Buffalorising has been redesigned.

The term "Functionally obsolete " is one of those meaningless phrases that catch hold and are soon overused until they become self fulfilling. Call the building functionally obsolete enough times and people will begin to believe it is true. Sounds a lot like its twin sister phrase " We need shovel ready sites" IN buffalo you could stand in the center of a 6 acre parking lot downtown and make people believe that there are not enough vacant parcels for new buildings.

In the case of this building Buffalo has exactly what it needs most. A building that can accommodate small new companies that need low cast rent and easy access to the most creative people. More than anything Buffalo needs to start growing its own companies and this building is the kind of space those young companies need. IT IS NOT FUNCTIONALY OBSOLETE. That is old Buffalo speak.

There is no such thing a "free parking." Somewhere within the rent structure at the Larkin Building (and any other development with "free parking") those costs are being passed on to the tenant.

Not to mention the cost of surface parking on the surrounding community fabric.

True STEEL. But there are not enough "small companies" that want to come here or that can be grown here; at least not yet. Further, there is something to be said about the small square footage on each of the 21 floors. Increasingly, companies want large "plates" to keep operations streamlined and enhance profitability which the Tishman does not provide. So in that sense I guess there is a case for this building being functionally obsolete. The Tishman building is looking for a very select clientele that Buffalo, along with many other cities, is not attracting or growing at the moment. Its too bad NFG couldn't have been encouraged to remain downtown. And not to be antagonistic to the situation, what's going on in that block of the city that would encourage tenants to want to locate there? The Courtyard Mall across the street is a glaring example of the state of Limbo that this area of town is in. Toss in Paladino's new Court Street building with much larger and more efficient spatial arrangements and you've got an uphill battle with the Tishman. Time will tell. In the meantime if there are 15 or 20 small companies looking for space then let's get them in there. I predict, unfortunately, the Tishman will be mostly empty for quite a spell.

Not only does this building not offer "free parking" but it also does not offer many parking options whatsoever. Nothing attached, and nothing just a block or so away. If you've ever worked downtown, then you might be able to appreciate the agony of walking 3 or 4 cross-town blocks during January or February. This is not NYC or other larger, coastal cities where the temps are moderated by the ocean. It is downright uncivilized for a few months downtown, and that's why people want underground, or at least attached, or even nearby, parking facilities. It seems like a small thing, but only until you've done the walk I described in a skirt and heels.

People will walk the same distance from portions of a suburban office park parking lot but since it is contained on the same property as the building they think that the parking is closer. Look at satellite images of the massive parking areas that serve suburban office complexes and then compare how many city block you are actually walking.

why not give an unbelievably low rent figure just to get tenants in there and bring some life to the building and then charge accordingly after 1 year or so. even a ridiculous number like $500 per month for 2,000 sf would bring vitality to a dead strcuture! it beats losing money year after year. I hope this isnt another one of those tax write off buildings like so many other buildings owned by NYC owners...they use Buffalo property as write offs against their appreciating properties in NYC...ooohhhh

I know this isn't exactly a suggestion box. But would it be out of the question for the owner to set up a valet service for commercial buildings with no parking? I would think that such a service would be a very attractive feature, so much so that the cost could be built into the rent. JayP makes an excellent point in regards to very cheap initial rent to fill the building at first. I own a number of residential apartments in college areas and while I know the considerations and business dynamics may be very different from a commercial property, I have always found it to be good economics and business to have a new property rented immediately at lower rates, than to let it sit vacant until the new school year rental season begins. There are many reasons I find this to be true. Once again, I know the comparison may have many different aspects and dynamics, but when you are a property owner, you find creative, often customer services oriented ways to make a profit or at least break even. If the Tishman remains a loss, you almost have to assume two unfortunate things. Either the loss serves a larger business purpose to the owner (bad for the city) or the owner is a bad businessman with a little money that just decided to dabble in real estate (even worse for the city). That's my .02 for what it's worth. Hopefully I'm mistaken and the owner figures out a way to make it work for him and ultimately the city. I still think the valet option would be worth looking into.

The winds downtown are more brutal than in many of the suburbs, because it's on the lakeshore.

I thought there was talk of turning this builiding into residential units?

Its the owner!

Whoever said you lower the rents until the building fills up is right on the money!

Whoever said offer a valet service if parking is the problem, is a real problem solver and your right on the money too!

Lower the rents in Main Place Mall and the Tishman until its cheaper to do business in Buffalo than the burbs and the buildings will fill up.

There are always small companies looking for small spaces....and there is always the option of apartments (look all all those windows).

AM&A, Main Place Mall, Dulski, Tishman...this putrid and rotting sore that threatens all the new construction and good things happening downtown. We have to find ways to support or oppose these landlords/owners into investing in their properties and putting tenants in them.

I find it hard to believe that the floor plates are not big enough for small legal or accounting firms. Perhaps it would even be a good building for some doctor or dental offices. But obsolete, certainly not.

Dak, Chicago and Toronto have booming downtowns, last I checked. Those cities are both on lakefront and have crappy winter weather like Buffalo. That doesn't seem to stop people from walking the streets.

Steel had a great point in saying that walking distance is very psychological.

gabe,

So you can name a couple of exceptions. Good for you. It doesn't diminish the point I was making. You're comparing apples to oranges though. Buffalo is nothing like Chicago and Toronto. If we had half as many people downtown, or subway tunnels whose tunnels ventilate heat, and open shops and storefronts, and busses and trains, then maybe you could make the comparison. But we don't, and so my argument stands. I would not walk from a parking garage on Ellicott Street or on Niagara Square in February to the Tishman Building, and apparently there are a lot of people who feel the same--hence, the building's vacancy rate. There's no need to move your company into such a building here in Buffalo, thus subjecting your employees to such misery, when we have so many other options. Toronto and Chicago do not have as much empty space as we do, nor so many alternatives.

I thought is was vacant because the government gave NFG money to move to Amherst

I'm shocked the building is not filled - who needs heat anyways? This is Buffalo, not somewhere cold.

I see the same problems in the Statler Towers - a building bought cheap, and little money/rennovations done to the office space (yes, the Park Lane did a nice job in the ballroom). I was in the Statler building recently for a meeting, and only one of the elevators were functioning. There are stains on the floor, peeling paint...no company - big, small, startup, old - wants to bring clients into such poor professional surroundings.

I know many people argue that downtown has plenty of available office space that should be rented before considering new "shovel-ready" sites. However, companies flock to new offices with appealing accomodations. The Larkin's success is a prime example. Look at how much $$ the Niagara Center sold for. Why do you think the owner of the Liberty Building/Main Place Tower is fighting the proposed new building next door to him?

Mr. Joe suburb is willing to pay higher rent to work in shiny new office parks located close to his home and the golf course, as oppossed to saving a few bucks on cheap, outdated space that needs a face-lift. I doubt you can convince many suburban businesses to move downtown unless you can offer them similar new/convenient options. Maybe there are deals in the works - but I believe that unless developers are willing to spend money to rennovate empty downtown office space like the Tishman and market them aggressively, they'll remain vacant. There is no cheap, short-cut way to attract NEW tenants.

Steel, cheap rent is helpful to young local companies, but they need heat, parking options and appealing conditions if they're going to "grow".

The fact that the building does not have heat does not mean it is functionally obsolete. It just means the owner is not providing basic services, By the way there is parking in at least two directions of this building in less than a one block distance. There is metro rail and at least 10 bus lines that stop at its front door.

Is this building being sat on and kept empty as a TAX CREDIT by yet another NYC owner, to offset his profitable real estate in other areas?

I think Shopitall nailed this one on the head. The owner is just sitting on it, not looking at putting any money into the building. And the building is not obsolete, it is just that too many people think that because it was once an office tower, that is the only reuse for it. In the real world you could have small business incubator space on the first couple floors, and residential space above making this a likely, very profitable building if done correctly. We just happen to have gotten the short end of the stick once again with the owners... :(

Every time i read a post like this it drives me crazy! People...a dense urban core should not cater exclusively to the automobile. We have functioning park and rides, an extensive bus system, and a freakin subway. Change the perception about what it means to work in a city and "convinent parking" is not that much of an issue. these ideas only lead to more urban fabric demolished to make way for parking.
Also, there are many buildings that are in the same situation as this, ie the one across the street, the electric building, the crapler towers, the ellicott square building!
These properties should lure small professional organizations and not for profits that want to take advantage of a center city location. Maybe a couple business incubators. Floor plate size then could be an assett rather than a dissadvantage. But the absentee land lord epidemic will only continue to suck the life out of our downtown.

Maybe Brown and Wannamaker should take a look at how the city taxes parking lots....

and how the city taxes urban redevelopment. Im really tired of all this BMHA, Urban Renewal and HUD money going for trailer parks and patronage.....whats wrong with sending some money towards AM&As, Tishman, Dulski, Main Place Mall, Liberty Building, Seneca Industrial Center, Central Terminal Tower & Baggage Building and other older buildings that need a few bucks to upgrade heating, air conditioning, communications and electricals, insulation (asbestos remediation), windows, etc.

We need to be supporting these building upgrades as much as we are supporting new construction.

and I will go one step further, we need to be supporting rebuilding our water and sewer lines, extending our light rail, as well as our road projects! These are the things that make a community livable and workable!

The last thing we need is another (carpetbagger) person from NYC or elsewhere coming here to suck the money from our city!

Small floor plans hurting business is rediculus to me. I have worked in a downtown setting with small floor plans in Hartford CT. I know work in a suburban office building shaped in a U. I'll tell you it was just as fast to ride an elevator up or down as it is to walk all the way around a sprawling 2 story building. Its a cop out. Its a convience for those who live in the suburbs.

From William Whyte "City: Rediscovering the Center" A study of 38 companies that moved out of NYC 31 moved within 8 miles of the CEO's home.

Buffalo has been abandoned by the wealth in WNY thats why you have seen Amherst grow. Funny thing about that study.

Of those 38 Co. that left NYC thier stock appreciated less than have that of 38 randomly choosen companies still operating in the city limits. Makes you wonder.

I used to work in the Ellicott Square Building and A building on Delaware & Chippawa across from the old National Gypsum Building.

And I used to park in the lots by the old Aud and State office building (I think the new Pilol Field - sorry, I refuse to use the new name - was built on one of them, until I took to the bus from Delaware & Sheridan area.

I did this during the Blizzard of '77!

Did this for a few years - sure it was cold - but I had no problem walking - got smart and became a bus commuter - could nap or read the paper on the way.

And when it was nice - it was a real treat!

The parking issue is a non-starter issue as far as I'm concerned, especially with the subway/rail now.

I think the only problem with this fairly modern building is the OWNERS lack of gumption and imagination. SImply put, the reason it's empty has NOTHING to do with the "functionality" of the building - it is simply because THE OWNER WANTS IT THAT WAY - for whatever reason.

Of course, they would NEVER consider combining the floor plate with the wonderful art-deco building right adjacent (forgot what it is now called) to it to create a larger floor plate and viable property! Naw - that would involve too much imagination!

Wait a minute folks. Why's everyone so ready to bash the owner on this one? I for one think it's generally a good thing that people from outside Buffalo are ready to invest their money here and that we should at least give them the benefit of the doubt. What happened to the City of Good Neighbors?

The current owner has had this building barely 6 months I think. How long have other properties owned by "native" Buffalo investors been substantially vacant? I could show you some a stone's through from the Tishman. Are there outstanding code violations at the Tishman affecting the exterior of the building? No. Graffiti, broken windows, facade falling off? No.

Let's take a step back. Someone was willing to invest in a building none of Buffalo's insider developers would touch and now he's having a hard time finding a tenant for a building that, urbanist utopian dreaming aside, is unappealing to many because of parking issues and other current notions of what a good building ought to be.

Constructive criticism and arguing over how cold and windy it is in Buffalo is all very well, but let's not condemn this guy on the basis of what some broker gossip shared with WCP.

Sorry to go on, but here's an owner who cares enough about his property to fly up from NYC to meet with prospective tenants and that's a bad thing? There are buildings downtown owned by both in-town and out-of-town developers with parts literally falling off them, missing windows, vacant storefronts, no efforts being made to lease them, etc. Buffalo has been burned by all kinds of developers, let's judge people by what they do, not where they're from. And let's not expect miracles ovenight.

If walking to to work or to get to a building in cold weather is such a issue, I am suprised that Chicago, St Paul, Toronto or other such cities are so vibrant, and I beg to differ, have you ever walked in Manhatten on a cold windy day in January Dak? This parking thing is so out of control, cities are and always have been a place where walking is the norm...

Actually, yes, I spent 13 years living in NYC so I am very familiar with how cold and windy NYC can get on rare occasions. All I'm asying is that there are an awful lot of people who insist that downtown does not need convenient parking. But many of those people are the same ones who drive every day to work, and also complain about needing to circle the block repeatedly or shell out $10 for parking at an event on weekends. Hypocrites.

Like I said, it's not fair to compare Buffalo to Chicago, St Paul, Toronto or any other thriving downtowns, because it makes no sense. In a small city and in a market with tons of vacant office space, there is no reason to settle for something with fewer modern amenities, such as parking, when there are plenty of options that include it. Apples and oranges.

I too believe that the small floorplate argument is generally BS and has taken on a life of its own. I've worked in an office with a large floorplate and I think they are less efficient. The one's I've seen tend to be open space full of similar cubicals, which make it difficult to locate different departments (as opposed to simply telling someone that department X is on the 5th floor).

Contrary to Bman's assertions, there are enough small local companies. North Forest Office Providers has been successful in wooing them with nice flexible space. The Tishman Building could do that too provided money was spent upgrading the space.

I think Dak and others have hit the nail on the head on the failure of Tishman. Even though it has been supposedly remodeled by National Fuel, it has been considered Class B space. When you spend a large portion of your time at work, why should the owner of a small company want substandard space when you can go to a brand new suburban office park full of amenities? I think the problem lies more with building owners not investing in their properties than the availability of adjacent parking. The Larkin at Exchange Building shows that people will move into the city for nice space and great amenities (cafeteria, convenience store, gym, childcare). I think parking is a plus but not the end all be all.

I can't wait for the Trico Building to come out of the Erie PA developer's estate. That is one building that could quickly duplicate the feats of The Larkin at Exchange Building if someone was willing to invest money. Its location between downtown and the medical campus and easy access to the 190 and 33 would seem to make it a no brainer. I hope that Howard Zemsky and Cityview Properties purchase and develop it.

As a commercial real estate agent who happens to know quite a bit about this property, this building is in fact obsolete. The buildings floor plates of about 8,000 square feet, the way they are laid out, cannot be demised accordingly to accommodate smaller users. It's the whole floor or nothing.

Parking is a huge issue. The owner has no chance of getting parking in the lot next to the library. Ciminelli Development owns that lot and the Lafayette Court building directly behind the Tishman building. They will never give that up to competition. The Adams ramp, Main Place ramp and the ramp on Court and Pearl (I don't remember the name), are at or very near capacity. You will easily need over 150 parking spaces to cover just half that building.

To add to it, all the utilities are on one meter and the heat is not zoned. The costs to break the utilities up so the tenants can pay their share are enormous and therefore impossible. So in order to turn on the heat, the whole building will need to be heated. So a 2,000 square foot user would require the owner to heat the entire building at 68 degrees. That is why the sole tenant has space heaters. How would you like to pay that heating bill?

Furthermore, apartments will never be built in that building due to parking. How would you like to bring groceries up to the 20th floor after you just walked from the 8th floor of the parking ramp, two blocks away in the winter with the wind blowing 30 mph between buildings, then up the elevator to your floor. Sounds like fun to me!

The costs of running that building require a minimum of 10 floors being occupied at $10 per square foot. The average price per square foot for a similar building downtown is $14 per square foot. The rent is already drastically reduced from its competition. This building will never work.

Also, don't compare this building with AM&A's or Main Place. Ownership of both those buildings are the sole reason that they are in the situation that they are. Taylor turned down six offers, one of $5 million, and Hotung hasn't got a clue on how to run a building. His father gave him the building to get him out of his hair.

The small plate argument is valid if there are no businesses interested in small plates! As for the weather in Chicago and other cold cities: Chicago is by far the coldest city I have ever walked in. I had interviews there in January and I have never felt anything like it in Buffalo or many of the other cities I've lived in nor in my life. and let me tell you that those buildings on Michigan avenue and those subway portals can emit all the heat and energy they want but there is nothing that will ameliorate the cold in that town in the winter yet the streets are flooded with people and therein lies the answer.

First, let me ask, isn't the parking lot that CK refers to and the Lafayette Court Building owned by Ciminelli Real Estate as opposed to Ciminelli Development? And secondly, even though the Ciminelli companies are different, why did Ciminelli Development decide to back out of buying the Tishman with, I assume, they being the only potential owner that would have a chance at working out an arrangement for parking at that lot. I recall from stories about the purchase that Ciminelli Development was going to take up 3 floors in the building. Was that correct?

John, Ciminell Development and Ciminelli Real Estate are part of the same company. Ciminelli Real Estate is the new brokerage arm of the development company.

As for the sale, LP Ciminelli Construction was going to buy the building and is a different company than the brokerage and development company. Both the construction and the development are owned by brothers. Ciminelli Development (the real estate arm was not yet around) was going to manage and lease the remaining part of the building.

LP Ciminelli backed out of the deal and yes, LP Ciminelli would have had the best chance to get parking in that lot, but the deal still did not go through.

Thank you CK for the information that you've provided. I'd still like to know why LP Ciminelli Construction backed away from purchasing the building and whether their reasons are the reasons you sited. Given the drawbacks that you mentioned, is there any reasonable and economically sensable reuse for the Tishman?

John, LP Ciminelli backed out because of the maintenance costs, including the ground lease, and the utility costs. To carry the property is a huge burden to the owner. You need deep pockets and plenty of patience to do it.

As far as reuse, it would take a very creative person to reuse the property other than office. Personally, I don't see any other option. As I said before, apartments are virtually impossible. Many developers and investors from Buffalo and abroad have gone through and found the very same to be true.

Paladino floated a proposal to convert a significant portion of the building to residential and create parking at the Courtyard Mall site he owns across Main Street- the two to be linked via a skybridge. He reportedly never submitted a purchase offer however.