JJFIVEOH Posted July 31, 2012 Report Share Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) See the link in the first post. Basically more offices, no rinks. Just wondering if there was more details. But that sums it up enough for me. The artist's rendition makes it look like it would be between Perry and South Park west of Michigan Ave. But it says the parking lot on the corner of Scott and Main. That lot doesn't look real big. Edited July 31, 2012 by JJFIVEOH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted July 31, 2012 Report Share Posted July 31, 2012 Just wondering if there was more details. But that sums it up enough for me. The artist's rendition makes it look like it would be between Perry and South Park west of Michigan Ave. But it says the parking lot on the corner of Scott and Main. That lot doesn't look real big. Paladino TPegs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted July 31, 2012 Report Share Posted July 31, 2012 Paladino TPegs Thanks! ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted July 31, 2012 Report Share Posted July 31, 2012 The Paladino presentation is a much more professional and detailed proposal. I like how they went more in-depth on the hotel plans and the overall impact it would have on the immediate area. However I think Pegula's plan is much more applicable to the theme of the area. Seems to be more multi-purpose. I would think there is plenty of office space downtown where Paladino's proposal would have any impact. Although the apartments would be pretty cool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Defecting Posted July 31, 2012 Report Share Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) Yeah, it's conveniently missing from that artist rendering... The artist's rendering could have been taken from the west shoulder of the Skyway, for those who know? From recent memory, the rendering is accurate, driving into the city from the south. Edited July 31, 2012 by Yuri Olesha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted July 31, 2012 Report Share Posted July 31, 2012 Yup, you're right. From the rendition it looks like it's depicting the facade of the arena. But now that my memory (and Google Earth :D) kicked in it could also be the side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robviously Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 i've sort of given up on my anti-skyway credentials. i am more a fan of the mantra "lighter, quicker, cheaper" (or whatever it is) that is now guiding canalside development. removing and replacing the skyway would be a massive undertaking -- better to use that money elsewhere. the turning point for me was going to the concerts at canalside; when the sun is setting, the harbor is behind you, the band you like is on stage, and you're feeling a pleasant blue light buzz, the skyway just ... blends innocuously into the background. it's not the obstacle to development and beautification that i once imagined/assumed it to be. So basically if you're watching a concert, surrounded by thousands of people, and possibly a little buzzed, you don't notice the Skyway as much. What about the other 99% of the time when its a horrible eyesore? This is sorta like saying the Sabres shouldn't make improvements around the Arena because if the game is really good, you don't think about the arena so much. It's obtrusive and doesn't fit any of the new development in the area. The artist renderings that are honest enough to actually show the Skyway cutting through all the new buildings look awful. If we ever want the waterfront to look beautiful -- not just OK, but beautiful -- that thing has to go. And we don't need to replace it. Traffic isn't a big issue in Buffalo. BTW, in other good news for the region, 60 and 61 story towers proposed for Niagara Falls, ON: http://www.buffalonews.com/city/communities/southern-ontario/article975904.ece Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IKnowPhysics Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 So here's the breakdown: Sabres investment: $123 million Paladino investment: $64 million Sabres hotel rooms: 200 Paladio hotel rooms: 140 Sabres retail space: 15900 Paladino retail space: 8600+some in the hotel Sabres parking spaces: 965 Paladino parking spaces: 1089 Sabres others: Double ice rink on 7th floor (110,000 sqft) Fitness center (12,000 sqft) Paladino others: 110,000 square feet of office space 42 luxury apartments (1200-3000 sq ft each) Sabres timeline: Ice open Sepetember '14, Hotel open May '15. Paladino timeline: Open December '14. Opinion: Sabres win hands down. They're investing twice as much. Their ice rinks will create jobs and bring in tourism dollars. Their space is soo much more public-use oriented (more retail space, ice rink space, fitness center) than the other plan, which is really important in that location. It enhances the notion of hockey heaven by building a new regional destination and the services to support it. It looks like Pegula is building for the people (ice rinks, retail space) and Paladino is building for wealthy private use (office and luxury apartment space). I think it's more useful to the city to create something new and publicly accessible in that space, be it ice rinks or a different attraction, instead of constructing new office space or apartment space when there's plenty of other nearby buildings that can be renovated into great office space and apartment space (for cheaper!). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 Opinion: Sabres win hands down. They're investing twice as much. Their ice rinks will create jobs and bring in tourism dollars. Their space is soo much more public-use oriented (more retail space, ice rink space, fitness center) than the other plan, which is really important in that location. It enhances the notion of hockey heaven by building a new regional destination and the services to support it. It looks like Pegula is building for the people (ice rinks, retail space) and Paladino is building for wealthy private use (office and luxury apartment space). I think it's more useful to the city to create something new and publicly accessible in that space, be it ice rinks or a different attraction, instead of constructing new office space or apartment space when there's plenty of other nearby buildings that can be renovated into great office space and apartment space (for cheaper!). I completely agree with your assessment....which is why I remain as pessimistic as ever, and expect Paladino to get the bid. I have zero faith in this city's leadership to actually do something which requires vision for the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robviously Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 Opinion: Sabres win hands down. They're investing twice as much. Their ice rinks will create jobs and bring in tourism dollars. Their space is soo much more public-use oriented (more retail space, ice rink space, fitness center) than the other plan, which is really important in that location. It enhances the notion of hockey heaven by building a new regional destination and the services to support it. It looks like Pegula is building for the people (ice rinks, retail space) and Paladino is building for wealthy private use (office and luxury apartment space). I think it's more useful to the city to create something new and publicly accessible in that space, be it ice rinks or a different attraction, instead of constructing new office space or apartment space when there's plenty of other nearby buildings that can be renovated into great office space and apartment space (for cheaper!). I completely agree with your assessment....which is why I remain as pessimistic as ever, and expect Paladino to get the bid. I have zero faith in this city's leadership to actually do something which requires vision for the future. Agree with both of you guys on everything here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 Remember this is taxpayer land. Public use is what we're looking for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robviously Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 Remember this is taxpayer land. Public use is what we're looking for. It'd be really nice if we lived in a world where government officials thought primarily of taxpayer interests when they made decisions. Sort of a crazy notion at this point though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IKnowPhysics Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 Public use is what we're looking for. If that was the stated goal of the City's request-for-proposal, then this should be a slam dunk in the Sabres' favor. Apartments and office space for rich people on land earmarked for public use? No thanks, let's get the little kids on the ice for open skate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 Remember this is taxpayer land. Public use is what we're looking for. How much tax money will each bring in then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderbread Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 How much tax money will each bring in then? But TPegs will drill a well if he needs money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 But TPegs will drill a well if he needs money. That's the thing....the links don't work so I can't see projected tax income or ROI on any projects.....but by the sounds of it, Paladino's is much better for the city. You want people in those spaces 24/7 who will eat and shop in the city. You want the tax rolls of people spending 300K-1MM on condos. You want to put the retail space on the hook by having residential units.....because the untits get killed in value if the retail fails and vice-versa. I don't want to pay tens of millions to subsidize a billionaire so some kids can enjoy their hobby and open skate. Plenty of other places to put a rink, but not many landmarks where you can fetch that kind of money on condos in the area. I wouldn't pay to rent a loft downtown....and I wouldn't pay a 50% premium to be on a waterfront, freezing my ass off 8 months a year, but if I already worked there, I would think about buying a condo with food and shops below me and 41 Sabres games a 100 foot walk away from me while a few blocks from the theatre district...instead of driving in from Amherst/etc. like many do. The city/county/state is already caput. I can get you bonds for 5 cents on the dollar of other ice rinks that have failed. Either way.....it's the blind leading the "I didn't see nuthin'" leading the Hockey Heaven brigade. It would be nice if some outside forces could see value here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwksndmonster Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 Buzzkill. I love the rinks, obviously. It's not said here enough: Pegula's a godsend. I love that man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 So basically if you're watching a concert, surrounded by thousands of people, and possibly a little buzzed, you don't notice the Skyway as much. What about the other 99% of the time when its a horrible eyesore? This is sorta like saying the Sabres shouldn't make improvements around the Arena because if the game is really good, you don't think about the arena so much. It's obtrusive and doesn't fit any of the new development in the area. The artist renderings that are honest enough to actually show the Skyway cutting through all the new buildings look awful. If we ever want the waterfront to look beautiful -- not just OK, but beautiful -- that thing has to go. And we don't need to replace it. Traffic isn't a big issue in Buffalo. You took that bolded point too literally, too strictly. I don't deny that the structure is far from an ideal part of the 'scape at Canalside, but, like I said: Lighter, faster, cheaper -- the success there to date proves that the skyway isn't the impassable obstacle to development and beautification that it was long-assumed to be. Maybe someday we'll get the hundreds of millions of (billion?) dollars needed to remove the skyway and implement alternate points of access to downtown. Until that time? Full speed ahead, and the next round is on you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robviously Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 (edited) You took that bolded point too literally, too strictly. I don't deny that the structure is far from an ideal part of the 'scape at Canalside, but, like I said: Lighter, faster, cheaper -- the success there to date proves that the skyway isn't the impassable obstacle to development and beautification that it was long-assumed to be. Maybe someday we'll get the hundreds of millions of (billion?) dollars needed to remove the skyway and implement alternate points of access to downtown. Until that time? Full speed ahead, and the next round is on you. A billion???? I know this is Buffalo, NY, and we could find a way to screw anything up, but this is basically a demolition project for a one mile stretch of highway. The only cost estimate I found was $100M, here: http://www.bizjourna...1.html?page=all The best part of the article is here: John Norquist, executive director for the Center of New Urbanism in Chicago and former mayor of Milwaukee, said Buffalo leaders should not resign themselves to the fact that the Skyway will remain. "Buffalo has gotten itself into this bad habit of believing it's not good enough, so let's not do anything good," said Norquist, who in recent years has spoken in Buffalo advocating for the Skyway's removal, often with Higgins at his side. Norquist said he faced similar issues and arguments with the Park East Freeway in Milwaukee, which was eventually demolished to make way for a more development-friendly boulevard. "The Skyway is an unnecessary piece of infrastructure," he said. "It doesn't add anything to Buffalo. I would suggest that people in Buffalo get out their pitchforks and torches and demand (to New York Gov. David Paterson) that it come down. As long as the Skyway stands, it will only dampen any future development plans in Buffalo." He's completely right; this is the Buffalo mentality of "we're poor, we can't do anything right, it's not worth trying, let's just try to live with it." Why are we so quick to give up? The cost isn't crazy when you think about how much more we could do with that land and the money we'd be saving from not having to maintain and rehab that structure for decades to come. Edited August 1, 2012 by Robviously Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 A billion???? you're right. forget i said/typed that. The best part of the article is here: He's completely right; this is the Buffalo mentality of "we're poor, we can't do anything right, it's not worth trying, let's just try to live with it." Why are we so quick to give up? The cost isn't crazy when you think about how much more we could do with that land and the money we'd be saving from not having to maintain and rehab that structure for decades to come. i understand that sentiment, and agree with it ... to a point. what i think is even less productive than that resigned mentality is the state of affairs wherein government leaders, civic leaders, and developers don't do anything with the waterfront while they work their way uncertainly toward the start (let alone completion) of a brass ring project like skyway demolition. we can still move forward with trying to get the skyway removed (or perhaps somehow re-purposed?); in the meantime, i am glad to see that we are moving on with what can be done in the here and now. also, to your point about total costs, the $100M figure is interesting. this archived article from buffalo rising http://archives.buffalorising.com/story/higgins_says_skyway_eliminatio (take it fwiw) posited that the cost of demo might be more like $30-$40M. that seems light. the report also stated as follows: Though the report does not specifically evaluate alternatives to the Skyway, its data concludes that if the skyway were eliminated, traffic could be handled by alternate facilities including the Outer Harbor Parkway which is currently under construction, the planned and permitted Ohio Street improvements and Tifft Street Connector, and the Inner Harbor Bridge which is currently under study. that also seems a little too rosy and facile. i wonder if the new # -- $100M -- reflects the infrastructure improvements that would be needed to create sufficient alternatives to the skyway. i won't miss the skyway when it's gone (and it will go away some day); in the meantime, it is not impeding my enjoyment of canalside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 That's the thing....the links don't work so I can't see projected tax income or ROI on any projects.....but by the sounds of it, Paladino's is much better for the city. You want people in those spaces 24/7 who will eat and shop in the city. You want the tax rolls of people spending 300K-1MM on condos. You want to put the retail space on the hook by having residential units.....because the untits get killed in value if the retail fails and vice-versa. I don't want to pay tens of millions to subsidize a billionaire so some kids can enjoy their hobby and open skate. Plenty of other places to put a rink, but not many landmarks where you can fetch that kind of money on condos in the area. I wouldn't pay to rent a loft downtown....and I wouldn't pay a 50% premium to be on a waterfront, freezing my ass off 8 months a year, but if I already worked there, I would think about buying a condo with food and shops below me and 41 Sabres games a 100 foot walk away from me while a few blocks from the theatre district...instead of driving in from Amherst/etc. like many do. The city/county/state is already caput. I can get you bonds for 5 cents on the dollar of other ice rinks that have failed. Either way.....it's the blind leading the "I didn't see nuthin'" leading the Hockey Heaven brigade. It would be nice if some outside forces could see value here. Do you work for city hall, by chance? Because this is exactly the type of logic I expect those fools to use. Do you just dislike Pegula? As far as your valuation goes, I just think you're being short-sighted. It's about attracting people to the area, having something unique and a reason for people to go more often. Maybe having rinks in the city allow the development of more WNY talent. Maybe it's a stepping stone to some new programs. Maybe it helps UB get a D! team if it ever decides to go that route. The whole idea is to help bring in money from outside the city, from outside the Buffalo area with events, not just recycle money from people who already live here. You say there's plenty of other places to put rinks, I say there's plenty of other places to put condos. There's a ton of office space already, and more could easily be developed. If the Paladino proposal gets it, it's just another example of Buffalo leadership thinking small and short-term, rather than big and long-term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabills Posted August 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 Some new info/pics. The whole presentations are on the city's website if you're interested in watching them. http://www.buffalorising.com/2012/07/city-expects-to-select-webster-block-developer-in-two-weeks.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 In the meantime let's take proposals from artists who want to use the Skyway as a backdrop for an art installation. Maybe string LEDs and make it a video sculpture or something. PTR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 In the meantime let's take proposals from artists who want to use the Skyway as a backdrop for an art installation. Maybe string LEDs and make it a video sculpture or something. PTR sorta in the same vein: http://www.ranwebber.com/Skyway_Project.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattPie Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 sorta in the same vein: http://www.ranwebber...ay_Project.html You know, at first I thought it was crazy, but I did walk across the Brooklyn bridge a couple weeks ago. If there was something interesting on either end... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.