Buffalo and empty neighborhoods? (Warwick: house, live, area)

[ckhthankgod]

Buffalo could do this in that part of town:Land banking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here's what they are doing in Flint, MI: Home

BBC looks at how land banking can aid shrinking cities

[Buffalonian4life]

Originally Posted by Dragonchaser

I 2nd the demolishing of the old homes in the bad neighboorhoods. Instead tearing down this house here, and this house there...how about tearing down block by block. I would think focusing on one area at a time would help in the rebuilding process. Just an idea

And then end up with just a big hunk of urban prairie land in the middle of a large city? No. I don't think so. It's bad enough we're demolishing thousands upon thousands of irreplaceable homes, with beautiful, urban architecture that you can't replace today. Sure, demolish the ones that can't possibly be fixed up, but don't just wastefully spend millions of dollars demolishing beautiful urban houses. Use that money to restore homes block by block at a time. Not demo.

[livecontent]

Originally Posted by Buffalonian4life

And then end up with just a big hunk of urban prairie land in the middle of a large city...

You mean like Delaware Park, or Central Park, or Battery Park, or Washington Park or Golden Gate Park or.....any other park surrounded by an urban setting...

Many Parks were also built on old garbage dumps, quarries and old decayed areas....Yes, believe it or not...

I am sorry to let you know, Prairie Land would not evolve naturally in the city limits of Buffalo...

It makes sense to take whole blocks and open them up for easier and attractive economic development; or a nice park with good developments along the edge--as in Central Park, NYC.

Livecontent

[Dragonchaser]

Originally Posted by Buffalonian4life

And then end up with just a big hunk of urban prairie land in the middle of a large city? No. I don't think so. It's bad enough we're demolishing thousands upon thousands of irreplaceable homes, with beautiful, urban architecture that you can't replace today. Sure, demolish the ones that can't possibly be fixed up, but don't just wastefully spend millions of dollars demolishing beautiful urban houses. Use that money to restore homes block by block at a time. Not demo.

I should have noted that I didn't mean for good homes to be demolished. I had meant the clusters of homes that are abadoned or beyond repair. And yes, I think an urban prairie isn't that bad of an idea. It give you a clean slate to rebuild either commercially or residentually. Live Content made a good point...how about some more parks, or perhaps the urban farming thing seen in the BN? If you clean up the city area by area, and focus on the piecework instead of the big picture, I really believe it will make a difference. Think about when you clean your house...instead of freaking out and saying "OMG my ENTIRE house is a wreck" you settle down and focus on cleaning room by room. Now that is a rather elementary explaination, but hey it works. I'm not claiming to be a city planner or an expert on B-lo, but I think I would rather see urban prairie than ghetto IMHO.

[Buffalonian4life]

Okay, you do make some good points. However, I do not think the city of Buffalo needs more parks... Olmstead had his designes, and there is no need for more. New development? Yes. Destroying beyond repair homes? Yes. Having an entire City block/area be vacant and grassland? NO. That won't help the city, but detract from its housing stock.

[livecontent]

Originally Posted by ckhthankgod

Buffalo could do this in that part of town:Land banking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here's what they are doing in Flint, MI: Home

BBC looks at how land banking can aid shrinking cities

This is such a great post and really gets to the core of the issue. Please, if you care about Buffalo and other decaying cities in OUR nation, look at these links, especially listen to the audio file from the BBC.

We cannot continue to assume that Buffalo will regain a status of a large city. Development and Growth is not the only path for a sustainable good place to live. Buffalo is now a small city but it needs to be a great small city. It has attractive physical and geographical characteristics that can make it a much better place to live.

Oh, I know, the defender of the city will say that I have left, it is not my business--but it is my country and it influences all our lives.

I now live in the Denver area. Denver has a tremendous amount of Parks and Open Space within the city. However, the City of Buffalo have some Parks, like Delaware and Cazenovia, that are superior to many parks in Denver. That is because Buffalo has the geography, the water, the trees that make a park---well, a great park.

Denver does not have these advantages, but what waterways Denver has it uses better than many areas of Buffalo. I can remember as a kid how the creeks that flowed through Cheektowaga were garbage infested, even right in the Cheektowaga Town Park. But in Denver, the creeks are maintained much better with pedestrian, bicycling paths and natural preserves. I can remember the big Park along Lake Erie as we got off the Peace Bridge, from Canada, on our way to Cheektowaga and the Dingen Exit. This Park was in decay, why was it not maintained??? and I am talking about decades ago when Buffalo had money. It was just not an important issue to city fathers. Yes, maybe it is now been redeveloped???

There are Parks in Denver that were built, during the "City Beautiful Movement" at the beginning of the 20th Century, at the same time as many of the Parks in Buffalo and yet all, in Denver, are well maintained. So, the age of Buffalo is not an excuse vs. the youth of Denver.

Perhaps the answer is that the Buffalo area is a far superior area with better natural resources and the people wasted what they had in abundance; and in Denver, the rarity of water and trees made them a valuable treasure to be cherished.

Denver is a nice place to live but Buffalo has more potential to become a very great place to live, as a smaller city that can be better maintained.

Livecontent

[ocean2026]

Detroit has many more deserted areas - and has lost more population proportionately.

Both have insanely high real estate taxes- you don't find these areas in low tax places.

[UpstaterInBklyn]

Originally Posted by ocean2026

Detroit has many more deserted areas - and has lost more population proportionately.

Both have insanely high real estate taxes- you don't find these areas in low tax places.

There is plenty of abandoned real estate in the sunbelt - thanks to the foreclosure crisis.

A more accurate statement would be that you don't find abandoned neighborhoods in places where population is growing. In a growing city the demand for housing - even substandard housing - exists to keep areas from becoming completely abandoned.

[ocean2026]

The sunbelt abandoned neighborhoods are temporary - many of these places will continue to grow and the backlog be gone in a few years.

This is quite a contrast with Buffalo and Detroit where the abandoned neighborhoods are high crime areas with crumbling buildings and of course the high real estate taxes.

Phoenix Las Vegas and Florida will all grow again - Bank on it!

[livecontent]

The big problem is that all the boosters believe that Buffalo will grow again to the old size and industry---the answer is not in the near future. It makes sense to take this valuable land and use it for some good purpose today or to store it for a future use--as in a land bank.

Buffalo cannot continue to maintain all the streets, utilities, police and fire protection in the the same expanse with less tax generated. Removing lots, hit and miss, does not diminish the cost. You have to do it for large contiguous parcels. These large properties than can be set aside and lay fallow, or used for urban farming. This is being pointed out in the Buffalo News.

If these lands were converted to parks, they certainly would add to the value of homes nearby and would remove excess decayed inventory. In addition, a large parcel that has been cleared is more attractive to developers, if and when that day comes; and they perceive an economic advantage to come back to Buffalo. However, to sit and wait and assume this is the only way for stability is not correct.

Also, who says that quality of life is always depended on increased housing and new business. Quality of Life in an area can be achieved by other means such as a stabilization of what exist in the area.

Buffalo needs to stop thinking that it needs a to compete with larger more economically stable cities. If that means not having a large convention center, large hotels, big industrial developments, huge specialty stores, and a pro team of this and that team--so be it. Buffalo cannot continue paying the "Bills" for these enterprises when it is not at the size and tax base to afford these luxuries.

Prosperity can also be measured in different ways. This study will give you some ideas: Yes, I know Buffalo is not a rural city but Western New York is rural and new concepts
are needed:

Finding Rural America's Prosperous Communities | Daily Yonder | Keep It Rural


Livecontent