City August 26, 2010 10:15 PM

Slash and Burn, City Hall Style

Slash and Burn, City Hall Style
Get ready for another emergency demo. Now it's Ed Rudnicki's blacksmith shop (120 South Park) in the Cobblestone District. We've made the phone calls. We've watched as the trees took root on the rooftop. We've watched as mysterious machines pulled up in the middle of the night to take down some of the last remaining bits and pieces of the district. Did The City do a single damned thing to fight the preservation battle on this one? NO! BRO's offices were located next door. We took the photos. We shouted from the rooftops. We delivered the message loud and clear: The building owner wants this building GONE. An incredible example of demolition by neglect if there ever was one. Moments ago I got a phone call from Tim Tielman telling me that Judge Nowak has signed off on an emergency demolition because the owner of the building brought in his own engineer to declare the building a danger to the public... his own engineer! Was the Preservation Board even notified by City attorneys? No! According to Tim Tielman:

DSC_0343.JPG"The City attorneys should be notifying the Preservation Board that the property is jeopardy. The City's attorney is in our building and they notified no one!!! I've spoken to The City regarding this building several times. The owner has done nothing to shore up the structure and his only anticipation is one of demolition. This is not only a textbook case of demolition by neglect by the owner, The City might as well be an accomplice. The owner has done everything in defiance of the law and in the end he is getting a landmark building demolished. His goal is achieved. The owner hired his own engineer! The City was not in court with its own engineer offering methods of mitigating the conditions. Does Nowak not know that this is a city landmark? Maybe he doesn't. The City attorney who was sitting in the courtroom should know. It's outrageous that we have not been notified. The building dates back to 1872... the canal era!! Its physical presence is needed in the Cobblestone District. The owner started an illegal demolition of 'The Smithy' two years ago. It was reported to The City and they were supposed to monitor it... I went by at a later date and it had been demolished, again without any notification to the Preservation Board. Now the owner is back looking to knock down the blacksmith building and he has even gone so far as to purchase the neighboring Phoenix Die Casting building and is reportedly interested in taking that building down as well. The irony is that he owns the Cobblestone Bar next door and is exploiting the historic name of the district. In the immediate neighborhood The City is spending over a hundred million dollars (proposed) to attract visitors, and yet The City will not spend a dime in enforcing its building code in this area in order to compel the property owners to keep up the infrastructure. The City must do its job in notifying the Preservation Board and it is asinine that they want to create fake historic infrastructure while letting the authentic buildings rot. Almost every other building was demolished in the urban renewal era. At this point it looks the owner can do anything he wants. The loss to the integrity of the district would just be devastating."

Calls are out to attorneys for a temporary stay, but as of yet there is no answer due to the immediacy of the alert. Tim tells me that the owner could be lining equipment up right now. It could be halfway gone by morning. In order to vacate the emergency demolition order attorneys are needed to answer the call. Papers need to be served to the owner of the building... this demolition needs to be stopped! Please send me an email and I will pass along your email to Tim. Call Mayor Brown if you can. Call Franczyk (apparently he might actually care). We need an engineer to go into that building and make a recommendation for stabilization. We don't need an emergency demolition... we need emergency repair. No one in City Hall wants to get these buildings out of the owners' hands... they don't want to complicate the issue. They would rather see the owner spend his or her own money to take down a building. And guess what? Some day when all of the politicians have left Buffalo and they have delivered us all of the parking lots that we can handle, then we're left with a bunch of junk and they can retire on our own dime.

Entry Photo: Mike Calanan
View image

Comments

Leave a comment

This is one of those things where you just want to throw your hands up and say, I give up. Queenseyes, I appreciate your fervor and hopefully someone will step in to save a vital piece of our canal era history. Lets hope it happens tomorrow morning.

Score: 5 ( 5 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Its just so infuriating especially since everyone has been so busy ensuring that only fakey little historicy buildings get built over in the canalside parking district 2 blocks away.

STUPID STUPID STUPID

Why is the leadership in Buffalo so dense when it comes to the value of these historic buildings. Why do they continue to bend over for these crappy owners who are intent on the destruction of the city?

STUPID STUPID STUPID

Score: 3 ( 5 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Bigger things for the city worry about. Like imposing a 1am closing time for bars.

Don't think I missed it: who is the owner? And any history on it besides 1872? All I found was a story about Ed from 12 years ago.

Score: 1 ( 3 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Maybe the intention is to spend a few million to recreate this building at Skyway Side so people can experience faux history as they make their way to the replacement for BassPro, I mean IKEA, I mean....

Score: 4 ( 6 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I recommend finding out who the Housing Court Liaison is for that District. That person is a citizen and is in a position to Voice the public's and neighborhoods concerns at a hearing and can put a hold on things if quick legal action by a private or public group can't be brought.

I am surprised at Judge Henry, he's a Preservationist from way back... he probably has way too many nonessential cases cluttering up his Housing Court Calendar and cannot give this case the time it deserves.

Things like anonymous "Buffalonians" exercising paltry political "connections" by complaining about other Buffalo property owners through the anonymous Housing Court complaint system, unidentified complaints against private residences and home owners. City attorneys wasting time on cases that should be dismissed so they can show us how "you can't beat city hall."

There is a finite amount of Housing Court resources and city attorneys and Housing Court liaisons have to quit wasting it on unimportant cases and get busy on what is important for our future.

Score: 4 ( 4 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

This truly is a shame on many levels. It is a shame that the property owner sees more value in a vacant lot than a historically significant building. It is somehow better for him to have a shovel ready site that connects to others in a historic district than it is to have an actual building from the era. Maybe there is more money to be made charging $10.00 per car to park for Sabres games and concerts than there is in paying out for insurance and taxes on the structures, I really don't know.

It is a shame that the City has done nothing to ensure the safety and security of this historically significant building. I am not all that surprised, as the City has sat by idly as other buildings in the area have decayed to the point of demolition. This is one reason that the Cobblestone district, and neighboring streets have so many empty spaces. Where is the Housing Court? Where were the code violations?

It is a shame that we gave the owner a free pass to tear down this building. We waited until the last minute to get involved again, now we expect 11th hour miracles and will wring our hands in woe as we watch another irreplaceable building turned into bricks and dust. This should have been front page, top of site, news on all local blogs and with the Buffalo News. Why are we just hearing about the outrage now?

Where has Preservation Buffalo Niagara been for the past few years as the building decayed? Where is the request for historical status, the representation with the City to have fines and citations imposed against the owner? What about other preservationists like Tim Tielman, why has he been silent up until the last minute? He had time to get his friends together to fight the big, bad, Bass Pro, why couldn't they do something about this building that is only a few blocks away?

This was preventable, but unfortunately it might be too late unless someone chains them self to the building to save it from the wrecking ball. Maybe David Torke can lend you his chains for the night.

Let's all use this as a wake-up call. Buildings, like this, may be more valuable to the owners are vacant lots that are banked for future use. What can we do to change that before it is too late?

Score: 5 ( 7 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

According to the article, the building is landmarked (given legally binding historical status), which means the Preservation Board is supposed to be notified of pending permit requests (including demolition). In this case, they were not notified until after the request was granted.

Tim Tielman wrote "I've spoken to The City regarding this building several times" which belies your contention that he was been "silent up until the last minute".

replied to sho'nuff
Score: 1 ( 3 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Well, I stand corrected. I did a quick search of national and local historic registries and could not find this building listed. I also did a quick review of petitions filed by Tim Tielman with the City in the past two years and could not find this listed as well. Maybe he is having conversations directly with City officials that are not on record.

If you feel that we have done enough to proactively bring the needed attention and focus on this building, then that is great. It is unfortunate if we have done all we can, that this building still faces demolition despite the historic designation and landmark status. It is a true shame indeed!

replied to JSmith
Score: 1 ( 3 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Tielman is vocal, engaged and busy. But, to your point, WHERE IS PRESERVATION BUFFALO NIAGARA?????

replied to sho'nuff
Score: 4 ( 4 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

This just makes absolutely no sense from the point of view of the owner, the judge or anyone involved.

If the owner wants an empty lot, then he could buy one cheaper within 1or2 blocks than demolition.

It has been proven over and over that these brick buildings are solid. Demolish the interior and leave the brick facade. You can sell the shell for greater value than the empty lot and a builder can rebuild the floors and roof cheaper than a new building.

It has also been proven that buildings like this will attract re-development more than an empty lot.

We would like to think that a competent functioning city would be logical, would learn from its mistakes, mentor the morals and values it expects of its citizens...has not happened yet though...perhaps that is why Buffalo remains in its malaise.

Score: 1 ( 3 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

There's only one block left of original buildings between Michigan, the river and the 190. Is it too much to ask to try to save it? The value in the buildings on that block revolve with the fact that they are original to the neighborhood. This little block is surrounded by acres and acres of parking, so no more is needed or should be allowed. And this defines a corner. Save it or throw the owner in jail. The city needs to get tough.

Score: 3 ( 3 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

According to the Erie County and Buffalo property search websites, the official address is 118 South Park (not 120).

I wonder if the author of this pro forma is the same engineer who testified that 118 South Park is an unsalvageable public risk:

http://dahuard.com/docs/COBBLESTONE%20proforma.pdf

This is a survey of the Cobblestone building next door, apparently written ten years ago when the owner was considering buying that building. It certainly shows a certain amount of disdain for historic brick buildings.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Can someone share who the owner is? Let's start calling him/her. This is the kind of pressure we, as a community, need to start to exert...to the owners, as well as to the politicians. This unnecessary bloodletting needs to stop. Thanks Queenseyes.

Score: 1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I rode by here and saw the red mark of death and was quite surprised. Look around Brown... those parking lost err... shovel ready sites are doing spurring nothing but that one block, with buildings intact, has seen numbers projects and buildings redeveloped on it.

There isn't anything left after this block, that's it, cobblestone district is kaput. Left to memories and history books.

Lets take Bass Pro's waste of a handout and put it into the remaining buildings on this block. New roofs \ windows and watch how quickly they get snatched up for the next condo \ loft development.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Darryl Carr is the owner:

Date/Time: 10/23/2009 15:00
Book Type: D
Book/Page: 11171/7756
Pages: 3
Consideration: $500000.00
Status: V
TT ID#:
Tax ID#: TT2009005714
Legal 1: CTY 76

Parties
D DOWNING JAMES M
D DOWNING MARYANN
R CARR DARRYL

Long Legal 1 Town Map/Hostel/Parcel Zip Prop Type
CTY 110 S PARK AVE 14203

Score: 1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I wonder if Darryl Carr is related to Jim Carr, recently retired building inspector. That may explain the lack of any attention this building had by housing court or code violations. If you cannot maintain a building do not buy it. If you can't afford to repair your building sell it to someone who can. Perspective buyers of historical buildings should be vetted to make sure they can afford maintenance and restoration if needed; otherwise they shouldn't be allowed to buy the building.

replied to WCPerspective
Score: 2 ( 6 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Or vetted to see if they have any actual intention to do anything with the structure, a la Carl Paladino... and others.

replied to brownteeth
Score: -1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

1) Reconstruct a cobblestone street.
2) Clear out all the old buildings.
3) Construct new buildings that look old.

Score: 4 ( 6 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Correction - Construct new parking lots

replied to AndyParker
Score: 0 ( 2 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

did u ever think City hall let this go becaue BRo is always yelling and saying bad stuff about the mayor, hes human and can only take so much being criticized

Score: -5 ( 11 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

People are always yelling and saying bad stuff about you, including me, but I wouldn't let anyone demolish you.

Besides, vindication to an online periodical doesn't seem to be the prerogative of the mayor's office. You think he's got someone dedicated to fishing up what Buffalo Rising has to say about him?

replied to LesterCzepnakski
Score: 1 ( 5 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

pfff. You have no idea how many peoples write me and tell me they really appreciate my fresh thoughts and honest opinions.

replied to LouisTully
Score: -2 ( 6 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Disgusting.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

come on guys HSBC is gonna need more parking.

Score: 1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Parking is a symptom, not the cause. The causes to this type of injustice are numerous, but include our throw-away culture, the fact that in the short-term the land is probably more profitable as a parking lot than a vacant building.

Speculation is cheap when compared to development. Many people by properties with the intention of sitting on them until the value increases. If the value doesn't increase or the speculation doesn't pan out, then the owner may decide to just tear it down for something more profitable. They can still speculate on the land while turning a profit from the parking lot. It is a win-win for the owner, but a major loss for everyone else.

I am not insinuating that this is right, but it happens all too often. The bigger question is how do we get in front of this?

replied to reuse.this
Score: 2 ( 2 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

this building needs to be torn down to create a Parking Lot Museum. yeah... that's it... the tourists will love it... if it gets saved then use it to house the archives of Bad Decisions in Buffalo Museum. might have to expand the footprint though...

Score: 2 ( 2 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Maybe ECHDC would like to earn a few brownie points by steping outside of their footprint and saving this building. They do have 35mil in the cookie jar.

Score: 3 ( 3 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

It's 11Am, has anyone been by there this morning to see if the "work" has begun?

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I went by at about 10:00 AM. I did not see any equipment, sidewalk barriers, signs, etc that would indicate that it would be demolished today. That said, this could all have changed in the past 2 hours.

Score: 1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Newell--thanks for bringing this to light.

It might help if the mayor's office and David Franczyk's office both receive hundreds of calls today asking for a temporary stay of the demolition. Call the mayor and call Councilmember Franzcyk. The sooner the better. Ask every friend you know to call as well.

Score: 1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Just did. Here are their emails: Mayor Brown, Mayor@city-buffalo.com, and Councilmember Franzcyk, dfranczyk@city-buffalo.com

replied to EricOak
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Thanks for such a great article and the reminder that so many of the significant historic structures in the city are being impacted by a strategy that is more demolition by neglect than a proactive right-sizing strategy for the city. Once a historic building is removed from the city's footprint, it can't be replaced by disneyfied new builts. Calling cityhall each time one of these structures is in danger of demolishing may help in the short-run. What is more needed is an overall commitment for assessment and prioritizing structures for rehabilitation and preservation such as the work of Clinton Brown previously. But identification and monitoring is not sufficient alone, genuine commitment of resources is necessary. And from personal experience of rehabbing a 1888 carriage house, the cost for rehabbing structures once abandoned is costly. But it should be pointed out rehabbing costs in the long-run tend to be less than the total costs of demolition and rebuild. To date, the city has been slow to address a really green strategy of recycling its old structures and saving millions of dollars in demolition and storage waste.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Instead of calling the mayor, call the owner and offer to buy it.

And preserve it any way you see fit.

Does anyone know the plans the owner has for the site post demolition? Maybe there are some.

The arena was the plan when they tore down all the other buildings of the same vintage not so long ago. Some of those buildings were in much better shape than this one.

Score: 4 ( 4 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

we've got to find out who is in the owners pockets or up their sleeves. my guess......Larry Quinn!

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

This might be a foolish idea but why not tax developers and property owners higher on properties with a lower the 50% occupancy rate on an increasing scale over time to make it prohibitively expensive to let a building die due to neglect?

For instance developer John Smith buys a property

0-5 months - no taxes in order to provide incentive to purchase property and start developing it. Developer must apply for tax exemption in part by submitting a development plan for a property, that plan may include a provision for demolishing an existing structure but if so must include the proper procedures for demolishing a historic structure if the structure on property is indeed historic. This is to prevent developers from bulldozing buildings at large but allows for the demolition of assets that have no historic value.

6-11 months - 5% taxes - a nudge to developers not to let the property sit

12-35 months - 10% taxes - it becomes financially harmful to continue neglecting a property

36-59 months - 20% taxes - make it so expensive to neglect the property that the neglectful owner must sell it, allow the new owner the opportunity to apply for 6 months tax exempt to rehab the property.

60+ months - seize the property - if after 5 years suitable rehab/development on the property cannot be done evaluate the merit of preserving the property. If there is property use the funds collected from the last 5 years of taxes to rehabilitate the property. If there is no justification for preserving the property then demolish it, cut utilities, and turn it into park space/brown field.

By doing this we cut back the tide of continuing to develop new properties when we cannot afford to maintain our existing assets as a region and we begin earning money back from the pockets of neglectful owners who lessen the value of our city through their neglect. It provides an incentive to better use our existing asset and begins to erase our surplus buildings and ease the burden of maintaining an aging infrastructure to unused buildings by replacing unneeded, unwanted buildings with no merit with green space through out the city.

Score: 0 ( 2 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

[sound of wailing]

NOOOOOOO-oooo-ooo-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-!

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Sad, really sad but yet not a surprise.

Wasn't it a mere years ago that after touting the dollar value of the City's construction activity, it had to be pointed out to the Mayor that a major portion of those expenditures were related to demolition, not construction or rehabilitation projects?

We're blessed with a treasure of buildings with a rich architectural heritage. Let's hope that inventory can sustain the combine forces of time, the elements and most of all, indifference.

Score: 1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Leave a comment

Buffalo Rising Poll