Bostwick Building To Be Demolished?

[ben says]

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.

haha. Thanks for the laugh

[Timkin]

If it comes down... and it probably will...

A.  It is not likely that there would be a building place there that will last a century, and

B.  It is very likely that the trend of the last 40 years will follow and we will have yet another empty space in down town.

[KenFSU]

The only two buildings that came down for anything really significant were the Heard Bank for the city's tallest and the Rhodes building for the new Main Library.

From the Times-Union when the Rhodes Building came down:

At 7 a.m. tomorrow, Jacksonville will implode the 10-story Rhodes-Futch-Collins Building on Main Street. The demolition is scheduled bring the 88-year-old building crashing down in a matter of seconds, making way for construction of the new main library.

The city acquired the Rhodes building after voters approved a half-cent sales tax hike for the Better Jacksonville Plan in 2000. For a while, Mayor John Delaney wanted to preserve the Rhodes building by constructing the new main library around it.

But most architects vying for the library design said it would be better to build the library without incorporating existing structures.

In contrast to the implosion of the old Robert Meyer Hotel, which came down in 1998 to clear a city block for the new federal courthouse, City Hall is taking a low-key approach to the Rhodes building demolition.

The city has taken some architectural elements from the Rhodes Building's facade and will try to use them in the design of the new library.

Just curious if a) anyone remembers how Delaney wanted to incorporate the old building into the new library, and b) what elements of the old building were carried over into the Main Library.

A little off topic, I know...

[Tacachale]

The only two buildings that came down for anything really significant were the Heard Bank for the city's tallest and the Rhodes building for the new Main Library.

From the Times-Union when the Rhodes Building came down:

At 7 a.m. tomorrow, Jacksonville will implode the 10-story Rhodes-Futch-Collins Building on Main Street. The demolition is scheduled bring the 88-year-old building crashing down in a matter of seconds, making way for construction of the new main library.

The city acquired the Rhodes building after voters approved a half-cent sales tax hike for the Better Jacksonville Plan in 2000. For a while, Mayor John Delaney wanted to preserve the Rhodes building by constructing the new main library around it.

But most architects vying for the library design said it would be better to build the library without incorporating existing structures.

In contrast to the implosion of the old Robert Meyer Hotel, which came down in 1998 to clear a city block for the new federal courthouse, City Hall is taking a low-key approach to the Rhodes building demolition.

The city has taken some architectural elements from the Rhodes Building's facade and will try to use them in the design of the new library.

Just curious if a) anyone remembers how Delaney wanted to incorporate the old building into the new library, and b) what elements of the old building were carried over into the Main Library.

A little off topic, I know...

Yes, he did want to make the old building part of the library; it was actually a secondary reason for why that spot was chosen to begin with (though the primary reasons were putting it on Hemming Plaza and the availability of space for such a large project). Unfortunately, no architect for any of the various proposals would come up with a design that would integrate the old building (at least not within the price range). Ultimately they might have worked some of the style into the design of the library, but the only concrete things they really kept were some decorative elements that are now fixed to the outside walls and the interior courtyard.

Interestingly, some very early ideas involved keeping the Rhodes building, but demolishing the Western Union Telegraph Building (where MOCA is now). That changed when the museum bought the building in 1999.

Also, on the Heard Building, it did not actually come down for the Bank of America tower. It came down for a parking lot for Barnett (who were still in their own building). It was only later that they put the modern tower on the spot.

There are some cases of buildings being demolished specifically for a new building, like the Hotel Robert Meyer and the Better Jax projects, but much more often they come down just to create an empty lot.

[KenFSU]

Thanks a million.

That is some fantastic information, I really appreciate it.

[mtraininjax]

There are some cases of buildings being demolished specifically for a new building, like the Hotel Robert Meyer and the Better Jax projects, but much more often they come down just to create an empty lot.

The old Post Office on Adams came down for a new building, back then. The Site of the old public library on Ocean was created after the citizens tore down the old city hall.

The old YMCA was saved next across from JMOMA and City Hall, but if you get the chance to go into it, you can tell where the floors of the old and new do not match so well. Some parts of the building rise up and down, but nothing they could do without affecting the structural integrity of the buidling. So they left it and called these, eccentricities.

[mbwright]

While we are all a little off topic at this point, I always thought it would be great if MOCA would occupy the Hayden Library.  Modern art in a modern building.  the interior could be restored, the top of the building completed with gardens.  A destination.

[Timkin]

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.)

Assuming you are correct, would it be the end of the world before we wreck the building to determine its structural integrity? My bet is , if it was that structurally unstable , it probably would have collapsed.

It is tough to get past the fact that many have no regard for our historic places. 

What would be the cost of demolition? We all know that we , the taxpayers will foot that bill. That cannot be argued.

What is the duration/ effect of environmental impact wherever this building is hauled to and dumped forever?

What would be the cost of an unbiased engineering report done on the building to determine its actual structural integrity?

What would it cost to repair the building to a mothballed state vs demolition?  Like every other empty building in town , I would love to see it put to good use.  I would RATHER (than seeing yet another vacant lot)  see it repaired to a state where it is not in danger of collapse (if it indeed is) and mothballed.  It is such an attractive and cool design.

Economics may or may not allow for it to be spared.  My bet is , the building is very savable.  If parts of it predate the fire downtown, to me that makes it especially significant among the buildings left.

[WmNussbaum]

Thinking out loud here: I first assume that the "we" in your post means the City. By the time a building has deteriorated so badly that it's a safety hazard, it's probably too late to do anything. The property owner, who likely knows more about the building, improvement costs, and possible uses, must have decided long ago not to let it become his/her money pit and to let nature take its course unless a buyer comes along. Been there - done that.

I wonder if any of you who are so hung-ho to save these buildings have ever been faced with having to shell out the money it would take to accomplish that end and then sit there with a nicely restored structure that is producing little or no income. Seems to me that it's a bit to easy to ask others to put THEIR money where YOUR mouth is.

I wonder if it is constitutional and fiscally sound for the City to exercise its right of eminent domain just to save an historic structure that has begun to deteriorate - but not so far as to pose a safety threat. But then it would be up to the City to make the repairs and then . . . . Then what? Put it up for sale? Make possible use of it? Is this a legitimate thing for the City to do? If it is, then the City could begin by condemning (exercising right of eminent domain) to buy the Laura Street Trio which are deteriorating before our eyes. (What happened to the rumor of a buyer who was going to get financing from Mr. Kahn?)

And right now, does the City even have the wherewithal to engage in such an enterprise? I think it does not. I see too many things - small things - not getting done around here and it undoubtedly is because of a lack of funds.

It all boils down to a thread I began some weeks ago: Show me the money!

[simms3]

^^^Very good points.

Another point - the land alone is not even worth as much as the net of the sales price and the cost of demolition, or this thing would have been sold.  Nobody is valuing the land on an income-producing basis, and there is no value in the current structure standing.  Sign of the deterioration of the market.

WmNussbaum does make an excellent point about restorations.  A restoration of this building would be costly.  The land itself is going for between $90-$100 per land foot, which is greater than the cost per SF of the nicest income producing Class-A tower in Jacksonville.  Furthermore, since the land is clearly not priced for an income producing property, the seller forgot to discount his land for 2 things: the horrible market and either the cost to demo or the cost of basic site work that would be necessary just to get a GC onsite for buildout.  The seller does not seem to be basing his number on anything.  If there is even a buyer for this property who can secure debt for a restoration, then once all is said and done and you have a 3,000 SF building whiteboxed and ready for a tenant, what's the rent?  This is of course assuming a lender will even take the chance on issuing a loan for a spec restoration/buildout in downtown Jacksonville with no tenant secured.

Unfortunately, this is why this land cannot be valued for future income.  You can't get a tenant in Jacksonville to pay the rent necessary to justify the cost in the basis in the land, restoration, etc etc.

Even if you weren't going to restore and you wanted to demolish the building, the replacement cost may still be too high for the local market.

This goes back to the health of downtown.  A healthier downtown in a better real estate market, one where there is substantial job and income growth and a healthy dose of investor interest, would mean much higher land costs.  BUT, it would mean more tenants to choose from who want to be there, more foot traffic and people to increase the chances of your tenant surviving, and higher rents.  This is why even though properties in Manhattan exceed $1,000psf routinely, everyone wants to be an owner there.  It's such a healthy market and hardly anyone ever talks about it getting overheated like they occasionally say of nearly any other city.

If city leaders, including local business leaders, can enact changes to turn around downtown, we would just not face these horrible situations anymore.

[Timkin]

* shrug

Then I guess the ONLY solution is for the city to spend endless money and continue demolishing until there is nothing left. 

[ben says]

What a sad state of affairs.......

[ChriswUfGator]

Ha, for a variety of factors I feel confident to speak up on this board.  I don't enjoy the same confidence in the environment in which I am.  I am a somebody down in Jacksonville, and I have a history there.  I am an anonymous person, 1 of 6 million, here in Atlanta, and I work for a firm and for people who could just about own Jacksonville (our chairman who lives in Germany is a billionaire).  I am relegated to being more of a listener and an observer to people who are like the 35-45 year old versions of myself on this board.  Of course, we are merely referring to discussions revolving around development, cities, economic development, etc.

Also, on this point, being that it is a quieter, smaller town, it is much easier for someone to be somebody in Jacksonville.  It doesn't take much.  Get to a larger city, and it gets more competitive.  Pedigrees run much deeper.  Everyone went to a top 20 college, and has an MBA from a top 5 b-school.  Blue blood society runs much thicker and it is harder to join the club.  Transplants are people who had influence in even larger cities.  For me, coming from humble Jacksonville, I'm less outspoken in daily life than I am on this board, where I feel like that big city guy in a small town.

I'm sure you can relate since you have lived in San Francisco and Seattle (and if I remember correctly Atlanta back in the day).

I have to bite my tongue in half with some of this stuff. I think I'd probably like you on the off chance we ever met in person, and so I do bite it. But you ought to pay a little attention to how you come across, you make an awful lot of assumptions.

[Ocklawaha]

Wonder what it would cost to remove the roof, windows and gut the interior down to the bare walls, then create a unique park-people space there?

OCKLAWAHA

[Debbie Thompson]

Why would engineering studies have to be done to put a roof on the building?  Do we know the building has deteriorated so much a new roof can't be safely installed without one, or is this conjecture?  Or should I say a SWAG?  The kind of SWAGS that keep getting historic houses demolished in Springfield, when they are structurally sound. 

Why should this building be torn down and yet another empty lot be a blight on downtown?