Executive Director of SPAR Council "Comes Out"!

[MusicMan]

Well, there are so many horrible structures all over Springfield where folks went in with great intentions,
did a gruesome job of restoration, then walked away when they raelized how much time money and energy went
into the fix-up. I've traveled extensively and cannot remember any other place in America like Springfield: so close to downtown, yet so tragically "left behind."  99% of the time, when you see a wonderful old neighborhood like this
so close to the urban core, it is among the most desirable areas in town. For Springfiled to be in the shape it is in
requires decades of neglect. Please don't get me wrong, I love the place and see huge potential there, but I often want to cry when I drive around in Springfield.

Most of the buildings are salvageable.  Many of the gorgeous homes that you see today were among the worst of the lot, and therefore got started first in order to save them.

You are probably looking through eyes that are accustomed to cheap construction and disposable homes.

These old structures were made of hard oak and pine, and they can be brought back from a state that none of the new stapled together, cardboard shacks that they sell in the suburbs  would even survive.

[MusicMan]

"You are probably looking through eyes that are accustomed to cheap construction and disposable homes."

I actually live in a 1923 home designed by Roy Benjamin and Mellon Greeley.

[ChriswUfGator]

"You are probably looking through eyes that are accustomed to cheap construction and disposable homes."

I actually live in a 1923 home designed by Roy Benjamin and Mellon Greeley.

Alright, another newbie who sounds just like Louise...

Shocker.

[MusicMan]

I may be a newbie to "Posting" here but I'm a long time reader.  So help me out. I am also a Realtor
who has been trying to sell homes in Springfield for 4 years. I've had some success, like the awesome 1100
sq ft bungalow on Cottage I sold 2 summers ago for $152K. But when you drive folks around, the REALITY
of showing a neighborhood with such a wildly disparate range of properties makes it difficult to sell.
Add to that the lack of quality eateries and shopping..................

Historic district or not, we live in a world of supply and demand. If there was a strong demand for these
"project" homes in Springfield, then we probably would not be having this discussion. Unfortunately the supply
currently outweighs the demand 10 fold. And has for some time. I will support any person who chooses to restore one of these wonderful old homes. But I would not prevent a thoughtful reuse or new construction project similar to what SRG has done.

[ChriswUfGator]

I may be a newbie to "Posting" here but I'm a long time reader.  So help me out. I am also a Realtor
who has been trying to sell homes in Springfield for 4 years. I've had some success, like the awesome 1100
sq ft bungalow on Cottage I sold 2 summers ago for $152K. But when you drive folks around, the REALITY
of showing a neighborhood with such a wildly disparate range of properties makes it difficult to sell.
Add to that the lack of quality eateries and shopping..................

Historic district or not, we live in a world of supply and demand. If there was a strong demand for these
"project" homes in Springfield, then we probably would not be having this discussion. Unfortunately the supply
currently outweighs the demand 10 fold. And has for some time. I will support any person who chooses to restore one of these wonderful old homes. But I would not prevent a thoughtful reuse or new construction project similar to what SRG has done.

Well, first, I agree with your assessment of the realities. However, everyone recognizes that S'field will eventually turn around. It has everything going for it, really it's just a matter of time. Don't you want there to be something left by then? If the same logic had been applied to Riverside and San Marco, we wouldn't have a Riverside or San Marco, just some silly cookie-cutter subdivision. Not worth it. Keep the old stuff, it's what makes the place what it is. If you want cookie cutter, just visit the other 90% of Jacksonville...you'll have no problem finding it. Why tear something historic down?

And FWIW, in the course of a couple dozen renovations, I never saw a place that was beyond saving, except for fire damage. Fire damage, yeah, that I get. otherwise, you'd really be surprised how solid these places are underneath the layers of dirt, water stains, and peeling paint. You think they're trashed, but they're just not underneath. You can't kill them unless you're really trying.

[samiam]

I may be a newbie to "Posting" here but I'm a long time reader.  So help me out. I am also a Realtor
who has been trying to sell homes in Springfield for 4 years. I've had some success, like the awesome 1100
sq ft bungalow on Cottage I sold 2 summers ago for $152K. But when you drive folks around, the REALITY
of showing a neighborhood with such a wildly disparate range of properties makes it difficult to sell.
Add to that the lack of quality eateries and shopping..................

Historic district or not, we live in a world of supply and demand. If there was a strong demand for these
"project" homes in Springfield, then we probably would not be having this discussion. Unfortunately the supply
currently outweighs the demand 10 fold. And has for some time. I will support any person who chooses to restore one of these wonderful old homes. But I would not prevent a thoughtful reuse or new construction project similar to what SRG has done.

Well, first, I agree with your assessment of the realities. However, everyone recognizes that S'field will eventually turn around. It has everything going for it, really it's just a matter of time. Don't you want there to be something left by then? If the same logic had been applied to Riverside and San Marco, we wouldn't have a Riverside or San Marco, just some silly cookie-cutter subdivision. Not worth it. Keep the old stuff, it's what makes the place what it is. If you want cookie cutter, just visit the other 90% of Jacksonville...you'll have no problem finding it. Why tear something historic down?

And FWIW, in the course of a couple dozen renovations, I never saw a place that was beyond saving, except for fire damage. Fire damage, yeah, that I get. otherwise, you'd really be surprised how solid these places are underneath the layers of dirt, water stains, and peeling paint. You think they're trashed, but they're just not underneath. You can't kill them unless you're really trying.

Yes historic houses were built to last, When the house on market between 1st and 2nd was demolished they removed the entire center of the house and it still would not collapse. This showed me that that house was extremly well built and was still structurly sound and did not need to come down. it was a shame to watch. My wife was on the verge of crying. So sad.

[samiam]

In my house the back 1/3rd of the roof was collapsed into the second floor and a portion of the second floor was collapsed into the first floor and I was able to save it.

[sheclown]

I have restored a home in which 3/4 of the perimeter's sill was missing.  How the walls were still standing was amazing to me. 

That's what makes us love these old girls so much.  They refuse to surrender! 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgNA6dIDAjk&feature=related

[strider]

Just a note to say that one of the two historic houses that were mentioned in the originally posted e-mail quietly was taken today.  The little bungalow on Hubbard owned by Eva Ayes was torn down.  It did not have to go, she could have fixed it...but she and Louise wanted it gone...

I did not see any info on this since that original e-mail but I supposed it could have been missed.  There is s chance it was taken without approval but then I have been told the city can take them even if the HPC says no. 

This is just part of the real legacy Louise DeSpain has left Springfield...more empty lots and a happy code enforcement department head.

[CS Foltz]

This will be Aunt Eulabells legacy for sure!

[iloveionia]

Strider,
What is the address of the house please.

[strider]

It appears to have been 1819 Hubbard.  If it works, this should be an image from 2004...


http://maps.coj.net/WEBSITE/DuvalMaps/image.asp?src=035024nob0662E_080310

The link seems to work, but you will have to scroll "down" towards Main to get to Hubbard...it seems to put you at Walnut when it opens.   

Ms. Ayres owns the large brick house with brick apartments behind, the gambled house on the full lot (was another house on the lot once..) and the now empty lot where the little bungalow sat.

[iloveionia]

The yard for the gambled house just keeps getting bigger and bigger.  Will be interesting to see if the iron fence is extended to where the bungalow stood only a few days ago.