CONTEMPORARY BUILDINGS FOR THE
SEVILLE SQUARE HISTORIC DISTRICT
COLLEGE OF ARCHITECTURE
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
LEWIS BROWN JR.
Map of the Historic District 1
Fabric of the District 6
Existing Buildings Within the District
Without Architectural Significance 10
Recent New Construction Within the Historic
Exterior Factors Influencing the District 25
Letter from George Demmy to Lewis Brown 60
Letter from Hugh Leitch to Lewis Brown 62
Tour Guide of Historic Pensacola 65
Historic Zoning Ordinance 68
A Uniform System for Official Signs in
Pensacola's Seville Square 81
Design Guidelines from HISTORIC PRESERVATION
PLAN, Savannah, Georgia 100
MATERIAL STANDARDS FOR MOBILE HISTORIC
Planning Board Subcommittee and Planning
Staff Report 126
I-110 Commercial Park Information 134
Pensacola's History 138
Municipal Services 146
THE HOUSES OF ST. AUGUSTINE 1565-1821 157
by Albert Manucy, pages 70-71
RECOMMENDATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN February 1967 160
House Bill Number 163 226
Senate Bill Number 1124 233
Since I first moved to Pensacola in 1973, I have
watched the growth of the Seville Square Historic District
with interest. As a draftsman with Hugh Leitch-Architect
I participated in some of the architectural projects within
the district, and the exposure I received to the Seville
Square District heightened my sensitivity to the idea of
preservation in general and the future of Seville Square
Historic District in particular.
The work that has been done within the District to date,
for the most part, has been of the highest caliber; and
future plans for the District, in general, are well thought
out and are toward the well being of the District.
There is an area of concern in planning the District
that needs more investigation before the District can con-
tinue to grow. This area is the placement of buildings of
contemporary design within the boundary of the Historic District.
It will be the purpose of this paper to investigate the facts
surrounding this problem, draw a conclusion based on the facts,
and offer suggestions.
The average citizen of Pensacola who is sensitive to the
historical heritage of the city might well ask, "Why would
anyone even consider mixing contemporary buildings with build-
ings that are historically significant?" This question will be
the key theme throughout this paper. The question is a good
one, and goes to the heart of what a historic district really
is. One employee of the Pensacola Preservation Board referred
to the District as an architectural museum. I know of no
one who would disagree with that idea. One way of exam-
ining the validity of the architectural museum concept is
to compare it with established museums.
The Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C. is
probably the most famous collector of American ingenuity
and invention. The greatest examples of past accomplishments
are housed there, but right beside them are their contem-
porary counterparts. The Smithsonian recognizes the sig-
nificance of displaying new with old. Another example of
this idea is in the Pensacola area. The Naval Air Museum
at Sherman Field is dedicated to documenting the history
of Naval Air power. In this museum there is a rich mixture
of old and new. The first example of a Navy airplane is
on display within eyesight of one of the manned space modules.
World War II fighters hover next to modern mach 2 war jets.
This idea of mixing old with new in a museum can be
used as a yardstick to measure how far we have come from
where we have been. In order to fully appreciate the old
it is necessary to compare it to the new. It is possible
to make this comparison to buildings outside the District,
but the comparison isn't as accurate as it would be if it
took place between buildings of similar fabric and scale
within the District. It is extremely difficult to compare
and contrast the new multi-storied Century Bank of Pensacola
with its sharp corners and crisp white color with the gentle
scale and soft fabric of the Dorr House on the west side of
Seville Square. In order to make a true comparison of the
Dorr House and other historic structures within the District,
contemporary buildings should be within close proximity and
should be of similar scale and fabric.
The Historic District should be a place where buildings
of historical significance should be gathered. In its
Recommendation to the Council of the City of Pensacola for
a Comprehensive Historical Development Plan the Council's
Historical Advisory Committee defined historical significance
as "that out of our past which has bearing on what we are
today as a community and how we arrived at what we are."1
This idea is very easily carried into modern times. Today's
contemporary architecture will be the heritage of tomorrow.
Some buildings around the country that are considered his-
torically significant are relatively new and are considered
contemporary. The Dulles Airport in Washington, D.C. by
Eero Sarrinen and the Florida Southern Campus buildings
by Frank Lloyd Wright are good examples. It would be good
if we could make a statement in architecture about our present
lifestyle, and what better way is there than examples of
Pensacola-in-the-Seventies contemporary architecture, and
what better place for these buildings than in the Historic
District alongside other significant buildings from another
1. See page 12 of referenced material
Contemporary buildings in any historic district bring
forth an emotional response from almost anyone concerned.
Frequently the response is negative, but the issue does
need investigation by probing the problem in five areas
of importance. It is my hope to draw a conclusion based on
fact and subjective input. Within the summary I intend to
recap the facts shown, make suggestions as to what action
should be taken, and give some indication as to what action
should be taken, and give some indication as to what effect
the action will cause. In this manner I will be able to
state a clear case either for or against contemporary
buildings within the District. I don't feel that this
paper should be the last word, I only hope that it will stir
some controversy and thereby be a cause for further investi-
gation into the subject. If this investigative process can
be spurred on as a result of this paper then it will have
been a successful undertaking.
FABRIC OF THE DISTRICT
The area around Seville Square is a joyous place. A
visitor can step back in time 100 years by parking his car
and walking a few blocks. Within a few minutes walk is a
generous smattering of Pensacola architecture dating from
as early as 18042 up through the Civil War3 and into post
Civil War years of the Lumber Boom.4 An observer is con-
stantly stimulated by the variation of building type and
scale with which he is confronted.
For the most part the buildings around Seville Square
are residential in scale. Their construction normally of
wood painted of earth tones or white. Fancywork in wood
is not unusual in these buildings while at the same time
architectural expression as simple as a romanesque church
is also present. The buildings show a variety of influences.
The Barkley House5 (see photo #40), which is thought to be
the first masonry house built in Pensacola, seems to be
derived from the great townhouses of Charleston, South
Carolina with their raised main floor and their longitudinal
entry. The Axelson House6 (see photo #39), which is across
2. See item #39 "Tour Guide of Historic Pensacola"
3. See item #30 and #34 "Tour Guide of Historic Pensacola"
4. See item "25 and #28 "Tour Guide of Historic Pensacola"
5. See item #36 "Tour Guide of Historic Pensacola"
6. See item #37 "Tour Guide of Historic Pensacola"
Zarragossa Street from the Barkley House, is a two story
wood lap siding house which brings to mind the moderately
affluent farmer's houses of North Florida and South Alabama
and Georgia of the late nineteenth century. The Dorr House7
(see phote #16) has the strong lines of a pre-Civil War
Greek Revival mansion but these lines are broken by the rich
Antebellum lumber boom Victorian design of detail. The half
hexagon bay window on the south elevation pleasantly breaks
with pure Greek Revival simplicity, and sets the house off
as "new rich" Victorian. The Moreno Cottage8 (see photo #19)
is a small architectural jewel with its simple body and its
much adorned entry and fascia. The scale of this tiny
building is very pleasing to the observer.
Although the majority of the historic buildings within
the District are residential, there are some commercial
structures that are notable and help set the character of
the District. Probably the most prominent building in the
Historic District is the old Christ Church9 (see photos
#17, 18) which faces onto Seville Square from the west.
This brick Romanesque Revival Church dates from 1832 and
stands as the Pennicle for the Historic District, and is
the symbol of Seville Square and old Pensacola.10 Three
7. See item #28 "Tour Guide of Historic Pensacola"
8. See item #25 "Tour Guide of Historic Pensacola"
9. See item #26 "Tour Guide of Historic Pensacola"
10. See page #36 Comprehensive Historical Development Plan
blocks to the west and in a direct axis relationship to the
old Christ Church stands the Pensacola City Hall1 (see
photo #1). This building is the boldest piece of archi-
tecture in the District with its brick turrents acting
as a gateway to the Historic District from the west. It
is one of the newest historically significant buildings
within the District having been built in 1907. This
building is unique in the District in that it is the only
example of the Spanish Rococco style. In 1903 the Louisville
and Nashville Railroad built its Terminal Building12 (see
photos #7, 8) in Pensacola adjacent to the Docks. This
two story wood structure with perimeter balcony stood on
this location until 1969 when it was moved to its present
site on the south side of Seville Square near Pitts Slip.
The above buildings are in a developed area surround-
ing Seville Square. This area comprises about one-third
of the total District. To the north of Seville Square,
and still within the boundaries of the District, the fabric
of the architecture changes. Rather than the delightful
historic buildings, just discussed, the scene shifts to more
austere modern buildings such as the Police Station and
the Edwards Plumbing Company (see photo). Contrasting with
these buildings though, is St. Michael's elementary which
11. See item #17 "Tour Guide of Historic Pensacola" and page
#37 Comprehensive Historical Development Plan
12. See item #22 "Tour Guide of Historic Pensacola"
is listed on the National Register of Historic Places
(see photo #28). It is in this area where the Historic
District interfaces with the busy downtown area of Pensacola.
This part of the District is a contrast to the peaceful
setting around Seville Square.
To the east of Seville Square is a part of the Historic
District which is not on a tour map. This part of the Dis-
trict does have good examples of early Pensacola architec-
ture, but for the most part they are in a bad state of
repair (see photos #34, 35). It has been common practice
to pick these buildings up, intact, move them to another
part of the District and restore them (see photo #34). This
moving has left several vacant lots in the east portion of
the District along with other expanses of land which were
already vacant (see photos #30, 32).
EXISTING BUILDINGS WITHIN THE DISTRICT WITHOUT
Scattered throughout the Historic District are build-
ings that are of fairly recent construction (dating from the
1940's until the late 1950's). None of these buildings
have architectural significance, but they are within the
boundaries of the Historic District and must be dealt with
in some manner.
The best maintained and the most visually pleasing of
these buildings is the Pensacola Police Station (see photo
#28) which was built in the 1950's. Although this building
is not architecturally significant, it is historically sig-
nificant and should be maintained in its position within
the District. This red brick building was the first modern
police station and jail that Pensacola had, and it should
remain in order so that the visitors in the future may
compare police methods of the future with those of today.
As part of the police station complex there are several
outbuildings (see photo #29) which are used for storage and
crime lab functions. As soon as the proposed new police
station and jail are built, the outbuildings should be
either removed or torn down making way for other buildings
more important to the District.
One block south of the police station is the concrete
block box building of the G.W. Edwards Plumbing Company.
The building has neither architectural nor historic sig-
nificance, and it stands directly adjacent to the Quina
Apothocary Building which is significant. The plumbing
company building is an architectural eyesore; and should
be removed because it detracts from the importance and
prestige of the historic buildings around it; and breaks
the continuity of the east side of Alcaniz Street.
At the corner of Romana and 8th Street stands a small
masonry building (see photo #30) which was used as a paint
store and is now vacant. Although the building has no
architectural or historic significance it is a sound
building and could easily be remodeled and used for some
purpose. Unlike the Edwards Plumbing Company building
this former paint store building does not compete with any
historic structures for space or visual importance, and for
this reason it becomes a candidate for adaptive use. Be-
cause of the building's simplicity it would be inexpensive
to redesign the exterior to be in harmony with the Historic
District, and adapt it to some use which could serve Aragon
Court, (low rent housing) which is immediately across the
street. This could be the first step toward including the
population of Aragon Court in the planning of the District
rather than excluding them by building offices or medium
density high rent housing which is proposed for this area
of the District.13
The three buildings mentioned above are not the only
buildings in the Historic District without significance, but
13. See page 6, "Planning Board Subcommittee & Planning
they represent the various problems brought about by
buildings that do not fit into the Historic District.
Each of these building types within the District presents
its own individual set of problems which must be dealt with
on an individual basis. The analysis that was used to
determine the fate of the three above buildings should be
a guide to help establish a methodology of determining
whether a building within the District should remain intact,
be completely removed or be remodeled and slated for adaptive
RECENT NEW CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT
The Seville Square Historic District is only nine years
old. Much of that time was spent in actually planning
and setting up the District and renovating existing sig-
nificant buildings. Due to all this setting-up activity,
there has been very little new construction activity within
its boundaries. Since 1968 there have been only three new
construction projects; and fortunately, for the purposes
of this paper, the three construction projects are of varied
building categories, each of which is of extreme importance
to the concept of a Historic District. The three projects
are: A small contemporary office building for a Pensacola
architect, a new housing project that attempts to copy
Pensacola historic architectural styles, and a complete
reconstruction of a demolished historic structure.
In 1968 Carlton Noblin-Architect, looking for a quiet
area to build his new office, chose the corner of Government
Street and Florida Blanca Street. At that time, a year
before Seville Square Historic District came into being,
this was the perfect place for his office. It was a quiet,
residential area; but it was in the center of town and close
to the commercial amenities that any business office should
be close to. When Noblin was designing his building he felt
a sensitivity to the old houses which surrounded his property,
and since there were no guidelines or architectural review
committee at the time, he went about the task of designing
a small commercial building for an area primarily made up
of old wood houses, most of which were built prior to the
turn of the century. The result of his effort is a two
story brick office building, the second story of which is
concealed within the roof structure (see photo #38). The
building is obviously a contemporary office building, but
by the way Noblin handled the roof line and the front entry
the building fits into the neighborhood very well. The scale
of this building compared to its neighbors is very pleasing.
In talking with Noblin I found that he had some misgivings
about the use of brick as an exterior surfacing material
in an area that is predominately wood siding buildings. With
this feeling I must disagree for I find the use of brick an
excellent choice for this building in this setting. The use
of brick in contemporary office buildings in Pensacola is
very commonplace, and this is a contemporary office building.
The color of the brick was a good choice for the earth tone
brick color relates the building to the ground, a feeling
that is further emphasized by the overhanging, wood shingled
roof. This roof is one of the boldest architectural elements
of the building because of its proportion to the building and
goes the farthest toward relating the building with its
historically significant neighbors. The only criticism I
have of Noblin's office is the design of the four columns
of the front of the building. I feel that these columns are
not only too big for the building, but also out of scale for
the architecture of the District. A contemporary expression
of the slender wood column types used on the neighboring
historic buildings would have been more appropriate.
Since his office is the most recent contemporary building
within the District, I asked Carlton Noblin if he felt that
his building should set an example for other contemporary
buildings within the District. His answer was an emphatic
no. He stated that if he were trying to have the design
of his building approved today by the Architectural Review
Committee it would probably be turned down. Noblin feels
that there are too many conflicts between the design of his
building and the intent of the Architectural Review Committee
to allow, within the District, only that new construction
that is harmonious with the existing significant buildings.
Noblin feels that the two biggest problem areas of the accep-
tance of his building were the brick masonry exterior and the
asphaltic concrete drive and parking area behind the building.
Architect Ken Woolfe, a member of the Architectural Review
Committee, verified Noblin's feelings about the building not
being acceptable into the Historic District. Woolfe stated
that if the building were proposed today for construction
the Architectural Review Committee would probably turn it down.
I must disagree with Carlton Noblin and Ken Woolfe over
the use of the Noblin Architectural Office as a guide for
other contemporary buildings to be built within the District.
This building is a professional business office and traditionally
business offices and other commercial buildings of Pensacola
have been constructed of masonry. This is due to the fact
that masonry construction is more fire resistive than
other materials and also because brick has historically
been easy to obtain. Brick masonry construction is no
stranger to Pensacola during any era. The Barkley House,
which is right around the corner from Noblin's office, is of
slave-made brick construction that predates the nineteenth
century. The old Christ Church, which is the symbol of
the Historic District, is of brick construction and it
dates from 1832. The Pensacola City Hall, which was the
seat of municipal government from 1907 until 1978, is of
brick construction. These three buildings, all of which
are within the Historic District, set a precedent which
should not be ignored.
The asphaltic concrete drive and parking area behind
Noblin's office do not blend into the general harmonious
scheme of design with the Historic District, according to
Noblin. Although asphaltic concrete is not a handsome
paving material, I do find that it fits into the Historic
District since the city streets that lead to the drive are
of the same material. The Architectural Review Board for
the city of Mobile, Alabama Historic Districts agrees that
asphaltic concrete.driveways are acceptable.14
Carlton Noblin has done a commendable job of designing
a contemporary building that is in harmony with its historic
surroundings. For reasons stated, I believe this building
should be used as an example for the Architectural Review
14. Page 12, Material Standards for Mobile Historic Districts
Board to use in pointing out how contemporary design can
take place within the fixed environment of a historic dis-
trict, and fit in.
In the early 1970's the late Pat Dodson conceived an
idea to provide upper middle income housing within the
boundaries of the Historic District. His concept was that
the housing would be a mix of eclectic new houses and reno-
vated existing old houses. Before commissioning an
architect, Dodson researched the origin of the early
Pensacola house, for he felt that if the project was to have
any value it should be historically accurate. At the com-
pletion of this research he commissioned Hugh Leitch-Architect
to design three different house types for construction within
"The Intendent", the name Dodson gave the project. Leitch
assigned the design duties of the project to Bill Proctor,
a draftsman in his office who had a great deal of experience
in the design of such projects. The combination of Proctor's
talent and Dodson's research brought about three house types
that would be built within The Intendent (see photos #26,
41, 42, 43).
While the three houses all fall into the general vernacu-
lar of Gulf Coast architecture of the Pre-Civil War Era, they
do not all fall into the category of Pensacola Gulf Coast
architecture. The type "A" house is a three-story building
with exterior stair to the second floor which is the main
floor of the house. Entry to the third floor is via another
exterior stair, which is traditional in Pensacola architecture
around the middle of the nineteenth century. The upper two
floors are of wood frame while the ground floor is depressed
below grade which is the result of height and story limi-
tations of the zoning ordinance.15 The building as a whole
is not historically accurate although there are some archi-
tectural elements that are borrowed from Pensacola buildings
and the type "A" building has three expressed floors. There
is not a historically significant building in the District
that clearly expresses three individual floors. Normally
the third floor of Pensacola houses of the nineteenth century
are hidden within the roof structure and are expressed by
dormers. While there is historic precedent for the use
of a piano nobilel7 in the type "A" house, there is not a
precedent for the use of the lower floor as a living space,
furthermore there is no precedent which allows for stopping
the brickwork at the lower floor and continuing from there on
with wood siding.
The type "B" house is a two-story wood frame house with
center front entry flanked on each side by windows. The
second floor is concealed within the roof structure and is
expressed by three dormers which are placed symmetrically
in the front elevation. The first floor of the house is
raised off grade with brick piers. To the side of the
building is attached a smaller building which is a garage,
15. See HR-2 Zoning "Building Height Limit" Article III
"Historical Zoning" Pensacola Zoning Ordinance in the appendix
16. See photo of the Barkley House (photo #40).
17. In Italian Renaissance Palaces this is the principal floor
which is raised one story above the ground.
Discounting the garage, the type "B" house is an accurate
replica of a nineteenth century Pensacola house. A walk
through the Historic District will reveal several existing
historically significant houses with similar architectural
lines.18 My only objection to the type "B" house is the
three roof dormers which do not appear as original construc-
tion on Pensacola houses of this era.
The type "C" houses, by admission of Pat Dodson,
a replica of a New Orleans slave quarters. There is not
any single historic building in Pensacola that even dis-
tantly resembles it. The type "C" house may have borrowed
from authentic New Orleans architecture, but this has no
place in a Pensacola Historic District.
The original concept that Pat Dodson had for The
Intendent is good. While many architects may cringe at
the idea of trying to copy directly from the past in order
to provide housing in the Historic District I feel that it
is a worthy undertaking. The task of buying an historically
significant house and renovating it to a point where it is
suitable to live in is very expensive. It is not the type
of project the average Pensacola homeowner is willing to
undertake. Pat Dodson, by doing the work needed, hoped to
provide housing with an historic flavor to homeowners of
Pensacola. The goal of The Intendent had three parts:
first, Dodson wished to make a profit from real estate
speculation; second, Dodson and the Pensacola Preservation
18. See photos of Walton House #20, Lavelle House #24,
Quina House #14.
Board wished to pump new life into the Historic District
by encouraging middle income homeowners into the District;
and third, the project was the salvation for some old
Pensacola houses that otherwise would have been destroyed.
The three new building types were to be used to help fill
in between other older structures. If Pat Dodson had
modeled the type "A" and type "C" houses after Pensacola
residential architecture of the nineteenth century the
project would have been an architectural success rather
than a group of unrelated buildings.
In 1805 three Frenchman, Juan Baptiste Cazenave,
Pedro Bardevane, and Rene Chandiveneau built the Tivoli
High House with a ballroom, kitchen, and other outbuildings.
The High House was a two-and-a-half story building, the
ground floor was flush with the sidewalk and the upper
gallery extended over the sidewalk in European fashion.
On the ground floor a large room and several smaller rooms
were used for gambling. Later, when the High House was
acquired by Don Francisco Moreno, it was operated as a
boarding house and was dubbed Hotel Paree. The Spanish-
speaking Morenos still owned the house during the Civil
War and Union officers billeted there added a third name,
calling it the "Spanish Barracks". The Tivoli High House
was torn down during the 1930's.19
19. Tivoli House History taken from, Tour Guide Historic
In the early 1970's the Tivoli House site was ex-
cavated by archeologists in order to determine the precise
site of the original house, archeological data that would
be relevent to the reconstruction of the house, and data
relative to the interpretation of the house and-its
occupants with respect to their place in Pensacola's
After the archeological research was completed the
reconstruction of the new building was built on the same
site as the demolished original. The construction of the
new building is a concrete block lower floor with wood
frame upper floor construction. The new building is
similar in appearance to the original Tivoli High House,
the biggest difference being the construction of the
second floor balcony (see photos #21, 22, 44). Jim Moody,
who is the Director of the Historic Pensacola Preservation
Board, stated that extreme accuracy in the reconstruction
of this building was impossible due to the lack of adequate
research material to document the original building. A
great deal of guesswork went into this reconstruction.
The Tivoli High House is the only complete reconstruc-
tion of a historically significant building in the Historic
District. In addition, it is owned by the Preservation
Board and is the site of their offices. In this capacity
it is held as an example of what is expected within the
District. Due to its position as an example to developers
20. See letter from George G. Demmy to Lewis Brown dated
June 5, 1978.
of correct procedure within the Historic District, the
concept of the Tivoli High House reconstruction should
have been examined more closely before construction.
When a destroyed building is chosen for reconstruction
it must first be of extreme value either historically
or architecturally. The building to be reconstructed
must be extensively researched to the point of determina-
tion of the type fasteners that were used to hold the
building together, and the building must be reconstructed
using materials that are the same as original material
or at least as close to the same as modern technology will
allow. The Tivoli Reconstruction is the result of the po-
litical power of the late Pat Dodson.21 While the building
does have historic value to the City of Pensacola, there
are several other notable buildings existing within the
Historic District which could have been refurbished and used
in lieu of reconstruction. Political pull of one powerful
man is not justification for undertaking a reconstruction
project. The research that was done as part of the recon-
struction was partially good and partially not good. The
archeological work done at the site was professionally car-
ried out to determine the exact placement of the building
on the site and to obtain any other data that might be
important.22 From this point on the research was very
21. See letter from George Demmy to Lewis Brown dated 5 June, 1978.
22. See letter from George Demmy to Lewis Brown dated 5 June, 1978.
limited by the shortage of hard data on the building.
There were few photographs, and the ones that were avail-
able were taken in the late years of the building's life.
After questionable research the actual reconstruction
began. Over the existing foundations were built concrete
block walls to the height of the second floor. Over these
walls was placed stucco which was tooled to resemble large
blocks of stone. The tooling of stucco was not unusual to
Florida, and was used in St. Augustine.23 Although it is
not clear what the original wall material was; concrete block
was not available until the twentieth century. The second
floor balcony and the roof on the reconstruction are held
up by six wood posts placed symmetrically across the front
facade with the upper posts matching the lower posts in
detail. In the original building the posts were asymmetri-
cally placed with the second floor posts not aligning with
the ground floor posts. The posts of the original building
were not the same design from ground floor to second floor.
The second floor balcony of the original Tivoli High House
wrapped around the east side of the building to an exterior
stair. The balcony of the reconstruction terminates at each
side of the front facade, and there is no exterior stair.
As the Tivoli reconstruction stands it is not a true
reconstruction. It is a building that claims to be a recon-
struction of a past building, but upon casual examination
one can find several discrepancies between original and new.
23. See The Houses of St. Augustine by Albert Manucy,
Pages 70-71 (in the appendix)
As a historic reconstruction in a historic district, this
lack of attention is unforgivable.
The above three projects share one common aspect.
They are all new construction within the Historic District.
While they are all three different in concept they express
varying attitudes of construction within the District.
Carlton Noblin's office is a very good example of how con-
temporary architecture can "fit in" with the rigid con-
straints of a historic district and still produce a fine
building. The Intendent is a two fold object lesson. The
"B" house is an example of how new construction tuned to
architecture of the past can produce a building that is pleas-
ing visually and heighten awareness of historic structures
around it, while the "A" house and the "C" house are a
disrupting influence due to their lack of historic precedent
in the area. The Tivoli reconstruction is variable in that
it stands as an example of what not to do when attempting
EXTERIOR FACTORS INFLUENCING THE DISTRICT
Surrounding the Historic District are several features
that have an effect upon the planning of the District.
Some of the features, such as the new Judicial Complex, have
an impact upon the District, but the impact is not enough
to radically alter the fabric of the District. It is the
intent of this section to investigate those influences from
outside the District that will have or already have an im-
pact of magnitude on Seville Square.
Ten years ago the I-110 spur of Highway I-10 was begun.
The purpose of this spur is to unite the cross country
Highway 1-10 to U.S. Highway 98, which is Gregory Street in
Pensacola. The connection point between 1-10 and U.S.
98/Gregory Street is at the extreme north boundary of
St. Michael's Cemetary which is the northern most feature of
the Historic District. Although it is not yet complete,
the impact is already being felt within the District (see
photos #27, 36). Hugh Leitch, an architect who has done a
great deal of work in the District, presently is in the
process of moving a Victorian residence from the path of
the new expressway and situatingit.on a site opposite Seville
Square. It is Leitch's purpose to adapt the house for office
use. Without Leitch's concern the house would have been
24. See letter from Hugh Leitch to Lewis Brown dated
15 June 1978.
destroyed. In addition to the destruction caused by this
highway project, it also is disrupting visually and audibly
to visitors of St. Michael's Cemetary, which is on the
National Register of Historic Places. The Cemetary pro-
vides visitors with a pleasant stroll through Pensacola's
history via inscriptions on tombstones. The atmosphere of
the cemetery is quiet and serene with large oak trees
providing a protective canopy against invasion from the
Florida Gulf Coast sun. Against this background is the
I-110 spur, immediately adjacent to the cemetery, which
conducts high speed automobiles all day every day. The
constant distraction to a visitor of the cemetery can not
be avoided. In light of the bad points discussed there is
one major good point for the I-110 spur. At the terminus
of the highway there has been set aside a seven acre tract
of land that has been designated as a site for a motel.
This motel site is within walking distance of the Historic
District; and will encourage tourists into the District,
which will give the merchants an economic boost and en-
courage more investment in the Historic District.2 This
investment will be the lifeblood of significant buildings
in and around the District that otherwise would be lost.
On the south side of the District will run the new
Bayfront Parkway, which is presently under construction.
This parkway will route on the roadbed of existing Main
Street.(see photos 2, 34, 5, 6). The impact of the parkway
25. See illustration "A" and accompanying material on the I-110 spur.
upon the District has two bad points and one good one. Due
to the great traffic-carrying characteristic of the parkway,
it will act as a physical south boundary to the District,
thus detaching the L & N Terminal Building, which is on
the National Register of Historic Places, from the rest
of the District. It will also make pedestrian access to
the Bayfront Park, which is across the parkway from Seville
Square, extremely difficult. The second bad point is that
the new parkway, with its increased high-speed traffic
load, will damage the view of Pensacola Bay by interrupting
site lines from Seville Square with traffic. The good point
about the parkway is that it relieves the heart of the District.
Since the Historic District began, this Government Street
traffic artery has been a constant interrupter of the
serenity of the District. With the advent of the Bayfront
Parkway this crosstown traffic will be shifted three blocks
to the south, away from the heart of the District and toward
the south boundary of it.
Flanking the northeast corner of the Historic District
is a low rent housing project called Aragon Court (see photos
31, 33, 37) The project is mixed Black and White, with
Blacks being predominant. The consensus among Pensacola
planners is that in the next few years the residents of
Aragon Court will be displaced and the land reclaimed for
commercial use. This reclamation project is a very expen-
sive undertaking. Some estimates run as high as ten million
dollars; and in light of this one housing authority employee
stated that he thought the project would be as far as 10
to 20 years in the future if ever undertaken.
The Aragon Court, as it exists, presents a security
problem to the adjacent property owners of Seville Square.
People who have the money to invest in historic property are
slow to do so for fear of robbery, vandalism and other
security problems. The Pensacola police, whose station
is across the street from Aragon Court, state that Aragon
Court and the area around it have the highest crime rate
in the city.
In order for adequate development of the eastern part
of the Historic District to take place, the Aragon Court
problem must be dealt with. In the book Tight Spaces by
Richard Sommer, the author feels that beauty in building can
go a long way toward stopping the problems associated with
living conditions such as Aragon Court. With this idea it
would seem clear that the solution would be to develop the
east side of the District with "beautiful architecture",
and no one would dare spoil it with vandalism. Professor
Carl Feiss of the University of Florida's Graduate School
of Urban and Regional Planning disagrees with this idea.
Feiss claims that there are no clear cut solutions; and that
the erection of beautiful architecture has never, by itself,
solved such problems. History seems to agree with
Professor Feiss. For example, the Pruitt-Iago Housing
Development of St. Louis, Missouri was acclaimed in its
day as a major breakthrough in housing inner city poor
people, the same people that inhabit Aragon Court. The
architecture was handsome and project seemingly well
planned. Within a few years the housing project was nearly
all closed, and was methodically torn down as a result
of total failure.
This Pruitt-Iago Development acts as a graphic example
of what could happen if development of the eastern part of
the Historic District is not carefully planned to include the
desires, needs and wishes of the inhabitants of Aragon Court.
If these people are not included it could ruin the entire
Historic District by causing about half of it to sit in
abandonment and ruin. It is not very complementary statement
to the excellent job done with the District since its begin-
ning job done with the District since its beginning in 1969.
Whenever new construction is allowed in a historic
district there are always guidelines that are used to accept
or reject a proposed project. In some cases these guidelines
are clear-cut and are published in order that there be
little ambiguity in their interpretation. In other cases
they are not so clear. In the Seville Square Historic District
there are no published guidelines to direct a designer,
instead it is left to the interpretation of the individual
designer and the Architectural Review Board to determine
appropriate design based on historic buildings already in
the District. As an aid in determining how appropriate the
Seville Square design review system is it is necessary to
compare and contrast it with the guidelines used by two
other historic districts. These districts are Savannah, Georgia
and Mobile, Alabama. Each of these historic districts has
a different way in which they approach guidelines for new
Savannah, Georgia is a city that is rich in architectural
character. In 1966 the city began a general neighborhood
renewal study of a significant portion of the old Savannah
area. The result of the study was a historic preservation
plan that is felt by many preservationists to be the best of
its kind. The plan is in three parts. The first part is
an historic area analysis by a city planner. It is intended
that this section give local residents an insight into how
visitors view the historic area, and an examination of the
components that make up the area's character. The second
part sets up recommended criteria for development within
historic areas, particularly in relation to design standards
to assure that new construction and the rehabilitation and
relocation of existing structures are in keeping with the
surrounding environment. It is this particular portion of
the Preservation Plan that has gained such fame among
preservationists.26 Within part two are demonstrated
sixteen characteristics of architectural relatedness with
each one being assigned a point value of one. In order that
new or renovated construction be accepted into the District
it must achieve an evaluation rating of at least six of these
points. The advent of these design criteria have allowed
for the successful insertion of contemporary design into the
fixed environment of the Historic District. The third section
makes specific recommendations based on observed problems,
knowledge of rehabilitation and restoration programs, and
The city of Mobile, Alabama uses a guide which is much
simpler for the designer to use, but is just as stringent
in concept. Rather than setting up specific proportion,
rhythms and scales, the Mobile guidelines deal with materials
in an acceptable/not acceptable manner.27 In addition the
guidelines deal with scale, materials, details, elements,
roofs and grounds in a general fashion outlining what should
be expected of a designer, but not putting extreme restrictions
26. See "Historic Preservation Plan for Savannah, Georgia, "
in the appendix.
27. See Material Standards for Mobile Historic Districts,
in the appendix.
on him. It is not the intention of these guidelines to
produce new architecture that duplicates past styles, but
to bring about a harmony where all buildings in the Historic
District add to the beauty of the area.
Pensacola's Seville Square Historic District has no
published guidelines to aid a designer. All proposals for
new or renovated construction within the District must be
submitted to the Architectural Review Board which is made
up of seven citizens, two of which must be architects and
members of the American Institute of Architects. This
Review Board has the final approval of the project, and
rejection by it has never been challenged. Since the
District will grow and the need for more new construction
will become mandatory soon, it is necessary that a more
clear-cut method of determining the acceptability of new
construction be implemented.
Unlike the ordered rhythm of the architecture of
Savannah, the notable buildings of Seville Square vary in
scale, texture, color and other factors that influence
design. In Savannah it is possible to insert a contemporary
building between two historically significant buildings
and have each of the three complement the others as long as
the new building adheres to the rules of order set by its
adjacent neighbors. In some cases this would be possible
in Seville Square, but in most cases it would not. For this
reason it should become mandatory that anyone planning a new
structure in the Historic District should have to present
his project to the board with extensive photographs of
neighboring property so that the board may determine the
ultimate impact of the new construction.
The Material Guidelines of the City of Mobile, Alabama
is a good model for Seville Square to use in developing
guidelines. The varying scales and fabrics of the individual
buildings in the Seville Square Historic District make it
impossible to implement guidelines similar to Savannah's.
As mentioned in another section, Carlton Noblin's archi-
tectural office is a good example of how contemporary archi-
tecture can fit into Seville Square. The criteria that make
Noblin's office good design are the same as Mobile's criteria.
In the eastern part of the Historic District is an area
that is, for the most part, vacant land. Eventually this
part of the District will be developed. Before that begins
it is important that the Historic Preservation Board review
the area carefully and determine how it should be built-up.
At present there is a study being made to determine if the
area is suitable for new townhouses. If these townhouses
are built, the Preservation Board feels that the design
concerns will be along the usual scale, color, texture, etc.28
This method of determining design restrictions is unacceptable.
28. See letter from George Demmy to Lewis Brown dated
5 June, 1978.
In the District there is no "usual" scale, color or texture.
The evidence of this is discussed in the "Fabric of the
District" part of this paper.
The eastern part of the District offers a design
challenge that few other Historic Districts ever encounter.
This mass of vacant land offers an opportunity to mix old
and new buildings in such a manner that comparison and con-
trast between them cannot be avoided. As discussed in the
introduction of this paper, this is a very worthwhile goal.
Allowing the construction of contemporary buildings in the
eastern part of the District does not lessen the importance
of design guidelines. A special set of design restrictions
should be imposed on this particular area. These restrictions
should limit the scale of new construction to be in harmony
with an "average" scale of historically notable buildings
in the District. A materials restriction should also be
imposed in order that only materials common to contemporary
Pensacola construction be allowed. These rules would serve
to allow for ready comparison of old and new, and future
generations would have a collection of buildings in one
group that would be cross section of Pensacola Architecture
in the last quarter of the twentieth century.
The placing of contemporary architecture within the
boundaries of the Seville Square Historic District is
necessary to bring about the success of the District.
The introduction of this paper dealt with the need for con-
temporary design to be placed within close proximity of
the historic buildings in order that an observer could
easily make a comparison between old and new. In order
for this concept to work it is necessary for the new
architecture to be comparable with the old.
Scale is a term that is used to designate a building's
relationship to its environment. Frequently architects
will speak of a building's scale in terms of how it relates
to man. Normally a building in scale with man will have
architectural elements that a single human being can feel
enclosed by as an individual. With few exceptions the
buildings of the Historic District are to the scale of man.
This being the case it is necessary that new buildings
in the District maintain this same scale. Violations of this
rule would result in the gradual loss of identity of the
District as a whole, and eventually the Historic District
would be reclaimed by the architecture of downtown Pensacola.
The texture of a building is a quality unique to each
building. A building's texture is how it "feels" visually.
The Century Bank in downtown Pensacola, with its crisp white
skin, visually feels slick and smooth while in actuality the
precast panels that make up the exterior skin are rough
to the touch. The wood lap siding that is used on many
of the houses in the Historic District gives the visual
impression of being a rough surface while in actuality
each board is smooth to the touch. In some cases when
buildings are grouped together there is a texture harmony
that is expressed. In areas of the District where these
patterns are set, new construction should reflect the
texture of surrounding architecture.
Along the many streetscapes of the Historic District
there emerges a rhythm set up by the repetition of archi-
tectural elements from building to building. These ele-
ments might be whole building facades or they might be the
individual elements of each building such as windows or doors
or individual members of a balcony rail. When this rhythm
is broken the effect can sometimes be disastrous. A break
in the architectural rhythm along Government Street between
Adams Street and Florida Blanca Street would cause degrada-
tion of each individual building much the same way that a
sour violin note can ruin an entire musical movement.
Architectural rhythm is an important element to be considered
when additions to existing buildings or architectural infill
is being considered.
These three elements; scale, texture, and rhythm are
the basis for architectural compatability. It is essential
that the importance of these elements be emphasized in all new
construction. Failure to recognize these will result in
complete loss of continuity around buildings in the District.
As discussed in another part of this paper, great
changes are taking place around the perimeter of the
District. The I-110 spur and the Bayfront Parkway will
bring a great deal of traffic in the vicinity of the His-
toric District. This traffic generation is attractive
to merchants and the merchants will want to develop property
for business. This is good since it will create an ever
stronger economic base for the District to grow. Since
there is a limited number of historically notable buildings
available in and around the Historic District and a limited
number of merchants willing to invest the time and money
necessary for preservation and the need for an economic
backbone exists, the solution is obvious. Allow for con-
trolled contemporary architecture to be built in the District
to fill the need for the new influx of commercial uses.
It will seem to some people that the solution would be to
allow for new construction that copies historic Pensacola
architecture. At first glance this might seem to be a viable
solution, but experience has shown that it will not work.
The Tivoli House is supposed to be a reconstruction of the
original Tivoli House, but too many liberties were taken
during design; and the building as an accurate reconstruction
is a failure. The Intendent Project by Pat Dodson is another
example of the extreme liberties taken when new construction
tries to copy old. The Historic District is not a place like
Disneyland where modern copies of old buildings are acceptable
since every visitor knows that he is surrounded by make believe.
Architectural accuracy is essential in Seville Square for that
is the whole reason for the Historic District, a museum where
examples of historically significant architecture can be
allowed to flourish without fear of destruction or intrusion.
For this reason projects which try to copy historic archi-
tecture cannot be acceptable.
As the Historic District ages and future generations
begin to appreciate what was done there it will be important
that these people of the future recognize the role that
Pensacola architecture of the seventies played in the de-
velopment of the city. This idea is a direct outgrowth of
the concept of comparing old and new. A visitor to the
Historic District in the year 2078 should be able to com-
pare and contrast the Christ Church, build in 1832, with its
handmade brick bearing wall structural system and wood truss
roof system with a 1970's Pensacola church of similar scale
built in the Historic District. A contemporary church would
probably have a structural steel structural system with
brick used as a non-structural skin. This same visitor
would quickly note the difference between the handmade brick
of the Christ Church and the manufactured brick used in the
1970's church. This is only one example, but it is to the
point. Controlled building of contemporary architecture
within the District will allow for the constant growth of the
District in a manner that will continuously allow for com-
parisons between old and new.
Since the need for contemporary architecture has been
established for the Historic District, is is necessary that
a definate plan of action be implemented. There are three
stages that the plan of action must go through in sequence
if the concept is to be a success. The three stages are
one: setting up of definate planning goals for the District,
two: make an in depth survey of the existing architecture
of the District, and three: set up a definate method of
new project submittal.
Definate planning goals are very important to the life
of Seville Square. There has been some thought toward future
goals, but no definate goals have been set. The only land
planning that has been done is the historic zoning that now
exists. The zoning is broken into three parts; two residential
zones and one commercial zone. While this was a good start it
is time to reevaluate this system and make changes. If the
District is going to allow new construction it must assume
the responsibility of telling developers exactly how to proceed.
Generalized zoning as it exists can not do this. Planning
restrictions must be implemented on a block by block basis,
and in some cases a lot by lot basis. This type planning
will put complete control of the District in the hands of the
Architectural Review Board which will act with advice from
the Historic Pensacola Preservation Board. This pinpoint
planning can be used to encourage new building types into
the District which will be of value for comparison purposes.
One building type that should be encouraged is religious
building. The only building of this type in the District
is Christ Church which is 146 years old. It is necessary
that another church of this scale be introduced into the
District. With Aragon Court bordering the Historic
District to the north and east it is imperative that the
District recognize the existence of this project rather
than turn its back, which it is now doing and plans to
keep on doing. Social services and governmental agencies
that deal with the residents of Aragon Court should be
encouraged into the east part of the District to serve its
neighbors to the north. By admitting that Aragon Court
exists and attempting to deal with its problems there is
a hope that the security problem associated with it may
While the setting up of planning goals is important
it is just as important to set up a timetable to go along
with them. This timetable is used to determine if the
development of the District is on schedule; and if not,
it will give district planners a chance to determine why
not. This timetable should be loose enough to allow for
changes, but tight enough to keep planning goals on schedule.
The goals should be set up with three parts: immediate
goals on a year to year basis; intermediate goals which
occur every five to seven years; and long range goals,
fifteen to twenty years from now.
A survey of buildings existing in the District is a
project which the Historic Pensacola Preservation Board
is actively working on. The value of this survey can
not be understated since it will be used in the planning
of the District and the design of guidelines for new
construction. In any museum it is important to take
inventory, and in the case of Seville Square Historic
District, a detailed inventory is what the survey is.
Upon completion of the survey of the District, the
Preservation Board and the Architectural Review Board
should join efforts to set up a method of submittal and
review for new projects within the District. Step one will
be to publish a manual for preservationsits who will be
dealing with historic properties. Presently there are
as many interpretations of what is genuine Pensacola
design as there are interpreters. This manual of preservation
should be authored by a joint effort between a preservation
architect and an historian. The work would deal with the
history of Pensacola relating to its architecture; and
would parallel political, sociological and other historic
facts with the development of architectural examples. This
part of the preservation manual would be the responsibility
of the historian. The architect would deal with the buildings
themselves. He would describe the various building types
and explain the systems, materials and methods used in
construction. This jointly prepared preservation manual
should begin with the earliest known examples of Pensacola
and come forward to the present day. As necessary this
manual should be reviewed and brought up to date. The
book should be used as a point of beginning for people who
wish to restore historic buildings, make additions to his-
toric buildings, or build new buildings within the District.
The preservation manual would be used as a common spring-
board for discussion of appropriate design for the Historic
As a. continuation of the preservation manual, a published
set of architectural guidelines should be adopted in order
that architects designing buildings for the Historic Dis-
trict will have a clear understanding of what will be ac-
ceptable by the Architectural Review Board at the time of
project evaluation. Due to the complex nature of the
Seville Square Historic District it will be necessary to
design two sets of guidelines. The first set will deal
with new construction in the east part of the District.
As discussed earlier, this part of the District is for the
most part vacant land. New construction in this part of
the District would be of contemporary design and would,
for the most part, be single, freestanding buildings.
Guidelines for this part of the District would control
scale, rhythm, landscaping and materials in such a. way
that the contemporary architecture that would result would
be harmonious with the historic architecture that exists
a few blocks away. The Historic Preservation Plan of
Savannah, Georgia should be used as a guide to the
development of this guideline. The second part of the
published guidelines would deal with additions to historic
buildings and architectural infill between historic buildings.
Due to the difference in scale, age texture and other design
features between historic properties grouped in the Seville
Square area, each building project in this area should be
controlled by guidelines that deal with the use of archi-
tectural materials. If a project is proposed for a site
that is between two properties of different scale or texture,
it is difficult to relate to one without offending the other.
In this case the new building would assume an identity of
its own, restricted only in material usage. The material
guidelines set up by the city of Mobile,Alabama should act
as a guide for the design of Seville Square's material
All building projects in this Historic District should
continue to be submitted to the Architectural Review Board
for approval. In the future, all requests for building
approval should be accompanied by a model of the project,
a rendering or other graphic aids which will relate the
proposed project to all its neighbors in terms of scale,
texture, color and materials. The board would either approve
or disapprove the project based on adherence to published
guidelines and compatibility with surrounding architecture.
If a project were disapproved, the board would be compelled
to give specific reasons why so the owner could make the
necessary changes and re-submit his project.
Throughout the course of this thesis the reader will
note that I have done much criticism. This criticism is
used to point out areas of weakness I have detected in the
Historic District. It is my hope that by pointing out
weakness, I can encourage other persons with sensitivity to
the Seville Square Historic District to act and make the
Historic District an even better place. This spurring
of others into action was one of the main reasons for this
paper. I am aware that many decisions made within-the District
have been made from expediency, and in general were the best
directions under a particular set of circumstances. It
is my honest opinion that the Historic Pensacola Preservation
Board, the Architectural Review Board and the citizens of
Pensacola have done a commendable job with Seville Square
1. Pensacola City Hall, West Elevation, built 1907.
2. Looking West down Main Street from Adams Street.
3. Looking East down Main Street from Adams Street.
4. Looking North across Main Street from Barracks Street.
5. Looking South to Pitt's Slip from Main Street
6. Looking South Across Pensacola Bay from Main Street.
7. L & N Terminal building, North elevation, built 1903.
8. L & N Terminal building, West elevation, built 1903.
9. Lee House, West elevation, built 1866.
10. Looking West across Seville Square from Alcaniz Street, Christ Church
11. Looking Southwest across Seville Square from corner of Alcaniz Street
and Government Street.
12. Smith House, West elevation, built 1870's.
13. St. Michael's Creole Benevolent Association meeting hall, South elevation
14. Quina House, West elevation, built about 1910.
15. Looking Southeast across Seville Square from corner of Government Street
and Adams Street.
16. Dorr House, East elevation, built 1871.
17. Christ Church, from Southeast, built 1832.
18. Same as 17.
19. Moreno Cottage, North elevation, built 1879.
20. Dorothy Walton House, from Northwest, built-unsure.
21. Tivoli House reconstruction, from Northeast, built 1976.
22. Tivoli House reconstruction, from North west, built 1976.
23. Julee Cottage, from Southwest, built about 1970.
24. Lavalle House, from Northwest, built about 1810.
25. Christ Church, from Northwest, built 1832.
26. The "Intendent", type "C" house, built 1975.
27. Looking North up Alcaniz Street toward St. Michael's Cemetary and
28. Looking South down Alcaniz Street toward Police Station and G. W.
Edwards Plumbing Company.
29. Looking North from corner of Romana Street and Florida Blanca Street.
30. Looking West down Romana Street from 8th Street.
31. Aragon Court from corner of 8th Street and Romana Street.
32. Looking Southeast from corner of 8th Street and Romana Street.
33. Looking North up 8th Street from Intendencia Street.
34. Looking West down Intendencia Street from Florida Blanca Street.
35. Looking North up Florida Blanca Street from Intendencia Street.
36. North boundary of St. Michael's Cemetary, Chase Street in foreground.
37. Aragon Court Northwest boundary corner of Chase Street and Florida
38. Office of Carlton Noblin, Architect, Government Street at Florida
Blanca Street, Built 1968.
39. Axelson House, from Southwest, built 1892.
40. Barkley House, from Northwest, built about 1815.
41. The Intendent, Type "A" house.
42. The Intendent, Type "B" house.
43. The Intendent, Type "C" house.
iT .,-* t la ~ t '
tlSyC- "*^ 1? '
)--- -;~-- ~ ~1~91(
i 1/ 1
4' -t A
i... MA --------
S ;.. r.i,"h~~fFP
- 2 f.* ^ ^^: -^:w-.< '^.'' -*. -" .
.^ ^ ,a:/ :.- **.- .- .^
"-' `' ~U-~V
L. j WW I,
'1:.5 5iT- Y
'.t. I.Y4'* i
* ....,r -.
*.~ g; 4. '1 -.;-
I -': -'"" 1. -f .1. :
'' 5=..,,. '-.:'~1:
C. -r ~~''''''
~c '~I-., .
r '- )
'." i .." C '':'
:~ -. ;:;
~' ~' '. :.;'.`
.. .-;:1 .
DEPARTMENT OF STATE JOE
SECRETAR SMATS Historic Pensacola
205 E. ZARAGOZA ST. PENSACOLA, FLORIDA 32501 AC 904 434-1042
June 5, 1978
Mr. Lewis Brown, Jr.
Residential Designer and Planner
1212 Northwest 12th Avenue
Gainesville, Florida 32601
Dear Mr. Brown:
Jim Moody has asked me to respond to your letter of May 27 in which
you requested clarification of the Historic Pensacola Preservation Board's
role in the matter of design and construction in the Seville Square Historic
District. Architectural controls were vested in an Architectural Review
Board established by city ordinance in 1968. This group consists of seven
citizens, two of which must be architects and members of the AIA. The
Historic Pensacola Preservation Board's role is an advisory one only, with
the direct responsibility for advice vested in my position as Chief of the
Bureau of Architecture and Construction. The Historic Pensacola Preservation
Board's official role, therefore, is that of a concerned observer.
With respect to new construction in the district, I feel the Board's
position would be to support contemporary proposals that displayed respect
for the historic character of the area the well known concerns for:
scale, color, texture, fenestration patterns, corniceheights, etc., etc.
As far as the Tivoli House is concerned, I must point out to you that
the entire site was professionally excavated prior to construction to
establish: (1) the precise site of the original house; (2) archaeological
data that would be relevant to the reconstruction of the house; and, (3)
data relative to the interpretation of the house and its occupants with
respect to their place in Pensacola's history.
Your question concerning the "why" of the Tivoli House identifies
a "fact of life" concerning architecture and an area rarely, if ever,
discussed in the course of academic training. I am referring to the role
of politics in the architectural process. You should be aware of the
premiere role the late Pat Dodson played in establishing this district and
the plans for the general direction of its growth. An avid historian, Pat
had his own ideas about the significance of the Tivoli House and adjacent
ballroom, which was a social center of the early community. This project
was a pet of his and its execution, the result of his drive and influence.
The Allen/Watson plan for the Pitts Slip area is in reality Steve
Watson's thesis project. It is both dynamic and attractive and would be
an asset to this area were it built. The area that it was proposed for,
however, represented the district's only large open area on the Bay, a fact
recognized on the 1971 Bateman Master Plan for the district and when an
Mr. Lewis Brown, Jr.
June 5, 1978
acquisition grant became available in 1976, the Board developed the plan
whereby the property was finally secured. A requirement of the grant is
that the land be committed to open space, therefore, a discussion of
development on it is moot.
With respect to the vacant land in the east part of the District, this
Board is studying a proposed zoning change which would allow for the
construction of town houses. Again, I believe their design concerns will
be along the usual scale, color, texture, etc., guidelines.
The question of non-conforming buildings is a very difficult one to
respond to briefly. The fact that we call them non-conforming and you
call them "contemporary" identifies a different philosophical outlook.
There is no doubt that these buildings are products of their time. The
problem is that their time is 50-100 years in advance of the period that
produced the distinct area of our concern and while the Board, I feel,
has no problem with the concept of architecture of and in its time, I
believe their policy would follow the general concept of modification of
non-conforming structures to reduce the impact of their appearance and/or
their demolition, a course of action established in the zoning ordinance
of the City of Pensacola. The latter law I suspect will probably never
be enforced; however, its existence on the books does represent a position
supported by this organization.
In regard to your question about the Board's goals for the District,
I would say that beyond the expected preservation and restoration of the
area's architecture, that we are striving to establish the District as a
viable residential neighborhood including a healthy representation of
commercial and office usages. As you know, the latter activities are
growing steadily while our residential efforts still lag.
I trust this information meets your needs and if I can be of further
service, please contact me. You have chosen an are of architecture that
is growing in interest and debate. I look forward t~' your work.
George G. Demmy
HUGH J. LEITCH ARCHITECT* P.A.
213 SOUTH ALCANIZ STREET, P. 0. BOX 928
PENSACOLA, FLORIDA 32502 904/432-6196
15 June 1978
Mr. Lewis Brown, Jr.
1212 Northwest 12th Avenue
Gainesville, FL 32601
In keeping with your recent request that we provide you with some
information as to our involvement in restoration in Pensacola's
Historic District, I am setting out below a few thoughts as to our
experience to date.
As you may recall, we worked closely with Pat Dodson who was a pioneer
in preserving and restoring historic buildings in the District here in
Pensacola. Our work with him, in addition to assisting in the
restoration of a number of individual buildings in our District, was
the development of the drawings and specifications for a large scale
project known as The Intendent. This project, if realized, would have
resulted in restoration and reconstruction of a number of similar
residences on a square block in the heart of Pensacola's Historical
District bounded by Alcaniz, Intendencia, Tarragona and Romana Streets.
Additionally, the development projected restorations on the south side
of Intendencia Street which would have resulted in a street-scene of
directed and well-designed organization. Unfortunately, due to Mr.
Dodson's untimely death, the project did not become a reality in the
spirit in which it was designed. Although Dodson's son has purportedly
taken over the Project, the original scheme has been abandoned entirely
and the development of Intendencia Street, while not unpleasant, is not
at all what was projected in our design. Buildings now in place along
this block on Intendencia Street are of disparate vintage and
historical value and in contrast to the original design, which would
have resulted in a very attractive residential neighborhood, include a
mix which is primarily commercial (offices and shops) interspersed with
a few remaining residences. Our role in the project as envisioned by
Pat Dodson was planner and architect, and our contribution to the
project, if it had been realized, would have been considerable in those
As you know, we have located our office in a restored building of 1860
MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS
vintage. This was a typical Gulf Coast cottage and our work in
restoring it required the removal of some portions of the structure
which were added (considerably later than the original construction)
and were of considerably less quality as to materials and workmanship.
We replaced these removed portions with new area which closely
resembles the original construction and, we believe, ties together to
present a creditable result. You may be aware that we were awarded an
Honor Award by our Chapter of AIA for this effort. We have also
participated in the restoration of individual buildings around the
District, including a large project we are now working on. This is a
Victorian residence which was endangered by the construction of the
terminus of I-110 in Downtown Pensacola and was, therefore, moved
several blocks to a vacant site in the heart of the District,
immediately opposite Seville Square. The restoration of this project,
a two-story building of about 1,900 sq. ft. on each floor, is partially
complete. We intend to make it available for lease for office usage
and we are now considering moving our office into a portion of this
building thereby making our present building available for lease or
We have been involved to some degree in the restoration of about a
dozen buildings in the District, not including the several dozen
buildings designed to be a part of The Intendent development. We find
the work to have considerable appeal, although due to the scale of each
individual project, not especially rewarding from a return point of
view. Our experience working with the Architectural Review Board for
the City of Pensacola has been very pleasant. We find that this Board
generally agrees with our approach to the restoration processes. We
have also found that the Inspection Department of the City of Pensacola
has been very cooperative in that they have not insisted on complete
compliance with the Code in all matters, especially those where such
compliance would degrade the original design of the building as in
stairways, etc. Possibly due to our experience, we have fewer problems
with approvals than other persons engaged in restoration or adaptive
modification work. However, our rapport with both the Architectural
Review Board and the City of Pensacola Building and Inspection
Departments has been outstanding and has, we believe, allowed for
results which would not have been possible without this favorable
More constraints relating to Architectural detailing would, we believe,
be in order. For example, some buildings have been allowed to be
restored using asphalt shingle roofs, poorly detailed railings, and
other inappropriate or non-representative features. There must,
however, always be compromise between authenticity (and resulting
higher costs) and financial feasibility to assure a reasonable return
on investment. In general, it appears that this return is attractive
in the District at the present time. Values continue to increase and,
as a result, the atmosphere of the District is enhanced. For example,
one recent sale of a one and one-half story frame building of 2,800
square feet on a lot with an area of 9,257 square feet sold for
I hope the above may be of some use to you in your work. If you have
any specific questions that I have failed to answer, please give me a
call and I will try to help further.
Take this free tour
in your automobile.
This self-guided tour. which you can take in your own automobile.
is provided to the public without charge and is sponsored by the
Pensacola-Escambia Development Commission. Simply follow
the route marked in orange on the map to the right. Signs, as
shown in the inset here. will help you stay on the route.
1. TOURIST INFORMATION OFFICE (NW corner of Palafox &
Cervantes Sts.. bit. 1915)-Stop here
first on the HISTORIC PENSACOLA
TOUR and receive free brochures and
directions for area tours and local attrac-
tions. The offices of the Pensacola-
Escambia Development Commission are
open weekdays from 8 AM until 5 PM.
and Saturday from 9 AM to 5 PM.
PALAFOX STREET-In the 1770s the
British named this street George Street.
and later the Spanish changed the name
to Palafox Street in honor of General
Josd de Palafox y Melzi. who defended
Zaragoza. Spain, in the Peninsular War (1808-1814).
CERVANTES STREET-Pensacolians in the late 19th century
named this street in honor of Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra (1547-
1616). whose best-known work is Don Quixote.
2. LEE SQUARE (Palafox & Gadsden Sts.)-Previously known
as Florida Square. this park in 1891 was renamed Lee Square and
dedicated as Pensacola's tribute to the Confederacy. The 50-foot
high monument was modeled after Egan's painting. "After Ap-
pomattox" and is a duplicate of the figure standing in Alexandria.
GADSDEN STREET-Named for James Gadsden. a lieutenant
under Andrew Jackson in the War of 1812 who later served as
minister to Mexico and negotiated the Gadsden Purchase.
JACKSON STREET-Named in honor of President Andrew
Jackson, who as an American general, took Pensacola by force
from the Spanish in 1811 and again in 1818 and by treaty in 1821.
3. SITE OF FORT GEORGE (NW corner of Palafox & LaRua Sts.,
bit. 1770s) -The British constructed the fort that stood on this site
in the 1770s: in 1781 a significant Revolutionary War battle was
fought here when Spanish troops under Bernardo de Galvez oust-
ed the British and took possession of the Province of West Florida.
Listed in the National Register of Historic Places
LA RUA STREET-Named after a Spanish family, residents of
Pensacola since the early 1800s.
BELMONT STREET-A New Yorker who invested in Pensacola
in the 1830s is believed to have named this street for an area near
New York City.
4. EDWARD A. PERRY HOUSE (NE corner of Palafox & Wright
Sts.. bit. 1867- 82) -Charles E. Boysen. Swedish Consul to Pensa
cola. began this house, and it was completed by Edward A. Perry.
Confederate general and Governor of Florida. The Scottish Rite
now owns the building.
5. CHRIST CHURCH (NW corner of Palafox & Wright Sts.. bit.
1902)-This unusual Episcopal church is built in Spanish Baroque
WRIGHT STREET- Named for Benjamin Drake Wright. who was
prominent in local and state affairs from the 1820s until the 1860s.
GREGORY STREET-Named for Walter Gregory. president of
the first chartered territorial bank.
6. UNITED STATES POST OFFICE (NE corner of Palafox &
Chase Sts.. bit. 1939)-Except for a break during the Civil War.
the United States Postal Service has served Pensacola continuously
since 1823. This building reflects Pensacola's Spanish heritage.
CHASE STREET-Named for Col. William H. Chase. who de
signed and built most of the forts at the mouth of Pensacola Bay.
7. ST. MICHAEL'S CHURCH (SW corner of Palafox & Chase
Sts.. bit 1885)-This Catholic church, the oldest of its denomina-
tion in Pensacola. was originally established under the Spanish in
1781 near City Hall.
8. SAN CARLOS HOTEL (NW corner of Palafox & Garden Sts..
bit. 1910)-This local landmark was the center of the citv's business
and social life for more than half a century
GARDEN STREET-The Spanish ,iter 1781 named this street
Calle de Jardines or Street of Gardens because garden plots. that
matched house lots in the Old City area around Seville Square.
lined the north side of the street. Earlier the British had called this
ROMANA STREET-The British called this Prince's Street: the
Spanish renamed it Calle de la Romana.
9. SITE OF THE JACKSON RESIDENCE (SE corner of Pala
fox and Intendencia Sts.)-In 1821 General Andrew Jackson. first
Territorial Governor of Florida. and his wife. Rachel. occupied the
residence that previously stood on this corner.
INTENDENCIA STREET-This street had two names during the
British period: west of the stockade it was called Granby Street
and east of the stockade it was Harcourt Street. The Spanish re-
named the street Calle de la Intendencia for the Intendent or roval
10. ESCAMBIA COUNTY COURT HOUSE (NW corner of Pala-
fox & Government Sts.. bit. 1883)-Built on the old Customs
House site. this French Renaissance Revival structure was originally
intended as a Post Office.
11. PLAZA FERDINAND VII (Palafox at Government & Zara-
goza Sts.)-This plaza, named for Spanish King Ferdinand VII.
served as the center of Spanish community life and public cere-
mony. Here Andrew Jackson received Florida from Spain in
1821. The monument honors W. D. Chipley. who connected Pen-
sacola to the East by rail.
12. BEAR BUILDING (404 South Palafox St.. bit. 1892)-This
building is an excellent example of late 19th century commercial
architecture. The second floor exhibits cast iron filigree work.
MAIN STREET-Originally the shoreline of the Bay ran along
Main Street. All property south is "made land." consisting of ballast
from sailing vessels from around the world during the 19th and
early 20th centuries.
13. McKENZIE-OERTING COMPANY (601 South Palafox
St.. opened here 1888)-This ship's chandlery or mariner's supply
company served Pensacola's fishermen and sailors from 1868
until 1971. Until 1966 schooners which fished off the Yucatan
Peninsula of Mexico berthed at the rear.
14. BUCCANEER (moored at Municipal Pier, bit. 1910)-This
two-masted, knock-about Gloucester schooner, originally named
the VIRGINIA. was constructed in Essex. Mass., in 1910. She is
one of the few remaining vessels once used in the snapper fishing
industry in this region from 1890-1965. Restoration is now in prog-
ress by the Historic Pensacola Preservation Board. Open to visi-
tors on a seasonal basis. Listed in the National Register of His-
15. MUNICIPAL AUDITORIUM (bit. 1951)-The Auditorium is
the scene of many concerts, plays. dances, conventions, and other
16. PENSACOLA ART CENTER (NW corner of Jefferson &
Main Sts.. bit. 1906)-Used as a jail until 1954. this building now
houses the Pensacola Art Center. Open Tuesday through Satur-
day. from 9 AM to 5 PM: Sunday from 2-5 PM: and closed Monday.
JEFFERSON STREET-Named for Thomas Jefferson. third
president of the United States (1801-1809).
17. PENSACOLA CITY HALL (NE corner of Jefferson & Zara-
goza Sts.. bit. 1907)-This structure is Spanish Baroque style.
18. SITE OF THE OPERA HOUSE (SE corner of Jefferson &
Government Sts.. bit. 1883)-D. F. Sullivan. a local lumber mag-
nate. built Pensacola's Opera House during the lumber boom of
the late 19th century. The building was demolished in 1917 after
being damaged by a hurricane.
GOVERNMENT STREET-Under the British this was Pitt Street
at the west end of the stockade and Bute Street at the east end.
19. SEVILLE QUARTER (130 East Government St.. bit. 1870s)-
Now a period entertainment center, the structure housing "Rosie
O'Gradv s Warehouse was originally a hotel and later a tobacco
TARRAGONA STREET-Named for the town of Tarragona in
At this point we suggest
you begin a walking tour.
The Walking Tour of the Seville Square Historical District is spon-
sored by the Historic Pensacola Preservation Board.
ZARAGOZA STREET-Named after Zaragoza (Zaragossa).
Spain. the city which repulsed the attack of Napoleon in the Penin-
sular War (1808-1814). Although locally the name is spelled Zarra-
gossa. properly it should be spelled Zaragoza.
20. HISPANIC BUILDING, WEST FLORIDA MUSEUM OF
HISTORY (Tarragona & Zarragossa Sts.) See full sketch on other
side of this folder.
21. TRANSPORTATION BUILDING (Tarragona & Zarragossa
Sts.)- See full sketch on other side of this folder.
22. L & N MARINE TERMINAL AND PINEY WOODS SAW-
MILL (Barracks and Main Sts.)-The railroad constructed the ter-
minal building at the port in 1903. The Preservation Board moved it
to this site in 1969. See full sketch of sawmill on other side of this
folder. The Terminal is listed in the National Register of Historic
23. TIVOLI COMPLEX (SE corner of Zarragossa and Barracks
Sts.)- See full sketch on other side of this folder.
24. DOROTHY WALTON HOUSE (221 E. Zarragossa St.)-
Dorothy Walton. widow of George Walton. a signer of the Declara-
tion of Independence from Georgia. is believed to have resided
here from 1822-1832. The house was deeded to Pensacola in
1964. moved to this location in 1966 by the Dorothy Walton Foun-
dation which began restoration which was completed by the His-
toric Pensacola Preservation Board.
25. MORENO COTTAGE (221 E. Zarragossa St., bit. 1879)-
Don Francisco Moreno. a local Spanish patriarch, built this "hon-
eymoon cottage" for his daughter, Perle. one of his 27 children,
when she married O. H. Smith. The Historic Pensacola Preserva-
tion Board owns the house.
26. OLD CHRIST CHURCH (Zarragossa & Adams Sts.)-See
full sketch on other side of this folder.
27. SEVILLE SQUARE (Adams & Zarragossa Sts.)-See full
sketch on other side of this folder.
ADAMS STREET-This street was created in the 1820s and
named in honor of John Quincy Adams, sixth President of the
United States (1825-1829).
28. DORR HOUSE (11 South Adams St., bit. 1871)--An ex-
ample of modified post-Civil War classic revival architecture, this
house reflects the lumber boom era through its high ceilings, wide
pine floors, jib windows, and straight wooden staircase. Clara Bark-
ley Dorr, widow of a prominent Pensacolian, had the house built in
1871 and lived there with her children until about 1895. The house
is open to visitors daily except Monday in spring and summer. List-
ed in the National Register of Historic Places.
29. LAVALLE HOUSE (203 E. Church St., bit. about 1810)-
Listed in the National Register of Historic Places. See full sketch
on other side of this folder.
30. MORENO-ANDERSON HOUSE (300 East Government
St., bit. 1859-68)-Theodore Moreno, a civil engineer and son of
Don Francisco Moreno, built this two-story home, typical of Gulf
Coast architecture, between 1859 and 1868. Moreno sold the house
in 1873 to William E. Anderson. Anderson lived in the house until
1898 during both terms he served as mayor of Pensacola (1893-
94 and 1896).
31. McLELLAND HOUSE (304 East Government St., bit. about
1879)-William H. McLelland built this house in about 1879 and
in 1886 constructed an addition with a bay window. In 1896, he
deeded it to Mary E. Stokes, wife of a local sea captain.
ALCANIZ STREET-Although the British called this Charlotte
Street, the Spanish named it Calle de Alcaniz.
32. SMITH HOUSE-MUSICIAN'S UNION (300 South Alcan-
iz St., bit. 1870s)-Jose Noriega, Sr., a Spanish officer who helped
rebuild Fort San Carlos in the 1790s, once owned this lot. Jose
Noriega, Jr., last Spanish Alcalde or mayor of Pensacola in 1821,
inherited the property. He sold the lot in 1818 to Capt. John Don-
elson, Jr.. Rachel Jackson's nephew, who fought under Old Hick-
ory in the Battle of New Orleans. Mary Susan Cavanaugh Smith
in the 1870s built the house which Musician's Local 253 now owns.
33. GRAY HOUSE (314 S. Alcaniz St.. bit. 1881-84)-According
to the owners who report hearing strange footsteps in the hall, an
early resident haunts this house. This structure reflects a Key West
34. LEE HOUSE (420 S. Alcaniz St.. bit. 1866)-William Franklin
Lee. an engineer and Confederate officer, who lost an arm in the
Battle of Chancellorsville in the Civil War, built this home in 1866.
While acting as a surveyor and land developer, he named Lee
Street for his family and Lloyd Street for his wife's. The Historic
Pensacola Preservation Board purchased the building and moved it
to this site, and the Pensacola Board of Realtors restored the home
for its office.
35. MARY PERRY HOUSE (434 E. Zaragossa St., bit. early
1880s) -Pensacola harbor pilot, Charles Perry, built this house for
his wife. Mary Thackeray Perry.
36. BARKLEY HOUSE (410 S. Florida Blanca St., bit. about
1815)-George Barkley is believed to have built this house, the old-
est masonry building in Pensacola, in 1815. Barkley, a prominent
local merchant, made this his home until his death in 1854.
37. AXELSON HOUSE (314 and 318 S. Florida Blanca St., bit.
1892 and 1888)-Gustave Axelson. captain of a three-masted
schooner that carried lumber from Pensacola to Latin America,
built the house at the corner of Florida Blanca and Zaragossa streets
in 1888. In about 1892, his brother, Birger Axelson, built the house
next door at 314 S. Florida Blanca.
38. BONIFAY HOUSE (435 E. Government St., bit. about
1815)-This cottage was built in the last Spanish period, but like
the Suzannah Cottage, the Bonifay House is of French West Indian
design. It received a severe restoration in 1974 using early nine-
teenth century methods and retaining such features as hand-hewn
floor joists and hand-made brick held by "oyster shell" mortar.
39. SUZANNAH'S COTTAGE (433 Government St.. bit. about
1804 -Built under the Spanish for a free woman of color. Suzan-
nah Crespo, this cottage is a French West Indian style and was
"saved" in 1973 by a severe restoration using old-time building
methods. Features include the original ceiling joists and hand-
made interior doors with colonial hardware.
40. ST. MICHAEL'S CREOLE BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION
MEETING HALL (416 East Government St., bit. 1895-96)-
Benevolent associations designed to aid members during sickness
and trouble were one of the many Creole contributions to Pensa-
cola's culture. This building was the meeting hall for St. Michael's
Creole Benevolent Association. organized in 1878 and disbanded
in 1971. Listed in the National Register of Historic Places.
41. QUINA HOUSE (204 S. Alcaniz St., bit. about 1810)-De-
siderio Quina. Sr.. a Spanish army veteran, purchased this house in
1827. It retains many original features typical of the Gulf Coast
architectural style including a double chimney. apron roof and re-
cessed front porch.
42. SITE OF THE CALABOZA (SW corner of Alcaniz & Inten-
dencia Sts.)-ln the 1770s the British constructed on this site a
small "gaol" that the Spanish also used as their "calaboza" from
1781 until 1821. Andrew Jackson locked up Lt. Col. Jose Callava.
the last Spanish Governor, here in a dispute over transfer of gov-
eming power. Later, local authorities imprisoned Jonathan Walker,
a Massachusetts shipwright accused of stealing slaves, in this jail.
Walker's imprisonment and subsequent branding with "SS" in-
spired John Greenleaf Whittier's poem "The Branded Hand."
43. ST. MICHAEL'S CEMETERY (Alcaniz & Garden Sts.)-
See full sketch on other side of this folder.
NOTE: If you want to see more of old Pensacola. you can wander
through the North Hill Preservation District, bounded by Gregory,
DeVilliers, Blount, and Palafox Streets. (See southeast corner of
district in map at left). Between the 1870s and 1920s. during the
days of Pensacola's prosperous lumber boom. residents built homes
in the most popular styles: "Queen Anne," Spanish Mission Reviv-
al. Classical Revival, and some in typical Gulf Coast style. In 1973
the Pensacola City Council at the request of homeowners in the
area established the Preservation District to preserve the unique
architectural character of their neighborhood. The "development"
of this district will require several years.
=K&D~EN Oil Big UZ l l~j8
23 24 25
While in Florida...
see as much of Florida as you can
THE STATE OF EXCITEMENT
j L J-e : *- ;
Suzannah's Cottage, built around 1804, was restored in 1973
using old-time building methods. 6
SECTION 1. HR-1 ONE AND TWO FAMILY
a. Uses permitted.
(1) Single-family and two-family (duplex) dwellings.
(2) Libraries, community centers and buildings used exclusively
by the federal, state, county, or city government for public purposes.
(3) Churches, Sunday School buildings and Parish houses.
(4) Accessory buildings and uses customarily incidental to the
above uses not involving the conduct of a business,
(5) Home occupations.
(6) Publicly owned or operated parks and playgrounds.
(7) Special exceptions.
(7-1) Tourist homes.
(7-2) Antique shops.
(7-3) Art Galleries.
b. Building height limit. No building shall exceed two and one half
stories or thirty-five feet in height.
c. Building site area required (intensity of use). The minimum
building site area shall be on a lot or a parcel of land five thousand square
feet in area for each single-family dwelling and six thousand square feet in
area for each two-family dwelling. Such parcels shall have a width of not
less than fifty feet at the minimum building setback line for a single-tamily
dwelling and not less than sixty feet for each two-family dwelling,
d. Front yard required. There shall be a front yard having a depth
of not less than fifteen feet. On through lots, the required front yard shall
be provided on both streets.
e. Side yard required. There shall be a side yard on each side of
the building having a width of not less than five feet.
f. Rear yard required. There shall be a rear yard having a depth of
not less than twenty-five feet.
SECTION 2. HR-2 MULTIPLE FAMILY DISTRICT
a. Uses permitted.
(1) Any use permitted in the preceding district.
(2) Multiple family dwellings.
(3) Private clubs and lodges except those operated primarily as
commercial enterprises. .
(4) Boarding and lodging houses.
(5) Guest houses and tourist homes.
(6) Office buildings.
(7) Accessory buildings. Buildings and use customarily incident
to any of the above uses, including storage garages, when located on the same
lot and not involving the conduct of a business.
b. Building height limit. No building shall exceed two and one-half
stories or thirty-five feet in height.
c. Front yard required. There shall be a front yard having a depth of
not less than fifteen feet. On through lots, the required front yard shall be
provided on both streets.
d. Side yard required. There shall be a side yard on each side of the
building having a width of not less than five feet.
e. Rear yard required. There shall be a rear yard having a depth of
not less than twenty-five feet.
SECTION 3. HC-1, HISTORICAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
a. Uses permitted.
(1) Any use permitted in the preceding districts.
(2) Antique shops.
(3) Bakeries whose products are sold at retail and only on the
(5) Barbershops and beauty parlors.
(6) Shops for the collection and distribution of garments and similar
materials, for dyeing and cleaning establishments.
(7) Other retail shops with a maximum floor area of three thousand
(9) Vending machines when an accessory to a business establishment
and located in the same building as the business.
(10) Small appliance repair shops.
(11) Floral gardens.
(12) Hand craft shops for custom work or making the custom items
not involving noise, odor, or chemical waste.
(13) Pawn shops or second hand stores.
(14) Small printing shops.
(15) Special exceptions.
(15-1) Taverns, lounges, nightclubs, cocktail bars.
(15-3) Restaurants (except drive-ins).
(15-5) Commercial parking lots.
(15-6) New car agencies (Ord. No. 21-72, 4/27/72)
(16) Accessory buildings and uses customarily incident to the above
c. Building height limit. No building shall exceed four stories in height.
d. Side and rear yard required. There shall be no minimum front yard
requirement. There shall be no side yard required except for dwellings or for
frame structures in which case five feet shall be required. There shall be a
rear yard of at least fifteen feet.
SECTION 4. HEIGHT AND AREA EXCEPTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTS
The following requirements or regulations qualify or supplement as
the case may be, the district regulations or requirements appearing else-
where in this chapter:
a. Chimneys, water tanks or towers, elevator bulkheads, stacks,
and necessary mechanical appurtenances may be erected to a height in ac-
cordance with existing or hereafter adopted ordinances of the City.
b. The side yard requirements for dwellings shall be waived where
dwellings are erected above stores or shops.
c. Every part of a required yard shall be open from its lowest point
to the sky unobstructed; except for the ordinary projection of sills, belt
courses, cornices, buttresses, ornamental features and eaves; provided,
however, none of the above projection shall project into a minimum side
yard more than twenty-four inches.
d. Open or enclosed fire escapes, fireproof outside stairways and
balconies projecting into a minimum yard or court not more than three and
one-half feet and the ordinary projections of chimneys and flues may be
permitted by the Architectural Review Board where the same are so placed
as not to obstruct the light and ventilation.
e. On corner lots in residential districts, the side yard regulations
shall apply on the street side as well as on the inside; but on a corner lot
owned as a separate unit as shown of record on date of passage of this or-
dinance, a building at least twenty-eight feet wide may be constructed not-
withstanding the side yard regulations. If a building on a corner lot shall
not face in the same direction as the building on the adjoining lot on either
street, there shall be a side yard adjacent to the street on which the build-
ing does not face not less in width than fifty percent of the front yard re-
quired on that street and no accessory building on such corner lot shall ex-
tend beyond the front line on that street; but this regulation shall not prevent
the erection of an accessory building in any case where the regulation can-
not reasonably be complied with.
SECTION 5. OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS
a. Off-street parking is required in all zoning districts. The follow-
ing off-street parking is required by this Ordinance:
(1) Single family dwellings None required.
(2) Libraries, community centers, and buildings of federal, state,
county and city government 1 space for each two employees plus 1 space
for each 500 square feet of gross floor area in the building.
(3) Churches 1 space for each four seats.
(4) Multiple family buildings 1 1/2 space for each unit.
(5) Private clubs, fraternities and lodges 1 parking space for
each 200 square feet of gross floor area.
(6) Boarding and lodging homes 1 space for each unit.
(7) Guest houses and tourist houses 1 space for each sleeping
room for the first four sleeping rooms plus 1 space for each additional two
(8) Office buildings One space for each 200 square feet of gross
floor area in the buildings.
(9) Banks, stores, and shops for the conduct of a retail business -
1 space for each 300 square feet of gross floor area in the building plus 1
space for each two full-time employees.
(10) Barbershops and beauty parlors One space for each chair
plus 1 space for each employee.
(11) Restaurants One space for each five seats, plus 1 space for
each three employees.
(12) Studios One space for each 200 square feet of gross floor
area in the building, plus 1 space for each two employees.
(13) Motels One space per unit, plus 1 space for each three em-
(14) Taverns, cocktail bars, and night clubs 1 space for each
two employees plus 1 space for each three seats.
(15) Any use not covered by this ordinance shall require one
parking space for each 300 square feet of gross floor area in the building.
b. Parking Lots Design of parking lots, spaces, and driveways
shall be subject to approval of the Architectural Review Board.
For all parking lots, a solid wall, fence or compact hedge not less
than four (4) feet high shall be erected along the lot lines) when autos or
lots are visible from the street.
All parking stalls shall measure not less than nine (9) feet by eighteen
(18) feet. Proper ingress and egress from the lot shall be required and ade-
quate interior drives shall be required for all parking lots.
Where the required number of parking spaces result in a fraction, an
extra space shall be provided.
c. Uses not providing minimum number of spaces Those individuals,
firms, or corporations who develop one of the perrri tted uses in the Historical
District and do not provide the minimum number of off-street parking spaces
as required by the Ordinance shall pay to the Historical Commission such sum
of money equal to the difference of the value of the cost of land and improve-
ments needed to construct a parking lot of a size that would be needed to furnish
the minimum number of parking spaces required by this ordinance and the value
of the land and improvements actually used as a parking lot in partial compliance
with this ordinance. Such sum shall be held in escrow and used by the Histori-
cal Commission for the purpose of acquiring land and constructing parking lots
and shall be used for this purpose and no other.
The aforementioned value shall be determined jointly by the City Manager
and the Developer. If the City Manager and the developer cannot agree on a
value, then the value shall be established by arbitration. The City Manager
shall appoint a professional appraiser and the developer shall appoint a profes-
sional appraiser and these two shall appoint a third.
SECTION 6. SIGN REGULATIONS
a. The following signs shall be permitted in the Historical District:
(1) One non-illuminated sign advertising the sale, lease, or rental
of the lot or building, said sign not exceeding six square feet in area.
(2) One sign per lot for churches, schools, apartment buildings,
boarding or lodging houses, libraries, and community centers, and historic
sites serving as identification and/or bulletin boards not to exceed twelve
square feet in area. The signs may be placed flat against the wall of the build-
ing or may be free-standing provided that it be no closer to any property line
than ten feet. Such signs may be illuminated provided the source of light
shall not be visible beyond the property line of the lot on which the sign is lo-
(3) A non-illuminated sign not more than 100 square feet in area
in connection with new construction work and displayed only during such time
as the actual construction work is in progress.
(4) One non-illuminated name plat designating the name of the oc-
cupant of the property; the name plate shall not be larger than 100 square inches
and may be attached to the dwelling or be free-standing except the top of a
free-standing name plate shall not be more than 18 inches above ground level.
(5) Municipal or state installed directional signs, historical mark-
ers and other signs of a general public interest when approved by the City
(6) Any accessory sign, attached to a building or free standing.
b. Signs generally The design and materials of all signs shall be
subject to approval by the Architectural Review Board.
SECTION 7. NON-CONFORMING USE OF BUILDINGS
A non-conforming building or structure may be used and maintained
as provided in this section.
a. Structural alterations additions:
(1) That in a non-conforming building or structure which is non-
conforming as to USE regulations, in addition to being non-conforming as to
other provisions) of this Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, no structural
alterations or additions shall be made.
(2) A building or structure non-conforming as to floor area ratio
and/or lot coverage shall not be structurally altered or added to.
(3) A building or structure non-conforming as to lot area may be
added to or structurally altered, provided that any additions shall conform
to the regulations of the zone in which it is located.
(4) A building or structure non-conforming as to height regula-
tions may be structurally altered and/or added to, provided any additions
shall conform to the regulations of the District in which located.
(5) A non-conforming building, non-conforming only as to the
yard regulations, may not be added to or enlarged in any manner, unless
the additions or enlargements conform to all the regulations of the zone in
which they are located.
b. Extension of Use:
The non-conforming use of a non-conforming building may be ex-
tended throughout any part of the building clearly designated for such use,
but not so used at the effective date of this ordinance.
c. Restoration of damaged buildings:
(1) A non-conforming building or structure which is damaged or
partially destroyed by fire, floor, wind, earthquake, or other calamity or
act of God or the public enemy, to the extend of not more than fifty percent
(50%) of its value at that time, may be restored and the occupancy or use of
such building, structure, or part thereof, which existed at the time of such
partial destruction, may be continued or resumed, provided restoration shall
be started within a period of six (6) months.
d. Continuation and Change of Use:
(1) The non-conforming use of a non-conforming building or struc-
ture may be continued, any non-conforming building or structure which was
designed and arranged, and which is used for a use not permitted within the
Historical District, shall be removed or it shall be altered and converted to
a conforming building or structure designed for and used for a use permitted
in the District in which it is located, within six (6) months after the termina-
tion of the respective periods of time set out hereinafter, such periods shall
be computed from the effective date of this Ordinance. The following are
hereby established as the reasonable periods for amortization of the normal,
useful life of each class of building and type of construction above the founda-
tions, said types of construction being as defined and specified in the Southern
Standard Building Code.
(a) Type I Fireproof Construction 25 years
(b) Type II Fire Resistive Construction 20 years
(c) Type III Heavy Timber Construction 15 years
(d) Type IV Non Combustible Frame
Construction 10 years
(e) Type V Ordinary Construction 10 years
(f) Type VI Wood Frame Construction 5 years
(2) The non-conforming use of a non-conforming building or struc-
ture may be replaced by a different use permissible in the same zoning dis-
trict as the original non-conforming use or a use in a more restricted zoning
district provided the change of use occurs within six (6) months. Any such
non-conforming building or structure which is vacant for a continuous period
of more than six (6) months shall not thereafter be occupied except by a use
which conforms to the use regulations of the zone in which such non-conform-
ing building is located.
SECTION 8. CONFORMING BUILDING OR STRUCTURES.
The non-conforming use of a conforming building or structure is provided
for in this Section.
a. Continuation and change of use.
(1) The non-conforming use of a conforming building or structure
may be continued, except that in the residential zones any non-conforming
commercial or industrial use of a residential building or residential accessory
building shall be discontinued within five (5) years of the effective date of this
(2) The non-conforming use of a conforming building or structure
may be replaced by a different use permissible in the same zoning district
as the original non-conforming use or a use in a more restricted zoning dis-
trict provided the change of use occurs within six (6) months.
b. Extension of use.
Any non-conforming use which occupies a portion of a conforming
building, shall not be extended to any other part of the building or extended
to occupy any land outside the building nor any additional building on the
SECTION 9. NON-CONFORMING USE OF LAND.
a. Continuation Limitation
(1) The non-conforming use of land shall be discontinued within
five (5) years from the date the use became non-conforming, in each of the
(a) Where no buildings are employed in connection with such
(b) Where the only buildings employed are accessory or in-
cidental to such use;
(c) Where such use is maintained in connection with a con-
(2) A non-conforming use of land which is accessory or inciden-
tal to the non-conforming use of a non-conforming building, shall be discon-
tinued on the same date the non-conforming use of the building is discontinued.
(3) Except as provided in paragraphs (1) and (2) above, the non-
conforming use of land may be continued, but shall be subject to the follow-
(a) Such use shall not be changed, except to a use which con-
forms to the regulations of the zone in which such land is located; and
(b) If such use is discontinued it shall not thereafter be re-
b. Extension of use
Such use shall not be expanded or extended in any way either on the
same or adjoining land.
c. Continuation of Signs Billboards
Any sign, billboard, commercial advertising structure or statuary
which lawfully existed and was maintained at the time this Article became ef-
fective, may be continued, although such structures do not conform to all the
provisions thereof; provided that no structural alterations are made thereto
and that all such non-conforming signs, billboards, commercial advertising
structures and statuary and their supporting members shall be completely re-
moved from the premises not later than two (2) years from the effective date
of this Ordinance.
SECTION 10. EXISTING USES.
Any lawful use of land or structure existing at the effective date of this
Ordinance, and which by its terms has become a non-conforming use, is
hereby declared not to be in violation at this Ordinance's effective date.
Such a non-conforming use shall be subject to all of the provisions of this
Ordinance pertaining to its continuance, change and discontinuance.
SECTION 11. ILLEGAL USE.
The casual, temporary, or illegal use of land, building or structure
shall not be sufficient to establish the existence of a non-conforming use or
to create any rights in the continuance of such use.
SECTION 12. NON-CONFORMING DUE TO CHANGES.
Whenever a building or structure or a use of a building, structure, or
land becomes non-conforming because of a change of zone or change in the
regulations, and a period of time is specified in this Section for the removal
of such non-conforming building, structure, or use, said period of time
shall be computed from the effective date of such change.
SECTION 13. FENCES.
a. Height of fences. In all zoning districts a fence no higher than
three (3) feet may be constructed and maintained within the front yard.
Fences may be built to a maximum of six feet on the side and to the rear
of the front yard setbad< line. Fences shall be permitted to the sidewalk,
or if there is no sidewalk, to the right-of-way line of a public street. Solid
fences on corner lots shall observe the minimum setback requirements if
the fence exceeds three (3) feet in height.
b. Fences generally. No chain link, concrete block or barbed wire
will be permitted. Approved materials will include but not necessarily be
limited to wood, brick, stone, and wrought iron. Fences are subject to
approval by the Architectural Review Board.
SECTION 14. HISTORICAL EXCEPTIONS.
No provision of this Ordinance shall be interpreted to prevent the restora-
tion or reconstruction of any historic building or feature (as listed by the Pensa-
cola Historical Restoration and Preservation Commission) in its original style,
dimensions or position, or on its original archeological foundations.
SECTION 15. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS.
The Zoning Board of Adjustment will hear and decide only such special ex-
ceptions as specifically authorized by the terms of this Ordinance; to decide
such questions as are involved in determining whether special exceptions should
be granted; and to grant special exceptions with such conditions and safeguards
as are appropriate under this ordinance, or to deny special exceptions when not
in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance. A special exception
shall not be granted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment unless and until:
a. A written application for a special exception is submitted indicating
the section of this Ordinance under which the special exception is sought and
stating the grounds on which it is requested.
b. Notice shall be given at least ten (10) days in advance of public hear-
ing. The owner of the property for which special exception is sought or his
agent shall be notified by mail. Notice of such hearings shall be posted on the
property for which special exception is sought, at the City Hall, and in one
other public place at least 10 days prior to the public hearing;
c. The public hearing shall be held. Any party may appear in person,
or by agent or attorney;
d. The Zoning Board of Adjustment shall make a finding that it is em-
powered under the section of this Ordinance described in the application to
grant the special exception, and that the granting of the special exception will
not adversely affect the public interest.
e. Before any special exception shall issue, the Board shall make writ-
ten findings certifying compliance with the specific rules governing individual
special exceptions and that satisfactory provision and arrangement has been
made concerning the following, where applicable:
(1) Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon
with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience,
traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe;
(2) Off-street parking and loading areas where required, with par-
ticular attention to the items in (1) above and the economic, noise, glare, or
odor effects of the special exception on adjoining properties and properties
generally in the district;
(3) Refuse and service areas, with particular reference to the
items in (1) and (2) above;
(4) Utilities, with reference to locations, availability, and com-
(5) Screening and buffering with reference to type, dimension,
(6) Signs, if any, and proposed exterior lighting with reference
to glare, traffic safety, economic effect, and compatibility and harmony with
properties in the district;
(7) Requi red yards and other open space;
(8) Use compatibility with adjacent properties and other property
in the district.
f. Procedure for Review. Any person aggrieved by a decision of
the Board, may, within 15 days thereafter, apply to the Council of the City
of Pensacola for review of the Board's decision. He shall file with the
City Manager a written notice requesting the Council to review said decision.
ARTICLE III Adopted: 11/14/68
/s/ Charles Soule
/s/ Kenneth K. Conrey
Legal in form and valid if enacted:
/s/ Dave Caton
THE CITY OF PENSACOLA'S
REZONING REQUEST APPLICATION PROCEDURES
1. Petitioner submits a letter to the Director of Planning, stating: (1)
a legal description of the property; (2) existing zoning; (3) desired
zoning; and (4) reason for rezoning request.
2. A non-refundable fee of $100 shall be paid to the City at the time said
rezoning application is made to cover the administrative, advertising
and mailing costs of processing same.
3. The City Planning Board cannot legally approve "spot zoning" and
discourages zoning for speculation. If the rezoning request is for
speculation, the potential buyer should have an option on the land and
a specific use in mind.
4. It is advantageous for the petitioner to obtain a signed petition from the
property owners within a five hundred (500) foot radius of the property
to be rezoned, indicating they do not object to the proposed zoning
5. The Planning Board meets on the first Thursday of each month. Re-
zoning requests should be submitted no later than 5:00 p.m. of the
6. The petitioner or a representative is required to be present at the Plan-
ning Board meeting, as the Planning Board will not consider applications
7. The Planning Board's recommendation to either approve or deny the
rezoning request will be submitted to the City Council not later than
sixty (60) days after submission of the application to the City Planning
8. The Planning Board Secretary will then review the Planning Board's
recommendation to approve or deny the request with the Planning and
Zoning Committee of City Council.
9. When City Council calls a public hearing, everyone within five hundred
(500) feet of the boundaries of the area to be rezoned are notified by
mail and invited to appear to register their approval or objection, if so
desired. If more than 20% of the notified property owners object by
petition submitted 48 hours prior to the Council meeting, eight (8)
Council votes are required to approve the request. Otherwise, six (6)
votes are a majority to approve the change.
10. If City Council approves the rezoning request at the public hearing,
an ordinance is drawn and read at two separate meetings following the
public hearing. The rezoning is then effective immediately after the
second reading of the ordinance.
11. Minimum time required for the total rezoning process is 90 days.
FOR OFFICIAL SIGNS IN
THE SEVILLE SQUARE
The mission of signs erected by governmental agencies in the District is to
communicate with and be helpful to the visitor with a minimum of detraction
from the restored nineteenth-century environment that is the District goal.
A uniform signing system helps give order and unity to the District, and
its proper use helps minimize the number of signs. Necessary signs should
communicate concisely and with dignity and become the signature and
authority of the District. They provide continuity of image throughout the
An effective uniform signing system includes specific designs, styles,
shapes, sizes, typefaces, colors, construction, and symbols with universal
understanding. The components and finished signs must harmonize with the
environment and yet motivate the visitor. They must be warm and human
rather than impose upon the visitor.
The signing system in this manual attempts to cover most of the signs
necessary for the area as a living part of the City or which are part of the
interpretative effort of the Historical District. However, other needs will arise
and additional pages for this manual are anticipated.
This manual also includes the regulations for commercial signs in the
District, under the direct supervision of the City of Pensacola's Architectural
Review Board. These regulations have been supplemented by some examples
of appropriate commercial signs, which in some cases, can actually enrich
the historical atmosphere of the District rather than detract from it. Imple-
mentation of both programs is a vital element in creating an historical
district which will merit the respect of both the visitor and the professional
Thlii' Iubllit lti t n \\ s I lt v hloatI d l I M pi lisht d biy ti le lP' nstcl:l.I-l -s;i m lh; Dl v lop1thn1nt .',m'lnlissionn. a ijint nc.v a lil thlt' _'ity
"Il IPl .nsi I ol; ri l l.:n .: ("ii i,1i Co'iuntI*?%. illn o ,pr, ion iti ll ith I l istl uric IPel' ns l.Ic I re'rvatiti n Hlia rdl. ;t Fhl ridl; st;.tt o n enc".. and;
t lI .\ArIl it*'ctl I '1 i('l \ I l ;Irdl l t 11. 'it(.t of l'lnsir l +;i. (-'npT)l ri llht. 1i97::. 1 l'I, a l.ucI o l':s;um li;i I )c've tl pmn1( 'lt .Co illnm ission.
1. All official signs will be authorized, created,
erected, and maintained by the City of Pensacola
or the Historic Pensacola Preservation Board. No
other governmental agency, organization, or individ-
ual has authority to erect any other sign of an
official nature or to alter, deface, remove, or destroy
a sign erected under this system, subject to legal
action by the City of Pensacola.
2. Official signs may be suggested or requested by
letter to the Director, Historic Pensacola Preserva-
tion Board, 200 E. Zaragoza Street, Pensacola,
Florida, 32501. Other communications concerning
official signs should be made to the Director, also.
3. All official signs remain the property of the
City of Pensacola or the Historic Pensacola Pres-
ervation Board, as the case may be, even if erected
on private property, and are subject to the regula-
tions in this manual.
4. The Historic Pensacola Preservation Board,
through its staff, will establish (1) a periodic system
of inspection of all official signs for maintenance,
proper information, and replacement as needed and
(2) an annual review of the entire system to evaluate
need for both existing signs and additional signs.
5. A committee will be appointed by the chairman
of the Historic Pensacola Preservation Board to
establish a specific schedule and content for signs
for this program, to plan funding for such a
schedule and its maintenance, and to carry out the
intent and spirit of the program as outlined in this
manual. The committee will seek professional
design services provided by the Pensacola-Escambia
Development Commission as needed and will keep
liaison with the Pensacola Architectural Review
Board as necessary to control the various signs of
all types within the Historical District.
6. In no case will the building, lettering, erection,
repair, maintenance, or alteration of the signs in
this program be carried out by personnel other than
experienced carpenters or cabinet makers, sign
letterers or commercial artists. Labor by lay per-
sonnel or personnel not specifically qualified for
such work will render the program ineffective and
an embarrassment to the entire restoration move-
ment in Pensacola.
Type Style for Letters
-Type style for all lettering is Clarendon, an old,
well-established typeface, unaffected and easy to
read. The example below is a modified version of
Clarendon upper case letters, which will be used
on all street signs. This is the only modified use of
the Clarendon face in this manual. All other
lettering will be rendered in Clarendon Italic and/or
Clarendon Italic shaded.
-The three colors for sign faces are brown (base
color), white (for lettering and trim), and black (for
shading and trim). These colors can be used to
minimize disturbing or unnatural qualities intro-
duced by signs, yet can enhance legibility and target
value. Letters and sign borders will be white on a
brown background, with black shading as desirable.
A paint sample of the official brown is below. It can
be matched exactly by Merritt Paint Company in
Pensacola, and it is recommended that several
gallons be stocked by the Historic Pensacola Pres-
ervation Board for use by signpainters. Standard
printing sample for this color is PMS-463. Match-
ing paper stock is Strathmore Grandee (Cordoba
A modification of the standard
city street sign will be used in
the Historic District. The
shaded Clarendon lettering will
be furnished to the 3M
Company, which supplies the
sign material. The existing steel
posts will either be painted
brown to match the sign or
possibly encased with a wood
sleeve as illustrated-which-
ever method is determined to
be most practicable.
Sign Face Materials
-The basic sign materials are woods-
either cypress or fir.
Clarendon Italic is to be used on all hand-
lettered signs. The Clarendon Italic shaded
will be used on sizes as indicated on the first
two lines of the sign illustrated below. In
sizes smaller than that illustrated on the
opposite page, the approved form is Claren-
don Italic without shading, for ease of
lettering and economy.
Signs previously shown can be mounted by
A Here, this 19" x 15" sign is mounted on a 30" cypress
or fir post (embedded in poured concrete to prevent theft).
SThis 30" x 24" sign is mounted on twin wood posts and
is appropriate for marking such sites as the British
Kitchen Foundation in the southwest corner of Seville
Square. Any sign smaller than this would not be visually
C Here, the 19" x 15" sign is embedded in a brick column
to show the size relationship between the bricks and
the 19" x 15" sign.
L- 1 il
This shows how a 19" x 15" sign
can be placed in relationship
to the building it identifies.
The sketches on these two pages
indicate other ways
of positioning signs in
relation to the structures
they identify. Each case
is determined by the
appearance, scale, and
positioning of the house
on its lot.
-This is the actual size reproduction
of a typical house number sign.
The numerals on the opposite page
are to be used as approved 'examples
of the Clarendon typeface.
The sketch below indicates one way
to position the house number at
an entrance. Care should be taken
not to shield the house number
with shrubbery, lights, porch columns,
or any other element.