BuffaloSoldier2010 Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 (edited) Is that proposal suggesting we completely decomission the highway as a traffic bearing roadway? Or just add pedestrian functionality and an asthetically pleasing (at least better than is right now) facade to an already existing highway? If that thing ever goes through, it could become one of those iconic buildings you associate with their cities IMO Edited August 1, 2012 by BuffaloSoldier2010 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue 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 am not sure condos in this space is going to be a retail make or break. There are plenty of condos down by the Erie Basin Marina, and they can't/won't support one restaurant that has gone from Crawdaddys to Shanghai Reds to Templeton Landing, and is still empty most days. There are plenty of downtown opportunities for developers who want to build condos. I'd give Pegs the first chance. Who knows, if successful, he may be willing to invest in other Canalside ventures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave 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 Wonder if they'd consider that guy who did the Blue Lightning project in Delaware Park back in the early 90's? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROC Sabres Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 sorta in the same vein: http://www.ranwebber...ay_Project.html That's actually a pretty awesome concept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IKnowPhysics Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 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. You and I are on precisely the same page, with one exception: the Ruff's System thread taught me not to engage him. Don't subsidize housing for rich people, subsidize something that people can use, something that draws lots of people. The increased crowds will bring the money. I wonder if the size of Pegula's investment is enough to raise the eyebrows and curiosities of other potential investors. It certainly sets a good example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 Is that proposal suggesting we completely decomission the highway as a traffic bearing roadway? Or just add pedestrian functionality and an asthetically pleasing (at least better than is right now) facade to an already existing highway? If that thing ever goes through, it could become one of those iconic buildings you associate with their cities IMO Looks like it's a "reuse" plan, where the Skyway would not longer be a roadway, just an elevated platform for shopping, dining, etc. It's honestly a really great idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IKnowPhysics Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 I like the reuse plan for the sky way. Innovative, forward-looking. Transforming the top deck into park space is in line with Buffalo's great park heritage. But invariably, the quite-high volume of 43000 vehicles per day, 2800 of which are trucks, needs a suitable alternative- that's the heart of the challenge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 I like the reuse plan for the sky way. Innovative, forward-looking. Transforming the top deck into park space is in line with Buffalo's great park heritage. But invariably, the quite-high volume of 43000 vehicles per day, 2800 of which are trucks, needs a suitable alternative- that's the heart of the challenge. There have been other plans around that suggest it's completely possible to manage that load with a street level boulevard. The question is whether that would contribute to the waterfront or actually take away from it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 Shame some of these reuse proposals weren't approved and ready to go a few years ago, might have been able to nab some "stimulus" money to help fund them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 the quite-high volume of 43000 vehicles per day, 2800 of which are trucks, needs a suitable alternative- that's the heart of the challenge. There have been other plans around that suggest it's completely possible to manage that load with a street level boulevard. The question is whether that would contribute to the waterfront or actually take away from it. this is my understanding. if the question were simply tearing down the elevated roadway, we could've done it a long time ago. the wrench in the gears is how to handle and accommodate the traffic that relies on the skyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 this is my understanding. if the question were simply tearing down the elevated roadway, we could've done it a long time ago. the wrench in the gears is how to handle and accommodate the traffic that relies on the skyway. And also the cost of teardown/construction. At some point maintaining the skyway becomes a sinkhole of taxpayer money. A study published some time ago laid out some pretty staggering numbers. It will have to be decommissioned in the next 50 years. The question is if the city will be ready with a plan and execute before it's too late. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 And also the cost of teardown/construction. At some point maintaining the skyway becomes a sinkhole of taxpayer money. A study published some time ago laid out some pretty staggering numbers. It will have to be decommissioned in the next 50 years. The question is if the city will be ready with a plan and execute before it's too late. ROFLMAO 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 Wonder if they'd consider that guy who did the Blue Lightning project in Delaware Park back in the early 90's? Dude.....Green Lightning......turn in your Buffalo Man-card! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 And also the cost of teardown/construction. At some point maintaining the skyway becomes a sinkhole of taxpayer money. A study published some time ago laid out some pretty staggering numbers. It will have to be decommissioned in the next 50 years. The question is if the city will be ready with a plan and execute before it's too late. That cost is basically free if you just stop maintaining it for a few years....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 ROFLMAO Pegula for Mayor? That cost is basically free if you just stop maintaining it for a few years....... Correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 That cost is basically free if you just stop maintaining it for a few years....... Well, there's still the cleanup in the aftermath...unless you think a pile of rubble is more attractive than the skyway...which may be a reasonable position :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski 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. I actually agree with you on this, although I'm not surprised that the majority would side with TPs idea, no matter what it would be. Either option is really subsidising rich investors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 And also the cost of teardown/construction. That cost is basically free if you just stop maintaining it for a few years....... Correct. Well, there's still the cleanup in the aftermath...unless you think a pile of rubble is more attractive than the skyway...which may be a reasonable position :lol: while this exchange amuses me, the reality is that tearing down the skyway will be a fairly costly project. as funny as it is, benign neglect would accomplish nothing. and you can't just detonate the thing -- there's all sorts of stuff around/below the structure that needs to be protected. i recall hearing a figure of $15-$18M for the refurb work that was done on the skyway from around 2004-2007 ( :wallbash: ). the thing is, it's much easier to get those kinds of maintenance funds from the gov't(s) than it is to get (even slightly) larger amounts for more ambitious, game-changing plans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 Well, there's still the cleanup in the aftermath...unless you think a pile of rubble is more attractive than the skyway...which may be a reasonable position :lol: You could call it art because of the way it piled up as it fell and it becomes an attraction/landmark 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 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. So you want the taxpayers to front more money to a guy worth $5 billion to build his team a practice rink? UB has land out the wazzoo up in Amherst. You can build a rink there for pennies and have all your Amherst/Williamsville/N.Buff Soccer/Hockey moms right around the corner if you need more precious ice time. Dozens of public funded sports facilities fail....with the same gradiose hopes as this one. Minnesota just built a rink for $26 million and they are ready to default a little more than a year later. In the past I have seen rinks and complexes get restructured at pennies on the dollar and the municipalities taking a hit in credit rating when they don't step up and make bondholders whole. If they don't float bonds....it's tens of millions out of taxpayers' pockets......if they do issue them and something goes bad, not only are you on the hook for tens of millions, but imagine your borrowing costs go up 1/2% on everything you issue because of a failure. That could cost the city/county $5 million a year going forward. At least in Paladino's proposal, you have $30-$50MM worth of condos you can tax at $1.5 million a year. You still have the retail and the hotel as revenue options. He isn't asking for extra money to build a bridge to the arena and extra parking spaces for a direct revenue source to an existing means of income. His group would be on the hook to get deals done. Like I said upthread......I wouldn't be surprised to learn Pegula gets this thing no matter what and Paladino is just waiting for the right reason to "go away". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 (edited) So you want the taxpayers to front more money to a guy worth $5 billion to build his team a practice rink? UB has land out the wazzoo up in Amherst. You can build a rink there for pennies and have all your Amherst/Williamsville/N.Buff Soccer/Hockey moms right around the corner if you need more precious ice time. Dozens of public funded sports facilities fail....with the same gradiose hopes as this one. Minnesota just built a rink for $26 million and they are ready to default a little more than a year later. In the past I have seen rinks and complexes get restructured at pennies on the dollar and the municipalities taking a hit in credit rating when they don't step up and make bondholders whole. If they don't float bonds....it's tens of millions out of taxpayers' pockets......if they do issue them and something goes bad, not only are you on the hook for tens of millions, but imagine your borrowing costs go up 1/2% on everything you issue because of a failure. That could cost the city/county $5 million a year going forward. At least in Paladino's proposal, you have $30-$50MM worth of condos you can tax at $1.5 million a year. You still have the retail and the hotel as revenue options. He isn't asking for extra money to build a bridge to the arena and extra parking spaces for a direct revenue source to an existing means of income. His group would be on the hook to get deals done. Like I said upthread......I wouldn't be surprised to learn Pegula gets this thing no matter what and Paladino is just waiting for the right reason to "go away". The bolded statement really sums it up for me. You're fundamentally against giving money to Pegula. Serious question: are you OK with the taxpayers fronting $200 million to billionaire Ralph Wilson for stadium upgrades? Edit: To expand upon this a little, subsidizing people/businesses to build something is just how the system works. Would you be against giving tax breaks to a company to build a new regional headquarters in the area if it created a few hundred jobs, just because the company technically doesn't need the tax breaks? Realistically it's just how things get done. Oh, and pretty sure you over-estimated Pegula's net worth by about $2 billion. http://www.forbes.com/profile/terrence-pegula/ Edited August 1, 2012 by TrueBluePhD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 The bolded statement really sums it up for me. You're fundamentally against giving money to Pegula. Serious question: are you OK with the taxpayers fronting $200 million to billionaire Ralph Wilson for stadium upgrades? Ralph doesn't own his stadium, the county/government owns it and its part of their lease agreement. If TP had nothing to do with the project and say for example, it was Quinns proposal to build the TP Proposal against Paladino, would everyone here still be in favour of it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 Dude.....Green Lightning......turn in your Buffalo Man-card! Apparently there is only two of us the even remember that little mess so I think I can be forgiven for forgetting the exact name of that excapade. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 Ralph doesn't own his stadium, the county/government owns it and its part of their lease agreement. If TP had nothing to do with the project and say for example, it was Quinns proposal to build the TP Proposal against Paladino, would everyone here still be in favour of it? And Pegula doesn't own the Webster block, the city does. The upgrades that were part of the Bills lease agreement were already finished. They want another ~$200 million for more upgrades to go along with a new lease agreement. Yes, I would still be for it. Quinn sucked at running the Sabres, but he was very effective at getting other things done. Another part of my support for the Sabres' proposal is I have faith it will actually be done, whereas I have less faith that Paladino's will be completed--he has other properties he doesn't do a whole lot with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 And Pegula doesn't own the Webster block, the city does. The upgrades that were part of the Bills lease agreement were already finished. They want another ~$200 million for more upgrades to go along with a new lease agreement. Yes, I would still be for it. Quinn sucked at running the Sabres, but he was very effective at getting other things done. Another part of my support for the Sabres' proposal is I have faith it will actually be done, whereas I have less faith that Paladino's will be completed--he has other properties he doesn't do a whole lot with. I know Pegula doesn't own teh webster block, but he also isn't currently leasing it from the City either. So in negotiations the Bills are asking that part of the lease agreement includes renovations, they still don't own the stadium themselves, so your saying that Ralph should have to pay to upgrade something he isn't the owner of? Would you pay your own money for repairs and upgrades to an apartment or condo you are renting/leasing or would you tell the owner that they should be paying to upgrade things? Yes paldino has some properties that he hasn't done anything with, but he also has stuff that he got done, it all depends, like almost all developpers, on the roadblocks in place holding them back. If his proposal is approved, I would have just as much faith in him getting it done as I do TP doing it because when developpers get approvals to do what they want that helps them make money, they do it. This is a high profile, big reward investment, without any roadblocks, it will get done. 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.