the owner now wants to demolish the entire structure

he was only supposed to remove the second floor and use the first floor for a new business

if he hired a contractor that failed to only remove the second floor then have the contractor correct their error

the remaining portion of the building can be saved

the owner only needs to frame the new first floor using lumber instead of bricks

if he wants to use bricks for some of the repair then use students from boces that are getting into the trade of masons/bricklayers and the cost to lay the brick is far less

have an experienced bricklayer oversee the students work


save the front portion and 'marry' the old brick with the new wood lumber framing

sounds foolish to spend around $30,000 to demolish what is left

use the $30,000 that would be used to demolish the remaining section and use it to reframe the first floor in new wood lumber

if he decides to remove the structure he may run into a problem if there is a cement floor(1st floor) there currently

if he removes the cement floor it may cause problems with the adjacent brick structure

weaken the current foundation and the neighboring brick structure could fail

he may see a lawsuit from the adjacent building owner that far exceeds to $30,000 to demolish the remaining portion

he was going to spend $200,000 for the improvements

if he has spent %5,000 - $10,000 to just remove the second floor then he should have another $190,000 to $195,000 left over to reframe it

the cost to reframe it in materials would not even come close to $190,000

the cost for materials would not even exceed the $30,000 that he wants to spend to demolish the remaining portion

SAVE 29 LINDEN

I imagine all parties involved and the public would like to see the structure saved. However, it was mentioned in the newspaper that no contractor will "touch the project" because of the condition of the remaining structure.

Is there some type of bond or insurance that could feasibly be acquired to essentially entice a contractor to attempt to save and remodel the existing building?

If the building can't be saved, I would hope that some type of structure (brick pavilion?) could be erected in its stead using recycled materials from the former building. Cities such as Corning (and maybe Hornell?) have nice little parks with pavilions where buildings used to lie. Historical makers could describe the former Smith's Dry Goods building, etc. Personally, I do not find the idea of preserving only the facade appealing. Isn't that a rather inefficient use of the property?

If the building is completely raised and the property left vacant and fenced off, I simply can't imagine anything being erected on the parcel anytime in the future. I do not think the argument "the property is too valuable to go unoccupied" is realistic.

Even though the downtown properties are privately held, they really are community assets. I have faith that the community has enough creative capital and resources to fix the situation without leaving a vacant unoccupied lot behind.

did the owner provide written statements from the contractors as to why they would not touch it?

the city should require that the owner get written statements from the contractors as to why they would not do the project

the city would be able to see the level of experience the contractors would have

the city has worked with many contractors and know their skill levels

writtens statements from 'larrys septic cleaning', 'bobs auto repair' and 'two guys with a hammer' would not qualify as valid

the foundation was sound prior to removal of the second floor or the second floor would not have been removed and the owner would not have purchased the property

the front section is sound

those would be the only major concerns

the three walls removed (two side walls and the back section) can be rebuilt with wood framing

the two side walls can be connected to the front section of brick

the city could require that the owner get a structural engineer to evaluate the front section

if it is sound then rebuild the three walls (2 sides and the back wall)

if the front section needs additional work to make it stable then get an estimate

the owner may have to get a contractor that does brick work to take care of the front section

and then he may need a seperate contractor that has experience in wood framing for the two side walls and the back

the two side walls and the back are only a single story structure - straight forward construction

it would ben nothing more than a larger version of a backyard one story shed - simple framing for an experienced contractor





there should have been a bond prior to removal to protect the adjacent building

the bond should be used to fix the over aggresive removal of the solid first floor walls by the demolition contractor

if the contract stated that only the second floor brick walls be removed then that is all that should have been removed

the brick walls have been removed all the way down the the first floor

example: you hire a roofing contractor to remove the old shingles on your roof and put on new shingles all stated in a written contract

the roofing contractor has inexperienced workers and they use a chainsaw and cut thru the roof structure

the roof collapses and does damage to your second floor home

do you let the contractor walk away from the damage he caused?

or do you require that he fix all the damage to the roof and your home?

the written contract should indicate the work that needed to be done

anything damage above that is the responsiblity of the contractor

it would seem that the contractor that removed the second story may not have had enough experience to know that the first floor walls of brick would need to be braced so that they would not come down when the second floor walls were removed

the walls that were to be removed and the walls that were to stay should have had a 'relief' cut so the soild wall sections of brick would remain while the 'bad sections' of brick would be the only sections removed



if the foundation is sound - it should be sound or the partial demolish would not have been attempted

if the front facade is sound - it should be sound or the partial demolish of the second floor would not have been attempted

with the foundation sound and front facade sound the only task to move forward is to build a one story wood structure



if the facade is sound a simple one story structure to replace the unfortunate false removal of the solid first floor brick walls should be the best option



if the building is completely removed a new struture may not be able to be built there under new building codes



the business owners on linden street could 'loan' the owner of 29 linden enough money to frame out the one story wood structure to preserve the project

place a lien on his primary residence until 29 linden has the one story structure built

once the one story strucuture is built the lien is removed from his primary residence

if the current owner has no interest in the building then all he needs to is frame out the one story structure and sell it to someone else

a vacant lot has no value

a brick facade structure with a framed one story weather tight envelope would allow a 'new owner' to finish off the interior that fits their needs

if the front facade is sound and the foundation is sound it can be saved

You have valid arguments and make a case but simply put, contractors (speaking from experience) are not obligated in any form, written or verbal to give reason as to why they negate to involve themselves in any said project. Now with intent to secure or imply involvement, they are to subject themselves to perimeters set in place by the local ordinate or said owner. It's well known that many projects, particularly those pertaining to old building, the cost factor sometimes supersedes that of erecting a brand new structure.

would it be correct that the city of geneva has brought the owner of the property to court a few times over the past few months to get the owner to move forward with the project of finishing the first floor?

I wouldn't know due to the fact that I don't live in Geneva and find it awkward to weigh in on an unfamiliar topic. Based on previous postings, in the long run, is the issue a worthy effort in regard to cost to the city. There's a break even point when all efforts moving forward are moot and illogical. State the cost of rehabilitation to the building, is the building historically qualified for aid to rehabilitate it? What's the cost being passed on to tax payers should the owner default on the building thus forcing the city to redeem property as city owned? What are the legal ramifications to fight this ordeal? JMO, maybe some things aren't worth the effort to prove a point.

the city has brought the owner to court a few times to get him to finish the project

his attorney spoke at the council meeting showing she lacks the experience

she should have presented her case in front of the judge and not council

she did not say that the front portion or the foundation was unsound

one brick side wall still remains

frame the first floor in lumber and finish the project

only the back wall and one side wall needs to be framed along with a new roof

a simple straight forward single story frame needs to be completed and weather tight

it would cost less to frame the first floor rather than spend the money to tear down the current remaining sections

Where does common sense factor into your narrative? A building can be demolish in a mater of one day and hauled away, have you ever rehab a building? I didn't think so based on your dissertations.

it would be very costly to rebuild the front brick facade and retain the character of that portion

the owner does not have permission to remove the front facade

he only had permits to remove the second story only

he removed the first floor back wall and side wall - not in the permit

Second common sense question, maybe the building owner counted up the expense of the two options and complying with your city ordinances, what does the owner state adverse to your layman knowledge and opinions?

why would one demolish a structurally sound front facade and foundation?

YAWN....

spend $30,000 to tear it all down
have an unsafe vacant lot
do even more damage removing the cement slab and foundation causing structural problems for the building next door
out all the money the owner has spent for the entire project

or

spend the $30,000 to frame the first floor
open up a business there and make even more money
or after it is framed then sell it to someone else that wants to operate a business there


common sense would choose the second option

It would seem that reality on my part states that you have no ability to let things go because here we are a few days later with no resolve from the owner or the city, unless you're the said owner or on the city's counsel? Now here is common sense, I'm not on Geneva's city counsel but being a contractor(maybe you're one yourself) I can educate you on the options confronting me over the years as to the most efficient and affordable ways of doing any given project from installations to a total tear out and starting afresh, once again, state your expertise in the field and maybe we can have a very hearty and knowledgeable discussion, deal?

you posted on a thread that you state you are unfamiliar with the topic

the surrounding business owners on linden street want the building saved

the city wanted the building saved

the city allowed the owner to have apermit to only remove the second floor

the first floor was removed without a permit

an unfamiliar topic but yet you add no sustance to the discussion

Are we bored to the extent that you wish to engage an "outsider" to this 3 week old discussion between the two of us? I went to school for engineering and obtained two degrees, one in electrical and the second in structural, worked 34 years in that field and the last 8 for myself, wouldn't it be somewhat ludicrous to debate with a........now what was that you excel in?

I'm assuming that you're up in age and find it disturbing that at this stage in life, you haven't learn the basic premise of "picking your battles" In any subject, field or arena, get to know your expertise and/or lack thereof, if the latter is your particular area of confusion, find a "local" that can enlightened you, take said individual to a counsel meeting as your representative to make a case in rectifying the current failures on said building. Deal? this may minimize the embarrassment of you exposing any deficiencies you may possess.

All I can say is I've spent 50 years dealing with engineers and I haven't met one that knew anything. In fact most of my working career has been spent fixing engineer's MISTAKES. Good thing most of an engineer's work is done on paper so when it doesn't work it's not too expensive to just throw it away.

Many years ago, I would debate but age and maturity dictates a non issue on my part. I can care more or less about your personal opinion because my job requirement called for expertise and efficiency, both which were accomplished according to customer's request, bottom line? Your opinion versus fact and customer satisfaction. Too many ladders, scaffolding, ditches, bucket trucks etc. to make this a debate.

You leave out on time performance and cost over-runs

I'm the one laughing, you being a "engineer cleanup man, waits on the PC for futile debates because you're doing what as of now? I'm nursing an age old broken femur. If you're so busy, why are you looking for an argument Sir? The people of Geneva, in particular, the city planning board could use your expertise, as for me, 37 years with LeChase and 8 on my own, I see no need to prove myself but my Son and Nephew are more suited to debate with you if they can find that time you seem to have so much of.

you are unfamiliar with the topic yet you still have time to engage in it...oooooddddd




and yet you want to tear down a structure that is sound and that only needs one side wall, a rear wall and the roof to make the building functional

...yawn

It's a well known fact that I am 97 and in a nursing home, you are just entertainment.

Not the sort of tools you would expect an ENGINEER to be using, just sayin, But go ahead exaggerate !

city planning board?

you may want to check your facts

the current situtation is in the hands of the city building code office

but of course with all your expertise and 45 years of knowledge or rather ('no'ledge) you should have known that

yawn...

LOL, I can now understand why Geneva has the growing pains that it does. Take a few minutes to comprehend your individual adolescent statements, comprehend the fact that a few adults took a thread wwwaayyyy off topic to satisfy the graving of a petulant child. yes, I took a second look at my portfolio, still in great standing with the State, LeChase and the many wonderful past customers, of course, I've already known that I do good work but please forgive my moment of childish indiscretions to toy with a few emotions I've evoked.

SAYS YOU

it is you that took the thread off topic

framing a side wall, back wall and a simple roof to save the structure should be a simple thought process

the local newspaper reports that the building will be repaired and not torn down as you stated it should

yawn...

Oh, for crying out loud - it' a crumbling piece of crap. Tear it down and put in a Popeye's Chicken, or anything else that will pay taxes, but we could use a really good chicken place.

once the roof and side walls are repaired it will be useable for your idea

There's already an excellent chicken restaurant on Linden Street.

We Need a Popeye's so I don't have to drive over 40 miles for it.

if it were torn down a new strucuture may not have been able to be built under current code

with a portion of the structure still intact it would be 'grandfathered' under the code

if it were torn down there would be little taxes gained from the property

When the dust settles on this issue it will be taken down to make a better exit for the parking lot out back. Actually I think that was the plan all along, they're just taking the politically correct method of removing a building downtown.

It is NOT grandfathered in - major renovations require full adherence to current code.

if the entire structure was removed down to the ground a new structure may not have been able to built at all under current codes

with a portion of the building remaining the new codes apply to the new repairs

I hate to see old buildings like that torn down. Unfortunately it may be to far gone. I love what they have done with Linden Street. I love the whole concept.