City May 3, 2011 12:58 AM

Court to Consider Blacksmith Shop Demo Tomorrow

Court to Consider Blacksmith Shop Demo Tomorrow

Darryl Carr, back from a disappointing trip to Philadelphia, is due in court tomorrow, May 4, hoping to obtain the green light to demo the blacksmith shop at 110-120 South Park Avenue in the Cobblestone Historic District.  Judge Michael L. D'Amico will consider Carr's appeal of a City decision that forbid him from demolishing the 19th Century buildings.

D'Amico is expected to issue a decision in court on Wednesday or later in writing based on the day's proceedings and previously submitted material.  Three outcomes are possible:

If D'Amico says it cannot be demolished, the City returns to pushing for violation corrections in Housing Court.  The Court will give him some time to complete repairs and/or mothball the buildings.  If there is work done they will continue to grant extensions.  If not, the City will request fines and impose a judgment;
  or,
D'Amico determines it can be demolished and the owner can apply for a demo permit on Wednesday.  The demolition permit would be referred to the Preservation Board for review.  If denied, Carr could appeal the decision to the City Council;
  or,
Carr can attempt to obtain an Emergency Demolition order from the City and take the buildings down immediately.

The public is invited to attend at 9:30, Erie County Court, 25 Delaware Avenue, Part 7, first floor.

cobblestonebss.png

View image

Comments

Leave a comment

I hope he demos it. And then constructs a canal era replica building in its place. That would be consistent with the brainless way the whole canalside development has been going. Either that or a Dave and Busters. That place is awesome. Really makes Transit an even more attractive place to visit than it already is.

Score: 10 ( 16 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

D Carr loves old buildings- so much he actually bought some 12 years ago, and have successfully survived and is now thinking of how to expand and grow. Is that OK? considering that he knows his business, he owns his buildings, and he has a plan?
I think so, and suggest these busy bodies flying all over the place stop trying to ruin a mans living. Two nearby restaurants are for sale, why is that if this location is such a gold mine?
This whole discussion reminds me of Panos on Elmwood...
and in Buffalo you just never know whose hidden agendas are out there...

Score: -19 ( 33 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

So if you were a business owner you would be fine with your neighbor allowing his property to rot? Why is it so much to ask that people do basic maintenance on their property. Maybe the problem those restaurants are not doing well because some owners in the neighborhood treat the area as if it is a slum. Why make excuses for these slum lords

replied to Norse1
Score: 9 ( 21 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

He has a plan? What is it? A parking lot?

replied to Norse1
Score: 3 ( 7 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

This issue is pivotal for Buffalo, and has little to do with Carr and the building at hand (though I will be part of a boycott of Carr's establishments, if it comes to that): it involves urban planning, the rights of the community versus individuals, and, yes, preservation.

Urban Planning: why are we planning to reconstruct canal era buildings merely blocks away, when this authentic building stands ready to be restored but at risk of demolition? Why are we not using these buildings to create a district for HSBC visitors, who currently find the area a "ghost town"?

Rights: I think other stakeholders in the neighborhood, Termini, Trettle, Savarino et al, have every right to weigh in on this topic-they have invested in the neighborhood and Carr's actions will have a direct impact on their holdings. Carr has yet to provide any plan for what he will do with the site-until he does so, there should be no demolition permitted. And, even then, the neighborhood stakeholders should be able to weigh in. Further, Buffalo is developing a reputation for its restored architecture, which means tourism dollars. Every time we knock a historic building down which could be restored (like this one), we lose that economic potential. Fact is, this push back on demolition should have started years and years ago-maybe we wouldn't be left with 50% of a downtown covered in surface parking lots (which has killed downtown more than any other factor).

Preservation: other developers (Trettle, Savarino) have stepped forth and offered re-use plans which are sound and achievable. We need to move away from a disposable mentality, and recognize that our architecture is likely one of Buffalo's greatest assets. Again, it is dollars in the form of tourism, relocating because of quality of life, etc. It is authenticity and it is depth and heritage. We cannot replace this building once it is gone.

Let's hope the Judge uses sound reasoning and stays the demo.

Score: 20 ( 28 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

"This whole discussion reminds me of Panos on Elmwood...
and in Buffalo you just never know whose hidden agendas are out there..."

Oh please do tell what these "hidden agendas" are / could be.

I would really like to know what YOU think peoples REAL reasons for wanting this building saved might be while they (apparently) hide behind such a crazy idea like saving a historic building in a historic district.

Because we all know thats just crazy talk ...

Score: 12 ( 16 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Perhaps the bounds of the canalside planning area should be expended to capture this very real and very accurate piece of what truly was part of the city's canal heritage. I see no problem with whats being proposed with canalside and dont see it as "brainless" because THERES NOTHING THERE! With the exception of the skyway remaining in place I think the current proposal is well done and certainly considers community input. The question should be how do we address a very real part of what is being recreated nearby? That block is pretty much all that is left down there and really ought to be considered and embraced as part of the canalside planning process. There was a reason a whole bunch of volunteers spent days lifting those cobblestones, cleaning them and having them shipped out and relaid on Illinois Street many years ago and that was to help preserve that piece of real historic fabric down there. I hope something can be arranged so this block remains in tact.

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

If he has a viable plan for the site once the building is gone I think we deserve to see it. If he does not and just wants an empty lot to avoid making necessary code compliance repairs I don't understand why he does not consider selling to the couple parties that showed interest? Why must he tear it down right away if he has no plans? I get that it is his property to do what he wants with but what was his intention when he knowingly bought a building in a historic section? It's a real shame and seemingly spiteful for him to not at least consider selling it in lieu of demo.

Score: 9 ( 11 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

this guy should be able to do what he wants with his property !perhaps he should start to de-construct ! thats not demolition !think about this, you might think you own a house. not really because if you dont pay the taxs,water bill, gabage bill etc.... they will take it from you ! so basicly you are paying rent and maintaining something that you really dont own!!!!

Score: -21 ( 25 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

The deal with owning property is paying taxes and fees which goes toward protecting your property (fire/police), and providing essential utilities. This isn't exactly a new concept, which actually goes back to 5,000 B.C.

So like everything else in life, if you don't pay for a service provided to you then the provider can go after your assets to satisfy the debt. In this case, it's your property.

Oh and as for your statement that he can do whatever he wants, you might want to read through the numerous BR articles to educate yourself.

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

why should they be able to tell him what to do with this property if HE owns it !sounds like communism not freedome !!!

Score: -14 ( 24 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

And, what you are suggesting is selfish capitalism, where one's actions, whether it be to allow a building to demolish by neglect or dump toxic waste in river, effect another. Darryl's lack of care for the building impacts the entire stakeholders of the Cobblestone and, thankfully, we are starting to trim the "I'll do whatever I want, because I can" attitude in America. Older, more mature nations, such as in Europe, learned this long ago-we are just now starting to grow up.

replied to warhousedweller
Score: -4 ( 14 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

You're point that individual property owners should be able to do whatever they want is dead wrong. That concept is why this city looks like shit. That impacts us all.

replied to warhousedweller
Score: 0 ( 12 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

These elitist views toward property rights have given me an idea...

Today I will establish my own commercial trash incinerator on my front lawn. I plan on undercutting dumpster providers by offering local businesses the opportunity to simply burn their refuse on my property.

Sure the business will impact my neighbors negatively as well as clearly being in violation of local zoning laws. But it is my property and that means I can do whatever I want with it.

Maybe those who don't share my vision should have out bid me for the house when I purchased it. Those who couldn't do this on their own had every opportunity to pool resources with other "busy bodies" to buy the property themselves. People without the means to acquire property have no business commenting on the issue.

Anybody who tries to tell me not to burn garbage on my property is clearly a communist who hates "freedome."

Score: 21 ( 33 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

This here marks the first time I've ever read anyone use the term 'elitist' with regards to property rights.

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

nice analogy, Arm.

replied to The Kettle
Score: -1 ( 9 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Just don't try that incinerator idea in socialist Kenmore. Remember how the simple issue of grass-cutting caused an uproar?

There was this guy, an English grad student living in Kenmore (a suburb of Buffalo), who refused to mow his lawn for years. It was covered with three-dozen varieties of wildflowers, many of which he had planted—and he did, in fact, weed and till the space. This guy received death threats, gunshots were fired at the house, and snakes were placed in the yard—all by his neighbors. He was eventually fined by the village for violating an ordinance, which he fought, semi-successfully, in court. Eventually, neighbors mowed the lawn illegally while he was on vacation.

http://martagon.blogspot.com/2006/05/more-lawn-trashing.html

Stay in Buffalo where you can turn your building to rubble without those pesky neighbors getting in your business. Just keep your lawn mowed, though, or you're stirring up trouble.

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

I say we call Judge D'Amico to show how necessary it is to preserve and save this structure!

Hon. Michael L. D'Amico

Erie County Court
25 Delaware Avenue
Buffalo, NY 14202
(716) 845-9366

Score: 11 ( 15 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

This whole private property rights argument is nonsense and is only used as a guise to protect irresponsible property owners. Owning property is a priviledge, even more so when a property is historic AND located in a HISTORIC DISTRICT. The rights of the community and neighboring property owners should certainly be respected and protected from speculators and profiteers. For those that are not up to the challenge, stay out of the market, we can't afford your incompetence and mismanagement of our assets.

Score: 8 ( 18 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

"This whole private property rights argument is nonsense and is only used as a guise to protect irresponsible property owners. Owning property is a priviledge, even more so when a property is historic AND located in a HISTORIC DISTRICT. "

What part of Russia are you from? This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard on the internet. This far surpasses any conspiracy theory or work-from-home schemes ever. Can you tell me who is the benevolent, God-like entity that allows the common peon the privilege of starting a home or business?

Property RIGHTS are the ability to buy a parcel of land and develop that within the rules of the local law.

Armchair MBA, way to compare apples to atomic bombs. Yes, start a commercial incinerator in your front yard. Maybe it will run greener if you shovel in dogs and cats from the neighborhood or let children play in front of it. Because demolition of a property that's rarely in use nor will it be, in a non-residential area is exactly the same as starting a neighborhood commercial incinerator.

Or maybe we can turn it into affordable housing/apartments/condos/boutique hotels, because that seems to be the only suggestion that is bandied about on this page.

Can we stop preserving things that are just old and bear little historical semblance? We don't have to save every brick building in a part of town that no one uses (and probably never will as much as we like)? No? Just going to bust people's balls who actually invest money in the neighborhood and then tax accordingly? OK, just wanted to get things straight. I'm off to get my pitchfork so I can protest progress.

replied to Black Rock Lifer
Score: -6 ( 14 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Just because my incinerator idea is an extreme example does not mean I'm comparing apples to atomic bombs. Both ideas are based on an elitist view of property rights where property owners can do what they please regardless of who they impact and what regulations they break.

I would assume all of those people here advocating this form of property rights would also defend my front yard incinerator since it is my property and nobody should stand in the way of "progress."

Wow.

"owning property is a privilege" is an absolutely brutal thing to say. That attitude leads right to evil.

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

I blame this situation specifically on the Canalside/Casino failure. If Canalside was finished(Bass Pro or not) and there was an 18 story casino right around the corner. This area would be one of the most bustling areas of town.

These pieces of property in then 10 mile radius around HSBC arena have had development written all over then since the arena was built. Its just a shame that leadership is lacking in this city. Once again the failure of moving forward is causing this place to take a step backward.

Score: 3 ( 19 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I see your point on Canalside and get that once that project really gets moving this area will see an upsing in value but I'm curious as to how you feel a casino would help create one of the most 'bustling areas of town'? Every casino that I have been to in other cities provide everything you need under one roof with the idea that the casino wants to keep a people inside as long as possible to get them to gamble as much as possible. Food/Entertainment/Shopping are all part of a casino. Even Vegas operates in this manner with each casino being a one stop shop for all your needs. There just happens to be a bunch of one stop places lined up next to each other and once you are literally one street off the strip there is nothing. So, how, in your opinion, does this help create a bustling area?

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

While you maybe right about vegas, I feel that the situation in DT Buffalo is very different. Downtown is not a desert where there is absolutely nothing to do, except stay inside. The waterfront, sports/concerts, and should be canalside, give people options. Visitors to a casino may not stay in the other hotels of DT and may spend the majority of their money inside its doors, but I believe that more then 50% would leave the hotel to walk along the inner harbor, eat in a "should be" canalside, and take the metrorail up main to see a show. Many would want to check out elmwood, explore some of Buffalo's architecture, and see how much MORE is here then in a place like Vegas. People who gamble are real people, they don't only want to gamble.

A casino by itself will be nothing more then what is in NF, but if proper leadership tied together a canalside project like the renderings show and a casino that has regulations in conjunction with each other, I think it could be a success. The NF casino brings ~8 million visitors per year. So if the Buffalo Casino attracted half of that, it would be 4 million people. Thats 4 million more people then right now.

A casino doesn't have to be vegas. A themed casino which blends into the Canal/cobblestone theme, I feel, could really make for something special.

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

And how much of an impact on the area surrounding the casino in Niagara Falls have those 8 million people have? Beautiful there, isn't it?

Casino's are designed so that you don't spend money ANY place else. This one will be no different. Our stupid state is allowing a sovereign nation is building it - they don't have to abide by any kind of a design or business standard. It doesn't have to fit in anywhere, doesn't have to be approved by planning board, zoning board, pres board, or anything else. All they need is a great big parking garage directly attached so that their patrons never have to step a foot on city soil.

You're fooling yourself if you think that it will have any significant positive impact on the city. The whole situation is an absolute joke.

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

The situation is a joke. I still stand by my point, if done correctly, with cooperation amongst different groups including those involved in Canalside, community culture groups, and with oversight from our city government, it would work.


Maybe if everyone wasn't so black and white on the issue(like every issue in BFLO) and just took a moment to pause and say, "how can we alter/improve something so it works for the benefit of every party involved."

Ever hear of working together?

Right now the Seneca's legally could build any casino they want on their land in DT(there is one sucking money out of poor people right now if you haven't noticed), so why not work with them to make something nice. But unfortunately, most of the mindset here would rather stand 10 ft off of the property with anti-gambling signs and file law suits.

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

I do think a casino could possibly work, and I'm not anti-gambling. But we would have to have control over how they incorporate drinking, hotel, store, and food comps/incentives into their place. I don't believe the Senecas would ever go for that, hence my stand.

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

I'm with you, Townline. A casino would do nothing for downtown Buffalo. Except, that is, shuffle people into the casino, and shuffle people out when they're ready to go home. Oh, and we'd get a nice shiny new building, along with a few hundred more that would be boarded up. Casinos are for losers.

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

To lighten up my last comment, I'd like to point out to people that I DO enjoy a casino once in a while (straight to the poker room for me). So I, like Townline, know how they operate. They have CHEAP GOOD food, relatively cheap stores, COMPED hotel rooms, and FREE DRINKS! If you can convince the Senecas to get rid of ALL these perks except for the actual gambling, it might be decent for Buffalo to have one. Until then, Hell no! Many businesses would go belly up in buffalo as a result of this. I'm convinced.

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

What convinced you? What is your example? Atlantic City?

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

Niagara Falls, NY. Yes I have also been to Atlantic City a few times. As I said, all of these casinos are made to keep every customer inside the joint with cheap or comped (nearly) everything. I shouldn't have to detail the effects that this fact would have on the surrounding area. The only places casinos show up, outside of Vegas maybe, are places that are desperate for any kind of development. Detroit, NF, AC. We are also desperate for development here in Buffalo but not all development is positive. We should resist this. As for evidence that businesses here would close, among other undesirable things; no, I don't have any on hand. But based on instinct, common sense, and experience, what I do have is a BIG hunch that this will be the case. I'm not anti-casino. I'm anti-casino-in-Buffalo. We need to do development the right way.

Sorry that this is a bit off-topic. Anyways, last I heard, that steel was coming down.

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

I understand the NF example, but there are less then 10 restaurants within 10 miles of the Casino site. Most are icons/sabres places. Pearl St., Chefs, Cobblestones, swanie house.... arn't going to close because of a casino. With that said, I refuse to believe that places on elmwood/hertel close because of it. I don't think people will stop going to shea's or the concert's at the arena. So, I don't really see what damage is going to be done.

What is damaging is what is happening now.....a dumpy casino that is robbing local people. At least a Casino/hotel WOULD attract some people from out of town. Right now, the casino is just feeding off of the perry projects/first ward, which in my opinion is a sickening crime.

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

I think the casino would make this part of town a bustling district because it would draw a mass amount of people to this part of town. The caveate is that there needs to be other destinations around the casino to make it a complete package. The casino alone won't really add to anything, but when you add restaurants, bars, hotels, cultural and retail destinations around the casino then it becomes a district that will draw many people of all demographics.

This is why the Blacksmith shop needs to be saved as it could fulfill the ancillary needs of the area in an authentic manner that no new build can. If Daryll Carr is waiting for the Casino to be built to draw people near he seriously missed the mark on his speculation. He could have created more draw himself if he made the investment in his building now instead of relying on someone else to do it for him in a couple years.

Now is a great opportunity for him to make the right move and sell to someone who can turn this building into what he lacks the vision and ambition to do.

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

These buildings would also be adding to a vibrant neighborhood it their owners had invested in them. When you business plan is to buy property and invest $00 into it then you end up with buildings that have no value to tenants. Buildings directly adjacent to this building have recently received millions of dollars in investment and are filled with tenants. This owners property is negatively impacted by this disinvestment.

replied to Urban Cowboy
Score: 2 ( 12 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Its true. But I have a feeling this guy, like paladino and others, bought and are buying these properties with the idea that the value to renovate will be there once development of this area begins(Canalside, Casino). A lot Depends on HSBC moving as well. HSBC moving to the webster block would be HUGE for this entire area as well as for DT. Even thought the mayor is attempting to keep them stationary, I really hope they feel that a new building is what best suits them.

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

When you buy real estate, you don't necessarily buy the edifice on it as much as you do the parcel of land. I do respect your comment about not putting in any investment into the building, I think few people have seen the inspection and what it needs to be brought up to code or the use of the building itself. It's a one-dimensional argument and no one (including myself) know the whole deal or what he intends to do with the property.

BTW, Delaware North owns the lots on Mississippi and Baltimore.

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

why dont all you building huggers chip in to repair these buildings? then maybe he will change his mind ! if you all would spend as much time working a part time job to help pay for repairs as you do on this site ,it would be repaired in no time.ITS HIS BUILDING,HE HAS THE RIGHT TO DEMO IT!!! if i was gonna someday tear my building down, i would'nt even get a permit!! what are they gonna do fine me after the building is down! the shity does'nt respond fast enough to stop it !so just do it.kind of like what happened to the harbor inn,get a permit on a friday and tear it down over the weekend !!woops !!!or is it that none of you magotts that are getting these histric tax credits will tell him how to do it !or is it that he is'nt in the click? HE HAS THE RIGHT TO TEAR HIS OWN BUILDING DOWN !JUST LIKE HE WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO SCRAP AN ANTIQUE PIERCE ARROW CAR !!!

Score: -20 ( 22 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with you- perhaps you should find a more accomodating country to purchase property in???

replied to warhousedweller
Score: 5 ( 13 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Your word choice makes you sound like you have the vocabulary of a shoe.

replied to warhousedweller
Score: 6 ( 12 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Warhousedweller your posts are ignorant and uneducated. They add nothing of value to the discussion.

That being said, I agree it is necessary to prevent the loss of these buildings. A lot can be done with this area and we don't need another empty lot in the city.

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

How about the actual owner of the building keep them in repair. Shouldn't that be a basic responsibility of the owner. You act as if the owner just woke up one day and his building was in disrepare through no fault of his own.

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

Sounds like, from the hearing today, Carr doesn't even have funds to demo the building, and is looking for taxpayers to do it. Now, that I will fight to the death.

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

I love (most) old buildings, I love history, and I love art. Sadly, this is a pile of old bricks with no redeeming qualities. The most interesting parts of Buffalo have been demolished or saved already, and trying to save blobs such as this = grasping at straws. If it's a dump and the owner has plans, let him do what he wants. It IS his property, people.

Score: -2 ( 14 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Unfortunately, his property happens to be in our preservation district.

The city has deemed this building more than just a pile of bricks by designating the entire area a local preservation district several years before Mr Carr bought it. Enforcing the integrity of said district is not grasping at straws.

Maybe the owner should not have made parking lot plans for a building designated as historic. There are plenty of properties he could have purchased without this protection and even more with neighboring vacant lots that could be used for parking.

These cries for protection of property rights are irrelevant when the owner knowingly forfeited this particular right when he purchased a local landmark.

replied to MrGreenJeans
Score: 8 ( 12 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

looking beyond it's current state it's actually quite an interesting composition of structures that relay to us more than anything left in Buffalo, the character of the canal district in the 1800s. It would be a significant loss to the city and having bought these buildings in a historic district David Carr has the responsibility to maintain these buildings, secured against further decay if empty, or redeveloped for new use...OR sell them! Demolition so he can cash in on parking for next years Sabres season is not an option and if permitted would speak volumes about the sad state of the city.

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

If this building is demoed for parking, considering what is across Mississippi Street from Cobblestone - TWO ENORMOUS PARKING LOTS - I just wouldn't even know what to say. What an example of a city that can't get out of its own way.

How anyone can defend the demo application is just beyond me. I don't care who the fuck owns the building - this is about the welfare of a struggling city, not some individual business owner of a shoddy tavern.

replied to MrGreenJeans
Score: 3 ( 11 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I think the Common Council should direct their energy to drafting a resolution mandating Pegula buy these structures rehab them all and give all his money to the poor so they can buy drugs and kill each other.

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

Can anyone tell me why they're so attached to this building in particular? Any fond memories of walking past this eyesore on the way to a Sabres game? Did Teddy Roosevelt's half brother with a hair lip work there? Other than being a brick building there's no discernible architectural features.

Or is it a case of people not letting go of the past. When I read this website and read the comments, I feel like I'm watching an episode of Hoarders and a crazy old lady is telling she's going to make soup out of the dozens of used plastic containers or that she'll use the expired food in the refrigerator when she has the opportunity. Meanwhile, she should be worrying about the mass exodus from the city due to lack of jobs and declining property values and lower tax revenues because there's no one left to pay them.

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

Actually i have alot of memories of this particular block. I was always fascinated by the idea that it is a remnant of an era whos physical traces are almost entirely gone in Buffalo. There is almost nothing left of it. These buildings lend immense character to the cobblestone district and would be gorgeous examples of Buffalo's canal days if restored.

The architectural significance of these buildings is clearly explained in the previous articles. These buildings are important because they are rare examples of a very early period in the city's history. They also are mostly intact and retain features that rarely survive alteration and modernization. Finally, they are in a very desirable location, especially in the long term view. Failing to recognize the value of such an asset is simply short sighted and dumb, Destroying such an asset is criminal.

Actually, it is a case of us wanting something for the future-this building is prime for restoration and will have character. What Carr will likely provide, as he has yet to prove otherwise, is another surface parking lot. We don't need any more of that downtown. Period.

Your analogy did give me a chuckle, however-reminds me that I have several Hoarders to watch on the DVR.

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

In the original posting about the history of the site (one of the older brass producers, bakery) was that he was going to expand and not turn it into the cliche parking lot. The only people talking about turning it into a parking lot are the posters here.

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

This is what I got from the older article:

"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."


He has no real plan otherwise he would be promoting it in an effort to win support to remove these buildings. Hence, his plan is a parking lot unless he proves otherwise.

Any word on what happened in court today?

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

My work has taken me to Parma, Italy, which is where I am writing this comment from. Last night I laid my hands on brick and stone buildings over 1,000 years old. Walked down brick and cobble streets equally as old. The city was alive and vibrant and equally "old world" as it was modern. "Some" streets had been reconfigured to accommodate vehicular traffic and electric street cars; but for the most part, everywhere you went felt like Italia. "Historic" structures for us would be considered contemporary here. It is a shame that so much of our limited history is allowed to be treated as disposable all in the name of following the American dream. I love my country and am proud that we have chartered our own course, but, there are some European philosophies that I think we would be better off if we embraced a little more. Respect and reverence for the preservation of where we came from being one of them.

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

parts of my building are over 100 years old,and the rest of it will be 100 years old in 2013. does that make it historical?

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

A building doesn't have to be historic to be an important part of the fabric of the city. Preservation of that urban fabric is protection of public welfare.

Do you realize that the city has building and development codes because of people that subscribe to the "I own the property, therefore I can do whatever I want" theory?

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

From a preservation standpoint, tearing down these structures is comparable to what Nazi Germany did to the Jews at Auschwitz, Sobibor, Treblinka and others. If you own property in the United States you should be destroyed.

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

yes and commenting on a blog that the property owner be responsible for his property is like capturing osama bin laden, landing on the moon, or ending world hunger. All those commenting in favor of preserving these buildings should at least be given a key to the city or maybe awarded the nations highest honor. The contrast between good and evil in this debate is striking. Thank you for bringing this up amore.


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

Tielman will be awarded the purple heart when he drags Paladino's billboard into housing court...

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

Leave a comment