Buffalo Rising Online

When did the Elmwood Village Association come out as officially in favor of this expansion? That's fresh news to me!

This whole mess of an expansion, the loss of a truly fine house at the entry to the Elmwood area....no imagination, no long sighted concern.... what a waste.

I am speachless

peacemonger - Pano's is almost doubling it's square footage and will be able to serve 40 to 50 people at a time, aside from added parking upgrades.

40 to 50 more people, I should state.

What a freakin' joke!

This design amounts to nothing more than a souped-up version of the Burger King drive-thru a couple blocks down. To top it off, the designer takes into consideration the stupidest of the local NIMBY "concerns" by putting a useless "greenspace" in front of the parking lot buffer walls.

Looking at the front elevation it becomes really obvious that all the frontage wasted on parking spaces and driveways could easily be used to accommodate 4 other businesses. What a waste! WE NEED A SMARTCODE....NOW!!!

How anyone could "approve" this is just beyond me....

EricOak, the Elmwood Village Association is in favor of Pano's expanding their business, just not the currently proposed plans according to their statement at the Planning Board meeting this morning. I thought I made that clear in the article, but I may have not...

So is he still saying that parking isn't his major goal? Will we ever learn? I love "progress" and our do anything for business no matter what attitude, 100 more years we will look like Charlotte.

yeah, where is the drive through window?

This site design is a disaster in the making. Pushing a stroller or walking a dog north on the sidewalk you have a significant risk associated with cars pulling out of the atwater parking lot. The blind spot poses great danger to pedestrians as you are unable to see a vehicle about to cross the sidewalk.

Remove the second curb cut. and better yet, pull the building to the north lot line.

no, what we need now are for the majority of you to STFU and let the man build what he wants to build.....

This is a process....it's his first site submittal. It's now up to the city to review it and request changes. Lets hope our zoning and building codes change this into something a bit better. He'll most likely have to make adjustments and then resubmit to the city.

I'm ok with most of this plan...but i don't like the amount of parking. 40 car parks for a 6,000 sq ft bldg? Thats typically more then Tim Hortons or a Bank needs in amherst, or an area with no street parking. To much. Shift the building to the left and eliminate the curb cut on that side of the building. Then it works.

What is this designer and/or Planning Board fetish for tiny useless strips of junipers and mulch ensembles or grassy litter magnets? It is tantamount to admitting that the design sucks and the best you can do is hope to camouflage it with little nature bandaids.

The Elmwood Village Association, as far as I know, did not make any official statement supporting Pano's specific business expansion. That's not their role. They were against the demolition, and the expansion that the wise restaurant wanted could only have gone forward by demolishing the Atwater house. So....EVA never supported this plan in any way. We very much should continue to complain against this stupid plan and myopic vision to help prevent other stupid plans from suburbanizing a unique urban neighborhood.

The thing that everyone, including the planning board, need to keep in mind here is the process. This project is going to set a major precedent in the Elmwood Village and the City of Buffalo for urban business expansion. Is the city going to set the stage for individual owners to do whatever they want in terms of site plans and design. Or are we going to set a process and standards for projects to follow.

So many of the problems that occur like we see in Pano's case, is that it is not clear what is and isn't acceptable for developers and businesses to do. If the city does not take a stand on maintaining design standards, then we will continue to have arguments just like Pano's. It is clear to me that so many architects in the Buffalo area do not understand how to do urban site plans - Silvestri has proven this on numerous occasions. The City office of Strategic Planning as well as Economic Development need to establish the standards for urban development.

So many people are afraid that establishing stricter standards will deter development in the city, however, in fact it will make it much easier. Architects and developers will have a clearer sense of how to plan their projects to meet the city's guidelines, and will tailor them to do so, actually expediting the process because they meet standards upfront. Without guidelines to follow, we will continue to have opinionated discussions that delay projects for years. Up to this point, it seems that developments are approved based upon attractive renderings and the strength of local community organizations. There needs to be a stronger process from the city to keep urban design up to appropriate standards and really make development in the city much more clear.

What is the deal with the whining? This building comes right up to the sidewalk and even though they have a good deal of parking... it’s HIDDEN. Oh darn its not a 5 story mixed use building w/ underground parking. Not every building in the city has to have that, or is capable of doing that. In addition the Atwater house was as dilapidated piece of crap. There is a friggen burger king next door, not that that’s a bad thing but the building could fit into the neighborhood better. Complain about that.

What happened to the patio dining area in front of the building as presented last December in the BN?? And if this acutally materializes, then I'll eat my gyro!

DEAR WHINING ELMWOOD HIPPIES...The property is not yours, it is Pano's. Tough s**t of you dont like what is being done, you have no say and your opinions don't matter at all. Pano's don't tell you what to do with your property so pipe down. They knocked down an old house to grow there business...good for them. I liked watching that miserable old home crumble like that ugly mess Vernor building. Out with the old and decrepit and in with the new.

P.S. what the hell is a "NIMBY" ?

Not In My Back Yard nimby

Oh yeah, Jet. I'd love to read your posts, and agree with most of your sentiment, but there's no reason to shout. Turn off the caps lock, please.

Jet2Vegas....That is the best post ever...good historical reference to that time Lincoln drank too much Crown and pissed on the lawn...you forgot to mention that after he zipped up his trousers...HE WENT IN TO PANO'S FOR SOME GREAT STEAK AND EGGS!

If I owned panos and had to deal with all of the BS legal to destroy that dilapitated piece of crap, I probably would have said screw it and move my business to Amherst. Keep whining hippies your only making things worse.

Le'ts look at other successful diners in the city:

Kosta's - 0 parking spaces Mythos - 0 parking spaces Akropolis- 0 parking spaces Empire Grill - 0 parking spaces (AND THIS WAS NEWLY BUILT!) Pano's - 38 parking spaces proposed, WTF???

It's fine with me, it's one of the places when people come to Buffalo they go to. So there should be more space.

Hello Everyone:

Please see the letter submitted to the City of Buffalo Planning board in regards to the expansion of Pano's restaurant at 1081 Elmwood Avenue as presented by myself on behalf of the Elmwood Village Association.

It is important to remember that public comments at all Planning Board meetings are meant to address the design of the proposed structure. While the Elmwood Village Association (EVA) was extremely disappointed to see the Atwater House demolished the time for comment on that aspect of this proposed development has passed.

It is the goal of EVA to promote appropriate urban design while also weighing the needs of the business community. The recommendations to the Planning Board included expanding the first floor dining area to the north and south of the existing building. This would block all surface parking from view along Elmwood Avenue and prevent a "gap toothed" parking lot appearance on our street. Secondly, EVA recommended that the second floor of the addition would best be utilized for office / residential use thus ensuring additional vitality and urban density along Elmwood Avenue.

EVA is always open to comments from the community. Please feel free to contact me by email at justin@elmwoodvillage.org. Please see below.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

May 8, 2007

Dear Planning Board Members:

The Elmwood Village Association, in accordance with the Elmwood Village Design Guidelines, opposes the proposed addition at 1081 Elmwood Avenue.

The Elmwood Village Design Guidelines call for parking to be placed underground or in the rear of all structures. The current site plan calls for sixteen (16) new surface parking spaces along the northern property line and northern wall of the structure. Surface parking would be highly visible from the street, further eroding the urban character of Elmwood Avenue.

Secondly, the Elmwood Village Design Guidelines call for structures to be mixed-use in nature. Many successful restaurants and buildings along Elmwood Avenue feature second floor offices and/or high end apartments. New apartments above Globe Market located at 762 Elmwood Avenue are a perfect example of appropriate mixed-use development and economic good sense. These apartments currently fetch over $1,000 a month in rent.

The Elmwood Village Association is appreciative of the developer’s willingness to expand the current structure towards the street line and his choice of quality brick building materials for the exterior façade. Given this significant monetary investment it would be beneficial to the developer to further expand his proposal. Include second floor residential units while expanding the first floor to accommodate additional dining along the north and south sides of the current structure.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Very Truly Yours,

Justin Azzarella Executive Director Elmwood Village Association

I think we should change the name of the sit from "buffalo rising online" to "bitch about parking online" since every post about real estate involves 50 people bitching about parking.

coolrob, thanks for the answer

So is the Lexington Co-op mixed use?

Coolrobc, yes the Lexington Co-Op is a mixed use structure with the market on the first floor and offices on the second.

Justin, I think asking for this project to be "mixed-use" might be taking this too far. The Spot/New World Record building is not mixed use, yet it adds a lot of vibrancy and character to Elmwood. Technically The Co-Op is not mixed-use since the entire structure is used by one store/tenant. Offices are internal to the operation of the store. If the second floor was subdivided

Other than that issue, I'm with you on all the urban design concerns this proposed project completely ignores. Allowing a business expansion to have that much on-site parking along with two curb cuts should be a no-no on what arguably is Buffalo's only vibrant urban retail street. The facade/frontage should extend to the north lot line.

Ahh, OK. Thanks Justin.

I had assumed the second floor was just the offices for the Co-op.

Wait, so the second floor IS the offices for the co-op?

So if Pano puts his office's on the second floor, wouldn't that satisfy the EVA's concern about "mixed use"?

Seems rather hypocritical otherwise.

i love sbrof's aerial photo image with a site rendering of where the atwater house was. it just goes to show ya history being turned into another parking lot. now the idea of mixed use is coming into play, hmmm. the history and architecture is the city's best asset and what makes it a phenomial place to reside . i'll fight back my way, i will be boycotting panos, who's with me?

Its a shame we can not work together on these things. Just drive down transit/union etc to see the atmosphere of parking around each establishment and how much side walk traffic/pedestrian vitality those areas have.

He was not hurting for buisness before the parking lot expansion. Of coarse we (his customers) would all rather have a close parking spot, but unless its hidden somewhere, it ruins the exact atmosphere we come down there for.

There are numerous succesful restuarants/bars on Elmood without their own dedicated parking. Its part of what makes it a unique dining experience. I have honestly never been to Pano's because it always looked like a suburban hot dog joint surrounded by parking. That is not the reason I go down to Elmwood. I don't want to look out the window to see parking, I can get that almost anywhere.

... it's a cheap 2d -rate greasy spoon that made the wrong decision; been there once & never again. in any event, a previous post to this story seemed to be coming from the EVA and said: "We very much should continue to complain against this stupid plan and myopic vision to help prevent other stupid plans from suburbanizing a unique urban neighborhood."

does this mean that the EVA will join us in opposing the monstrosity of a new 6-story office building -- to be owned by out-of-town private developers -- planned for Hodge Ave by Childrens' Hosp once they demo four perfectly good houses?

Digginit

The Coop reduced the amount of parking on the block. That is the opposite of the Pano proposal. What if the Coop determined that they needed the rest of the block for parking. Perhaps you would not be so benevolent in that scenario. Expansion by its self is not necessarily a benefit to the city. If the expansion removes the very thing that makes Elmwood attractive that expansion could ultimately result in lost jobs and lost future potential.

What in the world is wrong with EVA requesting that the development be mixed use??? It is absolutely in the best interest of the neighborhood to take the available opportunities to increase density on the street, while maintaining design and character standards. Yes, the Coop is Mixed Use - one of the best things about Mixed Use is that it is never exactly the same or cookie cutter, and the Coop did this in a creative way.

I feel that so many people set their standards so low, they'll take anything that anyone is willing to propose and how dare anyone request improvements to their own neighborhood. Again, as I said in an earlier post, these arguments stem from the city's inability to clarify standards for urban development. Until they do, development will continue to be hindered "opinion-only" based approval.

Perhaps someone can help explain how this is suburbanizing the neighborhood? The new addition is going to come right out to the street, the existing building is pushed back off the street. The addition is going to be 2 stories, the existing building is 1 story. Are there a lot of 2 story restaurants in the suburbs? Sounds like he's making the business more urban than not. Am I missing something?

Is it simply because he tore down a building that a limited number of vocal people liked that people feel that this is a suburban building? He's increasing the number of parking spaces, true, but won't that open up more spaces on the street and the municipal lot around the corner for patrons of the other businesses?

I don't live in this neighborhood. I have to drive to get there. When I can't find anywhere to park within 4 blocks of where I plan on going (especially in foul weather), I often find somewhere else to go. I don't see how this does anything but help the surrounding businesses.

Also, I still don't see how the Co-op building is mixed use if it's only used by 1 business. Most retail businesses have a somewhat separate office space; just because they happened to put their offices on the second floor it's "mixed use"? I'm not buying it.

The EVA "would prefer that the new parking be located below grade"...anyone want to figure out how many gyro's and soulvalki's Pano would have to move to bankroll that? Does the EVA have low interest loans or grants for that kind of thing?

"Another complaint about the design that was issued by a local homeowner was the loss of the front setback and the associated greenspace" seriously? And everyone wonders why developers don't want to include the community on any decisions. That is idiocy.

There is one of the finest examples of American 19th century gothic revival architecture around the corner falling in on itself, and everyone still needs to bitch about one shit-hole house that no longer exists. If the Atwater house had been viable for investment it would still exist...it wasn't so it doesn't. Pano's addition addresses the street, screens parking, expands a local buisiness, creates jobs, fits in contextually in a way that people who have no idea what context means believes it should, and most importantly will allow for a shorter wait when I have a hankering for feta. Isn't there a residential tower or a hospital expansion everyone should be bitching about?

...and another thing, the freaking Co-Op is NOT mixed use. Unless another buisiness that classifies as another USE (get it?...mixed-use) is operating those offices, it's not a mix of uses. By that moronic logic, every buisiness that has an offce or a desk in it can be classified as mixed-use. In fact I would bet that Pano's has a desk somwhere right now in the back of the existing restuarant, so it allready meets the criteria right? And who exactly does the EVA think would want to live above an all-night restuarant? A mix of uses on a urban commercial strip is an important component of a lively nieghborhood, but sometimes a restuarant needs to just be a restuarant.

Common sense is not so common. -Voltaire

Can people explain to me why it was important to keep the eyesore that was the Atwater House. The only thing memorable about the house was the plywood sign out front that read "Gas Cut-off." Just because a structure is old does not make it an important part of history. If we try to keep every historical building just because it was built a long time ago we can't move forward. (Even though I hold this point of view does not mean I advocate knocking down all old buildings to make room for new ones.) Preservationists really need to learn how to pick and choose their battles. The more they speak out the more they come across as absolute morons.

Architecturally, (not that I know anything about architecture) the building is kind of boring. I would love to see a second story porch overlooking Elmwood and more greenery. Overall, its good to see a building expand and attract more customers to the Elmwood area.

So digginit, you would support "any" small business in the city simply because it's a business in the city? That's warped logic. Also, the Atwater house's apartments were not perfect, as nothing is, but better than many I've seen on Elmwood; it also supported two viable businesses on the first floor. This has also been noted many times here, Pano's son held a "demolition party" to create the image of a house in disrepair. As far as other people having the opportunity to purchase the house, well how many had the foresight to know that the slime would tear it down. Many would have stepped forward if this was made clear.

Apparently you win the award for the most civic minded shopper. this has all been documented before, but some people are still not clued in. Pano owned the building for sometime before setting things in motion to tear it down and then tried to do so in a relatively sneaky way. why do some of you continue to anoint him as some altruistic patron saint of small business owners? the reason he's not in amherst is because he has obviously developed a profitable niche on elmwood. Also, while he offered the building for "free" to be moved, the costs of moving the structure then locating & purchasing a lot to put it on would be astronomical, that would be beyond the scope of preservationists baked good sales.

btw, if anyone has a few tons of cheap cinderblock I know someone who be needing some soon.

For the record, several people offered to buy the house from Pano and he turned them all away. With no empty lots within feasible moving distance for such a large structure, another house would have had to be demolished to make space for it. Which is pretty pointless.

If preservationists AKA homeowners, business owners, and neighborhood associations didn't open their wallets and commit their time and skills every day to save old buildings, we wouldn't have an Elmwood Avenue or Allentown or a fledgling downtown loft district or Hamlin Park or Cobblestone District....

I think Digginit must have some demo plans in mind. Come to think of it I sometimes have to park a half block away to use that store. How can I be expected to park a half block away.

I have been trying to support this great man by eating there everyday, but I have had diarrhea since Easters.

Just a question: now if each buildling on Elmwood had its own parking, two curb cuts each, etc, how enjoyable would Digginit's bike ride have been? What would we have, three-four buisnesses per block? I think when it comes down to it, that is the issue here. Some of us may have even been able to stomach the house coming down for something better. But all it does is add another piece of Transit road to Elmwood and how many people do we see riding their bikes, walking, interacting, etc on Transit? If we allow one owner to do it, how can we justify not letting every buisness owner do it?

Looking at the overlay above, knocking the house down for only a few parking spots seems even more rediculous. With some creative design etc ths man would be a saint instead of a "sinner" to our urban fabric. He still can be with the final design of the addition.

I remember the articles previously on BRO detailing the history of this house, but I refuse to believe that this house was an integral part of Buffalo history. The expansion on Pano's can only bring more customers and people onto Elmwood. Last time I checked, the Atwater house brought zero. Even if it was renovated and sold as a single family home, I'm sure the tax dollars from the Pano's expansion would bring in more money to the city. I don't know if people on this board have been to Pano's, but I'm sure that the 40 or 50 extra seats provided by the expansion will be filled because its difficult to find a seat in the place now.

To people like QuickFix... if you don't like the way the City is being run, then do something about it. Run for a Common Council seat or start an organization to help improve the quality of life. One of the rants on this board seems to be to put offices on foot patrol downtown. Go tell your council member. Bitching on BRO doesn't solve a single problem, you actually have to leave your computer to accomplish things.

I would like to give MJWorthingotn a 5 star rating.....but my rating abilities are busted.

i dont mind him having parking....but 40+ spots is a lot for elmwood. and two curb cuts for such a small lot isn't necessary. one thing that makes elmwood so special is it's walkability and that it's pedestrian friendly....we start allowing everyone such big parking fields and multiple curb cuts....then we start to take away what makes elmwood unique.

this plan is good.....it just needs some minor adjustments. hopefully the site plan approval process will help address these.

I'm wondering...who has more time on their hands, the people who write about curb cuts or people who write about those writing about curb cuts?

Um guys, this is just one house we're talking about. I mean, maybe Pano should have expanded, maybe it shouldn't, but houses in Buffalo are being abandoned by the hundred. Surely you can find a better cause to get worked over than this.

Apparently no more or less time then you.........vegas.

Jesus Christ, these are the same things that were said two months ago! Genghis, yea it's unfortunate that so many houses are in disrepair & being razed, & it's no less tragic that they're in impoverished areas, but in this case we're talking about Elmwood, one of the few shining spots left in bflo.

Wow. This is my first visit to Buffalorising.com - All I have to say is it sounds like most of you whining urban planning scholars would like to keep Buffalo going in exactly the same direction it has been for the last 50 years - which is NO WHERE. Crying over the fact that a dilapidated old building was knocked down? Perhaps all you Elmwood Old Building lovin' hippies should pool your money and buy a few of them yourself, renovate for your ever-so-important "mixed use" and shut up about it. Its really easy to sit back and complain about what everone ELSE is doing isn't it? And people who complain about additional parking on Elmwood? Puh-leaze! You may be able to park your banana seated bicycle in the proposed green space in front of Pano's, but some of us who live outside the Elmwood strip area and would like to be able to visit the businesses, restuarants, etc. would like someplace to park our vehicles.

Make Buffalo / Elmwood more accessible, cleaner, more modern and people will come and spend money and hippies and bums will leave.

City plan - Pano s is expanding up - a good use of scarce land. But he is also adding parking. I hate parking lots but I do use them, even though I live on Elmwood. I've used them at Panos, at the co-op, at Wilson Farms. If busines sowners can provide free off-street parking, let them. Especially with it being shielded from the street, sounds like it will be ok. It's a local business, people, c'mon. Not every plan is gonna be perfect.

The design looks like a rehash of Empire Grill. All the same elements are there, reorganized but with no purpose. What's with the tower in the middle (looks exactly like Empire's) Empire is a building that draws elements from many of the building patterns on Hertel. Elmwood's patterns are very different. The proposal calls for a 2-story dining space like Empire's and will, most likely, be copying the patio doors, as well. Very imaginative.