Old Bergman Tools Building, Buffalo, NY

In the seventies my history 'education' at a grammar school delivered the story that the Dutch had taken or were in possession of the land where New York now sits had built a town named New Amsterdam. "The British" rolled up kicked the Dutch out or negotiated the Dutch out and took over the control of the area and renamed the town New York in honour of the Duke of York.

On that map where it says New Amsterdam and New York Reservation thee is a gridded village/town being shown. Gridded town layouts are peculiar to the United States so perhaps, just perhaps, the people laying out the town of New Amsterdam were United States citizens of Dutch descent as I feel sure just as today the 'defeated' don't actually all get killed, deported or run away they get integrated more often than not.

As you can see from the screen grab there was a creek named Canal Creek already in existence before the village was laid out and it was part of the boundary of two gratuity's. I reckon it was this creek that was 'straightened out' and properly canalised to make it navigable by barge sometime after this map was drawn out and became the disused portion of the Erie canal. I don't know but get the impression the existing Erie canal is nothing like the one that was first brought into being of which Canal Creek was part.
Don't know where the op building features or is placed on the New Amsterdam map though. In one of the gratuity's perhaps?

Good post.

"nails in his sandals got stuck to a rock"

I get suspicious of stories like this. I think the nails would have to be pure and the magnetic rock very strong for a man to perceive the attraction let alone get "stuck". If the story went "With magnetic dust stuck to his sandal nails... Magnes went home to clean then noticed the dust particles were magically attracted, but when moved some would repel." I'd consider the story more credible. But,

I've never been to Magnesia, Greece so can't attest. Have any of you been there and felt the magnetism wearing steel toed boots?

jd755 said:

On that map where it says New Amsterdam and New York Reservation thee is a gridded village/town being shown. Gridded town layouts are peculiar to the United States so perhaps, just perhaps, the people laying out the town of New Amsterdam were United States citizens of Dutch descent as I feel sure just as today the 'defeated' don't actually all get killed, deported or run away they get integrated more often than not.

Click to expand...

Well, yes. I believe it's just these guys: Holland Land Company

jd755 said:

Don't know where the op building features or is placed on the New Amsterdam map though. In one of the gratuity's perhaps?

Click to expand...

Sorry for the confusion, this map I just posted to show the name of the town at the time. The OP building would be located far off to the upper right.


Just as a sidenote, noting that Niagara Street was once called Schimmelpennick St., since it's foundation (which is "whenever", as you can even sort of tell from the Buffalo, NY wiki), there have been over 500 changes to the names of roads. If you look, you can see that many names were changed and then reused in a different part of town later. I'm sure part of the answer is that this was done slowly over time, but that doesn't really give me any glimpse into motivation (not suggesting anything nefarious... necessarily...).

The OP building itself is in an awkward area I'm finding for many maps, because it's essentially right on the border of what would be Black Rock. I would think the Scajaquada Creek was the demarcation point between communities and the OP building IS on the Buffalo side, but it's literally right at the edge.

Speaking of the Creek (I promise to bring this back to the OP building, hang on), the more I look, the more I'm amazed at how many creeks/canals have been filled in. As wiki says, "while the Scajaquada once flowed into Hoyt Lake in Delaware Park, it was buried by 1921 in response to pollution and urban development." For as much digging as the canals must have involved, there's been equally as much burying. The entire southern section of Buffalo by Buffalo Creek looks vastly different now, with miles of former hydraulic canals now buried (and the creek itself looking quite different:

The canal has long since passed into history, leaving the remains of the Hydraulics neighborhood, the site of the earliest manufacturing district in the city.

With the completion of the Erie Canal, a group of local business people desired to capitalize on its economic potential. In 1825, a number of them banded together and raised $25.000 with which they desired to develop an industrial area utilizing water power. Within two years, they had placed a dam on Buffalo Creek in the Kaisertown area and constructed a passage to connect it to Little Buffalo Creek.

Utilizing this additional water, they built a millrace from Little Buffalo Creek along a route paralleling Seneca Street. At approximately Hamburg and Seneca Streets, the millrace took a sharp turn and the water was directed over a cascade, after which it flowed into the Hamburg Canal, present day Exchange Street. At this falls developed a small industrial area which initially contained a flour mill, tanneries and metal shops.

In 1850, additional power was created when the height of the millrace was increased resulting in further industrial development of the district. Attracted by the prospects of work in the nearby industry, German and Irish families began to settle the neighborhoods bordering on the canal. With increased settlement, the nature of the neighborhood began to change.

By 1875, the Hydraulic Canal was filled in, ending the earliest chapter in Buffalo's industrial development. In the 1880s, the city incorporated the millrace into the sewer system and filled what was left of a ravine for the construction of Seymour Street.

Click to expand...

Anyway, while writing this, I realized that I missed a section of that 1872 Atlas when I was going through maps a couple weeks ago. I had been looking at this section for our OP building, which does show the intersection of Forest Ave and Niagara St, but without any real structure detail. Turns out, this area is better represented with this map of the 11th Ward (note, in all the images below, left to right is roughly south to north):


This scan is really, really good. You can zoom in close enough to see the street numbers. Our OP building is 1569 Niagara St in the present day, but it's currently one lot away from the corner of Forest, which would make it 1579 (or even in the blank area of 1587) on the 1872 map.


I'm not sure to what think here, because I can't be certain if the street is in the exact same place as it was in 1872, but what I can say for certain is that the exact lot was developed well prior to the Bergman Tools people moving in.

I actually have more to say on jd's comment about the canal creek AND on the Niagara Falls hydraulic tunnel, but I have a bit more to figure out and I'm worried I'm making this thread completely impenetrable by having three or four distinct topics going on (the OP building, the canals, the Tesla/Niagara Falls and overall relation to the Exposition). I feel they're all very much related though...

Banta said:

I'm worried I'm making this thread completely impenetrable

Click to expand...

Don't be. It's crystal clear.
The footprint of the Bergman building is different to the shape on the lot map. The building in lot 1676 is much more akin to the present day building in that aerial photo. Do they resize lots over there or are they set as per their original sizes?

A slight aside. Streams and creeks and rivers have been culverted and buried for years on this little island home. Right across the road from this house there used to be, up until 1998 an open field one of the last flat lands of the valley through which a stream flowed. The stream was still there though a shadow of its former self so the 'developers' as they like to call themselves culverted the stream and built houses over the open field.
I used to have a book here called The Lost rivers of London which was a fascinating read of the amount of culverting of once free flowing riparian river systems destroyed over the centuries.
Point being this procedure continues today and for the same reasons, over here and over there.

jd755 said:

The footprint of the Bergman building is different to the shape on the lot map. The building in lot 1676 is much more akin to the present day building in that aerial photo.

Click to expand...

Agreed, for clarity, you mean 1576. Also, do you think that the street numbers were originally a part of this 1872 map or a later addition? The typeface is obviously different (I assume that it was maybe someone else's job to add the numbers after the map was drafted?).

Here's a better comparison of the full block:

Looking at that, it appears that the OP building is roughly located in the 1573/1576 lot area. It is also fairly apparent that, if we are to believe the 1872 atlas, that these structures were much smaller than what is currently on the block.

jd755 said:

Do they resize lots over there

Click to expand...

Definitely, there have been a lot of changes, both in dividing larger lots into smaller ones, and taking smaller lots and combining them. This has happened on this block and explains why the OP building is 1569 in present day.

It looks like 1569 currently occupies the space that 1569/1573/1576/1579 took up in 1872.

jd755 said:

Streams and creeks and rivers have been culverted and buried for years on this little island home. Right across the road from this house there used to be, up until 1998 an open field one of the last flat lands of the valley through which a stream flowed. The stream was still there though a shadow of its former self so the 'developers' as they like to call themselves culverted the stream and built houses over the open field.
I used to have a book here called The Lost rivers of London which was a fascinating read of the amount of culverting of once free flowing riparian river systems destroyed over the centuries.
Point being this procedure continues today and for the same reasons, over here and over there.

Click to expand...

Indeed, I don't really think it's especially remarkable on the face of it (although, I think many would be surprised at how much terraforming our ancestors were doing), but I do think it's a bit amazing when over the course of 50 years (1825 to 1875), you don't have (hydraulic) canals, then you do have canals, then you not only retire them, but fill them up, also while filling in multiple sections of a large creek. Although, perhaps I shouldn't be impressed by this, given the tools and technology that appear to have been available in the 19th century (which have been largely discontinued and forgotten, like the canals themselves).

It's always a balancing act comparing the general impression the historical narrative gives with the facts (as far as we can discern them). But it seems apparent that from at least the start of the so-called Industrial Revolution onwards that western civilization has had technology and techniques for "power" generation (at least for "practical tasks") that are roughly comparable to the modern day. In my opinion, this has been largely obscured through corporate propaganda, which draws commercial benefit from claiming to reinvent the wheel. The Tesla/Niagara Falls electricity business is a great example of this... the major question I have about all of this is how far back into history this really extends.

jd755 said:

Don't be. It's crystal clear.

Click to expand...

Glad to hear it, and I'll take that as permission to post this 1892 article on the construction of the previously mentioned mile long tunnel from Niagara Falls to the power station. It's the most detail I've found thus far on the actual process:

There are more articles, some that are reprinted throughout the country when the project started in 1890, with one that reports there was much skepticism that this project would ever actually be undertaken. It is quite amazing to think about, 800 men blasting away with dynamite for years... again, 28 fatalities, as is later reported, seems incredibly reasonable.

EDIT: Also seems right (not in an ethical sense!) that they wouldn't report the deaths and injuries until much later on. From March 3, 1892:

How "old" are those "timbers"?

Annnnnd we're back! Apologies for the delays, we'll say it's KD's fault because he's not here to defend himself

In all seriousness, I had been unable to find the time during the business week to visit City Hall or the central library, until today. And apparently, I'm going to need to dig deeper to find any sort of building permit, though at this point, I doubt it exists. (More on that later.)

Banta said:

Our OP building is 1569 Niagara St in the present day, but it's currently one lot away from the corner of Forest, which would make it 1579 (or even in the blank area of 1587) on the 1872 map.

Click to expand...

So, I was able to verify that the Bergman Tools building, at the time that the Bergman family had their operations moved in, was located at 1573-1575 NIagara St. I verified this through a 1914 City Directory.

Already a couple discrepancies from the information reported in the OP, as it appears that the Bergmans (Wolf, Solomon, Jerome) continued to own the property at 102 Seneca after purchasing the lot at 1573-1575 Niagara (meaning they didn't exactly "move", as the article linked in the OP stated).

So, that means in the 1872 atlas, we seem to be looking at this lot:


This all seems to make sense, given the building's proximity to the road. The outline of the building is obviously different, but I wonder if the left-hand/rear part of the building was demolished at some point. If you look closely, you can see a line:


Again, this all tracks, because take another look at the rear of the building:


Definitely something used to be there. So, it would appear sometime between 1872 and the 1910s (depend on when the Bergman Tools photo in the OP was taken), the building was renovated. That means it seems entirely possible that our subterrean door really was a basement entrance at some point in the past. It's really hard to say and I don't really know how we'd ever know for sure, as it seems unlikely that any photos exist.

So, this leads us back to our million dollar question: just when exactly was this building constructed? And that is where I may have reached a dead-end. I discovered in my journeys today that building permits approved by the Buffalo Common Council from 1854 to 1887 ("apparently" there are NOT records prior to that, which is interesting given that the City of Buffalo was incorporated in 1832) are indexed by the owner's last name. The oldest owner of the lot I have tracked down currently is the one listed on the 1872 atlas, one "J. Danks." A very helpful lady at the library did provide me with another resource at FamilySearch.com, from where I might be able to trace the deeds further back, which would be necessary information to provide the building permit office, as I can't search by address. I will be doing this later on and I will let everyone know what I find.

However, here's the kicker... even if I can find all the owners of this lot going back from 1872, it appears unlikely that I will ever find a building permit. In addition to records prior to 1854 being seemingly unavailable, let me quote this about the building permits in general:

Permits - Buffalo Common Council Proceedings, Etc.

These include building permits approved by the Common Council. Building permits were apparently required for wood-frame buildings but not for masonry (brick or stone) ones.​

Click to expand...

There's that "apparently" word again. Sounds like they really don't know. Anyone want to provide valid reason why you would require building permits for wood-frame buildings, but not masonry ones??? Unless, of course, no one associated with the City of Buffalo actually built these structures...

Thanks for the info and effort you put in this.
It confirms my personal Idea that "something" happend in the 1800's in America that constructed many buildings in a relative short time..

Banta said:

a lot of construction going on lately that seems to reveal subterranean levels underneath existing structures

Click to expand...

Your finds remind me of vel124's Russian-language post about the shape and size of the structures beneath 'classical' buildings.

The images give you an idea of the size and different look of the substructures compared to what was built on top of them.

The War of 1812...what a farce. How did we not see this before.

The idea war would be waged against so many different countries at the same time, with multiple fronts to fight is beyond ridiculous. They'd never be able to keep that number of troops supplied, especially when fighting multiple fronts on different continents.

Same goes for the official stories of WWI and WWII.