Bostwick Building To Be Demolished?

[dougskiles]

I'm always hearing people say that it is cheaper to tear a building down than to restore it.  So, I was curious when I watched the Murphy & Anderson building constructed at the corner of San Marco Boulevard and Cedar Street.  The building had a good roof and walls, but they wanted to make it 2-story.  They kept the first floor walls and built up above them using a steel frame to support the roof and 2nd floor.  I asked the owner if there was some particular reason why they didn't just demo the entire thing - the answer?  It was cheaper to keep the existing wall.







Sure is hard to understand why this logic only applies to certain buildings, and not ones with seemingly thicker walls and more historic significance.

[iloveionia]

Thanks. Yeah, I saw Lake mentioned the 360k figure, but I can't find it anywhere online, and was wondering when that figure was quoted.

Val Bostwick is the owner if you want to try to find a number for him.  Is there a for sale sign with a number to call on the building?  Are you prepared to put a roof on it so that Code Enforcement pulls the fines (if they start fining)?

Is a total roof replacement all that would be required , to keep the wrecking ball away from it?

Just from Google images and the pictures Lake provided on it, seems like it might need rafters and of course modern code requirements just for the roof replacement. That said, Id rather see a roof on the existing , than another vacant lot...even if the building is not used any time soon.  I don't know whether doing that is less or more expensive than demo.

Mothballing would require there to be a roof.  Difficult to maintain the integrity of the building's structure with it opened up to the elements.  If there are structural issues, those would need to be addressed.  The interior would need to be free of debris and the windows mothball boarded.  That is probably all for the building.

I maintain my stance: if the city has money to demolish, they have money to mothball.   

[ben says]

I'm always hearing people say that it is cheaper to tear a building down than to restore it.  So, I was curious when I watched the Murphy & Anderson building constructed at the corner of San Marco Boulevard and Cedar Street.  The building had a good roof and walls, but they wanted to make it 2-story.  They kept the first floor walls and built up above them using a steel frame to support the roof and 2nd floor.  I asked the owner if there was some particular reason why they didn't just demo the entire thing - the answer?  It was cheaper to keep the existing wall.







Sure is hard to understand why this logic only applies to certain buildings, and not ones with seemingly thicker walls and more historic significance.

While I appreciate/understand the concept of adding on to an existing structure instead of hitting it with a wrecking ball, I must say: damn, what an ugly outcome. Couldn't they have done something more original? Bigger windows? Less of a concrete monstrosity?

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

While I appreciate/understand the concept of adding on to an existing structure instead of hitting it with a wrecking ball, I must say: damn, what an ugly outcome. Couldn't they have done something more original? Bigger windows? Less of a concrete monstrosity?

I have to sort of agree with Ben on the this one.  The original structure was either solid brick (possibly norwegian) or brick veneers over a frame. 

Either way, the end result was a stucco (concrete) behemoth with zero architectural intergrity from the previous structure. 

IMO, it doesn't do any good to retain the existing structure if you're not going to maintain the architectural history.  If maintaining means covering the existing brick with a 'Jacksonville Beige' stucco and some foam trim bands, then level it and move on or, preferably, buy an empty lot near-by and build your own.

[JFman00]

While I appreciate/understand the concept of adding on to an existing structure instead of hitting it with a wrecking ball, I must say: damn, what an ugly outcome. Couldn't they have done something more original? Bigger windows? Less of a concrete monstrosity?

I have to sort of agree with Ben on the this one.  The original structure was either solid brick (possibly norwegian) or brick veneers over a frame. 

Either way, the end result was a stucco (concrete) behemoth with zero architectural intergrity from the previous structure. 

IMO, it doesn't do any good to retain the existing structure if you're not going to maintain the architectural history.  If maintaining means covering the existing brick with a 'Jacksonville Beige' stucco and some foam trim bands, then level it and move on or, preferably, buy an empty lot near-by and build your own.

+1

[WmNussbaum]

I am not a contractor or an engineer, but I seriously doubt that putting a roof on this failing structure wouldn't involve engineering studies, some large construction problems, and an expense much higher than demolition. The City should not do that unless it resolves to immediately foreclose the lien it would have for the cost. Why fix up someone else's building?

Too bad something wasn't done years ago, but it wasn't, and we have what we have. If someone is so hung-ho to save the building, put your money where your mouth is. Go to the owner and offer to fix it up in exchange for a mortgage on the property with very reasonable repayment terms and a ceiling (pun intended) on the amount to be spent. Or just buy it - the price will be low if demolition - and a lien for that cost - is imminent.

(Val, if you are reading this, I apologize, but that's the way I feel.)

[Juker777]

I'm glad it will be coming down.  It had its run.  Let's put up something nice that will last another 100 + years and actually benefit the city.

[ben says]

I'm glad it will be coming down.  It had its run.  Let's put up something nice that will last another 100 + years and actually benefit the city.

....

[BridgeTroll]

I'm glad it will be coming down.  It had its run.  Let's put up something nice that will last another 100 + years and actually benefit the city.

Thats part of the problem Juker... Nothing will be put there.  It will be another empty space downtown... and someone will decide a parking garage is a good replacement...

[Tacachale]

^Or a roped off surface lot.

[Juker777]

You're probably right.  The lot will have to be cleared first before anything else can be built.  So, the first step will be done.

[mtraininjax]

and someone will decide a parking garage is a good replacement...

Or a pocket park.

But seriously, that spot was part of the great fire, and it was a number of items before it was the bank. I'd like to see UNF or UF perform a dig on the site and extract artifacts to be displayed at the Historical Center or MOSH. Its not like we have a run on property downtown, so why not dig up some history with the possible demo?

[Dog Walker]

I did well socially while I was there, but to be honest I think that Atlanta exemplifies everything that is callow, vulgar and damnable about the new south and despised the soullessness and materialism of every day society there.

Spend some time in Orlando and you wouldn't be so hard on Atlanta.

[bornnative]

To my understanding, the structure of the original vault predates the great fire by 15-20 years.  According to the building's history as it was related, that vault was the only substantial structure remaining on the block after the fire.  Who knows how true that is though...

[KenFSU]

On the bright side, the vacant lot would be a great spot to store all of that moveable furniture from Hemming Plaza during the 23.5 hours not considered allotted seating time.