(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2421/4011983531_662ed22ee0_b.jpg)
oh jeez.
can we all agree that not all structures in a historic district are worthy and / or suitable for saving?
i think this would be obvious.
i also think it'd be obvious to wait and bash her until you have any idea what the reason for demolition would be. i have no personal knowledge, neither do you.
but perhaps waiting until you know would be too much to ask.
lets just guess!
FSU813...Do you even know who Joel is?
A man, educated and trained, to make these decisions in historic districts.
I say rip it all down and rebuild up to code!
Quote from: Sportmotor on October 14, 2009, 07:07:58 PM
I say rip it all down and rebuild up to code!
definitely, #2 pine is way better than heart pine and that strandboard sheathing is the bomb, not to mention that drywall is 100 times better than that crappy lathe and plaster. I agree rebuild them all, would give some of those construction types jobs that they so desperately need. And this time everyone can have tyvek.
Quote from: stephendare on October 14, 2009, 07:11:38 PM
Quote from: Sportmotor on October 14, 2009, 07:07:58 PM
I say rip it all down and rebuild up to code!
Its against the law. And you couldnt afford to replace what is already there.
There are 868 other square miles of the city to build the cheap ass ghetto constructed new buildings that fall apart in 20 years. Springfield is a historic district with federal recognition.
Think about what happened to one of the most historic African American Districts in the south here in Jacksonville: LaVilla.
This is about the furthest opposite that you can get from the public interest.
Method to my madness would be it would give SO many new jobs and oppratunitys and would def last a good while. Best ways in the past to boost economy, building things. Public works projects. Rebuilding that would do so much good for jobs here in Jax.
Nice bomb Strider, may we have another ?
Im not actually being funny, I think it would do Jax alot of good to start to tear down and rebuild some of the old.
Also gives a chance to redo the aging roads in the same process
Plus drainage, and anything else all in one swoop costing less in a long run.
Im not attracted to any historical downtown, those areas usally throw my alignment on my vechical out of wack or more then once given me something stuck in my wheel, and odd looks of "why is a white boy down here".
Id say a modern downtown (more so then it is now becuase atm its not) would be more attractive then a decaying downtown.
We need to get a list of the houses scheduled for demo, quickly! We also need to let the folks downtown know that THIS is NOT how all the neighborhood feels about the old homes.
Quote from: stephendare on October 14, 2009, 07:52:25 PM
then you just dont understand what a historic district is. ;)
But we get your opinion.
aging decaying and full of crime :P
So everyone in springfield does in fact behave like a 15 year old girl
QuoteMethod to my madness would be it would give SO many new jobs and oppratunitys and would def last a good while. Best ways in the past to boost economy, building things. Public works projects. Rebuilding that would do so much good for jobs here in Jax.
You might want to pick up a copy of "Economics in One Lesson" by Hazlitt - Chap 4 I believe. It's written so that even wolves can understand.
QuoteWhat possible motivation would cause the Springfield Preservation and Restoration board to sabotage the Historic Preservation Commission and angrily demand that historic structures be demolished?
I was thinking the same thing, Stephen. ??? It does seem that a certain developer is very close to Louise, and that same developer often quickly purchases lots after these historic houses have been demolished.
Joel is a man of high caliber and is doing his job. I've been with him on several inspections and he does not sign off on demolition work unless the structure is too dangerous to walk through.
While fsu813 could be right, it does demand a thorough vetting and explanation at the next SPAR General Meeting.
Quotecan we all agree that not all structures in a historic district are worthy and / or suitable for saving?
Yes fsu813, we can agree. But that's Joel's decision. Not to be coerced by the leader of a HISTORIC PRESERVATION Group whose purpose is to save these structures!
EVERYTHING old is inherently better than anything new. That's why I support eniac computing and electroshock for people with unwholesome thoughts. Back when we replaced all our windows, someone came by and made a comment about us not using "historically appropriate" windows. Kiss my ass, we were here before spar and the "right" windows cost almost four times as much and aren't as secure. Not all of us are here by choice, my family is stuck- we've tried to get out a few times but we're not in one of the desirable houses but it costs just as much to fix and repair.
SPAR-ring just took on new meaning in this thread!
As a dis-interested party, I am trying to think this out as if it was my neighborhood.
Seems the City Council rep (who is?) for this area should get everyone in a room, moderate a nice rational debate, and then attempt to mediate a reasonable solution that "preserves" the area without over-intruding into everyone's living arrangements. If the council rep isn't up to it, maybe a mediator agreed to by all could handle it. This likely would mean a compromise on the part of all parties since each side appears to have some valid but apparently conflicting concerns (personal rights, privacy, protection of neighborhood character and values, historic preservation, zoning enforcement...) . Are they up to it?
Stephen, I don't know any particulars to which you speak. I was just sizing up the last few days of posts on this and another thread on the subject and trying to offer a constructive and mature solution to a problem.
At the rate things are going otherwise, nothing will change and everyone will be unhappy.
Good luck.
I would suggest you give DeSpain an opportunity to explain this letter before posting further. Things are not always as they seem. You might have something out of context and I'm sure if that is the case, she would not appreciate your postings, and neither would I.
HOWEVER, if she stands by what this letter seems to imply, and that she does not see her role as a DEFENDER of historic preservation, then she needs to resign immedeiately. I TOTALLY AGREE that it is COMPLETELY inappropriate for her to continue in her position if her initial response is to tear-down rather than preserve the historic buildings and fabric of the neighborhood. Your point that this is the SPRINGFIELD PRESERVATION and RESTORATION organization is well taken.
As I posted yesterday:
You may want to get all the facts before you start accusing, Stephen. But that doesn't seem to be your MO.
I don't have any personal knowledge about the circumstances of the demo or the letter and neither do you.
Just a suggestion.
Sheclown,
yes, I know who Joel is. Very well, actually. Personally.
From someone who is actually involved in the process and has done some research on it......
"The majority of the demos that have been brought up recently have been done so by the owners. The city is cracking down on negligent property owners and the ultimatum is, bring the property up to code or demolish it. They either don't want to spend the money for needed repairs or can't afford to and ask for demo as the cheaper option. I hear a lot of complaining about the situation but lets hear some solutions. This issue is not in the hands of SPAR, RAP or the city. The property owners are the ones responsible, at fault and in control. The way the laws are now the city cannot force someone to repair or keep up their property.
How long is long enough for a house to sit, 5, 15, 30 years? I don't know one person who would choose demo over restoration but the fact is restoration in some cases is not happening. The Lampru Apartments were a perfect example. They sat in disrepair for years until they finally started to cave in on themselves. It wasn't SPAR or the city's fault. It was the owner who allowed the demolition by neglect and no one else had any control of stopping the process. My point is, it is unproductive to wring our hands and blame those that have no control to stop the problem.
A demo was recently granted to an owner/developer (not SRG!!!) so he could build a new home on the property. He had a contractor and engineer's report saying that the property was not structurally sound, along with a report from the city's property safety dept. So how can we fight that?
I think that people don't understand the roles of the Historic Commission, Property Safety Dept., General Council and Special Master. The Historic Commission can enforce the interiors guidelines for alterations and additions but is trumped by Property Safety and The Specciall Master when it comes to safety, non compliance and demolition. I am on the HPC along with 3 other new members and we are working with General Council to change the laws but it won't happen overnight.
And way to go Joe for trying to make me look bad. I have been on the Commission for 11 months now and I have not seen you at a single hearing. If you had been in attendance you would know that I have been the most outspoken member against demolition, on many times the one dissenting vote and the initiator with General Council and staff to get changes made to the laws. Go figure."
Joe, in this letter, is Strider. Who has a small coalition to rid the world of the plague that is SPAR. A crusade, of sorts.
That's why the next SPAR General Meeting should be interesting.
FSU813 Stephen did post the letter for us to read. In the letter Joel is accused of helping approve one demo and deny two others. And he required evaluations(how over the top ::) ) before Historic properties where demoed. This is the opposition letter and that is the way it is stated. Sounds like Joel is the line of defense on Springfield preservation.
post #35
Quote from: vicupstate on October 15, 2009, 05:53:01 AM
I would suggest you give DeSpain an opportunity to explain this letter before posting further. Things are not always as they seem. You might have something out of context and I'm sure if that is the case, she would not appreciate your postings, and neither would I.
I agree. I don't think this is the place to toss around accusations. While the email is certainly damning, further insight is needed to properly put things in their rightful place. My suggestion would be to go down to SPAR's office or go to a board meeting and address them directly.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 15, 2009, 09:31:05 AM
Quote from: vicupstate on October 15, 2009, 05:53:01 AM
I would suggest you give DeSpain an opportunity to explain this letter before posting further. Things are not always as they seem. You might have something out of context and I'm sure if that is the case, she would not appreciate your postings, and neither would I.
I agree. I don't think this is the place to toss around accusations. While the email is certainly damning, further insight is needed to properly put things in their rightful place. My suggestion would be to go down to SPAR's office or go to a board meeting and address them directly.
That apparently isn't how Mr. Dare likes to operate. He seems to conjure up the worst possible scenario in his mind and then post on here as if its reality.
Stephen, did you ever call Sean Kelly about your other conspiracy theory? You know the one that I basically said was not even legislatively possible? Or were you more interested in slinging Louise DeSpain's name through the mud?
I've been reading this on both the SPAR forum and here. I agree that further insight may be needed to be sure of what is being requested in the email. Going to SPAR's office and/or a board meeting at this point isn't really acceptable though. I think Louise or SPAR should address the forums and put this thing to rest. I don't know how that email could mean much other than what the words seem to be suggesting, but I'm listening. I don't believe we should advocate destroying houses in any quick step process and find it odd the people supposedly fighting to save properties is suggesting otherwise. Destruction cannot be undone, it should be reviewed by the professionals!
I agree with some of the opinions that this should have been investigated a bit further and both sides of the story published simultaneously. The email itself appears to be pretty damning but by running with one side of the story by someone who has a personal financial interest (historically) in this makes this less than credible 'reporting'.
Stephen, I have enjoyed and been impressed by many of the opinions and discussion brought about here on MJ by yourself and your colleagues but this story is a bit disappointing. I'm certainly not saying there is no merit to this issue. As someone who took a pretty good one sided beating by Folio a few years back I would hope you can appreciate getting everyone's response on this before running with it.
I'm tired of both the far left and far right rhetoric filling mainstream media and expect better from MJ.
Quote from: untarded on October 15, 2009, 11:25:40 AMI'm tired of both the far left and far right rhetoric filling mainstream media and expect better from MJ.
This is not a story run by MetroJacksonville (this thread was started by Strider), and the views expressed in this thread are not necessarily those of MetroJacksonville as a group. However, individual members of MetroJacksonville are welcome to post their personal views.
stephen,
i said the same thing on post #3, where's my credit for "keeping it real" ?!? =P
Someone comes to meeting and claims that a historic building is structurally unsound so that it should be torn down. Joel, whose job it is to preserve historic buildings and see that the laws are followed, asks the someone to get a qualified, professional opinion about the state of the structure. He's just doing his job properly, Folks!
If it inconveniences you, then tough beans! Sell the building and move on. Oh, poor thing, you are going to lose money on the deal? So who guaranteed you a profit on your poor judgment?
Quote from: fsu813 on October 15, 2009, 08:41:25 AM
As I posted yesterday:
You may want to get all the facts before you start accusing, Stephen. But that doesn't seem to be your MO.
I don't have any personal knowledge about the circumstances of the demo or the letter and neither do you.
Just a suggestion.
Sheclown,
yes, I know who Joel is. Very well, actually. Personally.
From someone who is actually involved in the process and has done some research on it......
Quote"The majority of the demos that have been brought up recently have been done so by the owners. The city is cracking down on negligent property owners and the ultimatum is, bring the property up to code or demolish it. They either don't want to spend the money for needed repairs or can't afford to and ask for demo as the cheaper option. I hear a lot of complaining about the situation but lets hear some solutions. This issue is not in the hands of SPAR, RAP or the city. The property owners are the ones responsible, at fault and in control. The way the laws are now the city cannot force someone to repair or keep up their property.
How long is long enough for a house to sit, 5, 15, 30 years? I don't know one person who would choose demo over restoration but the fact is restoration in some cases is not happening. The Lampru Apartments were a perfect example. They sat in disrepair for years until they finally started to cave in on themselves. It wasn't SPAR or the city's fault. It was the owner who allowed the demolition by neglect and no one else had any control of stopping the process. My point is, it is unproductive to wring our hands and blame those that have no control to stop the problem.
A demo was recently granted to an owner/developer (not SRG!!!) so he could build a new home on the property. He had a contractor and engineer's report saying that the property was not structurally sound, along with a report from the city's property safety dept. So how can we fight that?
I think that people don't understand the roles of the Historic Commission, Property Safety Dept., General Council and Special Master. The Historic Commission can enforce the interiors guidelines for alterations and additions but is trumped by Property Safety and The Specciall Master when it comes to safety, non compliance and demolition. I am on the HPC along with 3 other new members and we are working with General Council to change the laws but it won't happen overnight.
And way to go Joe for trying to make me look bad. I have been on the Commission for 11 months now and I have not seen you at a single hearing. If you had been in attendance you would know that I have been the most outspoken member against demolition, on many times the one dissenting vote and the initiator with General Council and staff to get changes made to the laws. Go figure.".
Joe, in this letter, is Strider. Who has a small coalition to rid the world of the plague that is SPAR. A crusade, of sorts...
This was Joe's response to her post dated Friday October 2, 2009 (on a different forum).
Quote
This issue has been discussed many times. The problem isn’t that an owner won’t sell, it is and was that there was no one to buy it. And no money to fix it. I know that you’ve heard that people were greedy and were asking too much for the houses in question, but were do you think those prices came from? Try the developers who pushed the prices up on empty lots to make their own lots that were bought cheap worth more. Try the realtors who liked the commission on 50K much better than that 10K. And yes, some where probably just “greedyâ€. In the end, once the house hit the “systemâ€, it was doomed unless luck brought a buyer in time. I know of one case where a buyer was brought to the table a month before the demo and the city still said too late.
This wasn’t an issue until some decided that the rest of the houses had to be done or else. We have seen the or else. As far as houses being structurally unsound, yes, even I have passed that judgment on some of them. But the vast majority of ones that came down in the last two years I feel were very salvageable. Try one that had a three year old roof and the sills replaced and that 50% of the structure was new and to current code. It came down at the foreclosure’s banks request because it was structurally unsound. No, it came down because the city didn’t care, the HPC didn’t understand and the community organization had made the original complaints against it anyway. The cheaper solution for all, I guess. Another had no leaks in the roof, except the front porch. It used to be the front porch would be taken, but the sound house would be saved. Today, the entire house goes. But of course, Dan has said the problem seems over so why worry?
And Lisa, you know that I have more time downtown and in front of the historic commission than you do and you have been on the commission 11 months now. As far as making you look bad…I simply repeated something you said on this very forum. Do you feel differently today than you did when you made that comment?
Lisa, to those “owner requested†demos….you do admit that they are being requested because the house are in the system and will be demo’d anyway so the owners are simply trying to save themselves a few grand by doing it themselves.? So I have to ask, is the commission saving the house or by default, just making more money for the city (if the city ever happens to get paid)?
I guess we could listen to Dan and Lisa and not worry anymore about the old houses. After all, it isn’t like they are important anymore, is it? So what if we do nothing now because it is much better to worry about things like a thrift store on Main or even rooming houses, even if that means no one is looking while a few more historic houses go away for good.
Louise's email proves that Lisa is not in a hurry about the demolition of these houses. After all, Louise states that she needs to "light a fire" under Lisa over it. However, it does indicate a certain level of control by Louise over Lisa, as if she is able to force the Historic Commission to do her bidding.
FSU813, if you are going to post one, you need to post the response as well.
OOPPSS! Wrong Lisa. The Lisa in Louise's email is Lisa Sheppard in Joel's office. Not Lisa Simon of the historic commission. I really don't know where that leaves us.
The structure at 1430 N Liberty has had a green demo sign for weeks! There is an open C.A.R.E. request in the system but it makes no mention of demo! Is that standard? Frankly, this house has been languishing uninhabited for a few years now. Obviously, it's so neglected it's almost as if it isn't even there as it just blends into the trees and bushes.
no green tag means its days are numbered.
I DEMAND A FULL INVESTIAGTION!
HEADS WILL ROLL!
Stephen, posting this particular e-mail was not an easy decision. I knew there would be some who would defend Louise no matter what. I actually thought you would as you have before. I also knew others would attack me over it. I can take it. However and unfortunately, this is indeed the Louise I have known for years.
FSU813... you should know that the person you quoted as "is actually involved in the process and has done some research on it......" has been involved in Springfield far less time than I have, has less experience in the process than I have and is the person who spoke out on the SPAR Council forum a while ago and said that all the houses worth restoring in Historic Springfield have been done already. I hope she has changed her mind, but at this point, I don't know.
As to the e-mail itself? Well, I thought about it and realized that based on other facts that I know and the actual wording of the document, it was not just a one time thing, it was not just about these two particular houses and this was indeed how she felt about the issue. I can't call Louise myself, but someone else certainly can and ask her to comment. Meanwhile, we have the two e-mails that have been posted and they say it all in black and whilte and can not be retracted nor dismissed.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3511/4015222494_0932f048eb_b.jpg)
The "Lisa" referenced in the email was Lisa Sheppard. Anyone who knows me well knows I have strong principals and cannot be swayed from my beliefs without facts. I have to agree to disagree with many people I like and respect. Joe you may have more years involved as a contractor, rehabber or member of SPAR or HSCC but that is different than sitting on the Code Enforcement or HPC Boards. I attended meetings for years and I can assure you that sitting behind that table is much harder than I ever imagined. Bottom line is I'm sure most properties could be saved with will and enough money but we don't have the right or the power to make that decision for an owner. The way the laws are now we can stave off demo until a property is deemed unsafe then we have no more authority. Property safety trumps every other division. The biggest problem as I see it is that many property owners do nothing for years, sometimes decades, ignoring requests from Code Enforcement or Property Safety to clean, maintain or repair their property. When the City finally enforces the laws the owners cry foul, with no plan to remedy the situation or they want the property demolished themselves. I love historic homes. I've restored a few and won an award from the HPC for the restoration of my personal home, so I don't understand the mindset of allowing a historic property to deteriorate to the point where demolition is even considered. I have a hard time though blaming city employees for the situation when the owners are at fault for allowing the deterioration to occur. Many cities have laws on the books to take properties from neglectful owners and I would agree with that process but I'm sure there are many on the other side who would say government had overstepped their boundaries and should not tell people what they can or can't do with their properties. The historic staff and commission follow guidelines set by the Secretary of the Interior for designated Historic Districts. They are doing the best they can but for every historic minded person who saves doors or windows willingly there are those who send hate letters, call the staff and commission stupid, complain that historic guidelines are outdated and not "green" and appeal to City Council or the Mayor that HPC is stepping on property rights. I used to get so mad when I watched hearings in the past but I realized my passion, anger and bitching weren't helping the situation. I do my best now to work for positive change. I try to encourage and educate people to do the right thing and I focus on the successes not the failures.
WHy are all of these demolitions occurring in Springfield but not Riverside or San Marco? All three are in the same city and under the same government jurisdictions. Are there simply no houses in Riverside or San Marco that are in the same supposed 'poor condition' as the properties that have been demolished in Springfield?
There seems to be a vicious cycle going on in Springfield. The city CAN and SHOULD levy fines for neglect BEFORE the building becomes borderline unsafe. If they were as aggressive on THOSE fines, then the owner would remedy or sell before it is at the point of 'supposed' no return.
Not many homes in San Marco that you could argue for need demo.
Yeah, Riverside is pretty much clean too. Not many boarded up, abandoned, walls & roofs falling in type of properties there.
Quote from: stephendare on October 15, 2009, 06:34:04 PM
Quote from: strider on October 15, 2009, 05:13:27 PM
Stephen, posting this particular e-mail was not an easy decision. I knew there would be some who would defend Louise no matter what. I actually thought you would as you have before. I also knew others would attack me over it. I can take it. However and unfortunately, this is indeed the Louise I have known for years.
FSU813... you should know that the person you quoted as "is actually involved in the process and has done some research on it......" has been involved in Springfield far less time than I have, has less experience in the process than I have and is the person who spoke out on the SPAR Council forum a while ago and said that all the houses worth restoring in Historic Springfield have been done already. I hope she has changed her mind, but at this point, I don't know.
As to the e-mail itself? Well, I thought about it and realized that based on other facts that I know and the actual wording of the document, it was not just a one time thing, it was not just about these two particular houses and this was indeed how she felt about the issue. I can't call Louise myself, but someone else certainly can and ask her to comment. Meanwhile, we have the two e-mails that have been posted and they say it all in black and whilte and can not be retracted nor dismissed.
Strider, Id much rather know the truth than to fondly live a lie that lets these people destroy hundreds of thousands of dollars of other people's property in order to pump an extra 20 thousand dollars into their own pockets --in terms of 'increasing their own property values.
I have been downtown all day today and have talked to many many many people involved both directly in and around this situation and the one common theme was that people hoped that we would all finally wake up and realize that this organization is 'mean and unbelievably spiteful' (in the words of someone at City Hall) and 'no longer working in the interests of a historic neighborhood or in the interests of historic preservation" (according to someone working at Planning)
Well the scales have been lifted from my eyes, and though it hurt my feelings as well as my trust that some things should be above the fray, Im glad to know the truth.
Did you stop and chat with Sean Kelly about the "secret SPR plan" while you were at Planning? Out of curiosity who at Planning said that to you?
Does anyone have a list of the houses scheduled for demolition?
We have a green tag on 1430 Liberty. Any more around?
Quote from: vicupstate on October 15, 2009, 07:49:17 PM
WHy are all of these demolitions occurring in Springfield but not Riverside or San Marco? All three are in the same city and under the same government jurisdictions. Are there simply no houses in Riverside or San Marco that are in the same supposed 'poor condition' as the properties that have been demolished in Springfield?
There seems to be a vicious cycle going on in Springfield. The city CAN and SHOULD levy fines for neglect BEFORE the building becomes borderline unsafe. If they were as aggressive on THOSE fines, then the owner would remedy or sell before it is at the point of 'supposed' no return.
I agree with this completely and have asked for years why the city does not do this. We ticket people for traffic violations, heck we ticket people when they exceed the time on their parking meter or park the wrong way on the street. This city could bring in a lot of revenue by ticketing and enforcing the fines on wayward property owners. There are homes in Springfield that have sat empty and deteriorating for decades. This is why there are issues now. Most of the structures were built well but even they will not stand forever without care and maintainence.
There is a fine system that is applied to the owner for allowing condition problems to occur but many owners either complain to their councilman ("Oh how unfair this is to me!") and get out of it or just let it happen. By the time the city gets ready for condemnation, the building is in such a state that it costs monster dollars to rehab it. What is the answer to that - do like they do for overgrown lawns and just fix it and bill the owners? Property rights nuts would have a fit. I don't know a good answer.
Having restored 3 buildings in Riverside, I can say that the housing stock of a neighborhood, what the buildings are made of, how big it is, and whether it has a good roof over it makes a lot of difference. Old, 100 year old plus buildings of wood, 3000-4000 plus square feet of interior space, wooden porches, all the lovely brickabrac are hard as hell to bring back if they have gone too far down. The upfront cost is terrific. All you amazing people who have done it, know what I mean.
Springfield is a wonderland of such stock. Riverside has a little bit but mixed with smaller cottages and bungalows and San Marco is 1920s-30s stucco and block.
Actually I would hope that Louise gets help one way or another the first way would help the econiommy. The second...
For starters does anyone have about $10,000?! That would be the first check written, that would have to clear to even start somthing. But, you are propossing what?! Louise you are an idiot!!!!
Gee Gary, thanks for your input... ::)
Quote from: GaryGJ on October 17, 2009, 01:13:24 PM
For starters does anyone have about $10,000?! That would be the first check written, that would have to clear to even start somthing. But, you are propossing what?! Louise you are an idiot!!!!
sounds like pot calling kettle black, this post is incomprehensible, perhaps its 5 O'clock somewhere?
yeah...we're all wondering about that.
I thought Gary was one of your guys. I thought he had posted this somewhere earlier when defending you and Joe.
Namecalling aside, is it not the grand historic structures that make Springfield at all marketable? Is SPAR not an Historic PRESERVATION Organization?
I'm confused.
As far as "property rights nuts" I am one. Historic districts are what they are. People know what they are in for before they buy. (Not unlike HOA's in Suburbia)
Having spent two weeks on the road: One in Portland Maine, the other in Houston Texas, I choose Portland. Historic, quaint, walkable, beautiful.
Jacksonville seems to want to grow up to become Houston. Meandering, unsightly, massive, unlivable.
Springfield is so much more valuable in it's current state than so many short sighted people realize.
Just keep a roof and windows/coverings on the structures and time will heal their wounds through HISTORIC PRESERVATION. Demolition will be the downfall of Springfield and it's property values over the long haul.
Preservation of a structure is my first goal. But then it comes down to financial capability.
I took a building down after one engineer told me it couldn't be saved, and two told me it could. The two engineers who told me it could be saved failed to mention the cost of trying to do so would be more than if I rebuilt the entire building new, and that paying that cost still couldn't ensure the walls would stand during roof demolition.
I don't like looking at an empty lot in this district any more than anyone else, but I do like knowing a dilapidated structure, that would have sat as it was for awhile for cost reasons, is not attracting squatters pimping addicts or stripping electrical wire.
Though I may have been foolish to take on the structure I did, I know I'm not the first (or last) who found restoration costs beyond expectations.
QuoteYou buy them and rehabilitate them.
20k a year for private security to protect you from the other residents? Five years?
That would have been five more homes saved.
I would love to hear from all of the Springfield homeowners who were able to purchase and do complete rehabilitation to their historic homes for $20,000. If the average historic home in Springfield were 1500 sq ft (and most are larger), that would be a total cost of approx $13/sq ft! Please chime in on this thread, and tell us how you did it!
Zoo,
you don't get it.
SPAR wants to demo any property with a broken window!
They have support demo left & right!
They are completed funded by developers!
They do nothing but divide the community!
They want to kick all poor people out!
You won't be allowed to let your cousin live with you!
The 2 properties mentioned in this email had no issues to support demo at all!
I saw horns and tails on some of the board members!
umm....right?
T. Boone Pickens?
You know Zoo, I've probably bought and sold, or rented, 10 or more properties in the neighborhood over the past 11 years...
I gotta tell you...I may have turned a couple into sober houses, but I've never torn one down.
That e-mail represents an outright fukking SCANDAL
As I've suspected and stated all along (even when other forum members would argue incessantly that this wasn't the case) SPAR is a total and utter failure at its mission...which is PRESERVATION and RESTORATION.
What's worse, they are actively doing harm to that goal. Funny, I don't see the word DEMOLITION in their name.
They should be renamed "SPUD" for: "Springfield People acting Uppity and Demolishing"...
It's time they go the way of the dinosaur.
Zoo...don't you live in a new SRG house?
Can anyone give me the addresses of the properties in question. I want to go see for myself, what all this fuss is about. Please...
Doug's house...the one on Market? I used to own that. Contractors would wee wee on themselves when they went in. Eventually, Operation New Hope bought it and renovated, and look at what it is today!
We used to say, about the Market Street house, "good thing for the fire...it killed the termites."
Part of restoration work is finding the right people to do it. Operation New Hope did. Along with a lot of others. They didn't just throw up their hands and say it was too expensive. And now, what a doll's house we have in the neighborhood.
I never tore a house down either.
Yes I live in a newer home, but it is IN Springfield.
SPAR stands for Springfield Preservation and Revitalization. (n: to give new life or vigor to)
Ahh ... Zoo, it just seems to me that you announced through SPAR Council several times that you had hired a contractor (SRG) and were about to start the rehab of your building. Normally, by the time you've hired a contractor and make those kinds of announcements, you have multiple bids and have worked with the architects and engineers and know all about that building and the vast majority of what it needs (there are always a few hidden things...). It also appears, in this case, that you let everyone think it was going to be rehabbed and then when people thought equipment showed up to start, it got torn down.
I get it. The costs were way too much for you to afford. It happens. No big deal. But, it doesn't seem like you handled the situation very ... up front. And I ask, who doesn't already know that it always costs more to rehab a historic building than build new? Just the way it is.
You don't seem like the restoration poster child SPAR Council needs right now.
Oh, and just a bit of trivia....SPAR, Inc. stood for Springfield Preservation and Restoration, Inc. SPAR Council, Inc. ( a different organization that is the merged HSCC and SPAR) stands for Springfield Preservation and Revitalization Council. There was a reason for the R change--something to do with the HSCC part of it I believe.
So, Zoo, you may have Sheclown on the Restoration part, but we all have you (and Louise) on the Preservation part.
And no, you didn’t tear down a house, but you still torn down a commercial building that was at the very least “historic†due to it’s unique history. I often felt that the place may have been built as a strip club as you could “hide†your car around back. I suppose that could have just been a convenient thing when the building was converted to a strip club.
Quote from: zoo on October 19, 2009, 06:59:39 PM
SPAR stands for Springfield Preservation and Revitalization. (n: to give new life or vigor to)
...hence the irony of tearing them down. (Including commercial buildings)
Kids.....if you just did not pay your dues to SPAR......those suckers would wither away and die off! They clearly have their own agenda and program and you guys and your houses are not part of it! If you can't form a counter organization then force them to come to grips with reality! I know it is easier said then done but if you have enough bodies to counter them then you may be able to get something done!
quote author=thelakelander link=topic=1911.msg104658#msg104658 date=1256058724]
Wow. I don't see it how you're presenting it, which goes back to the "context" issue I mentioned earlier this morning. Its hard to base a theory on anything out of the email that has been presented here. In reality, SPAR has no true control over code enforcement. Buildings are falling all over town because the city is putting property owners in a situation where the only financially sound solution (for the owner) is demolition. Any idea on how the code enforcement departments are run in Savannah and Charleston and how those operations differ from Jacksonville's? My guess is this has more to do with Jax's blighted building stock being destroyed than SPAR running city hall.
[/quote]
The e-mail which is the subject of this thread is sort of like the icing on the cake. There is a history here that actually goes back many, many years. There are many details being left out, this post is very long as it is.
A review of the codes involved show that about a three to four year period is typically what it takes for a condemned house to go from “condemned†to “demo†within the current system. As far as I know, these same laws have been basically on the books as they are for decades. There were some changes a couple of years ago that supposedly made it easier to demo, but I don’t believe they changed the overall system much.
Based on this, we must ask how the houses many Springfield residents currently live in survived? After all, the house I first lived in had been empty and condemned for about 15 years. Two other houses I have been involved with that are gone today had been condemned for at least fifteen years for one and twenty years for the other.
The answer is actually pretty simple. HSCC. Historic Springfield Community Council. Phil Neary was the ED for most (if not all) of this organizations existence. He fought constantly with the city to save all of the houses here. When the city went through one of the department heads that thought all of Springfield should be leveled and started emergency demolitions, he fought them every step of the way. The Dorsey-Frank’s house on the East side had been approved for demo, was deemed an unsafe structure that had to come down as an emergency, the equipment was there and Lisa Neary was standing in front of it as the final paperwork arrived saying that a new owner had bought the house and that the demo must be stopped. Somehow, through the tenacity of a few, it worked and this house has been on tours, in magazines and is gorgeous.
Most of the time, however, there was an understood “hands off†on the historic houses. This was not an official law, it just was. My original house on Pearl street was one of these houses. So were the ones on 7th street. No fines, no nasty letters. At least as long as they were kept neat, boarded up and the grass cut. For most of the time (a few years) that I owned my houses, code enforcement did not enter in to the equation.
Another thing of note is that SRG made advances to buy these two houses. The only problem was that if they did, they wanted Phil to at least not fight the demolition of these two houses so that condos could be built on that site. You see, the lot that was “donated†for the steam boat house on the east side was actually traded for the paved parking lot on West 7th street. SRG was also surprised that part of the paved area was actually owned by Phil Neary. Along about now, JSO brought the houses up for demo in front of the HPC. Perhaps it should be noted that the security fund was in place at this time. No accusation, but a note of interest.
Something else interesting was that the first time that code enforcement took this house to an enforcement board, sitting on the committee was Lisa Simon, who has ties to SRG, who had said they wanted the house torn down. No accusation, but a note of interest. Phil knows the system and so wrote a letter or two, got told Ms. Simon would be removed (don’t know if that happened) and the boards decision to levy fines was reversed and Phil granted much more time. It should also be noted that during this time period, the actual code enforcement officer kept saying any progress would be OK, but the board said that wasn’t good enough.
A few years ago, the status of these old houses changed with code enforcement. SPAR Council and the Woman’s Club, who today share many of their membership and leaders, began a campaign to force those who owned the condemned houses to fix them or sell them or else! It sounds like a good idea until you realize what the “or else†is. The only “or else†was the code enforcement laws. Suddenly, houses that were waiting for the right time or buyer were at risk. Some think this was a good thing. Except the timing stunk.
While some of these house did change hands, many others could not. The prices of condemned houses had been over-inflated. We could talk about who was to blame for that on another thread, but it is a simple fact. Though values were at an all time high, so were construction costs. I personally publicly said that this was a bad idea that would result in the loss of many of the buildings, but was ridiculed and was told that this was the best thing for the neighborhood.
Let’s talk about those two houses on 7th street for a moment. The smaller one to the east - actually address was 27/29 West 7th street, was a duplex built in the teens that had been pretty badly burned. Under my ownership (and, I must admit, my ex-wife’s) the house got rebuilt structurally. About 1/3 or more of the wall and floor structure, the main beams and about 2/3’s of the roof structures were replaced per current codes. A new metal roof was installed. Then financial and personal issues stopped the project.
As soon as the permit was finalized, the house got turned into code enforcement by SPAR Council (per the code enforcement supervisor at the time). The supervisor admitted that they had to break into the house to determined it was not properly boarded and then again to board it. All of the notices about this somehow went to the wrong address and it cost me $ 2600.00 to do $500.00 worth of work. The appeal basically said, yeah, we screwed up, pay us the money. I sold the house. Unfortunately, the economy tanked before the new owners could secure the funds to get it done and eventually, the lender ended up with the house. The city kept the house in it’s system and so eventually, and I believe with the blessing of the lender, the house came down.
Phil’s house had always had a sound roof and while it was broken into many times, it was also re-secured many times. The grass was cut at least enough to keep code enforcement at bay, but still, code enforcement (at the request of SPAR Council again per the code enforcement people) needed the house done or sold. By now, the real estate market was not the greatest and houses were not selling. However, a buyer was found, but too late to save the house per the city, so down it came.
None of this seems like it is the fault of SPAR Council or the Women’s Club or their leaders. Except that their idea of moving the houses onto the fast track to demolition, as one SPAR member recently put it, to insure that the house got done or else was destined to insure many houses that should have been saved came down. Unintended consequences. People get held responsible for unintended consequences all the time. In fact, these same leaders, Louise and others, often hold those around them accountable for the unintended consequences of their actions. Therefore, so should they themselves be held accountable.
This brings us to the current letter. It is important because it removes some of the “unintended†to “intended“. In any context you wish to view it in, it certainly does indicate that Louise, the Executive Director of SPAR Council, whose mission should be the preservation of the best asset any historic neighborhood has, is saying that it is wrong that two people fought and saved two historic houses because Louise herself felt they should come down. From this revelation, we can also see that she, at the very least, wants to insure that code enforcement can take whatever house she sees fit down in the future. We can also see that Louise has “put a fire under†Joel and Lisa in the past. Due to the subject matter of this letter, it certainly seems as if this fire is to allow for more demolitions rather than saving houses, again, I must add, if Louise thinks the house should come down.
Many know about what I have posted here. Many have heard complaints about SPAR Council from city officials and even code enforcement for this type of attitude. Some may dismiss much of this, but almost all of it can be backed up in writing from various documents. What can’t was said not written and as such, must be simply believed or not. Much of it has been admitted by the people involved on both sides of this issue. There are lists out there made up by the Women’s Club and SPAR Council that lists the houses they tried to insure got done or else. It would be interesting to see that list and see which houses we lost because of it.
Quote from: strider on October 21, 2009, 08:21:25 PM
quote author=thelakelander link=topic=1911.msg104658#msg104658 date=1256058724]
Wow. I don't see it how you're presenting it, which goes back to the "context" issue I mentioned earlier this morning. Its hard to base a theory on anything out of the email that has been presented here. In reality, SPAR has no true control over code enforcement. Buildings are falling all over town because the city is putting property owners in a situation where the only financially sound solution (for the owner) is demolition. Any idea on how the code enforcement departments are run in Savannah and Charleston and how those operations differ from Jacksonville's? My guess is this has more to do with Jax's blighted building stock being destroyed than SPAR running city hall.
The e-mail which is the subject of this thread is sort of like the icing on the cake. There is a history here that actually goes back many, many years. There are many details being left out, this post is very long as it is.
A review of the codes involved show that about a three to four year period is typically what it takes for a condemned house to go from “condemned†to “demo†within the current system. As far as I know, these same laws have been basically on the books as they are for decades. There were some changes a couple of years ago that supposedly made it easier to demo, but I don’t believe they changed the overall system much.
Based on this, we must ask how the houses many Springfield residents currently live in survived? After all, the house I first lived in had been empty and condemned for about 15 years. Two other houses I have been involved with that are gone today had been condemned for at least fifteen years for one and twenty years for the other.
The answer is actually pretty simple. HSCC. Historic Springfield Community Council. Phil Neary was the ED for most (if not all) of this organizations existence. He fought constantly with the city to save all of the houses here. When the city went through one of the department heads that thought all of Springfield should be leveled and started emergency demolitions, he fought them every step of the way. The Dorsey-Frank’s house on the East side had been approved for demo, was deemed an unsafe structure that had to come down as an emergency, the equipment was there and Lisa Neary was standing in front of it as the final paperwork arrived saying that a new owner had bought the house and that the demo must be stopped. Somehow, through the tenacity of a few, it worked and this house has been on tours, in magazines and is gorgeous.
Most of the time, however, there was an understood “hands off†on the historic houses. This was not an official law, it just was. My original house on Pearl street was one of these houses. So were the ones on 7th street. No fines, no nasty letters. At least as long as they were kept neat, boarded up and the grass cut. For most of the time (a few years) that I owned my houses, code enforcement did not enter in to the equation.
Another thing of note is that SRG made advances to buy these two houses. The only problem was that if they did, they wanted Phil to at least not fight the demolition of these two houses so that condos could be built on that site. You see, the lot that was “donated†for the steam boat house on the east side was actually traded for the paved parking lot on West 7th street. SRG was also surprised that part of the paved area was actually owned by Phil Neary. Along about now, JSO brought the houses up for demo in front of the HPC. Perhaps it should be noted that the security fund was in place at this time. No accusation, but a note of interest.
Something else interesting was that the first time that code enforcement took this house to an enforcement board, sitting on the committee was Lisa Simon, who has ties to SRG, who had said they wanted the house torn down. No accusation, but a note of interest. Phil knows the system and so wrote a letter or two, got told Ms. Simon would be removed (don’t know if that happened) and the boards decision to levy fines was reversed and Phil granted much more time. It should also be noted that during this time period, the actual code enforcement officer kept saying any progress would be OK, but the board said that wasn’t good enough.
A few years ago, the status of these old houses changed with code enforcement. SPAR Council and the Woman’s Club, who today share many of their membership and leaders, began a campaign to force those who owned the condemned houses to fix them or sell them or else! It sounds like a good idea until you realize what the “or else†is. The only “or else†was the code enforcement laws. Suddenly, houses that were waiting for the right time or buyer were at risk. Some think this was a good thing. Except the timing stunk.
While some of these house did change hands, many others could not. The prices of condemned houses had been over-inflated. We could talk about who was to blame for that on another thread, but it is a simple fact. Though values were at an all time high, so were construction costs. I personally publicly said that this was a bad idea that would result in the loss of many of the buildings, but was ridiculed and was told that this was the best thing for the neighborhood.
Let’s talk about those two houses on 7th street for a moment. The smaller one to the east - actually address was 27/29 West 7th street, was a duplex built in the teens that had been pretty badly burned. Under my ownership (and, I must admit, my ex-wife’s) the house got rebuilt structurally. About 1/3 or more of the wall and floor structure, the main beams and about 2/3’s of the roof structures were replaced per current codes. A new metal roof was installed. Then financial and personal issues stopped the project.
As soon as the permit was finalized, the house got turned into code enforcement by SPAR Council (per the code enforcement supervisor at the time). The supervisor admitted that they had to break into the house to determined it was not properly boarded and then again to board it. All of the notices about this somehow went to the wrong address and it cost me $ 2600.00 to do $500.00 worth of work. The appeal basically said, yeah, we screwed up, pay us the money. I sold the house. Unfortunately, the economy tanked before the new owners could secure the funds to get it done and eventually, the lender ended up with the house. The city kept the house in it’s system and so eventually, and I believe with the blessing of the lender, the house came down.
Phil’s house had always had a sound roof and while it was broken into many times, it was also re-secured many times. The grass was cut at least enough to keep code enforcement at bay, but still, code enforcement (at the request of SPAR Council again per the code enforcement people) needed the house done or sold. By now, the real estate market was not the greatest and houses were not selling. However, a buyer was found, but too late to save the house per the city, so down it came.
None of this seems like it is the fault of SPAR Council or the Women’s Club or their leaders. Except that their idea of moving the houses onto the fast track to demolition, as one SPAR member recently put it, to insure that the house got done or else was destined to insure many houses that should have been saved came down. Unintended consequences. People get held responsible for unintended consequences all the time. In fact, these same leaders, Louise and others, often hold those around them accountable for the unintended consequences of their actions. Therefore, so should they themselves be held accountable.
This brings us to the current letter. It is important because it removes some of the “unintended†to “intended“. In any context you wish to view it in, it certainly does indicate that Louise, the Executive Director of SPAR Council, whose mission should be the preservation of the best asset any historic neighborhood has, is saying that it is wrong that two people fought and saved two historic houses because Louise herself felt they should come down. From this revelation, we can also see that she, at the very least, wants to insure that code enforcement can take whatever house she sees fit down in the future. We can also see that Louise has “put a fire under†Joel and Lisa in the past. Due to the subject matter of this letter, it certainly seems as if this fire is to allow for more demolitions rather than saving houses, again, I must add, if Louise thinks the house should come down.
Many know about what I have posted here. Many have heard complaints about SPAR Council from city officials and even code enforcement for this type of attitude. Some may dismiss much of this, but almost all of it can be backed up in writing from various documents. What can’t was said not written and as such, must be simply believed or not. Much of it has been admitted by the people involved on both sides of this issue. There are lists out there made up by the Women’s Club and SPAR Council that lists the houses they tried to insure got done or else. It would be interesting to see that list and see which houses we lost because of it.
[/quote]
Anyone read this stuff?
ummmmm probably not, just because its viewed doesn't mean its read. Just ask Faye ;)
I made a very long post that gives some of the back ground information about the preservation of and lack of preservation of the houses in Springfield. While many here do not believe the e-mail from Louise to be as definitive as I do, I feel it is because they either feel the need to defend Louise no matter what, agree with her stance or do not have the back ground facts that makes this letter just the icing on the cake.
HSCC proved in the past that a community organization could lessen the destruction of historic houses by code enforcement, Louise’s E-mail simply proves that one can also help with the destruction of the historic homes. Fact, not fiction., nor conjecture.
Quote from: CS Foltz on October 19, 2009, 09:46:14 PM
Kids.....if you just did not pay your dues to SPAR......those suckers would wither away and die off! They clearly have their own agenda and program and you guys and your houses are not part of it! If you can't form a counter organization then force them to come to grips with reality! I know it is easier said then done but if you have enough bodies to counter them then you may be able to get something done!
Havent paid a dime in years.
I'd like to see the entire email and also know more about its context. Will I find that information if I read through this old thread?
There were a couple of follow-up e-mails about this issue that were posted as well.
You can certainly read the entire thread, the first 4 or so pages are actually pretty much still on subject.
Bottom line, no way in hell should an ED of a community org in a historic preservation district side with the city to tear down even one single house. Knowing Louise as I do and from personal experience, this is the real Louise and if she thinks it should come down for her friend or her favorite developer, then is needs to come down.
Actually the history behind the more recent issues with the city taking houses started because some (SPAR Council and others) decided that punitive penalties would force the bad out of town owners, poor owners (those that couldn’t get the house done in some quick amount of time or just get financing) or investors who listened to the same realtors who were selling SRG homes and wanted "too much for theirs" to fix their houses or else. This meant putting the houses “into the system and headed for demo†as this would force the houses to get done or sold to someone who would do them. Of course, they also would get demoed as the economy tripped on itself and here we are, many houses poorer.
Prior to this, people actually stood in front of bulldozers to save a falling down house. But the Springfield resident and SPAR Board member who is a current HPC representative did say that she though all of the houses worth doing in Springfield had been done so, hey Miss Fixit, I guess that house you just bought isn’t worth fixing.
Sorry for sounding like an idiot Stephen - when I first accessed this thread only half of the email loaded.
Strider, there are probably a lot of people who would think I'm crazy for trying to bring my new project house back to life and although I consider myself a pretty staunch preservationist I have to agree that some of our Springfield houses are beyond saving.
However, this email makes me very uncomfortable. I'll read the rest of the thread.....
You should have seen some of the houses Strider, Phil Neary and I have "saved".
That old wood's strength is breathtaking.
There are hundreds of "structures" in Springfield that need to be torn down. When you have a wood frame home
that goes 30 to 50 years with no meaningful maintenance, whatever is left of it is completely useless. I know Rich Vinas. He is a General contractor who loves Springfield and has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars there. He loves historic homes and neighborhoods, and has done a lot to make Springfield better. I think I know the property that he is trying to have demolished. It is utterly useless and unsalvagable. If he is allowed to replace it, it will be with a beautiful, historically appropriate structure which will add value to the neighborhood. Historic buildings are great, but there are so many in Springfield beyond saving. And now, the prices for the derelict properties has gotten to where contractors are willing to buy IF they can tear down and rebuild, new, histirocally appropriate structures. I say tell McEachern to get out of the way, unless he can produce a buyer who is willing to salvage the unsalvagable structures.
As building contractors, you should have seen some of the houses Strider, Phil Neary and I have "saved".
That old wood's strength is breathtaking.
Each house needs to be evaluated by a structural engineer who specializes in historic structures before demolition.
No one ought to "get out of the way."
Well, there are so many horrible structures all over Springfield where folks went in with great intentions,
did a gruesome job of restoration, then walked away when they raelized how much time money and energy went
into the fix-up. I've traveled extensively and cannot remember any other place in America like Springfield: so close to downtown, yet so tragically "left behind." 99% of the time, when you see a wonderful old neighborhood like this
so close to the urban core, it is among the most desirable areas in town. For Springfiled to be in the shape it is in
requires decades of neglect. Please don't get me wrong, I love the place and see huge potential there, but I often want to cry when I drive around in Springfield.
QuoteThere are hundreds of "structures" in Springfield that need to be torn down.
Your real name isn’t Louise is it?
QuoteWhen you have a wood frame home that goes 30 to 50 years with no meaningful maintenance, whatever is left of it is completely useless.
The above statement is very much false.
QuoteI know Rich Vinas. He is a General contractor who loves Springfield and has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars there. He loves historic homes and neighborhoods, and has done a lot to make Springfield better. I think I know the property that he is trying to have demolished. It is utterly useless and unsalvagable. If he is allowed to replace it, it will be with a beautiful, historically appropriate structure which will add value to the neighborhood.
I also have looked at the house in question in the e-mail. Basically, and without having the ability to go inside, it is indeed salvageable and does have a unique porch arrangement. Even if it is not worth saving due to something I can’t see from the outside, it does seem that it should at least have to go through the proper process, which, as indicated by the HPC and Joel’s department, it had not. In my opinion, if Mr. Vinas does indeed love SPringfield as you say he does, I would think he would want the same.
QuoteHistoric buildings are great, but there are so many in Springfield beyond saving.
And you would know this because you are an expert in what can and can not be saved? Or would you agree that just perhaps the decision should be actually left to the experts?
QuoteAnd now, the prices for the derelict properties has gotten to where contractors are willing to buy IF they can tear down and rebuild, new, historically appropriate structures.
Actually, it would be counter productive for any developer to buy a lot with an existing structure on it when the empty lots are very available and the prices have dropped just as dramatically.
QuoteI say tell McEachern to get out of the way, unless he can produce a buyer who is willing to salvage the unsalvagable structures.
And this statement makes you sir, the very reason we are losing so many houses. Thankfully, Joel is in the decisions making position and you are not.
Quote from: stephendare on March 12, 2010, 09:51:16 PM
Quote from: MusicMan on March 12, 2010, 09:48:56 PM
Well, there are so many horrible structures all over Springfield where folks went in with great intentions,
did a gruesome job of restoration, then walked away when they raelized how much time money and energy went
into the fix-up. I've traveled extensively and cannot remember any other place in America like Springfield: so close to downtown, yet so tragically "left behind." 99% of the time, when you see a wonderful old neighborhood like this
so close to the urban core, it is among the most desirable areas in town. For Springfiled to be in the shape it is in
requires decades of neglect. Please don't get me wrong, I love the place and see huge potential there, but I often want to cry when I drive around in Springfield.
Most of the buildings are salvageable. Many of the gorgeous homes that you see today were among the worst of the lot, and therefore got started first in order to save them.
You are probably looking through eyes that are accustomed to cheap construction and disposable homes.
These old structures were made of hard oak and pine, and they can be brought back from a state that none of the new stapled together, cardboard shacks that they sell in the suburbs would even survive.
"You are probably looking through eyes that are accustomed to cheap construction and disposable homes."
I actually live in a 1923 home designed by Roy Benjamin and Mellon Greeley.
Quote from: MusicMan on March 12, 2010, 10:03:55 PM
"You are probably looking through eyes that are accustomed to cheap construction and disposable homes."
I actually live in a 1923 home designed by Roy Benjamin and Mellon Greeley.
Alright, another newbie who sounds just like Louise...
Shocker.
I may be a newbie to "Posting" here but I'm a long time reader. So help me out. I am also a Realtor
who has been trying to sell homes in Springfield for 4 years. I've had some success, like the awesome 1100
sq ft bungalow on Cottage I sold 2 summers ago for $152K. But when you drive folks around, the REALITY
of showing a neighborhood with such a wildly disparate range of properties makes it difficult to sell.
Add to that the lack of quality eateries and shopping..................
Historic district or not, we live in a world of supply and demand. If there was a strong demand for these
"project" homes in Springfield, then we probably would not be having this discussion. Unfortunately the supply
currently outweighs the demand 10 fold. And has for some time. I will support any person who chooses to restore one of these wonderful old homes. But I would not prevent a thoughtful reuse or new construction project similar to what SRG has done.
Quote from: MusicMan on March 12, 2010, 10:30:06 PM
I may be a newbie to "Posting" here but I'm a long time reader. So help me out. I am also a Realtor
who has been trying to sell homes in Springfield for 4 years. I've had some success, like the awesome 1100
sq ft bungalow on Cottage I sold 2 summers ago for $152K. But when you drive folks around, the REALITY
of showing a neighborhood with such a wildly disparate range of properties makes it difficult to sell.
Add to that the lack of quality eateries and shopping..................
Historic district or not, we live in a world of supply and demand. If there was a strong demand for these
"project" homes in Springfield, then we probably would not be having this discussion. Unfortunately the supply
currently outweighs the demand 10 fold. And has for some time. I will support any person who chooses to restore one of these wonderful old homes. But I would not prevent a thoughtful reuse or new construction project similar to what SRG has done.
Well, first, I agree with your assessment of the realities. However, everyone recognizes that S'field will eventually turn around. It has everything going for it, really it's just a matter of time. Don't you want there to be something left by then? If the same logic had been applied to Riverside and San Marco, we wouldn't have a Riverside or San Marco, just some silly cookie-cutter subdivision. Not worth it. Keep the old stuff, it's what makes the place what it is. If you want cookie cutter, just visit the other 90% of Jacksonville...you'll have no problem finding it. Why tear something historic down?
And FWIW, in the course of a couple dozen renovations, I never saw a place that was beyond saving, except for fire damage. Fire damage, yeah, that I get. otherwise, you'd really be surprised how solid these places are underneath the layers of dirt, water stains, and peeling paint. You think they're trashed, but they're just not underneath. You can't kill them unless you're really trying.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on March 12, 2010, 10:37:05 PM
Quote from: MusicMan on March 12, 2010, 10:30:06 PM
I may be a newbie to "Posting" here but I'm a long time reader. So help me out. I am also a Realtor
who has been trying to sell homes in Springfield for 4 years. I've had some success, like the awesome 1100
sq ft bungalow on Cottage I sold 2 summers ago for $152K. But when you drive folks around, the REALITY
of showing a neighborhood with such a wildly disparate range of properties makes it difficult to sell.
Add to that the lack of quality eateries and shopping..................
Historic district or not, we live in a world of supply and demand. If there was a strong demand for these
"project" homes in Springfield, then we probably would not be having this discussion. Unfortunately the supply
currently outweighs the demand 10 fold. And has for some time. I will support any person who chooses to restore one of these wonderful old homes. But I would not prevent a thoughtful reuse or new construction project similar to what SRG has done.
Well, first, I agree with your assessment of the realities. However, everyone recognizes that S'field will eventually turn around. It has everything going for it, really it's just a matter of time. Don't you want there to be something left by then? If the same logic had been applied to Riverside and San Marco, we wouldn't have a Riverside or San Marco, just some silly cookie-cutter subdivision. Not worth it. Keep the old stuff, it's what makes the place what it is. If you want cookie cutter, just visit the other 90% of Jacksonville...you'll have no problem finding it. Why tear something historic down?
And FWIW, in the course of a couple dozen renovations, I never saw a place that was beyond saving, except for fire damage. Fire damage, yeah, that I get. otherwise, you'd really be surprised how solid these places are underneath the layers of dirt, water stains, and peeling paint. You think they're trashed, but they're just not underneath. You can't kill them unless you're really trying.
Yes historic houses were built to last, When the house on market between 1st and 2nd was demolished they removed the entire center of the house and it still would not collapse. This showed me that that house was extremly well built and was still structurly sound and did not need to come down. it was a shame to watch. My wife was on the verge of crying. So sad. :'(
In my house the back 1/3rd of the roof was collapsed into the second floor and a portion of the second floor was collapsed into the first floor and I was able to save it.
I have restored a home in which 3/4 of the perimeter's sill was missing. How the walls were still standing was amazing to me.
That's what makes us love these old girls so much. They refuse to surrender!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgNA6dIDAjk&feature=related
Just a note to say that one of the two historic houses that were mentioned in the originally posted e-mail quietly was taken today. The little bungalow on Hubbard owned by Eva Ayes was torn down. It did not have to go, she could have fixed it...but she and Louise wanted it gone...
I did not see any info on this since that original e-mail but I supposed it could have been missed. There is s chance it was taken without approval but then I have been told the city can take them even if the HPC says no.
This is just part of the real legacy Louise DeSpain has left Springfield...more empty lots and a happy code enforcement department head.
Quote from: strider on October 14, 2009, 06:37:34 PM
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2421/4011983531_662ed22ee0_b.jpg)
This will be Aunt Eulabells legacy for sure!
Strider,
What is the address of the house please.
It appears to have been 1819 Hubbard. If it works, this should be an image from 2004...
http://maps.coj.net/WEBSITE/DuvalMaps/image.asp?src=035024nob0662E_080310 (http://maps.coj.net/WEBSITE/DuvalMaps/image.asp?src=035024nob0662E_080310)
The link seems to work, but you will have to scroll "down" towards Main to get to Hubbard...it seems to put you at Walnut when it opens.
Ms. Ayres owns the large brick house with brick apartments behind, the gambled house on the full lot (was another house on the lot once..) and the now empty lot where the little bungalow sat.
The yard for the gambled house just keeps getting bigger and bigger. Will be interesting to see if the iron fence is extended to where the bungalow stood only a few days ago.