This will be a nice fit into the waterfront village. At least it shows there are different design options available. I think it is an Interesting design. You can tell the designer tried to keep an urban feel but yet accommodate the necessity for individual car ownership and parking. I think it works for this site. Plus it provides a sense of security from people and water by being raised up above ground floor. It also reminds me of the Row Houses on Connecticut street.
It's great to see waterfront revitalization and this project looks like it has a great design.... so long as you're not physically handicapped.
Good contemporary design with siting in an urban context. It's something one doesn't encounter that often with residential development in Buffalo. Not a huge fan of the garage doors being dominant on street level, but it beats the suburban snout houses, where garage doors are the only feature visible from the street.
This is much better than the single home style. And they look like a modern vesion of the old Brownstones.
could be much uglier, but that whole area is very poorly planned, so much so it might as well be in orchard park or amherst. It does nothing for the city except add traffic on the 190.
Isn't that development even at the end of a sprawl-de-sack?
Agree with "Matthewjohnp." If this is the best that architects can do near a waterway vista, there is little hope. Not any better than the Shoreline housing units (on lower Niagara St). And let's hope the builders can spare more than 1 tree and 1 spruce per each 10 units. If the Planning Board has any guts they will insist NEMO soften the streetscape.
it should be noted that existing design standards written in the covenant of lakefront commons posed challengers for the developers/architects in terms of materials used and general design. I think they did a good job of interpreting the restrictions to create something that is a bit better designed than the original units, maximizes the waterfront view and still fits in with the neighborhood. Lets hope that the NIMBYism of some vocal opponents who currently live in Lakefront Commons don't exert their power to kill this project.
Its an interesting design and could draw more people down to the waterfront and could potentially increase the property value of neighboring condominiums in the area. Does it really matter if there is one or two trees in the rendering? Isn't the point of the drawing to provide a representation of what the physical condition of the structure should look like? Great idea all together, hope more of the buildings go up around Buffalo!
How and why was this design selected? It would be interesting to learn why builders pursue the design that they submited for approval. Design is so subjective and there its wasted energy to split hairs over what is "ugly" or "cool." Why hasn't a Memphis Mud Island style New Urban development been pursued for development?
They fit in with the rest of the neighborhood... that is to say, they're ugly as hell.
Completely uninspired.
thats modern, they look like friggin municipal housing that can be found on Niagara Street or Swan.
Come on. This is exactly the kind of s__t 90+% of the commentators to this site usually laud.
My first reaction is these are unattrative and very suburban looking. I hope this does not get approved. I would rather see something more interesting.
Gotta love the armchair architects/developers/planners on this site. No matter what is proposed- the same people will say 'no' just 'cuz. PGF is right, everyone cries for modern and then it is proposed and they're screaming for Frank Lloyd Wright!
Unattractive and suburban? Are they one-story and vinyl sided? Danny in Allentown, you might want to get off your bike and see what is being built in the 'burbs right now. To call these suburban is ridiculous.
Municipal housing? Chris69- open mouth, insert foot once again. Uninspired? Fine, that leaves the market wide-open for your housing project. Ohhhh- that's right Willy, all talk, no money.
Come on people, get real. Kudos to the developers and architects for 'doing' instead of 'bitching.'
Good night.
Well who pi**ed in your wheaties platt? I am one of the biggest Buffalo promoters you'd ever meet. I refuse to go the the suburbs because my heart is in the city. I am all in favor of new design , progressive remarkable design. I am not in favor of tracts of box like structures that look similar to suburban strip mall design..
The only bitching I heard is you. My comment was certainly respectful and honest. I never attacked anyone. Apparently Platt4 you only like people that look like you and live like you. I do not want this city to remotely reflect the burbs and that is exactly what the renderings look like...only 30 years ago.
To give a little background, the lots here were restricted to the same design as Lakefront Commons. When nothing was built in this phase, the original owner stopped paying property taxes and the whole development went through the tax foreclosure sale. A guy named John purchased and held onto them for years, finally realizing a profit.
Personally I think the design is great. I especially like the outdoor space facing the lakeside. Compare this design with the older model to the right and you can see the improvement.
The design is certainly a step up from the rest of that cul de sac.... I am not sure what people on here are thinking these town homes should look like. I think do well to echo the surroundings while still pushing the design a little. Isn't that what people say they want?
Mud Island is a neo traditional neighborhood and certainly isn't right for this site. You'd need at least 25-30 acres to make a start at something like that. Mud Island is supposed to resemble a small southern town and it does to an extent. It does not, however, resemble any of the rest of Memphis.
Show me this design in the 'burbs Dan. 30 units/acre and three-levels. Go fetch.
I don't get the suburban thing either. This is a row house of the same 'urban' design as Brownstones of walk up in bigger cities. The garages do add a bit of flare but unfortunately for the prices they are going to charge no one would buy it without a garage.. and I HATE cars but I see their necessity here.
The design is fine and a step-up from the what is over there now. Of course rear-loaded garages would be better. But somehow I don't think the Thruway Authority is going to allow driveways off the 190. We need architects to keep pushing the envelope locally, this is a step in the right direction.
all for new development here, but lets be real, these are pretty uninspiring looking property's. Should they go for the 4-5 hundred grand as waterfront does here in Buffalo, the only winners are the developers. Now give me my single star...lol
When I envision townhouses and condos on a waterfront, I think of a waterfront like Portland Oregon which has high rises with character and spectacular views from all perspectives. To build tracts of 2.5 and 3 stories in a strip is a waste of space and unimaginitive. I don't think twin towers or even more completely block a view. These proposed designs lack imagination and are same old same old. Lets see some glass with striking designs. Yes even glass with todays energy efficient standards would work well on the waterfront. Look at the glass on the new Blue Cross building. It would be nice to have some interest in the skyline. I am just looking at a bigger vision and even on restricted acreage there must be some other options. I think others have likened these to large garages and I tend to agree.
Property Description
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 stunning towers of glass, surrounded by waterfeature on Willamette in The Pearl
I'd love to see these lining a city block with a back alley for garages, mechanicals, and trash. At the right price these could be attractive to the 25-35 crowd.
Is this town that segregated that the wealthy condo owners on the waterfront don't want a grocery store?
And by the way, thie deisgn is about as good as one could ask for on this small strip of land.
Yeah these are certainly not pushing the envelope but as people stated they are shoehorned into a small site with land restrictions.
Might I add that Portland's waterfront exploded when they removed their waterfront Highway... We still have ours development like that won't happen until people can open their windows and not hear the roar of diesel engines on overpasses.
I find the design uninspiring too, but it Is contextual and definitely an improvement on what is there already. As for the idea that houses selling for $4-500K do nothing for the City but make money for the developers, let's keep in mind that the property tax revenues generated by such expensive houses will undoubtedly exceed the cost of public services demanded by the occupants. Ugly or not, they will do good things for the City's ailing tax base AND potentially bring thirty more families to the City---perhaps even migrating in from the burbs. And besides, what's wrong with the developer making a profit? Why else would any private developer ever propose a project for one of our hundreds of "shovel-ready" sites?
To tell you the truth, I think that the new design looks much much better than the existing condos. Just based on the drawing, it is hard to tell the colors exactly, but I think they look awesome.
Ghastly. The design barely justifies this twelve year-old child's rendering. Nothing about this communicates home and warmth. It just exacerbates the public housing feel of this stretch of desirable waterfront property. There should be windblown plastic bags in that tree in the drawing.
Hi Dan. Maybe you don't know where these are going. They are getting shoe horned into a little sliver of land along the thruway that is practically no wider than they are. The site would not fit a high rise or anything more than these.
Hety Texpat10, Thanks for clarifying that. I did have a sense of that a bit later on in the thread, so I admit I was hasty. I also appreciate the civility you show in your post. It amazes me the hostility that some people immediately post in some commentary.
Given the constraints of the lot size, I can now see how this design might make more sense. I still am not crazy about the overall design, but in the end, a mix of housing amid other development can be a good thing. There are many other issues to consider in this which I see more clearly now. So again, thanks for the brief but important point.
RisingDamp...Rendering by a 12 year old??? Public housing feel??? Spending too much time inside inhaling the mold spores caused by your rising damp?
Does it seem odd that as soon as something is posted on here all the Architecture & Urban Planner dropouts bad mouth it? If you want to put your personal imprint on the City save your pennies and develop something of your own or finish your degree, get someone who has money to hire your and then design it yourself.
Give the architect some credit, he just came out of a 30 year coma so he's stuck in that 70's "modern" style. Terrible. plans.
ehh... design is very subjective.
Given the annoying limitations of this slice of land, I think this is a nice looking project. The deep-set front stairs do a job job at taking prominence away from the big garage doors.
I'd love to see this basic design (which could support a great diversity of exterior skinning styles) implemented on regular city blocks throughout some city neighborhoods as infill; it'd be a huge aesthetic step up from the detached vinyl monstrosities, not to mention way more energy efficient, secure, and private.
I still don't see how someone can equate these to public housing. Take a look at the Perry Projects, Shaffer Village or the many other hideous bland things built. The only thing that these and public housing have in common is they are not detached. There are garages, porches, a sense (some might like it more than others) of design.
These are not the bland square boxes constructed as efficiency housing. But the longer I read these threads the more I think that anything that isn't a detached home is automatically equated to public housing and sub par. You want crappy design look at what is being built over on the East side by Broadway Market church... but yet those were all the rave and people just loved it. Sure design is subjective but good urbanism isn't. I would rather see streets lined with these types of buildings (perhaps with the garages in the back) than crappy vinyl one story boxes constructed to have no hope of a good resale value.
Sorry if I dissed your sh#tty little condo design, xosder. Really. If you squint hard, it actually is bravura architecture for the Twenty First Century. And all that heaven piled up over a garage door. How Avant Garde! "Dropout"? No, just someone with a soupcon of taste. Sycophant.
i just don't understand why there is not a little grocery store or a beach near erie basin.
I heard that the judges and politicians that live there do not want the "element" from the projects hanging around....is this true?
Gaustad, of course its true! Would you want that element near your half million dollar home? I sure wouldnt... Let them stay at the park up the water and blast the music from their Monte Carlos and El Caminos with spinner rims...
Don't these already exist on Niagara St.? You know right down the street from city hall?
Urban and townhomes do not belong in the same sentence. And JibbaJabbah, I think you're thinking of Sheridan Drive...in Williamsville.
Report this