Real Estate November 14, 2011 12:05 AM

Updated Rendering for Main-Ferry Project

Updated Rendering for Main-Ferry Project

HOME sent along updated renderings for the non-profit's Main-Ferry project that more accurately depict how the finished project will look.  With the aid of architect Charlie Gordon and general contractor Paul Lamparelli, HOME is building energy efficient barrier-free housing for ten families, more accessible offices for clients who turn to the organization for help from all parts of the region, and a building which will grace the intersection Main and Ferry for the next 100 years.

HOME Rendering corner 8-23-11.JPGResponding to commenter questions, HOME also provided details on the funding for the project.

The most recent project budget totals nearly $2.9 million.  Of that sum $2,374,134 represents government support--from the State of New York ($1,682,134), the City of Buffalo ($495,000) and the Federal Home Loan Bank of New York ($197,500, through M&T Bank and First Niagara Bank).  The balance of the project has been supported by private philanthropy from the Margaret L. Wendt Foundation, the Mulroy Family Foundation, the M&T Foundation, the Community Foundation for Greater Buffalo, the Western New York Foundation and more than 75 individual donors.

HOME still has to raise about $99,000 or 3 percent of the project's cost.   Information on how to get involved can be obtained from Associate Director Shannon Koehn at 716.854.1400 ext 17 or skoehn@homeny.org

HOME Rendering Ferry 8-23-11.JPG

View image

Comments

Leave a comment

Still looks good

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

Very nice! It will provide significant uplift to the corner.

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

Looks good. the divider windows between buildings keps them just separate enough, while matching the height on the rest of the windows ties the new building in w/ the old.

If your going to have a new building that shares a wall w/ the old, either make it EXACTLY the same or make it plenty different. Cheap additions never look right. This however does.

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

Great project, all the way around.

Now, on to the other corners throughout the city to reclaim......

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

Looks great!


Glad to see the banks and foundations involved.

Has HSBC set up a foundation before they leave town?

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

A cornice would be nice

Score: 3 ( 7 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Maybe that is for what the "$90k" is outstanding....:)

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

Usually the design of a building gets worse because of budget constraints, and too many competing design ideals. But this has gotten alot better throough the process. Kudos!

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

Strips of grass with shrubbery, right on Main Street?

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

That's W. Ferry Street.

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

Thanks, the 6 lane road in the drawing threw me off.

Still, shrubbery? Hopefully its an embellishment in the rendering. Its hard to see how it survives all the snow likely to be piled there.

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

Still, shrubbery?


HEAD ARCHITECT: You must return here with a shrubbery or else you will never pass through this wood alive!

ARTHUR: O Architects of Nee, you are just and fair, and we will return with a shrubbery.

HEAD ARCHITECT: One that looks nice.

ARTHUR: Of course.

HEAD ARCHITECT: And not too expensive.

ARTHUR: Yes.

HEAD ARCHITECT: Now... go!

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

Now if we could just push the ghetto back from the other side of main st to past the 33!

Score: -3 ( 21 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Pushing people to other areas is not the answer, addressing the problem of poverty is the only long term solution. Americans are starting to realize the present concentration of wealth is not just bad for the poor but also is just as detrimental to our overall society.

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

There will always be poor people.

replied to Black Rock Lifer
Score: 5 ( 11 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Of course but when 1/2 of all workers in WNY earn less than 30K and 40% of children in Buffalo live in poverty there is something wrong. We cannot have a healthy or vibrant community unless all citizens have the opportunity to earn a decent living. The present concentration of wealth is not working for the majority of Americans and continues to undermine our society. We need campaign finance reform and tax reform to end the plutocracy that has limited opportunity and growth.

replied to Tim
Score: 6 ( 12 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I will address the problem.

When irresponsible men and boys stop impregnating girls and young women who have no means of supporting themselves, in 10 months new cases of childhood poverty will decline by 99%.

There. I addressed the problem.

replied to Black Rock Lifer
Score: 8 ( 20 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Poverty is much more complex than your simplistic assessment. Having children without a stable relationship certainly contributes to the problem but is by no means responsible for "99%".

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

The US is so prision happy too how about leagalize weed so we dont have to waste taxpayer money putting people in jail for stupid offences and tax the weed. Also leagalize prostitution too it might stop these pimps and teenagers that sell thmselves if it were regulated.

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

Rubagata I agree I have heard guys who impregnate these women brag of having babies its like a challenge to them. Why not pay the women to use protection or limit how much state aid they get for number of childen.

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

I agree Blackrocklifer. We need to lower taxes, reduce the power of the unions and encourage business investment so that people can work again.

replied to Black Rock Lifer
Score: -1 ( 15 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

No, that is exactly what we have done and the result has been more decline. We tried your way, tax breaks for the rich and union breaking has been a disaster for most Americans. The recent repudiation of that policy in Ohio shows we are finally starting to wake up and demand our government start working for our interests. Your right wing ideology was a failure and we are all paying the price, time to move on.

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

To draw the conclusion that those are the only reasons for decline is simplistic as well. There have been many social programs and opportunities that have tried to address the problem.

replied to Black Rock Lifer
Score: 0 ( 6 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Never said it was the only reason. Social programs are not the answer either, all workers should be compensated at a rate that would not require government assistance. We are going to pay one way or another, I would rather provide workers a decent wage than subsidize their employer with taxpayer funded social programs. Our nation could easily afford a living wage if our government was not beholden to wealthy interests.

replied to Tim
Score: 4 ( 10 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

A higher minimum wage has effects as well. Some Struggling businesses would fail. Also the price of goods and services may rise, which has a disproportionate effect on poorer people which the policies are meant to help in the first place. I'm not saying its easy to get by on the minimum wage, especially in cities where the cost of living is higher. But good intentions sometimes have the opposite of the intended effect.

I always seem to be drawn off topic.

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

Americans have no idea how extreme the disparity of wealth actually is. When polled most believe we are a more equitable society and very few know the actual numbers. The bottom 40% share just 1% of our nations wealth while the top 10% hold 80%. The rest of us (50%) share the remaining 19%.
If the bottom 40% had more disposable income we would all benefit. There would be less need for government programs and those earners would pay more taxes, these changes would result in lower taxes for all. Also business would benefit as more citizens were able to consume and spend. Presently the 80% of our wealth held by the top 10% does not trickle down and much of that income is sheltered from taxes. The real "job creators" in this country are consumers, not the uber rich as some would like us to believe. Add more money at the bottom of the economy and watch it grow.

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

Fair enough. You've given wealth numbers. Here are some federal income tax numbers;

Top 1% contribute 38% of taxes
Top 5% contribute 58%
Top 10% contribute 69.9%
Top 25% contribute 86.3%
Top 50% pay 97.3% of taxes
The bottom 50% of taxpayers pay 2.7%

Source; http://mercatus.org/publication/breakdown-federal-personal-income-taxes

How much more progressive should the tax code be?

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

Your numbers prove my point, the top 10% hold 80% of wealth yet pay only 69.9% of Federal taxes. Their fair share would be 80% of taxes without even considering any progressive tax rates.

It is the working class that are taxed at the highest rates. Regressive payroll taxes, sales taxes, fees, and other schemes continue to extract a greater share of the poor and middle class disposable income.

replied to Tim
Score: 0 ( 8 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

That's one way of looking at it but in actuality we do have a progressive system. The border line for a progressive tax is a flat tax, where the rate is the same for all earners. It becomes progressive when rates rise as you move up income brackets, as we have now.

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

your figures are false. They represent only federal income taxes, which are only a part of taxes. Add Social Security taxes, sales taxes, energy taxes, etc. and the numbers are very much different. That is why Warren Buffet pays less as a percentage of his income than does his secretary.

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

That's certainly one way to look at it. I hear that a lot these days. What I never seem to hear though is any stated ideas/plans for addressing the income disparity. Everyone seems to stop short of the point of saying what they think should be done.

replied to Black Rock Lifer
Score: 2 ( 4 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

It would be a heavy lift but some basics might be

-single payer health care for all (huge cost savings for business, workers, and taxpayers)

-livable wage for adults, especially those in menial positions (additional disposable income adds lots of new dollars to the economy while lessening need for government assistance, also creates more taxpayers while growing the economy)

-Truly progressive tax rates, raise taxes on the wealthy, start treating unearned income the same as wage earners.

-Get rid of regressive tax breaks such as mortgage interest deduction. Same for big business, end this nonsense of tax avoidance.

-Remove the cap on social security presently at 106K

Of course all this would first require campaign finance reform
and limiting the influence of money on our political process.

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

I agree we need to simplify the tax code and get rid of deductions. As far as having a "truly" progressive tax rate as you put it, at some point the federal tax pot would see diminishing returns.

replied to Black Rock Lifer
Score: 0 ( 6 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Damn, this thread seems to have degenerated into
Blackrocklifer and Tim parroting the Democratic and Republican parties' platforms against each other.

[Take the following carefully. I'm just repeating bull**** I've seen elsewhere on the Internet.]

The distribution of wealth in capitalistic economies tend to follow the Pareto principle. This principle suggests that roughly 20% of a population controls roughly 80% of that population's wealth. [This figure is taken from Wikipedia. If anyone wants to research this further and possibly correct me, please do so.] It is a phenomenon that the distribution of wealth tends to follow a similar pattern as that of the distribution of a population among cities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distribution

As Blackrocklifer stated, 10% of this country's population controls 80% of this country's wealth; this is more concentrated than the rest of the world. Even though I find this disturbing, it is worse when taken out of context.

replied to Black Rock Lifer
Score: 0 ( 4 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

We tried low taxes, encouraging business? Where was I?!
No, we haven't done this, and we need to start.

replied to Black Rock Lifer
Score: 0 ( 10 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Nice drawing -- but where are all the broken windows, grafitti, illegally parked cars and Buffalo Police driving past there and not doing anything? Someone should sketch those in...

Score: -11 ( 23 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Now, what about the Able Ins. corner? Long past time to go.

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

Getting back to single poor women having children out of wedlock causing poverty.

Imagine if instead of the current situation, people got married? If each person made 10 bucks an hour, that's $40,000 annually. Not rich, but given you can get a 1-bedroom apartment for 500 bucks, you can save a lot of money.

I know the notion of marriage instead of single motherdom is very radical, but I thing its worth a try.

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

Marriage should not be a prerequisite for a living wage and decent housing. Say everything you just said for one person, and that makes sense. Some people cohabitate for economics, it's called a roommate, not a reason to get married.

"The fundamental building block of American society is the nuclear family"...More like..."The building block of America is...you have to live in a co-op with people you don't know because the minimum wage is nowhere near the living wage and/or be co-dependent! Get married to someone you don't love for economics...but not you two, you're gay."

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

hey, is that corner entrance actually being used as a corner entrance, rather than routing everyone in through the parking lot in the back? if so, big pat on the back.

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

Leave a comment