+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 27 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 398

Thread: Cedargrove- New Urbanism in Bflo?!?

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,887

    Cedargrove- New Urbanism in Bflo?!?

    Interesting Proposal



    Starting over from scratch

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A plan to tear down a declining Cheektowaga neighborhood and put up a mix of homes, stores and offices has divided residents and officials

    By BARBARA O'BRIEN
    News Southtowns Bureau
    3/2/2005

    In order to save the neighborhood, it must be destroyed.
    The concept is difficult to explain to the residents of Cheektowaga's Cedargrove area, and difficult for them to accept.

    Every one of the 300 homes would be torn down, along with the 700 apartment units there. In their place, a new neighborhood - with a new vision - would go up.

    It would be a mix of single-family homes, row houses and brownstones, as well as park areas, stores and office buildings with apartments above the offices.

    If the idea seems radical, it is. While housing developments are proposed all the time in Buffalo's suburbs, a plan like the one in Cheektowaga is all but unheard of here. It comes from Dominic Piestrak, who has built some of the most successful housing developments in the area, including Spaulding Lake.

    Cheektowaga officials take the proposal very seriously.

    "If it happens, this becomes a textbook case for the rest of the nation on how to change a neighborhood," Supervisor Dennis H. Gabryszak said. "We keep it the way it is, it's going to be the East Side."

    Residents agree their aging neighborhood has fallen victim to the problems wrought by absentee landlords and their tenants: a deteriorating housing stock, junk, rodents and crime. They have pleaded with the town to help them. But this is more than they asked for, some say.

    "It just needs fixing up. It doesn't need tearing down," said Joan Adams, president of Cedargrove Neighborhood Action Committee.

    Other neighbors are excited at the prospect.

    "I see hope, I see light," said Pam Walters, who has lived in Cedargrove for 20 years. "Our houses, they depreciate daily. Ten years from now, you're not going to be able to pay someone to buy your house."

    The demolition and construction would be completed in phases over a three- to five-year period, so that not everyone would have to move at once. And Piestrak wants the existing residents to help in planning its renovation and to live in the reconstituted neighborhood.

    Affordability an issue

    The plan has not gone over well with some longtime residents, who believe they would not be able to afford the new homes - which are supposed to start at about $120,000.

    "I don't like it. What am I going to do, give up my home?" said Robert Atwood, a retiree whose home is paid off. "They want to build $80,000 homes here. If we could afford an $80,000 home, would we be here?" said Adams, 61, who has lived at Cedargrove her whole life.

    About 40 percent of the roughly 1,900 residents own their homes, and 21 percent live in poverty, according to the 2000 Census. The median household income is $27,550.

    Piestrak, who has built exclusive subdivisions in Clarence and Orchard Park, said he wants to build market-rate housing that is affordable. He is working on financing that would make it possible for residents to stay in Cedargrove. It might involve paying property owners more than their property is worth and finding low-interest loans for new mortgages.

    A tough sell

    He figures it will cost about $50 million to buy all the property, relocate residents and prepare the infrastructure for the new neighborhood.

    "You can't expect the people to pay the cost of getting a moving van," he said.

    Constructing the new houses would be millions more.

    "Some people will take the money and leave," he said.

    Others will take the money and put it toward a new home in Renaissance Village, as the new development is being called.

    But not everyone will agree to sell, which would require the town to condemn the holdout properties.

    "If we need to, the town could use eminent domain," Gabryszak said.

    There is not unanimous support on the Town Board. Councilman Thomas M. Johnson Jr. said he opposes any plan to displace residents from their homes.

    A case argued last week in U.S. Supreme Court may have some sway on the extent to which the town could use eminent domain.

    The court heard the case of seven families in New London, Conn., who refused to leave when the city condemned their property and more than 90 other acres. That city wants to build a hotel and convention center, office space and condominiums. The court will decide when governments can condemn property to encourage private development.

    The focus on inner-city redevelopment and attention paid to outer suburban growth leaves first-ring suburbs in a "blind spot," says Robert Puentes, a fellow for the Brookings Institution's Metropolitan Policy Program.

    Court decision awaited

    The biggest problem is in assembling enough contiguous land for a new development, which is when eminent domain would be used, he said, and that's why he's waiting for the Supreme Court decision.

    Cedargrove is situated next to the Kensington Expressway, minutes from the Thruway and airport and 10 minutes from downtown Buffalo.

    It's a neighborhood of apartment houses and single-family homes that was created during World War II for hundreds of workers making planes at Curtiss Wright Corp. on Genesee Street. Some of those workers stayed in Tiorunda, as the neighborhood now bounded by Harlem Road, the Kensington Expressway/Maryvale Drive, the Thruway and Beryl Drive was known. There are about 700 apartment units and about 300 single-family homes in the 155-acre section. Many people have lived there for years, like Atwood, a 40-year resident. He said the neighborhood should be revitalized, not reconstructed.

    "Since World War II we've separated people so efficiently by income," said William W. Tuyn, project manager for Greenman Pedersen, who is working on the proposal. "That's not the way communities used to be built."

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1

    unfinished Wheatfield project

    I would suggest someone ask Mr. Piestrak if he plans on finishing our little Willow Lake here in Wheatfield before he bulldozes Cheektowaga. He is now 2 1/2 years past the latest possible completion date. You have probably seen the stories on Channel 4 with Al Vaughters, the Niagara County feature story in The Buffalo News over the summer on our lake. Ryan Homes has had occupancy permits pulled last summer in Wheatfield because the work that has not been finished on this subdivision in a timely manner. Dominic will have a hard time completing your project if: it rains in the Spring, trucks aren't available, there isn't a market for clay, the roads get dusty, etc. Here's hoping 2005 is our lucky year to have Willow Lake finished. We've been waiting since 2001! Good luck!

  3. #3
    moonshine
    Guest
    I saw eminent domain and immediately cringed.

    I hope that supreme court case in CT will finally stop this process of confiscating private property for "economic development" purposes, but I really doubt the court is interested in protecting private property rights.

    It's really unfortunate what is happening in Cedargrove. I hope a few residents throw caution to the wind and shove a few bananas up the tailpipes of the oncoming bulldozers.

    Better yet, why don't some of you preservation folks put your money where your mouth is and protect an existing community?

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,887
    I don't think anyone in the preservation community would call those structures worth saving. They are worse than the Lakeview Projects that were bulldozed on the West Side. This project should be done by the private sector. Let him buyout those who want to sell. Its likely going to be phased anyway- work with and around those who want to stay. If you know the neighborhood, those homes weren't built to last. I think they were supposed to be temporary workers' housing. Similar type housing can be found at Ridge and Abbott Roads in Lackawanna. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

    Willow- Have you visited Birdsong in Orchard Park?- their lake seemed to get finished in good order. Orchard Park must know how to do things that Demler can't in Wheatfield. Didn't Mr. Sprawl require a performance bond? Why wasn't the lake completed prior to pulling building permits? Blame your town just as much as the developer.

  5. #5
    Member crlachepinochet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Buffalo
    Posts
    1,324
    Completely off topic, but doesn't it bother anyone else when people put out completely false numbers when someone talks about how far away something is? Ten mins from downtown? I guess it depends on what you think the speed limit on the 33 is in the middle of the night...

    While Kelo v. New London would be a vital precedent for this development, it is also different. It seems that Cheektowaga is prepared to declare the area "blighted". In Kelo, the town didn't even bother making that assertion, so the argument in the Supreme Court is really whether economic development on its own is sufficient cause for eminent domain. Of course, it may be a future case trying to decide what exactly "blighted" is... completely overused in my opinion.
    Remain calm!! But run for your lives if necessary!

  6. #6
    Member crlachepinochet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Buffalo
    Posts
    1,324
    If you feel like being outraged, here's a very slanted piece written by the people that are representing the property owners in Kelo v. New London. Institute for Justice

    For something a little closer to home, try this. Although property owners now must be notified, I believe the State Supreme Court still says that private property may be taken for economic redevelopment.
    Remain calm!! But run for your lives if necessary!

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Buffalo
    Posts
    665
    The elitist planning instinct within me says "Wow this sound like a great project!"

    It's within the town's intrest to turn a declining area into a more valuable use.

    And as WCP pointed out, these drab apartment complexes (built for temporary worker housing) have outlived their purpose. Much of the neighborhood now has a transient, low-income population and to Gabryszak this looks like a good opportunity to create a stable income development that serves as a buffer zone along its iffy border with Buffalo.

    "If it happens, this becomes a textbook case for the rest of the nation on how to change a neighborhood," Supervisor Dennis H. Gabryszak said. "We keep it the way it is, it's going to be the East Side."

    I think project can serve as a model on how to redevelop aging inner-suburban areas into denser, more walkable neighborhoods. This would be the first "new urbanist" development to take place within an area that is already 100% urbanized. All other projects like this are built on greenfield sites on the fringe of what has already been developed.

    I think a certain percentage of current homeowners in this area should be guarenteed affordable housing units in the new development. The transient population should be relocated to other areas with like housing.

    The way I see it is that just about every new subdivison paved on the outer rim of our metro area is built exculsively for more expensive and upscale inccomes. Aging inner-suburbs like Cheektowaga have every right to built this sort of stuff (and being new urbanist this is even better!!) within it's border which already has built out infrastructure to handle more intensive development.

  8. #8
    Member Linda_D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    God's Own Country ... the Southern Tier
    Posts
    7,713
    Originally posted by Gabe
    The elitist planning instinct within me says "Wow this sound like a great project!"

    It's within the town's intrest to turn a declining area into a more valuable use.

    And as WCP pointed out, these drab apartment complexes (built for temporary worker housing) have outlived their purpose. Much of the neighborhood now has a transient, low-income population and to Gabryszak this looks like a good opportunity to create a stable income development that serves as a buffer zone along its iffy border with Buffalo.

    "If it happens, this becomes a textbook case for the rest of the nation on how to change a neighborhood," Supervisor Dennis H. Gabryszak said. "We keep it the way it is, it's going to be the East Side."

    I think project can serve as a model on how to redevelop aging inner-suburban areas into denser, more walkable neighborhoods. This would be the first "new urbanist" development to take place within an area that is already 100% urbanized. All other projects like this are built on greenfield sites on the fringe of what has already been developed.

    I think a certain percentage of current homeowners in this area should be guarenteed affordable housing units in the new development. The transient population should be relocated to other areas with like housing.

    The way I see it is that just about every new subdivison paved on the outer rim of our metro area is built exculsively for more expensive and upscale inccomes. Aging inner-suburbs like Cheektowaga have every right to built this sort of stuff (and being new urbanist this is even better!!) within it's border which already has built out infrastructure to handle more intensive development.
    Right on, Gabe -- and the rest of you "New Urbanist" horses' behinds!

    I guess people who are old and poor should just be rounded up and herded into Buffalo's East Side and Lower West Side slums so that they won't get in the way of making downtown Buffalo (see threads on privatizing Marine Drive Apartments) and the inner ring suburbs safe for the wealthy and the young.
    Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism. -- Hubert Humphrey

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Buffalo
    Posts
    665
    Originally posted by Linda_D
    Right on, Gabe -- and the rest of you "New Urbanist" horses' behinds!

    I guess people who are old and poor should just be rounded up and herded into Buffalo's East Side and Lower West Side slums so that they won't get in the way of making downtown Buffalo (see threads on privatizing Marine Drive Apartments) and the inner ring suburbs safe for the wealthy and the young.
    Actually I forgot to point out that there is plenty of subsidized and affordable housing in the inner-ring suburbs.

    And where did downtown come into this? I said nothing about downtown in this thread. In other threads you accuse people of wanting to channel all their energy into downtown whilst ignoring other areas of the city (yes, i consdier inner-ring suburbs a part of Buffalo). In this thread i'm advocating a project that has nothing to do with downtown.

    As a matter of fact I am advocating the redevelopment of a downtrodden area. I would think you would support this too, as evidenced by your "redevelop the east side" comments in other threads.

    Your opinions seem to be all over the map.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,887
    Gabe, you're one of those 'planner-types' out to dictate how and where people live. Whatever you say, she's going to choose the opposite. Go ahead and say the sky is blue....

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Buffalo
    Posts
    665
    Originally posted by WestCoastPerspective
    Gabe, you're one of those 'planner-types' out to dictate how and where people live. Whatever you say, she's going to choose the opposite. Go ahead and say the sky is blue....
    The pope is catholic

  12. #12
    Member crlachepinochet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Buffalo
    Posts
    1,324
    You just have to play six degrees of seperation: the developer Piestrak envisions this development being attractive to young doctors, he chose a site next the 33 and the 90 so that all the doctors who will be working DOWNTOWN in the medical campus can get to their homes in the new Renaissance Village. Sorry... couldn't stretch it to a full six degrees.
    Remain calm!! But run for your lives if necessary!

  13. #13
    Member Linda_D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    God's Own Country ... the Southern Tier
    Posts
    7,713
    Originally posted by WestCoastPerspective
    Gabe, you're one of those 'planner-types' out to dictate how and where people live. Whatever you say, she's going to choose the opposite. Go ahead and say the sky is blue....
    Actually, I complained about this project on another thread even before Gabe was a member of this MB. I also brought up the Kelo case as well.
    Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism. -- Hubert Humphrey

  14. #14
    Member crlachepinochet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Buffalo
    Posts
    1,324
    Geez, if being here first means you're right, then we're all in trouble. I guess the Indians really do own Grand Island. If we're lucky, they might let some of the white folk stay... can you say the world's HUGEST casino?

    If you wanna try and pull rank, Linda, back up. I brought up Kelo v. New London almost two full months before you did, and WCP started this thread... so I guess that means we're right, doesn't it?

    If there were an easy, clear-cut answer to this case, then the Supreme Court wouldn't have agreed to hear it. I think I read somewhere that they hear less than .25% of all the petitions they receive. Should governments be able to force people out of their homes in this manner? Should towns, cities, or villages have to effectively forfeit parts of their municipalities to decay? What if there was only one occupied home in the middle of a 100 lot swath? Should they be forced to sell to a developer? Personally, I don't really think any of these are easy answers, and apparently neither does the Supreme Court.
    Remain calm!! But run for your lives if necessary!

  15. #15
    Member Linda_D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    God's Own Country ... the Southern Tier
    Posts
    7,713
    Originally posted by crlachepinochet
    Geez, if being here first means you're right, then we're all in trouble. I guess the Indians really do own Grand Island. If we're lucky, they might let some of the white folk stay... can you say the world's HUGEST casino?

    If you wanna try and pull rank, Linda, back up. I brought up Kelo v. New London almost two full months before you did, and WCP started this thread... so I guess that means we're right, doesn't it?
    Crlache, I was responding to WestCoast's claim that I was simply going against Gabe, which I pointed out was not the truth since I had been interested in it before Gabe ever showed up. I was not "pulling rank".

    My point in criticizing Gabe's original post was that his support for tearing down Cedargrove is hypocritical. This is somebody who extols the "virtue" of "diversity" but at every opportunity, he sides with the crew that wants to limit diversity. The major source of moderate income housing in downtown Buffalo is the Marine Drive Apartments, but Gabe joins the posters calling to privatize it. The same with Cedargrove. It's one of poorest areas of Cheektowaga, and if it's torn down, there's no place for these residents to go except to Buffalo. But that's fine and dandy with Gabe; don't let "diversity" get in the way of the "New Urbanism" which is -- what?. Oh, yeah, wealthy and white. And WestCoast said "Linda = bigot".

    As for the property issue here, I consider eminent domain a necessary evil. I don't consider it a legitimate use of government power for the local government to force property owners to sell so that it can turn around and sell their property to somebody else. We're not talking about some greedy guy preventing a flood control project or a school expansion. We're talking about a private individual wanting to build a private development to make a profit. It's not government's job to force some residents to accommodate him.

    If this developer wants a "Renaissance Village", then let him buy out the property owners -- and if some of them don't want to sell, then he'll either pass on the project or he'll have to redesign his development around them.
    Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism. -- Hubert Humphrey

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 27 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts