Potential Demolition in Avondale

[Dog Walker]

Why do I think that someone bought some rental properties in the Riverside/Avondale historic district because they were affordable and got in trouble when he wanted to put in cheap vinyl windows without a COA or building permit?  Or some such scenario.

[hanjin1]

I vote for saving the house. It's in a historic district for a reason. If you don't like it, sell it. It's not like he's going to lose money anyways.

[Dog Walker]

Hanjin, the property without the house is much more valuable than the property with the house on it.  It's a big lot for the area and could take a much larger house.  It's about the potential gain in value of the property.

[fsu813]

Looks like RAP & SPAR are working together to fight this, as they should. Just got an email from RAP via SPAR urging everyone to come out to support denial of demo at this possible precedent-setting hearing.

[Dog Walker]

We've whipped Harden's ass on a couple of his client's issues in the past year, let's do it again!

[JaxNative68]

Just imaging if there was a historic board back in 1920?  Not wanting anything built in Jacksonville that didn't represent the image of anything more modern than an 1860's colonial clapboard saltbox?  What would our city look like?

I'm sorry, but architecture should speak of the time period in which it is built.  In my eyes a historic neighborhood is enhanced by having progressive architecture sprinkled about.  It's called serendipity!  The dichotomy of the architecture speaks volumes and heightens not only the historic, but the new as well.  These neighborhoods have grown over a long period of time and reflect that in their fabric.  If everything is built to look like a past time period, what will we have in 50 years time - nothing of our time period worth saving.  When I speak of progressive architecture, I am not referring to the crap created and built by Pulte, Beazer, Lennar, Aurora, The Pineapple Corp and etc., that are loaded down with meaningless faux architectural icons formed out of foam and covered with stucco, but am speak of true architecture, you know the stuff created by real architects.  Unfortunately the majority of the inhabitants of Jacksonville are glazed over with an ideal of image and can’t see the trees for the forest or the individual branches that actually make up a tree.  The snap up the new cheaply built housing because they think the size and “style” of the home makes them appear more successful, more distinguished and more high society than they are, but in all actuality, it does the opposite.

I can not understand why someone wants to overpay to live in a cookie cutter/developer neighborhood that has the same 6 - 8 houses repeated over and over again with maybe a mirrored plan thrown in here and there.  bbbbooooorrrrrriiiiiiiinnnnnnnggggggg.

[Dog Walker]

The houses in Riverside/Avondale were mostly built between 1902 and the 1950's.  There is a whole lot of architectural variation in the area.  Because most of the houses were built by individuals, one at a time, there is even more diversity than you will find in a newer development.

Houses were also relatively more expensive during that period as well and there were no thirty year mortgages at all.  Mortgages were for shorter terms and could be called at almost any time if the bank needed capital back.

The cookie cutter house built after WWII were much cheaper and faster to build and were a response to a huge backlog of housing demand.  Some of the earliest (1950's) are actually pretty well built.  The stuff built over the last thirty years is mostly junk; bad materials and bad workmanship with better engineering.

The historic districts have been created to preserve the diversity that exists and prevent cookie cutter, foam and stucco mcmansions from taking over a desirable area in which to live.  Remember the term "teardown"?

[strider]

I totally agree that the historic districts need to preserve their stock of historic structures.  I also agree that new infill should, and in fact, I think it must be of a varied style.  We built two historically accurate houses in Springfield.  Our goal was to build a house that someone from 1910 would have trouble telling it wasn’t built then (except for, of course, the kitchen).  We pretty much managed to achieve that.  However, the exterior is a give away that it is new if one really looks at it.  Next, I want to build one that defies current Historic Commission thinking and build a house that is ultra modern circa late 1920's to 30‘s in influence. Some of you might be surprised at how modern that would look. (and no, not the typical suburban “modern”)  The guidelines actually allow for it if one could get it past the commission. 

[JaxNative68]

^ I would not be surprised.  Downtown Jax used to have a lot of Art Deco/Modern style buildings, which were a erected around the 1920's.  Unfortunately our city leaders have torn most of them down in order to construct new buildings that replicate older ones.  The Main Library is a good example of this.

[Dog Walker]

The LUZ  committee of the Jax City Council just voted 6-1 to deny Bronson Lamb's request to tear down his old house.  Ray Holt was the only one who voted to allow it.

Paul Hardin made a couple of very weak arguments about the owner wanting to build a new house that would stand up to 119 MPH winds.  Tom Goldsbury, City Building Inspection head said that the house was structurally sound and that the present owner had moved into the building in 1971, but had used it as a rental property in the past few years.

Councilman Corrigan, in whose district the house is, while not a member of the LUZ spoke forcefully and eloquently about why historic districts are important and how allowing this demolition would remove any possible future arguments against demolition in the historic districts.  He was strongly against allowing this demolition of a structurally sound, contributing building.  He quoted previous testimony by the owner that he did not want to replace the house, but save the vacant land for his grandchildren.  This contradicted what Mr. Harden was now claiming the owner wanted to do.

Robin Lumb spoke for RAP and refuted each point of Hardin's presentation.  Another speaker pointed out that the house had withstood many hurricanes since 1920 without damage.  Councilman Joost looked up the path and winds of hurricane Dora in 1964 and said that the house had been exposed to 110MPH winds at that time.  He stated that he really didn't like historic districts, but that the rules were in place and this proposal did not meet the criteria for demolition.

[fsu813]

Great news!

why do i suspect the house may catch fire mysteriously in the next few years....

[thirdeye]

Going forward, how much disrepair can Mr. Lamb allow his house to fall into?

[stjr]

Is Paul Hardin finally losing his "touch"..... on our politicians shoulders?  

[Steve]

Nice job guys!!!!!  I was at work late, so I couldn't come by.  Glad to hear everything went well.  Why did Holt vote for it?

[grimss]

I only got there at the tail end, as Harden was making his final statements about how "he knew the law" and that the owner had every right to want his family to live in a structure that met modern wind codes. I didn't hear Harden's earlier arguments, but this struck me as pretty weak since Harden and his client have never claimed the demolition request centered around building a safer structure for family members; the stated intent, all along, was wanting to avoid repair costs and rental hassles while still preserving the land for his grandkids. 

Hearing Stephen Joost, I initially thought he was sandbagging things with his talk about hating historic districts and the fact it meant your neighbors or someone else could tell you what to do with your property; however, he then pulled out his real-time Hurricane Dora fact check, which showed the property in question had been close to the eye of Dora and survived, which demonstrated it already met modern wind codes. Genius.

Holt's proposed amendment--to permit demolition but require a new home be built on the site within three years, or have the owner face fines--garnered a surprising amount of derision. Even Davis (who in the previous LUZ hearing had clearly supported demolishing the structure) said it was unenforceable; I was surprised when he sided with the majority in denying the appeal.

Now we get to see whether the owner will appeal to the City Council. It's my understanding the full Council still has ultimate say, right?