Bostwick Building To Be Demolished?

[Timkin]

No Argument here, Debbie.

This is another case of "WE" the taxpayers facing the tab of another demolition.  Apparently as long as it is a demolition, some people do not mind.

Ocklawaha makes a good point.  If there is no other recourse for the building with regard to restoration, then gut it and make it into something other than a vacant lot. That idea  makes more  sense than taking the building out.

In this instance, would the cost to do that be greater than the cost of demolition?

[simms3]

Demolitions such as this are actually very cheap, which is why cities (some, few nowadays) do them.  It was at one point taking the road more traveled, the easy route.  Now demolition is the road less traveled.

Also, in case you haven't figured out, surface parking at downtown land prices is a lucrative business and there are bars and destinations nearby.  It would almost certainly be a guarantee that some dolt would come around, buy the land from the city and put it on the tax books.  Of course the city wants this because it thinks a 4,000 SF lot will actually make an impact to the taxable base (potentially desperate city?).

A mothballed building is still considered an "eyesore", does not generate tax revenue, and is more expensive than demolition.  It's the more difficult route, but a route that is taken by cities who cherish their past and are optimistic about the future (Memphis for one is a definite mothball city and there are facades tilted up all over the place awaiting some sort of redevelopment).

I have already touched upon the development front and why nobody will buy this thing.  The pricing is off, the feasibility to make it work is not there, the financing is almost certainly not there and there is no support from the city, which is really what is needed (and potentially another reason to demolish, so there's no cry for creative city financing for rehab in the future).

I think this situation exemplifies what Jacksonville has been about: taking the easy route on everything.  The cheap and simple fix.  Unfortunately, cities are very complicated and difficult to run and even more difficult to make prosper.  There's no such thing as an easy or cheap fix to make cities really work.  Jax leaders haven't really figured that out yet, and neither has the majority of the population which is very content to pay next to no taxes on anything.

[Ocklawaha]

I agree.

In a world of 5 star places, 'we are the Mickey D's of cities.'

OCK

[ben says]

I agree.

In a world of 5 star places, 'we are the Mickey D's of cities.'

OCK

Hey now, a lot of people like Mickey D's!!!

[fsujax]

Put a Mickey D's in the Bostwick Building, now that would be a good reuse! and save it from the wrecking ball.

[ben says]

Put a Mickey D's in the Bostwick Building, now that would be a good reuse! and save it from the wrecking ball.

I think you're onto something

Reminds me of the Mickey D's in Budapest. They serve you with waiters, knives, and forks. Pretty cool place.

http://www.tripadvisor.com/Restaurant_Review-g274887-d1775498-Reviews-McDonald_s_Nyugati-Budapest.html

Building looks similar, too.

[fsujax]

I am serious. No matter where a McDonalds is they draw traffic! If i had the money I would buy that building and do it!

[ben says]

I am serious. No matter where a McDonalds is they draw traffic! If i had the money I would buy that building and do it!

I know you're serious! I was being serious too. Check out that picture and tell me you don't see Bostwick looking a tad similar.

[fsujax]

Very cool. I was in Hameln, Germany and saw a McDonalds in a building that was built in the 1400's. I have a picture of it, but not digital.

[cline]

It's sad, but we'd be lucky to get a McDonald's downtown.

[ben says]

Very cool. I was in Hameln, Germany and saw a McDonalds in a building that was built in the 1400's. I have a picture of it, but not digital.

It's amazing how Europeans/South Americans incorporate their chain restaurants into preexisting historic structures. Juxtapose to the American style restaurant: build your own space at considerable cost, obviously requiring a car even to get there.

It's sad, but we'd be lucky to get a McDonald's downtown.

+1

[WmNussbaum]

Wow,  a McD's downtown. How lucky can one town get? Our twin Golden Arches would be close competition for the single arch in St. Louis.

We do have a BK, so it's not like we're nowhere. And we did have a Wendy's - at what is now the SE corner of the library. It folded long before the library was built - guess the location wasn't a good one there on Main Street.

Here's an idea: The City builds a fast food structure in Hemming Plaza; it totally controls the exterior appearance. Then lease it out for 5 or 10 year periods to whichever franchisee comes up with the most rent. It wouldn't be the Tavern on the Green (Central Park, N.Y. - now gone), but then we aren't - and hopefully don't aspire to be - NYC. Obviously it would not have drive-through - but maybe a take-out pedestrian window.

[cline]

Wow,  a McD's downtown. How lucky can one town get? Our twin Golden Arches would be close competition for the single arch in St. Louis.

We do have a BK, so it's not like we're nowhere. And we did have a Wendy's - at what is now the SE corner of the library. It folded long before the library was built - guess the location wasn't a good one there on Main Street.

Here's an idea: The City builds a fast food structure in Hemming Plaza; it totally controls the exterior appearance. Then lease it out for 5 or 10 year periods to whichever franchisee comes up with the most rent. It wouldn't be the Tavern on the Green (Central Park, N.Y. - now gone), but then we aren't - and hopefully don't aspire to be - NYC. Obviously it would not have drive-through - but maybe a take-out pedestrian window.

I'm not saying the we should strive for a McDonald's downtown.  It was more a statement regarding the state of downtown.

[bornnative]

I have already touched upon the development front and why nobody will buy this thing.  The pricing is off, the feasibility to make it work is not there, the financing is almost certainly not there and there is no support from the city, which is really what is needed (and potentially another reason to demolish, so there's no cry for creative city financing for rehab in the future).

Simms, I like a lot of what you post, so I'm not sure why this particular chain of logic irritates me so.  While I don't dispute your comfort or perceived legitimacy to hold court on matters regarding Jacksonville, which you have previously discussed in this thread, it's disappointing to me that you seem to offer your analysis with such a sense of finality.

To your above points:
- pricing is negotiable, especially with a highly distressed seller
- feasibility is a matter of perception, market context, and investor will, not the result of a concrete procedural analysis
- while your financing conclusion is likely valid, you seem to discount the relatively small scope & scale of this project...it can easily be within the financial capability of a determined investor to privately fund (we're not talking a $100M renovation of the LST here, but rather more likely a $2-5M rehab)
- it seems counterproductive to automatically assume that COJ is monolithic in their position on this particular building.  I understand that the trend within our local gov't has not been friendly to historic preservation generally, but there are some significant differences between the Bostwick and houses in Springfield, so it seems unwarranted to automatically overlay the particulars of Springfield's ongoing challenges to this building.

In short, you may be right, but we're not going to get very far by judging every historic/preservation/rehab situation through the same lens or painting the details of the individual situations with the broad strokes of assumption.  This is what the City often does, this is one of the reasons how we got where we are, and we can't address that problem by having our conversations in the same context.

[Ocklawaha]

The point seems lost on some of you...

Why be a city that looks like the typical McDonalds restaurant, massive parking lot, drive through (God forbid we should have to walk), slick plastic inside and outside, when we COULD be a city that stands out in the crowd, like those rare 5 star restaurants one occasionally finds? Authentic, old, new, mixed, urban, walkable, sustainable, auto-free zones, patrolled, lighted, stunning, inviting, participating, welcoming, all come to mind in a flash.

Like a crazy Russian friend of mine that tried in vain to sell me a painting of 'Stalin Crossing the Volga,' which is as bad as a painting of 'Hitler Crossing the Vistula,' there is something authentic about 'Washington Crossing the Delaware.' In the same manner the Lords of City Hall seem content to use a poor imitation of 'CITY.' Could it be that the fools that make these decisions haven't passed 'Finger Paint 101?'

There are any number of ways to get there but making Jacksonville look like Hiroshima at the end of WWII isn't one of them. 


Post WWII Japan


Post Consolidation Jacksonville

ANY QUESTIONS?