Inside The Claude Nolan Cadillac Building
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/1098318477_jjJRJ-M.jpg)
Metro Jacksonville takes a trip inside one of the last remaining century old Prairie School style structures on Main Street.
Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2010-nov-inside-the-claude-nolan-cadillac-building
I doubt that you'll find many other examples of bottom cord supported elevated storeroom floors. I'll bet the structural engineer didn't sign off on that one.
Might have been interesting to see the layout of the old belt drive machine shop under that overhead drive shaft. Those wheels on that drive shaft were probably driven by leather belts to the floor mounted machines. One large heavy relatively "low" hp motor probably drove the large wheel on the end. A dangerous set up but high tech for its time.
wonderful interior shots
the way the building sits on Hogans Creek makes it look downright Venetian in that one photo
Save the staircase!
There are two wonderful staircases. The one pictured has Italian tiles and is magnificent. The other is wrought iron with newels, handrail and spindles, all iron and very cool.
Making the Skyway a part of downtown, geeze Lake, why didn't we think of that?
OCKLAWAHA
Condos?
I sure would love to see this one restored to its original appearance. It'd be nice if a vintage Cadillac sign could be added to the building too, whatever its eventual use.
Does anyone know what, if anything, is left of the original facade?
Are the windows still there under that concrete? Obviously the awnings are gone, but it would be great to see this restored to it's former glory across from the city engineer's building.
Quote from: Overstreet on November 24, 2010, 04:16:40 AM
I doubt that you'll find many other examples of bottom cord supported elevated storeroom floors. I'll bet the structural engineer didn't sign off on that one.
Might have been interesting to see the layout of the old belt drive machine shop under that overhead drive shaft. Those wheels on that drive shaft were probably driven by leather belts to the floor mounted machines. One large heavy relatively "low" hp motor probably drove the large wheel on the end. A dangerous set up but high tech for its time.
Nice catch on the structural details. I also would have loved to see those drive belts in their heyday.
There are places the old leather overhead belt drive systems are still in use. Entire machine shops were run that way. If you go back far enough, steam or water power was used to spin those shafts. Of course, I am sure this building did use electric motors.
While it would be expensive, the facade could certainly be restored. Most of the brick work will be intact under all that crap. I'd sure like to try it, including the replacement iron and glass awnings.
It is also interesting that the two brick buildings behind the main one are also Klutho designed. Most renderings for this space show these buildings gone and yet as we have lost some many Klutho buildings, they are just as important.
hogan's creek looks like an episode of "life after people".
Does anybody have anymore pics of how the inside looked back then? These seemed to be somewhat of a tease. I want to see more pictures of the original :)
And I agree. Hogans creek looks disgusting. I can believe we let it get that way. That is such a disgrace. :-X
Any clues as to what the original exterior color scheme was?
We never knew there was any ornate tile work inside there - I agree, it should be saved somehow.
By the way, in one picture I saw up there: are the rafters really bowing, or did you use a wide-angle lens?
Quote from: finehoe on November 24, 2010, 09:30:03 AM
Any clues as to what the original exterior color scheme was?
From the Black and White it looks like the main bricks were the dark reddy brown with tan accent bricks/terra cotta.
I would love to do something with this building, and the creek, but I don't quite have the resources. In ten years, she's mine!
Being that Claude-Nolan is still around, it is sad they that didnt keep that building and restore it to its original use. I hate to see building like that just sit and rot. so sad. I think they had their 100 year celebration a few years back. It would have been cool to have the celebration there, if they still owned the building.
Quote from: duvaldude08 on November 24, 2010, 10:44:46 AM
Being that Claude-Nolan is still around, it is sad they that didnt keep that building and restore it to its original use. I hate to see building like that just sit and rot. so sad. I think they had their 100 year celebration a few years back. It would have been cool to have the celebration there, if they still owned the building.
As time went by, Springfield wasn't a place you'd sell many brand new luxury cars.
The dealership couldn't have stayed there, it wasn't economically possible. They had to have customers.
Seriously,
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, DON'T YOU F***ING DARE TOUCH THIS PROPERTY (Demolition, Condemnation, Bureaucratic Rubbish, or any reason).
-Josh
I barely know what SPAR is. Based what I have lurked around the boards here, it seems that SPAR is an evil organization.
-Josh
Quote from: wsansewjs on November 24, 2010, 11:03:28 AM
I barely know what SPAR is. Based what I have lurked around the boards here, it seems that SPAR is an evil organization.
-Josh
Yeah, that pretty much nails it. In most other cities it takes an earthquake to demolish as much as SPAR did here.
From what I understand, in the lobby just through the front doors is the Cadillac logo still inlaid into the concrete floor. It may have been painted over since CNC left that building, but the logo was actually inlaid into the concrete floor.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 24, 2010, 10:57:39 AM
Quote from: duvaldude08 on November 24, 2010, 10:44:46 AM
Being that Claude-Nolan is still around, it is sad they that didnt keep that building and restore it to its original use. I hate to see building like that just sit and rot. so sad. I think they had their 100 year celebration a few years back. It would have been cool to have the celebration there, if they still owned the building.
As time went by, Springfield wasn't a place you'd sell many brand new luxury cars.
The dealership couldn't have stayed there, it wasn't economically possible. They had to have customers.
I am saying they had to sell cars, not by any means. But with a little thinking outside the box about how it could have been put to use. For example, maybe a vintage cadillac museum.??Those awesome show rooms could have displayed the most adored cadallics through out history, and it could also inlcude the history of Nolan Cadillac. On top of that, they could have hosted car shows, etc.
If I were a business owner, I could not see me letting go of my history like that. That is where everything started. So for them to sell the building, I guess they dont really didnt think outside the box as far how it could be put to use.
I've always loved this building and can't believe that no one with the financial resources has developed this into artist lofts. Reminds me of my place in Brooklyn:
http://athousandpiecesofme.com/248studiorental.html
They could go either way with this building and make it into nice condos or more raw artists spaces. Didn't I see in some proposal that the city plans to raze this building (and Park View) to expand Confederate Park across the creek? Such a lack of vision. Why get rid of such solid infrastructure and historic details when it can be repurposed into something beautiful that generates money for the city. It faces a canal and a park for cryin' out loud!
Quote from: mbstout on November 24, 2010, 02:25:05 PM
I've always loved this building and can't believe that no one with the financial resources has developed this into artist lofts. Reminds me of my place in Brooklyn:
http://athousandpiecesofme.com/248studiorental.html
They could go either way with this building and make it into nice condos or more raw artists spaces. Didn't I see in some proposal that the city plans to raze this building (and Park View) to expand Confederate Park across the creek? Such a lack of vision. Why get rid of such solid infrastructure and historic details when it can be repurposed into something beautiful that generates money for the city. It faces a canal and a park for cryin' out loud!
My point exactly. Sometimes I think we have more vision than the city leaders...... I hate that I have great ideas but dont have the resources to make them happen... Hopefully one day I will.
are there environmental issues with the building?
in response to earlier inquiries I think there are bow string trusses in part of the addition
I saw the proposed park/creek study that showed this wonderful building removed
I mean really.....
Quote from: billy on November 24, 2010, 02:49:53 PM
are there environmental issues with the building?
in response to earlier inquiries I think there are bow string trusses in part of the addition
I saw the proposed park/creek study that showed this wonderful building removed
I mean really.....
Are you talking about the Hogan's Creek Greenway plan that HDR did? If so, it is absolutely not removed.
I've been in the building a couple times and it is fantastic. It is in very good shape compared to a few other warehouses type buildings I've been in. The potential is also through the roof, as you can adapt the interior spaces for a million different uses.
I know the owners have some interesting ideas for the building and will be sharing them at a public meeting hosted by.....gasp....wait for it.....gasp....SPAR... ;)
The meeting will be held at City Kidz Special Events Center at 3rd and Main on December 6th at 6PM.
Quote from: CityLife on November 24, 2010, 03:01:24 PM
I know the owners have some interesting ideas for the building and will be sharing them at a public meeting hosted by.....gasp....wait for it.....gasp....SPAR... ;)
lately SPAR seems to've become an interesting little creature. some ov the new blood wants to change things, hell, i think some ov the old blood may want to change things, and it almost seems to be working at cross purposes with itself. we can no longer rely on SPAR for consistent villainy, which is awesome except that we certainly can't rely on it for consistently good works either.
tl;dr version: the times, they are a-changin'.
SPAR backs the development of the Claude Nolan/Park View Inn project. It is a great idea and will be very exciting for the neighborhood. Go to the meeting at City Kidz for more info!
More Pics! thank you for a look into a building I have longed to explore for years.
I remember talking to a WWII vet about his registering for the draft in the building across from Florida Theatre (used to be a ballet studio)
He carefully explained to me how they Bastardized the Facade and lost the arch,and commented on how this was happening under the current corrupt Mayor...from 1947-1952 major Facade rape was allowed. Like trying to redress a classic lady to look like a Prostitute.
I commented to him that this was a time when Men liked their Cigarettes Filter-less,their steaks rare,their coffee black and their whiskey straight.
Bad decisions were made after Lunch... :-\....GOBN (Good Ole Boy Network)
Quote from: Cliffs_Daughter on November 24, 2010, 09:37:56 AM
We never knew there was any ornate tile work inside there - I agree, it should be saved somehow.
By the way, in one picture I saw up there: are the rafters really bowing, or did you use a wide-angle lens?
The rafters and all of the structural elements are in great shape.
Architect W.A. Moore, Jr. must be related to Brooks Haas.
I stand corrected on HDR plan.
I have not seen the final but the draft of the HDR plan did show two of the three Claude Nolan buildings being demolished. In this illustration, only the garage (the center building) remained.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/716772916_BZGuj-M.jpg)
However, what was sketched was really more of a general dream of what the area could become rather than a plan based on reality.
...or not
When this draft plan was presented at a SPAR meeting, showing the Claude Nolan building as well as the Parkview Inn demolished and this whole block as a "gateway park" to Springfield, some of us at the meeting mentioned the historic value of the Claude Nolan building, and the fact that if the ugly pink concrete panels were removed, the building would resemble the one across the street.
With that knowlege in hand, if I recall, I believe the final master plan for the corner included the Claude Nolan building remaining and being restored.
Plus, since then, we know the Parkview Inn garage will remain with new retail space (we hope, we hope.) SPAR is hosting a meeting about the plans for the Parkview Inn at City Kidz on Monday, 12/6 and 6:00 p.m.
If you want the Claude Nolan building landmarked, you'd better contact city council. It doesn't look good for that building. It was deferred last night, but the momentum is against it.
Listening last night, I see two problems both of which are fixable. One is the owner or his attorney speaking up for the building. Second is the lack of knowing what is underneath that 1940-50s facade.
I couldn't help but contrast that with the Meyers sisters who were there once again to plead for landmark status for their family home in Durkeeville.
Part of the reason that the building got the nod from the Historic Preservation Commission was because of that facade. It in itself is historic. It is both a plus and a minus that this building's owners had the means to "keep it up" for many decades. Updating their facility is pretty normal for successful businesses and that is what happen in I believe 1946 or 1949 with this building. The facade is historically accurate for that time period. There are still original features within the building as well as a huge potential for the future at that location, and an easier future if there is still a building there rather than an empty lot. Remember that the reason we are trying to get this building(s) landmarked is that they appeared on a Municipal Code Compliance (Kimbery Scott's) hit list.
I was at the LUZ meeting when this was discussed. It seemed painfully obvious to me that the people asking the questions like "Why should we landmark it...just because it is old?" have not even bothered to look at the building. Have they visited the site? Have they been inside the building? Have they even bothered to look at photographs? Heck, the photos in this thread alone are enough to prove this building has historical value!
One of the major obstacles to saving these structures is the monetary investment to restore it. Even with that said, THIS BUILDING IS WORTH SAVING!!!
Perhaps with landmark status the building would qualify for grant funds to restore???
Looking forward to this building being torn down.
So these are the buildings built over the ground that's been contaminating Hogan's Creek? Is there any hope of saving the building an still cleaning up the contamination?
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/mainstreetcardealerships.png) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/mainstreetcardealerships.png.html)
Quote
Here is the corners of Main and Orange streets. It shows Claude Nolan, Inc. Cadillac dealers. The Henry McClellan's English Ford. The section on the right is now a motel. Claude Nolan also moved out." LS
The Claude Nolan Pontiac/Cadillac dealership building is still standing but has been empty and boarded up for many years. The rest of the buildings were cleared to build a hotel which has since been torn down after many years of being abandoned. I find the McClellan English Built Ford dealership to be of particular interest. I wonder if some of this unfortunate shipment of vehicles were headed there.
more:
http://vintagejacksonville.net/2013/10/15/main-street-car-dealerships-1958/
Quote from: Tacachale on February 10, 2014, 02:45:20 PM
So these are the buildings built over the ground that's been contaminating Hogan's Creek? Is there any hope of saving the building an still cleaning up the contamination?
Only the small building is built over contamination. That is the mechanics shop.
Certainly the facade could be kept in tact.
I would like to see the study and see the extent of the pollution on which it sits. Is it necessary or just precautionary?
So were these buildings "built over" the contamination or did they house the cause of it?
Quote from: finehoe on February 11, 2014, 03:44:26 PM
So were these buildings "built over" the contamination or did they house the cause of it?
The Park View Inn was constructed atop the source of the contamination.
They were built over it
So Megatron, why would you rather have a vacant lot instead of a historical building?
Quote from: JaxUnicorn on February 11, 2014, 07:18:43 PM
So Megatron, why would you rather have a vacant lot instead of a historical building?
I'm a Decepticon. I like to watch it all burn.
Quote from: MEGATRON on February 11, 2014, 04:00:49 PM
Quote from: finehoe on February 11, 2014, 03:44:26 PM
So were these buildings "built over" the contamination or did they house the cause of it?
The Park View Inn was constructed atop the source of the contamination.
Here's a picture of the coal gasification plant right after the Great Fire of 1901. This shot is taken from the Waterworks, looking south towards downtown and the river. The source of contamination is the building with the smoke stacks, just on the other side of the creek.
(http://www.jacksonvillefiremuseum.com/Great%20Fire%201901%20(4).JPG)
http://www.jacksonvillefiremuseum.com/Great%20Fire%201901%20(4).JPG
Wow. Awesome pic, one I have not seen before.
I haven't seen this one either. I'm fascinated with Jax Great Fire pics. The amount and speed of the devastation was staggering.
That building needs to be saved for a library or something...I do love the way it hangs off over Hogans Creek..I do remember the upper floor water leak..Still love the tile staircase..that is harder to recover than you think folks..it doesn't just come out in neat tiles unfortunately..
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/568918432_kXAde-M.jpg)
If the creek were clean and the building was saved, that would be a pretty nice outdoor dining or seating area for a restaurant or bar.
Who owns the building and why have they done nothing with it?
Owned by an LLC with an Atlantic Beach PO Box address....Hionides?
I forget who owns it, but if Intuition wants it and can develop it, I'll donate a grand toward the cause. Crowdsourcing may be one possibillity to save certain historic structures from demos.
Quote from: 02roadking on February 13, 2014, 09:35:30 AM
I forget who owns it, but if Intuition wants it and can develop it, I'll donate a grand toward the cause. Crowdsourcing may be one possibillity to save certain historic structures from demos.
I'd say there are quite a number of residents in SPR that would be happy to help crowdsource developing something cool for that building or lot. Or anything else in the area for that matter.
I think Hionedes doesn't own that one outright and has partners on it.
Contamination issues or not, developers in Chicago, Brooklyn, Denver, Portland, Atlanta, etc would be battling to convert this building into lofts, and some combination of live music venues, restaurants, and brewery.
LUZ recommended denial of landmarking of Claude Nolan, it goes before Council for final vote next week. Owner wants to mothball and apparently supports landmarking
From April of last year.
After seeing this demolition request, PSOS became active in requesting the landmark of this Klutho building.
The City of Jax has a Request for Proposal out for demolition of 18 buildings. Included in the 18 is Item 6 which is 937 Main Street N., the Claude Nolan Cadillac Building, built by Nolan in 1910, designed by Henry J. Klutho.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/claudenolan1.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/claudenolan1.jpg.html)
2. 2013-803 AN ORDINANCE REGARDING CHAPTER 307 (HISTORIC PRESERVATION), ORDINANCE CODE; DESIGNATING THE STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 937 NORTH MAIN STREET, OWNED BY THE 937 MAIN STREET LLC, REAL ESTATE NUMBER 074386-0000, IN COUNCIL DISTRICT 7, JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA, AS A LANDMARK STRUCTURE; DIRECTING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TO ENTER THE LANDMARK DESIGNATION ON THE ZONING ATLAS; DIRECTING THE CHIEF OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES TO NOTIFY EACH APPLICANT, THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE PROPERTY APPRAISER OF THE LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND TO CAUSE SAID DESIGNATION TO BE RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; 1/7/2014 - Read 2nd & Rerefer
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LAND USE & ZONING: February 19, 2014
The Chair OPENED the Public Hearing and extended the Privilege of the Floor to anyone in the audience desiring to address the Committee. The Chair CLOSED the Public Hearing.
Recommend to AMEND and APPROVE. Motion FAILED.
AYES - Holt, Love, ( 2 )
NAYS - Bishop, Boyer, Lumb, Redman, Schellenberg, ( 5 )
very sad :'(
This wouldn't prevent an application for mothball status would it?
Mothballing at this time is only an available option if the structure is within a Historic District or is landmark, so if it doesn't get the landmark status it will most likely be torn down. The good news is that it will be so expensive to tear down that if the city decides to do it, they will most likely have to use Federal funding to afford it in which case, the section 106 review kicks in and may save that building if the city council won't.
I heard it is the facade issue - meaning that the facade has been radically changed from the original Kultho design - that is being used as the excuse. The art deco facade is historical itself as was brought up by the HPC as a reason it deserved landmarking even though it was modified. In addition, it appears that the facade may at least mostly still exist under the panels used to modify it.
It doesn't cost the city or the public anything to landmark this building. The owners have expressed interest in having it landmarked and mothballed. (Just told they were there last night) So the question becomes, who personally profits by not having this building landmarked?
If the owner is in favor of landmarking, it kind of makes you wonder why anyone else would be opposed enough to take the time to fight it.
City Council cut and paste email:
Clay@coj.net, WBishop@coj.net, RClark@coj.net, Redman@coj.net, LBoyer@coj.net, MattS@coj.net , Gaffney@coj.net, EDLee@coj.net, WAJones@coj.net, : RBrown@coj.net, Holt@coj.net, doylec@coj.net, Gulliford@coj.net, JimLove@coj.net, KimDaniels@coj.net, : JRC@coj.net, Joost@coj.net, GAnderson@coj.net, RLumb@coj.net
Feb. 19th 2014 picture: http://vintagejacksonville.net/
Quote from: 02roadking on February 21, 2014, 02:46:04 PM
Feb. 19th 2014 picture: http://vintagejacksonville.net/
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/claudenolan5.png) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/claudenolan5.png.html)
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/mainstreetcardealerships.png) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/mainstreetcardealerships.png.html)
But should one want to remove that facade and restore it to its original look, it would be easy enough.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/claudenolanbrick1.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/claudenolanbrick1.jpg.html)
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/claudenolanbrick3.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/claudenolanbrick3.jpg.html)
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/claudenolanbrick2.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/claudenolanbrick2.jpg.html)
Large marble slabs are loosely attached to the original brick facade.
Was the owner there requesting landmark status? If the owner is favor what rationale did those council members have for not granting landmark status?
Quote from: Kay on February 21, 2014, 08:37:58 PM
Was the owner there requesting landmark status? If the owner is favor what rationale did those council members have for not granting landmark status?
The owner did not request the landmarking. Preservation SOS worked with Joel when this came (unexpectedly) on the demo list last April. The owner is "not opposed" to the landmarking and would like to mothball the structure "for the next 2 or 3 years while we find a use for it."
It is Bill Bishop who tells everyone that "there's nothing here". And even Lori Boyer says she has received email from Springfield residents who support the landmark designation.
And in the end, they vote against it.
http://www.coj.net/city-council/city-council-meetings-online/2014-council-video-archive.aspx
(February 19th LUZ archive)
counter starts at 5:00 minutes into the meeting.
On page 78 of this book:
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/ClaudeNolan6.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/ClaudeNolan6.jpg.html)
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/ClaudeNolan7.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/ClaudeNolan7.jpg.html)
Regarding the "alterations", the owner's representative (an architect) stated that he felt the building still had some of the original elements and the building could be brought back to life reminiscent of its former glory.
Bishop called the front "stucco'd" but it is really just marble slabs covering the brick.
Quote from: sheclown on February 21, 2014, 06:05:46 PM
Quote from: 02roadking on February 21, 2014, 02:46:04 PM
Feb. 19th 2014 picture: http://vintagejacksonville.net/
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/claudenolan5.png) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/claudenolan5.png.html)
Even with the alteration in the late 1940s, the building is still very cool. Art Moderne. "Machine age" an apt renovation for a car dealership. (I mean, like most everyone, I'd like to see it returned to its original Klutho, but still I like the way it looks in this photo too).
Quote from: sheclown on February 22, 2014, 09:29:38 AM
Quote from: Kay on February 21, 2014, 08:37:58 PM
Was the owner there requesting landmark status? If the owner is favor what rationale did those council members have for not granting landmark status?
The owner did not request the landmarking. Preservation SOS worked with Joel when this came (unexpectedly) on the demo list last April. The owner is "not opposed" to the landmarking and would like to mothball the structure "for the next 2 or 3 years while we find a use for it."
It is Bill Bishop who tells everyone that "there's nothing here". And even Lori Boyer says she has received email from Springfield residents who support the landmark designation.
And in the end, they vote against it.
http://www.coj.net/city-council/city-council-meetings-online/2014-council-video-archive.aspx
(February 19th LUZ archive)
counter starts at 5:00 minutes into the meeting.
Can you get the owner to apply for landmark status?
Email. Show up and fight to preserve this historic building. City Council, Tuesday 2/25. Even if the original façade is not restored (which would be amazing) still the Art Deco look of the remodel is historic as well. It just needs a little facelift to make it look amazing. There is a little Art Deco building on Park Street, where the Trophy Shop moved to for awhile. When they painted the façade, that building took on a whole new amazing look.
It isn't necessary to demolish this building to remediate the contamination. It's this kind of short sighted thinking that has caused Jacksonville to lose so much of its historic fabric. Fight for what is left.
Is code enforcement considering tearing the entire structure down or the small one story garage off Orange Street?
One can not understand fully or appreciate deeply architecture unless they get out there and touch it, breathe it, really take it in. Those that love the history, the story behind the old, have embraced learning and appreciating preservation. The notion that "nothing's there" is absurd, if you literally touch it, oh there's a lot there: stories. We lose the stories when we cast away preservation.
I mean Bishop thinks its stucco when it's really just protective marble slabs covering the original elements. Clearly he (and likely others) have not familiarized themselves personally with the building. Decisions are made blind. I'd say open your eyes, but that's not typical Jacksonville. The Klutho building should be incorporated in the Hogan's Creek Greenway project. The owner wants landmarking and to mothball, I say bring it.
Quote from: thelakelander on February 22, 2014, 11:12:48 AM
Is code enforcement considering tearing the entire structure down or the small one story garage off Orange Street?
Item # 6
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/claudenolan1.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/claudenolan1.jpg.html)
"The three story building. "
What happens if the owner doesn't want the building torn down? After all, it's not endanger of falling down. It's just vacant.
I truly don't know.
How many dozens of people out there have had a building torn down against their will? Including, I might add, the owners of 253 East 2nd who thought they had their house sold to the city for rehab.
Of course, many of the houses I am talking about had the additional benefit of being in the historic district.
So, who can say.
The owner would like to mothball the building. That would help to stabilize it and remove some of the blighting influence. It would also be a protection against code enforcement activity.
They cannot mothball it without the landmark designation.
TIME OF THE ESSENCE. Sign our petition to help save and landmark this important piece of Jacksonville's heritage. City Council votes THIS Tuesday, 2/25.
When you sign, each and EVERY member of the City Council will receive an email letting them know of your support for this preservation effort.
http://www.change.org/petitions/jacksonville-city-council-landmark-and-preserve-the-historic-claude-nolan-building?share_id=GpWpXEgTbC&utm_campaign=share_button_action_box&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition (http://www.change.org/petitions/jacksonville-city-council-landmark-and-preserve-the-historic-claude-nolan-building?share_id=GpWpXEgTbC&utm_campaign=share_button_action_box&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition)
Bumping up. Have 82 supporters. Let's get to at least 100!
Done.
Up to 86!
;) done (88)
90.
Come on, I don't even LIVE in Jax anymore, and I am concerned with the constant need to tear down what doesn't suit their tastes or resemble a modern big-box model.
Don't worry, you'll get past 100. I'm going to set your petition up as a front page article before I hit the sack tonight.
Thanks, Lakelander! We are up to 102!
The first time it is at LUZ,
http://www.coj.net/city-council/city-council-meetings-online/2014-council-video-archive.aspx#LUZ
the link above is the first LUZ meeting minutes. The Claude Nolan building discussion starts at 17:06. The biggest concern is that the owner is not present.
So the owner does show up at the Feb 19th meeting.
"from an architectural standpoint this thing has no social redeeming value" Bishop says.
I did make a mistake when I said all three buildings were attached. After the meeting I drove by and the smallest building is not attached to the other two. I wrote Lori Boyer and explained this.
Quote"from an architectural standpoint this thing has no social redeeming value" Bishop says.
CM Bishop is certainly entitled to his opinion.......just like every other person in town. With an architectural education myself, I'd argue that the prairie school red brick warehouse along Orange Street is unique to Jacksonville and has character worthy of preservation. Also, whether one likes Art Deco or not, the altered style of the showroom building along Main has helped make South Beach an internationally known destination.
How about from a leadership standpoint Mr. Bishop has no redeeming value. See how that works councilman.
I just sent this to City Council. It didn't format quite right on this forum, but you get the idea....
Quote
Kim <jaxunicorn@gmail.com>
Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 11:12 AM
To: Clay@coj.net, WBishop@coj.net, RClark@coj.net, Redman@coj.net, LBoyer@coj.net, MattS@coj.net, "Gaffney, Johnny" <Gaffney@coj.net>, EDLee@coj.net, WAJones@coj.net, "Brown, Reggie" <RBrown@coj.net>, Holt@coj.net, doylec@coj.net, Gulliford@coj.net, JimLove@coj.net, "Daniels, Kimberly" <KimDaniels@coj.net>, JRC@coj.net, Joost@coj.net, GAnderson@coj.net, "Lumb, Robin" <RLumb@coj.net>
To the Members of Jacksonville's City Council:
I applaud your February 11, 2014 City Council Meeting decision approving (13-5) Ordinance 2013-804 to landmark 1481 West 6th Street, a structure that met the minimum two (2) of seven (7) Landmark criteria.
I implore you to do the same for 2013-803.
- I support Ordinance 2013-803 100%.
- Ordinance 2013-803 seeks to designate 937 North Main Street (also referred to as the Claude Nolan building) as a Landmark.
- Jacksonville Ordinance Code, Section 307.104 is very clear when it comes to landmark designation. Section 307.104(j) lists the criteria to landmark.
- There are seven (7) criteria to be used when determining Landmark Status.
- If an owner objects to the landmark designation, four (4) of the seven (7) criteria must be met.
- If the owner does not object to the landmark designation, only two (2) of the seven (7) criteria must be met
- The owner of 937 North Main Street AGREES with the landmark designation.
- 937 North Main Street meets four (4) of the listed seven (7) criteria (more than required).
- Per the report prepared by Jacksonville's Planning and Development Department (attached)
- Per the Jacksonville Historic Preservation Commission Public Hearing
- Section 307.104(l) dictates how City Council shall address the application.
- "The City Council shall consider the same criteria set forth in subsection (j) of this Section."
- Unless there is evidence that disproves the information provided in the Report of the Planning and Development Department Application for Designation as a City of Jacksonville Landmark (attached) and the knowledge and recommendation of Jacksonville's Historic Preservation Commission, the only legal decision is to APPROVE the application.
Thank you for your time.
Kim Pryor
So, then, does the burden fall on the city council to prove that it DOESN'T meet the criteria that Joel and his staff say it does? That the JHPC says it does?
Quotethelakelander
November 20, 2009, 06:53:33 AM
Looking at the Confederate Park rendering, it looks like the front half of Klutho's Claude Nolan building (Main & Orange) has been chopped off to make room for a right turn lane and island on Orange. The small Klutho warehouse behind it is also gone. If those two go, they should probably go ahead and tear down the middle section as well. Also, is the city assuming that they will take over the Park View Inn site?
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2009-nov-hogans-creek-park-master-plan
Interesting timeline. From Stephen in Nov 2009. "He was not a part of this discussion, nor was he asked if he was interested in donating building, land or even his well wishes to the idea of snatching his land for this use."
At some point MCCD "magically" declares the building to be "unsafe" due to "cracks" (see Steve Patterson comment to his jacksonville.com article about the building) although it's clearly standing tall and strong. (when was that?)
In April 2013, put out for demo bid. Because it's been declared "unsafe" COJ does not have to compensate the owner through Eminent Domain. They can just take the building. Preservationists stand up and fight for the building.
February 2014, although supported by the Historic Preservation department, the land owner, and hundreds of local residents, LUZ has recommended denial of the request to landmark this historic building.
It's important to note it is NOT necessary to take this building down to mitigate the damage from the gasification plant.
Parkview Inn already grabbed and demolished. Could have been apartments. Now this historic building clearly has a target on it.
Yeah, just a theory, but it is a very interesting timeline. Does someone benefit from this?
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on February 25, 2014, 08:57:18 AM
In April 2013, put out for demo bid. Because it's been declared "unsafe" COJ does not have to compensate the owner through Eminent Domain. They can just take the building. Preservationists stand up and fight for the building.
True that. However, demolishing the structure does not mean the City then owns the property via some Eminent Domain practice....unless the owner doesn't pay the lien and the City finally decides to foreclose on the lien. They've not done that yet that I'm aware of, so why demolish at all?
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on February 25, 2014, 08:57:18 AMIt's important to note it is NOT necessary to take this building down to mitigate the damage from the gasification plant.
We in Springfield's SW quadrant know this all too well. We are in an ASH SITE and the City elected to mitigate that by replacing the exposed soil around the structures on the property. The soil underneath our homes (crawlspace) and hardscapes (i.e. brick patios), and the soil around trees and plants the owner did not want to remove is still contaminated. The same could be done for the Claude Nolan property.
True, but with the building gone, and a demo lien on it, the land is not worth what it would be with an historic building on it. :-)
Quote from: JaxUnicorn on February 25, 2014, 12:28:31 PM
True that. However, demolishing the structure does not mean the City then owns the property via some Eminent Domain practice....unless the owner doesn't pay the lien and the City finally decides to foreclose on the lien. They've not done that yet that I'm aware of, so why demolish at all?
There are already almost $80k in tax liens on the property and the property can be called up for auction at any time by any number of tax certificate holders.
Getting off the subject...still needs saving. :-)
Not really, my point is that unless you get landmark status any potential purchaser can tear it down as assuredly as COJ.
I'd like to see the property saved but its going to take a deep pocket. I've read the environmental reports for the park view years ago. The biggest problem in that location is the extremely high water table. The existing environmental contamination is migratory. It tends to migrate with the water so it makes any type of traditional financing difficult at best.
If you want to see the highest and best use of City incentives, perhaps it is in offering financing to an otherwise credit worthy buyer to deal with a site that can easily be characterized as a brownfield rather than grants for window dressing to would be retailers.
If this property has serious environmental problems there is virtually no hope that anyone in the foreseeable future will do anything with it. The cost of environmental remediation followed by a complete refit of the entire building will exceed the value of the completed property by quite a bit. Much more cost effective to just build something new somewhere else.
There is a nice piece of property on King st. that was most recently an antique store. 9,000sq/ft building built in the 1920s with a great parking lot in the middle of King st. The property is seriously contaminated with dry cleaning chemicals from the 1950s-1980s (PERC). The owner is willing to basically give the property away at this point (according to the real estate agent) and no one will touch it. The cost of remediation and potential liability exceeds the value of the property by several times. Mellow Mushroom had a contract on the property a while back and pulled out once the environmental report came back. We looked at it for our business. Why not? An almost free property and we pay for the cleanup - talked to an environmental consultant about remediation he said "it could easily exceed $1M not including the potential liability if an adjacent property owner or the city sues." We walked. That is a piece of property in a prime location and no one will touch it.
With environmental issues the owner accepts liability so it's not likely that anyone will call it for auction. Also not likely the city will foreclose since then the city would be liable. It will sit and deteriorate.
The only part of this with environmental issues is the small one story detached building in the back. And that building MAY contain issues.
Quote from: Tony B on February 26, 2014, 06:19:15 PM
If this property has serious environmental problems there is virtually no hope that anyone in the foreseeable future will do anything with it. The cost of environmental remediation followed by a complete refit of the entire building will exceed the value of the completed property by quite a bit. Much more cost effective to just build something new somewhere else.
There is a nice piece of property on King st. that was most recently an antique store. 9,000sq/ft building built in the 1920s with a great parking lot in the middle of King st. The property is seriously contaminated with dry cleaning chemicals from the 1950s-1980s (PERC). The owner is willing to basically give the property away at this point (according to the real estate agent) and no one will touch it. The cost of remediation and potential liability exceeds the value of the property by several times. Mellow Mushroom had a contract on the property a while back and pulled out once the environmental report came back. We looked at it for our business. Why not? An almost free property and we pay for the cleanup - talked to an environmental consultant about remediation he said "it could easily exceed $1M not including the potential liability if an adjacent property owner or the city sues." We walked. That is a piece of property in a prime location and no one will touch it.
With environmental issues the owner accepts liability so it's not likely that anyone will call it for auction. Also not likely the city will foreclose since then the city would be liable. It will sit and deteriorate.
Posts like this are often latched onto as truth and yet, it begins with the word IF. So, any reading this thread please understand that there is no evidence that this building has major environmental issues other than the same issue the park has and the most recent study indicated only the small and oldest building of the three. The building is fine, it is the ground on which it was built and the study only indicates that the one small building should be removed to facilitate the clean up, not because of the building itself.
Landmarking can also indirectly help with environmental issues. Once landmarked, you can apply for various incentives that can help offset the rehab costs. In addition, the building codes are somewhat easier on historic structures which can translate into a savings.
The owners and the preservationists are for the landmarking of this building. Why isn't city council?
Quote from: Tony B on February 26, 2014, 06:19:15 PM
If this property has serious environmental problems there is virtually no hope that anyone in the foreseeable future will do anything with it. The cost of environmental remediation followed by a complete refit of the entire building will exceed the value of the completed property by quite a bit. Much more cost effective to just build something new somewhere else.
There is a nice piece of property on King st. that was most recently an antique store. 9,000sq/ft building built in the 1920s with a great parking lot in the middle of King st. The property is seriously contaminated with dry cleaning chemicals from the 1950s-1980s (PERC). The owner is willing to basically give the property away at this point (according to the real estate agent) and no one will touch it. The cost of remediation and potential liability exceeds the value of the property by several times. Mellow Mushroom had a contract on the property a while back and pulled out once the environmental report came back. We looked at it for our business. Why not? An almost free property and we pay for the cleanup - talked to an environmental consultant about remediation he said "it could easily exceed $1M not including the potential liability if an adjacent property owner or the city sues." We walked. That is a piece of property in a prime location and no one will touch it.
With environmental issues the owner accepts liability so it's not likely that anyone will call it for auction. Also not likely the city will foreclose since then the city would be liable. It will sit and deteriorate.
The environmental contamination hoopla was started by a SPAR member years ago in an effort to get the park view inn demolished, and in a classic case of unintended consequences, once the EPA came in they determined that contaminated incinerator waste had been spread over many of the residential lots in the neighborhood as topsoil and fill, which prompted the tagging of most property record cards in the district with hazardous waste warnings. That took years and a lawsuit to resolve. A wise man would not start beating that drum again if they actually care about the neighborhood.
There is no environmental contamination specific to that building, it was a car dealership and then a restaurant equipment company that sold silverware and trays, it was not a dry cleaner or any sort of heavy industrial use. The contamination of the fill dirt underneath it is irrelevant as long as the building isn't demolished, and is a problem shared by half of the neighborhood including residential structures, so I'd be careful about how that particular fear gets mongered.
Just for the record, the Coal Gasification project was a Florida DEP study to determine the extent of contamination, and the property owners were a road block for a long time. Additionally, SPAR was not involved in that issue at all, except in an effort to try to understand what was going on with the park.
The ash tag issue stemmed from a settlement between the city and the Federal EPA, and stemmed from work done in the late 90s regarding all of Jacksonvilles incinerator sites. The city put the tags on the properties in an attempt to comply with the 2008 consent decree between the city and the EPA, and the city was subsequently sued over it, and the city removed the tags. Again, SPARs involvement was basically non-existent on either the front end, or the removal.
All this information is verifiable.
Hello everyone!
Dan here. I figured since my name is being used so liberally, why not make myself available to questions, and do a sort of MetroJax ama.
Since so much malevolence is being attributed to me and the efforts I was a part of, I figured I could make myself available to answer some questions about my time co-chairing the SPAR parks committee with Doug Vanderlaan from 2005-2008 and my (good/bad/indifferent) efforts regarding the parks.
For starters I am not 'gone'. True, I no longer live in Jax, but I am still a Springfield property owner, taxpayer, and advocate, and do what I can to support my friends and neighbors in Springfield.
I currently live in the northeast, where I moved for a great job opportunity. I miss Jax, and the thought one day returning to live the city where I met my wife, both of my children were born, and my inlaws continue to live, is not such a crazy idea. Who knows.
As far as the Claude Nolan building. I first went in it with Joey Marchy in 2005 for a story he did for Urbanjax, and I fell in love with it. It needs to be saved, period. Environmental issues do not have to be the death knell of a building.
That said, ask away!
Some easy reading in the mean time.
http://epa.gov/region4/superfund/sites/npl/florida/jaxashfl.html
http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/020307/bus_7673257.shtml
Well yes, but I think Stephen's gripe is about the brilliant idea of alerting environmental officials in the first place. As I recall, that didn't exactly go according to plan. The question wasn't what happened to the park view site, it was the uninterested consequences suffered by the remainder of the neighborhood that one might call problematic. In any event it seems that you've done a 180 and now support preserving historic structures, so I have no qualms with you. People change.
The idea that anyone in Springfield alerted anyone to environmental issues is just not accurate. Doug V can speak to this as well, probably more so since he is an actual scientist.
In both the case of the coal, and the ash (two totally unrelated environmental issues, mind you) the EPA/DEP was in full swing since the 90s, and didn't include the community. The effort was not to alert them, but to find out what the hell was going on since, in both cases, Springfield was not the epicenter, but collateral damage.
For example, in 2006 in Schell Park (Boulevard), there was a nice new play ground installed to replace an old wooden playground. Everyone was happy. Then one day it was gone.
We reached out to Parks and Rec and Pat Lockett-Felders office to find out why. It turned out that Operation New Ground told the city that it couldnt be there due to ash remediation stemming from the 5th and Cleveland incinerator site. This is a full 4 years before the ash tag.
Instead, that nice new playground was moved to Brentwood park, and to this day even after remediation, no new play ground has been installed and there is a random sidewalk in the middle of the park.
I dont mind being called to the carpet for things I actually did. I will defend myself or admit failures accordingly, but lets keep to the facts, and not create story lines that simply were not there.
Ok. how so?
downtownparks still owns property in Springfield, and has a vested interest in its success or failure, so I think his opinion is valid, even though he did move out of town for an job opportunity.
This thread has taken a not too productive turn, guys. We can't undo the past, regardless of who did what, or if, and when. Any chance we can tone down the turd-tossing and get back to discussing what to do to preserve this building now, if there is anything we as a neighborhood can do? Can we bury the hatchet and move forward?
Debbie you know I love ya, and I wasn't planning on responding to this thread again, because Dan is now on the right side of history as far as I'm concerned and supports saving the Claude Nolan. But now I kind of have to, because it brings up one of the most infuriating things I used to experience firsthand. Back in the day, when arguments were constantly raging on this site and in person, downtownparks, Bill Hoff, really all of the SPAR people, would immediately de-validate and dismiss my opinion because I only had rental property in springfield and actually lived in riverside. Which was technically true, but I never could understand how that de-validated or denied me the right to an opinion. I love springfield.
This was the first thing they'd do whenever anybody said anything they didn't like, if you didn't personally live in springfield then you weren't entitled to an opinion. There were so many arguments over that, not just me either, they did it across the board to everybody. I have to admit it's kind of ironic now that a handful of them of started posting on this site again, that apparently the "if you don't live in springfield you don't have the right to an opinion" rule has apparently changed.
Chris, I hear ya. In addition, in some instances, even if you live in the neighborhood, there are folks here that will not even entertain the idea that a resident may have an opinion that differs from their own, especially if it does not 'support' what he/she thinks is right.
It isn't that I disagree there were/are issues. I got on "the $**t list" right after I moved here by insisting we needed to save the houses. Some didn't like hearing that. Some still don't.
I saw new posts on this thread, and thought we had some new ideas. Then found out it's just a renewed pi$$ing contest between Stephen and downtownparks, and I was disappointed.
It's tempting to vent. I get it. I just fail to see how this helps the Claude Nolan Building, is all.
Debbie,
My pi$$ing wasn't directed at you. :)
Since there was discussion yesterday on Klutho park, ( the link can be found in the search, but seems to have disappeared), has there been any action on these Klutho buildings?
No. They're involved in litigation.
Quote from: Captain Zissou on November 24, 2010, 10:32:46 AM
I would love to do something with this building, and the creek, but I don't quite have the resources. In ten years, she's mine!
Only four years to go!
In the same area, whatever happened to the redevelopment of MainSpace, former home to the bar "The Pearl."?
The owner had a couple unexpected events, delaying the project. Still plans to move forward.