The Premature Destruction of Downtown Jacksonville

[Timkin]

Demolition ONLY benefits companies that do the process.  It serves no other purpose, especially if a building is not in need of dismantling.   Too many have been in the past for no good reason whatsoever.  Still more are in danger now.  and presently The City wants to spend money we are already desperately short on for many other USEFUL purposes , to make more vacant property.  Not smart at all.

Let the Courthouse sit for now .. spend that money a couple of blocks away saving a tiny historic building from around the time of the fire that destroyed much of downtown.   spend the money to make projects such as the old Library viable. Put it towards revitalization of the Laura Trio.  Do something with it besides tear another property down, that clearly is not in imminent danger of failing nor is it a danger to anything around it. 

Instead of bulldozing everything , use this money to do beneficial work to bring vibrancy back to our downtown.   Spend this waste of money on meaningful things , instead.  Do something right for once!   Even if it was destroyed , the Convention Center is certainly not going to be built in the next year..so leave it alone for now.

[ben says]

Demolition ONLY benefits companies that do the process.  It serves no other purpose, especially if a building is not in need of dismantling.   Too many have been in the past for no good reason whatsoever.  Still more are in danger now.  and presently The City wants to spend money we are already desperately short on for many other USEFUL purposes , to make more vacant property.  Not smart at all.

Let the Courthouse sit for now .. spend that money a couple of blocks away saving a tiny historic building from around the time of the fire that destroyed much of downtown.   spend the money to make projects such as the old Library viable. Put it towards revitalization of the Laura Trio.  Do something with it besides tear another property down, that clearly is not in imminent danger of failing nor is it a danger to anything around it. 

Instead of bulldozing everything , use this money to do beneficial work to bring vibrancy back to our downtown.   Spend this waste of money on meaningful things , instead.  Do something right for once!   Even if it was destroyed , the Convention Center is certainly not going to be built in the next year..so leave it alone for now.

amen

[Ocklawaha]

Is the Hyatt on pilings?

Also, great discussion.  The river is the city's greatest asset, no question.  Make it public and useful for visitors/tourists, and let developers build up to give residents a view over the public space/parks/CC that could line the river.

The Hyatt is on fill, but within the historic banks of the river. 

The river's shoreline was up against the Courthouse and City Hall (what is now the Courthouse Annex).

In the early 1960's parking was needed, and the city provided parking for City Hall by filling and constructing it behind a seawall.  The county provided it for its courthouse built on piers.

Here is your problem with both pilings and seawalls on the north side of that great bend in the St. Johns River. Constant pressure from the current will cause this every time. Just one more reason why during the boom, though I looked at Berkman, I wouldn't think of buying one of those townhouses. Anything done along the NORTHBANK waterfront is going to face this maintenance problem.

Been there, done that!

[Anti redneck]

Is the Hyatt on pilings?

Also, great discussion.  The river is the city's greatest asset, no question.  Make it public and useful for visitors/tourists, and let developers build up to give residents a view over the public space/parks/CC that could line the river.

What he said. There's been some talk about going against the city by kayaking and fishing in the river. I say start the rebellion.

[BackinJax05]

At 1st I was all for demolishing both buildings and putting a new convention center on both blocks. Now Im not so sure. Good article. Converting the old city hall is an excellent idea I never thought of. As for the Courthouse, a convention center on that site and the riverfront parking lot isnt a bad idea - if done properly. However we all know our city fathers are excellent at doing things on the cheap, and @&(#ing it all up.

[TheProfessor]

The tower could be re-purposed and the ground level could be retrofitted with retail storefront to compliment the bars/restaurants across the street.

[tufsu1]

There's been some talk about going against the city by kayaking

well that wouldn't be against them now, seeing as how the ramp at RCBC is an official kayak launch point...and since there will be kayak races downtown in a few weeks.

[WmNussbaum]

spend that money a couple of blocks away saving a tiny historic building from around the time of the fire that destroyed much of downtown.   spend the money to make projects such as the old Library viable. Put it towards revitalization of the Laura Trio. 

Hang on a sec Timkin. All of these properties are privately owned. Should the City take them away from the owners in order to save them? Maybe yes in the cases of the Trio and Bostwick because they are or are rapidly becoming hazards. (BTW, there is a demo notice on the Trio building that faces Forsyth St.) In the case of the old library, there is no visible deterioration, and the owner is actively trying to find a use for it or to find a tenant that can.

How about spending that money to do a first class job on the Southbank Riverwalk. I said "first class" - something with which this burg is not really familiar.

[strider]

sheclown here:

Yes, WmNussbaum.  This is what the city could do.  Give the owners this option.  Mothball your properties, do the required maintenance logs, meet HPC requirements.  Revisit the options at the end of the three year mothball period. 

If mothballing is not done,  the city can prove (impending) demolition by neglect and then the city can mothball with liens attached to the property and monitor with liens and at the end of the three year period, take the properties by foreclosing on the mothballing liens.

  If the owners step up and do the right thing, these buildings are protected during the mothball process, the owners then have proven their willingness to protect the city's historic buildings.  If not, the city and its citizens do not lose their heritage through demolition by neglect.

[Timkin]

spend that money a couple of blocks away saving a tiny historic building from around the time of the fire that destroyed much of downtown.   spend the money to make projects such as the old Library viable. Put it towards revitalization of the Laura Trio. 

Hang on a sec Timkin. All of these properties are privately owned. Should the City take them away from the owners in order to save them? Maybe yes in the cases of the Trio and Bostwick because they are or are rapidly becoming hazards. (BTW, there is a demo notice on the Trio building that faces Forsyth St.) In the case of the old library, there is no visible deterioration, and the owner is actively trying to find a use for it or to find a tenant that can.

How about spending that money to do a first class job on the Southbank Riverwalk. I said "first class" - something with which this burg is not really familiar.

I am fine with your idea as well, WM.  My point is.. rather than expend money to demolish an intact, and in fact in use building right now.. not one that has sat and deteriorated.. let the thing sit.  for that matter , allow companies to utilize the space for next to nothing, just so the building is occupied and in use, instead of demoing it right now with money we really do not have to be doing it with, creating more blight, more vacancy , more void.. spend this money on beneficial projects .  Let the old Courthouse stay where it is .. Its far from being one of my favorite buildings, but at the same time, it certainly could be (I presume?)  leased out for Office space or whatever ,until such time as a definite plan is in place along with a confirmed timeline of a replacement to it.   There is no good reason to just demo it , to create a void.  There are blocks and blocks of this very scenario all over downtown, particularly in Brooklyn and  La Villa.

[Timkin]

At 1st I was all for demolishing both buildings and putting a new convention center on both blocks. Now Im not so sure. Good article. Converting the old city hall is an excellent idea I never thought of. As for the Courthouse, a convention center on that site and the riverfront parking lot isnt a bad idea - if done properly. However we all know our city fathers are excellent at doing things on the cheap, and @&(#ing it all up.

They sure did not do the new Courthouse on the cheap.  No one living today will see the tab on that paid off

[BackinJax05]

At 1st I was all for demolishing both buildings and putting a new convention center on both blocks. Now Im not so sure. Good article. Converting the old city hall is an excellent idea I never thought of. As for the Courthouse, a convention center on that site and the riverfront parking lot isnt a bad idea - if done properly. However we all know our city fathers are excellent at doing things on the cheap, and @&(#ing it all up.

They sure did not do the new Courthouse on the cheap.  No one living today will see the tab on that paid off

True, however they did @&(# it up. I wasnt living here when the Better Jacksonville Plan was passed, but as I recall the courthouse was budgeted for about half of what it ended up costing.

Speaking of Better Jax? What happened to all the overpasses at major intersections that were part of the plan?

[Timkin]

At 1st I was all for demolishing both buildings and putting a new convention center on both blocks. Now Im not so sure. Good article. Converting the old city hall is an excellent idea I never thought of. As for the Courthouse, a convention center on that site and the riverfront parking lot isnt a bad idea - if done properly. However we all know our city fathers are excellent at doing things on the cheap, and @&(#ing it all up.

They sure did not do the new Courthouse on the cheap.  No one living today will see the tab on that paid off

True, however they did @&(# it up. I wasnt living here when the Better Jacksonville Plan was passed, but as I recall the courthouse was budgeted for about half of what it ended up costing.

Speaking of Better Jax? What happened to all the overpasses at major intersections that were part of the plan?

Well, lets see.. they built one at Kernan and Atlantic Blvd, the Courthouse downtown, and apparently ran out of concrete

[Mike D]

As a Jacksonville "ex-pat" who keeps up with what's going on at home thru Metro Jacksonville, it's distressing to read once again that the "tear it down" mentality is on the run again.  When will Jacksonville figure out that it has been systematically destroying for decades the very things that are the ingredients of its real potential?  Now it sounds like "here we go again." This is much more than just tearing down two buildings.  It's the cumulative effect of all of this so-called renewal that keeps holding the city back.  This is not an urban vs suburban debate.  There's nothing wrong with the suburbs.  But no U-S metro area can thrive without a healthy urban core.  To disregard downtown because you don't live there or go there is like arguing the city doesn't need a healthy airport because you don't choose to fly very often.  It is in the best interest of everyone in the Jacksonville metro to support and demand careful planning regarding downtown.  The blocks of empty land surrounding downtown create an eerie, almost threatening sense for anyone travelling through Jacksonville for the first time.  I can think of no other U-S city with the issue except for, of all places, Detroit.  And now there's talk of tearing down even more perfectly good buildings with no sure idea of what will replace them?  But this is part of what's  gotten the city into trouble in the first place.  Tear them down, and while your at it, rip out all of the trees from Hemming Park.  How can these be serious conversations?  Much has been written about the unprecedented assets Jacksonville has...the river, the ocean, beautiful neighborhoods, good weather, etc.  A healthy downtown must be part of this mix.  No single item on that list makes Jacksonville unique.  It's the whole picture, the combination of all the parts.  I love my home town, and am continually astounded as I travel to cities with so much less to offer managing to thrive by embracing their past along with their future.  It's so troubling to read again of Jacksonville's leaders contemplating the same destructive measures that have left the city a shadow of what it could and should be.

[futurejax]

Eye opening albeit disappointing to read this article.  It's almost
like this city has a determination to provide the longest lasting
defintion of insanity to the world or more succinctly, a death wish.
Who greenlights these backassward decisions?  Where is the Mayor
on this?  This is when you've gotta use your bully pulpit Alvin.  Get out
in front of the issue and make people understand what is going
on or before you know it there will be empty lots where two buildings once
stood.  There's almost this inferred sense that razing everything in sight
clears the way for something new and better to replace it.  When what it does in
reality is make people passing by wonder why in the hell the 40th largest
MSA in the country has so many empty acres of grass.  And probably makes
investors ponder the same.  It's lunacy that has to end before there's not much
left to save.