(KBJ) Keeping Back Jacksonville: Before and After
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/images/kbj_demolition/after-demo/DSC01871.JPG)
Its been a few months since KBJ destroyed the First Baptist Church. Metro Jacksonville takes a look at the past and exposes what the site looks like today.
Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/content/view/620
It's a shame to lose it, but I know why they did it, so I'm not as sorry to see it go. There are plans for something much more productive for that site. How long it will take to realize those plans is anyone's guess. But, if it turns into a surface parking lot, I say we burn them at the stake.
Quote from: archiphreak on October 18, 2007, 08:29:43 AM
It's a shame to lose it, but I know why they did it, so I'm not as sorry to see it go. There are plans for something much more productive for that site. How long it will take to realize those plans is anyone's guess. But, if it turns into a surface parking lot, I say we burn them at the stake.
A parking lot is there stated intention for the property. If they had other immenient plans they likely would have disclosed them, to avoid the bad PR. The reason they did it was because they neglect the property too long to the point of it needing expensive repairs. It was self-inflicted.
I'm guessing the slow down in the real estate market has negatively affected KBJ's financial situation and now their grandiose plans for a parking lot have been put on hold, much like the rest of downtown's "development". That weed garden does look good though, I think its called zeroscape!
Quote from: walter on October 18, 2007, 08:38:48 AM
I'm guessing the slow down in the real estate market has negatively affected KBJ's financial situation and now their grandiose plans for a parking lot have been put on hold, much like the rest of downtown's "development". That weed garden does look good though, I think its called zeroscape!
Maybe they can let the building they are currently in deteriorate to the point that they can push to get it demolished as well. Then partner up with Chris Hionides and develop a new multistory beacon for Jacksonville on those empty lots.
The habitat for those weeds had been consumed by the church for far too long. Now they have ample room to thrive versus facing extinction.
In all seriousness, I really hope your right archiphreak. I have little problem with something being torn down if it is to be replaced with something better, however, there are too many vacant lots to fill up before anything else is razed.
I'm gonna scream if I see another "Ill-advised Main Street pocket park" or "FBC/Keeping back Jax" thread. Okay, I get it; It's a bad situation all the way around, and we have talked about it numerous times on other Metjax and MetroJax threads. Can we please move on?
AGHHHH!
Am I being unreasonable Lake? Aren't I telling the truth when I said that we've talked about the pocket park, and KBJ's decision to tear down the church plenty of times already? It's done, It's been razed, and the pocket park is almost finished; It's nothing that can be done about it. Obviously we all know how everyone feels about those situations. Why keep saying the same thing over and over again?
Here's my problem with the thing - when they first announced the plans, there were for a parking lot. Then, when they realized they would need to get DRC approval for the said lot, the plans changes to just demolition. If they really do have plans for the lot, then they probably should have shared them before they demolished this, and I think that the building being built should have been a condition for the demolition.
Personally, I'm not a fan of demolishing history, but if they were demolishing it to replace it with a building (a productive building), then I'd lose less sleep at night over it.
Quote from: I-10east on October 18, 2007, 09:29:23 AM
I'm I being unreasonable Lake? Aren't I telling the truth when I said that we've talked about the pocket park, and KBJ's decision to tear down the church plenty of times already. It's done, It's been razed, and the pocket park is almost finished; It's nothing that can be done about it. Obviously we all know how everyone feels about those situations. Why keep saying the same thing over and over again?
Personally, I feel like it's good to keep these issues to light. For example, you brought up the pocket park. That was 700 thousand, and it was a complete waste, and money we will not get back. With that said, it's impact was relatively small. Now consider that the JTA wants to spend over 700 million on a ridiculous BRT system. I think it's important to highlight mistakes of our past to attempt to avoid more mistakes in the future.
With that said, you are welcome to your opinion.
The members of this site were right about the Pocket Park, they were right about the "Big Idea" and they are right about BRT. You cannot just sit on your hands and accept what is happening.
Quote from: I-10east on October 18, 2007, 09:29:23 AM
Am I being unreasonable Lake? Aren't I telling the truth when I said that we've talked about the pocket park, and KBJ's decision to tear down the church plenty of times already? It's done, It's been razed, and the pocket park is almost finished; It's nothing that can be done about it. Obviously we all know how everyone feels about those situations. Why keep saying the same thing over and over again?
I-10, it's called a followup, and without a followup this forum is just a bunch of predictions into the future. Isn't it nice to see the actual results of the decisions being made? Maybe reviewing the RESULTS of the decisions will have an effect on future decisions?? We'll see.
Lakelander, calm down or you'll give yourself a stroke.
The original plan was not for a parking lot. The original plan was in fact for a mixed use development that would include parking on two to three floors and retail at grade. Given the layoffs earlier in the year, obviously their having trouble financially, but that's nothing new for a lot of firms here in Jacksonville. I do think the entire situation stinks, but what can be done about it I have no idea.
Quote from: archiphreak on October 18, 2007, 09:58:00 AM
Lakelander, calm down or you'll give yourself a stroke.
The original plan was not for a parking lot. The original plan was in fact for a mixed use development that would include parking on two to three floors and retail at grade.
That would be 'news' to everyone here. It MAY also be simply something to pacify the critics of KBJ, that they have no intentions of actually fulfilling. If it were legit, whay have they not mentioned it before?
Evidently with the layoffs, there is no need for the additiional parking.
I-10east, you have to realize that it is difficult to come up articles on NEW projects happening DT, when there are NONE.
Now that the damage is done, I see opportunity! What a location for another Tattoo parlor, pub, or 7-11 store. Let's see some REAL development in downtown.
Ocklawaha
I have a couple of comments to make:
Archiphreak, if KBJ had other intentions, even with looming financial issues, they should have made that intent clear. It would have sparked at least some good will.
And I-10, it is necessary to rehash these issues because THEY CONTINUE TO HAPPEN as most of Jacksonville sits back and could'nt care less as downtown's last shreds of history of any age meet the wreaking ball.
And as a side note, you seem to love to antagonize.
Quote from: archiphreak on October 18, 2007, 09:58:00 AM
Lakelander, calm down or you'll give yourself a stroke.
Seriously I'm fine.... the AGHHHH... was just a playful response to the post above.
Quote from: Ocklawaha on October 18, 2007, 10:27:34 AM
Now that the damage is done, I see opportunity! What a location for another Tattoo parlor, pub, or 7-11 store. Let's see some REAL development in downtown.
Ocklawaha
Since nothing is going on with the dirt, maybe its a good spot for a community garden?
(http://lipmagazine.org/ccarlsson/archives/apr23-ecotour-langton-garde.jpg)
Quote from: avonjax on October 18, 2007, 10:27:55 AM
And as a side note, you seem to love to antagonize.
Believe me Avonjax, I'm so not that guy; In fact I mostly agree with most peeps on Metrojax concerning alotta issues; Many times, I don't post on something that I agree with. It's just the people who think that everytime a parking lot is built it's the end of the world that I think is being unrealistic; Hell, on one thread about a hotel with a parking lot on Wells Road in OP, and some guy was bitchin' about that! A hotel in the suburbs for godsake! Just like when interstate hwys cuts off streets and creates dead ends; Nobody likes that, but sometimes it's a necessary evil. Someone to think that a city isn't gonna have dead ends, surface parking lots, and all pedestrian traffic, no cars and buses is being very foolish; I really do believe that some peeps on Metrojax really think that a city supposed to be that way.
My bad Lake; I had to put 2 and 2 together from on my post when I said "I'm gonna scream" then you screamed. LOL! Thanks Steve, Copper, Lunican, Avonjax and Vicupstate for yall well spoken takes.
Just a note, that was not FBC, never was a FBC building. The overgrown parking lot looks great. It does wonders for that part of Downtown. Good job KBJ.
Quote from: fsujax on October 19, 2007, 07:35:12 AM
Just a note, that was not FBC, never was a FBC building.
I thought so; Wasn't the church called First Christian Church on the other "KBJ" threads?
I know that this has nothing to do with the destruction of that old building...but KBJ as "Keeping Back Jacksonville?!" Not so! We all due respect, but if it weren't for KBJ, we wouldn't see some of those high-rises near the river (Modis Tower -Independent Square, Riverplace Tower - Wachovia, BB&T Building, Prudential Plaza 1 & 2, especially the soon to be the former Bellsouth Tower now renamed AT&T) ???
All of those are great buildings when viewed from I-95, but they leave a lot to be desired at street level because they are designed to be self contained in an environment that dependent on structures that feed off each other to create a virbant street scene.
Better connecting those buildings to the street scene is a relatively easy fix though. Most of them have relatively large setbacks that would allow for smaller connecting structures that adress the street and provide space for other uses.
Basically, the first floor uses on the interior of those buildings need to be flipped to open out onto the street. In some cases, like the MODIS, its an easy fix, in other cases, like Riverplace Tower, its not, due to the suburban style layout.
Quote from: jeh1980 on November 02, 2007, 05:58:36 AM
I know that this has nothing to do with the destruction of that old building...but KBJ as "Keeping Back Jacksonville?!" Not so! We all due respect, but if it weren't for KBJ, we wouldn't see some of those high-rises near the river (Modis Tower -Independent Square, Riverplace Tower - Wachovia, BB&T Building, Prudential Plaza 1 & 2, especially the soon to be the former Bellsouth Tower now renamed AT&T) ???
Let me ask you something - which would you rather have:
1. A City that Looks Great from I-95, or
2. A City that is vibrant at street level
I'd much rather the city vibrant at street level. Most of KBJ's designs prohibit that. Look at the base of the Prudential Building (the newer one). Other than the entrance, the ground floor is maintenance equipment. how is that visually appealing to walk next to?
The BB&T building is no better. It looks good from Forsyth St (the main entrance, but it completely failed to take into account any other side of the building. Bay St is a Massive Loading Dock (the BOA tower has less loading dock space at street level than BB&T. Hogan St is a concrete wal.
The at&t building is okay, but again, it's designed with one entrance, and no external retail.
Tell me, what if they kept the building design the same from floors 2 or 3 to the top, and redid the street level? It would be the same from I-95. Now, take a look at the Bank of America Tower. While not a perfect design, it's much better. Three of the Four corners could be external retail spots simply by replacing one window and putting in a door (actually the one at the SW corner is already standalone). How about the Everbank Building on Riverside. It has all of the modern conveniences, with really good urban sesign at the street.
Not to mention, let's be honest. KBJ didn't exactly inspire Independent Life, Prudential or Gulf Life to build a new building. They had a need for Office Space, and KBJ was paid for a design (they didn't donate it). Somehow, if KBJ didn't exist, I think those companies would have still built their buildings.
Regardless of wether or not KBJ designed the building, the city, the owner, and the state of downtown at that time did not request that these buildings adress the street properly. I'm not trying to let KBJ off of the hook but they are not solely to blame. Luckily, for almost all of these structures it is relatively easy to enhance them to better address the street and improve their walkability and connection with the rest of their surroundings.
KBJ aside....(I'm speaking of the local architectural community in general)
I may be wrong, but from a point of view, coming from the architectural industry, I think it's more on us to encourage and produce quality design that not only looks good, but also enhances the environment around it. If the educated professionals are looking for ultimate guidance on design from elected officials who aren't qualified in this particular industry, then we're all lost.
You make a good point and I agree completely. Dealing with requirements by non-qualified individuals and organizations is something I deal with on a regular basis as well. But there are still minimal guidelines that have to be met and when discussing past downtown projects, those guidelines/requirements have been neglected and ignored until recently. KBJ and others can be faulted for ignoring/neglecting these requirements, but the city is also at fault ofr their lack of enforcement.
I'm guessing here, but I'd say that about 85% of conceputal designs that may meet and exceed said requirements are hacked up by greedy contractors, tight budgets, and fickle owners leaving a less than desireable end product.
Quote from: Jason on November 02, 2007, 11:15:31 AM
Regardless of wether or not KBJ designed the building, the city, the owner, and the state of downtown at that time did not request that these buildings adress the street properly. I'm not trying to let KBJ off of the hook but they are not solely to blame. Luckily, for almost all of these structures it is relatively easy to enhance them to better address the street and improve their walkability and connection with the rest of their surroundings.
No, at the time there was no DRC (however, they've let some pretty crappy designs through). As far as the owners of the buildings, they generally don't know what urban design is.
As far as retrofitting the structures...
Modis - Flip the retails bays to open out, instead of in. That would greatly enhance the appearance/experience
Wachovia - Poor Site Plan; you would almost be better siuted building a separate building on Riverplace Blvd
BB&T - I'd have to see their loading dock up close on Bay to see what could be done
Prudential - First one has crappy site plan, and Garage didn't include retail, so it would be pretty expensive.
Quote from: Steve on November 02, 2007, 10:45:56 AM
Quote from: jeh1980 on November 02, 2007, 05:58:36 AM
I know that this has nothing to do with the destruction of that old building...but KBJ as "Keeping Back Jacksonville?!" Not so! We all due respect, but if it weren't for KBJ, we wouldn't see some of those high-rises near the river (Modis Tower -Independent Square, Riverplace Tower - Wachovia, BB&T Building, Prudential Plaza 1 & 2, especially the soon to be the former Bellsouth Tower now renamed AT&T) ???
Let me ask you something - which would you rather have:
1. A City that Looks Great from I-95, or
2. A City that is vibrant at street level
I'd much rather the city vibrant at street level. Most of KBJ's designs prohibit that. Look at the base of the Prudential Building (the newer one). Other than the entrance, the ground floor is maintenance equipment. how is that visually appealing to walk next to?
The BB&T building is no better. It looks good from Forsyth St (the main entrance, but it completely failed to take into account any other side of the building. Bay St is a Massive Loading Dock (the BOA tower has less loading dock space at street level than BB&T. Hogan St is a concrete wal.
The at&t building is okay, but again, it's designed with one entrance, and no external retail.
Tell me, what if they kept the building design the same from floors 2 or 3 to the top, and redid the street level? It would be the same from I-95. Now, take a look at the Bank of America Tower. While not a perfect design, it's much better. Three of the Four corners could be external retail spots simply by replacing one window and putting in a door (actually the one at the SW corner is already standalone). How about the Everbank Building on Riverside. It has all of the modern conveniences, with really good urban sesign at the street.
Not to mention, let's be honest. KBJ didn't exactly inspire Independent Life, Prudential or Gulf Life to build a new building. They had a need for Office Space, and KBJ was paid for a design (they didn't donate it). Somehow, if KBJ didn't exist, I think those companies would have still built their buildings.
I think I can understand. We do need to have more external retail. We definately need to be vibrant...especially at night at every street level. But to review those choices...
Would you rather have...
1. a city that looks great from I-95 or
2. a city that is vibrant at street level
My answer....Why not have BOTH! ;)
Why don't we all do something to make it happened. 8)
Quote from: archiphreak on October 18, 2007, 08:29:43 AM
It's a shame to lose it, but I know why they did it, so I'm not as sorry to see it go. There are plans for something much more productive for that site. How long it will take to realize those plans is anyone's guess. But, if it turns into a surface parking lot, I say we burn them at the stake.
Pulled this thread up to help answer a development question. I assume the property owner at the time (they don't exist anymore now), did not follow through with their plans. 13 years later, we still have a vacant lot. Just something to think about with the recent and current demolition proposals in DT.
Does that mean we have permission to burn them at the stake?