Potential Demolition in Avondale

[Restoration and Education]

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!

[fsu813]

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.

[choosing2disappear]

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.

[fsu813]

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.

[Dog Walker]

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.

[choosing2disappear]

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.)

[stjr]

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?

[Restoration and Education]

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!

[Restoration and Education]

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.

[samiam]

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.

[stjr]

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.

[grimss]

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.

[grimss]

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.

[thelakelander]

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.



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.

[choosing2disappear]

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.