Petitioning Council to Save the Claude Nolan Building
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/1114372377_DyT5o-M.jpg)
The historic Claude Nolan Cadillac Building could be the next structure in downtown to meet the wrecking ball. Here is how you can help keep this building standing.
Read More: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2014-feb-petitioning-council-to-save-the-claude-nolan-building
This building (the front three story) was sent out for demolition bid last April. It was at this point Joel McEachin asked the Historic Preservation Commission to landmark the building.
An application for landmark status stops any demolition activity.
The commissioners readily agreed with Joel and in fact Angela Schifenilla even stated that the modification to the front, in and of itself, is historic.
The owners are in agreement with the landmark status and will use it to mothball the property until they can find a use for it.
Last week city council, through the Land Use and Zoning subcommittee, denied the application for landmark status stating "there's nothing here." This was said in spite of the fact that Lori Boyer mentioned emails from the Springfield community urging her to protect the structure.
Evidently, the Springfield community feels there certainly is "something there" and that something is in need of protection.
Only Love and Holt voted in favor of the landmark.
It gets heard tomorrow at full council.
Why did Boyer vote no then? Has anyone asked her?
Let it go.. for Springfield to be a viable area at least 25% of Springfield's buildings need to come down..
I think more than 25% has already been destroyed. There is no advantage to taking this building down. All 3 of them should be saved.
Can't do the formatting again...see the link below for a copy of the email I sent to Council this morning. :)
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,10436.msg366332.html#msg366332 (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,10436.msg366332.html#msg366332)
Quote from: funguy on February 24, 2014, 08:49:32 AM
Let it go.. for Springfield to be a viable area at least 25% of Springfield's buildings need to come down..
Actually, over 30% of the housing stock in Springfield is gone, the majority since it has been a protected Historic District. And I would guess something like 40% (if not more) of the old buildings are gone off of Main Street. In the not to distant past, an organization thought more like you do and somehow it managed to set Springfield back about ten years. We know better than to try that again. Too bad the city doesn't.
So, whomever is telling you 25% of the structures must be taken away from a historic district for it to be "viable" has no clue what the reality really is. We need density. We need everything from single to multifamily and we need cool, old buildings for the commercial corridor. And we need as many of each as we can get. Or rather keep. That is how you get those folks willing to work with the old houses, with everyone who lives in the area and get a urban area that grows slowly and steadily and becomes the best the city has to offer. It takes time though and that is what landmarking this building really does, it gives the building time to find a new place for itself in the future.
What makes people assume that tearing down a building is better? Perhaps that's what preservation people should answer to better convey their message. Is it that people see a run down building and just don't realize that it can be redeveloped? Is it that it costs more to rehab than to bulldoze and rebuild? Or do people just think that investment is better on a clean slate where someone can build their own vision instead of trying to fit into someone else's vision? I enjoy the preservation work that is done by those on this forum. Such architectural significances really aren't my thing but you can certainly see the effort and passion of those involved. But, as an outsider I notice that it is always the same mantra "save this because everything else is gone" or "they flattened everything and now it is worse off for it". Keep up the excellent work, but maybe altering your message so that it could be received by a broader population who would then join you at those meetings with city council and developers. Because let's be honest, if a 100 voters walk into this meeting to decide what will happen with the Nolan buildings that would have so much more impact than showing them a printout or website or email with 100, 200 or 500 electronic signatures.
Quote from: stephendare on February 24, 2014, 03:28:57 PM
Quote from: JayBird on February 24, 2014, 03:25:47 PM
What makes people assume that tearing down a building is better?
A hot case of the stupid is the short answer.
That could very well be, but the problem is that most people hear the mayor or city councilman speak and they say to themselves "well that's their job, so they must know and understand more than I do so if he says this is what should be done, and it's not gonna take any money out of my pocket than I'm going to side with him". And thus, stupidity multiplies ten-fold.
This one is easy. Jacksonville must stop dismantling its history building by building. Keep this up and there will be nothing left to make a city.
La Villa is such a vibrant area since everything was destroyed. :P A prime example of 'we must destroy to renew'-- renewal that never happened, and destroyed the history and cultural fabric of the area.
At council meeting. Running into council members.
Nice tribute to Rudolph McKessick Sr.
Dr. Gaffney, Robin Lumb, Lori Boyer all came through tonight.
Robin Lumb asked that the ordinance be sent back to LUZ, "referred". That motion failed 9 to 9.
Then discussion.
Then Lori Boyer, in her cool-girl way, said that perhaps the council ought to listen to the people (they all mentioned the numerous emails and calls). And perhaps the matter needed to be postponed.
So, no action will be taken on this until the end of March.
The end of the matter is this:
JHPC has declared that this group of structures meets 4 out of the 7 criteria necessary for landmark status. This commission is the city's expert.
For landmark status (which is not objected to by the owner), that threshold is set at 2 out of 7. The owner does not object.
The building IS in danger of demolition. There is a demo bid out there.
The buildings ARE Klutho, altered or not. What is done can be undone with the notable exception of demolition.
Now...all of you who sent email....send thank yous :)
Clay@coj.net, WBishop@coj.net, RClark@coj.net, Redman@coj.net, LBoyer@coj.net, MattS@coj.net , Gaffney@coj.net, EDLee@coj.net, WAJones@coj.net, : RBrown@coj.net, Holt@coj.net, doylec@coj.net, Gulliford@coj.net, JimLove@coj.net, KimDaniels@coj.net, : JRC@coj.net, Joost@coj.net, GAnderson@coj.net, RLumb@coj.net
From the minutes of the July 2013 JHPC meeting.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/JHPCminutes.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/JHPCminutes.jpg.html)
I quote from Strider on Feb 24th in reply to someone who said 25% of our buildings should go;
"Actually, over 30% of the housing stock in Springfield is gone, the majority since it has been a protected Historic District. And I would guess something like 40% (if not more) of the old buildings are gone off of Main Street. In the not to (sic) distant past, an organization thought more like you do and somehow it managed to set Springfield back about ten years. We know better than to try that again. Too bad the city doesn't.
In another instance referring to another post he said; "Posts like this are often latched onto as the truth"
I have been going over and over the report of demolitions put out by the Preservation office and also all of the buildings old, new, contributing or not and sometimes the results are amazing, and maybe someone else will find something different, it is not an easy job.
Now, Main Street, I am listing the demos as given in the report, you can see the non contributing, (which no one can prevent being demolished) and the contributing ones. I tried to post those on here in red but it would not happen, they now have an asterisk;
1117 MAIN STREET Non-Contributing
1129 MAIN STREET Non-Contributing B04-47755.000
1148 MAIN STREET Non-Contributing B93-29484.000
1242 MAIN STREET Non-Contributing
1254 MAIN STREET Non-Contributing
1303 MAIN STREET Non-Contributing B05-68928.000
1312 MAIN STREET Non-Contributing B97-42240.000
1336 MAIN STREET Non-Contributing B97-42238.000
1411 MAIN STREET Non-Contributing
1425 MAIN STREET Non-Contributing B04-42972
*1513-1525 MAIN STREET Contributing B91-6269.000
Commercial building, taken down in 91
1527-1533 MAIN STREET Non-Contributing B91-6267.000
*1534 MAIN STREET Contributing
House containing a used car business, definitely down before 2000
*1616-1618 MAIN STREET Contributing
Should not have been included in survey, house was demolished in 1985 as the survey was progressing. A photo may be no longer available. All that is in the survey is an address at the moment
1644 MAIN STREET Non-Contributing
1648 MAIN STREET Non-Contributing B08-278316
1651 MAIN STREET Non-Contributing
1813 MAIN STREET Non-Contributing
1824 MAIN STREET Non-Contributing B03-20841.000
*1920 MAIN STREET Contributing B95-12326.000
Rooming house taken down in 95
1921 MAIN STREET Non-Contributing B93-22907.000
*1924 MAIN STREET Contributing B02-15708
Rooming House taken down in 02
*1935 MAIN STREET Contributing
Taken down in 85, and a fast food restaurant built that same year
*2014 MAIN STREET Contributing B90-43997.000
Rooming house taken down in 90
*2034 MAIN STREET Contributing
Empty garage building which was ruled to be non contributing when Ms Summers requested demolition permission from the HPC. Was given permission in 2013. It said further research showed it outside the district.
1620-1628 MAIN STREET Non-contributing B89-3562.000
1648-1654 MAIN STREET Non-Contributing B95-24450.000
You can see out of 27 buildings 8 (7 if you take out 2034) contributing ones have been lost. They have asterisks and my notes are underneath them. This is nowhere near the percentages or blame given.
1513-25 taken down in 1991
1534 no permit info available but definitely down before 2000
1616-18 Taken down in 1985 just as the survey was doing the photographs. Only the corner of the porch can be seen in the 1985 survey photo of 1610. This address should not have been left in the survey and there are others.
1920 taken down in 95
1924 taken down in 02
1935 taken down in 85, should not have been left in the survey
2014 taken down in 90
2034 taken down in 2013, thought by HPC to be non contributing.
Many of the non contributing buildings were taken down in the 90s. It was believed you removed blight that way. There is no way you can prevent a non contributing building (something not picked up in the historic survey) from being demolished.
Now lets look at the contributing ones, note the dates apart from Naomi's garage (and PSOS was present at the meeting when the demolition was approved, all thinking it was non contributing). The latest one was in 2002, the year I believe SPAR and HSCC merged. So HSCC was in place when these demolitions happened. At that time it was so difficult to prevent such as action, at one time SPAR filed a lawsuit to save two on Laura but it was ignored.
So when rash statements are made about an organization being responsible for the demolition of 40% of Main, are we talking HSCC also?
You also know, you have a copy, that the report which shows 534 demolitions includes close to 200 non contributing, also other items, ie the heading is counted, a Dancy house is on there, there are duplicates. I am not faulting the people doing this I know from experience how difficult it is to tie these things down, but this figure should never have been used and a high one almost got into the Mothballing, a figure of 480. I do believe we have lost in the area of 300, many taken down during the survey, if you wish I will provide photographic proof.
The reason for my post, it is 12 years since the merger of the two organizations and the anger over people being left out should have gone by now. Louise DeSpain, cannot be blamed for the demos of contributing structures on Main, also she did not come into SPAR until about 2002. Nor SPAR they fought for houses early on when they had financial support. SPAR until the merger had no paid staff, HSCC did so there was daily coverage and they possibly should have been more involved.
Strangely 1222 Main was not picked up in the report, but there is a photo of it in the survey files. Its description is "2 story garage with apartment above, converted into a used car sales office". There are no listings of owners or residents. This may be another that did not make it through the survey.
Its time to look forward and stop the finger pointing and putting out bad figures.
Like trying to rake leaves when they are still falling, that is what it is like trying to prove which buildings made it through the survey, why some were chosen and why some were left out, the landscape keeps changing. Please lets just look forward I know SPAR is trying very hard.
QuoteMany of the non contributing buildings were taken down in the 90s. It was believed you removed blight that way.
Contributing or not, that's a ton of buildings that may have been suitable for reuse by urban pioneers, similar to what's taking place with non-contributing buildings on King Street and the CoRK area in Riverside.
Were the buildings removed, simple storefronts like this?
(http://www.contentdg.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/1632_1636_site-1024x680.jpg)
If so, that would have been a big loss because now we have to virtually rely on new infill construction to gain the character and vibe of a walkable commercial district back. That process could literally take decades.
I agree about the loss, but that is the way the system works, but you can see by the dates the demolition has pretty much ceased. Non contributing are fair game. I found this out when I first came to Springfield, all the owner has to do is request (and pay) for it. This does not put SPAR at fault. When the prospect of the district being designated historic loomed, people took down buildings, I believe on the fear that they would become protected - they may not have been. That is why there are addresses in the survey but no back up. Some houses were fortunate enough to be moved, ones that were immediately behind Main. Jeff is trying to get back up from Tallahassee for missing stuff, but a lot of it is doubtful.
There was one set similar to the ones you show, at 1513 Main which was a long commercial building, the 1985 photo looks a little bad, you can see it on SHEC. Unless a building was made contributing, I do not have photos. The two that you show here, still stand, the one on the right has sold recently and a new business has moved in. They were not considered contributing in the survey, but have survived.
I believe there are 66 buildings currently on Main.
Incidentally I believe there were houses on either side of the ones you show - 2 on the southside - 1618 was one - and one on the north. I would like to see large houses built on Main, once again.
Quote from: chris farley on February 28, 2014, 04:16:58 PM
I quote from Strider on Feb 24th in reply to someone who said 25% of our buildings should go;
"Actually, over 30% of the housing stock in Springfield is gone, the majority since it has been a protected Historic District. And I would guess something like 40% (if not more) of the old buildings are gone off of Main Street. In the not to (sic) distant past, an organization thought more like you do and somehow it managed to set Springfield back about ten years. We know better than to try that again. Too bad the city doesn't.
In another instance referring to another post he said; "Posts like this are often latched onto as the truth"
I have been going over and over the report of demolitions put out by the Preservation office and also all of the buildings old, new, contributing or not and sometimes the results are amazing, and maybe someone else will find something different, it is not an easy job.
Now, Main Street, I am listing the demos as given in the report, you can see the non contributing, (which no one can prevent being demolished) and the contributing ones. I tried to post those on here in red but it would not happen, they now have an asterisk;
1117 MAIN STREET Non-Contributing
1129 MAIN STREET Non-Contributing B04-47755.000
1148 MAIN STREET Non-Contributing B93-29484.000
1242 MAIN STREET Non-Contributing
1254 MAIN STREET Non-Contributing
1303 MAIN STREET Non-Contributing B05-68928.000
1312 MAIN STREET Non-Contributing B97-42240.000
1336 MAIN STREET Non-Contributing B97-42238.000
1411 MAIN STREET Non-Contributing
1425 MAIN STREET Non-Contributing B04-42972
*1513-1525 MAIN STREET Contributing B91-6269.000
Commercial building, taken down in 91
1527-1533 MAIN STREET Non-Contributing B91-6267.000
*1534 MAIN STREET Contributing
House containing a used car business, definitely down before 2000
*1616-1618 MAIN STREET Contributing
Should not have been included in survey, house was demolished in 1985 as the survey was progressing. A photo may be no longer available. All that is in the survey is an address at the moment
1644 MAIN STREET Non-Contributing
1648 MAIN STREET Non-Contributing B08-278316
1651 MAIN STREET Non-Contributing
1813 MAIN STREET Non-Contributing
1824 MAIN STREET Non-Contributing B03-20841.000
*1920 MAIN STREET Contributing B95-12326.000
Rooming house taken down in 95
1921 MAIN STREET Non-Contributing B93-22907.000
*1924 MAIN STREET Contributing B02-15708
Rooming House taken down in 02
*1935 MAIN STREET Contributing
Taken down in 85, and a fast food restaurant built that same year
*2014 MAIN STREET Contributing B90-43997.000
Rooming house taken down in 90
*2034 MAIN STREET Contributing
Empty garage building which was ruled to be non contributing when Ms Summers requested demolition permission from the HPC. Was given permission in 2013. It said further research showed it outside the district.
1620-1628 MAIN STREET Non-contributing B89-3562.000
1648-1654 MAIN STREET Non-Contributing B95-24450.000
You can see out of 27 buildings 8 (7 if you take out 2034) contributing ones have been lost. They have asterisks and my notes are underneath them. This is nowhere near the percentages or blame given.
1513-25 taken down in 1991
1534 no permit info available but definitely down before 2000
1616-18 Taken down in 1985 just as the survey was doing the photographs. Only the corner of the porch can be seen in the 1985 survey photo of 1610. This address should not have been left in the survey and there are others.
1920 taken down in 95
1924 taken down in 02
1935 taken down in 85, should not have been left in the survey
2014 taken down in 90
2034 taken down in 2013, thought by HPC to be non contributing.
Many of the non contributing buildings were taken down in the 90s. It was believed you removed blight that way. There is no way you can prevent a non contributing building (something not picked up in the historic survey) from being demolished.
Now lets look at the contributing ones, note the dates apart from Naomi's garage (and PSOS was present at the meeting when the demolition was approved, all thinking it was non contributing). The latest one was in 2002, the year I believe SPAR and HSCC merged. So HSCC was in place when these demolitions happened. At that time it was so difficult to prevent such as action, at one time SPAR filed a lawsuit to save two on Laura but it was ignored.
So when rash statements are made about an organization being responsible for the demolition of 40% of Main, are we talking HSCC also?
You also know, you have a copy, that the report which shows 534 demolitions includes close to 200 non contributing, also other items, ie the heading is counted, a Dancy house is on there, there are duplicates. I am not faulting the people doing this I know from experience how difficult it is to tie these things down, but this figure should never have been used and a high one almost got into the Mothballing, a figure of 480. I do believe we have lost in the area of 300, many taken down during the survey, if you wish I will provide photographic proof.
The reason for my post, it is 12 years since the merger of the two organizations and the anger over people being left out should have gone by now. Louise DeSpain, cannot be blamed for the demos of contributing structures on Main, also she did not come into SPAR until about 2002. Nor SPAR they fought for houses early on when they had financial support. SPAR until the merger had no paid staff, HSCC did so there was daily coverage and they possibly should have been more involved.
Strangely 1222 Main was not picked up in the report, but there is a photo of it in the survey files. Its description is "2 story garage with apartment above, converted into a used car sales office". There are no listings of owners or residents. This may be another that did not make it through the survey.
Its time to look forward and stop the finger pointing and putting out bad figures.
Like trying to rake leaves when they are still falling, that is what it is like trying to prove which buildings made it through the survey, why some were chosen and why some were left out, the landscape keeps changing. Please lets just look forward I know SPAR is trying very hard.
For someone who likes to be thought of as a big advocate for preservation, Chris Farley sure likes to support those that have campaigned and often complained very successfully for the demolition of many a building in Springfield. Something that she seems to have trouble grasping is the facts support the idea that about a third of the housing stock, AKA Structures, in Historic Springfield have been demolished,. And using numbers Chris Farley posted on another forum, OVER one third of the Contributing structures have been lost. And let's look at those non-contributing structures. We owned one. The main part of the house was built in the 1880's, with newer additions due to a couple of fires. In the end, it was covered with stucco so got listed as Non-contributing. We sold it a couple of weeks ago. Stucco removed, nicely restored and now a new, young couple are getting to enjoy it. I guess it was all OK that all those non-contributing structures were taken as Chris Farley obviously doesn't think them important enough to count them as lost structures. I would suspect that the new owners would disagree that their house is not important just because someone mistakenly called it non-contributing.
But this thread is supposed to be about the Claude Nolan buildings. And that statement I made earlier that Chris Farley quoted ("Posts like this are often latched onto as the truth") still stands for the post it initially referred to and Chris Farley's post above. The facts are: The Claude Nolan is not known to be contaminated. Historic Springfield and Downtown has already lost far too many historic buildings to lose any more. The Claude Nolan was put on the demolition list by Kimberly Scott, Chief of MCC, for some reason other than "Public Safety". While some of the people Chris Farley likes to defend, like Louse DeSpain, are gone, others who consistently supported the demolitions still remain in Springfield and some hold positions of influence. She was right that SPAR Council has improved dramatically, and is publicly supporting the Landmarking of the Claude Nolan complex.
Oh, and the point about our non-contributing house? If that house, wrapped with so much stucco and chicken wire that it audibly signed when we removed it can be made to be a beautiful and desired (sold in days) house again, so can the Claude Nolan buildings.
I am not in favor of demolition, my history of fighting for houses proves that. My point is that your fingers are always pointed the wrong way. Your anger at the SPAR and HSCC merger is still not abated. The original HPC study was done because of the destruction of the historic houses and people's fear that we would lose our designation, all I point out is that SPAR was not responsible for the demolitions and certainly could not have done anything about the non contributing. Many good members fought for houses. You miss the point and the finger pointing needs to stop and lets move forward.
Your percentage is basis the count of the historic structures, so named in 1985, approx 1800, these said demolitions of non contributing were not included in that figure. If you insist on your figure you have to do it as a percentage of all the standing buildings at the time of the survey which I believe was over 2800, which I also believe leads to a smaller percentage. We have definitely lost too much, but not at the fault of a local entity. As with many things it is a fault of the system.
Quote from: chris farley on February 28, 2014, 07:38:56 PM
I am not in favor of demolition, my history of fighting for houses proves that. My point is that your fingers are always pointed the wrong way. Your anger at the SPAR and HSCC merger is still not abated. The original HPC study was done because of the destruction of the historic houses and people's fear that we would lose our designation, all I point out is that SPAR was not responsible for the demolitions and certainly could not have done anything about the non contributing. Many good members fought for houses. You miss the point and the finger pointing needs to stop and lets move forward.
Your percentage is basis the count of the historic structures, so named in 1985, approx 1800, these said demolitions of non contributing were not included in that figure. If you insist on your figure you have to do it as a percentage of all the standing buildings at the time of the survey which I believe was over 2800, which I also believe leads to a smaller percentage. We have definitely lost too much, but not at the fault of a local entity. As with many things it is a fault of the system.
Here's my original post.
QuoteActually, over 30% of the housing stock in Springfield is gone, the majority since it has been a protected Historic District. And I would guess something like 40% (if not more) of the old buildings are gone off of Main Street. In the not to distant past, an organization thought more like you do and somehow it managed to set Springfield back about ten years. We know better than to try that again. Too bad the city doesn't.
So, whomever is telling you 25% of the structures must be taken away from a historic district for it to be "viable" has no clue what the reality really is. We need density. We need everything from single to multifamily and we need cool, old buildings for the commercial corridor. And we need as many of each as we can get. Or rather keep. That is how you get those folks willing to work with the old houses, with everyone who lives in the area and get a urban area that grows slowly and steadily and becomes the best the city has to offer. It takes time though and that is what landmarking this building really does, it gives the building time to find a new place for itself in the future.
If you had been thinking, you would have just ignored the "organization", no one would have connected it to today's SPAR Council. And, even you must agree that what I said was the truth., SPAR Council under the leadership of Louise DeSpain and the control of SRG supported demolition after demolition. Of CONTRIBUTING houses. It is in the HPC minutes as well as many other places. You are the one that broadcast that it was SPAR and it seems like you can't let go of the fact you failed to do anything about the it. I said it has changed and SPAR Council is doing much better. Much thanks for that must go to Michelle Tappouni, a rising star in my opinion and someone Springfield and all of Jacksonville should be thankful for. Meanwhile, part of the old guard, Jack Meeks, has spoken FOR the demolition of a building recently.
I have no anger over the SPAR and HSCC merger that formed SPAR Council. It was a good idea at the time. No one had any idea that Louise DeSpain would sell out herself, SPAR Council and Historic Springfield to the highest bidder, Mack Bisette. Did you? I also did not think that the HPC, and the City in general would let them get away with it. But I guess with an SRG controlled person on the HPC at the time, not much else could be expected.
And your "fighting for houses" has always been a bit selective depending upon whom wanted the demolition. That is also a proven fact. And I did question your real commitment to preservation and the houses because given that you defend the worst offender of preservation this city has seen in generations on a regular basis, it is hard to believe you didn't and don't agree with her stance.
And this:Your percentage is basis the count of the historic structures, so named in 1985, approx 1800, these said demolitions of non contributing were not included in that figure. If you insist on your figure you have to do it as a percentage of all the standing buildings at the time of the survey which I believe was over 2800, which I also believe leads to a smaller percentage.
I am using the official list of both contributing and non-contributing as used to establish the historic district. I suggest you go back and recount before you post again. And the numbers I used for the calculations I presented here are from what YOU posted on another thread/ forum. Are you now saying you were wrong?
Oh, and while some believe we can't lose the Historic Designation, the real truth is other districts have indeed been put on watch lists because of losing too much and due to bad policies. If things had continued as the old SPAR Council/ SRG/ MCCD wanted them too, who knows were we would be. Or wouldn't be. And yes, that last was just for you.
But, back to what is truly important, the Claude Nolan complex. SPAR Council is indeed on board with Landmarking it. We just need to figure out who is pulling the strings to try to prevent that from happening.
Quote from: mbwright on February 25, 2014, 08:20:49 AM
La Villa is such a vibrant area since everything was destroyed. :P A prime example of 'we must destroy to renew'-- renewal that never happened, and destroyed the history and cultural fabric of the area.
+1
Yes please. Let's keep this thread about landmarking/preserving the Claude Nolan Building and move other issues to another thread. :-)
We have until the end of March, and NO more public hearings at Council. So...ideas please.
Frankly the owner needs to get involved and take legal action. The building in fact meets the criteria for landmarking, the owner is in favor of landmarking, and they've recently landmarked other structures with less of their original historic material remaining than this one, and did so over the owners' objections. And I'm not knocking their decision on that one, it was 100% the right thing to do. But it certainly paints a contrast when they refuse to landmark this one despite it also satisfying the criteria, and the owner of this one isn't even contesting it like the other one was. Seems arbitrary and capricious. But complaining only gets you so far, the owner needs to actually go do something about it at this point.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on March 01, 2014, 12:32:42 PM
Frankly the owner needs to get involved and take legal action. The building in fact meets the criteria for landmarking, the owner is in favor of landmarking, and they've recently landmarked other structures with less of their original historic material remaining than this one, and did so over the owners' objections. And I'm not knocking their decision on that one, it was 100% the right thing to do. But it certainly paints a contrast when they refuse to landmark this one despite it also satisfying the criteria, and the owner of this one isn't even contesting it like the other one was. Seems arbitrary and capricious. But complaining only gets you so far, the owner needs to actually go do something about it at this point.
yes.
The only chance to speak on this before the final vote will come during the public comment section of the city council meeting next Tuesday night.
Sent a letter to all 19 Jacksonville city council members to support 2013-803 as a Landmark structure that is next to Hogans Creek a tributary that leads to our St. Johns River our American Heritage River a FEDERAL Initiative.
QuoteNotice is hereby given that Council Member Robin Lumb and Council Member Dr. Johnny Gaffney will meet on Wednesday, March 12, 2014 at 1:30 pm in the Lynwood Roberts Room, located at 117 West Duval Street (1st Floor), City Hall St. James Building. The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss the EH Thompson/Claude Nolan Buildings.
this is open to the public --
Not sure I can make a meeting during the day. But I will be at City Council meeting tonight to speak on my support of this bill. Hopw others will do the same.
This afternoon's meeting:
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/ClaudeNolanmeeting.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/ClaudeNolanmeeting.jpg.html)
Robert Prado, MCCD, Jason Teal, OGC, CM Lumb, CM Gaffney, Lisa Sheppard (not in photo), Joel McEachin
CM Boyer was also present.
Prado's main point was that the MCCD has imposed rolling fines on the building since 2011(?). They total something like 70K. He also said there are no plans to demolish the building (more on that later). The owners have little left on their 180 days to make repairs including replacing all windows.
Jason Teal spoke for preservation today (whether he intended to or not). His point to Lumbs concerns that the city would pay more if it wanted the building under eminent domain (for some future development project) -- we could just foreclose on the rolling fines like Bostwick. He stated that the building is in a bankruptcy situation. He also talked about the environment issues but stated that there are options other than demolition to deal with any contaminates.
CM Lumb began the meeting stating that he voted against the landmark status while in LUZ, but due to public concern wanted more information. He seemed willing to listen to the preservation side of the issues and had many questions for Joel. When Jason pointed out that the modified front part of the building --which addresses the architectural significance -- wasn't even one of the criteria which was met, you could see a light going on (went on in my mind as well, more on that later).
CM Gaffney wants the neighborhood to be happy. He loves the old houses. He wants to help.
Lisa Sheppard spoke about the section 106 reviews that would need to be completed if the area was undergoing any sort of remediation whether or not it is landmarked.
Joel pointed out that the criteria that was not met (the missing 2 elements) were the building's architectural significance and (I believe) a significant historical event occurred there? Like Lincoln being born.
Joel's reasoning behind not pursuing the architectural significance (which is why the remainder of the preservationists in the universe want to save the building) is that the other criteria is easily met and the architectural significance gets muddy with the art moderne reno.
And herein lies the problem.
I believe that when Joel focused on the famous-person-argument-for-preservation over the Klutho-building-significant- architecture-reason for preservation, that confused people. Joel only needed to meet four of the seven criteria (initially, later it was changed to only two of the seven criteria because the owners were on board with the plan). Claude Nolan was instrumental in bringing cars into Jacksonville. Before the Claude Nolan building was constructed there were less than 150 cars in J'ville,. And not only did he brings cars into town, store then in a uniquely urban vertical warehouse, he also brought car loans.
But the report, while mentioning Klutho, didn't focus as much on it. Therefore, the council assumed that it wasn't significant, architecturally because of the alterations to it. (Not so says Dr. Wood in his presentation to the group). Seems to me that was a bit of twisting the report around. Apparently, the person and the significant historical contribution is the lesser card. But be that as it may. It was all laid out this afternoon.
In actuality I believe the building meets most all seven standards for landmarking. Famous person, famous architect, suitable for restoration.
In other words, it seems to me that Joel made two assumptions. First that meeting four of the criteria would be sufficient without going into the modifications to the facade and secondly that the Klutho buildings speak for themselves.
And finally, my favorite part of the meeting.
Prado was asked if there were any demolition plans for this building. He said no.
Michelle Tappouni, when her turn to speak, said "I'd like to set the record straight." And then she proceeded to do so. She spoke about the bid forms (copy of which is posted somewhere on a Claude Nolan thread). She spoke about the bids submitted -- $80k for dry demo and $300k for wet demo
And does anyone think a dry demo would be in order with the possible contaminates all around? These are my thoughts as I'm hearing this.
She pointed out that it is all well and good to say there are no demo plans, but with a bid out and the formal process begun, it would not be too difficult to give the demo contractor the green light.
It's not like it hasn't happened before.
Makes landmarking the structure and allowing the owner to mothball it a wonderfully economical plan for the city.
Jack Meeks talked about the economic advantage that the building would have if it were landmarked and that it would attract a good buyer.
Wayne Wood had a wonderful presentation, photos of Kluthos now gone. He called this building "world class" and spoke about it as a "free" Klutho.
It was a great meeting. Lots of good info. Smart people talking preservation. Good stuff.
Tons of love to CM Lumb and Dr. Gaffney for doing this.
They heard the petition, the emails and took a closer look.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/ca2d37a6-9f02-40cc-9f14-9b1448224c34.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/ca2d37a6-9f02-40cc-9f14-9b1448224c34.jpg.html)
CM Lumb getting interviewed before the meeting.
Quote from: sheclown on March 12, 2014, 06:54:19 PM
Tons of love to CM Lumb and Dr. Gaffney for doing this.
They heard the petition, the emails and took a closer look.
I agree with showering appreciation to Lumb and Gaffney for taking a closer look. My concern is that they are only 2 of 19 council members and I'm not sure the landmark status will pass. If it does not, I would think the owner could appeal and based on the council's decision to landmark the Meyers' sisters' house on W 6th I would think he would win.
You don't think they'll share what they learned today with other council members?
Thanks for keeping us in the loop, Sheclown!
After almost a year's long journey, this will be voted on by full council tonight.
IT PASSED TONIGHT 13-5!!
Major thanks to those councilmembers who voted FOR this landmark status. You've not made a mistake.
This was totally an intense meeting.
We were in double triple overtime.
CM Lumb took charge of the defense of this. He said he changed his mind due to listening to commissioners, staff and the community. He gave arguments for the landmarking. Gaffney spoke about the meeting as well, and said he had heard Springfield speaking. Lori Boyer was a strong defender.
Cresembini eloquently pointed out that everyone (except a few councilmen) were for this so why are we wasting our time?
Even Bishop who quite obviously has no appreciation for Art Morderne and used many opportunity to call it "ugly", said he changed his mind about landmarking it.
Warren Jones spoke for the designation citing the loss of historic fabric downtown.
Joost and Clark acting like middle-schoolers tossing spit-wads -- they blamed the ugliness downtown on the Historic Preservation Commission -- calling them inflexible and harsh.
Then riding in on a beautiful high horse, comes Denise Lee. And she preached it good. She told Clark and Joost that it is the policy of ignoring the urban core which is responsible for the blight downtown. She was great.
Redman was just....
The bottom line is that council was VERY receptive to the Springfield community tonight and this community owes them are great thank you.
I have asked you to email city council many times to complain about this or about that.
Tonight I'm asking you to email your appreciation.
Clay@coj.net, WBishop@coj.net, RClark@coj.net, Redman@coj.net, LBoyer@coj.net, MattS@coj.net , Gaffney@coj.net, EDLee@coj.net, WAJones@coj.net, : RBrown@coj.net, Holt@coj.net, doylec@coj.net, Gulliford@coj.net, JimLove@coj.net, KimDaniels@coj.net, : JRC@coj.net, Joost@coj.net, GAnderson@coj.net, RLumb@coj.net
Wonderful news.
QuoteBarrier needed around polluted soil at Confederate Park, state tells Jacksonville
Cleanup would require demoliton next to landmark Main Street property
By Steve Patterson Sun, Aug 24, 2014 @ 9:21 pm | updated Mon, Aug 25, 2014 @ 11:54 am
The three buildings at 937 N. Main St. were declared landmarks by the city's Historic Preservation Commission, but one stands to be sacrificed in a contamination cleanup.
Cleaning up 19th-century pollution buried around Jacksonville's Confederate Park will require adding a protective underground wall and demolishing buildings constructed on long-forgotten contamination, state environmental officials have told the city.
That will apparently mean tearing down a small building off Main Street downtown without damaging two others, one just feet away, that the city declared landmarks this year.
And it could call for digging up parts of the park on Springfield's southern edge and scooping sediment out of a pond there and along Hogans Creek, where chemicals from coal tar used at a plant that manufactured natural gas have seeped into ground water for generations.
Direction the city received this month from Florida's Department of Environmental Protection pushes the start of a long-discussed park cleanup closer to reality, something that people involved with the surrounding area have heard about for years.
"I think it's awesome that the cleanup is beginning. The health of the community is very important," said Gloria DeVall, a historic preservation advocate who had asked the city to declare three buildings that back up to the creek as landmarks because the structures were used by Claude Nolan Cadillac, the city's first car dealership and the oldest Cadillac dealer in the South.
The cleanup would demolish one of the three buildings at 937 N. Main St., a red brick structure designed by locally famed architect Henry Klutho. But DeVall, who championed the designation to the city's Historic Preservation Commission and to the City Council, said that loss was unavoidable.
"It was the only way to get the other two buildings landmarked," she said. "It would not have gone through. We had to sacrifice it."
After reviewing three cleanup options the city offered in January, the state approved two of them and told the city to have a final cleanup plan ready by November.
Hitting that deadline will be a problem, said Aleizha Batson, a city spokeswoman.
"We are working to pull all aspects of the plan together, however we will be asking for an extension," Batson said. The city doesn't have anyone under contract who can prepare a cleanup plan right away, she said, and it will be September before the city's procurement process gets started.
The choices the state approved for the cleanup both involved creating a buried wall about 2,100 feet long that would block groundwater moving through a zone of contaminated soil. The wall would reach 40 feet below ground level and soil inside would either be excavated and carted away to a landfill or mixed with a cement-like material that would solidify in place keeping contaminants where they are.
The 51,000 cubic yards of stabilizing material by itself is expected to cost almost $3.2 million, and the full cost for a cleanup is expected to top $17 million.
How that's going to be paid for isn't settled yet.
The city sued neighboring property owners — Jacksonville Hospitality Holdings L.P. and Shoppes of Lakeside Inc. — in federal court in 2012, saying they hadn't done anything to solve a problem that was partly theirs. But the city was also partly liable, too, because the park had some coal tar from the old gas plant.
Since the plant had been built in the late 19th century, closed and been forgotten, whole generations of construction had happened around the creek. The buildings that had housed Claude Nolan's dealership became the now-abandoned E.H. Thompson buildings, and the Park View Inn at Main and State streets — where the gas plant stood in the 1880s — had flourished, faded and been torn down with the exception of a parking garage. That garage would be demolished as part of the cleanup.
But attorneys for the businesses the city sued have been pushing back.
The state's approach to the cleanup "virtually guarantees" that efforts to decide who's liable "will be unnecessarily frustrated, unsynchronized, inequitable and ultimately not in the interests of any of the stakeholders," a lawyer representing owners of the Park View site, James C. Rinaman III, said by email.
Shoppes of Lakeside attorney Mary Sorrell wrote to the state in June that cleanup work suggested near Hogans Creek "is not supported by the data." While there is pollution in the ground, she added, "it has been present ... for over 115 years and has barely migrated." Sorrell did not return a phone message left late last week.
The city is "in legal discussion with all property owners and hopes for a positive outcome," Batson said. The city would like to get agreement on who picks up the bill before the work is done, but "if it is prolonged, we will consider all options," Batson said by email.
Though the site is old, there's not limitless time to settle the dispute.
The state had recommended asking the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to take over the cleanup as a federal Superfund project — where the cleanup bill is passed on to the responsible parties after the fact — during former Mayor John Peyton's term in office. The state backed off that plan when the city took steps to get some solutions.
Steve Patterson: (904) 359-4263
http://members.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2014-08-24/story/barrier-needed-around-polluted-soil-confederate-park-state-tells[/quote]
Planning to Protect Claude Nolan: A request to HPC
As the plans for the Hogan Creek cleanup approach completion, it should be time to discuss the possible demolition of the small one story building in the Claude Nolan complex. As you recall, the Claude Nolan complex was designated a landmark last spring. The small one story shop, although part of the complex, was not afforded the landmark protection.
While we always anticipated losing the small building, it is sad to see it go. However, what is of great concern right now is the possibility of damage to the landmarked properties adjacent to the proposed demolition site.
Therefore, I am asking you to be pro-active here.
Preservation SOS would like to see a Temporary Protection Plan in place when discussions begin about demolishing the small building. A temporary protection plan is illustrated in the Tech-Notes of the National Park Service, see this link:
http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/ ... tion03.pdf
This may offer some guidance as this process begins. These are our thoughts, initially:
1.) of particular concern will be the undermining of the foundation of the adjacent properties caused by significant removal of soil especially considering the soil is sandy. There should be some sort of shoring of the excavated site along with a protection to the foundation of the adjacent property. This needs to be designed by an independent engineer and followed by the demo contractor.
2.) before any actual work is done a detailed survey of the adjacent building needs to be done along with pictures of its current state
3.) the exterior of the properties will need to be protected from debris resulting from the demolition
4.) the demo contractor needs to provide a bond sizable enough to replace the Claude Nolan landmark structures should any damage occur
5.) should the DEP find any pollutants under the landmarked buildings, alternatives to demolition will need to be followed.
Most importantly, we would suggest this COA be handled by the commission so that an accurate transcript of the conversation with the contractor is on record.
Once the commission has determined what is appropriate for this project, could you forward it to the correct city agency handling this matter?