Quote of the Week: Andrew Rudnick on Statler

It sounds like he is encouraging a frank and open conversation about the building, rather than some happy face, misleading convo, like "the development team has also not publicly asked for a subsidy." Sorry BR, but sometimes you have to deal with facts and but aside the fantasy land garbage.

There are some buildings people try to save that I question if it's worth the effort. This is not one of them.

Demolition shouldn't even be in the discussion really. I would say this is one of those buildings to save at all costs.

First, if anyone is naive enough to thing that the proposed new owners won't ask for a subsidy, I'd be stunned. If this property were developable and profitable without subsidies, we wouldn't be having this discussion. They haven't made their plan public because of the bidding process but trust me, the first thing out of their mouths, whoever the owner is, will be something close to this:

"This project cannot work without substantial assistance from the public sector."

The real question is, at what point as a region and a state do we want to start having tough conversations and making some stark connections to subsidies and how they DO NOT WORK. $100 million in taxpayer dollars to subsidize private development that essentially becomes socialized debt and private profit, in an already overtaxed state and non-competitve region.

I love the building and I can't stand Bob Wilmers' pupper, aka Mr. Pompous Bowtie, but I agree with him here.

But maybe the real question, why don't we first agree that we can't save everything. The current economy and the long decline of WNY reduces the viability of a lot of buildings and make getting them to current standard more costly than building new (one of the reason sprawl happens). Since that is the case, why not prioritize the buildings we want saved and basically damn the rest to the scrap heap.

If that we're the case, then put the Statler on the list and pick off $100M in other sites people want to preserve and we can have the conversation. Otherwise, some buildings will be losers under this current economy and system.

Is Rudnick f'n kiddin me??? Downtown is already over 50% shovel ready....BUILD NEW OVER THE CURRENT LOTS!!!!!!! The Statler still has a chance if fixed up soon.

Rudnick talks about the Aud site, as having more potential with the building gone.

Where has he been? Bass Pro doesn't want the site, even with millions of dollars thrown in.

The Statler is a Buffalo icon, and it is totally irresponsible for Rudnick to be planting the seeds for demolition.

The Statler is in good condition, and it's restoration will be another asset for the City.

There is nothing honest about suggesting that a vacant lot on Niagara Square where the Statler once stood will encourage development. That tactic has yet to work in the history of Buffalo. The bloodlust for demolition in this town is indicative of a pathological self-loathing that only Buffalonians possess. If you think this building should be demolished because doing so will "encourage development," then you should consult a therapist and try to get to the bottom of whatever emotional issues are retarding your critical thinking skills.

Revitalizing the building may take substantial capital investment, but that does not mean that it can't take place using a phased, market-conscious plan using available investment capital coupled with wisely-executed government incentives. Revitalizing a structure of this magnitude will take time and careful consideration: plans need to be based upon practical market demand for space. A carefully-employed plan to redevelop the building for mixed residential and commercial use will keep the building active day and night and allow a new owner to draw in different types of investment for the project.

Furthermore, the cost of fully restoring the building may be substantial, but that's not necessarily the only (or the smartest)option for the building's reuse. Certain elements, such as the lobby features and ballroom, might be worth restoring to their original state. But much of the upper floors, configured for hotel rooms and office space, can probably gutted and re-configured in a way that meshes creativity with the practical market needs of Downtown Buffalo.

I'm not convinced that demolishing this building is a smart business move, especially if there is nothing guaranteed to replace it. Bass Pro is a good example of an investment made to demolish a structure without a solid guarantee. Statler could be a huge anchor for downtown housing and commerce if it's redeveloped by an investor with smart business sense and creative ingenuity. The multimillion dollar building is already there, all we need is the right idea to fill it up.

Rudnick's job is supposed to be to encourage investment in Buffalo, not cast a cloud of doom and gloom over an investment opportunity. If he can't be a cheerleader and help sell downtown Buffalo to investors, he should just refrain from talking at all.

As for demolition, the way I see it is this: the public either subsidizes the redevelopment of this historic landmark, or it subsidizes its demolition. Either way we end up paying an enormous amount of money, but one option results in a beautifully restored unreplacement historic building; the other results in a parking lot.

Rudnicki must think that another surface parking lot is considered 'development'. A quote like that should lose him his job!

Refurbishment and reuse IS expensive, but it pales in comparison to the costs (psychological, environmental and financial) of the alternatives. Demolition, years spent as an abandoned parking lot, and future headaches trying to entice someone to re-build on the site are just not worth it.

Public funds are only a small part of the answer. If the Partnership was doing its job, they'd be attracting REAL funds through corporate, private and real estate investment to get this building refurbished and full of tenants without a dime of public money. They're becoming the monday morning armchair quarterbacks of economic advocacy.

wow, the lack of leadership and imagination at the top levels of influence in the buffalo area takes your breath away. the myth of the shovel ready site has been thoroughly debunked several times over in Buffalo. What rock has this guy been living under? The court house site sat as a parking lot on the square for my entire life with no sudden rush of investers wanting to fill the void.

Also can we stick to truth when talking about cost and susidies? No one has asked for $100 M in public money. They have said the project would likely cost that much to do. Rarely is an entire project funded by subsidies. Tearing it down will be on the public dole and we get nothing back for that kind of stupid investment. You can pretty much bet that anyone planning a new project on the site will also have their hand out.

It is extremely disappointing to hear this kind of shallow thinking from the people who are supposed to be thinking around the bend

Why is Rudnick still in charge of the Partnership???? He does'nt DO ANYTHING!!!! And now he believe's knocking down the Statler would be a 'good thing'? ...REALLY????? What about the many vacant lots along Delaware Ave.? Huron St.? Main St.? Franklin St.? Pearl St.? Washington St.? Ellicott St.? and so on, and so on???????? If 'shovel ready' was true, we would have all those 'empty lots' filled with NEW DEVELOPMENT already and the Statler land would be a 'PRIME' spot for something new. But, we haven't seen the type of development interest that Rudnick is only dreaming of in his empty head.

Thank you Mr. Rudnick, I think you have answered everyones question as to why Carl Paladino attacked you so viciously as an incompetent politically appointment hack who has produced no measurable results other than a rather lavish salary...and whos incompetence stands in the way of everything that could improve Buffalo rather than promotes it.

Nearly 60% of Buffalo is demolish ready or shovel ready.

How many of Buffalos landmarks which brand and define our city have we lost because of this thinking? To many!!!

Losing the Statler with its history his novel architectural history (invented the design of the hotel that could a bathroom in every room) and as the founder of the national chain recognized all over the US which today we recognize as Hilton.

Losing the Statler would be like losing the Buffalo Bills. The Bills remind us that we were once a major city amongst the few...just as the Statler reminds us of the days of Trico, Ford, Curtis Wright, Bell, Mobil, Bethlehem, Republic, etc.

ok boys, get out the tar and feathers...we got good old fashion roundup for the public square.

If they can get it done in Detroit, they can get it done here.

Out with Andy! What a self-serving, narrow-minded remark from an appointed "leader". I think it is high time for some fresh blood at BNP, or maybe even a new entity altogether.

I'd like to know what Andy's ulterior motive is here.

There is a structure just behind the Statler that should be torn down yet, 7 million is sunk into it.

The Statler Hotel is something that sets us apart from many other cities.

I'm undecided on this one yet. I don't have enough information. Sure, I love the Statler, at least the first few floors. Great piece of Buffalo history. Wonderful showpiece.

But I respect the naysayers here because this is a more nuanced issue than most of you would like to acknowledge. There are very real impediments to redevelopment of the Statler. Let's consider the hurdles:

1. It encompasses 800,000 square feet of space. That is an absolutely enormous quantity of floor space. Regrettably, because hotel rooms are small and windows are necessary, it was built of wings which themselves are small floorplates. So it has the worst of both worlds: too small a floorplate to interest large users, but it requires a very large tenant base of small users to fill up. Hard to attract that many individual tenants. And if they come, from where do they come? Do we save the Statler only to see the Rand and Liberty, etc., go dark? (and contrary to ChristyLou's opinion, transforming those other 'c' buildings to condos or apartments is very expensive).

2. The Statler's ceilings are low. There is insufficient room to run HVAC and other mechanical systems above head. Makes development awkward.

3. The building is infested with ginormous concrete structural columns which look horrific when you try to open up the floorplates into an 'open' office environment. When hidden away between hotel room walls, they columns are immaterial. But when trying to make the space look modern by opening up the walls, they conspire (with the low ceilings) to make the place look silly and dated.

I do hope there is a way to make this elephant self sufficient again. Maybe there is some mix of uses which can save the beast. Perhaps UB and Canisius and Buff State and Medaille could get together and take a some floors for dorms. Maybe a few floor go condo. Maybe then the remainder wouldn't be so enormous as to be impractical as office development. Perhaps, and I hope so.

But this is not a no brainer. This one is not black and white.

It matters how much subsidy we're talking about. It matters what else could be done with such money. I hope the Statler makes it. I'm wishing the best for Croce's bid and his group. But it's not a simple equation. I give Rudnick credit here.

Do what Uniland did with the BlueCross building; have a developer buy and rehab it, then lease it back to HSBC or Phillip Lytle.

More "subsidy" double talk.

Rudnik and others posting here are painting an inaccurate picture that a Statler rehab would require a 100 million dollar subsidy (dollar figure sounds pulled out of the air) and clearing the site would somehow be free. The reality is the demolition would involve considerable taxpayer expense and render the site less desirable than the alternative. The much smaller AM&As was estimated at over ten million to create a "shovel ready" site which already exist in great quantity downtown.

Why is it we cant afford a percentage of the rehab cost but we can somehow pony up anywhere north of 10 million for a demo?

I guess projects that Andy and others don't like require "subsidies" while taxpayer expenses required for projects they like are paid for with pixie dust.

yup, that's what we need, another shovel-ready site. there's such a shortage of them, after all, and a long waiting list of top-notch developers with dazzling plans.

haha!!! just what croce needs, another surface lot! yeah...

The lot next to Channel 2 was empty for at least 20 years, and probably closer to 30.

The idea that we need "shovel ready" sites to encourage new development is a myth.

Demolition? I think I'm not the only one that now wonders if it was wise to tear down the Aud without a contract in place for a replacement, and Andrew Rudnick wants to knock down the Statler without a replacement?

Why is Andrew Rudnick still head of the BNP? How much has Buffalo grown during his reign? Any private business with his success rate would have folded up by now, and would have fired him at the very least. Oh, god, I'm starting to sound like Paladino...

I can't think of one job that the Partnership has brought to Buffalo. I wish that Palladino had stayed on his campaign to create an alternative to the Partnership last year. He has the clout in Buffalo to make others in the business community question the Partnership in public. My favorite anti-Rudnick moment came when Brian Higgins told him, in effect, to get lost when Higgins started the process to have the New York Power Authority create a dedicated revenue stream for Waterfront development. Rudnick may say that he helped create the Buffalo Niagara Enterprise, the entity that is supposed to bring in out-of-region job creating investment, but he co-opted that idea from Victor Rice, a person who had a lot of business contacts in Canada and abroad, and in the process, alienated Rice as a resource. I have mixed feelings about the BNE as the region's resource for outside investment and job creation. Yes, they have brought jobs to the 8 counties that comprise WNY but the majority of them have gone to Niagara County and hardly any have been created in Buffalo. Further, the BNE has been partially responsible for blowing job creating deals with Whacker Chemical and Google. In regards to the Statler, Rudnick shows zero creativity. I can hardly wait for Higgins and Tim Tielman to diss Rudnick in public again.

What I'd do with the Statler (for starters): 1)Put a 'green' roof on it (check out pics of Chicago City Hall to see what I mean). 2)Turn one of the outside faces into a simulated rock wall, and create the world's largest (I think) rock climbing gym. Imagine having the opportunity to scale the Statler...the building could evolve into an even greater work of art, and rock climbers would come from all over.

Buffalo needs to push 'green' with all development projects. Reinvent ourselves as a 'Fresh Coast' (Milwaukee's mayor invented that term, I believe) city, versus 'Rust Belt'...

If we are able to replace the building with something better right now we should do it. I really don't think we can. Besides the Statler building being irreplaceable historically. I'm not sure that any development outside of a major company deciding to relocate its HQ in downtown Buffalo would be worth it.

We know that there is a better chance of that happening with the current HSBC tower than tearing down the Statler.

Tearing it down to wait and see is a horrible idea.

Lets tear down the convention center and wait and see.

If U-Haul shareholders don't hit the floor every night and thank God for Andrew Rudnick, they should.

Sure, knock it down. They're getting rid of the Hotel Pennsylvania, so who are we to save a piece of history. Look at Penn Station. They got rid of that and there is a true gem standing in its place now. I don't know why the White House is still standing. That style is so dated.

Gotta say, there are some very intelligent comments here intertwined with some absolute drivel. "Losing the Statler would be like losing the Bills?" Did I really read that?

The building, as picturesque as it may be, is falling down - literally - and takes up a large parcel in perhaps the most prime area of downtown. I'm trying to figure out why people in these comments are so up-in-arms because "Andy" suggested having a conversation about what makes more sense for our city? We SHOULD be having that conversation.

If we (as taxpayers) are going to be giving a tremendous subsidy to a developer to fix up the Statler, doesn't it behoove us to know what we're getting for our investment - and to make the best investment possible? I really don't see his comments as that horrible.

Buffalo is like professional wrestling - the writers (the media) tell us who we should like and not like. The "good guys" (i.e. Paladino) can e-mail bestiality videos to their public mailing list and make Nazi jokes about Jewish elected officials, but can still be "our" beloved candidate for governor. Somebody like Rudnick raises an intelligent question about where our tax dollars are going and gets barbecued. Love this town.

First of all the building is "not falling down". Yes tim pieces of terra cotta have fallen and the building needs to be MAINTAINED to prevent further deterioration. It must be remembered that this building was occupied just a few months ago.
What is so sad is that Rudnick doesn't acknowledge that shovel ready sites in Buffalo stay that way forever. The courthouse site just across the street was a parking lot for forty years. the chamber of commerce building site has been vacant for thirty years. And I wouldn't expect the Aud site to be developed soon.
It is so frustrating to have a "leader" not understand this. Where has he been?
Bottom line: The Statler comes down, we have another parking lot.

I was just thinking on my way in how long it would be until it was torn down...

If it was gutted and the price of gutting the building was taken out of the selling price, perhaps a law college could be convinced to take up residence? you don't need drop ceilings in a class rooms. one could even go so far as to turn one of it's sections into dorms.

i don't think restoration, beyond the foyer, would be a cost-effective investment at this point. but a stream-lined industrial look might be.

Wow!

Talk about clueless, and incredibly so, Andy!!!

You DO know that we have now a "shovel ready" Aud site NOW, aren't you?

See any development there?

NEITHER DOES ANYBODY ELSE!!!

AND THAT'S DESPITE THE EXPENDITURE OF MILLIONS TO DEMOLISH THE AUD!!!

God - help me - I actually agree with something Carl said about this idiot!!!

FIRE HIS USELESS BUTT ALREADY!!!

And what's worse - is he'll be colleting a nice big fat PENSION after he and all his "expertise" is gone...

And people wonder why nothing hardly gets done in Buffalo...

Most Buffalonians have a history or memory in conjunction with the Statler Towers. To demolish it is a mental burden that most of us do not want to face. To save it is a financial burden that most of us do not want to face. Either way, sacrafices are going to be made. Buffalo has had a history of demolishing significant historical buildings. The book "Lost Buffalo" reveals the more relavant buildings that were sacrificed in the last century. Andrew's opinion is relevant. That property is very valuble. If demolished, someone WILL develop that land. Maybe not to the tune of 100M, but it WILL be developed. Emotionally, I do not want to see the Statler Towers go. I also do not want to see them stagnant and eventually deteriorate and crumble (also very unsafe for the public). I would have "given" this property or at least offered it to the Seneca Nation for development of a world class casino. They have the money to develop and do it properly. I know that my opinion will have much opposition, but if I were Croce, I'd be lighting up my peace pipe.

Rudnick's opinions should not overshadow our own. Consider my posting this comment, as I am doing now, my way of voting to NOT demo this building. It's simply too important and significant to lose.