If there were 10 million people in Buffalo, then our streets would be busy too.
Just got back from spending a few months in NYC.
All I can say is....damn! Buffalo's streets are dead--Even the supposodly most happening areas like Elmwood and Allentown. I drove around there the other day and there were barely any people walking around.
I know it's futile to compare the two cities, but even in the a**-end of brooklyn or queens, there are at least 15x as many people walking down the streets.
So here I present........ a discussion on how to make Buffalo's streets more populated and happening!
If there were 10 million people in Buffalo, then our streets would be busy too.
Boston has 500,000.Originally posted by 300miles
If there were 10 million people in Buffalo, then our streets would be busy too.
San Francisco has 700,000
Both cities have many streets that are filled with pedestrian activity.
Maybe when gas is $4 or $5 a gallon you will see a difference
None of the post war residential communities are built to be for mass transit or to be walkable
No one remembers that none of the suburbs existed when Buffalo had 2x - 3x the population. Buffalo was once a dense walkable urban area and it was safe
I have relatives that remember the Beltway. They remember taking the Beltway to the factories, and the Beltway to the Zoo, etc
They remember taking the street trolleys to go downtown or to go shopping
If more people move downtown, we can bring back that city
Personally, I cant wait until later this year when the Blue Print for High Speed Rail from Buffalo to NYC gets released.
In case you didnt know the intention is for the Northeast to compete with California for High Tech Industries. They started with Centers for Excellence in future High Tech Areas and now they want to link NYC, Boston Montreal, Toronto, Niagara Falls, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse and Albany into a giant High Tech Corridor capable of competing not just with California but Europe and Asia.
I agree. I think a serious energy crunch would very much work to Buffalo's advantage.Originally posted by lcm
Maybe when gas is $4 or $5 a gallon you will see a difference
California is one big house of cards waiting to fall. Their entire high-tech economy is built on an endless web of highways and sprawl--all of which is contingent on a never-ending flow of cheap oil.
As our country will face some grim energy realities this century, we are all going to have to return to a economic model of dense walkable cities lnked by high-speed rail. In each of these cities there will be decent rapid transit systems.
High tech industries will have to locate to areas like Buffalo that are capable of sustaining limitied-energy economies. Being practially next to one of the world's biggest renewable energy sources will certainly work to our advantage.
I would be very interested in seeing this myself.Originally posted by lcm
Personally, I cant wait until later this year when the Blue Print for High Speed Rail from Buffalo to NYC gets released.
Heck, I already know the route; I just need to know how much it will cost! Is that "later this year" in normal time, normal government time, or NYS government time?Originally posted by lcm
Personally, I cant wait until later this year when the Blue Print for High Speed Rail from Buffalo to NYC gets released.
If you want a reason Buffalo's streets are dead, think about this: we used to have 600,000 people, now we have less than 300,000 with basically the same street setup.
Remain calm!! But run for your lives if necessary!
But Buffalo does have a few neighborhoods that in theory should have alot of acitivty in the commerical area.Originally posted by crlachepinochet
If you want a reason Buffalo's streets are dead, think about this: we used to have 600,000 people, now we have less than 300,000 with basically the same street setup.
The neighborhoods flanking Elmwood ave certainly have the density to support a healthy commerical district. I'm not saying that Elmwood doesn't have alot of successful commerce, but in comparison to livlier cities,it looks like a ghosttown often. Allen St. is busy at night with barhoppers, but during the day there is hardly anyone out.
This guy has the answers
Part of his 10-point plan:
I will switch the names of Main Street and the Scajaquada Expressway. Main Street will once again be the busy street we were once proud of.
Boston & San Francisco are both in metro areas of 5 million+ people and are much more densely populated than Buffalo which has only 1.2 million. In addition both cities have healthy central cities and are very pedestrian/public transit oriented, and have residential neighborhoods in their downtowns. Once Buffalo gets its downtown housing numbers up and starts replacing the surface parking lots downtown with housing and quality retail we'll see pedestrian activity picking up. Buffalo will never be at the level of Boston or SF in terms of being a bustling urban area but it seems to be slowly shaking off the decline that its been in for the last 50 or so years. The insane gas prices recently may turn out to be a blessing for Buffalo and could get the back to the city movement going into high gear.Originally posted by Gabe
Boston has 500,000.
San Francisco has 700,000
Both cities have many streets that are filled with pedestrian activity.
This is cool, but i would not get your hopes up too high. Other cities like Chicago have been planning high-speed rail for many years and they aren't close to building anything either. (and Chicago has much better rail infrastructure that's still being used) The Blueprint is just another study and we've got a library of them gathering dust. When the shovels hit the ground, then I'll get excited.Originally posted by lcm
Personally, I cant wait until later this year when the Blue Print for High Speed Rail from Buffalo to NYC gets released.
As far as gasoline prices boosting the city... I wouldn't be so sure of that either.
I would think people living out in the burbs with their families and jobs out there will most likely buy fuel efficient cars... NOT move into the city. If they moved downtown, they'd still have a job in Amherst... and Aunt Edna is still in Lockport... they won't be saving any gas that way.
Heck, I already live in the city and I have to drive 12 miles to work one way. If I really wanted to walk to work I'd move out to Amherst.
That is assuming that jobs will continue to remain in far-flung office parks.Originally posted by 300miles
As far as gasoline prices boosting the city... I wouldn't be so sure of that either.
I would think people living out in the burbs with their families and jobs out there will most likely buy fuel efficient cars... NOT move into the city. If they moved downtown, they'd still have a job in Amherst... and Aunt Edna is still in Lockport... they won't be saving any gas that way.
When transportation becomes more expensive it becomes economical for office-oriented business to cocentrate in a centralized district.
why?
Most of their workers live in the suburbs.
Most of their worker's families are in the burbs.
Most of their suppliers are located in the suburbs.
Most of their clients are located in the suburbs.
(and they're already IN the burbs ... inertia is a factor too)
What do they gain by moving to downtown?
Just because something is in the burbs doesn't mean it's automatically convenient for all burbs. A workplace in Amherst might be a quick commute for someone in Amherst, Clarence or Tonawanda, but be a long way for someone in Hamburg, East Aurora or Orchard Park.Originally posted by 300miles
why?
Most of their workers live in the suburbs.
Most of their worker's families are in the burbs.
Most of their suppliers are located in the suburbs.
Most of their clients are located in the suburbs.
(and they're already IN the burbs ... inertia is a factor too)
What do they gain by moving to downtown?
Downtown in centralized to the entire region.
Also with the way roads and other infrastructure was historically laid out, downtown is the most convienent place for regional mass transit to lead. Yes..in tougher economic times, two-car families may become one-car families. One-car families may become no-car families. The decentralized auto-only suburban economic model will not last forever.
I understand what you're saying by having everything concentrated... but the fact is nothing is concentrated anymore. It would take all those business pieces to all relocate downtown at the same time (employer, employee, client, supplier, etc)
That isn't realistic. The decentralization out to the burbs took decades. Reversing it would also take decades.
In a way you are right, a severe econmic shock would probably force many businesses, both city and suburban to close their doors. But as recovery happens in a post-cheap oil economy, office type jobs would have more of a chance of relocationg in a CBD rather than the suburbs. And even moving alot of businesses back into the city wouldn't neccessarily take decades. The entire centerpoint business park on essjay rd in amherst would easily fit into about 2 or 3 mid-rise office towers.Originally posted by 300miles
I understand what you're saying by having everything concentrated... but the fact is nothing is concentrated anymore. It would take all those business pieces to all relocate downtown at the same time (employer, employee, client, supplier, etc)
That isn't realistic. The decentralization out to the burbs took decades. Reversing it would also take decades.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)