Get Hold of Yourself. It's One Building.

Destiny

February 20, 2010 11:36 PM

Thats an interesting building. We dont often get to see the Main/Genessee Side of the building (and I can see where EM Statler allowed for future expansion)

I agree and I dont think the Statler will be idle much longer. There are to many things in play downtown and they all have finish dates. I expect the Statler to be the priority project once the current downtown projects finish.

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

jstraubinger

February 21, 2010 12:27 AM

The Statler will be back. However, I wish they wouldn't have boarded up the windows on the street level. There are a number of buildings on Main St. that are empty that have displays in the ground level window area. How about filling up the ground window space of the Statler with pictures of the building during the various decades since it was built.

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

chris_hawley

February 21, 2010 1:33 AM

Boarding the Statler is a huge mistake. This was never done at AM&A's and it's been vacant for more than ten years.

The boards are a blight and they are unnecessary and harmful to the asset. They create an image of vacancy and thereby increase the likelihood that the building will be vandalized. With no opportunity for pedestrian onlookers to view inside from Delaware Avenue or Niagara Square, a thief can spend hours taking "souvenirs" from the landmark structure and get away with it.

The boards need to be taken off and curtains need to be placed in the windows to create an image of occupancy. This is a disgrace.

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

Platt4

February 21, 2010 1:43 AM

Tell that to your boss.

[ Reply ]

replied to chris_hawley

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

whatever

February 21, 2010 3:11 PM

What does his boss (Mayor Brown, if I'm not mistaken) have to do with it? The Statler isn't owned by the city government. Mayors aren't dictators over everything that happens inside city limits. A federal bankruptcy court judge is overseeing what happens at the Statler.

[ Reply ]

replied to Platt4

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

LouisTully

February 21, 2010 4:30 AM

I'm not an architecture critic but comparing the AM&A's building to the Statler seems a bit like apples and oranges. That building looks like comparing a Best Buy to the Gugenheim.

[ Reply ]

replied to chris_hawley

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

Daniel Sack

February 21, 2010 11:42 AM

Chris - why curtains?

How about organizing volunteers to clean all the rooms viewable from the sidewalk. Get nice used office furniture donated to place in the rooms. Lights on at night, and we will really have an "image of occupancy". Curtains will hide the view from the sidewalk of potential scavengers.

[ Reply ]

replied to chris_hawley

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

Chris

February 21, 2010 8:58 AM

I'm not sure why all of the ruckus. We are much closer to having a solution for the Statler than we were a year ago. The place is a mess when it was operating. It is a mess now. There is no reason why someone couldn't come in purchase and rehab the building.

Credit is still very tight, but it will subside and someone will tackle this...

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

northbuff

February 21, 2010 9:13 AM

It will happen.
If the Lafayette and AM&A's are doable so will the Statler. With the building being completely empty now, it will make it easier for a developer. Boarding it up will help, with a new court house and convention center next door there will be many eager to see it's complete restoration.

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

Greg Blakowski

February 21, 2010 10:45 AM

I recall, a few year back, there was a lot of discussion about building a larger convention center. The thought was, that the existing convention center was to small, and in order to attract larger more significant conventions more space was needed. I believe the answer is less that fifty feet away for our existing center. There is plenty of square footage on the first few floors of the Statler, along with magnificent banquet facilities. It would not take much engineering to construct a walkway or tunnel from the Statler to the center. Eventually many of the hotel room could be renovated making the entire complex ideal for major conventions, Summer or Winter.

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

Max

February 21, 2010 1:35 PM

Very good point; it is just one building, albeit a prominent one. We've all seen buildings in this town disappear overnight that other communities would die to have in their midst.

I don't want to see the old girl go either and think the plywood is a shabby approach to mothballing her but we'll have to get used to it until demand for the Statler's many assets is recognized.

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

JohnMarko

February 21, 2010 2:45 PM

That is quite an ignorant statement you posted.

It is not "just one building" and your advocating to tear it down - or not even get upset should it be torn down - is very disturbing.

This is one of THE MAJOR historic buildings of Buffalo - in a city that doesn't have many.

I've read many ignorant things on this site - but your's is currently the worst.

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

whatever

February 21, 2010 3:18 PM

Bini makes sense. I understand some people don't like how plywood looks. But even considering that, there was a lot of pointless drama in comments of that previous post.

"Its now official, we are no better than Detroit. Way to go Buffalo!"
"we have to be better than WB Pa. !!!"
"Great! We now look exactly like DETROIT!!!!"

It's a building designed for 1920's hotel standards, and for which evidently there's no serious demand in the private sector for now due to many reasons - its interior design, age, lack of close parking, long term weakness of the local economy, etc. Maybe serious demand will appear sooner or later, and maybe it won't. We'll see.

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

NBuffguy

February 21, 2010 6:24 PM

This is not "just one building." This is a building that takes up an entire city block, and a very prominent block at that. The Statler is visible on the skyline and from many parts across the city. If the Statler stays vacant for a decade, as this article suggests, that would have a devastating impact on our city's national image. It's impact on downtown Buffalo will be AT LEAST as significant as the Genesee "gateway" block renovation will be. Win some and lose some, I suppose.

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

whatever

February 22, 2010 12:00 AM

NBGuy>"If the Statler stays vacant for a decade, as this article suggests, that would have a devastating impact on our city's national image."

Devastaing impact on national image? We'll see, but I don't think Statler's emptiness (or demo when that happens some day - it probably won't stand til the end of time) would have any noticible impact at all on Buffalo's national image.

What % of people outside of Buffalo even know about it? I'd say far less than 1%.

[ Reply ]

replied to NBuffguy

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

NBuffguy

February 22, 2010 5:16 AM

People outside of Buffalo may not know the Statler by name, but anyone who visits Buffalo and makes the once-around at Niagara Square won't be able to help but notice the "mothballed" building. My point was that we have all been excited about the reno of the "Genny block" because it will go a long way to make a good first impression to people entering our city from the Kensington Expressway. What kind of impression do you think a vacant Statler Tower will make? Because FIRST impressions get you only so far.

[ Reply ]

replied to whatever

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

whatever

February 22, 2010 11:37 PM

NBGuy>"What kind of impression do you think a vacant Statler Tower will make?"

Visitors who are realistic grown-ups might keep things in perspective and realize it's difficult to keep old buildings in use forever until the end of time, especially in a Rust Belt city with a stagnant economy. They might use that perspective to not let the sight of the vacant Statler dominate their opinion of Buffalo as a whole.

Some visitors who aren't realistic grown-ups might flip out when they see plywood, and to those few people it could have a devistating impact on THEIR image of Buffalo. If they're that superficial, they'd likely see other things here that would give them the same impression anyway.

Regardless, your previous comment that the Statler can have a "devastating impact on our city's national image" still sounds wrong. National image isn't the same thing as what some visitors think.

[ Reply ]

replied to NBuffguy

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

Dan

February 21, 2010 7:06 PM

In addition to what previous owners said, the closure of the Statler here brings up images of the Statler in Detroit, which sat vacant and decaying for three decades before it was demolished (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit_Statler_Hotel). It feels as if we're one step closer to being like Detroit.

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

STEEL

February 21, 2010 7:21 PM

Detroit is a very different place. That city has scores of buildings this size and vintage which have sat vacant for a generation and more. They have trees growing form the roof and are visible on every downtown street with no plan other than demolition. a big one is currently being brought down across from the newly renovated Book Cadilac. That renovation was a monumental feat and is unlikely to be repeated in teh near future in Detroit

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

ladyflash

February 22, 2010 9:43 AM

Yes, the Statler is just one building - as are the others that you listed. The distinction as between the Statler and the rest of the buildings is that it sits in Niagara Square - the epicenter of our city. The fact that it is (temporarily) vacant isn't as troubling as the fact that they boarded it up. What does it say to visitors when we take them to the CENTER OF OUR CITY and show them the beautiful City Hall, THE BAC building, federal and state buildings, Niagara Square itself, a new federal Courthouse, and then oh look at The Statler with the plywood. I am a docent for Buffalo Tours and I will frankly have a hard time spinning that into a positive - despite being able to spin a lot of things into a positive :-(

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

skarnath

February 22, 2010 9:59 AM

Although I'm not a fan of boarding the building, I think Bob offers reassurance that the building is in no near-term (or even long-term) danger of being lost. It will be be redeveloped - it simply needs the right developer with the right plan (of course that's easier said than done). The building next to Artspace is vacant, and has been for years. The boards were painted a few years ago (I think David Torke helped organize the effort). Some creative painting would probably help the Statler.

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

Roy

February 22, 2010 3:22 PM

I heard the plan is that the plywood is getting painted as part of the Powder Keg Festival

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

suburban_hillbilly

February 22, 2010 3:50 PM

If size matters, the Statler is of greater significance than the comparsions in the article.

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

loftyview

February 22, 2010 5:05 PM

This post encapsulates perfectly the childishly blind optimism that's so common here at BR. The only hysterical thing I see is the self-deluding notion that having a hugely important city block occupied by a crumbling, decrepit hulk of a building (one that, I might add, happens to be perfectly emblematic of what Buffalo used to be) is no big deal. It is a big deal. And it should be a wake up call for everyone marching happily to the tune of BR and its boosters.

There are SERIOUS problems around here and looking at them through your rose colored glasses is, while comforting, not the way to go about making them better.

/rant/

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

queenie

February 22, 2010 9:24 PM

Yes, loftyview, it is an enormously big deal. Very, very depressing, downtown Buffalo. No signficant street life (you could roll a bowling ball down most Buffalo streets and not even hit a cat); no meaningful pedestrian activity; parking lots everywhere and some here say that the Statler doesn't have enough nearby parking. Fantasyland-like posts about a downtown revival. Based upon what? Half the land is vacant.

[ Reply ]

replied to loftyview

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

whatever

February 22, 2010 11:47 PM

I agree the posts about downtown revival usually sound like fantasy.

But the Statler doesn't have enough nearby parking if a new owner ever wants to fill it with tenants. Suppose it's converted to 500 upscale lofts or condos. How many yuppies paying steep rent or buying an expensive condo would be willing to park their expensive cars some distance away? Even Bashar Issa realized that and reportedly was investigating whether he could build underground parking below Niagara Square.

[ Reply ]

replied to queenie

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

Armchair MBA

February 23, 2010 8:41 AM

Considering all of the challenges facing the Statler, Id say parking would be the easiest fix. There is plenty of space for garage parking along Huron between Delaware and Main. Last I saw these were "shovel ready" sites and on the market so acquiring them shouldnt be an issue.

[ Reply ]

replied to whatever

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

Armchair MBA

February 23, 2010 8:35 AM

queenie>"Fantasyland-like posts about a downtown revival. Based upon what?"

I would base it on roughly 10 years of solid progress. Many of downtown's buildings once considered obsolete have been rebuilt and converted to other uses so something similar happening to the statler doesnt seem out of the question. Downtown isnt all that it can be but, due to a steady revival, it certainly is much better than it was a decade ago.

Dont forget, a lot of people thought it was "fantasy" that new life would come to a hulking, vacant building that the federal government thought was a lost cause. Now look at it.

http://avantbuffalo.com/

[ Reply ]

replied to queenie

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

ReginaldQMerriweatherIV

February 23, 2010 1:47 PM

The Avant was only made possible by roughly $50 million dollars in subsidies.

[ Reply ]

replied to Armchair MBA

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

Armchair MBA

February 24, 2010 2:05 PM

That isnt unreasonable considering the cost to retrofit the existing structure and the potential cost of demolition. Either way the public is getting a sound return on their investment.

http://www.buffalonews.com/2009/12/05/883702/assessment-going-up-for-many-city.html

Three quarters of the way down: "Among the largest would be the new Avant Building at Delaware Avenue and West Huron Street. A developer has turned the former Dulski Federal Office Building into a mixed-use project. The assessment has increased to $36.5 million, up from just over $2 million before the rehabilitation."

That is a 34 million dollar boost to assessed value of the city. Not to mention added bed tax revenue and a much more aesthetically pleasing structure.

[ Reply ]

replied to ReginaldQMerriweatherIV

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

whatever

February 24, 2010 9:06 PM

pitbull>"That is a 34 million dollar boost to assessed value of the city."

I doubt $34M is actual net growth to the tax base as a whole in the long run. If many of its tenants chose it instead of other locations here, then some other assessments might have long term decline as a result.

It's very different from real growth that can happen by attracting a companies to be here that sell products or services to customers outside of the area. That grows the local taxbase by bringing economic activity that otherwise wouldn't be here.

[ Reply ]

replied to Armchair MBA

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

Armchair MBA

February 24, 2010 9:24 PM

For now 34 million is 34 million.

If it makes you feel better, the hotel portion does sell goods and services to people outside the area which adds to the local tax base.

[ Reply ]

replied to whatever

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

whatever

February 24, 2010 10:13 PM

Those guests would come here anyway, so it doesn't grow the amount of goods/services sold here to those outside the area.

It's similar to taxpayer help from BERC to Empire Grill, for example. Someone could narrowly look at that business alone and claim some tax base growth. But looking at a wider picture that doesn't hold up.

[ Reply ]

replied to Armchair MBA

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

sonyactivision

February 25, 2010 12:16 AM

That's nonsense. Hotel guests are very brand sensitive and if they had a good experience with a branded property in one city, they will seek out the same wherever else they travel. Not to mention the loyalty programs and other inducements. So if someone visiting the area wanted to stay at an Embassy Suites two years ago, where would they wind up? The Hyatt? Or someplace along the Thruway? Getting branded chains Downtown is a big deal even if you think their guests would have just stayed around the corner. The Avant IS 'growing the pie'.

[ Reply ]

replied to whatever

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

Armchair MBA

February 25, 2010 6:43 AM

Whatever>"Those guests would come here anyway, so it doesn't grow the amount of goods/services sold here to those outside the area"

Im sure a lot of guests would have stayed elsewhere downtown but a high profile place like this also entices people who would have stayed outside the county or the country. Remember in WNY we are dealing with a much larger hospitality market than just the City of Buffalo. If the Avant can lure customers who would have stayed in Fallsview it is generating revenue that we would not have received otherwise.

[ Reply ]

replied to whatever

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

sonyactivision

February 25, 2010 12:07 AM

Why is everything a zero-sum game for you? If you create a better product like the Avant, why does that necessarily mean that someone else just lost out? Sometimes you grow the whole pie, not just your slice and projects like the Avant bring new interest and energy to a downtown market filled with aging 40+ year old product. You build a W Hotel downtown and there might be that many more people who'd rather stay there than in some crappy limited service McMotel in Amherst. And the Avant could raise the tax base more than $34 million if neighboring properties see their values raised. Good for Buffalo if they primed the pump with subsidies, that's how you fight for and build your tax base.

[ Reply ]

replied to whatever

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

ReginaldQMerriweatherIV

February 25, 2010 7:46 AM

There's a difference between building your tax bases (which you suggest is being done), and artificial inflation of assessed value, which Is what i suspect is happening.

And yes, in a region that continues to shed population and jobs, it IS a zero-sum game. The 'pie' can't grow larger, because it's actually shrinking.

[ Reply ]

replied to sonyactivision

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

sonyactivision

February 25, 2010 11:20 PM

There are regions of Europe that are shrinking in population as well but still growing their economies. From 2000-2008, Europe led the US in adjusted GDP per capita growth. That means that even with a stagnant population base, they managed to make more money per person than the faster growing US. You just have to keep reinvesting and if that were to snowball in Buffalo, who knows? Someone might actually relocate here.

[ Reply ]

replied to ReginaldQMerriweatherIV

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

ReginaldQMerriweatherIV

February 26, 2010 8:25 AM

In a country with a declining population, the growth of GDP per capita is higher than the growth of GDP. For example, Japan has a higher growth per capita than the United States, even though the US GDP growth is higher than Japan's.

Even when GDP growth is zero or negative, the GDP growth per capita can still be positive (by definition) if the population is shrinking faster than the GDP.

And No, no one is going to relocate here because of the reuse of the Avant. It is a nice building, not a game changer.

[ Reply ]

replied to sonyactivision

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

whatever

February 25, 2010 4:13 PM

sony>"Why is everything a zero-sum game for you?"

Everything isn't "zero sum". Some things aren't, and others are - including residential, law firm offices, hair salons, hotel rooms - all of which are Avant tenants.

Zero-sum things aren't negative, but they're less deserving (if at all) of public funding and shouldn't be confused with real growth even though politicians like to say they are.

I'm not convinced Dulski re-use wouldn't have happened without public gifts to wealthy Uniland. Obviously the Avant and Paladino's waterfront condos and others all show there's a market for high-end condos here. Perhaps not enough market for the Gates Circle project - we'll see. But there's some demand. What's wrong with telling developers and upscale residents to pay their own way for it? Same goes for things like law firm offices, upscale hotels, retail, restaurants, etc. There's demand here for all those things, so they'll happen.

[ Reply ]

replied to sonyactivision

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

Armchair MBA

February 25, 2010 5:57 PM

You can cross hotels off the zero sum list. The amount of tourists in the region is growing and adding facilities that will draw more of them means new money in our economy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niagara_Falls#cite_note-Trave.3Bppce-35

Niagara Falls attracted 28 million people in 2009 up from 20 mil the year prior. That is a pretty big market and finding ways to get them to stay downtown is a logical strategy to grow the economy. Manufacturing plants are needed too but that sector of the economy doesnt offer the kinds of wages or number of jobs that it used to. Focusing economic development incentives solely on factories wont develop a very diverse or dynamic economy.

I disagree with your assertion that the building would have fixed itself without public investment. Remember, the place needed a complete overhaul in order to make it economically viable. Massive adaptive re-use is vital to reinvent parts of downtown but it doesnt just happen on their own. Again, local government is getting a pretty good return on their investment on property tax revenues, bed taxes, and a multi milllion demo bill averted.

[ Reply ]

replied to whatever

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

ReginaldQMerriweatherIV

February 26, 2010 8:33 AM

"Again, local government is getting a pretty good return on their investment on property tax revenues, bed taxes, and a multi milllion demo bill averted."

Any data to back this statement up? I am curious what your definition of pretty good ROI is.

[ Reply ]

replied to Armchair MBA

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

Armchair MBA

February 26, 2010 8:48 AM

34 million increase in assessed value, bed taxes are charged on nightly visits so more visitors=more bed tax revenue and a demo bill that would have been somewhere north of 10 mil (the smaller AM+As building was estimated @ 10 mil).

I didnt do a full blown economic impact study to factor all of the costs and benefits of that project but based on the above estimates, Id say the Avant was a win.

Did you do a detailed study showing otherwise or am I the only one who has to hire a consulting firm to post here?

[ Reply ]

replied to ReginaldQMerriweatherIV

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

ReginaldQMerriweatherIV

February 26, 2010 9:24 AM

When you make claims about how good the return on investment has been, I'd expect you to list both costs and benefits and then analyze them.

You listed the benefits: bed tax, reuse of the building, assessed value (although I will continue to argue that $43 million is a greatly inflated figure.)

What are the costs? How much direct subsidy payments did the building receive? How much did the asbestos abatement cost and who paid for that? What is our long-term exposure from loan guarantees?

My best guess? (And this is just a guess because the total amount won't be known until years down the line when the liabilities come due.) The government will have supported this development by roughly the same amount that assessment rose ($43 Million). That is a lot of subsidy when the total development was $75 million.

[ Reply ]

replied to Armchair MBA

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

whatever

February 25, 2010 4:21 PM

Couple recent subsidized projects mentioned on BR that aren't "zero sum" -

http://www.buffalorising.com/2010/01/new-era-cap-to-keep-derby-plant-close-alabama.html

http://www.buffalorising.com/2009/12/concord-new-east-side-company-with-green-cleaning-technology.html

[ Reply ]

replied to sonyactivision

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

sonyactivision

February 25, 2010 11:15 PM

Yeah, I'm all for that too! More jobs+ more tax base. And if Albany ever got its act together, we wouldn't need that many subsidies but you never retire an economic development tool.

[ Reply ]

replied to whatever

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

loftyview

February 23, 2010 12:22 PM

While I see where you're going here I've got to disagree with a couple of the "observations" you put forward in your comment. I'm not sure where you reside - or how often you come downtown - but as a resident, I am happy to report that there is some meaningful pedestrian traffic and depending on where you are, there's even a lot of "street life" (see Main and Ferry).

As for fantasy land, I happen to live in part of the revival. It is halting and incremental and there is no coherent plan - but it's not a fantasy.

To be honest, the constant negativity in your comment history (and the fact that you don't seem to have any direct knowledge of post-1970's Buffalo) is not in line with the sentiment I was trying to express.

[ Reply ]

replied to queenie

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

queenie

February 23, 2010 6:29 PM

Good response, and a quite fair one. I often leave provocative comments just to see if I get any reaction at all. Nevertheless, I don't ever say what I don't believe. I think Steel, for example, in sum does a tremendous job, although I frequently don't share his lens. Buffalo for me is a city of half a century or more ago, when I was quite young and my grandparents were there, and I thought it the most special place in the world. (This, from a NYC boy). I usually return semi-annually, and just did. But in this case, it was the first time since 2007. I know these are dreadful times, but I found the city especially sad. Sorry.

[ Reply ]

replied to loftyview

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

skarnath

February 23, 2010 9:38 AM

"Childishly blind optimism?" "Self deluding notion?" "Rose colored glasses?" If I was smarter, I would probably figure out that those phrases are not intended as compliments. As I've previously said on this site, the difference between optimists and pessimists is that at the end of the day, the optimists will have accomplished something.

I agree with other commenters that mothballing should have been the absolute last option. We don't have all the numbers, but it doesn't appear that was the strategy that was followed.

A basic rule of development - the lower the maximum achievable rents, the less debt a project can carry. The greater the disparity between total project costs and maximum debt load, the deeper and more creative the subsidies need to be. I work with developers in 13 states in the northeast. That rule applies equally in Buffalo, Boston, Philadelphia or mid-town Manhattan. Most developers can succeed in strong markets. What is impressive is watching a new generation of developers succeed in Buffalo, when so much of the deck is stacked against them.

That's the reason some of us are rather fond of our rose colored glasses.

[ Reply ]

replied to loftyview

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

loftyview

February 23, 2010 1:16 PM

You underestimate yourself, skarnath. Your powers of deduction are actually quite impressive...

You're mistaking my outrage for pessimism. See, I'm an active participant in what I hope will be the Rise of Buffalo. I live, eat, work and play downtown. I proselytize to my suburban-loving friends and family on the virtues of the urban lifestyle. I'm not just whining about some abstract revival - I'm living it, baby.

As for the rent/debt situation - excellent point. But it's a point that merely reinforces my concern. Buffalo is an extremely WEAK market. If a huge chunk of land (or a historical treasure) became available in the heart of Boston, Philly or NYC the market would provide all the incentive needed to scoop it up and make it productive. People in the market would be bidding the price UP not asking that a judge bring it DOWN.

And why the disparity between achievable rent and the cost of rehabbing the Statler? Weak market? The fact that it was allowed to deteriorate under bad management and lack of demand for what it had to offer? To use an extreme example, the Empire State Building is by no means state-of-the-art. But it's been kept up and improvements have been made throughout its history (new elevator systems, more open floor plans, new windows [$500 million worth right now, in fact http://tinyurl.com/yjsujqq ]). Why? Demand. If it sat largely vacant for years and was allowed to go to pot (like the Statler) it would demand less in rent and the costs of updating would be huge. But even as a second tier space it never came to that. It's been in demand all along (with a few bumps in the road) - keeping the rent/debt situation in alignment.

I'm no supply sider, so don't get me wrong. I love what Rocco and Carl, et al are doing (so much so, I'm a customer of theirs). But what healthy city needs to massively subsidize every project to get it off the drawing board? I love the shiny new rehabs. I don't like the unsustainable business model they depend on for financing.

So keep the rose colored glasses. You guys can keep patting each other on the back every time a mural goes up on the side of a crack house.

I'm going to go ahead and be PO'd that people around here celebrate mediocrity. I really hope you understand.

[ Reply ]

replied to skarnath

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

skarnath

February 23, 2010 2:35 PM

Actually, I don't understand. Who is celebrating mediocrity? And what exactly is the unsustainable business model? The Statler had both an undercapitalized previous ownership group and poor management. They ran the building into the ground, and now it needs a wide variety of deep public subsidies to make it economically viable again. But I don't see anything built downtown in the past 60 years that convinces me that tearing down the Statler and waiting for a new build on that site produces a better result. It likely produces a more mediocre result.

I also don't understand the value of being PO'd in the face of a few optimistic comments. There is real value in many of the concerns you express. They are points that need to be made, and you make them very effectively. But don't confuse an optimistic approach to a major problem as "childishly blind optimism" or mere cheerleading. Most successful developers that I know start with: "We can do that...now tell me all the problems we need to overcome."

[ Reply ]

replied to loftyview

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

loftyview

February 23, 2010 3:57 PM

I apologize for my exaggerated non-enthusiasm. I'm 100% pro-DO-er. Whenever I see Rocco scampering around town in his adorable little topsiders I have to restrain myself from chest-bumping the dude. I lived out of town for a while and I often let that cloud up my perspective.

Look, nobody knowingly celebrates mediocrity. It just seems to me (and this is purely an opinion) that the bar is set terribly low - around Buffalo in general, and at BR in particular. I love our wealth of architectural treasures - I just can't get too excited about them when they're in the midst of a sea of vacant structures.

The unsustainable business model stems from the subsidies required to get developers and businesses to make things happen. I'm not ideologically against them - like I said previously - I live in and among the results. I just get nervous about what happens when the subsidies for all these rental units and business can no longer help keep the prices down. There are businesses downtown that can only stay above water b/c their rent is covered by these things. It's a Potemkin village and simply can't be sustained.

Unless - and this is my hope - enough momentum is built up with this "fake" (for lack of a better word) development that organic projects start shaping up. I hope the Inner Harbor can help. Unfortch, it seems like every step forward is met with a comparable step back.

And for the record, I agree 100% that the Statler reincarnate is our best hope. Tearing it down is NOT an option (though wouldn't a KFC be AWESOME on Niagara Square?? http://instantrimshot.com/ ).

[ Reply ]

replied to skarnath

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

skarnath

February 24, 2010 4:36 AM

I agree with most of what you've written, but I'm not convinced that just because projects need significant public investment (or subsidies) to get them off the drawing board means that they are part of an unsustainable business model.

We lived on Cary Street for 18 years before we moved to Elmwood Village for a larger home that was closer to our children's schools. My wife always argued that because she bought the house for the cost of construction that it wasn't subsidized. She argued that the large costs of land assembly (including eminent domain from Benderson for some of the land), all new infrastructure and an interest rate reduction on a second mortgage were not public subsidies. But the planning by the Lower West Side Resource & Development Corp. & the public funds that went into creating Georgia-Prospect (Rabin Terrace & Cary) produced a project that has helped solidify the lower west side. It has also helped trigger significant private investment.

Just one example - we worked with Benderson for several years and convinced them to redo the Jackson Building (now the Hampton Inn) rather than tear it down or cover it with dryvit - both options were seriously considered. We didn't get everything we asked for (in particular the bay window storefronts), but I think it's a lot better than a newly constructed Hampton Inn on the same site.

My point - if you had told me in 1983 when we moved downtown that many of the vacant buildings would find new life over the next 25 years and would be the critical building blocks of downtown's ambience, I probably would have said you were dreaming. For lots of reasons, we can't/don't build buildings as good as the Jackson Building today, let alone the Guaranty, the ECC City Campus, Shea's, or the Market Arcade. All were redone in the past 25 - 30 years. The major projects, plus several hundred smaller projects, are recreating downtown, and the vast majority have benefited from one form of public investment or another. I could offer small criticisms on most of these projects, but that's not the point, is it?

There is a symbiotic relationship between public and private investment, and the critical ingredient in long-term sustainability is the intervention of thoughtful citizens who make mediocre projects good, and good projects great. That's where you come in...

[ Reply ]

replied to loftyview

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

informedone

February 22, 2010 5:35 PM

Well I consider the mothballing a mistake. Part is due to the Court turning over the building to an old crony lawyer as opposed to a property management firm. The attorney said to the tenant's "everybody out" we are boarding up. A quick and easy solution.

An experienced property manager would have said to tenants, "Who is in" and we are rolling up our sleeves to keep this place open. The Mayor? and his "new economic"development team? Once they were smoked out they should have incentived development by throwing in the 1rst million dollars towards a redevelopment/stay open plan.

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

Travelrrr

February 24, 2010 9:10 AM

It is not just a building-please don't insinuate as such. It is our history and our future. It represents our struggle and our opportunity. Fact is, until Buffalo developers (Cannon included) can demonstrate that they can build with world-class taste, we should preserve the stock we have. Also, with each building preservation we become more of a destination for tourism. So, look at it as pure business sense (and, yes, there will be some need for short-term subsidies to get us there.)

I believe Mark Croce owns the adjacent spot to the Statler for parking. I encourage Mark to look at the larger goal of the community and sell the site, if need be.

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )