Come on, let's be serious. Elmwood isn't going to turn into Transit Road. If anything, I think Elmwood will somewhat stagnate in the future due to the area's residents opposing most any change in the neighborhood.

I personally would like to see Elmwood densify somewhat (similar to Royal Oak in Detroit) but it'll never happen.

I totally agree, people want to have dense, walkable, quaint places with store fronts and density but yet many fail to realize that in order to actually get those things you can not allow parking at every site. The place that people wish Buffalo could be more like often have very strict restricts laws telling property owners where you can and can't put parking. Try to get similar laws passed here and you are a called a crack pot and anti-development.

Streetcar is exactly right, the ideals of New Urbanism mask the flaws which contribute to its downfall. If anyone trully wants to solve the real issue there has to be a culture change in America where the average person would prefer to walk or take public transportation rather than drive to within 2 feet of the door of their destination. A much more difficult task to accomplish. So please don't dump everything on planners and architects they can only enforice proper design as long as the consumer is willing to accept it.

In regards to Atwater I wish people would stop making the link between permiting its destruction and jumping to the conclusion that we support of a second Transit Road. As my previous post I am still waiting for the objective reasons why this specific building had to be saved. Perhaps this action and everyone hatred and fear of a precident will motivate those to create proper zoning and design guidelines to ensure that the charater and quality of Elmwood continue, while allowing for intelligent growth.

Streetcar is exactly right, the ideals of New Urbanism mask the flaws which contribute to its downfall. If anyone trully wants to solve the real issue there has to be a culture change in America where the average person would prefer to walk or take public transportation rather than drive to within 2 feet of the door of their destination. A much more difficult task to accomplish. So please don't dump everything on planners and architects they can only enforce proper design as long as the consumer is willing to accept it.

In regards to Atwater I wish people would stop making the link between permiting its destruction and jumping to the conclusion that we support of a second Transit Road. As my previous post I am still waiting for the objective reasons why this specific building had to be saved. Perhaps this action and everyones hatred and fear of a precident will motivate those to create proper zoning and design guidelines to ensure that the charater and quality of Elmwood continue, while allowing for intelligent growth.

yeah I totally agree that many places that are build under the guise of new urbanism are little more than modern subdivisions but quainter but is it wrong to build in a way that we know works? When someone tears down a building and rebuilds in the heart of Rome they follow similar methods and means. Does that make it fake? It is a real building of brick an mortar. It just isn't as old. I often grapple with this in my head if it is right or honest to do such things but then again cities have been built and rebuilt themselves in a means that provided commerce, life and efficiency to the residents and I don't think we should just stop following what was proven to work just because it doesn't look new. Most "new" buildings aren't something that anyone will write post home about.

Lets create great beautiful cities that make people feel welcomed and comfortable. If that means following what we know works, so be it.

the key phrase is "under the guise of New Urbanism". Read the Congress"s charter. They do not call for a certain style and their principles are directly opposite of what many so called new urbanist developments are doing. Don't blame New Urbanism as a concept for the failures of developments that use the name and not the ideas.

Like many ideas out their, thier names get misused and abused. Thus giving the name of the original idea a bad rep that it does not deserve.

Prl119 said: As my previous post I am still waiting for the objective reasons why this specific building had to be saved. " The building itself will always remain an "eye of the beholder" thing. I saw more craftsmanship in the front stone work than there is in most of the $300K+ houses going up in OP/Lancaster/Clarence. I find it very hard to understand how people can throw it away like a candy wrapper. But I guess we live in a disposable society, so why should we expect better? But if it did have to come down for progress, at least give progress. A privte asphalt lot paved to the street is not "progress." Even if (strong if) the new front addition happens. The Atwater lot will still be mostly parking up to the street. A great urban building like the Boitique Hotel gets nixed but this site plan no better than the one used by a suburban fast food chain goes through.

Have Pano's become a two story facade using the whole frontage of the Atwater lot, keeing all parking behind the building, and I think you'd have many less people fighting it, and maybe even celebrating the "progress."

It's not the loss of the Atwater house itself, it's the principal. If the owner of Pano's was to create a better Urban design in replacement, then this matter wouldn't be such an issue. If the design was right up to the sidewalk, and no view of a surface parking lot from the street, it would have been more urban friendly. But, because this new look (if it does happen) will be more suburban friendly than urban is why we need better development rules in this town. Isn't this what destroyed Downtown?. One owner did it, everyone thought, "no big deal, it's just one business". Then another owner created parking and another, and before you know it, over 50% of downtown is a parking lot and now we have no place to shop, and most areas we pedestrians have to stop and watch out for cars in the middle of almost every block for both ramps and surface lots and this goes for Elmwood Ave. too. So, sure this may be just one section of Elmwood, but soon, if we don't get serious on design rules, we are going to end up with another Delaware/Hertel Ave on Elmwood Ave. An avenue that once was bustling with people, now car dominated because noone cared at the time to think about the consequences of destroying buildings for parking lots. If you want Buffalo to be a "Real" City again, then stop allowing destructions for surface lots. Take a bus, walk, build underground parking, behind building parking, park on the side streets, not right along the avenues that were intended for pedestrians.

It's not the loss of the Atwater house itself, it's the principal. If the owner of Pano's was to create a better Urban design in replacement, then this matter wouldn't be such an issue. If the design was right up to the sidewalk, and no view of a surface parking lot from the street, it would have been more urban friendly. But, because this new look (if it does happen) will be more suburban friendly than urban is why we need better development rules in this town. Isn't this what destroyed Downtown?. One owner did it, everyone thought, "no big deal, it's just one business". Then another owner created parking and another, and before you know it, over 50% of downtown is a parking lot and now we have no place to shop, and most areas we pedestrians have to stop and watch out for cars in the middle of almost every block for both ramps and surface lots and this goes for Elmwood Ave. too. So, sure this may be just one section of Elmwood, but soon, if we don't get serious on design rules, we are going to end up with another Delaware/Hertel Ave on Elmwood Ave. An avenue that once was bustling with people, now car dominated because noone cared at the time to think about the consequences of destroying buildings for parking lots. If you want Buffalo to be a "Real" City again, then stop allowing destructions for surface lots. Take a bus, walk, build underground parking, behind building parking, park on the side streets, not right along the avenues that were intended for pedestrians.

Thank you MJ you are the first person to provide me with specific reasons as to why the Atwater should be preserved. It's reasons like that which preserve a building, not it's old or part of urban fabric. It specifics like craftmanship, material, style etc which SHPO looks for in preservation reviews. Personally I would have liked to see the the Atwater used in the new design, but I guess that was asking too much of Silvestri.

Obviously I agree with Giovanni that its time for design guidelines to be put in place to ensure quality products. Perhaps we should stop pointing our fingers at those who design develop build with their own interests in mind, and spend our time aiding in the creation of these guidelines.

Exactly the point, blo. Which is something I do not understand what many people here think city living truly is or at least can be in Buffalo. If you live in a city (any city), you should be able to walk from your home to the grocery store, entertainment venues, shopping, and more. In Buffalo, we seem to lack this in most areas of town. And our downtown is indeed in very sad state. All these new places to live and so little shopping to do. It is no wonder people need to have a car, even if living in the downtown area. If your like me, you enjoy the unique shops along Elmwood, but sometimes you just have to shop at a national store like Gap or Banana, and our city does not offer this. With so many vacant buildings along Main St. and the empty sidewalks, I am embarresed to show out of town guests or direct any visitor up that way. It will only give the impression that things still don't happen here, and our city is still dead. I'm sorry if the truth hurts, but someone had to say it. As far as parking lots, we do have way too much of it, and a development plan should have been in place already. I could have sworn I read about it on this site a few months ago that one was coming or in the works....To the people posting on here saying we need more parking lots and what' the big deal, etc. Please do yourself (and us) a favor and go visit another city for at least one day, see how it is, see the infill, the street life, lack of surface lots, and notice people WALKING, taking a BUS or even a SUBWAY/RAIL and think nothing of it...We have a mentality in this town that public transit and walking is the last resort which is very suburban/rural way of thinking. Last time I checked Buffalo is a city.

About four years ago on the message board I run, I posted my thoery about why New Urbanist development is nonexistent in Buffalo. I'll try to recreate that post, and add a bit more.

Let's take a family with lower middle class or middle class roots, like so many in Buffalo. The breadwinners may be children of the city; they could have grown up in a lower middle class 1920s era neighborhood like Kensington or Riverside, a place that has its charms but which is more often than not gritty around the edges. All their lives, they've had images of the contemporary American dream as the ideal living situation; a house on a cul-de-sac in the 'burbs, with a two car garage, a big yard, and neighbors that aren't so close that you can see into the rooms of their house just as easily as yours. A NU community might not appeal to them, because it's not like their idea of the American Dream; it's a glorified version of the rough neighborhood where they spent their childhood.

Let's go to Buffalo or Cleveland. Unlike Denver or Seattle, there's a larger working class. Many live in relatively dense neighborhoods with a well-connected street grid and pedestrian-oriented retail within easy walking distance; the comfy areas that exhibit the qualities admired by New Urbanism promoters. The folks living there, though, usually want out. When the working and middle class fled the 20,000 residents/mi2 neighborhood of my childhood (Kensington-Bailey), they didn't go to the Elmwood, Parkside or North Buffalo neighborhoods, despite the large houses, charming retail districts, and distance from "da' hood." "The houses are so close together." They all went to Tonawanda, or like Mom and Dad, "made aliyah" to Amherst. They swapped a 1,500 square foot bungalow on a 3,000 square foot lot in the city for a 2,000 square feet ranch on a 12,000 square foot spread. Corner lot, too, so there's only one house nearby ... about 20 feet away from a short windowless wall.

When my folks visited me one week, several years ago when I was living outside of Orlando, I took them down to DPZ's Celebration. They were impressed ... impressed that someone would recreate North Buffalo so well in the central Florida swamps. "It's pretty, and there's lots of people around ... but the yards are so small, and the houses are so close together." Mom and Dad preferred my third acre spread at the end of a cul-de-sac. They were proud that their kid made it out of the city, and was living in the suburban environment that they tried so hard to get to themselves. The house was just like theirs ... a big, sprawling ranch on a big sprawling lot.

In a region where the population is more educated, urban decline was minimal, and there are more transplants from outside of the area, the collective attitude is "suburbs bad," NU is wildly successful; Denver, Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Sacramento, Charlotte, Washington, and so on. In places where the suburban built environment is admired and sought after among the masses, and traditional urban neighborhoods are normally associated with decay and decline, like Buffalo and Cleveland, NU seems to have limited or no appeal.

NU communities also tend to be quite dense -not just to recreate older urban neighborhoods, but because undeveloped real estate in the majority of urban areas in the US is quite expensive. If a NU project -- really, any residential development -- was developed at a low two to three du/ac density, it wouldn't be profitable unless the houses sold for high six-figure or low seven-digit prices. In suburban Buffalo, where greenfield land is still quite cheap -- yes, even in Amherst -- a developer can build $200,000 houses on 1/3 acre lots, and still make a tidy sum. There's no economic incentive to build at higher densities, and no pressure on local governments to change their zoning to allow it.

There's also very little migration into the region, so there's little to dilute the dominant "city bad, sprawl good" mindset, much less add to the diversity of other values and beliefs in the region. No new blood, no new ideas, no fresh thinking.

One example: the effect the lack of large national developers has on the Buffalo housing market. One thing that's very unusual about residential development in Buffalo compared to other medium and large metro regions is that most developers and builders are local. Instead of Toll Brothers, Pulte, US Home, KB Home and other national players, Buffalo area builders and developers are almost all small family-owned firms; the likes of "Rocco D'Calzone and Sons" or "Stugots Brothers Building." Marrano and Forbes-Capretto would be considered small mom & pop builders in any other market in the country. Ryan is about as large as it gets, and they're just a regional builder with local roots; the big nationals are absent from the market.

In some ways, it's a good thing: construction laborers in the region usually get good wages and benefits compared to their peers elsewhere, they're often unionized, and profits stay in the local economy instead of going to Dallas or scattered shareholders. However, while local builders can afford 10 or 20 acres here and there for small subdivisions, but they don't have the financial backing to buy and consolidate larger parcels needed for larger-scale NU development. It's something a national builder can pull off without a sweat, and larger local builders in growing markets. For Buffalo's small mom & pop builders and developers, though, it would be very difficult to take on anything more than the usual small projects.

Local builders are slow to pick up trends sweeping the national housing market. Consider bathrooms. In most of the US starting in the mid-1960s, a full bathroom off the master bedroom was the norm for most new single family houses; most new houses had at least two bathrooms. In the Buffalo area, into the 1970s and early 1980s a half-bath off the living or family room was considered cutting-edge; two-bathroom houses were still the exception rather than the norm. Buffalo builders' infatuation with large dining rooms endures to this day, even though the little-used space has been downplayed in most other housing markets. If Buffalo's builders are now just getting around to second floor laundry rooms, do you think they even know about New Urbanism, much less neotraditional architecture?

One reason NU hasn't taken off in the Cleveland area is that builders in the region are very conservative. They know the tried-and-true formula of single-family houses on half-acre lots works; they are certain to get bank financing, approval from zoning boards, and willing buyers. NU is an unknown. The lenders are also very conservative and haven't dealt with such projects in the past, local zoning and subdivision regulations make it difficult to seek approval, and NIMBYism is quite strong; nobody wants a development of houses on 1/8 or 1/6 acre lots next to their 1/3 and 1/2 acre homesites, or even in the same community; even if the new houses will sell for as much or more than their own homes. "It will drive values down!" "I'll lose my privacy!" "Think of the children!" Even though the market has large national homebuilders, they struggle with the prevailing NIMBYism and antiquated zoning regulations.

Although it's never spoken, it's implied from time to time; urban design elements and density ... just like old neighborhoods in Cleveland ... where a lot of black people live. NU = black people = bad. I wouldn't doubt the same sentiment is held among some in suburban Buffalo, even in more integrated communities like Amherst.

Dan,

Interesting points. I think that absent WNY real estate properties skyrocketing (which doesn't look like it's happening in the foreseeable future), the biggest hope for Buffalo is Gen X & Y not only taking a chance on the city in their younger years but staying when they start families as well. Just as in other cities, crime and schools will be their biggest concerns in this regard. Parking and other issues might be big as well but if unique communities like Elmwood develop these will remain secondary considerations. What would give potential residents more confidence is the creation of districts that would have security patrols and charter schools (or private schools). A good example of this is the University City District in Philadelphia. Ten years ago a murder in this community in the vicinity of the University of Pennsylvania inspired the school to create this district and provide these patrols as well as a charter school. The university still provides most of the funding for this infrastructure. In Buffalo's case, the initial funding may need to come from an assesment on properties. The districts may also need to be tightly focused on a few blocks and radiate from the center.

Pundit,

The controversy (and this story here) is not about a house and the restaurant. It is about the street and the city and the destructive nature of suburbanization inside the city. The accompanying image points out that the Pano scenario can happen on any block of Elmwood including the particularly nice stretch shown. As a matter of fact half of this block is already blighted by a large dull gray parking lot.

The "hand wringing" is not over a house. The "hand wringing" is over the quickly disappearing qualities that make Buffalo special.

daveydoo,

The special service district would be great but I don't know if the businesses in the area would actually agree to the extra tax assessment. It works in philly because Penn is an anchor institution with a vested interest in the community, and has enormous sums of money that allows it to invest in the UCD.

As far as New Urbanism goes, the city only needs traditional urbanism. Andres Duany and the other New Urbanists have just taken the practices that prior to the 1950s were understood as how to build cities.

> The "hand wringing" is not over a house. The "hand wringing" is over > the quickly disappearing qualities that make Buffalo special.

One thing to consider: some traits of New Urbanist development were never a part of Buffalo's built environment, even the areas that developed long before World War II. In NU development, blocks are short; in Buffalo, urban blocks are usually very long and narrow in comparison. Buffalo has very few alleys, unlike the ideal promoted by New Urbanists.

Are eyes on the streets and local business also touted by New Urbanists? I seem to recall Jane Jacobs disscussing the importance of short blocks and that was probably before the NU were alive!

Don't worry I'm not looking for an argument here, the principles are valid and I'm just having a little fun pointing out that these principles are not new, just rebranded.

Spoiled,

You are right on. It is about results.

The CNU has a project database. You can easily find aerial photos or bird's eye views of these projects. Many of them are indeed subdivisions or exclusive newly built clusters outside of existing urban areas. Through census info, we can see that many of the more celebrated New Urbanist communites are very homogeneous when it comes to income and race. The Kentlands, Seaside FL, and Celebration FL are the most popular examples but there are many others. The CNU involvement in the Gulf Coast rebuilding effort is also disturbing.

We don't need to call good urban design principles "New Urbanism".

The CNU charter should be renamed a Manifesto, it could have been penned by Karl Marx. New Urbanism is nothing but propaganda framed with elegant phrases and Utopian values. The underlying cause is to regulate society to conform to the wishes of a minority. The federal government has recently issued a stinging review of the urban planners in Portland, Oregon. The streets are purposely being left to deteriorate while huge amounts of money are being sunk into bike paths and transit schemes that are not utilized or wanted. Setting up basic development guidelines is never enough for the New Urbanists. Molding society is the real goal. If their ideals were so great, people would freely embrace them without the need for government complicity and coercion. The cost of Utopia is far too high, the cost is liberty. A general framework for development that does not stifle individuality is good, anything more causes more harm than good.

Pundit,

There is no hyperbole in my argument. There are few blocks of Elmwood that have not already been marred by surface parking lots. Why is it so unreasonable to note that ANY and ALL buildings on Elmwood are susceptible to demolition for the purpose of creating parking There is nothing unreasonable about a concern that Panos style development will occur again and again on Elmwood. People take for granted that the shops shown in the image will always be there but I could buy any one of those buildings and tear them down for parking. It would be my right to do so as the owner. I would gain parking but the city in general would loose.

The block shown in the picture is popular because of the tight knit group of buildings and commercial establishments that are there. If you eroded this density by taking away every other building (or even more as is the case on some Elmwood blocks) it would cease to be as attractive as it is. Further more if you filled in the giant parking areas at the north I believe this block would become an even more popular destination

Your statement that Buffalo has erred on the side of preservation is absolutely laughable. Buffalo tore down one of the most important buildings in architectural history (Larkin). Half of downtown has been eliminated. It took epic struggles to save major buildings such as the Guaranty and the Old Post Office. Wonderful buildings sit rotting throughout the city waiting for demolition. Even Richardson's Psychiatric Center sits in a precarious state. The few buildings that have been saved have been stunning successes and yet people still rail against preservation as if it has done harm to Buffalo. Buffalo has got to stop looking at its historic inheritance as an albatross and start seeing it for the treasure trove that it is. AM&A's you say? AM&A's is only there and available for renovation because of preservationist. Perhaps you would rather that site be shovel ready? If the parking lot crowd had their way you would not have the Mansion Hotel, Graniteworks, ECC City Campus, Squire Mansion, Guarnty building, Martin House to name a few. I don't think saving any of those can be described as an error. The buildings lost over the years however can be described as a tragedy. Of course we can always build a fake historic village like the one planned for the Erie Canal Harbor.

Steel and Pundit - I'm not sure you two are actually far apart. I suspect if you were having this conversation over a decent meal (I wouldn't suggest Pano's, mind you), you'd be 90% in agreement. A lot of the back-and-forth is driven by the nature of online communication, I think.

One obvious correction, though. Pundit, you wrote "I don't think anyone who has commented about the demolition of the Atwater as being acceptable has lauded the fact that there will be more surface lot."

Actually, the guy who 'runs' Wnymedia.net did just that in his remarkably juvenile 'article' found here:

www.wnymedia.net/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=2498

You may not have read it, as actually reading his 'writing' is hard work, in which case you're forgiven.

Pundit

ThinkBuff is correct in that we both agree that there needs to be planned guidelines and rules / laws for development that people can follow that will protect the important qualities that make the city special while allowing for growth and innovation. We differ quite substantially on the merits of suburban style sprawl development. The Pano Atwater situation is a shot across the bow to Elmwood. If no lesson is learned look for more Hodge to Bryant style blocks on Elmwood in the near future. That is not hyperbole it is something that has current precedent and its not pretty.

By the Way Pundit

Err = 1. to go astray in thought or belief; be mistaken; be incorrect. 2. to go astray morally; sin: To err is human. 3. Archaic. to deviate from the true course, aim, or purpose.

And I say Buffalo has NOT taken that risk of fault to any great extent.

So I read that WNYmedia manifesto. That is a real nice attitude to have. Real productive. Like I said many if not most people in WNY seem to view their heritage as an albatross rather than a gift. That is very sad. Such a waste.

Pundit,

I think if his thoughts were mostly tongue-in-cheek, he probably wouldn't have followed up in the comments with "maybe suburbanism is what we need." Let's be honest - if you and Steel in 90% in agreement, I suspect you and Odien would have a substantially lower consensus rate. And thank goodness for that.

It's unfair to ask you to defend Odien's juvenile rant solely because he's associated with the company hosting your blog, but you should be aware that by associating with that type, you diminish your own standing.

Alan rips you apart, tearing your argument to shreds and all you can do is bring me into it instead of expanding the debate further?

Wow... great conversationalists...

oh... and long live surface lots!

WNYMedia -

"Alan rips you apart, tearing your argument to shreds and all you can do is bring me into it instead of expanding the debate further?"

You mean by acknowleding he's 90% in agreement with Steel he rips his arguments apart? The only difference he noted is that Steel was opposed to Pano's demolition of Atwater, while Pundit is ambivalent. In other words, they might even be on the same side of the argument, so the 90% agreement could go up.

Yea, he really tore everything to shreds. Good point.

Maybe steel and pundit should meet and talk to solve this issue. There are a lot of people that comment and don't do anything. If you want to see a better Buffalo; DO SOMETHING, BE PROACTIVE!!!

Pundit,

I did not "Drag" WNYmedia (Odien) into this argument. Another commenter posted a link to his thoughts on this same subject. I commented on the link that was apparently written by Odien on the subject of the Atwater House. I did not tie you to that writing nor did I force Odien to write the piece. Nor did I force Odien to reply here in this blog so I fail to see where the complaint is. Further I see nothing intellectually dishonest about me commenting on writing from another blog which is dealing with the same subject. I think it was perfectly consistent and honest of me to use that writing as an example of WNY disdain for its heritage

You are right however, that the conversation was much better prior to this distraction

http://www.metropolismag.com/html/content_0898/aug98wha.htm

"Like Disneyland--a "city" based purely on the value of entertainment--New Urbanism asks us to believe that a shell of a city really is a city, that appearances are enough. But cities are for real; democratic culture cannot flourish in a theme park. And the Blues Brothers aren't black." Michael Sorkin

Steel conveniently choose to introduce us to only a slice of the New Urbanism issue.

I posted the charter of the Congress for New Urbanism and noted that many developments calling themselves New Urbanist are not such in reality. If you read the charter you see that the ideals are not a recipe for Disney

I have read the CNU charter but the CNU is much more than its charter. This is a network organization made up of politicians, developers, architects and planners. If so many architects, planners and developers around the country have "misunderstood, misused, or over simplified the principles promoted by the CNU" what makes you think that WNY will be any different? I think that architects are not misunderstanding New Urbanism when they design for nostalgia. CNU publications emphasize "local architectural character" to implicitly suggest architectural styles. The images in these publications consistently show neo-traditionalism as examples of New Urbanism. I'm sure that there is a way to reconcile lessons from modernism with lessons from New Urbanism, but it just doesn't seem to be happening and that may be because New Urbanism is a deeply flawed approach to urbanism.

All I am saying is that you can build contemporary cities (and suburbs) with New Urbanist principles. It does not have to be cutesie fake historic. Here is a quote directly from the Charter

" Individual architectural projects should be seamlessly linked to their surroundings. This issue transcends style."

The over-all intention of the charter transcends the decoration of the buildings. Unfortunately many focus only on the building decoration and call it new urban. In any event surface parking surrounding a building does no good to the urban environment new or otherwise. If Elmwood is going to become a great street (and it is not great yet) parking lot developments need to be banned.

For all of "Buffalo" pundit's claims, he still chooses to live in an abandoned cornfield in Clarence, miles away from Buffalo. Until he & his contemporaries move into Buffalo en masse, there should be huge pinches of salt, all around.