Buffalo Rising Online

Sounds great, I think it is a project that could tap into a surprisingly large market. I think there are many that would like this type of living but also desire a totally new build and not a rehab or a conversion.

Holy s**t Unliand has found the city - is there any doubt of the revival now. Add to that Ciminelli and Iskalo.....if North Forest Development hits the city, thats when I pass out!

This is a fantastic project. That Park Lane restaurant has been an embarasement and eye sore on the circle for a long time

Yes! Very positive development.

MOMENTUM

Keep it going.

This would be a great opportunity for Uniland, which made strides in that direction by hiring HHL to design the Delaware Avenue building downtown, to hire a really first-rate architect to design a landmark building. I'm talking about a building that will add to the list of iconic names people trot out in connection with Buffalo architecture.

Such a move would add value to the building, establish Uniland's legacy in the City, and make those of us who cringe at most of what has been built in Buffalo in the last 30 years all the more excited about this project.

Yes let's have something sophisticated!

Any idea of how many stories we're talking about here? Same size as neighboring condos? Bigger? 30+ ?

Wow... 7 comments and no preservationists kicking and screaming yet?!!! I might pass out...

What Steel said.

A prominent urban location like Gates Circle shouldn't be anchored by a smallish Tudor-style structure more reminiscent of a house on Lebrun Circle. I have a gut feeling, though, that there will be vocal opposition to the project; not because the Park Lane is architecturally significant, but because it's old, and "they're tearing down memories." I think many preservationists don't see the big picture; it's not just about old buildings, but they way they fit into the urban fabric. Let's hope Uniland's project respects the urban setting, and that it's not just an Amherst-style development on a city site.

I applaud the development of pursuing condos on the site but I will reserve judgement until they post a picture and demonstrate the quality of building they will be adding to the community.

And this development really begs three questions to be asked? 1) Will some of those horrible 1950s towers on Delaware consider re-skinning their exteriors to something more attractive 2) Does this signal that Millard Fillmore Hospital may close and be converted to residential too? 3) When will the high quality upscale developments stretch to Main Street (because there are sections of Main Street and Linwood that are still unstable and homes still abandoned)?

I think its a good sign but want to see the building.

I agree with Lou

Hopefully a few of those powder blue buildings on Delaware will .......... well anything they do will be an improvement.

Jake

Can it with the inane preservationist obstructionist crap. This project has nothing to do with preservation of any historic buildings. I am so tired of people who can't see the difference between people who want to save our dwindling urban heritage and people who don't want any change. They are not the same people and it does the city a disservice to lump them together!

So, Jake stop with the ditto head tactics and let's have a real conversation.

Steel's completely right. The anti-obstruction comments are uninformed and demonstrate a remarkably shallow understanding of the issues involved.

I'm a card carrying preservationist and am proud of the role I have played in obstructing a number of bad development ideas - the prime example being the demolition of the buildings First Amherst is now redeveloping as the Granite Works.

That doesn't mean that I don't, as noted above, think that this project has great potential. Some people will doubtless worry about the lost of a cultural icon and that's their right, but the current building was built in 1971 so the memories are either fairly new or associated with something that no longer exists anyway. If Uniland is smart they'll incorporate a new "Park Lane" restaurant in the condo development anyway.

I would bet that much of the objection to the new building will come from the owners in the existing Park Lane condos who will have to put up with the construction right next to them and some of whom are bound to lose their views of Gates Circle. Uniland will doubtless take these concerns into account as much as they can to be good neigbors.

Lets keep in mind that this is only under contract. I know first hand that being under contract and actually closing are two different thigns. In the article in the paper, it seems to be 30 + units and five stories or so. Biggest stink will come from those around losing their views - we shall see.

Where did you see the 5 stories mentioned in the article? My edition said 30-55 luxury units. Since the footprint of that parcel is not large enough to put more than 3 units per floor we are looking at a 10-20 floor structure.

I definitely like the idea of putting a quality restaurant into the first floor of the condos, a la Westbrook/Amaryllis- maybe they will, maybe they won't, but I bet it's a PR coup. In any case, I agree that while it seems like a good idea, I have to reserve judgement completely until there are drawings on the table. Something with a good blend of new- and old-school design would be nice: harmony with, but not carbon-copy of, the near 100-year old buildings around it.

Steel and Charger have said it better than I, but they're completely right: enough of the crap. I'm not about to let the small-minded define the terms of the debate, either: "obstructionist", "preservationist" and (especially) "anti-business" are but vacuous and ill-applied terms- useless for anything but painting with too broad a brush in a rudimentary discussion.

So many are unable to understand the nuances between something like this and the Casino, Panos, BP, IS Lofts (or other d-t- living space projects), the Greystone, AM&A's, &c., as though all is one. So many can't seem to comprehend the difference between opposing any project and every project... this sort of black & white thinking is terribly divisive and damaging locally as well as nationally.

I think I might buy a house in Buffalo after grad school. Five ten years ago that may have looked like a mistake, but all I see now are signs of significant reinvestment in the city. Potentially this is the time to buy.....me thinks.

This project is unbelieveable. Really, high rise condos with price tags ranging upwards to a million? In Buffalo? The project has the potential to be a landmark considering the AMAZING location. Something is serious about this kind of potential investment and I'll be looking forward toward the acual build.

Tall and skinny is about the only option for that plot of land. It should be elegant.

I also suspect that the biggest complaints against any building there would come from the people in the condo building behind that site. They'd lose their view of the circle, and they are probably paying a premium for that. They might lose value in their property if the view disappears. We shall see what happens.

This isn't NYC or Toronto (or any other major metropolitan area), but should we be so quick to conclude that the Park Lane Co-Op Assocation doesn't own the air rights over the restaurant? If that was the case, there might not be need to worry about lost views of the circle. I would assume that's not the case if it hasn't halted the discussions heretofore or that it hasn't been mentioned that they're being negotiated for a price and so on.

If they bought the air rights then the restuarant would probably still have the money to remain open. Maybe this will lead to purchases of air rights in the future near the parks, lakes, and rivers.

This is a great development opportunity! I wonder if the pending development helped secure the cancellation of the proposed Walgreens on Gates Circle, but things are sure looking up!

Regarding those "50's" style buildings on Delaware, I think that they add a unique and eclectic class to th street. The apartments on the location of the former New St. Joseph's Cathedral, however, could use something of a makeover (or perhaps an attractive street level pocket park).

or perhaps street level town houses ringing the base of the tower

Steel,

Usually when someone jumps on my case, I get defensive. But you are completely correct. I supposed I used the word preservationist wrong. I guess theres just no easy word for "people who don't want any change".

I suppose there's just not correct terminology to describe the scale of people out there. At one end, you have the extremists who don't want anything torn down or built, out of sheer fear of change, and at the other end of the spectrum, you have the people who would tear down city hall if it meant we get the worlds first brand new 10 story Wal-mart. I would like to think that most of us are muddled in the middle. People who want positive, SMART change. And the word preservationist I don't think is a term I'd use to describe people in the middle.

Just because you would fight to save an old building that shouldn't be torn down, doesn't make you a preservationist. I can't even give a positive example because so many people feel so differently about every building...

However, I do find it disheartening that while I read BRO constantly, it seems like there are "clicks" troughout the more active members, which make it difficult for non-active readers to even engage in conversation.

In Jake's defense, it is frequently difficult to tell the difference between a real preservationist, who wants architectural and community preservation for the sake of historical consistency and character, and a so-called preservationist who is only using that label as a mask for an agenda that might indeed be "anti-development" "anti-progress" or "anti-business." I've picked up "preservationist" publications here and in other cities before, only to be greeted with pure, frothy-mouthed antidevelopment. Nothing at all to do with architectural preservation.

Every label out there has so many different connotations that it really has become necessary to load on the adjectives to make it clear to whom you are referring. Even "obstructionist" can be a positive label if it is applied to you in response to your opposition to something like a Walgreens in Gates Circle.

In reference to Jake's intentions with the comment, I think the assumption that every development plan (even the juicy ones) will be opposed and shot down is slowly starting to go away. If this and other projects actually happen, it will be difficult for the skepticism to remain so thick around here every time a project is proposed. Soon, we might actually be able to assume that projects WILL happen instead of WON"T happen. I hope that day comes soon.

Edward, I couldn't have said it better myself... I should know, I tried... :)

I have it on good authority that they are going to some very talented architects for this... I'm really looking forward to see what they come up with!!

I hate to be cynical, but the Snews article I saw stated:

"We have just begun due diligence on a number of options, all of which will take some time to study," Widzinski said.

The Uniland spokesman also noted the developer will consider the "fabric of the community" and the location's "Frederick Law Olmsted heritage" as it weighs development possibilities."

I sure hope that isn't double speak for we're going to try and build a Walgreens on that site.

A great achitect and a great building!.....mmmmm, how yummy!

Thank you Jake...As far as I'm concerned the BR website is a glorified mutual admiration society of a select few who seem to be able to hold court whenver they please on issues that are a matter of their own opinion and nothing else. Grandiose and narcissistic know-it-all. Have you ever noticed how a particular caustic posting can magically disappear if one of the "Powers that be" from BR don't like what's being said. Hooterville mentality. "Thanks molly...you're welcome westcoastperspective...nice post steel...why thank you westcoastperspective.....and on and on and on. Its embarrassing really and such limited insight. Oh well I guess they try in a limited sort of way.

bman, I think I liked you better when you were brainman. Why the attitude? I remember when you used to compliment posts as well. Delta Sonic rings a bell. But I guess other people can't compliment ideas that they like? Sounds like a double standard if you ask me. You follow BRO as a fly on the wall long enough and you catch on. So far most of the compliments seem fairly warranted, even yours.

Sorry teflon I get burned-out reading some of the silly posts and I have to take it out on somebody I guess. But it is a little disconcerting to me that many of those who post on this site seem to me to be more in the "know" than others and engage in little "sidebar" conversations that seem almost rude and antithetical to the mission of this site. And all of the double standard silliness...look at "benp's" remark about the "ugly 50's towers on Delaware Ave. being reskinned." How phony...the 50's was a specific architectural time just like the 30's and those towers on Delaware, in my estimation, should be protected from thinking like that. I'll try to be nicer. Thanks for raising my level of consciousness about how I am appearing. I'm still fuming over Savarino's cave-in on the Forest Avenue Hotel Project and I may be somewhat raw for awhile. P.S. How considerate of you to have noticed that I morphed.

the way i interpreted bman's comments is at the heart of the problem with this site and-- in my estimation--the general trend of turning to participatory blogs like it, for news.

let me change that.

the disagreement between fundamental values that we see on sites like this isn't necessarily a problem, but certainly a consequence of the re-organization of communication media that the internet has brought on. in the past it has been hidden by people in power at a newspaper or television station, but now it is out in the open on the comments page of a popular blog. unedited for all to see.

the problem is that the traditional structure of writer and reader and all the power and authority that is associated with that structure is still here. so regular people who may or may not have published writing credits and experience in journalism become the authorities who write what news we as viewers read. the comments are the equivalent of the opinion page in the paper--on steroids. anyone with a web browser can toss their opinion in there (like i'm doing right now) and do it instantly. with or without reflection. the people who write the main articles are granted an authority as reporters of news regarding the city and the commentors are the ones granting that authority as the audience. one of the ways to possibly eliminate this structure is to create a wiki format where original articles can be modified and edited by everyone thus we all have the authority instead of the limited few who post the main articles.

(ps-why is an email required, i want to post anonymously)

The problem with Jake and like minded commentators is their penchant for labeling people, aka name-calling.

Liberal v.conservative, preservationist v. developer, red state v.blue state, obstructionist v. build it now.

Labels just don't serve to inform very well. Their are "preservationists" who are developers. Their are "liberals" on some subjects who are "pro-life", their are "obstructionists" who support building it now.

Name calling is for when you don't have a good arguement or want to pin a negative label on someone you disagree with so maybe you can convince others to dislike the "person" and stop thinking about the "idea".

Please - write about the ideas and stop labeling organizations and people to suit narrow minds.

This is great for the city. The city needs new blood from every economic background, so having more wealthy people in the city can only be a good thing. I think a new highrise on Delaware, esp. one that will be a "premier address" in the city will only open more people's eyes up to the fact that Buffalo is RISING, slowly but surely. The owner of the Park Lane that runs the catering service in the Statler ballroom said he might open up a restaurant there. So the loss of the Park Lane is Statler's gain as well.

Anonymous,

Thank you for your points. Iim assuming you have a fundamental issue with ithe traditional structure of writer and reader and all the power and authority that is associated with that structurei. And thatis cool.

We however donit have a problem with itoand not just because our business model is predicated on that structure. We donit have a problem with it because weire advocates of authorial intent, the integrity of the text, and (though we transparently play around with aliases) identity. I know itis all structural and pre-Derrida and uninformed by Foucault, but weire kinda old fashioned that way. ;)

Weire an online publication that facilitates a dialogue. Thatis our proposition. We are not just a conversation. Weire a brand and authorial intent and editorial voice are key components of itocomponents made stronger by a transparency into our process/agenda and an eagerness to not just defend our points of view, but to use them as launch pads for conversations everyone is invited to and which we only edit for topicality and bad behavior.

In the end, people like to read what WestCoastPerspective and Queenseyes and Steel and Joan Fedeszyn and Ethan Cox and Harvey Garrett and Katie Schneider and Larry Bartolomei and Mark Goldman and any of the other 53 contributors to BRO have to say. I canit imagine diluting those voices with homologous peer review via a wiki. However, because of comments like these, those folks are held publicly accountable for everything they say.

Wikis are cool. I think they are the next generation discussion board and enterprise wide collaboration tool. But in addition to their being a tool thatis at odds with any publisher building and maintaining a brand, wikis arenit quite ready for primetime. To our minds, RSS is the technology that will simplify participation, break down walls between websites, replace email and provide new frameworks for social collaboration. RSS is at the very foundation of blogs, but its implementation on wikis uniformly, well, sucks. It will get and is getting better. But to build the types of community building and content delivery tools we have in store, wikiis are inadequate.

Lastly, the beautiful thing about the blogging phenomenon is that anyone, ANYONE, can start one. If you donit think BRO is relevant or represents your agenda, first give us a chance.

editorial@buffalorising.com

Tell us what you want covered and if we canit or donit accommodate, start a blog. Theyire free.

http://www.blogger.com/

Anonymous,

I think you make some interesting points, and media is changing, though human nature is not. We are still the same erring, self-interested humans we've always been, albeit with awesome technology at our disposal. Currently, however, there isn't a real communal or accepted sense of "That which is right," and at some various points in our country idealism reigned, and in doing so gave people something to follow, which they did more or less well. Those principals are still there, but have fractured, like much of our society and culture, and after it all shakes out a bit, it will take a lot of brainpower to put it back together in some format. I do believe it will, however because humans are constantly moving from chaos to order.

As for this blog, there will always be a certain amount of chumminess inherent in any blog UNLESS otherwise stated, or funded. Most of the folks here volunteer their time, as do posters - obviously - and we don't spend time on things we don't agree with. So is the mistake *yours* for expecting otherwise? Or is it this or any other blog's obligation to be other than themselves? Other than pro-their-own-opinions? It all begins with the type of media and what they set out to do.

Americans have an expectation of our newspapers to be unbiased, because we are idealists, but often they are anyway - because humans have biases. If it's not in the way a story is written, it's in what gets covered and from what angle and where in the paper the story is put. In England you know what the usual bent is of certain media outlets, and you read them for their conservative or liberal take on a topic.

So now that you get a sense of what the writers and posters at Buffalo Rising are interested in, read it with that filter, as you should process any media outlet.

As for censorship, I think it's perfectly possible to say anything you want to politely. It takes a little skill. I've seen some very negative posts that don't go away.

This could make an interesting other thread...

Wrong day to be a wiki evangelist:

Jack Thompson is threatening to sue Wikipedia for spreading "false, defamatory and actionable" statements about him. Jack Thompson's article on Wikipedia has been deleted, and is now locked by the Wikimedia Foundation Office, the only article on Wikipedia to be in this status. Additional details can be found on his article's talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson_(attorney)

Yup... that's my problem with wikipedia. Anyone can write anything, but there's no way to make sure things are correct.

bman: I actually enjoy the look and eclectic mix of the colorful 50's towers on Delaware, and was defending them. Please don't mix my posts up with someone else's. My only critique of some Delaware architecture is cheapness and blandness (common everywhere, especially in my current town), which unfortunately the Diocese of Buffalo settled on for their residence tower by the new cathedral site. I can't blame themfor this one, since they are a charity org, and even so their building adds to the street's interesting visual and practical mix. However, with the huge empty courtyard space surrounding the building some smart architect should be able to propose adding visual interest, and perhaps even practical use, for one of the less interesting buildings on Delaware.

And btw note that my "ugly 50's buildings" was a sarcastic requote from a previous poster. As a kid I thought those buildings were cool and always pictured living in one of them!

(note that I am a reluctant former Buffalonian living in Houston, still frequent visitor (2 to 3 x per year), and new forum poster - so please be kind - I have no hidden agenda - I've only grown to appreciate exponentially what bflo has to offer and miss living there!)

Check out the newest luxury condo high rise going up in Providence, RI.

http://www.onetenprov.com/

I know this isn't the right look for Gate Circle - but I do look forward to the day that I see a building like this go up in downtown Buffalo.

Sounds to me like Uniland got some of their employees to write the first dozen or so posts. Agreed the project is a good one. I do wonder how a developer with little to no experience doing urban development, let alone residential, will handle this spot. We might end up with a GEICO bldg with bedrooms in it. They do sterile surburban really well. Would have felt more confident if a better developer got the project.

sorry you landed in Houston benp and thanks for your response. I really like the 50's turquoise buildings on Delaware and someday they will be highly highly regarded. I know about the Timon Towers disaster following the razing of the New Cathedral and I agree it was a catastrophe of major proportions. I know (now deceased) the niece of the marble stone sales merchant who advised the diocese of Buffalo not to use the lower grade of marble they did to build the cathedral. They ignored his plea to use the more expensive marble and sure enough the cathedral was torn down after only about 60 years of being there. Then the horrible building you speak of appeared. So many past mistakes. Hope you make it back to Buffalo soon on a permanent basis. I enjoyed Houston when I have been there, and Galveston Island too, but its no place for a Buffalo boy for the long haul.

This proposed building has very large ramifications. We all want to see the proposed design, but insiders tell me that it will more or less block our view of the old Park Lane Apartment House, a very elegant building that fits beautifully into the Olmsted circle. Do we want to lose that?

Considering this is a gateway into the Park System and that this is an historic circle, I'm getting a sick feeling in my stomach about this new proposal. Has anyone seen pics of the old Park Lane or better yet, remember it in person? That's about the only design I think would fit this circle. Sorry. I think this smells bad.

gates circle driving will become a nightmare if those condos fill up. Not like it already is. I drive from Lafayette to Lafayette East to West coming home from work every day, and hardly anyone coming on Delaware thinks that a person would have the balls to cross in front of them, so they freak out and give me the finger, even though I have the right of way. Actually, I guess 30-50 more cars wouldn't be a big deal.