Buffalo Rising Online

This is great for midtown - next project watching the Buffalo Motor Lodge being torn down or remodeled for office space.

Subsidized loft apartmants.... Only in buffalo. Don't worry "ghetto-ization" will probably happen.

Eyepharted: The subsidies Artspace used for this project mirror what they use with all their other projects. They demand that their projects house artists of lower income. Think of it as an incubator site.

The project will not turn to a dilapidated building. They are very responsible landlords and have already discussed doing other projects in Buffalo. You don't spend $16 million on one project and let it fail.

Its not subsidization in general that bothers me. Its that if you need assitance with paying your rent why should you be entilted to free money for a place that is nicer than alot of apartments that hard working people that make too much for assistance have. I guess I just feel that if you can't afford it and you don't need it to survive than you don't need it. It may sound pretensious but thats how I feel. I know plenty of people that work their asses of and are not entitled to assistance and have shitty apartments. If you need help fine, If you need help to live in a swanky loft don't look my way.

You may want to check out the only artist homestead program in the country at revyork.com for ideas.

Lukia - do you have black and white prints of Buffalo? I love black and white photography, esp. of Bflo! :-)

Those lofts in the back look like a shanty town, they spent $20,000,000+ on this project? Someone lined their pockets!

I never said that artists were not hard working. I will say that being an artist is a lifestyle choice. If this lifestyle choice means that you cannot afford certain luxuries than that was your decision. This applies to any carrier that puts you in the same position. If playing guitar on a street corner for tips made me happy but I was pretty broke I wouldn't expect anyone to help me because it was my decision to be there and I was happy to be doing so. My point is these are not intended for people that come from poverty or situations of abuse or disability, these places are intended for people who chose their current position in life. There is a huge difference between someone who truly needs help and some one who chooses a lifestyle that cannot support their financial wants.

Well then this becomes a topic about need and not about the artistic intention of the program. I don't think an artist is going to argue about how much something is worth, when it has no value.

Artspace is trying to distract all of the real americans with ideas.You can say that they are needed else where, but that should not be the justification for holding back creative power. Im sure the project has a few extra perks, but these are things you do in order to attract artists. Its like complaining about development in Niagara Falls by saying that we shouldn't have to pay to develop an attraction.

If people want to gather themselves and Shake the Christmas tree, go right ahead. I would be happy to share what fell for me. Some of these disabled people have got cold hands from messing with the star.

Im just glad my rich parents told me i was good with numbers, you won't see this fool be the only one in a night club trying to hustle a free drink.

As a basis of retort, ridicule of spelling mistakes is as layme as it getz. No doubt Denizen’s email correspondents just love having him point out mistakes like that. Or perhaps that’s a talent he saves only for public web forums.

Re. substance, I think eyepharded made good points, and anybody with reading comprehension skills can see he never implied artists are lazy or not hard working. He clearly said many other citizens who are hard working don’t receive taxpayer-subsidized upscale apartment features.

Although I accept what Jules said that the city is better off for having her friend live here, I think the decision of what city to live in is something her friend should make without special pro-artist incentives from taxpayers. There are many lower-income people in many lines of non-artist work who fit the category of “the city is better off” because they live here. Artists are no more important, nor are they less important, to the city than many other types of low-income work.

I would second eyehazards remarks. People are simply attacking his argument in a sophomoic manner, as their arguments clearly d not appear to weigh equally. When is doubt attack the messenger, even in this case when he/she is dead on.

One could classify this whole project as racist in approach, uneven and preferential all around. "Because they are artists" doesn't pass the mustard test when it comes to taxpayer subsidies here.

Do they supply each loft with a build-in bong? Sorry, had to stereotype all this nonsense. Maybe EricOak will file for a demolition permit and knock this thing down.

Kitty, in what I've read about this program, I haven't heard of any such contract obligations. Your idea is interesting though, and something like that could reduce my disagreement if amounts of required proceeds is near the amount of tax subsidy, BUT... why have any shell game with money flow? Why not more directly have the money from art sales just pay for rent subsidies, or at least pay for extra amenities that apparently low-income artists deserve (or "need") to be supplied but low-income nurses aides or low-income janitors do not?

None of the artists should take this as a personal criticism of them. I've no doubt many of them make beautiful art and can't blame them for applying for whatever special deals they can get if it's being offered. That's human nature. But if they seriously say they're somehow extra deserving of tax-funded perks because presence of low-income artists is inherently more valuable to a city than a low-income "anything else", then I'll think they're way too full of themselves.

Blephpunk: At least you are attacking the argument here rather then the marginal crap, so props to you.

To be honest I don't really care how they choose to appropriate lofts in the building, as long they upkeep the facility, which you'd assume private property right conveyance would achieve, and the renovation which is happening. I applaud the whole development as it makes Main Street much better off with it.

But the argument being made does deserve some merit. You raise some good points, but the project still receives taxpayer dollars, and they are NOT that insignificant, just ask Wannamaker. So, the project “selects" artists' for their uniqueness and awards them with a direct subsidy. I mean artists sometimes move into rough parts of the city, but so do other people who make it better, including tradesman (i.e. iron workers, welders), community activists . Why do we not also subsidize them, or why should I say do we correctly not subsidize them and also not subsidize artists. I buy art all the time and this is how I subsidize it, but it is my choice, this project is not. The other stuff about the loft not being luxurious, it is a brand new space nice drawn up with new windows, drywall, new floors (some refurbished), etc. etc. Say what you will but they are nice, new, and not exactly bare bones.

Other wasteful spending matters are complained about too when those are discussed. Just try mentioning Bass Pro around this city. No reason the subsidized artist pads shouldn't be agreed or disagreed with on its own merits, without regard to other wastes.

When I first heard about this, I was surprised it's apparently legal for govt-subsidized housing to show favoritism for a particular job field. Seems it is though, since it's been done in other cities too.

And yes, Florida has made quite a career with his writings advocating the creative class. I'm not aware if he's ever pushed for this kind of program, but maybe he has. No doubt I'm in the minority on this site but I'm very dubious of Florida's claims. Much of what he states seems backwards to me re. cause and effect. Generally, seems to me a good private sector economy can help stimulate arts/culture, but the opposite not so much.

I go back and forth in regards to my thoughts on this project.

I'm no economist, but I can't help see it this way - over $16 million in public money, for 60 units = over $250,000 per apartment. Even if 1/2 that money apartments for artists. But they aren't free- artists pay a slightly below market rate. actually goes to renovation of this "non-luxury/bare bones" loft, at $1000 per month, that is over a decade of free

So I agree with someone earlier who posted that "someone is lining their pockets" on this. And I disagree with someone who earlier posted that these projects are designed to prevent artists from being gentrified out of their own neighborhoods. Not here - this is a city demolishing thousands of homes a year! The Onion recently had an article stating that "Proactive mayor Byron Brown bought a used wrecking ball on eBay with petty cash and will be taking the city’s situation into his own hands.” Obviously a joke, but well informed.

It just seems that investing all that public dough in a homeownership program or similar initiative might be a more effective economic trigger. Artists are probably as transient a population segment as you can find - and as soon as they find success - are we supposed to believe they price themselves out of the building? It doesn't mesh.

Sincerely, DEVIL'S ADVOCATE

HMMM 2nd paragraph there was supposed to read:

I'm no economist, but I can't help see it this way - over $16 million in public money, for 60 units = over $250,000 per apartment. Even if 1/2 that money actually goes to renovation of this "non-luxury/bare bones" loft, at $1000 per month, that is over a decade of free apartments for artists. But they aren't free- artists pay a slightly below market rate.

"eyepharded, I bet many of those lazy leeching artists living there know how to spell "pretentious" and "career" correctly." Denzin if you are going to take shots at least stick to the point. No one on this site is a flawless speller.