Who plan is this? Has this been officially proposed or funded? Or is it a recommendation from an outside group?

that plan is frightening. why is there a large suburban building with a giant fence around it taking up a major portion of the site where presumably a bridge could land to provide access from downtown. yikes. whose plan is this?

nyc - good call on the bridge, but I think that is supposed to be the new coast guard compound (note ship pulled up to the dock beside it).

AHH how come my comments constantly disappear!!! ok well here I go again.

That building probably won't get in the way of the proposed bridge landing since the plans that have shown the bridge show it hitting just west of that building about where they drew that little black line (road?) Lets hope when they actually do go and finalize the drawing and plans for this building they look at that plan The Queen City Waterfront and take it into account. No need to start over, we know what needs to get done, it is just a matter of follow through and don't build things that get in the way of our long term goals.

Regardless if the building is out of the way of the bridge, that compound is in an awful location. that black line is a fence creating a barrier blocking a major portion of the waterfront. I hope that is not the option for relocation that they are considering.

and on a side note, I like all the new parkland, but i think there is room for development if it is done well. The city need residents and this land could fetch very high end housing with possibly mixed use. It could even locate where the new coast guard station is shown as long as continuous public access is provide at the rivers edge with a wide promenade. The land should be developed in conjunction with the parkland to provide a revenue source for the maintenace of the open space.

We sorely need better, more creating planning here. Something that works long term.

The coast guard base has to go somewhere. Didn't we already fight one battle to keep it from closing?

I think the plan is a vast improvement over the current look of the out harbor. Hopefully this plan will go forward. As for the bridge, and I'm just throwing this out there for discussion, what about a pedestrian bridge? Make vehicular traffic to the oter harbor use a reconnected Michigan St bridge or, if and when the Skyway comes down, a bridge from Main St. A pedistrian bridge to the light house area would keep vehicle traffic off the land, increase pedestrian presence, keep parking on the other side of the river, and allow people to (heaven forbid) walk to this newlycreated recreational area.

A pedestrian bridge has its benefits. Cheaper to construct and maintain. Takes up less space on either side of the river. And the view from atop a pedestrian bridge free of cars would nice too. So am I way off base here? Or does anyone else think a pedestrian bridge may be a good alternative? I'm interested in everone's opinion.

I think ehrenkrantz eckstut & kuhn architects, planners for canalside have created a water plan for buffalo that relocates the coast guard station somewhere distant from this site. So i don't know what this plan is or what the point is of presenting it other then to say we don't need parking to define our waterfront.

I like the idea of a pedestrian only bridge by the lighthouse is a great idea. I also think it would most likely have to be a lift bridge though, due to the miniscule number of ships that still navigate the river. This would most likely increase the cost to the point that a auto/pedestrian bridge would probably be the best way to go.

Pretty disappointing lack of imagination. It really doesn't put any function into either the land or the water's edge. I agree that there is certainly room for a limited amount of attractive, high end development that allows for public access. A park isn't the worst idea either, but theres more to creating parkland than removing the buildings, and laying down some grass and sidewalks...

Just because its "better than whats there" doesn't mean its the right thing to do...

Years ago there was talk of moving the Coast Guard to the Union Ship canal. The coast guard needs a deep water port and that location fits the bill. The design shown here doesn't do the site justice. A big open field with some roads and paths just don't do it for me. This is as opportunity to create a very cool mixed use project. Retail along the waters edge with a boardwalk. Housing that is urban in design (not houses) with the lighthouse the focal point as a cobblestoned public square.

Putting urban designed buildings is putting the cart before the horse. There is no demand for new structures. If there was, the downtown core would be more developed instead of its empty buildings, numerous parking lots, and shovel ready sites. A pedestrian oriented recreational area is, for the time being, the best use of this land.

cdubmoo- This should not be compared to downtown. That is a completely different story. A better comparison would be Waterfront village which is 100% occupied with a whole bunch of new structures (12 story condo tower) being built.

This greenspace is perfect. It leaves open the opportunity for development while giving us all access to the outer harbor.

NYC I think you are missing the forest for the trees. The "suburban building" is a new coast guard station that will no longer monopolize the entire outer harbor. This is a huge imporvement over the zero access that we have now.

People calm down! This looks to be Newell just playing around with some CAD software to give an idea of what the old Coast Guard Station could look like. This isn't an actual project rendering. Sheesh.

r u sure Texpat10?

seeing the forest through the trees would be moving the coast guard station to the other end of the outer harbor. not downtown. and we need a development masterplan. Grass can be temporary. Clearly part of this should be permanent green space but the rest...

nyc - boats do still use this, what kind of "bridge" are you proposing to put across this. If it's a pedestrian bridge, then you're out of luck. The military ships have to be able to be moved if need be. You could easily fix this with a scheduled ferry every half hour. A bridge would just not be able to work. Also, that is the new Coast Guard facility. They do still need someplace with easy access. Why not just look at it as it is alot better than what there is now, which is nothing for the public. Why do people always have to find something wrong instead of looking at the positive.

Higgins said a while back a lift bridge study was being undertaken to look at that connection.

The rivers edge from point to point - the erie basin marina light house to the chinaman light house should be an accessable waterfront walk with a crossing either at this location or near general mills as proposed in the canalside plan. There should not be a large fenced off area you have to walk around to make the connection.

I am sure Townline. The plans for this site are nowhere near far enough along to have progressed to the project rendering phase.

Plus, and this isn't a slam on Newell, but you can tell that this was done with a basic software program and not completed professionally. Newell, can you please clarify for these folks that you were just trying to give an idea of what this site might look like as a park???

how much will it suck when you're sitting at the Hatch looking 100 +/- yards across the river at this nice pedestrian park and you can't get to it. Pedestrian bridges will not be possible because let's not forget companies like General Mills and the possible soon-to-be River Wright plant are operational and do use lakers or other large ships for transport.

The other idea that is not shown on the conceptuals is that Erie Street would be straightened out and restored to a "straight line" from Lakeside Boulevard as opposed to the large curve it now takes. This would make a lot more space available near the Naval park and down to the West. It would reduce parking space that isn't used.

I do have to say that I hope they put a lot more thought into the design of that park. The idea is great but the concept as shown will not produce a good park. The absence of roads and parking alone does not automatically yield a good park. "Green" space does not necessarily = "good" space. This space as shown will not be good in my opinion. The shotgun scattering of undersized trees and uninspired placement of skinny paths creates no sense of place. There is no focus of attention or creation of view corridors. There is no separation of or hierarchy of spaces. There is no special attention to the water edge and there appears to be no provision for user amenities. Just my opinion but this important place deserves a bit more thought. I hope they give it some.

Getting back to the topic of the park...it looks very nice and would be cool to chill there on a summer day, but this will never happen.

We can not even keep chestnut hill open, how are we going to build another park for our declining population. further, you will have to ride your bike over the sky way to get to this park.

As far as a bridge connecting the inner and outer harbor, forget it, that would make too much sense.

I vote for paddleboats!

They are moving the coast guard station from one prime piece of waterfront land to another. Find a better location!!!

sounds good.