Die hard preservationists would claim that all homes in a historic district ought to be saved. Is this practical or even desirable? If not, where is the line drawn?
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/IMG_2733-1.jpg)
Everyone -- except perhaps for those who have been sleeping for the last several years -- understands that there have been houses razed which could have been saved.
Now that policies are being reviewed and improved, it is time to look at the "Sophie's Choice" of preservation, make priorities and tough recommendations and perhaps find a reasonable solution.
Razed.
Tough word to swallow.
A few questions to take it further:
What gets salvaged?
Reused?
Repurposed?
We've determined that mothballing saves money over demolition.
Money saved is money earned, right?
Maybe, just maybe, some of that money saved can go right back into the district to offer homeowners assistance.
Years ago, I know this was done.
Why not again?
That's all well and good, but something like this house shown, which has extensive damages inside and out, not to mention, it burned through the roof...it would be far too costly to make an attempt to mothball it, and that means it would have to come down. Nobody has the money or equipment to seal the roof and clean it out where it could potentially be mothballed.
so, should cost be a factor?
If you make cost the deciding factor, the houses are in trouble. Historic preservation isn't the cheapest thing to do, but it's the right thing to do.
"The Congressional Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act of 2008 indicates that the yearly operating expense of the White House was $12,814,000. Or, about $35,106 a day." Now, this includes official entertainment, so I don't know what to take out for that, but...
A concrete and steel office box would be cheaper than the White House, which is essentially a 200-year-old house, but is it right?
@ Debbie: fun stat. Crazy stuff.
Perhaps it may be better to have ALL demolitions (even those previously approved for Formal Track) to go once again before HPC before being sent out to bid. This time, the neighborhood gets to have its voice heard, pictures could be shown, experts called.
We don't know how many "critical care" houses are out there, either. I suppose step one would be to identify them.
If the city demands proper mothballing, which means it has to be secured from top to bottom, then this structure's in danger...that's my point. Now if they would allow it to remain with just the first floor secured, then we win and can save it. This is where it gets sticky with finding out exactly what the city will allow and what they won't.
Yes, IMO, the house can be saved, I've actually seen worse that had been and to see them now, you'd never know they were in such horrific shape. Again, it all boils down to what the city will allow
The second floor would have to be weather-tight, dry, clean and ventilated in order for it to be properly mothballed.
years ago, i used to help my dad board houses on city contracts--his know-how might prove useful here, because i remember us always doïng a thorough job. i didn't put it out there earliër because there are so many different levels ov boarding, and the way we did it wasn't the cheapest (plus i don't remember a lot ov details, so i might end up all talk/no action), but sheclown's bit about 'watertight, dry, clean, and ventilated' sounds a lot like the way we did it.
my dad's a busy busy creature, but i might be able to get him to pull out some ov his old notes and whatnot.
@ kuro --that would be great.
It is possible that we could lose 3 more Historic homes despite new legislation being written to save our remaining stock.
445 E. 7th Street
1630 Ionia Street
1524 Market Street
1630 is slated to be demolished this week: Emergency Demolition
Quote from: iloveionia on November 21, 2010, 08:12:39 PM
It is possible that we could lose 3 more Historic homes despite new legislation being written to save our remaining stock.
445 E. 7th Street
1630 Ionia Street
1524 Market Street
1630 is slated to be demolished this week: Emergency Demolition
1630 Ionia is in really bad shape. It was burned, badly, and is missing key structural elements at this point. It needs to come down.
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/1630Ionia.jpg)
445 E. 7th Street was fully restored when it was damaged by the fire next door. Siding was burned along with a small portion of the roof and several wall joists. This could be fixed with temporary bracing and boarding.
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/East7th.jpg)
1524 Market Street seems okay. We have requested the HPC minutes on this. Of the three, this house seems the most salvageable. It is already boarded.
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/marketstreet-1-1.jpg)
I believe firmly that if these homes were properly boarded, secured, and monitored they would not have burned (2 of them,) as for Market, no clue why it's on the chopping block.
I was checking to see what I could find on the 3 “ladies†in peril on past sales.
I couldn’t find any record that the one on Ionia was ever listed for sale at all.
The one on E 7th, was on the market back in ’06 for $189K and it looked good.
The one on Market St has a weird history:
Sold:
03/26/08 Flaresco Inc $55K
08/31/09 JJJ Family LLLP $11K
11/17/09 Elite Investor Group $100
11/01/10 Abdool Sattaur $4500
And it is currently on the market for $31K.
None of that makes sense. All of those appear to be investors and other than Elite, all lost money. We need to find a way to get rid of this kind of investor who does nothing but neglect and flip.
1630 Ionia went down this afternoon.
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/1630goesdown040-1.jpg)
Preservation SOS was there to watch.
Does anyone know the story on why this one on 2nd Street has a tag?
(http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/7310/picture333k.jpg)
A little ironic. Spend all day working to complete a board and secure project, only to get halted by a demolition of a historic home next door.
I can not stress enough, had 1630 Ionia Street been boarded, secured, AND monitored, it would have been less likely to have caught on fire, not once, but. . .twice.
what color is the tag?
The house on 2nd Street is known as the "Jacobs Building". A couple years ago, the owner at the time applied to have it demolished, but the demolition was rejected. Shortly after, a board at the top floor became loose. Part of the reason mentioned for the demolition was that rehabbing the house would be too expensive (heck... an empty lot... average size for Springfield... how much is that worth???) . I think in part the owner was just upset at the city that they wanted him to add an elevator and special fire rated windows and attempted to use the demolition as leverage.
The house was sold earlier this year.
I haven't been inside, but heard from others that it is gutted on the inside. It is reasonably secured.
Quote from: sheclown on November 23, 2010, 06:53:51 PM
1630 Ionia went down this afternoon.
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/1630goesdown040-1.jpg)
Preservation SOS was there to watch.
After the bulldozer finished, Joe said "do you smell that?" He said "you'd think it would be charcoal from the fire that you 'd smell, but you don't. What you smell is resin, old tree sap -- after a hundred years and two fires, you smell old tree sap."
Did they even allow any salvage before tearing her down?
Quote from: movedsouth on November 23, 2010, 07:52:10 PM
The house on 2nd Street is known as the "Jacobs Building". A couple years ago, the owner at the time applied to have it demolished, but the demolition was rejected. Shortly after, a board at the top floor became loose. Part of the reason mentioned for the demolition was that rehabbing the house would be too expensive (heck... an empty lot... average size for Springfield... how much is that worth???) . I think in part the owner was just upset at the city that they wanted him to add an elevator and special fire rated windows and attempted to use the demolition as leverage.
The house was sold earlier this year.
I haven't been inside, but heard from others that it is gutted on the inside. It is reasonably secured.
It looks secure enough. It has a condemened sticker and red tag currently on the door. Do you know if the current owners have plans with the place? Does anyone know what it needs to be brought up to compliance?
An elevator is required for a three story multi-unit residence?
QuoteAfter the bulldozer finished, Joe said "do you smell that?" He said "you'd think it would be charcoal from the fire that you 'd smell, but you don't. What you smell is resin, old tree sap -- after a hundred years and two fires, you smell old tree sap."
I drove by earlier... should've stopped to say hi.
Quote from: nvrenuf on November 23, 2010, 08:45:10 PM
Did they even allow any salvage before tearing her down?
This particular contractor would have. Once released by MCCD it is "owned" by the contractor so to speak. I only asked for the boards on the doors and windows. But the house had already been looted as it sat vacant and unsecured for many months,sadly there wasn't anything to salvage.
Quote from: fieldafm on November 23, 2010, 08:48:24 PM
QuoteAfter the bulldozer finished, Joe said "do you smell that?" He said "you'd think it would be charcoal from the fire that you 'd smell, but you don't. What you smell is resin, old tree sap -- after a hundred years and two fires, you smell old tree sap."
I drove by earlier... should've stopped to say hi.
Yes, you should have!!!!! Next time.
I'll be out in the 'hood tomorrow as well...
we'll be at 8th/Boulevard at 8 a.m.
Later in the afternoon on 10th/Walnut, stop by if you want handmade heart to show your support of SOS.
Or you can pick up a handmade heart from anyone of us SOSers to show your preservation support at another time.
email preservationsos@yahoo.com and we'll hook you up.
and for the night owls if anybody is interested: We will do a walk through the hood at 9pm on Wednesday starting at the Klutho Park bandstand at Silver and 3rd.
Thanks.
Forgot.
I like the walks.
Code enforcement will not allow salvaging for safety reasons although we did get the chain link gate at the front of the building with their permission.
But the demo company can.
Quote from: sheclown on November 24, 2010, 06:30:46 AM
Code enforcement will not allow salvaging for safety reasons although we did get the chain link gate at the front of the building with their permission.
Just one more rule that needs to be sent into the sunset. It should be easy enough to have a short time period for salvage with the owners permission prior to demolition, otherwise "guerillia salvage" could become a battle cry.
The tag on the Jacobs Building is/was a dayglow orange/red, but it might have been changed. I inquired about the place before moving to WGV and the owner, who was then in Atlanta, wanted something close to a $Mil for the place! I told him I thought he had bumped his head somewhere along the line... I was told the notices were largely because the windows are vacant and open to the elements, another time I was told the basement was flooded. I'd love to get in there with a camera to record the truth about that place because it DOES look like it is as solid as rock. OCKLAWAHA
2nd Street - Jacobs Building: A few years ago, there was actually a contractor hired and work begun. I believe that is when it was gutted. It was also being done as condos, if I remember correctly. I also suspect some of the work was being done prior to permitting.
If they were being required to put in special windows and an elevator, then the people advising the owner did not have the right experience as while that may be the case with new construction, a historic building has ways to avoid some of that with trade offs. We worked up the required paperwork for a three story in Riverside and the only reason there was an elevator, for instance, was choice and the only place there were special windows were in the fire code required back staircase.
I was peaking around yesterday and it appears there isn't any evidence of work being done for awhile. Do you know if the current owners have given up on the building for the time being, or permanently?
I went all through that building from basement to top before the current owner bought it, back when it was for sale (not on MLS) for around $280k. I think that was 2001 maybe? I passed on it because I was in the rental business, and when you factored in the cost estimates and with it being a higher-interest commercial loan, the cost per unit came out way too high to make any money. I didn't see how it would even cover its mortgage. There was an older african american gentleman who was the caretaker for the owner, which is how I made contact just poking around there one day. I was told it had been a nursing home for a time, which had closed down.
Back then, you could pick up 2/1 and 3/1 quadplexes all day for $30k-$40k in Springfield, and the Jacobs building was only (IIRC) 8'ish small units that I was going to have to combine in order to get some kind of marketable square footage per unit. It would have left me paying like $100k+ a unit in S'field, which was ridiculous back then. Actually, forget back then, it's still ridiculous now. I had just finished rehabbing 1719 Perry Street, like 2 blocks away, and after a well-done renovation I still only had $25k/unit in that, which had 4 X 3/1's rented at $850/mo each. It just made no kind of economic sense. I really wanted it, but there was just nothing you could do with it. I thought about condos, but then you were back to the same problem, at $280k you couldn't make any money on it. And they wouldn't budge on the price at all.
So I'm pretty sure that's the price the present owner got it for. So if he wants $800k now, then what we have here is another one of these out-of-town investors who buys a building, announces some nice-sounding plans for it, then does nothing but sit back and expect to quadruple his money. Well, good luck with that. Those guys were the bane of my existence over there, they'd outbid me on the foreclosures, outbid me on outright purchases, all of it. I always wondered how the hell they were making any money paying those prices, when the rents wouldn't cover the mortgage, and these were apartment buildings they at least have to do that much, that's what they're for! I guess time answered that question for us; They weren't making money except on paper.
But regarding the building itself, it was solid as a rock. Needed roof work, windows, doors, plaster, paint, and the usual cosmetic stuff, but it was amazingly intact when I saw it, right down to the original radiators and doorknobs, unpainted dark mahogany trim, etc. The doorknobs were cast bronze, and the larger exterior ones had "J"s cast into them for the Jacobs guy who owned it when it was built. The original boiler and machinery was still in the basement, and looked like it would be functional with some maintenance.
If this idiot investor actually gutted it (I wouldn't know I haven't been back in since) then we have lost probably the single most historically intact structure in the neighborhood. What a travesty.
What did SPAR say when he gutted the building?
The Jacobs Building would make a stunning home if someone was so inclined. I thought an open to the top (3 floors) entry hall with overhanging interior balconies would have been the coup d'etat.
OCKLAWAHA
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 24, 2010, 10:42:16 AM
I went all through that building from basement to top before the current owner bought it, back when it was for sale (not on MLS) for around $280k. I think that was 2001 maybe? I passed on it because I was in the rental business, and when you factored in the cost estimates and with it being a higher-interest commercial loan, the cost per unit came out way too high to make any money. I didn't see how it would even cover its mortgage. There was an older african american gentleman who was the caretaker for the owner, which is how I made contact just poking around there one day. I was told it had been a nursing home for a time, which had closed down.
Back then, you could pick up 2/1 and 3/1 quadplexes all day for $30k-$40k in Springfield, and the Jacobs building was only (IIRC) 8'ish small units that I was going to have to combine in order to get some kind of marketable square footage per unit. It would have left me paying like $100k+ a unit in S'field, which was ridiculous back then. Actually, forget back then, it's still ridiculous now. I had just finished rehabbing 1719 Perry Street, like 2 blocks away, and after a well-done renovation I still only had $25k/unit in that, which had 4 X 3/1's rented at $850/mo each. It just made no kind of economic sense. I really wanted it, but there was just nothing you could do with it. I thought about condos, but then you were back to the same problem, at $280k you couldn't make any money on it. And they wouldn't budge on the price at all.
So I'm pretty sure that's the price the present owner got it for. So if he wants $800k now, then what we have here is another one of these out-of-town investors who buys a building, announces some nice-sounding plans for it, then does nothing but sit back and expect to quadruple his money. Well, good luck with that. Those guys were the bane of my existence over there, they'd outbid me on the foreclosures, outbid me on outright purchases, all of it. I always wondered how the hell they were making any money paying those prices, when the rents wouldn't cover the mortgage, and these were apartment buildings they at least have to do that much, that's what they're for! I guess time answered that question for us; They weren't making money except on paper.
But regarding the building itself, it was solid as a rock. Needed roof work, windows, doors, plaster, paint, and the usual cosmetic stuff, but it was amazingly intact when I saw it, right down to the original radiators and doorknobs, unpainted dark mahogany trim, etc. The doorknobs were cast bronze, and the larger exterior ones had "J"s cast into them for the Jacobs guy who owned it when it was built. The original boiler and machinery was still in the basement, and looked like it would be functional with some maintenance.
If this idiot investor actually gutted it (I wouldn't know I haven't been back in since) then we have lost probably the single most historically intact structure in the neighborhood. What a travesty.
What did SPAR say when he gutted the building?
Mortgages for those types of buildings are certainly not as favorable in some aspects, but MUCH more favorable in other aspects than they were in 2001.
I'm just more tire kicking right now and did some poking around the site yesterday and from the eye test, the building passes quite a few of my informal checklists. Of course, what the owners plans are for the property or how much they are willing to sell for could make or break that type of arrangement pretty quick, just like you said. In its present condition, the interior gutting isn't really a deal breaker from a rehab cost perspective.... or at least, from what I can see.
800k sounds like the classic 'get the hell off my lawn' type of blow off price Ock, LOL. Good God, you can get a fully rented and profitable quadplex in Riverside for less than that. Hell, you could pretty much buy some 4 unit condo buildings in RS for that much.
Riverside Fire Station is still standing. If it can stand, so can anything I suppose at this juncture. JEA has been pulling power from many houses that are empty or when citizens try and steal power. We are going to hear lots of howling when it gets colder!
Notice of Bids 10-15567
Bid Notice
____________________________________
INVITATION TO BID
Sealed bids will be received by the City of Jacksonville, Division of Procurement, 1st floor, Ed Ball Building, 214 North Hogan Street, Suite 105, until the time and dates recorded below and immediately thereafter publicly opened and recorded in Conference Room 110, 1st Floor, Ed Ball Building, 214 North Hogan Street, Jacksonville, FL 32202.
BUYER:
Dan Pearson (904) 255-8815
OPEN:
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
At 2:00 p.m.
CF-0024-11 Demolition & Site Clearance Of 23 Properties, (No Charge)
Prequalification:
Demolition Less Than 3 Stories.
PROJECT MANAGER:
Wayne Hamilton 904-255-7015
CF-0028-11 Demolition & Site Clearance Of 15 Properties, (No Charge)
Prequalification:
Demolition Less Than 3 Stories.
PROJECT MANAGER:
Wayne Hamilton 904-255-7015
john PEYTON, MAYOR
CITY OF
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA
By: Michael Clapsaddle
Chief Of Procurement
Dec. 1 (10-15567)
http://jaxdailyrecord.com/publicnotice.php?Category=Notice%20of%20Bids&mode=daily
38 total properties of 3 stories or less hmmm ::)
Knock em down knock em all down! Good grief! These types of bids are all too commonplace in good ole JAX!
Long Beach, population approximately 500,000, southern most city in Los Angeles County.
This is how they "do" demolitions:
http://lang.presstelegram.com/photos/photos.asp?a=1128332#id=1128332&num=0
Gheesh.