Buffalo Rising Online

They have a long way to go on that side of the city, but this is a good start.

I've been very cautious about new builds on the West Side because we still have a few too many vacant houses (if we can find a new owner we'd rather put them in a formerly vacant rehabbed home), and because of the past quality & design issues of our traditional suburban-style new builds. I also like the Cold Spring designs much better. This is one of many things the West Side can learn from the East Side.

New build projects are like crime abatement, greening, commercial district & economic development, housing rehabs, & other revitalization efforts - they all need to be part of a larger well-coordinated plan or the investment will be wasted (you can see this in the new-builds foreclosure rates across the city).

Habitat For Humanity, Westminster Presbrtirian Church, City of Buffalo, WSNHS, and others are in the process of constructing new builds on Furguson Street near Grant & Ferry. The West Side Neighborhood Partnership is working on crime abatement , Grant Street revitalization, homeownership, & other efforts at the same time. I'm hoping this will be a sucess based on the larger geographic plan.

Buffalo has so many amazing groups & investment projects going on - we just need to make sure they are all working together and leveraging each other's efforts. We all need to get better at working together, sharing resources, trusting each other, and delivering sucesses.

I'm encouraged by the improved designs of the new houses going up now across the city, I'm hoping the larger neighborhood plans are also designed well. This requires residents to step up and get involved in the planning and implementation. I'm encouragerd at the rate in which this is starting to happen.

Harvey

Problems with newer builds in Buffalo are rife. This is particularly true for what is planned in Midtown -- all suburban variety on very wide lots all within a stone's throw of two LRRT stations. As expected, Bethel had originally planned very dense housing on the original lot sizes, but were turned down by the ZBA.

The city's housing policy is still too focused on creation of housing for its own sake. There isn't much of a broader goal, namely the creation of walkable (and thus not car-dependent and more affordabel) communities close to neighborhood commercial districts and transit corridors. Why is the city building housing in the middle of nowhere, like Sycamore Street near the Cheektowaga line? Who does that benefit aside from the new owners? Where is the *public* benefit?

In a city with an ebbing population, new infill development can be an essential component in rebuilding sustainable communities capable of meeting the daily needs and wants of its residents. There certainly isn't that kind of strategy in play in Buffalo, where housing development is being treated as simply a way to deal with vacant lots and substandard housing. And, by the way, it typically costs much less to renovate a well-built house, even on the East Side, than it does to underwrite a $140,000 new house.

P.S. Has anyone ever substantiated that all the housing on the East Side was not made to last more than 100 years? It's far better built than a new Ryan Home.

I'm with Chris...

Another problem with these 'subsidized' new builds is just that. They don't reflect true market forces. I've observed a dozen of these new infill homes here in Masten during the last ten years. They first sold for 80-09K and later during forclosure proceedings are sold for 20-25K. This is not a good thing. I've seen a dozen go like this in my neighborhood in the last few years.

I'd rather see a revolving loan fund for rehab and renovation of existing houses.

Check my recent posting about Michigan Avenue for additional information. Just because they look nicer than phase I infill homes from the 1990's doesn't make them a better fit for this neighborhood.

Here's the post http://simurl.com/hiljop

The Common Council just approved a resolution to create a Revolving Loan Fund for Receivership Properties.

Also, the new builds do not have the fortitude of the older housing. It would be better to rehab with materials harvested from properties slated for demolition. These harvested materials could move up the street to homes that can be saved. While doing so, if there are a number of homes waiting for the demo ball on the same street, side yards can be increased in size providing another asset for rehab of both the home and the neighborhood.

I'm not sure landbanking is the appropriate approach for these close-in neigbhorhoods, or is it? Also keep in mind these are homes built for moderate to low incomes- you aren't going to get a Blum built home for $95,000.

Do we need a housing replacement program? Or do we wait until all 20,000 vacant units are demo'd or rehabbed? If there is a comprehensive plan for the housing crisis, it hasn't been publicized.

A. In shrinking neighborhoods with negative housing demand, the LAST thing needed is more housing units.

B. Suburban land uses (double lot single homes, rougly 1/4 the density of what the neighborhood once was) dosn't belong in close-in neighborhood ESPECIALLY near subway stops.

C. Most households (especially in poverty-stricken inner-city areas) no longer fall into the traditional dual-parent nuclear family mold. The age-old Ozzie & Harriet mentality ceases to be an accurate representation of the modern American household. Single-family newbuilds in a decaying ghetto is an empty, foolish gesture made by politicans looking for an easy way to claim some sort of accomplishment.

Politicians just don't get that Buffalo is still a declining city. This money would be better spent helping these people gain adequate transportation and relocate to where they can find work instead of re-warehousing them in a depressed setting waiting for another few rounds of decay and despair.

Marilyn is correct, I posed a question in an email thread I began in August 2005 about the need to salvage from homes being demolished,We are working on a plan for salvaging.Also I am not a fan of newbuilds we are a shrinking city, We are playing musical houses in my opinion simply emptying 1 house to fill another.The foreclosure rate is about 15-20% on newbuilds meaning about 1 out of 5 will end in foreclosure, What we need is jobs, landbanking also in my opinion is a viable solution as there are so many streets with few people left, many vacant houses and lots, Examples for anyone wanting to take a ride and check it out are, Gittere, Howlett, Ruhland, Harmonia & Oberlin, When developers look at areas they arent looking for 1 or 2 vacant lots they look for large areas,

A street by street plan is what I feel is the solution,

None of this is an either/or proposition. Our troubles with new builds and restoring existing homes has been one of execution, not concept. The new builds can breathe new life into neighborhoods, encouraging the restoration of existent homes (and vis versa).

There should be an overall plan that guides new construction of all types...but the existence of such a plan is not enough. It has to be followed.

In the past 2 weeks 120 Waverly & 24 Welker ( newbuilds ) and resellling for about half the original price.

I believe combining the two - rebuilds and rehabs utilizing harvested reuse materials from demos - is needed. However, recently the push has been for tearing down and new builds almost exclusively. This is waste and a detriment to the fabric of the community as a whole.

Michelle has the figures that show new builds are in jeapordy due to foreclosure actions and other ills. We all know that "pop-ups" like the ones being built now do not have the structural integrity of those at the turn of the century.

What we need here is balance - yes - new builds, but utilize our resources wisely through harvesting and rehab. It's way more cost effective as well as ecologically responsible (land fills, etc.)