convention center

[WNYresident]

Why is there a big ugly three-dimensional rectangle that acts as a pretty underwhelming convention center eating up two entire downtown blocks or another 1/4 full office tower/mall (in the very liberal sense) blocking off the next two blocks?

[mesue]

So there can be the world's largest disco every year

[buffy]

...the lining of someone's pocket who had land to sell.

[raoul duke]

Someone's very inquisitive tonight. . .

[Daisy H]

So runners have somewhere to party after the Turkey Trot, DUH!

[Linda_D]

Because urban planning "experts" in the 1960-70s claimed that downtown shopping malls and convention centers would "revitalize downtown" and restore the city to greatness -- and cities around the country bought into the idea. Buffalo isn't the only city that got taken on this ride. I bet every city of 100,000 or more in the country has at least one, and many, like Buffalo, have both.

That's why I'm so skeptical when "experts" make claims that Bass Pro will be such a deal for the city or that taking down the Skyway will somehow lead to development on the Outer Harbor or that a newer, larger convention center or a domed stadium will turn around the city's fortunes. It's a bunch of bull manure spread by well-dressed snake oil salesmen with lots of degrees to flash.

[Michele J]

I spent 2 days this week in the convention center ( IN REM auction) It is ugly,no character and considering that many events are held here with people from all over the world I think its a damn shame that what they see of Buffalo is an odd looking building with no method to the madness!

[300miles]

The Buffalo Convention Center depresses me.

Seriously.

[300miles]

Because urban planning "experts" in the 1960-70s claimed that downtown shopping malls and convention centers would "revitalize downtown" and restore the city to greatness -- ... That's why I'm so skeptical when "experts" make claims that Bass Pro will be such a deal for the city or that taking down the Skyway will somehow lead to development on the Outer Harbor or that a newer, larger convention center or a domed stadium will turn around the city's fortunes. It's a bunch of bull manure spread by well-dressed snake oil salesmen with lots of degrees to flash.

To be fair though, some of those projects would not be endorsed by any urban planner. So I wouldn't paint a broad stroke and let people assume that somehow planners came up with all this stuff.

I'm not a urban planner but from what I've seen, today's planners are more "organic" in their approach to cities than what was done during the 60's-70s.

[Linda_D]

To be fair though, some of those projects would not be endorsed by any urban planner. So I wouldn't paint a broad stroke and let people assume that somehow planners came up with all this stuff.

I'm not a urban planner but from what I've seen, today's planners are more "organic" in their approach to cities than what was done during the 60's-70s.

I agree with that, but my point is that there are "fads" in urban planning. Moreover, I didn't say "urban planners" but "urban planning 'experts'", because the planners are the professionals who try to design around what they're given to work with. Urban planning "experts" aren't necessarily professional planners, but advocates for doing things according to their "vision". Some how they get invested with expertise that they may or may not have. John Norquist, the former disgraced mayor of Milwaukee, WI, is an example. He's the guy who insists that if only Buffalo (ie, NYS taxpayers) anted up $100 million dollars to take down the Skyway, Buffalo would prosper because Milwaukee took down a riverside bridge back 15 years ago and "prospered". If you check out Milwaukee, you'll have to wonder what Norquist's definition of "prosper" is. Milwaukee's economy isn't much better than Buffalo's.

If NYS has a spare $100 million to spend on Buffalo, it seems to me that that money would be better spent on taking down abandoned houses and landbanking areas of the East Side that taking down a solidly built bridge.

[TheRightView]

I agree with that, but my point is that there are "fads" in urban planning. Moreover, I didn't say "urban planners" but "urban planning 'experts'", because the planners are the professionals who try to design around what they're given to work with. Urban planning "experts" aren't necessarily professional planners, but advocates for doing things according to their "vision". Some how they get invested with expertise that they may or may not have. John Norquist, the former disgraced mayor of Milwaukee, WI, is an example. He's the guy who insists that if only Buffalo (ie, NYS taxpayers) anted up $100 million dollars to take down the Skyway, Buffalo would prosper because Milwaukee took down a riverside bridge back 15 years ago and "prospered". If you check out Milwaukee, you'll have to wonder what Norquist's definition of "prosper" is. Milwaukee's economy isn't much better than Buffalo's.

If NYS has a spare $100 million to spend on Buffalo, it seems to me that that money would be better spent on taking down abandoned houses and landbanking areas of the East Side that taking down a solidly built bridge.

I agree...but I'd say a hybrid of both might work...if we could get some private money to go in on the deal.

[concernedwnyer]

The Buffalo Convention Center depresses me.

Seriously.

There is reason behind the madness on why some former Buffalo convention center events are now held at the Hamburg fair grounds Agra Center