You have no idea what was once located here!

[Metro Jacksonville]

You have no idea what was once located here!



Here's five more additions to the Concrete Slabs of Jacksonville series.

Read More: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2015-aug-you-have-no-idea-what-was-once-located-here

[Adam White]

On the one hand, I love these stories. On the other hand, they make me really sad. It's kind of hard to see this stuff.

[thelakelander]

Out of this list, the George Washington really stands out. It literally wasn't given a chance at a second life. It was torn down as quick as it was closed. Less than 8 years from being nice enough to host the Beatles to holding less value than a surface parking lot? 40 years have passed and its foundation still stands as a black hole of dead activity one block from Hemming Park. If it were still around today, as apartments, condos or a boutique hotel, it would have nicely framed that corner of Adams and Julia Streets.

[MusicMan]

The problem was the name. If it had been "The Hotel Robert E. Lee" it would still be standing.

I am not joking.

[jaxnyc79]

Viewer discretion is advised.  So depressing to see how much of downtown was destroyed.  What a lack of creativity...what a lack of vision? 

It's both tragic and comical that our city thought it could revitalize LaVilla by tearing everything down, and putting up these 1 to 2 story office buildings with huge fenced-in rear lawns and parking lots.  Can someone tell me whether developments like the LaVilla ones of the late 1990s and early 2000s can still be built?  Is the city trying to encourage density downtown (even if they are 2 and 3-story buildings)?  That is, skyscrapers are NOT the only kind of urban density.

You have no idea what was once located here!



Here's five more additions to the the Concrete Slabs of Jacksonville series.

Read More: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2015-aug-you-have-no-idea-what-was-once-located-here

[Adam White]

The problem was the name. If it had been "The Hotel Robert E. Lee" it would still be standing.

I am not joking.

Oh god....I can see where this is heading. Be careful...

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,25089.0.html

[Gunnar]

On the one hand, I love these stories. On the other hand, they make me really sad. It's kind of hard to see this stuff.

You beat me to it - very interesting article but depressing at the same time.

[coredumped]

Anyway, back on topic....this is truly depressing, but think of the sweet fences we got now!

Lake you're right about the hotel being the most tragic. Something so grand sat empty for just a few years and they tore it down. It's a real shame. What's shocking is that the city is so eager to tear things down again even after this record of harm.

[Gunnar]

According to a Jax Daily Record article at the time, Jacksonville Economic Development Commission Deputy Director Paul Crawford claimed his office issued the demolition permit because the building was condemned and had no significant historical value. He was also quoted in the article stating, "I imagine there'll be a development plan coming forward in the next couple of years as we get closer to construction of the courthouse".

I am still wondering if those responsible in / for the city actually believe(d) this or if it was just an excuse. A bit of a reverse  Field of Dreams - "Demolish it and they (investors) will come"

Sadly, not sure if this mind set has changed.

[Adam White]

Anyway, back on topic....this is truly depressing, but think of the sweet fences we got now!

Lake you're right about the hotel being the most tragic. Something so grand sat empty for just a few years and they tore it down. It's a real shame. What's shocking is that the city is so eager to tear things down again even after this record of harm.

I quite liked the look of the furniture building - at least how it looked in the really old photos.

What I find particularly sad or ironic, is that the hotel was demolished because a parking lot was viewed as the better option. Talk about setting a really bad precedent!

I wonder if those who made the decision back then would've done the same had they known what downtown Jax would turn into.

[Adam White]

Anyway, back on topic....this is truly depressing, but think of the sweet fences we got now!

Lake you're right about the hotel being the most tragic. Something so grand sat empty for just a few years and they tore it down. It's a real shame. What's shocking is that the city is so eager to tear things down again even after this record of harm.

I quite liked the look of the furniture building - at least how it looked in the really old photos.

What I find particularly sad or ironic, is that the hotel was demolished because a parking lot was viewed as the better option. Talk about setting a really bad precedent!

I wonder if those who made the decision back then would've done the same had they known what downtown Jax would turn into.

The demand for parking was incredible.  Incredible enough that we destroyed our riverfront to create riverfront parking lots for the city.

But the hidden determinant is that the city charged tax on every square foot of space of the vacant buildings.  So a hotel like the George Washington with multiple floors and a large footprint had the same taxation square footage as a couple of blocks of downtown property.  There was no allowance for vacant vs occupied space and there were no such things as 'tax breaks' from either the feds or the locals that allowed you to effectively mothball a building.

So a building owner had a couple of choices:  Pay taxes on every floor of a building for the next twenty years (there was no chance of the hotel business coming back downtown after they got rid of the passenger rail to ship connection) or tear the building down and turn the tax liability into a revenue producer.

I started doing business downtown in the mid 1980s and this was the prevailing line of discussion amongst most of the old building owners.

The only guys who pretty much refused to tear down their buildings were the old Jewish guys. Bernie Etlinger, Joe La Rose, the Cohens, the Wormans, the Steins.  And even then, some of them couldn't afford the mix of property tax and ad valorem assessments on every building that they owned.

The ad valorem taxes imposed by the creation of the DDA and its predecessor organizations were so egregious that it became common knowledge that you could tell how wealthy a businessman was by how downright shoddy his office furniture and equipment was.----There was an ad valorem tax on office furniture and decor----meant to penalize the wealthy businessmen who had spent money making their places look extravagant.  The actual effect was the wholesale replacement of antiques and art with beat up old furniture and posters pinned to the wall.

That all seems so backwards. And, if I am correct, I remember reading years ago (in the T-U, I think) that one of the major contributing factors to businesses leaving downtown was that the City offered tax breaks or other financial incentives if they moved to the Southside. I am not sure if this is correct - but if it is, it seems like they actively wanted to destroy the city.

[Adam White]

It was completely backwards.  But once the old guard had managed to finally convince the old City Council that planning should be a part of the City's priorities again (it absolutely had not been for the forty years prior to the mid 70s) they were unable to readjust the priority culture once they had hammered their points home the first time around.

We are still guided by that demolition/need for parking trajectory.  It became common wisdom and with the way that the DDA/JEDC/DIA organizations are structured, they do not allow for problem solving or community input.  So the same stale, over implemented tropes from the late 1960s and early 1970s are still in place.

The only deviations from the old models are the ones in which real estate has intervened.  The last trope that was introduced to the numb skulled way we approach these issues is one straight from real estate:  "Retail follows Rooftops".  Its an idea from the early 1980s that has been repeated so often that its still accepted as common wisdom.  The idea being that 'Residential development causes commercial development, therefore more housing units"

This idea is so ingrained that outcomes from five laboratories of neighborhood development over the past ten years are completely ignored.

Here at metrojacksonville we have been working for ten years to introduce the completely obvious back into the conversation: density, urban vibrancy and intelligent transit are the key ingredients to the current paradigm of Urban renewal.

It seems to me that building housing will have limited effect. I think some people might move downtown - and that might lead to more businesses - but that in isolation it won't accomplish much. Without amenities downtown, it will never be a serious contender for residents.

One of the problems I think Jax has is looking for quick fixes and not being willing to spend the money and the time (a long time) to allow things to develop and come to fruition. And I think tearing down buildings is a prime example of looking at a short term "solution" without considering the long-term effects. Maybe a building isn't doing much now - but we have to have faith that if we keep it, it will someday have a new purpose.

[CCMjax]

Anyway, back on topic....this is truly depressing, but think of the sweet fences we got now!

Lake you're right about the hotel being the most tragic. Something so grand sat empty for just a few years and they tore it down. It's a real shame. What's shocking is that the city is so eager to tear things down again even after this record of harm.

I quite liked the look of the furniture building - at least how it looked in the really old photos.

What I find particularly sad or ironic, is that the hotel was demolished because a parking lot was viewed as the better option. Talk about setting a really bad precedent!

I wonder if those who made the decision back then would've done the same had they known what downtown Jax would turn into.

The demand for parking was incredible.  Incredible enough that we destroyed our riverfront to create riverfront parking lots for the city.

But the hidden determinant is that the city charged tax on every square foot of space of the vacant buildings.  So a hotel like the George Washington with multiple floors and a large footprint had the same taxation square footage as a couple of blocks of downtown property.  There was no allowance for vacant vs occupied space and there were no such things as 'tax breaks' from either the feds or the locals that allowed you to effectively mothball a building.

So a building owner had a couple of choices:  Pay taxes on every floor of a building for the next twenty years (there was no chance of the hotel business coming back downtown after they got rid of the passenger rail to ship connection) or tear the building down and turn the tax liability into a revenue producer.

I started doing business downtown in the mid 1980s and this was the prevailing line of discussion amongst most of the old building owners.

The only guys who pretty much refused to tear down their buildings were the old Jewish guys. Bernie Etlinger, Joe La Rose, the Cohens, the Wormans, the Steins.  And even then, some of them couldn't afford the mix of property tax and ad valorem assessments on every building that they owned.

The ad valorem taxes imposed by the creation of the DDA and its predecessor organizations were so egregious that it became common knowledge that you could tell how wealthy a businessman was by how downright shoddy his office furniture and equipment was.----There was an ad valorem tax on office furniture and decor----meant to penalize the wealthy businessmen who had spent money making their places look extravagant.  The actual effect was the wholesale replacement of antiques and art with beat up old furniture and posters pinned to the wall.

Very sad.  We are certainly paying for past mistakes now.  Let's not let the Trio and Barnett and other currently vacant historic buildings in the core fall victim to the same fate.  What is the city's position on those?

And sorry if it was mentioned in this thread and I missed it but why was the building at the southeast corner of Forsyth and Jefferson demolished recently?  Just because it was vacant?  Was there even an owner paying taxes?  I remember a while back looking at it in Google Earth and you could see the building from above then going to the street view and it was gone with a backhoe sitting in the middle of the site where it had just recently stood.  My heart sank.

So the question is, who in City Hall has the power to reverse things?  I have never worked in the public sector but I'm starting to imagine it is a lot like the military . . . don't do anything above your pay grade or SOP, don't try to stand out, don't you dare come in early or stay late to exceed expectations, just do what you were hired to do, fall in line and shut up or else you're going to piss everyone else off around you.  And for the record, I don't necessarily disagree with this approach from a military standpoint but our cities are a different animal.

[CCMjax]

Somebody please tell me how to post a freakin' photo to this site!  The simplest of tasks does not seem to be working for me.

[thelakelander]

And sorry if it was mentioned in this thread and I missed it but why was the building at the southeast corner of Forsyth and Jefferson demolished recently?  Just because it was vacant?  Was there even an owner paying taxes?  I remember a while back looking at it in Google Earth and you could see the building from above then going to the street view and it was gone with a backhoe sitting in the middle of the site where it had just recently stood.  My heart sank.

Fire:





http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2014-nov-downtown-is-literally-on-fire-davis-furniture-building