Are Real Estate Investors and Neighborhood Preservationists compatible?

[Apache]

Thanks for the idea stephendare. Seems to be a lot of venom directed towards people interested in restoring houses and making a buck at the same time. Some have stated that investors and preservationists are a toxic mix. Interesting topic I think, especially considering the number of historic hoods and derelict properties we have here in Jax.

Can investors and preservationists work together?

Should they?

Can neighborhoods be revitalized in a reasonable timeframe without investor interest?

Why the distaste for investors?

Can preservationists use the investors to reach their desired end game?

[Debbie Thompson]

The distaste stems from cheap flippers or slumlords, not investors in general.  That said, in neighborhoods where I have lived, the more rental houses, the worse the neighborhood gets because private owners tend to care for their homes better than renters and landlords.  Although, that probably should be directed at the types of investors we are griping about.  Because our own rental units get fixed before our own house does if both need fixing.    :-)

[Noone]

my post was removed. Who wants to flip Shipyards/ Landmar again. My money is on the landlocked PS4 by a Foundation. Ethics Commission meeting 1 hour out. We have too much compliance.

[Dog Walker]

There are several "flips", restorations, rescues, etc. going on in Riverside right now.  One of the local "developers"/ "flippers" has actually gone down to Deland to the Victorian Salvage Depot and bought over $1k of interior door hardware to bring his investment house back to original appearance inside.

I hope he makes a pot of money from his efforts.  He has had a lot of respect for the house and the neighborhood.  Most of the experienced investors now know that a proper restoration or re-purposing makes more money than a cheap conversion to low rental.

[simms3]

From what I have observed if a neighborhood is at least a little bit interesting, the flippers will increase the momentum and desirability of the hood with renovations/additions.  There will eventually be a buyer that wants to live in the home long term.

I would imagine if a neighborhood is HOT, and has been for a while, then it is probably too expensive for the vast majority of flippers, who don't like to put their eggs in one basket.

IMO an investment neighborhood is often a good sign, sort of like the gays inhabiting a place.  It's a precursor of what's to come (at least most of the time - obviously Springfield and Jax hoods haven't quite taken off like they have in other cities).

Of course it is my firm opinion that the preservationists often hold neighborhoods back.  I'm not sorry, but "old"/historic looking is usually boring.  There are some timeless houses/buildings in Jax that should not be altered, plenty that certainly should not be destroyed, but most of these historic homes are BORING to me and would look better with a modern touch.  In Springfield's case, I HATE all this faux "new" historic homes.  Ruins the neighborhood to me - would much rather see the current crop restored beautifully and awesome modernism and modern classicism built on the empty lots.  Would "open up the hood" to lots of young, creative money that avoids it now because they can't build what they want, and would make for an interesting contrast.

My grievance with actual homeowners in Jax is that they maintain their yards and houses as if they were renters.  Even the nicer parts are far more unkempt than similar areas in other cities.  I see no difference between renters, "slumlords", and the average Jacksonville homeowner at this point, except at the beaches - clear difference between AB and PVB vs most of Jax Beach/Jacksonville.  Really, one of the best neighborhoods for homeowner pride is Springfield, at least for the homes that are restored/occupied by able owners.  Still, the neighborhood has a long way to go to look/feel "gentrified".  Large parts of Riverside/Avondale/Ortega look absolutely abominable, and this includes wealthy homeowners as well.

[simms3]

^^^Case in point. The below is some random infill in a neighborhood every bit as old as Springfield, if not older.  It's not a really expensive development, so a local developer in Jax could easily do something like this - ~20 units or so.  It's not crazy contemporary, but it's not "meant to look old" either.  I'd say it's super conservative!  Can someone confirm for me if this sort of thing would pass through the hoops of Springfield/NRHP/SPAR/RAP red tape?

via Timbad at skyscraperpage.com




This is going up a block down...same source:

[sheclown]

In Springfield's case, I HATE all this faux "new" historic homes.  Ruins the neighborhood to me - would much rather see the current crop restored beautifully and awesome modernism and modern classicism built on the empty lots.  Would "open up the hood" to lots of young, creative money that avoids it now because they can't build what they want, and would make for an interesting contrast.

Simms, I agree.  Joe and I built two of these new historic homes (reminds me of that sign "antiques made daily").  We we so excited to design it, choose the trim, etc.  After they were built, folks would say "wow, you did a great job renovating this house" and we both felt weird.

Now we are picking out new designs for a couple of infill we hope to build.  This time we hope the design reflects the time in which it is built.  After all, that's what preservation is to me...a picture of a time.  I hope our new houses do that.  I hope they say "this is what 2014 looked like"

I don't think it is "boring" to have the infill look "historic" as much as it is pretentious.

[thelakelander]

Simms3, that example would never fly in on a residential street Springfield or Riverside. You'd have a better chance of getting it on Main or 8th, but that would still be a major challenge. However, you could do it in Brooklyn, LaVilla and downtown and probably get away with it in parts of San Marco. 






^Examples of infill in Nashville's Germantown.

Sheclown, I agree with you, it's pretty pretentious and damning if you ask me.  If we had this type of sentiment a century ago, we never would have ended up with the Prairie School or Mid-Century Modern Architecture dominating our local scene during the height of their modern popularity.  I know, many focus on the houses but the most egregious example is the new courthouse. 

[simms3]

^^^I think they were going for some sort of modern classicism (neoclassicism?) and totally missed the boat, LoL.  There is nothing architecturally correct or pleasing about the scale or design of the new courthouse - it's so bad it's offensive (beyond the fact that it's one of the worst abuses of taxpayer money).  Some architects like Bob Stern and Michael Graves (the latter was originally a contender back in early 00s, no?) do neoclassicism quite well (Stern did the main library, which is just OK, but he has a ton of other great works).

For the price taxpayers paid for THAT ugly courthouse, the design team should have been internationally renowned, no question!  Man the city fucked up.

[Tacachale]

Is there a deeper reason they build those faux-historic homes in Springfield and Riverside? I assumed it's what people wanted. I know at least one couple who bought one of them because that's what they wanted; if it fits with the scale and zoning of the neighborhood I say let them have it. But if people are being forced to build like that it may be an issue. There are tons of examples of newer houses blending with the neighborhood in places like Atlantic and Neptune Beach - as well as examples of faux-historic homes that don't fit.

[fieldafm]

I think infill is a bit different than what the original poster was asking about.

That being said, I like the new direction this topic is taking.

Personally, I think that modern design can still be contextually sensitve to the historic nature of a place like Avondale/Springfield.  There are a few homes in Avondale in particular that have a modern look but don't stick out like a sore thumb.

Lake makes a good point about the proliferation of the Prairie Style in and around Jax after the Great Fire and it's an interesting topic.  Does a particular architectural style make the character of a neighborhood?  Does uniqe architecture work best when it's clustered?  Can contrasting styles mix?  If contrasting styles can in fact mix, what are some best practices to create a sense of place when there are a mix of styles?



Personally, I hope that Content Design's Springfield project gets rolling again. 




Also, I think an area such as King Street and Oak Street could really benefit from infill projects that are built with a more modern style like some of the infill projects in Germantown mentioned above. 

[MusicMan]

Can anyone explain why the Content Design Group home was never built?  I love that design, and a half dozen of those (or more) sprinkled throughout Springfield would be a huge step forward.

Also, I wonder why no one has never built a replica of Klutho's personal home on 9th Street. It is beautiful.

I agree with the sentiment that trying to force an architectural style on new builders is a terrible idea, and no doubt has hurt Springfield a lot. The SRG Homes products are really nice but I cannot remember seeing one that had a bedroom downstairs, which turns off a lot of buyers over 60 who might otherwise move there.

[thelakelander]

Is there a deeper reason they build those faux-historic homes in Springfield and Riverside? I assumed it's what people wanted. I know at least one couple who bought one of them because that's what they wanted; if it fits with the scale and zoning of the neighborhood I say let them have it. But if people are being forced to build like that it may be an issue. There are tons of examples of newer houses blending with the neighborhood in places like Atlantic and Neptune Beach - as well as examples of faux-historic homes that don't fit.

Speaking from experience, you're driven to a certain design style during the design process, within the official historic districts.  When I did my lofts on 6th Street, I wanted to do something really modern.  That caught a lot of push back at the staff level and by the time I applied for a COA, I had completely changed the design.  For me, time was money and I wasn't financially committed to spending money challenging or pushing the system.  I wanted approval as quick as possible, so I could move on.

Since many homes are built spec and I've had clients with similar experiences, I don't believe architectural styles are designed a certain way because that's what the general public prefers.  From what I can tell, the majority of home buyers care more about how much they are paying, location, layouts, etc.

[thelakelander]

Can anyone explain why the Content Design Group home was never built?

Not sure, but I assume the market downfall may have affected the project's feasibility.   

I love that design, and a half dozen of those (or more) sprinkled throughout Springfield would be a huge step forward.

Also, I wonder why no one has never built a replica of Klutho's personal home on 9th Street. It is beautiful.

^That design, at least the facade, appears to be a modern interpretation of the Klutho home, which is shown below.

[strider]

During the "good years" when SRG and a few others, including us (OK, we just built 2) were building in fills, the only thing approved was in-fill that looked old.  SRG and most others, in my opinion, built what one would see more in Riverside (teens and twenties mass build style) rather than what was originally built in Springfield. We tried to build houses that would appear to have been built in 1908 ish.  In fact, the tall column house was the eighth one in Springfield and the first one built there since 1908. And yes, during early open houses, we got a lot of "Wow, you did a great job restoring this old house!"  Sort of felt weird.

The Content Design house was not all that easy to get approved.  Many thought it would not be, though nationwide the trend in in-fill is to be different and yet blend in.  It did not get built, I have been told, because the comps were not there and the financing fell through.

No one has duplicated the Klutho House look I suspect due to costs.  Those large over hangs and the construction style gets a bit more expensive that what you see in the SRG houses and others.

Like Sheclown said earlier, we now believe it was a mistake to build to look old.  The new small houses (2 BR, 2 BA) we have being designed will be a bit different.  Our architect (and sailing buddy) studied under Mr Broward who in turn trained under Wright, as did Klutho.  We look forward to what he comes up with as his vision of a 2014 Urban home.