Buffalo Rising Online

Well if the spires are already gone then let them put up domes. I wonder if they real reason for wanting to take them down originally was to make it easier to replace them with domes The spires look much nicer in my opinion but domes would be better than nothing even if it looks a bit odd..

Since the building is on the National Historic Register, the original spires must be installed again. Having the Crescents on the top are fine, since it is not a Catholic nor a Christian house of worship. I don't think such an alter would be permittable by the Preservation Board nor by preservationists on the whole.

East side investment by the muslim community is a good thing. Put up the domes.

It is too bad that the steeples were removed. But they are gone. This is a very unusual church with odd proportions. Without something on top of the towers it gets a bit lumpy. The Board is a "Board" because it is there to interpret the rules. If it always followed the rules "absolutely" we would not have any demos in Allentown for instance. I think there is strong precedent throughout the world for layering new forms on others -style on style - new on old (many early Gothic Churches started out as Romanesque - Hagia Sofia started out as a Christian church - etc). The best cities are the ones layered thickly with the elements of many different generations and cultures. This is one bright spot on the east side and a path to saving a precious part of Buffalo's heritage. The Domes should be approved.

BUT

They need to do the domes with a high level of detail and high quality materials such as copper. Some of the sketches suggest that they might do that but I would insist on proof before approval

I got this from Michael Miller of the Central Terminal Restoration Corp. and Broadway/Fillmore Alive (who's having trouble logging in):

"I just wanted to say a few things: preservation of churches is a difficult issue. As a preservationist, I feel that it is 100% more important to rehabilitate and find adaptive reuses (which may require modifications to the building) than it is to restore the original details. Churches are tough rehabs and often require extensive exterior and interior modifications. Look at the King Urban Life Center on Genesee and the Asbury. Both successful rehabs but both required modifications for the reuses. We are going to face the same issue with the rehabilitation of the interior of the terminal.

I don't have a problem with the domes. It gives the Muslim community around it more of an identity. Keep in mind, they saved this gutted church from destruction. It would have been another Transfiguration if they hadn't. I think we also have to stop branding B/F as "Polonia". It's not Polonia any more. It excludes too many other groups that reside there. Just my thoughts."

Michael, thank you for the comments. I agree with you in general about use of "Polonia" and can't express enough admiration for the efforts to rebrand and revitalize the Broadway/Fillmore area. I've always heard Polonia used more as a heritage/cultural reference rather than specifically geographic - since the article dealt with what was an old Polish church on one of the old Polish-named streets, I used Polonia consciously that way.

Hey, RaChaCha, thanks for posting my comments. I finally got back in, after trying all day!

I do understand the use of the word Polonia. It's a vital part of the history of the area and I don't want that to be forgotten.

I think that we need to look at preservation more holistically, because the fact is, we cannot save every old building. It's not realistic in Buffalo's current economic climate. We need to realize that preservation, as a whole, is more important that recreating every historic detail. I realize that I may be at odds with others in the preservation community on this, but in my mnd, it's preferable to save an endangered building through adaptive reuse (and any reasonable exterior/interior modifications) than it is to watch them face demolition.

Joshua, the mosque building is a local City of Buffalo landmark. It could be eligible for the state and national register, but hasn't been through that more extensive and involved listing process. It will be interesting to see how the preservation board considers and balances all these factors - stay tuned.

Check out this image of a church with domed towers (at Hudson and Clifford) in Rochester's Polonia: http://www.vintageviews.org/vv-r/buildings/cards/chr003.html

{deleted}

I think the board may be more likely to allow this change due to the circumstances of the building. The building has been stripped of much of its Christian imagry and has previously been rehabbed on the interior following the major fire. In addition, the spires were previously removed due to structural failure. There is no requirement for replacement, and with the use of the building having changed it is appropriate to allow the domes which represent the continuation of use of the building.

bhorvath, you mean the preserved facade from the gas works, incorporated (sorta) into the Blue Cross/Blue Shield building.

You hit the nail on the head about subjective and political - the paradox is that although preservation is concerned with buildings and structures (inanimate things), it's also a fundamental human activity, and involves the fundamentally human traits of judgement, motivation, aesthetics, history, vested interests, and economics. This case fascinates me because of the way several aspects and circumstances are combined to create a very unique situation which different people will likely look at very differently. It will be interesting to hear how this was handled by the preservation board, and to see what happens.

The Preservation Board loved the plan (it's a good reuse of a church) and only wanted more details on materials and craftsmanship. It might have been different if we didn't struggle with so many other churches that we don't have reuse plans right now.

This group is preserving a building that would have otherwise been lost entirely. The domes are reversible if someone wants to rebuild the spires 100 years from now - and the building remains the cultural center of the community (unlike so many other churches in Buffalo).

Harvey

Harvey, thanks for the update. One of the (many) cool things about visiting the Central Terminal is the stunning view of all the nearby religious architecture. These domes will make quite a striking addition to that sight.

Harvey, I don't know how much time you have to comment on this, but to bhorvath's point, the Richardson Complex as you know is both State/National Register listed - as well as a designated National Historic Landmark (and these distinctions often confuse even preservation fans). But if the mosque building had been listed in the State/National Register of Historic Places, would the preservation board have had to follow a different process of evaluation, or have had more stringent considerations in making a decision--? Do you think there might have been a different outcome--? I'm finding this case to be an interesting preservation education opportunity.

Roch,

I believe the Buffalo Preservation Code is only enabled to regulate designated city landmarks and there is no higher level of review for buildings with other listings. The NR or State listing only has an effect if the local enabling legislation says it will review buildings with those designations or there is federal or state money or permitting involved.

Bhorvath,

As far as reversibility, it is a principle of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation governing most reviews in this country. Reversibility does not include the demo of a building and the ability to reconstruct.

bhorvath,

the spires no longer exist so nothing is being removed and replaced, the domes would be constructed where the spires were once located.

The Richardson towers are intact and are character defining features of the building. The spires are not extant and are compatible with the historic building, there is a set of guidelines, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation which guide what can or cannot be done to a historically designated building.

b - this should shed some light on the issue. Character defining features are utilized by the National Park Service as a standard definition, at some point there has to be an arbitor.

http://www.nps.gov/hps/tps/tax/rhb/guide.htm