I had not planned on writing anything for BRO today but then I came across the images shown here and then I read an interesting interview with property developer Nick Sinatra in this month's Buffalo Spree. He is a repat who has moved back to town with a bang, scooping up dozens of undervalued historic properties and renovating them back to their productive prime. The magazine asked him if he was a preservationist. It would seem obvious that he is since he has focused his business on restoring buildings, many of which were in distressed condition. Oddly, he answered that he was not a preservationist. He stated:
"I would say that I am not because I find some of them to be too radical - for example, the movement to stop demolition of the Trico Building. That would be for the benefit of the community, I believe: some people stand in the way of progress."
I was disappointed to hear this coming from one of the potentially bright new lights who are finally becoming common in Buffalo these days. With the long stream of recent preservation successes in Buffalo the concept that preservationists are obstructing progress should be so throughly debunked by now as to be laughable. Its like when Mosses parts the sea and the Egyptians still don't believe he was sent by God to lead the Jews. So they ride right into the water as it crashes down on them - and that was after snakes and plague! To call preservationists radical is odd in light of the fact that more than 2/3 of downtown has been demolished over the last 50 years - that is radical. 100% of the neighborhoods east and west of downtown have been removed - that is radical. In many cases even the roads have been removed leaving absolutely no trace of the city that was once there. No memory of the city left at all. Removing whole neighborhoods is what is radical if you ask me.
The Trico Building on Ellicott Street Downtown, known as Plant No.1, that he mentions is the same kind of building that has been renovated with tremendous success in several places in the city. In the Larkin neighborhood, restored warehouses are seeding the resurgence of a long dead neighborhood. Another Trico building on Main Street in North Buffalo has been in productive use for decades since its original use as a factory ended. That building was kept viable with ordinary investment and maintenance. In contrast Trico Plant 1 has sat rotting in the hands of a government agency for years. Allowing valuable buildings to rot should be considered radical and obstructionist. Yet, we are told with a straight face that it is the preservationists who obstruct progress in Buffalo and people believe it. In Lackawanna, the mayor calls demolition for demolition's sake progress and he is taken seriously! Trico sits in a neighborhood full of Lackawanna style progress. It faces vast acres of dead parking lots that drain life from the city's streets. Logic would say fill up those parking lots and renovate this great factory building. Logic unfortunately = obstruction to too many people. The idea that the only place BNMC can expand is to tear down a historic building should elicit guffaws and LOLs.
That brings me to these images showing the east side of Pearl Street between Seneca and Swan. They are from the Buffalo History Gazette which continues to post a spectacular array of historic images on line. These pictures are like our conscience. They are evidence of our stupidity and we should take note when one of these "radical" preservationists tries to warn us of our impending irreversible mistakes. In truth it is not the preservationists who are radicals standing in the way of progress. Progress is blocked by acceptance of the status quo, acceptance of the continual brutalization and destruction of the city's urban environment.
The oldest of these images shows a magnificent big old building that, judging buy the cars, was likely in its last few years. It was a big loss when this building was demolished but the multi level parking garage that replaced it was actually quite charming. The strips of glassy openings against the bright glazed terra cotta cladding were probably the image of the modernism and progress at the time of this photo. Although this building foretold of the onslaught that cars were about to bring onto the city it was not a bad way to store the machines that were quickly growing in number. Today we see this building, still in existence but, ravaged by thoughtless changes. All the windows are filled with concrete block with just the most minimal opening necessary for ventilation. Its brutal, making the street feel cold and dangerous. It is a disgrace that someone would think that this was a good thing to do. I can't imagine how someone could have so little pride in their property and so much disrespect for the people of the city. Practically this whole block has been wrecked by stupid renovations and massive demolitions. It was once packed with spectacular architecture - and I really mean spectacular.
So, when preservationists suggest that perhaps you could expand your operation on the parking lot across the street instead of tearing down the historic building, they are not the radical obstructionists. The radical obstructionists are the people who do thoughtless and ignorant things like this to your city
So here is a classic situation that always plays out.
Lazy absent landlord A bails on his classy property for a decade before landlord B takes control with an idea. This guy wants to knock half of it down as part of his rebuild and the whole preservation community steps in to fend for the demolished half. No one had to take it over but once landlord B took it over to make it usable he was the preservationists bitch, because if his idea doesn't line up, then Bam! Out come the protest signs and city hall meetings. It is not landlord B's fault that he has an idea to make himself some money, it's scumbag landlord A who never had to face the firing squad of your fury. Find a local lazy land lord and send him the beat down, because when it is directed toward the new guy, that is where your readers get the obstructionist reputation.
By the way can someone get me Paladino's number? (rim shot!)
@synthesis - thanks for being the first to comment. I like your example.
Thanks also to Nick Sinatra for giving the interview and to Buffalo Spree for conducting it.
Personally, I agree with Sinatra in that some "preservationists" are too radical.
My issue with these select few is that they rarely discuss the financial aspects of the property. Hotel Lafayette doesn't even pay city property taxes. Neither does the abandoned St Francis de Sales church.
They rarely discuss what buildings were on the property before the current one. What was torn down to make way for Hotel Statler?
They rarely acknowledge the fact that almost every single structure built in City of Buffalo can be considered historic (over 50 years old.) Personally, I like the Tishman building as is and the Donovan building as was.
Some also have this mindset that if if a certain person lived there or event took place, that the subject property is somehow better and worthier than another. Mark Twain did't build the house he lived in on Delaware Ave and he only lived there for a brief period in time, abandoning the house.
While in Buffalo last summer, I brought up the fact that vinyl windows were developed in Germany over 50 years ago and can now be considered historic. I received a blank stare.
I brought up the fact that a suburban tri-level 1959 home with aluminum widows can be considered historic. I received another blank stare.
Let's build some great projects out of the ruins in Buffalo and create an equal playing field.