Buffalo Rising Online

Your passion is admirable. As is your willingness to take action. However, you are soliciting people without offering any facts. What are the benefits of this project? What will we miss if it does not take place. What are the hazards posed by opponents? What is you objection to those allegations? You indicate that imporant people are observing this and we want the future support of those important people.... That's a little vague. And besides, if all those important people jumped of a bridge, would you want to as well? (Signature bridge or not.) Your emotion is evident but we need mor information, please.

Newell,

I'm on the Preservation Coalition Board, a Trustee of the Landmark Society, and I'm on the Olmsted Conservancy Advisory Board so I think most people would expect me to be against this project but I actually like the project on several levels. I think the building I've seen so far is beautiful and I agree that we sorely need new condo space to continue attracting new residents. I also think this is a great location (in general more than specifically this spot) and that a lot of folks are watching to see if we kill off another project (I liked the Hotel on Elmwood as well - which wasn't killed by preservationists by the way).

My concerns have to do with siting. Again, I like the looks of the building and I think it could be an attractive addition to that area, but I've never seen any scale drawings that show how it will relate to the existing buildings and the parkway. Do you have anything that illustrates this? It will determine whether I can support this project.

Thanks,

Harvey

Sorry to incite condescension in you... however, when someone makes vague, impugning comments and indicates "you know the kind of people"... explanation is warranted.

Certainly, it is a wonderful thing to feel content in one's virtue and you must admire yourself for that. However, even with your thoughts in the mix (and I will assume the are not necessarily those of "queenseyes"... ) You are reducing this to an emotional, divisive "our kind of people" argument than a fact driven, unifying appeal.

There are greater needs in this neighborhood than courting the wealthy. Frankly, sustaining the middle class in that neighborhood (and throughtout the city) and making establishing affordable amentiies (thorughout the city) is a more compelling task. Granted, I realize this is not the subject of the "pro" or the "con" petition in this particular matter. I find it surprising, despite the loveliness of Gates Circle, that the particular location would be attractive to prospective tenants when those gorgeious balconies will overlook the wreckage that is the neighborhood just beyond Linwood Avenue.

Sorry to have upset you, Sir Bob. You can go back to your nap now and we will hear from you in another twenty years.

also more information can be found in the other articles about this project and the comments that followed.

signed.

UprightCitizen, Are you looking to spark verbal confrontations? Not that your request for information is outrageous--it is not. Perhaps you just haven't been following this project. If that is the case, the links in the story above and the gatescircle.com website itself will aid your understanding. SirBob is right: Really the questions you pose for this project apply to any project---so just transpose the logical replies. Harvey is right too: The public has not seen the proposed tower in place with existing buildings, perspectives from each, and shadow studies from the new on to the old. More visuals would go a long way to understanding the project and easing the fears of many. Finally... You can be sure that nearly half of the east facing units will see Millard Fillmore Hospital, lots of trees, Forest Lawn cemetary plots, Canisius College, Hamlin Park, Artspace, and yes, a good measure of distressed properties. And you know what? The "have nots" looking back at the tower will see hope, a resurgent tax base, better funded basic city services, and spin-off economic opportunities.

SirBob,

Actually I think that a great deal of the development in this area has been harmful rather than beneficial. I look at things in near term and long term impact (good and bad). I think it's possible that this could be a good project for this neighborhood, but it could also cause problems and I want to know if it will.

Suggesting that all I'm concerned about is the chi of the neighborhood minimizes the real questions that need to be asked about how this will impact the area. I'm pro development when it's good development, I just want to know more. I would be against this project if it had good near term bennefit but did long term harm to the future development and livibility if this area.

At this point I have no reason to think that it will be a problem - I just want to know more before I support it.

All development is not good, all preservation isn't bad. Let's step up the discussion with more information. Thank you for the financial stats.

Harvey

This project will fail, becuase it makes sense and is necessary for Buffalo to crawl out of the gutter.....the external force that kills all development in this town will reappear like the grim reeper

It wouldn't be Buffalo if it were any other way....sorry to be negative, but the proof is there....

I signed and my wife signed. I hope out of town sigs count!

I think a personal editorial tag on this article would make it more professional: an expressed individual opinion rather than a blanket endorsement. A an opinion from you is taken as official, received BRO position. BRO will enhance its voice if it can wear some degree of objectivity about controversial issues in the city.

And why the backhanded sarcasm about the people opposed to the condo: "..if they have to work at all." There your post swerves toward the amateurish. Do you think the 2,000 people who signed that petition all live in the old Park Lane condos or are gentlemen and women of leisure?

But thanks for encouraging people to speak up for or against or anywhere in between about this project. That's what we need. I've already outlined why, for many people, this is a terrifically average and unnuanced design and why it will continue the erasure of Delaware Avenue's architecural and historical impact. The city would gain so much more if this building were ensconced further downtown where it has peers.

EricOak - what is the point in criticizing the columnist here - are you trying to feel better about yourself? I don't get it!

I think the aritcle speaks volumes on BRO's poistion - perhaps you can't read between the lines.

Furthermore, who cares where the tower is built; it is a great project anywhere in Buffalo. I have an idea for you..... if you are so opposed to the building's location, why don't you commence a development project on your own in the location of choice.

Don't criticize unless you are prepared to take action, otherwise sit back and feel fortunate that Unliand is loyal enough to put there hard earned development dollars to work in our abandoned city.

Too many

I support this project 100%--and dare I say that it seems to be what's left of the 'Old Buffalo' elitists that have 'interests' in the old Park Lane Condos to the rear who have inspired the petition and this debate. Take a look at some of them. Most of those units haven't seen a nickel of updating since the 70s. Some were for sale for several months at excessive pricing--$225,000 to $300,000-plus...and they needed at least $100,000 in work on avg...and for less than 2000-square feet? I would bet that some were pulled off the market until it's determined whether of not the Uniland devlopment will move forward. This new condo development will force them to either lower their prices...or renovate their units to compete. Watch. If they successfully shoot this great project down (and the benefits of what the same will deliver have been noted enough on this thread...) they'll be back on the market for the same ridiculous prices.

This project, like the young man from England and his project at Mohark and S Elmwood have great possibilities for putting Buffalo back on the map as a visionary, forward, risk-taking city- a place in which ideas become more that just models and drawing, lanquishing in a court of bogged down in City Hall. Projects like these are viewed by investors throughout the world, as are all the mryiad of opposition. Watching so many good ideas scuttled based not much more than on emotion, it's going to be interesting to see which side hollars the loudest- and wins! I wonder (and this is not to fault or criticize, but challenge) the Partnership and BNE on a project like this, or the Mohwark/S Elmwood project, falls? Surely, the impact of this project is worth many times its value in marketing Buffalo and the Niagara region. For my personal view, count me among the ranks of support of this project. Assuming that all entities working together for good planning and attention environmental comncerns, this project is exciting and welcome! Tom Gleed

Its often difficult to live in Buffalo, becuase of projects like these that constantly get shot down. There is more than just a condo tower at stake.

The tower represents forward progress for young working professionals that stay loyal to a city that really has limited opportunity.

Obstuctionists, common council, and mayor must realize that every time a project of this magnitude is announced and then, subsequntly, squashed - it kills the spirit of those wanting to stay here and ulitmatly drives people away.

There are more factors that should be considered by our political leaders, in addition to development. I.E., What effect does the project have, pass of fail, on the morale of our city?

I moved home fiive years ago, created my own luck, but now I am exhausted with listening to such significant projects come and go -

Common sense tells you after a while, that progress in Buffalo wlll always move at a snails pace - why spend your life living in a city with a constant disappointment?

[edited] just build it

"stop being ..."?

Uptight Citizen,

"Gay" = "lame" in today's lingo. Get with the times.

[EDITOR'S NOTE: Regardless, use of the word "gay" as a pejorative on Buffalo Rising is unacceptable.]

you know upright citizen from the start of this blog all you have had to say makes you sound very uneducated not only in planning, but also about how to show others respect. you really sound like you're in high school - ah that would explain all of your commentary.

Censorship? LOL, great way to win over that mythical 18-34 demographic you guys froth over...

I'm loathe to enter the fray but...

(1) in my original post I asked for information and clarity then got 'tude for it. There is nothing in my original post which warrants Sir Bob's vitriolic response. Sadly, so. I am inclined to side with support for the project. If a genuine request for information brings on abuse, who will side with you?

(2) Yes, in my second post, I responded badly to Sir Bob's snarky response to me. I followed in the low path that was set before me. I shouldn't have.

(3) I called attention to "tonyarmoani" and the specious use of the term "gay". I didn't suggest that it be censored but Editor's response is not inapproprate. I agree with you, Dude, that censorship does not enhance general discourse.

However, neither does blind bigotry. I would have responded in the same way if the "lingo" of the day suggested that we might try to "jew down the prices" of this expensive project or that its conspicuous design was "nigger rich". How hip is hip?

Regretably, a simple request for information was taken the wrong way.

I took exception to "queenseyes" vague description about "klnds of people" who would or would not support this effort. Didn't expect to find so much ill will so close to the surface. Perhaps, it is such retrograde hositlity that delays true progress here.

Upright Citizen - YOU REALLY NEED TO GET LAID!

ErickOak - you definitlely were not in the "in crowd" at Ken West

BROKEEPSBLOCKINGME - WHY? you seem to be a little ruff, but you get to the point -

I think we all want this project to happen - so why don't we all take one day off of work, go to city hall, and push this puppy through!

WHO'S WITH ME - uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Does anyone have list, or a link to a list of what all the objections are? Obviously there is more to it that simply saying "it's too tall." I have heard that it will impact Gates Circle and Delaware Ave traffic patters. What are the other objections? I can't imagine how this project can be bad for area. I am all for it.

Why do we assume they will be reduced? Because this is not a Walgreens or gas station going in with a sea of parking and flood lights?

Why do we bring up that their "views" will be blocked, and then go on about how those views are negantive anyways: a "vacant" Millard Filmore and life east of Linwood. Seems we are giving them a better view? Maybe we should just level the Park Lane so the houses near by can get their "views" back?

If anything this is a big $$ catalist for future development of the Millard Fillmore site and the streets east of Linwood. If anything people would be more prone to investing in the Park Lane condos with so much invested right next door, in a very pleasing manner.

I emailed BRO last august to suggest they start a petition to match the self-serving obstructionists at 33 Gates. I stated that the city needs to understand that the vocal minority does not represent the greater public and that BRO could be a resource in helping to provide a voice for the rational and concerned citizens who actually work during the day at these meetings. I recieved this response...

"The problem I have with petitions and our involvement with spurring them is, people in favor of a project are much less vocal than people who oppose one. We have learned that the hard way over the years. The NIMBYS will walk the streets, knock on doors, flag people down, etc. So when they have 2000 votes and we have 500 from running a post online, then they claim that they have more support."

Which is exactly why I suggested it at the onset of the obstructionists' fervor. Now I see this article w/ this plea a the top of the petition - "We have less than two weeks to match or exceed 2000 anti-signatures. "

We could have had 10 months to garner who knows how many signatures and support. I realize I'm not in the weblog buisiness, but maybe my idea shouldn't have been so quickly dissmissed.

Regardless, I signed and will spread the word to my nieghbors. Keep up the good fight.

glencora, I'm sorry but you are an idiot. A statment like "an architectuarlly unsuited projected " only shows your complete lack of understanding and/or appreciation of design. Design is subjective, you are free to dislike it, but you cannot claim the Park Lane is any more or less suited for that site. You not liking contemporary design does not mean it's architectually unsuited. If you really believe that you should have your design degree revoked.

I don't understand how this project effects the residents of the Park Lane in any negative way other than dealing w/ some construction for 12 months. No one is tearing their building down or asking anyone to leave. I applaud the longterm city residents who live there for investing in our community for so long, but their objection to such a significant investment for our city is short-sighted and self-serving at best. By arguing the concept of a "view" of a traffic circle and hospital as being a reasonable excuse to hault this kind of development or even suggesting that "air flow" is anything other than a fictional concept created in desperation, or that their building is historically significant enopugh to prevent any construction on adjacent lots is what paints them as self centered and creates the hostility. their age, involvment, or lack there of makes no difference. it's their ridiculous stance on this project. their property values should only go up with this building next door. do they really think that a vacant restuarant will help in raising them more than $2 mill nieghbors? The whole argument reaks of ignorance and complete lack of understanding of design, development, and growth.

Tell me, when the Park Lane Apartments were built, or the Delaware Towers, or 1040 Delaware, just how did the homeowners (many private homes, I add) react to their surrounding changing? How was the impact of a "tower" building forever altering their landscape handled? Or, building Millard Fillmore Hospital on its site? How about its impact?

As a small, but nonetheless pertinent, point in fact (or is it a longstading lore.. the original site of the Soldiers amd Serviceman's Monument (Lafayette Squre) was to be Soldiers Circle at the convergence of Chapin, Bidwell, Lincoln. According to oft repeated history, it was scuttled by the immediate neighbors as being too unsighly and too big. (Well, it is big, but not unsightly, and its present location I think is just fine.

So, we cave to the pressure of a few, or do we embrace this development with eagerness and excitement? Tom Gleed

citizen:

this project makes sense on many levels - empty nesters anticipating a low-maintenance, city-centered life style; sound real estate investing and capital preservation for aging baby boomers; housing base for UB 2020 growth projections; alternative housing to combat the traditional "flight-to-the-suburbs"; job creation during all phases of the project lifecyle; increasing City of Buffalo tax base; and, supplementing the ownership interests ' of the surrounding Gate Circle community, just to name a few.

so...

When is it acceptable to block the view of a few for the greater good? It takes a village glencora. It would be irrisponsible to move into a midrise building in a city nieghborhood which is zoned for residential mid and high rise construction and expect that the existing views will forever be preserved. I would almost listen to the argument if their was a variance or zoning issue. Now the residents on that particular side of the building get to look at a fine example of conetmporary architecture. If they don't like it they can purchase the site and keep it vacant forever. Again, the complaints are self-serving. It's called progress. and it has nothing to do w/ IM Pei or UB north.

You have a point about affordable new housing for middle class being a need. There are many greater needs in this city, but this project isn't about those needs and trying to make it is a weak argument. A private developer is putting up private money for this project. Apples and oranges. I didn't petition the new Lexington Coop because I feel the Elmwood village has a greater need for a head shop. There is no correlation and trying to create one shows how weak the argument is.

Speaking of which...trying to argue that a geodesic dome on ashland or the former apartment buildings at the Martin Complex are the same thing as the proposed tower is asinine. It demonstrates that you have no idea what your talking about. "design is not subjective...the proposed glass tower in the middle of a row of lovely brick buildings will look like an alien implant." sounds like a subjective comment to me. I think the proposed building looks awesome on that site. I think the juxtoposition of the modern glass tower next to the "lovely brick buildings" provides for the kind of urban fabric that makes a city interesting and visually exciting. But that's just my subjective opinion. I'm sorry to get on you about this but you really struck a nerve. halting progress because you think shinny glass buildings are ugly, or someone's view of gates circle will be blocked is ridiculous. And the armchair architects claiming that this is the wrong design for the site is offensive.

Again, sorry to be a jerk about your posts but this is too good of a project to be derailed by same bullsh*t garbage that gets spewed by the resident NIMBYs.

We don't need any more information - other than the number of people willing to invest in these condos and more like these. No more information! Just take a stand. Are you for development and progressiveness or are you for "old Buffalo" do-nothing status-quo policies?

I just came back from Toronto.... we are so behind here. TO does it right. Historic and modern all mixed together. And they are still building!!!

How can this project be blocked because of opinions???? It can't!!!

i'll buy two units NOW off plan...who's the realtor?

I agree with Gaustad...... Uptight Citizen needs to get laid

Glencora: Thanks for raising some useful points, and gracefully too.

Auburn: as for Toronto, you can never have lived there if you think Toronto architecture works well. It is one of the homeliest cities of its size in North America. Acres of asphalt, concrete and repetitve glass highrises that peer into eachother's windows and identical, small apartments. Rows of subtle historic homes torn down for more cheap glass highrises, which might sit next to a romanesque church; a beautiful sight it is not. It's ugly and jarring. The glut of cheap building in Toronto is nothing to admire, at least in architectural terms.

EricOak: I hate to say it, but beggars can't be choosey. And Buffalo is a beggar. As readers of BRO we are a segment of the population that values the city for what it is now, but more significantly we see what it COULD become. Unfortunately investors have more on the table than hometown pride. They aren't the visionaries that visit this site all day. Am I thrilled about a modern condo at that site? No. Am I thrilled about a major development for city living? Yes!

EricOak - Toronto is a beautiful city, similar to Chicago and much nicer than Buffalo....It is one of the most popular travel destinations in North America. Landscape and Architecture are a perfect transition from the old and new. WHAT ARE YOU SMOKIN'?

It is people like you that are responsible for our puny, rusted, stale city staying the way it is for the last 50 years.

Think outside the box, THIS PROJECT REPRESENTS THE ONLY UPSCALE PROJECT OF ITS KIND IN MORE THAN 25 YEARS.

Reagrdless of the way it looks, smells, tastes, view, no view, it should be built and wll act as a catalyst for development.

Park the subaru hatchback in the garage, take of the birkenstocks, shave, pick up the latest edition of Business Week and get with the times.....my friend, do you live in Grandma's basement?

Glencora. Changing the view from the building does not guarantee a decrease in property value. One can argue that the new structure housing your evil "rich" people will in fact increase the value of the Park Lane. Both yourself and the residents of the Park Ln need to realize that they live in a city not a small town. That part of the city is zoned for mid or high rises as was stated by jerkface. (its hard to take this seriously when calling someone jerkface). UB north has absolutely nothing to do with this project. Your comparison and opinion of the UB north campus is irrelevant and in my mind irrational as well. You are entitled your opinion. I just wish OBSTRUCTIONISTS LIKE YOU

....would admit to being what you are. Then I could at least consider your argument.

Gaustad, have you lived in Toronto? When I lived there, I rarely met a Torontonian who thought the city was "beautiful." Toronto has many attributes, but it is a far less architecturally important city than Buffalo, and in terms of historic charm, there's just no comparison.

I happen to like highrises in the right place. This is a bad place for a highrise of this style and scale. But relax, it's going to be built.

...you don't have to take me seriously, and there are far worse things i could be called.

Toronto has many beautiful buildings and many not-so-beautiful buildings. Again, it's all subjective. There are many incredible modern buildings there, not just "cheap glass highrises". I think a real problem many Buffalonians have is this ridiculous rational that only historic buildings are good and that if we put new buildings next to them, the older buildings will somehow become less important or devalued. I very much appreciate our city's architectural heritage, but ignoring the present and the future by obstructing progress does no good. the more our city grows and develops (smartly and with good planning and design) the more important our history and design legacy becomes. Remember our architectural heritage was never "keep all the old stuff and design everything to look like the building next to it", it was allways progressive design and devolpment. You think the Guaranty or the Martin House or Klienhans or the Richardson Towers or even Olmstead's parks and parkways were anything other than cutting edge design for their time? I'm sure people thought they were ugly and inappropriate at the time. Don't fear change people, welcome it.

Seriously now folks, exactly HOW many people's views will be affected at the Park Lane Retirement Center? How many people live on THAT side of the building?

This project should fold because maybe ten - twenty people, tops, will have their views negatively impacted?

The city should lose out on increasing its tax base and population because ten or so people are affected in a near by building?

ONLY in Buffalo... sad, how sad.

BuffaloCook - good comment

Not arguing Toronto - it speaks for itself.

I don't think it WILL be built EricOak. Thats my sad, but deathly honest opinion, if I had to put money on it. I hope it is. Too much old money interests in preserving the 1800s, and I'm not just talking the Park Lane building.

Toronto certainly does speak for itself--it has many things to admire, and many to regret. It is a city I know well and would never want to live in again. For visual elegance and street design it cannot compare to Buffalo. Its economy, vibrant but tenuous, is a different matter, and really of no relevance to this one project. The construction of 68 new apartments on Delaware Ave., by people who can afford to live anywhere in the city, and who, according to most posts here, are acutely eager to live in the city and would presumably buy in another city project or neighborhood, will not make but a small ding in Buffalo's economic development. Major new corporations and mid-size growing companies pitching their tents here will do that; not 68 new households. If a handlful of pricy apartments were the elixir for economic rejuvenation of the city, then all the condos built on Delaware Ave. since the 1920s (hundreds) would have done just that. They haven't even come close. And yet these 68 new pads will resuscitate the city? will be "our last chance"? That is simply false... a dream.

But Toronto vs. Buffalo doesn't concern me. A large part, perhaps a fundamental leg of Buffalo's future economy will depend on heritage tourism: including, probably most critically, our architectural uniqueness and impressive degree of preservation. Delaware Ave, once arguably the most sumptuous of all the nineteenth century boulevards in America, has been degraded by insensitive and short-sighted modernist and contemporary buildings that made a more divisive break with their context than the big 1920s apartment houses such as the Campanile and the Park Lane.

But Delaware Ave. still has its bones and still draws tourists for its beauty and ambiance, sadly no longer seamless but still moving.

When you put a stretching glass tower at the edge of the very human scale of fountain, bronze statue, granite structure and trees of Gates Circle, you dilute this wonderful effect, sadly already started by insults like Millard Fillmore but still worthy of preserving. When you have a downtown hungry for more tall and dense development, and an already burgeoning condominium market there, then yes, I have to say that this is a project that will deliver nothing to the larger good of the city at this particular location. It would do impressive good in a more sympathetic context, and there are many of these in the city: Elmwood Ave., the dowtown business district, the waterfront.

But I have no doubt it will be built ...and be quickly digested as another forgettable high rise whose shadow falls over more more beautiful buildings, houses, trees and history...the things people will want to see on Delaware Ave. if or when they come to see Buffalo's magnificent inheritance: the fruits of Richardson, Upjohn, Wright, Sullivan, Greene, Esenwein & Johnson. Being careful with this legacy is not "obstructionist" or "old guard"; it's wise and shrewd.

Eric Oak- "When you have a downtown hungry for more tall and dense development, and an already burgeoning condominium market there.." Good point and there are shovel ready sites all over the place and they seem to be increasing exponentially of late. And I understand what you are saying in regard to Delaware Avenue but I think this new building is elegant in its own way. And if the property is landscaped well and tastefully I think it will enhance the circle (unlike the MF hospital)

Interesting discussion overall, aside from the flames and nonsensical, unnecessary insults.

My first impression was wow! My second and third impressions are still wow and it seems like a good idea. I thing Gates Circle can handle the building, and although it is tall and modern (I do like the old buildings in the city, they are architecturally appealing and interesting), I think it will be an important icon to show that growth can occur here. When I saw the rendering of the site and building, I thought immediately of Columbus Circle in NYC, and the new Time Warner Center (see http://www.shopsatcolumbuscircle.com/scs/user/twc.aspx). It is a new, mixed use building that overlooks Central Park, at the lower West corner (See also: http://www.earthcam.com/usa/newyork/columbuscircle/ ). And also, standing in Central Park, looking around, you see green, but then you see the buildings, an amazing contrast. Our own Olmstead Park does not have the density of buildings around it, but you do get interesting views of a few buildings. And being able to see this proposed building from Delaware Park will only add to the sense of place that exists in interesting cities that have a history.

I am not sure I get the wealthy/middle class conflict that permeates this building plan and discussion. Buffalo does have plenty of middle class housing stock. Or at least affordable housing. As far as other types of new housing, there are the artists lofts being built (have been built? I'm not sure exactly of the status of these). And low income housing has always had a place in the city, a concept that can be debated, in a different thread. This type of building that can offer a nice living space in the city is what is really needed for the upcoming wave of retirees and empty nesters. Time to leave the McMansion behind and all its upkeep and deer problems and need to drive *everywhere* and move into the city where public transportation is available and walking is easy.

I also don't think that "waiting for the right idea to come along for the space" is a plan. Actually, it is a non-plan. A new garbage recycling station would not be a good idea for that site, nor would a stockyard, but an apartment/condo building? Seems like a fit to me.

I am in favor of the new building.

Enxihilo, thanks for the comments. I just want to help refine the dialogue about this issue; you've also been a great help in that.

I didn't want to dislike this design; I hoped the architects would present a really clever design that alludes to some of the classical elements of the circle, a design that would marry the old and new at the circle and neighborhood. But I was genuinely disappointed when I saw the boldly inaccurate rendering of Gates Circle that you seen all over BRO--a rendering that is simply not the Gates Circle we see every day. This sterile, poor rendering strips the circle of its most beautiful elements and removes its personality to better suit the imposing stream-lined design of the tower. That was, for me, a very bad sign.

As for the design of the building--I'm sorry to repeat this--it's something I have seen hundreds of times around North America. A building you can see all over any big city is hard to see as "iconic," so I would respectfully disagree with your assessment of its individuality and "classicness."

I also never saw this issue as a clash between old and new. I do enjoy much contemporary design, and I am really impressed with much of the new construction at the Medical campus. Much as I find this an underwhelming design, I think it would be a respectable addition to many areas of Buffalo where it's needed and where it would be profitable. After long thought, what I find mistaken here is the situation of this building, its context, its peers. I think this kind of juxtaposition will hurt Buffalo's heritage tourism in the long run, and from what we've seen from the recent Richardson report, and the report of the consultant from Glasgow who encouraged us to market very carefully our preserved neighborhoods, I think Buffalo deserves a more thoughtful and long sighted use of this kind of tower. But, that's just my thinking. I have no interest in fighting its construction or spoiling anyone's dream. I simply think it's a very grave mistake with repercussions that people are just not opening their eyes to.

Finally--I thought BRO was a site for news, information, and discussion of the city's life. An editorial in support of the new building is a legitimate part of that dialogue, but a headline banner soliciting readers to sign a petition about an issue that BRO is supposed objectively covering..well that seems to lower the quality of the conversation. Actively promoting a petition for or against this building seems distasteful....and a retreat from the serious objectives of the site.

I am confused about why this “building does not belong there.” The property is zoned for this type of development; there is a large building (albeit not as tall as the proposed building) across the circle; there is a tall building just down Delaware (1217); another one just past that, and the 800 West Ferry building. Granted, these buildings are not next door to the proposed building, but neither are they next door to each other.

Glencora wrote that, “If all those suburban people really wanted to live that type of urban lifestyle, wouldn't City Center always be full?” I do not know. However, just as one house style does not please everyone, one apartment/condo building would not please everyone. Think that this point does not hold water. Also, the proposed site offers a different experience; think of it more as being near Central Park as opposed to near the Empire State building (sorry for my NYC analogies again).

I do not agree that the building on that site is not good for the city. I also have not seen any compelling reasons that back this claim up. Are the developers asking for money from the city, county or state? Are they asking for variances? Are they asking to knock down structures on neighboring properties? Are they asking for tax waivers? If not, then where is the beef? Aesthetically, you can agree or disagree with its style, but no one builds buildings like 800 W Ferry or like the Statler anymore. Will it, stylistically, be an iconic building that everyone around the country will recognize (like the Bridge should be)? No. But so what? It is also not a Walmart. We do have fantastic architecture in the city, and it is recognized. Will this building fall into that category? I don’t think so, but then again, who knows in 100 years?

EricOak says we should be, “wise and shrewd with this legacy,” but I am not sure how this building goes against this? We are not tearing down any existing structure of significance. Personally, I look at the design (which I do not love, by any means, but I don’t need to love it) and think it contrasts very well with the surroundings, rather than pretending to be the same. And wrt putting this downtown, I don’t get it. People want to live in this area, which is why the owners want to build there. I certainly see that it will impact the city positively, why wouldn’t it? Also, this is not a replacement for a new building downtown. Hopefully, it will encourage more building downtown.

Glencora also brought up the UB North campus, which is completely irrelevant. My questions to Glencora: When you look at UB North campus, and say, “What the hell were they thinking,” why do you say that? What is wrong with it? And who is “they?” Where should have the new campus been built? I say, “What the hell were they thinking?” about the Larkin Company Administration building that was torn down for a parking lot.

Personally, I do not want to fight to “put it in a place where it belongs” because it is not my building to put, and not my money to spend. This is not a bridge being built by a public authority that should do what the public wants. This is not a public agency deciding what to do with public land that ultimately is owned by the public as a whole. This is a private company. BUT I don’t think this means the owners can do anything they want; I do believe that all companies should be responsible for their decisions and actions as much or even more so than any one person should. If this new building was going to empty its sewage into an open pit behind the Park Lane Apts, I would oppose that.

Why does anyone want to build such a building there? Because there is demand for it. It is a good location (great location?). It is close to Elmwood and Delaware Park. It is easy to get downtown from there. There are many reasons. If it were to be built somewhere else, wouldn’t it block someone else’s view?

Finally, what should the owner of the property do there? What would the neighbors agree to if they had veto power?

Glencora.

The building you live in is not attractive, casts shadows, blocks views, causes traffic, is out of scale and out of character with the neighborhood. Why should I have to look at it every day? You should be honest. It is not that you don't want a high rise on this site. It is that you do not want a highrise on this site that is not your highrise. You live in a city start acting like you live in a city or move to Clarence.

The proposed new building appears to be a high quality attractive building. This is a perfect place for a dramatic new symbol for Buffalo and already in only 6 days more than 1000 people have voiced their approval of this project. I have no doubt that the petition in favor of this project will far exceed 2000

Actually I do know the history of UB. I know the "stories" of a spread out campus, outdoor stairs that were designed to make it impossible to run up them, dorms set far from the spine, escape stairs and helicopter pads on the administration building, originally no student union on the north campus. Am I missing any others?

However, much of this is myth. Whatever the reason for building UB’s North campus in Amherst, it was not because of fears of students rioting. In 1964, the UB Board of Trustees announced that UB would buy land in Amherst with the goal of creating a larger campus that was needed for the growth it was experiencing since it became a public university. Riots of any scale did not begin until 1970, although there were apparently a few demonstrations to protest the Vietnam War prior to that. And the character of the campus was shaped more by the architectural style of the early 1970s than anything else. Ground breaking occurred in Amherst in 1968, but much of the campus was built in the 1970s and early 1980s. I would hardly call the process that led to North campus being where it is as “hasty.”

The result was not a dead downtown; the “death” of downtown was not caused by North campus. I wouldn’t even say that downtown died. A better phrase might be transitioned from a 24hr zone to a 9-5 zone, but this was true for almost every downtown in the country (with the exception of NYC, and maybe Chicago). The trend as a whole was the abandonment of US cities in the 1960s-1970s. This was not Buffalo or UB, it was the country. But the downtown was and is still a busy place, it is just not a 24 hour zone. It is where many people work, but few live.

I agree that what happened to the Darwin Martin complex was a tragedy. Fortunately, this is being reversed. But again, I don’t see how this is relevant to the proposed condo building. It is not being built where a FLW building or Sullivan or Richardson building was. If the Park Lane building has been approved for National Historic Landmark status, that is interesting, but since the area has not been deemed a historic district, I don’t see how this would prevent anything from being built nearby. The DD Martin complex is a national treasure, by all accounts. What was done to it was terrible. However, I don’t think (and I should be corrected if I am wrong), the Park Lane building would not fall into that category. Not to say it isn’t historic, just that it isn’t by itself going to draw tourists. Couple that with the fact that the Park Lane building isn’t being touched, and there really is little argument along the lines of it being damaged in anyway. To the contrary, I think that it is amazing to picture a city that can keep its historic buildings in use and allow new development to spur smart growth.

I didn’t say that I didn’t like the new building; I said I didn’t love it, based on what I have seen. I do, however, like it.

I also don’t think this is building for the sake of building. It is a building that is being located on a site that has been zoned for such use; that to me is planning at work. Building for the sake of building are the strip malls and endless plazas that keep springing up farther and farther from the city, which do nothing but cause inner strip malls and plazas to become empty and useless. The proposed building is really the opposite of this.

But again, what should be done at that site?