Demolish old courthouse to plant grass? JBJ editor thinks so

[BridgeTroll]

Surely John Burr can't be serious!

He IS serious and don't call him 'Surely'

[thelakelander]

^ With every discussion about adding a new space, the maintenance issue should not be pushed to the side of the conversation. Right now, we have several public spaces that could be easily transformed with a little love and care. Hemming, the new courthouse, the Landing area all stand out as opportunity to me. Given their surrounding context, addressing them could generate a higher rate of vibrancy in the heart of the city within a short time frame. For some reason, instead of finding ways to take them "to the next level", we want to add more without dealing with the problems that continue to limit the potential of our existing spaces.

While I agree with you, I am not sure you are considering the upkeep, which there is some required albeit minimal, of the old courthouse.  My guess is that it dwarfs the cost to mow the area. 

My guess is they both dwarf the cost associated with selling the land and moving on. 

Haven't we known for at least 10 years that the courthouse was moving?  How are we having this conversation now and how did we use 10 years to reach this point where we still don't know what to do with the property?

I wouldn't spend a dime on this site until we know what we want to do with it and how to make/fund that dream.  Also, what exactly are we maintaining?  Are we assuming the possibility of using it again?

[Ming The Merciless]

Why would folks want to visit Jacksonville? Why do they go to Savannah, or Charleston? Jacksonville is unique not for it's beaches, as they are 18 miles from downtown. Jacksonville is unique for its history, and more importantly its architectural history and diversity. Jacksonville is THE oldest large urban city in the state of Florida, and boasts the largest collection of architectural gems in the southeast. Folks visit Savannah, and Charleston for just those reasons. These are examples of two cities in the south that have embraced their histories, rather than trying to erase and demolish it. Downtown, Springfield, Riverside, Avondale, and San Marco provide an amazing look into our past. The Chamber and Visitors Bureau should be promoting these features. We should be celebrating our architectural heritage, not tearing more down. Surely John Burr can't be serious!

Charleston in the 1980s looked a lot like downtown.  A lot of what you see when you go there is in-fill -- they ain't afraid to tear stuff down, but they're also not afraid to put stuff back up.  A open, accessible green space on the river in downtown that was maintained would not be the worst thing that could happen -- better than having a rotting non-historic structure. 

And I'm assuming that you have no idea what the courthouse looks like, because if that's our "architectural heritage" we've got problems.

[thelakelander]

I don't believe you can demolish a structure older than 50 years of age in Charleston.  Many of the infill sites were sites where buildings had already been demolished or burned down accidentally.

The courthouse is only on the river if we're assuming demolishing the large two block concrete parking deck sitting between it and the open waterfront. If so, the cost of that expense would have to be included in this "conversion."

[icarus]

Speaking of maintenance costs and knowing the condition of the piers on the bridges in our fair city .... I wonder if anyone is factoring in the repairs and maintenance if any for the piers for said parking deck.

Maybe, it could be a good location for Berkman III. ;-)

[vicupstate]

Why would folks want to visit Jacksonville? Why do they go to Savannah, or Charleston? Jacksonville is unique not for it's beaches, as they are 18 miles from downtown. Jacksonville is unique for its history, and more importantly its architectural history and diversity. Jacksonville is THE oldest large urban city in the state of Florida, and boasts the largest collection of architectural gems in the southeast. Folks visit Savannah, and Charleston for just those reasons. These are examples of two cities in the south that have embraced their histories, rather than trying to erase and demolish it. Downtown, Springfield, Riverside, Avondale, and San Marco provide an amazing look into our past. The Chamber and Visitors Bureau should be promoting these features. We should be celebrating our architectural heritage, not tearing more down. Surely John Burr can't be serious!

Charleston in the 1980s looked a lot like downtown.  A lot of what you see when you go there is in-fill -- they ain't afraid to tear stuff down, but they're also not afraid to put stuff back up.  A open, accessible green space on the river in downtown that was maintained would not be the worst thing that could happen -- better than having a rotting non-historic structure. 

And I'm assuming that you have no idea what the courthouse looks like, because if that's our "architectural heritage" we've got problems.

I have followed Charleston current events and development since the 1970's and you are totally off base and inaccurate.

There has never been blocks and blocks of vacant land, nor the wholesale demolition in DT Charleston on the order of what JAX has seen and continues to see. 

The ordinances which protect the historic district and which require approval for renovations and demolitions have been in effect since the 1930's.  Later, in the 1960's the area covered was enlarged and the ordinances strengthened. 

There has been in-fill but most of that is from:

1) land made vacant because the historic structure was moved
2) land that had been a parking lot or otherwise not built upon
3) land made 'vacant' by Hurricane Hugo (Concord Park being an example) or fire
4) buildings that were less than 50 years old and thus not protected, were replaced with something even newer
5) buildings that were at the point of no return.  These are rare but they do occur. Even these demolitions must be approved by the Board of Architectural Review

The Charleston Place Hotel was first proposed in 1979, but didn't open until about 10 years later, because of opposition to their original plan to demolish several historic buildings.  Even then, the hotel was built only because the project was reconfigured to save all but the back portions of the historic structures.

Charleston is probably America's best preserved city and to compare it to Jacksonville in that regard, is like comparing Paris to Palatka.  Charleston's DT is also one of the most successful in the country precisely BECAUSE they didn't destroy it's historic structures and urban fabric. 

As for open, green space on the river, what would the courthouse property do for JAX that Metro park isn't doing already?  Not to mention the 42 acres on the Southbank. 

The last thing that Jax needs to do is tear down a useable building with nothing to go in it's place. 

[Ming The Merciless]

I don't believe you can demolish a structure older than 50 years of age in Charleston.  Many of the infill sites were sites where buildings had already been demolished or burned down accidentally.

The courthouse is only on the river if we're assuming demolishing the large two block concrete parking deck sitting between it and the open waterfront. If so, the cost of that expense would have to be included in this "conversion."

Ming's vision must be a little poor today', cause he ain't seeing a parking deck behind the courthouse from his window across the way -- surface lot, yes, parking deck, no.  Maybe Doctor Zarkov could help.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

I don't believe you can demolish a structure older than 50 years of age in Charleston.  Many of the infill sites were sites where buildings had already been demolished or burned down accidentally.

The courthouse is only on the river if we're assuming demolishing the large two block concrete parking deck sitting between it and the open waterfront. If so, the cost of that expense would have to be included in this "conversion."

Ming's vision must be a little poor today', cause he ain't seeing a parking deck behind the courthouse from his window across the way -- surface lot, yes, parking deck, no.  Maybe Doctor Zarkov could help.

The 'surface' that is supported by piers in the river.  You would need glasses to see, though....

[Ming The Merciless]

Why would folks want to visit Jacksonville? Why do they go to Savannah, or Charleston? Jacksonville is unique not for it's beaches, as they are 18 miles from downtown. Jacksonville is unique for its history, and more importantly its architectural history and diversity. Jacksonville is THE oldest large urban city in the state of Florida, and boasts the largest collection of architectural gems in the southeast. Folks visit Savannah, and Charleston for just those reasons. These are examples of two cities in the south that have embraced their histories, rather than trying to erase and demolish it. Downtown, Springfield, Riverside, Avondale, and San Marco provide an amazing look into our past. The Chamber and Visitors Bureau should be promoting these features. We should be celebrating our architectural heritage, not tearing more down. Surely John Burr can't be serious!

Charleston in the 1980s looked a lot like downtown.  A lot of what you see when you go there is in-fill -- they ain't afraid to tear stuff down, but they're also not afraid to put stuff back up.  A open, accessible green space on the river in downtown that was maintained would not be the worst thing that could happen -- better than having a rotting non-historic structure. 

And I'm assuming that you have no idea what the courthouse looks like, because if that's our "architectural heritage" we've got problems.

I have followed Charleston current events and development since the 1970's and you are totally off base and inaccurate.

There has never been blocks and blocks of vacant land, nor the wholesale demolition in DT Charleston on the order of what JAX has seen and continues to see. 

The ordinances which protect the historic district and which require approval for renovations and demolitions have been in effect since the 1930's.  Later, in the 1960's the area covered was enlarged and the ordinances strengthened. 

There has been in-fill but most of that is from:

1) land made vacant because the historic structure was moved
2) land that had been a parking lot or otherwise not built upon
3) land made 'vacant' by Hurricane Hugo (Concord Park being an example) or fire
4) buildings that were less than 50 years old and thus not protected, were replaced with something even newer
5) buildings that were at the point of no return.  These are rare but they do occur. Even these demolitions must be approved by the Board of Architectural Review

The Charleston Place Hotel was first proposed in 1979, but didn't open until about 10 years later, because of opposition to their original plan to demolish several historic buildings.  Even then, the hotel was built only because the project was reconfigured to save all but the back portions of the historic structures.

Charleston is probably America's best preserved city and to compare it to Jacksonville in that regard, is like comparing Paris to Palatka.  Charleston's DT is also one of the most successful in the country precisely BECAUSE they didn't destroy it's historic structures and urban fabric. 

As for open, green space on the river, what would the courthouse property do for JAX that Metro park isn't doing already?  Not to mention the 42 acres on the Southbank. 

The last thing that Jax needs to do is tear down a useable building with nothing to go in it's place.

There's no doubt that Charleston has long had a strong preservationist streak.  And there's no doubt that preservation makes Charleston great, liveable and walkable.  But we'll just agree to disagree on the state of affairs there a few decades back -- downtown Charleston was, in the words of Mike Maher, a dump until they decided to turn it around.  I'll just take his word for it (and the presentation I saw him give) rather than get in a shouting match on the interwebs over who is right/wrong.

But to the two questions you ask:

As for open, green space on the river, what would the courthouse property do for JAX that Metro park isn't doing already?  Not to mention the 42 acres on the Southbank. Let's see -- a park across from a developing urban corridor instead of a rotting city building?  Gee, sounds pretty good to me.  The property on the Southbank isn't public space and Met Park is too far from any current development to be well utilized (of course, the grumpsters across the river also help with its chronic underuse).

The last thing that Jax needs to do is tear down a useable building with nothing to go in it's place. A park isn't nothing. Since you're a Charleston-ophile, is Marion Square nothing?  If maintained (admittedly a big if) and well curated, a great downtown park could be a great catalyst for downtown.  And I'll quibble with the definition of "useable" -- the courthouse is a shambles.

[Ocklawaha]

I would argue that the 'old' City Hall building with it's mid-century modern artwork/mural certainly has re-use possibilities, the courthouse, not so much. A conversion of that City Hall into a convention center hotel, using the balance of the property (or water) for a large, attractive, ultra-modern convention center could do wonders for downtown. Combine the hotel with a convention center surrounded by 24/7 activities, sidewalk cafes, restaurants, snack bars, gift shops, viewing platforms, history/aquarium kiosks, streetcar, small cruise ship/visit Jacksonville terminal etc. and you could light off downtown like never before.

[thelakelander]

But to the two questions you ask:

As for open, green space on the river, what would the courthouse property do for JAX that Metro park isn't doing already?  Not to mention the 42 acres on the Southbank. Let's see -- a park across from a developing urban corridor instead of a rotting city building?  Gee, sounds pretty good to me.  The property on the Southbank isn't public space and Met Park is too far from any current development to be well utilized (of course, the grumpsters across the river also help with its chronic underuse).

Where's the developing urban corridor? You're advocating turning a potentially prime redevelopment site into grass when we still can't figure out how to make our existing better located parks work. With the demolition money alone (for a building that size), you could probably upgrade two or three existing parks into Grade A public spaces.

I'd argue that would be more beneficial to downtown and result in a higher ROI for taxpayers than demolishing another building without plan.

The last thing that Jax needs to do is tear down a useable building with nothing to go in it's place. A park isn't nothing. Since you're a Charleston-ophile, is Marion Square nothing?  If maintained (admittedly a big if) and well curated, a great downtown park could be a great catalyst for downtown.  And I'll quibble with the definition of "useable" -- the courthouse is a shambles.

Why not Hemming, the Courthouse Square and the greenspace lining the riverwalk between CSX and the Landing?  We could make all three real lively green spaces for the money it would take to demolish that building.  Since they all already get more foot traffic than that Bay Street site, why not take them to the next level first?

[Mike D]

I just returned from a long weekend in Indianapolis, a "rust belt" city with an impressively revived downtown.  We saw construction around the edges of downtown in all directions...apartments, condos, hotels and retail.  In the center of town were blocks of beautifully preserved/restored buildings.  Yes, there was newer construction too, and, obviously, something older had to come down to make way for it.  Mostly, though, there was a clear respect for the past and a true sense of place.  Perhaps it's not a surprise, then, that the downtown sidewalks were filled with people with an energy you'll never find at the mall.  Again, this is in the rust belt.  You know, the part of the country that's supposed to be shrinking, the region with bad weather, higher taxes, no ocean, etc.  Jacksonville, please get a clue.  Quit tearing down your history decade by decade.  Of course the old courthouse is worth saving.  City Hall too.  Downtown does not need two more blocks of weed-strewn lots...which is what these sites will be, not parks.  It's astounding to me we're still having this debate.  City leaders, please think creatively for a change, and stop the destruction while there's still some of a real city left.

[vicupstate]

Why would folks want to visit Jacksonville? Why do they go to Savannah, or Charleston? Jacksonville is unique not for it's beaches, as they are 18 miles from downtown. Jacksonville is unique for its history, and more importantly its architectural history and diversity. Jacksonville is THE oldest large urban city in the state of Florida, and boasts the largest collection of architectural gems in the southeast. Folks visit Savannah, and Charleston for just those reasons. These are examples of two cities in the south that have embraced their histories, rather than trying to erase and demolish it. Downtown, Springfield, Riverside, Avondale, and San Marco provide an amazing look into our past. The Chamber and Visitors Bureau should be promoting these features. We should be celebrating our architectural heritage, not tearing more down. Surely John Burr can't be serious!

Charleston in the 1980s looked a lot like downtown.  A lot of what you see when you go there is in-fill -- they ain't afraid to tear stuff down, but they're also not afraid to put stuff back up.  A open, accessible green space on the river in downtown that was maintained would not be the worst thing that could happen -- better than having a rotting non-historic structure. 

And I'm assuming that you have no idea what the courthouse looks like, because if that's our "architectural heritage" we've got problems.

I have followed Charleston current events and development since the 1970's and you are totally off base and inaccurate.

There has never been blocks and blocks of vacant land, nor the wholesale demolition in DT Charleston on the order of what JAX has seen and continues to see. 

The ordinances which protect the historic district and which require approval for renovations and demolitions have been in effect since the 1930's.  Later, in the 1960's the area covered was enlarged and the ordinances strengthened. 

There has been in-fill but most of that is from:

1) land made vacant because the historic structure was moved
2) land that had been a parking lot or otherwise not built upon
3) land made 'vacant' by Hurricane Hugo (Concord Park being an example) or fire
4) buildings that were less than 50 years old and thus not protected, were replaced with something even newer
5) buildings that were at the point of no return.  These are rare but they do occur. Even these demolitions must be approved by the Board of Architectural Review

The Charleston Place Hotel was first proposed in 1979, but didn't open until about 10 years later, because of opposition to their original plan to demolish several historic buildings.  Even then, the hotel was built only because the project was reconfigured to save all but the back portions of the historic structures.

Charleston is probably America's best preserved city and to compare it to Jacksonville in that regard, is like comparing Paris to Palatka.  Charleston's DT is also one of the most successful in the country precisely BECAUSE they didn't destroy it's historic structures and urban fabric. 

As for open, green space on the river, what would the courthouse property do for JAX that Metro park isn't doing already?  Not to mention the 42 acres on the Southbank. 

The last thing that Jax needs to do is tear down a useable building with nothing to go in it's place.

There's no doubt that Charleston has long had a strong preservationist streak.  And there's no doubt that preservation makes Charleston great, liveable and walkable.  But we'll just agree to disagree on the state of affairs there a few decades back -- downtown Charleston was, in the words of Mike Maher, a dump until they decided to turn it around.  I'll just take his word for it (and the presentation I saw him give) rather than get in a shouting match on the interwebs over who is right/wrong.

But to the two questions you ask:

As for open, green space on the river, what would the courthouse property do for JAX that Metro park isn't doing already?  Not to mention the 42 acres on the Southbank. Let's see -- a park across from a developing urban corridor instead of a rotting city building?  Gee, sounds pretty good to me.  The property on the Southbank isn't public space and Met Park is too far from any current development to be well utilized (of course, the grumpsters across the river also help with its chronic underuse).

The last thing that Jax needs to do is tear down a useable building with nothing to go in it's place. A park isn't nothing. Since you're a Charleston-ophile, is Marion Square nothing?  If maintained (admittedly a big if) and well curated, a great downtown park could be a great catalyst for downtown.  And I'll quibble with the definition of "useable" -- the courthouse is a shambles.

You have misunderstood my post.  I never said DT charleston did not experience a period of distress (just like virtually every DT in the US),

YES, DT Charleston definitely was downtrodden and experienced a large amount of vacancy/neglect in the '60's and '70's and into the early '80's. That is NOT in dispute.   Even the mayor will tell you there were 'more rats  than people on the sidewalks of King Street' when he took office in 1975.

HOWEVER, the point I am making is that the downtrodden buildings were NOT  wholesale demolished.  They couldn't be for the most part because of the preservation ordinances in place since the '30's/'60's.  They were instead RENOVATED and in some cases repurposed.  That is NOT what Jax has been doing for the most part, and is why it has not  succeeded.  As I mentioned, there were/are infill projects in Charleston too, but rarely have historic buildings been leveled to make room for those.

Marion Square is completely surrounded by activity from hotels, restaurants, shops, etc.  Not to mention the College of Charleston is basically next door.  THAT is why it is vibrant 20 hours a day and not vacant like Metro Park.   

To be successful, a park would have to have somethings around it to provide snergy and interaction.  There are probably five or ten threads on MJ  (that Lakelander has written ) that explain that concept in detail.