| Inside the Park View Inn |
|
|
| Tuesday, 13 February 2007 | |
![]() Situated on the corner of Main and State Streets, the Park View Inn has become one of the most problematic pieces of property in the core of Jacksonville. In its current state, it is a blight that hinders progress in both Springfield and Downtown. Plagued by ground contamination from the former Coal Gasification plant previously on the site, all past redevelopment efforts have failed. Can this building ever be something to be proud of? 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
Interior Photos
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.
![]() ![]()
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.
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 |








































February 13, 2007, 9:52 am
What a shame
A 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.
February 13, 2007, 10:08 am
interesting
i 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 pm
I'd buy it if I could...
I'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.
February 13, 2007, 12:59 pm
Ugly
Tear 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.
February 13, 2007, 12:59 pm
so much potential
This building is a microcosm of Jacksonville. It has so much potential but it is left in a state of disrepair. Hopefully renovations will begin and it remains a microcosm of Jacksonville.
Also, forget virtual golf. There is enough space on the roof for real golf!
February 13, 2007, 1:02 pm
rooftop suggestions
1. Full size track
2. Tennis Courts
3. Basketball Courts
4. rooftop deck and garden
5. Racquetball courts
There is enough room for them all.
February 13, 2007, 2:39 pm
YO YO YO
I'm turning this thing into the biggest hip hop dancehall you've ever seen!
February 13, 2007, 3:43 pm
It 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.
February 13, 2007, 4:02 pm
demolition
Ideally it would be demolished and something great put in its place, but the problem is the contamination. If the building is destroyed, it will likely require expensive site cleanup which does not have to be done if it is left standing.
The worst scenario is what we have; a vacant, contaminated blight.
February 13, 2007, 11:48 pm
Doesnt have to be cleaned up?
I 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.
February 14, 2007, 7:10 am
clean up
As far as cleanup, I mean strictly what would be legally required, not what is best for the area.
February 16, 2007, 3:12 pm
wow*
definitely a diamond in the rough...well worth renovating for sure!
March 22, 2007, 8:09 am
Destory it
Bulldoze that POS!!!
April 3, 2007, 4:56 pm
Trust Me
As 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.
April 3, 2007, 5:07 pm
If it weren't for the environmental, I'd agree to demolish
However, 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.
January 30, 2008, 10:02 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
2 words..... BULL DOZER!!! This place needs to be destroyed.....Did someone say movie theater downtown??
January 30, 2008, 10:21 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
I'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.
January 30, 2008, 11:29 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
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.
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!!!
January 30, 2008, 11:37 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
With you on that - especially since some of the hotels that were demolished were done for surface parking lots.
January 30, 2008, 11:40 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
Im 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.
February 28, 2008, 5:24 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
Boy 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.
March 10, 2008, 3:07 am
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
I 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?
March 10, 2008, 8:38 am
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
The owner let us in around the time he had announced plans to turn it into an affordable housing project, a few years ago.
March 10, 2008, 7:12 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
By chance, do you have any idea if they'd be equally receptive these days?
March 10, 2008, 8:00 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
How 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
March 11, 2008, 6:07 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
That 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.
May 14, 2008, 11:05 am
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
It's coming down. http://www.fox30online.com/content/topstories/story.aspx?content_id=a6a32cd6-7752-45a4-90df-44c7b0c9fccf&rss=10
May 14, 2008, 11:12 am
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
So was Stephen Dare right about recent tests showing the ground underneath it not being contaminated?
May 14, 2008, 11:36 am
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
So, they demolish it for what? Is FCCJ interested in the site?
May 14, 2008, 11:45 am
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
So the city is paying for the demolition? It can't be cheap.
May 14, 2008, 11:53 am
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
Given the market, most likely a grass lot for the time being.
May 14, 2008, 1:03 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
Wow. 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?
May 14, 2008, 1:17 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
Although 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.
May 14, 2008, 1:20 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
To 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.
May 14, 2008, 2:38 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
The 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.
May 14, 2008, 3:10 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
Its 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.
May 14, 2008, 3:18 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
Structurally, 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.
May 14, 2008, 3:32 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
The city never foots the bill.
They attach the cost to the property owner and the property cannot be developed until the lein is satisfied.
May 14, 2008, 8:20 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
Memories, 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
May 15, 2008, 1:22 am
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
Yeah, 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.
May 15, 2008, 10:10 am
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
^ 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.
May 15, 2008, 11:14 am
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
I 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
May 15, 2008, 6:36 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
Ok 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.
May 16, 2008, 12:33 am
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
Best 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.
May 16, 2008, 9:41 am
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
Is 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.
May 16, 2008, 5:46 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
When/where has anyone, aside from the absentee owner and Stephen, said there wasn't contamination?
May 16, 2008, 9:05 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
Um. 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.
May 17, 2008, 2:31 am
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
I 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.
May 17, 2008, 2:37 am
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
So, 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.
May 17, 2008, 8:31 am
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
My 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.
May 17, 2008, 11:14 am
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
Lake, 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.
May 17, 2008, 12:52 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
That seems reasonable. I will call Robert and David again.
May 17, 2008, 1:27 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
I 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.
May 17, 2008, 2:23 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
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.
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.
May 17, 2008, 2:28 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
I 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.
May 17, 2008, 3:56 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
This 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.
May 17, 2008, 4:14 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
I 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.
May 17, 2008, 4:24 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
As 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.
May 17, 2008, 4:41 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
Exactly. 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.
May 17, 2008, 4:43 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
This 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.
May 17, 2008, 7:58 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
Exactly. 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.
May 17, 2008, 8:06 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
Thank you my brother lake.
You told it like it is.
May 17, 2008, 9:45 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
1884
1887
1891
1897
1913
1929
May 17, 2008, 10:25 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
also 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
May 17, 2008, 10:38 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
Oh, Im sorry. I guess Im not allowed to post the Sanborn images that Lake was talking about.
My bad.
May 17, 2008, 10:43 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
My 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.
May 17, 2008, 10:50 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
Oh, cool. that should be easy to find records of then.
May 17, 2008, 10:55 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
I would think so.
Of course, you could call Robert and ask him. I bet he and David have them.
May 17, 2008, 11:01 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
There'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.
May 17, 2008, 11:03 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
Of 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.
May 17, 2008, 11:07 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
No 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.
May 17, 2008, 11:09 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
Of 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
May 17, 2008, 11:13 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
According 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.
May 17, 2008, 11:15 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
Often 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.
May 17, 2008, 11:15 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
It 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.
May 17, 2008, 11:17 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
the 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.
May 17, 2008, 11:17 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
The 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.
May 17, 2008, 11:19 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
Cause 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
May 17, 2008, 11:21 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
The 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.
May 17, 2008, 11:22 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
Cause 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.
May 17, 2008, 11:27 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
So 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?
May 17, 2008, 11:32 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
With 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.
May 17, 2008, 11:35 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
Agreed, 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.
May 17, 2008, 11:36 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
Not 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.
May 17, 2008, 11:40 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
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.
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?)
May 17, 2008, 11:44 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
One 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.
May 17, 2008, 11:44 pm
Re: Inside the Park View Inn
Here's a general desc