Downtown bordello to be replaced with senior housing
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Neighborhoods/Historic-LaVilla-December-2012/i-KrdGDHN/0/X2/P1600807-L.jpg)
Sarasota-based Beneficial Communities, LLC. is proposing to develop a 7-story affordable housing development for seniors at 615 Houston Street. To accommodate the 72-unit Houston Street Manor project, the last standing bordello from Houston Street's days as an early 20th century red light district would be demolished.
Read More: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2015-nov-downtown-bordello-to-be-replaced-with-senior-housing
Jacksonville had a whorehouse in it.
Quote from: Metro Jacksonville on November 03, 2015, 03:00:03 AM
Downtown bordello to be replaced with senior housing
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Neighborhoods/Historic-LaVilla-December-2012/i-KrdGDHN/0/X2/P1600807-L.jpg)
Sarasota-based Beneficial Communities, LLC. is proposing to develop a 7-story affordable housing development for seniors at 615 Houston Street. To accommodate the 72-unit Houston Street Manor project, the last standing bordello from Houston Street's days as an early 20th century red light district would be demolished.
Read More: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2015-nov-downtown-bordello-to-be-replaced-with-senior-housing (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2015-nov-downtown-bordello-to-be-replaced-with-senior-housing)
Well, that's a shame. While I support development downtown, I think another generic building that won't age well shouldn't be built in the place of an old - arguably historic - structure such as this. It may not be the most exciting building, but it is brick and could be turned into something worthwhile.
^ I am a huge supporter of preserving historic buildings. The elevations of the proposed building do look a little generic I agree, sort of like a cheaper hotel, maybe a little nicer. But I think if they make some tweaks to the elevations to add a few more architecturally interesting elements to make it tie in to some of the other historic buildings downtown it would make the demolition of the brick building a little easier to take. The brick building is pretty small and the potential uses are limited. If this does get approved I really hope they design a building that 100 years from now will be considered a nice historic building, not one that 40 years from now the city wishes was never built.
Unfortunately most of the newer building are built to maximize profit, not be significant, and still standing in 100 years. I guess they plan on few drivers in this age group. Where will they walk to to get groceries?
Quote from: CCMjax on November 03, 2015, 08:04:38 AM
^ I am a huge supporter of preserving historic buildings. The elevations of the proposed building do look a little generic I agree, sort of like a cheaper hotel, maybe a little nicer. But I think if they make some tweaks to the elevations to add a few more architecturally interesting elements to make it tie in to some of the other historic buildings downtown it would make the demolition of the brick building a little easier to take. The brick building is pretty small and the potential uses are limited. If this does get approved I really hope they design a building that 100 years from now will be considered a nice historic building, not one that 40 years from now the city wishes was never built.
I agree. I think it would be easier to stomach if a) the proposed building was nicer and b) we hadn't already torn down so many buildings downtown. But development downtown is a good thing, so who knows.
Wasn't a previously planned senior housing development proposed for that site too? I believe that never came to fruition because it was relying on tax credits it did not recieve.
Just looking at the title ("Downtown bordello to be replaced with senior housing") this sounds like an extremely bad deal ;)
At the asking price of $1,2 Million (seems to be due to the lot size), I do not see many takers who wish to buy and re-develop the existing building.
Me, I would find preserving the last bordello a worthwhile cause, but I seriously doubt banks and investors think likewise.
What I find important is that it's ensured the new building is in fact going to be built before demolishing the old one. Otherwise we may just end up with another parking lot.
Wouldn't this existing building be considered a contributing property in the pending downtown National Register district? That could potentially impact their ability to demolish the building. Their best bet would be to find a way to incorporate that existing building in their overall plans.
I believe it was on Pearl and Church.
I hate to see the older building go but I expect that's coming whether this project gets through or not.
Seems like an odd place for a senior housing development.
I support historic preservation to the fullest but lets be real here, no one is going to do anything with the brick structure currently there. There is a difference between old and outdated and historic. There's really nothing aesthetically special about it, it just looks like an old vacant building. Now i am not saying the senior complex couldn't be designed a bit nicer b/c it most definitely could.
Quote from: gerschea@gmail.com on November 03, 2015, 09:34:13 AM
I support historic preservation to the fullest but lets be real here, no one is going to do anything with the brick structure currently there. There is a difference between old and outdated and historic. There's really nothing aesthetically special about it, it just looks like an old vacant building.
I agree. It's like Worman's Bakery 2.0.
I really appreciate the design of this development having parking built underneath and within the footprint of the building. We do not need anymore surface parking lots downtown.
It would be nice to force more unique and urban design elements as the building looks like something you could find off of any I95 exit.
Does anyone know the cost difference between wood structures and concrete block structures of the same size? It seems like wood structures from 4-7 stories are so popular these days. I worry about longevity. I live in a wood condo building about 20 years old and it is already falling apart.
A structure can be poorly build out of anything. Looks at the Berkman 2 parking deck for example...
Quote from: brainstormer on November 03, 2015, 08:25:46 PM
I really appreciate the design of this development having parking built underneath and within the footprint of the building. We do not need anymore surface parking lots downtown.
It would be nice to force more unique and urban design elements as the building looks like something you could find off of any I95 exit.
Funny how everyone wants to "force" businesses to adapt to THEIR "design elements." No doubt they would be the first to complain about the higher prices brought to you by requiring businesses to eat all those additional costs.
Quote from: Redbaron616 on November 03, 2015, 08:53:49 PM
Quote from: brainstormer on November 03, 2015, 08:25:46 PM
I really appreciate the design of this development having parking built underneath and within the footprint of the building. We do not need anymore surface parking lots downtown.
It would be nice to force more unique and urban design elements as the building looks like something you could find off of any I95 exit.
Funny how everyone wants to "force" businesses to adapt to THEIR "design elements." No doubt they would be the first to complain about the higher prices brought to you by requiring businesses to eat all those additional costs.
That is a pretty misinformed interpretation. There are many great examples of recent construction projects in and around downtown where the initial proposal was sent back to the drawing board. If there is money to be made and demand, the developer isn't going to ditch the project because the DDRB wants them to make changes. Read the thread on here titled "orange park is ugly" and see what having no standards for development gets you.
We have enough ugly corridors in this city already. I see nothing wrong with setting a higher aesthetic for development in our downtown area.
Quote from: brainstormer on November 03, 2015, 08:25:46 PM
I really appreciate the design of this development having parking built underneath and within the footprint of the building. We do not need anymore surface parking lots downtown.
It would be nice to force more unique and urban design elements as the building looks like something you could find off of any I95 exit.
Does anyone know the cost difference between wood structures and concrete block structures of the same size? It seems like wood structures from 4-7 stories are so popular these days. I worry about longevity. I live in a wood condo building about 20 years old and it is already falling apart.
Iconically, it seems that we're "forcing" companies to go out to places other than the core, because of that exact mentality. Would you paint your house lime green because a few people on your HOA board like lime green and decided to "force" that ordinance in your community?
And while the designs are not the most unique and 'cool", is it not better than the old ugly broken down brick warehouse that is sitting, rotting there now?
This "force them to do it a very specific way" is part of what is keeping our core from truly being revitalized. Look at the Landing... so many different opinions of what it should be and more importantly - how it should "look" is why it is still going nowhere.
Quote from: marty904 on November 04, 2015, 06:56:17 AM
Quote from: brainstormer on November 03, 2015, 08:25:46 PM
I really appreciate the design of this development having parking built underneath and within the footprint of the building. We do not need anymore surface parking lots downtown.
It would be nice to force more unique and urban design elements as the building looks like something you could find off of any I95 exit.
Does anyone know the cost difference between wood structures and concrete block structures of the same size? It seems like wood structures from 4-7 stories are so popular these days. I worry about longevity. I live in a wood condo building about 20 years old and it is already falling apart.
Iconically, it seems that we're "forcing" companies to go out to places other than the core, because of that exact mentality. Would you paint your house lime green because a few people on your HOA board like lime green and decided to "force" that ordinance in your community?
And while the designs are not the most unique and 'cool", is it not better than the old ugly broken down brick warehouse that is sitting, rotting there now?
This "force them to do it a very specific way" is part of what is keeping our core from truly being revitalized. Look at the Landing... so many different opinions of what it should be and more importantly - how it should "look" is why it is still going nowhere.
I doubt any HOA could force you to paint your house a particular color unless you agreed to the terms of the contract prior to purchasing a house in the development. In which case you'd be obligated to do so and would have nobody to blame but yourself.
While I think we need to be pragmatic - make compromises where necessary, for example - I don't see anything wrong with taking steps to ensure that downtown is developed in a "smart" way. We almost have a blank canvas - it would be a shame to waste that potential.
As far as this one brick building is concerned, I don't think it's so ugly. But weighing up whether it's better to tear it down and build something new or let it sit in the hope someone buys it and develops it is the sort of thought process we need to engage in. I don't know the answer - though I would probably think development is better than nothing (as we don't know if anyone would ever do anything with that building). That said, I think (based on the examples of prior projects shown in the article) that this building is likely to be hideous. I certainly hope that isn't the case.
Aesthetic preferences aside, it's not unreasonable to ask that developments downtown don't have big parking lots in front of them.
Or we could just roll over and give away the farm because we're so desperate. That's how we ended up with the Jacksonville Jaguars, after all.
Quote from: marty904 on November 04, 2015, 06:56:17 AM
This "force them to do it a very specific way" is part of what is keeping our core from truly being revitalized. Look at the Landing... so many different opinions of what it should be and more importantly - how it should "look" is why it is still going nowhere.
These are two (probably three) totally different issues.
-The reason the landing hasn't been developed is that Sleiman wants a freebie from the city, and they aren't willing to give it to him. In addition, there is no real leadership downtown to actually implement the more than a dozen master plans for the Landing and the waterfront that we have sitting on shelves around the city.
-Companies locate in the burbs due to cost, not building design standards. They aren't concerned about facades and approved building designs, they are wondering how they can provide parking for their 2,000 employees. It's over 10x more expensive to build a garage than a surface lot, and leasing space in a garage is equally cost prohibitive.
-Design doesn't have to be costly, especially when viewed over the long term. Most developers these days don't view things on a long enough timeline to see the ROI of solid design and construction.
Quote from: brainstormer on November 03, 2015, 08:25:46 PM
I really appreciate the design of this development having parking built underneath and within the footprint of the building. We do not need anymore surface parking lots downtown.
It would be nice to force more unique and urban design elements as the building looks like something you could find off of any I95 exit.
Does anyone know the cost difference between wood structures and concrete block structures of the same size? It seems like wood structures from 4-7 stories are so popular these days. I worry about longevity. I live in a wood condo building about 20 years old and it is already falling apart.
Wood is pretty inexpensive and versatile and with the taller buildings (more than a couple stories) labor costs become more of an issue with CMU I believe. If there are lots of corners and protrusions in an apartment style building it is usually better to go wood. Concrete, CMU and steel are the most durable structures but wood can be too if designed properly. A lot of wood projects are copy and paste from another wood project with a few modifications essentially and they are fast track. With low design fees and fast schedules sometimes issues arise more than other building types. Something a lot of people don't realize, wood shrinks vertically over time under gravity loads much more than other materials. Sometimes up to an inch or so for a 3 to 4 story building. This is in addition to perhaps a little more settlement than other building types because typically apartment style wood buildings don't have deep foundations, they just sit on a slab with thickened portions at bearing walls. So sometimes you'll get doors that won't shut properly or sloping floors. How exactly is your building falling apart?
I'd say the chances of this happening are slim.
QuoteAccording to the authority, the project still must go through the authority's underwriting process to determine the amount of tax credits that may be awarded to the project. On a total development cost of $18.6 million, the developer applied for $15.8 million in tax credit proceeds.
http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=546446
Quote from: Captain Zissou on November 04, 2015, 04:07:59 PM
I'd say the chances of this happening are slim.
QuoteAccording to the authority, the project still must go through the authority's underwriting process to determine the amount of tax credits that may be awarded to the project. On a total development cost of $18.6 million, the developer applied for $15.8 million in tax credit proceeds.
http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=546446
Oof, yeah.
Quote from: Captain Zissou on November 04, 2015, 04:07:59 PM
I'd say the chances of this happening are slim.
QuoteAccording to the authority, the project still must go through the authority's underwriting process to determine the amount of tax credits that may be awarded to the project. On a total development cost of $18.6 million, the developer applied for $15.8 million in tax credit proceeds.
http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=546446
Wow, so they want the public to eventually pay 85% of their development costs (or am I misunderstanding how tax credits work?)...
Still, no reason not to demolish the old building right away since that has always worked well...
This project looks like it's going to move forward. It was approved for $15.8 million in tax credits.
QuoteDan Ionescu, project manager for Beneficial Communities, said in addition to a $115,000 local government contribution commitment from the Jacksonville Housing Authority, the $18.6 million apartment development has been approved for $15.8 million in tax credits from the Florida Housing Finance Corp.
That award puts the project on the clock, since under the terms of the state tax credit, the project must be completed within 24 months.
"It will be open by December 2017," said Ionescu.
http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=546549
^ What about the vestcor property? Were they trying to get the same kind of assistance?
Good news.
QuoteThe fence that has gone up around two blocks between Jefferson and Broad streets downtown has got some people talking, especially because the block between Houston and Forsyth streets has been empty so long. But that's all for construction of Houston Street Manor, an apartment complex for low-income seniors that's going across Houston from the big empty block.
Beneficial Communities of Sarasota is developing the seven-story building, which will have two floors of parking topped by five floors with a total of 72 units.
The income limits change each year with the median income in the area. But right now, it's a maximum of $27,300 for one person, $31,200 for two, $35,100 for three and $38,940 for four. Rents for the 37 one-bedroom units are $655 a month. The 35 two-bedroom units are $775.
The complex is limited to ages 55 and over.
Beneficial paid $975,000 for the three parcels totalling about half an acre last year. That empty block is still owned by the Foram Group out of Miami.
Of course, a little farther down Jefferson, work is underway on Lofts at LaVilla, a 130-unit affordable housing complex. It's not limited to seniors, but has the same income guidelines. The rents: $634 for a studio, $676 for one bedroom, $811 for two bedrooms and $937 for three bedrooms.
That's being developed by Vestcor subsidiary TVC Development, which is also planning Lofts at Monroe, a 108-unit project planned for the block bounded by W. Monroe, W. Adams, N. Davis and N. Lee streets.
It got its final approval by the Downtown Development Review Board on Thursday, but still has to get a couple of other city approvals.
http://jacksonville.com/business/business-notebook/real-estate/2017-04-23/sunday-notebook-construction-starts-senior-housing (http://jacksonville.com/business/business-notebook/real-estate/2017-04-23/sunday-notebook-construction-starts-senior-housing)
Houston St Manor is under construction now. The old bordello was torn down a few weeks back. When complete, it should help with the marketing of the adjacent empty block bounded by Jefferson, Forsyth, Broad and Houston.
Limited to seniors? Wouldn't this project make more sense in the cathedral district? The services and related industries that benefit seniors are more than a mile away.
Every month these project seems to make me scratch my head more and more. I'm excited they are finally happening but...
Quote from: Jim on April 24, 2017, 10:09:23 AM
Limited to seniors? Wouldn't this project make more sense in the cathedral district? The services and related industries that benefit seniors are more than a mile away.
Every month these project seems to make me scratch my head more and more. I'm excited they are finally happening but...
I'm not sure I would call age 55 and older seniors. I am sure most between 55 and 66 will still be working and have a car or now can access the Skyway. If the Skyway connected to Baptist, Brooklyn, and a San Marco Publix, I am sure they could get most services they need. I believe Lake mentioned a pharmacy is coming to Brooklyn. Now connect with Skyway or street car please.
Quote from: jaxjags on April 24, 2017, 10:42:19 AM
I'm not sure I would call age 55 and older seniors.
Well, the developers, the media and this thread are all calling it senior housing.
I think the site is fine for people 55 and up. There's two BRT stations roughly a block away and a Skyway station two blocks south. The site can also easily be reached from the Acosta Bridge, Riverside Avenue and I-95/I-10. There have been similar projects built in downtown Tampa and Orlando in recent years. I suspect Beneficial knows what they're doing. They have a decent portfolio of affordable housing developments across the country:
http://beneficialcom.com/