1634 Ionia - owner requested demolition

[sheclown]

Special kuddos to Kim Pryor whose relentless preservation energy and unflappable determination brought this to the attention of preservationists throughout the city.

 These people also spoke against demolition last night:

RAP
SPAR
Wayne Woods
PSOS
Debbie Thompson
Chris Farley
Doug Nichols
Alison Good

[NaldoAveKnight]

The commissioners want the owner to have a more specific engineers report.  The one they have says the house is beyond repair.  Jennifer Mansfield so beautifully stated "If it is beyond repair, how is it that you have an estimate for $225k to fix it?"

Just $225k?  Is that all?  Jeez, that's a bargain. Let me get out my checkbook.  There's absolutely no way a brand new period style house could be built from scratch for that amount.  And to think it's sandwiched between two other well cared for gems makes spending $225k an even better deal.  Those three houses on Ionia are the cornerstone of Springfield, truly representative of the best that Springfield has to offer.

[strider]

What I find interesting it that often even the the appointed folks on the HPC forget why a Historic District exists.  It is the houses themselves, not the people, not the new infill, but the historic houses. Take enough of them away and you may as well live on the Southside surrounded by multiple clones of your house. Ionia has already lost 45% of it's housing stock.  One new infill in the last fifteen years and one or two inappropriate HUD housing by the city a couple of decades before that. That's not counting the Habijax village on the small section across 1st street that was cut out of the District and from which the original houses were taken decades ago. There would also be at least four or five more house that could fit the criteria used for this one so  it is conceivable that Ionia could be down to 50% or less of it's housing stock by the end of this year without hope of new infill in the next few decades. Let's just make it easy on those that don't like ugly house.  We can stop being a Historic District and level all the ugly houses.  Why care about history, increased housing values or those pesky tax abatement and credits.  Hey, by doing that, MCCD can start using those federal funds to demolish the houses again. At least Kimberly Scott will be happy.

[MusicMan]

I appreciate your love of the older historic homes in Springfield (and other neighborhoods). I just feel your time would be better spent raising MONEY so you could buy these homes when they come up on tax sales and foreclosures. The guy spent a few thousand bucks to aquire the place. If you could get 100 friends to contribute $1000 then you could buy the next 10 or so that are priced like this.
Leading by example. But you will have to find 100 people who believe in what you believe in, and are willing to part with some $$ to prove it.

[JaxUnicorn]

The commissioners want the owner to have a more specific engineers report.  The one they have says the house is beyond repair.  Jennifer Mansfield so beautifully stated "If it is beyond repair, how is it that you have an estimate for $225k to fix it?"

Just $225k?  Is that all?  Jeez, that's a bargain. Let me get out my checkbook.  There's absolutely no way a brand new period style house could be built from scratch for that amount.  And to think it's sandwiched between two other well cared for gems makes spending $225k an even better deal.  Those three houses on Ionia are the cornerstone of Springfield, truly representative of the best that Springfield has to offer.

NaldoAveKnight, I sense your nasty sarcasm and it's really not necessary.  If you are not a preservationist, why even bother to read these preservation-minded threads?  To be honest, the $225,000 estimate provided by the owners is way inflated.  It outlined restoring the home to a triplex since that's what it was when the fire took place.  Fortunately the structure has lost it's grandfathered multi-unit status and would need to be restored to its former single family state. 

This property is located on a lot that is across an alley from the current owner's double lot.  The owners purchased the property with the intent to DEMOLISH.  There was NEVER any thought given to restoration.  The documentation submitted with the COA states as such.  Their testimony given at the HPC meeting was they were afraid for the safety of their children living next to this structure.  The truth of the matter is that this structure is not in any danger of imminent collapse. 

According to the site plan submitted to HPC in March 2014 for the owner's new home, their main structure will be built 20'7" west of the eastern-most property line and the guest house will be built 5' west of the eastern-most property line.  A 6' tall fence is planned to be erected along the rear portions of the west, south and east property lines.  The 69' long Ionia structure sits on a 125' deep lot.  Let's assume a 10' setback from the front of the parcel and each story is 15' high, even the attic (3 stories, 45'). 

Even if by some magical power the entire structure tipped up off her brick piers from front to back and toppled over (which in case you were wondering would never happen), she still would not fall outside of her current property borders. 

There are options to demolition:

• The current owner is a developer, so DEVELOP IT.  He purchased it at an extremely low price; low enough to still have a nice return on his money even if he sunk $150,000 into it.
• Mothball it.  The mothball ordinance was put into place to preserve the historic fabric in Jacksonville and allow the structure to safely sit and wait until someone was able to restore.
• Sell the property.  Believe it or not, there are people looking for homes to restore.
• Donate it to Preservation SOS.  This option provides the donor with a tax write-off and affords the structure a chance at new life.

There were additional photographs provided at the HPC meeting that show the fire did not do as much damage as the current owner claims.  Yes, there is fire damage, but it is superficial, leaving the structural integrity intact.  You can view the document on Preservation SOS' forum here: http://forum.preservationsos.org/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=119&sid=ba563a3fe2eb6260cae1822249fc453d#p17685

As I am sure you know, Springfield is a Nationally recognized historic district and as such is afforded protections.  If we allow the continued destruction of our historic housing stock, the "historic district" will be no more.  Yes, there are rare circumstances that dictate the demolition of a protected structure; being ugly in the eyes of its owner is certainly not one of those circumstances.

[NaldoAveKnight]

To be honest, the $225,000 estimate provided by the owners is way inflated.  It outlined restoring the home to a triplex since that's what it was when the fire took place.  Fortunately the structure has lost it's grandfathered multi-unit status and would need to be restored to its former single family state. 

There are options to demolition:

• The current owner is a developer, so DEVELOP IT.  He purchased it at an extremely low price; low enough to still have a nice return on his money even if he sunk $150,000 into it.
• Mothball it.  The mothball ordinance was put into place to preserve the historic fabric in Jacksonville and allow the structure to safely sit and wait until someone was able to restore.
• Sell the property.  Believe it or not, there are people looking for homes to restore.
• Donate it to Preservation SOS.  This option provides the donor with a tax write-off and affords the structure a chance at new life.

How many of the folks that showed up to the meeting to stop the demolition would be willing to take this project on?  Money talks, bs walks.

[sheclown]

Actually,just about everyone who showed up to speak is willing.  One offered to buy it right there on the spot.

Preservation SOS has offered to accept the house as a donation to try to hand it over to someone who would restore it.  The current owners would receive a tax benefit by doing so.

[MusicMan]

I would suggest being more proactive as a future course. Getting the props at the tax lien sale or foreclosure sale would save you an awful lot of heartbreak. This guy did what he thought was smart, and acted with his money. I have a friend with a tax sale property on Liberty that he would sell for $20,000. IN a good spot, too. Anyone can PM me if they want more info. 2 story and about 2000 sf. Needs total rehab, but still has pocket doors and some nice fireplace mantels.

[NaldoAveKnight]

Actually,just about everyone who showed up to speak is willing.  One offered to buy it right there on the spot.

Preservation SOS has offered to accept the house as a donation to try to hand it over to someone who would restore it.  The current owners would receive a tax benefit by doing so.

Since the house is sandwiched between two other rough looking properties I guess the larger question becomes who has a vested interest in those other two properties?  And why all the pushback on tearing down a property that has no historical value other than it's old?  Having done battle with slum lords in other parts of town I can attest that the city will go to bat for you and fight the good fight against these irresponsible property owners.  However, it seems that Springfield has a whole group of special interests, crooked contractors, slum lords, funky neighborhood groups, and random do gooders that do more harm than good.  Effectively the city doesn't get involved in this mess because it's too much drama and they've let Springfield kinda be it's own place, for better or worse.

This guy who lives across the street is trying to improve the area and he gets attacked by a strange special interest mob that wants a free house when he puts skin in the game.  Why would anyone want to move to Springfield and put up with that?  All the folks that showed up to the meeting just kinda said to the world that we own this slum and it's ours, back off!

[jaxnyc79]

Don't know much about investing in Springfield other than attending a couple of home tours in the late '90s/early 2000s, and reading about the neighborhood's evolution from afar.  From afar, it feels clannish and bureaucratic.  In the early 2000s, I was a UF college student and in love with the idea of urban, dense, mixed-use living.  Jax seemed to be taking forever to get up and going, so I decided to take a banking job in Manhattan.  What I thought would be a 2 or 3 year stint, ended up being 11 years in Manhattan.  My parents are aging and I'm thinking of keeping a residential foothold in Jax. 

I drove through Springfield in early August, and perhaps I'm not taking the right routes, but driving around it, it actually looks worse than it did 15 years ago.  Overgrown lawns, depressed-looking housing stock (with the occasional gem, of course), and something about the neighborhood tree canopy---a couple branches hung so low that they scraped my car.  It feels very dark and gloomy and depressing...(just my opinion, I otherwise love trees, especially oaks, but brightening up the area by thinning the canopy might do wonders for the general impression.

At any rate, it feels as though after all these years, Springfield still lacks that dense critical mass of restored gems that would give it the buzz of a happening and rebounding historic district.  The SPAR photographers do a great job in photos, but I was disappointed when I arrived.  Again, perhaps I missed the right routes when I visited.

Actually,just about everyone who showed up to speak is willing.  One offered to buy it right there on the spot.

Preservation SOS has offered to accept the house as a donation to try to hand it over to someone who would restore it.  The current owners would receive a tax benefit by doing so.

Since the house is sandwiched between two other rough looking properties I guess the larger question becomes who has a vested interest in those other two properties?  And why all the pushback on tearing down a property that has no historical value other than it's old?  Having done battle with slum lords in other parts of town I can attest that the city will go to bat for you and fight the good fight against these irresponsible property owners.  However, it seems that Springfield has a whole group of special interests, crooked contractors, slum lords, funky neighborhood groups, and random do gooders that do more harm than good.  Effectively the city doesn't get involved in this mess because it's too much drama and they've let Springfield kinda be it's own place, for better or worse.

This guy who lives across the street is trying to improve the area and he gets attacked by a strange special interest mob that wants a free house when he puts skin in the game.  Why would anyone want to move to Springfield and put up with that?  All the folks that showed up to the meeting just kinda said to the world that we own this slum and it's ours, back off!

[strider]

Some posters here need to go to Google and input "National Historic District" and read a bit.  Maybe they will understand one simple concept, though I question whether the City itself does.

The only real asset a Historic District has that has any lasting value are the houses themselves.

Let's repeat that for the slower among us:

The only real asset a Historic District has that has any lasting value are the houses themselves.

If a business were to be found ignoring, hurting or allowing others to hurt, devaluing on purpose and often just throwing away it's most valuable assets and the stock holders got up and said, hold on here what are you doing?  Would you call them a mob and criticize them and call them names?  Or would you realize they would be the business's best hope of survival?

Because that is exactly was has happened in Springfield before and will be happening again if PSOS and the other preservation groups do not stand up and say "Stop the nonsense!" In fact, this city has on the books the ability and the responsibility to protect the houses here and could have with the funds spent for MCCD to do their thing, but chooses not to.  This is not a personal attack against this owner, this is real and valid push back against insane polices that allow anyone to harm this historic district by allowing demolitions for all the wrong reasons and to hinder the restoration of many properties rather than helping in anyway.

[NaldoAveKnight]

Let's repeat that for the slower among us:

The only real asset a Historic District has that has any lasting value are the houses themselves.

A house made of wood with no windows doesn't have any lasting value..it's called 'rotted out' for the slower among us.

[standalone]

What I really don't understand is if you wanted just the land there are plenty of vacant lots of all sizes around Springfield that you could have purchased and saved the cost of demolition.

[strider]

It often is not so much wanting the empty lot today but rather not wanting the building there.  Many reasons for this like MCCD rolling fines and the hassle one has dealing with the MCCD and the building being ugly and being accused of "crimes against the neighborhood" to just list a few of them. 

Once again:


The only real asset a Historic District has that has any lasting value are the houses themselves.

Or if you don't like that one, try this one:

The only reason a Historic District exists to start with are the houses.  The houses themselves are the only assets that matter in making that determination.  All houses or structures designated as CONTRIBUTING are the same as any LANDMARK.

One can be ugly and plain and another fancy and worth a million.  There is no differnce between the two possibilities and both have the same protections and value to the district under the law.

[MusicMan]

How many residential structures are in the Springfield Historic District? Where are the boundaries of this Historic District? How many structures are in excellent condition? How many in good condition? How many in poor or worse condition? 

JaxNYC79 makes a lot of excellent points:

"Springfield still lacks that dense critical mass of restored gems that would give it the buzz of a happening and rebounding historic district."

"Perhaps I missed the right routes when I visited."

Springfield is block to block and house to house. Saving a house just because it's old will never fly in the 21st Century.  Stating that a boarded up house is better than a vacant lot is an opinion. I am a Realtor and I've sold quite a few homes in Springfield. Right now the principal draw is that is way cheaper than Riverside Avondale and San Marco. NOT the amenities. NOT the Restaurants. NOT Shantytown.
In my opinion the future of Springfield is a combination of the new construction like Terra Wise and LowCountry Classics and expert restorations of architecturally interesting homes. There is a lot of poverty still there and slum lords are very difficult to remove. That may never change, as slum lords often leave their properties to children, or sell to other slum lords. There are also drug dealers living there. One of my repeat customers (3 renovated houses so far) sees the activity on a regular basis.

Springfield was apparently neglected for a long period of time, and it will take just as long to get it to that critical mass that JaxNYC79 speaks about.