Did Jax drop the ball on Doro historic designation?

[jaxlongtimer]

https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/did-jax-drop-the-ball-on-doro-historic-designation/

Yes, if you call it the "wrecking" ball!

This is sad, especially following the demolition of the Landing, City Hall, the Riverside fire station, the Greyhound Bus station, etc.  Our City government continues its long tradition of ignoring Jacksonville's rich history (the richest in Florida given it is "Florida's First Coast.").

We only have to look to St. Augustine and Fernandina to see the value of keeping and restoring historic and unique buildings.  And, people wonder why Downtown goes nowhere?  There is little left to it that is "special."

[BridgeTroll]

Sometimes it is just time to move on...

[thelakelander]

^Technically moving on but doing nothing to change policy, results in more of the same. Doro may be lost but the focus should be on the bigger picture. To break the cycle, we have to confront the policy and acts that continue to lead to the same result. If not, we'll spend another billion in the name of revitalizing downtown, but still be in the act of revitalizing in 2040 and beyond.

[jaxlongtimer]

^Technically moving on but doing nothing to change policy, results in more of the same. Doro may be lost but the focus should be on the bigger picture. To break the cycle, we have to confront the policy and acts that continue to lead to the same result. If not, we'll spend another billion in the name of revitalizing downtown, but still be in the act of revitalizing in 2040 and beyond.

Lake, totally agree.  "Moving on" is what has resulted in the near total destruction of our historic fabric in Downtown and in pockets all over the City.  I have visited few cities that have so little appreciation for their historic structures and history in general.  This disposition is just another example of the lack of vision our City leaders have.  Ironically, we are "living in the past" with our actions or lack thereof, but without the benefit of the trappings of same.  The worst of both worlds.

[BridgeTroll]

It appears... This time at least... that the demolition will be followed by a new and useful building as opposed to a unused empty lot. I  do not support demolition in the hopes that something new will eventually replace it...

[thelakelander]

^Maybe. They need incentives for the project to be feasible and we have no idea of how the market is ultimately going to react to the pandemic. This is one I could very well see playing out like most similar proposals in DT's past. Tear the building down, project fails and we're left looking at another surface parking lot for the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, that's a different issue than the concern of COJ not being more progressive in providing protections for buildings we know are historically significant at the local level.

[Steve]

Of course it was approved:

https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/downtown-development-review-board-gives-final-approval-to-doro-mixed-use-project

If there's one positive here, is it sounds like the DDRB has grasped the concept of building permit prior to demolition:

The board approved The Doro design with the condition that Rise obtain a building permit for vertical construction before demolishing the existing Doro Fixtures structure.

The condition doesn't apply to interior demolition of the structure.

The board agreed to add language proposed by Rise attorney Paul Harden that the hold on demolition pending a permit is a binding condition as long as no one seeks a local landmark designation on the structure.

Board member J. Brent Allen said that demolition should not move forward without certainty that the mixed-use project will be built.

"If we've been told once — and I'm not saying that that's this project — but if we've been told once 'Hey, we're going to tear down this building and we're going to build this lovely high-rise' and it didn't happen, we'd all be rich and retired," Allen said.

[Tacachale]

The other takeaway is that clearly the developers know that local landmarking will save buildings. Paul Harden requested and received an amendment that if anyone starts trying to landmark the Doro, the deal is off and the building comes down. It's too late for this building, but the landmarking process could save others in the future.

[vicupstate]

Is there any money in the Historic Building Fund or whatever it was called? If you threw the developer $3mm to make the new building use a small footprint and save the most historic building (which they could then sell to someone else for additional profit) they might actually have gone for it. 

[thelakelander]

The property would have to be landmarked to draw money from the fund. Instead, they'll be going after REV grants to get their numbers to work.

[vicupstate]

The property would have to be landmarked to draw money from the fund. Instead, they'll be going after REV grants to get their numbers to work.

Well, it is eligible, so if someone had been proactive and wrote up an ordinance that they seek landmark status, reduce the new building footprint in exchange for the funding, they might would have gone for it. It is so far down the road now, that they have a lot less incentive as they have some sunk costs into their current plans.

[thelakelander]

^Yes, this is pretty much the point that preservations need to take from this. It's too late for Doro but just about anything left in downtown that's over 50 years of age is likely eglible for landmarking. To play fire against fire, use the currently policies in the Code of Ordinances to start proactively getting the remaining unprotected historic buildings landmarked now because you can't rely on COJ to lead in this area. It shouldn't be too hard to find a preservation friendly council member or two to sponsor some of these sites. HPC staff would too if they had more resources.

Doing this, you create a situation where the market outcome is more predictable and downtown's remaining historic fabric has some level of protection. Showing up and protesting at meetings when the developer has already been led to spend money and time for a certain outcome (and to agencies that have no control of the landmarking process) will only result in more untimely demos.

[thelakelander]

^Yes, I think that was a way to placate the public and ensure that there would be no effort to actually landmark the building.

[jaxlongtimer]

Harden hoodwinked the DIA.  With his addition, the developer came out way ahead.  Guaranteed demolition without a real commitment to build.

Had the wording not been modified, landmark status was still a threat to the developer, albeit a small one.  At least the possibility existed vs. now it is totally snuffed out.  The minute someone would try to landmark the building the demolition would begin.

I am always amazed how City officials kowtow to Harden after all these years.  One has to wonder why?

Best hope is their financing falls through and kills the project.