Buffalorising has been redesigned.

I don't get it. Why is any development fought every step of the way. What was the last thing built outside of downtown without severe headaches cause by NIMBY's.

People need to get over themselves, they aren't paving over a public park. These people wouldn't want someone telling them how to treat thier property so why do they think they have a right to tell others how to develop thiers?

Yes the park lane site is great for a tower, flanked they some of the best neighborhoods in Buffalo.

But look at Gates Circle and Forest Lawn and Delaware Park and Delaware Ave and W Delavan and Main for a minute. There are plenty of places for a tower. Are these people going to oppose all these locations and get away with it. I THINK NOT!

The discussion like the twin towers above should be about building two towers instead of one and there are plenty of places for them so lets put our energy into building a better Buffalo going into the future and not spinning our wheels with petty objections that have little merit.

Im not saying just choose a different location...Im just saying that there ARE plenty of locations and one cannot object to the Gates Circle project without objecting to all the others too. So build it and god willing the next tower will follow shortly thereafter.

I read all the comments on the petition--you very selectively chose some of the weakest. Most of the comments to the petition support building a highrise condo tower, but find thislocation a poor choice for it. Most of the signers also do not live in the Park Lane Condos.

To say there is no valid argument here is not helpful to the city's development.

Buffalonians are our own worst enemy. Torn between the past and wanting a better future. The more we try and 'save' what we have prevents us from moving forward. Choose your battles carefully people. Fighting to keep our past relegates us to live in it.

The argument to not build on Gates Circle is just another negative attitude coming from a city that is still losing its population (according to census estimates). Why stop this site development? What good will come of it? The Park Lane is CLOSED. Is it better left undeveloped? 1971 is hardly historic. Buffalonians argue that they want their city back. But when big city ideas are proposed, people shoot them down. Why the double standard? There should already be a 5 story hotel on Forest and Elmwood. Start building to start competeing, or else this area will completely die. I love my home, but this anti-devleopment attitude will never allow Buffalo to rekindle its glorious past.

Look, I know that we're "our own worst enemies" and Nimbys and bananas, but that's just a poorly chosen spot. There are plenty of places downtown that are just screaming for this kind of development, and it would compliment the skyline. I think there is a clear difference between those that want to halt new development (bring it on!) and those just look at the artist rendering and don't see a tasteful use of space. That's it. Just a good plan in the wrong place.

You can't have it both ways. Either the city suffered great losses with the famous "mistakes" because nobody fought hard enough (the road through the park, the highway along the water, the dissection of Humboldt, the UB campus, yaddayadda ad nauseum) Or the people fight so hard that there is no progress. If you see a project as harmful to an already vibrant neighborhood, you're a NIMBY or a CAVE. Please. Those condescending terms were probably thought up by developers. And if there are so many people leaving, why do we need a high rise condo in a city full of under utilized housing stock anyway? I have no opinion about this proposed condo because I haven't read enough yet. But it is getting very tiresome to have every attempt at preservation ridiculed. We live in the city because of its character, neighborhoods and architecture. The last few projects proposed have been detrimental to all of those qualities. These projects never happen in a neighborhood that needs it, only in the ones that are already thriving. My neighborhoods. Guess I'm a NIMBY or a CAVE. I just thought I loved what was good about my city, My bad.

While I would love to see a modern condo building welcoming folks traveling into the city down Delaware through Gates Circle, I have to agree there are better spots for such a structure. Why not build in an area where such a fantastic building (judging by the architects' previous efforts) would really help spur living in that community?

Why not build more in the downtown core? Or down in the Cobblestone District, and somehow try and link said district to the developing Ellicott district? Heck, I'd even rather see such a building on that vacant lot next to the Admiral's Walk... anything to create more of a central mass of people where it is needed. As it stands, the neighborhood surrounding Gates Circle is rather vibrant already.

All that said, I'd rather see the building at Gates Circle than no building anywhere at all. Oh, and for people to make the argument the Park Lane Restaurant is some sort of historic building is ridiculous. As previously mentioned, its barely 30 years old.

Either way, I agree we should wait and see the design before mobilizing on either side of the issue.

To those suggesting Uniland move their project to another site...

The developer is clearly targeting affluent buyers- they aren't likely to buy in a 'fringe' or unproven location. Gates Circle is near some of the city's best neighborhoods and it is zoned for high rise residential. Maybe Uniland can be convinced to abandon the project, after being reimbursed the $1.2 million they paid for the Park Lane property.

The Park Lane restaurant is an architectual disgrace.It trivializes Olmsted,s Cicle and look more like something that Bilbo Baggins would have built in Hobbittown. I don't understand why tanyone would not want to get rid of that silly looking eyesore asap.. The last time I drove by it with out of town guest s one of the youngsters asked if that is where snow white lived. Out of the mouths of babes.

Fargo, that is the best description of the outside of the building that I've heard to date. Bilbo would be proud. :)

If Uniland loses their 1.2 million, then they have their own judgment to blame. You take risks; that's business.
As for the implausability of not building anywhere else in the city...well, that's disingenuous. There are several other places that have affluent residents already: downtown has renters and owners with money, plus entertainment and business proximity; the old waterfront and the new proposed waterfront would surely smile at a new glass tower--I know I would!. There are places with greater potential than Gates Circle for the kind of urban neighborhood that a high rise enhances. Wouldn't water views and this building be a happy marriage? I thought clusters of high rises were the zenith of a "vibrant" city?

There are 67 owners in the original Park Lane condos. There are almost 2,000 signees so far to the petition against building a new high rise right on the circle. Nearly all of those signees live in the neighborhood. If these residents didn't want a Walgreens in their neighborhood, they have every right not to want a glass tower in their neighborhood, the gateway to the Olmsted Parkways. Most of the comments on the petition (which I have not signed) support a new high rise in Buffalo in an area of complementary architectural scale and style. This location is judged by thousands of neighbors not to be that complementary area. I think it reasonable that a consensus of residents want a say in what happens to their sensitive neighborhood. That's a healthy sign for a city. But I can't wait to see the design--maybe it will be a large improvement over the tract residential buildings on the architects' website.

Let people genarate their own opinions. The original heading had this project flushed down the pooper without even seeing the "proposed" structure. Like I said before, if you want to live in old homes and no chance for growth...move to Alden! It's nice, clean , and quiet. Buffalo is a city, and a struggling one at best. If someone wants to build let them.

I am curious if any of those individuals who oppose this project have ever walked around gates circle late at night. I have my doubts. It is desolate. There is a security issue here. It would not hurt to have a a few hundred extra pairs of eyes .

I love it! This couldn't come at a better time for the city. A beautiful building in an area of the city that is on the brink of renewal. How great would it be to add depth to the skyline, we need to view Buffalo as a strong, viable city, not as a collection of single-family homes bordered by old industry. I hope construction starts soon!

People who hold these attitudes listed above, would like to hold back Buffalo from becoming more of a city and less of an overgrown village.

These people are content in Buffalo remaining a place of sleeply, endless lower-density residential streets, half-utlized commercial strips and generally a place where people must get in their cars and drive to accomplish vital needs.

Being a CITY implies a healthy, diverse mix of land uses, attitudes, ideas and visions. Unpredictable juxtaposition is an important trait to have in being a CITY. A uniform prescription and deadening regulation of "urban" asthetics leads to a glorified disneyland of stepford values, not a dynamic, happening urban environment.

With that said, Uniland had a damn good reason to built a highrise here. If they thought they would make as good money building one downtown, or somewhere else, they would do so.

Olmstead Parkway does NOT = a monotonous stretch of large-lot single family homes.

E.B. Green didn't say anything or make any rules about the future buildings that would abut the Gates Circle he designed in 1902.

Remember folks, Buffalo is CITY not a VILLAGE.

Buffalo is 50% empty. There is more than enough room for infill development and as I said there is plenty of room for high rise towers on Delaware, Delevan and Main with views of Forest Lawn, Delaware Park and the city.

The Park Lane isnt historic. The original burned down...its replacement was hardly worthy of the original so the only reason is what design would fit.

As I said before...the area of Buffalo to the east of downtown and south of downtown was mostly demolished and is perfect for those glass modern and contemporary urban towers but the historic corridor between for all intensive purposes between Jefferson and Niagara Street deserves to have designs more like the Campagnile...classic...with quality material, quality designs and quality details.

We should take a lesson from Quebec and Europe. Allow old Buffalo and new Buffalo to have distinctly different locations to serve different needs. Old Buffalo focusses on the turn of the century architectural urban designs...while New Buffalo reaches into the future with modern and contemporary urban architecture.

There is no reason why we cant have both...the question is not whether but where.

Actually, the parkways WERE intended to be "large-lot single family homes" in Oldsted's time. His idea was 'the country through the city", with few reminders that there were busy streets nearby. Big lots, expensive homes, riff-raff not welcome. :) Houses and a few churches were about all the City allowed; they even forced the streetcars to meander through the West Side (the Hoyt cars) because they refused to allow tracks on Richmond.

However, that said, this spot isn't exactly ON a parkway, and the big hospital across the way, the 10-story #33, and many other large buildings have set a precedent in that area. It's quite a few decades too late to be banning height, around there!

It should be interesting to see what the builders think is a salable design. They obviously figure there's a demand for expensive new condos.

I read though as many of the comments on the petition as I could stomach. These listed here are quite representative of the comments left on the site.

The petition language is full of lies and misinformation but does let on that it is intent on preserving the views and "air" of the adjoining "high rise" Parklane condominium building.

A question: Does anyone know if you can sign the petition more than once?

As for anyone trying to attribute a certain view held by Olmsted as to what should be built around his parks... could you please list the source of that information and what he actually said on the matter. I have never heard or read anything about Olmsted's thoughts on this.

As for anyone who says this is a bad site for a high rise building. Why is a site surrounded by high rise buildings a bad site for a high rise building?

Anyone calling the Parklane restaurant building historic has a good start on a career as a comedian. The building is pure strip mall trash, And while we are on the subject of the restaurant, it generates much more traffic than a residential building. I bet the people calling for retention of the restaurant would be the same ones complaining about a new restaurant on the site if it were proposed

Of the comments above the most rediculous has to be Aaron E who says he like Buffalo the way it is....Whaaaaaaat? You like Buffalo the way it is???????

Change is GOOD! Build a new condo tower at Gates Circle now!

How can you say you don't want it when you don't know what it is? I look at it this way - the older generation wants Buffalo to remain a memory of the past and the younger generation wants to bring their friends and family back. Why didn't anyone stop that pathetic looking hospital when it was being built? Were you too engrossed with your everyday lives? Raising a family? Now your families have left. You live in a highrise on the circle! But you don't want another one built? What kind of double standard is that? Think of the city instead of yourselves for a change. Be open minded to the design before you wave your petition like so many close minded Buffalonians before you. I know people that have been duped into signing that thing because of who they know, not what they know! Same old same old.

This is the same generation that sat idly by while their city bit the dust. Now they don't want their views blocked.

Valerie V: Please save my light!
Nuff said

Judy Z: The structure as planned would be absolutely awful.
Nothing's planned.

Maxine I: Don't tear dwn [sic] this land mark.
Its not a land mark, it's a crappy old fake

William S: Mr. Olmsted would be rolling in his grave to see a high rise on Gates Circle, Just say NO!!!
He didn't even design Gates Circle

Pam S: Gates Circle has many historic vistas..please don't interrupt with anything NEW!
I'm gonna be sick

Phyllis L: The traffic would be a terrible problem
No! Not new people in Buffalo! We're trying to get the population down to 100,000

Aaron E: I like buffalo the way it is...
Ya mean with your view?

Leslie S: Preserve the integrity of the skyline!
The skyline for the kids who play in Gates fountain?

Thelma G: The people have spoken!
Yeah, the same people that have spoken for the last 50 years.

Sam L: Its time we take back our city
It's time we take away your drivers license

Elizabeth B: Please preserve this amazing landmark restaurant!
Are you the cook there or what?

Kevin M: Aesthetically unpleasing!
There's no design bonehead

Joan C: Wrong size, wrong scale, wrong location
That's what your mother said when the Parklane apartments were built

Morgan R: Focus on what is important - Olmsted's plan calls for 2 to 3 story buildings surrounding the circles and parkways.
Then what the F are the Parklane apartments doing there Morgan?

Aside from aesthetic concerns, what's going to be the effect on the city of creating so much more residential space when there are fewer and fewer residents in the city and in the area? At this moment, the main effect of more housing units will be to further depress the general market and further depress the value of existing units.

A commercial contractor friend of mine (who recently took himself and his business to Ft. Lauderdale), told me once that Buffalo currently needs a "zero growth" ordinance for housing development. He said that for every new unit that a developer wants to put up, the developer should be obliged to locate, buy, and demolish an existing unutilized unit.

Interesting concept.

Buffalo is it's own worst enemy. I hope the people you expect to flock back to Buffalo after "Old Home Week" from the progressive city's they are living in do not read this blog site. Why would they want to live in a city that fights growth?

[sorry I mean development as growth means people relocating here and to many are still leaving]

So many people fight EVERYTHING!

Build it by the water I am sure it would be fought as the lake is for every one.

Build it downtown "oh lordy!" are they going to pull a building down to make space?

Build it on Elmwood, no way, going to ruin the streetscape and neighboorhood feel!

Build on Delaware, nope, not tall enough and I hate the siding...

Allentown, nope, that run down [crack infested/social services] building is historic.

Build it in the "burbs"....NO WAY! build it downtown...............lol

I almost expect Jessica Fletcher to be riding her bike down the village street and wave to the mailman and town sheriff.

If the tower fails--I was thinking about buying the restraurant and letting it sit abandoned until it falls down. I also need a location for a new crackhouse--North Buffalo needs a good slum! Seriously if you're not moving forward you're sliding backward--hasn't Buffalo slid enough?

No one has to agree with those who have signed this petition but you should also stop characterizing them as being opposed to everything all the time (BANANAs, CAVEs). That's like saying that people who are opposed to [insert any elected official here] are opposed to the entire American political system.

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that private property can be taken by eminent domain for more profitable private uses, the next NIMBY, with good reason, could be you.

Buffalo Beast said it the best, in relation to the Elmwood Hotel project, but it is relevant here:

"The conventional wisdom among the community calling itself New Buffalo seems to be that it's backwards, defeatist thinking for people to be against any new development in the city. But aren't poorly conceived construction projects a big part of the problem? The convention center, the subway, the Main Place mall, Buffalo Place” would the New Buffalo people have blindly supported these mega-blunders and called their opponents BANANAs? I'd say, after so many huge and costly screw-ups that benefited only those who built (and bilked) them, Buffalonians would have to be idiots not to be extremely suspicious of any new large-scale projects.

The Elmwood hotel may not be such a mistake, and at least won't be a taxpayer-funded one. But what about Bass Pro? The Seneca Casino? Are new projects to be swallowed whole, without reservation, in the name of progress, or should they be intensely scrutinized so as to avoid similar blunders? Should citizen lawsuits be condemned as the dirty tricks of obstructionists, or recognized as the peaceful recourse of the weak against the powerful, an essential element to an equitable civilization? What does it mean to protest the filing of a lawsuit? After all, if it had no merit, why would Savarino have been so quick to restart the process?

In essence, our water/fruit assault was a nutritious stand against the demonization of people who are simply fighting within the prescribed rules for a cause they find legitimate. Their lawsuit scored them a temporary victory, that's all. In other words, the message is: calm down. This isn't abortion or gay rights; it's a hotel. It's something to argue about rationally. To reduce the people who oppose it to BANANAs is only to make a monkey of yourself. "

From:
http://www.buffalobeast.com/104/bananas.htm

Let's face it. The only way these NIMBYs are ever going to stop development in their area is if they are bringing more money to the table than the Uniland development will bring to the city. READ: Rich people who bring jobs and bring real power with their statements are much more effective in preserving their 'light' than mere complainers.

Come on people...Let's not keep thinking back in the Dark Ages. In order to get us out of this rut we have to think change and with that comes new and fresher ideas of Urban and Suburban Development. Most of the people who oppose this creative and fresh idea would like to see Buffalo settle back and relive the days before the Pan Am Expo. Go to any major city or cosmopolitan and you will see creative minds at work. You'll see progression outwit aggression and the yellow tape that surrounds these projects outnumber the red tape that bogs this city down. The so called "historic antiquities" in Buffalo like old grain mills, buried foundations of the Erie Canal and useless buildings like the Park Lane are a thing of the past and need to be put out of their misery...

Pealing off the Banana Republic cover: G.A.R.B.A.G.E. men and women

Here is the new name for the advocates of a Senecas Casino in Buffalo or anything that harms the established quality of life in Buffalo. They are part of a group that is now known as G.A.R.B.A.G.E. men and women.

G.A.R.B.A.G.E. means:

Group Artificers of Retrogressive Buffalo Advocacy Gimcrack and Effluence.

Garbage men and women are people who blindly serve as mouth pieces without knowing the specifics of issues or who are enablers of harmful activities that have over the years caused the true degradation of the quality of life of Buffalo and have caused by corporate destruction the City of Buffalo for their selfish interest. They are crafty and buy elected potiticians. They reward the corrupt politicians and in kind these bought politicians in Buffalo reward their selfish supporters with patronage.

Specific examples of the G.A.R.B.A.G.E brigade are placing a highway through the East Side in an Olmstead Park. Confiscating the waterfront and putting a highway with toll booths through the West Side of Buffalo. The G.A.R.B.A.G.E Brigade wants Buffalo to look like Sheridan Drive in Amherst. They are like the people from the State of New York who originally advocated burying the downtown terminus of the Erie Canal and placing a plaque like a grave stone on top of it. They exemplyfy the flipper mentality in their real estate dealings. History means absolutely nothing to them.Public parks, beaches, forests, natural habitiats, water quality standards, fairness to communities and working people have little importance to them.

Garbage men and women say build anything now. Be it a casino, a nuclear power plant, a toxic waste dump, ect. They don’t care what is right for the community or the future of this country or this planet. They are spineless and work in pacs.

A clear case of Garbage-ism can be currently seen by the politicians in government who have either cooked the books to build Native American casino’s in U.S. cities or by some big or small way have contributed to the confusion of laws and issues.

In Buffalo the top Garbage Men are:

Governor Pataki

Anthony Masiello

Buffalo Councilmember Fontana

Buffalo Comptroller San Filippo. I hope I spelled his name wrong.

Andrew Rudnick

Joel Giambra

Tom Bowerly. I hope I spelled his name wrong.

Sandy Beach

M & T Wilmers

Dorthy Johnson. I hope I spelled her name wrong.

The people who want things done quickly in Buffalo without question are full blown G.A.R.B.A.G.E. makers. G.A.R.B.A.G.E. makers make a mess of everything for future generations and constantly drop dumb ideas around carelessly like the guys who dump their ash trays in the street or their oil down the sewers.

All pealed bananas should receive placement in a mulch pile in the back yard.

HISTORICALLY PROVEN PROCEDURE TO DEVELOP/BUILD ANYTHING IN BUFFALO:
Buildind / land must have sat vacant for minimum 2 years ( 4 years if owner politically connected)
Development must withstand minimum 3 lawsuits from opposing factions.
Developer MUST KISS ASS of ANYONE who has opinion on said development!!
Local politicians MUST HAVE INCENTIVE to SUPPORT said project!
*
*
*
*
PLEASE fill in what i have missed!

I WILL LEAVE THE REST FOR OTHERS TO ADD ON!!

These jagoffs don't give two shakes from a rats rectum about Olmsted, the Park Lane, or development. All they care about is there real estate value's.

By the way, WHERE IS FOREVER ELMWOOD ON THIS???

You have a huge condo full of disposable income residents a block away and you haven't come out publicly to support this?

Get over yourselves.

L--I am surprised at you. You expect people to pay 300K to live in the Cobblestone District...(what is down there to entice them...a 5000 sqaure foot slot machine, housing projects and a hockey arena?) That area will grow, but it certainly isn't going to command that kind of cash?

Delevan and Main....you want to go down there after dark? Not me. Also you just lost all your walability that you have at Gates Circle.

Downtown? Maybe if your 25 and can afford to buy, but otherwise, why is anyone going to pay top dollar to live in a downtown where there is no grocery store (The Washington Market doesn't count), no services, is totally desolate after dark unless it is a thursday, friday or saturday.

They are trying to bring high income residents back into the city. You do not do that by building in locations that are unproven, or where everything is going to be a car ride.

Gates Circle is the only location for this type of tower that can command this kind of money.

That being said, it should blend archtiecturally, but you know, i might just WAIT UNTiL THERE IS AN ACUAL DESIGN UNVEILED BEFORE I COMMENT ON IT!!

G.A.R.B.A.G.E. slogan:

Build it now or we will bum.

It is true that Buffalo continues to lose population. However, unlike the early 1990's when 7 or 8 houses were for sale on every block of every "nice" neighborhood in the city, the nicer neighborhoods of the city are now desirable to city dwellers and suburbanites. Currently, whatever houses are available in the Elmwood Village, Allentown, Parkside, Central Park and other parts of North Buffalo sell quickly and for very good prices. Ask any real estate agent who sells houses in the city or check out the Real Estate Transaction section in the Buffalo News every Monday or use your own eyeballs by driving around these neighborhoods periodically so that you see for yourself that there are very few houses for sale and that they sell quickly. What can we deduce from such visual observations? That people want to live in the nice neighborhoods of the city now. and are willing to pay more than in the past to do so.

Gates Circle is located in a very desirable area of the city. Is the question here one of nice views or the possibility of having your condo at 33 Gates Circle loose some of its value because it's now next to a brand new condominium building with a very nice design and contempory amenities? Instead of driving people out of the city, isn’t a project like this going to keep current city residents in Buffalo and attract new city residents from the burbs?

Why is it that the anti-condo forces are so organized that they are appearing before the Common Council at a hearing for granting landmark status for 33 Gates Circle on September 12th and have a petition against this new development that's closing in on 2000 signature? Folks, this is much more serous attempt to kill progress than hemp hat bananas running around in front of Don Apparel. Uniland needs to be allowed to show its designs and specifics for its proposal before the project is trampled by its very well organized opposition who hope that by striking first in a very organized way, to kill this project quickly. There needs to be a much larger and well planned organization of those who, at least favor waiting for the design specifics to be released, or are in favor of the project, to appear in opposition to the petitioners on September 12th.

Beast Reader - I mean, Beast Employee,

I will give your publication some credit, as the articles are generally written quite well. But surely you understand that every college educated reader sees through your classic straw man argument structure.

New Buffalo is FOR every new development regardless of its particular merits, ergo New Buffalo is as foolish as Old Buffalo. That classic mischaracteriziation of 'New Buffalo' makes it very easy to argue against it. Of course, if you look to thise site as the home of many 'New Buffalo' thinkers, you'd immediately recognize your straw man argument doesn't hold any water.

Obviously, there is a decidedly pro-Hotel feeling from many of the authors and posters on this site. However, the few casino articles here have been mostly negative, as have most of the comments. And the only references to Bass Pro I've seen here on the alleged home of 'New Buffalo' have been negative as well.

So, while the Beast makes a compelling case that any group which blindly supports new development is misguided, I'm not sure what person or publication that argument works against. I mean, it goes without saying that anyone blindly in favor or opposed to developments regardless of their merits is foolish. I wouldn't pat yourself on the back for making that ground-breaking argument.

The reality is this - each development needs to be judged on its own merits. Personally, I think given how things have gone here for the past 50 years, we should have a bias towards change. But again, all decisions need to be rooted in the realities of each particular circumstance.

So don't be too proud of using pablum to argue against an irrational and non-existent position.

And try and actually make that paper funny again like it was when Matt Taibbi was there.

Personally, I do think that the protestors attempts in this case are futile. WAY too much money is at risk here. The property taxes for 80 condo's ranging from 300K to 1MM means that these people will need to have concrete evidence in place to stop this.

The truth of the matter is that a project like this should be going downtown, but the infastructure is not there to demand top dollar prices, and that is what the city needs....wealthy homeowners.

I'd be mad too if a new building ruined my view...mostly because I know that my condo just lost value. That being said, real estate is a gamble just like any other investment, so to those people I say, I"m sorry but tough shit.

There's a scarcity of reasonable and fair comments here (Beast Reader--yours is excepted!) Can't we be mature enough to resist juvenile acronyms like NIMBY or sarcastic, half-obscene epithets because a couple of thousand people disagree with our position?

Why are people intolerant of any debate on this issue? Debate is the sign of a progressive city--not density dogma and sarcastic name slinging.
Every single person I know who is skeptical of this project would love Uniland to build their tower in an area that would complement it, in area that really NEEDS this kind of development. What happend to building up the core of the city, the downtown area of density that has so many "gap tooths," as so many complain about? Does Gates Circle truly need this building?
Having a glass condo tower on the rim of Gates Circle will not make or break the city's "vibrancy" or economic vigor. Putting it there will permanently alter the character of a mostly low scale turn of the last century neighborhood trying to survive in the cultural tourism industry. People will come to vist and live in Buffalo because it still has many 19th century streetscapes, not because it has a Toronto style condo in the middle of one for the sake of "diversity." I spoke with a young woman from Philadelphia this week who wants to spend her summers in Buffalo. Why? Because it has extant and luxuriously beautiful streetscapes; she would like some respite from faceless towers in old neighborhoods.
I go through Gates Circle every single day, and to characterize the area as one of high rises is inaccurate. We also need to distinguish between buildings that harmonize well, and debacles such as the Benderson towers. Gates Circle is part of a unique cityscape that no other city in the country has. Why would we want to add a predictable, soon to be dated, high rise tower to that signature? Why, when the downtown area is percolating with new development, new high rises, when that's the area that really needs this building?

The contempt for the neighborhood here is something else. I'm sure the building will get built because traditionally Buffalo has rewarded players with clout over the desires of neighborhood folks. I just wish they had chosen an architectural firm whose expertise don't seem to be include tract high rises. Look at the firm's portfolio; it's terrifically uninspiring.

I respect the feelings of folks who want a sexy building here, and most of us want to see something good come from this. But can't we talk about it civilly? Buffalo Rising's posting an article that essentially mocks people for getting involved in their neighborhood did not help this debate.

Eric,

Recognize that develops don't simply build in places that 'need' development; they are private enterprises trying to make money. So the fact that downtown might 'need' a high rise more doesn't really matter.

I think reasonable people can disagree on whether Gates Circle will be enhanced or degraded by a new high rise. Of course, I think it's very hard to have that debate until we actually see the proposed design, but apparently that isn't stopping anyone from signing petitions. I mean, would the debate change if the design looked like the Campanile vs. if it looked like one of the hideous Miami Vice towers? Of course it woud, so shouldn't we all just sit and wait for the design?

In the meantime, surely you can at least acknowledge that the city is better off if there are 60-70 units occupied by owners who paid $500,000 on average for their residence, right? I mean, we can all agree to the fact that the more affluent homeowners with a vested interest in the city and disposable income to spend on city businesses, the better the city's prospects, right?

Because if that's the case, I don't know where else you could build a 60-70 unit building that could command those prices in the city, because it certainly isn't downtown.

I actually find the "views" thing laughable.

I am sure the developers will be sensitive to the building next door, but I would bet at the moment that the side windows [more than likely bedrooms] at the moment look at the the back of a restaurant [kitchens, dumpsters etc]

Their front view would still be a grassy and tree filled Mall.

Think of the view from a million dollar condo...a relic of a ugly hospital, and a refurbished circle that shoots off towards gas stations, bars, and a liquer store.

Thanks for being reasonable BH. Your points are worth discussing, though I disagree with your appraisal of downtown (I'm including the old and new waterfront with that). I think we will soon see waterfront high rises downtown, and they will add much to our skyline and tax base. I do think Uniland could do very well with a condominium on the waterfront. Downtown is where most of the new residential building is going on, isn't it? There are units in 600 Main that sell for over 300, 000; they are much smaller than these will be.

I'm from a business background, so of course I know that the developer sees the name recognition and address of Gates Circle as an incentive for buyers. That's absolutely fine. But the existing neighborhood of longtime taxpayers and Buffalo supporters has a right to influence what is built in their neighborhood, and this would be a very permanent change to their neighborhood. What's in the best interest of the city? I think preserving the areas of Buffalo that are unique and relatively still historical and vintage is paramount to our longterm economic interests and architectural tourism goals. At the same time, we can enhance and grow our more modern and updated areas with new, taller construction. European cities tend to do this, and I think it would work well in Buffalo.
Whether the fifty or sixty new condo owners will bring even more than that, I don't know. I'm just not convinced that those 50-60 people will refuse to buy anything else, anywhere else in the city. If they want to live here, they will buy in an existing condo building or in one that is built elsewhere. I don't think Gates Circle makes or break the luxury condo market in town.

Finally, as for the design. I hear you, but it's a disingenuous argument. We all know that this building will look nothing like the Campanile or 800 West Ferry or the original Park lane apartments. That's very hard to pull of and usually flops badly. If they achieve a classic look, I will start a new reilgion and those architects will be my new gods.
I looked at their portfolio and I lived near some of their buildings in Toronto. They are predictable, and most people know very well that this will be a modern glass tower. It doesn't take a psychic imagination to get a good feel for the aesthetic impact of this building.

But good points. I was for this building when I first heard about it, and I have gone back and forth. In the end, it seems like a competent project for a more vertical and more modern neighborhood, which we have downtown, the waterfront and the new waterfront.

I am in support of a new glass high rise at Gates Circle. Would like to see the design. Also, I do agree that we need such living/buildings such as this one built in the downtown area to create more critical mass and update our skyline.

Thanks Eric.

I'll say that I've lived all around Gates Circle, including on Lancaster and St. James. I still live nearby, and while I'd happily pay more than $300k to live in that area of the city, I would never pay that amount to live downtown or on the waterfront. Of course, I now that some are paying those rates already on Admiral's Walk and some other waterfront locales, but I think there's a decent sized population that won't live down there because it lacks conveniences and a true neighborhood feeling.

So, I actually think a high rise at Gates Circle can attract people that would otherwise not find a good home in the city.

really..this petition is almost as ridiculus as trying to fit a twenty story bulding onto that footprint. I applaud Uniland for being proactive...but this might not be the right space for this development....BUT in the mean time...i am going to hold judgement until at least a scematic proposal is published.

has anyone even considered the other side of gates circle? like where the proposed walmart was supposed to go? or is that too close to black people?

I didn't see the problem with Walgreen's (not Mart) in that vicinity; their proposed spot is ALREADY mostly parking, if you look at the aerial view.

Slightly random thought, about our area: Don't we have the UGLIEST and most BLEAK suburbs in the Northeast, or is it just my perception? New Jersey highways look about 50 times nicer than most of Amherst, to my eyes. I've driven past several McD's, BK's, and other fast food joints in Vermont, before realing what they were !

Bleak, ugly, hot, dry, treeless deserts of asphalt. That sums up my perception of Cheektachooga, WestSeneca, Amherst, and Tonawanda. It's sad when Downtown also looks that way, but it sure does.

The building should not be too imposing...it should not be significantly higher than the highrise next to it (#33)...it should respect the secluded mansions that are across the street from it...it should blend in architectually...

That being said...BUILD THE DAMN THING!!!

Beast Reader suggests that calling these people NIMBYs is unfair. I suggest that it is quite an apt description of people who come out against a project that they have never seen who compose a petition filled with fiction and who seem to favor protecting the views from their own high rise building.

The anti people here are not using legitimate and logical arguments for their position. An example of this is Eric's argument: He states that this is not a high rise neighborhood and yet the building will be bracketed between two large multi story buildings accross the street from another multi story building. Eric suggest that he is not against a high rise building in essence if it could be of a historic reproduction style. But then suggests that a style such as this could not be accomplished with any quality therefore it should not be attempted. His argument is basically that there is no good building at all for the site and yet he is willing to accept the current kitch tudor style restaurant building as perfectly in keeping with "Olmsted's plan"

So basically A cheap strip mall building is prefered to a high quality contemporary multi story residential building because it will not block any views from a less than stellar (architecturaly) existing residential building. Sounds NIMBY to me.

I assume this has already been mentioned. Hasn't anyone been to NYC? THIS IS A PICTURE OF COLUMBUS CIRCLE, THE TIME-WARNER CENTER, AND MANDARIN ORIENTAL HOTEL.

Buffalo burned once, it is ready to get burned again ! Wake up and read the above posts. Most want the high rise condo because it is a positive. The opening salvo on this topic is ALL negative because Buffalo Rising wants to taint your idea on this subject.
This city is my home, but there is no wonder why it is a joke. Look at the city and the casino ! The "new " peace bridge ! The city should have a new logo..the Nike logo with a slash through it, stating "JUST DON'T DO IT !!!!!

Bob Z,

Can you read?

The BR post highlights the absurdity of those OPPOSED to the high rise.

The above Eric post is not me.

Steel: First, the neighborhood includes more than just Gates Circle, and that neighborhood cannot be described as a neighborhood of high rises. Yes, we all know there is one very bad building on the circle already. Why does that set a precedent for more large buildings? The original Park Lane is not on the circle; it is on Lafayette, and you really notice this if you are at the circle. The buildng next door, down Delaware, is also not on the circle and is cousin to the Park Lane building in style. The neighborhood here is saying: a large building right on the circle is not good--enough!

This is not about keeping the Park Lane restaurant--I'm sure you know that. And you know that a glass tower is not the only new building that can fit on that space. You're drawing conclusions for me. I'm not against a new building on the site, but given Diamond Schmitt's portfolio of dreary residential towers, I can make an informed guess about the general style and aesthetic effect it will have. But you know what Steel? I hope I am happily surprised, I really do.
Lastly, you keep framing the debate as between the 67 Park Lane owners and the forward thinkers like you. Why did almost 2,000 people sign that petition so far? Are they also trying to protect their views? I've always respected and at times have complemented your posts here, but you're making this into a narrow, angry skirmish when in fact this project raises large and fundamental concerns about the fabric of Buffalo's older neighborhoods. I just don't think the tone is constructive, and it wasn't helped by the original BRO post, which mocks a lot of people for getting involved in their neighborhood.
A lot of us are thinking hard about this project. In the end, given our mission to reanimate the downtown core, the sensitive ambiance of Gates Circle and its surrounding streets, and the future goal of marketing Buffalo's Olmsted design and our housing stock, this kind of building at this site makes no long term sense to me. But relax, Steel; it's going to get built.

Eric

There are 30,000 people in the neighborhood who did not sign the petition. The signers invite ridicule when they assert their dislike for a design that has not even been presented or call a plastic tudor themed building a historic landmark. They invite ridicule when they make false claims about Olmsted's intentions for the surrounding city. The petition its self references the need to protect views of the neighboring highrise Parklane (which most certainly is on the circle unless you count the restaurant driveway as its "setback"). THe petition its self is intent on protecting the views of these few highrise dwellers.

The words used in the original post are the words of the signers. If using their own words is considered ridicule then what does that say about their position on this subject.

Why must we nay say before we even see the design? To do so is silly and unenlightened.

This is a fantastic project. How could anyone who loves Buffalo be opposed to it?

Steel, if you think it appropriate to ridicule tax-paying neighbors who have stayed with city and truly love their neighborhood, because they disagree with you, then so be it.

By far the majority of people who signed that petition are not concerned about the views of 67 owners at the Park Lane or about keeping the restaurant. You know that. The language of the petition, which I have not signed, includes the specific concerns of people in the building because they were the first to know about this. The fact is that nearly 2,000 people so far have seen this project as a drastic alteration to their neighborhood. When I last heard, the population of the Delaware District was 15,000. I may be wrong.

Rick, it is a terrific project for a dense, downtown area. A lot of people think it a poor idea for this location. They know what the parameters of the building style will be; it is the concept that people are objecting to at this site. The history of big projects in Buffalo does not favor neighborhood people, and if they feel a need to be proactive, I think it reasonable whether I agree with their concerns or not.

This tower will surely be built. If it's important to some people to ridicule any debate about it, that's not a good sign for the atmosphere of "new" Buffalo.

Eric,

Ridicule is your word. The words in the original post are the words of the signers. If they feel ridiculed by their own words I can't help that.. It is however rediculous to proclaim a design bad before it ever exists .
I also have to go back to the petition that specifically aims to save the views of people in a highrise building, (A building which is massively over scaled for the neighborhood.) Why is that language in the petition if that is not the primary reason for the petition? If anything adding another large building will help balance the composition of the circle. The new building will most likely be less intrusive than the Parklane with its massive block killing parking lot. The new building will not even be adjacent to any low scale residentioal houses (like the Parklane is)

And...12,000 non signatories to 2000 signers = 15,000 dDelaware district residents.

You say Nimby or Banana.

I say Garbage.

America the place where we still have the right to protest. We paid for this right in blood. The Lightening bolt with skull guys wanted it the other way.

To question the rights of Anericans to protest is anti American.

Let's not slur Americans who protest. In Buffalo I see healthy protest being constantly supressed by either peer pressure or by government supression in Buffalo. Some make being a milk toast and pathetic into some big cool thing.

The tendency as of recent in Buffalo developments is to slur any protest even if it has merit and to be hasty and foolish. The business we need to attract to Buffalo are the ones that want the unique features of Buffalo that are not found in Amherst or South Carolina.

Remember we have phenominal buildings, parks, beaches, forests, and one of the largest fresh water lakes in the world. We should be prudent when anyone wants to rush to demolish a historic site or a community for some lame brain business idea like a Native Casino or to destroy neighborhood quality of life.

I wonder how fast the citiznes of London or Paris would be willing to destroy their rich history, architecture, or communities in their cities to look like Las Vagas in a desert.

Some day the worm is going to turn and the pendulum swing back to be more sensical instead of a flying by the seats of the pants style of development that is willing to destroy the neighborhoods in Buffalo for a fast buck.

The young, educated people in Buffalo who don't learn by the sad ruinous development history of Buffalo will repeat it. Mark my words.

Everything isn't positive that limits protest or diminishes our rich heritage.

I Name calling and the hurry up and going along with big (corp) brother attitude have accumulated a much longer list of terrible failures in Buffalo than anything that has been rattled off here.

GARBAGE a response to the constant barrage of one sided opinions that are not alpha opinions. Your dominance for profit is flawed.

has anyone ever heard of the book POWER FAILURE -

It explains why Buffalo will never grow - the top 18 wealthiest families need to keep it small, otherwise they will start losing money.

all makes sense and is very true

Steel--I took "ridicule" from your last post. The tone of the original BRO post and your comments is contemptuous of anyone who raises questions about this project. I'm sorry, but I find that tone not only bad manners but a bad sign for the city. That's actually my bigger concern here--the bristling resistance to questions or debate.

It's not the design; it's the concept. We all know what a modern high rise condo tower looks like, generally, so maybe we should stop pretending we're in suspense that the design will be a revelation. Look at the architects' residential buildings. Are they surprising to you? Do they amplify the concept of the modern high rise? Hardly. I hope I am wrong and that I'm seduced by the design, because it will be muscled through, just as the Burchfield-Penney was.

Whether one likes the original Park Lane condo or not, it is there, and it has a much closer relation architecturally to the houses near it than does the grammar of a glass highrise. It's crude logic to say we should build more big buildings on the circle because there is already one across the street and one nearby (the Park Lane is not on the circle). In that case, we should tear down the two large houses that frame the entry to Chapin Parkway and fill in the whole circle with high rises. Why not? We could strive to look like a typical, average American city.

When this project could do so much to enhance more vertical, denser areas of the city, it seems not only bad taste, but bad sense to put it here. But at this point, I wave my white flag; might is right in Buffalo.

can we start a pro high rise petition? we can even base the language in fact and data, not the nonsense of the nimby's / banana's / cave's / simpleton's petition. I think it's a perfect fit. It fit's the zoning, it fits the density, and it fits the massing of Deleware ave. when can this city get it's head out of it's ass?

Why not put the building on Elmwood and Forest? Everyone seems to think that's a perfect place for development.

Note to BH:
I'm not a Beast employee though if they offered me a job I'd be sorely tempted to dump the dull white collar world I presently inhabit.

Note to Eric:
Thanks for being the voice of sanity on this thread.

Note to Organic:
GARBAGE is a pretty strained acronym but I appreciate the sentiment. I'm sure we can improve on it.

Am I the only one NOT repulsed by the Park Lane Restaurant?

That being said, this is ridiculous to argue about the design since we don't know what it is yet. Keep the topic on the placement of the tower.

I do think that a 20-story tower on Gates Circle would be a nice addition. The realities, as others have said, is that the developer will follow the money. We will get our condo towers downtown. Paladino is in the process of designing a 14-story tower on the waterfront, Uniland is the developer for the outer harbor in which the design includes 5 (I think) high-rise towers. Other developers have expressed interest in developing condos downtown as well. But none can get the prices that this is expected to get at this time.

Regarding the neighborhood, isn't Delaware Avenue part of the neighborhood too? How many buildings are taller than 8-stories on Delaware? Delaware Towers, the other blue building, Gates Circle Apartments, Millard Fillmore Hospital... Is this really that far off?

That said, we have yet to see it. I will hold my final judgment until the product is in front of me.

No Money No Style I read Power Failure and what I got from the book is that selfish bankers developed the suburban green spaces for their selfishness. Despite protests and battles to place more benefitial developments in the downtown hub that clearly made good sense.

Now the models that similar developers want to place in Buffalo are projects in places that are totally unsuitable for the people who reside there. The oligarchy in Buffalo has done the most historic damage to Buffalo and the new money is not thinking about preserving our cultural treasures and enhancing the value of the things we have within the perameters of community standards generated from within the community and not imposed unfairly from outside selfish and short sighted interests.

High rises belong downtown and not in neighborhoods with beautiful, brick and wooden structures.

Agreed plans should not be slammed before they are seen but more high rise glass boxes are not what should be imposed on gates circle or the people who live there.

The GARBAGE people are perfectly willing to put a a four story and higher buildings in somebodies back yard where there are two and half story wooden homes. Homes and business developments of the same height belong in residential communities. Towers of any kind that dominant the urban esthetic in neighborhoods with two story frame homes is people unfriendly and bad planning like breaking the ancient wheel with the hub at the center and the spokes radiating outwards.

Another thing that bothered me about Power Failure was how the responsible parties for the destruction of Buffalo were not named.in the book.

Maybe this new high rise would be better suited on Fulton St after an environmental review is done on the Seneca Gamimg Project and after federal judges examine the unconstitional process that was used to impose a foreign nation on sovereign U.S. territory.

What difference is there in a slum lord placing a block busting rental property in a middle of an owner occupied street and a developer imposing there Albert Speer monuments in ones back yard?

The wealthy developer would not for one second want to live behind a high rise hotel or condo. The developer wants to live in neighborhoods where more pleasing esthetics exist. So why should neighborhoods in Buffalo be chopped up at the whim of developers? Who wants a dumpster from a hotel in their backyard or a glass and steel building that imprisons the more pleasing natural horizon. The high rise building can be like an unnatural wall in residential communities?. In the Gates Circle neighborhood and on Elmwood and throughout Buffalo heights of buildings should be restricted like the heights of fences are. People should matter more than the quick buck machinations of GARBAGE people.

Organic throws off a certain 'L' vibe. . . hmmm.

nope its not me. I havent made a post in a while and Im supportive and posted such a few times, infact, Ive said that there are development opportunities Delaware, Delavan and Main that have great urban and park views too!

Ahh yes BH sling the trash talking about the inferiority of opposing views and a pluralistic governement in the home of the brave and the free. Double Plus Good.

Organic, sounds like you have real issues with true city living.

Living in a CITY mean accepting a healthy mix and diversity of buildings, people, culture, and ideas, not a monoculture of nothing but so-called "residential communities" Stuff like that reeks of the suburbs.

You say...

Homes and business developments of the same height belong in residential communities.

This comes off as extremely anti-urban. Calling for uniform regulations prescribing low density development is suburban to the core. Have you ever lived in a city outside Buffalo before?

Then you you spout more nonsense like...

The GARBAGE people are perfectly willing to put a a four story and higher buildings in somebodies back yard where there are two and half story wooden homes.

This statement is utter GARBAGE. If someone decides to live in a busy, bustling, sought-after part of the city, they should damn well expect for new things to eventually be built. Big buildings get built in CITIES. If people don't like this, there are plenty of burbs to choose from, or even sleepier city neighborhoods where nothing gets built.

If your idea of proper city living limited to quiet streets lined with singlefamily homes that don't exceed 2.5 stories, perhaps inner-Buffalo is the wrong place for you. As these areas gentrify more, expect more and bigger buildings.

To those who oppose the high-rise based on it's location and context with the surrounding neighborhood - might I suggest the following list of buildings that also were (and still are) out of context/scale/style with their neighborhoods:

1. Darwin Martin House
2. Central Terminal
3. Kleinhans
4. HH Richardson Blfo Pysch Center (although I think this one may have preceded the neighborhood)

Probably others as well.

Just because the building will be new and modern doesn't make it bad. I think the location is right for a high rise tower (Delaware Ave is lined with them!) and nothing of value is being torn down to make way for it.

Mixing modern with classical can be done well (Albright Knox) or done badly (whoever is building that new thing downtown on the gasworks site).

Let's wait to see what they propose.

The boxes I've seen pictured here on this web site in no way resemble the Darwin Martin House, the Central Terminal, Kleinhans, or the HR Richardson Building.

So U.C. if you buy a house on a historically, quiet residential street and somebody wants to build a towering box behind your house you have to expect that because you live in a city? I don't think so.

It is wrong to do the Robert Moses shuffle and disregard the rights of home owners in a community. Jane Jacobs probably had a thing or two to say about GARBAGE plans tossed on ones street. The slum lord, the flipper, and the box builders who disrupt Buffalo streets and neighborhoods are not improving our quality of life in Buffalo. I am a Buffalonian.

I totally concur and say let's see what they propose first.

However I empathize with the residents who own homes behind the new hotel proposal on Elmwood. That proposal radically changes what is a fair mix between business structures and residential homes.

I will say this I have traveled extensively around the planet and have seen many cities and Buffalo has neighborhoods and homes and streets that deserve the same protection as the Albright Knox.

It still ticks me off to see what happened to the Olmsted parkways on the east side that I remember as a boy. The 33 was a wrongful development. The parks are part of our legacy and treasure. They were built thinking about people's needs in neighborhoods. Sorry a litlle tangent.

Let's see what is proposed.

I don't know how much more of this I can take. Any time someone steps up to put their money where their mouth is, they get beaten down by the petitioners and bloggers who I daresay mostly haven't invested a dollar in Buffalo, unless you count their parking tickets.

Are people upset because someone from out of town stands to make money on taking a development risk on our fair city? After all, far too many locals have collected meager rents for the last 40 years, letting their properties fall into disrepair, and putting us into the current predicament.

People think it will be too tall? I don't know if anyone ever tried to revise the City Ordinance for this area before, but it allows for the building height to be determined by the lot and yard areas... SO it's legal. A site this size can easily accomodate a building as large as proposed, or larger.

People think it won't be urban enough? I know it will be a lot more respectful of the urban fabric than the suburban country club styled Park Lane, with its huge setback and parking lot framing the arcing sidewalk.

People think Olmsted would spin in his grave? I disagree. I respect and admire the Olmsted parkways more than most people, and I think this design could augment it. FLO surely could have anticipated development of this type more than a century down the road. Central Park was intented to be a natural space void of structure in the middle of the dense metropolis. Buffalo's parkways are not to different, they are framed by their surroundings.

Complete lack of worthwhile development here wasn't going to last forever. I am a transplant, and maybe that helps one to see some of the opportunities that exist in Buffalo. I am very optimistic, as I believe that most of the BRO readers are. And I think this is just the beginning of Buffalo's renaissance.

But people need to temper their reactions! We don't even have anything to look at yet!! ...perhaps WESTCOASTPERSPECTIVE putting a picture of the 69-story Time Warner Center in NYC threw people off. Regardless, this widespread backlash against anything bigger than a Quizno's is ridiculous!

Those citizens of Buffalo who own their homes and pay their taxes and fight to preserve their neighborhoods from thugs and pirate developers have invested their lives here in this city.

The rights of people in the communities in Buffalo should come first and foremost before the Robert Moses and Genghis Khan developers.

S. Knox can kiss my grits for the damage he did to Buffalo.

It bugs me to no end to think of how many with money have never put their life on their line fot this country and this city like the little people struggling in Buffalo have. I do respect the business man and women who pour their money, sweat and labor into improving our community but I disapprove with those who impose their developments on the citizens of Buffalo to the detriment of those of us who live here.

I await with anticipation to see the proposal.

Those citizens of Buffalo who own their homes and pay their taxes and fight to preserve their neighborhoods from thugs and pirate developers have invested their lives here in this city.

The rights of people in the communities in Buffalo should come first and foremost before the Robert Moses and Genghis Khan developers.

S. Knox can kiss my grits for the damage he did to Buffalo.

It bugs me to no end to think of how many with money have never put their life on their line fot this country and this city like the little people struggling in Buffalo have. I do respect the business man and women who pour their money, sweat and labor into improving our community but I disapprove with those who impose their developments on the citizens of Buffalo to the detriment of those of us who live here.

I await with anticipation to see the proposal.

A high rise condo would be horrible. Let Uniland build it where it will fit into the surroundings instead of creating an eyesore. There has been talk of Millard Fillmore shutting down. Maybe they could do so quickly, and the high rise could be built there.

Build it.

Build it big, and tall and MODERN.

To hear Eric tell it, one would assume the hospital and other 10 story plus buildings didn't exist.

And to top it all off, "the Park Lane isn't on Gates Circle" bullshit.

Umm - just where is that hugh half-circular driveway/entrance located? - and just HOW does one enter the Park Lane? Oh, my, but it's from GATES CIRCLE and it FRONTS Gates Circle.

If this is the best argument of LIES and outright WRONG tidbits from Eric that we can all see and read for ourselves, I will take the rest of any of his arguments for what they are worth - utter CRAP.

But thanks for writing it all down for all of us to see..s

As for Steel - anther great post with excruciating logic and well documented FACTS!

BTW:

The pic at the start of this thread is of New York City's Columbus Circle, and is not representative at all of the size and scale of the proposed Gates Circle condo tower., which would be ONE tower and only 20 storys max, not the TWO 60-story towers shown...