(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-2641-p1040944.JPG)
It looks like the Bostwick Building is about to come down, possibly next week.
I got an email that Code Enforcement has told the owners that they will start incurring the $100/day fine sometime in the next week or two. It’s ashame they let it rot. I had a client who was interested in purchasing it back in 2007 and I had the opportunity to do a site visit:
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php?topic=1050.0
Evidently, they got an offer 4 years ago at $960k with the building was up in the 1.5mm range and turned it down. They didn’t get any sniffs on the building in it’s current decrepit shape at $360k.
oh no. Really? this cant happen.
Code Enforcement fines are really just an attention getter. They can be waived or reduced.
Does Brown really want this kind of downtown attention so early in his term? I am sure the "Public-Private" train-speak will be coming out soon from his office.
That would be a shame for it to come down, it really is a cool building, from the outside.
It is a beautiful building. The problem is the same with every nice building that should be spared. No one to buy it, re purpose it, $$ to restore it.
Still.... I hope it is somehow spared.
Why is it being fined? Is it not property mothballed?
Sadly this is the ONLY building in downtown Jacksonville that has any likeness to our NFL team, the Jacksonville Jaguars. Driving around downtown, you wouldn't even know we had a team aside from the Jaguar peeking out of the Bostwick building.
Look at the aerial shots from Google maps and you can actually see the beams in the roof where the roofing material is totally gone. The inside has to be a mess.
From my visit in 2007:
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-2645-p1040958.JPG)
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-2643-p1040959.JPG)
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-2638-p1040965.JPG)
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-2635-p1040961.JPG)
Whats the full history on this building?
Bostwick Building timeline:
1880 - First National Bank opens on site. This was Florida's earliest national bank.
1901 - First National Bank is destroyed by Great Fire of 1901.
1902 - The first half of current building is constructed.
1903 - Bank fails and is purchased by Guaranty Trust and Savings Bank
1919 - Building is expanded to current size
1922 - Guaranty fails and is taken over by Brotherhood State Bank
1925 - Head cashier Thomas R. Hendricks commits suicide in building
1930s - Building converted to office space and continuously owned by Bostwick family
1944 - 1960 - Home of H.J. Klutho's architectural office
1990s - Jaguar mural painted over boarded up windows
We really need some kind of a stop loss policy for our downtown's historic building stock until we figure out what the hell we want to do to revitalize.
What would they do with the space? Just leave it empty? Who would pay for the demolition?
Clearly the thing is in abhorrent shape, but is it really a safety issue demanding immediate action? What's with the owners?
So many questions.
Thanks Lake. Its been around a while. Somewhere in the recesses of my memory I thought I recalled a radio station was talking about taking that building over many, many years ago and have their studios right there facing Bay and Ocean for passersby. That would have been cool. I wonder what ever became of that idea?
Quote from: thelakelander on April 02, 2012, 01:32:30 PM
Evidently, they got an offer 4 years ago at $960k with the building was up in the 1.5mm range and turned it down. They didn’t get any sniffs on the building in it’s current decrepit shape at $360k.
That's the type of property owner that makes me mad. Congrats buddy.
Wonder what the cost of mothballing vs demolition would be in this case?
The walls of the building are thick mason walls. What is failing is the roof and the insides. so remove the failed parts of it . Looks like it is fairly well boarded otherwise. Unless I am missing something this is a similar case to another building with no roof at all , just the outside walls. Does this condition render the building about to collapse and fall all over the streets or is this another case of demo by neglect for the sake of making the downtown area a bit more toothless, with the tab absorbed by us, just because someone deems it is time for it to go.
I'm with Ken on his post. This needs to come to a halt. It is absurd, and once these places are destroyed, the chances that anything appreciable is put in their place is slim to none.
Quote from: Timkin on April 02, 2012, 03:13:07 PM
Wonder what the cost of mothballing vs demolition would be in this case?
The walls of the building are thick mason walls. What is failing is the roof and the insides. so remove the failed parts of it . Looks like it is fairly well boarded otherwise. Unless I am missing something this is a similar case to another building with no roof at all , just the outside walls. Does this condition render the building about to collapse and fall all over the streets or is this another case of demo by neglect for the sake of making the downtown area a bit more toothless, with the tab absorbed by us, just because someone deems it is time for it to go.
I'm with Ken on his post. This needs to come to a halt. It is absurd, and once these places are destroyed, the chances that anything appreciable is put in their place is slim to none.
A contracting group looked at restoring last year for their uses and found that there are foundation problems as well. It's a massive money pit. Too bad, because I love the building, but absent some city incentives I don't think it makes sense for anyone.
How sickening.
Stephen, the resurrection will be a Public-Private effort.
A contracting group looked at restoring last year for their uses and found that there are foundation problems as well. It's a massive money pit. Too bad, because I love the building, but absent some city incentives I don't think it makes sense for anyone.
[/quote]
Which contracting group eyed it?
Quote from: blizz01 on April 02, 2012, 04:19:09 PM
How sickening.
It is scary to see that much potential vacant space. Parking Garages and empty lots. How can we justify all of these parking garages in a nearly vacant downtown space?
...just depressing. smh Beautiful building and such an ideal location being that it's the first thing you see once you get off of the Main Street Bridge. I guess we'll have to get used to seeing a grass and concrete filled parking lot there now...
I think the Botswick building is one to be saved as long as it does not have structural issues that may result in a collapse. If its a danger, it has to come down.
Quote from: Kaiser Soze on April 02, 2012, 05:02:45 PM
I think the Botswick building is one to be saved as long as it does not have structural issues that may result in a collapse. If its a danger, it has to come down.
agree. I hope it is not that far gone. The walls do not appear to be buckling .
It will be sad if it has to be torn down.
To begin with, everyone has to recognize that Municipal Code Enforcement has no expertise when it comes to determining if a building is structurally sound or not. They only know if it meets some criteria that they use to determine whether it is safe or not. Their idea of safe, by the way, means basically it needs to be able to get a certificate of occupancy. And even then, whether they will close their case or not is anyone's guess. In other words, it is easy for a structure to be condemned but often difficult to get it re certified by MCCD for use.
The rolling fines are indeed the kiss of death. Once they start, they attach to any and all properties owned by the owner of the building being fined. Meaning that if that building happens to be in a person's name, the person's private home also gets the fines. At this point in time, I think we can safely say that the purpose of the rolling fines is not to get the owner's attention. Let's face it, we can be sure that the owners know they own the building at this stage, so then it is to get it to the point where MCCD can get the building torn down. It is the true purpose of rolling fines.
Meanwhile if this building is condemned, then no one, not even MCCD has permission to enter the building. MCCD can give the owner and his agents permission, but sometimes withhold that permission.
It is sad that this building, which I suspect was once very cool inside has suffered this much damage. One can see the issues starting from just driving by. That said, it can be saved without the drama many believe. The codes allow for historic buildings (landmarks) to be done in ways that are just as good in the end as bringing the building up to full current code but often less expensive.
One of the really cool things I've always liked about code enforcement in Jacksonville is that the special master who determines who is right, owner or city, is a lawyer with the General Counsel's office. Now I ask you, what could be more fair than that? The code enforcement "board" was replaced years ago with the code enforcement "assistant general counsel who wants to keep his job."
As for the Bostwick Building and the Annie Lytle (sp?) schoolhouse, the facts must be faced. As much as we would like them to be restored to their former glory, it ain't going to happen. Both are too far gone and would require too much money to restore in just about any economy - and especially the one we're in right now. The school is an especially difficult (impossible?) situation what with I-95 passing within a few feet of it.
Quote from: WmNussbaum on April 02, 2012, 08:37:07 PM
One of the really cool things I've always liked about code enforcement in Jacksonville is that the special master who determines who is right, owner or city, is a lawyer with the General Counsel's office. Now I ask you, what could be more fair than that? The code enforcement "board" was replaced years ago with the code enforcement "assistant general counsel who wants to keep his job."
As for the Bostwick Building and the Annie Lytle (sp?) schoolhouse, the facts must be faced. As much as we would like them to be restored to their former glory, it ain't going to happen. Both are too far gone and would require too much money to restore in just about any economy - and especially the one we're in right now. The school is an especially difficult (impossible?) situation what with I-95 passing within a few feet of it.
No argument that you may well be correct . I suppose the same holds true for all of the landmarks sitting empty. So why don't we just make more empty lots . That is certain to make Jacksonville even more attractive.
Conversely in both of these cases, either building, even if intact would be required to meet modern code. so their present condition would not prevent them from being saved. The economy might.
If it was my call ( and it is clearly not ) I would spend the money to secure these structures and mothball them ( that is , provided that they are not about to collapse and fall into the street ,or cause harm to someone walking by) .
Especially with the method of construction of Annie Lytle ( not to hijack the thread, just that I , respectively disagree) The building is not in danger of falling in on itself or causing harm to someone , unless of course that someone is trespassing in said building , knowing full well they should not be and do it anyway.
If the economy is the issue , then NONE OF OUR LANDMARKS have a snowball's chance in hell of being saved. Not PS 4 , Not the Bostwick , or the Trio, or Springfield homes , or any of these places. So lets spend untold millions to just raze them , replace them with blighted empty lots , and call it a day. At least the demolition companies will make money.
Only in Jacksonville Florida, and maybe Detroit.
Amen Timken. The ONLY reason this demolition by neglect continues to happen is because the local officials allow it and encourage it. In cities that actually care about their history, demolition permits are more difficult than an act of Congress.
Buildings that lean more than the Tower of Pisa can't get a demolition permit in Charleston, when the owner wants one. But let the paint chip on a house in Springfield and the fines pile up and the bulldozers crank up, even if the owner pleads for the chance to save it.
The fines on this place should have been levied when there was STILL a good chance to save it. Then the owner would have TAKEN the 2007 offer Lakelander spoke of.
Quote from: WmNussbaum on April 02, 2012, 08:37:07 PM
One of the really cool things I've always liked about code enforcement in Jacksonville is that the special master who determines who is right, owner or city, is a lawyer with the General Counsel's office. Now I ask you, what could be more fair than that? The code enforcement "board" was replaced years ago with the code enforcement "assistant general counsel who wants to keep his job."
As for the Bostwick Building and the Annie Lytle (sp?) schoolhouse, the facts must be faced. As much as we would like them to be restored to their former glory, it ain't going to happen. Both are too far gone and would require too much money to restore in just about any economy - and especially the one we're in right now. The school is an especially difficult (impossible?) situation what with I-95 passing within a few feet of it.
I've seen this sentiment in lots of other replies, both in this thread and others. Can anyone point me to, or demonstrate from their own experience, some actual estimated costs that show that these projects are not economically viable? I wouldn't feign expertise in historic rehabilitation or even urban new construction, but it seems like a lot of people jump to the "it's too bad this isn't economically viable to save" conclusion. On houses in Springfield, perhaps I can understand, since the costs to mothball/rehab/demolish are pretty well documented and probably fall within a relatively narrow range regardless of actual square footage, but when talking about large, unique structures such as Bostwick or Lytle, surely someone must be able to give some guidance on the cost structures. In the end, the "not viable" conclusion may be correct, but I'd love to see more than conjecture and assumption on the point.
It can be saved, you just have to want to.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Chicago-Historic-Preservation/DSC0010/907045901_3YC3M-M.jpg)
Quote from: Lunican on April 02, 2012, 11:07:59 PM
It can be saved, you just have to want to.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Chicago-Historic-Preservation/DSC0010/907045901_3YC3M-M.jpg)
+1 Lunican! as a collective community we must WANT to save these places.
Quote from: Lunican on April 02, 2012, 11:07:59 PM
It can be saved, you just have to want to.
People with the means have to want to.
Or a city that values preservation has to want and demand it.
Seems like money is endlessly available to demolish. Sure never seems to have been a shortage of it to do that. Look at pictures of Downtown in 1970 and now. Wonder what the price tag has been up to now to raze everything? How many jobs were created in the process? How many new destinations downtown have formed directly from this continued razing of buildings?
How many jobs COULD be created by saving them, working on them to restore them? My bet ( I am also no expert, just a hunch) is that there could be significantly more jobs created.
And finally, Wrecking them vs Restoring. To raze the Bostwick building and replace it with some new-build , slapped together , stucco wonder that MIGHT make it 50 years , most likely less money to accomplish. To demo the building and put something in its place of equal quality masonry , yet built to modern codes, my bet is it is cost-effective , in that case, to save and re purpose existing.
Where to get the money? Again , I don't know.. I DO know that the city manages to get their hands on endless amounts to demolish. There is something in this reasoning that just does not equate.
I have seen buildings in equally as bad and even worse shape become real gems. In fact I work on one.
It would be a real shame to see this one come down. There are some not so historic/not so significant buildings that should still not come down, but the loss wouldn't be as great. This building, however, is one of a small number of significant historic buildings in the CBD still standing. The city will really drop the ball if it forces demolition. This building can still deteriorate further without being considered totally gone. And if the walls are potentially about to buckle, then perhaps the city should take the roof out and prop the walls up until someone with vision and financial means can turn the building around.
Quote from: thelakelander on April 02, 2012, 11:43:33 PM
Or a city that values preservation has to want and demand it.
That's true, but that calls for a systemic change in what COJ deems a priority. I'm not sure this building, or COJ Code rather, will wait for systemic change.
Yes, we need a change in priorities.
It can't be in worse shape than this Springfield building. Before it's renovation a few years back, the roof had completely collapsed.
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-5572-p1110753.JPG)
It doesn't make sense to me.
If the city has the power to bulldoze these structures, then place a lien on the property they could just as easily take the property outright. Seems like they would come out ahead by siezing the offending property and then auctioning it off to the highest bidder.
This is one of the most iconic buildings downtown, a gateway almost. Everyone knows the Jaguar building. If this comes down it's going to look really bad on our new "pro downtown" mayor.
Demolition by neglect. A very commonly used phrase. But neglect by whom? Most, including Code, will say the owner. It is the neglectful owners who are to blame. And that is exactly how the rolling fines and eventual demolition are justified. We must make those bad, bad owners pay.
Except that it isn't the bad owners who pay in the end. It is the entire community. And then when you really start looking at the process, at how the owners are often treated, at the attitudes of the city employees that deal with this issue, you realize that it often is not the owner, but rather the system or process that is to blame. It is really demolition by reckless policy.
An owner gets a chance to sell the building but if Code is involved, who knows what gets told to those potential buyers. If there are rolling fines in place, then the fines not only stay with the original owners property but also transfer to the new owners property. While deals can be made, the fact is those fines transfer and stay in existence until the building is passed as "safe" by code no matter what. Effecting all of the owners property in many cases.
I can not speak about how much or how little the owners were involved with this property. But I can tell you that the reckless polices the MCCD has in place and the overall reckless policies that the city seems to operate by when it comes to the care of it's historic structures makes it much more likely that the owners were just as harmed by the actions (or inaction) of the city as were this building and the community at large.
This makes me sad. The fact that it doesn't surprise me makes me sadder. I didn't realize the building had deteriorated so badly but those walls still look sturdy to me. But what developer in his right mind wants property in downtown Jax right now, especially this piece of property? You need someone with a combination of money, time, and a desire to restore an historic building and return it to functional use. Where's Shahid Khan?!
...At least there are acres of 1970s and 1980s era strip malls that continue to stand as a testament to the city's greatness.
Jacksonville might be the only city I have been to that doesn't make any effort to at least leave the walls/facade still standing by placing prop beams up against them. Instead, it spends about the same amount of money just bulldozing the building.
Not only that, someone brought up the excellent point of auctioning off the property. How about a reform whereby if you neglect your property, instead of the city taking it and bulldozing it, you place a tax lien on the property and then auction off the tax lien??? That way, not only does someone take a decent risk in your tax bill, they get the added benefit of potentially receiving the property if you don't pay within 14 months. It could be a way for owners who don't want their property to essentially dispose of it in a way that may mean less cost to them (maybe not), and a way for someone else who wants the property to pick it up at a decent cost.
I don't know all the ways it works, but seriously EVERY other city does it. Jacksonville is backward and so behind, and all it has to do is copy just about any other city to be more successful. That's really what it boils down to. With so many examples of what to do, and yet nobody in Jacksonville following any of those examples, I can't figure out if city leaders are committing suicide, asleep at the wheel, or what. I'm just glad I'm not on that sinking ship.
Is Jacksonville the only city that demolished everything and continues to do so today without actually replacing the lost building with something?
I just got to thinking. In our downtown we demolished a very dense block of department stores and hotels for Woodruff Park - a great place. We demolished a huge warehouse district around our Gulch, buildings I wish we had today, but we IMMEDIATELY replaced all of those buildings with the CNN Center, the convention center, Phillips (Omni Arena then), and Centennial Olympic Park. Where would the city be today without all of these places?
Georgia Tech wanted to demolish the Forster Building, which is beautiful but not historically significant, yet the city blocked them with APS's (Atlanta Preservation Society) help, and now they have the facade incorporated into the base of the future 24 floor building they wish to construct.
The last thing demolished in or near the city was the old Ford Plant, which was razed for a billion dollar development near the airport where Porsche's new headquarters is already UC.
I mean nothing is just demolished for the sake of demolishing. Sure I wish all the old stuff were still around, but some of the new stuff got the city to the big leagues. Jacksonville has literally demolished its entire being, its entire self for absolutely nothing. The only two buildings that came down for anything really significant were the Heard Bank for the city's tallest and the Rhodes building for the new Main Library. Everything else came down for the sake of coming down.
The city is too stupid for words. What are they going to put on the site, some crappy pocket park? We all know how Jacksonville does parks - the biggest park system in the country, WITH THE WORST PARKS! Come on! I'd rather see little park space and 2-3 GREAT parks than half the county being considered park and NO great parks. I hate everything the city does. My hometown is an embarassment, which is why I fight for it as much as I can from 350 miles away and tell nobody I'm from there.
simms....please don't compare Jacksonville's history on demolition with Atlanta's....your new hometown has demolished and rebuilt itself several times over (given the first time it was done by Sherman).....I would argue that Atlanta showed virtually no respect for its history until very recently.
Quote from: simms3 on April 03, 2012, 08:13:02 AM
The city is too stupid for words. What are they going to put on the site, some crappy pocket park? We all know how Jacksonville does parks - the biggest park system in the country, WITH THE WORST PARKS! Come on! I'd rather see little park space and 2-3 GREAT parks than half the county being considered park and NO great parks. I hate everything the city does. My hometown is an embarassment, which is why I fight for it as much as I can from 350 miles away and tell nobody I'm from there.
I don't understand how the city earns that distinction looking at a map. Unless you're counting state forests, I see more golf courses than parks. If you are, San Bernardino probably wins for biggest park system since it has Death Valley, Joshua Tree, and the Mojave preserve. With such a great waterfront, Jacksonville deserves a great urban park.
Quote from: tufsu1 on April 03, 2012, 08:29:49 AM
simms....please don't compare Jacksonville's history on demolition with Atlanta's....your new hometown has demolished and rebuilt itself several times over (given the first time it was done by Sherman).....I would argue that Atlanta showed virtually no respect for its history until very recently.
I think that's his point....sure they've demolished, but historic stock hasn't been demolished and left an empty lot, a parking lot, or been turned into a summer kitchen like the most recent tear downs here in Jacksonville.
QuoteThe city is too stupid for words. I hate everything the city does. My hometown is an embarassment, which is why I fight for it as much as I can from 350 miles away and tell nobody I'm from there.
We get it man. You hate Jax. It has wronged you in some unfathomable way. But why waste all of that time writing (way too long) posts pointing out how stupid Jax is? You live in the fine city of Atlanta now- which is perfect and has no problems and is the embodiment of everything awesome that Jax will never be. You're "off the sinking ship". No need to fight for us from 350 miles away if you're too embarrassed to even admit where you're from. There are still plenty of people here that are not embarrassed to admit they live here and are working hard to make this a better place to live. But thanks for your deep concern.
Quote from: tufsu1 on April 03, 2012, 08:29:49 AM
simms....please don't compare Jacksonville's history on demolition with Atlanta's....your new hometown has demolished and rebuilt itself several times over (given the first time it was done by Sherman).....I would argue that Atlanta showed virtually no respect for its history until very recently.
You might be right, but the point is, they DID have a change in attitude anad policy. Virtually every other city has too, except Jacksonville. This occurred primarily in the '80's and '90's. Jacksonville is still 20 years behind in appreciating history.
Riverside-Avondale is an exception though. More things get demolished in Springfield in a week or two, than have been torn down in R-A in 10-20 years. Wayne woods, RAP, et al have basically taken demolition off the table in most cases there. The same thing needs to happen in the rest of the core.
Jacksonville constantly advertises itself as the city with the largest park system in America. And it has great nature preserves, but it has abysmal urban parks. Also, Atlanta has rocked at preservation compared to Jax, and so have most other cities. Granted, most cities had more to begin with, I'd say there are few if any cities that destroyed such a large percentage of their past as Jacksonville. And to boot, the city hasn't replaced that lost building fabric with anything that has gotten the city anywhere. In fact, most of what the city has demolished is currently surface parking and weed-filled lots. This is simply not the case elsewhere, and it's unfortunate.
And also to boot, Jacksonville's whole being revolves around the waterfront, and it had a real history there, a real unique waterfront that for decades allowed the city to exist. There are obvious reasons as to why the industry moved upshore, but the city never HAD to completely wipe out the very thing that gave it soul, that allowed it to exist, and that gave it its identity. The Bostwick Building is a final standing reminder of this past. It should not be allowed to go.
Quote from: cline on April 03, 2012, 08:48:00 AM
QuoteThe city is too stupid for words. I hate everything the city does. My hometown is an embarassment, which is why I fight for it as much as I can from 350 miles away and tell nobody I'm from there.
We get it man. You hate Jax. It has wronged you in some unfathomable way. But why waste all of that time writing (way too long) posts pointing out how stupid Jax is? You live in the fine city of Atlanta now- which is perfect and has no problems and is the embodiment of everything awesome that Jax will never be. You're "off the sinking ship". No need to fight for us from 350 miles away if you're too embarrassed to even admit where you're from. There are still plenty of people here that are not embarrassed to admit they live here and are working hard to make this a better place to live. But thanks for your deep concern.
Thanks. Real contributor. If I mentioned any other city, it would be the same with you (actually I do point to plenty of other cities...Atlanta the most BECAUSE I LIVE HERE and am active in seeing what makes this city tick). I think Jacksonville and its citizens are in no place to reject and refute points made and observations made by outsiders, because so far there is nothing happening on the inside that is leading to real success. I think big cities like Atlanta actually take cues from smaller cities like Chattanooga, Nashville and Charlotte all the time, and people in the city have no problem learning from those who do something best.
I have offered several ideas to many different things talked about on this forum, and they happen to be successful ideas I see implemented where I live (and other cities, too). What say you about that?
Folks like Lake are constantly pulling ideas in from other cities. He spreads the sources around because he travels more than I do, but I'm sure if he were back and forth between one city and Jax, he would pull more ideas from that one city. Would you have a problem if it were Lake doing this? I think not.
Quote from: JFman00 on April 03, 2012, 08:33:53 AM
Quote from: simms3 on April 03, 2012, 08:13:02 AM
The city is too stupid for words. What are they going to put on the site, some crappy pocket park? We all know how Jacksonville does parks - the biggest park system in the country, WITH THE WORST PARKS! Come on! I'd rather see little park space and 2-3 GREAT parks than half the county being considered park and NO great parks. I hate everything the city does. My hometown is an embarassment, which is why I fight for it as much as I can from 350 miles away and tell nobody I'm from there.
I don't understand how the city earns that distinction looking at a map. Unless you're counting state forests, I see more golf courses than parks. If you are, San Bernardino probably wins for biggest park system since it has Death Valley, Joshua Tree, and the Mojave preserve. With such a great waterfront, Jacksonville deserves a great urban park.
It all based on CITY LIMITS. Because of consolidation, any conservation or park space within Duval County is counted as park space. Thanks to the Preservation project, that is a considerable amount of land.
San Bernadino's city limits don't extend to Death Valley, Joshua Tree, etc.
Unfortunately, most of the Jax park space is strictly conservation land that is largely unaccesssible. Peyton had a great plan to enhance parks county-wide, and increase access to the huge swath of land. But he quickly dropped it when the city council members didn't want to give up their fiefdoms.
Maybe one day when the city realizes that low taxes and high quality of life don't neccessarily go hand in hand, an effort will be made to pick up where Peyton left off.
QuoteMaybe one day when the city realizes that low taxes and high quality of life don't neccessarily go hand in hand
Bingo. You can't necessarily have it both ways. It takes money to take care of what we've got. Unfortunately, there is a large contingent of the population here that don't see it that way and a City Council with not much of a spine.
Of course you also have a large contingent of the population of Jax that fails to see the value of downtown and doesn't give a damn when historic buildings are demolished.
Quote from: vicupstate on April 03, 2012, 08:57:11 AM
It all based on CITY LIMITS. Because of consolidation, any conservation or park space within Duval County is counted as park space. Thanks to the Preservation project, that is a considerable amount of land.
San Bernadino's city limits don't extend to Death Valley, Joshua Tree, etc.
Unfortunately, most of the Jax park space is strictly conservation land that is largely unaccesssible. Peyton had a great plan to enhance parks county-wide, and increase access to the huge swath of land. But he quickly dropped it when the city council members didn't want to give up their fiefdoms.
Maybe one day when the city realizes that low taxes and high quality of life don't neccessarily go hand in hand, an effort will be made to pick up where Peyton left off.
That's what I was getting at. Consolidation + claiming what is essentially wilderness does not a great park system make. I'm curious if any studies have been done on the effect turning the old city hall and courthouse into green space would have on land value (and accordingly taxes). I bet the Berkman and Churchwell Lofts would sell much better if they were adjacent to a nice waterfront park (if Hemming Plaza is an urban park then my patio is an arboretum).
Instead of trying to squeeze a diamond out of a lump of coal, Hemming Plaza might work better as... a plaza
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Place_de_la_Defense_2004.jpg)
Sorry for getting off-topic :-\
Quote from: thelakelander on April 02, 2012, 01:32:30 PM
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-2641-p1040944.JPG)
It looks like the Bostwick Building is about to come down, possibly next week.
I got an email that Code Enforcement has told the owners that they will start incurring the $100/day fine sometime in the next week or two. It’s ashame they let it rot. I had a client who was interested in purchasing it back in 2007 and I had the opportunity to do a site visit:
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php?topic=1050.0
Evidently, they got an offer 4 years ago at $960k with the building was up in the 1.5mm range and turned it down. They didn’t get any sniffs on the building in it’s current decrepit shape at $360k.
Is this still for sale????
Quote from: simms3 on April 03, 2012, 08:55:22 AM
Folks like Lake are constantly pulling ideas in from other cities. He spreads the sources around because he travels more than I do, but I'm sure if he were back and forth between one city and Jax, he would pull more ideas from that one city. Would you have a problem if it were Lake doing this? I think not.
With this said, I value simms3 contributions. Even though we don't agree on all the issues and comparisons, his input has led me to explore Atlanta more on my visits up there. Two weeks ago I spent some time in Piedmont Park, Decatur, Glenwood Park, East Atlanta, and Inman Park. There's been a ton of change, for the better, in these places over the last decade. I can only dream that we can get to the point where we are allowed to be just as innovative and creative locally.
These guys are also dead on about the parks. Can we get just one decent urban park that's just as vibrant as a place like Atlanta's Piedmont, New Orleans' City Park, Orlando's Lake Eola, St. Louis' Forest Park, Detroit's Belle Isle, etc? I look at a similar space like Hogans Creek and can only shake my head and dream about what it must have looked like 70 years ago. At this point, I'd be happy if we can get a couple of porta pottys in Hemming Plaza. We've got all the potential in the world but like half the guys sitting in prison, we've failed to utilize our skills and assets in a proper manner.
Quote from: thelakelander on April 03, 2012, 09:19:26 AM
Can we get just one decent urban park that's just as vibrant as a place like Atlanta's Piedmont, New Orleans' City Park, Orlando's Lake Eola, St. Louis' Forest Park, Detroit's Belle Isle, etc? I look at a similar space like Hogans Creek and can only shake my head and dream about what it must have looked like 70 years ago. At this point, I'd be happy if we can get a couple of porta pottys in Hemming Plaza. We've got all the potential in the world but like half the guys sitting in prison, we've failed to utilize our skills and assets in a proper manner.
This has been one of my biggest complaints about Jax for some time.
Is this building still for sale at 360k?
Quote from: thelakelander on April 03, 2012, 09:19:26 AM
These guys are also dead on about the parks. Can we get just one decent urban park that's just as vibrant as a place like Atlanta's Piedmont, New Orleans' City Park, Orlando's Lake Eola, St. Louis' Forest Park, Detroit's Belle Isle, etc? I look at a similar space like Hogans Creek and can only shake my head and dream about what it must have looked like 70 years ago. At this point, I'd be happy if we can get a couple of porta pottys in Hemming Plaza. We've got all the potential in the world but like half the guys sitting in prison, we've failed to utilize our skills and assets in a proper manner.
New Orleans Audobon Park, Chicago's Lincoln, Grant, and Millennium Parks, Boston Commons.
I also value simms' contributions and the good points he makes, though I do wish he didn't insist on making them in the most obnoxious possible way.
Getting back to the topic, who is supposed to tear down the building? Who would pay? And what are these masked men going to do with site?
Quote from: Tacachale on April 03, 2012, 10:09:46 AM
I also value simms' contributions and the good points he makes, though I do wish he didn't insist on making them in the most obnoxious possible way.
Getting back to the topic, who is supposed to tear down the building? Who would pay? And what are these masked men going to do with site?
For the love of god, third time asking: is this still for sale, and if so, what's the asking price?!
Quote from: Tacachale on April 03, 2012, 10:09:46 AM
Getting back to the topic, who is supposed to tear down the building? Who would pay? And what are these masked men going to do with site?
Doesn't the city usually pay for the demo and then bill the owner? That was my impression.
QuoteFor the love of god, third time asking: is this still for sale, and if so, what's the asking price?!
I'm pretty lake mentioned it was 360k. I'm sure if you handed the owner a check for around that much they'd take it at this point.
Quote from: cline on April 03, 2012, 10:16:01 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on April 03, 2012, 10:09:46 AM
Getting back to the topic, who is supposed to tear down the building? Who would pay? And what are these masked men going to do with site?
Doesn't the city usually pay for the demo and then bill the owner? That was my impression.
QuoteFor the love of god, third time asking: is this still for sale, and if so, what's the asking price?!
I'm pretty lake mentioned it was 360k. I'm sure if you handed the owner a check for around that much they'd take it at this point.
Thanks. Yeah, I saw Lake mentioned the 360k figure, but I can't find it anywhere online, and was wondering when that figure was quoted.
Quote from: JFman00 on April 03, 2012, 09:25:51 AMNew Orleans Audobon Park, Chicago's Lincoln, Grant, and Millennium Parks, Boston Commons.
Savannah's Forsyth Park, San Diego's Balboa Park, Baltimore's Patterson Park, Seattle's Carl Anderson Park, Phoenix's Encanto Park, etc. Tons of cities have them. We have/had one in the park system lining Hogans Creek. Let's get it back!
Quote from: ben says on April 03, 2012, 10:19:54 AM
Thanks. Yeah, I saw Lake mentioned the 360k figure, but I can't find it anywhere online, and was wondering when that figure was quoted.
The $360k figure was in the email sent to me.
I always envisioned a nightclub for the building. What is the footprint, something like 11,000 SF? I think that would make a sizable club. In fact, it would be near the other bars, near parking, between the Landing and the Bay St district, and if it were a club, the wallks could be sealed and touched up and the Jaguar mural potential kept.
What's the name of that owner of some of the Bay St buildings? Chris Hionedes? Does he have any opinions on this building and does anyone have his contact information?
PS: I am a really emotional and loud person. I stick out like a sore thumb on this site and in Jacksonville and for that I don't apologize. Just know that I get my own up here all the time.
Another idea: If not a nightclub, perhaps it could be a really large restaurant/event space with a bar where the windows roll up on pleasant evenings and the inside opens up to the outside. Get some high tops near the windows and a recessed area in the center, perhaps an open kitchen in the center with a bar at one end.
If retail were possible, I would say because of its location on a prominent corner someone would scoop it up for that purpose. The advantages to the site are the abundant parking across the street, especially at night. It's part of one of the only if not the only intact block in the CBD, and Bay St has already been streetscaped. Relatively speaking there is foot traffic in that area, and it is convenient to office buildings by day and to nighttime destinations like the Florida Theater and Bay St bars. It really is one of the most prominent buildings with the most potential in the city. If someone can't figure out something to do with it, I don't think that bodes well overall.
I really do see restaurant with windows that open up by day and evening, and bar/club at night with the ability to do events/catering. I see it very strongly without even touring the building.
Quote from: simms3 on April 03, 2012, 12:18:00 PM
I always envisioned a nightclub for the building. What is the footprint, something like 11,000 SF? I think that would make a sizable club. In fact, it would be near the other bars, near parking, between the Landing and the Bay St district, and if it were a club, the wallks could be sealed and touched up and the Jaguar mural potential kept.
According to Property Appraiser it has a base area of 3,825 sq feet. Its only 75' by 51'.
Quote from: stephendare on April 03, 2012, 12:22:56 PM
simms you are a valuable and appreciated voice on here, whether or not any of us agree with you all the time.
Im curious though---in a completely irrelevant and pedestrian way---what do you mean by this?:
QuoteJust know that I get my own up here all the time.
If we are to know this, I, for one, would like to know what it means. ;)
Ha, for a variety of factors I feel confident to speak up on this board. I don't enjoy the same confidence in the environment in which I am. I am a somebody down in Jacksonville, and I have a history there. I am an anonymous person, 1 of 6 million, here in Atlanta, and I work for a firm and for people who could just about own Jacksonville (our chairman who lives in Germany is a billionaire). I am relegated to being more of a listener and an observer to people who are like the 35-45 year old versions of myself on this board. Of course, we are merely referring to discussions revolving around development, cities, economic development, etc.
Also, on this point, being that it is a quieter, smaller town, it is much easier for someone to be somebody in Jacksonville. It doesn't take much. Get to a larger city, and it gets more competitive. Pedigrees run much deeper. Everyone went to a top 20 college, and has an MBA from a top 5 b-school. Blue blood society runs much thicker and it is harder to join the club. Transplants are people who had influence in even larger cities. For me, coming from humble Jacksonville, I'm less outspoken in daily life than I am on this board, where I feel like that big city guy in a small town.
I'm sure you can relate since you have lived in San Francisco and Seattle (and if I remember correctly Atlanta back in the day).
Quote from: aclchampion on April 03, 2012, 12:27:18 PM
Quote from: simms3 on April 03, 2012, 12:18:00 PM
I always envisioned a nightclub for the building. What is the footprint, something like 11,000 SF? I think that would make a sizable club. In fact, it would be near the other bars, near parking, between the Landing and the Bay St district, and if it were a club, the wallks could be sealed and touched up and the Jaguar mural potential kept.
According to Property Appraiser it has a base area of 3,825 sq feet. Its only 75' by 51'.
That stinks. Thought it was larger. Well it is still possible to do something creative with it; it still occupies a busy corner with foot traffic (relatively speaking), and it still has all the same advantages (convenience to office population, nighttime destinations, parking, etc).
Quote from: simms3 on April 03, 2012, 01:57:36 PM
Ha, for a variety of factors I feel confident to speak up on this board. I don't enjoy the same confidence in the environment in which I am. I am a somebody down in Jacksonville, and I have a history there. I am an anonymous person, 1 of 6 million, here in Atlanta, and I work for a firm and for people who could just about own Jacksonville (our chairman who lives in Germany is a billionaire). I am relegated to being more of a listener and an observer to people who are like the 35-45 year old versions of myself on this board. Of course, we are merely referring to discussions revolving around development, cities, economic development, etc.
Also, on this point, being that it is a quieter, smaller town, it is much easier for someone to be somebody in Jacksonville. It doesn't take much. Get to a larger city, and it gets more competitive. Pedigrees run much deeper. Everyone went to a top 20 college, and has an MBA from a top 5 b-school. Blue blood society runs much thicker and it is harder to join the club. Transplants are people who had influence in even larger cities. For me, coming from humble Jacksonville, I'm less outspoken in daily life than I am on this board, where I feel like that big city guy in a small town.
I'm sure you can relate since you have lived in San Francisco and Seattle (and if I remember correctly Atlanta back in the day).
Simms, well said. One of the main reasons I remain in Jacksonville, and won't move to NYC (where my fiancé is from). I love ATL, have a few connections there, but my drive and desire to work for a city remains here in Jax. Very well put.
Quote from: simms3 on April 03, 2012, 01:57:36 PM
Ha, for a variety of factors I feel confident to speak up on this board. I don't enjoy the same confidence in the environment in which I am. I am a somebody down in Jacksonville, and I have a history there. I am an anonymous person, 1 of 6 million, here in Atlanta, and I work for a firm and for people who could just about own Jacksonville (our chairman who lives in Germany is a billionaire). I am relegated to being more of a listener and an observer to people who are like the 35-45 year old versions of myself on this board. Of course, we are merely referring to discussions revolving around development, cities, economic development, etc.
Also, on this point, being that it is a quieter, smaller town, it is much easier for someone to be somebody in Jacksonville. It doesn't take much. Get to a larger city, and it gets more competitive. Pedigrees run much deeper. Everyone went to a top 20 college, and has an MBA from a top 5 b-school. Blue blood society runs much thicker and it is harder to join the club. Transplants are people who had influence in even larger cities. For me, coming from humble Jacksonville, I'm less outspoken in daily life than I am on this board, where I feel like that big city guy in a small town.
I'm sure you can relate since you have lived in San Francisco and Seattle (and if I remember correctly Atlanta back in the day).
Yep. The cat is either dead or it's really dead,
Schrodinger Simms. You should have never opened that box.
(http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/12/5/a5129c4d-c9b9-4714-99e4-2ab96a0a9835.jpg)
Thanks. Yeah, I saw Lake mentioned the 360k figure, but I can't find it anywhere online, and was wondering when that figure was quoted.
[/quote]
Val Bostwick is the owner if you want to try to find a number for him. Is there a for sale sign with a number to call on the building? Are you prepared to put a roof on it so that Code Enforcement pulls the fines (if they start fining)?
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on April 03, 2012, 02:30:49 PM
Quote from: simms3 on April 03, 2012, 01:57:36 PM
Ha, for a variety of factors I feel confident to speak up on this board. I don't enjoy the same confidence in the environment in which I am. I am a somebody down in Jacksonville, and I have a history there. I am an anonymous person, 1 of 6 million, here in Atlanta, and I work for a firm and for people who could just about own Jacksonville (our chairman who lives in Germany is a billionaire). I am relegated to being more of a listener and an observer to people who are like the 35-45 year old versions of myself on this board. Of course, we are merely referring to discussions revolving around development, cities, economic development, etc.
Also, on this point, being that it is a quieter, smaller town, it is much easier for someone to be somebody in Jacksonville. It doesn't take much. Get to a larger city, and it gets more competitive. Pedigrees run much deeper. Everyone went to a top 20 college, and has an MBA from a top 5 b-school. Blue blood society runs much thicker and it is harder to join the club. Transplants are people who had influence in even larger cities. For me, coming from humble Jacksonville, I'm less outspoken in daily life than I am on this board, where I feel like that big city guy in a small town.
I'm sure you can relate since you have lived in San Francisco and Seattle (and if I remember correctly Atlanta back in the day).
Yep. The cat is either dead or it's really dead, Schrodinger Simms. You should have never opened that box.
(http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/12/5/a5129c4d-c9b9-4714-99e4-2ab96a0a9835.jpg)
Think he's being honest...+1 for that alone.
Quote from: Kay on April 03, 2012, 02:35:46 PM
Thanks. Yeah, I saw Lake mentioned the 360k figure, but I can't find it anywhere online, and was wondering when that figure was quoted.
Val Bostwick is the owner if you want to try to find a number for him. Is there a for sale sign with a number to call on the building? Are you prepared to put a roof on it so that Code Enforcement pulls the fines (if they start fining)?
Is a total roof replacement all that would be required , to keep the wrecking ball away from it?
Just from Google images and the pictures Lake provided on it, seems like it might need rafters and of course modern code requirements just for the roof replacement. That said, Id rather see a roof on the existing , than another vacant lot...even if the building is not used any time soon. I don't know whether doing that is less or more expensive than demo.
QuoteI did well socially while I was there, but to be honest I think that Atlanta exemplifies everything that is callow, vulgar and damnable about the new south and despised the soullessness and materialism of every day society there.
In all my travels, the two warmest cities that I have ever experienced have been Boston and Jacksonville, and it's impossible to overlook that social warmth when considering the quality of life in a city. I suspect that like all jacksonvillians you miss that about your home as well.
SPOT ON!
My time in Atlanta was characterized by drinking lots of $7 bottled beers. Being told about how old my BMW was and that I should really considering being respectable and get
at least a new 5 series. Dabble that in with expensive business lunches that weren't even good half the time and lots of time spent in Buckhead where apparently my Raymond Weil watch was not a Rolex, and therefore inferior. I also dated a girl that was obsessed with working out, so much so that she didnt like to sit down half the time(preferring to instead keep some kind of movement giong so as to further burn calories). It was vapid and shallow, when really... it didn't need to be. Buckhead isn't Manhatten and Tuxedo Park isn't Beverly Hills. I was glad to get out. ::)
If Jacksonville suffers from an inferiority complex(probably the worst I have seen other than perhaps St Louis), Atlanta has an even bigger superiority complex.
I love Boston specifically because the people are so nice(it doesn't hurt that the city is also filled to the brim with young people-good looking ones too, as long as you don't miss the southern blondes). You'd think you were in Savannah if their accents weren't so distinguished and they talked about the Red Sox less. I have family in Beantown and always enjoy visiting. Going to a conference there next month actually.
QuoteIf you can make it in Jacksonville, I think you can literally make it anywhere.
Agreed. You don't need a family name to make it anywhere.
Wow Atlanta really seems like a wonderful place to live! ::)
I'm always hearing people say that it is cheaper to tear a building down than to restore it. So, I was curious when I watched the Murphy & Anderson building constructed at the corner of San Marco Boulevard and Cedar Street. The building had a good roof and walls, but they wanted to make it 2-story. They kept the first floor walls and built up above them using a steel frame to support the roof and 2nd floor. I asked the owner if there was some particular reason why they didn't just demo the entire thing - the answer? It was cheaper to keep the existing wall.
(http://i41.tinypic.com/1z1e906.jpg)
(http://i43.tinypic.com/sp7p01.jpg)
(http://i39.tinypic.com/f0nbzr.jpg)
Sure is hard to understand why this logic only applies to certain buildings, and not ones with seemingly thicker walls and more historic significance.
Quote from: Timkin on April 03, 2012, 04:46:38 PM
Quote from: Kay on April 03, 2012, 02:35:46 PM
Thanks. Yeah, I saw Lake mentioned the 360k figure, but I can't find it anywhere online, and was wondering when that figure was quoted.
Val Bostwick is the owner if you want to try to find a number for him. Is there a for sale sign with a number to call on the building? Are you prepared to put a roof on it so that Code Enforcement pulls the fines (if they start fining)?
Is a total roof replacement all that would be required , to keep the wrecking ball away from it?
Just from Google images and the pictures Lake provided on it, seems like it might need rafters and of course modern code requirements just for the roof replacement. That said, Id rather see a roof on the existing , than another vacant lot...even if the building is not used any time soon. I don't know whether doing that is less or more expensive than demo.
Mothballing would require there to be a roof. Difficult to maintain the integrity of the building's structure with it opened up to the elements. If there are structural issues, those would need to be addressed. The interior would need to be free of debris and the windows mothball boarded. That is probably all for the building.
I maintain my stance: if the city has money to demolish, they have money to mothball.
Quote from: dougskiles on April 03, 2012, 08:41:41 PM
I'm always hearing people say that it is cheaper to tear a building down than to restore it. So, I was curious when I watched the Murphy & Anderson building constructed at the corner of San Marco Boulevard and Cedar Street. The building had a good roof and walls, but they wanted to make it 2-story. They kept the first floor walls and built up above them using a steel frame to support the roof and 2nd floor. I asked the owner if there was some particular reason why they didn't just demo the entire thing - the answer? It was cheaper to keep the existing wall.
(http://i41.tinypic.com/1z1e906.jpg)
(http://i43.tinypic.com/sp7p01.jpg)
(http://i39.tinypic.com/f0nbzr.jpg)
Sure is hard to understand why this logic only applies to certain buildings, and not ones with seemingly thicker walls and more historic significance.
While I appreciate/understand the concept of adding on to an existing structure instead of hitting it with a wrecking ball, I must say: damn, what an ugly outcome. Couldn't they have done something more original? Bigger windows? Less of a concrete monstrosity?
Quote from: ben says on April 03, 2012, 09:11:01 PM
While I appreciate/understand the concept of adding on to an existing structure instead of hitting it with a wrecking ball, I must say: damn, what an ugly outcome. Couldn't they have done something more original? Bigger windows? Less of a concrete monstrosity?
I have to sort of agree with Ben on the this one. The original structure was either solid brick (possibly norwegian) or brick veneers over a frame.
Either way, the end result was a stucco (concrete) behemoth with zero architectural intergrity from the previous structure.
IMO, it doesn't do any good to retain the existing structure if you're not going to maintain the architectural history. If maintaining means covering the existing brick with a 'Jacksonville Beige' stucco and some foam trim bands, then level it and move on or, preferably, buy an empty lot near-by and build your own.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on April 03, 2012, 09:25:33 PM
Quote from: ben says on April 03, 2012, 09:11:01 PM
While I appreciate/understand the concept of adding on to an existing structure instead of hitting it with a wrecking ball, I must say: damn, what an ugly outcome. Couldn't they have done something more original? Bigger windows? Less of a concrete monstrosity?
I have to sort of agree with Ben on the this one. The original structure was either solid brick (possibly norwegian) or brick veneers over a frame.
Either way, the end result was a stucco (concrete) behemoth with zero architectural intergrity from the previous structure.
IMO, it doesn't do any good to retain the existing structure if you're not going to maintain the architectural history. If maintaining means covering the existing brick with a 'Jacksonville Beige' stucco and some foam trim bands, then level it and move on or, preferably, buy an empty lot near-by and build your own.
+1
I am not a contractor or an engineer, but I seriously doubt that putting a roof on this failing structure wouldn't involve engineering studies, some large construction problems, and an expense much higher than demolition. The City should not do that unless it resolves to immediately foreclose the lien it would have for the cost. Why fix up someone else's building?
Too bad something wasn't done years ago, but it wasn't, and we have what we have. If someone is so hung-ho to save the building, put your money where your mouth is. Go to the owner and offer to fix it up in exchange for a mortgage on the property with very reasonable repayment terms and a ceiling (pun intended) on the amount to be spent. Or just buy it - the price will be low if demolition - and a lien for that cost - is imminent.
(Val, if you are reading this, I apologize, but that's the way I feel.)
I'm glad it will be coming down. It had its run. Let's put up something nice that will last another 100 + years and actually benefit the city.
Quote from: Juker777 on April 04, 2012, 09:46:42 AM
I'm glad it will be coming down. It had its run. Let's put up something nice that will last another 100 + years and actually benefit the city.
....
Quote from: Juker777 on April 04, 2012, 09:46:42 AM
I'm glad it will be coming down. It had its run. Let's put up something nice that will last another 100 + years and actually benefit the city.
Thats part of the problem Juker... Nothing will be put there. It will be another empty space downtown... and someone will decide a parking garage is a good replacement...
^Or a roped off surface lot.
You're probably right. The lot will have to be cleared first before anything else can be built. So, the first step will be done.
Quoteand someone will decide a parking garage is a good replacement...
Or a pocket park.
But seriously, that spot was part of the great fire, and it was a number of items before it was the bank. I'd like to see UNF or UF perform a dig on the site and extract artifacts to be displayed at the Historical Center or MOSH. Its not like we have a run on property downtown, so why not dig up some history with the possible demo?
QuoteI did well socially while I was there, but to be honest I think that Atlanta exemplifies everything that is callow, vulgar and damnable about the new south and despised the soullessness and materialism of every day society there.
Spend some time in Orlando and you wouldn't be so hard on Atlanta.
To my understanding, the structure of the original vault predates the great fire by 15-20 years. According to the building's history as it was related, that vault was the only substantial structure remaining on the block after the fire. Who knows how true that is though...
On the bright side, the vacant lot would be a great spot to store all of that moveable furniture from Hemming Plaza during the 23.5 hours not considered allotted seating time.
Quote from: KenFSU on April 04, 2012, 12:05:09 PM
On the bright side, the vacant lot would be a great spot to store all of that moveable furniture from Hemming Plaza during the 23.5 hours not considered allotted seating time.
haha. Thanks for the laugh
If it comes down... and it probably will...
A. It is not likely that there would be a building place there that will last a century, and
B. It is very likely that the trend of the last 40 years will follow and we will have yet another empty space in down town.
Quote from: simms3 on April 03, 2012, 08:13:02 AM
The only two buildings that came down for anything really significant were the Heard Bank for the city's tallest and the Rhodes building for the new Main Library.
From the Times-Union when the Rhodes Building came down:
QuoteAt 7 a.m. tomorrow, Jacksonville will implode the 10-story Rhodes-Futch-Collins Building on Main Street. The demolition is scheduled bring the 88-year-old building crashing down in a matter of seconds, making way for construction of the new main library.
The city acquired the Rhodes building after voters approved a half-cent sales tax hike for the Better Jacksonville Plan in 2000. For a while, Mayor John Delaney wanted to preserve the Rhodes building by constructing the new main library around it.
But most architects vying for the library design said it would be better to build the library without incorporating existing structures.
In contrast to the implosion of the old Robert Meyer Hotel, which came down in 1998 to clear a city block for the new federal courthouse, City Hall is taking a low-key approach to the Rhodes building demolition.
The city has taken some architectural elements from the Rhodes Building's facade and will try to use them in the design of the new library.
Just curious if a) anyone remembers how Delaney wanted to incorporate the old building into the new library, and b) what elements of the old building were carried over into the Main Library.
A little off topic, I know...
Quote from: KenFSU on April 04, 2012, 12:45:32 PM
Quote from: simms3 on April 03, 2012, 08:13:02 AM
The only two buildings that came down for anything really significant were the Heard Bank for the city's tallest and the Rhodes building for the new Main Library.
From the Times-Union when the Rhodes Building came down:
QuoteAt 7 a.m. tomorrow, Jacksonville will implode the 10-story Rhodes-Futch-Collins Building on Main Street. The demolition is scheduled bring the 88-year-old building crashing down in a matter of seconds, making way for construction of the new main library.
The city acquired the Rhodes building after voters approved a half-cent sales tax hike for the Better Jacksonville Plan in 2000. For a while, Mayor John Delaney wanted to preserve the Rhodes building by constructing the new main library around it.
But most architects vying for the library design said it would be better to build the library without incorporating existing structures.
In contrast to the implosion of the old Robert Meyer Hotel, which came down in 1998 to clear a city block for the new federal courthouse, City Hall is taking a low-key approach to the Rhodes building demolition.
The city has taken some architectural elements from the Rhodes Building's facade and will try to use them in the design of the new library.
Just curious if a) anyone remembers how Delaney wanted to incorporate the old building into the new library, and b) what elements of the old building were carried over into the Main Library.
A little off topic, I know...
Yes, he did want to make the old building part of the library; it was actually a secondary reason for why that spot was chosen to begin with (though the primary reasons were putting it on Hemming Plaza and the availability of space for such a large project). Unfortunately, no architect for any of the various proposals would come up with a design that would integrate the old building (at least not within the price range). Ultimately they might have worked some of the style into the design of the library, but the only concrete things they really kept were some decorative elements that are now fixed to the outside walls and the interior courtyard.
Interestingly, some very early ideas involved keeping the Rhodes building, but demolishing the Western Union Telegraph Building (where MOCA is now). That changed when the museum bought the building in 1999.
Also, on the Heard Building, it did not actually come down for the Bank of America tower. It came down for a parking lot for Barnett (who were still in their own building). It was only later that they put the modern tower on the spot.
There are some cases of buildings being demolished specifically for a new building, like the Hotel Robert Meyer and the Better Jax projects, but much more often they come down just to create an empty lot.
Thanks a million.
That is some fantastic information, I really appreciate it.
QuoteThere are some cases of buildings being demolished specifically for a new building, like the Hotel Robert Meyer and the Better Jax projects, but much more often they come down just to create an empty lot.
The old Post Office on Adams came down for a new building, back then. The Site of the old public library on Ocean was created after the citizens tore down the old city hall.
The old YMCA was saved next across from JMOMA and City Hall, but if you get the chance to go into it, you can tell where the floors of the old and new do not match so well. Some parts of the building rise up and down, but nothing they could do without affecting the structural integrity of the buidling. So they left it and called these, eccentricities.
While we are all a little off topic at this point, I always thought it would be great if MOCA would occupy the Hayden Library. Modern art in a modern building. the interior could be restored, the top of the building completed with gardens. A destination.
Quote from: WmNussbaum on April 04, 2012, 07:54:10 AM
I am not a contractor or an engineer, but I seriously doubt that putting a roof on this failing structure wouldn't involve engineering studies, some large construction problems, and an expense much higher than demolition. The City should not do that unless it resolves to immediately foreclose the lien it would have for the cost. Why fix up someone else's building?
Too bad something wasn't done years ago, but it wasn't, and we have what we have. If someone is so hung-ho to save the building, put your money where your mouth is. Go to the owner and offer to fix it up in exchange for a mortgage on the property with very reasonable repayment terms and a ceiling (pun intended) on the amount to be spent. Or just buy it - the price will be low if demolition - and a lien for that cost - is imminent.
(Val, if you are reading this, I apologize, but that's the way I feel.)
Assuming you are correct, would it be the end of the world before we wreck the building to determine its structural integrity? My bet is , if it was that structurally unstable , it probably would have collapsed.
It is tough to get past the fact that many have no regard for our historic places.
What would be the cost of demolition? We all know that we , the taxpayers will foot that bill. That cannot be argued.
What is the duration/ effect of environmental impact wherever this building is hauled to and dumped forever?
What would be the cost of an unbiased engineering report done on the building to determine its actual structural integrity?
What would it cost to repair the building to a mothballed state vs demolition? Like every other empty building in town , I would love to see it put to good use. I would RATHER (than seeing yet another vacant lot) see it repaired to a state where it is not in danger of collapse (if it indeed is) and mothballed. It is such an attractive and cool design.
Economics may or may not allow for it to be spared. My bet is , the building is very savable. If parts of it predate the fire downtown, to me that makes it especially significant among the buildings left.
Thinking out loud here: I first assume that the "we" in your post means the City. By the time a building has deteriorated so badly that it's a safety hazard, it's probably too late to do anything. The property owner, who likely knows more about the building, improvement costs, and possible uses, must have decided long ago not to let it become his/her money pit and to let nature take its course unless a buyer comes along. Been there - done that.
I wonder if any of you who are so hung-ho to save these buildings have ever been faced with having to shell out the money it would take to accomplish that end and then sit there with a nicely restored structure that is producing little or no income. Seems to me that it's a bit to easy to ask others to put THEIR money where YOUR mouth is.
I wonder if it is constitutional and fiscally sound for the City to exercise its right of eminent domain just to save an historic structure that has begun to deteriorate - but not so far as to pose a safety threat. But then it would be up to the City to make the repairs and then . . . . Then what? Put it up for sale? Make possible use of it? Is this a legitimate thing for the City to do? If it is, then the City could begin by condemning (exercising right of eminent domain) to buy the Laura Street Trio which are deteriorating before our eyes. (What happened to the rumor of a buyer who was going to get financing from Mr. Kahn?)
And right now, does the City even have the wherewithal to engage in such an enterprise? I think it does not. I see too many things - small things - not getting done around here and it undoubtedly is because of a lack of funds.
It all boils down to a thread I began some weeks ago: Show me the money!
^^^Very good points.
Another point - the land alone is not even worth as much as the net of the sales price and the cost of demolition, or this thing would have been sold. Nobody is valuing the land on an income-producing basis, and there is no value in the current structure standing. Sign of the deterioration of the market.
WmNussbaum does make an excellent point about restorations. A restoration of this building would be costly. The land itself is going for between $90-$100 per land foot, which is greater than the cost per SF of the nicest income producing Class-A tower in Jacksonville. Furthermore, since the land is clearly not priced for an income producing property, the seller forgot to discount his land for 2 things: the horrible market and either the cost to demo or the cost of basic site work that would be necessary just to get a GC onsite for buildout. The seller does not seem to be basing his number on anything. If there is even a buyer for this property who can secure debt for a restoration, then once all is said and done and you have a 3,000 SF building whiteboxed and ready for a tenant, what's the rent? This is of course assuming a lender will even take the chance on issuing a loan for a spec restoration/buildout in downtown Jacksonville with no tenant secured.
Unfortunately, this is why this land cannot be valued for future income. You can't get a tenant in Jacksonville to pay the rent necessary to justify the cost in the basis in the land, restoration, etc etc.
Even if you weren't going to restore and you wanted to demolish the building, the replacement cost may still be too high for the local market.
This goes back to the health of downtown. A healthier downtown in a better real estate market, one where there is substantial job and income growth and a healthy dose of investor interest, would mean much higher land costs. BUT, it would mean more tenants to choose from who want to be there, more foot traffic and people to increase the chances of your tenant surviving, and higher rents. This is why even though properties in Manhattan exceed $1,000psf routinely, everyone wants to be an owner there. It's such a healthy market and hardly anyone ever talks about it getting overheated like they occasionally say of nearly any other city.
If city leaders, including local business leaders, can enact changes to turn around downtown, we would just not face these horrible situations anymore.
* shrug
Then I guess the ONLY solution is for the city to spend endless money and continue demolishing until there is nothing left.
What a sad state of affairs.......
Quote from: simms3 on April 03, 2012, 01:57:36 PM
Ha, for a variety of factors I feel confident to speak up on this board. I don't enjoy the same confidence in the environment in which I am. I am a somebody down in Jacksonville, and I have a history there. I am an anonymous person, 1 of 6 million, here in Atlanta, and I work for a firm and for people who could just about own Jacksonville (our chairman who lives in Germany is a billionaire). I am relegated to being more of a listener and an observer to people who are like the 35-45 year old versions of myself on this board. Of course, we are merely referring to discussions revolving around development, cities, economic development, etc.
Also, on this point, being that it is a quieter, smaller town, it is much easier for someone to be somebody in Jacksonville. It doesn't take much. Get to a larger city, and it gets more competitive. Pedigrees run much deeper. Everyone went to a top 20 college, and has an MBA from a top 5 b-school. Blue blood society runs much thicker and it is harder to join the club. Transplants are people who had influence in even larger cities. For me, coming from humble Jacksonville, I'm less outspoken in daily life than I am on this board, where I feel like that big city guy in a small town.
I'm sure you can relate since you have lived in San Francisco and Seattle (and if I remember correctly Atlanta back in the day).
I have to bite my tongue in half with some of this stuff. I think I'd probably like you on the off chance we ever met in person, and so I do bite it. But you ought to pay a little attention to how you come across, you make an awful lot of assumptions.
Wonder what it would cost to remove the roof, windows and gut the interior down to the bare walls, then create a unique park-people space there?
OCKLAWAHA
Why would engineering studies have to be done to put a roof on the building? Do we know the building has deteriorated so much a new roof can't be safely installed without one, or is this conjecture? Or should I say a SWAG? The kind of SWAGS that keep getting historic houses demolished in Springfield, when they are structurally sound.
Why should this building be torn down and yet another empty lot be a blight on downtown?
No Argument here, Debbie.
This is another case of "WE" the taxpayers facing the tab of another demolition. Apparently as long as it is a demolition, some people do not mind.
Ocklawaha makes a good point. If there is no other recourse for the building with regard to restoration, then gut it and make it into something other than a vacant lot. That idea makes more sense than taking the building out.
In this instance, would the cost to do that be greater than the cost of demolition?
Demolitions such as this are actually very cheap, which is why cities (some, few nowadays) do them. It was at one point taking the road more traveled, the easy route. Now demolition is the road less traveled.
Also, in case you haven't figured out, surface parking at downtown land prices is a lucrative business and there are bars and destinations nearby. It would almost certainly be a guarantee that some dolt would come around, buy the land from the city and put it on the tax books. Of course the city wants this because it thinks a 4,000 SF lot will actually make an impact to the taxable base (potentially desperate city?).
A mothballed building is still considered an "eyesore", does not generate tax revenue, and is more expensive than demolition. It's the more difficult route, but a route that is taken by cities who cherish their past and are optimistic about the future (Memphis for one is a definite mothball city and there are facades tilted up all over the place awaiting some sort of redevelopment).
I have already touched upon the development front and why nobody will buy this thing. The pricing is off, the feasibility to make it work is not there, the financing is almost certainly not there and there is no support from the city, which is really what is needed (and potentially another reason to demolish, so there's no cry for creative city financing for rehab in the future).
I think this situation exemplifies what Jacksonville has been about: taking the easy route on everything. The cheap and simple fix. Unfortunately, cities are very complicated and difficult to run and even more difficult to make prosper. There's no such thing as an easy or cheap fix to make cities really work. Jax leaders haven't really figured that out yet, and neither has the majority of the population which is very content to pay next to no taxes on anything.
I agree.
In a world of 5 star places, 'we are the Mickey D's of cities.'
OCK
Quote from: Ocklawaha on April 05, 2012, 09:12:00 AM
I agree.
In a world of 5 star places, 'we are the Mickey D's of cities.'
OCK
Hey now, a lot of people like Mickey D's!!!
Put a Mickey D's in the Bostwick Building, now that would be a good reuse! and save it from the wrecking ball.
Quote from: fsujax on April 05, 2012, 09:29:18 AM
Put a Mickey D's in the Bostwick Building, now that would be a good reuse! and save it from the wrecking ball.
I think you're onto something
Reminds me of the Mickey D's in Budapest. They serve you with waiters, knives, and forks. Pretty cool place.
http://www.tripadvisor.com/Restaurant_Review-g274887-d1775498-Reviews-McDonald_s_Nyugati-Budapest.html
(http://www.tripadvisor.com/Restaurant_Review-g274887-d1775498-Reviews-McDonald_s_Nyugati-Budapest.html)
Building looks similar, too.
I am serious. No matter where a McDonalds is they draw traffic! If i had the money I would buy that building and do it!
Quote from: fsujax on April 05, 2012, 09:36:11 AM
I am serious. No matter where a McDonalds is they draw traffic! If i had the money I would buy that building and do it!
I know you're serious! I was being serious too. Check out that picture and tell me you don't see Bostwick looking a tad similar.
Very cool. I was in Hameln, Germany and saw a McDonalds in a building that was built in the 1400's. I have a picture of it, but not digital.
It's sad, but we'd be lucky to get a McDonald's downtown.
Quote from: fsujax on April 05, 2012, 09:43:53 AM
Very cool. I was in Hameln, Germany and saw a McDonalds in a building that was built in the 1400's. I have a picture of it, but not digital.
It's amazing how Europeans/South Americans incorporate their chain restaurants into preexisting historic structures. Juxtapose to the American style restaurant: build your own space at considerable cost, obviously requiring a car even to get there.
Quote from: cline on April 05, 2012, 09:46:01 AM
It's sad, but we'd be lucky to get a McDonald's downtown.
+1
Wow, a McD's downtown. How lucky can one town get? Our twin Golden Arches would be close competition for the single arch in St. Louis.
We do have a BK, so it's not like we're nowhere. And we did have a Wendy's - at what is now the SE corner of the library. It folded long before the library was built - guess the location wasn't a good one there on Main Street.
Here's an idea: The City builds a fast food structure in Hemming Plaza; it totally controls the exterior appearance. Then lease it out for 5 or 10 year periods to whichever franchisee comes up with the most rent. It wouldn't be the Tavern on the Green (Central Park, N.Y. - now gone), but then we aren't - and hopefully don't aspire to be - NYC. Obviously it would not have drive-through - but maybe a take-out pedestrian window.
Quote from: WmNussbaum on April 05, 2012, 10:13:37 AM
Wow, a McD's downtown. How lucky can one town get? Our twin Golden Arches would be close competition for the single arch in St. Louis.
We do have a BK, so it's not like we're nowhere. And we did have a Wendy's - at what is now the SE corner of the library. It folded long before the library was built - guess the location wasn't a good one there on Main Street.
Here's an idea: The City builds a fast food structure in Hemming Plaza; it totally controls the exterior appearance. Then lease it out for 5 or 10 year periods to whichever franchisee comes up with the most rent. It wouldn't be the Tavern on the Green (Central Park, N.Y. - now gone), but then we aren't - and hopefully don't aspire to be - NYC. Obviously it would not have drive-through - but maybe a take-out pedestrian window.
I'm not saying the we should strive for a McDonald's downtown. It was more a statement regarding the state of downtown.
Quote from: simms3 on April 05, 2012, 08:23:04 AM
I have already touched upon the development front and why nobody will buy this thing. The pricing is off, the feasibility to make it work is not there, the financing is almost certainly not there and there is no support from the city, which is really what is needed (and potentially another reason to demolish, so there's no cry for creative city financing for rehab in the future).
Simms, I like a lot of what you post, so I'm not sure why this particular chain of logic irritates me so. While I don't dispute your comfort or perceived legitimacy to hold court on matters regarding Jacksonville, which you have previously discussed in this thread, it's disappointing to me that you seem to offer your analysis with such a sense of finality.
To your above points:
- pricing is negotiable, especially with a highly distressed seller
- feasibility is a matter of perception, market context, and investor will, not the result of a concrete procedural analysis
- while your financing conclusion is likely valid, you seem to discount the relatively small scope & scale of this project...it can easily be within the financial capability of a determined investor to privately fund (we're not talking a $100M renovation of the LST here, but rather more likely a $2-5M rehab)
- it seems counterproductive to automatically assume that COJ is monolithic in their position on this particular building. I understand that the trend within our local gov't has not been friendly to historic preservation generally, but there are some significant differences between the Bostwick and houses in Springfield, so it seems unwarranted to automatically overlay the particulars of Springfield's ongoing challenges to this building.
In short, you may be right, but we're not going to get very far by judging every historic/preservation/rehab situation through the same lens or painting the details of the individual situations with the broad strokes of assumption. This is what the City often does, this is one of the reasons how we got where we are, and we can't address that problem by having our conversations in the same context.
The point seems lost on some of you...
Why be a city that looks like the typical McDonalds restaurant, massive parking lot, drive through (God forbid we should have to walk), slick plastic inside and outside, when we COULD be a city that stands out in the crowd, like those rare 5 star restaurants one occasionally finds? Authentic, old, new, mixed, urban, walkable, sustainable, auto-free zones, patrolled, lighted, stunning, inviting, participating, welcoming, all come to mind in a flash.
Like a crazy Russian friend of mine that tried in vain to sell me a painting of 'Stalin Crossing the Volga,' which is as bad as a painting of 'Hitler Crossing the Vistula,' there is something authentic about 'Washington Crossing the Delaware.' In the same manner the Lords of City Hall seem content to use a poor imitation of 'CITY.' Could it be that the fools that make these decisions haven't passed 'Finger Paint 101?'
There are any number of ways to get there but making Jacksonville look like Hiroshima at the end of WWII isn't one of them.
(http://aboutjapan.japansociety.org/resources/category/1/6/8/9/images/BE034976.jpg)
Post WWII Japan
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_bQsuhPJduqQ/TV1NGq6PpCI/AAAAAAAAEkc/glOMuSMwa6Y/A-JAX-1.jpg)
Post Consolidation Jacksonville
ANY QUESTIONS?
Quote from: WmNussbaum on April 05, 2012, 10:13:37 AM
Wow, a McD's downtown. How lucky can one town get? Our twin Golden Arches would be close competition for the single arch in St. Louis.
We do have a BK, so it's not like we're nowhere. And we did have a Wendy's - at what is now the SE corner of the library. It folded long before the library was built - guess the location wasn't a good one there on Main Street.
Here's an idea: The City builds a fast food structure in Hemming Plaza; it totally controls the exterior appearance. Then lease it out for 5 or 10 year periods to whichever franchisee comes up with the most rent. It wouldn't be the Tavern on the Green (Central Park, N.Y. - now gone), but then we aren't - and hopefully don't aspire to be - NYC. Obviously it would not have drive-through - but maybe a take-out pedestrian window.
um... okay ::)
Quote from: Ocklawaha on April 05, 2012, 12:24:16 PM
The point seems lost on some of you...
Why be a city that looks like the typical McDonalds restaurant, massive parking lot, drive through (God forbid we should have to walk), slick plastic inside and outside, when we COULD be a city that stands out in the crowd, like those rare 5 star restaurants one occasionally finds? Authentic, old, new, mixed, urban, walkable, sustainable, auto-free zones, patrolled, lighted, stunning, inviting, participating, welcoming, all come to mind in a flash.
Like a crazy Russian friend of mine that tried in vain to sell me a painting of 'Stalin Crossing the Volga,' which is as bad as a painting of 'Hitler Crossing the Vistula,' there is something authentic about 'Washington Crossing the Delaware.' In the same manner the Lords of City Hall seem content to use a poor imitation of 'CITY.' Could it be that the fools that make these decisions haven't passed 'Finger Paint 101?'
There are any number of ways to get there but making Jacksonville look like Hiroshima at the end of WWII isn't one of them.
(http://aboutjapan.japansociety.org/resources/category/1/6/8/9/images/BE034976.jpg)
Post WWII Japan
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_bQsuhPJduqQ/TV1NGq6PpCI/AAAAAAAAEkc/glOMuSMwa6Y/A-JAX-1.jpg)
Post Consolidation Jacksonville
ANY QUESTIONS?
Not lost on me. But certainly seems like many are hell-bent on making downtown into vacant lot and parking garage heaven.
Yeah, just sit for a moment, and flip back and forth from the two photos above...
JAPAN
JACKSONVILLE
JAPAN
JACKSONVILLE
It will actually make you sick.
It does, Ock. We are filling landfills with our historic places.
"WE" meaning the city ;) just to clarify !!!
Quote from: bornnative on April 05, 2012, 11:14:45 AM
Quote from: simms3 on April 05, 2012, 08:23:04 AM
I have already touched upon the development front and why nobody will buy this thing. The pricing is off, the feasibility to make it work is not there, the financing is almost certainly not there and there is no support from the city, which is really what is needed (and potentially another reason to demolish, so there's no cry for creative city financing for rehab in the future).
Simms, I like a lot of what you post, so I'm not sure why this particular chain of logic irritates me so. While I don't dispute your comfort or perceived legitimacy to hold court on matters regarding Jacksonville, which you have previously discussed in this thread, it's disappointing to me that you seem to offer your analysis with such a sense of finality.
To your above points:
- pricing is negotiable, especially with a highly distressed seller
- feasibility is a matter of perception, market context, and investor will, not the result of a concrete procedural analysis
- while your financing conclusion is likely valid, you seem to discount the relatively small scope & scale of this project...it can easily be within the financial capability of a determined investor to privately fund (we're not talking a $100M renovation of the LST here, but rather more likely a $2-5M rehab)
- it seems counterproductive to automatically assume that COJ is monolithic in their position on this particular building. I understand that the trend within our local gov't has not been friendly to historic preservation generally, but there are some significant differences between the Bostwick and houses in Springfield, so it seems unwarranted to automatically overlay the particulars of Springfield's ongoing challenges to this building.
In short, you may be right, but we're not going to get very far by judging every historic/preservation/rehab situation through the same lens or painting the details of the individual situations with the broad strokes of assumption. This is what the City often does, this is one of the reasons how we got where we are, and we can't address that problem by having our conversations in the same context.
Who on this thread is saying something different than me? And let's see if someone either now or in retrospect later can even confirm whether any legitimate offers were made on the building. We're all kind of confirming the same general points here, and none of them bode well for the building and none shed good light on the city.
I'm not an architect, and I don't know all that much about historic buildings, but I've always liked this one . . . a lot. The problem is that it's not salvageable. I, along with 3 of my business partners, toured it sometime in 2009 (asking price, if I recall correctly, was around $1M). We ultimately decided that we would be willing to take title to the land if the owner would pay us. The building is literally falling apart . . . just look at the first photo posted (on the western side of the building) or walk by it sometime and you'll see what I'm talking about.
The City should have stepped in years ago and "saved" this building by assessing fines/liens and auction off to highest bidder. But it's not the City's fault that the building is in the condition that it's in today. That responsibility lies solely with the property owner . . . just wish the City would have done something to stop the bleeding before it was too late
Quote from: GatorNation on April 05, 2012, 07:02:59 PM
I'm not an architect, and I don't know all that much about historic buildings, but I've always liked this one . . . a lot. The problem is that it's not salvageable. I, along with 3 of my business partners, toured it sometime in 2009 (asking price, if I recall correctly, was around $1M). We ultimately decided that we would be willing to take title to the land if the owner would pay us. The building is literally falling apart . . . just look at the first photo posted (on the western side of the building) or walk by it sometime and you'll see what I'm talking about.
The City should have stepped in years ago and "saved" this building by assessing fines/liens and auction off to highest bidder. But it's not the City's fault that the building is in the condition that it's in today. That responsibility lies solely with the property owner . . . just wish the City would have done something to stop the bleeding before it was too late
And that is hindering at it's best. And forgetting that the city within it's own codes is charged with protecting buildings like this. Any and every loss of a historic building, other than by fire or natural disaster, is typically demolition by reckless policy rather than just neglect. If the owner does not or can not step up and do the right thing, then it should be on the city to do it. I do agree that there are times that the city needs to step up and take the property and sell it to someone who will take care of it. However, it is a difficult thing as some within the city could very easily take advantage of that concept, stomping all over private property rights for nothing but profit. So, what this comes down to is that we have to all realize by helping the owner maintain the building we are not just helping the owner, but the entire community. By recognizing that most owners want to do the right thing, we can help the entire community. By helping rather than hindering, we will learn which owners are just overwhelmed and which ones should lose their property. And perhaps convince them to donate it or assist them in seling it at a reasonable cost.
All that said, we can not nor should we save every single old building. If we did, we would never have new and cool buildings built today that will become the historic building others love to see someday. Of course, here in Jacksonville it is rare that anything new and cool gets built after a demolition. Meaning that perhaps our hindering all these years has lost us the right to pick and choose and so we need to fight for every building left. Even this one. Even if it eventually is nothing saved but two walls.
Quote from: simms3 on April 03, 2012, 08:49:37 AM
Jacksonville constantly advertises itself as the city with the largest park system in America. And it has great nature preserves, but it has abysmal urban parks. Also, Atlanta has rocked at preservation compared to Jax, and so have most other cities. Granted, most cities had more to begin with, I'd say there are few if any cities that destroyed such a large percentage of their past as Jacksonville. And to boot, the city hasn't replaced that lost building fabric with anything that has gotten the city anywhere. In fact, most of what the city has demolished is currently surface parking and weed-filled lots. This is simply not the case elsewhere, and it's unfortunate.
And also to boot, Jacksonville's whole being revolves around the waterfront, and it had a real history there, a real unique waterfront that for decades allowed the city to exist. There are obvious reasons as to why the industry moved upshore, but the city never HAD to completely wipe out the very thing that gave it soul, that allowed it to exist, and that gave it its identity. The Bostwick Building is a final standing reminder of this past. It should not be allowed to go.
Simms3,
Speaking of Atlanta, what's the story on this house in Midtown?
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Piedmont-Park-Atlanta/i-MF3v7WQ/0/L/P1530929-L.jpg)
Quote from: strider on April 05, 2012, 07:51:35 PM
Quote from: GatorNation on April 05, 2012, 07:02:59 PM
I'm not an architect, and I don't know all that much about historic buildings, but I've always liked this one . . . a lot. The problem is that it's not salvageable. I, along with 3 of my business partners, toured it sometime in 2009 (asking price, if I recall correctly, was around $1M). We ultimately decided that we would be willing to take title to the land if the owner would pay us. The building is literally falling apart . . . just look at the first photo posted (on the western side of the building) or walk by it sometime and you'll see what I'm talking about.
The City should have stepped in years ago and "saved" this building by assessing fines/liens and auction off to highest bidder. But it's not the City's fault that the building is in the condition that it's in today. That responsibility lies solely with the property owner . . . just wish the City would have done something to stop the bleeding before it was too late
And that is hindering at it's best. And forgetting that the city within it's own codes is charged with protecting buildings like this. Any and every loss of a historic building, other than by fire or natural disaster, is typically demolition by reckless policy rather than just neglect. If the owner does not or can not step up and do the right thing, then it should be on the city to do it. I do agree that there are times that the city needs to step up and take the property and sell it to someone who will take care of it. However, it is a difficult thing as some within the city could very easily take advantage of that concept, stomping all over private property rights for nothing but profit. So, what this comes down to is that we have to all realize by helping the owner maintain the building we are not just helping the owner, but the entire community. By recognizing that most owners want to do the right thing, we can help the entire community. By helping rather than hindering, we will learn which owners are just overwhelmed and which ones should lose their property. And perhaps convince them to donate it or assist them in seling it at a reasonable cost.
All that said, we can not nor should we save every single old building. If we did, we would never have new and cool buildings built today that will become the historic building others love to see someday. Of course, here in Jacksonville it is rare that anything new and cool gets built after a demolition. Meaning that perhaps our hindering all these years has lost us the right to pick and choose and so we need to fight for every building left. Even this one. Even if it eventually is nothing saved but two walls.
First off we have not saved every old building or even 10 % of them so that statement holds absolutely NO merit. Sadly, I do not expect for this trend to get better.
Secondly the condition of the Bostwick Building is just as much the City's fault as it is the owner's that this building has been allowed to be neglected to the point that it may be on the verge of being beyond saving ,either by whole or in part. This is another shining example of a building that could have been, at one time , inexpensively maintained, that is, to put a roof on it, rather than being left to rack and ruin and now costing millions and exceeding market value of the property to save it. This is just one of the many examples of eventual demolition by neglect.
A poster said that they wish we had to bear the expense of the up keep of a building such as this and keep it nice even if it sits vacant. To that I say, If I took on that responsibility , then I would do my level best to do just that. At some point in time, the owner became negligent. The City does nothing until its time to call in the wrecking ball.. A practice perfected in Jacksonville.
A roof, replaced 20 years ago for a fraction of the cost could have prevented the issue "WE" meaning the City, "WE" meaning the taxpayers that fund the City, "We" the community are faced with, and that is , losing yet another piece of our past.
You know, if we had even 1/3 of what we had downtown 50 years ago ,still standing today, this might not be such a bitter pill to swallow.
I guess if there is a bright spot in this sad reality , it is that 100 years from now, anyone living today including myself, reading the material we post here, won't be around to care. It is unfortunate that you can go to London, and Paris and various other Cities in the world, and see examples of buildings hundreds of years old, still in use, and still cared for. Why? Very simple.. they CARE about their historic fabric. We do the exact opposite happen here and it is nauseating. It is , even tougher to MAKE PEOPLE CARE than it is to SAVE BUILDINGS. Without the first, the second does not have a chance. It is really that simple.
There is next to nothing , built in recent years in downtown Jacksonville, that will be historically significant when it get to the age this building now is. By that time, the buildings we know as Historic will have been long gone, all of them, because of the age-old mentality that runs in this City.
That's right near where I live. I used to know more about it when I could keep my ear to the ground, and if I remember correctly some investor from NYC recently purchased it for about $1M. It's known as "the castle", which is odd because there are several other houses around there that actually have castle-like features. It's one of the last remaining "houses" in Peachtree Pointe, and it can't be torn down due to Landmark Status. I think the owners have plans to renovate it into event space, but nothing has happened to it and it just sits there sandwiched. It was once artist apts and a coffee shop back in the 60s/70s. It's in bad shape, but nothing like the shape Bostwick is in.
Before the whole area around it turned into a vertical office park, the area was the Bohemian hub of the South and was the location of Atlanta's original art community and gay community. It's no coincidence the High family house was nearby, before that, too, was torn down for the current museum.
Its a sweet old house!!
Quote from: simms3 on April 03, 2012, 08:13:02 AM
The only two buildings that came down for anything really significant were the Heard Bank for the city's tallest and the Rhodes building for the new Main Library.
Pretty cool pic:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35547288@N00/605029944/in/photostream/
I'm NOT saying that this is the case with the Bostwick, but what historical building lovers gotta realize is that some buildings simply become obsolete, so much so that the negatives outweigh the positives even if the building isn't in ruins. The Heard Building was only a one star in the historical registry (compared to the Jax Terminal which is a four star). The Holiday Inn City Center/Robert Meyer (no historical value if I'm not mistaken) is an example of an obsolete building. Hell, even the Singer Building in NY (tallest legally demoed building) although it had great architecture, it was obsolete. So this imaginary world where every single historical building that's still standing tall doesn't exist. Am I advocating for constant destruction of every historic building? No. Has Jax destroyed some historical buildings that could have been put to use today? Yes.
^I think most people understand that. With the Bostwick, though, we have a perfectly good building that has been allowed to decay. Plus, in downtown Jacksonville we've lost so many of our buildings that people are protective over the ones that are left. It's not like we're exactly hurting for space down there. From up at the top of the AT&T building last night at Art Walk, no fewer than 5 surface lots plus a garage are visible just looking south.
Quote from: I-10east on May 03, 2012, 08:35:56 AM
I'm NOT saying that this is the case with the Bostwick, but what historical building lovers gotta realize is that some buildings simply become obsolete, so much so that the negatives outweigh the positives even if the building isn't in ruins. The Heard Building was only a one star in the historical registry (compared to the Jax Terminal which is a four star). The Holiday Inn City Center/Robert Meyer (no historical value if I'm not mistaken) is an example of an obsolete building. Hell, even the Singer Building in NY (tallest legally demoed building) although it had great architecture, it was obsolete. So this imaginary world where every single historical building that's still standing tall doesn't exist. Am I advocating for constant destruction of every historic building? No. Has Jax destroyed some historical buildings that could have been put to use today? Yes.
I would completely agree with this EXCEPT Jacksonville has maybe (at best) 15-20% of its historic structures remaining. of those , possibly 5-7% are in great shape, the remainder are either barely whole , or crumbling. We have never taken strides to save our historic places, to compare even with other major cities, let alone other countries.
Eventually everything has an end, I suppose. Everything becomes 'obsolete' . We live in a throw-away world where it is , over the long haul more expensive and shorter-lived. I guess it is thought that this way creates more jobs. I seriously doubt that to be the case.
The demolition of this building comes before HPC on the 22nd.
It is not a landmark, but it is eligible and that status stops the demolition for 45 days.
Email Lisa Sheppard : sheppard@coj.net to communicate with the commissioners
On it.
Quote from: KenFSU on May 02, 2012, 11:24:58 PM
Quote from: simms3 on April 03, 2012, 08:13:02 AM
The only two buildings that came down for anything really significant were the Heard Bank for the city's tallest and the Rhodes building for the new Main Library.
Pretty cool pic:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35547288@N00/605029944/in/photostream/
I would hardly call Helmut's pencil significant, but that's only my opinion. (We still miss you, Heard National Bank) :'(
What the Botswick could have been? From 1925 Bank Vault to Swanky Eatery: The Story of Cleveland’s Crop Bistro (http://www.theatlanticcities.com/design/2012/08/1925-bank-vault-swanky-eatery-story-clevelands-crop-bistro/2991/)
(http://cdn.theatlanticcities.com/img/upload/2012/08/17/Crop_Interiors-0895web_1/largest.jpg)
(http://cdn.theatlanticcities.com/img/upload/2012/08/17/Larger-Vault-Doorweb.jpg)
(http://cdn.theatlanticcities.com/img/upload/2012/08/17/Photo-of-Barweb.jpg)
It goes before the historic planning commissioners this Wednesday.
And will probably be the next demolition featured in the Times Union. Next up will be Genovar's Hall, and the Houses there, Fire Station 5 and School Four. ..
God, I so want to fire the entire city Government for allowing this to continue.
Quote from: KenFSU on May 02, 2012, 11:24:58 PM
Quote from: simms3 on April 03, 2012, 08:13:02 AM
The only two buildings that came down for anything really significant were the Heard Bank for the city's tallest and the Rhodes building for the new Main Library.
Pretty cool pic:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35547288@N00/605029944/in/photostream/
Looking at this picture, its a shame the old Rhodes Building couldnt have somehow been incorporated into the design of the new library.
QuoteAnd will probably be the next demolition featured in the Times Union. Next up will be Genovar's Hall, and the Houses there, Fire Station 5 and School Four. ..
Optimism, I love it in your voice Timken! If Brown can get elected as a Democrat in a conservative town, anything can happen here. The key, like Brown's victory is to make people aware of the issues, more than us on MJ, Save the Bostwick can happen if there is a movement, signs at every food truck, every restaurant we discuss, make people aware of the issue, most live in a shell of their life and never know what they don't know.
As far as the Bostwick's decay, I put that squarely on the owners. Not the City, the COJ has enough trouble with real estate, shipyards, JEA SS station, Courthouse/Annex, do we really want bureaucrats running a real estate development service? Me, no, I want them to manage the taxes they collect and provide me with the services I need for me and my businesses. If any of my houses starting falling in, the Code Enforcement comes after ME, not itself, and rightly so. Let the city do what it is good at doing, or at least supposed to do, provide services, and leave the property management to the property owners.
QuoteAs far as the Bostwick's decay, I put that squarely on the owners.
About five or six years ago, I was working with a development team that was interested in acquiring this building and restoring it into a mixed use project. During the tour, a family member spoke of all the great history it had and why it was so important to their family history. While inside the building and looking up at the sky, the only thing that kept floating in my head was if it was so important, why didn't anyone feel the need to patch up the roof 25 years earlier.
Quotewhy didn't anyone feel the need to patch up the roof 25 years earlier.
Lake - I am working on a house in Avondale, pictures to come later of before and after, but it had the same issues, a roof leak at the chimney allowed water to enter and then the termites and ants feasted on the boards over a period of years of neglect. I have it managed now and rebuilding it, but the neglect by people is amazing and sad.
mtrainjax, while I agree owners are responsible, the City has the right under muni code on historic preservation to step in and repair historic buildings to preserve them if the owners are negligent. Gosh, just put a lien on the building for the amount of the repair. They already put fines on them without DOING anything. Why not do something for that lien money and save the building while the needed repairs are small? Yes, the owners should have patched the roof. And yes, Lake, I agree the family who thought it was so important to them should have done the repairs. But if they didn't, the City could have. And then invoiced the owners. If they didn't pay it, they could have filed a mechanics lien.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 18, 2012, 09:29:27 AM
QuoteAs far as the Bostwick's decay, I put that squarely on the owners.
About five or six years ago, I was working with a development team that was interested in acquiring this building and restoring it into a mixed use project. During the tour, a family member spoke of all the great history it had and why it was so important to their family history. While inside the building and looking up at the sky, the only thing that kept floating in my head was if it was so important, why didn't anyone feel the need to patch up the roof 25 years earlier.
We have demolition by neglect laws on the books, what we don't have is the stomach to use them. Perhaps this is the place and this is the time.
Can we officially change the city's name to Demolishville??
Quotethe City has the right under muni code on historic preservation to step in and repair historic buildings to preserve them if the owners are negligent.
Debbie - What happens when everyone with a house or building in neglect asks the city to repair it for them? Where do you draw the line? What about insurance and issues with contractors fixing items in properties. No, no, no, let the City do what it does best and manage the services we pay for, let owners be responsible and leave this on the shoulders of the owner.
If the Bostwick's wanted to sell the building for a reasonable amount, given its structure, I am sure there are folks and investors who would have purchased it, but sometimes pride costs more in the long run.
When the city repairs a building or mows a lawn, it costs the homeowner about ten times what the going rate is. It is a good fundraising technique.
In fact, one guy who was mowing lawns for a while in Springfield rode around with a sign "Hire me...I'm cheaper than the city."
So there is a built in penalty for those who choose not to take care of what they own. Additionally, there is revenue for the city. Finally, there is relief for the community.
Not a bad deal.
Rolling fines are a different matter. They are not based on anything real. Just punitive. Not a fan.
I'd love to see the city mothball this building. It could save it.
They just did a decent secure job at Annie Lytle. Of course it remains to be seen how long it stays in place, but it certainly was a better securing measure than in the past.
M-train... sorry.. don't mean to be pessimistic ..... I'm really weary of buildings coming down like they are nothing, in a city whose leadership leaves a great deal to be desired. Could not agree more that the owner is negligent, as is / was the owner of Annie Lytle, and for that matter, What about the owners of Wormans? A car hit the building.. Can't be the buildings fault so it had to be the driver of the car.. Perhaps they didn't have insurance... Don't know , and now it doesn't matter if they did or not. This is YET again another ridiculous demolition , initiated by our lovely MCCD . (FOR THAT, I BLAME the CITY ) . Great job MCCD.. USELESS group.
The city does not make money on code enforcement. If there is a violation that is to be corrected, the city gets bids and awards the job to the low bidder. The city pays and imposes the lien for the amount it paid. The problem is that the city rarely forecloses its lien. If it did, then it might make some money on the interest rate applicable to the lien principal - assuming it got paid and didn't end up owning the parcel through its foreclosure.
If the city began foreclosing its liens, it might have the effect of making property owners more inclined to keep their properties from being in violation because they would know that if the city cured the problem by demolition or whatever, they would have to pony up pretty soon or lose the property.
The really funny thing about some properties - and Bostwick Bldg. may be one - is that the city sends out notices that the building has to be either brought into code compliance or demolished. I have seen at least one case in which the owner said, "okay, I can't afford to fix it up so I'll demolish," and then the city denied the demolition permit. WTF???
my my. If the city isn't making money off of a $35 lawn job which is charged out at $300, then there is truly something broken.
I think it would be a logical progression for MetroJacksonville to find out where some of these people involved live..Cough Ponte Vedra..cough Atlantic Beach..cough..Baymeadows..cough cough..or out of town owners that still keep the prices at a 2007 level...GET A CLUE!.... get back here and see the poverty and re-adjust your prices !
I would LOVE to see some Paparazzi type pics of their palatial spreads!
Maybe some plain simple SHAMEFULL pictures of their personal homes would wake some of the "Good Old Boy Club" up..
YES! you know who you are and you are being watched!
Oh never mind..they EARNED their wealth right?
My whole point is these people do this stuff under almost TOTAL ANONYMITY! lets expose someone and see how they squirm!
I have seen personal property yellow tagged for lawn no more than 12" BUT!...the medians are 27" tall..(Mc Duff Ave)
Quote from: WmNussbaum on August 18, 2012, 07:39:46 PM
The city does not make money on code enforcement. If there is a violation that is to be corrected, the city gets bids and awards the job to the low bidder. The city pays and imposes the lien for the amount it paid. The problem is that the city rarely forecloses its lien. If it did, then it might make some money on the interest rate applicable to the lien principal - assuming it got paid and didn't end up owning the parcel through its foreclosure.
If the city began foreclosing its liens, it might have the effect of making property owners more inclined to keep their properties from being in violation because they would know that if the city cured the problem by demolition or whatever, they would have to pony up pretty soon or lose the property.
The really funny thing about some properties - and Bostwick Bldg. may be one - is that the city sends out notices that the building has to be either brought into code compliance or demolished. I have seen at least one case in which the owner said, "okay, I can't afford to fix it up so I'll demolish," and then the city denied the demolition permit. WTF???
Odd, as when I said something similar - the city never collects on the fines or liens - to a member of General Counsel, the response was "you'd be surprised" and said it with a smile on his face. The city makes money off of MCCD, at least General Counsels's office thinks it does. Another aspect many don't know about is the influx of funding from sources like NSP and Jacksonville Journey, often used in the past to pay for demolition and the like. What are the odds that none of that funding ever gets used for admin? From personal experience, I did pay a lien within a couple of months or so of having it levied against me because I had the house for sale and found a buyer. In this case, I was not notified, but the previous owner was and I was not given the opportunity to correct myself as even MCCD did not know it needed corrected until they broke into the house (to use the MCCD supervisor's words). Though it has a been awhile, the contractor who re-boarded the few windows said he made about $800.00. The rest of the $2,500.00 I paid was charged out to admin. I guess it takes a lot of admin to break into a house.
As to the demolish or repair comments, that in a nut shell is the problem. Repair or Demolish sounds OK, until you realize that when you talk to MCCD, repair means fully to current code. They can't make you do that legally in most cases, but people think they can. Basic scare tactics. And of course, once one thing is done, they find two more to complain about. And the only time the owner gets told no when they want to demolish is in Historic Districts or over landmarks. And not always then. Though we are trying to change that so it is always no and that MCCD makes policy changes so that they help rather than hinder this city.
Quotemy my. If the city isn't making money off of a $35 lawn job which is charged out at $300, then there is truly something broken.
Well, you do remember that hammers billed to the government cost $300, so I would expect a lawn cutting to be more than a hammer. :o
At the very least, preserving the facade along Bay and Ocean Streets should be considered. However, would this comply with the MCCD's definition of demolish?
(http://portlandpreservation.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/simon.jpg)
Let's get a few things straight here. First of all, Strider, there is no General "Council." The city's attorneys are the General Counsel and her assistants. The legislative body of the city is the City Council. Got it?
Second point, Ernest Street, although you like TOTAL ANONYMITY on this board, you criticize the same of the owners of the properties to which your comments are directed. What happened to "good for the goose, good for the gander"? Besides, you can probably find out who the owners are with a little nosing around SunBiz and the Property Appraiser's and the Clerk of Court's websites. And BTW, not all residents of the beaches are the rich folks you imply they are, so relax your biases a little.
She Clown, you won't get an argument from me about $300 for a small mowing job, but the City pays the contractor the $300, not $35, because the contractor was the low/only bidder for the job. If it collects $300 from the owner, there is no profit other than maybe some interest - if you call that profit.
So $300 is the LOWEST bid it can get for lawn mowing?
Wow. That stinks of major corruption.
Lake.
This needs to be mothballed, that way the roof could be temporarily covered and the structure perhaps reinforced from the inside.
It does not qualify for mothballing at this point b/c it is not landmarked, but that is easily fixed if the owners are involved and onboard.
Mothballing it abates the nuisance, at least temporarily, from the city's point of view.
I would love to see the City take the property and give to the Police and Fire Pension Fund to fix and redevelop. Keane may be a lightening rod for his salary and pension, but they have a great track record with getting the most out of buildings, and it would help our Pension issues in trading buildings for contributions.
Quote from: sheclown on August 19, 2012, 12:19:23 PM
Lake.
This needs to be mothballed, that way the roof could be temporarily covered and the structure perhaps reinforced from the inside.
It does not qualify for mothballing at this point b/c it is not landmarked, but that is easily fixed if the owners are involved and onboard.
Mothballing it abates the nuisance, at least temporarily, from the city's point of view.
I'm all for mothballing.
Quote from: WmNussbaum on August 19, 2012, 10:19:06 AM
Let's get a few things straight here. First of all, Strider, there is no General "Council." The city's attorneys are the General Counsel and her assistants. The legislative body of the city is the City Council. Got it?
Second point, Ernest Street, although you like TOTAL ANONYMITY on this board, you criticize the same of the owners of the properties to which your comments are directed. What happened to "good for the goose, good for the gander"? Besides, you can probably find out who the owners are with a little nosing around SunBiz and the Property Appraiser's and the Clerk of Court's websites. And BTW, not all residents of the beaches are the rich folks you imply they are, so relax your biases a little.
She Clown, you won't get an argument from me about $300 for a small mowing job, but the City pays the contractor the $300, not $35, because the contractor was the low/only bidder for the job. If it collects $300 from the owner, there is no profit other than maybe some interest - if you call that profit.
::) We got it , Wm. ::)
Quote from: mtraininjax on August 19, 2012, 12:30:33 PM
I would love to see the City take the property and give to the Police and Fire Pension Fund to fix and redevelop. Keane may be a lightening rod for his salary and pension, but they have a great track record with getting the most out of buildings, and it would help our Pension issues in trading buildings for contributions.
The LAST thing (besides tearing it down) we need to do with this building is make it another piece of civic property. Police, fire, court, tax, federal, state, jail, SAO, public defender, city hall.....the majority of downtown is a civic center, filled with civic type businesses that revolve around downtown being a civic center (law offices...). If we ever plan on downtown making a resurgence as a cultural/entertainment center, as opposed to a civic center, we need to use Bostwick (and other empty buildings....Library) as something interesting. Something that will generate organic growth and foot traffic along East Bay. NOT another building where people show up for work, 8-5, then leave for the burbs the second work is over.
^ I ll second that. We have too much damn government in downtown now. WAY too much. That is (in part) why buildings like the Bostwick building will likely NOT be saved.
You wanna revive downtown? You wanna save buildings? Get rid of the deadwood that initiates the destruction of these places. Get rid of the mind set that has NO value or concern for anything historic or important. Get rid of the mindless groups that GET PAID, to ensure that we lose everything that was ever beautiful or significant. This behavior has been increasing for the last half century and it has to be done away with before we have nothing at all left. ( We aren't that far away from being there, now)
Get a government in place, of people who are committed to making downtown Jacksonville a destination again , instead of a government collective with massive areas of void empty spaces and parking garages.
QuoteThe LAST thing (besides tearing it down) we need to do with this building is make it another piece of civic property. Police, fire, court, tax, federal, state, jail, SAO, public defender, city hall.....the majority of downtown is a civic center, filled with civic type businesses that revolve around downtown being a civic center (law offices...).
How shortsighted this vision is? We have a need to fix the Pension crisis, forget government if we cannot fix it, no one will be able to function in a government as more and more of our taxes go to fund pensions. Keane does NOT have to sell the building back to the city, he can sell it to the highest offer. He knows what he is doing, as with past sales.
Perhaps you have no idea that under Peyton, the city began sending departments outside of downtown, they moved code enforcement to the Art Museum area, and expanded offices for services to the suburbs. Then under Brown, rightly so, they have moved people back downtown, with the empty space we are all paying for in City Hall and other buildings. Yes, there are still some services in the suburbs, not everyone wants to go to the same building for tax collecting. Rightly so there are options for driver's licenses too. Brown is on track with bringing government back downtown and the technology has allowed people to do more online too. I applaud his decisions to centralize operations, once again, after Peyton de-centralized them. No need for a half-empty city hall. We pay for the lights and AC even when no one is using the space!
Quote from: sheclown on August 19, 2012, 12:19:23 PM
Lake.
This needs to be mothballed, that way the roof could be temporarily covered and the structure perhaps reinforced from the inside.
It does not qualify for mothballing at this point b/c it is not landmarked, but that is easily fixed if the owners are involved and onboard.
Mothballing it abates the nuisance, at least temporarily, from the city's point of view.
The owners have no apparent interest in mothballing, or in pursuing any kind of landmark status, unless it is within the context of a purchase agreement - and to that end, it is my understanding that they have declined cash offers because they would prefer to pursue demolition and maintain ownership of the parcel versus sell the property as is for less than their target price.
That's unfortunate but that type of thinking is partially why the building remains in its decayed state today. During the boom, the owners had an unrealistic target asking price that made it unfeasible for market rate redevelopment.
Quote from: mtraininjax on August 20, 2012, 11:03:23 AM
QuoteThe LAST thing (besides tearing it down) we need to do with this building is make it another piece of civic property. Police, fire, court, tax, federal, state, jail, SAO, public defender, city hall.....the majority of downtown is a civic center, filled with civic type businesses that revolve around downtown being a civic center (law offices...).
How shortsighted this vision is? We have a need to fix the Pension crisis, forget government if we cannot fix it, no one will be able to function in a government as more and more of our taxes go to fund pensions. Keane does NOT have to sell the building back to the city, he can sell it to the highest offer. He knows what he is doing, as with past sales.
Perhaps you have no idea that under Peyton, the city began sending departments outside of downtown, they moved code enforcement to the Art Museum area, and expanded offices for services to the suburbs. Then under Brown, rightly so, they have moved people back downtown, with the empty space we are all paying for in City Hall and other buildings. Yes, there are still some services in the suburbs, not everyone wants to go to the same building for tax collecting. Rightly so there are options for driver's licenses too. Brown is on track with bringing government back downtown and the technology has allowed people to do more online too. I applaud his decisions to centralize operations, once again, after Peyton de-centralized them. No need for a half-empty city hall. We pay for the lights and AC even when no one is using the space!
This isn't really a thread on the pension crisis. This is a thread on saving the Bostwick Building. IMO, handing it over to some city employees or ancillaries is as nearsighted as you can get... My idea, handing it (or realistically, selling it!) over to something/someone different is the key for
longterm organic growth and stability.
Quote from: ben says on August 20, 2012, 12:43:23 PM
Quote from: mtraininjax on August 20, 2012, 11:03:23 AM
QuoteThe LAST thing (besides tearing it down) we need to do with this building is make it another piece of civic property. Police, fire, court, tax, federal, state, jail, SAO, public defender, city hall.....the majority of downtown is a civic center, filled with civic type businesses that revolve around downtown being a civic center (law offices...).
How shortsighted this vision is? We have a need to fix the Pension crisis, forget government if we cannot fix it, no one will be able to function in a government as more and more of our taxes go to fund pensions. Keane does NOT have to sell the building back to the city, he can sell it to the highest offer. He knows what he is doing, as with past sales.
Perhaps you have no idea that under Peyton, the city began sending departments outside of downtown, they moved code enforcement to the Art Museum area, and expanded offices for services to the suburbs. Then under Brown, rightly so, they have moved people back downtown, with the empty space we are all paying for in City Hall and other buildings. Yes, there are still some services in the suburbs, not everyone wants to go to the same building for tax collecting. Rightly so there are options for driver's licenses too. Brown is on track with bringing government back downtown and the technology has allowed people to do more online too. I applaud his decisions to centralize operations, once again, after Peyton de-centralized them. No need for a half-empty city hall. We pay for the lights and AC even when no one is using the space!
This isn't really a thread on the pension crisis. This is a thread on saving the Bostwick Building. IMO, handing it over to some city employees or ancillaries is as nearsighted as you can get... My idea, handing it (or realistically, selling it!) over to something/someone different is the key for longterm organic growth and stability.
...Which is exactly what the present owners intend to do; *sell it*. It's not the place of the city government to "hand it over" to anybody, it's a privately owned piece of property. I mean, if the city doesn't like something you're choosing to do with something you own, do you think they can (or should be able to) decide to just give it to someone else?? All the city can do is compel the owner to either maintain it in a safe (code compliant) state or tear it down. In this case the owner apparently believes that the land would be more attractive to a potential buyer without a dilapidated structure on it, and has chosen to demolish it. It's completely within his rights to do so; HE OWNS IT.
I really don't understand how some of y'all view private property ownership rights.. If somebody wants to buy a piece of property and then for whatever reason allow it to fall into disrepair, it's their right to do so. Is it stupid for them to do so? Perhaps. Is it an ugly blight upon our downtown? Perhaps. Is it anybody's business besides the owner of the property? Nope.
(I mean, Jeez- if you don't wash your car regularly, should some governmental agency be able to give it to someone else with better car hygiene habits???? )
ITS PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY.
Quote from: Pinky on August 20, 2012, 01:50:02 PM
Quote from: ben says on August 20, 2012, 12:43:23 PM
Quote from: mtraininjax on August 20, 2012, 11:03:23 AM
QuoteThe LAST thing (besides tearing it down) we need to do with this building is make it another piece of civic property. Police, fire, court, tax, federal, state, jail, SAO, public defender, city hall.....the majority of downtown is a civic center, filled with civic type businesses that revolve around downtown being a civic center (law offices...).
How shortsighted this vision is? We have a need to fix the Pension crisis, forget government if we cannot fix it, no one will be able to function in a government as more and more of our taxes go to fund pensions. Keane does NOT have to sell the building back to the city, he can sell it to the highest offer. He knows what he is doing, as with past sales.
Perhaps you have no idea that under Peyton, the city began sending departments outside of downtown, they moved code enforcement to the Art Museum area, and expanded offices for services to the suburbs. Then under Brown, rightly so, they have moved people back downtown, with the empty space we are all paying for in City Hall and other buildings. Yes, there are still some services in the suburbs, not everyone wants to go to the same building for tax collecting. Rightly so there are options for driver's licenses too. Brown is on track with bringing government back downtown and the technology has allowed people to do more online too. I applaud his decisions to centralize operations, once again, after Peyton de-centralized them. No need for a half-empty city hall. We pay for the lights and AC even when no one is using the space!
This isn't really a thread on the pension crisis. This is a thread on saving the Bostwick Building. IMO, handing it over to some city employees or ancillaries is as nearsighted as you can get... My idea, handing it (or realistically, selling it!) over to something/someone different is the key for longterm organic growth and stability.
...Which is exactly what the present owners intend to do; *sell it*. It's not the place of the city government to "hand it over" to anybody, it's a privately owned piece of property. I mean, if the city doesn't like something you're choosing to do with something you own, do you think they can (or should be able to) decide to just give it to someone else?? All the city can do is compel the owner to either maintain it in a safe (code compliant) state or tear it down. In this case the owner apparently believes that the land would be more attractive to a potential buyer without a dilapidated structure on it, and has chosen to demolish it. It's completely within his rights to do so; HE OWNS IT.
I really don't understand how some of y'all view private property ownership rights.. If somebody wants to buy a piece of property and then for whatever reason allow it to fall into disrepair, it's their right to do so. Is it stupid for them to do so? Perhaps. Is it an ugly blight upon our downtown? Perhaps. Is it anybody's business besides the owner of the property? Nope.
(I mean, Jeez- if you don't wash your car regularly, should some governmental agency be able to give it to someone else with better car hygiene habits???? )
ITS PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY.
No one should be allowed to let a property deteriorate to the point that is is unsafe to even walk by it on the sidewalk. Neither is it alright to let a building deteriorate such that the surrounding property is devalued by it's poor condition. Nor is it alright to let a lawn or vacant lot become overgrown to the point that it is a breeding ground for snakes, vermin, etc.
Private property rights are not unlimited, just like any other right that we enjoy. The private property owner's rights ARE limited at the point at which OTHER's rights are impaired.
BTW, the city could not 'take' the Bostwick or any other building without paying fair market value.
Quote from: Pinky on August 20, 2012, 01:50:02 PM
Quote from: ben says on August 20, 2012, 12:43:23 PM
Quote from: mtraininjax on August 20, 2012, 11:03:23 AM
QuoteThe LAST thing (besides tearing it down) we need to do with this building is make it another piece of civic property. Police, fire, court, tax, federal, state, jail, SAO, public defender, city hall.....the majority of downtown is a civic center, filled with civic type businesses that revolve around downtown being a civic center (law offices...).
How shortsighted this vision is? We have a need to fix the Pension crisis, forget government if we cannot fix it, no one will be able to function in a government as more and more of our taxes go to fund pensions. Keane does NOT have to sell the building back to the city, he can sell it to the highest offer. He knows what he is doing, as with past sales.
Perhaps you have no idea that under Peyton, the city began sending departments outside of downtown, they moved code enforcement to the Art Museum area, and expanded offices for services to the suburbs. Then under Brown, rightly so, they have moved people back downtown, with the empty space we are all paying for in City Hall and other buildings. Yes, there are still some services in the suburbs, not everyone wants to go to the same building for tax collecting. Rightly so there are options for driver's licenses too. Brown is on track with bringing government back downtown and the technology has allowed people to do more online too. I applaud his decisions to centralize operations, once again, after Peyton de-centralized them. No need for a half-empty city hall. We pay for the lights and AC even when no one is using the space!
This isn't really a thread on the pension crisis. This is a thread on saving the Bostwick Building. IMO, handing it over to some city employees or ancillaries is as nearsighted as you can get... My idea, handing it (or realistically, selling it!) over to something/someone different is the key for longterm organic growth and stability.
...Which is exactly what the present owners intend to do; *sell it*. It's not the place of the city government to "hand it over" to anybody, it's a privately owned piece of property. I mean, if the city doesn't like something you're choosing to do with something you own, do you think they can (or should be able to) decide to just give it to someone else?? All the city can do is compel the owner to either maintain it in a safe (code compliant) state or tear it down. In this case the owner apparently believes that the land would be more attractive to a potential buyer without a dilapidated structure on it, and has chosen to demolish it. It's completely within his rights to do so; HE OWNS IT.
I really don't understand how some of y'all view private property ownership rights.. If somebody wants to buy a piece of property and then for whatever reason allow it to fall into disrepair, it's their right to do so. Is it stupid for them to do so? Perhaps. Is it an ugly blight upon our downtown? Perhaps. Is it anybody's business besides the owner of the property? Nope.
(I mean, Jeez- if you don't wash your car regularly, should some governmental agency be able to give it to someone else with better car hygiene habits???? )
ITS PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY.
Actually, it IS other people's business and CAN be taken. With the sweeping 2005 Kelo v. New London judgement, eminent domain can be used to take private property (single family homes) and be given to another private entity (Pfizer) on the basis of economic development (increased tax revenue, jobs, revitalization). SCOTUS found that "public purpose" constitutes "public use", in accordance with the 14th amendment.
Some of the more notable results have been in NYC, with eminent domain being used on (very arguably) blighted private properties for the construction of the Atlantic Yards project (high density mixed-use and a sports arena) in Brooklyn and the 6.8 million sf expansion of Columbia University in West Harlem.
Long story short, it would be very easy to envision a situation where Jax could utilize eminent domain to acquire the building. It would just require a compelling "public purpose" (redevelopment) rather than a "public use" (road or transit ROW).
^ Yup!
I was thinking that as well. Not sure how the City could go about it, unless someone steps up with a development plan.
Short of taking the property, the city could mothball it through Code Enforcement. This would protect it while the other moves are worked out.
^ That would be a First ever in the history of Jacksonville if that actually was pursued. The same thing can be said for Annie Lytle. It needed thousands (NOT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS) of work when it was purchased in 1980 from the School Board. It never got any basic maintenance work done and today it needs millions of dollars worth of work. Why? because its owner and subsequent owner did zero to maintain it. That is neglect any way you slice it. A home-owner would be fined (cite the endless number of cases in Springfield) but if you are a particular person in this City, YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH ANYTHING, Just as this owner is... MCCD steps in when it is obvious that it is crumbling , does their rolling fines routine, yada yada yada. same ol same ol same ol. If you think the City actually cares about the Bostwick building enough to stop a demolition, sadly.. you're mistaken. They have proven this countless times by leveling most of LaVilla, Brooklyn and Downtown.
I don't know how to stop this nonsense . I would gladly contribute to a fund to save the Bostwick Building AND help out to Mothball it if that became an actual allowable option. The owner does not want to do it , so it is not likely going to happen.
If Annie Lytle had not been designated a local landmark, I doubt anything would have stood in the way of it being demolished. Im sure the then, owner regrets deeply having done that.
If MCCD was worth their salt , they would prevent this kind of thing. A few thousand spent 20 years ago would have a Bostwick building in far better shape today. Annie Lytle's Saving grace is her very durable construction of very thick brick walls, poured , reinforced concrete Floors and Roof, otherwise it would never have stood with no maintenance in the last 50 years.
When we take out the Bostwick building, the replacement will be something far less interesting... most likely a vacant lot.
I would be shocked to breathless , if the City actually did something right for once and refused to let the building get leveled. Its not likely. (Citing Worman's Deli which no more needed to be demolished than my house does)
It is so disheartening, that the people left to make the choices for these places just do not care.
^ What we need is a legal-based, non profit organization that deals with exactly this subject. Staffed with qualified individuals who have the drive and desire to see places like Bostwick and Anne Little fixed and back to their former glory.
If I were: a) out of law school and b) had the funds to do something like this, I'd do it...
Hopefully these buildings can hold on just a bit longer
^ Agree... Although I doubt rescue will come in time for this one. :(
Bostwick Building owners seek City’s permission for demolitionSad - I wist that someone would find a creative & cost-effective way to preserve the exterior walls/facade.
QuoteWhat has long been rumored is now official: an application for a permit to demolish the Bostwick Building has been filed with the City.
The application was filed by the building’s owners, said Amy Harrell, Downtown Vision Inc. director of district services, Wednesday at the organization’s monthly board of directors meeting.
The building is old enough to be designated historic, but not legally protected as such.
Harrell said there is no longer a roof on the structure and City fines have accrued to the point that the owners wish to have the building removed from the site along East Bay Street at the foot of the Main Street Bridge.
Former City urban planner and Riverside Avondale Preservation coordinator Jennifer Hewett-Apperson was hired by DVI to replace Harrell, who is resigning effective Aug. 29. She said the permit application will be reviewed by the City’s Historic Preservation Commission, who will have 60 days to make a recommendation on the permit.
If the commission defers the issue and makes no recommendation before the deadline, there will be an additional 90-day period during which an application for the building’s designation as a historic landmark may be filed by the owner or another party, including the City.
“If it is torn down, we send a message that it’s OK to tear down historic buildings Downtown,†said DVI board member Oliver Barakat.
He suggested that DVI advocate for the preservation of the building.
“This is an entrance to Downtown. If it comes down and there’s silence, the message is history is not important Downtown,†Barakat said.
Former DVI board member Jim Bailey, the publisher of Financial News & Daily Record, attended the meeting. He said that even though Henry Klutho â€" the architect who designed many of Jacksonville’s historic buildings constructed after the Great Fire of 1901 â€" at one time had an office on the second floor of the building, it has deteriorated to a point preservation or repair would be extremely expensive.
“With no designated funding source it won’t matter, at some point it will become a hazard and end up in the street like the Center Theater,†Bailey said, referring to the razed, historic Downtown theater whose roof collapsed in 2002.
DVI Executive Director Terry Lorince said the organization will review the situation and likely will issue a position statement in regard to the demolition permit application.
In other news, the board voted to elect John Ream, principal of Connect Integrated Marketing, as a small property owner/tenant. Ream purchased a two-story building along East Bay Street and renovated it into an apartment and office space, where his marketing firm is located.
The board also voted to renew the terms of members Debbie Buckland, Mike Jennings, Dan King, Vince McCormack and Robert Arleigh White.
The DVI board of directors’ public meeting is scheduled at noon the fourth Wednesday of each month in the 23rd-floor conference room at SunTrust Tower.
mmarbut@baileypub.com
@drmaxdowntown
356-2466
http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/downtowntoday.php?dt_date=2012-08-23
(http://inlinethumb08.webshots.com/52039/2208852400104969885S600x600Q85.jpg)
Historic Ybor City macaroni factory preserved
Seems to me since the roof is apparently gone, we could salvage this plan by retaining the walls, within those walls we could place a garden, interactive fountain and a historic marker. Bottom line, the old building is preserved and it's windows and doors once again shed light on a cool destination interior. Add a hot dog cart and bada-bing, bada-biff, we have a new downtown destination.
(http://inlinethumb02.webshots.com/51585/2526225630104969885S600x600Q85.jpg)
(http://inlinethumb03.webshots.com/48834/2733226520104969885S600x600Q85.jpg)
(http://inlinethumb06.webshots.com/11205/2519579280104969885S600x600Q85.jpg)
Interactive fountains, and water screens in Medellin, Colombia, (made in Georgia)
Quote from: Ocklawaha on August 23, 2012, 06:54:16 PM
(http://inlinethumb08.webshots.com/52039/2208852400104969885S600x600Q85.jpg)
Historic Ybor City macaroni factory preserved
Seems to me since the roof is apparently gone, we could salvage this plan by retaining the walls, within those walls we could place a garden, interactive fountain and a historic marker. Bottom line, the old building is preserved and it's windows and doors once again shed light on a cool destination interior. Add a hot dog cart and bada-bing, bada-biff, we have a new downtown destination.
(http://inlinethumb02.webshots.com/51585/2526225630104969885S600x600Q85.jpg)
(http://inlinethumb03.webshots.com/48834/2733226520104969885S600x600Q85.jpg)
(http://inlinethumb06.webshots.com/11205/2519579280104969885S600x600Q85.jpg)
Interactive fountains, and water screens in Medellin, Colombia, (made in Georgia)
Umm - Two things:
One. That's "preserved"? It appears to be a derelict building, the roof of which has caved in, with some foliage growing inside. Furthermore, it looks like the walls are crumbling at some places as well. Am I misunderstanding something here?
Two. What's this "we" business??
The Bostwick Building has a private owner. There's no "we"; only "he", and "he" seems to want to tear
his building down.
A good example is the loft residence at 11th & Market in Springfield. The roof had caved in but the walls were sound. The exterior walls were kept, a new roof added and an interior constructed.
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-5652-11th-market.jpg)
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-3635-market-aerial.jpg)
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-3578-p1080239.JPG)
Paul Davis Restoration is essentially doing the same thing a block away at Liberty and 11th.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/1725110434_G7L5zfN-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/1725110550_2Ws5kJ5-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/1993524873_HsmDxb7-M.jpg)
exactly Lake.
What was the outcome of the HPC meeting yesterday?
If "HE" wants to expend the money to demo the building ( Or is that now on the taxpayer) then it should be taken by eminent domain.
I keep wanting to believe that the City will do the right thing.
But not holding my breath.
Quote from: Pinky on August 23, 2012, 08:42:57 PM
Umm - Two things:
One. That's "preserved"? It appears to be a derelict building, the roof of which has caved in, with some foliage growing inside. Furthermore, it looks like the walls are crumbling at some places as well. Am I misunderstanding something here?
Two. What's this "we" business?? The Bostwick Building has a private owner. There's no "we"; only "he", and "he" seems to want to tear his building down.
"WE" the taxpayers fund the salaries of the City. "WE" pay these bone heads to assess fines and liens on derelict buildings people like "HE" owns. If "HE" had maintained his building.. that is just the basics, like keeping a roof on his building , A. HE would most likely be able to sell the building to someone else who WILL do something with it other than demolish it, and B. "HE" wouldn't be applying to have it now ,bulldozed. That is, removed , forever from the city.
Just because someone owns a property does NOT give them the right to willfully neglect it to the point that it has to be demolished.
Again we sing the same old tune. If Jacksonville had 10 % of the historic building stock it once had, then losing this one small building might not be so bad. The fact is they have mindlessly razed so many buildings , many of them with no structural defect whatsoever and replaced them with a derelict lot, a slab of the former building, and a bunch of weeds and garbage. Now you can claim its his to do with as he pleases. I just love to hear this.. its so TYPICAL . But it is hindering to our very very few remaining pieces of history.
" HE " like many building owners , is negligent. "He" has let his building sit and rot and now wants to have it removed. We are supposed to have ordinances in place to prevent this from happening. I ll be damned if it doesn't any way, and folks like you , think its A-okay because "its his building" .
Amazingly sad. And even more sad, is "WE" the voting , taxpaying public, allows this shit to continue, and pay these idiots to continue taking buildings out. And people like you think its okay, because , after all, its not our building.
No , its not our building. But it is our heritage. Maybe you do not care about it. I very definitely do.
Quote from: Timkin on August 24, 2012, 12:51:56 AM
Quote from: Pinky on August 23, 2012, 08:42:57 PM
Umm - Two things:
One. That's "preserved"? It appears to be a derelict building, the roof of which has caved in, with some foliage growing inside. Furthermore, it looks like the walls are crumbling at some places as well. Am I misunderstanding something here?
Two. What's this "we" business?? The Bostwick Building has a private owner. There's no "we"; only "he", and "he" seems to want to tear his building down.
"WE" the taxpayers fund the salaries of the City. "WE" pay these bone heads to assess fines and liens on derelict buildings people like "HE" owns. If "HE" had maintained his building.. that is just the basics, like keeping a roof on his building , A. HE would most likely be able to sell the building to someone else who WILL do something with it other than demolish it, and B. "HE" wouldn't be applying to have it now ,bulldozed. That is, removed , forever from the city.
Just because someone owns a property does NOT give them the right to willfully neglect it to the point that it has to be demolished.
Again we sing the same old tune. If Jacksonville had 10 % of the historic building stock it once had, then losing this one small building might not be so bad. The fact is they have mindlessly razed so many buildings , many of them with no structural defect whatsoever and replaced them with a derelict lot, a slab of the former building, and a bunch of weeds and garbage. Now you can claim its his to do with as he pleases. I just love to hear this.. its so TYPICAL . But it is hindering to our very very few remaining pieces of history.
" HE " like many building owners , is negligent. "He" has let his building sit and rot and now wants to have it removed. We are supposed to have ordinances in place to prevent this from happening. I ll be damned if it doesn't any way, and folks like you , think its A-okay because "its his building" .
Amazingly sad. And even more sad, is "WE" the voting , taxpaying public, allows this shit to continue, and pay these idiots to continue taking buildings out. And people like you think its okay, because , after all, its not our building.
No , its not our building. But it is our heritage. Maybe you do not care about it. I very definitely do.
If you care so much then why not buy the building and fix it up? Did not think so, so shut up.
Several groups had looked into trying to buy the building and fix it up over the years. Unfortunately, the family wants a price that makes fixing up (what they let fall a part over the years) financially unfeasible. If it goes, the lot will sit empty and overgrown because of the same reason. Unrealistic expectations that have nothing to do with actual market value.
Quote from: aubureck on August 23, 2012, 11:05:40 PM
What was the outcome of the HPC meeting yesterday?
They deferred a decision to the September meeting to buy some time. The owner's presentation about the history of this site and building with his family led at least one commissioner to comment that he had made the case for why the building should be saved. The owner now claims to "only" be asking the assessed value for sale of the building. An interesting factoid is that the first building permit issued after the Great Fire in 1901 was for the construction of this building.
Someone should try to convince Shad Khan to buy this place.... it's pretty much a billboard for his team as it is!
What is the assessed value of the building?
Quote from: thelakelander on August 24, 2012, 06:35:26 AM
Several groups had looked into trying to buy the building and fix it up over the years. Unfortunately, the family wants a price that makes fixing up (what they let fall a part over the years) financially unfeasible. If it goes, the lot will sit empty and overgrown because of the same reason. Unrealistic expectations that have nothing to do with actual market value.
I know they were asking a lot before, but aren't they asking for only $200k for the property now? Obviously it will cost a fortune to repair, plus there are the looming daily fines, but still.
I'm not sure what they are asking for now. It's been five years since a development group I was helping of was interesting in it.
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2007-oct-inside-the-bostwick-building
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-2645-p1040958.JPG)
At that point, they wanted a ton of money for it and there was only so much you could do to generate enough return to make it a feasible redevelopment project, given the amount of work that had to go into it.
Quote from: Pinky on August 23, 2012, 08:42:57 PM
Umm - Two things:
One. That's "preserved"? It appears to be a derelict building, the roof of which has caved in, with some foliage growing inside. Furthermore, it looks like the walls are crumbling at some places as well. Am I misunderstanding something here?
The building in the image has indeed been preserved, I posted the photo thinking that a connection would be made between the state of a 'roofless' Bostwick Building. The one in the photo has seen a total restoration.
QuoteTwo. What's this "we" business?? The Bostwick Building has a private owner. There's no "we"; only "he", and "he" seems to want to tear his building down.
The 'we' should be pretty easy to figure out IF this were made into a pocket-park with walls and fountains. 'WE' as in the city obtains the property and improves it without any more destruction.
Hope that helps.
QuoteQuote from: bill on August 24, 2012, 01:24:54 AM
I ll be damned if it doesn't any way, and folks like you , think its A-okay because "its his building" .
Amazingly sad. And even more sad, is "WE" the voting , taxpaying public, allows this shit to continue, and pay these idiots to continue taking buildings out. And people like you think its okay, because , after all, its not our building.
No , its not our building. But it is our heritage. Maybe you do not care about it. I very definitely do.
If you care so much then why not buy the building and fix it up? Did not think so, so shut up.
Easy there boys and girls, this is obviously a subject that strikes some emotional cords, but there is no need to consume each other as we discuss mutually agreeable solutions.
The last advertised price I saw was $225k. I understand that at least one cash offer has been made this year in the mid $100ks, and apparently declined, given that the owners are again pursuing demolition. Unless a white knight emerges that is willing & able to pay too much for the building just for the sake of saving it, I'm afraid this may be a lost cause.
Well guys if I had the money I would buy it and work with PSOS to mothball it.
Quote from: bill on August 24, 2012, 01:24:54 AM
Quote from: Timkin on August 24, 2012, 12:51:56 AM
Quote from: Pinky on August 23, 2012, 08:42:57 PM
Umm - Two things:
One. That's "preserved"? It appears to be a derelict building, the roof of which has caved in, with some foliage growing inside. Furthermore, it looks like the walls are crumbling at some places as well. Am I misunderstanding something here?
Two. What's this "we" business?? The Bostwick Building has a private owner. There's no "we"; only "he", and "he" seems to want to tear his building down.
"WE" the taxpayers fund the salaries of the City. "WE" pay these bone heads to assess fines and liens on derelict buildings people like "HE" owns. If "HE" had maintained his building.. that is just the basics, like keeping a roof on his building , A. HE would most likely be able to sell the building to someone else who WILL do something with it other than demolish it, and B. "HE" wouldn't be applying to have it now ,bulldozed. That is, removed , forever from the city.
Just because someone owns a property does NOT give them the right to willfully neglect it to the point that it has to be demolished.
Again we sing the same old tune. If Jacksonville had 10 % of the historic building stock it once had, then losing this one small building might not be so bad. The fact is they have mindlessly razed so many buildings , many of them with no structural defect whatsoever and replaced them with a derelict lot, a slab of the former building, and a bunch of weeds and garbage. Now you can claim its his to do with as he pleases. I just love to hear this.. its so TYPICAL . But it is hindering to our very very few remaining pieces of history.
" HE " like many building owners , is negligent. "He" has let his building sit and rot and now wants to have it removed. We are supposed to have ordinances in place to prevent this from happening. I ll be damned if it doesn't any way, and folks like you , think its A-okay because "its his building" .
Amazingly sad. And even more sad, is "WE" the voting , taxpaying public, allows this shit to continue, and pay these idiots to continue taking buildings out. And people like you think its okay, because , after all, its not our building.
No , its not our building. But it is our heritage. Maybe you do not care about it. I very definitely do.
If you care so much then why not buy the building and fix it up? Did not think so, so shut up.
LMAO.. That is a classy suggestion, Bill .. NO I WON'T Shut up. What I have said is the truth .. if you don't like that, sorry but I won't shut up.
Quote from: fsujax on August 24, 2012, 09:57:40 AM
Well guys if I had the money I would buy it and work with PSOS to mothball it.
Love this guy!!
Quote from: Timkin on August 24, 2012, 07:43:12 PM
Quote from: bill on August 24, 2012, 01:24:54 AM
Quote from: Timkin on August 24, 2012, 12:51:56 AM
Quote from: Pinky on August 23, 2012, 08:42:57 PM
Umm - Two things:
One. That's "preserved"? It appears to be a derelict building, the roof of which has caved in, with some foliage growing inside. Furthermore, it looks like the walls are crumbling at some places as well. Am I misunderstanding something here?
Two. What's this "we" business?? The Bostwick Building has a private owner. There's no "we"; only "he", and "he" seems to want to tear his building down.
"WE" the taxpayers fund the salaries of the City. "WE" pay these bone heads to assess fines and liens on derelict buildings people like "HE" owns. If "HE" had maintained his building.. that is just the basics, like keeping a roof on his building , A. HE would most likely be able to sell the building to someone else who WILL do something with it other than demolish it, and B. "HE" wouldn't be applying to have it now ,bulldozed. That is, removed , forever from the city.
Just because someone owns a property does NOT give them the right to willfully neglect it to the point that it has to be demolished.
Again we sing the same old tune. If Jacksonville had 10 % of the historic building stock it once had, then losing this one small building might not be so bad. The fact is they have mindlessly razed so many buildings , many of them with no structural defect whatsoever and replaced them with a derelict lot, a slab of the former building, and a bunch of weeds and garbage. Now you can claim its his to do with as he pleases. I just love to hear this.. its so TYPICAL . But it is hindering to our very very few remaining pieces of history.
" HE " like many building owners , is negligent. "He" has let his building sit and rot and now wants to have it removed. We are supposed to have ordinances in place to prevent this from happening. I ll be damned if it doesn't any way, and folks like you , think its A-okay because "its his building" .
Amazingly sad. And even more sad, is "WE" the voting , taxpaying public, allows this shit to continue, and pay these idiots to continue taking buildings out. And people like you think its okay, because , after all, its not our building.
No , its not our building. But it is our heritage. Maybe you do not care about it. I very definitely do.
If you care so much then why not buy the building and fix it up? Did not think so, so shut up.
LMAO.. That is a classy suggestion, Bill .. NO I WON'T Shut up. What I have said is the truth .. if you don't like that, sorry but I won't shut up.
It does not matter if you care or not. You either have the money to do it and you have not purchased it or you want to sit around and talk about what we should spend other people's money on. Either way shut up and do it or shut up and and stop whining. My guess is you can and will do neither.
Quote from: bill on August 24, 2012, 08:40:08 PM
Quote from: Timkin on August 24, 2012, 07:43:12 PM
Quote from: bill on August 24, 2012, 01:24:54 AM
Quote from: Timkin on August 24, 2012, 12:51:56 AM
Quote from: Pinky on August 23, 2012, 08:42:57 PM
Umm - Two things:
One. That's "preserved"? It appears to be a derelict building, the roof of which has caved in, with some foliage growing inside. Furthermore, it looks like the walls are crumbling at some places as well. Am I misunderstanding something here?
Two. What's this "we" business?? The Bostwick Building has a private owner. There's no "we"; only "he", and "he" seems to want to tear his building down.
"WE" the taxpayers fund the salaries of the City. "WE" pay these bone heads to assess fines and liens on derelict buildings people like "HE" owns. If "HE" had maintained his building.. that is just the basics, like keeping a roof on his building , A. HE would most likely be able to sell the building to someone else who WILL do something with it other than demolish it, and B. "HE" wouldn't be applying to have it now ,bulldozed. That is, removed , forever from the city.
Just because someone owns a property does NOT give them the right to willfully neglect it to the point that it has to be demolished.
Again we sing the same old tune. If Jacksonville had 10 % of the historic building stock it once had, then losing this one small building might not be so bad. The fact is they have mindlessly razed so many buildings , many of them with no structural defect whatsoever and replaced them with a derelict lot, a slab of the former building, and a bunch of weeds and garbage. Now you can claim its his to do with as he pleases. I just love to hear this.. its so TYPICAL . But it is hindering to our very very few remaining pieces of history.
" HE " like many building owners , is negligent. "He" has let his building sit and rot and now wants to have it removed. We are supposed to have ordinances in place to prevent this from happening. I ll be damned if it doesn't any way, and folks like you , think its A-okay because "its his building" .
Amazingly sad. And even more sad, is "WE" the voting , taxpaying public, allows this shit to continue, and pay these idiots to continue taking buildings out. And people like you think its okay, because , after all, its not our building.
No , its not our building. But it is our heritage. Maybe you do not care about it. I very definitely do.
If you care so much then why not buy the building and fix it up? Did not think so, so shut up.
LMAO.. That is a classy suggestion, Bill .. NO I WON'T Shut up. What I have said is the truth .. if you don't like that, sorry but I won't shut up.
It does not matter if you care or not. You either have the money to do it and you have not purchased it or you want to sit around and talk about what we should spend other people's money on. Either way shut up and do it or shut up and and stop whining. My guess is you can and will do neither.
Is your post supposed to have some merit? Because all you seem to be doing is telling me to shut up. I suppose you are among those that would see the place demolished. You're entitled to your opinion.
But you sound like a 6 year old telling me or anyone else to shut up. You do realize when the City razes buildings (not saying they are razing this one ) you help pay that.
To be upfront , I don't have the money .. I would gladly chip in to, however , a cause to help mothball the building , as some other organizations do, and myself and my volunteer crew do on another landmark that someone else owns.
What are you doing to help , other than thinking you're helping by telling me to be silent. ? Are you an owner/moderator of the forum?
I'm not about to shut up Bill, but you can keep telling me to do so.
Bill, I'm with Timkin on this one. Just think, there are 19 people deciding what to do with other peoples money in this town and, they are collecting a salary to do it and, people like Timkin and you, if you vote, put them in the position to spend other peoples money.
It's also people like Timkin and me and other individuals who one at a time, one after another, influence how the 19 people spend other peoples money. Timkin, by himself, or me, by myself and you, by yourself, certainly do not have the financial wherewithall to purchase and renovate any historically relevant structure, but, if enough of us open our mouths, present sound arguments, and show by deed if not by hard cash, that there is a compelling reason for those 19 people to spend other peoples money on a project, it can and will get done.
Also, if said compelling arguments and non-monetary deeds and a proliferation of like minded individuals can persuade those 19 people to spend other peoples money then it is entirely feasable that a private deep pocket could jump on the bandwagon, too.
Timkin, with limited resources but unlimited enthusiasm, has for the past six years worked tirelessly to save one of the ten most endangered historic buildings in Jacksonville. He has inspired others to work with him and countless gallons of sweat later, this small group has removed tons of vegetation and debris from around the building.
He constantly raises the profile of the building in the community to try to get it returned to use.
You DO NOT question the fitness of someone like TIm to comment on saving historic buildings.
Tim is truly an inspiration. He is preservation with gloves and sweat.
+1
+1000 ABSOLUTELY! Timkin is strictly 'top shelf.'
Perhaps I hear the rumbling of a new NON-PROFIT here Timkin? I believe it could be done, then we could lobby for that entertainment/mall/TOD with the Skyway connecting it. Let me know folks, send in a PM.
Timkin RULES!!
QuoteTimkin, by himself, or me, by myself and you, by yourself, certainly do not have the financial wherewithall to purchase and renovate any historically relevant structure, but, if enough of us open our mouths, present sound arguments, and show by deed if not by hard cash, that there is a compelling reason for those 19 people to spend other peoples money on a project, it can and will get done.
Yeah that worked so well for the Human Rights bill. Unfortunately the "good ideas" notion and working the system sometimes requires more than Human Capital to grease the squeaky wheel. In this case, money talks and BS walks.
Every building that is vacant is just a paperclip, staple and Code Enforcement letter away from the wrecking ball, unless the almighty dollar shows up to save it. No other way around it, in Jax.
^ Right you are, M-train... I guess.
Not sure how the Human Rights Bill and saving historic buildings equate in the same sentence, except that most of our illustrious bigoted City Council who claim Christianity, still think it is okay to be bigots and deny rights to a certain sector of the population BECAUSE that group does not fit their criteria.
You're spot on about the buildings though. It will take money , obviously to do that. But I still find it amazing that our City seems to have train car loads (No pun intended, Ock) of money to expend , at will , turning buildings into rubble, but mysteriously, NONE to help save them. Its not their money, its ours. We should be directing how it is spent.
As to the human rights bill, it became painfully apparent to me that THIS panel will never allow it. So the answer is to get those people out, and put people in who WILL . Probably would go a long ways towards solving BOTH problems.
I'm not one who thinks Mr. Kahn should be expected to buy all our neglected buildings downtown and fix them up. In fact, I think that's a silly suggestion. Really? Just because he has potloads of money, we should put our hands in his pocket?
That said, the building should be saved and restored, or repurposed. Like they did the Florida Theatre, the Dyal Upchurch Building, and like Eddie Farrah law firm did their building. Oh, and the old Carnegie Library Building at Ocean and Adams, now a law firm. And Central Fire Station. Need I go on?
This building is on tonight's HPC agenda. Today would be a great day to email your support.
McEachin, Joel
MCEACHIN@coj.net
Email on it's way to Joel. Who's next?
Demolition was denied
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-09-25/story/jacksonville-council-reduces-clerk-courts-budget-over-bonuses (http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-09-25/story/jacksonville-council-reduces-clerk-courts-budget-over-bonuses)
http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2012/09/26/permit-to-demolish-bostwick-building.html (http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2012/09/26/permit-to-demolish-bostwick-building.html)
The correct times-union article is here:
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-09-26/story/demolition-request-denied-jacksonvilles-jaguar-building
This is good news since it's such a prime location, I would hate to see a parking lot every time I come over the bridge.
I have to say, I am stunned, but pleased to hear this. I thought for sure this one would go with no landmark designation in place.
I hope this is a sign of things to come for the future of our remaining historic buildings.
Where there is a will there is always a way.
Hopefully the owner will be exonerated from the red tape fines sooner than later, esp if it's in the city's best interest to preserve the building.
I can't feel sorry for this owner. It's essentially their fault the building is in the condition it's in. This is a textbook case of demolition by neglect.
It is interesting reading the comments over at Jacksonville.com. Most have the traditional, it's my building, I'll do what I want with it stance. All well and good, except that what happens to your building effects your neighbors. And in the case of a Historical building, the entire city.
Yes, the owners of this building had an opportunity to do the right thing long ago and fix a roof issue. They did not and now we have a badly deteriorated building. MCCD could have helped this building and therefore the city as a whole by fixing the roof long ago, but they did not and so we have a badly deteriorated building. Both the owner's neglect and the bad polices of MCCD are to blame here.
Until the public and the city recognizes that hindering people with fines and harassment hurts us all will things get better. Only by recognizing that it is not the owner of a neglected building we are helping, it is the city as a whole, will things change.
The actions being taken now for the Bostwich, though perhaps a bit late in happening, are certainly a great first step in the changes needed to how the city thinks about it's important building stock.
Hooray!!!
Great news. Now we have to work on City Council.
"Interesting" is not the word I'd use to describe any comments on Jacksonville.com.
Quote from: thelakelander on September 27, 2012, 06:32:09 AM
I can't feel sorry for this owner. It's essentially their fault the building is in the condition it's in. This is a textbook case of demolition by neglect.
Me neither, but Strider is right, if Code was trying to get them to repair the building by fining them, it clearly didn't work. It just made them want to finish the job their neglect started.
At any rate, this was a good decision, and hopefully a positive result will follow. Even if the entire inside has to be replaced, there's still plenty that can be done with those walls.
I agree.
Quote from: thelakelander on September 27, 2012, 06:32:09 AM
I can't feel sorry for this owner. It's essentially their fault the building is in the condition it's in. This is a textbook case of demolition by neglect.
This Building, School Four , many others. Demolition by neglect posterchildren :(
photos:
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/photo-gallery.aspx?storyid=275853
The Bostwick building is one step closer to landmark status. The Historic Planning Commissioners determined that the landmark application was complete and put the matter on November 13th's agenda.
wonderful
YaY!!!!!
Excellent. What else can we do to help?
Is it possible to safely shore the building and put a temporary roof system on it, so as to prevent further decay or is the interior features completely non savable?
As this building is VERY HISTORIC and has a great meaning to Jacksonville history, I still hope for a municipal solution. I'd like to see the roof and debris removed, the walls reenforced, and dramatic lighting, seating and perhaps a fountain as the building becomes Bostwick Pocket Park and Historical Site. At night a couple of bright searchlight type beams could play in the sky above the building.
Here are a couple of examples.
(http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa111/Ocklawaha/FLORIDA%20Jacksonville/ScreenShot2012-10-25at103936PM.png)
Christ Church Greyfriars in London, today it still stands as a burnt out shell a reminder of the German Blitz, commonly known locally as "the bombed- out church", and its churchyard is a public park.
(http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa111/Ocklawaha/FLORIDA%20Jacksonville/ScreenShot2012-10-25at104027PM.png)
Renderings of the Bethel Church Park planned for Houston, TX.
(http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa111/Ocklawaha/FLORIDA%20Jacksonville/ScreenShot2012-10-25at104053PM.png)
(http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa111/Ocklawaha/FLORIDA%20Jacksonville/ScreenShot2012-10-25at104117PM.png)
(http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa111/Ocklawaha/FLORIDA%20Jacksonville/ScreenShot2012-10-25at104713PM.png)
(http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa111/Ocklawaha/FLORIDA%20Jacksonville/ScreenShot2012-10-25at104805PM.png)
(http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa111/Ocklawaha/FLORIDA%20Jacksonville/ScreenShot2012-10-25at104830PM.png)
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-EsJ7f5CDV6w/TUXxM97k8zI/AAAAAAAAFD0/2jP2XpomeM8/s640/DSCN2312.JPG)
A similar treatment was used on the burned out remains of the original Jacksonville Terminal which today forms an outside wall to the Prime Osborn's 'courtyard.'
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-PSlTvyeOw8o/TUXw7WYTMoI/AAAAAAAAFD0/wEDY2kslw5g/s640/DSCN2311.JPG)
(http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa111/Ocklawaha/FLORIDA%20Jacksonville/ScreenShot2012-10-25at110833PM.png)
Lastly add a Laser Vision Water Screen and a pirate or two, right in the center of the old building and you'd have a instant evening attraction. It could easily anchor the west end of the Bay Street entertainment districts night life.
Hey Ock - that top picture is actually Christ Church Greyfriars in London. It's right around the corner from my office.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_Church_Greyfriars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_Church_Greyfriars)
I remember the first time I visited the Prime Osborne convention center (probably in 1986) for a computer trade show. I thought it was the coolest place in the world. I met up with a few of my high school friends in the court yard area after getting dropped of by my parents.
Thanks for the heads-up, I corrected my post.
Jacksonville downtown authority urges city to prevent demolition of historic Bostwick BuildingQuoteThe nine-member authority approved a resolution calling on the city to acquire the Bostwick Building if necessary to ensure it’s not torn down.
Board member Don Shea said the city could stabilize the roof and then designate the authority as the agency in charge of finding a user for the long-vacant structure.
“If the DIA shirks away from this, we’re not doing our duty,†Shea said after the meeting. “We can certainly elevate the discussion.â€
full article: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-10-30/story/jacksonville-downtown-authority-urges-city-prevent-demolition-historic
Awesome news.
Several DIA members also mentioned that they didn't want to see the benches, chairs, and tables removed from Hemming.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 31, 2012, 07:46:01 AM
Several DIA members also mentioned that they didn't want to see the benches, chairs, and tables removed from Hemming.
Hopefully they will speak up.
And soon.
If the city goes through with this, it will be the first time I have ever seen it act proactively to preserve a historic structure. I think we may finally be turning the corner, what a welcome step.
^The city has done similar things before, they bought the Snyder Memorial Church and the Laura Street Trio, and of course they adapted the St. James Building. The Trio is in bad shape, but they wouldn't be there at all if the city hadn't bought them. In fact, that would probably be the thing to do here: buy it, shore it up, and then sell it to someone who can put it to a use and finish the work.
The city wound up with the trio by default as the result of bad investments by its pension plan, and was later forced to take them back a second time when Kuhn went bust. It had nothing to do with preservation, as shown by the fact that they've allowed the nearly complete destruction by neglect of two of the three buildings. The snyder memorial I think they got for $1 when the church moved out, and they've let it go to rot with insufficient maintenance for 20 years. They're really talking about something entirely different with this, if they're actually willing to fix the roof and do even basic preservation work. Not just the 'well it's free, so we'll take it, but we're not spending a dime on it' attitude they usually have. Obviously I wasn't saying the city doesn't own property, just that this seems to be a signifcant change in their M.O.
The Bostwick building landmark application is being heard on Tuesday at Tuesday's HPC meeting (special meeting due to the holiday).
This session is open for public comments.
At the end of this session, the application will go before the city council.
What time/location is the HPC meeting tomorrow?
It usually begins at 3:00, bornnative, but then it's usually on Wednesday. Hopefully sheclown will see your post in time to respond.
Where is it normally? This would be my first meeting in personal attendance.
Ed Ball Building on Hogan. 8th floor.
In case anyone missed it, here's a N4J vid about the Bostwick below. This building is in really bad shape and it will cost a lot of money to repair, all that I can say is good luck. I don't like the idea of going with an "empty shell facade" just for the sake of it, a building should be exactly that, a building complete with a roof; Hell, even the facade/foundation needs repair work.
www.news4jax.com/news/Future-of-Jaguar-building-uncertain/-/475880/17334844/-/ss2sulz/-/index.html
It looks to be in better shape than 11th & Market in Springfield a few years back. 11th & Market ended up being restored into 4 residential lofts. The original developer basically kept the four exterior walls and rebuilt a new structure and roof within it. So they ended up with a vitually new building that included nearly 100 year old brick exterior walls and unique detailing. It's now a big one residence loft with a swimming pool/courtyard in the rear. The same style of structural reuse could happen to the Bostwick, which would be better than having a LaVilla-style grass and trash filled building foundation on a gateway Northbank corner.
Quote from: thelakelander on November 13, 2012, 06:51:41 AM
It looks to be in better shape than 11th & Market in Springfield a few years back. 11th & Market ended up being restored into 4 residential lofts. The original developer basically kept the four exterior walls and rebuilt a new structure and roof within it. So they ended up with a vitually new building that included nearly 100 year old brick exterior walls and unique detailing. It's now a big one residence loft with a swimming pool/courtyard in the rear. The same style of structural reuse could happen to the Bostwick, which would be better than having a LaVilla-style grass and trash filled building foundation on a gateway Northbank corner.
well said.
where there is a will there is a way!
I just returned from the HPC meeting. (Oddly enough, it is only 5:00)
Joel gave a presentation the gist of which is that the Bostwick building meets 6 out of the 7 criteria needed to be landmarked.
The seven criteria (which will be of great importance when this hits city council) are:
1.) Its value as a symbol of Jacksonville's heritage
2.) Its connection to an important Jacksonville person
3.) Its identity as the product of a master builder, designer or architect
4.) Its quality of architecture and the remaining elements are significant
5.) Its elements are important as a reflection of a period, method of construction, or indigenous materials
6.) Its suitability for preservation or restoration
7.) An important event occurred in the building-- did not meet this criteria
Val and Karl Bostwick both spoke to this application. Their objections are as follows:
1.) They weren't properly noticed. The staff sent the package to their PO Box which they didn't check and only got the email version today.
2.) This is a property rights issue and the HPC has no say in this matter past the vote on the demolition.
3.) They handed out a letter from a lawyer which called for a "cease and desist"
4.) They asked for a deferral
5.) They said the city is trying to "pad" the record and they called out Jason Teal.
6.) Said the building has been there for 103 years why hasn't the city tried to landmark it before.
7.) Said they don't have the funds to fix it up and the city is putting them in an impossible situation.
Jason Teal answered them as follows:
1.) Staff sent the package to the address they provided to the city and they have been receiving mail there for decades. And time is of the essence in this matter.
2.) According to the code, the city only needs to prove that the building meets the criteria in order to landmark the building. In order for landmark status, a building has to prove 2 out of the 7 criteria were met. If an owner objects, then the building has to meet 4 out of the 7 criteria. HPC feels that 6 out of the 7 criteria are met.
3.) Jason said that the letter from the lawyer to "cease and desist" is merely a written objection.
4.) The deferral is difficult because of the time issue involved.
5.) Said that city started the landmark status after the family put in the application for demolition as a method of preserving the building.
Downtown Vision, Urban Core CPAC and SPAR all spoke on behalf of preserving the building.
Its fate now moves to LUZ and full council.
When I left, press was interviewing the Bostwicks.
Landmark status recommended for Jacksonville's 'jaguar building' (http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-11-13/story/landmark-status-recommended-jacksonvilles-jaguar-building)
Jacksonville’s Historic Preservation Commission recommended landmark status for the Bostwick Building at Bay and Ocean streets on Tuesday despite strenuous objections from the family that has owned it for 110 years.
The commission’s unanimous recommendation means the future of the well-known “jaguar building†is now in the City Council’s hands.
City historic planner Joel McEachin said the former home to multiple banks and one famous architect long before its boarded-up windows got the jaguar treatment in the 1990s is a rarity. Not many historic downtown structures have survived, and most never hit six of the seven criteria for historic designation.
“The building has most of its exterior fabric and it is in a prominent location to make proper rehabilitation worthy,†McEachin told the four-member commission. “The exterior walls are in good enough condition to be preserved and incorporated as part of the overall preservation.â€
While he agrees with the historic potential, owner representative Val Bostwick Jr. said months of $100-a-day city fines over its deteriorated state and no one interested in buying it forced them to request a demolition permit.
If the city had stopped the fine while the historic review occurred, there might have been “some breathing room†to find a buyer, he said. So he had to file a cease-and-desist request Tuesday with the commission to seek relief from the mounting fines.
“It is a matter of property rights, whether this ownership or a future ownership may wish to have the building designated as an historic landmark,†Bostwick said. “They are superseding the owner’s rights and we have asked that they cease and desist. Obviously that was not the case and we will go before the City Council.â€
The First National Bank of Florida opened at the site in 1880 but was destroyed by the Great Fire of 1901. Architect J.H.W. Hawkins designed the 1902 replacement, taken over a year later by the Guaranty and Trust Savings Bank. The building was expanded in 1919, taken over by another bank in 1921 and closed in 1929. It became offices, one occupied by renowned architect Henry Klutho.
What makes the building historically valuable is that its original look and structure have survived, McEachin said. And while part of its second floor is gone, some of the roof has collapsed and cracks mar its exterior, it shouldn’t take much to reinforce it, he said. It could even be stabilized and “mothballed†until a new owner could restore it.
The building is also “very important†to the city, Downtown Vision district services director Jennifer Hewett-Apperson told the commission.
“The idea of this building goes beyond the simple monetary value to the owner because it is situated at one of the primary gateways to downtown,†she said. “... This is a very important building to the city and goes beyond the simple owner’s desire to demolish the property.â€
Historic designation would make the building eligible for funding for rehabilitation.
The City Council will hear Bostwick’s appeal of the demolition denial with the landmark status request. No date has been set for a public hearing.
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-11-13/story/landmark-status-recommended-jacksonvilles-jaguar-building (http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-11-13/story/landmark-status-recommended-jacksonvilles-jaguar-building)
Two thumbs up. Let the coffee shops and art galleries start opening once and for all!
http://www.news4jax.com/news/Bostwick-building-designated-city-landmark/-/475880/17401646/-/fca0j/-/index.html
Read the comments on that article to find out why so many buildings have been lost in Jacksonville. These are the people who vote.
Quote from: coredumped on November 14, 2012, 10:57:50 PM
http://www.news4jax.com/news/Bostwick-building-designated-city-landmark/-/475880/17401646/-/fca0j/-/index.html
Read the comments on that article to find out why so many buildings have been lost in Jacksonville. These are the people who vote.
Everyone has an opinion. :) I am personally, glad the building gets local designation. Maybe the City is finally getting it that we must save these places. This is a good first step.
It is so easy for people to criticize , yet they would not lift a finger, on a bet, to help. One of the comments " The City should buy it" is rather amusing. I guess the poster thinks city funding rains from the sky or something ;)
Such a shame.
In Tampa, the Hotel Floridan stood abandoned and falling apart for almost 30 years. Earlier this year it re-opened as the Floridan Palace Hotel, after a multi year and multimillion dollar restoration.
The Hotel Floridan was 19 floors and falling apart. The Bostwick is only 2 floors, and a much smaller space. If the Hotel Floridan can be brought back from the dead, so too can the Bostwick.
In St. Petersburg, the Vinoy Park Hotel also stood abandoned, boarded up, and falling apart. Today its part of the Renaissance Vinoy Resort. Again, if the Vinoy can be brought back from the dead, so too can the Bostwick.
Not to get off topic too much, but Jacksonville had the Hotel Mayflower, Hotel George Washington, and Hotel Robert Meyer - to name a few. Rather than bringing them back from the dead, we all know they were thoughtlessly demolished.
Any more neglect and the Bostwick will demolish itself.
Quote from: BackinJax05 on November 16, 2012, 05:00:04 PM
Such a shame.
In Tampa, the Hotel Floridan stood abandoned and falling apart for almost 30 years. Earlier this year it re-opened as the Floridan Palace Hotel, after a multi year and multimillion dollar restoration.
The Hotel Floridan was 19 floors and falling apart. The Bostwick is only 2 floors, and a much smaller space. If the Hotel Floridan can be brought back from the dead, so too can the Bostwick.
In St. Petersburg, the Vinoy Park Hotel also stood abandoned, boarded up, and falling apart. Today its part of the Renaissance Vinoy Resort. Again, if the Vinoy can be brought back from the dead, so too can the Bostwick.
Not to get off topic too much, but Jacksonville had the Hotel Mayflower, Hotel George Washington, and Hotel Robert Meyer - to name a few. Rather than bringing them back from the dead, we all know they were thoughtlessly demolished.
Any more neglect and the Bostwick will demolish itself.
^^ Could not agree more with this post. It is because places like the grand hotels mentioned, are no longer, not to mention countless other buildings, whole communities of historic Jacksonville gone. forever.
Yet the mentality (for the most part) remains. We can't save them all. That could not be more true. Fact is, we haven't saved even a fraction of what once was. So many incredible different examples of architecture was razed, for what? a vacant lot with the slab remains.
I don't have answers to saving these places. I do what I can do , and encourage those of you who care, to do the same. At the end of the day, we did what we can do to save these places.
My mentality is here in the present, and not dwelling on the past. The torn down buildings has been talked about countless times already. It's not like Jax is some unique case when it comes to cities razing downtown buildings in the 70's and 80's era. Even when the city try to make progressive steps with the Bostwick (since no one has a time machine) it's already a lost cause with some...
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on November 17, 2012, 10:12:37 AM
Quote from: I-10east on November 17, 2012, 09:58:56 AM
My mentality is here in the present, and not dwelling on the past. The torn down buildings has been talked about countless times already. It's not like Jax is some unique case when it comes to cities razing downtown buildings in the 70's and 80's era. Even when the city try to make progressive steps with the Bostwick (since no one has a time machine) it's already a lost cause with some...
It is a lost cause but the people that have jars of fairy dust believe everything is worth saving in Jacksonville. ::)
Jumping into a discussion for the purpose of attention is a sign of a needy person, insulting those who are actually trying to make things happen is the work of a troll.
Quote from: I-10east on November 17, 2012, 09:58:56 AM
My mentality is here in the present, and not dwelling on the past. The torn down buildings has been talked about countless times already. It's not like Jax is some unique case when it comes to cities razing downtown buildings in the 70's and 80's era. Even when the city try to make progressive steps with the Bostwick (since no one has a time machine) it's already a lost cause with some...
Jacksonville is really quite unique when one factors the amount of demolition that has happened to the core of the City. The area that was La Villa is just that. WAS. Brooklyn is very similar.
I live in the present as well.... merely trying to help save bits and pieces of our past, that clearly do not matter to many. So be it. I don't apologize if some have a problem with those that try to hold on to little bits of our historic fabric.
I intend to continue :)
Quote from: Timkin on November 17, 2012, 12:29:14 AM
Quote from: BackinJax05 on November 16, 2012, 05:00:04 PM
Such a shame.
In Tampa, the Hotel Floridan stood abandoned and falling apart for almost 30 years. Earlier this year it re-opened as the Floridan Palace Hotel, after a multi year and multimillion dollar restoration.
The Hotel Floridan was 19 floors and falling apart. The Bostwick is only 2 floors, and a much smaller space. If the Hotel Floridan can be brought back from the dead, so too can the Bostwick.
In St. Petersburg, the Vinoy Park Hotel also stood abandoned, boarded up, and falling apart. Today its part of the Renaissance Vinoy Resort. Again, if the Vinoy can be brought back from the dead, so too can the Bostwick.
Not to get off topic too much, but Jacksonville had the Hotel Mayflower, Hotel George Washington, and Hotel Robert Meyer - to name a few. Rather than bringing them back from the dead, we all know they were thoughtlessly demolished.
Any more neglect and the Bostwick will demolish itself.
^^ Could not agree more with this post. It is because places like the grand hotels mentioned, are no longer, not to mention countless other buildings, whole communities of historic Jacksonville gone. forever.
Yet the mentality (for the most part) remains. We can't save them all. That could not be more true. Fact is, we haven't saved even a fraction of what once was. So many incredible different examples of architecture was razed, for what? a vacant lot with the slab remains.
I don't have answers to saving these places. I do what I can do , and encourage those of you who care, to do the same. At the end of the day, we did what we can do to save these places.
Thx, Tim. On the positive side, Jacksonville restored the St. James Building into city hall, and Jacksonville Terminal into a convention center no one uses. (Hey, at least they werent torn down)
Quote from: Ocklawaha on November 17, 2012, 10:30:15 AM
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on November 17, 2012, 10:12:37 AM
Quote from: I-10east on November 17, 2012, 09:58:56 AM
My mentality is here in the present, and not dwelling on the past. The torn down buildings has been talked about countless times already. It's not like Jax is some unique case when it comes to cities razing downtown buildings in the 70's and 80's era. Even when the city try to make progressive steps with the Bostwick (since no one has a time machine) it's already a lost cause with some...
It is a lost cause but the people that have jars of fairy dust believe everything is worth saving in Jacksonville. ::)
Jumping into a discussion for the purpose of attention is a sign of a needy person, insulting those who are actually trying to make things happen is the work of a troll.
:D :D
Quote from: Timkin on November 17, 2012, 07:13:42 PM
Quote from: I-10east on November 17, 2012, 09:58:56 AM
My mentality is here in the present, and not dwelling on the past. The torn down buildings has been talked about countless times already. It's not like Jax is some unique case when it comes to cities razing downtown buildings in the 70's and 80's era. Even when the city try to make progressive steps with the Bostwick (since no one has a time machine) it's already a lost cause with some...
Jacksonville is really quite unique when one factors the amount of demolition that has happened to the core of the City. The area that was La Villa is just that. WAS. Brooklyn is very similar.
I live in the present as well.... merely trying to help save bits and pieces of our past, that clearly do not matter to many. So be it. I don't apologize if some have a problem with those that try to hold on to little bits of our historic fabric.
I intend to continue :)
La Villa & Brooklyn, yes. But lets not forget Fairfield, the Eastside, Phoenix, and parts of Springfield & Panama Park. Some destroyed, but all severely damaged forever by the Haines Street & 20th Street Expressways.
^ most every part of the Core of Jacksonville is damaged or completely void, thanks to the introduction of Freeways , Expressways, and Interstates.
If, 50 years ago we had to rely on rail and street car to commute , and did not depend , as we do now, on the Automobile, imagine what would still be here.
Ah yes, I guess that would be living in the past, now wouldn't it ?
Quote from: Timkin on November 17, 2012, 07:13:42 PM
Jacksonville is really quite unique when one factors the amount of demolition that has happened to the core of the City. The area that was La Villa is just that. WAS. Brooklyn is very similar.
Most if not all major cities in the Midwest, and East coast has torn down far more tall highrises than Jax, not to mention low rises. Detroit's defunct highrises makes Jax's demo history look like the minor leagues. I know that many wanna believe the 'urban legend' that Detroit saves every high rise DT building. Cleveland, and Baltimore are some of the few others that torn down more than Jax also. Many buildings are torn down to make room for other new ones, and it's no different in Jax, contrary to the 'every building is torn down thoughtlessly' argument. Check out emporis, you'll be surprised.
Feel free about dwelling on Jax's melancholy past, it seems very repetitive and tiresome though. It really doesn't have any effect on anything; Maybe it's breaking news to the occasional newbie.
Yes, we were not alone in the implementation of urban renewal projects that called for demolishing "blighted" areas. Our struggle has been finding a way to change that mindset.
Quote from: I-10east on November 18, 2012, 10:21:37 AM
Quote from: Timkin on November 17, 2012, 07:13:42 PM
Jacksonville is really quite unique when one factors the amount of demolition that has happened to the core of the City. The area that was La Villa is just that. WAS. Brooklyn is very similar.
Most if not all major cities in the Midwest, and East coast has torn down far more tall highrises than Jax, not to mention low rises. Detroit's defunct highrises makes Jax's demo history look like the minor leagues. I know that many wanna believe the 'urban legend' that Detroit saves every high rise DT building. Cleveland, and Baltimore are some of the few others that torn down more than Jax also. Many buildings are torn down to make room for other new ones, and it's no different in Jax, contrary to the 'every building is torn down thoughtlessly' argument. Check out emporis, you'll be surprised.
Feel free about dwelling on Jax's melancholy past, it seems very repetitive and tiresome though. It really doesn't have any effect on anything; Maybe it's breaking news to the occasional newbie.
Thank you for your thoughts as well.
Quote from: I-10east on November 18, 2012, 10:21:37 AM
Quote from: Timkin on November 17, 2012, 07:13:42 PM
Jacksonville is really quite unique when one factors the amount of demolition that has happened to the core of the City. The area that was La Villa is just that. WAS. Brooklyn is very similar.
Most if not all major cities in the Midwest, and East coast has torn down far more tall highrises than Jax, not to mention low rises. Detroit's defunct highrises makes Jax's demo history look like the minor leagues. I know that many wanna believe the 'urban legend' that Detroit saves every high rise DT building. Cleveland, and Baltimore are some of the few others that torn down more than Jax also. Many buildings are torn down to make room for other new ones, and it's no different in Jax, contrary to the 'every building is torn down thoughtlessly' argument. Check out emporis, you'll be surprised.
Feel free about dwelling on Jax's melancholy past, it seems very repetitive and tiresome though. It really doesn't have any effect on anything; Maybe it's breaking news to the occasional newbie.
Melancholy past? Jacksonville didn't tear down buildings, but instead we leveled entire neighborhoods at least two of were once independent cities.
Fact is: A city that forgets it's history is destined to delete it. And a city that doesn't respect it's past loses it's soul, in short, a city that ignores it's past has no future.
Lavilla-esque large plots of grass or dirt were buildings once stood is not unique to Jax; Those can be found all over the country in urban areas that have seen better days. Jax's situation isn't rare that's all that I'm saying. I'm not saying that it should be embraced or anything like that, just saying that it isn't uncommon. That 'unique razing of Jax residential buildings to pave a path for highways' argument that some mentioned is laughable, I won't even reply to that. I can imagine that many of yall travel to all kinds of places all over the country, and already know that, but lets play the 'only unique to Jax' game just for the sake of it...
Nothing bad is ever unique to Jax. Everything good happens here. And if you don't like it, Delta's ready when you are. We get it already. Problem is, at least in my travels, the only two urban areas I've ever seen with devastation on this scale are Detroit and St. Louis. Both of which have reversed the slide. And the real issue everyone's griping about here, which is demolishing multiple square miles' worth of dense development and evicting the residents without any clear plan on what to replace it with, causing something like 70% of the urban core to become urban pastureland, is entirely unique to this city. At least Detroit's streetcar suburbs had become mostly vacant due to macroeconomic conditions when they began demolishing them. We took active dense neighborhoods and kicked everybody out primarily because they were black. Again, we're on par with Detroit in terms of destruction of the urban fabric, the stunning thing is our decline wasn't natural, we did it intentionally.
I don't even know why we are debating the entire urban fabric of Jax on a Bostwick thread, but whatever, that's what angry thread hijackers who love to repeat themselves over and over do. Get specific Chris, where is this unique vast wasteland in Jax where great residential buildings once stood? The old raggedy shotgun houses on State St? Because you are being very vague.
Quote from: I-10east on November 20, 2012, 04:05:29 AM
I don't even know why we are debating the entire urban fabric of Jax on a Bostwick thread, but whatever, that's what angry thread hijackers who love to repeat themselves over and over do. Get specific Chris, where is this unique vast wasteland in Jax where great residential buildings once stood? The old raggedy shotgun houses on State St? Because you are being very vague.
(that's what angry thread hijackers who love to repeat themselves over and over do) Great line I-10east!
Fairfield was once a location of many stately homes. The late Congressman Charles Bennett made it a personal project to protect that grand old neighborhood, then he died, followed immediately by the destruction of the entire community. Had you been around at that time I-10 East, you would have been posting here about how wonderful our congressman is, and how people that think Fairfield should be torn down are just negative at heart. I suppose that once the congressman died, you would be posting about how people that think Fairfield shouldn't be razed are just negative at heart.
Do we all detect a pattern here? Jacksonville can do no wrong in your eyes? If we save the Bostwick Building and turn it into anything productive it's because we are a great city, and if we don't save it, it's because we are a great city.
We've torn the guts out of Sugar Hill, razed all of Fairfield, Brooklyn and La Villa, don't you think we might have had at least a few notable historic places there that people would want to visit?
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on November 20, 2012, 08:35:39 AM
(that's what angry thread hijackers who love to repeat themselves over and over do) Great line I-10east!
Oh, so I'm the initial hi-jacker since I don't follow the "company's" all of Jax is an awful and hopeless apocalyptic wasteland line, right? Gotcha IILY.
Quote from: I-10east on November 20, 2012, 11:47:30 AM
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on November 20, 2012, 08:35:39 AM
(that's what angry thread hijackers who love to repeat themselves over and over do) Great line I-10east!
Oh, so I'm the initial hi-jacker since I don't follow the "company's" all of Jax is an awful and hopeless apocalyptic wasteland line, right? Gotcha IILY.
What have I missed? I agreed with your sentence I-10east. Jesus Christ! ::)
I think that yall would be surprised that many US cities have dilapidated areas that still hasn't recovered similar to this stuff that went on in Jax. In some cases, tearing down some old run down structures with no plumbing/ used for illegal acts etc. is progress. It's just that many on this site don't care about the problems of other cities because they don't have any, outta sight outta mind. All of the grids are filled with beautiful buildings in those wonderful Utopias outside of Jax. Thinking all of New Orleans is like the French Quarter, and all of Detroit is Greektown, and all of Baltimore is just like the Harbor etc. Jax is the only unique moonscape situation; Talk about sugarcoating and demonizing at the same time.
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on November 20, 2012, 12:15:05 PM
What have I missed? I agreed with your sentence I-10east. Jesus Christ! ::)
My bad I misunderstood, as I thought that you were being sarcastic. I've been having a bad string of these misunderstandings lately, sorry about that. I definitely gotta tone down that defensive complex, and decipher thoroughly.
Quote from: I-10east on November 20, 2012, 12:23:54 PM
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on November 20, 2012, 12:15:05 PM
What have I missed? I agreed with your sentence I-10east. Jesus Christ! ::)
My bad I misunderstood, as I thought that you were being sarcastic. I've been having a bad string of these misunderstandings lately, sorry about that. I definitely gotta tone down that defensive complex, and decipher thoroughly.
No problem. ;)
Quote from: stephendare on November 20, 2012, 12:27:21 PM
I 10. Most of your posts have something to do with how people for urban development 'hate' the suburbs.
This imaginary argument, while at least having the extra benefit of being uninteresting, doesnt explain why such an advocate of the suburbs never spends any time posting about the suburban areas you claim to like.
Why is that?
I wouldn't call myself an advocate of the burbs anymore than I'm an advocate of downtown, I just know that life does exist outside of downtown. I guess that my enthusiasm for the SJTC development hasn't been shown on MJ, that's one area that I like off the bat. The many MJers who say things like, "great Nordstrom's chose the SJTC over downtown" and keep reinterating on how the layout sucks, awful traffic etc" obviously do hate the burbs; I dunno what's so imaginary about that. Some even say it straightforward everytime any suburban news is brought forth. I don't even have a problem with people who hate the burbs, but it does get very annoying anytime SJTC news comes, and the obligatory dissing right on the spot happens.
Quote from: I-10east on November 20, 2012, 12:18:56 PM
I think that yall would be surprised that many US cities have dilapidated areas that still hasn't recovered similar to this stuff that went on in Jax. In some cases, tearing down some old run down structures with no plumbing/ used for illegal acts etc. is progress. It's just that many on this site don't care about the problems of other cities because they don't have any, outta sight outta mind. All of the grids are filled with beautiful buildings in those wonderful Utopias outside of Jax. Thinking all of New Orleans is like the French Quarter, and all of Detroit is Greektown, and all of Baltimore is just like the Harbor etc. Jax is the only unique moonscape situation; Talk about sugarcoating and demonizing at the same time.
New Orleans is a great example of a city with large amounts of blight, yet you don't see it leveling entire neighborhoods. For that I'm thankful, as some of my favorite places in New Orleans (Freret St before Tulane, Oak St, Carrollton) used to be in very rough shape. Indeed, large portions of Uptown New Orleans still are. However, either through lack of money or lack of will, structures (many in AWFUL) condition still stand and *do* end up getting rehabilitated and reused. New Orleans *has* a Warehouse District, just a couple years ago an "urban wasteland", where old warehouses are now condos selling for upwards of $300/sqft. If that city had torn down every building that got to the state the Bostwick was a couple years ago (who knows how bad a shape it's in now), there wouldn't be much of the city left even without Katrina.
EXACTLY JF!
Quote from: I-10east on November 20, 2012, 12:45:10 PM
Quote from: stephendare on November 20, 2012, 12:27:21 PM
I 10. Most of your posts have something to do with how people for urban development 'hate' the suburbs.
This imaginary argument, while at least having the extra benefit of being uninteresting, doesn't explain why such an advocate of the suburbs never spends any time posting about the suburban areas you claim to like.
Why is that?
The many MJers who say things like, "great Nordstrom's chose the SJTC over downtown" and keep reinterating on how the layout sucks, awful traffic etc" obviously do hate the burbs; I dunno what's so imaginary about that.
STJTC has a horrible layout, Lack of canopies mean shoppers either get wet or swelter in the sun, acres of parking lots without a comprehensive sidewalk system often leads people to dart between cars, and drives to get from one area to another. The add on shopping plaza's are no different then the 1950's vintage Cedar Hills Shopping Center, only newer. So in my book is STJTC evil? Of course the shopping area isn't evil, in fact the shopping center has some nice stores. STJTC could have done a much better job of laying out pedestrian access and mass transit services.
Just as an example, ever notice that just east of the TC there is a north-south high tension power line right of way? BRT from JTB or Beach? How about a circulator streetcar such as the ones at The Grove in Southern California? You constantly misread what some of us are saying, you seem to believe we think that Jacksonville is bad because it has a huge sprawling mall, or that the mall doesn't have a streetcar, or we don't have IKEA downtown. It's more like The Grove has a streetcar so WHY NOT JACKSONVILLE?? Hey, cool idea, let's open a streetcar and an IKEA. Honestly as planners, I think our take on this is far more optimistic then your apologies for us pointing out new and yes, sometimes better ideas? This places you in the uncomfortable position of defending the status quo and inaction.
Lastly what is this about hating the burbs? I LIVE in WGV!
Quote from: Ocklawaha on November 20, 2012, 10:56:12 PM
Lastly what is this about hating the burbs? I LIVE in WGV!
Isn't that like, in another Country , Ock ?? ;)
Blah blah blah Jax microscopers. Jax is nothing special as far as anything is good concerns, and is unique for everything bad; Every other major city outside of Jax has no problems, they all are uniquely great for many things, and are vacation destinations to die for, understood... Jesus Christ *sigh*
In the interest of not adding fuel to the fire ::)
Happy Thanksgiving everyone!!
Quote from: Timkin on November 21, 2012, 05:53:48 PM
In the interest of not adding fuel to the fire ::)
Happy Thanksgiving everyone!!
If only we could all gather for Thanksgiving dinner at the Bostwick. (Dont forget your hard hat) :)
Or a "progressive" dinner: Start at the Bostwick, and have dessert at Annie Lytle.
Quote from: Timkin on November 21, 2012, 12:35:22 AM
Quote from: Ocklawaha on November 20, 2012, 10:56:12 PM
Lastly what is this about hating the burbs? I LIVE in WGV!
Isn't that like, in another Country , Ock ?? ;)
More or less Timkin, I think I was much more 'in town' when I lived in Colombia! ;D
Quote from: I-10east on November 21, 2012, 02:17:11 AM
Blah blah blah Ajax microscopers. Jax is nothing special as far as anything is good concerns, and is unique for everything bad; Every other major city outside of Jax has no problems, they all are uniquely great for many things, and are vacation destinations to die for, understood... Jesus Christ *sigh*
Did you even read what I posted? What Stephen posted? I disagree that "Jax is nothing special, uniquely bad, or that other cities have no problems," You do not seem to have the ability to separate 'ideas' from 'constructive criticism,' believing as you apparently do that other cities are so much better you must constantly be offended by any mention of their success.
Does anyone have an idea when the HPC's recommendation on the local landmark status is due to come up on the Council agenda?
Last I checked, it still hadn't been assigned a date, but admittedly I'm not as good as a lot of other MJ regulars in navigating COJ.
Council Committees will see the landmark status legislation in January.
http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=538205 (http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=538205)
Also, check out this place, mentioned in the WSJ today. The article is about re-purposing bank vaults. Maybe this will spark some motivation for interested parties for what the Bostwick building could be...?
http://kelvinarmspub.com/ (http://kelvinarmspub.com/)
http://kelvinarmspub.com/gallery/the-vault/ (http://kelvinarmspub.com/gallery/the-vault/)
The WSJ article...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323316804578161034059171210.html?mod=ITP_AHED (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323316804578161034059171210.html?mod=ITP_AHED)
FYI
On tomorrow’s City Council Agenda:
http://cityclts.coj.net/coj/CurrentYear/Council/71-December-11-12-Agenda.htm
INTRODUCTION OF NEW RESOLUTIONS (1ST READING)
2012-732
RESO Urging Mayor, as Apvd by the Hemming Plaza Subcommittee, to Immediately Remove Tables & Chairs from Hemming Plaza. (Johnston) (Introduced by CM Redman)
1. 12/11/2012 CO Introduced: R,RCD
INTRODUCTION OF NEW ORDINANCES (1ST READING):
2012-720
ORD-Q Designating the Former Guaranty Trust & Savings Bank at 101 E Bay St owned by Guaranty Trust Investments, Inc, as a Landmark Structure; Directing Entry of Designation on the Zoning Atlas. (Dist 4-Redman) (Teal) (Req of Jax Historic Preservation Comm)
LUZ PH - 1/15/13
Public Hearing Pursuant to Chapt 166, F.S. & CR 3.601 - 1/8/13
1. 12/11/2012 CO Introduced: LUZ
So we are going to save something and destroy something.
DIA/CRA in the USA Board meeting Wend. and they wanted to hear from Councilwoman Lee about Hemming Plaza.
Is 2012-732 an emergency? No.
2025 is 2012
LUZ hearing on demo application, Tues, 1/15, 5:00, 1st Floor City Hall. When I find or remember how to insert an image, I'll modify the post and add the letter. LOL
Thanks Debbie. It's now on my calendar.
The first public hearing is being held before the full City Council this Tuesday, January 8th. Bill number is 2012-720. Be sure to write the members of City Council and especially LUZ to voice your opinion if you are unable to make the public hearings!
The important time for speaking on the Bostwick Building's future will be at the LUZ meeting on Jan 15. Apparently BOTH the owner's appeal to have it demolished and the city's request to force a landmark status will be heard at this meeting.