Author Topic: Historic Preservation Advocacy Lacking In Jacksonville?  (Read 526 times)


Steve

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2623
Re: Historic Preservation Advocacy Lacking In Jacksonville?
« Reply #1 on: January 04, 2019, 09:43:56 AM »
Overall a great read. I'm not 100% convinced that a Downtown Historic District is the right way to go, but I could be convinced. My issue is this: I think that Riverside/Avondale and Springfield benefit greatly from this protection, and I think San Marco could as well. But, I'm not sure downtown is the right fit. For example, I'm not hellbent against all demolition, though I think in Jacksonville it's gotten WAY out of hand.

I think the key is demolition for a vacant lot or surface parking has to end now. But, let's say there's a demolition to replace it with something genuinely contributing to downtown (Hotel/Office/Residential/etc.). Depending on what's demolished and what replaces it, that may be the right way to go in my eyes. Of course, we can't have the "let's demolish the building" then once it's down, say "Market conditions have changed and we're not moving forward." I'm not sure the exact way to prevent that but there has to be a way.

Now, I think what's left of LaVilla and/or Brooklyn may be an exception to that - those areas perhaps should be considered for a historic district.

vicupstate

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2983
Re: Historic Preservation Advocacy Lacking In Jacksonville?
« Reply #2 on: January 04, 2019, 10:21:08 AM »
Being in a historic district, whether a local one or a National Register one, does not automatically prevent all demolitions. It does put in a number of safeguards though. 
"The problem with quotes on the internet is you can never be certain they're authentic." - Abraham Lincoln

KenFSU

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3687
Re: Historic Preservation Advocacy Lacking In Jacksonville?
« Reply #3 on: January 04, 2019, 01:36:54 PM »
Was walking down East Forsyth earlier and couldn't help but chuckle at the irony here:


remc86007

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 670
Re: Historic Preservation Advocacy Lacking In Jacksonville?
« Reply #4 on: January 04, 2019, 01:42:57 PM »
Being in a historic district, whether a local one or a National Register one, does not automatically prevent all demolitions. It does put in a number of safeguards though.

I think the safeguards tend to work more often than not. Driving around Springfield a couple years ago it was easy to pick out houses that looked way too far gone (having structural damage, foundation issues, rotted out walls, etc.), but since they were not demolished, and the market conditions finally justify the massive costs of rehabilitating them, we are seeing 100+ year old houses brought back to life.

I've been watching daily the demolition of the courthouse from my office. Just looking at it I get a sinking feeling that I'm going to have a great view of the river for a long time (darn) and one day we will regret taking down these buildings. The Anex specifically seems like it could have been renovated.

thelakelander

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28791
    • Modern Cities
Re: Historic Preservation Advocacy Lacking In Jacksonville?
« Reply #5 on: January 04, 2019, 01:51:49 PM »
What's happening with the Annex is a shame. That was a perfectly fine building structurally. True consideration of adaptive reuse was never seriously given. Millions up in smoke to fund demolition. Could have used that type of money to two way some streets, since we never have the funds for those types of basics.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2019, 01:53:24 PM by thelakelander »
"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.” - Muhammad Ali

jaxnyc79

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 586
Re: Historic Preservation Advocacy Lacking In Jacksonville?
« Reply #6 on: January 04, 2019, 02:15:18 PM »
it's ironic for far more reasons than just the Annex demolition...

vicupstate

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2983
Re: Historic Preservation Advocacy Lacking In Jacksonville?
« Reply #7 on: January 04, 2019, 05:42:04 PM »
Being in a historic district, whether a local one or a National Register one, does not automatically prevent all demolitions. It does put in a number of safeguards though.

I think the safeguards tend to work more often than not. Driving around Springfield a couple years ago it was easy to pick out houses that looked way too far gone (having structural damage, foundation issues, rotted out walls, etc.), but since they were not demolished, and the market conditions finally justify the massive costs of rehabilitating them, we are seeing 100+ year old houses brought back to life.

I've been watching daily the demolition of the courthouse from my office. Just looking at it I get a sinking feeling that I'm going to have a great view of the river for a long time (darn) and one day we will regret taking down these buildings. The Anex specifically seems like it could have been renovated.

Definitely agree that the safeguards do usually work, which is a good thing.  I also agree that the courthouse/ city hall annex site might be vacant for a long time.  The Annex in particular had a lot of potential, IMO.
"The problem with quotes on the internet is you can never be certain they're authentic." - Abraham Lincoln

jaxnyc79

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 586
Re: Historic Preservation Advocacy Lacking In Jacksonville?
« Reply #8 on: January 05, 2019, 08:41:49 AM »
What's happening with the Annex is a shame. That was a perfectly fine building structurally. True consideration of adaptive reuse was never seriously given. Millions up in smoke to fund demolition. Could have used that type of money to two way some streets, since we never have the funds for those types of basics.

I hate the annex building and its interaction with the street. I don’t, however, understand the city’s zeal in clearing the land without committed and even permitted plans from a developer for the next use.  As we can see throughout downtown, just because you clear land, that doesn’t mean developers will come. 

thelakelander

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28791
    • Modern Cities
Re: Historic Preservation Advocacy Lacking In Jacksonville?
« Reply #9 on: January 05, 2019, 09:36:07 AM »
Other than killing your history and unique sense of place (two important characteristics of vibrant urban settings), my problem with demolitions like this is the loss in density. These properties will sit vacant (like the Greyhound site will and LaVilla for decades) for years to come. When redevelopment does happen, it will likely be less dense than what was torn down in the first place. In the end, you wind up with a setting that doesn't have enough density as a whole to be the vibrant urban district/setting that many seek.
"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.” - Muhammad Ali

Steve

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2623
Re: Historic Preservation Advocacy Lacking In Jacksonville?
« Reply #10 on: January 06, 2019, 02:03:57 PM »
Funny - thinking about this more and the difference between a Historic District and Landmarking buildings piecemeal (and re-reading Burke's piece), I think I convinced myself the local historic district thing needs to happen. Funny how that happens sometimes.