My Favorite Buildings: Don't try building like this anymore. It is against the law.
Comments
Leave a commentI love this building, too, and used it as the entry image for my article on the 10 qualities of a great street:
http://archives.buffalorising.com/story/ten_qualities_of_a_great_stree
This building stands out as perhaps Buffalo's best example of a type found on all of Buffalo's "great streets."
And elsewhere, as well: on a neighborhood tour in Cleveland last year, we saw a block-spanning building there that was the anchor for the revitalization of the Gordon Square arts district. That building also includes a theater, and the Sweet Moses cafe.
As for Green Code, great segue! The next round of public engagement kicks of TONIGHT at Lafayette High School!
http://www.buffalorising.com/2012/05/buffalo-green-code-gears-up-for-june-open-houses.html
If you go bring up this building and encourage others to do so as well. We need to push back on the irrational zoning and carmageddon forces.
Help us, Green Hornet Lantern Code!!
Help us, Green Hornet Lantern Code!!
OK, then...apparently our platform won't render strikethrough in the comments! Nevermind...
I have heard a rumor that there is a fabulous window above the theater marquee that is covered up. Anyone know anything about that?
Odd that the owners of the building are opening up a Globe Market in this building while fighting the proposed building adjacent to their Globe Market on Elmwood. This building has 11 parking spaces, the building proposed at 766 Elmwood will have 24 parking spaces.
From what I've been told, you are correct. There is a stained glass window that still exists behind the concrete facade above the marquee. In addition, the foyer ceiling is a false drop-down ceiling, the real one also exists and extends to the roof.
Spot on, Steel! Hailing from Clarence, I like to ask people what parts of Clarence do they find the most beautiful, or walkable or enjoyable. Inevitably, the say Four Corners (Clarence Center Rd. and Goodrich), or perhaps Clarence Hollow (Main St. where it dips low and then goes up a hill).
I then ask them which parts of Clarence do they like the least. It is almost always the housing developments put up by developers.
I tell them that current zoning codes in Clarence actually prohibit any new construction or development that would duplicate the best parts of Clarence. New houses must be situated back from the street and a distance from each other, there can be no businesses or other activity in the housing development, and nothing can be walked to. Conversely, the parts that they like the least are exactly what is mandated.
People also mention that they like the open spaces left in Clarence, and I remind them that our tax code requires that farmers who have no intention of selling their land eventually are forced to do so because taxes are tied to the value of the land. As the value goes up, because of the surrounding development, so do the taxes, and the farmers eventually sell to developers who then put in the very track housing that everyone despises.
So our entire tax code system and zoning laws force development into the the very situations that everyone hates, and mandates the destruction of what we like. The only good thing is that the historic parts of the town that everyone likes are now protected by preservation laws.
However, I note that even that's always in danger. People always clamor that once they own a piece of property, they should have the right to do whatever they like with it, and they should be able to tear down a historic building, or put up something totally at odds with the natural character of the neighborhood. Strange that these property rights advocates never ever seem to want to tear down an ugly track housing development and put something there -- nope. They always want to destroy what everyone likes, but never destroy the things that everyone else claims they dislike.
It's totally disengenuos. When a property rights advocate actually makes the argument that he should be able to tear down his suburbn split level and put up a corner market in the middle of a housing development, then I will have respect for their arguments. Or if they want to tear down half of Transit Rd and put up a traditional town square that would eliminate much of the car traffic. But they don't - it's always one way: They want to tear down the good to put up the bad, never to tear down the bad to put up the good.
An amazing building, and a great post--you do just to the context in which our new development exists. I, too, am hopeful that the GC will be executed, and make a sizable difference.
IMHO, Hertel needs help. While there are some great stores (and, yes, a fabulous theater), I get no pulse from the District. Also, frankly, the first few blocks off Delaware are pretty uninviting.
The street needs some continuity...something to pull it together and make it feel more cohesive. The EVA has done a really good job of creating a sense of place on Elmwood....Hertel needs something like this. All the bones are there....
my take on why hertel lacks the buzz of elmwood is because it is simply too wide for the low height of most of its buildings, even when they have the good urbanism of the one steel features here.
it feels like the other side of the street is on the other side of a highway. there is no easy crossing back and forth across hertel like you can do on elmwood much of the time).
I completely agree, and was going to post an addendum to my previous message. I think creating bike lanes (next to the curb), then parking, then one lane of traffic would do wonders...as would curbside plantings and some good infill closer to Delaware.
Ban all cars would be progressive. Put buffalo on the map
Agree, although it almost flippant to say it. I think Hertel would be better served by getting rid of the center turn lane and adding bicycle lanes (between the sidewalk and parking lane), like Travelrrr said.
It's just a smidgen too uncomfortable for pedestrians to cross to really create a critical mass of lively sidewalk activity.
I understand what you're getting at but I've never had any trouble crossing Hertel and I'm usually pushing a stroller or walking a dog. That turn lane saves the residents of the area from a lot of traffic congestion. Most people who live in the area use cars to get to and from work, their kids schools etc. and that's not going to change any time soon. -1 on axing the turn lane.
my experience is not representative, but i've had reason to bike up to hertel on weeknights after rush hour. both times it was difficult to get across at unsignalized intersections. no break in traffic.
I'm not sure it would be that much easier to cross if the turn lane were taken away. Perhaps crossing at a light is a better option? I'm not trying to be a jerk here, I bike quite a bit also, but there are plenty of lights to cross at. Crossing the street, to me at least, just doesn't seem all that bad on Hertel. I feel like I have a harder time biking on Elmwood due to the congestion and lack or room between traffic and car doors being flung open. Just my experience though.
I love the idea of the neck downs.(?) Seems like the perfect fix.
The continuity comes from having most of the business owners come together to work out their problems and issues, and promote the street. That's what they did on Elmwood, and I believe they are trying to do the same on Hertel, but it as always, more can be done.
Coordination of business hours to encourage foot traffic at all hours of the day and week, making a concerted effort to attract the kinds of stores that residents need (hardware store? Pet supplies? ) that will encourage residents to spend more time there and not elsewhere for basics. Promotion of the street to Canadians and suburbanites to come and visit more often.
Of course, sidewalk cafes should be more abundant. There is more sidewalk space available than on Elmwood, so that should make things much more lively.
In general, if you want to know how to make a street more lively, you should read Christopher Alexander's ground breaking book, A Pattern Language, and also William Whyte's book on public sidewalks and streets, Rediscovering the Center City.
Oddly enough, if you want a "shopping street", it must be INconvenient for cars. The slower the traffic, the better it is for pedestrians. (The opposite is Transit Rd, which is great for car,s but not people.) The small park in front of the catholic school could become much better developed to attract people all the time and be functional.
Personally, and I wrote about this earlier, the Hertel neighborhood is perfect for retirees. The houses are small or are duplexes, you can walk to most of your needs, there is good public transportation, and the greater city with it's cultural, educational and medical services are within easy reach. In fact, I wouldn't mind if a senior complex were built somewhere in the neighborhood for just that reason.
Two senior apartment complexes already exist on Hertel: one where the old Sample building used to be and the other at Virgil/Hertel. They are there for that very reason that you posted.
That building would look wonderful if it were 3-4 stories instead of 2. Upper floors would make great apartments
Well-written piece on the building and the problems to be encountered by someone wanting to create another one. Almost sounds like a script for those opposing the new project for the parking lot on Elmwood.
I don't understand the concept of why X amount of parking spaces are needed for an urban building. That level of stupidy is beyond me.
I doubt that to be the case.
It may have started with good intentions for reducing the pressure on curb-side parking. "Make each developer pay for building and maintaining their own parking lot instead of hoisting it off on the city." But of course, it has had many terrible unintended consequences.
(Or *were* they unintended...?)
It would be nice if the billboards along Hertel were taken down. They're a ridiculous eyesore. I'm og so happy Medicaid can help you quit smoking but do we need a damn billboard advertising it?
parking problems? There is a city parking lot next door/ next block that holds about 70 cars. And how old are the pictures? The building and parking lot etc...are completely different.
So what was the real reason for this article? It starts out one way, goes in a different direction....sounds more like an axe to grind? Than a story about your favorite building?
sad
Oh absolutely there is an axe to grind. That would be the ridiculous zoning code that makes a building like this impossible to build in Buffalo. The one older picture is on purpouse. The rest are relatively contemporary images.
parking problems? There is a city parking lot next door/ next block that holds about 70 cars. And how old are the pictures? The building and parking lot etc...are completely different.
So what was the real reason for this article? It starts out one way, goes in a different direction....sounds more like an axe to grind? Than a story about your favorite building?
sad
1. I never knew there was a city lot (especially 70 cars!) in the area. I've gone to the North Park for decades, but always park on the street (Hertel or a side street; as there are generally fewer than 30 people in the theater, parking isn't usually an issue). But if there is a city parking lot of that size so nearby, then its existence undercuts Steel's argument . . .
I would also point out that very near to this building the City allowed a very large new two story restaurant to be built with no dedicated parking (Empire Grill). That building fits nicely into a footprint which closely mimics what existed previously (two story typical Hertel retail/apartments which was destroyed by fire). So the city can, at least on occasion, demonstrate urban sensitivity.
2. As to the idea of losing the turning lane in order to narrow the street for the benefit of pedestrians: I think Grad is perceptive that the street feels more vast than Elmwood and so therefore lacks some of the pedestrian friendly charm of Elmwood (though between Utica and Bryant the feel of Elmwood isn't so different from much of Hertel). I also support expanding bike lanes. I think increased biking is not a fad but a long term social change. The more bike friendly we make the city, the more biking activity we'll generate (even in winter, if bikers no longer fear getting side swiped by cars).
But I agree with others that Hertel's turn lane is vital for neighborhood convenience. Hertel handles a ton of traffic. There is another option to enhance pedestrian friendliness: 'neck downs'. At key intersections (maybe a third of the total?) lose a parking space on both sides of Hertel (and both sides of the side street) and bring the curb out into those former parking spaces. Then instead of crossing five lanes of vehicular street (turn lane, two traffic lanes plus two parking lanes), the pedestrian only has to cross three lanes (turn lane plus two traffic lanes). It slows down traffic at the corners where the street is narrowed (does make right hand turns slower since you can't slip past traffic in the traffic lane stuck at the light while you turn right). It's a much shorter crossing physically (3 lanes vs. 5) and safer for kids, etc. Mostly it makes crossing the street feel less threatening; more like pedestrians are king instead of cars.
The city lot referred to is, I believe, the one a block east, next to Gecko's and extending behind Bank of America, Uncorked, and Taste of Thai. It's big; 70 cars is probably about right.
Empire Grill needed a ton a variances and a determined architect to get through the process.
Neck downs (aka curb extensions) would be a great idea! In New York City they have implemented them very inexpensively using just paint and some concrete bollards. It doesn't have to be a massive street reconstruction project. (And it would also prevent people from parking in the No Standing space and blocking sight lines around the corner.)
I heard that the snow plow drivers in Buffalo refuse to deal with curb bump outs and thus somehow hold veto power over street design.
That parking lot has 54 spaces. There are just over 1000 off-street parking spaces on Hertel between Delaware and Starin (source: my own parking count). There's at least 200 on-street parking spots along the same stretch of Hertel (low estimate of that total, did not make a hard count).
St. Margaret's has a parking lot for 115 cars that is relatively unused with the exception of mass. With the school now closed, there is opportunity for the local businesses to come to some sort of shared-parking agreement to provide additional parking to businesses along the denser part of Hertel.
I am not sure what "argument" of mine is undercut. I am just laying out the facts. The codes as written would not allow this great building to be done. These are the kinds of laws that we could laugh at for their silliness fi they were not so destructive to the city fabric.
By the way. That 70 car parking lot by code would be to be reserved and then some for the building that it sits behind per code.
well, the 'argument' to which I refer is the insinuation that we don't need parking lots, that parking lots are an anathema to urban life and that buildings like this should be encouraged today without regard to parking considerations. Doing it like they did back in the day would be preferable for the community, you imply.
I say that the existence of a substantial city owned neighborhood parking lot a block away undercuts your position (or the position I wrongly attribute to you) because that lot speaks to the demand for parking created by buildings such as this. For the city to willy-nilly disregard that parking demand simply because the buildings look cooler if we don't accommodate parking would be foolish, imo. Parking considerations should be part of the mix.
Now, I'll agree that current parking requirements are too high. Even far too high. Probably half the required number of spots are plenty sufficient, I think. But parking should be considered. It's a legitimate concern, as evidenced by that lot. As to the other facets of this building which no longer comply with code, I agree that such restrictions should be loosened.
But why should there be a minimum parking requirement enforced by the city that doesn't take into account things like the presence or absence of on-street parking, municipal or commercial public parking lots/ramps, distance from public transit, percentage of people in the neighborhood who do not own cars, density of the surrounding neighborhood, etc.?
Why not let the developers do that calculation for each individual site, rather than have the city mandate a flat number based only on the square footage of the restaurant or the number of apartments?
I agree that available on street and nearby parking should be considered when determining parking requirements for each project.
As to letting developers choose how much parking they wish to accommodate, there will be temptation to shortchange parking in the confidence that someone else will solve the problem for them (like that city owned lot, for example). Parking is expensive to develop and it generates no revenue by itself. If they could get away with less, my sense is that most developers would (maybe not some national chains, but most others). I think we should require less. But it's wise to encourage a reasonable amount, whatever we think that reasonable demand might be. We should also (and this is where some of those current codes are aiming, I think) require some kind of landscaping treatment softening the parking, at least from the perspective of the neighbors. Fewer spaces needed, better disguised. That's what I'd like to see.
In my experience, most developers, especially those who are developing for national chains, but even those who are not, will over develop parking. Yes, it is expensive, but the people financing these projects usually require parking because it increases the building's value and makes it more marketable in a city like Buffalo. Only in extremely dense and expensive cities like New York or Boston with robust public transit does the parking issue change the financial equation. It's a pernicious problem because many people WANT Buffalo to be more dense, more like a real city, but the current development financing paradigm, and the current land use codes, work against it. The city, to its credit, is changing what it can: the land use codes. The financing paradigm is a much tougher nut to crack.
Interesting that parking and accommodation of cars is always the first solution to providing transportation infrastructure. Certainly in cities like Buffalo this need to find places for cars on lots and on roads is a self perpetuating problem. Buffalo has made cars the only reasonable way to get around. Each year spending increases for roads and parking while spending decreases on public transit. So therefore the city has to be continuously degraded to accommodate cars. Why does no one ever talk about improving public transit and lowering the need for parking. By the way walkable neighborhoods decrease the need for parking. Our best American cities do not accommodate parking and cars over everything else. We have been brain washed into thinking that travel by car needs to be easy. Think Portland OR, Think Back Bay Boston. These places are not devoted to car travel. they are devoted to people.
Well said. Interesting comments!!
Tim, do you agree the bolded word looks very unlikely to be true? Which year are you supposing he's talking about, specifically, in which public transit spending was less than the previous? (not to mention the "Each year" part of his claim)
steel>"Each year spending increases for roads and parking while spending decreases on public transit."
Also, since we live in a republic and car/truck driving is something in which most citizens & businesses choose to participate quite often because of how awesome it is in many ways, isn't the following not only interesting but also very logical? Of course it's the first solution. First doesn't mean only, obviously.
steel>"Interesting that parking and accommodation of cars is always the first solution to providing transportation infrastructure."
Oh you are right my mistake - Transit funding has increased.
http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/07/22/highway-funding-the-last-bastion-of-socialism-in-america/
Wow, an admission of mistake this time without whining or hyperbole. Very good. I won't even nitpick that the graph at that link showing public transit spending increases each year ends almost a decade ago in 2003.
For a more recent and more local perspective, here's a look at the NFTA's top aid sources - Erie Co taxpayers, federal taxpayers, and NY state taxpayers, along with some others.
From pg 46 of most recent NFTA's annual report, 2010-11:
http://www.nfta.com/pdfs/NFTA2011FinalFS.pdf
Erie County aid to NFTA grew from $31.7M in 2010 to $34.6M in 2011 the final year of the Chris Collins administration
(9% increase of $2.9M)
Federal transit aid to NFTA, not counting $ from DHS and DOJ, grew from $11.85M in 2010 to $11.96M in 2011
(1% increase of $0.11M)
NYS aid did drop that year, from $44.0M in 2011 to $43.4M in 2010
(1% drop of $0.6M)
So a $3M combined increase from Erie Co and the federal govt minus DHS+DOJ, and a $0.6M drop from NY state govt…. adds up to a $2.4M increase that year.
(the other 3 more minor aid sources were: aid from Peace Bridge Authority constant at $0.2M in each of 2010 & 2011, aid from Niagara County dropped $0.8M from $1.45M to $1.37M, and federal aid from DHS+DOJ grew from $0.58M to $0.63M)
Total aid to the NFTA from all of the above, shown at bottom of pg 46 in that link, grew $2.3M from $89.8M in 2010 to $92.1M in 2011.
That's a 2.6% aid increase in 1 year. That doesn't seem too low, especially considering NY state's budget issues that year.
Perhaps the big reason for the NFTA's recent budget gaps is growth on the spending side including costs for personnel & retirees.
Of course you did not get the point of the graph. The fact that the increses were at a far lower rate than growth in transportation demand or that the increase was only at about the rate of inflation and that roadway spending was about 10 times more growth which encouraged a spread out population which makes public transit difficult and impractical at best and impossible at worst. All of that in mathmatical terms adds up to a decrease in funding.
Living down the street from this building for the past several years has only enhanced my appreciation of this building. Pretty well taken care of with great businesses like Bertha's and the NP Theater.......However some points brought up by commentors on this form show they lack a knowledge of this neighborhood.......The loss of a turning lane on Hertel would force even more traffic onto Tacoma and Linden which is unnecessary for side streets.....And as for unwalkability; I find Hertel just as easy to walk and better to cross because its not always so crowded with everyone searching for parking...
I live down the street from this building too. I'm just saying how I feel about Hertel. I feel that the wider street with more traffic lanes gives it a less friendly and intimate feel than Elmwood, which goes some way in explaining why it doesn't have the same pedestrian liveliness as Elmwood.
I hope someday they can clean the ceiling mural of the North Park Theater. I bet it's gorgeous!
Apples and oranges.
The North Park Building was bought as is, seven years ago. No new variances were asked for. It was a building that was not taken care of and now is. After the Eoannou's purchased the North Park, and up grades were made, it began the revitalization of Hertel. When the gentlemen that own Room moved from Elmwood to Hertel the change became even more apparent. Soon after Donnely Interiors sold their newly remolded building on Hertel and moved closer on the same block as Room. Followed by Modern Nostalgia left Allen Town and moved to Hertel. Revitalizaton started to catch the eye of other businesses... soon Spot Coffee got their money together to finish their project, owners of Left Bank and Hertel Hardware invested in a beautiful bar.
The North Park Building was built in a different time, 1915 and 1921 for the second half. It was built when the average households didn't have two cars or more. When children walked to the theater on Saturday and spent the day....by themselves. When women would walk to the corner store to buy the food they needed and carry what they could home. It was a different time.
The Eoannou's didnt ask for a variance, they worked with what is there. They brought businesses back to Hertel, not pushed them away. You can see that it is a personal investment. Not just another building to own.
Frilzen has a building on Bryant and Elmwood, two of the three commerical spaces are empty. The one that has a name and no occupant, is probly based on the fact that you need x-amount of leases to get x-amount of money. The second building, much nicer than the box on Bryant is located between Hodge and West Utica, that block also has vancancies, his orginally tenant left , moved down to the section of Elmwood that had off street parking.
Benchmark and Frizlen know the zoning rules/codes/ procedure however they have perferred to move on this project in the dark of the night, cutting deals with various organizations and property owners. Frilzen admitted on record that he knew of certain procedures that needed to be done for the Benchmark project, yet choose not to do them.....When Benchmark speaks of the two bedroom apartments they would like the Zoning Board to believe the second bedroom is for an office. But when Frizlen was asked about if there will be applicances included he smiled, said yes and continued to state there will also be "two bedrooms, two bathrooms" (two tenants, two cars, 48 total and then the businesses) Frizlen also admitted that the homes in that area are sinking, that his home was also sinking.....so yes now, which should have been done before..... an Enviormental Study has to be done.
You tried to write an article/blog ...with an ax to grind against the Eoannou's because they are not on Benchmark's side. The Eoannou's work hard on all their projects, with no vacancy signs on the door. They didn't put people out of business, they have brought more business to Hertel which was suffering.
When people comment on how inviting Elmwood is, it is....because it does not have blocks of box buildings....like Hertel. The least apppealing section of Elmwood that someone earlier stated is the section is from West Utica to Bryant.......please think about this.
On one hand people love Elmwood because business are located in older homes turned commerical, or small brick buildings....but they don't like the feeling of Hertel? not inviting because? too commerical?....it was always commerical with buildings dating back to 1910. And yet there are some that feel more boxes would enhance Elmwood?
You thought it was a good idea to show a photo of the North Park Building before the Eoannou's owned it, as you said you did this on purpose....it only showed as a reminder of the nice work of impovements that have happened to that building.
You are attempting to earn a living selling a book about the beautiful historical buildings in Buffalo, yet thought it was perhaps a witty comment? to state they should tear down half of the building for parking? silly statement...it belongs in the same bin with the comment someone said in the Buffalo News that everyone should park on Forest or Allen and hail cab to come to Elmwood? another brillant comment.
North Park Building...apples.....to the Benchmark's project...oranges. It was a childish attempt to grind the ax.
whoa, ease up, there . . . Steel's on your side, mostly. He certainly doesn't want half the building torn down to accommodate parking.
You make some other good points. Good that you bring to mind those other Frizlen projects which provide no parking for their retail tenants, and interesting that you correlate that absence of parking with the retail vacancy. I'm curious as to how that stretch of Elmwood fares after Childrens' closes. Ten years ago when Childrens' considered moving to the medical corridor I thought the move would seriously damage this stetch. It will still be leave a big void. I think Elmwood's better able to withstand it now than then, but I am curious to watch how things go here.
As to the two bedrooms and parking: I'm not certain that everyone will have a car. Lots of younger people, especially, get by without one, particularly if they live in an area that makes it feasible, and this clearly is such an area. The developer should be allowed to assign one spot per apartment here, imo.
I think you have totally misread this article. Steel wrote, "Their stewardship of the building over the last 6 years has been spectacular [...] It is heartening to know that this building is in such good hands."
How is that having an ax to grind against them?
Steel is saying that this building is one of his favorites. I think a lot of people agree with him. This building is often cites as one of the centers of the North Park neighborhood. And he is pointing out that the existing zoning code makes it completely illegal today to construct more buildings that are like this one. The existing code makes it impossible to create the type of building that people like so much about streets like Elmwood and Hertel. Thankfully, the upcoming Green Code will remove the obstacles that prevent great buildings like this from being constructed today.
I really have no idea what you are talking about. You seem not to have read this story. My point is that the laws of the city of Buffalo make it impossible to build the type of building represented here which is one of the nicest buildings in the city and is much loved in the neighborhood. The city code does promote the building of cheap corporate parking lot buildings. The type people hate.
It seems you are somehow in favor of a street full of parking lot buildings. Perhaps you should move to a place which was historically developed that way. My wish is that Buffalo be more like Boston or Anne Arbor or Madison or any number of great cities with great dense walkable neighborhoods.
You are totally off base, sorry. And, the only person turning this in to an "us vs them" argument is you...now, who has the axe to grind?
As a home owner near the building being posted about I would like to say I LOVE IT! This area of Hertel is on the upswing and I'm willing to bet it will be the "new elmwood" within ten years.
I lived on elmwood for several years and it is nice. I feel the hertel area is even nicer. The homes looks nicer of course around elmwood but they are very expensive. There are more and more young professionals buying doubles and moving to north buffalo and becoming owner occupyers. The homes have already shown a lot of improvement over the past few years. Younger families make for new blood into a neighborhood and good things are happening.
As for being a pedestrian, I prefer walking on hertel. The sidewalks are wider, the people are freindlier, not too many hipster doofuses, and I think it is easier to cross at intersections. Elmwood has a lot of cars that pull into the cross walk either to sit at the light or to make a right on red, a lot of left hand turners block traffic making long lines of cars. I walk with my baby quite often on hertel and have had no problems crossing the street.
Hertel is quite multicultural for food too! Thai, Indian, Iraqi, Middle Eastern, Greek, Soul Food, BBQ, of course Itailian, and more. More little shops are opening up. The one thing that's missing is a farmers market. That'd be great!
I forgot about parking. There is the big lot posted about earlier. As well as a free lot behind La Pizza Club, there's also one near Terrapin Station I believe.
I would love to see the marquee at the theater renovated as well as some of the interior.
Room
Spot
Globe
Mes Que
What other great businesses will start up or move to hertel?
Nobody has raised the issue that perhaps the reason two story mixed use buildings aren't built today is that they aren't profitable for a developer. Forget about all the "required" parking spaces, and setbacks, and open space for a minute. Just try and do a pro forma for this type of development and get the numbers to work. Very difficult.
The Green Code will help a great deal in ALLOWING, as-of-right, even PROMOTING this type of development, but the code is only part of the equation. The other part is the market. Yes, people say they want to live on Elmwood or Hertel in new apartments, but only if the rents are between $100-$150 per square foot. It probably takes rents at $300/sf for a developer to make a profit on the land acquisition and construction costs.
you're probably 100% correct on that regarding 2-story buildings. But sometimes the profitability can be found by just going to 3-stories. I think that was mentioned in the case of the proposed apartments on Elmwood near Spot.
I'm curious about that. Frizlen's building at Elmwood and Bryant is 3 stories, be interesting to know how that investment is turning out. I think that's a fine "urban fabric" building, aside from some of the storefront detailing. I'm willing to accept EFIS on upper floors.
jasonharemza
No one in Buffalo pays $100/sf rent. Max retail rentals on Elmwood are maybe $20/sf.
SF rentals are based on yearly costs per SF.
$100/sf for a 1,000 SF unit would cost $8,333.33/ month!
This does happen in Manhattan, but not in Buffalo
I think he was inadvertently referencing construction costs as opposed to rents. Change his statement to 'rents that support' those construction costs and his point makes sense.
Sorry, I got my numbers confused. I was referring to residential rental rates expressed in cost per square foot per month. In cities like Buffalo and Rochester, the current rate is about $1 to $1.25/sf/month. So a 1000 sf apartment rents for $1000 to $1250 a month, give or take. But in order for a developer to make a profit on new construction, units would have to rent for $2/sf/month or more. Can the Upstate market bear those prices?
It remains a pertinent question because that's what stands between great projects that still need public subsidies in the form of "gap" financing and great projects that happen on their own in a functional real estate market.
biniszkiewicz
Perhaps, but lower construction costs are better for the developer, not higher construction costs. Frizlen's buildings probably cost around $150/SF to build.
Leave a comment
Sponsor
Recent Comments
Sponsor
Interested in advertising on BuffaloRising?
E-mail John C. Powell
or call John at 716.602.0200




Good explanation of how our current codes block good design.
And isn't this the building getting a Globe Market? Can't wait.
Yes, Globe Market opens on June 22. As a resident of North Park Ave. I can't wait!
As nice as the increase in business has been on this corner I do wish people wouldn't park illegally on the wrong side of the street near the corner of Hertel and N. Park. There have been numerous accidents already and I personally have almost clipped a few people getting out of their cars. Just oay the 25cents to park on Hertel. There are plenty of spots.
We might want to consider demolishing half of this building to create some off street parking - That is after all what the law would require.
Or people could just park on Herteland pay or walk a block or so. I do appreciate the sarcasm though. :)
This is a huge problem on Norwalk as well, next to the Bank of America building. People park on both sides of the street, as well as too close to the corner (past the No Standing sign). This means cars have to creep way too far up to make a turn, harassing and endangering pedestrians as well as increasing the risk of hitting another car.
Parking enforcement routinely tickets these cars, but it doesn't seem to stop people from doing it.