In a town known for its rapid demolition of historic structures, the work recently completed on the Livingston Methodist Church in Fairfield, located just east of Downtown Jacksonville, offers a refreshing change of pace.
Published March 6, 2009 in Development
Digg
Share on Facebook
Tweet this!
Print Article
This Gothic-inspired structure is located at 648 Parker Street. It was built as the Livingston Mission Methodist Episcopal Church in 1912. During a January 2007 Metro Jacksonville tour, the structure appeared to be in bad shape and on its last legs.
Abandoned and in bad shape: Metro Jacksonville Photo Archives - January 2007
Today
More information on Fairfield and East Jacksonville:
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/content/view/297
Photo Update by Ennis Davis
Share this article
Copyright 2010 MetroJacksonville.com
RSS
dubguy82
March 06, 2009, 08:31:53 AMWhile it is nice to see a structure not being torn down - I must say this is really awful looking. Was there any type of protocol used when doing this as even the stone sign is painted over with what looks like spraypaint.
It looks like it was done as a Kindergarten school project.
fsujax
March 06, 2009, 08:56:32 AMYou cant miss the structure when coming over the Mathews Bridge or the Hart Expressway.
hightowerlover
March 06, 2009, 10:00:35 AMthis is a success? this looks like a disgrace who paints brick with high gloss paint? and don't even get me started on the rastifarian roof
thelakelander
March 06, 2009, 10:20:39 AMGloss paint and all, I'd consider its reuse a success over the common alternative provided in the images above.
Deuce
March 06, 2009, 10:35:32 AMIt's a success that it wasn't torn down for sure and that it is not vacant. It looks cool from a distance coming over the bridge, but up close the work looks C-. The overspray on the sign is just plain sloppiness.
Springfield Girl
March 06, 2009, 10:44:58 AMI agree with the above comments. That was not a restoration but a hideous paint job. The difference between this church and the Lampru Apartments that were pictured is that the apartments were literally caving in. From what I can see in the 2007 picture the church was in good shape and only in need of some TLC. It looked much better before.
Hurricane
March 06, 2009, 10:49:50 AMThe "renovation" makes it look like a day care. I'm glad it's still standing, but there was definitely not an architect hired for this "renovation".
stug
March 06, 2009, 10:50:24 AMTruly garish. I don't think anyone would argue that it should have been torn down or left to deteriorate further, but historic buildings should, ideally, be restored according to their original appearance.
halimeade
March 06, 2009, 12:32:34 PMThis is a preservation something, though I'm not sure I'd call it a success. The glossy red paint is really shameful- the brick looked like it was in great shape, just the wood and windows needed replacing! As someone who works with historic structures on a regular basis, I'm really disappointed.
Does anyone know if this building will function as a church, or something else?
thelakelander
March 06, 2009, 12:39:54 PMI just did a google search on the address. It appears to be a church under the name:
Debre Brhan Trinity of Ethopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
thelakelander
March 06, 2009, 12:44:00 PMIn 2008, they received a historical preservation grant of $48,000 to restore the building.
http://www.flheritage.com/grants/preservation/2008_sm_acquisition_dev_awarded.pdf
http://www.dos.state.fl.us/grantsearch/index.cfm?c=&y=&k=&d=&p=221&mr=15&su=y&s=J
stjr
March 06, 2009, 01:35:39 PMI would think such grants would have a standard for what "historic preservation" entails. Do they? If not, why not? Is this another example of well intended money not being properly administered? We aren't talking about a lot of bureaucracy here, just some common sense!
halimeade
March 06, 2009, 01:42:22 PMI would think such grants would have a standard for what "historic preservation" entails. Do they? If not, why not? Is this another example of well intended money not being properly administered? We aren't talking about a lot of bureaucracy here, just some common sense!
The Division of Historic Resources (DHR) generally has no idea which way is left and which way is right. I'd be interested to read the grant proposal itself. Maybe this was someone influential's pet project- it wouldn't be the first time.
To be fair, though, at least the building is going to get some use now, and not just sit there empty and unloved.
(Edit for spelling)
zoo
March 06, 2009, 01:57:07 PMDoes Jeol McEachin's dept know the grant money was spent on covering brick and tin roofing with paint? I can't imagine they would approve this.
David
March 06, 2009, 05:11:12 PMMajority rules. Sorry Lake, we're bulldozing it.
(just kidding)
thelakelander
March 06, 2009, 05:21:55 PMThat's cool. I'm just happy to see someone do something with the property that did not involve godzilla doing the two step on it.
David
March 06, 2009, 05:27:51 PMI agree. I'm not sure what the uproar is over something being preserved. If the budget was only 48k, that's not going to buy a massive overhaul so you pay for what you get. It's still better than nothing. I'm sure more had to be done to it than just a simple paint job.
Matt
March 06, 2009, 06:44:08 PMYea really. I drove by today, and man it's ugly, but hey. It may not look better, but this is much better than a pile of dirt.
ubben
March 18, 2009, 12:43:28 PMUgh. Just what we this town doesn't need--another church full of yahoos.
Repaint it and make it a disco.