Grant Street Scares Buff State

Smart move by Buffalo State. All it would take would be a few breaks in or one attack on a student for the news to start questioning why Buff State built a dorm in a dangerous area. God forbid if there was a brutal sexual assault on a female student in the first floor dorms, by someone from the neighborhood, like UB had a few years. It didn't take them long to restrict the triad dorms and move all most of the female students into Goodyear and Clement Hall This is probably a good move to make a safer campus for students. It is too bad that Grant Street has gotten so bad, maybe if the Buffalo Police were doing a better job of patrolling the area for hookers and dealers, this wouldn't be an issue.

And how does a grass lawn deter break-ins and mischief? What theory of crime prevention led to this conclusion?

Who is to say the grass lawn in the rendering is not actually planned surface parking?

As if 20+ feet of grass is going to make a difference than a building built to the curb with cameras on the street and the sidewalk.

Personally a building built to the sidewalk with cameras would provide more of a security barrier to the interior of the campus than the flawed attempt to recess the building back from Grant. Its a heck of alot easier to patrol a street and a sidewalk than it is a lawn. This solution is less safe!

Grant is becoming safer...as can be attested from the recent additions of businesses moving to Grant and proving it is both viable and safe...the only way to make it safer is for more of Grant to be developed.

Once again...Buffalo State continues to act as an enemy of the community rather than its main anchor...and the Forest, Amherst, Grant and Ferry Associations should be outraged in protest.

I truly pity the Westside and Blackrock and Buffalo State. PITY! Here we have a new Buffalo State Stadium, a new Buffalo State Parking Garage, a soon to be redeveloped Richardson with Conference Center/Museums AND A DORMATORY...none of which it seems can integrate themselves into the community.

An elevated walkway across Grant Street to a Parking Garage and Stadium....does anyone really believe that a walkway above Grant is going to be safer than simply walking across Grant? May I remind everyone that Buffalo State has a natural Barrier to the north and west via the Scajaquada Expressway and Sqajaquada Creek....with Grant as the only conduit to get to Black Rock. SO A COLLEGE LIKE BUFFALO STATE CANNOT SAFELY SECURE A SHORT DISTANCE FROM FOREST AVENUE TO THE BRIDGE OVER SCAJAQUADA CREEK? IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT IF BUFFALO STATE WAS LIKE D'YOUVILLE AND FULLY INTEGRATED INTO A STREET GRID WITH THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY...IT COULD BE ARGUED THAT SO MANY STREETS CONNECTING TO THE OUTSIDE COMMUNITY IS A SECURITY RISK. YET BUFFALO STATE HAS DONE FINE WITH ITS NORTHERN BARRIER (CREEK & EXPRESSWAY), ITS EASTERN BARRIER ON ELMWOOD, ITS SOUTHERN BARRIER IN THE RICHARDSON...YET FOR ALL ITS SO CALLED AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND RACE/ETHNIC/ETC MULTI-CULTURALISM....THE SHORT DISTANCE ALONG GRANT FROM FOREST TO SCAJAQUADA CREEK SCARES THE HECK OUT OF BUFFALO STATE.

As Buffalo State continues to build and Grant continues to develop into a college district (replacing elmwood), this will be seen as a serious mistake and concrete evidence that Buffalo State is an enemy of the community not a friend, that all of its so called community outreach is meant for passification, deflection and public relations NOT student quality of life and not community relations.

Its why Buffalo State does not care about the Richardson, does not care about small business incubators, small business outreach, does not care about partnering with local businesses on say an office park or student internships, or off-campus housing or attracting student related businesses to Grant such as libraries, book stores, cafes, laundromats, dry cleaners, etc.

OBVIOUSLY BUFFALO STATE THINKS THAT PUTTING 1200 STUDENTS 1/2 BLOCK FROM GRANT, SEPARATED FROM GRANT BY A LAWN, MEANS THAT THOSE STUDENTS ARENT GOING TO PATRONIZE ANY BUSINESSES ON GRANT STREET OR WALK ON GRANT STREET OR PROVIDE ENOUGH PATRONAGE FOR MORE COLLEGE RELATED BUSINESSES TO OPEN. 1200 NEW STUDENTS COULD KEEP QUITE A FEW BUSINESSES VIABLE.

YET BUFFALO STATE ASSUMES THAT BECAUSE THE STUDENTS ARE NOT THERE TODAY...THAT THEY WILL NOT BE THERE TOMORROW.

YET, AS I SAID BEFORE, BUFFALO STATE ASSUMES A DARK LAWN WITH TREES AND OTHER DISTRACTIONS ARE GOING TO BE INHERENTLY SAFER THAN THE BARRIER A MULTI-STORY BUILDING WITH CAMERAS SCANNING THE SIDEWALK AND STREET?

NOT ONLY IS THIS ILLOGICAL...BUT THE ONLY WAY TO EXPLAIN IT IS A CLASS, RACE AND ETHNIC PREJUDICE AND OUTRIGHT HATE OF THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY.

Students attending NYU pay extra for muggings and rapes yet here in Buffalo, they are being deprived of an "authentic urban experience"? Could affect recruitment...

My guess is that they wouldn't have built it at all on that block had they not run out out of room. Historically, the school was a much smaller teacher preparation institution. As it expanded its scope, it attracted a larger student body which, for whatever reason, did not attend the SUNY system (which is more expensive and harder to qualify for). The huge parking lots are a testament to the fact that it is a commuter college. Until very recent years, the demand for housing for out of area students has been proportionately small.
With the rapid escalation of higher education fees in the last decade, the need for schools like Buffalo State has risen sharply. They had no choice but to build in this neighborhood. This little change in plans and their own comments indicate their continuing reluctance. Like it or not, that is what is at play here. Call it a compromise, in the final analysis, it's really a small thing.

Addendum: FYI The basic tuition at UB is more than twice that of Buffalo State for undergrads. In this economy, this makes it even more attractive. Of course, I am not saying that one institution is an better than the other even though some programs might duplicate, they serve different needs and outcomes.

having the blg. face the street would actually make it safer. More people could see what the hell is going on. isolating the street more is actually endangering those who will use it.

grant is not safe around here now BECAUSE there are no buildings and people on it. Crime & perceptions fill the vacuum..

what, no moat?

Its a vast improvement over the current state of that area. The Grant Street side was always the trouble side on the BuffState Campus from what I remember. Lets not forget that the Richardson Complex didnt exactly "embrace" Elmwood or Forest, rather was built in a campus setting- could have a moat around that too but its held in high regard. Ultimately Grant Street is a problem child and BuffState has to look out for its own and its campus or risk tremendous negative fallout when it hits the fan.

I give BuffState credit for doing anything in that general direction (towards Grant). I think they are doing well by planning considering risk.

A front greenspace that is bound to have hard to see corners and spots of relative darkness will give them the exact opposite of their intended security. The building would be far better protected if it were fronting a well lit streetscape, completely visible to traffic, security and activity.

Where would you choose to break in? From a well lit sidewalk, where you're 100% visible to all traffic and public safety vehicles? Or at a window, set back from the street and tucked in a corner so that you're only visible, maybe, from one direction. Or perhaps just go behind one of those trees they're planting right next to the building?

This college (along with UB) needs to realize that they can create security with good design rather than just trying to build as many barriers and cameras as possible.

A fence would help.

They could always put up a neon sign on the front lawn asking residents not to disturb.

Moving the building to front Grant Street presents an opportunity to put a first floor use such as classroom, administrative offices or PUBLIC SAFETY which would create a presence on the street and deter/prevent criminal activity.

As presented this building complex fronts towards Elmwood and once again shines Buffalo State's ass-end towards Grant Street. This design, if built, would continue their ignorance of Grant Street.

About monks and monastaries: Are there any monastaries that do not provide plenty of lush greenery including plenty of useful flower and veggie gardens outside those gargantuan buildings for monks to enjoy down time as a wonderful learning experience of being one with nature--or something like that!
.
Actually monks in monastaries do not live as coldly as students deprived of green spaces.
.
Don't take the lawn and trees away from those students! Kids come up with some of their best ideas that way!!!
.
How many of you remember how great it felt for a bunch of students to sit on a grassy blanket under a big old tree on a bright sunny day with books cracked open and thoughts flying free?
.
Or a solitary student, sitting crosslegged reading a book in such a part-of-nature environment? Talkin' 'bout open-mindedness connecting with insightfulness--it happens best when not confined!
.
Hey! lawns and trees would also guarantee jobs for those who did not attend college; the landscapers and leaf rakers.
.
Also, hire more security and bond them--even though bonding would be for the handling of safety security, not money security. This would also creates more jobs hereabouts.
.
After all, a government that can hand out 700 trillion to protect banking interests from stalling can also hand out a million or three to protect students-who will also keep the economy rolling...

So why do they welcome the public to their green space if the concern is about access to first floor windows? I don't get it. I think we all know the green space will eventually be parking. Terrible site plan. Students will feel like they live in public housing.

Also, cameras record crime; cameras don't stop crime.
.
Cameras are after the fact; sometimes cameras are too far after the fact.

God forbid Buff State, or UB for that matter, try to take an active role in the surrounding community. Look throughout the country at schools with urban locations becoming a prominant member of the community and being proactive to build both the school and surrounding. You can never build a big enough fence, but you can build bridges. Why not have the building front Grant Street and have ground floor services and retail which face Grant? Coffeeshops and other stores that take the BS card will succeed, they'd have a captive market, and provide street traffic which would increase the safety of the area.

It must be all the grass and big lawns in the suburbs that keep them so safe. Once the city understands this and starts tearing down all those nasty old buildings everything will change.

Anyway. I wonder if it ever occurred to the college officials to put something other than dorm rooms on the first floor, something that would make life in the building more interesting, something that would enliven the street and connect the campus to its surroundings. Why not have some classrooms mixed in? Why not a restaurant or at least a dining hall, How about a store or two? seems like extremely limited range of thinking - very disappointing

Whoever is planning this will need to go back to college for the experience. It fails to make a mark contextually and is against the grain by avoiding the needs of the growing student body.

A much better location is at the foot of the new burchfield penny. They could string together a row of buildings all the way down Rockwell road. Giving the college a more flexible set of ideas.

The first idea is to keep the student parking humble; buffalo is a cold wind chill city. It is also important that the college wises up with what it wants the Burchfield to accomplish. Perhaps they are just avoiding the transient nature of its ergonomic form? I see nothing in the space where there should be something! Rockwell rd should be the most interesting drive in the neighborhood, why it isn’t is something that impedes on our sanity. This location would add life and proximity towards Elmwood, allowing for a greater transfiguration of space. If they are going to wall in the college, then they better start here. This is a space that carries no notoriety but is valued for its inept tranquility.

UB amherst was designed on the basis of fear and we know how much that campus is loved. same here. it's pathetic. There other means for dealing with security issues.

"At a time when many urban academic institutions raised fences and erected buildings with forbidding walls to protect their staff and students from encroaching crime, the University of Pennsylvania and President Judith Rodin questioned how this approach would benefit the institution in the long run. Rodin's account of the university's ground-breaking initiatives to embrace and reinvigorate the surrounding neighborhood shows how anchor institutions must operate in the 21st century if they are to remain competitive." - The University and Urban Revival
Out of the Ivory Tower and Into the Streets

http://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/14337.html

Amazing that some schools have leadership and take the risk to have a greater reward, instead of being afraid and accepting the status quo. Why dream for greatness, when just fine will do?

This is a smart move for Buffalo State. Adding all that grass provides a workable setting for the college's newest degree program: Lawn Ornament Design.

Buffalo State has said that all the building must produce revenue to pay for the financing of it. They are only considering that the students could pay rent, and that administrative, retail or classrooms somehow couldn't.

Their evaporative thinking is only preceded by an inordinate rush to get shovels in the ground by THIS AUGUST. That leads to a design like this being rammed down our community's throats.

Of course another function must be built into the ground floor. Look at the adaptive re-uses that have been tooled into Cassidy Hall, Moot Hall and others on the same campus? Dorms, then classrooms, then dorms and administrative ate in the same buildings over time. Let's not let this administration at Bflo State give us a dried up lemon when we need a welcoming cornucopia.

This is pretty pathetic on Buff State's part. They claim to be concerned about security but then put parking lots on Grant anyway. Crime NEVER happens in big open parking lots... right. LAME.

There is so much potential here, and it sounds like they're doing everything possible to kill that potential.

Is there a ground floor THEN a first floor above the lowest level?

If the area, ground or additional first floor, is so accessible from the outside, why put deep-asleep students on such a low level?
.
And, why are laundry facilities also where the outsiders can get at them--not for doing their own laundry but because such facilities are so very far away from more secure areas.
.
Students often do their laundering early in the morning or late at night. Criminals know that.
.
If the rooms/suites don't have more costly individual laundry facilities for each room, it would be a safer (little more expensive) way to have smaller laundering facilities above each other on every floor BUT the first or ground floor.

great site plan! after you rotate it 180°

There might be problems with funding issues to incorporate academic space and dormitory space. The way the SUNY system is currently setup it is difficult to mix the two. In fact the construction fund or wherever the money comes from for Academic Space cannot spend money on residence halls. All residents halls and apartments are then bonded and must pay their own way.

As far as I know that is probably the main reason there isn't anything academic related to this building because SUNY won't pay for it then, and the BONDED money would grow to accommodate it.

Is that the way it should be... maybe, maybe not. I don't know why there is such a distinction between academic and non-academic structures for a College or University in today's world where amenities more than academics actually drive people to one college or another.

Turning the building around 180 degrees even without any real grown floor activity would create a more used lawn space for the students. It could be easier for them to hang in the quad and head over to a class. Now you would have to cut through the building, get exposed to the isolated street and westerly winds and then walk around or through the building to get to any class.

This design really hinders any use of the space by students. Unless the University is planning on putting in some sort of community oriented events on this lawn... it would behoove them to flip the plan around.

The expansion is being built closer to Grant than the College was doing before. Seems like a lot of hate going around for little reason -- sure, 1st floor non-residential use would make sense abutting the sidewalk on Grant. But expansion of the largest college campus in the City proper doesn't seem like a bad thing.

So there could be "possibly parking along Grant St." A look at the inset rendering already shows the North "green space" as pavement, only a matter of time until the entire Grant St frontage is parking.
Buff State has had a poor record of integration into the surrounding community. Isolating the campus from the neighborhood diminishes both and shows a lack of vision by an institution that should lead by example.

And the curse of Howard continues...for an african american minority president she has absolutely no commitment to her urban surroundings.

Whether its a lawn or parking...adding 1200 students to these dormatories is going to create a major shift in the retail amenities of Grant Street, especially with the rents rising on Elmwood and several businesses seeing viability at cheaper locations on Grant.

So what this shows is that the building is being oriented without consideration for the future of Grant Street or the future of the students who will be patronizing Grant Street.

Not to mention that a building fronting Grant can act as a valuable barrier keeping the interior of the campus safer.

Id rather have the building front Grant and have the lawn and/or parking in the rear where it can be used safely and exclusively by students and for students. Students and Cars would be less likely victims if located in the rear on the campus proper. An open lawn front Grant makes it harder to patrol or monitor with cameras, longer seasonal walks in inclement weather and unless they plan to fense off the entire campus...opens the lawn/parking to public use rather than campus use.

I like it set back. I like green space. I'm not offended by this design.

Take the example of UB South Campus: The setback on Main doesn't bother me in the least. I think it looks elegant. Thankfully they didn't build all those buildings up to the street. Canisius (my alma mater) built its hodgepodge down the road right up to the sidewalk. It's a jumble, an awkward mess by comparison. So these dorms are set back from the road. Big deal. Plant some trees in between the dorms and the street to absorb some of the traffic noise, enjoy the view and worry about all the rest of the blocks on Grant. Removing this development from the road in no way negatively impacts any other block on Grant. For my money, it doesn't negatively impact this one, either.

Does anyone believe that with the loss of 480 parking spaces that this "greenspace" will survive along Grant St. I predict a fenced parking lot will be the solution to the lack of parking and to increase "safety and security".

Creating strong, positive, pedestrian-oriented streetscapes that help absorb and integrate large institutions is the goal of most of those who find fault with the concept. Those who applaud it seem to prefer a generic physical environment for cities and suburbs alike.

The setback has been discussed thoroughly in these comments, but we've not really focused on another problem -- the height of the buildings, some seven stories high. There will be a negative impact on the viewshed to the Richardson Towers, the one distinguishing element in this part of town.

While the buildings as sketched are inherently ugly, in fairness we should remember that they don't reflect design treatment. The questioning mind might wonder why design is not revealed in June when construction is anticipated to start in August, but I doubt few of us would be surprised to see Buff State deliver a backward-facing spartan cell-block type building to the uppper west side. It is completely consistent with an institutional mentality that openly demonstrates contempt for and fear of our unfortunate census tract.

Myself, I welcome the idea of removing a surface parking lot fronting Grant. But I would be elated to see a series of eclectic three- to four-story mixed-use structures along Grant Street from the Buff State campus to Forest Avenue, each holding student apartments on the upper floors with retail and offices on the first. And don't let anyone tell you this vision is beyond the realm of possibility.

Imagine the problems addressed by such an approach. Student security, streetscape quality, increased activity and a more dynamic environment. Jobs created for a wide range of conditions and needs derived from locally owned businesses taking advantage of 13,000 staff, students and faculty at Buffalo State. Heck, parents might even be impressed when they get off the Scajaquada to visit a prospective school for their kids.

The sad thing about Buffalo is our consistently low expectation level. I think our inferiority complex causes us to abandon the highest use solution, even when significant public monies could be leveraged with private investment. It is particularly disappointing to see our state institutions and elected representatives support this failure in our collective psyche.

Buff State will tell you that their hands are tied. Your state representatives will say almost nothing at all. How very sad. But sadder still is the willingness of our electorate to say nothing and expect less.

I've seen enough over the past few years to expect anything other than a completely compromised, unambitious and uncreative solution. What could be the impetus for turn-around will instead be still another project isolating an important institution from its host community -- hardly the mission declared by SUNY.

Though looking at it, they could still add another building fronting Grant Street at a later date. Just a thought!

The City of Buffalo should not sell the Parking Impound lot on Dart Street to Buffalo State College if they continue to show callous disregard for their impact on the community.

See for instance
1.) Their demolition dump site on the northeast corner of Letchworth and Dart. There they acquired a building, demolished it, and have left the debris there two years hence.

2.) The "front" entrance to the Burchfield Penney Art Gallery on a parking lot, rather than on Elmwood Avenue.

3.) The daily line-up of car traffic into and out of Buffalo State College from Grant Street, backing up traffic onto the 198 and blocking commerce into and from Grant Amherst and Grant Ferry commercial districts.

4.) Their flippant issuance of a Request For Proposals from housing developers to provide off-campus housing for students in late 2007, followed thereafter by rejection of all proposals and subsequent unveiling of the present plans for on-campus housing. The RFP set off a flurry of speculative property buys by unscrupulous speculators who evicted tenants and boarded up 15 houses on the immediate Grant St. block south of Letchworth. Go and look yourself at one of the major reasons why the neighborhood is perceived as dangerous. It is a self-inflicted wound.

Why should the greater community have to continue to suffer the follies of these academic fools?

Excellent points Roy! Thats Mureil Howards leadership!

Unfortunately, I wonder if a new President can untangle her incompetence.

Judging from the outrage on Buffalo Rising, I wonder why Grant/Amherst and Grant/Ferry and Forever Elmwood and the council members and the Mayor isnt speaking out. Could it be that Brown isnt going to berate another minority african american for their incompetence and stupidity or Golumbek/Hoyt? Golumbek probably wont speak out...as I think he has a nice patronage job teaching at Buffalo State.

The addition of 1200 students to Grant is going to have a major benefit for walkable retail. However, such benefits will be much more limited if the buildings turn away from the community instead of integrate and embrace the community.

1. Sure, Buff State is scared of Grant Street. So is 95% of the region, I'd wager. I'm sure that UB would be reluctant to build any further south on Bailey, and it's no surprise that Canisius tends to expand south and west (but not east) of Main. It would be nice if big institutions started acting like pioneers in struggling neighborhoods, but only a fool would expect it.

2. There's no link between Muriel Howard's race and BSC's plans for Grant Street. In fact, it's doubtful that she is strongly connected to these plans in any substantive way. She isn't designing these dorms -- she's sitting in meetings with those who do. If an administrator is making planning and design decisions, she's failed to delegate properly.

3. In the end, BSC's impact on Grant Street (or any other street) isn't going to depend on whether it builds to the sidewalk, or if there's a lawn, or whether it adds to the vacancy rate by including "first floor retail." It will positively impact Grant to the degree that it achieves its mission as a college. That should be the goal on which people like Howard and her successor should focus.

BSC and Grant Street are two separate issues. The city needs to clean up the crime and nastiness along Grant and BSC needs to just provide the best learning environment for its students. An interface will follow, but not as the result of 'strips of grass', dorm walls, or parking lots.

The problem is, BSC and Grant Street are not seperate issues. BSC, like it or not, is the largest stakeholder in that neighborhood and does have a responsibility beyond its walls. Institutes of higher education can provide a great influence to the communities in which they are located. If BSC chooses to be insular and take no interest in the neighboring community, what hope does it have at surviving and having a rebirth. Again, other urban institutions have taken the torch and integrated its success with that of the surrounding community. If we're not all destined to succeed, we're all destined to fail.

Why do people not expect greatness?

Yale University sat like an oasis in New Haven, Connecticut, and took little to no responsibility for the crumbling community around it. Crime was/is an issue just a few blocks away. That attitude is changing and New Haven is the better for it. Yale has taken steps to integrate into the community as a good neighbor.

There is no reason that Buffalo State should wall itself from the community and achieving its mission as a college includes being a responsible and active part of the community around it. Yes, it has an obligation to set the bar higher because it is the stakeholder with the most resources to do so. What's the point of an urban planning degree program if students are only able to learn from the design mistakes of the institution they attend?

I have to agree with Nick's comments above and it's frustrating to read other comments above that essentially embrace mediocrity at such a large institution.

1. I don't think we can decide for someone else that they're a stakeholder in anything. If the design of this dorm indicates that BSC wants nothing to do with Grant -- and I don't think it does mean that, but let's just say -- then it seems pretty clear that they're not stakeholders, no matter what anyone says.

2. Schools can be a positive influence on local communities, it's true. And BSC is a positive influence on Grant, regardless of whether its new dorm has a lawn or not. BSC brings thousands of people (and their wallets) into the area every day. The difference between Elmwood and Grant is that the former neighborhood was equipped to appeal to those wallets, while Grant still isn't.

3. The real issue is resources. BSC doesn't have unlimited amounts of time, money, person power, etc. It has to choose what makes the most sense for it to do. And it probably makes sense to be "insular" and focus on it's own needs rather than spending resources helping people with no connection to the school.

Just build it as is and change the degree program to "Insular Urban Planning". Why try to set the foundation for a great area when you can much easier make a single OK project? Sounds like too much work and forward thinking. We stopped being that way about 75 years ago.

Buffalo State and Grant are NOT separate issues.

Id like to remind EVERYONE that Elmwood was once a mainly residential street while it was Niagara and Grant and Main that were the commercial districts. What changed? As people left for the suburbs....the retail collapsed on Niagara Grant and Main. Why did Elmwood grow as a retail district? Because thats where Canisius, Medaille and Buffalo State students decided they could find high quality inexpensive apartments with a college experience...so Niagara, Grant and Main collapsed with family retail while Elmwood grew in shops catering to inexpensive college life: tattoos, piercings, unique clothes and furniture, coffee and fast food etc.

Local colleges saved Elmwood and to a significant extent the streets between Linwood and Richmond. Without those college students the westside and its culturals would look more like the area surrounding Humboldt Park and the Science Museum or South Park.

So no they are not separate issues.

Development (rising rents and property values) along Elmwood is pushing out many of the college businesses out. Adding 1200 students to Grant is going to permanently change the dynamic of Grant...you will know when the first college bar follows the existing coffee house.

Students choose a college because of academics...but they also choose a college because they can learn and receive a college experience, make lifetime friendships, etc.

Colleges dont have a choice of whether or not to embrace their surrounding community. The difference is that Buffalo State was always a commuter school so they never had to market both their academics and their student quality of life.

Is Buffalo State building a dormatory on Grant that will embrace a college experience and student quality of life where students can leave the campus with the retail opportunities on Grant that they can have on Elmwood...or perpetuate that their looking out their window to a slum,ghetto and need to walk all the way to Elmwood if they want to go off-campus even for the simplest things.

The Coffee Shop and Guercios and other stores prove that Grant can be (has the potential) just as safe and student friendly as Elmwood.

But 1200 students...as I said is going to permanently change the dynamic of Grant for the better...better to engage it...and plan for it...so it can be done safely...than than to discourage students from Grant and prolong the current issues.

Exactly how hard would it be for Buffalo State College to safeguard Grant from Forest to the Scajaquada Bridge as part of their urban campus? If they can't accept Grant as part of their urban campus then how are they going to develop that stadium and parking garage and expand their campus in the future.

Remember, Howard opposing the Ambassador Bridge because it upset her long range plans of Buffalo State expanding to Niagara Street along Forest and potentially on the other side of the Scajaquada Expressway. Ironic isnt it how Bufalo State wants to expand the campus..but they dont want to expand their responsibilities for expanding the campus. Thats beyond incompetent...and beyond stupid.

Whether you agree or disagree with the arguments being presented in this thread, it is heartening to see how Grant Street is the subject of a lively discussion after decades of being ignored and forgotten.

What's still discouraging is that Buffalo State College and our political leadership remain, for the most part, mute. We can talk all we want, but unless those who have influence are moved to action, this will be just another lost opportunity.

I hope those following this thread will consider contacting these individuals to ask for comment:

Dennis K. Ponton, Provost
Academic and Student Affairs Office
Cleveland Hall 519
1300 Elmwood Avenue
Buffalo, NY 14222
pontondk@buffalostate.edu
878-5550

Stanley Kardonsky, Vice President
Finance and Management Office
Cleveland Hall 505
1300 Elmwood Avenue
Buffalo, NY 14222
kardons@buffalostate.edu
878-4311

Chancellor Nancy Zimpher
Office of the Chancellor
State University of New York
State University Plaza
353 Broadway
Albany, New York 12246
chancellor@suny.edu
518-443-5355

Senator Antoine Thompson
Walter J. Mahoney State Office Building
65 Court Street, Room 213
Buffalo, New York 14202
athompso@senate.state.ny.us
854-8705

Assemblymember Sam Hoyt
936 Delaware Avenue, Suite 005
Buffalo, NY 14209
hoyts@assembly.state.ny.us
885-9630

1. I think it's possible for someone or some institution to abandon their stake in an area. Just because someone occupies space doesn't mean that they necessarily have a stake in it.

2. I still don't get how building a new dorm that will put several hundred students a stone's throw from Grant suggests that BSC is afraid of the street, lawn or no lawn.

3. It seems that some people -- chris69 especially, but more sensible voices, too -- want BSC to help improve Grant Street. It can't do that. That's not it's mission. What it can do -- as it did for Elmwood -- is serve as a reservoir of potential that the neighborhood can tap into as it continues to get back on its feet.

On the contrary, PaulBuffalo and Colin.

Building a Stadium on the site of the impound and building a parking Garage both located on the west side of Grant Street effectively means that Buffalo State has expanded the size of its campus.

The new Buffalo State Campus is now bounded by the Scajaquada Expressway, Elmwood, Forest excluding Contract Pharmaceuticals (former Bristol Myers) and the remaining residences. Argue what you will but once the new Stadium and Parking Garage are built then Buffalo State will have effectively grown the campus across the Grant Street Barrier.

SHOCKING! BUT ITS TRUE!

THAT MEANS THAT FROM THE SCAJAQUADA CREEK BRIDGE TO FOREST AVENUE....THAT SECTION OF GRANT IS LITERALLY NOW A CAMPUS ROAD...AS MUCH AS ROCKWELL ROAD AND IROQUOIS DRIVE!

BSC ALREADY owns all the way west to Dart St. The parking lots and former Jewett Refrigeration, and the demolition debris site at Letchworth/Dart, everything exclusive of Statite Insluation and Niemiec Builders all belong to BSC.

Now they want the Buffalo Auto Impound, and with this acquisition could own to Scajaquada Creek. Shouldn't they be talking about the linear expansion westward, and how Grant St. will be the new middle of the campus, and how that will work. What kind of current scholastic functions can be put on the Creek, that make sense? How about their Maritime Boatbuilding Center, currently marooned in RENTED space on Fuhrmann Boulevard? How about their Great Lakes Center on a new waterfront site at Scajaquada Creek, opening up a new waterfront presence on an urban campus? Wouldn't this be a unique opportunity to embrace many intersecting vectors of academia?

BSC should put into practice their own Evergreen Initiative philosophy, to whit "... Buffalo State College is committed to operating in an environmentally responsible manner, both as an institution of higher education and as a community leader. To fulfill its mission, the College shall continually strive to improve its environmental relationships by employing and promoting energy efficiency, recycling, and other low-impact environmental practices, thus enhancing the quality of life. It is Buffalo State College's environmental volition to balance its present interests with its responsibility to future generations."

Embracing an expansion with their own and the community interests at the forefront could lead to a world-class blossoming of a currently banal campus.

Its frustrating that sound urban design still scares people in these parts. Buff State has a signifigant interest in the neighborhood weather they like it or not. It is irresponsible as well as impossible for them to turn their back on the neighborhood that they are in. Moreover they are a PUBLIC entity. That means the taxpayers can and should have a voice on the schools development issues.

Back to the building itself: Why create an isolated, bland dorm when for a similar investment you could build much more. This stretch of Grant is a blank slate due to the vast surface parking lots that occupy both sides of the street. Why not design somthing mixed use and urban friendly to benifit both the student body as well as the neighborhood. Put storefronts in the building and build it up to the street. Bulidings like the proposed Elmwood-Forest hotel would fit nicely with the neighborhood. If this type of place gets built you could add similar structures long Grant to create an atmosphere similar to Marshal St. in Syracuse. The community and school get a vibrant, mixed use business-bar district in the place of surface lots. Whats not to like about that.

I can agree with the call to make Grant Street a front door to BSC rather than a service entrance. But to me that doesn't require building up to the sidewalk. I don't envision a better product if BSC chose to build right up to the street.

I grew up in a house on a relatively busy street. Traffic noise is annoying. As a student, I'd rather be further away from the road, myself. I don't buy the argument that setbacks are anti-pedestrian, by definition isolated from the neighborhood. I like walking past Wegman's on Amherst Street, for example. It's pleasant. I like the greenspace. Far better to walk past that than to walk past Value on Hertel (built up to the street).

With regard to the mixed use buildings many advocate: to me that seems a recipe for failure. If the college were to simply figure out some internal uses for the first floors (office space for college departments, say), then I don't see any big benefit for the neighborhood. As far as the street is concerned, it's just an office building which feels isolated from the public, anyway. If the college were to build retail spaces fronting Grant Street, they'd be competing in the marketplace, displacing tenants from Grant and Amherst Streets. Regardless of who they should attract for such space, they are most likely to be coming out of the local marketplace. So if a particular business locates here, then it won't locate in Benchmark's plaza at Grant and Amherst or in any of the storefronts along either Grant or Amherst. Why try to create a new retail mini-district here? Is there overwhelming demand? why would BSC even want to be in the rental business?

Also, the development here will be isolated from the Grant Street retail strip anyway. Several blocks of beat up residential homes lie to the south; there is no context with which to jump start a domino effect of neighboring development. What's across the street? Do you want BSC to build more mixed use there, too? More storefronts to try to fill with little demand in the market?

Inspire more interesting buildings to be built. I could applaud that. But don't saddle the neighborhood with excess retail space. That would harm, not help the neighborhood.

1. I think Bini is exactly right about adding first floor retail to these dorms. It's hard enough to fill these spaces in other areas of the city, let alone in a struggling neighborhood. The retail core of Grant Street is several blocks to the south.

2. Think about the relationship between BSC and Elmwood. The school isn't built to the curb on Elmwood, it doesn't have dorms there, and it doesn't have storefront retail, either. It has a big lawn in front, and what amounts to a big lawn (the Richardson complex) as a buffer to the south. In short, it arguably addresses Elmwood even less than the proposed dorm addresses Grant. But as Elmwood strengthened through the efforts of a host of organizations and people, it was able to gain further strength through its proximity to BSC. Grant can do the same thing, and the recent evidence suggests that it's starting to happen.

1. What should be done to improve Grant? More of what's currently being done, I think. Market the area. Talk it up. Patronize those businesses who start up on the street. More public/non-profit partnerships like the one that saw MAP and PUSH move into the old library. Keep advocating for the west side as a whole. Simply wait for the continuing movement of investment west of Richmond to have its effect. Keep pushing for higher uses of spaces like Elmwood so that more people begin to think of Grant as a low cost option. And dozens more things, I'm sure. But most of this is about people like Robert Franke, Brian Reilly, Maria Whyte, and David Rivera rather than BSC.

2. I don't think that people flock to Elmwood or Main in Williamsville because of scale or design. It's because those areas are full of amenities that people want, and because they are seen as relatively safe spaces. Grant Street, particularly near BSC, offers neither of those features. And it's hard to see how that would change if they built their new dorm closer to the street, or took out the lawn.

lifer,

Did Elmwood really attract all those businesses because it's walkable and relatively intact as a commercial strip? Or was it because it sat in the middle of one of the most prosperous areas of the city? A bit of both, probably, but a lot more of the latter, I think. I mean, there are plenty of places in town that have similar bones to Elmwood but lack anything like its amenities. Take Seneca Street, or Clinton in Kaisertown. They are largely intact, built to the curb, human scale, etc. Heck, you could say the same thing about Bailey between Kensington and UB. Yet it's impossible to imagine the Coop or other Elmwood stalwarts locating in these places.

I like good design, but I don't think it creates thriving neighborhoods.

The dorm building under discussion is but one part of a much larger BSC expansion. Let us see how it and the other components - the stadium, parking, removal of the old stadium and its new use etc.. all fit together. These in total are what would really create a substantial positive, or negative impact on the neighborhood.

This one building in isolation should not be our only concern here. What will happen between Scajaquada Crek on the west, the 198 on the north, Elmwood on the east and the blurred Richardson/Letchworth on the south needs our attention to find the best coordination into our community.

The Town-Gown thing is way overblown. UT Austin is one of the largest, most well-endowed schools in the nation and the surrounding neighborhood is, to put it delicately, a student ghetto. Likewise, Arizona State has hardly graced the city of Tempe with much more than traffic headaches and low-rent retail. BSC can't be a white knight to Grant St. because a.)academic urban pioneers like stepping over bodies as much as anyone else. b.) The location of the school next to the Scajaquada makes it too commuter-oriented to expect a surge in occupancies in the neighborhood. and c.) the school's mission has to come first regardless of the lost opportunities along the way for other things. All schools are faced with those choices and almost all of them go with their mission statement. And BSC buying up lots and properties around it does little else than inhibit the kind of urban planning that would enlace these two constituencies. Empty lots and storefronts being warehoused for some higher purpose down the road by a college contribute nothing to the local economy or to the tax base. If anything, Buffalo needs to create growth boundaries for all non-profits to keep them from swallowing up valuable and scarce properties that could be on the tax rolls.

That said, the school can and should engage city and neighborhood leaders to find common solutions to issues around the campus and to formulate a plan for quality growth and helpful design of future buildings that mesh with the larger goals for the area. BSC does have an obligation to combat and report crimes that occur in its juris proper and to operate jointly with the city and BPD wherever possible. But the city has to take the reins here. The city has to both end the criminality along Grant and to develop a responsible plan for integrating the neighborhood's goals with BSC's. And the city has every right to fight for future tax base and not just cede it to a tax-exempt entity in exchange for new buildings. Often the best way to get colleges and universities to give a damn about their communities is to contain their natural drive towards endless expansion at the expense of everything else.

Whatever, stop whining. If you don't want to discuss a topic in a broad sense, I don't have a problem with it. However, since you accuse me of over-generalizing your view, I guess you do acknowledge that architecture can have a profound affect on a community. Good.

Never whining or complaining, Paul, just commenting. All in good fun, as always.

Quick counter example to the "architecture" generalization: Broadway-Fillmore.

Nice architectrue around B-F, right? Absolutely - Eckhardt Building, many nice churches, etc. Central Terminal.
Also, a lot of good urbanist design in B-F, much "built to the street", right?

How much has all that helped prevent exodus of people and businesses from around B-F? Not much.

So if I wanted to over-generalize and be superficial, maybe I could say good architecture and urbanist design "can" "change the direction of a community" for the worse, using B-F as an example. I wouldn't, of course. That would be silly over-generalizing.

What do B-F and [Grant-Letchworth-Bradley-Rees-Hawley] areas have in common?
Hmmm. Lots of population loss. What else? Side streets full of older cheap not-high-quality houses? Yes, both have that. So even back in the city's 500K+ population hey day, those spots in the city weren't considered the most desirable by people who could afford other neighborhoods. But I'm sure it's coincidence that those two would both be among the hardest hit parts of the city the past few decades after we drop under 300K people. No, more likely it's the fault of Buff State, "architecture", and... I don't know - maybe Amtrak?

Not sure if this is possible, but by the looks of the design it is "hugging the curb" of Rees St. It is not like this building is placed smack dab in the middle of the block.

Doesn't this location allow for an eventual expansion of a similar structure facing Grant in the future? The center wing could eventually connect the two.

Not sure if this is in the cards but it was the first thing that came to my mind. That being build to the curb at Rees and then build to the curb at Grant.