Man, I hope this thing gets built. I think it's a beautiful design that demonstrtaes progress and will create an interesting juxtoposition w/ the Statler and City Hall. I'll check back for all of the "It's ugly" and "where's the first floor retail?" comments.

Good point Olcott Beach. I imagine once this building is funded, some local jerk off will bring a law suit attempting to prevent it. Or maybe some particular historical socienty will protest in order to save some old run down structure. It is typical of Buffalo. It is sad that so many of us desire development yet project after project gets strangled by the red tape that prevents anything positive and progrressive from happening here. Thanks to dip shits like those at Main Place Liberty it will be headache after headache for outside developers in this city.

Dear RFranke: Nice attempt at sounding intelligent. What is your point?

Sincerely, Alas, the ugly cousin, and the human context.

This will be a very nice addition to our city.

RFranke, The rendering above provides us with the information that most people are interested in seeing. Just because they dont show people smoking outside, bums panhandling, 7ft high piles of snow or a rental van filled with explosives does not mean that they have not designed for these scenarios.

HaHaHa...good point Dave

RFranke, you are right in that asthetics are subjective. You can think it's ugly and i can think it's beautiful. We are allowed to disagree and any discourse about a building is good. At least we are paying attention and appreciate architecture and having the conversation. But to your questions...

"Why do you suppose that illustrations of the new courthouse always show it as a sculpture set against a blue sky canvas?"

- because it's a presentation rendering that takes advantage of pretty skies to promote the design and sell it. That's the point, to make it look pretty so people will like it. Are you suggesting that there is something wrong with marketing the building in the best possible way? A rendering of the building on a gloomy day wouldn't make a very effective presentation would it?

"And why are we never shown the relationship of the building to its setting, particularly a setting that includes people and human activity?"

- I would guess that KPF did numerous renderings of the project from a multitude of angles including from street level. I assume that the ones they distributed to the media / public are the few that show the entire building from the perspective of Niagara Square. Is this really all that confusing? They are trying to sell a design to the public. I see nothing wrong with it. I'm sure that at presentations to the clients and to the city they showed much more.

And the building doesn't address the street and create a human experience in the way that the most highly effective urban buildings do because it's a federal courthouse. There are ridiculous code and setback requirements. Much like the new public safety building, it needs to be protected from the risk of terrorist threats so it looks like a bunker from street level. You may have read about the Freedom Tower having the same issues. It's a shame really from an urban design perspective, but it's the world we live in. Government buildings follow a different set of rules and mixed uses, first floor retail, and sensitivetiy to the human experience at street level are not options. So we get a big ass plaza w/ steps and bollards, controlled entries, and limited interaction w/ the street. I think that the designers took these restrictions and used them to create a building that is more of a piece of sculpture is a fine solution. It responds to the urban landsccape much like a church or a musuem, that is - it doesn't. It is instead on it's own to be experienced as an isolated piece in the round. And what better way to promote it then with shinny renderings on sunny days from afar? Not every building can be the Statler.

This is unnecessary pork, plain and simple. I guess it's nice when your city gets to cash in...but it's the same idea as a bridge to nowhere. good for buffalo, bad for america

RFranke -

You ask, "does the city need more high-end construction?"

Two points.

1. - More high end construction? Because there's so much of it going on right now? There is virtually NO construction; most of it is redevelopment of existing structures (HealthNow notwithstanding).

2. Yes, as the article states that the building is no longer adequate and has security concerns. The Judicial Conference believes it is the MOST necessary courthouse construction need in the country. So I would say yes, the city does need it.

I'm going to stay neutral on my overall opinion, but I'd like to add these comments.

I actually like the design of the building, the modern feel, and a greater variety of materials that it adds to downtown.

However, have architects completely forgotten what the phrase "design in context" means? I think the building fits in nicely with downtown as a whole, but what about the site that it sits upon. Every time a large new project is built, why is there no other way to do it but demolish the entire site or city block to accomodate it? That block had plenty of open space already, without demoing the Erlanger Theatre and the house. At the very least, the theatre could have remained. I think it would draw comparisons to Copley Square in Boston where you have the glass Hancock Tower next to Trinity Church.

There are two major considerations when chosing the design for a building - the building itself, and the place in which it sits. I think on this occasion they get an A for the first, but the latter leaves a lot to be desired.

I'm sure there may also be some regulations in this case because it is a federal building, but where are the creative solutions?

1) It fills in a surface lot that has been there way too long.

2) It is a court house and has design guide lines. These is eons ahead of the monstrosity that is the city court house across the square. Which not only looks like crap, but also cut off W. Genesee and its path torward the lake with its parking garage.

3) I love old stuff but this fits in nicely with the rest of the square. A case of something better replacing what it is taking down. Use these bodies to (create and) fill store fronts down Delaware, Niagara and Elmwood. Good bye surface lot on the square!

4) If th eIssa tower gets built behind this, it will be one hell of a view.

RFranke-

agreed that astethics are subjective,

you said "Does the city need more high-end construction? Did we need to knock down Shelton Square for that which followed? It's a statement often made without any backup and a cousin to the amazingly destructive "any development is good development." If you have a strong argument, back it up. If not, you're just a propagandist."

you have a point that we need to be more concerned about what we tear down and what we save. But this argument you make here has nothing to do with this site. Yes a building or two were knocked down for this project (or will be), but what historical ramifications do they have on Buffalo to prevent us from moving forward with this project? I think it is a very hollow argument to make in this specific case. As far as this being built because "any development is good development" that is also irrelevant. This is a court house, it is being built to replace the current that has some major secuity issues.

Because of attitudes like yours, Buffalo doesnt go anywhere. Your attitude is the reason we are still arguing about a peace bridge. If this city is going to grow and come back, we need to be willing to lose a few things while we gain more. We need to be willing to accept new designs, because that is part of the beauty of a city DIVERSITY. If we designed every building with the same style we would lose all asthetic qualities of the city.

MJWorthington great points

RFranke- This perspective IS what people will see. You don't get a feel for what the building will be from a birds-eye view.

Ike- Investing in America's infrastructure is good for America. Just because development isn't in your backyard doesn't mean you don't benefit from it and it qualifies as pork. i.e. We have all paid for roads to be built in other parts of the country that we might not ever travel on, but chances are goods or services that we consume have. Everyone has paid to maintain the Niagara Power Project yet not everyone directly gets power from it. That does not mean that it is not indirectly beneficial to everyone. The same can be said for amost every public works project. Personally, I wish more tax dollars were spent on bricks and mortar instead of reports and studies.

Wow, what's with all the reasonable comments? good points, everyone.

Townline, I appreciate your position, but context does not mean everybuilding must be of the same style. It has more to do w/ scale and massing. Niagara Square has a multitude of architectural styles on it allready, Art Deco City Hall, Neo-Classical Courts, Brutal Post-Modern City Court, and so on. We all think of them as being contextual because they are familar vocabularies and we have experienced them for decades. This builidng has more in common w/ those buildings then you would assume because it happens to be made of glass and steel as opposed to stone and brick. I personally think the Hancock Tower is awesome next to Trinity Church in Boston. I love the tension they create, however niether edifice relates to the context of the nieghborhood.

Jerkface - you need to read over my post again. I said I was excited about the new design and materials that this building is bringing to downtown. And I was also supporting the idea of having a contrast like Hancock and Trinity, but we won't have it because it was decided that the entire block needs to be demoed for the building. I'm not criticizing the building, I'm criticizing the lack of creative solutions when it comes to creating the site plan for this building.

My bad, I mistook your point. I thought you were arguing against the Courthouse on Nia.Sq. because it didn't fit in contextually. Hopefully the glass won't fall off of our new Courthouse like the Hancock Tower.

Addition to Medina's comments: How many offices & their workers were or will be kicked out, never to return to Buffalo (a la Convention Center, Main Place Maul, etc etc) for this thing? Too bad for them and us - the Feds need fancy digs!

Look back to an architectural controversy in Manhattan a half-century ago.

Lever House was greeted with much skepticism when it was begun in 1950. It's avant garde design threatened to change the then-still mostly residential ambiance of Park Avenue. Buffalo-born architect Gordon Bunshaft of Skidmore, Owings and Merrill led the design team.

It was the first steel-and-glass structure of that scale in New York. Public reaction ranged from polite confusion to uncompromising outrage. In time, critics marveled to see the limestone and brick chaos of midtown Manhattan reflected against its simple, elegant, translucent expanse. The Seagram Building followed shortly thereafter, and "the Park Avenue School of Architecure" soon became ''a suave symbol of business success.''

Downtown Buffalo boasts another classic of modernism - who among us can find fault the simple and elegant lines of One M&T Plaza? The courthouse may be the most optimistic addition to our skyline since M&T was completed in 1966 (make your own call on SOM's 1974 HSBC Center).

Let's be optimistic about the many benefits this structure, and the activity it will shelter, will bring to Westen New York.

Ike made the most relevant comment here. This building is pure pork with a capital "P"! The Prince of Pork, Brian Higgins, is becoming adept at bringing "home" the bacon. Anyone who believes the nonsense about security concerns from the Judicial Conference needs a lesson in Politics and Economics.

If all goes as planned, we will have a $130 million symbol of what is wrong with our economy facing City Hall.

To my eye, this design has a sculptural quality and beauty that will contribute significantly to the city's collection of outstanding buildings. The design is made even more remarkable when one considers that it has evidently been accepted by government bureaucrats, a group hardly known for visionary, forward thinking. I know whereof I speak; I worked for them for years.