Buffalo Rising Online

WoW, that was a fast start. Thanks for the update WCP

That's a lot of units. Will be great for that area.

It would be nice to see some of these units have the ability to go to above median renters.

I can understand the low-income requirements when tapping into the incentives/grants and how they help out a structure short term. But if we want activity down here with long term growth we need a more complete range of incomes and more $$$ floating around to support buisnesses etc. It will be better for all residents.

sbrof and others - Will you complain when the Packard's new 40 tax-subsidized residential units have the inevitable ripple effect of causing 30 or 40 now-occupied residential units around Buffalo's east and west sides to become vacant and abandoned?

WCP (&/or Biniszkiewicz): the Pictometry images on local.live.com show a water tower on the roof of the building - is that still there, and will it be retained--?

As pointed out elsewhere on BRO today, this project and ArtSpace now have the St. Vincent's Orphanage complex bracketed - hopefully that bodes well for the complex's preservation and reuse.

Are all of these units subsidized or just some percentage. Normally these kinds of projects that receive grants or incentives require X percentage but rarely is that 100 and then only for a certain amount of time. So is this a benefit to the neighborhood. Sure if. Subsidized doesn't mean crack house. It just means poor and there isn't anything wrong with that.

Does it means there will be some 30 - 40 other structures now vacated? Maybe, maybe not. They could be people looking to get out of the projects. Ideally I would love to see that happen. I would rather have a mix of incomes and units than a concentration of poverty that only perpetuates itself while dragging down the neighborhood around it. They could also be people getting priced out of other neighborhoods like Allentown or Richmond where rents are going up and many people can no longer afford to live.

Development that reuses infrastructure is a smart way is a good thing. development that means we need to build more schools, water lines, power lines, sewer lines, hire more cops, plow more roads are the developments that really hurt the region because they mean everyone has to pay for more infrastructure.

Atwater, I am not sure that I agree that all new city housing is a zero sum game. I have read comments here and in the BN from downtown residents that lived previously either in the burbs or out of town.

Does anyone know if a study has been done on where the residents of new downtown housing are coming from?

I do agree with MJ that a mixed income project would have been a bigger positive for the neighborhood. As long as potential residents are screened well the Packard hopefully won't become a negative for the neighborhood.

I received more detailed information on the income limits on the units- see the update in the post. CS

sbrof and Hoss - Both of these replies sound to me ignoring that if someone from the suburbs or out of town decides to move into Buffalo (or someone from the projects decides to move out of the projects), there's already many, many reasonably priced vacancies in Buffalo into which they could move:

Does it means there will be some 30 - 40 other structures now vacated? Maybe, maybe not. They could be people looking to get out of the projects.

Atwater, I am not sure that I agree that all new city housing is a zero sum game. I have read comments here and in the BN from downtown residents that lived previously either in the burbs or out of town.

The new high-end upscale housing downtown was filling a niche that didn't exist, so I can believe that could drawn some from suburbs who wouldn't have moved to the city otherwise.

I can't believe these will at all, but just to account for a possibility some might I was very generous to say 30-40 in my previous question. The Packard will add 39 units including some with 2 and 3 bedrooms, so even in the unlikely event 10 of those end up filled by people who wouldn't live in Buffalo otherwise that would means about 30 new vacant units somewhere else in Buffalo. All I'm demanding suggesting is each of you say is it's fine to add 30 vacant abandoned units to the 10,000 or so Buffalo already has sitting around without occupants.

Sorry, I meant sbrof and Texpat, not Hoss.

or it is 20 somthings leaving their parents house i seriously doubt every person moving into this apt complex is just moving from another apt or house the city

Bini, good news about the water tower - I love it when adaptive reuse projects like this retain authentic features. In My Fair City, the Loftus brothers - pioneers in the Cascade District downtown - have made it one of their signatures to retain authentic features of the buildings' "previous life" throughout their adaptive reuse projects.

Regarding the internal ramp, does it have to be wasted space--? Perhaps a BRO article including photos of the ramp and surroundings could generate some creative ideas. Perhaps something could be done with the ramp that would prove to be a cool feature for the tenants and selling point for the building.

Atwater.. Do you hold the same feelings about the development of the suburbs over the past 20 years of regional declining population? I see what you are saying. On the other hand it has been ok and a symbol of prosperity for the suburbs to develop along and siphon people out of other suburbs or the city but when the tide turns people think it isn't good anymore and city is now being irresponsible.

Also adding units like these into an underutilized or empty building makes the surrounding structures and neighborhood stronger and more likely to draw investment for them. Leaving this building sit vacant and empty doesn't help anyone just as cedar grove spruce court way doesn't help anyone either.

The ramp takes up a fair amount of space. It reminded me of those long sloped walkways in the old Aud. Similar to the one on the exterior of a building on Main near the Medical complex. Having to keep it seems, for lack of a better word, silly.

I'm a little surprised to read in another post that Cash came out behind in this transaction. I was at an auction for this property, ten or fifteen years ago, that Cash held. Later when I saw he had the property, I assumed the bid fell through. My best recollection was that the building went for 70,000.

mybuffalo - I didn't say 'every person', I said most.

i seriously doubt every person moving into this apt complex is just moving from another apt or house the city

Let's say 30 units of the 39 being created in the Packard. That's generous of me. I doubt even as many as 9 will be filled by someone who wouldn't otherwise occupy an existing unit in Buffalo, so probably more than 30 units will be vacated as a result. And by the way, the 20-somethings you mention would eventually move away from their folks regardless of this project, so they're part of demand that would otherwise help fill existing supply.

sbrof - It sounds like you're leaning toward 'yes', that the trade-off is worth it for accepting say 30 existing units becoming vacant in exchange having these 39 new tax-subsidized units in the Packard, but that you just can't quite bring yourself to say it?

Atwater.. Do you hold the same feelings about the development of the suburbs over the past 20 years of regional declining population? ...On the other hand it has been ok and a symbol of prosperity for the suburbs to develop along and siphon people out of other suburbs or the city ...

There's some number of metro Buffalo residents who will decide to live in Buffalo at any moment instead of a suburb. Some entirely by choice, and some more due to limited alternatives - but in the end there's some number. So the demand for residential units in Buffalo is some amount, we can see this demand is less than the number of units existing, and what's happening with this project is using government tax subsidies to add 39 units to the supply. I'll say no, that's not smart use of public money.

Whether you feel it was unfair for suburbs to have 'siphoned' people away over 20 years (or for other parts of the U.S. to have 'siphoned' people away from Buffalo area), might be interesting big picture topics for people to debate.

However realities are there's continuing population loss and a growing number of vacant properties year after year in Buffalo. I'm not saying any private residential development should be forbidden (doubt it's legal to forbid that anyway), but just saying public taxpayer subsidizing of new units to cause existing ones to be abandoned doesn't sound like a good idea.

I think Atwater is partially correct that this amounts to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. This doesn't seem like a project that will draw new people into the city the way that more upscale projects have the potential to do.

At the same time, there are a couple factors that suggest that things aren't as bad as he thinks. For one, this project could be strategically wise even if it doesn't lure new people into the city. Fact is, certain areas have more strategic importance than others, and Main Street seems to be one. If this project lures people onto Main Street from some semi-deserted street elsewhere, the result is a denser (though not more populous) city.

Also, it seems like that 10,000 vacancies figure doesn't really reflect the reality of the market. How many of those properties are even remotely viable, or have a chance to be viable on any realistic timetable? I suspect that many of those vacant properties may as well not even exist -- barring some kind of massive economic turnaround, they will sit empty regardless.

Colin - The problem is there's no way to ensure this makes the already semi-deserted streets move more toward being fully deserted.

...certain areas have more strategic importance than others, and Main Street seems to be one. If this project lures people onto Main Street from some semi-deserted street elsewhere, the result is a denser (though not more populous) city.

While I agree that would be a positive, it's equally likely it contributes to creating more semi-deserted streets which is negative.

it seems like that 10,000 vacancies figure doesn't really reflect the reality of the market. ... I suspect that many of those vacant properties may as well not even exist -- barring some kind of massive economic turnaround, they will sit empty regardless.

You're right the 10,000 is a very rough estimate. Also you're right that whatever the number, most are too far gone to be saved even if some massive turnaround happens, which it won't anyway. Let's suppose even as many as 99% are doomed to sitting empty forever. Even then it'd leave 100 (1%) still near the edge that either could still survive or could head down the path of abandonment. The question then is, does suddenly adding 39 new subsidized units improve or worsen the chances of those 100 surviving?

By itself I'm not saying these 39 will be a disaster considering so much of the city is such a mess already - just that on balance it's another step in the wrong direction. On a different note, it would make a lot of sense if some day the city can somehow firmly push for many of the saddest shape semi-abandoned streets to be emptied ('land banked' in polite company). Realistically I bet that's a very long time from ever happening.