I found this interesting article about the oh-so-successful city of San Francisco which raises questions about the viability of the urbanist dream of revitalizing cities, particularly Buffalo.

The quote below is most pertinent to Buffalo, I think. I've bolded the key stats, which no matter how you slice 'em, explains why the urbanist idea is doomed.

The primacy of suburbia, in California or elsewhere, should really not be very debatable. Roughly 51 percent of Americans, according to one recent survey, prefer to live in the suburbs, while only 13 percent opt for life in a dense urban place. A third would opt for an even more low-density existence in the countryside. The preference for suburban-style living continues to be particularly strong among younger families.
Market trends parallel these opinions. Despite widespread media exposure about a supposed return to the city, the most recent demographic data suggest that the tide continues to go out toward suburbia. The most recent census data tell us that suburbs account for two-thirds of the total population in large metropolitan areas. Nor is the trend going away: Roughly 85 percent of all post-2000 growth has taken place in the suburbs.
Attempts to halt suburbanization, such as those in Portland, have had at best mixed results. Although widely held up as an exemplar of smart growth, Portland's tight suburban growth limits have tended to drive residents farther out and have done little to reduce the area's traffic congestion. However much planners -- whether in the United States, Britain or Australia -- want people to live in denser space, a large percentage of people continue to seek out single-family houses, and leave areas when these are no longer affordable.
Here's a link to the much longer article about some interesting trends in the Bay Area: Bay Area Blues