Written on Thursday, December 4th, 2008 at 9:00pm by Alan Bedenko | 15 Comments

Waterfront Village Fug

There are empty parcels galore in Waterfront Village, all waiting for a raison d’etre beyond just being a patch of grass for the Mayor’s Impact Team to attend to. Patches of grass are all well and good, but they don’t sell you coffee, they don’t sell you lunch, and they don’t sell you much of anything else.

The city has made a parcel available for development immediately adjacent to the meh-riffic Shanghai Red’s. That restaurant is so mediocre that the city’s Urban Renewal Agency (still using that monicker without shame, I see) has named a development group linked to it as the “preferred developer” of the site. Not just that, but former Common Council President Jim Pitts is heading up the development group.

They propose to build a $10 million 3-story hotel next to Shanghai Red’s. Here’s an image from Buffalo Rising:

Yes, it looks like any other mid-range business hotel you might find at an easy-on-easy-off exit off the Thruway.

For some reason, a proposal by a group associated with Ciminelli has been blocked from even presenting its proposal to the city:

The BURA board approved the Pitts-Specialty project on a 5-3 vote over the objections of Common Council Members David Fronczak, Michael Kearns and Michael J. LoCurto. The three wanted to hear a full presentation from Ciminelli Development, but only the Pitts-Specialty group was asked to give one because BURA staff had selected its plan as the preferred option.

Again, from Buffalo Rising, is a rendering of Ciminelli’s proposal:

Either someone’s getting fellated, or someone’s being super-deferential to a former city official. Either way, the Ciminelli rendering looks way more appealing than the Pitts proposal. And based on the spotty, poor track record that the city has experienced with Speciality, I wonder why it would be the preferred anything for anyone.

But Buffalo and those who make decisions for her tend to thrive on mediocrity. I’m shocked that someone didn’t recommend relocating the crack-addled Tourist Lodge from Main and North over to the Waterfront.

Tagged with: , , ,

15 Comments

  1. thestip says:
    December 4, 2008 at 9:47 pm

    Classic. I think you hit the nail on the head with the fellatio. This at best shows the ineptitude of those residing in City Hall, and at worst reeks of a shady back-door deal. FAIL.

  2. Chris says:
    December 4, 2008 at 9:50 pm

    “Yes, it looks like any other mid-range business hotel you might find at an easy-on-easy-off exit off the Thruway.”

    This is exactly the description that I used in my email to the mayor.

    This whole thing is disgusting. Good to see it’s being spread so quickly.

  3. STEEL says:
    December 4, 2008 at 10:04 pm

    Maybe they picked it because the rendering has so much happy sky.

  4. Ike says:
    December 4, 2008 at 11:14 pm

    I sent in emails to both channel 4 and channel 7’s investigative reports people bitching about this, and called the buffalo news business news line and left a message telling them to make some hay about this

    I think everyone should join in…like it or not, the quickest way to get noticed is through the mainstream media

  5. Adam K. says:
    December 4, 2008 at 11:37 pm

    Sigh.

    Another outrage perpetuated by Grassroots and their minions.

  6. Andrew Kulyk says:
    December 4, 2008 at 11:38 pm

    I really enjoyed reading the comments on the BR thread… never realized how much the architecture in Cheektowaga is so thoroughly reviled! :)

    But seriously, is anyone really surprised here? The entire Waterfront Village is like Clarence On The Lake (sorry Pundit), and living there one is really segregated from downtown. A quarter century of planning and design failure.

    Moving a quarter mile up the river…. do you think the Canalside parking garage will ever end up looking like the sexy photo that Pundit posted just a few days ago of the ramp in SD? Once the Aud and Donovan sites are cleared, do you really believe anything will actually go up in their place? There’s a vacant patch of asphalt known as the “Webster Block” right in front of the arena. If there was any interest, that block alone would have been developed years ago.

    It’s all so sad..really it is. One just wants to laugh, and the same time, one wants to cry.

  7. Tim says:
    December 4, 2008 at 11:53 pm

    There’s something funny going on here. I sent an email to the local FBI office encouraging them to take a look.

    I hate the choice, but could live with it if there were a clear economic justification (i.e. would cost the city less in tax abatements/generate more tax revenue/etc.) But it was selected after barring consideration of the other alternative upon recommendation for BURA staffers despite the fact that the Ciminelli alternative would generate an extra $2 million in annual tax revenue in a very poor city. That doesn’t make sense. The necessary variance and deviation from the RFP is plausible, but why raise it as a problem years after the proposal and at the 11th hour.

    Given the aesthetic and financial benefit of the other proposal and the political connections on the one selected, this smells funny. I hope it’s just honest ineptitude, but one has to wonder.

  8. frieda says:
    December 5, 2008 at 9:48 am

    Offer Pitts another location. Like under an elevated portion of the 190.

  9. pirate's code says:
    December 5, 2008 at 9:59 am

    STEEL — I think it was more than the happy sky…it’s the parking. I mean, really, look at it…15, 16 cars actually parked there! After all, why reach for something better when we can have more of what we already have — mediocrity?

  10. frieda says:
    December 5, 2008 at 9:59 am

    By the way the pathetic News article shows only the Ciminelli design and not the winning design. The public needs to see both to understand the pathetic decision that was made here. Since when doesn’t Buffalo modify its zoning ordinances to accomodate a superior project?

  11. Dan says:
    December 5, 2008 at 12:06 pm

    Here’s a truck stop instead of St. Peter’s
    – R.E.M.

    I’ll just repeat the comments I posted on BRO, with some edits.

    A small interstate highway exit-style hotel on prime waterfront land, with a site plan that was pretty much a cut-and-paste from a similar project next to some Cracker Barrel in Breexewood, Pennsylvania. This is so small-town. I’m not talking Erie or Racine, but like something one might find in Ashtabula, Painesville, Geneva or Dunkirk.

    Seriously, what next? A Flying J or TA at Aggasiz Circle? A KOA off the Kensington at Grider?

    So small town. A minor league city project. Has Buffalo really sunken that low? I hope that’s not an indicator of Buffalo’s current stature.

  12. joe schmidbauer says:
    December 5, 2008 at 4:10 pm

    Alan

    I guess Mayor Brown and the BURA boys went “BANANAS” over the Hotel Pitts proposed and obviously felt we have to build it now.

    joe

  13. mark stempien says:
    December 6, 2008 at 9:08 am

    there seems to be no question in most people’s comments that the Ciminelli proposal is by far the best. Design-wise it is like comparing a frank lloyd wright to a rite aid. Politics. If Mr Ciminelli and Mr. Hamister are reading this perhaps they should not despair. I think their Gem of a project would fit in nicely in another waterfront venue, Canalside.

  14. Chris from OP says:
    December 6, 2008 at 12:29 pm

    Wouldn’t it just be easier if we paved everything?

 

You need to log in to vote

The blog owner requires users to be logged in to be able to vote for this post.

Alternatively, if you do not have an account yet you can create one here.

Powered by Vote It Up