Good story, Belmont Shelter, PUSH, and other associations helping out on the west side should try and engage and encourage a collaborative on the east side so more developments like these can occur. Its also good that religious organizations are beginning to rebuild communities they have faith and pride in restoring. I know AD Price developments has held on to its value, and some have even appreciated since they were built. Who is footing the environmental bill on this site?
Can I once again say what is all to obvious!!!!!
If the Kensington were truncated at Jefferson and the traffic distributed to streets like spring, cherry, jefferson, genesee, broadway, etc....infact...jefferson should replace the elm-oak arterial.....you would see the entire near eastside not just stabilize but gentrify and infill.
why traffic supports business, business supports employees, employees support tenants for rent and property owners for homes.....but redirect traffic to the kensington and you get what we have now.....and for what....less than 5 minutes of travel time as highway access routes are moved further away from downtown and the inner city. Is the kensington really worth the cost to our inner city....absolutely not!
I think we all think that chris69 is crazy.
but this idea makes some sense. i think this would greatly improve this section of the east side and allow more growth to happen in the city. ease of access is very important to a business. most people in wny live by....if i can't convienently drive there.....i aint going.
This certainly makes the Sycamore Village project seem like less of a boondoggle. Perhaps the city has learned from some of its past failures. This appears to be focused on the idea of building a neighborhood, as opposed to merely a collection of houses. It is the neighborhood that ultimately drives the value of the house, not vice versa.
I cannot think of a more futile windmill to tilt at than calling for the 33 to be truncated before reaching downtown. It is absolute folly! It's a terrible idea. If the only ingredient missing from Jefferson was traffic, then the Elm-Oak arteriole and streets immediately bounding it (consider Michigan) would be the most desirable. We'd be witnessing unprecedented development and gentrification there. Instead, almost every project near there needs subsidies to get done.
The ONLY thing ending the 33 at Jefferson would accomplish is dissuading businesses from locating downtown as we make the commute more of a hassle.
You want the near east side to gentrify? Great! Make the place appealing to home buyers. Projects like this one and Sycamore Village and all the homes built over the past twenty five years may make that happen. Making downtown itself tougher to reach is NOT going to help. At all.
The purpose of the 33 is to provide a commuter highway into down town and provide a link between down town and the airport. The idea of breaking it up to divert traffic through the fruit belt is completely ridiculous
Biniszkiewicz hits the nail on the head in that "The ONLY thing ending the 33 at Jefferson would accomplish is dissuading businesses from locating downtown as we make the commute more of a hassle."
My number one issue with this project would be the design of the homes.
Maybe its just me, but I enjoy to see the city..looking like a city.
Buffalo seems to like to knock down homes, and built suburban-style homes in their absence. Its kind of odd seeing all the old 1920 houses, most of the upper and lowers, and then suddenly there is a white picket fence colonial style suburban home.
I think they need to try to keep the flavor of the city living,
I'm also a bit skeptical about any developments in the East Side, mainly due to its reputation. Maybe this project will fight the crime, and poverty in the area. But I won't be sure till I see it done
This is my opinion - People want to live in the City, but people don't want the burden of purchasing a "fixerupper." Some people do and most people don't. Yes, the city has a surplus of homes, but people want to purchase a new build - the buyer should have some say as to how the house looks.
The developments here, while well-intentioned, will take major support of the police to ensure that crime doesn't overtake this area, too. What is the incentive for prospective home owners to choose this area and pay up to $200K for a home when they can buy something else in a safer neighborhood for the same cost?
Regarding the various highways in Buffalo, I would present Vancouver, BC, as an example of a city that has no such roads in the vicinity of their downtown. Going from the airport to downtown, you traverse city streets. Yes, traffic can be slow there, but as you sit in your car you have the time to really see the various stores and restaurants instead of zooming past them. That gets you to visit those places. The vibrancy of Vancouver's neighborhoods is quite evident. Making commuting tougher in Buffalo would, in my opinion, be a good thing. It would encourage folks to reside closer to where they work and shop. That builds community density. It's that type of mindset that can once again make the east side of Buffalo a real neighborhood again, too.
Paul, Buffalo can't be compared to Vancouver at all. Two completely different type of cities, no use even trying to compare.
It's all about density here and an appropriate mix of income classes. They look like they are on the right path.
I brought up Vancouver as a comparison for simple discussion. I find it interesting that so many comments on this website mention that Buffalo cannot be compared to other cities because of the differences. If we limit our comparisons, how can we initiate discussion and exchange ideas here? Shouldn't we purposely compare our city to others? Buffalo ain't Vancouver or New York, but there are things to be learned from larger cities and small towns.
My main point is that Buffalo's communities suffered, in large part, because of the expressways. (I think most would agree.) If one has a car, Buffalo is one of the easiest cities in the country in which to commute. Making travel just a bit more difficult and forcing commuters to actually go through other neighborhoods -- instead of on highways -- would actually strengthen neighborhoods because it slows people down. The new homes in this east side area would benefit if more traffic occurred on Broadway because small business would be attracted, too. That variety is necessary to rejuvenate and sustain real neighborhoods.
This is BuffaloRising at its best...a discussion about an idea which has absolutly no chance of ever happening...
I'm with Paul re: Vancouver. One of my pet peeves is that people around here tend to write off comparisons with any and every successful, vibrant city while dwelling on comparisons with Youngstown, OH and Detroit, MI. Yes, those comparisons are valid in the sense that those cities have the same problems that Buffalo has. But if you want to find ideas about what makes a city work, look at a city that works. Also, why is it OK to compare Buffalo to Youngstown, OH (land-locked; population 80,000) but not Vancouver (port city; population 600,000)? Buffalo is not the same as either place. Yet we clamor for more talk of Youngstown and Detroit and scoff at Vancouver or Washington DC.
Why look at the bottom of the barrel to get ideas? Why not look at thriving cities and see what makes them successful. Then, see if we can't implement some of their good ideas and best practices. If we only look at cities that are "the same" as Buffalo, we'll never get anywhere. All cities can and should be compared because, really, they all fall into the same category: cities.
Also, wizard, I don't mean to imply that you don't have good reasons for discounting the Vancouver analogy. It is because you didn't explain why that I began ranting about how easily we dismiss potentially valid ideas. Perhaps there is a fundamental difference other than "Vancouver is thriving; Buffalo is not." But if Vancouver is thriving, let's talk about why. Perhaps the fact that they don't have highways decimating their neighborhoods is one reason. Perhaps not. In discussing this point we might actually unearth a good idea or two.
My major concern about this residential project and other residential projects in Buffalo that are being built on former industrial sites is that they meet, and in my opinion exceed, environmental requirements. The Hickory Woods project in South Buffalo was a two phase project. Phase 1 was the development of new subsidized affordable houses on New Abby St and Phase 2 was the development of new market rate homes in the same vicinity.. About 6 or 7 of the Phase 2 houses were either built or under construction when the environmental crisis arose and that crisis killed Phase 2 and the Phase 1 houses became worthless. Sycamore Village is actually on its second start. Its earlier startup was halted during construction because of improper environmental remediation. West Coast has given us not only information about the Forge site development but he's tied it into contiguous and nearby developments. When you see the larger picture, you can see what one environmental problem at one site can do to the larger development picture
A thriving city is first and foremost a PLACE were people want to be, and will PAY to be a part of it. Frankly why cater to the lower classes? Why does the burden fall on "affordable housing" in abandoned neighborhoods as a force of change? Urban Decay is a disease and it can only be staved off with MONEY. I know that is not very PC but it is the facts. These houses will be offered by HUD in a few years after properties have been abandoned and left fallow.
A clear concept of development would be to "scab" onto something that is stable like an Allentown or maybe in a few years when there is a critical mass downtown, and grow from there. Expanding successful comunites is much easier than trying to grow new ones in contaminated soil.
My critique of comparing Buffalo to Vancouver is not so much a "successful vs. unsuccessful" city debate as it is more about urban form, geography, and regional economic alignment.
Let's see....Vancouver is locked within stringent geographic constraints, has a very vibrant, densely populated urban core which serves as a focal point of the region's economy. It's within a metro area roughly 2x the population of Buffalo.
Can we say any of the same for Buffalo? Our city has a weak, half-deserted, barely-populated urban core which isn't economically important to much of the city and regional population. Much of the everyday economy takes place in the low-density sprawl surrounding the city. There's next to no shopping or other attractive amenities downtown. Across the board, regional population density is low, and our flat limitless geography, coupled with dirt cheap cost of land, doesn't provide much incentive to build up as long as fuel prices remain cheap enough to keep the masses happily motoring.
If we're to compare Buffalo to any others cities, let's use ones which have weak urban cores, suburban-centric economies, cities where you have to schlep out to the burbs to go shopping or see a good doctor, or even find a decent paying job.
Vancouver: Got it all downtown!
Buffalo: Sorry, gotta schlep out to the burbs
Boston: Got it all downtown!
Nashville: Sorry, gotta schlep out to the burbs
Seattle: Got it all downtown!
Charoltte: Sorry, gotta schlep out to the burbs
Jacksonville: Sorry, gotta schlep out to the burbs
Montreal: Got it all downtown!
Toledo: Sorry, gotta schlep out to the burbs
Any of the "Sorry, gotta schlep out to the burbs" cities may warrant a comparison to Buffalo.
My critique of comparing Buffalo to Vancouver is not so much a "successful vs. unsuccessful" city debate as it is more about urban form, geography, and regional economic alignment.
Let's see....Vancouver is locked within stringent geographic constraints, has a very vibrant, densely populated urban core which serves as a focal point of the region's economy. It's within a metro area roughly 2x the population of Buffalo.
Can we say any of the same for Buffalo? Our city has a weak, half-deserted, barely-populated urban core which isn't economically important to much of the city and regional population. Much of the everyday economy takes place in the low-density sprawl surrounding the city. There's next to no shopping or other attractive amenities downtown. Across the board, regional population density is low, and our flat limitless geography, coupled with dirt cheap cost of land, doesn't provide much incentive to build up as long as fuel prices remain cheap enough to keep the masses happily motoring.
If we're to compare Buffalo to any others cities, let's use ones which have weak urban cores, suburban-centric economies, cities where you have to schlep out to the burbs to go shopping or see a good doctor, or even find a decent paying job.
Vancouver: Got it all downtown!
Buffalo: Sorry, gotta schlep out to the burbs
Boston: Got it all downtown!
Nashville: Sorry, gotta schlep out to the burbs
Seattle: Got it all downtown!
Charoltte: Sorry, gotta schlep out to the burbs
Jacksonville: Sorry, gotta schlep out to the burbs
Montreal: Got it all downtown!
Toledo: Sorry, gotta schlep out to the burbs
Any of the "Sorry, gotta schlep out to the burbs" cities may warrant a comparison to Buffalo.
Wizardofza, I agree with your points regarding Vancouver's geography. With that said, Vancouver has been able to maintain an urban core because it sought to retain its urban core. Your suburbia comparisons are apt, but can Buffalo learn and adapt something from these cities or are you concluding that Buffalo and these other suburban cities can no longer get their downtown neighborhoods back? I'm just trying to get a better understanding of your view as it pertains to Buffalo and the success of its immediate neighborhoods.
As mentioned in a few postings above, the 33 and other highways going through the city are a REAL problem for development. These highways have destroyed communities and discourage development. Property values drop when you have a highway going pass the front of your house. Highways should link cities together not go through cities. Imagine what would happen to elmowood avenue if we converted it to a highway...I doubt many of those shops would survive for long. Until we turn the 190 and the 33 into boulevards then the areas near those highways will have a difficult time prospering. The only area near the highway in Buffalo that is doing ok is the water front condominiums, and that is because the highway acts as a barrier to cut them off from the projects off of niagara street on the other side of the highway...pathetic.
Beethoven81: by your logic, anywhere in Amherst or Cheektowaga near I-90 or I-290 should be low value land. Yet everywhere there are off ramps turns out to be very valuable land indeed. In fact we discover that not only are there many retail establishments (see Galleria, NFB, Transit Rd, etc) but also thriving residential areas abutting these as well. How do you explain?
If the day should ever come that Buffalo's core is substantially vibrant as to allow it to withstand a more difficult commute I would not disagree with downgrading those highways to parkways. I favor converting the Scajaquada to a parkway now. But I think Wiz has a valid point when he argues that our downtown has too weak a core. Changing the highways won't give enough of a boost to the nearby neighborhoods to offset the losses for downtown. Empty buildings downtown would hurt the city more than the highways do.
I am curious, though, as to who would buy a house facing the highway. At least with Riverside you get to see the water over the submerged highway. What's the appeal of building those newer houses facing the 33 near downtown? I'd just plant trees on the empty lots and call it a day (and narrow down Humbolt Parkway to make room for trees between that road and the 33).
Build higher in the east side to reveal views of the Downtown skyline available nowhere else. Change the perspective out there from low rent, low rise houses to loftier living in these bombed out areas. What difference does it make? Who wants a crappy bungalow alongside the 33 anyway?
1. A thriving city is first and foremost a place were people have JOBS, and CAN pay to be a part of it. I'm all for creating a sense of place, but economics is the engie that drives that process, and everything else for that matter.
2. The details of this development are unknown, but Sycamore Village at $170-200k is hardly "catering to the lower classes."
1. A thriving city is first and foremost a place were people have JOBS, and CAN pay to be a part of it. I'm all for creating a sense of place, but economics is the engie that drives that process, and everything else for that matter.
2. The details of this development are unknown, but Sycamore Village at $170-200k is hardly "catering to the lower classes."
Biniszkiewicz: Let me explain my "logic". The I-90 and I-290 were build before the areas around it were as developed as they are today. So as a result the development occurred with the highway in mind. In other words, when the galleria mall was build they build it with the highway in mind and chose the location because of the proximity to the highway. However, the 33 and the I-190 were build thorugh developed neighborhoods. Imagine if the DOT decided today to turn Main St. Williamsville into a 33 style highway to connect the I-290 to Transit road. I am sure that the residents of Williamsville would not be too happy about that, and if the construction occurred the businesses on main street would not last very long after. That is what happend to the neighborhoods in buffalo where these highways were built. The area was already developed and already had RESIDENTIAL neighborhoods established there. The 33 came and destroyed that. Nex time you drive on the I-90 look around you and see how many nice houses are set right along the highway....very few...and those that are tend to have a big wall between them and the highway. You mostly have business and cross streets...most of which experienced development after the highway was constructed and people from Buffalo left the city to the suburbs. I have traveled to Europe and to many cities throught the USA and I can tell you that the few cities that actually build a highway through an already established neighborhood destroyed that area. Imagine building a 33 style highway in lower manhattan to make traffic easier for outsiders. In fact look at Boston and their "big dig" where they realized that the highway they build in the city destroyed many neighborhoods and now had to move the highways underground to be able to revitalize the area. Buffalo has 2 options with the 33 area....convert the 33 to a boulevard (more like what it used to be) or tear down all the neighborhoods around the 33 (which would require massive emminent domain and massive costs) and redevelop with a highway in mind.
beethoven: I agree wholeheartedly with your suburban development recap. And by my logic, the exits by the 33 in the city should be desirable and clearly they're not, so my "logic" is fatally flawed.
But I still don't agree that it's time to change the 33. The 198? yes. The 190? not yet (but sooner, maybe, than the 33).
I'd love for Buffalo to develop such an influx of residents that replacing the 33 with a parkway would boost the city while not jeopardizing downtown. I don't think that day is here. Perhaps if gasoline goes to, say, $10 per gallon or the schools actually become attractive or corporate costs of doing business become competitively advantageous, perhaps then such a day will dawn. Maybe if some of those perfect storm conditions develop we will attract people with bucks who wish to live in the old homes along the 33, despite the traffic and the very serious rehabs required in most of these homes.
But right now if we downgraded the 33 I don't think it would help enough to offset the losses to downtown from the inconvenience. Moreover, an outcome of changing the 33 might be that the new parkway would be bordered by the same decay existing today. Commuters stuck in traffic on their way downtown might not feel very comfortable or positive about the trip, day after day. I think our image would suffer more in such a scenario, particularly if the downtown office core were simultaneously harmed by the commute.
I wouldn't necessarily make as strong an argument along the river. Some of that area has a compelling view. Perhaps a parkway would so enhance the residential neighborhoods bordering the 190 that the trip through Riverside would feel like driving down Elmwood or Delaware. But it's a tough case to make and gets tougher as you approach downtown. South of the 198 you don't block anyone's view anyway. Then, south of the Peace Bridge, what's the big benefit? The waterfront residential community abhors the idea of connecting their oasis to the lower West Side. Is a parkway along the river bordering the Lower West Side a compelling enough piece of infrastructure to serve as catalyst for that area's gentrification? I'm a fan of the LWS and believe Allentown and the West Village gentrification will slowly continue to spread into neighboring less desirable areas (see Hudson), but it's a long journey unless lots more people move in to town.
So I'm not sold. But I agree it's not a good thing to have your house facing the highway. i'd like to see, at the least, a good 8-10' of solid evergreen border blocking the view of the 33 from the houses and vice versa.
Maybe the city should simply concentrate on land banking for some future day. As houses go into decay along key stretches (such as the 33), maybe the thing to do is to acquire the land and plant urban forest on every lot that falls, by default, into city hands.
I would love to see a MIX of styles on the East Side for once. A few apartment buildings several stories high, brownstone style living spaces with the single family homes. How great it would be to have OPTIONS on this side of town instead of just a plain ol' houses. AND I hope we don't see more of these single home filling up spaces on the main avenues such as Broadway, Sycamore, Jefferson, etc. When we should be making a plan for a MIX of business and living again "Just in Case". Building just HOMES and no room for business (grocery stores, retail, restaurants, and so on) then the nieghborhood would NOT be such a neighborhood, just an isolated living space where a car is needed because their would be nothing to walk too.
Report this