Livery Building on Thursday
Outside Counsel takes a peek at the Livery Building, and makes an observation aside from the very poor condition of the building.
Buffalo is far from unique in its resistance to change– what makes this city unusual, I think, is that the reactionary mentality is so frequently what prevails. The ultimate result is decay, rather then renewal. There are a number of reasons for this– the declining population base means that (a) there is less pressure to change; (ii) scarcer resources to bring about change; and (3) the population is old, and conservative. There is a history of bad choices which brought about bad results. People are afraid to make more bad choices, and so make none. Leadership is in short supply– there does not seem to be a vision of Buffalo that anyone can agree on. Instead of planning on what to become, the population here is instead consumed by nostalgia.
That boils it all down in a nutshell quite nicely, no?
As a further observation:
There are neglected, decaying old buildings everywhere in Buffalo, of course but it only gets attention when it happens in white, affluent neighborhoods- and those are pretty much the neighborhoods with the clout to block development. An interesting paradox, when you think about it: the desirable neighborhoods for development are the ones that are most likely to resist it, and the best equipped to resist it as well. Meanwhile, east of Main Street, the buildings just fall, like trees in the forest.
It’s a pity. The building would have been an attractive apartment conversion. Instead it has been falling apart for years, a roost for pigeons, and no doubt other vermin as well. It is sweet that the neighborhood wants to save it now, although it is worth noting that nobody is stepping up with their own money to do it.
Seriously, what do we do with this?
It’s easy to say “save it”.
It’s hard to figure out exactly how. Or who.
Colin Says:June 19th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
1. I think everyone, everywhere is resistant to what they perceive as negative change. There’s no way that’s unique to Buffalo, or a product of our particular history. A vacant lot is perceived to be a negative change, with good reason.
2. The fight over the Livery has nothing to do with development. It’s about neglect. The people fighting this demolition aren’t opposed to development. They would turn cartwheels in the street if someone wanted to develop this building — or its remnants — into lofts or whatever.
Eisenbart Says:June 19th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
I don’t think mocking the neighbors of this building is really necessary. Shame on you Mr.Pundit for even implying it. The guy should have taken care of his building and the city should have been there to slap him in the mouth if he didn’t. Neither of that happened and who’s left? Who gets ran over in the process of all this? The neighbors do. Fact of the matter is, anyway anyone spins it, this shouldn’t be happening like it does.
Snarky Snarkmore McSnarkamaphone Says:June 19th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Are you for reals?
The issue here is really pretty simple: asshat owner lets building decay illegally; City allows this this to go on indefinitely, unpunished; finally, building finally decays to the point that neighbors & their property are in physical jeopardy from building collapse. Owner now screws over entire city-tax-paying-public by forcing emergency demo.
Ergo, owner is a douche; City sucks ass.
What more nuance to this is there, really?
Bill Altreuter Says:June 20th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Didn’t take long for that discussion to spiral down the sink. I may have less traffic than you BP, (although thanks for the link) but at least the conversation that goes on at Outside Counsel is mostly civil.
I’d say that there is too much that we don’t know– did anyone in the neighborhood complain about the structure to the city authorities, for example. What was done (or not done) to the building to protect it from the elements over the years? Did anyone ever make an offer on the property? It is fine to say that it is “valuable” but that doesn’t mean anything unless someone puts a value on it– maybe it is more valuable as an open lot.
It isn’t helpful or meaningful to merely say, “assholes” and waive your hands– that’s actually a manifestation of the attitude that stalls things in these parts.
reflip Says:June 20th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
I second Colin in saying that this has nothing to do with development (See “rezoning 125th St. in Manhattan” for that). This is about neglect. Nobody is blocking development. People are standing up against neglect.
Obviously, no one supports neglect on this blog or on Buffalo Rising. We all have that in common, right? You would stand up to a neglectful property owner on your street, right?
Blocking the demolition of this building is a means of buying time to figure out “how” and “who.” If the building gets demolished, the question becomes moot.
And, the fact that people do care - that people are standing up - indicates a future for the city of Buffalo. I do not take it as a sign of inertia that will lead to further decline. Decay happens when nobody stands up, when nobody cares and when nobody invests their time and money into a neighborhood. The fact that people are willing to fight hard for their neighborhood is a good thing in every way.
Colin Says:June 20th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Bill,
I’ll answer two of your questions. Yes, people in the neighborhood complained to the city prior to the building’s partial collapse. And yes, people have at least been interested in buying the building. Whether that led to a formal offer or not, I don’t know. I do know that someone was interested a few months ago, and walked away when the owner wouldn’t budge from his unreasonable price.
Bill Altreuter Says:June 20th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
“Unreasonable” is an interesting term to use here. What would be a “reasonable” price? Presumably the market is what determines that, and I don’t think we have enough evidence to say that the owner wouldn’t sell, merely that the property would not be sold for what was offered.
As for complaints to the City, my awareness of this structure goes back 20 years, and pieces of it were falling off then. It does seem to me that whatever agency had jurisdiction should have done something, and I agree that this is a failure on the part of the city and the owner both. My question, I suppose, is simple– is someone going to step up with some scratch to do something, or not? “Or not” has been the answer for the last 20 years, so we shouldn’t be acting all surprised that it is still the answer. And we can’t expect Ani DiFranco to descend from the sky every time a building falls down.
Buffalo Blood Donor Says:June 20th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
I vaguely recall that this building WAS brought up for an apartment or condo renovation plan by the owners, and that there WAS enough resistance (”flak”) by the neighbors that the owners decided not to press forward. Am I imagining this? It would have been several - maybe 8 to 10 - years ago.
If that’s the case - and my fading memory prevents me from claiming it’s true - then I do not fault the owners for essentially abandoning it but rather place blame on the neighborhood for getting in its own way.
Regardless, the light coming through the window from the open roof says it all: Time for the preservationists and the neighbors to get out of the way of the wrecking ball, before it comes down all by itself.
BBD
Denizen Says:June 20th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Using the logic of someone who often comments here, it can be said that the above logic would render Buffalo’s acres upon acres of “shovel-ready” parking lots as being the epitome of forward-thinking, progressive city planning.
Colin Says:June 20th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
1. The market spoke, and the owner refused to listen. He had a number in his head — $400,000 — that didn’t reflect what the market would actually bear. When the market produced offers that didn’t match that number, he turned them down and let the building rot.
2. The fact that neighbors may have frustrated attempts at turning the building into condos 20 years ago is irrelevant. To begin with, the neighbors, the neighborhood, the city, and the track record of condo/loft conversions is all very different now than in the late 80s. More importantly, having his plans frustrated in the past doesn’t absolve the owner of his responsibility to maintain the building. This issue is a red herring.
3. Everyone seems to have an opinion of whether the building is salvageable. Very few of these opinions are credible. The most credible opinions belong to the two engineers who examined the building this week, who not only determined that significant parts of the building could be saved, but who also came up with two different plans for doing so for the same cost as a complete demolition.
eliz Says:June 20th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Bill, I am disappointed that you too would come on board with pronouncements before finding out the facts on this situation. I personally know quite a few who have made offers on this property. And it is documented that neighbors have put in a number of official complaints to the City over the years.
Just because the building gets press now does not mean that there is a long history of advocacy and attempts to save it, and buy it. No one is consumed by nostalgia. This is an important building by a major architect that should be saved and many have been trying to draw attention to it before this.
eliz Says:June 20th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Well … I’m sorry. I do understand that blogging means mouthing off about stuff you don’t know a goddamn thing about. And I enjoy that. But sometimes, that stuff is stuff I think is important and I get sick of the misinformation.
Bill Altreuter Says:June 23rd, 2008 at 9:49 am
I’m all for more information. I had a scrap, and the scrap I had raised questions in my mind. I’d be very much interested in learning more about what happened here, because it seems to me that we could learn something from it. I would like to know about the history of advocacy, for example, and about what offers have been made, and about what the people who made the offers had in mind. I’d like to know more about the present condition of the building, which looks bad, but may not be.
Getting behind the story would be interesting, and would probably be important. The Buffalo News has not really done much more reporting on this than I have, and that’s too bad.