A Sprawl-tastic Grab Bag
Comments
Leave a commentLot's of fail in the UB section.
First off, Ann Arbor is UB North in Amherst after 175 years. The same reason why UB left Buffalo is why Michigan left Detroit. The city came after the campus...not the other way around.
What I will agree with is the North Campus has been managed poorly. It started off with a grid and could eventually get back to one.
I think if there was a subway connection from UB South to UB North, UB North would fill out the grid out. All of those parking lots, would eventually be replaced.
Also to note, I _think_ the crappy student housing is actually private construction..so I am not sure how much of a say UB had.
There are also schools like Notre Dame that are located in absolute shit hole urban areas, and yet outrank both of the schools mentioned, and manages to be a beautiful campus. They achieve this specifically by fencing off the city around them.
I think UB actually tried to block some of the housing development because it directly competed with their apartment style houses (southlake, hadley, creekside, and flint)
I think one of the biggest challenges to UB was when they built the Ellicott Complex it was right after the Kent State shootings/riots. Because of this, Ellicott is a maze and there is no place where more than 20 people or so can congregate. This prevented them from building a dorm 'to the curb' if you will.
Ellicott is the largest dorm complex by far at UB by the way.
I would love to see UB grow into a 'city' or small town in it's own right. People are naive if they think bitching about it being in Amherst is ever going to change anything.
The focus really should be to eliminate the South Campus and build up Downtown and UB North.
Why should it be to build up UB north? Why
Why? Because there have been billions invested publicly and privately at this point and to uproot all of that to satisfy some urbanists' arbitrary dreams would be a huge waste of time, money, and resources. They have enough space to expand and hold tens of thousands of students, with plenty of modern facilities. To give that up to rebuild somewhere else would put UB out of competition with most any public university.
At this point UB North is part of continuous development connected with the entire region, not an isolated campus as it was 40-50 years ago. The question should be "how do we rectify some mistakes made with the design, and use UB to provide real growth to the region?" rather than "how do we move everything to the city?".
Well we spent trillions building Buffalo but then abandond it. What is the difference?
because the city of buffao has a tremendous amount to give, many dont appreciate that, but i know you do, do more than write about it!!!
We abandoned Buffalo for Cheektowaga and other inner suburbs. We are in the process of abandoning them for Clarence and Orchard Park. And so on -- so how can we continue to build and then leave a entire region every generation or so? How sustainable is that?
What's the difference? The difference is we know it's not feasible to abandon billions dollars of investment to add it somewhere else, it's a zero-sum game. You're either being completely naive or just plain foolish if you think movingUB North is a good idea. It's many times larger than it was in 1960, has much more private investment surround it, and requires much more land. What benefit would moving it have at this point? I can guarantee you it wouldn't reach a fraction of the costs.
The campus is there and it is not moving, we need to deal with it. Even if the region had tens of billions of dollars to relocate an existing campus, moving it is the exact same shuffling of the deck you complain about (just in reverse, and this time more subsidized than a subdivision would ever be).
I get that you're against sprawl but your one track mind can be just as bad as what you claim to be fighting against.
We abandoned most of a city but we cannot abandon this campus? Why?
You really can't understand the difference between individual private building going vacant in the city and the concept of abandoning billions of dollars of public and private investments? The "we" you're referring to are not the same people, and it's disingenuous to use it as such.
Individuals and businesses abandon the city because of falling population and property values, crime, schools, regulations and services and a variety of reasons, and take the hit on whatever losses they incur in the form of reduced sale prices, write offs, etc. The point is these are private sector actions taken by individuals. I am not saying I want this to happen but these forces are present.
SUNY is a state agency heavily funded by taxpayers, whose mission is to educate their students. Moving UB North would tie up an enormous amount of funds for such a long time it would absolutely be a detriment to both the students and taxpayers with no net gain. You could compare it to the shuffling of the deck with drug stores your article cites.
Doing what you would suggest would set the region and UB back decades. I'm not advocating leaving UB North exactly as it is, but if you can't see what a colossal waste of limited resources a move would be, I'm going to conclude you're being willfully ignorant. Or maybe you're willing to harm the region and its taxpayers to serve your preferred lifestyle (that would make you different than the suburbanites you how?).
.....and for the folks scoring at home, thats Leggomyeggo 2 Steel 0.
I never suggested a move. I suggested that the continued investment and expansion of a massive mistake is what is wasteful. In light of changing demographics it is also destructive to the university. Young people are trending in very strong numbers toward urban environments. Presenting this trashy campus as an option will be a major disadvantage to this university going forward.
"Trillions"?
The money that's invested in failure you don't get back. Economics 101.
1 - Universities are there to educate students not develop cities. Detroit needs some help..should Michigan move?
2 - There is not enough bribe money to purchase land for the school. If a preacher wants $60M for a city block..just imagine how much 20 connected blocks would cost.
3 - There are too many NIMBY's for a project like this to be pulled off...even if it was even possible.
4 - The COB is not a good enough city to see the Urban Campus for college students. Even if UB were to do a massive 10 year build..the city would not build out around it.
Steel, I know you're just trolling but this is pretty far off the deep end for you. I also know you're simply trying to pit City v. Burbs rather than participate in a conversation about realistic progress.
If you really want to push for something that could actually happen...
1 - Have UB sell the South Campus. While in the City this is not an 'urban' campus.
2 - Have UB purchase several city blocks north of the Medical campus. Bound by Ellicott - Northampton - Masten (Wrap around City Honors) to E. North.
3 - Clear everything. This is where it gets tricky for you. You want to save beat up old houses but if you were serious about UB downtown BLOCKS would have to be destroyed. Can't have it both ways guy.
4 - Move all graduate programs downtown. Build mid-rise buildings for the school and urban housing.
1 - UThen why was UB North touted as a major economic force in developing Amherst? Educating students will become less and less viable at this campus as more young people reject its stale environment for more urban options. Higher energy costs are also going to make it a less and less viable facility
2 - .Why do you cry about criticism on the suburbs and yet make unsubstantiated insults like this? By the way a University does not need to be on 20 connected blocks.
3 - It is already being done downtown with no MIMBY problems. What do you base this comment on?
4 - Another insult of the city from a suburbanite.
"Steel, I know you're just trolling but this is pretty far off the deep end for you. I also know you're simply trying to pit City v. Burbs rather than participate in a conversation about realistic progress." It is not city versus suburbs - read the post and you will see that. How many times do I have to point this out????? Read the F#cking story!
If you really want to push for something that could actually happen...
1 - What would this solve?
2 - They already have
3 - These blocks are already mostly cleared. What is your point?
4 - Moving all the graduate programs downtown would mean moving several departments off of the North Campus including engineering, Art, Music, English, Law, etc. So are you saying you agree with me?
"Then why was UB North touted as a major economic force in developing Amherst? "
This is wrong. Two wrongs do not make a right. I should also point out that the COB has Buffalo State and Canisius yet fails to do much with either. Point being that even if UB were to move to the COB..the odds are high the city would drop the ball.
"Why do you cry about criticism on the suburbs and yet make unsubstantiated insults like this?"
This is not an insult. It's the truth. McCarley Gardens wanted $60m to move subsidized residents off a single block. Not sure if they got it. In Buffalo there is a long history of money grabs for development. see. HUD investigations and lawsuits from developers.
"It is already being done downtown with no MIMBY problems. What do you base this comment on?"
On a much smaller scale. Show me where UB could locate a campus for 20k+ students with dorms, stadiums, parking and the like in the COB where they would not face a backlash for moving people.
"Another insult of the city from a suburbanite."
I actually live in Downtown San Diego and choose to because I believe in the benefits of Urban Living. So nice try. I just also like to use logic..something that you do not.
* Read the F#cking story!*
The majority of your content is self serving..why bother?
"What would [closing down UB South] solve?"
It would raise money on the sale. It would cause the need to move buildings and programs off the campus to either Downtown or UB North.
"These blocks are already mostly cleared. What is your point?"
Mostly cleared is not completely cleared. It taks just one house to hold things up.
"Moving all the graduate programs downtown would mean moving several departments off of the North Campus including engineering, Art, Music, English, Law, etc. So are you saying you agree with me?"
Absolutely! I would love to see Downtown being 100% Graduate studies and UB North being 100% Undergrad.
Under grad students are a different breed than Grad students. Undergrad students need dorms and babysitters. They can not go to bars [legally :)] and can barely take care of themselves at times. Undergrads are also more likely to want to participate in traditional college experiences like sports and the greek system. These should be on the North Campus.
Steel> UThen why was UB North touted as a major economic force in developing Amherst? Educating students will become less and less viable at this campus as more young people reject its stale environment for more urban options. Higher energy costs are also going to make it a less and less viable facility
UB's enrollment is GROWING, especially in the face of rising tuition at private colleges. SUNY schools are finding they can become quite selective in their admissions. All of the "Big 4" SUNY schools have a suburban character, as does many of the smaller colleges.
Many schools from the era have a suburban character; enrollment was booming, suburban land was cheap or free if it was donated, and urban demolition for campus expansion was politically volatile, especially considering demolitions for urban renewal and urban expressways around the same time. Even on the private side -- Ithaca College, Valparaiso University, Ursuline College, RIT -- moving to the 'burbs was the norm if the old campus was built out.
I'm sure students there would prefer a more urban environment, but in their minds, it's only four or five years out of their life they have to spend in the tundra of North Campus. Those who want a dose of urbanism move off-campus into the city, increasingly far deeper than University Heights. Even then, we're talking about a plurality of the student body that calls downstate NY home. To so many of them, even downtown Buffalo is cow-tipping hick country, relatively speaking.
STEEL> 3 - These blocks are already mostly cleared. What is your point?
How many feel about tearing down the last few remaining buildings on "mostly cleared blocks" ...
http://www.buffalorising.com/2012/07/wrecking-buffalo-two-demos-proposed-along-genesee-street.html
Exactly.
You would have to clear everything for it to be done. By my count you're looking at 100 to 150 buildings. Some being historical.
Don't get me wrong...Buffalo would be better off with this as the blocks surrounding the campus would dramatically increase in value and would be filled in but this would cause gentrification. Which is another topic people in Buffalo have an issue with.
Great idea to group these. The impact is greater when you see it's not just individual mistakes but a complete misunderstanding of how to use land.
I should have stopped reading when you said you got "trapped" on the 290. You make a few valid points, but you sound like my grandmother used to when she would make her quinquennial trip into the city...
To be fair to the Town of Clarence there is this
http://www.buffalonews.com/city/communities/clarence/article926936.ece
However their general zoning and development policy has the basic result of encouraging sprawl.
I don't know. They can call it anti-sprawl, but usually "preserving green space" just means there are larger distances of empty land between the places you need to go, which just doubles-down on the need for a car.
If Clarence was truly interested in preventing sprawl, they would guide all new development to a tight street grid surrounding the existing village areas of Clarence Center and "the Hollow" along Main Street. In other words, accommodate growth in the traditional "small town" form, not the modern suburban sprawl form.
Clarence is probably one of the few communities in the country that turned its nose up at a TND/New Urbanism development. Too dense, it'll bring in the wrong element, etc.
Sidewalks are banned in residential areas to preserve "rural character".
Clarence doesn't enforce its sign regulations. Its side of Transit Road looks like a little Las Vegas, with animated electronic message center signs all up and down the road. Their zoning code bans such animation, but it seems like the town would rather put its effort into ... well, not having sidewalks and new urbanism.
Rich community, poor planning. The only reason to live there is the school district.
I believe the old Rite Aid did could not accommodate a drive through pharmacy. So they built a new one. Go figure. . . . What more does that say about the supremacy of the car?
roach, it's easy to mock drive-thrus for pharmacies, and I've never used one myself… but it isn't difficult to envision when those could be big positives.
For example, for a customer who's older or for some other reason has difficulty getting out/in of a car (injury, handicap, etc) - especially perhaps during rainy or icy weather - and needs to pick up medicine.
Or a mom (or dad) with several child-seat-strapped kids along and needs to get medicine - instead of getting them out of the seats, herding them into & out of the store, then fastening back into the seats.
I've at that new Rite Aid a couple times, and it's much better than the previous one. More products being sold, plus a drive thru, and overall a nicer more efficient thing for customers.
For all the complaints when older former drug stores sit vacant, many of them are reused. The Walgreens on Delaware near the Kenmore-Tonanwanda border recently was converted to a Dollar General, and then the former Dollar General smaller store was reused as something like a bridal shop.
As another comment mentioned, the area around that new Rite Aid location at Sheridan-Colvin has been populated for a long time now. I don't see how there's anything to complain about when a business such as that Rite Aid moves across a street to a newer better building. (Unless of course it was given corp welfare like IDA aid - I've no idea if it was or not - but that's a different issue.)
There were no tax breaks granted to Rite Aid for the new store on Colvin. It was built by Carl Paladino. Rite Aid and Paladino actually had a bank lined up to take over the property when they started construction (the bank escapes me but I'm sure it's in town's minutes) but I believe it fell through after the bank merged.
Okay, good.
Then if no IDA type favors were granted for the new one, I don't see any reason why replacing one Rite Aid with a better one right across the street from it is any problem at all. Yeah the previous site is vacant, but it's unlikely to stay vacant for very long based on what usually happens on Sheridan. It's a very popular street even if hated by some of the people who comment on here.
Thanks for the info, leggo.
You have not been noticing that as you expand and build more shit futher out the stuff fiuther in becomes increasingly more vacant? Sure up untill recently it has been in the city where most people just blame it on the scary people . But now there has been a dramatic increase of vacancy in the inner sububurbs. How much can you build for fewer people?
steel>"expand and build more shit futher out the stuff fiuther in becomes increasingly more vacant"
When you say "build more sh*t", how does that apply to Rite Aid's new store replacing another business previously on that parcel (and before very long, some other business replacing where the older Rite Aid was?
Hasn't that spot been developed for many decades now as others noted - and even besides that, isn't the number of businesses at Colvin-Sheridan staying constant?
By the way, as this sattelite view on Google maps shows, Colvin-Sheridan is only 1.5 miles from the city of Buffalo and it's surrounded on all sides by a lot of development, mostly residential. The marker B is where Rite Aid dared to move across the street. Marker A is Colvin & Kenmore Ave in city.
http://goo.gl/maps/esCB
That shows some surrounding density, no?
Again, how is it that two commercial buildings 1.5 miles from the city on either side of Colvin being replaced by 2 newer commercial buildings (or maybe not even both replaced if older Rite Aid ends up modified instead of replaced) is said to be a bad thing, or increased sprawl, or "more sh*t"?
I get it that you dislike the way Sheridan Drive has been for many decades now, but how does the new drug store building replacing what was there before make anything worse in any way?
STEEL: "You have not been noticing that as you expand and build more shit futher out the stuff fiuther in becomes increasingly more vacant? Sure up untill recently it has been in the city where most people just blame it on the scary people . But now there has been a dramatic increase of vacancy in the inner sububurbs. How much can you build for fewer people?"
How is it that as households have shrunk since WW2, actual houses have greatly increased in size? Part of it is the desire for more space. The other part is that as people grow more affluent (in the 'burbs at least) they have more crap to enjoy. Do you really want to go back to a time when 3 generations shared a single bath and the new car had to be parked three houses down because there was no garage and the neighbors' cars clogged the street?
And the vacancy in the inner suburbs is due to a dying off population of original homeowners with few new immigrants to take their place because immigrants go where thw opportunity lies and Buffalo has been off that map since at least 1970.
Regarding the 198 speed limit debate, what does that have to do with sprawl at this point in time?
Also, is the word sprawl back in style so quickly after apparently being replaced with "breathing room"?
http://www.buffalorising.com/2012/07/theodore-roosevelt-inaugural-site-gets-some-breathing-room.html
That was fast - lol
What does a highway through a park have to do with sprawl? Your are kidding right?
I asked about how its speed limit affects the sprawl topic.
It won't be disappearing as an east-west pathway of cars through the park with at least fairly heavy traffic.
The issue being publicly debated is if its speed limit reduces to the 30 mph some of you advocate (which would result in something like the heavily-trafficked Delaware Ave s-curves which also dissect the park as shown here and have 30 mph speed limit, often exceeded) vs the 40 mph plan the DOT says it's considering.
How would anything be any less sprawled according to you guys even if somehow the 30 mph plan happened and we ended up with just another busy street similar to Delaware Ave going through the park?
Btw - even if reduced to one lane each direction (also very far fetched), won't that cause more car traffic on other east-west alternatives like Amherst St, Delavan, Hertel, etc.?
Don't you guys already complain about Delavan currently being so car-dominated…
remember this?
http://www.buffalorising.com/2012/04/dissecting-our-intersections.html
And some complain about so many cars on Hertel also.
Downgrading the 198 to 1-lane each way wouldn't cause 1,000's of people who now drive on it to replace their cars with bikes. Wouldn't they all just either keep driving on it only slower and with more congestion than happens now, or they'd add to car traffic that car haters already complain about as too much on Delavan, Hertel, etc.?
In what way would sprawl be reduced by having an often-clogged 30 mph 1-lane-each-way road instead of the 198, plus consequently heavier car traffic on other east-west options?
There is no reason to funnel heavy traffic through a park. If you divided this traffic up among sveral streets you would barely notice the increase of cars on those streets . Be sides much of this cross town express way traffic would divert to one of the 2 other cross town expressways. The question should not be a redcution of speed by a few mph but the elimination of a highwya road design in a park. That being said we don't make any other form of transportaion exessively convenient at the expense of everything. Why do we do it for cars. Is there a secret part of the constitution that gives you a right to get anyplace fast in your car?
While I agree with what you're saying, is there a secret part of the constitution that denies people the right to live where they want and get to their destination quickly?
Nothing in the constitution guaranties fast travel. It also does not guaranty that you can live where ever and however you want to. It also does not guaranty you the right to wreck the planet because of your own selfish desires.
But again. It is not about place it is about how a place is made and used. If you want to live in Clarence fine. Don't demand that the city of Buffalo give up its parks for your F#cking car!
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Ratified by the United States.
Article 13 (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
Hummmm looks like STEEL's wrong again.
Actually not really. That article has to do with living within a state in general. It does not have anything to do with living in a specific piece of earth in specific terms. It it did then our zoning codes would not be constitutional nor would be have things like eminent domain. As well I cannot just decide to live in my neighbor's house nor in a public park nor can I even enter a public park after hours legally. You in fact cannot live or go anywhere you please. That is just a plain fact. That said. just choosing something does not make it a valid choice to make even if it is legal.
Choosing sprawl as a lifestyle is not smart. It wrecks our country and puts a burden on those who do not choose sprawl. I won't apologize for speaking out against it and trying to raise awareness among those who might be a bit oblivious to how destructive that choice is.
Well it looks like every zoning code in the US is unconstitutional.
My question was rhetorical and you missed my point. My point was to point out the ridiculousness of trying to support your argument using the constitution when that has nothing to do with this conversation.
Huh?
steel>"If you want to live in Clarence fine. Don't demand that the city of Buffalo give up its parks for your F#cking car!"
This might be news to a few people, but many Buffalo/city residents freely choose to drive on the 198 which passes through part of Delaware Park (but no more than Delaware Ave always has ever since the park was built - in fact, Olmsted himself chose the park's location in a way that has Delaware Ave dividing it as much as the 198 now does also).
While I don't think steel's arguments should be rejected ad hominem only because he lives in Chicago, when anyone from several states away implies something crazy like that the 198 exists mainly because of suburbanites forcing and demanding the city have it, that's really funny.
I'm very sure I'm not the only city resident who chooses to drive on the 198 even though there's alternatives. The 198 connects different parts of the city of Buffalo. Black Rock at one end with entrances/exits at Niagara and Grant, and at the other end it connects to the Parkside and to Main St near the Hamlin Park neighborhood, Canisius College, etc. In between, also it meets the two busiest streets of the Delaware District - Elmwood and Delaware avenues.
It's voluntarily used by a lot of city residents driving between any of those parts of the city, or even to/from Riverside via 190.
It's also a very convenient leg of drives between the airport (for one example of many) and any of those parts of the city.
Of course it's also used by some suburbanites and visitors from outside WNY, but to imply as that comment did that it's forced on Buffalo as "demanded" by people from places like Clarence is really weird.
You still haven't said why 10 mph higher speed limit equals more sprawl, but we can set that aside for this which looks amazingly delusional:
steel>"If you divided this traffic up among sveral streets you would barely notice the increase of cars on those streets"
Page 15 of this says the 198 has over 42,000 vehicles/day between Elmwood & Delaware, and over 48,000 vehicles per/day between Delaware & Parkside.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/hds-respository/AADTs%20for%20Erie%20County.pdf
37,699 NY-198 from/to GRANT ST - ELMWOOD AVE
42,272 NY-198 from/to ELMWOOD AVE - 384 DELAWARE AVE
48,607 NY-198 from/to RT 384 DELAWARE AVE - PARKSIDE AVE
For comparison -
Hertel has 11,000 vehicles/day between Elmwood & Delaware, 15,000/day between Delaware & Colvin, and 14,700 between Colvin & Parkside.
(see page 12 for those)
West Delavan has 4,200/day between Elmwood & Delaware (pg 20)
Lafayette has 2,200/day between Elmwood & Delaware (pg 13)
Amherst Street has 6,200/day between Elmwood & Delaware, and 14,800/day between Delaware and Colvin (pg 7)
So if we add together those other four east-west streets between Elmwood & Delaware
6,200 (Amherst St) +11,000 (Hertel) + 2,200 (Lafayette) + 4,200 W Delavan
… we get 23,600 vehicles/day
and that's now, when some of you already say those streets have too much traffic.
Meanwhile the same portion on the 198 between Elmwood & Delaware carries over 42,000/day.
That's near double the total daily traffic as those other four east-west streets combined.
Then you pretend if most of those 42,000 additional would instead of the 198 just start using the other four streets it would be barely noticed?
Someone could subjectively feel it's better to have an extra say 30,000 per day start driving on Hertel-Amherst-Delavan-or-Lafayette than to continue being on the 198, but to claim it would be "barely noticed" when those streets combined now have under 24,000/day?
Seriously?
Don't bother with facts or logic and for god sake don't consider every side of an issue. This is the spin zone.
Steel manages to capture the crushing boredom of sprawl in article after article after article about sprawl.
Hey, drive-thru windows are exciting. :)
I often wonder which is worse: cancer or sprawl. After reading this post it is obvious which causes more destruction
i wonder if anyone has ever done a count of dead pharmacies in the buffalo metropolitan area. it'd make an amusing flickr group, kinda like this one, which has almost 400 members:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/75745254@N00/
make it a contest. who can photograph the most dead drugstores in erie county?
Yes, we get it. Sprawl is ugly, etc, etc. But it's there, not really sure why you felt the need to write another post about it.
I don't know why you were so confused by Colvin and 290, 99% of Town of Tonawanda streets follow a grid pattern onto the collector roads, and the entrances onto the 290 there are pretty clear that you're getting on the 290 (you have to shift over to get onto the ramp). Not to mention the visual cues should have clued you in on where you were going.
I agree that the DOT needs to get their head out of their ass on the Scajaquada, and plan for what the community wants in the long term, and I don't think the traffic count warrants the current design.
However, I don't agree with you on the 190. It's a much higher traffic route with much more truck traffic, vital connection to the Peace Bridge and up to Niagara Falls. There is no good alternative to it besides cost prohibitive measures such as burying it. Removing something like that would not only cost a lot of money the state doesn't have, it would prove ultimately fruitless as the wear on roads carrying truck and car traffic they weren't designed for would eat up any savings.
Not to mention the first "wave" of sprawl is actually relatively dense (Kenmore, Tonwawanda, Eggertsville and Cheektowaga) and was built on pent up, post-war housing demand. Gridded streets, 30-50ft frontages, transit accessible, walkable neighborhoods - not really as sprawling as you make it out to be.
The bottom line is, we have 50 years of built out land, some warranted, some less so. It's not enough to rant on how sprawl is the root of all evil. With the vast majority of the region's population and wealth in the suburbs it is not going away anytime soon. You can't just force everyone to move back to having 15 people in a cramped double. Why not offer constructive solutions on retrofitting our region to be denser and more sustainable?
If you manage to do that, and present it in a way that isn't /hostile/ to everyone who doesn't share your specific values, I think you'll find you have more people listening than the usual BRO crowd.
The reason I have to keep writing about sprawl is that too many people accept it as a reasonable way of doing things. It isn't and if the Buffalo area does not get its head out its archaic 1970's @ss it will be left behind while other cities urbanized and get out of this backward and wastful way of doing things.
While I agree that we need to figure out how to address sprawl in the region, I don't agree with your way of getting the message out. Your articles are often hostile to anyone who might not share your lifestyle choices and selectively ignore facts to make your point. There are many perfectly valid reasons people want to live in Clarence and Orchard Park. We can't change this, but we can make the city and the inner ring more attractive to live and do business.
We need to face the facts - the sprawl that is built is here to stay, it's where the money and investment is right now. What we should be asking is how can we retrofit this to benefit the region, and how can we direct help investment that's currently in the fringe what is already built.
I also don't think this is just a Buffalo problem - it's a national problem. Even Portland, the paragon of every Americacn urbanist, is facing continuous sprawl. However, it is exacerbated in Buffalo by a relatively stagnant economy and shrinking region. This is the real issue we are facing, and until we start growing some high-value jobs here, we're going to see the same cycle.
If calling a pig a pig is hostile then so be it. You want to know what is hostile. Wrecking the city so you can get to work 10 minute earliers or so you can park right infront of the 7 Eleven door. What is hostile is confiscating city parks for highways. What is hostile is ruining the country side for big box stores and ever more spread out subdivisions. What is hostile is forcing me to subsidize your choice of sprawl. Sprawl is destructive to our country and society. Sorry if it hurts your feelings but this crap has got to stop. By the way its not about place. It is about how place is built. I don't care where you live. But please live responsibly and at least pay your own way.
You can make a point without creating straw men, which is where the hostility comes from. Nobody in the suburbs are actively destroying the city with existing freeways. You do realize that at the time, they were considered progressive planning? That city officials and residents alike welcomed them as making the city more competitive? If you manage to get a time machine to let them know what would happen, please let me know, I'd love to make a bet on a few Superbowls.
It's not like these things can be undone overnight in a region and economy that is built around them. To pretend that they can is to be absolutely ignorant of the reality of our regions's economy and distribution, not to mention funding.
You claim that the people building in Clarence need to pay their own way, but I'm not sure if you're familiar with how, at least in Buffalo, these situations work. Typically, the developer pays for the initial infrastructure, which is paid by the homeowners buying in that development. The road and sewer are then turned over to the town, which funds it with admittedly high property taxes. These are facts, you can sit down at almost any planning board meeting for new developments and you will find that out.
If you would like to complain about misplaced subsidies, you can look to the city too. Buffalo's own sprawl - Constantly funding new spread out units for $250k a pop, only to be burned out and foreclosed 10 years later. Subsidies for nearly business owner looking for a handout. Shuffling the deck and picking winners by supporting no-growth retail and housing projects. Federal funding out the wazoo, leading to things like a budget of $1 billion for a no-results BPS. Just as, if not more guilty of subsidizing a certain way of life as any IDA is, only it's one that you like.
What it comes down to is people are building and buying where they want to live, they're usually paying exhorbitant property taxes as the cost. If you're going to complain about the use of one subsidy, you have to look at the subsidies on the opposite side.
Don't get me wrong, I would love an UGB and consolidation of IDA's - the latter I am actually in touch with Assemblyman Ryan on. But if you want to see change, you need to do something other than pontificate from Chicago. Start a citizen's action group, run for office, lobby your politicians. Preaching to the choir with self-righteous articles on BRO does zip.
One of the best quotes I've ever read!
You should worry less about where I live and more about how Buffalo can stop sprawling while losing people.
Where did I worry about your location? I said if you want to end sprawl in Buffalo, get involved in Buffalo to make the changes, push for different polices, as I am with Assemblyman Ryan. Action, not just words. As Mahatma Gandhi said "You must be the change you want to see in the world."
BUFFALO needs to get its urban problems under control, the crime, shootings, stabbings, rapes, drug turf wars, drug dealing are more clearly abundant than the "sprawled" neighborhoods. People seem to want to move further and further from the city for obvious reasons...SAFETY! Even minorities (where inner city crimes are most frequent) are doing the same, moving to Cheektowaga, Kenmore and Amherst, to escape for hopefully...a better life. No sane family wants to live in the conditions that are unsafe. Unfortunately much of these urban problems come with those moving outside Buffalo...and force those with the financial means to move even further out from the city..thus continued sprawl!
Yep it is always someone else that is the problem. But here is the point I am so tired of making. It is not about location. It is how the location is built. Why is that so hard to understand. Sprawl does not stop crime. sprawl does not make schools better.
And why can't we look at the solution to poverty and crime as a regional issue to solve rather that just the people who live within a certain political boundary. One last thing. The entire city is not crime ridden. That simplistic suburban attitude is getting boring.
This is a very thoughtful article.
I am a professional that moved to Buffalo from Chicago about a year ago for a job, and I find that the city (definitely not the suburbs) is actually doing a lot of things right to be a livable, fun, interesting place to be. Despite what people say, our public transit is actually pretty good and the city is quite bikeable. There is a reason why the city is getting younger and the suburbs are getting much older.
However, two factors that will help me in my decision of whether to stay in Buffalo longer term or move on are 1) whether the GreenCode lives up to its potential, and whether the Common Council allows it to do its job once it is adopted and 2) whether the 198 is downgraded to a true parkway as is desperately needed in order to let Delaware Park be our version of Central Park, as it could be. This stuff matters and the city needs to realize that fighting for good urban design will help them gain and keep residents in the long term.
steel, this is one of the few times i disagree with you...i get where you're coming from, but do more than complain. the story sounds not much more than complaining...i know you get it, but take the next step!!!
I think if you can figure that out in a way that can be realistically implemented in a free society, you'd make these posts less tedious. I don't know how many people who would disagree with you that there are drawbacks to sprawl. How do you convince people to counter 60+ years of development patterns in a way that they find acceptable?
Charge them the true cost of it. create growth boundaries. Create regional planning councils with actual powers. Eliminate competing regional IDAs. Restrict allocation of county services to areas with extisting infrastructer.
If you find the piosts tedious you are free to skip over them by the way.
Identifying a common goal might be a good place to start. Something very basic that urban, suburban and rural dwellers share - Perhaps something that's less about form and more about the function of a community or quality of life.
get in the ear of local politicians, get involved in the political process...i agree with just about all you have to say, but im a nobody...move back, run for office, make a difference...i would but my baggage is prohibitive...you have all the knowledge and the goods to back up all you would like to see buffalo become, but youre based in chicago, does us no good to us...you are the kind of person who would make buffalo better, but you're far away, no one can help that but you..anyway, keep grinding!!!
Yeah, making your way to and through the 'burbs can be a major soul suck. Hope that some quality time @ Scharf's helped make up for it!
Same old story Steel pedals every couple weeks. If complaining from afar is the only way you think things will change, that's pretty sad.
I have an idea, why don't you do an article to try and convince us sprawl folk why we should move to a denser built environment instead of where we are living now. Give me reasons why I should be interested in living how you suggest instead of criticizing the way I live.
I have. If you read one of my stories some day you will see that.
I think the focus on disbanding sprawl should be on making the city more appealing to the type of person who gravitates toward the outter ring burbs.
Honestly, I patronize these areas in part because of where my job is situated but mostly because they offer things I cannot find in the city. For instance, I went to the mall to buy clothes the other day. There is NO WHERE in the city for a guy to buy clothes. Urban Threads doesn't really have much variety, otherwise I'm stuck wearing "I Heart Buffalo" T-shirts. You can talk shit about big box stores but they do offer more product at a better price. Thankfully we are seeing things like ACE hardware on Summer open up to compete with Home Depot however their prices are high in comparison.
I think Panera coming to Elmwood will help in this regard. Not that you can't find similar goods in the city already but brand recognition is a powerful tool. It's these types of conveniences that may sway younger folks to choose the city over the outter burbs. We can't just blame the sprawled out burbs for building things that attracted more people, we need to find a way to compete and steal their population back. Or more importantly, find a way to bring people from outside our region to inhabit the city. Would sprawl be as frustrating if the city had a larger population and we weren't all fighting for the scraps?
Im not sure how replacing 1 business with another business (the rite aid move) in a first ring suburb is the example of sprawl. They took a crapped out building, replaced it and then I'm sure the old structure will be reused.
Beating up on STEEL doesn't change the fact that sprawl is a serious problem that is conveniently ignored by those that are invested in it and benefit from it. Sprawl is a huge driver of our voracious consumption of energy (especially oil) and the resulting pollution and environmental degradation. This thirst for oil also drives our foreign policy and interventions that have resulted in the death of countless American soldiers. These foreign interventions have also created the climate for terrorism and anti-Americanism.
Sprawl has decimated older areas including cities and small towns. Sprawl destroys finite farmland and natural habitat, a practice that will have long term consequences as population increases and demand for land, food, and energy grows.
Sprawl undermines our society by encouraging the segregation of people, leaving the poor isolated while the wealthy are insulated from the great problem of the inequity that has come to define our nation.
There is no way to quanify the costs I have outlined but to claim sprawl based developement "pays its own way" is either very naive or simply ignores the evidence.
Uh, UB isn't building any new housing though, other than the new super-green dorm they constructed. The new buildings just completed on the corner of Rensch and Sweet Home are completely independent from UB. Just like the ones across from Sweethome High School and the apartments on Chestnut Ridge. None of those are affiliated with UB -- they just advertise as student housing.
I think the problem with UB's housing options lies with the fact that 90% of students spend all day at the Amherst campus. And that's not their fault. That's where their classes are. Therefore, they want to stay in Amherst. When demand for housing near North Campus arises, so does the supply.
I am a UB student, and all my classes are on the South Campus, so I've migrated my apartment to North Buffalo off of Hertel. It's close enough to bike to, and only a 8 minute drive if necessary. I try to show all my out-of-town friends the area to help them realize there is more to Buffalo than just Amherst and University Heights (because no joke, that's all some students experience of Buffalo in their entire 4 years of udnergrad. Amherst, the heights, and MAYBE Chippewa).
But I digress. I'm not surprised at the growing Amherst sprawl, but UB HAS been doing a lot, especially for downtown. Once they move the medical school, that'll be what, a couple thousand students, faculty, and staff being downtown EVERYDAY. I'm definitely expecting some more downtown housing developments from that. It's not fair to blame them for doing what any University does... Besides, the city locations (downtown and South campus) are not big enough, to really hold the volume.
your final statement is based on what? This idea that there is not enough room in the city for a university is silly.
There's more than enough room in the city for a major university. However, some buildings that were built before 1929 would probably have to come down in the process. Hmmmm ....
I'd like to see where you would plan enough academic and administrative buildings on the already existing South Campus to hold 20,000+ students and faculty each day. There are barely enough parking spaces for crying out loud.
Admittedly, I don't know TOO much about the downtown layout to know whether or not there is enough room, but from what I've seen, I really don't know. You would have to construct almost a whole new campus somewhere. I don't mean this to sound insulting, but have either of you actually attended UB? The sheer volume of people each day would definitely be great for the city, but without spending millions demolishing what already exists, there is literally not enough room, at least at the South or Downtown campuses.
I'm not a huge fan of UB being primarily in Amherst, either. Though, UB has invested so much into its North Campus (even now) that I doubt we would ever see the day. They just built a brand new dorm, and a brand new state of the art Computer Science and Engineering building last year. Better just face it...
nonsense. plenty of land east of main street. or is that not 'in the city?'
I think people missed the part of my message where I literally, and I quote, said: "there is literally not enough room, at least at the South or Downtown campuses." Never really said there was no room anywhere in the city, just that there was no room where the two city campuses are currently located.
Maybe read before you try being sassy or clever =/
Funny how quickly some come to defend the sprawl based developement and then criticize STEEL for being too aggressive in his stance. I have not seen such a call to civility and politeness to those that criticize the city on a regular basis. Heaven forbid we might hurt the tender feelings of the residents of Clarence or East Amherst by questioning the impact their lifestyle has on our environment and society.
Of course the city is fair game, call it a ghetto, a pit, a slum, or any other of the many derogatory names that are frequently used here on BRO and in other media. Make snide comments about our schools and neighborhoods, I can't count the number of time my neighborhood has been called "Crack Rock" by ignorant and rude people on this site. There is a blatant double standard here, it is acceptable to attack the city in the most hostile and unconstructive manner but the suburbs are off limits to any criticism.
I think you are painting commenters with too broad a brush. There are plenty of judgement calls and negative comments made both ways. The tone of this article alone "we are abused by it", "crappy is the way it's supposed to be" etc are judgement calls made in the negative.
In terms of the comments, it goes both way. Plenty of comments calling the city a ghetto or a dump, but just as many calling all suburbs soulless or uppity. I think many people no neither is uniformly one way or the other but get caught in a black and white mindset. It goes both ways, personally I try to avoid emotional appeals and foul language like that because I feel it lessens an argument. I see plenty of straw man and ad hominem attacks made by both sides, and no matter what the position these often get called out. Is this a double standard?
Also I've seen the Crack Rock etc comments made towards you. Honestly they usually seem to be made by the same few "trolls" looking to get a rise out of you and others. If I were you, I'd try not to take it personally, it just gives them what they want.
You are making a false equivalancy in claiming the comments "go both ways". The negative comments towards the city are always cruder, ruder, and usually uninformed. I would argue comments critical of the city are 10 to 1 as compared to comments about the suburbs, (this site is one of the only places the suburbs are criticized). Also the tone is far different, calling a place "souless" or "uppity" is a far cry from calling a place "ghetto", "dump', "pit", "slum", "Crack
Rock" or the like.
This isn't something new, I have defended my neighborhood from such nonsense for 40 years. There is a clear disdain for the city and an attitude of superiority from many suburbanites, I have experienced this first hand and it is not just a few bad apples but very common.
Hearing you and STEEL talk is like watching one hypocrite co-sign another hypocrites bs.
Hypocrite? you must have found out I really live in Spaulding Lake but keep my house in Black Rock for street cred.
Plus this is not even a city suburb issue. It is a way we do things issue.
BRL> There's more than enough room in the city for a major university. However, some buildings that were built before 1929 would probably have to come down in the process. Hmmmm ....
I think it's because the horse had been dead and beaten into a pulp for a long time.
I agree with a lot of what steel writes, but it's often in a smug, dramatic and sanctimonious manner.
The articles pass judgment on sprawl, a phenomenon that started in the 1910s, completely by today's standards, offering no historic context. The articles don't seem to recognize all of the many forces behind sprawl, or why people might choose to live in the suburbs, except the one which is used to elicit a sense of guilt in the target of his scorn; wanting to live far form those who are different than you. The many, MANY other factors that contributed to the built environment beyond the city limits, and the many reasons people chose to leave their former homes in the city, are all but ignored. It comes down to white flight, end of story.
Even new urbanists recognize there is a place for lower-density housing in the rural-to-urban transect. Yes, much of that housing today is in single-use subdivisions where residents are dependent on motor vehicles; it's the right thing in what's so often the wrong place. However, reading steel's articles, I get the impression that he sees no place for lower-density development. It's west-of-Main Buffalo-style urbanism or nothing; a transect that skips T-2 and T-3, if one is familiar with the SmartCode.
I have never intoned anything of the sort and AGAIN - Its not about the location of the place but how place is made. And if you want to live in Clarence and drive everywhere don't ask the people of Buffalo to give up their parks for your car. If that is sanctimonious then guilty as charged.
I know it is the easy argument to blame the city and its scary people for sprawl but sprawl has nothing to do with crime of good schools.
Here's a little advice. If you're trying to get a message across and a good majority of your readers think your smug, dramatic and write in a sanctimonious manner....you probably do. So lets try this, how about coming at people from a less smug and elitist point of view and maybe, just maybe people will actually listen to what you say, instead of just writing you off as an individual. Also, to Dan's point, I remember reading an article on Sprawl which said that the earliest forms of modern Sprawl started in Detroit around 1910, so Dan's def right. Sprawl didn't just start out of nowhere in the 50's and 60's.
Up and Coming: from 1915
That link from Dan is interesting.
It shows two newspaper ads from 1915 for suburban developments, the top one near Kenmore at NF Blvd, and the other "just beyond the village of Williamsville on Main Street".
The latter sounds like it's near Main & Youngs around where ECC's North campus eventually was built. So that area was being populated way back in 1915, almost 100 years ago.
Dan, do you happen to know when-abouts the area around Colvin between Kenmore & Sheridan became populated?
- the one which this shows has a fair amount of density and is well under 2 miles from Buffalo, and yet a few people say it's a big outrage that a Rite Aid was recently upgraded there…
Dan- I didn't comment on UB, I think you meant to reply to another.
I will comment on the origins of sprawl, at least my experience growing up in the 60's and early 70's here in Black Rock/Riverside. When my father and uncles returned from WWII they wanted to live in the neighborhood where they had roots and their extended family lived. Most of the houses did not qualify for the VA or FHA programs so my uncles moved out to Amherst, Grand Island, Kenmore, West Seneca, etc. My father was able to save enough to purchase a fixer upper in the neighborhood and renovate it. My uncles often returned to the old neighborhood for church, social clubs, fish fry's, and other activities. They never really let go of their connection to the place they grew up and never developed the same connection to their new neighborhoods.
In 1957 the 190 was constructed through Black Rock and Riverside forever severing the neighborhoods historic connection to the waterfront. Many people were displaced from the area and others left due to the noise and pollution of the highway. Contrary to some revisionist history there was a grass roots effort to stop the Thruway from ruining our waterfront. I have pictures of the protesters during their last ditch effort to stop what amounted to little more than a shortcut for suburban commuters.
The 1960's was still a fairly stable period, the neighborhood was mainly owner occupied with many families that had lived there for generations. Integration was the next big factor, originally the plan was to integrate county wide but suburban towns immediately mobilized in opposition. Ironically my uncle in Amherst was a leader in this effort, he claimed he paid taxes to keep his schools white. Buffalo would go it alone on integration, I personally experienced that period and have mixed memories of that time. I can say without a doubt white flight was THE driving force in suburbanization during the late 60's and early 70's. I clearly remember the conversations at family get togethers, integration was a hot topic of much debate.
I agree there are many factors driving sprawl but there seems to be an effort to sanitize the history and minimize the negative aspects. The roots of sprawl most certainly have and continue to be fueled by racism and classism. The other factors are less clear and open to debate IMO.
Funny I remember a bust going on a few doors from you with quite a few cops both uniformed and under cover and possibly some agents. This was just a week or two ago. And you wonder why people call it crack rock? You dont see things like that where I live.
"You don't see things like that where I live". So you think drug abuse and dealing is not a problem where you live? You must be incredibly naive or you just aren't looking. The customers coming to Black Rock might very well be from your neighborhood, as I have noted before almost all the users seeking drugs in Black Rock come from other areas. They pull up in late model cars (possibly daddy's) and meet their connection, then they drive back to their "better" neighborhood be it in the suburbs or other parts of the city.
Also the people arrested do not have roots in Black Rock, they moved in recently to a problem property owned by an absentee landlord. They were busted because neighbors on this block care and don't put up with that nonsense.
Finally you often speak of escaping to the country, good luck with that. I have a camp down in Franklinville, 13 acres with a cabin. I know a lot of people down there, guess what, there are drugs, heavy alcohol use, welfare dependency, teen pregnancy, and all the other problems that plaque our city.
"Also I've seen the Crack Rock etc comments made towards you. Honestly they usually seem to be made by the same few "trolls" looking to get a rise out of you and others."
.....that's me!
Actually your comments provide an opportunity for me to thoroughly discredit the simplistic, uninformed, and narrow view that you and some others cling to. It is a pleasure to challenge your nonsense with facts and real life experience. Your negativity is actually an asset to me in this regard.
Nice spin job Fox News, but the reality of it remains the same. My comments may be "negative" in your words, towards your beloved Black Rock, but I can tell you this. When I have family and friends and even other Black Rock residents on this blog who stack up behind me and my point of view, while you and you're point of view are left flapping in the breeze. It makes my comments more realistic and makes yours comments very simplistic, uninformed, and narrow minded. If I say Voelkers smells like a butthole, it's not because I hate Black Rock, it's because Voelkers smells like a butthole. If you take offense to that, I don't know what to tell you. I have a place down from me that smells like a butthole (not to the degree of Voelkers). If you came on here and said "X" establishment smells like a butthole, I'd probably say, "yeah you're right, it smells like a butthole." I wouldn't jump up on my soapbox and start giving a history lesson making myself look self-righteous. I could care less what anyone on here says about the City or the suburbs, as long as it passes the BS test. And unfortunately for you and your other cronies, most of the time you're logic doesn't pass the BS list. I even heard you say something about reparations once (really, reparations?). Which totally discredits you and your opinion. If you love the place you live in cool, but come to the realization that not everybody else does.
You claim "Other Black Rock residents on this blog who stack up behind me and my point of view, while you and your point of view are left flapping in the breeze" Do you mean like our last debate when you consistently earned double digit downvotes while I maintained double digit upvotes?
http://www.buffalorising.com/2012/07/the-garden-black-rock.html
That's because I was being an ass, so that really doesnt count.....but, Voelkers does smell like urine though.
WASNT MOST OF THE BLACK ROCK housing built, as temporary shelters??, most without basements..on stone pillars..(Iknow..I owned a few in this neighborhood) as temporary housing for the "muleskinners" and their families that toiled on the Erie/Black Rock Canal?...much of which still stand today...and are utilized as permanent homes....just as many houses that were re-built off Amherst st past Grant st, once stood in the village of the PAN AMERICAN EXPOSITION??
Joey- That's a myth, the housing was not temporary, it was more about demand. The neighborhood grew rapidly after the completion of the Erie Canal and later the railroads. Jobs were plentiful and housing was built quickly to meet the influx of new residents. Some of that housing was "economy grade" as you noted. These were constructed on stone piers and modest in size and design. Still, if properly maintained these structures continue to be a decent and very inexpensive option for those with less means. My friend lives in a circa 1851 cottage that is one and a half story with no basement. He has upgraded the house nicely and is quite content and comfortable there. My own house is circa 1830, with full basement, the house has endured for over 180 years and is as nice as any in the city.
The Pan Am footprint did not extend to Grant St, the Grant-Amherst neighborhood was already built out by 1901. The Pan Am area began at Elmwood and Amherst, the homes built on Chatham, Fordham, and the other streets in that area were constructed on the Pan Am site.
Joanie Mahoney, Onondaga County Executive (and Republican), just came out against sprawl:
http://therochesterian.com/2012/07/27/are-we-ready-to-talk-sprawl/
What would the reaction be to a politician in western New York advocating the same?
I for one cannot wait until I find a house with ten + acres away from the city to get away from people and have some privacy and be able to build or do virtually what I want on my property. And I will happily drive my thirsty truck into the city to work and then retreat to a peaceful serene homestead.
The reason why UB built the Amherst Campus is because they needed the tremendous amount of space to grow at that time. Whether or not it was a planning blunder is a matter of opinion. You also need to keep in mind that Buffalo was a much different city back in the late 60s. It was much more conservative and not a very tolerant place. Because of all the student radicals, the relations between UB and the city were not that great. There wasn't the room to develop a high quality university campus in the city and the waterfront was still largely industrial. Nobody envisioned the rapid loss of industry back in the 60s. Plus the racial violence ripping apart the city's east side in 1967 only made Buffalo a more frightening and unattractive place to invest. Endless political corruption under the Sedita Administration only made matters worse for the city. Putting UB on the east side would have been a much worse mistake than building it in Amherst because of the urban decay, racial violence and high crime rates in that area. UB really had no viable choice but to move to Amherst otherwise it would have remained a mediocre state school if it remained in the city. Buffalo was in serious turmoil in the 1960s. It was also a rundown, backward, dirty industrial city that was resistant to any type of change which made it unattractive for a new university campus. It is unfortunate but very true. Most older northern American cities were going through the same serious decline and racial tensions that Buffalo suffered from in that decade. The cities that saw university campuses built in or near their downtown cores still declined and deteriorated and the university campuses just like the office and hotel towers and shopping malls built during the urban renewal era all became enclosed fortresses surrounded by urban decay and abandonment. Putting UB downtown would have not made that much of a difference back then because downtown areas were considered decrepit relics from another era that were too dangerous and dirty. If you really want to blame someone, blame the US Government for encouraging the abandonment of inner city areas and rapid suburban growth. Furthermore, why does everything have to be crammed into downtown in the first place? not everyone likes downtown areas so we have to accomodate other peoples desires and issues. We ned to get over the fact that UB is in Amherst and stop calling it a mistake and accept it as the right decision. What is, is.
Ancient hiotory and who cares about blame. I am concerned about now. Lets change how we do things now. Just because you made a wrong turn 30 years ago does not mean you have to continue in the same direction until you drive yourself over a cliff.
Has anyone been to Pittsburgh? If you have not been you should. They have 2 large universities in one place directly adjacent to tehir down town. Guess what? they fit and they make the neighborhood extremely vibrant and attractive. Buffalo cannot afford to miss the reirbanism train.
I see where you are going with the Pittsburgh comparison but, Oakland is NOT directly adjacent to Downtown. It's not something anyone would want to walk and the Pitt or CMU campuses are not integrated with Downtown even remotely. Oakland is it's own area essentially, separated from Downtown by the Hill. Just trying to clarify, not disagreeing with you. UB being downtown would be great (now that is, not sure about how it would have all gone down 45 years ago) and the North Campus blows and is a pretty terrible environment.
> Ancient hiotory and who cares about blame
The "ancient history" explains to a great extent the current state of the region's built environment. Nobody goes "ancient history, pshaw!" when we talk about Ellicott, Olmsted, and so on, nor should we say the same thing when it comes to what we now see as blunders.
There are, by the standards of the time in which they were conceived, very good reasons why UB was built in Amherst, the Kensington Expressway was built, and lots in Buffalo's suburbs that were platted after 1920 were usually much larger than city lots.
Likewise, there were also a lot of blunders from before WWII. Railroads divided this city to a far greater extent than expressways, and they damaged Buffalo's nascent urban fabric far more than peer cities of the time, but they get a pass. Buffalo has *extremely* long blocks compared to most cities, some a half mile long, hurting interconnectivity within neighborhoods. Waterfront industrialization. Bethlehem Steel instead of the park that was long planned for the site. A housing stock that is predominantly frame, rather than more durable brick, as many cities required. Tens of creeks throughout the city, almost all buried and repurposed as storm sewers. All get a pass, because they come from a "more enlightened" past.
I don't see what the point would be in rehashing the history of sprawl everytime I oint out what a crappy job we are doing with our contemproary built environment. Its been done. Lets start building better and smarter. Sprawl makes no sense especioally in Buffalo with a shrinking population.
fine post but in need of a little context.
it was not a uniquely dysfunctional thing for buffalo to use its waterfront for industry instead of leisure. waterfronts everywhere were places of work, not play. urban economies depended on them. manhattan's waterfront was dominated by hundreds of piers right up into the 1970s.
the effect of railroads can't be reduced to simple divisiveness. because passengers could ride the belt line without having to make a big capital outlay for a private vehicle, it knitted people and jobs together. another factor that we forget about railroads is that in the mid-20th century, the railroads were buffalo's largest employers and taxpayers. when we threw railroads away for highways, we traded a big private revenue stream for a big public expense.
so st. james street is unusually long. union place is really short. neither street is representative.
Grad:
Industry along the waterfront: like Chicago's North and South shores? Much of Cleveland's lakefront? Milwaukee? Brooklyn along the Atlantic Ocean? Toronto? All preserved large sections of their waterfront for parks and public use. In Buffalo, the only respite from harbors and industry along its many miles of shoreline was little Riverside Park; Maybe Delaware Park if you count Scajaquada Creek as "shoreline". No North American city had a waterfront that was as completely and heavily industrialized as Buffalo, except maybe Gary or the smaller New Jersey-side cities in the NYC area.
Railroads: there was more than just the Belt Line. Ever see a map of the East Side? Buffalo also had THREE belt lines, two in the city limits, with spurs and connecting lines between them. Check out a map of the city from as late as the 1980s and 1980s. From Mark Goldman's City on the Edge:
"Mann was deeply disturbed by the railroads the the impact they had on the landscapes and streetscapes of the city. The Railroads not only penetrated the city, but they determined land use in neighborhoods and on the waterfront. By 1910, railroads owned ... 660 miles of track on which moved more than fifteen hundred railroad cars. More than five thousand acres of land in the city were owned by the railroad companies. The size and sale of the railroad companies' operations was overwhelming, particularly in the heavily industrialized East Side and on the Waterfront. Writing in 1907, Mann angrily stated that "Buffalo had maintained the attitude of a suppliant" towards the railroads, turning over to them far too much of the places and spaces in the city that belonged, by right, he felt, to the people that lived there.
"We have allowed practically all of our waterfront to be taken over by the steam railroads Scott Street during almost its entire length is a railroad shambles. Prime Street is another dedicated by piracy to the uses of the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western."
Buffalo's blocks: there's short blocks in the city, but on average, Buffalo's blocks tend to be on the very long side; much longer than the 660' range as seen in many American cities, which many planners today consider ideal. It's not just St. James Place and Lafayette. Been to South Buffalo, Kaisertown, much of the East Side, Riverside or Black Rock lately?
And, like I said, the blunders of the past get a pass. They're explained away, as you did, yet the "sprawl" and highways of more recent times get no historical perspective except "OMG WHITE FLIGHT".
I will reply to you one more time to make it clear since so many find it so hard to see the difference. This story is about how we build now in the city and the suburbs. It is not about city versus suburbs. it is not a history lesson. You are certainly welcome to submit a history of sprawl to BRO if interested. Crappy environments from the past are no excuse for what we do now. That said, comparing today's crap scape to the streetcar sprawl-scape of the 1920s is ridiculous.
We build crappy environments today and most people take for granted that crappy is the only way we can build. A large part of our society knows nothing other than sprawl. That is sad. No one is praising mistakes of the past. Stop making your argument based on stuff you say and then ascribe to others who never said anything of the sort. What is at the heart of your comments. That we should not point out the failures of today's way of building? Can I get a pro sprawl post from you. None of the other pro sprawl people will do it.
Steel, you're an architect. Criticism of others' works is an inherent part of your training. I'm a planner. My work is to find solutions to problems. Realistic solutions that consider most people aren't idealists; that they don't necessarily want to move to a worker's cottage in Black Rock, and that they're not bad people if they don't find such a lifestyle appealing.
Architects look at individual buildings. Planners look at the context of those buildings, the built environment as a whole, and how it was shaped.
My day-to-day job involves curbing sprawl in the community where I work. To fight sprawl, you have to understand its roots; the many technological, environmental, social and economic forces that drove it. You have to understand the political and social reality that makes change such a challenge, especially in a region as conservative (not necessarily politically or socially, but when it comes to new ideas) and insular as Upstate New York. You have to understand that not everybody is an idealist, and not everybody is an urbanist. You have to promote alternatives to sprawl not by criticizing or threatening the choices so many have made, but by convincing them of the advantages of those alternatives. You have to understand the many barriers to overcoming sprawl, from New York's environmental and stormwater regulations, to public works and fire departments that fight street diets, to developers and elected officials that are unaware of the innovation happening outside of the region. You have to understand that you can't undo seventy years of single-use, auto-dependent development overnight. You have to understand that just like we still live with the bad decisions that were made 120 or 130 years ago, our great great grandchildren will likely be dealing with the mistakes of the present.
Few are praising the mistakes of the past, but few mention them, either. When they do, they're willing to give them a kind of historical justification that they're unwilling to do for the errors present, beyond a simple "white flight" soundbite. My issue is that we only seem to point out the mistakes that have been made after WWII, when in reality, the blunders have been building up for well over a century.
Dan "Most people are not idealists; that they don't necessarily want to move to a workers cottage in Black Rock".
I get your point but you are missing the bigger picture. First I will point out that Black Rock has more than just "workers cottages', here in the oldest section we have large victorians on steets like Dearborn St and East St. My home is 2400 sq ft, my neighbors is 4000 Sq ft, there are many home here that are as nice as any in the city. There are also many unique commercial buildings that span more than a century of styles, these buildings are ripe to repurposed.
The larger issue is entitlement, it is elitist to assume everyone should have a large house with all the latest amenities. In a city that is the 3rd poorest in the nation that is just plain unrealistic. In a country where the disparity in wealth has reached a point where 50% of Americans now share just 1.1% of our nations wealth there is a great need for more modest housing. Contrary to the many peoples perceptions those "workers cottages" provided a decent home to generations, if properly maintained and updated those homes could continue in that role. I know many families that lived quite happily in the cottages, they are very inexpensive to heat and to maintain. It would make much more sense to reinvest in this type of housing rather than continuing to sprawl outward, building more homes that half of Americans will never be able to afford.
The problem is values, or lack of, we have a society that expects it all and expects it now. Materialism is the religon of today, bigger, better, etc. Problem is our environment can't support the lifestyle so many feel is owed to them. If all Americans were able to afford a sprawl type lifestyle our natural resources would be taxed to the limmit. It's naive to think we can all have a 3000 sq ft house on an acre lot in the suburbs, the economics are just not there for 50+% of Americans. We need to support the effort to decently house that majority and gear our public policy towards that goal.
Dan- Actually the older village part of Black Rock (near the river)has short blocks, the streets running east west are about 660' and the blocks running north south are under 200'. This is the village that was surveyed in 1830 and is a good size portion of the neighborhood. Grant-Amherst and Riverside have the longer blocks you refer to, these areas did not see large scale developement until about 1890-1900.
Should have been east-west blocks are under 200' and north-south blocks at about 660'.
Whatever> Dan, do you happen to know when-abouts the area around Colvin between Kenmore & Sheridan became populated?
Most of the streets in Tonawanda were platted, and most of the land was subdivided, before the Depression. Subdivision was largely speculative, and many of those new streets sat empty for 25 to 40 years, until demand resumed after WWII.
The Colvin/Deerhurst Park area was subdivided in the late 1910s and early 1920s. Developers of the era anticipated that Tonawanda was going to be what Australians call an "aspirational suburb", much like how North Buffalo was viewed. Drive down some streets in Tonawanda today, and you'll occasionally come across very large pre-1929 house on a block that is otherwise filled with smaller houses. Here's one example north of Sheridan: http://goo.gl/maps/zBftV. Sheridan Drive was intended to be a grand residential boulevard; there's still a few 1920s-era mansions along it.
Ok, thanks. So "after WWII" would mean that area became mostly populated in the 1950s.
And now after five decades of being populated and under 2 miles from Buffalo, this post's grab bag tells us it now having an improved drug store is "wasteful".
No zealotry in that attitude - lol / eye roll ...
Let's talk about the eaight lanes of traffic infront of the 2 living and dead Rite Aids then.
Having 4 lanes in each direction, as do some parts of Sheridan but nowhere near all of it, isn't necessarily good or bad. It depends on the volume of people who choose to drive on any part of it. The number of lanes should be proportionate to amounts of traffic, amounts of turning, and so on.
Nobody is ever truly forced to drive on it. It's always based on a want, not a need. As a city resident, when I want to drive on Sheridan or Transit, etc, it doesn't bother me at all how many lanes they have.
And yes I do feel I'm _already_ paying my fair share for its lanes and maintenance, especially considering NY state has the highest gasoline taxes of any state in the U.S. as well as high annual NYS fees for car registration, plus NYS extra taxes on car insurance, car renting, etc.
By the way, regarding the "dead" Rite Aid - according to scarman's comment way up at the top of this thread under MikeN's first comment, it's already on its way of being brought back to life:
scarman>"Also, the "vacant" Rite Aid is under renovation and Dollar Tree will be opening in that location in October."
steel, is that 'woot' intended to mock a business for offering household products at pricing affordable to customers who are of lower income, or unemployed, or working families on very tight budgets?
If so, nice snobbery. Are Dollar General on Hertel and Family Dollar on Grant also 'woots'?
Yep Buffalo really needs more Dollar Trees. Nice to see you are standing up for the poor by the way. Typically you point to them as the problem with the city.
That's a total lie from you Steel -
steel>"Typically you point to them as the problem with the city."
I have *never* said that or anything close, never mind "typically" as your lying claim says.
You won't be able to cite even one quote of me ever saying that.
Interesting how instead of continuing a debate with other facts or just agreeing to disagree, you resort to mocking low price stores that are affordable to lower income people, and then when called on that you invent a lie about someone.
If you were really concerned about the poor you would be in favor of pedestrian compact development instead of the car dependent form that you so vehemently promote. That last thing poor people need is to be strapped to the cost of a car. Maybe if they didn't need to have a car the poor would not need to shop in crappy dollar stores.
lol, you won't even own up to your lie, just more spin that your opinion is the one-and-only correct viewpoint.
Again, this is a total lie, and you are a liar.
steel>"Typically you point to them as the problem with the city."
If it was just an honest mistake (which we all make sometimes), or if you mixed me up with someone else who comments on here, then you could've just said 'sorry' after I called it to your attention.
But you didn't. Liar.
Successes and failures by COB in regards to colleges in the city:
Pass - UB SOUTH - They rebuilt Main St. Built an island in the middle. It took forever and nearly put places along the way out of business, but they got it done.
Fail - They stopped the construction at Humboldt. Leaving the six lane highway full of dips, cracks, and potholes to run the length of Canisius' campus. Out of town and out of state families sure loved dodging cars and trucks on that during their tours!
Pass - Rebuilding Porter Ave through D'Youville. Bike lanes. Slower traffic (slow signals...). Made the campus look beautiful.
Fail - Buff State. If the COB was serious about that neighborhood and the growth of that college, how in hell have they let the Richardson complex rot for this long? How is that plot of land not as desirable as the Webster block? And Grant St? Hello. I've seen better paved streets in El Salvador and India, yet you want to attract out of towners? Don't let them drive out the back way!
The point is - let UB keep Amherst. The city would pull out the red carpet if (they wont and shouldnt) they announced some grand plan to move things back over time, but history has shown that the COB takes its college campuses for granted and is incapable of giving them any support.
In regards to the 198. One, tiny, cheap change that could be made now:
Get rid of the Elmwood North Exit on 198 W. You can easily take the second exit, wrap around, and instead of only being able to merge south, why not use the existing traffic light to turn left?
By eliminating the Elmwood North exit, you would knock down a rusty bridge that destroys part of Hoyt Lake. The view of Scajaquada Creek flowing out of the lake would be saved (partially).
It would take an existing scene that is 100% ugly and make it 85% ugly. It's a start.
This is really a great idea. Bury it with cheap fill, tear down the bridge, plant trees and shrubs on it and let it return to nature as part of the Scajaquada Creek trail.
There's simply no need for the Elmwood North exit when you've already got a controlled intersection at Elmwood & Nottingham.
Looking at it like that, I wonder why they ever did it that way in the first place. That extra bridge can't have been cheap.
Sprawl should be replaced by old hay barns next to a babbling brook.
Leave a comment
Sponsor
Recent Comments
Sponsor
Interested in advertising on BuffaloRising?
E-mail John C. Powell
or call John at 716.602.0200





1) a. It is Colvin and Sheridan b. However, the current RX was an Oil Change Place. c. The gas station has been there as long as I can remember and I'm 30ish. d. The former RX was very small - def not equal sizes. That being said this is an established neighborhood not really new sprawl.
UB on the other hand.
It is a shame that they are building all this on campus housing which will further discharge into Tonawanda Creek I am sure- see today's competing daily news source. This is new sprawl and definitely is frustrating to see. However, more shameful may be the greasing of the wheels for Fracking (future re pollution of the waterfront we are trying to establish) See alternative offbeat competing news outlet.
At minimum I would like to see the 190 that runs through the old Canal branded somehow as Erie Canal Way and connect via River Road to the Tonawanda canal and river areas. It already does, I am speaking to branding aka signage etc, maybe a yearly huge parade route, month long regional canal heritage festivals ie. Harbor then Canalfest then Lockport.
I'd also like to see it downgraded into a parkway along with the 198 especially in that section along the water and get rid of these enormous on off ramps at the 198 and the skyway that chew up enormous pieces of land.
Also, the "vacant" Rite Aid is under renovation and Dollar Tree will be opening in that location in October.