City January 26, 2011 12:05 AM

Preservation Ready: 110-20 South Park Avenue

Preservation Ready: 110-20 South Park Avenue

Darryl Carr has petitioned City Housing Court to allow demolition of 110-120 South Park Avenue due to "imminent danger of collapse."  The Campaign for Greater Buffalo History, Architecture and Culture obtained a stay on the demolition order disputing the owner's assessment that the buildings are unsound.  

The threat of demolition to these historic buildings puts them on a list of ten "must save" properties compiled by a volunteer group of people looking to stem the loss of Buffalo's irreplaceable historical heritage.  The list is being rolled out over the coming months leading up to the National Trust conference in October. 

Buildings on the list are under at risk for a number of reasons and if action is not taken soon, they likely will not be around five years from now.  Many of them are unloved and underappreciated and don't have an owner or group fighting to save them.  It's a means of being proactive rather than reactive.  The first building on the list, the Breckenridge Street Church, was profiled recently here on Buffalo Rising and also in Buffalo Spree.

Together, the South Park buildings are part of a one-block long manufacturing and warehouse district with strong links to Buffalo's commercial and industrial history, the Great Lakes and the Erie Canal.  The properties are located in the Cobblestone Historic District, established in 1993 by the Buffalo Preservation Board. 

DSC_0403c.JPG

110-114 South Park Avenue.  The building located at the intersection of Illinois and South Park (formerly Elk Street) is notable as a rare example of antebellum commercial architecture which was adopted for manufacturing during the early 20th century.  Several of its industrial tenants were part of the marine service and repair industry which has a long association with this immediate area of Buffalo.  The property is also significant because of its connection with George Mugridge, proprietor of one of most enduring Victorian-era bakeries.

Beginning in 1841, George Mugridge (1816-1897), an English immigrant, was associated with his father in the bakers business at various locations in Buffalo.  After his father retired in 1850, George formed a partnership with William H. Clark. 

As of 1852 they were in business at this location, the property then being owned by Clark's family.  The bakers presumably selected the corner at Illinois and Elk both for its proximity to grain transfer facilities- they consumed 50-60 barrels of flour per day- and to shipping.  Their most loyal customers were the men who worked the adjoining shops, but their largest market, one they would virtually monopolize, was the cracker trade of New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin and Minnesota. 

The Mugridge Bakery temporarily relocated to the Commercial Hotel block in 1860 while Clark appears to have used the Illinois and Elk site to supply a new retail outlet operated under his own name.  Mugridge returned to the 1852 site as of 1867, having purchased the property the preceding year, and Clark moved elsewhere.

The original bakery is a 100 x 50' four-story brick building which is distinguished by its prominent cast-iron window moldings and sills; a cast-iron storefront on the South Park elevation has been partially covered over.  In 1871 the Mugridges added the three-story addition, 60 x 100' which also still stands; this section features cast-iron sills only.  Tie rods are evident in both these sections, though not in a three-story building immediately adjoining the 1871 building on the north.

James A. Mugridge joined his father in the family firm as of 1861.  Mugridge & Son employed 30-40 workers and used the most up-to-date equipment.  As early as 1870, the whole of the operation was served by an elevator, surely one of the firm in Buffalo.

In 1897 George Mugridge transferred control of the family business to his sons, George W. and William.  He stated that he did so due to "the natural love and affection I bear for them in accordance with the promised and agreements heretofore made..."  Three years later the brothers along with a third brother, James, sold the property to James A. Roberts and incorporated the family business as Mugridge Baking Company; Roberts and two other med were majority stockholders while the brothers held only scant shares.  Three years after that, in 1903, Mugridge Baking Company went bankrupt and finally folded, a probable victim of both overcapitalization and of the new cracker monopoly, Nabisco.  James A. Mugridge attempted to carry on at the old stand, but eventually reties as of 1911.

DSC_0401c.JPG

By then, portions of the Mugridge property had been renovated by a real estate firm to house a variety of industrial tenants.  Despite the fusion of several adjoining structures into one functional unit, the Mugridge site acquired two sets of addresses: 10-14 Elk Street for the original part and 21-33 Illinois Street for the 1871 addition and adjoining sections.  In 1905 Daniel Knowlton constructed another building immediately north of the Mugridge site.  The two-story brick factory at 39 Illinois was designed by well-known Buffalo architectural firm of R.J. Reidpath.  This new facility later was integrated with the Mugridge buildings after Knowlton finally acquired the later property in 1926.

At the time of Knowlton's purchase, tenants occupying sections of the old bakery included Phoenix Die Casting Co.; Ford Bros., a marine machine shop; Buffalo Standard Ink; Dextro Products and H.S. Wright Co., purveyor of steamboat supplies. 

118-120 South Park Avenue.  This building is historically significant for several reasons.  It was the site of one of the earliest brass manufacturers in Buffalo and may be the oldest extant structure associated with that branch of the local metal trades.  It has been in continuous use for various types of small scale metalworking for over 140 years. 

The firm of Brown & McCutcheon was established in 1858 in the building then known as 3 Elk Street where they may have shared space with the bakery started by George Mugridge.  Brown and McCutcheon set up shop as suppliers of brass and other steamship supplies.  McCutcheon contributed his practical expertise in metalworking while Brown presumably capitalized on the contacts he had developed during his years serving as an engineer on Lake Erie freighters.

In 1864 Brown acquired title to the land subsequently listed as 16-20 Elk Street.  Based on changes in the firm's city directory listings, the three-story brick building now standing at 116-20 South Park dates from 1869.  The original lot purchased by Brown measured 51' frontage along Elk Street and 100' deep; the firm's original building covers about half that land.  Ornate cast-iron pilasters with capitals reminiscent of the Corinthian order frame the front entry.  The nine windows of the South Park frontage feature stone sills and segmental arch heads, the arch masonry being a double course of headers.  The cornice is corbelled.

The work performed by Brown & McCutcheon at their Buffalo Brass Foundry was described as "largely connected with the marine trade of the lakes, in supplying pumps, whistles, and the brass work for tug propeller engines."  The shop handled copper, tin and sheet iron work as well as brass casting and finishing.  Peak employment during the 1870s was approximately 30-40 hands.  The partners parted company in 1876.  Brown carried on until 1888-1889 when he retired and rented the premises to Queen City Metal Company.  This firm continued the business of steamboat and other engineering supplies until 1898.

The successor of Queen City Metal at this location was Crumlish Forge Co., makers of small stationary and portable smiths' forges.  It was at this time that the use of the property shifted away from nonferrous castings and sheet iron work toward the niches in the forging market that its occupants have served since the turn of the century.  Crumlish Forge was succeeded in 1902 by James A. Duggan and then by Thomas Paul, both blacksmiths.  In 1909 William V. Bush, another blacksmith, commenced renting the shop; in 1921 he purchased the property from A.H. Brown's window.  Bush enlarged the facilities in 1937 by constructing a steel-frame, metal-clad addition still standing immediately to the north of the original building.

During World War II, Bush's shop turned out parts for diesel engines.  Ed Rudnicki, the building's most recent occupant, began his blacksmithing business in 1954.

Current owner Carr, owner of Cobblestone Bar that is adjacent to the properties at South Park and Mississippi Street, is said to have reuse plans for the property.  A few sources say he is developing plans for a high rise hotel on the site.  Most others say his only goal is additional parking. 

At least two capable developers have tried to purchase and redevelop the buildings.  Carr has ignored their interest.

Get Connected:

Preservation Ready Facebook Group

Darryl Carr, 716.848.1930

DSC_0344c.JPG

Source of Historic Information: Building-Structure Inventory Form, 1993

 

View image

Comments

Leave a comment

This would be a total, unnecessary and stupid loss for Buffalo and Carr should be stopped. Look what Rochester is capable of doing with their industrial sites: www.culverroadarmory.com.

Really, Buffalo, we cannot do better than another parking lot? Are we really that determined to erase our architectural heritage and future potential? I encourage others to call Carr-I certainly will.

Score: 6 ( 10 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

As people may already know I am not a preservation homes like some of the other posters on here. That being said I truely believe that these building should be saved. I really think they represent a unique environment. If redeveloped imagine what type of neighborhood environment would be created. You would have the local bars on one side of the street, HSBC on the other side of the street. If converted into living space, and HSBC build their own building on the Webster block, and maaaaybe juuuust maaaaybe we get a brige connecting to the foot of Main St. You would have some serious infill. Maybe we would start talking about the foot of Main St as the economic catalyst of Buffalo. Plus lets not forget Canal Side. If we can take that old church and transport if DT to canal side it would probably be cose effective as it would save time and labor, as opposed to creating new buildings.......a boy can dream right?

Score: 10 ( 14 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

The one place where a historical building could be used in the general canal side area and it is going to be torn down.

Does anyone have a clue?

Score: 10 ( 10 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Does anyone know who the architect is? I'm working on a project that has the exact cast iron windows and store front.

Darryl's bar the"Cobblestone" is a perfect example of a great re-use. Although he didnt renovate it and turn it into a bar, he certainly is enjoying the profits which allowed him to purchase the adjoining properties. Hopefully he'll realize how important these structures are to the cobblestone district and Buffalo.

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

Clearly Darryl could care less about how "important these structures are to the cobblestone district and Buffalo", or we wouldn't be dealing with this. This requires community input and demonstration.

replied to KGalleries
Score: 3 ( 7 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Then get started with the demonstration. Chain yourself to his building like David Torke did on Coe Place. Are you waiting for someone else to do it for you?

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

the fact that he is unwilling to sell, and that he has not yet done anything to keep up the buildings shows he is interested in nothing else than a parking lot. mark my words- this man is interested in nothing else other than lining his pockets at the expense of our heritage. I have been doing my best to encourage people not to patronize the Cobblestone bar for months. Its not even that good anyways. The property should be taken from him for code violations and sold by the city to a developer.

Score: 4 ( 8 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Oh yeah, what code violations? They look pretty stable to me. Notice the coverings on the outer windows. Ps and the last thing I would ever want would be The City of Buffalo taking over anything. They can barely keep themselves a float.

Score: 0 ( 6 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

So there are developers who want these buildings but the owner insists on tear down?

So a block away there historic canal area with no historic buildings where people are fighting to have fake replacements built but few if any are complaining that the last remaining REAL canal era buildings may very well be demolished?

So the city created a "cobble stone" historic district based on these historic buildings but has never done anything to protect these buildings?

Score: 13 ( 17 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

you are, as in most instances, correct.

replied to STEEL
Score: 3 ( 7 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

"Yeah yeah STEEL's the MAN if he cant do it no one can!!!!" I didnt know STEEL had cheerleaders?

Score: -13 ( 17 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

While the historical view of companies once located in this building is interesting, in many ways it is irrelevant.

We have an old structure located in an area near where millions of (taxpayer) dollars will be spent to create an historically accurate representation of turn of the century Buffalo, a time when this city actually mattered to the world of commerce.

I get it - and I agree with others who question why anyone would demolish what APPEARS to be a viable structure already located on REBUILT cobblestone streets only to build a fake reproduction (or similar).

I suppose there could be reasons the owner would want to do that, but the opinion of online bloggers or bar boycotters don't matter if he owns the building. This country allows us to be shortsighted and thick and downright stupid - so long as we follow the law.

So, let's get back to the article itself:

With respect to this property, when we last heard from the preservation superheroes at BRO, plans for the imminent demolition of the structure were based upon its (alleged) instability due to the corrosion of brickwork from the building's previous use as a forge.

That claim (reminiscent of the claim that original Erie Canal Terminus stones would, once unearthed and exposed to water, "explode") raised the ire of the local pro-preservation community and (if I remember correctly) the building received a "stay of execution".

This was 4 months ago.

I would be interested to learn what happened as a result of that brouhaha.

Did heads roll in the City's Building Inspection department? They, after all, appeared culpable for taking a blind eye to speculator Carr's purported strategy of "demolition by neglect" and for failing to present an argument to Judge Nowak against Carr's plan. Didn't they?

I would prefer if the author could report on what has changed since September (the article appears below, even) with respect to calls for independent engineering analysis of the structure, the condition of "contaminated" bricks, etc.

Whereas I would like to see this building rehabbed, mine is but an opinion not backed by any money to do so. The bigger question has to do with code and zone enforcement by the City....I DO pay for that!

Was an engineering study performed? Did the zoning or inspection departments find fault with Carr? Are there legal options the city could impose should they agree that demolition would be wasteful?

We jumped on the house flipper from Houston 5 or 6 years ago...but I suppose if the city allows Carr to build a lot, there's little anyone else can do about it.

Come on BRO, give us an update!

Score: 3 ( 9 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I'm pretty surprised that this cluster of buildings isnt already developed in some way/shape/form, given its proximity to the arena. I think all the buildings, if they are in fact sound and in need of upkeep rather than in danger of collapse, could make a great downtown bar/restaurant area.

Of course, you now have an owner who has done nothing to preserve the building, will do nothing to preserve the building and can see green money waiting for him once he knocks it down and sells the land. Not exactly someone who will let it go easily to preservationists unless they are willing to match whatever he stands to make selling after demolition.

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

Demolition by neglect once again...because we all know Buffalo needs more surface parking lots. Good grief.

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

We need more surface parking lots like we need more unoccupied buildings. Unfortunately a surface parking lot is safer for residents and less of a liability for the owner.

The building may have a documented history but the prospects of development and use for the future is limited. I wish it wasn't so but no one wants to buy it for the price the owner is asking and no one has come up with a viable reuse for it in the immediate future.

Let the down votes begin, some of you just hate reality!

replied to greenArcht
Score: -4 ( 16 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

boob, you are so full of #$it.

replied to bobbycat
Score: 1 ( 11 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

@Travelrr - I am curious about your breast fixation? No substance to your comment, just adolescent banter as usual.

replied to Travelrrr
Score: -2 ( 4 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I cannot understand that any significant and or historic buildings in Buffalo can be left like this. Buffalo needs to demand that Carr renovate these buildings or sell to a developer that can and will restore them. Does this city have absolutely no balls, if Rocco Termini could profitable do what he did to the Webb building then there is absolutely no reason it can't be done here. City must force Carr to renovate or sell or fine him to death till he does, case closed, more parking will never help that cave he calls a nightclub - here, take a look st it www.cobblestonebar.com. If Paladino had his way the Webb would have been a parking lot. What will it take to change the status quo, a revolt or maybe a riot and some tire fires?

Score: 3 ( 7 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

The city can't exactly force him the renovate. They can sight him for blight and take the parcel over by eminent domain. But that takes time and then the City would be the neglectful owner and they don't have the money it may take to resurrect a site like this.

Due dilligence may find other issues on this parcel besides the obvious. Resurrection will have to consider history as closely as the preservationists. Maybe the reason that this building and it's next door neighbor weren't taken during the Crossroads project were for their "histories".

Hopefully someone can find a use for these buildings and if they do, I hope they have the money and resources to make them habitable.

In New York State, and anywhere in the US, you can't ignore the environmental history of a building as much as some owners try to ignore the social history of a property.

replied to derby98
Score: 1 ( 7 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Would you like Buffalo to demand what you should do with your property? Are you thinking that our government should be used a as large building owner's association where we all pay dues and set up architectural and aesthetics guidelines. Is this how our government should operate.

replied to derby98
Score: -3 ( 3 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Call me a commie, but...

Absolutely! - local governments should take a more active role. They absolutely should be out to protect their built environment, infrastructure, urban fabric - protecting these things protects the community's safety, character, quality of life, tax revenue, etc...

Just because a property is privately owned, doesn't mean it doesn't have profound impacts upon the public welfare.

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

Is this idea supposed to sound radical? Sounds like the status quo to me...more or less.

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

As stated by derby98: "Buffalo needs to demand that Carr renovate these buildings or sell to a developer that can and will restore them."

It's this type of illogical thinking that's the problem in this preserve everything, everywhere, at all times debate. The argument here goes something like this, forming two options:

1. "The Emotional BRO Model of Historic Preservation" This model states that everyone ignores the current market conditions and surmises that someone they don;t know should spend his/her money remodeling a building so that BRO can be happy something got saved, even if the renovation costs are subtstanially higher than he could ever recover, hence making it similar to a sub-prime, underwater mortgage. Forget concepts like assessed values, comparable sales, and loan-to-value ratios, BRO's economists say remodel it at whatever costs is necssary, even though you own it and have the right to demo it.

2. "The BRO Subsidy Model" where select gentrifiers and other more well-off people with the time and energy to care about such things, while not discussing lattes, Belgian beers and overpriced food, decide that taxpayer dollars will have the highest return for the city's redevelopment if used to subsidize properties with no value and with significant costs and limitations. The model conveniently ignores other areas of the city that need physical repair to PUBLICALLY owned infrastructure that would do more for renewal than one singular building. This model, since no one at BRO is paying attention, has failed for 30+ years.

The reality of how the economy actually works goes somethign like this:

Guy buys a crappy worn-down substadnard property that some think is historic and they discuss it on their self-aggrandizing website. The other 99.9% of the people don't care, know where it is and worry about such things. That 99.9% represent the economy. The economy doens't care because there are so many of these buildings and so little economic activity in the region that the building are insignificant. That insignificance leads to decline in building conditions and therefore downward pressure on prices, as population and economic decline is wont to do. The market then is full cheaply prices, often vacant or underutilized properties. Our buyer, not wanting or need such a building and finding the price acceptable, purchases it and its his to do as he pleases, until Tim Tielman and the other 0.1% of the population pressure the city into making a foray into the marketplace and thwarting the guy's ideas. BRO's aesthetic police, too busy buying $7 beers at the Blue Monk and acting pretentious and uppity, snivel at the demo plans but fail to come up with their own plan to raise funds to start buying and rehabbing building because.... they know no one would be crazy enough to do so because no lender would give the money and no invester would put a nickel into it.

Less people (plus aging population) + less businesses = poor building conditions.

That's a fact of life in Buffalo. This is the city and region's future.... continued decline. And sinking money into old structure (physical capital) and ignoring people (human capital) has been and will continue to lead Buffalo astray.

Score: -1 ( 15 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I wish it wasn't true, but I think you are on to something.

replied to buffalofalling
Score: 1 ( 9 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Actually the fact is that there are investors who want these buildings and want to invest in them. Actually the fact is that there are hundreds of thousands of people living and working and operating businesses in the city who don't want their life and property and investments decimated by owners who don't take care of their property. So maybe you should consider what the other owners and business people on this block actually would like to see happen here before you get so smug.

replied to buffalofalling
Score: 5 ( 11 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

So where are these investors then Steel? Where are they for all of the abandoned buildings in Buffalo? I don't doubt that there are plenty of bad landlords in Buffalo, but if you own a business and the landlord doesn't take care of the place, why should you stay in their building? Why don't the business owners just buy one of the numerous empty buildings in Buffalo then? And how do you know what the other owners and business people on that block want? Who else even owns a business on that block besides the Cobblestone guy?

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

There are three other recently renovated buildings on the block and one more planned. I have heard from reliable sources that none of the other owners on the block want these buildings torn down because an empty lot will hurt their investments.

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

@Steel > Who are the investors? What are they going to do with the building? Why haven't they made an offer to purchase it from the owner?

There are too many folks who say they would do something with buildings like this but few of them actually put their money where their mouth is.

So who is stepping up right now to make an offer on the building? As they say in the Godfather, make him an offer he cannot refuse, especially if this building is that important. What is a few thousand dollars extra when it comes to saving a historical gem that you proclaim this building to be.

Show us the money!

replied to STEEL
Score: -4 ( 6 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Hundreds of thousands? thats a stretch.

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

I'm sure that post is going to start a cavalcade of indignant and outraged replies, but that is pretty much the truth of the matter. I suspect the first post about how the free market is an evil force that would be better replaced by some fine - sounding but completely unrealistic idea of how the local/regional/national economy should work is just around the corner. Let's see if I'm right...

replied to buffalofalling
Score: 1 ( 7 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I wish it wasn't true, but I think you are on to something.

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

@Buffalofalling - Well said!

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

BF> "The BRO Subsidy Model"

The concept of the world functioning as a pure free market and these "gentrified" areas being a product of market manipulation is an oft repeated fairy tail. You are conveniently leaving out that the need for these subsidies is a result of other spending and policy decisions that made these parts of town "obsolete." It is not just the Belgian-latte crowd that uses a "subsidy model."

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

There should be no argument against saving these buildings. Here on BRO we have debated the plight of many old buildings but most were in unfortunate locations or not always architecturally significant. These have it all, location, significance, and are a part of the Cobblestone Historic District.

I took photo's of these buildings in 1978 when there were still quite a few

Score: 3 ( 7 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

old brick buildings in that area. At the time I was trying to document the earliest buildings and homes that survived. This group was among the oldest industrial buildings in Buffalo and I believe they are the oldest in the downtown core. They have a very appealing design that even those without an interest in preservation can appreciate.

Private property rights cannot always be the end all, some buildings are above that realm. Buildings located within a Historic District and that are part of our heritage deserve more scrutiny. Knowingly buying such buildings brings with it a responsibility to do the right thing, this guy should be held accountable, it's not just about him and his potential to make money.

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

So what do you propose we do with it then? Seize the building by eminent domain? Hit the guy with fines for not being up to code until he relinquishes it to whoever would want to buy it?
Look, I don't think the building necessarily has to be torn down, but how are we supposed to save it? How do we know that the building can even be saved?

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

I think code enforcement, if you knowingly buy an architecturally significant building in a historic district in a highly visible part the city then you accept certain responsibilities. These buildings are an asset to the city, not just private property. They should be under much more scrutiny and maintained by the owner in a way to protect his investment and that of the greater community.

When I purchased my condemned home (also significant and highly visible) I was held to that standard. After meeting with the Building Inspector I was required to bring the house into substantial compliance in an agreed upon timetable. I was held accountable and expected to follow through. Why do we expect less from speculators and profiteers?

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

@Steel> Code enforcement should be executed uniformly for all buildings. We can't pick and choose how and when to enforce laws.

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

Maybe they should tax him at the price he insists the building is worth.

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

Buffalofalling seems to have all the answers. My post was based on this new updated demo request and wcperspective's history report on the property (well, and I guess to get a bit of a spark going too). This property was on BRO a while back - is the city going to take Carr's word that demo is only answer. How do we know it's not salvageable, has a structural engineer looked at it, do we know if there is a developer out there, no I don't want my take dollar to pay for it but if it qualifies for historic tax credits then that tax dollar I would let go of. I am just bringing up the what if's and why not's, I'm no developer or preservationist just a long time resident that does not want to see all the city's past in the dump. Every building can't be saved but this is down the street from a past that being resurrected. All involved need to try harder.
What I can guarantee you is with all the development in the area, if this was turned into apartments they would be filled on opening day. whats your opinion Mr. Termini?

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

The "not salvagable" is usually a lie, the claim was once made about my own house. I have worked in the building trades for over 30 years and know it is possible to save almost anything. Budget is of course a real issue but the "too far gone" story is used way too often by owners seeking only to profit in some way.

replied to derby98
Score: 3 ( 5 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

@Blackrocklifer - How much did it cost to renovate your house in terms of what it is worth on the market today? Your house is obviously a labor of love but did it make true economic sense in terms of return on investment?

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

I spent about 50K, that included the aquisition price of 5K, back taxes and water at about 3K, and misc legal, etc at about 2K. That means I spent about 40K on materials, provided all my own labor (with help from friends and relatives). Today the house is worth about 100K, my labor over 20 years certainly exceeded 50K but I wasn't looking for a profit, just the chance to restore and live in a great old house.

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

{deleted- flaming}

replied to Blackrocklifer
Score: -4 ( 6 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

That is impressive, I can't imagine replacing everything in my house for $40K. I recently redid my kitchen and two bathrooms and it cost $25K in materials alone. I built my own cabinets and vanities and saved a bunch, but the costs added up with new countertops, appliances, tubs, flooring, and the like.

How did you do it so cheaply?

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

The bulk of the work was done 20 years ago before lumber prices spiked. The exterior was the largest expense, new windows, clapboard, millwork, roof, etc. The interior costs were mainly in new electric, plumbing and heating. I reused all the original woodwork and floors, they had been preserved under layers of modern materials and required only a lot of labor to restore. I built my own cupboards using t&g pine to reflect the early period of the house, didn't include appliances in my cost. The original restoration was fairly modest in design, a basic kitchen and 2 bathrooms that could be updated later. I have been doing some upgrades lately and didn't include those costs in my estimate, the 50K was the cost to make the house livable with all the basics completed.

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

First off I would like to say that it is truely amazing what you did with your house, and it was def a labor of love, so cudos to you. That being said, your total renovation costs were 50k. If you take that estimate in todays lumber prices your probably looking at 60k. Now you did all the work yourself, which was probably a third of the renovation costs if you would have had someone else do it. So we can add another 20k to the 60k and were looking at now being up to 80k. Then if you figure the fact that you stated you went with a modest kitchen and bathrooms your looking at another 10-15k easy. So in the end if you were a developer your ROI would be close to zero. Now you see how some building are not always saveable from a developers stand point. Developers are out to make as much money as possible, with the smallest risk/reward.

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

That is why tax credits are so important for these renovations. In many cases they make a project profitable where it otherwise would have broke even or lost money.

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

So what happens after we do that? Even if we could get him to sell then, wouldn't that essentially make the next person who is supposed to by it pay that same new tax rate?

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

Why do the city assessment records indicate that 110 S Park is assessed at 164k when the sale records indicate that the property was purchased for 350k in 10/09. Did the city miss this last year when the performed reassessments?

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

All nonsense aside, the building looks pretty stable to me.

Score: 2 ( 4 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

This area is visually very similar to St. Ann's Warehouse in Brooklyn, www.stannswarehouse.org/index.php, a performance venue that has helped revitalize downtown Brooklyn. Hmmmmm.......

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

Too bad the building isn't in Brooklyn.

replied to Travelrrr
Score: -3 ( 9 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

You know the assessments are the ral power they city holds. I think its Charleston thats pushing there agenda by hyper inflating property assessment ot the point land lords are either foreclosed on by the city or they have to sell it. If these historical buildings turley have buyers, the city can say its worth 10million and force the sale that way. I'm not a huge fan of the government doing things like that but in some cases its the best option. This looks like one of those options. Unlike the previous 'must save' with just about no use, this place is unquestionable a money make in the right hands.

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

Admittedly, it is difficult to determine from exterior photographs but this collection of buildings does not appear to be in any state of eminent collapse. In fact, the corner building appears to be quite stable and the front façade hosts a rather elaborate cast iron header with side columns.

Always walking on the proverbial eggshells, does the owner have credible, documented statements from a professional structural engineer to add credence to his petitioning efforts for demolition?

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

Leave a comment

Buffalo Rising Poll