1634 Ionia - owner requested demolition

[JaxUnicorn]

To CCMJax:  If you'd read the thread you'd understand that "the developer" got exactly what they paid for, which was a declaration that demolishing the house was the only logical option. Maybe they really believed it. Strider's point was that the Commission failed its obligation the the District and its mission by accepting an engineer's letter of opinion that lacked credibility. Rather than balance that letter against the opposite opinion of professional contractors who know the characteristics of the old houses and the applicable code, they blindly accepted an engineer's opinion despite its obvious ignorance on these matters. The Commission has authority to require very detailed information when it comes to a claim that demolition is an appropriate fate for an historic home. This Commission failed in its duty and has created a blueprint for speculative demolition of the District to recommence. Shame on them.

The owner paid a small fee and got a small fee response from the engineer from the looks of it, just so happened that the response heavily favored what he was hoping for, although the letter (not really a report) did have an odd tone to it coming from an engineer and I thought made suggestions that aren't really up to the engineer.  A more detailed analysis could have been done but at an additional cost which is where the commission I guess would come in to require the owner to do.  What I stated before was that I agree there should have been a more detailed description of potential repair options without going too in depth so the commission, owner and others could understand what it would take to bring it to a safe condition.

CCMjax, would you be willing to perform a true assessment of the property should we be allowed access?  What does something like that cost?  I'd appreciate the opportunity to discuss this issue with you personally.  My number is 904-465-1555.  Thanks.

[strider]

In my 15 years experience as a contractor in Historic Springfield, I can tell you that a complete house evaluation by a professional engineer is seldom accurate.  It is not that they are bad people or that they are incompetent, it is, I believe, because they seem to only see the houses in black and white while these old ladies are very, very grey.

You are making a pretty bold blanket statement about all professional engineers and if you feel they don't have a good handle on historic homes maybe you are dealing with the wrong engineers.  If you feel you are right and the engineer is wrong you can always get a second or third opinion from another engineer.  The reports are seldom accurate?  How do you know they are not accurate?  Have you done analysis yourself to find they are wrong?  Look I don't necessarily agree with her conclusion that it is pointless to repair the house because I don't think that's her place as an engineer to make that call, and pretty much anything that is still standing with most of the framing in place is repairable, it's just a matter of cost.  There are other creative solutions as well.  But to make a statement that we engineers are naive and only see things in black and white and aren't very accurate in our analysis and reporting is very very naive in itself my friend.  I haven't been to the house and walked through it but typically evaluation reports include methods of investigation, findings from investigation, analysis performed, results from structural analysis and conclusions.  If repairs are required there is usually a general description of a repair plan or plans, maybe several options but not too in depth unless the engineer is hired to do a comprehensive repair plan (which many times is the next step).  That is what was lacking from hers, not sure why, she just said repairs would be too expensive (usually the client determines that).  I've written reports describing general repair options that were cheap, moderately expensive and up to very very expensive that we knew the owner would not do but we still typically include all the options.  If you're not getting these kind of reports that are detailed and helpful and make sense even if it is something you don't want to hear (and especially if you the contractor are finding errors in their reports) then I suggest you find new engineers to work with.

This same engineering firm recently told a client that a house was never built to support a clay tile roof and that the garage needed to be re-framed to handle the clay tile roof it has. This potentially either chased off a prospective buyer due to possible added costs or insured a lost historical feature would never be returned to the house.  The facts are that the main house had a tile roof for over 80 years and the garage is in great shape and has been supporting it's roof just fine for the last 100 plus years or so since it had been built.  I'm sure it was not purposefully deceptive but rather that the engineer failed to understand the strength of the old materials and how the construction was done then.

Again, if you think they don't understand the materials they are dealing with then find new engineers.  That should not be a problem with a good experienced engineer.  I'm not sure from what you stated why they were even looking at the roof unless there was a change of use or it was proposed to support additional loads so I can't really comment on that.

We had an engineer do the load calculations on a large old beam on a Springfield project. As it turned out, even with 30% or so of the beam eaten away, it was still more than double the strength needed to do it's job. That saved a lot of work and money for the client.  Unfortunately, the engineer also told the client that all of the stucco would have to be removed, the structure totally sheathed and the stucco done to current code.  The former shows the value of a professional engineer but the latter shows that they do not understand the codes that deal with the historic structures. There is no requirement to bring a historic structure to 100% of current code.

Was the stucco in poor condition?  Was it unsafe, ie cracking, spalling dangerously so that it could potentially be a hazard and he had to raise the flag?  If it wasn't I'm not sure why a structural engineer was even commenting on the stucco since that is not a structural element.  It is part of the building envelope that is typically handled by an architect.  But again, you mention with absolute certainty that we engineers know nothing about codes that deal with historic structures.  That is part of the engineer's job to be, or become, familiar with these codes so if the ones you are working with are not, FIND NEW ENGINEERS!!!  The good ones may be a little more expensive (because they are busy and clients keep hiring and re-hiring them, because they are good) but in the end typically worth it.


I'm glad to see we are back to whatever a developer may want, professional engineers always write very accurate reports when they are hired expressly to get a house demolished and that staff agrees that demolition is OK again. 

I'm not sure if you are suggesting that we formulate our results and professional opinions based on client desires but if so that is not true in the slightest for us responsible engineers abiding by the code of ethics.  You can get your license taken away for that sort of unethical practice and do you know how hard it is to get it back?  Sure there are some bad apples but I've never knowingly come across any that just come to their evaluation of existing structures conclusions based on what the client wants to hear.  That is very bad practice and will get you in trouble.

My conclusion . . . you need to find new engineers to work with if you think they are not accurate and are misleading yourself and your clients.  Keep in mind, licensed engineers study engineering for 4 years, typically 5 at the undergraduate level, then typically a master's degree, they have to pass the 8 hour long FE exam which covers every aspect of engineering you learn at the undergraduate level, you then have to practice for 4 years minimum as a structural engineer under a licensed structural engineer in order to take the PE exam to get your license.  The PE used to be 8 hours but is now essentially the same thing as the old SE exam and is two days and 16 hours long and has somewhere around a 25% passing rate for first time takers depending on which sections you're taking.  I have worked with Ivy League graduates who have failed it multiple times, some who have never passed.  The old structural PE was easier but still an immense amount of information to know and no easy task.  My point is, it is difficult and is a long process to become a licensed structural engineer so most of them are a little bit more than some community college grad living with their parents that somehow found themselves evaluating historic homes.  There are many good engineers out there that are plenty smart enough figure out what needs to be done to an existing building whether it's repairs or nothing at all so shop around and go back to the ones that you feel do a good, complete and accurate job.

My fifteen years experience with historic houses gives me the right to state that.  Note I did not call the engineers bad or incompetent, but simply inexperienced with old houses.  For instance, if you never deal with the codes for historic houses, you don't know where to find them and if your scope of work from a client is to help them demolish a house and the regular codes help you do that, are you going to look up the other codes that will make it harder to do the job you were hired to do?

Professional engineers have their place.  I simply have yet to find one that has the proper experience to deal with everything they have to consider with these old houses.  Maybe they think the actual codes are wrong and they are right.  Maybe they just don't want to take the time to learn otherwise.  I don't know.  I do know that every time a professional engineer gets too involved with a old house project, they often cost the home owner more time, money and trouble than truly required. Take the stucco case I mentioned.  He thought the building met the code requirement that the entire building had to brought up to current code. Not the case, the contributing structures are exempt from that, especially if the building has been deemed dangerous. Rather, you can repair the stucco in the old way.  Which is better for the building and the owner? A $10,00.00 repair or a $200,000.00 one he can not afford nor leaves very much of the historic building and it's features intact? Or how about the time the MCCD condemned a building that the owner had removed most of the support on one corner of the house. The city hired professional engineer agreed with the MCCD inspector (himself supposedly a professional engineer) that they could simply take off the porch and leave the rest of the house.  As a contractor familiar with basic construction, I had to inform them both that to do that would take down the entire house as it was under one structural  roof.  The profession engineer changed her tune as did the MCCD guy eventually.  By the way, we were able to quickly brace and eventually repair the issue without demolishing any part of the house.

I have been lucky enough to have an architect that was willing to learn about the old houses and he has professional engineers that work with him when we need something above his capabilities. A good architect and access to a good professional engineer is a requirement, especially today when an old 6x6 is twice as strong as it needs to be but a new one is not up to the task.  We need to engineer different materials to get the job done.  But the job can get done and done in a manor that preserves the old structures and does not advocate their destruction nor increases the cost unnecessarily to make them too costly to restore.

The issue is not ability nor education, but experience.  Sometimes ego and dollars get in the way of good people doing the right thing.  In this case, we have an engineer that we did not hire, who thinks she understand the old houses more than she does and was hired to insure the house came down not to restore it.

CCMJax, if you think you can provide the expertise we need here, PM me and we can talk.

[ChriswUfGator]

No, the engineer is a very nice person, and I think is generally conscientious. She was concerned enough when she found out we were opposing the demo that she actually did a walkthrough with Kim (who you just got done telling doesn't know wtf she's talking about above) to explain her position. Which is basically that there was evidence of a fire and as a result she presumes the structure is compromised and issued a demo recc.

Kim asked her the basis for her recommendation, and her initial response was that ribbon board was compromised. Kim asked her how she knew that, since most of it is hidden behind the still in-place ceilings (which sort of indicates if the ceilings aren't damaged how is the stuff behind it damaged?), and whether she'd actually looked above the ceilings. She said no.

Kim asked her whether she'd gone upstairs, and she admitted she hadn't walked upstairs to look at anything until she was there doing the walkthrough with Kim. Kim then asked her how she could know that parts of the structure that she hadn't even looked at were compromised, and she said basically that there was a fire and she was assuming they were.

Well okay. I don't consider that an adequate structural assessment, and neither should the HPC. It's an assumption about something that could have been readily determined one way or the other, but wasn't. There is kind of a bad and lengthy history with people being able to basically buy whatever engineering recommendation they want with minimal factual support, and although normally it's MCCD doing, in this case it's an investor who wants the land. But regardless, the facts to support this, in our opinion anyway, aren't there. We don't just make this stuff up, and we don't oppose every demolition in the city, give me a break. This one is actually not warranted on these facts.

[strider]

So...this engineering firm, that is located in Springfield, and according to their website, participated in some way in the renovation of the Brewster Hospital, Liberty Street Warehouse, and according to the Firms owner, many other historic properties, are a bunch of hacks that don't have the experience to report on historic structures and can be bought for bogus reports when needed. Because PSOS' opinion is different. Oh and Wayne Wood something or other...

Got it. Note to self don't use this engineering firm. Because.

They are not hacks. I need to apolgize if that was the total impression I was giving. Nor was I only talking about them. In general, they and most other professional engineers seem to lack the experience and/ or choose not to take the time to get better informed on the particular situation caused by these old houses, based on my personal experience, to have a well prepared overall opinion on these houses.  Overall, professional engineers seem better suited to work on larger projects; just about everything on a residential house can be handled by a qualified architect.

Of course, in most cases, they are only going to do what they are hired to do.  Perfectly ethical to do that and nothing more. Take from that what you will.

Perhaps I can explain in a better way.  I do believe some professional engineers only see in Black and White in regards to these old houses.  That is how it appears at least.  And yet, until you get one to actually do calculations on one beam, the real picture of greys are not seen by them.  You look at a damaged beam and the black and white says, it needs replaced.  The reality is that it calculates out to be more than strong enough the way it is. You look at the same calculations on a new 8x12 SYP beam and see it isn't as strong as the old damaged one. The grey of the replace like with like codes we repair these houses by.  I think this house on Ionia was looked at in a black and white manor and no chance was given to find the grey.  To show that even with damage, it was strong enough to stand for many, many years to come.

But that is the engineering part of this equation and it was not the biggest.  The final reason this house is going to come down is cost. If the staff and HPC is now allowing demolitions due to the cost of rehab (which is dependent upon the condition of the building), then they ethically can not force what roof, windows or doors to use regardless of cost.  They can not ethically force a $75,00.00 roof when a $10,000.00 one still protects the structure.

Is vinyl siding on it's way to Springfield?

[CCMjax]

So...this engineering firm, that is located in Springfield, and according to their website, participated in some way in the renovation of the Brewster Hospital, Liberty Street Warehouse, and according to the Firms owner, many other historic properties, are a bunch of hacks that don't have the experience to report on historic structures and can be bought for bogus reports when needed. Because PSOS' opinion is different. Oh and Wayne Wood something or other...

Got it. Note to self don't use this engineering firm. Because.

They are not hacks. I need to apolgize if that was the total impression I was giving. Nor was I only talking about them. In general, they and most other professional engineers seem to lack the experience and/ or choose not to take the time to get better informed on the particular situation caused by these old houses, based on my personal experience, to have a well prepared overall opinion on these houses.  Overall, professional engineers seem better suited to work on larger projects; just about everything on a residential house can be handled by a qualified architect.

Of course, in most cases, they are only going to do what they are hired to do.  Perfectly ethical to do that and nothing more. Take from that what you will.

Perhaps I can explain in a better way.  I do believe some professional engineers only see in Black and White in regards to these old houses.  That is how it appears at least.  And yet, until you get one to actually do calculations on one beam, the real picture of greys are not seen by them.  You look at a damaged beam and the black and white says, it needs replaced.  The reality is that it calculates out to be more than strong enough the way it is. You look at the same calculations on a new 8x12 SYP beam and see it isn't as strong as the old damaged one. The grey of the replace like with like codes we repair these houses by.  I think this house on Ionia was looked at in a black and white manor and no chance was given to find the grey.  To show that even with damage, it was strong enough to stand for many, many years to come.

But that is the engineering part of this equation and it was not the biggest.  The final reason this house is going to come down is cost. If the staff and HPC is now allowing demolitions due to the cost of rehab (which is dependent upon the condition of the building), then they ethically can not force what roof, windows or doors to use regardless of cost.  They can not ethically force a $75,00.00 roof when a $10,000.00 one still protects the structure.

Is vinyl siding on it's way to Springfield?

You are absolutely right in that most single family residential stuff can be handled by a qualified architect, if there isn't some question about structural integrity that needs to be signed off on by a registered engineer.  Most engineering companies typically stay away from existing single family homes because of this reason and usually it is not worth their time because the fees are very low that the owner is willing to pay.  You are right, the bigger stuff pays better and covers their costs.  Better to do an investigation of the Trio or the Armory down the street than to address single family homes.  Something big that an architect would not be qualified to take on by themselves.  Take Baker Klein for instance, she even said to Kim that if the owner paid her more she may do a more thorough investigation and/or analysis.  She was probably paid peanuts to do what she did and the results show that, lots of general statements without a lot of analysis. 

[ChriswUfGator]

So...this engineering firm, that is located in Springfield, and according to their website, participated in some way in the renovation of the Brewster Hospital, Liberty Street Warehouse, and according to the Firms owner, many other historic properties, are a bunch of hacks that don't have the experience to report on historic structures and can be bought for bogus reports when needed. Because PSOS' opinion is different. Oh and Wayne Wood something or other...

Got it. Note to self don't use this engineering firm. Because.

You seem so sensible on other issues. I wonder why your default position on historic preservation is so asinine.

I object to your description of me!

First, I will admit, my views on this issue have changed over time due to the info on this site. I was a "property owners rights" guy and didn't really understand Historic Designation. I'm still not a save every one guy as I've stated often, but I respect what PSOS does, especially since it's largely volunteer work and I applaud them for being fervent in their cause.

But I chime in on these issues because I think a few are overly dramatic in their views/opinions. I think that hurts their cause. I know they don't care what anonymous me thinks regarding their drama, thats just to explain why I opine on it.

In this case, my point was, I was surprised at how this Springfield business woman was being not so subtly disparaged in this public forum. Strider clearly states he's not saying she's incompetent, then goes on to cite examples (garage roof example) of how she is incompetent. Someone relayed a facebook post from yet someone else calling the firm a hit squad and the report a hit piece, inferring a lack of professional integrity. Chris also said she is nice, but goes on to describe thoroughly how she didn't do a good job. And others have inferred that this particular firm simply created report to the owners direction, inferring that she was bought.

Maybe this isn't a company to do business with, but if you are going to disparage her company on a public site, own it.

Again, for the record, I dig the old houses and have learned quite a bit from these conversations. 

Nobody is trying, or wants, to disparage anybody. The facts are the facts.

So I guess let me ask you: What do you want us to call an engineering report & recc.'s that recommends demolition of a contributing structure in a national historic district by just assuming portions of the structure that the engineer readily admits that she never looked at are damaged?

For what it's worth, I'll give her honesty points here, because she flat-out stated that if she'd been paid more money to do a full assessment then she would have done it. So we're not saying she's dishonest, or incompetent, or a bad engineer. She's not.

What we're saying is that this report, which is self-admittedly opinion without any real assessment (not because she's a bad engineer...but because that's all the guy who ordered it paid for), is not, and should not, be sufficient to demolish a contributing historic structure in a national historic district. Pointing this out is not the same thing as personally attacking the engineer.

[sheclown]

How is Springfield represented on the Historic Preservation Commission?

It's not.

[NaldoAveKnight]

There's actually folks attacking the professional engineer?  The idea of the engineer putting their credibility and license on the line to demo a $8,000 house is absurd.

This thread is officially in la-la land.

[amgood]

As the body that has been charged with protecting the historic districts in Jacksonville the Historic Planning Commission could require, as part of the application for demolition, numerically based analysis from professionals and require access be provided for professionals representing the opposing opinion.  Additionally, owners who are represented by professionals will prevail as long as the historic district has no comparable representation.  As long as the standard set by the commission is a stamped letter from an engineer vs the opinions of a few distant neighbors the professional opinion will prevail.   There has not been a demolition in over 2 years, this is the opening salvo.  There are about 200 houses in Springfield on the condemned list.  As of now all you have to do is buy one of them, spend a few hundred on letters and a COA application and you can demolish it.  If this community doesn't band together and refuse to allow this - it will happen. 

[JaxUnicorn]

Absolutely amgood!  Last night's HPC decision set a precedent that will literally kill Springfield, and could have far-reaching negative impact on our other historic districts.  This needs to stop.  Our City MUST protect our historic districts.  As I posted earlier, Preservation SOS is considering our appeal options.  We must...for the sake of the remaining structures that others deem "ugly".

[NaldoAveKnight]

Absolutely amgood!  Last night's HPC decision set a precedent that will literally kill Springfield, and could have far-reaching negative impact on our other historic districts.  This needs to stop.  Our City MUST protect our historic districts.  As I posted earlier, Preservation SOS is considering our appeal options.  We must...for the sake of the remaining structures that others deem "ugly".

It's unlikely to spread to other historic districts for at least four reasons.

1.) The other historic districts were built after Springfield so brick and stone was used as a construction material.  These houses stood up to the wet and humid Florida climate much better than the 100% wood frame homes in Springfield. 

2.) The other historic districts have a much higher percentage of owner occupied homes.  Owners tend to treat their homes better than renters.  Whole blocks of Springfield are owned by slum lords.  Just pull up the property records.

3.) The other historic districts respect their residents and refuse to allow self serving groups such as SPAR hold sway on the functioning of their communities.  Real owners that live in their homes want to live in these neighborhoods.  Springfield isn't even on the radar screen due to SPAR.

4.) The other historic districts were never abandoned and written off as lost causes.  Many of these 200 condemned homes in Springfield have broken windows so every time it rains they rot away more and more.  Not to mention they haven't been air conditioned in the last decade and have mold and termite damage to the point of being very undesirable.

Springfield isn't the only historic neighborhood in town, the ultra preservationists need to wake up.  Jacksonville is on the rebound and if Springfield is going to participate in the recovery it's needs to be more friendly to folks trying to make a difference.  'Saving' a rotted out home from demolition is a false economy.  Nobody is ever going to restore that home on Ionia.  It's just going to rot more and more, driving away decent folks and allowing the slum lords and SPAR to maintain their stranglehold.

[iloveionia]

Absolutely amgood!  Last night's HPC decision set a precedent that will literally kill Springfield, and could have far-reaching negative impact on our other historic districts.  This needs to stop.  Our City MUST protect our historic districts.  As I posted earlier, Preservation SOS is considering our appeal options.  We must...for the sake of the remaining structures that others deem "ugly".

It's unlikely to spread to other historic districts for at least four reasons.

1.) The other historic districts were built after Springfield so brick and stone was used as a construction material.  These houses stood up to the wet and humid Florida climate much better than the 100% wood frame homes in Springfield. 

2.) The other historic districts have a much higher percentage of owner occupied homes.  Owners tend to treat their homes better than renters.  Whole blocks of Springfield are owned by slum lords.  Just pull up the property records.

3.) The other historic districts respect their residents and refuse to allow self serving groups such as SPAR hold sway on the functioning of their communities.  Real owners that live in their homes want to live in these neighborhoods.  Springfield isn't even on the radar screen due to SPAR.

4.) The other historic districts were never abandoned and written off as lost causes.  Many of these 200 condemned homes in Springfield have broken windows so every time it rains they rot away more and more.  Not to mention they haven't been air conditioned in the last decade and have mold and termite damage to the point of being very undesirable.

Springfield isn't the only historic neighborhood in town, the ultra preservationists need to wake up.  Jacksonville is on the rebound and if Springfield is going to participate in the recovery it's needs to be more friendly to folks trying to make a difference.  'Saving' a rotted out home from demolition is a false economy.  Nobody is ever going to restore that home on Ionia.  It's just going to rot more and more, driving away decent folks and allowing the slum lords and SPAR to maintain their stranglehold.

We offered to accept it as a donation. We had a buyer offer to buy for the price purchased. The owner would have none of it. So I disagree. SOS has not lost a house yet we owned. They all remain standing. EVERY house we owned is either fixed/restored with its CO or in the active permit process to habitability. One is listed on the MLS for sale. We put $50,000 back into the tax system as the sale of our homes were for the back taxes only. And we are 100% volunteer with no private or city or anything funding. Grassroots crazy ass preservationists, however you wish to describe us.  Disagree with what we do and how we do it, but it works.
The greater concern is what has been stated: the precedent set for demolition. The road has been paved and plastered with signs with this approval.
I love Ionia. I love Springfield. I love our old houses.
Save the houses.

[vicupstate]

NaldoAveKnight,

Your post is total nonsense. The very reason JAX is SO backwards is because it continues to adhere to 1970's/'80's discredited theory that demolition of historic buildings leads to revitalization.  Not only is that not true, it is counterproductive to revitalization.

I guess the Bostwick building should have been torn down too? 

The most preposterous thing you said was this:

'Not to mention they haven't been air conditioned in the last decade and have mold and termite damage to the point of being very undesirable.'

Do you not know that when these homes were built  (and for the next 50+ years) THEY HAD NO AIR CONDITIONING?!!!!  They have existed without AC for about as long as residential AC has been in common use.   

[sheclown]

Call me an "ultra preservationist" any day.  As far as waking up... yes I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

[JaxUnicorn]

Call me an "ultra preservationist" any day.  As far as waking up... yes I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

You are definitely not the only one!!!  I'll stand right there with you any day of the week, any time of the day!