Demolition could begin next month on the massive, iconic Trico Products building, which for 87 years employed thousands making windshield wiper products before closing in March 2004.
But knocking down the building, listed on the National Register of Historic Places, won’t happen without a fight — and possible lawsuit — from preservationists.
The Buffalo Niagara Medical Campus wants to demolish most of the reinforced concrete building, which occupies nearly two downtown city blocks, in four stages, beginning April 15, to expand its footprint.
Spared would be about 20 percent of the building’s newest addition, which isn’t landmarked, and houses the Innovation Center, a technology incubator near full occupancy.
Sen. Charles E. Schumer visited the 20-month-old Innovation Center in October and said he would seek federal money to double its size.
Preservationists say the demolition process has lacked transparency, and without a study first on how the structure could be reused, it ignored the growing impetus — represented by the recent National Preservation Conference here — to preserve historic buildings.
“This building is a must save,” said Tim Tielman, executive director of Campaign for Greater Buffalo and a member of the Buffalo Preservation Board.
“The impact of Trico both as a physical and social presence is beyond calculation in Buffalo. The building is eminently adaptable for as many uses as the mind can imagine. We simply have to say this building — with the battle-minted top that everyone recognizes and lets them know they’re in Buffalo — shall not be lost, and figure out what to do with it.”
Preservation Buffalo Niagara, which held four meetings with Buffalo Niagara Medical Campus representatives, expressed regret that its offers of assistance were rejected and that a phased demolition was going forward.
“We are disappointed that this decision has been made without the availability of a reuse study to determine the feasibility of a historic preservation rehab of the building,” said Tom Yots, the group’s executive director. “We offered to help them understand what would be necessary to do a historic reuse study and to get grant money to hire a firm to do it.”
Matthew Enstice, Buffalo Niagara Medical Campus president and chief executive officer, left a voicemail message at The News that he was “surprised” by Preservation Buffalo Niagara’s decision to go public with its criticism and felt as if they “were working as good partners,” but would have no further comment.
Brendan Mehaffey, executive director of the city Office of Strategic Planning, said, “It’s been our advice that [Buffalo Niagara Medical Campus] be very open and engaged with the preservation community and go through all the proper channels in City Hall if they are going to pursue demolition.”
The Trico building — bounded by Ellicott, Goodell, Washington and Virginia streets — stands at the intersection of downtown Buffalo, Allentown, the Fruit Belt and the medical corridor. It was purchased by Buffalo Niagara Medical Campus at auction for $12.4 million in 2007.
Ownership was transferred to Buffalo Brownfield Restoration Corp., a subsidiary of Buffalo Urban Development Corp., which then made the Medical Campus the developer.
“The designated development agreement they requested and we signed gives them complete control of the facility. What they are planning to do is really their decision,” said Peter Cammarata, president of Buffalo Urban Development Corp.
He said the Medical Campus would need to take title before it could initiate demolition.
Richard Lippes, an environmental attorney and member of the Preservation Board, said a number of regulatory hurdles would almost surely push back the demolition timetable.
They include a state environmental review to determine whether an environmental impact statement needs to be done, and a decision by the Buffalo Preservation Board. “[The environmental review] could be drafted very quickly, but then that could be subject to a lawsuit,” Lippes said.
The Trico building’s listing on the National Register almost ensures that the environmental impact statement would be triggered, he said.
State preservation requirements would also kick in because state funding has been involved in the project. They include having the commissioner of parks, recreation and historic preservation weigh in on whether alternatives to demolition could be considered.
In addition, the use of federal funds, which Schumer has indicated he is trying to obtain, could result in a federal environmental review, Lippes said.
He said he would look “very skeptically at demolishing this building. I think it’s sound. Secondly, it’s clearly important historically. I don’t know if the mayor understands the groundswell of opposition he may be facing.”
Tielman said the Campaign for Greater Buffalo could ask a judge to stave off the wrecking ball if environmental reviews weren’t done. “We would not hesitate to go to court to stop anyone who would try to go forward with demolition without proper review,” he said.
msommer@buffnews.comnull