Lerner Shop at 118 Main to be demolished

[TheProfessor]

The crap is that the facade could have been salvage until something valid went into this space.  Now we just have a hole in the urban fabric of our downtown and another demolished building without any creative thought.  Farah has loads of money and a bulldosed sight was the best he could come up with.  I guess money can't buy a brain.

[Steve]

While I'm not going to blast the email box of the Farah's (what are they supposed to do now, put the thing back up?), I do think that this is a microcosm of the problems with downtown.  We keep demolishing buildings and turning them into vacant lots.  If we were to build something there, than I could swallow it more, but I don't see that happening.  It is yet another example of demolition by neglect, and this single fact (possibly more than anything) is keeping us back.

[TheProfessor]

Yes the Farah's have a social responsibility to rebuild what they have taken away from the community.  I emailed Eddie and got a heated response.  I think he knows he made a mistake by not leaving at least a facade on this building without any intent to replace was is now a void.  Perhaps the building was in bad shape, but there are always more creative ways to work a problem rather than simple deletion.  The Farah's acted in haste, they are to be accountable for their actions.

[mtraininjax]

I guess money can't buy a brain.

Those are big words for someone who could have found a way to buy the same piece of property when it was for sale a few years ago. The Farahs pay more in property taxes than most people on this board ever will, they are active in the communities with their families and really do not deserve this drivel.

Next time a piece of property comes up for sale, instead of complaining about the aftermath, go do something about it, get together, buy it, save it, hug it, whatever you want to do to it. Complaining about the aftermath because someone purchased it, who has a vested financial investment in downtown and the future of the City in general, is wrong!

[Steve]

Leaving the Facade would have been the thing to do if the building was too far gone, but the frustrating thing to me is, why was the building too far gone?  This is happening over and over again, and this is what we need to prevent.

[Steve]

Next time a piece of property comes up for sale, instead of complaining about the aftermath, go do something about it, get together, buy it, save it, hug it, whatever you want to do to it. Complaining about the aftermath because someone purchased it, who has a vested financial investment in downtown and the future of the City in general, is wrong!

By taking that direct approach, you have parking lot owners like Mark Rimmer, and slumloards like Chris Hionides.

While I'm obviously don't think the Farah's are in the same category as Hionides, there were alternatives to torching a historic building.

[mtraininjax]

you have parking lot owners like Mark Rimmer, and slumloards like Chris Hionides.

Its a choice, much like the sale of the Library to the current owners, who have done......wait for it.....nothing with the property. No improvements, nothing. The building sits empty.

I don't like tearing down buildings either, but I sure don't like to see people receive city funding for a building, just to let it sit and do nothing. The Farahs did not take city money for the building, they purchased it and are using it as they see fit, its right next to their existing building.

The building was for sale, ANYONE could have purchased it, anyone who cared. They were the only ones who cared the most to buy it, as it did not get to its condition overnight.

Speaking of caring, where are the people who want to purchase the BOSTWICK building at the Corner of Ocean and Bay? The roof is falling in on the property and my bet is that its not far from a wrecking ball either, but its OK to let it sit.

It too is for sale.......

[thelakelander]

^The Bostwick Building is listed for a crazy price.  I had a client once who was interested in it, but they wanted over a $1 million for it.  That's a steep price for something without a roof and cracked structural walls.

[mtraininjax]

That's a steep price for something without a roof and cracked structural walls.

I didn't say it was a sane price, I just said it was for sale and the building has MAJOR structural problems with it. If the building zealots wanted it, they could buy it, save it and begin preserving it. Once someone else buys it and determines it costs too much to save......I can't wait to hear the crying and whaling.

[stjr]

To me, this is the problem: 

The ones who can and will pay the highest and best price for a given property will almost always be the ones who are willing to exploit it for its highest and best use because that supports such a purchase price.  In the case of many historic buildings that are unprotected and have experienced some degree of deterioration, the answer to the highest and best use will ALWAYS entail demolition because the owner avoids the cost of restoration and can go back with a typically much larger and more efficient building generating a return sufficient to support the higher purchase price.

The only way to effectively preserve these buildings is to protect them with legislation that lowers the highest and best use to a level that makes the building affordable to purchase for restoration purposes or, alternatively, to find historic enthusiasts with money to burn in the name of a good cause.   Finding such qualified enthusiasts presents two issues:  (1) they are few and far between versus the number of "opportunites" available and (2) if they do the preservation they likely would prefer it to be part of an "historic district" where the effort and expense can be fully valued and appreciated - which brings us back to the need for a regulated environment.

All of this proves the necessity, even at the expense of "property rights", for historic preservation legislation with teeth or, in the truly free market, it just isn't likely going to get done.  

[mtraininjax]

This property sold for $155,000 in March 2005.

Your own homes probably cost more than this property sold for.

[ChriswUfGator]

This property sold for $155,000 in March 2005.

Your own homes probably cost more than this property sold for.

I think his point is that whoever buys a historic property downtown should recognize they have some kind of responsibility to the historic fabric they are a part of. A responsibility that would necessarily include thinking about whether we really need another vacant lot or pile of rubble downtown.

Your response boils down to "you have no right to your opinion, because if that's how you felt then you should have bought it yourself". Frankly, that's utter B.S., and is not how historic preservation works. No individual has the resources to buy and preserve every historic structure, that assertion is ludicrous. If you look at areas like Riverside, with successful preservation movements, RAP doesn't have to run around buying up every house or building to ensure preservation. They just work with whoever has an interest in buying it. That's the successful model.

[mtraininjax]

Chris,

The model downtown is that he who has the gold, gets to demolish the building. RAP is powerless too when people demolish items without city review, which you can do at 12 midnight with little involvement from the police who are busy with REAL criminals elsewhere.

Preservationists had the opportunity to buy this property, they did not, so get over it, move on.

[Steve]

Preservationists had the opportunity to buy this property, they did not, so get over it, move on.

This has become a trend downtown

[JaxNole]

There is absolutely NO draw to downtown for people who live in Mandarin, the Beaches, or Southside to downtown, enough to call them residents of downtown. There is no new real estate going on and all projects to lure people downtown have come to a halt. There is no draw for downtown, and until there is a reason for people to be downtown, aquarium, transportation hub, (pick your poison), there is no need to live downtown.

Perhaps focusing on downtown residents is premature, but we could focus on the tens of thousands of downtown and Brooklyn employees.  The target markets for new residents would be Springfield, San Marco, Riverside/Avondale and even Murray Hill.

Take them out of Queen's Harbour and Marsh Landing.  I hear enough in the hallways how the 45-minute commute via JTB is enough to make morning meetings miserable.