Buffalo Rising Online

No, but I will be in attendance, so I'll let you know Tuesday morning ;)

My view is to leave old rail lines alone. Old rail lines are perfect for new (expansion) light-rail lines, for park space / jogging / pedestrian / bicycle trails, or other community needs.

However, I am all in favor for developing an old, under-utilized indusrial or commercial site into a new residential site. Isn't there plenty of vacant industrial or light-industrial property that could be razed or converted to city housing?

Check out what Atlanta is doing with it's old, unused rail lines at http://www.beltline.org/what/index.shtml

"The BeltLine, a 22-mile loop of historic railroad that encircles downtown and midtown, is a unique opportunity to increase greenspace, improve transit, connect neighborhoods and foster livable communities. With an estimated 150,000 new residents coming to Atlanta in the next 25 years, now is the time to invest in our city's future. The BeltLine will connect 45 in-town neighborhoods with parks, transit and trails for commuters, bicyclists and pedestrians. The line will spur economic development and enhance mobility."

I don't think the city needs a Ward and June Cleaver suburban subdevelopment, personally. This former rail line is the kind of thing that could be used for the public good.

Whenever the word "subdivision" is used in an urban context, I cringe.

Looks like the proposed plan will call for one tiresome, long street running all the way from from Starin to Colvin, with no connection to other streets, as to do so would require conjoining the two street grids which means having to tear down existing homes (10 years of court battles anyone??)

Having one long endless block as about as anti-urban as it gets. It's time the city start really categorizing development into two categories: That which will encance city living, and that which eats away at this.

I think whatever gets developed here (I doubt this will actually happen though) will fall into the latter camp,if it's left entirely up to the developer.

Anyone have any new news of the residential redevelopment plan on the old rail corridor near the Lasalle Metro Rail station?

This must be stopped we cannot tolerate all of these attemps to have new development within the Buffalo city limits. If we do not stop them we may be faced with increased population and congestion. I have seen pictures of Buffalo from those days. It was horrible, there were people all over the sidewalks. If I had wanted that I would have moved out like everyone else did.

As a sidenote we must do whatever we can to convince our suburban neighbors to oppse all development there as well. We cannot tolerate sprawl.

it is not about development all the comments were about the QUALITY of the development proposal. No one complains about the new office building on Delaware, or the Family court building of the new office towner going in on Court street the new row homes being built near Elmwood. These are all projects that were done with the city and what it means to be a city in mind.

Would it make sense to build ne housing in north buffalo, sure, are their places where that can happen without removing a unique assett. also a yes.

The thing about old rail lines is how connective and natural these places have become. You can find owls, rabbits, small foxes roaming around these areas. THey are also used i would say heavily by joggers, bikers and anyone looking to just walk under some trees without the noise of the city.

Development can and should happen in these areas but there should also be an accomodation for the general public and the environment in them. A good designer could go a long way to win-win solution for the city and the developer.

sbrof...please tell me where the rail lines are that are used "heavily" by joggers, bikers.etc... I'd like to see this first hand.

Could you also tell me how many people you are referring to when you say "heavily".

Thanks!

Cathy:

I seriously hope you're being sarcastic.

Let's put this into the same context as previous posts and threads. Why should we build new developments in the city when we have a 25%+ vacancy rate in many neighborhoods. Why don't we re-use the existing housing before deciding to build new residential structures?

Shouldn't we invest the money earmarked for this project on improving existing structures like the Woodlawn rowhouse that we hear so much about? What about improving some of the houses on the West Side that are ready to be torn down?

Buffaloney, that's not how the real estate market works. Developers build where they percieve demand, not in places they feel sorry about.

Someone who wants to live in the city and will spend anywhere from 150-300K on a house will most likely not be looking in Buffalo's blighted neighborhoods.

There is a very strong market in the "in demand" neighborhoods like Elmwood Village, Allentown, and North Buffalo. In the streets near Hertel Ave. most houses don't last more than a week on the market.

It's rather foolish to try and lump everything within the City's anqiuated political boundaries into one housing market.

Urban critic is right on the money. Furthermore, his/her comment is indicative of a larger Buffalo problem. Why build in one area when another area could use the development more. Arguments like the Elmwood Hotel would better serve the city on Grant, the Gates Circle condo project would better serve the city on Niagara Street, and now "Shouldn't we invest the money earmarked for this project on improving existing structures like the Woodlawn rowhouse." I think the developer, whose money you are referring to might have a problem with you earmarking it in other places for him/her. I understand a few people will always be put off by every development, but if you are going to be one of those people, I hope you understand that developers and private companies with private money (the best kind) invest their money in "in demand" locations. Unless there is a real legitimate problem with specific projects, other than NIMBY concerns and the belief that the project would best serve the city elsewhere, we need to let them happen. The sky won't fall. Nice people will probably move into these new houses. A new neighborhood full of new Buffalonians will eat at local restaurants, shop at local stores, and add a new dimension to the area. It happens and should happen. Let's embrace it and for goodness sake stop looking at private development and investment as if it were done on behalf of not for profit agencies. Do we have the right to question development? Yes. Do we have the right to demand excellence in new development? Absolutely. But let's do so on educated, legitimate, and most importantly sensible grounds.

www.katytraildallas.org

I am supportive of development in North Buffalo. I reside in North Buffalo and have seen the old DL&W, Conrail Beltline railbeds abandoned since 1983! What joggers use these trails?? Nobody does between Colvin and Starin!! Kids do, that's about it. I say build it. Everyone talks about the rails to trails, yet they've been talking about that since 1983! And Light-rail expansion?? Are you kidding? We had our world class system destroyed in 1950 with the demise of the streetcars. Do you really think the NFTA would be that smart to expand. Until they are disbanded and no longer a dumping ground for political patronage, then maybe.

maybe this stretch is not used as much but I know just south of the university heights are the ones I was talking about, I have never cut through there and not ran into random joggers or bikers. I typically hop across to expediate my trip from UB to Hetel. I think more people use that segment because they already added in the linear park along its edge.

I am not against new development, here or there, I dont think the developer should be told where to go because they are not going to listen. those who mentioned demand are absolutely right.

I just think that there is a huge opportunity that we might loose if we give over all of these greenbelts to private hands. The opportunity to keep nature and trees in our neighborhoods. To give people the opportunity to better their health by riding their bikes. Do these thing exclude development not at all? But with 10% of our city is taken up by railroad rights of way. There is room for expansion for both private development and for the public good.

Buffalooney :

You are so right. Why didn't I see this before you pointed it out to me. Why try to entice new residents to move into the city from the suburbs with new housing. We can sell them fixxer uppers on the East side. I am sure after living for years in their antiseptic suburban hell holes they would really chomp at the bit to buy one of those 25% vacant fire traps... er I mean estates you are referring to. You people at Elmwood Rising are unreal.

actually, I was being facetious... I have read a lot of comments about re-using old factories and commerical buildings in lieu of building new. I chuckled while reading the recent post about the Bike Museum, and another where someone suggested that HSBC build their new data center on Broadway or Sycamore instead of in Pendleton... the list goes on.

I tried for a "tongue in cheek" response, but I am just not that good at it. Sorry for the confusion.

Maybe the developer can purchase a couple of blocks of already existing housing stock in a run down area and bring it back to life. It's not like there is a housing shortage in Buffalo

AND THE ANTI'S and the NIMBY continue to spew more reasons why MOST people seem to AVOID BUFFALO like the PLAGUE. AND SO THE LIST GOES ON AND ON......

Imagine how amazing it would be to have a new street, connecting streets between Kenmore and Tacoma, a new bike lane, and new housing. Traffic could be relieved to some degree on Dangerous Delaware, connecting streets coudl give new life to the Hertel and Kenmore Avenue business districts, and underutilized land could be put to good use. None of these things would preclude a bike path which requires only 8 feet of right-of-way.

Chris H,

I would totally support a plan like the one you imagine above.

But for that to happen, more than a few of those ranchburgers and capes on Taunton and St. Lawrence will have to be torn down. Which means Eminent Domain. Which means lawsuits up the wazoo for like 15 years.

The NIMBYs will all crawl out of the woodwork and swarm like killer bees.

I am surprised that no one on this thread mentioned peak oil and the need to make other transportation arrangements, like, yesterday. The most effective and efficient of those alternatives is rail. Why oh why are we squandering rail right-of-ways on McMansions? Once they're gone, they're gone for good.

Portland, OR is already trying to address peak oil as an urban issue. See: http://www.portlandpeakoil.org/peakoil/FAQ.html

There's another $100trillion or so to be 'earned' by the oil industry, which owns this country and many others. We won't be allowed alternatives for a long, long time.

"I am surprised that no one on this thread mentioned peak oil and the need to make other transportation arrangements..."

I'm not sure why someone would cringe at the work "subdivision" used in an urban setting. Some great neighborhoods were conceived of and developed as subdivisions in their day: Parkside in Buffalo (no?), Mount Pleasant in Wash DC; the West Side in Binghamton, Pacific Heights in S.F. A subdivision doesn't necessarily mean McMansions on cul-de-sacs it really means taking a large piece of land, dividing it and buidling housing. Buffalo could use in the additional property tax and population.

children and drug addicts use the tracks, and that's about it.

why does everyone have to have an opinion on everything, its sooo annoying. Look, as long as the developer isnt asking for any money... they should be free to do as they please. i'd rather have a bunch of questionable development happening than a bunch of nothing.

and whats up with everyone on this site pretending to be an urban planner! i think simcity has gone to your head. Buffalo isnt exactly 'urban' in the sense of the word most would associate it with. anti urban design... puhleeze! empty lot... something built... good.