"Many extremely valuable and historic streets are being lost through this process in Buffalo" Something only has value if someone is willing to pay for it. If a building is sitting there rotting and no one lives in it or wants to live in it or use for some other purpose than it is just an old decaying building. I'm not saying they should all be demolished but there is no reason to keep them unless they are repairable and some one is willing to do so. As for the sycamore village I think its a stupid Idea. That property is so close to down town how about a grocery store or a target something that would make the lives of people who live here easier. If there is so much high end housing going up down town it would be nice not to have to drive across the city to buy groceries or go to a department store.

The very thought of a suburban style house (top left picture) in the city makes me want to puke. It is the kind of thing that I try to explain to people what is wrong with "flourishing" cities such as Phoenix and Houston... all the suburban developments, everything looks so sterile and the same.

Look at Lot #70 in those pictures and tell me that wouldn't be an amazing house to live in!

It's necessary to remove these old and abandoned buildings. The city needs to develop a land bank system to appropriately focus on and deal with this issue. Several other cities with similar issues have sucessfully developed and implemented land bank systems. I do believe the style of any new homes should not be modern suburbia type homes though. Turn the areas into mini green spaces, expand the lot sizes of adjacent building lots to add value to those lots, or build new homes that will look somewhat similar to the homes in the neighborhood. Either way, your article has an all to familiar whiny sound to it, that has grown as old as many of the neglected buildings in this city.

Agree 100%, the destruction of homes in a neighborhood without a proper plan to rebuild does nothing but further more people want to disinvest and move out. It destroy hope and memories.

To put that money to renovate homes would reap much larger rewards than demolition and rebuilding. I would also like to know the cost to build one of these homes. And then compare it to the costs to renovate. I can guarantee the cost of Demo+Rebuild is always greater than the costs to renovate. The question is what are we left with in the end. some of these beautiful buildings or a suburban cape cod that will probably fall apart in 30 years under it's own weight.

There are plenty of street and neighborhoods that can be stabilized or turned around with just one of two beautifully redone homes. Areas of Black Rock, Riverside / Lower West Side like STEEL said could really use these funds to spur neighbor investment in surrounding buildings.

the whole of the near east side is already a suburban mess. Yes a fair amount of wealthy people live there (average median income for the sycamore / willert pratt area was around 58K in 2000) but it is at the expense of doing something that would really help the city.

As for land banking, the problem is the city already owns too much land. Looking at these neighborhoods it is problematic when the city owns the land because limit what people can do on it. If someone wants to build a beautiful garden or a new home they are not allowed and yes this does happen. The city needs to get out of the ownership of land business all together.

I think the idea of rehabbing a cluster of houses around an anchor of sorts (ArtsSpace, the Terminal, some of the beautiful old East Side churches) is a good one. Tearing down houses in a helter skelter way won't do much to inspire investement and living next to littered, weedy vacant lots can't be that much more "positive" than living next to a dilapidated eyesore.

I would like to clarify that the approximately $100,000 is a commonly reported subsidy amount. I have no confirmation of actual subsidy amounts for Sycamore Village or any similar developments. Subsidies may be as low as $20,000 per unit. West Coast Perspective is promising a follow up piece on Sycamore Village will more detail. Stay tuned.

What we need is for some politician to reverse the trend... draw a line in lancaster, pendleton, amherst.. etc.. anything built over the said line is double taxed... anything built in the city or even first ringers is at a lower premium rate than you can get in the middle of the forest.

Also.. instead of erecting full blown suburban villages... would it be that hard to knock a decrepit house down in a neighborhood (i.e. 70) and build another house there in its place.. instead of leaving it empty and building a brand new community... I.e. subsidized urban INFILL DEVELOPMENT. Sounds like a great idea to me???

There is still a need to downsize and landbank though...there are huge swaths of this community that are empty for the most part that really need to be taken out of commission... and put aside.

84,70,37.... its a shame to lose such charachter like that...

#70 is beautiful and the houses next door look great too. Where is it?

Everyone = #70 is 269 Pennsylvania. I think that's in the Kleinhans neighborhood. The brick one is at 435 Seventh Street - west side somewhere. These houses are being sold at an auction. There may be starting bids but actually you can bid what you want. Go to the 'Fix Buffalo Today' site and scroll down a week or so in the postings. D.Torke has linked the auction site including the complete catalogues.

> In most any other city in the country, especially on the west coast, those houses would be worth $250,000 plus...the fact that buffalo does not see any value in them is disheartining to say the least. (in sanfran or seattle, lot 70 would go for $500,000 easy)

Maybe, but Buffalo's not the West Coast. $250K will get you a rather nice house in Elmwood Village, Nye Park, Parkside, Central Park, North Buffalo, or prestigious suburban neighborhoods like Snyder and East Amherst. When an average Joe in Buffalo can afford a great house in a safe, clean city or suburban neighborhood , why the hell would they want to live on the East Side? Unless they have a sense of loyalty to the "old neighborhood", there's no reason to.

Yes, the idea of living on the East Side for the sake of saving an old house may seem "nice". Why aren't all the Elmwoodians who keep promoting the idea moving there, though? Why aren't you selling that house on Cleveburn Place and buying a cottage on Box Street or Moselle Avenue to renovate? How many in the choir that sings "they should build it on the East Side, where it's needed" in response to every thread on some new housing development are actually planning to give up their Elmwood digs for a handyman's special in the Fruit Belt or Masten Park?

Dan,

Except that you are ignoring that parts of the east side can be stabilized and increased in acceptance. The area around Coe Place and Hamlin Park for example have great potential. You are ignoring the fact that people are spending private money in substantial amounts renovating houses in the Kleinhans neighborhood (even as it is still substantially threatened by poverty. If the city helped places like this along with its own strategic investments we could see very positive results.

You are also ignoring the fact that many low income home owners (who keep their houses in great shape) in the city are terrorized by gangs attracted to neglected and vacant houses. There are beautiful existing streets on the east side which are threatened by one or two abandonments. These one or two lead to three and four. Your assumption that everyone has to move from Amherst or Elmwood Village is off base. Take a look at Timon Street and tell me there is nothing of value on the East side. The people on that street will tell you a very different story.

Certainly the whole city can not be saved until the local economy is corrected. Until then the city needs a smart strategic plan to save what is valuable from unnecessary destruction.

I have to agree that we have already tried large scale urban renewal through demolition. IT FAILED MISERABLY!

1) The wharf district between the niagara river and niagara street is still undeveloped 2) The ellicott district around swan....is still undeveloped 3) Niagara Falls still undeveloped

Demolitions do not work! Urban Renewal doesnt work!

Better to use the money to repair indanger properties than to demolish Better to use the money for infill rather then an entirely new development through demolition Better to use those funds to subsidize mixed income-multi-use developments which include residential, office, light industrial and commercial.

and to be honest for a minute! If we can demand off street parking in all new construction then why is no money being spent on locating jobs in these neighborhoods. These $100,000 subsidies are going to mean crap if the people in those houses have no place to work.

The pics you show kind of pad your case for rehabbing--they're definitely the cream of the crop of the >100 properties that will be on the block. In fact, I'd be surprised if most of the ones shown here aren't rehabbed. I've read several people saying they've got their eye on #37. #70 on Pennsylvania is only assessed for 25,000, so Spaulding is already overbidding with his offer of 30k. :) Talk about rent gap--In an area where those 4 unit victorians are going for 100,000 and up, it'll be a great investment for someone. 293 Pennsylvania, up the street, is a similar place but much uglier and Hunt has it listed for $99,900. Which still seems like a good deal for a 4 unit in that neighborhood.

#69 on Oxford should sell, it's a single family home, but it's only assessed at 12k. Personally I've checked out #40, which is on Hudson between Cottage and West. Like #70, it's the most falling down house in a burgeoning neighborhood, but I think they've overassessed it at 47,400. I haven't been inside, but it's probably in rough shape just judging from the exterior. But it's got a lot of potential and the rent gap is probably great.

As I noted to Dan there are nodes of promise that need help. Hamlin Park needs bolstering, Kleinhans needs bolstering and there are many many pockets on the east side that are spectacular that need bolstering to survive and eventually prosper. Again I recommend you take a walk on Timon Street some day. It will open your eyes to the possibilities of the East side. The city needs to concentrate on these points of energy and not spread out its miniscule resources to new neighborhoods on brown filed sites. Strengthen the weak areas that have great potential and grow from there.

People actually think this is progress? LMFAO.....Suburban style single family homes should be kept in the burbs. Build mix use buildings instead, that's URBAN.

Xener Wrote "People find things of value all of time that have little or no monetary value: friendship, honesty, a sunset, a walk in the park." None of those things cost tens of thousands of dollars or more to either use or destroy. Those are experiances you are talking about. Not a tangable building. You're comparing apples and oranges. Sentiment is not tangable and unfortunaly warm fuzzy feelings you get from a sunset are not going to do a damn thing to help the city. I love neighborhoods that are full of character but have you been in the east side lately? It had character years ago now its just plain sad. I never used the term "worth" so you could drop the " " , I said value as in monetary value. I'm not taking a shot at xener but we are talking about two different things here.

So, is this new infill idea going to include STORES for people to WALK TO? If these are being in built in a middle to low income area, why would alll the residence's have cars?