Park View Inn construction?

[thelakelander]

- The current plans I saw for Hogan's Creek is that this corner will be a traffic circle/gateway to Springfield/tie in Confederate Park, so I don't think the long term plan was to have another vacant lot.  That said, I'd be more interested in adaptive reuse.

The Hogans Creek concepts have not been adopted by the city and no funding has been geared for such a project.  There's also an issue of this being private property.  Futhermore, both of the streets involved in the roundabout concept are FDOT (another issue).  All in all, the idea (a bad one from a utilization standpoint) of a roundabout where the Park View currently stands is just that, an idea and dream at best.

[sheclown]

Dear Dr. Gaffney:

   On behalf of the SPAR Council Board, I urge you to oppose the reallocation of the funds set aside to demolish the Park View Inn.

   It almost goes without saying that the decades-long existence of this derelict building continues to be a terrible blight on the gateway to both Springfield and Downtown.  Just when the end apparently was finally in sight and demolition was imminent, we learned that the owner has come up a "plan" to turn it into a parking garage and that the City, with no input from the neighborhood, has decided to pull the $1.5 million set aside for demolition.  We are opposed for the following reasons:

   1.  This decaying, crime-ridden building is an eyesore that should have been demolished years ago.  How wonderful it would be if people entering Springfield and Downtown could actually view the park!

   2.  The site is so polluted that it highly unlikely it could ever be occupied without massive remediation.

   3.  Where is the demand for a parking garage on to outskirts of downtown.  This is a subterfuge.

   4.  Who would ever finance construction on a contaminated site with no apparent value?  It is reported that the owner expects "free" City money.  A pipe dream.  Why would the City ever want to throw scarce money down that pit?

   5.  How much more time is the owner going to given to fix up the property after he has neglected it for decades?

   6.  If the owner's "plans" fail, where will the demolition money come from after it has been spent for other purposes?

   7.  Who will enforce the law?  This property was supposed to be demolished years ago and fines are accumulating.  The owner is under a demolition order.  My understanding is that the General Counsel's Office was supposed to be acquiring the property by foreclosure so that NSP funds could be used for demolition.  I can find no evidence that the City is foreclosing on it.  In case I missed it, why isn't the City pursuing it or who stopped it?

   Unless the property is demolished promptly, as it should have been years ago, we can foresee no outcome other than continuing decay, continuing  blight and continuing crime blocking the improvement of Springfield and Downtown.

   Thank you for your consideration of our position.

Sincerely,

Claude R. Moulton

[Miss Fixit]

- All for adaptive reuse.  I liked the work-force condo idea that floated a couple of years back.
- Not too happy knowing the City Council is going to figure out where else to spend the demo money BEFORE we know if the reuse plan will work.  What if this falls through again, like all the other plans, only now the money that was going to demo this eyesore has been diverted elsewhere and we are stuck with it again.
- The current plans I saw for Hogan's Creek is that this corner will be a traffic circle/gateway to Springfield/tie in Confederate Park, so I don't think the long term plan was to have another vacant lot.  That said, I'd be more interested in adaptive reuse.
- Miss Fixit, I attended functions in this hotel during my high school days (sometime in the Cro Magnon era :-) and it was beatiful at one time.  

I like the idea of adaptive reuse, as well.  Never went into the Park View, but remember the older men in my office heading to the Park View for Happy Hour in the afternoons when I was first worked in downtown Jacksonville.

[sheclown]

When did it cease operations?  I think I remember it open as well.

[thelakelander]

1.  This decaying, crime-ridden building is an eyesore that should have been demolished years ago.  How wonderful it would be if people entering Springfield and Downtown could actually view the park!

In its current condition, it is an eyesore and we all have our opinions and a right to express them, but if the same sentiment had been taken of Springfield for the last five decades, there would be no historic district. 

2.  The site is so polluted that it highly unlikely it could ever be occupied without massive remediation.

If what is under the building's garage and foundation is really a concern, it makes more sense to keep that portion of the structure in place to serve as a permanent cap.  The city foreclosing on the property and spending $1.5 million to rip it down may leave the city liable to clean up whatever may be under it.  That's a huge risk to put on the backs of the Jacksonville taxpayer.

3.  Where is the demand for a parking garage on to outskirts of downtown.  This is a subterfuge.

Sounds like some confusion may still be going on.  The garage is already in place and the parking will be needed to serve the retail uses that has been proposed for the space.  At least this is what it says in the linked article:

But by August, owners Robert Van Winkel and David Muyres  had approached the city with a plan to keep much of the existing structure intact to re-purpose the building as mainly a parking garage.

Their proposal is to keep the existing underground parking spaces and turn the second floor into another parking deck. The first-floor space would be converted into storefronts for retail use.

“We want to make use of the viable parts of the building instead of just destroying the whole structure,” Van Winkel said Monday.

source: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2010-05-03/story/park-view-inn-property-avoids-wrecking-ball

4.  Who would ever finance construction on a contaminated site with no apparent value?  It is reported that the owner expects "free" City money.  A pipe dream.  Why would the City ever want to throw scarce money down that pit?

Spending $1.5 million of taxpayer money to tear down a privately owned property is throwing scarce public money down the pit.  If we're really concerned about protecting the taxpayer, renovating a portion of the structure and providing development grants, incentives or tax breaks to do so make much better sense.

5.  How much more time is the owner going to given to fix up the property after he has neglected it for decades?

According to the TU's archives, the hotel closed back in December 2000 (9 1/2 years ago, not decades).  

source: http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/061701/met_6457089.html

I used to feel this way about private development, but after working for development clients and doing some things on my own, I've come to the understanding that its much easier to sprout things off when you're not personally putting up the hundreds of thousands or millions to get up a regular project.  These things take time.  Throw in environmental issues, the project's size and trying to get past a fight with an adjacent neighborhood and things get delayed even more.  

6.  If the owner's "plans" fail, where will the demolition money come from after it has been spent for other purposes?

Instead of wondering about a worse case scenario, lets work together to try and get something to finally succeed.  You know the line, "united we stand, divided we fall."  There's a ton of passion in our community and if everyone could work together for a change, turn around will rapidly come to fruition.  As for the demolition money, hopefully that public funds will be spent on things that actually benefit the taxpayer.  

7.  Who will enforce the law?  This property was supposed to be demolished years ago and fines are accumulating.  The owner is under a demolition order.  My understanding is that the General Counsel's Office was supposed to be acquiring the property by foreclosure so that NSP funds could be used for demolition.  I can find no evidence that the City is foreclosing on it.  In case I missed it, why isn't the City pursuing it or who stopped it?

Other than code enforcement, I can't answer the foreclosure questions.  However, perhaps its not in the financial interest of the city to acquire and demolish private property in the midst of an economic recession.

Unless the property is demolished promptly, as it should have been years ago, we can foresee no outcome other than continuing decay, continuing  blight and continuing crime blocking the improvement of Springfield and Downtown.

The demolition money has been reallocated so there's no reason continuing to cry over spilled milk.  Let's all work together to ensure that a feasible redevelopment plan becomes reality this time around.  

[thelakelander]

When did it cease operations?  I think I remember it open as well.

December 2000.  Although the thing looks like it has been vacant for decades, its really been vacant for a little less than ten.  When abandoned buildings aren't properly sealed, they fall apart pretty quickly.

[Sportmotor]

Well the surrounding buildings are in no better shape. The one overlooking the park looks just as bad, they all need to be addressed and then it might spur some heavyer intrest I would think.

I wouldnt build a nice new anything with the area looking like the way it does.

[9a is my backyard]

December 2000.  

No way! I would have guessed it had been abandoned since the early 90's, if not before.

[Sportmotor]

Everything in the building currently points toward it looking like it has been far far far far far farrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr longer then just 2000. Its rough on the inside of it.

[strider]

While there has been a lot of finger pointing at the owner of this building, as a past owner of a condemned house, it isn't easy keeping up with the maintenance issues.  From what I have seen with this site, the owner has done about as well as anyone else has with their vacant commercial properties in Springfield.

The condition is as bad as it is I believe due to the fires set within the building. Had it not been for the fires, it would not have had the partial demolition to the rooms, which I am sure was done at least partially due to pressure from code enforcement.

Mr. Moulton's letter certainly indicates that the community organization has been campaigning for demolition rather than ever embracing any of the possible uses that were presented through the years.  This tracks with what we know about this organizations track record with demolition of structure.

Lake says it best, we need to get behind the latest proposals and get it done for the betterment of all.

[thelakelander]

Stephen, that conceptual master plan was and is just that, a conceptual master plan.  Master plans take years (sometimes decades) to come online and rarely turn out as conceptually conceived, especially when assuming potential uses for privately owned property.  They are just visions of how an area should be developed.  In reality, the market will drive the private sector development and uses.  However, as long as the park and creek are revitalized, every existing structure in the area could remain and the long term goal would still be achieved.

[thelakelander]

Everything in the building currently points toward it looking like it has been far far far far far farrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr longer then just 2000. Its rough on the inside of it.

Because it was not properly sealed up, vagrants were living in it for a while.

[Debbie Thompson]

"Instead of wondering about a worse case scenario, lets work together to try and get something to finally succeed.  You know the line, "united we stand, divided we fall."  There's a ton of passion in our community and if everyone could work together for a change, turn around will rapidly come to fruition..."


Your lips to God's ears, Lake.  

[mtraininjax]

The new RRP rule just out last month, will make any work at the site a nightmare for contractors and owners.

http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/renovation.htm

Fines, per incident of over 30,000 each. Anyone want to be first in Jax? Disturb more than 6 square feet worth of work, and you have to be certified and use the correct equipment with the work. Lead consumption is often overlooked, but it is deadly and living in many buildings, including this one.

[strider]

The park view Inn has to be lead abated and did so even prior to this latest (2008 - now being enforced) EPA policy.  This new ruling seems to be effecting residential more than anything.  It applies to homeowners working on their own homes as well.