What a loooong day it was, yesterday. The retreat went well, and whether we accomplished anything will be determined as our year progresses. Happy to have it behind us.
I am scheduling this to post this morning, but I will be sleeping until this old body decides to wake up. I need to clean today. The house hasn't had a good scrubbing in a few weeks and it is starting to scream at me! LOL
There is something happening in Lakeland that I have found interesting, and I decided to share it with you. Our "ritzy" area of town is what we call the Lake Hollingsworth district. It is the "walking lake" which is three miles around, and there are multi-million dollar homes around the lake. One of them sold a couple of months ago, for just under $600,000, and the new owners are tearing it down to build a new house. It needs to be torn down. The inside was beyond dated, and it had been poorly expanded over the years. The 'original' house has some historic value and that portion of the house was purchased from the new owners, to be gently removed and then moved for restoration. Joe and I drove past it Friday night and took these photos....
This is the original part of the house that will be moved.
This is the side that was added on, years ago.
I pulled this photo off the internet so you can see what it looked like before they started demolition,
This is Lake Hollingsworth. I drive around it every morning on my way to work. The red marker is not this house, but notes Florida Southern College. This house is on the corner of Lake Hollingsworth and Hibriten Way.
And here is the story that started all the controversy. I'm happy to report that the two people (the new owners and Mr. Fancelli) have settled it, and all is well.
---------------------------------------------------
Historic Lakeland home set for demolition causes controversy
Posted: Jul 11, 2014 1:37 PM EDTUpdated: Aug 08, 2014 1:37 PM EDT
Recently, former state representative Tom Mims purchased the home that sits at 1068 Lake Hollingsworth Drive. He has plans to demolish the Lakeland home.
Recently, former state representative Tom Mims purchased the home that sits at 1068 Lake Hollingsworth Drive. He has plans to demolish the Lakeland home.
According to developer Gregory Fancelli, grandson of Publix founder George Jenkins, the home should be historically preserved.
According to developer Gregory Fancelli, grandson of Publix founder George Jenkins, the home should be historically preserved.
According to developer Gregory Fancelli, grandson of Publix founder George Jenkins, the home should be historically preserved.
--------------------------------------------------
Gregory Fancelli is on the Board at the Museum. I spoke with him, at the retreat, about the progress on moving the house. He told me the next step is to put steel beams under the foundation, to ready it for the move. It won't be made into a residence, but will be an office, in a commercial area. It will be interesting to watch it all unfold, going forward!
Hope you are having a good Sunday! Thanks so much for peeking in! Peace & blessings!
You certainly need to sleep in and get some rest. That is really interesting about the old house and that area of your city. Will look forward to seeing the final results. Have a good day....the cleaning will be there another day.
ReplyDeleteInteresting historical article you shared....
ReplyDeleteMost importantly tho, get the rest you need!!!!!
Interesting..I am all for preserving old homes..I don't get the ide of tearing it done..appartently, it was in sad shape? Shaking ny head..what a beautiful old home. Good luck in cleaning today..hubby wants to move furniture around..sigh..Blessings
ReplyDeleteI'm happy that a solution was found for at least part of this old house. I was just telling my sister about this and she told me she'd been to Lakeland. She met up with one of her college friends there. Our small world!
ReplyDeleteThis controversy reached all the way to St. Augustine. The original house which belonged to a friend's father in the 1950's was charming, looking nothing like this current incarnation, and thankfully the original portion is the part Mr. Fancelli is saving.
ReplyDeleteThe rest of it was a bit of a hodge-podge compliments of a subsequent owner. Basically, it was added onto in a manner that made it a McMansion of its day, and I do not use the term McMansion charitably. The addition, which was about three times the size of the original house, was not in the least archtecturally sensitive or important, and that is the part that is being torn down. Not a day too soon.
I am a rabid preservationist, so I was thrilled to see that they would be saving the original portion which is significant. My friend's father who owned it prior to it being "remuddled" were owners of a citrus plant and one of the first, if not the first, in that area to process concentrate.
When I was down there recently, I noticed what has to pass for the absolute worst remodeling I have ever seen in my life, bar none. And I was told it went on for months and months and months. It is scary. I don't understand what behooves people to put their stamp on properties of integrity. That is an historic area, and as such, it should be part of a local historic district that has some teeth to stop houses that were once fine from becoming freakish parodies of their former selves. This one wasn't as big of an offender as the one that is nearby. And I think you know of what I speak, Terri.
Okay, climbing off my soapbox. This is one thing that pushes my buttons. I spent much of my life saving and trying to save historic properties, and I have strong opinions on this topic. Years of going before city hall, I guess. ;-)
xo
Sheila
Yes, I know which one your are talking about. We called it the mausoleum while it was being built. Way too big for the lot it is on. I've not been inside, and it did sell since the original owner, but something tells me the inside is like the outside.
DeleteThere are also a couple of renovations recently that also have me scratching my head, and you could be referring to one of them, instead of the brick monstrosity I mentioned above.
DeleteI was thinking of the lava rock fiasco. Is that the same one, or have I missed something??? ;-)
ReplyDeleteI just added to my comment and yes - that one is quite interesting, too. Another strange reno that makes me wonder what they were thinking.
DeleteThey obviously weren't... thinking, that is. ;-)
DeleteThat other place, yes I know of what you speak, takes up every square inch of ground, and I am given to understand it was built by empty nesters. Maybe they thought they would get their exercise by cleaning it! You would actually need a riding vacuum.
I will stop now. But that rock one really is cringeworthy. The sad thing is, that was a nice house, and though not imposing, at least it didn't vaunt itself like a flashing neon sign. Nor did the predecessor of the one you call the Mausoleum.
DeleteSo much of what works about a property is the scale of the structure as it is sited on and relates to the property itself. That is Architecture 101. When you violate the principle, it makes it hard on those you are trying to impress because it is just "off" upon being viewed. People may not understand what bothers them, but they sense something is amiss. I would blame both the builder and the architect if there is one. They should know better. Or at the very least, they should listen to us! :-)
What a beautiful house. I'd take the original one even though it's outdated. I'm glad the retreat went well. You have a good day.
ReplyDeleteCarol, it looks lovely outside, but the inside was dated and atrocious. It would have taken at least $300,000 to do some renovations inside. It was awful.
DeleteHope you slept in! That is very interesting about the house. It is so pretty on the outside....I love a tudor-style home. I can't imagine paying $600,000 for a home you have to tear down, let alone what they will spend to rebuild!
ReplyDeleteI did, indeed, sleep late. I got up around 8:00!!
DeleteVery interesting about the home. I have been lazy today. Hope you have a nice week.
ReplyDeleteOH My.... I don't know anything about this --but from what I have read about it from here, I tend to 'side' with the new owner. The house had been on the market for 3 yrs. IF someone wanted to preserve it, they should have done it long before it was sold... I can understand wanting to preserve history--but they truly should have done something during those years that it was for sale... Just my opinion...
ReplyDeleteHugs,
Betsy
I agree with you, Betsy.
DeleteThis should be interesting to see how it plays out!!! Keep us posted.
ReplyDeleteWhat an interesting story! Great pictures!
ReplyDeleteAround here they tear down old homes all the time. It is cheaper to tear down then restore. It is sad.
ReplyDelete