the olmsted city – the buffalo olmsted park system: plan for the

The Buffalo Olmsted Park System:Plan for the 21st Century

The

Olm

sted

City

The Olmsted CityThe Buffalo Olmsted Park System:Plan for the 21st Century

Byron W. Brown, MAYORWWW.CITY-BUFFALO.COm

January 2008

Chris Collins, COUNTY EXECUTIVEWWW.ERIE.GOV

Thomas Herrera-Mishler, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERWWW.BUFFALOOLMSTEDPARKS.ORG

The Olmsted CityThe Buffalo Olmsted Park System: Plan for the 21st Century

Edited by Robert G. Shibley and Lynda H. Schneekloth

DEVELOPED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:Buffalo Olmsted Parks Conservancy

City of Buffalo

County of Erie

DEVELOPED WITH THE CONSULTING SUPPORT OF:The Urban Design Project, University at Buffalo, State University of New York

WITH

Trowbridge and Wolf, Landscape Architects

Wendel Duchscherer, Architects and Engineers

WITH ADDITIONAL SUPPORT FROM:The Center for Computation Research, University at Buffalo, State University of New York

Greater Buffalo Niagara Regional Transportation Council

Delaware North Companies Parks & Resorts

WITH GENEROUS FUNDING FROM:The John R. Oishei Foundation

WITH ADDITIONAL FUNDING FROM:Baird Foundation

Community Foundation for Greater Buffalo

Former Erie County Legislator Judy Fisher

Paul and Niscah Koessler

Erie County Legislator Lynn Marinelli

Corinne and Victor Rice

The System Plan was completed by The Urban Design Project, School of Architecture and Planning, University at Buffalo,under the guidance of the Long Range Planning Committee and the Olmsted Advisory Council of the Buffalo Olmsted ParksConservancy. The proposed designs build on the history of planning for the parks. Past plans commissioned by the City ofBuffalo were supplemented by team and client charrettes and subsequent design development with community input. Costestimating was done by Wendel Duchscherer, final artist renderings of the park plans were prepared by Trowbridge and Wolf,and system graphics were prepared by The Urban Design Project. All other graphics in the report without sources are fromThe Urban Design Project or the Buffalo Olmsted Parks Conservancy.

The Urban Design ProjectSchool of Architecture and Planning

The Urban Design ProjectSchool of Architecture and PlanningUniversity at Buffalo, State University of New York3435 Main StreetBuffalo, NY 14214(716) 829-3485 ext 218www.urbandesignproject.org

On January 31, 2003, the Mayor of Buffalo declared thecity to be “The Olmsted City”

FRONT COVER IMAGE:

The White Oak Tree in theDelaware Park Meadow

BACK COVER IMAGE:

The Humboldt Basin in MartinLuther King, Jr. Park from the Buffalo and Erie CountyHistorical Society image collection

Jake Schneider, Schneider Design Architects

Watson, Bennett, Colligan, Johnson & Schechter, LLP

Margaret L. Wendt Foundation

City of Buffalo

County of Erie

P l a n f o r t h e 2 1 s t C e n t u r y

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Preface

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5The Origin of the Olmsted Park System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Importance of Buffalo’s Olmsted Park System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

21st Century Park Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Parks Heal Urban Ills and Contribute to the Wealth of Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Parks, Cultural History, and Politics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Layers of Cultural History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Controversies Built into Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

From Parks to a Park System to ‘Green Infrastructure’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

Taking Care of the Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

From Friends of Olmsted Parks to the Buffalo Olmsted Parks Conservancy . . . . . . . . . . .29

Buffalo’s Olmsted Park System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31Restoring the Olmsted Park System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

Challenges and Restoration Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

Contemporary Use of the Olmsted Park System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

Guiding Principles for Restoration and Management of Buffalo’s Olmsted Park System . . . . . .35

Individual Parks: History and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38

Delaware Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

Front Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52

Martin Luther King, Jr. Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62

South Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74

Cazenovia Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84

Riverside Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94

The Parkways, Circles and Small Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104

Connecting and Extending the Buffalo Olmsted Park System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .110

Making the Plan: The History of the Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115The Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115

A Framework for Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .116

Conservancy Board of Trustees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .116

Olmsted Advisory Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .116

Past and Ongoing Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .117

Public Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .118

Meetings with City and County Officials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .120

Other Tools for Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .120

Continued Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .120

Implementing The System Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .121Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .121

Capital Investment and Phasing Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .121

The Long Term Vision: The System Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .121

The Cost of Implementing the Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .121

The Cost Estimating Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126

T h e B u f f a l o O l m s t e d P a r k S y s t e m

Table of Contents

Short-Term Projects: The Five Year Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126

Five Year Plan Program Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126

The Cost of Implementing the Five Year Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .129

Work Already Started . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131

Five Year Financial Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131

Sources and Uses of Capital Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131

Projected Changes in the Conservancy Operating Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .132

Land and Resource Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .133

Historic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .133

Natural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .133

Visitor Experience Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .136

Resource Interpretation Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .137

Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .137

Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .138

Partnerships and Cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .138

Primary Support Partners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .138

Secondary Support Partners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .140

Plan Adoption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .140

Relevant Environmental and Land Use Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141

State Environmental Quality Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141

Historic Preservation Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141

Water-Related Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143

End Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .144

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .146

Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .151A – Historic Preservation Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .151

B – Detailed Cost Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .164

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .184


Table of Contents

Supplemental Material

A – Management and Operations

Park Policies

Restoration Design Guidelines

B – Olmsted Park Background Studies

Recreation Analysis

Park User Analysis

Park Programming Analysis

Golf Course Analysis

Planning Framework Analysis

Environment and Natural Resources Analysis

Citizen Participation Report

Layers of Cultural History Report

C – Related Reports

Preliminary Results of Charrette Workshops – August 2005

Operation Alignment Assessment Report – 2007

The Olmsted Crescent Retreat – February 2003

GBNRTC Transportation Studies

Part 1, Olmsted Parks Traffic and Parking – June 2005

Part 2, Olmsted Parks Intersection Turning Movement and

Pedestrian Movement Counts – Summer 2005

Olmsted Parks Access and Circulation Issues – 2005

Transportation Treatments for the Olmsted Parks System – 2007

Buffalo Olmsted Parks Conservancy: Connecting Parks and People in the

Niagara River Greenway – October 2007

D – Toolbox

Cost Estimating Database

3-D Olmsted Park Models

Olmsted Parks Tree Inventory Overlays on Proposed Park Plans

Photoshop Park Layers with Historical Plans/Conditions, Existing Conditions,

and Contemporary Plans


Preface

Preface

It is with a great sense of pride and accomplishment that the Buffalo Olmsted Parks Conservancypresents The System Plan to you—our members, park users, decision makers and potentialfunders, along with the broader public. The preparation of a comprehensive restoration plan forthe Buffalo Olmsted Park System has been the primary goal of the Conservancy since 2004,when we assumed lead responsibility for managing and operating the park and parkway system.This pivotal document, approved unanimously by the Conservancy’s Board of Trustees andsupported by the efforts of countless committed citizens over the last four years, provides theplanning framework needed to guide the exciting renaissance of Buffalo’s historic andpicturesque system of parks and parkways designed by America’s greatest landscape architect,Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr.

Olmsted’s vision for a series of parks throughout the city interconnected by a ribbon of greenparkways and planted traffic circles, was built and improved during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Olmsted believed firmly that all city dwellers should have access to the healthfulbenefits of fresh air and natural landscapes provided by these green spaces. He also knew thatwell-designed and maintained parks and parkways would greatly enhance the real estate valuesand economic health of the city, thus providing additional resources through savings andincreased property taxes. What Olmsted knew intuitively has been substantiated through a seriesof recent studies. Individuals with access to well-maintained and programmed parks benefit innumerous ways; they are less likely to suffer from obesity and its associated health problems and research shows a 27% reduction in juvenile delinquency rates. Great parks are an excellentinvestment, a true asset, not a luxury. The parks and parkways are an important element of whatmakes this city so livable, adding incalculable value to the quality of life, and economy of theBuffalo-Niagara region and all of Western New York.

Over the past few years the Olmsted Park System in Buffalo has seen the beginnings of arenaissance with greatly enhanced levels of maintenance and reinvestment from public andprivate resources. In the years leading up to this plan, the Buffalo Olmsted Parks Conservancy hasraised and invested over $13 million in the parks and parkways. The Olmsted system is thehallmark of Buffalo’s urban landscape, providing some of the city’s most memorable and enjoyableplaces. Over time, the strategic reinvestment articulately mapped out in this plan will allow thisresource to thrive well into the future, providing future generations of Buffalonians and visitors to our region an incomparable open space resource. The System Plan allows us to re-envisionour great city in the postindustrial age in ways that greatly enhance the integrity of the system,restoring and completing Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr.’s remarkable vision for Buffalo.

Thank you for your support of the Buffalo Olmsted Park System. We look forward to many, manymore years of serving all park users.

Thomas Herrera-MishlerChief Executive Officer, Buffalo Olmsted Parks Conservancy


Executive Summary 1

The System Plan for the Buffalo Olmsted Park System is a blueprint for the future of thisunique ‘cultural landscape.’ The Buffalo Olmsted Parks Conservancy, charged with themanagement and operations of these parks since 2004, initiated an inclusive and comprehensiveplanning process with the goal of restoring the system and enhancing the parks and parkways inways that respect their status as important neighborhood, regional, national, and internationalresources. The goal will not be easily achieved, but the process is underway and the completionof the plan offers a new vision for Buffalo’s historic park system well into the 21st century.

Buffalo’s Olmsted Park System includes six major parks, multiple parkways, circles, and small spaces,and was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1982 as a cultural landscape,specifically a ‘historic designed landscape.’ This designation recognizes that this is one of themost outstanding park systems in the United States, conceived by one of the world’s mostfamous landscape architects, Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr. Before Buffalo’s parks were built,Olmsted and Calvert Vaux designed Central Park in New York City (1857) and set the standardfor great urban parks. When Olmsted came to Buffalo, he did more than design a great park: he designed the first park and parkway system in the nation. This vision connected unique parkswith ribbons of green that ran through the city’s residential neighborhoods, bringing the parks to the people.

The parks were designed over a 46-year period between 1869 and 1915. The inner ring of parks,Delaware Park (initially simply known as ‘The Park’), Front Park (originally ‘The Front’), and MartinLuther King, Jr. Park (originally ‘The Parade’ and later, ‘Humboldt Park’) were the first built alongwith the northern portion of the parkway system. These were followed by the southern parks,South and Cazenovia, the southern parkways, and finally by Riverside Park at the city’s northwestcorner.

Unfortunately, over the years, the parks deteriorated, some parts were destroyed or modified,and others were transformed through the introduction of new buildings and hardscape features.Further, the system as envisioned by Olmsted and his sons, the Olmsted Brothers, was never fullycompleted: the north and south segments of the system were not connected, the waterfrontconnection to downtown was never built, and the linkages envisioned that tie the newest park,Riverside Park, into the network were not completed. Many factors contributed to the demise ofthe parks and the incompleteness of the parkway system. In part, the changes were a result ofnew ideas about what parks should be, but primarily, the demise of the parks resulted from thedisinvestments in urban centers that occurred in the mid 20th century.

A group of citizens concerned about these historic parks organized the Friends of Olmsted Parksin 1978 to advocate for them. The Friends grew into the Buffalo Olmsted Parks Conservancy, theorganization now responsible for park management and development. As a part of theirresponsibilities, in 2005 the Conservancy commissioned The Urban Design Project, School ofArchitecture and Planning, University at Buffalo (UB), State University of New York, to developThe System Plan, supported through a grant from The John R. Oishei Foundation.

executive summary

The main message associated with the restoration of the Buffalo Olmsted Park System is thatthese parks are community assets and resources, not liabilities or costs. Parks will, if properlymanaged, bring wealth to the region through adjacent investment. Moreover, parks and othergreen spaces provide immeasurable environmental services and save communities significantcosts through their processing of stormwater and urban cooling as well as through improvedhealth for a community because of increased physical activity. In other words, parks are notsimply amenities, nice to have around; they actually bring real wealth to a city and region.

Through a series of public meetings, two design charrettes, monthly meetings with the OlmstedLong Range Planning Committee and ongoing discussion with the Olmsted Advisory Council, theconsulting team assembled by The Urban Design Project has established guidelines for priorities,recommendations for each of the parks, parkways, small spaces and extensions, and a proposeddesign for the restoration of each.

The priorities are clear. Fix the ‘basics’ of the parks, attending to the landscape and vegetation,the operations and management, paths and trails, recreational opportunities, branding andsignage, and amenities such as water, restrooms, and benches. At the same time, the historicrestoration goals must also be a priority as these critical projects will enhance the Olmsted culturallandscape, building on a heritage tourism economy that is growing in the region.


2 Executive Summary

Board of Trustees Guiding Principles for Restoration and Management

1. Protect and rehabilitate the Buffalo Olmsted Park System to preserve and restore the historic

integrity of Olmsted’s vision. “Brand” the system as a unique and historic landscape.

2. Promote safe, secure, diverse and equitable use of the park system.

3. Involve partners and ensure meaningful participation by the community.

4. Promote sustainable strategies: ecological diversity, green design, and best management

practices.

5. Expand the system to connect to parks throughout the city and to connect to the

Niagara River Greenway.

6. Use the parks and parkways as a community and economic development strategy for

adjacent neighborhoods.

7. Manage and maintain the system through daily best practices to achieve historic integrity,

public use, and sustainable practice.

The historic restoration objectives are always balanced by the condition that all of these parks arealso neighborhood parks. Community development goals include opportunities for activities anddiverse park use by neighbors as well as economic development opportunities in the adjacentcommunity. The plan is responsive to community concerns so that, for example, whencommunity members expressed concern about the removal of facilities that were added to theparks after the historic period of significance, the Conservancy established a policy that statesthat “Non-historic structures and uses in any park will not be removed without community input,and if removed will be replaced outside of the park as community needs dictate.” The proposedrecommendations and plans have been vetted with, and shaped by, communities across the cityand region.

The System Plan is an ambitious project, but not beyond this community’s capacity. The costsfor basic improvements as well as restoration, access and recreational projects were estimated in2008 constant dollars and potential funding sources were explored. The estimated cost for totalrestoration of the parks and parkways within the formally designated cultural landscape is $252.5million. Even over a 20-year time frame, this will be a challenge. But the Conservancy and thepublic are asking for more: the vision is that the Olmsted Park System will be enhanced througheven greater connectivity that links the parks and expands the system to connect to othergreenway systems. These additional elements, as well as other projects that take place outside ofthe parks, are estimated to cost an additional $175.5 million. This makes the total for TheSystem Plan $428 million.

The report provides a Five Year Plan that identifies priorities in the near future that build onexisting improvements, current funding opportunities, as well as potential sources of funding.The goal is to start with these recommendations and to accomplish as many as possible withinthe first five years. Some of these will be relatively easy and funding sources readily available;others will be much more complex and demand innovative capital investments and fundingstrategies. The total cost of implementing the Five Year Plan is $28.7 million, including $13.4million for park basics and $15.3 million for critical needs with the expectation that close to 75percent of those funds will be provided by the public sector at all levels of government and 25percent through private donations.

The Buffalo Olmsted Park System is an asset that is truly international in stature and significance.A regional treasure, its stewardship is also a regional responsibility. The System Plan outlines avision, a process, and an implementation strategy for restoring and managing the BuffaloOlmsted Park System. That strategy relies on building on the successes of our historic public-private partnerships to sustain and restore the Olmsted legacy that enriches all our lives. Therestoration of this critical historic resource and neighborhood asset will be this generation’s legacyto our children and grandchildren.


Executive Summary 3


4 Introduction


Introduction 5

The Buffalo Olmsted Park System includes sixmajor parks, multiple parkways, circles, andsmall spaces. It is a tremendous resource forthe people of the Buffalo-Niagara Region. Theentire system, conceived of by America’s mostfamous landscape architect, Frederick LawOlmsted, Sr., is recognized as a culturallandscape, specifically a historic designedlandscape, on the National Register of HistoricPlaces. It is also the backbone of Buffalo’spark and open space system, representingnearly sixty percent of all the parkland in thecity. The parks and the parkway system offerunique natural settings and recreationalopportunities to neighborhoods across thecity. The Olmsted parks and parkways are theinheritance of today’s citizens; it is theresponsibility of our public and private sectorsof the community to preserve them andenrich them so that generations to come willhave the same blessings.

In today’s world we take parks for granted,but they are a new type of landscape thatgrew along with urbanization in the last twocenturies. Olmsted was a leader in the 19thcentury movement to bring “nature” into thecity to counter the ill effects of urbanindustrialization. Concerned with the plight ofthe ever-growing slum populations crammedinto tenement houses, Olmsted and others in

this popular reformist tradition emphasizedthe importance of urban green spaces andrecreation. City parks, they believed, wouldcounteract the mounting number of problemsthat plagued growing cities like Buffalo—overcrowding, pollution, noise, lack of accessto recreation and nature, and a host of othertroubles. Olmsted thus designed Buffalo’spark system to be “the lungs of the city,”bringing vital fresh air and other naturalbenefits to people sorely in need of them.

Today, Buffalo’s Olmsted parks are just asessential to the city’s well being as they wereover 100 years ago when Olmsted designedthem. But like many cities, Buffalo has facedoverloaded and insufficient city budgets. Parks have been considered just anotherstrain on the system. We now know better.As we move into the 21st century, studieshave borne out what Olmsted believed to betrue: well-maintained city parks areindispensable to a healthy and thrivingpopulace. In particular, research has shownthat parks make a vital contribution to thehealth, environment, and wealth of a city.

I M A G E S

Opposite page:

This historic White Oak treestands above the Delaware Park Meadow.

Above [l to r]:

The Ivy Bridge is hidden away in the Rumsey Woods of Delaware Park.

This view of Lake Erie is thereason Olmsted chose thislocation for The Front.

Cazenovia Creek in CazenoviaPark is a great place for fly fishing in autumn.

introduction


6 Introduction

The Buffalo Olmsted Parks Conservancy,charged with the management and operationof the Olmsted Park System by the City ofBuffalo and Erie County, has taken itsresponsibility seriously. The System Plan istheir response to the historic legacy of theNational Register cultural landscapedesignation, and their intention to managethese special parks for the use of the citizensof adjacent neighborhoods, the city, and theregion. This plan has been several years inpreparation; and has actively involved theConservancy, the Olmsted Advisory Council,elected officials and municipal staff, and thecommunity at large through public meetings,a consistent Web presence, newsletters, and other forms of communication. Therecommendations that form the foundation ofthe restoration and management agendahave been forged through a series ofconversations—sometimes difficult ones—about what these parks mean, what theyshould do, and how they should be treated.

The Buffalo Olmsted Park System is a uniquehistoric landscape comprised of diverse typesof parks and connectors. Each park has itsown special history, and over time hasdeveloped a set of uses and constituenciesbased on its location and size. As Olmstedknew, what happens in one park is notnecessarily appropriate for all of them, yettogether, they constitute an extraordinarilycomprehensive park system.

This planning document first gives an overviewof the Buffalo Olmsted Park System—itshistory, importance, controversial issues, andorganizational context. This informationprovides the foundation for the second partand most extensive part of the document:plan recommendations for each park and therest of the system. The third section describesthe plan making process and history. Thefourth section offers an implementation planthat includes cost estimates and strategies forprioritization and funding.

The System Plan, prepared by the BuffaloOlmsted Parks Conservancy, outlines goalsand aspirations for this unique park system sothat it may, indeed, be part of ourgeneration’s legacy to the future.

The six restored Olmsted parks are shown at the same scale in this image to demonstrate their comparative size.Acreage totals are for the existing park size.

1. Delaware Park – 368 Acres

2. South Park – 168 Acres

3. Cazenovia Park – 196 Acres

4. Martin Luther King Jr. Park – 51 Acres

5. Riverside Park – 37 Acres

6. Front Park – 26 Acres

1

2

3

4

5

6


Introduction 7

The Origin of the Olmsted Park System

Parks and green spaces developed in Buffaloand other U.S. cities along with urbanizationand industrialization in the 19th century.Although today the wide open meadows,wooded thickets, and winding waterways ofBuffalo’s parks often appear as precious bitsof preserved nature that somehow survivedthe course of urbanization, in reality, theywere carefully designed and constructed bypeople who saw parks as integralcomponents of city building.

Buffalo’s park system was designed by one ofthe country’s great landscape architects,Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr. (1822-1903).Olmsted was largely responsible for the grandvision that transformed unused lands, farms,rugged pastures, creeks, and marshes in citiesacross the land into the “natural” landscapeswe know and use today.

Buffalo’s relationship with Olmsted began in1868 when William Dorsheimer, a prominentBuffalo attorney, sought him out to develop aplan for a park within the city. Olmsted wasapproached because of his successfulcompletion of Central Park in New York City;Buffalo wanted a similar grand space.Olmsted soon visited the area andrecommended not just one park, but acomprehensive public park system. This visionwas backed by a committee of five prominentBuffalonians, including Dorsheimer, Pascal P.Pratt, Sherman S. Jewett, Richard Flach, andJoseph Warren, and was quickly supported byBuffalo’s mayor, William F. Rogers. In 1870,the Olmsted firm was retained to design thenew park system.1

Buffalo’s Olmsted Park System came intobeing in two phases. The first phase, in thelate 1860s and 1870s, saw the developmentof the three inner ring parks known as ThePark (now Delaware Park), The Front (nowFront Park), and The Parade (now MartinLuther King, Jr. Park). The second phase camelater in the 19th century with the addition ofthe three outer ring parks: South Park,Cazenovia Park, and Riverside Park. These firsttwo phases of design and construction

I M A G E S

Above:

The trees in Delaware Park wereonce only saplings.

Right:

The lake in Cazenovia Park wasconstructed in 1896. (Source –City of Buffalo. (1900) BuffaloPark Commissioner Report: 1893-1900. Buffalo, NY: Haas & KleinPrinters)


8 Introduction

extended into the first quarter of the 20thcentury and included some redesigns andmodifications to the original parks. Theseyears are considered the park system’s periodof significance—the period of time in whichthe Olmsted parks made their historical markon the City of Buffalo.

Olmsted, in collaboration with the architectCalvert Vaux and later the Olmsted Firm,designed each of the six parks to serve aparticular purpose. This approach bothconfirmed the unity of the park system while,at the same time, gave each park an identitythat set it apart from the other parks anddefined its role in the overall system. With thefirst three inner ring parks, Olmsted struck abalance between what he saw as the mostimportant needs of residents in a rapidlygrowing city like Buffalo: nature and leisure, a celebration of the city’s origins, and publicceremony. Delaware Park was designed forimmersion in a peaceful natural environment.Front Park, with its majestic view of theNiagara River and Lake Erie, highlighted whatmade Buffalo so dynamic—the water and itsconnections. And Martin Luther King Jr. Parkwas intended for public ceremonies such asmilitary parades and civic functions.

I M A G E S

Above:

The Olmsted Park System as itwas in 1896. (Source – The BuffaloFree-Net < http://freenet.buffalo.edu/bah/>)

Below:

The Vaux-designed Parade Housewas built as part of The Parade(now Martin Luther King, Jr.Park). (Source – Buffalo and ErieCounty Historical Society)


Introduction 9

Because these parks were designed as aunified system, not disparate recreation areas,Olmsted was able to be generous with eachof several uses. Delaware Park was genuinelybig enough for quiet, pastoral reflection bythe lake or in the large grassy meadow. FrontPark was wholly dedicated to honoring thewaterways that had made Buffalo a leadingtrade center. And Martin Luther King, Jr. Park,with its wide and august grounds, wasperfectly suited for formal ceremonies. Eachpark offered neighborhood residentsopportunities for recreation, and together theydefined a complete and integrated system.

The second three outer ring parkscomplemented and extended the park systemalready in place by adding a world-classbotanical garden, water recreation, and adirect link to the Niagara River. These parksdisplayed a wide range of classic Olmstedianpastoral landscape elements, and yet eachhad a unique feature. For example, SouthPark’s Lord & Burnham Conservatory andexpansive botanical gardens sat harmoniouslyin the midst of rolling meadows, densewooded thickets, and a picturesque lake.Likewise, Cazenovia’s complex lake-and-islandsystem swirled amidst Olmstedian stands of

trees and grasslands. And Riverside’s formalgardens, with a spectacular overlook on theNiagara River, were situated alongside a seriesof shallow undulating ponds, known as theMinnow Pools, and a natural wooded arealaced with winding paths. Like the first threeparks, each of the outer ring parks providedaccess to nature and recreation for localneighborhoods, while at the same time offeringunique attractions that made it a must-seedestination for residents across the city.

The “Period of Significance”

To restore a historic landscape, one must first establish a framework for evaluating how past and

future modifications to the site affect its historic integrity. Usually this involves identifying the

site’s period of significance, or the time period during which it attained historical prominence.

Because Buffalo’s Olmsted Park System was built over the course of several decades, it is difficult

to identify a single period of significance for the entire system. The most straightforward marker

for doing so is the time during which the Olmsted Firm (Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr. and his sons)

was actively involved in the design and development of the park system. This period began with

the initial construction of the six major parks—the 1870s for the three oldest parks, and the

1880s and 1890s for the three newer parks—and lasted until 1915, when the Olmsted Firm

ended its consulting relationship with Buffalo city planners. In this case, the period of

significance has been extended slightly into the 1920s to take advantage of the availability of

photographs that accurately depict the park system.

The picturesque historic South Park Lake.


10 Introduction

The integrity of this system was highlightedby the stately parkways, or “linear parks,”that Olmsted designed to connect the parksto each other and to the city overall. Theresult was an urban landscape embroideredwith “green ribbons” that wove serenenatural settings into a bustling industrialcenter. These parkways and green spacesallowed visitors to navigate from one park tothe other while staying within a sylvan, park-like setting. These connections made visiblethe integrity of the system as a whole, andserved the broader function of linkingdisparate parts of the city.

The system integrity is further tied to thefabric of the city because of its closerelationship to the radial street plan ofBuffalo. The radials laid out by Joseph Ellicottin 1804 connect each of the first three parksdirectly to downtown, and the correspondinggrid actually connects each park to the watersof the Niagara and Buffalo Rivers as well asLake Erie.

Importance of Buffalo’s Olmsted Park System

The Buffalo Olmsted Park System is unique inmany ways. First, the system is well knownbecause it was conceived of, and designed by,Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr., the “father oflandscape architecture,” who, in fact, namedthe profession. Olmsted’s first major projectwas New York City’s Central Park. Thisimaginative landscape not only launched hiscareer but also sparked an entirely newmovement for parks and recreation. His workhighlighted the need for green space andoutdoor activity in the country’s rapidlyindustrializing cities.2 Ultimately, Olmsteddesigned parks, estates, and neighborhoodsthroughout the United States and Canada.

The achievements of Frederick Law Olmsted,Sr. were many, including not only CentralPark, but also Prospect Park in New York City,the Niagara Reservation (the country’s oldeststate park) in Niagara Falls, the Biltmore Estatein North Carolina, and the U.S. CapitolGrounds in Washington, D.C. He is also wellknown for his campus designs of Cornell,Yale, and Stanford Universities, the EmeraldNecklace of parks in Boston, and Mt. Royal inMontreal.

After early careers as a sailor, journalist, andanti-slavery activist, Olmsted turned hisattention to landscape architecture in the1850s after entering and winning a designcompetition for New York’s Central Park withCalvert Vaux—a partnership that would lastfor another fifteen years. In the 1890sOlmsted, Sr. retired, leaving his sons to carryon the work of their firm, named simply theOlmsted Brothers. Following in the footstepsof their father, the Olmsted Brotherscontinued to be leaders of the newlyemerging field of landscape architecture untilthe younger of the two, Frederick LawOlmsted, Jr., retired in 1949 when the firmclosed its doors.

Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr. as a young man. (Source – Alex, William. (1994) Calvert Vaux: Architect and Planner. New York, NY: New York, Ink.)


Introduction 11

Olmstedian Principles of Design

The term ‘Olmstedian Landscape’ is often used to describe a certain style of open space,sometimes accurately but often times simplistically to describe a lawn with trees. Charles E.Beveridge, a noted Olmsted scholar, offers the following description of Olmsted’s designprinciples in “The Seven S’s.”

Scenery: Designs that give a sense of movement through a series of spaces large andsmall that constantly open up to new views. This is achieved by indefiniteboundaries and the play of light and shadow.

Suitability: Respect for the local site and its natural scenery, vegetation, and topography.

Style: Use of different styles with specific purposes: “pastoral” for soothing,“picturesque” for a sense of richness and bounteousness of nature and for asense of mystery.

Subordination: The subordination of all elements, features and objects to the overall design.

Separation: Separation of areas designed in different styles; separation of movement toensure safety; separation of conflicting or incompatible uses.

Sanitation: Adequate drainage and engineering, not just surface arrangement; designs topromote physical and mental health of users.

Service: Design serves direct social and psychological needs.

(Source – Beveridge, Charles. (1986) Toward a Definition of Olmstedian Principles of Design.National Association for Olmsted Parks.)

Calvert Vaux, The Unsung Hero of Landscape Architecture

Calvert Vaux (1824-1895) was partner to Olmsted in the design and

development of the Buffalo park system. He was born in England and

trained as an architect. In 1850, he came to the United States to work

with Andrew Jackson Downing. His work with Olmsted began in 1857 when

the two of them won the competition for the design of Central Park with their “Greensward”

plan. Vaux was responsible for the design of most of the early architecture in the Buffalo

Olmsted parks including the Delaware Park boathouse, the Spirehead Gazebo, and the Parade

House in The Parade. His creative designs contributed significantly to the Olmsted Park System.

(Source – Kowsky, Francis. (2002) Calvert Vaux: The Unsung Hero of Landscape Architecture.)

I M A G E

Calvert Vaux collaborated withOlmsted on the design of the BuffaloOlmsted Park System. (Source –Alex, William. (1994) Calvert Vaux:Architect and Planner. New York, NY:New York, Ink.)


12 Introduction

The second important characteristic ofBuffalo’s park system is that it was a uniquemilestone in Olmsted’s remarkable career. Itwas his first full system of interconnectedparks and parkways, and represents one ofhis largest bodies of work. His designs for anextensive system of parks linked by wide,European-style parkways and elegant trafficcircles was integrated into Buffalo’s JosephEllicott radial street design. Indeed, Olmstedwas inspired by Buffalo’s design, famouslydeclaring it to be the “best planned city…inthe United States if not the world.”3 Today,Buffalo’s Olmsted Park System is listed as acultural landscape on the National Register ofHistoric Places, and is one of a very smallnumber of Olmsted park and parkwaysystems in the U.S.

‘Cultural Landscape’ Designation

The National Park Service defines a cultural landscape as “a geographic area, including both

cultural and natural resources and the wildlife or domestic animals therein, associated with a

historic event, activity, or person or exhibiting other cultural or aesthetic values.” In short, it is a

site that is historically significant because of both its cultural importance and its physical

attributes. There are four types of cultural landscapes: historic sites, historic designed landscapes,

historic vernacular landscapes, and ethnographic landscapes. Buffalo’s Olmsted Park System was

named a cultural landscape, specifically a historic designed landscape, and placed on the

National Register of Historic Places in 1982 by the National Park Service, United States

Department of Interior. This relatively new designation is important, because it expands what it

means to restore historic sites like Buffalo’s Olmsted Park System. For instance, rather than only

accounting for the physical landscape of the parks themselves, it also takes into account what

the parks have meant—and continue to mean—to the community.

(Source – Beveridge, Charles. (1986) Toward a Definition of Olmstedian Principles of Design.National Association for Olmsted Parks.)

The City of Buffalo is built on the structure of the Olmsted parks, Ellicott’s radial streetplan, and its location on the water. (Source – Queen City in the 21st Century: Buffalo’sComprehensive Plan. (2006) Prepared for the City of Buffalo by the Office of StrategicPlanning, Carter International, The Urban Design Project, and the Institute for LocalGovernance and Regional Growth.)


Introduction 13

21st Century Park Issues

Buffalo’s Olmsted Park System is recognizedas a unique historic cultural landscape and iscelebrated as one of America’s greatest parksystems. It was a model in the late 19th andearly 20th century of how parks and citiescould grow together to meet the needs ofurban populations and booming urbancenters. Work was still progressing on theparks at the turn of the century when Buffalohad become one of the leading commercecenters in the U.S. Located at the terminus ofthe Great Lakes shipping routes, the city hadlong dominated water transportation andtrade, particularly since the completion of theErie Canal in 1825. Even as the country’seconomic focus turned from shipping torailroads, Buffalo continued to thrive. Anetwork of railroads linked Buffalo to NewYork, Philadelphia, Cleveland, and otherpoints east that had formerly been served bythe Canal. In 1901 at the celebration of thePan American Exposition, Buffalo was secondonly to Chicago in the number of railroadsterminating in the city. It was within a day’sjourney for more than 40 million peopleacross the country.

As the 20th century progressed, however,Buffalo, like many industrial cities, declined inpopulation and wealth. In the last third of the20th century, cities such as Buffalo werereeling from the effects of globalization andsuburbanization—jobs went overseas, citieswere emptied, resources for public amenitieswere non-existent. The once cherished parkscame to be viewed as a burden onoverstretched budgets instead of Olmsted’sidea of essential elements of dynamic urbancenters. The parks, underfunded, slipped intodecline and no longer served the citizens asspaces for recreation and renewal. Citiesbegan to question the viability of parks as acontributing urban form and consideredOlmsted’s vision as outdated and romantic.

I M A G E S

This page:

Buffalo grew rapidly from 1866(right) to 1902 (below). TheBuffalo Olmsted Park System didnot exist in 1866, but much of it,including elements that no longerexist, is highlighted on the 1902map. (Source – University atBuffalo Online Library MappingCollection.)


14 Introduction

At the dawn of the 21st century, how areurban parks faring? Do citizens have the sameneeds imagined by Olmsted and parkplanners over 100 years ago? Can a system ofparks such as Buffalo’s actually meetcontemporary recreational needs? Do peoplereally need contact with nature? What arepark issues for the 21st century and isOlmsted’s 19th century vision relevant today?And how do we justify the cost of open greenspaces during an era of increasingly tightbudgets? The following section explores somerecent research on the role of parks in citiesand offers a test of Olmsted’s 19th centuryideas against the knowledge we have today.

Parks Heal Urban Ills andContribute to the Wealth of Cities

A growing body of literature has recentlydocumented the importance of parks to thehealth and wealth of a city. Research shows,for example, that well-kept and high qualityurban parks bring financial resources andeconomic revitalization to a city. More thanthat, access to parks encourages physicalactivity and improves a city’s air and waterquality.

Parks and Public Health: Olmsted and the cityleaders who developed Buffalo’s park systemin the late 19th century believed that parks, asplaces of nature, would heal city residentsfrom the stresses of urban life. In recent years,this belief has been borne out by a number ofscientific studies. For instance, research hasshown that access to nature reduces hospitalstays, promotes feelings of good health, andeven decreases the symptoms of AttentionDeficit Disorder in young children.4

Perhaps even more important, recent studiessuggest that ready access to public parksreduces the incidence of obesity and its manyassociated health problems. Obesity hasincreased so dramatically in recent years thatit has been termed an “epidemic” in bothpopular and medical literature. According todata from the National Health and NutritionExamination Survey, nearly a third of allchildren and adolescents are eitheroverweight or at risk for being overweight.And the number of adults with obesity hasreached 66.3 percent.5

The Center for Disease Control reports thatwhen people live near parks their physicalactivity increases by 25 percent, and their riskfor obesity decreases correspondingly. Thosewithout nearby parks, by contrast, are atgreater risk for obesity and suffer significantlymore health problems. “Living far from safeand well-equipped parks and public openspaces is more than an inconvenience.” TheCDC concludes that “it is a contributingfactor to this serious public health threatfacing the nation.”6

Obesity and its related health problems incursubstantial costs. Recent studies indicate thatobesity and physical inactivity cost as much as$94 billion a year, or 9.4 percent of annualhealth expenses in the United States.7

According to the Center for Disease Control,if inactive people became active, the U.S.would save $77 billion every year in medicalcosts alone.8 Not surprisingly, public healthresearchers are increasingly advocating thedevelopment, restoration, and expansion ofcity parks.

Martin Luther King, Jr. Park, like the other Olmsted parks, provides places for children to be active.


Introduction 15

Parks and the Environment: The trees andvegetation in parks are, as Olmsted said, the“lungs of the city,” crucial for reducing airpollution. In New York City, for example, it isestimated that trees remove 1,821 metrictons of air pollution per year.9 In addition todecreasing air pollution, parks benefit theenvironment by enhancing water quality andmoderating temperatures. Parks, becausethey are spaces full of plants, absorb and filterrainfall, reduce flooding, rechargegroundwater, and control erosion. In thismanner, parks are a major benefit to a city’senvironmental quality as well as itspocketbook.

Stormwater runoff is the biggest polluter ofwaterways in the U.S. In response to thisproblem, new federal regulations require citiesto account for the quality and quantity ofstormwater runoff from their imperviousurban surfaces. In cities like Buffalo that have‘combined sewer systems’ and treatstormwater with sewage, the problem isexacerbated. In heavy rains, raw sewageenters rivers and lakes because of the amountof stormwater discharged into the city’s sewersystem. Buffalo’s Sewer Authority couldsupport parks and green space to helpeliminate overflows.

Indeed, parks and green spaces already savethe city money by absorbing rainfall. A 2003study of Buffalo and Lackawanna, forexample, found that trees and green spacesprovided 17.7 million cubic feet of waterstorage during an average storm—a costsavings of $35.5 million a year.10 Renovationand expansion of Buffalo’s park system couldhelp eliminate the stormwater problem andsave the city an enormous expense.

A Physically Active Citizenry Saves Money

What does this mean for Buffalo and Erie County? Buffalo has 292,000 people, over 25 percent

of whom live in poverty and receive medical assistance. Let’s estimate that at least one-half do

not live near parks. The Center for Disease Control’s research has found that people living near

parks actually exercise more. If we provided nearby parks to all communities, it would amount to

a savings of $50 million/ year of public monies devoted to health care for Buffalo alone.

(Source – Breinlich, Angelika, Laura Quebral Fulton, Jonathan Hastings, Holly Lindstrom, Mark McGovern, Megha Pareka,and Jaclyn Patrignani. Under the Guidance of Professor Lynda Schneekloth and Professor Robert Shibley. (2005) GreenInfrastructure Report. Buffalo, NY: University at Buffalo.)

The Bog Garden in South Park, designed by the Olmsted Brothers, helps collect stormwater.


16 Introduction

Moreover, trees and green spaces benefit theenvironment by moderating citytemperatures. Astonishingly, the evaporationfrom a single tree can produce the coolingeffect of 10 room-sized air conditionersoperating 24 hours a day.11 Using trees andgreen spaces to reduce Buffalo’s “heat islandeffect” would not only decrease the energyand costs required for air conditioning andrefrigeration, but would also improve publichealth by reducing mortality rates duringsummertime heat waves.

Parks and Wealth: Olmsted and his 19thcentury advocates believed that the Buffalopark system would promote the city’s wealth.This belief has been confirmed by recentstudies showing that cities with wellmaintained parks attract more businesses andworkers, and bring in greater tax revenues.12

A recent study of Philadelphia is a case inpoint. Philadelphia is an older city that suffersfrom many of the same problems as Buffalo:its population is shrinking, aging, and losingeconomic strength. However, in areas of thecity with easy access to parks, residents’educational attainment was higher, theirmedian income increased, unemploymentdeclined, and their housing values rose.Higher property values near parks, in turn,increased property taxes and the city’s taxbase; in fact, researchers estimate that urbanparks increase tax revenues by as much as 30percent.13 In short, this study shows that thevery people that cities like Philadelphia andBuffalo need to attract and retain—thosewho will increase the community’s educationand income levels, as well as boost the city’stax base—are attracted to cities with safe,well maintained parks.

Buffalo Trees Provide Over $800,000 in Air Quality Value Each Year

The Forest Service estimates that over a 50-year life span, a single tree contributes:

• $31,250 worth of oxygen

• $62,900 worth of air pollution control

• $37,500 worth of water

• $31,250 worth of soil erosion control

(Source – Urban Ecosystem Analysis Buffalo-Lackawanna Area Erie County, New York. (2003) Prepared for the USDA ForestService by American Forests.)

The areas around the Olmsted system, like the Symphony Circle neighborhood, quicklybecame fashionable places to live.


Introduction 17

Chicago’s Millennium Park is a prime exampleof the capital gains that can result frominvesting in urban parks. Costing hundreds ofmillions of dollars to build, Millennium Parkunsurprisingly sparked great controversyamong the city’s residents. Today, however,the benefits of the city’s investment areundeniable. Chicago leaders report that thepark has increased real estate values by asmuch as $1.4 billion, and generated millionsof dollars in revenue for nearby businessesthat cater to the 4 million tourists who visitthe park each year.14 Millennium Park is proofthat what may initially appear to voters as apublic “subsidy” can, in reality, be a lucrative“investment.”

What we have learned through contemporaryresearch is that Olmsted was right: parks dofunction as he originally conceived them,offering opportunities for relaxation,recreation and contact with naturalprocesses—bringing health and wealth intoour urban spaces.

Yet even if we assume parks to be a vital partof vibrant cities, many difficult issues canstymie the development and maintenance ofcity parks. This is particularly true when theparks are not only important to the day-to-day lives of city-dwellers, but are sites ofhistorical significance as well.

Parks, Cultural History, and Politics

The Buffalo Olmsted Park System that weplan for, use, and value has a unique historyworthy of national recognition. But like allplaces on the earth, the land occupied by theparks are not just static physical spaces but isthe site of evolving uses, ownerships,remembrances, activities, meanings, andconflicts over many years. This sectionaddresses this condition in two ways. First, thereport offers a brief overview of the history ofthe places both before and after theconception and installation of the BuffaloOlmsted Park System. The second part of thissection discusses the conflicts andcontroversies built into park planning ingeneral, and what insights we can glean fromthe manner in which Olmsted himselfaddressed them

Layers of Cultural History

The Buffalo Olmsted Park System is a culturallandscape, designated as a historic designedlandscape by the National Park Service (NPS)and the New York State Office of Parks,Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP).But the lands on which they rest had a historybefore Olmsted designed and built the parks,and other historic events have occurred in theparks since their inception.

Can Parks Reduce Crime?

One study shows a 26 percent decrease in youth offenses after the implementation of

recreation programs (Source – Witt, Peter and John Crompton. (1997) “The Protective Factors Framework: A Key to Programming for Benefits and Evaluating for Results.” Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 15(3). p 1-18.)

What does this mean for Buffalo and Erie County? Erie County had about 2,000 youths in

detention in 2002, costing almost $200/day each for housing, feeding and guarding. A

reduction of 26 percent because of increased recreational programs would be a savings of

nearly $3.6 million annually—easily enough to pay for these programs and green spaces.


18 Introduction

For example, Delaware Park incorporatesevents that preceded Olmsted’s design. WhenOlmsted visited Buffalo, the land on either sideof the Scajaquada Creek was farmland, andthe area was called Flint Hill. During the Warof 1812, much of this land was owned byErastus Granger, who was the first postmastergeneral in the United States.15 In the middleof the meadow in Delaware Park lay the bodiesof 300 soldiers who died in the War of 1812.Today, there is a marker at the site and golfersmove over and around this sacred ground.

Even after the park was in place, the 1901Pan American Exposition hugged the northshore of the Gala Water (Hoyt Lake), althoughmost of it was held in areas just north ofDelaware Park. We see remnants of this greatcelebration in the New York State Pavilion,now known as the Buffalo and Erie CountyHistorical Society. These cultural landscapesare an underlay of the current park system,and could be used to enhance the richness ofthe already outstanding cultural history thatOlmsted brought to the area.

There are two particular stories overlappingsome of the park system that could beinterpreted to enrich the visitor experience tothe parks: the history of native people in thisarea and the story of the UndergroundRailroad and the civil rights movement in theU.S. This section will address some of thelayers of cultural history. (See the Layers ofCultural History Report in the SupplementalMaterials for more detailed information)

Native Americans and the Olmsted Park System

Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr. and NativeAmericans of the Niagara Frontier held acommon viewpoint: water is Buffalo’s greatestresource. While early indigenous people reliedupon the region’s freshwater resources to fulfilltheir basic living and transportation needs,Olmsted saw these local waterways as a meansto support a unique system of parksthroughout a growing city. Due to this sharedinterest in water, one can find many uniqueand historically significant Native American sitesthat overlap the Buffalo Olmsted Park System.

Prior to the 19th century, the Niagara Frontierwas a vast wilderness full of pristinewaterways along which Native Americansdwelled in small villages, grew their crops,fished and hunted, worshipped, and warredamong tribes. During that time, there weremore local creeks and streams in Buffalo thanthere are today. Archeological evidence showsthat indigenous people dwelled throughoutthe Niagara Region since the recedingWisconsin ice sheets began unveiling theGreat Lakes (about 10-15,000 years ago). The Kahkwa, also known as the Neutrals orNeutral Nation, was one of the earliest tribesknown to early explorers. Their main villagelay in what is today the Seneca Indian Park onBuffum Street near Cazenovia Park. It iswidely believed that most Kahkwa wereassimilated into the Seneca as they moved tothe Niagara Region, and few traces of theNeutrals exist after the late 17th century.16

The Haudenosaunne, or the IroquoisConfederacy, was known as the most powerfulIndian Nation in North America before andafter the American Revolution.17 Of the sixnations, the Seneca were known as the“keepers of the western door” because oftheir location as the first line of defenseagainst warring tribes from the west such asthe Huron and Erie. The Seneca movedpermanently into the Niagara region after theScorched Campaign of General Sullivan in1799 destroyed their villages and fields in theFinger Lakes Region. Like the Neutrals, theSeneca chose strategic inland locations fortheir villages along the many local creeks andstreams, avoiding land directly along Lake Eriethat was subject to swells and other harshnatural elements.

This entire area once belonged to nativepeople and it is therefore not a surprise tofind traces of their habitation throughoutBuffalo. However, the most significant area ofNative American heritage in the BuffaloOlmsted Park System is Cazenovia Park, and itis here that this underlay of history can bemost fully interpreted.


Introduction 19

Archeological evidence shows that Tga’-non-da-ga’-yos-hah (meaning “The old village”)was the site of the original Kahkwa villageand burial ground on Buffalo Creek. TheSeneca established the center of the BuffaloCreek Reservation (1794-1826) near what isthe main entrance of Red Jacket Parkway. The village itself was around Seneca IndianPark on Buffum Street, just beyond CazenoviaPark’s northeast edge. The sacred Senecaburial ground was the original resting place of Mary Jamieson, a settler who was capturedby the Seneca as a child but chose to remainliving with them as an adult, and the greatorator Chief Segoyawatha or Red Jacket,whose body was later relocated to ForestLawn cemetery in Buffalo where it residestoday.

The Seneca Mission House (or Tga-is -da-ni-yont—“the place of the suspended bell”),located in the center of Tga’-non-da-ga’-yos-hah, was the source of much debate amongthe traditional Seneca and the quicklygrowing factions of Christian Seneca uponthe reservation. The mission was also lookedupon with great disapproval by Red Jacketand Farmer’s Brothers who spoke outvehemently against outside religiousinfluences.18

The Seneca referred to Cazenovia Creek asGa-e-na-dah-daah, which translates to “slaterock bottom.” It was on the flats of thisshallow waterway that some of the moreprestigious Seneca constructed single-familycabins, rather than the traditional longhouse.The current location of Cazenovia Park wasthe home of two prominent Seneca leaders:Chief Pollard near the corner of Abbott andCazenovia Street on the western side of thecreek and Chief Silverheels across the creek atwhat is now the casino in Cazenovia Park.

The land occupied by the Buffalo OlmstedPark System shares a great deal of historywith local Native American tribes, especiallythe Seneca of the Iroquois Confederacy.Olmsted may have been aware of this history,and the simple and descriptive names that heused for the parks—such as The Front andThe Bank—are consistent with those used byNative Americans to describe the naturalcharacteristics of the area such as Dyos-daah’-ga-eh or “the rocky bank.” It would thereforeseem appropriate to recognize thisoverlapping heritage within the BuffaloOlmsted Park System and to provide visitorswith a basic interpretation of this historicalrelationship that the parks and parkwaysshare with local Native Americans.

Red Jacket, a great orator, spoke at his own trial for practicing “witchcraft.”(Source – Eberle, Scott, and Joseph Grande. (1987) A Pictorial History ofBuffalo and Erie County: Second Looks. Norfolk, VA: The Donning Company.)

This map shows important locations of Buffalo’s Native Americanand African American history in relation to the Olmsted Park System.


20 Introduction

African Americans and the Olmsted Park System

Besides being the father of landscapearchitecture, Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr. wasalso a great writer and social commentator.Many of his forward-thinking views wereexpressed in a series of travel books such asWalks and Talks of an American Farmer inEngland (1852), in which Olmsted offered hiskeen observations and unique perspectives onthe changing social and physical landscapesof the mid-1800s. In the years immediatelypreceding the American Civil War, Olmstedpublished two literary works on the southernUnited States—A Journey in the SeaboardSlave States, with Remarks on Their Economy(1856) and A Journey to the Back Country(1860). Both were meant to give an impartialexamination of the practice of slavery in theSouth. Olmsted’s initial objective was toprovide readers with sound arguments and tobring about possible resolutions for thebrewing conflicts leading up to the Civil War.Instead, these works further exposed theconceptual flaws, socioeconomic failings, andmoral atrocities of slavery. In A Journey,Olmsted wrote:

Slavery…withholds all encouragementfrom the laborer to improve his facultiesand his skill; destroys his self-respect;misdirects and debases his ambition, andwithholds all the natural motives, whichlead men to endeavor to increase theircapacity of usefulness to their countryand the world.19

By the time Olmsted came to Buffalo, the CivilWar had resolved the issues of slavery.Buffalo/Niagara had played an important rolethrough its participation in the UndergroundRailroad with famous people such as FrederickDouglass and Harriet Tubman moving throughthe region. Although much of Buffalo’sAfrican American history centers around theMichigan Avenue Baptist Church andBroderick Park on the Niagara River, it is saidthat Frederick Douglass spoke in what is nowFront Park in 1843 at the National NegroConvention.

The names of parts of the Olmsted Park Systemare also related to the history of slavery in theUnited States. Humboldt Park and Parkwaywere named for Alexander von Humboldt,who was a scientist who opposed slavery inthe Americas. He once stated that “withoutdoubt, slavery is the greatest of all the evilswhich have afflicted mankind.”20 AgassizCircle, which connects the Humboldt Parkwayto Delaware Park, was named after LouisAgassiz, a noted Swiss naturalist who studiedunder von Humboldt. Agassiz was aproponent of the polygenic theory, whichsuggests that different human races arecreated as different species and are unequal.This theory and his lectures were used topromote slavery.21 Fillmore Avenue, whichruns through the middle of Martin LutherKing, Jr. Park, was named after PresidentMillard Fillmore, who was from Western NewYork. As a lawyer in the Buffalo area, Fillmorewas once retained as counsel for an allegedfugitive slave. Fillmore served withoutaccepting a fee, because he considered it “hisduty to help the poor fugitive.” As Presidentof the United States, however, Fillmore latersigned the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.22

Frederick Douglass spent some of his life living nearBuffalo in Rochester, NY. (Source – National Archivesand Records Administration.)


Introduction 21

The most salient story of African Americansand the Olmsted system is the tragic historyof the destruction of Olmsted’s HumboldtParkway to build an expressway. The areaaround The Parade, later called HumboldtPark, was a center of black settlementbetween 1910 and 1970. As Mark Goldmandescribes in his book, City on the Edge, theparkway was very important in the lives of thecommunity:

From their home on Humboldt Parkway,Dr. Lydia Wright and her husband, Dr.Frank Evans, watched the same sight.Frederick Law Olmsted had laid out theparkway as a woodsy link to joinHumboldt Park to Delaware Park. Theparkway, the African American couplefrom Baltimore knew, held theneighborhood together. It was the placewhere the children played together andthe grownups walked and talked. Likeeverybody else in the neighborhood,Wright and Evans came to the park tosit, to walk, and to socialize with friendsand neighbors. The couple had tried tostop the project by organizing theirneighbors and lobbying officials inBuffalo and Albany about the plan tobuild a highway through the heart oftheir neighborhood; they received noresponse.23

Today, the most obvious connection of theblack community and Olmsted is the 1977rededication of Humboldt Park as MartinLuther King, Jr. Park. This park today lies inthe center of an African American communityin Buffalo and remains an ongoing focus ofefforts to provide both active and passiverecreational opportunities to the surroundingneighborhood while restoring the HumboldtBasin to its original prominence.

Like local Native American history, thesignificant African American history engrainedin the Buffalo Olmsted Park System should berecognized. The injustices of slavery and racialdiscrimination, as well as the heroic stories ofthe Underground Railroad and the Civil Rightsmovement, add additional value and meaningto Olmsted’s parks.

Frank Grant: African American Baseball Pioneer

At Olympic Park on Richmond Avenue (one of Olmsted’s parkways) the Buffalo Bisons of theintegrated International League played their baseball games between 1884 and 1888. Thegrandstand seated 4,000 fans and was considered an innovation of the time. During the 1886season, the Bisons recruited Frank Grant—their first African American player—whoseoutstanding skills both at the plate (.340 batting average in 1878) and in the field quickly turnedthe team around. That same year, Jim Crow laws banned all African Americans from the game.Frank Grant helped pioneer the Negro League in baseball that continued until the 1940s. In2006, Frank Grant was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame by the Negro League Committee.

(Source - Overfield, Joseph. (1955) “When Baseball Came to Richmond Avenue.” Niagara Frontier, 2(2). Summer. p 3-10.)


22 Introduction

Controversies Built into Parks

Investing in city parks is no simple matter. Aswith all urban places, parks are not simplyphysical landscapes; they are social spaces,invested over time with the changing hopesand conflicts of the community. Buffalo’sOlmsted parks are no different. From thebeginning, they were sites of political debateas well as civic pride. Controversy was builtinto the park system, and it will undoubtedlycontinue to be a part of the parks’ legacy. Butsuch controversy is the starting point fordiscussion, rather than the end point. And thevision and parks implemented in the lastcentury offer us some ideas about how tomanage the controversies.

City planners, policymakers, historicpreservationists, and neighborhood activistseach approach parks with a different set ofideas and priorities. This unavoidable factleads to a number of important questions:who determines the fate of Buffalo’s Olmstedparks, and how can parks be transformed toreflect modern-day uses and still be preservedto maintain the historical integrity of theiroriginal design?

Buffalo’s Olmsted parks present a number ofdifficult issues for city policymakers, historicpreservationists, and neighborhood activists todiscuss. For instance, are they“neighborhood” parks designed to meet localneeds, or do they “belong” to the city as awhole? Should they favor certain kinds ofrecreation—structured versus unstructured,for example? Who gets to decide? Shouldmodern-day needs, such as the speedy flowof traffic, take precedence over the parks’original designs that favored leisurelyparkways and elegant traffic circles? And howdo the Olmsted parks fit into the larger parksystem in Buffalo and Erie County? Each ofthese issues has been, and will continue tobe, discussed. Nevertheless, it is useful to seehow these issues were historically resolved.

The apparent conflict between the parks’“neighborhood” needs and “citywide” needsis one addressed by Olmsted in the early parkdesign. Each historic park was spaciousenough and programmatically complexenough to adequately serve the needs ofneighborhood residents, while also featuringunique elements that made it a citywidedestination within the system. Olmsted thusstruck a very workable balance: neighborhoodsgot their own fully functioning local park,along with easy access to the whole parksystem, and the city got a comprehensivepark system that provided for both coherenceand diversity.

Olmsted’s legacy can also be insightful—although not definitive—for seeminglyintractable quandaries such as the debatebetween structured and unstructured uses,i.e., how much space should be dedicated toa single sport and how much should beavailable for unstructured recreation. Buffalo’sOlmsted parks had been designed and largelycompleted before the idea of using parksprimarily for sports-type recreation emergedas a cultural expectation. Parks were stillthought to be places for contact with natureand informal active recreation. But soon afterthe parks were in place, popular notions ofrecreation changed. Around the turn of thecentury, right about the time that Olmsted Sr.retired and handed over the reins to his sons,structured sports facilities became enormouslypopular. In the course of the 20th century,baseball diamonds were placed in the parksfollowed by tennis courts, golf courses, andhockey rinks.


Introduction 23

On the one hand, the historical record is clear.Olmsted designed the parks as open,unstructured spaces that could accommodatea wide range of activities—leisurely strolls,jogging, children’s games, polo, bicycle riding,sledding, ice skating, lawn tennis and croquet,music and circus shows, and so forth. Butbecause some sports activities were broughtin during the period of significance, theargument about ‘appropriate’ park usescannot be resolved by reference to historicalprecedent—either for or against. Rather, thetension must be continually addressed andresolved in each situation.

The history of park controversies also offersinsight into the immensely complicated issueof transportation. In Olmsted’s time, watertransport was Buffalo’s economic lifebloodand the use of the waterfront was industrial.Nonetheless, Olmsted insisted that the park

system reach the water’s edge, even if itwould dislocate industrial activity. As weknow, he was not always successful, but thereis no evidence that Olmsted or Buffalo’s cityplanners saw this as an either/or choicebetween leisure and productivity. Front andRiverside Parks were located at the water’sedge as envisioned, while South Park wasmoved inland away from the proposedwaterfront site.

Today, roads rather than waterways are at thecenter of this debate. In our time, theeconomic life of the city demands smooth-moving automobile traffic as much as ithistorically depended on shipping and freighttransportation. In recent decades, however,traffic concerns have overshadowed—and insome cases nearly devastated—the parksystem. Parks have been bisected by majorexpressways, former parkways have

I M A G E S

This page:

Many people use the parks forunstructured recreation.


24 Introduction

themselves become park-devouring highways,and parklands have been annexed by nearbyroadways. Here, Olmsted’s legacy isunambiguous: be respectful of, and evencapitalize on, the importance oftransportation. Yet, at the same time, retainample space for recreation and nature thatmake the city a home for the people who liveand work there.

The tension between the past, present, andfuture of Buffalo’s Olmsted Park System isenormously complex; however, it is not animpossible problem to address. Indeed,working together on these issue offers us theonce-in-a-lifetime chance to deliberate andtransform the very shape of our community.Olmsted’s legacy does suggest that we avoidrigid either/or formulations—local vs.citywide, structured vs. unstructured,expressways vs. parkways. This way ofthinking underestimates and limits the richpossibilities of our legacy.

In the same way that Olmsted offered a visionof green spaces in the city to relieve thecongestion of urban life in the 19th century,citizens at the dawn of the 21st century bringtheir knowledge, insight, and vision to themeaning and uses of parks for futuregenerations. What will we leave for the healthand enjoyment future generations?

From Parks to a Park System to‘Green Infrastructure’

When Olmsted and others started to designparks in the mid to late 19th century, parkswere a new idea for an increasingly urbanpopulation. Prior to the Industrial Revolutionmost people lived in rural areas, and therewas no need for parks as we conceive ofthem today. But the increasing density ofcities and the squalor of many parts of themdemanded some form of address. Parks, aspatches of green within the grey, emerged asa way to give the city lungs and its residents atouch of the natural world.

The Olmsted Park System represented the firstparks in Buffalo and Erie County. However,between 1900 and 1929, while the Olmstedparks were still being developed, more thanthirteen other parks were added to the city’ssystem.24 Since that time, many other parkshave been established for city and countyresidents. In fact, there are a variety of parktypes found throughout Erie County and theCity of Buffalo; county forests with recreationtrails; active recreation parks, including golfcourses and other sports fields; state parks;nature preserves; small neighborhood parks;trails; and bike paths. In total there are 132parks comprising 17,994 acres in Erie County(See Table 1). The six major Olmsted parkscomprise a mere 4.7 percent of this acreage.

I M A G E S

Above:

This trolley on Parkside Avenue tookpeople to and from Delaware Park.(Source – The Buffalo History Works<www.buffalo.historyworks.com>)

Below:

This map shows the extensive systemof parks in Erie County and Buffalo.


Introduction 25

In Buffalo within the last ten years, eightparks and natural habitat areas have beenadded, mostly along the city’s waterways,providing people access to areas that wereformerly committed to manufacturing andindustry. These include North Squaw IslandPark, Towpath Park, Times Beach NaturePreserve, Gallagher Beach, Buffalo River atOhio Street, Buffalo River at Smith Street,Buffalo River at Bailey Avenue, and SenecaBluffs Natural Habitat Area along the BuffaloRiver. All of the state, county, and municipalparks within the City of Buffalo account for1,459 acres of recreational space, with the sixmajor Olmsted parks accounting for 846acres, or close to 60 percent of that space.

The Buffalo Olmsted Park System is a uniquepart of the park system in Buffalo and ErieCounty. They are the only historically designatedcultural landscape, and the only parks designedby Olmsted. On the other hand, they are only asmall portion (4.7 percent) of the park andrecreation opportunities of the total countywidesystem, and cannot, and should not bear adisproportionate burden of park programming.

Table 1 | Parks within All of Erie County

Number Total Size (acres) Average Size (acres)

County Parks 28 10,239 366

Parks 24 7,068 295

Forests 4 3,171 793

State Parks 6 3,423 571

Municipal Parks 98 4,332 44

Major Olmsted 6 846 141

Other 92 3,486 38

TOTAL PARKS 132 17,994 136

Source – 2006 Erie County GIS data and 2002 Erie County Parks System Master Plan

Table 2 | Park Acreage within the City of Buffalo

Total Size (acres)

County Parks 137

State Parks 93

Municipal Parks 1,229

Major Olmsted 846

Other 383

TOTAL PARKS 1,459

Source – 2006 Erie County GIS data and 2002 Erie County ParksSystem Master Plan

The park on the Buffalo River called Seneca Bluffs is one of thenewest additions to the Buffalo park system.


26 Introduction

The Olmsted parkways represent onegreenway trail system within Buffalo. Withinthe last ten years, two additional greenwayand trail systems have emerged or have beenproposed to connect the city to the region:The Shoreline Trail and the proposed NiagaraRiver Greenway. The existing Shoreline Trailruns between Lake Ontario and Lake Erie, andprovides the U.S. side of the Niagara Riverwith a continuous trail similar to the oneoffered by the Niagara Parks Commission onthe Canadian side. The Niagara RiverGreenway will build on, and expand, theShoreline bike trail.

The Niagara River Greenway is a world-class corridor of places, parks andlandscapes that celebrates and interpretsour unique natural, cultural, recreational,scenic, and heritage resources andprovides access to and connectionsbetween these important resources whilegiving rise to economic opportunities forthe region.25

Erie County Parks System Master Plan

Erie County has prepared a master plan, released in 2002, for its park system designed to guide

investment and protection of the park system over the next 20 years. The goal of the plan is to

enhance not only the parks facilities but also recreational options and service delivery. The plan

contains an inventory and assessment of existing facilities and a review and update of existing

plans for individual parks, including new plans for several parks (This plan does not include the

Buffalo Olmsted Park System, as the Conservancy is generating The System Plan separately).

The Erie County Parks System Master Plan reflects a “rising interest and increased participation

in self-directed, nature-based activities,” and includes strategies for more sustainable

management of vegetation and habitat, increased public awareness and education, an

improved signage system, and revised rules and regulations. The plan can be downloaded from

http://www.erie.gov/environment/planning_ecdev/parks/.

Greenways and Green Infrastructure: Olmstedbrought a vision not just of parks, but of apark system. And what we have today is amunicipal system of parks much larger thanOlmsted envisioned, although few of theseparks are connected. What is unique in thecity is the Olmsted connected system of parks:a necklace of green where citizens can movethroughout the city within green spaces. Longbefore greenways gained the popularity theyexperience today, Olmsted saw the need forconnected open space to serve the entirepopulation. A long term goal of many citizensis that all of the Olmsted parks, and city andcounty parks, be connected throughgreenways.


Introduction 27

The Niagara River Greenway stretches from Lake Ontario to Lake Erie. (Source – The Niagara River Greenway Plan. (2007)Prepared for the Niagara River Greenway Commission by Wendel Duchscherer, Architects and Engineers.)


28 Introduction

The Niagara River Greenway, supported by asteady funding stream through the re-licensingof the Niagara Power Project, has beencharged with oversight of this necklace ofgreen. The newly enacted lake-to-lakegreenway system includes the BuffaloOlmsted Park System. Together they willprovide approximately 118 miles of continuoushiking/biking trails in Western New York afterthe implementation of The System Plan.(See the Buffalo Olmsted Parks Conservancy:Connecting Parks and People in the NiagaraRiver Greenway in the SupplementalMaterials)

The idea of parks as public amenities was newin the 19th century. In a similar way, ‘greeninfrastructure’ is a new idea as we move intothe 21st century, an idea that incorporatesparks but extends them as networks of greento include all open spaces, recreationalopportunities, conservation areas, and theirconnections. Rather than seeing parks inside

cities, it depicts cities and settlements inside of green spaces. To call green spacesinfrastructure is to speak to its fundamentalimportance as a part of cities and regions, andto suggest that the services it offers—in termsof quality of life, wealth generation, health,and recreation—are as important anddeserving of public support as transportationand water supply. Parks, parkways, and trailsare part of a larger green infrastructure thatprovides not only recreation, but ecologicalservices such as carbon sequestration,stormwater management, biological diversity,and urban heat island reduction—all criticalissues as we come to understand the impactof global warming. This 21st centuryconception of parks as a part of a largersystem expands the possibilities andopportunities of an historic landscape such as the Buffalo Olmsted Park System.


Introduction 29

Taking Care of the Parks

From Friends of Olmsted Parks to the Buffalo Olmsted ParksConservancy

The grassroots community organizationFriends of the Olmsted Parks was founded in1978 to preserve and promote Buffalo’sOlmsted Park System. Nearly two decadeslater, that organization became the BuffaloOlmsted Parks Conservancy, a groundbreakingnon-profit organization that has a number ofremarkable achievements. First, theConservancy has had considerable success inraising funds to maintain and restore the city’sOlmsted parks. Second, the organization has

established a mutually beneficial partnershipwith New York City’s Central Park Conservancy,which has provided invaluable assistance and,no less important, a much needed role modelfor successfully restoring and expanding thecity’s parks. Finally, the Conservancy hasdeveloped an innovative and efficient style ofzone park management that has improvedthe appearance and functioning of Buffalo’sOlmsted parks. Because of these achievements,Erie County and the City of Buffalocontracted with the Conservancy in 2004 tobecome the official steward of Buffalo’sOlmsted Park System. As a result, the BuffaloOlmsted Parks Conservancy became the firstnon-profit organization in the nation tomanage a park system.

The Rose Garden in Delaware Park is maintained by Conservancy staff and volunteers.


Buffalo’s Olmsted Park System 31

Restoring the Olmsted Park System

Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr., following thesuccess of Central Park in New York City,conceived of a broader democraticexperiment for Buffalo—an expansive systemof parks and parkways that would span thecity and offer all residents an escape fromurban life by providing easy access to theserenity of the natural world. This vision wasparticularly appropriate for turn-of-the-century Buffalo. As one of the country’sfastest growing and most powerful economiccenters, urban land was rapidly beingswallowed up by expanding developmentand, as a result, the quality of life haddiminished for many city residents.

The concept of a series of parks connected bya network of “linear parks” was not only newto Buffalo, it was new to America. The BuffaloOlmsted Park System was Olmsted’s first suchattempt in the country, and it was arguablyhis greatest contribution to the city. From thebeginning, residents of Buffalo welcomedOlmsted’s innovation with open arms as hugecrowds flocked to the new parks. In 1880, forexample, more than 5,000 people a day(7,000 on weekends) visited Front Park alone.

In truth, Olmsted envisioned an even moreelaborate park system for Buffalo than he wasable to implement. For instance, his designentailed a connection between the inner ringand outer ring parks—a route throughnumerous rail lines and industrial sites thatproved too difficult to realize. In addition,Olmsted designed a grand canal and parkwayalong the lakeshore between the originallyconceived lake front location of South Parkand downtown Buffalo—a route that nevermaterialized. And finally, Olmsted planned amore direct connection between Riversideand Delaware Parks, but this, too, was neverimplemented.

The task before the Buffalo Olmsted ParksConservancy and the Buffalo region is topreserve and restore the park system. Theplanning for this work should take intoaccount not only the parks and parkways thatwere successfully built, but also those thatwere never realized but that might makesignificant contributions to the well-being ofthe city. It is time that we, as a community,

Olmsted’s original design placed South Park on Lake Erie. (Source – National Park ServiceFrederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site in Brookline Massachusetts.)

BUFFALO’s OLMSTED PARK SYSTEM


32 Buffalo’s Olmsted Park System

fulfill our obligation to past and futuregenerations by deciding how best to fulfillOlmsted’s vision for Buffalo in the 21st century.

This chapter of The System Plan brieflyoutlines some of the challenges facing parkrestoration and reports on how people areusing the parks. It also provides the guidingprinciples for restoration and management—the blueprint that framed the recommendationsand plan visualization that follow. A briefhistory precedes the recommendations foreach park and parkway system element toplace the proposals in context. Allrecommendations are designated on theaccompanying plans.

Challenges and RestorationOpportunities

Within the last century, a wide variety ofchanges have occurred in the parks. Newideas of what parks are supposed to be,disinvestment following suburbanization,shifts in priorities toward large transportationprojects, and more, have all had an impact. Inthe 20th century, highways have annexedparklands and swallowed parkways; single-use facilities such as baseball diamonds, tenniscourts, and golf courses have come tomonopolize once open grassy meadows; andthe construction of numerous buildings insidethe parks has disrupted the naturallandscapes that Olmsted designed.

Some of the most damaging changes to thepark system include the following:

• The Humboldt Parkway wasdemolished to make room for theKensington Expressway.

• Martin Luther King, Jr. Park lostvaluable parkland with the constructionof the Kensington Expressway.

• Delaware Park was split in two with the construction of the ScajaquadaExpressway.

• A large portion of Gala Water (nowcalled Hoyt Lake) in Delaware Park waslost with the construction of accessroads to the Scajaquada Expressway.

• Both Riverside and Front Parks wereseparated from the water—their raisond’être—with the construction of theNew York State Thruway.

• Front Park lost parkland and the“borrowed” green space from FortPorter, and was cut off from the citywith the construction of the PeaceBridge and its access roads.

• Cazenovia Park lake was abandonedand eventually eliminated.

• All of the six major parks have beenaltered from “natural landscapes” withthe profusion of single-use facilitiessuch as baseball diamonds, tenniscourts, and golf courses.

This image shows the Humboldt Parkway before and after it was destroyed to make way for the KensingtonExpressway. (Source – Copyright J. Henry Priebe Jr. <www.buffalonet.org>)



Although the parks have been damaged, the“bones” of the park system are in goodshape. Despite more than a hundred years ofgrowth and change, Buffalo’s Olmsted ParkSystem has retained a high degree of historicintegrity. The original six major parks still existclose to their original form, and of theconnecting parkways, only HumboldtParkway has been totally lost.

Contemporary Use of theOlmsted Park System

Restoring Buffalo’s Olmsted Park System is notsimply a matter of reconstructing Olmsted’s19th century designs. Indeed, as social spaces,parks cannot simply be restored like apainting or sculpture. Restoration of parksmust not only take into consideration theirhistorical significance, but also their use bythe community today.

In 2004 the Buffalo Olmsted ParksConservancy set out to do just that, launchinga major study to find out how Buffalo’sOlmsted parks are used by modern parkgoers. Over the course of eight weeks, the

study sampled more than 28,000 people thatvisited Buffalo’s Olmsted Parks. Park goersoverwhelmingly favored the kinds of activitiesOlmsted envisioned when he designed theparks over 100 years ago. “Walking, strolling,or running,” for example, were by far themost popular activity; “relaxing, socializing,and picnicking” were the second favorite.These two categories combined representedfully 56 percent of park goers’ activities.When you include other unstructuredactivities such as biking, rollerblading, andspecial events and programs, about 71percent of park users were engaging inunstructured activities.

The Conservancy’s 2004 park-user study didnot include people using the three golfcourses in the parks. Conservancy data for2007 golf course usage shows that the golfcourse in Cazenovia Park was the mostheavily used with 24,968 rounds played. Thetwo golf courses in the historic sections ofOlmsted parks had fewer rounds played.Delaware Park had 15,049, while South Parkhad 14,035.

I M A G E S

Below left:

This 2002 aerial photographshows Front Park surrounded bythe Peace Bridge Plaza and thethruway. (Source – New York StateGIS Clearinghouse)

Right:

People relax in Riverside Park on nice summer days and gosledding in Delaware Park duringthe winter.



National and statewide trends reflect thepopularity of unstructured recreation. The2003 National Sporting Goods AssociationParticipation Survey found that exercisewalking was the most popular recreationactivity, with an estimated 79.2 millionparticipants.26 The 2000 National Survey onRecreation and the Environment suggests thatthe highest participation in recreationalactivities comes in the form of unstructuredactivities such as walking for exercise orpleasure, attending gatherings in an outdoorarea away from home, and picnicking.27

The Statewide Comprehensive OutdoorRecreation Plan (SCORP) by the New YorkState Office of Parks, Recreation and HistoricPreservation (OPRHP), notes that 75 percentof New York State residents participate insome form of outdoor activity. The topactivities were relaxing in the park, walking,swimming, and biking.28

The data from the 2004 Conservancy studysupport Olmsted’s original vision of howurban parks might be used by citizens. Andyet, over the years, space within the Olmstedparks has been transformed to supportstructured recreation facilities. These includegolf courses, baseball and softball diamonds,soccer and football fields, tennis andbasketball courts, ice rinks and swimmingpools. While these facilities are an importantpart of a community, the location ofstructured recreation facilities in the Olmstedparks makes it difficult for visitors to engagein the unstructured activities for which theparks, in their original form, were so wellsuited. This is one of the issues that will beaddressed in the following recommendationsfor the parks.

Olmsted Park System: A Regional Asset

In January 2004, the Conservancycommissioned a survey to measure theuse of Olmsted parks. A total of 614randomly selected adults from Erie andNiagara Counties were surveyed: 25percent were from Buffalo, 55 percentwere from the rest of Erie County, andthe rest (20 percent) were from NiagaraCounty. They were asked if they hadused any of the Olmsted parks in 2003.The results showed that 75 percent ofpeople from Buffalo had used the parks,and 46 percent of people from ErieCounty had used the parks. Using thetotal population of Buffalo and ErieCounty, it is estimated that approximately505,000 people from all of Erie Countyused the Olmsted parks in 2003.



Guiding Principles forRestoration andManagement of Buffalo’sOlmsted Park System

All plans need goals or principles to guidetheir development, just as all landscapes needa vision to aid in determining what topreserve and what to change. The Trusteesand Long Range Planning Committee of theBuffalo Olmsted Parks Conservancy developedthe following principles through ongoingdiscussion and review to aid in the developmentand implementation of The System Plan.They have attempted to incorporate interestsand concerns of the community and otherstakeholders in the process. These principleshave guided the development ofrecommendations for the park system andeach of the individual parks.

Principle One

Protect and rehabilitate the BuffaloOlmsted Park System to preserve andrestore the historic integrity of Olmsted’svision. “Brand” the system as a uniqueand historic landscape. (See the HistoricPreservation Guidelines Appendix)

■ Follow the State Historic PreservationOffice (SHPO) guidelines for thepreservation of historic landscapes, includingspecifications for:

• Topography• Vegetation • Circulation• Buildings and Structures• Site Furnishings and Objects• Spatial Organization and Land Patterns

■ Follow the National Park Service’s (NPS)guidelines for the preservation of culturallandscapes, including specifications for:

• Organizational Elements of theLandscape

Spatial Organization and Land Patterns

• Character Defining Features of theLandscape

TopographyVegetation CirculationWater FeaturesStructures, Site Furnishings, andObjects

■ Differentiate historic resources from anycontemporary interventions.

■ Provide informational and directionalsignage that differentiates between thecultural landscape and other systems.

■ Ensure that entrances/exits to the Olmstedparks are identifiable gateways.

Children learn how to walk, play, and enjoy nature in the parks. The System Planwill help ensure that future generations of children have the same opportunities.



■ Evaluate buildings and facilities.

• Rehabilitate and/or adaptively reusehistoric structures.

• Reconstruct historic structures whereappropriate.

• Use ‘green’ sustainable practices whenrehabilitating/reconstructing structures.

• Decommission/demolish derelict orunderutilized non-historic structures.

• Relocate non-historicactivities/structures outside of the parkswhen appropriate.

• Do not build new non-historicstructures in the Olmsted parks.

Principle Two

Promote safe, secure, diverse, andequitable use of the park system

■ Repair/rehabilitate paths and pedestriancirculation.

• Separate pedestrians and cars wherepossible.

• Create a hierarchy of pathway systemsaccording to the park’s historic integrityand use.

• Follow the American with DisabilitiesAct (ADA) standards for circulationsystems.

• Provide good drainage on pathways. • Provide for pedestrian and bike safety

and accessibility.

■ Rationalize traffic circulation.

• Limit the impact of automobiles on theparks.

• Separate pedestrian and automobilecirculation.

• Employ traffic calming measures onpark roads.

• Redirect through-traffic away from theparks where possible.

• Actively support alternative modes oftransportation to parks includingwalking, bikes, public transit, etc.

• Use historic street widths and roadalignments.

• Provide good drainage and curbing onroads where appropriate.

■ Minimize the impact from parking.

• No new parking areas; no large parkingareas; no parking on the grass;eliminate parking where possible.

• Reduce the need for permanentparking lots by using alternatives forevent overflow parking (i.e., cordonedoff areas of sod over structural soils).

• Provide parking along roadways wherepossible.

• Use alternative and porous pavingsystems.

• Treat stormwater in biorention areasbefore entering water systems.

■ Ensure park comfort for park users.

• Provide restrooms that are supervised,safe, and clean.

Available during park events.Available during permitted uses orpublic gatherings.Always open in occupied buildings.

■ Provide drinking fountains in high use areas.

■ Provide lighting in the parks in areas thatare heavily used at night.

• Retain existing lighting where needed.• Maintain lights near used facilities.• Maintain lights on city streets,

parkways, and circles.• Turn park lights off when parks close

(10pm) except in locations that needlights for security purposes.

■ Support park use.

• Make parks ADA accessible for diversepopulations.

• Provide easy and safe access tosurrounding neighborhoods.

• Balance unstructured/passive recreationopportunities as provided by Olmstedwith structured/active single useallocation of space for recreation.

• Use moveable equipment components.• Improve existing playgrounds but add

no new playgrounds.• Work with city/county on a recreational

plan that includes all city parks, not justOlmsted parks.



Principle Three

Involve partners and ensure meaningfulparticipation by the community.

■ Work with partners to implement the planand to connect the parks to thecommunity.

■ Work with community constituencies inidentifying park and parkway systemrestoration and management strategies.

■ Negotiate each project with the public.

■ Review project development conceptsderived from the plan with the public toassure projects are consistent with both thepreservation of historic integrity and localcommunity values.

■ Non-historic structures and uses in anypark will not be removed withoutcommunity input, and if removed will bereplaced outside of the park as communityneeds dictate.

Principle Four

Promote sustainable strategies:ecological diversity, green design, andbest management practices.

■ Protect and restore soils.

• Compacted soils should be aerated and enriched.

• Compost organic wastes and reuse theend product.

• Steeper slopes should be protectedthrough vegetation and/or other means.

■ Protect, enhance and diversify vegetationwithin Olmsted’s landscape types (meadows,bogs, arboretum, woodlands, parkland,perimeter wooded areas and so on).

• Use native species and hardy cultivars.• Diversify tree / shrub selections.• Restore woodlands by planting in layers.• Avoid using pesticides through

integrated pest management (IPM)techniques to protect water bodies andnatural organisms.

• Control invasive species.• Develop a hierarchy of areas according

to level of maintenance.

■ Protect and enhance bodies of water.

• Rehabilitate/reconstruct Olmsted’swater systems where appropriate.

• Interpret Olmsted’s water elementswhere inappropriate to reconstruct.

• Develop water systems to be as selfsustaining as possible.

• Use native submergent and edgingvegetation.

• Provide public access points andappropriate recreational opportunitieson water elements.

• Prevent pollution (stormwater,combined sewer overflow, animals).

■ Provide effective drainage and stormwatercontrol.

• Infiltrate as much water as quickly aspossible through vegetation, good soil,permeable surfaces, rain gardens,biorention areas, and so on.

• Improve drainage in areas like pathwayswhere standing water is hazardous.

• Use engineering solutions wherenecessary to manage the waters.

Principle Five

Expand the system to connect to parksthroughout the city and to connect to theNiagara River Greenway.

■ Complete the Buffalo Olmsted Park Systemby constructing and/or interpretingOlmsted’s vision.

■ Develop new connections between theparks so that there is a green parkwaysystem through the entire city.

■ Add new connections between theOlmsted parks and the central city andcounty, and between the Olmsted parksand the Niagara River Greenway and othertrail systems.



Principle Six

Use the parks and parkways as acommunity and economic developmentstrategy for adjacent neighborhoods.(Although the Conservancy is not responsiblefor development outside of the park, therestoration of the park and the management/operations can greatly influence the characterand vitality of the adjacent areas.)

■ Implement perimeter plantings and parkwaylandscapes to differentiate the parks fromthe surrounding neighborhoods while atthe same time creating an attractive edgeto residential and commercial life.

■ Make the entrances and neighborhoodconnections to the parks clear andarticulated so that the parks are clearly anamenity to the surrounding area.

Principle Seven

Manage and maintain the systemthrough daily best practices to achievethe goals of historic integrity, public use,and sustainable practice.

■ Develop management and operationsguidelines for the Conservancy and outsideagencies that maintain elements of thepark system according to the plan withconsultant support, staff involvement andcommunity participation.

■ Reconsider storage, maintenance, and otherpark operation structures by identifyingcurrent and future needs in order to locateand rationalize these structures.

Individual Parks: Historyand Recommendations

This part of The System Plan contains thespecific recommendations for each of the sixmajor Olmsted parks. It includes a descriptionand history of each park describing Olmsted’sintent, and the restoration challenges. Aftereach overview, there is a list of goals andrecommended projects specific to each parklinked to the guiding principles for restorationand management. The numbers associatedwith each project recommendation do notrepresent priority rankings.

To illustrate the restoration plans, there are aseries of graphics:

• A map of the restoration plan withprojects identified.

• A partial restoration map that overlaysthe final plan with major obstacles tothe realization of that plan.

• A section drawing showing significantfeatures.

• An aerial view of the proposed final park.

• Sketches of restored areas within the parks.

The recommendations start with the innerring of parks (Delaware, Front and MartinLuther King, Jr.) followed by the outer ring(South, Cazenovia and Riverside). Two finalreport sections offer recommendations forrestoring the parkways, circles and smallspaces, and connecting and extending theBuffalo Olmsted Park System.

“The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Park Systems”

1. A clear expression of purpose

2. An ongoing planning and community involvement process

3. Sufficient assets in land, staffing and equipment to meet the system’s goals

4. Equitable park access

5. User satisfaction

6. Safety from crime and physical hazards

7. Benefits for the city beyond the boundaries of parks

(Source – Harnik, Peter. (2003) The Excellent City Park System. Trust for Public Land.)

I M A G E S

Above (top to bottom):

The Gala Water shoreline hasbeen altered, and several of itssmall inlets have been filled.

The Ivy Bridge in the RumseyWoods is a symbol of DelawarePark today.



Delaware Park

Delaware Park, originally called simply ThePark, is the centerpiece of the Buffalo parksystem—the city’s own Central Park. In itsoriginal state, it was one of the purestexpressions of Olmsted’s vision in the UnitedStates. He hand-picked the site, and, becausehe conceived of it as one element of a largerpark system, he made no compromises as toits character. Other parks could hold stages,parade grounds, formal gardens, and otheramenities. The Park would be entirely devotedto a natural landscape of wide rollingmeadows, wooded thickets penetrated bywinding paths, and a large lake full of islandsand inlets—perfect for leisurely boat rides.

Delaware Park is one of the few Olmsted“greenswards” in America today, but itshistoric character has been compromised over time in both large and small ways.Unfortunately, the park is no longer an islandof nature shielded from its urban surroundings.Major roadways now cut through thegreenery. The wooded thickets that once fullyenveloped the park have thinned or beenremoved altogether. The grand entrances thatonce marked it as a world removed from thecity’s hustle and bustle have all but disappeared.The once wide open meadow is nowmonopolized by athletic grounds (includinggolf, tennis, and baseball) and a motleycollection of buildings. And yet, the rollinglandscape and the stately lake remain—andare still capable of being rescued andrestored. (See Table 3)

The historic Gala Water, now called Hoyt Lake, is a defining Olmstedian park feature. (Source – Copyright Chris Andrle <www.andrle.com>)



Table 3 | Delaware Park (368 Acres)

Period of Significance 1870–1920

Timeline 1870 Design completed for The Park

1876 Construction completed for The Park

1901 Pan American Exposition

1915 18-hole golf course established

1919 Rose Garden completed

1960 Construction completed on Scajaquada Expressway

Notable Features Olmsted System Connections

Parkside Lodge Scajaquada Parkway (destroyed)

Delaware Park Casino Humboldt Parkway (destroyed)

Hoyt Lake (Gala Water) Jewett Parkway (never fully realized)

Rumsey Woods Lincoln Parkway

Rose Garden Agassiz Circle

The Ivy Bridge

Japanese Garden

Cultural Amenities Park Facilities

Buffalo Zoological Gardens 18-Hole Golf Course (1)

Dr. Charles R. Drew Science Magnet School Baseball/Softball diamonds (3)

Forest Lawn Cemetery Football/Soccer/Rugby fields (6)

The Buffalo and Erie County Historical Society Lawn Bowling courts (2)

Albright-Knox Art Gallery Tennis courts (17)

Shakespeare in the Park Basketball courts (4)

Playgrounds (3)

Picnic tables (17)

Picnic shelters (1)



Delaware Park History

Planning for The Park began in August 1868,when Olmsted toured the countryside northof Buffalo looking for large park sites. Heultimately chose an undeveloped, slopinglandscape traversed by the peacefullymeandering Scajaquada Creek. This mixtureof elements—wide, sloping, grassy areas withwater and stands of mature trees—seemedthe perfect place for Olmsted to realize hisdream of creating a natural oasis within thecity. In 1870, he and partner Calvert Vauxsubmitted a plan for a park in two vastsections. The first was the Gala Water,featuring a 46.5-acre lake created bydamming the Scajaquada. The other was theMeadow, highlighting a 234-acre greenswardenclosed by a dense grove of trees. The twowere linked by a thin spine, along whichwould run an elegant parkway offering a wayto experience the park by traveling through itslowly (Olmsted’s preferred method), andconnecting the park to the rest of the Buffalopark system.

Every element of The Park was designed toserve a single purpose: allowing city residents,even large numbers of them, to experiencethe feeling of being enveloped in nature. Thelakeshore, for example, was tree-lined andirregularly shaped with many bays and inlets,and the lake was dotted with small islands.Likewise, the Meadow’s rolling topographywas scattered with strategically placed standsof trees and winding pedestrian pathways. All of these combined elements imitated therandomness of nature within a highlyorganized park design—allowing for seclusioneven amidst crowds and surprises even in arelatively small and well-known landscape.The Park’s deliberate placement next toSoldier’s Cemetery (now Forest LawnCemetery), with its expansive grassy slopes,further fostered the feeling of separation fromthe city. There were no fuzzy, seeping edgesof interpenetration between city and park.When you entered The Park, you passedthrough the grand Agassiz Circle or down themajestic Lincoln Parkway and suddenly youwere surrounded by nature.

I M A G E S

Clockwise from the left:

The 1899 map of The Park didnot include the casino area andthe Parkside Lodge area althoughthey are part of the period ofsignificance.

Sheep once grazed in the Meadow,maintaining the grass lawn.(Source – Buffalo and ErieCounty Historical Society.)

The parkway through DelawarePark once connected the Meadowto Gala Water. (Source – City ofBuffalo. (1900) Buffalo ParkCommissioner Report: 1893-1900.Buffalo, NY: Haas & Klein Printers.)

The park’s few buildings and structures—including the Spirehead Gazebo androofed-bench settees—were designed byCalvert Vaux. Their design seemed to play offBuffalo’s stately mansions with their roundedturrets and ornate woodwork, standing inmarked contrast to the functional styles ofindustrial urbanism.

None of this is to say that Olmsted tried topreserve nature. Rather, he sought to create aplace where people could have the feeling ofbeing in nature. His landscape was in everyway constructed. This helps explain why plansfor the park called for a major building,Calvert Vaux’s boathouse, right at the edge ofthe lake. Rowboats could be rented from thedazzling structure, and open-air concerts wereheld at the nearby bandstand.



By 1876 The Park was substantially completeand already a striking success. Four to fivehundred carriages visited the park on anaverage day, one thousand on a summerSunday. Pictures from the era show howpopular the park was—a lake filled withrowboats in the summer and ice skaters in thewinter. Once public transportation reachedThe Park in the mid-1880s, it saw vibrant use,as city dwellers came for nature walks andpicnics, and to visit the growing collection ofanimals in the deer paddock, which by 1893included grazing buffaloes.

I M A G E S

Above:

Lincoln Parkway extendsDelaware Park into thesurrounding neighborhoods.”(Source – Olmsted Parks inBuffalo, NY < www.olmstedinbuffalo.org/>)

Left:

The Spirehead Gazebo, designedby Vaux, sat atop a hilloverlooking the Gala Water.(Source – Buffalo and ErieCounty historical Society.)

Right:

The Vaux-designed settees gavepark users ornate places to sit.(Source – Buffalo and ErieCounty historical Society.)

Bottom:

The original boathouse in The Park was designed by Vaux.(Source – Buffalo and ErieCounty Historical Society.)



At Olmsted’s request, new land was added tothe park in 1875, 1887, and 1907, and aQuarry Garden was created to take advantageof the area where stone had been taken forroadbeds and buildings.

Other changes, however, were not sowelcome. As early as 1878, reportsmentioned sewage being discharged into thelake through the Scajaquada Creek. And overthe next decades the informal deer paddockbecame a zoological garden, despiteOlmsted’s protests. Moreover, the lakesuffered permanent damage when severalhundred mature trees were cut down tomake room for two buildings ardentlyopposed by Olmsted’s sons: the Albright KnoxArt Gallery and the New York State Building(now the Buffalo and Erie County HistoricalSociety). As beautiful and culturally significantas these buildings are, their commandingclassical styles contrasted sharply with thequiet, curvilinear natural landscape of thepark. And, finally, Vaux’s unique boathousewas replaced by a larger casino.

These incursions into the park were soonaccompanied by an explosion of single-usefacilities that had become common inAmerican parks after the turn of the century.In the newly renamed Delaware Park, golf,football, and baseball had all secured afoothold in the Meadow as early as 1899. By1913, sixteen hundred golfers had permits,and two years later the course was enlargedto 18 holes. Formal baseball diamondsappeared in 1914, and the same year theParkside Lodge was built to accommodatesports players. Near the casino a lovely butincongruously formal Rose Garden andpergola were erected in 1919.

I M A G E S

Left:

Until recently, ice skaters flockedto the lake in Delaware Park everywinter. (Source – Buffalo and Erie County Historical Society.)

Right:

The historic Quarry Garden stonebridges were beautiful in winter.(Source – Buffalo and ErieCounty Historical Society.)

Bottom:

Today, most of Delaware Park’sMeadow is an 18-hole golf course.



Delaware Park Today

With nearly 350 acres, Delaware Park is by far the largest and most complex of Buffalo’sOlmsted parks, and continues to play acentral role in the Buffalo Olmsted ParkSystem and in the city itself. It is the mostutilized of all of the parks, and is located inthe very heart of Buffalo in the OlmstedCrescent Cultural District, along with theAlbright Knox and Burchfield Penny’s ArtGalleries, the Buffalo and Erie CountyHistorical Society, the Zoo, and the soon to be fully restored Darwin Martin House.

Although the park retains its sense of openspace and natural beauty, it has sufferedsubstantial damage over the years. Maturetrees no longer shield the park from of thecity. Athletic fields now dominate theMeadow, warding off walkers and picnickers.A scattering of buildings—manyabandoned—mar the natural landscape,

and the unnatural quiet of abandonment hasenveloped the once busiest part of the park,the former boathouse. Grand points of entrylike Agassiz Circle no longer serve as agateway between two worlds but as a busyintersection for hurrying motorists. Thelakeshore’s nooks and crannies have beenironed away and the Quarry Garden has beenfilled in.

Far worse, Delaware Park was split in twowhen the Scajaquada Expressway, a busyfour-lane highway, was built on top of theHumboldt Parkway. Now the Meadow andlake are cut off so decisively from each otherthat even longtime city residents have a hardtime navigating between the two without acar and a good deal of trouble. This has notonly meant the loss of an essential element ofthe park, but also its primary connection tothe city’s park system.

I M A G E S

Top of page:

Delaware Park has numeroushideouts where people can besecluded from the busy city.

Above:

Once a relaxing parkwayconnecting the two halves of ThePark, the Scajaquada Expresswayis now a dangerous and intrusivebarrier separating Delaware Parkinto two segments.

Below:

This aerial image of DelawarePark is from 2005. (Source – New York State GIS Clearinghouse.)



Delaware Park Recommendations

The restoration of Delaware Park has seven major goals, each requiring a series of projects. Theseprojects will both restore the park’s historic integrity and reconnect its fragmented halves. Thenumbers associated with each project recommendation do not represent priority rankings.

Delaware Park: Goals for Restoration

• Reconnect the fragments of the park.

• Restore the historic integrity of the park from the period of significance.

• Restore Gala Water and other water features.

• Improve or rationalize recreation and services by balancing unstructured recreationwith structured recreation.

• Improve access and circulation within the park for vehicles and pedestrians.

• Establish connections to areas surrounding the park.

• Restore the basic park elements.



Project #1: Support and participate in theupgrade of the Scajaquada Expresswayto a parkway

■ Use traffic calming measures to slow trafficas conceptualized in the Expanded ProjectProposal dated June, 2005, NYSDOT#5470.14.

■ Install pedestrian-safe at-grade crossings.

■ Redesign Agassiz Circle to restore a formalentrance to the park.

■ Redesign Delaware Avenue intersection toeliminate the “cloverleaf” andunconventional ramps.

■ Redesign Lincoln Parkway bridge over theScajaquada Creek to allow for a morepedestrian friendly bridge crossing.

■ Redesign the expressway bridge over theScajaquada Creek to improve its aestheticsas a parkway.

■ Redesign Elmwood Avenue intersection toregain lost parkland.

Project #2: Restore the Meadow

■ Reconsider the golf course—maintain,downgrade to a 9-hole course, or remove.

■ Restore pathway system.

■ Recreate the Lily Pond.

■ Restore perimeter plantings.

■ Remove non-historic structures includingtransformer boxes, the caddy shack, andthe police radio tower.

■ Rehabilitate the Point of the MeadowBuilding.

Project #3: Reconstruct the Ring Roadconsidering its historic alignment

I M A G E S

From the top down:

The historic Lily Pond was afeature of the Meadow that will be restored. (Source –The Buffalo Free-Net.<freenet.buffalo.edu/bah/>)

The ring road encircles theMeadow and is popular withwalkers, joggers, bikers, androllerbladers.

The tops of the stone bridgesabove the Quarry Garden are stillused as pathways in front of theParkside Lodge, although theQuarry Garden has been filled-inbeneath them.

The restored Quarry Garden willinclude excavations that returnthe function of the stone bridges,pools of water, and plantings. The restored Meadow and restored lake will be better connected with the upgrade of the Scajaquada Expressway into a parkway.

Reconnect the Fragmentsof the Park

Restore the Historic Integrity of the Park from the Period ofSignificance



Project #4: Restore the Lodge area

■ Restore the Parkside Lodge facility anddetermine a long term use for it. (See 1997Parkside Lodge Historic Structures Report)

■ Remove the storage/maintenance structure(if no longer in use).

■ Interpret or recreate the Quarry Garden.

■ Reconstruct the bridal path near the lodgealong Parkside Avenue towards JewettParkway.

Project #5: Restore the Casino area

■ Renovate the casino building and the plazaand rationalize service facilities.

■ Enhance the Rose Garden and add a bufferbetween it and the playground.

■ Renovate the Rose Garden pergola.

■ Recreate the historic settees as designed by Vaux.

■ Recreate the historic Spirehead Gazebo asdesigned by Vaux. (See 1993 SpireheadReconstruction Feasibility Study)

■ Redesign the Shakespeare stage so that itbetter fits the context of its location.

Project #6: Restore the Rumsey Woods area

■ Restore the Rumsey Woods Shelter House.

Project #7: Restore or interpret theoriginal shoreline configuration andredesign the path around Gala Water(Hoyt Lake) to reflect the new shape

Project #8: Construct a wetland toimprove water quality at the junction of Hoyt Lake and Scajaquada Creek

■ Work with the local municipalities to restorewater quality and ensure water quantity inHoyt Lake and Scajaquada Creek.

■ Support the ongoing study and long termcleanup of these water bodies. (See 2004Scajaquada Creek WatershedManagement Plan)

Project #9: Enhance the playgrounds

Project #10: Reposition the baseballdiamonds and rotate athletic fields

Project #11: Provide water basedrecreation opportunities on Hoyt Lake

Project #12: Remove the tennis courtsalong the Scajaquada Expressway (in thesouthern part of the Meadow) andimprove other tennis courts in the park

I M A G E S

Below (left to right from the top):

The restored Rumsey Woods Shelter Housewill provide needed amenities to park userssuch as restrooms and drinking fountains.

Large crowds of people once flocked to Gala Water.

Many children use the three playgrounds in Delaware Park.

The basketball courts near Parkside Avenue areused for pick-up games during the summer.

The baseball diamonds in the Meadow areused by local schools in the spring and fall,and by little leagues throughout the summer

Restore Gala Water and other Water Features

Improve or Rationalize Recreationand Services by BalancingUnstructured Recreation withStructured Recreation



Project #13: Improve connections tocultural activities within the park

■ Create a pedestrian connection betweenthe zoo and the park.

■ Create a pedestrian friendly walkway onLincoln Parkway between the park and theAlbright Knox Art Gallery.

■ Improve the connection between the parkand the Historical Society and the JapaneseGarden.

Project #14: Connect the park’s perimeterto the surrounding neighborhood

Project #15: Highlight the park’sconnections to the “Olmsted Crescent” of cultural activities

■ Articulate connection between the parkand the Darwin Martin House.

Project #16: Explore opportunities toconnect Delaware Park to Forest LawnCemetery

Project #17: Connect the park to theNiagara River Greenway

■ Connect to the Greenway by way of theScajaquada Creek and bike path.

■ Identify the entrance to the park by theHistorical Society building and the stonearch bridge over Delaware Avenue aslocations connecting to the Greenway.

Project #18: Restore park perimeter roadsto create more of a park-like setting inthe surrounding neighborhoods

The Olmsted Crescent includes museums, art galleries, theaters, community groups, and neighborhoods withinand surrounding Delaware Park and Martin Luther King, Jr. Park. (Source – Recreated from an original map at<www.olmsted crescent.org>)

Establish Connections toAreas Surrounding the Park

Improve Access and Circulationwithin the Park for Vehiclesand Pedestrians



Delaware Park Restoration Plan

The restoration plan shows the long term vision for restoring Delaware Park based upon the goalsand corresponding recommendations. The partial restoration image of Delaware Park shows theparts of the park that cannot be restored while the 18-hole golf course remains in the historicMeadow.

Project #19: Restore the park’s historicfurnishings

Project #20: Identify areas in need oflighting; design and install lighting

Project #21: Restore and maintain publicrestroom facilities

Project #22: Restore, maintain, or installdrinking fountains

Project #23: Rehabilitate Olmstedpathway system

Project #24: Rehabilitate Olmstedroadway system

Project #25: Introduce traffic calmingmeasures at park roads

Project #26: Install appropriatewayfinding and branding signage

Project #27: Restore historic landscapepatterns and plantings, especiallyperimeter vegetation

Project #28: Manage drainage anderosion issues throughout the park

This image shows the fully restored park pathways.

Restore the Basic Park Elements



RECONNECT THE FRAGMENTS OF THE PARK

Project #1: Support and participate in theupgrade of the ScajaquadaExpressway to a parkway

RESTORE THE HISTORIC INTEGRITY OF THEPARK FROM THE PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE


Project #3: Reconstruct the Ring Roadconsidering its historic alignment

Project #4: Restore the Lodge area

Project #5: Restore the Casino area

Project #6: Restore the Rumsey Woods area

RESTORE GALA WATER AND OTHER WATER FEATURES

Project #7: Restore or interpret the originalshoreline configuration andredesign the path around GalaWater (Hoyt Lake) to reflect thenew shape

Project #8: Construct a wetland to improvewater quality at the junction ofHoyt Lake and Scajaquada Creek

IMPROVE OR RATIONALIZE RECREATION AND SERVICES

Project #9: Enhance the playgrounds

Project #10: Reposition the baseball diamondsand rotate athletic fields

Project #11: Provide water based recreationopportunities on Hoyt Lake

Project #12: Remove the tennis courts along theScajaquada Expressway (in thesouthern part of the Meadow) and improve other tennis courts in the park

IMPROVE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION WITHINTHE PARK FOR VEHICLES AND PEDESTRIANS

Project #13: Improve connections to culturalactivities within the park

ESTABLISH CONNECTIONS TO AREASSURROUNDING THE PARK

*Project #14: Connect the park’s perimeter to thesurrounding neighborhood

*Project #15: Highlight the park’s connections tothe “Olmsted Crescent” of culturalactivities

*Project #16: Explore opportunities to connectDelaware Park to Forest LawnCemetery

*Project #17: Connect the park to the NiagaraRiver Greenway

*Project #18: Restore park perimeter roads tocreate more of a park-like setting inthe surrounding neighborhoods

RESTORE THE BASIC PARK ELEMENTS

*Project #19: Restore the park’s historicfurnishings

*Project #20: Identify areas in need of lighting;design and install lighting

*Project #21: Restore and maintain publicrestroom facilities

*Project #22: Restore, maintain, or install drinkingfountains

*Project #23: Rehabilitate Olmsted pathwaysystem

*Project #24: Rehabilitate Olmsted roadwaysystem

*Project #25: Introduce traffic calming measuresat park roads

*Project #26: Install appropriate wayfinding andbranding signage

*Project #27: Restore historic landscape patternsand plantings, especially perimetervegetation

*Project #28: Manage drainage and erosionissues throughout the park

— R e s t o r at i o n P l a n —

D e l awa r e Pa r k

*These projects are not numbered on the map.

BUFFALO, NY

ERIE COUNTY



Note: The areas in white are major obstacles to the realization of the full restoration plan. Without their removal, the park can only be partially restored. However, non-historic structuresand uses in any park will not be removed without community input, and if removed will be replaced outside of the park as community needs dictate.

The section drawing of the park shows the landscape elevation change from the casino, across the Gala Water (Hoyt Lake), to the restored Scajaquada Parkway.


D e l awa r e Pa r k

Section Drawing

Partial Restoration



Front Park

It may be hard to imagine today, but FrontPark, originally called The Front, was once themost popular recreational destination in thecity and a prominent Buffalo icon. As withDelaware Park, Olmsted himself chose thelocation, but with a different vision in mind.While Delaware Park was to conjure up thesights and sounds of nature, Front Park wasto emphasize the natural elements that wereunique to Buffalo: the Niagara River and LakeErie. The park’s spectacular view of thewaterways from its commanding bluffs,Olmsted wrote, “would be peculiar to Buffaloand would have a character of magnificence.”29

Grand, regal, and more formal than many otherOlmsted landscapes, The Front was designedfor “stately ceremonies,” “civic display,” andother public events.

In the past century Front Park has seen radicalchanges. A multi-lane highway now hurtlesover the old Erie Canal, severing the park’sconnection with the water. The sprawlingPeace Bridge Plaza has paved over the formerFort Porter lawns adjacent to the park. Andyet the basic building blocks of this trulymagnificent emblem of Buffalo remain. Thecity is no longer a shipping hub, but the busyPeace Bridge, adjacent to Front Park, isevidence of its continuing significance as aninternational gateway. The current plans forrestructuring the Peace Bridge and its plazaprovide the perfect opportunity to recreateThe Front. (See Table 4)

The Front was built to overlook the confluence of Lake Erie and the Niagara River. (Source – Buffalo and Erie County Historical Society.)



Table 4 | Front Park (26 Acres)


Timeline 1870 Design completed for The Front

1875 Construction completed for The Front

1927 Peace Bridge completed over Fort Porter

1951 Major Peace Bridge expansion into the park


The Terrace Porter Avenue

Perry Monument The Bank (destroyed)


NA Baseball/Softball diamonds (2)

Tennis courts (2)

Football/Soccer fields (1)

Playgrounds (1)

Picnic tables (9)

Picnic shelters (2)

Front Park History

The Niagara River has been many things toBuffalo: an international border, a generatorof hydropower, and part of the waterwaysystem that put the city on the map. Inselecting a bluff at the mouth of the river forThe Front, Olmsted viewed the waterdifferently, not as a practical source of wealthbut as an opportunity for recreation and civicpride. It was an innovative step in a business-minded city.

As with Delaware Park, Olmsted’s 1870 planfor The Front was for a park that both tookadvantage of the existing landscape andcreated a distinctive recreation ground. Thekey to the park’s identity was the water, itsraison d’être. The 35-acre grounds inclinedgently toward a bluff overlooking the NiagaraRiver so that the whole park had a view of thewater. At the edge overlooking the ErieCanal—the best place for scenic viewing—were formal gardens laced with pedestrianpathways. Beyond the formal garden was a

The period of significance plan for The Front shows its adjacency to the Erie Canal. This map isan 1870 design for The Front overlaid on an 1898 topographical survey map of the same area.(Source – Buffalo and Erie County Historical Society.)



3.5 acre terrace concourse for carriages, andthe Vaux-designed Lakeview House to providecomfort facilities and panoramic views of thewater. The Lakeview House was demolishedin the 1890s, but an ornate bandstandgazebo was built in its place, and in 1900 anew stone picnic shelter was added.

On the park’s northern side, The Front wasconnected to Fort Porter, a military reservationsituated at the head of the Niagara River. FortPorter was named after General Peter B.Porter, who fought in the War of 1812 andserved as Secretary of War in 1828. The Fortwas used as staging grounds and militarybarracks’ until the late 19th century.

The 1880s witnessed a push to expand TheFront into the land between the Erie Canaland the Niagara River. This land had not beenincluded in the original plan, and by 1883 anumber of businesses had located there. In1891, after years of wrangling, the city finallysecured the land and commissioned plansfrom Olmsted to extend The Front to thewater’s edge. Olmsted’s plans included twoplaygrounds (one for boys, one for girls), alawn, a bathing beach, a long pier, and a

boardwalk overlooking the water. In addition,because the new waterfront land wasseparated from the original park by the ErieCanal and railroad tracks, Olmsted’s plancalled for a carriage bridge at the north endof the park and a pedestrian overpass atPorter Avenue.

To make the park widely accessible to cityresidents, Olmsted integrated it into the city’scarriage, bicycle, and pedestrian trafficcirculation. The park’s many windingfootpaths and its scenic parkway (SheridanDrive) were connected to external traffic flow.A dramatic entrance at Sixth Street (now BustiAvenue) and York Street (now Porter Avenue)brought carriages through the Terrace andthen along the edge of Fort Porter onSheridan Drive.

The largest discrete section of the park wasthe 7.5-acre Playground/Hippodrome, an ovalgreen bordered by a tree-lined path. ThePlayground was perfect for team sports andother large group activities, yet no formalsports fields were inscribed on the Playgroundand every effort was made to limit the impactof sports on the lawn.

I M A G E S

Clockwise from top left:

The view from The Front alongthe Terrace and Sheridan Drivewas one of the best in the city.(Source – Copyright Chris Andrle<www.andrle.com>)

Olmsted planned for The Front toreach across the Erie Canal toLake Erie. This was never realized.(Source – City of Buffalo. (1892)Buffalo Park Commissioner Report:1883-1892. Buffalo, NY: Haas &Klein Printers.)

The military barracks at FortPorter were surrounded by greenspace that added to The Front’sparkland. (Source – The Buffalo Free-Net <freenet.buffalo.edu/bah/>)



In the years to come, however, The Front, likemany urban parks, faced an onslaught ofsingle-use sports facilities. By 1915 theseincluded two grass and two clay tennis courtsand five baseball diamonds, and by 1931 theirnumbers had ballooned to eight baseballfields, four tennis courts, two football fields, acricket field, a toboggan slide, and an iceskating rink.

Front Park Today

Today Front Park retains much of its historicform, but, like Delaware Park, it has sufferedmany blows in the past half-century. First, andperhaps most importantly, in the 1950s theNew York State Thruway was built over theold corridor of the Erie Canal. An immenselybusy expressway with multiple traffic lanes,the highway effectively cut off The Front fromwater. The traffic noise alone was enough toward visitors off from the formal gardens,hastening the gardens’ demise and eventualdisappearance. To make matters worse, anaccess ramp to the thruway was built straightthrough the park. Although that access ramphas since been moved to the park’ssouthwestern corner, the highway still roarswhere a peaceful water view oncecommanded park goers’ attention.

The second major blow to the park was theconstruction of the Peace Bridge and itslanding plaza, first built in the 1920s andexpanded in the 1950s. Two access roadswere built through the park to accommodatethe plaza’s increased traffic, and access rampsbetween the thruway and the Peace Bridgetook further bites out of the park, cutting itoff not only from the water but from thesurrounding urban fabric as well. By mid-century the Peace Bridge Plaza had swallowedup Sheridan Drive and encompassed nearly allof the former Fort Porter area, eliminating thegreenspace next to the park. Today, drivers aremore likely to enter the park by accident whiletrying to access the Peace Bridge than toenter on purpose.

All other changes to the park can bepredicted from those two major blows toOlmsted’s original design. Without aconnection to the water and without aconnection to the surrounding urban fabric,the park has lost its identity. As a result, muchof the park has fallen into disrepair: comfortfacilities are no longer available, the park’stree-lined paths have faded away and thehistoric Playground is no longer well defined.

More than any other Olmsted park in Buffalo,The Front—with all its beauty, uniqueness,and importance for the city and the park

I M A G E S

Top:

Sheridan Drive was the northernentrance to The Front, connectingthe park to The Bank circle.(Source – Vintage Views of NewYork <www.vintageviews.org>)

Middle:

This aerial image of Front Park isfrom 2005. (Source – New YorkState GIS Clearinghouse.)

Bottom:

The Peace Bridge was built toconnect Buffalo to Fort Erie,Canada. The Peace Bridge landedon Fort Porter, eliminating thatpart of The Front.

Front Park: Goals for Restoration


• Restore the park’s connection to the water.

• Improve or rationalize recreation and services by balancingunstructured recreation with structured recreation.

• Restore and enhance the park’s gateways and edges.





system—has simply been abandoned. Yet, interms of restoration, being abandoned is farpreferable to being destroyed. In fact, this“ghost park” still has good bones. And withchanges coming to the Peace Bridge Plazaand creative thinking about connecting thepark to the waterfront, The Front could onceagain be a major destination in Buffalo.Moreover, a revitalized Front Park couldaugment a new urban “greenway,”beginning with Prospect Park, and continuingthrough The Front to LaSalle Park.

Recent work on Front Park, includingsignificant restoration of the Terrace,pathways, plantings, and its historiclandscape, has improved the park’s character.With continued work, Front Park could onceagain be what Olmsted imagined it to be: aproud emblem of the city, a recreationaldestination, and a key link in Buffalo’sOlmsted Park System.

Front Park Recommendations

The restoration of Front Park has six majorgoals, each requiring a series of projects.These projects will both restore the park’shistoric integrity and visual connection to thewater, as well as return the park’s popularity.The numbers associated with each projectrecommendation do not represent priorityrankings.

The restoration of Front Park is complicatedby its proximity to the Peace Bridge. Whiledecisions are being made about the nature ofthe bridge, a series of interim projects havebeen implemented to improve the conditionof the park in the short term. The two accessroads to the Peace Bridge through the parkhave been redesigned and merged into oneroad. The Terrace has been repaved andgardens have been planted around it. Twotennis courts have been removed from thepark. The former ice rink has also beenremoved, and the landscape has beenrepaired.

Many of the following long-termrecommendations will depend on the planseventually adopted by the Peace BridgeCommission. For example, the original parkboundaries may be expanded to include partsof the former Fort Porter. There is also a needto deal with the unsightly thruway thatseparates the park from Lake Erie. Deckingthe thruway by the park is a recommendationthat is outside of the cultural landscape, butwould improve the character of the park agreat deal. This recommendation should beconsidered when the thruway undergoesmajor maintenance and improvements in thefuture.



Project #1: Restore the Terrace

■ Restore the Terrace using cobblestones assurface treatment.

■ Restore the formal gardens at the edge ofthe Terrace.

■ In the short term, resurface the Terrace andplant gardens around it.

■ Replace the cannons that were oncelocated on the Terrace.

Project #2: Rebuild Lakeview House

■ Provide views and services to park users.

Project #3: Restore the Playground/Hippodrome

■ Replant the perimeter of trees that oncedefined the oval lawn.

Project #4: Restore the Picnic Shelter

Project #5: Construct an earthen berm orother barrier between the park and thethruway

Project #6: Construct site walls to reclaim views

Project #7: Remove ice rink and restoreoriginal grading

Project #8: Relocate the tennis courts to locations outside of the park

Project #9: Relocate the children’splayground to the northern edge of the park, closer to the residentialneighborhoods

I M A G E S

Above:

These images show the Commodore Perry statue on the Terrace. The statue was recently renovated.

At right (clockwise from top left):

The Lakeview House was constructed onthe Terrace.

The Lakeview House, if reconstructed,could help regain the views of Lake Erie.

The restored picnic shelter will be abeneficial park user amenity.

Restore the Park’s Connection to the Water

Restore the Historic Integrityof the Park from the Period ofSignificance




Project #10: Restore historic parkentrance at Porter and Busti Avenues

Project #11: Restore connections betweenFront Park and the rest of the park system

■ Reinforce these connections via Porter Avenueto LaSalle Park and Cotter Point, and toColumbus and Perla Parks (Prospect Park).

■ Establish bike trails that connect tosurrounding trail systems that are part ofthe Niagara River Greenway.

■ Identify the park entrance at Porter Avenueand Busti as an entrance into the NiagaraRiver Greenway.

Project #12: Reinterpret Fort Porter

■ Restore or reinterpret Fort Porter, theformer greenspace adjacent to Front Park,depending on the final plans for the PeaceBridge Plaza.

Project #13: Recreate Sheridan Drivealong the southwest border of the park

Project #14: Restore or interpret “The Bank”designed by Olmsted, depending on thefinal design of the Peace Bridge Plaza







A rebuilt entrance at Busti and Porter Avenues could provide the distinguished gateway into the park that is lacking.

The historic Busti entrance was a grand gatewayinto The Front. (Source – Olmsted Parks inBuffalo, NY < www.olmstedin buffalo.org/>


Restore and Enhance the Park’sGateways and Edges









Front Park Restoration Plan

The restoration plan shows the long term vision for restoring Front Park based upon the goals andcorresponding recommendations. The partial restoration image of Front Park shows the parts ofthe park that cannot be restored while the Peace Bridge Plaza and access road, as well as theaccess road to the thruway, remain in place.



Project #1: Restore the Terrace

Project #2: Rebuild Lakeview House

Project #3: Restore the Playground/Hippodrome

Project #4: Restore the Picnic Shelter

RESTORE THE PARK’S CONNECTION TO THE WATER

Project #5: Construct an earthen berm or otherbarrier between the park and thethruway

Project #6: Construct site walls to reclaim views

IMPROVE OR RATIONALIZE RECREATION ANDSERVICES

Project #7: Remove ice rink and restore originalgrading

Project #8: Relocate the tennis courts tolocations outside of the park

Project #9: Relocate the children’s playgroundto the northern edge of the park,closer to the residentialneighborhoods

RESTORE AND ENHANCE THE PARK’SGATEWAYS AND EDGES

Project #10: Restore historic park entrance atPorter and Busti Avenues


*Project #11: Restore connections between FrontPark and the rest of the park system

Project #12: Reinterpret Fort Porter

Project #13: Recreate Sheridan Drive along thesouthwest border of the park

Project #14: Restore or interpret “The Bank”designed by Olmsted, dependingon the final design of the PeaceBridge Plaza














f r o n t Pa r k


As of 1-28-08 there has been no determination of thePeace Bridge Plaza location or design.



BUFFALO, NY

ERIE COUNTY


The section drawing of the park shows the landscape elevation change from the Lakeview House, across the Terrace, towards Lake Erie and the Niagara River.


f r o n t Pa r k



Section Drawing

Partial Restoration




Martin LutherKing, Jr. Park

Originally known as The Parade and later asHumboldt Park, Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkwas the most urban of the first three Olmstedparks and the park most devoted to structuredrecreation. In fact, soon after Olmsted’sretirement in 1895, his sons thoroughlyredesigned the park to maximize suchrecreational possibilities, adding in three waterelements—the Humboldt Basin wading pool,the Lily Pool, and the fountain. The Paradethus combined elements of Delaware Park(with its wide open meadow, curvilinearpaths, and wooded thickets) with therecreational facilities of Front Park. If the othertwo parks made grand statements—oneabout the healing power of nature, the otherabout the unique character of Buffalo—The Parade was designed to perform civicfunctions and completed the set by beingdevoted to the simpler pleasures of urbanrecreation: splashing, picnicking, athletics, and so forth.

Like the other parks, Martin Luther King, Jr.Park has suffered significant decline. TheKensington Expressway swallowed an entireedge of the park. Fillmore Avenue, onceinterrupted by the park, now brings busytraffic right through it. And public healthregulations forced the closure of the HumboldtBasin wading pool. But the original purposeof the park remains alive and well. It stilloffers neighborhood residents recreationalopportunities within a lively urban area. (See Table 5)

The historic Humboldt Basin is the defining feature of the park. (Source – Buffalo and Erie County Historical Society.)



Martin Luther King, Jr. Park History

The Parade began its life as a grand militaryparade ground set within a classic Olmstediannatural landscape. Olmsted chose the site in1868 because of its “distinctive naturaladvantages,” including its elevation andproximity to densely populated areas. On thewestern side of the park was a grassymeadow surrounded by a carriage concourse,which he intended for military displays. Theeastern side of the park featured an ornate,Vaux-designed refectory building (the ParadeHouse) facing a large concourse and, to thenorth, a recreation area equipped withgymnastics structures (trapeze and parallelbars), picnic tables, swings, seesaws, and an aviary.

Table 5 | Martin Luther King, Jr. Park (51 Acres)


Timeline 1871 Design completed for The Parade

1895 Revised design for The Parade completed

1910 Construction completed for the renamed Humboldt Park

1929 Natural Science Museum constructed

1960 Construction completed on Scajaquada and Kensington Expressways

1977 Renamed Martin Luther King, Jr. Park

1983 Martin Luther King, Jr. statue was dedicated

1990 Science Magnet School opened


The Humboldt Basin Humboldt Parkway (destroyed)

Rose Garden Fillmore Avenue south (never fully realized)

Martin Luther King, Jr. Tribute Plaza

The Casino

Cultural Amenities Park Facilities:

Buffalo Museum of Science Tennis courts (4)

Dr. Charles R. Drew Science Magnet School Basketball courts (2)

Community Center Playgrounds (3)

Spray Pool (1)

Wading Pool (1)

Picnic tables (29)

Picnic shelters (6)

Grills

The Parade House, designed by Vaux, was located where the greenhouses are today. (Source – Buffalo and Erie County Historical Society.)



Although the park did see a military parade in1874, it was inconveniently located for suchevents and, in any case, the demand forrecreation almost immediately overwhelmedits formal uses. Indeed, the park was sosuccessful as a pleasure grounds that it wasnearly “loved to death” in its first twodecades. Overuse damaged the park’s turfand vegetation, pathways, and structures. Asearly as the 1880s a fence was built aroundthe park, and in 1896 it was replaced by amore imposing wrought iron enclosure.

Planners soon recognized the contradiction ina recreational park that needed to beprotected from park goers. In 1895, the cityresponded by inviting the Olmsted firm toredesign the park. After touring The Parade,John Charles Olmsted drew up new plansthat emphasized what he saw as its centralpurpose: urban recreation in a natural setting.The new design replaced the military paradegrounds with three water features on an east-to-west axis, including a circular fountain, thelarge rectangular Lily Pool, and the 500-footwide Humboldt Basin wading pool forbathing, toy boating, and ice skating.

Footpaths would connect the water featureswith the eastern part of the park, and theParade House would become a publicbathhouse and greenhouse. Fillmore Avenue,which had been interrupted by the paradegrounds, would be reconnected through thepark in an Olmsted-style traffic-calming curve.In the newly named Humboldt Park, onecould drive through the parkway and circlearound the water features, or one could strollthrough on the park’s extensive system offootpaths. One could play in the water,exercise on the gymnastics equipment, go toconcerts at the bandstand, or, starting in theearly 1900s, enjoy the gardens andgreenhouses where local gardeners grew

I M A G E S

Clockwise from left:

This 1870 Olmsted plan for The Parade wascreated before the Humboldt Basin wasproposed. (Source – National Park ServiceFrederick Law Olmsted National Historic Sitein Brookline Massachusetts.)

Formal floral designs were displayed in the park.

The Humboldt Basin was historically used as a wading pool. (Source – Buffalo and ErieCounty Historical Society.)

The fountain was located where the basketballcourts are today. (Source – Copyright ChrisAndrle <www.andrle.com>)

This 1906 map of the park includes the Humboldt Basin and is the period of significance design for the park.(Source – Martin Luther King, Jr. Park Preliminary Master Plan. (2002) Prepared for the City of Buffalo byWendel Duchscherer Architects and Engineers.)



flowers for other city parks. In its newformation, Humboldt Park was still one of themost frequently used recreational spaces inBuffalo. But this activity no longer threatenedto wear out the park and, indeed, it hassurvived largely intact for over half a century.

Despite its devotion to urban recreation,Humboldt Park retained many of the classicOlmsted elements. Straight city streets thatentered the park became curvy, tree-linedcountry lanes. Winding footpaths invitedwalkers to amble through open meadowsand masses of trees, and the wooded thicketsthat enveloped the park provided a feeling ofdistance from the city. However crowded thepark might be, one could never mistake it forthe surrounding city. The entranceways andperimeter plantings made sure park goersknew immediately that they had entered anOlmstedian landscape.

Martin Luther King, Jr. Park Today

Like the other Olmsted parks in Buffalo, The Parade has suffered its share ofencroachments, but it has weathered themsurprisingly well. Indeed, the park has atradition of using changes as newopportunities, dating back to the firstredesign in the 1890s. In 1925, a new parkcasino was constructed to the west of theHumboldt Basin. The Science Museum wasbuilt in the northwest corner of the park nearthe Humboldt Parkway entrance in 1929. Bythe end of the decade, the park was home tofour tennis courts, ice carnivals on theHumboldt Basin in winter, and otheramenities. Although the park had changed, it remained true to its spirit.

I M A G E S

Top:

The Science Museum was added tothe park at the terminus of theHumboldt Parkway. (Source – The Buffalo Museum of Science.)

Bottom:

This aerial image of Martin LutherKing, Jr. Park is from 2005.(Source – New York State GISClearinghouse.)



In 1977 the park was again renamed, thistime after Martin Luther King, Jr. An eight-foot bronze bust of Martin Luther King, Jr.was dedicated six years later in 1983 andplaced in a newly designed plaza in the parkon the eastern side of Fillmore south of thegreenhouse and shelter house. This statuewas sculpted by John Wilson. It remains inthis location today.

Other changes have increased the use of thepark beyond its limits. Reconnecting FillmoreAvenue through the park brought heavytraffic. Overuse and under-maintenance leftthe park’s plants and trees in precariouscondition. And when the Science MagnetSchool was added to the Science Museum in1990, its growing traffic and parking needsrequired more of the park’s western edge,leaving the southwest entrance undefined. Asseen in previous years, so many peoplewanted to use the park for so many purposes,that its capacities were strained beyond itscapacious limits.

Some of the changes to the park wereentirely detrimental. First and foremost, likeseveral other of Buffalo’s Olmsted parks,Martin Luther King, Jr. Park lost ground to ahighway, in this case the KensingtonExpressway, that was built on the oldHumboldt Parkway in the 1950s. Thehighway and its entrance ramps ate up moreof the park’s northwest corner and virtuallyeliminated the most significant gatewayentrance at the Humboldt Parkway. Two ofthe main entrances were now confusingmasses of pavement with no clear indicationof where drivers were going. The combinationof the expressway, buildings, and largeparking lots entirely obscured any sense of thewestern edge as a gateway into the park.Those entering were more likely to feel thatthey had taken a wrong turn, rather thanhaving entered an idyllic natural landscape.

A second major change to the park was thedisappearance of the three water features.Although skeletons of the water features stillexist today, their largely abandoned statecompleted the dissolution of the westernportion of the park. Indeed, with the heavy

I M A G E S

Above:

The existing Martin Luther King, Jr.memorial pays homage to the park’snamesake.

Right:

The beautiful Humboldt Parkway was destroyed and replaced with thebelow-grade Kensington Expressway.

Martin Luther King, Jr. Park: Goals for Restoration


• Establish the Martin Luther King, Jr. Monument as a focal point for the park.



• Reestablish park elements surrounding the Science Museum and school.





traffic on Fillmore Aveune separating thewestern section from the rest of the park, andwith its major features largely abandoned, italmost seems as if this side of Martin LutherKing, Jr. Park has been taken out ofcommission. The eastern portion of the parkhas been better preserved, but it is in need ofextensive work. In particular, the paths andtree plantings need attention to maintain thepark’s unique Olmsted character.

Fortunately, restoration efforts have alreadybegun. A portion of the wading pool, forexample, has been rehabilitated into amodern splash pad, and the casino waspartially refurbished in the early 1990s. Thismomentum need only be maintained to turnMartin Luther King, Jr. Park once again into apopular destination for Buffalo’s residents.

Martin Luther King, Jr. ParkRecommendations

The restoration of Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkhas seven major goals, each requiring a seriesof projects. These projects will both restorethe park’s historic integrity and return theparks elegant and formal design. Thenumbers associated with each projectrecommendation do not represent priorityrankings.



Project #1: Renovate and enhance theCasino building

Project #2: Restore the Humboldt Basin

(See the 2000 Feasibility Study forReconstruction the Martin Luther King, Jr.Park Pool as a Wading Pool)

Project #3: Restore the original Fountainas a splash pad

Project #4: Restore the Lily Pool

Project #5: Improve the historicGreenhouse area

■ Restore the greenhouse and its additions.

■ Renovate the growing house.

■ Remove the south and rear houses if nolonger in use.

■ Restore the loop drive by the shelter houseand greenhouse.

■ Rehabilitate the shelter house.

■ Restore the floral displays.

■ Consolidate park maintenance projectadjacent to the greenhouse.

Project #6: Restore Picnic Grove

■ Relocate tennis courts to a nearby site.

■ Restore historic plantings.

■ Remove non-historic structures when theiruseful life comes to an end.

I M A G E S

Above:

The casino building is adjacent to thewestern edge of the Humboldt Basin.

A very popular splash pad wasrecently constructed in the center ofthe Humboldt Basin.


The restored fountain will be locatedin front of the Science Museum.

An improved playground can betterserve the needs of park users andschool children.

The restored greenhouse, shelterhouse, and surrounding floraldisplays will improve the quality ofthis prominent area of the park.

The shelter house area was once avery active place in the park. (Source – Olmsted Parks in Buffalo,NY <www.olmstedinbuffalo.org/>)

Restore the Historic Integrityof the Park from the Period ofSignificance

The three restored central water features will define the park.



Project #7: Redesign the Martin LutherKing, Jr. Memorial within the loop area

Project #8: Redesign the south Ring Roadas a pedestrian pathway and relocateparking to Best Street

Project #9: Install traffic calming andstreetscape features on Fillmore Avenue

■ Consider narrowing the roadway throughthe park and adding pedestrian crosswalks.

Project #10: Redesign the southwestentrance of the park

Project #11: Redesign the southeastentrance of the park

Project #12: Consolidate and improve theplayground on the south side of the parknear the Humboldt Basin

Project #13: Relocate the basketballcourts and arena outside of the park

Project #14: Relocate the tennis courtsoutside of the park

Project #15: Interpret the remnant of thehistorical Humboldt Parkway at theformer north entrance of the park

Project #16: Rationalize and expandparking for the Museum and park userswithin and outside of the park

■ Reconfigure the parking lot to maximizeparking spaces within the smallest area onthe decked portion of the expressway.

■ Reconfigure the roadway through theparking lot to reclaim the southwest cornerof the park.

■ Design and build a parking lot acrossNorthampton Street in the formerDeaconess Hospital parking area that canbe shared by park users and the school.

Establish The Martin Luther King,Jr. Monument as a Focal Point forthe Park


Improve Access and Circulationwithin the Park for Vehicles andPedestrians

Reestablish Park ElementsSurrounding the ScienceMuseum and School

The Rose Garden is well suited for quiet reflection and getting away from city life.



Project #17: Redesign the school busdrop-off area to articulate the park road

Project #18: Redesign the Rose Gardennear the Science Museum

Project #19: Design a circle at Best Streetnear the Kensington Expressway

■ Articulate this circle as an entrance into theNiagara River Greenway.

Project #20: Redesign the BestStreet/Genesee Street intersection

■ Articulate the park’s edges and its radialplan connection at this intersection.

Project #21: Open West Parade to two-way traffic

Project #22: Widen the sidewalks and adda vegetative buffer to the bridges thatcross the Kensington Expressway

Project #23: Deck over the section of theexpressway by the park

■ This deck can help unify the adjacentneighborhoods and expand the park.

■ In addition to creating a park extension,the program for this space should consideropportunities for basketball, tennis, orother court based athletic opportunities asdefined by close collaboration with theimmediate neighborhood residents.









Martin Luther King, Jr. Park Restoration Plan

The restoration plan shows the long term vision for restoring Martin Luther King, Jr. Park basedupon the goals and corresponding recommendations. The partial restoration image of the parkshows the parts of the park that cannot be restored until a more suitable location in thecommunity can be found for the basketball courts and arena. The existing Kensington Expresswayis also in the way of the full restoration of the park










Project #1: Renovate and enhance the Casino building

Project #2: Restore the Humboldt Basin

Project #3: Restore the original Fountain as a splash pad

Project #4: Restore the Lily Pool

Project #5: Improve the historic Greenhouse area

Project #6: Restore Picnic Grove

ESTABLISH THE MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.MONUMENT AS A FOCAL POINT FOR THE PARK

Project #7: Redesign the Martin Luther King, Jr.Memorial within the loop area


Project #8: Redesign the south Ring Road as a pedestrian pathway and relocateparking to Best Street

Project #9: Install traffic calming and streetscapefeatures on Fillmore Avenue

Project #10: Redesign the southwest entrance of the park

Project #11: Redesign the southeast entrance of the park


Project #12: Consolidate and improve theplayground on the south side of thepark near the Humboldt Basin

Project #13: Relocate the basketball courts andarena outside of the park

Project #14: Relocate the tennis courts outsideof the park

REESTABLISH PARK ELEMENTS SURROUNDINGTHE SCIENCE MUSEUM AND SCHOOL

Project #15: Interpret the remnant of thehistorical Humboldt Parkway at theformer north entrance of the park

Project #16: Rationalize and expand parking forthe Museum and park users withinand outside of the park

Project #17: Redesign the school bus drop-offarea to articulate the park road

Project #18: Redesign the Rose Garden near the Science Museum


Project #19: Design a circle at Best Street nearthe Kensington Expressway

Project #20: Redesign the Best Street/GeneseeStreet intersection

Project #21: Open West Parade to two-way traffic

Project #22: Widen the sidewalks and add avegetative buffer to the bridges thatcross the Kensington Expressway

Project #23: Deck over the section of theexpressway by the park



*Project #25: Restore the park’s historic furnishings




*Project #29: Rehabilitate Olmsted pathway system

*Project #30: Rehabilitate Olmsted roadway system






Martin Luther King, Jr. Park




BUFFALO, NY

ERIE COUNTY


The section drawing of the park shows the landscape elevation change from the fountain, across the Lily Pool and casino, and over the Humboldt Basin.

8





Section Drawing

Partial Restoration



South Park

The three outer ring parks retained the basicstructure of the Olmsted system. Each newpark became part of an organic whole byenriching system-wide themes, while at thesame time expanding the system by adding anew and distinct destination. For South Park,this was the botanical gardens. Set amidst aclassic Olmstedian landscape with undulatinggrasslands, a scenic lake, and pedestrianpaths, South Park’s botanical gardens boasteda majestic Lord & Burnham Conservatory fortropical plants and a world-class arboretum.The only park situated next to a downtowncenter, South Park gave residents on Buffalo’ssouth side easy access to a pastoral landscapewhile adding an integral new feature to thecity’s park system.

Although South Park has suffered someinjuries in the century since it was built, it isunusually well preserved; in fact, Olmstedscholars estimate it to be approximately 90percent intact. But the strengths of this park

further highlight the work that still needs tobe done. For example, its pastoral meadowhas become a 9-hole golf course. The lake hasbecome shallow and tangled with aquaticplants. As in the rest of the park system,South Park’s wooded groves—particularly inthe golf course and around the park’sedges—are in dire need of restoration. Poortraffic management on the ring road hasbrought heavy automobile use whilepedestrian entrances have languished. And,finally, despite renovations to the Lord &Burnham Conservatory, the surroundingbotanical gardens—once the park’s mostpopular attraction—have not beenmaintained. Instead, growing houses for theconservatory have taken their place.

South Park offers Buffalo the rare chance tohalt the decline of a classic Olmstedianlandscape before it has progressed too far.The well preserved conservatory and lakeretain excellent foundations for rebuilding,while its proximity to downtown Lackawannaonly increases the park’s importance to thesurrounding urban fabric. (See Table 6)

The Lord and Burnham Conservatory houses an array of exotic botanical collections.



South Park History

By the 1880s, Buffalo’s growing populationhad begun to strain the capacities of the threeinner ring parks. Residents of Buffalo’s southside, eager to have their share of the city’scelebrated amenities, petitioned the city toextend the park and parkway system intotheir neighborhoods. In response, the city’spark commissioners contacted Olmsted’s firmto discuss a new set of parks in southernBuffalo.

Olmsted, Sr.’s first design for South Parkshowcased a bold new concept for thesystem. His 1889 plan called for a 240-acrewater park that, unlike The Front, wouldintegrate Lake Erie recreationally rather thanuse it as a bucolic backdrop. The new parkwould sit against the lake (slightly west of thecurrent South Park’s location) and beaccessible by boat. Smaller boats from thelake would even be able to navigate aninternal set of water channels—an aquaticversion of Olmsted’s winding pedestrianpaths. The resulting park would take existingthemes of the city’s park system in newdirections, using Buffalo’s iconic waterresources as opportunities for naturalrecreation within the city.

Sunset on the South Park Lake inspires park visitors even today.

Table 6 | South Park (168 Acres)


Timeline 1889 Initial design for lake-front park completed

1894 Design completed for South Park in its current location

1894 Initial construction of the park began

1900 Conservatory structure completed

1915 9-Hole Golf Course added


Bog Garden McKinley Parkway

The Conservatory, Botanical Gardens, and Arboretum

South Park Lake


The Buffalo and Erie County Botanical Gardens 9-Hole Golf Course (1)



Buffalo park commissioners, however,deemed Olmsted’s design—which called forexcavating more than half a million cubicyards of land to build islands, canals, and ashoreline—too expensive, and the originalplan for South Park was rejected. Thedisappointed senior Olmsted turned hisattentions away from Buffalo at that point,leaving the future of Buffalo’s park system toyounger generations in the Olmsted firm.

In designing new parks, the youngerOlmsteds faced the many constraints ofworking in an expanding industrialmetropolis. Buffalo was no longer a small cityon the make; it had become a significantcenter of trade and industry, with much of itsspace taken up by railroads and industrialsites. No longer could park planners strollthrough vast natural landscapes and pickexactly where new parks ought to be. Instead,they had to choose from a rapidly narrowingset of still-existing natural areas and adapt theOlmsted vision to new conditions.

Reflecting these realities, their new plan forSouth Park in 1892 outlined a smaller (155-acre) inland park with virtually no waterfeatures. Instead, it was to be what one

historian described as an “English deer park,”enveloped by dense wooden thickets. Thesylvan landscape would include a greenhouseand ornamental flower gardens, a picnicgrove and concert space, a children’splayground, a running track with athleticequipment, a baseball field, and twopicturesque pools made out of a smallswampy area.

Buffalo’s park commissioners had a differentvision, however, and insisted on adding alarge (21-acre) water feature and expandingthe greenhouse and gardens into a truebotanical garden. Despite his reservations,John Olmsted accepted the challenge ofadding the gardens without disrupting thepark’s design. The resulting 1894 planfeatured a “specimen garden” of hardy treesand shrubs strategically distributedthroughout the pastoral landscape. Thearboretum showcased smaller specialtygardens—rare plants in the southwesternedge, wetland varieties in the bogs—and wasanchored by a large conservatory.

The addition of the Lord & BurnhamConservatory in 1898 further emphasized thegardens, and served as a grand entrance tothe park. Ironically, the park’s new form wasin some ways even more “traditional” thanthe Olmsted firm’s 1892 plan. For instance, allstructured athletic spaces (baseball field,running track, etc.) had been left out, leavingthe natural scenery undisturbed.

By the turn of the century, with theconservatory complete and the botanicalgardens flourishing, the park had become apopular city destination. In the warm monthsof 1899, some 150,000 Buffalo residentsvisited the park. With its collection of hardyand tropical flowers in the greenhouses, andwith its native trees, shrubs, and herbaceousplants in the arboretum, the park had becomean “invaluable adjunct” to the city’seducational system.30 By 1908, even after airpollution required abandoning and replacingsome of the less-hardy species, there wereapproximately 7,000 different speciesrepresented in the gardens and well over

The inland period of significance plan for South Park shows that the park is still largely intact.(Source – National Park Service Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site in BrooklineMassachusetts.)



50,000 hard-wooded plants in the arboretum.Over the next few years both the plantcollections and their visitors continued togrow. Crowds of 2,000 people an hourpassed through the conservatory duringspecial exhibits and a widely popular“chrysanthemum show” topped even thosenumbers. Despite the daunting obstacles ofclimate and air quality, South Park hadbecome a successful, world-class botanicalshowcase fully integrated into a naturalOlmsted landscape—one of the fewarboretums and botanical gardens that thefirm ever designed.

South Park Today

Even though it remains largely intact, SouthPark still shows signs of wear and tear and,like the other parks, has suffered some majorsetbacks. In 1915, South Park’s meadow wasconverted to a golf course, undermining thearboretum and disrupting Olmsted’s networkof curving footpaths and contoured plantings.As a result, as in Delaware Park, the widegrassy meadow that once welcomed cityresidents has been placed off-limits toeveryone but recreational golfers.

South Park has also suffered from ill-designedchanges in traffic patterns. For example, in1940 a new car-accessible entrance was builtat Hopkins Road, which made portions ofSouth Park’s ring road a good way to bypassthe busy streets of Lackawanna. The resultwas predictable: heavy automobile traffic,reduced pedestrian flow, and a park road inserious need of repair. Meanwhile, theconstruction of a turnaround loop for publicbuses annexed a significant portion of thepark’s southeast corner near the conservatory.This was an especially poor location for a vastcement plain, since the southeast cornerlinked the conservatory with anotherprominent Lackawanna cultural heritage site,the Our Lady of Victory Basilica. The lake hasbecome so shallow and tangled withvegetation that boating is nearly impossible.

Fortunately, portions of the botanical gardenshave been rescued recently. The conservatorybuilding is in excellent shape, for example,and its indoor collections of various plant andflower species have received new attentionand life. But there is still a long way to go.Parts of the arboretum have been deeplymarred by the golf course, and others havefallen into disrepair. Even the signaturewooded thickets that once enclosed the parkneed strengthening, and several of the“highlight” gardens—the rose and other theformal gardens as well as the bogs—barelyremain, if at all.

I M A G E S

Top:

South Park was designed toinclude flowering botanicalcollections. (Source – PennyPostcards from New York<www.rootsweb.com>)

Bottom:

This aerial image of South Parkis from 2005. (Source – New YorkState GIS Clearinghouse.)

South Park: Goals for Restoration




• Rationalize park facilities and structures.





Like each park in the system, South Parkoffers a unique opportunity. Located within athriving downtown and boasting one of thebest-preserved Olmsted water parks in thecountry, South Park could easily be a modelfor the restoration of the Buffalo OlmstedPark System and a signature destination inBuffalo.

South Park Recommendations

The restoration of South Park has six majorgoals, each requiring a series of projects.Ultimately, these projects will both restore thepark’s historic integrity and make the parkmore accessible for park users. The numbersassociated with each project recommendationdo not represent priority rankings.

The conservatory is now managed by Erie County. Parts of it have recently been restored.



Project #1: Enhance the Arboretum and botanical collection around theConservatory

■ Re-establish the arboretum and botanicalcollections including the trees, shrubs, andperennials.

■ Re-establish formal botanical gardensbehind the conservatory.

(See the 2001 Buffalo and Erie CountyBotanical Gardens Master Plan)

Project #2: Repair the lake and improvewater quality

■ Repair lake functioning by dredging,ensuring sufficient water circulation, andeliminating sources of pollution.

■ Restore missing section of the lakenortheast of the ring road.

■ Replant the lake edges with appropriatevegetation (both edge and submergent)while leaving space for recreation andcontact with the water.

■ Provide water-based recreationopportunities on the lake, includingboating and fishing.

■ Restore the extent and functioning of theBog Garden.


■ Restore the full expanse of the historicmeadow and arboretum to obtain theoriginal spatial organization as well ashistoric plant diversity and density. (See the1986 Master Plan for the Restoration ofFrederick Law Olmsted’s South ParkArboretum)

■ Reconsider the golf course—maintain orremove.

I M A G E S


The historic gardens around theconservatory can only be restored ifthe rear growing houses areremoved. (Source – City of Buffalo.(1910) Buffalo Park CommissionerReport: 1901-1910. Buffalo, NY:Haas & Klein Printers.)

The lake in South Park has sufferedfrom a lack of maintenance andneeds dredging.

The restored South Park Lake will bea popular destination for boatersand other park users.

Much of the arboretum is still intact.The park comes to life every springwith fragrant, colorful, flowerblossoms.




Project #4: Repair the Ring Road

Project #5: Replace the bridge

Project #6: Discourage local traffic fromusing the park as a thoroughfare

■ Install traffic calming features on roadsthroughout the park.

■ Possibly close Hopkins Road to vehiculartraffic.


Project #7: Articulate the park’s mainentrance as a major gateway

Project #8: Enhance the park’s southwestentrance for pedestrians

Project #9: Create a ‘Father Baker Garden’where the unused bus loop is located

Project #10: Construct the Boathouse

Project #11: Enhance the appearance andutility of the concession structure

Project #12: Integrate South Park withsurrounding urban Lackawannaneighborhood

■ Design a direct link between South Park,the Basilica and downtown Lackawanna.

Project #13: Connect South Park to theGreenway through trails along Ridge Road

Project #14: Connect South Park to TifftStreet and the Tifft Nature Preserve


I M A G E S

Top:

The boathouse on the lake, althoughnever built, can provideopportunities for recreation on thelake.

Bottom:

South Park is adjacent toLackawanna’s world class FatherBaker Basilica.

The Father Baker Garden will replace the unused bus loop at the southeast corner of the park.



Rationalize Park Facilities and Structures














South Park Restoration Plan

The restoration plan shows the long term vision for restoring South Park based upon thegoals and corresponding recommendations. The partial restoration image of the park shows the parts of the park that cannot be restored while the 9-hole golf course remainswithin the park.




Project #1: Enhance the Arboretum andbotanical collection around theConservatory

Project #2: Repair the lake and improve water quality



Project #4: Repair the Ring Road

Project #5: Replace the bridge

Project #6: Discourage local traffic from usingthe park as a thoroughfare


Project #7: Articulate the park’s main entranceas a major gateway

Project #8: Enhance the park’s southwestentrance for pedestrians

Project #9: Create a ‘Father Baker Garden’where the unused bus loop islocated

RATIONALIZE PARK FACILITIES AND STRUCTURES

Project #10: Construct the Boathouse

Project #11: Enhance the appearance and utilityof the concession structure


*Project #12: Integrate South Park withsurrounding urban Lackawannaneighborhood

*Project #13: Connect South Park to theGreenway through trails alongRidge Road

*Project #14: Connect South Park to Tifft Streetand the Tifft Nature Preserve

*Project #15: Restore park perimeter roads tocreate more of a park-like setting in the surrounding neighborhoods













s o u t h Pa r k




BUFFALO, NY

ERIE COUNTY


The section drawing of the park shows the landscape elevation change from the ring road on the north side of the park across the lake to the ring road on the south side of the park.

8




s o u t h Pa r k

Section Drawing

Partial Restoration



Cazenovia Park

Cazenovia Park demonstrates again howcentral water was to Olmsted’s’ vision for theBuffalo Olmsted Park System. From thebeginning, a constructed lake on CazenoviaCreek was the focus of designs for this park.The park’s open and wooded spaces unfoldedacross the rolling landscape in such a way thatvisitors could see the lake from nearly anyvantage point. For a small water-focusedpark, however, Cazenovia offered remarkablyvaried fare. For example, a grand entranceleading to a carriage concourse andboathouse was used for civic functions; agrassy athletic field provided areas for sportsplay; and a picnic grove, concert bandstand,and formal gardens at Seneca Streetaccommodated visitors on quiet summeroutings. The complex design of the parkallowed for all of these uses to coexist in arelatively small space without disrupting theoverall feeling of being enveloped by nature.

Today Cazenovia Park presents a puzzle, butone well worth solving. Part of this puzzle isengineering. From the beginning, siltationand episodic flooding made the laketroublesome. Dams came and went, as didstrategies for stabilizing the lake’s banks, andfinally a levee was built that divided the parkin two. But despite all efforts the lakeultimately proved unsustainable: too shallowfor skating in the winter and toounpredictable in wet seasons. Now all thatremains is the creek, and the former lake hasbecome a low-lying grassland. The casino andwaterfront concourse have sufferedsignificant decline, and are no longer at thewater’s edge. Meanwhile, other structureshave been added to the once pastorallandscape: an ice skating rink, a community/senior citizen center, golf course amenities,parking lots, and more. (See Table 7)

The moonlit lake in Cazenovia Park was once the main feature of the park.



Cazenovia Park History

The Olmsted sons’ plan for Cazenovia Park,developed alongside the plan for South Park,was one of the most complex of the Buffalosystem. The centerpiece was CazenoviaCreek, expanded into a complex lake dividedin two parts by a carriage bridge for the parkdrive. The largest section of the lake circledtwo islands to create an uneven, knotty-bordered figure eight. And on the other sideof the bridge, the smaller section of the lakeswirled around a single large island in anirregular donut shape. The islands, along withthe curving inlets and small promontoriesthroughout the lake’s banks, allowed park-goers more access to the water than in other,much larger parks. A dam helped keep theintricate water system deep enough forboating and ice skating, both of which drewmany visitors early in the 20th century.

This 1896 map of Cazenovia Park highlights the lake with its many inlets and islands. Thecasino area is not included in this plan, although it is part of the period of significance.(Source – City of Buffalo. (1900) Buffalo Park Commissioner Report: 1893-1900. Buffalo,NY: Haas & Klein Printers.)

Table 7 | Cazenovia Park (196 Acres)


Timeline 1892 Design completed for Cazenovia Park

1896 Construction of the lake completed

1915 Baseball diamond and tennis courts laid out

1925 80-acre addition (Golf Course)

1965 Lake is drained

1971 Thomas Tosh Collins Community Center built


The Casino Red Jacket Parkway

Shelter House

Cazenovia Creek


Tosh Collins Community Center Baseball/Softball diamonds (4)

Cazenovia Branch Library Soccer fields (3)

Tennis courts (4)

Basketball courts (2)

9-Hole Golf Course (1)

Playgrounds (1)

Spray Pool (1)

Swimming Pool (1)

Ice Rink (1)



At the park’s northeast corner was a grandentrance, lined by rows of trees and over15,000 varieties of plants. From there,carriages could go to the concourse, thecasino, and the boathouse on the lake.Cazenovia’s charms did not end with thewater and the concourse, however. As withthe other parks, the Olmsted firm strove tocreate great diversity within the park’srelatively small boundaries. A large sports fieldedged the lake on the park’s northern corner;dense groves of trees dotted the classic (iftiny) Olmsted greensward; and pedestrianpaths meandered through the park within thefigure-eight shaped parkway. In 1915 aformal bandstand was built for outdoormusical concerts that had been popular fromthe park’s earliest days. Cazenovia was small

but offered nearly the full breadth of classicOlmstedian landscapes and amusementsfound in other parks. Its seamless blend ofrecreation and natural beauty makesCazenovia Park an attractive park. Anadditional eighty acres was added to thesoutheastern part of the park in 1925.Cazenovia Creek, which bisects this addition,was straightened in order to make room for a9-hole golf course on this park addition,which is still in use today.

I M A G E S

Clockwise from the top:

The lake was created by damning theCazenovia Creek at the western sideof the park.

The casino in the park was built tobe adjacent to a lake that no longerexists. (Source – Olmsted Parks in Buffalo, NY < www.olmstedinbuffalo.org/>)

The shelter house at the end of theconcourse provided park useramenities such as restrooms anddrinking fountains. (Source –Olmsted Parks in Buffalo, NY < www.olmstedinbuffalo.org/>)



Cazenovia Park Today

Cazenovia Park still has a charming, off-the-beaten-path feel to it, and many of its basicelements remain. But, unfortunately, theyhave been overshadowed by the loss of thelake; a radical deterioration of CazenoviaCreek; a marked decline in the paths,vegetation, and shelters; and the disruptiveaddition of buildings and other structures. Themost striking change has been the water, theheart of the park. From the outset, parkengineers had difficulty maintaining thepurposefully convoluted lake system. Theongoing need to stabilize the lake’s banksbecame apparent during early construction,when heavy rains and flooding cut away aportion of the shoreline near the park’s upperborder. By the mid-1890s, the lake’s edgeswere bolstered with riprap and its depth wasmaintained by a timber dam. But less than adecade later, the lake was already causing

more problems, as silt from the river createddeposits that rose above the lake’s surface.Meanwhile, periodic flooding damaged boththe bridge and the dam. As a result, the lakealternated unpredictably between beingeither too shallow or too deep. In 1965,several strategies and dams later, the damwas removed and the lake was all butabandoned. A levee, large enough to dividethe park in two, was placed at the south edgeof the creek to mitigate continued flooding.And the lagoons, including the one next tothe casino and boathouse, became grassyexpanses leading up to the creek’s edge.

With the lake gone, other aspects of the parkalso suffered, none more than the concourseand the boat launch area that is now somefour hundred feet from the water’s edge. Thecasino and shelter house remain, but thesestructures as well as their respective gardensand pathways are in need of repair.

This aerial image of Cazenovia Park is from 2005. (Source – New York State GIS Clearinghouse.)



The park’s central attractions have notdeteriorated in isolation. As in the otherparks, pedestrian paths have disappeared andthe classic Olmstedian wooded thickets havethinned both within and at the edges of thepark. The circular parkway is worn, especiallyat the curbs, from years of excessive and high-speed traffic. The entrances, once grandgateways to the park, have become parkinglots. And, finally, the once pastoral landscapeis now home to a number of buildings and avariety of sports facilities such as an ice rink, acommunity/senior center, and a maintenancegarage.

During the 1910s, tennis courts and baseballfields were added to the park. Later, the golfhouse and parking lot occupied park land.But, like many of the other Olmsted parks inBuffalo, Cazenovia’s “bones” are in goodshape and are ready to be restored.

Cazenovia Park Recommendations

The restoration of Cazenovia Park has sevenmajor goals, each requiring a series ofprojects. These projects will both restore thepark’s historic integrity and reinterpret orrestore parts of the lost lake. The numbersassociated with each project recommendationdo not represent priority rankings.

Cazenovia Park: Goals for Restoration


• Improve access and circulation in the park for vehicles and pedestrians.


• Protect and enhance Cazenovia Creek and develop ecological and sustainablesystems for managing floods and stormwater.






Project #1: Renovate the Casino and thecentral Concourse

■ Renovate the casino building and developa programmed use for it.

■ Reestablish the adjoining gardens andrestore historic planting plan.

■ Restore the shelter house, including itssurrounding gardens and pathways.

■ Interpret the concourse and improveparking.

■ Remove maintenance garage and find analternative location for park maintenanceneeds.

Project #2: Remove parking and accessroad along the creek on south side of thepark and provide new residential accessfrom Potters Road

Project #3: Construct a pedestrian bridgeover Cazenovia Creek

■ Construct a new pedestrian bridge alongthe historic pathway on the outer loopnear the golf course.

Project #4: Improve the pedestrianconnection between the original parkand its newer section

Project #5: Restore the park’s south entranceconnecting to Red Jacket Parkway

Project #6: Create an enhanced ‘parkinggarden’ at the entrance at Seneca Street

I M A G E S

Clockwise from the top:

The casino building today issurrounded by flowering grass lawns.

The restored shelter house canprovide needed park useramenities.

Cazenovia Creek was straightenedand its shoreline built up withrock walls to prevent erosion,resulting in a loss of natural habitat.

The Cazenovia Creek shorelinecan be stabilized with naturalvegetation that will increase theaquatic habitat needed to sustainflora and fauna in the creek.






Project #7: Stabilize the creek beds andshoreline to prevent erosion and tomanage points of access

(See the 1997 Study of Flood DamageMitigation Along Cazenovia Creek City ofBuffalo)

Project #8: Develop overflow areas alongthe creek to absorb more flood waters

■ Use wetlands and water controls to helpcontrol flooding and to diversify habitatand plantings in the park.

Project #9: Reinterpret the former lakeedge behind the Casino

Project #10: Improve sports fields asrequired

Project #11: Relocate non-historic facilitiesout of the historic section of the park

■ When the ice rink, swimming pool andcommunity/senior center reach the end oftheir useful life, relocate to alternative sitesnearby.

■ Relocate golf house to Seneca Streetwithin the golf course and reorder golfcourse holes.

Project #12: Connect Cazenovia Park’sperimeter to the surroundingneighborhood

Project #13: Connect Cazenovia Park tothe Niagara River Greenway system

■ The Red Jacket Parkway entrance to thepark and the Cazenovia Street bridge aregood connecting locations.


I M A G E S

Above:

Currently, there are locationsalong Cazenovia Creek within thepark that provide wetland habitat.

The creek floods into the parknearly every spring.

Right:

The historic function of thecasino can be restored byrecreating the lake on which itwas once built.


Protect and Enhance CazenoviaCreek and Develop Ecological and Sustainable Systems forManaging Floods and Stormwater














Cazenovia Park Restoration Plan

The restoration plan shows the long term vision for restoring Cazenovia Park based upon thegoals and corresponding recommendations. The partial restoration image of the park shows the parts of the park that cannot be restored while the pool, ice rink, community center, andgolf house, remain in the historic section of the park.




Project #1: Renovate the Casino and thecentral Concourse

IMPROVE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION IN THEPARK FOR VEHICLES AND PEDESTRIANS

Project #2: Remove parking and access roadalong the creek on south side ofthe park and provide newresidential access from Potters Road

Project #3: Construct a pedestrian bridge overCazenovia Creek

Project #4: Improve the pedestrian connectionbetween the original park and itsnewer section


Project #5: Restore the park’s south entranceconnecting to Red Jacket Parkway

Project #6: Create an enhanced ‘parking garden’at the entrance at Seneca Street

PROTECT AND ENHANCE CAZENOVIA CREEKAND DEVELOP ECOLOGICAL ANDSUSTAINABLE SYSTEMS FOR MANAGINGFLOODS AND STORMWATER

Project #7: Stabilize the creek beds andshoreline to prevent erosion and to manage points of access

Project #8: Develop overflow areas along thecreek to absorb more flood waters

Project #9: Reinterpret the former lake edgebehind the Casino


Project #10: Improve sports fields as required

Project #11: Relocate non-historic facilities outof the historic section of the park


*Project #12: Connect Cazenovia Park’s perimeterto the surrounding neighborhood

*Project #13: Connect Cazenovia Park to theNiagara River Greenway system














c a z e n o v i a Pa r k




BUFFALO, NY

ERIE COUNTY


The section drawing of the park shows the landscape elevation change from the casino, across the restored lake and Cazenovia Creek, to the wooded wetland area west of the creek.


c a z e n o v i a Pa r k



Section Drawing

Partial Restoration



Riverside Park

Riverside Park was the last addition to theBuffalo Olmsted Park System, and in someways fittingly so. With Riverside Park, theyounger Olmsteds finally accomplishedsomething that Olmsted Sr. had unsuccessfullysought after: a genuine waterfront park. LikeThe Front, Riverside Park was situated on abluff, which gave park goers beautiful viewsof the Niagara River. Unlike The Front,however, a foot bridge over the Erie Canalgave visitors a direct link to the water’s edge.This much sought after connection to thewater formed the centerpiece of the park,and radiating from this focal point wereRiverside’s classic Olmstedian features: thegrassy meadow, wooded thickets, ponds,footpaths, and a concourse.

Today, however, Riverside is the least wellpreserved of all of Buffalo’s Olmsted parks,with few of its central features still existing.The New York State Thruway has cut off thepark from the water; a generic swimmingpool has replaced the historic centralconcourse; and the Minnow Pools have beenremoved altogether. A senior citizen centerand ice skating rink mar the once naturallandscape, and the footpaths and woodshave declined dramatically. Restoring Riversideis a tall order, but not impossible. Doing so iscrucial to a revitalized park system inBuffalo—a system that reaches for theNiagara in so many places, but only trulytouches it here. (See Table 8)

Riverside Park was designed to take advantage of the views associated with its connection to the Niagara River. (Source – Western New York Heritage Press <wnyheritagepress.org>)



Riverside Park History

In 1898, Buffalo park commissioners askedthe Olmsted firm (now Olmsted Brothers) todesign a park for a recently-acquired 22-acreriverfront plot at the northern edge of the city.What was normal in other cities—choosingthe site and then asking for a plan—was, infact, unusual for Buffalo where the Olmstedfirm had helped pick the location of previousparks. Nonetheless, they must have beenpleased at the long-awaited opportunity todesign a park directly on the waterfront.

This 1898 map of Riverside Park is the period of significance design and includes only thenorthern portion of what we now know as the park. (Source – National Park ServiceFrederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site in Brookline Massachusetts.)

Table 8 | Riverside Park (37 Acres)


Timeline 1899 Design completed for Riverside Park

1900 Major construction completed for Riverside Park

1912 Southern Park addition

1930 Large pool completed

1931 Erie Canal filled in, adding 26 acres to the park

1960s Construction of the thruway and the loss of the Erie Canal section of the park


Lighthouse Monument None

Petofi Monument

World War I Memorial

Niagara River overlook


Senior Citizens’ Center Baseball/ Softball diamonds (4)

Football/Soccer field (1)

Tennis courts (2)

Basketball courts (2)

Ice Rink (1)

Swimming Pool (1)

Wading Pool (1)

Playgrounds (1)

Picnic tables (4)

Picnic shelters (2)

Grills



Not surprisingly, the water was central to theOlmsteds’ design for Riverside Park. The park’smeandering footpaths, for example, ledvisitors to a pedestrian bridge over the ErieCanal and a raised platform roofed by anelegant pergola, giving park goers a full viewof both the Niagara River and the park. Thepark road was not the traditionalencompassing circle, as seen in the otherparks, but a Y shape with both forks endingat Niagara Street next to the Erie Canal.

The park had three distinct areas that weredefined by the Y-shaped parkway. To thenorth, along the Buffalo city line, was anatural wooded area with winding paths andthe Minnow Pools, a series of shallowundulating pools that stretched the full widthof the park. To the south was a classicOlmstedian meadow and playing field. Thecenter of the park, the area defined by thetop of the Y, showcased a formal concourse,music court, pavilions, shelter house,fountain, gardens, and pathways to the river.Each distinct area represented a familiarOlmstedian trope, knit together by the park’sfocal point—the water. Though its distantlocation at the city’s northern border madethe park more of a “hidden gem” than asignature destination, Riverside Park soonbecame a popular site for music, picnicking,wading, and ball sports.

In 1912, Riverside Park received a gift: a 17-acre addition to its southern end. Inretrospect, however, it is unclear whether thiswas an improvement or the beginning of thepark’s downfall. On the one hand, the newaddition expanded the park’s riverfront andrecreational areas. On the other hand,however, because the land had not been partof the Olmsteds’ design, little was done in theway of planning and integrating it into thepark. As a result, the land was used toaccommodate numerous sports facilities,including a tennis court, three baseballdiamonds, six quoit courts and, by 1930, alarge public swimming pool and bathhouse.In the years to come, this trend onlycontinued with the inclusion of at least 5tennis courts and a football field. The ErieCanal bed was filled in, adding another 26acres to the park’s waterfront edge. But bythen it seemed that preserving the park’soriginal design was no longer a priority. Thiswas most clearly seen in the unceremoniousfilling of the Minnow Pools, only brieflymentioned in the annual reports as “the oldduck pond.”

I M A G E S

Left:

The northern portion of thepark was heavily wooded,creating a canopy of foliage.(Source – Olmsted Parks inBuffalo, NY < www.olmstedinbuffalo.org/>)

Right:

The Minnow Pools gave parkusers a place to feed ducks and fish. (Source – Western New York Heritage Press<wnyheritagepress.org>)



Riverside Park Today

Being overrun by an excess of playing fields inthe 1930s, however, turned out to be theleast of Riversides Park’s worries. Afterbecoming a true waterfront park once theErie Canal was filled in, Riverside wassubsequently severed from the water’s edgewhen the New York State Thruway was builtalong the old canal bed in the 1960s. Today,although park pedestrians can reach the riveron the Irene Gardner Bridge that spans thethruway, the walk is noisy and can even befrightening. And for those who brave thecrossing, there is limited space and fewamenities available on the other side tosupport waterfront activities.

Along with the diminished connection to theriver has come a decline in the park’scenterpiece, the grand concourse and plazathat led to the historic canal bridge. Today,this area is dominated by a swimming pool,senior citizen center, and ice rink. Add this tothe diminished pedestrian pathways, and theplaza’s orientation towards the river hasessentially disappeared. In a terrible irony foran Olmsted park, today Riverside Park seemsto have almost no design at all.

Like the other parks, Riverside Park alsosuffers from the typical effects of wear andtear combined with decades of urban growth.The park’s groves of trees have faded, alongwith the footpaths, and the Minnow Poolshave disappeared altogether. The former Y-shaped parkway has become a single roadthat cuts through the park, accentuating theloss of entrances and the increase in through-traffic. The park’s best surviving elementmight well be the athletic fields, but eventhese have deteriorated. Overall there aresignificant challenges to restoring RiversidePark, but none are insurmountable.

This aerial image of Riverside Park is from 2005. (Source – New York State GIS Clearinghouse.)

Riverside Park: Goals for Restoration


• Reestablish the visual and physical connection between Riverside Park and the Niagara River.

• Improve access and circulation in the park for vehicles and pedestrians.

• Improve or rationalize recreation and services by balancing unstructured recreation withstructured recreation.

• Integrate the original Olmsted park with the south portion of park.





Riverside Park Recommendations

The restoration of Riverside Park has sevenmajor goals, each requiring a series ofprojects. These projects will both restore thepark’s historic integrity and help regain itsconnection to the Niagara River. (The numbersassociated with each project recommendationdo not represent priority rankings)

Like Front Park and Martin Luther King, Jr.Park, there is a need to deal with theunsightly thruway that separates the parkfrom its defining surrounding feature, the

Niagara River. Decking the thruway by thepark is outside of the cultural landscaperestoration recommendations becauseRiverside Park was always disconnected fromthe Niagara River except for a brief period oftime when the Erie Canal had been filled.That said, nothing should be done in the parkthat makes cantilevering over the thruwayimpossible. This should be considered whenthe thruway undergoes major maintenanceand improvements in the future.

Today, the Irene Gardener pedestrian bridge isthe park’s only connection to the Niagara River.



Project #1: Reestablish the centralConcourse

■ Relocate swimming pool to a betterlocation off the concourse.

■ Reinterpret the historic central concourse.

■ Reinterpret gazebo / bandstand accordingto restoration period.

■ Relocate the Petofi Monument and WarMemorial to the concourse.

■ Create a picnic grove at the concourse withvegetation and site furnishings.

■ Expand and interpret the central concoursevegetative plantings and gardens accordingto the historic pattern.

Project #2: Reinterpret the Minnow Pools

Project #3: Relocate and redesign thepedestrian bridge on its historicalignment

■ Use signage to mark this location as agateway to Buffalo.

Project #4: Establish a pier on the NiagaraRiver where the new pedestrian bridgelands

Project #5: Reconstruct Hotaling Drive

Project #6: Improve parking alongCrowley Avenue

The reconstructed concourse will connect to a newly constructed pedestrian bridge and a landing on the Niagara River.

The Minnow Pools can be reinterpreted asa rain garden.


Reestablish the Visual and PhysicalConnection between Riverside Parkand the Niagara River




Project #7: Improve existing playground

Project #8: Rationalize and improveexisting sports fields

■ Rebuild the existing baseball fields.

■ Enhance opportunities for unstructuredrecreation such as frisbee, walking, biking,and other games.

Project #9: Relocate senior center,swimming pool, and ice rink facilities

■ Reinterpret original Y vehicular circulationpattern.

■ Buffer cemetery with fencing and plantingsthat recreates vegetation and visual barriersfrom the restoration period.

Project #10: Enhance connectionsbetween the original Olmsted park andthe newer section of the park

Project #11: Develop safe connectionsbetween Riverside Park and the adjacentneighborhoods

■ Establish cross walks and traffic signalswhere appropriate and other traffic-calmingmeasures. These connections wouldeventually include the relocated facilities.

Project #12: Extend the park connectionsto the Niagara River Greenway andWashington and Towpath Parks











■ Re-establish historic planting plan inwoodland areas that bounds the north endof the park.


I M A G E S

Below:

Afternoon baseball games by theNiagara River are an important part ofsummer in the Riverside community.


Integrate the Original OlmstedPark with the South Portion of Park





Riverside Park Restoration Plan

The restoration plan shows the long term vision for restoring Riverside Park based upon the goals and corresponding recommendations. The partial restoration image of the parkshows the parts of the park that cannot be restored while the pool, ice rink, and seniorcenter remain in the historic section of the park and more suitable locations in thesurrounding community are not found for these facilities.



Project #1: Reestablish the central Concourse

Project #2: Reinterpret the Minnow Pools

REESTABLISH THE VISUAL AND PHYSICALCONNECTION BETWEEN RIVERSIDE PARK ANDTHE NIAGARA RIVER

Project #3: Relocate and redesign thepedestrian bridge on its historicalignment

Project #4: Establish a pier on the Niagara Riverwhere the new pedestrian bridgelands

IMPROVE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION IN THEPARK FOR VEHICLES AND PEDESTRIANS

Project #5: Reconstruct Hotaling Drive

Project #6: Improve parking along CrowleyAvenue


Project #7: Improve existing playground

Project #8: Rationalize and improve existingsports fields

Project #9: Relocate senior center, swimmingpool, and ice rink facilities

INTEGRATE THE ORIGINAL OLMSTED PARKWITH THE SOUTH PORTION OF PARK

Project #10: Enhance connections between theoriginal Olmsted park and thenewer section of the park


*Project #11: Develop safe connections betweenRiverside Park and the adjacentneighborhoods

*Project #12: Extend the park connections to theNiagara River Greenway andWashington and Towpath Parks














r i v e r s i d e Pa r k




BUFFALO, NY

ERIE COUNTY


The section drawing of the park shows the landscape elevation change from the Niagara River, across the restored pedestrian bridge, and over to the concourse.


r i v e r s i d e Pa r k



Section Drawing

Partial Restoration



The Parkways,Circles, and Small Spaces

For many residents today, Buffalo seems tosuffer from an excess of divisions: betweencity and suburbs; between areas segregatedby racial divides; along lines of urbanexpressways; across the invisible edges ofschool districts; and, psychologically, betweena boom-town past and a “city of no illusions”present. The Buffalo Olmsted Park Systemoffers a very different vision of Buffalo, oneconnected as an organic whole. The parkswere distributed throughout the city not onlyto meet local neighborhoods’ needs forrecreation, but also to knit together the entirecity. The stitching for this vision is the systemof parkways and smaller green spaces thatlink the parks and the city to one another.Although Olmsted planned other park-and-parkway systems in the U.S., Buffalo was hisfirst and, by one historian’s estimation, themost “impressive and coherent” of his career.31

Today the parkway system has beenwonderfully preserved in some places, andcompletely destroyed in others. The positivecommunity impacts of the parkway systemcan be seen in the neighborhoods whereelements of it remain intact. Theseneighborhoods are prized areas where peoplewant to live. The negative impacts of losingan element of the parkway system can alsobe seen in surrounding neighborhoods, suchas along the former Humboldt Parkway. Theseneighborhoods have generally experienceddecades of disinvestment and are in a state of deterioration.

The homes along Lincoln Parkway are reminders that Buffalo was once a city of millionaires.



Parkway System History

With a few exceptions, Buffalo’s parkwaysystem was built according to Olmsted’s plan.For the first three parks, the greenconnections were quite extensive: HumboldtParkway stretched the three miles from ThePark to The Parade; Lincoln, Bidwell, andChapin Parkways connected The Park to thecity via Soldier’s Place (now Soldiers Circle);Delaware Avenue was lengthened to linkChapin Parkway with Niagara Squaredowntown; Genesee Street connectedNiagara Square to The Parade; and PorterAvenue linked The Front to Bidwell Parkwayvia The Avenue (now Richmond Avenue).

As early as the 1870s, the parkway systemhad been expanded to include the newadditions to the park system. Fillmore Avenuewas extended to Abbott Road, which led toHeacock Park, a small greenspace that linkedparkways to both Cazenovia and South Parks.Later, a parkway along Niagara Streetstretched towards Riverside Park, though itnever reached the entire length.

The parkway system was more than just aroad map between the parks, however. It wasa park in itself. Many of the parkwaysfeatured majestic, tree-lined avenues with aribbon of green down the middle. At majorintersections were smaller greenspaces, manyof them elegant traffic circles, remindingparkway travelers that they were in a park,not the city. What’s more, the parkways linkedBuffalo’s Olmsted parks with the city’s otherexisting parks, like Day’s Park (partiallyredesigned by Olmsted) and Prospect Parknear The Front.

Parkway System Today

Today, much of the parkway system still exists,particularly the grand core surroundingSoldiers’ Circle—Lincoln, Bidwell, and ChapinParkways—as well as the southern systemaround Heacock Place and McClellan Circle.Many of the smaller green spaces, especiallythe traffic circles, have even been restored inrecent years. Ferry and Symphony Circles havebeen reconstructed. Plantings and gardenshave been restored in McClellan andMcKinley Circles. And some new gardenshave been added to Gates Circle.

I M A G E S

Top right:

Lincoln Parkway is said to be thegrandest of all Olmsted designedparkways in Buffalo. (Source –Olmsted Parks in Buffalo, NY < www.olmstedinbuffalo.org/>)

Left side (top to bottom):

This map shows the inner ringsystem of parks and parkways.

Olmsted’s designs for circlesranged in shape, size, andfunction. (Source – NationalPark Service Frederick LawOlmsted National Historic Site in Brookline Massachusetts.)

Symphony Circle was recentlyrestored to reflect its historicdesign.



However, like many of the parks, the parkwaysystem has sustained substantial damage overthe years. Humboldt Parkway, for example,was demolished to make way for theKensington and Scajaquada Expressways, andthe grand entranceways into Delaware andMartin Luther King, Jr. Parks were destroyedin the process. As a result, once-wholeneighborhoods have been carved up intopieces and easy navigation of the park systemhas become nearly impossible.

The erasing of a major element of theparkway system pointed to a lack ofrecognition of the importance of the parkwaysystem to Buffalo. Although some of thetraffic circles have been restored, many of thesmaller green spaces that link the Olmstedparks are in need of repair. Perhaps moreimportantly, the parkway system was neverfully completed according to Olmsted’sdesign. For instance, according to Olmsted’splans, parkways should have connected everypark to the water. In addition, Olmsted’sdesigns called for the parkway system to begrounded downtown at Niagara Square. Andfinally, Olmsted’s vision for Buffalo was asystem of parks not limited to his six parks,but one that included many different kinds ofnatural and recreation spaces. Thus, theparkway system should not only knit togetherBuffalo’s Olmsted parks, but also incorporatethe city’s other parks as well.

Parkway System Recommendations

Cultural Landscape

The first set of recommendations is for systemelements that are within the historicallydesignated cultural landscape. There arecommon elements to all parkways, circles,and small spaces that should be restored.These include plantings, pathways, roadways, lighting, and signage. There arealso recommendations that are unique toeach individual system element. Theserecommendations are guided by the historiccharacter of the system element, as well as itscurrent needs. Some system elements haveno specified projects listed. In these cases, theoverall goals should be applied whenever andwherever possible. The numbers associatedwith each system element do not representpriority rankings.

Connections and Extensions

The subsequent section of this reportdescribes recommendations for connectionsand extensions that are not within the culturallandscape. These are opportunities to connectand extend the Olmsted Park System.

Parkways System: Goals for Restoration

• Restore the historic integrity of the parkway element from the period of significance.

• Transition towards historic planting types and restore historic tree plantings.

• Improve safety, access, and circulation for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians.

• Install historically appropriate light standards.

• Install appropriate wayfinding and branding signage.



Project #1: Porter Avenue

■ Redesign the bridge over the thruway with plantings and enlarged pedestrianwalkways.

■ Connect to shoreline trail along The Bank,an Olmsted designed circle adjacent toFront Park, and Busti Avenue.

■ Use Porter Avenue to connect SymphonyCircle, Front Park and LaSalle Park.

Project #2: Richmond Avenue (The Avenue)

Project #3: Bidwell Parkway

■ Restore bridal path as a pedestrian walkway.

■ Mill the parkway road.

Project #4: Chapin Parkway



Project #5: Lincoln Parkway

■ Reduce vehicular impact and increasepedestrian safety on Hoyt Lake bridge.



Project #6: McKinley Parkway

■ Enhance safety for recreational users withinthe parkway.

Project #7: Red Jacket Parkway

■ Redesign entryway and intersection atCazenovia Park.

I M A G E S

Left to right (from the top):

Porter Avenue connects FrontPark to Symphony Circle and theOlmsted system.

There was once a swimming poolat the Foot of Porter Avenue onthe Black Rock Canal.

Richmond Avenue, like otherOlmsted parkways, was hit hardby Dutch Elm Disease that wipedout its majestic American Elms.

A historic photo of BidwellParkway showing the centralgreenway. (Source –Olmsted Parks in Buffalo, NY < www.olmstedinbuffalo.org/>)

Chapin Parkway connectsSoldiers Circle and Gates Circle.

Lincoln Parkway connectsDelaware Park to Soldiers Circle,Chapin Parkway, and BidwellParkway.

Parkways

Cultural Landscape



Project #8: West Ferry Circle

■ Illuminate the central light standard betterto improve vehicular safety.

Project #9: Colonial Circle (Bidwell Place)

■ Design road to structure traffic movingaround the circle and attend to pedestriansafety.

Project #10: Soldiers Circle (Soldiers Place)

■ Explore opportunities to return historiccannons.

Project #11: Gates Circle (Chapin Place)

■ Restore the fountain and reflecting poolsystem.

■ Repair the granite benches and wallswithin the circle.

Project #12: Agassiz Circle

■ Restore Agassiz Circle as a grand gatewayto Delaware Park.

■ Construct a roundabout consistent withthe expressway downgrade plan.

■ Improve pedestrian safety between thepark and Medaille College.

Project #13: McClellan Circle

Project #14: McKinley Circle

Project #15: Symphony Circle

■ Illuminate the central light standard betterto improve vehicular safety.

I M A G E S


West Ferry Circle was recentlyrestored based upon its historicdesign as a traffic circle.

Colonial Circle, once called BidwellPlace, connects RichmondAvenue with Bidwell Parkway.

Soldiers Circle, once calledSoldiers Place, was lined withiron cannons. These may bereplaced in the future.

Gates Circle, once called ChapinPlace, is the terminus of theOlmsted parkway system at ChapinParkway and Delaware Avenue.

Agassiz Circle connects theformer Humboldt Parkway toDelaware Park. Agassiz Circlewas once a grand gateway intoDelaware Park, but has beendegraded by the ScajaquadaExpressway. (Source – NYSRoute 198 ScajaquadaExpressway CorridorStakeholders Group. (2007))

McClellan Circle is one of twoOlmsted circles in South Buffalo.It connects Red Jacket Parkwayto McKinley Parkway.

McKinley Circle, an Olmstedcircle in South Buffalo, is part ofthe border between Buffalo andLackawanna.

Symphony Circle gets its namefrom the nearby Kleinhans MusicHall, the home of the BuffaloPhilharmonic Orchestra. (Source – Copyright ChrisAndrle <www.andrle.com>)

Circles



Project #16: Heacock Place

■ Restore the Y layout of the historic park.

■ Avoid placing additional monuments in the park.

■ Consider relocating existing monuments to better locations outside of the park.

■ Place a garden or historically appropriategateway at the terminus of McKinleyParkway.

Project #17: Days Park

Project #18: Columbus and Perla Park(Prospect Park)

■ Consider renaming both sections of thepark with the historic “Prospect Park” name.

■ Restore the X pathway pattern.

■ Phase out the Niagara Branch Libraryaccording to Erie County’s libraryconsolidation plan.

■ Restore the park shelter building as afunctioning park building.

■ Provide traffic-calming measures alongNiagara Street to reconnect the two sidesof the park.

I M A G E S


Heacock Place is located at thenorthern terminus of McKinleyParkway. It has lost its historic Y-shaped circulation pattern.

Originally called Prospect Park,Columbus and Perla Parks arelocated along Porter Avenue andare divided by Niagara Street.

Days Park, located in Allentown,was not originally planned byOlmsted but was redesigned byOlmsted. (Source – OlmstedParks in Buffalo, NY < www.olmstedinbuffalo.org/>)

This photo shows the existingcondition of the fountain in Days Park.

Small Spaces



Connecting and Extendingthe Olmsted Park System

The needs of the city and the region haveexpanded outside of what the existingOlmsted system alone can provide. Anextended system of parks, parkways, circles,small spaces, and pathways may serve as agreenway that connects people to parks andthe water. This extended system will includethe existing Olmsted system, historic pieces ofthe Olmsted system, and new connectionsbetween the Olmsted parks as well asconnections between other significantfeatures of the city and the Niagara RiverGreenway. A fully connected system can bestserve the existing needs of the city and theregion, while responding to new and growingconcerns about the environment, people’shealth, new modes of transportation, andopportunities for recreation.

Olmsted-Greenway History

The Olmsted Park System was planned toconnect people in the City of Buffalo withparks and the water. These plans were notalways fully implemented. For example, thenorth and south parks were never joinedtogether by a proposed parkway connector.This connector was conceptually planned tofollow the existing route of Fillmore Avenuesouth from Martin Luther King, Jr. Park, toSmith Street, along South Park Avenue,connecting to McKinley Parkway. JewettParkway in North Buffalo was never fullydesigned as an Olmsted parkway as wasintended. Riverside Park was never connectedto the rest of the system.

Other Olmsted system elements have beendegraded to such a point that what remains isno longer considered part of the culturallandscape. The Humboldt Parkway, once thegrand connection between Delaware Parkand Martin Luther King, Jr. Park, was replacedwith the below-grade Kensington Expressway.The Bank, an Olmsted designed circleadjacent to Front Park, was almost entirelyremoved when the Peace Bridge Plaza wasconstructed over it.

Olmsted-Greenway Today

The Olmsted system exists in a differentcontext than it did when it was originallydesigned. While the City of Buffalo hasexperienced significant development in thelast 100 years, it has also experiencedsignificant decline. Populations have shiftedbetween neighborhoods and have spreadthroughout the region. The Olmsted systemhas become fragmented and disconnectedfrom the water. Segments of the system havebeen lost, just as portions of the parks havebeen taken for other uses.

The Olmsted system now exists within theboundaries of the Niagara River Greenway, a system of green spaces and pathways thatline the Niagara River. A series of proposalshave been made to fully link the Olmstedsystem with the Niagara River Greenway system.

I M A G E S

Above:

This map highlights the combinedOlmsted system and the ShorelineTrail in Buffalo.

Right:

This overlook on Niagara Street isone example of how the OlmstedPark System can be connected tothe water.



Olmsted-Greenway Recommendations

These recommendations are for systemelements that are outside of the historicallydesignated cultural landscape. The numbersassociated with each project recommendationdo not represent priority rankings. The categoriesof these connections and extensions include:

• Extensions originally proposed ordesigned by Olmsted but never realizedor subsequently destroyed.

• Extensions designed to connect toexisting Olmsted Park System.

• Extensions to connect the Olmsted ParkSystem to significant features of the Cityof Buffalo or the Niagara River Greenway.

.

Olmsted-Greenway: Goals for Connections and Extensions

• Distinguish new connections from historic Olmsted parks and parkways.

• Plant trees along new connecting roadways where possible

• Improve safety, access, and circulation for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians.

• Install appropriate light standards.

• Install appropriate wayfinding and branding signage.

The restored and extended Olmsted Park System will expand the trail system of the Niagara River Greenway throughout the City of Buffalo.

The goals listed below are common to allconnections and extensions. Some connectionsand extensions have no specified projects. Inthese cases, the overall objectives should beapplied whenever and wherever possible. It willbe necessary to distinguish these connectionsand extensions from the Olmsted parks andparkways that are within the historicallydesignated cultural landscape. This should betaken into consideration when selecting lights,signage, and other street-scaping elements forthese connections and extensions. Signageshould be used to direct people towards theOlmsted system on these connections andextensions. Other critical junctions, including asmall number of locations along the New YorkState Thruway, should also be considered forsignage directing people to the parks.



Project #E7: Best-North Street

Project #E8: South System Connector 2

Project #E9: Days Park Spur

Project #E10: Fillmore Avenue North

Project #E11: Jewett Parkway Extension

Project #E12: Smith Street

Project #E13: Larkin Circle

Project #E14: Fillmore/Jewett Circle

Project #E15: South Park Avenue

Project #E16: Central Terminal Spur

Project #E17: Scajaquada Shoreline Trail

Project #E18: Niagara Street

Project #E19: Niagara Street Upper

Project #E20: Niagara Street Lower

Project #E21: Forest Avenue

Project #E22: Fuhrman Boulevard

Project #E23: Fuhrman BoulevardConnector (Ridge Road)

Project #E24: Tifft Street

Project #E25: Hopkins Street

I M A G E S

At right (from the left):

Jewett Parkway is part of theOlmsted-designed Parksideneighborhood north of DelawarePark. The Frank Lloyd Wright-designed Darwin D. MartinHouse is on Jewett Parkway.

The Bank is an Olmsted-designed circle that was mostlydestroyed with the constructionof the Peace Bridge.

Humboldt Parkway was destroyed by theconstruction of the Kensington Expressway. Once a magnificent, connecting Olmstedparkway, it is now a scar that dividesneighborhoods. (Source – Buffalo and ErieCounty Historical Society.)

Category 1: Extensions OriginallyProposed or Designed byOlmsted but Never Realized orSubsequently Destroyed

Category 3: Extensions to Connectthe Olmsted Park System toSignificant Features of the City ofBuffalo or the Niagara RiverGreenway

Category 2: Extensions Designedto Connect to Existing OlmstedPark System

Project #E1: Humboldt Parkway

■ Deck over depressed sections of theexpressway.

■ Plant trees between the sidewalk and the street.

■ Buffer neighborhoods from the expresswayby removing the inner lane of both sides ofthe existing parkway, narrowing it to onetravel lane.

■ Plant trees on the removed inner lane.

■ Install bike lanes on the parkway.

■ Install new fence rail between the parkwayand the expressway.

■ Install green walls along expressway.

■ Redesign the pedestrian bridge just southof the Kensington/Scajaquada Expresswayseparation.

Project #E2: Jewett Parkway

Project #E3: Fillmore Avenue South

■ Retain parallel parking lanes on both sides,and keep two-way traffic in the center.

Project #E4: South System Connector 1

Project #E5: Bailey Avenue

■ Redesign bridges to be more pedestrianfriendly and aesthetically pleasing.

Project #E6: The Bank

■ Recreate a new modified “Bank” circle inproposed restoration plans for Front Parkand Fort Porter.



This Buffalo Olmsted Park System map includes parkways, circles, and small spaces from with the cultural landscape, as well as connections and extensions outsideof the cultural landscape.


Making the Plan: The History of the Planning Process 115

The Planning Process

From the origins of the “Friends of theOlmsted Parks,” a system plan has been adream of Buffalo’s Olmsted Park Systemadvocates. The System Plan processstarted in earnest with a 2001 public meetingat which the Buffalo Olmsted ParksConservancy announced its restoration goalsand invited comments on their initial vision.The Conservancy developed a comprehensiveapproach to prepare themselves for thisextensive planning effort. They soughtinformation on successful managementstructures, inventoried historic andcontemporary planning documentation, andbegan working with local partners to helpframe the approach to the plan.

Before contracting with the city and thecounty, the Conservancy asked the CentralPark Conservancy to study their potentialmanagement and operations system. TheCentral Park Conservancy in New York Cityhas been a successful model of parkmanagement and planning, and was one ofthe first such organizations in the country toassume legal responsibility for the governanceof their Olmsted park. The success of thismodel facilitated the Buffalo Olmsted ParksConservancy’s conversations with the city and

county regarding the future of the BuffaloOlmsted Park System in early 2004. Amongits other useful organizational and operationalconsiderations, the Central Park Conservancyrecommended working with a broad basedadvisory committee. The Olmsted AdvisoryCouncil was formed at this time, and TheUrban Design Project was commissioned towork with the Conservancy over the nextthree years to propose basic managementpolicies and an approach to planning. Theresults of this effort were submitted to theConservancy Board as recommendations andwere largely adopted. The Conservancy staffinitiated an inventory of all the historical andcontemporary planning documentation oneach park, parkway, circle, and small space inthe system. This information was incorporatedinto a comprehensive evaluation of existingconditions, park use studies, and neighborhoodcontexts throughout the system.

In late 2004, The Urban Design Project wasselected to manage the planning process andto complete this inventory. Working with adiverse set of expert consultants in early 2005,the Urban Design Project finished catalogingthe information in a series of overlay graphics,and constructed a 3-D virtual model of theentire system. These tools were then used toevaluate project proposals from all previous

MAKING THE PLAN:THE HISTORY OF THE PLANNING PROCESS

In constructing The System Plan, the Board of Trustees of the Conservancy has taken everyopportunity to engage citizens adjacent to the parks and in the entire region. As such, the planrepresents the collective deliberations of literally hundreds of participants. This chapter covers thehistory of the planning efforts by the Conservancy.


116 Making the Plan: The History of the Planning Process

plans. These resulting project lists werecirculated to all the park-user and park-advocacy organizations through the OlmstedAdvisory Council. These organizations wereinvited to mark up the project lists withcomments related to contemporary problemsand historical considerations.

The Conservancy’s approach to publicinvolvement in Buffalo has been an ongoing,inclusive, and adaptive process. The goal hasbeen to bring together a broad cross-sectionof stakeholders: local residents andbusinesses; elected officials and governmentagencies; visitors and tour operators; bikers,walkers, and drivers; and people with interestsas divergent as golf and bird-watching. Thisopen process of public involvement continuesto lay the foundations for a community-driveninitiative championed by a diverseconstituency.

As a way of gathering and coordinating allthe knowledge and visions regarding thefuture of the Buffalo Olmsted Park System,two charrettes were organized—intenseworking sessions that employed all thedocumentation and input from variousstakeholders. Participants in the first charrette,held in April 2005, included the Conservancystaff, The Urban Design Project-led consultingteam, the city, the county, the Greater BuffaloNiagara Regional Transportation Council, andthe Delaware North Companies.

The draft plan results were reviewed with theOlmsted Advisory Council, posted on theConservancy Web site for comment, and usedin multiple additional public meetings. Resultsfrom all this work were then assembled andused in a second charrette with the LongRange Planning Committee of theConservancy Board. Again the results wereposted on the Web along with a full narrativeof the draft plan. This work was again vettedin public meetings, and used as a foundationfor the plans presented in this document.

A Framework forInvolvement

Conservancy Board of Trustees

The Buffalo Olmsted Parks Conservancy Boardof Trustees is responsible for the managementand oversight of all matters pertaining to theBuffalo Olmsted Park System. The Conservancygrew out of a grassroots effort by a group ofcitizens in 1978 with the founding of theFriends of Olmsted Parks advocacy group. In1996, the Friends group became the BuffaloOlmsted Parks Conservancy as a §501(c)(3)non-profit organization. The membership ofthe Conservancy elects the Board of Trustees,representing park advocates, business leaders,historic preservationists, and local leaders.

Olmsted Advisory Council

The Olmsted Advisory Council is comprised ofrepresentatives of a broad-based group ofcommunity organizations and park userswhose main purpose is to encourage andfacilitate public participation in the planningprocess. Members of these representativeorganizations manage the Olmsted AdvisoryCouncil (See Table 9). Meetings are held oftento discuss issues relevant to the Conservancy,The System Plan, and the community.

The Olmsted Advisory Council gives theConservancy a direct connection to thecommunity and provides a public outlet forenhancing education about the entire parksystem. This system-wide advocacy groupassists with decision making and public policy.The Olmsted Advisory Council is engaged inimplementing and sustaining efforts related tofuture capital projects, programming, andadvocacy in the Olmsted system.

A small grants program has been developedthrough the Conservancy for small capitalimprovements, including amenities or landscapeimprovements or programming within theOlmsted system. Community groups, includingmembers of the Olmsted Advisory Council, areeligible for these grants. This program allowsthe community an opportunity to develop andimplement ideas for the parks that areharmonious with The System Plan.

The first charrette in 2005 was held at theCenter for Computational Research at UB’sNorth Campus.



Past and Ongoing Meetings

The Long Range Planning Committee,organized as a subcommittee of theConservancy Board in 2004, has held 15meetings to discuss the scope and progress ofThe System Plan. The Olmsted AdvisoryCouncil has held 21 meetings on the plansince 2002. At first they reviewed material forthe planning that was being prepared by

staff, and since 2004, they have worked withThe Urban Design Project team engaged tocomplete the work. The Conservancy Boardhas reviewed work in progress in 5 separatesessions since early 2005, including a Boardretreat on the subject in 2006. (See Table 10)

Table 9 | Community Organizations Represented on the Olmsted Advisory Council

Board of Block Clubs Ferry Circle/Richmond Parkside Community Association

Botanical Gardens Society Front Park Partners for a Livable Western New York

Buffalo Audubon Society Gates Circle Police Athletic League

Buffalo Croquet Club Greater Buffalo Niagara Regional Porter Avenue/Parkway

Transportation Council

Buffalo Rugby Girl Scout Council of Buffalo & Erie County Preservation Coalition

Buffalo Museum of Science Goin’ South Riverside Park

Buffalo Zoo Greater Buffalo Track Club/Fleet Feet Riverside Park Community Association

Cazenovia Golf Club Junior League Shakespeare in Delaware Park

Colonial Circle/Richmond King Urban Life Center Soldiers Circle

Community Foundation Landmark Society South Buffalo Alive

Days Park Martin Luther King, Jr. Park South Park Golf Club

Delaware Park Dogs McKinley High School Career & Technical South Park Women’s Golf

Education – Horticulture Department

Delaware Park Rose Garden McKinley Parkway Homeowners’ Association Symphony Circle

Delaware Park Steering Committee Medaille College United Neighborhoods

Delaware Park Women’s Golf Medaille College Lacrosse West Side Community Collaborative

Delaware Seniors Golf Club Martin Luther King, Jr. Block Club

Delaware Soccer New Millennium Group



Public Meetings

An important aspect of any public project isconducting open-forum meetings andeducational workshops for the involvedcitizenry. The public is informed of theseevents through print and electronic media andthe team ensures that community leaders areinvolved in these proceedings. To facilitate thisparticipation by representatives of community-based organizations and board memberselected from the Conservancy membership,five meetings open to the community havebeen held since The Urban Design Projectconsultant team was contracted in early 2005.A series of Buffalo public meetings will also beheld as part of the plan’s adoption process intoBuffalo’s Comprehensive Plan. (A moredetailed Citizen Participation Report withadditional public comments can be found inthe Supplemental Materials)

The “Start-up” Meeting

A meeting to initiate work on the plan washeld in September 2002 at the BuffaloMuseum of Science. At this meeting, theConservancy unveiled to the public theirintention of developing a plan for the BuffaloOlmsted Park System. They began the processin-house with Conservancy staff. In 2004, theConservancy contracted with The UrbanDesign Project to develop a plan consistentwith the ongoing community visioningprocess and the requirements of itsdesignation as an historic cultural landscape.A second major public meeting was held in2005 to reinvigorate the process.

Recent Public Input Sessions

Three public meetings were held in May 2007to discuss The System Plan. Each of thethree meetings included a presentation of eachof the six destination parks and the system asa whole, while primarily focusing on thosedestination parks in the immediate vicinity ofthe meeting place. These meetings weremeant to get feedback from residents of thecommunities surrounding the parks about therecommendations for the parks.

The first meeting occurred on May 9, 2007 at the West Side Community Center andfocused on Riverside Park and Front Park.Comments ranged from the desire to reducein-park motor vehicle traffic and the need foradditional bike lanes, to improving access tothe waterfront. A detailed discussion of thestatus of the cross-border management planalso took place. Other suggestions includedremoving all aspects of the golf course fromDelaware Park, integrating Buffalo’sRichardson complex into the Olmsted system,including security in the planning efforts (e.g., crime prevention through environmentaldesign), placing community centers into theparks to better integrate the neighborhoods,and bringing the Department ofTransportation to the “table.”

Table 10 | The System Plan Number of Meetings Held by Group

Group/Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Total

Long-Range Planning Committee 0 0 2 2 6 5 15

Olmsted Advisory Council 1 9 5 3 2 1 21

Public Meetings 1 0 0 1 0 4 6

The 2007 public meeting at the West SideCommunity Center was well attended.



The second meeting was held at the BuffaloMuseum of Science on May 14, 2007. Thetwo parks of particular concern at this meetingwere Delaware Park and Martin Luther King,Jr. Park. Comments varied broadly, butconcerns and recommendations aboutsignage, the water features in Delaware Parkand Martin Luther King, Jr. Park, existing andpotential parkways and connections, and theScajaquada and Kensington Expressways,were most prominent.

The third meeting was conducted on May 22,2007 at the Buffalo Irish Center. This meetingprimarily focused on Cazenovia Park andSouth Park, was well attended, and includedmuch discussion. Two key issues were heavilydiscussed during this meeting: user fees andpark facilities. The consensus seemed to bethat user fees negatively affect many of theyouth leagues in South Buffalo due toaffordability issues. Many attendees were alsoconcerned with the potential loss of the icerink, senior center, and ball diamonds as aresult of the plan—these facilities are used bymany and are valued by the community.

Final Public Input Session

The final public input session was held at theMuseum of Science in Martin Luther King, Jr.Park on November 15, 2007. The presentationprovided a summation of the entire plan forOlmsted system, including high priorityprojects specific to each park and thoseprojects that would be implemented duringthe first five years. The purpose of themeeting was to finalize the recommendationsin the plan. The meeting was also meant todetermine the public’s priorities for therestoration of the parks in the next five years.

Following the presentation, most attendeesremained in the auditorium for a detailedquestion and answer session. Additionally,many written comments were received at theend of the meeting. Several key issues wereaddressed both during the question andanswer session and in the written comments,including the alignment of Front Park and itsrelationship with the proposed Peace BridgePlaza, African American history in Buffalo inrelation to the Olmsted parks, and therelationship between the ScajaquadaExpressway and Delaware Park.

The final public input session generated a lot of discussionand helped shape priorities for the Conservancy.



Meetings with City and County Officials

The executive and legislative branches of ErieCounty and the City of Buffalo have beenregularly consulted in crafting the plan. Inaddition to municipal representation on theOlmsted Advisory Council and on the OlmstedBoard of Trustees over the years, staff haveparticipated in the charrette process and therehas been several meetings with key leadershiptesting the guiding principles andrecommendations in the plan. Formal reviewsby the municipalities will be conducted throughthe State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR)required for the adoption of The SystemPlan as part of the Queen City in the 21stCentury: Buffalo’s Comprehensive Plan.

Other Tools for Involvement

Buffalo Olmsted Parks Conservancy Web Site – http://www.buffaloolmstedparks.org/

An up-to-date and quality Web site continuesto serve as a very effective tool forbroadcasting information to the generalpublic. The Conservancy’s Web site not onlyprovides visitors with the appropriateinformation, but also invites them toparticipate in the planning process. In thisvein, the Conservancy Web site offers basicinformation about the plan, photographs,and a schedule of events, maps, a news page,and a tab for updates on the plan withopportunities to comment. The site continuesto include the work products of the OlmstedAdvisory Council.

Newsletters and Mailings

The dissemination of information toConservancy members and other park throughthe Conservancy’s newsletter is an importantway to keep stakeholders informed. There areapproximately 2,000 households on themailing list including Conservancy members,volunteers, and corporate sponsors.Newsletters were originally sent out quarterly.In the last few years, however, they have beensent out approximately twice a year. Pastnewsletters can also be found on theConservancy Web site.

Continued Participation

The implementation of the plan will require as much, if not more, cooperation among theConservancy, city and county governments,and the public, as the creation of the planhad. This continued involvement will helpupdate priorities and needs, and refine theplan and its recommendations so that thistool can do the most good for the future ofour region. The Olmsted Advisory Council willcontinue to be an important vehicle for parkusers and park advocates to significantlyinfluence system development.

IMPLEMENTING THE SYSTEM PLAN


Implementing The System Plan 121

Capital Investment and Phasing Plan

Implementation of the plan and achievementof its goals are dependent on the availabilityof sufficient and reliable capital and operatingfunds to cover anticipated construction,staffing and equipment costs. This sectionincludes recommendations for implementingthe plan using a phased and coordinatedmulti-year approach. The capital investmentand phasing plan documents the specifics ofthe restoration process methodology,including phasing, priorities, and costs.

The Long-Term Vision: The System Plan

The Cost of Implementing the Plan

The System Plan is highlighted by a series ofrecommendations for the restoration of eachpark, parkway, circle, and small space withinthe Olmsted system. It also includes a series ofrecommendations for additional connectionsand extensions to the system. Theserecommendations are all capital projects and

require financial investments. Cost estimateswere generated to give an approximate costfor the plan’s recommendations.

In total, all of the recommendations in theplan will cost approximately $428 million in2008 constant dollars (See Table 11). BecauseBuffalo’s Olmsted Park System is an historicdesigned landscape, and on the NationalRegister of Historic Places, planrecommendations differentiate projects withinand outside of the cultural landscape. Therestoration of everything within the culturallandscape, including the six major parks, theparkways, circles, and small spaces, will costapproximately $252.5 million. The projectsoutside of the cultural landscape, includingconnections and extensions to the system, aswell as other projects outside of the parks,will cost approximately $175.5 million.

Introduction

The System Plan of the Buffalo Olmsted Parks Conservancy is a working document. It is a toolto start the process of detailed project planning, design and construction. It also provides theConservancy with a roadmap to guide the implementation of the plan. The plan identifiesrecently completed, short-term, and long-term capital improvements. Recently completedprojects are those completed during the plan development process pursuant to the plan’s guidingprinciples. Short-term actions are those that are planned for the next 5 years. Long-term stepshave a planning horizon estimated at 20 years or longer. In addition to implementing the physicalbuildout of plan recommendations, the plan also contains recommendations for resourceprotection, resource interpretation, visitor experience management, strategic partnerships, planadoption, and monitoring and enforcement provisions. In order to be a useful management tool,it is anticipated that the plan will be updated regularly and reassessed, in conjunction with thecompletion of various park facilities. The key implementation components of The System Planare outlined below.


122 Implementing The System Plan

Funding sources for these projects will benumerous, as no single entity, including theConservancy, can take on all of these costs.The funding sources can range from privatedonors to different local and state governmentsor agencies. The recommendations will not allbe implemented at the same time, and thecosts of the plan will spread out over morethan 20 years. The Conservancy will implementthe projects in the Five Year Plan first. Otherprojects will be started incrementally and it isanticipated that funding sources, needs, andpriorities will change with time.

Cost estimates were developed for eachproject recommended in parks, parkways,circles, small spaces and system extensions.The hard costs of the build-out of the planrecommendations include but are not limited to:

• Site preparation, restoration, andlandscaping

• Building rehabilitation and construction

• Infrastructure

• New and restored support facilities(maintenance facilities, restrooms, etc.)

• Amenities (benches, tables, lighting, etc.)

Comparison of Park Spending

The full cost of restoration may seem daunting with Buffalo’s current underfunding of the park

system. If Buffalo spent the national average of $80 per resident on the parks instead of the

current $9.58, and devoted the additional $70.42 on restoring the Olmsted system, it would

only take 21 years to complete the full restoration described in this plan.

(Sources: Breinlich, Angelika, Laura Quebral Fulton, Jonathan Hastings, Holly Lindstrom, Mark McGovern, Megha Pareka,and Jaclyn Patrignani. Under the Guidance of Professor Lynda Schneekloth and Professor Robert Shibley. (2005) GreenInfrastructure Report. Buffalo, NY: University at Buffalo.)

Harnik, Peter. (2004) Newark, New Jersey: An Open Space Analysis. Trust for Public Land, Center for City Park Excellence.

Operating & Capital Dollars Spent Selected Major Cities per Resident on Parks (2001)

Seattle $214Washington, D.C. $155Chicago $131Portland, OR $99Boston $58New York $54Buffalo less than $10

National Average $80

Precincts

Following the method used in the Rebuilding Central Park: A Management and RestorationPlan, we placed all recommended projects into geographically delineated precincts withineach of the six parks. Precincts were defined based on meeting one or more of the followingcriteria: publicly identifiable areas or activity centers; logical clusters of related projects;physically adjacent or continuous areas; or similar landscape types. (Note: Precincts for costestimation are different from Conservancy garden zones.) The number associated with eachprecinct does not represent a priority ranking. A map of each precinct can be found in theDetailed Cost Estimates Appendix.



The total costs include a 20 percent multiplieron construction, labor, and materials, forunforeseen contingencies. Total costs alsoinclude a 12 percent multiplier on top ofconstruction, labor, materials, and contingencyto estimate the soft costs involved in theproject design and construction process,including contractual engineering, architectural,legal, project management, and other servicesinvolved in the detailed design process. Thenumbers provided herein are 2008 constantdollars. It must be emphasized that these arepreliminary projected costs, and provide theConservancy and its partners with order-of-magnitude estimates and relative project costs.When the Conservancy initiates a project,detailed costing will have to be a part of theproject development.

The estimates reflect capital-relatedexpenditures only, and do not include theoperation and management costs that will beneeded to maintain the parks and thecompleted capital projects.

Cost estimating for a plan as complex as TheSystem Plan demanded a decision structure.Three decisions guided the development of costs:

• Type and quality required for each project.

• Geographically delineated areas, orprecincts, were used to organize costsby groups of projects.

• A category called basic park elementsthat estimated all elements notincluded in a specific project

Different design standards were applied todevelop cost estimates for different types ofbasic projects depending on the goals andrequirements of each project type. Forexample, full historic restoration costs morethan simple building repair.

The cost for a precinct (such as ParksideLodge Precinct) includes individual projectswithin the area (for example, the QuarryGarden and the Parkside Lodge), and thebasics such as paths, plantings, furnishings,etc. within that space. All basics were dividedinto the precincts. All overlapping projects,such as when a perimeter road was also aparkway, were only counted once in the totalcost estimates.

Table 11 shows cost estimates broken downby precinct for each park. Each of the specificproject recommendations described in thisplan falls within a geographically definedprecinct. (A detailed matrix of each projectrecommendation and related costs can befound in the Detailed Cost Estimates Appendix)



Table 11 | Full Plan Implementation Cost Estimates

Parks and Precincts Total Costs1

Delaware Park

1 - Albright-Knox Precinct 616,000

2 - Casino Precinct 11,068,000

3 - Delaware Avenue Precinct 88,000

4 - Gala Water Precinct 1,812,000

5 - Historical Society Precinct 224,000

6 - Meadow Precinct 5,623,000

7 - Parkside Lodge Precinct 10,328,000

8 - Perimeter Precinct 1,209,000

9 - Ring Road Precinct 6,368,000

10 - Rumsey Woods Precinct 2,081,000

11 - Scajaquada Corridor Precinct 36,473,000

12 - Zoo Precinct 323,000

Improvements Inside Delaware Park 76,213,000

Improvements Outside Delaware Park 4,173,000

Total Delaware Park and Vicinity 80,386,000

Front Park

1 - The Front Precinct 16,734,000

2 - Fort Porter Site 4,310,000

Improvements Inside Front Park 21,044,000

Improvements Outside Front Park 76,000

Total Front Park and Vicinity 21,120,000


1 - Central Water Features Precinct 11,497,000

2 - Fillmore Avenue Precinct 2,195,000

3 - Greenhouse/Picnic Grove Precinct 3,091,000

4 - Museum Precinct 1,342,000


Improvements Inside MLK Park 29,365,000

Improvements Outside MLK Park 10,050,000

Total MLK Park and Vicinity 39,415,000

South Park

1 - Botanical Gardens Precinct 385,000

2 - Central Meadow Precinct 144,000

3 - Lake Precinct 9,040,000

4 - North Meadow Precinct 1,454,000



Improvements Inside South Park 17,145,000

Improvements Outside South Park 1,354,000

Total South Park and Vicinity 18,499,000

(continued on next page)



Table 11 | Full Plan Implementation Cost Estimates (continued)

Parks and Precincts Total Costs1

Cazenovia Park

1 - Bowl Precinct 439,000


3 - Creek Precinct 10,108,000

4 - Golf Course Precinct 996,000


Improvements Inside Cazenovia Park 54,072,000

Improvements Outside Cazenovia Park 2,082,000

Total Cazenovia Park and Vicinity 56,154,000

Riverside Park

1 - Concourse and River Precinct 6,311,000

2 - Hotaling Drive Precinct 1,119,000

3 - Minnow Pools Precinct 746,000

4 - Playing Fields Precinct 45,000

5 - South Recreation Precinct 560,000

Improvements Inside Riverside Park 8,781,000

Improvements Outside Riverside Park 1,741,000

Total Riverside Park and Vicinity 10,522,000

Total Improvements Inside All Major Parks 206,620,000

Total Improvements Outside All Major Parks 19,476,000

Total Major Parks and Vicinities 226,096,000

Parkways, Circles, and Small Spaces 45,923,000

Extensions 155,983,000

Total Within the Cultural Landscape 252,543,000

Total Outside the Cultural Landscape2 175,459,000

Grand Total Costs1 428,002,000

1 Total costs are in constant 2008 dollars and include hard construction costs (labor and materials) times a 20 percent contingency factortimes a 12 percent multiplier for engineering, design, legal and other fees.

2 Extensions and projects listed as Outside the Park are included in the Outside the Cultural Landscape subtotal.



The Cost Estimating Tool

The cost estimating tool, developed withMicrosoft Access, is an interactive and flexibledata-base of projects and associated costs.The cost estimating tool can be used toaggregate project costs into various categoriesof total costs. The projects were givenattributes such as park location, precinct, typeof project, phase, priority, funding source,jurisdiction, and project start year. Each itemthat makes up a project was also assigned anitem category, such as building, pathway,planting, water feature, and many more.These categories will make it easier for theConservancy to organize projects, raise funds,and keep track of progress on the plan. Aquery function in the database allows users tofind these total costs by any combination ofcategories. For instance, a user can easily findthe total cost for a specific park, or the usercan find the total cost for all of the pathwayswithin a specific precinct of a specific park.Since each project has several associatedattributes, one can query numerouscombinations of attributes.

This database is very flexible and can beupdated as progress on implementing theplan continues. Material unit costs, inflation,funding sources, project phasing, priority, andstart year are all likely to change as the plan isimplemented. New projects not described inthis plan may arise. Projects in this plan maybe refined. The cost estimating tool allows theuser to update in response to these types ofdevelopments. While the initial cost estimatesare important to establish the scope andmagnitude of the plan and its elements, thecost estimating model is a dynamic tool thatwill enable the Conservancy to refine andalter the estimates based on changing needsand assumptions over time.

Short-Term Projects: The Five Year Plan

Introduction

The objective of this section of The SystemPlan is to analyze the financial implications of implementation of the first five year phaseand to provide the scope of financialresources that are needed to undertake theplan. This information enables theorganization to develop and initiate a capitalcampaign to meet these funding needs. Asthe Conservancy and its governmentpartners, the City of Buffalo and Erie County,work together to execute the plan, thisanalysis will help inform decision makers as tothe extent of public initiatives required to helpimplement the project. Consideration shouldalso be given to the Operation AlignmentAssessment Report prepared by Clear IntentStrategy for the Buffalo Olmsted ParksConservancy Board of Trustees. The strategyidentifies that the most critical challenge is“to make strategic choices.”32 A series oftables provide projected capital and operatingcosts over the first five years of the plan in aneffort to address that challenge.

Five Year Plan Program Development

Five Year Plan Project Selection Criteria

Important work will be started and completedin the first five years of plan implementation.The project study team, informed by a series ofinterviews with Conservancy staff and boardmembers and suggestions made by park usersand the public throughout the planningprocess, developed a set of criteria, alignedwith the guiding principles, upon which tobase project selection in the first five years.Considerations included urgency or need andrelative funding needs and availability. The teamthen held a series of meetings to determinewhich specific projects met the criteria forinclusion in the Five Year Plan.

I M A G E S

Above:

The abandoned ice rink in FrontPark was recently removed andthe landscape restored to itshistoric character. This is just partof the work already completedon The System Plan.



The project selection criteria for the first fiveyears of plan implementation include:

• Criteria 1: Restore the basic orfundamental elements of the parks—the landscapes and furnishings thatdefine the parks as Olmstedian and theamenities that provide comfort,information, and safety to park visitors.It also addresses major drainage anderosion issues in need of attention toprevent further damage.

• Criteria 2: Implement projects related tothe Niagara River Greenway. This highlyvisible set of projects is a high priorityfor completion in the initial phase ofthe work due to funding availability;the increased access, recognition, andvisibility it brings to the Olmsted system;and the regional benefits to allrecreational users, to the city and itsneighborhoods.

• Criteria 3: Address critical needs in atimely way to improve safety andprevent unnecessary costs related todeferred maintenance. The intent is toget the parks stabilized and thenimplement a consistent program ofscheduled maintenance and investment.

Five Year Plan Project Descriptions

Criteria 1: Restore Basic Park Elements

The first category of projects to be included inthe Five Year Plan is the restoration of basicpark elements that are not dependent on thecompletion of other long term projects. Thebasic park elements support everyday parkuse, and make the parks accessible,comfortable, and enjoyable places to be.

The Five Year Plan includes the costs ofcompleting the following work related tobasic park elements:

■ Restore Historic Elements

• Restore the parks’ historic furnishings

• Restore historic landscape patterns andplantings, especially perimetervegetation

■ Provide User Amenities

• Restore and maintain public restroomfacilities

• Restore, maintain, or install drinkingfountains

■ Improve Access and Circulation

• Rehabilitate Olmsted pathway system

• Introduce traffic calming and pedestriansafety measures at park roads

• Install appropriate wayfinding andbranding signage (especially at parkentrances)

■ Address Drainage and Erosion Problems

• Manage drainage and erosion issuesthroughout the parks

Note that the rehabilitation of the Olmstedroadway and lighting system, although basicpark elements, will not be addressed in thefirst five years. The roadways within the parksneed major improvements in surfacing,drainage, and curbing. It is more cost effectiveto address lighting needs at the same time asthe road work. These improvements willrequire large investments and long termmaintenance, and are scheduled for laterphases of the plan.

I M A G E S

Above:

The Five Year Plan will addressdrainage and erosion problemssuch as the erosion alongCazenovia Creek.

Right:

These images of existing anddigitally represented pathways inSouth Park are examples of howpathways can be restoredthroughout the Olmsted system.(existing/proposed)



Criteria 2: Implement Projects Related to the Niagara River Greenway

The second category of projects in the FiveYear Plan includes those related to the NiagaraRiver Greenway and the Olmsted Park System(See the Buffalo Olmsted Parks Conservancy:Connecting Parks and People in the NiagaraRiver Greenway in the SupplementalMaterials). The Niagara River Greenwayprojects to be included in the first five years ofrestoration include projects that are:

• On the Niagara River Greenway• At park entrances• In park pathways

Criteria 3: Meet Critical Needs

The third category addresses critical needsprojects, defined as those that must beI M A G E S

Above:

The restoration of the pathwaysin Cazenovia Park, like the otherOlmsted parks, will extend theNiagara River Greenway trailsystem. (existing/proposed)

addressed for urgent reasons such as safetyand security concerns or because deferringthe projects to later dates will worsen thedeterioration of the feature to be restored.Each park has one critical need projectselected for the first five years.

■ Delaware Park: Renovate the casinobuilding and the plaza and rationalize itsservice facilities.

■ Front Park: Restore the picnic shelter.

■ Martin Luther King, Jr. Park: Install trafficcalming and streetscape features onFillmore Avenue (improve pedestrian safety).

■ South Park: Replace the ring road bridge.

■ Cazenovia Park: Stabilize Cazenovia Creekbeds and shoreline to prevent erosion andto manage points of access.

■ Riverside Park: Improve the existingplayground.

Traffic calming measures can be used to improve pedestrian safety on Fillmore Avenue through Martin LutherKing, Jr. Park. (existing/proposed)

The bridge on the ring road in South Park is deteriorating and will be restored as part of the Five Year Plan. (existing/proposed)

The playground in Riverside Park is a critical need project in the Five Year Plan. (existing/proposed)



Five Year Plan High Impact Projects

In addition to fixing the basics and taking careof critical needs, there are projects that shouldbe considered for funding in the first fiveyears if earmarked funds can be obtained.These projects are highly visible, reflect thepriorities of park users, and would buildexcitement for the plan to gain more generalfunding support. In fact, a number of theseprojects are underway wholly or in part, andas additional targeted funds becomeavailable, these should be the first projectsaddressed beyond stabilizing the parks. Somemay be completed within the first five years,some may not. Either way, they are notbudgeted for the Five Year Plan.

■ Delaware Park: Restore the Rumsey WoodsShelter House.

■ Front Park: Restore the Terrace.

■ Martin Luther King, Jr. Park: Restore thegreenhouse, its additions, and floraldisplays, and restore the shelter house.

■ South Park: Create a Father Baker Gardenon the site of the former bus loop.

■ Cazenovia Park: Renovate the casinobuilding and develop a programmed usefor it.

■ Riverside Park: Reinterpret the Minnow Pools.

The Cost of Implementing the Five Year Plan

Based on the estimates and project phasingplan developed for The System Plan, thefollowing section provides projections of theanticipated capital costs to be incurred on ayearly basis for the first five years ofimplementation of the plan (See Table 12).

The total cost of implementing the Five YearPlan is $28.7 million, including $13.4 millionfor the basics and $15.3 million for criticalneeds (See Table 12). Major projects includethe restoration of the Delaware Park casinoand plaza ($8.7 million) and the workdescribed above on pathways ($4.4 million),and landscapes and plantings ($5.9 million),in all the parks.

I M A G E S

Below:

Restoration on the greenhouse,shelter house, and floral displaysare high impact projects inMartin Luther King, Jr. Park.(existing/proposed)



Table 12 | Five Year Plan Cost Estimates

Project Total Costs1

Criteria 1: Restore the Basics 13,421,000

Restore Historic Elements

Furnishings 553,000

Landscapes and plantings 5,938,000

Provide User Amenities

Restroom facilities2 -

Drinking fountains 92,000

Improve Access and Circulation

Pathways 4,378,000

Traffic and pedestrian safety 771,000

Signage 192,000

Address Drainage and Erosion 1,497,000

Criteria 2: Implement Projects Related to the Niagara River Greenway

On the Shoreline Trail3 -

At park entrances4 -

In park pathways5 -

Criteria 3: Meet Critical Needs 15,262,000

Delaware Park

Casino and plaza 8,709,000

Front Park

Picnic shelter 622,000


Fillmore Avenue safety and streetscape 2,195,000

South Park

Ring road bridge 1,042,000

Cazenovia Park

Stabilize Cazenovia Creek 2,681,000

Riverside Park

Improve playground 13,000

Total 28,683,000

1 Total costs are in constant 2008 dollars and include hard construction costs (labor and materials) times a 20 percent contingency factortimes a 12 percent multiplier for engineering, design, legal and other fees.

2 Included in the cost of restoring the Delaware and Cazenovia casinos, the Rumsey Woods Shelter House, and the Martin Luther King, Jr.shelter house.

3 Not included in cost estimates.4 Cost is included in Pathways.5 Same total as Pathways.



Work Already Started

The Conservancy has begun implementing theplan and close to $2 million has already beenspent on projects from the plan. Much but notall of this work is part of the Five Year Plan. InDelaware Park, these projects include thebeginning of the restoration of the ParksideLodge and the construction of a bridal pathalong Parkside Avenue. In Front Park theseprojects include significant restoration work onthe Terrace, restoration of many of the park’spathways, the removal of the abandoned icerink, and the removal of two underused tenniscourts. In Martin Luther King, Jr. Park, parts ofthe greenhouse have been restored as well asits surrounding floral displays and maintenancearea, and two-way traffic has been returned toWest Parade. On top of this work, new treeplantings have been established throughoutthe Buffalo Olmsted Park System.

Five Year Financial Plan

The following pages outline a financial plan forthe projected growth of the Buffalo OlmstedParks Conservancy over the first five years ofimplementation. The tables below outline bothone-time capital costs and recurring expenses formanagement, maintenance, and operations.

Sources and Uses of Capital Funds

Sources of Funds

Potential sources of funding have beengrouped into five categories; government,corporate, foundation, individual, other (in-kind and sources of direct revenues fromservices or fees). It is assumed thatgovernment sources (city, county, state, andfederal) will contribute 75 percent of thecapital costs during the first five years. Thisincludes potential New York Power Authorityrelicensing agreement Niagara River Greenwayfunds. This reflects both a proportion typicalof urban park systems nationally, as well asthe nature of many of the five-year projects(e.g., infrastructure projects such asCazenovia Creek and South Park’s ring roadbridge). Corporate donations are expected toequal approximately 6 percent; foundationsupport will bring in 10 percent; individualswill bring in 8 percent; and fees and in kindrevenues about 1 percent (See Table 13).

Table 13 | Sources and Uses of Funds, Five Year Capital Improvement Program

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total

Sources of Funds

Government 2,585,000 2,585,000 5,447,000 5,447,000 5,447,000 21,512,000

Corporate 207,000 207,000 436,000 436,000 436,000 1,721,000

Foundation 345,000 345,000 726,000 726,000 726,000 2,868,000

Individual 276,000 276,000 581,000 581,000 581,000 2,295,000

Other 34,000 34,000 73,000 73,000 73,000 287,000

Total Revenues 3,447,000 3,447,000 7,263,000 7,263,000 7,263,000 28,683,000

Uses of Funds

Projects to Restore the Basics 2,684,000 2,684,000 2,684,000 2,684,000 2,684,000 13,421,000

Projects that Meet Critical Needs 763,000 763,000 4,579,000 4,579,000 4,579,000 15,262,000

Total Costs1 3,447,000 3,447,000 7,263,000 7,263,000 7,263,000 28,683,000

1 Total costs as defined in Table 12.



Uses of Funds

Capital funds will be used to pay for theprojects identified as part of the Five YearPlan. These costs and the projects are definedin the project descriptions. The analysiscalculates costs for program services, facilities,and administration and overhead. There areboth one-time and recurring expenses thataccompany the development and stewardshipof the Buffalo Olmsted Park System. Recurringexpenses will consist of staff salary andbenefits, office expenses, and promotionalmaterial.

Projected Changes in theConservancy Operating Budget

The analysis estimates the growth in theConservancy’s annual operating budget foreach of the first five years of planimplementation, and estimates the amount ofadditional funding that the organization willrequire to cover its operating expenses. Annualoperating expenses are expected to rise basedon need for increased development andmarketing staff, substantial funds required forplan implementation, to expand and enhancemaintenance activities to protect the investmentby ensuring that the improved park system willbe well cared for, and to manage the growingoperation. Based on the input of Conservancystaff, the operating expense projections assumethat operating costs increase at an averageproportion equal to 15 percent of capital fundsexpended (See Table 14).

Government grants, contracts, and in-kindservices (e.g., county maintenance staff)currently account for only 53 percent ofoperating budget income (fiscal year 2008budget based on past year actuals andexisting contracts). A recommended level ofgovernment support of operating needs is 75percent, based on the Central Parkmanagement and restoration plan prototypeand typical operating support levelsnationwide. For the Five Year Plan, it isrecommended that the Conservancy seek aphased in increase in the proportion ofgovernment support to 63 percent by yearfive (i.e., a two percent increase per year).

Table 14 | Change in Conservancy Operating Expenses, Five-Year Plan

FY 2008 Budget Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Annual Increase in Expenses

from Prior Year NA 517,000 517,000 1,089,000 1,089,000 1,089,000

Total Annual Expenses 2,480,000 2,997,000 3,514,000 4,604,000 5,693,000 6,782,000

Annual % Increase from Prior Year NA 21% 17% 31% 24% 19%

Total % Increase from Baseline (2008) NA 121% 142% 186% 230% 273%



Land and ResourceManagement

The Buffalo Olmsted Parks Conservancy isresponsible for managing critical resources,both historic and natural. What follows is alist of those resources and the criteria thatmust be addressed according to the formalhistoric cultural landscape designation.

Historic Resources

The Buffalo Olmsted Park System is a culturallandscape, designated as a historic designedlandscape by the National Park Service (NPS)and is on the National Register of HistoricPlaces. The plan must address historiclandscape guidelines from the State HistoricPreservation Office (SHPO) as well. Both stateand national designation carry preservationresponsibilities. (See the Historic PreservationGuidelines Appendix for a matrix ofrecommended projects against NPS and SHPO guidelines)

■ State Historic Preservation Office guidelinesaddress:

• Topography

• Vegetation

• Circulation

• Buildings and Structures

• Site Furnishings and Objects

• Spatial Organization and Land Patterns

■ The National Park Service’s guidelinesoverlap many state concerns but also addadditional criteria including:

• Organizational Elements of the LandscapeSpatial Organization and Land Patterns

• Character Defining Features of theLandscape

TopographyVegetation CirculationWater FeaturesStructures, Site Furnishings, and Objects

■ Additional recommendations for preservingbuildings and facilities include:

• Rehabilitate and/or adaptively reusehistoric structures.

• Reconstruct historic structures whereappropriate.

• Use ‘green’ sustainable practices whenrehabilitating/reconstructing structures.

• Decommission/demolish derelict orunderutilized non-historic structures.

• Relocate non-historicactivities/structures outside of the parkswhen appropriate.

• Do not build new non-historicstructures in the Olmsted parks.

Natural Resources

Environmental features of significance in theBuffalo Olmsted Park System include twomajor creeks with associated floodplains(Scajaquada Creek and Cazenovia Creek),wetlands (Cazenovia Park, Delaware Park,South Park), water bodies (Hoyt Lake andSouth Park Lake), and the steep slopes alongthe Niagara River which define the edge ofFront Park and Riverside Park. The restorationand management of the park system shouldbe done with an awareness of and sensitivityto the scenic quality of the natural resources,the important groundwater recharge andflood mitigation functions of wetlands, andthe role of the parks as a habitat for nativewildlife. Not only do these green spaces serveas critical breeding grounds for large numbersof birds, fish, mammals, reptiles, amphibians,and insects, they are also important to themigratory routes of many bird species.



Once designed and implemented, the parklandscapes function as ‘analogous naturalsystems,’ meaning that they approximate anatural system even though they are notnatural but constructed. They must bemanaged and maintained because they areheavily used by people in the city and becausemany of the landscapes are designed to arrestnatural vegetative succession. The edges ofthese landscapes are also important andproductive transitional areas that providedifferent types of habitat. What follows are aseries of guidelines for the protection andmanagement of the parks’ environmentalfeatures and landscapes.

■ Protect and restore soils.

• Aerate and enrich compacted soils.

• Compost organic wastes and reuse theend product.

• Protect steeper slopes throughvegetation and/or other means.

■ Protect, enhance and diversify vegetationwithin Olmsted’s landscape types (meadows,bogs, arboretum, woodlands, parkland,perimeter wooded areas and so on).

• Use native species and hardy cultivars.

• Diversify tree / shrub selections.

• Restore woodlands through planting in layers.

• Avoid using pesticides throughintegrated pest management (IPM)techniques to protect water bodies andnatural organisms.

• Control invasive species.

• Develop a hierarchy of areas accordingto level of maintenance.

■ Protect and enhance water bodies.

• Rehabilitate/reconstruct Olmsted’swater systems where appropriate.

• Interpret Olmsted’s water bodies whereinappropriate to reconstruct.

• Provide public access points andappropriate recreational opportunitieson water bodies.

• Prevent pollution.

■ Provide effective drainage and stormwatercontrol.

• Infiltrate as much water as quickly aspossible through reintroducing naturalwetland areas

• Improve drainage in areas like pathwayswhere standing water is hazardous.

• Use engineering solutions wherenecessary to manage the waters.

Niagara River Corridor Globally Significant Important Bird Area (IBA)

Important Bird Areas, or IBAs, are sites that provide essential habitat for one or more species of

birds and are designated by the Audubon Society. IBAs include sites for breeding, wintering,

and/or migrating birds and often support a significant proportion of one or more species’ total

population. In winter, the Niagara River hosts up to 19 species of gulls—60 percent of the

world’s gull species—and large congregations of other waterfowl species, making it a globally

significant IBA. During the winter migration, the Niagara River hosts up to 20 percent of the

world’s population of Bonaparte's Gulls. It is part of the migratory route for many other species

of birds including terns, egrets, and herons. Front and Riverside Parks are located along this

waterfront flyway, and the IBA extends inland along the Scajaquada Creek, linking it with

Delaware Park.



■ Additional policies.

• Develop plans for park features thatprovide suitable indigenous specieshabitat for fisheries and wildlife.

• Manage park sites and facilities toprotect the integrity of the naturalresources.

• Monitor and minimize public useimpacts regarding water quality andsensitive species.

• Prepare a status report on key specieswithin the Olmsted parks.

• Develop policies to protect the seasonaluse of the Olmsted parks by keyspecies.

• Continue and enhance policies for theuse and management of pesticides andfertilizers and encourage organicalternatives.

• Develop waste-management andrecycling programs that incorporatelitter control.

• Develop and enforce pollutionprotection programs to minimizechemical discharge.

• Work with government agencies toachieve water quality levels needed forunrestricted use.

• Promote landscaping with native plants.

• Research and promote use of energyefficient facilities and equipment.

• Integrate environmentally friendlymaterials into design of park featuresand operations.

• Identify improvements to water qualityresulting from park initiatives.

A Need for Environmental Remediation

Environmental contamination has reduced the habitat values and restricted public use andenjoyment of the water bodies and watercourses that are part of the Buffalo Olmsted Park System.

• Cazenovia Creek is a main tributary to the Buffalo River, the lower portion of which wasidentified by the Great Lakes Water Quality Board of the International Joint Commission (IJC)as one of the 43 Areas of Concern (AOC) in the Great Lakes Region.

• The water and bottom sediments of the Niagara River and its tributaries are also a listed Areaof Concern. Industrial contaminants and others sources of pollution including runoff frominactive hazardous waste sites, combined sewer overflows and other point and nonpointsources have contributed to the degradation of water quality and habitat in the Niagara Riverand its tributaries.

• Pathogens enter the Scajaquada Creek from combined sewer overflows. The creek iscontaminated with Type C botulism that is fatal to birds and other wildlife. Blockages in thebypass tunnels cause high concentrations of botulism in the creek through Forest LawnCemetery, causing high waterfowl mortality rates in this area. Scajaquada Creek also has veryhigh concentrations of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) and elevated levels of fertilizers andsalts. Contamination levels make it unsafe for swimming.

• Hoyt Lake in Delaware Park is contaminated with the pollutants that flow through ScajaquadaCreek. The lake was identified as one of the nearly 100 fish consumption advisories issued bythe New York State Department of Health for water bodies across the state due to pollutionfrom Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxics (PBTs). Also listed were the Niagara and Buffalo Riversand Lake Erie.



Visitor ExperienceManagement

The Conservancy should build on its pastsuccess in community outreach and develop avisitor use framework that ensures thatvisitors of all types will have access to a highquality experience and will have a minimalimpact on the park’s constructed and naturalfeatures. Thresholds of “acceptable change”(which may be “no change” for certain areas)will need to be developed for sensitiveprotected lands, and clear regulation ofactivities and access to these areas should bespecified.

■ Recreational Opportunities

• Facilitate participation in a broad rangeof activities related to the parks’recreational values.

• Balance unstructured/passive recreationopportunities as provided by Olmstedwith structured/active single useallocation of space for recreation.

• Work to provide safe access to the parklakes and creeks by creating additionalboating and docking opportunities.

• Enforce and encourage diverse and safeboating activities that do not havesignificant adverse impacts on Olmstedparks’ ecology.

• Expand opportunities for recreationalfishing.

■ Security

• Provide lighting in the parks in areasthat are heavily used at night.

Retain existing lighting where needed.

Maintain lights on city streets,parkways, and circles.

Turn park lights off when parks close(10pm) except in locations that needlights for security purposes.

• Provide restrooms that are supervised,safe, and clean.

• Provide well maintained pathways.

• Formalize rules and safety measures foraccess to the water.

■ Safety

• Provide for pedestrian and bike safetyand accessibility.

• Separate pedestrian and automobilecirculation where possible.

• Employ traffic calming measures onpark roads.

• Redirect through-traffic away from theparks where possible.

■ Wayfinding

• Make the entrances and neighborhoodconnections to the parks clear andarticulated so that the parks are clearlyan amenity to the surrounding area.

• Provide informational and directionalsignage that identifies the culturallandscape and natural systems.

■ Visitor Comfort

• Make parks ADA accessible for diversepopulations.

• Provide restrooms for park users

During park events.

During permitted uses or publicgatherings.

Always open in occupied buildings.

• Provide drinking fountains in high use areas.



Resource InterpretationManagement

Education

This section of the implementation plan seeksto capitalize on the Olmsted parks’combination of important ecological valuesand urban location by promoting awareness,understanding, and stewardship of the parksystem’s thousands of annual visitors. One ofthe most important uses of any park is toprovide a forum for educational discovery.Due to their rich natural and social history, theparks are of broad educational interest tolocal residents as well as regional, nationaland international visitors.

Construction of park facilities and otherinfrastructure to enhance educationalopportunities in the parks can offer new andexpanded programs for children, adults, andseniors. As plans for these programs andfacilities progress, the Conservancy mustdevelop partnerships with Western NewYork’s many educational and culturalinstitutions to ensure that park visitors canlearn from experts in the fields that relate tothe parks’ history and ecology.

The Conservancy should work to:

• Promote knowledge of the parksystem’s historic resources, prehistoryand history by offering educationalprograms.

• Provide facilities where park visitors cangain an appreciation and understandingof the Olmsted parks and theirecological and cultural history.

• Develop partnerships with educationaland cultural institutions knowledgeableabout the parks’ ecology and history tooffer programs and interpretivematerials for park visitors.

• Differentiate historic resources from anycontemporary interventions.

• Provide ecological and historic interpretiveelements in the Olmsted parks.

• Develop a range of written materials tofacilitate public education.

• Provide opportunities for students andvolunteers to gain knowledge of theparks through internships and training.

• Ensure the pubic availability of researchconducted within the Olmsted parks.

• Establish a library of technical reportsand data collected from research andmonitoring conducted within theOlmsted parks.

Layers of Cultural HistoryRecommendations

There have been many sites of NativeAmerican and African American historicalsignificance identified within the BuffaloOlmsted Park System. This overlappingheritage provides many opportunities to givepark-goers a basic interpretation of thehistorical relationship that the Olmsted parksand parkways share with local Native andAfrican American people. For instance, therea number of highly significant NativeAmerican sites in and around Cazenovia Park,as well as along the Niagara River andScajaquada Creek that could easily beconnected through interpretation. In thesame regard, there are sites of AfricanAmerican heritage near Martin Luther King, Jr.Park that could be linked with other areas ofsignificance along the Olmsted system such asthe Niagara River crossing of theUnderground Railroad. It is feasible that theseinterpretations could be used for educationalpurposes, as well as to support community,economic, and tourism development. (See theLayers of Cultural History Report in theSupplemental Materials for more detailedinformation)



Research

• Provide research opportunities in theOlmsted parks for interestededucational institutions.

• Establish an Environmental Committee.

• Encourage research that provides aclearer understanding of the Olmstedparks’ ecological, geological, andcultural features.

• Encourage research that expands theknowledge base regarding bioticcommunities and relationships betweenthese communities and the Olmstedparks’ physical features.

• Work with agencies involved inmonitoring the city’s ecosystem toidentify issues or activities with thepotential to affect Olmsted parks’resources, or to further theunderstanding of the ecosystem.

• Monitor recreational fishing, trackinginformation such as the species caughtand the physical characteristics of theindividual specimen.

• Support research to further investigatethe Native American, African American,and other park era histories.

Partnerships andCooperation

As the primary management entity for theBuffalo Olmsted Park System, the BuffaloOlmsted Parks Conservancy will continue tohave primary responsibility for managing theimplementation of the plan. As such,Conservancy staff will continue to sustain andexpand grassroots regional support for theBuffalo Olmsted Park System including theOlmsted Advisory Council. The Conservancywill provide staff support and technicalexpertise for park maintenance, operations,and funding support.

The plan recommends cooperative managementinitiatives with public or private organizationsthat support the Conservancy’s mission andcan leverage non-Conservancy technical orfinancial resources. These partnerships mayinclude joint operational programmingservices, co-investment or co-sponsorship ofcapital investments, inter-agency agreementsfor land or facilities management, leasearrangements, joint advertising and marketingplans, and other options.

Primary Support Partners

Many Buffalo Olmsted Park Systemrecommendations require partnering with theCity of Buffalo or Erie County to implementimprovements. These two primary supportpartners of the Conservancy have a directfiscal or management connection with theBuffalo Olmsted Park System. The enthusiasticparticipation and strong financial support ofthe city and county will be crucial to thesuccess of the restoration. The City of Buffalois the owner of the Olmsted parks, parkways,circles, and smaller spaces. The Conservancy’sresponsibility to manage, operate, restore,and enhance the Buffalo Olmsted ParkSystem rests first on an agreement betweenthe City of Buffalo and Erie County regardingthe management of all parks in the city. A2004 agreement between the county and theConservancy also laid the framework forcooperative stewardship of the Olmstedsystem (See Table 15). The agreement statesthat The System Plan will be jointlycreated and adopted by the Conservancy, thecounty, and the city. The plan is further vestedin the City of Buffalo through the Queen Cityof the 21st Century: City of BuffaloComprehensive Plan, where it is incorporatedby reference. All alterations, major repairs,and capital improvements within the parksand parkways, shall be in accordance with theplan as approved.



Table 15 | Responsibilities by Entity1

Entity/Jurisdiction

Buffalo Olmsted Parks Conservancy

DESTINATION PARKS: Cazenovia, Delaware,

Front, Martin Luther King, Jr., Riverside, and

South Parks (all areas unless otherwise

specified)

SMALLER PARKS: Columbus, Days, and

Prospect Parks; Heacock Place (all areas

unless otherwise specified)

CIRCLES: Agassiz, Colonial, Ferry, Gates,

McClellan, McKinley, Soldiers, and Symphony

Circles (all areas unless otherwise specified)

PARKWAYS: Bidwell, Chapin, Humboldt,

Lincoln, McKinley, and Red Jacket Parkways

(all areas unless otherwise specified)

City of Buffalo

DESTINATION AND SMALLER PARKS:

park roads and parking lots, creeks, major

infrastructure and utilities

CIRCLES: Ornamental lights

PARKWAYS: Streetlights and poles, traffic

lights and signals, street, road and sidewalk

pavements, curbing, and signage; major

walls, barriers, and fencing.

Erie County

SOUTH PARK: All botanical gardens-related

COLUMBUS PARK: Library

Erie County and/or the City of Buffalo

CAZENOVIA PARK: pool, community center, rink

DELAWARE PARK: Shakespeare in the Park,

casino, zoo, art gallery, historical society,

radio tower complex, labor center

FRONT PARK: skating facility

MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. PARK:

school, museum

RIVERSIDE PARK: pool, rink, senior center

General Responsibilities

General maintenance of open space,

interior park roadways and pathways

General maintenance of open space,

interior park roadways and pathways

General cleaning and aesthetic upgrades

General cleaning and aesthetic upgrades

Repair major walls, barriers, fencing





Specific Tasks

Lawn, horticultural, and tree care; graffiti

removal; playground repair; building,

structure, and monument repair and care;

snow removal

Lawn, horticultural, and tree care; graffiti

removal; playground repair; building, structure,

and monument repair and care; snow removal

Coordinate maintenance of NYS Routes

384 and 198 through Delaware Park

with NYSDOT

Coordinate maintenance of NYS Routes

384 and 198 through Delaware Park

with NYSDOT

Scajaquada Creek and its trash rack

1Based on Inter-Municipal Agreement between the City of Buffalo and Erie County, and the Agreement between the Buffalo Olmsted Parks Conservancy and Erie County, both dated July 1, 2004.



Secondary Support Partners

In addition to primary support partners, theConservancy has secondary partnerships withfederal and state agencies, regionalorganizations, not-for-profits, and other localentities. The following is a brief description ofsome of the key partners and how they canwork with the Buffalo Olmsted Park System.

Federal Agencies

Federal agencies that are potential partnersfor the Conservancy’s restoration plan includethe Army Corps of Engineers (stream relatedprojects) and the National Park Service, whichhas funds to rehabilitate sites that are listedon the National Register of Historic Places.

New York State Agencies

The Buffalo Olmsted Parks Conservancy willseek partnerships with many New York Stateagencies, programs, and initiatives. Theseinclude but are not limited to the Departmentof Environmental Conservation (DEC), theDepartment of State (DOS), and theDepartment of Transportation (DOT).Specifically, a partnership agreement similar tothat between Erie County and theConservancy should be sought with the DOTfor maintenance of the state right-of-waylands adjoining the Scajaquada Expresswaythat are contiguous with existing Conservancymanaged park land. New York State agencieshave annual grants programs that specificallytarget parks, natural resources, and historicsites. The DOT also administers the New YorkState Scenic Byways Program. Under thisprogram, once a scenic byway is establishedthrough a nomination process, funds areavailable for economic development andresource management. The Buffalo Olmstedparkway system should be nominated as ascenic byway and connected with otherscenic byways in the region. Partnerships withthe DEC are required for any projects thataffect New York State designated wetlands,lakes, and stream corridors, as well as projectsthat involve hazardous material remediation.

Foundations, Not-for-Profits, andRegional Organizations

Western New York foundations, private non-profits, and regional organizations provide anarray of philanthropic services and funds.These organizations are natural allies of theBuffalo Olmsted Parks Conservancy, promotinglocal and regional planning, preserving parksand open space, developing interpretive andeducational programs or conserving naturaland cultural resources. The Conservancy willneed to work closely with these organizationsand other local interests seeking their supportand encouraging their efforts in a mutuallybeneficial process to implement the goals ofthe plan.

Plan Adoption

Adoption Mechanisms

The plan was approved by the Board ofTrustees of the Buffalo Olmsted ParksConservancy in January of 2008. It must alsobe adopted by the involved governmentagencies—Erie County and the City ofBuffalo. To be most effective, the plan mustbe adopted as an amendment to the City ofBuffalo’s Comprehensive Plan to provide thecity with the planning base to justify increasedoperating and capital contributions to theBuffalo Olmsted Park System. Considerationshould be given to amending the BuffaloNiagara Framework for Regional Growth,recently adopted by Erie County, to includeThe System Plan. As with the city, adoptionby the county sends a powerful message thatthese jurisdictions fully support the goals andprojects designed to enhance the BuffaloOlmsted Park System, one of our region’sgreatest assets.



Relevant Environmentaland Land Use Laws

The System Plan for the Buffalo OlmstedPark System must be reviewed, approved, andimplemented in accordance with existingfederal, state, and local laws. In addition, theplan will move forward within the frameworkof existing, ongoing, and future policies andplans conducted by all levels of government.The plan will also be realized in the context ofplanned public infrastructure projects forimprovements related to highways and roads,water and sewer systems, hazardousenvironmental conditions, and poorlyfunctioning hydrological systems. Many of theissues related to the Olmsted parks areaddressed by existing work. It is importantthat the Conservancy be informed of andactively involved as appropriate in theimplementation of these linked initiatives.

State Environmental Quality Review

An amendment to the city’s ComprehensivePlan would require review under the StateEnvironmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). Itis anticipated that a General EnvironmentalImpact Statement (GEIS) would be prepared.GEISs are commonly used to assess theenvironmental impact of a sequence ofactions contemplated by a single organizationthat are part of an entire plan applicable to abroad area. The GEIS will also provide theConservancy with important information onthe environmental effects, both positive andpotentially adverse, related to implementationof The System Plan. The environmentalassessment also includes the State HistoricPreservation Office (SHPO) review of the plan.

Historic Preservation Legislation

The requirements of the Federal HistoricPreservation Act of 1966 and the StateHistoric Preservation program must besatisfied through a process known as aSection 106 review. This process accompaniesthe review of all federal permits. The NewYork State Office of Parks, Recreation, andHistoric Preservation (OPRHP) will review TheSystem Plan to ensure that the proposedactivities will have no significant adverseimpact on registered or eligible archaeologicalsites or historic structures. The review isconducted through the State HistoricPreservation Office (SHPO).

Water-Related Permits

In-water construction requires state andfederal permits from the New York StateDepartment of Environmental Conservation(DEC) and the US Army Corps of Engineers(ACOE), respectively, as well as a Coastal ZoneConsistency determination from the NewYork Department of State (DOS) to supportthe federal review.

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899

Under this federal law, ACOE is empoweredto regulate all new structures in navigablewaters. It is the purpose of this law to protectnavigation and navigable channels. Navigablewaters include all water area up to the meanhigh-water line. New structures such asfloating docks, moorings, and pier reconstructionare regulated pursuant to this law.



Section 404 of the Federal CleanWater Act of 1987

ACOE is directed to regulate dredging orfilling in navigable waters. In regulating suchactivities, Section 404 requires, as a conditionof federal permit approval, a state waterquality certificate to acknowledge that theproposed activities will not contravene statewater quality standards. By inter-agencyagreement, the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA), and the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService of the Department of Interior, reviewand comment on these permit applications.

Coastal Zone Consistency

The Local Waterfront Revitalization Program(LWRP) program provides for the localapplication of Federal Coastal ZoneManagement policies under state supervision.The main purpose of an LWRP is to helpdevelop the waterfront to maintain andimprove waterfront lands to preserve andenhance the community character, economicprosperity, important natural resources, andpublic access to the waterfront. Federalpermits in states such as New York that haveapproved coastal zone consistency programsmust be accompanied by a Coastal ZoneConsistency determination. In New YorkState, these consistency determinations aremade by the Division of Coastal Resources ofthe Department of State (DOS) (19 NYCRRPart 600).

Environmental Conservation LawTitle 5, Article 15, Protection ofWaters

Protection of waters authorization is requiredfor disturbance in the water, including suchactivities as pier construction, dredging andfilling. It is intended to limit impacts to waterbodies pursuant to the EnvironmentalConservation Law Title 5, Article 15. Toimplement this policy, the Protection ofWaters regulatory program is designed toprevent undesirable activities on or in waterbodies.

Natural Resource ConservationProtected Native Plants Program

This 1989 regulation established four lists ofprotected plants: endangered, threatened,rare, and exploitably vulnerable. SEQR directsapplicants for permits to consult the lists forthe possible existence of endangered andthreatened species, and may try to look foralternative strategies to lessen the impact ofactivities on these species.

conclusions


Conclusions 143

The Buffalo Olmsted Parks Conservancy hascompleted its task to create a long term planfor the Buffalo Olmsted Park System asannounced in 2001. The final report, TheSystem Plan, lays out a map for restoringthe parks for the next generation of thecitizens of Western New York.

The plan is based on hours of communityinput, thoughtful direction by the Long RangePlanning Committee and the Olmsted Boardof Trustees, and the significant contribution oftalented staff over six years. The professionalteam, under the direction of The UrbanDesign Project that included Trowbridge andWolf, Landscape Architects, and WendelDuchscherer, Architects and Engineers,offered competent professional experienceand imagination to generate a planningstructure that set goals, recommendations,design proposals, cost estimates, and a planfor implementation.

The System Plan is complete. But the workof implementation and funding lies ahead. Noone has promised that the task will be easy.But neither was it easy for the late 19thcentury and early 20th century generations ofOlmsted, Dorsheimer, and others to put theparks in place. We have been the recipients ofthe farsighted vision of earlier generationswho gave us this unique park and parkwaysystem.

The work before the Conservancy, the City ofBuffalo and County of Erie, and indeed, allcitizens of Western New York, is to bring forththe vision for the next 100 years by preservingand restoring the nationally designatedhistoric cultural landscape and expanding theribbon of green through the city and region.May it be said 100 years from now that ourgeneration stepped forward with a vision andplan that preserved the places of green andenriched the quality of life of our children’schildren.

Hopefully, crowds like this one on the lake in Delaware Park will become commonplace in all of the parks once again.

1 O’Donnell, Patricia Marie. (1979) Survey ofBuffalo’s Olmsted Parks: For NationalRegister of Historic Places Nomination.

2 Rutledge, Albert. (1971) Anatomy of a Park:The Essentials of Recreation Area Planningand Design. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. p 12.

3 Kowsky, Francis (ed.). (1991) The BestPlanned City: The Olmsted Legacy in Buffalo.Buffalo, NY: Buffalo State College Foundation.

4 Gates, E. (2006) The Health Benefits of Parks.San Francisco, CA: Trust for Public Land;

Taylor, Andrea Faber, Frances Kuo, andWilliam Sullivan. (2001) “Coping with ADD:The surprising connection to green playsettings.” Environment and Behavior, 33(1).p 54-77;

Louv, Richard. (2005) Last Child in the Woods:Saving Our Children from Nature DeficitDisorder. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books.

5 Gates, E. (2006) The Health Benefits ofParks. San Francisco, CA: Trust for PublicLand. p 7. Gates is reporting on a study,“Prevalence of Overweight and ObesityAmong Adults: United States, 2003-2004,”by the U.S. Department of Health andHuman Services.

6 Yanez, Elva, and Wendy Muzzy. (2005)Healthy Parks, Healthy Communities.New York, NY: Trust for Public Land.

7 Colditz, Graham. (1999) “Economic Costs of Obesity and Inactivity.” Medicine andScience in Sport and Exercise, 31(11),November.

8 Pratt, M., Macera, CA, Wang, G. (2000)“Higher Direct Medical Costs Associatedwith Physical Activity.” The Physician andSports Medicine, 28. p 63-70.

9 Scherer, Paul. (2006) The Benefits of Parks:Why America Needs more City Parks andOpen Space. San Francisco, CA: The Trust for Public Land.

10 American Forests. (2003) Urban EcosystemAnalysis Buffalo-Lackawanna Area ErieCounty, New York. USDA Forest Service.

11 Scherer, Paul. (2006) The Benefits of Parks:Why America Needs more City Parks andOpen Space. San Francisco, CA: The Trustfor Public Land.

12 For more on how communities with parksare attractive to businesses and workers seeFlorida, Richard. (2002) The Rise of theCreative Class and How it’s TransformingWork, Leisure, Community and EverydayLife. New York, NY: Basic Books.

13 Crompton, John, and Sarah Nichols. (2005)“The Impact of Greenways on PropertyValues.” Journal of Leisure Research, Summer.

14 Millennium Park Economic Impact Study.(2005) Prepared for the City of Chicago byGoodman Williams Group, URS Corporation.

15 LaChiusa, Chuck. (2008) “Flint Hill and theWar of 1812.” The History of Buffalo.<http://ah.bfn.org/h/flint/index.html>


144 End notes

end notes


End Notes 145

16 Pendergast, James. (1994) “TheKakouagoga or Kahkwas: An IroquoianNation Destroyed in the Niagara Region.”American Philosophical Society, 128 (1). p96-144.

17 Mann, Charles. (2006) 1491: NewRevelations of the Americas BeforeColumbus. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

18 The names are from: Orsamus, Marshall.(1865) The Niagara Frontier: EmbracingSketches of its Early History, and Indian,French, and English Names. BuffaloHistorical Society, v. 8.

19 Olmsted, Frederick Law. (1861) A Journey inthe Seaboard Slave States. New York, NY:Mason Brothers. p 711.

20 Foner, Phillip. (1983) “Alexander vonHumboldt on Slavery in America.” Scienceand Society. 47, Fall.

21 Menand, Louis. (2002) “Morton, Agassiz,and the Origins of Scientific Racism in theUnited States.” The Journal of Blacks inHigher Education. 34, Winter 2001-2002. p110-113.

22 Farrison, William. (1954) “William WellsBrown in Buffalo.” The Journal of NegroHistory, 39. p 303.

23 Goldman, Mark. (2007) City on the Edge:Buffalo, New York. Amherst, NY:Prometheus. p 208.

24 City of Buffalo. The History of the BuffaloPark System. Buffalo, NY.

25 The Niagara River Greenway Plan. (2007)Prepared for the Niagara River GreenwayCommission by Wendel Duchscherer,Architects and Engineers.

26 The National Sporting Goods Association.(2003) 2003 Participation Survey.

27 Outdoor Recreation Resources ReviewCommission. (2000) The National Survey onRecreation and the Environment.

28 New York Statewide ComprehensiveOutdoor Recreation Plan. (2003) Preparedby the New York State Office of Parks,Recreation and Historic Preservation.



31 Beveridge, Charles and Paul Rocheleau.(1995) Frederick Law Olmsted: Designingthe American Landscape. New York, NY:Rizzoli International Publications.

32 Operational Alignment Assessment Report.(2007) Prepared for the Buffalo OlmstedParks Conservancy by Clear Intent Strategy.p 1.

Bibliography


146 Bibliography

Arboricultural Standards and Specifications.(2006) Prepared for the Buffalo Olmsted ParksConservancy by Urban Forestry, LLC.

Assessment of Impacts and PotentialMitigation: Front Park and Historic LandscapeResources. (2004) Prepared for the Buffaloand Fort Erie Public Bridge Authority and theU.S. Department of Transportation FederalHighway Administration by PressleyAssociates, Inc., Landscape Architects, andEcology and Environment, Inc.

Beveridge, Charles and Paul Rocheleau.(1995) Frederick Law Olmsted: Designing theAmerican Landscape. New York, NY: RizzoliInternational Publications.

Beveridge, Charles. (1986) Toward aDefinition of Olmstedian Principles of Design.National Association for Olmsted Parks.

Breinlich, Angelika, Laura Quebral Fulton,Jonathan Hastings, Holly Lindstrom, MarkMcGovern, Megha Pareka, and JaclynPatrignani. Under the Guidance of ProfessorLynda Schneekloth and Professor RobertShibley. (2005) Green Infrastructure Report.Buffalo, NY: University at Buffalo.

Buffalo and Erie County Botanical GardensMaster Plan. (2001) Prepared for the Buffaloand Erie County Botanical Society by FlynnBattaglia Architects, PC.

Buffalo and Erie County Historical SocietyLandscape Restoration Project. (1993)Prepared for the Buffalo and Erie CountyHistorical Society by Quennell RothschildAssociates.

Buffalo Greenways Master Plan: An OpenSpace Plan for the 21st Century. (1996)Prepared for the Buffalo Friends of OlmstedParks by Walker Kluesing Design Group.

Buffalo Olmsted Parks Conservancy Feasibilityand Administrative Structure. (1994) Preparedfor the Buffalo Friends of Olmsted Parks byDevelopment Planning Services.

Cazenovia Park Master Plan. (1997) Preparedfor the City of Buffalo Department ofCommunity Development by Wendel.

City of Buffalo. The History of the Buffalo ParkSystem. Buffalo, NY.

City of Buffalo. (1910) Buffalo ParkCommissioner Report: 1901-1910. Buffalo,NY: Haas & Klein Printers.



Colditz, Graham. (1999) “Economic Costs ofObesity and Inactivity.” Medicine and Sciencein Sport and Exercise, 33(11), November.

Comprehensive Development Plan forDelaware Park. (1992) Prepared for the City of Buffalo by Wendel Design, and Bruce Kellyand David Varnell, Landscape Architects.


Bibliography 147

Cranz, Galen. (1982) The Politics of ParkDesign: A History of Urban Parks in America.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Crompton, John, and Sarah Nichols. (2005)“The Impact of Greenways on PropertyValues.” Journal of Leisure Research, Summer.

Delaware Avenue Reconstruction. (1988)Prepared for the City of Buffalo Departmentof Public Works by the Saratoga Associates.

Delaware Park Lake Shoreline RestorationProject. (1990) Prepared for the City ofBuffalo Department of CommunityDevelopment by the Saratoga Associates.

Erie County Parks System Master Plan: A 2020Vision for the Erie County Park System. (2002)Prepared for Erie County by WendelDuchscherer, Architects and Engineers, andParsons: Engineers, Planners, and LandscapeArchitects.

Farrison, William. (1954) “William WellsBrown in Buffalo.” The Journal of NegroHistory, 39. p 303.

Feasibility Study for Reconstruction the MartinLuther King, Jr. Park Pool as a Wading Pool.(2000) Prepared for the City of Buffalo byTrowbridge and Wolf, Landscape Architects.

Florida, Richard (2002) The Rise of theCreative Class: and How it’s TransformingWork, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life.New York, NY: Basic Books.

Foner, Phillip. (1983) “Alexander vonHumboldt on Slavery in America.” Scienceand Society, 47, Fall.

Front Park Master Plan. (1996) Prepared forthe City of Buffalo Department of PublicWorks by Wendel Design, De Leuw Cather,and Walker Kluesing.

Gates, E. (2006) The Health Benefits of Parks.San Francisco, CA: Trust for Public Land.

Ginzburg, Lori. (1990) Women and the Workof Benevolence: Morality, Politics, and Class inthe 19th-Century United States. New Haven,CT: Yale University Press.

Goldman, Mark. (2007) City on the Edge:Buffalo, New York. Amherst, NY: Prometheus.

Greenway System Implementation Plan.(1998) Prepared for the City of BuffaloCommon Council and Department ofCommunity Development by Wendel.

Hall, Lee. (1995) Olmsted’s America: An“Unpractical Man” and His Vision ofCivilization. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.

Harnik, Peter. (2004) Newark, New Jersey: AnOpen Space Analysis. Trust for Public Land,Center for City Park Excellence.

Harnik, Peter. (2003) The Excellent City ParkSystem. Trust for Public Land.

Hedlund, Peter William. (2000) The Past andFuture Front Park. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.

Interface Planning Study: Buffalo Museum ofScience and School 59. (1985) Prepared forthe Buffalo Board of Education by Steiglitz,Steiglitz, and Tries PC, Architects/Planners.


148 Bibliography

Kalfus, Melvin. (1990) Frederick Law Olmsted:The Passion of a Public Artist. New York, NY:New York University Press.

Kelly, Bruce, Gail Travis Guillet, and Mary EllenW. Hern. (1981) Art of the OlmstedLandscape. New York, NY: The New York CityLandmarks Preservation Commission.

Kowsky, Francis. (2002) Calvert Vaux: TheUnsung Hero of Landscape Architecture.

Kowsky, Francis (ed.). (1991) The Best PlanedCity: The Olmsted Legacy in Buffalo. Buffalo,NY: Buffalo State College Foundation.

Kowsky, Francis. (1987) Municipal Parks andCity Planning: Frederick Law Olmsted’s BuffaloPark and Parkway System.

LaChiusa, Chuck. (2008) “Flint Hill and theWar of 1812.” The History of Buffalo.<http://ah.bfn.org/h/flint/index.html>

Louv, Richard. (2005) Last Child in the Woods:Saving Our Children from Nature DeficitDisorder. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books.

A Management and Operations Study. (2002)Prepared for the Buffalo Olmsted ParksConservancy by the Central Park Conservancy.

Mann, Charles. (2006) 1491: New Revelationsof the Americas Before Columbus. New York,NY: Vintage Books.

Martin Luther King, Jr. Park Preliminary MasterPlan Report. (2002) Prepared for the City ofBuffalo Department of Public Works, Parks,and Streets by Wendel Duchscherer Architectsand Engineers.

Master Plan for the Restoration of FrederickLaw Olmsted’s South Park Arboretum. (1986)Prepared for the Buffalo Friends of OlmstedParks and the South Park ArboretumAssociation by Bruce Kelly and David Varnell,Landscape Architects.

Menand, Louis. (2002) “Morton, Agassiz, andthe Origins of Scientific Racism in the UnitedStates.” The Journal of Blacks in HigherEducation, 34, Winter 2001-2002. p 110-113.

Millennium Park Economic Impact Study.(2005) Prepared for the City of Chicago byGoodman Williams Group, URS Corporation.

The National Sporting Goods Association.(2003) 2003 Participation Survey.

New York Statewide Comprehensive OutdoorRecreation Plan. (2003) Prepared by the NewYork State Office of Parks, Recreation andHistoric Preservation.

NYS Rt. 198 Scajaquada Corridor Study:Grant Street to Parkside Avenue. (2004)Prepared for the City of Buffalo Departmentof Public Works and the New YorkDepartment of Transportation byWendel/Duchscherer Architects andEngineers.

The Niagara River Greenway Plan. (2007)Prepared for the Niagara River GreenwayCommission by Wendel Duchscherer,Architects and Engineers.

O’Donnell, Patricia Marie. (1979) Survey ofBuffalo’s Olmsted Parks: For National Registerof Historic Places Nomination.

Olmsted, Frederick Law. (1861) A Journey inthe Seaboard Slave States. New York, NY:Mason Brothers.


Bibliography 149

Olmsted Parks Wayfinding Analysis. (1997)Prepared for the Buffalo Olmsted ParksConservancy by Synegraphics and updated bythe BOPC in 2005.

Operational Alignment Assessment Report.(2007) Prepared for the Buffalo Olmsted ParksConservancy by Clear Intent Strategy.

Orsamus, Marshall. (1865) The NiagaraFrontier: Embracing Sketches of its EarlyHistory, and Indian, French, and EnglishNames. Buffalo Historical Society, 8.

Outdoor Industry Foundation. (2006) The Active Outdoor Recreation Economy.Boulder, CO.

Outdoor Recreation Resources ReviewCommission. (2000) The National Survey onRecreation and the Environment.

Overfield, Joseph. (1955) “When Baseball Cameto Richmond Avenue.” Niagara Frontier, 2(2)Summer. p 3-10.

Park Buildings Restoration & DevelopmentStudy. (2004) Prepared for the BuffaloOlmsted Parks Conservancy by SchneiderDesign Architects, PC.

Parks & Trails, NY. (2006) Parks at a TurningPoint: Restoring and Enhancing New YorkState Park System. Albany, NY.

Parkside Lodge Historic Structures Report.(1997) Prepared for the Buffalo Olmsted ParksConservancy by Flynn Battaglia Architects, PC.

Pendergast, James. (1994) “The Kakouagogaor Kahkwas: An Iroquoian Nation Destroyedin the Niagara Region.” AmericanPhilosophical Society, 128(1). p 96-144.

Pratt, M., Macera, CA, Wang, G. (2000)“Higher Direct Medical Costs Associated withPhysical Activity.” The Physician and SportsMedicine, 28. p 63-70.

Proposal for Rehabilitation of Martin LutherKing, Jr. Park Pool. (1995) Prepared for theCity of Buffalo Department of CommunityDevelopment by Trowbridge and Wolf,Landscape Architects.

Proposal for the Rehabilitation Portions ofSouth Park, McKinley and McClellan Circles,and Red Jacket Parkway. (2001) Prepared forthe Buffalo Olmsted Parks Conservancy byTrowbridge and Wolf, Landscape Architects,Nussbaumer and Clarke, Inc. ConsultingEngineers, and Landscapes, LandscapeArchitecture, Planning, and HistoricPreservation.

Queen City in the 21st Century: Buffalo’sComprehensive Plan. (2006) Prepared for theCity of Buffalo by the Office of StrategicPlanning, Carter International, The UrbanDesign Project, and the Institute for LocalGovernance and Regional Growth.

Queen City Waterfront: Buffalo WaterfrontCorridor Initiative. (2007) Prepared for the Cityof Buffalo by the Office of Strategic Planning,The Department of Public Works, The UrbanDesign Project, Wendel Duchscherer,Architects and Engineers, and the BuffaloNiagara Riverkeeper.

The Queen City Hub: A Regional Action Planfor Downtown Buffalo. (2003) Prepared forthe City of Buffalo by the Office of StrategicPlanning, The Urban Design Project, andBuffalo Place, Inc.

Rebuilding Central Park: A Management andRestoration Plan. (1985) Prepared by theCentral Park Conservancy.


150 Bibliography

Riverside Park and Adjacent Waterfront ParksMaster Plan. (1996) Prepared for the City ofBuffalo Urban Renewal Agency by Wendel.

Roper, Laura Wood. (1973) FLO: A Biographyof Frederick Law Olmsted. Baltimore, MD:Johns Hopkins University Press.

Rutledge, Albert. (1971) Anatomy of a Park:The Essentials of Recreation Area Planningand Design. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Rybczynski, Witold. (1999) A Clearing in theDistance. New York, NY: Scribner.

Scajaquada Creek Watershed ManagementPlan. (2004) Prepared for the Erie County Soiland Water Conservation District by theScajaquada Creek Watershed Advisory Council.

Scherer, Paul. (2006) The Benefits of Parks:Why America Needs More City Parks andOpen Space. San Francisco, CA: The Trust forPublic Land.

Scherer, Paul. (2004) “A Healthier America?It’s a Walk in the Park.” Land and People,Spring, 2004. Trust for Public Land.

Schuyler, David. (1992) “Cityscape andParkscape,” in Francis R. Kowsky (ed.). TheBest Planned City: The Olmsted Legacy inBuffalo. Buffalo, NY: Burchfield Art Center.

Spirehead Reconstruction Feasibility Study.(1993) Prepared for the Buffalo Friends ofOlmsted Parks by Flynn Battaglia Architects, PC.

Stage 1A Cultural Resource Investigations ofFront Park, Buffalo New York. (1994) Preparedfor Wendel Design by Warren T. D. Barbourand Erika K. Fiorella.

Stevenson, Elizabeth. (2000) Park Maker: A Life of Frederick Law Olmsted. NewBrunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Study of Flood Damage Mitigation AlongCazenovia Creek City of Buffalo. (1997)Prepared for the City of Buffalo Departmentof Public Works by DiDonato Associates, PE PC.

Taylor, Andrea Faber, Frances Kuo, andWilliam Sullivan. (2001) “Coping with ADD:The Surprising Connection to Green PlaySettings.” Environment and Behavior, 33(1). p 54-77.

Understanding the Relationships BetweenPublic Health and the Built Environment.(2006) Prepared for the LEED-ND Committeeby the U.S. Green Building Council.

Urban Ecosystem Analysis Buffalo-Lackawanna Area Erie County, New York.(2003) Prepared for the USDA Forest Serviceby American Forests.

Witt, Peter and John Crompton. (1997) “The Protective Factors Framework: A Key toProgramming for Benefits and Evaluating forResults.” Journal of Park and RecreationAdministration, 15(3). p 1-18.

Yanez, Elva, and Wendy Muzzy. (2005)Healthy Parks, Healthy Communities.New York, NY: Trust for Public Land.


Appendices 151

Appendix A –Historic PreservationGuidelines

The Buffalo Olmsted Park System is officiallydesignated by the National Park Service (NPS)as a cultural landscape, specifically a historicdesigned landscape, on the National Registerof Historic Places. The System Plan closelyfollows the preservation guidelines set forthby the New York State Historic PreservationOffice (SHPO) as well as the preservationguidelines of the NPS. The New York StateOffice of Parks, Recreation, and HistoricPreservation (OPRHP) will review The SystemPlan to ensure that the proposed activitieswill have no significant adverse impact onregistered or eligible archaeological sites orhistoric structures. The review is conductedthrough SHPO. Both the SHPO and NPSpreservation guidelines are detailed in thisappendix. Following these guidelines aretables that show how each recommendationfor the plan fits within these separate butsimilar guidelines.

New York State HistoricPreservation Office (SHPO)

■ Topography—The shape of the land—its slope, form, aspect—is important indefining the character of an historiclandscape. Topography creates space in thelandscape, supports specific uses and otherlandscape features, and often directs orcreates views. Emphasis should always beon proper maintenance practices which

protect topographic features andattributes. Care should be taken in projectwork to protect fragile soils, slopes andlandforms. Protective measures, such aserosion controls and limits on constructionvehicles and equipment, should beincorporated into projects.

■ Vegetation—Individual plants, such as aspecimen tree, or groups of plants, such asa hedge row, alee, agricultural field orwoodlot, can contribute to an historiclandscape’s significance. Vegetation maybe important for its historical association,horticultural or genetic value, or aestheticor functional qualities.

• As with any historic feature, maintenanceis of the utmost importance, with anemphasis on retention and repair.Unlike more static features such asbuildings and structures, vegetation isvery dynamic; therefore, treatmentmust acknowledge the full range ofvegetation processes, includinggermination, growth, seasonal change,maturity, decay and death.

• Daily, seasonal, and cyclical practices,such as corrective pruning, cabling,deep root fertilization, and propagation,can prevent more extreme repairmeasures at a later date. If and whenreplacement of an individual plant orgroup of plants is unavoidable, careshould be taken to insure thereplacement vegetation matches thehistoric in habitat, form, color, texture,fruit/flower and scale.

Appendices


152 Appendices

■ Circulation—Within the historiclandscape, historic circulation features canoccur as individual elements or as systemsor networks. Examples such as roads,parkways, trails, paths and canals illustratethe wide range of circulation featureswhich may occur within a historiclandscape. Routine maintenance of thesefeatures helps to ensure that individualelements, as well as entire networks, canbe retained. When a specific feature orportion of a system no longer activelysupports circulation, such as an abandonedrail corridor or canal lock, the featureshould be retained and protected.

• Special attention must be given toconsidering repairs and/or modificationswhich address contemporary circulationissues, such as vehicular speed limits,sight-lines, and maintenanceprocedures (e.g. snowplowing). Whilesuch issues are valid, care must betaken to retain the historic character ofcirculation features important to theproperty’s significance. Alignment,surface treatment, width, edge, grade,materials and infrastructure are thoseattributes which define the character ofa circulation feature. Repairs andlimited replacement should respect their attributes.

■ Buildings and Structures—Historicbuildings and structures are importantcomponents within historic landscapes.Their relationship to one another and tothe other landscape features discussed, is akey concern when considering bothroutine maintenance or special projectswithin the landscape.

■ Site Furnishings and Objects—Sitefurnishings and objects are small-scaleelements that may be movable orpermanently installed, used seasonally orcontinuously, and can be independent ofother elements or can be part of a system.In addition, these elements may befunctional, decorative or both. Whilefurnishings and objects may appear to besmall components in the historiclandscape, the cumulative effect of theseelements is an important facet of aproperty’s historic significance.

• The location, aesthetic and constructiondetails, and materials of benches, lights,signs, fences, flagpoles, monuments orurns should be carefully considered inboth routine maintenance and moreinvolved undertakings. Of particularconcern is the relocation of somefurnishings and objects to accommodatenew uses. Elements such as historicstreetlights, entry signs, and memorials,have direct functional or associativerelationships with other features in thelandscape. Moving these elements notonly diminishes their importance, butestablishes a false historic image.Routine maintenance of site furnishingsand objects will increase the life ofthese elements. When portions of theseelements are too deteriorated to repair,replacement—of all or a portion of theelement—should match the original inlocation, design, materials and finish.


Appendices 153

■ Spatial Organization and LandPatterns—Much like the floor plan andceiling heights of an interior contribute tothe character and significance of a buildingor structure, the spatial organization andland patterns within the landscape affectits character and significance. Theorganization or patterns of the landscapeare defined by topography, vegetation,circulation, buildings and structures, andfurnishings and objects. Some of thesefeatures form the “walls” of a space, suchas a hedge, fence or wall; others act as“corridors,”channeling movement ordirecting views, like walks, bridges orcreeks. Together, some or all of thesefeatures create spaces—many related tospecific functions or uses.

• The evaluation of proposed changes tospatial organization and land patternsconsiders the relative significance of aspecific space or pattern to the overalllandscape. In historic designedlandscapes, spaces may be “ranked” interms of importance. For example, thefront lawn of an estate grounds may beconsidered more significant than astorage yard associated with asecondary support building. Similarly,land patterns can be organized in ahierarchical fashion: the overallarrangement of fields to orchards towoodlot may be considered moreimportant than the specific patterns ofcrops within the fields or trees withinthe orchard.

National Park Service (NPS)

■ Organizational Elements of theLandscape

• Spatial Organization and Land Patternsrefers to the three-dimensionalorganization and patterns of spaces in alandscape, like the arrangement ofrooms in a house. Spatial organizationis created by the landscape’s culturaland natural features. Some form visuallinks or barriers (such as fences andhedgerows); others create spaces andvisual connections in the landscape(such as topography and open water).The organization of such featuresdefines and creates spaces in thelandscape and often is closely related toland use. Both the functional and visualrelationship between spaces is integralto the historic character of a property.In addition, it is important to recognizethat spatial relationships may changeover time due to a variety of factors,including environmental impacts (e.g.drought, flood), plant growth andsuccession, and changes in land use ortechnology.

■ Character-Defining Features of theLandscape—There are many character-defining features that collectivelycontribute to the historic character of acultural landscape. These are as follows:

• Topography, the shape of the groundplane and its height or depth, is acharacter-defining feature of thelandscape. Topography may occurnaturally or as a result of humanmanipulation. For example,topographic features may contribute tothe creation of outdoor spaces, serve afunctional purpose, or provide visualinterest.


154 Appendices

• Vegetation features may be individualplants, as in the case of a specimentree, or groups of plants such as ahedge, alee, agricultural field, plantingbed, or a naturally-occurring plantcommunity or habitat. Vegetationincludes evergreen or deciduous trees,shrubs, and ground covers, and bothwoody and herbaceous plants.Vegetation may derive its significancefrom historical associations,horticultural or genetic value, oraesthetic or functional qualities. It is aprimary dynamic component of thelandscape’s character; therefore, thetreatment of cultural landscapes mustrecognize the continual process ofgermination, growth, seasonal change,aging, decay, and death of plants. Thecharacter of individual plants is derivedfrom habit, form, color, texture, bloom,fruit, fragrance, scale and context.

• Circulation features may include roads,parkways, drives, trails, walks, paths,parking areas, and canals. Such featuresmay occur individually or be linked toform networks or systems. Thecharacter of circulation features isdefined by factors such as alignment,width, surface and edge treatment,grade, materials, and infrastructure.

• Water features may be aesthetic as wellas functional components of thelandscape. They may be linked to thenatural hydrologic system or may befed artificially; their associated watersupply, drainage, and mechanicalsystems are important components.Water features include fountains, pools,cascades, irrigation systems, ponds,lakes, streams, and aqueducts. Thecharacteristics of water features includereflective qualities, associated plant andanimal life, as well as water quality.Special consideration may be requireddue to the seasonal changes in watersuch as variations in water table,precipitation, and freezing.

• Structures, site furnishings, and objectsmay contribute to a landscape’ssignificance and historic character.Structures are non-habitable,constructed features, unlike buildingswhich have walls and roofs and aregenerally habitable. Structures may besignificant individually or they maysimply contribute to the historiccharacter of the landscape. They mayinclude walls, terraces, arbors, gazebos,follies, tennis courts, playgroundequipment, greenhouses, cold frames,steps, bridges, and dams. Theplacement and arrangement ofbuildings and structures are importantto the character of the landscape; theseguidelines emphasize the relationshipbetween buildings, structures, andother features which comprise thehistoric landscape. For additional andspecific guidance related to thetreatment of historic buildings, pleaseconsult the Guidelines for Preserving,Rehabilitating, Restoring andReconstructing Historic Buildings. Sitefurnishings and objects generally aresmall-scale elements in the landscapethat may be functional, decorative, orboth. They can include benches, lights,signs, drinking fountains, trashreceptacles, fences, tree grates, clocks,flagpoles, sculpture, monuments,memorials, planters, and urns. Theymay be movable, used seasonally, orpermanently installed. Site furnishingsand objects occur as singular items, ingroups of similar or identical features,or as part of a system (e.g. signage).They may be designed or built for aspecific site, available though a catalog,or created as vernacular piecesassociated with a particular region orcultural group. They may be significantin their own right, for example, asworks of art or as the work of animportant designer.


Appendices 155

Appendix A | Checklist of Historic Designation Compliance

Delaware Park

Project #1: Support and participate in the upgradeof the Scajaquada Expressway to a parkway x x x x x x x x

Project #2: Restore the Meadow x x x x x x x x

Project #3: Reconstruct the Ring Road considering its historic alignment x x

Project #4: Restore the Lodge area x x x x x x

Project #5: Restore the Casino area x x x x x x x

Project #6: Restore the Rumsey Woods area x x x x x x x x x x

Project #7: Restore or interpret the original shoreline configuration and redesign the path around the Gala Water (Hoyt Lake) to reflect the new shape x x x x x

Project #8: Construct a wetland to improve water quality at the junction of Hoyt Lake and the Scajaquada Creek x x x

Project #9: Enhance the playgrounds x x

Project #10: Reposition the baseball diamonds and rotate the athletics fields x x x x

Project #11: Provide water based recreation opportunities on Hoyt Lake

Project #12: Remove tennis courts along the Scajaquada Expressway (in the southern part of the Meadow) and improve other tennis courts in the park x x x x

Project #13: Improve connections to cultural activities within the park x x

Project #14: Connect the park’s perimeter to the surrounding neighborhood x x

Project #15: Highlight the park’s connections to the “Olmsted Crescent” of cultural activities x x

Project #16: Explore opportunities to connect Delaware Park to Forest Lawn Cemetery x x

Project #17: Connect the park to the Niagara River Greenway x x

Project #18: Restore park perimeter roads to create more of a park-like setting in the surrounding neighborhoods x x x x x x

Project #19: Restore the park’s historic furnishings x x

Project #20: Identify areas in need of lighting; design and install lighting x x

Project #21: Restore and maintain public restroom facilities x x

Project #22: Restore, maintain, or install drinking fountains x x

Topo

grap

hyVe

geta

tion

Circ

ulat

ion

Build

ings

and

Stru

ctur

es

Site

Furn

ishin

gs a

nd O

bjec

ts

Spat

ial O

rgan

izatio

n an

d La

nd P

atte

rns

Spat

ial O

rgan

izatio

n an

d La

nd P

atte

rns

Topo

grap

hyVe

geta

tion

Circ

ulat

ion

Wat

er Fe

atur

esSt

ruct

ures

, Site

Furn

ishin

gs, a

nd O

bjec

ts

(continued on page 156) National Park ServiceState Historic Preservation Office


156 Appendices


Delaware Park (continued)

Project #23: Rehabilitate Olmsted pathway system x x

Project #24: Rehabilitate Olmsted roadway system x x

Project #25: Introduce traffic calming measures at park roads x x

Project #26: Install appropriate wayfinding and branding signage x x x x

Project #27: Restore historic landscape patterns and plantings, especially perimeter vegetation x x x x

Project #28: Manage drainage and erosion issues throughout the park x x

Topo

grap

hyVe

geta

tion

Circ

ulat

ion

Build

ings

and

Stru

ctur

es

Site

Furn

ishin

gs a

nd O

bjec

ts

Spat

ial O

rgan

izatio

n an

d La

nd P

atte

rns

Spat

ial O

rgan

izatio

n an

d La

nd P

atte

rns

Topo

grap

hyVe

geta

tion

Circ

ulat

ion

Wat

er Fe

atur

esSt

ruct

ures

, Site

Furn

ishin

gs, a

nd O

bjec

ts

National Park ServiceState Historic Preservation Office


Appendices 157


Front Park

Project #1: Restore the Terrace x x x x x x x x

Project #2: Rebuild Lakeview House x x

Project #3: Restore the Playground/Hippodrome x x x x

Project #4: Restore the Picnic Shelter x x

Project #5: Construct an earthen berm or barrier between the park and the thruway x x

Project #6: Construct site walls to reclaim views x x

Project #7: Remove ice rink and restore original grading x x x x x x

Project #8: Relocate tennis courts to locations outside of the park x x x x

Project #9: Relocate the children’s playground to the northern edge of the park, closer to the residential neighborhoods x x x x

Project #10: Restore historic park entrance at Porter and Busti Avenues x x x x

Project #11: Restore connections between Front Park and the rest of the park system x x

Project #12: Reinterpret Fort Porter x x x x x x x x

Project #13: Recreate Sheridan Drive along the southwest border of the park x x

Project #14: Restore or interpret “The Bank”designedby Olmsted, depending on the final design of the Peace Bridge Plaza x x



Project #17: Identify areas in need of lighting, design and install lighting x x


Project #19: Restore maintain, or install drinking fountains x x







Topo

grap

hyVe

geta

tion

Circ

ulat

ion

Build

ings

and

Stru

ctur

es

Site

Furn

ishin

gs a

nd O

bjec

ts

Spat

ial O

rgan

izatio

n an

d La

nd P

atte

rns

Spat

ial O

rgan

izatio

n an

d La

nd P

atte

rns

Topo

grap

hyVe

geta

tion

Circ

ulat

ion

Wat

er Fe

atur

esSt

ruct

ures

, Site

Furn

ishin

gs, a

nd O

bjec

ts



158 Appendices



Project #1: Renovate and enhance the Casino building x x

Project #2: Restore the Humboldt Basin x x x x x

Project #3: Restore the original Fountain as a splash pad x x x x x

Project #4: Restore the Lily Pool x x x x x x x

Project #5: Improve the historic Greenhouse area x x x x x x x x

Project #6: Restore Picnic Grove x x x x x x

Project #7: Redesign the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial within the loop area x x x x

Project #8: Redesign the south Ring Road as a pedestrian pathway and relocate parking to Best Street x x

Project #9: Install traffic calming and streetscape features on Fillmore Avenue x x

Project #10: Redesign the southwest entrance of the park x x x x

Project #11: Redesign the southeast entrance of the park x x x x

Project #12: Consolidate and improve the playground on the south side of the park near the Humboldt Basin x x x x

Project #13: Relocate the basketball courts and arena outside of the park x x x x

Project #14: Relocate the tennis courts outside of the park x x x x

Project #15: Interpret the remnant of the historical Humboldt Parkway at the former north entrance of the park x x x x

Project #16: Rationalize and expand parking for the Museum and park users within and outside of the park x x

Project #17: Redesign the school bus drop-off area to articulate the park road x x x x

Project #18: Redesign the Rose Garden near the Science Museum x x x x

Project #19: Design a circle at Best Street near the Kensington Expressway x x

Project #20: Redesign the Best Street/Genesee Street intersection x x

Project #21: Open West Parade to two-way traffic x x

Project #22: Widen the sidewalks and add a vegetative buffer to the bridges that cross the Kensington Expressway x x x x

Project #23: Deck over the section of the expressway by the park x x x x

Topo

grap

hyVe

geta

tion

Circ

ulat

ion

Build

ings

and

Stru

ctur

es

Site

Furn

ishin

gs a

nd O

bjec

ts

Spat

ial O

rgan

izatio

n an

d La

nd P

atte

rns

Spat

ial O

rgan

izatio

n an

d La

nd P

atte

rns

Topo

grap

hyVe

geta

tion

Circ

ulat

ion

Wat

er Fe

atur

esSt

ruct

ures

, Site

Furn

ishin

gs, a

nd O

bjec

ts

(continued on page 159) National Park ServiceState Historic Preservation Office


Appendices 159


Martin Luther King, Jr. Park (continued)












Topo

grap

hyVe

geta

tion

Circ

ulat

ion

Build

ings

and

Stru

ctur

es

Site

Furn

ishin

gs a

nd O

bjec

ts

Spat

ial O

rgan

izatio

n an

d La

nd P

atte

rns

Spat

ial O

rgan

izatio

n an

d La

nd P

atte

rns

Topo

grap

hyVe

geta

tion

Circ

ulat

ion

Wat

er Fe

atur

esSt

ruct

ures

, Site

Furn

ishin

gs, a

nd O

bjec

ts



160 Appendices


South Park

Project #1: Enhance the Arboretum and botanical collection around the Conservatory x x x x

Project #2: Repair the lake and improve water quality x x x x x

Project #3: Restore the Meadow x x x x x x

Project #4: Repair the Ring Road x x

Project #5: Replace the bridge x x x x

Project #6: Discourage local traffic from using the park as a thoroughfare x x

Project #7: Articulate the park’s main entrance as a major gateway x x x x

Project #8: Enhance the park’s southwest entrance for pedestrians x x x x

Project #9: Create a ‘Father Baker Garden’ where the unused bus loop is located x x x x

Project #10: Construct the Boathouse x x

Project #11: Enhance the appearance and utility of the concession structure x x

Project #12: Integrate South Park with surrounding urban Lackawanna neighborhood x x

Project #13: Connect South Park to the Greenway through trails along Ridge Road x x

Project #14: Connect South Park to Tifft Street and the Tifft Nature Preserve x x












Topo

grap

hyVe

geta

tion

Circ

ulat

ion

Build

ings

and

Stru

ctur

es

Site

Furn

ishin

gs a

nd O

bjec

ts

Spat

ial O

rgan

izatio

n an

d La

nd P

atte

rns

Spat

ial O

rgan

izatio

n an

d La

nd P

atte

rns

Topo

grap

hyVe

geta

tion

Circ

ulat

ion

Wat

er Fe

atur

esSt

ruct

ures

, Site

Furn

ishin

gs, a

nd O

bjec

ts



Appendices 161


Cazenovia Park

Project #1: Renovate the Casino and the central Concourse x x x x x x x

Project #2: Remove parking and access road along the creek on south side of the park and provide new residential access from Potters Road x x

Project #3: Construct a pedestrian bridge over Cazenovia Creek x x x

Project #4: Improve the pedestrian connections between the original park and its newer section x x

Project #5: Restore the park’s south entrance connecting to Red Jacket Parkway x x x x

Project #6: Create an enhanced ‘parking garden’ at the entrance at Seneca Street x x x x x

Project #7: Stabilize the creek beds and shoreline to prevent erosion and to manage points of access x x x x x x

Project #8: Develop overflow areas along the creek to absorb more flood waters x x x x

Project #9: Reinterpret the former lake edge behind the Casino x x

Project #10: Improve sports fields as required x x

Project #11: Relocate non-historic facilities out of the historic section of the park x x x x

Project #12: Connect Cazenovia Park’s perimeter to the surrounding neighborhood x x

Project #13: Connect Cazenovia Park to the Niagara River Greenway system x x












Topo

grap

hyVe

geta

tion

Circ

ulat

ion

Build

ings

and

Stru

ctur

es

Site

Furn

ishin

gs a

nd O

bjec

ts

Spat

ial O

rgan

izatio

n an

d La

nd P

atte

rns

Spat

ial O

rgan

izatio

n an

d La

nd P

atte

rns

Topo

grap

hyVe

geta

tion

Circ

ulat

ion

Wat

er Fe

atur

esSt

ruct

ures

, Site

Furn

ishin

gs, a

nd O

bjec

ts



162 Appendices


Riverside Park

Project #1: Reestablish the central Concourse x x x x x x x x x

Project #2: Reinterpret the Minnow Pools x x x x x

Project #3: Relocate and redesign the pedestrian bridge on its historic alignment x x x x

Project #4: Establish a pier on the Niagara River where the new pedestrian bridge lands x x x

Project #5: Reconstruct Hotaling Drive x x

Project #6: Improve parking along Crowley Avenue x x

Project #7: Improve existing playground x x

Project #8: Rationalize and improve existing sports fields x x

Project #9: Relocate senior center, swimming pool, and ice rink facilities x x x x x x x x

Project #10: Enhance connections between the original Olmsted park and the newer section of the park x x

Project #11: Develop safe connections between Riverside Park and the adjacent neighborhoods x x

Project #12: Extend the park connections to the Niagara River Greenway and Washington and Towpath Parks x x











Project #23: Manage drainage and erosion issuesthroughout the park x x

Topo

grap

hyVe

geta

tion

Circ

ulat

ion

Build

ings

and

Stru

ctur

es

Site

Furn

ishin

gs a

nd O

bjec

ts

Spat

ial O

rgan

izatio

n an

d La

nd P

atte

rns

Spat

ial O

rgan

izatio

n an

d La

nd P

atte

rns

Topo

grap

hyVe

geta

tion

Circ

ulat

ion

Wat

er Fe

atur

esSt

ruct

ures

, Site

Furn

ishin

gs, a

nd O

bjec

ts



Appendices 163


Parkways, Circles, and Small Spaces

Parkways

Project #1: Porter Avenue x x x x x x

Project #2: Richmond Avenue (The Avenue) x x x x x x

Project #3: Bidwell Parkway x x x x x x x x

Project #4: Chapin Parkway x x x x x x

Project #5: Lincoln Parkway x x x x x x

Project #6: McKinley Parkway x x x x x x

Project #7: Red Jacket Parkway x x x x x x

Circles

Project #8: West Ferry Circle x x x x x x

Project #9: Colonial Circle (Bidwell Place) x x x x x x

Project #10: Soldiers Circle (Soldiers Place) x x x x x x

Project #11: Gates Circle (Chapin Place) x x x x x x

Project #12: Agassiz Circle x x x x x x x x

Project #13: McClellan Circle x x x x x x

Project #14: McKinley Circle x x x x x x

Project #15: Symphony Circle x x x x x x

Small Spaces

Project #16: Heacock Place x x x x x x x x

Project #17: Days Park x x x x

Project #18: Columbus and Perla Park (Prospect Park) x x x x x x x x x

Topo

grap

hyVe

geta

tion

Circ

ulat

ion

Build

ings

and

Stru

ctur

es

Site

Furn

ishin

gs a

nd O

bjec

ts

Spat

ial O

rgan

izatio

n an

d La

nd P

atte

rns

Spat

ial O

rgan

izatio

n an

d La

nd P

atte

rns

Topo

grap

hyVe

geta

tion

Circ

ulat

ion

Wat

er Fe

atur

esSt

ruct

ures

, Site

Furn

ishin

gs, a

nd O

bjec

ts


Appendix B – Detailed Cost Estimates

Appendix B | Individual Project Costs by Precinct

Delaware Park Total Costs1

1 - Albright-Knox Precinct 616,000

Project #13: Improve connections to cultural activities within the park 353,000

Project #20: Identify areas in need of lighting; design and install lighting 123,000

Project #23: Rehabilitate Olmsted pathway system 126,000

Project #26: Install appropriate wayfinding and branding signage 2,000

Project #27: Restore historic landscape patterns and plantings, especially perimeter vegetation 12,000


Project #5: Restore the Casino area 10,282,000

Project #19: Restore the park’s historic furnishings 37,000


Project #21: Restore and maintain public restroom facilities3 0

Project #22: Restore, maintain, or install drinking fountains 4,000


Project #25: Introduce traffic calming measures at park roads 38,000



Project #28: Manage drainage and erosion issues throughout the park 185,000

3 - Delaware Avenue Precinct 88,000

Project #23: Rehabilitate Olmsted pathway system4 0



4 - Gala Water Precinct 1,812,000

Project #7: Restore or interpret the original shoreline configuration and redesign the path around the Gala Water

(Hoyt Lake) to reflect the new shape 908,000

Project #8: Construct a wetland to improve water quality at the junction of Hoyt Lake and the Scajaquada Creek 145,000






5 - Historical Society Precinct 224,000







(continued on page 165)

164 Appendices



Delaware Park (continued) Total Costs1

6 - Meadow Precinct 5,623,000

Project #2: Restore the Meadow 4,093,000

Project #10: Reposition the baseball diamonds and rotate the athletics fields 954,000







7 - Parkside Lodge Precinct 10,328,000

Project #4: Restore the Lodge area 9,475,000

Project #9: Enhance the playgrounds 202,000











Project #24: Rehabilitate Olmsted roadway system 276,000




Project #3: Reconstruct the Ring Road considering its historic alignment 6,254,000



10 - Rumsey Woods Precinct 2,081,000

Project #6: Restore the Rumsey Woods area 874,000










Appendices 165



166 Appendices


Delaware Park (continued) Total Costs1

11 - Scajaquada Corridor Precinct 36,473,000

Project #1: Support and participate in the upgrade of the Scajaquada Expressway to a Parkway 33,734,000

Project #11: Provide water based recreation opportunities on Hoyt Lake5 0

Project #12: Remove tennis courts along the Scajaquada Expressway (in the southern part of the Meadow)

and improve other tennis courts in the park 339,000


Project #20: Identify areas in need of lighting; design and install lighting 1,593,000






12 - Zoo Precinct 323,000


Outside the Park 4,173,000

Project #14: Connect the park’s perimeter to the surrounding neighborhood 15,000

Project #15: Highlight the park’s connections to the Olmsted Crescent of cultural activities 5,000

Project #16: Explore opportunities to connect Delaware Park to Forest Lawn Cemetery6 0

Project #17: Connect the park to the Niagara River Greenway 5,000

Project #18: Restore park perimeter roads to create more of a park-like setting in the surrounding neighborhoods 941,000


Within the Cultural Landscape 76,213,000

Outside the Cultural Landscape2 4,173,000

Total for Delaware Park and Vicinity 80,386,000

1 Total costs are in constant 2008 dollars and include hard construction costs(labor and materials) times a 20 percent contingency factor, times a 12 percentmultiplier for engineering, design, legal and other fees.

2 Projects listed as Outside the Park are included in the Outside the CulturalLandscape subtotal.

3 The cost of restoring restrooms is included in the restoration of park buildings.

4 Only maintenance is needed, therefore there are no capital costs.

5 There are no capital costs associated with this project.

6 The cost of this project is included in connecting the park to the surroundingneighborhood.

Park Precinct Map


Appendices 167


Front Park Total Costs1

1 - The Front Precinct 16,734,000

Project #1: Restore the Terrace 2,350,000

Project #2: Rebuild Lakeview House 2,619,000

Project #3: Restore the Playground/Hippodrome 892,000

Project #4: Restore the Picnic Shelter 622,000

Project #5: Construct an earthen berm or barrier between the park and the thruway 635,000

Project #6: Construct site walls to reclaim views 3,411,000

Project #7: Remove ice rink and restore original grading 2,000,000

Project #8: Relocate tennis courts to locations outside of the park 486,000

Project #9: Relocate the children’s playground to the northern edge of the park, closer to the residential neighborhoods 141,000

Project #10: Restore historic park entrance at Porter and Busti Avenues 1,525,000

Project #13: Recreate Sheridan Drive along the southwest border of the park 828,000

Project #17: Identify areas in need of lighting, design and install lighting 1,001,000


Project #20: Rehabilitate Olmsted pathway system4 0

Project #21: Rehabilitate Olmsted roadway system5 0

Project #22: Introduce traffic calming measures at park roads6 0




2 - Fort Porter Site 4,310,000

Project #12: Reinterpret Fort Porter 3,665,000

Project #14: Restore or interpret “The Bank” designed by Olmsted, depending on the final design of the Peace Bridge Plaza 21,000


Project #17: Identify areas in need of lighting, design and install lighting 396,000

Project #19: Restore maintain, or install drinking fountains 7,000



Outside the Park 76,000

Project #11: Restore connections between Front Park and the rest of the park system 3,000


Within the Cultural Landscape 21,044,000Outside the Cultural Landscape2 76,000

Total for Front Park and Vicinity 21,120,000

1 Total costs are in constant 2008 dollars and include hard construction costs (labor and materials) times a 20 percentcontingency factor, times a 12 percent multiplier for engineering, design, legal and other fees.

2 Projects listed as Outside the Park are included in the Outside the Cultural Landscape subtotal.


4 Only maintenance is needed, therefore there are no capital costs.

5 The cost of restoring the park roads is included in restoring the Busti entrance and Sheridan Drive.

6 The cost of traffic calming on park roads is included in restoring Sheridan Drive.

Park Precinct Map


168 Appendices


Martin Luther King, Jr. Park Total Costs1

1 - Central Water Features Precinct 11,497,000

Project #1: Renovate and enhance the Casino building 4,281,000

Project #2: Restore the Humboldt Basin 3,680,000

Project #3: Restore the original Fountain as a splash pad 1,137,000

Project #4: Restore the Lily Pool 941,000

Project #12: Consolidate and improve the playground on the south side of the park near the Humboldt Basin 177,000

Project #18: Redesign the Rose Garden near the Science Museum 101,000









2 - Fillmore Avenue Precinct 2,195,000

Project #9: Install traffic calming and streetscape features on Fillmore Avenue 2,195,000



3 - Greenhouse/Picnic Grove Precinct 3,091,000

Project #5: Improve the historic Greenhouse area 2,447,000

Project #6: Restore Picnic Grove 89,000

Project #7: Redesign the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial within the loop area 122,000








4 - Museum Precinct 1,342,000

Project #16: Rationalize and expand parking for the Museum and park users within and outside of the park 1,331,000





Appendices 169


Martin Luther King, Jr. Park (continued) Total Costs1


Project #8: Redesign the south Ring Road as a pedestrian pathway and relocate parking to Best Street 1,154,000

Project #10: Redesign the southwest entrance of the park 0

Project #11: Redesign the southeast entrance of the park 16,000

Project #15: Interpret the remnant of the historical Humboldt Parkway at the former north entrance of the park 375,000

Project #17: Redesign the school bus drop-off area to articulate the park road 1,352,000

Project #23: Deck over the section of the expressway by the park 8,064,000








Project #13: Relocate the basketball courts and arena outside of the park 193,000

Project #14: Relocate the tennis courts outside of the park 226,000

Project #16: Rationalize and expand parking for the Museum and park users within and outside of the park 584,000

Project #19: Design a circle at Best Street near the Kensington Expressway 1,613,000

Project #20: Redesign the Best Street/Genesee Street intersection 1,615,000

Project #21: Open West Parade to two-way traffic 3,000

Project #22: Widen the sidewalks and add a vegetative buffer to the bridges that cross the Kensington Expressway 112,000

Project #24: Restore park perimeter roads to create more of a park-like setting in the surrounding neighborhoods 4,176,000




Total for Martin Luther King, Jr. Park and Vicinity 39,415,000

1 Total costs are in constant 2008 dollars and include hard construction costs (labor andmaterials) times a 20 percent contingency factor, times a 12 percent multiplier for engineering,design, legal and other fees.



4 The cost of restoring the park roads is included in other park projects.

5 The cost of traffic calming on park roads is included in other park projects.

Park Precinct Map


170 Appendices


South Park Total Costs1

1 - Botanical Gardens Precinct 385,000

Project #1: Enhance the Arboretum and botanical collection around the Conservatory 57,000






2 - Central Meadow Precinct 144,000

Project #3: Restore the Meadow 56,000





3 - Lake Precinct 9,040,000

Project #2: Repair the lake and improve water quality 7,579,000

Project #10: Construct the Boathouse 1,028,000







4 - North Meadow Precinct 1,454,000


Project #11: Enhance the appearance and utility of the concession structure 1,208,000








Project #6: Discourage local traffic from using the park as a thoroughfare 414,000

Project #8: Enhance the park’s southwest entrance for pedestrians 4,000

Project #9: Create a ‘Father Baker Garden’ where the unused bus loop is located 342,000








Appendices 171


South Park (continued) Total Costs1


Project #4: Repair the Ring Road 762,000

Project #5: Replace the bridge 1,042,000

Project #7: Articulate the park’s main entrance as a major gateway 528,000









Project #12: Integrate South Park with surrounding urban Lackawanna neighborhood 13,000

Project #13: Connect South Park to the Greenway through trails along Ridge Road 8,000

Project #14: Connect South Park to Tifft Street and the Tifft Nature Preserve 17,000





Total for South Park and Vicinity 18,499,000

1 Total costs are in constant 2008 dollars and include hard constructioncosts (labor and materials) times a 20 percent contingency factor, timesa 12 percent multiplier for engineering, design, legal and other fees.

2 Projects listed as Outside the Park are included in the Outside theCultural Landscape subtotal.

3 The cost of restoring restrooms is included in the restoration of parkbuildings.

4 The cost of restoring the park roads is included in the restoration of the ring road.

Park Precinct Map


172 Appendices


Cazenovia Park Total Costs1

1 - Bowl Precinct 439,000

Project #10: Improve sports fields as required 289,000








Project #1: Renovate the Casino and the central Concourse 5,147,000











3 - Creek Precinct 10,108,000

Project #3: Construct a pedestrian bridge over Cazenovia Creek 376,000

Project #7: Stabilize the creek beds and shoreline to prevent erosion and to manage points of access 2,681,000

Project #8: Develop overflow areas along the creek to absorb more flood waters 6,109,000

Project #9: Reinterpret the former lake edge behind the Casino 526,000





4 - Golf Course Precinct 996,000

Project #4: Improve the pedestrian connections between the original park and its newer section 52,000






Appendices 173


Cazenovia Park (continued) Total Costs1


Project #2: Remove parking and access road along the creek on south side of the park and provide

new residential access from Potters Road 60,000

Project #5: Restore the park’s south entrance connecting to Red Jacket Parkway 104,000

Project #6: Create an enhanced ‘parking garden’ at the entrance at Seneca Street 634,000

Project #11: Relocate non-historic facilities out of the historic section of the park 34,727,000











Project #12: Connect Cazenovia Park’s perimeter to the surrounding neighborhood 3,000

Project #13: Connect Cazenovia Park to the Niagara River Greenway system 5,000





Total for Cazenovia Park and Vicinity 56,154,000

1 Total costs are in constant 2008 dollars and include hardconstruction costs (labor and materials) times a 20 percentcontingency factor, times a 12 percent multiplier forengineering, design, legal and other fees.

2 Projects listed as Outside the Park are included in theOutside the Cultural Landscape subtotal.

3 The cost of restoring restrooms is included in therestoration of park buildings.

Park Precinct Map


174 Appendices


Riverside Park Total Costs1

1 - Concourse and River Precinct 6,311,000

Project #1: Reestablish the central Concourse 2,200,000

Project #3: Relocate and redesign the pedestrian bridge on its historic alignment 1,593,000

Project #4: Establish a pier on the Niagara River where the new pedestrian bridge lands3 0

Project #9: Relocate senior center, swimming pool, and ice rink facilities 2,474,000

Project #10: Enhance connections between the original Olmsted park and the newer section of the park 15,000




2 - Hotaling Drive Precinct 1,119,000

Project #5: Reconstruct Hotaling Drive 899,000



3 - Minnow Pools Precinct 746,000

Project #2: Reinterpret the Minnow Pools 463,000






4 - Playing Fields Precinct 45,000






5 - South Recreation Precinct 560,000

Project #7: Improve existing playground 13,000

Project #8: Rationalize and improve existing sports fields 339,000










Appendices 175


Riverside Park (continued) Total Costs1


Project #6: Improve parking along Crowley Avenue 170,000

Project #11: Develop safe connections between Riverside Park and the adjacent neighborhoods 118,000

Project #12: Extend the park connections to the Niagara River Greenway and Washington and Towpath Parks 5,000





Total for Riverside Park and Vicinity 10,522,000

1 Total costs are in constant 2008 dollars and include hardconstruction costs (labor and materials) times a 20 percentcontingency factor, times a 12 percent multiplier for engineering,design, legal and other fees.

2 Projects listed as Outside the Park are included in the Outside theCultural Landscape subtotal.

3 The cost of creating the pier is included in the relocation andredesign of the pedestrian bridge.


Park Precinct Map


176 Appendices

Appendix B | Individual Project Costs

Delaware Park Total Costs1

Project #1: Support and participate in the upgrade of the Scajaquada Expressway to a parkway 33,734,000

Project #2: Restore the Meadow 4,093,000

Project #3: Reconstruct the Ring Road considering its historic alignment 6,254,000

Project #4: Restore the Lodge area 9,475,000

Project #5: Restore the Casino area 10,282,000

Project #6: Restore the Rumsey Woods area 874,000

Project #7: Restore or interpret the original shoreline configuration and redesign the path around the Gala Water (Hoyt Lake) to reflect the new shape 908,000

Project #8: Construct a wetland to improve water quality at the junction of Hoyt Lake and the Scajaquada Creek 145,000

Project #9: Enhance the playgrounds 202,000

Project #10: Reposition the baseball diamonds and rotate the athletics fields 954,000

Project #11: Provide water based recreation opportunities on Hoyt Lake4 0

Project #12: Remove tennis courts along the Scajaquada Expressway (in the southern part of the Meadow) and improve other tennis courts in the park 339,000


Project #14: Connect the park’s perimeter to the surrounding neighborhood 15,000

Project #15: Highlight the park’s connections to the “Olmsted Crescent” of cultural activities 5,000

Project #16: Explore opportunities to connect Delaware Park to Forest Lawn Cemetery5 0

Project #17: Connect the park to the Niagara River Greenway 5,000






Project #23: Rehabilitate Olmsted pathway system 1,541,000




Project #27: Restore historic landscape patterns and plantings, especially perimeter vegetation 2,526,000


Within the Cultural Landscape 76,213,000Outside the Cultural Landscape2 4,173,000Total for Delaware Park and Vicinity 80,386,000

1 Total costs are in constant 2008 dollars and include hard construction costs (labor and materials) times a 20 percent contingency factor,times a 12 percent multiplier for engineering, design, legal and other fees.



4 There are no capital costs associated with this project.

5 The cost of this project is included in connecting the park to the surrounding neighborhood.


Appendices 177


Front Park Total Costs1

Project #1: Restore the Terrace 2,350,000

Project #2: Rebuild Lakeview House 2,619,000

Project #3: Restore the Playground/Hippodrome 892,000

Project #4: Restore the Picnic Shelter 622,000

Project #5: Construct an earthen berm or barrier between the park and the thruway 635,000

Project #6: Construct site walls to reclaim views 3,411,000

Project #7: Remove ice rink and restore original grading 2,000,000

Project #8: Relocate tennis courts to locations outside of the park 486,000

Project #9: Relocate the children’s playground to the northern edge of the park, closer to the residential neighborhoods 141,000

Project #10: Restore historic park entrance at Porter and Busti Avenues 1,525,000

Project #11: Restore connections between Front Park and the rest of the park system 3,000

Project #12: Reinterpret Fort Porter 3,665,000

Project #13: Recreate Sheridan Drive along the southwest border of the park 828,000

Project #14: Restore or interpret “The Bank” designed by Olmsted, depending on the final design of the Peace Bridge Plaza 21,000



Project #17: Identify areas in need of lighting, design and install lighting 1,397,000


Project #19: Restore maintain, or install drinking fountains 7,000







Within the Cultural Landscape 21,044,000Outside the Cultural Landscape2 76,000Total for Front Park and Vicinity 21,120,000




4 The cost of restoring the park roads is included in restoring the Busti entrance and Sheridan Drive.

5 The cost of traffic calming on park roads is included in restoring Sheridan Drive.


178 Appendices


Martin Luther King, Jr. Park Total Costs1

Project #1: Renovate and enhance the Casino building 4,281,000

Project #2: Restore the Humboldt Basin 3,680,000

Project #3: Restore the original Fountain as a splash pad 1,137,000

Project #4: Restore the Lily Pool 941,000

Project #5: Improve the historic Greenhouse area 2,447,000

Project #6: Restore Picnic Grove 89,000

Project #7: Redesign the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial within the loop area 122,000

Project #8: Redesign the south Ring Road as a pedestrian pathway and relocate parking to Best Street 1,154,000

Project #9: Install traffic calming and streetscape features on Fillmore Avenue 2,195,000

Project #10: Redesign the southwest entrance of the park 0

Project #11: Redesign the southeast entrance of the park 16,000

Project #12: Consolidate and improve the playground on the south side of the park near the Humboldt Basin 177,000

Project #13: Relocate the basketball courts and arena outside of the park 193,000

Project #14: Relocate the tennis courts outside of the park 226,000

Project #15: Interpret the remnant of the historical Humboldt Parkway at the former north entrance of the park 375,000

Project #16: Rationalize and expand parking for the Museum and park users within and outside of the park 1,915,000

Project #17: Redesign the school bus drop-off area to articulate the park road 1,352,000

Project #18: Redesign the Rose Garden near the Science Museum 101,000

Project #19: Design a circle at Best Street near the Kensington Expressway 1,613,000

Project #20: Redesign the Best Street/Genesee Street intersection 1,615,000

Project #21: Open West Parade to two-way traffic 3,000

Project #22: Widen the sidewalks and add a vegetative buffer to the bridges that cross the Kensington Expressway 112,000

Project #23: Deck over the section of the expressway by the park 8,064,000

Project #24: Restore park perimeter roads to create more of a park-like setting in the surrounding neighborhoods 4,176,000





Project #29: Rehabilitate Olmsted pathway system 1,039,000






Within the Cultural Landscape 29,365,000Outside the Cultural Landscape2 10,050,000Total for Martin Luther King, Jr. Park and Vicinity 39,415,000




4 The cost of restoring the park roads is included in other park projects.

5 The cost of traffic calming on park roads is included in other park projects.


Appendices 179


South Park Total Costs1

Project #1: Enhance the Arboretum and botanical collection around the Conservatory 57,000

Project #2: Repair the lake and improve water quality 7,579,000


Project #4: Repair the Ring Road 762,000

Project #5: Replace the bridge 1,042,000

Project #6: Discourage local traffic from using the park as a thoroughfare 414,000

Project #7: Articulate the park’s main entrance as a major gateway 528,000

Project #8: Enhance the park’s southwest entrance for pedestrians 4,000

Project #9: Create a ‘Father Baker Garden’ where the unused bus loop is located 342,000

Project #10: Construct the Boathouse 1,028,000

Project #11: Enhance the appearance and utility of the concession structure 1,208,000

Project #12: Integrate South Park with surrounding urban Lackawanna neighborhood 13,000

Project #13: Connect South Park to the Greenway through trails along Ridge Road 8,000

Project #14: Connect South Park to Tifft Street and the Tifft Nature Preserve 17,000














Total for South Park and Vicinity 18,499,000




4 The cost of restoring the park roads is included in the restoration of the ring road.


180 Appendices





Cazenovia Park Total Costs1

Project #1: Renovate the Casino and the central Concourse 5,147,000

Project #2: Remove parking and access road along the creek on south side of the park

and provide new residential access from Potters Road 60,000

Project #3: Construct a pedestrian bridge over Cazenovia Creek 376,000

Project #4: Improve the pedestrian connections between the original park and its newer section 52,000

Project #5: Restore the park’s south entrance connecting to Red Jacket Parkway 104,000

Project #6: Create an enhanced ‘parking garden’ at the entrance at Seneca Street 634,000

Project #7: Stabilize the creek beds and shoreline to prevent erosion and to manage points of access 2,681,00

Project #8: Develop overflow areas along the creek to absorb more flood waters 6,109,000

Project #9: Reinterpret the former lake edge behind the Casino 526,000

Project #10: Improve sports fields as required 289,000

Project #11: Relocate non-historic facilities out of the historic section of the park 34,727,000

Project #12: Connect Cazenovia Park’s perimeter to the surrounding neighborhood 3,000

Project #13: Connect Cazenovia Park to the Niagara River Greenway system 5,000










Project #23: Restore historic landscape patterns and plantings, especially perimeter vegetation 1,644,000




Total for Cazenovia Park and Vicinity 56,154,000


Appendices 181


Riverside Park Total Costs1

Project #1: Reestablish the central Concourse 2,200,000

Project #2: Reinterpret the Minnow Pools 463,000

Project #3: Relocate and redesign the pedestrian bridge on its historic alignment 1,593,000

Project #4: Establish a pier on the Niagara River where the new pedestrian bridge lands3 0

Project #5: Reconstruct Hotaling Drive 899,000

Project #6: Improve parking along Crowley Avenue 170,000

Project #7: Improve existing playground 13,000

Project #8: Rationalize and improve existing sports fields 339,000

Project #9: Relocate senior center, swimming pool, and ice rink facilities 2,474,000

Project #10: Enhance connections between the original Olmsted park and the newer section of the park 15,000

Project #11: Develop safe connections between Riverside Park and the adjacent neighborhoods 118,000

Project #12: Extend the park connections to the Niagara River Greenway and Washington and Towpath Parks 5,000














Total for Riverside Park and Vicinity 10,522,000



3 The cost of creating the pier is included in the relocation and redesign of the pedestrian bridge.



182 Appendices


Parkways, Circles, and Small Spaces Total Costs1

Project #1: Porter Avenue 6,709,000

Project #2: Richmond Avenue (The Avenue) 7,827,000

Project #3: Bidwell Parkway 4,778,000

Project #4: Chapin Parkway 3,955,000

Project #5: Lincoln Parkway 3,716,000

Project #6: McKinley Parkway 12,300,000

Project #7: Red Jacket Parkway 1,789,000

Project #8: West Ferry Circle 370,000

Project #9: Colonial Circle (Bidwell Place) 370,000

Project #10: Soldiers Circle (Soldiers Place) 370,000

Project #11: Gates Circle (Chapin Place) 370,000

Project #12: Agassiz Circle 571,000

Project #13: McClellan Circle 370,000

Project #14: McKinley Circle 370,000

Project #15: Symphony Circle 370,000

Project #16: Heacock Place 317,000

Project #17: Days Park 15,000

Project #18: Columbus and Perla Park (Prospect Park) 1,356,000

Within the Cultural Landscape2 45,923,000

Outside the Cultural Landscape 0

Total for Parkways, Circles, and Small Spaces 45,923,000


2 Projects listed as Parkways, Circles, and Small Spaces are included in the Within the Cultural Landscape subtotal.


Appendices 183


Connections and Extensions Total Costs1

Project #E1: Humboldt Parkway 24,876,000

Project #E2: Jewett Parkway 1,712,000

Project #E3: Fillmore Avenue South 12,300,000

Project #E4: South System Connector1 5,222,000

Project #E5: Bailey Avenue 2,397,000

Project #E6: The Bank3 0

Project #E7: Best-North 9,039,000

Project #E8: South System Connector2 6,592,000

Project #E9: Days Park Spur 735,000

Project #E10: Fillmore Avenue North 8,561,000

Project #E11: Jewett Parkway Extension 935,000

Project #E12: Smith Street 2,137,000

Project #E13: Larkin Circle 571,000

Project #E14: Fillmore/Jewett Circle 571,000

Project #E15: South Park Avenue 7,534,000

Project #E16: Central Terminal Spur 1,789,000

Project #E17: Scajaquada Shoreline Trail 1,921,000

Project #E18: Niagara Street 7,492,000

Project #E19: Niagara Street Upper 11,942,000

Project #E20: Niagara Street Lower 11,629,000

Project #E21: Forest Avenue 6,390,000

Project #E22: Fuhrman Boulevard 13,933,000

Project #E23: Fuhrman Boulevard Connector (Ridge Road) 3,853,000

Project #E24: Tifft Street 9,668,000

Project #E25: Hopkins Street 4,184,000

Within the Cultural Landscape 0


Total for Extensions 155,983,000


2 All Extensions are included in the Outside the Cultural Landscape subtotal.

3 The cost of restoring The Bank is included in the restoration of Front Park.

Acknowledgements

The System Plan for the Buffalo Olmsted Park System was possible because of the consistentefforts of a large number of people over a seven-year period. The Buffalo Olmsted ParksConservancy Board of Trustees initiated the planning process and has provided leadershipthroughout. The management of the process was delegated to the Long Range PlanningCommittee with support from the Olmsted Advisory Council, and the Conservancy staff. Boththe City of Buffalo and Erie County participated in the formative stages of plan development andin the reviews throughout the process. The WNY legislative delegation members were alsoinvolved through briefings and formal reviews of the plan in process. Their comments have beeninvaluable as the plan has been aligned with the needs of all its constituencies.

The Conservancy is also grateful for the support and participation of the Greater Buffalo NiagaraRegional Transportation Council, Delaware North Companies, and Doug Blonsky of the CentralPark Conservancy for contributing their consulting expertise.

Buffalo Olmsted Parks Conservancy

Board of Trustees – as of January 1, 2008 (Long Range Planning Committee)• Peter Aiello• James Anderson, Long Range Planning Committee• Karen Arrison• Jayne Attardo• Joan Bozer, Long Range Planning Committee, Emeritus• Joseph Jerry Castiglia, Chair• Ann Louise Ciminelli• David Colligan, Chair-Elect, Long Range Planning Committee• Richard Cummings, Ex-Oficio• James Wettlaufer Derrick• Patrick Fagan• Dorothy Ferguson• S. Jay Ferrari• Richard Griffin• Anne Harding Joyce, Vice Chair, Executive Committee • Coralia (Gigi) Hetzner • James Hornung, Ex-Officio• James Iglewski, -Treasurer, Executive Committee • Florence Johnson• Kevin Kelly, Long Range Planning Committee• Robert J. Kresse, Long Range Planning Committee• Jay McWatters• Mark Mistretta, Long Range Planning Committee, Emeritus• Gary Mucci, Secretary, Executive Committee • Alan Pawlowski • Steve Ricca, Executive Committee • Corinne Rice, Emeritus • Victor Rice, Long Range Planning Committee• Bill Rupp, Long Range Planning Committee• Herbert Siegel • Richard Spears • Steve Stepniak, Ex-Officio • Julie Thompson • Bernie Tolbert • Gretchen Toles, Emeritus • Deborah Lynn Williams, Advisory Council Chair, Long Range Planning Committee


184 Acknowledgements


Acknowledgements 185

Olmsted Staff – as of April 1, 2008

• Thomas Herrera-Mishler, Chief Executive Officer

• Brian Dold, Associate Landscape Architect, Project Manager

• Bert Baez, Park Foreman

• Jeff Brett, Supervisor, Tree Care

• Shane Daley, Tree Care Technician

• Patrick Dunlavey, Park Foreman

• Abi Echevarria, Park Foreman

• Dave Hoover, Manager, Golf Operations

• Stan Jennings, Supervisor, Park Operations

• Joanne Marzullo, Executive Assistant

• Eileen Martin, Park Foreman

• P.J. McParlane, Operations, Senior Manager

• Patty Mertens, Manager, Administration & Finance

• Olga Nichols, Manager, Development

• Robert Stotz, Senior Manager, Operations

• Katie Rampino, Associate, Development & Marketing

• Joy Testa Cinquino, Director, Institutional Advancement

• Jeffrey Tower, Tree Care Technician

Additional Acknowledgements to:

• Laura Quebral Fulton, former Project Manager

• Tim Fulton

• Dean Gowen

• Johnathan Holifield

• Deborah Ann Trimble

The Urban Design Project, School of Architecture and Planning, University at Buffalo, State University of New York

Project Directors

• Robert Shibley, AIA, AICP

• Lynda Schneekloth, ASLA

Project Manager

• Elizabeth Cheteny, AICP

Staff Associates

• Jason Babcock-Stiner

• Sean Brodfuehrer

• Prasanta Bhattarai

• Prabhat Dahal

• Dattatreya Das

• Jajean Rose-Burney

• Nishu Sinha

• William Smith, Jr.

• Creighton Randall

• Punnen Thomas

• Taryn Weaver

• Yi (Simon) Zhu

Technical Writing

• David Herzberg

• Erin Hatton



Center for Computational Research (CCR)

• Thomas Furlani, Director

• Martins Innus

• Adam Koniak

• Adrian Levesque

Trowbridge and Wolf, Landscape Architects, LLP

Principal

• Peter Trowbridge

Associates

• Thomas Brown

• Noah Demarest

• Bret LeBleu

• Kimberly Michaels

• Olivia Shea

Wendel Duchscherer, Architects and Engineers, PC

Principal

• Mark V. Mistretta, RLA, ASLA

Associates

• Arthur V. Traver III, RLA, ASLA

• Warit Silavisesrith, GISP

• Gregory M. Robinson, RLA, ASLA

• Robert J. Frazer, RLA, ASLA

Greater Buffalo Niagara Regional Transportation Council

Executive Director

• Hal Morse

Associates

• Timothy Trebold

• Steve Szopinski

Delaware North Companies

• Kevin Kelly

Government Partners

• City of Buffalo

• County of Erie

With Generous Support from The John R. Oishei Foundation

Additional funding for The System Plan:

• Baird Foundation

• Community Foundation for Greater Buffalo

• Former Erie County Legislator Judy Fisher

• Paul & Niscah Koessler

• Erie County Legislator Lynn Marinelli

• Corinne and Victor Rice

• Jake Schneider, Schneider Design Architects

• Watson, Bennett, Colligan, Johnson & Schechter, LLP

• Margaret L. Wendt Foundation

• City of Buffalo

• County of Erie


Acknowledgements 187

Thank You for the Support from the Olmsted Advisory Council:

• Deborah Lynn Williams, Chair

• Board of Block Clubs

• Botanical Gardens Society

• Buffalo Audubon Society

• Buffalo Croquet Club

• Buffalo Rugby

• Buffalo Museum of Science

• Buffalo Zoo

• Cazenovia Golf Club

• Colonial Circle/Richmond

• Community Foundation

• Days Park

• Delaware Park Dogs

• Delaware Park Rose Garden

• Delaware Park Steering Committee

• Delaware Park Women’s Golf

• Delaware Seniors Golf Club

• Delaware Soccer

• Ferry Circle/Richmond

• Front Park

• Gates Circle

• Greater Buffalo Niagara Regional Transportation Council

• Girl Scout Council of Buffalo and Erie County

• Goin’ South

• Greater Buffalo Track Club/Fleet Feet

• Junior League

• King Urban Life Center

• Landmark Society

• Martin Luther King, Jr. Park

• McKinley High School Career and Technical Education – Horticulture Department

• McKinley Parkway Homeowners’ Association

• Medaille College

• Medaille College Lacrosse

• Martin Luther King, Jr. Block Club

• New Millennium Group

• Parkside Community Association

• Partners for a Livable Western New York

• Police Athletic League

• Porter Avenue/Parkway

• Preservation Coalition

• Riverside Park

• Riverside Park Community Association

• Shakespeare in Delaware Park

• Soldiers Circle

• South Buffalo Alive

• South Park Golf Club

• South Park Women’s Golf

• Symphony Circle

• United Neighborhoods

• West Side Community Collaborative

Congratulations to the Buffalo Olmsted Parks Conservancy and the entire Buffalo-Niagara Region

The System Plan represents a consensus about the vision, administration, maintenance andcapital improvements necessary to manage Buffalo’s Olmsted Park System well into the 21st century.

This plan could not have been possible without funding from

The John R. Oishei FoundationWe salute you and support your efforts.

David Colligan of Watson, Bennett, Colligan, Johnson & Schechter is proud to have participated in the development of the Buffalo Olmsted Park System’s The System Plan. The Watson Bennett firm is honored to be a part of this extremelyimportant and worthwhile community endeavor. Watson Bennett legal services include: Corporate Law, Estate Planning,Personal Injury and Real Estate.

“A park is a work of art, designed to produce certain effects upon the mind of men.“

– Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr.

First edition printing of The System Plan was underwritten by Watson, Bennett, Colligan, Johnson & Schechter, LLP

I M A G E

Below:

These children are looking out at the lake in Delaware Park. The Vaux-designed settees andbandstand can be seen in thephoto. (Source – Buffalo andErie County Historical Society.)



The Urban Design ProjectSchool of Architecture and Planning

the olmsted city – the buffalo olmsted park system: plan for the

Documents