Flashback: The Elmwood Mini-Mall

Flashback: The Elmwood Mini-Mall

Story Options

A few days ago someone asked me if I remembered the Elmwood Mini-Mall back in '90. I answered that I had never heard of it. A mall on Elmwood? I couldn't even think of a spot that would have held such a concept. Just recently there had been some talk about converting the Pier 1 building into a series of businesses, but that's about it for the mini-mall idea. Last Thursday I met up with someone who had some information regarding the short-lived venture, and he even provided me with a couple of images.

Apparently the Elmwood Mini-Mall hosted between nine and eleven stores inside. The owners of the building had wanted to fashion the concept after a number of successful mini-malls in the Toronto area. Inside the building there was a greeting card shop, a lingerie boutique, and gift and clothing stores. A carpeted hallway ran down the center, while glass partitions provided businesses with their own enclosed interior storefronts.

I asked why the mini-mall concept didn't work past two years, and it was surmised that the operation fell on the heels of the suburban mall craze and just couldn't compete. It was also said that many of the interior businesses argued with each other and couldn't work together to promote the mall as a destination. The space is now unoccupied - the last operational restaurant was Rice Patty with the gigantic aqua-blue plastic awning. If you want to send a Flashback photo to BRO, along with an interesting story, please email it to queenseyes@buffalorising.com.

digulios

What Others Have To Say

  1. Denizen

    0 ratings12345
    Sep 9th 2007, 12:34

    QE, do you know who owns this building now?

  2. comptart_lws

    4 ratings12345
    Sep 9th 2007, 13:09

    --> Denizen - It is owned by Roger Chenany (which I may have spelled wrong) and it is "for sale by owner" at $1.089 million (that's $82.50 per sq ft, by the way). It kills me when certain property owners do little to maintain their buildings and even less to keep or attract tenants then, try to take advantage of a hot market that OTHERS managed to create around their continually-vacant storefronts. The small business owners who make Elmwood what it is cannot possibly afford to purchase (thereby double-invest) at these prices. The situation is becoming ripe for chain and franchise businesses to be the only type that can afford to buy (or rent) from those who do.

  3. Denizen

    4 ratings12345
    Sep 9th 2007, 15:01

    .....Except most chain and franchise businesses still don't see Elmwood as being "legit" enough as being a viable place to locate unless an obscene amount of off-street, on-site parking is included.

    So asshat owners like the one mentioned above continue to retard the growth and development of Elmwood. There should be a city ordinance against obscene speculative practices in stable commercial districts. Or send in the inspectors to fine this guy for everything they can find until he sells off the property to someone else for a much more reasonable price.

    I'm surprised this site hasn't been all over this particular problem yet. What do you think QE?

  4. 42nate

    2 ratings12345
    Sep 9th 2007, 16:56

    I'm wracking my brain. What's at 494 Elmwood now?

  5. queenseyes

    5 ratings12345
    Sep 9th 2007, 19:44

    Denizen, we sat down with Roger for two hours last week to talk about his two empty spaces on Elmwood and one on Forest. I know that there are a lot of people who think that he sits on his properties, but Roger is convinced that what he is doing is the best thing for the street. He refers to his relationship with the owners of Mode as a great example of his willingness to work with business owners. Now they are opening in his Soda Bar location. He tells us that he refuses to rent to anyone unless they can commit to a long-term lease. And his rents are not cheap, but he says that he has the ability to find healthy businesses. He has also had two businesses sign leases that unexpectedly backed out leaving him in a pickle. Roger is a determined man to say the least and mentions his devotion to Buffalo every tome I see him. The overall goal is to get his properties filled. If I owned those properties I would handle them differently. But every property owner is different.

    I have talked to Roger on numerous occasions over the last few years about properties in hopes to see them filled. There are different landlords out there who have different ideas regarding their properties. Many people have butted heads with him by confronting him. I have kept an open-mind in order to try and understand what his leasing policies are. Many people thought he drove Pier 1 out of business, but he didn't even own the property. Others felt that he forced Chic to move to Hertel. I called on Chic's behalf and Roger assured me that his temporary arrangement with Chic was just that... temporary until Chic could find a less expensive storefront.

    Yes, I wish that rents on Elmwood were more reasonable. The higher rates do add a legitimacy to the businesses that can make it (if you have to find a bright side). There is no messing around these days. The guys at 'room' are a great example of how to run a professional business on Elmwood. And Ward and Maureen at Urban Threads should be commended for getting in the game early on - they eventually bought their building (great for them). Globe Market came onto the street with guns a blazin'... not they have a second location. Everything Elmwood is another example of a strong business that eventually bought their building (unfortunately Thunder Bay got the boot in the process but so is life, right?)

    Roger told me that he gets a lot of interest from businesses that would compete with his existing tenants. I have to respect the fact that he won't rent in those scenarios. If we can get his three spaces filled he'll fully occupied. Plate-Oh (or however you spell it), Rice Patty, and the former Curves (?) near Potomac. I may have missed one, but those are the properties that we discussed.

    Word on the street right now is that a Chicago restaurant owner has been asking around. And a Toronto guy has been on the prowl too. I don't see the rents going down any time soon. It's going to have to take some smart retailers and restaurateurs to stick it out on that street. That's who Roger says he's looking for. In the meantime this gives streets like Hertel, Grant, Main Street, Ellicott, Massachusetts, Amherst, etc. a sweet opportunity to promote themselves due to their inexpensive lease rates. As those streets start to go, then it will be interesting to see what takes place on Elmwood. I am very interested to see what happens in the New World, Mac's and Solid Grounds locations. If anyone has heard anything be sure to give a shout.

    My gripe is with properties like the boozing TV repair store. Now there is a problem property. How does the owner get away with a boarded up storefront for a decade?

  6. Biniszkiewicz

    3 ratings12345
    Sep 9th 2007, 20:38

    I cannot think of ANY other landlord who I absolutely refuse to have any dealings with. Roger Chainini is scum in my book. I despise the man. I have spoken with too many of his tenants and I have had the distinctly unpleasant experience of dealing with him in person. If a client of mine inquires about his properties, I am happy to give out his phone number but I absolutely will not speak with Roger. At all. For any reason. There is no other landlord, not Paladino, not anyone, that I feel the same way about.

  7. Denizen

    6 ratings12345
    Sep 9th 2007, 23:20

    Bini, thanks for the HONEST answer.

    QE, I don't buy for one second what Roger has "assured" you....

    but Roger is convinced that what he is doing is the best thing for the street.

    Like keeping some very PRIME spaces VACANT for more than 3 years???

    And his rents are not cheap, but he says that he has the ability to find healthy businesses.

    Ditto above response. Unless 5 year increments speak well of his "abilities."

    I don't see the rents going down any time soon. It's going to have to take some smart retailers and restaurateurs to stick it out on that street. That's who Roger says he's looking for.

    No, It seems like Roger is looking for a business willing to pay a rental rate far above the median value that other Elmwood businesses pay. "Smart Businesses" would be more likely look for a reasonable deal, which is quite contrary to the spin Mr. Chainini has dumped on you.

    Under normal market conditions, a vacant storefront would mean a monthly loss for the landlord. Promptly filling the space (unless extensive renovations were being done) would be a pretty major priority. If the asking rent is too high to attract a tenant, lowering the rent will increase the pool of interested tenants, (ever heard of supply and demand??) especially on an high-trafficked commercial streets like Elmwood.

    Of course, the rules completely change if the rental income loss is externalized, by say...some sort of tax writeoff loophole gimmick, which I suspect is the case with the honorable Mr. Chainini. If his losses weren't being offset, those spaces would have been filled at lower rents a long time ago. We'd see a healthier, more diverse Elmwood commercial scene.

    My gripe is with properties like the boozing TV repair store. Now there is a problem property. How does the owner get away with a boarded up storefront for a decade?

    Gee I dunno, probably the same reason why creeps like Roger can continue to get away with his shenanigans.....a spineless City Hall. Why don't you start making phone calls and letting your site's audience know what can be done? Or would that violate you site's policy of only "reporting" things with smiley faces attached?

  8. STEEL

    0 ratings12345
    Sep 10th 2007, 00:19

    That Elmwood Mini mall was the tackiest home made looking thing ever. That is why it failed. There was a very similar home made "mall" in the Elmwood Charter school building also back in the 70's

  9. queenseyes

    6 ratings12345
    Sep 10th 2007, 09:39

    That's uncanny that you know our policy on smiley faces. Apparently you know what can be done. So why beat around the bush? LIke I said, I would do things differently, but as far as I know you can't force a property owner to bring down his or her rents. Am I wrong? Tell me.

  10. tjc246

    5 ratings12345
    Sep 10th 2007, 09:46

    Back in 2001, I, along with others from Forever Elmwood (now the Elmwood Village Association) went to City Hall and had meetings with city officials that attempted to put pressure on Roger Chainani to lease out his buildings or put them up for sale. At one point Roger got fed up with Forever Elmwood and City officials and said he was going to sell his Buffalo properties and move away (I was secretly thrilled). He, of course, did not sell his properties and move away. One must understand that the problem with Roger is that he is greedy. He wants a tenant that is willing pay his astronomical rents and take care of any problems that may occur to his building (including things Roger should take care of as a property owner). I had to make sure anyone looking at his spaces got a lawyer to read his lease contracts due to the clauses he has built into them. I, for one, would never rent from Roger.

    Being Forever Elmwood's first executive director, I worked with Roger on trying to help him fill his empty storefronts. He is a very difficult man to deal with. I asked him to, at the very least, have his storefront windows cleaned and the sidewalks out front clean of debris. He would make some effort and then a month later- nothing.

    Roger is not good for Elmwood or anywhere he owns a building. It would be different if he invested money in upgrading his spaces and charged a healthy but "going rate" for space along Elmwood.

    Please be aware the Queenseyes has to be more diplomatic than you or I due to the fact that he wishes to get something accomplished. It is easier to get what you want with a carrot than a stick.

    Pressure from the city's planning and zoning departments, as well as local leaders, needs to be placed on any building owner who lets property sit fallow.

    Roger and I butted heads for the entire time I was the executive director of Forever Elmwood but I always tried to work with him- he even tried offering me a job (there was no chance in hell I would work for him). It is very easy to sit back and criticize Roger. The trick is how do you get someone like Roger to see the big picture? How do you get him to be a part of the revitalization process? I did not have much success with him even though I spent many hours of my time trying to convince the man that he needed to step up his efforts in improving his properties and offering more reasonable lease terms.

    Renewed efforts must be made to work with property owners like Roger and the owner of the Boosing TV storefront. There are even façade improvement grants available from the Elmwood Village Association to help these property owners pay for improvements.

    Sorry to ramble for so long- Tom Cooney (first executive director of Forever Elmwood)

  11. thinkBuffalo

    7 ratings12345
    Sep 10th 2007, 09:54

    Denizen -

    A couple things:

    1) You figure City Hall should spend some time focused on undoing centuries of property rights laws and try and somehow fine a landlord for not renting out his space at rents you decide are appropriate? Or do you want them to seize the property?

    2) Anyone who makes comments like yours about property owners must own no actual property - well, maybe a bus pass or something.

  12. AvenueBooks

    5 ratings12345
    Sep 10th 2007, 10:14

    Chainani also owns several Hertel properties and plays the same game there of asking rents a full twice the going rate for like properties. I questioned him about this practice several years ago, and he told me in no uncertain terms that the empty spaces are a tax write off. He bragged that his tax benefit for the vacancy losses offset his lifestyle, and unless he collects what rent he asks, he's far better off having those particular buildings empty. It's not illegal or even very clever. It's Accounting 101 for every uninspired tool of a certain tax bracket. Incidently, his claims of not renting to his tenant's competitors is hardly evidence of kindess or charitablity: it's the standard language in all commercial rental agreements. What people have against the man is not that he's a criminal. It's that he's a reptile.

  13. Denizen

    5 ratings12345
    Sep 10th 2007, 11:23

    think(or not)buffalo,

    1. It's in City Hall's best interest to nurture and look out for the city's assets. Elmwood Ave. is a major asset for Buffalo. The street has been a major force in attracting a lot of wealth back into the city. There is nothing wrong with putting pressure on a scumbag landlord who exploits GOVERNMENT loopholes for his own greed by using a counterbalance of GOVERNMENT policies and/or fines to try and rectify this problem. There are progressive cities all over the world that wouldn't let an second-rate asshat like Chainani thrive for more than a day.

    2. LOL, 5th grade ad-hominem attacks, real good, real good. Maybe if and when you get me in on the loan sharking business, I'll start snapping up properties like there's no tomorrow. I hear the money is great.

    Read some of the above comments from real people who have shed their own sweat on Elmwood and you'll find that what we are saying here is the truth. Roger is an obstacle to a healthier Buffalo, plain and simple. It's in the city's best interest to run this bozo out of town.

  14. thinkBuffalo

    4 ratings12345
    Sep 10th 2007, 11:47

    Reading the talk about loopholes is like that Seinfeld when Kramer was talking about 'write-offs.'

    "Do you even know what a write-off is?"

    "No, but they do."

    And what?

  15. bizcomplete

    2 ratings12345
    Sep 10th 2007, 12:14

    Chainani is a dbag, no doubt. And I think other Elmwood property owners have been trying to 'push' him out for about 20 years now, but it hasn't happened yet and I don't suspect it will.

    I don't think the city government has much to do with this, though, as his buildings aren't in total disrepair or a danger to anyone nearby. They're just overpriced.

Would you like to subscribe to this conversation?

Enter your email below, and you will receive an alert each time someone leaves a comment on this post.

What Do You Think?

Text Links