Shame of FBC's leaders for attempting to make a hardship where one really does not exist, in order to get its way. You should always have a Plan B that doesn't involve a congregation with a dwindling membership base putting itself $30 million in debt. It's a historic structure, so there are grants, incentives programs and tax credits available out there for a building with such rich history.
Kudos to staff for doing their job. Although it's a tall order to ask in a city that has a tradition of not valuing it's own history, hopefully JHPC and Council will make a recommendation based off the established policies in place and not emotion, personal views or political connections.
QuoteA Jacksonville Historic Preservation Commission staff report could lead to a local landmark designation for a First Baptist Church building Downtown and halt its demolition.
Church leaders say the move would derail plans to consolidate its 13.7-acre Downtown campus to a single city block.
The report issued Feb. 21 says the 93-year-old, six-story structure at 125 W. Duval St. may meet six of the seven criteria used by the commission to determine landmark status.
First Baptist wants to demolish the building to make way for a welcome center that would serve as a connective space and the primary entrance for the historic 182,000-square foot-Hobson Auditorium, the church administration building and the Ruth Lindsay Auditorium.
Quote"The removal of this structure is not only for the greater good of the church, but also the city district with in which it is located," Novus Principal Jerry Traino wrote. "Should the church not be allowed to remove this building, they cannot do this project and will be forced to use another piece of property, which is not in the city's best interest."
In a Feb. 19 interview, First Baptist Senior Pastor Heath Lambert said if the building is designated a local landmark and the church can't tear it down. "There is no Plan B," he said.
QuoteThe pastor said Feb. 19 the building layout cannot fit all 3,000 church members inside, although the city's reports found the structure was built to accommodate 3,500 people.
QuoteLambert said he's not predicting the designation will make it through Council but if it does, the church intends to file a lawsuit and challenge the landmark status.
Full article: https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/first-baptist-church-will-fight-local-landmark-designation-for-building-it-wants-to-demolish
I like the quote in the story from Steve Williams, "If they're going to spend $30 million to build a new visitors center, why can't they use a creative solution to use the existing building?"
It's a good one. There are potential other solutions worth exploring. They can include a retrofit of the building, reconfiguring that block of Church Street or also using the open space between this building and the older sanctuary next door. The reality of it is, someone had a vision of a modern structure and that was worked into the concept early on. They also did not consider current policies and their impact on design during this process. I would not expect religious leaders to have this type of knowledge but whoever they hired to design the plan should have known and presented this information early on in the process. Because of this, you have a hardship argument that is self created.
Unless I'm missing something, FBC is in a pretty serious downward spiral. Not sure a new $30,000,000 building is gonna correct that trajectory.
QuoteACTIONS FOR CHANGE:
#1 SHOW UP ---> Wednesday to the Historic Preservation Committee meeting at 3pm in the Ed Ball Building Conference Room 1002, 1st Floor; 214 North Hogan Street; Jacksonville, FL 32202
#2 REACH OUT TO THE DECISION MAKERS and ask them to stick to the standards and policies we have set for our downtown core.
Write: "Dear_______,
I am one of your constituents in Jacksonville and I am
emailing you about the First Baptist Church Sunday
School Building that the church has made application to
demolish.
My hope is that you will uphold our standards and policies
we have set for our downtown core regarding historic
preservation and deny the application.
Thank you for your consideration and time.
Sincerely,
your name"
Historic Preservation Commission
Commission contacts: Phone: (904) 255-7800 Email: historicpreservation@coj.net
City Planner Supervisor: Christian Popoli Phone (904) 255-7859 Email: CPopoli@coj.net
Downtown Investment Authority
CEO: Lori Boyer Phone: (904) 255-5301 Email: boyerl@coj.net
Mayor Lenny Curry Phone: (904) 255-5000 Email: MayorLennyCurry@coj.net
District Council Members
District 1: Joyce Morgan Phone: (904) 255-5201 Email: JoyceMorgan@coj.net
District 2: Al Ferraro Phone: (904) 255-5202 Email: Ferraro@coj.net
District 3: Aaron L. Bowman Phone: (904) 255-5203 Email: ABowman@coj.net
District 4: Scott Wilson Phone: (904) 255-5204 Email: SWilson@coj.net
District 5: LeAnna Cumber Phone: (904) 255-5205 Email: LCumber@coj.net
District 6: Michael Boylan Phone: (904) 255-5206 Email: MBoylan@coj.net
District 7: Reggie Gaffney Phone: (904) 255-5207 Email: RGaffney@coj.net
District 8: Ju'Coby Pittman Phone: (904) 255-5208 Email: JPittman@coj.net
District 9: Garrett L. Dennis Phone: (904) 255-5209 Email: GarrettD@coj.net
District 10: Brenda Priestly Jackson Phone: (904) 255-5210 Email: BPJackson@coj.net
District 11: Danny Becton Phone: (904) 255-5211 Email: DBecton@coj.net
District 12: Randy White Phone: (904) 255-5212 Email: RandyWhite@coj.net
District 13: Rory Diamond Phone: (904) 255-5213 Email: RDiamond@coj.net
District 14: Randy DeFoor Phone: (904) 255-5214 Email: RDefoor@coj.net
At-Large Council Members
Group 1: Terrance Freeman Phone: (904) 255-5215 Email: TFreeman@coj.net
Group 2: Ronald B. Salem Phone: (904) 255-5216 Email: RSalem@coj.net
Group 3: Tommy Hazouri Phone: (904) 255-5217 Email: THazouri@coj.net
Group 4: Matt Carlucci Phone: (904) 255-5218 Email: MCarlucci@coj.net
Group 5: Samuel Newby Phone: (904) 255-5219 Email: SNewby@coj.net
How is this any different than the claims by the owners of the Bostwick Building (now Cowford Chophouse)? The only difference I see is the Sunday School buildings is in WAY better structural shape. The issues of mechanical systems, etc. are their own issues.
Thanks Ennis!
Sounds like FBC needs a little Biblical inspiration to renovate the building.
"But with God all things are possible." - Mathew 19:26
^^^Amen!
And yes, a hearty, fat, greasy, southern fatback type of AMEN!
What if FBC gets their way and membership continues to decline and 5 or 10 years later they want to walk away from this project too? We lost an historic building over maybe 5 to 10 years use of a replacement?
As noted, given their trajectory (and maybe even that of Downtown!), this might not be a location FBC will want to continue in for much longer. Their future might be more in suburbia (a la Church of 11-22) than Downtown. When is the last time a new church was built Downtown?
I wonder who is overseeing FBC's strategic planning. Seems this is an awful big bet by their congregation on turning around their Downtown presence. $30 million would go a very long way in suburbia. I know, it seems unusual to be pushing someone away from Downtown, but if they are causing harm to the character of Downtown, maybe its not worth fighting to keep them there when there could be superior options for both FBC and Downtown if they just relocated elsewhere.
They'd be better off moving to Nocatee. It would be cheaper for them and downtown would benefit from all that property being back on the tax rolls and activated with people and a mix of uses 24/7. It is a big risk for a declining church to spend that much money on a building. Buy an abandoned strip mall in the burbs for a fraction of the costs and spend that saved church money investing in saving souls.
There are churches and church properties all over Duval for sale, in many price ranges, but ALL are less than $30,000,000.
Quote from: MusicMan on February 24, 2020, 10:23:21 PM
There are churches and church properties all over Duval for sale, in many price ranges, but ALL are less than $30,000,000.
There are three new, giant churches being built directly fronting Beach Blvd. Business must be good in the 'burbs.
The thing is they have the cash on hand (or soon will) to do whatever they want. Moving completely out of DT altogether would seem like a defeat and going against a century plus of tradition. I don't doubt that their suburban offshoots will get larger than DT, but they will probably always have a presence DT.
Does this building have any current designations? Is it part of any special districts? Or is the only issue in play this new landmark designation?
It's currently a contributing structure to the National Register of Historic Places Downtown Historic District.
Thank you.
I should've added the reason I was asking was to understand what the significance of the bldg in legal terms, so to speak, would've been at the time they were making their architectural drawings.
Since it was already part of that, surely they knew it was historically significant.
This should have been vetted before the pastor showed the congregation renderings of their consolidation plan last fall. So it sounds like they didn't know, didn't care or ignored it. So it's a self creating hardship that now becomes the centerpiece of their argument to raze.
HPC denied the demolition tonight, 5-2 vote. The case for landmarking the building will be heard at next month's HPC meeting.
FBC brought in a handful of very reputable people to advocate for the demo, along with dozens of fire & brimstone types. The #mappingjax group brought an eclectic mix of roughly the same number of people in opposition.
Fire and brimstones, singing, public prayer and even very reputable people advocating demo all have very little to do with determining if a building meets the necessary landmark designation criteria. Good to see what grass roots community can help accomplish when organized. Keep the emotions out of it, stay in alignment with the policies, advocate for adaptive reuse and push forward with continuing to contact commission members and council representatives.
QuoteFirst Baptist Church denied demolition permit for Downtown building
The Jacksonville Historic Preservation Commission voted Feb. 26 to deny First Baptist Church a permit to demolish its Downtown building at 125 W. Church St., but the fate of the structure may not yet be decided.
More than 100 people attended the public hearing to show support both for and against the demolition. The meeting was moved to a larger space to handle the crowd.
The vote was 5-2. Commissioners Jack C. Demetree III, Andres Lopera, Erik Kasper, Timothy Bramwell and Maiju Stansel voted to deny the permit. Ryan Davis and Max Glober voted against.
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/first-baptist-church-denied-demolition-permit-for-downtown-building
Update: FBC's appeal to have council decide on the demo without going through HPC was approved 4-2 by LUZ tonight. FBC doesn't have the money to do what they want to do, so if full council approves their demolition request next week, we could very well likely be looking at another vacant lot in the heart of downtown once FBC goes belly up and moves to Nocatee.
When does it go to council?
Tuesday 6/23.
Is there a precedent for bypassing historic preservation?
Does this involve a landmark building?
Quote from: billy on June 17, 2020, 06:48:57 AM
Is there a precedent for bypassing historic preservation?
Probably so. There were landmarked building in LaVilla that were razed anyway back in the 1990s.
Unfortunately, many LUZ members don't even understand the city's preservation policies themselves. Several some even questioned if the building was so important, why wasn't it already landmarked. The problem with asking such a question is it is the council who has the power to sponsor landmarking. Which means council members need to ask themselves why they aren't proactively sponsoring bills to landmark the city's unprotected historic structures. Instead, we have a broken system that does not allow the community to do so, meaning the community has to take free time out of its day to persuade them to do their job.
QuoteDoes this involve a landmark building?
This building is a contributing structure to the Downtown National Register Historic District. This means when someone decides they want to demolish it, HPC has the option to review it for local landmark status. In this situation, it is historically significant, and likely meets 5 or 6 of the 7 criteria needed for local landmarking. You only need to meet 2 if the owner is supportive and 4 if the owner does not. To circumvent the landmarking process, FBC hired a politically connected attorney to appeal to the council instead. The Council's LUZ committee approved their appeal 4-2. One committee member went as far to say old buildings frustrate him and he wants to help the church out. So you're in a world of trouble for protecting downtown's integrity when the decision maker isn't willing to fully understand the own policies that previous councils have created.
On the opposite angle, COJ has demonstrated its willing to pick and choose winners and losers in the demolition and landmarking game. Both FBC and the Bostwick family were poor stewarts of their downtown properties. Both have applied to demolish their structures as opposed to selling them. The Bostwick's were denied, their property landmarked against their will and then foreclosed on. COJ then took the property and sold it to a developer who restored it into Cowford Chophouse. FBC has no money, a declining membership and collection plate. Yet, we're circumventing the process to throw them a bone to raze, knowing full good and well, we could end up looking at another empty lot.
There may be some back of the hand way to appeal or file a suit from a community perspective, but I haven't dived into the details of such a strategy to know if it would possibly work to change the way the city operates long term. The biggest problem is we don't vote, groom or back people who know know planning and preservation policy, so we're technically responsible for the clown shows that come when decision makers are unprepared or unwilling to learn the ins and outs.
If the vote was 4-2, without looking I'm going to say that Becton, Ferraro, White and Gaffney voted for this with Pittman and Boylan voting against. I'm also going to say it was either Becton or Ferraro that made the comment about old buildings frustrating him.
Can anyone confirm?
Boylan is the new chair of LUZ starting 7/1 so I'm hoping I'm right that Boylan didn't vote for this. If I'm wrong than we may have a rough year on the preservation front.
Becton, Boylan, Dennis and Ferraro for and Gaffney and White against. However, Gaffney was the one who said old buildings frustrate him. That's rough since his district covers the oldest areas of the city. I predict that it will be a rough year. From my perspective, people in the community who care about preservation with need to get more aggressive and preemptive to landmark as many buildings as possible. This clearly won't be led by city hall. However, they may jump on board (like their doing with the confederate monument and names stuff) if they feel the political tide is turning in that direction.
QuoteFrom my perspective, people in the community who care about preservation with need to get more aggressive and preemptive to landmark as many buildings as possible.
Sounds like a job for the Jacksonville Historical Society.
Careful you don't spit your coffee out laughing at that comment.
Lol, people put too much reliance into the JHS and the power and expertise they don't have. They can certainly be a part of an effort, but as a former JHS board member, I can honestly say they aren't staffed to do that type of work.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 17, 2020, 09:39:52 AM
Lol, people put too much reliance into the JHS and the power and expertise they don't have. They can certainly be a part of an effort, but as a former JHS board member, I can honestly say they aren't staffed to do that type of work.
What is there to prevent them from nominating these buildings that need protection?
Chapter 307.104 in the City's Code of Ordinances.
QuoteConsideration by the Commission of the designation of a landmark or landmark site shall be initiated by the filing of an application for designation by the property owner, or his authorized agent, the Jacksonville Historic Preservation Commission, the Mayor, the Jacksonville City Council, or any member of the Jacksonville City Council, with the Commission.
The historical society has just as little ability to change things as me and you. We all can make up lists for nominating but one of the four identified above are the only entities that can actually initiate landmarking for buildings needing protection.
In the case of FBC, the property owner went around JHPC to have council members with no knowlege of the policies, make a decision to recommend allowing the demolition to take place.
To put it short, the system is set up to make it easy to destroy and difficult to preserve. Jax's wolves are guarding the hen house.
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/first-baptist-appeal-to-tear-down-building-advances-to-full-city-council
Quote from: thelakelander on June 17, 2020, 09:02:22 AM
Becton, Boylan, Dennis and Ferraro for and Gaffney and White against. However, Gaffney was the one who said old buildings frustrate him. That's rough since his district covers the oldest areas of the city. I predict that it will be a rough year. From my perspective, people in the community who care about preservation with need to get more aggressive and preemptive to landmark as many buildings as possible. This clearly won't be led by city hall. However, they may jump on board (like their doing with the confederate monument and names stuff) if they feel the political tide is turning in that direction.
It was Becton and Boylan against and Dennis, Ferraro, Gaffney and White for demolition.
Quote from: Tacachale on June 17, 2020, 02:04:04 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on June 17, 2020, 09:02:22 AM
Becton, Boylan, Dennis and Ferraro for and Gaffney and White against. However, Gaffney was the one who said old buildings frustrate him. That's rough since his district covers the oldest areas of the city. I predict that it will be a rough year. From my perspective, people in the community who care about preservation with need to get more aggressive and preemptive to landmark as many buildings as possible. This clearly won't be led by city hall. However, they may jump on board (like their doing with the confederate monument and names stuff) if they feel the political tide is turning in that direction.
It was Becton and Boylan against and Dennis, Ferraro, Gaffney and White for demolition.
Interesting. I'm pleasantly surprised by Becton.
Dennis makes no sense. Under his argument, literally any entity could claim "financial strain" and demolish anything.
Weird with the voting names. The picture sent to me last night showed Gaffney and White against, which was strange considering Gaffney's comment and Becton advocating it going back to HPC.
Unfortunately, Dennis' comment makes less sense, considering the massive amount of debt FBC is trying to force it's declining membership base into. Demolition is a drop in the bucket of what they'll be on the hook for.....if they can get approved for it. This is one I'm really fearful that all they do is demolish, go belly up and put on the market to sell.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 17, 2020, 11:31:37 AM
Chapter 307.104 in the City's Code of Ordinances.
QuoteConsideration by the Commission of the designation of a landmark or landmark site shall be initiated by the filing of an application for designation by the property owner, or his authorized agent, the Jacksonville Historic Preservation Commission, the Mayor, the Jacksonville City Council, or any member of the Jacksonville City Council, with the Commission.
The historical society has just as little ability to change things as me and you. We all can make up lists for nominating but one of the four identified above are the only entities that can actually initiate landmarking for buildings needing protection.
In the case of FBC, the property owner went around JHPC to have council members with no knowlege of the policies, make a decision to recommend allowing the demolition to take place.
To put it short, the system is set up to make it easy to destroy and difficult to preserve. Jax's wolves are guarding the hen house.
To what degree have they injected themselves into the debate on FBC and other demo cases in the past? Do they lobby to save these buildings, conduct research to support a historic designation, solicit their members to encourage writing the decision makers, etc?
I would see their role as doing those sorts of things. Obviously they can't introduce legislation, but they can certainly seek sponsors from the 19 council members or from the JHPC. Doing the research and leg work in advance would facilitate getting that kind of support.
From personal experience, they aren't staffed to do that and doing such would be a dramatic shift in how they operate. As of now, JHS is primarily a volunteer board that spends much of its time like other nonprofits...attempting to raise money for its survival. It does have an executive director and a couple of employees but they'd need a lot more to effectively become a lobbyist camping out in city hall to tackle this ongoing issue. Unfortunately Jax doesn't have a group dedicated to what you're describing at this point in time. Establishing one to do just this is an active discussion taking place in various circles though. Hopefully, something will materialize soon. In the meantime, efforts to quietly landmark and save buildings individual continues.