Share, , , Google Plus, Reddit, Pinterest, StumbleUpon


Posted in:

Mixed-Use Project Planned for Historic C.W. Miller Livery Stable

One of downtown’s most handsome buildings is getting a makeover.  Mark D. Croce and James F. Jerge are teaming up to convert the C.W. Miller Livery Stable (aka Hertz Parking Garage) at 73-77 W. Huron Street into a mix of retail, residential and possibly office space.  The project carries a $12 million price tag.

McGuire Development Co. has been retained as an owner representative to coordinate the work.  Carmina Wood Morris is preparing design concepts for the project that is expected to utilize historic preservation tax credits.

“Projects are getting larger and larger,” says Croce.  “It makes sense to team up with McGuire Development to help steer the project.” 

Croce and Jerge purchased the 100,000 sq.ft. building and an adjoining parking lot in 2003 for $1.85 million as a long-term investment.  Croce, who has been busy for two years bringing Statler City back to life, is now focusing on his other projects downtown.” 

“The market and timing is perfect to bring this property online,” says Croce.  “It’s been on the back-burner for quite a while until I had the Statler stabilized and on track.”

The development team is contemplating two reuse scenarios for the building.  There is an office tenant considering taking two floors of the building.  If that tenant is signed, there would be two floors of parking (basement and partial first floor), two floors of office space, and three floors of apartments.

If the office tenant does not sign, the building will be all residential.  Both reuse plans would include approximately 1,000 sq.ft. of first floor retail space.  Croce says he will not build speculative office space and if the building goes residential it would contain around 50 units. 

“This is a premier location for residential,” says Croce.  “You are walking distance to hotels, government buildings, courthouses, restaurants, and offices.”

IMG_4256.JPGThe C.W. Miller Livery Stable was designed by Lansing & Beierl and constructed between 1892 and 1894.  It is 60′ wide along W. Huron Street and is 265′ deep.  Walls are brick above a massive stone foundation.  The Huron Street facade features three vehicle bays surrounded by cut sandstone walls, an arcade of pilasters and round arches, and terra cotta moldings and spandrels.  Wood floors in the building are suspected from steel trusses in the attic with hanging pin connected eyebars and I-beams designed to limit obstructions on the floors below.  These steel trusses will be incorporated into the residential units on the top floor (photo below).

IMG_2924c.JPGAccording to the National Registry Form completed by Francis Kowsky and Martin Wachadlo in 2007, at the time of construction, the Miller stable attracted national attention in the engineering press for its system of construction and the ample accommodations it provided for horses and the storage of carts, carriages and sleighs. 

The second and third floors originally housed stalls for approximately 250 horses.  The fourth floor was originally used for carriage storage and the fifth floor housed repair shops.  Hay was stored on the sixth floor.  Around 1925 the building became a parking garage. 

Croce is also working to secure financing to convert the adjacent Curtiss Building into a boutique hotel.  Work on the hotel project was postponed and redesigned to reduce the amount of banquet space after Croce purchased the Statler.  He reports that there are lenders interested in the project but that financing for hotel-only projects remains challenging.

Croce says that residential tenants at the Livery will have access to the hotel amenities including the fitness facility, rooftop patio, and outdoor urban “hot springs.”

“It will be great to bring them both online,” he says.  “There is pent-up demand for downtown residences.  We’re excited about it.”

Work on the Livery project is scheduled to start this fall with roof and skylight repairs to allow interior work to continue through the winter.


Share, , , Google Plus, Reddit, Pinterest, StumbleUpon

Written by queenseyes


Newell Nussbaumer is 'queenseyes' - Eyes of the Queen City and Founder of Buffalo Rising. Co-founder Elmwood Avenue Festival of the Arts. Co-founder Powder Keg Festival that built the world's largest ice maze (Guinness Book of World Records). Instigator behind Emerald Beach at the Erie Basin Marina. Co-created Flurrious! winter festival. Co-creator of Rusty Chain Beer. Instigator behind Saturday Artisan Market (SAM) at Canalside. Founder of The Peddler retro and vintage market. Instigator behind Liberty Hound @ Canalside. Throws The Witches Ball at The Hotel @ The Lafayette, and the Madd Tiki Winter Luau. Other projects: Navigetter.

Contact Newell Nussbaumer |

8089 posts


Leave a Reply
  1. I would love to see offices there rather than ALL residential, so hopefully the company that he spoke to follows though. Either way, this is better than how it is now!

  2. It is a good DAMN day when WC has THREE posts. I haven’t even read this one yet, but I’m just really happy and excited!
    Hopefully the development community will continue to keep WC hackin away on the keyboard! Keep up the great work!!!

  3. The hits just keep coming. Every week it seems like there is a new exciting project announced. There is no doubt that the resurgence of Buffalo is real and sustainable.

  4. It could make great offices. But if I were a downtown landlord, I’d be scared to death of adding new office space right now. HSBC, Key, other musical chairs . . . unless Croce gets a solid ten or fifteen year lease, he’s right not to build offices.
    That said, it’s a good location with a large floor plate. It’s near enough to the courts, so perhaps especially if you’re a substantial law firm you’re in the ballpark of where you want to be. It features a rarity downtown: parking right inside the building (and lots more at the corner ramp) It might be very attractive to a substantial office tenant.
    I could see Croce going mostly residential here, next door at the Curtiss and even at the Statler. That’s where demand seems likely to continue to grow. That interior parking is even more attractive to residents than to office tenants. Just bring in your groceries and leave the car in the basement for a few days until you need it again.

  5. If the photos showed a typical floor (the one of the steel trusses is the attic), the benefit of hanging the floors would be visible. As the story mentions, much less mass was required in the structural steel in order to hang the floors from above as opposed to what would have been necessary to support them from below.
    For practical purposes, what this means is that even if your loft has some supports going through it, they’ll be slender and far less obtrusive than typical posts. Also, floor layouts can be designed with greater flexibility.

  6. There is most definitely a need for some apartments that will stay right around the $850 – $1100/month range for a 1br. I am in the process of moving home from Orlando, and was looking to live downtown. I literally could not find a 1br apartment for around that price.
    I also think there is a need for a comprehensive site which lays out all of the apartments/lofts etc in the city. It is a pain to look through each developers’ sites to see what they offer. A comprehensive list, or even map with prices etc. would be awesome for people like myself. That could be part of the reason I’m having a problem finding an apartment.

  7. What about a kick-a## gym? Or, all retail? There are so many options other than residential and office–we will need amenities to service the increasing numbers of people living/working downtown.

  8. I’ve checked that out, but for some reason to me it seemed like there were some missing from that list. For example, the 1040 Delaware ave. residential building owned by greenleaf is not on that list. I could very well be wrong though.
    I would also think the new places that are going to be leasing soon would want to be added so that people would be able to be updated when the apartments are actually available etc. Maybe added to that list with a “coming soon” designation.

  9. there are gyms downtown. BAC, Olympia Health Club, a few smaller ones (Body Blocks, TrainSmart). As to other retail: who? why should they want to be right here?
    Retail follows demographics, not the other way around. We need to build population. This is an outstanding candidate, imo.
    Why not what Croce proposes on the first floor? Park in the basement and behind the retail window dressing. That loathed amenity is out of site, out of mind.
    (Although it seems as though some see parking as so poisonous to urban health that perhaps even hidden within the confines of this building it will be decried).

  10. Perfect building for residential. Forget the office space. Put ground floor retail/restaurant space and let the building be full of apartments. Great building for apartments- very tempted to live there!

  11. Hey, Steel:
    How ’bout that? A parking garage converted to something else!
    And it’s historic, no less! Not just because it’s old, but because it was innovative. And this one was never even threatened with demo. Developer bought it, developer kept it mothballed, now this! He’s not even sacrificing other land or another building to accommodate the development . . .
    some days it’s not all bad, right?

  12. But…but…the project has an adjoining parking lot. The whole project is crap because of this.
    The people don’t need cars! They should walk or ride a bike everywhere.

  13. Hopefully with all the planned announcements its a busy summer. It will be great to see many of these smaller projects advance beyond announcement and planning stages to final product.
    3)Swan Street Properties
    4)Old Spaghetti Warehouse Buildings
    5)Building at Seneca/Elm with the Carriage House
    6)537 Main which is coming along
    7)9 Genesee
    8)Main St two doors down from Carmina Wood Morris
    9)Dinosaur Jr
    10)This property
    It would be nice to see the City announce the next project award to opening Main and Pearl St to 2 way traffic in the near term.

  14. So awesome! I’ve been anxiously awaiting something to be done with this building. This and the Curtiss will have enormous impacts. Throw in the 500 block projects and there will be some pretty solid concentration of activity in this area.

  15. I was very excited because this is one of my favorite buildings downtown, but unfortunately I don’t see this being a completed project anytime soon. As the article mention Croce is working on Statler City and the Curtiss Building. Statler City still needs tons of exterior work, still has the scaffolding on the sidewalks. Also the Curtiss building has a giant hole in the backyard of it. Once this issues are resolved maybe I will have some confidence in Croce to convert the Livery Stables.

  16. There’s a public hearing in early June on the State funding. It will be tied to further investment in the building and will help fund exterior work.

  17. This was just in the news actually.
    The state agency has set a June 4 public hearing, set for 9 a.m. in Room 1317 of Buffalo City Hall, as part of the public process needed before the agency’s directors can vote on releasing $5.3 million needed to help finance some exterior renovations and other upgrades to the 18-story, downtown Buffalo landmark.
    The project has the support from the City of Buffalo.

  18. There has been some additional work per the Statler City Facebook page. Looks as though as two Bridal Suites have been created, one each for either of the Ballrooms.
    Also back in February the Commom Council approved the following: (There was no dollar amount attached or reason of why i.e. was it from previous owners)
    • The Council approved three resolutions, two sponsored by Ellicott District Council Member Darius G. Pridgen and one sponsored by Fillmore District Council Member David A. Franczyk, waiving the penalties and interest currently owing on the following properties, pursuant to the authority granted to it by New York Real Property Tax Law Section 1182:
    • 107 Delaware Avenue

  19. There are so many cool concepts and ideas coming out right now , resudential, hotel, commercial, distillery , brewery , boutique hotels etc….. All great and these 2 buildings completed would change the whole area and create a incredible mass …. But I’ll believe it when I see it …. And one other thing we still havent accomplished …. New large scale medium to high paying jobs and or companies in the core …. The main reason a billion for buffalo idea was thought of… We are losing bank jobs, and other financials and need the possibility of real jobs soon …. Restaurant and hotel jobs are good but these are not the jobs that create market and purchasing power …

  20. Lets not forget that announcements don’t equal activity. Sometimes it means absolutely nothing. These developers should not make any announcements UNTIL full funding is in place and design work is actually beyond the rendering stage. Extended delays of months and even years after the official public announcement has become a common practice in this city. The initial excitement has often become the question “What’s happening with this project.” Months later.

  21. I’m Xcited!
    The increasing amount of development seems almost locomotive.
    It’s part of the “New Buffalo” that even Warren Buffett has added his weight to. (I love the “New Buffalo” advertisement featuring him, Zemsky, Jim Kelly, etc.). It’s a far better message than “Buffalo For Real.”

  22. It seems like The Hertz Building, The Curtiss Building and the Statler are all huge projects. They are in perfect location. This is one of the centers of downtown growth.
    However, I would say that the Hertz Building should be the last to be developed and the hardest to develop.
    The Statler and Curtiss should be the priority.
    The Curtiss is smaller more manageable project, has great lighting with big windows and a fantastic exterior. If there isn’t movement on the Curtiss then I would take that as a sign the bankers don’t believe In the hotel concept.
    The Statler conversely is a larger Curtiss. Its certainly more daunting because of shear size but the Federal Courthouse is right next door. They should be able to covert 1 floor to residential per year but they aren’t even doing that.
    These are buildings that are 1 block from Main Street Light Rail…it shouldn’t be difficult to attract carless employees/students from the Life Sciences Campus. I don’t even see that in their development plan.
    Id say their development plan is trouble and judging from the ZERO progress…Id say the bankers have come to the same conclusion. Its poor and Im sad these key buildings and downtown are tied up in limbo with a failing development plan.

  23. I am undecided how I feel about this. Why should the city give Croce $5.3 mill to repair his building? He got it for almost nothing and is making money off of it now, doesn’t he have the money to do it? And if he doesn’t, then maybe he shouldn’t be doing the project.. Although so far, he has done a great job at what he has done.

  24. There is something fishy (wrong) with this announcement. He has “The Hertz”, “The Curtiss” and the Statler.
    All 3 buildings are within 1 block of Main Street Light Rail which is perfect for carless employees/students. Yet no one downtown seems to be taking advantage of either the lightrail or that demographic.
    The Statler is certainly daunting by its sheer size so one would think that the beautiful exterior and the beautful light from the large windows would make the Curtis the perfect test for the Statler. Yet they want a boutique hotel instead of residential. It just sounds WRONG! The bankers see the flawed logic in the development plan which is why he cant get funding.
    The Statler wouldn’t be so daunting if they had a good development plan and redeveloped 1-2 floor(s) per year into residential. The Statler has the assets of great views, great prewar building and is situated right next to the Federal Courthouse and government district. It should be on the fast track to redevelopment. Obviously something is wrong that it is not.
    Now…on top of failed development plans for the Curtiss and Statler…they decide to go forward with “The Hertz” which again sounds like another bad/failed development plan.
    Something is wrong and the financiers know it because no financier is going to put money into a flawed development plan which they see as having a high risk of failure.
    Why wont they just redevelop into residential apartments?
    These days hotels come with mini-kitchens, bars, sitting area, bed and bath. There is very little difference between a hotel suite today and a 1 bedroom studio apartment or condo. Which means that it should be very easy to redevelopment and then market it as a hotel suite, rental apartment, condo or small office.
    It seems to me that “The Hertz” would be last not first. Its a beautiful brick facing façade on Huron but it does not have the large big windows with beautiful daylight that the Curtiss has nor does it have the signature location with prime city views that the Statler can offer. Logically the Hertz should be last on the list not first on the list.
    The Statler should be buzzing with activity…on all floors…and only the 1st floor banquet is being managed. Regardless whether the state kicks in for exterior façade restoration…there is enough demand for residential to fill up quite a few of those 18 floors. Absolutely appalling that it is not.
    I don’t agree with nor understand their thinking and I don’t think the financiers understand either…which is why they cant get financing.
    Its really sad that the Curtiss, Statler, Trico, AM&As are all stuck in bad development plans.

  25. Is it kewl to call it the Hertz Building even when the article identifies it as its NRHP name, the Miller Livery Stable? Was it ever really known as the “Hertz Building” or was it just an advertisement that was painted on it?

  26. Nothing new about owning large bldgs. w/ great potential and letting them sit for extended periods of time. Seems to me that in the last few years these investors have determined that the market is right at for some of these projects to be developed.

  27. Let’s hope the name Hertz Building does not stick. I’d much rather see it designated as the original owner designed it for. It is listed as the C.W. Miller Livery Stable in the National Register of Historic Places. I think the name Hertz Building is used out of laziness rather than referring to the longer appropriate name.

  28. Elmdog while I agree that the area needs good quality and high paying jobs, I think the lack of companies in the downtown core is perhaps an opportunity to really focus on residential conversions.
    If you think about what the corporate job will be in 10-15 years, it isn’t going to be 100,200,1000+ or more centralized workers in an office tower. It is going to be with the increasingly wired capabilities, people working from their residences with talent dispersed from around the country and around the world. This allows companies to forgo paying rent and utilities, while reducing risk i.e. an isolated event in Buffalo won’t impact workers getting to work bc they live where they work or it can be picked up by Joe Smith in Rochester for the day, and people working more hours unfortunately. Spaces if they are any will be occupied by multiple people on different days.
    We are probably ahead of the curve in this due to our struggles of the past. Focusing on residential, hotel and services to support the residential are probably best in the long run.

  29. Interesting. 40+ comments and BR’s armchair historians still aren’t disputing the NRHP listing of CW Miller the way they are doing with Trico 1. Both buildings are NR listed, both have seen better days, but only Trico is currently threatened by demolition.
    Perhaps screams of “it isn’t historic” are less of an assessment of historic merit than a card to be played to cheer on demolition.

  30. Also about the Livery Stables Project, doesn’t $12 million for a 100,000 sq ft property seem low. That is only $12 a square foot to totally rehab this property. I mean it may be correct, but it seems like many of the other projects that happen cost much more.

  31. It depends. Is he making enough profit from the statler now to cover millions in exterior fixes? He might be, but I suspect he’s not. The place looks like crap on the outside and needs major rehab, but in the end it’s not an investment that tangibly increases business, in the way a few floors of apartments might.
    It does seem he’s bitten off more than he could handle with these three faded buildings. Maybe he’s not the right one to develop them fully. The good news here is that he’s partnered up with a development and architectural company to try and find a viable solution and get the buildings online.
    Buffalo’s older building stock is a blessing and a curse. They look terrible blighted, but are awesome redone. The unfortunate truth is that they generally need some sort of assistance to make economically feasible, whether its tax forgiveness or a flat out gift. Do some developers work the public coffers to pad their profits? Probably. But more often than not, they’re asking for funds so that they can make the numbers work and beautify the city of buffalo. There’s no easy answer to reverse buffalo’s decline, sans massive corporations moving in and raising the median wage.
    One of my favorite commenters, whatever, is against public handouts and I respect that. But in this chicken and egg situation, sans more jobs downtown, these buildings sometimes need help.

  32. Funny thing is, that huge list is a little out of date. Several good projects aren’t listed (houk, fws, horsefeathers and more), and several in proposed status have been uc for months. I just wish buffalo city tower was still on the list.

  33. Issa’s building? That woulda been awesome. Where was that supposed to be? Behind the Dept. of Justice building? Talk about transformative. It was a pretty good looking building in renderings, too.

  34. Croce has previously rehabbed no fewer than half a dozen buildings on Franklin. He’s opened the Statler again. He has long had plans for the Curtiss, but I can understand the Statler delaying his focus on that. This is the first time any solid plans have been announced for this property, to the best of my knowledge.
    I object to the sensibility that Croce must somehow redeem himself because he hasn’t rehabbed all of his property as swiftly as some desire. He doesn’t owe us. Even now, prior to rehab, this building looks no worse than it has looked for fifty years.
    He’s probably paid more in property taxes over the last decade than all the regular readers of this blog combined, not to mention employed many dozens more people than you or me. Croce doesn’t ‘owe’ us anything. But if he succeeds in implementing his plan, and I have faith that he will, then we will owe him a bit of gratitude for making it happen.

  35. you’re missing a zero.
    $12m / 1,000,000sq.ft = $12/sq.ft.; but this building isn’t a million square feet. It’s a tenth that size.
    $12m / 100,000sq.ft. = $120/sq.ft.
    In today’s dollars, that’s not a bad rehab price.

  36. Yep it was a great concept, not just a plain glass box. Right behind the new courthouse on Elmwood. Why oh why do people who propose big big things for buffalo end up in jail? (Rhetorical Lol.)

  37. I’m not sure anyone says Croce “owes” us anything.
    You seem to be looking at these properties as business transactions by a private developer.
    Fine, he can buy what he wants and sit on them.
    But….like Paladino’s properties that languish for years, Croce’s empty buildings detract from the City and all the great revitalization that is going on.
    I get the sense these guys buy up buildings cheap without any intention but to sit on them until the market is right, or until they can figure out how to make a buck.
    That may be good business, but it’s not good for the city.
    “Looking no worse” just isn’t good enough anymore. Get out of the way and let others with more resources do something.

  38. re: ” . . . these guys buy these buildings cheap without any intention but to sit on them . . . it’s not good for the city.”
    A) He’s already reopened the Statler.
    B) Croce has rehabbed Coliseum (now Darcy McGee’s), Chop House (one of the most popular restaurants in town), whatever Bambino’s is these days, Laughlin’s, and at least three other buildings in that single block. And you accuse him of making his money on the coat tails of others? Others are doing all the heavy lifting?
    Are you kidding? He was there long before almost all the others. He was open for business when the Hampton was still the Jackson, before the Root building rehab, before Spot, long before Starbucks. There was still that porn shop next to the Barrel House, which was next to the muffler shop (which became Starbucks).
    Croce is one of the biggest reasons Chippewa succeeded. He didn’t piggy back on Franklin: he pretty much redid Franklin himself, between Chippewa and Tupper.
    These buildings (Curtiss and Miller Livery) are directly in his path of progress. That’s why he bought them (I did not broker any of his deals, fwiw). He’s not buying in somebody else’s path of progress. All of these properties are in close proximity to the ones he’s already done. He’s building on his own success, not trading in someone else’s.
    C) Any other developer was welcome to buy any of these deals before Croce did. Most lingered on the market for a long while. There are still deals like that around. There are cheap buildings downtown. Holding on while you put together a realistic plan that has a hope of repaying the note is a realistic strategy.
    It’s an expensive strategy, to be sure, buying an empty building. It’s not cheap to keep paying taxes and putting in fixes on buildings producing no income. There’s real cost in that. As soon as something can make financial sense, it’s a joy to improve it. But until it makes financial sense, it’s impossible to get the funding required. That’s the biggest problem.
    You know what would be worse for Buffalo than projects having to prove themselves financially prior to funding? Embarking on lots of projects that don’t make financial sense. That would end up worse for us.

  39. I also hope it doesn’t become known as the “Hertz” building, just because it has that name painted on it. If we followed that logic, Buffalo would end up with a lot of “ATAK” buildings — and plenty of “HERT” & “bcuz” buildings.

  40. I just think the Statler and the Curtiss are far easier and far higher priority than The Hertz.
    Id say the Trico and AM&As are far higher priorities too!
    I think most major preWWII buildings downtown should be targeted for residential conversion: Liberty, Buffalo Savings, Brisbane, Rand, Curtiss, AM&As, Statler, Trico, Hyatt, Olympic Tower (which was the YMCA and had a hotel that was demolished), etc.
    I actually think that downtown could absorb all that new residential. Imagine what it could do for attacting businesses to downtown.

  41. The BNE produced those map lists in January of this year. They are only for Downtown and include the BNMC and the Larkin District. That’s why Houk in North Buffalo or Horsefeathers on the Westside aren’t on them. These are actually produced every year by the Buffalo Niagara Enterprise starting about 3 years ago. They are useful for the information they contain and helpful for specificity for discussions on BRO.

  42. How would the conversion of the pre-WWII Buffalo Savings Bank building be even remotely feasible? You’ve been babbling about this a lot in previous posts. It’s a two-story beautiful building that’s presently being used as its original use (a banking floor). What are you proposing? That the incredible interior be chopped up into apartments and ruined?
    The Rand Building is presently very well leased. I don’t believe the Liberty Bldg is that overly empty. The Hyatt is presently functioning as a hotel.
    Your suggestions make absolutely no sense. Please enlighten me.

  43. Tim – thanks & back at ya.
    But yeah, I’d say privately owned buildings regardless of age or city/burbs locations shouldn’t get govt funding like grants or so-called tax credits.
    They should sink or swim using the variety of private sector $ possible –
    for-profit companies/individuals, non-profit orgs or foundations, philanthropist donors, smaller donors like via Kickstarter/etc.
    I’d trust that stuff to fill the gap to the extent people decide is deserved.
    Probably mine is a minority view, but at least in part Cuomo slightly agreed about not expanding govt funding when he vetoed the spending increase wanted by Grisanti & many on BR.
    The City has been at least restrained although it goofs at times like giving public $ to build privately owned new residential at the Livery instead of spending it on publicly owned infrastructure like streets, sidewalks, parks, etc.
    On another note, about national historic registry comparisons to Trico (58 comments in, lol) –
    I haven’t noticed BR comments dispute or criticize that designation for this Miller stable or for Trico, so don’t see any difference.
    If anyone has, I missed it or forgot.
    I did notice in a recent thread where pampinform sensibly noted that federal worker decisions to add Trico (or any building) into that registry doesn’t necessarily represent ‘the public’ deciding a building is so historic that demolition shouldn’t be allowed.
    The demo issue seems very different than disputing Trico being added to the register.
    Arguably some ‘history’ happens in all buildings. It’s okay that federal decision makers are free to judge yes/no for any building using their registry guidelines. They know it won’t impede what any owner wants to do with a building including demo if/when desired.
    That’s unlike the City’s landmark law which adds some extra steps for allowing demo when the Common Council designates that – which it decided against for Trico.

  44. Tim> “One of my favorite commenters, whatever, is against public handouts and I respect that.”
    I think that would be a respectable viewpoint if applied consistently, though I would strongly disagree with it.
    However, it is difficult to respect the views of the anti-handout element on this site (whatever and others) due their hypocritical stance on subsidies. They’ll badmouth the role of the public sector on things like reusing old buildings and rail transit then turn around and cheer subsidies used for sprawl and car culture. The anti-handout stance is just an empty stand to argue against things that, for unknown reasons, otherwise do not meet with their approval.
    IMO, a more respectable argument would to make genuine arguments without resorting to ruses like selectively applied handout outrage. Something like saying old buildings don’t jibe with their subjective values of aesthetics would be a poor argument but at least it would be a respectable one.

  45. Whatever> …’the public’ deciding a building is so historic that demolition shouldn’t be allowed. ”
    Actually, Pamp did a whatever style beat-down of a similar strawman in response to a much different point I made that the public had agreed upon the fact that Trico is of historic significance. You can debate whether or not historic structures are worthy of preservation but arguing that a National Register listed building is not historic is like trying to argue that water is not wet.
    And yes, the very public federal government did rule that Trico is of historic significance. At any point during their review, BR’s armchair historians had every opportunity to put forth a credible argument to the contrary. They either chose not to or did and were then laughed out of the room.
    Based on the inconsistency in the treatment of Trico vs the CW Livery (and the other NR properties recently covered on this site) I think the dispute over historic significance is just another ruse to rationalize the otherwise irrational view of uncompromising pro-demo absolutism. As I noted in my earlier comment in this thread, the element here who feels they are suddenly the authority for determining historic significance, has not disputed the NR designation for of historic properties not under the threat of demolition.
    That leads me to believe the not-historic card is just one of several the pro-demo element plays to justify their position (along with the subsidy card, property rights card, 70-30 card, crony card etc). It would be nice if people would just be honest with their biases and leanings instead of selectively applying empty talking points to create a false air of objectivity.

  46. Also, I think it is funny that you’re now burying your responses to my comments in replies to comments of others. You’re not trying to dodge criticism are you?

  47. I think it depends on the office tenant. If it goes as an office building it will be completed relatively fast to keep the tenant happy.
    If that falls through and it goes residential it might take longer. I don’t thin other unfinished projects have as much a bearing than you think. This project with be completed before the Statler.

  48. Why higher priority?
    Those building are not going anywhere.
    And with smaller projects like this one, they will be able to fund the larger projects.
    Since they might have found a tenant, this build should be prioritized. Tenants don’t come along everyday and they have plenty of options both downtown and in the suburbs.

  49. If you follow him on here he’s very consistent and objective in his views. I dont recall him ever ‘cheering subsidies for sprawl and car culture.’ Just as an example, I would prefer the federal government stay out if it (I’m for a flat income tax with no exemptions or deductions, which theoretically would rid the country of favoritism and corruption, as far as influencing the tax code goes, and would vastly simplify the 70,000 page code ). Let the states micromanage and give tax benefits as they wish. In the case of buffalo I guess I’m the inconsistent one here, as I want buffalo to use what’s available to it, even though principally I might be against it (paladino, anyone?)
    Personally, whether trico is ‘historic’ or not is irrelevant to me, though I guess it means something for legal purposes. All I see is a solid building that will cost the public millions to demolish, when that money could be put towards creating another Bethune or Larkin success out of it. If trico can’t feasibly be redone today, fine. It’s solid concrete, let’s seal it up and save it for another day.

  50. Tim> “I dont recall him ever ‘cheering subsidies for sprawl and car culture.'”
    He is very subtle in his sprawl subsidy cheering. Rather than directly praising the government’s role in sprawl development, He’ll re-frame the issue around different talking points. These include: expanded housing choices, pointing out that sprawl projects represent a small fraction of the budget, claims (unfounded) that sprawl patrons pay for their own public expenses, and a claim that people would leave the area if sprawl subsidies were somehow stopped.
    All of which are points, which if genuine, would be applied to public sector involvement in urban development. To the contrary though, whatever instead attacks these projects on a basis of subsidy “purity,” which is suspiciously absent from his arguments in favor of sprawl. He’ll also add some dramatic irascible language in his anti-urban rants such as calling developers “cronys” and calling the subsidies “handouts.” That non-objective spin is also absent from his arguments in favor of subsidized sprawl.
    When I’ve confronted him on this contradictory treatment of both living options, he’ll engage in an elaborate (and very amusing) deflect and spin routine in a frantic attempt to distract anyone reading from said contradiction. Ralph Nader’s name will get mentioned, as will the story about how Barney Frank and the Democrats killed the housing market.
    All of which is behavior that contradicts his boasting of being objective or “fair minded.”

  51. I am not sure you seem to get what I am arguing, because you certainly seem to be the one who’s not addressing the points I have brought up. I have said I think that just because it fulfilled the criteria to be put on the historic register doesn’t mean that there is agreement that it actually is historic. I also pointed out that the government does things that are unpopular in some quarters, for example, funding highways out to the suburbs. I’m asking you this question: would you say that there is public agreement that that is the right thing to do? There certainly isn’t on BRO, much like there wasn’t with Trico. So how and why is that different?
    I certainly am not pro or anti- demo in regards to Trico. If they could save it, I would think that would be great. But if they have other plans for the site that reflect their mission, I would support that. I bet that there are a lot of posters on here who feel similarly.

  52. Pamp> “I have said I think that just because it fulfilled the criteria to be put on the historic register doesn’t mean that there is agreement that it actually is historic.”
    And I have said that those arguing that a NR listed building isn’t historic are making a similar argument to trying to claim that water is not wet.
    With all due respect to you and the other demo clamoring commenters on BR, I’ll take the views of the publicly accountable Department of Interior and the research based nomination over the views anonymous armchair-historian internet commenters.
    Especially considering that their attacks on the DI’s credibility are focused solely on the demo threatened Trico 1 and not the several other NR listed written about recently. Sounds like you guys’ recent interest in the assessment of a building’s historic significance is little more than a pro-demo ruse.
    And again, those who claim to advocate personal responsibility should appreciate this, all of you disputing Trico’s historic significance had ample opportunity to object while the DI was considering the NR nomination. If you don’t like the outcome of publicly sanctioned historic significance, perhaps you should have been more proactive.

  53. Pamp> “I’m asking you this question: would you say that there is public agreement that that is the right thing to do? ”
    All I have been doing is countering the demolitionist argument of “TEAR TRICO DOWN BECAUSE IT ISN’T HISTORIC” by pointing out that the public officially designated it as historic.
    Whether or not demolition is the right thing to do is a different argument.

  54. Spock: “Whether or not demolition is the right thing to do is a different argument.”
    Roger that.
    Demolition of historic structures is allowed by regulations. If a structure is designated historic, that does not mean that it is protected from demolition. If a historic structure is to be demolished then photographic history, written history, preservation of items from the building, etc., are called for. The idea is to preserve information regarding the building, but not necessarily the structure itself.
    As I have said before, I echo Panpiniform’s position: Trico can stay and be rehabbed or it can be demolished for some other development as far as I’m concerned. Either one is a win in my book.

  55. “burying your responses … trying to dodge criticism …?”
    aww, someone’s actually seriously complaining that a few sentences of mine which probably no reader except him cares about weren’t put exactly where he’d prefer them?
    Okay – to ease your angst, here’s a reply you don’t have to share with anyone else!
    If anyone else cared what my reaction would be to a non-issue red herring about the national register, they’d see it no matter where I put it – just like you easily did.
    btw – there’s no ‘dodging criticism’ on forums like this.
    You’re always free to reply to anyone with criticism as much as you want, and so often to twist-distort-mischaracterize those with whom you disagree. Yay for freedom 🙂
    I don’t favor so-called sprawl subsidies or car culture subsidies – I question whether those subsidies exist in WNY considering the taxpayer revenue from sprawlers & drivers, the state aid numbers to dense Buffalo, all as I’ve said when sprawl is a topic (which it isn’t in this thread).
    Even if it ever is shown to exist, the logical remedy would hypothetically be to end it, not to justify giving even more public $ to private owners of selected buildings.
    Big difference between favoring something vs. questioning its existence in WNY or saying it’s irrelevant to the dumbness of govts handing out public $ to selected private businesses.
    If anyone wants to debate me on those, they’ll have to wait at least as long as until the next post on those topics.
    Meanwhile, anyone who wants to make off topic distortions is of course as always free to do it anywhere, anytime!

  56. It just seemed strange that you’d address what I said without mentioning me or replying to my comment. Seems sneaky but maybe it was just an oversight (shrug).
    Whatever> ” I don’t favor so-called sprawl subsidies or car culture subsidies – I question whether those subsidies exist in WNY”
    You can pretend all you like, but is seems delusional to claim that the sprawl driving roads, public utilities, state and county provided police service,etc. are somehow not delivered at a cost to to the taxpayer when done so in a part of town more aligned with your values.
    What in the world does aid to Buffalo have to do with county, state, and federal spending on sprawl?
    Tim, this is the type of inconsistency from whatever that I mentioned in my reply o you earlier: talking up urban subsidies while making wild, delusional claims that they don’t exist in the part of town he likes. Far from “consistent and objective.”

  57. Bini> “If a historic structure is to be demolished then photographic history, written history, preservation of items from the building, etc., are called for.”
    Bini, that is just one example of mitigating loss of a NR listed building to comply with Section 106 and SEQR. There’s no guarantee that would be the outcome in this case, especially considering how avoidable the loss of Trico would be.

Leave a Reply