Those of you who've seen the stories in The Resident and RAP's Community Newsletter are familiar with this case.
The owner of a 1920 bungalow would like to demolish what is an intact, attractive and contributing structure in the Riverside Avondale Historic District. He has stated that he does not have an interest in renting or selling the property, but also does not want to continue spending money to maintain what is presently a vacant structure. He's been told the home needs a new roof, estimated to cost $6,000. As the quote to demolish the structure is only $5,000, this is his preferred option. The property is presently valued at around $300K.
The JHPC denied his request, stating the demolition request met none of the preservation ordinance's required criteria for demolishing a contributing structure. The owner is appealing that denial before the Land Use and Zoning Committee tonight at 5 pm. Paul Harden is his lawyer.
I invite any of you who support the preservation of Jacksonville's historic structures to join your neighbors at tonight's meeting, which will be held in the City Council chambers at City Hall. The appeal is the first item on the agenda, so the ball should get rolling at 5 pm sharp.
The JHPC, in their ruling, said they could not allow a historic building to be demolished merely for convenience's sake. I personally feel that if the LUZ overturns the JHPC's ruling, it will set a terrible precedent for our historic districts as it dramatically lowers the bar for future demolition requests.
Do you have an adress for the property?
1945 Greenwood Avenue
Doesn't RAP offer renovation and/or upgrade incentives?
Looked it on Google Maps. Not too shabby.
Would anyone care to bet that Paul Hardin allready has a buyer lined up for the vacant property? This is about his speed.............hope he wears socks to the LUZ Meeting...........normally he does not! LUZ needs to stick to their guns regarding something that is in the historical district and overseen by them! Don't change the appeal!
I don't believe the owner has expressed any interest in incentives (not that RAP has the $ to offer them, but they'd try to connect him with available state and federal programs). The owner has deep pockets, but doesn't want to spend any additional $ on the property.
As someone who has no love lost for RAP, I don't understand why Mr. Lamb is picking this fight. Choosing to demo a home because it is cheaper than replacing the roof is irresponsible. Seems like the money he is going to spend on Harden would negate any savings with the demolition.
He is also encouraging RAP's & JHPC's power trip by appealing the previous decisions against him.
When Mr. Lamb loses his appeal, which he should, RAP will declare victory and will say they are saving "the neighborhood".
Then they can go back to fighting well intentioned homeowners(not Mr.Lamb) that are just trying to improve their property and therefore the neighborhood.
I wish RAP and the JHPC could understand the concept of old vs historic. Just because a house, window, door or roof is "old" does not make it "historic".
Right now my my house is freezing because I have "old" windows that RAP views as "historical". Too bad RAP does not pay my electrical.
I've always wondered what type of person has the "nerve" to tell someone what they can and can't do with their home. I use to call them politicians and bureaucrats but in Riverside/Avondale you call them your neighbor.
^^
Thirdeye, in your objective opinion, were the new windows you planned on using, a reasonably close replica of the old ones?
BTW, but for RAP, Riverside and perhaps Avondale would not look much better than Brooklyn (what remains of it), does today. A Freeway running through the middle of a neighborhood is often it's death knell. Be thankful for RAP, otherwise, you probably wouldn't want to live there in the first place.
BTW, the city has at least as much control over virtually ANY property, as RAP or any private organization ever could. But for that 'nerve', you could have a nuclear waste dump next door. Be glad that someone else can't reduce YOUR property values at will.
Well said, Vicupstate. Thank you for getting it. :)
As for the meeting, it was 1) long, 2) quite interesting, in that I don't think Harden was all that effective, ;D and 3) somewhat predictable in that the majority punted till another day. Kudos for Councilman Corrigan for passionately defending the historic ordinance. Jason Teal, representing the JHPC, was DEVASTATING in his refutation of Harden's argument about how the bungalow was a train-wreck. Louise DeSpain also spoke up, saying that any of the three houses she's renovated would have had better reasons for getting demolished than this one.
Ultimately, it was determined (heavily advocated by Don Davis, who seemed clearly to be in Harden's pocket) that the city needed to send out an engineer and a public safety officer to determine if the structure represented a danger to the neighborhood. Given that one of the owner's own family members was living in it as recently as a year ago, that seems unlikely.
Forgot to mention that, as far as I can tell, Harden was wearing socks. Clearly, pulling out all the stops.
It sounds like the money is in the land. Rip the house down and the piece of property is worth a lot more once the market comes back.
Quote from: vicupstate on January 05, 2010, 06:24:00 PM
^^
Thirdeye, in your objective opinion, were the new windows you planned on using, a reasonably close replica of the old ones?
BTW, but for RAP, Riverside and perhaps Avondale would not look much better than Brooklyn (what remains of it), does today. A Freeway running through the middle of a neighborhood is often it's death knell. Be thankful for RAP, otherwise, you probably wouldn't want to live there in the first place.
BTW, the city has at least as much control over virtually ANY property, as RAP or any private organization ever could. But for that 'nerve', you could have a nuclear waste dump next door. Be glad that someone else can't reduce YOUR property values at will.
Vicupstate,
Yes, our windows are no different visually than what they replaced.
RAP feels windows in certain houses should be repaired not replaced by a superior product that looks exactly the same.
Who needs modern, insulated dual pane windows these days anyway? Energy is only getting cheaper and our climates not changing.
I wish RAP was as powerful and effective as you say they are. Protecting our neighborhood from greedy developers and nuclear waste dumps.
But instead they go after homeowners that widen their driveways, replace patio tile and install fences to protect their children.
Well, an interesting part of this is that one of the 10 COJ criteria for demolition of a historically contributing structure is that you must provide plans that show what you want to put in its place. I suppose this is to avoid a situation where the applicant claims to have no intentions for the property, but then later decides that all along s(he) wanted to erect a non-compliant structure (HPC review of new construction in that situation being less restrictive).
Mr. Lamb has claimed from the beginning that he just wants to grass the property and hold it for his grandchildren. Surprise surprise, though, today Harden was more than willing to agree to a requirement that they produce plans for a new historically compatible structure on the site within a specified period of time at the LUZ's discretion--he suggested two years. Kind of makes you go hmmm.
Having lived in one of the more charming homes in Avondale, I'd say....if you want to tear something down, go out to middleburg. There's nothing but historic homes in Riverside/Avondale that we need to keep.
grimss........much thanks for the heads up! Last time I saw Paul Hardin @ City Hall..........no socks in loafers! I just thought that was funny as hell! Love that 2 year time limit.......heck my grand- daughter could scribble something on the back of a napkin that would fit that criteria...........Hardin has a buyer, maybe even himself, he has had enough clients coughing up big bucks, he thinks he is the man!
Quote from: thirdeye on January 05, 2010, 09:58:08 PM
RAP feels windows in certain houses should be repaired not replaced by a superior product that looks exactly the same.
Who needs modern, insulated dual pane windows these days anyway? Energy is only getting cheaper and our climates not changing.
I wish RAP was as powerful and effective as you say they are. Protecting our neighborhood from greedy developers and nuclear waste dumps.
But instead they go after homeowners that widen their driveways, replace patio tile and install fences to protect their children.
thirdeye - it sounds like you have a personal issue with RAP regaridng the windows in your house. While I don't know your particular situation, this particular thread is not really the place for a festivus-style airing of grieveances that you have personally with them.
On a side note, there is no way that RAP has denied you permission, as they don't have the legal authority. That authority (to grant a COA) resides with JHPC.
Back on topic, this certainly wasn't the decision I expected at this meeting, but I suppose it's better than approving the demolition.
I agree with grimss - Jason Teal brought his A-Game tonight. Personally, I do have to laugh at the fact that he is trying to demolish this home because of maintenance issues, yet hires Paul Harden, who has to be one of the most expensive attorneys in the city for this sort of thing. I have no ill will towards Harden, as he is just doing what he is being paid to do by his client. Mr Lamb freely admitted to me after the meeting that he simply wants to be rid of the property, but not the land.
The one thing that I could not understand is that some of the council members kept going back to the current wind code. Older homes are NOT subject to today's wind code, so I couldn't understand why they kept coming back to this.
I'll be interested in February to hear what the structural engineers say, as this will most likely make the decision. If there is no structural issue, then it looks like the house stays. If there is one, then it probably depends on what the issue is. CM Joost specifically asked for (and I'm glad) not only a thumbs up or thumbs down on the structural integrity, but what specifically would need to be done to make it sound.
I think the fixation with the whole wind code problem just underscored that most of the council has no conception of what issues you're dealing with in historic homes.
Strangest moment of the night: After multiple RAP representatives referenced that the ordinance (and its subsequent obligations for area homeowners) had been democratically approved through a referendum process in which 81% of voters voted to establish the R/A Historic District, Harden quotes Ben Franklin saying, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the outcome." Um, okay.
Best line of the night: Harden later admitting that perhaps "well-heeled Lamb" was the more appropriate analogy in this case. Pretty funny stuff.
What exactly was the decision?
I guess making fun of Paul Harden is "on topic" but challenging RAP is not. I know how the system works on RAP/JHPC are hand in hand and rarely oppose each other.
I drove by the home this morning and was curious what the perceived value of this home is. It is not in very good shape and what is to keep Mr. Lamb from allowing it to decline into such a state that it will be condemned?
The meter has been pulled from the property and obviously will be empty for a long time.
Is this what our neighborhood needs, more poorly maintained homes?
If Mr. Lamb were to demo the building and eventually build on it, wouldn't he have to jump through the hoops that RAP lays out for new construction? JHPC reviews new construction don't they with RAP's input?
Once again just because a home is old it does not make it historic and it seems at the end of the day a new home would be a better addition than what is currently there.
Same kinda thing here in St. Augustine. We see it all. Property owner represents his property is unsafe and/or too far gone ... etc..
and ... its always about the property owner letting out his/her true intentions for the property a bit at a time, and only after being pushed by the review board. His true intentions? Could be his motive is he just doesn't want to pay the extra to insure the property with a building on it until such a time comes around that he can sell it as vacant land. Could be he has a buyer. Could be he wants to get an exception for some kind of concession on a costly rehab item, or two. Could be a number of things, who knows, but it sounds like the review board knows how to do its job and will take the time it needs to do it right in preparation for a legal challenge.
Which brings me to ... Harden. He seems to know how to play the game. $ocks or no, he's the one most likely to benefit -- at least in the $hort term.
I wish the review board and the neighborhood the best. Stable, protected neighborhoods, especially historic ones are golden investments -- for many reasons -- not just financial.
They decided to defer deciding until the city's engineers go out to the bungalow to assess its structural soundness. Harden's presentation made it sound like we're just one good wind storm away from this house becoming an airborne missile. His key pieces of evidence were reports from 1) a building inspector, who documented the cosmetic and systems deficits in the house and 2) an engineer who wrote that the roof was missing every third support beam and needed to be replaced.
The counter arguments from RAP and Jason Teal were that 1) 90% of the damage noted in the building inspector's report was done by the owner in preparation for demolition or was the result of 40 some years of deferred maintenance. (I couldn't believe Harden was able to keep a straight face when he argued that the fact the house was missing its traditional detached garage was yet another reason it has no economic value--umm, that traditional two-story garage was there until the owner tore it down 18 months ago.)
2) The engineer's proposed remedy entailed bringing the roof up to modern wind codes--a very expensive option that requires a lot of retrofitting. Corrigan and others clarified that replacing the roof would not require bringing it up to modern code, as historical structures are grandfathered under the existing building code unless substantial alterations are made to the structure; even then, only those alterations that are actual additions to the structure need to be compliant. Teal pointed out that the missing beams in the roof can't be all that bad since the house has managed to stand for the last 90 years despite not having them; he also noted that the present roof is 21 years old, and that of course it will require reroofing now and again--"welcome to homeownership," was I believe his line.
To be fair, Corrigan said that several entities--the company giving the demo quote, city agencies, etc.--failed in disclosing to the owner that he'd need to get a demolition permit to demolish the historic structure. Apparently the owner, because no one said otherwise when he tore down the garage, thought tearing down the main home wasn't anything that needed approval. Presumably he ripped out all the systems in preparation for the demolition, only to learn he'd need a COA and that demolishing a contributing structure is a big no no.
Quote from: thirdeye on January 06, 2010, 10:22:26 AM
Once again just because a home is old it does not make it historic and it seems at the end of the day a new home would be a better addition than what is currently there.
If the home is in a historic district being old probably does make it historic on the basis that each part of the district contributes or detracts from the historical nature of the area.
Dictionary.com
his·tor·ic (hĭ-stôr'ĭk, -stŏr'-)
adj.
1. Having importance in or influence on history.
2. Historical.
Usage Note: Historic and historical have different usages, though their senses overlap. Historic refers to what is important in history: the historic first voyage to the moon. It is also used of what is famous or interesting because of its association with persons or events in history: a historic house. Historical refers to whatever existed in the past, whether regarded as important or not: a minor historical character. Historical also refers to anything concerned with history or the study of the past: a historical novel; historical discoveries. While these distinctions are useful, these words are often used interchangeably, as in historic times or historical times.
I feel bad for the guy if he put his money out before knowing what he was doing his contractor should have pursued the permits before starting.
QuoteOnce again just because a home is old it does not make it historic and it seems at the end of the day a new home would be a better addition than what is currently there.
Whether any particular building is "historical" or deemed to be "contributing" to the historic district (and thus worthy of protections) was determined during the surveys of the district conducted in the 1980s. Each house â€" including this bungalow â€" was photographed and documented, and it was determined at that time that the home retained sufficient architectural integrity to be classified as a contributing structure. That determination was then adopted into the ordinance when the City Council created the historic district in 1998. The bungalow is individually listed as a historically contributing structure on both local and state historical inventories.
So, it is not really an issue as to whether the Greenwood home is historic or architecturally significant. That was decided over a decade ago. Under the ordinance, the bungalow is contributing.
As to old not necessarily being historical, I can understand your point, but don't agree in this case. The bungalow is the oldest home on the block and actually predates the platting of Avondale. When this home was built, it was quite literally on the very edge of Jacksonville--the city's boundary line was expanded in 1914 or 1918 (can never remember which) to Fishweir Creek. Bungalows are pretty common (and beloved) in Riverside, less so in Avondale--but the fact there's more than one of them doesn't mean they aren't deserving of ordinance protections if they've been deemed to be contributing.
Has the owner considered donating the house to anyone that will agree to pay the cost of moving it? Donating to RADO perhaps? Could be a tax dedduction for donating to a non-profit.
Is it a big/nice enough house that someone would want it?
Perhaps if he wants to build a new structure he should buy where it is more appropriate. I'll bet he likes the area and would like the fabric of it to remain with his property as the "exception".
Quote from: grimss on January 06, 2010, 10:39:25 AM
QuoteOnce again just because a home is old it does not make it historic and it seems at the end of the day a new home would be a better addition than what is currently there.
Whether any particular building is "historical" or deemed to be "contributing" to the historic district (and thus worthy of protections) was determined during the surveys of the district conducted in the 1980s. Each house â€" including this bungalow â€" was photographed and documented, and it was determined at that time that the home retained sufficient architectural integrity to be classified as a contributing structure. That determination was then adopted into the ordinance when the City Council created the historic district in 1998. The bungalow is individually listed as a historically contributing structure on both local and state historical inventories.
So, it is not really an issue as to whether the Greenwood home is historic or architecturally significant. That was decided over a decade ago. Under the ordinance, the bungalow is contributing.
As to old not necessarily being historical, I can understand your point, but don't agree in this case. The bungalow is the oldest home on the block and actually predates the platting of Avondale. When this home was built, it was quite literally on the very edge of Jacksonville--the city's boundary line was expanded in 1914 or 1918 (can never remember which) to Fishweir Creek. Bungalows are pretty common (and beloved) in Riverside, less so in Avondale--but the fact there's more than one of them doesn't mean they aren't deserving of ordinance protections if they've been deemed to be contributing.
Thank you for the explanation.
Did Mr. Lamb ever reside in this home? If not how did he become the owner?
Grimss - Do you think that MetroJax would want to post the presentation that RAP gave at the meeting last night?
I thought it was very professionally done and laid out the issues very clearly.
Quote from: thirdeye on January 06, 2010, 10:55:34 AM
Thank you for the explanation.
Did Mr. Lamb ever reside in this home? If not how did he become the owner?
He bought it in 1970, for his Mother in Law, then his Mother in Law's daughter until last year (I think that's right). He then began to remove stuff in preparation for demolition. Harden ws quoting the cost of fixing the house up, such as HVAC and electrical and plumbing, but the fact was, Mr. Lamb removed the stuff himself.
The problem that I have with this is that it creates a very dangerous precedent. It would allow any homeowner to let a house deteriorate, and then remove core components, and say it is beyone repair, and demolish it. That is the core issue with me.
Steve.........you have a valid point! Anyone could remove interior systems, plumbing, electrical and HVAC, it it had it, and wallah! House ready for demolition! I think it would set a precedence and not the right one! If anything Mr Lamb should be cited for making the house uninhabitable!
QuoteGrimss - Do you think that MetroJax would want to post the presentation that RAP gave at the meeting last night?I thought it was very professionally done and laid out the issues very clearly.
I think it was well done, too. I know the speakers put a ton of work into it. I think the actual presentation submitted to the committee was around 30 pages, which I'm sure is way too big for MetroJAX. However, I could check with the speakers about posting the gist of RAP's argument, if there's interest here.
grimss............I would be interested in seeing just what was presented!
me too.
QuoteThe meter has been pulled from the property and obviously will be empty for a long time.
Is this what our neighborhood needs, more poorly maintained homes?
RAP has its place, but far too often, it steps on the throats of homeowners, along with the City, I can't go into a lot of details because many in the city know I am very vocal and have had my share of run-ins with RAP and the City over COAs, and what is covered for a home in Riverside Avondale and what is covered for NEW CONSTRUCTION in Riverside Avondale. Windows are a mess, and not worth getting into here.
I agree with thirdeye though, should we just have more empty homes in our areas as we see more and more foreclosures? Or will RAP and the City come in and buy these "contributing" structures? Can they afford to help the homeowner who is being foreclosed on? Studies show that empty homes contribute more to crime and RAP covers a very dense population. I'd rather see a grassly lot than an empty building that becomes a haven for loitering and other issues. Riverside and Avondale have changed a lot, since RAP was created. While we don't have nuclear reactors in our neighborhoods, we would do well to consider a loosening of the reigns to allow for homeowner rights to have more say-so in the neighborhood.
This thread is about a home that's main problems stem from the owner starting it's demo without permits. You can't really demo a house anywhere without permits can you? Even if it was an honest mistake you can't let self inflected damage be part of the justification for clearing out historic homes to make way for McMansions.
Quote from: JeffreyS on January 07, 2010, 09:17:33 AM
This thread is about a home that's main problems stem from the owner starting it's demo without permits. You can't really demo a house anywhere without permits can you? Even if it was an honest mistake you can't let self inflected damage be part of the justification for clearing out historic homes to make way for McMansions.
Can you build a McMansion in the RAP district?
QuoteI'd rather see a grassly lot than an empty building that becomes a haven for loitering and other issues. Riverside and Avondale have changed a lot, since RAP was created. While we don't have nuclear reactors in our neighborhoods, we would do well to consider a loosening of the reigns to allow for homeowner rights to have more say-so in the neighborhood.
You can't take this attitude. If you did, EVERYTHING in Springfield would have been demolished in the '80's and '90's. There were vacant houses and loitering everywhere. Same for LaVilla, and that is exactly what happened, everything was razed. Are you happy with THAT result?? Brooklyn -- ditto.
If vacant lots brought vibrancy and recovery, DT Jax would be the hottest spot in town.
There is a fine line between property rights and community rights, and it may get out of kilter at some points, but you can't just say, because something looks bad, it can be demolished.
One of the points that RAP raised in their presentation was that property values increased more in Riverside and Springfield since the Historic Districts were put in place than the county as a whole, and also more than comparable neighborhoods like San Marco. Also, Riverside has seen less decline in property values during the "Great Recession" and its decline started later than other areas.
I think that the historic district is the only thing that makes Riverside and Avondale viable. Both areas have a mix of single family homes and small multi-family buildings. If houses can be torn down at will, then what would stop owners from tearing down houses and building cheap apartment buildings? And a lot of this happened during the 60s and 70s.
The same goes for the mixture of commercial and residential. There are occasional attempts to expand the shops of Avondale, or the Park and King area, but they usually get stopped because there are houses next door to the commercial area that can't be torn down.
Quote from: lowlyplanner on January 07, 2010, 10:43:54 AM
One of the points that RAP raised in their presentation was that property values increased more in Riverside and Springfield since the Historic Districts were put in place than the county as a whole, and also more than comparable neighborhoods like San Marco. Also, Riverside has seen less decline in property values during the "Great Recession" and its decline started later than other areas.
I think that the historic district is the only thing that makes Riverside and Avondale viable. Both areas have a mix of single family homes and small multi-family buildings. If houses can be torn down at will, then what would stop owners from tearing down houses and building cheap apartment buildings? And a lot of this happened during the 60s and 70s.
The same goes for the mixture of commercial and residential. There are occasional attempts to expand the shops of Avondale, or the Park and King area, but they usually get stopped because there are houses next door to the commercial area that can't be torn down.
If this home,that has been partially demo'ed already, is destroyed and a new home gets built at some point, what rules and codes does the homeowner have to abide by?
The owner (who, remember, is claiming he doesn't want to build anything--he just wants to leave the lot vacant for his grandkids) would have to submit a COA application with the Planning Dept and have the plans reviewed for appropriateness. I think the wrinkle here is that, normally, when you want to demolish a contributing structure, you are supposed to simultaneously submit plans for what you plan to put in its place. Presumably, the JHPC would want the new structure to mirror in size, style and setbacks what was there previously.
However, if a couple of years from now, the lot's owner decides he really wants to build something after all, then those same constraints re. size and similarity aren't there. He can build a much bigger home on much more of the lot.
I actually have personal experience with the process since I had to tear down my (non-contributing) 1948 single-story home (a not-so-pretty Brooks Haas original) after it flooded about five years ago. We drew up plans for a two-story shingle style structure that, because of the extra floor, actually takes up less of the lot than the previous house. We ran them by RAP's Design Review Committee, who made some good suggestions, and then presented them to the JHPC, who also suggested some tweaks. When we changed our minds about what type of roof we wanted (originally spec'd architectural shingle; decided to use standing seam metal instead), we had to submit another COA. RAP didn't support the change, saying there weren't any other homes with a metal roof in our immediate neighborhood, but we were able to persuade the JHPC that the roof material was appropriate and historically accurate for our type of house (which we were trying to make look old anyway). Remember, RAP can provide advice and (sometimes too often, perhaps) criticism, but it's the JHPC that has the authority.
Quote from: grimss on January 07, 2010, 04:00:50 PM
The owner (who, remember, is claiming he doesn't want to build anything--he just wants to leave the lot vacant for his grandkids) would have to submit a COA application with the Planning Dept and have the plans reviewed for appropriateness. I think the wrinkle here is that, normally, when you want to demolish a contributing structure, you are supposed to simultaneously submit plans for what you plan to put in its place. Presumably, the JHPC would want the new structure to mirror in size, style and setbacks what was there previously.
However, if a couple of years from now, the lot's owner decides he really wants to build something after all, then those same constraints re. size and similarity aren't there. He can build a much bigger home on much more of the lot.
I actually have personal experience with the process since I had to tear down my (non-contributing) 1948 single-story home (a not-so-pretty Brooks Haas original) after it flooded about five years ago. We drew up plans for a two-story shingle style structure that, because of the extra floor, actually takes up less of the lot than the previous house. We ran them by RAP's Design Review Committee, who made some good suggestions, and then presented them to the JHPC, who also suggested some tweaks. When we changed our minds about what type of roof we wanted (originally spec'd architectural shingle; decided to use standing seam metal instead), we had to submit another COA. RAP didn't support the change, saying there weren't any other homes with a metal roof in our immediate neighborhood, but we were able to persuade the JHPC that the roof material was appropriate and historically accurate for our type of house (which we were trying to make look old anyway). Remember, RAP can provide advice and (sometimes too often, perhaps) criticism, but it's the JHPC that has the authority.
Thanks again for explaining things.
Demo is one thing........with no plan to replace, demo should be out of the question! thirdeye.......would you be so kind to keep us posted on the outcome? I would appreciate it.......thanks!
The next LUZ meeting is Feb. 2nd. I believe RAP's chair has given MetroJax the .pdf of what was submitted to the council committee, so you'll all be able to see--and critique--the effort and argument. Suggestions for improvements will, I'm sure, be welcome. As modest as this bungalow is, it really does have incredible precedent-setting potential. RAP will welcome your input.
Yes, we have a copy of the presentation. It should be up on the front page, as a part of a MJ article sometime next week.
Awwwwright..............much thanks grimss/lake! Information is allways welcome..........thanks again gentlemen!
QuoteAlso, Riverside has seen less decline in property values during the "Great Recession" and its decline started later than other areas.
There is no way that can be true with the number of foreclosures in this densely populated area. And they keep on coming. I don't care if you pave the sidewalks in gold, the foreclosures are going to continue to depress the area, no matter if you have a preservation or not. No part of town is protected from value decline.
I've got a nephew in DC who buys up bad real estate debt and liens for a big bank--he's assigned SOLELY to Duval County because there's so much action here. Sad.
However, the foreclosures are everywhere, not just Riverside or other densely populated areas. When MJ posts the RAP presentation, you'll see a chart that uses data from the property appraiser's office to compare median sales in Riverside Avondale with the rest of the County. I believe it shows property values in Riverside Avondale didn’t start declining until 2008. Values began declining in 2006 throughout the rest of the county.
QuoteI believe it shows property values in Riverside Avondale didn’t start declining until 2008. Values began declining in 2006 throughout the rest of the county.
What value does this have in the situation of every declining home values? It does not matter when it started in RA, but it continues, and in 2010 it is forecast to get worse with declining prices of homes.
Speaking of RAP, how is it that RAP gets to assign different specs on "new" construction versus homeowners trying to rehab their existing structures? Case in point, across from RAP's HQs, there is a new residential 2 story house going up with a METAL roof, which is considered a no-no for existing homeowners. How is it that RAP can call itself "saving the neighborhood from architectural changes", when right across from its OWN HQ, is a shining example of how it cannot police its own block? You can't talk out of both sides of the mouth forever. RAP will have to loosen its strangle on windows and roofs, as examples.
I think metal was used during the 20's and that's keeping with the spirt. I bought my home in Avondale for 132K and in 6 years, sold it for around 350 less some mechanical credits. The woman that purchased my home put over 4 man years of work and about 100K into it. The bank sold it for 295. Sometimes, it's less about what the value of the home is when your feelings get in the way.
MT, Metal roofs are not only allowed in the Riverside/Avondale historic district, some of the houses still have their ORIGINAL metal roofs from before 1910 on them.
The medical office building that is being built across from the RAP headquarters was designed in cooperation with RAP to mirror the appearance of the buildings in that part of Riverside. Take a look at the rendering of the completed building on the sign. This could have been a brick box like the Boorland-Groover building on the corner of Herschel and Barrs, but there was exemplary cooperation between the owners and RAP. The architect actually managed to break up and disguise the size of the building well enough that you thought it was a house! That medical office even has enough on-site parking with the Boorland-Groover facility certainly does not.
There is NOTHING about that building that is different from the standards that are RECOMMENDED by RAP to the Historic Commission. RAP has NO regulatory or enforcement authority.
What happened? Did you try to put in some cheap vinyl windows without a COA and get caught at it? LOL! You sound sore. I understand, having rebuilt 21 of the 22 original windows in my old house. It was an awful job and I could never work up the will power to do the last window.
Dog - You cannot change your roof from shingle to metal, not allowed, yet metal roofs are allowed. Not sore, there are different rules for new vs. old construction. Its silly, stupid, and impedes progress of becoming more green.
I know many who wanted a metal roof on existing shingle houses, but cannot, because it does not match the "architectural integrity" of the existing house. Again, government telling people what it can and cannot do.
QuoteRAP has NO regulatory or enforcement authority.
Please, they do indeed, not directly, but its well known that they speak and the City acts. That will not float here.
mtraininjax
Apparently RAP is "untouchable" on this forum while another similar organization gets accused of criminal activity.
thirdeye............not familiar with RAP...........enlighten me if you would!
third eye...........I got what I needed! RAP (Riverdale/Avondale Preservation Society) to me is in the same category that SPAR is. If there is a new dwelling going up across from their Headquarters then they must operate out of the same handbook that SPAR does! When organizations get too big for their pants and think it is their way or hit the highway, they have overstepped the boundries of good taste and gone beyond the mandate that the area gave them. Their power is granted to them by the area that they are trying to control so my first thought would be show up on their doorstep with numbers! The more the merrier, lots of people. The first thing that usually falls to the wayside is the even handed application of rules and regulations! Just like the City, the favored few get what they want, when they want it and the heck with the rest of the tax paying public! If that does not get their attention, then you can file a complaint with the state and force the state to look into the matter...........that should be the last resort but I would not hesitate if that is what it takes for even handed application.
Again, metal roofs and conversion from shingle to metal is not prohibited in Riverside. Some particular types of metal roof are not allowed because of their appearance. Second, what is being built across from the RAP house is a medical office building that conforms to the appearance standards and zoning in the historic district. I am sure that the preference of the RAP board would have been for a residence to have gone in there, but there was nothing they could do to enforce that preference so they worked with the owners to come up with a building that fits in with the surrounding residences very well. There was no special dealing going on, just good cooperation from the owners.
RAP can legitimately be criticized for a number of things, but inconsistent recommendations to the Historic Commission is not one of them. Sit in on one of the design review committee meetings sometime. There a group of volunteers spends hours going over voluntarily submitted plans and helps homeowners and architects conform to the historic district requirements before they submit their plans for a COA.
MT, it can be a pain and takes extra time to get a COA before you can get your building permits and takes even more time to go to the design review committee. Very frustrating, but you are in a historic district, not in the woods somewhere and the purpose is to preserve the appearance and function of the neighborhood. I have renovated two historic properties in the district including a set of buildings that was condemned and scheduled for demolition and have been through the COA process and had to deal with RAP a lot.
CS I think you have RAP all wrong they have a track record of maybe being too strong on keeping the fabric of the historic area unchanged. They have active area participants and you will never see the out with old in with the new attitude in Riverside.
Quote from: CS Foltz on January 10, 2010, 08:58:33 PM
thirdeye............not familiar with RAP...........enlighten me if you would!
CS Foltz,
This "bungalow" issue is a perfect example of how poor a job RAP does in communicating the implications of being in the Riverside/Avondale district. The bungalow's owner tore down his garage, had JEA pull the meter and started to prep for demolishing the home. I doubt Mr.Lamb or his contractors were aware of the need for a COA. If this was such a valued piece of our historical fabric then why was the homeowner not aware?
Now Mr. Lamb is being accused of trickery and ruining our neighborhood. His intentions are questioned and twisted to suit the needs of our "neighborhood protectors". And all the time we forget he OWNS the property! Many people on this forum and in our neighborhood really get a kick out of telling/forcing people what to do with their property.
Having said that, I like the idea of organizations RAP in theory. I know Riverside/Avondale is a unique neighborhood in Jax. Someone or something has to protect it.
My issue is their execution. They owe it to the homeowners in this neighborhood to notify us of what the implications of owning a home in the RAP district is and they don't. They could send out a packet to new homeowners or make a phone call to new members letting them know what the "rules" are and they don't.
Most homeowners in R/A have no idea about COA's and how the process works. They want to replace a window they do it. Alter their driveway or install a fence they do it. Most people do it and never get a COA and never get caught.
Real estate agents in this area do not tell potential buyers of the implications because they know it might turn them off.
Real Estate agents should be required by law to notify people of the implications of owning a home in a historic district. There is basically a HOA in Riverside/Avondale but here they do not tell u about it.
Where are the check's and balances with RAP? There are none, our insightful City Council rubber stamped all of JHPC's and RAP's authority without knowing the affect.
I do believe RAP should not allow certain distinctive homes in their district to be demolished without input from the community. There are a lot of amazing homes in this neighborhood, of which Mr. Lambs is not one.
He has owned the property since the 70s and does not know it is a historic district? He should sue his contractors if they do not get the needed permits.
Mr. Lamb has been aware of what happens in historic districts for many years. He's been in and involved in the neighbrohood in one way or another since at least 1989.
Mr. Bronson Lamb has long been known for skirting the rules when he can. He got in trouble years ago when his marina was caught breaking the environmental regulations too. Cost him a bundle of money and a lot of embarrassment.
Just because you own a piece of property doesn't mean you can do with it exactly as you want. You own your car and there is a whole book full of rules about where and how you can operate it. You own your house, but zoning keeps your neighbor from putting in a pig farm next door. For reasons of safety, you have to have your home inspected as it is built to conform to certain construction standards.
Lamb wants to tear the house down because the property is more valuable with nothing on it. If he doesn't want problems maintaining and old house, he can just sell it. No body ever guaranteed him or anyone else that an investment of any kind is going to make the maximum profit.
Quote from: Dog Walker on January 11, 2010, 11:54:35 AM
Mr. Bronson Lamb has long been known for skirting the rules when he can. He got in trouble years ago when his marina was caught breaking the environmental regulations too. Cost him a bundle of money and a lot of embarrassment.
You speak of operation "River Rat".Let's not grant undue positive significance!
As a result of City of Jacksonville River Summit # 1 group 'vision' and consensus on ideas for river improvement ( my suggestions to monitor our very own local government against harmful impacts seemed like the work of a crazy man in that era of "St.John Delaney),the 'Grande Dame' Mrs. Rogers (Pier 17) identified boat sewage as an evil.
Soon after the City/state attorney office undertook clandestine investigation of area boat yards including Lambs Yacht Center and Huckins.It was a high profile publicity event-I believe Huckins shown in hand cuffs.......and in fact all for very little cause.Per the city settlement.John Delaney would later clearly prove my warnings prophetic at River Summit # 2 ,selling river surface water drinking supply,which ushered in water wars and other episodes such as city embrace of Freedom Commerce wetland development.
Sewage was not the problem that got both Huckins and Lambs in trouble. It was washing construction debris, oil and bottom paint residue into the Ortega River, all of which were illegal at the time and Lamb knew it. He is an arrogant man who thinks that rules should not apply to him. He was also a good businessman who ran a very successful marina and boat yard.
Inviting TV cameras along for the citations and doing a perp walk on the husband of Huckins yachts owner was inexcusable.
You discovered that John Delaney was/is a hypocrite??? Big surprise! NOT!
Quote from: thirdeye on January 11, 2010, 11:05:00 AM
This "bungalow" issue is a perfect example of how poor a job RAP does in communicating the implications of being in the Riverside/Avondale district. The bungalow's owner tore down his garage, had JEA pull the meter and started to prep for demolishing the home. I doubt Mr.Lamb or his contractors were aware of the need for a COA. If this was such a valued piece of our historical fabric then why was the homeowner not aware?
This issue to me lies with the contractors and the homeowner. A 10 minute phone call to JHPC would have told him that his home is a contributing structure. When I went to contract on my home, not only did my Real Estate Agent make sure I was aware that the house was in a historic district, and subject to more rules than the rest of the city, I was asked to sign a document stating that I was purchasing a contributing structure in a historic district, so I believe this is happening.
Quote from: thirdeye on January 11, 2010, 11:05:00 AM
Now Mr. Lamb is being accused of trickery and ruining our neighborhood. His intentions are questioned and twisted to suit the needs of our "neighborhood protectors". And all the time we forget he OWNS the property! Many people on this forum and in our neighborhood really get a kick out of telling/forcing people what to do with their property.
Yes, he owns the property, but I can't do anything I please with it. Those laws concering historic preservation have been upheld by the supreme court, so if you have an issue on this point, there are nine folks in Washington that I'd go visit.
Quote from: thirdeye on January 11, 2010, 11:05:00 AM
Having said that, I like the idea of organizations RAP in theory. I know Riverside/Avondale is a unique neighborhood in Jax. Someone or something has to protect it.
Completely agree
Quote from: thirdeye on January 11, 2010, 11:05:00 AM
My issue is their execution. They owe it to the homeowners in this neighborhood to notify us of what the implications of owning a home in the RAP district is and they don't. They could send out a packet to new homeowners or make a phone call to new members letting them know what the "rules" are and they don't.
See my first point, and I'm sorry, I don't buy that Mr Lamb didn't know it was an issue, nor will I ever.
Quote from: thirdeye on January 11, 2010, 11:05:00 AM
Most homeowners in R/A have no idea about COA's and how the process works. They want to replace a window they do it. Alter their driveway or install a fence they do it. Most people do it and never get a COA and never get caught.
This to me lies with both parties, but perhaps more with the contractor. For example, if I live in mandarin, and want to put an addition on my house, I don't know what needs to be done, but I can make a reasonable assumption that I'll have to go downtown and talk to someone. So, I hire a contractor to pull the appropriate permits. A COA is just part of that process.
Quote from: thirdeye on January 11, 2010, 11:05:00 AM
Real estate agents in this area do not tell potential buyers of the implications because they know it might turn them off.
Total BS. See my first point. And frankly, many people (myself included) chose to buy in the district BECAUSE of the rules.
Quote from: thirdeye on January 11, 2010, 11:05:00 AM
Real Estate agents should be required by law to notify people of the implications of owning a home in a historic district. There is basically a HOA in Riverside/Avondale but here they do not tell u about it.
Totally agree, and I was required.
Quote from: thirdeye on January 11, 2010, 11:05:00 AM
Where are the check's and balances with RAP? There are none, our insightful City Council rubber stamped all of JHPC's and RAP's authority without knowing the affect.
Obviously you weren't at the LUZ meeting last week. The City Council did NOT rubber stamp JHPC decision. If they did, don't you think the issue would have been settled by now.
Quote from: thirdeye on January 11, 2010, 11:05:00 AM
I do believe RAP should not allow certain distinctive homes in their district to be demolished without input from the community. There are a lot of amazing homes in this neighborhood, of which Mr. Lambs is not one.
Actually, his home is one. Forgive me for saying this, but I wasn't aware that you were the authority on historic homes. The list of contributing structures was submitted as part of the historic district designation, and Mr Lamb's home was on this list. Any group of experts could debate each home over and over, so who wins? The group that did this decided that his home should be on the list, thus it is on the list.
The argument is the exact same one that was made regarding the church on Julia Street next door to KBJ architects' headquarters. They made this argument, and because it wasn't in a historic district, it was torn down. Take a look at downtown and see what it has gotten us. This demolition crap needs to stop, and we need to move on.
Thanks, Steve. You beat me to it and did a much better job than what I was working on.
I went to the RAP meetings while that man at Hollywood & Remington went through his process. RAP was very nice to him and if the mental issues he had didn't get in the way things would have turned out differently I'm sure. He killed himself. But, RAP went above and beyond to deal with the situation. He built this gynormus garage without a permit and plans and they let him have it since he already built it. It is way out of scale with the house. It was the front steps that we just couldn't live with. The steps up to his house (1500 sq. ft.) looked like the steps to the capital building.
Plus, he tore down the olgi or ogi that was over the front door. There's only one ogi left in Riverside. He said it was rotten, but we'll never know. He was making the home bigger by expanding the front which through off the scale. Shame really. Was a charming house and I think the people that bought it did a good job with it.
Quote from: Dog Walker on January 11, 2010, 12:45:11 PM
Sewage was not the problem that got both Huckins and Lambs in trouble. It was washing construction debris, oil and bottom paint residue into the Ortega River, all of which were illegal at the time and Lamb knew it. He is an arrogant man who thinks that rules should not apply to him. He was also a good businessman who ran a very successful marina and boat yard.
Inviting TV cameras along for the citations and doing a perp walk on the husband of Huckins yachts owner was inexcusable.
You discovered that John Delaney was/is a hypocrite??? Big surprise! NOT!
At the risk of swerving way off thread- note too Mr.Lamb was,at least until recently,if not in fact still,Jacksonville Waterways Commission.
Steve,
You are obviously so pro-RAP that u will not admit that they are flawed and create ill-will in the neighborhood. So I am wasting time talking about it.
Best Wishes.
Of course RAP is flawed. All human institutions are. You obviously have ill-will towards them so you are correct in that too. Far from wasting time talking about it, I think Steve and I would really like to convince you to change your mind and get you to pitch in and make RAP less flawed in your view.
On balance, most of us think that RAP has created far more good will and has done far more for the area than any problems they have created aside from hurt feelings. I know Kay Ehus, the Chairman of the Board, Wayne Wood, the Founder, Carmin Godwin, the Executive Director and a couple of the board members. They are people of integrity, honor, commitment and compassion.
Disclaimer: I do not now have nor ever held a position within RAP. I do have a family membership.
Like Dog Walker, I agree that RAP has flaws and benefits. I, personally, would wager that, on balance, RAP does FAR MORE good than it does bad. And I'm not talking from just a My House-My Windows perspective, but from a My House-My Neighborhood perspective. I live in the Historic District, but I have never owned an historical home--my first house was too new--1948 (and too ugly) and my new home is, well, too new (3 years old). But I do know that I enjoy, every day, an environment that my neighbors--with RAP's help, and sometimes without--have created and maintained, and that it's better than just about any other neighborhood in town.
Now, I do know a lot about RAP's past contributions (a recent volunteer project on behalf of RAP), and I would challenge Thirdeye to match me in a contest for RAP GOOD versus RAP BAD. Here, in the words of Bobby Flay, is my throw down, the first volley in the measure of RAP GOOD, to be countered by however many (meaningful) examples of RAP BAD that ThirdEye would like to offer:
1) RAP saved the 'hood from being decimated by two freeways running through it (not to be confused by a River Running Through It--think Much WORSE). The City's 1990 Comp Plan (presented back in, I think, 1974-75) called for the construction of two freeways through RA: one, to be called the Riverside Freeway, would have been 6 lanes wide and would have run roughly parallel to Roosevelt around Park street. It would have required a 300 foot right-of-way to be carved on either side of those six lanes. Google it, and see how much of the district would have been affected.
The second freeway, to be called the River Oaks Freeway, would have been four lanes wide and bisected the district from Roosevelt, along Boone Park, past the Avondale Shops, connecting down to Richmond St. and a proposed new bridge over the St. Johns. Apply that same 300 foot-right-of-way. Visualize how much of the familiar street grid, tree cover, and neighborhood cohesiveness would have been lost--not to mention lovely old homes that would have had to be torn down.
RAP was the entity that actually studied the proposed Comp Plan and figured out what it really meant for the District. (Secondary challenge: When's the last time you poured over Comp Plans to determine what it meant for YOU?) RAP was the sole entity that actually understood the threat.
And how did it effect change? It marshaled over 1000 neighbors to show up at a meeting to protest the plan. It defended our neighborhood before the city. And, ultimately, it defeated the proposed road changes. (BTW, the City is still trying to finesse the traffic path from Orange Park to Downtown, and Riverside remains their preferred route. Thirdeye, what are you doing to prevent cut-thru traffic through your neighborhood?).
Not to be snide, but you're part of the problem if you're not part of the solution. RAP is, and has always been, a volunteer organization. Its strengths and weaknesses are reflective of the fact that its volunteers are, in the vast number of cases, the voice of RAP. If you see something you'd like to change, then please step up and volunteer your time to address that issue.