This small storefront is more significant for its remodeling than for its original architecture. The building was probably constructed shortly before it first appeared in the 1909 city directory as Spiro P. Schiadaressis's grocery. Over the next two decades, various businesses were listed at this location, including a saloon, a cigar store, and a billiard parlor. Photographs as early as 1917 show the upper one-half of the building much as it is today.
In 1928 Lerner's clothing shops took over the building, and it is presumed that shortly thereafter the splashy Art Deco facade was added to the first story. The burst of metallic bas-relief decoration above the entrance and above the display windows is one of the city's most exuberant remaining specimens of Art Deco ornamentation. The stylish lettering denoting "LERNER SHOPS" also displays the Art Deco flair. A remnant of the original cast-iron storefront can be seen at the extreme left of the facade.
Jacksonville's Architectural Heritage Landmarks For The Future
This building was also featured on May 8th, 2009 in Recreating Jacksonville: The Urban Facelift Project
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2009-may-recreating-jacksonville-the-urban-facelift-project
Share this article
RSS
hanjin1
May 11, 2009, 09:22:02 AMThis is already in another thread, but I figured it might need its own. It looks like the Lerner Shop at 118 Main street will be demolished. This is a great little building, but unfortunately it is said to be falling in on itself. Too bad this building couldn't be saved.
TREE4309
May 11, 2009, 09:25:33 AMbummer...I always liked that building. I wonder why the pseudo-store front glass was installed last year if the building was so far gone?
JoeMerchant
May 11, 2009, 09:25:44 AMMy guess is it could be saved...it's just easier to demolish. And again, it's a disgrace that it was allowed to sit there and deteriorate as it has.
thelakelander
May 11, 2009, 09:46:19 AMCracks and all, it can be saved if the desire is there. 2065 North Market is the perfect example. A few years ago, nothing but the walls were worth saving. The roof had already collapsed.
1948 Image
2005 Aerial
Current
vicupstate
May 11, 2009, 10:21:03 AMI hate to see it demolished too. I also don't buy the too far gone argument.
I hope someone will build new in it's place. Otherwise it will be the perfect cubby hole for the homeless to hang out in.
Ocklawaha
May 11, 2009, 11:26:19 AMThat building has more "COOL" then any other little building in downtown. When I was inside, the bricks were all wet and seemed to be crumbling. There was enough saltpeter that if one brought their own charcol they could blow up the whole east side of town.
OCKLAWAHA
Lunican
May 11, 2009, 11:55:59 AMFor those that are unfamiliar with the building being discussed, here is a photo:
Ocklawaha
May 11, 2009, 12:31:45 PMI was thinking something really specialized with a broad market. An old fashioned HOBBY SHOP, which of course would carry every type of train known to man, plus RC, Aircraft, Ships, digital modeling. History remembered puts the original downtown hobby shop within 3 or 4 blocks of this building. With such a specialized product, no one would have to worry about parking as avid modelers, train buffs, flyboys, squids, devil dogs and grunts would seek you out, and one couldn't want a more central location.
OCKLAWAHA
TheProfessor
May 11, 2009, 12:31:55 PMNot to be a proponent of demolition, but architecturally speaking the buildings on either side of this building seem to be better contributors to the aesthetics of the area. I would agree with a demo if there were plans for a nice modern infill highrise....although I know that will not happen in this market, so I say -- STOP THE BULLDOZERS!
hillary supporter
May 11, 2009, 01:47:08 PMMy guess is it could be saved...it's just easier to demolish. And again, it's a disgrace that it was allowed to sit there and deteriorate as it has.
well said, Joe Merchant. The current owner should be forrbidden to demolish. Umm isnt that what preservations about?
downtownparks
May 11, 2009, 02:16:39 PMI believe the Eddie Farrah lawfirm owns it. Can anyone verify that?
TREE4309
May 11, 2009, 04:48:56 PMI thought the same thing, although I can't undoubtedly confirm that at the moment. A quick tax record check is in order.
David
May 11, 2009, 04:54:55 PMhttp://apps.coj.net/pao_propertySearch/Basic/Detail.aspx?RE=0736900000
It has 10 W. Adam st 3rd floor as the mailing address on the last homestead exemption, so yes, it does appear to belong to good ol Edward, or Eddie as he said I could call him.
Springfielder
May 11, 2009, 05:58:51 PMThis has got to be one of the worst cities, when it comes to making any effort at all with saving these old buildings. It's disgraceful, plain and simple. It most certainly can be saved, they just don't want to do it.
hillary supporter
May 11, 2009, 06:44:11 PMin my experience, "preservation" here in jax is such a weak premise. In my inquirys about downtown jax, i asked Joel Mceackin(sic) how such could happen, and he summed it up, "some just have a lot of money" in such a state of reassignment. I mean, hes seen this happen most of his life. He was decisive in w Wayne's woods, Architectural Jacksonville.
hillary supporter
May 11, 2009, 06:45:57 PMim quite sure its owned y the farrah brothers, i was told such as i asked about the building a couple of years ago.
coredumped
May 11, 2009, 07:38:52 PMI don't know why, but that building just screams "butcher" to me. I think it would look so cool in there.
I-10east
May 11, 2009, 07:58:50 PM^^^Yeah, it looks like something off of Goodfellas. It definitely had better days, and I'll just leave it at that.
Scarlettjax
May 11, 2009, 09:34:04 PMWow, I used to shop there when it was Lerner's. I can't remember, though, if it was Lerner's or the Diana Shop where I bought my first pair of hiphuggers, what y'all call low rise jeans these days. Ock, there's a neat hobby/photo shop like you describe in an old grocery store in Orlando, ever been there?
mtraininjax
May 11, 2009, 11:52:34 PMFarah's, I have heard, would like to move from their current location. They bought land near new courthouse, and once the courthouse starts, they will probably build their new building. The 2nd floor of their 10E Adams is empty, the SA moved out, so only Farah is really left in the building.
Correction - The Farah's do own the property....see my new comment below on their plans....
mtraininjax
May 11, 2009, 11:53:49 PMCan you hang out and help me park my car, or should we circle the block and hunt for a space? Come downtown for a butcher shop? Does anyone live downtown still?
riverside planner
May 12, 2009, 07:35:04 AMI really hope this does not happen. This building is such a gem in the rough.
thelakelander
May 12, 2009, 07:46:26 AMIf it has to come down, they should at least, save the front facade. Then whenever something else comes along, it could be worked into the design.
hanjin1
May 12, 2009, 09:06:15 AMtoo bad our city isn't about saving anything. I think they like the idea of destroying downtown, since they have no care for it.
blizz01
May 13, 2009, 12:52:48 AMI-10east
May 13, 2009, 02:02:49 AMAnd now a moment of silence................................
I sense an almost "PETA-type extreme vibe" on Metrojax when it comes to saving ANY building no matter how ragedy. I'm not trying to create controversy, but I see NOTHING aesthetically appealing about that building. It's no use bitchin' about it should've been in better condition, because that's a given; It's done! The building is in bad shape. Buildings get torn down all of the time all over the world. It's not necessarily a bad thing. I'm waiting for Lake to do an article on a termite mound DT, then peeps will start chaining themselves to it, to save it.
I'm a rollercoaster enthusiast, and I'm a member of a forum. Everyone on the site loves coasters, but most peeps on the site also realize when a coaster is badly designed, or ragedy, if it's not worth saving, it needs to be torn down. I know that I'm already portrayed as someone that don't care about DT Jax or whatever; I like to think of myself as a realist. Before someone chew me out, answer this question; Is tearing down a (any bldg no matter the condition) building ALWAYS a bad thing? Can't put a gun to someone's head, and make'em buy a building. Can't make a time machine. The building isn't easy on the eyes. It's done.
thelakelander
May 13, 2009, 07:44:51 AMImagine the appeal if Savannah and Chaleston if they had demolished every vacant building they could in their downtown areas. They would be the Northbank. I think of myself as a realist as well. With your view, buildings like this would have been torn down and replaced by vacant lots years ago.
2065 N Market in 2005. Vacant for decades with the roof already caved in.
2065 N. Market today. Because the building had not been torn down, despite its decayed state, someone took advantage of the old brick walls and detailing and added a new roof.
The reality is the way we view and treat abandoned and under utilized building stock in the Northbank has not produced good results. The view you express has stunted organic growth by virtually eliminating the prospect of small businesses coming in and bringing smaller buildings back to life. Instead its led to the exact opposite.
^This doesn't work. We been doing this since 1950 and the result is the struggling downtown scene we see today. On the other hand, Springfield, Riverside and San Marco are holding their own despite the economy. Its time to cut bait, before the Northbank loses the stock that makes it appealing and becomes nothing more than a vertical Southpoint.
mtraininjax
May 13, 2009, 05:07:00 PMHere is the scoop, the Farahs are good people and they want to do the right thing. They purchased 118 Main last year when the real estate market was tanking. They wanted a place for their people to be able to go for lunch or take a smoke break, without being in front of the building.
The insides of the building are nasty, bird/bat droppings everywhere. The upstairs bathroom had been used for some time by homeless people, with no running water - use your own imagination on that one. They KNOW the front has historic implications, so they are planning to save the front of the building and tear down the rest of it. They will have a fence around it along main. Will have a summer kitchen in back, so if you know of any summer kitchen contractors....here is their lead.
Again, saving the front, tearing down the rest, build summer kitchen and place for employees to enjoy some quiet time. That was the plan as of today, 5/13.
thelakelander
May 13, 2009, 05:09:04 PMThanks for the update. Its good to see they will at least preserve the facade and make the area into a usable courtyard space. Who knows, if they ever leave to move closer to the new courthouse, that spot would make a great location for a sidewalk cafe or bar.
An outdoor cafe in downtown Sarasota
An outdoor dining and live performance venue in Fort Worth
An old alley converted to an outdoor seating and lounging area in Fort Worth
nestliving
May 16, 2009, 04:46:14 PMIt was torn down today...I say remember this when you need a lawyer.
TREE4309
May 16, 2009, 05:03:56 PMYep, I was downtown this afternoon and it's in rubble. Don't think the facade was going to be saved either.
stjr
May 16, 2009, 05:25:10 PMIronic that the ones "investing" in Downtown are the ones responsible for destroying it. If not already, it won't be long that Downtown will look like any suburban office park with a few tall buildings in its midst. Why can't we find people in Jax that both appreciate history and are in powerful positions. It's clear it's all about the dollar - for developers and political campaigns. Quality of life be damned. Why should anyone be surprised?
I am at the point where I would consider boycotting Downtown altogether just to make the point I won't support the way things are going there. It's not what I want to do, but why endorse those who are destroying it. And, if more people stayed away, maybe the movers and shakers would work harder to be creative and try what they aren't doing now: Preserving history, bringing good mass transit, creating a street presence, blocking Downtown killers like the awful courthouse project, etc. It's like they are doing everything they can to run off people, why not let them get their wish?
I have lived here all my life and all I have ever heard is we are supporting Downtown. It's really not the case and the proof is in the pudding. When one looks back at Jax pre-1965 or so, you can see how far we have fallen and how little progress we have truly made to rebuild it. Nothing but mostly failed promises. We have fallen behind every major city in Florida and possibly most of the Southeast when once, we were on top. I see nothing on the horizon to change that despite the many appeals here on MJ.
Lest one forget:
brainstormer
May 16, 2009, 05:59:39 PMI feel your pain stjr! The only problem I see with your boycott is that it once again hurts the wrong people. There are many good people and small businesses who are trying to make downtown a place with a high quality of life. By boycotting them, you hurt the good guys.
I think it is time to take our thoughts and ideas to city hall. It is time to not just post on this forum but to get out there, organize and take a stand. This city needs better leadership and those in charge need to hear from residents that we aren't happy! They don't read our emails, they don't respond to letters, they don't read this site. I say it's time to rally! Rally for Jacksonville! Everyone I talk to hates the direction this city is heading. City Hall is corrupt, JSO is corrupt, the school board members are out of touch, we are wasting our tax dollars, our history is being destroyed by wrecking balls! We must demand better leadership!!! They will keep plodding on in their corrupt old ways until we take action.
The brilliant people who post on this site need to leave the comfort of their homes and take a stand in the community. I'm willing to jump out there, but I can't do it alone.
shanshan1218
May 17, 2009, 12:44:43 AMOur city is a beautiful place! I could never ask for more! You are more than completely right! We, as the people that care about not only our city, but what little is left of our history, do need to take a stand....start showing up in person, as a group. Something needs to happen, and quickly, before nothing is left of the beautiful buildings I, personally, cherish. I spent most of my day downtown today. There is something about being there that I love; there is also a lot of things about being there that deeply sadden me. I hate to see history reduced to rubble, we are seeing more and more of that under the "leadership" we currently have.....sad....just plain sad!
hanjin1
May 17, 2009, 02:16:53 PMI just dorve by and looks like they only have the last half of it to go. I 'm sure we can put an "urban" homeless park or parking lot in there now. That is what this city likes to do anyways.
nestliving
May 17, 2009, 03:41:32 PMI would put money on the fact that the only reason why the Farrah's bought that building was to tear it down and create a nice little car park for themselves. Time will tell.
stephendare
May 17, 2009, 04:00:53 PMthey didnt, nestliving. They needed (or at least they feel they need) additional space for their downtown office.
The downstairs area is going to be a cafe of some sort.
nestliving
May 17, 2009, 04:10:25 PMI don't believe that. like I said. time will tell.
stephendare
May 17, 2009, 04:18:32 PMWell, Its what they intended at the time, and as of last month they still do.
I think we actually published the tentative site plans.
Eddie and his brother Chuck have invested in shocking amounts of downtown recently.
But I dont think they can use the space for parking by code anyways.
nestliving
May 17, 2009, 04:32:24 PMI know not a thing about codes and such, so I take your word for it. Common sense tells me that you don't buy and old building to demo it then build a cafe.
heights unknown
May 18, 2009, 07:17:10 AMI sense an almost "PETA-type extreme vibe" on Metrojax when it comes to saving ANY building no matter how ragedy. I'm not trying to create controversy, but I see NOTHING aesthetically appealing about that building. It's no use bitchin' about it should've been in better condition, because that's a given; It's done! The building is in bad shape. Buildings get torn down all of the time all over the world. It's not necessarily a bad thing. I'm waiting for Lake to do an article on a termite mound DT, then peeps will start chaining themselves to it, to save it.
I'm a rollercoaster enthusiast, and I'm a member of a forum. Everyone on the site loves coasters, but most peeps on the site also realize when a coaster is badly designed, or ragedy, if it's not worth saving, it needs to be torn down. I know that I'm already portrayed as someone that don't care about DT Jax or whatever; I like to think of myself as a realist. Before someone chew me out, answer this question; Is tearing down a (any bldg no matter the condition) building ALWAYS a bad thing? Can't put a gun to someone's head, and make'em buy a building. Can't make a time machine. The building isn't easy on the eyes. It's done.
I-10 East, you've got to understand Jacksonville's history when it comes to tearing down, wrecking balling, demolition, Jax is famous for that, especially downtown. How long have you lived in Jax? Since the late 50's demolition has almost become a sport in downtown Jax; the only thing is, nothing gets built in place of the demolition and we're left with parking lots. I know we can't put a gun to the head of City Leaders or anyone else to preserve, buy, or do something with the property, but everytime we turn around a piece of our history is going to the garbage dump or the landfill.
Heights Unknown
heights unknown
May 18, 2009, 07:23:51 AMI think we actually published the tentative site plans.
Eddie and his brother Chuck have invested in shocking amounts of downtown recently.
But I dont think they can use the space for parking by code anyways.
I hope you're right Stephendare; it would be a shame to just let that little pocket sit empty or become a trash heap; I'm sure they'll do something with it, as someone said, time will tell.
Heights Unknown
Lunican
May 18, 2009, 08:41:53 AMUrban Jacksonville also has a story on this today:
http://www.urbanjacksonville.info/2009/05/18/118-main-street-shoulda-woulda-coulda/
JoeMerchant
May 18, 2009, 08:50:59 AMWe'll be giving some thoughts on this tomorrow, but Content Design Group is obviously a little depressed to see that 118 Main has been torn down and torn down because it was the easy thing to do.
Ethylene
May 18, 2009, 09:56:53 AMHey, seriously, the Farrah's were just doing their part! Afterall, Saturday was Shine in "09 Day, sponsored by the Keep Jacksonville Beautiful Commission. I know the folks visiting downtown for the Jazz Festival will be so impressed by that pile of rubble!
JeffreyS
May 18, 2009, 09:59:30 AMThey should put up a future home of sign before the Jazz fest.
hanjin1
May 18, 2009, 10:59:54 AMNothing says Jazz Fest, like the smell of old broken brick. I'm glad the Farrah's are for the people. Dumbass'
Doctor_K
May 18, 2009, 11:07:23 AMThat's Morgan & Morgan.
But yes, yet another travesty here. Sad.
TheProfessor
May 18, 2009, 11:32:27 AMThey even damaged the building facade of the adjacent building. What jerks. I hope you all write the Farahs some nice E-mails/letters letting them know your sentiments.
Cliffs_Daughter
May 18, 2009, 01:18:18 PMActually, that damaged facade is THEIR building I think.
mtraininjax
May 18, 2009, 06:17:45 PMThe Farah's own the 10 East Adams Building, North of the subject property. The building to the south is vacant, part of the old AHL facilities. There is a construction bond with the demo company, unless you saw Chuck or Eddie at the wheel of the dozer, I think they are covered on this with the bond.
Also, their tentative plan was to create a fenced in area for THEIR employees to go instead of in the front of the building, they plan to have an outdoor kitchen and I suspect will have a nice fence along Main Street to keep the homeless out. Probably be a fence at the other end of their property as well.
For all that love to read property appraiser data, http://apps.coj.net/pao_propertySearch/Basic/Detail.aspx?RE=0736900000
coredumped
May 18, 2009, 06:43:57 PMCan you hang out and help me park my car, or should we circle the block and hunt for a space? Come downtown for a butcher shop? Does anyone live downtown still?
You must have never left Jacksonville, but in most cities our size & larger there is retail downtown. Try to imagine it.
mtraininjax
May 18, 2009, 06:49:26 PMThriving downtown is all about chicken and egg, which came first? Can't call it thriving without residents, but if residents have no businesses to support them, why stay downtown.
Imagine this, all of downtown jacksonville is surrounded by water, so you have a peninsula with a way out through Springfield. Do you think Jax downtown would thrive? Think San Fran, think NYC, but our problem with downtown is that in the 80s, the great flight just steamrolled downtown, nothing was done for 20 years to correct the flight out of downtown, so while you may poo-poo people who move out of downtown, you can't fix something overnight that was broken with years and years of neglect.
There is absolutely NO draw to downtown for people who live in Mandarin, the Beaches, or Southside to downtown, enough to call them residents of downtown. There is no new real estate going on and all projects to lure people downtown have come to a halt. There is no draw for downtown, and until there is a reason for people to be downtown, aquarium, transportation hub, (pick your poison), there is no need to live downtown.
deathstar
May 19, 2009, 03:42:12 AMNot to sound like I'm starting a war here, but I-10, I think you just got owned
You give a car enthusiast a rusted piece of junk, and about 6-8 months, it will not only be a brand new car, I'm willing to bet a few old pieces, hell, even the frame would be restored & re-used. Not only THAT, it'd have a purr to it so fine it'd make a leopard jealous, or a growl to it it'd make a lion jealous! I'm just rambling, but as the old saying goes...
One man's junk is another man's treasure. I believe lakelander proved that quite well in his demonstration.
stephenc
May 19, 2009, 12:34:37 PMA buddy of mine just got an apartment in 11E Forsyth. He loves looking out his window and seeing an alley full of demloished bricks!!
Ron Mexico
May 19, 2009, 01:12:59 PMThis sucks! Too bad, because I've walked past that a number of time and it could be a good building if it was able to be restored. But, there are so many places downtown that could be fixed up if only there was enough demand for it.
thelakelander
May 19, 2009, 01:23:52 PMThere's demand to be downtown. Unfortunately, due to decades of demolition, smaller buildings are in limited supply and the demand just isn't there for overpaying for deteriorated property.
TREE4309
May 19, 2009, 02:57:03 PMExactly...if a property owner wanted to sell some of these older smaller buildings at a reasonable price, I'm willing to bet several interested parties would come knocking. I know I'm not the only one that has done some research on converting some of these buildings into live/work spaces. It's a shame that there's an obvious lack of realistic pricing for those few buildings that are available as well as an apparent desire of downtown property owners to let these buildings deteriorate beyond reasonable repair, or worse yet, have them demolished. How do we end this vicious cycle?
Ron Mexico
May 19, 2009, 03:16:02 PMProbably. If the buildings were in good shape, I am sure there are small law shops or other businesses that could use them. I would rather own one than to pay a lease for a cube farm.
JoeMerchant
May 20, 2009, 09:12:16 AMIf you'd like to hear Content Design Group's thoughts on the demolition of 118, our second Urban Facelift project please follow the link:
http://www.contentdg.com/rip-118-main-urban-facelift-project2/
TheProfessor
May 20, 2009, 11:47:55 AMBelow are the Email addresses of some of the Farah Lawyers who you all should Email and let know your sentiments. The first two being the Farah brothers.
efarah@farahandfarah.com
cfarah@farahandfarah.com
feifer@farahandfarah.com
bflaherty@farahandfarah.com
Jerry Moran
May 20, 2009, 03:14:56 PMPlease cut the crap out. The building was found to be in terrible condition, and un-salvageable. Eddie and crew had no choice. I talked to him shortly after he bought the building about putting a restaurant there. After having the building checked out, Eddie sadly told me that the building was in terrible structural condition, and that it would have to go.
TheProfessor
May 20, 2009, 04:37:52 PMThe crap is that the facade could have been salvage until something valid went into this space. Now we just have a hole in the urban fabric of our downtown and another demolished building without any creative thought. Farah has loads of money and a bulldosed sight was the best he could come up with. I guess money can't buy a brain.
Steve
May 20, 2009, 05:46:39 PMWhile I'm not going to blast the email box of the Farah's (what are they supposed to do now, put the thing back up?), I do think that this is a microcosm of the problems with downtown. We keep demolishing buildings and turning them into vacant lots. If we were to build something there, than I could swallow it more, but I don't see that happening. It is yet another example of demolition by neglect, and this single fact (possibly more than anything) is keeping us back.
TheProfessor
May 20, 2009, 06:26:09 PMYes the Farah's have a social responsibility to rebuild what they have taken away from the community. I emailed Eddie and got a heated response. I think he knows he made a mistake by not leaving at least a facade on this building without any intent to replace was is now a void. Perhaps the building was in bad shape, but there are always more creative ways to work a problem rather than simple deletion. The Farah's acted in haste, they are to be accountable for their actions.
mtraininjax
May 20, 2009, 06:31:28 PMThose are big words for someone who could have found a way to buy the same piece of property when it was for sale a few years ago. The Farahs pay more in property taxes than most people on this board ever will, they are active in the communities with their families and really do not deserve this drivel.
Next time a piece of property comes up for sale, instead of complaining about the aftermath, go do something about it, get together, buy it, save it, hug it, whatever you want to do to it. Complaining about the aftermath because someone purchased it, who has a vested financial investment in downtown and the future of the City in general, is wrong!
Steve
May 20, 2009, 06:32:28 PMLeaving the Facade would have been the thing to do if the building was too far gone, but the frustrating thing to me is, why was the building too far gone? This is happening over and over again, and this is what we need to prevent.
Steve
May 20, 2009, 06:36:13 PMBy taking that direct approach, you have parking lot owners like Mark Rimmer, and slumloards like Chris Hionides.
While I'm obviously don't think the Farah's are in the same category as Hionides, there were alternatives to torching a historic building.
mtraininjax
May 20, 2009, 06:42:33 PMIts a choice, much like the sale of the Library to the current owners, who have done......wait for it.....nothing with the property. No improvements, nothing. The building sits empty.
I don't like tearing down buildings either, but I sure don't like to see people receive city funding for a building, just to let it sit and do nothing. The Farahs did not take city money for the building, they purchased it and are using it as they see fit, its right next to their existing building.
The building was for sale, ANYONE could have purchased it, anyone who cared. They were the only ones who cared the most to buy it, as it did not get to its condition overnight.
Speaking of caring, where are the people who want to purchase the BOSTWICK building at the Corner of Ocean and Bay? The roof is falling in on the property and my bet is that its not far from a wrecking ball either, but its OK to let it sit.
It too is for sale.......
thelakelander
May 20, 2009, 06:48:55 PM^The Bostwick Building is listed for a crazy price. I had a client once who was interested in it, but they wanted over a $1 million for it. That's a steep price for something without a roof and cracked structural walls.
mtraininjax
May 20, 2009, 06:50:43 PMI didn't say it was a sane price, I just said it was for sale and the building has MAJOR structural problems with it. If the building zealots wanted it, they could buy it, save it and begin preserving it. Once someone else buys it and determines it costs too much to save......I can't wait to hear the crying and whaling.
stjr
May 20, 2009, 07:24:10 PMTo me, this is the problem:
The ones who can and will pay the highest and best price for a given property will almost always be the ones who are willing to exploit it for its highest and best use because that supports such a purchase price. In the case of many historic buildings that are unprotected and have experienced some degree of deterioration, the answer to the highest and best use will ALWAYS entail demolition because the owner avoids the cost of restoration and can go back with a typically much larger and more efficient building generating a return sufficient to support the higher purchase price.
The only way to effectively preserve these buildings is to protect them with legislation that lowers the highest and best use to a level that makes the building affordable to purchase for restoration purposes or, alternatively, to find historic enthusiasts with money to burn in the name of a good cause. Finding such qualified enthusiasts presents two issues: (1) they are few and far between versus the number of "opportunites" available and (2) if they do the preservation they likely would prefer it to be part of an "historic district" where the effort and expense can be fully valued and appreciated - which brings us back to the need for a regulated environment.
All of this proves the necessity, even at the expense of "property rights", for historic preservation legislation with teeth or, in the truly free market, it just isn't likely going to get done.
mtraininjax
May 20, 2009, 07:27:30 PMThis property sold for $155,000 in March 2005.
Your own homes probably cost more than this property sold for.
ChriswUfGator
May 21, 2009, 11:52:27 AMYour own homes probably cost more than this property sold for.
I think his point is that whoever buys a historic property downtown should recognize they have some kind of responsibility to the historic fabric they are a part of. A responsibility that would necessarily include thinking about whether we really need another vacant lot or pile of rubble downtown.
Your response boils down to "you have no right to your opinion, because if that's how you felt then you should have bought it yourself". Frankly, that's utter B.S., and is not how historic preservation works. No individual has the resources to buy and preserve every historic structure, that assertion is ludicrous. If you look at areas like Riverside, with successful preservation movements, RAP doesn't have to run around buying up every house or building to ensure preservation. They just work with whoever has an interest in buying it. That's the successful model.
mtraininjax
May 21, 2009, 10:27:52 PMChris,
The model downtown is that he who has the gold, gets to demolish the building. RAP is powerless too when people demolish items without city review, which you can do at 12 midnight with little involvement from the police who are busy with REAL criminals elsewhere.
Preservationists had the opportunity to buy this property, they did not, so get over it, move on.
Steve
May 21, 2009, 11:29:00 PMThis has become a trend downtown
JaxNole
May 22, 2009, 12:15:51 AMPerhaps focusing on downtown residents is premature, but we could focus on the tens of thousands of downtown and Brooklyn employees. The target markets for new residents would be Springfield, San Marco, Riverside/Avondale and even Murray Hill.
Take them out of Queen's Harbour and Marsh Landing. I hear enough in the hallways how the 45-minute commute via JTB is enough to make morning meetings miserable.
vicupstate
May 22, 2009, 12:21:45 AMThe model downtown is that he who has the gold, gets to demolish the building. RAP is powerless too when people demolish items without city review, which you can do at 12 midnight with little involvement from the police who are busy with REAL criminals elsewhere.
Preservationists had the opportunity to buy this property, they did not, so get over it, move on.
If someone were to pull that stunt inside the R-A historic district boundaries, there would be hell to pay, and rightly so.
The historic preservation ordinances are there for a reason and were in place when the owners bought it. Therefore they have to live with those rules. Wasw this demolition reviewed by a public hearing of any kind? Doesn't the Design Review board have jurisdiction over this?
vicupstate
May 22, 2009, 12:38:12 AMThe ones who can and will pay the highest and best price for a given property will almost always be the ones who are willing to exploit it for its highest and best use because that supports such a purchase price. In the case of many historic buildings that are unprotected and have experienced some degree of deterioration, the answer to the highest and best use will ALWAYS entail demolition because the owner avoids the cost of restoration and can go back with a typically much larger and more efficient building generating a return sufficient to support the higher purchase price.
The only way to effectively preserve these buildings is to protect them with legislation that lowers the highest and best use to a level that makes the building affordable to purchase for restoration purposes or, alternatively, to find historic enthusiasts with money to burn in the name of a good cause. Finding such qualified enthusiasts presents two issues: (1) they are few and far between versus the number of "opportunites" available and (2) if they do the preservation they likely would prefer it to be part of an "historic district" where the effort and expense can be fully valued and appreciated - which brings us back to the need for a regulated environment.
All of this proves the necessity, even at the expense of "property rights", for historic preservation legislation with teeth or, in the truly free market, it just isn't likely going to get done.
Bravo and Amen.
The cities that TRULY value their history don't allow this sort of thing. Buildings that look MUCH, MUCH worse than this one, are not allowed to be demolished by the Charleston and Savannah's of the world. If the building is in bad shape, it is usually because of neglect by the owner, so why should they be rewarded for allowing the property to deteriorate? Doing so will only encourage others to do the same.
Declaring a building unsalvagebale is very subjective. If the 'inspector' is being paid by the Farah brothers, then he is going to tell them what they want to hear. It's just like appraisals, the appraiser is going to please the realtor/seller or else his business will dry up. The city should pick the inspectors and get more than one before seriously entertaining a demolition, particularly if their are no immient plans to build something new.
Beautiful cities don't become unattractive overnight, it happens bit by bit. Much of the building stock that makes Jax unique is steadily disappearing. LaVilla syndrome continues unabated.
If the building truly is a hazard, it can be propped up/reinforced until renovations can commence.
Lunican
May 22, 2009, 08:32:44 AMREYNOLDS -- Town officials and numerous volunteers in this small White County town came together to fix a problem before it got out of hand.
Advertisement
Last Saturday, more than 20 volunteers gently dismantled the badly bowing rear exterior wall of what used to be the post office, brick by brick.
http://www.jconline.com/article/20090328/NEWS/903280328
The Pitkin County Open Space and Trails department recently closed for $2.65 million on a 12-acre parcel of riverfront land in Emma that includes an old house and several crumbling brick buildings.
Now the county is working on a plan to shore up those brick buildings before winter sets in.
“There is a significant danger that we could be looking at a pile of bricks if we don’t get this stabilized,” said Dale Will, the director of the county’s open space program.
http://www.aspendailynews.com/section/home/129966
SALEM, Ore. - A Salem building owner has until Monday night to start stabilizing a building's interior in order to prevent it from collapsing.
The large brick building located at 140 Front St. in Salem is a historic landmark and was built about 70 years ago.
http://www.katu.com/news/10156611.html
Albany city officials are taking steps to shore up a downtown building so it does not eventually collapse and take its neighbors with it.
http://www.democratherald.com/articles/2009/03/24/news/top_story/6aaa01_building.txt
uga_jax
May 22, 2009, 07:26:00 PMAbout 2 years ago a good source informed me about a former Jaguar player (and partners) that is associated with the Redskins now, that they had serious interest in renting or buying the building south (or behind) the Farah bldg and putting in an upscale restaurant. The roof was to have a beer garden and the second story available for rent or something. One of the major hurdles was to have access for a trash receptacle (the size a front-loader would pick-up). The best spot or most likely was that alley, unfortunately the Farah family lead them on for months about them using it via an easement, etc. The Farahs never gave told them no, nor yes. They gave up the idea after awhile, since they were dealing with the Farahs and the bldg owner of the proposed restaurant site. The bldg owner wanted way too much for the condition the bldg was in, plus the costs to bring to code. Thus they walked away from it completely.
Too bad it fell through, would have been nice for those Whataburger guys to continue their investment in Jax and provide a nice beer garden/another restaurant.
brainstormer
May 23, 2009, 01:28:57 PMWhile waiting for the rain to stop, I found this article from 2 years ago on the Lerner Shop. Just shows you how little motivation there is downtown to make things better. It could have been saved had Farah acted then with a smarter plan to preserve the facade.
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2007-jul-historic-lerners-shop-at-a-cross-roads
I-10east
May 26, 2009, 05:12:28 PMHeights Unknown
I'm sorry that I'm very late with this post; I've been offline for a lil' while.
I'm aware of Jax's history of tearing down DT buildings. I've been living here since 86'. You (Heights Unknown) and Lake brought out some good points. Sometimes buildings are preserved and saved; Not every old DT building is razed. Maybe I'm naive, but recently I don't see these blocks of historic DT buildings that's being torn down for parking lots. Under this city admin, How many buildings been torn down? We are blaming Peyton for the George Wash Hotel being torn down. The fact is that some buildings will come down, because of decrepid conditions. Even in a major metro, they aren't a high percentage of millionaires ready to throw alotta loot saving a ran down building. Lerner being torn down shouldn't be a surprise.
vicupstate
May 26, 2009, 06:57:40 PMWhile some years might be worse than others, Jax has an unabated pattern of historic demolition. Brooklyn, LaVilla, Springfield, the Northbank, you name it.
Annie Lytle and the fire station on Riverside Ave. in Brooklyn are still very much at risk too.
The church that KBJ torn down not that long ago, is a recent DT example.
Of course, Riverside-Avondale is the exception, but that proves the point. Where the residents are diligent, and demand that the protections be carried out, they tear downs don't occur.
mtraininjax
May 27, 2009, 04:29:29 AMFor pete's sake, anyone could have paid the $155,000 that the Farahs did in 2005 for this building. Hypocrites!
Lunican
May 27, 2009, 08:58:52 AMCould anyone have bought all of these buildings as well?
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2009-jan-lost-jacksonville
hanjin1
May 27, 2009, 10:08:16 AMYou make it sound like $155,000 is sitting in our pockets right now. I could have bought it too, but then it would just be sitting there with no improvement because I would not have the money to renovate it. I'm sure the Farah's had the money to at least make the building safe and structurally good.
mtraininjax
May 28, 2009, 11:04:32 PMThe fact of the matter is that the building purchase by the Farah's could have been someone else, for the mere sum they paid, its about average for the price of a single family home in Jacksonville. Someone could have purchased it, and fixed it up in the time that it sat empty. But no one did.
Now when the owners come along and try and do something with the property, all the hypocrites come out of the woodwork. Where were these people when the building was for sale? Where were they when THEY had the opportunity to buy the building. Will these same hypocrites come out when the next building downtown is leveled due to years of neglect? It could be any of the Laura Trio, yet, who has the money for the expense to FIX, RENOVATE and REBUILD these structurs. It could easily be the Bostwick building, with its sitting of 10+ years without a tenant and in a sad state of disrepair.
The fact of the matter is that while we all want these buildings saved, none of us have the money to save them. The city does not have the money, not when they are buying acres of the Timuquan preserve or some other wetland down or upstream. There is no draw to downtown, few people live there, and fewer business per capital resident. So what will become of the buildings?
Let them fall down on their own and turn downtown into more disrepair, despair and more crime. What a great image that will be for the visitors coming to town to see our Fountain.
BridgeTroll
May 29, 2009, 07:29:47 AMYour such a ray of sunshine mtrain...
Lunican
May 29, 2009, 08:39:33 AMA city has the authority to require a building owner to shore up a structure so that it is safe.
Maybe instead of issuing emergency tear down orders, they should issue emergency shore-up orders.
civil42806
May 29, 2009, 10:44:19 AMMaybe instead of issuing emergency tear down orders, they should issue emergency shore-up orders.
Well just because the city orders something doesn't mean its actually going to happen. Much easier to ensure a negative than demand a positive.
Lunican
May 29, 2009, 11:13:28 AMTrue, but we aren't here to talk about what's easy.
thelakelander
May 29, 2009, 11:22:04 AMDoing what is easy has gotten us to where we are today.
and then we have the nerve to wonder why a significant portion of residents have no desire to visit downtown.
stephendare
May 29, 2009, 11:37:30 AMLake,
Not only do we have the nerve, but we will then go ahead an spend 300k a year to dress it up in expensive marketing and convince everyone that the lipstick made the pig fabulous.
Then still have the nerve to wonder why no one will bother coming downtown.
TREE4309
May 29, 2009, 12:08:02 PMOK, so who wants to get together and save a building? Let's identify an at-risk building downtown that is priced "affordably", utilize our collective contacts and resources, purchase and renovate said building and either use it or sell it. If sold, profits could be used to do the same thing again at a new building. Think about the impact the PR campaign could have...encouraging other individuals/groups to do the same thing and speed the process of downtown's revival. I'm sure the media would eat this kind of thing up which could certainly raise awareness and motivate positive change.