I tried. Posts on Craigslist. Numerous showings. Dozens of e-mails with local and distant potential investors. Nothing. I wrote about 669 last January, April and July. Most recently I mentioned 669 here, this past May. Here's the map.
I visited 669 Monday evening with a fashion photograher. He had contacted me earlier looking for unique urban spots for shoots this week. When we pulled up, my heart sank.
I'm fond of saying, "...even rocks have potential..." as a quick response when talking with others about the viability and economic impact of various projects. Sometimes I'll even say it rather defensively in discussions about the hollowing out of Buffalo and the loss of the urban fabric that made Buffalo one of the nation's leading commercial centers. Yet, 669 was different. Very different. The City of Buffalo purchased this place about 10 years ago and rented it out for five - still don't know why - anybody, fill us in, please.
669 was way different. Solid concrete construction with only minor roof repair by one window. Properly moth-balled could have been a major asset down the road. Awesome views.
Still looking for a button off the City's website - "Property for-sale" - which doesn't cost anything. Oh, and still looking for the strategic plan about demolitions. Oops. That requires some thinking. Which we seem to be running out of, too.
My other favorite view, looking away from downtown. Always wanted to catch a sunrise here...
__________________________________________________________________________I'm fond of saying, "...even rocks have potential..." as a quick response when talking with others about the viability and economic impact of various projects. Sometimes I'll even say it rather defensively in discussions about the hollowing out of Buffalo and the loss of the urban fabric that made Buffalo one of the nation's leading commercial centers. Yet, 669 was different. Very different. The City of Buffalo purchased this place about 10 years ago and rented it out for five - still don't know why - anybody, fill us in, please.
Still looking for a button off the City's website - "Property for-sale" - which doesn't cost anything. Oh, and still looking for the strategic plan about demolitions. Oops. That requires some thinking. Which we seem to be running out of, too.
My other favorite view, looking away from downtown. Always wanted to catch a sunrise here...
Artspace Archive • Annals of Neglect • BAVPA • Where is Perrysburg? • Broken Promises...
Writing the City • Woodlawn Row Houses • Tour dé Neglect - 2006 • faq
4 comments:
Dammit.
You know, that's a severe lack of imagination displayed there when the only sign the city has shown of even knowing of the building's existence is when they show up to tear it down.
I don't understand how the City Division of Real Estate is so inept at setting prices and putting up for sale signs. Isn't it run by a realtor who knows how to do this? Once again, instead of capitalizing on a potential asset, we the taxpayers are saddled with the costs of an (avoidable) demolition. A net loss-loss to the City and its residents. I suggest it is due to profiteering by those making the money - and those enabling the makinig of the money. Whgat else could it be?
Could it be "they" are clearing the site for more "vinyl victorians" one wonders...
669 was a totally solid building and atleast should have been moth-balled...
I love it that we spent taxpayer dollars to fund trips to Baltimore so our top city public servants could learn more about how Baltimore does government. How come when they were in Baltimore they didn't learn how Baltimore's city government does real estate? Baltimore has an excellent model. All we got was citi-stat at a much higher cost than seems necessary.
Post a Comment