Wrecking Buffalo: 145 Kehr Street

To be replaced with "a one-story metal building."

Now, there's real progress. Maybe they could mandate vinyl siding to offset the harsh visual impact of the metal cornices.

I don't understand how tearing down an old brick building and replacing it with a crappy metal one can be that much cheaper than tearing out everything except the exterior walls and just filling it in with the same crappy building they want to build.
Is it that much more expensive to demolish just the interior than demolishing everything?

Seems like there is already plenty of empty space nearby for a one-story metal building to go.

Lots of industrial buildings in Buffalo have found new uses. It seems a shame to demolish this one and take that option away from a potential future owner, when it's not like space is at a premium there right now.

When is it acceptable to tear down an existing building to put up something else? I am just wondering if there are criteria in the urban planning and architecture worlds, or if this is a matter of keeping all existing or "heritage" buildings standing for as long as possible.

What a (seemingly) senseless demolition, from a cost/benefit, environmental and, yes, architectural preservation standpoint. Use the $100k to fix the whole in the ceiling and gut the interior, for God's sake. This is just mind-numbingly stupid.

More waste, more landfill, more pollution, more stuff that we can never get back, More shortsightedness. Go Buffalo!

Ever notice when an excuse for not reusing a building is that it's filled with asbestos. Then, the first thing they have to do before demolition is remove the asbestos. Huh? Either way it's got to be removed.

It's a shame to see these kinds of buildings go. A lot of detail and design went into what could have been a basic industrial box. However, with our city's limited resources I guess I'd rather see efforts go into saving the threatened churches over this kind of place.

A city full of random grass covered empty lots is a lot more visually appealing, marketable and safer than is a city full of abandoned, decaying, rat infested crack houses.

This seems like a pretty cool old building. One can imagine lots of interesting redevelopment ideas for such a blank box, particularly when it's someone else's blank box and someone else's money. I'll admit it's a great looking structure and I'd love to see it re-used, just like I'd love most old buildings find viable modern viable adaptations.

And, yes, a 'single story metal building' certainly sounds banal when compared with a multistory masonry, substantial building such as this whose shell would cost very substantial money to recreate and which, given the expense, will never be rebuilt. Yes, once demolished it will never come back . . . BUT:

How many of you operate a business similar to this owner's? How useful do you think this particular structure could ever be for him or her? That section of town is loaded with such structures, available for pennies, if you have ideas . . .

Notice that this masonry structure has a basement. The ceilings aren't very tall. You can't drive equipment into it. You could never eliminate all the posts and structural columns which would be in the way of your forklifts and frontloaders, even if your floors could possibly hold the loads and even if the ceilings weren't in the way.

What exists here is obviously not easily adaptable to the owner's needs, else I'm sure he or she would have explored fixing and re-using. Moreover, there is little market for such buildings, else the owner would likely sell to someone who values the structure more than this business does. Then they could use the money from the sale to build a more appropriate structure somewhere else.

A single story warehouse building has many, many advantages for industrial use. High ceilings and clear spans: very, very desirable.

So the owner has what options? Abandon the site and find some pristine land upon which to build a new single story metal building (probably former farm land in suburbia)? Should the owner simply move? Abandon the site in the hope that someone else may someday rescue these bricks and mortar? Do so and this structure will continue to decay. Have an idea for viability of such a structure? Lots of them are available for dirt cheap.

On the one hand, sure it seems foolish and a shame to demolish such an expensive piece of built infrastructure. On the other, without an economically viable use, that piece of infrastructure is never permanent, anyway. It will always return to dust, courtesy of nature, and sooner rather than later.

At least in this case I am heartened to see an active business operating and apparently thriving in a very hard scrabble, tough neighborhood. Congratulations to them for continuing to support economic activity in the heart of one of the regions very poorest neighborhoods. We are a stronger city, and this is a stronger neighborhood, for their efforts.

sho'nuff... great point and one I've made on a few occasions when the cry to save everything goes full steam ahead on this board. People here just don't want to recognize that saving everything is unfeasible. I love how everyone cries that someone should spend $100,000 on a remodel instead of a demo. Do you have any data to back up the claims or supposition that it would in fact be cheaper to remodel than demo? It's not, otherwise that would be the option of choice. It's called economics and a lot of people here could use a refresher course.

When you live in an older region with both population decline and population aging, you're faced with some harsh economic realities. The first is that less people, in theory anyway, require less infrastructure (hence the anti-sprawl argument), which includes old buildings and homes.

I get the distain with the loss of buildings, particularly ones with architectural significance, I just have a hard time with the incessant blaming of current building owners for the problem and suggesting they spend more money to remodel and renovate them. It's their money, if you have a better idea, find some investors and do it yourself. But here's a warning... you won't find any because no investor would buy these structures and remodel them with the glut of open space and vacancy everywhere. It's supply and demand. Buildings aren't immune to market realities and population decline.

In this case, if it costs $100,000 for this guy to demo the building and say $200,000 to build some new cheap replacement, I would be willing to bet that a remodel and retro fit, with asbestos abatement, costs significantly more than that. Dollar for dollar, it's more costly to remodel than build new, particularly when you already own the land and its free and clear.

My suggestion here before was that some agency or organization develop a ranking list of historic structures that should be saved and let the market take care of the rest. That's harsh I guess, but until it starts raining money, that's what's going to happen anyway.

This isn't much of a loss. It is a warehouse. There is nothing architecturally significant about it. It isn't in a desireable area. It would be nice if they could recyle the bricks.

BRO and it's users have some huge issues when it comes to tearing down any building pre-1940 despite it's current condition, marketability, use, and location. These constant demo articles are getting old.

Here's an idea, instead of constantly being reactive, why not be pro-active. It's really quite easier than you think, if you're willing to log off the computer, quit yer bitchin, and do something about it (writing an article isn't doing something). May I suggest the following:

1. Create a list of the top 10-20 endangered structures in Buffalo that are most important to save. You can't save them all, so focus on the ones that are significant.

2. Hound the city and it's building inspectors. Tell them there is a building that's being unkept and there need to be fines. Call the city often or use other outlets to make it known that a significant building is falling into disrepair.

See, that's it. Just two steps and you'll be much farther along then you have been everytime someone applies for a demo permit.

The St. Vincent's Female Orphanage sits empty and abused. If you know someone who is interested in fixing a brick building then point them to St. Vincent's instead of worrying yourself about this one.

i don't get it. the east side has ample amounts of cheap vacant land. entire city blocks in some places. wouldn't it be quicker and more cost-effective to buy some of that cheap vacant land and build new and save yourself the expense of asbestos remediation and demolition? something doesn't add up here.

Tearing down a well built "real" building to replace it with a cheap "fake" building....smart...Buffalo stop tearing down to build new cheap shit and rennovate smartly...thanks

There is a card board box on Elmwood Avenue that has sat there since 1982...many panhandlers have used it as their home.

It is weathered, beat up and vacant, but it has been there for so long that it should not be removed from Elmwood as it may now ruin the urban fabric. The EVA is trying to put it on the registry for historic landmarks.

A developers want to remove the box and replace it with a brand new mailbox...what is the point?...I mean, why do we need another mailbox on Elmwood Avenue?

The EVA doesn't want the box removed, but many people living in the city are tired of looking at it.

Brian Higgins has already constructed plans for the new mailbox although they have met with some resistance from the Rich and Wendt foundations.

Looks like this discussion of removing the card board box will carry on for 8 or 9 years years until the we can all agree if it needs to be replaced.

In that time, 100,000 more people will move out of Erie County because there is no progress and 100,000 X-pats considering moving back will say screw it because ever little detail in this town must be beaten down over and over and over and over again!

I am just curious as to what potential the building has. Who would want to live there if they became lofts? With all the available industrial properties, who would want to invest in a business there either? I hate to be a Kiljoy here, but I do ask.

Buildings--historic or otherwise--cannot simply be 'demolished' anymore. They need to be deconstructed. Suburban Hillbilly made a good point about the bricks being recycled. I'm sure that there are other components of that building that could be recycled/reused, as well. We have to change our mindset...

"We need a spirited debate about our throwaway culture and lack of responsible stewardship of our environment..." Amen to that, Blackrocklifer.

Ideally this is a pretty building not too unlike the Buffalo Casket Building that was returned to beautiful, costly apartments. What's the difference: LOCATION. Which one of you bloggers would be willing to live in that forsaken neighborhood? I mean, it's hideous over there. Hideous, dangerous, unsavory. If this building was on Delaware, Elmwood, Main St. even it would be a no brainer. But in this neighborhood? This building doesn't have a chance. And what would go in there? A cappuccino bar, nightclub, retail outlet, jewelry store, IKEA (just kidding, we're too small and need to grow), health foods store, another Urban Roots? Dream on. When I was 5 years old I lived on the corner of Bailey and Delevan across from where I was baptized, St. Gerard's Church. Go look at that neighborhood now. It's a first class S**t hole with thugs, gangs and tons of crime. Unless we can get a giant helicopter and move 145 Kehr to another location it probably has to go before it falls down and hurts somebody. It's a sad state of affairs but that's the way it is in grungy, inner-city post-industrial towns across America. sad but true.

Slobadan>"people who buy old buildings and dont do anything will them until its too late should be in jail"

Great idea to imprison owners of this small business.

Are you people saying when anybody buys a building in Buffalo they should be legally bound with a lifetime commitment to own it and maintain it for the rest of their lives and never demo it, and if at some point they no longer want it to stand they should be sent to jail?

Doc makes good points about the location. In fact, being between E Ferry and Genesee St looks like it's in between the turfs of the two gangs related to the City Grill shooting and the retaliation for that.

I notice that none of you - not even one - has suggested what this building could realistically be used for in a viable way even if it was in great condition. It's been asked by several, and every one of you has ducked the question and pretended it's a non-issue.

Why do some of you such as WCP, Steel, grad94, Slobodan apparently all want to financially punish this small job-creating business here by legally forcing them to own and maintain this old building forever?

I love Peter Griffin.

apparently Peter Griffin got the boot...cuz all his messages got erased

Anyway, Biniskeweics is right on with this one...well said my brother

unfort, the reality is the area surrounding this non relevant building is a gang land of buffalo bloods and crips mixed in with some of the MS13 crews...not a desirable place to inhabit much less invest alot of money in

This side of town is'nt exactly a 'Happening' area or even close to vibrant. Would anyone notice it gone?