Real Estate November 20, 2012 12:00 PM

Trico Reuse Feasibility Study Released

Trico Reuse Feasibility Study Released
Plans to demolish most of the Trico complex on the edge of the Medical Campus are off the table for now.  Instead, roughly half of the 617,000 sq.ft. of space would be demolished under a scenario being supported by the Buffalo Niagara Medical Campus (BNMC).  The potential of partial demolition isn't likely to win favor from purists that sought to save the whole complex, but the compromise development project gives preservationists and BNMC officials each a bit of what they were looking for.

Earlier this year, BNMC officials reached out to preservation officials and other stakeholders to explain the need to demolish nearly all of the landmark Trico complex.  The complex was placed on the State Historic Registry in 2000 and the National Historic Registry in 2001.

BNMC initial plans called for saving only the oldest portion of the facility, a Medina sandstone structure which was used in the 1890s as an icehouse for the Christian Weyand Brewing Company, and redeveloping the balance of property for expansion of the BNMC's adjacent Innovation Center. The Innovation Center was developed by the BNMC in 2010 out of a portion of the former Trico facility and is currently used as office and research space. 
tricobuildings.jpg 
Preservationists asked BNMC to delay submitting plans for demolition to allow exploration of reuse options.  BNMC was prepared to apply to the City to demolish the complex but was convinced to share the studies and reports and have further discussions about options other than complete demolition with the preservation community. 

Officials from Preservation Buffalo Niagara, members of Campaign for Greater Buffalo and others with preservation, architectural, engineering and redevelopment experience met to look at the structural and environmental reports and toured the building.  

A Trico Complex Redevelopment Feasibility Study was commissioned to assess existing consitions and potential redevelopment strategies.  The goal was to "achieve a collaboratively developed direction for the Trico site based on relevant facts and a fair evaluation of preservation and demolition options."  The report was prepared by Architectural Resources, Foit-Albert Associates, Baer and Associates and Militello Realty along with input from the ad hoc Preservation Roundtable group facilitated by Doug Swift, Harvey Garrett for a time,  and later, Monica Pellegrino Faix.

Besides looking at the physical condition of the property, the report evaluated three redevelopment options along with mothballing the complex for future use.

trico full.jpg
The "Full Complex Redevelopment Scheme" aims to reuse as much of the entire Trico Plant No. 1 Complex as possible.  A mix of about 14,000 sq.ft. of retail space, 150,000 sq.ft. of medical office space, 50,000 sq.ft. of general office space, 125,000 sq.ft. of light industrial space, 120 hotel rooms and 120 loft apartments on the top two levels was envisioned.  88,000 sq.ft. of the complex was deemed to be non-programmed, un developed space due to market demand and layout of the buildings.  The full-project cost was estimated at nearly $114 million, would generate a need for 1,151 parking space and have a five-year lease up period.  

courtyard scheme.jpg
The "Courtyard/Light-Well Redevelopment Scheme" involves a significant scope of new construction while maintaining a sizable portion of the existing buildings. In this scheme, the majority of the complex is preserved, with a large light-well located on the Ellicott Street side of the complex. Due to the significant structural issues, the Ice House building would require "extraordinary measures" to restore, making it unfeasible to rehabilitate.

This scenario would result in 501,000 sq.ft. of space consisting of 14,000 sq.ft. of retail, 150,000 sq.ft. of medical offices, 50,000 sq.ft. of general office, 120 loft apartments, 120 hotel rooms and 125,000 sq.ft. of light manufacturing space.  This option has less underutilized space due to the amount of the complex removed for the courtyard/light-well.

Total development cost is estimated at $97 million.

goodell option.jpg
The "Goodell Development Scheme" concentrates resources toward redevelopment of Trico Building No. 8.  This was one of the last buildings to be constructed in the Trico Plant No. 1 Complex, completed in 1937. Building No. 8 is an "L" shaped steel framed, concrete encased structure with a masonry and glazed exterior wall that displays many of the attributes of the "Daylight Factory" architectural style of construction.

Reusing Building 8 would maintain the iconic view as automobile traffic comes up Goodell Street towards Main Street and travelling north on Ellicott Street and Washington Street.  It saves 42 percent of the complex and also allows BNMC a sufficient parcel to expand the current Innovation Center.

14,000 sq.ft. of retail space, 150,000 sq.ft of medical offices, 40,000 sq.ft. of general offices, 60 loft apartments, and 120 hotel rooms are envisioned.  The 250,000 sq.ft. Innovation Center expansion would be built at the north end of the property.  A four-year lease up period is envisioned with a cost of the Trico rehab work estimated at $52 million.  

The size and cost of this Goodell scheme is seen as a scale that would be attractive to a larger pool of potential developers.  One of the primary issues with reusing the entire complex is the bulk of the building. Interior spaces on the 80,000 sq.ft. floors, far from windows, are harder to reuse and market to tenants.  The Trico's 600,000 sq.ft. of space scared off the local and out of town developers who looked at the property.  With demolition of over half of the Trico complex anticipated, redevelopment of Building 8 may not be eligible for historic tax credits, creating a significant financial hurdle however.

Mothballing the complex was estimated to cost $5.8 million.  It would involve basic environmental remediation, selective demolition, a new roof, stabilization and exterior repair.  

The report does not make any recommendations:

There are no recommendations made as to which option is the preferred scheme. The intention of this study is to analyze various development scenarios that could be reviewed by any potential developer. It is anticipated that BNMC will make a decision based on the facts and opinions set forth in this study.

Regardless of what development scenario is chosen, the consultants believe that it is imperative that the history of the structure, its function as a major manufacturing center and the life and contributions of John R Oishei should be respected and celebrated. It is recommended that some form of on-site, professionally developed, permanent, interpretive exhibit be incorporated into any development that occurs.

Should BNMC choose not to pursue any development strategy of the Complex, it is likely that the responsibility for the disposition of the structure will revert to BBRC, the owner of record. In that event, the consultants recommend that a Request for Proposals (RFP) be issued and advertised nationally to attempt to attract a developer willing to assume an approved development project. 

IC2rendering-1024x543.jpgBNMC officials announced today its plans to seek a development partner to help preserve Trico building No. 8.  The BNMC anticipates selective demolition for the remainder of the Trico buildings as it builds a new facility designed to meet the needs of current and future tenants of the Innovation Center.  From William L. Joyce, BNMC Chairman and Matthew Enstice, BNMC President:
 
We, the Buffalo Niagara Medical Campus, have gone through a thoughtful process with community stakeholders and members of the preservation community, and have come up with what we believe is a responsible and balanced plan for the site. Thanks to the dedicated members of this group, we have amended our original plan and now intend to preserve the iconic structure along Goodell Street to develop with a qualified partner. We will move forward with selective demolition to build an addition to the Innovation Center, the already-renovated portion of the facility.
 

After much discussion amongst our member institutions, stakeholders, and potential tenants for this site, we are pursuing the Goodell Scheme/north parcel development site option, which preserves an additional nearly 260,000 sq. ft. (the entirety of building number 8) in partnership with a qualified developer, and includes selective demolition to allow for construction of Innovation Center 2. IC2 will further provide space for new biotechnology companies to locate on the Medical Campus, as the original Innovation Center has.  We plan to pursue this plan immediately.

 

Renderings by Architectural Resources

View image

Comments

Leave a comment

hmmm, i like the idea BUT..... guarentee the preservationist will still have something to complain about with this idea. GUARENTEE !!!

Score: 16 ( 42 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Which idea? There are 4 presented here.

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

You know, after seeing how much more detailed this article is than the Buffalo News article (shocking, i know), I kinda like this compromise.
Is it going to make everyone happy? Of course not, but it saves the most iconic part of the building, and also allows a certain amount of flexibility for the innovation center, which can be a real catalist. If someone presents a real good argument against this im willing to listen, but at this point i say go for it.

Score: 22 ( 24 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

"The Snooze" article left me dazed and confused. Unless you are intimately involved with everything how could you know which building were which.

Great job as always WC!

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

Wish this scheme did not have that useless park in between the buildings.

Score: -15 ( 35 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Why would the BNMC demolish a historic building to build a NEW innovation center building when we have a parking lot across the street to build on???? Wouldn't that be a cheaper, more efficient option?

replied to STEEL
Score: -3 ( 29 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

You would think.

replied to bernicebuffalove
Score: -4 ( 16 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

because it is adjacent to existing center

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

What "qualified developer" will step forward to renovate the remaining portion of the complex without historic tax credits? It's not feasible.

BNMC doesn't plan to renovate any portion of the building, as it has stated. BNMC plans to start demolition on the rest of the complex on the premise that no developer will step forward for Building 8. This is a demolition strategy, not a compromise intended to save any portion of the building.

Score: 5 ( 29 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

"the Ice House building would require "extraordinary measures" to restore, making it unfeasible to rehabilitate."

It is also of a completely different construction style, does not align with the other floors throughout the rest of the factory - and is pretty much only a bit of a facade left of the original building.

Also- why not do the middle scheme and park some of those cars in the building? It helps use space, doesnt need to necessarily be conditioned, indoor parking is great "rent add" to the owner. 1500 spaces can then be redevleoped across the street on all that surface lot.

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

I like this compromise. I still think the trico would make a great new convention center. You could have a hotel in the complex and a larger convention center would allow us to hold larger events. It's location right next to the medical campus would be ideal. Then we could finally reopen genesee too. That is just a dream though. This plan is a great compromise and I can't wait to see the work hopefully begin!!

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

There is zero talk of Trico being a convention center.

replied to millertime486
Score: 2 ( 6 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I know I was just saying that I think it would be a good idea

replied to MEG
Score: -1 ( 7 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

There is now.

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

How asinine are you folks. You are kidding me, right? Please say yes.

replied to Rand503
Score: 2 ( 2 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

There is now.

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

This sounds like an excellent compromise. So of course someone will oppose it and demand the whole building be preserved, even if it means nothing at all will be done.

Score: 10 ( 18 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

...........preservationists stick their nose where it doesn't belong and we get a half ass Casino.

...........preservationists stick their nose where it doesn't belong and we get a half ass Innovation Center.

...........preservationists stick their nose where it doesn't belong and we get a half ass Canal Side.

Notice a pattern?

Score: 11 ( 61 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

yes, you repeat nonsense.

replied to Up and coming
Score: 16 ( 44 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Hey, what are your thoughts on The Lodge?

http://www.facebook.com/TheLodgeBuffalo/photos_stream

replied to Up and coming
Score: 1 ( 3 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Agreed except that the half assed casino was a blessing IMO.

replied to Up and coming
Score: -10 ( 16 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Yes I notice a pattern. Your posts don't make sense.

replied to Up and coming
Score: 0 ( 30 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

What did preservationists have to do with the casino. You are just spouting nonsense. By the way, it looks like Canal side is going to be better by far because of preservationists - not to mention that it exists only because of preservationists. You should figure out what you are talking about before typing

replied to Up and coming
Score: -1 ( 33 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

How would you know what it looks like, you don't even live here? Also, the project was made possible because Brian Higgins secured 200 million dollars from the Power Authority. So maybe you should take your own advice.

replied to STEEL
Score: -1 ( 7 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I thought the Ice House was the most significant historically?

This is a heckuvalot better than what they suggested before.

Again, someone help me out here: why is BNMC involved in this at all? They don't own the property, correct? Why are they wasting resources worrying about this? Because they want the space for their super-campus? It's like the outer harbor... the wrong organizations are concerning themselves with developing property.

Score: 0 ( 8 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

"why is BNMC involved in this at all?"

Well, if you want to save half a building, you call the experts that built the Ellicott Linear Half Park.

replied to LouisTully
Score: -1 ( 7 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

They have been designated the preferred developers.

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

So then why are they soliciting developers? It sounds like the BBRC should be leading this project.

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

Not a bad compromise at all. Better to save some than none at all.

Score: 6 ( 8 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I agree that this sounds like a "demolition strategy".

I read the post, and the BNMC press release, and it stinks.

A community process does not end in a Press Release. A community process ends in an agreement that is made through consensus.

This is the BNMC statement: "After much discussion amongst our member institutions, stakeholders, and potential tenants for this site, we are pursuing the Goodell Scheme.."

That's not good enough for a tax exempt organization that depends almost completely on government (taxpaying citizens) support.

BNMC is not a private developer, and they should be held to a higher standard.

BNMC has not explained how this decision responds to community members that are calling for complete restoration, and why the existing buildings don't meet their needs.

And,who uses the word "amongst" anyway???

Score: -11 ( 27 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

The word "amongst" is often used in the Buffalo Club.

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

This "compromise" of demolishing over half the building will remove millions of historic tax credit dollars for Trico that developers need, to make a project of this scale feasible.

Why is there not a planned public RFP process to attract a developer? Millard Fillmore and The Williamsville Water Mill are great examples of what a good RFP process can do and attracted big developers. The BNMC has left the public and the development world in the dark for years. Why can't we put a for sale sign on it and market it to developers with the information provided in this study so developers can make their own decisions?

Trico is an iconic industrial building. We are seeing reuses across the country and even in our own city that make sense. This "compromise" will compromise the success potential of Trico by removing financing options, unique interior spaces and by removing the historic fabric that made Buffalo the great city it is today.

SAVE TRICO.

Score: -3 ( 31 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

is it true that they are ineligible for tax credits if they demolish part of it?

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

Considering they are demolishing half of Trico, yes. SHPO will and can refuse to approve a tax project to anyone who cannot prove why potions of any building should be demolished. It helps to make sure every developer has "preservation" in mind, not just money.

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

Pry won't happen but if they aren't using tax credits they could make part of the building into condos I think....that could be worth it if someone is willing to develop

replied to grad94
Score: 0 ( 2 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I really like the last plan. I like the idea of opening up the inside of the building with modern concrete wall facing and window openings. Better yet even would be a truly modern design to the courtyard face with exposed steel and courtyard art. This gives Buffalo an opportunity for a great creative reuse that saves the corner mass of Trico while still adding a modern building and a modern look. I travel all over and some of the best buildings I see are creative reuses and not just preservation. If the issue preservationists have is with losing a landmark then this is a way to save the most important part which, to me anyway, is the corner vista and mass. This isn't just getting torn down for a parking lot. I also agree with the earlier post that a floor or two of indoor parking would be great as well.

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

No more foot dragging, get it built now. Concerning Up and Coming, he is correct about Canalside, the new MGPP calls for an interpretive Prime Slip. That means no slip just a side walk with markers on it. No East Canal just a water feature. No Liberty Pole, no solid plan how they are going to integrate Main St. traffic and the trains. Pipe dreams of a ramp near Marine Dr. Retail under the Thruway? They are cutting costs, and trimming down. A watered down version with very little water. We will be waiting quite some time for the children's museum and public market. What we will get is an area for food trucks and another overpriced snack shack. If it wasn't for the Sabres we would be looking at a parking lot for years to come, lets hope Harbor Center is the catalyst to jump start this because ECHDC is taking baby steps when bold action is called for. Build the Amtrak Station underground in the parking structure and have it connect with buses and a new LRT Station all funneling pedestrians into Canalside. Let's not settle for something OK, lets go for the wow factor that will blow people away and have them wanting to come back in the winter.

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

There is no way to build it now because there is no developer that has stepped forward to pay for it. This document is just a plan. This is why we need a public RFP process for Trico in order to attract a strong, preservation friendly developer.

replied to Pubmoney1
Score: 1 ( 13 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

sad but true....the grand scheme that they present will look nothing like it...Love the signature Clintons dish ....Amazing what authority money can do....I am sure you can make a mobile version selling hot dogs that looks just as nice

replied to Pubmoney1
Score: 2 ( 6 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

They Should have just Doubled maybe tripled the size of the current parking garage under construction on the campus assuming this massive inflow was going to happen.

That's my least favorite word: PARKING!

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

"BNMC initial plans called for saving only the oldest portion of the facility, a Medina sandstone structure which was used in the 1890s as an icehouse for the Christian Weyand Brewing Company, and redeveloping the balance of property for expansion of the BNMC's adjacent Innovation Center."

And the new/improved scheme calls for demo of the oldest part of the complex! Nonsense.

Score: -3 ( 13 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Meg, look at the picture of Trico. Can you honestly say that when you think of Trico you think of the dwarfed bit in the middle? No, it is the part of the building that is proposed for reuse that you think of; just like everyone else.

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

I think it's one of the most unique parts, yes. And it ties into the history of that whole area as being a neighborhood of German-owned/built/operated breweries. Ulrich's was part of that history, as is the building at Washington and Virginia that is currently used for furniture storage.

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

Yep. Totally.

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

Some people will never be happy. Saving only 40% the property isn't good enough. You just keep on living up to your nickname of being "obstuctionists". Every last brick must be saved or I am going to have a hissy fit.

When the middle of the night demolition of that decrepit shed on Ohio St is completed, drive the equipment right down Ellicott and take the wrecking ball to the 60% that BNMC wants to demolish.

Score: 8 ( 20 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I consider myself a preservationist, and not only do I not have a problem with this discussion, I find it fascinating. I work in the trades, so I can tell you that any time you are rehabbing an older, damaged structure there is a process of negotiation between owner, builder, architect, and the building itself. Many old structures are still standing because they were built by real craftsmen. Others are only up by force of habit. Most are somewhere between. You do what you can within the boundaries you are given. I support saving as much of Trico as possible, but as long as things continue in an open and honest way, I will be happy with the result.

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

From the buffalo news article part of it has severe issues there was the mention of a large amount of contaminated water. What wouldn't bad is a larger group can work with building 8 and maybe another group can save an extra building. There's just too much for one company. We don't want to redevelop the whole building and have large sections of it empty. Save what we can and move on to the next in need building. At least the iconic face of the Trico building will live on.

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

That's a fair point. Why have one developer take on the entire project?

replied to Soccerdude5719
Score: 1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

They wont issue tax credits to multiple developers and with out those this project does not go very far.

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

What they should do is:

Take down almost all of building 2... most what was built in 1924. This includes taking down the 1924 addition ontop of building 1, and taking down the back part, and inside of building 2, creating a courtyard in the middle of the complex. Building 1 I think should still stand, alone. I know the floors do not match the rest of the complex, and I under stand the complex does not need this much space. So this is why building 1 should be completely renovated and left for further development by an outside source, to encourage the lofts that will accompany the project. I uploaded a simple rendering of this idea, please see it on my flickr:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/90293446@N04/8204985400/

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

What some of us preservationists fear is that without tax credits (which almost every heavy lift in Downtown Buffalo has used to date) that BNMC will eventually demolish building 8 as well

I can see it now:


"well since we are still expanding and no one stepped forward to rehab whats left of the trico building, We are moving forward with demolishing it to make room for Innovation Center 3™ "

oh and by the way... Nevermind that we:

took every inch of vacant land on the property that could be used for parking

Demolished so much of the building that its eligible for a whopping 0% tax credit

Continued not to mothball or maintain the building through this process


This whole thing is little changed from their original plan... The only difference is the BNMC has learned to be a whole lot better as far as PR goes.

Score: 7 ( 15 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I'm not exactly a purist about keeping the entire complex of buildings, as long as they're not just tearing down buildings for surface parking (which was the previous plan). I would not be outraged at a plan that demolishes the unsalvageable sections and replaces them with a complementary new build. But the point about the historic tax credits is an excellent one, and I had not considered it before. If the complex does not remain intact and historic tax credits are not available, will it be impossible to finance the proposed hybrid redevelopment? This risks becoming a Trojan horse where what seems like a concession to preservationists ends up leading to complete demolition being the only affordable option.

The contaminated water in the basement is a non-issue, in my opinion. Any environmental contamination will have to be addressed and paid for whether the building is demolished or redeveloped, so those are sunk costs that shouldn't really affect the financial analysis of the choices.

Score: 6 ( 8 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Interesting that the BNMC stated, "We, the Buffalo Niagara Medical Campus, have gone through a thoughtful process with community stakeholders and members of the preservation community."

Except that the "preservation community" hasn't heard a thing from the BNMC since last May, and was given only a few hours to consider the new plans.

This isn't collaboration. Unless someone can properly explain these actions, this is the textbook definition of railroading.

Score: 2 ( 14 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Also: as 50-60% of the complex would be demolished, the BNMC plan would forfeit millions in historic tax credits. This doesn't sound like a preservation plan; it's a demolition plan.

Score: 0 ( 10 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Finally, it's interesting that the main reason the BNMC claimed the Trico complex was too expensive to rehab was the contaminated water in the basement. Of course, these costs would be incurred whether the complex is rehabbed or demolished, so that's a non sequitur.

But it's further amazing that said contaminated water is actually in the buildings they are proposing to save, not the portions they propose to demolish.

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

I just don't understand why if they want a new build...just build on one of the many surface/parking lots down there. Preserve the Trico! It's gigantic state is what makes it so impressive and historical

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

Historic tax credits at risk in Trico plan

"The Buffalo Niagara Medical Campus risks losing historic tax credits considered vital for large redevelopment projects if it pursues the removal of most of the Trico Complex.

That’s the view of the state Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, which has informally reviewed the Buffalo Niagara Medical Campus’ plan to remove four of five structurally independent buildings and found it eliminates too much of the site’s historic fabric.

“Demolishing more than half of the complex will result in the BNMC being unable to participate in the historic preservation incentives tax credit program. If you decide to participate, you have to meet the Secretary of the Interior’s standards,” said Elizabeth Martin, historic sites restoration coordinator for Buffalo."

http://www.buffalonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20121122/CITYANDREGION/121129731/1003

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

a while back there was gossip going around that a few prominent individuals claiming to represent the preservation community were doing everything in their power to promote the bnmc demolition plan and undermine everyone else's efforts to save trico.

if this is true (and it may not be, given the nature of gossip), it would be the first instance where "preservationists" actually should be considered obstructionists.

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

Leave a comment