Metro Jacksonville

Potential Demolition in Avondale

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/797218598_RFf7E-M.jpg)

Recently, homeowner Brunson Lambs' request to demolish the historic structure on his property at 1945 Greenwood Avenue was heard before the City Council's Land Use and Zoning (LUZ) committee. A decision on the issue was deferred until the City's building inspection office had a chance to review the soundness of the structure. The following is the presentation that Riverside Avondale Preservation gave at the original hearing.

Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2010-feb-potential-demolition-in-avondale

I always thought it was Bronson, not Brunson.

huh.

The chart on property values was eye-opening!

Me, too. I actually think the JHPC report misspells his name.

The assembled documentation represents a VERY comprehensive rejection of the applicant's claims, so it will be interesting to see how LUZ handles this--even more so when the full Council gets it.  The structural integrity issue was really the only point still in question; in fact, LUZ has limited discussion at the March 2nd meeting to this element alone, presumably because it was pretty clear at the earlier meeting that none of Harden's other arguments were holding water. The other day, a neighbor of mine was talking to the code enforcement officer who's assigned to the historic district, and asked him what he thought was going to happen with the bungalow. The officer apparently said it was still anyone's guess, which doesn't sound to me like a ringing endorsement of LUZ's record of upholding JHPC rulings.

i wouldn't think it would be hard to get 50 people there supporting RAP at the next hearing.....

Correct - it was Bronson.  I thought it was too, then I read the JPHC report, which apparentlyt misspelled his name like four times.

Yes, it would be awesome to get a ton of people at LUZ in a show of support of RAP on this.

what's good for one Historic District is good for the other, no?

If I were czar for the day' i'd make be a coordinated effort on hearings such as this to get all 3 historic districts involved / get people to show up & write emails/letters.

They could have done a little better with the before and after photos of the property, but overall some great points.

I watched the Ingleside house get remodeled and the results are amazing! I hope more homeowners can put this kind of effort into their properties.

maybe RAP can pay for the remodeling so the owner doesn't have to?

I guess I still don't understand the economics involved in these requests for demolition.  How is the owner better off with an empty lot?  Is the raw land worth that much more than selling the property at a bargain price right now?  He doesn't have the money to renovate but he has the funds to hire a lawyer and pay for demolition?  Especially in this case, where the cost is relatively modest.

Such a lovely home.  If this one goes, all of us in historic districts are in trouble.

This whole scenario doesn't make sense to me.

Quote from: fsu813 on February 26, 2010, 09:14:07 AM
what's good for one Historic District is good for the other, no?

If I were czar for the day' i'd make be a coordinated effort on hearings such as this to get all 3 historic districts involved / get people to show up & write emails/letters.

You have to get more people in Springfield on board with the anti-demolition movement. We arent nearly as fervent as Riverside in that regard.

Let me respond to a few posts.  RAP doesn't have the money to pay to renovate this property--we'd have to raise funds.  Additionally, the property owner has money.  However, the property owner stated at the JHPC hearing that he does not want to maintain the property or sell it because he wants to keep the land to leave to his grandchildren.  This is not a case of economic hardship. 

I don't think our members expect us to raise money to renovate a private home owned by someone who can afford to renovate it themselves.  Before the local historic district designation when structures were not protected from demolition, RAP raised money to move homes in danger of demolition.  We also restored homes that were in bad shape that we acquired and then sold. 

Today, the law says you cannot demolish a historic structure unless it meets certain criteria.  This home does not meet the criteria so RAP's role is to advocate for denial of the demolition request. 

Additionally, the home is not in bad shape.  It would be a great house for a young couple or an older couple looking to downsize.  The home could be added on to as well.  That’s not to say that someone wouldn’t want to remodel the interior. 

RAP Board Chair

I would think leaving my kid a positive cash flow rental property would be more important than raw land that would still require mowing maintenance (ie monthly cost).

Quote from: hooplady on February 26, 2010, 11:13:53 AM
I guess I still don't understand the economics involved in these requests for demolition.  How is the owner better off with an empty lot?  Is the raw land worth that much more than selling the property at a bargain price right now?  He doesn't have the money to renovate but he has the funds to hire a lawyer and pay for demolition?  Especially in this case, where the cost is relatively modest.

Such a lovely home.  If this one goes, all of us in historic districts are in trouble.

Drive down that street and you'd see why the owner wants to demo and sell the lot.  This particular bungalow is the smallest home on a street lined with sizeable houses.  There are also a few lots for sale on Greenwood (I think one just sold recently) that are ripe to build like-size homes. 
I don't support demo in any shape or form, but if you drive down the street its not hard to see why he wants to sell a bare lot instead.

I agree about the Ingleside home.  One of my favorites in the area!  I've stopped the owners in their yard before to ask about their landscaping.

The charm of historic districts is that a small bungalow may reside next to a large home, unlike the cookie cutter subdivisions where there are six elevations, and all the homes are similarly sized.

I had a boss who lived in Jax Golf.  One day, driving down his street, he because distracted by some kids playing in the street. He drove in his driveway, and couldn't figure out why his garage door opener wouldn't work.  It took him awhile before he figured out he wasn't at his house.  He was a few doors down at a house that looked EXACTLY like his.  :-)

I'm with you, FSU, I have said on more than one occasion all the historic districts should work together. If we spoke with one voice about preservation, our voice would be so much stronger.

Quote from: Dan B on February 26, 2010, 12:00:20 PM

Quote from: fsu813 on February 26, 2010, 09:14:07 AM
what's good for one Historic District is good for the other, no?

If I were czar for the day' i'd make be a coordinated effort on hearings such as this to get all 3 historic districts involved / get people to show up & write emails/letters.

You have to get more people in Springfield on board with the anti-demolition movement. We arent nearly as fervent as Riverside in that regard.

I agree all demos in designated historic district needs to stop. The stock of historic homes in Florida is very limited. I dont know how many houses close to or over 100 years old are here but it cant be that many.  

Quote from: Debbie Thompson on February 26, 2010, 01:15:48 PM
The charm of historic districts is that a small bungalow may reside next to a large home, unlike the cookie cutter subdivisions where there are six elevations, and all the homes are similarly sized.

I had a boss who lived in Jax Golf.  One day, driving down his street, he because distracted by some kids playing in the street. He drove in his driveway, and couldn't figure out why his garage door opener wouldn't work.  It took him awhile before he figured out he wasn't at his house.  He was a few doors down at a house that looked EXACTLY like his.  :-)

I'm with you, FSU, I have said on more than one occasion all the historic districts should work together. If we spoke with one voice about preservation, our voice would be so much stronger.

Great idea ! We need to form a Jacksonville historic districe coalition with the same basic goals

Quote from: Debbie Thompson on February 26, 2010, 01:15:48 PM
The charm of historic districts is that a small bungalow may reside next to a large home, unlike the cookie cutter subdivisions where there are six elevations, and all the homes are similarly sized.

I'm with you, FSU, I have said on more than one occasion all the historic districts should work together. If we spoke with one voice about preservation, our voice would be so much stronger.

Very well said.  What is wonderful about Riverside and Avondale is its diversity--the architecture, the socioeconomic mix, culture, building uses such as homes, apartments, commercial businesses. 

RAP reaches out to SPAR for support.  Louise DeSpain came to the LUZ hearing on Greenwood and spoke against demolition.  RAP and SPAR worked together on exempting the historic districts from advertising on bus shelters.  We will gladly offer our support when asked. 

"RAP reaches out to SPAR for support.  Louise DeSpain came to the LUZ hearing on Greenwood and spoke against demolition.  RAP and SPAR worked together on exempting the historic districts from advertising on bus shelters.  We will gladly offer our support when asked."

- good to know that the leadership has been working together on certain issues. It would be great to get the general population involved on these issues as well, especially when a hearing has such large implications.

I hope all of you will attend the hearing on March 2 at 5 p.m. in Council Chambers. 

What's the big deal, these old houses are far too quaint for the tastes of modern americans. Old homes with plaster walls and uneven floors just can't hold a candle to the beauty of newly built homes.  Gated communities offer us comfort and security that the older, decaying parts of town will never have. It reminds me of a slum.

-Taxpayer

Wow, now there's a refreshingly different point of view.  choosing2disappear, different strokes for different folks.

Quote from: choosing2disappear on February 26, 2010, 04:35:20 PM
What's the big deal, these old houses are far too quaint for the tastes of modern americans. Old homes with plaster walls and uneven floors just can't hold a candle to the beauty of newly built homes.  Gated communities offer us comfort and security that the older, decaying parts of town will never have. It reminds me of a slum.

-Taxpayer

Then let me suggest not buying a home in an HISTORIC district if this is the way you feel!!!



-Also A Taxpayer

Quote from: choosing2disappear on February 26, 2010, 04:35:20 PM
What's the big deal, these old houses are far too quaint for the tastes of modern americans. Old homes with plaster walls and uneven floors just can't hold a candle to the beauty of newly built homes.  Gated communities offer us comfort and security that the older, decaying parts of town will never have. It reminds me of a slum.

-Taxpayer

To each his own I guess, but if it went that way we would all live in cookie cutter homes and/or condos surrounded by gates and passcodes. Sorry but I find that extremely boring... zzzzzzz

On another note I'm glad this was posted as before today I had never seen what "Black Hive Tattoo" looked like before the renovations. It's in the article incase anyone is wondering what I'm referring to. It's the house marked "Gilmore" with the beautiful front porch.

Quote from: AmyLynne on February 26, 2010, 06:29:37 PM

Quote from: choosing2disappear on February 26, 2010, 04:35:20 PM
What's the big deal, these old houses are far too quaint for the tastes of modern americans. Old homes with plaster walls and uneven floors just can't hold a candle to the beauty of newly built homes.  Gated communities offer us comfort and security that the older, decaying parts of town will never have. It reminds me of a slum.

-Taxpayer

Then let me suggest not buying a home in an HISTORIC district if this is the way you feel!!!



-Also A Taxpayer

How historic IS the district if it's permissible to you, to allow developers to buy up vacant lots and build "fake" historic homes, ( an activity which has been going on for years in avondale) which ape the mannerisms and appearances of older homes? You can not force time to stand still. Vacant lots exist, and "folks" should feel comfortable building anything reasonable on them, in the very historic district of avondale.

Several large  1920's homes were demolished in 2004 along may st in riverside. St vincent's sold them away. a huge 5 story thing now sits on the land. Where was your passion during that affair? Where was RAP?

What's the big deal, those new houses are far too bland for the tastes of modern progressive Americans. New homes with cheap construction on concrete slaps just can't hold a candle to the beauty of vintage built homes.  Historic communities offer us comfort and neighbors that the newer, sterile parts of town will never have. New homes remind me of a box of saltine crackers they are all the same .

-Taxpayer

 

Quote from: samiam on February 26, 2010, 06:57:09 PM
What's the big deal, those new houses are far too bland for the tastes of modern progressive Americans. New homes with cheap construction on concrete slaps just can't hold a candle to the beauty of vintage built homes.  Historic communities offer us comfort and neighbors that the newer, sterile parts of town will never have. New homes remind me of a box of saltine crackers they are all the same .

-Taxpayer

 

Hmmm. interesting. Yet if you investigate the statistics of jacksonville, not just your immediate surroundings,  you'd know that the only place where your attitude represents the majority view is on this blog's message board.  My initial comment might get your blood up, but it is our reality. 

saltines? really?

Quote from: choosing2disappear on February 26, 2010, 07:07:12 PM

Quote from: samiam on February 26, 2010, 06:57:09 PM
What's the big deal, those new houses are far too bland for the tastes of modern progressive Americans. New homes with cheap construction on concrete slaps just can't hold a candle to the beauty of vintage built homes.  Historic communities offer us comfort and neighbors that the newer, sterile parts of town will never have. New homes remind me of a box of saltine crackers they are all the same .

-Taxpayer

 

Hmmm. interesting. Yet if you investigate the statistics of jacksonville, not just your immediate surroundings,  you'd know that the only place where your attitude represents the majority view is on this blog's message board.  My initial comment might get your blood up, but it is our reality. 

saltines? really?

Key word Progressive \Pro*gress"ive\, a. [Cf. F. progressif.]

1. Moving forward; proceeding onward; advancing; evincing progress; increasing; as, progressive motion or course; -- opposed to retrograde.

2. Improving; as, art is in a progressive state


Yes,saltines? really?

I'm trying to remember what large 1920s homes you're referring to on May Street.  Do you have any pictures? I know there was one that RAP worked very hard trying to find someone willing to move it.

As to why those demolitions were allowed by the city in direct contradiction to its own historic ordinance is a matter for Council to answer; only three of the council's what, 19 members?, represent the historic districts. Most of the rest of the council, unfortunately, doesn't care a fig for the historic districts. They're too busy green lighting zoning variances for yet another massive subdivision.  The ordinance is only as good as the folks who uphold it.

I will say that, re. May Street, I was appalled to see some really cool 1920s-era multi-family apartment houses get torn down last year.  When I asked Carmen, RAP's ED, how that could have happened, she clarified that parts of May Street (and indeed all of the St. Vincent's land) was exempted from the historic district when its outlines were first drawn back in 1985. Apparently it was determined that either 1) not enough historic housing stock was left to include that particular segment in the district, or 2) the property's owners (St. Vincent's) had the power to get the exemption. Maybe someone else can shed more light?

choosing to disappear, I meant to also address your question about developers and vacant lots.  This is called in-fill development, and it's a perfectly acceptable way to populate underutilized land.  Actually, I agree with you that we shouldn't have to build faux historic houses on these lots; there should be a place for modern homes and contemporary architecture in the district, too.  However, whatever IS built should respect the scale and set-backs of the surrounding homes (see San Marco for a place where this DOESN'T happen). I think Lowcountry and the other contractors active in the district are simply building what their customers are asking for.

regarding your thoughts about low country, I don't agree with your opinion. I think what we have is a tail wagging the dog routine.  "what the customers want". (not mocking you, just quoting), Did ALL the customers happen to be confused-contemporary anachronists  who sought a vintage-esque shell with a thoroughly modern interior? Of course it didn't.
A). who arrives to a historic district, which is ripe with a constant supply historic homes for sale (in a variety of price ranges I might add) and requests the fake old home option. I can't believe that has ever happened once, or if it did the realtor wouldn't do a double take and dissuade them.

the idea came before the customer (the fact that it's popular shouldn't matter to you). It's the acceptability of that idea to most people IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT thats the problem. You might agree with me on this point.

The good people at Low country should be allowed to make a living. In-fill should be allowed to happen. But what has been coming from them is utterly bankrupt, and only dilutes the true nature of the neighborhood.
Isn't it a greater threat to the integrity and the authenticity of ANY historic district, to not distinguish between the real thing and the faker?

I am acquainted with a pair of architects who had plans for a modest residence on a small lot near forbes/ margaret.  It was a thoroughly modern design, just like the sort that the true progressive cities have long ago enbraced. Imagine something that might show up in the pages of Elle decor. Small, modern, exciting. RAP (my memory at least) interfered and helped to kill the project. why? Fears of neighborhood integrity loss.

Don't presume that I don't know what progressive means, I do. And I can tell you that Jacksonville hasn't qualified for that label in 45 years. If anything our greater, immediate environment is proof that progress can progress backward too.

Yes, I had some images of the may street affair, somewhere.

[/quote]How historic IS the district if it's permissible to you, to allow developers to buy up vacant lots and build "fake" historic homes, ( an activity which has been going on for years in avondale) which ape the mannerisms and appearances of older homes? You can not force time to stand still. Vacant lots exist, and "folks" should feel comfortable building anything reasonable on them, in the very historic district of avondale.

Several large  1920's homes were demolished in 2004 along may st in riverside. St vincent's sold them away. a huge 5 story thing now sits on the land. Where was your passion during that affair? Where was RAP?
[/quote]

My recollection is that there was one historic structure in very bad shape that RAP tried to get moved.  The large building that was demolished where 1661 now sits was not a contributing historic structure.  Much of May St. in 5 Points is not within the historic district boundaries.  The apartments Grimms refers to are one example of that.  Riverside Presbyterian bought them and tore them down for a parking lot.  That's what happens when properties are not protected.  

Quote from: choosing2disappear on February 26, 2010, 07:51:28 PM
regarding your thoughts about low country, I don't agree with your opinion. I think what we have is a tail wagging the dog routine.  "what the customers want". (not mocking you, just quoting), Did ALL the customers happen to be confused-contemporary anachronists  who sought a vintage-esque shell with a thoroughly modern interior?
A). who arrives to a historic district, which is ripe with a constant supply historic homes for sale (in a variety of price ranges I might add) and requests the fake old home option. I can't believe that has ever happened once, or if it did the realtor wouldn't do a double take and dissuade them.

the idea came before the customer (the fact that it's popular shouldn't matter to you).

Isn't it a greater threat to the integrity and the authenticity of ANY historic district, to not distinguish between the real thing and the faker?

I am acquainted with a pair of architects who had plans for a modest residence on a small lot near forbes/ margaret.  It was a thoroughly modern design, just like the sort that the true progressive cities have long ago enbraced. Imagine something that might show up in the pages of Elle decor. Small, modern, exciting. RAP (my memory at least) interfered and helped to kill the project. why? Fears of neighborhood integrity loss.

Don't presume that I don't know what progressive means, I do. And I can tell you that Jacksonville hasn't qualified for that label in 45 years. If anything our greater, immediate environment is proof that progress can progress backward too.

I'm aware of a modern design for a lot on Stockton near College.  The City's historic planners and ultimately the Jacksonville Historic Preservation Commission (JHPC) denied that design, not RAP.

My recollection is that there was one historic structure in very bad shape that RAP tried to get moved.  The large building that was demolished where 1661 now sits was not a contributing historic structure.  
[/quote]

-KAY
you just made my list of things to do today. You should dust off your idea of what is and is not historic. The building you refer to WAS 1661, not the present structure. If the beige thing that occupies that lot has a name, I don't know it. 1661 was an internationally recognized structure. It would be 53 years old if it was still around. It's ONLY not historic because  IT  WAS  DEMOLISHED.
I know that made a lot of people happy. Did that make you happy, Kay?

Regarding the other building, the house. The full story is that St. vincent's was the landlord, and the stucture was allowed it to decay through neglect, so it could eventually be gotten rid of. Whispered in my ear by the last guy who lived in it.

Quote from: Kay on February 26, 2010, 07:58:33 PM

Quote from: choosing2disappear on February 26, 2010, 07:51:28 PM
regarding your thoughts about low country, I don't agree with your opinion. I think what we have is a tail wagging the dog routine.  "what the customers want". (not mocking you, just quoting), Did ALL the customers happen to be confused-contemporary anachronists  who sought a vintage-esque shell with a thoroughly modern interior?
A). who arrives to a historic district, which is ripe with a constant supply historic homes for sale (in a variety of price ranges I might add) and requests the fake old home option. I can't believe that has ever happened once, or if it did the realtor wouldn't do a double take and dissuade them.

the idea came before the customer (the fact that it's popular shouldn't matter to you).

Isn't it a greater threat to the integrity and the authenticity of ANY historic district, to not distinguish between the real thing and the faker?

I am acquainted with a pair of architects who had plans for a modest residence on a small lot near forbes/ margaret.  It was a thoroughly modern design, just like the sort that the true progressive cities have long ago enbraced. Imagine something that might show up in the pages of Elle decor. Small, modern, exciting. RAP (my memory at least) interfered and helped to kill the project. why? Fears of neighborhood integrity loss.

Don't presume that I don't know what progressive means, I do. And I can tell you that Jacksonville hasn't qualified for that label in 45 years. If anything our greater, immediate environment is proof that progress can progress backward too.

I'm aware of a modern design for a lot on Stockton near College.  The City's historic planners and ultimately the Jacksonville Historic Preservation Commission (JHPC) denied that design, not RAP.

Hmmm. I think you've got me there sister. I stand corrected.

[/quote]
Very well said.  What is wonderful about Riverside and Avondale is its diversity--the architecture, the socioeconomic mix, culture, building uses such as homes, apartments, commercial businesses. 
[/quote]

Diversity = only the styles and periods that appeal to your taste????

Could you clarify your view on the point (regarding the real 1661) ?

no reply?

Sorry, dinner, kids, bedtime etc. does tend to get in the way of prompt board responses.

Re. Lowcountry and other "faux" historic houses. You're apparently new to the boards, so you likely don't know I myself have a new house that was designed to be sympathetic to its historic environs while still sporting a more modern interior. (Our old house (non-contributing single story 1949-circa house) was flooded in 2004 and had to be torn down; we rebuilt on the lot.) We essentially had an open rule book because, as new construction, we didn't have to follow the guidelines for historic structures--although it was strongly "suggested" we not build anything too revolutionary. That message didn't come from RAP; it came from the Planning Dept. We're huge fans of Dwell Magazine and would have been happy to erect a fabulous pre-fab structure. However, we also knew we have a responsibility--in an historic district--to not stick out like a sore thumb. We chose to build a home that looks, at least on the outside, like a frame vernacular shingle/clapboard home from the 1920s; on the inside, we've got great ceilings. a bamboo kitchen with cork floors, and totally modern fittings. I think the people who seek out Lowcountry designs essentially aim for the same thing. That doesn't mean they don't belong in the historic district.

Well, I do like your story. But as to your felling, I do disagree. I think that does mean they do not belong in the historic district. Unlike yours, most were not necessitated by acts of god.   Why exactly can't riverside have a few revolutionaries built here or there? Wouldn't that be a good thing? Prairie style was that in it's day, correct?

Quote from: choosing2disappear on February 26, 2010, 07:07:12 PM

Quote from: samiam on February 26, 2010, 06:57:09 PM
What's the big deal, those new houses are far too bland for the tastes of modern progressive Americans. New homes with cheap construction on concrete slaps just can't hold a candle to the beauty of vintage built homes.  Historic communities offer us comfort and neighbors that the newer, sterile parts of town will never have. New homes remind me of a box of saltine crackers they are all the same .

-Taxpayer

 

Hmmm. interesting. Yet if you investigate the statistics of jacksonville, not just your immediate surroundings,  you'd know that the only place where your attitude represents the majority view is on this blog's message board.  My initial comment might get your blood up, but it is our reality. 

saltines? really?

Or perhaps Riverside?
How historic is it ask the London Times or Fox news they both seem to think it's kind of a big deal.

Quote from: JeffreyS on February 26, 2010, 11:12:22 PM

Quote from: choosing2disappear on February 26, 2010, 07:07:12 PM

Quote from: samiam on February 26, 2010, 06:57:09 PM
What's the big deal, those new houses are far too bland for the tastes of modern progressive Americans. New homes with cheap construction on concrete slaps just can't hold a candle to the beauty of vintage built homes.  Historic communities offer us comfort and neighbors that the newer, sterile parts of town will never have. New homes remind me of a box of saltine crackers they are all the same .

-Taxpayer

 

Hmmm. interesting. Yet if you investigate the statistics of jacksonville, not just your immediate surroundings,  you'd know that the only place where your attitude represents the majority view is on this blog's message board.  My initial comment might get your blood up, but it is our reality. 

saltines? really?

Or perhaps Riverside?
How historic is it ask the London Times or Fox news they both seem to think it's kind of a big deal.

And lets not forget Southern Living Magazine

The problem with a majority of people is their lack of education when it comes to historic homes/structures. Modern homes do have their benefits. They can be a quality built structure with astonishing beauty. However, to say that a "new" home is better built than an old home is simple, ignorant.

choosing2disappear: no offense or disrespect but you don't know what you are talking about when you made that first statement. The vast majority of these condos and townhomes built in the last 10 yrs are almost worthless. They are falling apart one by one, vacant one by one, and demolished one by one. I see it all the time. It also seems that you may have some misplaced anger towards the historic district and or RAP. Regardless, you made the point that you dont like old homes, fine. So I respectfully suggest that you go to your gated community, where the gate probably doesnt work, and enjoy your home so that we can enjoy and protect our slum homes.

If he wants to demolish home he qualifies for stimulus money.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/5516536/US-cities-may-have-to-be-bulldozed-in-order-to-survive.html

Quote from: Restoration and Education on February 26, 2010, 11:35:57 PM
The problem with a majority of people is their lack of education when it comes to historic homes/structures. Modern homes do have their benefits. They can be a quality built structure with astonishing beauty. However, to say that a "new" home is better built than an old home is simple, ignorant.

choosing2disappear: no offense or disrespect but you don't know what you are talking about when you made that first statement. The vast majority of these condos and townhomes built in the last 10 yrs are almost worthless. They are falling apart one by one, vacant one by one, and demolished one by one. I see it all the time. It also seems that you may have some misplaced anger towards the historic district and or RAP. Regardless, you made the point that you dont like old homes, fine. So I respectfully suggest that you go to your gated community, where the gate probably doesnt work, and enjoy your home so that we can enjoy and protect our slum homes.

That's crazy talk. They are brand spank'n new. People (americans) need newness. We hunger for that. If it weren't true, then the majority of the city would try to look like a historic theme park. It doesn't look like that. It is in fact  a accurate reflection of the priorities of the people that live here. Most of your fellow citizens have no problem with what you may consider to be vastly lowered standards/ quality of live, base only upon the design and craft employed in the modern way neighborhoods are contrived, gates or no gates (lighten up by the way, rookie). Anger is a bit strong, but nothing is misplaced when one is in full possession of the facts. I feel you and I may have a lot in common, perhaps our main divergence is than I recognize the true nature of my environment and don't chose to let charming fantasies cloud my actions. If you get around to attending a city council meeting about something you care about, you'll come to understand who is in the real majority around these parts.

thanks for your input.

Quote from: choosing2disappear on February 27, 2010, 01:03:34 AM

Quote from: Restoration and Education on February 26, 2010, 11:35:57 PM
The problem with a majority of people is their lack of education when it comes to historic homes/structures. Modern homes do have their benefits. They can be a quality built structure with astonishing beauty. However, to say that a "new" home is better built than an old home is simple, ignorant.

choosing2disappear: no offense or disrespect but you don't know what you are talking about when you made that first statement. The vast majority of these condos and townhomes built in the last 10 yrs are almost worthless. They are falling apart one by one, vacant one by one, and demolished one by one. I see it all the time. It also seems that you may have some misplaced anger towards the historic district and or RAP. Regardless, you made the point that you dont like old homes, fine. So I respectfully suggest that you go to your gated community, where the gate probably doesnt work, and enjoy your home so that we can enjoy and protect our slum homes.

That's crazy talk. They are brand spank'n new. People (americans) need newness. We hunger for that. If it weren't true, then the majority of the city would try to look like a historic theme park. It doesn't look like that. It is in fact  a accurate reflection of the priorities of the people that live here. Most of your fellow citizens have no problem with what you may consider to be vastly lowered standards/ quality of live, base only upon the design and craft employed in the modern way neighborhoods are contrived, gates or no gates (lighten up by the way, rookie). Anger is a bit strong, but nothing is misplaced when one is in full possession of the facts. I feel you and I may have a lot in common, perhaps our main divergence is than I recognize the true nature of my environment and don't chose to let charming fantasies cloud my actions. If you get around to attending a city council meeting about something you care about, you'll come to understand who is in the real majority around these parts.

thanks for your input.

choosing2disappear, you can call it crazy tlk all you want. I work in the construction field and I see that all the time. If you like I can name off subdivision, condos, townhomes that are brand spank'n new that have all these problems. We can even take an addition in Riverside as an example. The St John's Luxury condos. Built  less than 10 yrs ago: 2-3 yrs ago they the majority of the front face and some interior part had to go into renovation. I do not know all the details but I know the "restoration" happened. Also, many of us you saw it go up were probably shutting our eyes going by. On the contrast the new complex on Margaret is a perfect example of what can be built- its new,beauty, multi-purpose but most importantly it will last for centuries. It was a quality build. American don't need newness they want it. But again only b/c of their lack of educations. They are plenty of new things that are amazing- I.E. the safety in cars. Of course I rather drive a new car with air bags than a 80's box. Homes are not in the same category. And an old home can be updated to modern comfort- it only takes a good contractor that thinks outside the box and knows the products. example: window replacement in an old home will cause more damage to the home then leaving a drafty old window in. The old drafty window can be update with storm windows, weatherstripping, etc etc and it can be just as 'energy efficient" as a new window. A new window start at an R-2 rating (some may be higher and some are lower) but in 10 yrs it is down to R-1...an old window is at R-1 and be drafty. Some  PROPER weatherstripping and an exterior/interior strom window and its up to R-2 or more. You may spend the same amount of money for a full restoration and update but the product will have a CONSTANT rating. it would drop or it would fog up...those my friend are the facts. And I can go on and on but I have a meeting so good day!

ok....

so in summary: some people like new construction & some people like historic structures.

glad we settled that.

and, imo, a historic district shouldn't have "Dwell Magazine" type of modern structures.....that kinda defeats the whole purpose. Glad they don't.

Quote from: fsu813 on February 27, 2010, 08:55:29 AM
ok....

so in summary: some people like new construction & some people like historic structures.

glad we settled that.

and, imo, a historic district shouldn't have "Dwell Magazine" type of modern structures.....that kinda defeats the whole purpose. Glad they don't.

that's a horrible point of view fsu813. If you really would choose to ban a handful of modern designs the right to be built in the historic district, then the best way to keep it historic would be to allow NOTHING new to be built at all. How can you support infill in a historic district (with fake old homes) and fell that is in any way authentic or historic.
Let  me extend on your take, for a moment to revel how silly it is. If modern architecture has no place in the historic district,(in perhaps 2 or 3 lots) then why do modern people belong there? If you really want time to stand still, consider lobbying the city council for a velvet rope to surround the museum exhibit of riverside/avondale.

my goodness.

you do take things out of context, don't you?

the only point worth making is that:

- if something new is built, it should be in line with the historic look of the neighborhood.

the rest of your rant is non-sensical.

There are a couple of really well designed modern home tucked into Riverside/Avondale.  Because their mass and scale are in keeping with their neighbors, they fit right in.

There are also a couple of McMansions that have a few "historic-style" details made out of foam and stucco that make you want to gag whenever you go by.

Quote from: fsu813 on February 27, 2010, 09:34:39 AM
my goodness.

you do take things out of context, don't you?

the only point worth making is that:

- if something new is built, it should be in line with the historic look of the neighborhood.

the rest of your rant is non-sensical.

These ideas, these questions I ask you, are a philosophy, a point of view. I rant not. YOU have an irrational, and completely inexplicable stance on the nature of things historic, and the historic district.

"if something new is built...." THEN ITS NOT HISTORIC. is it.

nothing out of context about that, pal. Sorry.

(thanks for weighing in steven. We defiantly share much common ground.)

choosing2disappear, how do you reconcile the fact that gated and other modern "communities" have reams of covenants to insure aesthetic compatibility with their master designs and then turn around and try and deny something along the same lines for historic neighborhoods that also want to preserve a unique and "impossible to recreate today" ambiance?

Quote from: stjr on February 27, 2010, 10:42:33 AM
choosing2disappear, how do you reconcile the fact that gated and other modern "communities" have reams of covenants to insure aesthetic compatibility with their master designs and then turn around and try and deny something along the same lines for historic neighborhoods that also want to preserve a unique and "impossible to recreate today" ambiance?

That's a very good point! Also, choosing2disappear you really crack me up!

Quote from: stephendare on February 27, 2010, 10:56:47 AM
The major thing that they had in common was a demand for high quality.  The homes were made out of the best that the market had to offer, they were built soundly, and the architects were the best of the time.

Great point. But also to make a small clarification, there were some badly built houses in the 20's-60's. I've worked on a several but the one thing we will never find again is the quality of materials, IE slow growth wood. However, thats not to say that a new home can't be built just as well. I just came back from Publix on Riverside and the Chelsea complex is a great example- the untrained eye would never know they are only a few years old. And a few doors down, The Germany's restoration is another great example of an amazing restoration that brought life back to that block.

choosing2disappear You have made it clear that you have a dislike for historic districts. Is this dislike just for Jacksonville districts or all historic districts and sights across America.

Quote from: Restoration and Education on February 27, 2010, 12:45:28 PM
I've worked on a several but the one thing we will never find again is the quality of materials, IE slow growth wood.

R & E, I have owned houses with wood flooring from trees centuries old and/or from trees no longer cut for timber.  And, the actual (a 2" x 4" was true to its measures, not 1/8" short as it is today) and nominal (bigger pieces) dimensions of wood are not matched in modern buildings.  As you allude to, the grain, strength, and durability of the wood is unmatchable at any price with today's forests.

Nor can we match the character that is created by plaster work (nearly a lost "art"), handcrafted joints that are nearly invisible to the eye (how did they do that?!), moldings and carvings not seen today in the most expensive of homes, no longer non-custom made brass, chrome, and iron alloys and porcelain, hand-painted designs, and tile used in fixtures and finishes, unique glass work and custom made windows and doors, and general structural soundness (created from over-design due to lack of access to advanced engineering and materials).

And, since things were mostly done by hand, they were done with care, creativity, classiness, and durability as each component was a "work of art" in its own right.  For the average to merely very wealthy home owner, these qualities are unattainable today except through the purchase of historic structures.

Thank goodness that, to choosing2disappears' point, not everyone wants these buildings.  That way, those who truly love and recognize quality have a shot at affording it for their perpetual appreciation and immense enjoyment.

Quote from: Dog Walker on February 27, 2010, 10:10:33 AM
There are a couple of really well designed modern home tucked into Riverside/Avondale.  Because their mass and scale are in keeping with their neighbors, they fit right in.

A great example is the "Upside Down House" on River Blvd in the St. Johns Quarter. It was built in the 70s, is frankly modern, but because of its scale and design manages to complement--rather than clash--with the circa 1860s house immediately to its right.

Another one is the Jennifer Johnson house (Johnson Pharmaceuticals heir, no less) on the river on Richmond Street.  It's hidden behind a high hedge, but fairly close to the enormous 1920s Lane house. Presently vacant and for sale, so you can sneak down the driveway and check out the exterior. (Man, I'd love to see inside.)

stjr, love your eloquent post.

Quote from: stephendare on February 27, 2010, 10:44:33 AM
But I think it has more to do with the desire to recreate the sense of community that we imagine existed in those times, as if simpy resuscitating the architecture and house design would be enough to bring back the gracious manners of the Belle Epoch.

I suspect that people are partially attracted to the historic areas because they would like to participate in a romanticised version of 'the good old days', whether or not those good old days ever really existed in the first place.

Actually, I think the classic architectural styles get "resuscitated" because they make a hell of a lot more sense than some of the frankly odd designs you see in Queens Harbor, JAX Yacht Club, Fleming Island etc.  Who really needs a 6 x 6 foyer with a 19 foot ceiling? Or those floating staircase aisles that connect upstairs quarters over the "Great Room," but make any parent with a young child cringe?? Not to mention all the weird angles and those awkward spaces that are rebranded as "lanais."

A bungalow style house--whether authentically from 1915, or a modern recreation--makes sense because the living spaces are efficient and convenient, with bedrooms, etc. clustered around a central social hub.  The Prairie Style was indeed considered radical when first introduced, but at its core, the intention was to build an eminently practical house suited both to its climate and the American spirit. Even the biggest old homes tend to keep rooms to a manageable size, and the layouts maintain the all-important sight lines between rooms that make a house feel spacious and yet also interconnected.

As for people choosing to live in historic districts to reconnect with a supposedly more innocent time--well, maybe some, but I think most of us just find them hugely convenient. I like not having to get in my car and drive 2 miles before I even get to the road (used to live in Baymeadows "Country Club" before moving here--uugh!).  I  love the beautiful old parks, independent restaurants and boutiques, mixed-use buildings, diversity of architecture and people, and a sense the neighborhood was built for people, not cars. The great old homes here are just a part of the overall appeal.

Just to throw my two cents into the discussion...

Is there a middle ground?  What makes our historic districts so unique is that they contain a variety of structures and materials that were designed for their period in time, as opposed to mimicking generations of architecture before them.  Thus, instead of copying (which rarely turns out good because our mass produced building materials are crap compared to what was the norm a century ago) why not incorporate modern infill with similar design characteristics and scale, where the opportunity exists?

Here is an example of an infill commercial building in Pittsburgh's Shadyside neighborhood. In terms of scale, window spacing, detail placement and urban footprint, it fits with the rest of the historic neighborhood.  However, one would never confuse it for a 100 year old building because it includes modern (present time) materials and features as well.  Imo, this is something that helps to strengthen the architectural look and feel of the community without copying old styles or taking away from the historic fabric.  However, I doubt anything like this could be built in any of Jacksonville's historic districts without much fight.

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/592819596_qqACo-M.jpg)

Other than that, going back to the original topic, I'm against the continued demolition of historic building fabric.  The Greenwood house should be preserved.

Quote from: samiam on February 27, 2010, 02:31:25 PM
choosing2disappear You have made it clear that you have a dislike for historic districts. Is this dislike just for Jacksonville districts or all historic districts and sights across America.

I don't know if it's true that I hate any historic district. I certainly hate any group living in one that is unwilling to  or unable to examine the nature of the term (historic), and passively contribute to the "romanticized version of the good ole days", manifested in say, fake old house infill- modern design infill denial (and earlier, exclusion of mid-century modern from the definition of historic. That's worth hating. Today we have nothing but contempt for the people and forces that allowed the best examples older, beloved styles, to be destroyed. Nothing but contempt. So when it was time for the next generation's big battle, no one showed up. Or if they did, actively supported the action (1661 for example) of the wrong side. I hate the sense that territory that once belonged to visionaries and revolutionaries (even if minor), now seems to have been inherited mostly by sheep, who have surrendered their moment in history. We have become risk averse, too afraid to make a mark, but eager to be comfortable.
The historic architectural record of the rap historic district will read like this: Major settlement in the 20's, much growth thru the 40's, mostly filled in the the 60's, a few remaining structures built during the 80's, then.... quite inexplicably, much of the later stuff was removed and building mimicking the 20'ish style reappear? That makes little sense, but it say volumes about the attitudes of the people today.

I care about the little bungalow in the story. I hope it doesn't get torn down, the owner sounds like a sneaky little prick. Yet understanding the big picture, I feel that it reveals much about conservationist's priorities, and not all of it good. Fundamentally something profound is missing from the picture: an extension of the definition of "historic", greater regard for styles and structures post 1949, and a more progressive use on infill to tell a fuller, richer story of who we are, where we've come from, and where we would like to go.

QuoteThe historic architectural record of the rap historic district will read like this: Major settlement in the 20's, much growth thru the 40's, mostly filled in the the 60's, a few remaining structures built during the 80's, then.... quite inexplicably, much of the later stuff was removed and building mimicking the 20'ish style reappear?

This pretty much sums of Jax's architectural scene in general.

I guess, but a map from 1980 won't show much outside of  I-295. But it's certainly true for the core of our rotten apple.

Quote from: stephendare on February 27, 2010, 04:58:18 PM
I agree with you Grimms.

My post wasnt as to why the classic architectural styles themselves are resuscitated, but merely about why people think that its important that only those styles should be built in a district.

I think that like every era, most of the contemporary architecture is just dreck.  A few designers stick out, a few ideas are worth keeping and implementing, and a few architects rise to the level of genius with one or another project.

I am a person who prefers historic districts as well, and I love them for the same reasons that you mentioned as well.  I would like to experience the quirks and complexities, and the endless unrepeatable experiences of life.

And I think it should be considered a moral (if not mortal) sin to tear down perfectly good historic fabric for the sole intention of building something cheaper and more profitable.

I would also add to your list, a love of quality and excellence:  Homes that will last hundreds of years, made of materials that took work and skill merely to cut into the right dimensions to construct the home, inlays and details that were worried over by craftsmen who cared about the quality.

The kinds of houses that were built before the nightmare sheetrock and toothpick slums were created as money making machines for real estate developers.  The kind of houses that were built as homes, for the enjoyment and profit of the families that lived in them.

The little bungalow should be saved, yet..... and this is totally academic, if I could trade it for say,.....the Lerner building torn down last summer, I'd do it in a heartbeat. That left a pretty deep scar on this town.

I try to be, but have lately been evolving toward disgruntled.

Don't let the bastards wear you down!

Quote from: thelakelander on February 27, 2010, 05:05:37 PM

Is there a middle ground?  

As stated, I am against the demolition of this particular bungalow.  I drove by it again today and can certainly picture a magnificent renovated bungalow(Its really not in bad shape as is).

But to comment on Lakelander's point I do think there is a middle ground.  Two amazing houses within two blocks of the Greenwood bungalow are the house on the corner of Glendale and Oak, and the home on Pine and Shadowlawn.  These are two great buildings that are certainly 'different' architectually from the surrounding homes, yet do not take away from the fabric of the community. 

I respectfully do not agree that homeowners that choose to infill within historic districts from homes built by the likes of Low Country or SRG are somehow blind sheep. 

I think RAP should have the people in Riverside and Avondale vote on whether to keep RAP or disband it. I know a few people who were presidents of RAP who think that some people take this way too far. Who is RAP to tell a homeowner what they can and cannot do? RAP is becoming the gustapo of the neighborhood. The residents should get a census of whether they want to keep it or scrap it.

I do not understand how the property in its current state is not considered "valuable" by the current owner? Is there something missing from this story?

Quote from: mtraininjax on March 01, 2010, 12:17:40 AM
I think RAP should have the people in Riverside and Avondale vote on whether to keep RAP or disband it. I know a few people who were presidents of RAP who think that some people take this way too far. Who is RAP to tell a homeowner what they can and cannot do? RAP is becoming the gustapo of the neighborhood. The residents should get a census of whether they want to keep it or scrap it.

that's kinda ridiculous. but, you can't make everyone happy. so....

If you buy in a historic district, you should expect to follow the special rules that apply to them. If you don't want to meet the historic guidelines, you should buy somewhere else.  It's that simple. Historic districts aren't the only neighborhoods in Jacksonville with restrictions on your property. That should be considered in your purchase decision.

In a historic district, preservation of the historic housing stock should be the #1 priority. 

Quote from: mtraininjax on March 01, 2010, 12:17:40 AM
I think RAP should have the people in Riverside and Avondale vote on whether to keep RAP or disband it. I know a few people who were presidents of RAP who think that some people take this way too far. Who is RAP to tell a homeowner what they can and cannot do? RAP is becoming the gustapo of the neighborhood. The residents should get a census of whether they want to keep it or scrap it.

Just want to throw out that when the vote was cast for the official historic district designation, it passed with 81% approval.  That's larger than most elections for elected officials.  Pretty fair IMO

^ In fact, covenants in place in historic neighborhoods are far more often ignored and pushed aside than those of most of you HOAs.

Quote from: mtraininjax on March 01, 2010, 12:17:40 AM
I think RAP should have the people in Riverside and Avondale vote on whether to keep RAP or disband it. I know a few people who were presidents of RAP who think that some people take this way too far. Who is RAP to tell a homeowner what they can and cannot do? RAP is becoming the gustapo of the neighborhood. The residents should get a census of whether they want to keep it or scrap it.

You know they would vote to keep it. You have no doubt about that. So why did you post this? Was it just too late at night and you were sleepy?  Taking the preservation cause a little too far is way better than letting the area be homogenized. IMO

Quote from: mtraininjax on March 01, 2010, 12:17:40 AM
I think RAP should have the people in Riverside and Avondale vote on whether to keep RAP or disband it. I know a few people who were presidents of RAP who think that some people take this way too far. Who is RAP to tell a homeowner what they can and cannot do? RAP is becoming the gustapo of the neighborhood. The residents should get a census of whether they want to keep it or scrap it.

The above is an example of ignorance. RAP CANNOT tell you and anyone else in the histrict district what to do. It will ALWAYS comes down to the CITY commission and their histrict preservation department. RAP upholds their mission. Sure there are some people, within RAP, who take it way too far but they do not have the authority to stop anything or approve it. RAP has a bad rap because of a misplaced anger or frustation from various residents who want to blame someone for not being able to add a 3 car garage with an upstair guesthouse at their 1500 sqft bungalow. When it is the CITY how decided. You cannot blame RAP, if your arguement is better than theirs then you win, plain and simple.

seems like the orgs that serve the historic districts generally get a lot of misplaced grief...

i've heard that the hsitoric districts in New Enegland can get insane.

they tend to attract "characters" i guess.

Why do I think that someone bought some rental properties in the Riverside/Avondale historic district because they were affordable and got in trouble when he wanted to put in cheap vinyl windows without a COA or building permit?  Or some such scenario.

I vote for saving the house. It's in a historic district for a reason. If you don't like it, sell it. It's not like he's going to lose money anyways.

Hanjin, the property without the house is much more valuable than the property with the house on it.  It's a big lot for the area and could take a much larger house.  It's about the potential gain in value of the property.

Looks like RAP & SPAR are working together to fight this, as they should. Just got an email from RAP via SPAR urging everyone to come out to support denial of demo at this possible precedent-setting hearing.

We've whipped Harden's ass on a couple of his client's issues in the past year, let's do it again!

Just imaging if there was a historic board back in 1920?  Not wanting anything built in Jacksonville that didn't represent the image of anything more modern than an 1860's colonial clapboard saltbox?  What would our city look like?

I'm sorry, but architecture should speak of the time period in which it is built.  In my eyes a historic neighborhood is enhanced by having progressive architecture sprinkled about.  It's called serendipity!  The dichotomy of the architecture speaks volumes and heightens not only the historic, but the new as well.  These neighborhoods have grown over a long period of time and reflect that in their fabric.  If everything is built to look like a past time period, what will we have in 50 years time - nothing of our time period worth saving.  When I speak of progressive architecture, I am not referring to the crap created and built by Pulte, Beazer, Lennar, Aurora, The Pineapple Corp and etc., that are loaded down with meaningless faux architectural icons formed out of foam and covered with stucco, but am speak of true architecture, you know the stuff created by real architects.  Unfortunately the majority of the inhabitants of Jacksonville are glazed over with an ideal of image and can’t see the trees for the forest or the individual branches that actually make up a tree.  The snap up the new cheaply built housing because they think the size and “style” of the home makes them appear more successful, more distinguished and more high society than they are, but in all actuality, it does the opposite.

I can not understand why someone wants to overpay to live in a cookie cutter/developer neighborhood that has the same 6 - 8 houses repeated over and over again with maybe a mirrored plan thrown in here and there.  bbbbooooorrrrrriiiiiiiinnnnnnnggggggg.

The houses in Riverside/Avondale were mostly built between 1902 and the 1950's.  There is a whole lot of architectural variation in the area.  Because most of the houses were built by individuals, one at a time, there is even more diversity than you will find in a newer development.

Houses were also relatively more expensive during that period as well and there were no thirty year mortgages at all.  Mortgages were for shorter terms and could be called at almost any time if the bank needed capital back.

The cookie cutter house built after WWII were much cheaper and faster to build and were a response to a huge backlog of housing demand.  Some of the earliest (1950's) are actually pretty well built.  The stuff built over the last thirty years is mostly junk; bad materials and bad workmanship with better engineering.

The historic districts have been created to preserve the diversity that exists and prevent cookie cutter, foam and stucco mcmansions from taking over a desirable area in which to live.  Remember the term "teardown"?

I totally agree that the historic districts need to preserve their stock of historic structures.  I also agree that new infill should, and in fact, I think it must be of a varied style.  We built two historically accurate houses in Springfield.  Our goal was to build a house that someone from 1910 would have trouble telling it wasn’t built then (except for, of course, the kitchen).  We pretty much managed to achieve that.  However, the exterior is a give away that it is new if one really looks at it.  Next, I want to build one that defies current Historic Commission thinking and build a house that is ultra modern circa late 1920's to 30‘s in influence. Some of you might be surprised at how modern that would look. (and no, not the typical suburban “modern”)  The guidelines actually allow for it if one could get it past the commission. 

^ I would not be surprised.  Downtown Jax used to have a lot of Art Deco/Modern style buildings, which were a erected around the 1920's.  Unfortunately our city leaders have torn most of them down in order to construct new buildings that replicate older ones.  The Main Library is a good example of this.

The LUZ  committee of the Jax City Council just voted 6-1 to deny Bronson Lamb's request to tear down his old house.  Ray Holt was the only one who voted to allow it.

Paul Hardin made a couple of very weak arguments about the owner wanting to build a new house that would stand up to 119 MPH winds.  Tom Goldsbury, City Building Inspection head said that the house was structurally sound and that the present owner had moved into the building in 1971, but had used it as a rental property in the past few years.

Councilman Corrigan, in whose district the house is, while not a member of the LUZ spoke forcefully and eloquently about why historic districts are important and how allowing this demolition would remove any possible future arguments against demolition in the historic districts.  He was strongly against allowing this demolition of a structurally sound, contributing building.  He quoted previous testimony by the owner that he did not want to replace the house, but save the vacant land for his grandchildren.  This contradicted what Mr. Harden was now claiming the owner wanted to do.

Robin Lumb spoke for RAP and refuted each point of Hardin's presentation.  Another speaker pointed out that the house had withstood many hurricanes since 1920 without damage.  Councilman Joost looked up the path and winds of hurricane Dora in 1964 and said that the house had been exposed to 110MPH winds at that time.  He stated that he really didn't like historic districts, but that the rules were in place and this proposal did not meet the criteria for demolition.

Great news!

why do i suspect the house may catch fire mysteriously in the next few years....

Going forward, how much disrepair can Mr. Lamb allow his house to fall into?

Is Paul Hardin finally losing his "touch"..... on our politicians shoulders?  :)

Nice job guys!!!!!  I was at work late, so I couldn't come by.  Glad to hear everything went well.  Why did Holt vote for it?

I only got there at the tail end, as Harden was making his final statements about how "he knew the law" and that the owner had every right to want his family to live in a structure that met modern wind codes. I didn't hear Harden's earlier arguments, but this struck me as pretty weak since Harden and his client have never claimed the demolition request centered around building a safer structure for family members; the stated intent, all along, was wanting to avoid repair costs and rental hassles while still preserving the land for his grandkids. 

Hearing Stephen Joost, I initially thought he was sandbagging things with his talk about hating historic districts and the fact it meant your neighbors or someone else could tell you what to do with your property; however, he then pulled out his real-time Hurricane Dora fact check, which showed the property in question had been close to the eye of Dora and survived, which demonstrated it already met modern wind codes. Genius.

Holt's proposed amendment--to permit demolition but require a new home be built on the site within three years, or have the owner face fines--garnered a surprising amount of derision. Even Davis (who in the previous LUZ hearing had clearly supported demolishing the structure) said it was unenforceable; I was surprised when he sided with the majority in denying the appeal.

Now we get to see whether the owner will appeal to the City Council. It's my understanding the full Council still has ultimate say, right?

As pleased as we all were at the outcome, I was a bit disappointed that there were so few Metojax folk in attendance.  There was a SPAR person there (thanks)who also expressed a let down that she was the only Springfield person there.

After hearing the remarks, we all expected a 4-3 vote.  My feeling is that Joost truly changed his mind and that Corrigan carried the rest.

Let's hope that Harden's influence doesn't see this decision overturned at the full Council level.  Doubtful, but has been done before.

Thank you, Councilman Corrigan!  

Quote from: stjr on March 02, 2010, 08:37:13 PM
Is Paul Hardin finally losing his "touch"..... on our politicians shoulders?  :)

God, lets hope so!  His "touch" is foul!  Has he ever represented anyone who was trying to do good for the city?

I thought existing homes such as this could be affordably and readily retrofitted with hurricane clips and other modifications to assure compliance with modern hurricane codes.  Why didn't the owner/Harden consider that?  It's a lot cheaper than destroying the otherwise competent structure and building a new one.  Just another slight of hand by Mr. Harden, to me.

Quote from: thirdeye on March 02, 2010, 08:28:46 PM
Going forward, how much disrepair can Mr. Lamb allow his house to fall into?

If the city's doing its job, then the code enforcement officer for the district will be keeping an eye on the property and applying fines where deserved. The owner, conceivably, could elect to ignore the fines and have them slapped as liens on the property.  One of the council members, in refuting Holt's proposed amendment, said one of the properties in his district has accrued more than $200K in fines, but the owner still does nothing to remedy conditions.

This may well prove to be a case where peer pressure is the only thing capable of effecting actual change.  I know the owner is disappointed and probably feeling pretty belligerent (especially after having to pay Harden so much $ for a not-very-good job). However, he also happens to live just a block over and about two lots away from the Greenwood property, so if he lets it deteriorate into an eyesore, his family will have to see it every day as they back down their driveway.

I heard that after something like 20 years, City nuisance liens are no longer enforceable/valid.  Can anyone confirm this?

You got it!  The whole "structural" issue was a last, desperate, thin argument for the demolition.  It was correctly pointed out that if this house, 1920's, was dangerous because it did not meet 1994 building codes, then all of the houses in all of the historic districts could be demolished for the same reason.

Think how many hurricanes our 1880's to 1950's houses in our historic districts have survived.  I have even had a reduction in my wind storm insurance because my 1910 house has a hipped roof which has been shown to withstand hurricane winds better than standard, gable-end roofs.

The city's "fines" are a joke.  When the property changes hand they are waived.  Otherwise they would never sell.  Legally the city can only put a lien on the property, not go after the owner's other assets.  Rubber teeth, those fines.

I was at the meeting too and was surprised at how little some councilmen understand about historic houses and historic neighborhoods. One councilman clearly felt that if a modern duplicate of the structure were made then that should satisfy everyone. Even though Holt was the only vote for demolition today, it is clear that some of these councilmen could be persuaded to join him. 

I agree. I was really concerned about the discussion around the possibility of building a new house if the historic home was demolished.  One council person (sorry, don't remember which one) asked what the affect on the surrounding values would be...would it increase the value of the homes around it if a new home replaced the existing home...would values decrease if a vacant lot sat for years.   Since this historic bungalow is very near the river, I have my suspicions about a McMansion in the works.  What concerns me is that it was mentioned that this home isn't as big and nice as some of the homes surrounding it...thus opening the possibility of that being a consideration in the future instead of the preservation of the housing stock in our historic districts.

Mr. Joost said he didn't like historic districts because they told you what you could or couldn't do with your property.  Ummm...Mr. Joost...historic districts aren't the only neighborhoods with covenants and restrictions.  Try doing anything you want with your property in Queens Harbor or Jax Golf and Country Club. That argument doesn't hold up.

If this passes the full council, if Mr. Lamb is allowed to pull down his unwanted small historic home simply because he doesn't want it, then no home in any historic district will be safe.  A precedent will have been set. That, too, was brought up.

It is very important that all the historic districts have a good representation at the full council meeting about this to support RAP's position.  It's too important to all of us.  Springfield needs to turn out in force to support RAP.  And we need to contact San Marco Preservation as well to turn out.

You are so right about the precedent. The city attorney mentioned that demolition of this historic house which is not determined to be unsafe by the Chief of Building Inspections but simply neglected by the landowner over his 40 years of ownership would be a future model that any historic home in Jacksonville could be demolished simply because the landowner doesn't want to maintain it.

Quote from: grimss on March 02, 2010, 09:03:13 PM
I only got there at the tail end, as Harden was making his final statements about how "he knew the law" and that the owner had every right to want his family to live in a structure that met modern wind codes.

LMAO!

They gotta be kidding. Like the Lambs would ever be caught dead living in that house. You ought to see their actual houses, on Richmond and Montgomery, that they've had since the 1970's. One's about a $5 million dollar waterfront house, and the other one's about a $2 million waterfront house. Hardin's argument is just an outright lie, and given the large lot size I'm sure the real reason they want the house gone is to subdivide it or otherwise maximize the value of it. Obviously the council members aren't complete idiots. Hardin was really grasping at straws on this one.

I emailed Mr. Joost & Ms. Holt.


I recommend doing the same: joost@coj.net & holt@coj.net

You know what kills me about people like Joost (don't get me wrong, glad he voted with the laws/regulations in place), is they are so against the awful and demanding rules of historic districts, yet they are just fine in their golf-course view gated communities of Queen's Harbour, Glen Kernan, or the like, WTF?  Lol.  Why do folks who live in deed-restricted communities that don't fall under historic designation, so hateful towards them?  It makes absolutely no sense.  In fact, I lived in a neighborhood full of 70's style patio homes that is so restrictive, they actually put a lien on a woman's home, forced her into foreclosure, bought the property at auction and resold it, just because the women flat refused to take down her horizontal siding and replace it with the original vertical siding that all but ruined her home with the water leakage it caused.  I don't know many historic districts that would allow that ridiculousness to occur.

Councilman Joost totally supported not demolishing the house.  He gets it.  He understands that the value of a historic district is in its historic buildings and that once removed you can never get that back.  While he said he doesn't like historic districts, he also said that Riverside Avondale is a historic district voted on by the residents and enacted into law by the Council and there are rules and laws that now govern it.  And because of this the house should not be demolished.  

Councilman Holt on the otherhand, thought it should be demolished because he thought that was the right thing to do.  

That's what I'm talking about though...the "dislike" that folks express for historic districts.  While Joost agrees with enforcing the law and agrees with the points folks made about the value of the buildings in maintaining a historic district, he still "does not like" historic districts for the restrictions that they implement regarding what a property owner can and can not do with their property.  Holt and Joost are one in the same in regard to their own personal opinion, the only difference is one at least was willing to uphold and enforce the regulations regardless of his personal feeling while the other had complete disregard.  

I don't think it was the place for him to express his disdain for historic districts, but rather review the facts at hand and simply make a decision.

Those gated communities are created with deed restrictions and neighborhood covenants.  It's one thing to choose to buy where they have such restrictions and another to have them imposed on properties that happen to be located in a neighborhood that becomes historic even if the designation is popular.  I don't think this applies to the property in this thread because it was purchased after the historic designation.

Agreed, UL...on all points.

Give me a councilman any day who is willing to apply the law.  That's all we ask. 

QuoteWhile he said he doesn't like historic districts, he also said that Riverside Avondale is a historic district voted on by the residents and enacted into law by the Council and there are rules and laws that now govern it. 

Kay, let's vote on historic district again, right here, right now, after speaking with past Presidents of RAP and fellow Rap members, there are many who believe, as I do, that RAP would fail to pass again.

Keep up this obnoxious behavior with owners of properies and we will start a revolution of pitchforks and signatures. Ya'll need to back off, you have had your say, now let the chips fall where they may.

You are confusing RAP and the historic district.  RAP is a non-profit organization that has existed since 1974.  Check out the video on our website to see the value RAP has provided over the years.  The historic district was created in 1998.

The fact that Riverside Avondale is a historic district has added value to all of our properties.  You obviously disagree with that.  In opposing the demolition of a historic structure, RAP is carrying out its mission--nothing more and nothing less than that.

being a historic district is actually a desirable title, mtrainjax. perhaps you should research that a bit.



wait.....a....sec....has any seen Joost, Holt, & mtrainjax in the same room, at the same time?

Joost was not saying that he disliked historic districts in particular.  What he said is that he was uncomfortable telling people what to do with their property.  I'm sure that the would say the same about HOA's.  He actually did the principled thing by following the law and said that the law had to overrule his personal opinion.

Tip of the hat to Councilman Joost!  Wedgie to Councilman Holt!

Quote from: urbanlibertarian on March 03, 2010, 04:47:59 PM
Those gated communities are created with deed restrictions and neighborhood covenants.  It's one thing to choose to buy where they have such restrictions and another to have them imposed on properties that happen to be located in a neighborhood that becomes historic even if the designation is popular.  I don't think this applies to the property in this thread because it was purchased after the historic designation.

I think perhaps what you meant to say is you don't think historic district status applies to the property because it was purchased BEFORE the historic designation.

However, even if the bungalow's owner did not personally vote for the preservation ordinance that instituted historic district status in R/A, the fact is that in the US the majority rules and the laws that are passed with popular consent apply equally to all, whether or not you agree with them.  

Maybe you didn't vote for the FL Legislature's proposal to reduce property taxes in the state (knowing it was a transparently silly piece of legislation that wouldn't actually do what it claimed to do), but it passed anyway and now we all have to live with its legacy of budget shortfalls and underfunded schools. If you owned property in FL before it became a state, come 1845 you were still stuck with living in a Union you might have preferred not to join, paying taxes you didn't vote to impose on yourself.

Springfield and Riverside Avondale are legally constituted historic districts, with all the laws and protections accorded therein. RAP isn't fighting this proposed demolition because the organization is on some sort of power trip, it's fighting because Harden, through his actions, is trying to gut the ordinance.

Quote from: Kay on March 04, 2010, 06:28:57 AM
You are confusing RAP and the historic district.  RAP is a non-profit organization that has existed since 1974.  Check out the video on our website to see the value RAP has provided over the years.  The historic district was created in 1998

The fact that Riverside Avondale is a historic district has added value to all of our properties.  You obviously disagree with that.  In opposing the demolition of a historic structure, RAP is carrying out its mission--nothing more and nothing less than that.

I lived in Avondale when it became a historic district.  I supported the designation then and support it now.  I completely agree that RAP should fight the demolition of this property, if only to preserve the effect of the historic designation on the neighborhood as a whole.  However, I do understand the property owner's frustration in this situation.  His bungalow, while charming, is not particularly architecturally significant.  His property would be worth far more with a bigger house sitting on it.  So I have to disagree with the statement that historic district designation adds value to ALL resident properties.  There will always be some property owners who may in fact be financially harmed by the designation.  And that's one of the differences between a Queen's Harbor HOA and historic district designation.  The Queen's Harbor HOA is specifically designed to protect the value of a bunch of homogenous properties by maintaining that homogenity. The historic designation promotes a different sort of value - the value of historic preservation, which may not always be financially advantageous.  Many, but not all, of the homeowners in a historic district will benefit financially from the designation.  I think that may be why Councilman Joost is uncomfortable with historic districts.

Miss FixIt--well-reasoned post. I appreciate your perspective.

How are historic district restrictions/controls different from those created by zoning classes or building codes or sign/noise ordinances, etc.?  Let's face it, part of being a society, is having some degree of controls and regulations that sacrifice the individual good for the common good.  Historic district rules are but just a single slice of this approach and shouldn't be singled out. 

If one wants to be philosophically true and pure, they would resist just about every law or regulation on the books in our society.  I know we have some libertarians lurking here, but I don't think they will be prevailing anytime soon.   ;)  

Quote from: stjr on March 04, 2010, 10:24:34 AM
How are historic district restrictions/controls different from those created by zoning classes or building codes or sign/noise ordinances, etc.?  Let's face it, part of being a society, is having some degree of controls and regulations that sacrifice the individual good for the common good.  Historic district rules are but just a single slice of this approach and shouldn't be singled out. 

If one wants to be philosophically true and pure, they would resist just about every law or regulation on the books in our society.  I know we have some libertarians lurking here, but I don't think they will be prevailing anytime soon.   ;)  

This is the crux of the political debate at all levels. Some few, will demand absolutes, while most people are reasonable and realize that any absolute ideology in practice will lead to tyranny and/or chaos. Libertarians, by and large, are not absolutists. Most are actually constitutionalists. (read: innumrated limits on the power of the Federal Government. Translation: Laws, not chaos.)

Property rights are a legitimate concern, even in historic districts.

Quote from: Miss Fixit link=topic=7698.msg135715#msg135715 date=1267711109

/quote]

I lived in Avondale when it became a historic district.  I supported the designation then and support it now.  I completely agree that RAP should fight the demolition of this property, if only to preserve the effect of the historic designation on the neighborhood as a whole.  However, I do understand the property owner's frustration in this situation.  His bungalow, while charming, is not particularly architecturally significant.  His property would be worth far more with a bigger house sitting on it.  So I have to disagree with the statement that historic district designation adds value to ALL resident properties.  There will always be some property owners who may in fact be financially harmed by the designation.  And that's one of the differences between a Queen's Harbor HOA and historic district designation.  The Queen's Harbor HOA is specifically designed to protect the value of a bunch of homogenous properties by maintaining that homogenity. The historic designation promotes a different sort of value - the value of historic preservation, which may not always be financially advantageous.  Many, but not all, of the homeowners in a historic district will benefit financially from the designation.  I think that may be why Councilman Joost is uncomfortable with historic districts.

You make a very fair point.  Collectively I think we've all gained. 

I agree - collectively (and by that, I mean the entire city of Jacksonville) we have all gained.

I have one comment to Miss Fixit's point.  The bungalow and its real property HAVE benefited from the historic district designation, as they are worth much more now than before the district was established, even with "just" the bungalow there.  All properties do benefit from the historic district status.  Just because some owners may feel that they could get more value out of a larger McMansion then the original house does not mean that the original house has not benefitted from historic district status.  There is no doubt that its value has risen along with everyone else's.  After all, Riverside Avondale fought back urban decay and is now a desireable neighborhood for a reason -- because it's an historic district.

Now let's suppose the owner wishes to build a new structure, which would emulate other historic architecture in the area, but on a grander scale.

Is this scenario not worthy of consideration? The current bungalow, while not unattractive is not particularly aesthetically pleasing.

Quote from: buckethead on March 05, 2010, 01:17:54 PM
Now let's suppose the owner wishes to build a new structure, which would emulate other historic architecture in the area, but on a grander scale.

Is this scenario not worthy of consideration? The current bungalow, while not unattractive is not particularly aesthetically pleasing.

Then he should have bought a vacant lot and built on it. Nobody would object.

So that would be a no? No consideration as to redevelopment within archetectual guidelines in this historic district?

Why would Richmond Street and S Edgewood Avenue not be restricted in the same way?

I seem to recall a full demolition and rebuild right along the river not too long ago.

Quote from: JAM on March 05, 2010, 01:05:14 PM
I have one comment to Miss Fixit's point.  The bungalow and its real property HAVE benefited from the historic district designation, as they are worth much more now than before the district was established, even with "just" the bungalow there.  All properties do benefit from the historic district status.  Just because some owners may feel that they could get more value out of a larger McMansion then the original house does not mean that the original house has not benefitted from historic district status.  There is no doubt that its value has risen along with everyone else's.  After all, Riverside Avondale fought back urban decay and is now a desireable neighborhood for a reason -- because it's an historic district.

This bungalow was in an area that never faced "urban decay."  It would have increased in value with or without the historic district status.  Without it, this individual could demo and build a property that would have significantly more value.

Quote from: buckethead on March 05, 2010, 01:28:31 PM
So that would be a no? No consideration as to redevelopment within archetectual guidelines in this historic district?

Why would Richmond Street and S Edgewood Avenue not be restricted in the same way?

I seem to recall a full demolition and rebuild right along the river not too long ago.

These may have been noncontributing structures which are not protected.  I'd have to know the addresses to check for sure.  Or they may have been demolished before the ordinance.  Demolitions of historic structures have been granted by the JHPC before when a structure has been in very very bad shape.