Haydon Burns RFP Thread

[merlin]

Taylor is a bitter man who has had the unfortunate opportunity to see most of his designs demolished or mutilated - just check out his website at www.taylorhardwick.com. It all depends on how you define "icon" for me it is an icon in downotwn, just like the Modis -(past Independent life tower" I can remember going to the Haydon Burns as a kid. So for me it is a landmark/icon in downtown that strikes up memories of times gone by and what downtown used to be.

Webster defines icon in the following manner:

Etymology: Latin, from Greek eikOn, from eikenai to resemble

1 : a usually pictorial representation : IMAGE

2 [Late Greek eikOn, from Greek] : a conventional religious image typically painted on a small wooden panel and used in the devotions of Eastern Christians

3 : an object of uncritical devotion : IDOL

4 : EMBLEM, SYMBOL <the house became an icon of 1860's residential architecture -- Paul Goldberger>

5 a : a sign (as a word or graphic symbol) whose form suggests its meaning b : a graphic symbol on a computer display screen that suggests the purpose of an available function

So take your. I am not defending the guy, just that the building does have some significance is downtown depending on who you talk to. I am all for demo of it if it means a more viable downtown. My main concern is that we will get some pretty sh*tty architecture to replace it. Architecture that has no real meaning or place in the what is rapidly becoming the renaissance of the Jacksonville downtown urban fabric.

Just my 3 or 4 cents worth.

[Fruit Cove]

the old library is an eye sore and im glad its going. lakelander the building that was demolished for the new library, what was its use?name?just some basic facts? it looks beautiful like it belongs in st.augustine.

[arcgator]

[rant]

I wish that old bag Taylor Hardwick would shut is trap!  Gimme a break!  I didn't see him complaining when Klutho's city hall was torn down. 

"Does Jacksonville need more condominiums at the expense of a 40-year-old landmark building and the loss of an opportunity to create a unique tourist attraction?"

Uh, last time I checked, the answer is DUH!!!  Every single downtown organization clearly says that we need more residents downtown.  So there, boo ya!

[/rant]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sure he didn't, he didn't design it.

[bobliocatt]

That was the old city hall. You'll be amazed at the architectural treasures that have been demolished for parking lots and substandard buildings over the years.

Here's two more we lost:

Old Post Office Building (torn down for Furchgott's store on Adams)

Duval County Courthouse (replaced by parking garage at Forysth & Market)

[RiversideGator]

^^ It really saddens me to see all of the great buildings which we once had in Jacksonville, but which are no more. It is a shame that the new construction didnt take place on vacant lots or by tearing down less significant buildings. Unfortunately, there was not much thought to preservation in the 60s and 70s.

[Jmac823200]

It's not really sad... It's pathetic! Who can you blame though? These buildings are awesome.

[jjoshjl]

Sigh...

Specificly the post office.

I think someone should rebuild an EXACT replica of the post office in the nearest to Ocean surface lot that can support its size. Then turn it into a retail/nightlife center.

Could you imagine a macys on the first two floors then a mid->highend resteraunt on the top floor of that puppy? The, when you are done, go to the "Clock Tower Cafe" for coffe and cake (integrate it into the clock tower with the very top being an observation balcony. The Cafe being the floor just below it. not designed to be big, just designed to be nice) ....

Sigh

If only I were a developer...

Cheers

[merlin]

Talk about pathetic.... listen to you guys... why does jacksonville have to exist as it did 100 years ago... let's look forward, what's done is done. It is our responisibility, at least I think it is mine, to bring good architecture to this city and not let substandard design inhabit every square inch of vacant an/or demo'd land. Just because our city had alot of great older buildings doesn't necessarily mean that it should continue to build like that. That is what makes an urban condition/fabric unique and fascinating are those juxtapositions of new and old. If you don't like what is being done, then do something about it. It is very easy to to sit back behind a computer screen and criticize what is going on. It is a completely different thing to become involved and participate in the rebirth of this city.

With that I encourage everyone to stand behind your words and act on them.

[bobliocatt]

I'm just admiring some of the lost ones.....RIP. Anyway, I agree with everything you just stated.

[Jmac823200]

Merlin, I'm happy for change... change for the better not for worse. I mean what would you rather have the old library or the old city hall?

[vicupstate]

I think photos of beautiful buildings lost to the wrecking ball serve as a reminder of the cost of destruction for destruction sake. Most of those buildings were probably torn down with little thought at all. Seeing what was lost, often just to build a parking lot, helps keep the pressure on, to save what remains.

They also serve to remind people that places like Charleston and Savannah aren't really so unique because of their architecture, they are unique because the architecture was preserved. The way some people view such places, the buildings were built by an entirely different civilization. Many people don't realize that the same architecture existed in the same cities they are visiting from.

If you took all of the historic but NOT renovated properties in all of Duval County and put them together, it would probably cover less than 1 square mile. That still leaves 700-800 + square miles (excluding marshes, etc from the 840 total) left over for great NEW architecture.

There are probably only a dozen large structures in DT Jax that are in poor condition, the city should try to save as many of those as possible. I'm referring to buildings like The Barnett, The Baptist Association building, the Marble Trio, a couple of buildings on Bay St., etc. A few others like the Ambassador, Jones Furniture, etc. are already in the pipeline for rehabs. The character of those buildings just can't be built new IMO.

[merlin]

That's all well and good, but would you rather have the library or some remnant of a historic building, case in point the Laura St. Trio. The condition of these historic buildings is in such disrepair. Downtown was on the decline, now it is on it's way back up which makes the future of the remaining buildings brighter. I too agree that photos serve as a great reminder of what we were, but let's build on that, let's not let some stucco po-mo crap take over downtown and turn it into another cookie cutter product. Let's seize this opportunity to get some good, thought provoking architecture DT. One thing about the Haydon Burns to it's credit - everyone has an opinion about - good or bad. Some the stuff that is getting built is so bad that people are just accepting it thinking ... well it like other cities... why does this have to be the case??? Enough of me rambling... these are just my thoughts.

-out

[Jmac823200]

I'll admit that the Ocean's Sq. architecture is not all that great. The reason though that I like it is for what it brings downtown. Even if the architecture is not that great I'd rather have it then the building that's there now. Even as a kid I always thought that building just looked crazy. The original building though is the best bar none. Klutho was good, but he's no Taylor Hardwick (j/k)

[bobliocatt]

Ocean Square is perfect

The Downtown Master Plan was created with a vision for downtown. Because downtown is the heart of Jacksonville, it must be alive and vibrant.

The old Main Library site is a great location that borders the Cathedral district and the civic core, making it the perfect place for mixed-use development that incorporates condos, retail and entertainment.

The Atkins Group proposes Ocean Square, which includes elements of the Downtown Master Plan and received the highest score from the Jacksonville Economic Development Commission's new system of scoring.

There are elements of Ocean Square that invite the downtown resident or worker to shop, eat and watch a movie, or relax and listen to a band in the outdoor plaza. The condominium residents will have wonderful views of the river and sports complex.

What a great location connecting the Bay Street Town Center, Hemming Plaza, Main Library, Jacksonville Museum of Modern Art, The Jacksonville Landing, the Florida Theatre and other cultural venues.

One of the Downtown Master Plan guidelines is to minimize the impact of parking. The Ocean Square development will build a 120-space underground parking garage in addition to a 40-space surface lot.

If you support the Downtown Master Plan, one can only conclude, as the JEDC did, that Ocean Square is the proposal for downtown.

JERRY W. MAIDA, M.D.

Jacksonville

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stor..._19224332.shtml

[merlin]

I too think the program, aside from the architecture, of the proposal is strong. It will definitely help to enliven downtown. It just pains me as an architect to see our city's government so lax when it comes to the architecture of our DT. DId yo uknow that there isn't an architect on the city's DRC (Design Review Committee)

Like it or not, the architecture of a building is it's "first impression". It is not too often that a new "tower/mid-rise" gets built in DT so let's make sure it is something that the city can be proud of, not some remnant or import of some other city's feel.

[Jmac823200]

I agree with you 100%! It's a shame we don't have any architects on the panel. These know it alls can take care of it though

[lowlyplanner]

I wanted to post some photos of the Library from the 60s. It wasn't always dirty and cluttered, and filled with homeless people. That's the eventual fate of any public building.

Library Photo 1

Library - Outside

Library - Reading Room

Library - Reading Room 2

Library - Theater

Note - Sorry for the links. It won't let me post the images because the board does not allow "dynamic pages." If some kind soul wants to re-post the photos, I'd appreciate it.

The 60s were a unique time for architecture - people were still excited about the possibility of becoming "modern" - whatever that means. Nowadays we've gone back to more classical designs (such as the new library). Not that one is better than the other, but I think it's important to preserve some evidence of that moment. Once you tear something down, you never get a chance to go back and rebuild it.

The Library is clearly the best example of 60s modernism in the city - just take a look at the Courthouse, and the City Hall Annex. It's rare that you get a chance to pick the best example to keep. The older, pre-1945 buildings that we have are the ones that happened to survive. Clearly, looking at the photos recently posted, there were many great buildings that were torn down.

Finally, as a disclosure, I was also part of the Main Branch team. I'm excited to see this kind of debate going on in Jacksonville.

[RiversideGator]

Welcome to the forum, LowlyPlanner. Hope you post more in the future on here.

Merlin: I disagree that this new building represents "some remnant or import of some other city's feel". This building may be an import from an earlier, more civilized, era, but it is not alien to historic architecture in Jacksonville. In fact, I think it resembles many older buildings in Jacksonville and in downtown including some which were torn down and some which still exist (like the Carling). The bottom line is you may not like this style, but you cannot honestly say that there is no predicate for it in Jacksonville.

[Captain Obvious]

My apologies to the (at least 4) architects on the forum ... but I think it would be a bad idea to have architects chosen for the DRC simply because they are architects. Now, if a community leader who just happens to be an architect is chosen, that would be fine.

But by saying, "we need an architect on the DRC," it sounds suspiciously like we want someone to be judging the stylistic or artistic merits of the design. That is NOT the purpose of the DRC at all.

The purpose of the DRC is to judge if a downtown proposal's basic design conforms to the urban guidlines of the zoning overlay. (I think they often fail in that mission, but that's another story). While some elements of pure style are involved, their purpose is not to pass judgement on a building's artistic merit, nor is their purpose to promote one kind of style over another. (i.e. if some jackass wants to build stucco crap, we are supposed to let them build stucco crap, as long as they abide by the proper massing, % glass requirements, etc.) It's about promoting the preservation of downtown property values through a form-based zoning guidline. It's not about saying that stucco is tacky and deconstructivism (or whatever else) is progressive.

Furthermore, if they put an architect on the DRC, it would probably just be someone from PQH ... now, do we really want that to happen??

[Jmac823200]

My apologies to the (at least 4) architects on the forum ... but I think it would be a bad idea to have architects chosen for the DRC simply because they are architects. Now, if a community leader who just happens to be an architect is chosen, that would be fine.

But by saying, "we need an architect on the DRC," it sounds suspiciously like we want someone to be judging the stylistic or artistic merits of the design. That is NOT the purpose of the DRC at all.

The purpose of the DRC is to judge if a downtown proposal's basic design conforms to the urban guidlines of the zoning overlay. (I think they often fail in that mission, but that's another story). While some elements of pure style are involved, their purpose is not to pass judgement on a building's artistic merit, nor is their purpose to promote one kind of style over another. (i.e. if some jackass wants to build stucco crap, we are supposed to let them build stucco crap, as long as they abide by the proper massing, % glass requirements, etc.) It's about promoting the preservation of downtown property values through a form-based zoning guidline. It's not about saying that stucco is tacky and deconstructivism (or whatever else) is progressive.

Furthermore, if they put an architect on the DRC, it would probably just be someone from PQH ... now, do we really want that to happen??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Point taken. I just think it sucks how they let some of this garbage slide (Fidelity). I think it would be smart if they put someone with "artistic flare" on the panel just to promote good architecture and not garbage.

[vicupstate]

Welcome Lowlyplanner!! Enjoyed your post and look forward to more in the future.

Is Main Branch looking at other sites to bring the tenants you had lined up to downtown? I'm sure you may be limited in what you can say, but any insight is always welcome.

[jacksonvillian]

Well, I'm biased, but I think Ocean Square's architecture is better than most new projects I've seen proposed... especially new residential schemes. We could have gotten another Adams Mark-type big box! Personally I would rather live in a tower that reflected a more classic architecture (and if it happens to look like something from Baltimore or Chicago all the better!) more than another glass monolith.

As for street interaction, its by far the best that's come down the line in quite a while. Even if you tried to save the exisiting structure it's not pedestrian friendly at all! The Ocean Square design offers a relationship with the street on all three sides, a half block in total. There aren't many buildings like that downtown right now at all.

Don't get me wrong, I love some of the more contemporary designs downtown, and I hope we get more, but let's have a nice mix of classic along with the glass towers. It's makes for a much more interesting landscape!

- J

[Viper]

Welcome Lowlyplanner. Main Branch was easily my second choice but I must say that it was not because of its design to keep the old construction but but because, as with Atkins, the goal was to bring bodies downtown and entertain them.

When I look at phographs past, I see two things missing. Old buildings and lots of people.

Conserving buildings in the manner that Peterbrooke desired do not bring the people back. If I had to choose old architecture or a more densly populated dowtown, at least we'll always have photographs of those old buildings because I choose people.

[merlin]

This building may be an import from an earlier, more civilized, era, but it is not alien to historic architecture in Jacksonville.  In fact, I think it resembles many older buildings in Jacksonville and in downtown including some which were torn down and some which still exist (like the Carling).  The bottom line is you may not like this style, but you cannot honestly say that there is no predicate for it in Jacksonville.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My point is that no matter how hard it tries, the new design is not going to exactly replicate the past buildings in it's surrounding context. So to that end, why try to mimic something. Why not express your differences. If it is different, make it different. There are ways to design womething to fit into a context without having to mimic it. The Atkins design - IMO - is bland and uninspiring. The program however, as I have mentioned, is great - so in that respect I agree with you viper.

Captain Obvious - I am very well aware of what the responsibilities of the DRC and DDA are. As far as an architect on the DRC, point taken. However, an architect could step in and make suggestions to a proposal for it to better adhere to the downtown zoning codes, landscape enforcement, master plan, etc. I am not saying have an architect on there to just to judge stylistic intentions of proposals. It just seems odd to me that there isn;t an architect on the panel is all - there used to be a couple and none of them were from PQH.

[Captain Obvious]

^ I understand. And I should clairify my previous post, because I don't think there's anything wrong at all with selecting architects for the DRC. I just don't want anyone "on a mission" to advance any specific stylisitc agenda. For example, some guy who wants everything in brick, or everything in blue glass, or everything prarie style, etc etc. Of course, anyone could be guilty of that, not just architects.

Back when I went to school in Providence, there was this downtown project that was delayed over a year for little more than a design review issue. The developer had a perfectly decent building design ready to go ... but there were these damn committee memebers that kept on demanding re-designs. It wasn't a height or size issue at all; just purely fascade issues. Well, the final design wasn't any better than the original one! (many people think it's worse), and a project that could have been finished by now is still under construction, to this day! So, I just hope that nothing like that ever happens in Jacksonville.