Potential Demolition in Avondale

[choosing2disappear]

regarding your thoughts about low country, I don't agree with your opinion. I think what we have is a tail wagging the dog routine.  "what the customers want". (not mocking you, just quoting), Did ALL the customers happen to be confused-contemporary anachronists  who sought a vintage-esque shell with a thoroughly modern interior? Of course it didn't.
A). who arrives to a historic district, which is ripe with a constant supply historic homes for sale (in a variety of price ranges I might add) and requests the fake old home option. I can't believe that has ever happened once, or if it did the realtor wouldn't do a double take and dissuade them.

the idea came before the customer (the fact that it's popular shouldn't matter to you). It's the acceptability of that idea to most people IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT thats the problem. You might agree with me on this point.

The good people at Low country should be allowed to make a living. In-fill should be allowed to happen. But what has been coming from them is utterly bankrupt, and only dilutes the true nature of the neighborhood.
Isn't it a greater threat to the integrity and the authenticity of ANY historic district, to not distinguish between the real thing and the faker?

I am acquainted with a pair of architects who had plans for a modest residence on a small lot near forbes/ margaret.  It was a thoroughly modern design, just like the sort that the true progressive cities have long ago enbraced. Imagine something that might show up in the pages of Elle decor. Small, modern, exciting. RAP (my memory at least) interfered and helped to kill the project. why? Fears of neighborhood integrity loss.

Don't presume that I don't know what progressive means, I do. And I can tell you that Jacksonville hasn't qualified for that label in 45 years. If anything our greater, immediate environment is proof that progress can progress backward too.

[choosing2disappear]

Yes, I had some images of the may street affair, somewhere.

[Kay]

[/quote]How historic IS the district if it's permissible to you, to allow developers to buy up vacant lots and build "fake" historic homes, ( an activity which has been going on for years in avondale) which ape the mannerisms and appearances of older homes? You can not force time to stand still. Vacant lots exist, and "folks" should feel comfortable building anything reasonable on them, in the very historic district of avondale.

Several large  1920's homes were demolished in 2004 along may st in riverside. St vincent's sold them away. a huge 5 story thing now sits on the land. Where was your passion during that affair? Where was RAP?
[/quote]

My recollection is that there was one historic structure in very bad shape that RAP tried to get moved.  The large building that was demolished where 1661 now sits was not a contributing historic structure.  Much of May St. in 5 Points is not within the historic district boundaries.  The apartments Grimms refers to are one example of that.  Riverside Presbyterian bought them and tore them down for a parking lot.  That's what happens when properties are not protected.  

[Kay]

regarding your thoughts about low country, I don't agree with your opinion. I think what we have is a tail wagging the dog routine.  "what the customers want". (not mocking you, just quoting), Did ALL the customers happen to be confused-contemporary anachronists  who sought a vintage-esque shell with a thoroughly modern interior?
A). who arrives to a historic district, which is ripe with a constant supply historic homes for sale (in a variety of price ranges I might add) and requests the fake old home option. I can't believe that has ever happened once, or if it did the realtor wouldn't do a double take and dissuade them.

the idea came before the customer (the fact that it's popular shouldn't matter to you).

Isn't it a greater threat to the integrity and the authenticity of ANY historic district, to not distinguish between the real thing and the faker?

I am acquainted with a pair of architects who had plans for a modest residence on a small lot near forbes/ margaret.  It was a thoroughly modern design, just like the sort that the true progressive cities have long ago enbraced. Imagine something that might show up in the pages of Elle decor. Small, modern, exciting. RAP (my memory at least) interfered and helped to kill the project. why? Fears of neighborhood integrity loss.

Don't presume that I don't know what progressive means, I do. And I can tell you that Jacksonville hasn't qualified for that label in 45 years. If anything our greater, immediate environment is proof that progress can progress backward too.

I'm aware of a modern design for a lot on Stockton near College.  The City's historic planners and ultimately the Jacksonville Historic Preservation Commission (JHPC) denied that design, not RAP.

[choosing2disappear]

My recollection is that there was one historic structure in very bad shape that RAP tried to get moved.  The large building that was demolished where 1661 now sits was not a contributing historic structure.  
[/quote]

-KAY
you just made my list of things to do today. You should dust off your idea of what is and is not historic. The building you refer to WAS 1661, not the present structure. If the beige thing that occupies that lot has a name, I don't know it. 1661 was an internationally recognized structure. It would be 53 years old if it was still around. It's ONLY not historic because  IT  WAS  DEMOLISHED.
I know that made a lot of people happy. Did that make you happy, Kay?

Regarding the other building, the house. The full story is that St. vincent's was the landlord, and the stucture was allowed it to decay through neglect, so it could eventually be gotten rid of. Whispered in my ear by the last guy who lived in it.

[choosing2disappear]

regarding your thoughts about low country, I don't agree with your opinion. I think what we have is a tail wagging the dog routine.  "what the customers want". (not mocking you, just quoting), Did ALL the customers happen to be confused-contemporary anachronists  who sought a vintage-esque shell with a thoroughly modern interior?
A). who arrives to a historic district, which is ripe with a constant supply historic homes for sale (in a variety of price ranges I might add) and requests the fake old home option. I can't believe that has ever happened once, or if it did the realtor wouldn't do a double take and dissuade them.

the idea came before the customer (the fact that it's popular shouldn't matter to you).

Isn't it a greater threat to the integrity and the authenticity of ANY historic district, to not distinguish between the real thing and the faker?

I am acquainted with a pair of architects who had plans for a modest residence on a small lot near forbes/ margaret.  It was a thoroughly modern design, just like the sort that the true progressive cities have long ago enbraced. Imagine something that might show up in the pages of Elle decor. Small, modern, exciting. RAP (my memory at least) interfered and helped to kill the project. why? Fears of neighborhood integrity loss.

Don't presume that I don't know what progressive means, I do. And I can tell you that Jacksonville hasn't qualified for that label in 45 years. If anything our greater, immediate environment is proof that progress can progress backward too.

I'm aware of a modern design for a lot on Stockton near College.  The City's historic planners and ultimately the Jacksonville Historic Preservation Commission (JHPC) denied that design, not RAP.

Hmmm. I think you've got me there sister. I stand corrected.

[choosing2disappear]

[/quote]
Very well said.  What is wonderful about Riverside and Avondale is its diversity--the architecture, the socioeconomic mix, culture, building uses such as homes, apartments, commercial businesses. 
[/quote]

Diversity = only the styles and periods that appeal to your taste?

Could you clarify your view on the point (regarding the real 1661) ?

[choosing2disappear]

no reply?

[grimss]

Sorry, dinner, kids, bedtime etc. does tend to get in the way of prompt board responses.

Re. Lowcountry and other "faux" historic houses. You're apparently new to the boards, so you likely don't know I myself have a new house that was designed to be sympathetic to its historic environs while still sporting a more modern interior. (Our old house (non-contributing single story 1949-circa house) was flooded in 2004 and had to be torn down; we rebuilt on the lot.) We essentially had an open rule book because, as new construction, we didn't have to follow the guidelines for historic structures--although it was strongly "suggested" we not build anything too revolutionary. That message didn't come from RAP; it came from the Planning Dept. We're huge fans of Dwell Magazine and would have been happy to erect a fabulous pre-fab structure. However, we also knew we have a responsibility--in an historic district--to not stick out like a sore thumb. We chose to build a home that looks, at least on the outside, like a frame vernacular shingle/clapboard home from the 1920s; on the inside, we've got great ceilings. a bamboo kitchen with cork floors, and totally modern fittings. I think the people who seek out Lowcountry designs essentially aim for the same thing. That doesn't mean they don't belong in the historic district.

[choosing2disappear]

Well, I do like your story. But as to your felling, I do disagree. I think that does mean they do not belong in the historic district. Unlike yours, most were not necessitated by acts of god.   Why exactly can't riverside have a few revolutionaries built here or there? Wouldn't that be a good thing? Prairie style was that in it's day, correct?

[JeffreyS]

What's the big deal, those new houses are far too bland for the tastes of modern progressive Americans. New homes with cheap construction on concrete slaps just can't hold a candle to the beauty of vintage built homes.  Historic communities offer us comfort and neighbors that the newer, sterile parts of town will never have. New homes remind me of a box of saltine crackers they are all the same .

-Taxpayer

 

Hmmm. interesting. Yet if you investigate the statistics of jacksonville, not just your immediate surroundings,  you'd know that the only place where your attitude represents the majority view is on this blog's message board.  My initial comment might get your blood up, but it is our reality. 

saltines? really?

Or perhaps Riverside?
How historic is it ask the London Times or Fox news they both seem to think it's kind of a big deal.

[samiam]

What's the big deal, those new houses are far too bland for the tastes of modern progressive Americans. New homes with cheap construction on concrete slaps just can't hold a candle to the beauty of vintage built homes.  Historic communities offer us comfort and neighbors that the newer, sterile parts of town will never have. New homes remind me of a box of saltine crackers they are all the same .

-Taxpayer

 

Hmmm. interesting. Yet if you investigate the statistics of jacksonville, not just your immediate surroundings,  you'd know that the only place where your attitude represents the majority view is on this blog's message board.  My initial comment might get your blood up, but it is our reality. 

saltines? really?

Or perhaps Riverside?
How historic is it ask the London Times or Fox news they both seem to think it's kind of a big deal.

And lets not forget Southern Living Magazine

[Restoration and Education]

The problem with a majority of people is their lack of education when it comes to historic homes/structures. Modern homes do have their benefits. They can be a quality built structure with astonishing beauty. However, to say that a "new" home is better built than an old home is simple, ignorant.

choosing2disappear: no offense or disrespect but you don't know what you are talking about when you made that first statement. The vast majority of these condos and townhomes built in the last 10 yrs are almost worthless. They are falling apart one by one, vacant one by one, and demolished one by one. I see it all the time. It also seems that you may have some misplaced anger towards the historic district and or RAP. Regardless, you made the point that you dont like old homes, fine. So I respectfully suggest that you go to your gated community, where the gate probably doesnt work, and enjoy your home so that we can enjoy and protect our slum homes.

[Bostech]

If he wants to demolish home he qualifies for stimulus money.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/5516536/US-cities-may-have-to-be-bulldozed-in-order-to-survive.html

[choosing2disappear]

The problem with a majority of people is their lack of education when it comes to historic homes/structures. Modern homes do have their benefits. They can be a quality built structure with astonishing beauty. However, to say that a "new" home is better built than an old home is simple, ignorant.

choosing2disappear: no offense or disrespect but you don't know what you are talking about when you made that first statement. The vast majority of these condos and townhomes built in the last 10 yrs are almost worthless. They are falling apart one by one, vacant one by one, and demolished one by one. I see it all the time. It also seems that you may have some misplaced anger towards the historic district and or RAP. Regardless, you made the point that you dont like old homes, fine. So I respectfully suggest that you go to your gated community, where the gate probably doesnt work, and enjoy your home so that we can enjoy and protect our slum homes.

That's crazy talk. They are brand spank'n new. People (americans) need newness. We hunger for that. If it weren't true, then the majority of the city would try to look like a historic theme park. It doesn't look like that. It is in fact  a accurate reflection of the priorities of the people that live here. Most of your fellow citizens have no problem with what you may consider to be vastly lowered standards/ quality of live, base only upon the design and craft employed in the modern way neighborhoods are contrived, gates or no gates (lighten up by the way, rookie). Anger is a bit strong, but nothing is misplaced when one is in full possession of the facts. I feel you and I may have a lot in common, perhaps our main divergence is than I recognize the true nature of my environment and don't chose to let charming fantasies cloud my actions. If you get around to attending a city council meeting about something you care about, you'll come to understand who is in the real majority around these parts.

thanks for your input.