The October issue of Metropolis magazine focuses a bit of attention on Buffalo and on the Martin House complex in particular. The magazine has some nice things to say about the City of Buffalo, and they also offer a philosophical question to ponder.
Karrie Jacobs notes Buffalo's glorious past and precipitous fall from grace, writing, "...the Buffalo I found when I finally made my first trip there this summer was a pretty and vibrant place." She made her way around city and complimented the many restored buildings, took note of the "luxuriant back yards" of Garden Walk and praised the "extraordinary Western New York artists" shown at the Burchfield Penny. Once again Buffalo as a whole gets some very good national press, even though the focus of her story had to do with the newly restored Martin House complex designed by Frank Lloyd Wright.
She praises the new Toshiko Mori designed visitor center and the extraordinary quality of the Martin House restoration, but notes that she is troubled by the reconstruction of demolished buildings. She poses this quandary: "Once a landmark piece of architecture is gone, is it better to re-create it, or let its absence tell the story? Does re-created experience trump the value of authenticity?" She notes that she understands the urge to replace the missing buildings but states, "there is something weirdly soulless about the freshly-minted historic structures."
I found myself straddling the fence on this issue, so I started setting some rules to allow myself to determine what I think is the correct approach to restoration and reconstruction. I am not the only one to do this. Professional restoration designers, historians, and organizations have rigorous standards to inform the best course of action when proceeding with restoration and replacement of historic architecture. This is such a big issue that I can't possibly cover it adequately here--and this is not just a Buffalo issue.
As I write, the Greeks are reconstructing the Parthenon with new marbles being carved on-site, in the manner done thousands of years ago. As well, thousands of less spectacular building restorations depend on our ability to recreate missing pieces such as moldings, windows, and carvings. Architecture is an art, but it is also more than an art. It forms the backdrop for our lives and is the product of an architect's talents, but also that of many craftsmen and laborers. Deciding what to replace in a restoration is a delicate balance between bringing back the space and experience and creating a pretense.
In the case of the Martin House, I believe that the Restoration Corporation is doing it just right. They rebuilt the missing buildings based on vast amounts of photographic and written documentation, including the actual construction drawings and the record of actual historic materials. They did not proceed with portions of the work until they had sources for materials that exactly matched original material. They were also not replacing an entire building in a different location. This project put back a missing part of an existing building, a part that was integral to the experience of the whole building. The Martin House was a shallow echo of what it was intended to be without the pergola, garage, and conservatory that were recently reconstructed. In this case, perhaps I am influenced by the selfish joy I get from being able to visit these buildings that should never have been removed. Also, when it came to building the new visitor center on the Martin House campus, the Restoration Corporation did not commission a fake Wright building or one that mimicked the original. They built instead a boldly contemporary structure that compliments the original.
Buffalo has built 2 other new "Wright" buildings in recent years (a mausoleum in Forest Lawn and a boat house on the Black Rock Canal), and plans another. But these cannot accurately be called Wright designed buildings. They are more accurately called buildings based on Wright concepts. These buildings were developed from concept sketches and drawings not fully detailed by Wright. Wright was notorious for changing a building design as it was being built, often taking down portions that did not satisfy his goals. He joked that his favorite design tools were a sledgehammer and a crow bar. These resultant contemporary, new Wright buildings did not benefit form his presence during construction, and they contain many interpretations and outright changes based on contemporary needs and budgets. They are attractive and interesting to see, but fall in a much fuzzier area of the architectural moral code. Should they have been built? Again my selfishness kicks in and enjoys the ability to experience them, not so much for their Wright-ness, but for what they provide as a place to be.
Then there is Canal Side; it is big in the news these days as detailed plans have been revealed for a potentially spectacular project. This major development project was born in controversy over reproduction versus restoration of an original part of the Erie Canal. Thankfully the real canal was restored and will form the seed of a redeveloped waterfront. The irony here is that the real canal will be surrounded by buildings that seek to recreate a historic-feeling canal village that was cleared off the earth decades ago in favor of parking.
The new project does not seek to rebuild exact copies of historic buildings from which we can learn something about canal era Buffalo. Rather, the new plan calls for new historic-ish architecture. The proposed urban design thinking evident in the many lavish renderings showing complex urban spaces is beautiful and compelling. The architecture with its interpretation of an olden-days canal town inside a modern city is far less so. In my opinion, we miss a great opportunity at this location when we ban the inclusion of contemporary buildings expressive of contemporary thinking and technology in architecture. To do "pretend history" here, with warehousey, lofty-like, old-timey-looking mill buildings, where everything from the canal era was wiped away decades ago, seems silly to me. Don't get me wrong--I want this to be built and believe it will be very good for Buffalo. But I think it is odd to build fake history here, especially when you realize that just one block east of Canal Side is a block containing the last remaining REAL canal era buildings. And they are in danger.
These
buildings--that are authentically historic--are currently being allowed to
crumble from disinvestment and neglect. They are in the area shown on the Canal
Side plans label as the Cobblestone Loft District. Most of this
"Cobblestone" district currently consists of massive asphalt parking
lots. A small patch of Buffalo's earliest industrial history remains in
the Cobblestone District and can still be saved. Perhaps we can head off this
question of architectural mortality and morality in the future. If we
save the buildings with real history we won't have to worry about replacing
them with fakes in the future.
Elena, another good article. I'm very disappointed how the Skyway Side project has evolved. It's going to be a gimmicky mall. Instead of working with existing buildings and encouraging organic infill, they are pushing an 'experience' on the public. The Erie Canal history museum? Gone. Fishing for carp at an outdoor tank to placate BassPro? No problem.
Their plan also mentioned that they will build it as market conditions warrant. With Buffalo's demographics, what national retailer will locate at the waterfront other than a Starbuck's or a Jamba Juice huddled next to BassPro? Consequently, how quickly will development actually occur? How can it occur in a shrinking population?
The build-anything-build-it-now crowd will surely be pleased but the new car smell will wear off quickly and Buffalo will be stuck with a lemon unless drastic changes are made.
I meant Steel not Elena. (Elena, you have good articles, too.) Now, time for coffee.
Paul, I think Canal Side is meant to be a regional attraction, so the demographics of the city of Buffalo itself are not really an issue, any more than the demographics of Cheektowaga (per capita income of $19,627) are an issue for the Walden Galleria. Did you have the same objections ("how can it occur in a shrinking population?") to the Galleria's expansion, which seems to have been quite successful?
I think if done right, this could be just as successful as the Galleria. Look how many Canadians come to the Galleria to shop. Given the choice, I'm sure many would be just as willing to shop at Canal Side (it's certainly closer to Fort Erie).
I too have some misgivings about the "outdoor mall" emphasis of Canal Side. I hope it ends up as much more than that. But how can it be bad for the city to redirect some suburban and out-of-town shoppers into the city? It will bring people downtown and increase the city's tax base.
The Walden Galleria took market share from other malls. Remember Como Mall? Remember Thruway Mall? It reshuffled the deck and added modern amenities, but it's not a regional attraction any more than Boulevard Mall was in the 1970s. (Canadians shopped there at that time.)
National retailers are very wary of leasing space in tourist areas, like Skyway Side, because retailers want a dedicated customer base. Foot traffic at tourist areas fluctuates wildly.
Well, competition's not a bad thing. (Although you can make a valid argument that public funds should not be subsidizing one retailer at the expense of others.)
I will not cry any tears if Canal Side takes market share from the Walden Galleria. If we can start bringing retail and people back towards the regional core it may help curb the sprawl without population growth that is so devastating to our region.
You're assuming that retail will be brought back to the retail core. There is no evidence or reason for it to happen. No national retailer is going to give up their space at Walden Galleria to relocate at Skyway Side until BassPro proves itself as a true destination that can bring in guaranteed -- and monied -- foot traffic. Food court tenants will probably appear near BassPro, though.
I agree with you, and the "until" part isn't even needed.
Walden Galleria with convenience of 200+ stores, many prominent national retailers, and being all indoors for year round shopping... will be preferable over the waterfront for almost all retailers even if Bass Pro does great.
I doubt that downtown and the waterfront combined will even become the top retail district in the city. North Buffalo will be. Home Depot, Target, Kohls, Marshalls, and about I'd guess about 50 other stores mostly along Delaware (without needing help from Larry Quinn and Jordan Levy).
A. The success of Bass Pro has been well demonstrated and other retailers are well aware of its drawing power. Because it is a unique retail environment and not the usual big boxes in a sea of parking, don't expect Kohls or Target to seek or receive any invitation to open in Canalside.
B. The success of Canalside cannot be measured by whether it enables Downtown to overtake other retail centers in the metro, but whether other kinds of developments piggyback onto Canalside which would in turn, reenergize Downtown with new housing, restaurants, galleries, etc. That is why it is getting EZ financing to begin with! If it were any other kind of cookie-cutter shopping center with little else to offer than cheap towels, there would be far less public backing. If Canalside's $300 million investment spurred another $3 billion in new development Downtown over its life, would you still be whining? Actually, yes you would.