ExiledInIllinois Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 The stadium might have been viable if the UB Amherst campus had also been built there. The land around the stadium would have been occupied by a very large university, with saturday college games and sunday pro games. The biggest mistake was made back in the late 60's with the decision to go to the Amherst site for the campus. It effectively doomed the City of Buffalo downtown. Maybe the worst mistake Buffalo ever made...well, after trading LaMonica. Good point! Things should have been massively redesigned in the 1950's and 1960's... Some people knew what would happen to BFLO with the opening of the Seaway in '59... Those voices were muted.
nick in* england Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 I'm sure there must be an analogue there in Britain. Liverpool, maybe? Newcastle, perhaps. Liverpool, yes. But these British cities have all grasped modernity and regeneration in a way that US cities don't have to. Buffalo could lead the way in this regard.
nostyle126 Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 The stadium might have been viable if the UB Amherst campus had also been built there. The land around the stadium would have been occupied by a very large university, with saturday college games and sunday pro games. The biggest mistake was made back in the late 60's with the decision to go to the Amherst site for the campus. It effectively doomed the City of Buffalo downtown. Maybe the worst mistake Buffalo ever made...well, after trading LaMonica. It was a horrible mistake, no doubt, but I think the decision to put the 190 along the waterfront was even worse. The urban renewal projects of the late '50s and '60s really destroyed Buffalo. The highways shattered neighborhoods. The waterfront was rendered useless. The urban fabric has never recovered. The decision to build UB in Amherst took what little hope Buffalo had left and gave it to the 'burbs.
Fan in San Diego Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 Waterfront stadium sucks. 9-10 times a year it is used. After that how does it attract any one? Drive by the Ralph today and see what is happening. Nothing. Restaurants, cafe's, bars, condo's, shopping as a magnet to the area.
nostyle126 Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 Here's an aerial of Charlotte. Notice the EMPTY LOTS that surround the stadium. Magnet for cafes, bars, condos, and shopping? Uh, no. http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3321/356012...beb84dedf_o.jpg By comparison, an arena that hosts hundreds of events a year can fit in to a city's core quite well: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3088/356010...4fd46ce59_o.jpg
PromoTheRobot Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 Good point! Things should have been massively redesigned in the 1950's and 1960's... Some people knew what would happen to BFLO with the opening of the Seaway in '59... Those voices were muted. The Love Canal, before it was a toxic chemical dump, was the start of a channel to link Lake Ontario to Lake Erie on the USA side. It could have saved Buffalo but Mr. Love ran out of money. Wikipedia The name Love Canal came from the last name of William T. Love, who in the early 1890s envisioned a canal connecting the two levels of the Niagara River separated by Niagara Falls. He believed it would serve the area's burgeoning industries with much needed hydroelectricity; however, the power scheme was never completed due to limitations of direct current (DC) power transmission, and Tesla's introduction of alternating current (AC). Furthermore, the Panic of 1893 caused investors to no longer sponsor the project. Congress also passed a regulation in which water was not to be removed from the Niagara river because Congress wanted to preserve the Niagara Falls. After 1892, Love's plan changed to incorporate a shipping lane that would bypass the Niagara Falls in order to reach Lake Ontario. He began to envision a perfect urban area called "Model City" and prepared a plan that called for the construction of a vast community of beautiful parks and homes along Lake Ontario. Unfortunately for Love, his plan was never realized. He was barely able to start digging the canal and build a few streets and homes before his money ran out. Only one mile (1.6 km) of the canal, about 50 feet (15 m) wide and 10 to 40 feet (3 m to 12 m) deep, stretching northward from the Niagara River, was ever dug. PTR
nostyle126 Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 The Love Canal, before it was a toxic chemical dump, was the start of a channel to link Lake Ontario to Lake Erie on the USA side. It could have saved Buffalo but Mr. Love ran out of money. Wikipedia PTR That would not have "saved Buffalo". That was the late 1800s. Buffalo saw many prosperous years after the love canal's failure. Buffalo didn't truly begin to erode until the mid 20th century, as its key industries all died. The opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway in 1959 was the proverbial nail in the coffin. Buffalo's status as a major player as a port, railroad hub, and steel center were history, and the remaining industries (such as the automobile industry) were headed for hard times as well. Buffalo's leaders had no vision for the city's future...no ideas to help the city in a painful but necessary conversion from an industrial blue collar town into a modern technology-driven white collar city. Now Buffalo is paying dearly for this lack of vision.
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 It was a horrible mistake, no doubt, but I think the decision to put the 190 along the waterfront was even worse. The urban renewal projects of the late '50s and '60s really destroyed Buffalo. The highways shattered neighborhoods. The waterfront was rendered useless. The urban fabric has never recovered. The decision to build UB in Amherst took what little hope Buffalo had left and gave it to the 'burbs. There were design studies by an European company many years (just after it was built! ) ago saying that it should be relocated! EDIT: And who the hell put the 198 right past Delaware Park! BFLO really had schmucks on their design team!
Geo in Pa Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 empty talking points. You forgot to add HSBC (one of the largest employers in Buffalo) sending thousands of jobs to India.
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 The Love Canal, before it was a toxic chemical dump, was the start of a channel to link Lake Ontario to Lake Erie on the USA side. It could have saved Buffalo but Mr. Love ran out of money. Wikipedia PTR And "All-American" canal has always been a concept... They had the Welland and it was easier to upgrade. BFLO really got screwed on the Seaway. It is time to close it down. It doesn't even do that much tonnage. I do more tonnage alone in Chicago than the whole Seaway does in a year.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 The Love Canal, before it was a toxic chemical dump, was the start of a channel to link Lake Ontario to Lake Erie on the USA side. It could have saved Buffalo but Mr. Love ran out of money. Wikipedia PTR What a disaster WNY is. Is there anything that's ever worked as planned there? Presidential assassinations, contaminations, decay, man. No wonder others look at the area as a black hole.
Chalkie Gerzowski Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 Again, why? Do you mean that a major musical event or concert could not work in Buffalo, in the summer, outdoors? You're telling me that a Bon Jovi, The Who, Metallica, Black Eyed Peas, Dave Matthews, and on and on and on would see not value in selling out perhaps a 60,000 seat stadium (since a portion would probably be blocked off) over a 15,000 seat HSBC arena? Move the Bills to their parent City. One of the problems with WNY is that it has too much sprawl. UB should not be in Amherst. UB should have one mega campus, on the waterfront (as was originally approved and planned, BTW). WNY needs to consolidate its benefits in order to maximize its return on its product. Building UB on the waterfront would immediately place thousands of college students with money to spend in the City. They have to eat, want to shop, and will need transportation to get there. Restaurants, retail shops, entertainment...all would blossom. Same thing with the Bills. One of the biggest complaints about going downtown is that there is nothing to do once you get there. Well, going to downtown to see a Bills game could not become a big event for the City. People will want to eat. I'd rather eat at Duff's or Pearl Street than sit in a freezing cold while my buddy burns my burger. Not to take away from tailgating, but you would now have a choice, and that may help to bring more families to football. Restaurants would offer pre- and post game specials. Transportation would be provided by the City at a reasonable price. People may want to then spend more of their money either in the City or at the Fieldhouse, keeping more money where it belongs: in Buffalo. How long do you want to sit and stare and the nothing that is South of Buffalo? How many decades do want it to continue? I can tell you now, nothing is coming in there anytime soon, bro. And the region can't keep playing the Democrat line and waiting for Government hand-outs, either. The City, and more importantly the region needs to start standing up for itself and acting in its own best interest. Keeping the BUFFALO Bills in Orchard Park accomplishes neither. Reversing 50 years of urban neglect and 50 years of horrid public policy... it's entrenched. The hockey arena built in the city in the 90s... that's the last large sports facility that will be built in that city. They couldn't land an over-sized tackle and bait shop. There's no way in hell they'll ever build an NFL stadium in Buffalo. The area needs to get away from silver bullet concepts.
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 That would not have "saved Buffalo". That was the late 1800s. Buffalo saw many prosperous years after the love canal's failure. Buffalo didn't truly begin to erode until the mid 20th century, as its key industries all died. The opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway in 1959 was the proverbial nail in the coffin. Buffalo's status as a major player as a port, railroad hub, and steel center were history, and the remaining industries (such as the automobile industry) were headed for hard times as well. Buffalo's leaders had no vision for the city's future...no ideas to help the city in a painful but necessary conversion from an industrial blue collar town into a modern technology-driven white collar city. Now Buffalo is paying dearly for this lack of vision. It did well during the wars. BFLO was always working class with companies controlled in far off cities. What happens when the economy erodes? Companies pull back to their base. They couldn't have any vison because they lack the control... Still do. Think about it this way... Why is BFLO even there? Now FF from 1825 to 2010... Whould we still put a city there? No.
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 What a disaster WNY is. Is there anything that's ever worked as planned there? Presidential assassinations, contaminations, decay, man. No wonder others look at the area as a black hole. Yes. The Erie Canal. And that quickly (within a 100 years) became outmoded. It is so tragic, BFLO went from the most prime area to the most geographically irrelevant place I can think of... Which leads us back to the main topic... What made it, killed it... The waterfront.
Chalkie Gerzowski Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 Yes. The Erie Canal. And that quickly (within a 100 years) became outmoded. It is so tragic, BFLO went from the most prime area to the most geographically irrelevant place I can think of... Which leads us back to the main topic... What made it, killed it... The waterfront. The city peaked around the time of the Pan-American Exposition.
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 The city peaked around the time of the Pan-American Exposition. It was a false peak, IMO because of the short-run bringing alternating current from the Falls.
Chalkie Gerzowski Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 It was a false peak, IMO because of the short-run bringing alternating current from the Falls. and the Buffalo city fathers crapped on Hank Ford and his start-up automobile idea back in 1902.
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 and the Buffalo city fathers crapped on Hank Ford and his start-up automobile idea back in 1902. Look where Detroit is today... They are probably in worse shape!
Hplarrm Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 The Love Canal, before it was a toxic chemical dump, was the start of a channel to link Lake Ontario to Lake Erie on the USA side. It could have saved Buffalo but Mr. Love ran out of money. Wikipedia PTR One if ny favorite Love Canal stories is how back in the day after the Feds settled with Lois Gibbs and the Love Canal homeowners for participating in the pollution of their homes and lying about it, they attempted to set up new housing projects on the "reclaimed" land. They dubbed the new town Sunshine City as they attempted once again to lie to people and get them to part with their nickels to buy cheap homes because they were on land that might kill them and their families if EPA had not gotten the clean-up right as they hired the low-bidder to do the work by law. This choosing of names without regard to reality is typical of the way that government sends the tax dollars of the middle class to big bucks to big business to do stuff. The argument which some seem to have as to whether big government or big business is the problem seems to ignore the fact that these two operations are the same thing. The free market and big government are not two warring approaches they actually are parts of the same thing with the middle and lower classes being the victims. In Buffalo to see this one need only go to the City's Waterfront school. This public school is nestled downtown near City Hall. I discovered the interesting thing to me about it when I was late for a meeting there one evening and had to walk around the entire building looking for an entrance. It was then I discovered that unless there had been a rainstorm which left puddles the night before, one could not see a drop of water from Buffalo's Watefront School. If one was more interested in accuracy rather than advertising (which the folks who tried to sell Love Canal as Sunshine City clearly were not then they should have named this the Highway Front school. It actually is nestled in the midst of the I-190, the Rt. 5 Skyway (a wonderful way to get to the now closed steel mills), and other byways and highways which mar the downtown area. I am told (and have heard no examples to refute this) that Buffalo is the largest city in America on an Ocean or a Great Lake which does not have a public beach for swimming. This is an economic and community development travesty and I think provides a stark example of why the area has such economic problems. The founding fathers (and yes they were all fathers back in the day) made a series of choices which used the natural resources of the area to promote individual private businesses rather than to promote public spaces and the broader public benefit. It as best as I can judge was this slavish devotion to the individual and the allegedly free market (ain't nuthin free in this world) which is the basis for the economic wasteland in WNY today. Businesses and the free market are something which the body politic should support if only because in a society based on checks and balances, it is competition which kills off bad ideas and rewards good one. This is good. However, though business and the free market must be supported, it is fatal to depend on them as the primary or sole force for creating a good world as without the checks and balances provided by a governmental system the winners in a free market can exercise that freedom to destroy the market and take the wealth created and head for greener pastures. The fatal flaw of the free market is that it can make the jump quickly from the golden rule being do unto others as you would have them do unto you as it simply being he who has the gold rules. Being human this concentrated power (which apparently was known at the 18 in Buffalo's critical decision making days, were the 18 older white guys one had to suck up to in order to get something done. As best as I can tell it was these 18 old whit guys who ran things and made a series of decisions which promoted their own individual benefit such as using public dollars to build the UB campus in Amherst and power down the Buffalo based UB HQ, to capture a big chunk of public dollars to build the light rail system (and then to block completion of that system to the suburbs and Niagara Falls rendering the initial investment pretty meaningless). To make matters worse, the powers that be decided to build the light rail system in a manner which totally destroyed the ability to do commerce in downtown Buffalo by ripping up and closing off streets which accelerated the rush of businesses out to the government subsidized building of roads, sewers, and other desired public benefits in Amherst and the suburbs. It really is quite impressive what the powers that be wrought. Amusingly, the wealthy powers that be now lay the blame for mistakes that it choose and profited from on labor unions, the poor, and a government that the wealthy did and still do control (if someone wants to argue that instead it was the poor who controlled the government and made a series of bad decisions please feel free). I know some folks want to claim its location that did Buffalo lo, but even if one wants to subscribe to this theory, it also needs to acknowledge that the location even with its problems of the St. Lawrence Seaway eliminating a lot of the early 20th century economic benefit, that the area has also suffered from a series of decisions (which I am sorry it is hard to blame on the poor or public institutions, or unions because they were not in control of the decision-making apparatus. The problem is that even given some bad location breaks, that the wealthy folks who for the most part ran things simply made a series of judgments which allowed them as individuals to take their money and run rather than stay and be a part of the community. Trying to blame the unions, people of color, or poor folks that moved in to try to run things after the wealthy made a bunch of bad decisions and then headed off for nicer weather leaving the wreckage they created and profited from is actually both funny and oathetic
Chalkie Gerzowski Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 Look where Detroit is today... They are probably in worse shape! Yeah, but they would have had more jerbs for awhile.
Recommended Posts