We're told the duty free in the rendering has a small footprint, but is three stories deep, as opposed to the parking ramp, which is three stories tall.
But now there is a rendering that begs questions, rather than an opportunity to make
statements that are unverifiable. As Rienas would have it, we're not listening to facts; as we see it, we can't get anyone to back up a lot of what is presented, particularly where it involves the Columbus Park Neighborhood and the
PBA owned houses there.
Along with an admonition, Rienas wrote: I am not satisfied with the status quo of the
Peace Bridge plaza. I support getting bridge traffic out of Front Park,
increasing the amount of parkland, improving traffic flow and thereby air
quality, protecting and buffering the neighborhood from the plaza, facilitating
the flow of traffic for WNY businesses and promoting tourism, investing
millions in the neighborhood surrounding the Peace Bridge, extending and
improving the Riverwalk, improving Niagara St. and Porter Ave, etc, etc.
In light of yesterday's news and renewed chants of "Build the bridge," Rienas may smell a victory, and going interpersonal and rhetorical is a good way to avoid answering questions, but I mailed the following off to him anyway:
I just want
to know about the new plaza in regard to the ramp, the duty free's below-ground
square footage, the Wilkeson's disappearance (shouldn't it be pending?), and of
course, the concessions that were made for Front Park. I also want to
know how this will promote tourism, why those tourists need more plaza space,
and if the buffers will be view blockers. Also, if you're making more
parking (and room for idling trucks), how will you improve air quality? Will
idling be regulated?
I also want
to know the breakdown of who pays for the bridge and how much, now that those
plans are floated out there. Did I hear $750M US?
No answer. Strategically, it makes more sense to satisfy an entity (Olmsted) with the restoration of parkland, rather than a small portion of the public such as the Columbus Park resident/truck plaza opponents. Rienas always stresses the gains to Front Park as proof of the PBA goodwill. But perhaps he doesn't understand the irony of rebuilding a park that will be further separated from what's left of the neighborhood by a truck plaza.
As for the plaza, there are questions about the functionality and the form. Not that it's open to public discussion, but left to interpret the rendering on our own, the footprint left on the city seems like overkill. With functionality in mind, and the neighborhood as a host, maybe it's time to shrink the tumor.
Think 20 to 50 years ahead ... the best location for a new plaza is the gm plant site with the 190 shared onto the rail corridor, with the waterfront given back to the people.
This really shouldn't be about the Public Bridge Authority, Congressman-for-now Higgins or any other personality. This is about the next 100 years.
I'm not positive about your suggested alternative location, but right on with the rest. Our leards (HIGGINS, SCHUMER) are extremely short-sighted and frustrating!
You mean the GM site that would force the bridge to cross the river at 6,000+ plus feet instead of the current Peace Bridge span of 2,000+ feet. Is this the same site that would need about 2.5 miles of freeway on the Canadian side to connect to the QEW instead of the direct access at the current site?
I mean..some of these comments are comical.
The shared crossing would have been the best option. This blog had a lot of chatter in blaming the Bush administration for saying no. However, once the Obama administration arrived at the same conclusion, all of the finger pointing went towards Higgins and Rienas.
The plaza doesn't need to be at the same spot as the bridge.
Truck traffic can be shunted off to a remote location for inspection from a bridgehead at the present site, the BlackRock site or nearer to Grand Island. It is done at other bridge crossings.
so...to quote a new commentator, "...don't get your panties in a bunch..." over this
I can see your point but consider that traffic flows South. What you are suggesting, either at the GM site or Blackrock is a serious back track for trucks. Almost 4 miles from the GM site and 1.5 miles for the Blackrock site. Now if there was land around La Salle Park...that could work.
The main reason I posted what I did was that most people on this blog are looking at this situation on a micro level. When if you want to have a realistic outlook, you need the macro level.
This is an international crossing for a region that has Millions of residents and is directly tied to Billions in revenue and hundreds of thousands of jobs. Yet all this blog wants to talk about are 80 houses and a couple hundred residents.
This solution is not ideal. The shared crossing is but that has been ruled out by two administrations. Unless you are playing SimCity...you have to work with what you have.
As for Elena whining about Rienas not speaking to Buffalo Rising, she needs to consider that:
1 - This is just a blog that is read by a very small fraction of the region with pretty much the same mindset.
2 - I think it has more to do with the Al Coppola interview that was uncomfortable at best and a drunken cross examination at worst last year.
If BRO wants to be taken seriously, outside of the wonderful content that WCP provides, I suggest they act like reporters, don't send angry activists for interviews and check facts before they hit the publish button.
Just a few things...
I dont think looking at this from a macro vs micro point of view has much of anything to do with reality. For the people in the neighborhood, the prospect of getting hosed on their largest investment as a result of this project is very real. Ditto for city administrators who will soon have to account for a big hole in the tax base from the soon to be de-valued neighborhood.
Many here have cited the "hundreds of thousands of jobs" dispersed through the region that are tied to international commerce but nobody has put forth a convincing argument that their growth and survival is dependent on this >billion public work.
I think looking @ micro issues such as the fate of a middle class, inner city neighborhood ought to be weighed against the questionable upside of PB expansion. If that isnt enough consider the macro issues like more efficiently using wnys existing crossings, continuing the fight for shared border management, or the staggering cost of costructing this silver bullet.
The reason many look at this at "the micro level" is because it is a personal issue for those that live in the affected communities. Many have deep roots in the neighborhoods and have invested much into their homes. Most people have a deep attachment to the place they live. A persons home is not just a shelter but a refuge and an embodiment of the persons life and values.
Great contrast of house vs home.
Moving the Thruway to the rail corridor would not only return the waterfront to our city but would open up prime acreage for developement and greatly increase the tax base.
New property development has led to tax base growth that has become a windfall in San Francisco where the Embarcadero Freeway was removed.