City January 4, 2013 12:10 PM

Tearing Down a Neighborhood Without Giving A Damn

Tearing Down a Neighborhood Without Giving A Damn
When you tear down a  church you tear down much more than a single building.  For centuries, churches have been designed to be focal points in their neighborhoods often actually creating the neighborhood in the process. Sometimes neighborhoods are even called by their parish names. Their large size and extravagant architecture make churches into immediate focal points and impressive landmarks.  They impact the neighborhood with form, sound, and faith.  Towers are often visible for several blocks over roof tops and even further down long street vistas adding tremendous visual complexity and romanticism to a neighborhood.  They also often add the wonderful sound of bells setting the mood of the day and even providing information.  I can tell when there is a funeral in a nearby church in my neighborhood by the bells that sound and can also tell what time it is by the ringing pattern. The medieval towns of Europe were almost always built around a towering church at the center of a tight cluster of houses and commercial buildings surrounded by a defensive wall. Removing the church from these towns would be like cutting out a beating heart.  It would be unthinkable.  Not so unthinkable in today's America unfortunately. 

Buffalo is blessed with an extraordinary collection of amazing churches which adorn, define, and create neighborhoods.  Many are in severe decline even as they remain in use.  Many others are abandoned and in danger of being lost through neglect and threatened demolition.  Churches are difficult to reuse in the best conditions and nearly impossible to reuse in the city's most troubled neighborhoods. These extraordinary works of civic art have been bequeathed to Buffalo from past generations.  They are a tremendous gift to our generation. We don't see it that way unfortunately.  We really do not appreciate the value of the gift of these buildings.  When you tear down a church you tear down more than a single building.  

Steel-your-face-2.jpg
Along with the destruction of history and great craft that makes up that single building you also tear out the heart and soul of an entire neighborhood.  These important buildings should not be torn down without extensive efforts to reuse them.  The problem of church reuse in Buffalo has been around for a good 25 years now and yet there is no plan in place by the major religious organizations or the city of Buffalo to develop a path toward.  Not only is there no plan, there has never been an attempt to create a plan to the best of my knowledge. Year after year it seems that leadership in WNY is waiting for fairy dust to solve the problem of saving churches.  In the meantime Buffalo loses priceless irreplaceable  works of art and continues its slide into mediocrity.  

Steel-your-face-3.jpg
Buffalo has several recent examples of these amazing buildings being repurposed and restored to productive use but still no comprehensive plan to stop needless destruction - fairy dust you know.  Over the holiday period the city reportedly issued a demolition permit for the church at 375 Colvin in North Buffalo, just a few blocks from the growing Hertel Avenue commercial district in an increasingly popular neighborhood.  If there is any part of the city that a church reuse could work it is this part.The Buffalo News reports that although Mayor Brown says he thinks it is a beautiful building and that he would hate to see it demolished, The City still needs to follow the law if the property owner is requesting to demolish it and has met the requirements [for demolition]. Delaware district council member Michael LoCurto is quoted as saying. "It's like The City saying it's OK to ignore your buildings and we're going to help you to do demolition by neglect."  The city can't save this building because the fairy dust has not arrived yet.  No plans have been published for the site after the church is removed. Likely, Buffalo is about to receive a new weedy vacant lot because no one in leadership has stepped up to make a plan to retain the things that make Buffalo special.  If any building is ripe for redevelopment it is this one.  It even has the parking that people are always clamoring for.  Shame on all of us if we lose this building.  What a real shame.  Do we really need to tear down everything?  

Buffalo New York, can you really claim this as progress?

View image

Comments

Leave a comment

I'm looking at it right now from my office and do every day. I will certainly miss the building. I've clamored for it to be torn down since I moved in 7 yrs ago and I'm finally getting my wish.

The only problem with all of this, is that I feel sick about it now.

After reading your piece, it does seem as if the city is giving these owners an easy way out. Re-purposing the building seemed like a no-brainer to my neighbors and I until that kid decided to torch it.

I hate to say it, but you're right about this.

Score: 13 ( 17 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Can you approach the owners and ask them to stave off demo for a month? We can mobilize to help find them another solution.

replied to jbny14
Score: 0 ( 10 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

The owners have had YEARS to figure out another use for the building. It's done. Let it go.

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

"the city is giving these owners an easy way out"

Anyone have info on what happened when that judge got tough with delinquent property owners a while back? Anything ever come of that?

replied to jbny14
Score: 1 ( 3 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Why did you want it torn down? What purpose does that serve? Because kids hung out there? Is that really a reason to tear down such a neighborhood landmark?

I'm glad to hear you finally feel differently, but I don't get it and would love an explanation as to why it makes any sense to tear a building like this down.

replied to jbny14
Score: -2 ( 4 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I love your selective photography.

Score: 0 ( 32 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Thank you, Steel, for such a somber and moving elegy. Although I am not a particularly religious person, I too value the way these buildings form the focal points of their communities, standing sentinel over their neighborhoods. A church like this ought to live on as a community gathering point, not casually discarded once one owner is finished with it.

I hope someone steps in at the last minute, or that the owner or city sees the light and reconsiders, but I fear it is too late. Even though the Preservation Board and the district's own councilman want to landmark the building and find it a new owner, the department that can grant the demolition permit is moving far faster to allow demolition than it ever moved to enforce the housing code on this negligent owner. And the mayor simply washes his hands of the situation, saying he wishes the building could stay but that his hands are bound by the law (as if that has stopped the city in other matters).

A sad day for my neighborhood and my city.

Score: 6 ( 12 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Do we really need to tear evrything down? WELL PONY UP THE MONEY AND SAVE IT INSTEAD OF WRITING ARTICLES ON HOW WE NEED TO SAVE EVRYTHING. nO ONE DOES A DAMN THING UNTIL ITS TIME TO TAKE SOMETHING DOWN THE ALL OF A SUDDED PRESERVATION FREAKS COME OUT OF THE WOOD WORK TO SAVE SAVE SAVE !!! dELEATE ME !!

Score: -11 ( 45 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

How can you claim that no one does anything until it is time for demo. On what basis do you say that? And on what basis can you claim that anyone is trying to save everything?

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

If they are not waiting until the last minute to save buildings, then the Preservationist Society has a perception issue. I posted a ways down how to work on the perception issue.

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

The Buffalo Preservation Board has been totally stymied by the City on this Church. As stated in an earlier post, the Preservation Board voted unanimously voted to landmark the building based on 5 out of 9 criterea as listed in the City Charter...Only one is necessary for consideration.
The owner cancelled a scheduled meeting to tour the church by board members the morning of the meeting and then critcised the board for not be able to visit the church the day before Christmas weekend.
The demolition permit to be issued by the city is on a non emergency basis...meaning there is no threat to the public health and safety....What's the hurry?
All the Board wants is the landmarking process to occur. This means a board vote, preparation of application, public hearing, council legislation review, council public hearing and a vote by the Common Council.
The city is not allowing the Preservation Board to exercize its responsibilities to protect Buffalo's historic buildings.

replied to ccbuffalo
Score: 2 ( 10 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

But with all due respect, the news reports I've seen say the church fire was in April -- or at least several months ago. But the landmarking effort seems to be happening very last minute (or as the City administration is interpreting it, after the last minute). Again, I can't say for certain without having firsthand information, but it seems to me the crisis situation is partly the result of the 11th-hour nature of the landmarking attempt.

Or am I missing something--?

replied to r-k-tekt
Score: 3 ( 7 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

The Preservation Board was reacting to the demo permit before it. Shouldn't the City commissioner give at least the time necessary for the public to be heard?
It would be wonderful to have an ifrastructure present that had full time people writing landmark applications...There are hundreds of buildings worthy of landmarking. But because that infrastructure doen't exist it should allow worthy buildings to be torn down?

The City ordinance requires all demo permits to come before the Board to allow the Board to determine if they are eligible for landmarking.
The board did, and they issue the permit anyway.

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

Thanks for the clarification. The whole situation sucks big time.

As for your last paragraph, I'm not sure how to go about changing that outside using the courts and/or the ballot box. If the Administration is doing the wrong thing, and feels it can continue with impunity, that's a huge problem that needs to be addressed (I'm sure there are those with more standing & knowledge than me who are looking at that), but is a heavy lift and somewhat out of our immediate control. As is the lack of staff at the preservation board.

But one thing that is in the control of the preservation community is how we utilize our own enthusiastic and committed "human" resources -- mostly volunteers. Communication, coordination, leadership, collaboration, expertise -- we have all these things in our volunteer base, if our volunteer base were better organized.

In this case, for example, if there's a fire in a long-vacant building, its vulnerability to demolition immediately increases. We all know that -- Granite Works, e.g. In the promised land we all want to get to, people would be looking at options for preservation & reuse when a building is just merely vacant. But if there's a fire, and folks in the know (who hear things, live nearby, have seen the building post-fire, etc.) have reason to believe the building might on a path toward demolition, there are folks who would work on trying to head that off by preparing a local landmark application (for example). How do I know that? Because I would, for one -- and with the grassroots enthusiasm I see for preservation in Buffalo among folks of all ages and descriptions, I'm sure there are others who would, as well.

Aside from issues of City administration dysfunctionality (something so longstanding over multiple administrations as to be almost a given), if we're losing the chance to exhaust every possible option for preservation and reuse of this building in part because a local landmark application wasn't done last summer or even fall, when we have people who -- had they known or been asked -- would have been glad to prepare one, then that's beyond sad. If we let it happen again, it'll be shameful.

replied to r-k-tekt
Score: -3 ( 3 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

The people who are actively working to save buildings and landmark them have finite time in their lives. This expectation that "since they understand the value of these buildings and try to alert people to that value then their whole being must be devoted to making sure that no one can blame them for missing" a building is utterly ridiculous. If an owner allows a building to rot and the city allows them to do that these are the people and institutions to blame. Not the next person trying to prevent a stupid and irreversible mistake.

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

I'm afraid the argument that "we're simply too overwhelmed with bearing the entire burden ourselves to offload any of it to willing volunteers who would be only too glad to pitch in to help" doesn't carry much weight with me, my friend.

I'm not interested in pointing any fingers of blame -- except at the improper actions of the Administration, clearly -- but in saving buildings like this one. I'm not here to be part of the problem, but part of the solution (if possible).

As you can see above, I made a clear effort to try to understand the situation better before commenting. Then I contributed a thoughtful, reasonable comment, which I feel addresses a key aspect of this particular situation -- and more generally. That's what the comments section should be about, IMHO. You may not agree with some or all of it, but to slam what I say as being "utterly ridiculous" goes rather too far, don't you think--?

That said, I understand -- and share -- the frustration of the moment.

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

I am not slamming what you said. I am slamming this silly theme that is repeated upon every demolition that "preservationists" show up too late. That is complete BS. They are showing up when they can and doing what they can. Its not a full time paid position. They get no credit for the successes and all the hundreds of buildings being restored without fanfare. It is just not acceptable to blame preservationists for being there too late or not restoring the building themselves. The city allows these owners to neglect buildings and has no plan for anything other than demolition by neglect.

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

What might seem to be playing the blame game is (in my case at least) an attempt at clear-eyed post-mortem. NTSB does this after every air crash: determines what factors led to the crash with an eye toward making sure a similar series of events can be avoided in the future -- rather than trying to assign blame. Sometimes it's a quick fix like a manufacturing or maintenance defect. Other times it's a more systemic issue that requires legislation or policy change.

This situation, like the loss of the cigar store DT, shows we have systemic issues vis a vis the City administration. Those need to be addressed, but I'm not sure one individual or even small handful of volunteers can. However, in the shorter term (and more under our control) volunteers can do things like put together local landmark applications. If that can help fend off a demolition, or buy enough time to develop options in situations like this, then adding that to our preservation toolkit would help us in the future. And when I say "volunteers" I don't mean the same people bearing the burden all the time. We can & should be sharing the burden.

I recognize that at the very moment a landmark is falling to the wrecking ball emotions run high, so perhaps it's not the best time to take an objective look. On the other hand, this is when the articles are online, and when lots of attention is focused, so maybe it happens to be the right time. But this much is clear for preservation in Buffalo: it is the best of times, it is the worst of times.

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

look at the last paragraph you wrote

Score: -2 ( 12 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

What is the basis of your claims and why are you so interested in having everything torn down?

replied to ccbuffalo
Score: 0 ( 16 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

actually you wrote the artice so read it carefully#1 and also preservationist try to save evrything that no one cared about for 30 years. evan tho there were 30 years to do something about it#2

Score: -4 ( 14 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

The story says nothing about saving everything. It asks the question why everything needs to be torn down. This building has not been endangered for 30 years either. That is just something you made up. It only had a fire last April and I believe a developer was recently looking at reworking it into apartments. The fact is that preservationists are doing substantial work every day to save Buffalo's treasures. I highlighted several examples of this a few months ago. You should go back and read about them. Why is it that you are so interested in having everything torn down? How do you think it will improve the city. I can show you many examples of how saving buildings did make the city better.

replied to ccbuffalo
Score: 6 ( 16 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I agree with you that some of the churches in the greater Buffalo area are simply beautiful structures. I was in quite a few of them while I was performing in concerts for Canisius College. In a perfect world it would be nice to save them all and find purposes for them once again.

However. Why, after years of neglect, are they suddenly relevant? Isn't the irrelevance of the building what got it here in the first place? If it is such an integral part of the community, then why has it got to this low point? There's always backlash for this type of thing (which I think ccbuffalo shows) because simply put, "Why do we care now?"

Sure, you could try and reuse the structures but you said so yourself that it is very difficult to do so. And even if you were able to spark some interest in the building...would it survive? I guess that would all depend on the location of the building. And I'm going to assume that most of the churches facing this issue are not in very desirable locations. So we're back at square one.

It's a rough spot to be in, but the community (most likely) had years to fix the problem and chose not to do so.

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

This community has had years to fix many problems but like I said is waiting for fairy dust. This and other churches are not "suddenly" relevant any more than Sheas Buffalo was before it was saved. Should we have torn down Sheas 25 years ago becasue people were too stupid back then to see the value in the building?

replied to RNMashups
Score: 8 ( 16 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Hindsight is 20/20 but I know what you mean. It's difficult to determine what "value" really is though. Just because a building is old and has great architecture does not necessarily mean it's valuable. I think people struggle with this concept.

I would like to see a more detailed history as to what these churches have provided to the community before we go sticking our necks out.

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

I can tell you what the value provided is (was): an interesting and beautiful building that doesn't cost anything to build.

Why do you think so many historic buildings (and churches) have been renovated into apartments and offices? Because they provide an attractive, interesting, and functional building at a tiny fraction of the cost of what it would take to build the same thing new.

This corner used to have a head start to potentially containing a unique apartment building, offices, fitness center, or who knows what. Now it will cost that much more to create something less interesting.

replied to RNMashups
Score: 7 ( 11 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

There was no need for 20/2o hindsight to know the value and importance of Sheas and luckily we had people back then who rescued it at the last minute. Imagine if no one had "stuck their neck out" for Shaes.

replied to RNMashups
Score: 5 ( 11 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I've got to ask: What is the connection to the community, and how strong is that connection?

replied to STEEL
Score: 1 ( 17 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I am an American concerned about American heritage and I would describe that as a very strong connection.

replied to UberGeek
Score: 4 ( 12 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

So, a monument to slavery being grand should be "saved" due to it belonging to the American Heritage?

Come on. If the building was strongly tied to the community, it would have been filled by now.

replied to STEEL
Score: 1 ( 5 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

So only buildings that are currently in use are worthy of being in existence? By your measure Buffalo would have lost all of its major master pieces. Do you realize how bad that would have been? No Martin House, No Richardson State Hospital, No Guaranty Building! All of these would have been torn down by you method because they were derelict, unused, and people wanted to tear them down. THis kind of short sighted myopic thinking has ruined Buffalo over the last 60 years. There is enough left to bring it back but just barely.

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

Of course not. However, there must be some obvious tie to the communities, for the buildings being saved.

If there is a tie-in; then people will be clamoring to make use of the building. HH Richardson is a prime example: People have been trying for ages to get access to the building, to be stopped by NYS (The owners), until quite recently.

Another great example is the Martin House along with HH Richardson Complex: Both are items that are key in the scholarly study of both of those architects. HH Richardson, for example, is the first example in the world of Richardsonian Romanesque, copied many times around the world.

Guaranty Building? It's not a prime example of architectural study, nor is it unique in any way. It's a big box of a building, a copy of many copies of the example of architecture. I wasn't really in favor of keeping that building either. It did nothing to add to any fabric, and made it appear we all desire big, boxy buildings.

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

Perhaps, a better method for the Preservationist Society than running in at the last minute to try to save buildings, and appearing to act in a haphazard manner trying to save every derelict building in the area; develop a list of 10 buildings for small, mid-sized, and giant.

Then, prioritize that list.

Then, publish said list.

Then, WORK on said list BEFORE the demo orders get issued, not the day of.

Score: 5 ( 19 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Oh how original, Uber. Think of that one yourself?

And, clearly, if you have read the updates (ie the Preservation Board working to repeal this demo as of weeks ago), you would see how baseless your statement is.

Not to worry, it's coming down as we speak. Comerford pulls off another "Friday afternoon special."

replied to UberGeek
Score: -5 ( 21 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I am usually on the side of preservation; but like the anti-"obstructionist" crowd often harps on there has to be better foresight. How do you argue against the reactionary claim? There has to be a reason preservationists come at the last minute to save, otherwise better proactive action needs to happen.

replied to UberGeek
Score: 2 ( 18 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Who do you think preservationists are? Do you think it is some kind of full time paid staff and they just are not doing their job? That is an idiotic position to take. Why is the blame always that of preservationists rather than the delinquent owners. Instead of asking why the preservationists (not a full time paid staff by the way) are late, why not ask why the owner was delinquent and why the city did not enforce its building laws. Loss of this building is not going to improve Buffalo.

replied to LouisTully
Score: 2 ( 16 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I know who preservationists are. And I'm fully on the side of the City holding negligent owners responsible. Do you ever read my comments? Take it easy. What's the response to "where were you 30 years ago?". Or, "preservationists always show up at the last minute".

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

Lt> "How do you argue against the reactionary claim?"

One way I argue against it by pointing out that talking point is a goalpost shift used by the pro-demo side.

Selective "reactive" outrage is just a way for people who generally prefer demos to come across as being open to all options. Most of these types quickly shift the "reactive" goalpost when there has been some obvious pro-activity involved with preservation, usually replaced by other propped up talking points like "it's not historic," selective property rights, etc.

A good example of this is can be seen in the Trico discussion. There you have a National Register of Historic Places designation completed in 2006, efforts to increase NY's HP tax credit, and recently, a BRO article noting City foot dragging with the landmark application.

None of the people who cry "reactive" on this board on select topics are satisfied with the numerous examples of proactive action to save Trico. Instead they've shifted their talking points to a moot debate over historic merit and fear mongering over alleged environmental contamination.

This goalposts shifting to line up on on the demo side of the issue kills the "reactive" argument's credibility.

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

What is the preservation society? How would you know if a building is going to be demolished. This building only had a fire last April. The demo permit was issued within a matter of weeks of the request with no public input. And again how can you claim with a straight face that anyone is trying to save every building? It is a goofy statement in light of how much is and was being demolished in Buffalo.

replied to UberGeek
Score: 5 ( 9 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Sounds like the owner paid the arsenic to torch the building, collect the insurance and have city demo while the pocket insurance

Its the oldest manipulation.

In the 1970s, the Jews in Brooklyn and Bronx rented to African Americans, the ran the buildings down pocketing the money instead of maintaining them then when the buildings wrere at their lowest point the Jews torched buildings and collected the insurance. There was great pressure to prosecute but there were also a great many Jews in prosecutors office and Jews don't prosecute Jews...they cover it up. That's why there is such animous to this day between the black and Jewish communities in NYC.

And when comes to white collar crime...Jews excell all others in exploitation. ...and the lesser gentiles just copy the Jews exploitation precedent.

What do we have in Buffalo...neglectful owners leverage every dollar of rent or salvageable value, torching or walk away, collect insurance, demolish

The meter building perfect example...NYC Jewish owner...mysterioulsy leaves building unlocked, unattended, ... meanwhile all copper is stripped from the building, insurance money collected for vandalism so they collect from the copper and insurance then sell. They could torch because it was concrete or it would have been torched and demolished.

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

So, once we have a list of 10 buildings, we should knock down the rest of them?

It's not just about the "top 10". It's about preserving the fabric of the city. It's about all of the "ordinary" Horsefeathers buildings, Granite Works buildings, the "castle" apartments on Richmond and Connecticut just featured here the other day, etc., etc.

It's about a stance that rather than "preemptively demolish all except these ten 'must save' buildings" needs to be "demolish only when it needs to be done as part of an actual redevelopment project".

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

Of course not [tear down the rest]. However, at least ACT, and SHOW they are being proactive, instead of reactive.

And, the cries of "We're limited on time and resources". I get that. It's called "Project Management". And, in any project there are three constraints: Time, Budget, and Scope. Pick 2, but you can't have the third.

Time is restricted, budget is restricted, so you have to also restrict scope. The only way to save every building needed (Enlarge scope) is by increasing time (Impossible with volunteers), or increase budget (And resources in general).

Once you get your first 30 buildings done, add more to the list. But prioritize, prioritize, prioritize.

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

Tear down fans need not worry. The building is being destroyed as we speak. One more bland spot on Buffalo. WOOT!

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

Go chase yourself, Steel.

replied to STEEL
Score: -2 ( 20 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

What does that mean?

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

OK...run by the intersection of Hertel AND Elmwood, the once "historic" DOW building has been vandalized with Graffiti on the north side. Lets get the preservationists on top of this buildings decay, by neglect. Be proactive, before another Demo permit,is issued for this building ...and it's DEJAVU!

replied to STEEL
Score: 1 ( 5 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

An unnecessary loss of architecture, materials, history, and potential re-use... all due to the complete lack of foresight in this town.

Don't worry though. The 'tear it all down' crowd will forget this ever happened and still believe preservationists block every demo every time.

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

2013 is a Buffalo mayoral election year. Move back and run for the office to call attention to this issue.

Lamenting a building's destruction websites is clearly ineffective.

Unless its only important that OTHER people act, in which case, lament away.

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

What will the reduced tax burden reward will the city give this owner now that they have torn the building down?

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

@STEEL
Buildings like 375 Colvin do not pay any property taxes, only sewer tax and garbage user fee.

My argument has always been that if a building is held for investment purpose nor open to public for free, it should be taxed.
Look at St Francis de Sales at 575 Humboldt, or Lafayette Presbyterian Church at 598 Lafayette, or Forness Mansion at 77-79 Oakland.

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

Its simple there are rules in place that govern this issue. All rules were followed and if anything the City held things up an additional 5 days and the board tried to delay things even more with their typical BS by canceling a meeting back in November. The HP group governs the HP district. Its that simple. Colvin and Tacoma is not in the HP district and trying to landmark the structure now is not fair to the current building owner rights. Government Creep is what the Buffalo HP Board is doing. They are a group with no true authority but are creeping into main stream. Mayor Browns needs to take a hard look at this board and how it should be used to best serve the City. Congrats to the building owner on this one. This country was based on the principal of free choice and playing by the rules. Read what you folks write and it sounds like too much government control.

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

The Board did not try to delay anything by cancelling the meeting. That was not why the meeting was cancelled.
As for authority... the Preservation Board is a Certified Local Government empowered by New York State to protect the City's Historic assets. One of those authorities granted by the state is to landmark buildings that meet the criterea defined by the US Department of Interior. The building met at least 5 of the 9.
Look it up

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

R-K the HP board in buffalo is an advisory board outside the HP district. They have the same rights as any other citizen group. The problem is they are trying to expand their role. HP = government creep = socialism. The Socialism Sector is killing this country and this mind set will destroy this great country we live in. I agree we need to save buildings but, the reality is money is the driving factor. Forcing people to do something they dont want to is not the answer. Telling the owners to give some entity the property is BS. Money is the answer and fewer people have and the HP Board has none. Why don't they even have some wealthy backer to help finance some of their dreams. Maybe Obama will create a new stimulus program to help... baaahhhaaaa... anyway rumor has it the site will be developed in the next year.

replied to r-k-tekt
Score: -1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

This section of n. buffalo is turning ghetto almost overnight....Colvin ave especially has a ton of slumlord owners who have no problem renting to scumbags...I guarantee a RAC store will soon be moving into the Delaware / Hertel ave area

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

Steel,
I must ask this question of you, all your schooling is in the SUNY college system and your bio transcends all this long time love for the city and its beautiful architecture, yet you took your skills to Chicago to practice your trade. Why???

You appear to be a senior member of staff of many young architects that focuses on primarily modern work and very little work with any historical building restorations and projects. The reason I mention this is because you write with passion about our city and architecture yet you choose to work elsewhere for a firm that takes commissions for exactly the opposite of what you espouse.

If I was in a similar situation I would go where my passion and heart is first, with an emphasis on salary second. Unless Chicago is your passion then my question is answered. I am not trying to be disrespectful of you but with all the activity with restorations here I can't believe you could sit on the sidelines in another city and try to be an advocate for Buffalo while all these fantastic career opportunities are there for the taking. I apologize if I am being to forward or personal.

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

It would be great to have Steele back in Bflo doing some great new designs--not sure the client base is there right now, however.

replied to Old First Ward
Score: 2 ( 2 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

That's always one thing I've never been able to get about Steel. It's odd to argue that preservation has to make sense from an economic standpoint with someone who left Buffalo for economic reasons himself.

replied to Old First Ward
Score: 5 ( 5 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

On what basis do you make that claim?

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

Can't help of thinking of 441 Ohio Street when I read this.

The owners of what's left of the former Erie Freight House could have made a cynical choice and rushed for a demolition permit. Instead they took the time to examine the building to determine if rehabilitation was any option at all. Their reward? They were victims of a rushed and flawed Landmarking. Then folks with a dollar and a dream tried to take their property by obstructing their development.

Some elements of the preservation community (PBN, Preservation Board) might want to work on a better proactive strategy to identify buildings at risk and then work with Owners to redevelop or sell their buildings. Waiting until demolition is imminent and then raising a stink may serve to encourage cynical behavior from other owners of other distressed historical properties.

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

Demolition of this building became imminent about 4 weeks ago.

replied to Quixote
Score: -1 ( 5 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

[deleted - off topic]

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

BRO, why do you selectively delete comments? Has it occurred to you that some of the folks who comment on this site are your advertising clients? Have you considered that selective and biased deletion of comments might cause said clients to take their money elsewhere? Like it or not, most of the people that pay you to advertise are business owners. Thus, many of them are not ultra-liberal and may not support your prejudicial authors or their positions. Robbing them of their voice may piss them off, and cause them to consider jumping ship.

What am I saying? You're pissing me off and I'm considering jumping ship.

[Dissenting commentary is not removed as you can plainly see within this post and other BRO stories. Off topic comments are removed]

replied to Captain Picard
Score: 1 ( 5 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Rather than the likely bluff of boycotting BRO advertisers, how about boycotting just this site? Taking your business away from those who deleted your comments is much more appropriate than doing so to companies that had nothing to do with it.

Ironic and funny that the dedicated bunch of "realist" readers here who insist on coming back again and again to tell the "BRO crowd" how it is, have likely earned this site a good deal of advertising money. All of that snark, outrage, and cherry picked data refudiating by those who cannot stand the BRO line, have done this site's owner(s) a huge favor.

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

[comments removed for continual use of multiple screen names]

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

Realist, you didn't read my comment. I am an advertiser. I'm considering pulling my ads, thus depriving BRO of revenue.

replied to "Realist"
Score: -1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I stand corrected Captain. For some reason I got the idea that you were talking about shunning advertisers but on a second read you were being more direct.

You are free to take your adds elsewhere but doing so because your comment was deleted doesn't sound like the best business decision. As I said before, thanks partially to relentless one-upping, lecturing, and trolling by the non-ultra liberal dissenters, people buy adds here for a reason.

replied to Captain Picard
Score: -1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

This might explain a lot -
"….but on a second read…"

Perhaps reading multiple times if needed and responding to what others have actually written can be better than just assuming or projecting.

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

[sorry - one screen name only please]

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

real>"As I said before, thanks partially to relentless one-upping, lecturing, and trolling by the non-ultra liberal dissenters, people buy adds here for a reason."

About what you've brought up repeatedly lately, here's my $0.02 ...

I'm happy to help draw any repeat readers or ad viewers, if I ever have.
BR owners/managers have done an impressive job. Longevity & pageviews speak for themselves. There's no need for agreeing with any editorial viewpoints to recognize that. It's like I see how NPR or the NYT do quality work even while not sharing some of their views.

There's a few odd deletions here once in a while, and as I noted at the time when they banned you (as 'kettle' was it? - something like that...), I thought that was weird too - however, bumps in the road like that are common in any forum.

Compared to Buffalo News for example, BR seems _very_ tolerant of diverse comments. Only recently has the BN started to improve that way - maybe result of new leadership over there.
Over on twobillsdrive.com forums, there's often similar issues as here - comment deletion controversies, debates about what counts as off-topic, personality conflicts/obsessions,
…. it's all the nature of the beast with blogs.

BR's success is deserved. I'd bet advertiser feedback such as Picard's they might at least quietly consider. Or not - it's up to them.

Off-topicness can be very subjective anywhere. It seems pretty much any post of any topic at all can have comments wander into lectures about things from many viewpoints including complaints about anti-choice Republican campaign donors, sprawl, highways, GWBush, dollar stores (a recent one!), parking lots, casinos, etc., … not just the ones from the non-left which you point at.

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

Leave a comment