There may be new hope for this old motel, which was built in 1964. Owner Robert Van Winkel is awaiting a new environmental assessment report, which he hopes will clear his group to proceed on renovations of the building, as opposed to demolition.
Exterior Photos
From Orange Street, the north side of the building can be seen. Ugly corrugated metal adorns the side of the building.
A palm tree grows into the side of the long vacant building.
The building has been sealed to prevent homeless from camping inside. Several fires have broken out over the last few years as a result of homeless camping.
The north side of the building, from State Street.
The building sits on top of a very large parking deck. Whatever becomes of the building, there will be no shortage of parking.
Interior Photos
Vandalism abounds. Portions of the interior were pitch black, so we could not see what was on the walls until looking at the photos.
Looking from the lobby into the bottom level of the parking deck.
Inside what was previously the motel lobby.
Looking out toward the pool deck.
One of the several spots damaged by fire.
Most of the windows in the building have been smashed.
Smashed from the inside out.
Standing from within the very large pool area, looking up at the Park View Inn sign.
Interior hallway that faces the pool deck.
Looking down one of the exterior hallways, it almost looks as if it is still open.
Inside one of the guest rooms.
This hole goes clear through.
Looking south down Ocean St. towards downtown from one of the exterior hallways. Not a bad view.
More crude graffiti.
From the north facing exterior hallways, a park view.
Pool Deck
One of the most surprising aspects of this building is the central pool area. Standing in the middle of it is extremely quiet. It is surrounded on all four sides by thick walls, so no street noise can be heard. With a great skyline view and plenty of palm trees, its almost like a private island right in the middle of a city.
Fire Damage
This building has had several fires, the worst occurring on the top level, completely destroying all of the partitions between the rooms and causing the roof to buckle. This clearly shows how much space this building has, and once the hotel room partitions are removed, there are many possible configurations for a conversion.
Another area that appears to have suffered from fire damage is the first floor lobby area.
Homeless Camping
Throughout the building there were clear signs that it had been used for homeless camping and drug use.
Skyline Views
The roof of the Park View Inn offers some of the best skyline views in the city. Between the downtown skyline, the Hart Bridge, and Confederate Park, the views are hard to beat.
Overlooking Confederate Park and Springfield. The orange area on the roof is directly above, and as a result of, the fire damage.
Overlooking Springfield. Shands Medical Center can be seen in the distance.
This may look like a surface parking lot, but it is actually the Park View's gigantic rooftop.
The Park View Inn is, without a doubt, a huge blight on the area between Springfield and Downtown. After touring the building, it is easy to imagine how it could be effectively renovated and turned into a desirable place to live. As it stands, the building has a lot going for it: incredible views, an enormous pool deck, plenty of garage parking, open floors, and a great location.
In the next few months, the environmental reports will be in. Will the building pass?
And if it doesn't, what comes next?
Photos by Daniel Herbin
RSS
David Knighton
February 13, 2007, 09:52:59 AMA real shame that a building with such potential has gone to waste for so long. This is just another example of a structure that could be easily turned into a highly desired residential establishment. I hope they can get this turned around soon. So much potential in the downtown area.
Adam B
February 13, 2007, 10:08:08 AMi pass this building every day. how cool to be able to see the inside. it reminds me of the building in "Candyman." it really does seem like something that can be revitalized.
+
February 13, 2007, 12:36:48 PMI'd turn it into a clubhouse for Springfield and downtown. Have a fee and members. They could virtual golf, swim, have a gym, country club style all in a downtown setting.
JJ
February 13, 2007, 12:59:06 PMTear it down. The building has no charm, it has no historical signfigance. It is hideous. Tear it down. Lets get some density. We need something else there.
Robert Van Winkle a.k.a Vanilla Ice
February 13, 2007, 02:39:19 PMI'm turning this thing into the biggest hip hop dancehall you've ever seen!
lindab
February 13, 2007, 03:43:05 PMIt was a cheaply built motel to accommodate traffic on Main Street and into downtown and deserves to come down. But, look at the proximity to Confederate Park and Hogan's Creek. With the creek restored as the City is planning, what an opportunity to create access to the park and the creek as an enhanced urban natural area.
downtownparks
February 13, 2007, 11:48:32 PMI beg to differ. The reason the park and the creek have oil contamination is because of that site. You simply cannot clean up the park and creak without cleaning up the source contamination.
I think they need to take the building down, do a full remediation, then get it back on the market for development. As it sits, nothing is moving forward, its creating a barrier between Springfield and Downtown, and its a safety hazard. We already had a firefighters career ended because of that nasty old building... Time to s%$t or get off the pot, one way or the other.
Tracey Ledebur
February 16, 2007, 03:12:43 PMdefinitely a diamond in the rough...well worth renovating for sure!
AVG JAX peoson
March 22, 2007, 08:09:45 AMBulldoze that POS!!!
Yourworstnightmare
April 03, 2007, 04:56:34 PMAs a former builder for 35 yrs.the best solution is to get rid of it, period. The cost of the renovation would be more than double the cost of a new structure. But I'm sure the Mayor would give the "in crowd" the money at our expense to do the project plus cost overruns.
Steve
April 03, 2007, 05:07:05 PMHowever, the environmental concerns make it very expensive to demolish, since the soil would needs to be cleaned up. However, if you don't crack the foundation, it can be renovated. Surprisingly, the structure is not in bad shape (the roof is bad in places), so if you got someone creative to renovate it, it could be a gem.
Coolyfett
January 30, 2008, 10:02:42 PM2 words..... BULL DOZER!!! This place needs to be destroyed.....Did someone say movie theater downtown??
Steve
January 30, 2008, 10:21:51 PMI'm with you on the Movie Theatre downtown, but not there - Ideally, a movie theatre would be somewhere near Bay St, so it can create a synergy between it and the venues that are already there.
In the past, we've done a bad job of locating nodes of activity far apart form each other, and it doesn't allow for good infill.
Coolyfett
January 30, 2008, 11:29:18 PMIn the past, we've done a bad job of locating nodes of activity far apart form each other, and it doesn't allow for good infill.
Hmmm I think your right man. I didn't think of that. Bay Street would be a great location for a movie theater.
I don't know why this garbaggy (made up word) hotel is still around, and places like the Windsor and Washington Hotels are not. WHAT IS THE OPPOSITE OF FORWARD!!!
Steve
January 30, 2008, 11:37:19 PMWith you on that - especially since some of the hotels that were demolished were done for surface parking lots.
Timkin
January 30, 2008, 11:40:49 PMIm with the Majority on this one. If funding to save PS 4 couldnt be arranged, I cant fathom where ,how , or why anyone would spend one dollar on this dilapidated , HIDEOUS ( second only to the Haydon Burns Library) Building, that yes,,,with enough dumped into it , probably could be made into something nice.
Its curse is .... it is on , or very near the epicenter of a site of a former Coal Gassification plant. It is on contaminated soil that continues to contaminate the area around it, creeks etc. To correct that, it MUST be razed in order to curtail the mess beneath it. If it were not for that fact, significant alteration and renovation might be an option. I just dont see a way it is possible in this instance. It is an old building but not that old.. When it was last "sort of " rennovated it was still uglier than a mud fence.
Implosion Bulldozer Dumptruck. in that order.
rjo
February 28, 2008, 05:24:10 PMBoy did that building live a short life! Can't believe it was built in 1964.
The "Heart of Jax" hotel catered to the railroad people.
It was dated & a bit dismal when not even 20 years old.
teresangel
March 10, 2008, 03:07:57 AMI am curious how you obtained interior access? The shots are during the day, so it must have been sanctioned. Is it possible others could enter the building for the same purpose?
thelakelander
March 10, 2008, 08:38:52 AMThe owner let us in around the time he had announced plans to turn it into an affordable housing project, a few years ago.
teresangel
March 10, 2008, 07:12:43 PMBy chance, do you have any idea if they'd be equally receptive these days?
Ocklawaha
March 10, 2008, 08:00:23 PMHow about in connection with the giant warehouse building behind it...
TWO MORE WORDS...
Trolley Museum
or
Transportation Museum
The place was trashed by railroad workers? God I can't imagine how that happened... Did they still allow us/them to hang the red lanterns outside the doors? hee hee
Ocklawaha
Timkin
March 11, 2008, 06:07:52 PMThat is a thought. My ONLY concern about the building remaining there,BESIDES that it leads the downtown area in Blight, is the contamination underneath it continuing to seep into waterways. IF theres a feasible way to rehab it, go to it , I say. but the thing occupies the whole city block.. appears to have a parking garage/facility inside it. Id rather see it get rehabbed than sit there and look more and more hideous every day.
We have so many buildings , some old and historic and some not so old and just abandoned and beat up , that we should try to rehab, vs demolishing every frikkin thing in sight and building new. I havent changed my tune about the Park View.. Its still HIDEOUS ... however, im in favor of a rehab , vs it just sitting there in a funk.
JustinT
May 14, 2008, 11:05:50 AMIt's coming down. http://www.fox30online.com/content/topstories/story.aspx?content_id=a6a32cd6-7752-45a4-90df-44c7b0c9fccf&rss=10
thelakelander
May 14, 2008, 11:12:02 AMSo was Stephen Dare right about recent tests showing the ground underneath it not being contaminated?
Jason
May 14, 2008, 11:36:32 AMSo, they demolish it for what? Is FCCJ interested in the site?
Lunican
May 14, 2008, 11:45:35 AMSo the city is paying for the demolition? It can't be cheap.
thelakelander
May 14, 2008, 11:53:06 AMGiven the market, most likely a grass lot for the time being.
second_pancake
May 14, 2008, 01:03:36 PMWow. What a wonderful city we live in when the answer to everything is to just demolish it. I wonder if anyone did a cost analysis on this project. I mean, how much would it cost to bring it up to code vs. tearing it down...including the costs of upkeep (not that the city does this) on an empty lot after demolition? Wouldn't it just make more sense for the city to help out history, Springfield, the city of Jax and the property owner by throwing money into correcting the violations?
Lunican
May 14, 2008, 01:17:12 PMAlthough the Park View is an eyesore, the area is not going to look any better without it. It's just a bad situation all around.
stephendare
May 14, 2008, 01:20:54 PMTo be accurate, I have relayed the statements of the owner, Robert Van Winkel regarding this property. I would assume that the city cannot just simply demolish a brownsfield property with the contamination which has been alleged over the years.
A phone call with Mr. Van Winkel verified the owners claims that the contamination is non significant.
downtownparks
May 14, 2008, 02:38:41 PMThe contamination I have always been talking about is oil contamination and it is at the bedrock level and slowly migrating downhill (The creek, park and moving ever so slowly to the SE under the creek). This is documented with several environmental agencies and the city. Soil contamination may ALSO be an issue, but its not the issue that held up site development so far as I understood it.
This demolition will be good for Springfield as it tears down what is basically a big overgrown, dilapitated wall to our community. It will also be good for the creek/parks/St Johns, because the site can be properly remediated.
I agree, it would have been great if rather than sit on the property, it were developed starting soon after it was condemned in 1999, but the owner chose to let it sit and countless fires (and a couple of career ending injuries) later, it is nothing but an eye sore with no end in site.
If almost 10 years isnt enough to come up with a plan, I think the city is justified in tearing down this non-historic, non-contributing strucutre.
Good riddance.
stephendare
May 14, 2008, 03:10:33 PMIts actually just dilapidated because of the crappy exterior. Ennis the bones looked pretty decent when we went through it, didnt they?
there was a bit of a structural problem due to water damage on the roof, but it could be easily rehabbed.
I agree that the outside is just horrid, but thats just a facade.
thelakelander
May 14, 2008, 03:18:23 PMStructurally, that thing is a solid as a rock. It needs a new everything else, but if a hurricane hit this town, it would be one of the last spots fo fall down. Unfortunately, its just not feasible to invest in a structure that size with the environmental questions surrounding the immediate area. Your money would be better served on a site elsewhere. In any event, it coming down does present a unique opportunity for a full block development from scratch on of the inner city's busiest intersections, especially if the city foots the bill for demolition and site clean up.
stephendare
May 14, 2008, 03:32:58 PMThe city never foots the bill.
They attach the cost to the property owner and the property cannot be developed until the lein is satisfied.
heights unknown
May 14, 2008, 08:20:34 PMMemories, Memories, memories; stayed there quite a few times during my naval career in Jacksonville (which spanned over 20 years at certain times from 1974 to 1994), but I best know it as the heart of Jacksonville. Remember seeing Larry Holmes the Boxer (when he was at his prime) there at the desk around 1991 (I wonder if he owned it; it was the Parkview Inn then).
It's a shame that the Owner just let it go and didn't invest some money into razing it, cleaning up the contamination, and then putting it up for sale (for commercial or residential); it probably would have sold much faster and for a lot of money had he did this; I guess that was too hard of a feat.
Now the City takes over, will clean it up, bill the Owner (who I bet doesn't have the money because why did he not take it upon himself to do this earlier?), and now the property will probably sit forever and ever amen.
Anyhoo, end of another era for another historic property/building in "Big Jax."
Heights Unknown
I-10east
May 15, 2008, 01:22:28 AMYeah, the city should hold on to this crappy run-down building for the sake that it's a mid-rise. I guess people would be happy if I made an eight-story edifice outta cow dung; Yeah, that adds to the skyline. The Byrds made a song called "Turn, Turn, Turn" They said in that oldies classic "A time to build up, and a time to break down" and this is clearly a case to break down that old raggedy hotel. This does not have anything to do with razing buildings with potential for a parking lot. This building is long overdue to be torn down.
Jason
May 15, 2008, 10:10:20 AM^ Well then leave it up to a developer to tear down when the option to replace it comes along. Razing the building now just continues the nasty cycle of demolition that has run rampant in our core for decades. It has to stop somewere.
heights unknown
May 15, 2008, 11:14:46 AMI say either reconstruct and convert what currently exists on these properties, or if you tear them down, ensure you have something to build and replace immediately.
Heights Unknown
downtownparks
May 15, 2008, 06:36:08 PMOk Jason, lets stop it with Annie Lytle. The ParkView is a non-contributing structure with an owner who doest seem to care about downtown or its continued redevelopment.
RiversideGator
May 16, 2008, 12:33:52 AMBest case scenario: Someone comes in and either rehabs the old hotel into apartments or tears it down and builds new residential. This aint happening though as we all know.
Next best scenario: The City comes in and tears this colossal eyesore down. If this is what is actually going to happen, I am happy. Personally, I think a grass lot would be far preferable to that hulking bum magnet.
Jason
May 16, 2008, 09:41:01 AMIs the Annie Lyttle contributing anything? Are any of the delipidated, decaying structures around town contributing anything? Just because the ParkView is a less appealing structure doesn't warrant its demolition. We all saw the images of a proposed renovation and many have vouched for the structures apparently sound construction, so why not force the non-existant owner to give it up and then issue an RFP to see what may become of it? Because there seems to be no problem with contamination, there should be no problem completing a renovation. If nobody wants it then bring in the wrecking ball. But don't tear it down before giving it a chance.
downtownparks
May 16, 2008, 05:46:19 PMWhen/where has anyone, aside from the absentee owner and Stephen, said there wasn't contamination?
stephendare
May 16, 2008, 09:05:55 PMUm. Im still relating the position of the Landowner, which is called 'reporting'.
I have not tested the ground myself, and have no degree in this field, and neither do you. I cannot speak authoritatively as to what levels of contamination there are or have been. And neither can you. I can however, ask instead of implicate which is what I have done and reported what has been said.
Robert Van Winkel is hardly an 'absentee' landlord, just for clarity.
I like him, just out of respect for his age, experience and an appreciation of his type of person, but I have no reason to take up for him or even to like him all that much as he did not show great sympathy when it came to our interests vs the dalton agency in the building he owned on Hemming Plaza.
However, he has not been 'absentee' on that property.
Unless by 'absentee' you mean that you havent bothered contacting him.
He has instead had a series of plans for that structure that have fallen through specifically because people who don't have environmental engineering credentials repeating unverified stories about contamination.
He has shown 8 fully rendered plans to convert the building to everything from luxury housing to workforce structures and great expense to pay the various architects, engineers, etc to prepare those plans.
THIS is not how an 'absentee' landlord conducts his affairs.
Perhaps if you bothered calling him and finding out for sure before you started speaking authoritatively on the subject, you could help create a positive future for the property as well as its impact on the neighborhood.
The phone number is still prominently posted on the building.
Try it sometime.
downtownparks
May 17, 2008, 02:31:27 AMI have spoken to him several times, yet when I drive by I see over gown weeds, broken windows, and people sleeping. I call, and the bare minimum is done. For 9 years now, it has stayed dilapidated and un-addressed in anyway except replacing the plywood when the city deems it too thin.
As far as what I have and haven't done, Doug and I have met with DEP, DCHD, the ACoE, and the COJ in regards to this parcel. So my foot work, while perhaps shy of taking soil samples myself, has been pretty thorough, including looking at historical data. The facts are, it was a coal gasification plant, it was also later used for Auto upkeep and repair. It is proven to have petroleum contamination, and that contamination is now polluting the creek and the park, and slowly working its way down hill.
Regardless, at the end of it The Park View is an albatross, and it needs to be fixed now, or it needs to be gone now. As a Springfield resident, I am tired of waiting, and watching, and catching people breaking in, and seeing news reports about the latest fire or city "action" against it.
stephendare
May 17, 2008, 02:37:27 AMSo, that would be, no. You don't know, and you havent called him about the latest environmentals.
Ok.
Maybe if you werent telling everyone that you have talked to DEP, DCHD and etc, the property would have already been developed by now. At least try being decent enough to volunteer to help out with the environmantals......
I only wish you were so vigilant about Craig Van Horn. Or are you going to explain that you found a positive way to work with him that you feel has a chance of success and that thats better than simply letting him fail?
It all depends on whose ox is gored I guess.
After the building comes down, what would Van Winkels motivation ever be for developing the property after that? Community Spirit?
You mentioned this non chalantly.
You have some proof that the property itself is the source of petroleum contamination?
And that the contamination is polluting the creek?
This would be new, since you didnt have any last time the subject was brought up.
If you have this proof, certainly that would do more to advance your point than simply announcing you met with people about the building.
It is the opposite of what the landowner has (and is) saying about the property, but if you have it, that would be interesting.
thelakelander
May 17, 2008, 08:31:26 AMMy firm worked with a developer who wanted to demolish the building and construct a 25 story tower with a Walgrees on the corner of Main & State, back in 2003/4. Although its not a superfund site, contamination was certainly an issue at that time from the environmental reports they had done and the ultimate reason on why they passed. Sanborn maps also indicate that the site was indeed a coal glassification plant at one time. I'll see if I can dig up the old files on Monday for proof. Stephen, in the meantime, see if you can dig up documents from the owner that indicate the site being free of contamination.
vicupstate
May 17, 2008, 11:14:00 AMLake, try to post the rendering of that building as well. For those that may not have seen it, it is a totally AWESOME design. I wish they would have put it somewhere in DT/S'field.
stephendare
May 17, 2008, 12:52:42 PMThat seems reasonable. I will call Robert and David again.
downtownparks
May 17, 2008, 01:27:59 PMI have posted the Sanbornes before, and I have seen the DEP reports that show the "blob" as they have mapped it from cores. There is also industrial (non-petroleum) contamination under the old Claude Noland Cadillac that Hionides owns. He has vowed to address the issues of the Claude Noland building when the Park View in is addressed. I believe his remediation of the site has already begun, but I will double check. He feels any effort to redo the building now would be virtually for not with the Park View as it sits. Time will hopefully tell as one of the obstacles is about to be addressed.
As far as who I challenge and how, you are so far out of left field and grinding your own personal axe that you cant see straight. I have developed a good relationship with Hionides company as well, yet I still make phone calls and try to encourage them to do things like put glass in buildings and take down chain link and keep lots clean. I would say the exact same is true for Van Horn. I have emailed him and called him several times about over grown lots, open buildings, and other issues. I may pull my punches in as much as I am not a total jerk, but I still try to get the issues addressed as much as any ordinary citizen can.
From what I see, Hionides and Van Horne have begun remediation (and in some cases finished) on sites they know to be polluted, yet Van Winkle has tried to twist the pollution issues as though it is the creek polluting his lot (which is up hill from the creek and park), yet the ONLY place in the area that has a history of petroleum production is that lot.
All of that said, since you dont believe me, why not ask Doug Vanderlaan. He sat in all of those meetings with me. Also, any one in the Springfield Womans club should be able to answer the questions as well as their efforts in the park have time and again been thwarted because of this same issue. So please, feel free to completely disregard me. I am ok with that.
stephendare
May 17, 2008, 02:23:23 PMAs far as who I challenge and how, you are so far out of left field and grinding your own personal axe that you cant see straight. I have developed a good relationship with Hionides company as well, yet I still make phone calls and try to encourage them to do things like put glass in buildings and take down chain link and keep lots clean. I would say the exact same is true for Van Horn. I have emailed him and called him several times about over grown lots, open buildings, and other issues. I may pull my punches in as much as I am not a total jerk, but I still try to get the issues addressed as much as any ordinary citizen can.
From what I see, Hionides and Van Horne have begun remediation (and in some cases finished) on sites they know to be polluted, yet Van Winkle has tried to twist the pollution issues as though it is the creek polluting his lot (which is up hill from the creek and park), yet the ONLY place in the area that has a history of petroleum production is that lot.
All of that said, since you dont believe me, why not ask Doug Vanderlaan. He sat in all of those meetings with me. Also, any one in the Springfield Womans club should be able to answer the questions as well as their efforts in the park have time and again been thwarted because of this same issue. So please, feel free to completely disregard me. I am ok with that.
DP, Its not that I (or anyone) should disbelieve you on the merits. I don't.
However, there are two competing stories about this property. One of which claims that the property has already been cleaned, and one which says that it hasnt.
There are numerous advocates of both sides. Including several people within the Springfield community who were in the neighborhood for many years before your arrival.
Given that there are two sides, it seems reasonable to ask the landowner.
The Landowner gave a qualified, "I dont know, but I don't think so" until he announced that there had been testing performed on the property recently, after which he definitively stated that no pollutants were found.
You personally, on the other hand, have maintained---in the absence of testing---that there is definitely contamination there. If there is objective evidence, why not let that do the talking instead of trying to make it a contest of your word and reputation vs anyone else's?
It may very well turn out that the landowner is lying and there is contamination.
Just as it may very well turn out that he is telling the truth and the contamination has already been handled.
Our opinions before hand will not change the facts. I understand this, and I hope that you can accept it as well.
This is an important property, but it is after all, privately owned. Your posts here have not been accurate about Van Winkel in several aspects. You have called him an absentee landlord etc and this is in contradiction to the facts. Just as your campaign against Hionides ended up not really reflecting the reality on the ground with Petra, (all that needed to happen was a staffing change, getting rid of Mary Farwell rather than the insidious workings of a spiteful absentee landowner) perhaps its possible that you have jumped to conclusions about Van Winkel.
The idea of a conspiracy seems a little far fetched in any case.
Van Winkel has tried many times to develop this property. He knows that if he cracks the ground open that any environmentals will have to be dealt with. There is a little expense but there are state and federal funds available for mitigation.
As recently as two months ago, he was still in negotiations with another developer to come help partner on the property. Why would he go through all the trouble of lying for years, conducting tests and then lying about the results, and still keep the property?
Hes a real estate investor and maintains very great properties all over the southside of the city with none of the related problems and headaches of the downtown properties.
I just don't understand what would compel you to accuse this man of such a vast conspiracy or what you think his possible motive might be? And this is coming from someone that had to take Mr. Van Winkel to court as an adversary. John and I had to fight him pretty hard over our lease at the Park Place Building.
I dont really need to ask everyone in the neighborhood whether or not they have had a conversation with you about this building. I believe you. What is being discussed here are the facts. Not you.
stephendare
May 17, 2008, 02:28:24 PMI would like to again stress that the property is privately owned. and this is good advice to anyone.
The phone number is still prominently posted on the building.
Try it sometime.
Lake do you see what I am talking about for any potential development on Main Street?
All the Pawn Shops, half of the Hionides Properties, and Apparently the landmark property at the entrance. Somehow the bunker mentality has created the notorious 'us' vs 'them'. The Enemy approach isnt very conducive to positively moving forward.
downtownparks
May 17, 2008, 03:56:47 PMThis is all moot as the contamination isn't even central to the issue, this is just another red herring in your tactics to win an argument. The issue here is that city thinks 9 years is enough time to have come up with a plan and to begin acting on it.
Furthermore, I would appreciate it if you would stop vilifying me and acting on your petty little grudge. It really doesn't matter what I think and quite frankly if I am wrong it should be easily verifiable, and there wouldn't be two sides. If the DEP gives it a clean bill of health, thats great. Bully for Mr Van Winkle and his over grown, nasty lump of a building. Maybe if he would mix in the occasional mow, clean the occasional litter, and maybe slap on a coat of paint, it could stand empty for another 10 years.
thelakelander
May 17, 2008, 04:14:07 PMI don't think its a us vs. them issue with the Park View. People are just frustrated with the condition of the structure and lack of progress. From a development standpoint, there's nothing you, me or anyone else posting can do to keep big developers from doing their homework. I can't speak for the others but I vividly remember environmental issues being one of the reasons that project did not move forward.
thelakelander
May 17, 2008, 04:24:46 PMAs far as giving an owner nine years to fix the place up or tear it down, I think that mentality has resulted in the destruction of our inner city. Sometimes you can't put a time limit on revitalization. For example, it took 11 years to find a new use for the old train station. Cities like Detroit and St. Louis have recently had buildings that have been vacant for 40 years finally renovated. What we should be doing is making sure these vacant buildings are properly sealed unto a new and better use can be found.
stephendare
May 17, 2008, 04:41:48 PMExactly. Although from what I remember, the homework so far has been to ask community members rather than testing.
I have left a phone call with David Myris. Both he and Robert are notoriously difficult to get a hold of on the weekends, but I will hopefully have a clearer picture on the existence of new environmentals by mid week.
stephendare
May 17, 2008, 04:43:50 PMThis was how this conversation was struck up again, DP. It seemed you wanted to get some information, which I hope I have provided.
Hopefully we can let the facts finish up the subject. In any case, I certainly have no ill will towards fish, flesh, fowl, flora or fauna on this issue.
thelakelander
May 17, 2008, 07:58:05 PMExactly. Although from what I remember, the homework so far has been to ask community members rather than testing.
Any developer that would take a common resident's word over actually doing their own due diligence is not a serious developer, imo. Personally, I'd have issues pouring a ton of money in the site, regardless of where the most contamination is. Seriously, take a look at it and its surroundings.
1. Sanborn Maps and old city directories indicate the site was home to a coal gasification plant. That's not up for debate. The record of this can be easily proven with a quick trip to the top of the public library.
2. The building directly to the south was originally a car dealership with an auto repair shop in the back, dating back to the 1920s.
3. The building directly to the east was a paint company (or something of the sort) at one time.
4. Hogans Creek - it has its own set of issues that extend far beyond the corner of Main & Orange.
All in all, these are serious red flags for anyone who's going to invest money in that area. As an investor, I would care less of what the owner's opinion is of the site. I would want to see the documents and at the very least hire my own environmental engineer to conduct a Phase I report, before dropping a dime into the site.
To me, the issue is not whether the old hotel site is the source of contamination. The owner's word is no more credible than anyone here without presenting documents backing up his claim. Nevertheless, everyone agrees that the ground under Orange Street has serious problems. Therefore, there should be no argument back and forth about who's right, who's wrong and who should listen to who. Everyone should have their heads huddled trying to find a way to clean up the entire area, because no one is going to seriously invest in any of those buildings until that's done.
stephendare
May 17, 2008, 08:06:45 PMThank you my brother lake.
You told it like it is.
downtownparks
May 17, 2008, 09:45:24 PM1884
1887
1891
1897
1913
1929
stephendare
May 17, 2008, 10:25:33 PMalso in 1884:
the statue of liberty begins being built
and the berlin conference commences:
The Berlin Conference (German: Kongokonferenz or "Congo Conference") of 1884–85 regulated European colonization and trade in Africa during the New Imperialism period, and coincided with Germany's sudden emergence as an imperial power. Called for by Portugal and organized by Otto von Bismarck, the first Chancellor of Germany, its outcome, the General Act of the Berlin Conference, is often seen as the formalization of the Scramble for Africa. The conference ushered in a period of heightened colonial activity on the part of the European powers, while simultaneously eliminating most existing forms of African autonomy and self-governance.
1929
Women Are Finally Declared Persons and Given Legal Status
Only men had been appointed to the senate thus far. For years, pressure had grown for women to be appointed to the Senate.
In Edwards v. Canada (Attorney General) [1930] S.C.R. 276, The Supreme Court of Canada ruled unanimously that women were not qualified to be senators. The stated grounds included:
* the framers of the act, in 1867, could not have had it in mind to permit women senators, since women did not participate in politics at that time;
* the act exclusively used the word he to refer to senators.
The women went to London, England, to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which was effectively Canada's highest court at that time. On October 18, 1929, the committee ruled that Canadian women were indeed persons and were competent to serve in the Senate. In their decision (Edwards v. Canada (Attorney General) [1930] A.C. 124 (P.C.)), the Privy Councilors called the exclusion of women from public office "a relic of days more barbarous than ours." Because the Judicial Council was a final court of appeal for the British Empire as a whole, this decision set a precedent for jurisdictions over the world. However, because the Council did not hear appeals from within the British Isles, the decision was non-precedental for the British House of Lords. The right of women to sit in the House of Lords remained a point of legal and political controversy long after.
Just a reminder: It is presently 2008
downtownparks
May 17, 2008, 10:38:22 PMOh, Im sorry. I guess Im not allowed to post the Sanborn images that Lake was talking about.
My bad.
stephendare
May 17, 2008, 10:43:04 PMMy bad.
Although now that you mention it, I do recall that the property wasnt used for gassification during the final 20 or 30 years of its use, but rather for the production of an asphalt like substance that wouldnt have produced the kind of pollution ascribed to a gassification plant.
downtownparks
May 17, 2008, 10:50:07 PMOh, cool. that should be easy to find records of then.
stephendare
May 17, 2008, 10:55:05 PMI would think so.
Of course, you could call Robert and ask him. I bet he and David have them.
thelakelander
May 17, 2008, 11:01:46 PMThere's no reason to jump on downtownparks for posting the sanborn maps. That's not going to get us to the point where we can help find a solution. I was going to go to the library tomorrow, print copies and post myself. Anyway, they do illustrate why there should be concern for that general area. On those alone, there's a gas plant and what appears to be two auto repair shops. The information the sanborn maps show can be used to find out more about the Park View property and the surrounding properties. Btw, ashalt-substance like plants aren't clean either. The mention of this additional information should be a cause for more concern along Orange Street. In any event, I'm combing the DEP's website right now for any reports they may have on Hogans Creek.
thelakelander
May 17, 2008, 11:03:03 PMOf course, you could call Robert and ask him. I bet he and David have them.
Better yet, I'll stop by the library tomorrow and check the city directories. They'll reveal more than anyone living today will about what was on these properties at the time the directories were published.
stephendare
May 17, 2008, 11:07:03 PMNo one is jumping on DP, Lake.
His posts are always a little defensive, and he seems to be taking the whole matter personally, which makes it hard to have any different point of view from him.
As I said, I don't have a dog in this race, its not my land.
But for the sake of the neighborhood, I certainly hope that Robert is telling the truth since that will remove millions of dollars from the anticipated cost of cleaning the park and speed it right along.
There may be some merit in Van Horn's argument after all.
Lisa and Phil Neary did a whole lot of environmental work on Hogan's Creek. In fact it was Phil that forced the hospital to stop dumping medical waste into the creek itself.
It would be odd if all the landowners are just simply liars.
stephendare
May 17, 2008, 11:09:41 PMOf course, you could call Robert and ask him. I bet he and David have them.
Better yet, I'll stop by the library tomorrow and check the city directories. They'll reveal more than anyone living today will about what was on these properties at the time the directories were published.
Great idea! Im pretty sure that the primary business was still listed in the 29 directories as well.
The property was used for gassification in the very distant past, according to Robert (and my memory of his explanation) probably before the turn of the century or shortly thereafter, but the use of the site converted over to a different material for some reason.
I don't know if the company name changed though, that would be something I would have to look up as well.
Again, relying on memory, this is one of the things that had to be addressed in the cleanup of the property during the 70s
downtownparks
May 17, 2008, 11:13:44 PMAccording the 1913 map above, The Jacksonville Gas Company was the last name before it became auto oriented. It appears to have been Citizens Gas and Electric before that, and Jacksonville Gas Works before that.
stephendare
May 17, 2008, 11:15:33 PMOften times Name and Use can be decieving. For example, we are still identifying the property as a hotel, when in fact it hasnt been used as one in a decade.
thelakelander
May 17, 2008, 11:15:46 PMIt was a post with sanborn maps. That's informational, not defensive.
It really doesn't matter since there's still contamination in the area. The place (potentially all three blocks) needs to be cleaned and even if Robert's property isn't the source, it will still be negatively impacted by the pollution of the sites immediately adjacent to it. No developer with any sense is going to pour personal money into anything near there until the issues underground in the general area are resolved.
I wouldn't call Robert a liar, but there's no real reason to take him at his word, if you (the developer) plan to invest in this property or one of the adjacent ones. All competent developers perform Due Diligence on potential properties they plan to invest in. Instead of taking owner's or nearby neighbors words, most pay to conduct their own environmental phase 1 reports to make sure the property they plan to purchase doesn't have significant environmental issues.
stephendare
May 17, 2008, 11:17:00 PMthe defensiveness was in crying about not being 'allowed' to post the maps. Whatever that is supposed to mean, its defensive and a little bizarre.
Precisely. Robert was very upfront about not being certain prior to his environmental drilling and testing.
No one else is even claiming to have tested the property properly. They are just looking at Maps and deciding without knowing. Its irresponsible at best.
thelakelander
May 17, 2008, 11:17:44 PMThe good thing is the city directories also state the use of the property at the time the specific directory was published. We may refer to the Park View as a hotel, but it would be listed as "vacant" in the latest directories.
thelakelander
May 17, 2008, 11:19:37 PMCause and Effect. Check post 64, which had nothing to do with the topic of the thread.
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,197.msg22461.html#msg22461
stephendare
May 17, 2008, 11:21:43 PMThe good thing is the city directories also state the use of the property at the time the specific directory was published. We may refer to the Park View as a hotel, but it would be listed as "vacant" in the latest directories.
I think I remember that there were listings of 'vacant' on the cross directories that list street by street. Although again, name and use can be decieving. The space Im leasing right now is presently functioning mostly as 'storage' rather than 'theater'. Its just an FYI in case the listings are ambiguous, something I have often found.
stephendare
May 17, 2008, 11:22:10 PMCause and Effect. Check post 64, which had nothing to do with the topic of the thread.
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,197.msg22461.html#msg22461
It put into perspective how long ago the time periods discussed actually are. They span from 1884 to 1929. A lot has happened since then.
But really, what else to expect whenever anyone disagrees with DP. I really should have known better than to inject any opposing report.
stephendare
May 17, 2008, 11:27:43 PMSo it wasnt really a gassification plant after 1913?
And if Robert Van Winkel is correct in the detailed property history provided by the first round of Environmental Cleanup when the Hotel was built, and the final 20 years were producing some other substance, that would have meant that the property wasnt necessarily gassifying after 1893.
Your map begins in 1884, was the site gassifying before that year?
thelakelander
May 17, 2008, 11:32:30 PMWith Sanborn maps on different projects I've worked on, the combination of name, site plan and city directory normally fishes out the concern you bring up. For example, a name can be decieving by its self, but new silos showing up on the sanborn, that corresponds with a complementing use in the city directory can be a good starting point to determine what a property was used for at a specific point in history.
Correct. However, the topic of the discussion centered around the Park View. The Sanborns fall in line by giving us all a chance to see what has sat on this specific property over the last 100 years, which is vital to the contamination discussion. The following post came across as trying to devalue the facts posted on the post above.
It wasn't so much about having another opinion. What was posted was facts.
In any event, we are beginning to go away from the goal of finding a solution. Perhaps its time for us all to get back on track.
stephendare
May 17, 2008, 11:35:47 PMAgreed, Lake. I certainly could care less about the personalities involved. The important thing is the development of the park and its value to the city.
DP, I am quite interested in whatever facts you have, as I have repeatedly stated. I certainly hope that this is your interest as well.
I think my objection is this rush to judgement, and making self fulfilling pronouncements that end up being counterproductive to EVERYONE.
As the last few posts have illuminated, we are already closer to factual truth simpy by determining the actual years of usage or potential years.
downtownparks
May 17, 2008, 11:36:32 PMNot sure what year it stopped being used. It looks like in the 1913 map there is only storage, so its use as a gasificaiton plant may have ended a little before that.
Thats where city directory's would be handy.
Im not sure when it started as a plant. The Sanborns dont cover that area before 1884.
I do know that people were worried about it exploding during the great fire in 1901. It was written about in Acres of Ashes.
Also, you do realize nobody is blaming the owner for the contamination, right? He was just unfortunate enough to have bought a dirty parcel, just as have Hionides, Vanhorn, SRG, Meeks and just about any other investor. It happens.
My biggest issue with the owner is his lack of ability/willingness to keep his building clean and secure.
stephendare
May 17, 2008, 11:40:27 PMThats where city directory's would be handy.
Im not sure when it started as a plant. The Sanborns dont cover that area before 1884.
I do know that people were worried about it exploding during the great fire in 1901. It was written about in Acres of Ashes.
Also, you do realize nobody is blaming the owner for the contamination, right? He was just unfortunate enough to have bought a dirty parcel, just as have Hionides, Vanhorn, SRG, Meeks and just about any other investor. It happens.
My biggest issue with the owner is his lack of ability/willingness to keep his building clean and secure.
thanks, and I agree with you, Lake's idea of the City Directories may turn out being useful.
You would think that someone would have the presence of mind to get those damned things online sometime.
Yes I do remember the passage from Acres of Ashes. (and I think you can read the passage online at the florida history site.---any idea where it is exactly?)
downtownparks
May 17, 2008, 11:44:06 PMOne other note. Back when I was really heavily researching this, I wondered if "the Jacksonville gas works" was ever a publicly owned utility. My thoughts on it were that if the city had been responsible for the contamination, then more than likly they would be responsible for the clean up, similar to how dry cleaner clean ups are funded.
However, I was told by Joel McEachen (who has extensive records on this) that the gas plant, in all of its various names were privately owned. I also wondered if the company who bought the Jax Gas Works was still around. Again, if they were, perhaps they could be made responsible for the clean up. However, that was also not the case. The company went out of business, and was not bought.
thelakelander
May 17, 2008, 11:44:54 PMHere's a general description of the creek from the US Army Corps website:
Richard A. Martin, in his 1972 book The City Makers (Convention Press, Inc., Jacksonville, FL), described changes made along the creek. To control mosquitoes and associated diseases, efforts were made in the late 1800s to drain marshy areas along the creek. To help with flood protection, the creek was dredged at about the same time.
Sewage problems adversely affecting the creek have also been noted over the years. The creek has also served as a firebreak. Very little of the Great Fire that destroyed the City of Jacksonville in 1901 passed beyond the creek.
Industrial land use activities have occurred near the mouth of the creek. A shipyard used to exist at the mouth of the creek. Coffee has been ground near the mouth of Hogan’s Creek since about 1906. In this early time period, coffee beans were brought in directly by ship to docks at the mouth of the creek and unloaded. The coffee beans would be ground and placed into jars. The jars of coffee would then be placed on railroad cars for distribution to points north.
The creek is shown on Corps of Engineer drawings dating back to 1926. Wood reported that in 1929 Jacksonville architect Henry John Klutho designed the balustrades and bridges along the creek in the Springfield area. The current study would review water quality problems associated with Hogan’s creek and develop recommendations, including for the creation of a greenway and littoral areas alongside the creek. Flooding problems would also be reviewed. The creek physically runs for about a mile and a half ending at the St. Johns River, an American Heritage River. The Hogan’s Creek basin incorporates approximately 2000 acres.
http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/pd/pdpf_studies/Hogans_Creek/hogan_creek.htm
stephendare
May 17, 2008, 11:51:51 PMHowever, I was told by Joel McEachen (who has extensive records on this) that the gas plant, in all of its various names were privately owned. I also wondered if the company who bought the Jax Gas Works was still around. Again, if they were, perhaps they could be made responsible for the clean up. However, that was also not the case. The company went out of business, and was not bought.
It was really in the late 40s and 50s that Municipalities in the US took the serious initiative to regulate or operate the things necessary for the life of the city.
My conversations about these properties are 10 years older than the one we are presently having, and were had with several old timers who are no longer around (or in Lisa Neary's case in the process of dying), but they were closer in time to the last cleanup of the property.
According to the conversations going around then, the real contamination was coming from the respess Grimes building. There was suspected contamination under the hotel, but no one had done any testing to verify it.
And enviro cleanups are not the end of the world, there are mitigating funds to take care of the cost. It doesnt benefit the landowner to pretend that cleanup doesnt exist, unless they are first time single property landowners who don't know any better.
Again, the missing information is in Robert's latest round of testing. I havent gotten a look at the report as it kind of dropped off my radar. But this issue has come up so many times over the past 8 years, that we really are doing a public service if we can get it settled in public.
Either way.
downtownparks
May 17, 2008, 11:52:35 PMOne more bit of info, unrelated to the PVI, We did was we asked JU to do some testing on the creek. I presented these finding to the DEP as well as Congresswoman Brown when Doug, myself and a couple of others were asking her to push harder for funding on the ACoE project.
Here are the results
Water samples were analyzed for the following metals: copper, chromium, cadmium, manganese, lead, nickel, and zinc. Cadmium was the only metal that was found in the water and was very low in concentration (about 0.02 ppm).
Copper, zinc, and especially lead, are found to be exceptionally concentrated in the sediments. Included are the results for a sediment sample taken from the banks of the St. Johns River near the boat dock at Jacksonville University.
Both cadmium and nickel in the environment are dangerous but manganese is not very harmful. The lead levels are very high and would be harmful to bottom feeding organisms.
stephendare
May 17, 2008, 11:54:30 PMHere are the results
Water samples were analyzed for the following metals: copper, chromium, cadmium, manganese, lead, nickel, and zinc. Cadmium was the only metal that was found in the water and was very low in concentration (about 0.02 ppm).
Copper, zinc, and especially lead, are found to be exceptionally concentrated in the sediments. Included are the results for a sediment sample taken from the banks of the St. Johns River near the boat dock at Jacksonville University.
Both cadmium and nickel in the environment are dangerous but manganese is not very harmful. The lead levels are very high and would be harmful to bottom feeding organisms.
All of those have medical uses as well.
Is that where these contaminants are originated?
downtownparks
May 17, 2008, 11:58:00 PMI asked my DEP contact about the results, and he said
and
when I asked about the Confederate Park remediation, and followed up on the other industrial contaminants found in the study I was told (Info dated from 06/2006)
Need to see the results of the sampling and discuss internally for ideas, no initial thoughts on Nickel and Cadmium, but will try to think of possible sources.. Anything in the historical studies for Springfield that would suggest possible industries with these constituents. The tanning industries did use these as part of some types of processes.
downtownparks
May 18, 2008, 12:02:19 AMAlso of note, This was from August of 2006
downtownparks
May 18, 2008, 12:03:46 AMFlood Reduction: A project to reduce flooding along Hogan Creek has been underway for several years. The initial study identified contamination issues in the creek that would have made channel dredging too costly for the flood reduction benefit gained. However, flood reduction was gained by constructing stormwater treatment ponds upstream within the watershed. Flood reduction will also be gained with the replacement of the Bay Street Bridge and channel widening at the mouth of the creek and the river. This project is scheduled to commence construction in January 2007.
Eco-Restoration: The USACOE project will be a good first at restoring Hogan Creek. The city as a funding partner has committed to pay all costs associated with required contamination remediation/removal in the project footprint. We look forward to this project being reactivated by the corps in the future.
Hogan Creek Greenway: Walking Path along the creek including greening landscape—Design is underway with estimated bid letting in May 2007.
St. Johns River and Tributary TMDL Cleanup: The city is obligated to reduce pollutants entering the main stem of the St. Johns River and several tributaries, including Hogan Creek. Development of a Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) is underway now. Funding for this project is forecast in the proposed 2006-2011 Capital Improvement Plan. We are currently grading proposals form consultants to provide professional service associated with this work including, updating the master stormwater management plan, updating the flood insurance rate maps, and performing water quality modeling to identify cost effective solutions to meet our TMDL (pollutant reduction) allocation for urban stormwater runoff entering the St. Johns River.
River Accord: Recently, the mayor, together with partners who will invest in the future health of the river, announced the formation of the River Accord, a 10-year, $700 million program to begin restoring the health of the Lower St. Johns River Basin. Details can be found at: http://www.coj.net/Mayor/River+Accord/default.htm
A project to address the specific cleanup issues throughout the reaches of Hogan Creek, or any other similarly contaminated creek, is not underway. However, through our current NPDES permit activities, we are aggressively identifying and causing removal of point sources of pollution entering our drainage system and ultimately the St. Johns River and its tributaries. The City committed over $75 million of BJP funding for phasing out failed septic tanks throughout the city. JEA is also executing an aggressive program to rehabilitate aging sewer lines.
stephendare
May 18, 2008, 12:05:44 AMhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel-cadmium_battery
These batteries were primarily used in medical equipment starting in the mid 50s
stephendare
May 18, 2008, 12:07:20 AMThis paralells what Robert has said exactly.
thelakelander
May 18, 2008, 05:38:57 PMI stopped in the library this afternoon to check the old city directories.
Citizen's Gas Light Company was established in 1874. S.B. Hubbard was the president and the head office was located on Pine Street (now Main) on the present day site of the Bostwick Building. The gas works plant was located where the Park View now sits. However, the gas works plant does not show up in the city directories after 1896, so it must have ceased operation around that time. I don't know when the plant was demolished, but I would not be suprised if it was a casualty of the Great Fire of 1901.
I also checked what was located on the site during the early 1920s. By this time, this area had become automobile central. The Park View site was the home of Atlantic Tire, Super Service Garage, Robertson-Mckee Motor Co., Indiana Truck Corp., Lovejoy Sales Co. and National Plating Workshop. Claude Nolan Cadillac was located on the block immediately to the south and the block immediately to the east. The old red brick warehouses on Orange were used for automobile repair, service, paint and body shops. Also in 1921, the block just to the west was occupied by Marmon Motor Cars.
stephendare
May 18, 2008, 06:21:51 PMSo it would be safe to assume that the maximum time that the gas works was open was from 1874 to 1896. 22 years. And the plant ceased operation 112 years ago.
If Van Winkels position is correct and 20 years of the plants operation was not gassification, then the amount of time that the 'blob' might have accumulated from 'gassification' would be even briefer.
Well at least we have a bit more in the 'factual' arena to work with now.
Thanks Lake for taking the time. That took only one day?
stephendare
May 18, 2008, 06:26:44 PMNational Plating? I wonder if that would have been Nickel Plating?
thelakelander
May 18, 2008, 06:44:20 PMIf Van Winkels position is correct and 20 years of the plants operation was not gassification, then the amount of time that the 'blob' might have accumulated from 'gassification' would be even briefer.
Well at least we have a bit more in the 'factual' arena to work with now.
Thanks Lake for taking the time. That took only one day?
It only took about 45 minutes of serious looking. The rest of my time was spent looking at old downtown master plans, city photo albums and Klutho books.
There were not many environmental regulations during that time. A few years of gassification could be more than enough to pollute a site with no environmental regulations in place. However, I would be just as concerned about contamination as a result of auto repair and painting shops in the general area that date back from the 1920s. I'm going to have to do a little more study on National Plating. At this point, I have no idea on what they were doing in that building, which was located on the corner of Main & Orange.
stephendare
May 18, 2008, 07:10:22 PMA little more information about Coal Gassification and related subjects.
By the way, although I spent many many hours over the two years that I lived in Seattle, in Gas Works Park, I never realized until today that it was a Coal Gassification Plant.
Today its one of Seattle's coolest parks and most well known destinations for travellers world wide.
For people interested in the process of "Coal Gassification", today the technology is touted as one of the great hopes of clean green energy, so its not very helpful for the context of the park to look up modern applications. Instead, I found this great link on Wikipedia on "TownGas" that explains what gassification plants of the type that this building may have featured were actually like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_gas
There is also a complete list of possible environmental pollutants which would have resulted from the various methods of Coal Gassification at the bottom of the article.
stephendare
May 18, 2008, 07:24:35 PMGas Works Park incorporates numerous pieces of the old plant. Some stand as ruins, while others have been reconditioned, painted, and incorporated into a children's "play barn" structure, constructed in part from what was the plant's exhauster-compressor building. A Web site affiliated with The Seattle Times newspaper says, "Gas Works Park is easily the strangest park in Seattle, and may rank among the strangest in the world."
Gas Works Park also features an artificial kite-flying hill with an elaborately sculptured sundial built into its summit. The park was for many years the exclusive site of a summer series of "Peace Concerts." [1] These concerts are now shared out among several Seattle parks. The park also hosts one of Seattle's two major Fourth of July fireworks events. The park is the traditional end point of the Solstice Cyclists and the start point for Seattle's World Naked Bike Ride.
The park originally constituted one end of the Burke-Gilman bicycle and foot trail, laid out along the abandoned right-of-way of the Seattle, Lake Shore and Eastern Railway. However, the trail has now been extended several kilometers northwest, past the Fremont neighborhood towards Ballard.
Because it is built on a former industrial site, the soil and groundwater on the site was contaminated. The 1971 Master Plan called for "cleaning and greening" the site through bio-phyto-remediation. Although the presence of organic pollutants had been substantially reduced by the mid 1980s the US Environmental Protection Agency and Washington State Department of Ecology required additional measures including removing and capping wastes, and air sparging in the Southeast portion of the site to attempt to remove benzene that was a theoretical source of pollutants reaching Lake Union via ground water. There are no known areas of surface soil contamination remaining on the site today, although tar occasionally still oozes from some locations within the site and is isolated and removed.
Despite its somewhat isolated location, the park has been the site of numerous political rallies. Among these was a seven-month continuous vigil under the name PeaceWorks Park, in opposition to the Gulf War. The vigil began at a peace concert in August 1990 and continued until after the end of the shooting war. Among the people who participated in the vigil at one point or another were former congressman and future governor Mike Lowry, then-city-councilperson Sue Donaldson, sixties icon Timothy Leary, and beat poet Allen Ginsberg.
Gas Works Park has been a setting for films, such as Singles and 10 Things I Hate About You. It has been featured twice on the travel-based television reality show The Amazing Race--once as the finish line for Season 3 and another time as the starting line for Season 10.
A few interesting points in this article. First note that the Seattle Gassification Plant (which is truly massive btw) operated from 1906 to 1956 or 50 years. By contrast, we have established a maximum operation time for our much smaller plant to have been 22 years.
Second, the Seattle Gassification Plant only closed in 1956, and yet according to the article by 1985 most of the property had already cycled out the pollutants. This is a period of 30 years. As an additional contrast, we have alread established a time period of 113 years since the Jacksonville Gassification Plant was operational, possibly longer.
Third, the apparent pollutant one worries about with the gassification process is the release of benzenes as a related process from decompozing pollutants.
I havent seen any discussion of these benzenes in our environmental reports.
Am I missing something in the benzene conversation?
thelakelander
May 18, 2008, 07:25:41 PMInteresting read. By the way, although the gas works appeared to have closed around 1896, the 1907 directory has the company listed as the Citizens Gas Company (lights were dropped), specializing in gas stoves. Their office at this time, was located at 18 E Forysth Street. Sanborn maps also show a much larger gas plant near Beaver & Church in operation at this time.
stephendare
May 18, 2008, 07:28:42 PMBy the way, in other threads I have suggested phytoremediation as a safe way to combat the pollution in this park system. It is far safer, and far far cheaper than the caveman methods we are presently using.
I was turned onto phytoremediation in Indiana at the Garfield sewage purification project sponsored by Garfield the Cat's creator, Jim Davis.
Here is a link that discusses the basic ideas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytoremediation
Phytoremediation describes the treatment of environmental problems (bioremediation) through the use of plants.
The word's etymology comes from the Greek φυτο (phyto) = plant, and Latin « remedium » = restoring balance, or remediating. Phytoremediation consists in depolluting contaminated soils, water or air with plants able to contain, degrade or eliminate metals, pesticides, solvents, explosives, crude oil and its derivatives, and various other contaminants, from the mediums that contain them.
It is clean, efficient, inexpensive and non-environmentally disruptive, as opposed to processes that require excavation of soil. The definitive textbook on phytoremediation was published in 2003 with contributed, peer reviewed articles from all major research groups involved in phytoremediation research (Phytoremediation: Transformation and Control of Contaminants, edited by Steven C. McCutcheon and Jerald L. Schnoor).
thelakelander
May 18, 2008, 07:34:18 PMSecond, the Seattle Gassification Plant only closed in 1956, and yet according to the article by 1985 most of the property had already cycled out the pollutants. This is a period of 30 years. As an additional contrast, we have alread established a time period of 113 years since the Jacksonville Gassification Plant was operational, possibly longer.
Third, the apparent pollutant one worries about with the gassification process is the release of benzenes as a related process from decompozing pollutants.
I havent seen any discussion of these benzenes in our environmental reports.
I'd be just as concerned about the other uses that took place on that site before the hotel was build there and the sites surrounding the hotel. The gas works was one of many "dirty" industries during a time when the environment was not a real concern. If something (gas, paint, car oil, human waste, whatever) has contaminated the ground in the general area, there's a good chance that contamination is not confined to one particular block.
stephendare
May 18, 2008, 07:37:20 PMThanks Lake, I really think this 'problem' has a lot simpler solutions than declaring war on all the landowners, and then waiting on the 'guv'ment' to cough 10 million dollars to dig everything up, taking up another 15 years of foot dragging and bullshittery.
Its just going to need some calm assessment of reality, some creative positive solutions and then creative positive implementations.
By way of examply, here is a blurb on Davis's phytoremedial project as covered by The New York Times a few years ago.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C05E6D81339F931A25753C1A963958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
At Corkscrew Swamp, a National Audubon Society sanctuary near Naples, Fla., visitors can experience a living machine. To get to the bathroom, they walk through an aluminum screened enclosure into what seems to be a garden, a space with plastic tanks and lined trenches brimming with native marsh plants and species. These natural decomposers -- what Jan Beyea, an Audubon senior scientist, calls "nature's wonderful garbage men" -- purify the waste water, 90 percent of which is then recycled for yet another flush.
The E.P.A., which has financed four living-machine demonstration projects across the country, awaits results of an independent study to determine whether their performance is "sustainable over the years," said Robert Bastian, a senior environmental scientist with the E.P.A.
But the living machine already has its passionate adherents, including the cartoonist Jim Davis of "Garfield the Cat" fame, who has installed a Solar Aquatic system, a type of living machine, in a large greenhouse in Indiana on the property of his studio, Paws Inc. It is operated by a full-time horticulturist, Russ Vernon, who describes his job as "taking care of Garfield's litter box."
His system, designed by Ecological Engineering Associates of Marion, Mass., uses photosynthesis to speed the purification process by holding artificial ponds and marshes in translucent solar tanks. The constant flow keeps show-quality orchids blooming.
Because the technology is still considered experimental, Mr. Davis ran the risk of being shut down by the state if clean water requirements were not met. But so far, he said, "it's performed like a champion."
He added: "The only thing that's stopping the growth of this kind of operation is tradi tional thinking."
stephendare
May 18, 2008, 07:39:24 PMThe word's etymology comes from the Greek φυτο (phyto) = plant, and Latin « remedium » = restoring balance, or remediating. Phytoremediation consists in depolluting contaminated soils, water or air with plants able to contain, degrade or eliminate metals, pesticides, solvents, explosives, crude oil and its derivatives, and various other contaminants, from the mediums that contain them.
It is clean, efficient, inexpensive and non-environmentally disruptive, as opposed to processes that require excavation of soil. The definitive textbook on phytoremediation was published in 2003 with contributed, peer reviewed articles from all major research groups involved in phytoremediation research (Phytoremediation: Transformation and Control of Contaminants, edited by Steven C. McCutcheon and Jerald L. Schnoor).
With the relatively low levels of ash and contaminants left in Hogans Creek, it could be cleaned up in less than 8 years while at the same time becoming a thing of beauty at approximately 1/10,000 th of the cost of traditional methods.
Of course, that would require a little more cerebrum and a lot less scrotum on the part of the Springfield side of the equation, and a whole lot more Sapiens than merely Erectus on the part of the city.
stephendare
May 18, 2008, 07:53:15 PMtrue but given the history, it is at this point the least likely to be the most significantly contributing property.
Actually considering that remediation has already taken place, this property has the potential of being the least contaminated of all of them.
FYI, because of the poisonous nature of the gassification plants, it was the first industry to have national environmental regulations created for it. They date back to the 1880s.
thelakelander
May 18, 2008, 07:54:04 PMI don't think we'll get any where blaming downtown advocates that want to see the park and creek restored. Without them and their passion, the park system would still be as poorly maintained as it was five years ago. The difference in what it looks like today and what it was in 2003 is night and day. Also, as I understand it, a good portion of money set aside to restore the creek, ended up being shifted to Iraq.
As for the Park View, if the site has a clean bill of health, then there's little anyone can do to hold up or deny redevelopment if a developer is serious about investing in it. Quite frankly, there's no reason for someone not to be in favor of improving the site.
thelakelander
May 18, 2008, 07:55:34 PMtrue but given the history, it is at this point the least likely to be the most significantly contributing property.
Actually considering that remediation has already taken place, this property has the potential of being the least contaminated of all of them.
FYI, because of the poisonous nature of the gassification plants, it was the first industry to have national environmental regulations created for it. They date back to the 1880s.
When did remediation take place on the Park View site and the blocks surrounding it? Is there anything on record that we can upload for all to see?
stephendare
May 18, 2008, 07:57:29 PMI don't think we'll get any where blaming downtown advocates that want to see the park and creek restored. Without them and their passion, the park system would still be as poorly maintained as it was five years ago. The difference in what it looks like today and what it was in 2003 is night and day. Also, as I understand it, a good portion of money set aside to restore the creek, ended up being shifted to Iraq.
As for the Park View, if the site has a clean bill of health, then there's little anyone can do to hold up or deny redevelopment if a developer is serious about investing in it. Quite frankly, there's no reason for someone not to be in favor of improving the site.
No one is blaming any advocates of the parks, Lake. The criticism is about the defacto strategy of all the divergent groups.
a. The City bulldozing properties.
b. The Park Commission not looking at new technologies and methods.
c. The Downtown and Springfield stakeholders simply waiting for the Feds to do it.
Regardless of the Park View Inn, the Hogan's Creek Park system does have contaminants that legitimately need attention.
And there are multiple other options than waiting for the Feds. The options also happen to be millions of dollars cheaper.
stephendare
May 18, 2008, 08:01:07 PMtrue but given the history, it is at this point the least likely to be the most significantly contributing property.
Actually considering that remediation has already taken place, this property has the potential of being the least contaminated of all of them.
FYI, because of the poisonous nature of the gassification plants, it was the first industry to have national environmental regulations created for it. They date back to the 1880s.
When did remediation take place on the Park View site and the blocks surrounding it? Is there anything on record that we can upload for all to see?
I truly can't formulate a guess for the sites surrounding the Park View. I do know, and most of the residents remember, that the dirt all had to be removed from the ground when they built the hotel.
thelakelander
May 18, 2008, 08:03:35 PMLuckily no one is standing pat. Since I moved to town and purchased property in Springfield, progress has been made. These would include the Hogans Creek Greenway (hasn't started, but the money has been set aside by the State), the dog park, the rose arbor, better city maintainance, the improved baseball ground, restored gazebo and Dillion fountain at Klutho Park. Plus its not a homeless campground anymore. In the meantime we all just have to keep plugging along and taking advantage of these many options when they present themselves.
stephendare
May 18, 2008, 08:05:13 PMlol. to some extent.
The park could be completed with local money in half the time and none of the intrusive heartache simply by entering the 21st century.
downtownparks
May 18, 2008, 09:23:25 PMCool. Handle up.
heights unknown
May 27, 2008, 08:20:00 AMIn the past, we've done a bad job of locating nodes of activity far apart form each other, and it doesn't allow for good infill.
How about two movie theaters, a large one (12 to 24 screens) on Bay Street, and a smaller one on the Park View location (6 to 12 screens for Springfield, Eastside Residents); then you'd have enough theaters for downtown for the present.
Heights Unknown
heights unknown
May 27, 2008, 08:27:27 AMLakelander.......peacemaker and mediator!
Heights Unknown
heights unknown
May 27, 2008, 08:34:11 AMAnd.......in the meantime the old, dilapidated, broken down structure is just sitting on top of contaminated property rotting and doing nothing but providing an ugly picture for that end of downtown and Springfield; so, in my opinion, the smart thing for the Owner to do (maybe someone should tell him this cause maybe he's too old to understand), is to tear it down, clean-up the contamination if there is in fact contamination, and put it on the market for the City or a private developer to buy; otherwise, the City will do the tearing down, contamination cleaning, and bill the Owner...and who knows how much the tab will be...probably more than if the Owner did it himself.
Heights Unknown
heights unknown
May 27, 2008, 08:46:38 AMIf Van Winkels position is correct and 20 years of the plants operation was not gassification, then the amount of time that the 'blob' might have accumulated from 'gassification' would be even briefer.
Well at least we have a bit more in the 'factual' arena to work with now.
Thanks Lake for taking the time. That took only one day?
It's amazing what a little "teamwork" and "mutual cooperation" can do.
Heights Unknown
downtownparks
May 27, 2008, 09:28:19 AMAside from some posters personal indignation on behalf of the fair and decent downtown landowner, none of the questions have been answered.
stephendare
May 27, 2008, 09:57:43 AMI dont think anyone has personal indignation on behalf of Robert Van Winkel.
There have been some fairly insulting imprecations hurled in his general direction however.
If almost 10 years isnt enough to come up with a plan, I think the city is justified in tearing down this non-historic, non-contributing strucutre.
Good riddance.
Aside from the troubling blows to the ideas of property rights and private ownership, this seems to be the sentiment most often expressed.
However, there has been a double story line going around about this property for a while, that has existed in a near perfect vacuum of facts.
I think we have at least established the following:
The claims that present against the property seem to be based on its use as a coal gassification plant.
But from a little actual research we discovered that the site was only used for this purpose briefly and the last time it was used was more than 112, possibly 132 years ago.
The main pollutant which most environmentalists worry about in gassification sites is the presence of benzenes, and none of the studies listed mentioned any benzene contamination.
As demonstrated by the information in the article about the much larger Seattle Gasworks that was in operation for many decades longer, and more recently, the ground has a tendency to remediate on its own.
It might still be that there is contamination on the site. Although the landowner has stated that the latest round of testing proves that there isnt anything significant.
But in the absence of testing either way, the case for contamination has been largely exploded.
thelakelander
May 27, 2008, 10:02:15 AMAny update on gaining access to the latest round of testing? It would greatly benefit the land owner to display proof that site contamination isn't a significant issue with his property.
stephendare
May 27, 2008, 10:17:10 AMTruly. And apparently the testing that was undertook was the same testing referred to by the state. It seems like that would be available to anyone.
thelakelander
May 27, 2008, 10:25:16 AMSo how do we get a copy? Since you personally know the owner and have a good relationship with him, can you talk to him about it? Or do we have to go through the state?
thelakelander
May 27, 2008, 11:04:20 PMHere's an image of the project my firm worked on for the Park View site around early 2004. This project died, partially because of site contamination clean-up costs, which made building a tower at that location unfeasible.
downtownparks
June 19, 2008, 12:33:09 AMHey Lake.
Did you ever get a chance to look over the test results?
alta
October 02, 2008, 12:38:34 AMHas anyone notice the activity that has been going on here in the last week? The south facing rooms have had their walls torn down. The east facing garage entrance has been open several times. There is new plywood sealing the entrance. Does anyone know what is going on. Renovation or demolition?
reednavy
October 02, 2008, 02:12:40 AMIf I remember, it would be demo.
alta
October 02, 2008, 02:18:46 AMThat is what I read a while back. They are tearing down the walls slowly if that is the case. Why not a recking ball or dynamite?
reednavy
October 02, 2008, 04:30:18 AMAsbestos is likely, and other toxins that have developed over years of decay and such.
Cliffs_Daughter
June 14, 2009, 11:52:04 AMI have this postcard, not sure of the date since it was never sent... it used to be called the "Heart of Jacksonville" hotel, or so it says.
Have a lookhttp:
Neat, huh?
I got a good little collection of things around town. Hoping to really expand my albums.