Ten Historic Springfield Demolitions
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Neighborhoods/Springfield-Demolitions/i-K5TddCk/0/O/atylerbanner.jpg)
Kimberly Scott, the director of Code Enforcement for the City of Jacksonville, has been accused of wanton destruction of the historic fabric of the City's oldest neighborhood. Although Code Enforcement is not the cause of all the demolitions, the losses to this single neighborhood over the past few years have been shocking. Which is why all the hubbub Here are ten of Springfield structures that were demolished that could have been saved and restored.
Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2013-jun-ten-historic-springfield-demolitions (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2013-jun-ten-historic-springfield-demolitions)
It was still a demo that was allowed in an Historic district. It should be almost impossible to do without cause. Someone still approved it.
Well, when we asked that exact question, we were told that COJ's HPC has always approved COA's for the city without question. Basically a rubber-stamp with no check and balance, which defeats the entire purpose of the HPC.
Kim Scott MUST GO!!!
Hmmm, my comment is not appearing in the forum, so I'll add it here:
While I agree that Kimberly Scott is responsible for the majority of the historic Springfield demolitions, she is not responsible for the 4th one pictured. That was unfortunately an owner-requested demolition. Just trying to keep things straight and tell the truth.
I agree with you mbwright, demolitions should be next to impossible in a historic district. And avs, I've been saying that for a while now. ;)
save the houses
Quote from: sheclown on June 27, 2013, 08:50:09 AM
save the houses
+1 and Public Access and economic opportunity to our St. Johns River our American Heritage River a FEDERAL Initiative throughout Duval county.
But those photos are 28 years old. If you wish to go after someone it needs to be done fairly.
And I agree with save the houses.
Quote from: sheclown on June 27, 2013, 08:50:09 AM
save the houses
+INFINITY.
and noone, you're right about the St. Johns. Did you know that the National Historic Trust has the James River on America's 11 most endangered places list?
http://www.preservationnation.org/issues/11-most-endangered/
We all need to be embracing these treasures that make our community unique.
Quote from: stephendare on June 27, 2013, 09:19:38 AM
Quote from: chris farley on June 27, 2013, 09:07:06 AM
But those photos are 28 years old. If you wish to go after someone it needs to be done fairly.
And I agree with save the houses.
It doesnt matter when the photos were taken, Chris.
They were there, and now they arent.
Stephen, I agree the houses were there and now they are not. However, Chris makes a good point. Some of the photos are very old and do not depict the status of the structure when MCCD demolished it. They are excellent references to what COULD be done to RESTORE the homes.
I think MCCD's take (and others I suspect) is that these houses have deteriorated to the point that they are unsafe. Some of them could be classified as "ugly" at the time of demolition. None of that matters because someone could bring that HISTORIC structure back to glory if allowed. Just because something is deemed "ugly" does not mean it should be destroyed! Heck, people get plastic surgery all the time to be "prettier". How about MCCD allow those of us willing to do it give these old gals a much deserved face lift!!
SAVE THE HOUSES! EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM!
I was saving these for a future article and I'll probably still use them but they seem appropriate for this thread. Since we created this site, we've taken thousands of images of our urban neighborhoods. Going back through the archives, it's disheartening to see what has been lost. Although, the Springfield buildings in these images came down for different reasons, it doesn't change the fact that they are now gone.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Neighborhoods/Urban-Core-Demolitions/i-HV6ZP9j/0/M/DCP_4396-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Neighborhoods/Urban-Core-Demolitions/i-hBcpD89/0/M/DCP_7940-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Neighborhoods/Urban-Core-Demolitions/i-sFQvg5g/0/M/DCP_6825-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Neighborhoods/Urban-Core-Demolitions/i-cxfDxKn/0/M/DCP_4117-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Neighborhoods/Urban-Core-Demolitions/i-Zg5pHK2/0/M/DCP_5462-M.jpg)
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-38-dsc01799.jpg)
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-46-dsc01807.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Neighborhoods/Urban-Core-Demolitions/i-szSvMfg/0/M/DCP_5443-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Neighborhoods/Urban-Core-Demolitions/i-NMsPC5V/0/M/IMG_6771-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Neighborhoods/Urban-Core-Demolitions/i-SNfCRc8/0/M/IMG_6799-M.jpg)
Quote from: stephendare on June 27, 2013, 09:34:34 AM
Great points Unicorn. The article is actually meant to just document the scale of the losses, perhaps I should go back and make that a bit clearer. Ive already edited the opening a bit to make that a little more clear.
Thanks Stephen. I think that would be a great idea.
i feel sick looking at these pictures. :'(
They are a vivid reminder of how dense and mixed-use Springfield was at one point. Unfortunately, I have a lot more from downtown and neighborhoods like Durkeeville, Brooklyn, LaVilla and the Eastside, which aren't "protected" with a historic district designation. All taken since 2006 or so.
Nevertheless, in the case of Springfield, they help me understand the struggles that 8th & Main Streets both face. You have two commercial corridors that were developed to support a much larger population than what exists today. These districts will continue to struggle without an increase in density to support them.
and yet we spend valuable historic department time and energy on landscaping and ATM placement as if we didn't have a preservation crisis on our hands.
Quote from: chris farley on June 27, 2013, 09:07:06 AM
But those photos are 28 years old. If you wish to go after someone it needs to be done fairly.
And I agree with save the houses.
Currently, six of the ten photos pictured in the article are indeed current pictures that at least very closely showed the how the houses appeared at the time of demolition. Only four pictures aree from the RUDAC study used to obtain the historic designation, meaning they were 28 years old.
Perhaps it would have been best to show both, but still, the houses are gone and the question why needs to be asked over and over again.
Also, the 4th one, taken by the owner's request was technically taken by MCCD as the owner had to get them to take his house as an emergency as the owner was not approved to demolish his house. One has to wonder how MCCD "profited" by that....
Quote from: stephendare on June 27, 2013, 09:34:34 AM
Great points Unicorn. The article is actually meant to just document the scale of the losses, perhaps I should go back and make that a bit clearer. Ive already edited the opening a bit to make that a little more clear.
I am 100% on board with saving every house. However, the "article" was devoid of context. Were these all demo`d by the city under nonspecific reasons? I see significant fire damage on at least two of those photos. Were they taken down after major fires? What happened to the properties afterwards? Are they overgrown lots, or have they been reused?
I think the important action would be to look to the future, and act with a purpose. Learn from the past. Don't live in it.
I would like to see the " Independent structural engineer reviews later confirmed major concerns, which required immediate action"
I would think these would be visible documents. Who are these "independent" structural engineers?
Quote from: mbwright on June 27, 2013, 10:43:49 AM
I would like to see the " Independent structural engineer reviews later confirmed major concerns, which required immediate action"
I would think these would be visible documents. Who are these "independent" structural engineers?
Most often it is Atlantic Engineering.
Quote from: stephendare on June 27, 2013, 10:30:31 AM
In regards Lumb's letter: Well one thing that immediately jumps out is the intentional wording of the following claim:
"Upon conferring with Kim Scott, it is my understanding that within the past five (5) years, MCCD has directed over 500 board-ups and hundreds of nuisance abatements - some actions occurring more than once at individual properties "
This makes it sound like MCCD has actually gone out and boarded up houses that have been abandoned. In reality this refers to the resolution that they send out to the property in the form of a complaint letter. This is something that they tell whoever they are sending the letter to to do. Not something that they do themselves.
Interesting use of semantics in Scott's statements about boarding up properties. Yup, she has been working within the city government structure for a long, long time.
Lots of semantic and general poopoo here
Quote
The City of Jacksonville (the “City”), via its Municipal Code Compliance Division (“MCCD”), plays an integral role in preservation of local historic structures.
can someone check to make sure that lightning hasn't struck city hall?
QuoteUpon conferring with Kim Scott, it is my understanding that within the past five (5) years, MCCD has directed over 500 board-ups and hundreds of nuisance abatements ....
Love the passive voice here. he has not checked this, it's just his understanding.
QuoteIt is also my understanding that responsibilities assigned to MCCD do not include rehabilitation and renovation of residential structures. Further, it is my understanding that MCCD does not have the authority to enter into any agreements that limit or impair any of its obligations authorized under city ordinance.
passive passive
Quote from: m74reeves on June 27, 2013, 11:45:42 AM
Lots of semantic and general poopoo here
Quote
The City of Jacksonville (the “Cityâ€), via its Municipal Code Compliance Division (“MCCDâ€), plays an integral role in preservation of local historic structures.
can someone check to make sure that lighting hasn't struck city hall?
QuoteUpon conferring with Kim Scott, it is my understanding that within the past five (5) years, MCCD has directed over 500 board-ups and hundreds of nuisance abatements ....
Love the passive voice here. he has not checked this, it's just his understanding.
QuoteIt is also my understanding that responsibilities assigned to MCCD do not include rehabilitation and renovation of residential structures. Further, it is my understanding that MCCD does not have the authority to enter into any agreements that limit or impair any of its obligations authorized under city ordinance.
passive passive
He has to respond this way because he does not know for certain. Because if he did know, he'd have told us so. IMHO
“Sec. 307.113. Unsafe Structure Abatement.
In the event a structure that has been designated as a landmark or contributing to an historic
district under the provisions of this Chapter is declared to be an unsafe structure or
condemned…. In determining the appropriate manner to remedy emergency conditions
affecting a landmark, landmark site, or a property in a historic district, the remedy shall be
limited to the least intrusive means to minimize the impact to the historic fabric. Consideration
shall be given to bracing or other stabilization alternatives if such would be sufficient to abate
the emergency conditionsâ€
Not only is stabilization required over demolition, it is more cost effective, thereby saving taxpayer’s money.
He argues POLICY, we argue ORDINANCE.
as director of this department, it is my understanding [sorry, couldn't resist] that he should be able to direct interpretation of policies instead of having his chiefs go buck wild.
These pictures present a different Springfield than I'm accustomed to. It's been a couple years since I've been in the hood, but I've spent enough time in Springfield to have a mental picture of buildings that are either restored, new construction, or not in this bad of shape. Hate to have this view, but some of these pictures look like the houses have reached the point of no return...and really no offense to some because most of the houses in Springfield are architecturally significant and constructed well, some of these don't really seem worth saving IMO...especially if they are fire hazards to occupied houses next door and are not going to be saved/can't be saved anyway.
This is not a either - or issue. It is not a 'NO demolitons ever' or 'YES to demolitions just because a house looks bad' choice. There should be a scale to which something is so far gone that it is not realtistic to expect renovation. Anything can be renovated for enough money but that is not realistic. I think Kimberly Scotts scale has been way off but I also think those that think there should be no demolitions and that everything can be restored are just as off base.
In the last decade or so, particularly after 2007 when the ordinances changed, we have been battling a major developer, SPAR Council and MCC to stop the demolition of historic houses due to reckless policy. It took until 2012 before SPAR Council changed it's tune and even now, there is some resistance to doing the preservation thing. The major developer who thought you saved a historic district by tearing down the old and building new is gone but a few like minded residents are still around. All this means is that we have given up the right to pick and choose which houses we try to save and which ones we say,OK, it's too far gone. Historic Springfield has lost about 25% of it's total housing stock since 1985. 535 houses gone now, with the two latest.
That said, there are indeed times when houses need to be taken. In about ten years, I have agreed with about five or six. The rest were taken due to social not physical reasons, including the last two. Fire is of course, a big one. But even then, one that I thought needed to go as an emergency (I would not step foot in it) sat for months waiting for funding I guess. Another was supported by trees, the trees keeping it from sliding off it's foundation and again, at least a year for that one to go. Yet, houses with recent building permits get taken as an emergency and yet another that was about to be redone.
The issue with houses in the system abandoned or neglected is indeed an owner related issue. However, the demolition of these historic house falls solely on the city and Ms Scott.
Having had years of contentious losses due to the zealots in the Dept of Code Enforcement in various areas
of the county. I can comment on one specific to Springfield.
Having been in and out of Springfield for over 50 yrs., growing up,, carrying mail at the 8th St. P. office
etc. I remember an ever changing downward spiral that Springfield has begun to finally turn around.
Having worked with RAP since it's inception in 1973 working for homeowners there and in Springfield before
it had a formal preservation organization, I remember a classic example of a long condemned boarded up
house at app. 226 E 4th St. I remember it specifically because I was asked by reps. of a UNF fraternity had
the opportunity to invest in saving it in 1989 due to a well meaning benefactor. I was asked to "walk it and
assess whether it was salvageable and at what cost. We went into a house that had been completely vandalized, all the mantels, period moudings, stair rail were ripped out. The frat boys weren't interested in
something smacking of real work so they passed on it. As I worked in and out of the neighborhood I watched
tat house remain boardedup for app. 18 yrs. and mysteriously someone unboarded and took the care to restore that house that had for all intents and appearances sat abandoned for probably 25 yrs.
OI invite anyone to ride by there now and imagine it as a 2 story version of the worst in the pictures above,
now an eyepleasing liveable salvaged former ingot of blight (according to those who use tht rubberstamp
opinion of all they find in need of updating and repair). Put Kim Scott at the head of that list of rubber
stampers. She is possibly the most vindictive and ruthless of all the Chiefs of Prop. Safety I have dealt with
over more than 25 years as an owner contractor.
Conrad Markle
Strider -- 33.64% of the houses gone.
1800 divided by 535 equals 33.64
Conrad, thank you for your heartfelt post. I share your feelings and am so very glad that our fight to save historic Springfield homes is what sparked you to make your first MetroJax post. Welcome! Check out www.preservationsos.org if you'd like to join our grassroots organization to SAVE THE HOUSES!
Quote from: Conrad on June 27, 2013, 06:19:43 PM
Having had years of contentious losses due to the zealots in the Dept of Code Enforcement in various areas
of the county. I can comment on one specific to Springfield.
Having been in and out of Springfield for over 50 yrs., growing up,, carrying mail at the 8th St. P. office
etc. I remember an ever changing downward spiral that Springfield has begun to finally turn around.
Having worked with RAP since it's inception in 1973 working for homeowners there and in Springfield before
it had a formal preservation organization, I remember a classic example of a long condemned boarded up
house at app. 226 E 4th St. I remember it specifically because I was asked by reps. of a UNF fraternity had
the opportunity to invest in saving it in 1989 due to a well meaning benefactor. I was asked to "walk it and
assess whether it was salvageable and at what cost. We went into a house that had been completely vandalized, all the mantels, period moudings, stair rail were ripped out. The frat boys weren't interested in
something smacking of real work so they passed on it. As I worked in and out of the neighborhood I watched
tat house remain boardedup for app. 18 yrs. and mysteriously someone unboarded and took the care to restore that house that had for all intents and appearances sat abandoned for probably 25 yrs.
OI invite anyone to ride by there now and imagine it as a 2 story version of the worst in the pictures above,
now an eyepleasing liveable salvaged former ingot of blight (according to those who use tht rubberstamp
opinion of all they find in need of updating and repair). Put Kim Scott at the head of that list of rubber
stampers. She is possibly the most vindictive and ruthless of all the Chiefs of Prop. Safety I have dealt with
over more than 25 years as an owner contractor.
Conrad Markle
Conrad, so very glad to see you pop up on here, would you please PM me with a phone number? What a small world, PSOS has specifically been trying to get ahold of you, we heard about what happened with your father and MCCD, and we'd all very much like to meet you and speak with you, that is if you'll have us.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 27, 2013, 09:38:02 AM
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-38-dsc01799.jpg)
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-46-dsc01807.jpg)
Well it is certainly a shame to see some of these gone, I remember thinking that that Jewish Center on 3rd and Silver was just destined for success to be redeveloped. With it being right across from the park, within walking distance of Main Street and even DT. Was so disappointed the morning we watched it burn on the news. Hopefully something worthwhile can still go there.
However, I can say all the demolitions were not the cause of the city. These two pictures show the property that was 1723?? Boulevard. Facing the two towers of SHANDS (former University Hospital??) for which were told that these buildings and the one still standing at 1715 were dormitories for the students at that hospital. The non-profit I work for, Prisoners of Christ, operates apartments in the remaining building and had tried to save those other structures, but they were in need of major work. And even with the backing of Ed Austin and WW Gay we just didn't have the necessary resources. I remember the preservationists had tried to save them, something about the design was unique to that period of building which I cannot recall now.
However, after sitting empty it attracted a criminal element that had gotten out of control. Incan remember stopping by our apartments on a Saturday morning and seeing numerous lost souls just hanging out there. The police were called a lot and then it came to be that once or twice a month fire rescue would be called to remove someone who had passed over the night. Being that we house men coming out of prison, the neighbor was not the best to have. So it was actually our organization, with the help of prominent board members, who pushed the city to demolish. The day before it was taken down, we walked through with a city building inspector and the floors were falling into the basement (a basement in Florida!) and there were crack pipes and tin foil and needles everywhere.
Maybe the city contributed by not assuring preservation before it was too late, or by not running the nomads out of there. But the city authorities at the time did not want this building removed, they wanted it rehabbed. Today it is just a grass lot. A real estate firm in Ft Lauderdale is trying to offer it for a little over $1.2m last time I checked. It will stay a grass lot for a while.
JayBird, your compass is ever so slightly off. Those two pictures were the former Lampru Court apartments between the shell station and my old quad plex at 1719 perry street. I'd recognize that building anywhere, and it's a travesty that it came down. A highly unique building by a highly unique architect, and for the record completely salvageable. I have seen far worse successfully and profitably rehabbed, that didn't even have the benefit of being made of concrete. There was no reason the building had to be demolished. I was inside several times, almost bought it, before I got outbid by folks who promptly tore it down and then did nothing with the property. Why? Who knows. Just one more bad decision in a decade-long series of bad decisions that have resulted in the demolition of a full 1/3'rd of a national historic district.
Jaybird, I never blamed any particular entity for the demolition of the buildings in the images I posted. I said they came down for a lot of reasons but that doesn't change the fact that they are gone.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on June 27, 2013, 09:55:26 PM
JayBird, your compass is ever so slightly off. Those two pictures were the former Lampru Court apartments between the shell station and my old quad plex at 1719 perry street. I'd recognize that building anywhere, and it's a travesty that it came down. A highly unique building by a highly unique architect, and for the record completely salvageable. I have seen far worse successfully and profitably rehabbed, that didn't even have the benefit of being made of concrete. There was no reason the building had to be demolished. I was inside several times, almost bought it, before I got outbid by folks who promptly tore it down and then did nothing with the property. Why? Who knows. Just one more bad decision in a decade-long series of bad decisions that have resulted in the demolition of a full 1/3'rd of a national historic district.
Nope right on the money, now that you say the name i recognize it immediately, those were the ones. That person who bought ended up buying them was going to rehab, however they got worse, we complained and the city had it demolished. Somewhere in my filing cabinet I have pictures of day before tear down, will find and post. That brick building you see in the corner of one shot is still there today, that's ours. That was my first introduction to Springfield politics LoL As a matter of fact, our building still has the Lampru name over the doorway. Do you know if they were originally built as dormitories or were they just regular apartments from beginning?
Quote from: thelakelander on June 27, 2013, 09:58:19 PM
Jaybird, I never blamed any particular entity for the demolition of the buildings in the images I posted. I said they came down for a lot of reasons but that doesn't change the fact that they are gone.
Yes, and if you read my post I never said you did. Others had posted various city entities and I was just stating this wasn't the case for these two buildings.
Quote from: JayBird on June 27, 2013, 10:40:54 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on June 27, 2013, 09:58:19 PM
Jaybird, I never blamed any particular entity for the demolition of the buildings in the images I posted. I said they came down for a lot of reasons but that doesn't change the fact that they are gone.
Yes, and if you read my post I never said you did. Others had posted various city entities and I was just stating this wasn't the case for these two buildings.
But these two buildings were not included in the article the others have been referring to. I added them within the comment section to simply show other structures that have been lost in recent years.
Quote from: JayBird on June 27, 2013, 10:38:53 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on June 27, 2013, 09:55:26 PM
JayBird, your compass is ever so slightly off. Those two pictures were the former Lampru Court apartments between the shell station and my old quad plex at 1719 perry street. I'd recognize that building anywhere, and it's a travesty that it came down. A highly unique building by a highly unique architect, and for the record completely salvageable. I have seen far worse successfully and profitably rehabbed, that didn't even have the benefit of being made of concrete. There was no reason the building had to be demolished. I was inside several times, almost bought it, before I got outbid by folks who promptly tore it down and then did nothing with the property. Why? Who knows. Just one more bad decision in a decade-long series of bad decisions that have resulted in the demolition of a full 1/3'rd of a national historic district.
Nope right on the money, now that you say the name i recognize it immediately, those were the ones. That person who bought ended up buying them was going to rehab, however they got worse, we complained and the city had it demolished. Somewhere in my filing cabinet I have pictures of day before tear down, will find and post. That brick building you see in the corner of one shot is still there today, that's ours. That was my first introduction to Springfield politics LoL As a matter of fact, our building still has the Lampru name over the doorway. Do you know if they were originally built as dormitories or were they just regular apartments from beginning?
There were several buildings around named Lampru, back then many landlords in Springfield and Riverside gave their buildings names, in this case Lampru Court, Lampru Gardens, etc. Unfortunately I think you have the last Lampru left. But it was built originally as the Lampru Court apartments, designed by Henrietta Dozier, and was an apartment building from the beginning. It is covered in Wayne Wood's book if you have a copy.
And now that I double-checked, I must be losing my mind. It is one block from Perry on Boulevard, it seems like yesterday I was turning 22, now apparently I've reached the stage that I can't remember the location of my own apartment buildings. Where does the time go?
it was on boulevard, but can't pull up a pic of it from the SIAA site (great resource BTW).
this vacant lot is owned by tarpon (which sounds like it is in the midst of legal issues if i recall from annie lytle school post) and has at least $130K in City liens. So, in a sense, the neighborhood is violated all over again even though the building is long gone.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on June 27, 2013, 11:17:02 PM
Quote from: JayBird on June 27, 2013, 10:38:53 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on June 27, 2013, 09:55:26 PM
JayBird, your compass is ever so slightly off. Those two pictures were the former Lampru Court apartments between the shell station and my old quad plex at 1719 perry street. I'd recognize that building anywhere, and it's a travesty that it came down. A highly unique building by a highly unique architect, and for the record completely salvageable. I have seen far worse successfully and profitably rehabbed, that didn't even have the benefit of being made of concrete. There was no reason the building had to be demolished. I was inside several times, almost bought it, before I got outbid by folks who promptly tore it down and then did nothing with the property. Why? Who knows. Just one more bad decision in a decade-long series of bad decisions that have resulted in the demolition of a full 1/3'rd of a national historic district.
Nope right on the money, now that you say the name i recognize it immediately, those were the ones. That person who bought ended up buying them was going to rehab, however they got worse, we complained and the city had it demolished. Somewhere in my filing cabinet I have pictures of day before tear down, will find and post. That brick building you see in the corner of one shot is still there today, that's ours. That was my first introduction to Springfield politics LoL As a matter of fact, our building still has the Lampru name over the doorway. Do you know if they were originally built as dormitories or were they just regular apartments from beginning?
There were several buildings around named Lampru, back then many landlords in Springfield and Riverside gave their buildings names, in this case Lampru Court, Lampru Gardens, etc. Unfortunately I think you have the last Lampru left. But it was built originally as the Lampru Court apartments, designed by Henrietta Dozier, and was an apartment building from the beginning. It is covered in Wayne Wood's book if you have a copy.
And now that I double-checked, I must be losing my mind. It is one block from Perry on Boulevard, it seems like yesterday I was turning 22, now apparently I've reached the stage that I can't remember the location of my own apartment buildings. Where does the time go?
Thanks for the history, has always wondered what the Lampru name was about. And don't feel bad, I turn 33 in October and already feel like I have Alzheimer's sometime.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 27, 2013, 11:15:48 PM
Quote from: JayBird on June 27, 2013, 10:40:54 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on June 27, 2013, 09:58:19 PM
Jaybird, I never blamed any particular entity for the demolition of the buildings in the images I posted. I said they came down for a lot of reasons but that doesn't change the fact that they are gone.
Yes, and if you read my post I never said you did. Others had posted various city entities and I was just stating this wasn't the case for these two buildings.
But these two buildings were not included in the article the others have been referring to. I added them within the comment section to simply show other structures that have been lost in recent years.
As was noted when I quoted them from you. A million apologies for any misinterpretations I caused or any misgivings on my part.
No worries. No big deal to me. Just enjoying the conversation.
QuoteThe non-profit I work for, Prisoners of Christ, operates apartments in the remaining building and had tried to save those other structures, but they were in need of major work. And even with the backing of Ed Austin and WW Gay we just didn't have the necessary resources. I remember the preservationists had tried to save them, something about the design was unique to that period of building which I cannot recall now.
However, after sitting empty it attracted a criminal element that had gotten out of control. Incan remember stopping by our apartments on a Saturday morning and seeing numerous lost souls just hanging out there. The police were called a lot and then it came to be that once or twice a month fire rescue would be called to remove someone who had passed over the night. Being that we house men coming out of prison, the neighbor was not the best to have. So it was actually our organization, with the help of prominent board members, who pushed the city to demolish. The day before it was taken down, we walked through with a city building inspector and the floors were falling into the basement (a basement in Florida!) and there were crack pipes and tin foil and needles everywhere.
JayBird, this makes me so sad. Especially this line:
Being that we house men coming out of prison, the neighbor was not the best to have.Now that building is lost to the neighborhood, forever. And why? Because it needed structural work? Don't they all.
Because vagrants weren't good neighbors?
NIMBYISM knows no bounds.
That being said, I am impressed by the work you do for those just getting out of prison. I think our city is better for it, without any doubt. But just because I admire your work, it doesn't mean that I'm not upset by the loss of a historic building and your role in it.
No, completely understand SheClown. I am ashamed that we couldn't have found another way to resolve the issues and save the buildings as looking at this post on Facebook, which is what brought me to this thread, those buildings held a lot of memories. Sometimes, in the pursuit of a righteous action much wrong can be done. I am reminded of the Amish interpretation of a famous adage, "for you must break a few eggs to make an omelet yet you forget that the chicken will not produce forever".
Quote from: sheclown on June 28, 2013, 06:56:58 AM
QuoteThe non-profit I work for, Prisoners of Christ, operates apartments in the remaining building and had tried to save those other structures, but they were in need of major work. And even with the backing of Ed Austin and WW Gay we just didn't have the necessary resources. I remember the preservationists had tried to save them, something about the design was unique to that period of building which I cannot recall now.
However, after sitting empty it attracted a criminal element that had gotten out of control. Incan remember stopping by our apartments on a Saturday morning and seeing numerous lost souls just hanging out there. The police were called a lot and then it came to be that once or twice a month fire rescue would be called to remove someone who had passed over the night. Being that we house men coming out of prison, the neighbor was not the best to have. So it was actually our organization, with the help of prominent board members, who pushed the city to demolish. The day before it was taken down, we walked through with a city building inspector and the floors were falling into the basement (a basement in Florida!) and there were crack pipes and tin foil and needles everywhere.
JayBird, this makes me so sad. Especially this line:
Being that we house men coming out of prison, the neighbor was not the best to have.
Now that building is lost to the neighborhood, forever. And why? Because it needed structural work? Don't they all.
Because vagrants weren't good neighbors?
NIMBYISM knows no bounds.
That being said, I am impressed by the work you do for those just getting out of prison. I think our city is better for it, without any doubt. But just because I admire your work, it doesn't mean that I'm not upset by the loss of a historic building and your role in it.
I went through it several times back at that time, it needed a roof, and flooring and joists (because of the roof problems), but the building itself was solid brick and poured concrete, sitting on a concrete foundation. The only rebar I noticed was used in balustrades and decorative elements, some of which had cracked from rust, but a minor fix since they were still there to make a form off of. But structurally there was nothing wrong with it, the structure itself was solid brick and poured concrete, where's it gonna go?
You should have seen the bulldozers laboring to tear that thing down. The first one couldn't make a dent, so they brought a second one that accomplished nothing twice as fast. Then they brought in a giant excavator thing that broke, and finally resorted to a wrecking ball before it would come down. And even then it still took a week. All on an allegedly structurally-deficient building.
Quote from: sheclown on June 28, 2013, 06:56:58 AM
QuoteThe non-profit I work for, Prisoners of Christ, operates apartments in the remaining building and had tried to save those other structures, but they were in need of major work. And even with the backing of Ed Austin and WW Gay we just didn't have the necessary resources. I remember the preservationists had tried to save them, something about the design was unique to that period of building which I cannot recall now.
However, after sitting empty it attracted a criminal element that had gotten out of control. Incan remember stopping by our apartments on a Saturday morning and seeing numerous lost souls just hanging out there. The police were called a lot and then it came to be that once or twice a month fire rescue would be called to remove someone who had passed over the night. Being that we house men coming out of prison, the neighbor was not the best to have. So it was actually our organization, with the help of prominent board members, who pushed the city to demolish. The day before it was taken down, we walked through with a city building inspector and the floors were falling into the basement (a basement in Florida!) and there were crack pipes and tin foil and needles everywhere.
JayBird, this makes me so sad. Especially this line:
Being that we house men coming out of prison, the neighbor was not the best to have.
Now that building is lost to the neighborhood, forever. And why? Because it needed structural work? Don't they all.
Because vagrants weren't good neighbors?
NIMBYISM knows no bounds.
That being said, I am impressed by the work you do for those just getting out of prison. I think our city is better for it, without any doubt. But just because I admire your work, it doesn't mean that I'm not upset by the loss of a historic building and your role in it.
Give me a break! I speak for the silent majority of people who dont know about or want to post on metrojacksonville or other forums saying that to save Springfield there needed to be a lot of demolitions! You needed to get alot of the socual services agenecies out of the neighborhood! You needed all those new nice srg houses! The neighborhood would be a piece of crap today if none of that happened. It would be a "what if" story and not the continuing success story it has become! Its like crying over spilled milk while making a feast. It was a necessary part of this neighborhoods reviatlization because the city leadership has been so inept. It may not be as neccesary now but it was before springfield became a nice place to live again.
John P. Your views are certainly shared by some living in Springfield, no doubt.
There is also a strong vibe of preservation that asks the question WTF. If you aren't a preservationist at heart, don't move to a historic district. We all know that Mack hyped up Springfield as "the hippiest hood in town" and that is certainly true. But it is hip because it is authentic. Remove the old houses, build faux new ones, and you've lost your groove.
Quote from: JayBird on June 28, 2013, 08:51:30 AM
No, completely understand SheClown. I am ashamed that we couldn't have found another way to resolve the issues and save the buildings as looking at this post on Facebook, which is what brought me to this thread, those buildings held a lot of memories. Sometimes, in the pursuit of a righteous action much wrong can be done. I am reminded of the Amish interpretation of a famous adage, "for you must break a few eggs to make an omelet yet you forget that the chicken will not produce forever".
Oh, how I LOVE this. Perfect. Thanks.
I suppose we need to review our old adages every now and again.
Quote from: John P on June 28, 2013, 09:13:43 AM
[
Give me a break! I speak for the silent majority of people who dont know about or want to post on metrojacksonville or other forums saying that to save Springfield there needed to be a lot of demolitions! You needed to get alot of the socual services agenecies out of the neighborhood! You needed all those new nice srg houses! The neighborhood would be a piece of crap today if none of that happened. It would be a "what if" story and not the continuing success story it has become! Its like crying over spilled milk while making a feast. It was a necessary part of this neighborhoods reviatlization because the city leadership has been so inept. It may not be as neccesary now but it was before springfield became a nice place to live again.
And so, please tell me why you moved into a nationally recognized Historic District if you don't like old houses? Because at one time or another, just about ALL of the old houses in Springfield could have been (met the criteria) or were in fact, condemned. And all of them could have been taken for the social reasons most of the 535 houses lost since Springfield was designated a nationally recognized Historic District were taken. 33% of it's HISTORIC HOUSING STOCK lost since it has been a protected historic district. Most taken for social reasons rather than anything based in reality.
Many of the grandest homes were vacant and often condemned for a decade or more. Many more were saved because they were operational rooming houses. Yes, gasp, rooming houses saved many of the best houses in Springfield. Often, it wasn't until the city stepped in with the support of groups like SPAR and started closing down those rooming houses that the houses were abandoned and began to deteriorate enough to be "blight". Even so, these grand old ladies withstood the ravages of time and many were restored and are homes to some of the very people who want to tear the rest down.
You mentioned SRG. Well, SRG was a huge part of the problem in that the main owner and his wife believed as you seem to, the way you save a Historic District is to get rid of the ugly old houses. When you stop and think about what a Historic District is and why it is so designated, that concept is a bit nuts, isn't it?
The truth is us raving preservationists are not asking that every single house be saved, that is unrealistic. However, demolitions for the wrong reasons must be stopped. The ugly house that is still standing strong must be saved. The law allows for Code to mothball these houses and that should be done rather than demolition. The law allows for relatively minor repairs to be performed by Code and that should be done rather than the harassment of the owner to the point that the house sits and becomes blight. Basically, if we had a MCC Chief that cared about the people of this city, if she chose to help rather than hinder the people she is supposed to be serving, then we wouldn't need to have this conversation. And both sides of the equation, us preservationists and even you, John P, would be much happier.
But we don't; so, we preservationists are speaking up and intend to keep kicking butt until we get what this district deserves and what is actually best for all of us, even you , John P.
Quote from: John P on June 28, 2013, 09:13:43 AM
Quote from: sheclown on June 28, 2013, 06:56:58 AM
QuoteThe non-profit I work for, Prisoners of Christ, operates apartments in the remaining building and had tried to save those other structures, but they were in need of major work. And even with the backing of Ed Austin and WW Gay we just didn't have the necessary resources. I remember the preservationists had tried to save them, something about the design was unique to that period of building which I cannot recall now.
However, after sitting empty it attracted a criminal element that had gotten out of control. Incan remember stopping by our apartments on a Saturday morning and seeing numerous lost souls just hanging out there. The police were called a lot and then it came to be that once or twice a month fire rescue would be called to remove someone who had passed over the night. Being that we house men coming out of prison, the neighbor was not the best to have. So it was actually our organization, with the help of prominent board members, who pushed the city to demolish. The day before it was taken down, we walked through with a city building inspector and the floors were falling into the basement (a basement in Florida!) and there were crack pipes and tin foil and needles everywhere.
JayBird, this makes me so sad. Especially this line:
Being that we house men coming out of prison, the neighbor was not the best to have.
Now that building is lost to the neighborhood, forever. And why? Because it needed structural work? Don't they all.
Because vagrants weren't good neighbors?
NIMBYISM knows no bounds.
That being said, I am impressed by the work you do for those just getting out of prison. I think our city is better for it, without any doubt. But just because I admire your work, it doesn't mean that I'm not upset by the loss of a historic building and your role in it.
Give me a break! I speak for the silent majority of people who dont know about or want to post on metrojacksonville or other forums saying that to save Springfield there needed to be a lot of demolitions! You needed to get alot of the socual services agenecies out of the neighborhood! You needed all those new nice srg houses! The neighborhood would be a piece of crap today if none of that happened. It would be a "what if" story and not the continuing success story it has become! Its like crying over spilled milk while making a feast. It was a necessary part of this neighborhoods reviatlization because the city leadership has been so inept. It may not be as neccesary now but it was before springfield became a nice place to live again.
John, I suspect we know a lot of the same people. Even if we dont, I know exactly the "type" of person you speak of. Generally its people who moved to the neighborhood under what some now consider false promises, and they get frustrated by the lack of support by the city, and the general sense of having the entire city look down their noses at them, and the occasionally frustrating back slides with crime.
These people believe that "normal people" wont consider the neighborhood to be truly changed until the old crack houses are fixed up or torn down, and they dont care which happens first, just that it happen soon. They believe that the economic cost of fixing up these old houses is greater than the houses worth. Truth be told, from a straight financial viewpoint, they are probably correct. (they discount how much a preservationist is willing to spend on a project they believe in)
However, a few intangibles need to be considered. First. No matter what happens in Springfield, most of the rest of the city will forever and always think of it as a shitty neighborhood. No matter how incorrect and unfair this is, it will take a generation or more to transform Jacksonvilles view of Springfield. My thought. Stop worrying about the backwards rednecks who are afraid of black people walking down the street, and white collar suburbanites who think it it aint gated, it aint a community.
Second thing, all of the things that have occurred, from the starting of the various preservation groups, to the new constructions, to the brilliantly diverse make up of the community are in place because it is a historic neighborhood. No historic housing stock, no designation, no new construction, no bank incentives, no grants, likely no upwardly mobile population.
From what I have seen, the missing ingredient in the community is a thriving commercial district. You want to help the community, open a business. Pool your money. Buy Main Street, and bring it back to life. If you are able to do that, people will lament that there are too few crappy houses left to give them a shot at living in an awesome and vibrant community. The view of the neighborhood will shift if people start eating and shopping on Main.
My belief is, stop going for the easy fix of tearing down ugly, and focus efforts on rebuilding from Main Street out. Preserve the housing stock until they can be saved. There are plenty of lots to build out on. Dont create more.
That's a good belief. Main and 8th Streets would both benefit from some extra focus, help, and density.
Here is Preservation SOS's email to Councilman Lumb in relation to Mr. Ashanta-Barker's email. It's long, people, but this is just the tip of the iceberg.
June 28, 2013
Mr. Lumb,
Thanks for giving us a chance to explore the issues regarding demolitions in historic Springfield. I don’t think that anyone would deny that some private property owners in Springfield have been derelict in their maintenance and improvement of their properties. You will get no argument from anyone about that. What we’re concerned about is HOW BEST to deal with that fact and intervene in ways that are sensitive to the needs of our historic neighborhood.
No one has asked MCCD to rehabilitate or renovate structures. No one. What MCCD has been asked to do by groups such as ours and by the JHC is to stabilize structures in cases where that can be accomplished which, according to our reading of City codes, is within their power and responsibility to do so.
The Ordinances read:
Sec. 307.113. Unsafe Structure Abatement.
In the event a structure that has been designated as a landmark or contributing to an historic district under the provisions of this Chapter is declared to be an unsafe structure or condemned…. In determining the appropriate manner to remedy emergency conditions affecting a landmark, landmark site, or a property in a historic district, the remedy shall be limited to the least intrusive means to minimize the impact to the historic fabric. Consideration shall be given to bracing or other stabilization alternatives if such would be sufficient to abate the emergency conditions.
Sec. 518.151. Emergencies.
(a) Notwithstanding any other requirements of this Chapter, when, in the opinion of the Chief, an emergency exists which requires immediate action to protect the health, safety or general welfare of the public or occupants of a property, the Chief shall take that action which he deems appropriate to abate the conditions which threaten the health, safety or general welfare of the public or occupants. The action may require the purchase of materials and labor adequate to render the property temporarily safe. When temporary measures are inadequate, the property may be demolished provided notice procedures prescribed in this Section have been instituted. In these cases, the Chief may order repairs to be made and the occupants to vacate the property immediately, as the case may be.
Sec. 518.304. Abatement by city.
In the event the unsafe structure is not demolished or the repair or other work is not performed within the time and as required by the Chief or the Building Codes Adjustment Board, the Chief shall cause the demolition or repair or other work, including, but not limited to, boarding to be performed by independent contractors, city employees, or such other qualified means as available...
In fact, bracing was asked specifically of MCCD for 129 E. 2nd Street at the HPC meeting, and the VERY NEXT DAY this structure was taken down as an emergency demolition. We think it can be disputed that this property was structurally unsafe; contractors and indeed city employees stated that the main house was stable, but the porch needed additional securing. This house was not abandoned. The owner has a mortgage on the property and to our knowledge, has kept that current as well as her property taxes. However, with the recent demolition (a violation of her mortgage), coupled with the liens and other associated fines, this property owner in all likelihood will walk away from this property, further preventing the property from getting put back into a productive use due to perhaps future foreclosure proceedings or the sheer mountain of fines. If the property does end up in foreclosure, it should be noted that the City is highly unlikely to recover any of the monies levied against the property.
Regarding 253 E. 2nd Street, I think we once again can call into question whether this structure warranted an emergency demolition. Contracted work had been undertaken to stabilize the house. In fact, in videos of the demolition, you can see that interior trusses and joists are all new materials. According to local Realtors and the owner, there was an interested buyer in this property. Additionally, it also appears that the Neighborhood Initiatives division had interest in the property for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP).
Those are some of the specifics about these two recent demolitions. However, these demolitions highlight how City policies impede revitalization of our historic district and may be violating City code as well as personal property rights:
• At a minimum, there is terrible interdepartmental communication at the City. At the worst, MCCD was aware of the interest and directives of other City agencies (one within Mr. Ashanta-Barker’s purview), and absolutely was determined to take the structures down anyway.
• MCCD has made it clear that they don’t see their role as one of bracing or stabilizing structures, even though City code seems to suggest otherwise. The Mayor and/or City Council needs to clarify that it is their duty to do this as a first line of defense in these historic districts or put another agency in charge.
• In Nationally declared historic districts, there should be review by the HPC PRIOR TO taking down a structure, not AFTER, even with emergency demolitions.
• Citations given by code are often nebulous and open to interpretation. It’s hard for an owner to address the deficiencies when code enforcement states that the “entire structure†needs repair without any specifics.
• In order to make repairs, it is especially onerous to regain access to your own property to do repairs. And when you are located in a historic district, you have to work with multiple City agencies to initiate the repairs, agencies that do not communicate with each other. You have to seek permission from MCCD to access your property, you have to apply to HPC for a COA, and you have to work with Building Inspections to pull any necessary permits. Each of these agencies has different timelines and requirements for review of work, which usually does not fall within the typical 15 to 30 days a property owner is given to make the property compliant.
• Fees and fines don’t seem to be incentivizing owners to make repairs. In many cases, especially with low income owners, it only serves for owners to give up. If you are cited, you have to pay $100 fee to appeal the complaint, $250 per day fines, coupled with any hard costs the City encumbers for abating the violation. Even if a permit is successfully pulled (another fee) and repairs are in progress, property owners can still accumulate fines. This all adds up quickly and makes it appear that the City is more interested in generating money than helping property owners get properties renovated.
• How MCCD conducts itself with occupied properties should be reviewed. In at least one recent case, code’s condemnation of a property has made an owner homeless. Not a good policy move on the part of the City.
• Because a moratorium on demolitions had already been established in this district, it appears that MCCD is now using “emergency demolitions†as a means of circumventing the existing moratorium. We would like to be assured that this is not the case.
• The procurement of the actual demolition contractors should also be reviewed to ensure that multiple bids are pursued, even in emergency situations. Relying on what appears to be one demolition contractor repeatedly to perform these emergency demolitions opens pricing up to abuse.
• I think that we should be careful about relying on reports given to the City by its “Independent Structural Engineer,†as this is ONE engineering firm secured specifically by MCCD and has been used continuously for years. They seem to be called in once MCCD officers have already deemed the property “condemned.†It would be prudent to explore how this firm is procured as they seem to have a lock on assisting MCCD. Annual requests for proposals for these services should be utilized and the engineer should have some background in working with historic properties.
• We would like to encourage the City to use other methods at hand to get these properties in the hands of entities that will mothball or renovate them. The NSP program would have been a prime opportunity to do such. It would seem logical that many of these properties have back taxes. The City could assume the tax deed to these properties and donate to not for profits or other agencies or individuals that can mothball or renovate. In some cases, I would assume that the City has parcels that have already escheated to them since no one has purchased the tax deed. There is room to be creative about spurring redevelopment that could save the City money in the long run by the cost savings of bracing the nuisance over demolition, avoiding the City having to mow lots they currently own or that are vacant and abandoned, or generate additional tax revenues when a restored property is complete.
We would love to have an opportunity to review some of the information referenced by Mr. Ashanta-Barker. We have been asking for copies of engineering reports on cited properties, lists of properties in Springfield that have boarded up by MCCD, funding sources for these demolitions, listing of City owned properties in Springfield and lists of properties slated for demolition (as you have requested as well), for starters. We are still waiting on these items.
What we would love even more is to focus and be involved in finding real collaborative solutions to this situation. The recent actions by MCCD only further exacerbate problems in our neighborhood. We would like nuisance abatement in our historic districts to be accomplished in the least invasive way as already outlined by current ordinance. Once that occurs, then Mr. Ashanta-Barker can argue that MCCD “plays an integral role in preservation of local historic structures.†Destruction of these structures by the City is destruction of our historic neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Preservation SOS
Thank you JaxUnicorn
Lakelander your new project interests me. The first photo is of the old grocery store on Walnut at First. Sadly the roof pancaked into that building, I went down to look at it. That is the problem with brick buildings with flat roofs containing wood, I was told that in some cases subterranean termites are able to get into the roof. There were no other floors left in the building. I fear it may happen to the apartments at First and Market. (The Pearl Building at 1st and Main, the one on the NE Corner of 8th and Main and one that used to stand at the corner of 3rd and Walnut were all drug stores owned by the same man in the early 1900s, I believe the one on Walnut went down ca 1998 due to roof problems.) I know there is concern about the roof on the Market street apartment building.
Number 3 The Jewish Center. This was one of the first buildings I took a look at since the gorgeous house that was the home of Mary Dillon was taken down along with 3 other neighbors to build this and adjoining structures. There are some very nice newspaper articles about the first services therein and also the fact that during the war the congregation worked with other faiths to try and save Jews in Europe. I felt this building was taken down too quickly after the fire. Those brick walls were so think. Had there been a decent owner willing to scaffold the place it could have survived, churches in earthquakes have survived worse.There were 5 magnificent houses on that block and now only the Drew remains. I thought recently that this building had a new owner, but it does not appear to be so. The lovely old post card used in the latest tour shows this block.
The fifth building, the old laundry the wind blew the main wall, on Walnut down during a huge thunderstorm. I was on my porch and watched the wall come towards me like a giant wave. As it hit the ground, it sounded like a bomb falling, and its coping stones hit my fence - that is about 60 feet. Had it been on a narrower street - like Liberty those stones would have been through my windows. When I called 911 the police and rescue turned up - we were on TV. They were concerned that someone may have been under the wall. There was a man who had just walked by prior to the fall, he came back and could not believe it. That is why I understand the fear of anyone living near a derelict building.
There are a couple of large houses which I believe were original farms here that were misdated in the survey and lost, one that stood where the bakery is on East 11th.
I am almost afraid to say it, but I am scared for the Drew. I did not know what NSP funds were or were for, until I accused of something and they were mentioned. I am only interested in the history and the people - read the Thomas Hardy poem "The Ghost of the Past". I do not care for the politics and cannot be bothered to find out about ordinances and funds, Dancy Terrace was saved because we concentrated on its history and importance.
When I first came here in 2000 you were lucky if there was one house on a block restored. The houses around the Woman's Club looked terrible, but look at them now. There was a difference then though, the houses were not stripped out. Certainly stuff had been taken out of them, but many many of their original features remained. Paneling was found under wallboard, pocket doors were unearthed from the walls, lighting fixtures survived. Since about 2003 houses get bought, the entire guts taken out and then the building left to stand (or fall).
Anyway I believe you will put out an interesting book
Quote from: sheclown on June 28, 2013, 09:43:38 AM
John P. Your views are certainly shared by some living in Springfield, no doubt.
There is also a strong vibe of preservation that asks the question WTF. If you aren't a preservationist at heart, don't move to a historic district. We all know that Mack hyped up Springfield as "the hippiest hood in town" and that is certainly true. But it is hip because it is authentic. Remove the old houses, build faux new ones, and you've lost your groove.
You are lost. You can enjoy history and old homes and the environement it creates and still accept that some need to go. Like I said we have had inpet city leadership. If it was different and the historic areas were supported like they deserve this would not be a problem. But it is not, they are not, and it is. There are probably not that many more homes that need to go and there are probably many that did not need to go. That is reality!
Quote from: John P on June 28, 2013, 02:11:54 PM
There are probably not that many more homes that need to go
there are
none[/i][/u] that need to go. period.
Quote from: strider on June 28, 2013, 10:06:29 AM
Quote from: John P on June 28, 2013, 09:13:43 AM
[
Give me a break! I speak for the silent majority of people who dont know about or want to post on metrojacksonville or other forums saying that to save Springfield there needed to be a lot of demolitions! You needed to get alot of the socual services agenecies out of the neighborhood! You needed all those new nice srg houses! The neighborhood would be a piece of crap today if none of that happened. It would be a "what if" story and not the continuing success story it has become! Its like crying over spilled milk while making a feast. It was a necessary part of this neighborhoods reviatlization because the city leadership has been so inept. It may not be as neccesary now but it was before springfield became a nice place to live again.
And so, please tell me why you moved into a nationally recognized Historic District if you don't like old houses? Because at one time or another, just about ALL of the old houses in Springfield could have been (met the criteria) or were in fact, condemned. And all of them could have been taken for the social reasons most of the 535 houses lost since Springfield was designated a nationally recognized Historic District were taken. 33% of it's HISTORIC HOUSING STOCK lost since it has been a protected historic district. Most taken for social reasons rather than anything based in reality.
Many of the grandest homes were vacant and often condemned for a decade or more. Many more were saved because they were operational rooming houses. Yes, gasp, rooming houses saved many of the best houses in Springfield. Often, it wasn't until the city stepped in with the support of groups like SPAR and started closing down those rooming houses that the houses were abandoned and began to deteriorate enough to be "blight". Even so, these grand old ladies withstood the ravages of time and many were restored and are homes to some of the very people who want to tear the rest down.
You mentioned SRG. Well, SRG was a huge part of the problem in that the main owner and his wife believed as you seem to, the way you save a Historic District is to get rid of the ugly old houses. When you stop and think about what a Historic District is and why it is so designated, that concept is a bit nuts, isn't it?
The truth is us raving preservationists are not asking that every single house be saved, that is unrealistic. However, demolitions for the wrong reasons must be stopped. The ugly house that is still standing strong must be saved. The law allows for Code to mothball these houses and that should be done rather than demolition. The law allows for relatively minor repairs to be performed by Code and that should be done rather than the harassment of the owner to the point that the house sits and becomes blight. Basically, if we had a MCC Chief that cared about the people of this city, if she chose to help rather than hinder the people she is supposed to be serving, then we wouldn't need to have this conversation. And both sides of the equation, us preservationists and even you, John P, would be much happier.
But we don't; so, we preservationists are speaking up and intend to keep kicking butt until we get what this district deserves and what is actually best for all of us, even you , John P.
I do like old homes and own more than one. I also can see that for Springfield nothing positive was ever going to happen there until it was mosty purged of the social services, rooming houses and other element that create a toxic stew of crap. If that meant some homes were taken away, well that is the price paid for bad city pleadership and policy over 40 years. Evidently it worked ok looking at who moves to Springfield now.
Also I have to say you do not read very well because I said very clearly that it is not a choice between "save every single house" and "knock down a house because it is ugly". There has to be a balance and scale of community needs. Those needs chnage over time and the area is at a point now I think where it can carry the burden of vacant homes in horrible shape because of all the success. When there was not as much success people would not move there with horrible vacant homes, prostitiutes, drugs, little momentum. Now that the negative activity has been isolated to a few blocks and its hard to find a prostitute anywhere the momentum sustained and people are more willing to live among the few vacant houses in horrible shape. I really do not think there are many of these examples left though because most have been taken down. Most vacant houses now are boarded and they are not a problem or host to problems. The old Moates house on East Third Street is a example of something that will never be restored in any of our lifetimes and needs to come down. But those are few and far between now. I do not own a srg house and never have but that is the single best thing that ever happened to Springfield. If srg never came the neighborhood would still be a slum or Eastside like.
I also want to say something else sort of related. The residential areas of the neighborhood are much more revitalized than the commercial arteries. The residential roads have done pretty well in the last 10 years.
The main problem today in Springfield is the commerical arteries because of bad landowners and landlords. Some are underwater some do not see you have to spend money to make money and some are unrealistic on rents. Hell some are owned by the city and we all know they dont have a clue! The problem is not too few old homes to renovate or lack of demand for housing.
yes, John, mortgage fraud did wonders for the neighborhood.
Quote from: sheclown on June 28, 2013, 03:15:10 PM
yes, John, mortgage fraud did wonders for the neighborhood.
LOL, thanks for making my day!
Touche'
QuoteI do not own a srg house and never have but that is the single best thing that ever happened to Springfield. If srg never came the neighborhood would still be a slum or Eastside like.
I can't speak to mortgage fraud, but when I was looking to buy a house last year, there was an incredible glut of SRG homes on the market in Springfield...either foreclosures or short sales. When you saw the original sales price compared to the listing, it was really shocking. I know SRG sold these at the height of the market, but all the ensuing foreclosures are also a blow to the neighborhood (and this is another issue...not just in Springfield...are these REO properties being maintained by the banks).
QuoteYou are lost.
frequently -- it is a great way to have adventures --
But back to Springfield demolitions. They have to stop!
Great that there are SRG homes available at pennies on the dollar. Great that there are a few bargains on historic, bank owned homes. Thankfully, we got a couple ourselves. We look at them as gifts from God. But...
the demos...they have to stop!!!!
"Dancy Terrace was saved because we concentrated on its history and importance."
Dancy Terrace was saved because of passionate, self-sacrificing, dedicated preservationists. Sharlene Dano, Pat LaMountain, Chris Farley, Rita Reagan, and I am sure a slew of others. The same is true of it's saving today, just different names of passionate preservationists.
Springfield, a Nationally Recognized Historic neighborhood is 100% history and importance. What's saving it? People. Passionate, hard-working people. Regular folk. 'Cause if history were "saving it" then we'd have no problem, would we?
I value and explore history and believe it is a TOOL for preservation, but it is PEOPLE and their actions that retain (or demolish) history. Mothballing was enacted to help support preservation. As PSOS is the responsible neighborhood group for making this happen, some are against it. Kind of childish if you ask me.
If MCCD can restrict owner access to their personal property, if MCCD can demolish someone's home, they sure as hell can use less funds and find the less restrictive means to maintain safety and respect history in our neighborhood.
Talk is cheap and actions speak louder than words. The south is a way different beast than the north (New England) or the west coast. A lot of things I plain and simple don't get. People are supposed to help other people. The city is supposed to honor history and work together to make communities better.
Just take those excavators and line 'em up on 1st Street and bulldoze the whole hood all the way up the MLK. It is virtually what is happening anyway. Slow death.
The houses should be saved. Loud voices, passionate pleas, educated arguments, and a resounding "not on my watch" will save the houses.
I'm tired of being frustrated. We need more change. We will get more change. Just wish for sooner than later.
A friend of mine told me "Never ever ever post on the forums - only the crazy people and the extremists post on the forums." I know I am going to regret not taking the advice but here goes. I feel like John P is a lone sane rational voice in a crown of maniacs and I completely agree with him.
First let assign blame where it belongs... the property owners who neglected their property to the point where it was condemned. The city this and evil zoning Kim that. It's as if someone jumped off of a bridge and then you blamed gravity for their death. If these properties were even somewhat maintained they wouldn't have been demolished. The city isn't the cause it's the effect. The cause is irresponsibility.
Second we live in a moist tropical climate and a majority of these structures are made from wood. Even the best maintained and painted wood in this climate can succumb to decay. Raw untreated wood left to the elements doesn't stand a chance and in relatively short time it's going to be beyond any economic repair. So if you have an old structure and you have to replace 70% of it to make it habitable again is it really still a historic house? Or is it a mostly new house built to the same shape and dimensions as a historic house?
Third SRG houses. Guess what some people love the aesthetic of living in a historic neighborhood but don't want to deal with the hassle of living in an old house. They are career people focused on their work without a lot of excess time and energy. They need the convenience of a modern low maintenance house. Guess what will gentrify a neighborhood faster than anything - high income professional people. The SRG houses are a magnet for the right kind of people to help the neighborhood.
Some of these houses have been neglected to the point that there is no viable way to recover them. Getting rid of the worst of them to make way for authentic modern replacements which will draw in a desirable demographic will increase the value of the authentic historic structures and make them more valuable.
Finally I hate those little Dancey Terrace shitboxes at the end of E 10th st. I hate driving up 10th st and looking at them. I wish they would either be bulldozed or renovated. Either way I don't care.
Quote from: John P on June 28, 2013, 02:11:54 PM
Quote from: sheclown on June 28, 2013, 09:43:38 AM
John P. Your views are certainly shared by some living in Springfield, no doubt.
There is also a strong vibe of preservation that asks the question WTF. If you aren't a preservationist at heart, don't move to a historic district. We all know that Mack hyped up Springfield as "the hippiest hood in town" and that is certainly true. But it is hip because it is authentic. Remove the old houses, build faux new ones, and you've lost your groove.
You are lost. You can enjoy history and old homes and the environement it creates and still accept that some need to go. Like I said we have had inpet city leadership. If it was different and the historic areas were supported like they deserve this would not be a problem. But it is not, they are not, and it is. There are probably not that many more homes that need to go and there are probably many that did not need to go. That is reality!
Those shit boxes were there when you moved in. What were you thinking? That you would help save the neighborhood by gentrifying it?
Displacing the poor, removing the history?
It doesn't save the neighborhood when you turn it into suburbia. It just loses its essence.
Report: Nation's Gentrified Neighborhoods Threatened By Aristocratization
WASHINGTONâ€"According to a report released Tuesday by the Brookings Institution, a Washington-based think tank, the recent influx of exceedingly affluent powder-wigged aristocrats into the nation's gentrified urban areas is pushing out young white professionals, some of whom have lived in these neighborhoods for as many as seven years.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-nations-gentrified-neighborhoods-threatened,2419/
Quote from: BigNugget on June 28, 2013, 10:41:02 PM
Some of these houses have been neglected to the point that there is no viable way to recover them. Getting rid of the worst of them to make way for authentic modern replacements which will draw in a desirable demographic will increase the value of the authentic historic structures and make them more valuable.
Finally I hate those little Dancey Terrace shitboxes at the end of E 10th st. I hate driving up 10th st and looking at them. I wish they would either be bulldozed or renovated. Either way I don't care.
Simple solution: move somewhere else. It would be better for you, clearly, and everybody else. You don't belong in a historic district if your solution is to demolish what you don't personally like. Problem solved.
Quote from: m74reeves on June 29, 2013, 08:56:04 AM
Report: Nation's Gentrified Neighborhoods Threatened By Aristocratization
WASHINGTONâ€"According to a report released Tuesday by the Brookings Institution, a Washington-based think tank, the recent influx of exceedingly affluent powder-wigged aristocrats into the nation's gentrified urban areas is pushing out young white professionals, some of whom have lived in these neighborhoods for as many as seven years.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-nations-gentrified-neighborhoods-threatened,2419/
hilarious.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/DancyTerrace.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/DancyTerrace.jpg.html)
those precious shit boxes.
The advice was right "don't engage the crazies that post on the message boards."
So your solution is for me to move. That solves the problem because of course you want all responsible property owners who maintain their property to the best of their ability to move. People like me are obviously the downfall of the neighborhood. What with all of the lawn mowing and the building maintenance and the improvements over time. Who would want that in a neighborhood?
Ironically no finger is ever pointed at the people and no judgement is ever cast at the people who really caused the problem in the first place; the people who neglected their property to the point where the city has to interview and demolish.
"Springfield Plastics was condemned! The city is SO MEAN!! Isn't it terrible!"
No. The city isn't mean. The owner of Springfield Plastics let his building slide into disrepair and when he wasn't neglecting the property he was applying half-ass, not to code, jerry-rigged patches.
So... take your crooked little fingers that are pointed at the zoning board and turn them and point them toward the irresponsible property owners who let this happen in the first place.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on June 29, 2013, 09:02:04 AM
Quote from: BigNugget on June 28, 2013, 10:41:02 PM
Some of these houses have been neglected to the point that there is no viable way to recover them. Getting rid of the worst of them to make way for authentic modern replacements which will draw in a desirable demographic will increase the value of the authentic historic structures and make them more valuable.
Finally I hate those little Dancey Terrace shitboxes at the end of E 10th st. I hate driving up 10th st and looking at them. I wish they would either be bulldozed or renovated. Either way I don't care.
Simple solution: move somewhere else. It would be better for you, clearly, and everybody else. You don't belong in a historic district if your solution is to demolish what you don't personally like. Problem solved.
First lets get one piece of business out of the way. The machinery used to demolish these neglected structures is called an excavator not a bulldozer. An excavator has tracks and a long on arm with an implement at the end usually a bucket or a claw. A bulldozer is a tracked vehicle with a large blade at the front used for pushing.
Used in the proper context: "I think the run down little shitboxes at the end of E. 10th st. are an eyesore and detract from the efforts of responsible property owners. I wish the city would bring in an excavator and knock them down."
So the next time that has to come in and knock down one of these unsalvageable neglected structures; first thing you need to do is find the property owner point your finger at them and judge them because we lost a historic structure because they were irresponsible and also use the correct terminology; excavator.
Thank you.
Quote from: sheclown on June 29, 2013, 09:31:46 AM
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/DancyTerrace.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/DancyTerrace.jpg.html)
those precious shit boxes.
But seriously, no attacking here, bignugget. I don't agree with all your comments, but that's why there's this forum. You obviously have strong enough feelings to register and comment...even though you say you "don't care."
Quote from: BigNugget on June 28, 2013, 10:41:02 PM
First let assign blame where it belongs... the property owners who neglected their property to the point where it was condemned. The city this and evil zoning Kim that. It's as if someone jumped off of a bridge and then you blamed gravity for their death. If these properties were even somewhat maintained they wouldn't have been demolished. The city isn't the cause it's the effect. The cause is irresponsibility.
I AGREE THAT THERE ARE NEGLIGENT PROPERTY OWNERS (AND I INCLUDE IN THAT BUNCH OWNER DEVELOPERS). BUT THAT'S JUST A SIMPLE BLANKET STATEMENT...PROPERTY OWNERS ARE NEGLIGENT. WE NEED TO LOOK AT WHY THESE AREN'T BEING MAINTAINED? AND WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT IT?
*SOME BOUGHT THESE HOUSES/LOTS THINKING THAT THEY WOULD FLIP AND MAKE BOOCOO $, AND THEN THE MARKET DROPPED AND THEY CAN'T GET THEIR MONEY OUT OF IT. SO THEY ARE JUST LETTING THEM SIT...NOT PAYING TAXES, NOT MAKING REPAIRS, ETC. OR THEY ARE TRYING TO SELL THESE PROPERTIES FOR THE MOST EXHORBADANT PRICES. BOO.
*SOME PROPERTIES ARE VACANT DUE TO FORECLOSURES. AGAIN, MANY REASONS WHY A PROPERTY ENDS UP HERE...SOMEONE LOST THEIR JOB...SOMEONE FELL PREY TO PREDATORY LENDING (GUESS WHAT-STATISTICS SHOW HIGH #S OF THIS IN SPRINGFIELD)...ETC.
*SOME OWNERS ARE ELDERLY AND DON'T HAVE THE FUNDS/SUPPORT SYSTEM TO KEEP THE HOUSE UP
*SLUMLORDS GETTING THEIR RENT, BUT NOT MAINTAINING ANYTHING
*RENOVATORS THAT START REPAIRS, BUT RUN INTO TROUBLE B/C THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING (AND SOME OF THESE ARE WELL MEANING) OR THEY SHOULD KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING, BUT FORGE AHEAD ANYWAY (SEE POST ON 320 E 6TH)
THAT'S JUST SOME OF THE PROBLEMS THAT OCCUR BEFORE WE HAVE THE CITY HEAPING ON OTHER ISSUES (FINES THAT WILL BANKRUPT ANYBODY, GENERIC CITATIONS W/O CONCRETE WAYS TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS AND GET THE PROPERTY REPAIRED, OFFICERS TRESPASSING ON PEOPLE'S PROPERTY JUST TO FIND SOMETHING TO CITE, ETC.).
WE ALL NEED TO THINK ABOUT WAYS TO COMBAT THIS AND I THINK THERE ARE GROUPS THAT ARE. FOR INSTANCE, PRESERVATION SOS HAS ANNUALLY TAKEN ON A PROJECT TO HELP A NEEDY HOMEOWNER GET A FACELIFT. GOOD FOR THEM. WE NEED TO DO MORE OUTREACH, EDUCATION, ETC AND GET THOSE PROPERTIES IN THE HANDS OF SOMEONE THAT WILL REALLY LOVE THEM AND THE NEIGHBOR.
WHAT HAS EVERYONE'S KNICKERS IN A WAD (MINE INCLUDED) IS THAT THE CITY'S POLICIES AREN'T IMPROVING THE N'HOOD. GUESS WHAT STARTED THE DECLINE? CITY POLICY IN THE 1920'S THAT CHANGED THE ZONING...A MOVE THAT WASN'T UNDONE 'TIL THE LATE '70S. TODAY'S DEMOLITIONS ARE NOT HELPING IMPROVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD. DEMOS DO NOT EQUAL REDEVELOPMENT. I WON'T REHASH EVERY DETAIL, BUT YOU SHOULD READ THROUGH THE THREADS ON SPECIFIC HOUSES. THE CITY IS NOT FOLLOWING ITS OWN POLICIES AND IS INTERPRETING SOME POLICIES IN SCARY WAYS (MAKE SOMEONE HOMELESS? GREAT POLICY COJ!)
QuoteSecond we live in a moist tropical climate and a majority of these structures are made from wood. Even the best maintained and painted wood in this climate can succumb to decay. Raw untreated wood left to the elements doesn't stand a chance and in relatively short time it's going to be beyond any economic repair. So if you have an old structure and you have to replace 70% of it to make it habitable again is it really still a historic house? Or is it a mostly new house built to the same shape and dimensions as a historic house?
no response...i think a contractors take and a look at national trust for historic preservation could be enlightening.
QuoteThird SRG houses. Guess what some people love the aesthetic of living in a historic neighborhood but don't want to deal with the hassle of living in an old house. They are career people focused on their work without a lot of excess time and energy. They need the convenience of a modern low maintenance house. Guess what will gentrify a neighborhood faster than anything - high income professional people. The SRG houses are a magnet for the right kind of people to help the neighborhood.
I AGREE. NOT EVERYONE HAS THE FUNDS (OR FINANCING ABILITY; IT'S DAMN HARD TO GET A RENOVATION LOAN) OR DESIRE TO PUT SWEAT EQUITY INTO A HISTORIC HOME, SO THESE NEW HOUSES FILL A NEEDED NICHE. BE GREAT TO HAVE MORE TURNKEY PROPERTIES AVAILABLE, BUT SEE SOME OF THE PROBLEMS ABOVE.
GENTRIFICATION IS A TOPIC FOR ANOTHER THREAD.
QuoteSome of these houses have been neglected to the point that there is no viable way to recover them. Getting rid of the worst of them to make way for authentic modern replacements which will draw in a desirable demographic will increase the value of the authentic historic structures and make them more valuable.
DEMOLITION IS ALWAYS CHEAPER THAN MAINTAINING A PROPERTY NO MATTER IF THE PROPERTY IS 10 YEARS OLD OR 100 YEARS OLD. BUT CONTINUING TO RAZE HOUSES IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT COSTS THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE LONG RUN ON SO MANY DIFFERENT LEVELS.
IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO SEE WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO PROPERTIES WHERE CITY HAS INITIATED DEMO. I'D BE WILLING TO BET THAT MOST ARE STILL VACANT AND UNDEVELOPED. TO ME THOSE VACANT LOTS ARE LESS VALUABLE THAN ONE WITH A HOUSE ON IT, EVEN IF IT'S DILAPIDATED.
YOU HAVE TO ALSO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT THE HISTORIC DESIGNATION OF THE N'HOOD IS PART OF WHAT GIVES PROPERTIES THEIR VALUE. AND IF YOU CONTINUE TO LOSE THESE OLDER HOUSES, YOU WILL NO LONGER HAVE THE COMPONENT THAT MAKES THIS PLACE INTERESTING AND WORTH SAVING TO BEGIN WITH.
QuoteFinally I hate those little Dancey Terrace shitboxes at the end of E 10th st. I hate driving up 10th st and looking at them. I wish they would either be bulldozed or renovated. Either way I don't care.
THIS COULD BE A JEWEL OF A PLACE. HAVE SOME VISION, BUT IN THE MEANTIME I SUGGEST TAKING ANOTHER ROUTE.
SINCERELY,
CRAZY EXTREMIST :D
nah, I like to call them bulldozers.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/bulldozer.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/bulldozer.jpg.html)
To start with, I am using your post because, truthfully, it was a good one, not to get back at you in anyway.
QuoteA friend of mine told me "Never ever ever post on the forums - only the crazy people and the extremists post on the forums." I know I am going to regret not taking the advice but here goes. I feel like John P is a lone sane rational voice in a crown of maniacs and I completely agree with him.
I am glad that a few of the “other side†are posting here. While I know I won;t change your mind about things, I do feel that both sides of the argument needs to be vetted and yes, I am hoping I get you thinking differently about a couple things at least.
QuoteFirst let assign blame where it belongs... the property owners who neglected their property to the point where it was condemned. The city this and evil zoning Kim that. It's as if someone jumped off of a bridge and then you blamed gravity for their death. If these properties were even somewhat maintained they wouldn't have been demolished. The city isn't the cause it's the effect. The cause is irresponsibility.
You are both right and wrong here. Yes, it is most definitely the property owners responsibility to take care of their property. However, once a house is in the system, one must start looking at why it is there to understand what is going on.
I could write a book on this alone. I won't because it all has been posted here and the other forums time and time again. You have to want to be educated on the realities of Springfield, I cant make you do that.
So yes, the cause is the lack of anyone taking responsibility for these houses, but far from being only on the owners. Once the city accepts the Historic District designation, once the city passes the ordinances governing that historic district, it also accepts responsibility for that historic district and the structures within it. While the city may like to only have authority over those structures, by it's own laws, it also has the responsibility to insure the purpose of the designation is met, that the houses endure for future generations. This is true whether the owner does their part or not. The burden of insuring these houses are here for the future is most definitively one the city must carry.
QuoteSecond we live in a moist tropical climate and a majority of these structures are made from wood. Even the best maintained and painted wood in this climate can succumb to decay. Raw untreated wood left to the elements doesn't stand a chance and in relatively short time it's going to be beyond any economic repair. So if you have an old structure and you have to replace 70% of it to make it habitable again is it really still a historic house? Or is it a mostly new house built to the same shape and dimensions as a historic house?
This shows how little you actually know about these old houses and the material they are made from. As a contractor, I have seen 10 year old houses with much more WDO type damage than many of these 100 year old houses. It is not that the construction method was so much better nor was it because the construction quality was so much better; the reason why these houses are still here and will be here long after many of the modern 2000's built houses are gone is that the material is naturally resistant to the WDO issues. Before I offend SRG house owners, your house will be fine as long as you live in it and take care of any issues as they arise. It is certainly no better or no worse, structurally, than any modern house, including the ones we built.
These old houses have been here for over a hundred years now, many with out proper maintenance for much of their lives and yet they still stand. A 100 year old 6x6 that has been damaged by termites and lost 20 to 30% of it's internal mass is still stronger than that brand new 6x6 purchased today.
I have worked on many houses that were “abandoned†for ten to 20 years and actually very little of the structures have been replaced. Your 70% number would probably be true of a modern house left abandoned for ten years or more. When we work on a house rehabbed ten years ago the structure we are replacing is most often the structure that was replaced ten years ago. The new material can not hold up without proper maintenance. Even the treated stuff.
QuoteThird SRG houses. Guess what some people love the aesthetic of living in a historic neighborhood but don't want to deal with the hassle of living in an old house. They are career people focused on their work without a lot of excess time and energy. They need the convenience of a modern low maintenance house. Guess what will gentrify a neighborhood faster than anything - high income professional people. The SRG houses are a magnet for the right kind of people to help the neighborhood.
Let's take a look for a moment what SRG really did. They came in and bought every single empty lot they could. They decided that the way to “save†Springfield was to get rid of all the poorer people, get rid of all the ugly old houses and make Historic Springfield as much like a gated community as possible. This was not about making life better for you, it was about making money. And that they did. A shell game with the lots potentially earned them millions. But again, all of this has been covered time and time again. You can educate yourself on everything that SRG did to manipulate the market and perhaps even you or not. Your choice.
I will say that what you said about SRG homes bringing in those high earning professionals was true. SRG did that and in some ways, it hurt this community. The expectations at the time, and even I can see why many of the buyers felt this way, was of that gated community. It wasn't and never will be like that no matter how hard you try to make it so. Most of the newer buyers today, at least the ones I have met, are often younger, have lower expectations and seem to enjoy the diversity. No one likes crime, even the people you may not like living next to you. No one wants blight, but in an emerging community, some of that will be around. Today, the cost of entry into this wonderful community is much, much lower than 7 to 8 years ago and that brings us new owners and renters who are as diverse as the community around them. A very positive thing, that diversity of race, income and social status. It guarantees the success of the neighborhood.
QuoteSome of these houses have been neglected to the point that there is no viable way to recover them. Getting rid of the worst of them to make way for authentic modern replacements which will draw in a desirable demographic will increase the value of the authentic historic structures and make them more valuable.
This simply shows that you do not get the idea of a historic neighborhood. I also have to ask, what is the basis of stating some have been neglected to the point they can not be saved? Are you a contractor or an engineer with a lot of historic structure experience? Or just guess like Municipal Code Compliance does? And even the buyers of the new infill houses (note that they are IN-FILL not the primary structures) often state it was the old historic houses that first attracted them to Springfield. And yes, the hope of lower maintenance and the rock bottom prices today certainly swayed many of them to the newer in fill. But without the historic homes Springfield would have nothing special to offer. It would be just another new development where no one knew anyone else. It is the special issues and of course the positives found here that make it so easy to know your neighbors and have fun at First Fridays, not the new houses.
QuoteFinally I hate those little Dancey Terrace shitboxes at the end of E 10th st. I hate driving up 10th st and looking at them. I wish they would either be bulldozed or renovated. Either way I don't care.
Based on the above, perhaps Springfield is not for you. Riverside and Avondale have far fewer issues like Springfield does. You might be happier as you won't have to see things like Dancy Terrace everyday then. So, my question to you is, why are you living here? What was the attraction and why do you stay?
The hard truth about Springfield is that prior to SRG's reign of terror, Springfield was coming around just the way it should. Slow but steady progress was being made both with the residential areas as well as the commercial corridors. And guess what? It was the cities good leadership with the auction and the other funding brought into the area that sparked off that progress. The advent of SRG and it's influence with the city and the community organizations that brought forced growth in selected areas and forced slow down of the commercial areas, all in the name of profit and getting rid of those they did not like.
Of course, it wasn't just SRG, they are just an easy and large target. But it was the methods used that caused the problems. The good news is that the real estate market collapse stopped the nonsense and we are back to the slow and stead growth. It is imperative though that we have learned from those past mistakes and that we allow things to progress naturally rather than force the issue.
But back to the actual thread topic. There will always be a few houses that need to be taken down from excessive damage by fire or very severe neglect. What we are trying to stop is taking houses for social reasons like someone wants to expand their yard or the house is ugly and has been vacant too long. That nonsense has to stop and stop today. We need to change how MCC operations and who is in charge for that to happen though.
The two recent houses did not need to go and the city will be paying for allowing that to happen. We are closing libraries but we are allowing Ms Scott to put the city in a position of liability? That should upset even you.
Quotequote author=BigNugget link=topic=18780.msg334471#msg334471 date=1372513598
Ironically no finger is ever pointed at the people and no judgement is ever cast at the people who really caused the problem in the first place; the people who neglected their property to the point where the city has to interview and demolish.
"Springfield Plastics was condemned! The city is SO MEAN!! Isn't it terrible!"
No. The city isn't mean. The owner of Springfield Plastics let his building slide into disrepair and when he wasn't neglecting the property he was applying half-ass, not to code, jerry-rigged patches.
So... take your crooked little fingers that are pointed at the zoning board and turn them and point them toward the irresponsible property owners who let this happen in the first place.
Perhaps before you post things like the above, you need to do some reading. There is a thread about Springfield Plastics, here:http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,18043.0.html (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,18043.0.html)
As you can see, if you bothered to go educate yourself, is that I freely admitted that the owner should have repaired his building and needed that kick in the rear. What we take exception to is what the process is and the methods used. Frankly, it appears that Ms Scott and her minions get off on the misery of others. Very sad that a department in this city that is intended to help everyone is actually used to hurt people when they often need help the most.
In the case of Springfield plastics, even though the owner is being hindered at every turn, he has found the funding needed and we will be helping him get his building repaired. While getting what is needed to be done taken care of on his building will be easy, getting it out of MCC's claws will be difficult at best. If you decide to read the thread in the future, you will see exactly what I mean. Unless of course, Ms Scott and Company is moved on before we get to that point and things are changed to how the department is supposed to operate.
I've read this thread. Thats why I referenced it sarcastically. Aside from John P - who seems to be the lone voice of reason on this message board all of the blame was pointed at the city.
Here is the thing the Springfield Plastics building is a piece of shit. Why is it a piece of shit? A: because the owner neglected it and when he wasn't neglecting it he was applying jerry-rigged patches. The villain in this story is the owner not the city. The owner clearly doesn't have the resources or the inclination to maintain his historic structure and because of that he ruined the building - or at least damaged it to the point that it will be very expensive to bring it back to full code compliance. But all of the finger pointing is toward the city except for John P.
Here is a case where the city would be the real villain; if they came in and condemned and shut down a business that was maintaining their property to and above code. If they came in and condemned Three Layers or Sweet Petes. That of course would never and could never happen because both of those businesses maintain their property.
That brings to mind - how did Sweet Petes ever happen? It would seem that the COA process would have prevented it. Most people get hassled changing their window frames and yet Sweet Pete turned a historic home into a cartoon castle? How did that happen. I personally love it but figured that the preservationist types would have put a stop to it before it started.
Quote from: strider on June 29, 2013, 10:50:39 AM
Quotequote author=BigNugget link=topic=18780.msg334471#msg334471 date=1372513598
Ironically no finger is ever pointed at the people and no judgement is ever cast at the people who really caused the problem in the first place; the people who neglected their property to the point where the city has to interview and demolish.
"Springfield Plastics was condemned! The city is SO MEAN!! Isn't it terrible!"
No. The city isn't mean. The owner of Springfield Plastics let his building slide into disrepair and when he wasn't neglecting the property he was applying half-ass, not to code, jerry-rigged patches.
So... take your crooked little fingers that are pointed at the zoning board and turn them and point them toward the irresponsible property owners who let this happen in the first place.
Perhaps before you post things like the above, you need to do some reading. There is a thread about Springfield Plastics, here:http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,18043.0.html (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,18043.0.html)
As you can see, if you bothered to go educate yourself, is that I freely admitted that the owner should have repaired his building and needed that kick in the rear. What we take exception to is what the process is and the methods used. Frankly, it appears that Ms Scott and her minions get off on the misery of others. Very sad that a department in this city that is intended to help everyone is actually used to hurt people when they often need help the most.
In the case of Springfield plastics, even though the owner is being hindered at every turn, he has found the funding needed and we will be helping him get his building repaired. While getting what is needed to be done taken care of on his building will be easy, getting it out of MCC's claws will be difficult at best. If you decide to read the thread in the future, you will see exactly what I mean. Unless of course, Ms Scott and Company is moved on before we get to that point and things are changed to how the department is supposed to operate.
Strider, the over-the-top condescending tone in your posts above are exactly why BigNugget's friends told him not to post on here. Its obnoxious as hell.
You cannot defend neglect.
It happens for a variety of reasons, some are within the control of the owners, some are not.
PSOS, at times, gets frustrated with the owners, truth be told. PSOS, at times, has great compassion for the plight of the owners.
Regardless of the owners, these structures, by ordinance and law, transcend their current owners.
PSOS believes in "helping, not hindering".
Be it the neighborhood, or the city.
You don't punish the house for the crimes of its owners. It is the city's responsibility to protect them. Period.
Quote from: MEGATRON on June 29, 2013, 11:26:18 AM
Strider, the over-the-top condescending tone in your posts above are exactly why BigNugget's friends told him not to post on here. Its obnoxious as hell.
and yet, you keep coming on back....
Quote from: sheclown on June 29, 2013, 11:31:11 AM
Quote from: MEGATRON on June 29, 2013, 11:26:18 AM
Strider, the over-the-top condescending tone in your posts above are exactly why BigNugget's friends told him not to post on here. Its obnoxious as hell.
and yet, you keep coming on back....
Notwithstanding a few of the preservationists on the site that refuse to recognize economic realities, there us tons of great content on MJ.
Here is the thing. A lot of people - probably the majority - live here because they dig the rare urban vibe in an otherwise suburban city. Maybe they like old houses and buildings. I know I do. But we aren't activists. We quietly go about our lives in a responsible manner - we go to work - we pay our taxes - we don't break the law - we maintain our property and we are generally a positive influence on the community.
My hope and I would speculate that the non-activist majority feels the same way - is that the neighborhood continues to get better though renovations and re-use of the historic buildings in the area but also welcome and encourage the construction of new buildings that fit in with the fabric of the area. These new buildings bring with them high quality responsible neighbors who like us will generally be a positive influence on the area.
At the same time we realize that not all old buildings are worth saving. Not every house built in 1909 is an architectural masterpiece. Some of them were shitboxes in 1909 and they are still shitboxes today. Some have been neglected beyond any hope of salvage. And if a few of the worst structures are lost to make way for new construction which will actually increase the demand for the authentic historic buildings.
Again the narrative toward me is "clearly you don't belong here you should move to..." because you want responsible, professional people who maintain their property and increase the economic viability of the area out because we don't want to paint hearts on buildings that we view as dilapidated shitboxes? Because I the responsible citizen and property owner is the problem? Again the finger is pointed in the wrong direction.
Quote from: MEGATRON on June 29, 2013, 11:26:18 AM
Strider, the over-the-top condescending tone in your posts above are exactly why BigNugget's friends told him not to post on here. Its obnoxious as hell.
Bulldoze Springfield.
Line 'em up and knock 'em down.
Especially those shitbox houses at Dancy Terrace.
We have an abundance of empty neglected lots for infill. Hundreds.
Speaking of shitboxes on 10th st. What is the deal with the house on the corner of Hubbard and E. 10th? Seems like every day I drive past another window is broken and more bedsheets and crap are stuffed into where the window should be. So while they have the EXCAVATOR warmed up from knocking down Dancy Terrace they should head over and take that one out too.
Quote from: iloveionia on June 29, 2013, 11:51:07 AM
Bulldoze Springfield.
Line 'em up and knock 'em down.
Especially those shitbox houses at Dancy Terrace.
Quote from: MEGATRON on June 29, 2013, 11:26:18 AM
Strider, the over-the-top condescending tone in your posts above are exactly why BigNugget's friends told him not to post on here. Its obnoxious as hell.
Ha Ha, been called worse that condescending for telling the truth before.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/nicoleatdancy.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/nicoleatdancy.jpg.html)
Quote from: iloveionia on June 29, 2013, 11:51:07 AM
Bulldoze Springfield.
Line 'em up and knock 'em down.
Especially those shitbox houses at Dancy Terrace.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/mothballeddancy.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/mothballeddancy.jpg.html)
Nicole loves Dancy and is being sarcastic, btw.
Quote from: BigNugget on June 28, 2013, 10:41:02 PM
A friend of mine told me "Never ever ever post on the forums - only the crazy people and the extremists post on the forums." I know I am going to regret not taking the advice but here goes. I feel like John P is a lone sane rational voice in a crown of maniacs and I completely agree with him.
First let assign blame where it belongs... the property owners who neglected their property to the point where it was condemned. The city this and evil zoning Kim that. It's as if someone jumped off of a bridge and then you blamed gravity for their death. If these properties were even somewhat maintained they wouldn't have been demolished. The city isn't the cause it's the effect. The cause is irresponsibility.
Second we live in a moist tropical climate and a majority of these structures are made from wood. Even the best maintained and painted wood in this climate can succumb to decay. Raw untreated wood left to the elements doesn't stand a chance and in relatively short time it's going to be beyond any economic repair. So if you have an old structure and you have to replace 70% of it to make it habitable again is it really still a historic house? Or is it a mostly new house built to the same shape and dimensions as a historic house?
Third SRG houses. Guess what some people love the aesthetic of living in a historic neighborhood but don't want to deal with the hassle of living in an old house. They are career people focused on their work without a lot of excess time and energy. They need the convenience of a modern low maintenance house. Guess what will gentrify a neighborhood faster than anything - high income professional people. The SRG houses are a magnet for the right kind of people to help the neighborhood.
Some of these houses have been neglected to the point that there is no viable way to recover them. Getting rid of the worst of them to make way for authentic modern replacements which will draw in a desirable demographic will increase the value of the authentic historic structures and make them more valuable.
Finally I hate those little Dancey Terrace shitboxes at the end of E 10th st. I hate driving up 10th st and looking at them. I wish they would either be bulldozed or renovated. Either way I don't care.
Quote from: John P on June 28, 2013, 02:11:54 PM
Quote from: sheclown on June 28, 2013, 09:43:38 AM
John P. Your views are certainly shared by some living in Springfield, no doubt.
There is also a strong vibe of preservation that asks the question WTF. If you aren't a preservationist at heart, don't move to a historic district. We all know that Mack hyped up Springfield as "the hippiest hood in town" and that is certainly true. But it is hip because it is authentic. Remove the old houses, build faux new ones, and you've lost your groove.
You are lost. You can enjoy history and old homes and the environement it creates and still accept that some need to go. Like I said we have had inpet city leadership. If it was different and the historic areas were supported like they deserve this would not be a problem. But it is not, they are not, and it is. There are probably not that many more homes that need to go and there are probably many that did not need to go. That is reality!
you better smile when you say that, pardner. make it easiër for me to aim for your teeth.
Nicole looks good holding a drill.
Quote from: sheclown on June 29, 2013, 12:06:31 PM
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/nicoleatdancy.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/nicoleatdancy.jpg.html)
Quote from: iloveionia on June 29, 2013, 11:51:07 AM
Bulldoze Springfield.
Line 'em up and knock 'em down.
Especially those shitbox houses at Dancy Terrace.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/mothballeddancy.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/mothballeddancy.jpg.html)
Nicole loves Dancy and is being sarcastic, btw.
Big Nugget. Are you the crazed stalker?
Hey, all of you anti save the houses guys are really helping us get people on our side, so keep up the good work.
It is sad that some do not get it. We can post all day long about how we are not trying to give the owners of these houses a free pass, but are simply trying to insure that they actually have a chance. Frankly, if an owner can't afford to maintain his building, he needs to pass it onto someone who can. If he doesn't do the repairs himself, he should be given that swift kick in the rear so he does. But the system must be fair and must actually make it possible for the owner to do those repairs. In those cases where they can't because of financial reasons, perhaps they need to be helped. If they simply won't then perhaps the city needs to take the property and give it to someone who will. Tearing down it's historic housing stock is against the law. Yes, the city is breaking the law when it does it for the wrong reasons and it will ultimately pay the price for that. Unfortunately that means we all will pay that price.
What some of you fail to realize is that it doesn't take much for the MCC to be able to condemn your building. It could happen to you and yes, you would fix the issues, assuming you could afford to, and the problem would not be that big a deal. AT least you hope it wouldn't, but you can't be sure with Ms Scott and her minions. And what if you happened to be out of a job at the time? What if you had medical issues and had to let something slide a bit? Wouldn't you want a city that cared enough to give you a fair chance to correct the issues? Because that is all it takes to find yourself in the system and fighting to save your home.
I hear in some of the recent posts that same old rhetoric that implies you only want the "right kind of people" in your community. That is sad because some of those who may appear to be the wrong kind of people are simply a bit different. Some are poorer, some are just troubled. They mean you and yours no harm. They simply want the same things you do, perhaps in different colors and sizes, but pretty much the same.
We had a person from Springfield on the HPC who stated on a forum "all the houses worth doing in Springfield have been done". This was about 2006 or so. The implication was that the ones not done at that time needed to be torn down. Many have been. However, a few have actually been redone in spite of the economic times and one won an award this year at HPC. An interesting note is that her personal house had been vacant for a decade or more. It appears she only felt that way because she had her house so why see something ugly now that hers was done.
As long as there is a house, ugly as it may be, standing tall on it's lot, there is still hope. An empty, over grown lot says nothing, it is forgotten and empty . One of those forgotten, abandoned SRG foundations says something though. It says we have given up hope.
I'd rather have ugly hope than no hope at all.
Quote from: BigNugget on June 29, 2013, 09:46:38 AM
The advice was right "don't engage the crazies that post on the message boards."
So your solution is for me to move. That solves the problem because of course you want all responsible property owners who maintain their property to the best of their ability to move. People like me are obviously the downfall of the neighborhood. What with all of the lawn mowing and the building maintenance and the improvements over time. Who would want that in a neighborhood?
Ironically no finger is ever pointed at the people and no judgement is ever cast at the people who really caused the problem in the first place; the people who neglected their property to the point where the city has to interview and demolish.
"Springfield Plastics was condemned! The city is SO MEAN!! Isn't it terrible!"
No. The city isn't mean. The owner of Springfield Plastics let his building slide into disrepair and when he wasn't neglecting the property he was applying half-ass, not to code, jerry-rigged patches.
So... take your crooked little fingers that are pointed at the zoning board and turn them and point them toward the irresponsible property owners who let this happen in the first place.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on June 29, 2013, 09:02:04 AM
Quote from: BigNugget on June 28, 2013, 10:41:02 PM
Some of these houses have been neglected to the point that there is no viable way to recover them. Getting rid of the worst of them to make way for authentic modern replacements which will draw in a desirable demographic will increase the value of the authentic historic structures and make them more valuable.
Finally I hate those little Dancey Terrace shitboxes at the end of E 10th st. I hate driving up 10th st and looking at them. I wish they would either be bulldozed or renovated. Either way I don't care.
Simple solution: move somewhere else. It would be better for you, clearly, and everybody else. You don't belong in a historic district if your solution is to demolish what you don't personally like. Problem solved.
So let me get this straight. You chose to move into a neighborhood where you think the neighboring properties are "shit boxes" and spend your days trying to run off the people you moved in near, and feel the things you don't like should be demolished notwithstanding the fact that they were there 100 years before you decided to move in. And I'm the crazy one?
Quote from: BigNugget on June 29, 2013, 12:24:21 PM
Nicole looks good holding a drill.
Quote from: sheclown on June 29, 2013, 12:06:31 PM
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/nicoleatdancy.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/nicoleatdancy.jpg.html)
Quote from: iloveionia on June 29, 2013, 11:51:07 AM
Bulldoze Springfield.
Line 'em up and knock 'em down.
Especially those shitbox houses at Dancy Terrace.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/mothballeddancy.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/mothballeddancy.jpg.html)
Nicole loves Dancy and is being sarcastic, btw.
Ah, now this all makes perfect sense.
Whenever I've considered stalking in theory I've always lacked the motivation to get off the sofa and do it. If I were to be a stalker it would be more "meh stalker" and less "crazed stalker." "Maybe after I finally get the laundry done and the oil changed they go on a short stalking run then I find something on YouTube.com to watch and I don't get to it."
Was there an infamous stalking incident?
Quote from: sheclown on June 29, 2013, 12:27:25 PM
Big Nugget. Are you the crazed stalker?
I've been saying for a long time on here that everything cannot be saved, but apparently someone has a DeLorean that's capable of backwards time travel. The whole just because "you're not on one accord with the save everything activist mentality" you're 'suburban' needs to die; that's an easy way out of an argument.
IMO there's nothing more frustrating than misguided blame; like what BigNugget said on not holding these property owners accountable. Even if an arsonist burned down 80 percent of a structure, that's the city's fault too...Big Nugget clearly made many valid points, he's (someone investing in Springfield) not the blame here. The "my way or the highway, I'm right 100% of the time" attitude that some have, without even agreeing with any seemingly very reasonable thought is exactly what make many seem unreasonable.
Quote from: KuroiKetsunoHana on June 29, 2013, 12:16:10 PM
you better smile when you say that, pardner. make it easiër for me to aim for your teeth.
An internet thug, really? I can't say that I ever see anyone stoop this low on MJ; only because of not agreeing on a thread. SMH...
Quote from: BigNugget on June 29, 2013, 12:00:26 PM
Speaking of shitboxes on 10th st. What is the deal with the house on the corner of Hubbard and E. 10th? Seems like every day I drive past another window is broken and more bedsheets and crap are stuffed into where the window should be. So while they have the EXCAVATOR warmed up from knocking down Dancy Terrace they should head over and take that one out too.
you're tryïng to present yourself as a moderate voice ov reason, but you keep saying 'tear this down because i don't like it'.
you strongly object to people who've put their sweat, blood, and savings into this neighbourhood telling you--who've admitted, even boasted that you don't really give a shit about most ov the houses--to sod off.
you disparage activists, apparently because they're so dreadfully uncool as to care about something.
if you're really such a busy young professional--all your time and energy taken up, apparently, by paying your taxes and obeying the law--then where do you find the time and energy to care enough to want any ov these houses taken down? it's clear that large chunks ov springfield offend you on some deep level, and as much as i hate to recommend anything that might make someöne like you happiër, i really do think you'd be a far happiër creature in a different neighbourhood. after all, you can pay taxes and obey the law anywhere--and if your fondness for old houses stops at anything that falls short perfect upkeep, you could always invest in a coffee table book ov victorian architecture.
Quote from: I-10east on June 29, 2013, 12:46:56 PM
Quote from: KuroiKetsunoHana on June 29, 2013, 12:16:10 PM
you better smile when you say that, pardner. make it easiër for me to aim for your teeth.
An internet thug, really? I can't say that I ever see anyone stoop this low on MJ; only because of not agreeing on a thread. SMH...
I could not quite figure to whom that comment was directed.
Quote from: KuroiKetsunoHana on June 29, 2013, 12:52:11 PM
Quote from: BigNugget on June 29, 2013, 12:00:26 PM
Speaking of shitboxes on 10th st. What is the deal with the house on the corner of Hubbard and E. 10th? Seems like every day I drive past another window is broken and more bedsheets and crap are stuffed into where the window should be. So while they have the EXCAVATOR warmed up from knocking down Dancy Terrace they should head over and take that one out too.
you're tryïng to present yourself as a moderate voice ov reason, but you keep saying 'tear this down because i don't like it'.
you strongly object to people who've put their sweat, blood, and savings into this neighbourhood telling you--who've admitted, even boasted that you don't really give a shit about most ov the houses--to sod off.
you disparage activists, apparently because they're so dreadfully uncool as to care about something.
if you're really such a busy young professional--all your time and energy taken up, apparently, by paying your taxes and obeying the law--then where do you find the time and energy to care enough to want any ov these houses taken down? it's clear that large chunks ov springfield offend you on some deep level, and as much as i hate to recommend anything that might make someöne like you happiër, i really do think you'd be a far happiër creature in a different neighbourhood. after all, you can pay taxes and obey the law anywhere--and if your fondness for old houses stops at anything that falls short perfect upkeep, you could always invest in a coffee table book ov victorian architecture.
(http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/5948/internettoughguyi.jpg)
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on June 29, 2013, 12:28:23 PM
Quote from: BigNugget on June 29, 2013, 09:46:38 AM
The advice was right "don't engage the crazies that post on the message boards."
So your solution is for me to move. That solves the problem because of course you want all responsible property owners who maintain their property to the best of their ability to move. People like me are obviously the downfall of the neighborhood. What with all of the lawn mowing and the building maintenance and the improvements over time. Who would want that in a neighborhood?
Ironically no finger is ever pointed at the people and no judgement is ever cast at the people who really caused the problem in the first place; the people who neglected their property to the point where the city has to interview and demolish.
"Springfield Plastics was condemned! The city is SO MEAN!! Isn't it terrible!"
No. The city isn't mean. The owner of Springfield Plastics let his building slide into disrepair and when he wasn't neglecting the property he was applying half-ass, not to code, jerry-rigged patches.
So... take your crooked little fingers that are pointed at the zoning board and turn them and point them toward the irresponsible property owners who let this happen in the first place.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on June 29, 2013, 09:02:04 AM
Quote from: BigNugget on June 28, 2013, 10:41:02 PM
Some of these houses have been neglected to the point that there is no viable way to recover them. Getting rid of the worst of them to make way for authentic modern replacements which will draw in a desirable demographic will increase the value of the authentic historic structures and make them more valuable.
Finally I hate those little Dancey Terrace shitboxes at the end of E 10th st. I hate driving up 10th st and looking at them. I wish they would either be bulldozed or renovated. Either way I don't care.
Simple solution: move somewhere else. It would be better for you, clearly, and everybody else. You don't belong in a historic district if your solution is to demolish what you don't personally like. Problem solved.
So let me get this straight. You chose to move into a neighborhood where you think the neighboring properties are "shit boxes" and spend your days trying to run off the people you moved in near, and feel the things you don't like should be demolished notwithstanding the fact that they were there 100 years before you decided to move in. And I'm the crazy one?
No I spend my days generally working, working out, riding my bike and drinking good beer. Working involves starting and running a business that brings millions of dollars of out of town money into JAX and employing a bunch of people. Again you're trying to vilify me and I am not the problem. I break no laws, I maintain my property very well, my business pays hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal, state and city taxes yearly and thus I am contributing a significant amount to my community.
I'm not exactly running down the street with a 12 gauge with a shotgun chasing people out. Simply I drive past what I consider shitboxes and think "the world would be a better place if that wasn't there." Maybe 100 years ago they weren't shitboxes but now they are. By the same token I drive past other places and think "what a perfectly maintained architectural masterpiece and the world is a better place because that is here."
Finally who is the bad guy here? The multi-million dollar business owner bringing money and jobs to town who maintains his property or the people that sit on their porch all day doing nothing while their property dilapidates around them? I am not the problem.
Quote from: BigNugget on June 29, 2013, 12:00:26 PM
Speaking of shitboxes on 10th st. What is the deal with the house on the corner of Hubbard and E. 10th? Seems like every day I drive past another window is broken and more bedsheets and crap are stuffed into where the window should be. So while they have the EXCAVATOR warmed up from knocking down Dancy Terrace they should head over and take that one out too.
Quote from: iloveionia on June 29, 2013, 11:51:07 AM
Bulldoze Springfield.
Line 'em up and knock 'em down.
Especially those shitbox houses at Dancy Terrace.
The house at 10th and Hubbard as far as I know has been occupied by the same people since I have been down the street for 3 years. In the summer there is usually a fan in the window and the bed is pulled right up against the window I assume for ventilation.
Those of us in this area, if you remember the twins that used to be around here, one of them used to ask for yard cleaning jobs for extra money, that is where they lived. I think they were about 14 give or take a year. They have been gone a while, I think "detained" by the city.
LOL Megatron.
It is sad that to make your argument Big Nugget and I-10 East, you have to ignore what we say when we agree that not all old houses can be saved and that the owner is of course responsible for their houses. Why can't you hear that the city is also responsible because of its own laws? Why can't you hear that we are more concerned about why houses are taken down rather than losing a few that actually must come down? Why is ugly a death sentence for these houses? Why can't you see that MCC is out of control, whether it is demolitions without just cause or how they treat the very people they are supposed to be serving? Why is it that us standing strong in our beliefs makes us unbending and wrong but you can ignore the facts and tell us we are the ones wrong? Why is it it seems you only hear what you want to hear?
Like I said, I'd rather have ugly hope than no hope at all.
see, if you'd posted that in response to my 'smile' comment, you'd've been spot-on. it wasn't my most well-advised post. posting it in response to the reasons why i find Big Nugget so unpleasant and think he'd be happiër elsewhere doesn't really make sense.
also, fWIW, i've never claimed to be anything i'm not. i'm a skinny little white kid who can't fight and doesn't run so good anymore either--i just don't see any reason why that should prevent me from voicing my opinions.
Your lack of perceptiveness may be insulating you from some of my sarcasm.
I think the Dancy Terrace houses are horrible. I don't like driving past little shitbox houses that are so rotten that I can see though the walls. I'm sure with hundreds of thousands of dollars of re-construction effort they could be cute little nugget houses. They might not actually have a market in the modern world what with no parking and pain in the ass access and tiny size. Again that is my opinion and I have a right to that opinion.
I would like to see them renovated but I question if they have any actual value in a modern marketplace. If the choice is that they continue to dilapidate for the next ten years until they actually fall into the ground on their own. I'd rather see them demolished sooner than later.
Quote from: KuroiKetsunoHana on June 29, 2013, 12:52:11 PM
Quote from: BigNugget on June 29, 2013, 12:00:26 PM
Speaking of shitboxes on 10th st. What is the deal with the house on the corner of Hubbard and E. 10th? Seems like every day I drive past another window is broken and more bedsheets and crap are stuffed into where the window should be. So while they have the EXCAVATOR warmed up from knocking down Dancy Terrace they should head over and take that one out too.
you're tryïng to present yourself as a moderate voice ov reason, but you keep saying 'tear this down because i don't like it'.
you strongly object to people who've put their sweat, blood, and savings into this neighbourhood telling you--who've admitted, even boasted that you don't really give a shit about most ov the houses--to sod off.
you disparage activists, apparently because they're so dreadfully uncool as to care about something.
if you're really such a busy young professional--all your time and energy taken up, apparently, by paying your taxes and obeying the law--then where do you find the time and energy to care enough to want any ov these houses taken down? it's clear that large chunks ov springfield offend you on some deep level, and as much as i hate to recommend anything that might make someöne like you happiër, i really do think you'd be a far happiër creature in a different neighbourhood. after all, you can pay taxes and obey the law anywhere--and if your fondness for old houses stops at anything that falls short perfect upkeep, you could always invest in a coffee table book ov victorian architecture.
And you are entitled to your feelings; however since the house are federally protected, it can't legally be done
I see your point and from the outside looking in the city does seem a little out of control. Possibly they should work with the community and not just act as an inflexible iron fist. I get that and my inner "fight the man" hippie resonates with that message. I agree - give people time for compliance work with them and not against them. Totally simpatico with you on this.
However inner small govt capitalist doesn't think that it's the responsibility of the local government to maintain private property - historic or not.
I also like you love old architecture. With a few exceptions I generally don't like stuff build post WWII. But I don't think age alone makes great architecture. While some of the most beautiful and significant architecture was built prior to 1929 just because it's old doesn't mean it's great.
Finally; how many decently maintained buildings has the city razed? (aside from eminant domain stuff) I don't know the answer but if I were to guess I'd bed zero.
Quote from: strider on June 29, 2013, 12:58:41 PM
It is sad that to make your argument Big Nugget and I-10 East, you have to ignore what we say when we agree that not all old houses can be saved and that the owner is of course responsible for their houses. Why can't you hear that the city is also responsible because of its own laws? Why can't you hear that we are more concerned about why houses are taken down rather than losing a few that actually must come down? Why is ugly a death sentence for these houses? Why can't you see that MCC is out of control, whether it is demolitions without just cause or how they treat the very people they are supposed to be serving? Why is it that us standing strong in our beliefs makes us unbending and wrong but you can ignore the facts and tell us we are the ones wrong? Why is it it seems you only hear what you want to hear?
Like I said, I'd rather have ugly hope than no hope at all.
this ugly guy, the "Northern Hairy Nosed Wombat" is endangered.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/n-hairy-nosed-wombat_img01-l.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/n-hairy-nosed-wombat_img01-l.jpg.html)
He is protected.
See this ugly girl, she is endangered and protected as well.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/uglydancy.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/uglydancy.jpg.html)
Quote from: sheclown on June 29, 2013, 01:23:55 PM
this ugly guy, the "Northern Hairy Nosed Wombat" is endangered.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/n-hairy-nosed-wombat_img01-l.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/n-hairy-nosed-wombat_img01-l.jpg.html)
He is protected.
See this ugly girl, she is endangered and protected as well.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/uglydancy.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/uglydancy.jpg.html)
<3 <3 <3
You're right. I own multiple properties in multiple parts of JAX and a successful business and I'm "stuck" in Springfield. Someday if I could only afford to move to an 1,800sq/ft ranch house off of Hodges and escape this urban hellhole...
It's terrible that I want other people in the neighborhood to be responsible property owners? You spend so much time judging the city government and judging me and zero time judging irresponsible neighbors and property owners.
> Too bad you cant afford to live in a better neighborhood I guess.
I am neither married or sexually agressive. I'm more mind my own business, keep to myself and quiet.
Quote from: stephendare on June 29, 2013, 01:22:42 PM
Quote from: BigNugget on June 29, 2013, 12:36:35 PM
Whenever I've considered stalking in theory I've always lacked the motivation to get off the sofa and do it. If I were to be a stalker it would be more "meh stalker" and less "crazed stalker." "Maybe after I finally get the laundry done and the oil changed they go on a short stalking run then I find something on YouTube.com to watch and I don't get to it."
Was there an infamous stalking incident?
Quote from: sheclown on June 29, 2013, 12:27:25 PM
Big Nugget. Are you the crazed stalker?
Yes. she was stalked by a sexually aggressive (married) predator who also lives in the neighborhood. One of the entrepreneurs.
You paint hearts on houses. Thats hippie.
Quote from: stephendare on June 29, 2013, 01:28:39 PM
Quote from: BigNugget on June 29, 2013, 01:20:50 PM
I see your point and from the outside looking in the city does seem a little out of control. Possibly they should work with the community and not just act as an inflexible iron fist. I get that and my inner "fight the man" hippie resonates with that message. I agree - give people time for compliance work with them and not against them. Totally simpatico with you on this.
However inner small govt capitalist doesn't think that it's the responsibility of the local government to maintain private property - historic or not.
I also like you love old architecture. With a few exceptions I generally don't like stuff build post WWII. But I don't think age alone makes great architecture. While some of the most beautiful and significant architecture was built prior to 1929 just because it's old doesn't mean it's great.
Finally; how many decently maintained buildings has the city razed? (aside from eminant domain stuff) I don't know the answer but if I were to guess I'd bed zero.
Quote from: strider on June 29, 2013, 12:58:41 PM
It is sad that to make your argument Big Nugget and I-10 East, you have to ignore what we say when we agree that not all old houses can be saved and that the owner is of course responsible for their houses. Why can't you hear that the city is also responsible because of its own laws? Why can't you hear that we are more concerned about why houses are taken down rather than losing a few that actually must come down? Why is ugly a death sentence for these houses? Why can't you see that MCC is out of control, whether it is demolitions without just cause or how they treat the very people they are supposed to be serving? Why is it that us standing strong in our beliefs makes us unbending and wrong but you can ignore the facts and tell us we are the ones wrong? Why is it it seems you only hear what you want to hear?
Like I said, I'd rather have ugly hope than no hope at all.
hippie? fight the man?
Thats bizarre.
At best.
Unless you consider federal regulations to be dry roasted granola, and national historic designation policy to be made out of patchouli.
But its pretty cut and dried, law and order kind of stuff. surprised you didn't realize that.
Must have been announced while Atlas was Shrugging or something like that.
Quote from: stephendare on June 29, 2013, 01:22:42 PM
Quote from: BigNugget on June 29, 2013, 12:36:35 PM
Whenever I've considered stalking in theory I've always lacked the motivation to get off the sofa and do it. If I were to be a stalker it would be more "meh stalker" and less "crazed stalker." "Maybe after I finally get the laundry done and the oil changed they go on a short stalking run then I find something on YouTube.com to watch and I don't get to it."
Was there an infamous stalking incident?
Quote from: sheclown on June 29, 2013, 12:27:25 PM
Big Nugget. Are you the crazed stalker?
Yes. she was stalked by a sexually aggressive (married) predator who also lives in the neighborhood. One of the entrepreneurs.
Stephen, she IS being stalked still.
Quote from: BigNugget on June 29, 2013, 01:31:43 PM
I'm more mind my own business, keep to myself and quiet.
Sure seems that way.
That wombat would look good between a couple of pieces of rye bread with some mayonnaise.
Quote from: sheclown on June 29, 2013, 01:23:55 PM
this ugly guy, the "Northern Hairy Nosed Wombat" is endangered.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/n-hairy-nosed-wombat_img01-l.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/n-hairy-nosed-wombat_img01-l.jpg.html)
He is protected.
See this ugly girl, she is endangered and protected as well.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/uglydancy.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/uglydancy.jpg.html)
Nugget, the wombat sandwich did make me laugh.
It's been enjoyable and enlightening. Time to get some shit done in the non-crazy/extremist real world. Keep up the good fight.
Quote from: BigNugget on June 29, 2013, 01:42:34 PM
It's been enjoyable and enlightening. Time to get some shit done in the non-crazy/extremist real world. Keep up the good fight.
And by the way, I'm not an "extremist" but I am extremely awesome.
Quote from: BigNugget on June 29, 2013, 01:30:06 PM
You're right. I own multiple properties in multiple parts of JAX and a successful business and I'm "stuck" in Springfield. Someday if I could only afford to move to an 1,800sq/ft ranch house off of Hodges and escape this urban hellhole...
closely related to the internet tough guy, we have the internet millionaire...
Quote from: stephendare on June 29, 2013, 01:48:22 PM
Quote from: sheclown on June 29, 2013, 01:36:36 PM
Quote from: stephendare on June 29, 2013, 01:22:42 PM
Quote from: BigNugget on June 29, 2013, 12:36:35 PM
Whenever I've considered stalking in theory I've always lacked the motivation to get off the sofa and do it. If I were to be a stalker it would be more "meh stalker" and less "crazed stalker." "Maybe after I finally get the laundry done and the oil changed they go on a short stalking run then I find something on YouTube.com to watch and I don't get to it."
Was there an infamous stalking incident?
Quote from: sheclown on June 29, 2013, 12:27:25 PM
Big Nugget. Are you the crazed stalker?
Yes. she was stalked by a sexually aggressive (married) predator who also lives in the neighborhood. One of the entrepreneurs.
Stephen, she IS being stalked still.
Why do you say that? Springfielder informed me that the entire thing was over.
Oh no. She gets phone calls and sexually suggestive texts all the time. Packages are mailed to her house.
Friday's text was pretty tame:
"I'm ready and willing to reach home plate."
But it is the day in and day out texts and phone calls which are totally creepy.
Oh my god I just realized you were a dude. Your pic made me think you were just a rough looking chick that was drawn toward playing softball in your free time. To be fair it is a very small fuzzy pic and the orange shirt threw me.
24,000 posts on this message board? That seems compulsive.
Quote from: stephendare on June 29, 2013, 01:44:05 PM
Quote from: BigNugget on June 29, 2013, 01:42:34 PM
It's been enjoyable and enlightening. Time to get some shit done in the non-crazy/extremist real world. Keep up the good fight.
Good luck finding your way back to that world. Im sure they miss you.
Last time I heard, the easiest traffic route ran down hodges.
Big Nugget, now you've stepped in it.
Stephen started forums in this city you twerp.
Not all houses can be saved. But demolishing a house makes absolutely sure it can't be saved. We have no shortage of empty lots in Springfield, so you can't say that the old houses are holding back any new development. There are a couple new construction projects under way right now! I rather be called a crazy preservationist then a demolitionist.
If the city would have a genuine interest in the properties, and would actually want to hold property owners accountable, they could always foreclose on the fines they levy to get the house into the hands of an owner willing to rehab the houses. But instead, the city isn't even able to come to terms with the properties it owns (see 9th and Main) and they decay and look worse then many of the cited properties.
Quote from: movedsouth on June 29, 2013, 02:30:49 PM
Not all houses can be saved. But demolishing a house makes absolutely sure it can't be saved. We have no shortage of empty lots in Springfield, so you can't say that the old houses are holding back any new development. There are a couple new construction projects under way right now! I rather be called a crazy preservationist then a demolitionist.
If the city would have a genuine interest in the properties, and would actually want to hold property owners accountable, they could always foreclose on the fines they levy to get the house into the hands of an owner willing to rehab the houses. But instead, the city isn't even able to come to terms with the properties it owns (see 9th and Main) and they decay and look worse then many of the cited properties.
Maybe we could cite the city owned properties, collect the money, and mothball deserving structures with the proceeds.
I am just here to get some stalking tips.
Quote from: Kaiser Soze on June 29, 2013, 03:13:16 PM
I am just here to get some stalking tips.
I helps if you are a psychopath. If not, you have to work harder.
But that really is for another thread.
Quote from: BigNugget on June 29, 2013, 01:20:50 PM
I see your point and from the outside looking in the city does seem a little out of control. Possibly they should work with the community and not just act as an inflexible iron fist. I get that and my inner "fight the man" hippie resonates with that message. I agree - give people time for compliance work with them and not against them. Totally simpatico with you on this.
However inner small govt capitalist doesn't think that it's the responsibility of the local government to maintain private property - historic or not.
I also like you love old architecture. With a few exceptions I generally don't like stuff build post WWII. But I don't think age alone makes great architecture. While some of the most beautiful and significant architecture was built prior to 1929 just because it's old doesn't mean it's great.
Finally; how many decently maintained buildings has the city razed? (aside from eminant domain stuff) I don't know the answer but if I were to guess I'd bed zero.
Quote from: strider on June 29, 2013, 12:58:41 PM
It is sad that to make your argument Big Nugget and I-10 East, you have to ignore what we say when we agree that not all old houses can be saved and that the owner is of course responsible for their houses. Why can't you hear that the city is also responsible because of its own laws? Why can't you hear that we are more concerned about why houses are taken down rather than losing a few that actually must come down? Why is ugly a death sentence for these houses? Why can't you see that MCC is out of control, whether it is demolitions without just cause or how they treat the very people they are supposed to be serving? Why is it that us standing strong in our beliefs makes us unbending and wrong but you can ignore the facts and tell us we are the ones wrong? Why is it it seems you only hear what you want to hear?
Like I said, I'd rather have ugly hope than no hope at all.
There have been houses in MCC's system for years that started out with a leaky pipe. Or a hole in the roof. The house is condemned, the owners, for whatever reason, we do not need to go into that discussion right now, did not repair it or couldn't. After many inspections, after the house is vandalized and sits unoccupied for years, after several Special Masters hearings , after getting fined so much no one else wants it, the house gets demolished. They put a lien on the house for the demolition.
Now look at the possibility, as it is actually allowed for in the codes and often found on the form letters MCC sends out, they simply repaired that hole in the roof or fixed that leaking pipe and then put a lien for that amount on the house.
Which do you suppose is less expensive for the tax payers, the years of MCC involvement and the demolition lien that most often never gets paid or the repair?
The end result would be a house still in use, still on the tax rolls and one that could be sold to a new owner who might take better care of it. The city will never get the half million dollars of liens and fines some of these old houses have on them. It would stand a good chance of getting back that repair lien though. And it could have been getting the taxes paid all those years and people would be enjoying those houses instead of the house being abandoned.
Many houses have been demolished due to reckless policy and it is not the owner guilty of that, it is the city.
Oh and many well maintained but unoccupied and uninhabitable homes have been demolished through the years. Just because you can not live in it doesn't mean it is not maintained. MCC just defines "safe" as being able to be inhabited (functioning water, electrical and heat) rather than what most people would consider just safe and so structurally sound homes are often demolished. It just depends upon what your definition of safe and maintained means.
Quote from: BigNugget on June 29, 2013, 11:47:22 AM
My hope and I would speculate that the non-activist majority feels the same way - is that the neighborhood continues to get better though renovations and re-use of the historic buildings in the area but also welcome and encourage the construction of new buildings that fit in with the fabric of the area.
The bottom-line here is that no one cannot renovate or re-use a historic building if it has been demolished. Is the property owner responsible for maintenance of the property? Absolutely! And when the City of Jacksonville approved legislation to deem Springfield a historic district, the City at that point took on a SHARED responsibility to protect the structures. That protection, per law, includes stabilization and/or maintenance when a property owner refuses to do so.
QuoteSec. 656.365. Legislative findings and intent.
The Council hereby finds and determines as follows:
(a) Pursuant to the adoption of Ordinance 91-733-570 on January 28, 1992, the City Council established the Springfield Historic District. Since that date, various studies and plans, including the Neighborhood Action Plan, Historic Springfield District, October, 1992, and the Springfield Action Plan dated May, 1997, as revised August, 1998, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the Council Secretary and in the Planning and Development Department, have recommended the implementation of a zoning district overlay to resolve zoning-related problems in the Springfield Historic District.
Quote from: stephendare on June 29, 2013, 01:19:39 PM
Quote from: MEGATRON on June 29, 2013, 11:34:38 AM
Quote from: sheclown on June 29, 2013, 11:31:11 AM
Quote from: MEGATRON on June 29, 2013, 11:26:18 AM
Strider, the over-the-top condescending tone in your posts above are exactly why BigNugget's friends told him not to post on here. Its obnoxious as hell.
and yet, you keep coming on back....
Notwithstanding a few of the preservationists on the site that refuse to recognize economic realities, there us tons of great content on MJ.
lol. Thats hilarious. Btw. The only areas increasing in value are the historic preservationist areas.
I always like your economic theories, megatron. They are so cute.
Have you ever thought about a graphic novel?
Or something on nickleodeon?
Property values on the rise in Springfield?
The economic melt down was bad for a lot of individuals, but it was actually great for the neighborhood as a whole. Houses that had been flipped 10 times, having every dime squeezed out, but no work actually peformed got a reset, and are not on the market as an affordable forclosure. The neighborhood had become unaffordable before its time.
The reset has led to many houses being saved and renovated that might otherwise have been lost.
Quote from: Demosthenes on July 01, 2013, 12:03:47 PM
The economic melt down was bad for a lot of individuals, but it was actually great for the neighborhood as a whole. Houses that had been flipped 10 times, having every dime squeezed out, but no work actually peformed got a reset, and are not on the market as an affordable forclosure. The neighborhood had become unaffordable before its time.
The reset has led to many houses being saved and renovated that might otherwise have been lost.
agree.
Now if we can just keep MCCD and it's bulldozer-happy crew out of Springfield, the rest of the remaining historic houses will have a chance to also get renovated. The last two were ABSOLUTELY not necessary. A travesty. Both structurally sound, and recent work done on them.
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on July 02, 2013, 12:30:07 PM
Now if we can just keep MCCD and it's bulldozer-happy crew out of Springfield, the rest of the remaining historic houses will have a chance to also get renovated. The last two were ABSOLUTELY not necessary. A travesty. Both structurally sound, and recent work done on them.
come on, Debbie--if we've learned anything from Big Nugget, we've learned that they don't use bulldozers--they use EXCAVATORS. the all-caps seems to be important, too.
Quote from: KuroiKetsunoHana on July 02, 2013, 04:11:09 PM
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on July 02, 2013, 12:30:07 PM
Now if we can just keep MCCD and it's bulldozer-happy crew out of Springfield, the rest of the remaining historic houses will have a chance to also get renovated. The last two were ABSOLUTELY not necessary. A travesty. Both structurally sound, and recent work done on them.
come on, Debbie--if we've learned anything from Big Nugget, we've learned that they don't use bulldozers--they use EXCAVATORS. the all-caps seems to be important, too.
LOLOLOLOL
And I agree with Debbie's sentiment.
Bedofe the dozer leaves lets hope the the burned green house at 3rd near Hubbard is taken down. I was told this supposed to be mothballed right? By the way what houses have been mothballed in springfield or other places because I cant find any that look like they are supposed to once it is finished.
Mothballed:
423 Walnut Court
1320 Ionia
229 E. 2nd
1540 Clark
1946 Redell (Dancy Terrace)
I'm on my phone. Later can upload before and after pics of the above.
Billy's house though ugly on the exterior has some incredibly charming late 1800 details.
Many are against the house b/c they dislike Billy.
Be that as it may, he has saved houses.
One may not like the path he took many years back, but houses stand today because if him.
Quote from: John P on July 03, 2013, 09:54:01 AM
Bedofe the dozer leaves lets hope the the burned green house at 3rd near Hubbard is taken down. I was told this supposed to be mothballed right? By the way what houses have been mothballed in springfield or other places because I cant find any that look like they are supposed to once it is finished.
Two separate engineering firms have surveyed the property and while both agree that there are some structural issues, neither stated that it was an "emergency" situation. So, unless the city would like to buy Billy a new house, perhaps they ought to leave his alone.
John P, what did you do? Take a mean pill this morning when you got up?
We've lost way too many houses already. Some due to fire, some due to poor policies of the past. We simply can't afford to lose any more. Yes, I wish Billy would do something with that house. We all do.
But taking down ugly houses just because they are ugly is not only a very poor idea, it is against the law.
We have so many ugly house before and after pictures. A house my son and I purchased was painted battleship gray with dark gray trim, needed a roof, porch was failing, had four (four!!) sheds in the back yard (one with its roof falling in) a big corrugated tin awning on the back, and a huge satellite dish in the yard. It was pretty ugly, but I saw the vision of what it could be.
It's now a beautifully restored home, with 8 foot pocket doors in the living room, and all the original 1906 detail intact. Our mailman told me he had not seen it look so good in 40 years. It is the only house like it that I have seen in Springfield. What a shame if MCCD had come along and demolished it before we could restore it, just because it was ugly. The city now receives thousand of dollars of taxes from us for it every year.
Maybe you should give our historic homes a break. We need to save every remaining home until someone comes to make it beautiful again.
Quote from: iloveionia on July 03, 2013, 10:50:52 AMBilly's house though ugly on the exterior has some incredibly charming late 1800 details.
Many are against the house b/c they dislike Billy.
Be that as it may, he has saved houses.
One may not like the path he took many years back, but houses stand today because if him.
Yes and hitler built good roads too. For some reaosn that gets overlooked in his bio. I am glad you defend slum lord drug dealers who helped destroy the neighbohood. Someone has to huh.
Quote from: stephendare on July 03, 2013, 12:21:25 PM
Just like someone has to defend the self righteous jerks who didnt bother with the neighborhood until they smelt money. ;)
+1. You said it better, Stephen.
I am officially back into lurker mode unless someone uses the wrong terminology for construction equipment (e.g. bulldozer vs excavator) the next time a shitbox is knocked down.
John P - I really like your attitude.
Quote from: John P on July 03, 2013, 12:15:36 PM
Quote from: iloveionia on July 03, 2013, 10:50:52 AMBilly's house though ugly on the exterior has some incredibly charming late 1800 details.
Many are against the house b/c they dislike Billy.
Be that as it may, he has saved houses.
One may not like the path he took many years back, but houses stand today because if him.
Yes and hitler built good roads too. For some reaosn that gets overlooked in his bio. I am glad you defend slum lord drug dealers who helped destroy the neighbohood. Someone has to huh.
John it's an excavator.
Quote from: John P on July 03, 2013, 09:54:01 AM
Bedofe the dozer leaves lets hope the the burned green house at 3rd near Hubbard is taken down. I was told this supposed to be mothballed right? By the way what houses have been mothballed in springfield or other places because I cant find any that look like they are supposed to once it is finished.
Big Nugget and John P really should live in Mandarin where all the houses are new and all look alike. Oh, wait! I think neighborhoods where all the houses look alike are pretty ugly! And I can call an excavator a bulldozer if I want to. Who cares? I couldn't care less what you call it if you are using it to destroy MY NEIGHBORHOOD.
Yes its good to tell people that contribute to revitalization more than most to leave because they dont agree with you.. Thats the inclusive and diverse spirit! I think Debbie Thompson should go live in Lackawanna or Durkeeville where people are too poor to fix up homes and make them presentable. Have fun!
I do think the emergency demolition standards need to be reviewed.
And it's an important issue in the community, deserving of conversation and debate.
I would like to keep this in perspective, as someone mentioned to me how they may consider moving to SPR, but they are worried about " the neighborhood is being demolished". I explained that the emphasis put on this issue may present an image that is not reflective of the current state.
On the same block as the recent demo at 2nd & Liberty, there's two renovations taking place and two new homes being built.
Yes, there is an occasional demo, which seem to be questionable of late. However, these are thankfully few & far between, with many, many, many more positive projects in comparison.
Hopefully both law and policy can be reviewed so that these conversations won't be necessary in the future.
Have a great Fourth.
And fyi: www.sparcouncil.org/throwback
Quote from: Bill Hoff on July 03, 2013, 02:45:48 PM
I do think the emergency demolition standards need to be reviewed.
And it's an important issue in the community, deserving of conversation and debate.
I would like to keep this in perspective, as someone mentioned to me how they may consider moving to SPR, but they are worried about " the neighborhood is being demolished". I explained that the emphasis put on this issue may present an image that is not reflective of the current state.
On the same block as the recent demo at 2nd & Liberty, there's two renovations taking place and two new homes being built.
Yes, there is an occasional demo, which seem to be questionable of late. However, these are thankfully few & far between, with many, many, many more positive projects in comparison.
Hopefully both law and policy can be reviewed so that these conversations won't be necessary in the future.
Have a great Fourth.
And fyi: www.sparcouncil.org/throwback
Bill, we've lost 1/3 of the housing stock.
Quote from: Bill Hoff on July 03, 2013, 02:45:48 PM
I do think the emergency demolition standards need to be reviewed.
And it's an important issue in the community, deserving of conversation and debate.
I would like to keep this in perspective, as someone mentioned to me how they may consider moving to SPR, but they are worried about " the neighborhood is being demolished". I explained that the emphasis put on this issue may present an image that is not reflective of the current state.
On the same block as the recent demo at 2nd & Liberty, there's two renovations taking place and two new homes being built.
Yes, there is an occasional demo, which seem to be questionable of late. However, these are thankfully few & far between, with many, many, many more positive projects in comparison.
Hopefully both law and policy can be reviewed so that these conversations won't be necessary in the future.
Have a great Fourth.
And fyi: www.sparcouncil.org/throwback
SPAR: Springfield PRESERVATION and Revitalization.
Preservation.
Preservation.
Preservation.
Keep this in perspective.
Yes indeed. Keep this in perspective.
We've lost entire blocks and upwards of 50% of the housing stock on some streets.
Save the houses.
Find a way to help protect our historic homes and not brush it (demolitions) under the carpet, or shoo it back into the closet.
Deflect: "Cause (something) to change direction by interposing something; turn aside from a straight course."
Not a means of operation I support.
Actually my first house in JAX was in Mandarin. It's now a rental property. I miss the Mandarin Publix. We have nothing that compares in Springfield. I also prefer the Mandarin crime rate but it's a small price to pay for living in Springfield.
Here is the thing; it's possible to both appreciate an urban neighborhood, cultural diversity, historic architecture, adaptive re-use of historic structures and also think those shacks at the end of E. 10th look like shit and wish that the residents of the house on E. 10th that seem to have 24/7 to sit on the porch would take some of that excess time to repair one of the many broken windows and pull some of the bed sheets hanging out of the window into the house.
But to someone with an extremest point of view I guess there can't be middle ground. It's all or nothing.
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on July 03, 2013, 01:11:55 PM
Big Nugget and John P really should live in Mandarin where all the houses are new and all look alike. Oh, wait! I think neighborhoods where all the houses look alike are pretty ugly! And I can call an excavator a bulldozer if I want to. Who cares? I couldn't care less what you call it if you are using it to destroy MY NEIGHBORHOOD.
I just want to know why it seems acceptable for the city to disobey its own laws? Our ORDINANCES REQUIRE protection and the least intrusive means of abatement. Demolition is NOT they way to abate in a historic district.
Thank goodness local preservationists started raising cain about the demolitions, or I fear "the occasional demo" would instead be "regularly occurring demos" like used to happen. Yes, there haven't been as many LATELY, thanks in large part to loud, noisy, wonderfully pushy people like Ionia, She Clown and Jax Unicorn. And thank goodness SPAR has stepped up to the plate and said it needs to stop. And thank goodness for our City Council finally starting to "get it" thanks in large part to m74reeves, who set up that wonderful petition for us to be able to contact them.
The thing is...there should be any. Or at least VERY few, and it should take a LOT to get one demolished. Not just MCCD doing a drive by and saying the house looks bad.
The last two were egregious. So while I agree we need to be careful about presenting the neighborhood as "in danger of being demolished" the fact is, until we get MCCD's policies changed, the neighborhood is "in danger of being demolished."
Quote from: John P on July 03, 2013, 02:00:53 PM
Yes its good to tell people that contribute to revitalization more than most to leave because they dont agree with you.. Thats the inclusive and diverse spirit! I think Debbie Thompson should go live in Lackawanna or Durkeeville where people are too poor to fix up homes and make them presentable. Have fun!
advocating demolition is contributing to revitalization?
what are you demolishing? a burned out rooming house with structural problems that homeless people live in and the slumlord owner wont improve or a boarded up vacant house that is properly kept up by the owner? Yes to the first no to the second! Those are 2 different things people!
Quote from: John P on July 03, 2013, 05:30:41 PM
what are you demolishing? a burned out rooming house with structural problems that homeless people live in and the slumlord owner wont improve or a boarded up vacant house that is properly kept up by the owner? Yes to the first no to the second! Those are 2 different things people!
Actually, no. They are the same. A protected class of structures called a historic district.
Well, since clearly John P, Big Nugget and Apache think the way to make our historic district better is to get rid of all the remaining historic fabric, and get rid of all those pesky poor people, I think I have nothing else to say to them.
While I apologize if I hurt anyone's feelings, and of course I don't think they should move, I think they don't get it. I still think they would be happier in the suburbs where all the houses are the same age and same price, and they could rest assured everyone around them makes the same money as them. But since they appear to want the historic district to become that instead, I have nothing left to add. I've been there, done that, didn't like that.
With no hard feelings, I shall proceed to ignore their posts, since I can't change their minds, and they clearly are not going to change mine. :-) I suggest others do the same.
Who wants to talk preservation?
I'd love some photos of what Carmen Street looked like when there were houses there. I remember a few being left back in 2000. They were one story bungalows, small.
Carmen, like Clark, Walnut Court, Hubbard Terrace, are forgotten little pockets of bungalows.
Quote from: Apache on July 03, 2013, 05:51:02 PM
Quote from: JaxUnicorn on July 03, 2013, 03:51:16 PM
I just want to know why it seems acceptable for the city to disobey its own laws? Our ORDINANCES REQUIRE protection and the least intrusive means of abatement. Demolition is NOT they way to abate in a historic district.
It's semantics I guess, but the city is clearly not Breaking the law. If it were, as I've mentioned prior, this forum has a couple capable attorneys that could/would take up the case.
m74reeves posted the ordinance earlier in this thread. It's clearly ambiguous. Paraphrasing, in "emergency" situations it gives the city or MCCD the requirement to brace/fix/repair UNLESS they determine that such action is useless, which is what they have been determining.
Continuing to state that they are breaking the law will get you no where, clearly. MCCD is comfortable, evidenced by Ms. Scott's reported smugness, that they are indeed within the law.
In my opinion, the only way you are going to change this is apply public pressure to Ms. Scott to change her mind or apply public pressure to the Mayor to replace her with someone of a mind toward preservation.
Here's part of 307:
Sec. 307.113. - Unsafe Structure Abatement.
In the event a structure that has been designated as a landmark or contributing to an historic district under the provisions of this Chapter is declared to be an unsafe structure or condemned pursuant to Chapter 518, Ordinance Code, and either the property owner or the Municipal Code Compliance Division desires to abate such conditions, they shall first obtain a certificate of appropriateness pursuant to section 307.106 or 307.107. Demolition activities shall be performed consistent with the approved certificate of appropriateness. A certificate of appropriateness shall not be required prior to commencing demolition or abatement actions concerning any extreme and imminent public safety hazard, as provided for under an order for emergency abatement issued by the Chief of the Municipal Code Compliance Division or the Chief of Building Inspection. However, a copy of the emergency abatement order shall be submitted with a certificate of appropriateness application prior to either obtaining any necessary permits to conduct the emergency abatement or within seven days of the demolition or other emergency abatement action. In determining the appropriate manner to remedy emergency conditions affecting a landmark, landmark site, or a property in a historic district, the remedy shall be limited to the least intrusive means to minimize the impact to the historic fabric. Consideration shall be given to bracing or other stabilization alternatives if such would be sufficient to abate the emergency conditions.
(Ord. 90-706-486, § 3; Ord. 94-337-183, § 17; Ord. No. 2006-847-E, § 1; Ord. 2011-408-E, § 2)
And yes, Ms Scott did break the law. While it is very true that she can interpret certain laws as she see fit, there are indeed limits. Section 307 sets those limits within the Historic districts. Ms Scott has elected to ignore those limits and that is good for her, unless she gets called on it. She won't be unless we speak up. So while you might be right that the law issues won't put her in jail or immediately remove her from her position, they do put the city of Jacksonville, meaning us tax payers by the way, in the path of a semi called liability. The lawsuits are not a maybe, they are a given. Look up the last ones - the liability exposure to the city set by the OGC was up to $ 200,000 dollars each I believe. We are closing libraries and we allow Ms Scott to put us in that kind of liability position? For what? So she can continue to feed her ego? I keep hoping this city is better than that.
Mothballing these two houses could have been a couple of hundred grand cheaper than demolishing them. That is not emotional, that is simple fact.
Save the houses
Oh and save the commercial structures, too
& the brick streets.
Strider quote
"Bill, we've lost 1/3 of the housing stock. "
Absolutely not true. I challenge you to get a list of demolitions that planning has shown or rather "counted" as gone since 1985. I asked for a list, I did get one, it had the number 533 written in the margin but actually less than 300 names on it. (either 229 or 299, I could dig out the list again it is with SHEC papers, but I am sure you can get a copy). When I started to crosscheck with the survey so many on that list were non contributing I gave up. You yourself said in another post said we had lost an average of one per month since the survey. That is 28 years which would mean a total of 336 (only 200 fewer than the fictitious figure). The figures just do not jive and I know in the 13 years I have been here there has not been one a month. I was going to try and cross check, but it would take ages and is not worth it. When doing SHEC, as stated before, we found houses on corners with multiple addresses, but the most difficult to trace was when a house showed up on a street and it was not supposed to be there. Then we find out they are ones that were moved. 12th street houses are on Walnut, Laura, Silver and 9th that I know of - they would be counted as gone in your math. We certainly have not lost them at the rate of 1 a month, but I do believe we have lost between circa 200 - 250 of contributing, still too many. When the COAs were being used to come up with a figure, it included non contributing (you still need a COA) structures, garages sheds, in fact when I came into the neighborhood in 2000 the city was requiring that some carriage houses had to go, before a house could be closed. I challenge you go get the list. I challenge you to read the files as I have. You also wrote that in 1985 there was only one empty lot on east second street. That does not prove anything. There were 43 listed addresses for the said east second in 1985, but I know two for sure were moved, one to Hubbard, and one to Laura, but the Duncan Fletcher house on the corner of Hubbard and 2nd, now 1203 Hubbard had no fewer that 3 maybe 4 addresses on Second and all were contained in that 43 as stated. When I complained to planning that the list was not correct, I was told that it was - I think the adjective used was tentative. So unless you can come up with addresses and where those houses were, stop using that figure - unless of course you get the list and prove me wrong. I believe the onus is on you. I have read every file that is available and have done about 15,000 scans. We have pored over those files. So much has changed since the survey. What did really did bother me were the houses lost between 1985 and ratification of the designation, in 1992 I believe, about 7 years. The ones immediately behind Main were the worst sufferers. The ones left off the survey, which I felt deserved to be counted, bothered me also. There used to be 4 lovely little houses in the alley just north of the 300 block of 6th East, I watched them burn one by one - arson. Sadly these were ignored in the survey, not even a photograph taken only city foot prints remain. I am sure their "demolitions" are part of that list.
We need to concentrate on protecting what we have, stop pointing fingers at every city agency and be more upbeat about Springfield. We still have a treasure here. If I could post photos hereon, I would post a lovely shot of houses moving down Main Street being moved in order to be saved. The Bethel Rectory moved 4 times.
Quote
Strider, doesn't the "emergency" section of that ordinance also state
"When temporary measures are inadequate, the property may be demolished provided notice procedures prescribed in this Section have been instituted."
Actually, it says this:
In determining the appropriate manner to remedy emergency conditions affecting a landmark, landmark site, or a property in a historic district, the remedy shall be limited to the least intrusive means to minimize the impact to the historic fabric. Consideration shall be given to bracing or other stabilization alternatives if such would be sufficient to abate the emergency conditions.
Remember that while section 518 governs MCC, Section 307 must also be included as it governs how historic properties are handled.
QuoteWouldn't you agree that is the loophole she is using? And therefore is not breaking the law. She is claiming they are emergencies, that temporary measures will not be adequate and getting an engineering firm (some intimate a crooked firm) to back her up, demo'ing the house and filing for the COA after. As the language states she can do?
Yes, she has circumvented the normal and standard procedures by calling these demolitions emergencies. She willfully set out to do this. The question then comes down to this. Can she justify calling these two houses an "extreme and imminent public safety hazard"? We say no. We know that per the Office of General Counsel has stated that a house, like a house on Laura St that has been discussed, that is denied a demolition by the HPC can;t be taken by an emergency order unless something radically changes from the time that demolition was denied to the time it is declared an emergency. There are many pictures showing that no changes occurred on either of these two houses. We also can look at the definitions of Extreme and Imminent to support the call that these houses should not have been taken by emergency order. Even the process used by the MCC and past performance of how long it took to take true emergencies supports that they were not emergency demolitions. If one uses the emergency demolition powers incorrectly and circumvents the correct and legal proceedings to get the demolition approval of a historic house, is that not breaking the law?
You also called it a loophole, but read the ordinance again. Not only does it have to meet the definition of "Extreme and Imminent" it also has to be justified to the Historic Preservation Commission. The ordinance states she must submit an COA APPLICATION. This is an important point as it is the single check and balance available to insure that, like many times in the past, emergency demolitions are not abused. The emergency demolition must be found to be valid or? OK, that is the question. In a normal business, if an employee took down a house illegally and potentially cost the company a couple of hundred grand, they would be out of a job so fast their head would spin. Who knows what this city will do.
I know more about this than I can post here. Suffice it to say that no, she can not truly justify either demolition. The evidence is very much against her.
The HPC will be hearing the appeal of the administratively approved COA for 129 E 2nd St next month. And there are definitive procedures in place as to how a demotion is to be approved so next months meeting will be interesting. And costly. PSOS believes so much in this that the check written for this appeal was $ 610.00.
We are also awaiting notification on the status of the COA application for the 253 E 2nd St demolition. A decision will be made whether to appeal that one or not. We may just let the courts rule on that one.
Quote from: chris farley on July 03, 2013, 08:09:32 PM
Strider quote
"Bill, we've lost 1/3 of the housing stock. "
Absolutely not true. I challenge you to get a list of demolitions that planning has shown or rather "counted" as gone since 1985. I asked for a list, I did get one, it had the number 533 written in the margin but actually less than 300 names on it. (either 229 or 299, I could dig out the list again it is with SHEC papers, but I am sure you can get a copy). When I started to crosscheck with the survey so many on that list were non contributing I gave up. You yourself said in another post said we had lost an average of one per month since the survey. That is 28 years which would mean a total of 336 (only 200 fewer than the fictitious figure). The figures just do not jive and I know in the 13 years I have been here there has not been one a month. I was going to try and cross check, but it would take ages and is not worth it. When doing SHEC, as stated before, we found houses on corners with multiple addresses, but the most difficult to trace was when a house showed up on a street and it was not supposed to be there. Then we find out they are ones that were moved. 12th street houses are on Walnut, Laura, Silver and 9th that I know of - they would be counted as gone in your math. We certainly have not lost them at the rate of 1 a month, but I do believe we have lost between circa 200 - 250 of contributing, still too many. When the COAs were being used to come up with a figure, it included non contributing (you still need a COA) structures, garages sheds, in fact when I came into the neighborhood in 2000 the city was requiring that some carriage houses had to go, before a house could be closed. I challenge you go get the list. I challenge you to read the files as I have. You also wrote that in 1985 there was only one empty lot on east second street. That does not prove anything. There were 43 listed addresses for the said east second in 1985, but I know two for sure were moved, one to Hubbard, and one to Laura, but the Duncan Fletcher house on the corner of Hubbard and 2nd, now 1203 Hubbard had no fewer that 3 maybe 4 addresses on Second and all were contained in that 43 as stated. When I complained to planning that the list was not correct, I was told that it was - I think the adjective used was tentative. So unless you can come up with addresses and where those houses were, stop using that figure - unless of course you get the list and prove me wrong. I believe the onus is on you. I have read every file that is available and have done about 15,000 scans. We have pored over those files. So much has changed since the survey. What did really did bother me were the houses lost between 1985 and ratification of the designation, in 1992 I believe, about 7 years. The ones immediately behind Main were the worst sufferers. The ones left off the survey, which I felt deserved to be counted, bothered me also. There used to be 4 lovely little houses in the alley just north of the 300 block of 6th East, I watched them burn one by one - arson. Sadly these were ignored in the survey, not even a photograph taken only city foot prints remain. I am sure their "demolitions" are part of that list.
We need to concentrate on protecting what we have, stop pointing fingers at every city agency and be more upbeat about Springfield. We still have a treasure here. If I could post photos hereon, I would post a lovely shot of houses moving down Main Street being moved in order to be saved. The Bethel Rectory moved 4 times.
Chris, thank you for the additional information. You have a great wealth of knowledge of our district and I personally would like to explore your files when time permits. The SHEC website is a fantastic resource. It is sad that the City's Historic Planning Department cannot provide the exact numbers of lost structures...you'd think they would want to keep track of that information.
Perhaps strider's percentage is not quite correct. The issue here is that we are still losing historic housing stock at the hand of the City of Jacksonville which is charged with protecting the structures, not destroying them. If the preservationists among us band together, we can make a difference!! :)
whatever.
Joel McEachin, head of the historic planning department said so and said so in a SPAR roundtable meeting.
So tired of having this same conversation.
http://myspringfield.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=1586
First, I did not post that, Sheclown did.
Second, you are sometimes a source for some good history but you have a bad habit of only stating what supports what you or whomever you want to follow this week wants to be true.
I personally have walked several of the streets and counted houses and empty lots, You need to remember that when you move a house from one place and put in on an empty lot, you may be filling an empty lot but creating an empty one somewhere else. And if you count that house and count the empty lot, it cancels out the whole moving the house thing. One street gains, the other loses. If a house was torn down, the lot sat empty for a time and then a new house was built on it, then hey, we still lost an historic house. Yes some houses were lost because they were too badly damaged by arson and just plain fire, but many more were taken for social reasons and you know it. You just keep trying to defend a few at the forefront of the demolitions for some reason and you should not be if you truly believe in preservation.
The 533 number came from Joel McEachin, head of the department. The streets I have done indicate he is most likely correct. And of course, we get to add two more to that number so it is 535 houses gone. Since the RUDAC study in 1985. And YES, look at the map. There was only one empty lot on East 2nd street in 1985. One. How many are there today? Yes it is not easy to come up with accurate numbers, it takes time. But we will have them eventually and as much as I would prefer you to be right, sadly you won't be.
I find it odd that someone who cries that she is indeed for preservation and likes to post how much she has done for preservation is always trying so hard to make it seem like there is no need for preservation. It is the same rhetoric we heard from Bill Huff. Just like in the past. Not to worry, all is OK. We are for preservation, we really are. Then we found the e-mails with SPAR complaining that Joel was trying too hard to PREVENT demolitions. Sorry, Chris, your opinion on this matter lacks a bit of credibility.
Quote from: chris farley on July 03, 2013, 08:09:32 PM
Strider quote
"Bill, we've lost 1/3 of the housing stock. "
Absolutely not true. I challenge you to get a list of demolitions that planning has shown or rather "counted" as gone since 1985. I asked for a list, I did get one, it had the number 533 written in the margin but actually less than 300 names on it. (either 229 or 299, I could dig out the list again it is with SHEC papers, but I am sure you can get a copy). When I started to crosscheck with the survey so many on that list were non contributing I gave up. You yourself said in another post said we had lost an average of one per month since the survey. That is 28 years which would mean a total of 336 (only 200 fewer than the fictitious figure). The figures just do not jive and I know in the 13 years I have been here there has not been one a month. I was going to try and cross check, but it would take ages and is not worth it. When doing SHEC, as stated before, we found houses on corners with multiple addresses, but the most difficult to trace was when a house showed up on a street and it was not supposed to be there. Then we find out they are ones that were moved. 12th street houses are on Walnut, Laura, Silver and 9th that I know of - they would be counted as gone in your math. We certainly have not lost them at the rate of 1 a month, but I do believe we have lost between circa 200 - 250 of contributing, still too many. When the COAs were being used to come up with a figure, it included non contributing (you still need a COA) structures, garages sheds, in fact when I came into the neighborhood in 2000 the city was requiring that some carriage houses had to go, before a house could be closed. I challenge you go get the list. I challenge you to read the files as I have. You also wrote that in 1985 there was only one empty lot on east second street. That does not prove anything. There were 43 listed addresses for the said east second in 1985, but I know two for sure were moved, one to Hubbard, and one to Laura, but the Duncan Fletcher house on the corner of Hubbard and 2nd, now 1203 Hubbard had no fewer that 3 maybe 4 addresses on Second and all were contained in that 43 as stated. When I complained to planning that the list was not correct, I was told that it was - I think the adjective used was tentative. So unless you can come up with addresses and where those houses were, stop using that figure - unless of course you get the list and prove me wrong. I believe the onus is on you. I have read every file that is available and have done about 15,000 scans. We have pored over those files. So much has changed since the survey. What did really did bother me were the houses lost between 1985 and ratification of the designation, in 1992 I believe, about 7 years. The ones immediately behind Main were the worst sufferers. The ones left off the survey, which I felt deserved to be counted, bothered me also. There used to be 4 lovely little houses in the alley just north of the 300 block of 6th East, I watched them burn one by one - arson. Sadly these were ignored in the survey, not even a photograph taken only city foot prints remain. I am sure their "demolitions" are part of that list.
We need to concentrate on protecting what we have, stop pointing fingers at every city agency and be more upbeat about Springfield. We still have a treasure here. If I could post photos hereon, I would post a lovely shot of houses moving down Main Street being moved in order to be saved. The Bethel Rectory moved 4 times.
Quote from: Apache on July 03, 2013, 07:41:50 PM
Strider, doesn't the "emergency" section of that ordinance also state "When temporary measures are inadequate, the property may be demolished provided notice procedures prescribed in this Section have been instituted."
Wouldn't you agree that is the loophole she is using? And therefore is not breaking the law. She is claiming they are emergencies, that temporary measures will not be adequate and getting an engineering firm (some intimate a crooked firm) to back her up, demo'ing the house and filing for the COA after. As the language states she can do?
Apache, although I've not seen it with my own eyes, last night a reliable source read the engineering report to me and for both houses the report stated to either brace or demolish. I interpret that as saying if braced, the structure would be stabilized. This, in my non-lawyer opinion, should have been the option chosen to comply with the section of the Ordinance that states
QuoteIn determining the appropriate manner to remedy emergency conditions affecting a landmark, landmark site, or a property in a historic district, the remedy shall be limited to the least intrusive means to minimize the impact to the historic fabric. Consideration shall be given to bracing or other stabilization alternatives if such would be sufficient to abate the emergency conditions.
MCCD chose Option B and demolished both structures even though their own engineering company said they could be stabilized.
When all else fails construct the worst strawman possible. We hate poor people. Thats it... It has nothing to do with income. It's about personal responsibility, self respect, respect for others and taking just the smallest amount of pride in the property that you own or inhabit. Now there is a strong correlation between the lack of personal responsibility and poverty. Not many go-getters that get shit done are also poor. But that is another discussion.
So again your finger is pointed toward me and people that think like me and not at the people that are making the mess. I'll say it once again. I am not the problem the people that don't act in a responsible manner and take care of their property and let it degrade to the point that the city has to intervene are the problem. That isn't a race position. That isn't a rich vs poor position (I'm middle class BTW) it is simply a judgement based on their personal behavior.
If you bought property and don't maintain it - you are irresponsible. If you bought property and didn't make the payments and it got foreclosed on - you are irresponsible.
I love the urban setting. I love historic buildings. I like the SRG historic knockoffs. I like the urban character and diversity of the people that live here. I don't want to look at run down and or burned out shitboxes that have no hope of restoration or reuse because they are a repellent to the responsible decent people that I hope decide to move a business here or move their family here.
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on July 03, 2013, 06:53:39 PM
Well, since clearly John P, Big Nugget and Apache think the way to make our historic district better is to get rid of all the remaining historic fabric, and get rid of all those pesky poor people, I think I have nothing else to say to them.
While I apologize if I hurt anyone's feelings, and of course I don't think they should move, I think they don't get it. I still think they would be happier in the suburbs where all the houses are the same age and same price, and they could rest assured everyone around them makes the same money as them. But since they appear to want the historic district to become that instead, I have nothing left to add. I've been there, done that, didn't like that.
With no hard feelings, I shall proceed to ignore their posts, since I can't change their minds, and they clearly are not going to change mine. :-) I suggest others do the same.
Who wants to talk preservation?
I'm always portrayed as being anti-urban, but what about the Commander Apts? I think that they should NOT be razed, and renovated, similar like Tower Place was. I don't want it torn down for that rephasing project. Obviously the Argyle residents have no problem with the Commander. It seems like no one is with me on this thing. Silly me, the Dancy Terrace Mansions are way more valuable than the Commander, what was I thinking?
So I guess for a change, I'm a 'save everything urban hippie' and if you want the Commander torn down, you're a suburban-minded rich person who don't understand urban fabric. ;)
Quote from: BigNugget on July 03, 2013, 11:34:26 PM
When all else fails construct the worst strawman possible. We hate poor people. Thats it... It has nothing to do with income. It's about personal responsibility, self respect, respect for others and taking just the smallest amount of pride in the property that you own or inhabit. Now there is a strong correlation between the lack of personal responsibility and poverty. Not many go-getters that get shit done are also poor. But that is another discussion.
So again your finger is pointed toward me and people that think like me and not at the people that are making the mess. I'll say it once again. I am not the problem the people that don't act in a responsible manner and take care of their property and let it degrade to the point that the city has to intervene are the problem. That isn't a race position. That isn't a rich vs poor position (I'm middle class BTW) it is simply a judgement based on their personal behavior.
If you bought property and don't maintain it - you are irresponsible. If you bought property and didn't make the payments and it got foreclosed on - you are irresponsible.
I love the urban setting. I love historic buildings. I like the SRG historic knockoffs. I like the urban character and diversity of the people that live here. I don't want to look at run down and or burned out shitboxes that have no hope of restoration or reuse because they are a repellent to the responsible decent people that I hope decide to move a business here or move their family here.
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on July 03, 2013, 06:53:39 PM
Well, since clearly John P, Big Nugget and Apache think the way to make our historic district better is to get rid of all the remaining historic fabric, and get rid of all those pesky poor people, I think I have nothing else to say to them.
While I apologize if I hurt anyone's feelings, and of course I don't think they should move, I think they don't get it. I still think they would be happier in the suburbs where all the houses are the same age and same price, and they could rest assured everyone around them makes the same money as them. But since they appear to want the historic district to become that instead, I have nothing left to add. I've been there, done that, didn't like that.
With no hard feelings, I shall proceed to ignore their posts, since I can't change their minds, and they clearly are not going to change mine. :-) I suggest others do the same.
Who wants to talk preservation?
BigNugget.....whatever! You just don't get the preservation aspect. I wonder...do you live in an old historic home or a newer infill home? Not that one is better than the other - but if you're in a newer home, that may explain why you just don't get it.....
Quote from: I-10east on July 04, 2013, 12:02:42 AM
I'm always portrayed as being anti-urban, but what about the Commander Apts? I think that they should NOT be razed, and renovated, similar like Tower Place was. I don't want it torn down for that rephasing project. Obviously the Argyle residents have no problem with the Commander. It seems like no one is with me on this thing. Silly me, the Dancy Terrace Mansions are way more valuable than the Commander, what was I thinking?
So I guess for a change, I'm a 'save everything urban hippie' and if you want the Commander torn down, you're a suburban-minded rich person who don't understand urban fabric. ;)
If you want to start your own grassroots organization to "Save the Commander" then I will not give you any flack about it. Am I interested in joining that cause? Probably not (I'm busy enough with Springfield!). But it is your right to fight for what you believe in.
And that is what I, along with many others, are doing for Springfield....fighting to SAVE THE HOUSES! And if you don't agree, that's OK because it is your choice. I'm still going to fight for our history.
Old and lovely.
Quote from: JaxUnicorn on July 04, 2013, 12:03:51 AM
BigNugget.....whatever! You just don't get the preservation aspect. I wonder...do you live in an old historic home or a newer infill home? Not that one is better than the other - but if you're in a newer home, that may explain why you just don't get it.....
Yes, clearly people who were laid off in this economy, or became gravely ill and could not work, and can no longer make their mortgage payments, and were foreclosed upon, or can't keep up with maintenance, are irresponsible! Yes, that's it! I'll have to tell my friends in that situation that they are not unfortunate due to the economy or their illness, they are irresponsible! Gospel from the mouth of Big Nugget.
Many of our old, lovely homes have not always been lovely. Some of them were burned out shit boxes before someone came along and restored them. Lisa Simon's house had no roof for 15 years. Pat LaMountain's house at 5th and Laura had a fire. I understand the lovely bungalow we live in used to be a triplex. If Big Nugget really loved historic buildings, he or she would see the potential every one of them has.
And I said I was going to ignore him. My bad.
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on July 04, 2013, 01:45:02 PM
Lisa Simon's house had no roof for 15 years.
15 years, no roof? I wonder how long could a building with no roof survive in today's Jacksonville before being taking out?
I'm sorry. When I see a hornets nest I need to poke it. I can't help myself.
Quote from: stephendare on July 04, 2013, 01:46:49 PM
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on July 04, 2013, 01:45:02 PM
Yes, clearly people who were laid off in this economy, or became gravely ill and could not work, and can no longer make their mortgage payments, and were foreclosed upon, or can't keep up with maintenance, are irresponsible! Yes, that's it! I'll have to tell my friends in that situation that they are not unfortunate due to the economy or their illness, they are irresponsible! Gospel from the mouth of Big Nugget.
Many of our old, lovely homes have not always been lovely. Some of them were burned out shit boxes before someone came along and restored them. Lisa Simon's house had no roof for 15 years. Pat LaMountain's house at 5th and Laura had a fire. I understand the lovely bungalow we live in used to be a triplex. If Big Nugget really loved historic buildings, he or she would see the potential every one of them has.
Big Nugget is here to troll, Debbie. He isnt really interested in all this. Not with those internet millions coming into the neighborhood where he simultaneously provides a bunch of jobs, but keeps to himself so that no one knows who he is. ;)
I know this is late in the game, but I just ran across this disheartening article. Having owned the home on the corner of 9Th and Liberty for 23 years, and having Chaired the SPAR Zoning Committee among other roles to serve the community, I was utterly shocked to see the demolition of some of these structures. Although I moved in late 1999 and sold my home 2002 my heart is still very much anchored in that 12 Blocks Square. I serve on the Architectural Review Board in my new community in Virginia and I can tell you there are those here who are disassembling large buildings that could be used as artist housing, studio space and music venues all while acting as if doing something good for the town.
After all these years, only ignorance would lead to these 10 Springfield apartment and major buildings being destroyed. Insenitivity and lack of understanding of resources available, and just plain vanity can lead some to "bring in the bull dozers" instead of call together people to remeding the situation.
To those who can before me, and to those who came afterward I applaud your work to restore usefulness to Springfield's buildings. Ron Seruga the first president of Springfield Preservation and Restoration and I sat in his living room the Monday after the first Home Tour weekend in 1979. A small core of us had worked like dogs to bring this great marketing event to life. We worked round the clock at the end and were worn to a frazzle. I looked at him and he looked at me and he said "What do we do now?" to which I answered "We start all over again!" and we did.
Those years of fighting City Hall, Realtors and Appraisers, slumlords and blight were hard years, but the friendships that were formed are still relevant today. The picketing, work parties, the countless hours of time spent by so many to document the value to of those buildings to Florida's, Jacksonville's and to our Nation's history was preformed by hundreds of people who saw the value in living in and being a part of a "community".
Those still shouldering the burden and those who will come to call Springfield home, will build the same wonderful memories that I have to call upon now. Keep it up folks...don't let the short sightedness and ignorance of some, tear down what is of value to our future. Find more Paul Shockeys, more Michael Bryants, more Jack Walshs, more women like Louise, Sandy Darling, Lisa Neary, Dora Carver and hundreds more I can't go on to name. They out there for sure. Keep up the good work folks.
Mary...did you say Louise? You obviously missed the decade when she advocated for the demolition of the houses.
That being said, thank you for sharing your story and thank you for your work years ago. We stand on your shoulders now.
Thank you Mary for your comments and your very hard work to get the Springfield historic district started. We do indeed stand on your shoulders as sheclown has stated.
Regarding Louise (deSpain), she may very well have been one of the good-doers in the beginning, but that indeed did change at some point with her advocating demolition of our grand old ladies. She is thankfully no longer a part of our neighborhood but I applaud her efforts as well as those of others early-on.
SAVE THE HOUSES!