Make no little plans...

A very basic thought, thats what makes it genius. Im on board 100%

"The attached sketch reflects the most "timid" of bold moves..."
I agree with that. Traffic circles and inlets for pleasure boats are not new or "big picture" ideas.

I have mixed feelings about public forums like this one. They're good for gauging public opinion but they rarely produce any new ideas that haven't already been kicking around urban planning and architecture offices for years.

Is there video or audio of the event available online?

davvid, give us some help with a "big picture" idea.

i dunno, we've come to serious environmental harm from massively re-engineering our waterways.

p.s. so, what -was- the elephant in the room? did anyone other than roger speak up?

I never thought about it before, but I like the idea of expanding our navigable waterways. Given all the pleasure boats docked downtown (many of which cost more than our house), I'll bet the absorption rate of condos and detached homes featuring private docks downtown would be pretty high. I once lived in Boca. Lots of inlets and canals off the Intercoastal Waterway were the priciest real estate. A canal district could be a big draw.

Armchair planning is bad enough, but armchair hydrology? Oy.

One problem with the Buffalo River is that its flow rate is very low. Dredging to increase the river's depth has only exacerbated problems, slowing its current and resulting in stagnant, oxygen poor waters. The Buffalo River's ability to flush pollutants and clean itself was lost. Many basins and slips have been filled in through the years because they required constant dredging to remove silt, and lacked any kind of outflow that would prevent stagnation.

Increase the volume of the Buffalo River with more channels, cuts, basins and slips, and you're only making the river's problems with current and refresh rate worse.

I agree that big thought should rule her and, to that end, I'd like to see an international group of urban planners take this project on and then tell us "armchairs" what should be done.

I like Roger's big picture thinking, and have looked at this concept especially in regards to extending the City Ship Canal (which originally connected all the way to what is now the Tifft preserve). At the forum, Roger mentioned extending it through to the Buffalo River (as he's illustrated here), but I think it could also be possible to re-link it with the waterways at Tifft it originally connected to.

But with a difference: although Roger has in mind new water connections that would accommodate power boats and even new landside development -- and some of that may be possible -- from my perspective we can think just as big by paradoxically thinking smaller. I'm thinking that smaller, narrower, shallower channels that accommodate canoes and kayaks as well as establish more wateredge habitat would be great options to consider for Buffalo River and Outer Harbor planning. These new channels could also include new trail connections alongside.

This would have the advantage of re-establishing habitat in an area where much water-edge habitat (the most productive kind for a variety of species and also species movement) was lost in the industrial era. It would also create an extensive, interconnected recreational network for both landside and waterborne human-powered recreation. The more extensive the network, the more new things there are to discover each time, and an increased variety of ways to get places -- all vastly increasing the use and attractiveness of the network. Developing such a network would increase the quality of life & reinvestment in existing nearby neighborhoods and the value of nearby, development-appropriate land.

These lower-impact channels could be established much more easily and quickly than boating channels, as they would require less extensive disruption of existing infrastructure & hydrology. For example, the Ganson Street channel -- an idea I love -- could be established as a canoe-kayak channel with box culverts under the street and railroad tracks. I think similar connections could also eventually be developed, using similar techniques, between the City Ship Canal and the Outer Harbor -- say in the vicinity of the old Ford plant/NFTA Terminal A or the Bell Slip. The underpasses under the elevated highway are wide enough that they might be able to accommodate a narrow, shallow channel.

All this would create a rich network of routes and channels (and additional wateredge habitat) linking various amenities and attractions in the areas of the Old First Ward, Ohio Street, Buffalo River, and the Outer Harbor -- yet with a relatively small amount of investment. A smart way to utilize our existing resources. It would be great for locals to enjoy & explore and would also be a destination for visitors to spend a day (and leave some of their money behind).

The Ohio street triangle would be an excellent location for a football stadium. It would be awesome to see what they could go with the river. Some kind of development that would bring the stadium and first niagara center closer together and on the same page.

All this talk about Copenhagen is going to make me run out for a pint of Häagen-Dazs.
.
(YES I know it's not really Danish)

Burnham's quote is the most overused, dreamy planner speak ever and least appropriate in a region and city with 60+ years of population and economic decline. It's been used as a license by planners and policy makers to dream and Unfortunately, the big plans have failed this region over and over and over again because they've failed to adequately recognize decline. The light rail remains and unquestioned failure and is the classic example of allowing big plans to be pushed despite economic realities.

The disgusting irony and hypocrisy is that Queenseyes and others on this board rounded lauded the ECHDC's lighter, faster, cheaper approach because the end result met their anti-Bass Pro stance but now they're back to bloated dreamy plans when it meets their pet projects and needs in the absence of sound economic reality.

RE: dream small, we're a shrinking population center . . .

Even though our regional population shrinks mildly, pockets within the region experience growth. Elmwood Village has been referenced as such an area, certainly Clarence and Lancaster fit the bill of growing areas, despite the absence of regional growth.

Just because the region as a whole isn't growing doesn't mean that the City of Buffalo can't develop something which might attract population, even if only from within the region.

Downtown is still lightly populated, but compared with a decade or so ago things are looking up. There is an attraction to urban cores nationally, and here, too. Combine proximity to downtown with access to the water and you have a niche in the marketplace that could well appeal to a wide swath of home buyers.

Our waterfront no longer serves the industry which built it. This is a good time to re-imagine what our waterfronts should be in the future, and perhaps it's a fortuitous moment as downtown is more popular today for entertainment and residency than it has been in forty years.

I take what Dan above says seriously about the flow of water being a problem here. Maybe a project like this is untenable. I don't know how places like Venice and Amsterdam deal with the flow of water in their canals, but they manage; perhaps there is a practicable way here.

If there were new residential developments featuring private docks in nice homes or condos very close to downtown, that would be a marketplace winner, imo. It's a unique niche that suburbs can't match.

What about that Plantagon project Does that qualify as a big idea and whatever happened to that ? I thought they were trying to build that next to one of the silos

As an avid kayaker i love the idea of making a loop, or loops. Dreaming Big I'd love a water connection to the Outer Harbor so you could paddle down the River and make it to Dugs Dive and that area, getting there now can be a little rough on the lake, so utilizing the Harbor features of the River would make it more enjoyable.

count me as another person who sees red flags whenever someone starts spouting burnham. burnham has been used to justify the most destructive things ever done to cities.

as usual, jane jacobs is the far wiser thinker. consider just this quote on 'cataclysmic money.'

http://cityoflakesurbanism.blogspot.com/2009/04/wisdom-from-ancients-jacobs-on.html

IMO we ought to keep in mind that one of the goals of the planning and subsequent infrastructure development along Ohio Street should be to encourage the right kind of private development. If we keep generating ideas that require an ever increasing commitment of public dollars without tangible returns they may remain just that: ideas.

I don't know if it was mentioned at the meeting but one would have to think that the Erie Freight House site was another elephant in the room. I thought of it as soon as I saw the picture with this post. It looks like a hint about that issue from Queenseyes. OK I will take the bait.

Nice picture but the building proposed by Savarino/FFZ looks much better than that.

Is the Savarino/FFZ plan the type of private development we should be encouraging or not? Is it better to work with this developer to try and make their development work for them, to provide property tax revenue to the City and to work in context of the larger plan for the district that is developing? Can elements of the remains of the EFH be incoporated in the design? For me the answer is yes.

One of the nice things about the Savarino/FFZ plan is that it's footprint is rather small. Parking is pushed underneath the structure. It looks like it leaves the property between the residence building and Ohio Street available for park land or green area. It also provides public access to the water where none currently exists and, for a private development, would connect well with the DEC park next door to provide a large area of public water access. The recent ideas floated by Savarino incoporating remnants of the EFH in his design and the addition of residence units that front to Ohio Street seem to make their plan that much better. I hope that is possible. I for one appreciate the effort.

The "competing" proposal put out by the Group (whoever they are) is for a mixed use development of apartments, restaurant space, meeting/banquet space, rowing club and other public uses. The picture they provided showed people along the edge of the water; however the narrative fell short of guarantying public access to the water along its entire length. Would the restaurant(s), banquet areas and other uses restrict public access? Hard to tell without a plan view and a site plan. I think there is a good reason a site plan was not provided.

The remains of the Erie Freight House take up almost the entire site. Where would people park for this mixed use development? The site has absolutely no room for parking. Would they acquire the parcel between the EFH and Ohio Street? I don't think that is available for purchase. Even if it was do we want that green area to be given over to a large asphalt parking lot taking up a lot of the prime property on the river side of Ohio Street? Wouldn't a retail/mixed use development like this, with its required parking be more appropriate on the other side of Ohio Street with parking pushed to the rear?

Would the Group seek a variance from parking requirements from the City? If so where would people park? There is the DEC park immediatly north of the site and the Rod and Gun Club borders the property on the south. There is a public park directly across on the other side of Ohio Street. That would leave street parking to satisfy parking requirements. I don't think restaurant patrons parking way down Ohio Street would walk a quarter of a mile or more to dine or drink. Ditto for shoppers. It would take a lot of arm twisting to get a varaiance for this and it would create a traffic and parking mess if it was granted. It would probably doom any retail development as well or require it to be highly subsidized.

The Group seems to have taken the position that the Landmark status of the structure makes the Savarino/FFZ plan bad and inappropriate for the site and, given that, the Group's plan is the best way to put an historic structure to good use. I guess they think this trumps all of the other undesirable things it brings with it: acres of asphalt and a lot of taxpayer funding - for a plan that appears speculative at best.

But is that underlying assumption valid?

I am not sure anyone would argue the historicity of the Erie Freight House (or more acurately what was the Erie Freight House). However there are some points within the Landmark nomination that deserve some scrutiny:

The nomination states that the EFH sits "substantially intact" and that its "wood cornice" remains. A look at the building from Ohio Street and Ganson Street would lead one to question this. The second floor has been removed from half of the building by prior renovations. It looks like the center portion has totally collapsed. If any "cornice" remains it is certainly no more than 30%. The structure sits "sunstantially intact"? I don't think so. The pictures I have seen indicate that the floor boards and wood wall/roof cladding are rotted away or deteriorated beyond any hope of reuse. The nomination states that the trusses remain "essentially intact". Once again half of the them appear to have been removed by prior renovations, about 25% of them appear to have collapsed and splintered and most of what remains is severely deteriorated (according to the CJS and Tredo studies commissioned by Savarino/FFZ after the Landmark designation).

The nomination also mentions the importance of preserving the "two story basilica" framing. Once again it looks like half of this has already been removed and some has totally collapsed and slintered. A good portion of the remaining structure has been gutted according to CJS and Tredo. How much "two story basilica" framing remains? Not much it seems. Tredo and CJS also independently concluded that a lot of what does remain is severely deteriorated and not useable.

The nomination cites "bays" along the Buffalo River that have been covered up with siding. None of the pictures that have been published have indicated that these "bays" exist. It leads me to think that whoever wrote the nomination had never been in the structure.

Once again - it is hard to argue the historicity of the EFH; IMO however one could effectively argue against the foundation of the Landmark designation: that there is indeed something worth saving because the "original fabric of the Erie Freight House remains essentially intact."

The reports from the Savarino/FFZ professionals argue against it. The visual evidence argues against it. Even the PBN/Conners assessment of the structure concedes that some extraordinary effort will be required to salvage the structure - or more acurately what remains of the structure.

OK. Time for me to spit the bait.

Let's remember that the US government is ready to provide millions to create the beginning of this gateway. Provided our local pols to screw it up.

A general guideline should be drawn up for this unique area. It's been done before in many cities seeking to shift from their industrial luckily for Buffalo we are pretty late to the party.

We should bring in planners from around the world who have done this before. If anything to discuss the possibilities. Every country has a city that was once a crown jewel, fell on hard times, and has come back. The city shouldn't have to feel like they are figuring it out on their own or that they are the first to deal with these type of problems.

You don't need a picture of Copenhagen to illustrate what can be done in an environment like the Inner Harbor. just look at the redevelopment in Milwaukee along their industrial canal. The key is a dynamic CBD that produces good jobs and a vibrant community of urban dwellers. If Ohio St. is to be the spine along which all these improvements will occur, then it needs transit and other infrastructure. And it needs to be freed from the strangulating influence of preservationist do-gooders who block everything in the name of preserving a lump of rotting wood.

I want Buffalo to be a 24/7 Downtown Core. It can't be that way if we build mini suburbs, economically isolated communities like the waterfront condos and then this copenhagen idea.

I would like to see this area remain industrial.
I would like to see residential radiate from the Central Business District to an industrial complex via mass transit and bike lanes.

Im glad to see this big picture thinking. I think its important to remind ourselves that the development of Ohio St. and any other development in the Buffalo needs to keep the question of "How does this make our city/region more economically competative in a increasingly globalized world?" in mind.

Appropriate Infrastructure is key...What infrasturcture is needed (or available) to attract the private investment to turn Ohio St. in to a dense, dynamic, and diverse area?

More improtatnly, how can we connect this area with the rest of the city to facitlitate easy access. UB is a gem that attracts talent from around the globe. How can we tie Ohio st. to the bigger picture of building catalysts to retain global talent in Buffalo.

Does anyone know what the higher education retention rate is in the area?

Not sure if this was brought up already or if it is stupid idea but...

Were new public schools mentioned as part of these plans? A plan that includes a set of new public schools for this currently non residential area would create a reverse suburban sprawl effect within the city. Unique opportunity! All the folks looking for new builds in a new planned community(usually reserved for the sprawl) could look at going INTO the city. Just putting up a bunch of apartments and cool mixed use buildings with nothing mentioned of where your kids are going to go to school/learn/play. Suburbanites who have boats and love going down to the waterfront/nicer city spots like elmwood village will also love to move closer to these things if there's a "fresh new community with new schools" to move into. I hate the idea of moving to the suburbs and I know I will be struggling/battling my spouse when we have kids on where to raise them with the current Buffalo Public School/lottery based charter school options.

I agree that a master plan for the Buffalo River and Kelly Island needs to be done.

(Lets save the outer harbor for last because its stupid to foist a burden of Route5 and Furhmann Boulevard as 2 different roads once the 2nd bridge gets built. That bridge opens the possibility of combining those 2 roads into a single parkway and would change the scope and purpose entirely!!!)

I still say that the best possible use revolves around a rewatered Ohio Basin & Canal and moving the Convention Center there!
-close to future light rail extension and highway access, easy parking
-will not get obsoleted and landlocked by development as is downtown or as it would at Canalside.
-equidistant from downtown/Canalside and Larkin District
-2 sided configuration for Convention, Conference and Hotel
-waterfront access
-Historical Theme
-could act as an achor for redeveloping this entire area of the Buffalo River.

Lots of positives...plus the movement of the convention center would re-open Gennessee Street, provide an opportunity for another government building to be constructed...

> I still say that the best possible use revolves around a rewatered Ohio Basin & Canal and moving the Convention Center there!

I know rewatering the Ohio Basin is a popular idea among BR posters. However, there's a very good reason it was filled in. It was fed by the already slow-moving Buffalo River, and had no outflow. The basin became heavily polluted, not to mention a collection point for driftwood and floating debris. Because there was no outflow, there was no possible way to flush pollutants and keep the basin's waters reasonably clean, even by the standards of the late 1800s and early 1900s.

The Basin wasn't filled in as part of some misguided urban renewal project inflicted by cruel planners in the 1950s. It was filled in because it was a serious nuisance and public health menace. From a report in 1919, one of many similar cites about the condition of the basin:

[begin]

I beg to submit the following report on the investigation of the sanitary condition of the Ohio basin in the city of Buffalo made by Mr. Henry Ryon, assistant engineer in this Department, on October 7, 1918.

[snip]

The water in the basin at the time of the inspection was almost black. Bubbles of gas were constantly appearing at the surface over its entire area, and, near the northern end, large masses of sludge several feet across frequently rose to the surface. A distinct odor of septic sewage was noticeable 200 or 300 feet from the basin on the day of the inspection, a clear cool day.

[end]

When there's a claim from the early part of the 20th century that a body of water is polluted, you know it's got to be bad.

Considering the money they waste on studies...I would still like to see a modern study about the possible rewatering of the Ohio Basin and Canal.

the potential to put the Convention Center there is to great to ignore a 2nd look.

Points raised by Dan, if mostly accurate (and I think his facts on here usually are), might mean it just wouldn't make sense to expand the river's surface area as Roger envisions.

But even if issues raised by Dan wouldn't preclude it, still it's a huge question where enough $ could come from. The 8 (if I counted right) expansions of water surface shown in Roger's sketch of what he called a "timid" set of changes looks like something that would be very expensive.

I'd doubt if a goal of motivating higher-income residential would result in much (if any) federal $. Maybe back in times of easy earmarks it might have. On the other hand, the 2009 stimulus did fund some - let's say unusual - things, so maybe it wouldn't be impossible that a future stimulus could fund this. But what federal category would this be in? Not transportation, not environmental, and doesn't seem like something HUD would fund, …

In NY state budget, maybe a bit less difficult than federal but still looks like it would be a tough sell. For example, it won't fit the 'billion for Buffalo' stated criteria of creating long term jobs. I don't know if the Power Authority revenue slush fund for Canalside could be used for this. There doesn't seem to be much public transparency about how that money is allocated.

For the county, supposedly finances are so tight already that a tax hike is proposed by our county executive even for current spending. So I wouldn't expect he'd advocate for county $ being used on this.
Maybe the city would want to fund it for reasons similar as it used to decide for spending on a new street in Colvin Estates (growing tax base by attracting residents who'd otherwise choose burbs). Still, how many millions could be realistically diverted from the city's many other capital spending needs?

Dan's information is very persuasive to me. I concede that adding waterways is impractical, at least unless someone proposes a practical mechanism for flushing the marinas or canals (at which point the issue of cost could be examined and evaluated).

But still not answered by that dilemma's resolution is what type of development we should encourage along the Buffalo River.

Although we may not be able to expand our waterways, we nevertheless have substantial water frontage. I'd like residential to be the focus of development along the Buffalo River, as opposed to industrial development.

The river's industrial past has almost completely passed away. It used to be that every industry wanted to be on a waterway--any waterway--in order to dump their pollution into it (see Scajaquada Creek as well as the Buffalo River near, say, Bailey Ave). Now that polluting the water isn't allowed anymore, industrial players no longer care about being on a river or creek. They care about highways, and to a lesser extent railroads.

The Union Ship Canal is a case in point: there's a brand new industrial park there, but the canal is nothing more than decoration. It's no longer desired to bring ships in (and the entrance to the canal is impossible to navigate now with the low bridge and narrow entrance), and so the canal is simply converted into part of the landscaping, serving no industrial function whatsoever. It's a useless amenity from an industrial standpoint.

If a beautiful river is useless, industrially speaking, then why would we enshrine industrial use in our zoning along that river instead of giving that area over to other users (boat owning residents, for example)? Better to re-imagine what the river should become based on today's and tomorrow's needs than to fossilize the future based upon our past use of it.

Even if we cannot create a larger water district, the opportunity to focus on both water access and downtown proximity make this area a prime location in which to attract residents. That's the direction we should head.