Leave Pearl Street Alone
The amazing expansion and renovation that the Pearl Street Grill & Brewery in downtown Buffalo has undertaken in recent years has been incredible. From upstairs expansion, the new outdoor decks and patios, its commitment to local businesses and the local economy, to the fact that it employs 111 people and contributes to the livability of this city, it is a business that deserves the benefit of the doubt always.
That’s why this story in today’s Buffalo News incensed me so.
The Preservation Board of the City of Buffalo is unhappy with Pearl Street’s recent changes, most recently including a corner sign depicting its new mascot, “Lake Effect Man”. Branding is an important component to a business like Pearl Street with ambitions such as the ones described in the article - to be the largest selling brewpub in the world.
“[Going before] the Preservation Board has been a terrible experience,” Ketry said. “They don’t respect anything that has to do with the private sector. They have these pie-in-the-sky notions and don’t get what it takes to create growth in a business environment.”
But the board considered Ketry’s proposals excessive and out of line for a street known for its variety of historic buildings. They include the recently restored Webb Lofts two doors down and the terra-cotta Guaranty Building at Pearl and Church streets.
“Should an 1840s building be a spectacle? Not in a historic district,” said Russell Pawlak, a board member. “It diminishes the beauty of the building. It’s death by a thousand cuts.”
“They have far and away exceeded what we thought would be appropriate for that building,” said John Laping, board chairman.
Laping said the Common Council should not have overruled the Preservation Board without seeking its advice.
Ellicott Council Member Brian Davis, who has come to Ketry’s aid, said he thought Pearl Street’s contribution to the local economy overrode other considerations.
“Buffalo can’t be afraid to take steps that are going to put more attention on the city in a positive way. I thought [the changes] would help bring more people to downtown,” Davis said.
The Council member said he considered Ketry’s role in making the business a success and the 111 people in his employ. None of the changes, he added, was necessarily permanent.
“Everything he has added to the building can be removed. It’s not permanent in nature; it’s nuts and bolts,” Davis said.
That quaint brick 1840s building was built to house a commercial entity. The fact that it still houses a viable commercial entity in 2008 is astonishing. Especially in this city. The changes that Pearl Street is making to the facade and structure in order to maintain and grow its business do not detract from the history of that building, or from its beauty. It’s not as if Pearl Street covered the brick with vinyl. It’s not as if Pearl Street ripped the whole thing down to build some sort of Dryvit-laden Panera Bread lookalike.
Let Pearl Street thrive.
(Photo by the Buffalo News’ Harry Scull)
STEEL Says:May 16th, 2008 at 9:28 am
The Preservation board patted themselves on the back after allowing a Civil War era building to be demolished in Allentown. Seems to me they need to get some consistency. Demolition is a far greater harm to a historic building by any standard. Oh and about that Webb Building. They allowed to to rot in plain site for decades.
Mike Miller Says:May 16th, 2008 at 9:56 am
As a preservationist myself, I don’t see any harm in putting what amounts to nothing more than a sign on their building. It doesn’t deface it, change it or even make it uglier, IMO. What I’d ask them is how this is unacceptable, when they allowed Cellino & Barnes to put those God-awful awnings up on the Statler. Hmm?
sbrof Says:May 16th, 2008 at 10:02 am
I totally agree with you Pundit.. The preservation board really doesn’t have any consistency and forethought. I think Pearl Street’s expansion has been and continues to be fantastic for the building and downtown. This is establishment is a real draw to downtown and a great Buffalo business. While I often side with preservationists I think their opposition to the reuse and built out of a historic building like this is counterproductive.
Where are they with the buildings on red jacket or main street. How the hell can they oppose this and let many buildings sit idle waiting to be demolished.
James Says:May 16th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Pearl Street Grill & Brewery is incredible. It defines revitalization and expansion in a city in great need of both. I love the Lake Effect Man. It’s a small(ish) way to positively embrace our weather.
Paul Says:May 16th, 2008 at 10:45 am
As a member of the Preservation Board my charge and the charge of my fellow members is to enforce the historic preservation standards as stipulated by the Department of Interior Standards for Historic Preservation, www.nps.gov. Buildings that are formally listed as historic or in preservation districts come to the board whenever a building or demolition permit is applied for. Only then do we have any authority to review, comment or take action on the building. We are what is described as a New York State certified local government (CLG)obligated by state law to interpret and enforce the law. I am a licensed architect with 20 years experience, most of which is in preservation. I serve with other architects, a historian, a realtor, designers, an engineer, and preservation advocates. All volunteers appointed by the mayor or council.
What Ketry has done to his building is in total contradiction to the Department of Interior Standards. The Standards we are obligated to uphold. The Common Council voted to over rule our determination without any consultation with us.
As to the Keller Brothers demolition on Allen Street….You are right, that should never have been demolished. The Webb building was an Inspections Department issue. We had no authority until permits were applied for.
As an attorney Alan, you should realize we cant let Ketry do whatever he wants. It’s the law.
reflip Says:May 16th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Pundit, you’re spot on. This is absolutely infuriating for the reasons STEEL, Mike Miller and sbrof pointed out above.
Does anyone have any insight into the Preservation Board? How can they be so consistently desultory?
Haterade Says:May 16th, 2008 at 10:59 am
For once I find myself agreeing with Mr. Davis.
Personally , I like “Lake Effect Man” and what they have done with the building ….
Merr Says:May 16th, 2008 at 11:11 am
I don’t know the preservation law and as an individual untrained in architecture or design, I really don’t see any problems with what has been done to the building. What part is so garish or unsightly? They added iron balconies, which to me, do not really look out of place. 99% of the WNY population see Lake Effect Man and think it’s a cool mascot for the area. Not something that offends the eye. Also, have these people ever even walked inside the building? Between the brickwork, woodwork, belt powered ceiling fans, and other interesting/unique aspects of the interior, I would think that the preservationists would be proud of the restoration work that has been done to the building.
Russell Says:May 16th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Paul, you come here to defend yourself and your bureaucracy, but you offered nothing specific about this case. If you want us to understand and appreciate the Boards role, let us know exactly what was wrong, what law it violated and why it had to be opposed.
After following a few links on the National Parks website you provided, I found this about “The Standards” you’re trying to stand on:
The Standards are neither technical nor prescriptive, but are intended to promote responsible preservation practices that help protect our Nation’s irreplaceable cultural resources. For example, they cannot, in and of themselves, be used to make essential decisions about which features of the historic building should be saved and which can be changed. But once a treatment is selected, the Standards provide philosophical consistency to the work. http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/standguide/overview/choose_treat.htm
It sounds like you’re saying you and the Board did exactly what the writers of “The Standards” said they’re not intended to do.
BP, I’m totally with you on this one.
Buffalo Blood Donor Says:May 16th, 2008 at 11:26 am
BP,
Your last comment “Let Pearl Street Thrive” leads to the statement “Let Pearl Street Breathe” which leads to “Let Buffalo Breathe”.
Like the city, buildings are living, breathing structures that are far from static. That the preservation advisors don’t grasp the dynamic tells me that they are more aptly called antique dealers, not preservationists.
BBD
Frieda Says:May 16th, 2008 at 11:35 am
The building expansion + Lake Effects Man gives the neighborhood, in overused preservationist terminology, a “sense of place”. They should embrace it.
Chris Smith Says:May 16th, 2008 at 11:49 am
I think it ruins the sense of place in the growing SoPeHiDi (South Pearl/Highway District). Hopefully, we’ll soon hear from PresCo/LSNF/Riverkeeper on this abomination.
lulu Says:May 16th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Paul, seeing as though you reference your membership on the PB, I hope you simply had a brain lapse regarding the location of Keller Brothers and Miller. KB&M is located on Franklin Street, not Allen.
Adam K Says:May 16th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
BP - Spot on.
Paul - all that that means is that the laws are crap and need to be changed. Also, as Russell said, they appear to not be written in stone, but if they are, it’s the kind of stone that should be renovated occasionally so it doesn’t look like outdated crap.
Paul Says:May 16th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
I’m not here to defend my “bureacracy”. As a volunteer Board member and licensed architect I truly believe that the one thing Buffalo has going for it is its architecture. I have given hundreds of tours of Buffalo architecture, I have been an integral part of the Buffalo Public School Reconstruction project, and consider architecture both a profession and a avocation.
If you look further into the National Parks website you will find standards for rehabilitation. There are a number of these standards which are clearly contradicted by the additions of the sign, the balconies and roofs . This is a mid 19th century factory/wharehouse building. The standards clearly state that “each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken”
Balconies may be appropriate in New Orleans, but their use on an Historic Buffalo warehouse is not accurate or appropriate.
The standards also state “the historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided” In the Boards opinion, the building has been significantly altered by the work Mr Ketry has performed.
It should be noted that the Board has met numerous times with the owner and his architect at the site to help facilitate his needs, and offer suggestion as to how he could work within the standards. None of our suggestions were accepted.
I just want to reinforce that the members of this board are not political hacks. They are truly selected based on their expertise and more importantly enthusiasm of Buffalo Architecture. We live and work in the real world to. Many people feel our decisions are capricious and uninformed. I can assure you they are not.
Richard Strongbridge Says:May 16th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Paul if you want to enforce historic preservation standards you can start by helping preserve the people that live and work in this city instead of driving them out. If you truly cared about what things were like in 1840 you would work to drive business to Pearl Street and to the city in general. I doubt any of you preservation board members were down at Pearl Street during the lockout to help a starving business. I would even bet that few of you guys have even set foot in Pearl Street.
We are a community that needs to imporve, thrive and move forward. What Pearl Street is doing should be applauded.
Paul Says:May 16th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
forgive me lulu. I was thinking Allentown district.
I actually lived at 403 Franklin for a while.
JR Says:May 16th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Funny thing is if the Lake Effect Man was part of the original building and the owner wanted to take it down, the PB would be griping about that. Sounds like the PB guidelines need to be updated.
Paul Says:May 16th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Thats what I hate about these blogs. The personal attacks Richard. You know nothing about me. I have been to Pearl Street dozens of times. I work downtown and have frequently eaten lunch there and tipped many a beer. Even during the lockout. I like their Heffeweissen especially. I live in the city, work in the city and try my best to make this a better place to live. What have you done Richard??????
Tbone Says:May 16th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Paul,
I struggle to see why your board should exist, Steel is right on, the contradiction in your boards actions are ridiculous. Why are you folks hell bent on stopping businesses in a business starved town from raising their profile to increase their chances of survival? Cities shouldn’t, and by their nature do not, remain frozen in time.
reflip Says:May 16th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Paul,
Is the purpose of the Preservation Board to preserve historic buildings or to strictly enforce the letter of the law as written by your governing body? That’s kind of a loaded question, but the gist is, to borrow a line from Herb Brooks, “Who do you play for?”
Are you trying to make the City of Buffalo better, or are you mad because Pearl Street defied you by putting up this Lake Effect Man?
If he let his building fall into disrepair so badly that the roof collapsed and the city had to demolish the building, would that be better? Because I seem to recall another structure, a functioning bar in a Civil War era building, where that happened. So, that’s OK with the “Preservation Board?”
Also, what do you mean the Kellers Bro. demolition “shouldn’t have happened?” It did. Why didn’t the Preservation Board enforce its will in that case?
Pano’s demolished what some considered a historic building in order to allow for more parking. That was OK with the Preservation Board?
But this is not? I literally cannot phathom what the purpose of a “Preservation Board” is if not to preserve historic buildings. Which you’ve failed to do in several high profile cases. I’m sure there are reasons why all of these things happened. But, they can only be due to bureaucratic intertia or plain incompetence. So, again, who do you play for? The NPS, or the City of Buffalo? What is the “big picture” purpose of a Preservation Board?
Lake Effect Man is an avatar that could actually enhance both the business that occupies the building and thus the district as a whole, with no deleterious effect to the actual building. That’s good for the City of Buffalo and your opposition to it appears pedantic at best, vindictive at worst.
Please - keep fighting this battle while another decent, old building somewhere else in the city ends up in a landfill. But sleep well knowing you “did what you could.”
Russell Says:May 16th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Paul, I agree the architecture in our area is one of our best assets. I also appreciate the volunteer time you and the other Board members put into protecting and enhancing that asset. However, I think you’re missing a couple important points that run through all of this. First, do you and the other members ever consider the economic needs of the owner, or are all the decisions purely based on preserving the past? Second, you mentioned “It’s the law” as if your hands are tied and you’re only doing what you must. However, nothing you’ve presented or I’ve read supports that claim. It is clearly stated that these “Standards” are merely guidelines and suggestions, not hard, strict laws. Do you and the other Board members treat them as guidelines or strict rules and laws?
Mike Miller Says:May 16th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Paul, “The standards clearly state that “each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken”.
This is open to interpretation. I could interpret it that the addition of signage to this building does NOT damage it’s recognizable past as an 1890’s warehouse. If we don’t allow adaptive reuse and we restrict brand signage, what possible chance do these old buildings have?
Prodigal Son Says:May 16th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
I have a completely different take on this.
The Preservation Board is not an economic development tool. It is not a non-profit advocacy group. It has no mandate to go out and “save” any particular building. It is 100% reactive. Cases and applications for permits are brought to it. It reviews them and gives a recommendation. There are lots of review boards for lots of portions of the building/renovation process. This is just one of them.
So the board makes a recommendation and the building owner doesn’t like it. So he “appeals,” the Common Council steps in and the politicians, ostensibly answerable to the people, overrule the appointed board.
Sounds to me like everything worked like it should have. The board makes a recommendation according to its mandate. Its not followed. That’s why its called a recommendation.
Anyone frustrated by buildings falling apart need to move past this board and direct their anger/energy towards groups organized to take action. Some do real work - thanks to Mike Miller and the CTRC (among others). Some talk a lot but rarely get their hands dirty - insert your favorite group here. As Mike Miller often says - let’s stop talking and start working.
I think Lake Effect Man is great, and so are balconeys. I can’t wait for it to warm up so I can take my beer outside. No one is going to use many of these buildings for their original intent - if you don’t re-use them by ADAPTING them, they rot away.
Mike Miller Says:May 16th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Thanks Prodigal Son!
Everyone I’ve talked to is talking about Lake Effect Man. I like it and so do they! And the balconies are a huge hit with everyone.
Europeans are not nearly as fussy when it comes to adaptive reuse. I’ve seen plenty of old warehouses, etc. in Munich that are now hollowed out on the first floor so they could become a Benetton or some other high end retail store. Yes, there are limits and things should be evaluated on a case by case basis, but let’s not keep shooting ourselves in the foot trying to tie business owners hands behind their backs.
I can’t imagine what would happen if a potential buyer wanted to do a seemingly natural thing (to me, anyways) and place a lighted sign on the tower of the Central Terminal, to attract customers to an area that’s slightly off the beaten path but visible from local highways. It would be a bloody shame if that’s what would prevent the renovation of the building.
STEEL Says:May 16th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
I want to go on record that I am very pro Preservation Board in concept but have big disagreements with some of their decisions. I also have no idea what they have to go through to make their decisions.
These buildings do need to be protected. They are the asset that places like Hhoenix will never have. At what point does economics overrule irreplaceable history? That is a very fine line. You certainly would not put up Lake Effect man on an ancient Roman building for instance and no one would argue that. Personally I think the balconies are a bit tacky but I rather like the giant sign. In some ways the sign is very much in keeping with this building and its era. If you look at old pictures of buildings like this you find that they are covered in signs and add ons. In the past they were not treated as pristine architectural artifacts. They were hard working hard edged buildings. Because of this I think you have to have different standards for this type of building as opposed to say a Delaware Avenue mansion.
preservationists and the preservation Board get off track when they become inflexible in the way they look at things. Cities don’t stay the same as society changes. When anything contemporary is looked on as incompatible to the historic you are traveling a road that is indefensible form a preservation point of view. So for instance the Civil War era building in Allentown was torn down with the provision that a new fake historic building be constructed to take its place. That is a board not doing its duty.
Chris Smith Says:May 16th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Kudos to Paul for stopping in to present his case to what is naturally a hostile audience.
Keller Says:May 16th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
When I read comments like Preservation Paul’s I know I made the right decison to move out of Buffalo in July. Buffalo is a dying city and individuals like Paul and Dick Lippes are playing the role of Dr. Kevorkian. The nearsighted attitude that architectural and historic preservation trump growth in a feeble market like Buffalo’s is unexcusable.
Good luck with your decrepit buildings Paul.
Mike Miller Says:May 16th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
PS - I’m with Steel on being pro Preservation Board. I just don’t happen to agree with them on this issue.
Buffalopundit Says:May 16th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Steel - thank you for that perspective, I think that’s exactly right. There needs to be flexibility in the face of political reality, and things must be undertaken on a case-by-case basis.
Paul - I also want to thank you for contributing your side of this issue. I realize that the Preservation Board does a lot of good for the city.
hank Says:May 16th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
I’ve not seen Lake effect man except for this picture. Looks OK to me.
The balconies are somewhat like New Orleans–where I lived for 4 years in the 80’s. Those balconies hold many a partier, and make for a great place to also sit and get some air off the street level. I think they make the building look just fine.
In 2006, The Corvair Society of America held its National Convention at the Adam’s Mark. I did a lot online to “pump up” Buffalo to those attending, and Pearl Street Brewery, and its location close by to the Adam’s Mark was a reason I gave it special emphasis.
Of course, for most of the Conventioneers, Buffalo was quite a disappointment. The Hotel, and its total inadaquacies were the focus, but many also noted the crumbling of the city, and among the comments, Many said the best sight they saw of Buffalo was when it was in their rearview mirror as they headed home. However, EVERY PERSON who contacted me said they had a GREAT TIME at Pearl Street Brewery.
IMO anything that keeps Pearl Street Brewery and the area around it growing, vibrant and popular with the people left in town, Piss on ANY government regulation. Most of these “recommendations” are bullshit anyway.
Pundit could probably tell you about how they get on places like Nantucket Island. You can’t plant a flowering plant unless the preservation board approves it first. Gov’ment out of control!!!
Paul Says:May 16th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Thanks for hearing my point of view, which as a board member interpreting preservation standards is what I do. And I humbly submit that with a BA in Urban Planning, a Masters degree in Architecture and 20 years as a practicing architect I feel I’m pretty qualified to do. That is my charge. I appreciate hearing thoughtful opinion. What gets my goat is when people accuse me of pushing business out of Buffalo, being obstructionist or worse…… not liking beer!. I honestly feel that strictly interpreting the preservation standards, and enforcing them will ultimately help Buffalo. Can we do a better job. Of course we can. Everyday is a education for me. I’ve been to Albany for training and discuss Buffalo’s issues with other municipalities. I’ve lived here all my life, I have a good job and live in the same neighborhood as all five of my siblings do. I am a Buffalonian.
We can agree to disagree but lets be civil.
Mike Says:May 16th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Hank, of all the places to hold a Corvair society meeting why did they pick buffalo? What were they expecting to see a braves game ? Hank they must of came here because like you they are CHEAP!!!!
Maybe the old train station can put up the Crack effect man for that building or the bald fat effect man for Cheese cake factory.
Greg Says:May 16th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Time to attempt to get a letter to the editor in the paper again.
They have great food, great beer, and good specials tying into the Bandits and Sabres games. The overall look and feel of the building is unchanged.
Prodigal Son Says:May 16th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Paul - good for you to come on and discuss. Perhaps I am naive, but I assume everyone on the Preservation Board is qualified to be there. You certainly are, and I don’t question the reputation, patriotism, or love of Buffalo in anyone on the board. I’m sure you all wear flag lapel pins. Overall, I think its a great thing, and anet plus for Buffalo.
I simply don’t like veto power for public policy in unelected boards, or worse, NYS Authorities. I just moved back to Buffalo from Vegas - believe it or not, that whole state seems to run just fine on 10% of NYS’s budget, and without a single Authority of any kind. But I digress.
The point is, there should be no hard feelings on any side - this is why we have a process. The Preservation Board did their job. The politicians did theirs. This time development “won.” Next time, preservation “wins.” I’m fine with that. Is this an actual controversy, or did it get cooked up by the News for a good story?
Timothy Domst Says:May 16th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Paul from the Board says that the balconies and Face Palm Man are inappropriate for a 19th century factory or warehouse, so I am assuming that the Board wants it to remain looking like a 19th century warehouse forever. No one will build a restaurant if it has to look like that, so that’s why people say they the board is anti-business. I agree with STEEL, because I have seen pictures of 19th century streets that had huge signs, and in greater number than you see nowadays, and back then people were changing the function of buildings all the time, so it is in no way unhistoric to assume that a building would get a sign tacked on or balcony after it got sold to a restaurant owner in 1860. There is no neon on Face Palm Man, as far as I can tell someone from 1860 could have made the same Face Palm Man sign that is there today.
Peter Farrell Says:May 16th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Things to ponder….
This may be the first preservationist article in the News that didn’t have a quote from Tim Teilmann. I mean ever.
Wondering how long it will be before Esmonde writes a pile of crap defending the obstructionist b…I mean preservationist board’s latest moves to keep this city in a time warp.
starbuck Says:May 16th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Again, Paul deserves much respect for his honest efforts and willingness to have this type of public exchange of views.
However, I have a few complaints:
1. This statement of his shows an unsuitable attitude for the board, as I see it:
The word “strictly” should be replaced with “reasonably”.
2. He sounded overly upset about the Common Council’s different opinion on the matter. Prodigal Son outlined quite well the differences in roles between the PB and CC. Maybe meeting with the PB would have been a nice courtesy on the part of the CC, but since the PB presumably had already explained their reasoning in writing I don’t see why a meeting was necessary as it sounds like Paul is upset about.
3. Lastly, not a complaint against Paul, but about the PB in general - Why shouldn’t there be an online public forum like this as a regular course of business for all PB decisions? I’ve heard a few in recent years that sounded to me way too far in terms of strictness and not flexible enough for small business owners. It would be nice if the public had an opportunity to participate in a little back-and-forth like this prior to decision of the PB, without needing to take time off from work, etc. Why not blog-ify the public input aspects of the PB’s work?
starbuck Says:May 16th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Quick thought about the “this is why I hate blogs”: I agree the personal attacks are deplorable, but the good of public discussion this can allow to happen far outweighs the badness.
Denizen Says:May 17th, 2008 at 11:32 am
And today it’s a 21st century bar/restaurant.
eliz Says:May 17th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Well, obviously a minority opinion here, but we just drove by that thing, and it’s gotta be one of the stupidest looking … uh, “ornaments” I’ve seen stuck on a building, ever. I like the balconies and flowers–a nice spot of color in a rather drab area–but this thing really looks ugly to me. De gustibus non est disputandum. However, I agree that there are more important priorities for the Preservation Board. I realize that they can only react to what is brought before them, but I wish they could be more active in very urgent matters like 918-920 Main.
To me that thing is a atrocity, but there is definitely more crucial preservation advocacy to be done.
And yeah, kudos to Paul for commenting in this clearly hostile arena; it always improves the discussion when the entity under attack responds.
RisingDamp666 Says:May 17th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
The Preservation Board are a vacant lot.
eliz Says:May 17th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
RD,
The Pres Board is made up of professionals volunteering time from their busy lives to help preserve the beauty of their city. We should all do so well.
Jim Ostrowski Says:May 18th, 2008 at 7:41 am
If you want to preserve architectural aspects of other people’s property, the civilized way to do it is to form a corporation, raise money, and buy their alteration rights.
Haterade Says:May 18th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Right on Jim O !
Preservation Effect Says:May 19th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Is Buffalo to be a museum or an urban landscape? Maybe preservation districts have it wrong. I frequent Pearl Street, I look out my window at work at Lake Effect Man and the balconies.
It’s great that building and those nearby are getting used instead of becoming more parking lots. Pearl Street Pub probably made revitalization of the other buildings viable. OTOH what’s been done to PSP is in no way consonant with the history of the building or area. Balconies useful for maybe 1/3 of the year, that view the Thruway and exit ramps (and lake sunsets wayyy over there) are New Orleans, not Buffalo.
So if New Orleans is what people want, its not so terrible that we give it to them, but Lake Effect Man is kitschy advertising that lends a Disney sensibility to the corner. If that’s what people want, it’s not so terrible but don’t pretend it brings anything architecturally to the area.
Paul the preservation board architect hasn’t said it in so many words but the issue is also taste, and a matter of personal preference we’ll never all agree on.
My thoughts Says:May 20th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
“Lake Effect Man” looks foolish, and shows no taste. The facade is now Bourbon Street-ready, which is great if your business is in the French Quarter. Maybe they will start handing out colorful plastic bead necklaces at the door on “Dime Beer Night”. It’s just sad, like everything else in Buffalo.
Timothy Domst Says:May 21st, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Years from now if someone wants to redo the place and they have stricter, less gaudy historical tastes then they can change it back because the building isn’t fundamentally altered by a tacked-on sign. They didn’t take out a bunch of street-level walls and make a glass lobby or something like that. I’ve been inside there a few times and it looks old to me.