The Empire State Development Corporation (ED) a state-owned authority and successor to the Urban Development Corporation (UDC), is attempting to fast track an excavation and development project no one has publicly said, besides the ED planners themselves, that they want. It will cost $27 million.

The ED proposal revolves around three separate excavations which will absorb about $20 million of the money by themselves. The excavations are along the Buffalo River’s northern shoreline. One would reduce the already narrow green space directly in front of the Marine Drive Apartments by cutting into the existing bulkhead (the metal sheet piling which borders the river from Main Street to the Erie Basin). Another, roughly 350 feet long and ranging from 120 feet to 160 feet in from the existing shoreline, would remove potentially the most valuable acre on the entire site from development. In order to make up for the loss of that space, ED has created contorted development sites which snake under the Skyway and actually focus views on what most people want to hide: the massive concrete monoliths of the Skyway piers. In the process, the new landscape destroys the original cobblestone streets which are, miraculously, intact under about two feet of fill.

Too much money, too little respect: state as grave robber

The final excavation would be for a slip meant to “recall” the terminus of the storied Erie Canal, by destroying the filled-in canal’s entire eastern bank and the block of basements of long vanished buildings which lined it. Adding insult to injury, ED plans to construct a small museum on the site to “celebrate” that which it has destroyed.

Almost to the last person, public testimony has asked ED to resurrect the historic waterfront that is already there. Those pleas have fallen on deaf ears: ED has stayed its self-appointed course, tinkering here and there, but stubbornly refusing to seriously entertain not excavating its inlets. It has already dug itself a very public hole, and its collective ego rebels against accommodating public desire.

Worse, and breaking the federal rules meant to maintain an unbiased environmental review, it has held numerous meetings with the Buffalo Urban Renewal Agency and the city to prepare them to officially abandon, among other things, sections of Lloyd and Commercial streets, which still exist on paper, just as they exist below the surface.

In the last 18 months, the Preservation Coalition, along with many other public groups, citizens, and downtown interests, have proposed to ED various methods for achieving the goals ED has set for itself on the site ED has limited itself to. Yet, ED has stubbornly refused to accept any substantive change to allow the development to have a historical foundation.

As the Coalition pointed out in its first extended comment on the Inner Harbor Plan, “The Historic Buffalo Plan,” of 1994, its first preference is to reestablish the original street pattern and to merely rearrange the “naval blockade” by having the largest ship, the Little Rock, switch positions with The Sullivans and move the entire assemblage about 400’ upstream, so that the stern of the Little Rock is below the Skyway. This would open up views of the river and the Times Beach woods from Main and Scott streets, assuming the historic Hanover right-of-way were left clear. Areas that Horizons Waterfront Commission (set up by Governor Cuomo and eliminated by Governor Pataki, but with key personnel merely shunted over to ED) would have excavated would have been, instead, above-ground shallow reflecting, wading, and skating pools.

In the intervening years this plan has been reshaped several times. The Coalition’s latest published refinement was in the Aug./Sept. 1997 Preservation Report.

We still find the project to be spending a lot of money, robbing Buffalo of much of its heritage (at the very point it is easily exhumed), and yielding very little in return: a toy harbor for the fair weather months and theme park-like shopping environments attempting to exploit the historic ground they have just replaced.

In the latest round of plans, published in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) last fall, there is still no attempt to provide for the daily needs of the 700 households of the Marine Drive apartments, or the over 2,000 adjacent office workers. Yet, one can, by controlling lot size, encourage or discourage locally-owned neighborhood service businesses. Big lots require big money, big developers, big chains, and big public subsidies. In short, this is a retread of 1960s urban renewal schemes we have all come to know and loath.

The $27,000,000 expenditure is only the beginning. That much has been said. The Preferred Alternative, in EIS parlance (or the Proposed Action, in this case) cannot even make the claim that it is spending its money efficiently to reach its self-determined goals. For example, it excavates new slips and then goes shopping around for boats already berthed elsewhere to fill them: A sheriff’s boat here, a reduced scale sailing vessel there, a purpose-built, publicly-subsidized, tall masted, for-hire sailing vessel.

The slips reduce the size of potentially developed land or recreation space that are the very foundation of spending the money in the first place. Further, the slips only can be used, and thus garner revenue and represent an “attraction,” for six months of the year. Installing heating in the Naval Museum, as the ED proposes, is not sufficient to create a year-round attraction.

Perhaps most damning is that only one developer from out of town submitted a half-serious proposal to develop the site. One, after all the boastful marketing in developer magazines.

Rationale Against the State Plan

Pompeii-like, Buffalo's fabled past lies entombed under a parking lot. A state agency is ready to spend $27 million to destroy it. In the meantime, gutted, demapped, it is to be ... a parking lot.

The Preservation Coalition offered the alternatives shown on these pages in graphic form for the first time at the public hearing on the DEIS in November. It calls these “Preservation Plan A” and “Preservation Plan B.”

Plan A, which the Coalition prefers, has no special excavations made for the naval ships or any others, but does reposition the ships along the bulkhead and resurrect the Commercial Slip.

Plan B is more environmentally damaging in that it includes the 700-foot long, 60-foot wide excavation in Veterans Memorial Park that ED proposes. This excavation would be quite expensive, permanently change the shoreline and reduce parkland that cannot be easily replaced in kind. Nonetheless, presuming moving the naval ships upstream (or downstream, so the Little Rock’s bow is near the Erie Basin Marina gate and its stern near the Vietnam Veterans’ Memorial) or, for that matter, to the Seaway Piers is deemed politically infeasible, this would be the only way to maximize water views near the foot of Main Street, which, it is believed, would maximize the value of the adjacent land.

These plans are not what a straight historic preservation and reconstruction plan would propose. They are a compromise: they take as a given the goal stated by ED as desirable for the waterfront and strive to meet them while protecting historic resources to the degree that they inform and give shape to the plan. What we do not agree on with ED is the methods chosen to meet the goals. These are called the “objectives” in the ED plan, and the key objective is to excavate a new inlet for the docking of visiting yachts, and to collect other vessels from their various berths on the waterfront and offer them up for display.

It is our contention that this inlet is totally undesirable and unnecessary to attract development to the waterfront and to meet other goals of the project. The inlet would cost over $4,000,000 to build and would reduce the amount of prime waterfront land available for development! In a chain reaction, it then causes wholesale destruction of historic resources throughout the area, leaving an entirely artificial, indeed frivolous, landscape which will not attract visitors or developers without massive and continuing public subsidy.

A Cheaper, History-Based Alternative for Better Development

The alternative offered here is based on principals of preservation planning. It makes existing historic resources the point of departure. It begins by preserving or re-establishing the historic street rights-of-way in the area and the Erie Canal terminus. That basic template, making allowances for the Skyway (which itself made allowances for the streets and buildings below it in its twisting course over the area), orders the development parcels and recreational amenities. As an authentic part of a living city, it would continue to evolve and change along the streets and waterways laid down by happenstance and natural topography. The result is a landscape that resonates with pride in our history.

The Preservation Coalition Plan Details

To view this map in larger size, click here.

Historic Streets
Streets of the Canal Era - and in one case, before the Holland Land Company Survey of 1804 - were buried under fill in a series of actions from the 1930s to the 1970s. All were paved in red Medina Sandstone blocks - the popular “cobblestones” of the Cobblestone Historic District. One street, Hanover, exists almost intact under about two feet of clean fill - street, gutter, and curbs. It is also a possibility that Commercial Street, in existence as an unpaved roadway and property border by 1798 along Little Buffalo Creek, also has intact stretches of stone paving under fill. This street is still mapped by the City of Buffalo and should not be abandoned.

All the historic streets in this area, Commercial, Lloyd, Hanover, Dayton, and Prime, can easily be uncovered and rebuilt with stone as they have laid for almost 200 years. To do otherwise is morally and historically irresponsible.

Automobile access can be via Lloyd and Prime streets, while the rest can be reserved for pedestrian and bicycle access and hard-surface recreation and entertainment, such as festivals and fairs.

They can easily achieve at least, and probably much more, the amount of economic return as the “Preferred Alternative,” at much less cost in cash, environmental damage and mitigation, and historic resource destruction.

Commercial Slip
The canalized former Little Buffalo Creek, a natural stream that flowed from the “Hydraulics” section of Buffalo near Seneca and Babcock Streets (where there was a hydraulic canal) to Big Buffalo Creek. Just west of Main Street, Little Buffalo Creek turned southwesterly. The Erie Canal, running inland along the base of the Terrace for protection from the lake without resorting to expensive piers and breakwaters, connected to the lake via the “backdoor” of the Buffalo River. The bends of the River, as well as its flow, would prevent lake water from backing up into the canal. The canal would meet the Buffalo River by means of what came to be known as the Commercial Slip. IT was from this very spot Dewitt Clinton departed with his keg of Lake Erie Water, bound for New York Harbor.

The ED/UDC plan calls for the Slip to be destroyed and replaced by a new slip some distance to the east. This would also destroy the entire run of building foundations and cellars between Commercial Slip and the former Lloyd St.

The New Wharf
One of the most exciting features of Plans A & B is to create a new wharf (called the New Wharf to be prosaically old fashioned and descriptively accurate) which parallels the famous Central Wharf, which was the buzzing center of Buffalo’s commercial life for its 50 formative years, up to 1873. The New Wharf would be a 30-foot wide boardwalk running some 1100 feet from the Commercial Slip to Main Street.

Not many cities still have wooden wharves. Sea ports had wharves early on, but the price of frontage quickly dictated the building of piers, and there was plenty of ocean to extend them into (although some piers kept the name of wharf).

Cities on rivers are different. Piers cannot be easily built because of lack of space, currents, and drastic seasonal fluctuations in water level. Cities, and wharves, on non-fluctuating rivers are rarer still. Buffalo is one of these (the Buffalo River is at relatively stable lake level here). The wharf, then, is very distinctive.

It is interesting to note that in cutting into the bulkhead for its inlet (into which would be placed floating piers such as are at Erie Basin) the ED plan gains almost as much pierage as it loses in wharfage: you could tie up right on the existing bulkhead without spending a dime!

A parade of vessels lined up from Main Street to the mouth of the river would be a grand and festive site indeed, and a wonderful way to draw people along a promenade from Erie Basin. There is this bonus with a wharf for docking, versus the toy harbor proposed by ED: from November to May, when most recreational boats are out of the water, the river would not change radically in character or attractiveness, while there are few sights more filled with melancholy than a deserted harbor. Brrrr.

Public Art
The historic street network yields many favorable sites for significant civic monumental art. The art can serve to draw the eye from areas where it can lead people into the site (where Prime Street hits Main in the preservation plan and, penetrating the site further, where the New Wharf meets Site A and the Main/Prime viewshed on axis with the first artwork mentioned above). The site in Hanover Square is nestled by shop space and provides a wonderful marker for a major transit transfer point.

The site at Founders Square would be logical for a suitably heroic statue celebrating a group or figure from Buffalo’s earliest days, perhaps one for Samuel Wilkeson, who was instrumental in building the pier across the river from the site which secured the terminus of the Erie Canal for Buffalo, a branch of which – the Commercial Slip - runs directly under the statue's nose. Or, the historic statue of Commander Oliver Hazard Perry, who left Buffalo with his flagship Niagara and many vessels he built here for his rendezvous with history in the Battle of Lake Erie. This statue stands inappropriately in an Olmsted-designed park (Front) and is dwarfed by its positioning in a large open space. Moving it to Founders Square would correct an aesthetic wrong in Front Park while making the statue, Perry's story, and the historiography of memorial art more relevant to Buffalonians and visitors. It would also add, because of the nature of the statue itself, a sense of historical depth to the brand-new development around it.

Public Squares
Among the most successful urban spaces are those widening of streets of leftover spaces defined by the buildings around converging streets. They arise organically and are usually much smaller than those designed by urban planners whenever they have a tabula rasa. The anthropologist Edward Hall, among others, has posited that people feel most comfortable, and socialization is most likely, when spaces are 70 feet or less across the small dimension. This is the distance at which one can discern facial features.

We have proposed two such organic squares. One is the small rectangular space defined by the Buffalo River, Commercial Slip, Lloyd Street, and Prime Street. Its "back" would be strongly defined by three potential building sites and look onto human activity, while its front would give expansive views of canal and river activity. A footbridge crosses the canal along the square's southern edge. The canal itself is strongly defined by an interpretive pavilion and either a naval museum or commercial structure.

Housing Mandate
Certain lots should be required to have housing, most likely one-bedroom and studio apartments above shops. These should be the cityside lots and Site C, which would form a "habitation link" between the Marine Drive Apartments and Main Street with its transit stops. Although this makes sense for any number of reasons, one of the rationales ED is using to obtain funding is that its project will generate riders for the Metro Rail. The argument is that the waterfront will be turned into a destination. Well, Metro Rail has destinations coming out the gazoo. What it needs are originations, and that is housing (over 70% of all trips by all modes in the United States involves the home) having residents in the streets and flowers in the window can help make this area a real neighborhood and induce walking from Marine Drive.

Development Sites
Overall, the footprint of the plots available for development is more than 160,000 square feet. This is 50% more than the ED plan. But the quality is much better, as well. For example, Prime Street in the preservation plans has over 950 feet of frontage which, besides being commercially advantageous, could result in a very pleasant and consistent street wall. The ED plan has perhaps 200 feet of frontage on Prime Street, 80% less.

Perversely, to make up for land lost by its inlets, the ED plan runs its development sites under the Skyway between pedestrian streets which are specifically arranged to have, incredibly, the massive Skyway piers rising directly from their middles.

This will cause people to think twice about constructing buildings which can be hit by a muffler at the end of a 100' drop, but it will also yield buildings which are unidirectional: all windows and activities will be forced onto the narrow Prime Street frontage.

The absurdity of the Skyway piers will discourage walking down these streets, and the builders will respond with blank walls and steel fire doors, further discouraging pedestrians and blighting the shadowy landscape. (Take the Pearl Street wall of Main Place Mall and the Pearl Street wall of the Convention Center; insert them opposite each other only 40 feet apart under the Skyway, and then hammer down a 100 foot high concrete bridge pier between them. Not a pleasant sight. Or site.)

On the other hand, the preservation plans offer the real streets which the Thruway Authority did not mess with. Along these streets are a wide variety of of building sites in sizes from 30,000 square feet to 240 square feet.

• Waterside Lots. Sites A & B.

  Site A is 28,090 sq. ft.; Site B is 24,725 (a football field, 100 yards by 50 yards between goal lines, is 45,000 sq. ft.). These are the primo sites of the entire project for water-based activity. They are away from the Skyway. The view from Site B would not be affected with the submarine in front; only the small conning tower rises above boardwalk level. Site A is a bit more complicated if the Little Rock is in front of it. It would not be possible to see the water room the first two floors of a potential building along the entire length of the lot. The waterside is certainly a plus, but so is Prime Street if built-up on both sides, it could be a nice, long stretch of urban waterfront bustle.
  

• Site C is 14,268 sq. ft. It would seem well suited for residential use on the upper floors with commercial space on the ground floor, similar to the age-old process of town house evolution Eight to ten ground floor units would be possible.
• Site D is 30,375 sq. ft.; Site E is 9,665. These sites face prime Street, an automobile accessible street, and have their backs facing the "Troll's Path," 100 feet under the Skyway. Left alone, Site D would be a nice, expansive greensward to replace lost park space if the Naval ships are moved into a new cove in the Veteran's Park. Developed, they would have a high value, being across from Sites A & B, having oblique water views, and in the case of Site D, being across from Founders' Square.
• Site F is an optional site and is 7,398 sq. ft. It runs under the Skyway and along Dayton Street. A building there would be an important urban design element, in that it would define Dayton Street, terminate the view down the Troll's Path, and add important linking frontage along Prime and Main Streets while "hiding" a Skyway pier. It may be possible to achieve some of these objectives with smaller buildings on Main and Prime, to avoid the stray falling muffler.
  
  
• Site X is in Preservation Plan A (which the Coalition prefers) only. It is 10,000 sq. ft. and would be at the foot of a resurrected Commercial Street, on the Commercial Slip, and the river. Views from here go to the 1833 lighthouse and the lake itself. It would be across the street from the interpretive center. In Preservation Plan B (not preferred by the Coalition) it is the site of the Naval Museum.

• Site Z is in Preservation Plan B (not preferred by the Coalition) only and is 6,000 sq. ft. It, like Site F, would be an optional site. it lies partially under the edge of the Skyway, so beware. But it serves to address Main Street near its very foot and provides a good visual anchor to those traveling along South park Avenue from the DL&W station and the Cobblestone District.

Cityside Lots
On the east side of the Skyway, the land is divided into 25-foot wide lots (it is an Urban Renewal Zone, so these narrower-than-usual lots can be mandated). These are a bit wider than the 20-foot lots that were actually there, but still give the sense of a tight streetscape. These lots would be ideal for small business people. They range in size from the trophy site at Main and Hanover (over 4,000 square feet) to a 240-square foot site on Hanover, good for a seasonal walk-up food stall.

The lots on Main Street go through Hanover, resulting in trapezoidal lots. It would be required to build to the lot line on Hanover in order to create a true streetwall. This would add about 1% to construction costs. On the opposite side of Hanover, the lots go back 90 degrees, as they actually did. They meet the lots fronting on New Canal Street at a 90 degree corner as well, creating a setback for a transit plaza, "Hanover Square," which is shielded from the prevailing winds and also creates a setting for the signature building at the point of Hanover and Main.

Naval Museum
This is mandated in the ED plan and is accommodated at the foot of Main Street in Plan A and at the foot of Commercial Street, on Commercial Slip, in Plan B. In Plan A, the outdoor exhibits and the museum building could be arranged to be safely underneath the Skyway or away from its edge. The Little Rock's stern could be protected, if necessary, by means of a short section of netting hung from the Skyway.

Interpretive Pavilion
The pavilion would emulate the flat iron shape of a building which once occupied the site. It would consist of two levels open to the air, connected by an enclosed tub containing a small office, elevator, stair, and restrooms. The ground level would be accessible 24 hours a day and contain numerous panels detailing the site history and Buffalo's in general.. Information on other local attractions could be offered as well.

Arena Enhancement
Prime Street, open to two-way automobile to form a T intersection with Main Street directly opposite the vacant Marine Midland Arena retail space, which has direct Main Street access. Views from within the Inner Harbor site and on Prime Street are directed to this retail space, which can help both the Arena and the Inner Harbor sites. (The ED plan creates a 4-way intersection at Perry Street, with views sweeping past the Arena into the undistinguished distance.)

Views from outside the site
Plans A & B follow the historic streetscape and carefully place building sites to screen the Skyway piers and terminate vistas. For example, the view from Pearl Street, which enters the site west of Memorial Auditorium and is the only direct auto route from downtown proper, is a rich tableau: on the left, beginning at New Canal Street extending into the Buffalo River, is the Commercial Slip and, perhaps, a canal boat rental operation. In the foreground is the wedge- shaped Interpretive Pavilion. Straight ahead is the cobblestone pavement of historic Commercial Street, which is terminated by either the naval museum or a commercial building.