It’s been five years since I started on our SharePoint implementation project, and recently a new opportunity arose that piqued my interest.  The opportunity was to rejoin the e-Commerce group, however this time as part of the business team instead of the IT team.  It’s a great opportunity for me to become directly involved with the products we sell and learn more about our business operations.

This new role also sets me on a track which will likely result in me relocating out of the Buffalo area, which will be a bittersweet change as I’ve grown to know so many people here and invested so much time and affection in certain pet projects.  However, those experiences certainly helped build my skills which ultimately prepared me for this career move.

For the near term, though, I’ll be sticking around and continuing to work with our IT team here, and our business teams in Chicago and Danbury.  I’m excited to be taking on this new challenge at Praxair.

I am pleased to announce that Derek Punaro, currently Lead IT Information Architect, has accepted the position of E-Commerce Specialist, reporting to me. Derek will replace [redacted], who has left Praxair to pursue other opportunities.

Derek’s main focus will be the e-catalog that supports all our different packaged gas e-commerce channels and will work closely with everyone on the team in this capacity. One important part of this will be to work with the Product Data Hub project team to align the system and workprocesses with the e-catalog efforts. Derek’s broad experience in information architecture, programming and systems will be a great asset to the business.

Derek will work to transition from his current position to his new role over the coming weeks and will be in contact with many of you to understand our projects, data, systems and work processes. Please join me in welcoming Derek to our team!

Jakob Janzon
Marketing & Business Development
Praxair, Inc.

Suddenly this week rumors began circulating that BNMC was preparing a demolition plan for Trico Plant #1.  That rumor was substantiated when Preservation Buffalo Niagara released a statement saying that BNMC had rejected their offers of assistance to help fund an adaptive reuse study for the building and would likely try to push their demolition request through bypassing the Buffalo Preservation Board’s review.  This is where I start to become peeved.  Trico Plant #1 has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places since 2001 – six years before BNMC acquired rights to develop this property.  They obviously knew what they were getting, and they certainly had no problems in leveraging that status to get state and private funding to redevelop part of the building into the Innovation Center.  So now, why is BNMC trying to end run around the city entity responsible for protecting the type of structures they’ve taken advantage of in the past?

BNMC has been excessively silent this week, saying nothing more than this terse quote obtained by the Buffalo News:

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.

Ok, now let’s start cutting the bullshit.  BNMC was in no way surprised by PBN’s statement.  Nor were they surprised by their stance.  More than likely, BNMC has been sitting on these demolition plans for quite some time and any meetings between the two organizations were cursory simply so they could make the above statement publicly.  The Buffalo Niagara Medical Campus knew this would be a hot button issue with the local preservation community, hence the quick demolition schedule – try and get it pushed through before anyone can tie it up. Of course, that was highly unlikely to happen, and now instead of being upfront and forthcoming with their plans, BNMC has blown a large chunk of their accumulated community goodwill by proposing demolition of a registered historic structure without so much as indicating that they even have a plan for the space.  If there’s one thing that preservationists (even those “moderate” ones like myself) don’t want to see it’s demolition to create more “shovel-ready” sites or expansive parking lots at the expense of viable, redevelopable buildings.

I also had the honor of sparring a bit with a few folks on Twitter today on the topic.  Some standpoints were flatly untenable and other were valid points for consideration.  But we can’t have a real dialog on the subject until we dispense with the lies and misconceptions and get some real facts.  So let’s break down some of the common arguments.

1. “The Trico building isn’t historic.” – False.  It’s listed on the National Register of Historic Places.  That is the very definition of being a historic place.  There is an application and a review process that is vetted by professionals in the field.  Applications go first to your state Historic Preservation Office, generally with letters of support from your local Board (if there is one) and local officials, and if it gets past them it then goes to the National Parks Service.  If they sign off on it and include it in the Register, congratulations – you are now a “Historic Place.”
2. “The Trico building is ugly.” – Subjective.  Even if it is, that doesn’t affect whether or not it’s worthy of preservation.  See the Third Church of Christ, Scientist in D.C.
3. “It can’t be adapted for use as a modern medical facility.” – False.  First, factory buildings tend to be the easiest to adapt because they’re generally wide open floor plates with high ceilings and only support columns to work around.  Wake Forest University’s Biotech Place [PDF] is a clear example of a similar space adapted for exactly this kind of use.  Is it possible that the structure doesn’t fit what BNMC wants to do with it?  We don’t know.  They haven’t announced any plans or made any such statement.
4. “It’s falling apart.”  – Extent Unknown.  We know there was roof damage back in 2007 when BNMC acquired the building and we know that bricks have fallen off.  So the question then is…  why hasn’t the landlord done anything in the last 5 years to fix it?  Not taking care of your property for the intended purpose of eventually making it more convenient or urgent to knock down is known as “demolition by neglect” and that makes a lot of people quite ornery.
5. “It’s contaminated.” – Unknown.  While some have commented that environmental studies were done early on, the results of those studies haven’t been made public.  Regardless, most types of contamination are fixable, and many will need to be remedied before demolition could take place anyways.
6. “We have too many vacant buildings. It’s better torn down.”  – False.  In the case of Trico, we have a National Register listed building which makes it eligible for up to 40% in redevelopment tax credits.  Saving it preserves a piece of history and part of Buffalo’s character, keeps it out of the landfill, and saves from the need to reconstruct from scratch.
7. “…buildings in Buffalo that sit vacant for years are only “historic” when someone wants to something with them.” – False.  Trico Plant #1 was named to the National Register of Historic Places in 2001 – six years before BNMC acquired the property.  They knew what they were getting, both in status and condition.
8. “Buffalo wouldn’t fight to keep Trico here, but we’ll sue people for the bldg.” – False.  Quite a bit was done to try and keep Trico here actually, but ultimately they packed up and took production to Mexico, like many of the manufacturing jobs in this country have.  And that has no impact on whether or not to allow BNMC to tear down a historic building.
9. “BNMC needs the space to expand.” – Mixed.  The Medical Campus is certainly growing, and that’s fantastic.  But expand how?  If you’re demolishing the Trico plant, what is replacing it?  If there was a viable plan to replace the plant with a new building, that makes a much stronger case for demolition.  But then again, take a look at these two parcels and tell me which makes more sense to reuse and which to build new on?

So where does that leave us?  Well, an application for local landmark designation went before the Preservation Board today, with a public hearing scheduled for March 22nd.  There’s too much visibility on the building now to let a quick demolition permit slip by unnoticed.  You can follow updates on the Save Trico Plant 1 Facebook page.  There are also many questions that remain to be answered, and some that have yet to be asked, but at risk of burning any bridges related to my own preservation project, I’ll leave those cans of worms for some of the other investigative bloggers to open.

Could Trico be torn down?  Yes.  It’s designation on the National Register offers it very little in the way of protection from demolition.  Local landmark status carries heavier weight in that regard.  Could Trico be replaced with a magnificent new facility that would make everyone forget that the “ugly factory” ever existed?  Probably.  But if those were the plans, BNMC would have that plastered all over every available media outlet.  Could we end up tearing down a building – who’s history is tied to an invention used by every person who drives a car, from a company who’s founder’s namesake foundation is the largest philanthropic organization in Buffalo today – with just another parking lot that will remain for the next 5, 10, 20 or more years?  Absolutely.  And that would be a damn shame.

Enter Lightroom.

So I actually spent a couple hours going through some of Adobe’s online tutorials to get some insight into how to really use the tool.  Very helpful.  I learned all sorts of things I would have never discovered on my own.  Then I set off to adjust a photo of the Terminal that I love, but hated certain aspects of.  Here it is:

Love the tone, hate the noise and the darkness of the Baggage Check arch.  So, I tried out a multitude of Lightroom tweaks and got this:

I could easily fix the perspective distortion, the chromatic aberration and the luminance noise, perk up some of the darker areas, and easily add back in the lens’ vignetting after adjusting the cropping.  Not bad for a first time shot at using Lightroom!

Next up…  transferring it to Photoshop to remove that damn EXIT sign…

Here’s how I see it – yes, Buffalo has its problems.  But we’re not the only city that has problems.  We have great people, but we’re not the only city that has great people.  So what really distinguishes Buffalo?  What makes Buffalo Buffalo?  Location.  And History.  In one word – Place.  Our history is instantiated by the buildings we create and the monuments we construct.  Our location is defined not only by geography, but proximity to other population centers.

So what makes Buffalo Buffalo?  We’re located on one of the largest freshwater lakes in the country.  We’re on a heavily trafficked international border and a short enough distance from the largest city in Canada.  And because Buffalo was a major city in the early years of the United States, we have a lot of history and a lot of notable buildings that were created while that history was happening.  Our default action should be to save those buildings whenever possible.

Why?  These buildings are part of the city’s identity.  The more we lose, the less unique we become.  Buffalo needs every advantage it can get to regain it’s place as an burgeoning economic center, and having a strong identity is a major advantage.  Our social, commercial, and industrial heritage should be part of that, because it’s already here, and it is “For Real”.  We don’t need to fabricate an identity, we already have one.  We’re international, we have great natural resources, and we have history.  All we have to do is leverage what we have and build on it.

That’s not saying that there aren’t other problems that need to be fixed, or that preservation alone is going to save Buffalo.  But why not start there?  Historic rehabilitation creates coveted construction and highly skilled craftsman jobs.  Those are actual green jobs, because you’re not sending entire buildings to the landfill and replacing them with the disposable crap that many buildings are made from today.  And this type of preservation is tested, proven, quantifiable economic development.

What we need now is to convince our elected officials that this is the way of our future.  Preservation projects, especially the large-scale ones, require the cooperation of city, county, state, and federal representatives.  In our fractured political climate, this may be the biggest challenge, even moreso than finding the money to complete the projects.  Without their help in setting and dictating the vision, every new project is open for debate and petty bickering, and valuable time is lost.

In one conference session last week being given by a German man responsible for helping to establish Europe’s Industrial Heritage route, “People in Europe no longer question whether preservation is worthwhile, it’s already been proven and is accepted.  The demand to live in places with rich heritage sites exceeds the supply.”  We have the supply here in Buffalo and it’s our responsibility to not squander that.  In other places in the world, things like this are being built:

And the people there aren’t even laughing at the idea. They’re embracing it.  A lot of people came to town last week that see the potential that Buffalo has that a lot of people here refuse to acknowledge.  That’s a Place that they’d like to come back to, and a Place that we should be proud to call home.

The Terminal has been closed all week, even to most of us in the CTRC, as their crew has been setting up and prepping for the show.  We met the cast last time they were at the Terminal for the TAPS ghost hunt event in May 2009.  Wow…  look how small Ariella was!

Anyways…  the live show starts Halloween night at 7pm on SyFy.

One of the most frequently cited negatives of the Central Terminal project is that we’re located too far away from the downtown core. Yet with the Statler we have a historic building of the same age as the Terminal in the most prime location in the center of downtown. Yet, we have some people arguing it has a negative market value? That seems extraordinarily unlikely seeing that there were at least two bidders for it in the last auction, and the prior owner paid a couple million for it. There are hundreds of buildings in the city that you actually couldn’t give away which would fit the “worthless” moniker much better.

Of course, you have the people parroting for it’s demolition, but demolition is expensive for a structure like this. First, the building undoubtedly has asbestos that would need to be removed first. Asbestos removal is one of the costly items to deal with when rehabbing an old building. Second is the question of what do you replace a demolished building with? Buffalo isn’t in need of any more parking lots or shovel-ready sites. So if you don’t have a project waiting in the wings for this lot, and if you’re going to be stuck with an expensive taxpayer-funded demolition, what do you do? Exactly what is being done with the Statler – you seal it up and wait until the right developer comes along.

I think we can go one step better, actually. More needs to be done to preserve these key buildings that give Buffalo it’s unique feel and tie in it’s historical roots. Most business tax breaks are frequently criticized as being overly generous to a small number of companies, and many people are unsettled with the concept of handing over taxpayer dollars to businesses. The other “solution” has been instead to throw millions of dollars into brand-new development somewhere where there’s a clean slate, but that only distracts attention away from the problems at the city’s core.

Most people agree that infrastructure maintenance is a role of government. So, why not treat these buildings as infrastructure and take the money being thrown away for silver-bullet development and given away to companies that can afford to operate without the various tax breaks and subsidies and instead create a fund that will be directed towards preserving and preparing these key structures for the future? Focus on the areas that are expensive and problematic which deter the private developers – remove lead paint and asbestos, prevent water damage by sealing up roofs and windows, keep drains flowing and basements dry, and prevent scavengers from getting inside and stripping elements for scrap. Rather than letting the building sit dormant and slowly decay, make the investment to keep it usable for the future and more attractive to a developer who can focus on redeveloping it for current-day uses.

Everyone agrees that vacant, boarded up buildings have a negative impression on their area, so making sure there is a few of them as possible is an improvement to the entire community. A reinvestment plan like this makes the area more attractive to businesses, and will ultimately lower the cost of doing business by making buildings cheaper to rehab, thus lowering rent. It’s an investment in the city itself, which is what our tax dollars should be going towards.

It’s laughable to hear people say that the Statler it’s past it’s time. The Statler is nowhere near unsalvageable – it still had tenants in right up until it’s close. The Central Terminal has been largely vacant for 30 years. The Statler is a general-purpose building that can be easily adapted to a variety of purposes, unlike the Central Terminal’s purpose-built function which requires more imagination to adapt. And yes, the Statler is within spitting distance of the City Hall, not segregated a few miles away. I’ve read some comments from people saying a group like the CTRC should take over the Statler because we’ve done a commendable job with the Terminal, but volunteers are not what the Statler needs. If our group could get the Central Terminal back to the condition the Statler is in, that would be a success in itself. It’s the next phase of restoration that’s difficult and expensive and can’t be done simply by having dedicated people that love the project. Fixing the problems of the past to prepare for the future is where government can step in and do something tangible to help. Investing in your own property is something individuals and businesses alike can understand and regularly do, so we should be able to extend that philosophy to the public level.

It’s a bittersweet moment for me. I had previously applied for a Board position back in 2006, but was beat out by none other than Mark himself and Kate Resetarits, whose term ended earlier this year. Regardless of not getting on the Board, I continued working with the group, creating and fulfilling the roles of Media Relations Coordinator and Volunteer Coordinator, and helping out with rebuilding the website. Last year, Mike moved into the President’s role after Russell’s departure, and Mark took on the VP position while still acting as Treasurer. It was clear earlier this year that Mark was quite overextended, and I offered to Mike and Mark to step in as Assistant Treasurer (Assistant to the Treasurer?). Since both were former Treasurers, I would have plenty of mentoring. Both thought it was a great idea and that I’d be able to pick up the role without any problem.

Then, things abruptly changed. Before I had time to get very far into the new job, Mike died. Mark was the logical choice to step up to become President, but that meant he could no longer legally hold the role of Treasurer. None of the other existing Board Members were particularly interested in the job, so I was asked to join the Board.

I’m already accustomed to keeping extensively detailed personal financial records, so the main challenge of taking on this role is learning QuickBooks. That’s where my IT background comes into play, and where Jeff’s experience as former Treasurer and owner of his own business will help.

So, how have things changed for me? Well, I’ve made more trips to the bank in the last two weeks for the CTRC than I have in a year in handling our personal finances. My [useful] email volume has probably doubled as I bounce a lot of questions and thoughts off the other Board Members. And, much to Amanda’s chagrin, I’ve certainly been spending more time at the Terminal lately and not with her.

The good news is that the CTRC is moving full steam ahead, now beginning work on a master plan for redevelopment ourselves, no longer waiting around for a developer to step up to the plate and take on the project. The loss of Mike, tragic as it was, did not derail our efforts in the slightest bit. Instead, we took it as a reminder that we need to get this project finished. As I said to Mark Sommer when he interviewed us for the Buffalo News article (he misattributed the quote to Tony, but no hard feelings, Mark ) we’ve always felt we had a responsibility to keep the Terminal around. Now, we also have the responsibility to finish this project for those who put so much effort into it and aren’t going to see it completed.

I’m happy to be an even bigger part of that effort.

Last Thursday, our good friend Mike Miller passed away. Many people knew Mike from the work he did for the Buffalo Central Terminal, Broadway Fillmore Alive, and most recently Preservation Buffalo Niagara. We knew Mike first as a friend, and a great advocate for Wesern New York second.

You often hear people say, “He’s the nicest guy you’ll ever meet” about a person. With Mike, this was genuinely the truth. I’ve never known another individual to be so selfless, so caring, and so genuine in everything he said and did. That was Mike – always quick to point out a person’s redeeming qualities when others might not see them. Always the level-headed mediator. Always willing to give people the benefit of the doubt.

Whenever we would have Mike over for dinner, he’d remind us he was a “meat and potatos” guy, which was both literal (seriously – we learned not to try and give the guy broccoli) and figurative. Mike was never interested in the politics of a situation, he just wanted to get things done. It’s one of the things that made him so successful at what he did. I’ll always remember the first CTRC board meeting after Russell had left and Mike assumed the role of President. He said, “My goal is to replace myself as soon as possible,” feeling that he was inadequate for the job. However, not only did he not need replacing, his work with the CTRC and BFA led to him getting his dream job as Executive Director of Preservation Buffalo Niagara.

Mike helped Amanda get her foot in the door at M&T when she was frustrated with her own career path, and was always available to her when she needed to vent about anything. He was thrilled to find out when Amanda was pregnant and called himself “Uncle Mike” to Ariella. In another month, he would have been able to celebrate her first birthday with us.

When we’d have him over for dinner, he’d arrive with a magnum of white wine and it would be gone by the end of the night. That led to one unfortunate incident of me passing out in the bathroom one night, twisting my ankle in the process, which led to ongoing ribbing about me being a lush. Sadly, ironically, last week I scheduled a physical therapy appointment for Tuesday to deal with the lingering effects of that night. I’ll have to cancel it to spend one last day with the instigator.

Losing a member of the CTRC family is sad. Losing our president and guiding light will be difficult. Losing our friend is hardest of all. God Bless, Mike. We miss you.

Services will be held at the Buffalo Central Terminal Wednesday from 1pm-8pm. His obituary is reprinted at BuffaloCentralTerminal.org.

The eastbound entrance ramp to the Thurway at Exit 49 (Depew-Lockport-Route 78) will be temporarily closed from 8 p.m. Wednesday until 6 a.m. Thursday, due to a maintenance project, the state Thruway Authority announced.

A signed detour route will be in place for motorists planning to travel eastbound. That route will direct traffic west at Exit 49 to the westbound Thruway to Exit 52 E (Buffalo-Walden Avenue) and back to the eastbound Thruway.

The authority will activate portable signs and Highway Advisory Radio 1610 AM to advise motorists of the closure.

Umm… what? The Thruway Authority wants traffic heading eastbound on I90 from the Transit Road ramp to go west all the way to Walden to turn around and then head east? Does that make any sense at all? Here’s their suggested route:

13.4 miles gets you… right back where you started, and makes no progress towards your destination.

Here’s an alternative route. I don’t want to confuse anyone with it, but it consists of a grand total of 3 turns:

Take Genesee (NY-33) to NY-77 and you’re on the Thruway at Pembroke (the next exit eastbound on I-90). Only 19.1 miles and you’re well on your way to wherever you were headed.

And if you prefer an even lower mileage route (which I estimate to be a bit slower)…

Transit to Main (NY-5) to NY-77 and you’re there in only 17.5 miles!

So what possible reason could the New York State Thruway Authority have in sending you the “scenic” route that takes you at a minimum 11 miles out of your way? They get to collect $.15 from you for sending you westbound, and then $.85 for sending you back east! Yes, that’s right, not only are you saddled with the inconvenience, but they’re also going to charge you $1.00 for it.

Incredible.

There’s no room… like… ANYWHERE from that view to put one more track. The Terminal was only able to handle 80 passenger trains a day in it’s heyday with 14 platforms and… oh… underground access from the [now disconnected] passenger platforms to the main building.

Nope, don’t see how that could possibly work.

Update: Here are two photos that show the amount of track that used to be around Central Terminal.

Here’s a great example.

Reality:

But here’s the shot we created:

This was an “artificial sun” shot, tungsten balanced strobe so the ambient background light turns bluish.

Here’s just another cool shot:

(White shoot-through umbrella, reflector)

I have one more shot that I think needs some work before I post it.

(See part 1 if you missed it)

Tejada would set up the shot and the lighting and walk us through his process of composing the whole thing, then let us trigger the strobes with our own cameras and take the shots ourselves. Here’s two of my favorite shots from the day.

“Leaving” – The Setup:

(simple wall bounce)

“Leaving”

(I desaturated the final shot and cut the background completely to greyscale)

“Information” – The Setup:

(Overhead softbox, reflector below, side lights)

“Information”

(Straight out of the camera – no adjustment needed!)

Congratulations, Mike! May you do as many great things for PBN as you have for the Central Terminal and Broadway-Fillmore Alive!

Ok Buffalo Sports fans, I need some help. My most memorable Aud experience was going to the game where they honored Gil Perreault’s 500 goals. I remember getting a pennant and the Sabres driving a car out on the ice to give him as a gift. What I can’t remember is whether or not this was the same game he actually scored the 500th goal, or whether the game I was at was after that. Can anyone remember?

Despite the safety claims, study after study shows they are an ineffective safety tool and increase rear-end collisions at intersections. The National Motorists Association has compiled a collection of studies and written a large collection of articles on the subject. Some communities that have installed red light cameras have also tried shortening yellow light times to increase tickets, as well as various other frauds that were introduced. Ticket cameras also ticket the owner of the car, not the person driving, which gave some enterprising pranksters the idea to simply print out their own fake license plates with the number of someone they had it in for, and then tape it over their own license plate and proceed to drive through some red lights. Funny! Unless you’re on the receiving end and now have to waste your time trying to fight the ticket.

There are far more effective ways to improve safety and traffic flow at the same time, such as synchronizing lights in the city. But those don’t have the appeal of being a new revenue stream. Think I’m wrong? Take any article written about the red light cameras and show me where the politicians trying to bring them in talk about a target number of reduced accidents instead of a target amount of dollars they’ll bring in.

For those opposed to the idea of red light cameras in Buffalo, there’s a group on Facebook that is planning a protest in front of City Hall Thursday May 21st at 3:00pm.

In December, I got an email from someone who saw the photo on flickr, saying they were interested in using the photo for a book cover and asking how much I wanted for it. I did a little bit of research and ended up asking for $350 for rights to use the photo, $750 for exclusive rights. I based the pricing on how the photo would have been licensed if I sold it through Dreamstime. They wrote back saying they’d take the $350 option, to which I could hardly be disappointed, as it was my first major sale of a photograph.

Then came the annoying part – trying to get the money. The original person that contacted me was from a design firm, but I was then given a contact at the publisher (Hachette Book Group) to handle the payment process. This began a nearly six month long process of essentially me hounding them weekly for the money. A couple weeks ago, I noticed that they actually had the new book cover up on their website. That’s when I began the daily emails. I resent all my paperwork, as requested, and today the check finally arrived.

The book is a mass market reprint of “Another One Bites The Dust” by Jennifer Rardin. Here’s the cover:

Now there’s something odd going on on their website, where the smaller version of the cover is showing my image and the hi-res is showing a different one. I saved the hi-res one above off their website last week. Maybe in the end they won’t end up using it (they don’t really keep me informed of these things) but that won’t stop me from depositing the check. I feel like I earned it just trying to get paid. I’m still going to print it and hang it up in my office.

(P.S. – This same photo is available as a Firefox Persona)