The group moderated by Jean Fonzi and attended by guest speaker Karen Engelke focused on the treatment – physical, legal, institutional, interpretive and otherwise – of the Commercial Slip and vicinity. Mike Venezia was the public recorder.
Much of the discussion focused on the physical remains of the Canal. Should the “real” Canal be restored or reconstructed? Should a “replica” Canal be created? Should work focus just on the slip or a larger “cultural landscape” of Canal District streets and buildings? There were a variety of opinions, but the strongest voices were for treatments they considered more authentic and more extensive.
Other concerns and questions were raised about the legal and institutional structure of Canal preservation and interpretation. What would National Register of Historic Places designation or National Park Service status provide or require?
Register designation would bring some resources, but some restrictions, and some protections, the experts said. Park status would likely involve some kind of larger Canal-related entity. Some speakers argued for building in local control. Engelke, however, advised that state and federal agencies can bring important resources and expertise to the table.
Otherwise, discussion participants grappled with how to deal with the overwhelming richness of interpretive possibilities at the slip and around Buffalo. Stories to be told include not only the Canal and related industrial and transportation heritage, but also the Native American tradition, wars along the Niagara Frontier, immigration, grain elevators, the Underground Railroad and more.