
Statler Nominated to Endangered Historic Places List

Comments
Leave a commentPBN has made the correct move here. Get the building recognized and protected and more attractive for future development. The Higgins idea is rash and premature, and it has been presented without any substantial explanation of how this building could be tailored to use as a modern academic facility. I don't see it how can... without permanent damage to its architectural and stylistic integrity. I hope UB holds firm and walks away from this shortsighted idea.
well not exactly, eric oak. the 10 most endangered list may draw attention and i hope it does, but it carries no protection whatsoever. it would have been a better use of scarce time and energy for pbn to apply for city of buffalo landmark status, which actually offers meaningful protections.
You're right, without local designation there is no protection except from possible undertakings completed or funded by the state/federal governments, but recognition is important. My greatest fear is that the deterioration of the building will increase exponentially once the heating system is shuttered. The building's condition is not dire, but give it a bit of time unheated and you'll see some true issues, soon enough there will be vandalism and water infiltration and your project costs will balloon out of hand, leading to further neglect and ultimate demolition.
Yes, you're right. But I believe that PBN is also looking toward that designation, and having the federal stamp will make the Statler an obvious choice for more protection.
I feel the same way. The Statler has low ceiling heights, iffy floorplates, and if truly protected, there won't be any way to make meaningful exterior alterations such as larger windows and ground level refrontage. I think it's a bad fit for institutional users. Hotel/residential is the best and highest use for this structure and it really can't be too difficult to swing once the economy improves and people are ready to reinvest. if the Statler languishes another ten years, that's the time to look at outlying uses.
Let's hope it's not ten years. Central Terminal was still in decent shape in 1986, open and functioning, albeit barely, as an office building.
Agreed. The Statler will have a new life and UB doesn't have to rush in to save it.
Is'nt the Richardson Towers on the list? or was last year? I know it's great that they are working on it, but it's such a SLOW Process.
The Richardson Buildings have been saved. Restoration is moving forward.
As far as the Statler goes, I think PBN has made a good move. Let others renovate it. Not UB.
UB has a good plan for the Main Street campus, and if it proceeds it can help turn that part of Main Street into a real nice college community.
Hard to believe it's not yet on the National Register. The fact Issa didn't submit the Part I nomination reflects on how poorly prepared he was to undertake its redevelopment.
If the National Trust agrees to include it on its list of most endangered buildings, it will be the preservation equivalent of the FBI's 10 most wanted list. No guaranty of success, but more developers around the country will become aware of the opportunity.
I respect Rocco, but the first floor is made for grand events like wedding receptions and parties. The building can function very well as class B office space, apartments and condos, and perhaps a few floors for hotel rooms, depending on how well all the new and proposed hotel rooms are absorbed.
Buffalo's hotel occupancy rate is around 65% right now which is higher than the national rate of about 52%. Buffalo is not the problem when you think about why a developer might struggle getting financing to redo the Statler as a hotel. But 65% is indeed too low for most lenders who like to see the rates a bit higher. Erie County rates are around 70% which is very good. I'm just puzzled that the Statler sits there empty when the marketplace can absorb 200+ rooms fairly easily.
>The Higgins idea is rash and premature,
It's actually a very old and good idea. From 1887-1973 (for 70% of its history) UB Law *was* downtown in various locations, sometimes within spitting distance of the Statler. In fact the *debate* is an old one! The University Council considered moving the school to the Main Street Campus, and nixed the idea. . .get this. . .in 1948! Some old timers still chafe at the idea of being in Amherst, away from the synergy of the downtown legal world. Many feel that UB Law's strong regional reputation comes from this downtown heritage.
Here's an idea. Not a penny of public funds (i.e., from the state government, city government, UB, etc.) goes towards restoration of Statler Towers. Make it or break it on private funds alone. Then wait a couple of years for nothing to happen, and then tear it down. Plant some grass on the footprint and wait for a project with some major backing and finances (nothing wrong with having another little park downtown to eat your lunch at for a few years). Problem solved. You're welcome. Next problem.....
The Statler is irreplaceable. It will be redeveloped, and it will almost surely use both state and federal historic credits. Look at the masterworks of Niagara Square - the Statler Towers (1923), & City Hall (1929). Look at the other substantial buildings - One Niagara Square (1924), Buffalo Athletic Club (1924) and the Federal Court Bldg (1936). Then look at the City Court Bldg (1974) and the new Federal Court House under construction. Do you notice a pattern? In a 100 years, the City Court building will be long gone, and no one will care. The Statler will still be standing as a reminder of a time when businessmen in Buffalo "made no small plans" and when buildings were built by craftsmen.
Why do you think that developers like Rocco become almost religious fanatics about preservation - believing that almost everything can and should be saved? Hint - it's not because there is less risk in preservation, and it's not because there is greater profit.
Here's my thought - attaching yourself to the great architects, the master builders and craftsmen of previous generations and faithfully restoring their vision for future generations provides a connection between the past and the future that is food for the soul.
I forgot already. What problem did you solve?
Reply to skarnath,
I agree with most everything you said about the masterworks of the pre-1940 buildings on Niagara Square (and in fact buildings in the downtown area in general). I couldn't agree more with what you said about the great architecture of previous generations bridging the past and future. But I disagree completely that the Statler Towers belongs in that revered group of buildings. (I've already stated this elsewhere a few times), but in my opinion I think that Statler Towers is basically an ugly building, I also think that it's incongruous with the rest of Niagara Square, and finally I believe that it would be way too expensive to restore. Moreover, I think that it's an albatross to the preservationists and "rebuilders" of downtown Buffalo, and that in times of economic "war" you really need to pick your battles, since all battles cannot be won, and this battle should not be fought. Also, I didn't like the comment at the end of your post.
Leave a comment
Sponsor
Recent Comments
Sponsor
Interested in advertising on BuffaloRising?
E-mail John C. Powell
or call John at 716.602.0200




Perhaps this is an oversite, but did Bit's pretty funny that both Reps. Lee and Slaughter were busy writing letters to get some traction on this building, while Higgins spends his time grandstanding to shame UB into saving what he can't.
Step up your game, Higgy Bear...if you're going to spend your time deal making with collins and brown, at least get something tangible accomplished.