They 'Did' Build That: Learning to be a Preservationist - Chris Collins
Comments
Leave a commentThis article is about Chris Collins' preservation efforts, not his politics. How long will it take for this message board to deteriorate into off-topic partisan bickering?
How do you become a "Preservationist"? Is there a class you sign up for, or a cert you have to complete? When do you go from, "person fixing up a house", or "business man looking to make money", into a "Preservationist"? Is there some type of Skull and Bones initiation where everyone takes a leak on you while you wrestle other men in a big mud pit? I'd like to know, I think i'd look good on a resume.
ITT Tech has a course. I majored in preservationst and minored in under water basket weaving.
I heard under water basket weaving was a tough course?
Yeah it was, but not as bad as deep sea piano tuning.
Ouch, that'll kill the GPA everytime.
Tell me about it...
The title of the article is misleading partisan and suggestive...right?
I really dont know why anyone in Buffalo would have any negativity toward preservationists.
They arent asking to preserve the great slag beaches of Lackawanna or the chemical dumps of Love Field.
They gave us through preservation the Sheas, the Sullivan Purdential, the Bethune Lafayette, the FLW Martin Complex & Graycliff, the Richardson Complex, the Hydrolics District and the Canal District...all of which are both regional assets and national historic landmarks which other cities are envious.
It is the city which failed in its rebirth by late night demolitions, promised growth from shovel ready sites that never came. Niagara Falls made the same promises...they demolished their entire downtown and nothing ever got rebuilt. Buffalo was on that same path...and to this day...will trade demolishing a building in exchange for a political donation...or extend the energy for a nuisance parking ticket but not a citation on a poorly maintained building.
Define "preservationist".
One who does not consider parking lots to be progress
I love this story! I'm hoping for a similar happy ending for 1524 Main Street.
Steel, I am trying to figure out whether you classify people as preservationist /nonpreservationist like it's some kind of black/white classification because you simply use it as a convenient rhetorical tactic, or whether you really can't accept that people can possibly have nuanced opinions on the issue of preservation. I don't know who blames preservationists for demolishing historic buildings. That seems like a rather paradoxical claim to make.
>These obstructionists should have bought it and fixed it themselves... blah blah blah.
I don't see the point of your argument there, it would seem to me that this is an example of people doing exactly that, actually buying something and fixing it up and getting results. I don’t know anyone who would have an issue with that. That’s quite different from releasing press releases and legal motions at the last minute to save a long ignored building threatened with demolition. It's the same with just about anything in Buffalo that has been saved. People with a direct interest in the building and the time and resources to restore something are the people who are actually getting things done. You can call them preservationists, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are all going to concern themselves with other historic structures, and seems like a label of convenience.
As for these examples you gave, The Allendale Theater and Collin's place there, I think it comes down to a matter of how you define a preservationist. It seems as though both of those buildings were acquired by people with the resources to restore them and for whom it made sense to do so. That doesn’t mean that they are now devoted preservationists. I would be surprised to see that Collins is all of a sudden going to be going around the city filing legal motions and grandstanding to try to save other buildings now that he has restored one house that he owned and is using for his business, even if it were a labor of love.
I don't why you dismiss the criticism about preservationists there. I think that's a pretty legitimate argument. When preservationists only apparently make an issue with buildings when they are already on the cusp of being torn down rather than identifying buildings early which they think are unique and worthy of being saved and putting together a plan to save them. This noise- making at the last hour seems to be more often than too little too late, and makes preservationists look like they are ineffectual.
There are still plenty of buildings that are endangered and still have time to be saved. For example, wait until the bill comes back on St Ann's over on Broadway. That building has major obvious structural flaws and is going to cost a small fortune to repair. The fact that it is located in a run-down part of town and has no parish anymore is going to be a huge problem trying to save it. The historic nature of the church is without doubt. And yet there is no serious effort that I know of to save it. I imagine if it continues on the same path, in a couple of years it will wind up being torn down as well and another empty lot added to that ever expanding urban prairie over there.
Your comment is an example of precisely the type of thing I am talking about. You start out saying no one blames preservationists for demolitions only to blame preservationists for demolition in the next paragraph. The fact is that "preservationists" cannot be there for every building being neglected. They are not paid to be there. They have regular lives in which they have to work and pay rent. You assume that there is this professional class of people that have a responsibility to be out on the streets saving buildings. That is nonsense and if you have been reading you would know that preservationists are just plain old people who see that continued tearing down of valuable historic buildings for no good reason and for no gain has to stop. In the case of the Allendale and this house it took activists working to create laws and then more activists working to make sure the laws were followed and then finally it took preservationists with the ability to raise money and the knowledge of how to develop a property to save the buildings and bring them back to life. In both of these cases the buildings would now be parking lots with out each of these steps.
You like to pay attention to the case where a building is on the verge of being knocked down but ignore all the many buildings being saved by people who step up prior to that stage. You also ignore and give a pass to the city that routinely fails to enforce building codes and to the owners who illegally neglect their buildings to the point of collapse. Your thinking on this makes no sense. The fact that preservationists are so often called obstructionists is absurd when you see how much they have doe to prevent huge mistakes in Buffalo. Parking lots and empty space creation has to stop in Buffalo.
>You start out saying no one blames preservationists for demolitions only to blame preservationists for demolition in the next paragraph.
I reread what I wrote there, and I can't find the part where I made that claim. Would you kindly cite the text where I said that?
>The fact is that "preservationists" cannot be there for every building being neglected. They are not paid to be there. They have regular lives in which they have to work and pay rent. You assume that there is this professional class of people that have a responsibility to be out on the streets saving buildings.
Perhaps I am misinterpreting this, but it seems as though you are arguing that preservation is subject to economic constraint, in that it has to make sense from an economic perspective? That there is a finite amount of resources available for this, an opportunity cost? If so, I agree with you. If not, could you elucidate on what you meant?
>That is nonsense and if you have been reading you would know that preservationists are just plain old people who see that continued tearing down of valuable historic buildings for no good reason and for no gain has to stop.
That sounds pefectly fine. Anyone can have an opinion, but if they aren't going to actually do anything about it, then what makes their opinion have any value?
>In the case of the Allendale and this house it took activists working to create laws and then more activists working to make sure the laws were followed and then finally it took preservationists with the ability to raise money and the knowledge of how to develop a property to save the buildings and bring them back to life. In both of these cases the buildings would now be parking lots with out each of these steps.
That sounds pretty much to be the case. I have argued and will argue that of the three groups you mentioned it is the last one who is the main reason why this building was saved. I made that point in the last post up there as well. You can make all the laws you want about these buildings, but unless someone actually takes steps to actually restore these buildings, it's simply a case of postponing the inevitable.
>You like to pay attention to the case where a building is on the verge of being knocked down but ignore all the many buildings being saved by people who step up prior to that stage.
Well, I admit I don't always post on the articles where someone has taken it upon themselves to restore a building that they own before it is going to be torn down. But I do commend cases where this is done.
> You also ignore and give a pass to the city that routinely fails to enforce building codes and to the owners who illegally neglect their buildings to the point of collapse.
Where did I argue that? Please, could you cite where I argued that the city should let building codes go unenforced? I have to admit I'm curious myself where I wrote that.
>Your thinking on this makes no sense.
If you actually seemed to understand my thinking on these issues, I might actually buy that.
>The fact that preservationists are so often called obstructionists is absurd when you see how much they have doe to prevent huge mistakes in Buffalo. Personally I think it as counter productive to call preservationists "obstructionists" as it is to argue that everyone who doesn't agree with you must be in favor of more parking lots. Personally, I don't dismiss opposing viewpoints that easily, as I think it tends to poison reasonable discourse.
Parking lots and empty space creation has to stop in Buffalo.
I don't disagree with you there. But how do we go about doing that? How about some ideas with some actual substance which reflect the economic reality here in Buffalo?
He has a history on here of blatantly lying like that about what others have commented. He's done it toward you, toward me about supposed bashing of the poor which never happened, etc., - I think too often to be simple honest mistakes like anyone can make.
">You start out saying no one blames preservationists for demolitions only to blame preservationists for demolition in the next paragraph.
I reread what I wrote there, and I can't find the part where I made that claim. Would you kindly cite the text where I said that?
…
>You also ignore and give a pass to the city that routinely fails to enforce building codes and to the owners who illegally neglect their buildings to the point of collapse.
Where did I argue that? Please, could you cite where I argued that the city should let building codes go unenforced? I have to admit I'm curious myself where I wrote that.
..."
It's just typical. I'm convinced that Steel = habitual liar about other people's statements. Maybe he has a compulsion, or just part of an ends-justify-the-means type of zealotry. At least kettle eventually started accompanying such fiction with openly admitting he was guessing about what people he was debating with might be thinking. Still goofy compared to sticking with arguing people's actual words, but it was at least honest.
I don't think it is malicious. More a case of these same arguments being made over and over again by a group of people, and after a while they all start to blend together and you forget who said what.
"and you forget who said what."
js - like I said, anyone can make mistakes, but this doesn't look like forgetting "who said", in that steel was directly replying to pampinform in the very same thread. See the top of pampin's comment with quote "You start out saying…"
Also, in general, if he doesn't remember who said something then I'd say it is maliciously reckless (within the realm of blogs anyway) to attribute b.s. claims directly to pampin, or to anyone.
In the other example of accusing me of scapegoating the poor for the city's 'problem', if it wasn't malicious he could've easily withdrawn &/or apologized as the exchange continued well after I called him on it, or tried linking to something to try proving his claim (which he couldn't because I've never scapegoated like that).
But nope, in his next reply after that he continued, didn't say mix up or mistake. It was pretty recent, btw, here -
http://www.buffalorising.com/2012/07/a-sprawl-tastic-grab-bag.html#comment-127473
steel>"Nice to see you are standing up for the poor by the way. Typically you point to them as the problem with the city."
If you click that you'll see I told him he was wrong, then he continued on without saying mixup or anything like that.
If it happens once in a while and withdrawn or owned up to when appropriate, I could say mistake, sure, and that's how I'd say it for the vast majority of people on here regardless of viewpoints. Probably well over 90% on here debate in good faith and try to be honest toward others - but I don't think so in his case, nope.
It's too frequent and blatant for your explanation to apply for him.
btw, pamp - speaking of liars about preservation topics -
according to wording of city code online, it looks as though Tielman was very publicly lying when claiming to the media that Comerford broke the law by not informing the Pres Board before an emergency demo.
You and I asked on here in one of the cigar store threads for anyone to say which law was allegedly broken. I didn't have time to look up the wording at the time, but now here's the city law 17-2(j) which gives the Commissioner unilateral authority to decide what is an emergency demo based on what "he or she deems" an immediate threat to the public
… and says nothing about having to notify the Pres Board.
http://www.ecode360.com/13552215#13552215
"§ 17-2. Commissioner of Permit and Inspection Services; Duties and Powers.
The commissioner of the department of permit and inspection services shall:
… (j) Direct or cause to be torn down, blown up or otherwise destroyed on an emergency basis, any building or buildings which he or she deems to be an immediate threat to the health, welfare and safety to the public;
…"
If that's the law, then Teilman was lying and any of his supporters such as RaChaCha who repeatedly parroted Tielman's claim were spreading lies about Comerford. Perhaps that's why they couldn't reply when asked specifically which law they claim was broken - because the wording says the opposite.
So despite someone's dig on here toward the Buffalo News reporter Sommer, apparently Sommer was accurate to report (linked from the other thread) that the law wasn't broken. And the Pres Board chair reportedly agreed it wasn't illegal. It was only Tielman and people who perhaps naively took his word for it who kept calling it illegal.
If they wanted to argue that Comerford made a decision they disagree with (as Bini to his credit revised his remarks to say), or argue that the law should be changed to expand the situations in which the Pres Board must be notified, or modify the Commissioner's authority to make the decision - any of those would be very different things to say, and not dishonest.
It was an awfully slow emergency demolition, though, given that the emergency permit was granted more than six weeks before the demolition actually occurred. Quite a lack of urgency given that there was "an immediate threat to the health, welfare and safety to the public"...
js - I don't know either way if once a commissioner signs an emergency demo permit, does the city govt control timing of how long it takes to happen, or does the property owner determine that?
I also don't know how long even urgent demos usually take to happen after approval, or if any other laws (such as for asbestos, etc ?) can cause delays beyond an owner's control. While 6 weeks sounds "awfully slow", maybe it's close to average or even faster, all things considered. Suppose doing it faster would have cost many thousands more - can the city legally order the owner to spend that to expedite? I don't know. Maybe others can offer insights about it.
But what I do know is the section 17.2 of city law to which my previous comment links apparently doesn't mandate any time restrictions. Common sense would say once immediate danger is deemed, then the sooner the better for demo, of course - although sometimes other factors no doubt affect timing as practical matters.
So whether a demo happens within 1 week or 6 weeks - and why - or if the owner tried making it happen faster but failed - all could be interesting, I don't see how it affects the legality or accusations of law breaking.
If anybody wants that section of law changed to address time frames relative to Pres Board notification (like say if a building still hasn't been demoed some number of days after a permit is granted then the permit expires, or the Pres Board must be notified at that point, etc), then they can try advocating that via the Common Council.
Nah, I just don't buy it. If it was truly an "immediate" threat (as in "happening right now") to the public safety, they could have had fences up around it the next day, instead of six weeks later.
"they could have" put up a fence, sure, but whether "they" in this case is required to be the property owner or city govt is something I don't know.
Anyhow, even if someone in City Hall or even Comerford was derelict to not order fencing a.s.a.p., that doesn't affect anything I see in the law's wording anywhere - the laws supposedly broken according to Tielman and as far as I've seen nobody on the Common Council who write the laws, not even any of the mayor's political adversaries (Franczyk, Rivera, LoCurto, etc.) publicly joined Tielman's claim of law breaking.
If any of those thought the law they're responsible for writing was being broken, they'd have a responsibility to say so loudly and fast. Also, Pres Board chairman McDonnell came right out and said in the BN and said it wasn't illegal to not notify the PB, contrary to what you-know-who claimed repeatedly in other media.
If the following is true about a structural engineering firm agreeing, it looks like plenty to support the clear legality of Comerford's decision, given the law's wording authorizing him as the sole decider.
http://www.buffalonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120905/CITYANDREGION/120909836
"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."
(And again, incidentally -
if anyone feels the law's wording is too flexible, they can push for changes. Despite complaints about emergency demos, isn't it funny we never hear of recent efforts to try changing the law - say for example requiring Pres Board approval for all demos, or Common Council approval, or specifying timing restrictions, or limiting the immediacy justification to exterior public danger not just interior as was the case here, or to require additional independent engineering inspection, etc, etc -
....there's many possible ways someone could try getting the law changed to reduce the commissioner's discretion if it's really a problem.
Instead the approach seems just leave the law as is and bitch or scream 'illegal!' when it's carried out as written.)
"They 'Did' Build That..."
This is clearly a reference to the "We Built This" theme of the GOP convention, but this is actually a good example of what the other side has been saying about how no one becomes wealthy on their own. As has been widely reported, Chris Collins received a $90,000+ preservation tax credit for the restoration of 878 Main.
I realize that it was Steel who wrote the headline, not Collins, but the principal is the same. As a result of an intrusive bureaucratic program Mr. Collins was able to reduce his tax liability by more than most of us will make in a year. Ah, the irony.
That said, I'm thrilled that the building has been restored. And that Zepto realized that there were more important things in the world that free employee parking right next to their lab.
The title is meant to have irony as well as be infomrative.
The problem with the preservastionist class is precisely that it's reactive... precisely that it blames property owners for a poor economy that fails to adequalely provide the economic return on their once valuable properties did... precisely because it's reactionary.
What preservation failed over and over to recognize is we live in a staggeringly weak economic market that has persistent for 60 years. That's 60 years of declining property values, declining population, and lost jobs.
It's hard for me to comprehend then how preservations want to hold anyone who owns a building the preservations value for aesthic or historical purposes (non use value I would add) to maintain and sink money into a builder with no economic return? Buildings weren't build as facades for people to oogle over, they were first and foremost economic entities tyat houses jobs or some other economic function vital to this region. When that vitality died, you expect an owner, who can't sell it or use it in a matter that would allow an economic return, to somehow use his business to keep pouring money into it?
Sorry but that shows an ignorance on the part of preservationists who are akin to single issue voters who act in an irrational manner because of some fetish.
Getting pissed at a guy for knocking down a vacant structure is your right. However, when preservationist act like they are somehow the voice of EVERYONE and then obstruct demolitions, like the Bethlehem Admin Bldg, that's a problem. That's a classic example of overstepping you bounds and trying to save abuilding that has zero use and would better serve all of us with not one nickel of our money invested.
I've said it before, have a priority list of buildings that meet a set criteria for saving based on location, size, value, history and whatever other thing preservationists say is important and champion them. You can't and shouldn't save them all.
since when does anyone try to "save them all?" the march of the bulldozer is relentless in many neighborhoods. demolition is a daily fact of life and official policy in buffalo. preservation is the exception, not the rule. you get your way in 95% of the cases.
picture a world in which you had to organize and incorporate as a 501(c)(3) in the state of ny, recruit a board of directors, raise money or write grants if you hope to have any professional staff, hold public meetings, organize protests, write opinion pieces, lobby your elected officials, and so on, every time a vacant house on the east side needed to come down.
as it stands now, those of you who oppose saving anything (because no matter what comes up you whine, "you can't save everything") can just sit back, post comments on blogs, and the weight of public policy is on your side, leveling entire neighborhoods. if i were you, i'd declare victory and do a little happy dance. your side wins almost all of them.
I post two stories of proactive preservation. That is 2 of many ( and I will have more) and you still hold to the fairytale that preservation is a last minute effort by some elite group and that delinquent owners are victims of uncontrollable circumstances. Well we can all sob for the poor owners who don't put roofs on their buildings and leave Broken windows and inadequate heat and utilities. But the fact is you have to invest in something for it to be economically usable. The sad sap story that owners are victims is a lie. I have seen neglected buildings in the most prosperous areas of Buffalo not just the east side. You tear down everything guys need to come up with a new line of bull to defend your turn everything into parking scheme
We already have districts and individual properties defined by the preservation board as "worthy enough to save". The preservation board does have a legal authority over issuing demo permits in those districts. Most times that you see preservationists protesting demolition is when its buildings in those districts. For example, the cigar shop, cobblestone, Trico, etc.
When those laws are circumvented via "emergency demos" its frustrating. The cigar shop is an example of questionable city hall antics where as that bar in the old first ward whose roof collapsed a few years ago was legitimate.
When it comes to properties outside those districts, there certainly needs to be a priority list and most probably need to come down. Though I might lament the loss, I won't argue against demoing properties outside of those parameters. And there are preservation groups working on that list and will hopefully get the city to utilize it.
Regarding Steel's article, he raises the point that these laws in the preservation districts don't have to be prohibitive if you approach them with the right attitude and utilize some of the tax benefits available to make preservation more financially viable.
I own a house in the West Village preservation district and accept the standards that come with it even if they are a bit overboard. I also found that the preservation board will work with you in most cases on aesthetic issues.
In short, don't buy a property either listed by or located in the local preservation districts if you don't plan to play by the rules. If you do you buy there, you are subject to a higher standard designed to preserve these structures.
There is a bit more to this story. There was one or two previous renovation efforts on this building that went bust. The last effort put a roof on the building which probably saved it from being deteriorated beyond saving. That was as far as the project went. It would have been interesting to read about past efforts on this buildings and what is cost the owners financially and personally.
Preservation projects are a labor of love, but not all love stories have a happy ending. That love can financially destroy you, ruin your marriage and take you into a Hell so deep you think you're never going to escape.
So, before you pull off the first piece wallpaper or "just take down this wall" make sure you've done your homework. Plan the stages of work and don't renovate more more than you handle at one time. Don't renovate alone, it's a long road to walk by yourself. Hire a buddy or helper Over budget, you are going to spend far more than you intend, but be careful not to spend more than the house is worth or you think it may be worth when finished. Hire a professional if you can afford it or you get stuck in the project.
Finally, Be prepared to walk away. Don't let your labor of love destroy you. Shed the guilt, shed the feeling of failure of a project gone sour, shed the emotion. It's Business. You cut your losses, learn from your mistakes and move on.
Leave a comment
Sponsor
Recent Comments
Sponsor
Interested in advertising on BuffaloRising?
E-mail John C. Powell
or call John at 716.602.0200





Who blamed a preservationist for a demolition?