The Jaxson

Jacksonville by Neighborhood => Downtown => Topic started by: Ken_FSU on December 16, 2019, 09:00:48 AM

Title: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: Ken_FSU on December 16, 2019, 09:00:48 AM
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/apartments-retail-rooftop-bar-planned-for-doro-fixture-co-site-downtown

Welp.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: Ken_FSU on December 16, 2019, 09:15:31 AM
Tried to give it 10 minutes before jumping to an opinion, but this is insane, right?

Demolishing 100 year old buildings full of character - buildings perfectly suited to complement the city's $230+ million investment in Lot J as an entertainment district - and replacing them with an apartment complex?

When so much other empty land is already available downtown?

Am I crazy? Is this especially egregious, even amongst our large pool of egregious demos?
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: Steve on December 16, 2019, 09:16:23 AM
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/apartments-retail-rooftop-bar-planned-for-doro-fixture-co-site-downtown

Welp.

Without any renderings, this seems like an opportunity to demolish a building and sit on the land. I'm honestly indifferent on whether the building should be saved, but we can't keep having demolition for nothing.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: thelakelander on December 16, 2019, 10:56:05 AM
^Blame COJ. Our public policies push demolition over reuse. Downtown looks like it looks for a reason and that reason isn't market place. It's incompetence or an unwillingness on our end to put the necessary tools in place needed to guide a certain outcome. In general, the development world is going to be reactionary. For example, if you want sprawl and autocentric new development, keep the Euclidean zoning structure we have city wide. If you want to really cut down on bike/ped accidents, make transit more viable and become more pedestrian friendly, lose the Euclidean structure and go with a Form Based Code. If you want more adaptive reuse and preservation, organize public policy to make that outcome more viable for the private sector.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: acme54321 on December 16, 2019, 11:17:24 AM
There are some great bones on that block, it would be a shame to lose it all.  The article says that the developer is going to go after incentives from DIA so the city may have some influence on what goes on there.  Not that I'm holding my breath.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: I-10east on December 16, 2019, 12:15:16 PM
I like the idea of apartments and retail in the stadium area, but tearing down historic buildings like Doro Furniture shouldn't be acceptable. Ideally Doro could be reused, and not a dormant historical landmark; I guess that ship has sailed though.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: vicupstate on December 16, 2019, 01:24:48 PM
What really sucks is that the owner ORIGINALLY had great plans for this property. Exactly what you would want to see. What they are proposing sounds very cookie-cutter that could just as easily go 1-5 blocks in any direction.  Every effort should be made to just move this project to a different site.   
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: jaxlongtimer on December 16, 2019, 01:30:50 PM
Quote
Iconic Real Estate Investments President Paul Grainger signed a purchase-and-sale agreement in June to sell the 1.77-acre site at 102 A. Philip Randolph Blvd. to Rise Properties LLC, part of Rise Development.

Name of the seller should be "Ironic", not "Iconic," given their willingness to turn this building over to a demolition developer.  They must already have a nod from the City that they will get the go-ahead to tear the building down to move forward on the deal.

This area is not yet Brooklyn so if we are already tearing down historic buildings here, nothing is sacred.

The lack of a grocery store and more in this area should give possible residents pause to live there.  And, who wants to battle Shad's entertainment and sports district traffic every time one wants to go on an outing.  Walkability should also be a concern as this is a bit away from the core of Downtown.  Seems there are far better options elsewhere.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: Bill Hoff on December 16, 2019, 08:24:52 PM
Tried to give it 10 minutes before jumping to an opinion, but this is insane, right?

Demolishing 100 year old buildings full of character - buildings perfectly suited to complement the city's $230+ million investment in Lot J as an entertainment district - and replacing them with an apartment complex?

When so much other empty land is already available downtown?

Am I crazy? Is this especially egregious, even amongst our large pool of egregious demos?

Extremely, extremely disappointing.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: vicupstate on December 17, 2019, 10:21:34 AM
I wonder if Shad Khan will put the kabosh on this to not be competition to Lot J. Apartments in this area are a pioneering feat to begin with.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: bl8jaxnative on December 17, 2019, 01:34:03 PM


Demolishing 100 year old buildings full of character -


It's a hodge podge of buildings, not one.    None of them are historically significant.  They're sitting empty, the floors lack height for modern amenities, etc.

The place generated less than $10k in property tax revenue.

Just one of those buildings w/ 60 units - 1/4th what is being built at Doro - paid a million dollars in property tax.

It would be insane not to demolish that rat trap for something modern, effecient and _____400_____ times times more valuable.


Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: Peter Griffin on December 17, 2019, 02:07:40 PM


Demolishing 100 year old buildings full of character -


It's a hodge podge of buildings, not one.    None of them are historically significant.  They're sitting empty, the floors lack height for modern amenities, etc.

The place generated less than $10k in property tax revenue.

Just one of those buildings w/ 60 units - 1/4th what is being built at Doro - paid a million dollars in property tax.

It would be insane not to demolish that rat trap for something modern, effecient and _____400_____ times times more valuable.

THANK YOU.

I understand the sentiment in certain instances, but sometimes an old building is just an old building.

The Landing was built in '87, not historically significant. It never lived up to its original sales pitch of "revitalizing downtown" nor did ANY Roush Festival Marketplace. Yet people complain that it's coming down

The old firehouse on Riverside is nondescript and doesn't look like ANYTHING cool, yet people are complaining that a new office building is going in there.  (The firestation downtown, on the other hand, is gorgeous!)

It's OK to let old buildings go, in my opinion. Not every old structure has to be reused. Building new, modern, useful buildings in the footprints of old disused buildings allows modern amenities to come to the area rather than sprawling out to the suburbs, which is a benefit. More apartments and retail downtown is what we're all hoping for, and this project has just that!
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: downtownbrown on December 17, 2019, 02:16:21 PM
Tried to give it 10 minutes before jumping to an opinion, but this is insane, right?

Demolishing 100 year old buildings full of character - buildings perfectly suited to complement the city's $230+ million investment in Lot J as an entertainment district - and replacing them with an apartment complex?

When so much other empty land is already available downtown?

Am I crazy? Is this especially egregious, even amongst our large pool of egregious demos?

kind of a cool building, but I don't think you can say there are other empty land options.  Depends on how much the guy paid, and what agreements on places like the shipyards are in place.  People go nuts here every time something gets knocked down (like the hideous court house and annex) but the story here is 247 new units.  Downtown needs more residents badly.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: vicupstate on December 17, 2019, 02:31:48 PM


Demolishing 100 year old buildings full of character -


It's a hodge podge of buildings, not one.    None of them are historically significant.  They're sitting empty, the floors lack height for modern amenities, etc.

The place generated less than $10k in property tax revenue.

Just one of those buildings w/ 60 units - 1/4th what is being built at Doro - paid a million dollars in property tax.

It would be insane not to demolish that rat trap for something modern, effecient and _____400_____ times times more valuable.


Most buildings from that era had high ceilings by today's standards. Do you have evidence to the contrary?  I have some other comments, but I don't have time to delve into them at the moment.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: thelakelander on December 17, 2019, 03:04:33 PM
It's a hodge podge of buildings, not one.    None of them are historically significant.

THANK YOU.

I understand the sentiment in certain instances, but sometimes an old building is just an old building.

The Landing was built in '87, not historically significant. It never lived up to its original sales pitch of "revitalizing downtown" nor did ANY Roush Festival Marketplace. Yet people complain that it's coming down

The old firehouse on Riverside is nondescript and doesn't look like ANYTHING cool, yet people are complaining that a new office building is going in there.  (The firestation downtown, on the other hand, is gorgeous!)

It's OK to let old buildings go, in my opinion. Not every old structure has to be reused. Building new, modern, useful buildings in the footprints of old disused buildings allows modern amenities to come to the area rather than sprawling out to the suburbs, which is a benefit. More apartments and retail downtown is what we're all hoping for, and this project has just that!

(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Doro-Fixtures-Warehouse-Before/i-nDWxnQH/0/L/20160601_190622-L.jpg)

It's always best to move away from opinions regarding what is historically significant and deal with what the actual determining factors are on the books legally. You can find everything you need in Chapter 307 - Historic Preservation and Protection in the city's Code of Ordinances. Weeding through the text, here's what things actually boil down to in Sec. 307.104, assuming a landmarking application was submitted:


In the event the owner of the property expresses an objection in writing to the Commission regarding local landmark status, at least four of the following seven criteria must be met.

If the owner of the subject property does not express such objection, only two of the following criteria must be met.

(1)Its value as a significant reminder of the cultural, historical, architectural, or archaeological heritage of the City, state or nation.

(2)Its location is the site of a significant local, state or national event.

(3)It is identified with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the development of the City, state or nation.

(4)It is identified as the work of a master builder, designer, or architect whose individual work has influenced the development of the City, state or nation.

(5)Its value as a building is recognized for the quality of its architecture, and it retains sufficient elements showing its architectural significance.

(6)It has distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style valuable for the study of a period, method of construction, or use of indigenous materials.

(7)Its suitability for preservation or restoration.


Source: https://library.municode.com/fl/jacksonville/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TITVIICOHIPR_CH307HIPRPR


(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Doro-Fixtures-Warehouse-Before/i-jVQPv4v/0/L/20160601_190635-L.jpg)


While it takes a lot of research in a city that has long forgotten its past, either a case can be made or not. Everything else from opinions of if old buildings should/should not be saved to development proformas, etc. are noise.

With that said, being familiar with the general area's history and having experience doing this process, I doubt the case could be made for all of the structures on that block. However, it would be pretty easy to meet the criteria under (1), (5), (6), and (7). 

(1) - Built in 1904, it's definitely a significant (hell it's about the last thing left over there) reminder of the maritime industrial district that literally built the city.

(5) - We don't build retail and industrial buildings with those type of architectural details any more. The building appears to retain much of its original architectural integrity as well.

(6) - It's a great example of late 19th century/early 20th century industrial vernacular architecture. The last one left in the Sports District built in the post Great Fire of 1901 building boom.

(7) - It's structurally sound. It ain't falling down on its own any time soon.


(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/3760662821_bZQMhLq-L.jpg)
Cast iron storefronts? That's rare in Jax and literally non-existent in the Sports District.

(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Doro-Fixtures-Warehouse-Before/i-Zd8XxnV/0/L/20160601_184900-L.jpg)
Old freight elevator

(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Doro-Fixtures-Warehouse-Before/i-d5w96Bk/0/L/20160601_190239-L.jpg)
Love the doors

(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Doro-Fixtures-Warehouse-Before/i-QK3v9HV/0/L/20160601_184706-L.jpg)
The old machinery is priceless

(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Doro-Fixtures-Warehouse-Before/i-LPx7XKd/0/L/20160601_184218-L.jpg)
Original growth columns, joists and truss system. They don't build them like this anymore.

(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Doro-Fixtures-Warehouse-Before/i-MXBrt38/0/L/20160601_184106-L.jpg)
This is the type of spaces rapidly growing sunbelt cities like Charlotte still wish they had to work with. Once it's gone, it's gone.



Now (2), (3), and (4) would require a bit more in depth research.

(2) - Maybe it was the site of something significant or maybe it was not. This would involve taking a deep dive into the history of Doro Fixtures, the people associated with it and the history of the long erased Italian immigrant community in East Jacksonville.

(3) (4) - I don't know who was the architect or builder. More in depth research on that individual or firm would be needed to see what type of influence they may have had on the city, state or nation. Another avenue to look into is the history of George Doro himself. As a millwork business that lasted more than a century, there could be an argument that he himself is significant in the development of the region or area where his products were used in the building industry.

To wrap this up, here are two examples:

Under normal circumstances, this shotgun house would not be considered worth preserving to many. However, it is landmarked because this is where Zora Neale Hurston lived during her time in Jacksonville. It met at least two of the 7 criteria identified above.

(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Neighborhoods/Eastside-September-2018/i-qNH6Xts/0/b0d5b6b2/L/20180908_150002-L.jpg)


Here is another building. It's a random warehouse in Springfield. It could be a tear down that no one would lose any sleep over because it's not locally landmarked or on the national register.

(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/UCU12062019/i-QDKJ7Qc/0/0f1e85b8/L/20191206_151551-L.jpg)

However, the owner is in the process of removing the decades old siding, revealing a majority glass wall warehouse. Dig into its history, it's associated with Albert Kahn, an internationally known industrial architect and significantly more influential on the development of the country than someone like Henry J. Klutho. While Detroit would be full of old early 20th century examples, it's certainly not something that comes in large supply in Florida. If an application to designate it as a local historic landmark were submitted, it would not take much to get it approved.

(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/UCU12062019/i-qxsDvB4/0/5579c05c/L/20191207_090232-L.jpg)


All this is to say, there are parts of this site that are certainly historically significant, if meeting the criteria is the determining factor and not personal opinions. My hope would be that as much of what is significantly unique can be worked into a plan going forward that would benefit the seller, buyer, downtown and the community. I do believe with creativity, viable solutions can materialize.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: acme54321 on December 17, 2019, 03:40:28 PM
Yeah, the Doro building catty corner to the baseball stadium is certainly worth saving and could really be a showpiece of a new development.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: Tacachale on December 17, 2019, 03:51:25 PM
It's a hodge podge of buildings, not one.    None of them are historically significant.

THANK YOU.

I understand the sentiment in certain instances, but sometimes an old building is just an old building.

The Landing was built in '87, not historically significant. It never lived up to its original sales pitch of "revitalizing downtown" nor did ANY Roush Festival Marketplace. Yet people complain that it's coming down

The old firehouse on Riverside is nondescript and doesn't look like ANYTHING cool, yet people are complaining that a new office building is going in there.  (The firestation downtown, on the other hand, is gorgeous!)

It's OK to let old buildings go, in my opinion. Not every old structure has to be reused. Building new, modern, useful buildings in the footprints of old disused buildings allows modern amenities to come to the area rather than sprawling out to the suburbs, which is a benefit. More apartments and retail downtown is what we're all hoping for, and this project has just that!

(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Doro-Fixtures-Warehouse-Before/i-nDWxnQH/0/L/20160601_190622-L.jpg)

It's always best to move away from opinions regarding what is historically significant and deal with what the actual determining factors are on the books legally. You can find everything you need in Chapter 307 - Historic Preservation and Protection in the city's Code of Ordinances. Weeding through the text, here's what things actually boil down to in Sec. 307.104, assuming a landmarking application was submitted:


In the event the owner of the property expresses an objection in writing to the Commission regarding local landmark status, at least four of the following seven criteria must be met.

If the owner of the subject property does not express such objection, only two of the following criteria must be met.

(1)Its value as a significant reminder of the cultural, historical, architectural, or archaeological heritage of the City, state or nation.

(2)Its location is the site of a significant local, state or national event.

(3)It is identified with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the development of the City, state or nation.

(4)It is identified as the work of a master builder, designer, or architect whose individual work has influenced the development of the City, state or nation.

(5)Its value as a building is recognized for the quality of its architecture, and it retains sufficient elements showing its architectural significance.

(6)It has distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style valuable for the study of a period, method of construction, or use of indigenous materials.

(7)Its suitability for preservation or restoration.


Source: https://library.municode.com/fl/jacksonville/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TITVIICOHIPR_CH307HIPRPR


(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Doro-Fixtures-Warehouse-Before/i-jVQPv4v/0/L/20160601_190635-L.jpg)


While it takes a lot of research in a city that has long forgotten its past, either a case can be made or not. Everything else from opinions of if old buildings should/should not be saved to development proformas, etc. are noise.

With that said, being familiar with the general area's history and having experience doing this process, I doubt the case could be made for all of the structures on that block. However, it would be pretty easy to meet the criteria under (1), (5), (6), and (7). 

(1) - Built in 1904, it's definitely a significant (hell it's about the last thing left over there) reminder of the maritime industrial district that literally built the city.

(5) - We don't build retail and industrial buildings with those type of architectural details any more. The building appears to retain much of its original architectural integrity as well.

(6) - It's a great example of late 19th century/early 20th century industrial vernacular architecture. The last one left in the Sports District built in the post Great Fire of 1901 building boom.

(7) - It's structurally sound. It ain't falling down on its own any time soon.


(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/3760662821_bZQMhLq-L.jpg)
Cast iron storefronts? That's rare in Jax and literally non-existent in the Sports District.

(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Doro-Fixtures-Warehouse-Before/i-Zd8XxnV/0/L/20160601_184900-L.jpg)
Old freight elevator

(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Doro-Fixtures-Warehouse-Before/i-d5w96Bk/0/L/20160601_190239-L.jpg)
Love the doors

(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Doro-Fixtures-Warehouse-Before/i-QK3v9HV/0/L/20160601_184706-L.jpg)
The old machinery is priceless

(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Doro-Fixtures-Warehouse-Before/i-LPx7XKd/0/L/20160601_184218-L.jpg)
Original growth columns, joists and truss system. They don't build them like this anymore.

(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Doro-Fixtures-Warehouse-Before/i-MXBrt38/0/L/20160601_184106-L.jpg)
This is the type of spaces rapidly growing sunbelt cities like Charlotte still wish they had to work with. Once it's gone, it's gone.



Now (2), (3), and (4) would require a bit more in depth research.

(2) - Maybe it was the site of something significant or maybe it was not. This would involve taking a deep dive into the history of Doro Fixtures, the people associated with it and the history of the long erased Italian immigrant community in East Jacksonville.

(3) (4) - I don't know who was the architect or builder. More in depth research on that individual or firm would be needed to see what type of influence they may have had on the city, state or nation. Another avenue to look into is the history of George Doro himself. As a millwork business that lasted more than a century, there could be an argument that he himself is significant in the development of the region or area where his products were used in the building industry.

To wrap this up, here are two examples:

Under normal circumstances, this shotgun house would not be considered worth preserving to many. However, it is landmarked because this is where Zora Neale Hurston lived during her time in Jacksonville. It met at least two of the 7 criteria identified above.

(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Neighborhoods/Eastside-September-2018/i-qNH6Xts/0/b0d5b6b2/L/20180908_150002-L.jpg)


Here is another building. It's a random warehouse in Springfield. It could be a tear down that no one would lose any sleep over because it's not locally landmarked or on the national register.

(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/UCU12062019/i-QDKJ7Qc/0/0f1e85b8/L/20191206_151551-L.jpg)

However, the owner is in the process of removing the decades old siding, revealing a majority glass wall warehouse. Dig into its history, it's associated with Albert Kahn, an internationally known industrial architect and significantly more influential on the development of the country than someone like Henry J. Klutho. While Detroit would be full of old early 20th century examples, it's certainly not something that comes in large supply in Florida. If an application to designate it as a local historic landmark were submitted, it would not take much to get it approved.

(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/UCU12062019/i-qxsDvB4/0/5579c05c/L/20191207_090232-L.jpg)


All this is to say, there are parts of this site that are certainly historically significant, if meeting the criteria is the determining factor and not personal opinions. My hope would be that as much of what is significantly unique can be worked into a plan going forward that would benefit the seller, buyer, downtown and the community. I do believe with creativity, viable solutions can materialize.

I haven't seen much but I think a case could easily be made for #3 based on the long standing of the business founded by George Doro and continued by his descendants. That gets up to at least 5 of 7 that could be argued. I really hope something can be done that would save this building or at least its facade.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: vicupstate on December 17, 2019, 05:48:39 PM
Well stated Lake.  You make a strong case that it is indeed historic.  From the pictures it is quite obvious that the 'low ceilings' comment does not apply at all. 

It seems the buildings fronting A P. Randolph are of more architectural significance and quality. Saving those and letting the others be demoed might be a reasonable compromise.

I would dare say very few cities that would let these buildings go without a fight. 

They also make a good compliment to Intuition and the other building next to the Coliseum garage.  Speaking of Intuition, couldn't all or most of the arguments against preserving Doro have been said of the Intuition building?
 
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: avonjax on December 17, 2019, 06:55:32 PM


Demolishing 100 year old buildings full of character -


It's a hodge podge of buildings, not one.    None of them are historically significant.  They're sitting empty, the floors lack height for modern amenities, etc.

The place generated less than $10k in property tax revenue.

Just one of those buildings w/ 60 units - 1/4th what is being built at Doro - paid a million dollars in property tax.

It would be insane not to demolish that rat trap for something modern, effecient and _____400_____ times times more valuable.




I'm glad you are not in charge. Jacksonville would be nothing but weed-filled empty lots.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: I-10east on December 17, 2019, 08:00:37 PM
IMO Jax will be batting .500 if this Doro demo goes through concerning recent demos

Yea
City Hall Annex (even though I liked that bldg, I get it)
Old Duval County Courthouse (a totally legit demo)

Nay
Landing (may not be 'historic' but iconic, and a significant amount of infrastructure)
Doro Furniture (the more I look at pics, I love it more; a sh*tload of historical charm within it)

Circa 2017 or so, I thought that Jax was unfairly getting labelled as 'demo happy' as nothing of significance (IMO) hasn't been scheduled for demolition in a long time. In the present day, we are starting to totally earn that 'demo happy' label unfortunately.

Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: Ken_FSU on March 05, 2020, 03:33:56 PM
247 more residential units coming to the Sports Complex.

https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2020/03/05/first-lookdowntown-doro-demolition-will-make-way.html?iana=hpmvp_jac_news_headline

Renders above.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: acme54321 on March 05, 2020, 03:54:07 PM
Dear Lord.  They couldn't find anywhere else downtown to put that?  Terrible.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: Ken_FSU on March 05, 2020, 04:14:40 PM
Amazing that, even at the Sports Complex surrounded by 70 acres of vacant land that we can hardly give away for free, we're still finding a way to destroy the most interesting historic building stock.

Cities like Atlanta, Savannah, and Charleston are turning complexes just like Doro Fixtures into wildly popular markets/food halls/entertainment districts, and we're bulldozing.

Shocker - word on the street is that they'll be asking for public subsidies to do it as well.

Happy to see development, but with all the construction going on in the area over the coming decade and lost parking, wouldn't be surprised to see the Doro complex bulldozed and turned into a paid parking lot for a few years either.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: Steve on March 05, 2020, 04:20:19 PM
Description in the article mentions 7k SqFt of Rooftop retail space, apparently 0 ground level. Terrible development for that location.

I hear there are some vacant lots in the Town Center area.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: Ken_FSU on March 05, 2020, 04:32:23 PM
Description in the article mentions 7k SqFt of Rooftop retail space, apparently 0 ground level. Terrible development for that location.

I hear there are some vacant lots in the Town Center area.

Looks like one of the renderings shows a ground level restaurant with outdoor seating, hopefully that's the case.

(https://snipboard.io/zdxjkB.jpg)
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: thelakelander on March 05, 2020, 04:32:59 PM
I haven't seen the renderings yet. But currently taking a break by eating in an oyster house and bar that used to be an auto repair garage in a regular neighborhood in Charleston. It's pretty shocking to see how one city's trash is another's treasure.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: MusicMan on March 05, 2020, 04:39:00 PM
"But currently taking a break by eating in an oyster house and bar that used to be an auto repair garage in a regular neighborhood in Charleston. It's pretty shocking to see how one city's trash is another's treasure."

Sounds like Strings Sports Bar at Ninth and Main. All the more reason to celebrate a place like that....... and to spend some money there,too!
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: sanmarcomatt on March 05, 2020, 04:40:36 PM
I haven't seen the renderings yet. But currently taking a break by eating in an oyster house and bar that used to be an auto repair garage in a regular neighborhood in Charleston. It's pretty shocking to see how one city's trash is another's treasure.

Leon’s?
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: Charles Hunter on March 05, 2020, 04:55:43 PM
Does this project need rezoning?  The article doesn't mention rezoning, but do apartment fit in the same zoning as whatever Doro was?
Will Shad/Cordish oppose the rezoning? (competition for Lot J apartments)
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: Ken_FSU on March 05, 2020, 05:13:41 PM
Does this project need rezoning?  The article doesn't mention rezoning, but do apartment fit in the same zoning as whatever Doro was?
Will Shad/Cordish oppose the rezoning? (competition for Lot J apartments)

Everything east of Berkman II was rezoned as commercial central business district last year to make way for Lot J and the Shipyards.

Multifamily/mixed-use would be allowable under the new CCBD designation.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: thelakelander on March 05, 2020, 05:18:17 PM
I haven't seen the renderings yet. But currently taking a break by eating in an oyster house and bar that used to be an auto repair garage in a regular neighborhood in Charleston. It's pretty shocking to see how one city's trash is another's treasure.

Leon’s?
Yes!
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: sanmarcomatt on March 05, 2020, 05:20:52 PM
I haven't seen the renderings yet. But currently taking a break by eating in an oyster house and bar that used to be an auto repair garage in a regular neighborhood in Charleston. It's pretty shocking to see how one city's trash is another's treasure.

Leon’s?
Yes!

Excellent. You should go across the street to Melfi’s if you like Italian.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: jagsonville on March 05, 2020, 05:23:42 PM
Does this project need rezoning?  The article doesn't mention rezoning, but do apartment fit in the same zoning as whatever Doro was?
Will Shad/Cordish oppose the rezoning? (competition for Lot J apartments)

I would think Khan would be all for all this project as it would make Lot J more viable.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: I-10east on March 05, 2020, 05:50:02 PM
^^^Yeah. I would be surprised if there is any pushback.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: jagsonville on March 05, 2020, 07:00:54 PM
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/photo-gallery/design-approval-sought-for-the-doro-apartment-retail-and-restaurant-community

Well, it does look nice. Shame they are destroying the Doro buildings with all the available land downtown but I guess they are really banking and piggy backing off Lot J.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: Non-RedNeck Westsider on March 05, 2020, 07:41:50 PM
I haven't seen the renderings yet. But currently taking a break by eating in an oyster house and bar that used to be an auto repair garage in a regular neighborhood in Charleston. It's pretty shocking to see how one city's trash is another's treasure.

Leon’s?
Yes!

Excellent. You should go across the street to Melfi’s if you like Italian.

Nice.

We need another Charleston eating thread!  I ate my way through there a few weeks ago, but never really made it north of Market St.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: thelakelander on March 05, 2020, 09:08:02 PM
I haven't seen the renderings yet. But currently taking a break by eating in an oyster house and bar that used to be an auto repair garage in a regular neighborhood in Charleston. It's pretty shocking to see how one city's trash is another's treasure.

Leon’s?
Yes!

Excellent. You should go across the street to Melfi’s if you like Italian.
Thanks! I saw quite a few places north of US 17 that I haven't paid much attention too in the past. I'll definitely return.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: thelakelander on March 05, 2020, 09:09:14 PM
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/photo-gallery/design-approval-sought-for-the-doro-apartment-retail-and-restaurant-community

Well, it does look nice. Shame they are destroying the Doro buildings with all the available land downtown but I guess they are really banking and piggy backing off Lot J.

If they start in May or June, they'll beat the Lot J stuff by at least a decade or so, probably two. Hopefully, they're banking on their own ability.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: thelakelander on March 06, 2020, 06:33:37 AM
Here is the full DDRB conceptual plan presentation for the Doro project:

Quote
Mixed-used project planned for Doro Fixtures block

(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/The-Doro/i-xgL4SSM/0/99975982/L/20200312_DDRB_Page_54A-L.jpg)

If Valdosta-based Rise Properties has it their way, the historic Doro Fixtures complex in the Sports and Entertainment District will be razed and replaced by an 8-story mixed-use development.

https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/mixed-used-project-planned-for-doro-fixtures-block/
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: vicupstate on March 06, 2020, 08:17:28 AM

The architecture completely sucks. Does not even attempt to fit into or compliment its surroundings.

I take it these building are not designated as Historic, albeit they probably meet the criteria easily?

It is great that they want to invest in the area but it seems there are better sites that don't require the loss of historic buildings.  This is especially true considering how much land the city owns all over DT, including most of the land in the vicinity.   
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: MusicMan on March 06, 2020, 08:43:26 AM
While a Charleston dining thread may not be apt, discussing the re-purpose of their downtown historic building stock IS! Has anyone in the current Jacksonville city leadership position ever visited Charleston? You would think they would understand the value of saving quality older buildings if they had.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: Charles Hunter on March 06, 2020, 09:37:01 AM
While a Charleston dining thread may not be apt, discussing the re-purpose of their downtown historic building stock IS! Has anyone in the current Jacksonville city leadership position ever visited Charleston? You would think they would understand the value of saving quality older buildings if they had.

Curry and company would probably look around and think, "Ooh, look at all these old buildings we could demolish and replace with vacant fields."
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: Lostwave on March 06, 2020, 09:38:42 AM
This is terrible.  This area needs to be activated, not deactivated.  The entire ground floor should be entertainment/retail.  I am sure the rooftop will not be for the public.  I like the size and quantity of units, but taking this entire block out of the picture for entertainment is a big loss.  This is the sports and entertainment district... not the ground floor apartment district. 

Plus, who would want to live on the ground floor in this area.  If you open your blinds you are liable to see a homeless guy wizzing on your window.

If this city lets them move forward with this building in this location, we are done for.  This is exactly the kind of thing that kills vibrancy.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: Peter Griffin on March 06, 2020, 09:51:25 AM
Look at the plans. Ground level retail with a courtyard, same thing on the rooftop, and the plans explicitly show an elevator to access the rooftop amenities.

It's kind of a shame to see the Doro facades go, but this project adds residential and retail on Bay St and directly adjacent to the entertainment district.

Some of y'all are a buncha bellyachers who will complain about anything, even unfounded aspects of a project's design.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: Steve on March 06, 2020, 10:01:29 AM
After reviewing the plans, it still sucks but it sucks different. The ground floor usage is terrible, especially have a drive out onto APR. That makes zero sense and even if this was a vacant lot I don't think they'd agree to that. I'm also not sure I get the point of the spaces - resident pickup/dropoff? Surely you can move that somewhere else.


I feel like the ground floor needs to be something other than residential. I don't know if the market can handle 100% retail, but a Leasing area could take some of that, and at least it's a (somewhat) active use. Additionally, you can have the garage entrance, trash pickup, utility, etc. on that back half (which is tough to make vibrant unless Maxwell House shuts down/across from the Arena which because of the loading dock will always be a tough spot to make vibrant. 

Additionally, the covered space at the corner of APR and Adams should be connected with the retail use - this way they can throw some tables out there for dining.

The rooftop retail is legit, as they have a separate elevator to go from the retail to the roof. Basically they want the Black Sheep model there. I don't THINK people would want to lease there on the ground floor but when I look at these I try to not cross the line about business viability; to me that's a dangerous thing.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: Steve on March 06, 2020, 10:19:11 AM
I'm staring at this closer. While I don't like aspects of it I see why they did it. The garage is where it is because that's the platform for the pool deck and rooftop retail, and the retail is in the base of the garage, not underneath the residential. Personally, I'd make a few changes, then I still don't love it, but it's not awful.

 - Eliminate the driveout onto APR
 - Convert the outdoor/indoor amenithy to more retail, which then opens out to the open space on the order (a restaurant could add tables)
 - Somehow I'd take the leasing area and wrap the street, especially on the Lafayette/Adams Street side. I'm not sure how you do it exactly because then what comes of the existing leasing space? I was trying to see if you can make that more apartments, but it's on the ground floor under the garage so you'll likely hear cars all night long. Maybe move the indoor/outdoor amenity space to one of the back streets?

Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: Downtown Osprey on March 06, 2020, 10:28:07 AM
The ironic thing is this development is right next door to one of the best examples we have of rehabilitation and reuse (Intuition)  ::) I was in Charleston last week (first time) and was absolutely blown away. I've all but given up that we will ever sniff the work done in Charleston and Savannah. 
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: jaxjags on March 06, 2020, 02:07:46 PM
I wish they used more red brick at the corners to better match the arena. I also hope the "alley" concept comes to fruition. This will take city approval and agreement with Manifest, but adds character to the area and can help blend this area to lot J (if it ever gets built).
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: fieldafm on March 06, 2020, 02:54:18 PM
I wish they used more red brick at the corners to better match the arena. I also hope the "alley" concept comes to fruition. This will take city approval and agreement with Manifest, but adds character to the area and can help blend this area to lot J (if it ever gets built).

A point of clarification, that street is an abandoned right of way that is now owned by private parties. Part of the Manifest/Intuition property line extends slightly past that section of the sidewalk, and the rest of that area is owned by the current (and will convey to future) owners of the Doro complex.  The City does not own that portion of the road.

Except for maintaining downtown design standards for the streetscape (which will be part of the DDRB review), there is no other city approval or agreement needed with either Manifest nor Intuition.

Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: bl8jaxnative on March 07, 2020, 08:59:40 AM
The ironic thing is this development is right next door to one of the best examples we have of rehabilitation and reuse (Intuition)  ::) I was in Charleston last week (first time) and was absolutely blown away. I've all but given up that we will ever sniff the work done in Charleston and Savannah.

No worries, in a hundred years we'll have a building just as historically insignificant as the one they're looking to remove.  Added bonus we'll have a century of actual, valuable use.    Over that hundred years the city and school district stands to collect $20million more in taxes than from the current structure.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: MusicMan on March 07, 2020, 11:58:43 AM
Looks like $2.5 million was paid for the block where Doro sits in 2016. No doubt that was discussed on a related thread. That's a lot of money for an acre and a half.....
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: Ken_FSU on March 12, 2020, 08:31:27 PM
3-2 approval by the DDRB.

https://www.jacksonville.com/news/20200312/eight-story-apartment-building-approved-for-jacksonvillersquos-sport-complex
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: vicupstate on March 12, 2020, 09:44:12 PM
Prediction: the Doro buildings will be demolished in the near future. Then the economic downturn will put the new construction on hold.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: CityLife on March 12, 2020, 10:31:27 PM
Prediction: the Doro buildings will be demolished in the near future. Then the economic downturn will put the new construction on hold.
Valid concern. There should be a way to craft a condition that will protect against this in the development order. I can think of a few possible options off the top of my head and I’m sure Lori Boyer and Brenna Durden (both seasoned land use attorneys) at the DIA could figure it out. If the people advocating against this project are resigned to it getting approved, they should at least push for the City to put some protections in the DO.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: Peter Griffin on March 13, 2020, 07:40:11 AM
Prediction: the Doro buildings will be demolished in the near future. Then the economic downturn will put the new construction on hold.

My therapist calls this "catastrophizing" and says it's bad for your mental health  ;D ;)
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: Tacachale on March 13, 2020, 09:01:16 AM
Prediction: the Doro buildings will be demolished in the near future. Then the economic downturn will put the new construction on hold.

My therapist calls this "catastrophizing" and says it's bad for your mental health  ;D ;)

In Jacksonville we call it “the story of every other empty lot Downtown.”
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: Kerry on March 13, 2020, 09:11:55 AM
Prediction: the Doro buildings will be demolished in the near future. Then the economic downturn will put the new construction on hold.
Valid concern. There should be a way to craft a condition that will protect against this in the development order. I can think of a few possible options off the top of my head and I’m sure Lori Boyer and Brenna Durden (both seasoned land use attorneys) at the DIA could figure it out. If the people advocating against this project are resigned to it getting approved, they should at least push for the City to put some protections in the DO.

There is an easy way to do it - just make demolition inherent in the issue of a building permit.  The developer can get all their financing in place, approval to build, and everything else ready to go before they ever have to remove a brick.  As it is now, all of that has to be done AFTER the demo permit is issued, just in case the demo isn't allowed.  The gap of time between demo and construction approval is a development killer.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: Steve on March 13, 2020, 09:15:09 AM
Prediction: the Doro buildings will be demolished in the near future. Then the economic downturn will put the new construction on hold.

My therapist calls this "catastrophizing" and says it's bad for your mental health  ;D ;)


This absolutely happened during the last downturn. Not a crazy thought whatsoever.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: CityLife on March 13, 2020, 12:03:01 PM
Prediction: the Doro buildings will be demolished in the near future. Then the economic downturn will put the new construction on hold.
Valid concern. There should be a way to craft a condition that will protect against this in the development order. I can think of a few possible options off the top of my head and I’m sure Lori Boyer and Brenna Durden (both seasoned land use attorneys) at the DIA could figure it out. If the people advocating against this project are resigned to it getting approved, they should at least push for the City to put some protections in the DO.

There is an easy way to do it - just make demolition inherent in the issue of a building permit.  The developer can get all their financing in place, approval to build, and everything else ready to go before they ever have to remove a brick.  As it is now, all of that has to be done AFTER the demo permit is issued, just in case the demo isn't allowed.  The gap of time between demo and construction approval is a development killer.

That's better than nothing, but still the wrong approach. You can easily have a building permit issued and not even start a project. You also can't make up arbitrary completion requirements as part of building permit issuance. Something like that has to be done during the entitlement process and approval of a development order. 

As someone that has worked as a lobbyist for developers and planning director on behalf of the public, I believe that the DIA should be able to craft a reasonable condition that the developer can live with and still protect the public at the same time.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: Kerry on March 13, 2020, 01:42:57 PM
Prediction: the Doro buildings will be demolished in the near future. Then the economic downturn will put the new construction on hold.
Valid concern. There should be a way to craft a condition that will protect against this in the development order. I can think of a few possible options off the top of my head and I’m sure Lori Boyer and Brenna Durden (both seasoned land use attorneys) at the DIA could figure it out. If the people advocating against this project are resigned to it getting approved, they should at least push for the City to put some protections in the DO.

There is an easy way to do it - just make demolition inherent in the issue of a building permit.  The developer can get all their financing in place, approval to build, and everything else ready to go before they ever have to remove a brick.  As it is now, all of that has to be done AFTER the demo permit is issued, just in case the demo isn't allowed.  The gap of time between demo and construction approval is a development killer.

That's better than nothing, but still the wrong approach. You can easily have a building permit issued and not even start a project. You also can't make up arbitrary completion requirements as part of building permit issuance. Something like that has to be done during the entitlement process and approval of a development order. 

As someone that has worked as a lobbyist for developers and planning director on behalf of the public, I believe that the DIA should be able to craft a reasonable condition that the developer can live with and still protect the public at the same time.

Yes, a building permit can be issued without construction ever starting, but who would spend money on a demo unless they were actually going to spend money to build something else...unless the building permit application was obtained fraudulently just to do the demo?
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: Papa33 on March 13, 2020, 03:02:11 PM
I say they (the developer) cannot use the name "Doro" unless they are going to preserve/rehab/reuse/incorporate Doro.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: Peter Griffin on March 13, 2020, 03:55:34 PM
I say they (the developer) cannot use the name "Doro" unless they are going to preserve/rehab/reuse/incorporate Doro.
You tell 'em, buddy!
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: bl8jaxnative on March 17, 2020, 04:01:32 PM
I say they (the developer) cannot use the name "Doro" unless they are going to preserve/rehab/reuse/incorporate Doro.


So knock down the 3, 4 structures on the site and save a few bricks or a window or something  in the new ?  I'm not sure what that would accomplish.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: aubureck on April 08, 2020, 06:54:40 AM
I know that this building has no protections and they have every right to move ahead with their demolition permit.  However, given the current economic turmoil I HOPE that they don't move ahead with the demolition and then the project fails to materialize and we end up with ANOTHER vacant block.  My hope is they keep the permit in hand until they are more sure that they will be able to complete their project.

https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/demolition-permits-sought-for-the-george-doro-fixture-co-block (https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/demolition-permits-sought-for-the-george-doro-fixture-co-block)

Quote
Rise Properties LLC applied to the city for permits to demolish properties on the George Doro Fixture Co. block to prepare for a proposed Downtown mixed-use and retail project called The Doro.

Realco Recycling Co. Inc. is listed as the contractor to demolish warehouse structures on the block bounded by A. Philip Randolph Boulevard and Adams, Lafayette and Forsyth streets.

Three permits show a job cost of $225,015 for demolition of structures at 128 A. Philip Randolph Blvd.; 102 A. Philip Randolph Blvd., the main George Doro building; and 951 Forsyth St.

Permit documents show Realco Recycling intends to use an excavator and attachments for the demolition. Debris will be disposed at the Old Kings Road Landfill.

The Downtown Development Review Board approved conceptual designs March 12 for Valdosta, Georgia-based Rise Properties to build a residential and retail development at the site. It needs final design approval before construction can proceed.

The DDRB canceled its meeting scheduled for April 9, due to social distancing measures for COVID-19. The May 14 meeting still is planned.

Jacksonville Properties I LLC proposes an eight-story, 247-unit mixed-use project at 102 A. Philip Randolph Blvd.

The developer said in March it has the property under contract. Matthew Marshall, vice president of development at RISE: A Real Estate Company, said then he anticipates Rise Properties will buy the property in May or June from Jacksonville real estate investors Farley and Paul Grainger.

He said Rise Properties hopes to break ground by the end of the summer and he expects a 22-month construction period, but that was before the COVID-19 pandemic.

The 1.63-acre property is next to Intuition Ale Works and Manifest Distilling, near the Downtown Sports Complex.

The oldest building on the Doro property dates to 1914, and more structures were added through 1954.

Mapping Jax, a local historic preservation and Downtown revitalization group, brought 11 members to the March DDRB meeting to oppose the demolition. They asked developers to merge the oldest Doro Fixture building into the proposed new construction instead of demolishing it.

Downtown Investment Authority staff consulted with Christian Popoli, city planner supervisor for the Community Planning Division, Historic Preservation Section, for its report.

Popoli said the state Historic Preservation Officer at the Florida Department of State determined the Doro Fixture building doesn’t meet the criteria for Jacksonville’s Downtown National Register District.

The structure is not a locally registered landmark and doesn’t have historic structure protections.

DIA staff recommended conceptual approval for The Doro.

Rise Properties said it wants to incorporate a sense of history. The project architect said he worked textures, colors and materials from the original Doro Fixture building into the designs.

Project renderings show a seven-level parking garage and 4,875 square feet of ground-level retail, commercial and restaurant space.

The retail use at Forsyth Street and A. Philip Randolph Boulevard will face an outdoor area that Rise Properties calls “The Alley” between the south side of the development and Intuition Ale Works.

The eighth floor of the apartment building will focus on retail space and resident amenities. Plans show 2,652 square feet of outdoor retail space with a rooftop terrace for customers.

Marshall said Dec. 13 that the rooftop space would be an indoor-outdoor bar and lounge.

The top floor also has a terrace and resident amenity space with a swimming pool.

The development will be the first mixed-use residential project built in the Downtown Sports and Entertainment District.

Marshall said his company will seek federal and local tax incentives.

Rise Properties will apply for a city-backed Recapture Enhanced Value Grant, which rebates over 10 years the increase in ad valorem property taxes generated by the project, and Opportunity Zone funding.

The federal government designated Downtown Jacksonville’s Sports and Entertainment District an Opportunity Zone — a program created by the federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.

“The REV grant would be an important piece of this, making it financially feasible,” Marshall said.

The REV grant will need City Council approval.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: acme54321 on April 08, 2020, 08:00:21 AM
Quote
The project architect said he worked textures, colors and materials from the original Doro Fixture building into the designs.

LOL!!
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: thelakelander on April 08, 2020, 08:44:21 AM
So unfortunate, that this passes for a form of preservation and paying homage to history locally. Btw, I seriously doubt we even know what the original colors were.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: Captain Zissou on April 08, 2020, 09:09:20 AM
Quote
“The REV grant would be an important piece of this, making it financially feasible,” Marshall said.

The REV grant will need City Council approval.

Why would we let them demolish the building before the grant is approved?  This project lives and dies with this grant and they don't even know if it will be approved...  Is this an attempt to force the city's hand to approve the grant so that they aren't stuck with yet another blighted city block?
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: Steve on April 08, 2020, 09:17:10 AM
Quote
“The REV grant would be an important piece of this, making it financially feasible,” Marshall said.

The REV grant will need City Council approval.

Why would we let them demolish the building before the grant is approved?  This project lives and dies with this grant and they don't even know if it will be approved...  Is this an attempt to force the city's hand to approve the grant so that they aren't stuck with yet another blighted city block?

Probably.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: heights unknown on April 08, 2020, 04:42:13 PM
DDA should make it a rule and policy that is binding in some way, that anyone who seeks to buy property, and demolish already existing structures on said property, and are proposing to build or construct on that property, must build their proposed development, etc., within a certain amount of time, and somehow DDA should them to it legally. I too am tired of people buying up properties downtown, proposing to build, and then get money and other incentives from the city, and then back out. As a part of the approval process, DDA should somehow bind them to commit building or constructing what they propose or plan on those properties. (this is not my field so feel free to correct me if I am off).
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: Snaketoz on April 08, 2020, 04:57:18 PM
DDA should make it a rule and policy that is binding in some way, that anyone who seeks to buy property, and demolish already existing structures on said property, and are proposing to build or construct on that property, must build their proposed development, etc., within a certain amount of time, and somehow DDA should them to it legally. I too am tired of people buying up properties downtown, proposing to build, and then get money and other incentives from the city, and then back out. As a part of the approval process, DDA should somehow bind them to commit building or constructing what they propose or plan on those properties. (this is not my field so feel free to correct me if I am off).
That's reasonable.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: jaxlongtimer on April 08, 2020, 09:52:31 PM
I find it interesting that if a building isn't deemed officially historic, it isn't protected.  Who determines that status and when is it invoked?  If the owner has to request it, that's the fox guarding the chicken coop.  If the City has to request it, is there an ongoing process to seek out such buildings and declare them historic?  How can the community participate by making such a request?

Seems very few buildings are protected in this City leading to endless demolitions of our past.  We have one-off historic buildings all over the City that are not necessarily in "historic districts" and thus not officially surveyed.  Why can't a building be deemed historic as a result of reviewing its status for a demolition permit thereby halting its demolition?  How do other cities like Savannah and Charleston handle such matters?
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: MusicMan on April 09, 2020, 08:47:29 AM
"Popoli said the state Historic Preservation Officer at the Florida Department of State determined the Doro Fixture building doesn’t meet the criteria for Jacksonville’s Downtown National Register District"

Wow. I'd like to see that report, 'cause from everything I've ever read here it absolutely qualifies. Are the standards that much different, or is this "Historic Preservation Officer" legit?  Maybe he's getting some kickback from the developer.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: Charles Hunter on April 09, 2020, 09:07:20 AM
Is the Doro outside the Downtown National Register District?  It could be as simple as that.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: thelakelander on April 09, 2020, 09:50:32 AM
It's more complicated than that. A historic district is a cluster or compact concentration of structures, sites, etc. It's a mile east of the Downtown National Register District. So it's not.  However, that doesn't mean much, in terms of if it is actually historically significant or not.

A few of the buildings are possibly eligible to meet local landmarking criteria, which has nothing to do with the national register. Unfortunately, we'll likely never know because it could be rubble before anyone is provided the time to research and present that information.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: bl8jaxnative on April 22, 2020, 10:42:07 AM
Which building(s) at the Doro site are people claiming are historic?   There are several structures on that property.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: thelakelander on April 22, 2020, 11:16:15 AM
I would say the two facing A. Philip Randolph Boulevard would most likely meeting the necessary landmarking criteria, if we actually attempted to look into their history. The two story building actually predates Doro and is one of the last two commercial structures still standing from when this corridor was the business district for the suburb of East Jacksonville.

(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Doro-Fixtures-Warehouse-Before/i-nDWxnQH/0/L/20160601_190622-L.jpg)

(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Doro-Fixtures-Warehouse-Before/i-jVQPv4v/0/L/20160601_190635-L.jpg)

According to City of Jacksonville code, a building must meet at least two of the following criteria to be landmarked, and must meet four to guarantee landmarking designation if the current property owner objects. The criteria are:

1. It has value as a significant reminder of the cultural, historical, architectural, or archaeological heritage of the city, state or nation; - The site meets this. It's the only intact remaining pre-urban renewal block surviving in the former community of East Jacksonville.

2. Its location is the site of a significant local, state or national event; - Would need some research. Maybe, maybe not.

3. It is identified with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the development of the city, state or nation; - It would be interesting to dig into the history of George Doro himself. After a century in business, the millwork the company produced is very likely a piece of historic sites all across the country. Locally, for decades during downtown's heyday, he had a popular sandwich named after him. He's a possible prominent figure in comparison to the precedence that has been set from the landmarking of other local sites in the past.

4. It is identified as the work of a master builder, designer, or architect whose individual work has influenced the development of the city, state or nation; - Would need research. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't.

5. Its value as a building is recognized for the quality of architecture, and it retains sufficient elements showing its architectural significance; - Arguments can be made for both. For example, how many buildings around there still include cast iron storefronts like the two story one? The one story building has an art deco flair. Art Deco is something certainly not in large supply in DT Jax.

6. It has distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style valuable for the study of a period, method of construction, or use of indigenous materials; - Both certainly feature distinguishing architectural styles and characteristics from their period of construction.

7. Its suitability for preservation or restoration. - Neither is in danger of structurally falling down, so they meet #7.


In my professional opinion, 1, 5, 6 and 7 would be easy to prove. Some extra amount of research would be needed to see if the buildings meet 2, 3 and 4.

Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: bl8jaxnative on April 27, 2020, 08:42:55 AM
Thank you
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: thelakelander on May 09, 2020, 12:09:02 AM
Sounds like the side of the main public library 2.0....

Quote
Mapping Jax, a local historic preservation and Downtown revitalization group, brought 11 members to the March DDRB meeting to oppose the demolition.

They asked developers to merge the oldest Doro Fixture building into the proposed new construction instead of demolishing it.

The DIA staff report states that design elements of the existing building are proposed in Rise Properties plans as “a nod” to the Doro fixtures structure, including green window frames and painted white brick patterns in the sites proposed as urban open space.

The report says a proposed “feature wall” that will screen the parking garage incorporates materials and architectural features from the existing building.

Full article: https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/photo-gallery/renderings-show-developer-not-changing-plans-to-incorporate-doro-elements
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: bl8jaxnative on May 12, 2020, 08:06:35 AM
I would say the two facing A. Philip Randolph Boulevard would most likely meeting the necessary landmarking criteria, if we actually attempted to look into their history. The two story building actually predates Doro and is one of the last two commercial structures still standing from when this corridor was the business district for the suburb of East Jacksonville.

(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Doro-Fixtures-Warehouse-Before/i-nDWxnQH/0/L/20160601_190622-L.jpg)

(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Doro-Fixtures-Warehouse-Before/i-jVQPv4v/0/L/20160601_190635-L.jpg)

According to City of Jacksonville code, a building must meet at least two of the following criteria to be landmarked, and must meet four to guarantee landmarking designation if the current property owner objects. The criteria are:

1. It has value as a significant reminder of the cultural, historical, architectural, or archaeological heritage of the city, state or nation; - The site meets this. It's the only intact remaining pre-urban renewal block surviving in the former community of East Jacksonville.

2. Its location is the site of a significant local, state or national event; - Would need some research. Maybe, maybe not.

3. It is identified with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the development of the city, state or nation; - It would be interesting to dig into the history of George Doro himself. After a century in business, the millwork the company produced is very likely a piece of historic sites all across the country. Locally, for decades during downtown's heyday, he had a popular sandwich named after him. He's a possible prominent figure in comparison to the precedence that has been set from the landmarking of other local sites in the past.

4. It is identified as the work of a master builder, designer, or architect whose individual work has influenced the development of the city, state or nation; - Would need research. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't.

5. Its value as a building is recognized for the quality of architecture, and it retains sufficient elements showing its architectural significance; - Arguments can be made for both. For example, how many buildings around there still include cast iron storefronts like the two story one? The one story building has an art deco flair. Art Deco is something certainly not in large supply in DT Jax.

6. It has distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style valuable for the study of a period, method of construction, or use of indigenous materials; - Both certainly feature distinguishing architectural styles and characteristics from their period of construction.

7. Its suitability for preservation or restoration. - Neither is in danger of structurally falling down, so they meet #7.


In my professional opinion, 1, 5, 6 and 7 would be easy to prove. Some extra amount of research would be needed to see if the buildings meet 2, 3 and 4.


Thank you.

I'm curious.  If it's the oldest storefront on the east side it's surely one of if not the oldest in the city outside of downtown, no?
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: thelakelander on May 12, 2020, 08:17:56 AM
I didn't think about that but it is likely one of the oldest commercial storefronts in the city still standing outside of the traditional downtown. That's likely an area of historic research that has not been performed to date. I do know that LaVilla has a couple that predate the Great Fire of 1901. I think LaVilla's oldest dates back to 1895.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: thelakelander on May 12, 2020, 08:21:50 AM
Quote
The Doro: Out with the old, in with the new

(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/The-Doro/i-jnJP6bt/0/77b9f5ce/L/20200514_DDRB%20AGENDA%20PACKET_Title-L.jpg)

Completed three years after the Great Fire of 1901, the Doro Fixtures Company complex features the last surviving mixed-use commercial storefront that dates back to the long razed 19th century suburb of East Jacksonville. Its days could be coming to an end as a plan for a new infill apartment development proposed continues to move forward.

Read More: https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/the-doro-out-with-the-old-in-with-the-new/
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: Steve on May 12, 2020, 10:26:22 AM
Aside from the demolition, the biggest thing that bothers me with this is the driveway on APR. It just doesn't fit.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: thelakelander on May 12, 2020, 10:33:06 AM
That part is pretty weird. All of A. Philip Randolph should be lined with retail. Big missed opportunity with the open plaza space facing the arena and baseball grounds.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: Captain Zissou on May 12, 2020, 02:14:21 PM
Do the weird brick patterns mean anything or is that just what they think "street level activation" means?  They put the worst stuff at the most important corner of the development.  Sure the retail facing Intuition is great, but hundreds of events a year will bring people past the corner of APR and Adams and all they'll see is ugly pavers and infrastructure.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: thelakelander on May 12, 2020, 05:02:26 PM
I'm pretty sure there's some rationale but they can scrap the entire nod to Doro (that's preservation blasphemy more than anything else) and put a retail space (or at least set it up for a future retail space) there. I agree, that's the most desireable intersection for ground floor retail.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: thelakelander on May 15, 2020, 09:36:59 AM
Quote
The Downtown Development Review Board approved final designs May 14  for an eight-story apartment and retail project to replace the George Doro Fixture Co. building, despite objection from local historic preservation advocates.

The DDRB voted 6-1 to clear plans by Valdosta, Georgia-based Rise: A Real Estate Company for a 247-unit apartment building and seven-story parking garage at 102 A. Philip Randolph Blvd.

Plans call for 7,527 square feet of combined ground-floor and rooftop retail, outdoor patio and public gathering spaces.

The board’s 2½-hour debate included public comments from more than 20 opponents of demolishing the at least century-old Doro Fixtures building on the 1.63-acre site near the Sports Complex.

Of interesting note, our opinion on this matter is 100% correct. The property is eligible for landmarking because of its historical significance at the local level:

Quote
The board agreed to add language proposed by Rise attorney Paul Harden that the hold on demolition pending a permit is a binding condition as long as no one seeks a local landmark designation on the structure.

Full Article: https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/downtown-development-review-board-gives-final-approval-to-doro-mixed-use-project

The lesson here for preservationist is to go on the agressive. Identify some of the most prominent buildings in DT that are unprotected, yet surely historic at the local level, and attempt to proactively landmark them. I've scanned what's contributing and non-contributing in the National Register Downtown Historic District, as well as what is already landmarked outside of it. Not surprisingly, the historic black areas of downtown again get the short end of the stick. It's already a major problem in the traditional preservation world. It's even worse in a city that's pretty weak from a preservation standpoint. Anyway, here's 24 unprotected sites that are likely eligible for local landmarking:

National Register Downtown Historic District (historic buildings listed as non contributing)

- 170 Hogan Street (Former Rosenblums store)
- 41 East Duval Street (Paulus Music Store -- Southern Rock site)
- 129 Market Street (Palms Hotel)

Sports & Entertainment District (not individually listed on National Register or locally landmarked)

- 735 East Bay Street (Maxwell House Coffee plant)

Downtown (outside of National Register HD, not individually listed and not locally landmarked)
(Most happen to be in the former Black Bottom, which is now State & Union)

- 937 North Main Street (Claude Nolan Cadillac)
- 17 West Union Street (Moulton & Kyle Funeral Home)
- 801 North Pearl Street (St. Paul's Episcopal Church -- Henrietta Dozier designed building)
- 330 West State Street (Odd Fellows Hall -- A.Philip Johnson, Zora Neale Hurston site)

LaVilla (outside of National Register HD, not individually listed and not locally landmarked)
(preservation is most lax in our historical minority areas of downtown. A small section of LaVilla could potentially qualify as its own small National Register Historic District.)

- 521 West Forsyth Street (Cunningham Furniture Annex)
- 618 West Adams Street (Fire Station No. 4)
- 420 Broad Street (Richmond Hotel)**
- 318-324-326 Broad Street (Broad Street Biz District storefronts)**
- 525 Beaver Street (Lawton Pratt Funeral Home)**
- 801 Jefferson Street (The Whetstonian)
- 801 West Forsyth Street (Jax Chero-Cola Bottling Works -- George Stevens Saloon and Bordello)

** - Along with Clara White Mission, Old Stanton, Center Hotel, Masonic Temple, etc. there may be enough concentration of qualify as a National Register Historic District

Brooklyn (outside of National Register HD, not individually listed and not locally landmarked)
(Another underrepresented community almost gone from gentrification -- There are a dwindling number of individual residences unprotected as well)

- 1 Riverside Avenue (Florida Times-Union office building)
- 328 Chelsea Street (Post Civil War Cottage)
- 354 Park Street (ALSCO laundry plant)
- 365 Park Street (The Dance Warehouse)
- 339 Park Street (former Trophy Shop)
- 301 Park Street (Catlin Studebaker Automobile Dealership)
- 260 Park Street (Pennock Floral)
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: marcuscnelson on May 15, 2020, 04:23:47 PM
Let's be radical here.

We're talking about lobbying for the city to designate these buildings as landmarks. Thanks to you, Lake, there's a list of buildings to at least start with.

So why don't we do what many lobbyists do, and in the words of Bernie Sanders, just "write the damn bill(s)?"

Here's (http://cityclts.coj.net/coj/COJbillDetail.asp?F=2019-0201\Current%20Text) a link to the most recent landmarking bill, for Mount Sinai Missionary Baptist Church.

Is there a group of people here who would be interested in taking this bill, and adapting it for each of the buildings on that list? I'm talking about doing the dirty groundwork so that all Council has to do is sign off. Who'd be down?
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: billy on May 15, 2020, 04:45:42 PM
What about New Springfield/(north Springfield)industrial area?
Coca Cola bottling plant, Suttig (sic)Door and Sash, etc..
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: thelakelander on May 15, 2020, 08:26:29 PM
That list was only for downtown specifically. But there are thousands of buildings across the urban core that are eligible for landmark status.
Title: Re: Doro Fixture Site to be demolished, replaced with Apartments/Retail
Post by: aubureck on May 18, 2020, 06:53:32 AM
Let's be radical here.

We're talking about lobbying for the city to designate these buildings as landmarks. Thanks to you, Lake, there's a list of buildings to at least start with.

So why don't we do what many lobbyists do, and in the words of Bernie Sanders, just "write the damn bill(s)?"

Here's (http://cityclts.coj.net/coj/COJbillDetail.asp?F=2019-0201\Current%20Text) a link to the most recent landmarking bill, for Mount Sinai Missionary Baptist Church.

Is there a group of people here who would be interested in taking this bill, and adapting it for each of the buildings on that list? I'm talking about doing the dirty groundwork so that all Council has to do is sign off. Who'd be down?

That's a great thought in theory, but potential local landmark designation requires several more steps than just legislation to council and a sponsor.  Someone has to request the property to be landmarked to HPC, staff has to do a research/report, HPC has to vote on it, THEN it goes to council for consideration.