I'm currently listening to the LUZ meeting, regarding the appeal of a final order of the JHPC denying Amkin Hill Street LLC to demolish the Ford Plant. The LUZ is going to grant the appeal. Enjoy the Ford Plant while its still with us. It will be gone soon.
Once it comes down, the owner has stated that it will likely be replaced with an expansion of the adjacent shipyard and 300 new jobs.
Appeal approved 7-0 by LUZ.
Unfortunate. At the same time though, it seems the place was falling apart and we weren't ready to invest in keeping it around. At least it'll be something instead of another grass lot.
A significant factor in the decision was the specific location of the property. That's a tough location to convince anyone to spend gigantic dollars on an unconventional project. And absence of that, history/character isn't as persuasive as jobs to most on council.
Its a site and building that millions of public money will need to be invested in to save. This city has never shown the will to make such a public private partnership happen with the property. The landlord is also the same group that demolished the Greyhound station for the surface parking lot that remains today, so I don't necessarily have high hopes for the future of the land or promise of jobs either. I'll wait to more information comes out on that one.
Regardless of that, I do believe that a partial demolition could have been a potentially feasible option. We're so used to throwing the baby out with the bathwater that it was never really debated or explored, outside of a few public speakers like Bill Bishop and Alan Bliss mentioning it. However, I'd say the worst part of the meeting was listening to council members talk preservation and engineering. Whoa were some of them completely talking out of their league! I think I got a few extra grey hairs listening through some of the wacky and highly questionable assumptions made.
^ Walt Disney's Imagineering people couldn't bring a creative bone to our City Council, Mayor and agency heads if they tried. Hate to say it, but it's a lost cause with the current crop of City leaders. Not one can think beyond their next election or appointment.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 04, 2022, 10:58:20 PM
Its a site and building that millions of public money will need to be invested in to save. This city has never shown the will to make such a public private partnership happen with the property. The landlord is also the same group that demolished the Greyhound station for the surface parking lot that remains today, so I don't necessarily have high hopes for the future of the land or promise of jobs either. I'll wait to more information comes out on that one.
Regardless of that, I do believe that a partial demolition could have been a potentially feasible option. We're so used to throwing the baby out with the bathwater that it was never really debated or explored, outside of a few public speakers like Bill Bishop and Alan Bliss mentioning it. However, I'd say the worst part of the meeting was listening to council members talk preservation and engineering. Whoa were some of them completely talking out of their league! I think I got a few extra grey hairs listening through some of the wacky and highly questionable assumptions made.
Lol, what were some of the things they said?
I've tried to wash my brain of the remembering most of the discussion lol. Some random things include:
- Asking staff dumb questions that they already knew the answer too, like... did staff hire a structural engineer to evaluate the building as a part of their landmarking process? That's not staff's role and if it were, these same council people would have taken that out of the budget years ago.
- Making points based on perspectives that denying demo approval means the building will sit there and fall into the river if preservationist can't get the owner to care. In reality, you don't need someone involved in demolition by neglect to care. There are ways around that (i.e. Bostwick Building or providing public incentives to make various redevelopment projects feasible).
- Once its demo'd for preservation's sake, they can save some old bricks and sprinkle them around the redeveloped site.
- They want to avoid the Surfside Condo collapse scenario.
- If the city really cared about saving the building, it would have landmarked it (as opposed to the property owner).
- Taking the property owner's structural report as truth and running with it because that's all they claim they had to make a decision on it.
Overall, the decision to approve demo appeal was not surprising, as this is a city stacked with a council that's not really going to go out and opposed a property owner's wishes to do whatever they want with their property. However, some of the reasons presented illustrated how very uneducated our elected representatives are in these matters and why they probably should not have the ability to have final say on some things. Ultimately, without better representation or some policies to protect our community and officials from themselves, we'll continue struggle with these types of issues.
Oh, lol. Someone just asked Melissa Ross about this today.
https://twitter.com/jennmsullivan/status/1577652269725646849?s=46&t=nGEMRovyYHFhj46JRUHAvg
At some point in the not too distant future there won't be any cool old buildings left, so we will no longer have to worry about more of this type of thing happening.
New slogan for Jacksonville:
"America's most developer friendly city... raid the City treasury, get exceptions to our zoning rules just for asking, destroy our historic character, take away our green spaces, submit your uninspired and cheap-to-build architectural designs, build wherever you want with whatever you want... we just don't care as long as you spend your dollars here.*"
*...and donate handsomely to the campaigns of our elected officials.
Newest example of a very dilapidated home getting a new lease on life in DT Charleston.
$651k purchase price, $750k in renovation for a 1428 SF house. Almost $1,000 per sf invested when completed. Lot is less than 1/10th of an acre.
https://www.postandcourier.com/features/run-down-19th-century-charleston-house-sells-for-650k-to-be-saved-instead-of-razed/article_460e075c-7b0c-11ec-b4ca-0be39383f07a.html (https://www.postandcourier.com/features/run-down-19th-century-charleston-house-sells-for-650k-to-be-saved-instead-of-razed/article_460e075c-7b0c-11ec-b4ca-0be39383f07a.html)
Quote from: vicupstate on October 10, 2022, 08:30:27 AM
Newest example of a very dilapidated home getting a new lease on life in DT Charleston.
$651k purchase price, $750k in renovation for a 1428 SF house. Almost $1,000 per sf invested when completed. Lot is less than 1/10th of an acre.
https://www.postandcourier.com/features/run-down-19th-century-charleston-house-sells-for-650k-to-be-saved-instead-of-razed/article_460e075c-7b0c-11ec-b4ca-0be39383f07a.html (https://www.postandcourier.com/features/run-down-19th-century-charleston-house-sells-for-650k-to-be-saved-instead-of-razed/article_460e075c-7b0c-11ec-b4ca-0be39383f07a.html)
Quotes below (emphasis added) from the article that you will never see from Jacksonville local officials! What a difference in attitudes.
Quote
...."The consulting engineer was pretty accurate," Glaws said. "This one is in pretty bad shape, but they already knew what condition the house was in, so why not ask them for help? Any house can be salvaged."...
...."Our historic building stock is highly unique and irreplicable, and we commend the developer for taking on this project to save the structure," Minnigan said....
....Asked why he bought something in such bad shape, Glaws said, "If done correctly, you can make a rehab like this make sense. You can make it financially viable. It's expensive to do, but there is an investment calculus to doing the project yourself."
"In localities other than Charleston without an ingrained preservation ethic, it might get knocked down pretty easily," Glaws said.
He knows the task of breathing new life into it will be exhaustive.
"But," Glaws said, "it's rewarding in and of itself. It's the preservation of a cultural resource."
In a lighthearted note, he pointed to the sign placed on the building to indicate it's a danger to go inside and he noted his business sign next to it.
"The nasty red X means everything is not OK," Glaws said. "The sign with the white lettering means everything is going to be alright."
I, uh... feel like it's not exactly a brilliant example of success to say that a small three-bedroom house that will have a compromised floorplan due to its design is going to cost $1.4 million when all is said and done. Anything can technically be salvaged, but the cost-benefit analysis genuinely panning out like this is rare, and I seriously doubt it does so here. Sure, the builder might feel it's worth the sentimental value to save it no matter the cost, but that's not the same as it genuinely being worth the cost.
Let me be clear here, I'm not saying they're wrong to save the building, I'm saying that they should be honest that doing so is about the reward of the building being there and not the value of the building itself. Saving the Ford plant would have been because we wanted to have the Ford plant, not because it's technically "worth it" to have the Ford plant.
Many of these home in DT Charleston become Airbnb. Thus, they are a business investment. A lot of different rules apply to a rental investment compared to a personal home purchase and $1.4 million may be an excellent investment. I saw an article awhile back that stated the majority of homes the historic DT were short term rentals. The article stated that the remaining full-time residents were not pleased with the situation. I am not against restoring historic home. I am just saying DT Charleston is not DT Jacksonville and this may not be a good comparison.
^ LOL. No one is going to confuse downtown Charleston with our downtown.
While are histories vary, we too have a history. Unlike Charleston, we have thrown away many (most?) remnants of it. Further, we have decimated our downtown with vacant lots, cold street facing buildings with no retail interaction and little to do for tourists including not exploiting our waterfront fully.
I note too, on my last visit to Charleston, there were no high rise buildings or oversized cookie cutter apartment/condo buildings crowding their downtown waterfront thus giving the city a relatable and inviting "old town" scale. They also have lots of public waterfront spaces and interior parks (even a lake!).
Jax leaders will find it hard to believe a city can thrive without the investment of a billionaire NFL owner, 40+ story buildings in their riverfront parks, a Four Seasons, the tearing down of historic structures, etc. but, rather, creating a city more like that of over 200 years ago than today.
Maybe if we followed Charleston's lead more, we could have the economic drivers to support projects like that covered in the article with, notably, NO city incentives, apparently. How refreshing...
Ford plant is now officially a goner.
Lots of doublespeak by Council members. Saying it will bring jobs to the Eastside. Unless the proposed shipyard company offers lots of training (never mentioned in discussion it appears), I wonder how many Eastsiders will have the prerequisite skills that are likely highly specialized to perform the necessary jobs. And, if they do get what are likely better paying jobs, how many will remain in the Eastside.
Without a comprehensive plan of training and community support, I think this is about as useful to the Eastside economy as the Jaguars have been over the last 25+ years. In fact, it may hold the Eastside back as who wants to live next door to a major shipyard.
I can't believe how many people swallow this Koolaid. Restoring the facility would have been the real asset and economic driver for the Eastside with jobs that workers might actually want to live in proximity to.
QuoteThe Jacksonville City Council will allow the owner of the historic former Ford Motor Co. factory in Talleyrand to demolish the 97-year-old riverfront landmark for a possible maritime industrial redevelopment project.
The Council's 17-0 vote overruled a June 9 order by the Jacksonville Historic Preservation Commission that denied Amkin Hill Street LLC a certificate of appropriateness to raze the structure at 1900 Wambolt St., which was an assembly plant for the Model T and Model A that city historic preservation staff said automaker Henry Ford helped plan and operate.
Amkin, controlled by Miami-based investor Ramon Llorens, bought the property in February 2015. Llorens told the Council Land Use and Zoning Committee on Oct. 4 that he is negotiating with a U.S.-based shipyard owner that is considering bringing 300 jobs to the site...
...."Once this structure is down, you will see opportunities. You'll see jobs created for the Northside of town and the Eastside of Jacksonville," Gaffney said.
Council member Nick Howland said before the 7-0 LUZ Committee vote to allow the demolition that the jobs could help the Eastside's unemployment rate of 12.8%.
"If this creates jobs ... that outweighs, to me, what is more of a historical and an emotional appeal," he said. "It's a tough one."....
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/council-approves-demolition-request-for-historic-ford-motor-co-plant
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on October 12, 2022, 11:29:31 AM"Once this structure is down, you will see opportunities."
How's that working out for LaVilla?
Ford on Bay?
How's that 140-story skyscraper coming along once we knocked down that pesky Greyhound Station?
In our rush to knock down the Landing, under the auspices that having a clean state would attract more interest from private developers, how many responses did we get for the RFP?
Definition of insanity.
Unfortunately, I knew the plant would come down months ago and it has nothing to do with its history or redevelopment opportunity. Is some of it salvageable? Yes, of course it is. Does any of that matter locally? Nope! Heck, half of the people talking about the plant probably don't even know that there are multiple buildings out there, not just the big warehouse over the river. But everything will come down. Boiler house and all.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/1518889359_krH4zmt-M.jpg)
Council is full of people that aren't remotely professionally qualified to make some of the decisions that bubble up to them. George Washington's Mount Vernon would come down 17-0 for a Dollar General and the jobs it creates if the property owner wanted to raze it for a quick buck in Jacksonville. We're not dealing with logic on many of these decisions, so knowing that on the front end while spare you the heartache and grief on the backend.
Now I do believe if this city really wanted to save the building and many others, it would have never let the ownership engage in demolition by neglect for decades. We're our worst enemy on some of these issues. Unfortunately, its built into our political structure, so the Ford plant's demise won't be the last.
Moving on, of interesting note, the site could likely go back to a historic use that predates Henry Ford's time in town....if the shipyard next door does expand. However, at this point, we don't even know if there is a real deal to sell the property or if anything will happen, other than the site being used as an outdoor storage yard for broken down industrial equipment, vehicles, shipping containers, etc. If it does, then what are we doing to ensure that the project benefits nearby residents? Based on precedence.....likely nothing. Nevertheless, that's where focus moving forward should be with the site.
Quote from: Ken_FSU on October 12, 2022, 02:23:25 PM
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on October 12, 2022, 11:29:31 AM"Once this structure is down, you will see opportunities."
How's that working out for LaVilla?
Ford on Bay?
How's that 140-story skyscraper coming along once we knocked down that pesky Greyhound Station?
In our rush to knock down the Landing, under the auspices that having a clean state would attract more interest from private developers, how many responses did we get for the RFP?
Definition of insanity.
Yeah, if anything I don't see why one wouldn't include some kind of guarantee of this shipyard partner actually existing and being ready to move ahead before going with demolition, especially when this exact developer has already put one over on the city before. Frankly embarrassing that Gaffney is going for this again, as if bidders are waiting in the wings to see if the building's gone before they magically appear offering prosperity.
I'm not surprised one bit. Logic goes out the door when these types of issues are debated by council. One council member said the building reminded her of the Surfside condo collapse and that was a large part of her reasoning. When those types of perspectives are on the table, all the things you guys are talking about, go right out of the door.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 12, 2022, 08:07:29 PM
I'm not surprised one bit. Logic goes out the door when these types of issues are debated by council. One council member said the building reminded her of the Surfside condo collapse and that was a large part of her reasoning. When those types of perspectives are on the table, all the things you guys are talking about, go right out of the door.
Overall (there are a very few exceptions), I think we have one of the least effective and disappointing (to put it kindly) City Councils in a long time due to a lack of backbone, vision, forward thinking, creativity, moral principles, civic responsibility, respect for differing points of view, energy, passion, inquisitiveness, being fully and legitimately informed and, maybe, just plain intellect.
This is compounded by corruption due to donor monies, laziness, selfishness, excessive ambition, over-inflated egos, partisanship, conflicts of interests, cliques and general submissiveness to the mayor and special interests.
All this begets a collective City Council that rubber stamps developer (and billionaire NFL owner) exceptions and giveaways along with terrible business and financial deals while basic City needs such as parks, roads, traffic control, garbage collection, social needs, urban renewal, resiliency, reduction in crime, environment, historic preservation and so much more gets unmet or mismanaged.
In the end, our voters (or lack thereof) get a big part of the blame, being sucked in by false TV ads and failing to fully do their due diligence on the candidates or to more actively participate in the electoral process. This behavior also tends to discourage more competent candidates from entering the arena. Tim Baker's nasty campaign MO has also succeeded in running off better candidates in my opinion and it shows.
Not to delve too far into this rabbit hole, but the issue overall comes down to that if you're one person who wants to run for office in this city, you (generally, not always) have to be either willing to sell out to enough special interests to raise the low six-figures needed to put up a competitive race, or already come from wealth (either through business, family, or somehow the nonprofit sector) that you can afford to pour into your campaign. All while having to go out and gather support in a city where so few care and deal with the vitriol from your opponents.
And if you do win, then what? You're one out of nineteen people, eighteen of whom are the opposite of you, and odds are the mayor won't stick their neck out for you, and the legislative delegation will ignore you, and your constituents will either not show up or the ones who do would rather you did as little as possible. That's a daunting prospect to leave your normal life for.
^To add to your comments, we also now have interventions from state and national politicos in our local races. How many Republican candidates locally are seeking endorsements from the likes of DeSantis, even in supposedly non-partisan races? How much out of town money is financing local races? Lots. So a local "independent" is also up against party machines and money that are offered in return for kissing their rings.
JAX is in a continuous cycle of ineffective leadership and the only thing that will change it would be a citizen lead charter amendment. Non-partisan Ranked-Choice elections would probably go over if it went to a vote. Taking away term limits at least for Mayor would help too, albeit harder to get approved.
To get Ranked Choice Voting in Florida, you would have to repeal part of (or all) DeSantis' law establishing the Voter Cops.
Quote
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill that creates a police force dedicated to pursuing voter fraud and other election crimes, but that's not all it does.
The bill ... also eliminates ranked-choice voting for all elections in Florida.
Senate Bill 524 specifically said it was "prohibiting the use of ranked-choice voting to determine election or nomination to elective office; voiding existing or future local ordinances authorizing the use of ranked choice voting."
Quote from: Charles Hunter on October 13, 2022, 09:02:37 AM
To get Ranked Choice Voting in Florida, you would have to repeal part of (or all) DeSantis' law establishing the Voter Cops.
Quote
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill that creates a police force dedicated to pursuing voter fraud and other election crimes, but that's not all it does.
The bill ... also eliminates ranked-choice voting for all elections in Florida.
Senate Bill 524 specifically said it was "prohibiting the use of ranked-choice voting to determine election or nomination to elective office; voiding existing or future local ordinances authorizing the use of ranked choice voting."
Didn't know that. It makes perfect sense he would be against it. Anything that takes the venom out of politics he would be against.