movement as primarily consisting of home and residential preservations and restorations, then more power to you.  I would suggest writing a startling new essay on the subject and getting a show on the H&G network.

No problem. This is basic stuff on the AICP exam. It would be pretty disingenuous for someone who knows better to outright claim that HP is a primarily residential thing.  Any type of use can be considered historic preservation or adaptive reuse depending on what the owner does with bringing their property online.   Nevertheless, that wasn't my purpose for initially commenting about 1648 Main Street. I was just highlighting a financial reality we face with bringing much of our local decaying building stock back online.

Kidding aside, I really do understand the issue, as my partner Scott Forgey and I purchased large chunks of historic commercial properties for adaptive reuse under Indiana's much tighter historic preservation guidelines.  It can be tough, but Im pretty sure that the investor who is also planning on using the structure they are renovating or adaptively reusing can see a greater value in such a project than a simple property flipper who can only see money out, money in on a short term timetable.

I wasn't focusing on fly-by-night property flippers or any person in general.  As I said earlier, personal innuendo aside, I'm more or less highlighting a situation about having to spend $100k to get a property to CO status and after you spend that sum, it's only worth $70k.  Another example would be a situation where you expect to hold on to a property long term but you can't make enough money leasing to keep from going in the red. Vestcor's 11 East, Carling, and the Laura Trio projects are examples of this.  In many cases, there's a financial gap that needs to be resolved. If that gap can be resolved, we'll see many of our older buildings put back into use at a much faster clip (both in terms of adaptive reuse and historic preservation).

[thelakelander]

Just as a point of trivia, the first historic preservation law ever passed in the United States was passed by South Carolina.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Lapham_VI

The architectural firm of Simons & Lapham was influential in creating the first historic preservation ordinance in Charleston, South Carolina in 1930. The firm worked on preservation projects in South Carolina and Georgia starting in the 1920s. They were honorary life members of the Society for the Preservation of Historic Dwellings of Charleston (now the Preservation Society of Charleston).  They also performed new construction. During the expanse of the work the firm did over 300 projects from 1920-1972. The firm changed names over the years: Simons & Lapham; Simons, Lapham, Mitchell & Small; Simons, Mitchell, Small & Donahue; Mitchell, Small, Donahue & Logan; and Mitchell, Small & Donahue. The latter was in business as late as 2007.

A little more trivia. One of the earliest preservation efforts in the country was Washington's headquarters site from the Revolutionary War in New York (1850). Also, the Charleston ordinance wasn't just about saving houses.  It was about saving a built environment/cultural heritage. Kind of similar to what took place with the French Quarter in New Orleans a few years earlier.

[thelakelander]

huh?

Are you trying to talk about the literal definition of what historic preservation means as a concept or are you referring to my post about the efforts of historic preservation and the practice of property flipping not being very compatible?

It seems rather silly to argue a pretty easily verified fact that the majority of the historic preservation movement happens within the context of residential preservation.

But hey, why not?

I think my point stands about owner occupant strategies for historic preservation, residential or commercial.

No. I was just providing a financial reality about the project Zoo was involved in and many like it that many deal with today. You introduced the side thing about historic preservation and adaptive reuse. Honestly, debating what historic preservation is and isn't wasn't my intention. There's already a legal definition for that.

[thelakelander]

^Yes, I was talking about the establishment of the VCC in 1925 to preserve the built environment of the French Quarter, which you are correct in that it is a mixed use district. Just like Charleston's historic district. Nevertheless, none of this has anything to do with 1648 Main, which was the focus of my initial post in this thread today.

[thelakelander]

^Yes, I was talking about the establishment of the VCC in 1925 to preserve the built environment of the French Quarter, which you are correct in that it is a mixed use district. Just like Charleston's historic district. Nevertheless, none of this has anything to do with 1648 Main, which was the focus of my initial post in this thread today.

The ordinance which empowered it wasnt passed until 1936, and was modelled after the Charleston ordinance, actually.  The same architectural firm consulted on the drafting language.

And Im just responding to you fairly muddled remark about owner occupancy not being a good investment strategy for historic preservation.  At least that is what you seem to have been arguing.

Please re-read my posts about 1648 Main Street. I believe the point I was trying to make is pretty clear.

Oh, and the VCC (I'm not talking about the 1936 ordinance) was initially established in 1925:

New Orleans was the first city to pass an ordinance creating a historic district. An amendment to the Louisiana Constitution of 1921 (Article XIV, Section 22A) laid the groundwork the for creation of the Vieux Carré Commission. This amendment specifically addressed the preservation of the "quaint" traditional architecture in New Orleans' Vieux Carré, the so-called French Quarter, and enabled the creation of a municipal body to safeguard the structures bounded by Iberville Street, Esplanade Avenue, North Rampart Street and the Mississippi River.

In 1925 the Commission Council of New Orleans, responding to pressure from the local chapter of the American Institute of Architects, established the first Vieux Carré Commission.

http://www.nola.gov/vcc/about-us/

The purpose was to preserve the built environment of the French Quarter.  That's everything from houses, retail, office, etc. to industry and streetscape.

[thelakelander]

Good question.  If it's not 1925, they need to edit their website but that's their problem.

[strider]

Just to clarify, it was not so much that the owners of 1648 Main Street tore down a non-contributing structure, it was that they told everyone they had the contractor hired and were about to start so when the equipment showed up, people said how great it was they were going to renovate the building and then that equipment tore the building down.

What we learned later was that the entire SPAR Council leadership at the time was FOR demolition. This was just part of the issue and one that showed many the true colors of some of the players. Financially feasible or not (and I think it was borderline at the time) the public got lied to and that was the real issue. Nothing was planned for the space, it just was advantageous at the time to tear it down. 

Thankfully today there are better people involved with SPAR like Michelle Tappouni, who is working hard to make SPAR Council better and Springfield a better place.

[ChriswUfGator]

Good question.  If it's not 1925, they need to edit their website but that's their problem.

You're the one who quoted the secondary source, Stephen quoted off the VCC's bio on their own website. Think he's probably got you on that one, the commission is preparing to throw its 75th anniversary gala, at the end of the day I think you have I trust them to know their own history better than third parties repeating it, which is what you're quoting to. I do think your point is off-base, the vast majority of historic preservation in this country involves residential dwellings. Nobody is saying it can't include commercial, but saying that it automatically means mixed use or whatever is silly, probably 90% of it involves residential structures. The commercial structures follow, rather than lead, residential in terms of economic viability.

Also, nobody cares if it's economically sensible to make somebody spend extra money to avoid demolishing something. That's the whole point, you decide as a community that it's more important to have the building than the marginal additional sliver of investment, and if the investor doesn't like it they can and should go somewhere else. Invariably the neighborhood winds up better off for it.

[thelakelander]

Try again. Stephen's source is the VCCF, not the VCC. In Stephen's post it even goes as far as to explain the role of the VCCF and it's support of the VCC. You two are challenging something not worth challenging.  All it takes is to read carefully before posting replies.

Also, nobody cares if it's economically sensible to make somebody spend extra money to avoid demolishing something.

Again, try re-reading my posts. I never said I supported demolition.  I just explained a hard fact about a challenge we face looking in bringing these areas back from a market rate stand point.  You may not care, but it is something we'll have to overcome if we don't want to be looking at a blighted out hole for another decade.

That's the whole point, you decide as a community that it's more important to have the building than the marginal additional sliver of investment, and if the investor doesn't like it they can and should go somewhere else. Invariably the neighborhood winds up better off for it.

Again, not my argument but you do suggest what is actually happening with DT Jax and Springfield's commercial district. People are taking their money else where while lots remain overgrown and the remaining building stock gets worse and worse. It's not 1920 anymore.  Even people in Jax don't have to lose their hard earned money in Jax for the simple sake of wanting it to be better.

[ChriswUfGator]

Try again. Stephen's source is the VCCF, not the VCC. In Stephen's post it even goes as far as to explain the role of the VCCF and it's support of the VCC. You two are challenging something not worth challenging.  All it takes is to read carefully before posting replies.

Also, nobody cares if it's economically sensible to make somebody spend extra money to avoid demolishing something.

Again, try re-reading my posts. I never said I supported demolition.  I just explained a hard fact about a challenge we face looking in bringing these areas back from a market rate stand point.  You may not care, but it is something we'll have to overcome if we don't want to be looking at a blighted out hole for another decade.

That's the whole point, you decide as a community that it's more important to have the building than the marginal additional sliver of investment, and if the investor doesn't like it they can and should go somewhere else. Invariably the neighborhood winds up better off for it.

Again, not my argument but you do suggest what is actually happening with DT Jax and Springfield's commercial district. People are taking their money else where while lots remain overgrown and the remaining building stock gets worse and worse. It's not 1920 anymore.  Even people in Jax don't have to lose their hard earned money in Jax for the simple sake of wanting it to be better.

People are taking their money elsewhere precisely because it was far too easy for anyone to demolish whatever they felt like whenever they felt like it, leaving the neighborhood comprised of 1/3'rd or more vacant lots, and the commercial corridor comprised of 50% or more vacant lots. This created a permanent bar to entry in terms of economic revitalization, because instead of someone spending $50k to get something minimally habitable you're now talking new construction in the low or mid six figures. Commercial development has to follow residential in these situations, as you can't sell unless people are there to buy. You have cause and effect fundamentally confused, it is in fact the precise remedy you suggest which caused the problem in the first place. This is easily seen by the other historic districts undergoing a boom while Springfield has been left behind, it was difficult bordering on impossible to tear anything down in Riverside or San Marco, while Springfield allowed virtually any demolition anybody wanted. The results are clear, and frankly were already becoming clear even before the real estate collapse.

[thelakelander]

Just to clarify, let's try this again. Here is what I actually posted, which was in response to an inaccurate statement about historic preservation basically being about saving residential structures:

Just as a point of trivia, the first historic preservation law ever passed in the United States was passed by South Carolina.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Lapham_VI

The architectural firm of Simons & Lapham was influential in creating the first historic preservation ordinance in Charleston, South Carolina in 1930. The firm worked on preservation projects in South Carolina and Georgia starting in the 1920s. They were honorary life members of the Society for the Preservation of Historic Dwellings of Charleston (now the Preservation Society of Charleston).  They also performed new construction. During the expanse of the work the firm did over 300 projects from 1920-1972. The firm changed names over the years: Simons & Lapham; Simons, Lapham, Mitchell & Small; Simons, Mitchell, Small & Donahue; Mitchell, Small, Donahue & Logan; and Mitchell, Small & Donahue. The latter was in business as late as 2007.

A little more trivia. One of the earliest preservation efforts in the country was Washington's headquarters site from the Revolutionary War in New York (1850). Also, the Charleston ordinance wasn't just about saving houses.  It was about saving a built environment/cultural heritage. Kind of similar to what took place with the French Quarter in New Orleans a few years earlier.

The Charleston ordinance was not just about saving houses. It was about preserving that community's built environment and cultural heritage (which is essentially the basic definition of historic preservation).

This reason for the Charleston ordinance was basically the same reason the VCC (not the VCCF) was initially established in New Orleans in 1925. Everything mentioned outside of what I've just described from the post I made yesterday (about the VCC, ordinances, etc.) is material not introduced or being argued by me.