Lerner Shop at 118 Main to be demolished

[Steve]

Preservationists had the opportunity to buy this property, they did not, so get over it, move on.

This has become a trend downtown

[JaxNole]

There is absolutely NO draw to downtown for people who live in Mandarin, the Beaches, or Southside to downtown, enough to call them residents of downtown. There is no new real estate going on and all projects to lure people downtown have come to a halt. There is no draw for downtown, and until there is a reason for people to be downtown, aquarium, transportation hub, (pick your poison), there is no need to live downtown.

Perhaps focusing on downtown residents is premature, but we could focus on the tens of thousands of downtown and Brooklyn employees.  The target markets for new residents would be Springfield, San Marco, Riverside/Avondale and even Murray Hill.

Take them out of Queen's Harbour and Marsh Landing.  I hear enough in the hallways how the 45-minute commute via JTB is enough to make morning meetings miserable.

[vicupstate]

Chris,

The model downtown is that he who has the gold, gets to demolish the building. RAP is powerless too when people demolish items without city review, which you can do at 12 midnight with little involvement from the police who are busy with REAL criminals elsewhere.

Preservationists had the opportunity to buy this property, they did not, so get over it, move on.

If someone were to pull that stunt inside the R-A historic district boundaries, there would be hell to pay, and rightly so. 

The historic preservation ordinances are there for a reason and were in place when the owners bought it. Therefore they have to live with those rules.   Wasw this demolition reviewed by a public hearing of any kind?  Doesn't the Design Review board have jurisdiction over this?

       

[vicupstate]

To me, this is the problem: 

The ones who can and will pay the highest and best price for a given property will almost always be the ones who are willing to exploit it for its highest and best use because that supports such a purchase price.  In the case of many historic buildings that are unprotected and have experienced some degree of deterioration, the answer to the highest and best use will ALWAYS entail demolition because the owner avoids the cost of restoration and can go back with a typically much larger and more efficient building generating a return sufficient to support the higher purchase price.

The only way to effectively preserve these buildings is to protect them with legislation that lowers the highest and best use to a level that makes the building affordable to purchase for restoration purposes or, alternatively, to find historic enthusiasts with money to burn in the name of a good cause.   Finding such qualified enthusiasts presents two issues:  (1) they are few and far between versus the number of "opportunites" available and (2) if they do the preservation they likely would prefer it to be part of an "historic district" where the effort and expense can be fully valued and appreciated - which brings us back to the need for a regulated environment.

All of this proves the necessity, even at the expense of "property rights", for historic preservation legislation with teeth or, in the truly free market, it just isn't likely going to get done.  

Bravo and Amen. 

The cities that TRULY value their history don't allow this sort of thing.  Buildings that look MUCH, MUCH worse than this one, are not allowed to be demolished by the Charleston and Savannah's of the world. If the building is in bad shape, it is usually because of neglect by the owner, so why should they be rewarded for allowing the property to deteriorate?  Doing so will only encourage others to do the same. 

Declaring a building unsalvagebale is very subjective. If the 'inspector' is being paid by the Farah brothers, then he is going to tell them what they want to hear.  It's just like appraisals, the appraiser is going to please the realtor/seller or else his business will dry up. The city should pick the inspectors  and get more than one before seriously entertaining a demolition, particularly if their are no immient plans to build something new.

Beautiful cities don't become unattractive overnight, it happens bit by bit.  Much of the building stock that makes Jax unique is steadily disappearing.  LaVilla syndrome continues unabated.   

If the building truly is a hazard,  it can be propped up/reinforced until renovations can commence.

   

 

[Lunican]

Reynolds residents rally to shore up former post office

REYNOLDS -- Town officials and numerous volunteers in this small White County town came together to fix a problem before it got out of hand.
Advertisement

Last Saturday, more than 20 volunteers gently dismantled the badly bowing rear exterior wall of what used to be the post office, brick by brick.

http://www.jconline.com/article/20090328/NEWS/903280328

Plan in works to shore up old Emma buildings

The Pitkin County Open Space and Trails department recently closed for $2.65 million on a 12-acre parcel of riverfront land in Emma that includes an old house and several crumbling brick buildings.

Now the county is working on a plan to shore up those brick buildings before winter sets in.

“There is a significant danger that we could be looking at a pile of bricks if we don’t get this stabilized,” said Dale Will, the director of the county’s open space program.

http://www.aspendailynews.com/section/home/129966

Salem building owner told to shore up structure

SALEM, Ore. - A Salem building owner has until Monday night to start stabilizing a building's interior in order to prevent it from collapsing.

The large brick building located at 140 Front St. in Salem is a historic landmark and was built about 70 years ago.

http://www.katu.com/news/10156611.html

City acts to shore up building

Albany city officials are taking steps to shore up a downtown building so it does not eventually collapse and take its neighbors with it.

http://www.democratherald.com/articles/2009/03/24/news/top_story/6aaa01_building.txt

[uga_jax]

About 2 years ago a good source informed me about a former Jaguar player (and partners) that is associated with the Redskins now, that they had serious interest in renting or buying the building south (or behind) the Farah bldg and putting in an upscale restaurant.  The roof was to have a beer garden and the second story available for rent or something.  One of the major hurdles was to have access for a trash receptacle (the size a front-loader would pick-up).  The best spot or most likely was that alley, unfortunately the Farah family lead them on for months about them using it via an easement, etc.  The Farahs never gave told them no, nor yes.  They gave up the idea after awhile, since they were dealing with the Farahs and the bldg owner of the proposed restaurant site. The bldg owner wanted way too much for the condition the bldg was in, plus the costs to bring to code.  Thus they walked away from it completely.
Too bad it fell through, would have been nice for those Whataburger guys to continue their investment in Jax and provide a nice beer garden/another restaurant.

[brainstormer]

While waiting for the rain to stop, I found this article from 2 years ago on the Lerner Shop.  Just shows you how little motivation there is downtown to make things better.  It could have been saved had Farah acted then with a smarter plan to preserve the facade.

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2007-jul-historic-lerners-shop-at-a-cross-roads

[I-10east]

I-10 East, you've got to understand Jacksonville's history when it comes to tearing down, wrecking balling, demolition, Jax is famous for that, especially downtown.  How long have you lived in Jax?  Since the late 50's demolition has almost become a sport in downtown Jax; the only thing is, nothing gets built in place of the demolition and we're left with parking lots.  I know we can't put a gun to the head of City Leaders or anyone else to preserve, buy, or do something with the property, but everytime we turn around a piece of our history is going to the garbage dump or the landfill.

Heights Unknown

I'm sorry that I'm very late with this post; I've been offline for a lil' while.

I'm aware of Jax's history of tearing down DT buildings. I've been living here since 86'. You (Heights Unknown) and Lake brought out some good points. Sometimes buildings are preserved and saved; Not every old DT building is razed. Maybe I'm naive, but recently I don't see these blocks of historic DT buildings that's being torn down for parking lots. Under this city admin, How many buildings been torn down? We are blaming Peyton for the George Wash Hotel being torn down. The fact is that some buildings will come down, because of decrepid conditions. Even in a major metro, they aren't a high percentage of millionaires ready to throw alotta loot saving a ran down building. Lerner being torn down shouldn't be a surprise. 

[vicupstate]

While some years might be worse than others, Jax has an unabated pattern of historic demolition.  Brooklyn, LaVilla, Springfield, the Northbank, you name it.

Annie Lytle and the fire station on  Riverside Ave. in Brooklyn are still very much at risk too. 

The church that KBJ torn down not that long ago, is a recent DT example.

Of course, Riverside-Avondale is the exception, but that proves the point.  Where the residents are diligent, and demand that the protections be carried out, they tear downs don't occur.     

[mtraininjax]

While waiting for the rain to stop, I found this article from 2 years ago on the Lerner Shop.  Just shows you how little motivation there is downtown to make things better.  It could have been saved had Farah acted then with a smarter plan to preserve the facade.

For pete's sake, anyone could have paid the $155,000 that the Farahs did in 2005 for this building. Hypocrites!

[Lunican]

Could anyone have bought all of these buildings as well?
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2009-jan-lost-jacksonville

[hanjin1]

You make it sound like $155,000 is sitting in our pockets right now. I could have bought it too, but then it would just be sitting there with no improvement because I would not have the money to renovate it. I'm sure the Farah's had the money to at least make the building safe and structurally good.

[mtraininjax]

You make it sound like $155,000 is sitting in our pockets right now. I could have bought it too, but then it would just be sitting there with no improvement because I would not have the money to renovate it. I'm sure the Farah's had the money to at least make the building safe and structurally good.

The fact of the matter is that the building purchase by the Farah's could have been someone else, for the mere sum they paid, its about average for the price of a single family home in Jacksonville. Someone could have purchased it, and fixed it up in the time that it sat empty. But no one did.

Now when the owners come along and try and do something with the property, all the hypocrites come out of the woodwork. Where were these people when the building was for sale? Where were they when THEY had the opportunity to buy the building. Will these same hypocrites come out when the next building downtown is leveled due to years of neglect? It could be any of the Laura Trio, yet, who has the money for the expense to FIX, RENOVATE and REBUILD these structurs. It could easily be the Bostwick building, with its sitting of 10+ years without a tenant and in a sad state of disrepair.

The fact of the matter is that while we all want these buildings saved, none of us have the money to save them. The city does not have the money, not when they are buying acres of the Timuquan preserve or some other wetland down or upstream. There is no draw to downtown, few people live there, and fewer business per capital resident. So what will become of the buildings?

Let them fall down on their own and turn downtown into more disrepair, despair and more crime. What a great image that will be for the visitors coming to town to see our Fountain.

[BridgeTroll]

Your such a ray of sunshine mtrain...

[Lunican]

A city has the authority to require a building owner to shore up a structure so that it is safe.

Maybe instead of issuing emergency tear down orders, they should issue emergency shore-up orders.