Mothballing: simple costs

[Kaiser Soze]

So, I still am waiting to hear where the money to mothball PS4 comes from.

Don't get me wrong - I would love to see PS4 renovated into something useful.  Unfortunately, numerous groups have looked into it and determined that it is not doable.  Its been vacant since 1971.  Time to take a look at knocking it down and getting anew building on the property.

[Kaiser Soze]

Taxes belong to all of us, thats what a democracy runs off of.

Its not 'other people's money', it is public money, to be spent on maintaining our infrastructure, and whatever we as taxpayers decide it should be spent on.

Here's the thing: this building could have been demolished 12 years ago with private money and the property put to good use.  Instead, now its sits there, rotting away with the occasional fire to help hasten things along.  Its been rotting away for over 40 years. 

So, now, the very people who argued against demolition want to spend public dollars to mothball it so it can be protected for some unknown, future use.  Never mind that , during its 40+ years of being vacant, during multiple economic and buildings booms, no one has found a profitable use for PS4.  Regardless, we should spend public dollars to mothball it.  No thanks.

[stephendare]

Taxes belong to all of us, thats what a democracy runs off of.

Its not 'other people's money', it is public money, to be spent on maintaining our infrastructure, and whatever we as taxpayers decide it should be spent on.

Here's the thing: this building could have been demolished 12 years ago with private money and the property put to good use.  Instead, now its sits there, rotting away with the occasional fire to help hasten things along.  Its been rotting away for over 40 years. 

So, now, the very people who argued against demolition want to spend public dollars to mothball it so it can be protected for some unknown, future use.  Never mind that , during its 40+ years of being vacant, during multiple economic and buildings booms, no one has found a profitable use for PS4.  Regardless, we should spend public dollars to mothball it.  No thanks.

Um yeah.

Lets look at similarly performing properties in the area, Kaiser, to determine what 'good use' it would have been put to.

Lets look no further than Brooklyn?

La Villa?

You see, your suggestion is predicated solely on 'what might possibly, given most favorable circumstances, lord willing, and that the creek doesnt rise'.  In other words, if we count on that hail mary pass, no doubt the team will be AWESOME!  So screw defense, lets all go get drunk instead.

If the building had been properly mothballed and cared for 10 or 20 years ago, then we wouldnt be in this situation in the first place, most likely.

But the building owner at the time, Doug Milne also had a number of other historic commercial properties on that end of downtown that were also demolished.

Those massive properties are just empty lots now.  They do not contribute, in any way, to the tax rolls, nor do they 'stimulate' the economy around them.

Its hard to make a convincing point on this subject when a similarly abandoned school, John Gorrie, has been transformed into a pretty awesome project, don't you think?

The point is that demolition based totally on the world of What Might Be, is a piss poor strategy compared to "lets keep the building that we cannot afford to replace with similar quality and see if something solid comes along".

I think you make the mistake (common enough) of thinking that historic preservation is more about nostalgia than it is economics or just plain old common sense.

If you can show me a city that demolished its way to prosperity (Other than Tokyo or some other place that was demolished by natural disasters) then, I would be glad to see some evidence that your theory has some merit.

[stephendare]

So, I still am waiting to hear where the money to mothball PS4 comes from.

Don't get me wrong - I would love to see PS4 renovated into something useful.  Unfortunately, numerous groups have looked into it and determined that it is not doable.  Its been vacant since 1971.  Time to take a look at knocking it down and getting anew building on the property.

And all of us are still waiting for you to identify the funding source and developer who is waiting in the wings to turn this property into something awesome with a new building?!

Is it Neiman Marcus?

Barneys?

Or maybe Publix?

Which retailer is rushing to build something big on a property encroached by an interstate soaring right through its air rights and view? 

[Kaiser Soze]

[
And all of us are still waiting for you to identify the funding source and developer who is waiting in the wings to turn this property into something awesome with a new building?!

Here you go http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2009-oct-ruins-of-jacksonville-annie-lytle-public-school  The opportunity was there 12 years ago but folks like yourself ran them out of town.  Now, PS4 still sits there, in even worse shape than it was.  The developer was there.  Folks like yourself chased them off.  Congrats on that. 

[Kaiser Soze]

Its hard to make a convincing point on this subject when a similarly abandoned school, John Gorrie, has been transformed into a pretty awesome project, don't you think?

Don't you think the locale of those two structures is a little different?  Even you must see that.

[stephendare]

[
And all of us are still waiting for you to identify the funding source and developer who is waiting in the wings to turn this property into something awesome with a new building?!

Here you go http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2009-oct-ruins-of-jacksonville-annie-lytle-public-school  The opportunity was there 12 years ago but folks like yourself ran them out of town.  Now, PS4 still sits there, in even worse shape than it was.  The developer was there.  Folks like yourself chased them off.  Congrats on that.

Ah, the problem with assumptions, kaiser.

The problem that sank the project wasn't the cost associated with the renovations.

Once it was amply demonstrated that the market would make a renovation financially feasible (it was the beginning of the fake real estate boom after all) the 95 overpass scared away any potential financing.

Had the project gone forward as planned, the same dynamics would have applied.

Except of course that the building would be demolished and the property would be an empty lot instead.

You are a clever person obviously, but in this case you just don't know what you are talking about.

The property was ripe for an eminent domain speculator, to be honest.

You might not know this, but quite often the politically connected in this town are privy to massive infrastructure plans long before the rest of the public.

The strategy is to depress and then purchase the property at bargain prices, and then force the state to purchase the property at the full retail value of the property at high market.

Originally, it looked like the school was going to be demolished by the plans for the new bridge and overpass, but that ended up not being the case.

The real causes of the deterioration of the building are not as apparent as they seem, my friend.

But hey, thanks for making the assumption and then just kind of going with that.

[Kaiser Soze]

I actually know a lot when it comes to that particular project.  You are wrong.

[stephendare]

I actually know a lot when it comes to that particular project.  You are wrong.

So do I, Kaiser.  I actually knew two of the men involved in the decision to nix the financing, so.....

[Timkin]

So, I still am waiting to hear where the money to mothball PS4 comes from.

Don't get me wrong - I would love to see PS4 renovated into something useful.  Unfortunately, numerous groups have looked into it and determined that it is not doable.  Its been vacant since 1971.  Time to take a look at knocking it down and getting anew building on the property.

Interesting.. your post on the previous page indicates the contrary.  "That eyesore should be torn down immediately"

Actually a few years ago , a developer wanted to do just that.
Demolish it.  Put a retirement facility in its place.  That was 2006.  I suppose the developer , had they actually had a plan in place that would have made the project viable, could have accomplished that, despite public outcry , including , most definitely , mine.

To answer your question, I do not YET know where money to mothball the building will come from.   But one thing is clear. you are apparently undecided on exactly how you feel about the school .  On one page you say tear it down, the next you indicate otherwise.  Which is it?   

Following the fire set in the building in January you came on here and posted that something I stated was not true, and being that I sent interested parties to the , then owner.  That is a fact.  The owner, being under a contract with the developer at the time, obviously probably could NOT talk to this person, who by the way does loft conversions on Schools and has successfully for years.  I think ( don't know) the developer with the option on the property probably wouldn't talk to this person at all. Again not certain of what exactly did or did not happen. Point is I most certainly HAVE been seeking solutions for that building, as have many bright minds prior to my involvement for decades.  At least I am trying.

You are so quick to name call, be negative, call the building an eyesore, and like many in our community , could not be bothered to volunteer, or give positive input, hence the reference I made that you sound like another poster on the forum. Didn't call you names. Respect but do not agree with your opinion.  As I previously stated, we are not looking to the taxpayer to foot the bill. The fact that the city is on the hook to attempt to secure it , you can thank it's negligent owner for.  The building did not go into rack and ruin on its own. It was from basic neglect / maintenance and just as much from vandals who care nothing about that building , or any other, or your home, for that matter.

We are looking for a solution that will not involve removal of the building.  To take it out is VERY COSTLY.  for a potential new build, there is before anything gets built ,a substantial impact fee just to put a building there.  Because of the lot size remaining, it is doubtful that a building even comparable to that size and certainly not of the quality of construction, could be put in its place. Say what you will about the School.  Its construction has stood the test of time and withstood abuse and negligence for close to a half century.   It needs a lot of work but I differ with your opinion that it is an eyesore.  In fact, ENOUGH people disagree , that it was granted historic landmark status.  Enough people disagreed with its removal, and plenty , I assure you STILL STAND BEHIND the FACT that it can and eventually will be saved and re purposed. 

[stephendare]

Tim you will notice how he hasn't identified the money that he thinks should be pitched in to demolish it.

Nor has he volunteered to pay the difference in property taxes until a new 'replacement' development is constructed.

Nor has he mentioned a single retailer or developer who is lining up to use a property directly adjacent to the 95 overpass.

I guess he just wants to spend a bunch of taxpayer money and hope that it works out.

[Timkin]

Well he seems to have an axe to grind with me. Presumably because I support saving the building and always have.

Its not okay (in his estimation)  to spend taxpayer money on THIS PARTICULAR BUILDING ( don't know why)  if it is in an effort to preserve it but I guess it would be okay if we spend that money to demolish it.....to the tune of a heck of a lot more money.  Such has been , for decades, the way things are done in this city.  If it is old , or significant, and people happen to like it .. For heaven's sake lets occupy landfill space with it ,and build something in its place that is not interesting , or significant, or DURABLE.

[stephendare]

Well he seems to have an axe to grind with me. Presumably because I support saving the building and always have.

Its not okay (in his estimation)  to spend taxpayer money on THIS PARTICULAR BUILDING ( don't know why)  if it is in an effort to preserve it but I guess it would be okay if we spend that money to demolish it.....to the tune of a heck of a lot more money.  Such has been , for decades, the way things are done in this city.  If it is old , or significant, and people happen to like it .. For heaven's sake lets occupy landfill space with it ,and build something in its place that is not interesting , or significant, or DURABLE.

Well whatever ax he might be grinding, I wonder why he can't answer those basic questions.  I don't think his posts should be taken seriously on the subject until he does.  Don't you agree?

[Timkin]

I do!   For that matter his last post was :

I actually know a lot when it comes to that particular project.  You are wrong.

Please, Kaiser , do enlighten me on what exactly it is that you know about and how Stephen is wrong?


What I do know is that around the end of the 1970s , Mr. Milne purchased a building that was in need of a little work (by comparison of where it NOW stands)  It was not perfect , but it was most certainly intact.  In around 1984, I walked through the building.  There was no posted No Trespassing signs,  The building was unlocked, I was certainly not there to do damage, just curious what it looked like inside.  And it was beautiful .. Especially the most damaged part of the building now.. its Auditorium.  Intact.

I know none of that matters now. What does is , the quality of this building is just not produced in modern building , and if it were, the cost to new-build such a structure would easily exceed the cost of renovating this one.  That the expressway shadows the building probably does kill the possibility of it for residential.  But there are other ways the building potentially could be used , whereby the interstate in front is not an issue.    The most common proposals I know of , always seemed to center around residential.  Consequently the most expensive price tag to renovate the building would be for residential.  Perhaps it could be that the wisest use for it is to overhaul it and turn it into what it always was intended to be used for.  A Private School or College.  Perhaps this is the least expensive way to make the building viable.  And whether you agree or not Kaiser,  many of us in the community feel, especially, given the endless and very extensive list of historic landmarks that were mindlessly razed , to be replaced by empty lots which add nothing to the tax base, that this is one that is structurally sound enough that it is feasible and practical to save it.  Residential is obviously not the answer in that location.  The fact that the building is adjacent to a beautiful park , a vibrant 5 points shopping district, the Riverside Arts Market, etc, seems to point to the possibility that it could , potentially become a destination of some kind.  History has proven that the building is intriguing , maybe for wrong reasons in the last few decades. Perhaps we will eventually happen upon the perfect fit for it, which makes it both viable and a destination. That I am aware of, this purpose has not  been pursued.

[Kaiser Soze]

Well he seems to have an axe to grind with me. Presumably because I support saving the building and always have.

Its not okay (in his estimation)  to spend taxpayer money on THIS PARTICULAR BUILDING ( don't know why)  if it is in an effort to preserve it but I guess it would be okay if we spend that money to demolish it.....to the tune of a heck of a lot more money.  Such has been , for decades, the way things are done in this city.  If it is old , or significant, and people happen to like it .. For heaven's sake lets occupy landfill space with it ,and build something in its place that is not interesting , or significant, or DURABLE.

Well whatever ax he might be grinding, I wonder why he can't answer those basic questions.  I don't think his posts should be taken seriously on the subject until he does.  Don't you agree?

I wish that I could discuss my knowledge of that project.  I really do but I cannot.

Timkin, trying actually reading what I write before responding to it.  There was private money available to tear it down.  Timkin, you seem to be the biggest advocate of saving that building.  Rather than pushing for the expenditure of public dollars, how about you put a group together and raise the money to purchase and rehab the property yourself???  Why be a hindrance to others' plans for the property.  If you think it can be rehabbed and turned around, go for it.  I am sure you and Stephen have all sorts of good ideas for its use.