City January 13, 2011 10:10 AM

The True Cost of Sprawl #4: There is no there there.

The True Cost of Sprawl #4: There is no there there.
The phrase "There is no there there" comes from writer Gertrude Stein's book Everybody's Autobiography.  In this phrase she was talking about a trip back to her childhood home of Oakland California after a long absence.  Upon arrival she found that the house she grew up in was gone.  In this phrase she is saying that with the place being gone it no longer has purpose to her and was rendered meaningless.  In subsequent years the phrase has been commonly used to describe placeless places - sprawl places, places lacking in human interaction and  vibrancy - places lacking unique quality of form and history.  Large chunks of Buffalo (city and suburb alike) have been rendered placeless by the rampant growth of sprawl and its accommodation over the last 60 years. This loss of "place" is the biggest cost demanded by sprawl. It is a heavy cost that Buffalo continues to pay without questioning the results.

The post card included here is at Seneca and Main (other post card views included here   show more detail of the buildings once located on these blocks) . It shows a densely built and wonderfully complex urban scene.  The tall building near the center ( the original Marine Midland Bank headquarters) is the only building remaining today. Everything else has been torn down, mostly replaced with a sprawl style landscape. The buildings to the left have been removed to provide a parking lot.  The domed building at the corner of Main now exists as piles of stones in a field on the East Side.  It was supposed to be pieced back together but space for cars on this block has remained far more valuable than space for people.  The buildings in the distance have been removed for a mixture of reasons including the baseball stadium, parking lots, highway off ramps and, empty fields.  The buildings to the right were removed for the giant wind-swept and normally empty plaza around the HSBC tower.

This once infinitely complex and compelling few blocks has now been rendered as a hideously unattractive and unwelcoming place in the name of sprawl. 'Place' is not a good word to use because this place is placeless - "there is no there there". Walking through this area is uncomfortable at best and dangerous at its worst when the winds get blowing. Even with thousands of people working just steps away these streets are almost always empty.  The placelessness of this block traps people inside the giant HSBC building.  They go inside in the morning and rarely leave until they get back in their cars to go home in the evening.  Can you blame them?  Without vibrant blocks of shops and restaurants to entice them out they instead shun the city.  The vibrant streets that once graced this part of the city were given up in payment for sprawl.  The need for these densely packed buildings ended when we traded them in for a drastically spread out metro area.  The result is that a young visitor to the city will make the comment that Buffalo is a "ghost town...worst city ever".  Can you blame him for holding that view? The sad truth is that no one can honestly blame a visitor for having this opinion of the city's downtown and suburbs.

Buffalo is a very interesting city still full of treasures if you know where to find them. It has great potential to be one of the country's great cities but that can't happen while also paying the heavy price of sprawl. Buffalo (meaning WNY) has been on a 50 year quest to make itself into a placeless place- a place with no "there there".  Year after year the unique and historical buildings and places are removed - one-two-three at a time.  At first the change is not noticeable.  An old empty building is gone and there are a few less shops on Main.  People spread out and more buildings come vacant.  Soon whole blocks are removed and people stop coming all together.  The stores are gone, the buildings are gone and, the people are gone.  Except that the people are not really gone.  They have just spread out to such an extent that they can no longer support the dense vibrant places that made for great attractive places.  

steell2vewfewfefewf.jpg

The problem with this scenario is that the center city is the public face of WNY.  This is what people see when they see and think of  when they think of BuffaloBuffalo .  The face that Buffalo now chooses to present to the world is represented by a dead downtown.  It is a downtown with empty streets, parking lots, and too many empty buildings.  After posting a quick story about WNY's weak investment in tourism marketing last week I got into a bit of a debate with Chris Smith of WNYMedia.  He contended that spending to entice people to WNY was meaningless if you brought them into a place that was not providing them with a fulfilling experience.  Although I disagreed with with the defeatist nature of his position I did not disagree with the basic substance.  You can't expect people, visitors, investors, media and, locals alike to embrace Buffalo if the product you offer is the bland and placeless place that downtown Buffalo has been transformed into.  Everything that has been done to the block shown in this post card over the last half century has made the city a worse place to be. Does it make sense to make a place worse than what it was? Logic does not enter into the sprawl equation so Buffalo keeps paying with its most valuable resource-its heritage.

Today in Buffalo there are an increasing number of  people who recognize the lunacy of selling the city's soul to pay the sprawl monster.  But sprawl is a powerful force in America.  The economics  in modern America are fiercely in favor of sprawl, especially in an economically stagnant place like WNY.  Few in local government are speaking up against sprawl and local media is silent too.  Even fewer government officials (none?) are proposing any solutions in the form of public policy to address sprawl.  The City of Buffalo is preparing a new zoning code which, if successful, will staunch the destructive effects of sprawl but not the sprawl itself.   As a breath of fresh air highly respected downtown developer, Rocco Termini, wrote a brilliant opinion piece in the Buffalo News which was published on January 11 (read here).  He described the urgent need to redevelop downtown and once again make it the center of Buffalo's commerce - to make it a place that can be used with pride as the face of the region.  In the story he laid out a multitude of policies and incentives which could be employed to reverse the economics of sprawl in favor of downtown development.  Is anyone listening?  Will these ideas die on the pages of the News? Does anyone think that continued deterioration of downtown is a good idea?  Can anyone honestly argue with the young hockey player and the opinion he got from seeing downtown Buffalo? Its time to do things differently!  The same old same old should not be allowed to continue in WNY for another decade.

Steel-11-wfwefwfwf.jpg

The post card views are taken from a wonderful postcard collection posted by Karl Josker.


View image

Comments

Leave a comment

You could also grey out the streetcar in the main postcard. I love seeing old photos with full streetcars carrying people around our city. Buffalo's once expansive network of streetcars is one of the bigger losses to sprawl.

Score: 10 ( 10 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I think modern development has failed in that the most important factor, people, are not accomodated in the planning and execution of most projects. In the past 50 years or so we have seen a scale and proportion of design that ignores human needs and interaction. This has resulted in an environment that is not only uninviting but also hostile to the human experience. We need to look back and recognize the value in a built environment that puts people first, that is what "sense of place" is all about.

Score: 9 ( 19 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Such nonsense - apparently the hundreds of millions who live in 'sprawl' areas aren't hurting for 'human needs and interaction'. People don't flock to the horrible Quaker Crossing in OP because it's not serving their needs.

Now, list the true economic costs of sprawl, and calmly explain the benefits of pushing everything closer together, and you might win.

Going with the whiny pseudo social science blather is just going to get more than enough people against you to deny you any success at all.

You and your touchy-feely friends better realize you're battling against what people want - space - and come up with better ways to fight it.

replied to Black Rock Lifer
Score: -3 ( 17 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Or not. Go to Manhattan; the quintisential American city known across the globe as the single symbol of "America" especially when referring to our built environment. density there not only works, it amazes, inspires, and transforms.

The white flight based on racism and fear is why the suburbs boomed and the cities centers were abondoned.

replied to Jesse
Score: 1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

It pains me to go to cities like rochester and see a lot of blocks still intact that look like the before postcard above.

Its maddening the fact that we once had such a dense, historic urban core and we will never get it back

Score: 2 ( 8 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Cities become victims of their own success. Downtown Houston and Charlotte were also scraped clear and replaced with surface lots in expectation of major developments. The same optimism prevailed in Buffalo in the 1950s and '60s as landlords cleared their sites in anticipation of a big sale to a tower developer (easier than the maintenance of an old filigreed victorian white elephant, no?). Or, in the case of building owners later, they just give up and would rather demolish and live off the parking revs than carry the taxes on an empty building ( I often wonder if some of those guys actually get someone to make a nice drawing of a huge development to con city leaders into giving them a demo permit! ).

But again, the problems with aclimating old streetcar downtowns to the automobile began almost immediately. Look at old historical photographs of cities like LA and Detroit. In the 1920s they were knocking down buildings for parking lots.

replied to jim1234664
Score: 6 ( 6 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

The dream of reinvesting in a thriving downtown becomes thwarted by the fact that there is still a large proportion of Buffalo's citizenry segregated by poverty.

If we are to create places that put people first, we must ensure to include all people in those plans.

Score: 9 ( 13 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Yes include them, but don't segregate them to their own building. Building the Projects was a failure. Economic classes need to be spread about, not one class housed in one building. the property value around a designated building like that would drop.

I'm not saying to gentrify an area, but spread out the economic classes so that a community develops and not a lot of the same segregation we're used to.

replied to msakalau
Score: 2 ( 12 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

The city of Buffalo is one big melting pot (which is what you want) and look at what has become of the city. You need rich areas and poor areas. People want to be surrounded by people who they can relate to. Having a poor person surrounded by millionaires would do nothing but make the millionaires angry and the poor people jealouse. Creating anxiety and hate.

replied to Greg
Score: -9 ( 19 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Actually the poor, rich, and middle class all lived together throughout most of history. Streets like Delaware Ave were only a couple of blocks from the less properous neighborhoods on the East and West sides. The lower West Side ranged from the smallest working mans cottages to the mansions of the rich, all living in close proximity. Here in Black Rock the large Victorian homes on Dearborn St were within sight of the small cottages and even tenement buildings of the poorest.

Today we are more divided than anytime in history. This makes it very difficult to see our destiny as a community. Out of sight means out of mind, makes it too easy to say poverty is not my problem.

replied to KangDangaLang
Score: 12 ( 16 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Not true, look at how much Buffalo was defined by race before the last 20 years. Irish in South Buffalo, Italians on the West Side, Blacks on the East Side, a slight mixing of whites in north buffalo. Buffalo is very defined by racial borders. On top of that you have to remember that three city blocks in 1900 was the equivalent of three city miles in todays standards due to the avaibility of the automobile.

replied to Black Rock Lifer
Score: 1 ( 9 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Great comment. Many of Buffalo's neighborhoods are defined by the race or ethnicity of the majority of residents. This is not static though. Many of the neighborhoods that were once idenified by one ethnicity are now identified by others as large groups of people moved to other areas of the city and ultimately to the suburbs. Migration within the city was a precursor to migration to the suburbs and finally migration to the exurbs. I believe that race and ethnicity will also drive some group back to the neighborhoods left vacant in the city.

replied to KangDangaLang
Score: 1 ( 9 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I wasn't referring to race, but wealth. Those neighborhoods contained a healthy mix of incomes and status. Here in Black Rock we were a melting pot of immigrants from all over Europe. Laborers, tradesmen, businessmen, teachers, doctors, lawyers, and everyone else lived together and interacted. This was still the case up until the 60's and 70's.

This was partly due to limited means of transportation as you suggest but it also was the result of a time when community was valued and even the poorest were embraced as members as well as neighbors.

replied to KangDangaLang
Score: 6 ( 10 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Its the same thing now, except for maybe doctors. Which I doubt there was a large critical mass of around the turn of the last century.

replied to Black Rock Lifer
Score: -1 ( 5 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Burch> "Not true, look at how much Buffalo was defined by race before the last 20 years. Irish in South Buffalo, Italians on the West Side, Blacks on the East Side, a slight mixing of whites in north buffalo. Buffalo is very defined by racial borders."

Just about every text written on Buffalo's history contradicts this. While there have always been pockets of elite only settlements, and immigrants tended to group together, they did so within walking distance of other groups. The segregation you are talking about didn't come util after WWII.

replied to KangDangaLang
Score: 4 ( 6 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

You just did nothing but reinforce exactly what I said.

replied to The Kettle
Score: -1 ( 5 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Nope. Read it again.

replied to KangDangaLang
Score: 0 ( 2 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Great article Steele-you have done an effective job of summing up recent events and articles into a cohesive thought about our macro policy.

Another truth is that people and businesses ARE moving back into the city, and recognizing the need to revitalize Buffalo's core (all except Collins, that is.) Yes, we have lost too too much and it breaks my heart. But, really, what can we do at this point? We can be proactive about a) saving what is left (which may, in some cases, entail actually moving structures to more central parts of Buffalo--NOT Atlanta) b) implementing design codes that set a bar for new builds (not currently in place if you look at the number of cinder block buildings still going up). I'd love to see the new zoning rolled out, even from an information standpoint, sooner than later....as I believe this can be a force to help alter the public's awareness/participation/etc.

Score: 0 ( 10 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I prefer Gertrude Stein's meaning of "There is no there there" over the common use of that sentiment by people referring to "sprawl places." If I have fond memories of spending time with family at Panera Bread Company on Sheridan Drive, then there is plenty of there there for me. People connect to places for many reasons, "unique quality of form" being one of them. But just one.

Score: 1 ( 7 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Except that the Panera is the same as the 20 or 30 stores in Phoenix and the 15 or so in Grand Rapids and the one on Transit Road or the one in Hamburg etc etc ect.

replied to NBuffguy
Score: 3 ( 11 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Did you ever stop to consider the reasons that Panera is able to get away with building the same store dozens of times in dozens of cities? One reason is that people like it. They like it a lot. They wouldn't be in Phoenix, Grand Rapids, and everywhere in between if people didn't want them.

replied to STEEL
Score: 1 ( 17 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

OK then lets keep tearing down the old and replacing it with Paneras because people like it. Of couse there is nothing to say that a Panera could not have been housed in one of these buildings or an Olive Garden or any other banal chain restaurant. Oh - except that the buildings have been torn down to accommodate sprawl. You see, Panera is not sprawl the way Paneras are built is sprawl. And since 95% of everything built in WNY in the last 50 years is sprawl based we have created a dead city that out of town people mock. I can't tell if you think that was actually a good idea or not. That said I would still much prefer a local bake shop to a Panera any day.

replied to NBuffguy
Score: 2 ( 16 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

You just don't get it or maybe you are incapable of getting it. It makes no difference if there are 1,000 identical buildings spread across the world, it is the interaction that takes place within their walls that matters.

The buildings in the photo are nice but they are just like thousands of other buildings of their day no different than the Paneras of today. They were also of their time, a time that is a century or two gone.

replied to STEEL
Score: 3 ( 19 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

it isn't the architectural styles that made these buildings so superior to what replaced them, though good detailing certainly helped. it is the relationship that these buildings had to the street.

they were built to the sidewalk edge and to the walls of whatever was on the next lot, forming an uninterrupted street wall. indoor shopping malls aren't stupid: they provide this same experience for its customers.

they had legible and ornate entrances that required no signage instructing people how to find the door.

they had street-level permeability: windows in place of blank walls.

they had tripartite facades, just as the guaranty does: base, shaft, cornice. this arrangement produces buildings that age very well regardless of style.

they were built of permanent materials found in nature: stone and brick.

they were more than one story high.

if we had replaced them with buildings that observed these principles, it wouldn't matter if their styles were of our time or our grandparents' time, they would still contribute to a strong and satisfying downtown environment.

replied to Sally
Score: 6 ( 16 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Where is brick found in nature? Brick isnt permanent either. Without proper care it will fall victim to weather namely freeze/thaw.

replied to grad94
Score: 0 ( 2 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

You are right. What is at this location now is much better. We are fortunate that they were removed. We should be thankful for the foresight of those who decided they had to go.

replied to Sally
Score: 0 ( 12 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

The reason there is nothing better at that locaation now than 50 years ago is because Buffalo died. There is no demand for anything in that location.

replied to STEEL
Score: -4 ( 14 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Oh so you did read the story this time. Yes it did die. It died in favor of Transit road et al. Poor trade off in my opinion. The cost of sprawl is that Transit road is the best that WNY can offer now.

replied to Sally
Score: 8 ( 10 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Poor trade off IN YOUR OPINION is exactly correct. In another persons opinion is might be a great tradeoff. Only a most arrogant individual would think that his OPINION is the correct one. If more people shared your opinion Transit Road would be empty and Seneca Steet would not be. But in real terms so what, WNY is no worse of with stores on Transit rather than Downtown the population is still being served. If there is a concern about excess infrastructure than demolish and land bank the areas that are out of favor and have crumbling infrastructure such as the East side. There is no reason you have to end sprawl by stopping new development as it could be just as easily stopped by land banking old contaminated land. The old downtown you pine for was built for a time that no longer exists, a time when people traveled largely on foot. Those days are not coming back no matter how many birthday candles you blow out and make a wish on.

replied to STEEL
Score: -5 ( 21 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

There are plenty of places that are dense active and walkable an people like them. They like them so much they spend dearly to live and vacation in these places. On the other end of the spectrum sprawl has been heavily subsidized to coerce people to abandon the city. But beyond that sprawl is expensive and unsustainable. It destroys the environment and is generally ugly. It isolates people and encourages sameness and deadens creativity and innovation. The people who choose sprawl refuse to take accountability for the problems it causes and have thus far refused to pay the true cost of sprawl that they foist on all of us.

Sally, You come on every day defending sprawl without ever saying why it is a beneficial way of doing things. You cannot say why this corner of Buffalo is better now as a sprawl environment than when it was dense and active. Why don't you write a BRO piece telling us why we need to embrace sprawl You would be the first to take up my offer. I am serious. Step up and tell us why America should encourage sprawl even more than it has.

replied to Sally
Score: 2 ( 12 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

There are no neighborhoods in the suburbs that have the level of sameness as exhibited on the East side of Buffalo. If sprawl and too much infrastructure is bad let's land bank the east side and put it back to nature. There is zero reason why the boundaries we live upon must remain static. If we land bank the vacant sections of the City we will cut the land used by our population just as surely as if we limit new construction in Lancaster.

replied to STEEL
Score: 0 ( 12 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

That is a great idea. Why not do both. Land bank in the city and stop outward sprawl to virgin land? Certainly a metro with static population should not be adding new roads and sewers and power lines and water lines water treatment capacity.

replied to Sally
Score: 4 ( 8 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

It might actually be cheaper to put in new lines than rip up and replace old lines. Build new when needed and let the ones in the land banked ares go fallow

replied to STEEL
Score: 3 ( 5 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

"The old downtown you pine for was built for a time that no longer exists, a time when people traveled largely on foot. Those days are not coming back no matter how many birthday candles you blow out and make a wish on."

You don't know a single thing about Gen Y if you actually believe the crap you spew. Read something and educate yourself if you're going to continually comment on the issue. Your current view is 100% inaccurate and 100% unsupported.

E.g. http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2011/01/13/no-mcmansions-for-millennials/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+wsj/developments/feed+(WSJ.com:+Developments+Blog)&utm_content=Google+Reader

"An estimated 80 million people comprise the category known as “Gen Y,” ... A key finding: They want to walk everywhere ... A whopping 88% want to be in an urban setting."

replied to Sally
Score: 8 ( 14 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

So 88% of 25% which equate to 20% of the nation want to live in cities. 20% of Erie Countiy's population is 190,000 So that means Buffalo's population should stop dropping once it loses only another 50,000 people

replied to jag
Score: -3 ( 7 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I don't know if you're joking or if you're actually illiterate. 88% of Gen Y - obviously people from other generations also live in cities (or maybe you don't know that. From your comments over the years I really wouldn't be surprised to hear you've never been to a city). The point is that you claim never in Steel's lifetime will people want to live in cities and walk instead of drive everywhere when, hello, that's what's happening today. 88% of the largest segment in our society live (or want to live) the life that you deride and scoff at out of complete ignorance.

Please, I implore you to educate yourself. If you spent 1% of the time actually reading on the issues as you do throwing crap against the wall in these comment sections then maybe you could say something worth reading.

replied to Sally
Score: 8 ( 10 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

most ignorant person, i'd say

replied to Sally
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

You've got yourself into a chicken-and-egg argument here. Places (including buildings, parking lots, etc.) aren't simply defined by usage. But they don't define usage either. It's the dance between the two -- how we use places and how places define our behavior -- that makes them places. Otherwise, they're nothing (related to the "non-places"discussed by Marc Augé).

replied to Sally
Score: 1 ( 3 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

i vehemently diasgree with you - it makes a huge difference and it is so obvious that you are more worthless than I thought u were before this last post.

Buffalo, aside from bordering canada, DOES NOT HAVE AN IDENTITY. I work with people from all over the US and the world everyday (almost none of them from Buffalo), and they would agree

SOMEONE NAME 1 CITY THAT HAS WORKED HARD TO PRESERVE ITS DOWNTOWN CRITICAL MASS AND IS CONSIDERED CRAPPY OR BORING CITY - YOU CANT

Buffalo, Detroit, Cleveland sacrified our cities for the all-mighty automobile and steel, and now we are paying the price high poverty, taxes and boredom while other cities bask in tourism and a population that isnt dying.

replied to Sally
Score: 0 ( 6 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I think this is probably the best reason for the real cost of sprawl in your series.

What irritates me the most is the lack of social interaction between neighbors in many developments nowadays. It's a shame. You can't ask for a hammer because you haven't said two words to the guy next door.

I think people in the future generations will want to interact more with people than we do now. It's not about owning your own home on your own plot of land. It'll be about building a healthy and large social network. This is something where I think living in a city will be better.

Score: 4 ( 6 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Agree, my cousin in East Amherst once called me to come out and help him move a refrigerator. I couldn't believe he did not have a neighbor that he could ask, here in Black Rock I would have no problem finding help.

There is isolation in our society today that just can't be good for us, being part of a community has always been a basic human desire. Even though that community may not be perfect I would not trade my experience for such an impersonal and detached existence.

replied to Greg
Score: 7 ( 15 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I agree on the importance of Community, but disagree that you can't get it in the 'burbs. I lived outside the city growing up and we knew every family in the neighborhood, had block parties, all the stuff that ties a community together.

replied to Black Rock Lifer
Score: 3 ( 7 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

My comment wasn't meant to say all the burbs lack community. The older suburbs were fairly similar to the city in how neighbors related. It is the newer suburbs that are designed for privacy and exclusion, this in effect creates isolation and lack of community.

replied to JM
Score: 3 ( 9 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

That's ridiculous. I grew up in a suburb, it wasn't a new one but not exactly old either and the lots were 75' wide, the same as many new ones are today. I played with the kids in the neighborhood and our family knew and were friend's with the majority of people on the block.

BTW, did you ever think some people value their privacy?

replied to Black Rock Lifer
Score: 0 ( 14 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Maybe you are just a friendly person, most surburbanites value their privacy over any sense of community. Newer developements are designed to not only be private but to only allow those of a certain level of income to reside there.

replied to OutsidetheBox
Score: 3 ( 9 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Just like Nottingham or Delaware Avenue in their heyday.

replied to Black Rock Lifer
Score: 2 ( 8 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Yes, but those people were a tiny part of the population. They still lived within a few blocks of less wealthy neighbors and did not isolate themselves in the way some do today.

replied to Sally
Score: 2 ( 6 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I am assuming you are referring to places like the Waterfront Village.

replied to Black Rock Lifer
Score: 1 ( 7 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

OTB> "BTW, did you ever think some people value their privacy?"

If they value the privacy of 75' lots that's fine. Just stop using public money to make that lifestyle artificially affordable.

replied to OutsidetheBox
Score: 1 ( 7 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I own property in both the city, and suburbs. I interact with my city neighbors (tenants/business owners/customers at the coffee shop) more in one day, than with my suburban neighbors in ten years. I would be more apt to lend a hand downtown, if a saw a situation that might benefit from it. City living (at least in the walkable neighborhoods) has more of a communal (right word?) feel. Something like we're all in this together, let's all pull together.

The suburbs, even first ring, not so much (none at all really). My neighbors in the suburbs might as well live in ...well, Chicago. Maybe in 10 years we'll have a facebook-like app for the neighbors you never really knew. I'm sure they're interesting folks, but our common interests begin and end where our lawns meet. Same can't be said for downtown.

replied to Black Rock Lifer
Score: 11 ( 13 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Ben- Good comment, I think your experience is by far the most common, cities force us to interact, (sometimes for better or worse).

replied to benfranklin
Score: 4 ( 8 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Yes the young want to intereact more, that is why they text instead of call or visit. It is why they play xbox online with their friends instead of going to the park. They post on facebook but do it from the privacy of their own homes. They don't want to walk they want to sit.

replied to Greg
Score: -5 ( 13 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

That's like telling poor people, "No electricity until you get yourself out of poverty."

Score: 0 ( 6 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I was riding downtown on the train looking at the many storefront in varying conditions and a thought occurred to me:

Very few places beyond the no-car district of Main have as many intact city blocks. Could it be that the lack of auto accessibility made demolition of tired and worn structures pointless? What good is a parking lot if no cars can get there?

Score: 11 ( 13 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

That is a very good point.

replied to al labruna
Score: 5 ( 7 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

i had that same thought once, that the transit mall greatly reduced the pressure to demolish for surface parking. score one for the subway.

replied to al labruna
Score: 2 ( 2 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Steel nice article, where exactly are the pieces of the dome bank building on the east side? I had heard rumors that it was disassembled with intent for it to be rebuilt in the future even though the dome was smashed during deconstruction. Thanks.

Score: 4 ( 6 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Go on google maps look for an old round house on the east side. It is scattered around there in piles

replied to Mike Puma
Score: 4 ( 4 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

@ Bailey and Broadway behind Tops? There are some things there that look like stone pillars but the low res image on google maps is not too clear.

replied to STEEL
Score: 1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I think one of the biggest problems is that people continue to fantasize about a dense metropolis and ignore some of the great development and re-development that is occurring. It is all to easy to say look at what we had vs. what we have now. But you can not simply limit that to development in real estate. Loss of population(for many reasons), failed public policies of decades past etc etc. I am not one to harp on the Past. One real way to make a change is to look at what Buffalo does well vs. what Buffalo did well and focus on continuing to do more in those areas. I enjoyed the creative use of photo shop and muting the tones on buildings that no longer exist however I think its time we get over it. Move on and move forward.

There is no there there. But there is a Here here and that is where I will be.

Score: 2 ( 10 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Give some examples of what you are talking about because there are many examples of existing buildings which will no longer be here based on the current strategy and way of doing things. There is nothing creative about the photoshopping. These buildings ARE gone and this place IS an unpleasant place to be.

replied to slowrollin99
Score: 2 ( 8 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

http://www.buffalorising.com/2011/01/downtown-development-2010.html

Here is another great example. Focus on what you like.

replied to STEEL
Score: -1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Taking a step back I must apologize. The reason being is that I have read just about all I would like to read about how great Buffalo was and how bad it is now along with the history behind its decline. I understand it, your examples are valid.

However, I personally feel that if you live in Buffalo and do not notice the problems we have or know of the cities great history than you probably are not paying attention to these issues anyway. The article raises interest and generates conversation which is good. Its time the conversation advances.

Referring to history and pointing our mistakes will only keep us chained to our past.

replied to STEEL
Score: 3 ( 5 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

There is nothing historic about the continued destruction of sprawl in WNY. This is an ongoing issue for Buffalo and America

replied to slowrollin99
Score: 1 ( 3 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Two additional theoretical references that would be really helpful (perhaps more so than Gertrude Stein) --

Robert Smithson (of Spiral Jetty fame) wrote quite a bit about his theory of Sites and Non-sites before his untimely death. The Non-site is an abstraction of place, the photographs of the thing, the pieces of dirt and mud placed on the floor of the gallery. His goal was for a reengagement with place, a Knowing of Place that certainly is impossible in any Panera, no matter how cozy.

Also of interest is Marc Augé's (mentioned above) theory of non-place, which deals with the growth of transitory spaces that lack social or cultural weight. Shopping malls, airports, motorways, and motels are all non-places. Our relationship with non-places is intrinsically passing -- we leave no lasting trace there, nor can we. Panera is a non-place -- though we may take some lasting memories from our experience of it, it forgets us before we have even arrived.

http://nonsite.com/946
http://design.walkerart.org/worldsaway/Terms/Non-place
etc.

Score: 1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

"Shopping malls, airports, motorways, and motels are all non-places. Our relationship with non-places is intrinsically passing...Panera is a non-place -- though we may take some lasting memories from our experience of it, it forgets us before we have even arrived."

So we focus on our relationships with people, rather than our relationships to buildings? And this is a bad thing?

replied to jdalton
Score: -4 ( 6 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

The point is that these places (penara et al)are intrinsically non-people oriented. They are corporate designed to specifically eliminate the personal influence of any one person. This as opposed to a family run bakery with all its personal and individual quirks and traits.

replied to NBuffguy
Score: 2 ( 8 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

No, you missed my point. You can't focus on either without considering the other.

Places both inform how we relate to one another (and to places themselves) and are informed by our cultural values, etc.

"Non-places" are designed in such a way that they are unaffected by the relationships and actions of people. They are transient and lack character. So, my critique (and that of Augé) is about what this says about our society -- about how we relate to one another.

What does it mean about us that the things we build are so impersonal and carbon-copied? That a Panera in Buffalo is the same as a Panera in New Mexico? It certainly says something...

replied to NBuffguy
Score: 3 ( 5 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

"What does it mean about us that the things we build are so impersonal and carbon-copied? That a Panera in Buffalo is the same as a Panera in New Mexico? It certainly says something..."

Perhaps the fact that Panera in Buffalo is the same as Panera in New Mexico means that average people don't care so much about the architecture around them. Maybe they're perfectly entertained by the wit of their friends and the pleasantness of their families. Maybe the design of the fireplace, type of mouldings, color of walls, choice of flooring, shape of furniture is all secondary to the human interaction that takes place in the surroundings. I didn't miss your point that people are affected by places and vice versa. I am simply offering the possibility that many people, or even MOST people, simply don't care as much as you do about the aesthetics of their surroundings. Maybe people don't derive their identity from the places they occupy, but they get it from somewhere else such as the people with whom they interact.

In the past, I think it might have mattered more to people where they came from. If you were from, say, New England that meant something to people. But in today's America (and the World) people travel to and relocate to different places more than in the past. This probably leads to a good deal of cultural homogenization as people import things from their former homes to make them more comfortable, rather than embracing what's in their new surroundings. It's been happening since before the Pilgrims loaded up the Mayflower and sailed across the ocean and the pioneers packed their Eastern goods onto covered wagons and expanded Westward. It's still happening today, but at an accelerated rate. Is it a good thing that we're becoming more alike to one another and possibly losing some of our regional character and uniqueness? It depends on what you value. But I think it's a natural process and isn't likely to change.

replied to jdalton
Score: 4 ( 8 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

It is not just the architecture that is the same. It is the way the workers are dressed that is the same. It is the taste of the food that is the same. It is the food offerings that is the same. It is the sales pitch that each sales person is required to give you that is the same.

Sure Americans love this kind of environment. That does not make it worth while or good. This country was built on individuality and innovation. Today we have shunned that for safe and banal. I see nothing to embrace in the Panera model.

replied to NBuffguy
Score: 2 ( 8 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

"I see nothing to embrace in the Panera model."

So don't eat there. I, on the other hand, see no reason to deny myself an occational Asiago Roast Beef Sandwich, Creamy Tomato Soup, or Fuji Apple Chicken Salad from time to time.

replied to STEEL
Score: -1 ( 9 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I don't - but this story is not about Panera. It is about sprawl. Panera is not inherently sprawl based though often it is.

replied to NBuffguy
Score: 2 ( 8 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

My comment isn't about caring about how things look. My point, my addition to the conversation, is about what things mean. Our choices, however overlooked they may be by the masses, always say something.

For the purposes of this post, I honestly don't care how cookie cutter the Panera is. What I'm interested in is what our choices, whether conscious or unconscious, says about us. Informed and critical cultural analysis.

To tie in to your geographic identity tangent -- what is our role in a post-Fordist, globalized society? What does it mean to how we live that we no longer have a connection to place?

Personally, as an environmental activist, I find this incredibly troubling -- people without place act recklessly and without respect for the ecosystem of which they are only a small part.

STEEL's post, his continuous raising of the issue of sprawl, is symptomatic of a much larger societal ill -- without an awareness of place, of geography, of identity, we will almost certainly destroy ourselves. We are creatures of the Land, whether we like it or not. And recognizing this fact is crucial for the survival of our species.

replied to NBuffguy
Score: -1 ( 3 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Not what I said

Score: 1 ( 11 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

It's how you come off all the time. If it's not what you mean then you should take a few writing classes so that you can better express yourself.

replied to STEEL
Score: -2 ( 16 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

If your defense of sprawl equals insulting me then we have no conversation and I will not respond. If you want a conversation and a real debate please add some substance. Sally when can I expect your essay which expresses why sprawl is good and should continue to be the way we do things. And please make it more in depth than "most people like it"

Let me know if you want a BRO story and I will set it up.

replied to Sally
Score: 2 ( 8 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

How much will I get paid for the article? I see ads here so I know that you would not expect me to do it for free.

replied to STEEL
Score: -6 ( 10 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

You get what I get

replied to Sally
Score: 4 ( 8 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

E mail me the amount, if it's worth my while I would be happy to do it :)

replied to STEEL
Score: -4 ( 8 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

"Sure Americans love this kind of environment. That does not make it worth while or good". Im pretty sure thats an oxymoron. Also just because you dont like it doesnt mean that it is bad.

Score: 1 ( 7 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

You are right sprawl is a great thing and we should not do anything different. This corner of downtown has been vastly improved by sprawl.

By the way - Americans liking something does not equal that thing being good.

replied to KangDangaLang
Score: -4 ( 14 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I forgot you are the authority on what is good and what is bad.....my bad.

replied to STEEL
Score: 0 ( 14 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I am not. I am just expressing my opinion and backing it up with examples of how I came to that opinion. It does not take rocket science to see that sprawl is bad. Your only defense of sprawl is that most people like it. History is full of really bad stuff that "most" people liked at one time.

replied to KangDangaLang
Score: 6 ( 20 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

You can tell how stupid that response was by the fact that you have four negative votes.

replied to STEEL
Score: -9 ( 17 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Except that Rich's does not make anything in Buffalo

Score: -1 ( 13 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

They remind me of you

replied to STEEL
Score: 0 ( 16 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

The chains always choose the path of least resistance. In Sprawltopia, that means scraping a site and building a small 'lightbox' surrounded by parking. In a city like New York, Panera just leases ground floor space with no other parking than what's on the street. Businesses whine and cry but in the end, if you give them tough rules and restrictions, they abide by them and find ways to make money anyway. Would Buffalo lose some business if the rules on sprawl were tougher? Yes, but so what? A city of a million people with pockets of wealth and affluence can attract just about anyone these days provided that it fits with their business model. Losing a fast or casual dining chain or two is hardly a bad outcome...for anybody. :)

Score: 2 ( 6 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I was going to write some long winded comment but I'll just make one point quickly.

How are the loss of buildings and replacement of buildings with "sprawl" buildings and plazas the result of sprawl and not piss poor design and acceptance by the City, poor policy and zoning, and easy demolition permits from the city?

Score: 0 ( 2 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Kt is all of those things but that is also the things beyond the power of the city like the ability to build cheaper on virgin land and the fact that the metro now covers 2/3 more area than it did in 1950 even though the population is the same. When you keep building more stuff for the same number of people you eventually get stuff left behind that no one wants. The city is then forced to compete for the suburban customer and then begins to cater to them with parking lots instead of buildings. The idea that this ugly wasteland is only the result of poor decisions made by city residents is unfair and silly

replied to OutsidetheBox
Score: 7 ( 7 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

So why not return the waterfront and east side to nature and thus reduce mans footprint in WNY? The last thing people need is to be exposed to all of the carcinogens buried on the waterfront. Put people places there and you will have higher tax burdensome cancer rates in the future. Let the land go fallow and you reduce not only sprawl but future health care spending - a win win situation for society.

replied to STEEL
Score: 1 ( 11 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Buster>" Technology is the cause of sprawl"

Technology helps but sprawl, as we know it, is not possible without public assistance.

Score: 2 ( 4 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Don't blame the suburbs for acting according to the laws of NYS which affords them power to enact their own zoning codes as incorporated places. Its in their best interest to do as they see fit for their taxpayers, regardless of the impact to Buffalo.

That sucks I know. But its the truth.

How about the continual failure of leadership within the City of Buffalo for the last 50 years to adequately make any meaningful policy to alleviate the problem. They're so short-sighted and unable to focus that they wasted their time passing some meaningless resolution on fracking. Great, you don't like it. It's never going to happen in the city anyway and your NEW ZONING CODE could have been the mechanism to address it. But the City loves to act like its doing something when in all reality, all it ever does is nothing.

Until the machine politics end and regionalism becomes a reality, the city will continue to die.

And this sprawl series is about the most guided, misinformed pile of anecdotal evidence and emotional argument I've come across.

Score: 0 ( 10 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

"And this sprawl series is about the most guided, misinformed pile of anecdotal evidence and emotional argument I've come across."

How so? explain.

While doing that please explain how this block shown here is better now as a sprawl-scape than it was before Also explain why the Canadian hockey player had such a different opinion than you do of this same sprawltopian downtown landscape. Tell my why you would not rather have an active urban downtown too.

replied to buffalofalling
Score: 3 ( 9 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Actually they have close to 1,000 at their HQ, plus the 90 factory jobs they are adding

Score: 3 ( 11 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

as someone who's lived from michigan to chicago to nyc to japan, I wholeheartedly agree with this. it is the exact problem with WNY. when Amherst has MORE Class A office space than downtown Buffalo, we have a problem. Companies like Geico and BOA need to be expanding downtown and not in Uni-Land's Crosspoint buisness park. Imagine the Tishman Building now being the Geico building. Thats 1500 more jobs downtown in Lafayette Square, more bodies for Thursday in the square, more people looking at lofts and apartmetns in the city vs sinking subdivisions sprawling in the suburbs. Don't get me wrong I grew up on Grand Island - but I see the value certain companies would bring by being in the city (large national/regional/international corps). At the same time, Fisher Price, MOOG, GIBCO are also necessary to keep some of our suburbs healthy. A balance must be met.

simply put - large national coprporations like GEICO and BOA should be downtown not in Amherst. We should keep the aforementioned homegrown companies in the suburbs primarily but any additional national companies looking to expand should receive better tax breaks and incentives to be in the city. the more job we can bring to DOWNTOWN the better life this city can have.

I'm going to finish with this - if a city like Grand Rapids, MI can have a thriving downtown with smaller companies like Meijer and AMWAY, there is ZERO reason Buffalo can't. Get it together politicians, get on the same page.

Score: 4 ( 12 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

rp>"any additional national companies looking to expand should receive better tax breaks and incentives to be in the city"

I couldn't disagree more with that.

First, if what I recall seeing reported was true, Geico wouldn't have located in the city no matter how much the tax breaks were here. Just like some co's want to be in a city location, some want a suburban location or even a rural one. A fair and balanced, open minded approach would equally welcome all kinds to WNY.

And regardelss of that, if tax breaks are from NY state why should Buffalo be given such extreme preferred treatment compared to Amherst as you're saying it should? Amherst is as much a part of NY state as Buffalo is. The 70% of Erie Co residents who don't live in Buffalo are all NY state taxpayers.

The decision of if, when, and how much corporate welfare (special tax breaks, subsidized electricity, etc) is to be given for luring a company to NY state should be a totally separate decision from which municipality the company chooses. In general, much of the corporate welfare shouldn't be given at all - although maybe what Geico was given might be less dumb by comparison to some other examples.

replied to rpcolosi
Score: 0 ( 2 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

It's so easy for Steel and others to be Monday morning quarterbacks.

Go back to 1955, people. The buildings that we cherish today were old and rundown, covered with coal soot, and considered to be butt ugly. Couple that with the downtown businesses watching their sales decline, as their customers began deserting them for suburban strip shopping centers with lots of free and convenient parking.

So of course buildings were torn down to make way for parking lots. We may regret that today, but I can't stand the smugness that seems to say "if I were around in 1955, I would have started a crusade to stop the destruction." No you wouldn't have.

Score: 10 ( 16 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

rubegeta>" Couple that with the downtown businesses watching their sales decline, as their customers began deserting them for suburban strip shopping centers with lots of free and convenient parking."

Couple that with the fact that many of those who wanted to live in walking distance of these businesses were bared from living there, or in other cases, driven out of their homes.

rubegeta> "I can't stand the smugness that seems to say "if I were around in 1955, I would have started a crusade to stop the destruction." No you wouldn't have."

If you are implying that everybody joined hands and threw these buildings into the garbage you're wrong. There are records of many people protesting mass demos for renewal and expressways. Unlike today, they didn't have the legal framework to stop these projects.

Score: 4 ( 6 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

50 comments are just 4 people. Wow, slow day at work folks?

Score: -2 ( 6 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

V-E-R-Y

replied to tom.wonderful
Score: -2 ( 12 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

When ever these post are put up there is always this banter about ‘sprawl is paid for by everyone and enjoyed by few”, some how I’m guess that half the city budget comes from the state means the many are paying for the few in the city. Also the fact that its ‘unsustainable’ and destroys wealth seem bases at best, and outright hostile at worst. The biggest jumps in American economic power came at the biggest points of sprawl, the 50s and the 90s. It just seems hard to beat the drum so hard. And its not that I don’t like the city, I love the city its just I don’t expect to get anywhere by constantly bombarding the suburbanites about how evil they are. Those are the same people who have the money to fix the city. The ‘generation Y’ are now in there late 20s, to there teens, and if they really want to go back to the city they will and it will change on its own.

Also the city ‘culture’ is disagreeable with many. The same reason you had those economical mixing that were one race is because the culture bound them, not economic status.

The point brought up about technology is a huge difference you can communicate via the Internet only with the kind of people you want to. Much like you can watch the news you agree with, you can go on places like this and be on the same mind and mentality. Check out these post, its basically people just saying how much they agree with each other. Do we need to keep a reality check in place; the US is ultra-polarized right now. Stoking the flames by attacking the suburbanites rather then making it a ‘win-win’ isn’t going to get any of us anywhere.

Score: 1 ( 9 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I think the most imporant thing to realize with an artical like this is that Buffalo is not alone in replacing what was lost with something else that is "modern" and "sprawltopic". A lot of the comments here really make it seem as if we were the only city in the us to suffer the effects of renewal.

Have you been to Indianapolis? The bench mark of success for many comparisions on bro, what many aim to be? Its also one of the list appealing, anti-pedestrian, "banal" cities I've been to.

Providence... their big downtown mall has twice as much parking than retail space. Its very odd seeing their statehouse a few blocks away, while leaving a very "Panera" like structure that probably took the place of what many on this site would cry at the sight of.

Cleveland.. America's largest suburb

Colombus....etc the list could go on for a while.


Parking ramps and sprawling plazas with downtown shopping malls/parking warehouses are being accepted as the American norm across the county. (As American as fastfood and obesity..)

The main question is how does a place like Buffalo or any other city looking to keep its identity or feeling of "place" in a sea of corporate bland culture when it seems to be what the majority of Americans want? If they didn't then we wouldn't be talking about this now.

How do you battle a culture and changes things when it comes at the cost of your identity?

Score: 5 ( 5 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Its pretty scary that someone can look at that post card, picture how devastated the area looks in comparison now, and consider it a reasonable outcome. Its even worse to think that Transit Road is a good alternative to a viable street-scape. But worst of all is thinking it can never be fixed.

Transit road, and the sprawl like it, is a miserable and ugly experience. Whether you get around on foot, mass transit, or car...wouldnt you rather spend your time in beautiful, well connected area rather than a highway between seas of asphalt and ugly box stores?

Score: 10 ( 10 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I avoid Transit road like the plague.

Then again, it's quite easy when you don't live in the Northtowns.

replied to Mark_P
Score: 2 ( 2 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

and niagara falls blvd.. a perfect example of how many big box stores you cannot put in the same place.

Score: 5 ( 5 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Ever try walking down Niagara Falls Blvd? I did once, and lived to tell the tale. Scary experience, especially considering there are no actual sidewalks in some spots. When there is no place for people, then there is no "there" there. Good lord, how's that for poor grammar....

The point of the original post seems to have gotten lost in this discussion. It's not that Transit Road is good or bad, or that Main Street is dead, and it has nothing to do with the Paneras of the world. It has everything to do with recognizing what we have, and building upon that.

I want to live and work downtown, and I do. If someone wants to live in OP or EA, that's fine for them. It isn't for me. There are little pockets of success scattered throughout downtown.

Don't focus on fixing all of the things that are broken - or we'll never get anywhere. Focus instead on what's working: how do we do more of that? How do we build upon what we have to make this city a better place? Count me in.

replied to Buffalo All Star
Score: 1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Leave a comment