Development Agreement in Place for Deaconess Center Site
Comments
Leave a commentInteresting. So could this set in motion some "musical chairs" where CAO sells off its current HQ (old mansion + grounds) on Harvard in the Oxford Square neighborhood--? That would be major.
i still think that the city could use a canterbury woods-type facility, where you can age in place and in stages, from a fully independent apartment to 24/7 skilled nursing. maybe the harvard street property could be that facility.
a place like this in the city would prolong its residents' independence, by situating them where they can still walk to amenities, shops, services, and bus lines. it would cut costs, by needing to supply fewer shuttle buses, drivers, and parking spaces. plus it keeps its residents' pensions and purchasing power in the city.
Agreed, but Children's Hospital campus would be a better fit.
fine by me. way better reuse of children's than yet another market-rate housing conversion. not that there's anything wrong with market-rate housing; i just think that city demographics point towards needing options for the urban elderly that aren't currently available.
i know that if and when the day comes that i can no longer live on my own, it would handicap me terribly to have to relocate into a suburban assisted-living complex.
for those of us who are city-born and city-bred, we'd be instantly severed from everything we could do on our own two feet: visit friends, run errands, attend meetings, vote, etc.
terrific idea. I would only add to it that a day care facility be a part of the complex. Old people need children (at least for a couple of hours) and god knows children need the wisdom and patience of old people. They go together like peanut butter and jelly, and it doesn't make the facility seem so "old folks homey"
terrific idea. I would only add to it that a day care facility be a part of the complex. Old people need children (at least for a couple of hours) and god knows children need the wisdom and patience of old people. They go together like peanut butter and jelly, and it doesn't make the facility seem so "old folks homey"
I'm not particularly attracted to this building and wouldn't be too sad to see it go, but I think this meets the 50 year mark to potentially utilize historic tax credits. Combine that with other incentives and using the existing building may actually make more sense
The Deaconess Center is not worth saving. Perhaps keeping the old German Deaconess Hospital stone signs over a few of the doorways I could see salvaging. However, being a former EMT in the City of Buffalo the Deaconess was a dump where Kaleida never put money into it. Only two elevators for patient transfers which one was always out of service due to mechanical issues or on "special service" which meant it was out of service. The building is asbestos laden, and the grounds were poorly kept by Kaleida Health as well.
It served its purpose proudly for many years, however I think this is one of those buildings that has served the community well.
It is amazing how wasteful our society is. This building certainly could be spruced up and repurposed. We have to get out of this insane mindset that everything is disposable when we get tired of it. Earth to humans "I AM NOT LIMITLESS"
By the way - Asbestos needs to be removed in either scenario - demolition or renovation. That means it is not a reason for demolition.
Maybe so in this particular case, but there are many deliberately cheap and offensive buildings in DT. If some of them are razed for more sensitive designs, I doubt Nature would care.
You are an architect, would you not agree that many buildings have finite lifespans? Deaconess is such a building. It is wildly out of date, with a lack of adequate bathroom facilities and is in many ways noncompliant with ADA requirements. The fact that Buffalo General and Kaleida never put much money into it over the past couple of decades certainly didn't help either.
I remember when Highpointe opened and I was helping out admitting the patients from Gates' SNF. The staff from Deaconess couldn't believe how luxurious the new place was. They might have missed the place for sentimental reasons, but they were happy to be in the new place.
It might make sense to try to redo this building a la the Donovan building if there were some realistic use for it or it were in a better neighborhood. But this one would be a tough sell. The sensible thing would be to let Kaleida demolish it before we get another empty eyesore along the Kensington and let the CAO people have their way.
250k+ square feet is a sizable space. Sure, someone could build housing or something out of the skeleton after a gut (CAO administration needs only a fraction of that space), but the cost (even with credits) would be very high. I'd be happy to see the frame find reuse, but it doesn't break my heart that it goes.
As to CAO's current digs, yes they'll sell. Their current building, while stately, is a maintenance headache for them and doesn't lay out well. Once upon a time (five-ish years ago?) CAO had a deal to sell to their Harvard site to Canisius High School, which coveted the land for its athletic fields (It's a short block away, and Canisius is landlocked). Bet the farm that they're talking to each other again, given this development.
My family lived around the corner (on Landon) when Deaconess was built. I was born in 1960, and I'm not sure whether I was alive for that but my older brother (1957) and my cousin (who lived downstairs) were. They used to sneak around to Humboldt (where they weren't allowed to be without a grownup) to watch construction. One day my brother and cousin thought they had the perfect disguise to not get caught: they took some burst balloons and stretched the pieces over their faces so that no one would recognize them. They were shocked that the ruse didn't work. True story.
Fact: In 1966, President Lyndon Baines Johnson had to make an emergency pit stop and used the lavatory on the first floor of Deaconess Hospital. For that reason alone, I think this building should be reused.
There goes the neighborhood and it's property value. Bet it will be all suburban crap and the lowest of the low housed there.
This actually a pretty cool Mid-century modern building. Wish they would consider reusing it.
How stupid to demolish a perfectly good building?
Why not gut it and remodel it?
What is it with demolishing buildings in Buffalo? Its like its a fetish and people get off on it.
then of course they put up a replacement building that is smaller, cheaper and uglier than what was there originally.
Re: "Why not gut it and remodel it?"
Well, gut rehab of 250k square feet: rehab cost of $5m-$7.5m? (at $200-$300/square foot, which seems to be the range locally for gut rehabs of commercial buildings these days). So whence the funds and for what purpose? I agree with others above that a senior living complex makes sense in the city, but the Elmwood area would be infinitely more attractive for residents (a la Children's). This site is a poor step child, to coin a phrase. What's the target use and what are the target funding sources? Absent other concrete ideas, a neighbor (CAO) has use for the site. I say that particular bird in hand is worth keeping.
Leave a comment
Sponsor
Recent Comments
Sponsor
Interested in advertising on BuffaloRising?
E-mail John C. Powell
or call John at 716.602.0200




Why not reuse what's already there? What's the rush to tear the whole thing down? It could easily be re-clad like the Donovan Building if the new owners don't like the aesthetics. If the organization wants to provide "action" to the "community," one way to do that is to be more green, which means not sending a four-story building to the landfill without good reason. When reusing a building, labor is a much larger percentage of the cost than materials are, compared to new construction. The labor to reuse buildings comes from the local labor market and has a direct impact. The cost of materials does not go to the local economy.
Everyone knows that community action organizations need swanky new digs.
Do you know anything about the building?
It's quite probably that there's asbestos all over the place, who knows what kind of condition it's in?
Not every *#*#*# old building is worth saving.
I agree--why not reuse the building? It's more green and is a basic design off which you can build.
Why not reuse the building? Because it looks like *#*# and nobody likes it.
I do. In fact, I really like it.
We don't see turquoise buildings any more, and it's a great example of mid-century architecture. It's not a great building, by any means, but it's solid design.
BTW, it's too bad the expressway separates this from the Science Museum. The two organizations could establish collaborations to mutual benefit. But I don't think that would work unless the bridge could become more pedestrian friendly.
Both the Dulski (now Avant) and the Donovan buildings were loaded with asbestos and neither were thought to be attractive. However both buildings were (or will be) reused after removing the asbestos and reskinning the buildings. Jessie's and Polonia's rationales for demolishing the building fail for this reason.
However, I wonder if the CAO could fill the 268,000 sq. feet for its HQ and head start programs. Sounds like a lot more space than they need. Also, the Dulski and Donovan were located in areas where the land is more valuable and supported a high rise. I would be surprised if demand for space and economics at that location justified a Dulski/Donovan-style reuse.
Honestly, if Kaleida Health is willing to fund the demolition than let it proceed.
Because, as all of us in engineering and construction know, if this project does not happen than we have yet another derelict building, open to vandalism and destruction with the short-term-memory-challenged screaming at kaleida to repair THEIR building forgetting that Kaleida had offered to remove it in the first place.
Besides, as already stated here, it is an ugly building….