'Eyesore' hotel in downtown Jacksonville heading for demolition

[BridgeTroll]

If it is in fact contaminated then it should be cleaned up right?  Why would you not want a contaminated sight cleaned up?  Would you buy a condo in the refurbished building on a known contaminated sight?  Perhaps the discovery of the contamination was the very thing that kept this building from being refurbished.  Seems logical to me... but I don't know all the facts either.  Stephen seems to know but apparently the story is too long to tell us all.

[JeffreyS]

BT the story is on this site. Stephen and Downtown Parks had a long public arguement about it on this forum. I have no inside info and am not publicly taking sides.

[BridgeTroll]

Ahhh thats right... will look!

[Ron Mexico]

I got a look at this building the other day when i went to the confederate dog park (which is a really great thing the city did) and it was in rough shape.  Hard to see a good rehab there, but I am no architect. 

[thelakelander]

The structure is re-habitable if stripped down to its concrete skeleton.  However, it being a feasible project at this point is most likely in doubt, given our economic conditions.  Does anyone have any idea of what will happen when it comes down?  Is there a plan out there?

[brainstormer]

So let's put money aside for a minute and focus on the future.  What potential does this site have other than a concrete slab surrounded by rusting fence.  Isn't this kind of the gateway to Springfield from Downtown?  Could this lot play an important part in refurbishing Confederate Park?  That Klutho building next to the park could become part of a new mixed use area....what would make a good entrance to Springfield?  Housing, enlarge the park, restaurants and shops, a museum?  Does FSCJ  need a place for expansion?  Perhaps a tall dorm with retail and other small shops?  Will there ever be a time in Jacksonville when the fence around the park can come down?

I pretty much spend a lot of time dreaming because it helps me not be so discouraged with the state of things in this city.

On a related note.  Who can tell me about the yellow brick building on the left of Main Street as you head north into Springfield?  It is right before where JEA took a crap and fenced it in. 

[Coolyfett]

Progress!! Very happy they are finally tearing that thing down. Now is the chance to build more downtown apartments with venues at the bottom floor.

New High Rise? 

[zoo]

Because of their location, I think the only clientele they were attracting was the pay-by-the-week crowd. Nobody in their right mind would ever check in there, seeing what was wandering around outside. I can't imagine the clientele inside was much better.

Renovations weren't the place's problem, its location was.

No place has a certain crowd or business model because of its location (your implication you think Springfield is a bad location is very clear).

It is because of ownership and the use that the ownership has chosen (even if it is rented to another entity to operate) -- pay by the week cannot happen if the ownership does not allow it. This is a classic case of a property owner having no idea of possible highest and best use, and taking whatever requires the least investment from their pocket -- a common problem with many of Jacksonville's fine, fine landowners in Springfield and Downtown.

What potential does this site have other than a concrete slab surrounded by rusting fence.  Isn't this kind of the gateway to Springfield from Downtown?  Could this lot play an important part in refurbishing Confederate Park?  That Klutho building next to the park could become part of a new mixed use area....what would make a good entrance to Springfield?  Housing, enlarge the park, restaurants and shops, a museum?  Does FSCJ  need a place for expansion?  Perhaps a tall dorm with retail and other small shops?  Will there ever be a time in Jacksonville when the fence around the park can come down?

As mentioned in a different thread, the Hogan's Creek/Emerald Necklace park system from Liberty St up to 8th is being masterplanned by HDR and Project for Public Spaces between now and December. The scope of the effort includes, among other things, analyzing all contamination issues and surrounding uses/opportunities. I presume the Park View Inn site, having contamination and proximity of use would be considered in this planning effort.

I'd like to see them look at the site as part of a grouping, with the Claude Nolan/EHT multi-story, historic building (which should be rehabbed), the Warren Motors auto sales business, and the crumbling (thanks to settling) single-story red brick building that houses a hatchery equipment manufacturer (which is also owned by Warren Properties). Of the two buildings with businesses in them, neither are currently the highest and best use, and I expect the hatchery might find good use of a location at the north end of the warehouse district.

This would allow the planning team, the City, and hopefully a good developer (that the public may have to help the City identify) to look at the best use for these parcels that abut the park system and Downtown's main e/w thoroughfare, and maybe even to fix the fubar that is the north end of Ocean and Main Sts.

Even if this takes time to investigate, plan, develop solutions and find funding, and I am not a proponent of empty lots, I still prefer this option to that rotten, useless, unsalvageable, vagrant-attracting eyesore that is currently there.

I hope the City lets us know exactly when they will demolish so we can have a party while we watch one of Downtown and Springfield's greatest blights come down!

[ChriswUfGator]

Because of their location, I think the only clientele they were attracting was the pay-by-the-week crowd. Nobody in their right mind would ever check in there, seeing what was wandering around outside. I can't imagine the clientele inside was much better.

Renovations weren't the place's problem, its location was.

No place has a certain crowd or business model because of its location (your implication you think Springfield is a bad location is very clear).

It is because of ownership and the use that the ownership has chosen (even if it is rented to another entity to operate) -- pay by the week cannot happen if the ownership does not allow it. This is a classic case of a property owner having no idea of possible highest and best use, and taking whatever requires the least investment from their pocket -- a common problem with many of Jacksonville's fine, fine landowners in Springfield and Downtown.

I'm not bashing Springfield, I'm just saying that in that hotel's location, the only clientele it attracted was of the not-so-nice variety. Springfield has come a long way, I'm not trying to knock it, but honestly...if you drove into town with your kids in the car, would you want to stay the night in a place surrounded by homeless and hookers?

And back when this place was still open, that's when I had a crapload of rental properties in Springfield. I know what it's like, because I was in S'field every day, and drove by Park View every day. I'm not just running my mouth off. There is no way that place could have been viable in its location, as anything other than a seedy motel. Which will only hold the area back. Which is one of the reasons I think it getting demolished is a good step for the area.

[Wacca Pilatka]

On a related note.  Who can tell me about the yellow brick building on the left of Main Street as you head north into Springfield?  It is right before where JEA took a crap and fenced it in. 
[/quote]

I know it was known as the City Engineers' Building and it is featured in Jacksonville's Architectural Heritage, right at the end of the downtown chapter.  Architect is unknown.  If you don't have the book I'd be glad to look up the full writeup on it later.

[zoo]

I'm just saying that in that hotel's location, the only clientele it attracted was of the not-so-nice variety

Again, location does not make a use, but use can make or break a location. If a property owner invests in smart use, and protects his right to offer that use through security or working with surrounding community to "clear" the location, then the use prevails.

You may have owned property in Springfield, and you may have had a crummy environment. But I'd bet, like many of the other fine, fine property owners, you put as little as possible into your properties, and adjusted your use to the surrounding environment b/c making a quick buck was easier that way. Some would call this approach "penny-wise and pound-foolish," and it has been a prevalent affliction in Springfield and Downtown.

Location does not make a use, use makes (or breaks) a location. Thanks for helping to prove my point.

At least we can agree the wreck coming down is a good thing for both its surrounding submarkets.

[ChriswUfGator]

I'm just saying that in that hotel's location, the only clientele it attracted was of the not-so-nice variety

Again, location does not make a use, but use can make or break a location. If a property owner invests in smart use, and protects his right to offer that use through security or working with surrounding community to "clear" the location, then the use prevails.

You may have owned property in Springfield, and you may have had a crummy environment. But I'd bet, like many of the other fine, fine property owners, you put as little as possible into your properties, and adjusted your use to the surrounding environment b/c making a quick buck was easier that way. Some would call this approach "penny-wise and pound-foolish," and it has been a prevalent affliction in Springfield and Downtown.

Location does not make a use, use makes (or breaks) a location. Thanks for helping to prove my point.

At least we can agree the wreck coming down is a good thing for both its surrounding submarkets.

No I tried to make my properties nice. Go check out 1719 Perry or 41 E. 16th, both were renovations I did. Tell me you think they look like the rest of the typical S'field termite-traps. Most of the places I had are still the nicest things on their respective streets, even 6 years later. And let me tell you, it was a total waste, and I about went bust doing business that way. I'd no sooner finish fixing the place up than it would be completely trashed 3 months later. After awhile, I threw in the towel and went back to school. There are far easier ways to make a lot more money.

And I'm not getting your thought process. Do you really think that location can't make or break a business? We're talking about a building whose design limits it to only one possible use, and whose location prohibits that use from ever being successful. You really think Park View, given its location and the state of the area in the early 2000's, could have been viable? Again, who is going to check into a motel surrounded by hookers and hobos?

It getting demolished is a good thing for the area...

[strider]

Zoo:
No place has a certain crowd or business model because of its location (your implication you think Springfield is a bad location is very clear).

It is because of ownership and the use that the ownership has chosen (even if it is rented to another entity to operate) -- pay by the week cannot happen if the ownership does not allow it. This is a classic case of a property owner having no idea of possible highest and best use, and taking whatever requires the least investment from their pocket -- a common problem with many of Jacksonville's fine, fine landowners in Springfield and Downtown.

and:

Location does not make a use, use makes (or breaks) a location. Thanks for helping to prove my point

.

On the surface, these quotes sort of makes sense.  But the reality is something different.  In reality, they make no sense what so ever. As we are talking about the Park View, let's use that site as the example. 

Once upon a time, the Park View (under a different name?) was one of THE places to stay.  What changed that?  Was it really the management deciding to rent to a lower income bracket by the week as you, Zoo, are implying?  Or was it economic pressures from things like the flight of the middle and upper middle classes from the downtown area?  Was it the death of retail in the Downtown area?  Once the business potential declined, then management had to make a choice.  Stay "up scale" or try to pay the bills. 

You, Zoo, have tried to make it sound as if the Park View's and even Springfield's decline was at least partially the fault of the "slumlords" when in fact, it was the economic pressures that the management of the Park View Inn  found themselves in and they had to make that choice to try to just survive as a business or  go under.

The businesses that find themselves in a declining or depressed area have no choice other than catering too the market available to them. The Park View Inn and the so called “Slum Lords”  had no choice.  In the case of the single family homes, that choice actually saved many of the houses.  Unfortunately, the once “place to stay” Park View Inn wasn’t so lucky.

[jason_contentdg]

^ Strider, I can't really argue with your thoughts, because the market does control.  This does however work in reverse, so I expect slum lords, halfway houses, and other businesses that offer services to a declining clientele to understand it's the shifting market, and not individuals that are pushing for change. 

[zoo]

We're talking about a building whose design limits it to only one possible use, and whose location prohibits that use from ever being successful.

it was the economic pressures that the management of the Park View Inn  found themselves in and they had to make that choice to try to just survive as a business or  go under.

The businesses that find themselves in a declining or depressed area have no choice other than catering too the market available to them.

I totally disagree with these comments and find the underlying theory -- "I am a victim and have no control over this situation, so I'm justified in making a decision that requires little investment in time, energy, money on my part" -- is a load of crap. Markets do not shift or change overnight. It takes time. An astute business owner watches for signs of shifting and makes one of 3 choices:

1. Try to prevent the shift from continuing through smart, offensive -- and sometimes costly and requiring support of other individuals/entities invested in the marketplace -- business decisions.

2. Do nothing, stick their head in the sand, and hope the start of the shift just goes away.

3. Adapt to the shift, thus attracting more individuals/businesses in line with the shift, and expediting its progress.

If the Park View Inn owners, and other Downtown interests of the time, had recognized a shift, and developed and implemented a strategy to prevent it, they may have succeeded. Doing nothing (option 2) will likely result in failure. I think some of Springfield's recent/current businesses may be perfect case studies for this.

The 3rd option is ultimately what the Downtown businesses and Park View Inn owners of the time chose. If the shift is in a positive direction, this works out fine, but if, as in this case, the shift is in a negative direction, the owners cannot make such a choice then sit back and attempt to blame environmental factors they helped to create for their own demise.

This is indicative of what is wrong with U.S. culture on a grander scale today. Individuals, businesses, govts making their beds, then blaming others/environment for having to lie in them.

The particular shift in the 60s went in a negative direction for the Downtown and Springfield submarkets. Now the shift in these markets is going the other direction and the same 3 choices, and related outcomes, still apply.