Buffalo Rising Online

All these damn plans over the last couple years have me confused... which ones are competing plans, which ones are actually approved, which ones were proposals and got squashed.

CAN WE JUST BUILD THIS ONE ALREADY?!?!

there are more pictures on the Buffalo News website

Route 5

even a little video that shows a flyby of the areas of Route 5.

I love the fact that the web address for this article is "lipstick on a pig." I guess we know the author's feelings.

How come, in any of the media outlets, we're not seeing any actual plans??? Because they're reselling the exact same thing they did months ago, except this time with pretty renderings?? Its ridiculous - its basically propaganda we're looking at to push through a highway on our waterfront. Really, how is this any different from when the 33 was pushed through the Humboldt neighborhoods??? They had pretty renderings then too! Only Buffalo politicians would actually support constructing a separated highway on the waterfront as a temporary solution to access problems. SERIOUSLY! Higgins, stop promoting this crap and do what is right for the long term benefit of Buffalo and the waterfront. If the skyway comes down in 10 or 15 years, like you claim you support, are you also going to guarantee that we will have the funding to completely rebuild this roadway access AGAIN, the way it should have been done in the first place?!

I do agree with you Quinn... I am not of the mind build something for the sake of building it. But there is a point of diminishing returns with all of these competing proposals for the waterfront. We could wait another two years and surely have a better plan than we have today, and another two years after that an even better one.

It's just frustrating when we've seen these plans for how long now and they seem to be on the right track... so LETS GET IT GOING! Even seeing a bulldozer on the news report gave me goosebumps because it was just something actually striking ground!

I do agree with you Quinn... I am not of the mind build something for the sake of building it. But there is a point of diminishing returns with all of these competing proposals for the waterfront. We could wait another two years and surely have a better plan than we have today, and another two years after that an even better one.

It's just frustrating when we've seen these plans for how long now and they seem to be on the right track... so LETS GET IT GOING! Even seeing a bulldozer on the news report gave me goosebumps because it was just something actually striking ground!

Why does the elevated portion have to come down if the skyway comes down? Route 5 is currently at sealevel at the base of the skyway. So why would taking out the skyway be any different in the future? Can someone explain Ms. O'Neals comment?

there is no context if they showed it you would noticed the glaring divide between it and the waterfront. of course that divide would mean those developments never happen... hence the reason they left it out. Easier to leave gray areas than deal with the real questions about the impacts this project will have.

I do like the renderings and the way they are going to treat the water's edge. I think they have improved that aspect but in the larger scope of work it is still just the status quo and I do like the argument that once the skyway does come down, this highway is going to become another glaring woops... wish we did it right the first time.

What our politicians don't seem to understand is that projects like this should be moving towards the end goal, the vision. Instead we are constantly cutting short and stepping on our own feet to get something done. This is one of several examples where instead of moving towards goals we just do for the sake of doin without ever reaching the intended purpose of finale.

I love the Skyway and the views it provides.

I have to disagree that were just doing something to get something done. You see...we've done NOTHING....along the waterfront. Or very little. Times beach and the Gallagher boardwark, two places that less than .0001% of the local population know about.

I think I'd like see a boulevard plan, but I think the eleveated dual use won't be bad. Right now, the mix match of roads is so confusing. Two roads will be fine and it will be easy for people to figure out how to get to the waterfront, stay right to hit the parkway or stay left to stay on the higway style route 5.

One other thing, like it not, route 5 is heavily traveled by those who choose to live in the burbs (lackwanna/blasdell/hamburg/derby/angola). They all want a deserve a quick way into the city. I can't blame the DOT for wanting to keep both groups happy. I use the Route 5 to get out to work everyday in Blasdell and I love that zip right out there. I don't really want to drive 35mph to work.

Mike S - why would the elevated section of rt. 5 come down if the skyway is eliminated??? South of the rt. 5 highway you have at grade roadways at lower speeds, if the skyway comes down that means on both sides the roadways will be lower speed and at grade. It does not make sense to have a 60mph highway stuck in the middle of two at grade roadway systems at lower speeds. Furthermore, it completely cuts off development on the harbor to that of any that could take place at the city ship canal and the Inner Harbor. The people who are backing this proposal are all about getting something done now, with their primary focus to move traffic, rather than to develop the local waterfront for the future.

WHAT THE @#$% IS IT WITH THIS WEBSITE DELETING @#$%ING POSTS!

But Mike, the Town of Hamburg is actually supporting tearing down the skyway, they prefer a well developed waterfront. And why, anyways, would it be the right of some other town to dictate that the city ruin its own land, especially waterfront land, with a highway. Just because it might be better than what is there, doesn't mean its the right thing to do.

I have said it since the beginning proposals were posted on the NYSDOT that the to be constructed Tifft Street Connector thru the old brownfield/new industrial parks is the preferred solution because it allows for the bypass of the skyway as a high traffic corridor route to the southtowns.

It allows for the removal of the skyway and its replacement with a lift bridge

It allows for the removal of the circular access ramp that consumes an entire city block along seneca and church.

It allows for route 5 to be converted to a boulevard

KEEP UP THE LAWSUITS.....

I think it is funny that the renderings are all focused on the new park-like spaces. Where is the road in these renderings? Isn't this all about a road? This development of the water's edge is great but it should happen regardless of what road gets built. It is almost like the DOT is trying to give the public a lollipop to get it to stop crying.

Oh, the parks look nice but I want them AND the right road; one that allows for the Skyway to come down and keeps trucks off the waterfront. This road will shape the future direction of the city for the next 50 years so it needs to be done right!

chris69 I don't think they are deleting posts but have server issues. I noticed that if i keep a certain page open for any extended period of time and then try to post it usually gets 'lost'. It is best to refresh the page before you post. Usually you can hit the 'back' button in firefox and you typed message will be there still so you can re-post it without having to remember it. Yes it is very annoying at time.

"I love that zip right out there. I don't really want to drive 35mph to work."

That is part of the reason that American cities have died. The ability to zip out of town is why businesses and residents have left. European cities never built highways through their cities but around them. This has created a false type of congestion which has spurred development and people to stay in the cities. It is the same thing that the growth boundary has done for Portland, (now one of the nicest more livable and efficient cities in America).

The city's waterfront should not be held ransom because of the want of people who live outside the city. just as we don't have any say about developments in Clarence they shouldn't dictate what gets done in Buffalo. but I guess there is a double standard there.

wait, now higgins wants the skyway down again? I thought he changed his mind a few months ago

i don't get how having a highway is a bad thing? This can be a beautiful area but the highway is already set far enough from the waterfront. To say that people are less interested because of the highway is just make believe. My summer painting class was down here and it was a real eye opener. We really don't have enough excuses to get out and explore our waterfront property.

The city should look into creating a sculpture park/garden where the 190 meets the 90. There is just so much plastic wrapped culture between the suburban roadways, if our skyscrapers can't speak for our culture, then perhaps some lawn ornaments can?

Everyone needs to stop with this crap about America, or just Buffalo, being a car society compared to the healthy Europeans who come out of the womb with jogging shoes and a bicycle. Europeans cities don't have highways going through the middle of them? Have you ever been to one? WTF. If they don't have a highway going through them there is an enormous swatch of asphalt so packed with cars it doesn't qualify to be called a highway. I was all over Spain for work a few months ago. The "booming" Euro didn't help the people in tent cities all over the place. The one posession they had out in front ot their blue-tarp dwelling was....a car. Spare me the notion that only Buffalo loves cars, only Buffalo has inept political leaders, only Buffalonians tolerate mediocrity. All of that "keeping it real" is an f'in insult to my intelligence!

Do you want to fly by the waterfront at 60mph, or Live there? that's the real question. This is as close as it gets to Beach-front property here in Buffalo, on the west there's a river where you can't swim. But somehow Higgins and Brown want to keep the Highway and ignore the potential for development. We are reclaiming the waterfront from industrial wasteland, we need a place designed for people, not high speed traffic.

Traffic congestion is not an issue, more people are traveling on the 190 now that the toll booths are gone. Why not slow it down to 45mph and have timed traffic lights like there are on Elm and Oak st?

The elevated option is more expensive and prohibits development, I thought this was a done deal, we're turning Fuhrmann Blvd into an actual boulevard, we've had this money for years. Now they change the plans at the last minute and blame other people for standing in the way?

Thanks Mickey Kearns for taking a stand on this issue. I thought Higgins was from South Buffalo, doesn't he want it to become valuable beach front property? Yes there is a beach there, it was almost named after Higgins. The beach should be part of the neighborhood, not a drive by attraction.

Bufflow, you are exactly right and i agree with you 100%. Most of the people commenting have never been on the bikepaths along the blvd , or have only gone recently since rte5 has become a cause celebre. As you are aware, even on the best of days, you can count the number of people on the paths on one hand..and as you get toward freezer queen , it is Mostly goose shit all over the place, or is it geese shit.

I love it! Thanks Mr. Higgins. Finally progress. Keep the machines going!

I can't wait for this to be complete. It will be a beautiful place to take the dog and do some bass fishing in the best bass fishing place in the world. Bike ride along the lake and go for a Sunday afternoon walk. Enjoy!

we have spent many evenings walking this area after boating to stretch the dogs legs, what is already in place is pretty darned pleasant. I agree with Bufflow and Johnywalker, never more than half a dozen people at any given time [if at all]. If you have not been to the small park, Dougs Dive or small boat harbour, how can you comment on the area and what should or shoul;d not be done?

Bufflow:

The 190, skyway, HSBC tower etc also once blocked the ugly industrial that was on the inner waterfront. We can see how short sighted it is today when we are trying to reclaim the waterfront and integrate it.

Same here. The industrial on the other side need not remain that way forever. Especially if we tear down the wall that separates it. There is no reason the other side of Rt 5 up to hopkins can not be reclaimed long term.

Leaving up this wall will only ensure that the outer harbor remains a drive in drive out novelty full of parking lots instead of a fully functioning area of the city.

Wow! What a bunch of Debbie Downers.

wow. like i'm impressed they colored some black people in on the renderings guess that means we are family

RonR-

Negative Nancy. Is that better?.....Dude

why are there no Puerto Ricans in any of these pics, bunch of god damn racists, everone ya'll. Also why no abstract version?