Downtown Buildings Altered Beyond Recognition
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/1567941761_Xfqxg9d-M.jpg)
While much of the local preservation discussion focuses on treasures lost or those well-preserved success stories, downtown Jacksonville is still home to several structures that were and still could be architecturally significant in their own right. Here are six downtown buildings that have been altered beyond recognition.
Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2011-nov-downtown-buildings-altered-beyond-recognition
We really have succeeded in turning old world charm into new world ugly. OK - maybe it wasn't "old world", but these buildings certainly had more character than the cold hard look they have now.
Generally the archetecture of the 50's and 60's left a lot to be desired. Too bad these old buildings were altered so severely. It seems of all these 119 & 129 West Adams Street might be restorable to their original appearance.
The bastardization of history.
Just out of downtown is the old Armory building, one of the area's oldest, which now looks pretty indistinguishable.
A lot of these look like it's just the facades that have been altered. I wonder if the Laura Street facade grants are successful, if the city would be interested expanding something similar to other areas. Adams Street in general is pretty cool.
What is the deal with the Hogan Building? Did someone seriously look at that rendering, look at the building that was there before, and decide "yeah, this looks much better"?
Proof, I guess, that Jacksonville has been weird about respecting its own history for decades.
^Interesting. Perhaps now that the new technology exists, there may be even more of a call to restore the facades.
It sounds like there is some definite potential here, especially if the reception of the Laura Street improvements is good, which I hope it will be.
I remember after TS Fay I was driving down Washington St and saw a bunch of siding that had been ripped off a building, exposing the brick that was under it. I thought to myself why even replace the siding, the brick looks so much better. The siding was replaced and the brick was hidden from view.
This is one of the more interesting series, hope to see more in the future.
It's funny how people say comments like 'We're bastardizing history' like it's only exclusive to Jacksonville, C'mon yall, this so called 'improved modernization' went on in every major metro all over the country. We all agree that the before pics are better.
Whenever I drive down Liberty Street, I think of how the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) building is 'bastardization' of the old Jacksonville Police Department headquarters. In my opinion it is a bad attempt to make a historical building into something that it should not be.
A lot of times the original facade is under the "new" facade. It would be great for downtown to see the original facades uncovered on these old buildings.
The Shads did just that on the Five Points Theater Building; ripped off the horrible stucco cover with the big 5 on it and uncovered the original building. This is a huge improvement.
Taylor Harwick and J. Brooks Haas have a lot of ugliness to answer for.
don't forget the Claude Nolan Cadillac facade.....
Central Fire Station on Adams is another good one for this category, though I think that was a 1944 remodeling.
Stephen, thanks for the insights as to why some of these alterations happened.
While in all cases the original facades were much better, in some cases the altered ones aren't quite as bad and in some cases they are almost unforgivable.
If it hasn't already done so, Jacksonville should look into a facade improvement/restoration program that many cities across the country have implemented.
I called the number on the side of 218 west Adams, which advertised the intent to build condo units. I called but the number had been disconnected. Have they scrapped those plans? If so, why don't they get rid of the ad?
It's a shame because this building is exactly the right type for apartments. And with space for urban style shops at street level, It would be just like the buildings I grew up with in the Northeast cities.
It would be a great addition to Downtown that would take a step toward alleviating my homesickness.
Quote from: krazeeboi on November 28, 2011, 02:36:27 PM
While in all cases the original facades were much better, in some cases the altered ones aren't quite as bad and in some cases they are almost unforgivable.
If it hasn't already done so, Jacksonville should look into a facade improvement/restoration program that many cities across the country have implemented.
We already have a facade improvement program and the Landing plus several other downtown business were awarded a grant.
Quote from: duvaldude08 on November 28, 2011, 03:00:28 PMWe already have a facade improvement program and the Landing plus several other downtown business were awarded a grant.
That's good to see. Hopefully, the owners and tenants of some of the buildings featured will take advantage of the program.
Also, Columbia, SC has a historic building downtown where the exterior has been so heavily altered until it's really beyond restoration. Because it's an ideal representation of the architectural trends of the mid-twentieth century and hasn't retained its original features behind the newer facade, it has received a special landmark designation from the city. Thankfully, it's not too fugly and is actually now being rehabbed for some type of retail use.
Originally it looked like this:
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/krazeeboi/1556Main_original.jpg)
It currently looks like this:
(http://webzoom.freewebs.com/waccamatt/urban%20access%20tour/mccrorys%20and%20silvers.jpg)
After renovations, it will resemble this:
(http://testdomain.screnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/McCrory.jpg)
^The last facade grant was for Laura Street buildings specifically. However, if that proves successful, hopefully they the city will consider expanding the initiative to other areas.
My sister owns a 1860's building in Ohio. When she looked into historic grants, she was told that it was not affordable to remove the 1980's facade off the building. But we learned something interesting. The more successful a building owner was, the more likely the building would be improved. If the owner of a historic building had the funds and no historic protections were in place, the building got remodeled. IF the owner did not have the funds, it did not. In fact, often even basic repairs did not get done. The proverbial two edged sword. Have money, the building gets what it needs but most likely gets remodeled and so loses it's historic appeal or no money and the building falls into disrepair.
A look downtown and we can pretty much see that it happened the same way here.
The old chamber of commerce and gas company buildings seem to be the biggest atrocities in this list. Unfortunately from the outside they also appear to be the most irreversible.
The amount of setback visible in the Hogan building's windows leaves some hope that the original brick is still salvageable under there. Even though the building was rather bland in it's original form it certainly couldn't get any worse than the current concrete fortress look.
I don't have a pic nor an address, but one old timer once pointed out to me the building directly across from Florida Theatre
(which at the time was the Jax ballet studios) and pointed out the Bastardization of the original arch. he replied that that was the "Draft Building" for the Korean war and also Vietnam.
He also commented that during the 50's too many decisions were made downtown in the afternoon, after "Heavily Alcoholic" lunches.
Are you old enough to remember the term "5 Martini Lunch?" ::)
3 Martini lunch! LOL! After 5 you wouldn't make it out of the restaurant!
Your point is well taken, though. Those were heavy drinking days.
And the days of "urban renewal" where everything old needed to look modern, or go. Remember, in the 1950's, these buildings hadn't reached historic, they were just old. People don't think too much of altering a 40-50 year old building they don't like. They don't think ahead 50 years to when it could be historically significant. Especially commercial buildings, which are investments that have to be rented.
I imagine back then, there were few companies that wanted to occupy those old buildings without modern renovations. Back then, it was considered the smart thing to do. We were the "Bold New City of the South." Only recently do we recognize it was short-sighted.
Time to re-renovate and bring back the historic detail.
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on November 29, 2011, 12:55:13 PM
And the days of "urban renewal" where everything old needed to look modern, or go. Remember, in the 1950's, these buildings hadn't reached historic, they were just old. People don't think too much of altering a 40-50 year old building they don't like. They don't think ahead 50 years to when it could be historically significant. Especially commercial buildings, which are investments that have to be rented.
I imagine back then, there were few companies that wanted to occupy those old buildings without modern renovations. Back then, it was considered the smart thing to do. We were the "Bold New City of the South." Only recently do we recognize it was short-sighted.
I think I read that Haydon Burns' ca. 1960 "Jacksonville Story" presentations emphasized that the city had looked "dated" but now modern architecture was in place.
There's a possibility the original buildings are still there underneath all of the additions...or, at least, enough of the original exisits to make restoration possible. Now, which local companies are willing to get on board and bring some visual life back to downtown by reversing the modernizations?