Next story: Still The Promised Land
Cover Story
Bury This Big Mistake
by Geoff Kelly
Transportation officials begin studying several expensive ways — and one intriguing bargain — to reclaim Humboldt Parkway
Sixty-two years ago, William Gallancy, an associate engineer with New York State’s Department of Public Works, told a standing-room-only crowd at St. James Evangelical and Reformed Church on High Street that the Kensington Expressway was the best solution to East Buffalo’s problems. Traffic congestion on the neighborhood’s thoroughfares was bad and getting worse, he explained. “Gallancy said 70,000 vehicles a day cram that section’s main arteries—Main, Kensington, Genesee, Bailey and Walden,” according to a Buffalo News account of the meeting. “And, he added, the growth of suburbs and congestion of traffic continues to increase at a tremendous rate.
“Unless something is done to relieve this congestion, he said, property values will drop alarmingly. ‘It is doing more to depress property values than anything else,’ he warned. ‘We must save the city from becoming a backyard for its suburbs.’”
Well. That certainly didn’t work.
The $45 million Kensington Expressway tore up Frederick Law Olmsted’s tree-lined Humboldt Parkway, claimed hundreds of homes in previously stable neighborhoods, ripped a trench in the ground that emphasized the city’s racial division, and diverted automobile traffic from the East Side’s once-thriving business strips to a limited-access expressway that shuttles commuters from downtown Buffalo to the northern suburbs in about 10 minutes on a clear day.
In other words: Making the city a backyard to its suburbs. Depressing property values. Starving small businesses on Jefferson and Fillmore of customers and abetting the evisceration of those business districts. Subjecting two generations of residents surrounding the expressway to air and noise pollution.
As for relieving the ever-increasing congestion Gallancy worried about, the Kensington today carries about 70,000 vehicles per day. In other words, traffic volume between downtown and the northern and eastern suburbs is about the same as it was in 1958. The region’s population hasn’t grown to fill the capacity created by the state’s highway engineers. It hasn’t grown at all. This city incurred all the negative impacts of an urban expressway, and it turns out we didn’t even need it.
The loss of Humboldt Parkway in favor of an entrenched highway cutting the city in two ranks high on the list of most regretted and frequently bemoaned Buffalo planning mistakes, right alongside the failure to locate UB’s new campus downtown.
It is also the first of these mid-century blunders that the region has a real shot at reversing. The New York State Department of Transportation, armed with $2 million in federal funds, is currently shopping for a consultant to evaluate possible ways to restore Humboldt Parkway. “This is a chance to undo something that never should have happened,” says Stephanie Barber of Restoring Our Community Coalition, a group of neighborhood stakeholders who have been advocating for restoration of Humboldt Parkway and helping NYSDOT to define the goals of the project, from scope and design issues to health impacts and community benefit agreements.
The Kensington is in rough physical shape anyway, Barber says—witness ongoing emergency roadwork on sections of the expressway, as well as work on the retaining walls and railings between Jefferson and Michigan. NYSDOT is going to have to invest heavily in repairs soon, Barber says, so now is the time to push for a dramatic reclamation project of the sort that at least a dozen US cities have undertaken in recent years to rid themselves of urban expressways.
Presently, NYSDOT seems to favor two roughly defined design options, both of which entail capping the Kensington from Best Street to Delavan Avenue, and installing an approximation of Olmsted’s parkway on top of the cap.
Last August, Mayor Byron Brown introduced a new design option that has attracted considerable interest among local transit activists: burying the entire thing, from Oak Street to Delavan, and replacing the high-speed, limited-access expressway with a low-speed, at-grade boulevard, fully integrating the traffic it carries with the urban street grid. Coupled with the long-debated plan to slow down the Scajaquada Expressway and convert it to a walkable, bikable boulevard, Brown’s recommendation presents the city an opportunity to restore vital elements of the city’s Olmsted patronage, and to join the 21st century in regard to urban transit planning.
Cover it or bury it?
According to Craig Mozrall of NYSDOT, there are five design options under consideration. First, the do nothing option. Second, simply improve retaining walls and railings, plus landscaping, which is what is happening between Jefferson and Michigan now.
The next two options involve capping the Kensington between Best Street and Delavan Avenue. The trench that carries the Kensington is not deep enough to be capped as is, so the first capping option envisions a surface median that is raised four feet above grade, with two lanes of traffic on each side of a landscaped parkway. The second capping option is slightly more dramatic: It entails digging the trench four feet deeper, resurfacing the expressway, then building the new parkway at grade over top.
Finally, there’s the fifth option introduced by Mayor Brown last summer: Fill in the expressway and replace it with an at-grade, tree-lined urban boulevard comprising eight lanes. In each direction there would be a slip road and three inner lanes, with parkway in between. In his August letter, Brown referred NYSDOT to the Central Freeway Replacement Project in San Francisco, in which an urban expressway was demolished and replaced with an expanded Octavia Boulevard, removing what many considered a blight on the city’s landscape and injecting the proximate business district with new vitality, while managing to accommodate the displaced traffic.
The burial option has at least two distinct advantages, according to advocates such as the New Millennium Group, which has written a brief in support of Brown’s recommendation. First, burying is considerably cheaper than capping. A rough cost estimate for the project in 2007 tagged the second capping option at $265 million for covering less than one mile of expressway. When people talk about the price now—and it’s a guessing game, to be sure, until the study gets underway—the figure ranges from $350 million to $500 million. No funding for construction of the project has yet been identified.
On the other hand, the cost of simply burying the expressway is probably less than $100 million.
The second advantage is that burying the expressway will return commuter traffic to surface roads, which means some of it will disperse and be absorbed into the urban street grid. Vehicle traffic that disappeared from business districts on Genesee, Walden, Fillmore, and Jefferson when the Kensington was opened will, hopefully, reappear, as motorists seek new routes between downtown and the suburbs.
NYSDOT’s response to Brown’s letter was tepid: Alan Taylor, regional design engineer, wrote that the department had not considered any option that involved “permanent impacts or changes to the operation of Route 33.”
“To add that alternative would change the classification of the study under NEPA,” Mozrall explains, referring to the National Environmental Protection Act, “from an environmental assessment to a full-blown environmental impact statement, because that would have a drastic effect on the through traffic that’s running on the expressway right now.”
An EIS can take substantially longer than an environmental assessment, which Mozrall says will probably take two to three years as it is. Still, he added, if the citizens advisory group, the mayor, the Common Council, or any of the other politicians driving this project told NYSDOT to get serious about that fifth option, then NYSDOT would do it.
But the mayor’s office has not communicated with NYSDOT since sending that letter last summer, and the mayor’s office did not respond to numerous requests from this newspaper for comment on the issue.
“We haven’t heard back from the city that that is in fact what they want to do,” Mozrall said. “We did tell the city that we would talk about that option in the scoping action…but as far as the purpose and need of the projects that have been identified by the advisory committee, the actual changing of the expressway into an eight-lane boulevard does not meet the purpose and need. We don’t see how that would reflect original Olmsted design, which only had two lanes of traffic separated by a wide parkway.”
Setting priorities
“They have the wrong objectives,” says John Norquist, former mayor of Milwaukee and president for the Congress for the New Urbanism. Norquist has displayed particular interest in Buffalo’s transit projects, weighing in on reconstructing Route 5, dismantling the Skyway, and expanding the Peace Bridge plaza. His gut reaction to NYSDOT, and to transportation departments generally, is distrust. DOTs everywhere, he explains, are principally concerned with relieving traffic congestion, and moving cars from one place to another as quickly as possible.
“Having through traffic not have to slow down through town should not be a priority for the City of Buffalo,” Norquist says. “It hasn’t done Buffalo any good to have that criterion. If the objective of the expressways was to eliminate congestion, they worked perfectly, because congestion is not a big problem in Buffalo—not just traffic congestion but money congestion, people congestion. Everything’s been decongested because of this narrow objective of fighting congestion.”
An expressway, he says, is a rural form that doesn’t belong in the city. Few European cities have expressways within their city boundaries. Vancouver, which has some of the highest property values in North America, has no expressways whatsoever within the city boundaries.
“But Buffalo’s leaders made a decision, with the help of Robert Moses and the state DOT, that Buffalo should be a great place to drive trucks through,” says Norquist. “So they dug up Olmsted’s boulevard, which added value to Buffalo, and put in this thing that doesn’t add value to Buffalo.”
Under Norquist, Milwaukee dismantled some of its mid-century highway system. A few years ago, Toronto tore down the eastern section of the Gardiner Expressway. Seoul, South Korea removed one of its busiest expressways, carrying 100,000 cars per day, spurring private investment in the real estate along the boulevard that replaced it. The Champs d’Elysees in Paris carries 80,000 cars per day. The New Millennium Group’s brief (available at www.nmgonline.org) refers to Ocean Parkway in Brooklyn, an urban boulevard with an Olmsted pedigree that carries 70,000 cars daily, just as the Kensington does. There is plenty of evidence to be found in other cities that urban boulevards offer more than adequate traffic capacity, while conferring economic, aesthetic, and health benefits to the surrounding community.
“In my mind, [burying the Kensington] should be considered for the additional opportunities it provides to the city as a whole,” says Justin Booth, chair of the City of Buffalo’s Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Board, which NYSDOT asked for input on the project. The Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Board promotes a “complete streets” approach to transportation planning, wherein road projects take into account the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists, in addition to the welfare of adjacent communities.
Booth is concerned about air pollution. Currently the car and truck exhaust disperses into the air. (That’s problematic enough, according to Stephanie Barber of Restoring Our Community Coalition, who cites widespread upper respiratory health issues in her community.) If the expressway is capped, the exhaust will need to be vented, which means concentrated exposure at its outlets. Where will that be? Booth wonders, too, if the caps NYSDOT envisions will support large shade trees. He’s also concerned that the high cost of the capping options means that the project will never move beyond the current $2 million study.
And, like Norquist, Booth believes the project goals should be set by the community, not by NYSDOT, and he suspects that the baseline goal of maintaining Route 33 as it exists begins with the state, not with the community. “Right now the Kensington functions, in my opinion, as an auto sewer,” he says. “It doesn’t diffuse the traffic into the community, it funnels people from point A to point B. The goal of the project is to maintain the current traffic capacity, which you could with the boulevard. But, to be honest, do we want to? It’s not benefiting the city of Buffalo, it’s benefiting the commuters who cut through the city of Buffalo to the detriment of the neighborhood that surrounds it.”
What happens next
The official position of Restoring Our Community Coalition, according to Barber, is to put every option on the table. Barber thinks the option advanced by Mayor Brown and supported by New Millennium Group ought to be given full consideration during the study phase of the project, as should all other design possibilities. “I think in a study you want to look at every single idea thoroughly,” she says. “Let the pluses and minuses be weighed fairly.”
It’s been a long haul getting to the point of a funded study. According to Barber, who lives in Hamlin Park, the notion of reclaiming Humboldt Parkway was first promoted by a resident named Clarke Eaton a dozen years ago. Eaton would make presentations, complete with drawings and brochures, to the local homeowners association. (“We’d allow him to come talk to us about once a quarter,” Barber says.) Pie in the sky, Barber recalls people thinking. “We all thought it was a good idea,” she says, “but we just thought there was no chance.”
Over the years, Eaton’s idea began to acquire advocates. He collected letters of support from politicians and community leaders. As health impacts from exposure to exhaust began to manifest in the community, Barber and other neighbors began to see some sort of remediation of the mistake that was the Kensington as a necessity. That coupled with the clear economic injustice imposed by the construction of the Kensington Expressway galvanized the community into action.
“If you look at the expressway, which used to be a parkway, and look at what’s happening a block from there, the whole community is deteriorating,” Barber says. “We started looking at Bidwell Parkway and Colonial Drive, and we looked at a block from there, and those neighborhoods are thriving.”
They applied pressure to State Senator Antoine Thompson and Assemblywoman Crystal Peoples-Stokes to put their weight behind the issue in Albany. They recruited Masten District Councilman Demone Smith as an advocate. They reached out to NYSDOT. Now there exists the possibility that this colossal mistake can be buried—under a cap or under rock and soil—forever. During the two or three years the study will take to complete, elected officials must work on finding funding for construction.
“If we can fix something like this, we can fix a lot of things,” Barber says. “I don’t want my great-grandchildren to say, ‘Whose idea was this?’”
Images on this page and the cover photo on this week's print Artvoice were provided courtesy of David Torke. Visit his blog fix buffalo today.
Reader Comments (posting new comments is closed!)
|
Downtownjunkie 03 Mar 2010, 22:51
This sort of top heavy decision making is exactly the reason Buffalo needs its own City-DOT like NYCDOT instead of the wasteful regional district branch office for the State DOT taking calls from Albany as is the case now at 100 Seneca St.
Uncabobbo 04 Mar 2010, 11:13
Interesting article but if seems a bit one sided. Let's not pretend returing this expressway to a boulevard would also have some negative impacts. The big one is...slower movement. It would take longer, for example, to get from Cheektowaga to say, the Museum district, Elmwood area, etc. This could result in loss of business to the city. Without the quick expressway I might be more tempted to go to Amherst to dine out than to the Elmwood area. Another downside may be that downtown would be more at a disadvantage at attracting business, renting office space, etc. both due to the longer commute and making commuters drive thru those neighborhoods. This would hold true for downtown festivals and events also. Lets face it; many, like myself have no problem taking the expressway downtown or to the Museum district. Not alot of stoplights. If you have to make that same journey after dark on Genessee, Walden or Delevan...many would stay home. I travel that area periolkdically after dark and I routinely see Buffalo Police cars actually driving around "gangs" of kids standing in the roads. Yoou can't run them down and youd be a fool to stop so people just avoid the area altogether. Those types of things are not ging to change just because of the road. This article it seems puts alot of marbles in the roadway changeover, hinting at alot of causes and effects that have very little to do with the road itself and much to do with a host of other problems.
BuffaloJoe 04 Mar 2010, 13:27
@Uncabobbo: I don't think anyone's pretending that there wouldn't be a downside. But the upside would far outweigh it. How much evidence from other cities has to stack up before this becomes obvious? Your comments, while well intentioned, reveal an ignorance of history as well as the disabling fear that pervades suburbia. The bottom line is this: the expressway destroyed much of the value of the neighborhoods that it chainsawed through. It continues to depress values today. The only way to ever start bringing those neighborhoods back is to remove the expressway and replace it with something that actually adds value. That is, unless you have a way to convince people to live, work, and invest next to a giant automotive sewer.
Edmund Fitz 04 Mar 2010, 14:11
Seriously Uncabobo....you're really missing the point here. As far as inconvience to suburbanites goes, perhaps they should move into the city if they're so concerned about an extra five or 10 minutes of time added to their commute.
Mojojojo 04 Mar 2010, 14:30
I happen to live in the Hayes Valley Neighborhood of San Francisco where the Central Freeway was replaced with traffic routed through the new Octavia Blvd. The community is 1000 times better now than before. Merchants moved into the once dark and dirty neighborhoods, people started buying products locally and a strong feedback loop of internal investment developed. I like driving my car, but having lived and personally seen the changes in my community, Buffalo has a chance to become a better place to live. Property values will rise and the community will most likely improve. Also, I should note that driving that same strip actually works!! I mean all lights are in sync. It felt like I moved MUCH less before when the freeway just emptied onto city streets!
Andrew 04 Mar 2010, 14:39
Typo: Seoul is in SOUTH Korea, not North.
BuffaloJoe 04 Mar 2010, 15:51
Check out these short videos from Streetfilms on this very topic: Lessons from San Francisco: http://www.streetfilms.org/lessons-from-san-francisco/ Lessons from Portland: http://www.streetfilms.org/lessons-from-portland/
Gabe 04 Mar 2010, 16:55
Sadly, the damage has already been done; quite long ago. What happened in the past has been an ugly reality and we have to work around it with the resources we actually have. An uber-expensive aesthetic fix like capping over the 33 "scar" or filling it in and reincarnating it as a Parisian boulevard won't do a whole lot in terms of bringing people and investment back to neighborhoods that are mostly too gone to save. A beautiful new roadway running through 3/4-depopulated neighborhoods doesn't make much sense economically, does it? There are so many deep structural issues, so to speak, for this part of town that must first be addressed before we start arguing over which set of multimillion dollar window blinds would look best.
BuffaloJoe 04 Mar 2010, 17:23
@Gabe: You've got it exactly backwards. What you call 'window dressing' I call a structural issue. The expressway was and is the largest wound inflicted on these neighborhoods. None of the other issues that need to be addressed -- the ones you so rightly care about -- will ever be tackled until the expressway is removed. Until then we'll just be applying proverbial band-aids to a severed limb. But this isn't just me talking. Look at what other cities have done and examine the evidence.
paulphoenix 04 Mar 2010, 17:41
Burying the expressway also affords an interesting PR opportunity: By getting rid of this very nasty scar on the Buffalo landscape, we would, quite literally, be burying the past. We would be burying the idiotic, unsustainable, wishful thinking that caused it to be built in the first place. Furthermore, we would be removing a barrier that divides our city just as effectively as the Wall divided Berlin. And it's statements like that that ensure I'll never be elected to public office. Powerful people don't want to fix problems. They want the problems to stick around so that they'll still have a job saying that they'll fix them.
Gabe 04 Mar 2010, 17:50
Joe, I'm afraid you are the one who is putting the cart before the horse. The structural issues are the economic and sociological problems that are causing these neighborhoods to perpetually decline into oblivion. The lack of jobs, a corrosive anti-achievement peer culture and a general sense of hopelessness have a lot more to do with the current disposition of these neighborhoods rather than simply how pretty or ugly the roads are that run through these areas. In games like SimCity you can simply plunk down fancy infrastructure and watch your city miraculously sprout up from the ground like a giant mushroom. Unfortunately in the real world, if the basic economic foundations needed for a healthy city are absent, no amount of aesthetic fixes are going to bring back moribund neighborhoods from the dead. Finally, the other cities often cited in boulevard success stories are economically-vibrant ones like New York and San Francisco. Their bustling economies result in astronomical land values which in-turn leads to successes of good neighborhoods spilling over into neighboring areas that were much less attractive at one point. I hate to keep beating this drum but Buffalo is an economically-depressed, population-shedding city. Most struggling neighborhoods are just going to keep declining no matter what kind of expensive aesthetic band-aids are applied. You couldn't pay most WNYers to move to the neighborhoods flanking Humboldt Parkway, the land values in most of those districts are actually negative. I care deeply about this fine city and its future, but I feel that throwing tons of limited resources at neighborhoods with very little economic prospects in the foreseeable future will be a futile exercise in waste and foolishness. This going to sound extremely cynical to fellow city-lovers, but that ugly gash/scar that is the Kensington expressway happens to be a critical regional asset. It allows people from outlying areas to quickly and conveniently get downtown to work and play. In a city that's so economically dominated by the suburbs, is it really in our best interest to give those folks one more reason to not spend their $$$ downtown? In fixing our cities, we must use a healthy balance of ideals and pragmatism, not just a one-sided, dogmatic approach that ignores other perspectives.
BuffaloJoe 04 Mar 2010, 19:44
@Gabe: According to your tangled logic, we might as well keep the expressway and demolish all the neighborhoods surrounding it. This is due to the simple fact that no one will ever want to invest time or money next to an open automotive sewer. No one. Ever. The structural issue, therefore, on a regional basis, is sprawl -- and its causal agents. This includes, in large part, big transportation mistakes such as expressways. Separating and demolishing our city with these things was an inexcusable mistake. Expressways are incompatible with the urban form. They depress land values. They destroy social and economic flows. They are hugely expensive to build and maintain. But, as people have dispersed across the landscape by way of expressways, this infrastructure has begun to justify its own existence. The car-dependent lifestyle that has resulted means most people can't imagine how they'd get along without it. The economies of both city and suburb become -- or seem to become -- mutually reliant upon this infrastructure. Perhaps most interestingly, these huge mistakes eventually breed many apologists -- from so-called 'experts' in NYSDOT to people like yourself. This is classic Stockholm Syndrome -- but on a cultural scale. Want proof? Your line of reasoning questions why we'd spend $100 million to replace the Kensington Expressway with something better when we can continue to spend $25 million per year to keep it as-is. Examples abound of the benefits of removing urban expressways, and not just in booming cities. Portland (OR) was in a big economic slide when it both removed and refused to build urban expressways in the 1970s. That city didn't since become a boomtown magically or by accident. Milwaukee has similar economic predicament to Buffalo, but has seen huge success in removing an expressway. And no one, in any such city, has complained about an increased commute. If you actually think about it, even in the booming cities, those areas surrounding former expressways were still economically depressed. This provides perhaps the most stark evidence of the destructive nature of urban expressways; even the high land values elsewhere in these cities couldn't stop their blighting effects. Planning is, by definition, a long-term endeavor. As the revived neighborhoods in other cities mature we'll see even more success, despite the inevitable issues that emerge. Don't get me wrong, however. These are not simple problems. But sometimes a little altitude provides some much needed perspective. Also, please know that I'm not questioning your affection for this city. But I do question your logic. Especially when you go to great lengths to obfuscate a very clear and common-sense point: removing the expressway and replacing it with something better, something akin to the original parkway, would add tremendous value to those neighborhoods. If done right, as in certain other cities, it can be a win-win for both city dwellers and suburbanites. Yes, everyone knows that the Kensington never should have been built. Everyone also recognizes that the mistake should have been fixed years ago. Everyone knows the problems are complex and daunting. But we've got an opportunity to do something about this big mistake now, and for a price that's significantly less than maintaining the status quo. This opportunity should therefore be a time for persistent, prudent optimism. I sense little pragmatism and even less idealism in your thoughts -- just stereotyped cynicism.
Peter A Reese 05 Mar 2010, 07:30
This a great article with some excellent discussion. My vote is to restore the damn thing to what it was in 1960, pretty much like Olmsted designed it. This should include tunneling or destroying the Scajaquada from Elmwood to Kensington. The whole idea of throwing a superhighway into an Olmsted Park would be treated as insanity if proposed today. The actual return on this restoration project would get us 1000 times more than the goalless, opaque and unaccountable UB2020 scam.
Mary Hess 05 Mar 2010, 09:09
This is an excellent article. I hope it is widely read and the sane and sound advice within heeded for a change. Rochester's highways are even worse, if that's possible. "Inner Loop" is a cuss word around these parts.
Gabe 05 Mar 2010, 12:07
Joe, I would hardly consider myself an apologist for the ubiquitous sprawl and car culture. I hate it with a passion just as much as you, yet I'm not blind to the ugly realities our city faces. It seems though that you didn't really respond to many of the points I made. <i>"The structural issue, therefore, on a regional basis, is sprawl -- and its causal agents. This includes, in large part, big transportation mistakes such as expressways. Separating and demolishing our city with these things was an inexcusable mistake. Expressways are incompatible with the urban form. They depress land values. They destroy social and economic flows. They are hugely expensive to build and maintain. But, as people have dispersed across the landscape by way of expressways, this infrastructure has begun to justify its own existence. The car-dependent lifestyle that has resulted means most people can't imagine how they'd get along without it. The economies of both city and suburb become -- or seem to become -- mutually reliant upon this infrastructure."</i> Yeah, you are pointing out the obvious here. I agree fully with your diagnosis. Sprawl is king in WNY; we both agree it royally sucks. But the majority of WNY's population seems indifferent (at best) to this pervasive living arrangement. You can try and tell these people until you're blue in the face that their lifestyle is environmentally irresponsible, socially alienating and destructive, and completely unsustainable in the long-run. The best response you'll get is "La la la la la...I'm not listening!!" Take away their precious highways and you'll just be pissing them off. Having said that, you completely missed (or chose to ignore) my economic arguments. Again, many of the neighborhoods around the expressway are so deteriorated that nothing will "bring them back," short of a massive population influx. In a shrinking city, struggling neighborhoods do now grow. Would it really be wise to spend billions of dollars restoring a parkway in a part of town defined by gap-tooth blocks where only four houses still stand. Ironically, there is no shortage of so-called "green space" in these areas now. What's the logic in running a parkway through an area that's looking more and more rural each year? The best and most strategic thing our city can do now is improve the neighborhoods that actually show promise and let the worst run their course and revert back into open land. Trying to service the land area of a city built for 600,000 now with a population of 250,000 is a losing proposition.
BuffaloJoe 05 Mar 2010, 18:23
@Gabe: I did respond to your points. But here I go again. Before I elucidate, let me note that it's interesting what you said about the condition of the neighborhoods surrounding Humboldt Parkway. This is not an area where only "four houses still stand" on a block. While this may be true of many parts of the East Side, it is not generally true of the Humboldt Parkway area. Quite a few blocks are still in decent shape. But you seem to have written these neighborhoods off. I haven't. Many residents haven't. Senator Thompson (despite himself) hasn't. The Mayor hasn't. The Olmsted Conservancy hasn't. The New Millennium Group hasn't. The Congress for the New Urbanism hasn't. Furthermore, it's also worth noting that the devaluation of the Humboldt Parkway area is having corrosive effects on more prosperous neighborhoods to the west and north. This will continue unless something is done to stabilize and restore the parkway. As part of a revived, people-oriented planning process, this project could play a major structural part in knitting our fragmented urban fabric back together. Notice I used the word 'structural.' Humboldt Park, the science museum, and the parkway comprise one of Buffalo's (formerly) great civic spaces, and a major portion of the Olmsted Park system that no one would argue we shouldn't restore. The parkway itself constituted the vast spine of the East Side, with some of the highest historic property values in that part of town. Furthermore, Humboldt and its remaining civic amenities still connect directly to some of the highest value neighborhoods in the city, namely Delaware Park and Parkside. Perhaps you forgot that. Also, perhaps most notably, this project could dovetail perfectly with the community's long-term plans. You may not be aware, but there is a NYSDOT project, now underway, to turn Scajaquada Expressway back into a parkway. Imagine if we restored Humboldt Parkway near Delaware Park but stopped the project just east of Main Street. I don't want to have to explain that boneheaded decision to my kids. Or anyone else's kids. Or to anyone on the East Side. There's a reason why, along with things like UB's North Campus, the Kensington Expressway is considered one of our area's huge blunders. In fact, undoing these big transportation infrastructure mistakes is considered to be among the major challenges that U.S. cities face. So, let me reiterate: the thing that caused the major devaluation to these neighborhoods is the expressway. The way to add value is to remove the expressway and restore it to a parkway or boulevard. The. Expressway. Is. A. Root. Cause. And yes, I fully understand the concept of land-banking and the other hard choices that must be made in an environment of limited resources. Assets must be carefully and strategically targeted to achieve critical mass. Yes, sometimes you even need to invest in stronger neighborhoods so that eventually there is demand spillover to weaker areas. Having said that, removing the expressway is exactly the type of investment we need. But you're saying that we've got so many problems to solve that we can't fix a root cause. Heck, then, we might as well wait for world peace to break out before we do anything transformative around here. Finally, let me clarify an important prior point: the money allocated for this project, if there ever is any, will not automatically go into some other account if it isn't spent. Highway funds are typically siloed and can't be spent on other projects, no matter how worthy. It's not a zero-sum situation. Besides, we'd spend more money in the long term just maintaining the expressway as-is. As for the more expensive options (capping and/or tunneling), even if it were somehow possible to get that amount of funding (which it isn't), these options wouldn't add nearly as much value to the neighborhood as the less-expensive boulevard. And, as has been seen countless times in other cities along corridors with with higher traffic counts, any negative effects on commuters would be negligible if the project is done right. We've now got a chance to truly fix a monumental civic blunder. We'd be stupid not to take it. Not only will it pay dividends in its own right, but It will set a great precedent for all future infrastructure projects such as I-190, Route 5 / Skyway, and the Peace Bridge (if that ever moves ahead). It can be done. It should be done. We've got an opportunity to do it. Get over your armchair cynicism.
JWright 06 Mar 2010, 14:09
NYSDOT= it'll never happen or worse possible solution chosen. Good for Brown's admin coming up with such a decent idea. Seriously.
Harry 06 Mar 2010, 16:33
NYSDOT = awesome projects. See Hamburg. See East Aurora. Get eduacted before you slam. Oh, wait - bashing anything you don't like is all the rage these days. See IRS plane crash. See Pentagon shooting. P.S. - Brown's admin didn't come up with this idea. Get the facts. Someone else came up with it. (Its initial are NMG).
Max 06 Mar 2010, 19:23
Despite the "original sin" which resulted in its conception, we're in a period of time where the promise of funding to reverse the Kensington and bury it for the ages is remote at best. NYS is close to bankruptcy and I think that funding @ the Federal level is in jeopardy as well. This project would have been more feasible if it had come to the surface during more prosperous times; I think we'll have to suffer the status quo for the time being.
Harry 06 Mar 2010, 21:11
Just to keep things light, I love your choice of words, Max: "..if it had come to the surface.." Very nice! It evokes a vision of the expressway rising like a Phoenix, denying the mortality of the Humboldt.
Sam Thebarber 06 Mar 2010, 23:58
A decision of this importance would require wisdom, knowledge, courage, and common sense, traits which are not found in a single politician in WNY. Unless Nancy Pelosi tells Brian Higgins she wants it done, it will never happen.
Tom 08 Mar 2010, 17:21
Unfortunately, I would posit that this is not a mistake that can be easily undone, if at all. Its years in the making and the economy and urban planning have changed drastically in the intervening time. While fixing this great travesty by itself would never seem lika a bad idea, everything really should be determined by cost benefit when funds are limited as they are now. And this may just be a waste of badly needed resources (unless the Feds or the state can kick it all in) that could be used elsewhere. The examples that reap great dividends involve areas where there are lots of other surrounding resources (waterfront in SF for example) or a growing community to create space needs around the area (Portland). Development does not naturally follow this type of infrastructure investment unless you either have the above cited conditions or you have incentives to the developer (from taxpayer monies, other) to drive the economics. In the case of this plan, unless money gets thrown at the surrounding areas (hard to see in the current situation of the local, state and fed govt's), or someone/something brings company investment spurring population growth and development in Buffalo. The other option is displacing people from other communities such as the suburbs to downtown. But because of school situations and other amenities in the suburbs, it seems too much of an impracticality to lure too many other people downtown, whether to shop or to live.
Harry 08 Mar 2010, 19:54
Totally agree, Tom. The realities are profound, and immensely depressing. I see Mr. Norquist is again shopping his snake oil in Buffalo. (Is there a reason he was a one term mayor? Seems odd if he made such tremendous improvement to the city) He uses the same old out of context arguments to fill people with false hope - could it be he's marketing his services? Maybe I'm cynical, but to compare a heavy commuter route with a parkway isn't being quite up front.
Daniel Colascione 08 Mar 2010, 22:17
"The. Expressway. Is. A. Root. Cause." I have some punctuation for you: Those. Neighborhoods. Are. Dead. Both your comment and the ArtVoice article reveal a seriously myopic worldview. Buffalo's decline is part of a vast socioeconomic trend that's affected everything from Watertown to Detroit. This decline has nothing to do with one particular expressway --- hell, if expressways caused decline, Chicago, Phoenix, Los Angeles, and Boston would be wastelands. Our expressways are important. People didn't spend vast amounts of money 50 years ago building them because they wanted to make the city ugly! Expressways aide the flow of goods and services and increase the level of commerce throughout the city. NY33 in particular helps downtown businesses. Buffalo's excellent infrastructure has slowed its decline; if and when Buffalo returns to growth, its expressways will fuel that growth. As for the "neighborhoods"? What neighborhoods? Those places have been dead for decades. Fewer and fewer people living in Buffalo. At its peak, there were half a million people inside these city limits. Now, less than half as many souls live here. On what planet can half as many people fill out the same city? Between suggestions to tear down the Skyway, convert the Scajaquada Expressway into a garden path, and bury the NY33, I'm becoming extremely frustrated with certain elements of the Buffalo community. You constantly suggest we willfully destroy the superb infrastructure we inherited from this city's heyday. Yet when a rare opportunity comes along to actually improve the city, you turn on a dime and become hardened obstructionists. We can't expand the peace bridge because you're concerned about a few underpopulated city blocks. Old buildings can't be demolished because they might have some theoretical later use. And most egregious of all, you ran a well-meaning developer out of town because he wanted to build a hotel at the corner of Forest and Elmwood (*after* he tried to work with you on design issues.) That attitude is insanity. You can't substitute wishful thinking and pot smoke for the economic growth that makes it possible to make a city livable. How quickly you forget that the reason Olmstead's parks program (which included the original Humboldt Parkway) was even possible was that Buffalo at the time was a fantastically wealthy industrial center! Nevertheless, if you still feel a hankering to spend money on a capital project, how about we raze the area bounded by Bailey, Broadway, Genessee, and Jefferson and plant trees? It'd save the city maintenance costs for the future, reduce crime, and create more parkland than destroying highways ever would. Burying the expressway would cost $100 million according to the article. How about another capital project instead?
Harry 08 Mar 2010, 22:56
Where did the $100 million cost come from? Here's a thought - it's 1/5th of the POMA $500 million cost to cover the expressway, thereby making it the obvious and much better option. In other words - it's a TRICK! (P.S. - nobody knows what any of these ideas would cost, that's why they're doing a study)
Clark 09 Mar 2010, 05:50
The problem is the Kennsington worked too well! It alleviated congestion on the city streets, it eliminated most traffic on city streets.
from the Mayor's office 09 Mar 2010, 10:51
Here's the Mayor's support letter - http://tinyurl.com/Byron-Support-Letter
geoff kelly 09 Mar 2010, 18:49
@Harry: Norquist served four terms as mayor of Milwaukee, 1988-2003. @everyone else: Thanks for reading and the conversation.
Harry 09 Mar 2010, 19:40
my mistake - you are correct, four terms as mayor. I still don't believe his removal of a couple thousand feet of the stub end of a never completed highway qualifies as "removing an expressway." It's a gross exaggeration and not an honest statement. The closest thing around these parts would be to remove the expressway by the Ford plant and tell every one that an expressway was removed. Anyone can simply look at old aerial photos to confirm this, please don't take my word for it. However, the development work the they did around the river, just east of the Park East Freeway, is exceptional. Truly an tremendous achievement. It just irritates me when people are fast and loose with the facts to make their point. It loses credibility.
EBS 10 Mar 2010, 10:43
Do we also have to remove access to downtown via I-190 (both directions) in order for this urban renewal to have the desired effect? If the 33 were closed tomorrow, you know people would take the alternate routes. I agree with others' observations that having a decent neighborhood to begin with is a true indicator of how people will accept it as they drive through it, rather than bypassing it. Having bicycled through Ocean Blvd, I would gladly welcome that experience again. I would not presently bicycle through the majority of the east side, nor walk through it.
Tiffany 10 Mar 2010, 15:03
Daniel Colascione---I live in, and love my Hamlin park neighborhood. So do most of the people of whom have chosen to stay in these beautiful homes. So please don't call my neighbors/neighborhood dead. Ummm I love it here. Jeeez. Kindly, Tiffany.
Tiffany 10 Mar 2010, 15:10
Oh and as a side note---the people who would not walk or ride there bikes through the east side----I hate to break it to you but that is called racism. I am a white girl from the city...lived here all my life..I make good money I have a beautiful home....I prefer to have diversity in my kids lives...and not subject them to the ticky tacky un-neighborly feeling of the burbs. AND I have NEVER EVER had a problem with the kids ( I think they were referred to as gangs) in the city neighborhoods. So before you all make judgments on the little bad black kids...step back and think for a second. NOT ALL BLACK PEOPLE ARE BAD THUGS...Get a clue!!! or just stay scared for no reason in your home...and keep your racist thoughtless opinions to your selves. Thanks
BuffaloJoe 10 Mar 2010, 18:45
@Daniel Colascione: I'm not sure what to say about the blather you posted, but as I stated earlier, you exhibit the most obvious and severe symptoms of Stockholm Syndrome.
Daniel Colascione 10 Mar 2010, 19:13
@BuffaloJoe, your argument must be spectacularly weak if all you can muster is a pair of ad hominem quips. You won't win many converts if you claim that anyone who disagrees with you must be suffering from a psychiatric disorder. You fail to address any of the points any of the dissenters raise. You take it as self-evident that the expressway's value is minimal, and that its adjacent communities would come back to life if reconnected. Both assumptions deserve to be questioned. You also fail to respond at all to the statement that the city is at less than half of its historical maximum population, and is still falling. The population of the region as a whole is falling. Where will the people who will restore these neighborhoods come from?
BuffaloJoe 10 Mar 2010, 19:31
@Daniel Colascione: All of the rebuttals to every one of your points has already been made. How much is to be gained by rote repetition? At this point, if you haven't been converted, I don't expect you or any of your hardheaded ilk ever will be. The most effective thing to do, in this case, is not let you or anyone else get away with psychobable. Ridicule is the inevitable fate of the ridiculous. At some point soon, I anticipate, it may not even be worth a quip.
Daniel Colascione 10 Mar 2010, 19:45
@BuffaloJoe, you're right. Repeating your evasions would be pointless. You still haven't addressed the macroeconomic issues. Not once. Go ahead, stroke your ego and imagine that you've won. In the meantime, serious adults who put economic survivability ahead of aesthetics will decide to keep the evil highway with its evil cars and evil commuters coming from the evil suburbs.
BuffaloJoe 10 Mar 2010, 20:06
@Daniel Colascione: Those issues have been addressed. And if that's what you think the predominate view of the 'burbs is, I rest my case.
Gabe 10 Mar 2010, 20:14
Dan, you nailed it. Joe's repeated evasions of the macroeconomic issues I kept pointing out is exactly why I removed myself from this discussion long ago. I could tear my hair out making 40 more "duh" statements and it wouldn't matter. Finally, as much of an architecture and planning geek I can be, I'm still able to recognize that aesthetics is only one piece of the puzzle. If the other pieces are sorely missing, no amount of "oohh ahhh" window dressing will fix a series of deeply-systemic problems.
BuffaloJoe 10 Mar 2010, 20:27
Complaints about a purely aesthetic argument have been countered. Larger issues have been addressed. Mindless gainsaying about it isn't productive. To repeat. Again. If the problem is in the economies of transportation and land-use, which it is, then change the transportation and land-use. I refer you to any of the excellent books written on these subjects over the last few decades. It's a big Internet, but I'm sure you'll figure out where to find 'em.
Harry 10 Mar 2010, 22:47
Fellas, Buffalo Joe doesn't get it and never will. Save your typing fingers. I know I'm stating the obvious, but it seems there are way too many frustrated "urban planners" (is that an oxymoron?) in the Buffalo area. They surf the blogs seeking opportunities to profess their omnicient cures for the decades of decay. Anyone who questions is deemed a dolt and a dimwitted suburbanite. Educated discourse is elusive with these folks. But, what the hell, it's fun to carp all day!
Tommy 10 Mar 2010, 23:18
Its a Buffalo urban legend to think because there are some great architectural bones that a series of urban planning mistakes destroyed Buffalo's greatness (although it probably did not help). The reality is that the potential economic growth in Buffalo mostly has either moved to the suburbs (draw of better schools and amenities for your tax dollars) or to the south and east (draw of better jobs) starting decades ago and has not let up. The hands in everyones pocket what can you do for me politicians and community developers that would dent the progress elsewhere, all but kill it in Buffalo. The key is population growth. Without it transportation projects are going to have minimal effect at best. So go ahead and bury the Kensington, unless you change the basic economics of the region (high taxes, corruption, mostly government and few corporate employers) its not going to change a thing except you will have a nice long parkway that they wont have the money to mow in a 5-10 years.
Richard 10 Mar 2010, 23:28
BuffaloJoe gets it. I've gotten more out of Joe's comments than anyone else's. He also seems to agree with the tone of Geoff Kelly's article, which I thought was really well written.
harry 10 Mar 2010, 23:37
Richard, that's exactly the point. A well written article or a well spoken argument don't change the underlying fundamentals.
BuffaloJoe 10 Mar 2010, 23:41
Nobody is going to move to here because we add another ring of suburbs. To add value, we must invest in our urban assets and stop draining our collective resources. This means reinvesting instead of new investment. Brownfields instead of greenfields. Some people seem to think that a turnaround is going to happen overnight. But if the problem is decades of bad planning, bad transportation policy, and lack of regional cooperation, then the solution is decades of good planning, good transportation policy, and regional cooperation. That's how we take our fate into our own hands. That's how we add value. What's so hard to understand about that?
BuffaloJoe 10 Mar 2010, 23:46
A well constructed argument reveals underlying truths. That's why this article is so well written. (By the way, Geoff, great job!)
Daniel Colascione 11 Mar 2010, 00:28
BuffaloJoe, that's wishful thinking. You're confusing what's true with what you'd like to be true. People move to suburbs *all the time* for schools, jobs, and a host of other reasons, and they've been doing it for half a century. Hell, practically all of the growth in the sun belt has been in suburbs. If you make people's preferred lifestyle difficult by ripping up highways, they're not going to shift to the lifestyle you'd prefer: instead, they're going to retain their existing habits and live in some other city. We can't afford to shed any more people. The same goes for industry. One of Buffalo's few advantages is excellent infrastructure --- rail, water, and yes, road. Why willingly give that advantage up? It's self-defeating. Pretty tree-lined roads don't create jobs. Industry creates jobs. Jobs increase the tax base. The taxes can then be used for beautification. Forget macroeconomics, you're ignorant of basic accounting.
BuffaloJoe 11 Mar 2010, 01:41
Daniel: You're the one amazingly ignorant of basic facts, including economics, accounting, history, sociology, and even current events. I repeat, again: You're confusing a free-market with a tilted market. Shouldn't people's choices shouldn't reflect their true cost? The suburban pattern has been largely subsidized, and it's economically and ecologically unsustainable even at current levels of funding. Market studies have shown that more people would prefer to live in a traditional urban environment than a suburb, but they feel they aren't being offered the choice. The playing field isn't level. Nationally, quality new urban infill or rehab routinely goes for 30% per square foot than it's suburban counterpart. The most valuable and desirable land in the U.S. is in urban environments, not the 'burbs. Heck, Downtown Buffalo is still the most valuable land in all of Western New York, which shows the inherent value of the traditional urban form. Also, nobody said anything about making the suburban lifestyle inconvenient. Or that we'd be giving up advantages in geography or infrastructure. Where in the world are you getting this stuff? It's as if you're living in 1950. None of those advantages you speak of mean squat for cities in today's world. Cities today are not successful based merely on geography or location or proximity to raw materials or to power generation. The Interstate Highway System that you seem to prize is one of the things that has seen to that; the nation's economy is now decentralized and diffused. As it turns out statistically, the fewer expressways a U.S. city built, the more likely it is to be vibrant and economically successful. If you bothered to read the article, you'd know that urban expressway removal has actually increased economic activity in every case. Vancouver, BC has no expressways at all, yet people and things get where they need to go in that city, which is routinely rated as one of the most desirable and successful cities in the world. Most European cities have little or no urban expressways, yet economic vitality does not elude them. It's actually embarrassing how much more vibrant and functional their cities are than ours. So for a variety of reasons in today's economy, people are mobile. The thing that attracts and keeps capital in any area is its quality of life. This is particularly true of the urban quality of life that any area offers, such as the cultural institutions and activities, the public spaces, the street life, the civic and private architecture. The historic urban legacies that are left to us are to our advantage, but only if we recognize this and don't undermine them. The mixed-use and physical proximity of traditional urban form has other natural economic advantages, efficiently connecting capital to ideas, products to markets, employees to labor. These natural advantages -- and a city's quality of life -- are destroyed by things like expressways and the other large planning blunders of the mid-20th century. Again, I repeat, there are many ways to create functional thoroughfares that add real value to the areas they pass through and to the region as a whole. Anyway, all this has been covered before, ad nauseam. And yet I repeat once again, how many examples of good panning in other places will it take?
Tommy 11 Mar 2010, 08:49
There is a fundamental disagreement here. I think you are overvaluing the growth potential of good urban planning. Cities are successful because of population growth, which follows things like jobs, great educational opporuntities and yes amenities (which brings in the urban planning). But I would guess that if you have lots of jobs and great education you can still suceed as a city (maybe not be world class, but still be successful - look at Charlotte or Raleigh, NC) even if you make planning mistakes and don't foster your amenities. The opposite would also seem to be true, that you can have many amenities and the best urban planning in the world, but if your state and local tax system, laws and incentive packages do not bring jobs and top quality education, your not going to attract people to your area and your city will decline. The government may be supporting the economy and infrastructure growth now, but in the long term its private sector growth that supports infrastructure investment and thriving cities. Thats the side of the argument you are not addressing. What money, besides tax dollars, are going to be invested in this area to make it grow. Shifting people back from the suburbs can only go so far (because people with kids want good public schools which cities rarely offer), you need to grow the entire population and private investment in the area to succeed.
Tommy 11 Mar 2010, 09:30
Maybe there is a better way to lay out this fundamental disagreement. Harry, Daniel and I are trying to make this point. While quality of life would likely be a draw and deciding factor in attracting people and companies if other factors were equal, quality of life will in many cases not trump inequalities in tax rates, educational opportunities, state law compliance costs, energy costs, access to well matched/well educated labor, etc. The Raleigh Durham example is perfect for this. What differentiates Raleigh from Buffalo - Its more tax freindly, the state and local governements are not as intrusive and there is close access to more than one top quality school in the vicinity. Its not for having amazing amenities, as plenty of cities have nicer amenities than Raleigh. The city of Raleigh is growing even though more people are probably living in its suburbs then ever. Its residual to the overall growth fostered by the local economic climate. Its not the result of wise urban planning.
Nathanael 12 Mar 2010, 01:50
You know, one could run a fast rail line down the middle of this route (using only two lanes!), and fill in the rest and still fit a boulevard on it. That would address the "slower travel" complaint about removing the expressway. Branch from the existing Metrorail downtown, a few blocks on Tupper Street, and run straight down the expressway until the airport. Occasional stations and, done right, faster travel than by car.
Harry 13 Mar 2010, 16:20
The basic issue here is that the Kensington Expressway is a critical commuter route. There isn't enough ridership from the airport to make a rail line between the airport and downtown remotely viable. The existing rail corridor (Main St) is heavily subsidized, and is on essentially a parallel route for much of this length. I understand the issue here, but I just don't think there is a reasonable and affordable solution, sadly.
William 18 Mar 2010, 09:17
What are the real issues here: "Buffalo" is a shrinking (population) city and the suburbs (population/land) are growing. "Buffalo" wants to see itself go back to the booming metropolis it once was, while those that live in the suburbs like living spread out yet have only a quick jaunt to get to the positives Buffalo has to offer. Many people don't want to live in the city for better schools... blah blah blah. If the people living in the suburbs lived in the cities and the tax revenue was all going to the city instead of to the city and all the burbs then there would be more money for city schools and they would be better. Even better yet if the city wasn't paying for roads for money/ people to come and go willy-nilly then there would be more money for their schools. If the money stayed in the community and the schools were still not up to par then that is an entirely different planning issue to deal with. You argue that the expressway is what is keeping what little life Buffalo has left going. I say, "neigh, you couldn't be further from the truth." It is the suburbs that need the expressway. People go into the city to work and that money goes out to the suburbs and so doesn't its generated taxes and in many cases to its restaurants, theaters, and what ever else. Not everyone uses the museum district or the other amenities in the city. While there may be some that live in the burbs and travel to the city to play, this does not offset the other. Amherst and others get to grow and create more jobs and what not due to the exodus from the city limits. But lest not confuse what is good for Amherst is good for Buffalo. I would like to point out that the neighborhoods along the expressway are not the greatest but by no means are they dead. Just look at Roxbury in Boston that neighborhood was dead and was able to come back and they didn't have anything like a highway to remove to help them out. I barely even want to mention this for it seems so absurd but who has ever herd of some one leaving one city going to another because the schools and suburbs are better, no one, the reason people move is their jobs move or they hate that city and want something different. Removing the express way is good for the city: less noise/air pollution, less cost due to upkeep, and removing the outlet from people easily leaving the city. Keeping people in requires the city to evolve to accommodate everyone or they leave for good. Now I would also say Buffalo be ware these suburbs have grown and are here. If you remove that ability for them to easily come in then there is no guarantee that they will move inside to alleviate the discomfort of commuting for work/play they may just grow and make Buffalo not needed until it is absorbed. Imagine if everyone know about Amherst instead of Buffalo. Lets not fight putting in the expressway was a bad idea no one disagrees. You can't deny that filling it in is going to be the cheapest option and will look better and permit property values along the corridor to improve and those neighborhoods will improve. Making it a tunnel will will be more costly now and later and will have more issues down the road that will need to be dealt with. The two avenues handles the same amount of traffic anyway so lets go with the one that is less detrimental to the land it is on not how it benefits the areas on either end of it. It is still land and we aren't making anymore of it so let use what we have wisely.
Curt 30 Apr 2010, 14:40
I have read all the comments posted on this subject and I've come to the conclusion that the suburbanites refuse to want to associate with the city. We have many people who are in fear of having to drive through Buffalo any longer that what they have to. Fear should not be a deciding factor in your decision. We have continued to argue over the same thing for 40 years. No one wants to just be honest and tell the truth. The truth is Buffalo and the entire WNY area is one of the most segregated parts of the country. We are grossly divided by racial lines. One of the reasons why other parts of the city are going well is because a whole was not carved through their backyard. I could not imagine North Buffalo being destroyed for an expressway which would destroy everything it has become. This has lead to everything being out in the suburbs and nothing is left in the city. If there were more businesses on Humboldt Parkway and other parts of the inner city, I believe it would provide more stability to the area. Crime happens when work is not available. If people have jobs, they won't be so quick to sell drugs, rob and steal. People would not be addicted to drugs, there for can properly raise their children the correct way and take pride in their homes. We need to come together as a region. The suburbs can't survive without the city, so it‘s long overdue that we combine Erie County in to one city to save our area. (This is a subject for another day, I digress) I think people are just afraid of change and it’s a shame because leaving everything like it is making things worse. We continue to lose population year, after year. Our once great city is still suffering from three major mistakes. 1) The Kensington Expressway 2) The Metro Rail (aka “train to nowhere) 3) Not having UB North campus downtown. We continue to argue and nothing happens. I was hoping t6he mayor Brown could be some “new blood” to city hall, with a great vision. I don’t see a change. As long as we continue to fear change, we’ll never be able to move forward. The world continues to change, and we’re just standing still. When are we going to start moving?
William 30 Apr 2010, 21:09
Curt you are talking about how people should be but not how to fix how they are. The fact is that with the people leaving the area and no longer having a vested interest in it the housing market in that area is going to decline and with that decline and with the racial attitudes in this area it will only grow and more of the "bad elements" move in and drive out the "good element" compounding the issue. The only way to improve the situations would be to spend money in the "problem areas" to beautify them and establish initiatives to foster desire for them. One way to do that would be to provide business initiatives downtown to whatever extent is necessary to get people to move back in that area to keep the businesses there then the initiatives could be removed because they are no longer needed. Then making the downtown area irreplaceable would force people on the trains and then improvements could be made to the system. Having the train is a good thing it just needs to be finished and made better. Moving North Campus downtown is never going to happen get over it. The campus is way to big and there just isn't the infrastructure or the money anymore to make it happen. Amherst has gotten a taste of the business brought by it and is not going to let is go with out a fight besides that there is more free land there to be utilized if needed. WE need to move on from that issue. The current issue at had is the Highway. There is no logical reason for keeping it in its current state. Not to mention the cost now and in the future is to great financially going forward. Burying the highway just makes sense financially it will be cheaper now and later with lower upkeep cost. No one can deny that the area surrounding it will improve as well.
Douglas A. Willinger 04 Sep 2010, 21:49
Why this push to waste the trench? A restored surface parkway will have to handle more traffic with the trench filled with dirt rather then vehicular traffic. Also, capping the expressway trench creates the opportunity to trap and FILTER the pollutants which is done in vehicular tunnels outside the U.S., and if one is to avoid a deeper excavation for trees, simply reposition the surface roadway a bit further away from the buildings along the corridor to use some of the space of the current service roads for the new deep root trees. Who is funding the "NMG"? I was not able to find any list of their funders on their web site. |
|
Issue Navigation> Issue Index > v9n9 (week of Thursday, March 4) > Bury This Big Mistake This Week's Issue • Artvoice Daily • Artvoice TV • Events Calendar • Classifieds |







