Thanks for the support!
To BRO viewers: First, on behalf of myself and everyone at Savarino, I want to say thank you for the support and encouragement we have received – from the beginning – for the Elmwood Village Hotel Project.
We considered the Hotel to be something bigger than just a real estate project. We saw it as a chance to do something positive for the Elmwood Village neighborhood, for the cultural institutions, for Buffalo State College’s hospitality program, and for the tourists and visitors that would have experienced Buffalo far differently than they do now.
We developed the Hotel idea after we were invited to create the right development for the corner of Elmwood and Forest. We tried hard to listen to, and to be open to, the concerns of the neighbors and the community at large. We tried to accommodate those concerns in the hotel design and site plan. We worked to balance the need for a professional hotel operator with the desire to have something organic and local, incorporating local art and food service. To get all this input, we asked for and received a significant amount of time from area block clubs, individuals and organizations like Forever Elmwood – for which we are very grateful.
We also benefited from the strong support, talent and community spirit of our architect, Karl Frizlen.
Unfortunately, after a year of work, and due to circumstances beyond our control, we have decided not to pursue the Hotel project any further.
As most know, there was a legal challenge mounted last summer to the City’s rezoning of the property. In addition, this fall, while performing our diligence in conjunction with the purchase of the properties, we became aware of deed restrictions on the parcels dating back more than 100 years, that among other things prohibited commercial activity on the properties. These restrictions, which are meant to benefit more than 60 individual property owners nearby or adjacent to the proposed hotel site, provide more than ample standing for additional lawsuit(s) from opponents of the project - and by their nature would be impossible to extinguish in any legally supportable manner.
We have investigated the possibility of other developments for the Elmwood Forest site – such as apartments for students, for instance – but we believe that apartments are not the highest and best use for that location.
We said from the start that we wanted to do the right thing for that corner, and wanted to build what the neighborhood wanted. We want to be true to our word.
We have informed the property seller, Mr. Hans Mobius, of our decision. He has been a gentleman through this long and arduous process and was supportive of our efforts. We believe that he had no knowledge of the deed restrictions cited above.
All of us at Savarino are disappointed that the hotel project will not come to pass. We have spent a significant sum of money and resources to try to make it work. I must also add that I am personally disappointed because I am an Elmwood Village resident, and I have devoted a great deal of my life working for the benefit of our city. I intend to continue.
Thank you again, and the best for 2007.
Eva Hassett
I'm not buying this deed BS. The whole Elmwood /Forest area is full of retail and other commercial space. Which, doesn't the deed state "No Retail in this area"? So why is this ancient deed being used as your excuse? I'm not buying it.
thanks for helping to make the City beautiful...sehr schöne gemacht!
This should then apply to Pano as well.
Jai, you don't have to buy it, it is the law. Go ask any real estate attorney.
Well, there's a depressive start to the new year. Optimism and enthusiasm seem so rarely to pay off, in good old Buffalo.
This deed is from the 1880's. At a time when this corner was still FARM LAND. Why is anyone concerned over this very old deed when we already have commercial business on this land as we speak? I too, am not buying into this excuse. It's pety and a lame excuse. A new one, and pretty lame.
This deed is from the 1880's. At a time when this corner was still FARM LAND. Why is anyone concerned over this very old deed when we already have commercial business on this land as we speak? I too, am not buying into this excuse. It's pety and a lame excuse. A new one, and pretty lame.
I just wanted to let some of the respondents know that these deed restrictions are indeed real and that they do present a real problem.
Some old and archaic restrictions can and have been removed from many properties. The difference with these restrictions is that they inure to the benefit of over 60 seperate property owners in the adjoining residential area and that they are meant to restrict commercial development specifically to protect those property owners. As such they would not likely get extinguished unless the permission of the property owners was obtained. This is an unlikely scenario and some of these very property owners are the plaintiffs in a lawsuit to block the hotel.
I assume that Hans Mobius was not challenged by any of the 60 neighbors when he rented the space at his properties to commercial interests. I am informed that by law a person has a two year period to challenge the disposition or use of the property and impose the restrictions; if a suit or formal claim is not brought within that period then the change in use can stand.
We could have always plowed ahead and developed the corner and hoped that no one would discover the restrictions in the subsequent two years. That would certainly not have been proper. In any event it would make title insurance impossible to obtain and would have prohibited any financing.
We are as frustrated and disappointed as many of you are - perhaps more; but the facts are the facts.
Why do you think this reason is bogus. Look at all the lawsuits brought for just about anything that tries to get done in this city. Of course someone would discover the deed restriction and use it in a law suit. Same old Same old.
Anyone who says the deed restriction issue is a BS excuse needs to take a 1L Property Law course.
Just because those houses hosted small-scale retail on their ground floors over the past few years doesn't magically mean that the deed restrictions are null and void and that Savarino can just up and build anything there that they want.
Deed restrictions run with the land, which means they exist in perpetuity and are contractual - they can only be extinguished if the properties that benefit from the restriction agree to do so, or unless a judge extinguishes them after a trial.
Certainly, Savarino could have gone to trial and argued that the neighborhood has changed significantly since the restrictions came into place, but oftentimes people don't enjoy buying their property with a side order of litigation.
Nutshell: what Sam Savarino wrote above is absolutely correct and accurate.
Eva, you are always a class act. This entry proves it. Watching for new and innovative ideas for the future from you and all you represent.
Eva/Sam, I wish you'd adjust your hotel development ambitions to focus on a rehab of some portion of the Psych Center. A small hotel housed in one of the Richardson buildings would be extremely popular with heitage tourists and it would still serve the same Buffalo State/Museum district guests.
This is a darn shame. A small boutique hotel would have been an amazing asset to have along Elmwood.
Would those residents that opposed the hotel also oppose a mixed-use retail/residential project?
As the entrance into the Elmwood Village commercial district, this is currently an abomination. If not a hotel, at least allow it to be redeveloped as high quality mixed-use residential project.
It is critical to have some retail component in whatever does get redeveloped there.
I really feel the community needs to come together again to figure out what to do with this corner. You will need the opposers to the hotel project as well as the supporters. With the deed restrictions in place, either you all come together and develop a strategy or be left with homes that will continue to fall into further disrepair. I can tell you Hans Mobius will be even less likely to maintain them now that a deal to sell them fell through.
Get together now rather than later to figure this out- name calling and finger pointing will only delay the process of redevlopment. Figure out what can be done and do it.
Please please please turn the corner, literally and figuratively. The dead Plate-O restaurant and adjacent parking lot would not be missed. Houses on Forest are not offering the kind of distinctive, funky businesses that we cherish on Elmwood. And, as others have said, there is an outstanding National Register property a few yards west of Elmwood that would make a kick-ass destination hotel.
Sam,
If you still have an interest in the area, you might consider the Richardson complex. Period buildings like that with good bones are hard to come by. Yes, the building needs a good old fashioned guttin’, but I’d wager you would be able to handle it. Envision a grand 1800s’ era hotel / spa. If your design for a refurbishment of the Richardson complex were in that vein, I believe you would have near total support. I liked the proposed hotel and think it a shame that it will not be built. What ever your decision, thank you for trying to help.
This was a great idea/plan and I hope you can find another suitable location for a hotel. I agree that a hotel at this location would give tourists an entirely different perspective of Buffalo from what they get staying downtown. How about a condominium project at this site?
This is just another example of the backward-thinking few that have gotten Buffalo where it's been stuck for the last 40 years! Shame on the narrow-minded selfish individuals who've again stalled progress. Perhaps Walgreen's will give it a go next...they have a lot of money to spend to challenge and change zoning 'laws.' Would that make them happy?
Sam, we could only apologize for the 'ignorant minority' that stalled and blocked this development. You're doing a lot of great things in Buffalo.
There is a definitive need for condos in the City'Downtown--that will give young professionals an opportunity to invest--and have a vested interest in urban development. The flood of high-priced upscale apartments we're seeing will ultimately create a 'transient audience' and no stability. $1200-$2200 a-month rentals will have a short life span here. Where are all these people coming from? Just a thought--keep up the great work!
What a terrible couple of days. Air America is dead, Fix Buffalo David called it quits, Bass Pro (meh...), and now the hotel is pronounced dead. Sheesh. It feels like 2002 around here.
It is a shame that such a short sighted minority can stall what would have been a fantastic project for Buffalo and Elmwood. Since when can a handful of citizens not even a majority of those around the project stop it. Can their be a local vote on it or something, give everyone within 1/4 mile of the site a vote and see what they say.
It is just disheartening that people would prefer these, buildings that really detract from Elmwood as a business district, They are nice homes... but they do nothing to promote and build retail. Look at Elmwood south near spot coffee, the place is packed and booming, most of their buildings are built right to the lot line, the way real commercial streets are supposed to be. This project would have really anchored the north side of Elmwood and brought that kind of excitement and density you see farther south.
What are the real concerns that the neighbors have raised? Traffic? Increased property values? shade? I would love to see ANY hard facts.
Is there a rule against perpetuities based on common law that limits the length of time deed restrictions are valid? Like about 120 years. If not wouldn't midtown mahattan be farmland right now?
Despite the perception that the rule is merely an academic oddity, in New York it has continued applicability to modern real estate transactions. In fact, in the last year alone, the Rule Against Perpetuities has been the subject of two appellate court decisions, Reynolds v. Gagen [1] and Dimon v. Starr.[2]
The Rule Against Perpetuities was a creature of case law that evolved in England during the 1600s. Its purpose was to ensure the productive use and development of property by simplifying ownership, facilitating the exchange thereof and freeing property from unknown impediments to alienability.[3]
New York has codified the Rule Against Perpetuities in Section 9-1.1 of the Estates Powers and Trusts Law. The rule has two parts, §§9-1.1(a) and 9-1.1(b). Section §9-1.1(a) deals with restraints on the ability to convey real property. It provides that no interest in real property is valid if the instrument conveying the interest suspends the absolute power of alienation for longer than lives in being plus 21 years.[4]
You read my mind sbrof. The midsection of Elmwood from W. Ferry to W. Utica is thriving, and it is because they have come up with a well thought out New Urbanist strategy with parking in the rear or side, and entrances that are right up to the sidewalk. With the addition of the new art gallery by Buff State, this corner could be a welcoming redevelopment opportunity. I have been in one of the apartments in the wanna-be mixed use doubles that try to claim retail on the ground, and they are not impressive at all. These are not historical in any way, and are not the best visual stimulant when entering the strip from the north. Many people think that this gives Elmwood a unique character, but why not renovate other semi-dilapitated doubles further up close to Bidwell, and let them house these small businesses. This corner is prime, and if the disinvestment is going to continue over from Grant up Forest past Richmond (as it has), this stall in development certainly has not helped to remedy the ensuing problem.
justcurious: you've made an argument before about this. Do I understand you to be arguing that the covenents restricting commercial development from those properties applied only to those homeowners living at the time of the restriction's inception plus 21 years (for any child of the beneficiaries at that time?). What do the court cases say? Which side won?
Eva Hassetts's comments about the thorough, transparent and sensitive way in which Savarino handled this project only make the loss more acute. But what a model for civic responsibility that company provides us, and hopefully their example will not go unnoticed by others who want to enrich our city. Compare Savarino's impeccable handling of this hotel project with the furtive whispering and arrogance of the Burchfield-Penney with their new museum. Let's give cheers and more cheers for Savaraino in defeat, and boos and whistles for the Burchfield-Penney in victory.
BIn - I wasn't the one who made the argument before. But, out of curiosity, I did some on-line research after reading The comment you are refering to. ...
http://www.ruskinmoscou.com/article-rule-against-perpetuities.htm
That is exactly what just curious is arguing. For people with no knowledge in real estate law, this is a very easy explanation to digest. But the sad reality is either Savarino has horrible attorneys or the likely scenario, he just didn't want to move forward with the project. Maybe, an attorney who writes for Buffalo Rising, if there is one can write an article exposing this reasoning as a way to simply keep the good favor with the public. I don't know where BuffaloPundit went to law school, but he must have fallen asleep in the 1L class where the law of perpetuities was discussed. As much as Savarino will insist that they did everything they could, they know that most people aren't attorneys and won't challenge their reason.
By the way, I do support Savarino for the way the handled this project from the beginning. It certainly had the potential to be a great asset to the community. While they are not obligated to, I still wish they would be more clear as to the real reason that this project has been cancelled.
By the way, I do support Savarino for the way the handled this project from the beginning. It certainly had the potential to be a great asset to the community. While they are not obligated to, I still wish they would be more clear as to the real reason that this project has been cancelled.
I'm curious as to why it took so long to discover the deed restriction. I'm a licensed Realtor in a title state - the first thing that happens with any sales agreement is a title search to demonstrate that the seller can provide the purchaser with clear and insurable title. If there are issues that cannot be easily cured or restrictions that may affect the purchasers use or future sale of the property, he can back out of the contract without wasting further time and money on the transaction. How is it that you spent so much time and money on this project without knowing the status of title beforehand?
I also wonder how the current owner was able to purchase these properties without knowing the exact condition of title. This should have been discovered and revealed to him prior to closing. What am I missing here?
where's city hall on this?
government can use the power of eminent domain but they cant be bothered to fix outdated deed restrictions. bogus.
City Hall don't care, they never did. It's most likely either an employee or two from city hall are the ones fighting against the Hotel or knew some of the people against it. Hense, had to stop it, to make themselfs look good....Isn't that how the system works? Especially in this small ass town.
Shame on the residents who want the city to continue to rot. A small hotel that brings cultured visitors to our city to see one of it's finest areas, inject money into the local economy and help change the city's image problem? What a terrible thing!!! The people living nearby would barely be affected - I have a feeling they'll get what's coming to them with some worse development ending up in that spot. Unfortunately, the whole city suffers along with them. Ignorant, short-sighted, selfish, narrow-minded - people like these are why Buffalo is in the condition it is. It seriously ANGERS me.
Redevelop the Richardson complex. It would make a gorgeous hotel and tear down the ratty little houses on Elmwood and put a park on that corner. A nice little green space for the nieghborhood and no commercial development to upset the property owners on Granger. Although if you wanted to poke at them a little bit, it could become a dog park! Hee.
Too bad to see that. I was looking forward to seeing that corner developed. :(
What's really sad is that now these houses are virtually vacant and will sit there for who-knows how long. It doesn't seem like the maintenance of the buildings has ever been Mr. Mobius' top priority. It just goes from bad to worse. The gateway to the Elmwood Village has vacant Plate-Ohs and four vacant houses (except for Allentown Music). And then the once-occupied Atwater House deteriorating before our eyes. I wish the city would start citing these guys--the rest of us get tickets for keeping our garbage cans out too long or for peeling paint (rightfully so), but Pano and Mobius are allowed a free ride on their violations! UGH.
E. Street said"What a terrible couple of days. Air America is dead, Fix Buffalo David called it quits, Bass Pro (meh...), and now the hotel is pronounced dead. Sheesh. It feels like 2002 around here. "
or 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and no doubt 2007 and beyond. Why do you think everyone has moved out of the city to the suburbs. To get away from the type of people that are left in the city - losers and nimby's.
E. Street said"What a terrible couple of days. Air America is dead, Fix Buffalo David called it quits, Bass Pro (meh...), and now the hotel is pronounced dead. Sheesh. It feels like 2002 around here. "
or 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and no doubt 2007 and beyond. Why do you think everyone has moved out of the city to the suburbs. To get away from the type of people that are left in the city - losers and nimby's.
E. Street said"What a terrible couple of days. Air America is dead, Fix Buffalo David called it quits, Bass Pro (meh...), and now the hotel is pronounced dead. Sheesh. It feels like 2002 around here. "
or 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and no doubt 2007 and beyond. Why do you think everyone has moved out of the city to the suburbs. To get away from the type of people that are left in the city - losers and nimby's.
I am very impressed by the way that Savarino has handled this entire attempted project. They have been above board and very up front on everything and truly demonstrated that the interests of the community is part of their development plans. Savarino did not even need to comment here. Few developers have been so forthcoming. Thank you for being such a great community participant.
Naturally, I am very disappointed that this corner will not host a new hotel. It would have truly been the ideal project for this location.
Thanks, Sally! After reading your post, I am no longer frustrated. You have forced me to sit here and think about all of the great things that have happened in the city over the past four years. I could list them, but that's preaching to the choir. I know many people (I can think of 6 off the top of my head) who are desperately searching for a house in the city and can't find one because people don't want to move! There aren't enough houses for sale for the buyers out there. And...the houses are selling for more money, too! Granted, that's not in all parts of the city, but from what I've read on BR lately, it certainly seems to be spreading out. I don't want to redirect the discussion to a city vs. suburbs discussion that has been beaten to death. But for me, I'll take the "losers" in the city any day!!
At 12:00 pm today, a commenter named "Sam" and others bring up the rule against perpetuities, which is defined in Black's as,
It deals with contingent conveyances of property - not with contractual deed restrictions based on contract that run with the land. In other words, it has nothing at all to do with the problem Savarino faced with respect to this project and those deed restrictions.
Thanks for playing though, Sam.
justcurious, the laws you cited pertain to estates and restrictions of transferring property to specific or from specific individuals. Under Real Property law, deed restrictions that don't serve a valid purpose can be overturned by a judge. In the case of the Hotel, it does not seem likely due to the interests of nearby parties. Also, by law, if the Hotel were to be built without the restrictions lifted, they would automatically lose in court if challenged.
David from fixbuffalo called it quits.....What??????????
Elaborate please...
Biniszkiewicz,
I remember in a previous post you discussed your interest in the Pierce Arrow property. I know it's some distance from the Strip, but a hotel on that property comes in relatively close proximity to the park, historical society, Albright Knox, Buff State, etc. People might be willing to walk to Elmwood Village from that location (at least in the summer).
Pundit, r u Savarino's lawyer or r u his father. U seem unduly agitatted by the discussion, posting your comments on multiple websites . Personally I found the discussion informative.
Buffalo Pundit, thanks for the blow by blow of my commentary "At 12:00 pm today, a commenter named "Sam" and others bring up the rule against perpetuities"
let me ask you this. In New York State, how is real property transferred? If I'm not mistaken it is transferred through deeds. So the rule against perpetuities have everything to do with it. For you to write that the rule has nothing to do with it based on a definition from Black's alone is pretty funny. The public policy underlying the rule would certainly go a long way in getting the restrictions overturned. If this were brought before a judge, there is little chance that the judge doesn't overturn these antiquated restrictions from the 1800's. In addition to the actual rule of law, I'm not sure an argument could be made by the homeowners to stop the judge from overturning any restrictions.
Again, Savarino seems to be doing a lot for the city, certainly more than I am (although, I'm sure he sees a nice profit). I just wish they were more clear as to the reason they are canceling. It's definitely possible that they are just unwilling to face any type of legal challenge, regardless of their likelihood of winning. But to say that this deed restriction will completely stop them from building a hotel in that spot just seems unlikely. I hope they continue to do a lot in the city, but hopefully they are more clear if they want to come off as transparent with the public. I wish them the best. I'm sure their reasons for pulling out of this project were valid. After all, they are a business and if they could make money in that spot they would move forward.
Public transparency is a double edged sword. It's certainly a civic minded way to build public support. However, if you choose to mislead the public, the strategy can backfire.
Suffice it to say without this thread becoming a bar review course, the rule against perpetuities has nothing to do with it because nowhere has anyone says that there's a deed provision indicating whom the property might be transferred.
Contingent deeds. The rule against perpetuities has to do with contingent deeds. Is there an issue raised here about the time period within which an interest in these properties must vest? No. We are talking about contractual deed restrictions governing the use of the property. Apples and oranges.
Since the deed restriction is contractual, the aggrieved parties' (i.e., the restriction's beneficiaries) have recourse through litigation to block a hotel use for the property or, in the alternative, Savarino could seek a declaratory judgment ruling that the restrictions are needles anachronisms.
No one ever said - not me, not anyone - that the deed restriction would forever block a hotel. I believe I said that Savarino probably decided that they didn't want to buy a property with a side of litigation, which is exactly what they would have gotten. It's also what any new owner would be buying if they wanted to use that property for any sort of commercial use more intense than Home of the Hits or a second-hand clothing shop.
But in the end, since we agree on the end, I have no clue why you're busting my balls over the goddamn rule against perpetuities, which doesn't apply to this particular issue whether you're reading Black's, McKinney's, or your BarBri materials.
To those who fight every good project in this city -- I hope your happy. Now this important gateway to your neighborhood will continue to be an eyesore. Very sad. The hotel was a great project and with some community support, the deed restriction could be overcome.
Yup, now these people who faught to stop this project are now stuck iwth a cluster of empty buildings. HAPPY NOW F*&^(ing Old Buffalo!
this one is a shocker...this project was dead on arrival.
I would hope this company still builds on Elmwood Ave. We have a few surface lots available. Elmwood @ Bryant? , Summer St. (Re-do the Plaza Idea?), Remove a Wilson Farms? Or even on S.Elmwood closer to Downtown? Plenty of empty lots available on this end of Elmwood.
Dear Eva & Sam,
Thank you for trying so hard. Your openness during the process was refreshing. The abuse you endured at some meetings was shameful. (And you are still being abused by some here at BRO! Keep that thick skin)
I hope what happened won't keep you away from Elmwood forever. Good projects, such as your proposed hotel, will be embraced by the majority of residents. Please keep trying.
Thank you again.
The Richardson..........
Great name for a spectacular HOTEL and SPA!
Beautiful historical buildings on spacious old-treed grounds.......a no brainer!
Where can I make a reservation for a weekend stay @ The Richardson?
I can give you a deed restriction scenario…
I reside in the Village of Olcott Beach, which is part of the Town of Newfane and, as many of you may already know, it is very country and very depressed economically.
In the Village of Olcott Beach there is Krull Park that was deeded to the village in 1938 during the FDR administration’s WPA Program. The park is quite large and only a small portion is actually developed as a park. The remainder is green space with old forest growth.
Approximately ten-years ago the Renaissance Festival approached the Village asking to establish one of their theme parks in this undeveloped area of Krull Park. This, in itself, may not have generated a great deal of income but it may have been the catalyst for attracting other business within the village and perhaps generating seasonal employment.
In my opinion, it was better that the status quo of nothing…
The turn-out in the old fire hall was tremendous and the local support was enormous; especially from the local vendors who were struggling to survive.
The opponents were few; typically retired Delphi who, quite literally, did not want their seclusion disrupted; the same “retirees” who left for Florida every winter. Ironically, several of the chronically unemployed natives also opposed the offer.
One, now deceased, told me quite bluntly that “he was a native and he did not want his village to change.”
“He” was also a looser and never amounted to much in life but I am digressing.
One of the more clever Delphi Employees (what an oxymoron!) reviewed the deed and discovered a clause that disallowed any profitability being generated from the park.
Ironic since a large portion of the park had been leased to a local farmer for years!
Ten-years later, most of the vendors at the fire hall have sold out or simply gone out of business and many of the Main Street buildings are slated for demolition. In fact, the bowling Alley has collapsed, as if it imploded.
Welcome to Western New York where nothing ever happens because it is run by rednecks and phucktards!
Maybe Savorino did have a change of heart, pulled the plug on this project and is using the deed as an excuse. Maybe! But so would I, in order to get this project done he would have had to fight several legal challenges that could have taken years and a lot more money. Furthermore, he doesn't have a track record of this type of behavior, of the FEW great re-developments in the city over the past few years how many are his? Most of them.
So for the few of the near by residents who objected to this re-development.......have fun with those broken down house's, i'm positive the current owner is not going to re-invest in them and improve them in order to get very little rent. Maybe with any luck Palladino will get a hold of them and you can live next to a Rite-Aid.
It is so difficult and so expensive to do business in this state......
Well how happy are we now in Buffalo that we have officially killed yet another project in Buffalo? I speak of the failed hotel development at the corner of Elmwood and Forest. Apparently a small group of people have issues with the project that they fear will be an eyesore in their neighborhood, something that will block out the sun, etc. The project has been killed by yet another special interest group that never accounts for the greater good in this community. As far as I am concern this is another example of the Bove vs. Donner-Hanna Coke precedent setting case in US Supreme Court. The fact is that the people who threw a fit and brought yet another Buffalo project to court to die moved into an area in a city within a short distance of a successful commercial strip. One of the appealing features of living in a city is the mix of land uses that make communities walkable and products and services readily available without burning gasoline. If you move into an urban area near a commercial strip then you should expect larger scale commercial, perhaps denser residential development. The company responsible for proposing the hotel at the corner of Elmwood and Forest was very responsible. They presented this project funded with private dollars to the public in an effort to get community feedback and suggestions about the look of the structure. Due to their suggestions the height of the building; its number of floors was even reduced a bit to help ease any shading concerns residents may have had. Oh no though...being responsible to the community isnt good enough in this town though. Nothings good enough unless its killed all-together in court. In Buffalo its an all or nothing approach and apparently this community once again falls to a small group of people who seek nothing, no positive "make sense" growth". If you dont want things to change ever in or around your home then perhaps it would be wise to buy a home on 300 acres of land and live in solitude. As far as I could tell this development met the criteria for a "make sense" type of development; a success story for the Elmwood strip. The structure would feature zero lot line frontages, first floor retail to interact with the street, hotel space and therefore higher density on the parcel...ummm...more sustainable development, and underground parking! Higher density creates a better use for the land and supports "sustainable development". This is not a greenfield development but rather an urban transformation on a corner. Do the damn project, stop whining and tying things up in court. Cities grow (hopefully), cities change, people change. Lets stop living frozen in time. Its things like these that make us early 20 somethings with masters degrees ill. I love this town and want to stay here. Stop making me question myself or i'll be yet another statistic.
This issue has nothing to do with deeds. If everyone would open their eyes and see the value in this project it would get done. Its just a way to throw red tape into the process to scramble things and stop the process.
Sam,
Would you consider any other location on Elmwood? I believe that if you bought the Pier One building and raze it to build your project it would be a great fit and match scale on the street. Also, you could strike a deal with the city to use the parking ramp directly behind it for your guests. As a business owner on that block for 17 years I can see support for a Hotel. Forest and Elmwood has Buffalo State and Elmwood and Hodge has Childrens Hospital.
Keep moving forward and don't let the vocal few obstruct you from doing what's good for Buffalo.
I really think that even some sort of complex on that corner that was a sort of "gateway" to the Elmwood strip would be more useful -- a low key commercial and informational and even cultural guide.
I believe the Richardon building would be marvelous hotel complex if it included an art gallery, a historic significance museum, a layout of the attractions and history of the area. People could be fascinated. It could have depth and panache, be another sort of guide.
The interiors of the Richardson buildings need to be studied by those who keep saying a hotel would be a perfect fit. Every floor has a large hall facing South, with rooms opening directly onto that hall, all separated by THICK, solid brick walls. It would be enormously expensive to change the layout and install bathrooms for each hotel room. They might work as dormitories, with the bath-down-the-hall, but that wouldn't entice most tourists.
What else is new in Buffalo, any new plan, proposal , or idea always seems to die on the vine in this city. The cancellation of the Elmwood boutique hotel project is a major step backwards for the Elmwood Village district. These old deed restrictions from 1880 should have been repealed because there is no legitimate reason for their continued existense. Where are our fearless political leaders on this issue. Again as usual it is the same old- same old in the backward, unprogressive, declining City of Buffalo.
Same old dull Buffalonians who have never been outside of Buffalo, have no idea how to embrace change, have these crazy ideas of too much congestion or a mega-metropalis forming around them with crime because of one single new development. ...Yup, that pretty much sums it up on why this Hotel plan was shot down.