|
Metro Jacksonville
|
 |
« on: March 06, 2009, 06:00:00 AM » |
|
Preservation Success in Fairfield In a town known for its rapid demolition of historic structures, the work recently completed on the Livingston Methodist Church in Fairfield, located just east of Downtown Jacksonville, offers a refreshing change of pace. Full Article http://www.metrojacksonville.com/content/view/1033
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
dubguy82
Newbie
Posts: 7
|
|
« Reply #1 on: March 06, 2009, 08:31:53 AM » |
|
While it is nice to see a structure not being torn down - I must say this is really awful looking. Was there any type of protocol used when doing this as even the stone sign is painted over with what looks like spraypaint.
It looks like it was done as a Kindergarten school project.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
fsujax
|
|
« Reply #2 on: March 06, 2009, 08:56:32 AM » |
|
You cant miss the structure when coming over the Mathews Bridge or the Hart Expressway.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
hightowerlover
|
|
« Reply #3 on: March 06, 2009, 10:00:35 AM » |
|
this is a success? this looks like a disgrace who paints brick with high gloss paint? and don't even get me started on the rastifarian roof
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
thelakelander
|
|
« Reply #4 on: March 06, 2009, 10:20:39 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Deuce
|
|
« Reply #5 on: March 06, 2009, 10:35:32 AM » |
|
It's a success that it wasn't torn down for sure and that it is not vacant. It looks cool from a distance coming over the bridge, but up close the work looks C-. The overspray on the sign is just plain sloppiness.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Springfield Girl
|
|
« Reply #6 on: March 06, 2009, 10:44:58 AM » |
|
I agree with the above comments. That was not a restoration but a hideous paint job. The difference between this church and the Lampru Apartments that were pictured is that the apartments were literally caving in. From what I can see in the 2007 picture the church was in good shape and only in need of some TLC. It looked much better before.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Hurricane
Newbie
Posts: 45
|
|
« Reply #7 on: March 06, 2009, 10:49:50 AM » |
|
The "renovation" makes it look like a day care. I'm glad it's still standing, but there was definitely not an architect hired for this "renovation".
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
stug
Jr. Member
Posts: 57
|
|
« Reply #8 on: March 06, 2009, 10:50:24 AM » |
|
Truly garish. I don't think anyone would argue that it should have been torn down or left to deteriorate further, but historic buildings should, ideally, be restored according to their original appearance.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
halimeade
Newbie
Posts: 8
|
|
« Reply #9 on: March 06, 2009, 12:32:34 PM » |
|
This is a preservation something, though I'm not sure I'd call it a success. The glossy red paint is really shameful- the brick looked like it was in great shape, just the wood and windows needed replacing! As someone who works with historic structures on a regular basis, I'm really disappointed.
Does anyone know if this building will function as a church, or something else?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
thelakelander
|
|
« Reply #10 on: March 06, 2009, 12:39:54 PM » |
|
I just did a google search on the address. It appears to be a church under the name:
Debre Brhan Trinity of Ethopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
thelakelander
|
|
« Reply #11 on: March 06, 2009, 12:44:00 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
stjr
|
|
« Reply #12 on: March 06, 2009, 01:35:39 PM » |
|
In 2008, they received a historical preservation grant of $48,000 to restore the building. I would think such grants would have a standard for what "historic preservation" entails. Do they? If not, why not? Is this another example of well intended money not being properly administered? We aren't talking about a lot of bureaucracy here, just some common sense! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Hey! Whatever happened to just plain ol' COMMON SENSE!!
|
|
|
halimeade
Newbie
Posts: 8
|
|
« Reply #13 on: March 06, 2009, 01:42:22 PM » |
|
In 2008, they received a historical preservation grant of $48,000 to restore the building. I would think such grants would have a standard for what "historic preservation" entails. Do they? If not, why not? Is this another example of well intended money not being properly administered? We aren't talking about a lot of bureaucracy here, just some common sense! The Division of Historic Resources (DHR) generally has no idea which way is left and which way is right. I'd be interested to read the grant proposal itself. Maybe this was someone influential's pet project- it wouldn't be the first time. To be fair, though, at least the building is going to get some use now, and not just sit there empty and unloved. (Edit for spelling) |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 06, 2009, 01:44:57 PM by halimeade »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
zoo
|
|
« Reply #14 on: March 06, 2009, 01:57:07 PM » |
|
Does Jeol McEachin's dept know the grant money was spent on covering brick and tin roofing with paint? I can't imagine they would approve this.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
facebook and 
twitter.
