pathetic.
Yuck! Are they moving it from the airport to save money? An architect was actually paid to design that garbage? I like the image where Shanghai Reds blocks the hotel from view.
I would rather see the 10 Story Hotel/Office that the other developer had planned, yeah, I read it in todays Buffalo News. Funny how the former Councel Member's development company, PITTS was chosing so fast and his plan is smaller and more suburban looking. YUCK isn't even the word.
OMG! I thought this thing could never be approved by thinking people. Is this for real?!
Completely underutilization of probably the most valuable property in the city.
What the hell BURA. Shanghai Reds was a horrendous design and now we picked the same company to do something even worse.
You can not tell me that we can't get a developer to design a better project than this.
The entire Erie Basin marina is one giant sea of parking that is NEVER fully utilized - and now we're allowing this lackluster project to pave over greenspace for another huge lot? ABSOLUTELY PATHETIC.
Buffalo URBAN Renewal Agency... bringing you the best in suburban development since 1966.
Couldn't we get an ALL GLASS Hotel built instead of the 1980's crap that alredy attacked most of the waterfront already.
I'd like to write more about this but I don't even know what more to say. I'm speechless.
This smells extra rotten...
http://www.buffalonews.com/258/story/513269.html
This is the text...
"A development firm led by former Buffalo Common Council President James W. Pitts has been selected to build a hotel next to Shanghai Red's restaurant along the Erie Basin Marina. The Buffalo Urban Renewal Agency this morning picked J.W. Pitts Properties and Development, which is teaming with Shanghai Red's owner Specialty Restaurant Corp., as the designated developer. The partnership proposes to build a four-story, 100-room Wingate Hotel on the 1.5 acre site. The $10 million project aims for completion by the summer of 2010.
Ciminelli Development Co. of Amherst and Clarence businessman Mark A. Hamister had teamed on a competing plan to construct a $37 million, 10-story hotel/office complex, with first-floor retail and an interior parking ramp.
The BURA board approved the Pitts-Specialty project on a 5-3 vote over the objections of Common Council Members David Fronczak, Michael Kearns and Michael J. LoCurto. The three wanted to hear a full presentation from Ciminelli Development, but only the Pitts-Specialty group was asked to give one because BURA staff had selected its plan as the preferred option.
The city-owned parcel is the last commercial spot available in Buffalo's Waterfront Village. The process to name a developer for the prime land began last fall, with Pitts, Ciminelli and Tampa, Fla.-based Birchwood Properties Corp. vying for the site. Birchwood, which wanted to build a two-story office building, withdrew its plans early this year."
I'd like to know why the 4 story suburban was choosen instead of a 10 Story Office/Hotel/Retail instead??????? Why do we settle for less in this one?????.....Oh yeah, because PITTS was involved, PUKE!!!!
This represents the worst in small town thinking on what should be a trophy location. Shame on the City of Buffalo. I suggest all flood the Buffalo Urban Renewal Agency with disapproving emails. This decision is clearly the worst of the worst. I would rather the site sit vacant until better financial times than settle for this. Disaster.
Zzzzz... Another wasted opportunity on mediocrity.
But at least it will bring in some tax dollars.
WCP - Is there any public process yet to come that you are aware of for this project?
Should'nt the public get involved in this one? We should be getting the 10 Story Mix building , NOT this ugly 80's crapola.
This is pathetic, why was this the preferred option? Pitts was pathetic when he was in government, how does he have development firm???? What experience could he have in development?
This makes me so mad, even Erie has a nicer hotel on their waterfront, why can't they build something like this:
http://www.starwoodhotels.com/sheraton/property/overview/index.html?propertyID=1728
BURA Board of Directors. They should all be contacted by anyone who is pissed...
* Mayor Byron W. Brown, Chairman * Brian Reilly, Commissioner of Economic Development, Permit and Inspection Services * Drew Eszak, Director of Planning * Janet Penksa, Commissioner of Administration, Finance, Policy and Urban Affairs * Alisa Lukasiewicz, Corporation Counsel * Council President David Franczyk * Councilmember Mike LoCurto * Councilmember Mike Kearns * Virginia Oehler
This is the kind of nonsense you get when you lack a well thought out master plan.
Just when you thought Pitts had done enough damage to the city.........
Only in Buffalo would you have someone propose a B rate sprawling suburban Inn on prime waterfront real estate and the city not only be dumb enough to even consider the idea but actually approve it.
Hopefully we will be able to get to this place from both little route 5 and its big high speed brother route 5.
Roads on top of roads...suburban Inn's on the waterfront...I give up...I need a drink!
Thanks for the info Townline. Why was this development plan approved? Your answer is in the membership of the BURA board above. Brown and his "fall in line" cronies strike again. They'll be receiving my call today.
Thanks for the info Townline. Why was this development plan approved? Your answer is in the membership of the BURA board above. Brown and his "fall in line" cronies strike again. They'll be receiving my call today.
The board should be shot. These politicians should be run out of town!
They rejected a proposal for a 10 story mixed use building???? For a cheektowaga hotel on our waterfront?
Whoever voted for any one of these politicians should give yourself a nice punch in the face..... we are the ones that keep voting these @ssholes in.
I've stayed at a wingate...i have nothing against them....but we have the opportunity to do something better.... and this is what our leaders choose!
300miles...no tax dollars because they are getting a 10 year exemption...this city is sad, pathetic, and unimaginative...this could be a huge project but yet again falls to the politcal trappings of a select few...F#@k these politicos
I hate to say this - but I'd support a lawsuit to block this. It looks like a very so thinly veiled attempt by Shanghai Red's to get more weddings and banquets - not a valid piece of waterfrnt development. This actually hides the waterfront further and adds more asphalt. But at least it will keep Pitts paycheck coming in, now that he's exercised his influence to secure this junk deal. I bet his take is 10-20% off the top.
Newell will have a follow-up on the heated meeting this morning.
The sale of the city-owned property will need to be approved by the Common Council. There is hope.
Wow...for the first time in Buffalo Rising history, all readers agree...what an incredible piece of garbage design.
This is not a 'NIMBY' as was the reasoning for the blocked Elmwood Hotel (which by the way would look better here than this garbage). There should be a hotel, just not this crap, I have already written an e-mail to each member of the board, this is pathetic
sigh. crap begets crap... Shanghai reds was allowed to ignore the areas urban design plan in the past.. so this will will also. Where do you draw the line. This should be a vibrant waterfront URBAN area.. nos something reminiscent of Genesee Street in Cheektowaga... way to go guys... way... to... go...
It's too bad that Buffalo government doesn't operate under a parliamentary system in which a no-confidence vote could trigger new elections. The county and city political structures continue to be the major reason why this area languishes. The good things that happen in the city -- and are reported by BRO -- do so in spite of local government.
Maybe they were trying to align with the design aesthetic of Admiral's Walk and the new Paladino tower (that to me basically will look like Admiral's Walk, but I'm no architect...just my opinion, they're hideously ugly and bleak).
Maybe it's just a rendering, these things can change right?
I think all new buildings that try to emulate old style architecture look nothing like the historic old buildings they're based on, and modern ones can be a bit cold..so what is our expectation here? What style should be built? In my mind I always hope for more wood/stone, Awanhee Hotel like things on the waterfront.
It's usually a money thing.
bhorvath, It has nothing to do with the style of the architecture. It's a failure of urban planning.
Wasn't it Mr. Pitts who told us at Peace Bridge hearings not to build "no UGLY BRIDGE"? Too bad he wasn't listening to his Mamma's advise on this project!
Here are the actual e-mail addresses: jPenksa@city-buffalo.com, bbrown@city-buffalo.com, aeszak@city-buffalo.com, bReilly@city-buffalo.com, aLukasiewicz@city-buffalo.com, dFranczyk@city-buffalo.com, mLoCurto@city-buffalo.com, mkearns@city-buffalo.com
I already fired off one e-mail to the whole group (although with respect to LoCurto, Kearns, and Franczyk for at least attempting to have an unbiased approval process)
Here is Brian Reilly, (Commissioner of Economic Development) email address breilly@city-buffalo.com. Perhaps a few email complaints will get his attention.
Unreal, if that project goes through they may as well just plop a friggn cheesecake factory and a super walmart down there.
I'd still like to see what the 10 story building proposed would of looked like....This crap looks like it was moved over from Amherst. If PITTS is interested in suburban design, then he should build them in the burbs NOT on PRIME DOWNTOWN LAND. Mr. Pitts, you are a moron and noone liked you when you were on the Common Councel and it's obvious we still don't like you.
Sadly, Cheesecake factory would be a tremendous upgrade to these two properties...
I dont care about the use and frankly the Shanghai Reds design is fine to me where it is. Whether the architecture has fans or not because it seems everyone it a critic about anything new the fact is it doesnt "hurt" the urban fabric like the Convention Center or Main Place Mall by physically cutting road networks, blocking access, putting up big blank walls on urban streetscapes. Rather, its a building built within a developable parcel. The height at that prime location is in question to me though. It seems that land could have a more intense use on it and now we lock ourselves in at 4 floors for the next 30-50 years or more? Seems 10-12-15 floors would seem more appropriate there. And whatever about whether its 1980's style "crap" or not. "Crap" is in the eye of the beholder and all era's of architectural style have their place in the urban fabric. Personally I think putting all your eggs in the 1880's - 1910's era architacture in the hopes of creating some knock off in some ways is Disney land "crap" too because its fake, an imitation. Everything has its place and if this truly can complement the Shanghai Reds architecture thats there then it makes some sense. I think its better than introducing some arogant piece of architecture there that doesnt tie into anything surrounding it. Like it or not in 50-100 years waterfront village too will be "Historic" and people of those generations will say the new style is "crap" too.
I'd rather see an ALL GLASS/MODERN 10 or more story building go up instead of this tiny building.
flyguy, this has nothing to do with architectural style and nobody is advocating for 1880's imitations.
And by the way please please stop the city versus suburbs garbage. Its not doing you or the city or the suburbs or the region any service! The entire region needs to recognize that its one big cohesive urbanized metro area and live with it, stop whining and basking in your little enclaves and start at least thinking regionally. Western New Yorkers are Buffalonians to everyone else throughout the Country. Start at least thinking as one cohesive region, work together, and fix the regions issues before its too late and too many leave. Buffalo and Western New York as awhole need growth and prosperity in order to hope to get the scale and type of projects it wants, need money to support them.
Some of the posts suggest the architectural style is a mess, very critical of the arcitecture and I was attempting to give my two cents on that "concern". My issue was with the intensity of the development! Also, in Western New York, especially in the city, if the architecture has any "look" of a recent architectural style its bashed to hell. Therefore that leaves "historic" -esque architecure as the choosen architecture within the region it seems because if its not new it must be old looking and historic. Not to say there isnt a place and value in that but like I said, it seems the most vocal critics on here hate anything 1960's -1990's and anything new that looks in anyway like that era is "crap". I've been on this site now for 4 or 5 years and its always the same architectural critic stuff I hear.
flyguy have you ever been to a city that works? A real functioning downtown? One with a waterfront? I get the impression that you have not and that is why you are so impartial to this when it is such an atrocity!
You do not see this stuff going on in cities that have design standards and master plans.
NYC - failure is in the eye of the beholder. If you are saying the site should receive a larger, mixed use building - well wouldn't that get done if that's what really made economic sense? Or is that just the Buffalo way you are referring to? I don't think it's the Buffalo way, I think it's business fitting it's environment. The site can support a smaller thing (and yes smart people probably worked that out in the analysis), and that's what it will get.
Should the site sit vacant until the boomtime when a larger thing could actually be a reality?
Has this story run 3,488 times on BRO? Or am I dreaming.
flyguy have you ever been to a city that works? A real functioning downtown? One with a waterfront? I get the impression that you have not and that is why you are so impartial to this when it is such an atrocity!
You do not see this stuff going on in cities that have design standards and master plans.
No i've never left the exclusive walled in enclave that is Buffalo. Actually yes. Actually I have been outside of the walls of the City of Buffalo and Western New York many times. Lets see here....Richmond, VA, New York City, Providence RI, Montreal Que, Rochester NY, Cleveland Oh, Dallas Texas, Morgantown WV- you want to see a mess with no zoning? Washington DC, Baltimore MD- pretty successful waterfront area I would say at the National Harbor I liken to what the Inner Harbor - Cobblestone District could be like, Virginia Beach, Myrtle Beach, Syracuse, Binghamton, Watertown, Charlottesville, VA- a pedestrian mall done right, Scranton- Wilkes Barre PA, Toronto Ont.....i could go on...do I really need to justify myself and waste my time writing this crap out. No. so I will stop. I'm not even living in Buffalo anymore by the way so i've lived outside the exclusive walled in enclave that is Buffalo also. Sorry, i'm 500+ miles away right now.
I don't see how a 4 story, 100 room hotel is going to fit into the master planned Canal Harbor District. I would think that any new hotel along the waterfront would want at least 200 rooms and RETAIL Space since this area is suppost to attract more and more people once Bass Pro and other projects are completed... Right???
Can we take a poll of how many of us degenerate BRO blog posters actually live in Buffalo? It appears flyguy does not....steel, racha, wcp, and several others don't either and i'm on a
By the way the hydraulics blog actually made me feel sentimental bout the good ol days, for a minute, until I started thinking about how we could turn it all into an amusement park with the seneca casino as the marquee attaction at one end. Water slides into the Buffalo river, street vendors (savory and unsavory), one of those free-fall rides in one of the grain elevators....nice hotel to stay in by Shanghai Red's......Where's Bashir Issa?? BASHIR, come back!!!!
I would rather have the city sit on this land for years than allow this crap to be built. This would be a mockery of a city that is attempting to improve its waterfront.
Our only hope is that LoCurto and Kerns can rally up the rest of the council and get this stopped.
I wonder what the naysayers would prefer in this space? If a hotel is earmarked for this space, what should it look like? What is the current "New Urbanist" agenda in new hotel builds?
Hey, someone stole the wingate hotel from the parking lot of my suburban St. Louis office park and moved it to the Erie Basin Marina. What gives? I wonder how many trailers that took?
This is pathetic. A stock design mid range hotel on what should be the most valuable real estate in the city. Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic.
i work next door, and i dont see where they would have enough room for a hotel
i sent emails to all of the council members! LoCurto was the only one to get back to me on the situation. They need to add more floors, change the design and loose the additional parking. When will these people realize that this is an inner city - not the suburbs?
BTW bhorvath - i am a young professional in Buffalo and i plan on staying here. There are people that live here that love Buffalo AND BRO!!!!!!
Ok, lets take this back to what is really going on here. BURA chose what is a typical 4 story, suburban style, generic, single use project with a surface parking lot vs. a 10 story, mixed-use project with internal parking. Basically, they are just continuing the poor planning decisions that have plagued the waterfront over the past 30+ years solely because they cannot think outside the box, which is typical of Buffalo. The reason given in other news reports, that the 10 story design doesn't meet the current zoning, so instead of allowing the developer to seek a variance so that the superior project could go forward, they took the easy way out and chose a plan that in no way should ever be built on the waterfront. The worst part is, the Waterfront Village residents supported the 10 story design which is contrary to what one would believe. The blame solely rest with the Mayor's office as he controls the majority of the BURA board.
This is typical Buffalo short-sightedness. When will this town wake up and realize that it should encourage good design and urban densities and that development for the sake of development is not going to make the city successful? I am disgusted once again by the totally inept government that runs this city.
I am going to speculate as to the reasons this (lousy) choice was made. I pass by Shanghai Reds in the evening about once a week. The parking lot has few cars most of the time. It is likely in financial trouble. I am guessing that part of the pitch of this proposal was to salvage Shanghai Reds. Based on the deal the City has with the ownership of the restaurant for the parcel (city owned) that it sits on, it will not be good for the City (embarrassing at the least and possibly financially) if Shanghai Reds went under. Remember how long the restaurant parcel sat vacant and idle previously? At least 5 years. This is likely the necessary project (according to Specialty Restaurants) that can sustain the restaurant to avoid a repeat of history.
If I am even partially correct, here is the crucial take home lesson: In the City's desperation to develop the former Crawdaddy's site as ONLY a restaurant, they allowed the recipe for failure that led to the closure of Crawdaddy's to be repeated. AND the City let the SAME company that failed before to try the same thing. So now the public is expected to swallow hard on this to avoid past mistakes from biting us again.
Bad development decisions have consequences for a very long time.
If I am correct, then it is clear that a destination restaurant that may or may not be well operated (as nicely as I can put it) was not a good idea without more synergy in that space (i.e. bad planning). It could be that the restaurant building is just too big with too high of a debt load to survive down there without much business in the off season. Shame on the City for not considering that years ago. I am embarrassed that such a great waterfront location will be used for such a limited use that requires such low capital investment to make the numbers work that we get low grade design. It begs the question of what Ciminelli proposed.
Buffalo Rising could start tracking down the architects and clients of these lame buildings and see what they have to say about their own work. Are they proud of this?
Awful, just awful.
I thought that this community was pretty clear with wanting urban, mixed-use development on our waterfront. What happened BURA?
The city had nothing to do with crawdaddy's and red's failiing or pre-failing. This is the fundamental flaw in this whole negative tone to this development - the whole "build it right and they will come" thing. Nobody reflects on the demographic, economics, reality of the situation.
I always astounded that people think nobody goes to these places on the water because of some intrinsic design flaw or city-based planning. They don't go because: "they" (higher end consumers) largely don't exist within a 10 mile radius, the food sucked and sucks, it's freezing cold and grey on the waterfront 5 months of the year, and well does anybody get any point I'm trying to make?
It's not primarily the city's fault for any of Buffalo's ills. It's economics of a grander scale. Stop blaming planning...the city would have been better planned and rebuilt if there was a real economic basis to do so. You can't expect people to take the kind of risks you intrinsically suggest on this blog. You're asking them to go broke for your own satisfaction/self esteem.
Hey, Savarino is one of those involved davvid....
And he is a savior to half this blog....
So what about that guys??????
i sent emails to all of the council members! LoCurto was the only one to get back to me on the situation. They need to add more floors, change the design and loose the additional parking. When will these people realize that this is an inner city - not the suburbs?
BTW bhorvath - i am a young professional in Buffalo and i plan on staying here. There are people that live here that love Buffalo AND BRO!!!!!!
bhorvath,
Have you ever been to Pittsburgh or Rochester? Neither of these places have thriving economies but they sure as hell have good design and planning. And, apparently there was a market to do something better because Ciminelli proposed a better project, and well being one of the larger developers in town, I would think that they may have a clue what the demand may be.
Another scam to put a few dollars in the pockets of corrupt local scum at the expense of the city's future. The only good news here is that this puny four story piece of shit will not withstand the wrecking ball once this city gets back on track and the scumbags are rooted out.
Not necessarily a fan of Esmonde but this is probably a story he should tackle. It would reach a lot of eyes.
Rinky meets dinky. Clearly it is time to crack open the heads of our neighbors and feast on the goo inside. Seriously, this proposal has to be tossed. Is their a height restriction? Is that why the other project lost?
Ok,
I guess these morons just decided to do the wrong thing even though they knew what was really right.
I agree the rendering is ugly, but what are people basing the viability of larger place off of?
If I was a developer I sure would try to get passage / contract of a larger building...I could build it, sell it for more than a smaller structure, and if it happens to rot for lack of use well I would have no real burden to share.
Maybe the city is being realistic in that only a 4-story hotel will get an average occupancy rate and be viable long term. Maybe, just maybe, there not as corrupt and stupid as you all suggest.
Project potential= FAIL
yes, it is good that downtown is getting another hotel option however this project reeks of suburban mediocrity. And it seems kind of suspicious that BURA wouldn't even hear the Ciminelli proposal which sounds much more attractive by comparison to me as a Planning student.
http://buffalo.bizjournals.com/buffalo/stories/2008/12/01/daily43.html
I guess there was a height restriction which disqualified the Cimminelli tower:
"The problem, according to Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown, is that height restrictions for parcel limit any development to a maximum of four stories. Brown said both development teams were aware of the restriction, although Ciminelli had hoped for a variance.
Amending the height restrictions would have taken another year of public hearings and reviews, added Brian Reilly, Buffalo’s development chief.
However, Gail Edwards, Ciminelli chief administrative officer, said her company was never informed that the restrictions would be a deal breaker."
You would think that the only height restriction here would be that you could not build a one story single use restaurant. But I guess not
Buffalo: Bernice Chris H Blackrock for ever (at least i think so)
Not Buffalo: me steel wcp rachacha
We are only stuck with this one because it involves PITTS. Just because he's not head of the Common Councel anymore doesn't mean he's still not connected with the local goverment at City Hall. ....So we are most likely stuck with this eyesore.
no height restrictions for those ugly condo towers though....which actually do block views
i don't get that at all
if you wan't to see super ugly development in another, and even economically fit city...well check out King Street street views on google maps for San Francisco between 3rd and 7th streets....now that should make you all feel better about the motel 6 rendering next to that restaurant with the cafeteria chefs in it... maybe it's just the new architecture style..
Wow, i'm beginning my 5th year in Buffalo and i have to finally admit....YOU ARE RIGHT...this city sucks at planning! Who would choose a 4 story INN over a freakin' 10 story mix use complex with RETAIL on PRIME waterfront property????? I am finally joining the group of you who just don't get it! I won't even begin to comment on the Marine Drive projects and the fact that THEY are still standing on prime land!!!
If time is so valuable why did it take them a YEAR to choose a proposal? Does Brian Reilly realize the stupidity of his statement? We get this peice of shit for the next fifty years OR spend one more year and get a project that works in this context for the next 100 years...
How about just plan for better projects - rezone everything down there now instead of waiting for developer proposals that don't work because you don't want to waste another year - on top of the decades already wasted. Really what does it matter?
This is not architecture at all, it looks like it came from a 1980's pattern book for hotels located at suburban highway interchanges.
I rarely act upon my urges to pan another architects work, but this is where I draw the line. How can anyone say with a straight face that this Highway Clone Hotel fits on our waterfront? It is an abomination and must be redesigned from the ground up. I guess the developers thought they could just sky-crane one of the Genesee Airport Hotels down to the waterfront and call it a day............not likely. Let's see some real architectural prowess here......solve the problem and put the right building on this property!
This sucks. I thought Brian Reilly was suppose be about change. Be sensible. I guess not.
I have never read a thread on Buffalo Rising that had so many similar posts. There is definitely favoritism going on here and all of us see it. So what are we going to do about it?
it could be four stories and not look like a total piece of prefab crap. it will go beautify with the Adams Mark bunker, shanghai reds, and the marine drive apts, and the Channel 7 hq . . . it can be new waterfront architectural museum of decades of crappy crappy architecture and, ahem, urban planning.
Now where will the geese poop? On 2nd thought, this place will still work just fine.
Wow! spare no expense, that looks like top quality authentic dryvit on the exterior. Good to see an innovative and creative use of this material.
Maybe it's just modern architecture that's ugly.
Has anyone seen a modern building that doesn't look prefab, cheap on the outside? I mean the cost cutting, time cutting manuevers that are done these days on all projects I ever drive by make me think that there is no such thing as aesthetic in modern architecture anymore outside of collegiate/residential. I mean even 1 Rincon here in SF looks lame and it wasn't penny pinched. I just think the compromises these developers/architects have to make to make projects viable are a real drag on the eye. What happened to masonry, cornerstones, timber, color, just ugly. Like soviet block ugly.
shouldn't one of the mainstream media outlets give a flying F that such a POS was ok'd for the utterly transparent reason that PITTS was the one making the proposal?
There's no TV News Producer or Buffalo News Journalist who wants to make some hay out of this? Doesn't anybody give a damn anymore? It doesn't even pass a smell test, this decision is garbage on its very face!
Admiral's walk is the most ugly thing in Buffalo. It looks like a vertically concatenated Rite Aide. The paladino tower will look the same. The avant looks decently cool because of the glass, but is that all there is these days that looks good, ice blue glass? The new era building is ok I guess, at least some lines to look at.
Modern architechture has sold out.
Somebody write a letter to the editor! If they're not gonig to cover it, we should
From Buffalo News' website:
I would like to send a story suggestion.
Anytime you see or hear news, we'd like to hear from you. If you've got a tip about a general news event, call The Buffalo News at 716-849-4444, or fax your tip directly to our newsroom at 716-856-5150 or 716-847-0207. If your tip involves business news, call Grove Potter at 716-849-3492; sports, call Steve Jones at 716-849-4461; or Lifestyles, call Liz Kahn at 716-849-5576. Please do NOT send any unsolicited story suggestions to The Buffalo News via email or the Internet.
Crystal Bally has risen from her ashes!!
What's that Crystal Bally??? What do you see???
News at 6: "GOOD NEWS for Buffalo, as plans have finally been hammered out to build a 4-story hotel on the waterfront (background: gosh that's good news), Savarino and Co, along with other developers including James Pitts will be building the hotel.....now here's Rick Azar with sports...."
Crystal Bally sees all. All.
Bhorvath, I just sent emails to WGRZ and WIVB's investigative journalist...they better not come out in favor of this crapola
Buffalo Urban Renewal Agency Real Estate John Hannon, Director Address - 901 City Hall, Buffalo NY 14202 Phone: (716) 851-5275 ♦ Fax: (716) 851-5590 Email: jhannon@city-buffalo.com
Can anyone explain wht the 3 council members that voted against this proposal are also the 3 council members on the BURA who recommended Pitt's plan in the first place?
The LAST developable parcel on the waterfront and we only have ONE proposal presentation? That's a story in itself, regardless of the outcome.
And why does BURA get to make decisions? Why not BUDA, who is doing much of the waterfront planning already? BURA's statement on the city web site makes them seem more fitted to eliminating urban blight and slum and low income housing development, not waterfront development.
Ditto what most everybody else here said.
A small interstate highway exit-style hotel on prime waterfront land, with a site plan that was pretty much a cut-and-paste from a similar project that was probably next to some Cracker Barrel in Arkansas. This is so small-town. I'm not talking Erie or Racine, but like something one might find in Ashtabula, Painesville, Geneva or Dunkirk.
Seriously, what next? A Flying J or TA at Aggasiz Circle? A KOA off the Kensington at Grider?
So small town. A minor league city project. I hope that's not an indicator of Buffalo's current stature. Put this in some Interstate convergence truck stop town like Breezewood, Pennsylvania or Mt. Vernon, Illinois where it belongs.
I heard those 3 thought it was gonna be a Motor Lodge, and when they found it was gonna be a Wingate they were like ...what the fug is a Wingate, is there 10c wing nights at these Wingates? So they voted no. But then I heard they didn't really care about the wing night thing and just voted no to make it look like they didn't want to support Pitts because they figured it was about a year or so since they recommended the proposal of his and got those Sabres tickets and didn't want people to put two and two together. But one was still really pissed about the wing night thing.
I don't care about the architecture debate, but other things are bad about this.
- BURA's vote 5 to 3 (as reported by the Buffalo News today here) against allowing to a full public presentation of Ciminelli's proposal sounds very shady. Are Mr. Reilly and Ms. Penska on the BURA board mainly to do the best possible job for the public, or mainly to follow orders? What reason can there be for not allowing both full presentations? Those two could've swung that vote to 5-3 in favor.
- I don't think either proposal deserves the tax breaks that Assaroni says are being offered. It's bad enough that taxpayers are already handing over public cash to the Hyatt. Some other hotels don't get any handouts or breaks. There shouldn't be any tax breaks or handouts ever for hotels, retail, or residential. That list would grow if I thought about it more.
- The height issue sounds incompetent, shady, or both. Incompetent to not tell Ciminelli in writing at the beginning that tallness is a disqualifier and let them waste time developing a proposal to be instantly rejected. Or shady if not telling them was to set up a reason to reject them. I agree with nyc's comment that Reilly's quote about a year delay to change the height limit makes no sense. That's at least two strikes against Reilly on this - first for voting against listening to Ciminelli's presentation, second for saying the year delay was a real reason. It's crazy that it should even take a year for a height variance, but even if true it shouldn't be a deciding factor.
The council should vote to reject BURA's decision, cancel any tax breaks, set a height limit fair and square for everyone (better yet, no height limit), and open up to proposals all over again.
The tax break thing is out of control. Time to level the playing field and end all TAXPAYER subsidies for business. Prime waterfront land should attract developement that can pay their own way and their fair share. Atwater, add IDA's to your list of handouts that we must stop.
This is absoutly criminal. Ciminelli's design sounded perfect for this particular location. Shangihi Reds would be better off with the Hilton Gardens. That hotel would bring in more money and more people. Mayor Brown is going to have some difficult questions to answer about this location and what is being proposed.
I really hope something is done about this, this is an outrage to one unbelievably valuable location which is going to gain more value. Canalside, a 500 million dollar development, is being proposed just a quarter mille from that parking lot starts and is commencing construction this summer. I hope channel 2 on your side contacts ciminelli to still find out their view and if they are still interested in showing their plan to the rest of WNY.
105 posts in 6 hours, is this a record? Where to start - Is this Pitts' 1st project big? Hopefully we can create him a new city job on the planning board, obviously he has tremendous vision. I never thought I would be jealous of Erie PA's waterfront...this is hysterical. Zoning is a problem here? Take a look at the other buildings. Build a hotel to save a shitty restaurant. Great plan. These guys should consult the auto industry on how to get back on track. I seriously hope this didn't get the green light just because we need more hotel space downtown for the WJC hockey tournament in 2011. I've been gone for almost 5 yrs & just got back. When I came back, I could see little improvements happening that gave me some hope about this place rebounding. Then i see this $hi! & get disheartened...the powers that be can't get anything right. The BOA plans in south buffalo looked promising but they all called for boulevards. How can that happen if Rt 5 just got rebuilt? And it's said because too many ppl are on diff't agendes. If the city doesn't have a master plan, but they're green lighting projects now in the hopes of tying it together, please tell us. Atleast it'll make sense when I see projects like this.
if this is the direction of the waterfront, then i can only say i got out in time, this type of planning will put buffalo another 30 years behind the times.
I just emailed the Mayor and I encourage all BRO readers to follow. Change won't happen if city hall doesn't hear your outrage!
BTW he could've built a Microtel for probably half the cost fully equipped with cozy rooms, indoor pool, small fitness room, and continental breakfast
The city has some very well thought out and award winning plans... the problem is the government doesn't care and doesn't listen to their own planners. The plan says go with the urban, zero-lot line, mixed use proposal. The plan, supported and passed by the council and bound to the comprehensive plan.. says to NOT build this crapitecture here. But leave it up to politicians and the 'not my idea, i don't care' Brown administration for not following through on any important issues.
Ike....I think the Bflo Snooze gets what's going on with this project. The lead sentence to their website story starts out saying "A group led by former Buffalo CC Prez James Pitts......" That puts the whole thing in perspective.
This is bad form even by Brown administration standards. You have CC members Franczyk, LoCurto and Kearns being leveled by Mayor and four other BURA board members who are his hand-picked employees... the corp. counsel, the finance director, the economic dev. commissioner, and the ED commish's right hand man. A 5-3 smackdown of the voice of the people.
maybe one of the waterfront residents....most of whom are lawyers its seems....will sue BURA over this.
I am not sure which is more boring, the building or this thread... all I see is "horrible suburban mediocrity" and a lot of reactionary comments, nothing really constructive or worthwhile.
allfit- For those with an appreciation of architecture and an understanding of what makes for a successful city there is genuine fear (for good reason) of "horrible suburban mediocrity".
I would support a 1,000' height limit at the waterfront. Room enough for how high this city government can pile their bullshit.
Why do council members who are elected by the public vote one way and puppets appointed by Mayor Urkel vote like they have strings attached to their thought process? I can't wait for next years election.
Four or five years ago, before the Schaeffer brewery building was torn down I climbed to the top and marveled at the million dollar view to the west. Only in Buffalo could that go undiscovered. Maybe the Mayor who has his office on the second floor is scared of heights. Probably not only in Buffalo, but more often than not, the political deal trumps common sense and good business.
If this gets built Buffalo's waterfront has jumped the shark. Ridiculously brazen display of clout.
this proposal is disgusting...please please please let the Ciminelli plan get approved.
We can not let this awful suburbs looking hotel be built....Ciminelli's project will allow people to actually see the lake, main reason to put a hotel on the water....What do we need to do, petition, sue? It is one embarrassing mistake after another and Mayor Brown needs his head examined...
The Ciminelli hotel will be a destination hotel, a hotel people will make a point to reserve, the other will be a comfort INN looking disaster that will take away from a nice resurging waterfront....
We can not let this awful suburbs looking hotel be built....Ciminelli's project will allow people to actually see the lake, main reason to put a hotel on the water....What do we need to do, petition, sue? It is one embarrassing mistake after another and Mayor Brown needs his head examined...
The Ciminelli hotel will be a destination hotel, a hotel people will make a point to reserve, the other will be a comfort INN looking disaster that will take away from a nice resurging waterfront....
I love it when a topic here at BRO rambles on.
About "suburban", "suburban-style" and "suburban" new-build/builts in the city:
As I stated in an earlier comment here, these references to the style of structures--businesses and houses, is 'American Middle-Class'.
It is what the American middle-class can afford to build and apparently is what the middle- and upper-middle- classes have wanted since the 1950s in the USA.
(I typed USA because N. America is also Canada and there also is S. America. References to anything "suburban" do not much carry over beyond the this US.)
And yes, the 1950s style of architecture is also just plain 'Middle-Class Style'. The M-C Style of 20th-Century building is also constructed in foreign countries.
"Suburban-style" is an accepted misnomer.
Originally, referring to houses as "suburban-style" probably was parochially meant to separate homeowners from renters and the newly emerging 1950s middle-class from the "poor" and the suburbs from this City,
But now, "suburban-style" is very dated.
Then there is the difference between "new-build" and "new(ly)-built: Build means to be built in the future. Built means an already built standing structure! _________________________________
It's interesting that anyone would want to know who anyone is here or where they live...interesting but not important...it's the thoughts that count!
O.K. folks…. I got some facts on this height issue with a little digging. At least I think I understand it!!
1) The waterfront RFP states that the respondents must follow a document called NY R 35. Google it. “The project area is a Community Business District”. As listed in NY R-35, section C.2.b on page 10 and 11 lists the height limitations to be three stories or 40 feet.
SO, neither project is in compliance. But BURA (run by our mayor) decided to toss out one project out over the other using this reason? Interesting! Someone's playing with a stacked deck........
2) Throughout NY R-35 there are items listed as “other provisions” and “exceptions” in a number of places. In these sections statements are such that “The City of Buffalo Urban Renewal Agency and the City Planning Board may approve variations from and exceptions to any of the requirements on the basis of special development plans….
It sounds like BURA could change the restrictions (if they wanted to) without much effort at all! It doesn’t sound like a re-zoning or an act of Congress!
What happens when the Common Council sinks this? Does BURA then have to give the project to Ciminelli or do they rewrite the RFP and wait another 2 years? Ridiculous!
Finally - an inquiry that is both objective and reveals the ignorance with lack of Vision of our policy makers. Since both scenarios did not conform to the Zoning requirements (i.e.,fully) of building height restrictions it will be interesting seeing this one develops into an Article 78 with the surrounding Community.
This site in the City of Buffalo requires a strong Vision not a commodified cookie cutter image that is non-sympathetic to environment and Master Plan for the waterfront. Shaping this Vision requires a collaboration (i.e., in the forms of listening, translating, critiquing and integration) through a coordination of viewpoints between the Public and Private realms. This project required each development team to work with the surrounding Community. Each team presented to the various stakeholders. Guess what the Community chose as the preferred option ...... your collective voices/vision in Buffalo Rising says it all.
Did our policy makers listen? Do they have the skill set to make judgements on Zoning Law and applying fairly? Look what Janet Penska's said in her 17:05 commentary in the sister article associated with this topic. Janet asserts that only one scenario broke the zoning requirement for heights restrictions and thus had to be thrown out .... also she was "not going to break the Law", moreover, Mayor Brown reinforces this position as well. No opportunity is missed - someone else will always take it - unless of course your trusted elected officials just give it away.
Did BURA really think the public would not scrutinize their findings for selecting one over the other - and eliminating one over the other for a same reason which both share the same nonconformity? Both scenarios will require a request for a Variance. The board members of BURA who had their hands in selecting the this one should continue to speak so the Community can build their case against them.
Report this