Preservationists: Birge Mansion, they did build that. Twice!!
Comments
Leave a commentThese are the types of buildings that need saving! Not old rail house buildings!
Wrong.
Great cities don't just save "pretty" buildings.
Great cities save buildings that commemorate their history. And that's what makes each city unique, interesting and attractive.
Funny thing is, every building that needs to be saved goes through a period when people like you call them ugly eyesores that do not deserve to be saved and then once it is saved people like you jump on the band wagon saying "of course this one should have been saved"
That's a sweeping generalization.
A more accurate statement would be, "people who have half a brain and understand economics and opportunity cost will sometimes suggest that a building is beyond salvaging. If proved wrong, they will often concede that another option was indeed viable."
You know, because they're smart enough to admit when they're wrong, unlike the die-hard armchair Buffalo Rising preservationists who live halfway across the country.
We are all about buying local, going local, supporting local, etc. I support this concept as it appears so do 99.9% of BR supporters, unforgettably it doesn't apply to zip codes.
Huh? We're talking about preservation.
You can favor preservation without obstructing progress. There are ways to compromise. I am a preservationist. I have preserved and rehabilitated several properties, all in the city. I support the maintenance and preservation, wherever feasible, of our local landmarks. Where I take issue, is with the immovable attitudes among the most vocal folks in the community. Everything cannot and should not be saved. It will do more harm than good to the city to stand in the way of development that stands to lift the tide of a particular street or neighborhood.
Let's not glorify the past. The Birge Mansion is not the beauty that it is today because of the internet comment section or protests in front of a wrecking ball. It exists as it does because of the nearly $1 million expended to create a headquarters for a prestigious for-profit business.
"This house would not exist today if people did not step up through the years to shepherd this treasure through history."
That say it all, doesn't it? Shepherded through history--by people willing to pony up the dough to keep it from falling apart. Investors, working toward the preservation and appreciation of their asset.
It is convenient to ignore all the edge of seat legal battles that saved places Like ECC City and Sheas Buffalo and the Guaranty building among many others and then pretend all along that these naturally were saved just because. Looking around Buffalo it is hard to take say with a straight face that anywhere near EVERYTHING is being saved. Are you serious with that lame line? Really?
I was referring specifically to the Birge Mansion, and generally to most other instances of large-scale renovation.
Come on, Steel. The reason you only cited three "edge of seat" legal battles is that there have only been a handful of legal battles worth fighting. Of course those are on the list of relevant examples. The rest is mostly megalomaniacal whining.
Like which ones? What has been obstructed by preservationists that would have resulted in a spectacular new asset in Buffalo? Which of the buildings that preservationists have helped save were not worth the effort? Is anyone saying that all 5000 of the buildings currently targeted for demolition need to be saved? Are they saying that 50% need to be saved? 10%??? How can you claim that there is anything like a movement to save every building? Its an absurd statement. More than 2/3 of downtown Buffalo has been leveled. Most of that to provide nothing more exciting than parking.
i agree with steel. everyone is a preservationist after the fact.
Friends of mine rented the mansion for a party 10 or 12 years ago...Place was empty but amazing...I couldnt believe that no one wanted to do anything with this buidling at the time..
Well....there were lots of people that wanted the Birge Mansion saved. But just as we hear today, these people were called "obstructionists". The building was "too far gone" to save, etc.
Preservation is not for the faint at heart. It takes, patience, vision, and most importantly a sense of optimism.
I would add perseverance, that is what defines successful preservation.
Let's not confuse preservation with development.
Preservationist:
A supporter or advocate of the preservation of something, esp. of historic buildings and artifacts.
Developer:
Person or a firm that improves raw land with labor and capital, and arranges for utilities and essential services, in order to sell subdivided parcels of land or to build structures for rent and/or sale.
Your developer description is vary narrow. How did you come to this odd conclusion. It suggests that prolific developers such as Rocco Termini are not developers.
I know it is far too easy to look back in retrospect and criticize but I cannot help but wonder how any previous owner could possibly just walk away from such a magnificent building like this one.
The Birge family sold in 1938 which means they must have survived the effects of the depression, unlike the Darwin Martin family, so what was the catalyst for their decision in selling – economics?
I prepare floor plans for a not-for-profit agency that rehabilitates various Buffalo properties that, in more cases than not, would have been demolished and carted-off to the landfill.
I am currently working on one that is located directly across the street from MLK Park which has been empty for approximately ten-years and, in that time period, has been harvested of every and all architectural items that could have been possibly removed even though the neighborhood is fully owner occupied.
Deferred maintenance resulted in the roof being compromised which worked in conjunction with windows having been removed and/or smashed by vandals, the resulting water damage has entirely destroyed the marquetry flooring on both the first and second floors but, miraculously, the vaulted plaster ceiling, that I am assuming was a music room, is the only remaining feature.
Unfortunately, I have been vetoed on restoration of the ceiling but have reached a compromised where we will enclose the ceiling for a future owner to perhaps restore.
However, as-like the Birge Mansion, I have asked myself how anyone could have walked-away from this house as it must have been truly unique in its day.
I was in architecture school when the building had just finished being renovated. I wrote a paper about the building and the renovation....Preservation was in its infancy back thjen.The owners and developers were John Chew and Richard Hardoby both avid runners. John Chew was instrumental in bringing the Olympic marathon trials to Buffalo in 1980 and 1984. They were run on the Skylon marathon course....thus the name of their company "Olympic Properties".
I live right near here and I bask in its glory almost weekly. I love it so much it was a part of my last series of Illustrations.. Truly a "Gentry of a Previous Century".
http://payload98.cargocollective.com/1/9/294324/4260150/28_gentry_o.jpg
That's awesome. I saw that picture at Taza, didn't know what it was about.
I just kind of did a series of black and white ink drawings of my favorite environments here in the city. Some of which are layered mat board.. Gentry has 5 levels of mat board showing the different levels of urban life, etc. Thanks mate!
The server is the only one with eyes. What meaning am I missing?
Exactly that.. blinded by the duckets y'all.. I served tables for 12 years before I got my white collar job. Kinda my take on Buffalo Victoria/James Jacques-Joseph Tissot's The Political Lady a.k.a. "The Reception".. good stuff.
Is this what the Freight House could look like if the preservationists win their battle?!
No, It would look different. But that said , what battle are you talking about?
I love how you always end your posts with a pointless and hollow question.
So you don't know what battle he is talking about either?
The Birge was also used a banquet hall before the current owners. My sister had her wedding reception there in 95 or 96. The wedding was held in the Presbyterian church across the circle. Fond memories of a fabulous time. Glad the building was saved.
Steel, thank you for this post...I love seeing the interior photos of what once was. I also love reading the history of these great old homes.
Gentlemen, gentlemen...if it were not for the glory of us paisanos, the city would remain a pit. it's all about the money and we've got plenty of it to go around in the squabbling, little sandbox called Buffalo!
steel, i think you should offer your column space to anyone who can show us something terrific that we missed out on because someone saved an old building instead.
I have. No one shows up.
grad>"show us something terrific that we missed out on because someone saved an old building instead"
I think that misses the point of most criticisms against the portion of preservationists who try to obstruct what others choose to do.
I'll use the word preservationists to mean some preservation advocates.
Who should judge which results are terrific, or close enough to terrific?
Shouldn't it be the person or group whose non-landmarked building it is?
What may be 'terrific' to some can be 'tragic' to others, or 'who cares?' to most people.
When people decide to save an old building, that choice is fine.
(That's so obvious I'd think it goes without say, but in case it isn't - there, it's said. Public funding is a different issue, so let's leave that out of this.)
To be tolerant and pro-choice, it should also be fine when someone decides a non-landmarked old building won't be saved. Sometimes that choice isn't respected when some preservationists try to obstruct through legal force. That obstructing deserves the criticism it gets.
Many examples...
Some may feel Pano's restaurant and its parking is terrific. Didn't some preservationists try to obstruct through court his choice to not save an old house where part of his business now stands? I recall they did and as soon as they lost in court, he went ahead with his choice.
The business person who decided to not save the GLF grain elevator may have felt the removal of hazards and costs would be terrific. Even neighborhood groups felt the same and agreed with his choice. But didn't some preservation advocates (TT's group) try to obstruct that choice through court?
The Diocese may feel it's terrific to let St Gerard's church be moved to another state if moving it turns out to be feasible. Didn't some preservationists (Franczyk, maybe TT also) try to get a city law changed to obstruct that choice?
And so on…
i guess i will have to repeat this until the day i die, but no one sued pano.
i repeat: no one sued pano.
when the city denied his demo permit (that is why it is called a demo permit and not a demo right or entitlement), he sued the city. look it up in the buffalo news if you don't believe me.
no one sued the catholic diocese and no one has ever sued a private owner/individual in the history of the entire preservation movement in buffalo. who did preservationists sue? your favorite whipping boy: government.
like, the state of new york, for failing to maintain the richardson, in violation of its own laws.
i guess everyone else can b-tch and whine about the stupid s--t that government does. unless you're a preservationist, and then suddenly the government is sacred and must be protected from you.
grad - if your reply is referring to me then it has straw men arguing against stuff I haven't implied.
Starting at your end summary….
grad>"everyone else can b-tch and whine about the stupid s--t that government does. unless you're a preservationist, and then suddenly the government is sacred and must be protected from you"
Who said govt must be protected from preservationists? Not me. Preservationists should be treated like anybody, with rights to argue in courts, legislatures, executive depts.
Then like for anybody, the _content of their arguments_ when doing that is open to strong public criticism.
There's also tons of examples when non-preservationist citizens received massive public criticism for what they ask govts to do in courts, leg, or exec. Say, restaurant owners (Zetti, ETS, Jim's) when trying to lobby Council for a law greatly limiting food trucks. Or Gates Circlers trying in court to block Uniland condo.
Those had nothing to do with preservationism, yet still received tons of criticism for what they were trying to have the govt do.
So, no - it isn't only preservationists who get heavily criticized when people disagree. It's anybody.
grad>"no one sued the catholic diocese"
Nice straw man. I didn't say sue. I criticized an attempted law change to obstruct a move. That's because I disagreed with it, not disputing their right to try.
Didn't claim lawsuit - see?
whatever>"Didn't some preservationists (Franczyk, maybe TT also) try to get a city law changed to obstruct that choice?"
grad>"who did preservationists sue? your favorite whipping boy: government"
First - who ever said they sued anybody other than govt?
Not me. I've no idea which commenter you're arguing with in that, if any.
Second - why shouldn't suits against govt be fair game for criticism like any other suits (or any other lobbying, etc)?
Gates Circle folks were also suing the govt (not Uniland) and yet still they received tons of criticism right here on BR.
How about when anti-same-sex-marraige activists sued the NYS govt, weren't those activists open to public criticism for that even though they were suing a government?
Here's the point -
Even when a lawsuit is against govt, obviously its resulting impacts can be on others far outside of govt.
About Pano… my comment did ask as a question whether it involved courts. You're correct that I was recalling wrong - that obstruction was by trying to persuade City Hall to not issue permit. Still, of course them trying that (substance of it, not their right to try) is also something open to public critique - or support.
No building I'm aware of has been 'preserved' unless it can earn a stream of income. Preservationists attempt to show investors how a building is more valuable that it first may appear, because of it's age or some other noteworthy feature.
Preservationists save buildings just like politicians create jobs. They don't really...but they like to credit, and a fair percentage of the population seems to believe them.
I think it's important to give credit to the people who had a hand in the restoration project.The people who helped to protect the amazing building. Why wasn't any of that in the article?
Blah..Blah..Blah..Some people like to babble..
This is a great work of preservation!
Leave a comment
Sponsor
Recent Comments
Sponsor
Interested in advertising on BuffaloRising?
E-mail John C. Powell
or call John at 716.602.0200





Something else to be thankful for. Let's hear it for all the preservationists that have done so much to revitalize Buffalo.
Yep. Look what happens when you get a preservationist with money.
It wasn't money that saved the Birge Mansion.
It was the vision of people that believed the building should be saved and not demolished.
It was volunteers, and community members that spent their time and energy advocating for preservation.
What? I'm pretty sure it was money that saved this building. "They were ultimately successful in saving the house after two years of construction and a $900,000 investment"
Also I don't see anything in this article about preservationists stopping a demolition or doing anything to restore the building, I just see a company who picked up an investment property from a city auction. I'm glad they preserved it, but I think it's silly to pretend that preservation was the motivating cause of a money-making buisness rather than a side effect of the inital renovation.
You did not read the story then. Why do you separate preservationists from investors?
Because many preservationists (particularly the intractable, loud-mouths) don't have two nickels to rub together, so they make life difficult for those who do.
It's the investors that put up the cash to enable the preservation in the first place. That's why they're separate, Steel.
Not accurate, a large part of preservation is self funded by homeowners, those stories aren't as celebrated as the big saves but continue to add value, enhance our city, and encourage more preservation.
So now homeowners are presrevationists, too? Who's next Mickey Mouse?
The back story of the mid 1990's in this building is far more complicated than what's being portrayed here. Anyone remember Biac's? Koessler's money got mixed up here, and in the Park Lane, somewhere in the process, the numbers didn't add up, and the partners had a falling out. Anyways, is it ok if a building gets saved, but a crime gets committed?
He had good intentions....kind of reminds me of the Spot episode, about the same time. I see he's a CEO know...didn't put his name here intentionally, he doesn't need google turning this up.