The cost of mothballing a house is vastly cheaper than demolishing one.
Depending on the amount of volunteer labor and materials, it can cost as little as a couple of hundred dollars.
But, as a general rule, we anticipate the cost of mothballing to be at $3,000 to $4,000 if one had to pay full price.
Let's assume you have 12 first floor windows to paint, cut and board. Nicole and I assume $35.00 in materials for each window. If you added $20.00 in labor for each window, that puts your price at $660. for the first floor windows. Let's assume you'd need to mothball one or two upper windows which need glass replacement, but could simply close the remaining windows (as allowed by the mothball ordinance). That would put the window price at well under $1000.
Let's assume you have accumulated debris inside and under the house and need a dumpster. You'd pay about $250 for your dumpster and maybe $100 for cleanup labor. Total for this $350.
You'd need to secure the front and back door. Let's assume a cost of $75. including hinges and plywood. That's $150.00 for materials and $100 for labor. We are at $250.00 for securing the entry ways. Toss in another $30. for upstairs if needed and the total opening price is $280.
Each house will need security lights installed front and back. We bought solar lights for $85 each. They could be installed for $40.00. Lighting then is at $125.00
Underpinning the house with lattice is going to be required. We recommend using plastic lattice. It is more durable than the wood and much easier to work with. Plus it is already "painted" white which saves on labor. That will cost $20 a sheet and one should be able to split the sheets in half to have two 4 X 8 sections. Average house would probably use 9 sheets or so. Plus two by fours for framing say $150, nails and etc. Labor would be no more than $350. So you are looking at less than $700.
We are now at $2455.
Perhaps the front of the house needs to be primed or painted. $100 for a five gallon container. $300 in labor (doesn't need to be perfectly scraped and detailed - just cleaned up). $500. should put some lipstick on the old girl.
Landscaping: plant a few perennials, toss some grass seed, whack some weeds...$125
The cost to mothball a house (and not lift an unpaid finger) could be on an average of $3000
Need some temporary bracing, a hole patched in the roof? Certainly by adding another $1000 these items could be easily accomplished.
It seems very possible to mothball a house for $3,000 to $4,000. It costs between $7,000 to $10,000 to demolish a house (not including the "cost" to the earth in the terms of using up landfill and etc).
For every house which is demolished, two houses could be mothballed, made secure and attractive, AND monitored.
Makes economic sense. Doesn't it?
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/walnutcourtopenhouse.jpg)
Yes, it does. Demolishing is almost never the answer.
The city has the authority to mothball using either the Chief of code enforcement or the Building codes Adjustment Board.
QuoteSec. 518.304. - Abatement by city.
In the event the unsafe structure is not demolished or the repair or other work is not performed within the time and as required by the Chief or the Building Codes Adjustment Board, the Chief shall cause the demolition or repair or other work, including, but not limited to, boarding to be performed by independent contractors, city employees, or such other qualified means as available. The Chief may also initiate prosecution for violation of this Chapter. The Chief may temporarily defer demolition or repair work when it is in the best interest of the city to do so. Such deferral shall be documented in the property file explaining the reasons for the deferral. Furthermore, except in emergency situations, no structure either individually or as part of a district, locally designated or listed on the National Register of Historic Places, individually or as part of a district and which has been declared unsafe, shall be demolished by the city until the Chief has received approval of such proposed demolition from the Jacksonville Historic Preservation Commission (Commission), pursuant to Section 307.113, Ordinance Code
QuoteBuilding Codes Adjustment Board
The Building Codes Adjustment Board is comprised of nine voting members appointed by Council for staggered three-year terms. Officers include the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Secretary. This Board meets on the second Thursday of each month at 4 p.m. in Conference Room 101, Jake Godbold Building, 407 N. Laura St. (Meeting times and locations are subject to change). Beginning in March 2012, meetings will be held at 128 West Forsyth Street in the Florida Theatre, 7th floor.
The Board hears and votes on variances from the Standard Building Code, the Standard Fire Code, the Standard Plumbing Code, the Standard Electrical Code, as well as appeals of citations by the Property Safety Division under Chapter 518 (Property Safety and Maintenance Code), of the city's Municipal Code. A quorum consists of five Board members. The Fire Marshall or his designee, the Chief of the Building and Zoning Inspection Division, as well as a representative(s) from the Property Safety Division are required to attend meetings, but do not vote.
For information about the Building Codes Adjustment Board, call (904) 255-7000.
For BCAB membership list, click here.
Quote
Committee Name: BCAB-Building Codes Adjustment Board
Legislative Authority: Chapter 56, Ordinance Code
Total Members: 9
Committee Duties: Study building codes and recommend to Council needed amendments thereto as may be found necessary or desirable. Hear and decide building code enforcement appeals. Authorize building code variances where authorized by law.
Meeting Date: 2nd Thursday at 4:00 p.m., Florida Theatre, 128 W. Forysth St, 7th Floor (Meeting times and locations are subject to change.)
Click for More Information:
Committee Members:
Name Category
Frisco, Joseph R.
Harrison, Sammy V.
Hodgins, Joseph L.
Kuhn, Christian W.
Milligan, Neal J.
Paryani, Nandlal B.
Register, Brian J.
Rubens, Robert A.
Soderholm, Karl-Gustav Marten
Contact Staff:
Name Position Phone Email
Maryland, April P. Administrative Aide (904) 255-7013 AprilM@coj.net
hummm....looks like there is a vacancy on the Building Codes Adjustment Board.
Current Appointment Opportunities:
Building Codes Adjustment Board
Quote
Category: General Public (1 Vacancy) - No member shall hold any other public position or office in the Consolidated Government.
Term begins: Immediately
Length of Term: Term ending September 30, 2013
Description: Study building codes and recommend to Council needed amendments thereto as may be found necessary or desirable. Hear and decide building code enforcement appeals. Authorize building code variances where authorized by law.
Web Link: General Board Information
Appointment Application.pdf (202k PDF Form)
http://www.coj.net/city-council/city-council-appointments.aspx
Quote from: ben says on March 19, 2012, 02:42:52 PM
Yes, it does. Demolishing is almost never the answer.
It really is not. The environmental impact long term , alone , out weighs the benefit ,if there is any at all, to demolition.
Just out of curiosity I wonder what a proper mothballing would cost on the old School?
Let's meet out there and check it out.
On a weekend preferably.. Clean out of that place would be extensive and probably the most labor-intensive part.
Please give me a heads up when you guys go.
Timkin: Wouldn't it need a new roof over the auditorium portion? That's expensive unless you can tarp it or something.
PS4 is a landmark, with major upside for the community (think if the fuller-warren ROW were grassed over and the park extended, you could make the building a museum, etc.) if it needs a roof we should give it a roof.
Mothballing the school would be a huge undertaking. But one WELL WORTH it. And it would provide an sensible owner the necessary time to rehab the school. A city that cares is a city that does the RIGHT thing. And protecting and saving the school is the right thing in my opinion. Shoot, I'd even consider taking a year of sabitical to volunteer to mothball the school if it meant saving it.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on March 19, 2012, 09:10:05 PM
PS4 is a landmark, with major upside for the community (think if the fuller-warren ROW were grassed over and the park extended, you could make the building a museum, etc.) if it needs a roof we should give it a roof.
The Auditorium is missing the roof completely now. Most of it collapsed in from neglect in 2000 , and over the years since. A fire set in the final remaining part of it over the stage , brought the remainder of it down. The Actual School itself has a poured concrete sub roof and a built-over roof over it. I was up on it a few years ago to paint over graffiti on the brick at the front side of the Auditorium and a lot of it was soft then. So the Entire building needs the roof over re-done and the Auditorium needs everything ..Rafters , Rafter ties , sheeting, Hurricane Straps , Roof Surface, Etc. Most likely this time done in Bitumen or Metal. Bitumen would last , without much in the way of maintenance at least 50 plus years and is extremely durable. Would have no idea of actual cost but is safe to say , at least 3/4 of a million , if not more to re-roof the entire structure.
A clean out of the building , alone would be costly. Would take lots of people and dumpsters situated in various places around the building.
There is a proposed dog park planned for the area in front of the School on the ROW ,now. Hopefully that , as well will come to pass.
Quote from: Kay on March 19, 2012, 09:06:04 PM
Timkin: Wouldn't it need a new roof over the auditorium portion? That's expensive unless you can tarp it or something.
Hi Kay! .. yes . complete roof system over the Auditorium . Roof-over redone on Main School building as well.
Mothballing allows for tarp and other roof patching as a stop gap measure. Not sure how it would work on something that large.
Quote from: iloveionia on March 19, 2012, 10:07:15 PM
Mothballing the school would be a huge undertaking. But one WELL WORTH it. And it would provide an sensible owner the necessary time to rehab the school. A city that cares is a city that does the RIGHT thing. And protecting and saving the school is the right thing in my opinion. Shoot, I'd even consider taking a year of sabitical to volunteer to mothball the school if it meant saving it.
That eye sore should be torn down immediately.
Don't forget your pitch forks and torches!
That way you are identifiable and I can look you straight in the face: the devil wields no power over a good person.
Maybe it's time to go back to picking beans in Guatemala.
Hoo Rah.
Quote from: Kaiser Soze on March 20, 2012, 11:15:13 AM
Quote from: iloveionia on March 19, 2012, 10:07:15 PM
Mothballing the school would be a huge undertaking. But one WELL WORTH it. And it would provide an sensible owner the necessary time to rehab the school. A city that cares is a city that does the RIGHT thing. And protecting and saving the school is the right thing in my opinion. Shoot, I'd even consider taking a year of sabitical to volunteer to mothball the school if it meant saving it.
That eye sore should be torn down immediately.
Joking, right?
Quote from: Kaiser Soze on March 20, 2012, 11:15:13 AM
Quote from: iloveionia on March 19, 2012, 10:07:15 PM
Mothballing the school would be a huge undertaking. But one WELL WORTH it. And it would provide an sensible owner the necessary time to rehab the school. A city that cares is a city that does the RIGHT thing. And protecting and saving the school is the right thing in my opinion. Shoot, I'd even consider taking a year of sabitical to volunteer to mothball the school if it meant saving it.
That eye sore should be torn down immediately.
Do you want to contribute to the 3/4 of a million dollars it would cost tax payers to demo it?
I didn't think so ;)
:P
Quote from: iloveionia on March 20, 2012, 01:11:22 PM
Don't forget your pitch forks and torches!
That way you are identifiable and I can look you straight in the face: the devil wields no power over a good person.
Maybe it's time to go back to picking beans in Guatemala.
Hoo Rah.
amusing !! :) I love it!
Quote from: Timkin on March 20, 2012, 04:40:52 PM
Quote from: Kaiser Soze on March 20, 2012, 11:15:13 AM
Quote from: iloveionia on March 19, 2012, 10:07:15 PM
Mothballing the school would be a huge undertaking. But one WELL WORTH it. And it would provide an sensible owner the necessary time to rehab the school. A city that cares is a city that does the RIGHT thing. And protecting and saving the school is the right thing in my opinion. Shoot, I'd even consider taking a year of sabitical to volunteer to mothball the school if it meant saving it.
That eye sore should be torn down immediately.
Do you want to contribute to the 3/4 of a million dollars it would cost tax payers to demo it?
I didn't think so ;)
:P
Do you want the taxpayers to pay the same amount to mothball it? How about when a firefighter is injured next time a fire breaks out? Is that worth the cost? ;)
Quote from: ben says on March 20, 2012, 01:15:35 PM
Quote from: Kaiser Soze on March 20, 2012, 11:15:13 AM
Quote from: iloveionia on March 19, 2012, 10:07:15 PM
Mothballing the school would be a huge undertaking. But one WELL WORTH it. And it would provide an sensible owner the necessary time to rehab the school. A city that cares is a city that does the RIGHT thing. And protecting and saving the school is the right thing in my opinion. Shoot, I'd even consider taking a year of sabitical to volunteer to mothball the school if it meant saving it.
That eye sore should be torn down immediately.
Joking, right?
Absolutely not.
Quote from: Kaiser Soze on March 21, 2012, 01:55:40 PM
Quote from: Timkin on March 20, 2012, 04:40:52 PM
Quote from: Kaiser Soze on March 20, 2012, 11:15:13 AM
Quote from: iloveionia on March 19, 2012, 10:07:15 PM
Mothballing the school would be a huge undertaking. But one WELL WORTH it. And it would provide an sensible owner the necessary time to rehab the school. A city that cares is a city that does the RIGHT thing. And protecting and saving the school is the right thing in my opinion. Shoot, I'd even consider taking a year of sabitical to volunteer to mothball the school if it meant saving it.
That eye sore should be torn down immediately.
Do you want to contribute to the 3/4 of a million dollars it would cost tax payers to demo it?
I didn't think so ;)
:P
Do you want the taxpayers to pay the same amount to mothball it? How about when a firefighter is injured next time a fire breaks out? Is that worth the cost? ;)
NO I am not asking the taxpayers for squat. Nor am I asking you for help. You sound hauntingly like another poster on the site but thats okay. Opinions are like rear-ends. We all have one and everyone's is different. If its demolished , THAT IS on your dime . If it is saved or mothballed , it would not be.
It is okay to have an opinion put please try to know what you're talking about ;)
Quote from: Timkin on March 22, 2012, 03:41:23 PM
Quote from: Kaiser Soze on March 21, 2012, 01:55:40 PM
Quote from: Timkin on March 20, 2012, 04:40:52 PM
Quote from: Kaiser Soze on March 20, 2012, 11:15:13 AM
Quote from: iloveionia on March 19, 2012, 10:07:15 PM
Mothballing the school would be a huge undertaking. But one WELL WORTH it. And it would provide an sensible owner the necessary time to rehab the school. A city that cares is a city that does the RIGHT thing. And protecting and saving the school is the right thing in my opinion. Shoot, I'd even consider taking a year of sabitical to volunteer to mothball the school if it meant saving it.
That eye sore should be torn down immediately.
Do you want to contribute to the 3/4 of a million dollars it would cost tax payers to demo it?
I didn't think so ;)
:P
Do you want the taxpayers to pay the same amount to mothball it? How about when a firefighter is injured next time a fire breaks out? Is that worth the cost? ;)
NO I am not asking the taxpayers for squat. Nor am I asking you for help. You sound hauntingly like another poster on the site but thats okay. Opinions are like rear-ends. We all have one and everyone's is different. If its demolished , THAT IS on your dime . If it is saved or mothballed , it would not be.
It is okay to have an opinion put please try to know what you're talking about ;)
So, who is paying for the mothballing? You sound hauntingly like a know-it-all jackass who loves to spend other people's money.
Quote from: Kaiser Soze on March 26, 2012, 11:40:38 AM
Quote from: Timkin on March 22, 2012, 03:41:23 PM
Quote from: Kaiser Soze on March 21, 2012, 01:55:40 PM
Quote from: Timkin on March 20, 2012, 04:40:52 PM
Quote from: Kaiser Soze on March 20, 2012, 11:15:13 AM
Quote from: iloveionia on March 19, 2012, 10:07:15 PM
Mothballing the school would be a huge undertaking. But one WELL WORTH it. And it would provide an sensible owner the necessary time to rehab the school. A city that cares is a city that does the RIGHT thing. And protecting and saving the school is the right thing in my opinion. Shoot, I'd even consider taking a year of sabitical to volunteer to mothball the school if it meant saving it.
That eye sore should be torn down immediately.
Do you want to contribute to the 3/4 of a million dollars it would cost tax payers to demo it?
I didn't think so ;)
:P
Do you want the taxpayers to pay the same amount to mothball it? How about when a firefighter is injured next time a fire breaks out? Is that worth the cost? ;)
NO I am not asking the taxpayers for squat. Nor am I asking you for help. You sound hauntingly like another poster on the site but thats okay. Opinions are like rear-ends. We all have one and everyone's is different. If its demolished , THAT IS on your dime . If it is saved or mothballed , it would not be.
It is okay to have an opinion put please try to know what you're talking about ;)
So, who is paying for the mothballing? You sound hauntingly like a know-it-all jackass who loves to spend other people's money.
Kaiser... I have not identified the source of where mothballing would come from to Mothball the building. I can assure you it will not be asked of you , or come from YOUR tax dollars. We are working tirelessly to identify a new owner and a funding source for the School as others are trying to revitalize other historic properties.
Your opinion was clear, you do not want to see the building saved. Fine . that is your opinion. If it comes to that, IT WILL BE YOUR tax dollars , in part that fund that demolition.
What we are trying to do is find a new owner with funding for it without looking to the taxpayer.. in fact I am pretty certain taxpayer money will never fund anything about the school, EXCEPT demolition. That this City is on the hook to maintain it (which does come from tax dollars) you have the building's OWNER , not the building to thank.
Your message was crystal clear. While I do not agree with you , you are entitled to your opinion.
It is the city's responsibility to provide for the safety of its citizens. For the last five years or so, it has chosen to do this by just demolishing everything in sight. That is the opposite of being sustainable as Stephen pointed out. So, COJ want to have this "sustainability" push? Then mothball.
It is written in the ordinance codes already that COJ can do everything which falls under the mothballing category. If code enforcement doesn't want to be bothered, let the Neighborhoods Department do it. They are handling the NSP money which could be used anyway.
The school ought to be mothballed right away and it should be mothballed by the city. It is the right thing to do. It is the sustainable thing to do. It is the economical thing to do.
And once it is mothballed, it has time to breathe while that new owner is found.
And, while we are at it, let's roll in a foreclosure against Tarpon for the nuisance lien of mothballing if it doesn't participate in the monitoring section of the mothballing requirement.
We are waiting on a hold-harmless agreement , which will at least allow us to clean and detail the property . The previous one is invalid ,since the School and the land around it ,cut out of the tract. This hold-harmless would at least make it possible to get up to the building and cleanup and board up.
Dogwalker has offered a metal material to be attached to some of the lower-level openings and attached in such a fashion so that it is not easy to access.
I don't know if a replacement roof on the Auditorium would be feasible under a Mothballing effort. By itself , that would cost a lot , as the entire roof system now must be replaced.
And of course if I say I agree that the City should do it ( I am not saying that but if I did) I would again come under scrutiny for using taxpayer money. We are seeking sources outside of the City and the taxpayer to accomplish this, rather than the burden of demolition which most certainly will be passed on to the taxpayers. Id rather see 3/4 of a million spent to save the structure than remove it.
And I will continue to seek a way to save it.. for as long as it takes.
Stephen is right, it costs far more to the community to demolish a structure (thereby ensuring it remains nothing more than a non-tax-producing, vibrancy-killing, vacant lot) than it does to remedy the deficiencies. Even PS4 is probably no exception. In Springfield, the area giving the most pushback at the present moment, by Kimberly Scott's own admission you could mothball 3 houses for the cost of demolishing 1.
So exactly WTF is going on with the ongoing demolition rampage, I don't know. The height of short-sightedness, the community will be paying for it for decades to come. You'd think we'd have learned from the post-apocalyptic atmosphere these same policies have created downtown.
So, I still am waiting to hear where the money to mothball PS4 comes from.
Don't get me wrong - I would love to see PS4 renovated into something useful. Unfortunately, numerous groups have looked into it and determined that it is not doable. Its been vacant since 1971. Time to take a look at knocking it down and getting anew building on the property.
Quote from: stephendare on March 26, 2012, 11:50:29 AM
Taxes belong to all of us, thats what a democracy runs off of.
Its not 'other people's money', it is public money, to be spent on maintaining our infrastructure, and whatever we as taxpayers decide it should be spent on.
Here's the thing: this building could have been demolished 12 years ago with private money and the property put to good use. Instead, now its sits there, rotting away with the occasional fire to help hasten things along. Its been rotting away for over 40 years.
So, now, the very people who argued against demolition want to spend public dollars to mothball it so it can be protected for some unknown, future use. Never mind that , during its 40+ years of being vacant, during multiple economic and buildings booms, no one has found a profitable use for PS4. Regardless, we should spend public dollars to mothball it. No thanks.
Quote from: stephendare on March 27, 2012, 09:44:47 AM
[
And all of us are still waiting for you to identify the funding source and developer who is waiting in the wings to turn this property into something awesome with a new building?!
Here you go http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2009-oct-ruins-of-jacksonville-annie-lytle-public-school (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2009-oct-ruins-of-jacksonville-annie-lytle-public-school) The opportunity was there 12 years ago but folks like yourself ran them out of town. Now, PS4 still sits there, in even worse shape than it was. The developer was there. Folks like yourself chased them off. Congrats on that.
Quote from: stephendare on March 27, 2012, 09:41:36 AM
Its hard to make a convincing point on this subject when a similarly abandoned school, John Gorrie, has been transformed into a pretty awesome project, don't you think?
Don't you think the locale of those two structures is a little different? Even you must see that.
I actually know a lot when it comes to that particular project. You are wrong.
Quote from: Kaiser Soze on March 27, 2012, 09:06:07 AM
So, I still am waiting to hear where the money to mothball PS4 comes from.
Don't get me wrong - I would love to see PS4 renovated into something useful. Unfortunately, numerous groups have looked into it and determined that it is not doable. Its been vacant since 1971. Time to take a look at knocking it down and getting anew building on the property.
Interesting.. your post on the previous page indicates the contrary. "That eyesore should be torn down immediately"
Actually a few years ago , a developer wanted to do just that.
Demolish it. Put a retirement facility in its place. That was 2006. I suppose the developer , had they actually had a plan in place that would have made the project viable, could have accomplished that, despite public outcry , including , most definitely , mine.
To answer your question, I do not YET know where money to mothball the building will come from. But one thing is clear. you are apparently undecided on exactly how you feel about the school . On one page you say tear it down, the next you indicate otherwise. Which is it?
Following the fire set in the building in January you came on here and posted that something I stated was not true, and being that I sent interested parties to the , then owner. That is a fact. The owner, being under a contract with the developer at the time, obviously probably could NOT talk to this person, who by the way does loft conversions on Schools and has successfully for years. I think ( don't know) the developer with the option on the property probably wouldn't talk to this person at all. Again not certain of what exactly did or did not happen. Point is I most certainly HAVE been seeking solutions for that building, as have many bright minds prior to my involvement for decades. At least I am trying.
You are so quick to name call, be negative, call the building an eyesore, and like many in our community , could not be bothered to volunteer, or give positive input, hence the reference I made that you sound like another poster on the forum. Didn't call you names. Respect but do not agree with your opinion. As I previously stated, we are not looking to the taxpayer to foot the bill. The fact that the city is on the hook to attempt to secure it , you can thank it's negligent owner for. The building did not go into rack and ruin on its own. It was from basic neglect / maintenance and just as much from vandals who care nothing about that building , or any other, or your home, for that matter.
We are looking for a solution that will not involve removal of the building. To take it out is VERY COSTLY. for a potential new build, there is before anything gets built ,a substantial impact fee just to put a building there. Because of the lot size remaining, it is doubtful that a building even comparable to that size and certainly not of the quality of construction, could be put in its place. Say what you will about the School. Its construction has stood the test of time and withstood abuse and negligence for close to a half century. It needs a lot of work but I differ with your opinion that it is an eyesore. In fact, ENOUGH people disagree , that it was granted historic landmark status. Enough people disagreed with its removal, and plenty , I assure you STILL STAND BEHIND the FACT that it can and eventually will be saved and re purposed.
Well he seems to have an axe to grind with me. Presumably because I support saving the building and always have.
Its not okay (in his estimation) to spend taxpayer money on THIS PARTICULAR BUILDING ( don't know why) if it is in an effort to preserve it but I guess it would be okay if we spend that money to demolish it.....to the tune of a heck of a lot more money. Such has been , for decades, the way things are done in this city. If it is old , or significant, and people happen to like it .. For heaven's sake lets occupy landfill space with it ,and build something in its place that is not interesting , or significant, or DURABLE.
I do! For that matter his last post was :
Quote from: Kaiser Soze on March 27, 2012, 12:49:06 PM
I actually know a lot when it comes to that particular project. You are wrong.
Please, Kaiser , do enlighten me on what exactly it is that you know about and how Stephen is wrong?
What I do know is that around the end of the 1970s , Mr. Milne purchased a building that was in need of a little work (by comparison of where it NOW stands) It was not perfect , but it was most certainly intact. In around 1984, I walked through the building. There was no posted No Trespassing signs, The building was unlocked, I was certainly not there to do damage, just curious what it looked like inside. And it was beautiful .. Especially the most damaged part of the building now.. its Auditorium. Intact.
I know none of that matters now. What does is , the quality of this building is just not produced in modern building , and if it were, the cost to new-build such a structure would easily exceed the cost of renovating this one. That the expressway shadows the building probably does kill the possibility of it for residential. But there are other ways the building potentially could be used , whereby the interstate in front is not an issue. The most common proposals I know of , always seemed to center around residential. Consequently the most expensive price tag to renovate the building would be for residential. Perhaps it could be that the wisest use for it is to overhaul it and turn it into what it always was intended to be used for. A Private School or College. Perhaps this is the least expensive way to make the building viable. And whether you agree or not Kaiser, many of us in the community feel, especially, given the endless and very extensive list of historic landmarks that were mindlessly razed , to be replaced by empty lots which add nothing to the tax base, that this is one that is structurally sound enough that it is feasible and practical to save it. Residential is obviously not the answer in that location. The fact that the building is adjacent to a beautiful park , a vibrant 5 points shopping district, the Riverside Arts Market, etc, seems to point to the possibility that it could , potentially become a destination of some kind. History has proven that the building is intriguing , maybe for wrong reasons in the last few decades. Perhaps we will eventually happen upon the perfect fit for it, which makes it both viable and a destination. That I am aware of, this purpose has not been pursued.
Quote from: stephendare on March 27, 2012, 11:01:52 PM
Quote from: Timkin on March 27, 2012, 10:39:22 PM
Well he seems to have an axe to grind with me. Presumably because I support saving the building and always have.
Its not okay (in his estimation) to spend taxpayer money on THIS PARTICULAR BUILDING ( don't know why) if it is in an effort to preserve it but I guess it would be okay if we spend that money to demolish it.....to the tune of a heck of a lot more money. Such has been , for decades, the way things are done in this city. If it is old , or significant, and people happen to like it .. For heaven's sake lets occupy landfill space with it ,and build something in its place that is not interesting , or significant, or DURABLE.
Well whatever ax he might be grinding, I wonder why he can't answer those basic questions. I don't think his posts should be taken seriously on the subject until he does. Don't you agree?
I wish that I could discuss my knowledge of that project. I really do but I cannot.
Timkin, trying actually reading what I write before responding to it.
There was private money available to tear it down. Timkin, you seem to be the biggest advocate of saving that building. Rather than pushing for the expenditure of public dollars, how about you put a group together and raise the money to purchase and rehab the property yourself??? Why be a hindrance to others' plans for the property. If you think it can be rehabbed and turned around, go for it. I am sure you and Stephen have all sorts of good ideas for its use.
Quote from: Timkin on March 27, 2012, 11:38:31 PM
I do! For that matter his last post was :
Quote from: Kaiser Soze on March 27, 2012, 12:49:06 PM
I actually know a lot when it comes to that particular project. You are wrong.
Please, Kaiser , do enlighten me on what exactly it is that you know about and how Stephen is wrong?
What I do know is that around the end of the 1970s , Mr. Milne purchased a building that was in need of a little work (by comparison of where it NOW stands) It was not perfect , but it was most certainly intact. In around 1984, I walked through the building. There was no posted No Trespassing signs, The building was unlocked, I was certainly not there to do damage, just curious what it looked like inside. And it was beautiful .. Especially the most damaged part of the building now.. its Auditorium. Intact.
I know none of that matters now. What does is , the quality of this building is just not produced in modern building , and if it were, the cost to new-build such a structure would easily exceed the cost of renovating this one. That the expressway shadows the building probably does kill the possibility of it for residential. But there are other ways the building potentially could be used , whereby the interstate in front is not an issue. The most common proposals I know of , always seemed to center around residential. Consequently the most expensive price tag to renovate the building would be for residential. Perhaps it could be that the wisest use for it is to overhaul it and turn it into what it always was intended to be used for. A Private School or College. Perhaps this is the least expensive way to make the building viable. And whether you agree or not Kaiser, many of us in the community feel, especially, given the endless and very extensive list of historic landmarks that were mindlessly razed , to be replaced by empty lots which add nothing to the tax base, that this is one that is structurally sound enough that it is feasible and practical to save it. Residential is obviously not the answer in that location. The fact that the building is adjacent to a beautiful park , a vibrant 5 points shopping district, the Riverside Arts Market, etc, seems to point to the possibility that it could , potentially become a destination of some kind. History has proven that the building is intriguing , maybe for wrong reasons in the last few decades. Perhaps we will eventually happen upon the perfect fit for it, which makes it both viable and a destination. That I am aware of, this purpose has not been pursued.
Bunch of great ideas here. If they are doable, put them to work and make a lot of money.
Quote from: stephendare on March 28, 2012, 09:10:17 AM
Quote from: Kaiser Soze on March 28, 2012, 08:51:25 AM
I wish that I could discuss my knowledge of that project. I really do but I cannot.
Rather than pushing for the expenditure of public dollars, how about you put a group together and raise the money to purchase and rehab the property yourself??? Why be a hindrance to others' plans for the property. If you think it can be rehabbed and turned around, go for it. I am sure you and Stephen have all sorts of good ideas for its use.
There was private money more than a decade ago you say. But where would you propose this money would come from now, Kaiser?
And what group is looking to redevelop on that property that cant find plenty of empty lots nearby?
Im not concerned about School Number 4 in particular. There are people who love that building and who defend it. My responses have mostly been on the larger point. This mentality that we somehow have to prune building stock as though it were a particularly sensitive grape vine is just ridiculous, in my opinion, and a piss poor stewardship of the public purse and power.
You are making my point for me. Yes, there was private money a decade ago. Folks like Timkin killed that. So, now what do we do? Mothball it? Great. I has not been used for 40+ years. Should we mothball with public money for another 40+ years to wait for a solution that will never come?
I-10 and I-95 killed that building years ago. Timkin and his ilk killed any private projects on the property a decade ago. How about Timkin and friends take their shot at making the property work for the community since they have been so successful in roadblocking others.
Quote from: stephendare on March 28, 2012, 09:47:51 AM
Quote from: Kaiser Soze on March 28, 2012, 09:27:40 AM
Quote from: stephendare on March 28, 2012, 09:10:17 AM
Quote from: Kaiser Soze on March 28, 2012, 08:51:25 AM
I wish that I could discuss my knowledge of that project. I really do but I cannot.
Rather than pushing for the expenditure of public dollars, how about you put a group together and raise the money to purchase and rehab the property yourself??? Why be a hindrance to others' plans for the property. If you think it can be rehabbed and turned around, go for it. I am sure you and Stephen have all sorts of good ideas for its use.
There was private money more than a decade ago you say. But where would you propose this money would come from now, Kaiser?
And what group is looking to redevelop on that property that cant find plenty of empty lots nearby?
Im not concerned about School Number 4 in particular. There are people who love that building and who defend it. My responses have mostly been on the larger point. This mentality that we somehow have to prune building stock as though it were a particularly sensitive grape vine is just ridiculous, in my opinion, and a piss poor stewardship of the public purse and power.
You are making my point for me. Yes, there was private money a decade ago. Folks like Timkin killed that. So, now what do we do? Mothball it? Great. I has not been used for 40+ years. Should we mothball with public money for another 40+ years to wait for a solution that will never come?
I-10 and I-95 killed that building years ago. Timkin and his ilk killed any private projects on the property a decade ago. How about Timkin and friends take their shot at making the property work for the community since they have been so successful in roadblocking others.
huh?
Sorry, but you arent making any sense at all.
And you still havent answered any of the questions.
Are you willing to pitch in for the lost tax revenue until something replaces the building after it is demolished? Or are you just expecting everyone else to pitch in and cover that loss?
See if you can follow this: private money was there, you folks killed it, now the public will have to pick up the tab (whether its demolition of mothballing).
What lost tax revenue?
Quote from: Kaiser Soze on March 28, 2012, 08:51:25 AM
I wish that I could discuss my knowledge of that project. I really do but I cannot.
Does the CIA have a covert ops center in the basement of PS4 and you're sworn to secrecy?
Like the secret MI6 headquarters in the sunken ship in Man with the Golden Gun?
Quote from: stephendare on March 28, 2012, 10:41:13 AM
that you are even asking that question kindof demonstrates the problem doesnt it.
What gives less tax revenue? An empty lot or a property with a building on it?
And there is no use crying over what happened ten years ago, as you say.
20 years ago it was possible to rehab the building inexpensively, but you people killed that by preferring new, cheap construction over well built historic structures, right?
So when the tax base decreases because the property becomes an empty lot, are you refusing to pitch in and cover the loss in tax revenues?
The tax revenue generated by that building is minimal. You know that.
And there absolutely is use in being angry about what happened ten years ago. We should be learning from our mistakes. I don't want to see the same people that wrecked potential new development on the PS4 property to wreck the re-vitalization of King Street.
There are many buildings that should be saved. When they can be put to good use, I am absolutely all for it. When the building is a decrepit structure crammed against an interstate, it simply will not work. PS4 was a beautiful building but it dies when the interstate was constructed. Its time to move on and I don't think "move on" means either: (i) leaving that building standing in its current state such that i can be inhabited by the homeless and junkies, or (ii) spending public funds t mothball it when no future plans are in sight.
Albeit being located next to the interstate isn't an ideal location but is not the death of a building. Look at the great commercial areas developed in Seattle, Vancouver, and Chicago beneath similar transportation structures. Look at RAM. Buildings beneath transportation structures don't mean death. They are invitations to innovate
As long as DOT takes care of the scum pond in front of it, I'd be willing to buy there, even in the shadow of I-95. (That is, if you could pry me out of Jacksonville's best neighborhood where I already live.) In fact, when they first announced the condos years ago, I inquired about them. There are windows that will take care of the noise factor. The fence under the interstate could come down, and you would have Riverside Park as your front yard.
First off Kaiser, I began my mission to save it in 2006. You're saying a decade ago there was money available to demolish it. That was before I was ever in the picture. Doug Milne, the owner STATED PUBLICLY OVER AND OVER that he did not want the building demolished. So please get your facts straight. With regard to the rest of your statement I /WE are seeking a way to make the building viable. I would PREFER to do it in such a fashion so as not to ask for a penny from taxpayers, whereas if you get your way and it is torn down , this will cost the taxpayers.
I agree with Ock's proposal for the building to be a station . Will it happen ? I have no idea.
I will take blame /credit where it is due but I cannot take the blame for something a decade ago. I had nothing to do with that. IF you are referring to the 2006 developer who wanted to demo it, then I will gladly raise my hand. If I actually was instrumental in getting rid of them IM HAPPY ABOUT THAT.
I want the building saved, preferably NOT at the expense of the taxpayer. I cannot put it any simpler than that. But this is personal. for whatever reason you make me out to be the badguy. The bad guys are the people who neglected it , vandalized and destoyed it. I WORKED MY ASS OFF on that property for a couple of years trying my level best to make it better along with the help of some very kind hearted alike minded volunteers. I wont apologize to you or anyone for trying to make it better and I will continue to whether you agree or not.
Quote from: Kaiser Soze on March 28, 2012, 10:00:51 AM
Quote from: stephendare on March 28, 2012, 09:47:51 AM
Quote from: Kaiser Soze on March 28, 2012, 09:27:40 AM
Quote from: stephendare on March 28, 2012, 09:10:17 AM
Quote from: Kaiser Soze on March 28, 2012, 08:51:25 AM
I wish that I could discuss my knowledge of that project. I really do but I cannot.
Rather than pushing for the expenditure of public dollars, how about you put a group together and raise the money to purchase and rehab the property yourself??? Why be a hindrance to others' plans for the property. If you think it can be rehabbed and turned around, go for it. I am sure you and Stephen have all sorts of good ideas for its use.
There was private money more than a decade ago you say. But where would you propose this money would come from now, Kaiser?
And what group is looking to redevelop on that property that cant find plenty of empty lots nearby?
Im not concerned about School Number 4 in particular. There are people who love that building and who defend it. My responses have mostly been on the larger point. This mentality that we somehow have to prune building stock as though it were a particularly sensitive grape vine is just ridiculous, in my opinion, and a piss poor stewardship of the public purse and power.
You are making my point for me. Yes, there was private money a decade ago. Folks like Timkin killed that. So, now what do we do? Mothball it? Great. I has not been used for 40+ years. Should we mothball with public money for another 40+ years to wait for a solution that will never come?
I-10 and I-95 killed that building years ago. Timkin and his ilk killed any private projects on the property a decade ago. How about Timkin and friends take their shot at making the property work for the community since they have been so successful in roadblocking others.
huh?
Sorry, but you arent making any sense at all.
And you still havent answered any of the questions.
Are you willing to pitch in for the lost tax revenue until something replaces the building after it is demolished? Or are you just expecting everyone else to pitch in and cover that loss?
See if you can follow this: private money was there, you folks killed it, now the public will have to pick up the tab (whether its demolition of mothballing).
What lost tax revenue?
Define "you folks", Kaiser. Ida Stevens foundation bought the building around 1980 intending to make it residential for seniors. They accomplished this successfully with Duval High School downtown. After they bought it, subsidies and tax credits for the project went away. Is that my fault? Is that our fault , whomever you are referring to as "you folks"? I don't see how, but if you know something I am failing to remember, feel free to correct me. I don't recall a mention from that time of them wanting to demolish the building. I think their intent was to use it.
The next development I know about was the "Lytle Place Condominiums" project , around 2000. In this plan ( I have a copy of the floor plans of this project) The plan called for restoration , not demolition of the School and in fact , altering the basement of the building to use for residential parking and resident storage. I believe in this instance some of the units actually pre-sold. As I understand it , what axed that project was the forthcoming replacement of the Fuller Warren Bridge and the approaches to the bridge, and the current fly-over for I-10 from I-95. When purchasers learned about this expansion and how close this would come to the front of the building, they backed out. The plan fell through. I had no involvement in PS#4 at that time. Heck, at that time I did not even live in Jacksonville, I was residing in Winter Park. So the decade ago plan that I supposedly was involved in axing is simply not true.
The next proposal .. The one where I did speak up was in 2006. In this plan the developer wanted to demo the School and put a modern structure in it's place , citing that it was too expensive to save. To quote the developer at the time, the price tag for renovation "approached" 8 to 9 million dollars. They applied to HPC for demoltion. HPC denied the request. They then appealed to City Council . Initially , LUZ approved the demolition with condition. PLENTY of people , not just myself stepped in then. We did not ask for the project to be scrapped, we asked for the building to be SPARED and included in the project. The developer appealed to City Council and it remained deferred and tabled for 2 plus years. Eventually, City Council kicked the bill out, re-referring the appeal to HPC. I am sure the developer knew that if HPC declined them once, they would again so they backed off on the plan to demolish, HOWEVER, they stated over and over that the plan was still in place, and the last article that was published in the Times Union about their plan , indicated that the project could begin as soon as in 2 months. That was 2008. The same year I began , with permission from the owner ,under a hold-harmless agreement to do cleanup and maintenance free of charge to the property. I continued this until I began having health issues and could not do the work. In the meantime ,for whatever reason , this plan also fizzled out. If that is my fault, I am all ears. PLEASE CLARIFY how you feel that the failure of the only 3 projects I have ever known of falling through is the direct result of my opposition to the School being demolished.
You are misguided , at best on your thoughts. All I have tried to do is save a historic building. It matters to me. If it does not matter to you , fine. I am not asking for your help. But please...with all this top secret information you claim to have , but can't publicly speak about , get your facts straight when it comes to me.
Lastly I will state , in 2010 a Ventura, Fl -based LLC purchased the School from a tax-sale. As they now are the owners of the school , just as with previous owners, THEY SHOULD be the ones mothballing it ,maintaining it, etc. I made the same offer to them as with the previous owner, free of charge, just let me go and do what I can do to make the place better. NEVER EVER any cooperation from them. Fast forward to 2012. They have done zilch, zero, nothing , Nada to help, maintain, mothball , demolish, not even pay taxes or the accumulating nuisance fees that have mounted on the property. This too , must somehow be my fault but the reality is , It is not.
If you have something that you can pin the blame on me about , feel free to fire away. I am pretty tired of being condemned for trying to continue work that others have tried and failed, but I have no intention of stopping.
Since this thread has moved into a discussion about PS4, would it be possible to take the latest couple pages of PS4 posts and move them over to the PS4 thread in the Riverside forum, so we are all discussing PS4, and the solutions for it, on one thread, for the sake of continuity?
Quote from: stephendare on March 28, 2012, 08:41:38 PM
Timkin,
Is it possible that someone can discuss the Annie Lyle without it turning into a public therapy session about your feelings of persecution?
It's really off putting, and distracting from the actual subject.
Just sayin.
Yet you allow Noone to insert his message into every topic.....
Both of these guys have poured heart and soul into their respective projects. I feel funny even typing this, but for you to belittle them.... c'mon - you're better than that.
It's like calling out Ock for going railroad. Tufsu for going Winn Dixie ;) . Lake for going holistic.
Faye for going retarded (OK, low blow that's uncalled for don't delete it, just strike through it - like it never happened)Tim & John have literally spilt blood for their causes. I say - REDACT! PS#4 is his ONLY subject 78% of the time. :P
Quote from: stephendare on March 28, 2012, 08:41:38 PM
Timkin,
Is it possible that someone can discuss the Annie Lyle without it turning into a public therapy session about your feelings of persecution?
It's really off putting, and distracting from the actual subject.
Just sayin.
Didn't realize that was the message I was putting out, Stephen. Esp when I am blamed for events I had nothing to do with.
Sorry. Will try to be more careful in my wording.
and with all due respect I agree with Debbie. Sorry for my part in this going completely off topic. Really I think I have said all I can say on the matter. Seemed to me that I was appointed (by a poster whom I will not name) as the culprit behind preventing a privately-paid for demolition a decade ago . There is not an ounce of truth to that. I simply was defending my position . Surely Stephen, you would do the same?
With any and all due respect, My purpose here is to stand up for what I think is right. I think I understand what you are getting at. I don't know M-train personally, Nor Kaiser, Nor even you, Stephen.
My intention is to get PS #4 saved. That should be the most obvious point that I try to make. If by doing so I have to take jabs from M-train , Kaiser and who ever else , so be it.
I hope it is saved.... and that I can move on to another adventure.
No regret whatsoever up to now. :)
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on March 28, 2012, 10:16:16 PM
Since this thread has moved into a discussion about PS4, would it be possible to take the latest couple pages of PS4 posts and move them over to the PS4 thread in the Riverside forum
I'm all for saving PS#4. My love affair with that building began in 1973 when I worked in the brand new building across I-95 from it, originally the Haskell Building. It was the company I worked for, Treco, that arranged the limited partnership for Ida Stevens Foundation on the Stevens Duval Apartments. I was thrilled when they bought the school because I knew it would be saved...until the incentives went away. I inquired about the condos for our residence.
That said, I still think the PS#4 discussion pages belong in the Riverside section, where I will happily go give my 2 cents on the subject. I could be wrong, but my thought is people don't look for PS4 discussions in the Springfield topic.
It was never my intent to hijack this thread with an ongoing discussion about it. For my part in this , I apologize Debbie.
The endangered landmarks and Historic residences matter to me, where ever they are. Springfield, Brooklyn, Downtown,etc . There is an appeal to the designs and durability of that era that simply is not the norm in modern construction.
It has always been my hope that all of these places can be spared. Contrary to what has been stated , this has never about 'me'. While some may enjoy pulling my chain, about my convictions, I think the same can be said for others in other instances. I guess it is how we as individuals deal with that, that makes us all different.
I 100% agree with you, Timkin. I, too, am interested in ALL the historic buildings in Jacksonville, no matter what neighborhood they are in. I just thought we should move the PS#4 part to the Riverside page, that's all. And if we are discussing something in San Marco, that's where it should be. :-)
Agree completely Debbie. I wanted to point out that you made a passing remark which got me to thinking. You mentioned the older Haskell Building.. Remember it well . Visited often as Haskell had an in-house print shop there.
This is a great example of a building literally jammed up against the very same expressway, and while Im sure it is mostly vacant, the point is , that does not render it unusable. :)
The really important thing to know, Timkin, is that the expressway was already there when it was built. OK, not as high on the building as it is now, but it was there, and we built it anyway. And guess what? We never heard the expressway when we were inside the building working. I guess they put in windows that kept the sound down, yes, even in 1973. Hmmm....wonder if you would hear it in a condo across the way, with what must be even better sound-deadening windows in 2013? Probably not. :-)
But there I go again, after I asked not once, but twice, to move this discussion, going off on the PS#4 tangent with you. LOL
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on April 01, 2012, 10:41:12 PM
The really important thing to know, Timkin, is that the expressway was already there when it was built. OK, not as high on the building as it is now, but it was there, and we built it anyway. And guess what? We never heard the expressway when we were inside the building working. I guess they put in windows that kept the sound down, yes, even in 1973. Hmmm....wonder if you would hear it in a condo across the way, with what must be even better sound-deadening windows in 2013? Probably not. :-)
But there I go again, after I asked not once, but twice, to move this discussion, going off on the PS#4 tangent with you. LOL
totally okay, Debbie. :)