Buffalorising has been redesigned.

Cool. HHL is doing the design work for Artspace, which is exceeding expectations. They also did the computer lab at Buffalo State which is dream to work in...

It's about time Buffalo...the taller the better!

I'm curious. Has Uniland and its architectural team had any discussions with its neighbors who are contemplating strategies to stop this development? I'd hate to see this project becoming " Elmwood Hotel 2".

If this NEW project is slated to be "33 Gates Circle," I'm curious as to what will happen to the address of the "old" 33 Gates Circle?

I truly hope this project comes off. As great as the apartment "boom" has been for building various downtown cores, there needs to be at least a MINOR boom in condo construction. I know I personally cringe at the thought of paying rent for the next year/five years/ten years because it is the only option to live in certain areas.

I cannot wait to see the design. But, I am VERY concerned about those people living behind this project. The Buffalo News reported today that ALL 67 residents of that 10 story building has signed a BANANA petition. Is this city EVER going to reach the next level architecturally? I don't much care for the post-modern architecture of today, but I am extremely excited about this one because for once, it is happening in our city.

Screw the current residence's who are against this new high rise. If you live in a city, you are to EXPECT Developments around you. It's EXPECTED, A WAY OF LIFE. I agree to those who say "If you don't like it, move to the Burbs". Let the rest of us build up Buffalo. Time for new things to happen, in with the new crowd , out with the same old boring old crowd.

I have ALL the faith in the world in Hamilton, Houston & Lownie being involved in the project. I have worked with them personally on a project in the past and they are great. It will depend on how much actual control they have in the final design.

I am hoping for a great and impressive final design. I cannot help but laugh that there is a group against every single new development project proposed in Buffalo. Old Buffalo will do everything they can to stop a new and exciting city from happening.

In the News article, Uniland is saying all the right things about wanting to be part of the neighborhood and getting community input. 20 floors is an awfully tall building for that part of the city. However, I'm reserving judgment until I see the plans. I do like the idea of new high end condos coming to the city. Great alternative to the 'burbs.

THere is nothing inherently bad about tall buildings and there is nothing inherently anti Olmsted about tall buildings. One of the very beautiful things about Olmsted's Central Park is that it is ringed with high rise buildings. It is beyond funny when you have people living in high rise buildings complaining about high rise buildings.

My initial thought was that 20 stories might seem incongruous in that neighborhood, but it may actually work within the context of the hospital and Park Lane condos. Anyone know how many stories those buildings are?

I don't think the other residents will be a problem. The tax revenue collected from this structure and its inhabitances will be monumental. also don't think that 20 stories is too tall. What Buffalo needs to do is create an Uptown that so many other cities, such as Seattle have done.

I love everything I've heard about this project! It makes me think of when I was living in NYC and major construction was going on in Columbus Circle (which is another Olmstead Circle correct?).

20 stories is not too tall, it's only too tall for the NIMBY's who live in the existing building whose view will be blocked. Maybe they should be called NIMAS (Not In My AirSpace). Yeah it sucks for them that their view will be blocked, but things like that happen all the time in vibrant cities. A friend of mine just sold her apartment in NYC and moved across town because a building was going to be put up right outside her window, blocking her view of the Hudson river. Whose opinion matters most? The 60 or so people in the existing building, or the greater city community that can benefit in countless ways by continued *smart* development.

I think as part of the negotiations, the city should require Uniland to demolish and replace those hideous 1960's-era South Beach housing projects along that stretch of Delaware.

Initially 20 stories sounded a bit incongruous over there, but it may work in context of the hospital and Park Lane condos -- can anyone confirm how many stories those buildings are?

Based on the portfolio in the slideshow, I just hope the final project has a more residential look and feel -- I'm excited about development and increasing the tax base and property values in the area, but I'm getting really sick of that glass atrium school of architecture that's become so popular in Toronto, Chicago and other growing cities -- it's appropriate for university and government buildings (and maybe museums), not condos in a historic neighborhood. In that neighborhood, I would prefer something like these new Gold Coast luxury condos in Chicago:

http://www.65egoethe.com/

This would make more sense given the other homes in the area. But again, it's all subjective, and as long as the building is an urban design that's appropriate for an urban space, we'll be better off (and we can argue aesthetics with the various nutcases after it's built)

Puhhhleeeeeas No Fake 1920's style buildings!

I think as part of the negotiations, the city should require Uniland to demolish and replace those hideous 1960's-era South Beach housing projects along that stretch of Delaware.

Do you mean the big blue condo towers owned by the Park group (or whoever, the name escapes me even though I drive by the things all the time)? I'm not sure how you're using the term "housing projects" but those aren't "housing projects" in the usual way of thinking about them, ie low income govt subsidized living.

Those are beautiful condos and if you've ever visited someone who lives there you know that they can be beautiful on the inside. The only problem is that its hard to really modernize the amenities because it was built so long ago. And sure, they look like they're out of a Rat Pack film, but who cares? They're well kept and I think the occupancy rate is high -- if not 100%.

The existing Park Lane building is 10 stories- an image can be seen here:

http://www.buffalorising.com/city/archives/2006/07/condo_wars_1.php

The site is large enough to have the new building set back from the existing one. Do you think Uniland's buyers want to have their views blocked by the 'old'? The current residents are crying without a site plan or design being released. Kinda obvious that anything proposed isn't going to be good enough.

It would be nice to see Buffalo mayor, Byron Brown (who claims to be pro-development) to take off his muzzle and express his support for this project as well as the Elmwood hotel. According to the Buffalo News article, this condo project will cost $35-$40 million to build and will bring in $500,000/year in new property tax revenue to the city.

Old Buffalo thinkers constantly complain that nothing positive happens but whenever someone even mentions a proposal for a new development, they want to shoot it down without knowing any details of it. As others have said on here if the residents of Gates Circle Condos don't like it they can pack up their bags and go to Clarence where nothing is more than 2 floors. Buffalo will never make its comeback as long as obstructionists constantly get they way in killing development in the city.

Why does evryone want to send the complainers to the suburbs? Is Amherst a Gulag? Do you thing that the people that live there are anti Buffalo development and will welcome them with open arms?
Sorry to rant, but that gets old.
Sincerely,
Pro development suburbanite.

Think modern...

http://www.onetenprov.com/
http://www.onetenprov.com/renderings.html

If Providence can do it; so can Buffalo.

Think big.

Uniland: invite the residents from "old" 33 Gates - offer them an incentive to move into the new building... and then add 5 more floords. 20 - 25 is perfect for that area.

"Do you mean the big blue condo towers owned by the Park group (or whoever, the name escapes me even though I drive by the things all the time)? I'm not sure how you're using the term "housing projects" but those aren't "housing projects" in the usual way of thinking about them, ie low income govt subsidized living.
Those are beautiful condos and if you've ever visited someone who lives there you know that they can be beautiful on the inside. The only problem is that its hard to really modernize the amenities because it was built so long ago. And sure, they look like they're out of a Rat Pack film, but who cares? They're well kept and I think the occupancy rate is high -- if not 100%."

I was using the term "South Beach housing project" as an amusing description (amusing to me, anyway). I'm sure they're very nice inside, but the exterior is awful, and has no place on that stretch of Delaware Ave. I cringe everytime I'm showing an out of town guest "millionaires row" and we pass those buildings.

I'm afraid that whatever Uniland puts up on Gates Circle, while trendy and hip and exciting in 2007, will look like shite in 2047, much like I'm sure the Blue condos were regarded as avant garde 40 years ago, and look ridiculous now.

But as I've said, let's get it up, increase the tax base, property values and critical mass of the area, and we can all argue design after the fact. As long as it's not a suburban design, it'll be a boon to the city.

Rayzor, what do you consider suburban design? Not being a wiseguy, but I am curious. What would be an example of a suburban high rise?

Great article! Queenseys, I think your right on. The more modern the better, glass, steel, curved facades, whatever. I wonder how any building can be "anti-olmstead"? what about landscape design and parkways dictates building design? I must be missing something. The example of central park is perfect.

A new, tall, building designed with an appropriate zietgiest would be the perfect compliment to a rich nieghborhood with historic building stock. if anything "ruins" gates circle, it's the oppresive blank facade of Millard Fillmore staring you in the face as you approach from the north. And for the record that steril building is 10+ stories. 15-20 would be very appropriate for a new building.

let's stop being afraid of current design trends because they might look outdated someday. If that was an appropriate approach to design, Buffalo wouldn't have any of the architectual gems we do. Wright was ridiculed for his "modern" designs a century ago, good thing a bunch of whiney NIMBY's didn't block his buildings from being realized.

"Rayzor, what do you consider suburban design? Not being a wiseguy, but I am curious. What would be an example of a suburban high rise?"

I think the Uniland Corporate Center off Maple near the 290 would fit that description nicely

What would be an example of a suburban high rise?

Carousel Mall (although officially in the City of Syracuse) is a suburban high rise. It is massive, literally surrounded by a sea of parking, has little to no helpful effect on the poor neighborhood around it, it is bounded off from the rest of the area by rail lines and highways, and its central tower is 6 or 7 stories tall - in fact as you drive South into the city, you see its tower as a feature of the cityscape.

Don't want to get off topic though - build this tower!

Seen 'em both. I got it now. Lego construction, doesn't really fit in, lots of asphalt.

they always make the argument that these new developments are "out of context", but they have no room here, the context of this area is highrise residental development.

I can't wait to see the design!

I don't think the NIMBYs will have even a small a chance to block this.

I do like the "uptown" idea. If this fills up fast, it just might open the floodgates for developers to build more of these.

In Business First, Montante says it "could be the first of several upscale residential projects Uniland builds in Buffalo. Amont its planned developments are condos and townhouses that will comprise the residential componenet of the company's Buffalo Lakefront Development Group project along the city's outer harbor."

He also says he does not see the outer-harbor project and 33 Gates conflicting with each other or going after the same market. "These are two distinct groups. There are those who want waterfront property and there are those who want to be right in the urban mix and be able to walk to places like Elmwood Avenue."

Carole Holcberg is quoted as saying if they existed today he could sell them all.

There will be plenty of other developers watching this project...if they do well, the pack could follow with other condo developments.

Typical Nimby Banana argument:

I do not think that a high rise buildingis appropriate on this site because it will block the view from MY highrise apartment.

Question for the Nimby Bananas:

If a high rise building is not appropriate for this site will you all volunteer to have your high rise building demolished so that the site can be returned to whatevery is so called "appropriate"?

FACT:

Real estate is an investment.

FACT:

Like all investments, you can either make or lose money with real estate.

FACT:

In every other city in America, the residents who choose to live in the city know this.

FACT:

If Buffalo does not rise and this condo is built, than these people will have lost money on their investment.

FACT:

If Buffalo does indeed rise and becomes a thriving urban city, land will be so valuable there, that there investment will skyrocket.

Bottom line, is that it is not their place to stop development. This sort of shit makes my stomach turn. Get over it. YOU LIVE IN A FRICKIN' CITY! This type of building happens every day in cities across the country, and you roll with it, because you want the amenities that come with living in a city.

I think that if they make a big deal over this, than STEEL is exactly right, we should demolish their high rise because it makes no sense.

Get over it you silly crybabies.

I read in the Buffalo News that they have over 1400 sign. against the project. I suggest that Buffalo Rising should get a petition of its own FOR the project! What do you all think about that?

I agree with gabe. There is no way that this is going to be stopped. This is a 20 story high-class, high-demand structure, According to their website, they already have potential buyers! With this in hand, these people can't stop it. Besides, thei rpoint is currently invalid since they don't even know what the building looks like. What a bunch of bureacratic, foolish looking imbociles!

Hey, does anyone know the current status of the Elmwood Hotel Project?

I also agree with Gabe---

This project is happening....

Too much money at stake for all involved...everyone stands to make money on this one, not the least of which are the businesses on Gates Cirlce and Elmwood that will see 70 tenants with disposable income.

I'm within sight of that spot every day, and can envision a new building being limited to the height of the 10-story building next door. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

This 20 story tower is going to have views of Delaware Park and Forest Lawn as well as downtown and be within a short distance of Elmwood.

1) Does anyone reallize what this is going to do to the struggling neighborhoods between Delaware and Main: ALOT!

2) Can anyone asking the question if there will be future towers around the periphery of Forest Lawn/Delaware Park? Where are the likely spots?

3) If Olmsted style Circles add so much value, then here is a proposition to consider.
-Why not add a rotary at Main and Jefferson?
-Why not add a rotary at Main and Delavan?
-Why not add a rotary at Humboldt Parkway and Main?

I can see Delavan between Delaware and Main Street. having the potential for high rise condos/apartments with incredible park views.

I can also see the Main Street between Delevan and Humboldt Parkway with similar potential.

These are really the only areas with park views that have potential to be redeveloped. Hey, Im just projecting probabilities out into the future wondering if anyone else has had similar thoughts. I mean yes there are pockets on Elmwood and Delaware but these areas include significant historical preservation and neighborhood entrenched restrictions so while development will happen....one has to project into the future to see where developers will reach next and Im saying that the proximity to the park and park views will become more important than Delaware or Elmwood.

Side Note to Buffalo State and the Grant Ferry Association: If you want to stabilize property values and attract businesses and developers then look at the true history of the Richardson and Buffalo State. Both were supposed to be situation in Delaware Park and in a parklike setting. It would be wise to consider how Buffalo State and the Richardson complexes bounded by Grant, Forest and the Scajaquada could create a parklike feeling. Perhaps taller, denser and more parking garages instead of paved lots with lots of trees. Perhaps putting cobblestone streets and period street lights between the Scajaquada and Forest.

Just a few thoughts to ponder.

The people at Gates should move to the suburbs because they oppose this development. The blue towers should be torn down because the poster thought they were public housing. This just shows how little the majority of posters know about Buffalo.
The residents of Gates have the cash and connections and surely will use them to stop some horrible eyesore from getting built. More power to them!

I am in full support of a Modern Glass Tower to be built anywhere in this old town. We have too many old buildings, time to build new in the mix. They DO go together. Don't belive me, check out other cities at: http://www.emporis.com/en/bu/
and view any city from around the world to get ideas of how other cities look (some better).

Tim,

We dont have too many old buildings....just not enough new modern buildings.

I continue to be impressed by those who oppose a project they have not yet even seen. Their motto seems to be if it's new....they are against it! Change and growth is their enemy. No thinking is required about things that do not change. Don't they realize that places that do not change DIE!

How come Eric isn't on here arguing about how the new condo tower should not be built b/c it will encroach olmstead circle?!

This project is an inflection point for our city.

Sounds corny, but true, "IF YOU BUILD IT, THEY WILL COME."

Start building downtown and rehab, everyone will be shocked when people show up.

There are sooo many people that have left Buffalo, that are looking for a reason to move back....home is where the heart is.

No Style...hhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Lets throw Eric off the Gates tower and see if he bounces off the circle because Olmsted designed it.

Just wondering - If the new condo bldg. is built to the east of the Gates Circle Apts., what view will be cut off ??.......the view of Cheektowaga ??

Looking at the works of the architects so far I thnk I should get into the window washing business. One could employ a good number of folks year round! So much better than dealing at the casino!

Yet, the leadership crisis continues to haunt Buffalo-NIagara.

Without bold leadership - this crap will continue.

Mayor Brown needs to stand up and lead the way and find a win-win for everyone.

Just build the damn thing.... all 20 stories; if not more.

http://www.millenniumptrs.com/downtown/overview.cfm
http://www.iliveat.com/
http://www.som.com/

I can't wait to see the design and site plans. I'm sure Uniland was well aware that the Park Lane NIMYs would oppose any type of construction.

FWIW, the blue towers have grown on me. The grounds on the one at Delaware and Highland are immaculate. As Steel points out, we don't have enough new buildings to contrast against the older ones.

I just don't like Uniland. There, I said it. I don't think many of us are going to like Uniland much as the outer harbor situation develops either . . . of the big three or four I put them at the bottom.

However, that's wonderful about the quality architecture firms selected, now let's move the building downtown!

How many luxury high-rise condo towers are there in the city? 3? 2.5? and you are going to put it RIGHT NEXT to one of them!? Mindlessly unoriginal. Hello tenant stealing!

I wish to advocate downtown living and would really like to see home-ownership options downtown. We have one luxury high-rise condo building and it was a financial nightmare (City Centre). However, it's hot property now, and the units don't stay on the market long.

Will a developer, any developer please make home-ownership a priority in downtown? The market demand has been proven to be there, how many luxury rentals can the city honestly expect to sustain. PS, People who can not afford luxury prices also like living downtown too.

The project is well and good, as far as luxury units go, my issue is its location.

WCP - Be careful about taking residential or commercial sales agent word at face value. It's not their property. It's not their risk. Realtors simply show property to buyers, and the more property the have to show, the more opportunities are there for commision. The Zimmerman/Volk residential study posted on the city website gives the best understanding of the market potential. From what I've seen of Uniland's "vision" of the outer harbor, they did not flip past the cover page.

There is also a third choice WCP, there are those who would like to see a mixed-use, a mixed-income, a diverse housing stock and plenty of public green space. Imagine Elmwood on the waterfront! We will not get that with thoughtless cookie cutter luxury units while one large developer and organizations like the NFTA struggling for power, and do not putting the best interests of the city first. The outer harbor is our best chance of doing something great, but right now we're in danger of blowing it. I wish the best for both these projects.

Quinny

This is a perfect location for a tall building. It will both complement and be complemented by the other tall buildings on this site. As for downtown condos look no further than the Coblestone Lofts that have been talked about on here many times. There are also supposed to be new condos by Paladino at Erie Basin though he has a reputation for moving at a glacial pace.

Downtown strikes me as a premium location for a modern, luxury high-rise building, to be designed by some architects with a bit of swagger. Putting the competition in the shadows (literally) of your fancy new building is just lame. I understand why it's done, my point was to raise this discussion to a point where we can acknowlege its location as suspiscious, and ask where the best place for the exciting building really is.

There is presently only one address for downtwon home-ownership, and it is full! City Centre is a luxury high-rise building, and my second point was to bring awareness to this. It's a proven commodity, but only 4 local developers may realistically pull off. How tall are those downtown examples given? I believe Coblestone Lofts is three stories, not really the same thing at all.

I have no major gripe, just being forward-thinking and itching for home-ownership opportunities in downtown. Luxury rentals are a start.

As someone contemplating the purchase of one of these condos, I still think this is an unwise site for the kind of building projected here. There are so many assumptions in the posts above--about what makes a city "vibrant"; what an Olmsted circle means; what the effect of such a building will be on a matured cityscape--it's not even fruitful to discuss anymore. I think, in the end, there is a fundamental divide in vision about what kind of city Buffalo should and can be. Some people think that growth, mix of old and new, high rises, are the recipe for success. That may be, but that recipe has made many formerly stately or charmingToronto neighborhoods a homely mess. Tthere are other models for cities--especially historic ones.
And I wonder if we really are ready to change the profile of the city in areas such as Gates Circle/Chapin parkway, where the idea of a twenty story building, no matter how "award winning" or wiser-than-thou the architect, seems about as wise as a glass tower in a Savannah square. But what makes this so disappointing is the stable of stupid terms such as NIMBY and BANANA, which bring it all down to the sophomore level. That is not argument; it's just name calling, and it completely dissolves any chance of real discussion. Perhaps the new tower will be the temple of urban "vibrancy" and money will flow into the city coffers from its foundations. I hope so. For a handful of people it will be nice living, and maybe for those partial to high rise, it will be a thrill to drive by, but I do know people in the Park Lane who can't get what they paid for their apartments now, and who have no moeny for anything better. (that everyone in the Park Lane is rich yet another easy assumption). That's the just the breaks, I know, but ask me to feel more for Uniland than those people? No, never.

Getting back to the original article: sure, we need more modern (in the sense of built recently) buildings but we sure as heck don't need any more Modern ones (as in resembling every Modernist travesty littering our streets in the last 50 years).

Who among us love any of these Modern monuments as buildings, quite apart from the vital services their occupants render?
Remember, when each one of these went up, it was gushed over as a beautiful new masterpiece and treasure, implying that anyone who objected was an ignoramus or philistine.

NFTA bus station
Convention Center
City Court
Adam's Mark Hotel
Central Library
Buffalo News
General Donovan State Office Building
HSBC tower
Main Place Mall & Tower
Federal Building on Delaware
Anything on the Elm/Oak arterials downtown
Every ramp garage (which faithfully express the Modernist dictim, Form Follows Function)
All of North Campus

Kleinhans and AM&As were the last good Modern buildings we got. I know I am supposed to fawn over the M&T headquarters but I cannot. I'm sorry.

Consider this quote:
"In deciding to champion the landmarking of modernist buildings, New York preservationists are playing a dangerous game, in effect proposing to prevent the city's fabric from mending itself. The damage done the urban fabric by modernists can be un-done, if neighborhoods are allowed to heal naturally over time. Preservationists should be the last people to stand in the way."

From:
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/email/crd_newsletter03-05.html

L,
I think you answered your question about ideal locations for more towers in the park area at the end of your most recent posting. The area between Grant and Elmwood along the Scajaquada definitely has potential. Ideally I'd love to see an enterprising developer approach the big-boxers in the Elmwood-Hertel area and the Wegmans along Amherst Street (I use the word "along" only in the sense that it can be seen in the distance over the sea of parking) and see if we can't "Vancouverize" these areas and bring back some streetwalls. If they can put some townhomes with thin towers above and build a parking structure behind to replace what was taken away, that would go a long way toward stitching the fabric of that part of the city back together.
Mr. Jones,
I agree that many modern towers built in the middle of the 20th century have not withstood the test of time. Their banal appearances were not helped by the fact that many never incorporated any street-level retail. You can definitely see this with M&T and the fact that Main Place turned their stores inward. Torontonians have the same complaints about Eaton Centre. But I think the detailing and materials available have improved substantially. Check out calatrava.com. Santiago Calatrava just completed a tower in Sweden called "Turning torso" that's the most origional I've seen in a long time.

My Jones:

FYI when the Bus Station was built it won and AIA award for it's design.

My Sally:

They would.

Eric, Gates Circle is a far cry from Savannah.

See the vacant storefronts along Delaware? The circle definitely needs a boost.

May you all get what you wish for: a tall, oh-so-with-it glassy high rise about which everyone 10 years from now wonders why we wanted it ; we're we that stupid?; oh, that un-informed 2000-something generation; Buffalo is still a dying city! What's wrong?

It's hardly a circle; it's a traffic mixer and a traffic funnel. Unlovely and really quite unloved. Why bring a city like Savannah into the discussion. Savannah is a city that cultivates it's own identity and doesn't have to surf the globe to take its next step. Yet it still adapts from elsewhere. Buffalo should be like that but hasn't the courage of its convictions. Whoopee! Tall and modern and new! For God's sake, just build it!

Some modern buildings noone seems to complain about:

M&T Center
Key Center Towers
New Medical Campus Buildings
HSBC Building (Next to HSBC Arena)
HSBC Arena

These are modern, beautiful and still look great. What's wrong with modern buildings? or more of them in our city?

I complain about them, and not just seemingly. They're ugly. We're they not so ugly, they at least would be forgettable.

"G." wrote, "Some modern buildings noone seems to complain about: "

Don't get me going!!

p.s. M&T is the only somewhat acceptable building of the bunch. But it, like the others, fails in its relationship to the street.

Sally,

Thank you for making my point. I'll bet every expensive failure on my list won some awards or accolades.

I forgot the most exemplary Modernist monument of all: Churchill Tower at Canisiius College. I'm sure that at the time it was hailed as bold and visionary.

You people complain too much. This is a CITY, New ideas, New Buildings is a way of life. If it brings in JOBS...PEOPLE....and Hopefully RETAIL. What's the problem?

People,

"modern building" and "poor relatonship to the street" are not synonymous terms.

The overplanned superblocks (with the bad buildings occupying them) were a high modernism fad if the 50s-80s mostly. These days modern buildings have done a much better job fitting in with the urban fabric.

Buffalo has just kind of had terrible luck with most of its postwar buildings.

Get out of Buffalo, visit some thriving cities and you'll see many good examples of how new buildings blend well into and even enhance tight streetscapes.

Check out this Charlotte, NC based architecture firm, David Furman Architects. They build some really classy modern infill. Buffalo could use some buildings like this:

http://www.dfarch.com/main.htm

The insinuation that people who are underwhelmed by much postmodern architecture need to "get out of Buffalo" is another cliched we-know-better assumption. I've been getting out of Buffalo all my life and wish I had earlier recognized how stale and dated much current American architecture looks.
People in Buffalo travel a good deal and have often, very often lived elsewhere; they have sound basis for an opinion. More than I can say for most New Yorkers and Torontonians I knew when I lived in those cities.
Gabe--the comparison was between Gates Circle in Buffalo--an elegant, 19th century, Olmsted designed circle--and "a" (one) square in Savannah (not the entire city). I think it's a fair analogy -- undervaluing Gates Circle's tradition will hurt Buffalo's cityscape, just as building a tower in a Savannah square would hit one hell of a flat note. There is one modestly tall building on the circle now, one modestly tall building set back on the circle (the Park Lane condominiums), and a lot of hundred plus year old houses all around it. How a tower complements that I don't know; maybe it does. But I do know that once you further cloud the original vision of an elegant Olmsted CIrcle, it's never going to come back. I would be jubilant to see this new tower built in Buffalo, just not on this circle. Bre careful what you wish for; that's all I'm saying.

I could be wrong, but I would categorize these more as follows:

M&T Center - modern
Key Center Towers - post-modern
New Medical Campus Buildings - not familiar
HSBC Building (Next to HSBC Arena) - post-modern
HSBC Arena - post modern

Glass and steel does not necessarily mean modern. And I could be alone in this opinion, but I actually really like M&T Center (assuming we're talking about the Yamasaki designed structure at Main and North Division (formerly known as Shelton Square... can we bring back that name please?). I find its plaza welcoming. And street level retail is not a panacea. How rediculous would institutional buildings such as City Hall or the art-deco State Courthouse look with street level retail? Never mind that at present, the market for street level retail in downtown Buffalo appears to be pretty limited.

Anyway, back to 33 Gates Circle. I think its wonderful although I am a little concerned with the glass and steel mentality. I'm a shameless classicist so would prefer something more akin to Rochester's new downtown condos: http://www.thesagamoreoneast.com/

And I know they're well maintained and all, and lovely on the inside, but aqua blue brick? I'd love to demo those "south beach" structures on Delaware too.

But I do know that once you further cloud the original vision of an elegant Olmsted CIrcle, it's never going to come back. I would be jubilant to see this new tower built in Buffalo, just not on this circle. Bre careful what you wish for; that's all I'm saying.

And what (or who's) vision might this be?

Most of the structures on GC were built many decades after the actual circle. Olmsted himself was dead by the time a majority of these buildings were erected. In his time, the area was still mostly farmland.

A new highrise on the cirlce would simply be following the city-wide densifiction trend that came to a halt as a reult of the Great Depression. The postwar car/suburbia-obsessed years just further retarded the organic urban evolultion of cities like Buffalo. You'll notice alot of the tall apartment buildings along Elmwood and Delware sit atop sites that were once sprawling mansion estates. By the 1920s these large swaths of land were being subdivided into plots for denser housing.

Buffalo's organic urban evolution is finally getting back on track. Let's not stifle it with subjective rhetoric about dead people's "visions" that may or have may not actually existed.

I was standing at Delevan and Delaware, this afternoon, looking toward Gates Circle. Millard Fillmore Hospital was on the left, in its bland 'glory', and the 10-story condos were on the right, peeking above some trees. In my mind, I placed a 20-story building where the Park Lane stands ... and, you know what? It was not pleasant.

UB is turning out far too many expert architects these days.

I wonder how all of these experts in urban design and planning let the city get this out of hand. Who was minding the shop when the city was crumbling before our eyes? I guess they were all in the library reading up on how to protest change, worship the most inane structures in the city and bitch about everything else.

It doesn't surprise me that people prefer the suburbs.

Just when was Buffalo "crumbling before our eyes", Beef? Most of the urban-removal was committed long before the "old" buildings were old enough to crumble.

And one hardly needs to be an architect to know what is attractive.

Everybody should read "From Bauhaus to Our House", before deciding that architects know best.

This 20 story tower is going to have views of Delaware Park and Forest Lawn as well as downtown and be within a short distance of Elmwood.

1) Does anyone reallize what this is going to do to the struggling neighborhoods between Delaware and Main: ALOT!

2) Can anyone asking the question if there will be future towers around the periphery of Forest Lawn/Delaware Park? Where are the likely spots?

3) If Olmsted style Circles add so much value, then here is a proposition to consider.
-Why not add a rotary at Main and Jefferson?
-Why not add a rotary at Main and Delavan?
-Why not add a rotary at Humboldt Parkway and Main?

I can see Delavan between Delaware and Main Street. having the potential for high rise condos/apartments with incredible park views.

I can also see the Main Street between Delevan and Humboldt Parkway with similar potential.

These are really the only areas with park views that have potential to be redeveloped. Hey, Im just projecting probabilities out into the future wondering if anyone else has had similar thoughts. I mean yes there are pockets on Elmwood and Delaware but these areas include significant historical preservation and neighborhood entrenched restrictions so while development will happen....one has to project into the future to see where developers will reach next and Im saying that the proximity to the park and park views will become more important than Delaware or Elmwood.

Side Note to Buffalo State and the Grant Ferry Association: If you want to stabilize property values and attract businesses and developers then look at the true history of the Richardson and Buffalo State. Both were supposed to be situation in Delaware Park and in a parklike setting. It would be wise to consider how Buffalo State and the Richardson complexes bounded by Grant, Forest and the Scajaquada could create a parklike feeling. Perhaps taller, denser and more parking garages instead of paved lots with lots of trees. Perhaps putting cobblestone streets and period street lights between the Scajaquada and Forest.

Just a few thoughts to ponder.

'L'' writes,again: "Does anyone reallize what this is going to do to the struggling neighborhoods between Delaware and Main?"

Possibly twice as much as the current 10-story condos. Zero x 2 is still zero. I wouldn't call Oxford/Horton/Harvard "struggling", but "rapidly deteriorating and poverty stricken" .

One interesting feature of Buffalo: how very closely people with money can live to bad blocks, while ignoring and denying it.

mmKay,

You must reserve your vision of the city to a very narrow set of streets if you can't see the decay and crumbling that has and is still taking place throughout the city. Yes, some very significant and worthy buildings were destroyed to make way for other buildings, highways and just for the hell of it, but that is the past. You can either dwell on it, or learn from it and move on.

I agree with you, we need a seriously audacious and extravagent building that screams out "this is America!". Gates Circle would be an ideal location for such a building, something that doesn't fit the current "glass box" or "box store" mold that we have grown to hate. Is this what you were suggesting?

Makes you want to laugh when people say that a new building on this sit will somehow desacrate Gate cirlce. these same people said nothing when Bilbo Baggins built (re-built) the hobbit house on this site . So much for peoples opinions of what constitutes good architecture.

When ever I visit other cities (Prosperous Cities), I find the all the new MODERN Highrises very impressive and cool. When I return back to Buffalo, I find it depressing and old. Let's build Modern People and make our city Exciting.

So....ALL new modern highrises in other cities are "cool" (and ALL other cities are "prosperous")--that's the kind of distorted thinking that precludes any discussion about the complexities of Buffalo.

Gabe--I love the idea of this building, but I think it's a tempting mistake to place it on Gates Circle, and I do indeed think Olmsted had a vision of what the circle would look like. He knew what Delaware avenue looked like before it was marred by the buildings you blithely mention as part of "densification." That densification nearly ruined Delaware Ave. Much of the block between Summer and Bryant was almost demolished in the 1960s for the sake of idiotically "cool" new IBM buildings. Take a look at the book "The Grand American Avenue," which has a wonderful chapter on Delaware Ave, considered by many the most beautiful avenue in America in its day. It was a street of detached residential grand houses, and later some tastefully integrated small apartment buildings. Grand old homes on spacious lots--that's what Olmsted knew and saw; honoring that irreplaceable urban fabric seems eminently sensible.

It also seems sensible to see that a building that dwarfs the scale of the buildings around it (mostly 80-100 year plus old houses), not to mention the drastic contrast in style, would cause some disharmony in a historical area of a city trying to market itself as a destination for its preservation of an architectural mood.

I really love the idea of this building But I think it's more than likely that the developer could make plenty of money on this project in another location. Olmsted's legacy is vital to Buffalo, which is now the headquarters of the national organization.

National orgainzation for Olmsted is in Washington DC. Great local Olmsted organization is about supporting the ENTIRE local system and not just the little patches in certain backyards...
Even a cursory reading of his papers shows Olmsted's understanding for parks and their linking parkways as complements to city life - not obstruction /
I drove the circle this morning and saw tall, dense old apartment buildings and a monstrous hospital tower - not grand old homes. May have something to do with the fact the area has been zoned R4 since the 20s.
BUffalo doesn't need this building to be like other cities - BUffalo needs this building and more like it to be what it can be...