Don't let them tear these buildings down!

[Deuce]

I hope that the residents of Riverside vehemently protest this. Doesn't their council member support them rather well? I don't understand why they can't drive up the street to the Walgreens.

[thelakelander]

If its a CVS, they may not want people driving down to Walgreens.  They may be attempting to tap into the urban market that Walgreen's currently has a monoply on.  As long as the older buildings can be incorporated into uses that add to the neighborhood's character and vibrancy, things should be okay.  Hopefully, a compromise can be arranged that gets better use out of the site for the owner and neighborhood, while still preserving the historic buildings.

[fsujax]

I know if they can convert a two story house into a drive through bank...then they should be able to make a CVS work at that location within the existing buildings.

[thelakelander]

That two story house down the street is all the proof needed that if open minds prevail, a win win solution can be implemented.

[Lucasjj]

Why does it even have to have a drive through? The Walgreens at King has many more people in it than I ever see at the drive through. Also, when I was in Chicago and Boston there were CVS's and Walgreens all over downtown without drive thoughs. I think a Walgreens developed in that area, that uses the existing building would be very successful without a drive through.

[fsujax]

Not saying there has to be a drive through. Just using the existing house they turned into a drive through bank, as an example of anything can be done.

[Lucasjj]

I was not responding to you FSU but just in general. That area of Riverside has shown to be very pedestrian friendly. I don't believe that it needs a drive through to be successful.

[jaxlore]

i will admit drive through's play an important role for elderly\sick folks picking up there prescriptions, it really does make it quite a bit easier, especially when you are waiting in that evil walgreens line. I however do not believe that one is needed at this location, they already despoiled the area with the publix souped up strip mall.

[grimss]

A pharmacy might not be a bad option in the building (a la Wiese pharmacy by the Roosevelt Publix), but a drive-thru pharmacy is totally NOT an option, especially when it involves tearing down the existing buildings.  This corner is one of the historic district's prime entry points, across from one of (if not THE) iconic city parks, and the present proposal will most definitely get residents girding their loins for a fight. Imagine sitting at the Starbuck's or the sushi restaurant admiring the drive thru and its attendant vagrants. (Visiting the King Street Walgreens is like navigating the squeegee guys in pre-Giuliani New York.) As a RAP Board Member, I can guarantee RAP will fight a demolition of these buildings with full guns blazing.  Really, what a dumb idea.

[stjr]

People are also forgetting that Owens Pharmacy is just around the corner at 5 Points.  Why not support a neighborhood stalwart instead of a chain.  They are better than a drive through - they have free delivery in the area!  Service is first class.  And there was another local pharmacy at Park and King in addition to a Walgreens as I recall.  That would be at least 3 pharmacies.  I know Baptist has an in-hospital pharmacy so I would think St. Vincents might have one as well.  If so, that's 4 pharmacies!

If people are on Medicare, Medicaid, or insurance, all they need is service.  The prices are fixed by the government or insurance company.  Having another pharmacy isn't going to change the market place.

[mtraininjax]

There are a few things left of historical significance.

You really need to go and read Dr. Wayne Wood's book on Architecture in Jacksonville. There is more around us than you think.

1) This demo will never happen, permit for demo is controlled by the Planning Department's Historical division, and they are controlled by RAP.

2) What person, of sound mind, would buldoze a building to build a 70,000 sq ft facility at a time like now, when they stand to pay all the back taxes from the 10-year freeze on the tax bill?

Just does not make sense to occur, so probably a done deal, especially since Corrigan did not find his way into the TU article.