urbanesque

3 ratings1 2 3 4 5

Jan 29th, 09:32

This is good news, but I wish that this was a consistent message for all developers and speculators in Buffalo. There is disparity in the execution of the law, with some property owners being allowed to let properties decay to the point of ruin and others being cited and given deadline for redevelopment. I am happy for the ultimatum and I hope that something constructive is done with the AM&As building. I just hope that Judge Nowak issues the same type of deadline for the other building owners throughout the city.

Martin

0 ratings1 2 3 4 5

Jan 29th, 09:33

At a measly 1,500 fine per violation I am sure New Horizons is shaking in their boots...

NBJOHN

0 ratings1 2 3 4 5

Jan 29th, 09:36

oooooooh....... fines Finally playing hardball after 13 years

Tax free zone may help retail DT, but it will take another 13 years for our state geniuses’ (sarcasm) to find a way to get it done.

wizardofza

3 ratings1 2 3 4 5

Jan 29th, 09:42

New show on HGTV: "Flip this monstrosity"

Hoss

0 ratings1 2 3 4 5

Jan 29th, 09:59

The fine is $1500 per violation, per day. That will add up quick. Combined, that's over $50 grand a week for the five violations cited.

Spaulding97

0 ratings1 2 3 4 5

Jan 29th, 10:35

______ or get off the pot. Its about time the city cracks down, they should have been doing this since day one for all properties. Hopefully New Horizons can pull this off.

Biniszkiewicz

0 ratings1 2 3 4 5

Jan 29th, 10:39

Those fines can theoretically acrue from the date of violation. If the owner admitted the violations existed when cited but agreed to correct the violations as part of a plea to get the case discharged, then the fines could acrue from the date they were first cited. $52,500/wk. ($1500/day x 5 violations x 7 days/wk) could, theoretically, be imposed as a fine from the date of the original violation.

More likely Nowak might impose some more reasonable fine and force the owners to actively pursue a sale of the site with increasingly stiff penalties in the event the owners don't try hard enough to get it into other hands.

JohnnyWalker

2 ratings1 2 3 4 5

Jan 29th, 10:43

The main street facade is probably the second most uninspiring major building on main, superceeded on the UGLY list only by main place mall . Cold, austere, and uninteresting. That being said at least Save the warehouses on Washington.

MeliQ

0 ratings1 2 3 4 5

Jan 29th, 11:22

I'm not involved in politics so I can't pretend to know what I'm talking about but why has it taken so long for the lawmakers in Buffalo to put together some sort of protocol regarding building ownership and standards? Something should have been put in place right after Richard Taylor closed his store. We could have avoided the flooded basement situation and crumbling outer facade, which could have made the building more attractive to prospective buyers sooner. With the apt./ condo boom, maybe this one could have been picked up sooner and be currently utilized. The public keeps writing, blogging, speaking out, and contacting these gov. reps but still nothing is being done by the policy makers--WHy, WHY, WHY?

BROKEEPSBLOCKINGME

2 ratings1 2 3 4 5

Jan 29th, 11:27

I think its time to demolish it... I know I'll hear it but its time

Texpat10

2 ratings1 2 3 4 5

Jan 29th, 11:41

Agree with Johnny Walker. Never really have understood trying to save all of this building which was cobbled together over many years. The warehouses are definitely worth saving though so they could be incorporated into a new project. Tear down the old store portion and build a parking garage facing Main for when all the cars return! I am sure the people driving downtown to shop are going to need more places to park.

gaustad

1 ratings1 2 3 4 5

Jan 29th, 11:48

This is a beautiful building. We needs it urban fabric to mainitain the continuity on Main St.

It would be a mistake if this were demolished. Some day a developer will turn it inot lofts. I guarantee it.

hamp

4 ratings1 2 3 4 5

Jan 29th, 11:49

This building deserves to be saved. We don't need another shovel ready site.

RonR

0 ratings1 2 3 4 5

Jan 29th, 11:58

Johnny,

I think what shows today was placed in the 60's or 70's and there is a original facade behind it. Could be wrong....

In terms of the building today, has there ever been an accurate report done on the damage to the building? The reason I ask is the complex has been listed at 600,000 sq feet. A $60M rehab would put the cost per sq foot at $100. That seems really high for me on a project where the structure already stands and where it was used as a commercial property just 12 years ago.

A suggestion would be to make this project fly is offer some tax abatement's and convert the units to condos. I do not know what this project is valued at today but if there is room for 180 units and those units were sold for an average $150,000 each, that would bring $27 Million to the tax rolls.

Now I read that the formula for Waterfront place is an abatement on everything but the land for 7 years, 75% in year 8, a 50% in year 9 and a 25% in year 10. Even at year 10, collecting 25% of potential taxes on $27Million in property taxes on improved property is more then the city collects on the current property.

If the property were to be developed into 180 units, have those units cover the current tax burden from the city, which would be the equal to paying property taxes on a 20k home per unit. This also does not count the spin off development and improvements that would be made to the area if 180-360 people move and live in this block of Main.

The savings per unit would allow the developer to build in the savings into the price per unit to cover the cost of rehab. The sales pitch would be "sure you are paying more for the unit but your monthly would be the same or less and your monthly out of pocket would go to equity and not taxes"..or something like that.

If something like this was done in 1997, 2 years after the Bon-Ton left, the property would already be on the rolls at full price. The city would have collected the same amount it has in taxes for the last 10 years but missed out on the 180-360 people living on Main and a decades worth of spin off development.

chris69

1 ratings1 2 3 4 5

Jan 29th, 12:12

This building isnt one building but atleast 3 buildings fronting Main Street. Only the 1890s facade removed and reconstructed from the 1940s and1950s international style which makes the building so impossible to do anything with...the spaces are simply to big.

A smart developer would look at the 3 buildings in the rear which still have the old 1890s facades as well as old [[octures and simply redivide the building into 3 separate buildings, restore the original 1890s facades at which time the space would be small enough for retail, office and residential.

Why is this so friggin hard?

kelly

1 ratings1 2 3 4 5

Jan 29th, 12:13

About time, although, like urbanesque says, it's pretty sad that they seem to pick and choose who will be told to get things done, and who will be allowed to sit on rotting properties seemingly at random. I wonder if they were pushed to get on this because of the Main St. traffic return plan, and the high profile that will have. Don't want some abandoned rotting building in all the news footage when the mayor cuts the ribbon letting cars return, etc.

Quinn

2 ratings1 2 3 4 5

Jan 29th, 12:16

I think I remember reading the original (and interesting) facade was removed and/or altered so as to be unuseable now.

Don't demo it because Main Street does not need another hole in the line of buildings along the street. It would be just another vacant lot for the next (insert number depending on your level of optimism/pessimism) years.

MJWorthington

0 ratings1 2 3 4 5

Jan 29th, 12:43

Exaclty.

Do not demo until solid plans are in place for a structure in its place. An empy building at the street does more for the street than an empty feild or asphalt lot. It also retains the option of rehabbing the building. Keepng the roof intact is 90% of the battle. With it in place the building will last a long time to make decisions down the road.

Main St is still littered with 50 yr old shovel ready lots as is the whole periphery of Downtown. How anyone can buy into any shovel-ready lot propaganda with out current supply of it and the history of it here is beyond me.

Downtownjunkie

1 ratings1 2 3 4 5

Jan 29th, 12:44

I really hope they dont demo this building. The Washington street facades are so beautiful...so unique and worth saving.

NewBuffalo

0 ratings1 2 3 4 5

Jan 29th, 12:55

Its about time the city comes down on these owners. A little (decades) too late but at least it is a start. How about the previous owner of the genesee block? what a joke, that sat there for how long in the condition it is in? I hope the new owner moves fast and I hope the city is watching them.

sbrof

0 ratings1 2 3 4 5

Jan 29th, 13:00

yeah it is a shame it took them so long... The system is broken when years go by with no results. I am sure they were going through this process and that process the whole time the building is dropping bricks on the sidewalk.

Again this isn't a problem about the building. I am sure it can and should be saved but a lack of will by the politicians to actually enforce the laws in place that are there to remove blight and put some accountability on the property owner.

Where is the ultimatum for the greystone or the many other buildings in downtown that need attention asap... I am glad to see the city make a stand I really hope BRO keeps track of the process here because I have a feeling even as the ultimatum comes and goes the developer is probably going to plea it down and still do nothing.

Quinn

1 ratings1 2 3 4 5

Jan 29th, 13:05

sbrof - I hate to be cynical but I am guessing the question of whether such an ultimatum actually is made by the city depends on the owner of the building in question.

Yikes that WAS cynical.

WilliamZabkaAllStars

0 ratings1 2 3 4 5

Jan 29th, 15:42

Hopefully the warehouse can be saved. The building on Main, however, happens to be hideous. If they can't salvage a remotely attractive facade under there, I'd hope some developer would be given a nominal break or two to "Dulski-fy" it.

Wonder if these out-of-town developers are going to try pulling the same b.s., lame arguments Mr. Issa has floated in recent weeks to account for their lack of progress...

mbhxam

1 ratings1 2 3 4 5

Jan 29th, 16:06

Sorry to bring up something unrelated (although I guess it is a litle bit)...I agree that this building should not be demolished...however...as a neighbor of Gates Circle...are there any plans on what to do with the hospital and all of its buildings after Millard Gates vacates??? Once again, sorry for the random subject...maybe BRO can use its sources to look into it for another articel...thanks...

sbrof

1 ratings1 2 3 4 5

Jan 29th, 16:09

Quinn I totally agree, the problem is if you pay your dues to the political machine you often are rubber stamped through the system and don't face the same consequences as other people.

flyguy

0 ratings1 2 3 4 5

Jan 29th, 16:38

Chop the overhead pedestrian connection to Main Place at least at this point its a hinderance visually to Main Street and rather ugly looking. In an effort to upgrade downtown as well how about smoe security down there? More cops on the streets? Feeling safe down there on the streets after 5pm is still not something that I would think of when thinking of downtown. Some blocks down there I wouldnt want to get caught alone on after dark still and since everything shuts down theres nowhere to run and hide in either. Whether statistically safe or not I dont think the perception of safety is high and that weighs heavily against the prospects of housing downtown revitalizing buildings at a faster pace than it now is. Revitalizing the AM&As for instance. The nice thing about Manhattan during the Guiliani years was that the perception and actual safety on the island was improved drastically resulting in a Manhattan rennaissance and you could pretty freely walk around knowing there were so many eyes on the streets the safety level went way up. YOu dont get that pedestrian buzz after hours downtown still and a lack of police presence poking around in all the nooks and crannies doesnt promote the likelihood of pedestrian activity after hours either.

NorthBuff15

0 ratings1 2 3 4 5

Jan 29th, 23:20

I Think the Key plan here would to bring in a Grocery Type Store like wegams or something to the Downtown area. Why? Well with all the New Lofts downtown now more people will live downtown and what more do they need than a Grocery store so they wont have to leave the city and money would circulate the city instead of suburbs

RisingDamp666

0 ratings1 2 3 4 5

Jan 30th, 00:34

I love the Main Street facade of the 'ol AM&A. It's reminiscent of the old ( Bond? ) store in the heart of Cincinnati. That post war brick and ribbon window style just says "major city department store". And this onetime palace of Buffalo style cannot fall the way J.L.Hudson's in Detroit did. Punishing a struggling redevelopment proposal is the 'razo's edge', however; if you punish too severely, who else would want to try? The city should have moved heaven and earth to see this thing to fruition, rather than leave it to a sketchy developer. If a reuse merits public intervention, then you keep the plans and fire the developer , and bring in new ones until it gets done....was there ambivalence about those apartments from the start?

JohnMarko

0 ratings1 2 3 4 5

Jan 30th, 00:51

Here's what I don't understand:

Regarding the "shovel ready" issue: If a building has to be demolished, or it is desired to be demolished, but not completely sure, why does it have to be "NOW"?

If it's gonna be demolished anyway, it will still cost the same to demolish now or LATER. Why not insist on it being LATER, only AFTER defininte plans and FEES are PAID - IN FULL - for the NEW development of the property. If the city is going to be stuck with the cost, then why can't this cost be spent ONLY IF and JUST BEFORE any redevelopment takes place as part of the final development?

That way, we don't have a blank horrendous GAP in our cityscape, and any potential developer, if they are truly interested in DEVELOPING the property, instead of just BULLSHITTING the community once again - can have the benifite of a "shovel ready" site - and WE get to keep the fabric of our city until such a deal is a REALITY instead of just another false HOPE...

When I lived in London, England, I worked for an Architect that paid ONE POUND a YEAR for the WHOLE 6 story block-encompassing building to have his office in in the central city not too far from Saint Paul;s and The Bank, etc.. The city got a building that was INHABITED until DEFINITE plans were made, and the only requirement was that the tenant only had 30 days notice to vacate if a SALE with DEVELOPMENT plans were FINALIZED.

xosder

0 ratings1 2 3 4 5

Jan 30th, 08:01

While the Main St facade which essentially links four different buildings together could be considered unspetacular, the rear elevation of the building on Washington St is actually pretty cool - where you can see the four distinct buildings.

http://maps.live.com/#JmJiPTQyLjg5Mzc4NDc5Mzk2NTElN2UtNzguODU0OTg5NTE5OTczMiU3ZTQyLjg3NDQ3MTIwNjAzNDklN2UtNzguODkwMTI4NDgwMDI2OA==.

Having been through the I've been through the Main St buildings as well as the warehouse, the only real public safety issue is some loose masonry which is present on all the buildings.

sbrof

0 ratings1 2 3 4 5

Jan 30th, 10:20

JM, 100,000% agree. The idea that we need "shovel ready" sites is idiotic when our city core is still 50% empty. The city doesn't have the proper policies in place. The city should force build owners that do not have plans for redevelopment to shutter their buildings until such plans are in place. Repair the roof, and seal it and leave it alone. Once development plans are close to reality, money down, then sure you can move ahead and demolish the building. Taking this building down now would create a huge hole in main street urbanity. Think about being at the M&T tower without this building. Or standing next to the Main Place mall without the respite of being about to look away at something nicer.

I am not saying there might not be a higher better use for the site but demolishing the building before proper plans are in place is wrong. If someone needs land downtown ASAP I can point them to about 500 parking lots that could have their new building on it.

doc

0 ratings1 2 3 4 5

Jan 30th, 23:08

I'm begging the city to tear this building down and erect attractive high rise parking to accommodate the return of autos to ghastly/ghostly Main St. Please, I'm sick of this pathetic patch-work under an ugly 50's facade structure. The fact that there used to be moving mannequins in the windows during the holidays doesn't hold sway with me. Get this eyesore down. I'd rather have a small pocket park than this dangerous piece of cascading urban crap.

BloLover

0 ratings1 2 3 4 5

Jan 31st, 09:20

No one is ever Downtown. Come here after 5 or on the weekend, it's like a horror movie, your all alone when you need someone to save you. There is no solution for this building. Tear it down, leave it up, makes no difference, there still won't be anyone down here to use it or the vacant space left behind. I should also point out that I work and live in the City, I know what I'm talking about.

JohnMarko

0 ratings1 2 3 4 5

Feb 2nd, 16:39

Doc: One "small" question: Just where do you think "the city" is going to obtain the funds to "erect attractive high rise parking" when they can't even afford to maintain it's own "house" and has a control board to insure that it pays it's bills? Even if "the city" were not in such dire financial shape, "the city" has no business "building" projects that are not deemed ESSENTIAL to city services or to maintain the health and safety of the community at large...

Comment Options