Buffalo Rising Online

Solid post - good thought provoking concepts here. That's why preserving what we have is essential. What would happen 500 years from today when the archeologists of the future dig up the plastic parts? Not much of a commentary on what our world was made of and what its people stood for.

That's why adaptive reuse and rehabilitation is crucial to our culture. Not only remembering the past, but preserving it for the lessons for the future.

Folks that "Jim S" mentioned who diligently work on their homes to assure the authenticity; developers who take on a project and work it through fruition with consideration for the surrounding homes and businesses; assisting others who are less fortunate with repair costs and other needs.

It all makes for community working together to preserve what we have now for the future before it's too late and the past is forgotten like an old newspaper.

Steel

A lovely and articulate post!

In a throw away economy & world, with cheap & cheaply made items filling our landfills, authenticity sometimes seems like a beautiful dream.

That was the point yesterday that seemed to get lost; that green was great and so was, as you call it, authenticity.

I can't see the point of this article in the City page. This sort of soap-box grand-standing isn't likely to change patterns of development in Buffalo or the suburbs, nor the attitudes of either about the other. It is not going to bring back true-divided-light windows on any scale, nor will it make most people happy to live with the starker aspects of totally contemporary design as part of some philosophical desire to be authentic to our period.

In the long history of urban America, with its bursts of huge population growth, instant neighborhoods have been the norm. Only time has given them the layering and richness that you are equating with authenticity. There have been countless attempts at comprehensive community design-- more often than not invoking historical styles and creating all-at-once streetscapes and commercial strips. Some of these are pretty fabulous examples of urban planning and have become delightful communities within the surrounding metropolises. Forest Hills in New York is a prime example. I hope the massive Stapleton airport redevelopment in Denver turns out well.

New Urbanism has many failings, not the least of which is the poorly-executed, often schlocky, architectural detailing you speak of. But in its broad concepts it is a light-years improvement over typical suburban development patterns of the last 50 years. The people living in such communities might be surprised to learn that they have un-authentic homes on un-real streets.

Lots of 'real' houses are available over here in my neighborhood on the City's near East Side...Come over on Saturday morning for the opening of the Merriweather Library and check 'em out.

Vinyl is not final!

Perry,

don't get me wrong. I am not railing against New Urbanism. Quite the contrary. But, today's method of development ignors certain major elements that contribute to the richness of real urbanism....namely that a true urban street is designed and lived in and controlled by thousands of people over many generations....not one corporate entity and ther architect and marketing director.

Bravo, Steel. I cannot emphasize enough the difference between a Lifestyle Center, no matter how earnestly it pays homage to urbanism (new or old), and a real city neighborhood.

Ownership is the key. No one developer owns Allentown or Elmwood Avenue, you and I own the right of way, sidewalk and street, and multiple landlords own the buildings. No one developer decides what retailers and services are in or out, you and I (the market) do. No one developer can eject you or me for exercising our First Amendment rights (leafletting, demonstrating, etc.), because we own the streets.

Maybe cities, in spite of their inequities, are just too democratic (and here I mean democracy, not the political party) for suburbia.

I dont understand the point of the post either.

It only serves to validate that good architecture and quality materials of every period are once again respected. Its true that we may get a plastic insert to imitate a french pane. Im many cases its a small price to pay (in my opinion)

It means that the architectural elites are failing in their purism. It means that the trend to smaller homes with more quality design and quality materials is returning...that the comtemporary and modern homes 1960s to 1990s are just as buildable as tudors and queen annes. This then translates into Wright, Sullivan and Richardson being just as buildable today (provided they are updated with modern utilities).

It means that the success of Elmwood and Hertel are spreading to Main Street and Broadway and maybe Genessee...and maybe soon Swan and Seneca and South Park/Abbott.

New Urbanism has its flaws...but its greatest asset is that it provides a contemporary blue print that can be used for infill residential and commercial development for our cities where we can value the original buildings we have in our community and complement them as we fill in all those urban lots!

Steel, this is your best post ever. Unfortunately, I suspect you are "preaching to the choir" and only those who already understand will thank you for giving them new words (and examples) to use with those who don't. I cannot help but wonder how much the de-valuing of well-made (and long-lasting) has also been brought on by the de-valuing of arts and technical skills and hobbies (the kind where you actually MAKE things) in schools and families. Just in my own family, I was the "artsy one" and grew up to be the only one who values a REAL muntin over a plastic snap-out one, who likes the irregularity of clapboard, even though it has to be painted, who adores the wiggles and color of old windows. How many other readers can make that connection, I wonder? Did a high percentage of preservationists spend a lot of time in "art" or "shop" in their formative years?

Wonderful post Steel! You are totally right on the mark.

Unlike Perry and L, I feel that this post is perfect for the city page of BRO. As has been stated before, BRO is not your standard media outlet and is not subject to the same journalism mold as printed publications. Therefore, a post like this, which, like Perry says is "soap-boxing", is perfectly justified. You are voicing an opinion which when fellow "New Buffalonians" should embrace.

I, for one, do.

John Ruskin is smiling! Good post. This is a blog, by definition your soap-box rants are appropriate regardless of their effect on local develpoment or window production.

"New Urbanism" while better than most suburban development has many flaws (foremost the Disney-esque architecture) and I often find it's examples rather nausiating. That being said, I would support Benderson's project if I lived in that community.

Again any problems inherent in New Urbanist communities and developments are not due to New Urbanist concepts rather they are probelms with with how the concepts are interpreted and executed.

Ok, I'm a bit frustrated here. When I bring up these same points in reference to the Elmwood Hotel, I'm called (so far) a BANANA, an obstructionist, or an idiot. The projects may be different in scope and purpose, but some of the same principles are at play.

Faux, fake, boring, conformity = bad Real, authentic, creative, innovation = good

That's true in Buffalo and Amherst and anywhere else.

Steel; why do you concern yourself so much with what is going on here when you live in Chicago. Why don't you direct your energies there?

very nice post steel. as someone else said, i think you may be preaching to the choir. i think the problem here lies in society as a whole. im gonna be devil's advocate here for a minute and try to look at this from the perspective of the majority of the population. say from the angle of some soccer mom(excuse the expression) or my grandmother even. these people aren't concerned that much with architecture, or history, or whether or not things look the same. they aren't looking to appreciate the things around them as they go about their daily routines. often times most people just want to get done what they have to do, so they can go home and worry about the hundreds of other things they have to do, or feel like they have to do. for most people, where they shop is viewed in terms of both they're comfort(will i have to walk alot? do i feel safe?) and convenience(is it out of my way? do they have what i need?). they may enjoy walking and window shopping in an urban environment, but only if the streets are clean, the walls are free of graffiti, the majority of the people there are ones that they perceive as decent(ie middle class white people), and they are within a few blocks from where they parked(and preferably didnt have to pay to do so). it is very sad that this is the case, but for many people it is. convenience and comfort, thats where its at, and for alot of people those things are found in their car.

I'm afraid I think it is valid to question what the principal purpose of this City blog is. It's very apparent to anyone who follows it that perhaps 99 percent of the regular readers (or at least the contributors and commentators) greatly value the traditional city; its buildings; spatial patterns; diversity of lifestyles, and on and on. They're rightly excited about renewal; re-investment; restoration; and any economic progress in the City of Buffalo. They take pride in the architecture, history, and richness of the city. In that sense this blog is indeed "preaching to the choir."

My upset is with an increasing tone of superiority in this blog about city versus suburban; with people denigrating other ways of life in what seems like a desire to justify their own; with too many easy assumptions about why people live where they do; with serious displays of ignorance about how urban America developed; with the casual and in my opinion glib application of labels like "real" and "authentic," and "urban" and "burbs," and "true" and "imitation" experience. The blog is becoming childish.

The fact is that a great part of Buffalo is in fact quite suburban both in its origins and current nature. There is no overwhelmingly compelling, particularly true, urban experience in much of the city that is much different from that in an old suburb or small town.

OK and akin to a comment I posted earlier today in the Tifft post o what the heck is a BANANA? (I recently followed a BRO post link to another blog where BANANA term was used liberally with no explanation as to what it stands for). If ya want more hits and more readers folks, DEFINE the initials o SOMEwhere on the page! Don't assume we all know the secret code.

STEEL and ALL,

Thank you for your extremely important piece. I think what you have presented is a reality that as a problematic to progress, innovation and thriving/growing urban environments and is widely unknown and misunderstood by the general public. As a designer who is commited to bringing forward thinking and dynamic architecture to this city, I find myself making this point to many a local client. The important point I always try to make is that any sucessfull urban environments, and those who are a part of its growth, are one that embraces it's own historical significance and precedents as well as the architecture of the present. The two must live hand in hand.

Once a person said to me "Mimicry is the worst form of flattery" and I think this holds very true with this issue.

Buffalo, at its peak of economic prosperity, was an experimental ground for innovative and significant architecture that created such a rich environment. That progress was an evolution of architecture and the environment it was creating, not a copy. Now that we are on the cusp of re-development of downtown as a residential neighborhood, as well as the strengthening of many of our other neighborhoods, this sensibility MUST be embraced once again not only by those sponsoring such development but the community at large.

We often don't think of architecture or community planning as following the ephemeral whims of fashion but it happens. The question of whether or not something is "authentic" is something that has been debated for eons when even in ancient times cultures crafted souvenirs or replicas to be purchased by the wealthy elites.

Think of the humble column. Whether it's a doric, corinthian or ionic column, it's a structure that's been passed on from various styles - greco-roman, romanesque, gothic, renaissance, baroque, federalist, neo-federalist. We think those three styles have been immutable. Yet during the baroque period architects experimented with wreaths of grape leaves or corn ears to decorate these classic columns.

What I'm getting at is there will always be imitation and replication. It's a natural process for the creation of art (see Kubler's The Shape of Time) architecture and urban planning.

The same criticisms of the New Urbanism have also been lodged against a lot of the gentrification that has swept through NYC in the last two decades. Times Square was literally Disneyfied when the gritty porn shops and nudey shows were booted out through various city ordinances, replaced with glittering multi-story Disney, Warner Brothers, Virgin mega stores.

The Lower East Side, once upon a not so distant time was a bastion of pestilence, cramped tenements and filth. Now, the area hums with high end fashion boutiques and expensive restaurants.

Harlem's beautiful but neglected townhouses, riddled with addicts and crime are now snapped up by investment bankers.

One could say that those areas have been robbed or what made them so unique and are now just bland in comparison to the character they once had, others think it's wonderful these areas are safe clean and attractive places to live.

They're a natural evolution of an urban fabric and the New Urbanism is an attempt to replicate that atmosphere and one day there may even be a Neo-new urbanist movement.

The analogy to fashion is an apt one - those shoulder straps one sees on jackets and trench coats had a military function - to keep one's knapsack from slipping off the shoulders. The necktie is a derivative of the handkerchief - used to clean one's mouth after a meal.

What once had function and utility becomes merely a decorative statement.

Urban cores which once contained dense clusters of our population are now a trendy fashion statement. Where one lives is akin to what one wears. You can tell a lot about a person by the clothing worn and their address.

The New Urbanism has become living as a fashion statement (or fashion victim.)

This is an interesting discussion. I'm not sure I'm following exactly what the concern is with the New Urbanism designs and what is "authentic"... or if I'm understanding your definition of it.

If they built a section of strip malls would that be more authentic? Yes it would since that is authentic suburban design. But is a strip mall better? I'd rather see New Urbanism.

Is non-authentic bad just because it's copying older designs? What about the Albright Knox art gallery? That was totally ripping off designs from either Roman or Greek temples. (need to brush up on my history to remember which :) Yet that building is one of our most treasured..... even though it was built in North America around 1900... not the Mediterranean around 500BC.

On the other hand, Modernism was an authentic, original, unique movement... yet many of those buildings are ugly and age poorly... yet they are authentic. Authentic doesn't mean it's necessarily great design.

Maybe mimickry is just a phase until a new unique style takes hold. Maybe we should be more concerned with build Quality. The Albright was built with high quality meant to last for centuries. But a disney-esque replica is just particle board and plaster and probably won't last two generations.

I think the redesign of the New Era building is authentic because to me the new atrium/foyer looks like Today... it "looks like 2006". It's forward looking, not backward. I would be happy if more buildings were designed that way.

But in a way, new urbanism itself isn't really a design at all, it's just the framework. The buildings can ultimately be designed in any style.

This is such an important topic! This makes Buffalo Rising so exciting. An article on authenticity as it relates to the built environment is something discussed in the NY Times or on NPR but it won't be mentioned in The Buffalo News or in any local television media. Buffalo Rising stands in for the failures of our local media. Thank you!

We should really take New Urbanism out of the discussion. That is not really the point of my post. New Urbanism just happens to be a vehicle for some of the type of developments that pretend to be something they are not.

In the case of a life style center we get a mega commercial center that is pretending to be a complex urban street. It sets is self up visually as an urban environment. But, it lacks the real complexity that makes real urban settings so interesting.

I like Dinsey just as much as the next guy but I am not sure that it is such a good idea to make our cities over in that mold.

I don't think we as a society have the will power to embrace real urban environments so now we settle for fabricated versions. This extends to all parts of our physical world in America. My post is not really just about architecture but our whole heaarted embrace of so many things that are expedient but not necessarily authentic. Is that good?

Perry,

Everyone gets their say on BRO so I don't think you should feel slighted.

I never mentioned anything about the suburbs in my opening piece other than to say that this is not just an suburban phenomenon...so I don't get what your point is, and yes it is my understanding that the founders of BRO intended the site to have a City centric point of view...Isn't it about time after so many years of suburban domination of our politics and resources? I also do not see anyone denegrating anyone on here. That would also be due to BRO's founders who have set out to follow a highly positive and upbeat path.

300miles hit the nail on the head. At least I feel that this post is related to what 300miles said - buid quality - that's what filters great from non-authenticity.

Quality is what seems to be lacking in most of the concerns. It seems to be the definitive.

I dont understand the point of the post either.

It only serves to validate that good architecture and quality materials of every period are once again respected. Its true that we may get a plastic insert to imitate a french pane. Im many cases its a small price to pay (in my opinion)

It means that the architectural elites are failing in their purism. It means that the trend to smaller homes with more quality design and quality materials is returning...that the comtemporary and modern homes 1960s to 1990s are just as buildable as tudors and queen annes. This then translates into Wright, Sullivan and Richardson being just as buildable today (provided they are updated with modern utilities).

It means that the success of Elmwood and Hertel are spreading to Main Street and Broadway and maybe Genessee...and maybe soon Swan and Seneca and South Park/Abbott.

New Urbanism has its flaws...but its greatest asset is that it provides a contemporary blue print that can be used for infill residential and commercial development for our cities where we can value the original buildings we have in our community and complement them as we fill in all those urban lots!

oh and I wanted to bring up an additional point. It used to be that you could get your house painted inexpensively...now it can cost 5k-10k to get it painted. For some neighborhoods, painting and roofing can be more than the house is worth...or more than the owner can afford. Now throw in un-insulated houses and the rising cost of heating and theres a big problem.

I love a painted house, I love wood siding and french panes and leaded windows but if there is one thing I have learned about older homes. Better to keep a building occupied than to abandon it. If that means siding...then so be it....the next owner can restore it when the neighborhood gentrifies.

I think there's a huge difference between a building like the Albright Knox and some of today's faux-charming new builds. Naturally the AK is influenced by classical architecture, but it's intrinsic and it's tribute. It's not just a few meaningless, interchangable design cues slapped onto a facade with no thought as to how they relate to the building's interior or the surrounding environment. The Albright Knox may be derivitave, but it's honest. It creates a style based heavily on classicism and stays true to that style throughout (with such forgivable nods to modern convenience as indoor plumbing).

I wrote a post on the Revitalize Buffalo blog a few weeks ago about the AK's karyatids, and how they're the sort of exquisite detail that much of today's bottom-line-obsessed architecture is missing. I closed the post with a wish that we could start demanding architecture that will inspire people like me to get up early on a rainy Sunday morning 60 years from now to take photographs.

That's the kind of power that Albright Knox has. What are we creating today that will have such powerful, timeless beauty?

There is no point to the original post except that Steel prefers to live in the past. I hope he never uses a CD or DVD or even a microwave oven because they are also not authentic. He should practice what he preaches so condesendingly. He shoud stick to vinyl records or better yet piano rolls, no cable/dish/vcr etc and never use a microwave or stop at a fast food restaurant. It just wouldn't be authentic.

Steel, I understand what you're trying to say. I think that the "authenticity" that you speak of, though, isn't necessarily because the architects and builders of days past were more concerned about their "craft," but rather because they had no choice.

There's a greater ability for diversity of scale and detailing when the parts of a structure are individually smaller and greater in number - which was the case before World War II. There simply was no such thing as tilt-up concrete walls, concrete masonty units, large pre-manufactured windows and the like; the technology wasn't there. If large-scale, durable, building components that were easy to work with but "unauthentic" were available in the 1920s and 1910s, would architects and builders be using them? If they're cheaper than the alternative, you bet!

Many of the "authentic" components of a pre-WWII or pre-WWI house or commercial were mass-produced, just like they are today. They just happened to be made out of more natural materials because that's all that was available. Bennett Lumber in North Tonawanda produced wood doors, built-ins and windows by the tens of thousands. Why are the vinyl double-pane insulated easy-clean windows of my 1950s-era house any less authentic than the wood single-pane pulley casement windows of the 1920s-era house I grew up in? If it's the plastic, you can get new wood casement windows, but would that be authentic? if not, why? Because it's new? Because they came from Home Depot instead of a lumberyard in South Buffalo?

In a large percentage of Buffalo's older houses, many "authentic" components have been stripped away. There's almost no intact 1920s-era semi-bungalows left in the city. The rows of wood-framed casement windows found in the front of Buffalo's semi-bungalows -- mass-produced -- were usually replaced by large single picture windows or a few smaller aluminum windows. The Italian-style iron railings that enclose the porches and upper flat patios of most 1920s-era houses are not original; they replaced the original wood railings, which rotted away thanks to the harsh climate. Most of Buffalo's semi-bungalows far much different than their appeared when they were first built. 1950s-era brick ranches in Cheektowaga and 1960s-era Capozzi neo-Roman houses in Amherst (an architectural style that, believe it or not, is unique to suburban Buffalo and Italian ethnoburbs in Toronto, Montreal and Chicago) look about the same as when the town issued the original certificate of occupancy. What's more authentic?

(Amherst Neo-Roman houses: http://www.cyburbia.org/forums/showthread.php?t=13524 )

Underneath the facade of brick and stone of a lifestyle center, you'll find tilt-up concrete panels and steel beams; components that are much larger than what builders of the 1920s worked with. Might not seem "authentic" now, but compared to the typical 1970s-style strip plazas that are still built in Buffalo's 'burbs to this day, it's a vast improvement.

A question: what's the alternative? I know those here will say "build in Buffalo," but let's ignore imaginary boundaries like municipal boundaries. How can Amherst build something new that's "authentic?" If the answer is "It can't, only something in the city can," would be be different if Amherst was a part of the City of Buffalo that just happened to be developed after World War II? If the answer was "It can't, because it's new," well, that means the fruits of your work as an architect are unauthentic too.

Instead of worrying about "authentic" and "unauthentic," why not worry about "good" and "bad?" Let's concern ourselves with human scale, visual quality, how a building relates to its environment, how it makes us feel, and so on, rahter than fretting about authenticity.

Who the heck is going to want to shop outside on the frozen tundra of Amherst in February??? Our climate is what gave rise to the enclosed mall and why strip malls usually hold neccessity or low end businesses.

Lifestyle centers are big in FLA, AZ and CA for a reason. Warm weather.

I live in an old house and the POs replaced some of the windows. How do you pop out those fake muntins anyway?

Very good post Dan but you are missing the deeper point of my post. I am not really talking about the surface materials and characteristics of buildings. I am really talking about a societal trend. A trend in which we are less willing to wait for results so we accept a less real product for expediency. We don't want to wait for our jeans to be worn and faded so we buy them pre-destroyed. We don't want to pay for real stone so we make it out of Styrofoam. We forget that the beauty of the stone is that it is hard to get. It is heavy, you have to dig it out of the ground and takes work to carve.

If you walk down a "real street" you walk best buildings designed and built over multiple generations that have been designed by many different people for many different uses. The result is a very diverse and complex environment. I find a lot of value in that. Life Style centers try to replicate that environment in the span of one year using only a few architects at most. The diversity of the facades is contrived for expediency. Is that ultimately very satisfying? For many people it is but is Styrofoam more satisfying than stone in the long run? Not if you have ever experienced stone.

thanks for this post steel, as a craftsperson it's also nice to read all the comments from people who understand and appreciate the value of authenticity.

this world has become so oriented toward mass manufactured products that a career like mine makes for a feel-good existance - my customers tend to be people who are excited to be investing in a one-of-a-kind hand crafted piece, and it shows.

i am sure that the asian market of quickly manufactured products is happy to appease all the people who want that kind of merchandise, and there certainly is plenty of it to go around - but who is profiting from that?

lastly, i realize that this is all my preference, and i would never force it on anyone else but: i avoid fast food i still play my vinyl (too young for piano reels) i think food from the microwave is awful i prefer to break in my own jeans i love my 100+ years old home with all the woodwork and charm and i don't feel slighted in life - but actually enriched.

To Dennis,

I will condescendingly say that your comment completely misses the point. It has nothing to do with a desire to retain the use of outdated technology or live in a mythical state of nostalgia. But since you bring it up lets see.

Would you prefer a world were you can never hear live music.... where music was only available in recorded form?

Do you want to bake your Thanksgiving turkey in a microwave?

I do not know what satellite or cable TV have to do with my post....so... I can't come back with a pithy reply.

I rarely eat in fast food restaurants because the food is frankly pretty crummy and again what does that have to do with authenticity. Do you want all food to be homoginized corporate fast food?

As to your first comment. Because I like to and any way this post is not Buffalo centric. It relates to the country as a whole.

Perhaps you could state your argument and point of view on the subject.

Steel --- Of all your great articles on BRO, this one has to be the best! All very well put. I am of the belief, however, that a comprehensive "lifestyles" center retail development could work well for certain tracts of our city, with the provision that any planning for such development seamlessly blend in with the established neighborhoods surrounding it, rather than such a project being self contained and physically barricaded from the area streets.

Sally also brings up a good point - when you see the upcoming announcement for the Walden Galleria's new center (and the plans will be unveiled shortly) they will be heavy on some big name chain restaurants new to this region with an emphasis on outdoor patio dining. Well that's all great for 12 weeks of the year, but those umbrellas come down and those chairs get turned upside down right after Labor Day.

I certainly would not mind a life style center replacing the tract of suburban style retail in North Buffalo. I am not really opposed to life style centers (except perhaps the ridiculous moniker) I just get a bit creeped out when this starts passing for real streetscapes and replaces the real thing. They could actually become more authentic if they were tied into the regular city street grid rather than isolated in the middle of private property.

I think the weather very definitely can influence the success of these places but remember Spot coffee keeps its outdoor cafe open 365 days a year. Of course that is on a real street with a real neighborhood around it.

Comp Tart: I think BANANA stands for "Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything" Hope that helps!

My argument is really more of a question: why do so many city dwellers feel so threatened by development in the suburbs? The people in Amherst already chose their lifestyle and voted with their feet. You never hear of them begrudging what development goes on in the city do you? So why can't the city folk respect the choices of others and let them choose what they feel is in their best interest without your pseudo-intellectual lecturing?

I can't speak for everyone but In my pseudo intellectual opinion

I feel threatened by suburban development because I, as a city dweller am asked through taxation and basic utility fees to subsidize the suburbs and their heavy dependence on infrastructure such as roads and widely extended power and phone lines.

I feel threatened by the suburbs because they use a disproportionate amount of our land and resources.

I feel threatened by the suburbs because they are a major cause of our need to import oil.

I feel threatened by the suburbs because they are unattractive

I feel threatened by the suburbs because they do not take part in solving the social ills that they left behind in the city.

I feel threatened by the suburbs because they have caused massive disinvestment in the city causing us all to lose valuable and irreplaceable historic treasures.

Please do not take this personal. It is just my opinion. You have chosen to live in the suburbs but, don't pretend that many suburban people do not look down with disdain and disapproval of all things city and urban.

BUT, Dennis, This post is NOT about city vs. suburbs so perhaps we should save that discussion for another time?