waterfront - urban design project :: university at buffalo

Buffalo Waterfront Corridor Initiative:A Strategic Plan for Transportation Improvements

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

OFFICE OF STRATEGIC PLANNINGTimothy E. Wanamaker,EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS,PARKS AND STREETSJoseph Giambra,COMMISSIONER

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENTOF TRANSPORTATIONGeorge E. Pataki,GOVERNOR

Joseph Boardman,COMMISSIONER

Final Report for the “Buffalo Corridor Management Plan” (NYSDOT PIN 5756.29) April 2007

UNITED STATESDEPARTMENTOF TRANSPORTATIONFEDERAL HIGHWAYADMINISTRATION

Que

en C

ity W

ater

fron

t

Buffalo Waterfront Corridor Initiative:A Strategic Plan for Transportation Improvements

Queen City Waterfront

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

OFFICE OF STRATEGIC PLANNINGTimothy E. Wanamaker,EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS,PARKS AND STREETSJoseph Giambra,COMMISSIONER

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENTOF TRANSPORTATIONGeorge E. Pataki,GOVERNOR

Joseph Boardman,COMMISSIONER

Final Report for the “Buffalo Corridor Management Plan” (NYSDOT PIN 5756.29) April 2007

UNITED STATESDEPARTMENTOF TRANSPORTATIONFEDERAL HIGHWAYADMINISTRATION

Queen City WaterfrontBuffalo Waterfront Corridor Initiative:

A Strategic Plan for Transportation Improvements

DEVELOPED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF

The City of Buffalo Office of Strategic Planning

AND

The City of Buffalo Department of Public Works

DEVELOPED WITH THE CONSULTING SUPPORT OF:

The prime contractor Wendel Duchscherer Architects and Engineers

AND

The Urban Design Project, University at BuffaloState University of New York

WITH

Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper (formerly Friends of the Buffalo Niagara River)

VOLUME I: “QUEEN CITY WATERFRONT” PREPARED BY

The Urban Design ProjectSchool of Architecture and PlanningUniversity at Buffalo, State University of New York3435 Main Street Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14214(716) 829-3485 ext 220www.urbandesignproject.org

IN ASSOCIATION WITH

Wendel Duchscherer Architects and Engineers140 John James Audubon Parkway, #201Amherst, NY 14228(716) 688-0766www.wd-ae.com

A S t r a t e g i c P l a n f o r T r a n s p o r t a t i o n I m p r o v e m e n t s

Table of Contents III

Table of Contents

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1A Community Vision: Recapturing Buffalo’s Waterfront . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4The Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Methods of Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

The Planning Legacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Peace Bridge Gateway Improvements Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Stakeholder and Public Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

The Policy Framework: Local Waterfront Revitalization Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Benefits of an LWRP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Land Use by Sub-Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Achieving the Vision: Projects in the Buffalo Waterfront Corridor . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25Elements of the Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

Transportation Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

Inner Harbor/Downtown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

Outer Harbor/South Buffalo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38

Buffalo River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

Gateway/West Side . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

Black Rock/Riverside/Scajaquada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54

Peace Bridge Gateway Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60A Great Neighborhood and Grand Gateway for Buffalo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60

Interim Plaza and Neighborhood Improvement Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62

Long Term Plaza and Neighborhood Improvement Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68

Shared Border Management Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68

South Plaza Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70

North Plaza Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73

Evaluation of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75

Conclusion: Shared Border Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80

Next Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81

Waterfront Gateway Nodes: Analysis, Design Guidelines and Proposals . . . . . . . . .83Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83

Porter Avenue: Guidelines and Concept Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87

Erie Street: Guidelines and Concept Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93

Secondary Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98

Scajaquada/Niagara Street . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98

Virginia/Carolina Interchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99

Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100

Setting Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100

Next Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102

Que

en C

ity W

ater

fron

t

Q u e e n C i t y W a t e r f r o n t

IV Table of Contents

Appendices

A Bibliography of Plans

B Participation History (Electronic)

Newsletters

Agency Meetings

Workshops and Public Meetings

Node Meetings

Brochure

Companion Volumes:

Vol. 2 Waterfront Planning Inventory and AnalysisIntroduction and Explanation

Part 1: Analysis of Project Goals

Part 2: Preliminary Project Assessment

Part 3: Project Site Abstracts

Part 4: Bibliography of Plans

Vol. 3 City of Buffalo Local Waterfront Revitalization Program

Vol. 4 International Waterfront Gateway Neighborhood Improvement ProgramPart 1: Interim Plaza

Part 2: Long Term Plaza Proposals

Shared Border Management

South Plaza

North Plaza

Vol. 5 Waterfront Gateway Node Description, Analysis and Design GuidelinesIntroduction

Primary Nodes

Porter Avenue: Analysis, Guidelines and Concept Proposals

Erie Street: Analysis, Guidelines and Concept Proposals

Secondary Nodes

Scajaquada/Niagara: Analysis and Issues

Virginia/Carolina: Analysis and Issues

Vol. 6 Expanded Project Proposal – Erie StreetVol. 7 Expanded Project Proposal – Porter Avenue


Acknowledgements V

Acknowledgements

Wendel Duchscherer, Architects and Engineers served as the prime contractor to the City of

Buffalo for the NYSDOT Buffalo Corridor Management Plan and its related implementation

campaign known locally as the Waterfront Corridor Initiative. They were lead consultant on

the following report volumes in association with the Urban Design Project and the Buffalo

Niagara Riverkeeper:

Volume 3: Local Waterfront Revitalization Program

Volume 6: Expanded Project Proposal – Erie Street

Volume 7: Expanded Project Proposal – Porter Avenue

The Urban Design Project was lead consultant on the following report volumes in association

with the Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper and Wendel Duchscherer:

Volume 1: Queen City Waterfront

Volume 2: Waterfront Planning Inventory and Analysis

Volume 4: International Waterfront Gateway Neighborhood Improvement Program

Volume 5: Waterfront Gateway Node Description, Analysis, and Design Guidelines

Additional consulting support is acknowledged in each volume of the final report on the Buffalo Corridor

Management Project (NYSDOT Pin 5756.29).

All graphics in Volume 1 that are not specifically credited are produced by the Urban Design Project.


2 Executive Summary

The Queen City Waterfront plan is based on aclear and simple vision that Buffalo, once awaterfront city, will be a waterfront city onceagain. As a community, Buffalo is committedto making its waterfronts more accessibleand environmentally healthy, to reconnectingneighborhoods to our waterfronts andgetting best possible economic use fromthem, and to improving the efficiency of ourwaterfront transportation corridor andmaking sure it serves all our other goals.

This plan is based on a great legacy of over120 plans on over eighty sites, all aimed atachieving the great potential of ourwaterfronts. It incorporates detailed analyticaland creative effort, the work of thousands of

citizens active in planning, and dozens anddozens of durable proposals for action toimprove our waterfronts developed over thepast thirty years. The vision is grounded in amethodical assessment of three importantbodies of work: what we have done; planswe have made; and policies we have set.

For the first time in three decades,community aspirations for healthier, moreprosperous and more accessible waterfrontsare supported by a draft Comprehensive Planfor Buffalo, Queen City in the 21st Century,in its final stages of review and approval.Even more importantly, they are supported bya proposed City of Buffalo Local WaterfrontRevitalization Program (Volume 3), also under

Citizens’ vision of the waterfront shows a continuous greenway with tree-lined streets connecting the waterfront to the Olmsted Park and Parkway System and adjacent neighborhoods.

Executive Summary

OUTER HARBOR / SOUTH BUFFALO

economic development | environmental quality | public access | international gateway | efficient transportation | connected neighborhoods

BUFFALO RIVER INNER HARBOR / DOWNTOWN

reinforcing the LWRP policies. It contains anenumeration of the projects both from ourlegacy of plans and out of current work thatcan help us move toward achieving ourshared waterfront vision. The projects areorganized by four categories: recentachievements, emerging projects, projectsthat need a push, and longer term visions.The vision for the waterfront is embodied inthe full range of projects.

This report also contains more detailed workon key nodes not already strongly addressedin current planning reports. Proposals for theimprovement of our International GatewayNeighborhood Improvement Program (Volume4) were developed, addressing both interim

final review. The foundation for the City ofBuffalo Local Waterfront RevitalizationProgram (LWRP) was established, in part, bythe inventory of projects (analyzed in Volume2) influencing the strategic plan fortransportation improvements, as well as by thecomprehensive engagement of citizens,agencies, and other stakeholders. The robustlegal framework of the LWRP can carry thehopes and dreams of Buffalonians for thetransformation of its waterfront lands inconcert with the transportation infrastructure.

The NYSDOT Buffalo Corridor ManagementPlan, known as the Queen City Waterfrontwas developed with the LWRP as acomplementary implementation guide


Executive Summary 3

GATEWAY / WEST SIDE BLACK ROCK / SCAJAQUADA RIVERSIDE


4 Executive Summary

infrastructure and neighborhoodimprovements as well as presenting the longrange vision for this important internationalgateway. Volume 5 includes a description andanalysis of four other sites: Erie Street andPorter Avenue as primary nodes also haveaccompanying design guidelines, and theVirginia/Carolina/Niagara intersection and theNiagara Street/Scajaquada area as secondarynodes. Expanded Project Proposals volumeswere developed for the primary nodes.

The Expanded Project Proposal volumes offeralternatives to establish Erie Street (Volume 6)as a primary physical and visual connectionbetween downtown and the waterfront andto transform Porter Avenue (Volume 7) aspart of the Olmsted Park and Parkway systemfrom Niagara Street down to the water’sedge. The Erie Street reclamation is seen as apart of the “Great Streets” program of the

An aerial view of the Buffalo Waterfront that follows the skywayacross the Buffalo River. (Source: City of Buffalo)

Projects identified in the inventory to be integrated into the Buffalo CorridorManagement Project: Queen City Waterfront.


Executive Summary 5

this plan outlined by the LWRP andarticulated by citizens over the last thirtyyears. Because we know we cannot doeverything all at once, we know we mustfinish what we have already started, build onthe strength of past patterns of successfuldevelopment, and make new changes visibleto the public. We also know that we cannotafford to spend all of our resources in oneplace, and must focus our efforts strategically.

Finally, this plan suggests a framework foraccounting for the implementation of priorityprojects selected by the community. We havebuilt this strategy with an interagency groupled by the City of Buffalo that includes local,regional, state, and federal participants whoare responsible for regulating andimplementing the projects. The current multi-agency cooperation on waterfrontimplementation includes a process ofinformation sharing, coordination, problemsolving, and mutual accountability forpromised progress. It also builds on theactivities of non-governmental organizationslike Buffalo Place, Inc. on waterfront issuesrelated to Downtown, and the GreaterBuffalo Niagara Partnership’s WaterfrontAction Program for a more regional reach onwaterfront development.

Buffalonians know what they want for theirwaterfronts. They have expressed it time andtime again. The Queen City Waterfrontexpresses these aspirations through vision,policy, projects, designs, and a framework forsetting priorities and managingimplementation. Following this strategic planfor transportation improvements, Buffalo willbe a waterfront city again.

Queen City Hub: A Regional Action Plan forDowntown Buffalo, which was published in2004 as part of the program of workimplementing the city’s comprehensive plan.

Achieving the full potential of Buffalo’swaterfronts is dependent on the quality ofthe transportation connections from theneighborhoods to the water, such as anintegrated Peace Bridge Plaza, Porter Avenueand Erie Street. It is also dependent on thereduction of negative impacts on waterfrontaccess and development created by Interstate190, Route 5 “Skyway,” the west side railcorridor, and Fuhrmann Boulevard, all beingaddressed as projects at very different stagesof planning.

The Queen City Waterfront StrategicTransportation Plan also presents a simple butpowerful way for us to organize and act onour priorities for Buffalo’s waterfront corridor.We must always hew to the core values of

The transportation projects identified and evaluated in theproject inventory.

People who live in waterfront neighborhoods– Riverside, Black Rock, the West Side, LowerWest Side, Waterfront Village, and the OldFirst Ward, the Valley, and South Buffalo –want the places where they live to be betterconnected to the waterfront.

Buffalonians want the waterfronts to be agreat international gateway. All of the publicinterest in a new Peace Bridge testifies tothat. But the waterfront has several additionalgateways to Buffalo – along Niagara Street inRiverside, from the south along the OuterHarbor, in Downtown, as well as on PorterAvenue near the Peace Bridge.

We all want the quality of the environmentalong Buffalo’s waterfronts to improve. Thisincludes the quality and character of landsalong the waterfront as much as it means thepurity of the water itself so that it is safe toswim and fish. When we arrive at the water-front we want it to be safe and wholesome.

People want the waterfronts to contribute tothe greater prosperity of the City. It alwayshas. But while its economic role in the pastwas in commerce and industry, in the futureit will be in recreation, tourism, and amenitiesfor living. There is also room for water-dependent industrial and commercial devel-opment consistent with the waterfront’sother values.

Buffalo emerged from its waterfront and it is determined to return.

This is the simple, powerful, and incontrovertible fact that informs everythingwe as a community do about our waterfronts.It is the foundation beneath any plan wemight make. It is the inspiration runningthrough any vision we have for the future of our waterfronts.

Ordinarily, an action program would startwith a planning process, and a planningprocess would start with talking about avision. That’s not necessary for Buffalo’swaterfront now. We have already done thatpart. We have had the conversation – overand over again. We have made plans on topof plans. The vision is clear. It is time to act.

The elements of the vision are clear.

People want access to the waterfront. Theywant to see it, touch it, smell it and hear it.They want to put their boat or their fishingline in it. They want to jump in and swim.Residents want these things. So do all of our visitors.


6 A Community Vision: Recapturing Buffalo’s Waterfront

A Community Vision:

Recapturing Buffalo’s Waterfront

The mouth of the Buffalo River circa 1853 illustrating its status as a great intermodalcenter. (Source: Courtesy of Henry Baxter)

People enjoying the waterfront at Erie Basin Marina.

Where did the vision come from?

How do we know that this is Buffalo’s community vision for its waterfront? Just ask your friends about what they want forour waterfront. Ask your neighbors. Read in the paper what people have to say. Listento our elected officials. They will talk aboutthis vision.

But this is not a vision based on hearsay. The vision described here is grounded in amethodical assessment of three importantbodies of work: what we have done; planswe have made; and policies we have set.

As a community, we have been expressing aclear, consistent, and powerful vision for ourwaterfront for decades. Every chance wehave had to speak about the future of thewaterfront, we talked about this vision. Everytime we organized ourselves to act, we mani-fested this vision. By now, the vision is tooobvious to be denied.

The geography of the vision encompasses alarger land area than the Local WaterfrontRevitalization Program in order to accommo-date the connection of the neighborhoodsthroughout the City to its waterfronts. Byidentifying key developments in this largerarea, some of which are not explicitly waterfront, we are able to illustrate the interconnection of commercial and culturallife with the points of waterfront access and development potential, and to better discuss the role of transportation corridorsconnecting such life to the water.

The vision is already partly fulfilled.

There is an extraordinary array of projectsthat have actually been done over the pastquarter century, and there are many morehappening now. It is not very difficult toextrapolate from the positive changes wehave already made to a vision for the futurechanges we still want to make.

Finally, the waterfront is a vital corridor forlocal, regional, national, and internationaltransportation with all of the economic valuethat provides. Buffalonians want to improvethose functions while protecting all of theother important values of the waterfront.Transportation efficiency is an essential ingre-dient to the success of the waterfront even asit has been defined by the citizens as the singlegreatest obstacle to a better relationshipbetween the city and the waters of theBuffalo River, Lake Erie, and the Niagara River.Achieving the full potential of the waterfrontin Buffalo is dependent on the quality of thetransportation connections from the neigh-borhoods to the water and the reduction ofnegative impacts on waterfront access ofInterstate 190, Route 5 “Skyway,” the westside rail corridor, and Fuhrmann Boulevard.

It’s a beautiful, active, public waterfront.

Altogether, the community has a vision of awaterfront that is the beautiful, active, publicedge of our City, continuously accessible fromRiverside Park to Gallagher Beach and inlandalong the Buffalo River and ScajaquadaCreek. It is a vision of a city in which residentsgo down to enjoy the water as a part of dailylife, and whose neighborhoods are better offfor being there.

It is a vision of a waterfront in which visitorsarrive and immediately see and understandwhat is so special about this place. It is avision of a waterfront that is a safe andhealthy place to visit.

It is a vision of a waterfront that is an important part of our economy, providing an impetus for new development while weprotect what is most valuable about it.

It is a vision of connections between our City and the world, but also between the City and the waterfronts, braided carefully to accommodate the needs of transportationand safeguard the precious resources of thewaterfront.


A Community Vision: Recapturing Buffalo’s Waterfront 7


8 A Community Vision: Recapturing Buffalo’s Waterfront

We have a great legacy of planning on which to draw.

There has been a massive amount of waterfront planning conducted over the pastseveral decades. It is true that the ratio ofplanning to action has been too high. But thelibrary of plans we have reviewed – 120 in all– is eloquent testimony to what Buffalonianshave said – over and over again – about whatthey want on their waterfront.

These plans clearly demand the completionof a continuous and uninterrupted waterfrontpath from City line to City line, includingScajaquada Creek to Delaware Park, and theBuffalo River all the way to the West Senecaborder and Cazenovia Park. Likewise, theyseek the restoration of the city’s parks, espe-cially the Olmsted waterfront parks, Riverside,The Front, and South Park, along with LaSallePark and the establishment of a new StatePark on the Outer Harbor.

The planning legacy, likewise, envisions continuing work to improve housing, revitalize commercial districts, and make newdirect links between neighborhoods and thewaterfront. The plans also speak of newwaterfront neighborhoods on the OuterHarbor and elsewhere.

There must be continuing work to clean upthe Buffalo River through implementation of the Remedial Action Plan. Further work is necessary to clean up spoiled lands on theOuter Harbor and elsewhere. And the consolidation of the Buffalo River reserve suggested by Old Bailey Woods, SenecaBluffs, and Ogden Estates should be pursued.

The vision demands that we continue workon plans to redevelop old industrial lands,where appropriate, for continued industrialuse, such as the South BuffaloRedevelopment area. We can foresee newdevelopment along Niagara Street that willbe appropriate to that waterfront location.Certainly the development of tourist orientedattractions at the Erie Canal Harbor, OuterHarbor, Broderick Park, and elsewhere arefaithful to the vision.

The Riverwalk, Scajaquada Path, and BuffaloRiver Greenway, while not totally complete,have already fulfilled some of the public aspiration for direct access to the waterfronts.So have the Erie Basin Marina, the Small BoatHarbor, Gallagher Beach, and the OntarioStreet boat launch.

A variety of public efforts have improvedwater quality in Lake Erie, cleaned up HoytLake in Delaware Park, and addressed theproblem of contaminants in the Buffalo River.Damaged lands have been repaired onSquaw Island and the Outer Harbor, and still-wild lands preserved at Tifft Farm, Seneca Bluffs, and Old Bailey Woods.

Ongoing redevelopment of old industriallands on the Union Ship Canal and in theTonawanda Corridor speak to our need togrow our economy in ways that protect our most valuable waterfront lands. Work on the Erie Canal Harbor exemplifies theways we can redevelop our waterfront fornew economy sectors in recreation, tourism,and heritage.

The boardwalk at Gallagher Beach State Park.


A Community Vision: Recapturing Buffalo’s Waterfront 9

The plans share the vision for a great PeaceBridge gateway – not just a wonderfulbridge, but a great park and entrance to ourCity. There are other gateways to consider aswell, in the web of connections in Black Rockto the north, and at the entrance toDowntown from the south.

Finally, the plans express the vision that transportation infrastructure must move people and goods, but also make the waterfront more accessible and protectwaterfront values. Work on a newSouthtowns Connector proceeds in this spirit. Proposals as big as replacing theSkyway and as small as building a newpedestrian bridge at Riverside Park are allembodied in this vision.

The vision is expressed in emerging policy.

Our collective vision for the waterfront is also visible in the emerging body of officialCity policy and the evolving legal frameworkfor planning in Buffalo. The BuffaloComprehensive Plan, The Queen City in the21st Century, is the master legal documentfor planning in Buffalo and it puts greatemphasis on the role of the waterfront in our City’s revival and codifies all of the valuesexpressed above.

The Queen City Hub: A Regional Action Planfor Downtown Buffalo makes the waterfrontone of three organizing principles for contin-uing redevelopment of Downtown, alongwith the Ellicott radial and grid street plansand the Olmsted parks and parkway system.Without the elaboration of new connectionsbetween Downtown and the waterfront, nei-ther Downtown nor the waterfront can reachtheir fullest potential.

Finally, the draft City of Buffalo LocalWaterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) will tailor New York State Coastal ZoneManagement policies for waterfront protectionand development for specific application inBuffalo. Once adopted, these will be City lawgoverning Buffalo’s entire waterfront. Both theLWRP and the downtown plan are incorporatedin the new Buffalo Comprehensive Plan.

It is time to take our waterfront back.

It is often said that nothing has been accom-plished to create the waterfront we all want.The frustration that people feel is certainlyunderstandable. There is much still to bedone. But it is simply not true that we havemade no progress. There is much to cele-brate: cleaner water, expanded access, andthe beginnings of responsible efforts to takeeconomic advantage of our waterfrontresources. We should celebrate.

Likewise, it has long been popular to readthat many “plans are gathering dust on ashelf” and to present this as evidence of ourown incompetence, inertia, and failure. Thatalso is inaccurate. A much more positive –and more useful – interpretation is possible.This surfeit of plans reflects our collective persistence in expressing community desiresthat would build on what has already been done.

Finally, there are some who would like to say we lack a vision for the waterfront. Yet,Buffalonians have repeatedly spoken, written,and drawn their vision for the waterfront. We have done it in many different venues,and in many different ways. We have evenbuilt several elements of the vision, and thereis no confusion about the essential meaningof our vision. Buffalonians want our water-front back from the non-waterfront uses, pollution, and transportation infrastructuredecisions that currently deny us access.

The Queen City Waterfront represents a tested approach to organizing for action. Itrequires translating our clear vision and well-developed plans into immediate communitypriorities for implementation. Then it asks allof those who have the power to get projectsdone to work together, solve problems, andhold each other accountable. If we do this,we will get our waterfronts back.

The Queen City Hub is a plan fordowntown Buffalo that places the centerof the city in the context of the region.


10 The Approach

The Planning Legacy The Queen City Waterfront’s strategic plan for transportation improvements, representsan unconventional approach to planning. Amore conventional method would involve anorderly process, moving from visioning andgoal setting, to project identification andalternatives evaluation, to programming andimplementation. A less conventionalapproach is required because Buffalo hasalready done most of that work. We don’tneed to start over again; we need to affirmwhat has been done, fill in the pieces andcarry it forward.

The current plan is the product of theWaterfront Corridor Initiative (WCI) an effort to integrate past planning work, emergingpolicy development, and ongoing projectimplementation within the framework of acoherent vision, accompanying goals, and priorities for action. The plan incorporates acareful analysis of more than 120 planningdocuments containing nearly 700 individual project proposals. It integrates policy contentfrom The City of Buffalo’s Local WaterfrontRevitalization Program, The Queen City Hub:A Regional Action Plan for DowntownBuffalo, and The Queen City in the 21stCentury: Buffalo’s Comprehensive Plan. It alsoincludes ongoing work on projects that havealready been approved and funded.

Methods of WorkThe Queen City Waterfront (Buffalo CorridorManagement Plan) was a complex anddiverse planning effort that included manytasks, from environmental analysis to themanagement of agency participation. Foreach task, the project team developed anapproach to best accomplish the objectives.In some instances, such as the work requiredfor the Expaned Project Proposals (EPPs) andnodal analyses, we employed traditionaltransportation and environmental planningmethods to describe, analyze and developalternative proposals. Yet other tasks, such asthe planning legacy, used an archival method-ology, and in the case of the Peace Bridge, weemployed interactive computer technologyalong with intense design charettes torespond appropriately to the questionspoised. There is a more elaborate descriptionof the methods of these two tasks below.

The diverse approach taken to this plan alsorecognized the need to involve members of the public – residents, community organizations, public agencies, businesses,not-for-profits, and other stakeholders – in a continuous process of participation. Thishas included opportunities for citizens tolearn about the work in progress, to discussthe vision and goals of waterfront planning,and to review and comment on emergingproposals. These efforts have included aseries of large-scale public meetings, meetings of agency representatives, specialsessions with stakeholder groups and individuals, publication of a regular newsletter,and updated web-postings. A more detailedsummary of these activities follows.

the approach


The Approach 11

The analysis of planning documents pro-duced for Buffalo’s waterfront over the past quarter century suggests a number of important conclusions:

• Many of the community’s aspirationsfor the waterfront have already beenachieved or will be achieved in thenear future, and there is a strong constituency for further action.

• The community vision and goals forthe waterfront are clear, coherent, and consistent based on thorough andcontinuing citizen participation, themanifest values of plans and projects,and explicit public policy language.

• There are a large number of viable projects, ready to go or nearly so, thatcan tangibly advance the cause ofwaterfront transformation.

Recent Achievements

A careful accounting of completed projectscontradicts the common complaint that“nothing is getting done” on the waterfront.Over the course of the 1970s, 1980s, and1990s, many important accomplishmentshave been made on the waterfront:

• Water quality in Lake Erie, the BuffaloRiver, Scajaquada Creek, and HoytLake has been improved.

• Public access has been expanded along the Riverwalk and theScajaquada Creek Pathway and at ErieBasin Marina, Gallagher Beach,Broderick Park, Bird Island Pier, SmithStreet, Squaw Island, Ontario Street,and Towpath Park.

• Natural habitats have been preservedat Tifft Farm, Smith Street, Old BaileyWoods, and Seneca Bluffs.

• Access for boaters has been expanded at the Small Boat Harbor,Erie Basin Marina, and the Ohio Street boat launch.

Bird Island Pier remains one of the most successful waterfrontprojects in the city.

Tifft Nature Preserve was saved as a wildlife reserve in the 1970s.

The Small Boat Harbor on Lake Erie represents a success storyfor recreational uses of the waterfront.

• Transportation facilities have beenimproved with projects like the removalof the Father Baker Bridge.

• Phase I of Erie Canal Harbor was complete in 2003. Phase I includes$15.5 million in improvements, including Veterans Park, relocating andrepairs to the three naval vessels, andconstruction of the new Naval Basin.

Further testimony to the consistent and long-standing support for these goals is thefact that all of the projects reviewed heresupport at least one, if not more, of the goals outlined. Our review of projects ineighty-eight waterfront sites revealed that:

• Seventy-two projects provide publicaccess to the City’s waterfrontresources;

• Sixty-seven projects support economic development goals;

• Fifty-six projects revitalize the City’s neighborhoods, connecting them to the waterfront;

• Forty-three projects protect and repair the ecological health of thewaterfront areas;

• Ten projects celebrate the City’s position as an International Gateway; and

• Fifty-five projects relate to the management of waterfront transportation.

Further documentation on these points isavailable in the following section of thisreport, in the summary of projects and sitesbelow, and in the appendices of this plan.

Projects and Proposals

As noted above, more than 120 differentplanning and project documents were gath-ered from government agencies, public anduniversity libraries, organizations, individuals,and elsewhere. Any document, from themost thorough comprehensive plan to themost rudimentary project proposal, has beenincluded as long as it has dealt with ideas forchange in the geography of the Buffalowaterfront.


12 The Approach

Just as importantly, work on Buffalo’s waterfront has generated a powerful record of citizen participation and a growingorganized waterfront constituency. TheBuffalo Waterfront Master Plan, the HorizonsWaterfront Plan, the Local WaterfrontRevitalization Program, and many otherefforts have created a clear record of publicdemand for a better waterfront.

Likewise, the growth of citizen advocacygroups including the Buffalo NiagaraRiverkeeper, Southtowns Walleye Association,the North District Waterfront AdvisoryCommittee, the League of Women Voters,the Common Council Waterfront Task Force,the Buffalo Development Council’sWaterfront Action Program, the LaSalle ParkSteering Committee, and many others contin-ue to contribute to the process of defining acommunity waterfront vision.

Vision, Goals and Policy

There is a powerful alignment within thewaterfront vision as expressed in public discussion over many years, as explicitly stated in official City policy, and in the intentof active projects for Buffalo’s waterfronts. An analysis of this diverse body of evidenceshows a strong convergence around six fundamental goals for continuing develop-ment of the Buffalo waterfront:

• Develop the economic strength ofneighborhoods, the community, andthe region;

• Extend direct access to our waterfrontfrom Riverside to South Buffalo andeverywhere in between;

• Revitalize our waterfront neighbor-hoods and connect them to the water;

• Protect and repair the health of ourwater, land, and wildlife along thewaterfront;

• Create a magnificent InternationalGateway at and around the PeaceBridge; and

• Manage waterfront transportationresources to support these goals.


The Approach 13

These documents were reviewed, one byone, with an eye toward identifying everydiscrete project proposal put forward inthem. Some of the documents producedonly one project proposal. Others, typicallythe broad-scale master plans, produceddozens of proposals. In all, nearly 700 projectproposals have been listed, including manyprojects that have been proposed repeatedlyin different documents.

To make this review more manageable, these proposals were organized first by project site and then by regions of the city.There were a total of eighty-eight individualsites considered in the review organized in five regions and “transportation connections.” These include:

• Transportation Connections

• Inner Harbor/Downtown

• Outer Harbor/South Buffalo

• Buffalo River

• Gateway/West Side

• Riverside/Black Rock/Scajaquada

For each site, the project team prepared anabstract summarizing the documented plansand project proposals. Each abstract (seeVolume 2: Project Site Abstracts) includes adiscussion of the dominant and alternateconcepts proposed for each site; a commentabout how the dominant concept serves City goals and policies; a brief description of public outreach and community support foreach proposal; a listing of public agencies relevant to the project; an assessment ofoverall project feasibility; a description of thelevel of concept development for the proposal; and a note on any additional factors that may deserve consideration.

Based on the information collected in eachabstract, each dominant concept proposedwas assessed in terms of:

• consistency of project goals with theoverall City policy;

• evidence of public involvement andsupport;

• evidence of agency involvement and support;

• general assessment of overall feasibility; and

• level of technical documentation.

Five sub-areas were created to facilitate the planning of thewaterfront in addition to the overall Transportation planning.


14 The Approach

Based on an assessment of all five factors,each project was given a provisional rankingof “A” through “D.” (See Volume 2:Waterfront Planning Inventory and Analysisfor complete analysis). This assessment is different from a priority ranking, which wouldattempt to determine the relative importanceof each project, because this exercise isintended to assess the general readiness ofeach project proposal. The assessment ofreadiness continues to require careful technical review by agency staff and others.

The four categories of readiness are:

Recent achievements – projects that arecomplete or already under construction.

Current work – projects that are movingforward with clear sponsorship, funding, andsupport.

Emerging projects – projects that are consistent with vision and goals and are otherwise well-developed, but may needassistance in terms of funding, technicaldevelopment, public consensus formation,problem solving or otherwise.

Long term work – projects that are consis-tent with vision and goals, but which willrequire longer term work.

Projects that have been proposed but are notconsistent with vision, goals or policy werenot included. A listing of projects by categoryand a brief description of each project followsin this volume in the section, “Achieving theVision.”

Peace Bridge GatewayImprovementsMethodologyThis plan involved the formulation of a vision for Buffalo’s international gateway at the Peace Bridge. The proposed PeaceBridge and landing have been the subject of intense public debate in the city. Thesedebates, however, have been conducted inthe absence of any physical representations of what the various proposals might actually look on the ground and how theywould impact the neighboring parks andcommunities.

After years of contention about the form and style of the proposed bridge, the City ofBuffalo did have a vision for the neighbor-hoods abutting the bridge and plaza thatwould assure a grand gateway into the city,restore park land, protect neighboring prop-erty from the negative effects of bridge andplaza traffic, and provide economic as well ascommunity development of the areas sur-rounding the plaza and Front Park. Theimplementation of this vision was, to a largeextent, dependent on the decision betweenthe United States and Canada as to whetheror not there would be a shared border man-agement strategy. If this agreement could notbe reached, then there would have to beduplicate customs processes on both sides ofthe border with the consequential use ofmore land.

The Waterfront Corridor Initiative (WCI) proj-ect team was requested to develop conceptu-al designs for the three major alternatives –the South Plaza, the North Plaza, and theShared Border Management Plaza, as well asto prepare a critique and alternatives to thePeace Bridge Authority’s proposal for interimimprovements. This work had a very tighttimeframe from the City’s perspective; theymade their request in April 2004 and request-ed the alternatives within three months. Thisobviously influenced the methods of work.


The Approach 15

Stakeholder and Public Participation1

As useful as the analysis of the planning legacy has been for framing the community’swaterfront vision, setting goals, and evaluat-ing the merits of individual projects, ongoingand current participation by a wide range ofstakeholders has also been vital to the BuffaloWaterfront Corridor Initiative. The analysis ofplanning documents has provided a greatdeal of information about citizen aspirationsover the course of several decades. Still, it hasbeen necessary to involve stakeholders andcitizens in general in the continuing conversa-tion about matters both general and specific.

Toward that end, this project has included awide range of participatory processes andevents which are summarized below. (Moredetails are available in Electronic Appendix Dwith this volume.) The goals of the participa-tion component were:

1. To inform the public of the successes and challenges of Buffalo waterfront development over the last twenty years –outlining projects completed, ready to be done, and long range;

2. To facilitate inter-agency communicationregarding current planning and designefforts, and working toward implementation;

3. To set priorities for short term and longterm transportation and economic develop-ment projects on the waterfront; and

4. To gather input and comment regardingagency and stakeholder interests in upcoming projects.

Elements of the participation process included open public meetings, coordinationand policy review meetings involving personnel from multiple agencies involved in waterfront work, targeted meetings, focus groups and interviews with stakeholdersin waterfront nodes, newsletters, and webpostings.

Since 1996, Mayor Anthony Masiello hadconsistently argued for shared border management to minimize the footprint of the plaza and to improve the efficiency andthe security of the border crossing. Yet, in the spring of 2004, there was still no sharedborder accord. A design inquiry into theimplications of all the proposals was neededin order to argue for a shared border resolu-tion given the uncertainty of the political context in 2004.

The team employed an intense urban designcharette format to test alternatives. On May11 and 12, 2004, a diverse team of profes-sional landscape architects, planners, trans-portation engineers and city officials met tomake major planning and design decisionswithin the two-day window. These decisionswere later be flushed out and developed bythe project team. The charette was held atthe University at Buffalo’s Center forComputational Research (CCR) where interac-tive computer technologies enabled us todevelop proposals, to overlay them to scaleover existing maps, and to “fly over” theseareas to actually see the consequences of various actions. Comparisons could be madequickly between the various alternatives and different design strategies could be evaluated.

This task was completed by June 2004 andwas instrumental in convincing many stake-holders in the City of Buffalo and Erie Countyof the appropriateness and benefits of theshared border strategy. When an agreementto proceed with shared border wasannounced by the U.S. and Canadian governments in 2004, Buffalo was alreadyunderway in planning both the interim and long term changes to its waterfrontinternational gateway.

The Peace Bridge Plaza and Neighborhoodvisions were initially developed duringintense charettes.

1 The public participation outlined in this volume includes all of the work done specifically undercontract for the Buffalo Corridor Waterfront Initiative. However, this outline does not reflect thethousands of hours of public review about waterfront issues: it does not include the series of publicmeetings and review cycles of material that were a part of the 120 planning documents produced bythe various agencies responsible for the regulation, development and implementation of any of thehistoric plans and projects.


16 The Approach

Major Conferences and Public Events

• “State of the Waters” conference, April 6, 2002 at the BuffaloConvention Center, providing a kick-offfor the Waterfront Corridor Initiative, areport on recent work and upcomingchallenges, and displays of ongoingprojects. Attendance: 150.

• “Buffalo Waterfront Conference,” May17, 2003 at The Pier, including presen-tations by area public officials, lessonsfrom waterfront planning in Louisville,Kentucky, and an interactive workshopto help prioritize elements of the emerg-ing waterfront plan and the identifica-tion of key nodes. Attendance: 150.

• “Buffalo Waterfront Workshop,” May 15, 2004 at the Buffalo and ErieCounty Historical Society, to presentthe draft Local WaterfrontRevitalization Program for review and comment, offer Erie Street and PorterAvenue design guide and ExpandedProject Proposals for review, presentthe draft strategic plan for transporta-tion improvements, and review ongo-ing work on current projects.Attendance: 75.

Inter-Agency Meetings for Coordinationand Policy Review

• Interagency review of LWRP process,proposals and policies, January 17,2002 at the Buffalo Yacht Club, including participation by public agencies and community organizations.Attendance: 40.

• Interagency Coordination Meeting,January 7, 2004 at Buffalo City Hall,presenting plans and designs from bothLWRP and WCI to impacted agencies and stakeholder groups and initiating coordination process.Attendance: 50.

• Interagency Coordination Meeting,March 8, 2004 at Buffalo City Hall, presenting updates of LWRP and WCIincluding emerging EPPs for PorterAvenue and Erie Street. Attendance:40.

• Buffalo Waterfront Projects Updatemeeting, November 19, 2004 atBuffalo City Hall, including updates byWCI and LWRP teams to multi-agencyaudience and presentations by otheragencies on various projects.Attendance: 47.

• Buffalo Waterfront Projects Updatemeeting, June 20, 2005 in the ErieCounty Industrial Development Agencyboard room, providing an update onseventeen key projects on the OuterHarbor and Inner Harbor by multipleagencies and an overview of the fullseven volumes of the Queen CityWaterfront. Attendance: 41.

Meetings, Focus Groups and Interviewsfor “Gateway Node” ProposalDevelopment

• Erie Street gateway node stakeholderinterviews, March and April 2004.More than ten interviews with keystakeholders and property ownersalong the Erie Street corridor.

• Erie Street proposal review meeting,April 29, 2004 at Buffalo Place Inc., to receive comment on urban designanalysis and proposed guidelines.Attendance: 12.

• Porter Avenue preliminary meetingwith West Side CommunityCollaborative, April 2004 at NiagaraBranch Library, to organize for broaderparticipation. Attendance: 6.

• Porter Avenue neighborhood meeting,May 11, 2004 at First PresbyterianChurch, to present and discuss pro-posed design guidelines for PorterAvenue. Attendance: 10.

Over 150 people actively participated in theMay 2003 "Buffalo Waterfront Conference.


The Approach 17

ConclusionIn an era of diminished public resources and growing disenchantment with planningprocesses, starting from scratch with eachnew planning effort is a luxury that we cannot afford. The Buffalo CorridorManagement Project has demonstrated an alternative to conventional planningapproaches.

The work has taken advantage of both thetechnical analyses and the participatory workthat went into past plans, and reconstitutedthis legacy through continuing agency reviewand public participation. The approach under-stands this plan not as a new attempt to succeed where others have failed, but as acontinuation and an upgrade of an iterativeand interconnected process of planning,action, and evaluation leading to revised plansas well as strategic project implementation.

By building this plan on the foundation ofmore than a quarter century of concertedplanning efforts for Buffalo’s waterfronts, we have anchored it to the long term anddeeply-felt aspirations of the community. At the same time, this project has workedhard to renew the vision, goals, and projectpriorities of the community through conscientious public participation. Finally, the plan uses the transportation corridor asits basic unit of analysis, explicitly recognizingthe strengths and limitations of present corridor management and the array of projects required to better balance the transportation needs of the region and community with local waterfront revitalization.

• Porter Avenue meeting with BuffaloOlmsted Parks Conservancy advisorycommittee, May 2004 at ParksideLodge, to present and discuss proposeddesign guidelines for Porter Avenue.Attendance: 20.

• Porter Avenue property owners meeting, June 9, 2004 at Chief PettyOfficers’ Club, Porter Avenue, to present and discuss proposed designguidelines for Porter Avenue.Attendance: 20.

Buffalo Waterfront Corridor Initiative Newsletters

• Spring 2003, Vol. 1, Issue 1:Introduction of the WCI project, reviewof LWRP work ahead and review of keyprojects from the planning inventory.

• Summer 2003, Vol. 1, Issue 2: A reviewof the results of the May 2003 “Stateof the Waters” conference.

• Spring 2004, Vol. 2, Issue 1:Announcing May “Buffalo WaterfrontWorkshop” and presenting an updateof work on the LWRP.

In addition, information about the WaterfrontCorridor Initiative, the Local WaterfrontRevitalization Program, and ongoing water-front project work was posted to the City ofBuffalo waterfront website available at thelink: www.city-buffalo.com.

The WCI and LWRP were often presented tothe public and discussed jointly at agencymeetings. The two efforts are intimately con-nected through a shared geography and alsothrough their complementary roles: the LocalWaterfront Revitalization Program representspolicy and regulation, and the WCI framesprojects and an implementation strategies.Therefore, when appropriate, meetings werecoordinated with the LWRP planning effortsto reflect the relationship between theemerging policies and the transportationstrategic implementation plan.


18 The Policy Framework: Local Waterfront Revitalization Program

BackgroundThe State of New York coastal managementprogram already provides for the administra-tion of waterfront areas according to a genericset of thirteen policies aimed at enhancingthe character of waterfront communities, promoting appropriate economic development,protecting and restoring natural resources,protecting and improving environmentalquality, and promoting use of waterfrontsand protecting cultural resources there. (See Volume 3 for the final draft of the Cityof Buffalo Local Waterfront RevitalizationProgram.)

The Local Waterfront Revitalization Programallows the City of Buffalo to tailor thosebroad policies to respond to specific circum-stances and meet local needs in the coastalzone along the Niagara River, Lake Erie shore-line, Scajaquada Creek, Buffalo River andCazenovia Creek. These policies will providethe framework for an action strategy to helpmake the City’s vision for the waterfront areality. This action strategy will include pro-posals for changes in land use, revisions tomunicipal zoning, prioritization of capitalprojects for waterfront improvement, and acomprehensive listing of public and privateactions required to implement the strategy.

The LWRP was developed by the City ofBuffalo with the assistance of outside planning consultants and in close collaborationwith waterfront communities, stakeholdersand citizens-at-large. It was based on a carefulanalysis of existing land use and zoning, cultural and historic resources, water quality,natural resources, other environmental constraints, public access and recreationalopportunities, concerns about flooding anderosion, and navigational requirements alongBuffalo’s waterfronts.

The City of Buffalo’s Local WaterfrontRevitalization Program (LWRP) is the officialpolicy framework for planning along thewaterfronts of the Queen City. It applies federal coastal zone management policiesthat are tailored to local needs and circum-stances through a state-administered coastalmanagement program. When approved bythe Mayor, adopted by Common Council and accepted by the Department of State,the LWRP will be the authoritative policyframework for Buffalo’s waterfront develop-ment and preservation.

The boundaries of the LWRP and Buffalo Waterfront CorridorInitiative are similar, but the transportation corridor requires alarger area to address the adjoining network of local roads.

The Policy Framework: Local

Waterfront Revitalization Program


The Policy Framework: Local Waterfront Revitalization Program 19

appreciation of the depth of policies and policy standards requires a close of the LWRPitself (See Volume 4). What follows is a briefsummary of the policies with highlights ofwhat each one will mean for Buffalo’s waterfronts.

Policies for the Developed Waterfront

1. Foster a pattern of development in thecoastal area that enhances communitycharacter, preserves open space, makesefficient use of infrastructure, makes beneficial use of a coastal location, andminimizes adverse effects of development.For Buffalo, this means to:

• Concentrate development and redevelopment in order to revitalizedeteriorated and underutilized areas of the waterfront, and strengthen andprioritize the traditional waterfrontfocus of these areas.

• Ensure that development or land usesmake beneficial use of their coastallocation, promoting water-dependentand water-enhanced uses.

• Maintain and enhance natural areas,recreational areas, and open space.

• Minimize the potential adverse environ-mental, land use, or economic impactsof development and redevelopmentthrough zoning revisions, enforcement,and other appropriate measures.

• Protect and strengthen the quality oflife in waterfront residential areasincluding Riverside and Black Rock, sections of Front Park, and the SenecaBabcock neighborhood.

• Develop and adopt a waterfront trans-portation plan that addresses localaccess, as well as access to Canada.

• Lend focus to the waterfront as anInternational Gateway.

This analysis has helped identify specificopportunities or areas of concern on thewaterfront, with an emphasis on identifyingabandoned or underutilized areas that needrevitalization, and assessing where and howwe can improve the connections betweenland and water. This analysis attempted tobalance proposals for land use with protec-tion of natural resources and always toemphasize the promotion of land uses on ornear the water to be “water-dependent uses.”

Benefits of an LWRPThe Local Waterfront Revitalization Programprovides an array of benefits for local spon-sors. In the case of Buffalo, it will provide theCity greater control over state and federalactions proposed along the waterfront andbetter coordination with those agencies. Itwill increase Buffalo’s ability to attract devel-opment along the waterfront and assure that this development is appropriate to thewaterfront location.

The LWRP will also improve Buffalo’s chancesfor winning both public and private grantfunding for waterfront projects. Funders usually want to know that their resources arebeing directed according to a larger planningframework. Overall, the LWRP will promotechanges in the Buffalo waterfront that willhelp revitalize it and improve community andenvironmental quality of life.

Policies The LWRP includes a comprehensive anddetailed set of policies, policy rationales andpolicy standards specifically tailored to localcircumstances along Buffalo’s waterfronts.These begin with the generic policies stipulat-ed by federal and state governments butextend into far greater detail as they areapplied to the Buffalo local waterfront revitalization area. A full understanding and

2. Preserve historic resources, including efforts to:

• Maximize preservation and retention ofhistoric resources in general, using theU.S. Secretary of the Interior’sStandards for Identification, Restorationand Rehabilitation as a guide.

• Protect and preserve archaeologicalresources in the vicinity of the innerharbor, along the Buffalo River, and inother areas of the waterfront.

• Protect and enhance resources that aresignificant to the coastal culture andmaritime, industrial, and political historyreflected in Buffalo’s harbor, grain elevators, Erie Canal, and UndergroundRailroad sites.

• Protect and promote historic ship-wrecks in the waters off the Buffalowaterfront.

• Preserve and enhance historic light-houses and other navigational struc-tures situated in the Buffalo Harbor.

3. Enhance visual quality and protect outstanding scenic resources, including measures to:

• Protect, enhance and improve visualquality throughout the local waterfront revitalization area.

• Identify and protect aesthetic valuesassociated with recognized areas ofhigh scenic quality.

• Protect the aesthetic quality of locallyrecognized scenic areas.



Policies for the Natural Waterfront

4. Minimize loss of life, structures, and naturalresources from flooding and erosion,including measures to:

• Minimize the loss of human life andstructures from flooding and erosionhazards.

• Protect public lands and public trustlands and the use of these lands whenundertaking all erosion or flood controlprojects.

• Manage navigation infrastructure to limit adverse impacts on coastalprocesses.

• Expend public funds for the manage-ment or control of flooding or erosionhazards only in areas of the waterfrontthat will result in a proportionate public benefit.

5. Protect and improve water resources,including measures to:

• Prohibit direct discharges that wouldcause or contribute to the contraven-tion of water quality standards and targets in local surface waters.

• Minimize non-point source pollution of coastal waters and manage activitiescausing non-point source pollution.

• Protect and enhance the quality of surface waters in Buffalo.

• Protect and conserve the quality andquantity of potable water.

• Support efforts to develop a commonsystem for the management of the use,withdrawal, and diversion of waterfrom the Great Lakes basin.



• Remediate inactive hazardous wastesites, particularly in Sub-Areas 3 and 4, which adversely impact significantenvironmental resources, water quality,or important habitat areas.

• Encourage community awareness andstewardship of natural resources alongthe waterfronts through citizen workand public education.

• Prohibit purchase by the City of Buffaloproducts containing, in whole or inpart, wood from tropical or temperaterainforests excepting those woods thatare proven to have been harvested inan environmentally sound manner ascertified by the Forest StewardshipCouncil.

7. Protect and improve air quality, includingmeasures to:

• Control or abate existing and preventnew air pollution.

• Limit discharges of atmosphericradioactive material to a level that is as low as practicable.

• Capture and recycle chlorofluorocarboncompounds during service and repair ofair conditioning and refrigeration unitsto the greatest extent possible.

• Limit sources and remediate the impactsof the atmospheric deposition of pollu-tants to Lake Erie and the Niagara River,particularly from nitrogen sources.

8. Minimize environmental degradation fromsolid waste and hazardous substances andwastes, including measures to:

• Encourage the management of solidwaste to protect public health and control pollution.

• Manage hazardous wastes to protectpublic health and control pollution.

• Protect the environment from degrada-tion due to toxic pollutants and sub-stances hazardous to the environment.

• Prevent and remediate the discharge of petroleum products.

6. Protect and restore ecological resources,including significant fish and wildlife habitats, wetlands, and rare ecologicalcommunities, including measures to:

• Protect State-designated SignificantCoastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats.

• Support and manage the restoration of significant coastal fish and wildlifehabitats, wherever possible, so as tofoster their continued existence as natural, self-regulating systems.

• Protect and develop areas as locally significant fish and wildlife refugesand/or habitats, where appropriate,including portions of the Buffalo River,Scajaquada Creek and Hoyt Lake,northern Squaw Island, the OgdenEstate Property, and lands connectingthe Tifft Nature Preserve with theBuffalo River.

• Protect, restore, and create freshwaterwetlands in appropriate areas, includingSeneca Bluffs, Ogden Estates, andTimes Beach.

• Manage harbor operations, includingvessel speed limits and no wake zones,to protect ecological resources from disturbance.

• Limit bank disturbance and dredgingand filling activities, particularly alongthe Buffalo River.

• Manage dredging of designated navigation channels in the BuffaloHarbor area in a manner consistentwith the protection of significant fish and wildlife habitats and otherimportant resources.

• Support the remediation, to the great-est extent possible, of contaminatedBuffalo River, Niagara River, ScajaquadaCreek and Hoyt Lake bottom sedimentsas per the Buffalo and Niagara RiverRemedial Action Plans.



• Transport solid waste and hazardoussubstances and waste using routes that protect the safety, well-being, andgeneral welfare of the public and theenvironmental resources of the State,and using methods that provide for the continued use of all transportationcorridors, highways and facilities.

• Prohibit waterfront siting of solid andhazardous waste facilities, includingautomobile scrap facilities, transfer stations, and concrete recycling facilities,as inappropriate uses for the waterfrontand phase out such facilities as alreadyexist when possible.

Policies for the Public Waterfront

9. Improve public access to and use of publiclands and waters, including measures to:

• Promote appropriate physical publicaccess and recreation throughout the waterfront areas.

• Provide public visual access to waterfront lands and waters at all sites, where practical.

• Preserve public interest in and use of lands and waters held in public trust by the State.

• Assure public access along public trust lands above the line of mean low water mark.

• Provide access and recreation that is compatible with natural resource values.

• Where feasible, establish and maintainownership of the waterfront to ensurepublic use and access.

• Where feasible, utilize conservationeasements to provide public access and greenway trail development alongthe waterfront.

Policies for the Working Waterfront

10. Protect existing water-dependent uses,promote the siting of new water-dependent uses in suitable locations, and support efficient harbor operation,including measures to:

• Protect and improve the economic vitality of water-dependent uses alongthe City of Buffalo waterfronts, includ-ing marinas, transshipment facilities,water and wastewater treatmentplants, and other land uses that requirea waterfront location to effectivelyoperate.

• Promote the siting of new water-dependent uses at suitable locationsand provide for their safe operation.

• Protect and improve the economic viability of water-dependent uses.

• Allow water-enhanced uses that com-plement or improve the viability ofwater-dependent uses.

• Promote the efficient management ofsurface waters and underwater lands.

• Support efficient harbor operations.

• Enhance the City’s waterfront as a quality of life amenity to attract potentialbusinesses, laborers, and visitors to theCity and region.

11. Promote the sustainable use of fish andwildlife resources, including measures to:

• Ensure the long term maintenance andhealth of living marine resources inLake Erie, the Niagara River, and theBuffalo River.

• Provide for commercial and recreationaluse of Lake Erie and Niagara River fisheries.

12. Protect existing agricultural lands – not applicable to Buffalo.



SUB-AREA 1: Riverside, Black Rock, Squaw IslandNorth, and Scajaquada Creek

This area of the LWRP now has a mix of commercial and residential land uses, including water-dependent marine-orientedcommercial uses, with some important areasof parkland and cultural uses and a large area of industrial and former industrial uses.Proposals for continued and new land uses include:

• Keep mix of neighborhood commercialand residential uses along the east sideof Niagara Street.

• Water-dependent and marine commer-cial uses should be continued andexpanded, where appropriate, alongthe waterfront, west of the Interstate 190 and Niagara Street.

13. Promote appropriate use and develop-ment of energy and mineral resources,including measures to:

• Conserve energy resources in transportation, building design and construction, landscaping, and recycling.

• Promote alternative energy sources thatare self-sustaining, including solar andwind powered energy generation.

• Do not site energy generating andtransmission facilities along the Buffalowaterfront that utilize non-renewableresources because they are consideredinappropriate uses that would not provide significant public benefit.

• Minimize adverse impacts from aboveground and underground fuel storagefacilities, particularly in Sub-Area 3 and along the Buffalo River corridor in Sub-Area 4.

• Prohibit commercial mining and othermineral or gravel extraction activities as inappropriate uses for the Buffalowaterfront.

• Conduct ice management practicesthat do not interfere with infrastructuresystems, impair significant fish andwildlife and their habitats or increaseshoreline erosion or flooding.

• Discourage development of energyresources on the outer continental shelfin Lake Erie.

Land Use by Sub-AreaThe LWRP for the Buffalo waterfront also provides a broad framework for revitalizationand restoration of waterfront lands throughan overall proposal for appropriate land usesconsistent with the policies of the LWRP aswell as with the goals for the Queen CityWaterfront. Ultimately, this proposal will betranslated into land use and zoning maps to govern ongoing development in the LWRP. This section provides a brief overviewof that proposal.

The sub-areas used for the Local Waterfront Revitalization Programhelped structure the City’s plan. (Source: Wendell Duchscherer)



• Consider existing residential building onthe waterfront for multiple-use, withcommercial and neighborhood retailand service uses on the ground level.

• Keep mix of neighborhood commercialand residential uses on Amherst Street.

• Revitalize old industrial lands inTonawanda Street industrial corridorand south of Scajaquada Creek byimproving existing infrastructure andaesthetics and creating a fifty footriparian buffer along the creek.

• Protect, preserve and enhance Olmsted-designed Riverside Park and Delaware Park.

• Reserve land at mouth of ScajaquadaCreek to complement the ScajaquadaPathway.

• Promote conversion of the ScajaquadaExpressway to boulevard or parkway as consistent with these proposals.

• Keep wastewater treatment plant onSquaw Island as a water-dependent use.

• Redevelop north end of Squaw Islandas a public park.

• Reestablish northern tip of SquawIsland as a protected wildlife habitat.

• Connect Squaw Island Park withBroderick Park by public pathway.

• Continue exploration of means to mitigate negative impacts of highwayinfrastructure on neighborhoods and toreconnect residential areas to the water.

SUB-AREA 2: West Side, Peace Bridge Gateway, Lower Niagara Street, Downtown and Northern Outer Harbor

This area has an extraordinary variety of land uses including mixed commercial andlight industrial along upper Niagara Street,residential near the Peace Bridge, importantpark lands, waterfront residential, and significant vacant lands on the northernOuter Harbor. Proposals for continued andnew land uses include:

• Keep mix of commercial and lightindustrial uses along Niagara Street,from Forest Avenue to the PeaceBridge.

• Take advantage of historic brick building stock for light industrial, office and loft residential uses.

• Improve the aesthetic quality of thisarea to compensate for limited opportunities for immediate water-side development.

• Take advantage of views of the NiagaraRiver, Squaw Island and Canada.

• Improve streetscape to enhance thisneighborhood and increase its value as a segment of the New York StateSeaway Trail.

• Improve Riverwalk multi-use pathwaysystem to facilitate better public accessto the waterfront and improve bicycleand pedestrian safety.

• Redevelop the Peace Bridge Plaza as an international gateway with sharedborder management and minimumnegative impact on surrounding community from demolitions, trucktraffic or other nuisances.

• Revitalize the gateway area adjacent to the Peace Bridge Plaza through reinvestments in Front Park and LaSallePark.

• Revise Porter Avenue as an Olmstedianboulevard connecting the park andparkway system to the waterfront.



• Reinforce residential areas with infilland rehabilitated housing.

• Promote new and refurbished water-related uses at Cotter Point includingthe West Side Rowing Club, BuffaloYacht Club, Buffalo State Collegewaterfront campus, and the GreatLakes Research Center.

• Restore the landscape connectionacross Interstate 190 from The Front to Cotter Point and LaSalle Park.

• Maintain and expand mixed-use andresidential uses in the WaterfrontVillage/Erie Basin Marina area.

• Realign and re-establish Erie Street as a direct radial connection fromDowntown to the waterfront.

• Develop new mixed-use commercialoffice, residential, and retail uses alonga redeveloping Erie Street – in effect,extend Downtown toward the water-front.

• Establish a setback of fifty feet alongthe Buffalo River and from the ErieBasin Marina to the Inner Harbor andbeyond.

• Establish tourism, heritage, recreation,and maritime uses at the Erie CanalHarbor, Veterans Park, and Naval andServicemen’s Park projects.

• Improve boat, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit access to the Inner Harbordevelopments.

• Promote mixed-use commercial, retail,and office uses to complement visitor-oriented uses in this area and create apublic space and public "edge" to theDowntown.

• Redevelop shoreline areas south andeast of the Erie Canal Harbor as mixed-use commercial and residential areas.

• Preserve and reuse the DL&W terminalbuilding and promote redevelopmentand reuse in the Cobblestone HistoricPreservation District.

• Maintain General Mills and other commercial and light industrial activitieson Kelly Island as important water-dependent industrial uses.

• Zone Kelly Island to shift emphasis from heavy industrial uses to marinecommercial and marine industrial uses.

• Relocate the U.S. Coast Guard Stationat the mouth of the Buffalo River fur-ther upstream or southward to theOuter Harbor, and redevelop the origi-nal site in support of increased publicaccess to the historic BuffaloLighthouse.

• Redevelop Seaway Piers area withmarine commercial uses and supportfacilities.

• Provide a pedestrian and multi-usebridge connection from the Inner Harborand Erie Street to the Outer Harbor asconsistent with safe and efficient passage of recreational and commercialvessels along the Buffalo River.

SUB-AREA 3: Southern Outer Harbor, Kelly Island and the Union Ship Canal Area

With the exception of Gallagher Beach andthe NFTA Small Boat Harbor and a scatteringof private marinas and industrial uses, muchof this sub-area includes former industriallands left underused and abandoned.However, the potential for revitalization andredevelopment in this area of the waterfrontis very substantial. Proposals for continuedand new land uses include:

• Promote water-dependent marine commercial and light industrial usesalong Kelly Island and the westernshoreline of the Buffalo Ship Canal.

• Rebuild the Michigan Avenue Bridge to reestablish vehicular access to theOuter Harbor.



• Allow mixed-use development of the120-acre NFTA-owned Outer Harborsite including housing, entertainment,and tourism uses, making sure to provide public access and greenspacealong the water’s edge.

• Promote establishment of a new statepark on the Outer Harbor to supportexpansion of marine recreational andother water-related activities.

• Connect these uses to the Inner Harbor and Downtown via theGreenway Trail System.

• Promote commercial and light industrialuses on environmentally remediatedlands along the Union Ship Canal.

• Connect Union Ship Canal redevelop-ments to the overall Greenway TrailSystem.

SUB-AREA 4: The Buffalo River Corridor

The Buffalo River Corridor includes a range of land uses along the winding watercourse,including long-established residential neigh-borhoods such as the Old First Ward, TheValley, Kaisertown, South Buffalo and others;a range of active and inactive industrial operations; a large ensemble of concretegrain elevators; extensive vacant and environ-mentally damaged former industrial lands;and natural areas immediately adjacent to the river itself. Proposals for continued andnew land uses include:

• Emphasize land uses that will supportprotection and restoration of naturalresources and water quality.

• Develop new uses along the river,respecting a twenty-five foot openspace corridor along the shore.

• Restore important wetlands areas andmaintain the natural shoreline.

• Promote transition from heavy industryto cleaner light manufacturing andwarehouse uses on reclaimed brown-field sites.

• Maintain the Old First Ward and otherresidential neighborhoods as stable resi-dential areas enhanced by commercialand residential uses along the rivershore.

• Redevelop the Katherine Street penin-sula and adjacent areas with a mix ofmarine and light industrial uses and res-idential where appropriate.

• Preserve lands on the Concrete Centralpeninsula as open space and incorpo-rate this area as part of the Tifft FarmNature Preserve.

• Maintain and improve the county-owned Smith Street waterfront accesspoint for passive recreational use andpossible small-craft river access.

• Maintain the contaminated area east ofthe Smith Street site as open space.

• Promote the former LTV/Republic Steelsite for light manufacturing activities,replacing the legacy of heavy industrialuses that previously were dominant.

• Prepare for a long term phase out ofthe Mobil Oil facility and provide forless intensive uses, obviating the needfor dredging upriver and allowing thewaterway to recover from years of pol-lution.

• Use shoreline properties around theBailey Avenue Bridge crossing for parksand passive recreation.

• Maintain residential and mixed com-mercial uses in neighborhoods beyondBailey Avenue along Stachowski Park,Cazenovia Park, and Seneca Street.

• Preserve shore lands in the SenecaBluffs area as a natural habitat.


Achieving the Vision: Projects in the Buffalo Waterfront Corridor 27

• Emerging projects are consistent withvision, goals and policy and have strongpublic support, but are not yet ready tomove forward.

• Longer term visions includes projectsthat are consistent with vision, goals,and policy but which require muchmore work, both technical and proce-dural, before they can become viableprojects. This category also includesimportant waterfront sites for which noclear concept has yet been put forwardbut which clearly merit attention forthe broader benefit of the waterfront.

This kind of categorization of projects can be useful in the community-wide process ofpriority-setting. The final section in this plansuggests a framework for making decisionsabout priorities. In brief, it advises that wefinish what we start; build from strength;make change visible; hew to core values; and avoid spending all of our availablemoney in one place. These principles won’tmake our decisions for us, but they can be a guide for implementation that will proceedin a reasonably orderly, predictable, and transparent fashion.

Elements of the VisionThe community vision for Buffalo’s waterfrontswill be achieved step by step, one project at atime. The policy framework for the waterfrontis being put in place in the same manner,step by step. This section describes many ofthe discrete steps in that process by identify-ing and detailing individual projects that havebeen proposed, planned and, in many cases,fully implemented on Buffalo’s waterfronts.

As described in the Approach section, thisaccounting of projects has been derived from a careful review and analysis of morethan a quarter century of planning work forthe Buffalo waterfront. Described below arethe projects that have been persistently proposed as critical to the appropriate development of the waterfront and which,according to current analysis, are consistentwith the vision, goals and policy frameworkthat have emerged.

The waterfront projects are organized intofour categories according to their status:

• Recent achievements are projectsthat have been completed, or in somecases, are currently under construction.It is important to acknowledge themany achievements that have alreadybeen made.

• Current work contains projects thathave a defined concept, public support,clear agency leadership, and are mov-ing toward funding and construction.

1 Abstracted from Volume 2.

Achieving the Vision: Projects in the

Buffalo Waterfront Corridor1


28 Achieving the Vision: Projects in the Buffalo Waterfront Corridor

• Erie Canal Harbor Development

• Foot of Main Street Development

• War Memorial Auditorium Reuse

• Buffalo Inter-modal Transportation Center

• Inner Harbor Greenway

• Union Ship Canal Redevelopment

• Times Beach Nature Preserve Expansion

• Gallagher Beach Phase II

• Southtowns Connector

• Outer Harbor Greenway

• Cazenovia Park Redevelopment

• South Park Restoration

• Ogden Estates

• Buffalo River Sediment Remediation

• BSA Combined Sewer Overflow Remediation

• Peace Bridge Improvements

• Great Lakes Center

• Frank Lloyd Wright Boathouse

• Tonawanda Street Industrial CorridorRedevelopment

• Towpath Park (Phase II)

• Scajaquada Pathway (Phase III)

• Scajaquada Corridor Study

• Richmond Avenue

• Erie Basin Marina & Waterfront Village Development

• Naval Park Relocation

• Lighthouse Preservation & Promenade

• Small Boat Harbor

• Tifft Nature Preserve

• Gallagher Beach Phase I

• Riverwalk Greenway, most segments

• Buffalo River Greenway

• 100’ Setback Adopted

• Old Bailey Woods Park Designation

• Seneca Bluff’s Habitat Restoration

• Smith Street Habitat Restoration

• Ohio Street Habitat Restoration

• Confluence Point Habitat Restoration

• Stachowski Park Improvements

• Broderick Park Improvements

• Bird Island/Nowak Pier Construction

• Lakeview/Hope VI Housing Redevelopment

• Lower Niagara Street Tops


• George Washington Park/Niagara Street Reconstruction

• Ontario St. Boat Launch & Cornelius Creek Park

• Harbour Place

• Towpath Park (Phase I)

• North Squaw Island Park (Designation & Remediation)

• Scajaquada Pathway (Phases I & II from River to Elmwood Avenue)



Inner Harbor/ Downtown

Outer Harbor/ South Buffalo

Buffalo River

Gateway/West Side

Black Rock/Riverside/Scajaquada

Recent Achievements Current Work

Elements of the Vision



• Cobblestone District Development

• City Ship Canal Redevelopment

• Kelly Island Redevelopment

• Niagara Thruway Mitigation Downtown

• Michigan Street Lift Bridge

• Inner Harbor Transit Improvements

• Outer Harbor Point Tourist Facility Development

• South Outer Harbor Industrial Development

• Small Boat Harbor Expansion

• Cargill Pool/South Marina Development

• Independent Cement Commercial Development

• Tifft Nature Preserve Expansion

• Hopkins Street Redevelopment

• South Buffalo Landfill Golf Course Development

• South Buffalo Greenway, South Park to Outer Harbor

• Offshore Areas

• Buffalo River Watershed Management Plan

• Katherine Street Peninsula Redevelopment

• Republic Steel/LTV Industrial Redevelopment

• Concrete Central Peninsula

• Old First Ward

• The Valley Community

• Grant/Ferry International MarketplaceRevitalization

• Virginia-Carolina Exchange Redesign

• Lower West Side Redevelopment and TrafficCalming

• Lower West Side Trail Connections

• Mid-Niagara Street Redevelopment

• Harbour Place – Further Development

• Niagara Street – Revitalization North of Forest

• Tonawanda/Ontario Commercial District Revitalization

• Canal Locks – Mixed-Use and Public Access Development

• Niagara Thruway Relocation in Riverside

• Erie Basin/Waterfront Village Build Out

• Erie Street Redesign

• Downtown-Outer Harbor Water Taxi

• West of City Hall

• Gateway Bridge

• OPUS Master plan

– Seaway Piers Development

– North Outer Harbor Development

– Bell Slip Development

• Seneca St Business District


– Grain Elevator Preservation

– Industrial Heritage Trail

– Multi-Use Trail Development

– Creation of Greenway Park

– Smith Street Entrance

• Broderick Park Completion

• Front Park Restoration

• LaSalle Park Restoration

• Lower Niagara Street Revitalization

• Massachusetts Avenue Project

• Connecticut Street Revitalization

• Porter Avenue Streetscape Improvements

• Broderick to N. Squaw Island Park Trail

• Delaware Park Master Plan

• H.H. Richardson Renovation

• Scajaquada Expressway Redesign

• Scajaquada Creek Cleanup

• Riverside Park



Buffalo River

Gateway/West Side


Emerging Projects Long term Vision



• Buffalo Inter-Modal Transportation Center

• Inner Harbor Greenway

• Southtowns Connector

• Outer Harbor Greenway

• Peace Bridge Improvements

• Tonawanda Street Industrial CorridorRedevelopment

• Scajaquada Pathway (Phase III)

• Scajaquada Corridor Study



• 100’ Setback Adopted

• Old Bailey Woods Park Designation

• Seneca Bluffs Habitat Restoration

• Smith Street Habitat Restoration

• Ohio Street Habitat Restoration

• Confluence Point Habitat Restoration



• George Washington Park/Niagara Street Reconstruction

• Ontario St. Boat Launch and Cornelius Creek Park

• Scajaquada Pathway (Phases I & II from River to Elmwood Avenue)



Buffalo River

Gateway/West Side


Recent Achievements Current Work

Transportation Projects in the Vision



• Niagara Thruway Mitigation Downtown

• Inner Harbor Transit Improvements

• South Buffalo Greenway, South Park to OuterHarbor

• Virginia-Carolina Exchange Redesign

• Lower West Side Redevelopment and TrafficCalming

• Lower West Side Trail Connections

• Niagara Thruway Relocation in Riverside

• Erie Street Redesign

• Downtown-Outer Harbor Water Taxi

• Gateway Bridge


– Grain Elevator Preservation

– Industrial Heritage Trail

– Trail Development

– Creation of Greenway Park

– Smith Street Entrance

• Broderick to N. Squaw Island Park Trail

• Porter Avenue Streetscape Improvements

• Scajaquada Expressway Redesign



Buffalo River

Gateway/West Side


Emerging Projects Long term Vision

The project descriptions that follow are organized into six categories: (1) transportation connectionsthat span more than one region; (2) the Inner Harbor area and Downtown; (3) the Outer Harborarea and South Buffalo; (4) the Buffalo River; (5) the Gateway and West Side; and (6) Riverside, BlackRock and Scajaquada. Like the chart above, they are also organized through the four tiered planningframework of Recent Achievements, Current Work, Emerging Projects, and Longer Term Visions.



Transportation Connections

RECENT ACHIEVEMENTS

Riverwalk in Riverside

The portion of the Niagara Riverwalk traversing the Riverside community providesdirect public access to the Niagara River andbicycle/pedestrian linkages to municipalitiesjust north of the City of Buffalo. This projectrepresents a huge success story and a majoraddition to the waterfront.

Scajaquada Pathway

Phases I and II of this project, including linksthrough Delaware Park, and from ElmwoodAvenue to the west, were completed sometime ago. Most recently completed was onefinal segment to connect the Scajaquada

Path directly with the Riverwalk. While short,this segment was very expensive on a perfoot basis and involved difficult engineeringto cross the creek, bypass a marina, and passbeneath a railway bridge. Construction onthis project began in 2003 and the segmentwas opened in 2005.

CURRENT WORK

Outer Harbor Access Project

While the “Southtowns Connector” wasoriginally proposed as a super-highway toconnect Buffalo with its southern suburbs,the current project proposal includes improving road access to specific developablesites (Republic Steel Site, Union Ship Canal,Bethlehem Steel Site, and the Buffalo OuterHarbor); reconfiguring the Route 5/FuhrmannBoulevard/Ohio Street Complex as a water-front arterial system consistent with proposedland uses; and providing adequate service for commuter/commercial traffic between the Southtowns and Downtown Buffalo.Incorporation of Seaway Trail design elementshas also been proposed.

One important element of the proposalinvolves construction of an arterial connectionalong Tifft Street, through the LTV/RepublicSteel site, across the Buffalo River, and connecting with I-190. This will improveaccess to industrial sites while relieving trafficfrom a slower-speed waterfront complex.Mayor Masiello and Assemblyman Higginshave requested $35 million in federal fundingto develop Route 5 between the Skyway and Ridge Road as a tree lined parkway.Depending on the final designs and align-ments, the project will help achieve goals for public waterfront access and environmen-tal improvement. The project will promoteeconomic development and transportationenhancement goals in any case.

The Queen City Waterfront Transportation Project map shows theconnections between the city and the region.

Tow Path park in Riverside sits on theNiagara River.

The Scajaquada Bike Path winds under arailroad bridge as it approaches the BlackRock Canal.



the NFTA received $980,000 in state fundingfor an 8.5-mile bike and pedestrian pathwayextending from the former DL&W rail terminal at the foot of Main Street toGallagher Beach on Fuhrmann Boulevard.Stage 1 is complete as of June 2005, andwork is ongoing.

Scajaquada Expressway Redesign

The original proposal to transform theScajaquada Expressway from a highway to alow speed boulevard or parkway was madeover a decade ago. More recently it has beenrevived and a dedicated study of the possibili-ties commissioned. Consultants have produceda preliminary report on alternatives thatdefine the possibilities of mediating betweendemands for transportation capacityenhancement, public access, and neighbor-hood connections. The corridor’s redesign will strongly influence the success of theOlmsted Crescent, a coordinated marketingeffort for arts, culture, and heritage attrac-tions geographically concentrated along the Expressway.

EMERGING PROJECTS

Gateway Bridge/Water Taxi

There has been an extraordinary array of proposals over the years for improving connections between Downtown Buffalo and the Outer Harbor and other points south.These have included low-level bridges, pedestrian bridges, tunnels, tramways, liftbridges, swing bridges, drawbridges, andtransit bridges with approaches alongGenesee Street, Erie Street, Church Street,Main Street, and Michigan Avenue, andwater taxis to take people across the BuffaloRiver between the Inner and Outer Harbors.Incorporation of Seaway Trail design elementsand clear markers from the Niagara Street toRoute 5 segments of the trail have been proposed. All proposals have implications forrelated infrastructure investments, includingFuhrmann Boulevard and Route 5, the downtown Niagara Thruway, and elsewhere.

A greenway trail runs along the Inner Harbor.

A shoreline trail runs parallel to Lake Erie on the Outer Harbor.

Inner Harbor Trails

This riverfront “esplanade” connecting theBuffalo River with the rest of the waterfronthas been a key recommendation of severalplanning efforts, beginning with the work of the Horizons Commission. The project’sessential goal is to provide public access to the waterfront. Much of this will be developed as part of the Erie Canal Harbordevelopment.

Outer Harbor Greenway

Numerous plans reference this greenway trail as a top priority for the Outer Harborand Western New York region. The trailwould improve public access and open upopportunities for commercial development.The City has invested $100,000 in an OuterHarbor Point promenade. In the fall of 2002,



The potential investments, even for mainte-nance of existing structures, are enormous.The NYS DOT has allocated funding to studyalternatives to the Skyway from 2003 to2005. These projects have major implicationsfor all of the waterfront goals.

South Park-Outer Harbor Greenway

A multi-use path from South Park to theOuter Harbor would connect a significantpart of Buffalo to the overall Greenway system. The route would run in an arc fromSouth Park north to Tifft Street, then westpast the Tifft Nature Preserve to the SmallBoat Harbor/Gallagher Beach area. It wouldcapitalize upon existing site constraints toimprove public access while respecting Cityeconomic development goals for theLTV/Republic Steel and Union Ship Canalareas. Wetland and landfill site limitations on development in the area make this project logically feasible. Further conceptdevelopment is needed, but this projectshould be a future priority.

Seaway Trail Development

The New York State Seaway Trail is a 454-mile scenic route paralleling Lake Erie, theNiagara River, Lake Ontario, and the St.Lawrence River. The trail offers spectacularviews of the Great Lakes and the St.Lawrence Seaway, access to historic sitesfrom the Underground Railroad and the Warof 1812, and numerous other recreational,cultural, and heritage areas. The Seaway Trailis the only U.S. Department of TransportationNational Scenic Byway located in New York.

National Scenic Byways possess outstandingqualities that exemplify the regional charac-teristics of specific regions. Both the State andFederal Scenic Byway programs encouragetravelers to get off of major interstate routesto experience the unique scenic, cultural, historic, and heritage amenities located alonglocal roadways. The programs offer designatedbyways marketing assistance, project funding,and legal protection from new billboard

construction (federal byways only). Within theCity of Buffalo, the Seaway Trail followsNiagara Street south through the InnerHarbor to Route 5. Further development ofthe trail and support for this program shouldbe a priority.

Buffalo River Greenway

The Buffalo River Greenway is a multi-pur-pose open space corridor and trail systemdesigned to improve access and managementof the Buffalo River’s recreational, cultural,and ecological assets. This fully developedplan provides public access to the City’swaterfront amenities through a multi-use trailand the creation of a Greenway Park System.The Industrial Heritage Trail segment andinterpretive materials celebrate the BuffaloRiver’s Native American, industrial and architectural heritage. Components of theplan also address environmental concernswith provisions for wildlife habitat, pollutionfiltration, and flood retention capacities. Thisproject is an implementation priority.

Lower West Side Riverwalk Link

There is a need for improved public accessbetween LaSalle Park and the Erie BasinMarina. The existing Riverwalk bike path israrely used due to its isolation and perceivedvulnerability to criminal activity. There is nospecific plan for this area, but clearly markedtrails, street furnishings, and landscapingmight help to encourage its use. A clear, safepedestrian path is also needed to connectneighborhoods east of I-190 to Downtown.



Mid-Niagara Street Riverwalk Link

Currently, Riverwalk travelers follow anunclear path along Niagara Street from thePorter Avenue segment to the ScajaquadaPathway. Streetscape improvements are need-ed along Niagara Street from Porter Avenueto the Scajaquada Pathway to clarify thepedestrian route amidst busy industrial trafficon the corridor. Enhancements to this part ofErie County’s Riverwalk System would facili-tate public access to the waterfront andimprove bicycle and pedestrian safety.Concept plans were proposed in the BuffaloGreenway System Plan. This project hasstrong public support and would move for-ward with the necessary public funding.

LONGER TERM VISIONS

Buffalo “Big Dig” Downtown

A variety of proposals have been made overthe years to mitigate the effect of the NiagaraThruway, that separates Downtown Buffalofrom the waterfront. These have ranged froman improvement in bridges over or under-passes beneath the highway, to removal ofthe highway, to burying the highway in atunnel. Other proposals have highlighted thepotential for extending the Downtown streetgrid – especially along Erie, Genesee, Church,Court, and Virginia Streets – from the cityacross the highway right-of-way to the water.

While discussion of such proposals hasrecently been revived, there is no action planfor such changes. Clearly, the proposalswould each improve public access to thewaterfront. It would be possible to argue thatremoving the Thruway as an obstacle to thewaterfront would promote economic devel-opment through property redevelopment.Proposals to "bury" the Thruway would alsoneed to be evaluated in relation to proposalsto replace the Skyway with a tunnel.

West Side Thruway Revisions

Several proposals have focused on improvingthe section of the Niagara Thruway that travelsalong the Black Rock Canal on Buffalo’s WestSide. These have included removal of theBreckenridge Street toll barrier, creation of acanal-side park, improvement of Squaw Islandaccess at Ferry Street, and various attempts atscreening I-190 from view by neighborhoods.These proposals make a strong gesture towardaccommodating needs for public access,neighborhood connections, and environmentalprotection, while also promoting economicdevelopment and transportation improve-ments. They deserve continued consideration.

Riverside Thruway Mitigation

A variety of proposals have been made overthe years to repair or reverse the damagedone to the Riverside neighborhood by theconstruction of the Niagara Thruway. Someof these have proposed to cover or deck I-190 as a means of extending Riverside Parktoward the river itself. Another proposaladvanced some years ago envisioned thererouting of the Thruway at the Scajaquadainterchange and continuing along the CSXrailroad right-of-way into Tonawanda. A pre-liminary feasibility study for this concept con-cluded that the cost for such a proposalwould be prohibitive. There remains, howev-er, a strong voice in the community calling foraddressing the impact of the Thruway on theRiverside neighborhood, and further investi-gation is required.

Downtown/Cobblestone/First Ward Transit Improvements

Several proposals have been made to (a)locate a transit station near the foot of MainStreet, and (b) extend the transit line fromthere to the south, and/or (c) construct atransit or vintage trolley loop through theCobblestone District. Although the three pro-posals are different in scope and direction,each would help improve access to theseareas and support efforts at economic devel-opment and neighborhood revitalization.



via pedestrian and transit routes. Althoughcontractors encountered difficulty in movingthe vessels because of accumulated river sedi-ments, the relocation and the veteran’s parkconstruction has been completed. The Navaland Serviceman’s Park represents the firstcompleted element in a much more ambi-tious Inner Harbor development. Phase I workrepresents $15.5 million worth of work.

Shanghai Red’s restaurant

The long-awaited restaurant to take the placeof the former Crawdaddy’s Restaurant on theErie Basin Marina is now open. The restaurantwill provide an additional magnet for activityon the waterfront, and one that can beexpected to draw visitors well beyond thesummer months and sailing season.

Inner Harbor / Downtown

RECENT ACHIEVEMENTS

Naval and Serviceman Park

The U.S.S. Little Rock, The Sullivans, and TheCroaker have been part of the downtownwaterfront landscape for roughly twodecades, providing a significant tourist attrac-tion, but also obstructing some public accessto the river. The relocation of the vessels andthe construction of a new naval museum willimprove the heritage tourism attraction andrationalize waterside access. Other projectelements will enhance inter-modal circulation

Many projects in the Inner Harbor have been recently completed.

The Navel and Serviceman Park has been relocated toaccommodate the new Erie Canal Harbor development.

Shanghai Red’s is a new restaurant on the Erie Basin Marina.



CURRENT WORK

Erie Canal Harbor

Long the object of dreaming and planning,Buffalo’s historic Erie Canal district is nowundergoing a great transformation. Theinventory for this plan cataloged an amazingforty-three separate proposals for this twelveacre site. But the range of ideas was surpris-ingly coherent, encompassing a consistentmixture of waterfront access, heritage devel-opment, tourism attraction, and mixed use-proposals. Plans now in implementation arehighly consistent with that planning history.

Plans include new direct access to the BuffaloRiver waterfront; new infrastructure for trans-portation improvements by boat, bike, foot,and transit; and groundwork for futurepreservation and heritage tourism attractions.$46 million has been committed to the project’s waterside improvements, including

Concept drawings illustrate some of the promise of downtown waterfront development opportunities. (Source: ECIDA)

The Erie Canal Harbor Project uses the historic street pattern for development parcels. (Source: Flynn BattagliaArchitects PC, & the Western New York office of Empire State Development Corporation)



Bass Pro Retail Attraction/BuffaloIntermodal Transportation Center

Plans for Buffalo's proposed Erie Canal HarborEntertainment District were to make the formerBuffalo Memorial Auditorium home to BassPro Shops and other retailers. An accompany-ing plan provides for construction of a newwaterfront parking ramp immediately to theeast on the site of the General William J.Donovan State Office Building, which will bedemolished. A new intermodal transportationcenter was also to be incorporated, includinga combination Amtrak, Metro Rail, Metro Bushub, and street level retail shops. About $8.1million in federal transportation money hasbeen pledged to create the transportationhub that will occupy the first floor of the newmidrise building, giving travelers access tolocal, regional, and national trains and buses.Contributions to economic development andtransportation improvement goals are clear,but the project will also contribute to water-front access by drawing visitors to the vicinityof canal and river. Much of this planning isnow being revised as alternative sites areexplored in the same area.

EMERGING PROJECTS

Erie Street Waterfront Gateway

A key project to emerge from the BuffaloWaterfront Corridor Initiative (BuffaloCorridor Management Project) has been theproposed realignment and redevelopment of

relocation of the Buffalo & Erie County Navaland Serviceman Park and work to preservehistoric Erie Canal features.

The remaining project budget, includingDonovan Building demolition and the con-struction of the intermodal transportationcenter, is approximately $100 million, with$31 million in federal funding earmarked forthe project. The project has strong implica-tions for economic development and trans-portation as well as access. The Erie CanalHarbor has been subject to intensive publicscrutiny on the disposition of the historicCommercial Slip and Central Wharf. Newproject concepts and redesigns led to costincreases and delays. Construction on Phase IIof the Erie Canal Harbor project began inAugust 2005.

Blue Cross and Blue ShieldHealthNow Headquarters

Blue Cross and Blue Shield’s parent company,Health Now, initiated construction on a431,000 square foot corporate headquartersin late November, 2005 at 249 W. GeneseeStreet. The former brownfield site will includea preserved façade from the 1848 coal to gasconversion factory that previously dominatedthe site. In September, the company was projecting that the project will bring inapproximately 1300 employees and willspend just under $100 million with and additional $25 million in site remediation.

The L shaped structure includes an eight storytower, seven story atrium and a six storyblock of offices as well as an on site parkingstructure. Its controversial design presentsitself from the I-190 in the shadow of theBuffalo’s City Hall. It is the largest office complex in the downtown since FountainPlaza was constructed in the 1980s.

One approach to parking supports for the proposed reuse of theMemorial Auditorium. Alternatives involve the distribution ofsmaller parking facilities throughout the area. (Source: BuffaloUrban Development Corporation)



Erie Street from the center of Downtown,beneath the Skyway approaches and theNiagara Thruway, to the Erie Basin Marinaopposite the historic Buffalo Lighthouse. Theessence of the proposal is to create a directand dramatic vista along Erie Street, straight-ened to conform to its historic alignment.These changes would create new direct visualand physical access to the waterfront. Therealignment would also allow the delineationof new waterfront development parcels to promote creation of a new urban arm ofDowntown reaching down to the water.

Erie Basin Marina/Waterfront Village Projects

A number of projects are being discussedthat would take advantage of the proposedErie Street Waterfront Gateway. These includenew residential and mixed-use developments,possible new office buildings for major tenants,additional restaurant and commercial devel-opment, a new hotel, added boat launchcapacity, and other developments. These areappropriate projects for an urban section ofthe Buffalo waterfront and will bring newpeople down to enjoy the water. For all ofthese possibilities, careful attention to designissues is required, including site design, building height and mass, setback, and directwaterside access.

DL&W Terminal Reuse

The “foot of Main Street,” sometimes knownas the “crossroads site,” is one of Buffalo’smost planned-for locations. City of Buffaloplanning focused on a sports and entertain-ment concept for the area, building on thecompletion of the HSBC arena, and reflectingthe potential for tourism at the Erie CanalHarbor. The most recent major proposal wasfor the Adelphia Communications NationalOperations Center, now abandoned. The siteremains an attractive opportunity for a rangeof uses, as does the former DL&W railwayterminal for an adaptive reuse development.One potential use, frequently mentioned inthe planning legacy, would be a Great Lakes

museum. New specific use proposals and tenantsneed to be identified for this site. As of fall2005, the DL&W is being considered as a sitefor Buffalo’s casino and negotiations are underway between NFTA and the Seneca Nation.

Cobblestone District Developments

A wide range of proposals has been put forward from various quarters for the areaimmediately to the east of the new arena,but the future of this location is far from clear.A preservation-inspired effort to rebuild cobblestone streets bore fruit several yearsago. Recently, Cobblestone Development, a local entrepreneur, purchased the sprawling1.5 acre Benlin Distribution Services complexat 26 Mississippi Street for $1.1 million, withplans to create a new mixed-use develop-ment. Proposals for extending light rail or vintage trolley service have been discussed.One noteworthy residential conversion – the Elk Terminal – has taken place. An earlierproposal envisioned a business park in thevicinity. The concept is unclear, but the potential is substantial for economic develop-ment, building neighborhood connections tothe waterfront, and improving transportation.Further work is clearly warranted.

West of City Hall

The area of downtown west of SouthElmwood and east of the Niagara Thruwayhas received little attention and has unexploredpotential for waterfront oriented develop-ment. Among the proposals made in the pastwas one to create a Lake Shore Parkway. Theproposed route was similar to one envisionedrecently as part of reconnecting GeneseeStreet to the water. It is not to be confusedwith references to a Lakeshore Parkway onthe Outer Harbor. Rehabilitation of theWaterfront Elementary School and creation of a new waterfront school are also part ofthe picture. The potential for restoring historicstreet patterns is also significant. The path of the Seaway Trail through this area alsorequires reinforcement. This area deserves further attention.



Outer Harbor / South Buffalo

RECENT ACHIEVEMENTS

Times Beach Nature Preserve

While a large number of alternative uses hadbeen advanced for Times Beach over the years(a boat harbor, bathing beach, aquarium,windmills, and other uses), the development ofthe site as a nature preserve and bird-watchingarea seems most appropriate. The U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers project included repair ofthe dike that encloses dredging spoils, repairof the overall ecosystem, and construction ofa network of boardwalks to allow visitors safeand unintrusive access to the site. The projecthas advanced environmental goals by limitingthe disturbance of contaminants, preventingcontact with them, and preserving crucialwildlife habitats. The construction of walkwayspromotes public access and, insofar as it promotes birding and other visitation, economic development through tourism.Work was completed in 2004.

LONGER TERM VISIONS

City Ship Canal

The City Ship Canal/Kelly Island site – especially locations directly across the BuffaloRiver from Downtown – has been the subjectof a variety of proposals. Many of these arelikely in conflict with each other and withexisting uses. Prominent proposals includeexpanded boat launch facilities, industrialretention and expansion, residential develop-ment, passive recreation areas, and tourismattractions. No clear concept has emerged,but the potential demands to be explored.

The South Buffalo / Outer Harbor sub-area includes projects south of the Buffalo River.

The Times Beach nature area preserves habitat for the internationallydesignated Important Bird Area along the Niagara Corridor.



Small Boat Harbor

Governor Pataki’s proposal in 2004 to desig-nate the NFTA Small Boat Harbor as part of a new waterfront State Park confirmed yearsof planning work and responded to continu-ing strong market demand for marina facilities. Most project proposals for the sitehave focused on further development of itscurrent use as a boat launch and dockingfacility through expansion, upgrade or additionof support facilities, services such as restaurantand retail sales, and improved linkages withthe Route 5 Seaway Trail segment. Otherproject concepts over the years have includednature preserves, industrial uses, and water-front trail expansion. A major expansion ofboating facilities was completed in the 1990s,creation of new waterfront parkland is underway, and further expanded docking facilitiesare being reviewed. All of this work advancesoverall goals of providing public access andsupporting economic development.

Gallagher Beach State Park

The development of Gallagher Beach hasbeen one of the waterfront’s most recent success stories. While previous plans suggest-ed use of this site for marina expansion, or asa fish spawning area, the recent developmentof the site as a windsurfing and boat launchsite has been met with general acclaim. Thiswas confirmed by the Governor’s 2004 proposal to incorporate the site in a newwaterfront State Park. A second phase ofwork is under way. Gallagher Beach repre-sents an important victory for the publicaccess goal. Improved linkages to the SeawayTrail Route 5 segment are also proposed.

Buffalo Lakeside Commerce Park

Work has begun on the first of four phasesof development of a master planned office,industrial, and recreation area surroundingthe Union Ship Canal. Subsequent phases of development may include a boat launch,dock, and other uses. Voluntary clean-upagreements have been completed for thetwo parcels that make up the first phase.Demolition and right-of-way design was completed in the spring of 2003, with roadand utility construction following immediatelyafterward. The project represents a majorstep toward meeting the economic anddevelopment goals of providing “shovel readysites,” while also advancing environmentalrepair and public access goals. Importanttransportation improvements, including a newaccess road system and improved access fromRoute 5 with Seaway Trail design elements,are important elements of the project.

The newly made Gallagher Beach is close to downtown.

The Small Boat Harbor will become a part of the new Buffalo Waterfront State Park.



CURRENT WORK

South Park Restoration

Originally proposed by Frederick Law Olmstedas a waterfront park, South Park remains animportant site in Buffalo’s WaterfrontCorridor. Major renovations have been com-pleted for the botanical gardens complex inthe park. The goal of the Buffalo OlmstedParks Conservancy is to leverage investmentsby Erie County in the Botanical Gardens andrecreate Olmsted’s arboretum to give visitorsa complete indoor and outdoor horticulturalexperience. A portion of the park’s pinetumcollection has been replanted and more than15,000 plants will be installed as the park’swetland garden reemerges.

Future funding will pay for interpretive sig-nage, species markers, guidebooks, a docenttraining program, and a horticulturalist to carefor the collections. Related proposals includenew street and bicycle connections fromSouth Park to the Lake Erie waterfront andan expansion of the South Park coastal zonereview area. Taken together, this work prom-ises to advance public access, environmentalrestoration, transportation improvement, andto some extent, economic development goalsfor the waterfront.

Republic Steel/LTV Redevelopment

The former Republic Steel/LTV site has longbeen the target of redevelopment efforts.The most celebrated was the “TomatoRepublic” hydroponics facility, which ceasedoperations in 2002. Redevelopment forindustrial use continues to be a priority. Withapproximately 1,200 acres, this property willprovide an enormous reserve of land forindustrial development and expansion forBuffalo and save waterfront sites for moreappropriate uses. An additional concept inthe planning legacy calls for creation of anEnvironmental Center and Park on theBuffalo River at this site, but no entity is currently working towards its creation. LTVSteel and Hanna Furnace recently agreed to a $16.5 million clean-up and to transfer thesite to Steelfields Ltd. for clean-up and commercial redevelopment. The planned newarterial road that is part of the SouthtownsConnector project will provide enhancedaccess to these sites.

An early draft alternative of the master plan for Buffalo’s South Park. This park along with the other Olmsted Parks, is slated for restorationby the Buffalo Olmsted Parks Conservancy. (Source: The Urban Design Project and Trowbridge & Wolf, PC)

part of the South Buffalo RedevelopmentPlan. Related concepts envisioned camp-grounds, playfields nearby, and a series oftransportation improvements includingimproved design and physical linkages to theSeaway Trail. The main proposals serve goalsfor public access and environmental repair.Other concepts also support recreation goals,economic development, and transportation.Expansion of the nature preserve is alreadyoccurring, in a sense, by default. Poordrainage to the east of the preserve in theformer Lehigh Valley Railroad yards hascaused the formation of new wetlands, makingthe property unsuitable for other uses.

LONGER TERM VISIONS

Outer Harbor Point

Leading proposals for this site call for a“Lighthouse Park,” providing access to thehistoric China Light and necessitating someaccommodation by the U.S. Coast Guard.Other proposed uses have included an educa-tion, research, or science center, and a centerfor wood boat design. The Coast Guard hasleased the lighthouse to a citizen group tofacilitate restoration, and they provide limitedaccess to the structure. However, more exten-sive access to the lighthouse, and additionaldevelopment, seem desirable. Continued collaboration with the Coast Guard, additionalplanning, and fund-raising will be necessaryto fulfill potential for public access and economic development.

South Outer Harbor

This site encompasses the former Port ofBuffalo terminal area, currently home to theEuro United facility, and the Freezer Queenfacility to the south. The South Outer Harborsite has most often been projected for somekind of industrial development, includingresearch, warehouse, light industrial, andpower generation. Alternate proposals call foran “events park” or open space uses withpotential inclusion in recent Outer HarborState Park initiatives and increased linkages to the Seaway Trail. Continued and expandedindustrial uses would serve project economicdevelopment goals. However, non-water-

EMERGING PROJECTS

North Outer Harbor Developments/Buffalo Lakefront Development

Much of the Outer Harbor is owned by theNiagara Frontier Transportation Authority. In2004, they advertised a request for proposals,selected three consultant teams, and hadthese teams propose waterfront developmentstrategies for the area from the Seaway Piersto the Inlet north of Harvest Queen includingthe Bell Slip. A team lead by OPUS, withUniland and VOA, were selected for ascheme that included marinas, a new convention center, hotels, a sports complex, cultural institutions, and commercial and residential development. Public support for action at this site is intense; public preferences for open space and direct waterfront access are unequivocal, and hence there are serious reservations from the environmental and quality of life community regarding the extent of development in OPUS’s approved proposal.

Because it is a large, mainly vacant, and sin-gle-ownership parcel directly on the water-front, this site has drawn intense interestthrough a long series of planning processes.Past proposals are contained in the NFTAOuter Harbor Development Plan (1988) andinclude public access, open spaces, residen-tial, retail, and office uses. Other proposeduses have included light industrial facilities.

Work on a waterfront pedestrian and biketrail is moving forward. Improved access tothe site is dependent on Route 5 andFuhrmann Boulevard improvements. Park elements of any development at this sitemight be incorporated in the State Parkapproved in 2004. Improved use of SeawayTrail design elements is also being considered,along with transportation improvements toFuhrmann Boulevard.

Tifft Farm Nature Preserve Expansion

The creation of the Tifft Farm Nature Preservein the 1970s was one of the earliest andmost celebrated waterfront developments inrecent history. Subsequent proposals calledfor an expansion of the nature preserve as





break wall where creation of a new island for recreation was proposed; and (d) varioussites proposed for wind power generation.Although these would variously serve publicaccess, recreation, and economic develop-ment goals, none is under active considera-tion at this time.

Hopkins Street

Hopkins Street is, in a sense, the back door ofthe waterfront, forming the eastern boundaryof the South Buffalo Redevelopment Area. Aproposal for its rehabilitation is motivated bya desire both to improve the quality of water-front land as well as to protect adjacent resi-dential areas. One recent plan envisions infra-structure investments and high-density resi-dential or extended care facilities. Somedevelopment activity is already taking place inthe area, including expansion of SorrentoCheese. Redevelopment of vacant or under-utilized sites would be straightforward. Whilethe site is not a public priority at this time, itsredevelopment would serve economic devel-opment, neighborhood connection, andtransportation improvement goals.

South Buffalo Landfill

Several plans have included proposals for theredevelopment of property adjacent to activerail yards in South Buffalo. These sites includea large landfill used for disposal of slag fromsteelmaking and an active auto wreckingyard. One prominent proposal was for rede-velopment of the area as a golf course. Thearea is also seen as a potential site for windpower generation. It is not known whatobstacles – legal, environmental, or otherwise– might exist to redevelopment. But, as a“visionary” proposal, a golf course has thepotential to transform the image of the area,and facilitate public access, economic devel-opment, and environmental goals. Use of thearea might also enable elaboration ofOlmsted Parks concepts, and allow removalof the golf course from South Park.

dependent or enhanced industrial uses would be inconsistent with LWRP policy. The planning documentation suggests somepublic opposition to additional industrialdevelopment on the waterfront. This may bea moot issue, given the likelihood that exist-ing uses will continue in the foreseeablefuture, but continued consideration of futureuses is warranted.

Cargill Pool Elevator

Several different and competing conceptshave been proposed for the small peninsulaon which Cargill Pool Elevator sits adjacent to a small, NFTA-owned inlet area. Suggesteduses range from continued use for industrialstorage and shipping, preservation and inter-pretation of the grain elevators on site, use as a marina and boat storage facility, and apassive park. There are no current plans forthe development of this site. However, potential exists to incorporate the inlet/boatlaunch into the State Park proposed to thenorth of the site and to improve linkages tothe Seaway Trail.

Independent Cement

Independent Cement owns several largeparcels between the NFTA’s property south of Cargill Pool and adjacent to BethlehemSteel at the lake entrance to the Union ShipCanal. In two planning documents that mention the site, continued industrial use isanticipated. However, development of awaterfront trail linking Bethlehem Steel withdevelopment at the northern end of theproperty (adjacent to NFTA harbor area) formarina and water-enhanced uses is proposed.Current uses and market conditions suggestno new development in the near term, butthe strategic location of this site suggests along term opportunity.

Off Shore Area

The Off Shore Area encompasses several discrete sites including (a) inside the breakwall where an Olympic standard rowingcourse has been proposed; (b) the Buffalowater intake, proposed as a site forhydropower generation; (c) outside the



The Buffalo River runs through the City and its strategic location is the reason for itsdesignation as a sub-area.

Fishing at the Bailey Avenue habitat site is a favorite past time forneighborhood folks.

Seneca Bluffs is the latest habitat restoration site along the BuffaloRiver and it protects swallow nesting in the banks along the river.

Seneca Bluffs

A project to restore and protect the SenecaBluffs, including a flood plain forest andemergent wetland, is under way with thesupport of a broad coalition of grassrootsorganizations plus the City of Buffalo, Countyof Erie, and the New York State Departmentof Environmental Conservation. It is animportant component of the Buffalo RiverGreenway open space system and is part ofthe implementation of the Buffalo RiverRemedial Action Plan. The Seneca BluffsRestoration supports goals for increased public access, passive recreation, and neighborhood-to-waterfront linkages, as well as environmental goals of habitat protection, flood control, and non-pointsource pollution prevention.

Buffalo River

RECENT ACHIEVEMENTS

Bailey Avenue/Confluence Open Spaces

Under the Buffalo River Greenway Plan, several pieces of open space, including OldBailey Woods Park, Confluence Point CountyPark, and the proposed Mongovan ParkParcels and Southside School, located at the confluence of the Buffalo River andCazenovia Creek, would be connected todevelop a waterfront public access park. This project would advance goals forincreased public access, passive recreation,public education and neighborhood-to-waterfront linkages, as well as environmentalgoals of habitat protection, flood control, and non-point source pollution prevention.



Parts of Stachowski/Houghton Park are very pastoral.

The Ohio Street Boat Launch was the first habitat and publicaccess site developed after the acceptance of the Remedial ActionPlan (1988) to clean up the river.

The Smith Street Habitat site sits across the Buffalo River from theConcrete Central Grain Elevator, an important industrial buildingon the National Register of Historic Places.

Ohio Street

Ohio Street in the Old First Ward is a crucialwaterfront site, offering opportunities forexpanded public access, but also implicatedin the planning of the SouthtownsConnector. The NYS Department ofEnvironmental Conservation and Erie Countyconstructed a public boat launch at OhioStreet in the mid 1990s at the head of theurban canoe trail. Additional proposals forthe area include further open space protectionand restoration. Detailed plans for improve-ments to Ohio Street itself are now in preparation. Proposals for connecting theBuffalo River Greenway through this site toDowntown and the Riverwalk are impededby private ownership of key parcels. Furtherattention is warranted in order to maximizeadvancement of public access as well astransportation improvement goals.

Stachowski Park/Houghton Park

Buffalo River Greenway plans have suggestedthe expansion of Stachowski Park to includeadjacent City owned properties along theBuffalo River to the West Seneca border andthe extension of park trails to and along theBuffalo River. Improvements to HoughtonPark were recently completed. Like the otherBuffalo River Greenway projects, extension of Stachowski Park would support goals forincreased public access, passive recreation,and neighborhood-to-waterfront linkages, aswell as environmental goals of habitat protection, flood control, and non-pointsource pollution prevention.

Smith Street Public Access

The state Department of EnvironmentalConservation constructed a wetland restora-tion area with a small passive park/riversidepublic access point at the foot of Smith Streetin 1996. Additional proposals for improvedaccess from the Valley neighborhood havealso been completed. While much moreambitious concepts have been floated formarina-related mixed-use residential develop-ment, market limitations make such activitiesunlikely. Current open space and publicaccess plans advance public access, neighbor-hood connection, and environmental restoration goals.



CURRENT WORK

Buffalo River Clean-up

There are a large number of current proposalsfor the clean-up of the river channel itself,including remediation of contaminated sedi-ments, remediation of inactive hazardouswaste sites, mitigation of non-point sources,improving stream water quality monitoring,control of municipal and industrial waste-water facilities, elimination of combinedsewer overflows, restoration of fish andwildlife habitats, and expansion of the coastalreview zone. In 2002, the Buffalo RiverPartnership was established to coordinateefforts to address the River’s contaminatedsediments. Currently, the Buffalo SewerAuthority is developing a remedial action plan for the City’s Combined Sewer OverflowSystem, a major source of river pathogens.Funding for implementation of a RemedialAction Plan under the direction of the BuffaloNiagara Riverkeeper has greatly improvedcoordination of remediation efforts. Restorationprojects will advance not only environmentalgoals, but also broad public access and economic development goals as the Riveraffects Erie Canal Harbor restoration efforts.

Seneca Street Business District

The Seneca Street business district and thesurrounding residential neighborhood havebeen the subject of planning and program-ming for revitalization. Buffalo “Live Zone”and Empire Zone designations are in place,and a neighborhood plan was released bySouth Buffalo Neighborhood Housing Services(NHS) in 2002. Formation of the GreaterSouth Buffalo Chamber of Commerce withits Seneca Street sub-committee and a façadeprogram funded by the district council member has given a jump-start to revitaliza-tion on Seneca Street. Hillery Park Academyhas also been designated for renovation. The confluence of these efforts suggests anopportunity to advance goals of economicdevelopment and neighborhood/waterfrontconnections.

EMERGING PROJECTS

Cazenovia Park & Greenway

A full-fledged restoration plan for CazenoviaPark was completed in 1997 and the BuffaloOlmsted Park Conservancy hopes to beginconstruction on Casino renovations in 2005based upon community programming goals.The Conservancy is also working with SouthBuffalo Alive, which painted the interior ofthe Cazenovia Park Shelter House in 2002and is raising funds for the building’s restora-tion. In addition, the Buffalo River Greenwayand the Seneca Plan call for the creation of agreenway trail system linking the Park to theBuffalo River. Some editions call for therestoration of Cazenovia Creek’s naturalbanks as a habitat, erosion control, and non-point source pollution prevention project. Thepark restoration and Greenway developmentprojects would advance goals for improvedpublic access and recreation opportunities.Moreover, the restoration of the park wouldfacilitate the City’s efforts to market theOlmsted system as a destination. Creek bankrestoration would meet Buffalo RiverRemedial Action Plan (RAP) and LWRP habitatand erosion control environmental goals.

Grain Elevator Preservation and Interpretation

Buffalo’s ensemble of grain elevators hasbeen the subject of a variety of proposals,including an industrial heritage museum,preservation, and for continued industrial use.Since they are located along the river and onthe harbor, these comprise not so much anindividual site as they do a collection of atype of building. The State Preservation Boardand National Park Service approved the creation of a multiple property listing for theGrain Elevator District in 2003. In addition,the Concrete Central and Wollenberg GrainElevators were placed on the NationalRegister of Historic Places. Development ofinterpretive sites, materials, and programswould involve relatively modest investments.Preservation or adaptive reuse of structures

The process of cleaning up the BuffaloRiver continues with public involvement.(Source: Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper)



Old First Ward

The Old First Ward is a crucial waterfrontneighborhood. One only needs to visit thereto understand how close the relationship tothe waterfront is. With the exception of theproposal, now abandoned, to relocate theBuffalo Zoo to a site including the FatherConway playground, there is little in the planning legacy that deals with the Old FirstWard. The neighborhood was the topic for a University at Buffalo graduate studentinvestigation in the spring of 2003, but otherwise has been neglected. Within theframework of resident desires for neighbor-hood stability, however, it is possible to imagine a range of projects including improvedwaterfront access, support for housing rehabilitation, and heritage interpretation,among others.

The Valley

Like the Old First Ward, The Valley is intimate-ly a waterfront neighborhood and its com-munity center connects directly with theSmith Street Habitat Restoration site. One ofthe main streets of The Valley, Smith Street,terminates at the bank of the Buffalo River. It is also directly connected to and impactedby Buffalo’s central inter-city transportationcorridor, I-190. This neighborhood, too, hasdrawn little attention from planners, and likethe Old First Ward seeks stability and protec-tion. The only current proposal for The Valleyinvolves one pending school renovation.However, it is also possible to imagineimprovements to housing, waterfront access,and transportation access in The Valley.

Ogden Estates

The Buffalo River Greenway plans and theN.Y.S. Department of EnvironmentalConservation’s Fish and Wildlife HabitatInventory have both identified a large tract of undeveloped land west of South OgdenStreet as a floodplain forest in need of conservation. Because it is a floodplain, otherforms of development are considered infeasible.Including this site in the emerging system of

would be expensive, but potential foradvancement of economic developmentgoals through heritage tourism is clear. Moreattention is needed.

LONGER TERM VISIONS

Concrete Central Peninsula

An unusual variety of proposals have beenadvanced over the years for the ConcreteCentral Peninsula, including “exclusive residential” development, passive openspace, wind energy generation, and develop-ment as an industrial heritage site. A varietyof problems constrain these proposals, includ-ing lack of access, lack of utility service, floodplain location, and conflicts with existingrail service. Strongest public support exists fordesignation, preservation, and interpretationof grain elevators as industrial heritageresources, combined with open space preser-vation. Public ownership would seem to facilitate such a development. Promotion of economic development and environmentalprotection goals would go hand in hand inthis case. Much further development will be required.

Katherine Street Peninsula

A large number of proposals have been madefor this site but within a narrow range ofconcepts, including mixed-use development,open space conservation, a nature preserve,and a beach. Alternative concepts haveincluded retaining industrial activity as well asdevelopment of wind power generation. Thelimited space needs of existing industries mayaccommodate open space conservation andBuffalo River Greenway trail development inthe short term. However, the peninsula’sremote location, industrial legacy, and lack oflocal development pressure may inhibit longterm mixed-use development.



Buffalo River open spaces has strong publicsupport. Like the others, it would supportgoals for increased public access, passiverecreation, neighborhood-to-waterfront linkages, flood control, and non-point source pollution prevention. Recent sale of the parcelto a private party has compromised this possibility. However, the Trust for Public Landis exploring the new owner’s interest in dedicating some portion of the site for conservation. Additional information needs to be developed to proceed with this project.

Gateway / West Side

RECENT ACHIEVEMENTS

Lakeview Hope VI

A large-scale clearance and redevelopment ofthe pre-war public housing project, and areasimmediately to the east, is nearing comple-tion. This federal Hope VI housing redevelop-ment is part of a national program toimprove public housing through de-concen-tration and redevelopment. Pre-war publichousing units have been largely demolishedand new mixed-income housing has beenconstructed. Additional infill construction and rehabilitation is to follow. The projectoffers the potential of economic redevelop-ment and a vastly improved residential envi-ronment in a near-waterfront neighborhood.Amenities envisioned in other plans includedimproved connections across the I-190 toLaSalle Park. Incorporation of Seaway TrailNational Scenic Byway design elementsshould also be considered.

The West Side of Buffalo is the Gateway to Canada because of the location of the Peace Bridge.

The Lakeview Project near LaSalle Park is a part of the HUDsponsored Hope VI initiative.



CURRENT WORK

Peace Bridge Gateway

Plans for expansion or replacement of thePeace Bridge have been heavily contestedwithin the Buffalo region and across theinternational border. Four major issues areintertwined in this planning process: whatkind of bridge should be built and how wideshould it be; where will the bridge land oneither side; where the plaza and related facilities will be located; and how and wherecustoms and immigration functions will behandled. Responsible agencies are leadingthe decision-making process on these mat-ters. In December of 2005, the specific bridgealternative was recommended by the PeaceBridge Selection Jury to the Buffalo and FortErie Partnering Group and, in turn, to theBuffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Authority.The recommendation, ratified by thePartnering group was for a two tower cablestay companion bridge. The form includestwo needle shaped towers that straddle theroadway, supporting a main span. Its designframes the Niagara River as a gateway to thebinational region to the north of Buffalo andFort Erie even as it provides a portal toBuffalo from Fort Erie just south of the exist-ing Peace Bridge. The existing structure willcontinue to serve as the gateway to Ft. Eriefrom Buffalo. Formal approvals on the bridgeconcept recommendations are subject to thenormal course of environmental impactreviews on the project.

The choice of a bridge, location, and designare central to the Waterfront CorridorInitiative’s goal of making a great internationalgateway. Connections to I-190 for throughtraffic are essential, and connections withNiagara Street will all have important conse-quences for neighborhood and economicdevelopment. (Note: This project is exploredmore fully in Volume 4 of this report.)

Broderick Park Improvements

Broderick Park at the south end of SquawIsland is both an important point of publicaccess to the waterfront and an historic siteof high significance. Some recent investmentshave been made to improve public access tothe park, but much more work needs to bedone. Plans are in place for commemorativeinterpretation of Underground Railroadevents at Broderick Park. Phase I of the proj-ect received $80,000 from the City in July2000. Phase II, awaiting funding, will includea “Freedom Walk,” an interpretation timecapsule, a life size “Escape Scene,” bronzestatuary, a meditation garden and an exten-sion toward Bird Island Pier. In addition, several past planning efforts have identifiedthe desirability of providing access to thenorth of Squaw Island along the east shore-line to complement the Riverwalk along thewest side. Conflicts with the Buffalo SewerAuthority need to be resolved to implement a proposed multi-use trail to the north.

Bird Island Pier

Bird Island Pier remains one of the great successes of Buffalo waterfront development.It protects commercial and recreation maritimetraffic in the Black Rock Channel, providesfishing, birding, and walking opportunities for visitors, and offers extraordinary directaccess to the river with views of the lake,Downtown, the Peace Bridge, and Canada.Swimming, however, is not permitted. Thecurrent proposals call only for maintenance of the pier.

Bird Island Pier separates the Black Rockchannel from the Niagara River.



An early draft vision of the Peace Bridge Interim Plaza Improvements led to a Memorandum of Agreement on plaza and neighborhoodimprovements pending the construction of the new bridge and plaza.

The bridge concept, designed by Christian Menn was recommended by the Peace Bridge Design Selection Committee. (Source: Dr. Christian Menn and the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Authority)



improvements at the Buffalo Yacht Club andmixed-use waterfront development. In theshort term, the construction of the boathouseis a priority, with $3.5 to $4 million in fundingfor construction of the boathouse needed. All of the above projects are generally compatible and would promote waterfrontgoals for public access, environmentalimprovement, and economic development.Sponsoring organizations have establishedrelationships to promote coordination amongthe projects.

Improvements to Cotter Point will open the area for public use. (Source: Hamilton Houston Lownie Architects, PC)

Cotter Point Developments

A variety of proposals have been developedfor the area sometimes known as CotterPoint, just north of Porter Avenue and westof the I-190. These include a well-developedproposal for a Frank Lloyd Wright-designedboathouse for the West Side Rowing Club; asimilarly well-developed proposal for a GreatLakes research station including a proposalfor creation of a wetland; and a recent callfor the protection of the site as a significantecological resource area. Other possibilitiesraised in the planning documentation include



Porter Avenue Waterfront Gateway

A number of past plans recognize the significance of Olmsted’s Porter Avenue as agateway – symbolic, aesthetic, and functional– between the city and the waterfront.Alterations to roadway configurations,improvements to the streetscape, includingthe use of Seaway Trail design elements, andnew residential and mixed-use developmentshave been featured in these proposals. All of these can help rationalize traffic flow, stimulate investment in the vicinity, createmore attractive routes to the waterfront, andpromote the image of our international gate-way. The design of such improvements willbe fairly straightforward, especially in theimmediate vicinity of the Peace Bridge andplaza, once final decisions have been reachedabout the design and location of the bridgeand plaza themselves. Such designs shouldavoid, however, directing bridge traffic direct-ly on to Porter Avenue, where park andwaterfront values might be compromised.The City has received $150,000 in State funding to develop a public access point atthe foot of Porter Avenue at the convergenceof the Niagara River with Lake Erie. The proposed observation point will serve as agateway to LaSalle Park and will include lighting, signage, and street furniture.

Richmond Avenue

Olmsted-designed Richmond Avenue marksthe eastern boundary of the City’s mid-Niagara waterfront neighborhood, and thecorridor is a major access route for theBuffalo State/Richardson complex. To stabilizethe overall neighborhood and meet the hous-ing needs of employees in expanding localbusinesses, a recent program has focused onproviding better incentives for middle-incomehome ownership in the Richmond Avenuecorridor. High quality housing for middle-income families will provide an importanteconomic development tool and help stabilizeneighborhoods and connect them to thewaterfront. Reengineering the bike path,street improvements, signage, and restorationof historic traffic circles have enhanced these efforts.

An illustrated view of Porter Avenue to demonstrates itsimportance as a waterfront access point.

Richmond Avenue, one of Olmsted’s boulevards, has already seenimprovements that add bike lanes while ensuring efficient trafficmovement.

fully developed master plan for LaSalle Parkthat addresses these objectives. Likewise,improvements would meet the WCI goals ofimproving public access, natural environment,and transportation efficiency. The project isplanned to be implemented in phases and ispartially complete.

Front Park Restoration

Restoration of this historic Olmsted Park has been a recurrent proposal in the planninglegacy with strong public support and obvi-ous payoffs for dramatic waterfront visualaccess. Views of Lake Erie from Front Park are spectacular, described by Olmsted as“approaching art.” The long term vision forFront Park includes the restoration of the parkand contiguous Fort Porter, the return of thelandscape connection to the waterfront, andthe cultural tourism marketing of this historicOlmsted landscape. Consistent with theBuffalo Olmsted Parks Conservancy 20-YearRestoration and Management Plan, the brickpark building that impeded the view of LakeErie and the Niagara River was demolished in2004. Replanting of the Commodore Perrystatue grounds is pending. In conjunctionwith National Scenic Byway Seaway Traildesign elements, interpretive signs have beencreated for the park, which will give residentsand visitors a sense of the area’s history.

Niagara Bluffs Redevelopment

The stretch of Niagara Street from the PeaceBridge north to Forest Avenue presents someimportant development opportunities, asidentified in several planning processes. Theposition of Niagara Street atop a high bluffoverlooking the river offers breathtakingwaterfront views. The historic brick buildingstock, reasonably priced, provides an oppor-tunity for commercial development, as suggested in some of these plans. Currenttransportation access is good. Some specificproposals have been made to deal with trafficand parking. In addition, incorporation ofSeaway Trail National Scenic Byway designelements is proposed. However, most proposed

Massachusetts Avenue

A series of grassroots planning efforts in recentyears have mobilized residents around projectsin neighborhood redevelopment, social services, and micro-business enterprise. As anear-waterfront neighborhood – MassachusettsAvenue ends at Niagara Street, opposite thePeace Bridge – development here can contribute to economic development andneighborhood-to-waterfront connection goals.

EMERGING PROJECTS

LaSalle Park Restoration

As Buffalo’s most prominent waterfront park,it should not be surprising that an extraordi-nary number and variety of waterfront plan-ning efforts have focused on its improve-ment. Most of these proposals have focusedon two major objectives: first, to improve the facilities in the park, including roadwaycirculation inside the park, and second, tostrengthen the physical connections from theCity to the park across or over the I-190 and tothe Erie Basin Marina. Incorporation of SeawayTrail National Scenic Byway design elements isalso recommended. The City of Buffalo has a



Massachusetts Avenue is one of the City’s waterfront street slatedfor improvements. (Source: Wendel Duchscherer Architects and Engineers)

economic development. A push-cart pilotproject called the New World Street Marketwill be held this summer to capture the diver-sity of the area by offering ethnic food andwares. Connecticut Street, like MassachusettsAvenue, connects almost directly to the PeaceBridge/Front Park area. Its redevelopment isexpected to strengthen neighborhood links tothe waterfront.

LONGER TERM VISIONS

Virginia/Carolina Interchange Revisions

The Virginia/Carolina interchange of theNiagara Thruway is often seen as an unfortunate rupture in the neighborhoodfabric of the Lower West Side. A variety ofproposals have been made to repair that rupture, including reconfiguration of on- andoff-ramps, reestablishment of perpendicularstreets, and development of a new park.Reconfiguration of the interchange wouldfacilitate improved access to the waterfrontacross the Niagara Thruway, and would calmtraffic entering and exiting the neighborhood.Improvements should capitalize upon NiagaraStreet’s status as part of the Seaway TrailNational Scenic Byway. Modifications to theinterchange could be accomplished withoutmajor changes in the alignment of theThruway itself. Significant further develop-ment of this concept is required to move forward.

Lower Niagara Street Redevelopment

The section of Niagara Street between Porter Avenue and City Hall, and especiallythe section between Carolina and Maryland,has been the focus of a very large number of proposals focusing on commercial revital-ization and streetscape improvements, withsome residential development. The center-piece of these proposals, a new Tops Market,was opened in 2003. However, further commercial development, new housing construction, and public infrastructure amenities are needed to fulfill goals of water-front economic development, neighborhoodrevitalization, and rationalization of city

industrial uses would conflict with the LWRP,which suggests the development of “water-dependent” or “water-enhanced" uses in thearea to capitalize upon scenic views. This concept needs much further development,although private sector plans may already bewell-advanced.

Grant/Ferry Business District

The viability of the Grant/Ferry business district is closely linked to the waterfront’smid-Niagara corridor and the ScajaquadaExpressway Grant Street interchange. The district has significant potential for develop-ment as an important neighborhood-to-waterfront gateway. It is already an importantshopping area with more than ninety storesand 300,000 square feet of retail space, similar in size to a small suburban shoppingmall. Investments in this area could both create a needed linkage with the waterfront(the entrance to Broderick Park on SquawIsland is just a few blocks away) and build the local retail economy. Several studies havebeen conducted and some programs are in place. Additional efforts in this area arewarranted.

Connecticut Street Business District

The Connecticut Street business district andits adjacent neighborhoods are the subjectsof intense planning by the West SidePlanning Collaborative. The ConnecticutStreet Association has forged alliances withthe Collaborative, neighborhood block clubs,West Side Neighborhood Housing Services,and D’Youville College to encourage housinginitiatives and economic development.Currently designated as a City of Buffalo“Live Zone,” Connecticut Street is also in the Empire Zone and the Federal RenewalCommunity. While the most recent publicinvestments there have been residential, newstreet lights are forthcoming. The basic infra-structure of a neighborhood shopping streetremains, with some remaining retail activity. AMarket Analysis has been completed by BERCand is being used as a blueprint for future



Black Rock / Riverside /Scajaquada

RECENT ACHIEVEMENTS

George Washington Park/Niagara Street Reconstruction

This linear park, with accompanyingstreetscape improvements, is a great exampleof a modest project that has made a majordifference in how the City connects to thewaterfront. George Washington Park providesan opportunity to look across the barrier thatis the I-190, providing visual access to one of the great vistas on the Niagara River.Redesigned crosswalks on the busy mainthoroughfare civilize the street and strengthenthe connection between the neighborhoodand the water. The incorporation of SeawayTrail design elements such as daffodil plantinghas also been proposed.

center transportation infrastructure. As withother Niagara Street projects, incorporation ofSeaway Trail National Scenic Byway designelements is encouraged.

Lower West Side Neighborhood Improvements

A variety of proposals have been made forthe residential areas of the Lower West Sidefocusing on housing rehabilitation, infill construction, public infrastructure invest-ments, and traffic calming. The Lower WestSide is another important near-waterfrontneighborhood that will benefit from physicalrevitalization, economic development, andstronger connections to the waterfront.Housing design guidelines have been fullydeveloped, but need stronger implementa-tion. Traffic calming proposals have been discussed extensively in the community. Some public investments have been made.However, both short term coordination andlonger term development of improvementconcepts are needed.



Projects for the Black Rock/ Riverside / Scajaquada sub-area connect the ScajaquadaCreek bike path to the Black Rock Canal.

George Washington Park is a linear green strip that separates the I-190 from Niagara Street in Riverside.

Squaw Island Park

Development of a park on the north end ofSquaw Island has been a persistent demandby waterfront advocates for more than fifteenyears and a frequent proposal in the waterfrontplanning legacy. In 2001, the City of Buffalodesignated the property as public parkland.The DEC has completed the remediation ofcontaminants associated with the use of theisland as a landfill. Investments in parking andpathways have been made. Additional fund-ing stabilized surface soils with vegetation,limited unauthorized vehicular access to thesite, provided limited passive park furnishings,provided improved access from and designimprovements to the Seaway Trail/NiagaraStreet corridor. Public access to the parkthrough Buffalo Sewer Authority property is also desired. Completion of this project is a major victory for waterfront public access,environmental quality, and recreationalopportunity.

Ontario Street Boat Launch/Cornelius Creek Park

A range of improvements has been made atthis site over the past ten years, expandingpublic access and enhancing public amenities.These include investments in the OntarioStreet boat launch, the Niagara Street/OntarioStreet intersection, and extensions of theRiverwalk at Cornelius Creek Park. Thesehave helped take great advantage of a mod-est opportunity to provide public access tothe waterfront and connection to the adja-cent neighborhood. Further improvements,especially better landscaping and more sensitive paving at the boat launch, are worthinvestigating, particularly where such elementsreinforce the Park’s entrance from the Seaway Trail.



The Ontario Street Boat Launch is one of the few public boat access points in the City.

The north end of Squaw Island is one of the newest parks in thecity, built on a remediated site between the Niagara River andBlack Rock Canal.

Foot of Hertel Avenue

This site encompasses the Watergate apart-ment towers, the publicly owned TowpathPark, and Rich Marina. Both the apartmentsand the marina are owned privately. The first phase of work on Towpath Park is com-plete and partial funding for the completionof the park master plan has been received.Extensions of the Riverwalk at this site arealso complete. This is another example ofhow public access to the waterfront has been achieved by piercing the “wall” that isthe I-190 Thruway. However, past planningwork identifies much greater potential for thissite. Park development needs a push; physi-cally integrating housing, a marina and public park uses demands exploration; and moreintensive development should be considered.Incorporation of Seaway Trail design elementshas also been proposed.

Tonawanda Street Corridor

Considerable planning work has gone intoredevelopment of old railway and industrialproperties along Tonawanda Street. Thesewould appear compatible with other projects,such as the River Rock industrial park. Moreimportantly, development of this land willprovide an opportunity for uses that are not water-dependent or water-enhanced torelocate away from the immediate water-front. These will be predominantly industrial,but some opportunity for residential develop-ment also exists. This site is central to meet-ing the economic development and trans-portation improvement goals of theWaterfront Corridor Initiativ e.

CURRENT WORK

Riverside Park Restoration

Planning work spanning two decades hasrepeatedly recognized the importance ofOlmsted’s Riverside Park in providing physicaland visual access to the Niagara River, as well as the need to mediate the relationshipbetween the park and I-190. Significantprogress has been made between 1995 and2002 in implementing a master plan for redevelopment of the park, Olmsted’s lastdesign in Buffalo. The Buffalo Olmsted ParksConservancy 20-Year Restoration andManagement Plan calls for the restoration orinterpretation of the historic minnow pondarea of the park and the creation of anamphitheater near the original center axis ofthe park. A number of proposals have alsobeen made to improve connections betweenthe park and the Riverwalk on the other sideof the I-190. A large-scale deck might be toocostly, but an improved pedestrian bridgewould be very welcome. Finally, incorporationof Seaway Trail design elements has beenproposed.



Riverside Park, one of Olmsted’s last parks for the city, is undergoing restoration. This draft plan for interimimprovements is one of a series of alternatives being explored by the Buffalo Olmsted Parks Conservancy. (Source: The Urban Design Project and Trowbridge & Wolf, PC)

Towpath Park its at the foot of Hertel Avenuealong the Niagara River.

visual impact of park improvements to thosewho travel this corridor as part of their dailyroutine (more than 20,000 cars drive onParkside Avenue every day).”

Restoration of the Rumsey Woods shelter isexpected to follow. The park is a participantin the Olmsted Crescent, a coordinated marketing effort for geographically concen-trated arts, culture, and heritage resources. In addition, the Scajaquada Corridor Studyand possible redesign may have major positiveimpacts on both the park environment andtransportation efficiency.



Plans are also being developed for the restoration of Delaware Park, the largest of Buffalo’s Olmsted Parks. The Urban Design Project and the UB Center for Computational Research have developed largeinteractive computer models of all the parks to assist in the planning effort.

Delaware Park

Delaware Park straddles both the ScajaquadaExpressway and its namesake, the ScajaquadaCreek, some distance inland from the NiagaraRiver. A fully developed master plan has beenprepared for Buffalo’s greatest Olmsted parkand implementation is ongoing. Preliminaryrestoration of the 1914 Parkside Lodge andthe creation of the signature Rose Gardenplayground have been completed. In 2004,the Buffalo Olmsted Parks Conservancybegan improvements to the “ParksidePerimeter” designed to “create a beautifulOlmstedian landscape first impression to visitors to Delaware Park and its neighboringcultural institutions and to demonstrate the

H.H. Richardson Restoration

Located between the Scajaquada ExpresswayGrant Street and Elmwood Avenue exits, theBuffalo State College and H.H. Richardson-designed Buffalo State Hospital complex constitute an important regional heritage and educational resource area. This area hasa number of pending projects that can helpcontribute to meeting economic develop-ment, neighborhood improvement, and public access goals.

Governor Pataki allocated $100 million in his2003-2004 budget to rehabilitate the historictwin-tower Buffalo State Hospital complexand support efforts to find new uses such as a combined Frederick Law Olmsted SchoolComplex, a new Burchfield-Penny Art Center,and a Buffalo architectural museum. In addition, the State Dormitory Authority hasannounced a $4 million down payment oncourt-ordered preservation of the facility.Renovations to McKinley Vocational HighSchool and Campus West are included in the Joint Schools Construction program. The economic revitalization of the site is connected to the success of the OlmstedCrescent, a coordinated marketing effort for geographically concentrated art, cultural,and heritage resources generally locatedalong the Scajaquada Creek and Expressway.

Niagara Street

Several different plans have offered the suggestion that the section of Niagara Streetbetween Tonawanda and Austin has signifi-cant potential for redevelopment. It is currentlya mix of industrial, commercial, retail, andresidential uses with some vacancies. Some of the businesses are marine-related (andtherefore water-dependent) and the segmentis a portion of the City’s Seaway Trail route.BERC has designated the strip as a “LiveZone” and action is pending. The potential isworthy of further effort.

EMERGING PROJECTS

Scajaquada Creek Clean-Up

Because Scajaquada Creek is located along aheavily developed transportation corridor andhas been highly manipulated, water quality,hydrologic regime, wildlife habitat, and overallstream health have been seriously degraded.Two projects have been completed toimprove the health of the Creek channel: the separation of the Creek from Hoyt Lakein the late 1970s to reduce the amount ofraw sewerage entering the lake, and theremediation of contaminated sedimentslocated beneath the Scajaquada Expresswayin 1999. Today, the Creek remains animpaired water body with much work to bedone. The 2002 Scajaquada CreekManagement Plan developed by a WatershedAdvisory Council provides managementstrategies, goals, and action items to restoreand protect the ecological quality of thewatershed. In addition, some considerationhas been given to extending coastal zonemanagement regulation to ScajaquadaCreek, and this should be pursued.

Tonawanda/Ontario Business District

The business district surrounding the intersec-tion of Tonawanda and Ontario Streets hasbeen designated by BERC as a city "LiveZone." Redevelopment of commercial uses inthis near-waterfront location can help achievethe goals of economic development andimproved neighborhood/waterfront connec-tions. A program is in place and action ispending. The potential for the neighborhoodis worthy of further effort.



Grant/Ferry Neighborhood

There are no projects proposed in the plan-ning legacy for the neighborhood thatextends north of Forest Avenue and west ofGrant Street toward the ScajaquadaExpressway and Scajaquada Creek. In recentyears, the neighborhood has suffered signifi-cant housing deterioration, abandonment,and demolition, as well as conversion ofproperty for surface parking for Buffalo StateCollege. In the City of Buffalo classificationsystem, Grant/Ferry is a “rebuild” neighbor-hood. Given the proximity of the site to boththe creek and the highway, as well as theopportunities for industrial and educationalcampus development, a longer term look iswarranted.

LONGER TERM VISIONS

Harbour Place

Successive planning efforts have identifiedthe boating facility now known as HarbourPlace Marina as an important site for devel-opment, including high-density residentialand mixed-use, as well as maritime uses.Now home to a popular riverside restaurant,the site is privately controlled, and so arefuture development opportunities. However,Harbour Place Marina holds further potentialfor expanding both water-dependent andwater-enhanced uses, including housing. TheBuffalo Waterfront Corridor Initiative has apotentially fruitful role to play in building thepublic-private relationships required to inte-grate private developments into a publicwaterfront.

Canal Locks

Several major waterfront plans have proposedexpanding public access to the Black Rocklocks area through extensions of theRiverwalk and connecting across the canal toSquaw Island. These development conceptshave also included residential and mixed-useprojects at the site. Improved site and traildesign could mitigate the current isolation ofthe site from Niagara Street and local neigh-borhoods, serving economic development,public access, neighborhood/waterfront link-age and recreation goals. Involvement of theU.S. Army Corps of Engineers, who operatethe locks, would be crucial. Recently theArmy Corps of Engineers repaired the Canalwall along Squaw Island to seal leaks alongwith other minor improvements. A canallocks interpretive facility should be given seri-ous consideration.



The Shared Border Alternative sketch, looking east from the Niagara River, was developed to illustrate how this option would bring visitors into Buffalo through a large welcoming park.

Bridge to facilitate trade and access withinand through our bi-national region, as well as create and maintain great neighborhoodsand a grand gateway to Buffalo and theUnited States.

The Peace Bridge Expansion Project is one ofextraordinary importance for Canada and theUnited States, for Southern Ontario andWestern New York, and for Fort Erie andBuffalo. Facilitating the flow of goods andvisitors and promoting investment and our bi-national region’s economic health dependsin significant degree on the success of thisproject. For the City of Buffalo, as for ourneighbors in the Town of Fort Erie, the stakesare even higher. The bridge and its operationsgreatly affect the environmental quality andcommunity character of adjoining neighbor-hoods, as well as the health of our inter-related economics.

A Great Neighborhood andGrand Gateway for Buffalo

A Community Vision for the City of Buffalo

When England’s Prince of Wales came toBuffalo in 1927 to help dedicate the PeaceBridge, the newly-constructed span connected a grand and prosperous city with a magnificent scenic route to Niagara Falls. In the nearly eight decades since then, commerce and tourism have expanded, traffic has increased, and the Peace Bridgeplaza has become a harsh, harried, andunhealthy portal to our city, region, andnation. Past investments in public infrastruc-ture have too often advanced transportationefficiency at the expense of community quality of life. But as we contemplate furthersuch investments, we recognize that it doesn’t have to be that way. We can haveefficient transportation across the Peace


62 Peace Bridge Gateway Improvement

peace bridge gateway improvement


Peace Bridge Gateway Improvement 63

A Grand Gateway

Creating a grand gateway means choosing a bridge and plaza scheme that provides anopportunity to make a bold statement inarchitecture and landscape and to announceto arriving visitors that they are coming to a great city. It also means preserving andopening great vistas to Downtown, neighbor-hoods, parks, and waterfronts for those whocome to our city. Just as importantly, creatinga grand gateway means making efficient linksto the regional highway network and provid-ing connections to the local street systemthat are clear, legible and inviting.

The best scheme for the U.S. Peace BridgePlaza will also ensure greatest protection ofhistoric architecture and cultural resources,including: the recovery and interpretation ofthe site of Fort Porter; maximum preservationand recovery of public parkland, especiallyFront Park; and improvement of connectionsbetween neighborhoods and parks, park-ways, and recreational pathways.

As a partner with the Town of Fort Erie and the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public BridgeAuthority (PBA), the City of Buffalo has aresponsibility to make sure that both shortterm and long term investments in bridge andplaza meet the needs of not only those whowill cross the bridge, but of the immediateneighbors of the bridge and plaza and, indeed,of our entire community. In short, bridgeexpansion must provide both a grand inter-national gateway and great neighborhood forthe City of Buffalo. Nothing less will do.

A Great Neighborhood

Making a great neighborhood at the PeaceBridge Plaza means taking the first stepsneeded to restore a distressed area, including:reducing the negative air quality impacts ofbridge and plaza operations, particularlycaused by idling trucks; reversing the damag-ing health impacts related to degraded airquality; reducing traffic and noise levels ormitigating their impacts; and providing anattractive and effective buffer between bridgeoperations and the neighborhood. It alsomeans minimizing the amount of land thatbridge-related facilities take up in our city’sparks and residential areas, limiting displace-ment of residents and businesses, avoidingdemolition of homes and buildings, and minimizing the loss of taxable property.

“Vintage Buffalo” photographs of the Peace Bridge as gateway tothe United States reveal a scenic route to Fort Erie and NiagaraFalls from a prosperous Buffalo. (Source: The Buffalo OlmstedParks Conservancy)



management facilities and operations.Therefore we need to plan for the inevitabilityof Shared Border Management. While wedon’t know when Shared BorderManagement will be accomplished or evenexactly how it will work, we need to choosea course of action that best preserves ouroptions for achieving our vision and goalsunder SBM.

In keeping with the request by the City ofBuffalo to prepare alternative plaza scenarios,we developed designs for three alternatives:North Plaza, South Plaza and SBM. The Northand South Plaza alternatives replicate customson both sides of the border and each hassevere drawbacks. However, the South Plazawill preserve more of the existing neighbor-hood while we continue to work for SharedBorder Management. Choosing the NorthPlaza option would not foreclose the possibili-ty of a Shared Border Management solutionin the future, but it would destroy one of themain reasons for pursuing it – to preserveand improve our neighborhoods.

Finally, ensuring that a new Peace Bridge andplaza contribute to making a great neighbor-hood will mean maximizing the opportunitiesfor local economic development by capturingbridge-related business potential at or nearthe plaza, reinforcing Niagara Street as agateway to the city and especiallyDowntown, preserving land and buildingstock nearby for redevelopment, and providing efficient transportation.

The Goal: Shared Border Management (SBM)

Our collective future in a global economybased on trade and transportation will beshaped by the marriage of cooperation andtechnology that is already taking place at thePeace Bridge border, transforming how wemanage one of the busiest U.S./Canada bor-ders. Both the U.S. and Canada have con-cluded that Shared Border Management issuperior to the old way of doing things, notonly for those who live near the U.S. PeaceBridge Plaza, but also for those acrossSouthern Ontario and Western New York, andindeed, for people across our two nations.

Expanded bridge capacity alone will not solveour cross-border transportation problems.This has been clearly demonstrated by therecent experience at the Blue Water Bridgelinking Port Huron, Michigan and Sarnia,Ontario, where traffic volumes outstrippedcapacity soon after completion of an expan-sion project. What is critically needed is coop-eration, reform, and modernization of border



Interim Plaza andNeighborhoodImprovement Plan

Reconciling Short Term Needs and Long Term Vision

The Peace Bridge holds a strategic position inthe region, connecting the United States andCanada, the Niagara Peninsula and WesternNew York, and the Town of Fort Erie and theCity of Buffalo. The connecting highway network joins the economic and populationcenters on the two sides of the bridge. Thecurrent plaza condition, however, is a harshenvironment composed of paved surfaces. Ithas virtually no landscaping and lacks anyfeature to screen the neighborhood physicallyand visually from the plaza operations.

This aerial shows the existing conditions at the Peace Bridge in 2002.

The Peace Bridge is the International Gateway in the BuffaloCorridor.

NIA

GA

RA

RIV

ER

LAKE ERIE

As-built drawing of Olmsted’s Front Park illustrates the park design prior to the construction of the Peace Bridge and the creation of the I-190.(Source: Buffalo Olmsted Parks Conservancy)



Our community’s vision for a great neighbor-hood and a grand gateway can be advancedin the short term within the framework ofinterim plaza improvements planned by thePBA. Improved landscaping on the plaza,added landscape features between bridgeplaza operations and Front Park, removal ofexcess pavement from the park, developmentof an architecturally attenuated wall to pro-vide a visual screen between bridge opera-tions and the neighborhood, and creation ofa new Busti Avenue boulevard and linearpark are practical ways for the City and thePublic Bridge Authority, working in coopera-tion, to achieve the community vision.

Time is of the essence for our neighboringcity and town, for our greater bi-nationalNiagara region, and for our two nations, inbuilding a great bridge and plaza. Yet, wealso must remember that the decisions wemake today will be with us for the rest of thiscentury. We have time to make the rightdecision and that time is now.

Changes need to be made immediately onthe bridge while longer term decisions are being made. Nevertheless, short termdecision making must be consistent with thepursuit of the long term vision. Specifically,the investment and design decisions made inconjunction with interim improvements mustnot impede long term efforts to achieve theultimate goal of Shared Border Managementand must ensure that all actions have minimalnegative impacts on communities adjacent to the bridge plazas.



The improvements to the existing Peace Bridge Plaza, demonstrated in this plan, are the basis for the Interim Strategy as outlined ina Memorandum of Agreement between the City of Buffalo and the Public Bridge Authority.

Toward this end, the City crafted its vision fora greener, safer, and more attractive interimplaza with related neighborhood improve-ments. This work formed the basis for reach-ing a consensus on the interim improve-ments, formalized by a Memorandum ofAgreement (MOA) between the PBA and theCity. What follows is graphic description ofthe accepted enhanced design concepts andconsensus plan for interim improvements tothe U.S. Peace Bridge and plaza accepted bythe City and the PBA. As indicated earlier, themodest investments planned for the interimplaza should not be used to justify long termchoices for the design and location of theplaza. They are intended to be temporary.

Interim Improvements

The City has worked with the Buffalo andFort Erie Public Bridge Authority to reach consensus on a strategy for interim improve-ments to plaza, bridge operations, facilities,and the neighborhood. These improvementswill be in place until the time a new bridgeand plaza are completed. As presented indetail in of Volume 4 of the Queen CityWaterfront (Part 1: Interim Plaza), the strategytemporarily leaves the plaza in its currentlocation, would require no additional acquisition of property, and would make nomajor changes in highway access to and fromthe bridge on the U.S. side.



The improvements to Front Park would besignificant. There would be green spacerecovered by the consolidation of Moore andBaird Drives. Discussions since the signing ofthe Memorandum of Agreement indicate apreference for consolidating Baird and MooreDrives, employing the western road (BairdDrive) in lieu of Moore Drive to offer a furtherbuffer to the neighborhood in the interimperiod. Those discussions also suggest anintention to retain two of the four tenniscourts.

The Neighborhood Improvement Plan alsocalls for a tree-lined boulevard on Busti andPorter Avenues. It also calls for the demolitionof existing vacant and boarded housing liningBusti Avenue between Rhode Island andVermont Streets. This allows for the develop-ment of an effective landscaped separationbetween the neighborhood and the plaza inthe area of the most intensive bridge-relatedoperations.

The existing bridge-related operations occupy 14.2 paved acres in the City ofBuffalo, directly adjacent to a vital urbanneighborhood. Directly south of the bridgeplaza is historic Front Park, designed byFrederick Law Olmsted and listed on the Stateand National Register of Historic Places. The“As-Built” plan for the park (dated 1898)shows that the park originally sloped downto the Erie Canal before the highway, I-190,took its place. Baird and Moore Drives did not exist, there were no tennis courts, andthe park was connected to the neighborhoodat Vermont Street.

The consensus plan provides for modest landscaping improvements on the bridgeplaza, a reconfigured intersection at MooreDrive and Vermont Street, and the develop-ment of a new duty free shop along the west side of Busti Avenue near the VermontStreet intersection. These PBA improvementsare confined to the bridge plaza itself.

The City of Buffalo’s vision for the interimplaza includes a continuous linear parkscreening the plaza along Busti Avenue, connecting Front Park to MassachusettsAvenue and north to Olmsted’s Bank, andreclaiming more of Front Park.

The City’s Neighborhood Improvement Planarea covers lands adjoining the bridge plazaalong Busti Avenue as well as Front Park. Theinitial proposal for enhancements leading tothe City’s plan would remove redundantroadways connections in and around thebridge area, and eliminate the tennis courtsat the northeast corner of Front Park. Theplan calls for a slender wall along the westernside of Busti Avenue to create an attractiveand complete visual buffer between the plazaand the adjoining neighborhood. It also callsfor the buffer to serve as a linear park, usinga narrower Busti Avenue north of VermontStreet with enhanced landscaping and arecreation path.



These section studies compare the existing and draft proposed conditions on Busti Avenue near Porter Avenue (top) and Busti Avenue atRhode Island Avenue (bottom) leading to the final agreed alignment.



The draft shared border site plan above was developed to demonstrate some of the advantages of a shared border accord including a smallerplaza footprint, good integration with local roads and the I-190, and substantial reclamation of Front Park. The final shared borderalignment will depend on continuing design development.

The decision to adjust each of the PBA alter-natives was driven by a desire to make surethat each one was as good as it could be onits own terms in order to provide a clear andfair comparison. We are basing our compari-son on only those schemes developed in theBuffalo Corridor Management Project asrefined by the City design team to simplifythe evaluation and avoid any confusionamong different versions of basic schemesoffered by the PBA. All of these changeswere made explicitly to fulfill the communityvision and goals as enunciated by MayorMasiello.

Shared Border Management Alternative

The Shared Border Management alternativewill provide a dramatic gateway for visitors inwhich they arrive simultaneously in both thecity and in a park. The alignment developed

Long Term Plaza and NeighborhoodImprovement AlternativesThe International Waterfront GatewayNeighborhood Improvement Program (Volume4 of the Buffalo Corridor Management Projectreport) includes a detailed description of thethree long term plaza alternatives as developedschematically by the PBA and as furtherrefined by the City of Buffalo design team.

Adjustments to these basic infrastructure dia-grams generated the PBA were made by theCity of Buffalo design team to include: addi-tions to buffer areas; improvements to buffertreatments; concepts for arrival buildings;improvements to adjacent parks; andchanges in local street connections, includingschematic designs for traffic circles, boule-vards, and other celebratory street elements.



Building Program: The City of Buffalodesign team has proposed that the duty freeshop and a visitor center building, along withpossible bridge-related office space, be con-structed as paired, linked, or integrated build-ings at the corner of Busti Avenue and RhodeIsland Street. These buildings would framethe urban gateway into the city at a proposed“Friendship Square.” The duty free shopwould be accessible from the plaza; the visitor center would be entered around theblock on Busti Avenue.

Circulation system: As in all three longterm alternatives, connections to the citystreet system through Front Park on Baird andMoore Drives would be eliminated. Otherhighway connections would be similar toexisting arrangements. Ramps from I-190northbound and to I-190 southbound wouldbe shifted slightly to the north. A new ramp

for this alternative was provided by the PBA.In this version, travelers would come directlyoff the bridge and into a grand ceremonialcircle at Rhode Island and Niagara Streets.Meanwhile, to the south or to their rightwould be visible a recovered Fort Porter siteand a rehabilitated Front Park.

Land Area: Of the long term alternativesconsidered, the Shared Border Managementalternative makes by far the smallest footprinton the City – about fifteen acres with itsbuffers – occupying only the north end of theexisting plaza and extending just to SeventhStreet between Massachusetts Avenue andRhode Island Street. There would be onlyramps and connecting roadways – no plazafacilities – with the exception of a possibleauxiliary truck parking area and a U.S. dutyfree shop.

The view of Buffalo at the gateway to the United States from the Peace Bridge as proposed in the initial shared border proposal.



from I-190 southbound would cross theThruway at about Rhode Island Street, enterthe plaza area, and provide access to localstreets as well as to the bridge.

Park and Buffer Improvements: TheShared Border Management alternativewould make possible the full recovery andinterpretation of the site of the historic Fort Porter. It would also allow for the mostthorough restoration and replanting ofFrederick Law Olmsted’s Front Park includingreestablishment of Sheridan Drive; providinga full roadway loop into the park at Porter,through the park and out of it at BustiAvenue and Rhode Island Street; restorationof the historic Hippodrome; construction of a new Lake View House in the center of the park; and development of a full network of pedestrian trails and bikewaysthrough the park and connecting it to adjacent neighborhoods.

This alternative would also allow for creationof a new park area just north of the duty freesite between Busti Avenue and Seventh

Street just south of Massachusetts Avenue. Itis possible that The Bank, an Olmsteddesigned partial circle at the northern end ofBusti Avenue, could also be rehabilitated. Itwould no longer connect with Busti Avenue,although it would with MassachusettsAvenue, and it remains to be demonstratedwhether views from the spot would beobstructed by the new or the existing bridge.

An alternative version that is currently underdevelopment by the PBA is a Shared BorderManagement scenario with a more northernlanding for the plaza. This alternative will bereviewed by the City design team whenmade available by the PBA.

South Plaza Alternative

The South Plaza alternative without a sharedborder accord provides a gateway into thecity, an urban arrival, but without the recovered open space in Fort Porter offeredby Shared Border Management. Travelerswould enter the plaza much as they do now, but would join the city street systemalong a new boulevard on Vermont Street connecting directly to Niagara Street oppositethe northwest corner of the ConnecticutStreet Armory.



The view of the South Plaza Alternative without shared border management.

The South Plaza Alternative without the benefit of shared border management requires the use of more land to handle border securityand customs.



Connections to and from the highway systemwould be similar to the existing arrangement.However, a ramp from the southbound I-190will loop over the Thruway just short of thePorter Avenue bridge and enter the plazafrom the south. From there it would be possi-ble to reach both the bridge and the citystreet system along Vermont Street.Commercial traffic would be directed ontoNiagara Street.

Park Improvement: Recovery of the FortPorter site will not possible under the SouthPlaza alternative and only a partial restorationof Front Park can be accommodated. It willbe possible to restore original plantings, construct a replacement for the Lake ViewHouse, and restore the Hippodrome. The drive through the park can only be partiallyrestored to connect with Busti Avenue atVermont Street instead of Rhode IslandStreet. It seems unlikely that The Bank can be rehabilitated under this alternative.

Buffer and Landscaping Improvements:There are some enhanced buffer treatmentsin the South Plaza alternative, including aCity-proposed buffer of secondary truck parking along the eastern edge of the plaza,and improved plantings between the southend of the plaza and Front Park.

North Plaza Alternative

The North Plaza alternative provides what we might think of as a gateway into thepark. Visitors arriving in Buffalo would travelthrough inspection facilities and around a ceremonial traffic circle in a new park element before entering either the local streetsystem or the highway network.

Land Area: The South Plaza alternativewould make the second largest footprint ofthe long term alternatives, at about thirty-fiveacres with buffers, more than twice the sizeof Shared Border Management. The SouthPlaza would occupy all of the existing plazaplus most of two city blocks facing BustiAvenue between Vermont Street andMassachusetts Avenue. The City design teamhas proposed taking at least one additionalhalf-block – the west side of Seventh Avenuebetween Vermont and Rhode Island Streets –and approximately three additional acres toserve as buffer between the neighborhoodand the plaza. There is a difference betweenthe PBA and City’s design team on theBuffalo footprint. The City’s concepts for theSouth Plaza alternative are elaborated in siteplan and bird’s eye view perspective format.

Building Program: Similar to the SharedBorder Management scheme, the City designteam has proposed the construction ofpaired, linked, or integrated duty free and visitor center buildings with possible bridge-related office space to be located at BustiAvenue and Vermont Street. These wouldalso frame the urban entry into the localstreet network, in this case at Vermont Street.

Circulation System: The northeast and south-east corners of the Vermont Street/NiagaraStreet intersection are occupied by a churchand the Armory, respectively. The entrance into the City in the South Plaza scheme wouldbe a boulevard with direct view of the neighborhood and these historic structures.Construction of the connecting boulevardalong Vermont Street would also require thedemolition or relocation of a number of sub-stantial and architecturally significant homes.



Land Area: The total footprint of this proj-ect, including the plaza and associated parkbuffer areas, would be approximately fifty-two acres, and would occupy a roughly triangular site north of Rhode Island Street,west of Prospect Avenue, and extending allthe way to the Thruway. In addition, a narrow strip of land between Niagara Streetand the Thruway north to Albany Street, now occupied by industrial warehouse buildings, would be included for secondarytruck parking. This would require the demoli-tion of these 19th century structures.

Building Program: The City design team has proposed a new visitor center that would be located at the new circle at RhodeIsland and Niagara Streets and punctuatingthe Niagara Street axis that runs all the wayfrom downtown Niagara Square. A new duty free store would be constructed withinthe bounds of the plaza. Both visitor centerand duty free store, however, would bedesigned to a high standard intended to provide identity and character to the maximumextent possible.

Circulation System: The North Plaza option, as enhanced by the City design team, would create a new traffic circle insidethe plaza at Massachusetts Avenue and thecurrent Niagara Street. Most traffic to andfrom the bridge would be routed around thiscircle. The plan would also create a new cere-monial circle at Niagara and Rhode IslandStreets and establish a new Niagara Parkwayin the Olmsted tradition northwesterly fromthere along the current alignment of ProspectAvenue. This new parkway would form theeastern edge of a new park space about twocity blocks in size that would serve as a bufferbetween bridge and plaza infrastructure andthe adjacent neighborhood.

Highway connections to and from the plazawould remain much as they are now.However, a new ramp from the southboundI-190 to the plaza would be created toreplace the Porter Avenue exit, which wouldbe removed. Entrances to the plaza from thenorthbound I-190 would be simplified andrelocated slightly to the north, expanding themargins of Front Park to the west.

Park and Buffer Improvements: Underthe North Plaza alternative, as with theShared Border Management option, FrederickLaw Olmsted’s Front Park would be fully rehabilitated including replanting; reestablish-ment of Sheridan Terrace Park Drive; providinga full roadway loop into the park at Porter,through the park and out of it at BustiAvenue and Rhode Island Street; restorationof the historic Hippodrome; and developmentof a full network of pedestrian trails and bikeways. The full footprint of historic FortPorter would also be recovered for interpreta-tion under this scheme, although the restora-tion of The Bank seems unlikely. There arealso opportunity costs for the North Plazaalternative. It would occupy the NiagaraBluffs on Niagara Street and preclude thereuse of that industrial building stock.



The North Plaza Alternative without shared border management requires the largest land area to accommodate border security and customs as seen in the plan (top) andsketch (bottom).



Second, the plaza is already directly adjacentto and encroaches on a densely populatedand vibrant residential neighborhood. Third,the area contains highly sensitive park andhistoric resources.

Shared Border Management is clearly thebest option for minimizing the amount ofland consumed by the Peace Bridge Project.The footprint for the Shared BorderManagement option is about fifteen acres.The footprint for the South Plaza alternativeis roughly thirty-eight acres, including severalacres added by the City design team forenhanced buffering. The North Plaza alterna-tive would consume the most area, aboutfifty-two acres, including nearly six acresadded to provide a deeper buffer betweenthe bridge and plaza and the neighborhood.

Evaluation of AlternativesThe three long term alternatives can be evaluated point by point against the goalsenunciated by Mayor Masiello in outliningour community vision for a new bridge, plaza, and international gateway. In generaland specifically, the new arrangements must help us make a great neighborhoodand create a grand gateway.

Make a Great Neighborhood

Occupies the least land area: Minimizingthe amount of land area required for PeaceBridge-related activities on the U.S. side,including the footprint of the plaza andenhanced buffer areas, is a basic goal of theCity for three fundamental reasons. First, theamount of available land is very limited onthe U.S. side (about seventeen acres com-pared to fifty-one on the Canadian side).

The site plan comparison of the alternatives demonstrates the benefit of a shared border accord for the City of Buffalo.



However, loss of assessed valuation of property could be used as a surrogate for atleast order of magnitude costs. In any event,the relative loss of tax base is clear in thecomparison. As shown in Table 2, the totalassessed valuation lost under Shared BorderManagement is about $13 million. The lost in the tax base under the South Plaza optionis somewhat higher, at $14.2 million.Implementation of the North Plaza optionwould cost nearly twice as much in lost taxbase – about $24.2 million. The loss in annual property tax revenues for the City ofBuffalo alone ranges from a low of about$162,000 in the Shared Border ManagementAlternative to $299,000 in the North PlazaAlternative (constant fiscal year 2004 dollars).Adding in the losses to the school districtdoubles these figures.

Minimizes acquisition and preserveslocal tax base: Likewise, the Shared BorderManagement alternative is superior in termsof costs of acquisition and impact on the taxbase of the City of Buffalo and Erie County.Shared Border Management will require thetaking of only one block that is now occupiedby the Episcopal Church Home, and willallow the renovation and resale of vacantbuildings already acquired by the PBA onBusti Avenue between Vermont and RhodeIsland Streets. The South Plaza alternative willrequire acquisition of two full blocks, includ-ing one of very solid housing. The NorthPlaza alternative will require acquisition of allor part of eight city blocks.

Actual acquisition and demolition costs can only be roughly estimated at this point.

Table 3: Housing Unit Loss by Long Term Alternative

Number of Housing Units Demolished

Shared Border Management South North

Base PBA proposal 15 11 161

Enhanced buffer 9 25 77

Total units 24 36 238

Source: City of Buffalo, Office of Strategic Planning.

Preserves housing: Parallel with the discussion above and as shown below in Table 3, theShared Border Management alternative would have the least impact on housing, requiring thedemolition of about twenty-four units. The South Plaza option would require demolition ofabout fifty percent more housing – a total of thirty-six units in all. The North Plaza option wouldrequire far more demolition and cause far more displacement, with an estimated 238 units razed.

Table 2: Loss of Assessed Valuation by Long Term Alternatives

Total Loss in Assessed Valuation1 ($ millions)

Shared Border Management South Plaza North Plaza

Base PBA proposal $12.7 $12.9 $21.9

Enhanced buffer $0.4 $1.3 $2.3

Total value $13.1 $14.2 $24.2

Source: City of Buffalo, Office of Strategic Planning.

1 Fiscal Year 2004-05 data.



It may be argued that the housing to be elim-inated in the North Plaza scheme is in poorercondition and has a relatively short economiclifespan, especially in relation to the housingto the south, which is in good condition andhas relatively high value. On the other hand,the housing to the north is more affordableto lower income families who are likely tohave fewer options in housing than theirmore affluent neighbors to the south.Whatever ranking is given to the North andSouth Plaza alternatives in this criterion, theysuffer by comparison with the Shared BorderManagement option.

Improves air quality: While a growing flow of both trucks and automobiles andtheir exhaust is expected at the Peace Bridge over time, the greatest threat to airquality is believed to be from diesel-poweredtrucks forced to idle their engines while waiting in lines for processing. The impact of idling trucks is distinctly local, while theoverall impact of exhaust may be morebroadly distributed. In short, ensuring a freeflow of trucks is the most important factor in improving neighborhood air quality.

In this regard, we are confident that detailedtechnical studies of air quality impacts willshow that Shared Border Management willbe vastly superior to the other alternatives inimproving air quality in neighborhoods adja-cent to the Peace Bridge. When trucks areinspected on the Ontario side of the border,local air quality impacts on Buffalo’s WestSide should be negligible. Even with improve-ments in processing under the North orSouth Plaza schemes, diesel trucks will stillspend significant time idling in a plaza imme-diately adjacent to densely-populated Buffaloneighborhoods. The Preliminary DraftEnvironmental Impact Statement will indicatewhether the North or South Plaza alternativeis preferable in this regard. The South Plazaoption would hold trucks on the far west sideof the plaza while the North alternativewould move these further to the north, awayfrom one neighborhood and toward another.

Improves parks and connects them toneighborhoods: An evaluation of theimpact of the alternatives on parks and theirconnections to neighborhoods depends on ajudgment of whether more is always betterand a consideration of the relative costs ofadditional park land. The Shared BorderManagement alternative would allow a fullrestoration of The Front, full recovery of thesite of Fort Porter, and a thorough connectionof parks to neighborhoods via trails and path-ways. It would also make possible the cre-ation of a relatively small new green spacenear Busti Avenue and Massachusetts Street.

The North Plaza option would likewise pro-vide restoration of The Front and recovery of Fort Porter. It would also create a new parkspace about two blocks in size locatedbetween the proposed Niagara Parkway andthe plaza infrastructure. This space wouldprovide additional neighborhoods with directconnections to a park-trail system, althoughat the cost of razing parts of those sameneighborhoods.

The South Plaza option does not allow recovery of any of the Fort Porter site andwould limit restoration of The Front to thecurrent acreage. Among other things, thiswould mean that Sheridan Drive could not berestored to its full original length. On balance,the Shared Border option seems best becauseit provides the most parkland at the least cost to neighborhood fabric.

Protects historic assets: Four categories of historic assets are affected by the severalplaza alternatives: historic architecture, his-toric streets, neighborhood fabric, and FortPorter. In this regard, Shared BorderManagement is, again, clearly preferable. Itallows for full recovery of the Fort Porter site,requires demolition of the fewest historicstructures, preserves historic street patterns(except for part of Busti Avenue), and leavesthe most neighborhood fabric intact.

Make a Great Gateway

Ensuring that visitors arriving from Canadaexperience a great gateway as they enterBuffalo will depend heavily on the quality ofarchitectural and landscape design that willfollow schematic design of the plaza itself.That said, the alternatives provide distinctlydifferent opportunities for shaping a greatinternational gateway.

The South Plaza alternative, as discussedabove, provides for a distinctly urban gate-way, with no expansion of open space, aconstrained street connection to the city, and a small footprint for new architecture to accommodate the duty free shop and visitor center.

The North Plaza alternative, in contrast, provides for a gateway in a park, with a new expanse of green space, as well as therecovered Fort Porter site. Although landmarkarchitecture for the duty free and visitor center are possible, this gateway would bemarked more by the new Niagara Parkwayand associated open space. But this alterna-tive also faces a special challenge. Becausethe North Plaza alternative requires a differentconfiguration of ramps and roads, its infra-structure would have a significantly higherprofile and require special efforts to mitigatea “wall of concrete” image.

The Shared Border Management alternative,meanwhile, with a direct connection toNiagara Street and a fully recovered FortPorter site, provides both an urban and park-like entrance to the city. While these are aesthetic judgments, Shared BorderManagement seems preferable to either the North Plaza or South Plaza alternatives.

Opens or preserves great views of thecity: Bridge crossings are memorable for the sweeping and sometimes surprising views they offer the traveler. Such views cancontribute immensely to the image of the city that newcomers hold in their minds. Adetailed analysis of potential views for arriv-ing visitors must await more detailed designsof bridge, ramp, and plaza infrastructure.

The North Plaza also promises full recovery of the Fort Porter site and avoids most of theNational Register eligible properties in theneighborhood. It would also allow for thepreservation of the Episcopal chapel at BustiAvenue and Massachusetts Street. However,it does threaten to remove up to eight blocksof city fabric and would disrupt the historicroute of Niagara Street.

The South Plaza would require the demolitionof the chapel and won’t allow recovery of the Fort Porter site, which would remain covered with asphalt. Moreover, the Southalternative would take many historically significant residential structures. In this calculation, the Shared Border Managementoption is clearly preferable.

Provides economic development opportunities: Much of the new economicdevelopment potential to be generated byPeace Bridge expansion is expected to beregional in nature. It won’t only be capturedin the immediate neighborhood of bridgeand plaza, but it will occur to the benefit ofthe larger metropolitan area. There are, however, three local sites where economicdevelopment opportunities may presentthemselves: at the point where local streetsconnect with the plaza; along the bluffs justto the north on Niagara Street; and alongPorter Avenue. The impact on two of thesesites is approximately the same under eachalternative. All three long term schemes willallow for limited bridge-related commercialdevelopment at the point where the plazaconnects to the local street network. All threewill allow for mixed-use and residential devel-opment consistent with the Olmsted themealong Porter Avenue. Only the Shared BorderManagement and South Plaza alternatives,however, protect the substantial redevelop-ment potential in buildings and sites alongthe bluffs above the Niagara River just to thenorth of the bridge. The North Plaza optionwould obliterate this valuable industrial-warehouse building stock and the mixed-use potential now being explored by severaldevelopers.



Comparison Summary

The Shared Border Management alternativefully meets all of the goals of the communityvision. It consumes the least amount of land,homes, and businesses; improves the qualityof life in the neighborhood by substantiallylowering the air pollutant levels, especiallyasthma-causing particulates; allows for recovery of the Fort Porter site and restorationof The Front; provides a dramatic entry to theCity; and protects historic resources in theneighborhood. All of the other alternativessuffer by comparison.

The South Plaza option causes significantlymore damage than Shared BorderManagement. It displaces additional neigh-borhood areas, prevents the recovery of theFort Porter site, and routes local car and trucktraffic through the neighborhood. However, it does leave open the potential for theinevitable Shared Border Management with-out the destruction of multiple blocks ofBuffalo neighborhoods and without occupy-ing a large expanse of Buffalo waterfront.

The North Plaza alternative allows for a fullrestoration of The Front and recovery of theFort Porter site, and it provides a broad land-scape buffer between the plaza and adjacentneighborhoods. It does so at a cost of all orpart of eight city blocks of existing neighbor-hoods. It also would occupy the bluffs abovethe Niagara River on the west side of NiagaraStreet all the way to Albany Street – a sitewhich has some of the most compellingviews and some of the most promising economic development possibilities of anyplace in the City. In many ways, it would bethe most costly of all the alternatives, includ-ing in terms of construction dollars.

Even a preliminary assessment, however, canidentify some of the differences in viewsoffered by the three alternatives. The SouthPlaza alternative would provide visitors withviews to the south, including Downtown,pieces of the waterfront, and some of TheFront. It is likely, however, that plaza struc-tures as well as landscape buffers will obscureviews of the park and neighborhood oncevisitors descend to grade. The North Plaza,for reasons discussed above, would providepotentially higher-altitude views of the city,but because automobile passengers wouldturn to the north off the bridge, no views ofDowntown or the waterfront would be avail-able. The Shared Border Management alter-native is preferable because it would provideviews to the south similar to those providedby the South Plaza alternative, but withoutplaza buildings in the way.

Provides clear connections to the City:Mayor Masiello’s vision for the bridge andplaza includes a goal that visitors be able tocome to the city as easily as possible. Thismeans that clear and direct connectionsbetween the plaza and the city street grid are important. Shared Border Managementwould provide a simple, visible, and directentrance to the city along Rhode Island Streetand marked at Niagara Street by a grand circle. The South Plaza alternative would provide a similar parkway-like entrance alongVermont Street. The North Plaza alternativerequires a rather circuitous route from thebridge, through inspections, around an interior traffic circle and then into the streetsystem at several points along Niagara Street.It is likely that many visitors would find theNorth Plaza alternative a confusing – if notdizzying – way to enter Buffalo.

Provides efficient links to highway network: All three alternatives providedirect connections to and from I-190 in bothdirections. Only the circuitous connections ofthe North Plaza option hold any significantdrawbacks.





Table 4

Evaluation criteria South Plaza North Plaza Shared Border Management

M A K E A G R E A T G A T E W AY

A grand entrance Poor Good Good

Great views Poor Fair Best

Good links to city streets Fair Poor Best

Good links to highways Good Good Good

Transportation efficiency Fair Fair Best

Way-finding Good Fair Best

M A K E G R E A T N E I G H B O R H O O D S

Protect housing Good Poor Best

Preserve tax base Fair Poor Fair

Improve air quality Fair Good Best

Protect historic assets Poor Fair Good

Improve parks Fair Good Good

Connect parks,

neighborhoods Fair Best Good

Develop the economy Fair Poor Fair

Conclusion: Shared BorderManagementThe governments of the U.S. and Canadahave signed an agreement to have SharedBorder Management at the Peace Bridge andare currently negotiating how this can beimplemented. SBM is a reasonable and viablegoal for handling the movement of peopleand goods across the United States/Canadaborder, and it could be argued that SBMshould be the only acceptable and justifiablecourse of action. The heavy burden of anynegative effects of an international bridgecrossing of far-reaching economic significancefor both the U.S. and Canada falls squarelyand inequitably upon the shoulders of theresidents of the adjoining urban neighbor-hoods in the City of Buffalo and Fort Erie.The adverse environmental effects of thebridge and plaza operations on the health

and quality of life of our city’s neighborhoodsare unacceptable now, and if not ameliorated,will continue into the future. The U.S. environmental review process does not limitproject alternatives to those that are currentlyallowed by national legislation, but embracesalternatives that serve as catalysts for changes in federal legislation to further environmental goals.

Shared Border Management, like the openborders ushered in by the formation of theEuropean Union (EU), is vastly superior fromlocal, national, and international perspectives.Shared border management was one of thefirst milestones achieved by the EU and theagreements addressed the needs of fifteendiverse member countries. In contrast, suchan agreement for the Peace Bridge requiresthe cooperation of only two very similarcountries. Many of the impediments toShared Border Management – including legal

Next StepsAs of August 2005, there appears to be aconsensus: Shared Border Management will be pilot tested at the Peace BridgeInternational Gateway. Alternative designdevelopment by the Public Bridge Authorityhas progressed to now include three designalternatives that will be evaluated in the U.S.environmental review process. That review,together with a bridge selection process, will lead to the creation of the grand interna-tional border that citizens of Canada and theU.S. will be proud of for generations tocome. Each of the proposals illustrated inAugust of 2005 are subject to further revisionsand public discussion as the Public BridgeAuthority concludes its design and environ-mental review process.

restrictions, administrative differences, andfunding issues – have been self-created.Conversely, many of the factors which promote an integrated border managementapproach can be developed as the newagreement demonstrates.

There is another bridge called the PeaceBridge. It crosses the Jordan River just southof the Sea of Galilee and links Israel andJordan. This Peace Bridge shares customsfacilities for the movement of goods acrossthe border. This fact should give us pause.The success of shared border management in this much more challenging political envi-ronment, with diverse cultures and differentlanguages, shows us that it can be done.

Shared Border Management is well withinour reach. We have the opportunity to putWestern New York and Southern Ontario onthe cutting edge of cross border manage-ment between our two great nations. Andwhat better place is there to show the worlda new model for cooperation than our ownPeace Bridge?



Draft North Alignment: A draft proposal (August 2005) for the Shard Border Management Alternative moves the bridge landing to the northof the initial City of Buffalo investigation. (Source: Fort Erie and Buffalo Public Bridge Authority)



Draft South Alignments: Two alternatives (August 2005) for the Shared Border Management Alternative leaves the bridge landing to theSouth. (Source: Fort Erie and Buffalo Public Bridge Authority)


Waterfront Gateway Nodes: Analysis, Design Guidelines and Proposals 85

• They hold potential for increasingwaterfront accessibility;

• Their conditions are susceptible tochange and ready for implementation;

• They show potential for improvingtransportation efficiency;

• They have potential to support eco-nomic and/or community development;

• Potential projects are supported bycommunity input; and/or

• Projects were identified in the history of plans.

IntroductionOne of the primary transportation aims of theQueen City Waterfront is to improve accessto the waterfronts of the City of Buffalo forcars, trucks, bicycles, and pedestrians. TheCity is blessed with miles of waterfront, butthere are too few places where people canactually access and experience it.

As part of the scope of work in the BuffaloCorrifdor Management Plan, five “gatewaynodes” were selected for analysis and development of design guidelines and projectproposals. The first was the InternationalGateway at the Peace Bridge, which, becauseof its central importance for the future ofBuffalo’s waterfront, has been called out forin-depth inquiry and the development ofalternatives for public discussion. (See Volume 4).

Four other nodes were identified that war-ranted an initial analysis of the potential forexpanding transportation access to thewaterfront and development of conceptualproposals. Two of these were also proposedfor the development of an Expanded ProjectProposal (EPP) – a required step for any proj-ect proposal to be considered for funding.(See Volume 6 and Volume 7 for moredetailed information on this work). Thesegateway nodes were selected because theymet many, although not necessarily all, of the following criteria:

The waterfronts in Buffalo are lined with highways; the accesspoints over and under these major roadways are limited as seen inthe above graphic.

Waterfront Gateway Nodes: Analysis,

Design Guidelines and Proposals


86 Waterfront Gateway Nodes: Analysis, Design Guidelines and Proposals

A systematic analysis of the City’s westernedge allowed planners to identify a numberof locations that met the criteria outlinedabove and warranted further analysis for the development of transportation-orientedprojects consistent with expressed communitypriorities. Four sites were selected for thisstudy, and two of these – Porter Avenue andErie Street – were assessed as most likely tobe implementable in the immediate future.

Primary Nodes for EPP Development

Porter Avenue is a key location for waterfront accessibility transportationimprovements. It is adjacent to proposedimprovements in the Peace Bridge area,which will be reinforced by investments in the Porter Avenue gateway and further economic development of the area. PorterAvenue connects the City to the very edge of the water. As one of Olmsted’s parkways,it is also an integral part of the long-plannedFront Park rehabilitation. There have been along series of proposals for improvement; it is time to implement them.

Erie Street is a crucial link betweenDowntown Buffalo and the waterfront.Indeed, it had connected the waterfront with Main Street at Shelton Square from thefirst platting of the city until the early 1970s,when the two blocks between Franklin andMain were closed to vehicular traffic and converted into a pedestrian-only zone. Now,in support of ongoing redevelopment of thewaterfront and in response to the demandfor improved access, it is proposed that thesetwo blocks of Erie Street be reopened to traf-fic to provide a restored visual and physicalconnection to the waterfront. It is also pro-posed that the outer sections of Erie Street,west of the I-190, be realigned along theiroriginal axis as a means to enhance the visualconnection from city to water and to rationalize the delineation of developmentparcels in the Waterfront Village.

Secondary Nodes for Conceptual Development

The Virginia/Carolina Interchange from I-190 to Niagara Street presents anotherimportant opportunity to improve transporta-tion efficiency and waterfront access. Trafficflow to and from the Interstate needs to beimproved, especially for traffic leaving theThruway and turning onto Niagara Street.This interchange will become even moreimportant if access to and from I-190 is eliminated at Porter Avenue as part of PeaceBridge Plaza reconfigurations. Too many

There were two primary nodes and two secondary nodes exploredas a part of the Buffalo Waterfront Corridor Initiative Project.



For Porter Avenue, the process involved aninitial meeting with a coalition of neighbor-hood associations and another session withthe Buffalo Olmsted Parks Conservancy todiscuss the starting concept. This was fol-lowed by a second meeting to invite thissame range of stakeholders to review and critique the proposals.

Urban Design Guidelines for Buffalo’s Waterfront

Four basic goals for gateway nodes wereestablished. These goals are consistent withLWRP policies, and are based on a review ofpast plans and guided by public participationin this project. Design guidelines for each of the four nodes are intended to supportachievement of these goals to:

• Improve access to the waterfront;

• Promote community and economicdevelopment;

• Enhance transportation efficiency; and,

• Support historic preservation efforts.

These guidelines are intended to supplementexisting guidelines and City regulations. Forexample, guidelines here for Porter Avenueare based on the Olmsted Parks Conservancyguidelines for historically appropriate designand site features. These guidelines are alsoconsistent with the city’s Tree Ordinance andrelevant sections of the City of Buffalo’sComprehensive Plan The Queen City in the21st Century, and The Queen City Hubdowntown plan.

factors are still in flux to warrant develop-ment of an EPP. However, initial analysis andconceptual proposals suggest that modestchanges in the configuration of the inter-change could improve traffic flow, preservepedestrian environments, and allow for new connections from the neighborhood to the waterfront.

The Scajaquada Creek/Niagara StreetInterchange also holds significant potentialfor improvements in transportation andaccess. It includes part of the new bike trailand the site of Squaw Island Park. The location is still in transition and in need oftemporary and long term improvements oftransportation infrastructure. A proposal froma private developer to build an internationalbridge at this site suggests that decisionsabout public improvements be held inabeyance. Site analysis and proposal develop-ment, however, suggest that some minorimprovements can be made to improveaccess.

Community Participation

The selection, analysis and proposal develop-ment for the gateway nodes was embeddedin a larger process that included the analysisof past plans and their community participa-tion components, as well as an ongoingprocess of community engagement conducted as part of the development ofQueen City Waterfront. The latter process included three large-scale public meetingswhich brought attention to the waterfrontagenda, helped set priorities for action, andreviewed specific projects for near-termimplementation.

A more specific review of work in progresstoward EPPs for Erie Street and Porter Avenuewas conducted with stakeholders in each ofthose areas. In the case of Erie Street, con-sultant staff interviewed individual propertyowners or their representatives to hear theirgeneral concerns about the concept, andlater reviewed a more developed proposalbefore a small group meeting to which thesesame stakeholders were invited.



Node Analysis and Proposals

Work on all four nodes included bothdescription and analysis, a brief descriptionand history for each site. Historic maps andphotographs were collected to identify theextent of change over the years, and photographs of the current conditions weretaken. For each of the sites, maps were generated to display information in the following categories:

1. Existing conditions

2. Land use (commercial, residential, cultural, parks, vacant, and military)

3. Open space (parks, designated openspace, vacant land, and brownfields)

4. Historic sites, landmarks, and culturalresources

5. Location of projects from the planninginventory

6. Distribution of public, quasi-public andprivate lands

7. Opportunities and constraints

These maps are available in Volume 5 of thefinal report.

Goals for the Gateway Nodes

Based on this analysis and in collaborationwith stakeholders in each area, specific goalswere established for each of the two primarynodes, Porter Avenue and Erie Street.

For Porter Avenue, the goals are to:

• Reinforce Porter Avenue as one ofBuffalo’s great Olmsted parkways;

• Connect Buffalo’s park system to Front Park and beyond to the water’sedge; and

• Create a grand civic street thatacknowledges its educational, cultural, and public amenities.

For Erie Street, the goals are to:

• Connect Downtown to the waterfrontfor cars, pedestrians, and bicycles;

• Restore the historic Ellicott radial street plan; and

• Expand the City across and under the Skyway bridge approach and I-190 to the water’s edge.

Specific design guidelines were developed for the primary nodes consistent with thesite-specific goals above, and in keeping with the overarching goals of the project,including improvements in access, supportfor economic development, improvementsin transportation efficiency, andpreservation of historic resources.



Porter Avenue: Guidelinesand Concept ProposalsPorter Avenue has the potential to be one of Buffalo’s primary access points to thewaterfront. It crosses I-190 at a critical pointand offers an opportunity to connect neigh-borhoods to parks and to the water’s edge. A bike path along the shoreline already exists,but it needs to be connected to the City –specifically to bike lanes that run alongRichmond Avenue as part of the OlmstedPark and Parkway system.

Porter Avenue also presents an opportunityboth to highlight the public or civic characterof the activities along its right-of-way, and toconnect these activities to each other. Asshown in the map of “Opportunities andConstraints,” Porter Avenue features extensive public lands, institutional uses, andwaterfront parks. Appropriate treatment ofthe streetscape can do much to connect andenhance these uses.

Porter Avenue runs from the Niagara River to Symphony Circle at Richmond. (Source: NYS Orthoimagery Program, 2002)

Porter Avenue is adjoined by significant green space and civic structures.



Transportation:

• Explore eliminating Thruway on- andoff-ramps and Peace Bridge accessthrough Front Park to enhance theOlmsted character of Porter Avenue.

• Connect DAR Drive from LaSalle Parkwith access road to Cotter Point to create a clear four-way intersectionwith Porter Avenue.

• Minimize further expansion of surfaceparking lots, allow on-street parkingand eliminate existing lots where possible, and add parking near the footof Porter Avenue.

• Provide clear vehicular access fromhighways to the local street networkthrough improved signage to I-190, the Peace Bridge, and routes toDowntown.

• Provide alternative access along streetconnections to the waterfront includingtransit connections, designated bike-ways, and safe and friendly pedestrianpaths.

Historic Preservation:

• Reestablish the Olmsted parkway pattern and connections to and fromhistoric Front Park through reconfigura-tion of pavements, sidewalks, and landscaping.

• Reinforce Olmsted design standardsthrough the use of historically appropri-ate lighting fixtures and patterns, streetfurniture, paving, etc.

• Celebrate and interpret Porter Avenue’sOlmsted history, its Erie Canal historyincluding the route of the canal andthe canal bridge foundations, alongwith other historical elements, includingthe West Side Rowing Club, theColonel Ward Pumping Station, andthe Bird Island Pier.

Urban Design Guidelines for Porter Avenue

Access:

• Reinforce connections from SymphonyCircle at Richmond Avenue and NorthStreet through the InternationalGateway at Niagara Street and contin-ue Porter to the water’s edge throughclearly marked access for cars, bicycles,and pedestrians.

• Use trees, lighting plan, and street wallsto frame the vista to the water withuninterrupted sight lines.

• Maximize public access directly to thewater along the Black Rock Canal atthe foot of Porter Avenue with a smallurban park and at Cotter Point throughincreased activity such as boating andfishing access and through developmentsuch as the Great Lakes Research Center.

• Define the bridge over I-190 as a gateway through the use of bridge art,lighting, and landscaping.

Community Development:

• Reinforce Niagara Street where it intersects with Porter Avenue as theinternational gateway to Downtownthrough streetscape improvements,directional signage, and urban-densityredevelopment.

• Over time, promote the replacement of low-density auto-oriented businesseson Porter Avenue with urban street-front development, including multi-storyand mixed-use buildings with groundfloor commercial and upper housingand offices.

• Develop water-dependent and water-enhanced uses within the coastal zoneas consistent with the Local WaterfrontRevitalization Program.

Porter Avenue could be designed to look asgracious as Richmond Avenue, one ofOlmsted’s great streets.



Concept Design Proposals

Three alternatives were considered by stake-holders and planning staff. First was to “donothing.” Second was to provide a three-lane roadway with one moving lane in eachdirection, a center lane for turning, and noon-street parking. The third was to create afour-lane road with one lane of traffic in each direction and one lane of parking oneach side.

The wider boulevard with parking wasdeemed to be most in keeping with theOlmstedian character of Porter Avenue. Thefour lane configuration is proposed to becombined with an off-road recreational pathextending from the Shoreline Trail and alongFront Park to Busti Avenue. At Busti Avenue,the off-road path would connect to an on-road bike lane which continues until itconnects at Symphony Circle to the dedicatedon-street bike lanes that extend downRichmond Avenue.

The overall plan for the right-of-way betweenthe waterfront and Niagara Street was devel-oped by looking carefully at five segmentsthat had a different enough character todemand a slightly different treatment. Thesegments are identified as:

A. Waterfront to DAR Drive

B. DAR Drive to I-190 Bridge

C. I-190 Bridge

D. I-190 Bridge to Busti Avenue

E. Busti Avenue to Niagara Street

A multi-use trail system is proposed for Porter Avenue.

Different conditions along Porter Avenue demanded that it be divided into segments fordesign proposals.



Segment A – Waterfront to DAR Drive

Features include terminus at end of PorterAvenue, perpendicular parking on ColonelWard’s Pumping Station side, and animproved bike path.

Segment B – DAR Drive to I-190 Bridge

Features include rationalized connectionbetween DAR Drive and access road toCotter Point, narrowed road with two rowsof trees, and a bike path.

Porter Avenue Segment A Rendering

Porter Avenue Segment A Section

Porter Avenue Segment A Plan

Porter Avenue Segment B Rendering

Porter Avenue Segment B Section

Porter Avenue Segment B Plan



Segment D – I-190 Bridge to Busti Avenue

We developed two alternatives in this area:D-1 has a three travel lanes, while D-2 hastwo lanes of moving traffic and two lanes ofparking. Both have a recreational trail and awalkway. Public input and Olmsted guidelinessuggest that option D-2 is preferable.

Segment C – I-190 Bridge

The bridge is built on a historic foundationthat was a part of the Erie Canal, and access to the lower level would make thefoundations visible. The roadway on thebridge would be narrowed and the spaceused for bikeway and walkways with historic lighting features.

Porter Avenue Segment C Rendering

Porter Avenue Segment C Section

Porter Avenue Segment C Plan

Porter Avenue Segment D Rendering

Porter Avenue Segment D Section

Porter Avenue Segment D Plan



Porter Avenue Segment E SectionPorter Avenue Segment E Plan

The proposed design for Porter Avenue between the Niagara River and Niagara Street maintains the historic street width.

Segment E – Busti Avenue to Niagara Street

The road bed here, like in Section “D,” has two alternatives: E-2 has four lanes (two moving traffic and two parking), and E-1 has a three lane option. As in the last section, we suggest that alternative E-2 ispreferable.



Erie Street: Guidelines and Concept ProposalsOne of the primary goals of the Erie Streetproposal is to reopen the connectionbetween Main Street in Downtown and the waterfront. The proposed design opens a vista directly from Main Street to the waterfront so that Buffalo is reminded that it is a waterfront city.

An aerial view of Erie Street shows the curve west of the I-190 and the pattern of the original Urban Renewal plan. (Source: NYS Orthoimagery Program, 2002)

The straightening of the western end of Erie Street is suggested to restore the historicradial street pattern and to provide newurban development sites along the realignedstreet. This proposal for new development,including a modification of the current urbanrenewal plan, brings the city grid to thewater’s edge and actually “moves” the city to its waterfront.



Urban Design Guidelines for Erie Street

Access:

• Provide continuous public access to thewater’s edge by proposing a fifty footsetback;

• Create a continuous public realm by expanding the urban grid and promoting ground floor commercialdevelopment;

• Provide a direct connection from MainStreet along Erie Street straight to thewater’s edge with provision for cars,bicycles and pedestrians;

• Create uninterrupted sight lines fromDowntown to the water and frame the vista with trees, lighting and streetwalls;

• Improve safety and security by improving lighting for cars and pedestrians (especially under bridges)and by promoting ground level activityand round-the-clock occupation of the public realm; and

• Transform bridge underpasses frombarriers to gateways through the use of lighting, artwork, signage, and useof a recognizable waterfront marker.

Economic Development:

• Expand development opportunities by extending the urban street grid west beyond the Thruway, creatingurban-style development parcels;

• Promote urban densities with multi-story buildings, zero-lot line design,mixed uses, ground floor commercial,and housing or offices above; and

• Develop water-dependent and water-enhanced uses within the coastal zoneas consistent with the Local WaterfrontRevitalization Program.

Transportation:

• Create clear vehicular access and provide clear signage to highway connections, including the BuffaloSkyway and I-190;

• Provide clear access for cars along directstreet connections from the central business district to the waterfront;

• Minimize parking in surface lots byallowing on-street parking and promot-ing development of structured parkingin mixed-use buildings;

• Provide alternative access along streetconnections to the waterfront includingtransit connections, designated bike-ways, and safe and friendly pedestrianpaths; and

• Maintain future possibilities for pedes-trian bridge or other connections froma reconfigured Erie Street to the OuterHarbor.

Historic Preservation:

• Re-establish Ellicott radial and grid plan and use the historic Erie Streetright-of-way from Main Street to the water’s edge;

• Reference the Olmsted parkway pat-tern, where possible, through the useof characteristic double rows of trees;

• Reinforce the Ellicott historic districtdesignation on upper Erie Streetthrough the use of appropriate lightingfixtures, street furniture, and otherdesign details;

• Celebrate and interpret Erie Canal history, including the site of the canalintersecting Erie Street, connections to ongoing Erie Canal Harbor develop-ments, and landscape or water featuretreatments of the historic Evans Slip;and

• Maintain urban proportions throughzero-lot line development and appropriate ROW to building heightrelationships.

Concept Design Proposals

Erie Street was divided into three segmentsfor purposes of design:

A. The Buffalo River to I-190 and Perry Boulevard

B. I-190 and Perry Boulevard to Franklin Street

C. Franklin Street to Main Street



Segment A – The Buffalo River to I-190and Perry Boulevard

This area has been an Urban Renewal Areawith a plan specifying development in a sub-urban manner. The intention is to revise thePlan to facilitate more urban, dense, andtaller structures along the newly aligned Erie Street.

The proposal is to return Erie Street to its historic alignment that would require restructuring theUrban Renewal plan.

For purposes of design, Erie Street was divided into three segments.

Erie Street Segment A Rendering

Erie Street Segment A Section

Erie Street Segment A Plan



Erie Street Segment B Rendering

Erie Street Segment B Section

Erie Street Segment B Plan

The proposal for Erie Street is to return it to its historic path and directly connect Main Street to the waterfront.

Segment B – I-190 and Perry Boulevardto Franklin Street

The street between the Thruway and PearlStreet includes the area under the bridges.We are proposing that these spaces beredesigned to give a sense of a gatewaybetween Downtown and the waterfront,rather than the current sense of being“nowhere” spaces. This space under I-190was the former Erie Canal and can be interpreted as such.

Because of the I-190 and the ramp up to theSkyway, this area is quite complex from atraffic and way-finding perspective. The proposal clarifies traffic movement and alsoprovides signage to ease movement onto I-190.



Segment C – Franklin Street to Main Street

This section of Erie Street is the formerSheldon Square where a number of streetsintersect and a small urban park, CathedralPark, is located. Any proposal must addressthe park-like quality of the street, while at thesame time making a clear directional state-ment about the location of the waterfront.

This area also has commercial property on thesouth side of the street which require access.This has been addressed with a pull off lane.

Erie Street Segment C Section

Erie Street Segment C Plan

Erie Street Segment C Rendering

A concept sketch looking east from the west end of Erie Street illustrates the proposed density of development due to parcels created north and south of a straightened Erie Street. (Source: CharlesGordon, Architect)

The proposal to return Erie Street to its original alignment wouldpermit uninterrupted public access from Main Street to the water’sedge. The photograph shows the existing vantage point lookingwest from the top of the parking garage east of Main Street onDivision Street.



Secondary NodesThe identification of secondary nodes supportsthe ongoing transportation planning for thecity in a phased manner. These critical inter-sections should be in the process of preparationfor improvements once the primary nodes areunderway. Both the Scajaquada intersectionand the Virginia/Carolina interchange areimportant to the efficient traffic flow of thecity and offer opportunities for both publicaccess and economic development.

Scajaquada/Niagara Street

The area surrounding the interchangebetween the Scajaquada Expressway, the I-190and Niagara Street is extremely complex anddemands in depth planning for transportationand urban design. National and internationalrail lines, limited access highways, localstreets, and bike trails all converge in thevicinity of the mouth of the Scajaquada Creekwhere it enters the Black Rock Channel, former location of the Erie Canal. Here, too,Niagara Street – the city’s defining water’s

The complexity of the Scajaquada Node at the meeting of the I-190, the Scajaquada Expressway (198) and Niagara Street requires ongoingstudy even while offering opportunities for more traffic efficiency and public access.

edge street – veers to the northwest, whileTonawanda Street heads north into a keyindustrial, warehousing and transportationdistrict.

Key opportunities identified in theanalysis of this area include the potential to:

• Expand public open space and improveaccess to the bike path, ScajaquadaCreek, and the new Squaw Island Park;

• Identify historic resources including the Erie Canal, International RailroadBridge, and rail-oriented industrialbuildings;

• Convert the Scajaquada Expressway to a parkway;

• Improve access from I-190 to industrialareas;

• Rationalize the intersection at NiagaraStreet, Tonawanda Street, and the on-ramp to the Scajaquada; and

• Improve bike lanes.



• Develop safe pedestrian crossingswhere I-190 ramps meet NiagaraStreet; and

• Create new connections betweenNiagara Street, local neighborhoodsand LaSalle Park.

SummaryBuffalo, Queen City of the Lakes, has beencut off from its waterfront for many years:first through the industrialization of thewaterfront, and more recently by highways.These proposals for gateway nodes offer concrete and attainable ways to reconnectthe city and water to improve public access,generate new development opportunities andto improve transportation effectiveness.

The Virginia/Carolina Interchange is one of the busiest I-190 on/off ramps and it offers the potential of a greenway from Niagara Street to the water’s edge.

Virginia/Carolina Interchange

The interchange between Niagara Street andI-190 along Virginia and Carolina Streetsoccupies a large swath of the city and pro-vides a key access point from the region toDowntown and the Lower West Side. Alreadyimportant, this interchange is likely tobecome even more so if connections to andfrom I-190 at Porter Avenue are implementedas proposed. A number of opportunities areavailable to achieve the goals of this project.

Systematic description and analysis ofthis node suggest the possibility to:

• Remove the I-190 on-ramp fromVirginia Street west of Niagara Street;

• Recapture land between the currenton- and off- ramps and reconnect it to the neighborhood fabric;

• Rationalize the intersection of theramps and Niagara Street, currently thesite of significant traffic jams;

Setting PrioritiesIt should be obvious that the City of Buffalocan’t do everything it wants all at once. Nor can we even do everything we wouldsomeday like to do. There won’t be enoughmoney under any circumstances to do it all.For these reasons alone it will be necessary to set some priorities about what things aremore or less important to accomplish andwhich things should be done first and whichset aside until later.

Beyond the simple limits on action imposedby the scarcity of resources there are otherreasons why we should do some things now,others later and still others not at all.Inevitably, these choices about priorities willbe made in a political way by elected officialsand their designees or, in some cases, by private parties acting on their own. Yet wecan identify some principles that can guideour deliberations about priorities.

Finish What We Start

There are many projects identified within thisplan that are consistent with its vision, goalsand policies, that are well developed in termsof concept, design and development and that will contribute substantially to theimprovement of Buffalo’s waterfront corridorthat are stalled for lack of money or attention.Some, like the LaSalle Park master plan or theRiverside Park restoration are, in fact, partlydone. For any and all projects that are inprogress or ready to go we must resolve tofinish what we start.

IntroductionAll Buffalonians who care about the future oftheir waterfronts know that implementationhas been the great stumbling block to achieving the community vision. Many planshave been made, but fewer have been putinto action as the review of the planninglegacy in this project has shown. As a result,no one who knows the history of Buffalowaterfront planning and development woulddisagree that implementation is the key tosuccess of the LWRP and to the Queen CityWaterfront, this strategic plan for the transportation corridor.

At the same time, it is critical to understandthe true links between planning and action.Sometimes the issue is framed as one ofplanning versus action. Instead, we ought tounderstand planning as the necessary – butnot sufficient – prelude to action. Even better,we could understand the entire process as aseries of interrelated steps, with clear plan-ning analysis and strong citizen participationleading to good plans which are, in turn,connected to strong public policy, clear budgetary priorities, and well-establishedprocesses of coordination among public andprivate implementing agencies.

The current plan incorporates years of systematic planning analysis and persistentcitizen participation to produce consensusplanning proposals translated through strongpublic policy. What remains to be discussed isa process for setting clear priorities, budget-ary and otherwise, and to build on the recentexperience of interagency coordinationtoward waterfront plan implementation.


102 Implementation

Implementation

Don’t Spend It All in One Place

There is a hunger in some quarters for thebig project that can change everything. Butreally big projects can also consume all of ourresources and make it impossible to pursuethe full breadth of this project agenda.Maybe a “Big Dig” Downtown or an OuterHarbor tunnel are needed. But we must besure we don’t spend all of our money in onesuch place.

These principles won’t tell us in every casewhat’s most important or needs to be donefirst. But they can discipline our thinking anddiscussion about priority-setting. They needto be applied in an open and deliberativeprocess that involves relevant decision-makersand the general public.

Next StepsAlthough public frustration with implementa-tion of waterfront proposals and projects isdeeply justified, there are two elements tothe conventional wisdom about waterfrontplanning that are demonstrably wrong.

First, it is not true that nothing has beendone to achieve the community vision forBuffalo’s waterfront. The inventory of planning and action that is included in thiswork spells out in great detail the specificsteps that have been taken to transform our waterfront in accordance with the community vision.

Second, it is also not true that agencies in theregion have failed to work together. Recentprogress on waterfront projects has beenmade in large part because of systematic,albeit ad hoc, coordination among municipal,county, state and federal agencies. Projectstaff at all four levels of government havebuilt strong working relationships and methods of communication that have paidoff in tangible achievements.

Build from Strength

The impact of public investments in thewaterfront will be greatest when we connectthose investments to one another. This willcreate the greatest public amenity and lever-age the greatest private sector investment.The alternative is to scatter investments in away that diminishes their impact. This doesnot mean we should put all of our investmentsin one place, only that we should thinkstrategically how we move geographicallyfrom one success to another.

Make Change Visible

Even small investments can have a hugeimpact on public perceptions and public use ofthe waterfront. The creation of the Riverwalk,Scajaquada Path, Buffalo River Greenway,and soon the Outer Harbor Greenway haveand will change how Buffalonians see theirwaterfront. Yet, altogether, these projects willhave cost far less than more expensive andambitious projects.

Hew to Core Values

There will be temptations to use waterfrontlands for purposes not recommended by thisplan nor allowed by the LWRP. Use of water-front lands for uses not related to the waterwill both consume finite resources and spoilother investments. Priority projects must hew to the core values of public access, environmental improvement, neighborhoodconnections, and water-appropriate economicdevelopment.


Implementation 103

What is required now is to institutionalizethese working relationships so that coordina-tion among cooperating agencies becomesroutine. The recent decision to create a special-purpose waterfront agency gives astrong focus to work on Buffalo’s Inner andOuter Harbor. This is especially true becausethe new organization has revenues dedicatedto it through the New York State PowerAuthority Reliscensing Agreement. But all this cannot eliminate the need for ongoinginteragency coordination first, becausemunicipal, county, state and federal interestswill continue to be involved in waterfrontdevelopments, and second, because Buffalo’swaterfronts encompass far more than theInner and Outer Harbor.

The implementation of proposals included inthis plan require continued institutionalizationof interagency coordination. The agenciesthat have already been involved in theseprocesses – the City of Buffalo, County ofErie, Empire State Development Corporation,the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New YorkState Department of Transportation, NewYork State Department of EnvironmentalConservation, and many others are critical to the success of plan goals.


104 Implementation

ConclusionBuffalo emerged from its waterfronts andBuffalo insists that it will return to the water.Recent history has been marked both by greatfrustrations and significant achievements. Butthe future ought to be bright, for the city hasmuch of what is needed to create positivechange on its waterfronts: a clear communityvision for the future, a strong plan incorporatingconsensus projects, and a working cadre ofimplementing agencies.

Appendix A.

Bibliography of Plans and Related Documents(Taken from Volume 2 of the Queen City Waterfront based on the inventory completed in March 2003)

ORGANIZED BY SPONSORING AGENCY • LISTED BY AUTHOR OR CONSULTANT

City of Buffalo

Alan M. Voorhees & Associates, Inc. Accessibility Requirements Buffalo Waterfront, for the Department of UrbanRenewal, City of Buffalo, n.d.

Buffalo Common Council, Niagara River Globally Significant Important Bird Area Resolution, 1998.

Buffalo Common Council’s Waterfront Greenway Task Force, The City of Buffalo Waterfront Greenway System Report, 1995.

Buffalo Economic Renaissance Corporation, City Smart Strategic Plan for Real Estate Investment, 2001.

Buffalo Environmental Management Commission, General Plan – Buffalo Environmental Policy, 1996.

City of Buffalo, Connecticut Street Urban Renewal Plan, circa 1982.

City of Buffalo, Grant Ferry Urban Renewal Plan, n.d.

City of Buffalo, Old Bailey Woods Park, 2001.

City of Buffalo, Proposed Buffalo Waterfront Revitalization Program, 1990.

City of Buffalo, Erie County, and Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority, Outer Harbor WaterfrontTrail ProjectApplication, TEA-21 Application, 2001.

City Planning Board, Buffalo Waterways: A history of the Port of Buffalo and related matters, August 1970.

DeLeuw, Cather & Company, Grant Ferry International Marketplace Project Plan, for the City of Buffalo, n.d.

DeLeuw Cather & Company, LaSalle Park Preliminary Master Plan, for the City of Buffalo, 1997.

DeLeuw, Cather and Company, South Buffalo Redevelopment Concept Plan, for City of Buffalo Division of Planning, 1997.

Dennison Associates, Inc, Revitalization of the Richmond Avenue Neighborhood, for the City of Buffalo, 2000.

City of Buffalo Department of Urban Renewal, Waterfront Redevelopment Project, December 12, 1961.

Department of Planning, University at Buffalo, The New Zoo: Impacts and Opportunities Along theBuffalo River, for theCity of Buffalo, 1998.

Ecology and Environment, Final GEIS for Development of the Union Ship Canal, for the Buffalo

Economic Renaissance Corporation, 2002.

Erdman Anthony Consulting Engineers, Gateway Tunnel Feasibility Study, Phase III & IV, for the City of PublicDepartment of Public Works, May 1994.

Erdman Anthony Consulting Engineers, Gateway Tunnel Feasibility Study Exhibits, for the City of Public Department ofPublic Works, April 1994.

Freschi, Bruno and Ernest Sternberg, University at Buffalo School of Architecture and Planning and Stieglitz StieglitzMach, PC, Remaking Buffalo’s Downtown Waterfront, Master Plan, for the City of Buffalo, 1996.

Friends of the Buffalo Niagara Rivers, Buffalo River Greenway Implementation Project, for the City of Buffalo, 2002.

Friends of the Buffalo River, Buffalo River Greenway Plan and Design Guidelines, for the City of Buffalo, 1996.

Friends of the Buffalo Niagara Rivers, Buffalo River 100’ Setback Ordinance, Background research for the City ofBuffalo, 2001.

Friends of the Buffalo Niagara Rivers, Draft Buffalo River Paper Streets: A Status Report, for the City of BuffaloDepartment of Strategic Planning, 2001.

Global Asset Consulting, [Proposal to the City of Buffalo for 630,000 square foot mixed use building at formerCrawdaddy’s site], The Buffalo News, March 12, 2002.

Hayden Wegman Consulting Engineers and Jenny Engineering Corporation, Gateway Tunnel Feasibility Study, Phase II,for the City of Buffalo Department of Public Works, June 1993.

Hayden Wegman Consulting Engineers and Jenny Engineering Corporation, Gateway Tunnel Feasibility Study, Phase I,for the City of Buffalo Department of Public Works, 1990.

John Milner & Associates, An Assessment of Development Alternatives for the Buffalo Inner Harbor Project, forDowntown Development, Inc October 2000.

Lira Group, [Proposal to the City of Buffalo for restaurant at former Crawdaddy’s site], in The Buffalo News, March 12, 2002.

Malcolm Pirnie, Inc, Hanna Furnace Site Remedial Action Work Plan, for the Buffalo Economic

Renaissance Corporation, 2002.

Malcom Pirnie Inc., Wendel Design, and City of Buffalo, Trash to Treasure: Revitalization of Buffalo’s Waterfront, 1998.

Marshall, Macklin Monaghan Limited, Buffalo Waterfront Project - Design Participation Session, for the City of BuffaloWaterfront Planning Board, 1984.


Appendix A 105

Marshall, Macklin Monaghan Limited, Buffalo Waterfront Project Product G3 – Market Forecasts and SensitivityAnalysis, for the City of Buffalo Waterfront Planning Board, 1984.

Marshall, Macklin Monaghan Limited, Buffalo Waterfront Project Product B2 – Research Review

Problems and Opportunities, for the City of Buffalo Waterfront Planning Board, 1984.

Mayor Anthony M. Masiello’s Housing Design Advisory Board, Lower West Side Neighborhood

Stabilization Demonstration Program Housing Design Review Guidelines, 1997, 2001.

National Congress for Community Economic Development, West Side Strategic Assessment, for the City of BuffaloOffice of Strategic Planning, 2000.

Parsons Transportation Group & Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., Tonawanda Street Corridor Study, Prepared for the TonawandaStreet Corridor Steering Committee, 2000.

The Private Sector Collaborative, A Plan for Buffalo, 2001.

Project Development Cos., [Proposal to City of Buffalo for 50-story residential tower at former

Crawdaddy’s site], The Buffalo News, March 12, 2002.

Stearns & Wheeler, Buffalo River Fish and Wildlife Habitat Restoration Project, for the City of Buffalo and Erie CountyDepartment of Environment and Planning, 1995.

Urban Design Project, University at Buffalo, School of Architecture and Planning, with the Niagara Gateway Associationand The Lower West Side Development Corp., The Niagara Street

Revitalization Project; A Work In Progress, 1992.

Urban Design Project, University at Buffalo, School of Architecture and Planning, The Lower West Side, Strategies forNeighborhood and Community Development, 1994.

Urban Design Project, University at Buffalo, School of Architecture and Planning, Community Meeting – ConnecticutStreet Neighborhoods, 1995.

Urban Design Project, University at Buffalo, School of Architecture and Planning, Foundations for West Side Planning: ACrosscutting Analysis of Two Decades of Plans, 2001.

URS Greiner, Inc., Lower West Side Development Strategy, for the City of Buffalo, 1998.

Wallace, Roberts & Todd, et al. Buffalo Waterfront Master Plan, Prepared for the City of Buffalo and NYS DOT, circa 1985.

Wallace, Roberts & Todd, Lakeview Homes/Lower West Side HOPE VI Revitalization Plan, for the Buffalo MunicipalHousing Authority, 1999.

Waterfront Regeneration Trust, Buffalo-Fort Erie International Gateway Strategy Final Draft Report, 1998.

Wendel, Delaware Park 1992 Comprehensive Development Plan, with Bruce Kelly and David Varnell, for the City ofBuffalo, with the Delaware Park Master Plan Committee, September 1992.

Wendel, Riverside Park and Adjacent Waterfront Parks Master Plan, for the City of Buffalo with the Riverside ParkSteering Committee and the Northwest Waterfront Review Committee, February 6, 1996.

Wendel, Front Park Master Plan/ Rehabilitation Reprot, with DeLeuw, Cather & Company and Walker Kluesing DesignGroup, for the City of Buffalo, with the Front Park Citizen Advisory Committee, July 1996.

Wendel, Cazenovia Park Master Plan, for the City of Buffalo, with the Cazenovia Park Steering

Committee, June 20, 1997.

Wendel Design and the Buffalo Common Council’s Waterfront Greenway Task Force, The City of Buffalo GreenwaySystem Implementation Plan, Prepared for the City of Buffalo, 1998.

Wendel-Duchscherer, Buffalo Intermodal Transportation Center Environmental Assessment, for the City of Buffalo,Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority and the Buffalo Economic Renaissance Corporation, 2001.

WNY AFL/CIO Economic Development Group, Clean Coal District Heating System, nd.

Cazenovia Creek Flood Control Channelization, for the City of Buffalo Department of Public Works by, 1996.

Buffalo Fort Erie Public Bridge Authority Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Authority, Draft Scoping Document, PeaceBridge Expansion Project Bi National Integrated Environmental Process, October 2001.

Waterfront Regeneration Trust, Ammann & Whitney Consulting Engineers, The Louis Berger Group, Inc., Buckland & TaylorLtd., and Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Peace Bridge Public Review, Final Report, for the City of Buffalo,Community Foundation for Greater Buffalo, Erie County, and the Margaret L. Wendt Foundation, March 2000.

Waterfront Regeneration Trust, Ammann & Whitney Consulting Engineers, The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Peace BridgePublic Review, Interim Report, for the City of Buffalo, Community Foundation for Greater Buffalo, Erie County,and the Margaret L. Wendt Foundation, October 6, 1999.

Empire State Development Corp. Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas, The Buffalo Inner Harbor Project, FinalEnvironmental Impact Statement, for Empire State Development Corp. et al, 1999.

Jambekhar Straus Architects, Flynn Battaglia Architects, and Mathews Nielsen Landscape Architecture, SiteOpportunities and Constraints, the Buffalo Inner Harbor Project Draft Master Plan, for Empire StatedDevelopment Corporation, et al.


106 Appendix A

Erie County Erie County Department of Environment and Planning, Seneca Bluffs Wetland Restoration Project, 2002.

The Rivers Studio, Erie Canal Heritage Waterfront Feasibility Study, for Erie County, 2000

Stearns & Wheeler, Buffalo River Fish and Wildlife Habitat Restoration Project, for the City of Buffalo and Erie CountyDepartment of Environment and Planning, 1995.

Erie County and the City of Buffalo, A Policy Plan for Waterfront Development in the City of Buffalo, An Air QualityTechnical Assistance Demonstration Project, September 30, 1981.

Greater Buffalo Niagara Regional Transportation Council Erik Frisch for the Greater Buffalo Niagara RegionalTransportation Council, The Ontario-Niagara-ErieBikeway, n.d.

Greater Buffalo Niagara Regional Transportation Council, 2025 Long-Range Transportation Plan for Erie and NiagaraCounty-Selected 2010 Long-Range Plan Accomplishments, 2000.

Horizons Waterfront CommissionEhrenkrantz & Eckstut Architects, PC. Buffalo Harbor, Phase III Final Report, Master Plan and

Development Program, for the Horizons Waterfront Commission and the City of Buffalo Urban

Renewal Agency, January 1994.

Ehrenkrantz & Eckstut Architects, PC, Buffalo Harbor Master Plan, Phase II Draft Final Report, Plan Summary, for theHorizons Waterfront Commission, July 29, 1993.

Ehrenkrantz & Eckstut Architects, PC, Buffalo Harbor, Phase I Final Report, Planning and DesignPrinciples Summary, forthe Horizons Waterfront Commission, Inc., July 1992.

Cambridge Seven Associates, Inc, and Harrison Price Co, Buffalo Harbor Center Final Report –

Executive Summary and Concept Plan, for the Horizons Waterfront Commission. 1992.

The Dunn Corporation, Buffalo Outer Harbor Project – Draft Task 2 Report – Preliminary Analysis Inactive HazardousWaste Sites, for Ehrenkrantz & Eckstut, Architects, PC, for the Horizons Waterfront Commission, 1992.

Ehrenkrantz & Eckstut Architects, Buffalo Harbor Phase I Final Analysis/Draft Principles Interim Memorandum, for theHorizons Waterfront Commission, 1992.

Saratoga Associates, Action Plan, Prepared for the Horizons Waterfront Commission, 1991.

Travers Associates, Buffalo Outer Harbor Circulation Analysis, for Ehrenkrantz & Eckstut, Architects, PC, 1992.

New York State Department of Environmental ConservationNew York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Buffalo Outer Harbor Property Brownfield Site, Meeting

Notice, February 5, 2002.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Shenango Steel Mold Hazardous Waste Disposal Site,Meeting Announcement to discuss clean-up proposal, February 2002.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Buffalo River Canoe Trail (on-line)

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Niagara River Remedial Action Plan, 1989.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Priority Waterbodies List, 1996.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and New York State Office of Parks,

Recreation and Historic Preservation, Conserving Open Space in New York State 2001: Draft State Open SpaceConservation Plan and Generic Environmental Impact Statement, 2001.

Saratoga Associates, Tifft Farm Nature Preserve Master Plan, for Greater Buffalo Development

Foundation and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, n.d.

Niagara Frontier Transportation AuthorityKevin Townsell, Buffalo Festival Grounds at The Pier, approved February 2002.

Tippetts Abbett McCarthy Stratton, Outer Harbor Development Plan, for the Niagara Frontier

Transportation Authority, 1988.

Niagara Frontier Port Authority, Annual Report, including proposal on port dredging and Outer Harbor Fill, March 31, 1964.

University at BuffaloCenter for Environmental Research and Education, Buffalo State College, An Environmental Guidebook to the Buffalo River, n.d.

Center for Urban Research in Primary Care, University at Buffalo, Lower West Side Health Needs SurveyReport, 1994.

Corkutt, Ursula, Bruce Simmons, and Lucien Swerdloff, Department of Planning, University at Buffalo, Site Analysis ofBuffalo River Industrial Area, 1985.

Department of Planning, University at Buffalo, Wind Energy Initiatives for Greater Buffalo, Graduate planning studio, 2001.

Fell, John M., Nicholas Raczyk, and John M. Thompson, University at Buffalo Department of Planning, Upper West Sideof Buffalo – A Neighborhood in Transition, 2000.


Appendix A 107

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Buffalo River Dredging Partnership, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo River Environmental

Dredging – Section 312, 2002.

Gulf South Research Institute, Buffalo Harbor Revitalization Study – Final Report, for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1981.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Biological Survey Buffalo River and Outer Harbor of Buffalo, NY Final Report, June 1982.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Buffalo District, Times Beach Feasibility Study, 2001.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo State College Great Lakes Field Station Wetlands CreationProject – Section 206, Ongoing.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Inner Harbor – Section 107, ongoing.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Park Lake Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Project; 2001.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Times Beach Nature Preserve/Habitat Restoration – Section 1135, with the Times BeachAd-Hoc Committee, ongoing.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Union Ship Canal Project – Section 107, ongoing.

U.S. Department of Transportation and New York State Department of Transportation, SouthtownsConnector/BuffaloOuter Harbor Project Scoping Report, 2002.

Others

Buffalo City Planning Association, Inc., Buffalo’s Waterfront Today – and Tomorrow. April 1939.

Buffalo Industrial Heritage Committee, Inc, Buffalo Industrial Heritage Trail, Ongoing.

Buffalo Olmsted Parks Conservancy, Front Park Restoration, Ongoing.

Central Referral Service, Allentown Human Service Agency Siting Database, for the Allentown

Association, 2000.

Ehrenkrantz & Exkstut Architects, PC, Memorial Auditorium Reuse Study, Charette Summary Report, for the Buffalo Sabres,March 1993.

Hamilton Houston Lownie Architects, PC, Great Lakes Center Aquatic Field Station, for Buffalo State College, 2000.

Hamilton Houston Lownie Architects, PC, Frank Lloyd Wright Boathouse, for Buffalo State College and FLW Boathouse Inc, 2000.

Higgins, Brian, From Rust Belt to Green Belt, Essential Elements for Buffalo’s Waterfront Revitalization, 1990.

Joint Schools Construction Board, City of Buffalo, Reconstruction and New School Construction, Ongoing.

New Millennium Group of Western New York, Inc., The Peace Bridge Gateway: Time for Greatness. July 20, 1999.

Scajaquada Creek Advisory Committee, Scajaquada Creek Watershed Management Plan, 2002.

Smith, Richard, New York State Assembly, Five Point Outer Harbor Transportation Plan, n.d.

Southtowns Walleye Association, Lake Erie Access Report, 1990.

Supermarket Management, Inc, Tops International Niagara Business Proposal, 1997.


108 Appendix A