City March 29, 2011 11:40 AM

Different Vision Offered for Blacksmith Shops: Reuse

Different Vision Offered for Blacksmith Shops: Reuse

Darryl Carr will soon be in County Court seeking to demolish the blacksmith shop properties at 110-120 South Park Avenue.  Two neighbors with significant investment on the same block will also be in attendance when the case is heard.  They are hoping for a different outcome- preservation and reuse of the historic buildings.

Developers Sam Savarino and Roger Trettel not only own property surrounding Carr's buildings, they have experience repurposing historic sites.  Trettel has renovated properties in Fredonia and elsewhere downtown including the Buehl Block, 283 Ellicott Street and in the 500 block of Main Street.  He owns 49 Illinois Street where he is planning to renovate the building for commercial space. 

Savarino and Chris Jacobs have renovated three buildings along Mississippi Street for a mix of restaurant, office and residential space.  Savarino's company has worked on and developed numerous adaptive reuse projects. 

Trettel and Savarino do not see unsalvageable buildings- they see opportunity.

DSC_0404s.JPG"The buildings have challenges, but they can be saved," says Savarino.  "They're well worth saving."

bshop2.bmpThe concerned neighbors had Silvestri Architects prepare a rendering showing what the buildings could be.  Their vision is much different than a parking lot.  "We put something together to give a flavor of what it could become."

Savarino is quick to point out he doesn't intend to interfere with the court case and says he has talked to Carr about selling but has been rebuffed.  Savarino wants the City to force Carr to bring the buildings up to code and stabilize them. 

"We don't want to see a bad thing happen here.  I think it would be a sin to allow him to knock the buildings down," says Savarino.  "Or fall down."

bshop3.bmp
Update:  The appeal on the case is in County Court.  A court date can not be set until the City submits information.  Housing Court cannot take action until the appeal is resolved.

View image

Comments

Leave a comment


This looks great. I hope the owner can be convinced to save the building.

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

This is really one of the nicest looking reuse renditions I have seen on this site. I really hope the building is saved. Have Savarino or Trettel mentioned possibly buying this building from the owner?

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

From the article:

"Savarino is quick to point out he doesn't intend to interfere with the court case and says he has talked to Carr about selling but has been rebuffed."

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

I agree - this could never be replicated in Canal Side or anywhere else ever again. I do believe the article mentions that Savarino has approached the owner to sell but has been rejected.

I highly doubt the Preservation Board will allow these buildings to be demolished, if it gets to that point.

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

Just tossing an idea out there, since mr. Pegula bought the Sabres he's done a lot to make the Sabres a First Class Organization. One of the major knocks about the area was how it looked like a ghosttown, so i would think it would very much be a concern of Mr. Pegula, since this reflects on the team, and they are direct neighbors, so should show concern.

The Sabres have a suggestion box and been very interactive with the Fans. I suggest everyone send a suggestion for them to get involved. Even just as a concerned neighbor.

http://www.formstack.com/forms/?1053547-QiPO7w83yP
This is from http://sabres.nhl.com/

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

Given the number of changes the Sabres have put in place in the last month, this suggestion should be given real consideration by those looking to have a better outcome for the property.

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

What is Daryl Carr's plan for the property if the buildings are demolished?

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

looks like a great place for Flying Bison Brewery to relocate to from the dreads of Riverside....assuming Matt's would like to incorporate a fully operational brewery / brewhouse restaurant

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

It's a great idea and Matt Brewing Company certainly has the money to do something like that.
BUT, Carr does not want to sell the property.

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

It would be a great location but not sure if it's big enough. Tim told me the other week that they might outgrow the building they are currently in by the end of this year. Would like to see them move to a better location. This would be nice area for them to transfer to.

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

From what I know of Pegula and his team, they are already looking into ways to reinvigorate the Cobblestone District. But, calling this situation to his attention certainly couldn't hurt.

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

The only thing is I think Pegula and Co. won't do anything, and are smart to not get too involved. Ted Black has already stated that they will not be getting into the business of development. I'm sure Pegula would love to do tons of things down in the area around the arena and all over the city, and he has the $ to do so. But I think he is smart not to, or to do so cautiously, because people are going to be expecting it from him. Think of how many time it is mentioned on here that UB should "save something", >cough cough

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

I e-mailed Flying Bison about moving downtown about a year or so ago. They said as much as they would live to they do not enough time or money for a project like that.

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

I e-mailed Flying Bison about moving downtown about a year or so ago. They said as much as they would live to they do not enough time or money for a project like that.

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

I walked by the building recently and I believe that the owner is deliberately damaging the building (breaking windows, doors, etc.) to make it appear worse than it really is.

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

Already a couple steps ahead of you guys. I emailed the suggestion box about 2 weeks ago telling the Sabres what a great idea it would be if they could somehow be involved in rehabbing these buildings and creating a fanzone experience similar to that in Columbus, Nashville, Kansas City, Baltimore, etc. Hopefully, the more people email, the more engaged they will become.

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

I did the same thing. In order to have visiting fans/players not think Buffalo is a "dump" you need to improve the infrastructure around the arena. What do you think the players do on thier offtime between games?

Take a look at what Mr. Kraft did in Foxborro, MA
http://www.patriot-place.com/


You can leave the stadium and be shopping/ dining etc. Buffalo NEEDS THIS!!

Cobblestone or bust!

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

haha!!! patriot place has a bass pro!!!

replied to 5to81ALLDAY
Score: -1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

This is what is needed and it would thrive at that location...
http://www.dinosaurbarbque.com/

Score: 12 ( 12 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Was just about to post that. This site makes too much sense for dinosaur. There is an infinite amount of re-use that could happen here. They CANNOT let this place be destroyed.

replied to rb09
Score: 2 ( 2 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Dinosaur might be a good fit there -- and the Big D has its eye on Buffalo:
http://archives.buffalorising.com/story/dinosaur_stalks_buffalo

replied to rb09
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I'm beginning to doubt they want to be in Buffalo.
They chose to open locations in Troy and now Newark, NJ over Buffalo.
I just hope if they do decide on a location here it's not somewhere on Transit Road.

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

I realize this doesn't apply to all of the buildings, but I thought there was an issue of with latent toxicity in 1 or more of the buildings because of the former metalworking operations they housed, that made re-use for anything other than industrial purposes implausible?

This goes back a few years, and as I recall there were differing opinions on the validity of those findings, but has that issue been somehow resolved?

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

Credit where credit is due. As someone who sees a great deal of preservationist action as nothing more than obstruction to progress, Savarino and Trettle are right on in thier actions.

The difference between what these guys are doing compared to what is done by other members of the pro-preservation crowd is take a proactive approach to this issue. Clearly this corner should be saved. However, you shouldn't sue Carr and make him keep the structure as is just so you can say a historic building still stands. By establishing a look, feel and potential endpoint (with the rendering) they set the framework for what the building can be. If I'm Daryl I would cut my losses, sell to Savarino and Trettle and let them handle it. That way if the building actually is in terrible shape it is out of his hands.

Score: 7 ( 9 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

gotta nip in the bud this bogus claim about preservationists suing people.

you find us one case in all of buffalo history where a preservationist sued a business or private individual, and please post it.

you won't be able to. because when preservationists go to court, it is to sue the government. like when new york state was allowing the richardson complex to rot contrary to its legal obligation to maintain it.

replied to costrander08
Score: 2 ( 4 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I agree, this is a perfectly ideal rendering of a reuse project that could be the shot in the arm needed for this neighborhood. You know what is in that picture that won't be there in real life? Parking and people.

Score: 0 ( 4 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

As most people on here know I am def not a Homer Preservationist when it comes to a decent amount of articles on this website. Buuuuut that being said, I think that losing these building would be a HUUUUUGE (were talking Billy Fuccillo huge) step backwards. I remember doing some urban exploring (in my car) when I first moved up here about six years ago, and one of the first places I drove around was the arena. When I drove past these building inparticular I thought "what an amazing location, I cant believe these building are still undeveloped". Just think about the opportunity these building represent. If these building were ever developed into Condos or lofts with first floor retail (ie artists rendering) this would instantly be Buffalo's newest hot spots to live. Just think, you're a hop skip and a jump away from the arena, party in the plaza in the summertime, CanalSide (if it ever gets built), right next to the water, its quiet, and plenty of accessable parking on top of that. If these were renovated, and HSBC relocated to the Webster Block, and built their own tower just imagine how many young professionals would relocate to this section of the city? My guess would be quite a lot. I cant beleive im saying this but I really hope the preservation board never allows the demo of these buildings.

Score: 12 ( 12 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I have been reading this site for sometime now and only commenting here and there. Almost always I am 100% in agreement with Burch. As my previous comment states I'm still in agreement. This part of the city has incredible potential but is nothing but a barren wasteland. Part of that are the two massive parking lots two blocks from this location. But if this corner got turned into a mixed use project with lofts, a bar (or two) and retail you would be on your way to creating a vibrant district anchored by a building that draws 19,000 people at least 60 times a year.

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

Glad you self-declared "non preservationists" are joining the band wagon on this one-careful, you might get hooked and start chaining yourselves to buildings with us.

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

Ummmm lets not get carried away, lol.

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

I wouldn't necessarily say I'm on the bandwagon. I just see the folly in taking these structures out. I actually wrote a blog post on the matter if you're interested http:2inthebox.wordpress.com

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

I couldnt have said it any better, Burch. I feel the same way you do about most things. The other side of this block is already developed with bars such as Benchwarmers and Cobblestone. If something could done with this side, it would automatically become the new hot spot.

This could then also open up more ideas to the building just across the street from this corner where the Metro ends. (name?)

Bring in the development of the inner harbor, HSBC's plans, Larkin District....this could be the block that ties it all together.

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

Good to see you guys coming around. I think the biggest challenge to preservation is in convincing skeptics to see the potential that exists in the great old buildings we are fortunate to have here in Buffalo. It isn't always easy to recognize the beauty that is hidden by decades of neglect and alterations. Too many buildings are written of just because they are boarded up, painted over, or defaced by modern materials.

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

agreed. cosmetic flaws are the easiest things in the world to fix, but are the shallowest of all reasons to throw a building in the landfill.

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

I think its wonderful and certainly preferable to demolition

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

NOW that's what I'm talking about...SWEET!
I hope they can succeed, Mr. Carr would be foolish not to believe that this renovation would do wonders for his tavern's foot traffic.

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

Aren't they also thinking about placing something in the top floor of the NFTA-owned train storage building?

This area will be the new heartbeat of Buffalo in 5 years. So many projects happening within walking distance of this corner(HSBC-webster block, Canal Side, Casino?, Stanley Cup). I wouldn't be surprised if other investors were looking for property in this area. Would be ashamed to destroy something in an area that is just about to grow.

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

The part that bugs me, from WCP's 2nd last paragraph - note the word 'force':
"Savarino wants the City to force Carr to bring the buildings up to code and stabilize them. "

If the govt wants to legally force that a privately-owned non-landmarked building must stand forever, shouldn't the govt have to buy it and publicly fully fund the owner's relocation of the whole business to another reasonable location of the owner's choosing (even if that's in another city or state)? I suppose it would be very similar to eminent domain. Why aren't they doing any of that?

Short of something like that, on what legal basis should the govt (Pres Board, Common Council, City Court, etc.) simply order that a business is to be "forced" to continue leaving a building they own standing forever and ever until the end of time - even after the business has determined it doesn't want or need the building?

If prior to the owner buying it, the building or its neighborhood had some official landmark designation that legally prohibited demolition - then that's different of course. However, it doesn't sound like that's the case with this building, or the OSC grain elevator, etc.

Score: 0 ( 8 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

The property is within the Cobblestone Historic District. Perhaps the word I should have used is "enforce" as in enforce the building codes.

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

WCP>"Perhaps the word I should have used is "enforce" as in enforce the building codes."

But would demolishing the building legally violate building codes in that district?

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

Yes.

http://www.buffaloah.com/a/landmks/cob.html

"All exterior construction, reconstruction, demolition, or redevelopment work to be performed on any structure or site within the Cobblestone Historic Preservation District must be undertaken in conformance with the Preservation Standards and Project Review Procedures, as defined in Chapter 337 of the Charter and Ordinance of the City of Buffalo, New York, as administered by the City of Buffalo Preservation Board"

Even if you don't see value in historic architecture you have to question the wisdom of someone who bought a property with the apparent intent of circumventing it's protection from demolition. If he wanted to build a parking lot, he could have bought one of numerous properties that are not protected as local landmarks.

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

Armchair, that quote doesn't forbid demo, does it? Which words?

It lists demo among actions that legally must conform to "Preservation Standards and Project Review Procedures", but where do those standards or procedures say that any buildings on private property in that district can never, ever be legally demoed?

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

Demolitions have to go through the Preservation Board for local landmarks. That means if they decide it can't be demolished, it can't be demolished. For non-landmarks the board has advisory status but for landmarks they make the call.

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

if only that were the case. the presboard does not have the legal authority to deny a demo permit, they can only recommend in favor of or opposed to the city, ultimately the mayor, granting a demo permit.

even if they are unanimous in their opposition to the city granting a demo permit, the owner can go to the councilmember and plead hardship. if the councilmember buys the argument and supports a demolition in his or her district, other councilmembers will not oppose it, because they expect the same deference in return when it comes to business in their districts.

as has happened in allentown.

this is why it was folly to get rid of the at-large councilmembers, who alone were charged with looking after the city's interests as a whole rather than exercising loyalty to just one district.

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

I believe the process you are describing refers to buildings that do not have local historic designation. The preservation board is more than an advisory body for local landmarks such as this one.

I'm sure there are ways around this in extreme cases but it would be hard to justify a demo when the owner purchased the property after it was designated a local landmark.

replied to grad94
Score: 0 ( 2 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

on the contrary, going to your councilmember is how you circumvent the presboard if you want to be rid of a property in a designated district.

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

Arm, if it's true what you wrote a couple comments below that the owner bought it after it had already been designated as a building that truly can't be legally demoed unless the Pres Board says it can... then this will sound very different from other examples some have complained about before (grain elevator last month, vacant Pano House on Elmwood a few years ago, etc., etc.) and I won't oppose forcing this owner to face the consequences of not being allowed to demo.

It would sound like it's his fault for buying it under those conditions, if it's all as you describe.

replied to Armchair MBA
Score: 2 ( 2 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

see the pics in the post above this. There are Code violations that any building should be upheld to. Walls falling, windows broke, etc.

I backed into my porch railing once and got a letter to fix it within a week (which it already was), how can this go on for years and the owner not be held responsible? Never mind the Historic aspect, just City Building Codes should be enforced.

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

JM, see my reply to Steel below.

I agree the owner should be prosecuted for any building code violations that can be proven. No argument there. That just sounds like a separate issue from whether a business or individual should be legally forced to keep a non-landmarked building standing indefinitely on their property. (As it did with the previous controversy about the grain elevator.)

I'd never criticize anybody for trying to convince any owner to voluntarily rehab or voluntarily mothball any building instead of demolishing, or to voluntarily sell it to somebody who will. (I put in the v-word each time to hopefully avoid out-of-context misinterpretations.)
Usually in most cases probably anything is for sale if the offer is high enough to compensate for an owner having to drastically change their long term plans or move to another location. However, if somebody just doesn't want to sell for a price somebody (Savarino in this case) offers.... well, it's still their property, right?

If it's really an important enough building that's considered priceless to some, I'd wonder why isn't anybody making a crazy-high purchase offer that's even more difficult for the owner to decline?

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

So you would not ask your town to force your delinquent neighbor to maintain his house? Are you actually saying he should have the right to allow a building to collapse due to lack of basic maintenance?

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

Steel>" Are you actually saying he should have the right to allow a building to collapse due to lack of basic maintenance? "

My comment doesn't say building codes shouldn't be enforced against the owner to the letter of the law as long as the building stands, and it doesn't say public $ should be used in any way for a building that remains privately owned.

What I asked is, on what legal grounds can a business or citizen be "forced" by a government to NEVER demolish a non-landmarked building that they privately own? (After demo, there'd be no building code violations, correct?)

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

People use that same dreaded government all the time to stop developement and control property use in the suburbs. The News recently ran an article about suburban towns keeping low income housing out and even stooping so low as to deny senior housing (they asked for the zip codes of the seniors, a clear case of racial/economic profiling).

Government intervention is necessary when the private sector fails to act responsibly as is the case of these historic buildings. Using government to protect valuable assets of a community is far more noble than using government to hold back the poor and minorities.

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

BRL, neither of us think all govt actions are always good or all govt actions are always bad. Sometimes we disagree about which is which.

I don't see how examples you gave about housing bias are relevant to whether the govt in general should have very broad powers to force all private owners to keep old buildings standing. Sounds like apples and oranges. (Then again, maybe I should just be glad the mortgage deduction wasn't dragged into this one!)

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

My point was that government is regularly used to protect the assets of wealthier communities from threats real and imagined. Don't you think it is a better use of that government intervention when it is used to protect the assets of more vulnerable and less fortunate communities?

Of course this all hinges on the fact that we accept a degree of governance and responsibility as citizens of our community. Conservatives and liberals just seem to have different measures of what that entails.

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

BRLifer>"Don't you think it is a better use of that government intervention when it is used to protect the assets of more vulnerable and less fortunate communities?"

Difficulty with that is there's sharply varying opinions of what assets serve the greatest good.

For example earlier this year, some people who write and comment here wanted Buffalo's city govt to legally force an industrial business on Kehr St to leave an old building they own standing forever instead of demoing as they wanted to do for their business goals. Some people would put a priority on the asset of the building, others would put priority on the asset of that business owner's future economic activity at that location. That's just one example that comes to mind. The recent grain elevator thing is another.

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

I assume this is near the HSBC arena. I often go to the Sabres games from Toronto( too expensive here) and love staying in the downtown area but really not many options available to eat around the arena although found great places around the downtown in general. You guys or city leaders must be nuts or absolutely mad to tear down a these buildings especially after these great re-use rendenrings; for christs sake, wake up and see the potential! any other city wouldn't even contemplate such and considering where they are situated in an historic and cobblestoned area, really!

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

Yup it's literally across the street, see the top left photo. To enter the lot connected to the Arena you HAVE to drive down this street.
I agree with you 100%. In a way I'm glad that kid called us a Ghosttown, hopefully Pegula will get it and help out in the area surrounding the Arena.

replied to defender110
Score: 1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Would it be possible to use the building as a place for visiting hockey teams to stay. Sabres players could be made to visit there as well as fans and they could all mingle together, share stories about their love of the game and the like? It would at least save gasoline money for the visiting teams!

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

I am often one to scoff at preservation efforts but I am fully on board with this one. I may have even scoffed at this one a few months back but after walking past after a game I have to admit this building has character that can't be replaced or replicated. I hope the owner will come to terms with you looney preservationists. This would add life to the block/corner. I hope this is worthy of Mr. Pegula's attention as well. God Speed and good luck you tree hugging obstructionists! :)

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

hey fellow obstructionists.....pay close attention to whatever is going on here today and let's bottle it!!! We have ALL the negatrons on our side!!

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

Thats the thing...this clearly isn't obstruction. This is a true attempt at preservation. Savarion and Trettel actually had a plan - or at least an idea - for what the building could become. They didn't just find a way to block the next move for Carr. I think that is why so many people who are usually opposed to preservation/obstruction (at least that is how it is for me) like this idea so much.

The best example I can give is the GLF Elevator. Sure it isa landmark, but was there any sort of plan or possible way to rehab the building? Not to mention the fact that the parts that are being torn down were in serious states of disrepair. That strikes me as a case of saving something just to save it. It is almost as if a core of people in Buffalo are hoaring these deteriorating buildings. They know it would be a shame to lose them but they don't have a way to make them work today, so they just make sure they have a place to stay for the time being - just compare them to that old t-shirt you have that you have no use for but you can't bring yourself to throw away.

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

Following your method we would be minus

The ECC City (old post office) building
The Guaranty Building
The Mansion Hotel on Delaware
5 Mansions on Delaware's Millionaire's Row
The Babeville Church
Shea's Theater
The rest of the Theater District
The bottom 1/4 of Allentown
etc.

We would also not have these buildings for Savarino to propose anything for. We still may not have them if the so called Obstructionists" don't continue with law suits.

replied to costrander08
Score: 4 ( 10 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Yea I guess I drank the kool-aid today. Anyone have a picket sign for this "neagton"?

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

In the Buffalo glory days a group of men would simply approach the owner and “politely” ask him to hand the keys over. But in all seriousness, this owner must be one of the most selfish, arrogant, greedy Sob’s around.

Score: 2 ( 10 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment


I agree with the "house" analogy. Do you think a person should be able to purchase a house, let it rot, and then tear it down? I don't think so.

If this were a true "neighborhood" there is no way this would be happening.

There is also the concept of "eminent domain". There are many instances when a government can "take" a private property, for the good of the community.

If you're a good citizen, you maintain your property. Ownership has benefits but also comes with the responsibility to pay taxes, to be a good neighbor, and to not be a nuisance to the community.

This owner has let his buiding deteriorate with the goal of demolition by neglect. This is not in the best interest of the community. And on that grounds, extraordinary measures should be taken by the government to keep the building intact.

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

Except in rare cases when a building (or house) is already landmarked or in a small restricted district such as this one perhaps was, then somebody should be able to buy a building and demolish it for any reason or no reason.

Letting it "rot" as a middle step should be prosecuted if any building codes are violated or public safety put at serious risk.

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

... then somebody should be able to buy a building and demolish it for any reason or no reason....

Since you seem to be such an absolutist regarding individual property rights, do you also think that the owner should have the permission to construct whatever they wish on that vacant land?

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

As long as what's built comforms to local laws... yes! If you don't "like" what I'm going to build, tough noogies.

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

If you don't "like" what I'm going to build, tough noogies.

Well, that tough noogies development philosophy hasn't worked out in western New York unless you think the proliferation of strip malls and parking lots have improved the community.

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

Paul, I'm not an absolutist any more than many of you who have mainstream BR-ish viewpoints are absolutists about different things.

Labels aside, to answer your question - zoning that restricts types of buildings are very different than the right to demolish something one owns. Demo leaves vacant land which generally doesn't violate any laws.

It's ok with me if any municipality wants zoning laws about buildings. I suppose it could be an injustice to current owners if something becomes suddenly illegal which was legal when they bought the land. I don't know if that often happens.

That said, although I don't oppose the right of municipalities to have zoning, I wouldn't want mine (city of Buffalo) to make extreme changes such as a citywide bans on strip malls or front parking, etc. It's good for Buffalo to have a mix in different parts - for example, stores with a lot of surface parking in some parts like Delaware Ave in N Buff, while some other parts mostly to-the-sidewalk but with some curb cuts and parking lots intermixed, while some other parts of the city are zoned for industrial, and so on.

While I won't want Buffalo's zoning to be too bossy as some people favor, it also doesn't bother me that Buffalo doesn't eliminate zoning rules (as Houston did, if I'm not mistaken).

And I don't think it's any of my business what zoning rules are in places I don't live such as CA, Illinois, etc.

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

While I disagree with you on demolition rights, much of your reply is reasonable. However, the mix of which you speak is declining in favor of vacant lots, parking lots and strip malls.

A demolished building can obviously no longer violate any laws, but its absence tears the fabric of a community. It's no different than a house that burns to the ground on a residential street: neighbors are affected by the 'hole' in their block.

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

"the mix of which you speak is declining in favor of vacant lots, parking lots and strip malls"

Many things affect the mix.

If more shoppers vote with their spending in favor of stores with front parking instead of those that don't... well, those decisions have long term impact of which buildings are occupied with retail tenants and which sit empty without tenants (the former Riverside Mens Shop, for example). Why is Marshalls on Delaware Ave with front parking instead of in the former RMS building? Being in N Buffalo instead or Riverside is a big factor no doubt, but their big front parking lot also helps attract a lot of customers.

Regarding vacant lots, in some cases a vacant lot is better for a neighborhood than a building that will be vacant for a very, very long time as severe blight or an arson hazard to next door neighbors. For example, several 1000's of vacant houses in districts whose population has dropped by over 20% in the past 10 years in Fillmore and Masten. Much of the growth in vacant lots is in that part of the city. Don't see many in N Buffalo or EV.

By far it's about supply vs demand much more so than zoning. If any neighborhood's supply of houses or built-to-the-sidewalk commercial buildings far exceeds the public's demand for them, even the most brilliant progressive zoning rules can't force anybody to develop the buildings, become tenants in them, patronize businesses in them, etc.

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

Geez people, if you really care, hit the guy where it hurts and picket his bar.

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

I don't recall if NY changed the law (I think they did) to prevent this, but a few years ago the Supreme Court ruled that the government could condemn a property and hand it over to another private entity to develop for economic development reasons. If the city has that power, why not condemn the property, pay the owner the market rate, and flip it at cost to Savarino to develop?

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

Has anyone actually spoken to Carr about his intentions and rationale behind demolishing these buildings? I would love to hear right from the horse’s mouth as to why he is so hell bent on knocking this building down and why he won’t consider selling it to someone instead. Does he have plans to build on this lot in the future or is he just planning to leave it as a parking lot? I don’t know what the point of building codes are if they are not being enforced. Guys like Carr and Paladino are letting our community rot in to oblivion right in front of our eyes. The city needs to grow a set of balls and stand up to these guys. Where is Reverend Pridgeon or Kearns on this one? Or Higgy Bear? This is completely preventable and needs to be fixed right now.

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

I'm beginning to doubt they want to be in Buffalo.
They chose to open locations in Troy and now Newark, NJ over Buffalo.
I just hope if they do decide on a location here it's not somewhere on Transit Road.

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

Leave a comment

Buffalo Rising Poll