Wrecking Buffalo: Garbage, Buffalo Style
Comments
Leave a commentThis makes me wretch-we need a new Mayor who "gets" the significance of keeping our architectural heritage and/or mothballing for future use.
Obviously, the Church can, and often is, the core of the problem: disinvestment from struggling communities, strict re-use covenants, etc.
While there's probably an element to truth to that, it's not fair to blame the church for this one. They closed that parish almost a quarter of a century ago because it was no longer a viable parish. You can call that disinvestment, but I don't blame them. What would you have expected them to do?
And they sold it to another church who had the place for almost 20 years. They've done that with a lot of the churches that are now falling apart. So why does the chuch get the blame in this one?
Even though the Church adandoned this building I feel that they should still be held liable for its upkeep. I mean the church has millions, if not billions of dollars. They should be able to spend a couple thousand on upkeep. Especially since their properties are tax free.
So if you sold a house 20 years ago to someone who didn't keep it up, how would you feel if someone came after you for money because of that?
"The Sacred Heart Church was purchased by the congregation in 1988 and has been empty sine 2008"
The Sacred Heart Church should be charged with taking care of the church, so it doesnt end up in a landfill.
I don't understand what you're saying there. Travelrrr is referring to the Catholic church here. They sold this building to another church (Witness Cathedral of Faith, apparently) over 20 years ago, and this other church has left it to fall apart. That other church should be held responsible for this, since they have owned it for as long as they have. Unfortunately, I would be amazed if the city would have any recourse to recouping the money it's going to cost to demolish this thing from that other church, and will probably have to eat the cost.
Perhaps you should go back and read the second paragraph over. The first church (Sacred Heart) was bought by Witness Cathedral of Faith, in 1988, and has sat vacant since 2008. Meaning that Witness Cathedral still owns the church. So, they should pay for its upkeep/demolition.
Right, that's exactly what I was saying. I wasn't clear on whether you meant that or not.
Travelrrr...BINGO. A mayor that cares. BB is a waste of space.
trav>"we need a new Mayor who "gets" the significance of keeping our architectural heritage and/or mothballing for future use."
If "gets" is implying the mayor should use city funds on vacant churches, then I think the opposite. I'd hope most city voters would agree with me it wouldn't be smart for Mayor Brown and the Common Council to divert $ away from other purposes in the budget (education, police, fire, streets, parks, etc) and into having the city buy, repair, or indefinitely mothball forever a lot of old vacant church buildings.
It also wouldn't be smart to hike city taxes to pay for doing that. Demo is a one time cost then it's over with, and in some cases perhaps demo costs can be legally obtained from the final owners.
If a mayor as a private citizen donated some of his own personal $ to a group who chips in for doing something with vacant churches, that would be fine of course. But it doesn't look to me as though that's what your comment means.
All church buildings were paid for only by private donations for construction and upkeep. That's also how they how they should sink or swim now.
Since I've never heard of any candidates for mayor or Common Council even ever proposing the idea of using city taxpayer $ for indefinitely mothballing old churches, it seems like a good bet it won't be happening. I'd be surprised if any mayors/councils in similar cities do what Trav suggests either, but if any do spend their city residents' tax $ that way it isn't something Buffalo should copy.
Love your idea to raise taxes to mothball and protect important buildings until they can be reused. I hope it catches on.
Paul, huh? I wrote wouldn't be smart to raise taxes it for this purpose. Wouldn't being the contraction for would not.
See?
whatever>"It also wouldn't be smart to hike city taxes to pay for doing that."
What leads you to interpret that as me favoring it?
Whatever> "Demo is a one time cost then it's over with"
The public burden is not "over with" after the demo. There still are issues of remediation, maintenance, and other public nuisances associated with post-demmo lots. The other side of that coin is that demo also typically leaves a vacant lot where reused properties lead to economic activity and taxable revenue.
Your ongoing point about preservation being limited to the private sector seems like selective conservatism. Protecting public safety, investing in the tax base, and other benefits of restored properties seem like reasonable things to expect the public sector to encourage.
ket, yes, instead of just 'over with' I should have said 'relatively over with', by comparison to city govt taking long term ownership-mothballing-repairs-etc. of some huge number of old vacant private buildings.
ket>"Protecting public safety, investing in the tax base, and other benefits of restored properties seem like reasonable things to expect the public sector to encourage."
But other spending priorities are much more reasonable and effective - which might be why for the most part no city office holders or even serious candidates I can think of seem to advocate what Trav and you are arguing for.
For public safety, city taxpayers taking on a much larger scale of repairs or ownership of vacant private sector buildings in Buffalo sounds much less reasonable than using that city budget $ instead for police, firefighting, snow clearing, street/sidewalk work, and so on.
For investing in the tax base, all of the above (as well as other city spending - a lot for education, some for parks, etc) also do that by helping the city's desirability to locate in for residents & businesses.
Whatever> "which might be why for the most part no city office holders or even serious candidates I can think of seem to advocate what Trav and you are arguing for."
I disagree with Trav that the Mayor doesn't "get" the benefits of preservation over demo. He and most other elected officials have demonstrated otherwise.
Have you watched any ribbon cuttings for adaptive reuse projects? How about the Mayor and others okaying city money to be spent on the Statler? Right now the city's code is being revamped to a form-based model which should indirectly lead to an increased number of structures being preserved.
As to whether the mayor "gets" something or is basing actions on mostly political motives is very difficult to know. No doubt it's often both. Perhaps the mix of how much is political vs core policy beliefs really doesn't matter much, except if there's ever another contested election some voters might hope to understand his beliefs. I tend to guess he really does "get" the importance of demos because he advocated so strongly for 5-in-5 at some political risk. By comparison, his predecessor seemed much more passive about the 1000s of vacant houses adding up over the years.
The $5M for Statler in one way might not be a great example because that being NYS funds he advocated be used, I don't know how much opportunity cost there was for the mayor (what else that could have been spent on - I just don't know).
The $500k wastefulness for a few new apts in the Livery might be a better example if that was city funds which could have been spent on many different things. Him funding projects like that pretty rarely (compared to how many demos), would lead me to guess the Livery funding was a response to criticism he'd been getting from some over what they claim was too much focus on demos. But we're all just guessing either way.
I thing he, and others in office, are being politically pragmatic about the demo-rehab debate. Some of the electorate and campaign contributes want to address the vacancy issue through demos and recreating suburbia while others recognize the well demonstrated upside of preservation and appropriate infill. You know what side I fall on but the Mayor is responsible for keeping both sides happy.
I don't like seeing opportunities, like the churches in this article, wasted but there are enough liverys, downtown loft conversions, and the green code to balance some of the waste out. At least he isn't taking any silly and selective principled stands like the one once held by Amherst's supervisor. If the Mayor got on a similarly dumb preservation-defies-the-market high horse, I'd feel differently.
True, pragmatism involves trying to keep factions of differing views happy, or at least less unhappy as often as possible.
Without knowing any mayor's motives for sure, it's good at least that Brown pushed for so many 1000's more much-needed demos than did Masiello who seemed by comparison to ignore the issue, leaving so many won't-be-saved arson risks standing for the next mayor to deal with.
Perhaps Tony didn't want to risk annoying anti-demo upscale political factions, or maybe he just didn't pay much attention to dangers in neighborhoods that had declined so much - there's no way to know for sure.
these old churches should be transformed into community centers and youth recreation centers for their respective neighborhoods...give the kids an option other than criminal activity
Another problem we have is once someone does want to save an empty building, you have dozens of preservation groups screaming at the new owner at what to do with it! These groups need to raise money and start buying to fix up a few of these eyesores instead of waiting for others to it just so they can pick on them.
Until the neighborhoods have some sense of quality of life and when its clear that your neighbors actually care about their neighborhood, their homes AND their neighbors I dont agree. There are giant swaths of the city that are not very friendly and those with the ability to get out and seek a better quality of life do so and they put their money and their care into their new neighborhoods. The east side is like walking into an episode of Scared Straight. The middle class in the burbs arent flush with money and put it into what they have, dont necessarily have interest or the resources to pump money into neighborhoods that the residents dont even seem to care on balance. Whether its cookie cutter or sprawl or suburban whatever it doesnt take a rocket scientist to see that those neighborhoods are vastly more kept up, with much less drama than the east side of Buffalo or any inner city for that matter. It also doesnt take a rocket scientist to see that over time a bulldozer has been spreading eastward from downtown over many decades now and Cheektowaga is next. Those neighborhoods in the Harlem and Walden area were well kept up and quiet. Recently I see reports that violent news stories you might typically associate with east Buffalo are now starting to pop up more frequently on the Cheektowaga side. Give it 10-20 years and the same argument being made about Elmslie Street will apply to Harlem Road. Why would someone stay to watch their housing values plummet while the neighborhood goes to hell around them? I would imagine the house for sale signs are increasingly prevalent theer already. Most want to go to work, come home and not be bothered by street BS, worry about their kids being pummeled at school by kids "raised" by families who dont seem to care much about education anyway. Its all a game of likelihood here. Am I more likely to succeed in a suburban school where families tend to support education attainment or in the city (aside from a couple schools)? Is my child safer walking home from school in the burbs or on Sycamore Street? Is my home or care more likely to get broken into and trashed in the burbs or in the city? Thats the problem. The trend is to blame the suburbanites, many of which I know have fond memories of the city before large areas became unsafe and were wrecked. These folks atually enjoyed living in those neighborhoods and are sickened by their condition now. Wheres the Buffalo Rising outrage stories directed at the crack house, the violent criminal, the property crime, or the serial arsonist or the litter bug dumping couches in vacant lots? Who is truly pointing the finger at the source of the community nuisance other than speculation that the person responible is most likely some rich suburban kid. Prove it. Prove to me that most nuisance crimes are in fact from suburbanites. I want a list of violent crimes in the city and to know the city/ town of residence. Ive seen a few but those are the big issues that keep people with means and care away. On a large scale I recognize the fact that until Americans get over their stupid affection for illegal drugs, this black market BS on the streets will continue. If you buy illegal drugs then you support the conditions of the market for and proliferation of that BS. Just because its in the city doesnt make being harassed just an aceptable part of life in the city. ITS NOT, its ridiculous craziness and should not be accepted. Its certainly not a positive society and community building act so why should it be accepted? Its no wonder foreign tourists had some negative comments during the Junior Hockey tournamant...probably because they had some bad experiences. If you start to accept everything the next thing you know to quote an 80's song, "the lunatics have taken over the asylum". A town like Amherst has almost half Buffalo's population. Whats the average annual murder rate comparing the two?
In the interest of reversing these negative trends I would imagine the City could use help. Recognizing that the city is the core of the region and creates its regional identity I would see value in a region-wide penny or some sort of regional tax that would support the city proper. This would not be an additional tax though, would have to be absorbed within existing structures because WNY is already very high. I think its in everyones best interst who cares to invest somehow in the city through a tax revenue means meant for the public good. With those dollars ideally the city could do what it needed to truly update its image and infrastructure and invest in the things necessary to stop the bleeding and destruction. I think the whole region benefits in the end.
I don't know why I read so many negative things about the East Side. It certainly has it's issues but still has tons of potential. Where there is interest there is always HOPE! I just met someone the other week that spent his time and savings buying a fixing up a building on Filmore and saved an historic building from the wrecking ball. All it takes is one person to start the process of turning the neighborhood around. House by house, street by street. It can be done.
It’s all a matter of economics.
It’s all a matter of jobs.
It’s all a matter of civility.
It’s all a matter of civic responsibility.
It’s all a matter of personal accountability.
It’s all a matter of recognizing your own faults and addressing them before assuming the worst in others.
These are all items on a long list that, when seen from a distance, spell doom for our built history, the City of Buffalo, and eventually the surrounding communities of WNY. Addressing any one of these items alone will not ensure a bright future or a just and happy ending – they all need to be addressed in order to build the momentum to bring about any lasting, positive change.
All of us are players in this murder and all have the blood of the city on our hands – like it or not – it is the truth. From the homes of the Elmwood village to the blight of the East Side, from the first ring suburbs to the insulation of a cul de sac in Orchard Park, and all the way from Downtown to the streets of anywhere America where each ex-pat lives, all are criminal. The fingers typing away at this message are bloodied from inaction, or worse, apathy. The weapon I have wielded in the voting booth has been as useful as boxing gloves on the hands of a brain surgeon. My wallet has time and again freed its scarce coin into the coffers of politicos that are more concerned about their career, image, and bank account (or those of their cronies) than about doing what is right.
Why? I tell myself I have no other choice. I tell myself I need to accept that this is “just the way it is”. I assure myself that I have done all I can in my own little corner and that others need to pick up the slack. I reinforce the notion that we are all too small to sway the powerful to see a more holistic point of view. But, really, that’s all a load of BS. It’s just easier to complain, point fingers, mock, and vilify without out any real knowledge of the situation. It’s easier to stay the course and accept these things as normal. It’s easier to sit behind a keyboard and type poison about the evil suburbanites or the destructive hooligans in blighted neighborhoods or the business owners and developers that don’t give a damn about the people they damage when moving in or out of the city.
So much of what is wrong in WNY and Buffalo thrives at the very core of “American culture” and human nature – it is universal and shows itself in infinite ways. How can I change that?
By looking in the mirror.
If I were a Rockefeller or Jobs, a Trump or Musk, I would wave my magic wand and sprinkle the region with the fairy dust of dollar signs. Sadly, I am not, but I could have done more – I should have done more . . .
how come there is is always money for demolition, even when the city has to eat the cost as it so often does, but never money for mothballing, re-roofing, and anything else that buys these buildings another decade or two?
That's a good question. I suppose it may be that there is money that is set aside for demolition in the budget and from federal grants for that exact reason. I'm not exactly sure, but I think that there is a requirement that it only be used for that purpose. I would guess from looking at the building and the fact that its school actually collapsed that this building is probably in pretty bad shape.
There is also the issue of how much the city should spend even to try to mothball a building that it has no use for and is going to require significant sums to eventually reuse, if it's even structurally sound enough to save.
Set sights high and know where theres a will theres a way I guess thats the way to make things happen. Sure...everyone who wants to do positive can always do more and stretch themselves more and more BUT unfortunetaly thats because there are many who take and take and take and make everyone else do more and more and feel guilty about not doing enough. Its an epic battle.
Let's see if any of the Negativity Police on here express exception to the very harsh generalized criticism of Buffalo with which the article opens:
Steel>"In America. and especially Buffalo, historic well-crafted irreplaceable buildings like the two buildings shown here are no longer valued."
Maybe the author will be called a negatron or a Buffalo basher? Or his claim about 'especially Buffalo' might be disagreed with or questioned?
(lol, a first time for anything is always possible, or there might really be lifetime immunity!)
The big question is when the negativity police do come out will you defend Steel with the same creative writing that you have done for your friends here? If you can spin toilet bowl into a flattering remark than what Steel said ought to be easy.
ket>"is when the negativity police do come out will you defend Steel with the same creative writing ...?"
ket, I don't hesitate to comment in agreement with Steel if I notice he's right about something and there's something useful I can add. It's the same as I'd treat anyone else, although rare in his case because his views are so different from mine. A recent example of he and I on same side of something was taking issue with opponents of letting Acropolis expand (Daniel, etc.).
And speaking of Daniel, I almost always find him wrong on here too, but I'm sure I've commented in agreement with him at least once (stadiums, convention center, Bass Pro)… probably more than once.
Far from embracing group think as perhaps some really do, I'm pretty good at looking at things objectively.
Agreeing with Steel probably wouldn't involve defending him from negativity police only because as I said, the NP seems to never see any issue when thought crimes are done some people… but who knows, maybe that's just coincidence and the NP will be around any time now to verbally club or taser him for his opening paragraph above, lol - it's possible!
ket>"If you can spin toilet bowl into a flattering remark than what Steel said ought to be easy. "
I of course didn't write that burch was being flattering about the 1950s era waterfront industrial pollution, just that the remark doesn't mean he's a Buffalo basher crew like somebody accused.
As for spinning Steel's "especially Buffalo" dig, that might be difficult considering Buffalo has actually gotten praise from observers in other places for how many old vacant churches have been saved here when feasible.
For example
http://www.cleveland.com/religion/index.ssf/2010/02/buffalo_catholic_diocese_finds.html
"Buffalo Catholic Diocese finds buyers for many churches closed in downsizing
Published: Monday, February 15, 2010
BUFFALO, N.Y. -- Amid the closings of Cleveland Catholic churches, city officials -- vexed by visions of vacant buildings in struggling neighborhoods -- might want to take a look at what's up in Buffalo.
Despite a weak real estate market, the Buffalo Catholic Diocese has had surprising success in selling its closed churches -- often hulking, high-maintenance, heat-draining structures. To date, the diocese has sold 38 of the 77 church properties it closed during a three-year downsizing plan that began in 2005.
...Cleveland Councilman Anthony Brancatelli, whose ward is losing three of eight Catholic churches, welcomed the news of Buffalo's success.
"This sounds like a good opportunity to latch onto what Buffalo's doing," he said. "It's positive to hear how other cities are taking initiatives to creatively market these buildings. It sounds like Buffalo is trying to engage the community and to solicit input. And that's important."
Cleveland has closed more than 30 churches so far and will continue shuttering properties through May. To date, it has sold only one church, Holy Cross, established as a Polish parish in Elyria in 1922. …"
On the other hand, Steel tells us "especially Buffalo" doesn't value buildings such as old churches.
Whatever> "I of course didn't write that burch was being flattering about the 1950s era waterfront industrial pollution..."
There was no indication that Burch was referring to "50s era waterfront pollution." That's your creativity not what Burch said (btw, the picture on the top of the stack of several that you keep pointing to was taken in the 40s not the 50s). I'm just curious if someone calls Steel out for being a Buffalo basher (I won't for reasons already explained), will you jump in and use the same creativity to argue against whoever is being critical?
Whatever> "Far from embracing group think as perhaps some really do, I'm pretty good at looking at things objectively."
You are kidding yourself if you really believe this. You are as partisan and partial as anybody who comments here so there is no need for the pretend objectivity. The different treatment of commenters her is reflective of these biases.
There is nothing wrong with being opinionated. It is wrong to mask these opinions under a cloak of pretend objectivity.
ket - in the context I used it, objective doesn't mean no opinion. It means no bias. Even the dictionary def of objective refers to "an objective opinion".
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objective
"ob·jec·tive [uhb-jek-tiv] noun
5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion."
This from you looks to be saying objectivity and opinions are incompatible, which clearly isn't so.
ket>"There is nothing wrong with being opinionated. It is wrong to mask these opinions under a cloak of pretend objectivity."
Objective opinions like mine consider what's said rather than who's saying it. It isn't favoritism or group think, quite the opposite. If I disagree with some more often than others, that could change if they'd meet me half way by having better opinions more often.
The negativity police, on the other hand, seem to have a lot of bias... or who knows, maybe they're on donut breaks when certain folks make digs like "especially Buffalo" - that's fine, they deserve breaks, but still his immunity looks funny sometimes!
ket>"There was no indication that Burch was referring to "50s era waterfront pollution."
Yep, plainly there was plenty of indication.
burch wrote "the 50s" - if you look again you'll see. If a reader didn't realize it meant the 1950s, that's due to uncareful reading. And to make poor reading even less of a good excuse, burch linked a picture (worth 1000 words) of that polluted area showing a skyline obviously from back that long ago. Pic was even labeled with year. Hardly bashing present day Buffalo as the negativity cop accused, but that's how it goes sometimes.
Whatever> "Objective opinions like mine consider what's said rather than who's saying it."
Your actions say otherwise. It certainly isn't "objective" to critique some on this site while giving yourself and other like minded commenters a pass for doing the same thing. Nor is it "objective" to bash preservation on the grounds that it runs counter to efficient government while abandoning this principal when the topic shifts to government programs you do like.
Again, there is nothing wrong with favoring yourself and your friends and demos over rehab. But the pretend objectivity high horse you use to argue your points is at best silly and at worst dishonest. Just be honest about personal biases that you and every human being has and argue from there.
Whatever> "burch wrote "the 50s".
And the fact that you kept holding up a picture dated from the 40s didn't mean anything to you? Talk about uncareful reading.
Also, it's nice to see BRO is counting your thumb up/down votes again. You giving your comments a self-awarded +1 seems very "objective" and "fair minded."
Nope, that's still all very inaccurate. I don't know if it's mostly due to so many times you've not read mine or others' comments closely enough, or just not being open minded to realize people with whom you disagree can be unbiased and objective.
But don't give up - keep trying, some day it all might click and you'll thank me for my patience!
ket>"Also, it's nice to see BRO is counting your thumb up/down votes again.""
Also no, despite your weird conclusion jump, it still doesn't count my votes for anyone. Funny coincidence you mention votes now, because it had been a while since I tried so just for fun last week I did try once or twice, don't remember on who's - but anyhow, clicking had no effect. Count stood still.
But it's no prob - they have bigger tech issues to deal with spam than trying to fix anyone's voting. Others have mentioned theirs don't count either on here, so very well might be a tech glitch for some accounts or some browser versions. There's surprisingly low numbers of votes in general on here, considering how many readers this site probably gets. Who knows, maybe it will change some day if they update software platform. -shrug-
But as you've noticed... a few people who can vote do agree with me sometimes. I still think probably even most down-votes to me are accidental, people so enthused that they click too fast before reaching the little green box. I count them all for me as up! :)
If you really think your inconsistent treatment of comments (strawman police for some but not yourself and others, grouping others but bristling when you arn your pals are put into a category, taking fake ideological stances etc) are the work of objective thinking you really aren't honest with your own biases. We all have leanings and you have articulated yours contrary to your odd efforts to hide them. You're not fooling anybody with the pretend objectivity.
You're also not fooling anybody over the vote thing. Do you expect me to believe someone recently started following your comments to put thumb up votes almost just as soon as the comment has been posted? Maybe he or she just gave me that downvote for bringing it up (lol).
But nobody will no for sure so maybe you are right. The timing of the votes and the fact that you mentioned "browser" in that last comment seem to indicate that you have figured out how to give your comments a head start in BROs meaningless popularity contest. Not the actions of someone who fancies themselves as "objective."
I don't see how I'm very inconsistent about substance or merit. There's a difference between issues and commenter names. Like I said, I don't hesitate to agree with Steel, etc. if and when I agree. That shows lack of bias. Yeah I do think it's funny he can say things as negatively as he wants (like "especially Buffalo" above) yet it isn't considered negative. Just find it amusing is all. -shrug-
About "votes", believe what you want. But you're being silly and - ironically - showing personalized bias in assuming others online won't possibly agree with me on something. Who knows, they might even be tweaking you by doing it! I noticed long ago those don't count for my clicks, still don't, no big deal. I'm sure others commented the same a while ago, Crisa maybe? not sure, but others brought it up. Maybe a browser version thing.
Votes are just for fun anyhow. I don't think I've seen anybody take them too serious except Dan a few times (maybe even he was joking - I don't get his jokes sometimes), and now you're the second if you're serious. I mean, the blog gets 100's or maybe 1000's of readers every day so anybody thinks a handful of votes on either side is meaningful, really, except for laughs?
And what do the local preservation organizations say about these two buildings -- and this issue in general--?
Anyone--?
here's a .pdf from MIT on adaptive reuse of churches.
http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/35692/56409883.pdf?sequence=1
Consider this option…
1. A one-time cost for complete demolition or
2. A (possible) one-time cost for abatement and new roof and I admit, in writing, that a “new” roof may only last 20-30 years but I present the example of the Genesee Gateway that stood abated, gutted and, I am assuming, a new roof for how many years? I honestly don’t know but I would say close to 20-years.
Whatever> "anti-demo upscale political factions... won't-be-saved arson risks"
Those slanted and false generalizations don't sound like the language of somebody who wants people to think they are "objective." One person's won't be saved arson risk is another's historic rehab. Not sure what is to be gained by the pretend populist move of painting "political factions" who favor reusing existing building assets as "upscale." There are plenty of up and downscale people who favor both options.
I think you are making a point that the mayor is avidly pro-demo but throws a few bones at the "upscale" set (lol) to keep them happy. As someone who likes to think of themself as objective, I'm sure you've considered that the opposite may be true. It would be interesting to see if the City is anywhere close to the pace of 5k demos in 5 years. If not, it could be interpreted that 5 in 5 was a catchy but empty political slogan to keep the PVLC happy.
I think actions have demonstrated all levels of City government consider both demo and rehab and pick the best option. Most politicians I can think of have embraced both tactics at a given moment.
"Those slanted and false generalizations"
What's at all false, slanted, or not objective? Hasn't Buffalo seen that there's very real arson dangers from leaving so many vacant houses standing indefinitely after such a deep drop in population?
Yes, some people will save some houses, but that doesn't change the overall need for something on a large scale like the 5-in-5 effort.
About the "upscale", I didn't say or imply all anti-demo factions are upscale. Again, reading comprehension. My speculation was about the upscale portion of anti-demo factions - wondering if that portion was who a politician might want to not annoy too much. Yes, successful politicians on all sides of all issues often worry more about about annoying upscale people due to donations, etc. - fact of life.
Maybe I'll try to remember to make that more clear next time I use that word.
Whatever> "What's at all false, slanted, or not objective?"
"Won't be saved is false". In most cases rehab is every bit of a viable vacancy abatement strategy as demo. How certain are you that a vacant house "won't be saved?"
Labeling houses as "arson risks" isn't false but such colorful language certainly indicates pro-demo leanings. Someone who claims to be objective and fair minded ought to be above these generalizations.
Whatever> " I didn't say or imply all anti-demo factions are upscale"
I like how you threw the word "all" in there as if to suggest my criticism was absolutist. I guess when it comes to strawman arguments, what is okay for the pot isn't for the kettle. Again, not the actions of someone claiming to be objective.
You did generalize "political factions" in support of preservation as being "upscale" which is strange considering the cross-class support of this strategy. Calling these people "upscale" seems like a lame attempt at polarizing.
I've lived across the street from the "Sacred Heart complex" for the past twenty eight years. I purchased my dwelling shortly after the 1983 propane explosion, which killed firemen and civilians, destroyed many homes and blew out most of the stained glass in the Church. In those days the complex was owned by the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and while the congregation desperately tried to maintain itself after the explosion, the task was insurmountable.
Once abandoned, the corpse was left rotting and ripe for scavengers of all types. First the pipe organ was ripped apart and the tin pipes sold for scrap, then the pews, artifacts, lights, doors, hardware, and sections of remaining glass. The final straw occurred when a salvage company showed up with a crane and stole the the bell right out of the tower in broad daylight.
The fate of the neighborhood wasn't much different than the church. The Governor came to town and promised millions to help the community rebuild. There was a lot of hand wringing and expressions of sympathy and outrage over how such a thing could have happened. I remember thinking the neighborhood looked like Beirut. Most of the promised funds disappeared in clean-up costs and housing rehab scams.
Twenty six years ago architect David Stieglitz and I surveyed the church buildings. He estimated that the cost of rehabbing the school building alone would exceed one million dollars in roof and structural damage. There certainly weren't any preservationists stepping up to help save my neighbors homes or the church buildings.
So RaChaCha, you ask what I have to say? Well, I think there's a lot of folks showing up way late for the party. I think it's easy to call for "mothballing" the place but that process doesn't fix the enormous slate roofs. And where were the preservationists when the City mistakenly tore down the child's playground last year (since replaced but still unopened). It sits directly across the street.
While preservationists wring their hands about this complex, my neighbors worry about the safety of kids climbing around these structures. When the school building collapsed a few years back, the community didn't get any warning. The building didn't send out a community alert before it's North wall collapsed in a storm. Parts of the school landed within feet of the house next door.
While "whites on bikes" languorously tour our East Side "treasures" peoples homes are in need of repair and their warmth and safety are far more deserving of preservation than abandoned buildings no matter how architecturally significant.
My question wasn't directed at you -- nevertheless that's a great answer and I appreciate you replying. No one else did.
BTW, I believe you're B.B. -- if so I emailed you a month or so ago. Because I have a Hotmail account sometimes my initial emails to someone go into their spam filter and are never seen. If that's the case I can try again. While I'm not a white on a bike, I do often head to the east side for longer runs (white on Nikes?), and would love to stop by and see your shop one of these days. I'm sure we could have a good conversation on just this topic.
Best regards.
Ra--I know your question wasn't directed at me but I seized the opportunity you offered soliciting opinions and threw down my 2 cents.
The "whites on bikes" comment was directed at "fix buffalo" who, while it is true focuses attention on derelict East Side treasures, does little to alleviate the situation. Of course, there's not much people without money can do to solve these multi-million dollar renovations except talk and point.
Stop by any time. We're as capable of talking as anyone else!
Thanks -- I may take you up on your offer!
Leave a comment
Sponsor
Recent Comments
Sponsor
Interested in advertising on BuffaloRising?
E-mail John C. Powell
or call John at 716.602.0200




I wholeheartedly agree with your statements and I just became aware of this building complex within the past two-weeks.
The photos I have seen, compliments of David Torke, indicate a school building that had probably been abandoned and neglected for years and was demolished after the roof had finally collapsed taking several floors along with it not unlike the Webb Building.
Sadly, both the rectory and convent roofs have been seriously compromised and I can only speculate that the interior of both have been ruined.
The church appears to be in remarkably good condition but without an actual interior inspection who is to say except David Torke who has the uncanny knack of finding entry points or maybe it is because the door are simply open or missing?
I am a firm believer in saving neighborhood anchor buildings and this church would make for a prime candidate but I fear the wrecking ball is already on its way.