Next Victim: Grant/Ferry?

Story Options

Is Walgreens invading? It is no longer a secret that the firm is looking to take out a block of Delaware near Delevan, but now we're hearing that they are also eyeing the northwest corner of Grant and Ferry Streets on the westside. Judy Einach has the scoop on Yahoo's BuffaloIssuesAlerts:

If Walgreen's plan is to drive out the competition and get a lock on market share, this location fits the bill. Not only is there a relatively new Eckerd across the street - a big box newbuild not adhering to good streetscape guidelines that took down one of the finest dance studios in Buffalo and a nice looking corner building to boot - there's also a Rite-Aid just a couple of blocks away on Grant.

Should Walgreens win this, if this is the corporate plan, we'd sacrifice a corner restaurant that does a good business serving the neighborhood and the baking location of Russ's Pastry which also has a small but steady retail business from this location and one of the cutest old time coffee shop interiors...aside from the pitch for donuts, in this case as in the case against a Walgreens at Gates Circle (that's entirely absurd) we'd lose local businesses, the very thing we want to keep and expand.

Remarkably, Grant St. has a good streetscape pretty much in tact. Needs a lot of improvement, but the bones are excellent. It's a commercial area waiting to happen. Walgreen's is not the answer - assuming Walgreen's is eyeing the area.

Founded in 1901, Walgreens has 5,000 stores in the U.S. Its fiscal 2005 sales totaled $42.2 billion. The corner drugstore being an independent pharmacist is an era that's gone by, but do we need a national chain on every major corner, and in some cases two? Worse, what the chain is likely to propose is a "formula store" meaning it is exactly what is built and characteristic of "suburbia."

Be afraid.

digulios

What Others Have To Say

  1. comptart

    0 ratings12345
    Jan 11th 2006, 19:25

    This is an area SO IN NEED of something o almost ANYTHING o that isn't seedy, a teeny part of me waivered that a Walgreen's would actually be OK. Sadly, that's about as much thought as many desperate residents would give itOe new = shiny = good = approved. But, further thought (like 3 whole seconds more) makes ya wonderOe with a new-ish Eckerd RIGHT there and a Rite-Aid (or was it CVS? they all look alike) that "improved" then abandoned just 2 blocks away (across from Frontier Liquor) WHAT is WG's point!? This isn't Sherdan Drive for crying out loud, with 3.5 lanes in each direction! Being on the opposite side from the competion n just to piss in their playground n is really just bullyism and the neighborhood pays the price! If WG just can't stand to see an Eckerd left unchallenged, must it be NECESSARY that they demolish charming buildings and drive out local businesses? There's an existing (yucky) strip plaza just a half-block away? (Grossmann's / Mr 2nds now occupies the former Bells/Quality location but, hasn't done a thing to improve the premises or faAade). If there MUST be a WG in the area, how 'bout there? It's already uglyOe fix it up! Or, is there something in the Sam Walton code of "ethics" that says all Walgreen's MUST f*ck up the vista of an anchor intersection rather than improve a nearby location in need? Though I don't know where Councilman Bonifaccio would stand on this potential "investment" in that area, I do know he's reasonable, hard-working and no BS o the most NON-politic-playing politician I have ever encountered (so refreshing!) and he's very accessibleOe let his office know where you stand on this! Also, Bob Franke (Forever Elmwood exec director, 2005) is now founder/director of a new Grant/Ferry group aimed at making Grant St a vital shopping district once again. I am quite certain he would be against the demolision. I suspect he keeps an eye on BRO but, I will try to contact both Nick and Bob about this, and ask them to comment on their position.

  2. John C.

    0 ratings12345
    Jan 11th 2006, 20:54

    I don't see a problem with Walgreens or any other National Retailer taking up space in our city. Hovever. As long as they do not build something that belongs in the suburbs (surface parking around the structure, building far from the street scape).

    If Walgreens can agree to build it right up to the street with possible parking in the back of their building so we dont have to walk past another parking lot, then let them build. If they do not agree, STOP THEM.

  3. Mike Rizzo

    0 ratings12345
    Jan 11th 2006, 22:08

    The "new" Grant/Ferry group is called West Side Neighborhood Partnership and we've been around and working for about 3 years now. Our group of volunteers, of which Bob Franke was a founding member, have done numerous things through the years and it's just *now* that we're going to be more visible to the public.

    The last thing we need is more streetscape destroyed for big box retailers. Stay tuned as we release more information to the public in the near future.

  4. peter scott

    0 ratings12345
    Jan 12th 2006, 08:38

    san francisco was pretty much run amok wth walgreen's. I don't remember seeing another drugstore in the city, but a walgreens every 4 or 5 blocks was common, so I see Judy's point about walgreens corporate plan...

    my only hope is that if indeed they are built that they do build up to the street. the one closest to me in SF, on taraval street did just that. Taraval was one of the main drags in an outer SF neighborhood and walgreens actually incorporated the streetscape with limited parking in back...

  5. Melissa Q.

    0 ratings12345
    Jan 12th 2006, 09:06

    Wow, this would be a terrible thing for Grant/W. Ferry Sts. in terms of location. Yes, this area is a little icky right now but like the article said--it has tons of potential for small businesses. The buildings are pretty good but their closeness and style is what makes an urban streetscape different from the suburbs. If we keep tearing down these old-time buildings and replacing them with new suburban-style stand alone types, Grant/ Ferry will look like Union Road. That's not what people in the city want, otherwise, they'd move to the 'burbs.

    I don't understand why the city government won't advocate for style restrictions on buildings. I know all they're seeing right now is dollar signs but they live in the city themselves. Don't they care that decisions like this affect themselves too? I don't know, the whole thing is very frustrating. Thank God for community activist groups who will go out and advocate--they should be the ones in City Hall.

    Please don't let this happen--it would be a real shame for the intersection and a sin to lose Russ's Pastries (have you ever had their cannoli?)

Would you like to subscribe to this conversation?

Enter your email below, and you will receive an alert each time someone leaves a comment on this post.

What Do You Think?

Text Links