Buffalo Rising Online

Having worked there for 20 odd years before I thankfully retired, I'd say the building should be torn down. I still refer to it as the "asbestos factory" where I used to work. It is a "sick" building and there have been numerous asbestos remediation projects over the years, why does it still have problems? GSA used to close off entire floors and this dinosaur is still not "remediated"?

So will the building sell? Probably (probably is a good answer to give anyone who says you are crazy)

Will the buyer be local, etc? Probably International (probably is a good answer to give anyone who says an international buyer would actually follow through, given the history of "international" buyers in Buffalo)

Will the buyer keep the building? Probably, see below for possible uses.

Will any mourn the loss or alteration...Probably, It used to be such fun watching the rats run in and get caught in the automatic doors...yep true story, I'll miss that.

What use or uses do I envision for the site...It will probably end up as a day care center for overweight dogs, a home for chronic feline alcoholics and a headquarters for a local political party.

I would mourn the loss of this builing because it's over 10 stories. Sure, its artistic credentials are low and doesn't really qualify as "historic," but we really don't have very many "tall" building as it is. I'd hate to see this 17 story building be torn down and turned into a 4 story condo complex with first floor retail. I LOVE the projects like that that are going on around the city, but I have a soft spot for the tall ones. I think they are needed for a vital urban core. Maybe I would'nt care so much if a developer actually followed through and replaced it with a 20 story contemporary office/retail/condo complex, but I don't think Buffalo is there yet for that kind of development. We haven't had a skyscraper put in for a long time. I was so excited when Adelphia had planned something, but then the building got shorter. . . and shorter. . . and then there was no building at all. I'd love to see some monster cranes downtown building a 20,30,40 story building again someday. In the meantime, lets hope we don't lose this 17 story one.

-the building will sell -the buyer will be national -the buyer will demolish it -no one will mourn the loss or alteration -if the buyer has enough cash to demolish it and redevelop the site I hope they build something high rise, either office or residential. It is in a pretty good location.

ugly. poorly designed. tear the damn thing down.

Rip it down, ASAP, and erect a mid-rise residential building with a Borders on the ground floor.

can bass-pro convert it into an empty auditorium? i'll pay..

Just let it stand there for a long long time!!! Just like the empty grain elevators . Ha

I agree with Edward in the sense of missing the "tallness" of the building. While Buffalo isn't known for its tall buildings, it is nice to have this building to contribute to the skyline. Let's all hope Ciminelli doesn't buy it and turn it into a parking lot/shovel ready site... *sigh*

Don't be so anxious to tear this down. It is indeed a historical site. Plus the sculpture is a Siegal. I would think it should qualify as a historic landmark as it is over 30 years old. I think any alterations to it's marvelous facade should go before the preservation board to ensure that this prime example of mid century architecture is preserved. Because of the economic doldrums this area has faced we are in short supply of buildings from that era and cannot afford to lose this one. It should be rehabbed with an eye towards maintaining its arcitectural integrity.

-The Building will sell (the government usually sells these buildings below market value) -The buyer will be national -The buyer will keep it because at such a low price the owner will be able to rent out only a portion of it and still meet taxes, mortgage and asbestos remediation. -Plus the building has underground parking which is a valuable plus for many tenants.

Who will it be targeted? My guess is that because so much of the building was government...the telecommunications are in good condition so I would say its s perfect fit for local internet and e-commerce companies! Lets not forget that Canisius, Buffalo State and UB as well as other local colleges have courses, certifications and degree programs in telecommunications, internet and e-commerce. This building would make for inexpensive rent....for small businesses....and the fact that each floor has such a small footprint lends itself well to small businesses that benefit from co-locating next to each other.

Of course there are other types of small technology and administrative businesses that would fit this kind of building too such as an insurance company, call center, etc.

No its not a particularly attractive building but Id hate to loose a 17 story building.

if I were the owner, then I would either landscape it or take 1, 2 0r 3 stories and build to the sidewalk with retail store fronts to soften the building and integrate it into the community. Those street level store fronts would be easier to rent and probably command higher prices than the upper floors and it would be cheaper than demolishing the tower and starting over. I mean now that the government is gone...there are no security issues preventing a build out to the sidewalk.

Here's the link to the GSA site where are federal government routinely sells "surplus real property" Don't forget, the future owner also gets 180 underground parking spaces!

http://www.propertydisposal.gsa.gov/property/

Sally

Cut the ditto head remarks...They are boring

Keep it up and alter the design (modernize it with a glass appearence). Turn it it into a Class A Office Tower, Add a 1 or 2 story wrap aound of the building to the street with retail space.

Its an ugly building, and its got white elephant written all over it. I'm sorry but I can't understand any arguments regarding "architectural intengrity"...it reminds me of the other ugly 60's-70's style buildings that were built in place of the true historic gems of this city.

I'm sure the City Court building was an innovative architectural work at the time it was built...UB's Amherst campus...convention center. Other cities that have money/developers knocked those buildings down a long time ago.

I love tall buildings, but not when they're empty and ugly. I'd rather have a functioning skyline than one that resembles a cemetary.

I'm sure the underground parking will be ignored anyways - doesn't everyone know that Buffalo loves ugly blacktop lots and filthy ramps?!! Why hide your vehicle underground when you can park it on crumbling concrete slabs?...

It is not the most attractive building and it tends to dominate this part of the city's skyline, thus it would make a dent in it. I don't think businesses are clamouring to come to Buffalo to build highrises, I don't think existing businesses in Buffalo are at any juncture where they are considering a highrise, so most likely it would be replaced with : A parking lot B parking garage C Suburban style office building w/ large floor plate EX: Waterfront Village office building

So in retrospect, lets keep it and reuse and refurbish it.

Like Sally said, the most important feature to this site may be the George Segal sculpture. He was one of the most important American sculptors of the 20th century and Buffalo is lucky to have some of his work. See:

http://www.segalfoundation.org/

I hope the local art community is paying attention!

Strip the building down to the steel structure and re-facade it with something more attractive, and bigger windows. I used to work in that building until last year, and I still miss the view of Lake Erie and the mouth of the Niagara River, and the way the sun would set over the water.

Best case scenario: Use the first floor or two for a supermarket and put in apartments above it. There could be more retail on the ground floor to support the apartments above (dry cleaner, deli, video rental) because you could get a lot of residents into that building. Plus the residents of the West Village are there too.

I like this building. Its a nicely understated product of its time (i.e., mid 20th century) and as such deserves every preservation consideration that a mid-19th century structure has enjoyed. No, it does not have granite columns. It has an architectural character all of its own. As I understand it the problems with asbestos abatement will be much easier now that there are no more tenants. The asbestos problems started when there was a fire in the building and there was water damage that compromised the asbestos coating on the steel super structure. The asbestos could never be properly removed because of risk to the other tenants in other parts of the building. Now that the building will be totally empty abatement can be comprehensive and complete and the sick building will recover. I think it is an anchor for that part of the city. I would like to see more landscaping to soften its presence. I think a national buyer will come forth, probably from NYC, and do something interesting with the marketing and the tenant mix. The location is quite desirable and the austere quality of the building reminds me of a shortened version of M&T Bank.

The federal government could not remove the asbestos in a cost effective way because of guidelines they were required to follow. If it was going to cost, say, $300K to remove it then it would have been classified as a "major renovation" and they would have been required to spend millions more on other projects in the Dulski in order to get the funds appropriated for the project. Those additional funds could not be justified because they would have come close to or exceeded the value of the building. It is just an example of federal bureaucracy. Now instead of 50 federal agencies all paying rent to the General Services Administration, and keeping federal dollars within the federal government, all of the agencies are paying premium rent to private companies like Uniland.

If Uniland or Ciminelli want to buy the Dulski and remove the asbestos, it would be more feasible for them because they won't be stuck with the same constraraints that the federal government is bound to.

I lived in Paris in a neighborhood where you couldn't see any building over 6 stories--it was really nice. I believe Washington's limit is 12 stories. There are US cities that don't have very tall buildings and do just fine. Why do we need 40 story buildings that dwarf the streelife and the people? I love that Buffalo looks like Prague when you come down off the Skyway, with tapering steeples and houses in view instead of office towers and high rises condos, that it doesn't have a high-rise at the end of a charmingly scaled block of houses, that the streets can breathe and have light. When I think of the truly beautiful cities I have visted or lived in---none of them had many very tall buildings. And they were all vital.

Sorry for any inconvenience but I had to weigh in one more time. About the History of the building. The Federal Building held a lot of promise in 1971 and was estimated to cost 13 million. If you look at the 2nd floor area on the street next to the hotel you will see evidence (darkened from smoke) of a fire that once raged. The mysterious fire happened shortly after ilabori problems that were encountered in the construction were ironed out and it caused about $100,000 damage. Construction on the building was actually started in 1968 and 3 years later it was still unfinished. All Federal agencies designated to enter the building (30 in number) could not enter because there were wooden planks across mudpuddles in front of the building. Holding to my original assertion that this was/is a sick building, it appears that even the ilabori problems were icontagiousi. Rumor had it that workers were walking off the site because they were being criticized by the contractor for their slowness, they were alleged to have said the criticism was making them ill.

Then we enter the iquestionablei history of what came next because the work entered a phase where it couldn't have gone any faster if someone held a gun to someone's head. The labor problems were ironed out, the mysterious icritical illnessesi that seemed to plague the workforce ceased. The building was completed, albeit 3 years after it was started.

It is interesting to note that GSA said in 2003 that the building would not succumb to the wrecker's ball. There were also statements that year by GSA that it was iirresponsiblei to equate the movement of Federal agencies from the building to rumors that the building was isicki. The question still remains, if that was not the case, then why have all the agencies moved out? This information is from articles in a local business newspaper. Then in 2005 in the same newspaper GSA reportedly contradicted what they said in 2003. In 2005 they changed their story about what they said in 2003 and said the building would be vacated, sold or demolished. This is called iweighing your optionsi. I knew a host of people who always suffered from respiratory problems over the years. There was never enough fresh air circulating because windows had to be bolted shut. A survey revealed that the GSA was only keeping the large roof air vents partially open, not enough for good or sufficient air quality.

It will take a month of Sundays by potential ibuyersi to ascertain if the thing is worth keeping. I think local contractors are certainly looking at this building, but it may be that the cost of fixing this thing outweigh keeping it. If that is the case then what is the least expensive option for taxpayers? That is where the ultimate $ may be coming from in the form of subsidy, might it not? I'm skeptical of any venture that claims it is entirely iprivately fundedi. What we want to give Bass Pro to come here bears this out. The building could certainly be iimplodedi as the old iFord Hoteli on Delaware and iChipi was to make room for the new one. That operation went fast and smooth, but that 210 Delaware building sat there empty for years and created a host of problems. With the irisingi of Buffalo in progress, no one wants to see a monolith from the days of Vietnam and Trick Dick Nixon sitting there empty for years like some misbegotten iWatergate Hoteli. Demolish, destroy, wreck, implode, explode, then build anew and it does not have to be a building, it could be green space.

Oh, by the way regarding the question made to me personally that I believe is not permitted on this website:

"As If"

"I" don't "really" "understand" what you're "saying" half of the "time."

I'm of the opinion that prospective buyers won't be lining up to purchase this 'white elephant'...and I've heard that it's loaded with asbestos--which would cost a fortune to remove...much like Memorial Auditorium. Architecturally insignificant. Make room for a new development...preferably a commercial/residential combo that would compliment the West Village.

We should not ask the feds to do what is most COST effective for the taxpayers. We should expect them to do what is in the BEST INTERESTS of the taxpayers. In this case that would be the residents of the city of Buffalo. It would not be in the best interest of the people of the city to have this building sit empty or be sold to a developer that is unable to follow through on its plans. If the Feds sell this to the highest bidder without any guaranty that the property will be used at its highest level the city will very likely suffer.

As for the Ford Hotel. It was NOT demolished to make way for the Hampton Hotel. It was demolished to make way for a surface parking lot. Big difference.

David S. : What the heck are you talking about?

My statement seems clear. What is it that is confusing you?

I'm confused. Wouldn't the asbestos have to be completely removed before the building could be demolished. If you're going to do that anyway, that takes asbestos off the table as a reason for demolition.

My prediction. Someone from outside the community (maybe in partnership with one of our handful of local developers with vision) will purchase the building, abate the asbestos, and create a mixed use building with condos on the upper floors and Class A office on the lower.

I just don't uderstand why people think its ugly. I enjoy the pattern of the facade. I think it might be nice to hire an new architect that can design a complementary modern addition at the base of the building that can meet up closer against the perimeter of the lot.

Demolishing a structure this size will fill a landfill just what we need! Because it is not the most beautiful building but it could be given a facelift of sorts but demolishing a perfectly reusable building because we dont like the way it looks? The building is 35 years old, It appears to be in good condition.

Exactly right, the asbestos has to be removed before demolition so it cant be the reason for demolition since it has to happen anyway.

Its already been explained that the GSA was the reason for closed air vents and closed windows etc....

Its already been explained that asbestos abatement has different standards for private sector and government.

Add a first floor wrap around to the sidewalk....for retail...and the tower has alot of uses. The underground parking alone makes the building valuable! Think of all the small businesses it could house...from local colleges to the Life Sciences Corridor a few blocks away....plus the 17 story building adds wonderful density to that section of the city...

Gosh...the negativity is just sickening!

You guys

To : iWhati re: iIi don't ireallyi iunderstandi what you're isayingi half of the itimei

until now

To: davids

"As for the Ford Hotel. It was NOT demolished to make way for the Hampton Hotel. It was demolished to make way for a surface parking lot. Big difference."

and furthermore

This is almost a no-brainer. remove the segal scultpure put it in front of the new burchfield (even though he is not from western new york but could give the museum some credibility) and tear it down. The cost of a gut-rehab to this lemon is a major detraction to any possible re-development.

In saying that, we do not need another surface parking lot, and i think the price of abatement and demolition will keep the bottom feeders away from this building.

so what should be put in its place? housing? mixed use? something will be built by what ever sucker they loor in.

Practically the whole of Buffalo and Lackawanna are filled with parking lots and buildable land!

You want more! More land, more brownfields, more demolitions, more parking lots.

Enough, we have a building....if its 10% occuppied...well that seems to be good enough for main place mall and thats still standing!

Its easy to knock a building down. Its harder to build a city!

Perhaps you idiots (yes idiots) should put as much energy into creating businesses and jobs, into joining local institutions, into improving schools and local government.....in other words into doing something constructive. In case you havent noticed it: MOST OF BUFFALO AND LACKAWANNA ARE ALREADY DEMOLISHED!

YOU KNOW WHAT YOU REMIND ME OF.... YOU REMIND ME OF EVERY COMPANY THAT SOLD OUT! SOLD OUT BUFFALO AND SOLD OUT THE UNITED STATES! INSTEAD OF GM COMPETING WITH TOYOTA THEY TOOK THE PROFITS AND CLOSED PLANTS!

INSTEAD OF BUFFALO COMPANIES COMPETING...THEY MOVED OUT!

INSTEAD OF US COMPANIES COMPETING ... THEIR OUTSOURCING OR SELLING TO FOREIGN OWNERS!

DESTROY, DESTROY, DESTORY! THATS ALL YOU IGNORANT PEOPLE KNOW IS HOW TO DESTROY!

YOUR KEEPING YOUR MOUTHS FED OUT OF THE HARD WORK AND SACRIFICES OF THE PREVIOUS GENERATIONS THAT BUILT THIS CITY AND OUR COUNTRY!

Look around, there are already plenty of empty lots ripe for infill...you want to add yet another!

Im apalled! The entire city of Buffalo and Lackawanna is demolished and your answer to nearly every problem is demolish! One can only wonder what you and your generation will add to our city other than an empty lot!

I have to agree.

Look at our country today...we have Don Quixote chasing windmills in the middle east, our jobs being exported, our companies and ports sold off and 9 trillion dollars in debt...not to mention the credit card debt of the average american.

Erie Canal....fill it in Erie Canal Wharf....fill it in Masterpiece Buildings.....demolish them Grain Silos, Steel, Oil Refineries....demolish them neighborhoods....demolish them

Hey Im from Niagara Falls and we are so envious of Buffalo because your still in intact city. We, in Niagara Falls, learned the hard lesson about demolition....often things dont get rebuilt!

Niagara Falls has no downtown! In Buffalo just ask yourself how long your waiting to fill in all the empty lots you have! In Niagara Falls our whole city is infill....and now its owned by the Senecas so we really dont even have community control over our downtown anymore!

Its almost laughable how Buffalonians cant even learn the lessons about demolition from Niagara Falls only 15 minutes away!

Someone needs to smack you Buffalonians cause I honestly dont know where your brains are sometimes!

I gave the history of this building and inferred not only who built it but how it was built. Yes, the asbestos will have to be removed anyway so why demolish it is not a great argument to save the thing. Knowing who built it, and the problems with the construction, can anyone assure me that they know it is safe? For those that say that the building has an inherent architectural value, its beauty is a redeeming value and want to somehow salvage this, I would say that is an entirely subjective opinion. Can anyone say for sure that developers won't be lining up at the public trough, to somehow remodel that turkey to put in the myriad of projects that only a government subsidy can provide? Let's completely forget about the whole of us who pay taxes that will go out as ifree moneyiall in the name of protecting that damn building.

Here's a question, what about the effect on the residents of the surrounding neighborhoods? What will remodeling, upgrading, re-doing, etc. do to the property values? As far as historial value is concerned, that by and large would seem to drive up property taxes in direct correlation to historical value. Anyway, who says that it is historical? There is little argument that seems to have been raised against my proposed use of the empty lot as a green space.

As to being an iidioti because I want to demolish the building...

...very limited

As to being ignorant because I want to demolish the building

...that's creative

OOps, almost forgot

"Gosh...the negativity is just sickening!"

That's possible-let's just call it the good side and the dark side...voila BROWNIES

Hey kids,

We just heard a really interesting and compelling story about the construction of this building. I want to know what's in the blueprints, what the inspectors, both city and federal, have found in this building. It's not a fabulous building, though the shell is nice for c. 1971. I don't believe 35 years gives it credibility, especially if the Feds are abandoning it and building anew. There's a reason it's being sold.

If anyone would LISTEN to the guy, that's a real story, with connections to today, a lesson in how some bad things have gotten done in this town and why it's actually a good thing that our city is now a bit more flexible and not run by either Big Capitalists or Powerful Union Leaders. Yes, there's lots still wrong, but for the first time in decades we may actually be able to fix some of it.

Make it green space, or living space or retail space, make it anything but a parking lot. Make it friggin' shovel ready with petunias on top. This one I don't care about. The Media Study building coming down STILL makes me sick to my stomach, but that's not the same thing by a LONG stretch. Hell, they are finally doing something with the Boy Scout's field. Things are going as well as they have ever gone since I commuted to high school in this here big city 25 years ago.

Didn't your mother ever tell you that if you don't have something good to say don't say anything at all? I am all for constructive criticism but don't you just get the feeling that some people never pass up a single opportunity to complain. Buffalo seems to be on the edge of a renaissance. Lets all be helpful in our comments to help it along. I know this concept might be difficult for the "DOOM AGANY & DISPAIR" crowd. But lets give it a try.

Scottie...you're way off....and out of line. The building is an albatross...and there have been many productive and creative suggestions...including a smaller, mixed use facility that would truly compliment the neighborhood--with commercial and residential appeal. Your 'destroy...destroy' rant is ludicrous. Do you read this website...or the paper? If you did, you'd know how many old buildings with great architectural value are being turned into 'new' residential and/or commercial properties. This monster towers over a great section of our West Village. I guarantee you if the building is sold...it'll sit vacant--or have marginal occupancy at best. Are you sitting back in your easy chair waiting for Bass Pro to open? How long has it been since that announcement was made? Most progressive big cities raise their old stadiums to make way for new development. The jury is out on what this building could deliver...real questionable.

I have nothing more to say! Your idiots!

Let the building sit empty! Let it sit with 10% occupancy! Heck, give it out as free rent to any Medaille, Canisius, Buffalo State, UB or D'Youville incubator business. In other words, use it to create jobs!

Offer free rent to any business willing to relocate to Buffalo and bring their jobs with them!

Free space would still be cheaper than demolition!

Your idiots for wanting to add to it by taking down a 17 story building. Do you know how long it will take before Buffalo gets another 17 story building built! Look at my city Niagara Falls....look what we demolished....look at how much of our city is rebuilt! None!

Hey, its up to the person that has the money to buy it....so its not going to be solved by me or you! But my guess is that the building will be sold cheaply enough for low rents, remediation and upgrades. Businesses would pay rent just for the free parking!

John,

I know what you are saying and normally I'd agree, but the environment counts, and this is a special case. I don't agree with most demolition proposals.

In the case of this particular building, potential occupants won't see the benefit if there are major HEALTH CONCERNS. The liability might be rather high. AND Buffalo, thankfully, is nowhere NEAR Niagara Falls in terms of degradation. Incubator space is not that hard to come by. IF gutting it is an option, it will be very expensive, in which case someone will have to pay practically nothing for it. And if it was poorly constructed to begin with, what exactly are we saving? That's why I would want to see the structural and health reports before a decision is made. That's where good government is meant to protect innocent people, but I don't know that we'll get a straight story. Perfect story for investigative journalism.

greentessier, Hhhhmmm, how ridiculously niaive are you!

Exactly how many buildings in Buffalo and Niagara Falls supposedly were poorly constructed, or decayed beyond being saved, or financially impossible to be redeveloped. I remember saying that about what was it St Josephs Cathedral.....they wanted to tear it down for an apartment building...and they couldnt demolish it....it was built to well.

You know the asking price but you dont know the sale price!

You say that there are health concerns, but you also read that they bolted the windows shut and closed the ventilation shafts giving the entire building bad air both of which could be recitfied.

Nor has there been an non-government estimate to remediate the estimate (remember there are different standards for government and private sector buildings)

greentessier I couldnt disagree with you more regarding the need for low cost real estate. They said that the Larkin@Exchange was beyond redevelopment and there was plenty of space elsewhere and its a very successful building.

Anyone putting a bid in for the building is going to have a building inspection and then they are going to subtract the cost of asbestos remediation and the cost of ventilation (HVAC), the upgrading the communications, the cost of roof and window repair, etc.

Chances are very likely that the government will accept all the deductions in the price as compensation (which most sellers do for buyers) and the building will be sold for a fair price.

What I cannot believe is why so many people do not understand the value of cheap rent to creating jobs or the value of high density real estate to local small businesses and local housing values.

Dont be so quick to toss away what you have? Its not a great building but it can bring 500,000 sqft of jobs to downtown Buffalo and thats nothing to dismiss lightly!

John,

I'm always a bit shocked at my own naivete actually, but in this case, I don't think that description (or topic) applies. I would hate to have to be MORE cynical and LESS pro-conservation than I already am.

Here's the thing: the vaue of 500,000 square feet of office space you can't fill is dubious when A) there are better sites being developed all over, and B) there aren't the people to create the jobs nor the economy to support the jobs nor the workforce to fill the jobs here in Buffalo at the moment.

Let me state this again: This is not a bad building, but it's not a precious building either. The current Larkin building is WAY cooler, and had more potential for a variety of reasons. When was the last time you went into the Dulski building?

And most importantly, you can rant and rave all you want: you don't know whether this is a well-made building or not. You don't know what it needs for remediation, and you don't know whether there's any rehab that will make it safe. Emphasis on DON'T KNOW. This is why objective media is critical. We don't believe the government, and we don't believe those who will make money from the deal, so who can give us the straight story on this? If it can be saved, great, save it. But it's not one I'd draw a line in the sand for.

Here's a really good building I think should be saved: There's a fabulous old convent behind the Squier building off Main Street. The Squier building was worth saving. A block east of Main street near Bryant would be a GREAT place for an incubator. It's near the new Artspace, near the subway, near the new Biotech fantasy land. Gorgeous building and built when people took pride in their work and had actual building trade skills. Save THAT building.

Here's an idea for a new BR feature. Find derelict buildings with good qualities that should be developed. That convent would be at the top of a list I could put together in like, 5 minutes. And if I have a list, no doubt others do too.

Having lived in DC, I can tell you that developers knocked down most, if not all, of the Dulski-style federal buildings because, as the Washington Post and local DC architects stated, they're eyesores. If you travel around the country to practically any big city, you'll have a hard time finding these buildings as well. Why? Because people couldn't knock them down fast enough.

The City of Buffalo has a long list of terrible decisions in destroying or not intervening to protect architectural masterpieces in this city - Franklin Lloyd Wright's Larkin Building, the Erie County Savings Bank, the Vernor, etc... However, I think many people have now become hyper-sensitive to any demolition in downtown Buffalo. It seems like every time someone mentions demolition, the city, preservationists and the owners tangle in a mixed-up mess.

Don't mistake me for someone who is just anxious to have new buildings in downtown - I actually find many of the recent construction projects to be lowbrow architecture with inappropriate suburban site plans, i.e. Niagara Center, Hampton Inn, the new Blue Cross headquarters...

However, we have to keep creating shovel-ready sites for new construction, and attempt to motivate developers to raise the bar. I don't think the city can attract new business with cheap deals for B or C-level vacant office space.

I'll stand on the front line to stop the demolition of historic architectural structures in Buffalo - but I just don't see how that federal slab is a landmark. Save the Siegal sculpture, but tear the sucker down. As I said before, I'd rather have a FUNCTIONING skyline than one that resembles a cemetary. What potential business is going to be sold on moving into downtown because of "tall" empty, ugly buildings?

For those people who argue that the city already has plenty of vacant land for construction projects - well, they're obviously not attracting interest. This site's location would.

For further insight into the construction of the building go to:

www.time.com and get into their archives, The Time Magazine article is dated August 31, 1971 and it is called: "Building With the Buffalo Boys". It is going to cost you a buck three eighty to get the article, but I found it an interesting read. I had heard much the same from a very small book at the Central Library that outlined the history and they had a special chapter on the Dulski Bldg. The article omits nothing.

You will see a couple of names you may recognize, especially if you are old enough to remember "Roseland" and the homicide that took place there in 1974...which I believe is still unsolved. Read the article then make up your mind.

Matt B;

You could not be more wrong there are already too many shovel ready sites downtown, they are called parking lots. We need to save this building at all costs so that our children can enjoy it.

I know what i want to happen - that'd be to demolish it a put something better looking and appropriate there, taller too, if possible.

i seriously doubt that though. At least give it a facelift - clean it up a little to make the site more appealing.

Sally,

Explain to me what exactly there is for our children to enjoy? I've been in that building, have you? If so - tell me about the selling points...

I've thought about the notion that, maybe some day we'll lament about the destruction of mid-century architecture in much the same way as we do now about the loss of the Larkin, Vernor, etc... I just don't see it. The old buildings that were destroyed were built with craftmanship, innovation - through trades that are now all but extinct - they were masterpieces. Mid-century architecture in a building like the Dulski looks boring, rushed, cheap, patterned...almost as if the pieces of its facade were mass produced and used to build similar federal buildings around the country. What is unique?

I don't like mid-century architecture, but i'll concede that buildings like the Buffalo News and M&T headquarters have some significance and deserve recognition. However, I don't see that argument for the Dulski.

I agree that our city is littered with parking lots - I hate them. However, at least some tax revenue and purpose are generated from them (albeit corrupt and minimal). White elephants end up costing the city money.

matt b,

Regarding "Explain to me what exactly there is for our children to enjoy. I've been in that building, have you? ...tell me about the selling points..."

I have been in the building. I worked in that building for many years. As I noted above, the views of the Buffalo skyline, and the waterfront are amazing. The interrior walls are thin and moveable-- and would make for easy gutting, rebuilding, etc.

I think architecture that is reflective of the time in whiich it was built is, at the very least, interesting. It's good to have all decades amply represented, even the 1960s/1970s--even if some people think this building is ugly. People also thought the Eiffel Tower was ugly and should be torn down after the International Exhibition of Paris of 1889. Can you imagine that city without it now?

OK, I know it's a stretch to compare the Dulski Building to the Eiffel Tower, or Buffalo to Paris, but you might get the idea nevertheless.

mattB : I was being sarcastic, of course the building is crap I was mocking the building huggers that populate this site. It's scarey how many were willing to agree with me

I think a number of good ideas have been brought forth in this discourse. Among them; Putting lowrise additions,3-4 floors up to the sidewalk right of way. Totally gutting it to the steel frame with a more contemporary skin. But I also agree with the person who had concerns about it's safety. If it is a "sick" building and not cost effective to clean, it would not be on the top of my list of buildings to save. Central Terminal? I would lay down in front of the wreckers ball. Red Jacket bldg. at Main and Allen, the same. Buffalo has plenty of architecture worth saving, the Dulski Bldg. is expendable. Oh yes I agree, save the Segal sculpture!

burzum,

Please help me understand. Why is there this desire among a small group of comments for very tall buildings in Buffalo. Please answer this for me.

And I'll spare you the psychoanalytical babble. Thanks

Wow - Sally you had me going, until I just read the last post.

Poor John - you aren't off on some of the things you say, but your anger ensures no one will listen.

Knock it down, re use it, I don't care, but I do care if there is no plan and/or no assurances. If someone is going to take it over and say they're doing something with it - they better bleepin' do it!!!

I applaud the Brown administration for making Paladino follow a construction timeline - what he got away with under Masiello was disgraceful.

Hey, I think the Dulski building would make really awesome housing with unbeatable city views. Theres no where else in the city where you can have a 10+ panoramic views out your living room window.

Yeah, I think it will be saved....the parking alone makes in invaluable.

Oh and the person who said that Buffalo isnt going to lure jobs to downtown with B and C Class real estate....I say... BULL! There are plenty of companies that cant afford Class A real estate and frankly its the Class B real estate that dominates downtown Buffalo LOL if you dont appreciate it....its practically impossible to appreciate downtown!

First off, asbestos abatement is not all about "removing", and is not "expensive".

I worked for such a construction company where we did this all the time.

Asbestos, is not continually loose or falling down, can be encapsulated and isolated and is not a problem anymore.

It's done all the time with excellent results. Asbestos is only bad if it is ground up and particularized and airborn. If it is stable and isolated and ENCAPSULATED, which is what is done today, it is no longer a problem.

Second: If someone WERE to demolish the building, ALL the asbestos would have to be removed FIRST and COMPLETELY before any demolition can take place.

This too is done all the time - they just did it to the old "Castaways" casino tower here in Las Vegas before imploding it. Took about half a year, but they "saran wrapped" the building and got rid of it all. The only reason they didnt' re-use it was that the floor plate and structure didn't lend itself to modern adaptive reuse.

So the cost of asbestos removal PLUS any demolition would probably be a deal breaker to any developer.

The building design is not hideous, but it is mediocre at best. It would be easy to strip the precast panels off the framework and re-clad the building in an attractive skin. It's basic floor plate is simple and would lend itself to a variety of uses, commercial offices or residential with minimal design effort.

To lose such a nice tall structure would be a shame - but I am partial to tall structures. It would be nice to see it remain.

Better landscaping, better use of first/lower floors to create more pedestrian friendly uses would be a plus.

Demolishing it isn't gonna happen I think. It's too good of a basic structure, and even with the asbestos, in quite good shape at first glance. Closer detailed inspection would reveal more.

At least that's my humble professional opinion.

And please, people, just address the issue, and cut it with the personal attacks. We are all on the same page here - for a better and greater Buffalo.

tear the sucker down by implosion..what an eyesore! best case scenario-the developer has an epiphany and turns the site into a city square..with lawn,benches and plant trees instead of building yet another mediocre cheaply built building worst case scenario-another parking lot..no matter how practical parking lots are..they suck the soul out of downtown. cheers