Buffalorising has been redesigned.

hahahahahah one step forward, two steps back.
give it time, the name byron brown will draw the same kind of disdain as names like masiello and giambra and gorski.

freaking parking uhhg.

This isn't about race....but the perception that many have, repeated by the Mayor, that downtown lacks parking.

Hey Buffalo Rising, I thought you were going to monitor and admin comments. I am all for free speech but can we keep it civil here and tone down on racist commentary? Buffalo has its head up its ass in so many aspects and parking/development is part of that. But a bigger issue is the segregation/urban flight here that nobody seems to want to address.

As for downtown, I used to work there and in some respects it CAN be an issue. Folks not taking the train or using public transportation like they do in NYC, Chicago, Boston, and other cities. Gee, wonder why.

This is really very simple....

Someone should sue Buffalo over this, so that Brown and the rest of the collective pig's asses we call a city government can see that some people here actually want to see a livable and viable downtown and voting against development because of a f@#$ing surface parking lot is unacceptable.

Where are you Brown/ Come here and defend yourself against this!

How much cash is on the table?

Biggest bunch of corrupt jerkoffs laughing all the way to the bank at our expense.

Ummm, yeah Mr. Brown, you don't walk much do ya? If you did, you would notice most of downtown is one giant parking lot. And to think, I thought you were from Queens, NY. (NYC) Didn't you learn much URBAN PLANNING while in the Big Apple? - UNDERGROUND PARKING? INFILL? PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY STREETS? ----hmmm, I don't think you did, or else you would be in favor of this development and simply say "Underground parking a must" instead of rejecting it completly.

Here's a suggestion: take a quarter of the surface lots and turned them into parking garages eight to ten stories high. The remaining three-quarters of surface parking (presumably the smaller lots where parking garage footprints are too large to fit) could be developed into office/retail space or green space--whatever. Although this is not scientific, I am fairly confident a few well-designed, large parking garages replacing copious surface lots would actually provide a net gain in parking space. Cities across the country accomplish this with little fanfare or attention. It's not rocket science. It's simply providing mass quantities of densely packed parking in a downtown core to ensure that anyone who visits has no difficulty parking.

Another design idea is to make a multi-use parking garage/office space high-rise building in the same footprint. They did this in a few spaces in DT Minneapolis when I lived there.
Build retail on the first and second floors (second story being connected to multiple buildings by skyways); levels three -eight are parking garage spaces; above that is highrise-style office space that can have as many floors as the developer chooses. Obviously, many of the parking spaces in this instance would probably be used by the inhabitants of said building, but developers need to be a bit more creative here. This seems so elementary to me. I cannot believe we need to waste time on something as obvious as the need for easy parking space in a DT community.

To those who own surface lots, why not redevelop some of them into parking garages and sell of the land of the smaller lots for commercial development? This is just a guess, but one probably stands to make a lot more money from a parking garage over time than a few surface spots.

Mayor Brown should not be nixing multi-million dollar development in downtown because of 40 parking spaces. He should exploring the feasibility of building a few city-owned parking garages that will help fix the alleged parking shortage and if done correctly generate revenue for our gluttonous government at the same time.

40 F*CKING SPOTS?????? Are you kidding me! I used to admire Mayor Brown, but this one really changes my opinion on him.

who said anything about race?
my comment was about western new york leaders(past and present) and their inability to get a grasp on reality.

While I do believe that this project should go through, I do see where Mayr Brown is coming from. Downtown may have a pletheria of parkin lots, but they are all full during the weekday. What we need is, as Jackson mentioned, is more parking ramps. With those, we needent worry about the loss of parking.
Lastly, the world we live in now depends on parking. Even the larger cities have plenty of them. For example, downtown Houston is completley surronded by parking lots to the point where it becomes an island. In my oppionion, it is far worse than Buffalo's problem.

DDUUUUHHHHH...What do you expect from a career politician? SHOULDA offered to let him name a street there or some other ditty that he has shown in the past to be capable of. GIVE HIM A BREAK..He probably did'nt have a chance to confer with someone who knew what they were doing, before he answered. LMAO...VOTERS OF BUFFALO..er i mean SPECIAL INTERSTS that supported him... ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION??

Would all the bashers above PLEASE read 'The News' story--in its entirety. (Why are so many BRO-ers uninformed, yet revel in angry misplaced opinions about every little thing?)

The Mayor is asking that parking be INCORPORATED into the bldg/site so no net loss of spots is incurred. This is a good thing for employees and potential tenants that want parking. (When the bashers build their $11-17M bldg, feel free to eliminate parking. Geez.) Not everyone wants or is able to walk significant distances.

I'm not for more surface lots, but I am in favor of integrating parking in/below new/old structures.
Remember, a true city offers most everything to everyone---not just what a few deem as desirable.

P.S. - I think Jackson is on to something. Add incentives to surface lot owners to beautify/build or sell them for higher/better multi-purpose uses. I would prefer and support the City/State agencies focus on holding title to (relatively innocuous)surface lots until dvlplmt. takes place, rather than all the residential properties it holds now...and left rotting.)

Great story..40 parking spots as opposed to more downtown development..the answer is more creative use of available space.Light rail..underground parking..multui use development(office,residential and conmnmercial).Let us also remember when our mayor lost during the October storm.

Does anyone know how many city hall employees park in the existing lot?

There are 27,000 parking spaces downtown. I had no idea these 40 spots what was keeping downtown solid all these years.

Simple steps to correct this.

1- Provide motivation for all new construction to incorporate underground parking to cover 80% of it's needs.
2- Start taxing parking lots on what could be there, not what is. The reason Buffalo has so many lots is owners can tear down a building, remove any tax burden and cost for the building and reap heavy profits on parking.
3- The city/county should get in the parking business. Instead of throwing money at Bass Pro, take that money and build a city owned parking ramp. 7 stories tall. Cheap to staff and would bring in needed revenue to the city. It would also place pressure on other lot owners to provide covered and secure lots.

Tax parking lots higher than other property because they prevent land from being used for more productive uses, such as housing, offices, retail, etc. Then let the market set the rates. People can decide between pricier and cheaper parking, just like we choose between pricier and cheaper housing, food, and clothing. If a lot cannot support itself, sell it to someone who will build on it.

The urban design project did a quick study on parking downtown a couple years ago now. It basically said that you could build 3 / 4 parking structures in key locations, add parking capacity and basically replace ALL surface parking lots.

Mayor Brown, I am disappointed in your short sighted anti-urban view about parking.

Buffalo doesn't have a parking shortage... it has a parking management issue. There are always empty spots in and around downtown, the problem is they are fenced off private, and usually underutilized. Buffalo should enact laws or something that open these lots for public use when. You shouldn't be allowed to have a giant 150 parking lot that no one is allowed to use and force the public to spend more money demolishing structure to make even more parking. Or so even consider stopping projects that would add to the tax base and density of our city because of 40 freaking parking spots..

I didn't just loose respect for Brown, I think he is an idiot for that statement and has no idea what real cities are supposed to be. What a great way to push out and deter future developments. Yes we need parking but to stop a proposed building, the very things that make a city... a city. Is counter productive.. grrr the Sabres lost, the Bills are loosing, just a frustrating weekend all around!

Is Mayor Byron Brown on some type of stong narcotics or is he just plain ignorant of the currently unacceptable amount of downtown land set aside for surface parking? It is very obvious that downtown has more than enough parking and that there is no legitimate need to set aside any more land for parking. Lets face proven facts, surface parking lots are hideous and they kill off all urban street life. They are also a wasteful, horrible use of prime downtown land. It is time to start tearing out all these surface parking lots and fill them in with new development. All downtown parking should be placed in multi story parking ramps. I think our mayor needs to rethink his position on this issue and take back what he previously said and support a proposed new development for downtown.

The Mayor simply wants developers to provide reasonable on-site parking. If this is done for each development less surface lots would be required.. You know just lke other cities do.

I'd also like to point out something about the graphic that accompanies this posting, which is taken from a widely quoted, but quite misleading report by NMG.

The orange color denotes both parking structures (i.e. parking ramps), and structures in which parking is just one use among several. This is a significant distinction and by failing to make it the graphic's usefulness, and the accuracy of statistics based upon it, is compromised.

On the graphic you can't distinguish between the HSBC Center which has 28 floors (right?) of commercial office space with parking under it, and the Mohawk Ramp which is a three level parking structure. M&T Plaza, Main Place Mall, and the Rath Building, are among other examples.

The post about taxing was right on. Land Value taxation taxes the land not what is on it. What happens then - it make fully using the land for a ramp, building, etc more cost effective than a surface parking lot. if your property taxes are the same whether you have a 6 story ramp or a single "story" surface lot - what do you think will happen? They will build up.

I share everyones else's frustration with our Mayor. For a loss of 20 spaces he would vote no for a 11 million dollar project.

And...Charger - the map is only meant to be a map of parking - just parking. It is not a map of all things downtown. Whether the parking is under a building or attached to a building - it is still parking and therefore shuld be on a map of, well, parking.

There's an inverse relationship between the amount of parking a city provides and the vitality of that city. Think about some of America's finest cities. Now think about how inconvenient it is to park in them....

1. Yes, downtown has a parking problem: there's too much of it.

2. The parking we have is mismanaged. BNCAR/Board of Parking needs to stop subsidizing parking and start charging market rates. Why should anyone consider buying a $66 metro pass when you can park in a public ramp for the same price or a surface lot for $35?

3. Board of Parking should be absorbed into the Office of Strategic Planning. Parking is an urban design issue after all. The Board of Parking has been an accomplice in the demise of downtown's vitality for the past fifty years. Such an utter failure should have been eliminated a long time ago.

charger, that is a fair assessment of the graphic. They should have put in a mixed use category and not lumped all structured parking together. Mixed use structures are much better for urban developments than either surface or structured alone. But there are always two sides to a story and all of the above mixed use structures usually take over an entire side or two for entrances not allowing other pro-pedestrian or urban developments to happen.

- HSBC center has Washington, exchange and pearl facades that are nothing but blank walls.
- Main Place Mall - all of pearl street facade is an abomination.
- Rath building is probably the best looking of them all. At least they put a small public plaza around and on their entrance.
- Mohawk, there is commercial space in that building? Where?
- Key Towers' Pearl Street facade is dead and boring.

The point is that while slightly misleading those sites still appears bland and parking oriented from many directions.

Maybe in the interim while Brown either learns his lesson or surface parking is going to exist we could create some better urban design features that must be built into the lots. Since raising taxes on any land use is probably a tough sell politically we could enact ordinances that make parking lot owners think about and build nicer street fronts.

Think about the parking lot at the corner or Chippewa and Franklin, It has lighting, trees, a brick half wall with taller segments, A nice fence between it. We already have laws saying that all parking lots must be surrounded by a black metal fence why not expand on that and create something that is actually nice, not functional.

Sorry to keep rambling but there are other reasons to like the idea of a couple large parking facilities that serve all of downtown. Think about the ease of use... no more searching for the perfect spot. You know where to go and you always know there will be a spot.... You can even have digital boards, like in Frankfurt, showing how many spots are free in the ramps so you don’t need to waste time searching.

And because everyone will be using the same spot they would be full of activity or people coming and going creating that sense of safety that people dislike about ramps. They can even be locked up tight. No one said parking ramps need to allow any random pedestrian in, why not only allow people in cars in, you get a little pass, that would let you back in by foot and you need to return in to exit. Well within our level or affordable technologies today.

The point would be to make these parking garages the best, easiest and convenient places to park; thereby reducing the need for anything but the most necessary on site parking regulations. (handicap etc)

Or even like the Ulrich City Center in Lockport:

Put the parking in the middle of the block (in this case surface, but would work for ramps too) and place the buildings, around the edges facing the streets and the lot (2 entrances)

The graphic is fine. Its purpose was to show available parking as of July 2003, which it did admirably.

If it bothers anyone that a couple of ramps are below buildings, then look at only the surface lots in red. Enough said.

The red is symbolic in a way: It represents downtown bleeding to death from all the wounds in its urban fabric.

why wouldn't the Mayor, who controls the urban renewal agency meetings, have negotiated the parking adjustment beforehand, and thus been able to vote FOR a project that he will clearly want to take credit for when it happens?

...for an administration that manages the press to the semicolon, it doesn't make any sense at all for him to have to vote against a big project because of a little thing like that. staff, or somebody, dropped the ball. should have waited two weeks to the next BURA meeting and been packaged as a big yes.

c, this doesn't make any sense to me at all, every time i drive past that lot, it is almost completely empty! (see the picture on the previous post)

I'm sure that once the Mayor thinks this through, he will modify his position. Sacrifing an $11 million project for 40 surface spots is just asinine.

Memo to sbrof --- great post chock full of great ideas and takes!

I am sure the mayor is just posturing to get more parking as part of the project. I say let the developers decide how much parking to provide. If they can rent the space and not provide ANY parking I say the city is the the big winner.

In reality the only parking problem downtown has is that each building is not surrounded by its own private parking lot. That is the scenario that those who complain about parking would really like to have. The problem is that once they get their wish they will be complaining about crime because the place will be so desolate.

exactly steel, people remember the time when downtown was alive, full, and the place to be. One thing those people will NOT remember is parking lots, because there weren't any! Or very few and far between.

People want their cake and eat it too when it comes to cars, you CAN NOT HAVE on site parking @ every building and except it to be an active place. No one will be on the streets. You wont walk from Pearl Street Grill to Chippewa.. You would just drive because you know you have a spot right where you want to go. That leads to the unsafe, desolate conditions that blanket much of current downtown.

Thanks thesportsroadtrip, now I need to work on saying it in half as many words and not bore everyone for so long =p

"Tax parking lots higher than other property because they prevent land from being used for more productive uses, such as housing, offices, retail, etc."

Parkiong lots don't prevent land from being used for more productive uses, government regulation of private property rights does. People are more than willing to have the government step in and stop a private developer from putting up a structure they don't want, but then turn around and cry when the government steps in and stops a private developer they support.

This is the problem that has plagued Buffalo for so many years, and is the key reason why Buffalo is in the state that it is in. People only see the government as a tool to exert their will on other citizens. Like I said, it is all well and good when the government does what you want it to do, but don't get upset when it turns around and bites you in the ass with the power you gave it.

lol, thats Buffalo for you

I could NOT believe that when I read it in the B News. Hopefully his comments were taken out of context. Otherwise, I'M SCARED.

It seems that an URBAN solution would be to have more "Park & Ride" parking lots along the subway line. How about a multi-story structure @ UB for students & commuters and another multi-story ramp in the existing Aldi paking lot?

sbrof-

NEVER apologize for the length of your posts!
Your passion and concern for Buffalo is refreshing and contagious and your posts are full of insight and solid ideas.
:)
I have lived in several cities across the Nation and the one city that seems to have found a balance in regards to pedestrians/cars/parking is Portland, OR. Many of us are pedestrians AND drivers depending on the situation. Portland's mix of mass transit (buses, light rail), used by thousands, short city blocks and multi-level parking garages make Portland a dream for pedestrians and drivers alike. I didn't live in the city, but in a suburb several miles away and although I utilized light rail at times, I NEVER dreaded driving into the actual City of Portland because I KNEW I could always find afforable parking and walk or hop on a bus (free in the downtown core) to shop, see a concert or whatever. Portland is one of the most livable cities in this Country and before I talk myself into moving back ;) I would love to see planners/government folk look to Portland and glean what they can and apply it to Buffalo.
Twenty years ago no one would have thought that rainy old Portland would be the "hot" place to live; Buffalo has the raw material just like Portland did, it just needs the right leadership with vision to make it happen and from what I read here, Buffalo already has amazing folks who are willing to do the work, they just need their leaders/planners to DO THEIR JOBS!