Petitioning Council to Save the Claude Nolan Building

[Metro Jacksonville]

Petitioning Council to Save the Claude Nolan Building



The historic Claude Nolan Cadillac Building could be the next structure in downtown to meet the wrecking ball.  Here is how you can help keep this building standing.

Read More: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2014-feb-petitioning-council-to-save-the-claude-nolan-building

[sheclown]

This building (the front three story) was sent out for demolition bid last April.  It was at this point Joel McEachin asked the Historic Preservation Commission to landmark the building. 

An application for landmark status stops any demolition activity.

The commissioners readily agreed with Joel and in fact Angela Schifenilla even stated that the modification to the front, in and of itself, is historic.

The owners are in agreement with the landmark status and will use it to mothball the property until they can find a use for it.

Last week city council, through the Land Use and Zoning subcommittee, denied the application for landmark status stating "there's nothing here."  This was said in spite of the fact that Lori Boyer mentioned emails from the Springfield community urging her to protect the structure. 

Evidently, the Springfield community feels there certainly is "something there" and that something is in need of protection.

Only Love and Holt voted in favor of the landmark.

It gets heard tomorrow at full council. 

[Kay]

Why did Boyer vote no then?  Has anyone asked her?

[funguy]

Let it go.. for Springfield to be a viable area at least 25% of Springfield's buildings need to come down..

[mbwright]

I think more than 25% has already been destroyed.  There is no advantage to taking this building down.  All 3 of them should be saved.

[JaxUnicorn]

Can't do the formatting again...see the link below for a copy of the email I sent to Council this morning. 

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,10436.msg366332.html#msg366332

[strider]

Let it go.. for Springfield to be a viable area at least 25% of Springfield's buildings need to come down..

Actually, over 30% of the housing stock in Springfield is gone, the majority since it has been a protected Historic District.  And I would guess something like 40% (if not more) of the old buildings are gone off of Main Street.  In the not to distant past, an organization thought more like you do and somehow it managed to set Springfield back about ten years.  We know better than to try that again.  Too bad the city doesn't.

So, whomever is telling you 25% of the structures must be taken away from a historic district for it to be "viable" has no clue what the reality really is.  We need density.  We need everything from single to multifamily and we need cool, old buildings for the commercial corridor.  And we need as many of each as we can get. Or rather keep. That is how you get those folks willing to work with the old houses, with everyone who lives in the area and get a urban area that grows slowly and steadily and becomes the best the city has to offer.  It takes time though and that is what landmarking this building really does, it gives the building time to find a new place for itself in the future.

[JayBird]

What makes people assume that tearing down a building is better? Perhaps that's what preservation people should answer to better convey their message. Is it that people see a run down building and just don't realize that it can be redeveloped? Is it that it costs more to rehab than to bulldoze and rebuild? Or do people just think that investment is better on a clean slate where someone can build their own vision instead of trying to fit into someone else's vision? I enjoy the preservation work that is done by those on this forum. Such architectural significances really aren't my thing but you can certainly see the effort and passion of those involved. But, as an outsider I notice that it is always the same mantra "save this because everything else is gone" or "they flattened everything and now it is worse off for it". Keep up the excellent work, but maybe altering your message so that it could be received by a broader population who would then join you at those meetings with city council and developers. Because let's be honest, if a 100 voters walk into this meeting to decide what will happen with the Nolan buildings that would have so much more impact than showing them a printout or website or email with 100, 200 or 500 electronic signatures.

[JayBird]

What makes people assume that tearing down a building is better?

A hot case of the stupid is the short answer.

That could very well be, but the problem is that most people hear the mayor or city councilman speak and they say to themselves "well that's their job, so they must know and understand more than I do so if he says this is what should be done, and it's not gonna take any money out of my pocket than I'm going to side with him". And thus, stupidity multiplies ten-fold.

[Mike D]

This one is easy.  Jacksonville must stop dismantling its history building by building.  Keep this up and there will be nothing left to make a city. 

[mbwright]

La Villa is such a vibrant area since everything was destroyed.    A prime example of 'we must destroy to renew'--  renewal that never happened, and destroyed the history and cultural fabric of the area.

[sheclown]

At council meeting. Running into council members.

[sheclown]

Nice tribute to Rudolph McKessick Sr.

[sheclown]

Dr. Gaffney, Robin Lumb, Lori Boyer all came through tonight.

Robin Lumb asked that the ordinance be sent back to LUZ, "referred".  That motion failed 9 to 9.

Then discussion.

Then Lori Boyer, in her cool-girl way, said that perhaps the council ought to listen to the people (they all mentioned the numerous emails and calls).  And perhaps the matter needed to be postponed.

So, no action will be taken on this until the end of March.

[sheclown]

The end of the matter is this:

JHPC has declared that this group of structures meets 4 out of the 7 criteria necessary for landmark status.  This commission is the city's expert.

For landmark status (which is not objected to by the owner), that threshold is set at 2 out of 7.  The owner does not object.

The building IS in danger of demolition.  There is a demo bid out there. 

The buildings ARE Klutho, altered or not.  What is done can be undone with the notable exception of demolition.