Buffalo Rising Online

Looks like a nice Italian pizzeria in the rendering. Give him the freakin awning.

Here the Preservation Board story goes... Wow. What was the excuse this time???

Another case of 'Preservation Boards', being blatantly agenda driven & glorified fashion-police. The dern Constitution is more flexible than Buffalo's myriad gang of mis-led, mis-informed, mystified morons...

Any anti-development libs wanna stand up for the Pres. board?

these people are very self-important. what qualifications do you need to be on this board? how do they get appointed and who appoints them and for how long? If they are discouraging business' from opening in the city they are obstructionists. this awning looks very nice. it's not a back-lit bubble awning!!!

Based on recent past votes by the preservation board he would have been successful if he had asked permission to tear the building down instead.

@eating - 100% correct!!!!! @Preservation Board --- again I say - useless.

@OnRichmond - that's just bribery and it doesn't work, although I see your point. @tonyarmani - stand up to the Preservation Board?? I don't know what they think they are preserving. In this case Dan is preserving HIS building.

This is idiotic and sophomoric.

Wow. If this is true, it says that the Preservation Board is wildly inconsistent. Maybe we should expect some bizarre hair splitting from a board charged with the absurd respondsiblity of freezing entire neighborhoods in time or in some cases turning back time to some divine past that never was. They should be concerned with establishing and maintaining a high standard of quality and effciency and not some elusive standard of style and historical correctness.

WHAT HAPPENS IF HE JUST SAYS 'SCREW EM' AND PUTS IT UP ANYWAYS? WHAT COULD THEY REALLY DO?

HAHAHA as STEEL said.. they let people tear buildings down.. but not allow them to invest and improve their businesses within them..

Who is on the board, how do they get there... and why can't we throw them out of their for wasting everyone's time.

The architectural design regulations of many cities require that awnings be broken up and placed above only individual objects of fenestration - windows and doors. One reason is that it looks nicer to have multiple smaller awnings than one large, monolithic awning. The main reason, though: it makes it less likely that someone will use an awning as a loophole around the city's sign regulations. The internally illuminated bubble banners became very popular in the 1980s and 1990s because they allowed businesses to display signage that was perceptibly much larger than permitted by a sign code. "That's not a big sign, it's a sign on a big yellow awning." One example is the former Pier 1 Imports on Elmwood (see www.cyburbia.org/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/4354/size/big/cat/ )

Typo. bubble banners = bubble awnings.

No awning, but they let Pano's put up that REDICULOUSLY HUGE BRIGHT sign??

Is that the same people by chance?

Oy Vey.

He can/should appeal to the City Council on this. I mean if the 'decorations' at Pearl Street Brew Pub are OK, then a simple awning should be a no-brainer.

Insanity........

classic Buffalo... Stopping progress or some idea because they (Conserv. board) did not come up with it or they feel it's wrong. I can see if it was some god-awful alteration to the building. It is a simple awning which I think everyone would agree improves the look of the building.

Let the man have his awning already.

Governmental requirements suck for any business, but any business owner shouldn't bet on such changes sliding through unimpeded. There are so many egos involved, and board members are often unqualified to sit on these committees. Nothing can be done about this. If Campieri's were in a small quaint town or village anywhere else in NY, the requirements would be more ridiculous.

Dan, if you're reading this, figure out a way to get your awning cheaper. Get other quotes, talk to several businesses. Contact me, I've got plenty of experience and I'll help in trade for beer. :)

PLEASE NAME THESE IDIOTS THE ON PRESERVATION BOARD ...WHO ARE SO SELF RIGHTEOUS AND OBSTRUCTIVE. DO THEY KNOW THE WORD ..COMPROMISE.?! A BUSINESS MAN WHO INVESTS THOUSANDS IN A BLDG THAT WAS RIPE FOR DEMO...OPENS A TAX PAYING BUSINESS...AND ALONG COME THESE STOOGES TELLING HIM HOW AND WHAT TO DO......AH...THIS IS SO BUFFALO!

Preservation Board, HA! The only thing they are preserving is the legacy of a bunch of fools. It continues to amaze me that these ridiculous decisions are still being made every day, just when you think you have seen it all, historic building or not, people need to get a grip.

As a practicing preservationist I think priorities seem to be twisted here. Considering all the buildings we are losing to pure neglect it is too bad our focus is on awnings, especially since they are removable/replacable

norPark - great idea, but the "brains" at the board setup this law in their constitution (and somehow the government agreed to back a looney bunch):

"...§ 337-32. Penalties for offenses.

A violation of this code is punishable by a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500. ) or by imprisonment not exceeding fifteen (15) days, or by both such fine and imprisonment, or by penalty of not more than five hundred dollars ($500. ) to be recovered by the City of Buffalo in a civil action. Every day of such violation may be held to constitute a separate offense..."

Lol 15 days in jail for putting up an awning - could you just imagine the laughs he would get in the slammer. "I tried to make my business and buffalo better but got sent to jail instead"

...and that just shows you how dumb this city really is

Am I missing something????? To me, the awning looks fine, and even old fashioned enough to blend in with the building....So how is the Preservation Board involved in this anyway? Isn't this a city contractor issue? It's not like the owner of the building wants to knock something down, paint the building black or something. The awning adds more charactor to the plain jane look it offers right now from the above photo.

JSmith makes an excellent point, Its easy to whine, but we don't know all the facts.

my first store at 158 allen i just bypast preservation ass holes and put the awning up, never heard a thing. I find it amazing that these idiots have so much control over a city. they allow a civil war era building on franklin to be pulled down, but no awning on a building than was vacant and crumbling for years. this is the kinda shit that makes buffalo a place i am second guessing living in...pathetic, sad and so not buffalo rising. The preservation board need to get a life [or maybe laid].

Excuse my ignorance, but just which Preservation Board is this and who sits on the Board? Is it some city or county agency? Or a league of volunteers? Is it the Preservation Coalition? If I am hearing correctly, others are asking this question?

The Preservation Board is made up of several individuals, John Laping, Ed Watts Jr., Harvey Garrett, Tim Tielman, Paul McDonnell, Chris Guerra, Alan Gerstman, and Michele Brozek. I know I'm leaving some of them out, but my guess is that Tim is trying to gert on his soap box and preach again, "well if a precendent is bad, why should we repeat it?". If only they would see the bigger picture. Awnings can be changed out. They should be so much more sympathetic to what the owner is trying to do. They should have stood up and applauded him for crying out loud! How is it that helping make Buffalo better or more of a success? They need to realize the error in their ways. I'm sure the other side of the story isn't worth it's weight on paper.

I think people are overreacting. The awning will look better and be more urbanistically and historically appropriate if divided as the Preservation Board seems to have stipulated.

The pizza *is* great and Dan is wonderful. His great taste will undoudtedly extend to a good awning.

If the Preservation Board made wrongheaded decisions before - actually they *did* turn down the alterations to Pearl Street Brewery, despite what is stated above - that should not lead one to disparage a good decision here.

doesnt the building next door have the exact same awning in green?? explain that one to me

Put up the awning, the people in Buffalo are lazy, drunk, and totally disorganized to ever do anything about it....better yet, he should have just put the awning up and never said anything at all. Buffalo is just not business friendly because the people who get elected to office an appointed positions are really not qualified. Queenseyes, although sometimes biased, is right this time.

The biggest joke in this city is the preservation board declining an awning for the entrance to Stillwater while there is a rotting disgusting awning two doors down at the old Manny's restaurant.......this is something that should be investigated....

Thank you djcoolhaus for the clarification. I see that some of the names cited are the same as members of the Preservation Coalition of Erie County. Even if the Boards are not one in the same, I can see where there might be a city entity with some of the same people. I guess I was mistaken that the Coalition served any other capacity other than advisory. Their hearts are in the right place and the Coalition has contibuted greatly to maintaining what remains of our architecture.

I agree JSmith...

I am a preservationist but it seems from what I am reading that this board is a bunch of opinionated bullies. What are they trying to preserve here ? Look at any old photo of commercial buildings (going back into the 1800's) and you will see awnings everywhere and they do sometimes cover more than one window or a doorway. I believe that there should be a clearly stated appeals process when the board makes one of their inexplicable rulings.

While some of these rulings seem rediculous, this is nothing out of the normal for most cities in the country. Being in a historic district, the Preservation Board has the legal right to this review, and while I agree that it could be seen as stupid to deny the awning, its something that happens every day. As others have stated, I wish all the facts would come out, including why the building needed SHPO approval, was it a tax credit project? It's great news that the owner has put this money into the building and its once again being utilized. Unfortunately governmental bodies such as the Preservation Board are not formulated to be proactive, but are regulatory in nature. I understand the frustration, as a preservation consultant I spend my days trying to get developer's plans approved by these boards and regulatory agencies.

Please lisy the names of every board member on this Pres. Board. I know Laping is one and Yielman another, but we need to call these people to the floor for their incopnsistencies. The awning situation is just the begining. The window frames is a whole other story. This is an outrage

Just put it up. Going thru proper channels is the WRONG way to do biz here, a guarantee to fail and meet with resistance. Put it up and they wont say a word {deleted}

Same old same old in Buffalo.

I agree with the above, JUST PUT IT UP!

Preservation Board = AntiProgress Board

The Preservation Board has certainly made inconsistent decisions in the past, but its mission is clear and legally obligated:

It is set up to apply the Secretary of the Interior Standard for Treatment of Historic Properties within city-designated historic districts.

In this case, an awning doens't meet federal standards. The same standards apply in historic districts no matter what city we are discussing.

Of all the myopic decision-making processes that go on in our region, I am surprised a decision to recommend a better awning receives such vitriol.

What a shame. maybe change the colour of the awning?

JUST ANOTHER perfect example why many people wont and dont get proper permits to do anything here in Buffalo....the whole system is time consuming, paved with too many inconsistencies and adds too much to the cost of getting anything accomplished. Frustrating alone just to go down to city hall 3rd floor and try to explain what and why you want to do something..then follow that up with at least 2 or 3 more trips to try and get your project finalized.....the hell with it....just do what your planning and let 'em earn their money..if they catch up with you. The system as we know it encourages this and nothing less should be expected.

63 comments on this awning versus 6 comments on the Sep. 25th post Get The Lead Out?

I had a building on Delaware, a very prominent one. And I had a large sign across the entire front, and a huge awning that went all the way across and then to the curb as well.... The awning and sign guys said "you got permits for this right?" I said of course, knowing full well I had neither. 10 years later...noone said a word, and this building was built in 1903...talk about historic. If you dont ask, people wont tell...follow the Armys motto...

Dan said "One reason is that it looks nicer to have multiple smaller awnings than one large, monolithic awning."

Um, WHO says? I think 1 looks better myself. Not only that, having 3 instead of 1 doesn't really address the "possible" signage problem. So he breaks the big bad signage into 3 parts Campieri's on one, 888 on the other and Restaurant or Pizza on the third. 3 awnings=1 sign. Another point to consider, he is not making any changes that are permanent and will change the integrity of the actual building. Approve with a restriction. No lettering. If I were him, I would take this to the Council, who can in fact override the PB. The city is damned lucky someone even wants to try to make a go of business in that block. Go Dan!!

Call the mayor's office hotline and ask some of the questions that are being posted on this board. I comisserate with Dan about this problem. The City Board is out of control and needs better regulation. An awning will not permantly wreck any building.

this city sucks

Wow you guys are pretty rough. First of all we didn't deny the single awning, we approved the multiple awning solution after discussing it with Mr. Campieri (I know - it sounds like a fine line but it's important because we were trying to work with him). He appeared to be fine with it. As Chris stated earlier in his comments about regulations the multiple awnings fit in better with the standards we are required to follow as well as what would have been there historically. Again, we had this discussion with Mr. Campieri and it appeared as though he agreed.

As far as inconsistencies - I've only been on the board since January and I don't remember approving any requests for aluminum clad window frames on a building like this. But the way the regulations work we can't stop someone from replacing aluminum with aluminum so it's possible. The standards don't allow replacing wood with aluminum.

We did thank Mr. Campieri by the way. He's investing in his building and he's doing the right things to preserve it for the future. He's a good business and property owner and he deserves to be thanked. We try to encourage investment - in fact encouraging people to maintain their buildings so that nearby building owners will be encouraged to invest in theirs is one of the reasons the Preservation Board exists.

I agree that the proposed awning looks nice - and so would the multiple awnings approved by the board. Maybe I'm just not remembering this whole thing very well but I don't recall Mr Campieri disagreeing with our joint conclusions. He was part of this discussion and it certainly appeared that he agreed with the outcome - although from his discussion with Newell afterwards it certainly sounds like his preference was for a single awning.

"Elitists with attitude"? "Time to shine a little light up the asses of the members of the preservation board"? Who's being paid off?

I can tell you from my experience that this is a very tough board to be on. You have to balance trying to save what makes neighborhoods special with driving investment that will attract more investment - but the only regulations you are given are for preservation. And we aren't really given any proactive tools. And just in case anyone wonders - it is an all volunteer board.

The tone of this story made it sound like the Preservation Board was trying to stop this owner from operating his business. The commentors make it sound like the board is out there trying to stop investment. Neither of these are true.

Mr. Campieri came in with a nice looking awning proposal on a beautiful building he was obviously investing in and maintaining. We discussed the standards with him and worked with him to come up with a solution that would meet the regulations and his needs. We then thanked him for investing in his building, the neighborhood, and Buffalo.

Anyone here who has actually been to a Preservation Board meeting should be able to confirm that this is the way we operate. No, everyone doesn't always leave happy - but we try very hard to find a way to encourage all positive investment while maintaining the historic fabric (no pun intended here) of what makes these neighborhoods special.

Harvey

Harvey, very glad you weighed in on this. In my experience, you and some other members of the preservation board have been very responsive to BR writers doing articles, and it's appreciated - I think there would have been more light and less heat here, had your views been sought initially.

With both sides now, it seems the Preservation Board wasn't as business friendly as it should've been. There's inconsistency between the owner's quotes in the article and Harvey's comment, but both seem to agree the single awning was the owner's first preference. Unless a single awning was illegal, it should've been allowed.

PB member Harvey says the single awning looks fine: 'I agree that the proposed awning looks nice'

The business owner says a multi-awning would be a lot more costly: 'The Preservation Board decided that they wanted the awning to be in multiple sections, not a single frame. That would escalate the cost of the awning by thousands of dollars… dollars that I don't have.'

So if the PB agrees either a single or multi-awning addition would look 'nice', then it should've right then granted the owner permission to do EITHER a single awning or multi-awning, at the owner's choice without needing to go back to the PB again about it.

The PB should make property owners aware when their (owners) initial preference is acceptable, rather than trying to push in a forceful way for something PB-preferred but not strictly necessary. It's ok for the PB to suggest something more costly than an owner is asking to do, but it should be clear when it's only a suggestion. A more flexible approach might even help the PB's workload by reducing the number of needed return visits from property owners.

Unfortunately it's not about what any one board member thinks looks nice (even if it's me - which I still don't understand :) ).

The PB really isn't supposed to be making aesthetic decisions - we have to review requests through a set of standards provided to us by the State. As far as I'm concerned the single awning looks fine but it doesn't meet standards and it also really isn't compatible historically. But at the same time a single awning is reversible and doesn't cause any irreversible damage to the building. These are all factors (and more).

But again, the discussion we had at the board meeting, unless I'm remembering it wrong which is possible, is that Mr Campieri was part of this discussion and we all came to an agreement that provided an awning for him that met the standards we are supposed to follow. By the way if we veer too far from the standards too often we start running into inconsistency issues which has already been mentioned as a bad thing.

The title of this post is very misleading because it makes it sound like the Preservation Board shot down the request rather than trying to work with the owner. I just looked through my notes but we haven't received the minutes from that meeting yet.

Harvey

Harvey - If it's irrelevant, then you saying here that you think it looks nice only adds confusion to the whole matter.

Either the PB majority will authorize him to proceed with the single awning as he says in the article he wants to do, or it won't.

Yes there's a lot of factors. Still, he came to the PB with a request and was owed a Yes or No, in addition to other more costly suggestions which are great but not a substitute for a clear Yes/No. And if the answer was No, then the criticisms of the PB that many people wrote above were correct after all. Either way, the lack of Yes/No is another example of not having a business friendly approach.

¨it also really isn't compatible historically¨ I guess ´back in the day´single awnings didn´t exist huh? This whole discussion is beyond retarded at this point

Troy makes a good point. Also the article says the State Historic Preservation Office approved a single awning, so they must think it's sufficiently compatible historically. The state office approved what the onwer wants to do and the city board doesn't approve?

"I don't recall Mr Campieri disagreeing with our joint conclusions. He was part of this discussion and it certainly appeared that he agreed with the outcome"

I hate to correct you Harvey, but I wasn't at the meeting. I was told you would agree to the States recommendations.

Pizzamaker (Mr. Campieri?),

There were two very similar awning requests that day and I could be mixing them up which is why I wanted to go back and check the minutes. I do remember on both of them that we agreed to multiple awnings. Someone must have been there representing you if you weren't there. Whoever it was didn't appear too concerned about the conclusion at the meeting. I was a little surprised by the title and tone of this story afterwards.

What is the cost difference between the single awning and multiple awnings by the way?

Harvey