Our History Disappearing Right Before Our Eyes
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/2520537169_LwZLRqv-M.jpg)
One by one, elements of Jacksonville's history and cultural heritage continue to disappear. Here's a look at three properties currently facing the wrath of the wrecking ball.
Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2013-may-our-history-disappearing-right-before-our-eyes
sending my emamil NOW
I have a very hard time believing any of these structures are beyond repair unless there is extensive termite damage.
My guess is the Cohen house lot will be sub-divided, if it is big enough, and McMansions put on each of the new lots.
Done and done.
sad. The madness must be stopped. The river road house I am sure is worth restoring, although it may not be the typical mcmansion the owners want. It is very significant.
Unless it was absolutely falling apart, why would you demolish a 6,000 square foot house?? The replacement cost would be enormous. I don't think the owner would gain much by subdividing the lot. That would be out of scale for the area and based on the 2 or 3 houses recently built in that neighborhood, people are looking for big lots and big houses.
The River Road homeowners were offered north of one million dollars for the lot, so they agreed to sell if they can get permission to knock it down. Sad part is that I have heard from a source close to the transaction that the potential buyer has not expressed an interest in even walking through the building. Will build a single new home on that lot, which is over one acre in the most expensive part of San Marco.
The existing home could not be built today. I would venture a guess the potentially new house would be generic, no style, and certainly not one that would be considered significant, nor historic in another 75+ years. Why don't they just build a new house in Queen's Harbor, or other non-historic area. I recently toured some very large new houses as part of the Tallahassee Builder Association Parade of home, and it was truely amazing how poorly built thye were, and had major flaws, or design issues, in my opinion. I would hate to see this happen.
why would anyone want to demolish that home. Holy Crap! I want to know how the inside looks like.
Quote from: MusicMan on May 20, 2013, 09:32:18 AMThe River Road homeowners were offered north of one million dollars for the lot, so they agreed to sell if they can get permission to knock it down.
If this is accurate, that's a pretty strong financial incentive to take it out.
Ennis, did you ever find out why the Hurston flower shop was destroyed? Is there really a risk of losing the house too? Considering the connection to one of the most important American writers, this should be a top historic preservation priority. Under no circumstances should this be allowed to be demolished.
House itself is in no danger of demolition But the flower shop was an important piece of the historical site. Steps need to be take n now to ensure the protection of what remains
Clearly the problem with that River Road home is that it doesn't have enough Chinese drywall inside. Unbelievable.
Unbelievable is an understatement. :(
Landmark or national historic status is nothing more than the seizing of private property because somehow the public believes it belongs to them. Never mind that the public (or government) has never put a dime into one of these buildings. Somehow they believe it belongs to them and they are going to take it. This adds considerable burden onto the current owner who is no longer allowed to do as he wishes to his property.
How do you feel about Charleston? There, you can't tear anything down that's older the 50 years......period.
"Preservation is about deciding what's important, figuring out how to protect it, and passing along an appreciation for what was saved to the next generation."
From: http://www.nps.gov/history/preservation.htm
Without this "interference" from the government, state, and local councils we lose our history. We have an obligation to speak for the houses (and structures) that can not literally speak for themselves. We have to be advocates for our history for generations to come.
In Jax, two of the following criteria must for met for consideration:
· It has value as a significant reminder of the cultural, historical, architectural, or archaeological heritage of the city, state or nation;
· Its location is the site of a significant local, state or national event;
· It is identified with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the development of the city, state or nation;
· It is identified as the work of a master builder, designer, or architect whose individual work has influenced the development of the city, state or nation;
· Its value as a building is recognized for the quality of architecture, and it retains sufficient elements showing its architectural significance;
· It has distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style valuable for the study of a period, method of construction, or use of indigenous materials;
· Its suitability for preservation or restoration.
For more information refer to: http://www.coj.net/departments/planning-and-development/community-planning-division/default/historic-designation.aspx
As Sheclown asserts, if all homes in Jax had the ability to be mothballed to protect them from the elements and vandals, landmarking might not be necessary. Jacksonville is reactive, rather than proactive and obliterates history without any consideration for historical or sustainable value.
Last year the Florida Trust listed two of Jacksonville's structures on the most endangered list (a list it creates yearly for the state preservation conference): The Laura Street Trio and the Firestation #5 top this list. For more details refer to: http://www.floridatrust.org/endangered-sites/
We've (City of Jacksonville) a long way to go in regards to preservation.
Thank you Ennis and Metrojacksonville for this article and helping to bring awareness to our hidden historical homes and structures.
Save the houses.
Save the houses
Besides. I see provisions made for asbestos testing and a "wet demolition" but nothing to indicate that lead is being tested and adequately dealt with in demolishing pre-1978 structures.
If you cannot scrape more than a couple square feet of pre-1978 house without squirting it with water, why isn't it being dealt with by the bid specs and the demo contractor?
What pollutants are being sent spiraling into the neighbor with each demo. And neighbor ... Be careful what you petition for. From what I can tell, no one is taking precautions when they knock down the blight next door
Quote from: Redbaron616 on May 20, 2013, 07:44:24 PM
Landmark or national historic status is nothing more than the seizing of private property because somehow the public believes it belongs to them. Never mind that the public (or government) has never put a dime into one of these buildings. Somehow they believe it belongs to them and they are going to take it. This adds considerable burden onto the current owner who is no longer allowed to do as he wishes to his property.
"You didn't build it!" is so 2012.
Quote from: stephendare on May 20, 2013, 08:22:05 PM
Quote from: Redbaron616 on May 20, 2013, 07:44:24 PM
Landmark or national historic status is nothing more than the seizing of private property because somehow the public believes it belongs to them. Never mind that the public (or government) has never put a dime into one of these buildings. Somehow they believe it belongs to them and they are going to take it. This adds considerable burden onto the current owner who is no longer allowed to do as he wishes to his property.
Really? The government hasnt put a dime into them? So when they didnt burn to the ground, when they werent vandalized by criminals, when the windows werent completely destroyed by burglars, when the building next door didnt burn down because of faulty construction techniques, when the water was run to them, when they were able to stay air conditioned because of a public electrical utility that ended up keeping it mildew free, when the trash was taken away and the rat population controlled, and no one was allowed to playfully explode dynamite or land helicopters, that wasnt provided by the government?
Aren't those services that are paid for via a variety of taxes, including property taxes.
The residents of San marco have a chnace to become a historic district but dont want to. That is their choice and let by gones be by gones. They get mcmansions. But why is the first house a big deal? It is old and and built by somebodys grandfather, ALL homes are I hate to tell you.
Quote from: John P on May 21, 2013, 09:16:20 AM
The residents of San marco have a chnace to become a historic district but dont want to. That is their choice and let by gones be by gones. They get mcmansions. But why is the first house a big deal? It is old and and built by somebodys grandfather, ALL homes are I hate to tell you.
Well for starters, whatever replaces that first house won't be nearly as unique or well-built. Most likely it will just become blight in the form of an overgrown, empty lot. Also, it's a waste of resources and a negative impact on the environment to tear it down.
Quote from: stephendare on May 21, 2013, 09:13:25 AM
Quote from: MEGATRON on May 21, 2013, 08:58:26 AM
Quote from: stephendare on May 20, 2013, 08:22:05 PM
Quote from: Redbaron616 on May 20, 2013, 07:44:24 PM
Landmark or national historic status is nothing more than the seizing of private property because somehow the public believes it belongs to them. Never mind that the public (or government) has never put a dime into one of these buildings. Somehow they believe it belongs to them and they are going to take it. This adds considerable burden onto the current owner who is no longer allowed to do as he wishes to his property.
Really? The government hasnt put a dime into them? So when they didnt burn to the ground, when they werent vandalized by criminals, when the windows werent completely destroyed by burglars, when the building next door didnt burn down because of faulty construction techniques, when the water was run to them, when they were able to stay air conditioned because of a public electrical utility that ended up keeping it mildew free, when the trash was taken away and the rat population controlled, and no one was allowed to playfully explode dynamite or land helicopters, that wasnt provided by the government?
Aren't those services that are paid for via a variety of taxes, including property taxes.
dude, do you 'get' this whole government thing?
I get that the government does not actually pay for anything itself. We pay taxes such that the government can't fund certain services.
I think the idea of historical designation is that certain buildings (commercial or residential) tell the story of a particular time, place or culture. The preservation of these buildings are in the interest of the "public," therefore, the public should have some say in how they are maintained. I think with all that people tend to destroy, intentionally or not, a few places should be preserved for future generations. If someone "owns" a historically designated property, they might want to reconsider their role. "Caretaker" might be a more appropriate designation, since that building was probably around well before you and hopefully be around (with the help of historical designation) long after your gone.
I have to believe that in most cases historic designations are sought by the landowners themselves for a variety of reasons. In the case of the first two buildings here, for instance, landmarking would prevent the government from bulldozing the buildings out from under them. Future buyers are aware of the designations when they purchase the property. When it's the wish of the property owner, it's hard to see it as an infringement of their rights.
Quote from: stephendare on May 21, 2013, 11:07:33 AM
Quote from: MEGATRON on May 21, 2013, 10:55:47 AM
Quote from: stephendare on May 21, 2013, 09:13:25 AM
Quote from: MEGATRON on May 21, 2013, 08:58:26 AM
Quote from: stephendare on May 20, 2013, 08:22:05 PM
Quote from: Redbaron616 on May 20, 2013, 07:44:24 PM
Landmark or national historic status is nothing more than the seizing of private property because somehow the public believes it belongs to them. Never mind that the public (or government) has never put a dime into one of these buildings. Somehow they believe it belongs to them and they are going to take it. This adds considerable burden onto the current owner who is no longer allowed to do as he wishes to his property.
Really? The government hasnt put a dime into them? So when they didnt burn to the ground, when they werent vandalized by criminals, when the windows werent completely destroyed by burglars, when the building next door didnt burn down because of faulty construction techniques, when the water was run to them, when they were able to stay air conditioned because of a public electrical utility that ended up keeping it mildew free, when the trash was taken away and the rat population controlled, and no one was allowed to playfully explode dynamite or land helicopters, that wasnt provided by the government?
Aren't those services that are paid for via a variety of taxes, including property taxes.
dude, do you 'get' this whole government thing?
I get that the government does not actually pay for anything itself. We pay taxes such that the government can't fund certain services.
Ok Megatron you don't get to post on anymore of these 'politics' threads until we finish up 9th grade civics. This does not include reading the cliff's notes of bad Ayn Rand derived blogviations.
May I suggest, something along the lines of John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Montesquieu, or more importantly, Adam Smith?
Read them thoroughly before you post again if you would like to be taken seriously.
Care to explain how I am wrong. I must have missed your analysis.
Quote from: Tacachale on May 21, 2013, 11:36:17 AM
I have to believe that in most cases historic designations are sought by the landowners themselves for a variety of reasons.
That would be the minority. If a landowner wants to preserve a historic building, that landowner can do so willingly and voluntarily without the aid of the government. Unless there is some additional benefit to the landowner, why would it want such a designation?
^What is your evidence that it's a minority? For example the creation of the Riverside, Avondale and Springfield historic districts were initiatives of the people of those neighborhoods. Those alone probably make up a majority of historic designations in Jacksonville. There are plenty of benefits to the designation, such as not having the government knock down your building against your wishes.
Quote from: stephendare on May 21, 2013, 01:52:56 PM
Its really an issue for grownups megatron.
You don't seem to understand what
government means--at least not ours anyways.
So it really wouldnt be productive to discuss an issue of governance with you. It would just hijack a thread that you have decided to start posting in for some reason.
[/quote]Weak. but I did not mean to hijack the thread. Please carry on.
I cannot believe they plan on tearing down that River Road home. Who is it that wants to live in an historic neighborhood but not an historic house?
It seems like there was a gigantic house built recently in San Marco that is already up for sale. Not sure if they tore anything down to build it but it sure is monstrous.
Are there any existing homes on River Rd that are protected? The two Swisher homes are certainly historic. I would hate to see demolition start, and it tends to go like domino's in no time.
I agree, if you don't want a historic house, don't buy it. I'm sure there are a number of new houses on the river available.
http://www.trulia.com/homes/Florida/Jacksonville/sold/2500876-2241-River-Rd-Jacksonville-FL-32207 shows many properties for sale.
This is a Single-Family Home located at 2241 River Road, Jacksonville FL. 2241 River Rd has 5 beds, 4 ½ baths, and approximately 4,910 square feet. The property has a lot size of 1.27 acres and was built in 1936. The average list price for similar homes for sale is $1,081,760 and the average sales price for similar recently sold homes is $254,173. 2241 River Rd is in the San Marco neighborhood in Jacksonville, FL. The average list price for San Marco is $1,433,149.
Quote from: Tacachale on May 21, 2013, 01:45:14 PM
^What is your evidence that it's a minority? For example the creation of the Riverside, Avondale and Springfield historic districts were initiatives of the people of those neighborhoods. Those alone probably make up a majority of historic designations in Jacksonville. There are plenty of benefits to the designation, such as not having the government knock down your building against your wishes.
Its very different when you are talking about an entire neighborhood. Overlaying a preservation district over an entire neighborhood offers a buyer of a house in that neighborhood some certainty. Completely different when we are discussing a single home. What's the benefit there? There is none. There is no government incentive. All it means is that it will cost you more to do any work on the structure.
When can the government knock down you building against your wishes other than when its determined to be a nuisance or danger? They have to condemn it first. The homeowner has plenty of opportunity to get the building up to snuff. The City has given the Myers family, what, 15 years to address the safety of the building. If they are seeking to protect those buildings under a historic protection ordinance, its only to further thwart the City, not to actually preserve the building. They have done nothing in 15 years to preserve that building.
Many of the Marsh and Saxelby homes are on the National Register of Historic Places.
For the others, I see no logical reason to take them down. Yes, they have been neglected for a long time, but certainly no worse than many that are still standing, and could be restored, or ones that were in worse condition that have been restored.
Quote from: MEGATRON on May 22, 2013, 08:43:02 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on May 21, 2013, 01:45:14 PM
^What is your evidence that it's a minority? For example the creation of the Riverside, Avondale and Springfield historic districts were initiatives of the people of those neighborhoods. Those alone probably make up a majority of historic designations in Jacksonville. There are plenty of benefits to the designation, such as not having the government knock down your building against your wishes.
Its very different when you are talking about an entire neighborhood. Overlaying a preservation district over an entire neighborhood offers a buyer of a house in that neighborhood some certainty. Completely different when we are discussing a single home. What's the benefit there? There is none. There is no government incentive. All it means is that it will cost you more to do any work on the structure.
When can the government knock down you building against your wishes other than when its determined to be a nuisance or danger? They have to condemn it first. The homeowner has plenty of opportunity to get the building up to snuff. The City has given the Myers family, what, 15 years to address the safety of the building. If they are seeking to protect those buildings under a historic protection ordinance, its only to further thwart the City, not to actually preserve the building. They have done nothing in 15 years to preserve that building.
First, it's not particularly different talking about a neighborhood or a single building. If you have a contributing structure in a historic district you're still restricted in what you can do to it, however thousands of people still find them attractive properties to buy. Second, there are definitely incentives available to buildings that have historic landmark status. You can get local tax incentives (http://www.coj.net/departments/planning-and-development/community-planning-division/default/incentives.aspx) and in some cases loans, federal incentives and grants. And whatever you think, not having the city demolish your building when you don't want it demolished is probably a pretty strong incentive for certain owners. Above you said that only a "minority" of historic designations are sought by property owners themselves, do you have any evidence that that's the case?
Quote from: Tacachale on May 22, 2013, 10:28:54 AM
Quote from: MEGATRON on May 22, 2013, 08:43:02 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on May 21, 2013, 01:45:14 PM
^What is your evidence that it's a minority? For example the creation of the Riverside, Avondale and Springfield historic districts were initiatives of the people of those neighborhoods. Those alone probably make up a majority of historic designations in Jacksonville. There are plenty of benefits to the designation, such as not having the government knock down your building against your wishes.
Its very different when you are talking about an entire neighborhood. Overlaying a preservation district over an entire neighborhood offers a buyer of a house in that neighborhood some certainty. Completely different when we are discussing a single home. What's the benefit there? There is none. There is no government incentive. All it means is that it will cost you more to do any work on the structure.
When can the government knock down you building against your wishes other than when its determined to be a nuisance or danger? They have to condemn it first. The homeowner has plenty of opportunity to get the building up to snuff. The City has given the Myers family, what, 15 years to address the safety of the building. If they are seeking to protect those buildings under a historic protection ordinance, its only to further thwart the City, not to actually preserve the building. They have done nothing in 15 years to preserve that building.
First, it's not particularly different talking about a neighborhood or a single building. If you have a contributing structure in a historic district you're still restricted in what you can do to it, however thousands of people still find them attractive properties to buy. Second, there are definitely incentives available to buildings that have historic landmark status. You can get local tax incentives (http://www.coj.net/departments/planning-and-development/community-planning-division/default/incentives.aspx) and in some cases loans, federal incentives and grants. And whatever you think, not having the city demolish your building when you don't want it demolished is probably a pretty strong incentive for certain owners. Above you said that only a "minority" of historic designations are sought by property owners themselves, do you have any evidence that that's the case?
First off, those tax incentives amount to nothing. Dump a bunch of money into improvements then possibly not pay taxes on the increased value resulting from those improvements. That only makes sense for very few buildings. Good luck getting a federal loans or grant, especially for a residential structure.
I'm sorry you can;t see the difference between an historic overlay and voluntarily designating your structure. Its an enormous different. I bought in Avondale because I like the history of the area and I know that the historic homes are not going anywhere. The benenfit to me is that I am treated the same as others.
If Avondale was not within the historic overlay, why would I voluntarily designate my home. I'm not getting any incentives. Improvements will cost much more without the benefit that the homes around me have to comply with the same restrictions.
Devil's Advocate: What if, in the River Road case, the house hasn't been maintained for upwards of forty years? What if neighbors consider it a hazard and an eyesore, and would welcome a new structure? What if the new owners, by buying it, are buying into the neighborhood for the next forty years, and making a commitment to its improvement? What if immaculate Swisher mansions in the same style sit across the street, highlighting this house's relatively undistinguished lines? What if the real history of the Cohen's legacy is actually attached to the St. James building downtown? Is preservation an absolute imperative in this case?
Megatron,
Having your home listed on the National Register of Historic Places does not put any restrictions on what the owner can and can't do with the property (local restrictions within a historic district- RAP for example, can be more stringent). I would guess that owners who choose to go through this process do so because they actually give a damn about historic preservation and see value with having their home placed on the Registry. As has been mentioned, there are also grant programs and tax credits (both state and local) that become available once a home is listed which could be attractive to home owners as well.
Megatron, before you were talking about the burden on the homeowner of historic designations. The burdens are obviously pretty similar whether you have a contributing structure in a historic district or an independently designated property. You're now making my case for me that there are benefits to such a designation. I still don't see any indication that only a "minority" of such designations are sought by the homeowner.
If a homeowner objects to having their property listed on the National Register it will not be listed. For districts, the majority of property owners must agree or it will not be listed. The government doesn't just automatically decide that your home is listed.
From my source on this deal the prospective buyer, not from Jacksonville, loves that part of San Marco. Wanted to build a house there. Wanted a large lot. None on the market, did not want waterfront. Wanted that particular lot (1.3 acres). Knocked on the door, made an offer. Never asked or inquired about the homes historic value. Wanted the lot.
Hope if this goes through he will at least have a salvage sale so folks can buy any architecturally or historically important items from the home before it goes down.
Quote from: Tacachale on May 22, 2013, 11:35:52 AM
Megatron, before you were talking about the burden on the homeowner of historic designations. The burdens are obviously pretty similar whether you have a contributing structure in a historic district or an independently designated property. You're now making my case for me that there are benefits to such a designation. I still don't see any indication that only a "minority" of such designations are sought by the homeowner.
Of course they are similar. The question was why anyone would voluntarily designate their own structure that is not in a historic district.
Quote from: cline on May 22, 2013, 11:39:29 AM
If a homeowner objects to having their property listed on the National Register it will not be listed. For districts, the majority of property owners must agree or it will not be listed. The government doesn't just automatically decide that your home is listed.
Agreed. The point was why would anyone volunteer for such designation. If people saw value in this, you would see a good number of folks seeking such designation. That's not the case however. How many homes in San Marco have voluntarily sought such designation?
Simple. People would voluntarily attempt to designate their home because they see their home as historically significant. Contrary to what you may believe, there is a large contingent of people that value historic preservation. Aside from simply seeing historic value in your home there are other monetary advantages such as federal and state grant programs and tax breaks.
And to answer your question there are quite a few homes on the registry from the San Jose Estates area. The majority of which were Marsh & Saxelbye.
Per the historic planning department, landmark status from COJ adds an extra layer of protection. As a Springfielder, I can attest that living in an historic district will NOT keep the government from tearing your house down. If that were true, we would have have lost so manyhouses to demolition since Springfield became a National Register Historic District in the 1980's.
I assume COJ landmark status marks the property as valuable as a LOCAL landmark, and therefore worthy of special LOCAL protection, as opposed to a generic historic house. But I could research that instead of making the assumption.
Cohen residence declared a potential landmark by HPC. Demo COA denied
So is that binding, since it's not in a historic district? Can the city enforce that, or can the owner tear it down without consequences?
Good to hear it was denied. I know there are property rights issues, but this is important. If it's any consolation, I have 2.5 acres on the northside of town that I would be happy to sell for $1m, or $900k, or less, and no demo would be necessary, only a double wide removed. :)
Just because one has a boatload of money doesn't necessarily mean one has a heightened appreciation or understanding of historically significant properties. In fact, the problem everyone is ranting about occurs almost everywhere when it comes to highly desirable properties. Many art deco homes have been torn down in the Miami area and replaced by McMansions that are nothing more than garish.
Some people with money make the right connections and are able to buy "good taste" others just seem to roll on and spend their new money like their ain't no tomorrow or yesterday. Many highly successful people have large egos and they get great satisfaction when they make difficult things happen to specifically suit their needs. Buying a vanilla lot in a new neighborhood, to build a house, is just too damn easy. "I bought this house and tore it down when nobody else could, and I built my house here and there will never be another one like it on this street. And if my cigar smoke offends you, tough sh**."
Sometimes when the country club doesn't let you in just wait awhile and buy the place and make yourself the director. Just ask the guy who owns all the gas stations and is teeing it up at Ponte Vedra as we speak.
Up here in South Carolina many modern day developers have destroyed more significant properties than General Sherman did when he made his torchlight tour through the South.
I'm hearing a succesful resolution might be in the works. New buyer will renovate then sell the existing historic structure while building his own new home on a separate part of the parcel. Will update if I hear anymore.
How do I find out more about Hurston home preservation efforts?
The Hurston home is privately owned.
It proved its landmark case to the historic planning commission and so should be a shoe-in at city council. At this point, no additional work will be done. The landmarking designation protects it from demolition in the future.
Some of us have talked about getting money to purchase an historical sign marking the spot. This is something that the community could help with.
an amazing woman hurston was...glad this was pursued and documented.
obviously a lot more research needs to be done to document other prominent african american jacksonville citizens.
Not every old home is historic. A lot of homes in Springfield were thrown up after the great fire, stamped moldings rather than carved, and a lot have outlived their economic life. Not every home had a connection with a historic person. They were just houses, and most, wooden houses, that wear out after almost or more than a century. Its good to have an inventory of these houses, but sometimes, those that cannot be refurbished should be demolished and replaced with in field housing. The city should assist in making the determinations along with the owners and with the neighborhood. It is good to save something that can be saved, but as I said, not everything is worth saving.
Historic districts are a sum of several elements, structures, events from a certain time period, that when combined that particular area offers a unique sense of place and quality. So something as simple as a small shotgun house, a basic brick storefront or warehouse can play an important role in the overall make up of a historic community.
When these things come down one-by-one at an alarming rate over a certain time period, a community's sense of place can become forever lost. We don't have to look far to see the results of haphazard and senseless demolition. Downtown, Sugar Hill, LaVilla, Brooklyn, etc. are all examples of areas that have lost that unique sense of place they once possessed. They are also areas where revitalization efforts have struggled because complete demolition means significantly investing large sums of money in new construction becomes of the only option to turn them around.
Unfortunately, that's not the typical and most affordable method for revitalization, which is why many of these districts look the way they do, despite the entire country going through the largest urban redevelopment boom since the 1920s.
Quote from: MusicMan on June 01, 2013, 08:34:01 PM
I'm hearing a succesful resolution might be in the works. New buyer will renovate then sell the existing historic structure while building his own new home on a separate part of the parcel. Will update if I hear anymore.
Since new buyer has no interest in historic homes, this makes me almost as nervous as the original intent of demolishing it. Not quite, but almost. I hope he doesn't decide to gut the place and make it all modern, open concept. I would feel better if he just sold as is to someone who wants to preserve it. Or just made simple repairs to what exists and sell it. I hope he gets hold of a preservation contractor who knows what they are doing. :-(
That said, better than demolishing it.
Halle Cohen residence will likely not receive landmark status. Comments from commissioners seem against it
Commissioners deny the landmark status