Springfield is once again having to fight for one of our historic structures. But this time it is not the City of Jacksonville from whom we must save the house, but from the owner himself.
Mr. Anthony B. Miles purchased the property at 1634 Ionia for $8,000 at a tax deed sale on April 29, 2015 with the intent of demolishing it! Now, this old gal is not pretty as she sustained some damage in a 2010 fire, but unlike the home that was also damaged immediately to this one's south (the City took that one down), this home was not damaged enough to warrant destruction, and still does not warrant destruction.
HPC staff is unfortunately recommending APPROVAL and this is a shame. This structure does NOT need to come down. She is solid! Remove the rear addition and restore her to her original glory. If you are unable to attend the HPC meeting this Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 3:00pm in the Ed Ball Building, please send an email to Joel McEachin <mceachin@coj.net> expressing your concern over this demolition. The entire HPC packet for this property can be found on Preservation SOS' forum (http://forum.preservationsos.org/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=119&p=17680#p17680 (http://forum.preservationsos.org/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=119&p=17680#p17680)).
(http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii36/JaxUnicorn/Ionia%201634%20Owner%20reason%20for%20demo.jpg)
(http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii36/JaxUnicorn/Ionia%201634%20Exterior.jpg)
I call BS. This house is solid. It's been like that since the 2010 fire, which was mainly in the rear addition, which can be removed. It needs rehab, but it's not going to collapse.
from 1985
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/1634-1636IONIASTREETjpg.png) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/1634-1636IONIASTREETjpg.png.html)
PSOS has experience with handing off structures that have suffered from fire damage. These examples are from nearby and one is currently lived in and the other nearing completion:
436 Walnut Court
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/Alannahshouse.jpg)
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/JoeampJoelinspectwalnutcourt_zps328e1904.jpg)
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/walnutcourt8.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/walnutcourt8.jpg.html)
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php?topic=15453.0
This Place Matters.
1536 Clark Street:
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/Clark%20St/Clarkone.jpg)
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/Clark%20St/clark3.jpg)
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/clark.jpg)
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/Clark%203.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/Clark%203.jpg.html)
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/clark4.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/clark4.jpg.html)
Not so scary any more.
I've attached some side by side before and after pics of 436 Walnut Court that was restored after a nasty fire.
Exterior before and after
(http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii36/JaxUnicorn/Walnut%20Court%20436%20Before%20amp%20After%201.jpg)
More exterior before
(http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii36/JaxUnicorn/Walnut%20Court%20436%20Before%20amp%20After%202.jpg)
Interior front room before/after
(http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii36/JaxUnicorn/Walnut%20Court%20436%20Before%20amp%20After%203.jpg)
Interior middle room before/after
(http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii36/JaxUnicorn/Walnut%20Court%20436%20Before%20amp%20After%204.jpg)
Where is his new home that is being built? How do you have your children playing outside of your new home when I can't find it? Nothing found on the property appraisers db under his name. I would thing that he's just trying to clear this lot, and then redevelop or flip. Hard to find any sincerity in this sky is falling letter based on false fear. Sounds like a false emergency. Not too much found on Anthony Miles and AnMar development, partner with Maryam Amaker. They seem to have done some redevelopment in Philly.
Google maps from May 2015 doesn't show much, other than a similar condition house at 1638.
The property being built is located at 432 E 7th Street. Permit pulled in September 2014 and the house is nowhere close to being finished. It is also across the alley from the subject property, so he will not be able to "connect" that land to his.
Maybe there's a silver lining here.
1.) The owner wants to put up a sweet house on that location that matches the character of the area and wants a city sanctioned tear down.
2.) Maybe the layout of the house prevents central air conditioning. Therefore, any rehab work would kinda defeat the purpose of restoration as it most likely would turn into a cheap rental again with window a/c units. Good neighborhoods aren't built off of cheap rentals.
3.) The neighboring landowners are getting jammed right now by having a derelict property next door. I bet if we knock on the doors of the neighbors and ask what they think of the property it would be pretty clear on how to proceed.
How to avoid the teardown?
1.) Purchase the property by offering the owners more money than they paid for it. They make a profit, the ultimate motive for purchasing a speculative investment, and the new owner can lovingly restore the property to prior glory.
2.) Start a crowdfunding effort to purchase and restore the home.
3.) Hold picket signs outside the property that read, "Save the slums!"
Options 1 and 2 make the most sense. Option 3 would just get you on national news as another wild Florida news story. Any models out there looking to get noticed? Option 3 is for you baby!
The owner submitted a letter saying he has no plans for the lot once the historic home is demolished. There is another option - donate it to Preservation SOS and we will do whatever we can to find it a forever home. Demolition is simply not an option. This block of Ionia has been riddled with demolition and this one is not in any danger of collapse. It is perfect for mothballing.
Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on August 24, 2015, 10:18:36 AM
Maybe there's a silver lining here.
1.) The owner wants to put up a sweet house on that location that matches the character of the area and wants a city sanctioned tear down.
2.) Maybe the layout of the house prevents central air conditioning. Therefore, any rehab work would kinda defeat the purpose of restoration as it most likely would turn into a cheap rental again with window a/c units. Good neighborhoods aren't built off of cheap rentals.
3.) The neighboring landowners are getting jammed right now by having a derelict property next door. I bet if we knock on the doors of the neighbors and ask what they think of the property it would be pretty clear on how to proceed.
Did you read the original post?
No wonder I could not find the property, 432 E 7th is owned by TWO I S LLC
It's an ugly burned out piece of shit. I vote knock it down.
Ionia st. is a bombed out third world hell-hole of a street that is more pothole than road.
We're better off with an empty lot.
The COA was deferred.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/hpc.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/hpc.jpg.html)
The commissioners want the owner to have a more specific engineers report. The one they have says the house is beyond repair. Jennifer Mansfield so beautifully stated "If it is beyond repair, how is it that you have an estimate for $225k to fix it?"
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/steve.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/steve.jpg.html)
Steve Heykens, resident of Springfiled amd general.contractor, spoke at last nights HPC meeting about the burned out house he recently saved
Special kuddos to Kim Pryor whose relentless preservation energy and unflappable determination brought this to the attention of preservationists throughout the city.
These people also spoke against demolition last night:
RAP
SPAR
Wayne Woods
PSOS
Debbie Thompson
Chris Farley
Doug Nichols
Alison Good
Quote from: sheclown on August 27, 2015, 07:37:38 AM
The commissioners want the owner to have a more specific engineers report. The one they have says the house is beyond repair. Jennifer Mansfield so beautifully stated "If it is beyond repair, how is it that you have an estimate for $225k to fix it?"
Just $225k? Is that all? Jeez, that's a bargain. Let me get out my checkbook. There's absolutely no way a brand new period style house could be built from scratch for that amount. And to think it's sandwiched between two other well cared for gems makes spending $225k an even better deal. Those three houses on Ionia are the cornerstone of Springfield, truly representative of the best that Springfield has to offer.
What I find interesting it that often even the the appointed folks on the HPC forget why a Historic District exists. It is the houses themselves, not the people, not the new infill, but the historic houses. Take enough of them away and you may as well live on the Southside surrounded by multiple clones of your house. Ionia has already lost 45% of it's housing stock. One new infill in the last fifteen years and one or two inappropriate HUD housing by the city a couple of decades before that. That's not counting the Habijax village on the small section across 1st street that was cut out of the District and from which the original houses were taken decades ago. There would also be at least four or five more house that could fit the criteria used for this one so it is conceivable that Ionia could be down to 50% or less of it's housing stock by the end of this year without hope of new infill in the next few decades. Let's just make it easy on those that don't like ugly house. We can stop being a Historic District and level all the ugly houses. Why care about history, increased housing values or those pesky tax abatement and credits. Hey, by doing that, MCCD can start using those federal funds to demolish the houses again. At least Kimberly Scott will be happy.
I appreciate your love of the older historic homes in Springfield (and other neighborhoods). I just feel your time would be better spent raising MONEY so you could buy these homes when they come up on tax sales and foreclosures. The guy spent a few thousand bucks to aquire the place. If you could get 100 friends to contribute $1000 then you could buy the next 10 or so that are priced like this.
Leading by example. But you will have to find 100 people who believe in what you believe in, and are willing to part with some $$ to prove it.
Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on August 27, 2015, 08:21:18 AM
Quote from: sheclown on August 27, 2015, 07:37:38 AM
The commissioners want the owner to have a more specific engineers report. The one they have says the house is beyond repair. Jennifer Mansfield so beautifully stated "If it is beyond repair, how is it that you have an estimate for $225k to fix it?"
Just $225k? Is that all? Jeez, that's a bargain. Let me get out my checkbook. There's absolutely no way a brand new period style house could be built from scratch for that amount. And to think it's sandwiched between two other well cared for gems makes spending $225k an even better deal. Those three houses on Ionia are the cornerstone of Springfield, truly representative of the best that Springfield has to offer.
NaldoAveKnight, I sense your nasty sarcasm and it's really not necessary. If you are not a preservationist, why even bother to read these preservation-minded threads? To be honest, the $225,000 estimate provided by the owners is way inflated. It outlined restoring the home to a triplex since that's what it was when the fire took place. Fortunately the structure has lost it's grandfathered multi-unit status and would need to be restored to its former single family state.
This property is located on a lot that is across an alley from the current owner's double lot. The owners purchased the property with the intent to DEMOLISH. There was NEVER any thought given to restoration. The documentation submitted with the COA states as such. Their testimony given at the HPC meeting was they were afraid for the safety of their children living next to this structure. The truth of the matter is that this structure is not in any danger of imminent collapse.
According to the site plan submitted to HPC in March 2014 for the owner's new home, their main structure will be built 20'7" west of the eastern-most property line and the guest house will be built 5' west of the eastern-most property line. A 6' tall fence is planned to be erected along the rear portions of the west, south and east property lines. The 69' long Ionia structure sits on a 125' deep lot. Let's assume a 10' setback from the front of the parcel and each story is 15' high, even the attic (3 stories, 45').
Even if by some magical power the entire structure tipped up off her brick piers from front to back and toppled over (which in case you were wondering would never happen), she still would not fall outside of her current property borders.
There are options to demolition:
- The current owner is a developer, so DEVELOP IT. He purchased it at an extremely low price; low enough to still have a nice return on his money even if he sunk $150,000 into it.
- Mothball it. The mothball ordinance was put into place to preserve the historic fabric in Jacksonville and allow the structure to safely sit and wait until someone was able to restore.
- Sell the property. Believe it or not, there are people looking for homes to restore.
- Donate it to Preservation SOS. This option provides the donor with a tax write-off and affords the structure a chance at new life.
There were additional photographs provided at the HPC meeting that show the fire did not do as much damage as the current owner claims. Yes, there is fire damage, but it is superficial, leaving the structural integrity intact. You can view the document on Preservation SOS' forum here: http://forum.preservationsos.org/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=119&sid=ba563a3fe2eb6260cae1822249fc453d#p17685 (http://forum.preservationsos.org/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=119&sid=ba563a3fe2eb6260cae1822249fc453d#p17685)
As I am sure you know, Springfield is a Nationally recognized historic district and as such is afforded protections. If we allow the continued destruction of our historic housing stock, the "historic district" will be no more. Yes, there are rare circumstances that dictate the demolition of a protected structure; being ugly in the eyes of its owner is certainly not one of those circumstances.
Quote from: JaxUnicorn on August 27, 2015, 02:49:32 PM
To be honest, the $225,000 estimate provided by the owners is way inflated. It outlined restoring the home to a triplex since that's what it was when the fire took place. Fortunately the structure has lost it's grandfathered multi-unit status and would need to be restored to its former single family state.
There are options to demolition:
- The current owner is a developer, so DEVELOP IT. He purchased it at an extremely low price; low enough to still have a nice return on his money even if he sunk $150,000 into it.
- Mothball it. The mothball ordinance was put into place to preserve the historic fabric in Jacksonville and allow the structure to safely sit and wait until someone was able to restore.
- Sell the property. Believe it or not, there are people looking for homes to restore.
- Donate it to Preservation SOS. This option provides the donor with a tax write-off and affords the structure a chance at new life.
How many of the folks that showed up to the meeting to stop the demolition would be willing to take this project on? Money talks, bs walks.
Actually,just about everyone who showed up to speak is willing. One offered to buy it right there on the spot.
Preservation SOS has offered to accept the house as a donation to try to hand it over to someone who would restore it. The current owners would receive a tax benefit by doing so.
I would suggest being more proactive as a future course. Getting the props at the tax lien sale or foreclosure sale would save you an awful lot of heartbreak. This guy did what he thought was smart, and acted with his money. I have a friend with a tax sale property on Liberty that he would sell for $20,000. IN a good spot, too. Anyone can PM me if they want more info. 2 story and about 2000 sf. Needs total rehab, but still has pocket doors and some nice fireplace mantels.
Quote from: sheclown on August 28, 2015, 05:20:40 AM
Actually,just about everyone who showed up to speak is willing. One offered to buy it right there on the spot.
Preservation SOS has offered to accept the house as a donation to try to hand it over to someone who would restore it. The current owners would receive a tax benefit by doing so.
Since the house is sandwiched between two other rough looking properties I guess the larger question becomes who has a vested interest in those other two properties? And why all the pushback on tearing down a property that has no historical value other than it's old? Having done battle with slum lords in other parts of town I can attest that the city will go to bat for you and fight the good fight against these irresponsible property owners. However, it seems that Springfield has a whole group of special interests, crooked contractors, slum lords, funky neighborhood groups, and random do gooders that do more harm than good. Effectively the city doesn't get involved in this mess because it's too much drama and they've let Springfield kinda be it's own place, for better or worse.
This guy who lives across the street is trying to improve the area and he gets attacked by a strange special interest mob that wants a free house when he puts skin in the game. Why would anyone want to move to Springfield and put up with that? All the folks that showed up to the meeting just kinda said to the world that we own this slum and it's ours, back off!
Don't know much about investing in Springfield other than attending a couple of home tours in the late '90s/early 2000s, and reading about the neighborhood's evolution from afar. From afar, it feels clannish and bureaucratic. In the early 2000s, I was a UF college student and in love with the idea of urban, dense, mixed-use living. Jax seemed to be taking forever to get up and going, so I decided to take a banking job in Manhattan. What I thought would be a 2 or 3 year stint, ended up being 11 years in Manhattan. My parents are aging and I'm thinking of keeping a residential foothold in Jax.
I drove through Springfield in early August, and perhaps I'm not taking the right routes, but driving around it, it actually looks worse than it did 15 years ago. Overgrown lawns, depressed-looking housing stock (with the occasional gem, of course), and something about the neighborhood tree canopy---a couple branches hung so low that they scraped my car. It feels very dark and gloomy and depressing...(just my opinion, I otherwise love trees, especially oaks, but brightening up the area by thinning the canopy might do wonders for the general impression.
At any rate, it feels as though after all these years, Springfield still lacks that dense critical mass of restored gems that would give it the buzz of a happening and rebounding historic district. The SPAR photographers do a great job in photos, but I was disappointed when I arrived. Again, perhaps I missed the right routes when I visited.
Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on August 28, 2015, 10:55:21 AM
Quote from: sheclown on August 28, 2015, 05:20:40 AM
Actually,just about everyone who showed up to speak is willing. One offered to buy it right there on the spot.
Preservation SOS has offered to accept the house as a donation to try to hand it over to someone who would restore it. The current owners would receive a tax benefit by doing so.
Since the house is sandwiched between two other rough looking properties I guess the larger question becomes who has a vested interest in those other two properties? And why all the pushback on tearing down a property that has no historical value other than it's old? Having done battle with slum lords in other parts of town I can attest that the city will go to bat for you and fight the good fight against these irresponsible property owners. However, it seems that Springfield has a whole group of special interests, crooked contractors, slum lords, funky neighborhood groups, and random do gooders that do more harm than good. Effectively the city doesn't get involved in this mess because it's too much drama and they've let Springfield kinda be it's own place, for better or worse.
This guy who lives across the street is trying to improve the area and he gets attacked by a strange special interest mob that wants a free house when he puts skin in the game. Why would anyone want to move to Springfield and put up with that? All the folks that showed up to the meeting just kinda said to the world that we own this slum and it's ours, back off!
Some posters here need to go to Google and input "National Historic District" and read a bit. Maybe they will understand one simple concept, though I question whether the City itself does.
The only real asset a Historic District has that has any lasting value are the houses themselves.
Let's repeat that for the slower among us:
The only real asset a Historic District has that has any lasting value are the houses themselves.
If a business were to be found ignoring, hurting or allowing others to hurt, devaluing on purpose and often just throwing away it's most valuable assets and the stock holders got up and said, hold on here what are you doing? Would you call them a mob and criticize them and call them names? Or would you realize they would be the business's best hope of survival?
Because that is exactly was has happened in Springfield before and will be happening again if PSOS and the other preservation groups do not stand up and say "Stop the nonsense!" In fact, this city has on the books the ability and the responsibility to protect the houses here and could have with the funds spent for MCCD to do their thing, but chooses not to. This is not a personal attack against this owner, this is real and valid push back against insane polices that allow anyone to harm this historic district by allowing demolitions for all the wrong reasons and to hinder the restoration of many properties rather than helping in anyway.
Quote from: strider on August 28, 2015, 05:24:11 PM
Let's repeat that for the slower among us:
The only real asset a Historic District has that has any lasting value are the houses themselves.
A house made of wood with no windows doesn't have any lasting value..it's called 'rotted out' for the slower among us.
What I really don't understand is if you wanted just the land there are plenty of vacant lots of all sizes around Springfield that you could have purchased and saved the cost of demolition.
It often is not so much wanting the empty lot today but rather not wanting the building there. Many reasons for this like MCCD rolling fines and the hassle one has dealing with the MCCD and the building being ugly and being accused of "crimes against the neighborhood" to just list a few of them.
Once again:
The only real asset a Historic District has that has any lasting value are the houses themselves.
Or if you don't like that one, try this one:
The only reason a Historic District exists to start with are the houses. The houses themselves are the only assets that matter in making that determination. All houses or structures designated as CONTRIBUTING are the same as any LANDMARK.
One can be ugly and plain and another fancy and worth a million. There is no differnce between the two possibilities and both have the same protections and value to the district under the law.
How many residential structures are in the Springfield Historic District? Where are the boundaries of this Historic District? How many structures are in excellent condition? How many in good condition? How many in poor or worse condition?
JaxNYC79 makes a lot of excellent points:
"Springfield still lacks that dense critical mass of restored gems that would give it the buzz of a happening and rebounding historic district."
"Perhaps I missed the right routes when I visited."
Springfield is block to block and house to house. Saving a house just because it's old will never fly in the 21st Century. Stating that a boarded up house is better than a vacant lot is an opinion. I am a Realtor and I've sold quite a few homes in Springfield. Right now the principal draw is that is way cheaper than Riverside Avondale and San Marco. NOT the amenities. NOT the Restaurants. NOT Shantytown.
In my opinion the future of Springfield is a combination of the new construction like Terra Wise and LowCountry Classics and expert restorations of architecturally interesting homes. There is a lot of poverty still there and slum lords are very difficult to remove. That may never change, as slum lords often leave their properties to children, or sell to other slum lords. There are also drug dealers living there. One of my repeat customers (3 renovated houses so far) sees the activity on a regular basis.
Springfield was apparently neglected for a long period of time, and it will take just as long to get it to that critical mass that JaxNYC79 speaks about.
Here is a Google Earth picture showing the roof.
(http://johannes.homepc.org/1634IoniaRoof1.png)
Quote from: movedsouth on August 29, 2015, 02:00:14 PM
Here are two pictures I took earlier today. The roof above the main structure looks ok. It is just the extension in the back that is badly damaged (I guess by the fire)
(http://johannes.homepc.org/1634IoniaRoof2.png)
(http://johannes.homepc.org/1634IoniaRoof1.png)
Obviously the metal roof is the addition with the fire damage.
The shingle roof is the original part of the house (of course the roof is NOT original).
That addition must be pretty old with that metal shingle roof.
The Property Appraiser data base lists this house as being built in 1909. From pictures, that may be pretty close. The main house was about 1500 or so SF and I would guess the large addition was added by 1920. Not unusual to see houses expanded then just like is often done today. Also not unusual was the fact that this house was turned into a triplex. Many houses were converted to duplexes in the teens as there was a housing shortage as the country and industry geared up for WWI. Then, houses were converted into apartments to handle a housing shortage at the beginning of WWII. If this property was converted to a triplex during the period of significance, it can remain a triplex today if the owner so chooses. In fact, as it is listed as a legal triplex, it would be hard to tell the owner it had to be back to single family. That said, if one were to take the addition off, it would seem best to convert it back to a single family.
I suspect that if you talked to a Springfield realtor and got a reasonable selling price for that single family and then worked backwards, one would easily see a profit from the rehab and eventual sale of this house. Worst case is you might want to lease it out for a few years to see if the market continues to work it's way up.
Quote from: MusicMan on August 29, 2015, 01:45:20 PM
How many residential structures are in the Springfield Historic District? Where are the boundaries of this Historic District? How many structures are in excellent condition? How many in good condition? How many in poor or worse condition?
JaxNYC79 makes a lot of excellent points:
"Springfield still lacks that dense critical mass of restored gems that would give it the buzz of a happening and rebounding historic district."
"Perhaps I missed the right routes when I visited."
Springfield is block to block and house to house. Saving a house just because it's old will never fly in the 21st Century. Stating that a boarded up house is better than a vacant lot is an opinion. I am a Realtor and I've sold quite a few homes in Springfield. Right now the principal draw is that is way cheaper than Riverside Avondale and San Marco. NOT the amenities. NOT the Restaurants. NOT Shantytown.
In my opinion the future of Springfield is a combination of the new construction like Terra Wise and LowCountry Classics and expert restorations of architecturally interesting homes. There is a lot of poverty still there and slum lords are very difficult to remove. That may never change, as slum lords often leave their properties to children, or sell to other slum lords. There are also drug dealers living there. One of my repeat customers (3 renovated houses so far) sees the activity on a regular basis.
Springfield was apparently neglected for a long period of time, and it will take just as long to get it to that critical mass that JaxNYC79 speaks about.
To answer some of your questions, here's a link to a post on MJ: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,21083.0.html
as a summary though:
Just to recap, we have lost in the past 28 to now working on 29 years, at least 360 contributing structures (20%) and at least 170 structures listed as non-contributing (45%) or 25% of the structures within the Historic District of Springfield are gone. The means on the average over one every single month since we have been a historic district. Non-contributing structures, without any protections I might add, are fairing a bit better at only one every other month since we have been a Historic District. If I was a house, I might like my odds a bit better on that non-contributing list. At least in Springfield, the odds of surviving each year is 50% better than being a protect historic house. And yes, there is official supporting documentation to confirm my figures.
You can find the bounds of the Historic District here: http://www.coj.net/departments/planning-and-development/community-planning-division/default/springfield-historic-district.aspx along with the regulations that must be followed.
Interestingly enough, you must follow those regulations even if you were left out of the Historic District but are within the area covered by the Springfield Zoning Overlay, which is:
Beginning at the west side of North Main Street where it crosses Hogans Creek; thence north and west along Hogans Creek to Broad Street; thence north along the centerline of Broad Street and Boulevard to the abandoned Seaboard Coast Line railroad right-of-way to north of West 12th Street; thence east along the abandoned railroad right-of-way to North Pearl Street; thence south along the centerline of North Pearl Street to West 12th Street; thence east along the centerline of West 12th Street to North Main Street; thence north along the center of North Main Street to the abandoned Seaboard Coast Line railroad right-of-way north of Warren Street; thence east along the railroad right-of-way to Walnut Street; thence south along the centerline of Walnut Street to East 11th Street; thence east along the centerline of East 11th Street to the right-of-way of the St. Johns River Terminal Company railroad located just east of Ionia Street and Clark Street; thence south along said railroad right-of-way to East First Street; thence west along the centerline of East First Street to its intersection with Walnut Street; thence south along the centerline of Walnut Street to Phelps Street; thence west along the centerline of Phelps Street to North Market Street; thence south along the centerline of North Market Street to its crossing over Hogans Creek; thence west and north along Hogans Creek to the point of beginning. It is worth mentioning here that the city has attempted to both totally wipe out Springfield or at least taken down every empty house as fast as possible in the past. It has been through the hard work of folks like those that are standing up for this particular house today that we even have a single house left here to argue about.
What I need to do is see if I can figure out what percentage of the total empty lots have had new construction houses built on them. I suspect as an educated guess the percentage will be in the 10% range, counting the HUD housing the city built years ago. The infill rate is way below the loss rate in any case, when viewed over the life of the Historic District.
As to bad behavior in the community: Drug dealers live pretty much all over Jacksonville and drug activity goes on in even gated high end communities. A fact of life. Perhaps it is more in your face in the urban areas, but that is not only Historic Springfield. As a Realtor, I also would hope you can ask yourself this question and answer yourself honestly. Would those people you have sold more than one house to in Historic Springfield had looked at all if it were not a Historic District? Have you been reading about some of the things going on in Riverside/ Avondale? Seems like the same kinds of issues are there as here in Springfield. You just have a higher entry cost. And yes, perhaps a little less in your face.
Saving a house because it is old is exactly the purpose of a Historic District. If it wasn't, then there would be no district and only the "interesting" houses would be Landmarked.
Someone being considered a "slumlord" is, I guess, in the eyes of the beholder. One that I know gets called that actually deserves it, though his properties are not nice today, they are much better than they were 15 years ago. Another I know never was a "slumlord" though he gets called one. One of his "rooming houses" has granite counter tops. Clean, reasonably well maintained, low cost rentals are needed here but many don't want "those kinds" here so the owners of such establishments get called names and whispered about behind those closed doors. Every real study I have seen in the last ten or so years has included the concept of "If you are good enough to work here, you are good enough to live here" when discussing the revitalization of an urban area.
Yes, we need the new in-fill. But it should not ever be the most important thing going on here and the values per SF that brings the good infill should be arrived at in a natural and slower fashion so that it is sustainable and we don't get the overly inflated false values we got here 7 to 10 years ago. Thankfully, the builders here today either agree with that or have no choice but to be patient and can't do what SRG and others did back then.
Overall, there is no doubt that Historic Springfield was and in many ways, is still being neglected by the city and has a long way to go. Destroying the very assets that make it unique just doesn't seem like a way forward.
Quote from: strider on August 30, 2015, 08:05:39 AM
I suspect that if you talked to a Springfield realtor and got a reasonable selling price for that single family and then worked backwards, one would easily see a profit from the rehab and eventual sale of this house. Worst case is you might want to lease it out for a few years to see if the market continues to work it's way up.
The highest recent sale on Ionia street has been $104,000 for 1224 Ionia St. If it costs $225,000 for the rehab the owner had just thrown away $120,000 plus the cost of the house. That's absurd to think the owner would want to burn $120,000 to make some random do gooders happy. Even if the rehab only costs $100,000 the owner has lost money once you include the cost of the house. There is no scenario that makes economic sense to rehab the property.
Why doesn't Preservation SOS, the contractors, neighborhood groups, and do gooders that showed up to the meeting offer to rehab the house? If they care so much for the property in question they should be willing to restore it to a livable state.
Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on August 30, 2015, 07:30:51 PM
Quote from: strider on August 30, 2015, 08:05:39 AM
I suspect that if you talked to a Springfield realtor and got a reasonable selling price for that single family and then worked backwards, one would easily see a profit from the rehab and eventual sale of this house. Worst case is you might want to lease it out for a few years to see if the market continues to work it's way up.
The highest recent sale on Ionia street has been $104,000 for 1224 Ionia St. If it costs $225,000 for the rehab the owner had just thrown away $120,000 plus the cost of the house. That's absurd to think the owner would want to burn $120,000 to make some random do gooders happy. Even if the rehab only costs $100,000 the owner has lost money once you include the cost of the house. There is no scenario that makes economic sense to rehab the property.
Why doesn't Preservation SOS, the contractors, neighborhood groups, and do gooders that showed up to the meeting offer to rehab the house? If they care so much for the property in question they should be willing to restore it to a livable state.
To begin with, the $225,000 cost the owner put forward was to return the house to a triplex. I also suspect it was at least somewhat inflated due to the fact that the owner has said he never wanted to rehab this house but rather bought it believing he could just tear it down. I believe he could do OK with this house if he returned it to a smallish single family.
Yes, Ionia has not been the most desirable street here in Historic Springfield. You don't suppose that the fact that Ionia has lost 45% of it's Historic Housing stock has anything to do with that, do you?
It all has to do with the fact that it has been a neglected street and so of course it is less desirable and the values are harder to raise up. But there are also some great bungalows and smaller houses on Ionia and that makes me and others believe that it will indeed be a desirable street to live on.
As far as the "do gooders" rehabbing the house. All of the ones speaking out for the Historic District and for this house have done multiple houses already. Including ones on Ionia. Common sense says that it is not up to us to do all of them. Look at it this way. If the HPC tells a home owner that no, he can't put on that 10K roof, he must put on the 50K roof, should the "do gooders" wishing to preserve the historic fabric of his house pay the extra 40K? The answer is no. The owner accepted the responsibility of being in a Historic District with all that entails. The same goes for the owner of 1634 Ionia Street. If he can't afford to rehab this house, he needs to sell or donate it and pass it on to someone who can. We "do gooders" have offered to help with that.
Once again:
The only real asset a Historic District has that has any lasting value are the houses themselves.
There's no denying that the value of a historic district is in it's historic houses. That's like saying 1 + 1 = 2. Ok, that's a fact, however, it's not relevant to stealing someone's property. The landowner has rights and the neighborhood commission that voted to keep him from demolishing his property has egregiously interfered with his rights. Given that pretty much everyone that showed up to that meeting had their hand out it's pretty obvious there's a level of corruption at work.
Hiding behind a veil of 'the only value a historic district has is in it's housing stock' while trying to get a free house is disingenuous.
Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on August 31, 2015, 11:53:30 AM
There's no denying that the value of a historic district is in it's historic houses. However, that's like saying 1 + 1 = 2. Ok, that's a fact, however, it's not relevant to stealing someone's property. The landowner has rights and the neighborhood commission that voted to keep him from demolishing his property has egregiously interfered with his rights. Given that pretty much everyone that showed up to that meeting had their hand out it's pretty obvious there's a level of corruption at work.
Hiding behind a veil of 'the only value a historic district has is in it's housing stock' while trying to get a free house is disingenuous.
I think they are just trying to save another home from being lost. The argument is that the only thing that truly needs to be demolished is the damaged back side addition. The rest looks as if it could be restored by someone who is willing. The property owner should have been aware that it would be difficult to tear down an historic home in a district like this. If he truly bought it just to tear it down because of the back side that is dangerous in his mind then he could partner with someone and pay for the demolition of the addition while the partner restores the rest of it. If it was that tremendous of an issue for him, why did he buy and build on the adjacent property? If he got that one for $7,000 what are the adjacent ones worth? Are they even occupied? He's a developer, maybe he could buy all three and restore them simultaneously. That would certainly freshen up that block a bit and add value to his current home around the corner.
Property rights are a gray area, should the owner really have the right to do whatever he/she pleases with a property, particularly one in an historic district? What if some big shot came along and bought the Laura Street Trio and then announced he wanted to demolish it and use it for a surface parking lot? Is that really in the best interest of the city or community? Shouldn't the community be able to block that from happening?
Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on August 31, 2015, 11:53:30 AM
There's no denying that the value of a historic district is in it's historic houses. That's like saying 1 + 1 = 2. Ok, that's a fact, however, it's not relevant to stealing someone's property. The landowner has rights and the neighborhood commission that voted to keep him from demolishing his property has egregiously interfered with his rights. Given that pretty much everyone that showed up to that meeting had their hand out it's pretty obvious there's a level of corruption at work.
Hiding behind a veil of 'the only value a historic district has is in it's housing stock' while trying to get a free house is disingenuous.
To begin with, the entire reason a Historic District exists is to protect the houses. Even if sometimes it is from the owners themselves. Once you agree to buy a structure in a Historic District you are in a defacto contract with the governing body that you will abide by the rules under which the Historic District exists. This is why you must get a Certificate of Appropriateness to work on your house. You must get permission and approval for the work you wish to do. You know this before you buy or you failed to do your homework. You can't just put in any window you want, you must get approval for the windows. You can't just put a new front door on, you must get it approved. While it certainly has "removed" some of your property rights, you agreed to do so when you bought the house. You also have agreed that you can be fined and otherwise penalized if you fail to follow the rules.
All of this makes your statement: "The landowner has rights and the neighborhood commission that voted to keep him from demolishing his property has egregiously interfered with his rights." nothing but nonsense. The owner gave those rights to the HPC when he knowingly bought into the Historic District. How do I know he knowingly gave up those rights? He had to get a COA to build his new house and he applied for a COA to demolish this one. Establishes that he knew the laws governing this. He just doesn't like them.
Then we have this: "Hiding behind a veil of 'the only value a historic district has is in it's housing stock' while trying to get a free house is disingenuous." Utter nonsense and those that know us and can actually read and think for themselves know that the truth is actually very different.
Quote from: CCMjax on August 31, 2015, 12:31:05 PM
I think they are just trying to save another home from being lost. The argument is that the only thing that truly needs to be demolished is the damaged back side addition. The rest looks as if it could be restored by someone who is willing. The property owner should have been aware that it would be difficult to tear down an historic home in a district like this. If he truly bought it just to tear it down because of the back side that is dangerous in his mind then he could partner with someone and pay for the demolition of the addition while the partner restores the rest of it. If it was that tremendous of an issue for him, why did he buy and build on the adjacent property? If he got that one for $7,000 what are the adjacent ones worth? Are they even occupied? He's a developer, maybe he could buy all three and restore them simultaneously. That would certainly freshen up that block a bit and add value to his current home around the corner.
The other two houses are owned by folks that purchased the homes for back taxes. 1630 Ionia has no building value according to the city. 1638 Ionia has a building value of $1,083. Obviously this is a forsaken area.
The owner can't make changes to the house like you suggest. Removing the back half of the house would entail months/years of approvals from neighborhood groups that are resistant to change and/or want their palms greased. He would have to spend the full $225,000. To suggest otherwise is an assumption that can't be made at this point, especially with the neighborhood groups that hold sway in Springfield.
Pages 75 of the "Historic Preservation Guidelines for the Springfield Historic District" has ten conditions that must be met for a demolition. All ten of those conditions have been met in the case of 1634 Ionia. To deny the demolition while offering to take title of the house at the same meeting is corruption.
http://www.coj.net/departments/planning-and-development/docs/historic/historic-preservation-guidelines-for-springfield.aspx (http://www.coj.net/departments/planning-and-development/docs/historic/historic-preservation-guidelines-for-springfield.aspx)
Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on August 31, 2015, 02:22:33 PM
Quote from: CCMjax on August 31, 2015, 12:31:05 PM
I think they are just trying to save another home from being lost. The argument is that the only thing that truly needs to be demolished is the damaged back side addition. The rest looks as if it could be restored by someone who is willing. The property owner should have been aware that it would be difficult to tear down an historic home in a district like this. If he truly bought it just to tear it down because of the back side that is dangerous in his mind then he could partner with someone and pay for the demolition of the addition while the partner restores the rest of it. If it was that tremendous of an issue for him, why did he buy and build on the adjacent property? If he got that one for $7,000 what are the adjacent ones worth? Are they even occupied? He's a developer, maybe he could buy all three and restore them simultaneously. That would certainly freshen up that block a bit and add value to his current home around the corner.
The other two houses are owned by folks that purchased the homes for back taxes. 1630 Ionia has no building value according to the city. 1638 Ionia has a building value of $1,083. Obviously this is a forsaken area.
There's a couple nice homes on the block, a gigantic quad across the street that's being renovated, and a long vacant house next door being (slowly) renovated. Also, the owner is going before HPC next month to propose 2 additional new construction homes across the street.
"Things are a changing", as someone once said.
Demo should be the absolute last and EXTREME course for a house in a HISTORIC DISTRICT. If you don't want restricts in a HISTORIC DISTRICT, don't move there. Jax has made if far too easy for demos to occur. This is wrong. Since the back of the house was an early addition, it too should be restored, but I think if the front half was done, maybe a variance could be done for the back. The house should be preserved, there are folks willing to do it.
Trying to do something differently is a bit like moving into a neighborhood with an HOA that demands approval for paint, flowers, and complains if your garage is open more than 15 minutes. If you don't like the conditions, don't move there. You certainly can't put in a shed or carport if you live in Queen's Harbor or Marsh Landing without jumping through hoops.
Quote from: stephendare on August 31, 2015, 01:18:43 PM
Doesn't Naldo have a point though?
Haven't you always said on here that people really only work according to self interest? You know, they just pretend to be doing things for the public good, but really there is a financial or political interest in doing them,
I seem to remember that was a long running theme of yours prior to the election, strider.
In fact you spent a good amount of effort trying to prove that in order to delegitimize public policy points by other people.
But here you are saying this doesn't possibly include yourself or your friends.
Yawn
Quote from: Bill Hoff on August 31, 2015, 02:35:14 PM
Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on August 31, 2015, 02:22:33 PM
Quote from: CCMjax on August 31, 2015, 12:31:05 PM
I think they are just trying to save another home from being lost. The argument is that the only thing that truly needs to be demolished is the damaged back side addition. The rest looks as if it could be restored by someone who is willing. The property owner should have been aware that it would be difficult to tear down an historic home in a district like this. If he truly bought it just to tear it down because of the back side that is dangerous in his mind then he could partner with someone and pay for the demolition of the addition while the partner restores the rest of it. If it was that tremendous of an issue for him, why did he buy and build on the adjacent property? If he got that one for $7,000 what are the adjacent ones worth? Are they even occupied? He's a developer, maybe he could buy all three and restore them simultaneously. That would certainly freshen up that block a bit and add value to his current home around the corner.
The other two houses are owned by folks that purchased the homes for back taxes. 1630 Ionia has no building value according to the city. 1638 Ionia has a building value of $1,083. Obviously this is a forsaken area.
There's a couple nice homes on the block, a gigantic quad across the street that's being renovated, and a long vacant house next door being (slowly) renovated. Also, the owner is going before HPC next month to propose 2 additional new construction homes across the street.
"Things are a changing", as someone once said.
Some of those are on 7th and as far as has been said to date, no plans for infill in place of the Ionia street house.
However, to correct the info provided by Naldoaveknight: 1630 has no value because it is not there. It is the empty lot that resulted from the demolition of the house that actually caused the damage to 1634. The house at 1630 - I wish we had good pictures - was truly badly burned and did need to come down. The house to the south is 1626 and while the owners did the carriage house first, they are now working on the main house. It will be a cool place when done. The house at 1638 was saved from the wrecking ball and is slowly being rehabbed. The state of the houses on Ionia is also the result of the MCCD policies that contaminate and make rehabbing a house difficult. And yet, they are indeed being done. Just like the one at 1634 can and should be done. Oh, and the removal of the addition on 1634 at this point would be easier than the removal of the entire house.
[/quote]
Quote from: mbwright on August 31, 2015, 04:50:57 PM
Demo should be the absolute last and EXTREME course for a house in a HISTORIC DISTRICT. If you don't want restricts in a HISTORIC DISTRICT, don't move there. Jax has made if far too easy for demos to occur. This is wrong. Since the back of the house was an early addition, it too should be restored, but I think if the front half was done, maybe a variance could be done for the back. The house should be preserved, there are folks willing to do it.
Trying to do something differently is a bit like moving into a neighborhood with an HOA that demands approval for paint, flowers, and complains if your garage is open more than 15 minutes. If you don't like the conditions, don't move there. You certainly can't put in a shed or carport if you live in Queen's Harbor or Marsh Landing without jumping through hoops.
Thank You.
Quote from: strider on August 31, 2015, 05:26:23 PM
Quote from: Bill Hoff on August 31, 2015, 02:35:14 PM
Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on August 31, 2015, 02:22:33 PM
Quote from: CCMjax on August 31, 2015, 12:31:05 PM
I think they are just trying to save another home from being lost. The argument is that the only thing that truly needs to be demolished is the damaged back side addition. The rest looks as if it could be restored by someone who is willing. The property owner should have been aware that it would be difficult to tear down an historic home in a district like this. If he truly bought it just to tear it down because of the back side that is dangerous in his mind then he could partner with someone and pay for the demolition of the addition while the partner restores the rest of it. If it was that tremendous of an issue for him, why did he buy and build on the adjacent property? If he got that one for $7,000 what are the adjacent ones worth? Are they even occupied? He's a developer, maybe he could buy all three and restore them simultaneously. That would certainly freshen up that block a bit and add value to his current home around the corner.
The other two houses are owned by folks that purchased the homes for back taxes. 1630 Ionia has no building value according to the city. 1638 Ionia has a building value of $1,083. Obviously this is a forsaken area.
There's a couple nice homes on the block, a gigantic quad across the street that's being renovated, and a long vacant house next door being (slowly) renovated. Also, the owner is going before HPC next month to propose 2 additional new construction homes across the street.
"Things are a changing", as someone once said.
Some of those are on 7th and as far as has been said to date, no plans for infill in place of the Ionia street house.
However, to correct the info provided by Naldoaveknight: 1630 has no value because it is not there. It is the empty lot that resulted from the demolition of the house that actually caused the damage to 1634. The house at 1630 - I wish we had good pictures - was truly badly burned and did need to come down. The house to the south is 1626 and while the owners did the carriage house first, they are now working on the main house. It will be a cool place when done. The house at 1638 was saved from the wrecking ball and is slowly being rehabbed. The state of the houses on Ionia is also the result of the MCCD policies that contaminate and make rehabbing a house difficult. And yet, they are indeed being done. Just like the one at 1634 can and should be done. Oh, and the removal of the addition on 1634 at this point would be easier than the removal of the entire house.
here ya go...
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/1630Ionia.jpg)
1630 Ionia
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4098/4810960330_59feb2504e.jpg)
1626 Ionia
Our journey with this house:
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/1626%20Ionia/IMG_2504.jpg)
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,9227.0.html
The demolition of 1630, November 2010. PSOS was there.
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/1630goesdown040-1.jpg)
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php?topic=10048.0
save.the.houses.
Quote from: CCMjax on August 31, 2015, 12:31:05 PM
I think they are just trying to save another home from being lost. The argument is that the only thing that truly needs to be demolished is the damaged back side addition. The rest looks as if it could be restored by someone who is willing.
You've hit the nail on the head here!! Quote from: CCMjax on August 31, 2015, 12:31:05 PMThe property owner should have been aware that it would be difficult to tear down an historic home in a district like this. If he truly bought it just to tear it down because of the back side that is dangerous in his mind then he could partner with someone and pay for the demolition of the addition while the partner restores the rest of it. If it was that tremendous of an issue for him, why did he buy and build on the adjacent property?
Exactly CCMjax! Quote from: CCMjax on August 31, 2015, 12:31:05 PMIf he got that one for $7,000 what are the adjacent ones worth? Are they even occupied? He's a developer, maybe he could buy all three and restore them simultaneously. That would certainly freshen up that block a bit and add value to his current home around the corner.
Again, YES!!
Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on August 31, 2015, 02:22:33 PMThe other two houses are owned by folks that purchased the homes for back taxes. 1630 Ionia has no building value according to the city. 1638 Ionia has a building value of $1,083. Obviously this is a forsaken area.
Strider addressed these houses in his comment. I'd just like to state that this is NOT a "forsaken area".
Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on August 31, 2015, 02:22:33 PMThe owner can't make changes to the house like you suggest.
Yes he can. In fact, the Historic Planning department suggested removal of the addition, leaving the main structure intact.
Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on August 31, 2015, 02:22:33 PMRemoving the back half of the house would entail months/years of approvals from neighborhood groups that are resistant to change and/or want their palms greased.
What experience do you have with working with the neighborhood groups and/or Historic Planning? Preservation SOS as well as SPAR both spoke in favor of removing the addition.
Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on August 31, 2015, 02:22:33 PMHe would have to spend the full $225,000. To suggest otherwise is an assumption that can't be made at this point, especially with the neighborhood groups that hold sway in Springfield.
The owner of the property bought at the right price and is a developer. The $225,000 estimate is way overstated and given the owner's developer status, he is in a prime position to restore this home way under the true restoration price (which is way less than $225k).
Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on August 31, 2015, 02:22:33 PMPages 75 of the "Historic Preservation Guidelines for the Springfield Historic District" has ten conditions that must be met for a demolition. All ten of those conditions have been met in the case of 1634 Ionia.
http://www.coj.net/departments/planning-and-development/docs/historic/historic-preservation-guidelines-for-springfield.aspx (http://www.coj.net/departments/planning-and-development/docs/historic/historic-preservation-guidelines-for-springfield.aspx)
The 10 things you reference under the Demolition section of the Historic Preservation Guildelines for the Springfield Historic District are not "conditions to be met" to approve demolition. They are things that must be considered.
QuoteDemolition of significant buildings, outbuildings, and individual features conflicts with Standards 2 and 4. Demolition alters the essential character and integrity of a building and the district in which it is located. As part of the Jacksonville Historic Preservation Ordinance the following additional standards are prescribed when a property owners applies for a certificate of appropriateness for a demolition.
- The historic or architectural significance of the building or structure.
- The importance of the building or structure to the ambience of the historic district.
- The difficulty or the impossibility of reproducing such a building or structure because of its design, texture, material, architectural detail or unique location.
- Whether the building or structure is one of the last remaining examples of its kind in the neighborhood, the county, or the region.
- Whether there are definite plans for reuse of the property if the proposed demolition is carried out, and what effect of those plans on the character of the surrounding area would be.
- The difficulty or impossibility of saving the building or structure from collapse.
- Whether the building or structure is capable of earning a reasonable economic return on its value.
- Whether there are other feasible alternatives to demolition.
- Whether the property no longer contributes to an historic district or no longer has significance as a historic, architectural or archaeological landmark.
- Whether it would constitute undue economic hardship to deny the property owner the right to demolish the building or structure.
I've quoted a few other important statements in the aforementioned document:
QuoteDemolition invariably exerts a negative impact on a historic district.
QuoteFurthermore, eliminating a building from a streetscape is like pulling teeth. Either a conspicuous, void is created, or the replacement, even if well designed, is usually less well designed and constructed than the original.
Standard 2 states the following: "The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided."
Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on August 31, 2015, 02:22:33 PMTo deny the demolition while offering to take title of the house at the same meeting is corruption.
If you are accusing Preservation SOS of being corrupt, you are WAY off base! How DARE you!!!
Naldo, you are way off base. Preservation SOS' sole intent is to save the house and get it into the hands of someone who will rehab it. We contacted the former owner more than once without response. At the exact same HPC meeting, a contractor spoke to HPC about the fact that house could be rehabbed. During a break, with my encouragement (because I thought the owner just wanted a rehabbed house nearby to his, and not a neglected one) that contractor went over and offered to buy the house. The man is a general contractor and had the means to rehab the house. The owner said no. The owner presented a letter with his demo application that clearly stated he bought the house to demolish it.
Springfield unfortunately has plenty of vacant lots, due to policies of the past. We don't need people making more of them. Infill on existing vacant lots is fine. We need that. Creating vacant lots by demolishing still-sound historic houses isn't.
I happen to love Ionia.
It's a bit more humble then the rest of Spfld.
PSOS fostered 14 homes into the hands of owners who are all restoring.
These owners as a condition of accepting the house from us paid all back taxes directly to Duval County. $50k worth.
Corruption?
All my houses and lots, coincidently are predominately on Ionia, I purchased. The old fashioned way.
He knew what he was buying. Simple.
He bought to demo.
Well. Not without a fight.
I do agree to some level that PSOS would benefit the neighborhood even better if we could purchase forgotten homes and rehab them.
The city could help us on this.
We are working southern slow to see how to garner that support.
In the meantime,
Save the houses.
I think it is pretty clear that the owner wants to demolish and build a new house on the site despite that fact that he stated he had no plans for it. He built a new home around the corner, that may be his formula. He should help restore it or pass it on to someone else. Sounds like there are plenty of people willing to do it. But where were they before he bought it?
Trying to contact the owner without success.
COJ has the same struggle.
Let's talk about property rights for a sec.
Buy a lot on the Westside and neglect to cut the grass. Call it a meadow. See what code enforcement does to you.
Decide to build on the Westside lot. Need permission from zoning, from building inspection department.
Successfully built that house? You can't move in until you have received that "certificate of occupancy".
Want to rent it? The feds tell you who you must rent to.
Want to evict your tenants? You have to go to court to do it.
Decide you have had enough with the government and stop paying your property taxes? See what happens to that piece of land.
Historic districts put additional restrictions on what one can do with a piece of property, they do NOT take away property "rights." Those were gone a long time ago. :)
This is how PSOS has been looking at houses and making assessments for the last 5 years. I think it is helpful for this conversation.
FOUR AREAS
Roof: Is the roof intact or are there pieces of missing roofing material? Is the roof structure visible? Is the roof structure damaged? Does the main line of the roof dip or is it straight? Are there areas where the roof sags inward (called "hog bellies by roofers).
Walls: Is the siding intact? Does the siding run level and plumb? Are the door and window openings (relatively) square? Is there visible damage to wall structure? Does the wall bow out?
Floor: Is there visible damage to the floor sills (those giant beams that run the perimeter)? Are the floor joists intact? What is the percentage of damage to floor joists?
Foundation: Are all piers still standing? Are the piers showing obvious damage ie. crumbling mortar and falling bricks? What percentage of piers are still standing?
These are the four important parts of the structure of a house. Looking at a house, walking around it, what do you see?
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,11063.0.html
from 2011: Demolitions in Springfield, the facts:
Quote
Joel McEachin put the number out today at 533. That is the current number of demolitions in the neighborhood since the neighborhood was declared a Nationally Recognized Historic District. That is also almost 30% of the historic fabric of this neighborhood.
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,13154.0.html
this is why we fight for houses
Quote from: sheclown on September 01, 2015, 07:28:40 AM
from 2011: Demolitions in Springfield, the facts:
Quote
Joel McEachin put the number out today at 533. That is the current number of demolitions in the neighborhood since the neighborhood was declared a Nationally Recognized Historic District. That is also almost 30% of the historic fabric of this neighborhood.
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,13154.0.html
this is why we fight for houses
Saving the house isn't the issue. Forcing someone to spend a lot of money or donate it to a 'non-profit' is the issue.
How many folks on this board that are fighting to keep this house from demolition live on Ionia street?
Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on September 01, 2015, 09:26:56 AM
Saving the house isn't the issue. Forcing someone to spend a lot of money or donate it to a 'non-profit' is the issue.
How many folks on this board that are fighting to keep this house from demolition live on Ionia street?
You just don't get it, do you. Saving the house is EXACTLY the issue. No one forced this owner to buy this house and no one is forcing them to donate it to a non-profit. They knew they were buying in an historic district when they purchased the property. They knew the condition of the house when they bought it. The downfall is that they purchased this historic property with the intent to demolish.
And what difference does it make whether folks live on Ionia or not? I live in the Springfield Historic District and this property is a contributing structure to that district. I and others will fight to save the house.
Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on September 01, 2015, 09:26:56 AM
Quote from: sheclown on September 01, 2015, 07:28:40 AM
from 2011: Demolitions in Springfield, the facts:
Quote
Joel McEachin put the number out today at 533. That is the current number of demolitions in the neighborhood since the neighborhood was declared a Nationally Recognized Historic District. That is also almost 30% of the historic fabric of this neighborhood.
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,13154.0.html
this is why we fight for houses
Saving the house isn't the issue. Forcing someone to spend a lot of money or donate it to a 'non-profit' is the issue.
How many folks on this board that are fighting to keep this house from demolition live on Ionia street?
Naldo, give it a rest. Your argument would be more applicable if the house wasn't in an historic district, but the fact is it is in an historic district and the house is salvageable so it is going to be a fight if he tries to demo the whole thing. Again, the owner should have known this. It is more profitable in this case, most likely, to tear down and build new, however, if owners were allowed to do that everywhere in Springfield, there would be virtually no historic home stock left and it would lose the historic district distinction if any hole in a wall or roof could warrant demolition. Kind of like when Soldier Field in Chicago lost its historic landmark status by adding a new addition on top of the historic façade of the stadium. There was too much new compared to historic to still keep its status.
Quote from: Apache on September 01, 2015, 02:08:45 PM
Good gosh, drove by today, can't believe the monster house the guy is building on the double lot on 7th. It's huge. Looks like he is one of the guys from the old City Kidz Ice Cream. He must have some dough to be building that house. Show up on the job site and convince him to renovate the thing. Won't help anything to knock it down with the 2 ugly ducklings on either side of it anyway.
Speaking of ice cream, I'll take everyone that posted on this thread out to the Dreamette if the house gets restored.
I want the house to be restored since I believe in urban renewal. I'm actively restoring a house across the river from Springfield. It's the strong arm tactics of the Springfield community that's shady at best, outright corrupt at worst. Does it matter if the landowner is rich? Does the end justify the means? The shadow cast from this event will make folks think twice before taking on a Springfield project.
Naldo, give it a rest. It would be more productive to go poke some gators or lions or hungry bears. Historic districts have a purpose that you obviously don't or can't understand.
Besides, it's not strong arm tactics, just enforcing the existing rules.
Quote from: stephendare on September 01, 2015, 03:16:24 PM
Quote from: mbwright on September 01, 2015, 03:10:05 PM
Naldo, give it a rest. It would be more productive to go poke some gators or lions or hungry bears. Historic districts have a purpose that you obviously don't or can't understand.
Besides, it's not strong arm tactics, just enforcing the existing rules.
this is the truth. Ive never understood what compels people to move to a historic district and then want to start demolishing historic structures. Its like going to hawaii and demanding the right to pave the entire thing over with asphalt.
amen.
I bought my first house in 2007.
On Ionia.
I restored/renovated a humble bungalow after it sat gutted and vacant for 10+ years.
Compared to the rest of the crimes reported in Historic Spfld, Ionia is quiet and safe.
Many on Ionia have lived in their homes for 30+ years.
Some folks on Ionia rely on public assistance/disability/SSI to get by. (And honestly, no one gets by on that.)
Others get a retirement income, others work. I do not see thug punks or drug sales on Ionia.
There is no wealth on Ionia. But like much of Spfld there is a community of next door neighbors who look out for each other.
Every house (except one) I had a part of investing in after my first, touches Ionia in some way, if not on it.
One can't judge a neighborhood or a street until you've spent significant sleeping time there.
If I had a bottomless bank account I would scoop up all of the vacant homes and restore.
Many of us would.
But instead, myself and several others in Spfld, move as quick as we can to save as many as we personally can.
While fending off others who disregard our historic homes and buy with the sole intent to demo.
Wrong neighborhood.
Wrong street. (Well they'd all be wrong, but I have an affinity for this particular one.)
I love Ionia.
Quote from: iloveionia on September 02, 2015, 12:20:44 AM
I bought my first house in 2007.
On Ionia.
I restored/renovated a humble bungalow after it sat gutted and vacant for 10+ years.
Compared to the rest of the crimes reported in Historic Spfld, Ionia is quiet and safe.
Many on Ionia have lived in their homes for 30+ years.
Some folks on Ionia rely on public assistance/disability/SSI to get by. (And honestly, no one gets by on that.)
Others get a retirement income, others work. I do not see thug punks or drug sales on Ionia.
There is no wealth on Ionia. But like much of Spfld there is a community of next door neighbors who look out for each other.
Every house (except one) I had a part of investing in after my first, touches Ionia in some way, if not on it.
One can't judge a neighborhood or a street until you've spent significant sleeping time there.
If I had a bottomless bank account I would scoop up all of the vacant homes and restore.
Many of us would.
But instead, myself and several others in Spfld, move as quick as we can to save as many as we personally can.
While fending off others who disregard our historic homes and buy with the sole intent to demo.
Wrong neighborhood.
Wrong street. (Well they'd all be wrong, but I have an affinity for this particular one.)
I love Ionia.
^^^^ YES!!!!! :)
Probably because some of us are reasonable and understand a few of things:
1) Not everything built 100 years ago is a priceless work of art. Some of these houses sucked 100 years ago and they suck even more now.
2) That if you replace 96% of a house it's not longer a historic house. It's a new house built in the shape and location where a historic house once stood.
3) A lot of the best houses in Springfield have already been restored and a lot of what is left will cost far far more than can ever been economically recovered. No bank will lend on it. No reasonable person will ever invest in it. The longer is sits open the the elements in humid Florida the bigger the bill to bring it back will be.
And on a side note is Ionia street even considered part of the historic district? It's such a bombed out hell hole of a street.
Quote from: stephendare on September 01, 2015, 03:16:24 PM
Quote from: mbwright on September 01, 2015, 03:10:05 PM
Naldo, give it a rest. It would be more productive to go poke some gators or lions or hungry bears. Historic districts have a purpose that you obviously don't or can't understand.
Besides, it's not strong arm tactics, just enforcing the existing rules.
this is the truth. Ive never understood what compels people to move to a historic district and then want to start demolishing historic structures. Its like going to hawaii and demanding the right to pave the entire thing over with asphalt.
You've never been able to effectively argue any of my points because you aren't bright enough. And that gets under your skin and I love it.
Quote from: stephendare on September 09, 2015, 10:06:50 PM
congratulations, you've displaced NRW's last remaining spot on my top ten list.
Angry Chicken weighs in at number four
Quote from: AngryChicken on September 09, 2015, 09:53:54 PM
Probably because some of us are reasonable and understand a few of things:
1) Not everything built 100 years ago is a priceless work of art. Some of these houses sucked 100 years ago and they suck even more now.
2) That if you replace 96% of a house it's not longer a historic house. It's a new house built in the shape and location where a historic house once stood.
3) A lot of the best houses in Springfield have already been restored and a lot of what is left will cost far far more than can ever been economically recovered. No bank will lend on it. No reasonable person will ever invest in it. The longer is sits open the the elements in humid Florida the bigger the bill to bring it back will be.
And on a side note is Ionia street even considered part of the historic district? It's such a bombed out hell hole of a street.
Quote from: stephendare on September 01, 2015, 03:16:24 PM
Quote from: mbwright on September 01, 2015, 03:10:05 PM
Naldo, give it a rest. It would be more productive to go poke some gators or lions or hungry bears. Historic districts have a purpose that you obviously don't or can't understand.
Besides, it's not strong arm tactics, just enforcing the existing rules.
this is the truth. Ive never understood what compels people to move to a historic district and then want to start demolishing historic structures. Its like going to hawaii and demanding the right to pave the entire thing over with asphalt.
Quote from: AngryChicken on September 09, 2015, 09:53:54 PM
Probably because some of us are reasonable and understand a few of things:
1) Not everything built 100 years ago is a priceless work of art. Some of these houses sucked 100 years ago and they suck even more now.
2) That if you replace 96% of a house it's not longer a historic house. It's a new house built in the shape and location where a historic house once stood.
3) A lot of the best houses in Springfield have already been restored and a lot of what is left will cost far far more than can ever been economically recovered. No bank will lend on it. No reasonable person will ever invest in it. The longer is sits open the the elements in humid Florida the bigger the bill to bring it back will be.
And on a side note is Ionia street even considered part of the historic district? It's such a bombed out hell hole of a street.
Quote from: stephendare on September 01, 2015, 03:16:24 PM
Quote from: mbwright on September 01, 2015, 03:10:05 PM
Naldo, give it a rest. It would be more productive to go poke some gators or lions or hungry bears. Historic districts have a purpose that you obviously don't or can't understand.
Besides, it's not strong arm tactics, just enforcing the existing rules.
this is the truth. Ive never understood what compels people to move to a historic district and then want to start demolishing historic structures. Its like going to hawaii and demanding the right to pave the entire thing over with asphalt.
literally one of the dumbest posts in a long time. You even moved three separate posts by one of our long term posters down a notch on the list.
Quote from: AngryChicken on September 09, 2015, 09:53:54 PM
Probably because some of us are reasonable and understand a few of things:
1) Not everything built 100 years ago is a priceless work of art. Some of these houses sucked 100 years ago and they suck even more now.
You are right; not everything built 100 years ago is a priceless work of art. However, when the Springfield Historic District was created, there were structures that were designated
historic. And that means this house, however ugly you deem it to be, deserves to be saved and restored.
Quote from: AngryChicken on September 09, 2015, 09:53:54 PM
Probably because some of us are reasonable and understand a few of things:
2) That if you replace 96% of a house it's not longer a historic house. It's a new house built in the shape and location where a historic house once stood.
Not true. The bones of the structure are still there. The original footprint is still there. A 100 year old 2x4 is 768 cubic inches, or 64 cubic feet; today's "nominal" 2x4 is only 504 cubic inches, or 42 cubic feet. I'll take the old growth true 2x4 construction any day over today's 2x4s.
Quote from: AngryChicken on September 09, 2015, 09:53:54 PM
Probably because some of us are reasonable and understand a few of things:
3) A lot of the best houses in Springfield have already been restored and a lot of what is left will cost far far more than can ever been economically recovered. No bank will lend on it. No reasonable person will ever invest in it. The longer is sits open the the elements in humid Florida the bigger the bill to bring it back will be.
Thank goodness a lot of the historic homes in Springfield have been restored!! I am very thankful for the folks who have poured their blood, sweat and tears into this old gals. And I look forward to the remaining housing stock being given the same level of attention.
What's left will cost far more than can ever be economically recovered? I disagree. Sometimes it's not only about recouping an investment. Sometimes it's about the house itself and the greater good of the neighborhood.
Are you an underwriter for a bank? If not, then how can you say with certainty that a bank will not lend on these houses? In case you don't know, traditional banks are not the only source of funding for restoring these grand old ladies.
No reasonable person will ever invest in it? Again, I disagree. In fact, at the August HPC meeting a General Contractor offered to purchase the home.
The longer it sits open to the the elements in humid Florida the bigger the bill to bring it back will be. Yes, you are correct here. And within this statement you also acknowledge the house CAN be restored! Even though the addition has lost a large section of the roof, it could still be restored if the owner wanted to do that. And if not, that addition could be removed. The original back of the house is still there (including siding) which would make mothballing much easier. The roof of the original section of the house is intact. Removing all the crap that is inside the home would go a long way in making it easier to mothball or completely restore.
Quote from: AngryChicken on September 09, 2015, 09:53:54 PM
And on a side note is Ionia street even considered part of the historic district? It's such a bombed out hell hole of a street.
Below is a link to the official City of Jacksonville Springfield Historic District boundaries. As you will see, Ionia certainly is a part of the Historic District. "Ionia is a bombed out hell hole of a street"? Give me a break! It will look like a bomb hit it if we continue to allow destruction by demolition.
http://www.coj.net/departments/planning-and-development/docs/community-planning-division/default/springfield-district-map.aspx (http://www.coj.net/departments/planning-and-development/docs/community-planning-division/default/springfield-district-map.aspx)
Quote from: AngryChicken on September 09, 2015, 09:53:54 PM
Quote from: stephendare on September 01, 2015, 03:16:24 PM
Quote from: mbwright on September 01, 2015, 03:10:05 PM
Naldo, give it a rest. It would be more productive to go poke some gators or lions or hungry bears. Historic districts have a purpose that you obviously don't or can't understand.
Besides, it's not strong arm tactics, just enforcing the existing rules.
this is the truth. Ive never understood what compels people to move to a historic district and then want to start demolishing historic structures. Its like going to hawaii and demanding the right to pave the entire thing over with asphalt.
Thanks for quoting the above from mbwright and stevendare. And it applies to your "points" as well. Why on earth would someone purchase a home in a nationally recognized historic district for the sole purpose of demolishing it? That makes no sense whatsoever.
In a letter to the Historic Planning department stated he purchased this historic structure with the "expectation that it would be torn down." He goes on to say that this house is only 20 feet from the home he is building which is not true - the house itself is 69' long and sits on a 125' deep lot. Assuming a 10' setback up front, that's 46' from the property's own lot line, then add the width of the alley that separates this structure from the owner's new build. He also says the house "is in clear and eminent danger of collapsing at any moment" which is also not true.
SAVE THE HOUSES!!
This item is up in front of the Historic Preservation Commission this Wednesday (after being deferred last month).
Please sign the petition and help us RESPECT the contributing structure in a Nationally Recognized Historic District.
SAVE THE HOUSES.
https://www.change.org/p/jacksonville-historic-preservation-commission-this-place-matters-stop-the-demolition-of-1634-ionia-street?source_location=petitions_share_skip
The letter says it all: bought with the intent to demolish. The owner of this historic home on Ionia has other options as opposed to requesting a demolition. The home can be donated to a non-profit, sold to another party willing to restore, or mothballed by the current owner and rehabbed. We value our old homes and are able to see beyond "ugly." It is imperative that you, our preservation commission, see the potential in this home and stand strong with us in preservation. This place matters.
from August HPC meeting minutes:
MR. WOOD: I had a unique commentary in
that Carmen Godwin, the Executive Director of
Riverside Avondale Preservation had to leave,
and she asked if I could read her statement.
And I read it, and I agree with it. So I'm
going to read it, and you get a two-for-one
deal.
Riverside Avondale Preservation has
noticed an increase in demolition requests as
the real estate market returns. For example,
we recently had a similar request for a
similar -- for similar economic reasons.
The owner believes that demolishing a
contributing structure that sits next to a
noncontributing home he wants to sell will
increase the value of that home. He believes
an empty lot is worth more than one with an old
house on it that needs a lot of repairs, even
though he hasn't even tried to put it on the
market.
Economics is only one of the criteria for
demolition. Otherwise, most of us might have a
case. Owners of historic properties normally
do put way more into them than they get out of
it. That is one reason we have some of the
best real estate values in the state.
The value of the historic district is not
in one single structure, but in the collective
body of historic properties within the
boundaries. And as we chip away, the district
loses its character, what makes it unique. One
person may feel they're gaining from the
demolition, but the whole community loses.
There are alternatives, number one being,
to see -- to sell the building to someone who
wants to save it. The owner who wants to
demolish in our area owes nothing on the
building. So the risk to put it on the market
is very, very low. And I would presume this
building which sold recently at a tax sale has
probably got not too much it in.
We ask you as the JHPC to challenge
demolition requests, to push for more evidence.
If you see one quote, ask for three. Put more
burden on the owner because once the fabric is
gone, it's gone forever. And I've said many
times, you know, first you lose one house and
then the neighbors move away. Then you lose
another house, then you lose the block, then
you lose the neighborhood. So I think this is
a perfect example of that.
And I'll give you her written comments to
put in the record.
http://www.coj.net/departments/planning-and-development/community-planning-division/historic-preservation-commission.aspx
At the August 26, 2015 meeting, the Historic Preservation Commission deferred the decision on the owner's demolition request to provide them time to gather additional evidence to support their request. The September HPC packet has been published and there is nothing new relative to this structure. Was additional evidence obtained, and if so, why was it not provided to Historic Planning in time to be included in the meeting book?
The day after the August HPC meeting I received a phone call from Tamara Baker with Baker Klein Engineering. She wanted to know why Preservation SOS spoke against the demolition when her letter stated it needed to be demolished. i asked her if she went upstairs during her inspection on July 1st. Her answer was, "No" and I was shocked. I shared with her that I have been inside this property and walked the ENTIRE structure and believe it is structurally stable. At that point she asked if I would tour the property with her so that we could each expand on our views to the other. We toured this structure on Thursday, September 3rd.
I have a lot of respect for Tamara, the degree she holds, and her tireless work to improve our historic Springfield neighborhood. She and I left the property agreeing to disagree on the suitability for restoration of this historic structure; I did not change her mind and she didn't change mine. In this case, I believe she is wrong. I believe this historic structure is suitable for restoration and should not be destroyed.
SAVE THE HOUSES!
EVEN THE UGLY, DAMAGED AND BURNED ONES.
THEY ALL MATTER!!!
Quote from: JaxUnicorn on September 23, 2015, 11:11:34 AM
At the August 26, 2015 meeting, the Historic Preservation Commission deferred the decision on the owner's demolition request to provide them time to gather additional evidence to support their request. The September HPC packet has been published and there is nothing new relative to this structure. Was additional evidence obtained, and if so, why was it not provided to Historic Planning in time to be included in the meeting book?
The day after the August HPC meeting I received a phone call from Tamara Baker with Baker Klein Engineering. She wanted to know why Preservation SOS spoke against the demolition when her letter stated it needed to be demolished. i asked her if she went upstairs during her inspection on July 1st. Her answer was, "No" and I was shocked. I shared with her that I have been inside this property and walked the ENTIRE structure and believe it is structurally stable. At that point she asked if I would tour the property with her so that we could each expand on our views to the other. We toured this structure on Thursday, September 3rd.
I have a lot of respect for Tamara, the degree she holds, and her tireless work to improve our historic Springfield neighborhood. She and I left the property agreeing to disagree on the suitability for restoration of this historic structure; I did not change her mind and she didn't change mine. In this case, I believe she is wrong. I believe this historic structure is suitable for restoration and should not be destroyed.
SAVE THE HOUSES!
EVEN THE UGLY, DAMAGED AND BURNED ONES.
THEY ALL MATTER!!!
I am also a structural engineer and am curious what the reasons were behind her conclusions. Was there any report submitted? I would assume it is not available to the public if so. Can you give any more information on what the issues were that she saw?
Quote from: CCMjax on September 23, 2015, 01:38:14 PM
Quote from: JaxUnicorn on September 23, 2015, 11:11:34 AM
At the August 26, 2015 meeting, the Historic Preservation Commission deferred the decision on the owner's demolition request to provide them time to gather additional evidence to support their request. The September HPC packet has been published and there is nothing new relative to this structure. Was additional evidence obtained, and if so, why was it not provided to Historic Planning in time to be included in the meeting book?
The day after the August HPC meeting I received a phone call from Tamara Baker with Baker Klein Engineering. She wanted to know why Preservation SOS spoke against the demolition when her letter stated it needed to be demolished. i asked her if she went upstairs during her inspection on July 1st. Her answer was, "No" and I was shocked. I shared with her that I have been inside this property and walked the ENTIRE structure and believe it is structurally stable. At that point she asked if I would tour the property with her so that we could each expand on our views to the other. We toured this structure on Thursday, September 3rd.
I have a lot of respect for Tamara, the degree she holds, and her tireless work to improve our historic Springfield neighborhood. She and I left the property agreeing to disagree on the suitability for restoration of this historic structure; I did not change her mind and she didn't change mine. In this case, I believe she is wrong. I believe this historic structure is suitable for restoration and should not be destroyed.
SAVE THE HOUSES!
EVEN THE UGLY, DAMAGED AND BURNED ONES.
THEY ALL MATTER!!!
I am also a structural engineer and am curious what the reasons were behind her conclusions. Was there any report submitted? I would assume it is not available to the public if so. Can you give any more information on what the issues were that she saw?
CCMjax and others interested, the updated engineer report can be found on Preservation SOS' forum at this link:
http://forum.preservationsos.org/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=119&start=10#p17741 (http://forum.preservationsos.org/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=119&start=10#p17741)
Please take a look. I'd love to hear your opinion. The meeting on this historic structure starts at 3:00 today.
Also take a peek at the photographs I provided at the August meeting. They can be found here:
http://forum.preservationsos.org/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=119&sid=ba563a3fe2eb6260cae1822249fc453d#p17685 (http://forum.preservationsos.org/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=119&sid=ba563a3fe2eb6260cae1822249fc453d#p17685)
Quote from: stephendare on September 23, 2015, 01:43:08 PM
So this guy kind of just moved here from Philadelphia, and bought some redevelopment property on 7th street? Then just decided to purchase and knock down a property in order to get rid of an eyesore?
wow.
Stephen, that about sums it up. And he will be presenting another new construction build on E 7th at today's meeting. This man is a developer which means he has the unique ability to restore these old gals for less than a non-developer could. He just has to
WANT to restore her.
Quote from: stephendare on September 23, 2015, 02:06:55 PM
Quote from: JaxUnicorn on September 23, 2015, 02:04:10 PM
Quote from: stephendare on September 23, 2015, 01:43:08 PM
So this guy kind of just moved here from Philadelphia, and bought some redevelopment property on 7th street? Then just decided to purchase and knock down a property in order to get rid of an eyesore?
wow.
Stephen, that about sums it up. And he will be presenting another new construction build on E 7th at today's meeting. This man is a developer which means he has the unique ability to restore these old gals for less than a non-developer could. He just has to WANT to restore her.
and he knew for a fact that the property was historic when he bought it.
And no less than Wayne Wood has spoken on behalf of the structure?
Yes, he knew for a FACT that it was historic. He's been building his new primary home for a year right behind it.
Yes, Wayne Wood spoke on behalf of the structure at the August HPC meeting. As did many others, including myself.
Quote from: JaxUnicorn on September 23, 2015, 01:58:46 PM
Quote from: CCMjax on September 23, 2015, 01:38:14 PM
Quote from: JaxUnicorn on September 23, 2015, 11:11:34 AM
At the August 26, 2015 meeting, the Historic Preservation Commission deferred the decision on the owner's demolition request to provide them time to gather additional evidence to support their request. The September HPC packet has been published and there is nothing new relative to this structure. Was additional evidence obtained, and if so, why was it not provided to Historic Planning in time to be included in the meeting book?
The day after the August HPC meeting I received a phone call from Tamara Baker with Baker Klein Engineering. She wanted to know why Preservation SOS spoke against the demolition when her letter stated it needed to be demolished. i asked her if she went upstairs during her inspection on July 1st. Her answer was, "No" and I was shocked. I shared with her that I have been inside this property and walked the ENTIRE structure and believe it is structurally stable. At that point she asked if I would tour the property with her so that we could each expand on our views to the other. We toured this structure on Thursday, September 3rd.
I have a lot of respect for Tamara, the degree she holds, and her tireless work to improve our historic Springfield neighborhood. She and I left the property agreeing to disagree on the suitability for restoration of this historic structure; I did not change her mind and she didn't change mine. In this case, I believe she is wrong. I believe this historic structure is suitable for restoration and should not be destroyed.
SAVE THE HOUSES!
EVEN THE UGLY, DAMAGED AND BURNED ONES.
THEY ALL MATTER!!!
I am also a structural engineer and am curious what the reasons were behind her conclusions. Was there any report submitted? I would assume it is not available to the public if so. Can you give any more information on what the issues were that she saw?
CCMjax and others interested, the updated engineer report can be found on Preservation SOS' forum at this link:
http://forum.preservationsos.org/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=119&start=10#p17741 (http://forum.preservationsos.org/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=119&start=10#p17741)
Please take a look. I'd love to hear your opinion. The meeting on this historic structure starts at 3:00 today.
Also take a peek at the photographs I provided at the August meeting. They can be found here:
http://forum.preservationsos.org/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=119&sid=ba563a3fe2eb6260cae1822249fc453d#p17685 (http://forum.preservationsos.org/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=119&sid=ba563a3fe2eb6260cae1822249fc453d#p17685)
I read the report and Baker is saying it is unsafe in its current state, which after reading the report and looking at the photos I would probably agree. A site visit by any licensed engineer would probably yield the same conclusion. She states renovation is pointless due to the extent of the damage. That probably means from her observations every structural element requires reinforcing and that may be the case even for areas not damaged if they need to be brought up to current code. A reinforcing plan would have to be done to get an idea of cost. It would probably include doubling up every stud, rafter, beam, post, etc and reinforcing the foundation elements. Sounds expensive but it looks like y'all have done that at other damaged properties.
I really don't think 'safe/unsafe' it the proper determination to be made. If there is one nail exposed, it is technically unsafe, but that hardly justifies demolition. The determination should be based on salvageable or unsalvageable. It also should take into account whether the owner was negligent in allowing it to BECOME unsalvageable in the first place.
For what it is worth, take a look at the Charleston house in the attachment. Clearly it is distressed but is being fully renovated.
http://www.charleston-sc.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/09232015-1623 (http://www.charleston-sc.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/09232015-1623)
See pg. 162-167 for pictures of the house in question. Pages 168-173 for drawings of what it will look like renovated.
Historic Preservation Commission just approved the demolition request.
Once again, the HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION is siding with developers over preservation.
Anyone remember how they paved the way for Mack Bissett to orchestrate policies that decimated the historic district?
If only we could RESPECT the fact that it is a HISTORIC DISTRICT.
Jennifer Mansfield was the only hold out.
In my 15 years experience as a contractor in Historic Springfield, I can tell you that a complete house evaluation by a professional engineer is seldom accurate. It is not that they are bad people or that they are incompetent, it is, I believe, because they seem to only see the houses in black and white while these old ladies are very, very grey.
This same engineering firm recently told a client that a house was never built to support a clay tile roof and that the garage needed to be re-framed to handle the clay tile roof it has. This potentially either chased off a prospective buyer due to possible added costs or insured a lost historical feature would never be returned to the house. The facts are that the main house had a tile roof for over 80 years and the garage is in great shape and has been supporting it's roof just fine for the last 100 plus years or so since it had been built. I'm sure it was not purposefully deceptive but rather that the engineer failed to understand the strength of the old materials and how the construction was done then.
We had an engineer do the load calculations on a large old beam on a Springfield project. As it turned out, even with 30% or so of the beam eaten away, it was still more than double the strength needed to do it's job. That saved a lot of work and money for the client. Unfortunately, the engineer also told the client that all of the stucco would have to be removed, the structure totally sheathed and the stucco done to current code. The former shows the value of a professional engineer but the latter shows that they do not understand the codes that deal with the historic structures. There is no requirement to bring a historic structure to 100% of current code.
In this last report for the house Ionia, the wrong codes are being quoted. While the codes would be applicable to a house NOT a contributing structure within a historic district, they are not applicable to this house. The writer of this report needs to do some more homework and find the codes that actually apply here. She can start with 501 (601 in the 2014 version) and read what it has to say about what you need to do if a historic structure is considered "dangerous".
But, as I have just been informed that this demolition passed, I have to say hurrah! Now I do not have to worry about that concept that the HPC can tell a client they must put back a expensive historic feature or not use the less expensive window or door because they no longer have any credibility as a preservation commission. You can not tell a home owner it is fine to demolish a house because it is too expensive to make right ("too far gone") and turn around and tell a client he must spend thousands more to install the "right windows" or that clay tile roof that only costs three to four times a regular old roof does ($30K more).
I'm glad to see we are back to whatever a developer may want, professional engineers always write very accurate reports when they are hired expressly to get a house demolished and that staff agrees that demolition is OK again. Let's keep up with the current one contributing structure every month demolished since we have been a historic district. Heck, half the people here didn't even know Ionia was part of the historic district so why worry that it is heading for a 45% loss of historic housing stock. We need more empty lots. After all, we only have about 200 of them now and at four or five new houses built a year, we'll run out of them before we know it.
Years ago, a developer/ savor of Historic Springfield said the way to save a historic district is to demolish all the ugly old houses and build new ones. And the last Springfield resident that was on the HPC said about ten years ago that all the house worth rehabbing had been done already. Happy days are here again!
Sometimes it is just so hard to remember that a Historic District exists as does the HPC to preserve and protect the houses for future generations.
Quote from: strider on September 23, 2015, 04:59:51 PM
In my 15 years experience as a contractor in Historic Springfield, I can tell you that a complete house evaluation by a professional engineer is seldom accurate. It is not that they are bad people or that they are incompetent, it is, I believe, because they seem to only see the houses in black and white while these old ladies are very, very grey.
You are making a pretty bold blanket statement about all professional engineers and if you feel they don't have a good handle on historic homes maybe you are dealing with the wrong engineers. If you feel you are right and the engineer is wrong you can always get a second or third opinion from another engineer. The reports are seldom accurate? How do you know they are not accurate? Have you done analysis yourself to find they are wrong? Look I don't necessarily agree with her conclusion that it is pointless to repair the house because I don't think that's her place as an engineer to make that call, and pretty much anything that is still standing with most of the framing in place is repairable, it's just a matter of cost. There are other creative solutions as well. But to make a statement that we engineers are naive and only see things in black and white and aren't very accurate in our analysis and reporting is very very naive in itself my friend. I haven't been to the house and walked through it but typically evaluation reports include methods of investigation, findings from investigation, analysis performed, results from structural analysis and conclusions. If repairs are required there is usually a general description of a repair plan or plans, maybe several options but not too in depth unless the engineer is hired to do a comprehensive repair plan (which many times is the next step). That is what was lacking from hers, not sure why, she just said repairs would be too expensive (usually the client determines that). I've written reports describing general repair options that were cheap, moderately expensive and up to very very expensive that we knew the owner would not do but we still typically include all the options. If you're not getting these kind of reports that are detailed and helpful and make sense even if it is something you don't want to hear (and especially if you the contractor are finding errors in their reports) then I suggest you find new engineers to work with.
This same engineering firm recently told a client that a house was never built to support a clay tile roof and that the garage needed to be re-framed to handle the clay tile roof it has. This potentially either chased off a prospective buyer due to possible added costs or insured a lost historical feature would never be returned to the house. The facts are that the main house had a tile roof for over 80 years and the garage is in great shape and has been supporting it's roof just fine for the last 100 plus years or so since it had been built. I'm sure it was not purposefully deceptive but rather that the engineer failed to understand the strength of the old materials and how the construction was done then.
Again, if you think they don't understand the materials they are dealing with then find new engineers. That should not be a problem with a good experienced engineer. I'm not sure from what you stated why they were even looking at the roof unless there was a change of use or it was proposed to support additional loads so I can't really comment on that.
We had an engineer do the load calculations on a large old beam on a Springfield project. As it turned out, even with 30% or so of the beam eaten away, it was still more than double the strength needed to do it's job. That saved a lot of work and money for the client. Unfortunately, the engineer also told the client that all of the stucco would have to be removed, the structure totally sheathed and the stucco done to current code. The former shows the value of a professional engineer but the latter shows that they do not understand the codes that deal with the historic structures. There is no requirement to bring a historic structure to 100% of current code.
Was the stucco in poor condition? Was it unsafe, ie cracking, spalling dangerously so that it could potentially be a hazard and he had to raise the flag? If it wasn't I'm not sure why a structural engineer was even commenting on the stucco since that is not a structural element. It is part of the building envelope that is typically handled by an architect. But again, you mention with absolute certainty that we engineers know nothing about codes that deal with historic structures. That is part of the engineer's job to be, or become, familiar with these codes so if the ones you are working with are not, FIND NEW ENGINEERS!!! The good ones may be a little more expensive (because they are busy and clients keep hiring and re-hiring them, because they are good) but in the end typically worth it.
I'm glad to see we are back to whatever a developer may want, professional engineers always write very accurate reports when they are hired expressly to get a house demolished and that staff agrees that demolition is OK again.
I'm not sure if you are suggesting that we formulate our results and professional opinions based on client desires but if so that is not true in the slightest for us responsible engineers abiding by the code of ethics. You can get your license taken away for that sort of unethical practice and do you know how hard it is to get it back? Sure there are some bad apples but I've never knowingly come across any that just come to their evaluation of existing structures conclusions based on what the client wants to hear. That is very bad practice and will get you in trouble.
My conclusion . . . you need to find new engineers to work with if you think they are not accurate and are misleading yourself and your clients. Keep in mind, licensed engineers study engineering for 4 years, typically 5 at the undergraduate level, then typically a master's degree, they have to pass the 8 hour long FE exam which covers every aspect of engineering you learn at the undergraduate level, you then have to practice for 4 years minimum as a structural engineer under a licensed structural engineer in order to take the PE exam to get your license. The PE used to be 8 hours but is now essentially the same thing as the old SE exam and is two days and 16 hours long and has somewhere around a 25% passing rate for first time takers depending on which sections you're taking. I have worked with Ivy League graduates who have failed it multiple times, some who have never passed. The old structural PE was easier but still an immense amount of information to know and no easy task. My point is, it is difficult and is a long process to become a licensed structural engineer so most of them are a little bit more than some community college grad living with their parents that somehow found themselves evaluating historic homes. There are many good engineers out there that are plenty smart enough figure out what needs to be done to an existing building whether it's repairs or nothing at all so shop around and go back to the ones that you feel do a good, complete and accurate job.
Another senseless demo. SOS would save it, but not given the opportunity. Why can't he just buy up an existing vacant lot? There are plenty to choose from. These engineers do not appear to be qualified to evaluate historic homes.
Quote from: mbwright on September 24, 2015, 08:23:59 AM
Another senseless demo. SOS would save it, but not given the opportunity. Why can't he just buy up an existing vacant lot? There are plenty to choose from. These engineers do not appear to be qualified to evaluate historic homes.
Baker Klein is qualified to do this work. Not sure what happened on this one, if they were overly conservative or justified in their conclusions. Can't really get the whole story from just the photos for those of us who haven't been in the home.
CCMjax, thanks for your response. I believe you make good points. There was no real report provided. There was no testing conducted (I was present during the engineer's 2nd inspection). There was no structural assessment conducted at all. The letter is written as though the author is the owner who wants to tear the building down.
QuoteFurther detailed analysis and accurate design value determination for a scenario similar to this structure (and the amount of structure anticipated to remain) is not typically feasible or practical for any individual to hire someone to calculate, unless there are un-limited funds available or the owner has the experience and knowledge to do it themselves. Therefore, in general, the public typically relies upon an educated and experienced professional to provide their personal opinion of the structure without detailed and investigative analysis, calculation, or detailing. I believe this letter/report clearly provides to the commission Baker Klein's opinion of the condition of the main gravity and lateral load-resistance systems.
In fact, she said to me during our inspection, "If the owner wants to pay me to do a structural analysis on it, I might, I might not. At this point he probably needs to find somebody else." I relayed this to the HPC commissioners as an admission that a full analysis was not done and they ignored it. Last night was a tremendous disappointment by body appointed to protect our historic fabric. Jennifer Mansfield was the only one who voted NAY. Perhaps it's time to put folks on this commission that will do the job they were appointed to do.
CCMjax, if Preservation SOS is afforded the opportunity to assess this structure, would you be willing to do that?
Preservation SOS is currently considering an appeal of the HPC's decision to allow the demolition of this Springfield contributing structure.
(http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii36/JaxUnicorn/Ionia%201634%20Appeal%20of%20HPC%20Decision%20to%20demo.jpg)
from Facebook:
Terry Whisler: After nearly two years of no demolitions, this was a truly sad and procedurally sloppy capitulation by the Commission. I will not say every house in the District must be preserved. But this one did not meet any reasonable standard of inquiry on the part of the Commission, who has vast authority to require very detailed supporting information. Chpt 307 stipulates that the Commission shall make no decision that imposes undue financial hardship on an owner. However, no substantive demonstration of structural failure was made by our local Baker Engineering hit team. Testimony of local contractors experienced in renovation of these homes was ignored in preference to a single contractor from somewhere in South Florida who provided an inflated estimate of the cost. No real estate appraisal of renovated value was sought by the Commission. Baker's hit piece was allowed at the meeting without review by citizens in opposition to the request, (constituting a Sunshine Law violation I believe), much less meaningful review by staff or Commission members. No hearing was held on the three required points ..."First, the Commission shall determine if the owner would be entitled to a certificate of appropriateness [for demolition] without consideration of undue economic hardship [No] Second, the Commission shall determine whether the owner demonstrated an undue economic hardship ..." Houses in far worse shape have been economically renovated in far less favorable economic climates. This Commission has just mapped the pathway for any and all vulture investors to tear down the fabric of our community, and suck up the benefit of our investments even as they diminish them.
The owner circulated this petition:
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/a3c3919f-8b98-4c5b-aa27-779e46862c5e.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/a3c3919f-8b98-4c5b-aa27-779e46862c5e.jpg.html)
A direct threat to historic properties which are in need of renovation.
To CCMJax: If you'd read the thread you'd understand that "the developer" got exactly what they paid for, which was a declaration that demolishing the house was the only logical option. Maybe they really believed it. Strider's point was that the Commission failed its obligation the the District and its mission by accepting an engineer's letter of opinion that lacked credibility. Rather than balance that letter against the opposite opinion of professional contractors who know the characteristics of the old houses and the applicable code, they blindly accepted an engineer's opinion despite its obvious ignorance on these matters. The Commission has authority to require very detailed information when it comes to a claim that demolition is an appropriate fate for an historic home. This Commission failed in its duty and has created a blueprint for speculative demolition of the District to recommence. Shame on them.
Quote from: whislert on September 24, 2015, 10:42:20 AM
To CCMJax: If you'd read the thread you'd understand that "the developer" got exactly what they paid for, which was a declaration that demolishing the house was the only logical option. Maybe they really believed it. Strider's point was that the Commission failed its obligation the the District and its mission by accepting an engineer's letter of opinion that lacked credibility. Rather than balance that letter against the opposite opinion of professional contractors who know the characteristics of the old houses and the applicable code, they blindly accepted an engineer's opinion despite its obvious ignorance on these matters. The Commission has authority to require very detailed information when it comes to a claim that demolition is an appropriate fate for an historic home. This Commission failed in its duty and has created a blueprint for speculative demolition of the District to recommence. Shame on them.
The owner paid a small fee and got a small fee response from the engineer from the looks of it, just so happened that the response heavily favored what he was hoping for, although the letter (not really a report) did have an odd tone to it coming from an engineer and I thought made suggestions that aren't really up to the engineer. A more detailed analysis could have been done but at an additional cost which is where the commission I guess would come in to require the owner to do. What I stated before was that I agree there should have been a more detailed description of potential repair options without going too in depth so the commission, owner and others could understand what it would take to bring it to a safe condition.
Quote from: CCMjax on September 24, 2015, 11:10:40 AM
Quote from: whislert on September 24, 2015, 10:42:20 AM
To CCMJax: If you'd read the thread you'd understand that "the developer" got exactly what they paid for, which was a declaration that demolishing the house was the only logical option. Maybe they really believed it. Strider's point was that the Commission failed its obligation the the District and its mission by accepting an engineer's letter of opinion that lacked credibility. Rather than balance that letter against the opposite opinion of professional contractors who know the characteristics of the old houses and the applicable code, they blindly accepted an engineer's opinion despite its obvious ignorance on these matters. The Commission has authority to require very detailed information when it comes to a claim that demolition is an appropriate fate for an historic home. This Commission failed in its duty and has created a blueprint for speculative demolition of the District to recommence. Shame on them.
The owner paid a small fee and got a small fee response from the engineer from the looks of it, just so happened that the response heavily favored what he was hoping for, although the letter (not really a report) did have an odd tone to it coming from an engineer and I thought made suggestions that aren't really up to the engineer. A more detailed analysis could have been done but at an additional cost which is where the commission I guess would come in to require the owner to do. What I stated before was that I agree there should have been a more detailed description of potential repair options without going too in depth so the commission, owner and others could understand what it would take to bring it to a safe condition.
CCMjax, would you be willing to perform a true assessment of the property should we be allowed access? What does something like that cost? I'd appreciate the opportunity to discuss this issue with you personally. My number is 904-465-1555. Thanks.
Quote from: CCMjax on September 24, 2015, 12:18:49 AM
Quote from: strider on September 23, 2015, 04:59:51 PM
In my 15 years experience as a contractor in Historic Springfield, I can tell you that a complete house evaluation by a professional engineer is seldom accurate. It is not that they are bad people or that they are incompetent, it is, I believe, because they seem to only see the houses in black and white while these old ladies are very, very grey.
You are making a pretty bold blanket statement about all professional engineers and if you feel they don't have a good handle on historic homes maybe you are dealing with the wrong engineers. If you feel you are right and the engineer is wrong you can always get a second or third opinion from another engineer. The reports are seldom accurate? How do you know they are not accurate? Have you done analysis yourself to find they are wrong? Look I don't necessarily agree with her conclusion that it is pointless to repair the house because I don't think that's her place as an engineer to make that call, and pretty much anything that is still standing with most of the framing in place is repairable, it's just a matter of cost. There are other creative solutions as well. But to make a statement that we engineers are naive and only see things in black and white and aren't very accurate in our analysis and reporting is very very naive in itself my friend. I haven't been to the house and walked through it but typically evaluation reports include methods of investigation, findings from investigation, analysis performed, results from structural analysis and conclusions. If repairs are required there is usually a general description of a repair plan or plans, maybe several options but not too in depth unless the engineer is hired to do a comprehensive repair plan (which many times is the next step). That is what was lacking from hers, not sure why, she just said repairs would be too expensive (usually the client determines that). I've written reports describing general repair options that were cheap, moderately expensive and up to very very expensive that we knew the owner would not do but we still typically include all the options. If you're not getting these kind of reports that are detailed and helpful and make sense even if it is something you don't want to hear (and especially if you the contractor are finding errors in their reports) then I suggest you find new engineers to work with.
This same engineering firm recently told a client that a house was never built to support a clay tile roof and that the garage needed to be re-framed to handle the clay tile roof it has. This potentially either chased off a prospective buyer due to possible added costs or insured a lost historical feature would never be returned to the house. The facts are that the main house had a tile roof for over 80 years and the garage is in great shape and has been supporting it's roof just fine for the last 100 plus years or so since it had been built. I'm sure it was not purposefully deceptive but rather that the engineer failed to understand the strength of the old materials and how the construction was done then.
Again, if you think they don't understand the materials they are dealing with then find new engineers. That should not be a problem with a good experienced engineer. I'm not sure from what you stated why they were even looking at the roof unless there was a change of use or it was proposed to support additional loads so I can't really comment on that.
We had an engineer do the load calculations on a large old beam on a Springfield project. As it turned out, even with 30% or so of the beam eaten away, it was still more than double the strength needed to do it's job. That saved a lot of work and money for the client. Unfortunately, the engineer also told the client that all of the stucco would have to be removed, the structure totally sheathed and the stucco done to current code. The former shows the value of a professional engineer but the latter shows that they do not understand the codes that deal with the historic structures. There is no requirement to bring a historic structure to 100% of current code.
Was the stucco in poor condition? Was it unsafe, ie cracking, spalling dangerously so that it could potentially be a hazard and he had to raise the flag? If it wasn't I'm not sure why a structural engineer was even commenting on the stucco since that is not a structural element. It is part of the building envelope that is typically handled by an architect. But again, you mention with absolute certainty that we engineers know nothing about codes that deal with historic structures. That is part of the engineer's job to be, or become, familiar with these codes so if the ones you are working with are not, FIND NEW ENGINEERS!!! The good ones may be a little more expensive (because they are busy and clients keep hiring and re-hiring them, because they are good) but in the end typically worth it.
I'm glad to see we are back to whatever a developer may want, professional engineers always write very accurate reports when they are hired expressly to get a house demolished and that staff agrees that demolition is OK again.
I'm not sure if you are suggesting that we formulate our results and professional opinions based on client desires but if so that is not true in the slightest for us responsible engineers abiding by the code of ethics. You can get your license taken away for that sort of unethical practice and do you know how hard it is to get it back? Sure there are some bad apples but I've never knowingly come across any that just come to their evaluation of existing structures conclusions based on what the client wants to hear. That is very bad practice and will get you in trouble.
My conclusion . . . you need to find new engineers to work with if you think they are not accurate and are misleading yourself and your clients. Keep in mind, licensed engineers study engineering for 4 years, typically 5 at the undergraduate level, then typically a master's degree, they have to pass the 8 hour long FE exam which covers every aspect of engineering you learn at the undergraduate level, you then have to practice for 4 years minimum as a structural engineer under a licensed structural engineer in order to take the PE exam to get your license. The PE used to be 8 hours but is now essentially the same thing as the old SE exam and is two days and 16 hours long and has somewhere around a 25% passing rate for first time takers depending on which sections you're taking. I have worked with Ivy League graduates who have failed it multiple times, some who have never passed. The old structural PE was easier but still an immense amount of information to know and no easy task. My point is, it is difficult and is a long process to become a licensed structural engineer so most of them are a little bit more than some community college grad living with their parents that somehow found themselves evaluating historic homes. There are many good engineers out there that are plenty smart enough figure out what needs to be done to an existing building whether it's repairs or nothing at all so shop around and go back to the ones that you feel do a good, complete and accurate job.
My fifteen years experience with historic houses gives me the right to state that. Note I did not call the engineers bad or incompetent, but simply inexperienced with old houses. For instance, if you never deal with the codes for historic houses, you don't know where to find them and if your scope of work from a client is to help them demolish a house and the regular codes help you do that, are you going to look up the other codes that will make it harder to do the job you were hired to do?
Professional engineers have their place. I simply have yet to find one that has the proper experience to deal with everything they have to consider with these old houses. Maybe they think the actual codes are wrong and they are right. Maybe they just don't want to take the time to learn otherwise. I don't know. I do know that every time a professional engineer gets too involved with a old house project, they often cost the home owner more time, money and trouble than truly required. Take the stucco case I mentioned. He thought the building met the code requirement that the entire building had to brought up to current code. Not the case, the contributing structures are exempt from that, especially if the building has been deemed dangerous. Rather, you can repair the stucco in the old way. Which is better for the building and the owner? A $10,00.00 repair or a $200,000.00 one he can not afford nor leaves very much of the historic building and it's features intact? Or how about the time the MCCD condemned a building that the owner had removed most of the support on one corner of the house. The city hired professional engineer agreed with the MCCD inspector (himself supposedly a professional engineer) that they could simply take off the porch and leave the rest of the house. As a contractor familiar with basic construction, I had to inform them both that to do that would take down the entire house as it was under one structural roof. The profession engineer changed her tune as did the MCCD guy eventually. By the way, we were able to quickly brace and eventually repair the issue without demolishing any part of the house.
I have been lucky enough to have an architect that was willing to learn about the old houses and he has professional engineers that work with him when we need something above his capabilities. A good architect and access to a good professional engineer is a requirement, especially today when an old 6x6 is twice as strong as it needs to be but a new one is not up to the task. We need to engineer different materials to get the job done. But the job can get done and done in a manor that preserves the old structures and does not advocate their destruction nor increases the cost unnecessarily to make them too costly to restore.
The issue is not ability nor education, but experience. Sometimes ego and dollars get in the way of good people doing the right thing. In this case, we have an engineer that we did not hire, who thinks she understand the old houses more than she does and was hired to insure the house came down not to restore it.
CCMJax, if you think you can provide the expertise we need here, PM me and we can talk.
No, the engineer is a very nice person, and I think is generally conscientious. She was concerned enough when she found out we were opposing the demo that she actually did a walkthrough with Kim (who you just got done telling doesn't know wtf she's talking about above) to explain her position. Which is basically that there was evidence of a fire and as a result she presumes the structure is compromised and issued a demo recc.
Kim asked her the basis for her recommendation, and her initial response was that ribbon board was compromised. Kim asked her how she knew that, since most of it is hidden behind the still in-place ceilings (which sort of indicates if the ceilings aren't damaged how is the stuff behind it damaged?), and whether she'd actually looked above the ceilings. She said no.
Kim asked her whether she'd gone upstairs, and she admitted she hadn't walked upstairs to look at anything until she was there doing the walkthrough with Kim. Kim then asked her how she could know that parts of the structure that she hadn't even looked at were compromised, and she said basically that there was a fire and she was assuming they were.
Well okay. I don't consider that an adequate structural assessment, and neither should the HPC. It's an assumption about something that could have been readily determined one way or the other, but wasn't. There is kind of a bad and lengthy history with people being able to basically buy whatever engineering recommendation they want with minimal factual support, and although normally it's MCCD doing, in this case it's an investor who wants the land. But regardless, the facts to support this, in our opinion anyway, aren't there. We don't just make this stuff up, and we don't oppose every demolition in the city, give me a break. This one is actually not warranted on these facts.
Quote from: Apache on September 24, 2015, 11:55:18 AM
So...this engineering firm, that is located in Springfield, and according to their website, participated in some way in the renovation of the Brewster Hospital, Liberty Street Warehouse, and according to the Firms owner, many other historic properties, are a bunch of hacks that don't have the experience to report on historic structures and can be bought for bogus reports when needed. Because PSOS' opinion is different. Oh and Wayne Wood something or other...
Got it. Note to self don't use this engineering firm. Because.
They are not hacks. I need to apolgize if that was the total impression I was giving. Nor was I only talking about them. In general, they and most other professional engineers seem to lack the experience and/ or choose not to take the time to get better informed on the particular situation caused by these old houses, based on my personal experience, to have a well prepared overall opinion on these houses. Overall, professional engineers seem better suited to work on larger projects; just about everything on a residential house can be handled by a qualified architect.
Of course, in most cases, they are only going to do what they are hired to do. Perfectly ethical to do that and nothing more. Take from that what you will.
Perhaps I can explain in a better way. I do believe some professional engineers only see in Black and White in regards to these old houses. That is how it appears at least. And yet, until you get one to actually do calculations on one beam, the real picture of greys are not seen by them. You look at a damaged beam and the black and white says, it needs replaced. The reality is that it calculates out to be more than strong enough the way it is. You look at the same calculations on a new 8x12 SYP beam and see it isn't as strong as the old damaged one. The grey of the replace like with like codes we repair these houses by. I think this house on Ionia was looked at in a black and white manor and no chance was given to find the grey. To show that even with damage, it was strong enough to stand for many, many years to come.
But that is the engineering part of this equation and it was not the biggest. The final reason this house is going to come down is cost. If the staff and HPC is now allowing demolitions due to the cost of rehab (which is dependent upon the condition of the building), then they ethically can not force what roof, windows or doors to use regardless of cost. They can not ethically force a $75,00.00 roof when a $10,000.00 one still protects the structure.
Is vinyl siding on it's way to Springfield?
Quote from: strider on September 24, 2015, 12:38:26 PM
Quote from: Apache on September 24, 2015, 11:55:18 AM
So...this engineering firm, that is located in Springfield, and according to their website, participated in some way in the renovation of the Brewster Hospital, Liberty Street Warehouse, and according to the Firms owner, many other historic properties, are a bunch of hacks that don't have the experience to report on historic structures and can be bought for bogus reports when needed. Because PSOS' opinion is different. Oh and Wayne Wood something or other...
Got it. Note to self don't use this engineering firm. Because.
They are not hacks. I need to apolgize if that was the total impression I was giving. Nor was I only talking about them. In general, they and most other professional engineers seem to lack the experience and/ or choose not to take the time to get better informed on the particular situation caused by these old houses, based on my personal experience, to have a well prepared overall opinion on these houses. Overall, professional engineers seem better suited to work on larger projects; just about everything on a residential house can be handled by a qualified architect.
Of course, in most cases, they are only going to do what they are hired to do. Perfectly ethical to do that and nothing more. Take from that what you will.
Perhaps I can explain in a better way. I do believe some professional engineers only see in Black and White in regards to these old houses. That is how it appears at least. And yet, until you get one to actually do calculations on one beam, the real picture of greys are not seen by them. You look at a damaged beam and the black and white says, it needs replaced. The reality is that it calculates out to be more than strong enough the way it is. You look at the same calculations on a new 8x12 SYP beam and see it isn't as strong as the old damaged one. The grey of the replace like with like codes we repair these houses by. I think this house on Ionia was looked at in a black and white manor and no chance was given to find the grey. To show that even with damage, it was strong enough to stand for many, many years to come.
But that is the engineering part of this equation and it was not the biggest. The final reason this house is going to come down is cost. If the staff and HPC is now allowing demolitions due to the cost of rehab (which is dependent upon the condition of the building), then they ethically can not force what roof, windows or doors to use regardless of cost. They can not ethically force a $75,00.00 roof when a $10,000.00 one still protects the structure.
Is vinyl siding on it's way to Springfield?
You are absolutely right in that most single family residential stuff can be handled by a qualified architect, if there isn't some question about structural integrity that needs to be signed off on by a registered engineer. Most engineering companies typically stay away from existing single family homes because of this reason and usually it is not worth their time because the fees are very low that the owner is willing to pay. You are right, the bigger stuff pays better and covers their costs. Better to do an investigation of the Trio or the Armory down the street than to address single family homes. Something big that an architect would not be qualified to take on by themselves. Take Baker Klein for instance, she even said to Kim that if the owner paid her more she may do a more thorough investigation and/or analysis. She was probably paid peanuts to do what she did and the results show that, lots of general statements without a lot of analysis.
Quote from: Apache on September 24, 2015, 02:03:50 PM
Quote from: stephendare on September 24, 2015, 12:28:18 PM
Quote from: Apache on September 24, 2015, 11:55:18 AM
So...this engineering firm, that is located in Springfield, and according to their website, participated in some way in the renovation of the Brewster Hospital, Liberty Street Warehouse, and according to the Firms owner, many other historic properties, are a bunch of hacks that don't have the experience to report on historic structures and can be bought for bogus reports when needed. Because PSOS' opinion is different. Oh and Wayne Wood something or other...
Got it. Note to self don't use this engineering firm. Because.
You seem so sensible on other issues. I wonder why your default position on historic preservation is so asinine.
I object to your description of me!
First, I will admit, my views on this issue have changed over time due to the info on this site. I was a "property owners rights" guy and didn't really understand Historic Designation. I'm still not a save every one guy as I've stated often, but I respect what PSOS does, especially since it's largely volunteer work and I applaud them for being fervent in their cause.
But I chime in on these issues because I think a few are overly dramatic in their views/opinions. I think that hurts their cause. I know they don't care what anonymous me thinks regarding their drama, thats just to explain why I opine on it.
In this case, my point was, I was surprised at how this Springfield business woman was being not so subtly disparaged in this public forum. Strider clearly states he's not saying she's incompetent, then goes on to cite examples (garage roof example) of how she is incompetent. Someone relayed a facebook post from yet someone else calling the firm a hit squad and the report a hit piece, inferring a lack of professional integrity. Chris also said she is nice, but goes on to describe thoroughly how she didn't do a good job. And others have inferred that this particular firm simply created report to the owners direction, inferring that she was bought.
Maybe this isn't a company to do business with, but if you are going to disparage her company on a public site, own it.
Again, for the record, I dig the old houses and have learned quite a bit from these conversations.
Nobody is trying, or wants, to disparage anybody. The facts are the facts.
So I guess let me ask you: What do you want us to call an engineering report & recc.'s that recommends demolition of a contributing structure in a national historic district by just assuming portions of the structure that the engineer readily admits that she never looked at are damaged?
For what it's worth, I'll give her honesty points here, because she flat-out stated that if she'd been paid more money to do a full assessment then she would have done it. So we're not saying she's dishonest, or incompetent, or a bad engineer. She's not.
What we're saying is that this report, which is self-admittedly opinion without any real assessment (not because she's a bad engineer...but because that's all the guy who ordered it paid for), is not, and should not, be sufficient to demolish a contributing historic structure in a national historic district. Pointing this out is not the same thing as personally attacking the engineer.
How is Springfield represented on the Historic Preservation Commission?
It's not.
There's actually folks attacking the professional engineer? The idea of the engineer putting their credibility and license on the line to demo a $8,000 house is absurd.
This thread is officially in la-la land.
As the body that has been charged with protecting the historic districts in Jacksonville the Historic Planning Commission could require, as part of the application for demolition, numerically based analysis from professionals and require access be provided for professionals representing the opposing opinion. Additionally, owners who are represented by professionals will prevail as long as the historic district has no comparable representation. As long as the standard set by the commission is a stamped letter from an engineer vs the opinions of a few distant neighbors the professional opinion will prevail. There has not been a demolition in over 2 years, this is the opening salvo. There are about 200 houses in Springfield on the condemned list. As of now all you have to do is buy one of them, spend a few hundred on letters and a COA application and you can demolish it. If this community doesn't band together and refuse to allow this - it will happen.
Absolutely amgood! Last night's HPC decision set a precedent that will literally kill Springfield, and could have far-reaching negative impact on our other historic districts. This needs to stop. Our City MUST protect our historic districts. As I posted earlier, Preservation SOS is considering our appeal options. We must...for the sake of the remaining structures that others deem "ugly".
Quote from: JaxUnicorn on September 24, 2015, 04:13:59 PM
Absolutely amgood! Last night's HPC decision set a precedent that will literally kill Springfield, and could have far-reaching negative impact on our other historic districts. This needs to stop. Our City MUST protect our historic districts. As I posted earlier, Preservation SOS is considering our appeal options. We must...for the sake of the remaining structures that others deem "ugly".
It's unlikely to spread to other historic districts for at least four reasons.
1.) The other historic districts were built after Springfield so brick and stone was used as a construction material. These houses stood up to the wet and humid Florida climate much better than the 100% wood frame homes in Springfield.
2.) The other historic districts have a much higher percentage of owner occupied homes. Owners tend to treat their homes better than renters. Whole blocks of Springfield are owned by slum lords. Just pull up the property records.
3.) The other historic districts respect their residents and refuse to allow self serving groups such as SPAR hold sway on the functioning of their communities. Real owners that live in their homes want to live in these neighborhoods. Springfield isn't even on the radar screen due to SPAR.
4.) The other historic districts were never abandoned and written off as lost causes. Many of these 200 condemned homes in Springfield have broken windows so every time it rains they rot away more and more. Not to mention they haven't been air conditioned in the last decade and have mold and termite damage to the point of being very undesirable.
Springfield isn't the only historic neighborhood in town, the ultra preservationists need to wake up. Jacksonville is on the rebound and if Springfield is going to participate in the recovery it's needs to be more friendly to folks trying to make a difference. 'Saving' a rotted out home from demolition is a false economy. Nobody is ever going to restore that home on Ionia. It's just going to rot more and more, driving away decent folks and allowing the slum lords and SPAR to maintain their stranglehold.
Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on September 24, 2015, 09:44:53 PM
Quote from: JaxUnicorn on September 24, 2015, 04:13:59 PM
Absolutely amgood! Last night's HPC decision set a precedent that will literally kill Springfield, and could have far-reaching negative impact on our other historic districts. This needs to stop. Our City MUST protect our historic districts. As I posted earlier, Preservation SOS is considering our appeal options. We must...for the sake of the remaining structures that others deem "ugly".
It's unlikely to spread to other historic districts for at least four reasons.
1.) The other historic districts were built after Springfield so brick and stone was used as a construction material. These houses stood up to the wet and humid Florida climate much better than the 100% wood frame homes in Springfield.
2.) The other historic districts have a much higher percentage of owner occupied homes. Owners tend to treat their homes better than renters. Whole blocks of Springfield are owned by slum lords. Just pull up the property records.
3.) The other historic districts respect their residents and refuse to allow self serving groups such as SPAR hold sway on the functioning of their communities. Real owners that live in their homes want to live in these neighborhoods. Springfield isn't even on the radar screen due to SPAR.
4.) The other historic districts were never abandoned and written off as lost causes. Many of these 200 condemned homes in Springfield have broken windows so every time it rains they rot away more and more. Not to mention they haven't been air conditioned in the last decade and have mold and termite damage to the point of being very undesirable.
Springfield isn't the only historic neighborhood in town, the ultra preservationists need to wake up. Jacksonville is on the rebound and if Springfield is going to participate in the recovery it's needs to be more friendly to folks trying to make a difference. 'Saving' a rotted out home from demolition is a false economy. Nobody is ever going to restore that home on Ionia. It's just going to rot more and more, driving away decent folks and allowing the slum lords and SPAR to maintain their stranglehold.
We offered to accept it as a donation. We had a buyer offer to buy for the price purchased. The owner would have none of it. So I disagree. SOS has not lost a house yet we owned. They all remain standing. EVERY house we owned is either fixed/restored with its CO or in the active permit process to habitability. One is listed on the MLS for sale. We put $50,000 back into the tax system as the sale of our homes were for the back taxes only. And we are 100% volunteer with no private or city or anything funding. Grassroots crazy ass preservationists, however you wish to describe us. Disagree with what we do and how we do it, but it works.
The greater concern is what has been stated: the precedent set for demolition. The road has been paved and plastered with signs with this approval.
I love Ionia. I love Springfield. I love our old houses.
Save the houses.
NaldoAveKnight,
Your post is total nonsense. The very reason JAX is SO backwards is because it continues to adhere to 1970's/'80's discredited theory that demolition of historic buildings leads to revitalization. Not only is that not true, it is counterproductive to revitalization.
I guess the Bostwick building should have been torn down too?
The most preposterous thing you said was this:
'Not to mention they haven't been air conditioned in the last decade and have mold and termite damage to the point of being very undesirable.'
Do you not know that when these homes were built (and for the next 50+ years) THEY HAD NO AIR CONDITIONING????!!!! They have existed without AC for about as long as residential AC has been in common use.
Call me an "ultra preservationist" any day. As far as waking up... yes I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.
Quote from: sheclown on September 26, 2015, 09:47:14 AM
Call me an "ultra preservationist" any day. As far as waking up... yes I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.
You are
definitely not the only one!!! I'll stand right there with you any day of the week, any time of the day!
Preservation SOS is raising funds to help pay for the appeal of the HPC decision granting permission to demolish this historic contributing structure. Please consider supporting us in this effort. The appeal will cost $800 plus an additional cost for each person who spoke or wrote a letter. We anticipate the cost to be around $1000. We are using GoFundMe for this fundraising campaign..
SAVE THE HOUSES.
Respect the designation.
https://www.gofundme.com/preservationsos
Preservation SOS is a 501 (c) 3
http://www.preservationsos.org/
Update: We have raised $330 in just 24 hours. Hopefully this momentum will continue and PSOS will be able to fight the reckless demolition of our historic neighborhood.
Thank you for your support!
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/condemnedproperties.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/condemnedproperties.jpg.html)
I visited this property yesterday with a structural engineer with 10 years of experience who said he did not see anything that led him to believe this house is in any danger of collapse. He did mention bracing could be installed (relatively inexpensive) in the back to support the rear addition if that was something the owner wanted to do. Preservation SOS is continuing to gather evidence to support our appeal of the demolition approval.
10/09/15 EDIT: We did NOT enter the structure as that would be against the law. The informal visit was done at my request and we knew we would not be able to access the interior. I simply wanted to get another engineer's "take" on the stability of the structure. To fully assess the structure would require the owner's permission to enter and extensive investigation.
The first assessment letter submitted by Baker Klein was based on a visual inspection that did not include a full walk-through of the structure; they never even went upstairs!
And speaking of the appeal, thank you to everyone who has donated to this very worthy cause. So far we have raised $465 of the $1,000 it will cost to appeal the HPC's decision to allow this historic structure to be demolished. If you have not yet donated, please consider it - any amount is very much appreciated! We have one week left to file the appeal. https://www.gofundme.com/preservationsos (https://www.gofundme.com/preservationsos)
1634 Ionia thanks you and Preservation SOS thanks you! SAVE THE HOUSES!
Quote from: JaxUnicorn on October 08, 2015, 08:44:54 AM
I visited this property yesterday with a structural engineer with 10 years of experience who said he did not see anything that led him to believe this house is in any danger of collapse. He did mention bracing could be installed (relatively inexpensive) in the back to support the rear addition if that was something the owner wanted to do.
How could the structural engineer (with 10 years experience) have access to the building when there's a sign out front that clearly states "Do not enter. Unsafe structure."? So this assessment was made by walking around the perimeter of the property and he just rubbed his chin and said, "you know what, we can brace this house relatively inexpensively."
Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on October 08, 2015, 09:06:35 AM
Quote from: JaxUnicorn on October 08, 2015, 08:44:54 AM
I visited this property yesterday with a structural engineer with 10 years of experience who said he did not see anything that led him to believe this house is in any danger of collapse. He did mention bracing could be installed (relatively inexpensive) in the back to support the rear addition if that was something the owner wanted to do.
How could the structural engineer (with 10 years experience) have access to the building when there's a sign out front that clearly states "Do not enter. Unsafe structure."? So this assessment was made by walking around the perimeter of the property and he just rubbed his chin and said, "you know what, we can brace this house relatively inexpensively."
The building is standing open actually, this is a common theme we see with owner-requested demolitions, they have this tendency to start ripping out windows, leaving doors open, taking out interior bits, and then stand back and say "oh just look at this mess, this is so uneconomic to repair" when presenting their case to the city, despite the fact that they caused a good chunk of it. It's demolition-by-neglect as a strategy. After about the 4th time you run through this same pattern with people, you can sort of set your watch by it, it becomes very predictable. And this one is no different, the guy is a neighboring landowner, he wants the lot.
Regarding 'unsafe structure' warnings, obviously people disagree with that assessment, and are willing to assume the risk. In this case considering it's a bunch of contractors and an engineer in preparation for the demolition appeal, it sort of strikes me they're probably qualified to judge their risk. If the owner wants a waiver of liability I'm happy to have one signed and give it to him.
Personally I don't get your outlook on the whole thing...
If you honestly believe you should be able to take down a contributing historic structure in a national historic district because you want you want to add a pool to your house in one case, or add a garage to your property in another case, or in this case because you want the lot, and you expect your neighbors not to fight you on it, then why'd you move into the historic district in the first place? There are plenty of places on the southside where you can do whatever you want and nobody will question you. This obviously isn't that place. If this is the core of your objection, why choose to live in a historic district?
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 08, 2015, 09:52:28 AM
If you honestly believe you should be able to take down a contributing historic structure in a national historic district because you want you want to add a pool to your house in one case, or add a garage to your property in another case, or in this case because you want the lot, and you expect your neighbors not to fight you on it, then why'd you move into the historic district in the first place?
Neighbors? Really? I bet if you talked to anyone in a five house radius of 1634 and asked if the house should be removed the same answer would come back - "please tear it down!"
If there's a gem out there then buy it and restore it. Don't expect other folks to do YOUR wishes on THEIR dime.
Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on October 08, 2015, 11:16:54 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 08, 2015, 09:52:28 AM
If you honestly believe you should be able to take down a contributing historic structure in a national historic district because you want you want to add a pool to your house in one case, or add a garage to your property in another case, or in this case because you want the lot, and you expect your neighbors not to fight you on it, then why'd you move into the historic district in the first place?
Neighbors? Really? I bet if you talked to anyone in a five house radius of 1634 and asked if the house should be removed the same answer would come back - "please tear it down!"
If there's a gem out there then buy it and restore it. Don't expect other folks to do YOUR wishes on THEIR dime.
Do you think there's any room for discussion about whether, or to what extent, your "spending someone else's money" argument might go out the window when somebody decides to buy property in a national historic district, and then complain that he isn't allowed to tear it down a month later? It's not like they weren't aware of it, he bought the property subject to the designation, didn't he?
I'll admit in some other cities sometimes it gets taken to extremes. Try and paint your house a different color in Charleston, if you want to see the living breathing example of what you're talking about. It does exist, and I'll acknowledge your point. There's also the other extreme, and I think we've all met personalities like this, it's your typical "I can do whatever the hell I want" type who moves into a subdivision and then doesn't understand why the HOA is always on his ass to keep his grass cut. What did he expect.
I think this is closer to the HOA-whiner end of the spectrum than it is to Charleston or Saint Augustine end of it, where you have to petition a design review board a year in advance to paint your house. This is a contributing historic structure within a national historic district, and a guy who knows that buys it for the specific purpose of demolishing it because he wants the extra lot. This is according to the horse's mouth, by the way. He wrote an open letter to the HPC stating his reason.
Doesn't it seem like there's some middle ground in there between one group of people telling another group how to spend their money, and the the guy who buys in a gated community then bitches when he can't have his grass 4' high or park his sewage truck in the front yard?
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 08, 2015, 12:03:44 PM
Do you think there's any room for discussion about whether, or to what extent, your "spending someone else's money" argument might go out the window when somebody decides to buy property in a national historic district, and then complain that he isn't allowed to tear it down a month later? It's not like they weren't aware of it, he bought the property subject to the designation, didn't he?
While it is in a national historic district there is a huge hole in the roof, the windows are busted out, and a fire made the place unlivable. It was a crummy multi-unit rental property until the fire. The owner abandoned the property and it was sold for back taxes. This isn't the kind of place that most folks think of when the words 'national historic district' are thrown around. It's just a nasty rental property that was built a long time ago. There's nothing sweet or special about it.
However, because it's old there's certain hoops that have to be jumped through before it can be demolished. The owner jumped through those hoops. He followed the rules and is trying to clean up what is probably the roughest part of the 'national historic district'. All of a sudden a strange special interest group with a rallying cry of 'Save The Houses' is breaking the law by trespassing on the property and trying to revoke the owner's property rights and get laws bent to how they see fit.
Quote from: stephendare on October 08, 2015, 03:30:43 PM
Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on October 08, 2015, 11:16:54 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 08, 2015, 09:52:28 AM
If you honestly believe you should be able to take down a contributing historic structure in a national historic district because you want you want to add a pool to your house in one case, or add a garage to your property in another case, or in this case because you want the lot, and you expect your neighbors not to fight you on it, then why'd you move into the historic district in the first place?
Neighbors? Really? I bet if you talked to anyone in a five house radius of 1634 and asked if the house should be removed the same answer would come back - "please tear it down!"
If there's a gem out there then buy it and restore it. Don't expect other folks to do YOUR wishes on THEIR dime.
Perha[s thats why you live in san marco and don't know a damn thing about springfield?
I used to live in Springfield and know the uphill battle many good folks have fought trying to make it better. Usually they get beat down by the busybody know it alls and bail out.
"Strange special interest group" LOL I'll leave that one alone.
Myself, or my family with my help, own five properties on Ionia alone. One of those (wait for it) well within 5 houses of this said "crummy property" Another two properties (my dad living at one of these,) 6 houses away.
"Please tear it down"
No.
Save the houses.
Bet lost.
Save the Houses.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/psos%20signs.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/psos%20signs.jpg.html)
even on Ionia Street (especially on Ionia Street)
I have edited my post to add some clarity and copied the added verbiage below:
QuoteWe did NOT enter the structure as that would be against the law. The informal visit was done at my request and we knew we would not be able to access the interior. I simply wanted to get another engineer's "take" on the stability of the structure. To fully assess the structure would require the owner's permission to enter and extensive investigation.
The first assessment letter submitted by Baker Klein was based on a visual inspection that did not include a full walk-through of the structure; they never even went upstairs!
A couple of other items to note:
- The owner stated in a letter that there are no plans for the lot.
- The owner's "Written Statement of Reasoning" says it all:
QuoteI am the current owner of the property which I acquired on April 29, 2015, with the expectation that it would be town down to help erase not only the huge liability that this property possesses, but also the blight that it brings to such a wonderful community, where I recently started building a home for my family and myself. I have two children and the subject property sits about 20ft away from my new home and the subject property is in such dangerous condition that I would not allow my children to play outside near it. 1634 Ionia not only poses a great hazard to my children, but to every person who lives near, walks by or even drives by this property.
- You cannot tear down contributing homes in a nationally recognized Historic District without a fight.
- This house burned in 2010 and has been standing for 5 years with no issue. She is not listing or leaning. She simply needs someone to restore her to her original glory.
- The owner is a developer who, in addition to building a monstrous home behind this one (started over a year ago and still no siding), has submitted plans to build two additional homes near the corner of E 7th and Ionia.
- Yes, there is a hole in the roof - the rear addition. The roof of the original part of the structure is in tact and not leaking.
- At the August HPC meeting a licensed contractor offered in person to purchase the home. That offer was immediately rejected.
SAVE THE HOUSES
No plans for the lot my azz...he's a developer...he got the house cheap...lets do the math on this one lol
Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on October 08, 2015, 03:35:32 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 08, 2015, 12:03:44 PM
Do you think there's any room for discussion about whether, or to what extent, your "spending someone else's money" argument might go out the window when somebody decides to buy property in a national historic district, and then complain that he isn't allowed to tear it down a month later? It's not like they weren't aware of it, he bought the property subject to the designation, didn't he?
While it is in a national historic district there is a huge hole in the roof, the windows are busted out, and a fire made the place unlivable. It was a crummy multi-unit rental property until the fire. The owner abandoned the property and it was sold for back taxes. This isn't the kind of place that most folks think of when the words 'national historic district' are thrown around. It's just a nasty rental property that was built a long time ago. There's nothing sweet or special about it.
However, because it's old there's certain hoops that have to be jumped through before it can be demolished. The owner jumped through those hoops. He followed the rules and is trying to clean up what is probably the roughest part of the 'national historic district'. All of a sudden a strange special interest group with a rallying cry of 'Save The Houses' is breaking the law by trespassing on the property and trying to revoke the owner's property rights and get laws bent to how they see fit.
You do realize (or do you?) that virtually EVERY house in Springfield was in a very similar condition at one point or another, usually for many years if not decades. This includes the ones that are fully restored today and fully functional and beautiful. The same can be said for the vast majority of historic houses in Charleston and Savannah. Ditto for certain sections of Riverside and San Marco. Mount Vernon was actually in terrible condition at one point as well, before being saved.
You simply have no understanding of this issue. Whatsoever.
Quote from: vicupstate on October 09, 2015, 04:19:10 PM
Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on October 08, 2015, 03:35:32 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 08, 2015, 12:03:44 PM
Do you think there's any room for discussion about whether, or to what extent, your "spending someone else's money" argument might go out the window when somebody decides to buy property in a national historic district, and then complain that he isn't allowed to tear it down a month later? It's not like they weren't aware of it, he bought the property subject to the designation, didn't he?
While it is in a national historic district there is a huge hole in the roof, the windows are busted out, and a fire made the place unlivable. It was a crummy multi-unit rental property until the fire. The owner abandoned the property and it was sold for back taxes. This isn't the kind of place that most folks think of when the words 'national historic district' are thrown around. It's just a nasty rental property that was built a long time ago. There's nothing sweet or special about it.
However, because it's old there's certain hoops that have to be jumped through before it can be demolished. The owner jumped through those hoops. He followed the rules and is trying to clean up what is probably the roughest part of the 'national historic district'. All of a sudden a strange special interest group with a rallying cry of 'Save The Houses' is breaking the law by trespassing on the property and trying to revoke the owner's property rights and get laws bent to how they see fit.
You do realize (or do you?) that virtually EVERY house in Springfield was in a very similar condition at one point or another, usually for many years if not decades. This includes the ones that are fully restored today and fully functional and beautiful. The same can be said for the vast majority of historic houses in Charleston and Savannah. Ditto for certain sections of Riverside and San Marco. Mount Vernon was actually in terrible condition at one point as well, before being saved.
You simply have no understanding of this issue. Whatsoever.
Well said! Below is another example of what can be done when these homes are given the chance to stand and be restored.
(http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a474/kimpryor67/62309f0a-5e88-4bea-a816-fa093bbf8853_zpsmxsyyzgj.jpg)
As relayed earlier in this thread, the Historic Preservation Commission approved the owner-requested demolition COA 15-606. As we also communicated, today Preservation SOS filed the appeal of COA 15-606. A copy of the appeal is below. The appeal should be introduced to City Council in November. We appreciate all community support in our effort to save this historic structure.
(http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a474/kimpryor67/Ionia%201634%20HPC%20Appeal%20Pg1_zpsffocigch.jpg)
(http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a474/kimpryor67/Ionia%201634%20HPC%20Appeal%20Pg2_zpsyng6g8ms.jpg)
I am in FULL SUPPORT of the Demolition of this house. Houses like this is why Historic Springfield is the only Historic area in Jacksonville that looks ran down, especially in certain areas. Furthermore its pretty sad that adults make comments on blog and blatantly lie. Not one developer nor did anyone from SOS offer to buy the property. IT NEVER HAPPENED! Only thing that was mention was it could be donated.
Someone is a little sour that their demolition is getting some opposition. ;D
Quote from: CooperJax on January 09, 2016, 02:22:23 PM
I am in FULL SUPPORT of the Demolition of this house. Houses like this is why Historic Springfield is the only Historic area in Jacksonville that looks ran down, especially in certain areas. Furthermore its pretty said that adults make comments on blog and blatantly lie. Not one developer nor did anyone from SOS offer to buy the property. IT NEVER HAPPENED! Only thing that was mention was it could be donated.
Well, there's only two historic districts in Jacksonville-your statement makes it sound like there's 15.
My feeling is that if you don't like the rules of a historic district, don't invest in one.
Quote from: stephendare on January 09, 2016, 05:52:45 PM
Quote from: Steve on January 09, 2016, 05:46:22 PM
Quote from: CooperJax on January 09, 2016, 02:22:23 PM
I am in FULL SUPPORT of the Demolition of this house. Houses like this is why Historic Springfield is the only Historic area in Jacksonville that looks ran down, especially in certain areas. Furthermore its pretty said that adults make comments on blog and blatantly lie. Not one developer nor did anyone from SOS offer to buy the property. IT NEVER HAPPENED! Only thing that was mention was it could be donated.
Well, there's only two historic districts in Jacksonville-your statement makes it sound like there's 15.
My feeling is that if you don't like the rules of a historic district, don't invest in one.
Hello. Why is this so difficult for a certain segment of the population to wrap their minds around
But the historic district would be so much nicer if there were newer, nicer looking homes instead of the dilapidated shells that are there now.
You don't think that R/A looks the way it does because of shitty old homes, do you?
QuoteYou don't think that R/A looks the way it does because of shitty old homes, do you?
What does R/A have that springfield does not? A thriving commercial! 5-points, Park and King, Shoppes of Avondale, they all do well. Springfield needs to get with it on commercial before more owners self-implode like this instance.
Appeal hearing scheduled: LUZ Committee, Tuesday, February 2, 2016, 4:00 PM, City Council Chamber, 1st Floor City Hall, St. James Bldg, 117 W. Duval. Resolution #2015-786. Questions, Legislative services at 904-630-1404.
Quote from: CooperJax on January 09, 2016, 02:22:23 PM
I am in FULL SUPPORT of the Demolition of this house. Houses like this is why Historic Springfield is the only Historic area in Jacksonville that looks ran down, especially in certain areas. Furthermore its pretty said that adults make comments on blog and blatantly lie. Not one developer nor did anyone from SOS offer to buy the property. IT NEVER HAPPENED! Only thing that was mention was it could be donated.
Once again, as some are slower than others to get it: The only reason a Historic District is formed is for the contributing HOUSES. ALL OF THEM. If it wasn't, just a few "interesting" houses would be landmarks instead of all of them being declared landmarks. The house in question was declared a contributing structure therefore deserves all of the protections of any other landmark.
Did you know that Springfield was Jacksonville's first National Historic District? That it contains some of the oldest structures left in Jacksonville? (Thanks to the 1901 fire.) That in the 70's it was Jacksonville's intention to bulldoze everything from 1st street to 20th? That it was regular people who stopped it and have been fighting the "it's ugly, tear it down" mentality ever since? That ten years ago, condemned houses in Springfield actually brought in a higher property tax revenue that the average homesteaded house in all of Jacksonville? Springfield has had it rough and some of the houses show it. But as long as people are interested in preserving the assets of the community, we stand a chance of being the best and most valuable historic district in Jacksonville.
Yes it is pretty sad (not said) that adults find reasons to blatantly lie or perhaps just don't bother to find the real facts. No one ever said that a developer or someone from PSOS offered to buy it. It was said that someone did at the meeting and that is true.
Quote from: mtraininjax on January 10, 2016, 01:01:17 AM
QuoteYou don't think that R/A looks the way it does because of shitty old homes, do you?
What does R/A have that springfield does not? A thriving commercial! 5-points, Park and King, Shoppes of Avondale, they all do well. Springfield needs to get with it on commercial before more owners self-implode like this instance.
R/A was never as bad off as Springfield was. I think the larger houses on the river kept people more interested in it's future and I also believe that for the last couple of decades R/A had better leadership. At least the leadership was not trying to tear down house after house and they were not doing their best to control the who, what and where of it's only real commercial corridor so that their favorite developer could try to end up with all the land. And I think that is part of the issue, one commercial corridor that is a state highway that is intended to lead people from one part of Jacksonville to another efficiently and nothing else. Of course, the decisions the city made to cut off the Springfield area from downtown and the rest of Jacksonville certainly played into the loss of it's commercial base.
This latest approval of the demolition of this house implies that while it is wrong to remove a deteriorated window because it a loss of historic fabric it is now OK to take the entire house for the same reasons. With an average of one contributing historic house demolished every single month since 1985, every house left is important. Every house left must be saved or at least, every possible attempt at saving the remaining houses must be made. We have given up the right to say this house is ugly so why bother, especially on Ionia Street where we have already lost 45% of the housing stock.
Quote from: CooperJax on January 09, 2016, 02:22:23 PM
I am in FULL SUPPORT of the Demolition of this house. Houses like this is why Historic Springfield is the only Historic area in Jacksonville that looks ran down, especially in certain areas. Furthermore its pretty sad that adults make comments on blog and blatantly lie. Not one developer nor did anyone from SOS offer to buy the property. IT NEVER HAPPENED! Only thing that was mention was it could be donated.
All historic homes look run down before they are restored, no matter what neighborhood you're in. There are run down looking historic homes in San Marco, Riverside and Avondale right next to beautifully restored homes. Same thing throughout much of Springfield. If you are in favor of demolition because it is vacant and the back portion is burned out, and a credible engineer has submitted a report stating it is unsafe, then that is one thing. However, if you are in favor of it simply because it looks run down then you shouldn't be living in an historic district or even have interest in any of them.
Springfield has come a long way in the last decade and let's hope people continue to invest in restoring the old homes. But for crying out loud, Main Street is what needs the most help! How many huge vacant lots right on Main Street are there? The beautifully restored homes make people want to move to the neighborhood . . . the horribly neglected Main Street makes people think twice.
Quote from: Steve on January 09, 2016, 05:46:22 PM
Quote from: CooperJax on January 09, 2016, 02:22:23 PM
I am in FULL SUPPORT of the Demolition of this house. Houses like this is why Historic Springfield is the only Historic area in Jacksonville that looks ran down, especially in certain areas. Furthermore its pretty said that adults make comments on blog and blatantly lie. Not one developer nor did anyone from SOS offer to buy the property. IT NEVER HAPPENED! Only thing that was mention was it could be donated.
Well, there's only two historic districts in Jacksonville-your statement makes it sound like there's 15.
My feeling is that if you don't like the rules of a historic district, don't invest in one.
So Ortega and San Marco aren't historic districts? The historic district of Ortega is on the national register of historic places.
Quote from: strider on January 10, 2016, 08:38:03 AM
This latest approval of the demolition of this house implies that while it is wrong to remove a deteriorated window because it a loss of historic fabric it is now OK to take the entire house for the same reasons.
Very good point - it seems like restoring a historic building is made more difficult than simply razing the structure. That's not how it should be.
Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on January 11, 2016, 01:50:40 AM
Quote from: Steve on January 09, 2016, 05:46:22 PM
Well, there's only two historic districts in Jacksonville-your statement makes it sound like there's 15.
My feeling is that if you don't like the rules of a historic district, don't invest in one.
So Ortega and San Marco aren't historic districts? The historic district of Ortega is on the national register of historic places.
There are four National Historic Districts in Duval, Springfield, Avondale, Riverside and Old Ortega.
There are three recognized Historic Districts at the City level: Springfield, Riverside/ Avondale and St John's Quarter.
The reason most people think there are only two is the city listing. St John's Quarter is sort of an add-on to Riverside.
The oldest is Riverside at 1985 (I apparently had bad info in stating that Springfield was the oldest Nationally recognized district at 1987) and I think the newest is Ortega at 2004. As far as the city designation, St John's Quarter is probably the newest and maybe Springfield was before Riverside/ Avondale, I can't easily tell from what is on line. Springfield was designated by the City in 1991.
As you can see, it is far more complicated than one would think. In short, the National designation forms a Historic District and offers some protections and benefits. The City designation is what sets up the COA processes, ETC.
San Marco is not a Historic District but is a conservator? It follows some of the same rules but really does not have any protections for the houses.
Quote from: Gunnar on January 11, 2016, 03:27:53 AM
Quote from: strider on January 10, 2016, 08:38:03 AM
This latest approval of the demolition of this house implies that while it is wrong to remove a deteriorated window because it a loss of historic fabric it is now OK to take the entire house for the same reasons.
Very good point - it seems like restoring a historic building is made more difficult than simply razing the structure. That's not how it should be.
Yes one would think that the HPC would be more willing to work with people trying to preserve rather than destroy.
The fact that an engineer (and a reputable one) has submitted a report with very strong language stating that this is an unsafe structure in its current condition is part of what is making this one a difficult home to save.
Quote from: CCMjax on January 11, 2016, 11:28:21 AM
The fact that an engineer (and a reputable one) has submitted a report with very strong language stating that this is an unsafe structure in its current condition is part of what is making this one a difficult home to save.
Actually, it was not a report, it was a letter of opinion. No structural calculations were done as they were not asked for, as you know.
"Unsafe structure" is an easy definition to meet in Jacksonville. Broken windows, one partially damaged sill, a couple of holes in the siding, a cracked pipe, one hanging electrical wire, whatever someone wanting to call a house "unsafe" wishes to use. Unsafe refers to whether it is habitable as much as unsafe structurally. Except for in a historic district, power off for two years and it is declared unsafe and blight and can be torn down.
I believe the fact that both the owner and the engineer stated that in their opinion, only 95% of the original historic features would be left was the final excuse given for this demolition. I have issues with that statement and while others have taken houses to the loss of that much of the historic fabric (and they are still standing and being worked on), to do that means you are doing far more than you need to. Siding can be saved but it might have some amount of gator. You do not have to bring a historic house up to current code regardless of what percentage of structural work you must do. Piers can be rebuilt utilizing the original foundations. Lots of ways to keep the cost down and end up with a safe and sound historic house by simply apply the codes correctly. Most professional engineers and may contractors do not understand the codes and how they apply to a historic house. And the fact that this engineer was hired to help the owner tear down this house not save it....well, here we are.
It should not be difficult to save this house, it should have been incredibly difficult to get permission to tear it down.
Quote from: strider on January 11, 2016, 09:28:08 AM
Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on January 11, 2016, 01:50:40 AM
Quote from: Steve on January 09, 2016, 05:46:22 PM
Well, there's only two historic districts in Jacksonville-your statement makes it sound like there's 15.
My feeling is that if you don't like the rules of a historic district, don't invest in one.
So Ortega and San Marco aren't historic districts? The historic district of Ortega is on the national register of historic places.
There are four National Historic Districts in Duval, Springfield, Avondale, Riverside and Old Ortega.
There are three recognized Historic Districts at the City level: Springfield, Riverside/ Avondale and St John's Quarter.
The reason most people think there are only two is the city listing. St John's Quarter is sort of an add-on to Riverside.
The oldest is Riverside at 1985 (I apparently had bad info in stating that Springfield was the oldest Nationally recognized district at 1987) and I think the newest is Ortega at 2004. As far as the city designation, St John's Quarter is probably the newest and maybe Springfield was before Riverside/ Avondale, I can't easily tell from what is on line. Springfield was designated by the City in 1991.
As you can see, it is far more complicated than one would think. In short, the National designation forms a Historic District and offers some protections and benefits. The City designation is what sets up the COA processes, ETC.
San Marco is not a Historic District but is a conservator? It follows some of the same rules but really does not have any protections for the houses.
Quote from: Gunnar on January 11, 2016, 03:27:53 AM
Quote from: strider on January 10, 2016, 08:38:03 AM
This latest approval of the demolition of this house implies that while it is wrong to remove a deteriorated window because it a loss of historic fabric it is now OK to take the entire house for the same reasons.
Very good point - it seems like restoring a historic building is made more difficult than simply razing the structure. That's not how it should be.
Yes one would think that the HPC would be more willing to work with people trying to preserve rather than destroy.
Strider - So San Marco better get on the ball with a zoning overlay, neighborhood groups that fight and slander each other, and the right number of abandoned houses with no windows so it can be considered a legitimate historic area?
Seriously, the Clifton area of Jacksonville is probably older than the rest of the Jacksonville neighborhoods, going back to 1817. You never hear any drama coming out of that area over historic preservation and neighborhood groups. Even Fruit Cove has history going back to the 1700's. I'm not sure why Springfield feels that it's carrying the banner for historic preservation for the area. There's a lot history around here, and most of it is much older than Springfield.
I'm not anti-historic, it's just that the Springfield folks need to get a grip.
Quote from: strider on January 11, 2016, 05:07:21 PM
Quote from: CCMjax on January 11, 2016, 11:28:21 AM
The fact that an engineer (and a reputable one) has submitted a report with very strong language stating that this is an unsafe structure in its current condition is part of what is making this one a difficult home to save.
Actually, it was not a report, it was a letter of opinion. No structural calculations were done as they were not asked for, as you know.
Yes, I do know. Bad choice of words on my part . . . Letter of Opinion, not Report. Especially since I was the one that called Kim's attention to the fact that it was not a real report if you can remember, lol.
Quote from: stephendare on January 11, 2016, 07:54:26 PM
In fairness, it could just as easily have been san marco that a group of developers had decided it was going to demolish in order to build fake historic buildings as it was Springfield.
Well, if someone is going to get away with demolishing a historic home or building, I certainly hope they would have the decency to replace it with something that fits in with the surrounding fabric of the neighborhood and possess the quality and craftsmanship to be considered beautiful and historic 100 years from now. I think at least some of the developers are doing a decent job of that in Springfield. I don't believe I have seen any new homes in Springfield that don't look like they belong in Springfield or another traditional style neighborhood.
Quote from: stephendare on January 11, 2016, 09:03:16 PM
The thing that sucks is the empty lots. Which far outnumber the infill construction.
That seems to be the recurring story in Jax - rather than do infill construction on already empty lots, still standing buildings are torn down for actual or potential new construction. Why not start with the empty lots first ?
Quote from: CCMjax on January 11, 2016, 08:57:22 PM
Quote from: stephendare on January 11, 2016, 07:54:26 PM
In fairness, it could just as easily have been san marco that a group of developers had decided it was going to demolish in order to build fake historic buildings as it was Springfield.
Well, if someone is going to get away with demolishing a historic home or building, I certainly hope they would have the decency to replace it with something that fits in with the surrounding fabric of the neighborhood and possess the quality and craftsmanship to be considered beautiful and historic 100 years from now. I think at least some of the developers are doing a decent job of that in Springfield. I don't believe I have seen any new homes in Springfield that don't look like they belong in Springfield or another traditional style neighborhood.
In the case of this demolition, the owner has stated that there are no plans to replace the building. It becomes one more "lost tooth" on Ionia Street which has already lost 45% of the habitable structures.
Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on January 11, 2016, 07:46:59 PM
Strider - So San Marco better get on the ball with a zoning overlay, neighborhood groups that fight and slander each other, and the right number of abandoned houses with no windows so it can be considered a legitimate historic area?
Seriously, the Clifton area of Jacksonville is probably older than the rest of the Jacksonville neighborhoods, going back to 1817. You never hear any drama coming out of that area over historic preservation and neighborhood groups. Even Fruit Cove has history going back to the 1700's. I'm not sure why Springfield feels that it's carrying the banner for historic preservation for the area. There's a lot history around here, and most of it is much older than Springfield.
I'm not anti-historic, it's just that the Springfield folks need to get a grip.
Dude, you're missing a very important point here. The locally-recognized historic districts (Strider is right - St John's Quarter in the Riverside neighborhood is technically it's own district - the reason for it's distinction isn't important here) were set because of voter approval. The residents of those areas voted for protection, and it passed.
What you're saying is the equivalent of moving to a city with a voter-approved 10% sales tax, then going to a store and refusing to pay it.
Quote from: Gunnar on January 12, 2016, 07:56:27 AM
Quote from: stephendare on January 11, 2016, 09:03:16 PM
The thing that sucks is the empty lots. Which far outnumber the infill construction.
That seems to be the recurring story in Jax - rather than do infill construction on already empty lots, still standing buildings are torn down for actual or potential new construction. Why not start with the empty lots first ?
As the market improves, so does infill.
There's 12+ new construction single family homes being built by 4+ different builders in SPR now, most are pre-sold. Assuming the housing market stays stable (a big assumption) it wouldn't surprise me if the vacant lots are cut in half within a few years. There's obviously demand in SPR, and a couple of the builders plan to develop aggressively.
Quote from: Bill Hoff on January 13, 2016, 07:24:34 AM
Quote from: Gunnar on January 12, 2016, 07:56:27 AM
Quote from: stephendare on January 11, 2016, 09:03:16 PM
The thing that sucks is the empty lots. Which far outnumber the infill construction.
That seems to be the recurring story in Jax - rather than do infill construction on already empty lots, still standing buildings are torn down for actual or potential new construction. Why not start with the empty lots first ?
As the market improves, so does infill.
There's 12+ new construction single family homes being built by 4+ different builders in SPR now, most are pre-sold. Assuming the housing market stays stable (a big assumption) it wouldn't surprise me if the vacant lots are cut in half within a few years. There's obviously demand in SPR, and a couple of the builders plan to develop aggressively.
Infill is important. But not as important as the historic housing stock. Based on conversations with some of the builders, who are still struggling with SF values to some extent, it will take at least ten years at the current rate of build to cut the number of available empty lots in half.
The best way to make infill more attractive to more builders is to raise up the values of the existing historic homes. The way to do that is to fix the ones that require it not tear them down to make more empty lots. The last wave of aggressive developers didn't get that and believed tearing down the historic houses was how to "fix" the Historic District. We can not go back to those days as it gets us no where long term. A couple of the new developers in Springfield get that. I hope they all do or we will end up going no where in the end.
Quote from: strider on January 13, 2016, 07:38:00 AM
Quote from: Bill Hoff on January 13, 2016, 07:24:34 AM
Quote from: Gunnar on January 12, 2016, 07:56:27 AM
Quote from: stephendare on January 11, 2016, 09:03:16 PM
The thing that sucks is the empty lots. Which far outnumber the infill construction.
That seems to be the recurring story in Jax - rather than do infill construction on already empty lots, still standing buildings are torn down for actual or potential new construction. Why not start with the empty lots first ?
As the market improves, so does infill.
There's 12+ new construction single family homes being built by 4+ different builders in SPR now, most are pre-sold. Assuming the housing market stays stable (a big assumption) it wouldn't surprise me if the vacant lots are cut in half within a few years. There's obviously demand in SPR, and a couple of the builders plan to develop aggressively.
Infill is important. But not as important as the historic housing stock. Based on conversations with some of the builders, who are still struggling with SF values to some extent, it will take at least ten years at the current rate of build to cut the number of available empty lots in half.
The best way to make infill more attractive to more builders is to raise up the values of the existing historic homes. The way to do that is to fix the ones that require it not tear them down to make more empty lots. The last wave of aggressive developers didn't get that and believed tearing down the historic houses was how to "fix" the Historic District. We can not go back to those days as it gets us no where long term. A couple of the new developers in Springfield get that. I hope they all do or we will end up going no where in the end.
And what really needs to happen in order for the restoration of the really bad ones to make sense for a developer is for there to be more of an improvement on Main Street so it becomes a HIGHLY desirable community as a whole, not just moderately desirable simply because there are a lot of nice historic homes.
Quote from: Steve on January 12, 2016, 08:41:40 AM
Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on January 11, 2016, 07:46:59 PM
Strider - So San Marco better get on the ball with a zoning overlay, neighborhood groups that fight and slander each other, and the right number of abandoned houses with no windows so it can be considered a legitimate historic area?
Seriously, the Clifton area of Jacksonville is probably older than the rest of the Jacksonville neighborhoods, going back to 1817. You never hear any drama coming out of that area over historic preservation and neighborhood groups. Even Fruit Cove has history going back to the 1700's. I'm not sure why Springfield feels that it's carrying the banner for historic preservation for the area. There's a lot history around here, and most of it is much older than Springfield.
I'm not anti-historic, it's just that the Springfield folks need to get a grip.
Dude, you're missing a very important point here. The locally-recognized historic districts (Strider is right - St John's Quarter in the Riverside neighborhood is technically it's own district - the reason for it's distinction isn't important here) were set because of voter approval. The residents of those areas voted for protection, and it passed.
What you're saying is the equivalent of moving to a city with a voter-approved 10% sales tax, then going to a store and refusing to pay it.
So you're saying that the 'historic district' status, SPAR, and zoning overlay has worked against Springfield? Or are you saying that Springfield's 'historic district' status, zoning overlay, and SPAR have catapulted it to top dog status amongst Jacksonville neighborhoods with historic homes?
If the vote for 'protection' was held today, what would the outcome be? Maybe that's what needs to happen, a vote to repeal historic status or maintain status quo.
Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on January 13, 2016, 11:50:10 AMSo you're saying that the 'historic district' status, SPAR, and zoning overlay has worked against Springfield? Or are you saying that Springfield's 'historic district' status, zoning overlay, and SPAR have catapulted it to top dog status amongst Jacksonville neighborhoods with historic homes?
I don't understand any of what you said here. All I said was that the residents (at the time) voted to add protection to their neighborhood. My point was that moving to a neighborhood and not wanting to follow the rules was the equivalent of moving to a city and refusing to pay their local taxes.
Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on January 13, 2016, 11:50:10 AMIf the vote for 'protection' was held today, what would the outcome be? Maybe that's what needs to happen, a vote to repeal historic status or maintain status quo.
As a non-Springfield resident but a resident of a historic district, I think that's a mistake personally. While Riverside never had some of the issues that Springfield had, Riverside had plenty of these houses. The difference was that Riverside and Avondale fought for these structures and slowly restored them - I wasn't around but every indication is that Riverside and Avondale in 1980 is nothing like it is today. Over time, they hit the tipping point where it became the cool thing to do.
Quote from: Steve on January 13, 2016, 12:04:05 PM
Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on January 13, 2016, 11:50:10 AMSo you're saying that the 'historic district' status, SPAR, and zoning overlay has worked against Springfield? Or are you saying that Springfield's 'historic district' status, zoning overlay, and SPAR have catapulted it to top dog status amongst Jacksonville neighborhoods with historic homes?
I don't understand any of what you said here. All I said was that the residents (at the time) voted to add protection to their neighborhood. My point was that moving to a neighborhood and not wanting to follow the rules was the equivalent of moving to a city and refusing to pay their local taxes.
Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on January 13, 2016, 11:50:10 AMIf the vote for 'protection' was held today, what would the outcome be? Maybe that's what needs to happen, a vote to repeal historic status or maintain status quo.
As a non-Springfield resident but a resident of a historic district, I think that's a mistake personally. While Riverside never had some of the issues that Springfield had, Riverside had plenty of these houses. The difference was that Riverside and Avondale fought for these structures and slowly restored them - I wasn't around but every indication is that Riverside and Avondale in 1980 is nothing like it is today. Over time, they hit the tipping point where it became the cool thing to do.
Fixing up old houses has always been cool, maybe not in Jax but in the greater world. The headwinds in Springfield facing the usual folks that fix up historic homes are insurmountable. That is why there's empty lots and abandoned homes with no windows.
The only people that can fix up homes in this artificial environment are folks with super deep pockets (Strider...). By artificial, I'm referring to crazy requirements for any kind of improvement to the home. Most folks that do this kind of renovation work move into the home and slowly do things over time as their finances allows. The last thing they need is to keep going in front of a fussy historic board (potentially asking for bribes...) to get approval for each and every step.
I know because that's what I'm currently doing and I grew up doing this. Otherwise, all you have are corporate interests like SRG or rich guys playing contractor. Most corporations rather invest in a place like Nocatee and there's not many rich guys interested in spending lots of time in abandoned homes with no windows.
Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on January 13, 2016, 01:42:27 PMThe only people that can fix up homes in this artificial environment are folks with super deep pockets (Strider...). By artificial, I'm referring to crazy requirements for any kind of improvement to the home. Most folks that do this kind of renovation work move into the home and slowly do things over time as their finances allows. The last thing they need is to keep going in front of a fussy historic board (potentially asking for bribes...) to get approval for each and every step.
Umm....JHPC is no more stringent than any other Municipal Historic Preservation Office.
Quote from: Bill Hoff on January 13, 2016, 07:24:34 AM
Quote from: Gunnar on January 12, 2016, 07:56:27 AM
Quote from: stephendare on January 11, 2016, 09:03:16 PM
The thing that sucks is the empty lots. Which far outnumber the infill construction.
That seems to be the recurring story in Jax - rather than do infill construction on already empty lots, still standing buildings are torn down for actual or potential new construction. Why not start with the empty lots first ?
As the market improves, so does infill.
There's 12+ new construction single family homes being built by 4+ different builders in SPR now, most are pre-sold. Assuming the housing market stays stable (a big assumption) it wouldn't surprise me if the vacant lots are cut in half within a few years. There's obviously demand in SPR, and a couple of the builders plan to develop aggressively.
On that note, it looks like one of those developers, JWB Real Estate Capital LLC, just scooped up at least five vacant lots for $31K apiece at the beginning of December. My guess is that they have more infill development in mind for them.
10th & Drysdale (http://apps.coj.net/pao_propertySearch/Basic/Detail.aspx?RE=0551760000)
4th & Liberty (http://apps.coj.net/pao_propertySearch/Basic/Detail.aspx?RE=0709600000)
1st & Ionia (http://apps.coj.net/pao_propertySearch/Basic/Detail.aspx?RE=0727110000)
1st & Market (http://apps.coj.net/pao_propertySearch/Basic/Detail.aspx?RE=0727850020)
10th & Hubbard (http://apps.coj.net/pao_propertySearch/Basic/Detail.aspx?RE=0719210000)
Quote from: strider on January 13, 2016, 07:38:00 AM
Quote from: Bill Hoff on January 13, 2016, 07:24:34 AM
Quote from: Gunnar on January 12, 2016, 07:56:27 AM
Quote from: stephendare on January 11, 2016, 09:03:16 PM
The thing that sucks is the empty lots. Which far outnumber the infill construction.
That seems to be the recurring story in Jax - rather than do infill construction on already empty lots, still standing buildings are torn down for actual or potential new construction. Why not start with the empty lots first ?
As the market improves, so does infill.
There's 12+ new construction single family homes being built by 4+ different builders in SPR now, most are pre-sold. Assuming the housing market stays stable (a big assumption) it wouldn't surprise me if the vacant lots are cut in half within a few years. There's obviously demand in SPR, and a couple of the builders plan to develop aggressively.
Infill is important. But not as important as the historic housing stock. Based on conversations with some of the builders, who are still struggling with SF values to some extent, it will take at least ten years at the current rate of build to cut the number of available empty lots in half.
The best way to make infill more attractive to more builders is to raise up the values of the existing historic homes. The way to do that is to fix the ones that require it not tear them down to make more empty lots. The last wave of aggressive developers didn't get that and believed tearing down the historic houses was how to "fix" the Historic District. We can not go back to those days as it gets us no where long term. A couple of the new developers in Springfield get that. I hope they all do or we will end up going no where in the end.
Good news and let's hope developments goes in this direction :-)
Quote from: Jomar on January 14, 2016, 11:26:05 AM
Quote from: Bill Hoff on January 13, 2016, 07:24:34 AM
Quote from: Gunnar on January 12, 2016, 07:56:27 AM
Quote from: stephendare on January 11, 2016, 09:03:16 PM
The thing that sucks is the empty lots. Which far outnumber the infill construction.
That seems to be the recurring story in Jax - rather than do infill construction on already empty lots, still standing buildings are torn down for actual or potential new construction. Why not start with the empty lots first ?
As the market improves, so does infill.
There's 12+ new construction single family homes being built by 4+ different builders in SPR now, most are pre-sold. Assuming the housing market stays stable (a big assumption) it wouldn't surprise me if the vacant lots are cut in half within a few years. There's obviously demand in SPR, and a couple of the builders plan to develop aggressively.
On that note, it looks like one of those developers, JWB Real Estate Capital LLC, just scooped up at least five vacant lots for $31K apiece at the beginning of December. My guess is that they have more infill development in mind for them.
10th & Drysdale (http://apps.coj.net/pao_propertySearch/Basic/Detail.aspx?RE=0551760000)
4th & Liberty (http://apps.coj.net/pao_propertySearch/Basic/Detail.aspx?RE=0709600000)
1st & Ionia (http://apps.coj.net/pao_propertySearch/Basic/Detail.aspx?RE=0727110000)
1st & Market (http://apps.coj.net/pao_propertySearch/Basic/Detail.aspx?RE=0727850020)
10th & Hubbard (http://apps.coj.net/pao_propertySearch/Basic/Detail.aspx?RE=0719210000)
Actually this may not be good news. This was nothing but one company transferring ownership of the lots purchased in a bundle from Jacks Meeks's company to another company essentially under the same ownership. The increased value from the reportedly 11K each they were originally purchased for to 31K may or may not be justifiable. Higher land values seem to work for infill developers but that does not always translate into what is best for the community. Sometimes a transfer like this means they are ready to build on them but not always. Sometimes it is just a way to cash out some profit.
Preservation SOS' appeal of this demolition approval will be heard by the LUZ Committee this afternoon at 4:00 pm in City Council Chambers.
I ask all those who support preservation to please be there.
Watched some of the hearing. What was decided?
Unfortunately the LUZ Committee unanimously voted to DENY our appeal and ALLOW THE DEMOLITION. The decision was not based on hard facts.
Just as the HPC did, the LUZ Committee appeared to rely upon the Historic Planning Staff report and the Engineer's letter. They asked me no questions whatsoever. Before CM Love voted, he stated he's known Joel a long time. Does that mean because he's know him a long time means he just takes staff recommendation? The Staff Report also suggested removal of the rear damaged structure and mothballing; that was never even on the table.
Staff Report recommended to allow the demolition; that decision was based in part on the following:
- A site visit during which, based on the photographs, only the damaged portion of the structure was viewed
- An opinion letter from an Engineer.
- A single repair estimate.
- A letter from the owner stating the structure was a danger.
Was an Engineering Report submitted that detailed the current structural assessment? NO
Was an estimate to restore provided? YES
Was the estimate accurate? NO - the estimate provided was to restore it to a triplex, which would not be allowed.
Based on the lack of hard evidence provided, I really should not have had to provide anything, but I did.
- I reminded the Committee that removal of the damaged rear area could be removed.
- I reminded the Committee that the property could be sold or donated to someone who would restore it.
- I quoted Section 602.4 of the 2014 Florida Building Code Existing Structures that states, "For repairs in an historic building, replacement or partial replacement of existing or missing features that match the original configuration, height, size and original methods of construction shall be permitted." This means the structure is NOT required to be brought up to current building codes.
- I quoted from the Wood and Timber Assessment Manual that discussed how to evaluate burned light framing and charring.
- I provided photos that proved the exposed wall studs in the damaged rear addition that burned were not charred at all - only the lath was charred.
- I provided photographic evidence proved only one of the ceiling joists had charring.
- I provided photographic evidence of a completely restored structure on Walnut Court that suffered severe fire damage.
- I provided photos of another structure that suffered just as much if not more fire damage in April 2015 and the letter that Baker Klein wrote saying that structure should be saved by removing the rear addition. In both cases the letters were based on a visual inspection only; no structural assessment was done. So why does Ionia have to come down and E 3rd does not? Because the firm was asked to write a letter to save E 3rd and to write a letter to support demolition for Ionia.
- I shared with the Committee what the engineer told me during our site visit: "If the owner wants to pay me to do a structural analysis on it, I may, I may not."
There should have been a Structural Assessment/Inspection conducted that included load calculations and the actual inspection of the wall studs. The engineer admitted she did not do any of that; no wall coverings were removed to determine the extent of fire damage behind plaster walls (because chances are there was no damage and that would not support the OPINION that the house needed to be demolished).
Did I provide my own engineering structural assessment? No. And neither did the owner. Citizens should not have to prove the structure should be saved; the owner should have to prove the structure cannot be saved.
It is more difficult to obtain HPC approval to repair windows or doors or build a new house than it is to obtain approval to destroy a contributing structure....and that's a shame.
Was SPAR there?
Kim, sorry you worked so hard and yet were not successful.
Jacksonville is a joke on so many levels.
Sad indeed. You fight for what is right, and get screwed. The agencies that should be protecting a historic district, do nothing, and actually encourage destruction. The burden of proof should be to prove that it is dangerous AND can not be saved, based upon the statutes and guidelines in place. Engineering reports should be valid, and unbiased, and required to be performed by an expert in historical building construction.
Quote from: Kay on February 03, 2016, 09:42:09 PM
Was SPAR there?
Michelle was there to provide SPAR's letter of support of the appeal (the SPAR Council DRC and board voted to save the house) and to speak , which she did well.
First and foremost we need to remember that this owner provided a letter that was in the official record stating he purchased this house with the intent of tearing it down. The engineer providing expert opinions (and the only opinion that seemed to matter to the LUZ was the Engineer and Joel's) was hired solely to help tear this house down. The historic department staff and the HPC do not like windows to be changed out because they consider that a loss of historic fabric. They try to insist on wood replacements because that is closer to the original historic fabric. They refuse to take the word of owners and contractors as to the condition of windows and doors for the purpose of replacing them but will take the word of an owner and engineer who want nothing but to remove all of the historic features the house may have from the face of the earth. Staff only looked at a small part of this house and they were "guided" to the determination that this house was not worth saving. When you read the actual staff report, the report reads like it is about to recommend only removing the addition and then it jumps to the conclusion that the entire structure must come down. The HPC choose to ignore many facts and the opinions of actual preservationists and only take the word of the owner and engineer wanting to tear the house down. The final decision from the HPC was based on two factors, cost and the fact that the owner and engineer claimed 95% of the historic features would be lost during a rehab. Like mentioned earlier, it sure seems easier to tear a historic house down that actually do your best to save it and restore it for many tomorrows to come.
LUZ is a different animal and I do not think we can hold them to the same preservation standard that we do the Staff and the HPC. They will always be more willing to side with owner's property rights and with a trifecta of Staff, HPC and the Owner wishing to take the house down, well, the cards were stacked against the appeal succeeding.
Here's the link to the Appeal Hearing if anyone would like to watch: http://link.theplatform.com/s/IfSiAC/media/_yhozW_THkbc (http://link.theplatform.com/s/IfSiAC/media/_yhozW_THkbc)
Quote from: strider on February 04, 2016, 09:21:52 AM
LUZ is a different animal and I do not think we can hold them to the same preservation standard that we do the Staff and the HPC. They will always be more willing to side with owner's property rights and with a trifecta of Staff, HPC and the Owner wishing to take the house down, well, the cards were stacked against the appeal succeeding.
Quote from: mbwright on February 04, 2016, 08:43:01 AM
Sad indeed. You fight for what is right, and get screwed. The agencies that should be protecting a historic district, do nothing, and actually encourage destruction. The burden of proof should be to prove that it is dangerous AND can not be saved, based upon the statutes and guidelines in place. Engineering reports should be valid, and unbiased, and required to be performed by an expert in historical building construction.
Mbwright, exactly! Strider, I agree that we cannot hold LUZ to the same preservation standard as we do Staff and the HPC. However, we can and certainly MUST hold them to a standard of Due Process.
How about we require an actual Engineering REPORT? What was provided was an opinion letter, written without any type of engineering analysis whatsoever. If you'd like to read it, here's a link to a Preservation SOS' forum entry where I uploaded it: http://forum.preservationsos.org/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=119&start=10#p17741 (http://forum.preservationsos.org/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=119&start=10#p17741) I quoted to LUZ what the engineer said to me when we both went into the property:
QuoteIf the owner wants to pay me to do a structural analysis on it, I may, I may not.
In the letter, the engineer states over and over that the structure "is beyond repair and poses a hazard to human life" and that the "structural elements...have all been compromised". The letter never says "how". WHY is it beyond repair? HOW have the structural elements been compromised? My thought? I don't care how much experience you have...If in fact your statements are true....
Prove it! And it should have been the LUZ Committee's thought/reaction as well....