Buffalo Rising Online

Great idea to move the house, I could not agree more. I believe it may be to costly when all said and done. The cost of purchasing the existing structure, procuring a lot, constructing a foundation, moving the structure and a complete rehab would far exceed the actual value of the house once completed.

Alright, after surveying the surrounding community for the closest parcel, the most reasonable parcel that this could be moved to appears to be 770 Elmwood. This is the parking lot between the Globe Market and Wilson Farms. If the Atwater House was moved to this site and oriented to the southern portion of the parcel, it would line up nicely with the plaza in front of the Globe Market. A business looking to open a unique bed and breakfast or restaurant would be a good fit. Parking could be provided in the rear, and having a plan for this site would allow for the demolition of the building to the rear of the site that was denied due to a lack of plans other than expanded parking. For movement of the house it would also be more feasible due to the straight path down Elmwood. The largest obstacle would be the over-street traffic light poles. There are six intersections with these traffic light configurations which would need to be removed to move the house down the street. There are no other major obstacles along this path. Could be a win-win for all.

Thestip, that would be a perfect location, good idea.

this isn't about preservation so it doesn't matter what happens to the house. fine if you want to move it.

the problem is curb cuts and parking. adding curb cuts and interrupting the streetscape of elmwood with parking is more detrimental then anything. Elmwwod is a pedestrian street and we can not go down this path of allowing multiple curb cuts on any parcel (let alone demolishing houses for it).

If Panos wants to expand his business, he should abide by design standards (which need to be developed) that require the new structure to be built to the sidewalk and the northern property line of the atwater house. Keep his current curb cut to the south and hire an architect that won't make the building look like a bad joke.

Well I blame Panos because there is a huge amount of space available on Elmwood ripe for two story development and many with room for parking so prefering to stay at the same location and demolish seems stupid.

He is really not worried about being boycoted by preservationists...after they picketed his restaurant business has boomed for him...so much so that he doesnt even stay open past 1 am anymore...his dinner business is phenomenal and the food is great now... So the fact that a few people wont eat there out odf spite is somewhat irrelevant. Sorry.

sorry folks. but moving that to the 700 block district is not gonna fly. Putting that next to a new building that looks nothing like the atwater house is a horrible decision. Plus who in their right mind would purchase that building and put it in that spot (or any spot on elmwood) when you can build a building with more revenue draws (retail and residential). The long term gains on building new offset any short term gains that is proposed with this move.

I would love to see hard evidence and formal bid prices for moving the house first. $20k seems generous to say the least. If I were Pano, I would tear it down as soon as possible. Build smart, add some green space, and beautify elmwood. Pano, just do what you do man. They will follow.

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but the NY Times had an article about house moving just a few days ago. You need a to login to read, but doing so is free:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/01/garden/01moving.html?ex=1171083600&en=43d53abc3e2793f2&ei=5070

Here's a pertinent excerpt:

The relocation of historic houses has become increasingly common, not only in this small town in central Mississippi — where Todd Means, a local house mover, said he has had “more calls on historic buildings in the last two or three years than ever before,” and is now moving 10 to 15 every year — but across the country. Eddy Couturier, who moves houses in the greater Boston area, said he is moving twice as many historic houses now as he was 20 years ago, and estimated that he had moved 300 in just the last five years. He, Mr. Means and other movers attribute the upsurge to a combination of factors, including an increase in development pressure and the spread of preservation laws.

“Say there’s a shopping center going in, and a historic building stands in the way,” said Eugene Brymer, the staff executive of the International Association of Structural Movers in Lexington, S.C. “At one time, it would have just been torn down. Now people will declare the building historic so it can’t be torn down, and then the only solution” — barring the extreme step of building around it — “is to move it.”

But beyond the forces of development and law, there is the simple matter of desire. Many people “are just stuck on an old house,” Mr. Means said. “I get people calling all the time asking me to find them one.”

And that desire, for the craftsmanship and sense of continuity that can only be found in a historic structure, is becoming more difficult to satisfy in an era when “the percentage of old houses is getting smaller and smaller,” said Jerry Matyiko, one of the founders of Expert House Movers in Sharptown, Md.

“We live in a transient society, and we just wanted something that feels permanent,” said Mr. DeLaughter’s wife, Peggy. Moving Hiawatha, which was on the verge of being torn down and was being offered to them for a nominal fee, seemed the obvious thing to do.

WHEN a house that offers so much is at risk of being destroyed — and is available for little more than the cost of carting it away — it can be hard to resist.

Pano isn't going to do anything other than tear the house down and asphalt over the spot. I hope you all like whitewashed cinderblock with a pastic Buffalo on the roof because that's there to stay.

It really is too bad it could not go over on the psych center grounds. That would have made a nice Buffalo museum.

Put away SimCity, or you Lincoln Logs, and join us in reality. "Have yourself an impressive house for $32,000"? Omigod, too funny. Unless you want to move it more than a mile, good sites in the city are either gone, too small, or much more expensive. And the further you move it, the more expensive it naturally gets. The move estimate is a joke, you're talking about coordinating a move through one of the most dense parts of the city, stopping traffic, eliminating parking, moving overhead lines, etc. Next, you need to do all the required excavation and foundation work at the new site, plus bring new services to the relocated building. Then there's the renovation.

This is a half million dollar job, MINIMUM, to get a house that is suitable for occupancy.

DJK is right. The cost for site work, foundation, services, remodle, etc would be astronomical. Anyone who's rehabed an older home in the city knows how expensive even the most basic upgrades can be (insulation, new roof, replacement windows, etc). Add to that the move and all other costs and you might as well build two new Atwater houses. It's a shame we have to lose a neat old building, but it's time has passed. The city should spend it's recources trying to prevent these old gems from falling into disrepair by enforcing codes, not trying to save a few that are shot and in the way of progress.

Why people act like he has commited to building something here is beyond me. The only commitment so far is to tear down the house and pave the lot. The rest of the plan will "proceed cautiously".

Knocking down for a better structure is one thing. If this were a plan to reduce curb cuts and increase street frontage I'd be dancing a jig. Maybe a new building along the street with all parking in back? I think a lot more people would be proud of the plan.

This is a false promise of a front addition for new parking.

moving doesn't seem that impossible, There is tons of space in this city, we are FAR from full.

- Elmwood & Nottingham Terrace... (City Owned Parcel, off the tax rolls, across from the historical society and Delaware park... as close to perfect as you could ask for - price $1 in a very stable housing area) - 411 Forest @ Abbotts Ford Pl (Land Value 5,000 owner lives in Blasedel) - @ least 5 places along Linwood or N Pearl St would work. - North Street near Mayfair Lane (Kissling apartments site, Huge Lot with parking in back wouldn't even need to take any parking out. How about we just give it to them and they can put a couple apartments in it. This site needs another building to fill in the street street.) - 44 St Johns Place near Day's Park (land value 5900) - 39 St Johns Place near Day's Park (double lot 12K) - Summer Street right off of Elmwood. - the list can go on and on and on....

If someone could buy that building for 50-75k in a nice area you don't think someone would jump on it? moved or not having a new foundation actually increases the value of this old home because one of the most costliest and deal breakers an old home can have is a crumbling foundation. Putting it on a new foundation is not rocket science, any general contractor can make you a foundation to lay the home on.

Acquiring the land? I bet the city already owns half of these lots and or would be a smart move to just take them through eminent domain and pay for their Land Value not total value these are places without any buildings. (which is always pretty cheap) It would be a drop in the bucket in order to produce thousands of dollars in taxes over the years. Sounds like a wise investment for the city to acquire the land for someone willing to put this building there.