Some have misinterpreted my closing comments in this post:

One hopes that the preservation community (and community-at-large) might prioritize buildings that may not be designated landmarks, are endangered and need saving. Perhaps they could take lessons learned from the Livery fiasco and be more pro-active rather than re-active when it comes to saving buildings deemed important. These things shouldn’t have to happen at the point when emergency injunctive relief is required to prevent demolition. A plan. Priorities. It would do a lot to not only save buildings, but dramatically improve the reputation of the preservationist community. By being pro-active rather than re-active, they lose the “obstructionist” epithet altogether. Just a thought.

Some assail my comment because, they claim, preservationists are being “proactive”. I disagree. Calling the tip line isn’t enough. Calling your councilman isn’t enough. That may arguably be literally proactive, but it’s passive. I’ll let Prodigal Son explain:

The definition of pro-active is “getting involved before the building is crumbling.” I’m sure some well meaning people called the city tip line to complain about the Livery for years. But obviously, no support was galvanized until crisis mode hit. If anyone in the preservation community (whomever that is) could get everyone organized before it got to this point, that would be progress. Lets have a vigil, signatures, BRO articles and media frenzy about the AM&A’s building (to pick a random one). Doesn’t happen. Tim Tielman tried to get people organized for his “Save Our Churches” campaign, and that never got farther than one meeting.

Buffalo - a shrinking city of 280k-ish people - has at least two grassroots preservation activist organizations. Cynthia Van Ness’ Preservation Coalition and Tim Tielman’s Campaign for Buffalo History, Architecture and Culture. The missions are similar enough that these groups could be joined. If governments can be expected to downsize in response to a shrinking population, so can nonprofit activist groups.

If they joined forces, then it would be fantastic if they selected, on an annual basis, five buildings that they want to save each year. They could hold fundraisers, teach-ins, solicit investment, file legal action, etc. Whatever it took to focus on private and public properties that are at imminent risk of destruction but are in some way worth preserving. They could set the agenda with respect to preservation issues and shed that public perception that they have of being reactionary obstructionists, and instead re-cast themselves as the proactive protectors of Buffalo’s heritage before the building starts crashing in around them or some owner decides he wants to raze it to add more surface parking.

Because in my mind, the heroes of the preservation community right now are named “Savarino” and “Termini” and “ESD”. Applying the law of Larry the Cable Guy - they get it done.

If the building is privately owned, such as Freudenheim’s Livery, the group could file for injunctive relief - the building is an imminent harm to its surroundings and is a public or private nuisance. If the building is privately owned, perhaps they could get the city to take the property by eminent domain for the greater public good. If the building is publicly owned, then they could partner with friendly engineering and architectural firms to draw up plans and raise funds to actually get the buildings structurally sound and rebuilt. It would be like Buffalo ReUse writ large - instead of saving fixtures from homes for resale, you save the building itself.

So, what would be the five most endangered buildings in 2008? Proactively prioritize, proselytize, and repair.