Waterfront Hotel Meeting: Pitts vs. Ciminelli

Clearly an improvement from the road-side motel design. I can absolutely appreciate the attempt at being more creative although it still isn't exactly a beautiful building. I still prefer the Ciminelli's take. Either way, whatever is decided, I hope it's taken seriously so that we don't drop the ball on this project. The waterfront has plenty of work to go but this could really set the tone for what's to follow.

Keep trying Zysovich, it is still craptastic; I've seen better looking parking ramps:

http://archives.buffalorising.com/story/ramping_up_in_santa_monica

I agree that the new Wingate proposal is an improvement over the original design but it is only a slight improvement at best. Certainly there must be a way to take a building of that shape and do more to it to make it much more attractive? I'm with WCperspective's views...keep trying to make it better, the first redesign is OK but not good enough.

You can put lipstick on a pig, but its still a pig.

I find it great that the floor has opened up to a discussion about this - a real sign of progress in the redevelopment of Buffalo. However, it's unfortunate that there are only 2 players being considered in this game, and one is from Miami! With the renowned architecture program at UB, there should be more hometown players in this - people who actually have a vested interest and love for this city. I'm sure there are a few architects in this town that would love the chance to contribute their ideas to the re-development of the waterfront. We have an awesome opportunity to make this one of the best waterfront attractions in the US. Why are we only working with average to below-average ideas? It would be great if the Citizens Advisory Panel opened up a forum to welcome some innovative ideas from more parties on the waterfront redevelopment. There is so much opportunity here, let's not waste it away like what has been done in the past! I can almost see the waterfront as a must-see destination just like the Burchfield!

So, Mr. Zysovich should be applauded for understanding the obvious importance of Erie Street? He should be congratulated for designing a structure that looks marginally better than the previous exit-on-the-highway stucco motel? Folks should be impressed that the Wingate design now resembles a component of a suburban office park? All this effort to support a mediocre restaurant?

If not for the wonderful news of the completion of the Darwin Martin complex visitors' center and the beautiful interior images of the Avant this week, the dull Wingate and Buff State designs would be just too much for one week.

Buffalo better start preserving its remaining old buildings because there is little to suggest that almost every developer has a clue how to build important structures for the 21st century.

Ugh. This new proposal looks like a combination of the Adams Mark and UB North Campus. I second everyone who thinks we can do better somehow.

Are the two presentations seen in the pictures available?

There's this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDpjM3i9S8I, shot by Marc Odien and graciously offered by Chris Smith of wnymedia. I'm not sure whether or not they shot Zyscovich's presentation, though I did ask.

The Pitts comments about being connected to Shanghai Reds are insufferable. So the restaurant will fail if the hotel is not connected to the hotel? Somehow having them connected will open up the waterfront. Where is the mixed-use, pedestrian oriented development? This building needs to have two nearly primary elevations, or at least a 1a and 1b for the waterfront and street side. Clearly the street elevation is not designed for pedestrians or any connection to the street. Paul said it best describing the building as well suited for an office park. How can an architect supposedly so well known and written design such crap? Unfortunately, there often is a detachment between the academic and the true designer.

The new Erie Basin Wingate proposal has improved by leaps and bounds - particularly in the site plan, addition of a new mix of uses (a gallery and cafe are possible concepts for the ground-level facing the water), and especially in shaping the proposal around the restoration of Joseph Ellicott's Erie Street as a straightened boulevard connecting downtown to the water. From an urban design perspective, it's remarkably progressive.

The architectural concept, we understand, is still in process. Zyscovich is experimenting with a modern, human-scale approach. I agree some tweaks with the design could add more personality and, dare I say, pizzazz. As a Miami firm, perhaps Zyscovich could infuse some of the curvy, flamboyant aspects of Morris Lapidus-type architecture common to the Miami Beach of the 1950s. Erie Basin is desperate for an unconventional design approach - within a traditional urban framework - that can represent a break from a boring waterfront dominated by parking and create a good start on the build-out of Erie Basin as a walkable, human-scale waterfront neighborhood.

The Ciminelli proposal, by contrast, is at a density which will necessarily prevent - forever - the restoration of the Ellicott's connection to the water at Erie Street. In their presentation to the Council Thursday, Ciminelli's marketing gurus dismissed the restoration of a straightened Erie Street radial as "just a concept," one which they knew was inherently incompatible with their proposal. This was insulting to me as an urban planner. With a few tweaks and a dash of character, the new Erie Basin Wingate proposal could come close to perfect.

Bravo, Zyscovich!

I don't disagree with your assessment, Paul. The building does look a bit like a well-designed medical office building or state university dormitory. It does not yet quite reflect a waterfront site - which should be a bit more fun and whimsical and uplifting. Models like the very popular Deco and Art Moderne hotels of Miami Beach and Las Vegas of the 1950s and 60s can provide ideas on how to make the hotel add needed personality to its waterside context - but in a 21st century idiom.

Up to now I have been much more concerned with getting an urban site plan and building envelope - something that respects Buffalo's existing planning work and its traditional urban form. The Zyscovich plan does all of that very well.

The proposed building envelope and the modern approach to the refined proposal, I think, is excellent. The difficulty, which I believe can be solved, is getting a modern building that is comfortable and inviting and sumptuous. Often modern buildings are austere and anti-social, but check out South Beach or Tel Aviv and you'd find the opposite has often been accomplished. The architectural concept still needs some improvement - perhaps a more stylized entrance, bolder signage, lighter colored materials (green and brown don't seem to work), and a more imaginative treatment at ground level where concealed parking is located. Zyscovich is working closely with some waterfront stakeholders and so far has been very enthusiastic about some enlightened community suggestions. The process has not yet concluded and the concept can continue to evolve.

As to WestCoastPerspective's concerns, both development teams were asked by the City to incorporate existing planning work on Erie Street into the proposals. Zyscovich makes Erie Street - Ellicott's most important connection to the water - the centerpoint for his proposal. Ciminelli's proposal continues to ignore the primacy of Erie Street. The density of the Ciminelli building makes the straightening of the Ellicott radial impossible - the lot in question partially overlaps the historic Erie Street right-of-way - and any sale that would amend the Land Disposition Agreement to exclude this portion means their building cannot fit on the reduced lot. The City would have to follow through on their commitment to build Erie Street, which should and is a priority and is a central concept in three of the city's award-winning plans: the Comprehensive Plan, the Queen City Hub Plan, and especially the Buffalo Waterfront Corridor Initiative. The Zyscovich proposal not only doesn't get in the way of restoring Erie Street; it provides a very strong argument for its near-term construction. The lobby faces onto an Erie Street that now is buried under a thin layer of ashpalt parking lot. So no, it is not just a concept in the Zyscovich proposal.

Again, bravo!

Having spent much of the afternoon in the Old First Ward and the Valley with the sons & daughters of Erin, I love the green glazed brick...um, but not much else.

I think the residents are the ones who have it right, here. Many of us who look askance so often at developer-proposed new builds, and projects developed by public (or quasi-public, or public-in-name-only) authorities ask "where is the comprehensive plan" and, if there is a plan, "why weren't community stakeholders (like residents) heavily involved in developing it?" For my money, the two best recent planning efforts in Buffalo have been the "people's plan" for the canal harbor, and the planning going on now for the Richardson-Olmsted Complex. Common elements of both are heavy public involvement, and involvement of top-notch firms. I hope the residents (perhaps with support from sympathetic council members) stick to their guns and demand a "people's plan" for that area before any further project submissions are entertained. What's there now are parking lots and Shanghai Red's -- neither of which are worthy of that significant and historic location.

First, some basic land use decisions need to be thought through -- including, I'd say, the Erie Street project. The Queen City Hub plan calls for the restoration of the radial streets whenever the opportunity presents, and UB has already done the project work looking at Erie Street. It's beyond conceptual. I'm so sick of hearing that "conceptual" label put on things as a way to avoid good planning decisions. Like cases where highway overpasses/underpasses for rail lines are removed in highway reconstruction projects, just because the railroad doesn't happen to be operating at the time the project is being planned. You go to the planners and say, "but we need to keep that right of way intact for future light rail service to such and such a destination -- so don't cut off the option." The response is always, "Oh, well, that's just a concept -- do you have approval and funding for that light rail project? No? Well then we're not going to worry about keeping the continuity."

Once the land use decisions have been made, then the designs and projects can be bid out competitively.

Good comments, RaChaCha.

But I do have a question for everyone. If the final concept from Zyscovich does offer a great architectural concept, an urban site plan, a human scale, and strong connections to the Ellicott grid system, do we still get in the way of a fine proposal like we did with Wyndham's other proposal at Elmwood and Forest? Will it really be necessary at that point to start the process over and wait under 12 months or more before this discussion must occur again?

The process is playing out and the project seems to be improving dramatically. I'm willing to bet on it continuing to improve and that, at the end of the day, continued public input will help create a good design and a fine hotel. Not to mention perhaps the first time we can get an iced latte on the water in the cafe Wingate is proposing.

I do agree that, regardless of the outcome, a final "people's plan" for the build-out for Erie Basin must progress.

I must say, Paladino's two minutes are the best compromise and the best solution. BUILD BOTH!

BUILD BOTH and thereby connect downtown with the waterfront community!

BUILD BOTH and thereby connect the waterfront community with the new wharf district!

BUILD BOTH and get the parking garage integrated into the development!

the only thing that could possibly top off this idea would be to rebuild the demolished DL&W passenger concourse to integrate the wharf district with the First Ward/Cobblestone District.

If the rules have changed again, and sticking to the re-established grid is a priority- Ciminelli should be given a shot of revising its proposal. Once the playing field is leveled, may the best project win. Otherwise, scrap the whole RFP and start over with clear parameters on what is expected and what land the city is selling for private development.

Chris, you put your finger on the next logical question. I don't know the answer, but there would be several factors about the which might go through people's minds:

* Has the process to date generated so much distrust and controversy as to be so tainted that going back to basics would look especially attractive to many of those involved?

* With the economy in a shambles affecting private capital availability for projects, would it hurt to wait about a year for a focused land-use plan to be developed?

* Might people have the thought in the back of their minds, what if there's a new administration in City Hall next year, and how could that change the playing field for a situation which has seemed to date as much or more about political gamesmanship that about good planning or the public good--?

* Since Erie Street has now emerged to be seen as a much more noteworthy and critical piece of the puzzle, might it not make sense to have the City change tack and undertake that street project right away (with everyone submitting then knowing exactly where it will be and what it will look like)?

I got to meet Pitts recently, when he came to My Fair City to discuss a brownfield project I'm involved in planning. I and the others involved liked him and his colleagues immensely. He impressed us as someone committed to public involvement, community vision, and integrity of process free of political interference. Perhaps he could shake up and reframe everything by offering to take a step back for the planning the residents want, and then submitting an improved proposal along with others in a process that everyone agrees presents a level playing field to all.

There are two key considerations: the building and the site plan. Pitts and Zyscovich have the best site plan by far, because their plan accommodates the straightening of Erie Street.

Their hotel, however, would look right at home as an addition to the water filtration plant on Squaw Island.

Ciminelli has an interesting building if you like pointless swooping roof angles but its site plan locks up the rest of the vacant land on the marina as surface parking.

I pronounce BOTH plans craptastic. We deserve better.

Design-wise, I think the Wingate redesign is a minor step forward. We've gone from Cheektowaga to...somewhere along the Kensington. Bravo. What really bothers me is the inference that doing this proposal will get us Erie St.reconnected to Downtown. This overriding and important urban planning opportunity cannot and should not hinge upon the completion of a cheesy hotel. There are far larger issues here such as the future of the aging Marina Drive Apts. and the status of the Skyway. Even the rewatering and reconstruction of elements from the old Erie canal come into play. The street grid in the Wingate proposal is illusory: If you build lower density in a redeveloped and regridded area, you negate its possibilities. And that's what the Pitts proposal is, a negation of the possibilities of a site that may be integral to restoring the vitality of the waterfront. I'd settle for crooked streets if the buildings and architecture provided an inspiring segue towards Buffalo's future.

Chris, thank you and I think this is indeed a meaty and worthwhile discussion. I can't dispute that Zyscovich's involvement in Buffalo is one bright spot in this situation. I'd say that those working with him should seize this opportunity to make even more lemonade for Buffalo by finding ways to engage him more widely in the community, for example in additional waterfront planning, and addressing the community about urbanist principles and how Buffalo could benefit from more widely and consistently following them.

Back in the 19th Century, William Dorsheimer (father of Buffalo's park system and one-time Lt. Governor) was responsible for bringing Olmsted & architect H.H. Richardson to Buffalo -- who were both later involved in many Buffalo projects and left a lasting, positive imprint on the city. While Zyscovich's name might not join those two in the pantheon of Buffalo's history, I think the community could and should find ways to take better advantage of his local involvement.

In My Fair City, whenever we have a planning/architecture guru in town, the Rochester Regional Community Design Center (somewhat akin to UB's Center for Urban Studies, but not affiliated with a university) will attempt to engage them in the community as much as possible, for example: by setting up a public lecture; arranging a meeting with our mayor; having a breakfast roundtable with community leaders, planners, architects, developers, etc.; arranging a tour of the city to look at planning "hot spots"; addressing a college/university class; arranging an appearance on a local public radio call-in program; etc.

But in the case of Zyscovich, I frankly didn't know much about him, or the significance of his involvement in this project, without some personal correspondence by someone in the know that helped me understand that. Chris, I don't mean to put you on the spot, but perhaps you'd consider posting an article here about Zyscovich, his important ideas about urbanism, and the significance of his involvement in Buffalo. I think that's an important thing for people to know about and understand, both in general and in the context of this issue.

BTW, some of those kelly green panels on the building's facade are exactly the color and shape of the "Kearns for Buffalo" stickers which were sported by nearly everyone I saw yesterday in the Old First Ward and the Valley. Could Zyscovich be sending a subliminal message--? ;-)

Second the motion for a little more background on Zyscovich.

Tangential advice--put two hard returns between your paragraphs for BRO to retain them when posted. Otherwise, it mushes everything together in one paragraph.

Its afriggin Wingate Inn-that's like a small notch ahead of a Days Inn or Red Roof Inn. You know your city is hurting if Omni, Westin, or other top-notch hotel is not in the running, but instead a Wingate and Hilton gardens. You can find 100s of those laying next to interstaes across America. What a joke.

Funny, I go to bal;timore every summer for a weekend at Camden Yards and good hotels are always booked. Went down last summer, and everything was sold out downtown and the yankees or Red Sox weren't in town. They had some dork-fest in town, an Animation Convention (Deleted- Flaming). probablly more tourists that weekend than Buffalo has for the last decade. Check your figures, Baltimore is one of the biggest summer tourist venues. Your jealousy of other cities is funny {Deleted}.

I hate to be glib, I truly do, but the aesthetics of both proposals are less than desirable. How does either design fit into the overall aesthetics of the city or better yet the surrounding landscape? If it takes a year to come full circle then so be it. These designs are unacceptable. On a side note, has anyone heard of below ground parking in the city of Buffalo?

Wow, that new design is brutal, straight out of the UB North Campus. Back to the Future 1960`s and 70`s style. Time to go back to the drawing board.

This is a no-brainer. Ciminielli wins!

Watching Franczyk verbally undress and punk the city clone(s) from the business development & planning office was hilarious - even better watching the clone sit down with his tail between his legs adjacent to Mr. Hawley's unoriginal position was even better - both of you should of left your pom-poms in the Council Chambers. Don't turn around too fast - you may cause the puppet strings attached from the Brown/Reilly/Pitts dynamic trio to be made into a Auntie-Anne pretzel.

This has a scene from Good Will Hunting labeled all over it - One day you will wake up knowing for certain that one time you were "thinking" you had an original position founded upon your acute sensibilities of what good urban planning, throwing out(up) and re-appropriating language towards defining a biased political motive that grounds other(s) position(s) - when in fact you have offered nothing more to the cause of life than acting as the grease for the gear for someone else's corrupted machine efforts.

It is obvious to most of us that you would not know the experience of "urban" if it mugged you on the corner of Erie Street - perhaps you should wait there for this event - with your urban planning book in hand - so while you are waiting you could actually discover and experience the simple orientation of the sun's path through the seasons at the site sense your commentary on casting shadows is so far off.

One thing is for certain - the redesigned plan is both un-original and non-authentic nor sympathetic to the surrounding areas. It neither celebrates the human condition nor provides a theater for live-work-play to coexist. It neither engages the water nor speaks to the activities needed to enhance a required committment to the water activities and future development of the waterfront. It's psuedo-cladded exterior is nothing more than undressing the former sub-urban design prototype and placing a commodified image "so-called contemporary" as an attempt to win votes - when we all know the guts are as hollow as the authors of the design.

The attempt to call this redesign a mixed-use facility was a joke. "Let's put a "museum" in there" .... are you kidding me. This old trick of making up something sort-of-cultural as a use to demonstrate compliance with the RFP fully reveals that the fact that a true VISION for this project is again lacking on the redesign. The architect for Pitt's redesign totally lacked imagination on this usage. The idea of combining a 64th ranked lower-tier hotel with a so called museum is completely a last ditch effort to be Mixed-Use commensurable with the RFP requirements.

The attempt to blend Uses along with with patching finiancial aspects with the adjacent restraunt is also fraudulant. All that needs to be said is 10.4 million - this is what the City is leaving on the table for a non-conforming design if Pitts design is selected. What - non-conforming - thats right - The Pitts re-design does not conform to the zoning building heights of three stories or 40'-0" max. and infringes on easments - perhaps they should of used their local architect who is more intimate with the project and the surrounding area.

Thanks, Architechne. Rest assured I brought my pom-poms with me and did not get my puppet strings in a tangle.

I'll be certain to leave my urban planning books at home next time I head down to Erie Street - my wallet can be sacrificed in a mugging, but losing an autographed copy of The Death and Life of Great American Cities would be too much to bear!

Is there a copy of the presentation anywhere on the net to be reviewed by the public? There is all this talk of Erie Street, but all we really get is a rendering of the building, when it seems from reviewing Zyscovich's work, that the firm is known for its planning. Can we see a copy of his master plan for the area?

If the entire plan is predicated on government infrastructure improvements, I'm not inclined to trust it. That sort of plan is akin to Issa's grand proposals for the underground parking lot and restructuring of Niagara Square. I won't believe anything until the city has a plan in place to reestablish Erie Street, and that Pitts is using this as bait to dangle infront of the public, but that it will never be completed, especially not be a private company. Zyscovich prepared a plan for the area without government backing, how can it succeed?

Not the developers' master plans/presentations, but here's a 2005 project report that will give some background:

http://urbandesignproject.ap.buffalo.edu/projects/wci/QCW_Volume6_Erie.pdf

Chris, it appears today that the Buffalo News strongly agrees with you: http://www.buffalonews.com/opinion/editorials/story/610061.html

Are you moonlighting at One News Plaza--? ;-)