What type of content would you like to see more of on BR?
Advertisement
February 2, 2010 9:28 AM
Comments: 40
Savarino Construction has begun work on an east side senior apartment building. The 95-unit structure is being built at the southwest corner of Jefferson Avenue and W. Peckham Street. Norstar Development and Savarino Companies were selected by the Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority (BMHA) to redevelop the A.D. Price Courts public housing complex located on Jefferson Avenue north of William Street. A mix of rental and for-sale homes are being built.
The three-story, $15 million low-income senior housing facility will include 83 one-bedroom units and 12 two-bedroom apartments. The exterior will be vinyl-sided with a split-face concrete base. Foit-Albert Associates is project architect. Five 1930's vintage apartment buildings were demolished on the site last year to make way for the project. Two of the salvaged historic sculptures from the demolished structures may be installed on the new apartment building (see rendering above).
The first phase of the A.D. Price project consisted of the construction of 55 one and two-bedroom townhomes (photos above and below). A new community center has also been constructed.
Subsequent phases will rehab existing units, demolish additional existing, three-story garden style apartment buildings and add 20 new for-sale homes and 55 additional rental units as well as a pocket park, rehabilitation of Willert Park, and infrastructure improvements.
It is anticipated that the entire $40 million project will be complete by the end of 2011.
Leave a comment
Related Blog Entries
Conversion Planned for Larkin District Warehouse
A sprawling six-story warehouse complex at the corner of Seneca and Hamburg streets is scheduled to get a Cobblestone-like makeover...
St. Mary's-on-the-Hill: Developer-Ready
Sam Savarino is interested in converting the ravaged St. Mary's-on-the-Hill Church into residences, if he can purchase the property from an...
Construction Watch: Homeless Safe Haven
Construction on Lakeshore Behavior Health's sixteen-bed homeless housing facility is in full swing. An historic brick structure is being rehabbed...
Sponsor
Sponsor
- Lexington Double
- Armor Storage 295 Niagara St. Buffalo, NY
- Celebration Women in Music
- Womens Recognition Day
- 2 ESTATE SALES, FRI & SAT 9,4 LOCKPORT &a
- Uptown pop,jazz trio available
- Art Competition for BRR Tour of Gardens
- Dog Training Apprenticeship
- 2 ESTATE SALES, Tonawanda and Silver Creek
- Haiti Relief 5k Run and Walk
February 2, 2010 10:33 AM
Can we EVER see brick (even fake brick) structures get built in this city???? The plastic look is sooooo 1980's and tacky.
February 2, 2010 11:33 AM
It's all about the Benjamin's ($$$$$).
Vinyl siding can run $2 to $3 per square foot, installed. Real brick costs two to four times as much.
February 2, 2010 12:34 PM
BINGO!
Besides...even when brick is used on public housing projects..it looks ugly as hell. Just look around Buffalo.
For brick to look nice you need someone who knows that they are doing, stone accents and something more than a running bond pattern. All of this cost $$$$.
February 2, 2010 11:34 AM
nice tacky work. Savarino. I thought you were a "preservationist."
February 4, 2010 10:10 AM
Savarino is not the General Contractor.
It was awarded to Kulback's Construction.
The GC has nothing to do with the design.
The architect is Foit-Albert Associates
February 2, 2010 11:36 AM
could BRO possibly post the image of what was torn down, going forward? I would love to get more of a record of the needless destruction of our City's heritage.
February 2, 2010 3:24 PM
Actually, the buildings in the top picture are exactly what the razed buildings looked like. The Willert Park Projects were the prototype of housing projects such as the Perry Projects in the First Ward and Kenfield along the Kensington Expressway. Willert Park was considered rather revolutionary when it was built and was used nationally to show how public housing ought to be. As they transitioned into the A.D. Price Projects, most of their architectural and landscaping elements were removed and the area became a danger zone. While what is replacing them is rather bland, I would hardly mourn their loss.
February 2, 2010 11:17 PM
What really upsets me about this, as opposed to the architecturity-integrity discussion, is that the Willert Park Housing Project (aka, A.D. Price Homes) was the 2nd public housing complex in New York State to be built for a solely
African American community and was recently determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
So, did Savarino just ignore that fact? If so, that is pretty criminal in my book.
http://www.preservationbuffaloniagara.org/docs/WillertDOE.pdf
February 2, 2010 12:08 PM
Is it too late the stop this project?
February 2, 2010 12:10 PM
Craptastic
February 2, 2010 12:46 PM
Not all new development should be considered "Progress" this looks UGLY. On what was once a bustling avenue of shops, theaters (a Main Street of the East Side) is now turning into a suburban plastic eyesore. How sad.
February 2, 2010 12:52 PM
This is really a slap in the face to those living in the East Side. They are being told how wonderful it is to have new development going on in their side of town. BUT, all they end up getting is the worst looking kind of development. Cheap, no job creation after completed, car oriented (another slap in the face to LOWER INCOME individuals who most likely cannot afford a car). And all in all, are told everyday, by local leaders "how wonderful this will be for the community", like these people haven't seen BETTER!!! ...OUTSIDE OF THE EAST SIDE.
February 2, 2010 1:20 PM
Ur knees be a jerking again, after the decision of course. Change your name to sidelines.
February 2, 2010 1:29 PM
Some of you are out of your minds.
I appreciate Malone's humor and Really?'s realism, but some others here need a serious reality check. This project IS still a 'project' and I don't favor mostly for the reasons I oppose 'projects' in general. Those reasons include the circumstance that public housing warehouses and concentrates the poor and that public housing is needlessly expensive as compared to private, individual apartments. The private rental market could provide ample shelter for economically disadvantaged populations while simultaneously boosting the fortunes of neighborhoods seeking population.
But these new homes are hardly horrid. The generic 'projects' they replaced were ugly and scary. The cost of this phase is $158k/unit ($15m/95 units). While that is still crazy expensive in a city where $60k will buy you a nicely maintained double in many neighborhoods and $60k/unit will buy you good apartments in some of the best neighborhoods, at least this project is much less expensive than many other public housing projects. The taxpayer is paying, after all.
As for the tacky parking in front of those homes, it's unfortunate. But you'd be surprised at how many poor families own cars and demand parking these days. I agree that it would look a world better with lawn in front these homes instead of parking pads, but apparently those tenants choosing to rent here don't agree.
February 2, 2010 3:19 PM
Bini:
The kick I get out of these comments is a fundamental lack of regard for economics of any sort. Apparently, it is not a factor for many people who aren't involved in these process and their ignorance shows.
Hell the developers utilize materials to fit the cost model. Half the posters are probably grad students in design. The really underlining issue is THEY are responsible for these developments. Get back in the classroom and design materials which are cost effective and meet the requirements of these type of projects. The fingerpointing is actually is funny b/c in many instances they are the reason and don't want to achnolwledge it. Buffalo ReUse. Great idea, proactive, figure out some more instead of *****ing all day long.
Get to work Lego
February 2, 2010 3:34 PM
There is such as a thing as a fake brick (about the same cost as the cheap plastic currently being used). A Brownstone style development to fill in empty blocks would look 1,0000TIMES BETTER.
February 2, 2010 6:00 PM
Shhhhhh. Ordinary citizens are not allowed to comment on things like design and function of the buit environment. We need to let one or two developers decide what our city looks like. Suggesting that the taxpayers who fund these projects have any say on what they look like is just not being a "realist". Leave the developers alone whaaaaa! sniff, sob.
February 2, 2010 9:36 PM
Karl- At the other end of the spectrum are those with a "fundamental lack of regard" for anything but "economics". The world would be bleak if we let pure economics drive every project or decision. The best of Buffalo would not exist if those before us were as uninspired.
February 2, 2010 3:39 PM
Why don't they put this kind of public housing out in the suburbs? Why build more of this in the city where there aren't any jobs?
February 2, 2010 4:08 PM
Because, this gives the Mayor more reason to demolish more vacant structures in order to fill in new and ugly housing. If you have'nt been through the East Side lately, it looks like an open feild.
February 2, 2010 6:28 PM
Agreed, many jobs \ companies have moved to all those business parks out in Amherst. Placing public housing so far away from where jobs are means those who live here can't easily get to and therefore keep a job making it very difficult to get out of the hole.
February 2, 2010 8:58 PM
Same in health care, our suburban facilities are not able to staff the lowest paid positions due to locations not accessible by public transportation.
February 2, 2010 8:52 PM
Orchard Park recently attempted to profile elderly folks in order to keep low income seniors out of their town, the burbs just don't tolerate public housing.
February 2, 2010 9:05 PM
Are housing projects a good thing in the city OR burbs? If I lived in the suburbs or city I wouldnt want a project built in my neighborhood.
February 2, 2010 9:24 PM
Public housing has a mixed record, not my idea of the answer but it works for some.
In Buffalo we have public housing because the poor are concentrated here. Our neighbors have acted from self interest to ensure this policy continues.
February 2, 2010 4:06 PM
Sorry if my previous "craptastic" remark offended thee. But these new builds do look awful, though admittedly what they replace looked even worse. These buildings are brand new, however, and are never going to look any better than they do right now. Imagine them 10 years or more from now. You can call it progress if you like, but then I'd have to agree with a previous post, that some of you are out of your minds.
February 2, 2010 6:03 PM
I agree. Some are out of there minds to think a functional apartment complex ought to be razed for a newer version of the same thing. All for the low price of 153k a unit. Great to see taxpayer money being used wisely.
February 2, 2010 7:58 PM
LMAO! You are calling the former ADPC projects functional? I take it you've never seen them up close. The townhomes they are building are much more family friendly. The driveways make it safer to park and the design isn't as bad as y'all make them out to be. Give 'em a break, they're projects after all.
Y'all need to know when to shut up sometimes.
February 3, 2010 8:21 AM
Ive been in a few of the units and from what I could see the problems there had more to do with extreme poverty than the structures themselves. Dont expect the new builds to be much better since a driveway or "family friendly" design wont do anything to get someone out of poverty.
For 153k a unit you could have done some updating on the existing complex and had money left over for rehabs-demos in the neighborhood east of Jefferson.
February 3, 2010 10:23 AM
You'd need to be in them a few years ago. The places were infested with roaches and rats. The poverty thing is a given cause their projects and that won't go away with new projects.
Back in the day the ADPC stood for All Da Poor Crackheads, cause that is who used to live there. I hear the new townhomes are for families and that there will be a nice playground behind the homes. One of the problems with having a car in the projects is you have to park it so far away from your door and that means anyone can get into it or take it on you. So the driveways are a nice touch for safety and peace of mind.
February 2, 2010 6:26 PM
This development is honestly one of the better ones for the east side. Much better than the tacky ranches that are already falling into foreclosure, at least these properties add density and some sort of street presence.
They could be improved and I wish they didn't remove ALL the trees for about 100 acres of the near east side to build them.
February 2, 2010 10:00 PM
Yeah, what is it about developers and trees? They seem to not recognize the aesthetic value(and dollar value)of mature trees. Most people like old trees, they provide a sense of permanence and stability while bringing us both beauty and much needed shade.
The modern little street tree we have settled for is a poor substitute for the grand old varieties that once lined our streets.
February 2, 2010 9:37 PM
It'll require much more vinyl to fill in all those "missing teeth" :)
February 3, 2010 5:02 AM
Can anyone comment on the following?
What really upsets me about this situation, which is a slight divergence from the architectural-integrity discussion, is that the Willert Park Housing Project (aka, A.D. Price Homes)had historical significance...and was the 2nd public housing complex in New York State to be built for a solely African American community.
It was recently determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places by Preservation Buffalo Niagara.
http://www.preservationbuffaloniagara.org/docs/WillertDOE.pdf
Did Savarino just ignore that fact? If so, that is pretty disgusting in my book.
February 3, 2010 9:56 AM
do you want to preserve them to remind the country what a horrible mistake they were in the first place?
February 3, 2010 8:53 AM
For 150k/unit, I would have to imagine that at least twice as many vacant homes, that are rehab-able, could have been brought back to life, at 75k per home that seems extremely reasonable. Most of these would prob be 2 family homes, so basically that would be 4x the amount of units. It could have put countless streets back together and got rid of a ton of blight.
February 3, 2010 10:07 AM
my 'out of your minds' comment was pretty rash. Sorry.
February 3, 2010 3:15 PM
I live about a five minute walk from this "development". I think they are cheap,looking crap. (Just an opinion by someone who lives in this neighborhood.) In ten years they will be falling down. I would like everyone to notice that the trash bins are allowed to sit in the front of the unit. I know of homeowners in the city who have been fined for having their trash containers visible from the street. Is this another double standard? I also think having parking spaces available in the front of the "homes" makes them look like trailer parks.
February 4, 2010 8:58 AM
Savarino is not the General Contractor.
It was awarded to Kulback's Construction.
February 4, 2010 10:47 AM
The errors in placing parking pads in front and poor landscaping design on the prominent Jefferson streetscape sets the standard for what is expected in future developments.
This is a true loss of opportunity for the Jefferson corridor to improve, and it is outrageous that we the public are paying 153K per unit for a development that is so ugly, scatter-shot, non-sustainable and sure to fall into decrepitude shortly.