Buffalo Rising Online

What are people's reasons for stopping the construction of this tower?

They are afraid of change.

although I think change is good, building something that fits into it's historic surroundings is also good. the design of the tower does not match the neighborhood and would stick out like a sore thumb.

we cant keep building buildings that look like they are from the early 1900s tho...we need to accept the fact that updated buildings come with the times

here we go again...

this would be so awesome if it was builty however i expect that it will remain an empty lot for a long time after the current building is knocked down...

The residents of the Park Lane would have their view obscured by the new building.

kooksapalooza....I agree with you, but there are ways to build modern while at the same time fitting into the rest of the area's look.

According to some (EO), this new building would be "encroaching" Olmsted circle and therefore should not be built.

It is such a travesty that "Olmsted would be rolling over in his grave."

Lets face it people, we have enough new high rise development in Buffalo, why on earth should we take a chance with blocking views of the East side.

Encroaching Olmsted circle is an absolute no no, we need to give the panhandlers their privacy to bathe themselves.

PaulB - what you think of that?

be careful phrank - your comments may get deleted if they are not positive.... or you will have 20 hippis on this site jump down your throat.

Ummmm... I'm a little nervous about this... I'm all for the Condo tower, I think its a nice design and a great addition to the site. However, having heard little to nothing about the progress of this project and/or the lawsuit has me thinking that the real reason they're tearing down the building is to lower the assessment on the property. This city has way to much demolition on prospect, which is just an excuse for big developers to pay less in taxes. My thought is that their costs on the property are running too high due to the slow progress on the project, thats the reason for demolition.

I'm sorry, but it should not be legal to demo properties for this reason - regardless if the delay is caused by the market or a lawsuit (both should be anticipated ahead of time). Until Uniland is 100% positive this project is going to happen, the city should not allow them to demo the building. Take a look at the Johnson and Sons condo projects on Lafayette and W. Utica - they tore down buildings at both sites and have sat on muddy, undeveloped sites for over a year. Neighbors at each project are furious. And this is a project at one of the city's most visible traffic circles. Be responsible, City Hall.

before you get your razor sharp pens out, let me say that I am 100% for this project....with that said..could someone please tell me who is going to live here?

Buffalo has a steady population decline, with the majority (including myself) college graduates. The United States is goin through a (de) recession right now, and mortgages and filings have hit multi-year lows. Taxes are the highest they have ever been, and Upstate NY has the highest in most major categories throughout the entire country. Jobs continue to close, and real incomes (therefore disposable incomes) are at all time lows in Buffalo, NY. I know this is Buffalo Rising, but who is going to pay to live in a highrise condo? It would be one thing if there were no unions and taxes and companies came to Buffalo like immigrants in the 1920s, but just the opposite is occurring. All of my friends who remain in buffalo do not make more than $40k a year, and could never afford this.

Let's look at the math behind it:

From the website (http://www.gatescircle.com/details.html) the condos will be " ranging from $400,000 to $2 million plus for penthouse homes".

A Mortgage in Buffalo (14209) for someone (single) with PERFECT credit in the 25% tax bracket (http://allfinancialmatters.com/2007/09/26/a-preview-of-the-2008-federal-income-tax-brackets/), which is for anyone earning 32,550 - 78,850 (majority of Buffalo) would give you a monthly cost of $2,251, or a yearly cost of $27,012 (With 10% down!). Given the recent building explosion downtown Buffalo, coupled with tons of foreclosures on houses and higher gas prices, house prices in the suburbs have dropped. There is no way, and I'm going on the record now, that this condo will fill up. Not even all the empty-nester parents and young professionals in the city would fill up apartments from $400,000 - 2million. Add on college loans, car payments, gas, Bills tickets, Mighty Taco, and I dont think many buyers for this project.

WCP,

Any word on whether the interior will be stripped out? Wood paneling, bar, etc.? I'd be the folks at Buffalo ReUSE would go in there if Uniland doesn't want to deal with it.

BR

Good point tonyarmani, but I'll be that they are hoping that by the time this project is completed (at least 4 years with how things are going) the economy will be on the upswing again. Not only that, but with property costs so low, now would be a good time to build. So for the sake of this project, let's hope a strong economy, and wealthy people, are around for its opening.

I am all for the project too, but I guarantee this project will be jammed up for years.

This building will encroach Olmsted circle and, if built, Olmsted will roll over in his grave!

you see, the whole point of living in Buffalo is not to see development grow our tax base, but to try to preserve every little "treasure" that we have no matter how many people move out. Losing our tax base always comes second.

Good business sense in Buffalo!

Lets auction off the items stripped out of the Park Lane....I just can't move on with my life....we need to cherish our past and everything in it. I had my first communion at the Park Lane. I need to at least bring home some of those drapes and chairs

1. So now we're reacting irrationally to things that haven't even happened?

2. Again -- Uniland is in this to make money, and they seem to be good at it. They aren't jumping in blindly, and they have better resources to bring to bear on the feasibility of this project than someone commenting on a blog. Until I know differently, I'll accept their judgment on the question.

3. There's no connection between preservation and "losing our tax base," as gaustad suggests. Most preservation projects (or even all of them?) prevent a "treasure" from being turned into a vacant lot, and many of them end up generating far more in tax revenue than any shovel-ready site ever would.

Colin, you caught me on a bad day! Market was down 500 pts and I lost money so I am not in a good mood. do you ever follow the DJ Industrials...? Do you have a 401k?

If this project was/is blocked by preservationists because it is/was designated as a historical landmark, than our tax base would most certainly suffer from the high net worth individuals that would not be spending 500k-2mill on a condo.

{deleted}

I agree with Colin that Uniland is by far in the best position to know whether there will be willing buyers for the condos.

This suggestion from Townline is a good example of anti-business attitudes far too common around here: 'it should not be legal to demo properties for this reason'

Why should it be illegal for Uniland to demo their own vacant unhistoric (1974) former restaurant which they fully and legally own? Even if they don't build condos for whatever reason, they should have every right to demolish their vacant possession. Even if the timing is to reduce their ongoing tax burden, what's wrong with that?

This call to outlaw a private property owner's right to demolish a vacant former restaurant reminds me of last year when Preservation Board members including Teilman tried (but failed as I recall due to paperwork incompetence - heh) to block the Brodo/SPoT property owner from removing a small ordinary unhistoric former doctor's office on Elmwood which was long vacant and set well back from the street next to Wilson Farms. Busybody nanny state anti-business attitude.

Best wishes to Uniland whatever they decide to do. They're one of the few companies willing to take risks in Buffalo on big projects and follow through. The contrast couldn't be more stark between the competence they've shown on the Avant work compared to what happened a few blocks away at the Statler in the same economy and over the same time frame. Uniland has done many good projects across WNY including a nice new building next to Channel 2, even overcoming union protests and related vandalism on that one.

I support the project, and I'm not seeing any groundswell of energy to preserve the restaurant. The lawsuit was about NIMBYism, not preservation.

This building has zero historic significance, it was built in the 1970's, replacing the old Park Lane Manor House which burnt to the ground. The neighborhood, however, does have historic significance.

This new project, and God only knows where they are going to find financing for it, let alone absorbtion of it, dwarfs Streets like Laffayette, Chapin Parkway, Landcaster, Auburn not to mention Melbourne Place. Towers like these have been faught in cities like NY, Boston, Chicago, SF because of the shaddows they cast. Greenwich Village, east and west, are being over run by projects that are obstructing history. Projects like this are also running rapidly out of liquidity in credit and funding (see Trump Tower in SOHO which has had construction problems along with credit issues and halted all construction).

I will believe this when I see it.

Lancaster, sorry for the typo

Atwater - because it makes it advantageous for a developer to create vacant land and de-incentivizes deveopment. It is common practice for developers to acquire land with no purpose but to sit on it, often for decades at a time. This has been happening in downtown Buffalo since the 50s. That is precisely the reason that we have some many vacant lots downtown. It is a better economic decision to leave parcels as a parking lot than to actually develop them. Developers in Buffalo are penalized for building upon their land through the assessment process. This is one of the major hurdles to improving properties in this city. Thats what Carl Paladino intended to do with the Webb Building. He was going to demo it, just because he wanted cheaper taxes. We used to have blocks and blocks of buildings just like that that have all been torn down for the very same reason. Thank god Termini took that property off his hands.

I'm not saying that I fault Uniland, it would probably be the smartest business decision to demo the restaurant, whether they plan to build the condos or not. The problem lies in the City's assessment practices. Many other cities structure their assessments to actually encourage development and penalize vacant property. Unfortunately, that idea seems to be hard to understand here.

These folks are grasping at straws with their "Encroaching Olmsted circle" argument when in reality they are concerned about the obstructed views. If that was a valid argument you wouldn't see these types of buildings going up in other parts of the country. Also if they are so concerned about the obstructions they should have looked into purchasing the air rights.

On a side note, based on the interest in the Avant just a few miles down the road (with this project located in a better area IMO), I don't believe Uniland would have any problem selling these units. Build the damn thing!

CALLING ALL PRESERVATIONISTS AND NIMBY OFFICIANDOS.!!!!!......THERE IS A MEETING SCHEDULED INSIDE THE FORMER PARK LANE BUILDING.......ABOUT 3 MINITES BEFORE IT'S SCHEDULED TO BE IMPLODED. THIS IS A MUST ATTEND!!! BTW, THIS IS WHY THERE SHOULD BE NO PREVENTATIVE PERMIT PROCESS FOR DEMO!!! IF YOU OWN THE PROPERTY, YOU SHOULD BE FREE TO DO WHAT YOU LIKE WITH IT, AND THAT INCLUDES REMOVING THE BUILDING IF YOU SO DESIRE...AFTER ALL...YOU ONLY OWN IT!!

"One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesnt belong, if you guess which on is not like the other, then you get to sing along".

http://www.trumpsoho.com/flash/index.html

Look, I am not objected to development of any kind but there needs to be a balance of history with modernism. These neighborhoods are mostly 3 story homes constructed in the early part of the 20th century, they are beutiful specimens of Buffalo lore. This is a lovely building but being placed in the wrong spot.

"The problem lies in the City's assessment practices. Many other cities structure their assessments to actually encourage development and penalize vacant property. Unfortunately, that idea seems to be hard to understand here. "

Name them? What city in NYS does this? All counties, cities, villages, and towns are bound by the same assessment rules. So please tell me what city in NYS would value vacant property higher please.

Most preservationists are not fighting this project just as they did not oppose the hotel at Elmwood and Forest. It is the wealthy living nearby that objected to these projects. Other parts of the city would welcome such positive developement. Here in Black Rock we have had to stop a warehouse for sex offenders and a diesel truck bridge so it is hard for me to understand how hotels or condos are a problem.

We should take it apart and ship it to Georgia..

Build the tower. In WNY we should love the sight of construction cranes.

This is going to be an exciting project.

Black Rock - it was a joke - you don;t get it - and watch who tell to STFU - Olmsted will come to haunt you

bufago - i hear you loud and clear...i think the problem here goes much further than me and my 40k friends...if we represent the next generation in america, and cannot/will not pay 400k for a condo in downtown Buffalo, after those broads die, who will? Canadians? Nope. Chinese? Maybe Middle Easterners? Maybe...can't think of too many other groups of people that are dying to get their hands on property on downtown Buffalo. I agree that Uniland probably knows what they are doing seeing as they are still in the market, but lets not forget even the best make mistakes, just ask Kirk Kerkorian :-)

REMEMBER ISSA! No credit, no prospects, no rehab of the Statler and no new landmark building

The fact is, these glass buildings are cheaply made and they tend to leak (Richard Myer). It is all about access to credit to build them (China wont do it, UK Pound vs Dollar is declining, Japan is in as much sad shape as us, EU vs Dollar is declining, Loon vs. US dollar has stabilized but banks are crumbling and on a tight budget from bailouts all over the globe).

You would have to make a very strong argument of absorbtion of the sq footage to get the damn thing built and that presents the problem of subprime mortgages no longer available and re-sells on the decline in the suburbs.

I posted before that Issa would be out of here and his grand projects would never see the light of day. I maintain that argument now.

I know Buffalo wants shiny new structures (but these glass boxes fall apart pretty quickly because they are designed on the cheap). Sure the pictures are pretty but this is in the wrong place. When was the last time anyone took a walk on the parkway up Chapin?

With all of the building and loft conversions going on downtown, who is going to absorb this sort of folley? Football and Hockey players might but as for the rest of us, the economy is tanking and there could not be a worse time for this sort of intrusive project in one of the most historic neighborhoods in the entire country.

I am all for "Joe The Plumber" getting work but I would like to see "Joe" get paid for that work. This, like Issa's folley, is a disaster doomed. I will guarantee you one of two things; it will never get built or it will be downsized significantly.

Auburner,

Uniland is nothing like Issa. They are a proven successful company that has been fulfilling its city development promises. These guys have what it takes.

Any who I really enjoy this tower and it will be exciting to see. I understand why so many people are upset about it being on gates circle but because the hospital is right there you cant really say anything. If the hospital wasn't there then you would have an argument. Although if you were to move it anywhere I would love to see this tower on Emwood or any other mid/high rise.

Other than that go Uniland!

are you guys seriously arguing about the arguments an argumentative preservationist would have? thats impressive

Andrew, A structure of this size belongs downtown. A hospital, which I believe is shuttering it's doors, serves a valuable purpose to a neighborhood and a community. This structure dwarfs it and every home in the neighborhood.

Plus, Andrew, Millard serves both the east and west sides north of Buffalo General, again, very valuable purpose in the community. This will be a structure most of the community will look at and when the sun rises over Laffayetter, Lancaster and Chapin south, will cast an obtrusive shadow, when the sun sets the same can be said for the east side.

But it sure will be pretty to look at down Deleware Ave and up Deleware....

I don't recall any preservationist groups or individuals speaking out against this proposal.

barefootrunner wrote "'The problem lies in the City's assessment practices. Many other cities structure their assessments to actually encourage development and penalize vacant property. Unfortunately, that idea seems to be hard to understand here. ' Name them? What city in NYS does this? All counties, cities, villages, and towns are bound by the same assessment rules. So please tell me what city in NYS would value vacant property higher please."

barefootrunner - to answer your question, New York State Real Property Tax Law sections 1803-1805 gives an unfair tax assessment advantage to properties in Nassau County, NY by capping assessment increases ONLY for properties in that county. You can confirm this law with our local State Assemblyman Sam Hoyt as I did a few years ago.

Paul I.M. Pey was the original, suggest you look him up and Richard Myer as well.

all this brain storming for a project that is realistically 5 years away, if ever.

A building like this would be better placed down town with nice lake views. Perhaps where Issa's "city tower" was going to be built...that was short lived. Anyone have anymore computer generated renderings of the new skyline with the 40 story tower.....another failed project is real good for morale.

Look for a minute at the bigger picture....because there is a bigger picture.

The go ahead for the Gates Tower puts a financial justification for the conversion of Millard Fillmore Gates Hospital to Residendial/Hotel/Office/Retail. It could even create the justification for reskinning the exterior of the hospital with glass like the dulski.

It could even create the justification for the redevelopment of Millard Fillmore before the Gates Tower is built.

Furthermore, the redevelopment of Millard Fillmore Gates Hospital and the Tower is going to have a ripple effect on the long struggling neighborhood between Main & Delaware. Expect those Housing Values to start going up.

None of which would be possible if the Gates Tower was refused. So maybe it wont happen for a while because of the economic issues...but there is alot hinging on this tower.....and people should understand it.

Without this tower...Millard Fillmore Gates Hospital is a much harder justification and the neighborhood between Main and Delaware continues to struggle downward.

People who claim that this tower would be better sited elsewhere are missing the point. The location is a big selling point for this project. It's for folks who want to live on one of the parkways without buying a big old house. If it was moved, it would be marketed toward a different group of people.

The point of the project isn't that it will be "pretty to look at." It's that it will likely bring higher income folks into the city. That seems more important than protecting a handful of people from passing shadows.

That would be me Steel. Gaustad...I agree with you...it's a special day indeed.

Townline - Thanks for explaining but that's a bad reason. For most buildings including this empty restaurant, there's no good reason for the city to forcibly prevent an owner from demolishing even if the land will sit empty. If there's particular buildings the city govt wants to protect (such as your Webb example) for a historic or another reason, they should target those few buildings for protection ahead of time fair and square. There's nothing special about this 1974 building.

I'm also skeptical of your claim about cause of many long term vacant lots downtown: '...it makes it advantageous for a developer to create vacant land and de-incentivizes development. It is common practice for developers to acquire land with no purpose but to sit on it, often for decades at a time. This has been happening in downtown Buffalo since the 50s. That is precisely the reason that we have some many vacant lots downtown. It is a better economic decision to leave parcels as a parking lot than to actually develop them ...'

If it earns more money (or loses less) to demo a building and have an empty lot, what does that indicate about true market demand for such a building and the land it sits on? Again exceptions could be made to protect some buildings truly deserving it, but I'm talking about ordinary buildings.

If a spot of land has a lot of development potential, purchase offers for it should naturally climb. If offers don't climb enough to sell (as for downtown properties you mention), most likely potential wasn't as great or unique as observers might say. Downtown land does sell when there's a high enough offer. Issa had no problem buying a big empty parcel for his City Tower plan, right?

Blocking demo of ordinary buildings as your first comment demands for this restaurant is needlessly business-hostile. If you want a law change to say after demo of a viable building the land is still taxed for a few years as if the building is still there, maybe that's worth considering. But it sounds way too arbitrary to assess land based on potential of what the city govt claims could possibly be built on it. I'll accept your word that some cities do it, but it sounds very prone to abuse.

Steel,

EricOak and quite a few others.

Context! Does it matter not at all?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,896251,00.html

http://www.dailycommercialnews.com/article/id30988

http://www.galinsky.com/buildings/perrystreet/index.htm

http://www.architectureweek.com/2001/0404/building_1-2.html

Why are even people recognizing Auburner's argument? He referred to I.M. Pei and “I.M Pey”-sic. That alone shows how widely misinformed he/she is. It's like talking about art and referring to Picasso as Pisccio. One immediately say idiot.

I understand typos on a blog and am guilty of it, but that wasn’t a typo. That was someone talking about a subject they are clearly not capable of talking about beyond a 9th grade level. You immediate eliminate anything more he/she has to say after something like that.

Please Carlmalone... It was late at night and yes I admit to typo...

And regarding Perry St, most of the originals have moved on and out; Calvin Klein, Martha Stewart, Hugh Jackman, etc. They are still trying to fill vacant slots in buildings 1, 2 and 3.

My argument has more to do about financing not only the construction but the absorbtion. Dont you read Carlmalone or just post off of the last comment made????

Auburner: if you wrote something of value I would read it. Uniland wants to clear the current structure to avoid future litigation costs from stopervationist like you in the future. It is a business decision.

Are they going to build the tower anytime soon? *&#@ no, what do you think. They have constantly shown good business sense throughout their history and just sitting on the land with no structure will lower their current tax burden. Even talking about the building is useless. Bringing absorption and securing loans is a waste of time and not worthy of thought, analysis or my eye strain. Look what is going around us… The glass structure bs is just complete rubbish. PPG

It's good that Auburner is making people think about this--disagreement produces better cities.

I don't know, PaulBuffalo...whatever this building brings to the city, it's not going to be architectural legacy. I keep seeing this same building everywhere I go--Toronto, NYC, the same building lewdly flashing its interior. It does get old.

And whether or not these buildings are leaky, shaky, or whatever, I can't say. But they are built this way and with these materials because they're relatively cheap and easy to build this way. What that says about the building's value, it's up to the beholder I guess. I don't really care if it goes up or not..there are bigger battles...like losing an entire west side neighborhood to a terrible bridge plaza.

Timmmmbbbbbeeeerrrrrrr!

im all for this tower, but realistically in todays credit markets there is no way this gets built. developers cant get loans and neither can consumers get mortgages. check back on this in 3-5 years...sad but true... Thank Mr. Obama and his Fannie and Freddie cohorts for trying to get every Person in the country to ability to buy a home, instead of people who are truly able and qualified. Now these Fannie & Freddie shmucks sit on Obama's campaign staff without having served a day in prison and walking away with more than $250 million in combined bonuses. Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick & Jim Johnson all walked like escappes from jail with a bundle in their pocket

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CcFdjXvjvE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-_HlpZ8azA&feature=related

Assaroni,

You put the ASS in your name. The sub-prime crisis started in the RR years with dereg of the banks, continued policy into Bush 1 and Clinton. GWB celebrated it with declaration of June as "National Home Owners Month". If you really want fair and balanced, go to the Americans for Fairness in Lending site and do your research. According to Fox Spews, "Obama was a city organizer and then only a state legislator and totally inexperienced to hold the highest position, now he is responsible for the death of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and if they could nail him Bernie Mac. Predatory lending had been going on for over 20 years..." Next out of the mouths of Fix News is that OB is responsible for continental drift... Jesus, this post is not worth my time!

his number two campaign contrib was fannie and freddie...nuff said

Ass Jim Johnson was asked by Mr Obama to leave the campaign on June 8th. He served briefly on the search commitee for possible VP picks. Full disclosure would be appreciated...

Oh and Ass? That was 3 days after the commitee was formed... Get YOUR facts right!