Riverside’s Deluxe Laundry Building Condemned

[thelakelander]

The Riverside building proposed for renovation as the Roost restaurant has been the subject of a protracted dispute between the business owners and neighborhood groups since 2015. Now the former laundry building has been condemned. What's in store for this historic property?

Read More: https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/riversides-deluxe-laundry-building-condemned/

[Captain Zissou]

One step forward, 3 steps back.

The list of demolitions (and probable demolitions) outstrips the list of new construction in the core this year.

[JaxAvondale]

I guess this pleases the PROUD people. Just sad all the way around.

[Josh]

So what's the angle here?

[Tacachale]

So what's the angle here?

Accurately reporting a story of interest in the Urban Core.

[jaxjags]

Quote from: jaxjags on February 20, 2019, 03:03:09 PM
From an outsiders view RAP seems to do more harm than good. How was it formed? Is it funded? Why do they have so much power? If it is zoned for commercial and planning has approved the deck, then RAP and others should go away. If you buy land near airport you have planes. If you buy a house beside a commercial zoned property you will have a business. Common sense.

Reply to above:
Dude. Do a bit of research. Talk with them. Spouting uniformed opinions is not productive.

This may not please all people but based on the "anonymous call to zoning"

I rest my case.

[Captain Zissou]

This may not please all people but based on the "anonymous call to zoning"

I rest my case.

You have no idea who made that call.  I would bet that it was someone from PROUD, not RAP.  Not defending RAP, but in the last two instances of a business owner being prevented from trying to enrich the neighborhood, RAP has not been the problem.

[Tacachale]

This may not please all people but based on the "anonymous call to zoning"

I rest my case.

You have no idea who made that call.  I would bet that it was someone from PROUD, not RAP.  Not defending RAP, but in the last two instances of a business owner being prevented from trying to enrich the neighborhood, RAP has not been the problem.

Well, in both cases RAP was involved in the opposition in the early phases. They were involved in the push against the Roost's rezoning and were part of the appeal against Spirit Animal's proposed outdoor seating. However, they were willing to let the Roost alone after the City Council approved the rezoning, and were willing to support Spirit Animal after they made a bunch of concessions. So while they're not the whole root, they're part of it.

[dp8541]

I guess congrats to the neighbors in PROUD?  Now instead of having a restaurant on the block (which would likely increase their property value) they now have a condemned building.

[Adam White]

It's possible to oppose one particular development (or type of development) for the area and not be opposed to developments in general. I don't blame the local residents for not wanting a live music bar next to/across the street from them. I used to live over there and would've been opposed to it, too.

Not sure who was responsible for keeping the building in decent shape, though. The article seems a bit unclear about why the building has been condemned, but it seems to imply it's due to lack of upkeep/repairs to existing issues. In any event, I am sad to hear this - it would've been nice to get some sort of development in that space.

[Charles Hunter]

It's possible to oppose one particular development (or type of development) for the area and not be opposed to developments in general. I don't blame the local residents for not wanting a live music bar next to/across the street from them. I used to live over there and would've been opposed to it, too.

Not sure who was responsible for keeping the building in decent shape, though. The article seems a bit unclear about why the building has been condemned, but it seems to imply it's due to lack of upkeep/repairs to existing issues. In any event, I am sad to hear this - it would've been nice to get some sort of development in that space.

From my reading of the article, it sounded like the Rooster developer did not do any upkeep while pursuing the appeals. Perhaps feeling that, if they won, they would have to be redone, at additional cost, when reconstructing for the bar.  So, who is responsible? The owner / Rooster developer.

[Tacachale]

It's possible to oppose one particular development (or type of development) for the area and not be opposed to developments in general. I don't blame the local residents for not wanting a live music bar next to/across the street from them. I used to live over there and would've been opposed to it, too.

Not sure who was responsible for keeping the building in decent shape, though. The article seems a bit unclear about why the building has been condemned, but it seems to imply it's due to lack of upkeep/repairs to existing issues. In any event, I am sad to hear this - it would've been nice to get some sort of development in that space.

Frankly I can see why folks on both sides are upset. Whatever else one might think of this project, the building was not zoned for a restaurant, which is why they pushed to be rezoned. On the other hand, the business owners argue that they went through the proper process to rezone it, and then PROUD has tied them up with appeals.

To me the bigger issue is that the zoning doesn't necessarily fit the realities of modern retail. It'll take a business with a pretty solid profit margin and rent potential to handle the costs of the renovation. Certainly no other laundry is going to chip in the tens of thousands of dollars it would take to renovate this building. Perhaps a smaller restaurant would do, but it has to be 150 seats to have a liquor license. Unfortunately that's a lot less negotiable than other parts of the zoning.

As for who's to blame, it depends on which side you believe. RAP and the other opponents blame the property owner for not keeping up his property through all this. The business owners blame the fact that they're tied up legally or they would have renovated it years ago. Either way, the whole thing has led to a situation nobody wants, which is a historic building being condemned.

[Tacachale]

It's possible to oppose one particular development (or type of development) for the area and not be opposed to developments in general. I don't blame the local residents for not wanting a live music bar next to/across the street from them. I used to live over there and would've been opposed to it, too.

Not sure who was responsible for keeping the building in decent shape, though. The article seems a bit unclear about why the building has been condemned, but it seems to imply it's due to lack of upkeep/repairs to existing issues. In any event, I am sad to hear this - it would've been nice to get some sort of development in that space.

From my reading of the article, it sounded like the Rooster developer did not do any upkeep while pursuing the appeals. Perhaps feeling that, if they won, they would have to be redone, at additional cost, when reconstructing for the bar.  So, who is responsible? The owner / Rooster developer.

The Roost can't be expected to do any renovations while there's a chance that their use won't be allowed. The Roost group is not the property owner.

[Charles Hunter]

Sorry, I thought the Roost people owned the building.  In any event, the owner is responsible for keeping the building up to code.

[JeffreyS]

Once again confirming that too many in the RAP area want Oakleaf with old homes instead of the vibrancy that drew us to the area in The first place.