Tuesday Trico Meeting POSTPONED

Glad you weighed in.

If there's specific information out there about contamination issues with the building, I think people involved in this issue would love to see it. But even more important, specifics on how that would impact the building's reuse in terms of cost & feasibility. Remember, it's not unusual for projects involving former industrial sites to involve an element of environmental cleanup. That's true everywhere. It hasn't stopped very successful reuses of former industrial buildings in Buffalo and elsewhere. On an earlier article a commenter pointed out that another building reuse project involved removal of spray-on asbestos from all the steel skeleton.

Is there a cost to that? Yes, but it's one of the reasons various tax credits are available. And in almost every case it's far less than the costs of demolishing a sturdy existing building then designing and building something new.

In a weak-market city, where every building project competes for shrinking pots of state, federal, and foundation funding, can we afford to throw away hundreds of thousands of square feet of historically listed building space, in the midst of a developing district that will be needing perhaps hundreds of thousands of square feet of new space in the near future? Not without good reason. And I've seen no good reason presented, backed by any documentation or reference.

Keep in mind, not all the new development underway now and in the near future on and around the medical campus is for actual medical purposes. And some business will want to move there because they like the vibrancy and the location at the edge of downtown. They'll need space.

How do you know, officially, that the building is "contaminated"? I have yet to hear one official notice to that effect.

Also, remediation will need to take place whether the building stays or goes. So, why not save some landfill, build off our other re-use success stories, and preserve some of our heritage in the process?

(PS-my bet is that you will now become a regular).

i think some of the opposition to demolition comes from the frustration with the state of downtown and the removal of so many buildings with no plan for redevelopment. Without the medical campus proposing a specific project here and with the vast scale of the adjacent parking lot suitable to new development, the removal of the trico building is seen as a needless demolition that will make the urban core even more desolite and barren (assuming there is no immediate plan for the site). While obviously the building is currently vacant, it does play a significant role in the urban fabric, anchoring this neighborhood with it's bulk and weight (and charm - Trico!) and even though vacant, can be seen in a positive light as untapped potential and Buffalo's former might that can be repurposed to new use.

Demoed and with no re-use except surface parking (temporary?), Buffalo will slide further in the minds of visitors, especially young professionals, and those who might be considering relocating to the city for the purpose of partaking in the emerging medical campus. And i have no idea how contaminated it is and how necessary the demolition is on that basis, but I would say that not being convinced of the validity of those claims, the building is worth standing up for.

If the plan is to tear it down with no re-use, then I am not for that either. But I doubt the medical campus spent 11.7 million (or whatever that figure was) to buy a building to turn it into a parking lot.

As shallow as it might sound, part of my argument is perception. Buffalo should be known for its older architectural treasures. The medical campus is one instance it should break away from that.

Roswell Park is trying to distinquish itself as a "world leader" in cancer research. It has a reputation it is trying to strengthen. Does retrofitting into an old windshield wiper plant sound like a "world" anything ?

Role play with me. I am Joe Anyobdy in middletown USA and I have some sort of cancer or medical condition where I need Roswell's services. I can choose between one of a handful of cancer centers around the US to get treatment.

Would you want to read on their website "Roswell Park, a cutting edge cancer research facility which just opened a brand new state of the art 'fancy medical term' building in 2014" or "Roswell Park, a cutting edge cancer research facility which just renovated a former manufacturing site into a 'fancy medical term' building in 2014."

Seperating myself from being a Buffalonian, I would want the newest, best, most advanced equipment in the newest, best, most advanced building money can buy if my life was dependent on it.

This isn't some banking institution or corporate office looking to tear this down, this is a medical complex. I think should have some merit in this argument. I am not always against preserving old buildings, but I think you have to look at it on a case by case scenario. Part of my argument is the assumption that the building is contaminated. (which is not confirmed)

If 10 years from now some patients or residents of this building develop some mysterious condition ala Leroy, that would be absolutely devastating to Roswell Park. If you were part of the decision making to demo or re-use it (and a study shows there is contaminates in the building, again, a big if) would you take that chance ? Even if the chance was .0001% and so miniscule, but still a possibility ? Possibly putting lives in jeopardy, all to save a Wiper plant ?

speaking only for myself, i was pleased to see the demolition of the apartment complex that once occupied the site of the newly rebuilt pergola at the darwin martin house. i won't miss the empty bank building next door to the wilcox mansion/t.r. site, where they plan to restore the original gardens and grounds.

but the larger issue is: why should preservation organizations be expected to endorse this or that demolition for the sake of "credibility?" that's like asking the naacp to endorse this or that act of discrimination for the sake of "credibility."

instead, please take comfort in the nonstop demolition that occurs daily with no protest, no campaigns, no public meetings, no feasibility studies, no photographic documentation, no salvage.

if you think preservationists are too powerful, spend a while reading the fixbuffalo blog and you will be reassured that nothing stands in the way of 98% (just a guess) of demolitions in buffalo. the progress of the bulldozer is a huge success on the east side; i don't know why all of you demolitionists aren't over there celebrating.

seriously, its time for demolitionists to declare victory and go home. numerically speaking, your team won, without ever having to life a finger, raise money, organize protests, or lobby city hall.

Ben> "The next time an architectural gem is put in harms way, you'll have much less public support if you keep pushing that this is somehow an important building."

This place is a landmark listed on the National Register of Historic Places. If people shouldn't fight to save properties with this designation, which ones should they protect?

As I understand it, the building is owned by the City of Buffalo, i.e., the taxpayers.

Then you would agree that no taxpayer money should be used to demolish it, right?

[Deleted - bit of flame there, I'm afraid]

Pamp, I'll answer your question. I left Buffalo because I wanted to live in a place with much more diversity. I was tired of people lambasting the east side and the people who live there. I was tired of Riverside's racist attitudes that I saw just about every day.

In the early 1990s, I didn't want to wait until 2012 for Buffalo to get an Ethiopian restaurant. At that time, Buffalo had just one Korean restaurant (by University Plaza). I moved to NYC where I had access to over 30 Korean restaurants a short walk away. Finally, I wanted exposure to a greater quantity of cultural institutions. Essentially, I didn't want to wait because life is too short.