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

[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.

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.

LOL, seriously, where are you guys pulling your information?  I haven't proposed a remedy.  I've suggested there's a financing gap issue which results in people taking their money elsewhere.  There's a million ways one can deal with closing the gap. They can range from the community paying more taxes to fund things themselves, crowd sourcing improvement projects, or investing in the public realm to improve the areas quality of life to establishing TIF districts for 8th & Main, aggressive tax abatement programs to actively enforcing the mobility plan/fee. 

Whatever the solution may be, when you resolve the financing gap issue, you create a situation where more people are willing to invest, live or whatever.  Ideally, this is the condition you want in any place, historic district, downtown or burbs. 

If you don't resolve that financing issue that limits market rate investment and development, you can preach to the choir to you're blue in the face about theories, but the decaying buildings and overgrown lots will still sit empty.

[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.

LOL, seriously, where are you guys pulling your information?  I haven't proposed a remedy.  I've suggested there's a financing gap issue which results in people taking their money elsewhere.  There's a million ways one can deal with closing the gap. They can range from the community paying more taxes to fund things themselves, crowd sourcing improvement projects, or investing in the public realm to improve the areas quality of life to establishing TIF districts for 8th & Main, aggressive tax abatement programs to actively enforcing the mobility plan/fee. 

Whatever the solution may be, when you resolve the financing gap issue, you create a situation where more people are willing to invest, live or whatever.  Ideally, this is the condition you want in any place, historic district, downtown or burbs. 

If you don't resolve that financing issue that limits market rate investment and development, you can preach to the choir to you're blue in the face about theories, but the decaying buildings and overgrown lots will still sit empty.

I was responding to your post, which I quoted. In particular the highlighted portion.

[thelakelander]

People ARE taking their money elsewhere. However, I didn't provide a solution or remedy to anything.  Only that there is a financing gap, which leads to people taking their money elsewhere.

[thelakelander]

lol.  its interesting to hear you shift gears a bit.

I haven't shifted anything.  None of my previous posts have been changed.  Just read them.  You guys are adding the extra stuff on your own.  It could simply be a case of not understanding the background/persepective of certain terminology used, which ends up being taken as things not being said by the initial poster.

[thelakelander]

lol.  its interesting to hear you shift gears a bit.

I haven't shifted anything.  None of my previous posts have been changed.  Just read them.  You guys are adding the extra stuff on your own.  It could simply be a case of not understanding the background/persepective of certain terminology used, which ends up being taken as things not being said by the initial poster.

Do you still maintain that the Charleston Ordinance came a few years after the New Orleans ordinance?

I never stated anything about the New Orleans ordinance. That's something you keep harping on. All I said was the reason for the Charleston Ordinance was essentially the same reason for the formation of the VCC in New Orleans a few years earlier. I assume you disagree with the VCC and history on this?

Or that historic preservation strategies have to include property flipping schemes if the structures are to be saved?

I never said anything about including property flipping schemes. I stated there's a financial gap situation that must be overcome with Springfield's commercial district and downtown.  I assume you don't believe there is a financing gap issue?

Or that historic preservation hasnt been mostly about residential structures over the years (including the present day)

If I have misunderstood you to mean these things in error, then we certain agree.

Now I am a believer in that if someone is to present themselves as an authority on the subject, they might as well get the basic definitions right. That's really the least one can do. Historic preservation isn't mostly about saving residential structures. 

http://www.preservationnation.org/what-is-preservation/

http://www.cr.nps.gov/local-law/arch_stnds_10.htm

With that said, if you want to get away from real definitions and into how Jax has bastardized things, then that's a different topic altogether.

[ChriswUfGator]

People ARE taking their money elsewhere. However, I didn't provide a solution or remedy to anything.  Only that there is a financing gap, which leads to people taking their money elsewhere.

You were arguing by implication that the symtoms you listed are somehow related to the strategy being discussed, otherwise what's the point of bringing it up? Especially following that up with statements like "it's not 1920 anymore". It's difficult to have a meaningful discussion if, instead of an actual point/counterpoint analysis, one party simply does a 180 and says they never said that each time a weak point comes up for analysis. How is there ever supposed to be any conclusion or consensus that way?

[thelakelander]

People ARE taking their money elsewhere. However, I didn't provide a solution or remedy to anything.  Only that there is a financing gap, which leads to people taking their money elsewhere.

You were arguing by implication that the symtoms you listed are somehow related to the strategy being discussed, otherwise what's the point of bringing it up?

Got me again. Help me out so I can understand what you believe I'm arguing. For starters, what specific strategy is being discussed? When I came into the conversation the other day, it was to highlight the financial gap issue. Not to argue about whether Zoo was right or wrong in tearing down 1648 Main.

Especially following that up with statements like "it's not 1920 anymore". It's difficult to have a meaningful discussion if, instead of an actual point/counterpoint analysis, one party simply does a 180 and says they never said that each time a weak point comes up for analysis. How is there ever supposed to be any conclusion or consensus that way?

Yes, it hard to argue a point if you're arguing against yourself because the other guy refuses to accept or argue claims he never stated. 

What "It's not 1920 anymore" was another way of me saying people don't have to invest on Main Street or locally.  The world for the average individual is more global now than ever and they can freely spend their hard earned money elsewhere.  One can say for the good of the community, but that truly works when you're not the one losing money.

Of course, the "It's not 1920 anymore" statement was based off the financial gap issue I keep mentioning that must be overcome for districts like Main to really succeed.  With that out of the way, what did you think I meant by the "It's not 1920 anymore"?

Better yet, please list what you think my core points are in this thread over the last day because it's obvious they aren't being accurately understood, at this point.  This thread is like the game where you whisper in one person's ear, they share what you said with others and by the time it gets back to you, the original message has changed.  However, so far, there's been no middle man to distort the initial statement, which kind of makes things more puzzling.

[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.

what was the similarity? the ordinance?

The formation of a historical group?  Both the formation of the Historic Dwellings group and the ordinance happened earlier in Charleston than New Orleans.  In Charleston the historical preservation interest dated back to 1901

Now we're getting somewhere. The similarity was the reason for preservation efforts that lead to the establishment of the VCC and the Charleston Ordinance. In both cases, people in those communities saw a value in saving their historic built environment, not just houses. Of course, this was a rebuttal to statements about historic preservation being about primarily saving residential and the use of the Charleston preservation efforts to back that comment.

[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.

Correct. By the way, someone who purchases and fixes up a property as an investor does not have to be a property flipper.  Commercial property is screwed if one is going to rely on businesses and people owning or living in everyone of these structures.  Things aren't as black and white.  There's a ton of grey in the mix. At the end of the day, you need a mix of everything.  You need people owning and renting homes.  You also need companies owning or leasing spaces. It's never a good idea to severely limit your market before the market actually exists.

[ChriswUfGator]

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.

Correct. By the way, someone who purchases and fixes up a property as an investor does not have to be a property flipper.  Commercial property is screwed if one is going to rely on businesses and people owning or living in everyone of these structures.  Things aren't as black and white.  There's a ton of grey in the mix. At the end of the day, you need a mix of everything.  You need people owning and renting homes.  You also need companies owning or leasing spaces. It's never a good idea to severely limit your market before the market actually exists.

And once again, that's simply not correct. 

And so here we are back at the beginning. Your statement contradicts the actual experience of virtually every historic district across the country that has effectively implemented strict preservation-oriented regulations. The reality is that every historic district that has gone this route wound up much better off retaining their existing building stock than they would have been with the extra 'investment' that might have been attracted if such regulations did not exist.

Stephen's point, and the point you're trying but failing to contradict, is that the Jacksonville-specific view of real estate investment is pretty much incompatible with historic preservation, and that this is entirely O.K. because the neighborhood invariably winds up better off for it in the end anyway. As I pointed out, he is correct, and this view is well-proved by not just the two examples being discussed in this thread (the French Quarter and Charleston), but also by even the most cursory comparison between Jacksonville's own three major historic districts.

Two of them put up resistance to demolitions while one allowed any investor to do whatever they wanted, and notably the first two have undergone a virtual renaissance in the middle of the worst real estate collapse since the 1920s, while the third continues to languish under the weight of 1/3'rd+ of that district now being vacant lots courtesy of all of the 'investment' that it (unfortunately) didn't lose out on.

[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.

Correct. By the way, someone who purchases and fixes up a property as an investor does not have to be a property flipper.  Commercial property is screwed if one is going to rely on businesses and people owning or living in everyone of these structures.  Things aren't as black and white.  There's a ton of grey in the mix. At the end of the day, you need a mix of everything.  You need people owning and renting homes.  You also need companies owning or leasing spaces. It's never a good idea to severely limit your market before the market actually exists.

And once again, that's simply not correct. 

And so here we are back at the beginning. Your statement contradicts the actual experience of virtually every historic district across the country that has effectively implemented strict preservation-oriented regulations. The reality is that every historic district that has gone this route wound up much better off retaining their existing building stock than they would have been with the extra 'investment' that might have been attracted if such regulations did not exist.

Help me out. What exact statement is incorrect that contradicts the actual experience of virtually every historic district across the country.

a. solid residential investment won't necessarily save commercial historic districts?

b. redeveloping communities also need those who invest in properties with the intentions of making a return on their investment?

c. an investor isn't necessarily a flipper?

d. real life isn't as black and white as presented in this thread?

e. a mix is better than limiting the market to a small specific segment of the population?

Let me know which one, so I can present at least five real life examples in Jax or across the country, backing my statements. Then we can argue if those communities truly exist or if I made them up and somehow got them on google earth and streetview for the sake of this thread.

Stephen's point, and the point you're trying but failing to contradict, is that the Jacksonville-specific view of real estate investment is pretty much incompatible with historic preservation, and that this is entirely O.K. because the neighborhood invariably winds up better off for it in the end anyway.

Huh? I thought Stephen was suggesting that historic preservation (period.....not just on the corner of Main, Laura or Jax) is primarily a residential thing? That's what I got from his posts and that's not true.  If what I described is not what was meant, then we have a misunderstanding.

As I pointed out, he is correct, and this view is well-proved by not just the two examples being discussed in this thread (the French Quarter and Charleston), but also by even the most cursory comparison between Jacksonville's own three major historic districts.

You're well traveled so I'm certain you've visited both the French Quarter and Charleston several times. Both of those districts are mixed-use and are what they are, not because of primarily residential preservation, but because of the preservation of the overall built environment. If this needs to be pointed out visually, I'm your huckleberry.

Two of them put up resistance to demolitions while one allowed any investor to do whatever they wanted, and notably the first two have undergone a virtual renaissance in the middle of the worst real estate collapse since the 1920s, while the third continues to languish under the weight of 1/3'rd+ of that district now being vacant lots courtesy of all of the 'investment' that it (unfortunately) didn't lose out on.

I'm not even talking about or advocating for demolishing properties. I also haven't said anything about allowing any Tom, Dick and Harry to do whatever they want.  But since the term investor apparently equates to evil, I'm sure you are aware that those evil people are what preserved Springfield's building stock in the first place. When no one cared about the neighborhood and left the urban core in droves, others found a way to reposition the building stock for different uses. If it wasn't for them, the neighborhood would have been long gone before the 2000s rolled around.

[thelakelander]

I think you are entirely missing the point Lake.  Property flippers (which I singled out with intention) whose sole concern is buying and selling a property at a quick profit are not good for the mission of historic preservation.

Yeah, that (the property flipper) was never a point of mine.  I believe I mentioned this early on yesterday.

You cannot preserve historic fabric if you are committed to honoring a financial transaction over the importance of the structure being preserved, and that is essentially the argument that was used in this case to justify the demolition rather than reuse: It was cheaper to demolish and rebuild than it was to restore.

No argument from me here.

Obviously the idea of financial reward is different depending on how you look at the use of the property.

If you are going to invest 100k in a project and sell it for 150k, then you are going to make 50k, - taxes and closing costs.

But if you are going to invest 100k, occupy the space for twenty years, at a value of 12k annually, and then sell the property for 150k to 200k, then the property is far more valuable (320k vs 150k) because you are going to actually occupy it.

It means then that the 60k additional expense, which would be a deal killer and money loser in the first scenario is still an acceptable and profitable expense in the second (owner occupied) scenario.

This is basic common sense, actually.

Again, no argument from me with this specific example. There's a thousand others that make sense on the surface as well. For example, you could invest and upgrade property for rental status. You're not the occupier but you may still hold on to property long term as a business strategy. I would not qualify this type of investor as a flipper.

Where the debate went of the rails and ended in a train crash is when you clearly thought it would be easier to avoid the debate by retreating behind an urban planning definition of 'historic preservation' instead.

It went off rails when you guys thought I was arguing points that I have not.

Now there is a place for property development in a historic district, and that is in building infill developments, where the costs and considerations of historic preservation are not really a factor.

But I have to say that I agree with Chris 100% on this.

I disagree with this. For example, property development can come in the form of historic preservation, adaptive reuse or infill. I have experience with all three in various historic districts and areas across the state. It really depends on what your proposed use is and how the proforma for that use shakes out in that particular market. I believe what I just said is something we all can agree on.

[Scrub Palmetto]

With the disclaimer that I'm not taking sides in this thread, because I think everyone has valid points, I do want to make a small remark on the residential focus of historic preservation.

It's absolutely true that residential structures are the bread and butter of the HP movement in this country. However, residential structures are the bread and butter of the building stock in this country as well. There are over 80 million single-family dwellings in the US, and an additional 30+ million in an unknown [by me at the moment] number of multi-family structures. There are fewer than 5 million commercial buildings in the US, fewer than half of which were built before 1980. I would only find it remarkable if the focus of HP were NOT primarily residential. (Also, that's not to say that building stock is the only factor, but it has to be a major one.)

[thelakelander]

^It's also true that the majority of the those quoted in the numbers are parts of actual districts. Many structures are not so important on their own but are critical elements of the whole, which is what a district tends to be.

By the same token, if we're addressing the revitalization of historic commercial districts (in the case of 1648 Main, DT Jax, and most CBDs across the country, it's pretty inaccurate to state that "historic preservation" is primarily residential and that the proper way to address these areas is the same method one may apply for residential uses. 

IMO, the best thing you can do (especially when dealing with crowds that may not be knowledgeable with the nuances)  is to stick with the basic common identified definition. IMO, this applies to, not only the term "historic preservation", but just about anything. Once you start straying away from the basics by injecting personal terminology and opinions into these things as facts, you end up spiraling into an unknown world of craziness where you can really do some unintended damage.  Just read a few of Ron Chamblin's post in the food truck legislation thread as proof. Imagine what can happen to downtown if that type of sentiment is taken as fact and restrictive legislation is enforced as a result.

[thelakelander]

^During that era, how many storefronts were occupied between 6th & 9th Streets, compared to what's there today?