|
JOHN F. SEAGLE BUILDING REHABILITATION PROGRAMING
David P. Rigney AE 687
Instructor: Blair Reeves Fall 1976
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 1
Building Description 2
Structural System 8 Environmental Systems
Heating, Air Conditioning and Ventilation 12
Electrical System 13
Hot Water System 14
Mechanical Transportation 14 Physical Evaluation
Physical Exterior Evaluation 15
Basement 19
Floor One 22
Floor Two 23
Floor Three 24
Floor Four 25
Floor Five 26
Floors Six Through Ten 27
Floor Eleven 28
Mechanical Deficiencies 29
Summary of Code Deficiencies 31
Site Analysis 32
Traffic Court Gainesville Comprehensive Plan 37
Site Analysis Gainesville Community Activities Center 38
Historical Chronology 39
Summary Building Utilization Considerations 43
Utilization Feasibility Considerations 46
Retail Trade 46
Residential
Restaurant Entertainment Office
Summary Office Space Leased by State Department of General Services Lease Listing Cumulative Record Apartment Vacancy Surveys Design Goals General Basement
Retail Shopping Arcade Floor One Second Floor Offices
Apartment Units Floors Three Through Ten
Eleventh Floor and Mezzanine Space Program Cost Summary Appendices
1. Advanced Project Analysis; J. A. Condon and Associates, Inc.
2. Excerpts Report of Fire Safety Study; Briel, Rhame, Poynter and Houser Architects and Engineers
3. Staff Study Seagle Building
4. Office Space Market Analysis; Gladstone Associates
5. Feasibility Analysis of the Seagle Building; University of Florida Department of Real Estate
6. Florida Employment Directions
7. Gainesville SMSA Labor Market Trends
8. The Downtown Study; "Gainesville Studio"
9. Design Analysis
Residential Apartments
Commercial Restaurants Kitchens Retail Shops Offices
10. Excerpts Gainesville Zoning Ordinance
11. Excerpts The Southern Standard Building Code
INTRODUCTION
The general intent of this report is to provide a working document which will serve in making decisions in regard to the best possible utilization of the John F. Seagle Building. Due to limitations of time and expertise, especially in regard to economic analysis, excerpts from those studies, specifically applicable to the Seagle Building or specifi problems in its utilization, will be included as appendices to this program to provide as detailed an analysis of the problem as possible.
The first phase of this project will be primarily concerned with documentation and the gathering of information necessary to conceptualize a viable rehabilitation of the Seagle Building. The second stage of the project will be the design phase of this rehabilitation.
Among those contributing ideas and information to this project are:
Dr. Wayne Archer, Professor, Real Estate Finance
Frederick B. Arnold, Realtor-Appraiser
Robert Dickinson, Chamber of Commerce
Richard Dudley, Downtown Redevelopment Committee
James Forsman, Owner Young American Building
Derek McLean Project Director, D.G.S.
L. J. Hodgins, Maintenance Superintendant
Gus Kloonis, Director Gainesville Office D.G.S.
Carl Opp, Head of Off-Campus Housing Section
Neil Webb, Associate Director of Campus Planning
Carl Feiss, Professor Urban Planning
F. Blair Reeves, Professor Architecture
2
BUILDING DESCRIEPICSSl
The Seagle Building's design is a conciliation of early twentieth century eclecticism and the most up-to-date construction technology of its period; a ccriibination so common as to be almost typical of Florida's construction boon of the 1920's. The stylistic considerations are. completely neglected on the rear extension of the building.
The building's main facade which faces University Avenue is syiiiuetrical with the exception of the eleventh floor access to the west stair tower and the chimney that extends above the eleventh floor on the rear side of the building's eleven story tower. The facade is divided horizontally into three major divisions. The central bay of the facade provides the focus of the composition with the less ornate divisions, each a structural bay in width, flanking on both sides and receding slightly.
The central toy of the facade is thirteen stories in height, eleven of which are intended for occupancy. The twelfth level houses the apparatus for elevator operation and the small thirteenth story tower houses a water tank. The tower is square in plan with its corners chamferred at 45. A symmetrical lantern, crowned by a spire that functions as a lightning rod, extends above the tower's copper batten roof. The lantern is sheathed with copper. The base of the tower is surrounded by a parapet topped by a molded coping of cast stone. This parapet is stepped back from the copper batten mansard roof of the eleventh story which is confined to the width of the central bay of the facade. A molded copper gutter occurs at the base of the eleventh story's mansard roof. The cast stone molding which runs across the eleventh story of the facade's central
3
bay is broken in three places to accommodate three regularly space casement windows with segmentally arched heads. These windows are on axis with the three central pairs of windows that occur at floors three through ten. The broken molding is continued in the coping of the parapet above the tenth floor of the facade's flanking bays.
The fenestration of floors three through ten consists of regularly spaced pairs of double-hung cypress framed rectangular windows with two exceptions. The central pair of double-hung steel windows with semi-circular heads at. the fifth floor are enclosed by a wrought iron rail supported by a projecting cast stone balcony which in turn rests on a pair of brackets and a series of dentils. /Above this pair of windows is a checker-board arrangement of ornamental cast stone topped by a dentilled molding which functions as the sill for the pair of windows directly above. The second change in fenestration occurs at the tenth floor. The three central pairs of steel casement windows are topped by semi-circular headlights. Each of the three pairs of windows is treated similarly with a bracketed sill of cast stone and ornamental cast stonevjork above. /Above this arched ornamental motif is a hood sheathed in copper batten roofing, which repeats the form of the eleventh floor's mansard roof. Each of the three hoods slopes down to a cornice supported by a series of four corbels. This cornice resting on corbels is repeated above the tenth story windows on the flanking Ijays of the facade running continuously at the east and west ends of the tower and terminating on the north side of the tower on line with the north-south exterior walls of the eleventh floor. This same cornice is repeated again at the coping of the parapet surrounding the base of the tower.
4
The corbels occur along the north elevation of this parapet and extend less than half way across the east and west elevations of the parapet.
The treatment of tine first two stories provides the base for the composition of the facade's design. The change in finish material as well, as the change in fenestration, all of wliich is slightly recessed, emphasizes this distinction. The upper portion of the building is finished in stucco with the exception of the ornamental elements previously mentioned. The two-story base is faced with cast stone, tooled to resemble limestone. Tine dimensions of the staggered rectangular facing panels vary to accorviodate the fenestration of the first two floors. A course of cast "granite" makes the transition to the ground plane. The ornamental treatment of the main entry is marble. The cast limestone facing of the first two floors continues onto the east elevation of the tower terminating on line with the tower's north exterior wall. The west elevation and the entire rear extension of the building is finished with stucco. The cast stone base of the facade's composition is separated from the stuccoed upper floors by a belt of cast stone molding which runs the breadth of the south and east elevations of the ten-story main tower.
The main entry is the point of focus of the facade's design. The centrally located main entry design alludes to a scale of interior space that does not exist. The main entry design is such that the second story window directly above appears to function as a headlight rather than as a window on a separate floor. The main entry is ornamented by a pink marble surround consisting of two fluted pilasters rising from marble bases of contrasting color to a modelled lintel which bears the inscription "John F. Seagle Building". Mounted on
the marble lintel is an urn flanked by two wing-like motifs, all of similar iaarble. The window directly over the main entry is divided by-two vertical mullions and a single cross-mullion above center. This results in a fixed central pane flanked by casement sash, a fixed pane above the central one and a small fixed pane at each corner of the window. The head is segmentally arched with a molding of cast stone above. Five cast stone voussiors are used to detail the window head on the facing of the building. This central window is flanked by two similar windows. This central grouping of three windows is in turn flanked by two rectangular grills of ornamental cast stone. These are apparently intended to admit air for ventilation. At the first floor the ioain entry is flanked by two windows of dirunisliing width on each side. Divided by two vertical mullions and two cross-mullions these windows consist of a central double casement sash flanked by single casenent sash, with hinged rentilators above and below and fixed corner panes. All seven of the windows on this lower central bay of the facade are steel sash trimmed with bronze.
Each of the flanking bays of tlie lower facade are fenestrated at tine second floor by two pairs of rectangular, cypress-framed, double-hung windows. At the first floor each of the facades flanking bays is fenestrated by two openings. At the west end of the facade the two openings provide access to the entry vestibule for the former Florida State Iluseum and to the west stair tower. At the east end of the facade the opeings are glazed with nearly square bronze-framed store front windows over a cast "granite" base similar to that across the remainder of the facade. Each of the four opeings at the first floor of the flanking facade bays are characterized by a molded cast stone
6
surround. Recessed into the head of each is a stenciled cypress lintel. Above the cypress lintel occurs a one-piece cast stone lintel.
On the east elevation the first and second floors are fenestrated by three evenly spaced windows for each floor. Each window has two vertical mullions and a single cross-mullion above center.
Light is admitted on the east and west ends of the eleventh floor by four (two at each end) rectangular panels of glass brick flanked by double casement windows. The east exterior wall has a third, centrally located, panel of glass brick.
The remainder of the building, with the exception of the one and two story rear extension, is fenestrated with comloinations of single and double units of cypress framed double-hung windows. On the north elevation the regularity of fenestration is Laroken to accommodate the twelve story cliimney which is located off center to the west, on line with the northwest corner of the eleventh floor. The fenestration of the rear extension of tlie building is regular consisting of aluminum framed awning windows.
The quality of the interior design of the Seagle Building xs generally institutional and does not require extensive description. Una-domed plaster walls and ceilings are the norm, exceptions to which will be noted in this study. The floors are generally finished in linoleum. Restroom floors are finished in quarry tile and stairways are of painted cement. The quality of finish is plain and well executed. The exceptions to this institutional interior finish are found in the museum entry vestibule, the monumental stairway to the former museum and the main entry and lobby.
7
The main entry vestibule and museum entry vestibule are similar in finish. The walls are finished in cast stone tooled to resemble limestone. The wall's base is of cast granite. This finish is repeated in the floor finish of the museum entry. The vestibule ceilings are plastered between non-functional cypress beams. These beams which are finished with stencilled designs run north-south in the museum entry and east-west in the main entry. The ornate terrazzo floor of the main entry vestibule continues into the main entry lobby. The walls of the main entry lobby are finished to door height with large glazed terra cotta tiles. /Above door height the walls are finished in plaster which is molded at the intersections of the vails and the ceiling. Fluted pilasters of glazed terra cotta ornament the walls of the lobby. The two elevators which service the building have ornate bronze doors that function as a focal point of the main lobby.
The monumental staircase that leads from the museum entry to the major display area of the former museum on the second floor is the focal point of the former museum's entryway. /Approximately seven feet wide, the staircase is U-shaped in configuration. The primary flights of nine risers each are connected by square landings and an intermediate flight of five risers at right angles. The ballustrade consists of simple iron spindles alternated with ballusters of twisted iron topped by a simply molded iron handrail.
8
STRUCTURAL SYSTEM
The basic structural system of the Seagle Building consists of a system of reinforced concrete beams supported on reinforced concrete columns that diminish in cross-section at each successive floor. The primary system of beams run east-west with a secondary system of beams running north-south at the exterior extremities of the building. Additional beams provide support in areas of concentrated loading which include the three stairways and the structural bay which supports the water-supply tank. At the eleventh floor deep narrow beams coincide with the outer walls forming a continuous base for the walls of the eleventh floor. Likewise the eleventh floor roof is supported by a continuous peripheral beam.
The intermediate floor support is provided by reinforced concrete ribbed slabs consisting of a 2" wire mesh reinforced slab over 5" wide ribs 6" to 10" deep spaced 25" on center. In most cases the ribs span north-south. The plans for the completion of the building call for an additional 2" of mesh reinforced concrete which may or may not have been placed. In most cases the ribs are braced at mid-span by a cross-rib. The ribs widen at the supporting beams to accommodate shear. On the second floor a section of the floor was originally sunken. When the building was completed, short brick walls were layed up on the existing beams to support webbed steel joists which in turn support the raised concrete slab floor. At the eleventh floor the superstructure was originally intended to support the roof over the tenth floor and is consequently pitched for drainage. An intermediate structure believed to be steel framing provides a level surface for the eleventh floor which is finished in wood strip flooring.
9
The foundation for the superstructure consists of an individual spread footing for each column. These footings are square and of a stepped pyramidal configuration two tiers high under the one and two story portions of the building and three tiers high under the tower section. Each of the footings at the western extremity of the building is connected to the corresponding footing in the next structural bay to the east by a rectangular tie of reinforced concrete. This apparently compensates for the half-pyramid configuration of the footings at the building's western extremity necessary to prevent encroachment on the adjacent property. The basement walls are structurally independent of the building's structural frame. The walls exposed to grade are battered in configuration, tapering from 1' 3" to 8", resting on the outer edge of a 2 foot wide continuous spread footing. The walls and footings are cast as a single unit of reinforced concrete. The wall not exposed to grade adjacent to the service ramp is 12 inches thick centered on a 2 foot wide continuous spread footing. This wall and footing is likewise cast in reinforced concrete. The basement floor consists of a rough 5 inch reinforced concrete slab except in the area between the service core and the east exterior wall. The floor in this area is coarse gravel over exposed earth.
With the exception of the roof over the eleventh floor and the tower above, the Seagle Building's roof structure is of construction similar to the reinforced concrete frame and ribbed slabs already described in this report. The roofs over the eleventh floor and the tower that houses the water tank are supported by a framework of steel members which is in turn supported by continuous peripheral reinforced concrete beams. The framing over the eleventh floor consists of bents spanning east-west. These bents
10
consist of a lower chord and an upper chord separated by vertical members. Around the periphery diagonal steel members support the mansard facade of the eleventh floor roof. The tower roof and structure consists of steel angles spanning between the peripheral concrete beam and a steel collar which functions as a compression ring as well as a base for the lantern above. Wood decking attached to the steel framing by wood blocking provide support for the roof finish of both the eleventh floor and the tower.
The exterior walls of the eleven story portion of the building are constructed of hollow terra cotta structural tile between the concrete members of the building's structural frame.
The exterior walls of the building's rear extension are believed to be of similar construction but may be constructed of brick or some other type of masonry.
The original interior partitioning of the basement which includes only the enclosure and division of the service core, the boiler room, and the transformer vault is constructed on non-bearing brick masonry. Other partitioning of the first and second floors is constructed of hollow terra cotta tile. Further subdivision of the spaces has been accomplished with wood frame partitions on the first floor. The partitioning of the offices at the north end of the building's rear extension may be constructed of plaster over steel studs.
The original partitioning of floors three through nine is constructed of plaster over steel studs with the exception of the west walls of the elevator lobbies. These are constructed of hollow terra cotta tile. Further subdivision of these floors has been accomplished with wood frame partitions.
The partitions that subdivide the tenth and eleventh floors are of wood frame construction.
11
The building's major stairways including the west stair tower, the main stairway for floors one through four, the monumental stairway to the former museum and the basement stairs are constructed of reinforced concrete. The stairs from the eleventh floor up to the elevator switch room are constructed of wood framing. The stair ladder to the eleventh floor roof and the water storage tank is constructed of steel.
12
HEATING, AIR CONDITIONING AND VENTILATION
The source of heat for the Seagle Building is a pair of boilers located in the basement adjacent to the elevator shaft. The steam system is fired by a pair of "Power Flame" C2-G0-20 force draft gas burners with a maximum output of 2900 M.B.T.U./hour each. These burners were installed in the 1960's when the system was converted from oil to gas as a fuel source. The original specifications for the heating system called for 5,200 square feet of radiator capacity.
Heat is transferred to the building's various spaces by a combination of wall hung direct radiation units and forced air-steam coil units.
The majority of the basement is unheated, but the former museum shop area is heated by ceiling mounted forced-air unit heaters. Outside air for ventilation is drawn in by blade type fans.
The first and second floors are heated and ventilated by a combination of recessed radiation units and three 3,000 CFM blowers with outside air coming from a filtered intake above the second floor roof.
The heat for the tower floors is provided by wall hung radiators that coincide with the windows around the periphery. These windows are relied upon for fresh air intake.
There is no central system for cooling the building. The only cooling is provided by window mounted unit air conditioners located randomly around the building's exterior.
13
ELECTRICAL SYSTEM
The Seagle Building's original electrical system was a three phase-three wire system with 2,300 volt primary service. This service runs to the transformer vault in the basement. The secondary power feeders provided 220 volt three phase power for the elevators, various pumps, basement sump pump, ventilation system and special museum power requirements. Secondary lighting feeders provided 110-220 single phase power for lighting and convenience outlet branch circuits. In the 1950's the building was completely rewired and much of the wiring was run in surface mounted conduit. Meters were placed on several of the floors occupied at that time near the lighting branch circuit panels. Complete details of this rewiring were not available but it is clear that the electrical service to the building should be consolidated at one point.
The lighting was originally entirely incandescent varying form 100-300 watts. In most of the tower floors this has been replaced with two and four lamp four foot flourescent fixtures, some ceiling mounted and some suspended from the ceiling.
Convenience outlets are baseboard-mounted with raceways for their wiring recessed in the building's floor slabs.
14
HOT WATER SYSTEM
The Seagle Building's hot water is supplied from a 250 gallon tank located in the basement boiler room. The water is heated by one of the building's two boilers and distributed by a circulation pump located adjacent to the hot water tank. Lack of use over the years may have impaired the system's piping to the point where it will require replacement.
MECHANICAL TRANSPORTATION
Two elevators rated at 2,000 pound capacity designed for a maximum of thirteen passengers supplement the Seagle Building's stairways in vertical transport. The speed of these elevators is not known but they have a reputation for being undependable. The elevators serve floors one and three through ten. The switching panels and lifting motors for the elevators are located on the mezzanine level above the eleventh floor.
15
PHYSICAL EVALUATION OF EXTERIOR
1. Seepage at the joints of the parapet coping above the tenth and eleventh floors and above the elevator control mezzanine have caused excessive deterioration of the surrounding stucco finish. Corrective flashing and sealing of the coping joints will be necessary.
2. On the east side of the building water running off the parapet above the tenth floor is being channeled onto wall surfaces by way of the brackets supporting the cornice below. Corrective flashing with adequate drips will be required to prevent future deterioration.
3. Staining and stucco deterioration have resulted from condensation drip-page from unit air conditioners. The removal of the air conditioners will alleviate the source of the problem.
4. Water over-run at the cast stone cornice at the third floor level has resulted in staining, finish deterioration and fungal growth. The existing flashing which appears to be bitumen coated cloth or fiber glass has deteriorated to uselessness. Corrective flashing with adequate drips will be required.
5. The finish of all the wooden (cypress) windows in the building is badly deteriorated. With a few exceptions where minor rot has occurred, the windows are solid. Air and water infiltration is allowed due to deteriorated caulking. If these windows are to remain in use they should be removed and moisture-stabilized with epexy or a polymer resin; the openings should be flashed before reinstallation; weather stripping should be installed to minimize air infiltration.
6. Lack of proper coping or cap flashing of the parapet walls around the periphery of the one and two story rear extensions of the building have allowed water over-run to deteriorate and stain the exterior wall finish on these areas of the building.
16
7. Cracks in the stucco wall finish on the east side of the building's rear extension coincide with the location of roof drain leaders concealed in the wall. The drain leaders are apparently plugged or damaged and should be replaced or sealed off, with new provisions made for roof drainage.
8. Vines and other vegetative growth on the west side of the building's rear extension have damaged the exterior finish in this area allowing moisture intrusion into the walls. Removal of the vegetation and refin-ishing of the exterior will be required.
9. The cast stone facing panels over the three first floor windows at the south end of the east side of the building and over the two store front windows at the east end of the south facade are severely cracked and should be replaced. The crackage may be due to improper attachment or corrosion of the panels' reinforcement. Other minor crackage may be resolved by application of a sealant at the crack to prevent moisture intrusion.
10. The sills of the tower windows do not provide for proper runoff. Provision for adequate drips should be provided.
11. The wooden headers over the four openings, two at each extreme of the south facade are badly deteriorated due to lack of maintenance. Replacement of moulded trim, recaulking and refinishing will be required. If possible these headers should be moisture-stabilized with epoxy or polymer resin.
12. The entire portion of the building that is finished in stucco suffers from various stages of deterioration. On the upper portions of the building the finish coat is worn back to what appears to be a waterproofing undercoat. A new finish coat of stucco will be required as a bare minimum and steps should be taken to effectively water-proof the entire exterior.
17
13. Various areas on the interior (which will be documented in the floor-by-floor listing of deficiencies) exhibit damage apparrently caused by moisture intrusion along the juncture of the structural frame and the tile in-fill. It will be necessary to remove the exterior finish in a number of areas to determine the condition and confirm the existence of flashing at these junctures. Stripping of the finish along the horizontal exterior structural members may be required to provide the necessary flashing.
14. The copper roof over the west stair tower is deteriorated and leaking.
15. The built-up roofing on all portions of the building should be stripped and replaced. During this process rigid insulation board should be installed on all roof areas and the wood sheathing that supports the eleventh floor roof should be replaced with a non-combustible material. During the re-roofing process the columns that extend through the annex roof should be cut off below the roof deck to avoid potential moisture intrusion.
16. Improper or damaged flashing of the juncture of the walkway cover on the east side of the annex has allowed moisture intrusion to damage the structure of the walk cover and the finish of the adjoining exterior wall. If the walk cover is not removed the damage to its structure should be investigated further and the flashing deficiency corrected.
17. Behind the ornamental motif avove the main entry door is a cavity that collects water. This was anticipated in the design of the entry and compensated for by lining the cavity with copper and applying a coat
of bitumenous material. Also a drain was provided to conduct accumulated water to the sidewalk below. Blockage of this drainage and failure of the cavity liner has allowed water intrusion into the wall damaging the interior wall finish at this point. Relining of the cavity and a better means of drainage will be necessary.
18
A crack which seems to be opening occurs on the north end of the annex' east wall. Its configuration is wandering and appears to begin at the point of support for the cover over the walkway. The cause for the crack should be investigated further.
19
BASEMENT DEFICIENCIES
The basement was the location of the only consequential structural deterioration in the building. Deterioration of a serious nature was confined to the south end of the basement in the area that extends beneath the sidewalk at grade level. Extensive spalling has occurred due to moisture intrusion into the structure resulting in corrosion of the reinforcing steel. The major deterioration is confined to the ribbed slab supporting the exterior walkway. Steel shoring has been installed to support this area. Significant deterioration has occurred on only one structural member responsible for support of part of the building and this is not so great as to be a hazard if corrective action is taken. The structural member in question is the beam running east-west between columns four and five at the southeast corner of the basement. Spalling has resulted in the exposure of part of the beam's steel reinforcing. Steps to repair the damage to this beam should be taken as will be outlined later in this report. The portion of the basement beyond the building's south wall should be demolished, a new basement wall constructed on line with the building's south wall and the area filled and compacted for construction of a new walkway. Spalling of a less serious nature has occurred at the base of columns 5 and 23 due to prolonged flooding before the building was completed. Isolated incidences of spalling can be found in the accessway to the basement service core and in the former museum shop area. Some of this deterioration may be due to physical abuse rather than spalling and none of it with the exception of the southern end of the basement is a threat to the building's soundness. Repair of the spalled areas should include thorough cleaning and check for soundness of each area; cleaning of any exposed reinforcing; and application
20
of new concrete by pneumatic means either pressure forming or spray-on (Gunnite). Prolonged exposure to moisture is responsible for the deterioration of the concrete in the areas outlined. Prevention of further such exposure will insure the building's structural stability. One step in accomplishing this will be to eliminate all areas where the basement extends beyond the building line. This will allow proper moisture-proofing of a substantial portion of the basement's periphery. Since a large amount of piping and utility lines will require concealment under the basement floor to allow maximum use of this area for storage it may be desirable to demolish and reconstruct the entire basement slab to insure adequate moisture protection. The area between the service core and the eastern exterior wall does not have a floor slab. Whether or not the slab is reconstructed a new basement drainage system should be installed and the sump pump relocated to a more out of the way position.
2. Shoring has been placed in an east-west direction about 70 feet south of the basement's north wall to support the ribbed slab above. The reason for this is not known and the area in question seems to be sound. The structural analysis by Gustav Mayer confirms this. A thorough structural examination of this area should be made by a structural engineer and the scaffolding removed.
3. Staining and efflourescence indicate water seepage along the ceiling structure at the north and east walls of the basement near the northeast corner. Both these walls are under the exterior sidewalks. Reconstruction of this area as outlined previously would allow correction of this problem.
4. In room 9 along the western wall of the basement damage to floor and wall finish indicates extensive moisture intrusion along the ceiling
21
structure and possibly at the floor level. It may be necessary to expose the exterior of this part of the basement wall to determine the necessary corrective measures.
Along the north and east walls of the basement where the basement extends under the exterior walkways several glass brick skylights have been removed and filled with concrete. If this area is not reconstructed as outlined previously corrective measures will be necessary to prevent further moisture intrusion at the locations of the removed skylights.
22
FLOOR ONE DEFICIENCIES
1. Removal of the recessed mail boxes in the elevator lobby has exposed an expanse of bare hollow tile wall.
2. In rooms 109 A and 108 damage to the ceiling structure has exposed small areas of steel reinforcing. The damage is not extensive but should be patched as outlined in the listing for the basement.
3. In rooms 103, 104 and 112 considerable deterioration and peeling of wall and ceiling finish seems to be related to moisture intrusion. The lack of efflourescence indicates the presence of moisture may not have been continuous or prolonged. The most likely cause is saturation of the floor above during cleaning. Sealing of the floor slabs at all levels would help prevent reoccurrance of this problem and a reasonable approach by custodial staff will be necessary. It is possible that this is a side effect of rising damp in the structural frame but this seems unlikely due to lack of consistency in other areas of the building.
4. In room 104 severe efflourescence has damaged the wall finish under the window at the southeast corner of the room. The problem appears to be due to moisture intrusion around the sill of the window. Improper flashing of the wall1s structural frame at grade level combined with poor drainage of the exterior sidewalk may also be creating this problem. Re-flashing of all the windows across the south facade should be considered.
5. The windows on the east side of the tower section of the building are allowing a sufficient amount of moisture intrusion to cause staining of the surrounding wall surface. These windows should be removed, moisture-stabilized and reflashed before reinstallation or replaced.
23
FLOOR TWO DEFICIENCIES
Moisture intrusion around the sills of the windows on the east wall has caused efflourescence on the plaster surfaces below these windows. Replacement or corrective measures as outlined previously will be required. The ornamental grills flanking the central windows of the south facade open directly into the former museum. If a ventilation function cannot be found for these openings they will have to be walled off. If this is done moisture barriers should be carefully planned to eliminate entrapment of water by the grillage or by its recessed opening. Extensive peeling of paint on the walls and ceiling of the entry to the museum area has occurred. This appears to be a moisture related problem, but as indicated in the first floor examination, the source of moisture was probably the saturation of the floor above during cleaning. The finish damage and efflourescence beneath the central window of the south wall is a result of the moisture barrier failure above the main entry to the building as outlined under general exterior deficiencies. Efflourescence on wall surfaces around the structural framework of the west tower at this level seems to indicate moisture intrusion through the exterior wall. This may result from exterior finish deterioration or may be related to improper flashing of the structural frame. The periphery of the former museum display area is enclosed by the display backdrops used by the museum. This should be removed entirely. Several areas of the museum area ceiling have been removed for structural examination. Correction of this can be considered in the redesign of this space.
24
FLOOR THREE DEFICIENCIES
In this area there is extensive but superficial cracking of the floor slab. According to the structural analysis by Gustav Mayer this crackage was the result of concentrated floor loads during a period when this floor was used for heavy storage. While the problem is insignificant in terms of structural stability the cracks represent a potential point of entry for moisture. The floor should be sealed in some manner to prevent such moisture intrusion. This solution could include the placement of a topping over the entire floor area and finish with a sealant or grouting of individual cracks followed by sealant application. At various times several of the floors in the building have been used for storage and it will be necessary to remove large areas of old floor finish (mostly asphalt tile) to determine where similar problems exist.
Deterioration of ceiling finish primarily confined to the hallway indicates moisture intrusion resulting from the cleaning of the floor above.
Finish deterioration at the penetrations of steam circulation pipes on this area's periphery are an indication of leakage in the steam piping system or improper isolation and moisture barrier between piping and wall finishes. This problem is recurrent throughout the tower floors three through ten.
There has been extensive wood frame partitioning of the south half of this floor, all of which should be removed.
The fixtures in the women's restroom on this floor have been removed to convert this space for use as what appears to be a photographic darkroom.
25
FLOOR FOUR DEFICIENCIES
This area is the best maintained of the entire building, apparently because of more continuous occupancy. Finish deterioration on the walls and ceiling of the elevator lobby indicate some moisture intrusion, either from the cleaning of the floor above or from the exterior structural frame. This is one of the areas in the building where wall finish both interior and exterior should be stripped to investigate the moisture barrier at the structural frame.
Some surface deterioration at steam circulation risers indicates repetition of the problem outlined in the deficiencies of floor three.
26
FLOOR FIVE DEFICIENCIES
1. Finish deterioration in the elevator lobby coincides with similar deterioration on the fourth floor.
2. Finish deterioration along the ceiling structure on the north side of this area, especially east of the elevator lobby, seems to indicate moisture intrusion along the structure from the exterior. Interior and exterior finishes should be stripped in this area to allow inspection and correction of moisture barrier deficiencies.
3. Finish damage around the steam circulation risers will require treatment as outlined for lower floors.
27
FLOOR SIX THROUGH TEN DEFICIENCIES
The problems in these areas are similar to those located on lower levels of the tower and are primarily due to defects in the steam circulation piping, leakage along the structural frame and leakage around the windows. There are no problems of major significance but the minor problems mentioned should be further investigated and corrected as outlined for the lower floors. Temporary partitioning in all these levels should be removed. The original plan of the tenth floor deviates from the typical plan for the tower floors as indicated on the working drawings. A small restroom with a single water closet and one lavatory was provided at this level, adjacent to the west stair tower in addition to the typical restrooms west of the elevators. The restrooms behind the elevators have been converted for other use.
28
FLOOR ELEVEN DEFICIENCIES
All partitioning of the eleventh floor is wood frame covered with celo-tex or a similar material. All this partitioning should be removed. The floor of the eleventh story is raised on a framework above the concrete structure which is slanted to provide roof drainage above the tenth floor. The framework is believed to be steel, but removal of the wood strip finished floor will be required to confirm this. Adequate fire proofing of a minimum one-hour rating should be provided for this structure, if it is to remain. The wooden floor decking should be replaced with a non-combustible material, possibly a concrete deck over a permanent corrugated steel form.
The wooden stair to the elevator control mezzanine will have to be replaced with a non-combustible stair structure and enclosed to conform to exit requirements (minimum 2-hour fire rating). The fire-resistance rating of the steel roof structure will require up grading to a three hour rating. The removal of the wood decking that supports the finished roof will be required. A noncombustible decking material such as tectum should be considered for replacement of the wood to gain insulative as well as structural benefit. If access to the tower that encloses the water tank is to remain, enclosure of the stairway may be required. This may be necessary regardless of the tower's function to provide access to the eleventh floor roof as required by code.
MECHANICAL DEFICIENCIES
Elevators For the anticipated residential function for the tower the 2,000 pound weight capacity of the two existing elevators is adequate. Provision for changing the controls and possibly the lift cabs for 500 to 700 feet per minute operation will be necessary. In addition one of the elevator shafts should be modified to serve dual freight and passenger lift functions. This will require a door accommodating the full cab width of approximately five feet and two inches. Modification of the elevator shaft at the basement level will be necessary to provide elevator service at this level. At present there is no elevator service at the second level. This may require change depending on other forms of circulation installed to accommodate access to this level.
Water Supply and Drainage Due to the anticipated change in occupancy the water supply and drainage systems will require complete replacement The present hot water supply system will be able to service at least part of the building's new multiple-function. The 250 gallon hot water storage capacity of the existing system is adequate to serve the anticipated second floor office function, the public facilities in the retail mall area and possibly the restaurant on the first level if a booster heater is located in the restaurant kitchen. The circulation piping for hot water supply will require complete replacement. Heating System The existing steam system will supply adequate heat to the building regardless of changes in function. The means of distribut ing the heat will require considerable change. At the first two levels removal or relocation of blower units will be required and a completely new steam circulation system will be required. In the tower it may be
30
possible to retain the existing risers but new convective units or steam coil air handlers will be required for residential units. There is a trash incineration system in conjunction with the steam boilers but it is unknown at this time whether or not this is functional. Incineration heat apparently supplements gas burners in the operation of the heating system.
31
CODE DEFICIENCIES
The major deficiencies in the Seagle Building with regard to the Southern Standard Building Code and the code of the National Fire Prevention Association are relative to exit requirements. The building has only one stair tower with access to all floors and this stair way is substandard with regard to minimum width and landing size. A minimum of two stair towers of 2-hour fire rating with access to floors one through eleven and roof levels will be required. The existing basement stairs are substandard in regard to width and configuration. New enclosed stairs to the basement will be required. Travel distances to exits are substandard now but this will not apply to the new design for the building which will provide additional exits and means of egress. Excerpts from the building code will outline minimum requirements for the anticipated new occupancies. The excerpts included from the fire code deficiency study conducted by Briel, Rhame, Poynter and Houser Architects and Engineers will outline deficiencies in the requriements for power panels, fire-fighting equipment, exit signs, fire alarms, fire doors and exits. There are many instances where temporary partitions do not meet code requirements. Recommendation for removal of these partitions have been made in the floor by floor listing of deficiencies. This also applies to substandard floor and roof construction at the eleventh floor. All of the interior partitioning of the one-story annex may be of wood frame construction. If this area is not demolished or gutted for redesign it will require separation by a firewall of 4-hour rating.
32
SITE ANALYSIS
The Seagle Building's site is located on tlie northwest corner of the intersection of West University Avenue and Northwest fourth Street. The building's address is 408 Vfest University Avenue. The building exceeds the livoits of its 99 feet X 204 feet site by a few inches on its north, east and west boundaries according to a 1972 survey by VJ. D. Parrish. The legal description of the site and accurate documentation of the building's encroachment on adjacent properties is included in excerpts from Condon and Associates' "Advance Project Analysis" included in this study.
A major problem presented by th limitations of the Seagle Building's site is the total lack of accommodation for parking. The site requirements for parking could range from 60,000 square feet for a multi-use occupancy with retail and office space in the first two floors and residential units in tlie tower to 120,000 square feet for office occupancy or catibined retail and office occupancy. The lower figue assumes 42 one-bedroom units at approximately 1000 square feet per unit. The area requiraTient estimates are based on 400 square feet per parking space. Acquisition of land on the double block immediately north of the Seagle Building's site would be desireable in terms of access. There is a 76,000 square foot block consisting of lots designated by tax numbers 14537 thru 14540, 14542 and 14543 in a configuration marginally suitable for parking. Use of this block of property for parking would require the demolition of four houses. The properties involved are zoned R-2, BA-2 and BR-2 (see the excerpts from Gainesville's zoning regulations for guidelines for zoning categories). The acquisition of lots with tax numbers 14281 and 14282 at the east end of
33
this block would fulfill the Seagle Building's maximum parking requirement in a seemingly ideal manner. Lot #14282 is slated for the development of a 100 unit Federally subsidized housing project for the elderly. Lot #14281 is the site of a moderately significant late-Victorian residence that should remain intact 'in situ' until all alternatives to its demolition are exhausted. The primary reason for acquiring parking space on the block tetween Northwest First and Second Avenues is the flexibility of access achieved. A second reason is the probability that this can be acquired at a lower unit price than property fronting on University Avenue in spite of the demolition costs involved for the removal of existing residences. The lot (tax #14283) on the north end of the block east of the Seagle Building and the lot (tax#14552) west of the Seagle Building will bring the area available for parking space to just under 120,000 square feet. The streets separating the proposed parking from the Seagle Building's Site are little-used and should present no problem in parking-to-building circulation.
The availability of the land outlined for acquisition is an assumed factor up to this point. The acquisition of the landscaped city-own parldng lot (tax #14543) northwest of the Seagle Building is the key to providing the desired access from both First and Second Avenues. It is assumed that the city would cooperate by selling this property to the developer of the Seagle Building. Caiibined with the residential lot (tax #14538), which is currently for sale at an asking price of $23,000, the desired two-street access could be achieved. The remainder of the property outlined previously for the parking site is not being offered for sale at tiiis time, but it seems reasonable to assume that it could be
34
attained for a reasonable price. Likewise, the lot (tax #14283) to the east of the Seagle Building is not offered for sale. The lot to the west of the Seagle Building is currently for sale at an asking price of $120,000. If it were not possible to acquire the land outlined for the parking site an additional two lots totaling nearly 40,000 square feet are available to the west of the Seagle Building. The unit cost of this land would probably be higher than the desired parking site.
In 1973 Mr. Frederick /Arnold made an appraisal of the Seagle Building Site and the surrounding property. The details of his appraisal will be included in this study. His analysis yield a valuation of $3.00 per square foot for the Seagle Building site and the sites of similar configuration with frontage on University Avenue. After a discussion of this appraisal with Mr. Arnold I arrived at an inflation factor of 25% for the time passed and an additional 5% factor for the potential commercial advantage of University Avenue frontage. These adjustments will result in an estimated value of $3.90 per square foot for the land fronting on University Avenue and $3.75 per square foot for all other land desired for parking space. This would place a value of approximately $67,000 on the lot immediately west of the Seagle Building. An additional 103,000 square feet of parking space off University Avenue as outlined previously \\rould have an approximate value of $386,250 for a total of $453,250. A reasonable budget for land acquisition would be $455,000. A factor that could inflate this figure is the inquiry made concerning land for the proposed Ixiusing project for the elderly. This is reflected in the asking prices for the tliree lots immediately west of the Seagle Building.
Zoning would normally be considered a factor in the valuation of the lots in question since residential, light industrial and
35
business categories are all included. In this case zoning will not be a major factor since a central city zoning classification, allaying mixed business and residential uses, is anticipated for the area in question. Whether or not tine area's zoning is reclassified, city approval of the proposed parking area should be no problem. The interest of the city in downtown revitalization and improvement of downtown parking, not to mention the city's parking lot on part of the proposed site will insure their cooperation. The zoning for the site of the building itself is currently Public due to the state's ownership of the building. Should the building be transferred to the private sector the building would te eligible for one of tine business classifications, BA-2 or BR-2. Like the site proposed for parking tine Seagle Building is in tine area teing considered for a special central city zoning classification allowing greater flexibility in multiple-use occupancy.
The Seagle Building's location offers a distinct advantage in its location on the fringe of Gainesville's old downtown. The availability space for parking without extensive demolition is something no building in the central core of the downtown could offer. This is at least one reason why the downtown has been unsuccessful in competing with the suburban shopping centers.
Access to the Seagle Building is ideal. Its location on one of the downtown's two major tlnorough fares. University Avenue, and only four blocks frcm the other. Main Street provides the building with maximum visibility. Tine location of parking as proposed will give easy access to the major thorough fares without requiring the parking to be located directly on University Avenue. One minor hindrance in access is created by tine fact that Northwest Third Street and
36
Northwest Fourth Street are one-way to the south. The consideration of downtown location as it applies to utilization will be discussed in the section on "Utilization Feasibility".
i AVE. 1 2213 1
1320 AVE. 4677 -1- 17,016
\ UN.VERSjT^ AVE. i "14,07;
ST 1 19,783 5055 to -3774 n i-' 1-H in I .....AVE!
I3584_ 3606 1
5 t i J -I i i i i j ; 1 1 S.E 1 2rd ?(.ACE J
-3082 aj AVE. -14.332 N 943lj -J
j 1 3E to z < S.E.' W f 1 7i -754 5t AVE. |
1 'I ,'-2!:
24 Hfl. TRAFFIC COUNT)-*-U.op F. lH SESSION
/ &AlNE.5VtLLE Uft&AM AnEA TOPIC", STUDY riO. 4 CAFA CI TV DFfC/riCIE&
39
IICSTORICAL aiROiDLOGY
1925 W. McKee Kolley began planning for the construction of Hotel Kelley while acquiring Gainesville property valued at $1.25 million for a number of related development schemes. The Hotel Kelley site was purchased for $55,000 on Oct. 5.
1926 ifolley proposed the coristruction of a ten-story resort liotel to provide Gainesville with its share of Florida's booming tourist-oriented business. It is interesting to note that the original architects, G. Lloyd Preacher and Company, Inc., made no provisions for parking or outdoor recreation facilities for a resort hotel in the "land of sunsliine". Included in Ifotel Kelley1s facilities were to be 126 roams, 17 stores fronting on the three surrounding streets and on an interior arcade at ground level, a grand ballroom, and basement service facilities. The location of Ifotel Kelley in 1926 was known as the nortliwest corner of the West University Avenue
and Grove Street intersection. Grove Street is now known as Northwest 4th Street. The $600,000 project was financed by a $300,000 bond sale and $300,000 to be raised by Kelley which had to be expended > ] before tlie Ixind funds could be released.
1927 The January first opening date passed with only $260,000 of Kelley's obligation expended and only the shell and framework of the hotel completed. Hone of the poney raised by bond sale was ever spent because Kelley lost Iris fortune in the collapse of the land Ixxsn and was unable to raise tee final $40,000 of his obligation necessary to release the bond money. Construction finally came to a halt late in 1927 with the structural framework, bare terra cota exterior vails, and window installation completed.
40
1930 1935 During this period v.'hile Hotel Kelley1 s future hung in limbo. Tine first floor was used by a numl^er of stores as well as the Gainesville Fish and Poultry Market and a sheet metal vrorks.
1935 In July the City of Gainesville and Alachua County ($10,000 each) matched a $20,000 donation by Miss Georgia A. Seagle to purchase the HOtel Kelley for use by tlie University of Florida. Florida state senator Lucas Black and the Gainesville Chamber of Commerce aided in providing the impetus for the city's action, as well as in seeling I forks Progress Administration funding for completion of the building, Within the two months that followed the title to the partially completed building was transferred to the Board of Commissioners of State Institutions for use by the University of Florida. Prior to the resumption of construction in the sumer of 1936 tine Board received a grant from the. W.P.A. bo help pay for tine completion of the building. The exterior finish and the interior of the uncompleted hotel were redesigned by Rudolph S. Weaver with aide from students in the School of Architecture at the University of Florida. Weaver was architect to the Board of Commissioners of State Institutions as well as director of the University of Florida's School of Architecture and Allied Arts.
1936 In June Beers Construction Ccrtrpany began vrark on the completion of the Seagle Building under a $193,000 contract with the Board.
1937 Tine lower floors were completed.for use by the Florida State'-Museum. The Museum continued to use major portions of tine basement and floors one and two until 1971, when it moved to new facilities on tine University of Florida campus.
41
1939 Tlie building was dedicated in May 1939, in honor of John F. Seagle at the request of his sister Georgia Seagle. At tMs time the building was substantially the same as it stands today with the exception of alterations to the two uppermost floors and partitioning of spaces on the lower floors.
1942 A U. S. Department of Defense project contracted to the U. F.
Department of Engineering moved into the tenth floor, and eventually expanded into the eleventh floor in 1945.
1970 Briel, Rhame, Poynter and Ilouser, Architects and Engineers conducted a fire safety study of the Seagle Building. The findings and recommendations of tliis study will be included in this study.
1973 Condon and Associates performed a study to determine the soundness of the Seagle Building and tlie feasibility of its rehabilitation. Tlie report emphatically substantiates the building's soundness and tlie feasibility of liroited rehabilitation for use by the private sector but is slanted towards rehabilitation as an office building for state agencies in the area. Excerpts from this report will be included in this study.
1974 The Governor's Managament and Efficiency Study Commisssion recommended that the Department of General Services assume operation of tlie Seagle Building for efficiency's sake.
1976 As of Summer 1976, occuppants of tlie building were tlie Agricultural Extension Division, Board of University Examiners, Division of Continuing Education, and Electrical Engineering staff for the previously mentioned Defense Department project. In October the Division of
42
Continuing Education moved to a former Fraternity House nearer the University. Parts of tlie basement, first and second floors are used by the Florida State IlUseum for storage.
43
SUMMARY OF BUILDING UTILIZATION CONSIDERATIONS
There are two distinct considerations to be made in regard to the Seagle Building's future -
The potential for its use by the state, its current owner, as space for state office functions in the Gainesville area;
and secondly the building potential for use by the private sector.
The solution for the rehabilitation of the Seagle Building will consider its viability within the private sector. The problems to be encountered in several potential functions are outlined in the "Considerations of Utilization Feasibility".
If the Seagle Building is to be utilized in the private sector it seems certain that a multiple use occupancy will have the greatest chance for success in Gainesville's stalled economy. There is no doubt that Gainesville will continue to grow, but that growth is apt to be very deliberate for four or five years or more. Consequently it could prove economically fatal to gamble on capturing a large percentage of the potential growth in one segment of the economy. The solution to the utilization of the Seagle Building seems to lie in its potential for housing several interdependent functions for which there is certain to be growth in demand and for which the Seagle Building offers a particular advantage.
The solution which will be pursued will be for a combination of retail sales and a restaurant, rental office space and residential units providing storage for these functions in the basement area. The building's structural composition will dictate the location of these three functions retail sales area on floor one, rental office on floor two and residential units
44
on floors three thru ten. Floor eleven will be used for service or mechanical equipment unless a viable solution can be found for extending the residential function to this level.
The proposed solution will offer an alternative type of housing for professionals who work downtown while also providing a retail sales area specifically geared to the residential occupants. With the presence of office space, a person could potentially work and live in this same building. A restaurant-delicatessen will serve to round out the building's occupancy, providing service to the residents, shoppers and office workers.
The potential success of the functions as proposed will be dependent on promotion to a large extent. Gainesville's anticipated rate of growth will accommodate the need for the functions proposed, but it will be up to the developer to make this project and its advantages visible to the public.
The state currently leases in excess of 90,000 net square feet of office space in Gainesville as outlined in the printout of the Real Property Lease Management Program included in this report. With the exception of the approximately 12% used by the University of Florida, the state's demand for office space in the community will surely grow. Consequently, it will eventually be of benefit to consolidate this space in some state owned facility for the sake of efficiency in management and service. There seems to be potential in the Seagle Building for this function at the present. Even with the problems presented by its outmoded structural system in terms of utilization efficiency this building could be used at less cost, in terms of initial cost, than the construction of a new building.
While I do not have the necessary date to speak in specific terms of long range cost effectiveness it seems improbable that the Seagle Building could compete with a new structure. The limitations on expansion alone present a
45
major problem in the long range use of the building by the state. This problem largely hinges on the future of the area immediately north of the building.
Expansion of the state facilities in the immediate vicinity of the Seagle Building would have considerable impact on this area which is primarily residential in scale at this time. This impact might or might not be undesireable but it must be considered. While the architecture in this area is of little value the loss of the character contributed by the areas tree canopy would probably be unavoidable in the case of major expansion of a state facility in the area.
An additional question is raised concerning the whole direction of downtown Gainesville's revitalization. The use of the Seagle Building as a regional office center will be onw more step towards the use of downtown as a center for government function and associated business functions. At the same time the viability of the area as a retail shopping area is diminished. This may be inevitable and in fact desireable. There is considerable advantage in having office and government functions that cease every afternoon and allow evening entertainment functions to take over after 5 p.m. The presence of these functions makes the continued viability of some retail trade almost inevitable.
In conclusion, ther seems to be considerable merit in the use of the Seagle Building for a state office building. While there will be sensitive questions in the expansion of such a facility, the potential for that expansion is there. If the State has a strong commitment to architectural conservation and to helping communities retain some of the character of their pasts, then it seems this should offset to some degree deficiencies the Seagle Building is sure to have in regard to long range cost effectiveness. This question of economic viability seems to hinge on the question of how much cash value can be attributed to an area's or a building's character.
46
UTILIZATION FEASIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS
Several studies have proved useful in considering tlie question of tlie best use for the Seagle Building. Among these are:
1. "Feasibility Analysis of the Seagle Building", 1975
2. "Davntown Study", 1975.
3. "Lease Listing" (State) Real Property Lease Management Program, 1976
4. "Staff Study Seagle Building", 1972
5. "Advanced Project Analysis John F. Seagle Building", 1973
6. "Tlie Hotel Thomas Market Analysis", 1974
7. "Florida Deployment Directions Planning District 3", 1976 In addition to these sources I conferred with numerous individuals, credited elsewhere in this study, who were involved either in compiling these documents or in dealing with similar problems in downtown Gainesville.
At the outset of this study there were numerous functions which seemed potentially appropriate for consideration in tlie rehabilitation of tlie Seagle Building; some appropriate for the complete utilization of tlie building, but most only appropriate in certain areas of the building. These functions were as follows:
1. Retail trade: Of special consideration in tliis type of function were such uses as lx>tiques, men's wear shops, various specialty shops which might include art and craft supplies, office and school supplies and any other type of retail store that might broaden tlie appeal of tlie da-Tntovvn as a sliopping area and expand the typical cross-section of the da.vntovrn's clientele. In addition this type of function might stimulate competition with the already existent outlets
47
of this type, possibly resulting in an upgrading of the downtown retail trade and the buildings which accommodate this trade. The potential downfall of tMs approach is tlie possibility that increased competition for tlie dam-town's dwindling shoppers might push out existent retail outlets to areas that currently exhibit greater shopper appeal, thus resulting in a downgrading of the downtown and increased risk for the success of that portion of tlie Seagle Building which might be rehabilitated for retail trade. The feasibility of using a part of tlie Seagle Building for retail trade hinges on the question of growth, both physical and economic, in tlie Gainesville area, especially in the areas immediately accessible to the downtown. This question of growth is dependent to a large degree on two of the most iinportant factors in Gainesville's economy The University of Florida and government employment local, state, federal, of which the University is a part in a technical sense. Including the University, government provides employment for over 40% of Gainesville's employed labor force. Considering the current balance of c*plc>yment, tee demand for goods and services, including retail trade will be largely dependent on tee growth or decline of government employment (including the University). Considering the current tendency towards limited growth of government in Gainesville and tlie current financial necessity of controlling tlie University's growth, it is doubtful that retail trade or for that xratter tee demand for goods and services in general will grow by leaps and bounds in tlie near future. Adding to this problem is tlie time lag involved in the effects of tlie recent recession as it will affect funding for Gainesville's government and consequently the levels of employment that will be roaintained by tee area's government.
48
Alachua County's employment statistics over the last six years reveal the contrast between the growth in the area's retail trade prior to 1974 and the stall represented by the minor decline over the past two years. In addition there is considerable contrast between the growth of the past and the more sluggish progress projected for the immediate future. It should be noted that this decline or at least drastic slowdown in growth has occurred in most if not all of the areas of employment that are associated with functions that are being considered as potential uses for the Seagle Building. In the case of retail trade a large percentage of Gainesville's growth in the next five years will center around the new Oaks Mall. In addition the shopping centers in Gainesville's northwest and southwest sectors are striving for their share of whatever growth there is in the retail marketplace. In the downtown area the 25,000 square feet of Seagle Building space with potential for use for retail sales might well be too much and too late. This is especially true considering the recent completion of the renovation of the Young American Building and the mini-mall planned for the old Commercial Hotel.
In conclusion, while the success of retail sales space in the lower floors of the Seagle Building would be most desireable in terms of revitalization of the downtown it is unrealistic to expect that the space would provide the 15% (or higher) yield on equity which would be necessary to attract investors other than those with the most philanthropic aspirations.
2. Residential: Like retail business, residential use of the Seagle Building would probably be very desirable in terms of downtown revitalization. This type of use would be an incentive for improvement
49
in the appeal of other downtown businesses and might well encourage the development of new services in the area if the residential units could attract middle and upper middle class occupants. Attracting desirable occupants might well be realistic considering the Seagle Building's proximity to local government's centers of operation, Gainesville's major financial institutions and the abundance of office space located downtown. The city's professionals might respond favorably to an alternative to driving across town in rush hour traffic daily.
In spite of the desirability of quality residential units in the downtown Gainesville's residential building spree of the late 60's up to 1974 has left us with a surplus of apartments and condominium units. It is unlikely that the location advantage offered by the Seagle Building to professionals employed downtown would offset financial inducements offered by the condo-developers who got left holding the bag when the bottom fell out of their market.
It is possible that rehabilitation of the Seagle Building for residential use is only marginally feasible because of its high-rise institutional quality construction. The cost of renovating this building for residential use would come very close to new construction cost for the same building area in one or two story construction. The tax inducements for new construction projects would push investors in that direction if there were a market for new units, which is questionable at this time.
3. Restaurant Entertainment facility: Due to code requirements it is improbable that a restaurant, bar, nite club or private social club could occupy space in the Seagle Building except on the first floor, possibly utilizing space in the basement for service. I have
50
found no real gauge for the demand for such facilities other than the observation that the number of quality eateries in Gainesville is constantly growing. Just as obvious is the fact that such operations are of a relatively high risk judging from the turn-over in management of a number of local establishments.
Since any use in this category would have to operate as part of a multi-use occupancy it is probable that a restaurant-lounge combination would be more compatible with other potential uses than would an activity generator such as a nite club or disco-club. An additional factor in favor of a restaurant in combination with office space or residential units is the potential of office employees or apartment residents as clientele for the restaurant. A restaurant-lounge function in a multi-use occupancy would aid in generating activity in the downtown area over a broader daily time span with the potential of encouraging expansion of services offered in the downtown. There seems to be little question of the benefit to be derived from a successful restaurant and or lounge in the Seagle Building. The question is one of such a function's potential for success in the midst of several eateries already tuned to the downtown's restaurant crowd. The Primrose ]hn, 12-East, Lilian's, Great Southern Deli, Phil-lick's and a myriad of take-out sandwich shops provide a broad cross-section of restaurant services. Any new restaurant would have to compete with these well-established enterprises unless one of them could be enticed to expand or relocate into the rehabilitated Seagle Building. From a developer's viewpoint this could be a deterrent when considering the additional cost involved in providing utility service for restaurant equipment. In addition the exit requirements for an assembly
53
classification would offer considerable problem if approached within the limits of the existing fenestration.
A more activity oriented function such as a nite club, disco club or private social club would present one advantage not possible where the secondary function is reliant on the primary function for part of its business i.e. office workers eating lunch in a restaurant in the same building. By segregating the tenants in terms of time when activity is generated, the land required for parking can be reduced significantly ; performing its function in two shifts. A compromise such as a lounge open after noon combined with a club that opens after office hours could increase profits while benefitting from reduced parking requirements. In this type of tenancy combination security for the area devoted to daytime use would require additional attention. In addition the noise generated by a nite club could eliminate residential use as part of the building's potential occupancy.
4. Office: This use has high potential since the building was originally completed for office occupancy. For this reason an office function could be accommodated more economically than any other with the possible exception of storage. Some specifics regarding the market for office space are covered thoroughly in the market analysis conducted as part of the feasibility study for the Hotel Thomas. Of particular interest is the projected annual absorption of office space in Gainesville (approx. 50,000 sq. ft.) and the maximum area judged to be appropriate for office buildings in Gainesville (approx. 25,000 sq. ft.). It would seem that these factors would represent the negative aspect of the rehabilitation of the Seagle Building for use as office space in the private sector. The absorption rate for office space, quoted from
52
the Hotel Thorns study is applicable to the period 1971 to 1974. This absorption rate can be expected to fluctuate in direct proportion with exployment statistics for employment in office using jobs. The excerpts from "Florida Employment Directions" reflect decline or reduced growth for the years 1975-1976 and project growth at a rate slower than pre-1974 years through 1980, for office using employment. An additional factor of significance in Gainesville's office space market is the ability to accommodate the small firm. 3b Gainesville the size of the average law firm is approximately five people. Office using businesses in general average less than ten people in size. The result of this is office requiremnts in small packages, perhaps as small as 200 square feet.
An additional dimension to the consideration of the rehabilitation of the Seagle Building is added by the state's ownership of the building. While feasibility of state use of the Seagle Building is not as simple as the comparision implies the question hinges on the cost of rental space as opposed to rehabilitation cost. The state's Department of General Services, currently investigating the Seagle Building's potential for rehabilitation, is responsible for leasing in excess of 90,000 sq. ft. of office space in Gainesville for use by state agencies. Rented area ranges from a low of 155 sq. ft. to a high of 13,827. A table indicating percentages of total rented areas in various space quantity categories is included in this study.
53
OFFICE SPACE LEASED BY THE STATE IN GAUISSVTT.LE
Total: 91,090 sq. ft. Total number of rentals: 34
Department with highest private office space demand: Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services; 13 rentals; 55,204 sq. ft.
U. F. rentals of private office space: 7 rentals; 11,311 sq. ft.
Space provided at no substantial cost: 4 rentals; 4,402 sq. ft.
Over 5,000
Sq. ft.
2,500 to 5,000 sq. ft.
1,000 to 2,500 sq. ft.
Under 1,000 sq. ft.
Area
31,837
30,624
24,310
4,319
No. Units
3
8
14
9
% of Total
35.0%
33.6%
26.7%
4.7%
RUN DATE 1
ZONE LE'SF NIT.
fi/30/75
P A L P'UPERTY ^) .''t^ENT PROGRAM
LE'iSP LISTING (8Y COUNTY)
PEPA=T"EmT il'S^^ AGENCY), DIVISION* RU^EAJ
_LFSS0R_______
SPACE LOCATION
Page 001
EXPENDITURE
SIXTH STREET INVESTMENTS )?.Q N'' 23 AVE,
0^ Unroll LEGISLATIVE ____
AUDITOR GENERAL
PUBLIC ASSIST FRAUD G TAX AS GAINESVILLE
TYPE"of spacernFFICE LEASE PFRIOO! 01/01/75 12/31/70 SE'VICE.PROvToED! OPTIONS! NQMg PJP.CH1SC OPTION!
REMARKS: APp 012075 6 FTE LB 521076________
RFHARks:
1731 Nw 6 STREET GAINESVILLE _RUOMSS 02, Q4. 51 i. FULL
09 210:noi5 j'JDiCAL _______ _.KICWA5D STRPIFF PROp___MOnY PLAZA____
FLORIDA SUPREME C"U"T dl Nw ST 1810 NW 6TH Sf
SECOND STATFWTDF G*AND JURY GAINESVILLE GAINESVILLE
TYPE UF S p A C F SUFFICE ROOMS I SUITE A
LFASE PER 13n! 0?/Oi/75 10/31776 SE'VICE PROVIDED! OPTIONS; .NONE PJRCHASF OPTION!
REMARKS! APP 031Q75 L" 01307b LP 057976 7 FTE MO TO MO__"_
REMARKS!
FULL
SECURITY BUILDING
09 *3nPQ3 OF P ARTME :|T np AGRICULTURE AND VS PROPERTIES
AM I" AL INDUSTRY 1219 l UNIVERSITY AVE 1105 W UNIVERSITY AVE
6AIMESVILCE 32601 GAINESVILLE
TYPE OF SPACE(OFFICE _____RUQMSl 202 203 _
LEASE PERIOD! Dl/ni/72 CO/30/oo Sfc'VIC= dRPVIDED! FULL
OPflQNSi P |R.CHASr OPTION!
RE'
o; APPRnvcQ i?2?71 ? FJF..3Q DAY. CANCELLATION MOO TO RED SPACE
REMARKS! APPROVFD 361375
09 460!C0Q8 DEPARTMENT ">F INSURANCE AND T 3IVFNS ARM Evt'l-OPERS INSURANCE COMPANY RFG'!LATIJ" 3301 SW HT^ ST FIELD OPERATIONS jM^eSVILLE 32601
TYPE OF SPACE!OFFICE LFASE PERIOD! 07/01/76 06/30/77 SERVICE PROVIDED! OPTIONS! 1 YEAR MP3 PJRCHASF OPTION!
REMARKS i APP 07/2V76 9 FTE._____
"REMARKS!
OAK FOREST OFFICE PLAZA 3615 SW 13TH ST GAINESVILLE
ROOMS
FULL'
GORDON GLEN MANOR 2306 SW 13TM ST GAINESVILLE
09 '8C:^0'>2 DEPARTMENT ^F EnUr.ATIoN UNIVERSITY of FLORIDA DEPT OF PROFESSIONAL FE'S
TYPE oc SPACFinfFICE LEASE PERlQnj 07/01/75 12/31/75 SERVICE" PROVI0 ED I OPTIONS! NONE P 'RC H A S c OPTION!
REMARKS APo Ob/ia/75 20 FTC 63 pA Y R TO T R Y LESSOR SEF 40tl02, 1U, REMARKS! 115/ 107, 22<1j I 258 SPACE SAME P-LDG
GORDON GLEN MANOr 2306 SW 13TH ST
GAINESVILLE ROOMSi MEZZANINE ARjA FULL "
09 430i"UH
GOROJM GLEN MANOR
2006 S W 13TH ST GAINESVILLE
DFPARTNEMT n? ojr aT JoN UNIVERSITY nF FLO0IDA UNIVERSITY PHYSTCTANS
TYPE UF spacf ; nFF ICE LFASE PERIOni 07/01/75 12/31/75 SfcRVIC? PROVIDED! OPTIONS! NONE P.IRCHASF. OPTIC).J!
REMARKS! APc 15/10/75 20 FT-F. 60 QAy R To t PY LESSOR ScF 460)0062* 0115 REMARKS! EXT TfcOM 37/29/76
__GORDON GLFN MANOR_
'""2006 S W 13TH ST GAINESVILLE RuOMS! APT 303/05,06*08 FULL
annual rental
$7/783,80
JO,FT, LEASED l/2"3
RATb/SO. FT, .....*<>,n2
ANNUAL RENTAL $7, 200,00
SQ.FT, LEASED 1/"014
_RATE/SQ. FT, $7,10
_ann_ual Rental
41/ "A 10, 00"
_5Q,FT, LEASED 374
RATE/SO. FT.
$3,77
annual rental
U0/2in, B4"
SQ.FT, IEASEU i/588
RATE/SO. FT.
$6,43
ANNUAL RENTAL $9,402,93
SQ.FJ, LEASED 1/719
__RATE/SO. FT, $5,47
ANNUAL RENTAL $13/615,20
SQ.FT. LEASED 2/4BG
RATE/SQ. FT.
$5,49
MONTHLY RENTAL $648,65
CUUNTY NAME ALACHUA
MONTHLY RFnTAT
. $600,00
CUUNTY name ALACHUA
MONTHLY RENTAL* ">il7. 50
COUNTY NAMF AL'ACHUA
monthly rental'
$150,90
county name
ALACHUA
MONTHLY RENTAL' $783,57
CUUNTY NAMF_ ALACHUA
MONTHLY RENTAL' tit 134.60
COUNTY NAMF ALACHUA
RUM DATE
h/30/76
REH P ?QERTY lii^r^i';A(-.t-'E'iT PROGRAM L'EASP LISTING (BY COUNTY)
PAGE 00?
ZONE LE*SE_____DEPARTMENT (l.'SFR AggNCV)/
NO, DIVISION* SUREAJ
09 430:0115 DE PAR T.MENT. OF EDUCATION.
UNIVERSITY OF FLU"IDA COLLEGE OF MEDICINE
.LESSOR
SPACE LOCATION
TYPE Oc SPACE I OFF I C E. LEASE PERIOn: 01/01/76 12/31/75 Options: NONE
.GORDON.GLEN MANOR______
2306 SW 13TH STREET GAINESVILLE FL
.cordon a[Fti manor
2306 SW 13TH STREET
GAINESVILLE FL ....._____
ROOMS! API 809__
FULL
SE'VICF PROVIDED! P'JRCi-USF OPTION!
REMARKS APP .013075 8 PTE SEE 4*0 062/" 11 4 137* 228 25a FOR SPACE SAMS REMARKS! BLDG 30 DAY P TO T BY LESSOR ..... ......_ _________________________...........
.09 .480J0137 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION____
UNIVERSITY nF Fl u"I PA DEPT OF PROFESSIONAL FEES
_______................ TYPE OF SPACE 10FF ICE_____
LFASE PERIOO: 07/01/75 12/31/7& OPTIONS! NOME
GnRngM GLEN.MANOR. 2306 S W 13TH ST GAINESVILLE
_GDRnuM_GLEN MANOR
2306 S W 13TH ST GAINESVILLE
ROQM-S i HEZ7.ANJNE__
FULL
SE'VIC= PROVIDED! PURCHASE OPTION!
REMARKS! AP.P 06/16/75 60 DAY. T _TQ T. BY .LESSOR. SF_4flO!Q062/ gnj Oil?/ REMARKS! 0228, AND 25' FOR SPACE IN THE SAME BLDG, MOD EXT TERM 072976
09 480! 014.2 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ___________&REHE** AMN J.___
UNIVERSITY OF Flub. IDA 5o<, Nc at-i AVE
DRUG ABUSE PROJECT GAINESVILLE
_................ TYPE OF SPACE5OFFICE____________
LEASE PERIOo; 02/01/76 03/31/77 SE^V IC= PROVIDED! OPTIONS: NOME PJRCHASP OPTION!
728 E UNIVERSITY AV GAINESVILLE _RUOM,St ENTIRE 5LDG.___
NONE
REMARKS! APP 03/31/76 LR 08/10/76. 9 FTE..3o DAY R TO T BY LESSEE REMARKS :
09 480:^177 DEPARTMENT OF E nUC AT I [IN VOCATIONAL EDUCATION
EIGHTH AV=NUE RENTALS 533 N-V AV
GAINESVILLE 32501
TYPE UF SPACP IqFFICg____ _______
LEASE PERIOD! 05/01./74 04/30/78 S3VIC= PROVIDED! OPTIONS! NONE PURCHASE OPTION!
REMARKS; APP 032374 LR 050676 REPLACES ,.46o: 029 14 FTE REMARKS! -
PROF CENTER OFFICE PLAZA 901 NW B.f'H AV GAINESVILLE
RUOMS i
FULL
GTIROON GLEN MANOR _. 2306 S W 13TH ST GAINESVILLE
cordon glen manor
2306 S W 13TH ST GAINESVILLE
09 480SC25S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA UNIVERSITY PHYSICIAN'S
TYPE Op SPACEIPFFICE ____RUOMSl APT 309,806/1210
LEASE PERIOD 11/01/75 12/31/75 SERVIC= PROVIDED l~ FULL
OPTIONS: NOME PURCHASE OPT I ON I
REMARKS! APP 02/06/76 22 FTE 3} QAY R To T RY LESSOR OR BY LESSEE TO____
RFMARKSi OCCUPY STATE 3LDG MOD EXT TERM 0^/18/76 07/29/76 .
09 480:02m DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION AUTOMATIC VENDING INC..
DFPUTY CUMM!SSIONFR F'lR SPEC I 419 NH 1T H AVE BLIND SERVICES GAINESVILLE 32601
TYPE OF SPACE80FFICE LEASE PERIOD! 07/01/76 06/30/7/ SERVICE PROVIDED! OPTIONS: TWO YEARS SAME pIRCHASe OPTION!
REMARKS: APP 0707/76 6 FTE PREVIOUS #530ll32 ________
REMARKS i
417 SW fiTH ST GAINESVILLE
jRUOMS! __.__
FULL
EXPENDITURE
..ANNUAL-RENTAL 45/ 158.20
SO".FT. LEASED 943
_RATE/SO FT.
................ *5.47
ANNUAL RENTAL $.1/0~37,40
_SQ.FT. LEASFD 380
_RATE/SQ. FT, $2,73
MONTHLY RENTAL' $429, 85
__CQUNTY NAMF ALACHUA
MONTHLY RFNTAC $86,45
ANNUAL RENTAL' $4/800,00
so.ft, Leased
2/339
_RAT/SQ. FT.
$2,05
ANNUAL RENTAL $24/432,00
SQ.FT. LEASED 4/072
_RATE/SQ,'FT, $6,00
^ANNUAL RtNTAL $13/591,92
SQ.FT, LEASFD 2/449
__R_ATE/SQ. FT.
$5,55
COUNTY NAMF ALACHUA
MONTHLY .RENTAL'. $400.00
CUUNTY NAMF ALACHUA
MONTHLY RFNTAL $2/036,00
C'UUNTY NAMF ALACHUA
MONTHLY RENTAL $1/132.66
COUNTY NAME ALACHUA
ANNUAL RENTAL $5/995,92
SQ.FT, LEASED 1/001
RATfc/SQ, FT, $5.99
MONTHLY RFNTAC $499.66
CUUNTY NAME ALACHUA
RUN DATE
zone lease
J"/?0/76
RfcAL PROPERTY LEAI^HANACEMENT PROGRAM LEASE LISTING (BY COUNTY)
DEPARTMENT (i)SFR ADPNCY)/ DIVISION/ BURAJ
____LESSOR______
SPACE LOCATION
GAINESVILLE ROOMS I
NONE
09 520:OQn2 DEPARTMENT OF Cf1MMJNITY AFFAJ yFT A^'L CTR_____
VETERANS I AFFAIR A P C H t R R D
GAINESVILLE
TYPE OF SPACEJOFFICE ___________
LFASE PERIOD; od/03/Oo 00/00/03 SERVICE PROVIDED! OPTIONS! NONE PURCHASE OPTION!
REMARKS! APP 030175 INDEFINITE PERIOD_____,____
REMARKS I ....................__.......___ __________.........________________
09 53Oir001 DEPARTMENT OF B'.'STNFS5 P E 0 U L A 3A I^ESy I LLE C I TY_ f 0 L I C E _D E P_T__ClTY_P_OLICE DgpT
BEVERAGE PO BOX 1250 525 NW 8TH AV
GAINESVILLE 32602 GAINESVILLE
TYPE OF SPACE ?CFF ICE ______ROOMS I_____
LFASE PERIOD! 04/15/76 0O/OO/O0 SERVICE PROVIDED! JANIT
OPTIONS: NU"E PJRCHASF OPTION!
REMARKS! ACCtDTFg 061476 PERPETUAL.________ '"
RFMARKSi
09 540i^ino department of cnMMEPCF suooe-m serv fuel oil co inc___southeast shopping centmer_
DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SEC UP I P J B^X 1246 926.S E WILL ISTOn RD
UNEMPLOYMENT COMp GAI'itsviLLE 32602 GAINESVILLE
TYPE OF SPACEJOFFICE __*~ ROOMS I_____
LEASE PERIOD! 03/03/76 03/02/77 SERVICE PROVIDED! OPTIONS! NONE PJRCHASF OPTION!
REMARKS: APP .nij/o?/76 7 FTc MP-TQ-M? NOT Tq EXCEED 12 MPS REMARKS !
NONE
09 56D:00'9 DFPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL R BiLI, pRFsTQM FLFCTRlC CO lie ENVIRONMENTAL RFGULAT10N 40uO SW 3STM TERR
GAINESVILLE 32608
TYPE OF SPACEinFFICE ,_ __
LFASE PERIOD; 07/01/76 06/30/77 SERVICE PROVIDED! OPTIONS! NONE PURCHASE OPTION!
RFMARKS: APP 08/Q4/76 7 FTE_______________
REMARKS i
4000 SW 33TH TERR GAINESVILLE
ROOMS! SUITE B____
FULL
09 59C;oi68 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTw AND R E*-'A FLA COMMERCIAL DE V C0P SOCIAL C Economic SFRVICES p 0 BOX 5147
FORT LAUDERDALE
:_....... '. TYPE OF._SPACF. I OFFICE__._________ .___
LFASE PERIOD! 0V01/71 03/31/S1 SERVICE PROVIDED! OPTIONS! NONE PURCHASE OPTION!
REMARKS! APP 042971 101 FTE MnD DEC SPACE 052275 LR 041376 REMARKS !
09 59010271 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND RgWA J M PFVELIPMENT CORP tNC VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION 1905 NW 13TM ST
GAINESVILLE FLORIDA
TYPE OF SPACEinFFICE LFASE PERIJDI 07/01/72 06/3/0/77 SERVICE PROVIDED! OPTIONS! 5 YbARS-('EGOT I 3LE PURCHASE OPTION!
1604 S E 3RD AV GAINESVILLE
ROOMS __
NONE'
GAINESVILLE FLORIDA
ROOMS: ____
FULL"
EXPENDITURF
ANNUAL RENTAL *, 00
"SQ.FT. UEASEU 240
_J^AT/Sj3, FT, $,00
_ANNUAL_R_ENTAL
? ,"oy
SQ.FT. LE_ASFD "155"
_JATE/SQ. FT,
? ,00
annual Rental
" $9/000,00
SQ.FT.LEASED 2/000
RFMARKS APP 011772 32 FTE npTpN TO NE3 RATE NOT TO EXCEED. $5.90 SF REMARKS! MOO DEC SPACE APP 091175
RATE/SO. FT, >4|50
ANNUAL RENTAL $4/9H,60
SQ.FT, LEASED 1/ 161
__rate/sq, ft.
$4,23
annual rental
$63/155,04
SQLFI, LEASED 13/827
_RATE/SQ. FT, $4,57
ANNUAL RENTAL $43/959,4tt
SQ.FT. LEASED 8,446
RATE/SO. FT, $5,20
RUN DATE
59/30/76
REAL PROPERTY LEASP^MANAGfcMENT PROGRAM LE ASF LISTING (8V COUNTY)
_____LESSOR.
ZONE LE'-SE .... . DEP AP TMENT .. f USE R. .AGENCY.) i__
Nn. DIVISION, RUPEAJ
09 59010490 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH: AND REM A.. FLA COMMERCIAL DEV CORP. SOCIAL. C ECONOMIC SERVICES P 0 BOX 5147
FORT LAUDERDALE .. .
. ........_____________ ... TYRE OF sp*:e;office_____________
SPACE 'LOCATION
1604 S E' 3RD AV
GAINESVILLE '......
ROOMS i 1_
LFASE PERIOD? 06/01/72 03/31/8], SERVICE PROVIDED! NONE
OPTIONS I MOr'E P.'RChtSP OPTION!
..... REMARKS! APP 071072-54 FTP MOO DEC SPACF 0827,75 LR 041,376__
REMARKS i ..............................________________________________
09 59050577 DEPARTMENT OF. HEALTH. AND R.E:iA._D'JRR AMCE OURRAMCF MIZFLL__
SOCIAL f. ECONOMIC SERVICES P D _ox 7?8
GAINESVILLE
... TYPE UF .SPACEJOFFICE ___________....._____________
LFASE PERIO^t 01/01/73 12/31/77 SE'VIC= PROVIDED! OPTIONS; NONE ... PJRCHASF OPTION)
.- ________...... REMARKS! APR ..12/0A/7.2..LP. 06 / 2 5 Z76. .MD.D ...D EC ..i F. _.Q tf / 1.6/_7.6_ J>6._ L_DQM I C I LAB.Y.
REMARKS!
09 590 5 0586 DEPARTMENT OF MEAL TM:.AN0 .RM_ _M.AG"DL I A .?LAZA_____________
YOUTH SFRVICES PO RJX 12111
FIELD SERVICES GAINESVILLE
. ______.__........ ... TYPE UF. SPACE! OFFICE _.....___;___________:__
824 E UNIVERSITY AV
GAINESVILLE
ROOMS I___I___
... NONE___________
LEASE PERIOD; 1?/oi/??. 11/30/75 SE'VIC= PROVIDED! OPTIONS! NONE PJRCHASC OPTION!
________ REMARKS! APP.121172.4 FTE L8_0.S2.9I3 LR 010375 .MOD 05C.SPACE_1H.375
REMARKS! LR 102875 6 MQS R TO T BY LESSOR ERR 010176
3008 Nw 13TH 5T
GAINESVILLE .........
RUO_SI _UIT G FULL
09 590!O60q DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND R EUA 1A g N 0 L I a 0 L A z A__
YOUT | SFRVICES P U BOX 12111
DETENTION GAINESVILLE FL 32601
________.......................TYPE OF SPACEJOFFICE___________________
LEASE PCRIOOi 11/01/74 10/31/76 SERVICE PROVIDED! OPTIONS! NO"E P IRCHASF OPTION!
3008 nw 13 street gainesville fl .rooms; suitejc_
FULL
REMARKS j APP 012375 a FTE gN 5TG.R10M_.IN SUITE A 6 MPS R TO T BY____
RFMARKS! LESSFE EFF 01017c IR 121974
09 590,0824 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND. REUA.PLAZA .NOrTh ...
YOUTH SERVICES PO Pjv 14424
FIELD SERVICES GAINESVILLE
TYPE OF spACEioFFICE
PLAZA NORTH
LEASH PERIOD! 11/01/75 10/31/75 SERVICE PROVIDED! OPTIONS! NOME PURCHASE OPTION!
REMARKS; APp 02^575 25 FTE <>ePLACF$ 590.V03.ll_3 590i04_8_____
REMARKS! PAVMEiyTS TO LYMAN FRANK RfcC P 3 DRAWER M GAINESVILLE
2720 NW SIXTH STREET
GAINESVILLE
_RUOMS: SUITE_A___
FULL
09 59010855 DEPARTMENT OF hc A L T H AND R E MA GPEENC. .AMES H
SOCIAL 6 ECONOMIC SERVICES HQ3 Ntt 1? STREET
GAINESVILLE TYPE OF SPACEiOFFICE ..... LEASE PERIOD! 11/01/74 10/31/75 SERVICE PROVIDED! OPTIONS: TWO YEARS MEG PURCHASE OPT j ON I
___EXECUTIVE PARK ___
1441 NW SIXTH STREET GAINESVILLE
ROOMS: UNITS 100 C 20Q_ FULL
REMARKS I APPROVED 012175 REPLACES 530! 329 6 5901496.13 FTfc. RFMARKS:
AGE 004
'EXPENDITURE
ANNUAL RfcNTAL ........ $29, 198,28
SQ.FT, _LEASED 9,564
RATE/SO. F.Tt 43,05
MONTHLY RFNTAL 42,433, 19
COUNTY NAMF ALACHUA
__ANN.UAL RENTAL $7,200,00
_SQ.FT. LEASFD 3,93a
_R.ATE /SQ FT, 41,83
.MO.N.JH.LY RENTAL" 4600,00
CUUNTY NAMF ALACHUA
J.NNUAL RENTAL 43,220,0b
SQ.FT, LEASED 593
__RATE/Q, FT, 45,43
J\NNUAL RENTAL 46,480,00
_SQ_FT, LEASED 1. 303
RATE/SO. FT, 44.97
ANNUAL RENTAL 422/869,00
MONTHLY RFNTAL' 4268,34
COUNTY NAME ALACHUA
MONTHLY RFNTAL $540,00
_CUUNTY NAME ALACHUA
SQ,F_T, LEASFD 4,356
RATE/SQ. FT, $5,25
MONTHLY RFNTAL $1/905,75
CUUNTY_ NAMF ALACHUA
ANNUAL RENTAL "$13/12 8,00
SQ.F1, LEASED 2/ 188
RATE/SQ. FT, $6,00
MONTHLY RFNTAL $1/094,00
CUUNTY NAME ALACHUA
RUM DATE
ZONE lease ND,
Fo/30/76
REAL PROPERTY L E A3___Pm ANAGt m NT PROGRAM CEASC LISTING (BY COUNTY)
DEPARjMENt (NS = r AGENCY), DIVISION. 8uEAJ
LESSOR
__.s PACE. .LOCATION..
QO 390IO87Q department nF HeALT^ and re^a eighth avfnue rentals c hi ldre'ns mehical services 533 N.W, eighth avenue
gainesville
type up spacejoffice _
lease period: 03/01/75 02/2"/77 s e 3 v ic = PR 0 v i deo I opt ijns: TWO vgAKS same pjrchasf option!
_prof c-emjer office pla_a_
901 n.w, eighth avenue gainesville
rooms! __________________
" full
REMARKS; APPROVED 330375 6 HQS R TO T BY LESSEE REP_,ACES_590 | \ 58 RFMARKS! 23 FTE
09 59010896 DEPARTMENT of HFAl'TH AND_ p EWA 121? FXECJTTVF COMPLEX__
AGING 121? SIW 12TW AV
GAINESVILLE
TYPE OF SPACF10FFICE __
LEASE PERIOD) 08/01/76 04/30/77 SERVICE PROVIDEO'l"' OPTIONS: ONE YEAR SA|F PURCHASE OPTION!
REMARKS I app 07/29/76 3 FTE _6 MOS R TO T RYJ.ESSEE REMARKS I
09 590!G9a-6 DEPARTMENT OF H.AL'T^ AND RgHA PLAZA NORTH_______
OFFICE OF SECRETARY & ADM I NTS P 0 B">x 14424 DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR GAJNESVILLE 32&04
. . TYPE QF spACF:nFFICE _______
LEASE PERIOD; 03/01/76 02/27/77 SERVICE PROVIDED I OPTIONS: NONE PURCHASE OPTION!
. _............REMARKS! APP 070775 14 FTE 6 MPS R TQ T BY LESSEE____
REMARKS!
09 590:9019 DEPARTMENT nf HEALT" AND RE1-'A THRIFT OIL CO INC '_ _____
OFFICE OF SECRETARY AOMIN IS PO BO* 19 70
OCALA 32670
................. ... TYPE OF SPACEiOFFJCE________________
LEASE PERIOD! 06/01/76 05/31/77 SE'VICF PROVIDED! OPTIONS! NONE P.IRCHASE OpTJONI
........RFMARKS! ACCEPTED 362376 PREVIOUS fc_590 !948_____;_
RFMARKS !
09 59Di90?2 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND RE_ a _ALACH ja C.UmT'y CQHM__
YOUTH SERVICES
DETENTION GAINESVILLE
___ TYPE OF _SPACFinFFICE__________
LEASE PERIOD! OO/OO/66 OO/OO/03 SERVICE PROVIDED! OPTIONS: year TO vear PJRCHASF OPTION!'
.... _____ REMARKS! APP 08/13/79 ONE YR._J._ASE_________
RFMARKS!
09 700:oqo2 DEPARTMENT OF UEFenol'R PEHABJ CCATTVE DEVELOPMENT CURPT OFFENDER REHABILITATION 1212 M, W. 12TH AVE,
GAINESVILLE
TYPE OF SPACEJOFFICE ___
LEASE PERIOD: on/01/75 07/31/77 SERVICE PRPVIDFDI OPTIONS! UNe YR SAMF PURCHASE OPTION!
_ 1212 exec complex. BlDG B 12.12 nw _2th av gainesville
ROOMS! SUITE JL_____
full
plaza north
2720 NW 6TH ST GAINESVILLE RUOMS SUITE B/C,D/_ C, E FULL
OUR PLACE
416 NE WALDO RO GAINESVILLE
RUOMS i_
NONE
__juvenile detention cntr
3221 ne 39th ave gainesville ruohsi
NONE
expenditure
jANnual Rental
$24/444,00
sq.ft. leased 3/930
_r_ate/sq. ft, 16,22
_a_nual Rental
$3/227,72
5q.ft. leased 548
rate/sq. ft.
$5,89
'age 005
MONTHLY RFNTAL $2/037.00
COUNTY NAME AL'ACHUA
MONTHLY RFNTAL* $268,07
CUUNTY NAMF ALACHUA '
annual rental $13,146,00"
sq,ft, leased 2,504
_rate/so, ft.
$5,25
annual _Rfc_mt*l ... $^0_
sq_ft, leased 230
rate/sq. ft, $.00
_annual rental '*1,0q.~
"sq.ft."leased 3/777
_rate/sq, ft, $,00
MONTHLY RFNTAL $1/095,50
COUNTY NAMF AL'ACHUA
MONTHLY RFNTAL'
$.00
county namf
ALACHUA
MONTHLY RFNTAL $.08
COUNTY NAMF AL'ACHUA'
livingston square qfc complex annual rental
$13/337,2 7
100 n.e. 10th ave. gainesville
rooms i suite 1 _
"FULL
REMARKS! APPRdveq 0/29/75 1? F,t,F, 6 MOS R to t by LES5EE REPLACES RFMARKS! b90;i5^ C 590 1665 PREVIOUS #590.92*
sq.ft. leased 2/304
_rate/s0. ft, $5,79
MONTHLY RFNTA. $1/ 11 .43
cuunty NAMF ALACHUA
RUN "AT. B"/30/76
r E *. L r'CERTY LEi^TMANAGEMENT program LEASE listing (by cuunty)
age 0q6
zone lease ...department (user Agency..*, no, division. rureaj
LESSOR
.SPACE_LPCA.TJaN_
EXPENDITURE
09 700;oq?4 department of offender p. eh a.. I__H ins on LL L anna m____
offende3 rehap.ili tat i on 1221 nw 1sth ave
gainesville 32601 type op spacejoffice _
1215 nw 16th av gainesville
rooms! _
full
207 SE FIRST ST GAINESVILLE ROOMSt ENTIRE .LOG,
. .. NONE
lfase period! 06/01/76 05/30/79 se'vice provided! options! nome pjrchasf option!
remarks ap* 97/29/76 replaces .780 j 0099 _________________
remarks! .]........______________
09 700ic035 department of offender PEHAQI ..ALACH''A county abstract_C__
offender rehabilitation 215 S = 2ND ave
gainesville
type of space (office ._........... ...._________________
lease period! 01/01/75 01/01/7. service provided! options i 3 years meg purchase option!
REMARKS APP 10/24/74 .replaces .780:02* includes ..18 .reserved ..parking____
remarks! spaces 20 r-te previous #7bd;0113
09 73010015 department of R.VEU'E ...........c.s.(p p r o p c rti e s ... ________________.im_jhc1pe fl.UJj__.n__
office of executive director 72. NIRTHaIEST 23rd ave, 214 east 1st street
gainesville gainesville florida
... type of spacejoffice_____ _____ .___rooms \___
lease period! 07/01/75 06/30/77 SfcRVIC= provided! options! nom pjrchasf option!
remarks! approved 062775____________
rfmarksi
09 740ioq75 department of natural RESQU.C Thruston, r h mable_ marine resourses 1a03 nw l?tw rd
beaches and sur_s gainesville 32605
__...... TYPE qf SPACF mFFICE_____________
lease period: q7/01/76 06/3"'/79 se'VICc provided! options! 3 vrs k-' e' purchase option!
.....______..... remarks app 0_06/76 18 fT_____________
remarks!
FULL
1305 s main st gainesville rooms! entire bldg none
_annual rental $5/324,32
sq-F_I. .LEASED 856
_rate/sq, ft, $6,22
annual rental_ $19/960,80
so.ft, leased 3,891
1_rate/Sa, ft, $5,13
annual Rental,
$5,400,00
jo,ft, leasfd 1/471
___ate/5_, ft, $3,67
annual rental $16,998,00
_?_,ft, leased 4, 156
monthly rfntal' $443,69
_cuunty_namf alachua
..monthly rfntal'. $1/663.ao
cuunty namf alachua
monthly rental' $ 4 5 0 ,0 0
~ county name alachua
MO_nTHL'y RENTAL '$1/416.5 0
county namf alachua
rate/so. FT, $4,09
JIQ9Q T~U
Cb.-HL.TIVE RECORD OF APARTMENT VACANCY STOjgYS Page 1
SURVEY QUARTER NUMBER OF PROJECTS UNITS VACANCIES VACANCY RATIO
inter 1967 r 30 1760 129 .073
Spring 1967 30 1840 327 .177
Stammer 1967 30 1854 333 .179
Fall 1967 30 1890 39 .021
Winter 1968 30 1890 40 .021
Spring 1968 30 1890 60 .031
Summer 1968 29 1882 350 .180
Fall 1968 30 2385 116 .051
Winter 1969 30 2466 173 .070
Spring 1969 30 2466 177 .072
Slimmer 1969 30 2466 434 .180
Fall 1969 30 2485 81 .033
Winter 1970 33 2744 95 .034
Spring 1970 33 2744 103 .038
Summer 1970 33 2747, 398 .145
Fall 1970 38 3190 8 .003
inter 1971 33 3190 4 .001
Spring 1971 38 3190 26 .008
Stunmer 1971 36 2792 194 .069
Fall 1971 38 3295 13 .003
Winter 1972 35 2963 18 .006
Spring 1972 35 2964 39 .013
Summer 1972 35 2964 476 .160
Fall 1972 48 4462 509 .114
Winter 1973 46 4074 269 .066
Spring 1973 43 3898 246 .063
Summer 1973 43 3898 450 .115
Fall 1973 48 5471 335 .061
Winter 1974 48 5471 281 .051
Spring 1974 48 5471 310 .056
Summer 1974 48 5471 536 .097
Fall 1974 47 5745 123 .0214
Jfinter 1975 No Survey- -Insufficient Staff
Spring 1975 No Survey- -Insufficient Staff
Summer 1975 No Survey- -Insufficient Staff
Fall 1975 44 6144 118 .0192
(CUMULATIVE RECORD OF APARTMENT VACANCY SURVEYS Page 2
SURVEY QUARTER NUMBER OF PROJECTS UNITS VACANCIES VACANCY RATIO
Winter 1976 47 6308 137 .0217
Ppring 1976 48 6444 21 .0358
62
GENERAL DESIGN GOALS
The Seagle Building as it now exists appears to be two unrelated structures the tower and the annex pushed together into one on a site without room for any exterior amenities. Addition to the site to provide space for landscaping and parking is an absolute necessity. It is obvious that the designer anticipated development of a higher density than has occurred immediately around the Seagle Building. The lack of ornamentation on the west elevation attests to this. Apparently the facade was conceived as part of the streetscape on the south and east sides with the west elevation left unadorned in anticipation of a building of similar scale being placed to the west. Since this has never happened and is not likely to happen in the near future thought should be given to the exterior treatment with consideration of the visual impact from all sides rather than just from University Avenue. Likewise, since the building will not likely be part of a dense city-scape consideration should be given to the complete exterior design in context with its present environment not that anticipated by the original designer. This should include not only site expansion and landscaping to soften the perception of the harsh lines of this rather poorly designed eclectic building, but also a continuation of the facade treatment in the round in a manner compatible with the existing tower facade. An effort should be made to avoid competition with the original facade design. The University Avenue entry should retain its status as the main entry in terms of aesthetic treatment and visual impact in spite of the necessity to provide a new more functional entry on the west side to improve the building's utilization potential. The original designer has provided a number of motives and design elements in the University Avenue facade that can serve as guides in completion of the exterior
63
treatment. Trends in fenestration size, shape and spacing are among the most important of these. The basic facade divisions, treatment in materials and use of belts have potential for continuation in the completion of the building's exterior design.
The purchase of property to the west of the site offers a solution to the building's cramped quarters. A partial demolition of the annex could provide additional potential for the development of a surround in which to perceive the building other than shoulder-to shoulder with its walls rising from the sidewalk. Gainesville is not the concrete jungle to which the Seagle Building's original siting concept pays tribute and there is no reason not to change the building's siting as much as possible within the context of economic feasibility.
The interior design of the building offers the greatest problem as well as the greatest challenge. Very little of the grandiose expression of the facade has been carried into the buildings interior. The main lobby has a certain richness of detail and a cohesiveness in the design and interrelationship of detail that is not realized on the exterior, but the scale of the interior space does not approach the expectations aroused by the exterior. The problem is compounded by the relative small distance between the first and second floors 11'-6" and the potential expense of making major alterations in the building's concrete frame.
The compartmentalization of the first floor and the lack of flexibility in its circulation pattern will make considerable demolition necessary for the anticipated function of a retail shopping arcade. Anticipated site expansion for parking and access will necessitate at least one additional entry on the west side of the building. The spacing of the buildings structure will be a limiting factor in the flexibility of the building's interior circulation and design.
64
The extent to which the stylistic design considerations of the building's exterior have been carried inside is so small that the option of a completely contemporary interior design is open. On the other hand it could be desireable to retain the period flavor of the existing entry and lobby and carry it through in the new interior design. The use of materials alone without the expense of elaborate detailing could lend a cohesiveness to existing exterior and the new interior.
BASEMENT DESIGN
The use of this space will be primarily utilitarian with the one deviation being the recreational facilities for the buildings residential tenants. The location of these functions should be consolidated with maximum access to the elevator and exit stairway to the first floor and the service ramp that will provide the second required exit. These facilities will require finish and design beyond the minimum which will be applicable to the remainder of the basement which will be relegated to storage and the housing of mechanical equipment, as outlined in the programming of the building's space.
As the program indicates the various storage functions correspond to the use of the rest of the building and should be segregated to reflect this and to maintain a maximum of security for the stored property of all the tenants. High priority should be given to the accessibility of storage for retail shop and restaurant tenants and office tenants in that order. The quantity of stored material and the need for accessibility will be highest for these tenants, especially those renting retail shop space. The location of janitorial and tenant service space should be such that it provides security for the storage areas and maximum access to exits and circulation areas.
65
RETAIL SHOPPING ARCADE
The primary objective of this space is to provide maximum exposure for as much retail space in relatively small packages as possible. With a minimum of exception the shops will house functions catering to members of the professional class which will hopefully be housed in the upper floors of the building. Quality not quantity is anticipated as a major attraction to these shops. Display space should extend to the exterior perimeter of the building as well as to the interior circulation areas. The layout of the shops should be simple and open with attention to security. A minimum of space for office, storage and stock preparation willbe provided since separate basement storage space will be provided.
Close attention should be given to arcade circulation since this area introduces the customers to the merchandise being sold. This circulation space should be kept within reason but minimumization should not be overdone since this area has potential for making sales just the same as interior displays.
The placement of the restaurant-delicatessen should have maximum flexibility of access. Also it should draw customers through the shopping area maintaining a symbiotic relationship with the retail sales tenants -shoppers have to eat and visa-versa. The restaurant should provide a broad spectrum of service while minimizing the necessity for large kitchen area. An offering of salad and sandwich menu will probably be the best approach for downtown Gainesville's lunch customers and for the evening customers brought to downtown by facilities like Nichol's Alley and the Great Southern. Provision should be made for table and counter service to broaden the potential spectrum of clientele. A central location for payment should be provided to serve deli customers as wellas customers seated in the table and counter service areas.
66
The facilities provided for management and security should be accessibl but should not detract from the exposure of the retail shops. Consolidation of this area with vertical circulation would be desireable for maximum acces sibility to the entire building. In addition to office and filing space areas should be designated for the security guard and for first aide to patrons injured or sick on the premises.
SECOND FLOOR OFFICES
The rental office suites should be of areas and numbers outlined in the space program. If possible all rental office suites should have exterior exposure. The amount of exterior exposure and window space should be relative to the area of each office suite. Within each office suite planning should be as open as possible for maximum flexibility. Where multiple private offices are required consideration should be given to moveable partitions allowing for conference or work space common to more than one private office. Private offices within the rental suites should be given preference for exterior exposure.
The commons areas for reception and circulation should be consolidated as much as possible to take maximum advantage of the second floor's scale. The fourteen foot dimension from the second floor to the third floor makes this the only area with a sense of expansiveness in the entire building.
The north and west exterior walls of this floor are almost totally without penetration to the exterior. Careful consideration should be given to the coordination of interior planning and exterior design in providing additional windows.
67
APARTMENT UNITS FLOORS 3 THROUGH 10
The residential units to be included in the Seagle Building are intended to attract single professionals and professional couples. While children will not be excluded from the residential units they will be confined to three or four floors. As noted in the space program a space designated for office -den use is included in the plan for some units on each floor. This space could serve as a small second bedroom in units which include the optional half bath.
The emphasis in the design of these units should be placed on providing maximum exterior exposure for the major living areas and in providing maximum square footage in these areas. Dining areas should be provided but should be contiguous with the main living area to provide additional space for entertaining. For the same reason large kitchens are desireable and should be immediately accessible to the living and dining areas. Large closet spaces are desireable and should be adjacent to the main bathroom to provide a dressing alcove in the apartments approaching the maximum square footage allowed in the space program.
If a low pressure forced air conditioning system is used for climate control, air handlers can be suspended from the ceiling minimizing floor area allotment for mechanical equipment.
A small laundry room would be desireable at each floor for tenant and custodial use. This may not be possible within the confines of existing space.
ELEVENTH FLOOR AND MEZZANINE
These areas must be confined to service functions due to the impossibility of providing elevator service without altering the building's exterior
68
profile. A possible solution would be the division of the eleventh floor into second floors to the tenth floor apartments. The cost of structural alterations could be prohibitive in this approach. The area occuppied by the mezzanine is required for the elevator control equipment and major change from its present configuration is not anticipated.
69
SPACE REQUIREMENTS
Basement: 19,606 G.S.F.
Storage for retail shops: Restaurant storage: Storage for residential tenants Storage for office tenants: Mechanical equipment: Janitorial-tenant service: Residential tenant facilities:
Sauna (100 G.S.F.)
Exercise room (400 G.S.F.)
Rec. room (500 G.S.F.) Circulation: Rental storage area:
First Floor: 17,847 G.S.F.
Retail shops: 8,500 9,000 G.S.F.
8 to 10 shops varying from 600 to 1,200 G.S.F. Provide no more than two shops exceeding 1,000 G.S.F. 50% of the total square footage should be in shops 800 to 1,000 square feet. 30% of the total square footage should be in shops of less than 800 G.S.F. Space should be allowed in each shop not to exceed 15% of floor area for stock preparation and office. Major storage area will be located in the basement.
2,200 G.S.F. (20% display space)
500 G.S.F. 3,200 G.S.F. (10% unit floor area) 1,000 G.S.F. 2,100 G.S.F. 1,000 G.S.F. 1,000 G.S.F.
10% of total G.S.F.
7,500 G.S.F. maximum will vary with amount of demolition
70
Mall circulation:
2,000
- 2,500 G.S.F.
Public restrooms:
250 G.S.F.
Employee restrooms:
150 G.S.F.
Tower service core:
500 G.S.F.
Restaurant Deli:
2,000 2,200 G.S.F. (total)
Display area:
100 200 G.S.F.
Counter service area:
500 600 G.S.F.
Food preparation and storage: 500 600 G.S.F.
Table service area:
600 700 G.S.F.
Restrooms:
100
- 150 G.S.F.
Management office: 250 G.S.F.
Should include space for a small first aide station and a security guard's station.
Service Access: 300 500 G.S.F.
Second Floor: 9,257 G.S.F.
Office space for lease: 7,400 G.S.F.
Should be divided into office suites not to exceed 1,000 G.S.F. as follows:
25% in 900 1,000 G.S.F. 45 50% in 500 600 G.S.F. 25 30% in 250 350 G.S.F.
The largest office suites should provide for two private offices (200 250 G.S.F.); two smaller offices (75 100 G.S.F.); secretarial and filing area with a small waiting area (250 300) .
71
The medium sized suites should contain two offices (175 200 G.S.F.); secretarial, filing and waiting space (150 G.S.F.).
The small office suites should include one private office (100 150 G.S.F.); semi-private office work space (75 100 G.S.F.); secretarial, filing, waiting space (50 75 G.S.F.).
Commons Area: 950 1,000 G.S.F.
Central reception area: 350 G.S.F.
Lounge: 250 G.S.F.
Restrooms: 300 G.S.F.
Duplication room: 150 G.S.F.
Second floor circulation: 800 1,000 G.S.F. Tower service core: 500 G.S.F.
Floors 3 through 10: 5,073 G.S.F.
5 Apartment units (750 900 G.S.F.) 4,500 G.S.F. Circulation and service core: 500 G.S.F. 2 stair towers
2 existing elevators and lobby vertical utilities chase
Apartment units:
Living area: 175 250 G.S.F.
Dining alcove: 60 100 G.S.F.
Kitchen: 80 100 G.S.F.
Bedroom: 125 175 G.S.F.
Bath and dressing area: 50 75 G.S.F. Den office or
small second bedroom (opt) 80- 125 G.S.F.
72
h bath (optional): 30 40 G.S.F. Mechanical: 15 20 G.S.F.
(Area for mechanical may be less if A.H.U.'s are suspended from the ceiling structure). Areas for closet space are included in the previous figures. Basement storage space will be provided for each unit.
eventh Floor and Mezzanine: 2,745 G.S.F. Elevator control room: 575 G.S.F. Laundry room: 1,900 G.S.F.
Circulation: 300 G.S.F.
73
COST PROJECTION
In order to provide a conservative estimate the cost of major structural additions will be added to a per-square-foot general renovation estimate. The structural additions will include the necessary changes in vertical circulation. The cost will be taken from estimates provided by Brie, Rhame, Poynter and Houser Architects and Engineers in 1971 with adjustment for inflation. In addition, the projected cost for site expansion will be added as outlined in the section on "Site Analysis".
Structural changes
New stair tower floors 1 thru 11 $107,550
New basement stairs 1,425
Extension of main stairs to floor 11 42,140
Subtotal
$151,115
General renovation
91,000 G.S.F.
@ $25/sq. ft.
2,275,000
Construction total $2,426,115
Site Addition
5000,000
Total $2,926,115
APPENDIX ONE
ADVANCED PROJECT ANALYSIS
JOHN F. SEAGLE BUILDING
University of Florida Gainesville, Florida
A. CONDON 6c ASSOCIATES, INC
Quantity Surveyors Fort Lauderdale, Florida
28 September, 1973
CONTENTS
Introduction .
Conelusion
Structural Analysis
Building Utilization
Photographs
Parking & Landscaping
Real Estate Appraisal
Demolition
Renovation
History
INTRODUCTION
John F. Seagle Building is an existing 12 floor office building in Gainesville, Florida. It is partially occupied and is fully maintained by the University'of Florida (UF). The owner, the State of Florida, acting through the Department of General Services (DGS) entered into an agreement with this firm, J. A. Condon Associates, Inc. to prepare this Report entitled Advanced Project Analysis (APA). /' .
The purpose of the APA is to determine and recommend a course of action to DGS
to follow for the building's future. It is now obsolete and violates fire
code standards, which results in under utilization of the building. The choice
of recommended actions were listed in the agreement as follows:
-
1. Renovate for use by UF
2. Demolition and sale of property
3. Sale of property as is
A. Demolish and'Reconstruct on the same site
5. Reconstruction on another site
To this choice we have added:
6. Long term lease
7. Close the building
8. Continue as is
9. Take over by DGS
10. Donate to local government
11. Fire code compliance only
To accomplish our assignment, certain procedures were established as follows:
1. Consultants were retained for, ,
a) Structural testing and analysis
b) -Appraising the building and surrounding property on the present and private real estate market
c) Demolition cost
d) Mechanical systems study
e) Elevator modernization
2. Copies of pertinent data, reports, photographs, letters, plans, specifications, etc. were obtained. Some of the data obtained was,
3) 1926 Original plans and specifications
b) 1936 Completion plans and specifications
c) 1927 and 1936 newspaper clippings
d) 1972 Land survey
e) Ten reports of the past from 1937 to 1972 concerned with structural strength, use, and fire code violations
f) Photographs from 1926
g) Computer printout listing leased office space in Alachua County by the DGS Bureau of Property Management's Lease Management Program as of 7-31-73
h) Sheets and notes from "A History Of Gainesville" by Charles Hasley Hildreth, UF 1954, from the Gainesville City Library
1
INTRODUCTION
The above is a sampling of what we obtained. There is a large volume of data we did not obtain as it did not bear directly on our work, or we learned of it too late. The important feature here is to know that there is a great deal of detailed information on the building and its history. This will be useful to future users, planners, consultants and construction design professionals who may be engaged in improving the structure.
Numerous physical inspections and surveys were made in May, June, July and August, 1973 by one to three people from this firm, which lasted from 4 hours to 9 hours per day. At this time 120 pictures were taken, notes written and several hours of tape recording made.
Interviews were scheduled with appropriat'e personnel within the UF, and persons outside of the UF who could tell us of the building, past, present and future. These interviews took place from May into this September. We wish to thank each of these individuals for their assistance and attention to the details we sought. Everyone was very friendly, helpful, well informed and strived to relay their knowledge to us.
From the UF were:
Division of Planning & Analysis
Dr. Joseph E. Stafford, Director Jj.Mr. D. Neil Webb, Associate Director
Mr. Gordon S. Johnson, Senior Planning Consultant
Mr. James G. Zowarka, Supervisor, Space & Facilities Analyst
Mr. Carlton J. Roberts
Physical Plant Division
Mr. Calvin C. Green, Director
Mr. Warren T. Michael, Assistant Director
Mr. John B. Opdyke, P.E.
Maintenance Division
Mr. Rowland, Carpentry Superintendent
Mr. T. C. Booth, Piping Superintendent
Mr. William C. Dees, Electrical Superintendent
Occupants of the Building
Mrs. Margaret Harrington, Board of University Examiners, 4th floor Mrs. June Voyles, County Extension (Agricultural), 1st floor
From outside the UF were: .
Mr. Gus Kloonis, Director of DGS office in Gainesville
Mr. Norm La Coe, local citizen and history buff who furnished one of
the 1926 photographs Assistant librarian, Gainesville City Library
Mr. David Weaver of Cannon-Trewick Insurance Agents for carrier on
Seagle Building Mr. Pierce Smith, City and County Tax Assessor Mr. D. B. Laird, Battalion Chief, Gainesville Fire Department Mr. T. W. Burkhart, Deputy State Fire Marshall
2
CONCLUSION
Our study revealed that the building is structurally sound, has several functioning elements in good condition, adjacent Land for parking lots is available at a comparatively low price, the UF cannot efficiently utilize the building, there is a limited demand for similar space by various local and state governmental agencies and there is very little or no demand by private owners for the building. In accordance with the broad outline stated above, we recommend the following priority of actions.
yl. Vacant land be purchased to the west, east and north, to service the building and provide ground level parking. _/t_^_k Carr-crf frc***
DGS assume management, renovate to limits stated later herein, assign the space to state agencies and lease any balance to local government.
3. The UF construct new space they need on campus.
Secondary actions and less desirable in our opinion are listed below in order of choice. All require the purchase of adjacent land to make the building function, and the UF moving the balance of their users to on-campus locations.
1. Sell or trade of property as is to a private or public buyer.
2. Lease the building and adjacent land long term (10 years or more) after renovating as stated herein.
3. Donate to a local government or other public body. 'We do not recommend:
1. Demolish, and sale of the vacant land. The cost would be high to gain nothing. *
2. Renovate for use by UF. They can't utilize that much office space (91^000 GSF 1 mile from the campus and it deters from obtaining the new space the University needs, and will need, in the next few years. It does not fit into their overall long range campus plan.
3. Close the building. This would gain nothing but additional costs and is not solving the problem. The cost of maintenance and security would be high. Nature abhors a vacuum and so do potential users. We doubt it could be successfully achieved.
4. Continue as is. This may actually occur as it has for the past 37 years, but it shouldn't be planned. It is wasteful, not solving the problem and unsafe.
5. Fire code compliance only. This is expensive, presently estimated to be without curing any obsolescence or making the building more de-
/ sirable for new users. This corrective work would take place within the
recommended renovation.
Our recommendations are not new and most of the choice of actions listed have been made before in previous reports. To those charged with making the decision
* Gross Square Feet
29 L ^^./
CONCLUSION ....
on what to do with the Seagle Building, we advise these reports be studied. Some are excellent. What is new with this report is the structural invest!-, gation and analysis, determining adjacent land value for parking lots, establishing a plan of renovation, estimating cost of demolition, locating possible users, gathering of important historical facts and addition of technical details. ,
The other reports we know of are:
6/30/37 7/19/39 '2/9/42 3/4/42
Winter 50/51
5/21/63
8/13/70
1969 8/5/70
y May 1972 12/27/72 U- 4/27/72
Floor Loads by Weaver, Rudolph, Architect & Hannaford, Frederick T. Letters Do
Special Report of the Seagle Building Committee
Office Memorandum by Fulton, Guy C. & Hannaford, Frederick T.
Structural Inspection Letters (We haven't seen these)
Inspection Letter by Neil Webb
Letter Report on Structure by Edward B. O'Kelley, P.E., Consulting Engineer
State Fire Marshall Inspection
Report of Fire Safety Study by Briel, Rhame, Poynter & Houser, Architects & Engineers
Feasibility Analysis by Graduate Students, UF Evaluation Summary by Division of Planning Analysis -A Staff Study of the Seagle'Building by Carlton J. Roberts, DPA
Choice of actions numbers 4 & 5 in the Introduction are not discussed as 'they are impractical in light of the information in this Report.
Another facet of renovation is the Urban Redevelopment Concept of Gainesville. This redevelopment is to build a complex or series of government buildings, civic auditorium, convention center, hotel, shopping mall and parking garage in an area starting about three blocks east of Seagle. The judicial center planning is now under way and the county is acquiring land east of the courthouse by right of eminent domain. If all the redevelopment should occur, it is now speculative, it would greatly increase the .value of a renovated Seagle Building. The Urban Workshop has developed preliminary plans to include the Seagle Building in the redevelopment. The State, by renovating the Seagle Building, would be a prime mover in making the redevelopment a reality, and,it would be performing a community act of good will.
Our last conclusion is the name of the building should be changed, if possible. We have noted the UF has changed the names of some of the old buildings on campus, A new building with a new name in a redeveloped downtown would certainly overcome much of the prejudice now held against the building by potential users.
4
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
The most important part of this APA is the structural investigation and analysis that was made. More effort and time were expanded in this phase of our work' than any other part of our study. The reason for this was the possibility that the building may be structurally unsound. If this was so, then the prudent thing to do was to demolish it. Therefore, before proceeding to determine the best utilization of the building, we had to determine if it was structurally sound. We found that it was.
Gustav R. Mayer, Professional Engineer, was retained to make the structural analysis. Mr. Mayer is a known consultant, with an excellent reputation for investigating and analyzing existing structures. He has investigated many "boom time" (1925-1926) structures in Florida. His report is bound herein.
Pittsburgh Testing Laboratories of Gainesville obtained concrete core samples from the building for testing. Wingerter Laboratories of Miami tested the core samples for us and their report is bound herein. The UF Division of Planning & Analysis engaged Universal Engineering Testlng Company of Gainesville to make two drill holes in the earth for soil samples down to 40' below the surface. Their report is bound herein. Mr. Mayer established the location of these two holes close to the west side of the 12 floor tower section, and determined the bearing value of the soil samples.
5
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
REPORT
JOHN F, SEAGLE-BUILDING
GAINESVILLE FLORIDA
AUGUST 31, 1973
MR. JOHN A. CONDON
C/O CONDON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
FORT LAUDERDALE, FLA 33315
RE: JOHN F. SEAGLE BUILDING, GAINESVILLE, FLA.
DEAR MR. CONDON :
ENCLOSED IS MY FINAL REPORT REGARDING THE STRUCTURAL CONDITION OF THE SUBJECT BUILDING AND IT'S SERVICEABILITY AS AN OFFICE BUILDING WITH NORMAL OFFICE LIVE LOADS FOR ALL FLOORS EXCEPT THE FIRST FLOOR. THE FIRST FLOOR HAS BEEN INVESTIGATED FOR A LIVE LOAD OF 100 LBS PER SQ.FT.
A LOAD OF 20 PSF 'HAS BEEN ASSUMED iN ALL FLOORS TO REPRESENT THE LOADS OF EXISTING AND OF FUTURE PARTITIONS TO BE LOCATED AS REQUIRED BY THE TENANTS. ALSO INCLUDED IN THE DEAD LOADS IS THE WEIGHT OF A PROBABLY EXISTING LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE TOP PING ON ALL FLOORS.
AS INDICATED IN THE REPORTS THE STRENGTH OF THE MATERIALS HAS BEEN INVESTIGATED THOROUGHLY AND THE ADOPTED VALUES MUST BE CONSIDERED TO BE CONSERVATIVE.
THE CAPACITY OF THE CONCRETE MEMBERS HAS BEEN EVALUATED BY THE USE OF THE ULTIMATE STRENGTH THEORY AND IN THE LIGHT OF PRESENT DAY KNOWLEDGE. PERTINENT CALCULATIONS HAVE BEEN BASED ON ACI 318-71. THE STRESSES FOR STEEL AND FOR CONCRETE HAVE BEEN CONSERVATIVELY ADOPTED AT FY = 33,000 PSI AND AT Fl = 3, 300 PSI .
THE RESISTANCE OF THE BUILDING AGAINST WIND LOADS AND THE ADEQUACY OF THE SUBSOIL TO SUPPORT THE FOUNDATION LOADS HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATED. IT IS MY OPINION THAT WIND LOADS ARE NO PROBLEM AND THAT NO DIFFICULTIES ARE TO BE EXPECTED FROM THE FOUNDATIONS.
AS YOU WILL SEE FROM THE REPORT IT HAS BEEN MY CONCLUSION THAT THE SUBJECT BUILDING IS ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT SAFELY THE STIPULATED LOADS.
SINCERELY
GRM/YK ENCLOSURES
AUGUST 31 1973
PAGE 1
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT
TO: MR. JOHN A. CONDON
C/O CONDON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 11 S.W. 16 TH STREET FORT LAUDERDALE, FLA 33315
SUBJECT: JOHN F. SEAGLE BUILDING, GAINE5VILLE,FLA.
SCOPE : INVESTIGATE THE STRUCTURAL CONDITION OF THE
SUBJECT BUILDING AND DETERMINE IF THE STRUCTURE AND THE SUBSTRUCTURE IS CAPABLE TO SUPPORT THE WEIGHT OF THE PRESENT STRUCTURE, ADDITIONAL WEIGHT OF NEW PARTITIONS, CODE IMPOSED WIND LOADS, AND THE FOLLOWING LIVE LOADS: 100 LBS PER SQ.FT. ON THE ENTIRE FIRST FLOOR AND 50 LBS PER SQ.FT. ON ALL OTHER FLOORS PLUS AN EXTRA 50 PSF FOR CORRIDORS.
DESCRIPTION OF THE BUILDING:
THE BUILDING COVERS AN AREA OF ROUGHLY 100 X 200 FT.
THE 200 FT LONG EAST SIDE FRONTS .ON N.W. h TH STREET
AND THE TWO SHORT SIDES FRONT ON UNIVERSITY AVENUE
AND ON N.W. FIRST AVENUE.
THE BUILDING CONSISTS OF THREE PARTS: THE SOUTH PORTION OR THE TOWER FRONTING ON UNIVERSITY AVENUE HAS 12 STORIES AND IS APPROXIMATELY 50 FT WIDE.
THE NEXT PORTION ABOUT h5 FT WIDE, CONSISTS OF TWO STORIES.
THE THIRD PORTION FRONTING ON N.W. FIRST AVENUE HAS ONLY ONE STORY.
ALL THREE PORTIONS HAVE A BASEMENT THE FLOOR. OF WHICH IS ABOUT ELEVEN FT. BELOW GRADE.
THERE IS A 12 FT WIDE RAMP AT THE NORTH-WEST CORNER OF THE BUILDING COMPLEX WHICH LEADS FROM N.W. FIRST AVENUE TO THE BASEMENT.
THE AREA OF THE BASEMENT IS 20,100 SQ.FT.,APPROX., AND THE AREA OF ALL FLOORS FROM THE FIRST TO THE TENTH FLOOR IS 67,500 SQ.FT., APPROXIMATELY.
OF THE ENTIRE AREA THE FOLLOWING ARE THE ESTIMATED RENTABLE SPACES:
BASEMENT i 16,000 SQ.FT
FLOORS FIRST THRU TENTH : 51,000 SQ.FT
8
AUGUST 31, 1973 REPORT : JOHN F. SEAGLE BUILDING PAGE 2
HISTORY :
THE ORIGINAL BUILDING HAS BEEN DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED IN 1926. THE STRUCTURAL SKELETON SUBSEQUENTLY STOOD IDLE FOR ABOUT TEN YEARS". THE BUILDING, DESIGNED AS A HOTEL STRUCTURE, WAS COMPLETED IN 1936 AS PART OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDINGS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA BASED ON ALTERED ARCHITECTURAL PLANS. THESE 19 3 6. PLANS CALL FOR A LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE TOPPING WITH 6 X 8 12/12 WIRE MESH TO BE APPLIED OVER ALL EXISTING CONCRETE FLOORS. IT COULD NOT BE DETERMINED IF THIS WAS ACTUALLY DONE IN TOTO, IN PART, OR AT ALL.
SOME CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE SUCH AS THE REMOVAL OF THE EAST STAIRS AND OF THE FRONT RETAIL STORES-TERRACES. THERE ALSO WAS A SUNKEN 2 FT DEEP SECTION OF THE SECOND FLOOR WHICH WAS TO SERVE AS^THE MAIN BUSINESS LOBBY OF THE HOTEL. THIS SUNKEN PORTION HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO THE LEVEL OF THE BALANCE OF THIS STORY BY MEANS OF STEEL JOISTS AND CONCRETE SLABS PLACED THEREON.
PHYSICAL INSPECTIONS OF THE BUILDING : ,
ON AUGUST 1,2,3, AND 7 I HAVE VISUALLY INSPECTED ALL PARTS OF THE BUILDING WHICH WERE READILY ACCESSIBLE. IN ADDITION TO THE BASEMENT, THE ROOF OF THE TWO-STORY PORTION, AND THE PREMISES OF THE 11 TH AND THE 12 TH FLOORS THE FOLLOWING FLOORS HAVE BEEN INSPECTED: THE FIRST, SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH, FIFTH, SIXTH, NINTH AND TENTH FLOOR.
PHOTOGRAPHS HAVE BEEN TAKEN.
NON-DESTRUCTIVE CONCRETE TESTS WITH A "SWISS"-HAMMER HAVE BEEN PERFORMED ON EXPOSED CONCRETE AND ON THE CONCRETE RIBS OF THE SEVENTH FLOOR.
CORES, 4 INCH DIAMETER, HAVE BEEN DRILLED IN THE CONCRETE OF THE BASEMENT WALL NEAR THE BOTTOM OF THE RAMP. THESE CORES HAVE BEEN TESTED SUBSEQUENTLY BY A TESTING LABORATORY.
TWO SOIL TESTS HAVE BEEN PERFORMED BY MEANS OF STANDARD PENETRATION TETS 40 FT DEEP AND THE RESULTS HAVE BEEN EVALUATED.
OBSERVATIONS:
.--HEAVY DETERIORATION OF CONCRETE SLABS AND BEAMS HAS BEEN OBSERVED IN THE CEILING OF THE BASEMENT ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING WHERE THE BASEMENT PROJECTS UNDER THE SIDE WALK OF UNIVERSITY AVENUE. HEAVY METAL SHORING ON CEMENT FOUNDATIONS WAS IN PLACE. OBVIOUSLY, WATER FROM THE SIDE WALK HAS FOUND ENTRY INTO THE STRUCTURE IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA AND THE STEEL REINFORCING HAS CORRODED. THIS IN TURN CAUSED THE SPALLING OF THE CONCRETE COVER OF THE REINFORCING BARS.
9
AUGUST 31, 1973 REPORT : JOHN F. SEAGLE BUILDING PAGE 3
THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT THE BASEMENT HAS BEEN FLOODED IN THE PAST WITH ABOUT 18 INCHES OF WATER. THERE EXISTS ONE WELL'POINT WITH A PUMP IN WORKING CONDITION.
^COLUMN NO. 23 IN THE BASEMENT HAS A'PIECE OF CONCRETE SPALLED OFF AT ONE CORNER, ABOUT 12 INCHES ABOVE THE FLOOR, AND ONE SLIGHTLY CORRODED REINFORCING BAR IS EXPOSED. SOME ISOLATED CASES OF SPALLED-OFF CONCRETE HAVE BEEN OBSERVED IN RIBS OF THE CONCRETE CEILING OF THE BASEMENT.
THE BASEMENT FLOOR UNDER THE TOWER AND UNDER THE TWO-STORY PORTION OF THE BUILDING IS STILL UNFINISHED.
?'ABOUT 75 FT FROM THE NORTH WALL OF THE BASEMENT RUNS A STEEL SHORING ACROSS THE BASEMENT IN EASf-WESTERLY DIRECTION AS AN APPARENT AUXILIARY SUPPORT OF THE FIRST FLOOR SLAB. IT IS NOT CLEAR IF THIS SHORING IS NECESSARY AT ALL. PENDING A MORE DETAILED INVESTIGATION THIS SHORING COULD POSSIBLY BE REMOVED WITHOUT ANY OTHER ASSIST TO THE FIRST FLOOR SLAB. THE CONCRETE STRUCTURE OF THE CEILING AT THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION DOES NOT SHOW SIGNS OF DISTRESS.
THE TOP SIDES OF THE SLABS IN THE FIRST THREE FLOORS OF THE BUILDING SHOW SOME CRACKING. ON CLOSER EXAMINATION IT SEEMS THAT MOST OF THESE CRACKS RUN IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE CONCRETE RIBS OF THE FLOORS AND TO STIFFENING CROSS RIBS.
IT SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD THAT THESE RIBS ARE SPACED ABOUT 2 FT APART AND FORM THE MAIN SUPPORT FOR THE FLOOR SLAB. THE SLABS WHICH SHOW THE CRACKS CONSIST OF 2 INCH OF STRUCTURAL CONCRETE AND POSSIBLY OF ANOTHER 2 INCH OF'LIGHTWEIGHT NON-STRUCTURAL CONCRETE. REINFORCING, IF ANY, CONSISTS OF LIGHT GAGE WIRE MESH' WHICH IS NOT VERY EFFECTIVE IN BENDING.
./REPORTS, DATING BACK TO 1942 SPEAK OF. HEAVY OVERLOADING IN THE AFFECTED AREAS. SUCH LOCALIZED OVERLOADING COULD HAVE CAUSED THE OBSERVED CRACKING. SUCH CRACKING IS NOT DANGEROUS BY ITSELF. HOWEVER THE CRACKS MUST BE SEALED TO PREVENT THE ENTRY OF MOISTURE INTO THE FLOOR STRUCTURE.
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE ISOLATED INSTANCES MENTIONED ABOVE THE STRUCTURE OF THIS BUILDING IS IN AN EXCEPTIONALLY GOOD CONDITION. VERY FEW CRACKS HAVE BEEN OBSERVED IN THE PLASTER OF THE INTERIOR AND IN THE EXTERIOR STUCCO. THE ABSENCE OF TELL-TALE CRACKS IN PLASTER AND STUCCO IS AN INDICATION THAT UNCRACKED STRUCTURAL CONCRETE MEMBERS ARE UNDERNEATH. WHERE-EVER THE STRUCTURAL CONCRETE HAS BEEN LEFT EXPOSED TO THE VIEW A CLEAN, STRONG SURFACE HAS BEEN OBSERVED WHICH WAS FREE OF DEFECTS. NUMEROUS PICTURES WHICH I TOOK ARE WITNESSES TO THE EXCELLENT CONDITION OF THE CONCRETE STRUCTURAL MEMBERS. u py r. /,>
r EVEN THE OLD (yPr^ WINDOWS ARE IN FAIR CONDITION AND WHILE THEY ARE OUTMODED AND OLD-FASHIONED THEY NEVERTHELESS ARE SERVICEABLE TO A DEGREE, THOUGH THERE EXISTS THE POSSIBILITY
10
AUGUST 31 1973 REPORT : JOHN F. SEAGLE BUILDING PAGE 4 g
THAT THEIR WATERTIGHTNESS HAS SOMEWHAT DIMINISHED. W
bJ
EXCEPT FOR SOME SLIGHT UNEVENESS CAUSED BY TEMPORARY OVER- LOADING THE FLOORS SEEM 10 BE IN GOOD CONDITION. IN ORDER TO
MAKE A RANDOM CHECK THE CEILING OF THE SIXTH FLOOR HAS BEEN 0
REMOVED AT A SPOT ABOUT 17 FT FROM THE SOUTH WALL OF THE BUILDING. THE EXPOSED UNDERSIDE OF THE SEVENTH FLOOR HAS BEEN FOUND IN EXCELLENT CONDITION.
DESCRIPTION OF THE STRUCTURE
THE BUILDING IS A POST AND LINTEL TYPE "EARLY" REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURE. REINFORCED CONCRETE COLUMNS OF GRADUALLY DIMINISHING SIZES SUPPORT STRINGS OF EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR REINFORCED CONCRETE BEAMS WHICH IN TURN SUPPORT THE SO-CALLED RIB-SLABS.
THE ROOF OVER THE TOWER PORTION OF THE BUILDING IS SUPPORTED
STAIRS ARE OF REINFORCED CONCRETE
1U
0
z
THE EXTERIOR WALLS BETWEEN THE REINFORCED CONCRETE SKELETON CONSIST OF HOLLOW CORE CLAY TILE WITH PROTECTING MORTAR COVER, DETAILS CONTAINED ON THE 1936 DRAWINGS SHOW THESE WALLS TO BE j-OF FIRST RATE DESIGN. j
D 0)
AT THIS TIME THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING APPEARS TO BE IN DIRE NEED OF A GOOD COAT OF PAINT IN ORDER TO PREVENT ENTRY -OF MOISTURE INTO THE WALLS. Z
0 0
LLJ
THE RIB-SLABS CONSIST OF A SERIES OF PARALLEL CONCRETE RIBS, 5 INCH WIDE BY 6 TO 10 INCH HIGH, SPACED AT 25 INCH, WHICH f\
SUPPORT THE 2 INCH THICK STRUCTURAL CONCRETE SLAB. THE 1936 SPECIFICATIONS CALL FOR A 2 INCH NON-STRUCTURAL LIGHTWEIGHT TOPPING TO BE PLACED ON TOP OF ALL CONCRETE SLABS. BOTH SLABS, THE STRUCTURAL SLAB AND THE NON-STRUCTURAL SLAB AT BEST ONLY (V CONT-AIN A LIGHTWEIGHT LIGHT GAGE 'STEEL WIRE MESH. THE REINFORCING STEEL IS LOCATED IN THE RIBS IN FORM OF STRAIGHT AND BEND DEFORMED REINFORCING STEEL SPECIFIED AS INTERMEDIATE GRADE NEW BILLET STEEL. WHICH AT THAT TIME HAD A STANDARD YIELD STRENGTH OF 40,000 PSI. THE VOIDS BETWEEN RIBS AND SLAB HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BY STEEL FORMS, ALSO CALLED "PANS".
COLUMNS ARE SUPPORTED BY SQUARE CONCRETE FOOTING BASES WITH DOUBLE CAPS FORMING A PYRAMIDE-LIKE PEDESTAL OF THE ORDER OF 3 FT HEIGHT. THIS PLACES THE BOTTOM OF THE FOOTINGS AT AN APPROXIMATE DEPTH OF 14 FT BELOW GRADE. THE EXTERIOR BASEMENT WALLS REST ON SHALLOW CONTINUOUS CONCRETE FOOTINGS.
LsJ > <
>
BY STEEL TRUSSES HAVING TIMBER SHEATHING. <
h
THE REINFORCED CONCRETE SKELETON OF THE BUILDING, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MINOR PORTIONS THEREOF, HAS BEEN DESIGNED ACCORDING'' TO CODES IN FORCE IN 1926 AND HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED IN THAT Q
PERIOD OF TIME.
11
august 31, 1973 report : john f. seagle building page 5 ^$ __ft 10
THIRD TO TENTH FLOORS 50 LBS PER SQ.FT
ROOF 30 LBS PER SQ.FT
A) CONCRETE j ;!
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS INDI CATEtTHAT ALL REINFORCED CONCRETE MEMBERS HAVE A DESIGN MIX OF 1 : 2 : 4 WITH
01
THE EXCEPTION OF THE COLUMNS OF FLOORS 1 THROUGH 7 FOR Z O
WHICH A STRONGER MIX OF 1 : 1 1/2 : 3 WAS SPECIFIED. Q 0
M <
IT SHOULD BE RECALLED THAT CONCRETE AT THAT TIME WAS
SPECIFIED AS MIX PROPORTIONS BY VOLUME( THUS A MIX <
1:2:4 CONSISTED OF ONE PART CEMENT, 2 PARTS FINE AGGREGATE. AND 4 PARTS COARSE AGGREGATE.
03 CO
A 1 : 2 : 4 MIX GENERALLY RESULTED IN A 28-DAY CONCRETE 1.1 -
STRENGTH OF THE ORDER OF 300 0 PSI IF PROPERLY MIXED AND /iM JJ
placed /U^r~*4S A KhJ>#W ; <
THREE 4 DiAMETER CORES HAVE BEEIy CUT UNDER MY SUPERVISION c
FROM THE EXTERIOR CONCRETE BASEMENT WALL NEAR THE BOTTOM O
OF THE RAMP LOCATED AT THE NORTHrWEST CORNER OF THE BUILDING. ^
c -
SUB.SEQUENTLY THESE CORES HAVE BEEN CUT INTO SIX TEST SPECIMEN "* 5 BY WINGERTER LABORATORIES, INC. IN MIAMI, FLORIDA THEY' WERE PREPARED AND TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM C-42-68.
<
THE AVERAGE STRENGTH OF THE SIX TEST SPECIMEN HAS BEEN CALCULATED TO BE 3227 PSI. z
tC. hi
.IT SHOULD BE POINTED OUT THAT THE BASEMENT WALL WHERE THE <
CORES HAD BEEN DRILLED HAS BEEN TESTED BY MYSELF WITH A x
SWISS HAMMER 100 IMPACTS HAVE BEEN PERFORMED THE AVERAGE jV h
OF WHICH WAS THE LOWEST REBOUND NUMBER ACHIEVED IN HAMMER *
TESTS ON CONCRETE MEMBERS OF THE BUILDING. w
THOUGH OBVIOUSLY CONSERVATIVE, THE OBTAINED STRENGTH FOR ^* <
UJ
I
THIS LOCATION HAS BEEN CHOSEN AS THE CALIBRATION STANDARD <
FOR ALL OTHER SWISS HAMMER TESTS. SUCH TESTS HAVE BEEN
PERFORMED ON A SERIES OF BASEMENT COLUMNS, ON VARIOUS *
CONCRETE BEAMS OF THE BASEMENT CEILING, AND ON TWO RIBS OF {/)
THE EXPOSED UNDERSIDE OF THE SEVENTH FLOOR.THE FOLLOWING RESULTS HAVE BEEN OBTAINED:
* O
CO 0)
12
the original specifications called for the following design iii live loads : 2 |H
first floor 120 lbs per SQ.FT. (9 '
second floor 90 lbs per SQ.FT. g
UJ n
UJ
0 z 7 0
materials used in the structure : *- i
--- Q.
AUGUST 31 1973 REPORT: JOHN F. SEAGLE BUILDING PAGE 6
BASEMENT COLUMNS BASEMENT BEAMS" 7 TH FLOOR RIBS
C 80 IMPACTS ) AVERAGE REBOUND 109 % 6.S. C 20 IMPACTS ) AVERAGE REBOUND 107 % O.S. ( 20 IMPACTS ) AVERAGE REBOUND 121 % O.S.
) O.S. STANDS FOR : "OVER STANDARD" SIGNIFYING THAT ALL THE REPORTED SWISS HAMMER TESTS EXCEEDED THE STANDARD TEST OF THE BASEMENT WALL BY 9, 7, AND 21 PERCENT RESPECTIVELY
THE EQUIVALENT CONCRETE STRENGTHS HAVE BEEN CALCULATED AS FOLLOWS:
BASEMENT COLUMNS BASEMENT BEAMS 7 TH FLOOR RIBS
3504 PSI 3440 PSI 3905 PSI
A CONSERVATIVE CONCRETE STRENGTH OF' 3300 PSI HAS BEEN USED IN THE ANALYSIS OF THE STRUCTURE BY THIS ENGINEER.
B) REINFORCING STEEL
THE ORIGINAL SPECIFICATIONS CALLED FOR REINFORCING STEEL MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF BILLET STEEL ASTM DESIGNATION A 15-14.
THE SPECIFICATIONS STATED ALSO THAT-ALL REINFORCING BARS SHOULD BE OF INTERMEDIATE GRADE AND SHOULD HAVE APPROVED DEFORMATIONS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF COLUMN HOOPS AND BEAM STIRRUPS FOR WHICH SMOOTH BARS OF STRUCTURAL GRADE WERE .PERMITTED .
A-15 BILLET STEEL AT THAT TIME HAD THE FOLLOWING STRENTH REQUIREMENTS:
YIELD STRENGTH PSI TENSILE STRENGTH PSI STRUCTURAL GRADE 33,000 5 5,000-75,000
INTERMEDIATE GRADE 40,000 7 0,000-90,000
CONSERVATIVELY, ALL CALCULATIONS BY THIS ENGINEER HAVE BEEN BASED ON A YIELD STRENGTH OF 33,000 PSI.
AUGUST 31, 1973 REPORT : JOHN F. SEAGLE BUILDING PAGE 7
SUBSOIL AND FOUNDATIONS :
THE DOCUMENTS WHICH BECAME AVAILABLE TO ME CONTAINED A PHOTOGRAPH PORTRAYING A PLATE TEST OF THE EXCAVATED BASEMENT PORTRAYING A LOAD TEST ARRANGEMENT AND SHOWING THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION :
" HOTEL KELLEY GAINESVILLE, FLA 7/24/26 LOAD 7475 LBS SETTLEMENT 3/16 INCH "
NORMALLY SUCH PLATE TESTS ARE CONTINUED UNTIL A SETTLEMENT OF 0.5 INCH HAS BEEN OBTAINED.
THE PROJECTED LOAD FOR A SETTLEMENT OF 0.5 INCH WOULD HAVE CONSIDERABLY EXCEEDED THE LOAD STATED IN THE PHOTOGRAPH AT WHICH A SETTLEMENT OF 0.1875 HAD BEEN OBTAINED.
IT APPEARS REASONABLE THAT AN ALLOWABLE DESIGN SOIL PRESSURE UNDER THE FOOflNGS OF THE ORDER OF 5,500 PSF WOULD HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY THE DESIGNERS OF THE FOUNDATIONS.
THE UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY OF GAINESVILLE,FLA TOOK TWO STANDARD PENETRATION TESTS ( ASTM 1586-67) OF 40 FT DEPTH EACH IMMEDIATELY TO THE WEST OF THE BUILDING.
AT THE ELEVATION OF THE FOOTINGS OF THE BUILDING, 14 FT BELOW GRADE, THE BORING LOG SHOWS SOIL OF APPROXIMATELY 67 % RELATIVE DENSITY. CALCULATIONS SHOW FOR SUCH SOIL A NET ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY IN EXCESS OF 35,000 PSF.
REDUCING THIS CAPACITY BY 50 % FOR THE CASE OF SUBMERSION UNDER WATER AND FURTHERMORE INTRODUCING A FACTOR OF SAFETY OF 3.0 WE OBTAIN A SAFE BEARING CAPACITY OF THE ORDER OF 5,500 PSF.
I SELECTED COLUMN NO.17 FOR AN ANALYSIS OF THE ACTUAL BEARING PRESSURE UNDER THE FOOTING ASSUMING THAT THE BUILDING IS FULLY LOADED WITH THE ANTICIPATED LOADS OF THE RENOVATED BUILDING AS STATED UNDER "SCOPE" ON PAGE NO. 1 OF THIS REPORT. T'HE APPLIED LOADS CONSISTED OF ALL DEAD LOADS INCLUDING THE WEIGHT OF A PROBABLE TOPPING OF 2 INCH LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE ON ALL FLOORS AND A PARTITION LOAD OF 20 PSF, THE STIPULATED LIVE LOADS OF 100 PSF FOR THE ENTIRE FIRST FLOOR AND FOR THE CORRIDORS OF ALL OTHER FLOORS, 50 PSF FOR ALL OTHER FLOOR AREAS WITH DUE CONSIDERATION OF LIVE LOAD REDUCTIONS AS GIVEN IN THE SOUTHERN STANDARD BUILDING CODE, THE WEIGHTS OF COLUMNS AND OF THE FOOTING. THE TOTAL LOAD OF 702,000 LBS RESULTS IN A SOIL PRESSURE OF 5,300 PSF. THIS SOIL PRESSURE IS CONSIDERED TO BE ON THE SAFE SIDE.
BASED ON A THOROUGH VISUAL INSPECTION OF THE BUILDING IT CAN BE STATED THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF FOUNDATION FAILURE AND/OR EXCESSIVE SETTLEMENT.
AUGUST 31, 1973 REPORT : JOHN F. SEAGLE BUILDING PAGE 8
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS :
IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE BUILDING HAS BEEN DESIGNED ON THE BASIS OF THE STRAIGHT "LINE THEORY FOR FLEXURAL CONCRETE MEMBERS WHICH WAS THE PREVAILING METHOD AT THAT TPME.
IT WAS ALSO DESIGNED UNDER THE OLD ASSUMPTION THAT CONCRETE IS CAPABLE TO TAKE A LARGER AMOUNT OF DIAGONAL TENSION THAN WE CONSIDER SAFE PRESENTLY. SHEAR REINFORCING HAS BEEN INSTALLED ONLY AT THE ENDS OF THE BEAMS.
ANALYZED IN THE LIGHT OF THE PRESENT STAND OF THE ART OF REINFORCED CONCRETE DESIGN IT APPEARS THAT THE EXISTING STRUCTURE HAS BEEN CONSERVATIVELY DESIGNED FOR BENDING AND THAT IT IS ADEQUATE TO RESIST THE EFFECT OF* SHEAR FORCES.
THE EXISTING STRUCTURE HAS BEEN CHECKED FOR STRUCTURAL ADEQUACY BY MEANS OF THE STRENGTH DESIGN METHOD CONTAINED IN ACI 318-71.
THE FOLLOWING MATERIAL FACTORS HAVE BEEN USED:
FOR REINFORCING STEEL : YIELD STRENGTH '= Fy = 33,000 PSI FOR CONCRETE : ULTI MATE STRENGTH '= F = 3 3 00 PSI
CALCULATED DEAD LOADS INCLUDED THE WEIGHT OF SLABS, BEAMS, COLUMNS, FOOTINGS, A 2 INCH THICK LEIGHTWEIGHT TOPPING FOR ALL FLOORS, PLASTER UNDER ALL CEILINGS, A 20 PSF ALLOWANCE FOR ALL PRESENT AND FUTURE PARTITIONS, THE WEIGHT OF THE EXTERIOR WALLS, THE STAIRS, THE ELEVATOR AND STAIR ENCLOSURES, THE WEIGHT OF THE ROOF STRUCTURE AND OF ALL EXISTING MACHINERY.
LIVE LOADS UPON WHICH THE CHECK CALCULATIONS HAVE BEEN BASED ARE AS FOLLOWS:
100 PSF FOR THE ENTIRE FIRST FLOOR. 100 PSF FOR THE CORRIDORS OF ALL FLOORS. 50 PSF FOR ALL OTHER FLOOR AREAS. 30 PSF FOR THE ROOF.
TflE ANALYSIS OF FOUNDATIONS, COLUMNS, BEAMS, AND FLOOR SLABS SHOWED THAT THE EXISTING BUILDING IS CAPABLE TO SUPPORT ALL EXISTING AND ANTICIPATED LOADS SAFELY WITHIN THE FRAME WORK OF PERTINENT BUILDING CODES PRESENTLY IN FORCE.
IT IS MY OPINION THAT CERTAIN AREAS OF THE BUILDING MIGHT BE CAPABLE TO SUPPORT LOADS IN EXCESS OF THE CHECK LOADS QUOTED ABOVE. HOWEVER, THAT WOULD REQUIRE A MORE DETAILED INVESTIGATION.
15
AUGUST 31, 19 73 REPORT: JOHN F. SEAGLE BUILDING PAGE 9
WIND RESISTANCE :
IT IS DOUBTFUL THAT THE DESIGN OF THE EXISTING BUILDING INCLUDED A FORMAL WIND ANALYSIS BY THE ORIGINAL DESIGNER.
THE EXISTING STRUCTURE HAS BEEN ANALYZED FOR WINDLOADING SPECIFIED IN THE SOUTHERN STANDARD BUILDING CODE FOR COASTAL REGIONS AND THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN CONCLUDED:
THE BUILDING IS CAPABLE TO WITHSTAND WIND FORCES ARRIVED AT AS DESCRIBED ABOVE IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:
RESISTANCE OFFERED BY WIND FRAMES CONSISTING OF COLUMNS AND FLOORS IN TRANSVERSE DIRECTION AND BY COLUMNS,BEAMS,AND FLOORS IN LONGITUDINAL DIRECTION ........................... 25 %
RESISTANCE.OFFERED BY THE EXTERIOR WALLS .... 25 %
RESISTANCE OFFERED BY STAIRS AND ELEVATORS... 50 %
THE POSITIVE OPINION ABOUT SAFETY AGAINST WIND FORCES HAS BEEN ARRIVED AT BY RELATIVELY SKETCHY CALCULATIONS. HOWEVER A CRITICAL CONSIDERATION OF THE STRUCTURE AS A WHOLE AND THE FACT THAT THE BUILDING HAS ENDURED FOR THE LAST hi YEARS REINFORCES THIS OPINION.
OTHER SEMI-STRUCTURAL CONSIDERATIONS:
OBVIOUSLY THE BUILDING FALLS SHORT OF PRESENT DAY FIRE REGULATIONS. THE CONSTRUCTION OF PROPER STAIRWAYS AND FIRE EXIT WILL DEMAND STRUCTURAL SOLUTIONS. IT HAS BEEN ANTICIPATED THAT SUCH MEANS OF EGRESS MUST BE INCORPORATED IN THE EXISTING STRUCTURE FOR WHICH THERE IS AMPLE CAPACITY.
INSTALLATION OF PROPER CLIMATE CONTROL WILL NECESSITATE THE CLOSING OF EXISTING WINDOW OPENINGS THE ADDITIONAL LOADS CAN BE ABSORBED BY THE EXISTING STRUCTURE.
CERTAIN MODIFICATIONS' OF THE PLUMBING SYSTEM AND OF THE REST ROOM FACILITIES ARE ANTICIPATED AND WILL BE ACCOMODATED BY THE EXISTING STRUCTURE.
REMOVAL AND / OR ADDITION OF INTERIOR PARTITIONS AT THE TENANTS DISCRETION HAS BEEN ANTICIPATED AND HAS BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE ANALYTICAL CALCULATIONS ON WHICH THIS REPORT IS BASED.
AUGUST 3 1 1973 REPORT : JOHN F. SEAGLE BUILDING PAGE 10
CONCLUS IONS
SPALLED CONCRETE :
ALL SPALLED CONCRETE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE SLABS AND BEAMS LOCATED UNDER THE SIDEWALK SHOULD BE*REPAIRED BY PNEUMATICALLY APPLIED CONCRETE.
DAMAGED CONCRETE CEILING UNDER THE SIDEWALK AT THE SOUTH SIDE:
THE SHORED PORTION OF THE BASEMENT UNDER THE SIDEWALK SHOULD BE SEALED OFF FROM THE REST OF THE BASEMENT.IT SHOULD BE FILLED WITH SAND AND THE SHORING SHOULD BE LEFT IN PLACE. WATER SHOULD BE PREVENTED FROM ENTERING THE STRUCTURES OF THE BASEMENT.
CRACKS IN FLOOR SLABS AND OTHER CONCRETE MEMBERS: ALL SUCH CRACKS SHOULD BE CLEANED AND SEALED.
EXTERIOR STUCCO OF THE BUILDING :
THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING SHOULD BE SAND BLASTED. ALL CRACKS SHOULD BE CLEANED AND SEALED.
EAST-WEST SHORING 75 FT SOUTH OF THE NORTH WALL IN BASEMENT:
THIS STEEL SHORING SHOULD BE REMOVED TO IMRPOVE THE USEFULNESS OF THE BASEMENT. HOWEVER, A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION INTO THE CAUSE FOR THE SHORING MUST BE CONDUCTED PRIOR TO ITS REMOVAL. IF REQUIRED, OTHER REMEDIAL ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN.
BASEMENT FLOOR :
CONCRETE FLOORS SHOULD BE PROVIDED FOR THE ENTIRE BASEMENT IF FEASABLE.
STRUCTURAL SAFETY OF THE BUILDING :
IT IS THE OPINION OF THE UNDERSIGNED ENGINEER THAT THE STRUCTURE IS SAFE. THE STRUCTURE IS CAPABLE TO SUPPORT ALL CODE-IMPOSED LOADS AND THE LIVE LOADS SPECIFICALLY STATED UNDER STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF THE EXISTING BUILDING ON PAGE 8, ABOVE.
IN TESTIMONY OF THE STATEMENTS MADE HEREABOVE I HAVE AFFIXED MY SEAL AND SIGNATURE TO THIS DOCUMENT ON THIS DAY OF AUGUST 31 1973
GUSTAV R. MAYER
SEAL
GUSH A V K.M A E R C U U a U L I N G t k n : k r-. i. k sHEj-r no,
i MIAMI, FLORIDA <- ,
__r.^,4 ,f.-.;.,!44-,,_44- .: ... : j f.,. ,; date AUG 31.73
PROJECT JOHN F. SEAGLE BUILDING GAINES VI LLE, FLOR I DA CQMp_ qy
SUBJECT SWISS HAMMER TESTS ON CONCRETE STRUCTURES chk by
GRM
SWISS HAMMER TESTS ON AUGUST 3, 1973 POSITION OF HAMMER: 0 WITH HORIZONTAL PERCENTAGES OF REBOUND
BASEMENT WALL AT RAMP BASEMENT BASEMENT 7TH FLOOR
INSIDE FACE OF CONCR. COLUMNS 23, 22,21,8 BEAMS RIBS
52 hi 40 40 40 45 45 47 44 41 48
57 43 44 40 43 46 43 50 52 40 51
57 43 46 40 44 49 48 52 49 42 50
52 42 4 2 39 41 45 55 49 47 40 5.0
59 40 42 43 42 46 40 46 55 50 50
' 53 40 46 43 40 49 41 47 52 43 48
ll hi 41 41 42 41 46 44 48 53 40 52
ho 42 41 40 40 43 46 4 0 52 45 57
-J ho 47 42 42 41 43 49 44 52 40 49
hO 45 42 40 40 42 40 51 49 50 53
hi 44 45 42 40 44 43 55 44 45 55
h3 40 45 40 41 42 51 54 44 43 57
h5 42 46 42 40 .^6 44 55 44 45 55
M hi 42 44 40 39 48 41 50 42 60 52
3 h5 41 50 41 41 47 47 55 46 45 57
.:--! f i ho 42 50 40 43 50 47 56 57 50 49
hi 42 41 40 42 43 49 50 52 50 58
52 41 42 43 40 46 45 55 56 50 55
hi 40 45 43 42 55 50 45 51 50 56
hh 43 41 43 41 46 51 46 50 48 49
3 AVERAGE = 43 0 o, 0 46 .9 % 45 8% 52.5
32 0 0 i-1-1-rI-1-r-1-1-1---?----r-
43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 PERCENT REBOUND
18
vised Report *l/73
1st REPORT OF:
WINGERTER LABORATORIES, INC.
Engineer's Lob-oratory and Inspection Service
18Z0 N. E. 144th Street Drawer L, North Miami, Florida 33161
TESTS OF CONCRETE CORES
0-42530 8/l7/73fc Page 1 of 2
ORDER NO.
CLIENT: PROJECT: LOCATION: REPORTED TO:
J.A. Cnndon Associates, Inc.
Research, by Engineer, Gustav R. Mayer, P.E. Building in Gainesville, Fla.
J.A. Condon Associates, Inc., P.O. Box 32762 Ft. Lauderdale, Fla. 33315
11332.1 (2053)
RESULTS OF TESTS:
laboratory Number Sample Number Specified Strength Location (As given by Engr.)
Condition of core Core length, as received .Core length, as capped Core diameter
t'o (sq. in. ) ;e Drilled (by others) Date Tested
Age of Core Reportedly -Curing
Total load (lbs)
Unit load p.s.i.
Length. _
Ete-r- Ratio
Diameter
L/D Correction factor Stj^M&igth corrected L/D Ratio Type of fracture
51157 5U58 51159
1 2 3
Not known Not known Not known
Basement Foundation Wall--
good good good
13.00" 13.00" 13.30"
8.00" 8.00" 8.00"
4.0" 4.0" 4.0"
12.56 12 56 12 .56
8/7/73 8/7/73 8/7/73
8/15/73 8/15/73 8/15/73
47 years old 47 yrs. old 47 yrs. old
Air Air Air
44,000 39,300 35,ooo
3503 3129 27.87 -
2:1 2:1 2:1
None None None
3503 3129 2787
Shear Shear Shear
REMARKS: Samples delivered to laboratory for tests with information as given above.
All samples were sawed with a diamond bladed saw, before being capped, ASTM Designation C-42-68 Standard Methods of Securing, Preparing and Testing Specimens from Hardened Concrete for Compressive Strengths.
Tested by: RAW
Respectfully submitted, VINGERTER LAJ30RAT/0RIES, INC
V.G. HICKS, P.E.
19
'vS A MUTUAL PROTECTION TO CLIENTS, THE" PUBLIC A NO CU PSE LVcS.-Jl LL- ? c PORTS ARE SUBMITTED
1st
REPORT OF: CLIENT: PROJECT:
WlNGERTER LABORATORIES, INC.
Engineer's Lcbcratory end Inspection Service
1820 N. E. 144th Street Drawer L, North Miami, Florida 33161
TESTS OF CONCRETE CORES
J. A. Condon Associates, Inc.
Building in Gainesville, Fla.
0-42530 8/17/73 es Page 2 of 2
ORDER N01X332. .1.
(2053)
RESULTS OF TESTS
Lab o ra t o ry Numb e r: Sample Number:
Specified Strength in 28 days Location:
5H57
51158
1 A 2A
not known not known
Basement Foundation Wall-
5H59 3A
not known
Condition of Core:
Core length, as received:
Core length, as capped:
Core diameter-:
Core (sq. in):
Date drilled:
Date tested:
Age of Core:
Cnring:
load (lbs) "Unit load psi : Length Diameter"
L/D Correction factor: Strength corrected L/D Ratio Type of Fracture:
good
4. 90"
4.70"
4.00"
12.56
8/7/73
8/15/73
47 years
Air
45,000
3,583
1.17:1
930 3,332 Shear
good
5.20"
5-00"
4.00"
12.56
8/7/73
8/1-5/73 47 years Air 42,800 3,360
1.25:1
.940 3,158 Shear
good
5.32"
5.00"
4.00"
12.56
8/7/73
8/15/73
47 years
Air
44,700
3,559
1.25:1
940
3,^55 Shear
REMARKS:
All samples were sawed with a diamond bladed saw, before being capped. ASTM Designation C-42-68 Standard Methods of Securing-, Preparing and Testing Specimens from Hardened Concrete for Compressive Strengths.
Respectfully submitted, WlNGERTER LABORATORIES, INC
W. G. HICKS, P. E,
AS A MUTUAL PROTECTION TO CLIENTS, THE PU3LIC AND OURSELVES.-ALL REPORTS ARE SUBMITTED A3 Tr-E CONFIDENTIAL PROPERTY OF CLIENTS/AND AUTHORIZATION FOR P US LIC A T lOT-T-C- STATEMENTS.
CONCLUSION" CR EXTRACTS FROM CR REGARDING OUR REPORTS IS RESERVED PcNOINO OUR WRITTEN APPROVAL.
20
|
RSS
HIDE
