City September 5, 2012 9:15 AM

Campaign for Greater Buffalo Speaks About Late Night Demo

Campaign for Greater Buffalo Speaks About Late Night Demo

The following is a statement issued by the Campaign about a City Official causing an 1850s Landmark to be demolished without public notice:

"The building popularly know as Bernstone's Cigar Store, part of the Joseph Ellicott Historic District, is threatened with imminent demolition. It was designed by eminent architect Calvin Otis and erected in the 1850's. It was the long-time home of the Third National Bank (Joseph Schoellkopf was president) until its merger with M&T Bank in 1962. Sometime after that, the upper four stories were demolished, leaving the original tin cornice and a Classical cast-iron storefront, possibly the oldest in the city.

Commissioner James Commerford of the City of Buffalo Department of Permit and Inspection Services apparently is flouting the law on public notice once again (He has failed to notify the City Landmark and Preservation Board several times of "Emergency" demolition orders, as required by the City Charter, most recently in the case of the Riverside Men's Shop and Wheeleer grain elevator demolitions). Campaign for Greater Buffalo Executive Director and Preservation Board member Tim Tielman, acting on calls from concerned citizens, went to the department this afternoon. No demolition permit application in the city is supposed to be issued without being reviewed by the Preservation Board. Tielman found out Comerford had issued a demolition order on Friday afternoon, August 31. Comerford was overheard raising his voice, saying he would not meet with Tielman, who was waiting in the next room. Assistant Director Lou Petrucci relayed the message that the commissioner said "to file an Article 78" if a couple days' leave of demolition was sought. Article 78 refers to a legal proceeding brought against a government agency to force it to comply with its own laws.

On July 19, Comerford sent a letter asking for a waiver of noticication of demolition of an asbestos-containing structure to the State Labor Department; he claimed there was imminent danger to the public. It took six weeks for fencing to be erected around the site. Still, the Preservation Board was not notified and no public notice has been given.

"It is clear the commissioner has nothing but contempt for the public process and for the public body charged with protecting the city's historic assets," said Tielman." 


Timothy Tielman

Executive Director 

The Campaign for Greater Buffalo History, Architecture & Culture

716-240-9621

frontdesk@c4gb.org

 Entry Image Courtesy of Bernice Radle

View image

Comments

Leave a comment

Ugly building - glad it's gone

Score: -12 ( 68 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Its not about a particular building. Its about a legal public process that the City of Buffalo chooses to illegally not follow. What if the same thing was done to a beautiful building that stood directly next to your house?

replied to elmdog
Score: 32 ( 54 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I understand the process etc....... The potential new build in the space outweighs bad preservation

replied to townline
Score: -9 ( 35 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

What potential new build? There is no potential new build! Do you really think that this building is in the way of a potential new build? That is a joke!

If there was actually one proposed, I'd have no problem with this building biting the dust. There is no building proposed. All that has happened here is they have lessened their tax burden - which falls on the backs of you, me and all other city residents who will, one way or the other, will have to make up the difference.

replied to elmdog
Score: 19 ( 29 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Or great parking lot .....

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

I'll just leave this here: https://www.ci.buffalo.ny.us/Home/City_Departments/EDPIS/Inspections/Demolition

I suppose you can debate if this really was an emergency demolition, but since none of us were in the building and most of us are not structural engineers this is nothing but speculation on either side.

Unless someone else can find an appropriate citation, I am going to have to assume that city law was followed as this was an emergency demolition.

replied to townline
Score: -1 ( 11 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Is that really all you see, just an ugly building? Just try for a brief moment to use your imagination. When I looked at this little place I saw a great little corner café that would really bring some more life and foot traffic to the lower section of Main Street. While I acknowledge that everything cannot and should not be saved, this little place had some potential.

If the scenario was different, like if the building had to be leveled because new development was coming that would produce jobs, result in a nice new building, etc. then fine, demolish it. It was a cool little building, but it was still just a fragment of what it was originally. However, the new development scenario does not seem to be the case. It looks like we’re getting a few more prime parking spaces at the cost of another missed opportunity.

replied to elmdog
Score: 7 ( 41 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Just to note, the space directly next to Bernstone's(with its entrance boarded up) was a charming coffee shop in 2000--and it closed down. Used to pop in there for breakfast before going into work across the street.

One major problem with that building's locale is a problem I hope those making decisions with the "Cars Sharing Main Street" initiative are considering: Businesses don't want to operate on Main behind gargantuan, unnecessary rail stops. Every one of those structures needs to be minimized to aid foot traffic and/or streetscapes, as well as reveal the storefronts behind them. Check Boston's Green Line street rail: small stops and minimal coverage for waiting passengers, weather considerations be damned.

Unfortunately, it looks like it's too late for Bernstone's. Hopefully, this stop downsizing is going happen as they work down the street.

replied to Mike Puma
Score: 13 ( 19 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

As I said -i see a great parking lot too -

replied to Mike Puma
Score: -2 ( 12 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

C'Mon Mike. You're a great guy but time to get outta Hooterville. I don't see anything except a run-down eyesore situated on a parking lot. Besides we have enough coffee already.

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

The sign was cool. Very midcentury.

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

Clearly, some developers have had their sights on this site for some time:

www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/news/2010/10/19/developers-make-play-for-phillips-lytle.html?page=all

Regardless of what one thinks of the building, a formal process, which is required in an historic district (which this is), was ignored. That is very problematic and worrisome.

Score: 10 ( 22 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

We should examine why he needed to resort to this tactic to do something with his property. Maybe the preservation board should work with landowners instead of living in a dream world

Score: 1 ( 33 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

It's not just about a building or a process. It's about the city's history and what makes us unique.

Score: 0 ( 24 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I could see the argument about demolishing this building if it were:

1) too large to feasibly redevelop (like Trico sized)
2) in an undesirable part of the city
3) had no original character whatsoever
4) no historic qualities
5) or completely falling over in public ROW

The problem here is that this building fits none of those factors. To make it worse the property owner intentionally went out of his way to avoid the public process and the city played along acknowledging that the public would disaprove. Which begs the question, who does our city officials have in their best interest?

Apparently an out of town developer is more important than the citizens of the city itself. This particular building may not be a make or break deal for downtown development but at the same time we rely on strides from smaller individual developments to create the overall greater picture.

We can't rely solely on big developments like the Lafeyette, Statler, AM&A's, etc., to bring the change needed. It will be the smaller pieces of the puzzle that ultimately tie it all together and create the density of people/environment that we all clamor for. To me this was short sighted and a slap in the face to anyone who has invested their hard earned money in the city, particularly downtown and Main Street.

Score: 26 ( 34 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Well said.

replied to brownteeth
Score: 6 ( 18 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I can see the argument too and the big question is whether there as a proper salvage.

As far as the process, these late night and last minute demolitions must be banned. Period. If a building deserves to be demolished then there should be no need for secrecy. This building didnt merit a preservation attempt but because it worked the demolish and park group will continue trying it on other buildings. Its those buildings that may be worthy of being saved.

Score: 1 ( 13 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

According to another poster the owners of this building applied for a permit to demo and were turned down. The reason is they were not going to be allowed to create another parking lot. If this is true, therein lies the problem.

The building was not historic...no matter what Tim says. It lost any right to be called historic when it go the 'haircut' so many years back. To try and pain the picture that this structure was anything more than a box is why preservation has a bad name.

replied to paulsobo
Score: 2 ( 24 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I agree. At least the eyesore is gone and the land will have some usefulness until it can be developed anew.

replied to longgone
Score: -7 ( 17 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

whoever owns this piece of crap property should be able to do what they want with it ! why didnt all of you whiners pool up your money and buy it ?? oh thats right,only people with money can do anything.stop complaining and get a job.

Score: -24 ( 48 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Well it's hard to buy something that no longer exists.

replied to warehousedweller
Score: 17 ( 25 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Also hard to buy something that wasn't for sale.

replied to brownteeth
Score: 8 ( 10 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Damn straight. To hell with hippie liberal planners and their communist zoning and their collaboration with Barack HUSSEIN Obama and the UN to give up our great Christian nation's sovereignty to the European socialist UN under the guise of "sustainability". I'm gonna' buy that property, and move in a double-wide, a metal pole barn, and some project cars. If the city ain't don't like it, they can meet my two friends, Smith and Wesson.

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

If you think the out of town developer that was letting this property deteriorate would be willing to let it go for anything close to what the building was worth you are simply naive. They were sitting on this property hoping it would get to a point where they could play the "public safety" card and knock it down for a few extra parking spots. That is a prime corner and the developer is playing the long game hoping that real estate eventually becomes so attractive to a builder than it is worth more to them than the money they are making off of parking.

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

WHY ISN"T HIS POST IN ALL CAPS?>!??!!?!@?ER

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

LFD - nope, warehousedweller is right.

What you wrote conveniently ignored the possibility you could have moved it:
LFD>"If you think the out of town developer ... would be willing to let it go for anything close to what the building was worth you are simply naive. … That is a prime corner …."

If you guys seriously thought this building was so important to save, what's any good reason you couldn't have proactively raised funds to buy, move it, then mothball it or rehab it any way you want? The owner would have saved demo costs, and you guys could have saved the building you feel is so important.

It had been sitting vacant over 10 years, and it's been about 4 years since that Buffalo Rising article about it to which WCP linked in yesterday's post.
http://archives.buffalorising.com/story/bernstones

Wasn't that plenty of time? As you point out, it's been clear for a long time the current owner didn't want to develop it. If even only 5 of you who commented about what a tragedy this demo is had each recruited 10 people to chip in say $1000 each, that'd be $50k. Smaller donations and fundraising events could have grown that even higher. Maybe you could've raised enough to move it to a vacant lot somewhere on say Genesee, Broadway, Michigan, Sycamore, etc. - then opened a store in it, or restaurant, or art gallery, or cigar museum - anything you want. Or at least made a real effort. Instead, a decade of mostly silence followed by a few days of massive complaining. Complaining is fine, of course, but by itself is often ineffective.

replied to LiveFastDie
Score: 3 ( 9 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Your defense of Up and Coming's rude and unconstructive comments was one thing but now Warehousedweller gets your seal of approval? :)

I think the argument that preservationists should "put up or shut up" fails to recognize the many committed preservationists that DO invest their time, energy, and dollars. In the case of this building there was no option available, the building was not for sale nor did the owners reach out to see if any interested parties might be interested in moving the building. It is too easy to throw stones at those working to protect and realize the potential of our architectural legacy while giving a pass to those seeking to exploit it only for short term profit and personal gain.

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

Haha, BRL you know I'm usually good at separating messages & personalities!
(besides, warehouse - if same past commenter as I'm guessing - I think has often had very well informed insights on here in some things that weren't widely known but later became public knowledge. Davis & Wanamaker criminality, for example, back way before they were even arrested, and now both have pled guilty to felonies. That's if I'm recalling past comments correctly….)

Anyhow, back on topic -

You should have noticed by now that I've never said the "shut up" part of "put up or shut up". To the contrary, when I think of it I say people should of course speak up if they want to, no matter how unreasonable what they say might be.

In fact, I'm not even saying anybody should do the "put up" part if they don't want to. I'm just pointing out that the often undone "put up" part would be doable if people really wanted to.
You've demonstrated that with your house, so have some others on here, so have the Central Terminal folks, …

On the other hand, for buildings which nobody has offered to "put up" over such a long period of time as 10+ years like for this cigar building or the Bethlehem building, etc - well, that says something too about the buildings in question.
As great as words can be, actions (and lack thereof) usually speak even louder.

Although I'll take your word for it if you're saying this cigar building has never in those 10+ years been listed for sale at a reasonable price - that doesn't mean people couldn't have made public offers to buy it and move it to another site if it's so important. A decade seems like plenty of time, and as WCP mentioned in the article a few days ago there was even a BR post about the building 4 years ago.
So the fact it was very at-risk was widely known.

replied to Black Rock Lifer
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Quick story of my “experience” with the City of Buffalo in regards to obtaining building permits for rehabilitation projects.

I volunteer for a not-for-profit that rehabilitates homes for those who wish to reside in the city but cannot afford new or afford to renovate.

We obtain donated homes and rehab them and the common denominator is these donations are typically 100+ years old and in dire need of attention. Many have been what I like to refer to as having been 1950-ized (i.e. picture windows in Victorian four squares is laughable).

One home had the second floor completely opened-up probably in the 1960s-1970’s (based on the construction) with no regard to existing load-bearing walls but a testimony to the original 1910 framing, there was minimal sagging of the truss members.

The City demands to see floor plans of the current floor plan and one of the proposed. I need to mention, the proposed new floor plan re-enclosed this already opened area but when the inspector saw the existing floor plan, he demanded that we have the drawings stamped by a structural PE because even though we were enclosing this area, he felt only a PE could approve this change.

Since we operate on a shoe string budget, I simply changed the existing floor plan to make it look as if this second floor had never been opened-up in the first place.

What is really sad is; I walked away thinking it was all one big mind game or power play even with a group of individuals simply trying to help others on a very small and often “below-the-radar” way.

Go figure?

Score: 4 ( 8 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment


So essentially what you're saying is you broke the rules that you did not agree with to suite your own (or organizations) interest in an effort to save money and or time and to move forward your personal (or organizations) efforts.

You did this in a thread where a business owner potentially broke rules that they did not agree with to suite their own organizations interest in an effort to save money and or time and to move forward their organizations efforts.

Go figure why people can't see the double standard.

Score: 6 ( 14 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I'm glad I'm not the only one that thought the same thing.

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

The building had already been structurally compromised almost 60-years ago and we were returning it back to its original floor plan.

In essence, the building was returned to a more structurally sound building and we provided a home for someone in a need of a new home in a building that was headed for the landfill.

So, light the torches and storm the castle for doing a good deed?

replied to longgone
Score: 4 ( 8 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Well, God bless you for the work you're doing. I appreciate every group doing that kind of work in Buffalo (many in my west side neighborhood), and every building they rehab, and every family they aid.

But if you're doing that kind of work, you really ought to have a structural engineer you can go to in these situations. Hopefully, someone who will help out pro bono. Seriously.

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

Skipping a PE or SE stamp is extremely stupid. If there's ever a structural problem that causes damage to property, loss of life, etc and it's found out your organization did something like that, or that you changed the configuration of load bearing walls without a stamp - you're going to be liable, and it's not going to be pretty. I sure hope you have a good lawyer or good insurance, because damages are going to get big fast.

There's a reason engineers go to school. I'm sure you could have found a firm willing to donate their services or at least offer them at a reduced rate.

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

You would think a group like Habitat for Humanity would not be taking such shortcuts that could potentially harm people.

replied to leggomyeggo
Score: 0 ( 6 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I may not be a PE but I am a structural designer and our group knows exactly what they are doing....incidentally, the floor plan was RETURNED to its orginal floor plan AFTER being compromised (60-years earlier)....

Talk about missing the point....

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

The point was Habitat for Humanity did not follow the rules.

1 - You created a liability. An unnecessary one at that. If something were to happen, even if not the fault of the HFH you're on the hook. You're a volunteer who spoke for HFH on a public forum. Not a good choice.

2 - You did not follow the rules. There are countless rules in Buffalo and NYS that make zero sense. They cost unnecessary amounts of money and hold back progress. Yet they exist. When a private company breaks these rules sites like BRO go bannans. Yet when a non-profile like Habitat for Humanity breaks the rules...it should be ok because 'no harm, no foul'..?

Score: 1 ( 9 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

You really don't need a PE to assess the construction of a typical city home. A good carpenter has the knowledge to recognize the load bearing walls, basic structural design, or any other issue related to wood frame construction. Most homes in Buffalo are stick built or in the oldest neighborhoods of vertical planks applied on to a timber frame. This isn't rocket science but a very straight forward type of construction. Simply respecting the original design and replacing or repairing the missing or damaged joists, rafters, or sheathing is usually all that is necessary for reconstruction. Of course this does require skill and an understanding of construction but many have this ability though not trained as a structural engineer.
Brick houses or large buildings are a different story and may require professional advice.

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

What org do you volunteer with? Sounds like something I'd like to get involved with.

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

I don't know the answer to your question, but if you're interested in a group doing that kind of work on the west side, check out Westside Ministries:
http://www.westsideministries.org/?view=mobile

Which was featured on Buffalo Rising:
http://www.buffalorising.com/2009/04/sometimes-the-lazy-selfish-thing-to-do-is-still-the-right-thing-to-do.html

I can personally vouch for them and the great work they do!

replied to pfk67
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

speaking of cigars...is that cigar bar on main street near the Hyatt hotel still open? I use to love going there after the Curtain Up gala....It reminded me of being in NYC or something....hanging out with local celebs like Keith Radford and Frankie Scinta

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

it sets a terrible, terrible precedent.

preservationists are always scolded to be pro-active, to identify what is important first before walls start caving in. this is what we did by establishing the ellicott district.

there is nothing about a one-story building that really threatens public safety. if the roof was that frail, you could have fenced it off and fixed it with minimal interruption to foot traffic.

i hereby call for comerford's termination. he has a legal framework in which to operate and he deliberately chose to act in an illegal fashion and defy the mandated oversight of an officially appointed board. who wants to launch the petition?

you may also call 311:

https://www.ci.buffalo.ny.us/Home/City_Departments/Citizens_Services/311_Self-Service

Score: 10 ( 14 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Grad.. if you really want to draw some attention to this, call Channel 2. They would love nothing more than to confront a city official breaking the rules.

replied to grad94
Score: 2 ( 8 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Just saw Commerford on the news claiming according to his records the building was constructed in 1947, pure nonsense as anyone with a cursory knowledge of architecture would know. He then went on to claim the building was a hazard to firefighters, a dubious claim as any vacant old building fits that description.

Also saw Tim Tielman claiming the building is the second oldest in the city. I generally agree with Tim but I know there are many buildings in the city that predate this particular one.

As others have noted there is no defending this demolition, this was clearly an end run around the proper process and we should tolerate such behavior by our city government.

Score: 4 ( 8 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Should have been "we should not tolerate such behavior"

replied to Black Rock Lifer
Score: 1 ( 3 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

not second oldest in the city but one of the oldest in downtown buffalo, depending on how you define downtown.

the oldest downtown buildings that come to my mind are:

michigan street baptist church (1843)
the former ticor title (built 1830-something, heavily remodeled in the 1880s)
primo pizza (1850ish)
pearl street grill (1850ish)

replied to Black Rock Lifer
Score: 1 ( 3 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Good list, I would add St Pauls Cathedral 1849, St Josephs Cathedral 1851, and the facade of the old gas works 1848. I think Primo Pizza is more likely 1840's and Pearl Street Grill is closer to the 1870's. There are also a few smaller buildings scattered around the downtown area that are of very early origin. On Sycamore at Michigan there is a 2 story brick row house with parapet walls dating from the 1840's and a neighboring 3 story brick building of similar age. There is also a brick building across from the Ellicott Square that is was a Greek Revival style house of the same period.
Finally, many early buildings are embedded in later structures, it was very common to add on, build up, or reuse. There are certainly others I have not included, it is surprising sometimes how much has survived.

replied to grad94
Score: 3 ( 3 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

For anyone who has taken the Windsor Tunnel, Calvin Otis designed the Mariners' Church:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariners%27_Church

An icon in Detroit and another claim to architectural fame for a Buffalo architect, now with one more only in memory.

replied to Black Rock Lifer
Score: -1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I was in the building about a year ago. The entire ceiling was collapsed. I couldn't get more than 5 feet in. The whole ceiling duct system was lined with asbestos insulation. Just to clean the inside up with the asbestos would have meant including all of the porous materials, meaning the State would have required all of the wood to go out as asbestos contaminated.

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

Well I feel better that they smashed it into bits now, knowing that there was too much asbestos in it to renovate cheaply.

Better to send it airborne in an emergency evening demo than to handle it properly!

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

I'm not saying that was a better option, just saying the State blindly makes saving buildings like this even more difficult to save. They just make it harder.

replied to 300miles
Score: -1 ( 3 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Asbestos abatement is generally a very small portion of the total cost to renovate or restore a building. I work in facilities and engineering and we deal with abatement on a regular basis. I would add that many materials that appear to be "hot" come back as benign after the absbestos survey test results come back.

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

Unfortunately, this Was asbestos. No question. And because of the contamination and the inability to fully abate due to the ceiling collapse, all of the porous materials would have had to have been considered contaminated. I was in there. I have samples of the material and at least a decade of experience designing abatement projects. I wish I was making this up, or hadn't actually assessed the material, but that isn't the case. I was inside that building.

replied to Black Rock Lifer
Score: 0 ( 2 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

What did this building look like when it was 5 stories tall, and secondely, why the haircut to one story?

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

Where is the new BR post about Comerford's response to Tielman's press release in the News: http://www.buffalonews.com/city/communities/downtown/article1042785.ece

"It was falling apart. The floor was so wet it was sinking. There were holes. I looked in there and said, 'I'm not going in there, it's too dangerous,' " Comerford said.

Inspector Terry Krug concluded the building was too far gone to be saved and too dangerous for anyone to walk in. After Comerford concurred, he required a structural analysis by Tredo Engineers, which also was in agreement.

But let's not let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

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

Funny how the "facts" always seem to support demolition and are not open to public scrutiny. The truth is very few buildings are "too far gone to be saved" and even fewer are "too dangerous to enter". If Commerford thinks this building was built in 1947 (as he has repeatedly claimed) I would question his ability to make an informed assessment. As for the structural engineers, they are working for the customer and will lean in the direction the customer requires.

There is no defense of this obvious conspiracy to circumvent the rules, why do you think this was done so quickly and without the required review?

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

I think the point of contention with most people in these threads is that the types of structural issues that made this building so ripe for demolition do not happen over night. I, personally, don't have some great attachment to the building. Any former glory that it may have possessed was likely lost when it was taken down to one story. I'm fine with the fact that it is gone and I hope something new and gorgeous takes it's place. My main issue is with the allegations that proper procedure wasn't followed and that Comerford seems to think that's not very important. It was alleged in a earlier thread that the same company applied for demolition some time ago and was denied. Couple that with the fact that the normal process for demo in a historic/preservation/whatever district wasn't followed and you're going to have some people up in arms.

I'm ok with the idea that not all buildings downtown can or need to be saved. I want a downtown that is a mixture of grand old architecture and modern new designs. What I'm not ok with is having local or out of town developers buy up older properties, dilapidated or not, sit on them for however long it takes to have them decay to the point that they are a public hazard and then knock it down so we can have yet another surface lot in downtown Buffalo.

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

That is a well reasoned response, but I don't agree that most people's issue is with neglect. Most people are upset about the "conspiracy" to tear down this building without following the appropriate process by claiming an emergency when there was none.

I don't buy that. I do agree that neglect caused this emergency and this whole thing could have been avoided with proper maintenance. And I think the owner should have to pay whatever consequences the law allows for that neglect. But I also believe the building needed to be torn down becuase it was unsafe.

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

This building was demolished because the property owner did not maintain it to standards they are required to by law. They did this because it was more financially beneficial to let the building rot than maintain or even attempt to invest in it. They also did this because it the demolition reduces their city tax burden, which is consistent with their practice of disinvestment and neglect. In the end, the City gives them a free pass for being a slumlord on the City's most important and central street, in the midst of its downtown.

Call that conspiracy theory or whatever you want. But that is exactly what has happened here. This is not just a "Oh man we just found out this property is shit and dangerous; we need to get remove it immediately!"

The City drops the ball, the property owner gets a free pass and residents/taxpayers are the ones who continue to foot the bill with a higher tax burden in the end.

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

Both maddening and very true.

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

And, an official is complicit in breaking the law.

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

What law is it that was broken? I hear that a lot on here that this demolition was illegal, but no one has actually mentioned the specific law that was broken. That's quite an allegation to make that Comerford was complicit in an illegal activity without mentioning which activity it was that was illegal.

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

These findings should have been presented to the Preservation Board which could accept them as is, or push for an independent review. But, again, Comerford opted not to do this and the system allowed a property owner to demolish his building by neglect. It's all negligence.

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

The only thing that can redeem this travesty is for the developer to build a gorgeous kickass building that will make us forget what they did.

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

There is absolutely nothing historic or architecturally beautiful about this non descript, one story piece of junk. This whole debate over the demolition is just more propaganda and annoying whining from that idiot Tim Tielman. I can't stand that ignorant man. Obviously he has too much time on his hands.

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

Leave a comment