Brooklyn's Avon Apartments destroyed by fire

[Metro Jacksonville]

Brooklyn's Avon Apartments destroyed by fire



This article by Dr. Tim Gilmore of jaxpsychogeo.com highlights the history of Brooklyn's Avon Apartments building before its recent untimely demise.

Read More: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2017-jul-brooklyns-avon-apartments-destroyed-by-fire

[strider]

We had worked a while ago with the owners to try to keep MCCD from fining them and to get it landmarked. The owners decided after the process started to not landmark the building.  This building's destiny was not to be saved.

[jaxlore]

what a shame.

[BenderRodriguez]

Conspiracy theory time?

[Redbaron616]

We had worked a while ago with the owners to try to keep MCCD from fining them and to get it landmarked. The owners decided after the process started to not landmark the building.  This building's destiny was not to be saved.

Look at the potential of the space now, instead of always looking in the rearview mirror. Every building is not worth saving. Not  to mention, there would be nowhere to go but further out into the countryside if renewal isn't allowed.

[JaxAvondale]

This would be a good piece of property of the new distillery owners to purchase and open up a taproom/restaurant.

[thelakelander]

If I had to guess, the site will probably end up being a parking lot supporting the redevelopment of the remaining existing buildings on that block.

[jaxjaguar]

Any chance incahoots sells their place anytime soon?

[Steve]

Any chance incahoots sells their place anytime soon?

For the right price (aside from sentimental situations which I doubt in the InCahoots case), I've always been under the belief that anything is for sale for the right price.

They seem to still draw a decent crowd so unless something is going on in the ownership where they'd want to get out, someone would have to make it worth their while.

[MusicMan]

I don't believe anyone would have spent the money necessary to restore that building in that location. It most probably is worth more as a vacant lot, hopefully to build upon or to be combined with another parcel in that vicinity for a larger, newer, more modern building.

[strider]

We had worked a while ago with the owners to try to keep MCCD from fining them and to get it landmarked. The owners decided after the process started to not landmark the building.  This building's destiny was not to be saved.

Look at the potential of the space now, instead of always looking in the rearview mirror. Every building is not worth saving. Not  to mention, there would be nowhere to go but further out into the countryside if renewal isn't allowed.

I did look at the potential of the site WITH a nicely done Historic Structure (which would have been eligible for substantial tax credits) used as eclectic and cool apartments.  With what is going on in the area, it would have been OK to do.  But it was not to be.  That's OK with me.  However, your statement is not OK as if everyone said and believed that, none of the historic structures would remain.  That rearview mirror does have it's uses. It allows you to see what once was so you can also see how to use it today.

I do agree that some old does have to go so new can be built as well.  However, have you seen Brooklyn?

[strider]

I don't believe anyone would have spent the money necessary to restore that building in that location. It most probably is worth more as a vacant lot, hopefully to build upon or to be combined with another parcel in that vicinity for a larger, newer, more modern building.

This is exactly why historic structures come down.  It is a false belief most of the time.

[Adam White]

I don't believe anyone would have spent the money necessary to restore that building in that location. It most probably is worth more as a vacant lot, hopefully to build upon or to be combined with another parcel in that vicinity for a larger, newer, more modern building.

This is exactly why historic structures come down.  It is a false belief most of the time.

Just as false as the belief that old = historic.

[strider]

I don't believe anyone would have spent the money necessary to restore that building in that location. It most probably is worth more as a vacant lot, hopefully to build upon or to be combined with another parcel in that vicinity for a larger, newer, more modern building.

This is exactly why historic structures come down.  It is a false belief most of the time.

Just as false as the belief that old = historic.

Ahhh...no. Federal guidelines says differently. While it is true that some buildings may have no visible "historic" value, in this case, as a last remaining structure, more or less..mostly less, of it's type in the area, it's historic value was pretty high.

[Adam White]

I don't believe anyone would have spent the money necessary to restore that building in that location. It most probably is worth more as a vacant lot, hopefully to build upon or to be combined with another parcel in that vicinity for a larger, newer, more modern building.

This is exactly why historic structures come down.  It is a false belief most of the time.

Just as false as the belief that old = historic.

Ahhh...no. Federal guidelines says differently. While it is true that some buildings may have no visible "historic" value, in this case, as a last remaining structure, more or less..mostly less, of it's type in the area, it's historic value was pretty high.

I said that the belief that old = historic is false.

Maybe the Federal guidelines would classify this particular building as historic. I don't know - but sometimes it's not so bad to get rid of an old, deteriorating building and replacing it with something that is fit for purpose. I'm more bothered by the number of empty lots than new builds.