Quoteby Karen Brune Mathis, Managing Editor
Worman’s Bakery and Deli is coming down.
The business at 204 Broad St. closed almost three years ago, in August 2009, after more than 85 years in business. Owners closed the deli and bakery, which served generations of customers Downtown since at least 1923.
The City issued a permit Monday to demolish the building, described at 5,066 square feet. The demolition cost is $8,000.
Property records show the structure was built in 1909. The records show a 2011 taxable value of $432,190, including a land value of almost $286,000.
It is owned by the Pearl Leibowitz Life Estate.
According to a Florida Times-Union report, founders Sam and Rosa Worman opened the New York Star Bakery in Jacksonville in 1923, moved to Daytona Beach in 1935 and returned to Jacksonville to open Worman’s on Broad Street in 1939.
It was then run by their son, Morris Worman, and his sister, Pearl Worman Leibowitz-Sederbaum, and son Scott Worman.
The bakery is on the edge of the new Duval County Courthouse campus. Owners had said they hoped to keep the business open until courthouse construction was completed, but contract and construction issues delayed the opening until this year.
kmathis@baileypub.com
@MathisKb
356-2466
http://jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=537059# (http://jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=537059#)
Could have saw that one coming a mile a way. Especially, after that car ran into it a while ago. Look on the bright side. That lot will now match and rest of the moonscape surrounding the courthouse and downtown's newest food truck location will have clear visibility to the front door of the building.
Another historic building gone, another vacant lot for downtown. Wonderful, just wonderful. And what are the plans for the site, or are we just knocking another buildng down with no known use for the location?
other than the fact that it was old, exactly what was "historic' about the Worman's building?
And they are going to do what with the land? I hope something is planned for it besides a parking lot.. Which is what they are probably going to do. More parking for the courthouse ::)
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on July 24, 2012, 12:45:52 PM
Another historic building gone, another vacant lot for downtown. Wonderful, just wonderful. And what are the plans for the site, or are we just knocking another buildng down with no known use for the location?
I think we know the answer to this Debbie. It is what happens 99% of the time that a building is taken down and replaced with a vacant lot.
Next will be Genovar's Hall , and the 3 shot gun houses .
Just FYI, the city is not demolishing the structure, the owners are. They could not afford the repairs to bring it up to code.
Better to have an ugly old building than no building at all. The city hasn't nor will it learn. Parking lots are a very lucrative place holder for local real estate investors waiting to sell to big guys entering the market (and are even ok to sit on the books of developers waiting to develop a site), but this is not Austin or Midtown Atlanta. There really isn't even demand for surface parking...damn shame.
City should look the other way on code or take over buildings itself. Perhaps give tax relief to those who can't afford the necessary fixes until fixes can be afforded. There are ways, you know...
I think we sometimes fetishize (if that's even a word) buildings because they're old. That old Fire Station comes to mind.
I'm not trying to be controversial here. I just think that well-built (architecturally interesting) and useful buildings are what we need, whether they are old or new or whatever. Today's new building is tomorrow's old building. The buildings we regard so highly today were once new buildings.
So I don't necessarily think we should just preserve old buildings because they're old.
Okay, that said.... Jacksonville really, really needs to stop tearing down buildings. I'd rather have old, unremarkable buildings than empty parking lots. This has to stop. I just don't understand the point. I don't see what the end game is here. What are we trying to accomplish?
QuoteSo I don't necessarily think we should just preserve old buildings because they're old.
That was really the last remaining building stock near the courhouse that a small business could have moved into if the owener would have agreed to a build to suit arrangement. That's what the big deal is. The last frontier of infill is now the Fosythe garage or the City owned Courthouse parking garage. Generally speaking, a small business owner can't afford to open a restaurant, tailor, flourist, whatever if they have to purchase the land, build new construction and then purchase equipment/inventory.
Historic building stock, no matter the architectural merits of the building, is crucial to small business growth downtown.
I've been touring some properties downtown recently and it's really unbelievable how difficult(read: expensive) it would be to move in considering the bare bone(and often cases neglected) conditions most of these ground level spaces are in nowadays.
QuoteThat lot will now match and rest of the moonscape surrounding the courthouse and downtown's newest food truck location will have clear visibility to the front door of the building.
Amazing really, when you look at that new spot and appreciate for a moment how creative small business owners will get just to fight for their own existence. Downtown needs more pioneers like Andrew Ferenc.
Quote from: aclchampion on July 24, 2012, 03:09:38 PM
Just FYI, the city is not demolishing the structure, the owners are. They could not afford the repairs to bring it up to code.
Okay
Quote
That was really the last remaining building stock near the courhouse that a small business could have moved into if the owener would have agreed to a build to suit arrangement. That's what the big deal is. The last frontier of infill is now the Fosythe garage or the City owned Courthouse parking garage. Generally speaking, a small business owner can't afford to open a restaurant, tailor, flourist, whatever if they have to purchase the land, build new construction and then purchase equipment/inventory.
Yeah, I totally understand. I don't think we should be tearing down buildings. It seems that it should be the last option, but it too often seems like the first one considered. But that is an assumption I am making.
QuoteThe last frontier of infill is now the Fosythe garage or the City owned Courthouse parking garage.
Even more ironic is that since 7-11 has moved into the Forsyth garage, asking rents have magically gone up on the unimproved parcels in the rest of the garage. Which is ashame b/c the Adams Street corner property is a pretty decent location.
The City garage isn't horrible if you only need a business to serve ONLY Courthouse patrons (b/c otherwise you are isolated on nights and weekends), but you still have to pay for the buildout as the remaining spaces are just setbacks in the garage space.
Two tenants are moving in, but one is a lawyer's office and the other a breakfast/lunch spot for Courthouse patrons.
I know for a fact from a very unreliable source that the reason behind all the buildings being torn down is that the Jacksonville Histerical Society is working on a secret project to recreate what Jacksonville looked like after the Great Fire. Alert the media! You heard it here first!
Quote from: aclchampion on July 24, 2012, 03:09:38 PM
Just FYI, the city is not demolishing the structure, the owners are. They could not afford the repairs to bring it up to code.
Oh well that makes it a whole different story then. Let me guess. Code enforcement has pressured them to make repairs on the building that they could not afford to do. So now , instead of boarding it up in a mothball status (I'll wager a great deal cheaper than an 8k demolition where it is wiped out forever), they then pressured them for demolition ..BECAUSE THATS WHAT CODE ENFORCEMENT DOES!!!!!!!!!! Case in point... HUNDREDS of homes in Springfield they have badgered owners over and then had demolished.
This is CRAP. and typical CITY doings! .
Quote from: RexMontana on July 24, 2012, 04:00:19 PM
I know for a fact from a very unreliable source that the reason behind all the buildings being torn down is that the Jacksonville Histerical Society is working on a secret project to recreate what Jacksonville looked like after the Great Fire. Alert the media! You heard it here first!
FUNNY
Quote from: Adam W on July 24, 2012, 03:14:50 PM
I think we sometimes fetishize (if that's even a word) buildings because they're old. That old Fire Station comes to mind.
I'm not trying to be controversial here. I just think that well-built (architecturally interesting) and useful buildings are what we need, whether they are old or new or whatever. Today's new building is tomorrow's old building. The buildings we regard so highly today were once new buildings.
So I don't necessarily think we should just preserve old buildings because they're old.
Okay, that said.... Jacksonville really, really needs to stop tearing down buildings. I'd rather have old, unremarkable buildings than empty parking lots. This has to stop. I just don't understand the point. I don't see what the end game is here. What are we trying to accomplish?
I think we are in a shortage (somehow) of surface parking.
Quote from: Timkin on July 24, 2012, 04:52:06 PM
Quote from: Adam W on July 24, 2012, 03:14:50 PM
I think we sometimes fetishize (if that's even a word) buildings because they're old. That old Fire Station comes to mind.
I'm not trying to be controversial here. I just think that well-built (architecturally interesting) and useful buildings are what we need, whether they are old or new or whatever. Today's new building is tomorrow's old building. The buildings we regard so highly today were once new buildings.
So I don't necessarily think we should just preserve old buildings because they're old.
Okay, that said.... Jacksonville really, really needs to stop tearing down buildings. I'd rather have old, unremarkable buildings than empty parking lots. This has to stop. I just don't understand the point. I don't see what the end game is here. What are we trying to accomplish?
I think we are in a shortage (somehow) of surface parking.
Now it all makes sense!
I wonder if they will leave the concrete foundation in place, in true Jacksonville style?
Quote from: thelakelander on July 24, 2012, 12:15:01 PM
Could have saw that one coming a mile a way. Especially, after that car ran into it a while ago. Look on the bright side. That lot will now match and rest of the moonscape surrounding the courthouse and downtown's newest food truck location will have clear visibility to the front door of the building.
Lake, your words may be prophetic. Imagine a block of food trucks like the block in Portland, Or. From Broad to Jefferson along Adams could be filled with a diverse group of food trucks daily.
For those of you who are not familiar with this place, check out the link below.
http://www.oregonlive.com/mix/index.ssf/food-trends/portland-food-cart-scene.html
Quote from: vicupstate on July 24, 2012, 07:18:45 PM
I wonder if they will leave the concrete foundation in place, in true Jacksonville style?
I'll be shocked if they cleared the full lot. That would involve removing the building's foundation (does it have a basement?) and the broken up asphalt parking lot to the north.
Just what downtown needs. :'(
[quote author=thelakelander link=topic=15694.msg289584#msg289584 date Look on the bright side. That lot will now match and rest of the moonscape surrounding the courthouse and downtown's newest food truck location will have clear visibility to the front door of the building.
[/quote]
The DC Courthouse Tailgating District.
MJ is always ahead of the curve. Was Downtown yesterday and saw a food truck in what looks like a new fenced in parking lot on Jefferson. Our parking lot has a food truck!!!
The free market at work.
Imagine the organic cluster of surface parking lot themes.
The divorce lot.
His parking on the right
Her parking on the left.
Across the street the alimony lot.
The DUI Lot
Kegger going 24/7
Golf cart Valet service also available.
Free parking for judges.
Visit Jacksonville!
If you swooped in there you might be able to buy it and open something yourself. It usually takes a little while to get the water off, power, etc and inspection before jerking it down.
The owners are looking at repair cost, taxes, libility insurance and other costs associated with an empty building. A vacant lot cost less money and hassle.
If that building is "historic" the people who covered up all the character of a building from 1909 should be thrown on the rubble heap afterward and run out of town. That building had no character from the outside, so to me, it is no real loss, as it appears now.
Did the Mayor use a Public/Private partnership to tear down the building? $8,000 could tear down a lot of Springfield residences in need of it.
So to summarize, we have the head of MCCD's polices making sure that another building goes down and the taxable value of the land drops almost $150,000.00. And there is a good chance that the land value will drop as well. Less tax dollars for the city to run on. Meanwhile, like pointed out by others, another potential home for a small business goes away and we end up with another surface parking lot.
The first step to correct these issues is to change the polices of hindering from MCCD. Isn't it a bit insane that the only choices given a property owner in this economy is to repair or demolish? I know, that sounds reasonable until you find out that to repair in their eyes to to bring the property to full current code. Their definition of safe includes full electric, water and HVAC. Nothing less will satisfy them. The choice then becomes clear to the owner, spend tens of thousands for the property to continue to sit for a few more years or face hundreds of thousands worth of fines, attached to every single piece of property they own. Or they can just tear it down for a few thousand.
Mothballing tries to solve that issue and does help but MCCD still hinders the process every step of the way. Two things are needed if you find value in the empty buildings anywhere in Jacksonville. The first is to change the polices at MCCD. The second is to get mothballing approved for the entire city. Bill Killingsworth originally wanted that and it was shrunk down to only the Historic Districts to get it in place here in Jacksonville.
Mothballing is actually a less expensive alternative than demolition. It cost less in the vast majority of the cases, it preserves the tax base and it preserves the feel of the streetscape. Demolition costs us tax payers far more, reduces the tax base perhaps permanently and results in a post apocalyptic like appearance for a community.
Of course, we can just let all the old buildings go away and not care about all that. MCCD would be very happy with that.
Mothballing leads to other problems, squatters, no upkeep of the property and eyesores in the area. Prospective tenants or new business is less likely to move into Commercial retail when there are problem buildings with vagrants, or spray paint, you can see this along Forsyth with some of the old furniture buildings, which have sat idle for years now, and with no plans to incorporate them into a use with downtown. Annie Lytle has had its share of vagrants and fires and all kinds of issues. Is that what will become of a Mothballed Worman's?
If no one is going to use the structure, donate it to someone who will, why has donation to a non-profit not been discussed?
I thought the Brown administration was big on downtown redevelopment. Have we heard any comment from our government suggesting that replacing one more building on the downtown moonscape with another parking lot is a bad idea? Somebody should have jumped on finding another solution for this building. It's not as if there is no demand for a decent lunch spot near the horrific new courthouse. I am disgusted. >:(
Quote from: mtraininjax on July 26, 2012, 08:34:02 AM
Mothballing leads to other problems, squatters, no upkeep of the property and eyesores in the area. Prospective tenants or new business is less likely to move into Commercial retail when there are problem buildings with vagrants, or spray paint, you can see this along Forsyth with some of the old furniture buildings, which have sat idle for years now, and with no plans to incorporate them into a use with downtown. Annie Lytle has had its share of vagrants and fires and all kinds of issues. Is that what will become of a Mothballed Worman's?
If no one is going to use the structure, donate it to someone who will, why has donation to a non-profit not been discussed?
Mtrain, Jax has tried it your way for decades with nothing positive to show for it. Remember the definition of insanity? When will Jax ever learn?
'Destroy it, and they will come' should be Jacksonville's motto. Small organic businesses CANNOT afford to build new, and by extention pay top dollar for space. Therefore they will not open in the DT area. That is what has happened for decades now. Without the local pioneers (who will take a risk), the nationals will NEVER come, because the market is unproven.
Compare that to Charleston where it is almost impossible to demo anything on the peninsula. Sure, there are eyesores, but the gems were once eyesores too. After 60 years of seeing eyesores turned into beautiful, productive (and very valuable) buildings, no one there even doubts that today's eyesores will also return to their glory, given more time. They know the northward progression of revitilization up the peninsula is near certain to continue, because it has already done so for 60 years, and policy doesn't really allow any other option.
BTW, the percentage of money that STAYS in the local economy with a renovation (labor intensive) is about double what stays local with new construction (material intensive).
Quote from: mtraininjax on July 26, 2012, 08:34:02 AM
Mothballing leads to other problems, squatters, no upkeep of the property and eyesores in the area. Prospective tenants or new business is less likely to move into Commercial retail when there are problem buildings with vagrants, or spray paint, you can see this along Forsyth with some of the old furniture buildings, which have sat idle for years now, and with no plans to incorporate them into a use with downtown. Annie Lytle has had its share of vagrants and fires and all kinds of issues. Is that what will become of a Mothballed Worman's?
If no one is going to use the structure, donate it to someone who will, why has donation to a non-profit not been discussed?
Actually what you just described is what happens now. MCCD condemns, threatens, fines and all the while, the owner has to get permission to even step foot onto his own property. Most people do not thrive on hindering, in fact, they often respond by walking away. So, yes, it sits and rots and attracts the vagrants and the graffiti. Mothballing, done properly, avoids that issue.
Properly mothballed, a house looks cared for because it is. The windows are boarded, but painted to look like windows and to look more appealing. There must be lights on the exterior and the structure must be made sound and water tight. You just avoid the other finishing expenses, which are most often the lions share of the potential expenses once MCCD is involved.
The mothballed house must be looked after, the grass cut and the windows re-secured if needed. It is inspected to be sure that is done.
A huge difference is in how it is dealt with. It gives hope to the owner that their investment will not be lost. It preserves the structure for tomorrow. All because of a little help rather than the threats and demands and the fines.
I guess the bottom line here is would you rather look at a neglected structure with trash and over grown weeds for the 1 to 4 years it might take MCCD to get a structure demolished or would you rather look at a well kept one because the owner was treated properly by a city who cares? Mothballing is helping and giving hope.
QuoteProperly mothballed, a house looks cared for because it is.
Do you have some samples you can share, which are in Duval County, here in Jacksonville? When they were mothballed and how long they have been in their state?
The prevailing wind in Jacksonville is not to mothball, but to tear down. If you are passionate about this concept, I wish you well in changing the hearts and minds in Code Enforcement.
Quote from: vicupstate on July 26, 2012, 06:22:20 PM
Quote from: mtraininjax on July 26, 2012, 08:34:02 AM
Mothballing leads to other problems, squatters, no upkeep of the property and eyesores in the area. Prospective tenants or new business is less likely to move into Commercial retail when there are problem buildings with vagrants, or spray paint, you can see this along Forsyth with some of the old furniture buildings, which have sat idle for years now, and with no plans to incorporate them into a use with downtown. Annie Lytle has had its share of vagrants and fires and all kinds of issues. Is that what will become of a Mothballed Worman's?
If no one is going to use the structure, donate it to someone who will, why has donation to a non-profit not been discussed?
Mtrain, Jax has tried it your way for decades with nothing positive to show for it. Remember the definition of insanity? When will Jax ever learn?
'Destroy it, and they will come' should be Jacksonville's motto. Small organic businesses CANNOT afford to build new, and by extention pay top dollar for space. Therefore they will not open in the DT area. That is what has happened for decades now. Without the local pioneers (who will take a risk), the nationals will NEVER come, because the market is unproven.
Compare that to Charleston where it is almost impossible to demo anything on the peninsula. Sure, there are eyesores, but the gems were once eyesores too. After 60 years of seeing eyesores turned into beautiful, productive (and very valuable) buildings, no one there even doubts that today's eyesores will also return to their glory, given more time. They know the northward progression of revitilization up the peninsula is near certain to continue, because it has already done so for 60 years, and policy doesn't really allow any other option.
BTW, the percentage of money that STAYS in the local economy with a renovation (labor intensive) is about double what stays local with new construction (material intensive).
Here is an example of what I am talking about.
Click on the link and scroll to pg 71. Now before reviewing the remaining 10 pages in the pdf, ask yourself a question "If this structure was in Springfield would it have been torn down?" If you are being honest with yourself, you will say 'yes, most definitely, probably several years back'.
http://www.charlestoncity.info/shared/docs/0/07.25.2012%20image%20overview.pdf (http://www.charlestoncity.info/shared/docs/0/07.25.2012%20image%20overview.pdf)
Now look throught the plans for this structure (pages 72-81 : existing is left side proposed is right side per page) . Then ask yourself 'If this were in Springfield/ DT/ Brooklyn/LaVilla and completed, would it be better than a vacant and overgrown lot?
If your answer is 'yes', then ask the City , 'Why can't Jacksonville do the same thing Charleston is doing?'
In the T-U this morning it was stated that the building was condemned because of structural damage it sustained when a car ran into it some months ago and the owners couldn't afford to repair it to code.
Quote from: mtraininjax on July 27, 2012, 10:11:15 AM
QuoteProperly mothballed, a house looks cared for because it is.
Do you have some samples you can share, which are in Duval County, here in Jacksonville? When they were mothballed and how long they have been in their state?
The prevailing wind in Jacksonville is not to mothball, but to tear down. If you are passionate about this concept, I wish you well in changing the hearts and minds in Code Enforcement.
Mothballing is new to Jacksonville. We, meaning Preservation SOS, did the first one December of last year
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/walnutcourtopenhouse.jpg)
Here's the most recent:
(http://i1258.photobucket.com/albums/ii530/iloveionia/dancydone.jpg)
Look a bit better than the one next to it?
At a guess, I guess there are now about dozen or so mothballed houses or at least in progress, within Riverside and Springfield. It was indeed a fight and once passed, we had to fight a sunset ordnance someone mistakenly wanted. We won that one too. As we progress forward, we find there are a few issues to be resolved. A couple of those issues deal with the head of MCCD seemingly not wanting to give much up. We are making head way though and will succeed in changing the mantra of the city from demo or else to one of mothballing and preserving for the future. At least in the Historic Districts.
Quote from: Dog Walker on July 27, 2012, 12:12:41 PM
In the T-U this morning it was stated that the building was condemned because of structural damage it sustained when a car ran into it some months ago and the owners couldn't afford to repair it to code.
And yet, the building still stands ....
MCCD officers know little of structure. The biggest issue is policy though and how they define safety. We have seen houses condemned because of one dripping pipe and others left standing for years with only a 6 inch tree holding the thing upright. No rhyme or reason. Plus, once MCCD is involved, the chant is repair every little thing or demolish it. That is what needs changing, even if that change has to start at the top.
Where to start is at the City. Change the "policy" and for that matter, change out the entire MCCD. These people are paid OUR tax dollars to create a nuisance. What is to show for the work they do? Demolitions. hey that is impressive. Its wrong and it desperately needs to change.
People like SOS who do projects like the above pictures are making a POSITIVE difference. The homes they are saving are no threat to anyone. They are target for people in MCCD to badger the owners , some of which simply cannot afford to repair their homes. ( I wouldn't wish this position on any one of them, however if they were placed in that position, it might finally open their eyes to have a little sympathy for building owners...THEY might not be quite as motivated to push demolitions through)
That is an important first step. STOP DEMOLISHING.. it does nothing to improve the problem.
Demolition is contagious in the La Villa area, perhaps that is what the city council rep there recommends? Commercial demolition has been popular in the downtown area, as opposed to the residential. There is a Mothballed house at Day and Post street, not as nice as the ones shown above in Springfield, but then again, maybe Murray Hill has a ways to go to achieve proper mothballing technique.
From yesterday's TU:
http://jacksonville.com/entertainment/food-and-dining/2012-07-27/story/dining-notes-downtown-jacksonville-dining-landmark (http://jacksonville.com/entertainment/food-and-dining/2012-07-27/story/dining-notes-downtown-jacksonville-dining-landmark)
Quote
Dining Notes: Downtown Jacksonville dining landmark to meet wrecking ball
Posted: July 27, 2012 - 12:09am | Updated: July 27, 2012 - 4:40pm
By Gary T. Mills
Plans were put into motion this week to bring down a century-old building and former downtown dining landmark.
A building permit issued by the city on Monday shows plans to demolish the former Worman’s Bakery & Deli, which operated for seven decades at 204 Broad St. before its closing in August 2009.
At the time, Morris Worman â€" who, with sister Pearl Worman Leibowitz-Sederbaum, co-owned the restaurant their parents first opened â€" said:
“We kept saying, ‘We’ll hang on until the courthouse opens.’ We waited nine years. We thought we could hold out. But we couldn’t keep throwing good money after bad.â€
But it wasn’t until six weeks ago â€" nearly three years after the restaurant’s closing â€" that the new Duval County Courthouse finally opened across the street, giving hope to some that a new restaurant would open in the 5,000-square-foot building originally built in 1909.
Few, however, realized the city condemned the building in April 2011, the month a car drove into northeast corner of the building, causing significant structural damage.
Martin Leibowitz, son of Pearl Worman Leibowitz-Sederbaum, said the family’s immediate plan is to demolish the building in preparation to sell the property â€" a tough, but necessary decision.
“The entire family shares the loss of the building,†Leibowitz, an attorney, said.
But without anyone in the family set to pick up the Worman tradition started by his grandparents, Sam and Rosa Worman, in Jacksonville in 1923, the time had come to move forward.
Like his mother, now 86, Leibowitz grew up in and around the bakery. “I took my first steps outside that building,†he said.
Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/entertainment/food-and-dining/2012-07-27/story/dining-notes-downtown-jacksonville-dining-landmark#ixzz221hVkbkW
Sounds like the family doesn't want to demolish but has no option without a buyer or some other outside intervention.
^Why would they have to pay to demolish to have the ability to sell the site? What's the cons to just selling the site in its current condition?
^ Interesting that over a year after the car hit the building "causing significant structural damage" that NOW the building is slated for demolition. If it is now structurally compromised to the point that it is not repairable for reuse, why was it allowed to stand for so long. If the car hit the building , I would think the owner of the car would be responsible for the damage. What happened there?
This reeks of MCCD intervention and pressuring the owners to fix or demolish. After all it is what they do...everywhere.
I would think it would be far cost-effective to repair this existing building, than wiping the slate, doing site preparation, impact fee for new-build.
I don't buy that the site cannot be sold as-is and repaired. Really wish a member of the family could clarify why the option to demolish seems the only way to go.
COJ didn't condemn the building until April. I'm thinking fines will start piling up soon if they haven't already.
I would think that they may already have fines. It doesn't take long for MCCD to be able to take a owner to Special Masters. the fines could easily be $ 250.00 per day so even the threat of the fines can be significant. Remember that the fines will attach to everything the owner has and will make the property so toxic it can;t be realistically sold at all. Also remember that to repair in MCCD's eyes is to repair everything up to full code, not just the damage that triggered the condemnation. Everything MCCD says and does, whether by default or design, makes it seems that demolition is the best and often the only recourse a owner has.
I recently was involved with an issue in Springfield with MCCD. While it was actually refreshing that there seemed to be a change of heart and we were invited to help find a solution to the problem, the talk was still all about demolition. That the rear of the house had to be demolished. Which, as they were not recognizing the fact that it was all one roof line, would have resulted in the loss of the entire structure. That would have cost thousands. Indeed, with the number of personnel involved with this issue just from MCCD, it may have anyway. The end result though was that a contractor and PSOS raised funds and for less than a thousand dollars worth of work (all donated in this case) stabilized the structure and saved it. The sad part is that the law allows for this to be done by MCCD rather than the demolition they insist upon.
This is a policy issue with the head of MCCD and if you care about structures like this, that policy, if not the head of MCCD, must be changed.
Reply #28 +1. We are far too demo happy in Jacksonville.
As for the appearance of the Worman's Building, I doubt it looked like that when it was built. It was probably "modernized" mid 20th century. MJ, do you have a pix of it before that? It's possible the original facade could be restored.
If you look at the EH Thompson Building on Main Street, it looks awful with the pink concrete panels, but if you look at a picture of it when it was built, it's an incredible building similar to the one across the street. Somewhere on this forum, there's a picture of the original building. Remove the awful add on panels, and it too can be restored to its original appearance.
According tot the T-U demolition started today.
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on August 01, 2012, 08:52:48 AM
Reply #28 +1. We are far too demo happy in Jacksonville.
As for the appearance of the Worman's Building, I doubt it looked like that when it was built. It was probably "modernized" mid 20th century. MJ, do you have a pix of it before that? It's possible the original facade could be restored.
If you look at the EH Thompson Building on Main Street, it looks awful with the pink concrete panels, but if you look at a picture of it when it was built, it's an incredible building similar to the one across the street. Somewhere on this forum, there's a picture of the original building. Remove the awful add on panels, and it too can be restored to its original appearance.
There's some great Prairie-style and Cadillac-related original details surviving INSIDE the EH Thompson building as well.
:'( Remembering Worman's Deli. Bulldozing Jacksonville's history, one building at a time. Remember going in there and choosing your own wonderful dill pickle from their big pickle barrel? The pastries? The corned beef sandwiches?
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/c0.0.133.133/p133x133/195929_3884470188988_2136028205_n.jpg)
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/c0.0.133.133/p133x133/486547_3884469868980_771728793_n.jpg)
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/c20.0.133.133/p133x133/190026_3884469548972_176703474_n.jpg)
Jacksonville's City management has to have something to be proud of. I guess continuing the on-going race to level everything makes them happy.
Makes me sick :(
Several negative minded posters have expressed the view that 'MJ is NOTHING but a bunch of disgruntled, down on Jacksonville uglies. NOT SO. We ARE the only positive voice in the urban core and our publishing, complaining and lobbying efforts are aimed at ending this sort of senseless destruction.
Recently in the library archives Stephendare, Lakelander and myself found a description of downtown... bordered by MYRTLE - STATE - The river and FLORIDA AVENUE (today's A.P. Randolph). We are at about 1/3 of that size today, grounds for much constructive criticism.
NO MORE HISTORIC BUILDING DEMOLITIONS! Damn it Jacksonville, pull your head out!
Quote from: Timkin on August 15, 2012, 11:21:57 PM
Jacksonville's City management has to have something to be proud of. I guess continuing the on-going race to level everything makes them happy.
Makes me sick :(
[/quote
Not only downtown, but in the 'burbs as well.
A few years ago there was a Wendy's on Roosevelt next to the Target near NAS. The other day I drove by. The Wendy's was gone, but the foundation remained. Reminded me of downtown.
Now I realize this Wendy's had no historic significance, but its the principle of it all. The building, like Worman's (or countless other buildings demolished in the name of progress) could have been remodeled into something else. Im sure it was structually sound. Hell, I remember watching it being built only a few years ago.
Back to the Worman's discussion. Now there are 2 new vacant lots to park on. One downtown, one near NAS.
QuoteNO MORE HISTORIC BUILDING DEMOLITIONS!
What really qualifies as "Historic" these days? Something made of brick? Something 5 years old? Get ready for another "historic" or "old" item coming down soon, in Avondale.....
I don't understand how this is the City's problem, other than the fact it took too long to get the Courthouse up and running. This was privately held land, and the landowners were the ones who OK'd the demo. Yes, they had to get city permits, I am sure, but if a building is beyond repair foundationally, this is unfortunately the only option.
Quote from: Dapperdan on August 16, 2012, 08:18:33 AM
I don't understand how this is the City's problem, other than the fact it took too long to get the Courthouse up and running. This was privately held land, and the landowners were the ones who OK'd the demo. Yes, they had to get city permits, I am sure, but if a building is beyond repair foundationally, this is unfortunately the only option.
Whether it is 'beyond repair' is a matter of opinion, and the city has showed a pronounced biase FOR demolition even under the weakest of justifications. It has also proactively encouraged and even required it. I have personal experience on this.
Unless this building was hit by an 18 wheeler at considerable speed, I have a hard time believing the damage could not be economically repaired.
Now for something to go on that site (besides weeds), new construction must occur which will not be economically justified unless it is a major office building. Given the economy, that is unlikely. So the opportunity for a lower-cost start-up in the now-demolished building is gone, and the site will likely be empty for some time.
The current facade did not look historic, but it looked like the right corner that was damaged from the accident showed a distinctive and decorative column. Are there not enough empty lots in downtown? Looks like nothing was salvaged.
It was covered in stucco, so I'm sure the old facade was under there. Btw, I agree with vicupstate. Most of those lots around the courthouse will sit that way for a while because it simply doesn't make economic sense to build a major project on them. There's something to be said about keeping and reusing older building stock. Just look at CoRK in Riverside. 80,000 square feet of active art studios, galleries and a brewery all clustered together in the type of buildings that would have been torn down 30 years ago if they were in downtown. A good chunk of the tenants there originally wanted to open in downtown but couldn't find a viable space (they keep getting torn down).
I would imagine some buildings will sprout up with some lunch spots and attorneys offices, I would imagine. Might take a bit of time.
The reason this building got demolished by it's owners is that MCCD started doing their thing and made it much easier and seem much cheaper to demolish it rather than fix it. It is the reckless polices of the city that makes the loss of a potentially useful building for yet another empty lot the cities fault in the end. The policies and those that set them need to be changed.
just drove past, it is a pile of rubble. sad.
Quote from: Dapperdan on August 16, 2012, 11:00:53 AM
I would imagine some buildings will sprout up with some lunch spots and attorneys offices, I would imagine. Might take a bit of time.
Oh thats just great, we'll get another suburban style Mickey D's with a 45 car parking lot... Why? Because the people that run this city and those of us who grew up here, can't even spell
urbin, uh,
urbun, um,
urben, Oh what the hell, you know what I mean!
^^ and the drive through at that Mickey D's will be backed up cuz the people are too lazy to get out of their cars & go inside.
Worman's didnt have a drive thru. Maybe thats why they went out of business ;)
The best Worman's location, to me, was the one they had in San Marco, where European Street is now located.
According to a mason friend of mine, all of the brick masons in town are salvaging the brick from the Worman's building. Evidently it is some special kind. He said that the workmanship and design of the brickwork was exceptional and that covering it with stucco was the real crime.
Quote from: Dog Walker on August 17, 2012, 10:21:33 AM
According to a mason friend of mine, all of the brick masons in town are salvaging the brick from the Worman's building. Evidently it is some special kind. He said that the workmanship and design of the brickwork was exceptional and that covering it with stucco was the real crime.
Any pictures of it, pre-stucco?
Let's hope they pick out parts of the foundation too. On the other hand, it wouldn't be Jacksonville, if there isn't a scabby dishelved foundation left behind.
QuoteAny pictures of it, pre-stucco?
The Times Union has a nice set of 40 or so pictures, many from the inside, to show the layout of the building. Not sure if there are old pictures of what it used to be though...
The real crime came at the end. Its called demolition. That building not structurally in A N Y danger of collapse or anything even remotely close.
This is what we do in Jax. Demolish. What a wonderful legacy.
QuoteThis is what we do in Jax. Demolish. What a wonderful legacy.
No, that is what they do in LaVilla, the barren landscape of the moon is almost the same. LaVilla should be known as - Where old buildings go to die.
Quote from: mtraininjax on August 18, 2012, 09:53:48 AM
QuoteThis is what we do in Jax. Demolish. What a wonderful legacy.
No, that is what they do in LaVilla, the barren landscape of the moon is almost the same. LaVilla should be known as - Where old buildings go to die.
It's almost insulting that they still refer to the area as LaVilla. They're not fooling anyone - they've gone out of their way to completely rob the area of its character and history, yet still give it lip service.
It's barely LaVilla anymore - it's more like the area formerly known as LaVilla.
Right you are, Adam. And we also have "the area formerly known as Brooklyn" and "the area formerly known as Fairfield" to name a couple more.
Right you are Debbie, lets not forget the wanton destruction of everything for almost the entire length of A.P.Randolph (Florida Avenue) and Davis Street's. I expect Eastside will be next. Someday we'll have a perfectly clean city, without an ounce of character, imagine how cool it's going to look with a mile of foundations surrounding a small cluster of modern high rise buildings.
Eastside is still around? ;)
^ Shhhh...don't give em any ideas, 05 !! :P
Quote from: Timkin on August 17, 2012, 03:11:16 PM
The real crime came at the end. Its called demolition. That building not structurally in A N Y danger of collapse or anything even remotely close.
This is what we do in Jax. Demolish. What a wonderful legacy.
Demolish ... or let the buildings collapse on their own from neglect.
Quote from: BackinJax05 on August 23, 2012, 12:58:53 AM
Quote from: Timkin on August 17, 2012, 03:11:16 PM
The real crime came at the end. Its called demolition. That building not structurally in A N Y danger of collapse or anything even remotely close.
This is what we do in Jax. Demolish. What a wonderful legacy.
Demolish ... or let the buildings collapse on their own from neglect.
OR, as the laws governing Code Enforcement allow, do the minor repairs when the structures first need them (if the owner won't) or Mothball so that the building is available for future use. Also, as this building was not at risk of falling in on itself, how about a MCCD that cares about the city and the residents it is supposed to serve?
^ IF ONLY