Jump to content

Haydon Burns RFP Thread

bobliocatt

By bobliocatt
in Jacksonville

Recommended Posts

JaxNole Whistle-Stop

JaxNole

Posted
Posted

Perhaps I'm having a hard time understanding what the significance of this structure is and why preservation was not an issue when the JEDC voted. Can someone state a logical opinion from those wanting to save the library that would be consistent with the goals of the Historic Preservation Commission and JEDC?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 337
  • Created
  • Last Reply
JaxNole Whistle-Stop

JaxNole

Posted
Posted

Here we go. A good friend of mine sent me this in response to my post:

"I think he made a point that the reutilization of the space is something that we all want, but the destruction of the building itself is what we dont want. Regardless of whether there are other examples of that style of architecture doesn't mean that we should just tear down the best example of it. Besides, it's all just subjective anywa; either we like the building or we don't like the building. You certainly can't blame people for not wanting to let go one of the only interesting buildings we have downtown. Urban Growth is great but you don't have to go tearing down everything, especially when it's a functional beautiful building with lots of history and a uniqueness that anyone should be able to appreciate. :) Just my opinion, i dont even really know what i'm saying. :) "

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vicupstate Metropolitan Area

vicupstate

Posted
Posted

It looks as though City Councilman Art Graham may be changing his mind about supporting the Peterbrooke option.

I sent the email below to all the unit owners in the Parks @ the Cathedral:

I'm sure many of you have noticed the recent controversy regarding the future of the Hayden Burns Library. Recently a committee of city representatives evaluated the proposals submitted and recommended that the city sell the building to the Atkins Group. Atkins proposes to build a 12 story mixed-use project that would include 70 condominiums, a 600-seat movie theater/restaurant, and additional retail space. I have communicated with a principal with Atkins and he informed me that the theater screen would be three stories tall and possibly have IMAX capability. Prospective tenants for the retail space include Barnes and Noble, Tower Records, or a gourmet grocery store.

Peterbrooke Chocolate is trying to have the city council and Mayor Peyton to overturn the recommendation of the committee, and sell the building to them for $1.5 million. The Atkins group is offering $5 million for the property, which appraised for $4.5 million. Additionally, Atkins will be investing over $40 million into its new building, which will be fully taxable, while Peterbrooke will not add significant taxable value to the existing building.

While Peterbrooke touts its plans to offer tours of the chocolate-making process, their floor plans show merely a small area for displays and an overlook of the production floor. Unlike the tenants in the Atkins proposal, this use of the property would not draw evening visitors to downtown. Also, the uses in the Atkins proposal will generate repeat visits, whereas a tour of a chocolate production line would be more limited in that regard.

Given the current financial condition of the city, and the fact that the city has long advocated the establishment of a residential base in downtown, I feel the Atkins proposal is a strong one and should be chosen. Even more importantly, the mix of uses and tenants in the proposed Atkins building would go a long way towards providing the goods and services that downtown residents need and want, and that will encourage further residential development on the Northbank.

This may be the best chance to get much needed retail establishments within a short distance of the Parks. If you agree, please join me in emailing Mayor Peyton at [email protected] and our district city councilwoman, Suzanne Jenkins, at [email protected] to express your support for the Atkins proposal.

Councilman Graham owns a unit, and had this reply that when out to all Parks owners:

Actually - you should email all the councilmembers and do it individually. They tend to pay better attention to an email addressed specially to them.

There is a lot of clear and direct information in this email. This is a great example of what needs to be sent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jeafl Whistle-Stop

jeafl

Posted
Posted

I noticed yesterday as I went through the Haydon Burns library that just inside the door into the ground floord stacks there is a display of photographs showing the construction of the new main library. One picture was of artifacts of historical buildings that once existed on the site where the new main library is being built.

If historic buildings once existed where the new library is being built, no one can complain if the "historic" Haydon Burns building is demolished.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captain Obvious Hamlet

Captain Obvious

Posted
Posted

If historic buildings once existed where the new library is being built, no one can complain if the "historic" Haydon Burns building is demolished.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Did you not even consider that the same people trying to save the Haydon Burns also previously tried to save the 3 buildings demolished for the new library?

But times like this I'm really glad I never really personally involved myself in any of these preservation battles. It was hard enough just to observe my friend's and family's involvement over the years. It's been a series of failure after failure after failure, and knocking down buildings with reckless abandon. But to suggest that their utterly tragic losing streak should be held against their new preservation efforts ... wow.

I'm not entirely sure if I'd really approve of the preservation of Haydon Burns. And I'm not so sure I really miss the Rhodes building all that much (though it certainy was a quality candidate for preservation.) But I do respect the efforts of the preservationists, and I feel quite sorry for the way the city has stepped all over them over the years. I don't think many people realize how close Jax came to losing almost everything. (i.e. no City Hall, Carling, 11E, Prime Osbourne, no historic districts, etc). There were people who fought against it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BosTech Whistle-Stop

BosTech

Posted
Posted

If I am not mistaken Jacksonville has many 60-70's buildings,I've seen many smaller ones on southside area,not sure exact year but you could tell they would be from that area...some even look alike like old library,some of places that come to my mind are few buildings on University close to Beach blvd intersection.

Anyways I don't see library being "historic" or need to preserve it since it is ugly,depresed and if I am not mistaked buildign like that is not that difficult to replicate...I mean what is about building that can not be rebuild somewhere else using same materials,techniques and cost.

I would rather see Atkins there,that would make DT turn around from boring to place to be.

Saving library would most likely result in building sitting there ,serving as something that is little important and I am sure that most of these people wouldn't visit it at all.

By the way ,Jenskins stated she doesn't like library either but it was people from her district requesting to save it so that is why she stood up,since it is her job to represent people.

So if there is more people writing and responding for Atkins,she would swing her voice in other direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jaylon Unincorporated Area

Jaylon

Posted
Posted

Its time to take the historic notion out of the equation, since the library was built in 1965.  Its only 40 years old.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah 40 years is nothing. 11 E was built in what..1926? and I believe the Carling was also built in 1926 with an addition in 1937. Now that's historic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Russell B Unincorporated Area

Russell B

Posted
Posted

Yeah 40 years is nothing.  11 E was built in what..1926? and I believe the Carling was also built in 1926 with an addition in 1937.  Now that's historic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jacksonville ought to just make a historical district. The building in that area can be remodeled but not demolished. Then identify a small ammount of very historic buildings outside of that district. Everything else is fair game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RiversideGator Burg

RiversideGator

Posted
Posted

Captain: I am with you on probably 99% of the preservation cases. I live in an historic district and I love old things. But, Haydon Burns is just not worth preserving. I simply draw a line at about 1940. Typically structures built between 1940 and 1980 just were ugly and in bad taste. I believe the golden age of American architecture was from about 1890 to 1929. These structures should be saved if possible and practical. But, I freely admit a bias against ugly modernist structures from the 60s. Still, I would preserve the Riverplace Tower, the old Prudential Bldg and some others. There were some good bldgs from that era, but they are few and far between and Haydon Burns isnt one of them.

Vic: That is clearly the same school of thought as Haydon Burns. I guess it isnt so unique after all. :sick:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
scongro Whistle-Stop

scongro

Posted
Posted

That picture is nicer than the library - I saw windows on two consecutive sides!

If a building is to be called historic, shouldn't it be at least older than the Boy Wonder who is running city hall?

Doesn't the term boy wonder imply that he knows what he is doing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.