Print Article
Historic buildings lend a rich texture to the fabric of Downtown and are integral to maintenance of a unique identity. In 1991, a historic building survey identified 115 buildings in the Downtown Jacksonville Northbank Business Improvement that met the criteria for historic designation. By the time of a follow-up survey in 2005, that number had decreased 22% to 90. Some buildings were demolished outright, while others were allowed to deteriorate to the point of collapse. Since the 2005 survey, one-by-one, several other historic buildings have been lost. In a number of instances, only vacant lots have replaced the demolished structures. Of the remaining 88 historic structures, 25 (28%) have been designated as Local Historic Landmarks.
What's left of LaVilla provides us with a future visual of a demolished Bostwick Building site.
In early August 2012, the owners of the Guaranty Trust and Savings building, located at 101 E. Bay Street, submitted an application for demolition of this building. Also known as the Bostwick Building and the “Jaguar” Building, this building is significant for a number of reasons, most notably its prominent location at the entry to Downtown from the Main Street Bridge, the former location of Henry Klutho’s architectural practice and also as the first building permitted following the Great Fire in 1901. Vacant since the early 1980s, the Bostwick building has deteriorated significantly over the years.
The Bostwick Building
Preservation of historic buildings Downtown makes economic sense. In 2011, PlaceEconomics documented the economic impacts of preservation in their report to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. This study found that historic preservation results in more jobs than new construction, increased property values, increased tourism, fewer environmental impacts and increased quality of life.
In response to the owner's desire to turn one of the oldest buildings in downtown Jacksonville into history, local businessman Preston Haskell has offered to purchase the structure for $150,000. Answering an email to the Florida Times-Union, Haskell stated, “I am absolutely committed to preserving and restoring the building. “I have no specific plans or tenants, but simply wish to see this building and its architecture preserved. It’s my little contribution to downtown development and historic preservation.”
However, Val Bostwick, the building's owner has rejected this offer because it's well below their $325,000 asking price. "That offer is just pennies on the dollar and is outside the realm of possibility. When you’re offering just pennies on the dollar, you’re not going to get it,” Bostwick told Times-Union reporters.
Currently, the owner favors spending $40,000 to eliminate the building and maintain ownership of the lot, which is valued at $76,500, according to recent city appraisals.
Canfield Lofts in Midtown Detroit is an example of a new structure within the confines of a historic building. This is one of many preservation possibilities that are superior to vacant weed choked surface lot at a key downtown gateway intersection.
Now it is up to the City Council to determine whether this significant building will be preserved. The second public hearing will be held before the Land Use and Zoning Committee on Tuesday, January 15th at 5:00 p.m. Downtown Vision (DVI) will be testifying at both public hearings at City Council Chambers. Metro Jacksonville urges the community to support the preservation of the Bostwick Building by either attending the public hearings if you are able to express support for Landmark protection of the Bostwick Building, or contacting members of City Council by email. Contact information for the Land Use and Zoning Committee is provided below:
Lori N. Boyer – Chair: LBoyer@coj.net
Matt Schellenberg - Vice Chair: MattS@coj.net
Doyle Carter: doylec@coj.net
Bill Gulliford: Gulliford@coj.net
Warren A. Jones: WAJones@coj.net
R. Don Redman: Redman@coj.net
Contact information for the full City Council can be found at the following link: http://www.coj.net/city-council/city-council-members.aspx.
Editorial by Ennis Davis
Share this article
RSS
sheclown
January 15, 2013, 07:43:55 AMGood article. The bottom line is, do we protect our historic structures or do we not? The experts in the city have determined this is a building worth saving. It is up to the city council to agree.
avonjax
January 15, 2013, 08:22:01 AMIf this building is allowed to come down......I have no words.
Maybe we should just raze every building pre 1970 and just cross our fingers and hope someday someone will build something on the weed infested, littered empty lot.
The City Council can show their true colors with this decision.
mbwright
January 15, 2013, 08:37:46 AMIt should have been placed under historic protection long ago. I thought that is why we had a historic department within the city. I'm not sure what is it called. All of the historic buildings in Duval county should be protected, not just downtown, or just Springfield. Much of the blight is caused by allowing these great buildings to be demolished, or demolished by neglect.
If the property is only worth 76K, 150K is more than fair. The owners are being unreasonable, and should have sold 10 years ago when the market was high, and the building in much better shape.
Waiting until the very last minute to try to save a building takes a great deal of effort. Maybe this is one that could be mothballed.
sheclown
January 15, 2013, 08:47:33 AMIt is very frustrating, indeed!
FWIW, the historic planning department lead by Joel McEachin, is working very hard to save the Bostwick building. They are the ones, on behalf of the Historic Planning Commission, who are pushing for landmark status.
urbanlibertarian
January 15, 2013, 08:50:50 AMIMO the bottom line is...the bottom line. Money. I realize this building has great historical value but equating that value to how much should be spent to preserve it is very difficult. I try to put myself in the shoes of the owners and think about it as if the restoration money was coming out of my pocket. I know they have turned down offers from potential buyers but again it's hard for me to know what I would do in their place.
thelakelander
January 15, 2013, 09:00:19 AMmbrwright, you have an interesting point. Perhaps, there should be additional measures placed to preserve the urban core's remaining building fabric. For example, should the rest of what's left of historic LaVilla, the historic heart of the Northbank and some neighborhoods like Brentwood and Durkeeville be designated as official historic districts? I guess those are questions we can work on resolving after making sure the Bostwick isn't mowed down.
thelakelander
January 15, 2013, 09:06:00 AMI'd say money is an important part of it but the core issue seems to be greed mixed with stubbornness, resulting from a maintenance/code enforcement situation that should have been addressed, one way or the other, decades ago. I've also tried to put myself in the owner's shoes and at the end of the day, I'd take a $150,000 bail out as opposed to paying $40k to demolish and be left with a small plot of land worth half that. If they can't afford to refurbish it, they sure can't afford or will look to build something up from the ground. The historical elements of that building are the most valuable thing on that site and that's what they value less.
Captain Zissou
January 15, 2013, 10:03:26 AMI think we should have a demolition fee in the core. I would love for it to be $50,000, but anything that would make somebody think twice before knocking something down would be great. Why hasn't code enforcement been fining them out the wazoo for letting this property fall into such disrepair?
Coolyfett
January 15, 2013, 10:48:54 AMiloveionia
January 15, 2013, 10:52:31 AMExcellent article Ennis.
The building needs to be preserved, period.
As mbwright said, the city should be mothballing.
They should be stepping in an being proactive when dealing with derelict owners.
Code has the funds to do so.
Unfortunate that there is a buyer who is denied the sale.
Ignorance and greed seem to be blinding the owners.
Preservation SOS sent an email to LUZ (addresses of council folks above) yesterday in support of landmark status and preserving the structure.
duvaldude08
January 15, 2013, 10:57:28 AMThis is the part I keep thinking about. Why do property owners sit and let the buildings fall into despair instead fixing them as needed? Im sure they wont let their home fall into despair. Why own a building and you can afford the up keep?
thelakelander
January 15, 2013, 11:06:07 AMWhy? Brentwood has a great collection of historic architecture and is just as significant to the city's history as the more popular neighborhoods.
sheclown
January 15, 2013, 12:36:06 PMBrentwood is awesome. Great structures tucked in and around the area.
stephendare
January 15, 2013, 12:59:31 PMWe will be liveblogging the meeting tonight, and the effort could definitely use as many people from the public showing up in support of preservation as possible.
riverside planner
January 15, 2013, 01:28:04 PMI just got word that the Bostwick's have requested deferral of tonight's agenda items. It will be up to the LUZ to grant this deferral, but there is a strong chance that any action will be deferred until the next meeting (February 5th). There will still be a public hearing at tonight's meeting regardless of whether action is taken.
urbaknight
January 15, 2013, 01:42:16 PMBoyer and Jones are the only decent ones that I know of in the group. Don't know enough about Carter. But Redman, Gulliford and Shellenberg are some of our most anti urban council members we have! Not very optimistic about this I'm afraid.
stephendare
January 15, 2013, 01:49:26 PMUpdate:
I just spoke with Lori's council aide, and he said that the Bostwicks have indeed requested a deferral, which Lori is going to grant. However, as Riverside Planner pointed out, the public hearing on the issue is still on track.
Im hoping to hear from Councilwoman Boyer before the meeting, which seems a little unlikely given the hustle and bustle before a meeting by a committee chair.
interestingly, one of the Bostwick family members weighed in on our facebook page:
Barbara Bostwick Edwards It would be a sad day to see this demolished. While I understand the financial burdens of restoration, I hope my cousins will accept the offer.
mbwright
January 15, 2013, 01:51:37 PMI am glad to see that the Historic department is working on issues like this. I don't think that was how it has been historically.
One concern I have is how Historic Districts are defined, and enforced. Springfield is Historic, but demos, until recently were encouraged and fast tracked, often without any comment, or consideration of the whole neighborhood. It's great that Preservation SOS and others are working to change this. There is a fine line between keeping a neighborhood in check, and trampling property rights. I do feel that if you do have a historic property, you really have an obligation to maintain it, and not butcher it. Restoration and integrity are key. I grew up in a historic neighborhood, but it seems each is defined differently, and each designation (Historic, Landmark, etc) means different things, often significant. Just because it is 'historic' does not mean demo is not legal. I think there needs to be some sort of standard, at least within a city, or area.
stephendare
January 15, 2013, 02:05:38 PMvia email from The City:
JFman00
January 15, 2013, 02:30:22 PMI'm against designating historic districts wholesale as it seems to create fantasylands where not only buildings can't be changed, the neighborhood perceived historical character can't change either. I'll never understand the appeal or rationale behind forcing new construction (that doesn't involve demolition) having to fit some predetermined architectural style. Form-based zoning is one thing, but to me a 2005 building designed to look like it's from 1925 is just as artificial and unappealing whether it's built in a historic district or exurb.
BIG CHEESE 723
January 15, 2013, 02:45:08 PMI uderstand that the owners feel they have an albatross around their neck. Howevr, they have an offerTake the damn money and run.
Let the building have new llife.
BackinJax05
January 15, 2013, 02:57:35 PM^^ Yes. $150,000 might be "pennies on the dollar", however they'll be done with the building and it will be Preston Haskell's headache.
Then, maybe, this building from the past can have a future.
Dog Walker
January 15, 2013, 03:57:31 PMLet's see. They want $350,000 for the building and land. The land is appraised at less than $80,000.....and they want to tear the building down? Kinked thinking!
Sell the building to Haskell, people!
Ocklawaha
January 15, 2013, 04:11:08 PMOh damn! Has I-10 East weighed in on this? Which way will it go? MJ is trashing Jacksonville because some of it's readers want to save a very historic building? OR? MJ is trashing Jacksonville because some of it's readers wish to leave the fate of the building to the owners?
BackinJax05
January 15, 2013, 04:14:18 PM^^ ROTFLMAO!!
sheclown
January 15, 2013, 04:26:31 PMIf they want to hear from the public, I say, let's give them the opportunity.
tufsu1
January 15, 2013, 04:49:30 PMwell that's a steal given the prominent corner the property is on
thelakelander
January 15, 2013, 05:02:26 PMNot once you realize how small the lot size is and all the challenges you must overcome to put a brand new building on it. The Bostwicks should take Haskell's money and run.
stephendare
January 15, 2013, 05:12:02 PMOK here at the meeting.
In attendance in the audience:
Terry Lorrince,
Gloria DeVal of SOS Springfield.
Kay Ehas,
myself,
Paul Harden for some reason,
stephendare
January 15, 2013, 05:13:20 PMAlso Jennifer Hewitt Apperson from DVI.
Carmen Godwin just showed up from RAP
stephendare
January 15, 2013, 05:16:10 PMThe inimitable Chris Flagg is also with us in the audience.
Lori Boyer, Doyle Carter, Matt Schellenberg, Don Redman are seated. No sign of Denise Lee or Warren Jones.
Representing staff, Joel McEachinfrom Historic Preservatioin, and Dylan Reingold from the Office of General Counsel are here.
stephendare
January 15, 2013, 05:19:46 PMSchellenberg and Guilliford both disclosed that they have discussed the issue with both Preston Haskell and Mr. Bostwick about the preservation of the building.
Lori Boyer has also visited the property, talked with Preston Haskell and Bostwick, also Jim Bailey and Oliver Barakat.
stephendare
January 15, 2013, 05:21:10 PMTerry Lorrince is the first speaker.
She is for the preservation of the building on behalf of Downtown Vision.
The Bostwicks are all here as well, in the front row.
stephendare
January 15, 2013, 05:23:11 PMKay Ehas will be the next speaker. But in the meantime, Terry is extolling the virtues of the Historic Designation and the economic impact of historic structures downtown.
stephendare
January 15, 2013, 05:24:36 PMTerry Lorrince quoted another publication about the importance of historic structures on corner lots.
Kay Ehas will not be speaking, Chris Flagg is up next and then me.
stephendare
January 15, 2013, 05:33:08 PMCarmen Godwin up next.
She is beseeching the city to consider the impact to the cultural history of the historic building stock.
She is also comparing the success of the Riverside Avondale Preservation area as a guide for the additional value that is added by historic preservation.
Carmen can be such a great speaker.
stephendare
January 15, 2013, 05:35:11 PMGloria is up next on behalf of CPAC. Of course they are for the preservation of the building.
She is followed by Joe Markusic speaking on behalf of Preservation SOS.
Joe is also in support of preservation.
stephendare
January 15, 2013, 05:37:15 PMMr. Bostwick is up. He is a gentleman in his sixties or seventies who speak with a slight southern lisp.
He is arguing that the building does not meet the criteria to make it an Historic Landmark.
Also that the city is creating a financial hardship on the owners.
stephendare
January 15, 2013, 05:39:03 PMBrian Blackburn, a bit of a conservative
assattorney from the Riverside area is speaking on behalf of the Bostwick Family to destroy the building.He is detailing the history of the demolition by neglect in vivid detail however.
stephendare
January 15, 2013, 05:43:03 PMKarl Bostwick is up speaking.
he addresses Terry Lorrince that he supports the downtown mission.
He also supports springfield and riverside preservation, apparently.
He also supports personal property rights.
He is a fairly good looking younger chap with an impeccable sense of style. He seems uncomfortable speaking in front of the crowd, and his voice is breaking a little. He would like to suggest that the only way that he sees of saving the building would include a private/public 'partnership' to restore the building.
He says that they are open to selling the property, and finishes up.
bornnative
January 15, 2013, 05:44:18 PMThe owners keep saying that saving the building is not economically feasible.
I would argue that it depends entirely on your personal economics. Read: Haskell.
stephendare
January 15, 2013, 05:45:39 PMDavid Garber is up. He is friends with Karl Bostwick and is an advocate of demolishing the building.
"If all of these people are soooo concerned about this building, why don't they bear the burden of purchasing the building. They should reach in their back pocket, pull out their checkbook, and pay the price"
stephendare
January 15, 2013, 05:47:41 PMJessie Ray Norton
"mustve been a hell of building at one time, from all the fuss thats made about it."
"What this city needs is jobs. Demolishing the building would create jobs."
I think that if we pass the resolution to destroy this building, think about the jobs that its going to create"
stephendare
January 15, 2013, 05:48:54 PMJo Anne Tredinnick is here on behalf of SPAR.
In a most welcome way, SPAR is for the preservation of the building and opposes the demolition.
stephendare
January 15, 2013, 05:49:46 PMPreston Haskell just showed up, apparently he is going to speak.
stephendare
January 15, 2013, 05:51:53 PMPreston is up. Stately, elegant, genteel.
He has inspected the building with the chief engineer of the Haskel Corporation, he is detailing exactly how he would restore and support the building 'If I had the opportunity to rescue the building".
You can tell that every single member of the Committee is paying attention.
stephendare
January 15, 2013, 05:53:19 PMJennifer Hewitt Apperson is up for DVI. She is speaking about the job creation benefits of Historic Preservation. She has a copy of a study conducted in 2011 that proves that point.
If_I_Loved_you
January 15, 2013, 05:53:32 PMstephendare
January 15, 2013, 05:55:58 PMShe also is correcting the misapprehension that the building does not meet the criteria for historic designation.
She is also pointing out that the City already posesses the power by ordinance to designate historic status without the participation of the landowner.
She finishes powerfully, intelligently and succinctly.
Josh
January 15, 2013, 05:59:52 PMWow. Just wow. I'd be too embarrassed to answer this truthfully.
stephendare
January 15, 2013, 06:07:24 PMThe public hearing is over, and we are all going to reconvene on the fifth of february.
Lots of chatter in the antechamber, Preston took Karl and Val down a hallway to renew the offer.
He came back and told a crowd of Kay, Val, Joanne and Jennifer that he felt Karl was willing to explore his offer in good faith.
blfair
January 15, 2013, 06:11:57 PMAre you suggesting that demolishing buildings isn't a good long term jobs program?!
dougskiles
January 15, 2013, 06:23:29 PMThis must be in some kind of Tea Party manual for public comments (fill in the blanks):
Surely they can be a little more creative?
sheclown
January 15, 2013, 06:30:00 PMFWIW: Lori Boyer actually told Stephen to behave himself.
Luckily for Stephen, the lawyer and friends unwittingly supported his assertion that the city was being "held hostage".
Stephen's words were strong -- he pointed to a history of neglect of our historic structures by owners and by the city. Schellenburg took offense at the "held hostage" comment, but what else is it?
Of course, Stephen just smiled.
BIG CHEESE 723
January 15, 2013, 06:31:20 PMDo we need a "reprieve from the Governor"? Sell the damn building! Give others the chance to make it a viable place again
BIG CHEESE 723
January 15, 2013, 06:34:52 PMDid sh also give him a slap on the wrist??? Shame Stephen, shame! Only the coucil is allowed to show their ass! LOL
Stephen, speak up/speak out! In the words of others...This Place Matters.
that was meant as a hats off to you, She Clown!
sheclown
January 15, 2013, 06:38:33 PMmuch love Big Cheese!
sheclown
January 15, 2013, 06:42:08 PMFavorite line from the evening (one of the Bostwick supporters) "What's all the fuss?"
thelakelander
January 15, 2013, 06:47:07 PMWhat's not economically feasible about getting $150k in cash to disappear?
stephendare
January 15, 2013, 06:51:22 PMlol.
She did! But like a few others, she has so much of my respect and genuine affection that I certainly didnt mind the chide. Lori Boyer has the intelligence and enough taste to be as informal as she likes with me.
After the meeting I realized that I have spent time with Karl Carter Bostwick. He's a genuinely likable fellow, I just think that he is taking a little cynical advice on how to proceed forward on the sale of this property.
To me the standout speakers tonight were Jennifer Hewitt Apperson, Preston Haskell and Carmen Godwin on the historic preservation side, and both Carl and Val Bostwick on the demolition side.
BIG CHEESE 723
January 15, 2013, 08:58:48 PMOkay, back to the admonishment by Lori Boyer.
Please don't hate me, but I just couldn't help myself:
HOW DARE YOU, STEPHEN!!! lol
and... thanks She Clown. I will keep in touch
sheclown
January 15, 2013, 09:08:22 PMI loved hearing Preston Haskell explain, in great detail, how he would fix up the building.
Debbie Thompson
January 15, 2013, 10:34:50 PMI arrived from work just after the last speaker and missed it all, darn it. Sounds like all the points in favor of preservation were covered.
Ocklawaha
January 15, 2013, 11:09:25 PMOMG don't encourage him, he'll show up as Aunt Jemima!
sheclown
January 16, 2013, 06:51:39 AMYes!!! But you showed up just the same -- breathless as you ran from work. I'm sure February's meeting will run longer.
BIG CHEESE 723
January 18, 2013, 10:49:03 AMThanks for the live feed. It was informative. I also liked the dscriptions of the participants. It added a bit of color to them. Humanized them. Up 'til now they were simply names. Stephen, good job!
Bill Hoff
January 18, 2013, 12:13:45 PMIt'll still be important to have a lot of people there on Feb 5th. This is precedent setting, and a large presence will be needed - if an arrangement isn't agreed upon prior to.
BIG CHEESE 723
January 18, 2013, 02:24:50 PMI will do my best to be there!!
GatorNation
January 18, 2013, 03:35:44 PMStephen -- I'm a little confused . . . what exactly are the Bostwick's appealing? Are they saying that the building should not be a historical landmark, or that they should be able to demo the building, or both?
Debbie Thompson
January 18, 2013, 06:35:48 PMBoth. They don't want landmark status because that adds a layer of protection. And thanks to short sighted COJ daily fines, they want to demolish. Silly. Sell it to Preston Haskell.
sheclown
February 02, 2013, 05:07:42 PMFebruary 5th is Tuesday. LUZ should take action.
sheclown
February 05, 2013, 08:42:16 AMThe hearing for the Bostwick Building has been deferred to Feb. 20th.
BIG CHEESE 723
February 05, 2013, 02:05:40 PMThanks for letting everyone know. I was planning to attend. What I do need to find out is where is a safe place to park? That is my only obstacle. I am a a bit unsure of being down there after dark.
downtownjag
February 05, 2013, 02:43:47 PMThe City commonly fines DT buildings when they want action; most of the time they agree to waive most or all in conjunction with a sale that includes rehab.
BIG CHEESE 723
February 25, 2013, 08:44:59 PMCrap! I missed it? Was thinking the postponed meeting was tomorrow. ): What happened? Anything good happen?
sheclown
February 27, 2013, 07:18:39 AMBostwick before the LUZ has been deferred twice. Apparently it will be heard next Tuesday night.
Noone
February 27, 2013, 07:55:19 AMPolitical and Financial maneuvering.
Ben- JCCI, we need to kayak Downtown before 2025
Debbie Thompson
February 27, 2013, 10:08:47 AMHoping preservationists will lose track and miss the meeting. Be there if you can and surprise them. :-)
KenFSU
April 03, 2013, 12:36:01 PMAny update on this?
sheclown
April 03, 2013, 04:55:57 PMI believe it keeps getting deferred at the owner's request.
iloveionia
April 03, 2013, 07:58:33 PMUntil it becomes one of those "city emergencies" ?
Wondering if that offer to buy is still on the table?
Guess one can't force an owner to sell.
sheclown
April 15, 2013, 04:12:12 PMBeing heard tomorrow night
riverside planner
April 15, 2013, 04:15:01 PMThanks sheclown! You beat me to it
sheclown
April 16, 2013, 08:45:48 AMNot all can attend (especially at the last minute like this); however, all can email in support to LUZ for Bostwick. Please take a moment this morning to do so
"Lori Boyer" <LBoyer@coj.net>,"Matthew Schellenberg" <MattS@coj.net>, "Doyle Carter" <DoyleC@coj.net>,"William Gulliford" <Gulliford@coj.net>, "Warren Jones" <WAJones@coj.net>, "Denise Lee" <EDLee@coj.net>, "Don Redman" <Redman@coj.net>
riverside planner
April 16, 2013, 08:58:37 AMAnd be sure to focus on the issues at hand: building exceeds criteria for landmark status, owners have created a self-imposed hardship, demolition by neglect should not be rewarded with a demolition permit, Code Enforcement has been trying to work with the owners to bring the building into compliance since 2005. "Substantial competent evidence" is going to be key.
bornnative
April 16, 2013, 10:18:27 AMEven further than the above (+1 for all that), CM also have been giving credence to the argument that there remain legitimate offers on the table and competent qualified buyers remain interested. From the LUZ & CC perspective, this needs to not just be a "preservationist vs. owner" argument, it is and needs to remain a commercial argument as well. There are qualified buyers that are willing to engage with the Bostwicks to purchase the building and save/reuse it, and these potential buyers (at least two that I know of) are well aware of the costs and intricacies of doing so.
GatorNation
April 16, 2013, 12:05:39 PMSo the owners don't want the building designated as an historical landmark in 2013, but they touted it as "the most visible Historic Landmark Building" in the heart of Downtown Jacksonville" just 4 years ago??
I'd be happy to post a copy of the sales flyer from 2009, but I'm not quite smart enough to figure out how to upload images or attachments
thelakelander
April 16, 2013, 12:08:42 PMsend it to edavis@metrojacksonville.com and I'll upload it for you.
thelakelander
April 16, 2013, 12:36:39 PMCheshire Cat
April 16, 2013, 12:42:57 PMIt might be helpful to have copies of this flyer to give out to members of council at this afternoons meeting as to show proof that the building owners themselves consider the building to be "Historic". It really does make an important statement as to changing rhetoric to meet changing agenda's regarding this structure.
Where has the city's preservation office come down on all of this? Are they attending meetings?
Josh
April 16, 2013, 12:44:34 PMBoom.
Also, the listing is still up on Coldwell's site
http://www.cbcworldwide.com/media/listing-fs/8/1/2/1416812_2.pdf
acme54321
April 16, 2013, 01:31:34 PMInteresting, so when the building was expanded it must have narrowed the street there?
thelakelander
April 16, 2013, 01:33:31 PM^No. One of the bays from the building next door was removed for the bank's expansion.
GatorNation
April 16, 2013, 01:44:42 PMSome more historic photos . . .
GatorNation
April 16, 2013, 04:25:44 PMAnd here's what it COULD be!!
sheclown
April 16, 2013, 04:26:47 PMThis is deferred again
urbaknight
April 17, 2013, 03:34:42 PMAre they going to defer it for ever in hopes that it Will just go away?
stephendare
April 17, 2013, 03:42:52 PMMaybe they will have a meeting with TUFSU, discuss how some buildings can't be saved because they are too far gone, wait till he reluctantly says that he agrees with the idea in principle, and then the minute he leaves call a press conference and announce that they have reached a deal with 'the opposition', and will be demolishing it via an emergency bill filed by Don Redman.
fsujax
April 26, 2013, 10:33:22 AMJust saw asomething on facebook about the building being under contract? anybody know anything? The Bostwicks have agreed to sell to someone interested in restoring the building.
thelakelander
April 26, 2013, 10:50:11 AMThat looks familiar. I know the guy who took the pictures and created the graphic.....
fsujax
April 26, 2013, 11:02:40 AMFrom today's Daily Record.
http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=539336
Tacachale
April 26, 2013, 11:24:37 AMIt will be awesome if that works out.
JUGrad
April 26, 2013, 11:25:49 AMA little more info from Jax Business Journal... Potentially restored for retail use? Interesting....
http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2013/04/26/bostwick-building-under-contract-for.html
fsujax
April 26, 2013, 11:45:21 AMI really do not want to get to excited about this, because the buyer still has a due diligence report to complete. Would be a cool location for a CVS or Walgreens, urban style of course.
Debbie Thompson
April 26, 2013, 12:36:15 PMDon't you just love what Val Bostwick said? "A preliminary inquiry suggests the cost of stabilizing and restoring the structure would likely exceed the value of the finished product," Val Bostwick said in September. "That's the situation we're faced with, the situation anyone buying the building is faced with."
Like the building just happened to be that way, and the Bostwicks, who have owned the building for 100+ years, had absolutely nothing to do with the building's deterioration. They just woke up one morning, the building was fine the day before, and suddenly it had no roof and structural issues. Just sayin...
Hoping this is good news for this historic building.
duvaldude08
April 26, 2013, 01:23:24 PM+10000 Ive been saying that all along. They are the reason the building is falling apart, and act they have nothing to do with it and want the city to feel sorry for them. NOT!
mbwright
April 26, 2013, 01:47:43 PMIf you left your car windows down, and let it run out of oil, it would not be the manufacturer's fault if it broke down, or got mildew. The Bosticks are the sole reason this building is in the condition it is in. There might be additional factors, but this did not happen over night, as a surprise.
sheclown
April 26, 2013, 06:01:11 PMBig Huge THANK YOU to the historic planning department.
Joel, Lisa and the crew. You guys did it!!!
You made it possible for alternatives to demolition to be found.
Debbie Thompson
April 26, 2013, 07:16:15 PMYes, absolutely. Duval Dude, the building needs to be preserved. And thank goodness for this news. I was merely commenting on the irony of Val Bostwick's comment.
pwhitford
May 09, 2013, 06:05:38 PMOvinte partners want to buy the Bostwick Building for restaurant development
The Bostwick Building, located at Bay and Ocean streets Downtown.
Tuesday, May 7, 6:47 PM EDT
by David Chapman, Staff Writer
Jacques Klempf, Chad Munsey and Fraser Burns, partners in the Ovinte wine, cocktails and tapas lounge at the St. Johns Town Center, have been identified as the purchasing group under contract for the Bostwick Building.
Building representative Karl Bostwick announced Friday the historic building Downtown at Bay and Ocean streets was under contract, but did not identify the potential buyer. The Bostwick family has owned the building since 1902.
It has been closed and vacant for some time and faced demolition.
The partners attended the City Council Land Use & Zoning Committee on Tuesday. Klempf and GrayRobinson attorney Terry Moore spoke at the public hearing on two pieces of legislation.
Klempf said the group was "aggressively moving forward" in addressing its side of contract-related conditions and has engaged an architect and other professionals to assess the building.
The due diligence portion of the contract ends June 14. The committee continued the legislative issues until June.
The buyers said they haven't developed a concept for the building, other than it will be restaurant.
"We just think it's a great venue and it just has great access, visibility and we feel like we can put a concept there that will really be great for the city," Klempf said.
Munsey said the concept will not be the same concept as Ovinte.
"We're going to restore the building … and put what I think is going to be the nicest restaurant in the city," Klempf said.
He said the group wanted to restore the building to its natural façade. Burns said the partners wanted to "do something really special."
"Whether or not that's 50 seats or 150 seats, we have no idea. We won't know until we really get in there," Burns said.
The group declined to discuss financials of the contract.
Val Bostwick, Johnson Enterprises Inc. senior sales associate, who has handled the building's marketing, also declined comment.
Klempf said the largest hurdle would be the due diligence period.
Moore told the committee the group has hired an architect and structural engineer to assess the building and will hire a water intrusion specialist.
"We need some time to assess this building," Moore told the committee.
Klempf said after the meeting that a lawsuit filed on behalf of a Bostwick Building neighbor regarding water damage intrusion must be addressed by the Bostwicks before the deal is complete.
Known as the "jaguar building" for its window murals, Klempf said the features will not be a part of the building under its ownership. He said the Bostwicks will take them.
dchapman@baileypub.com