Fix Buffalo on Belmont Shelter
David Torke has a terrific series of posts going over at Fix Buffalo. He’s taking a critical look at Belmont Shelter’s $12.1 million plan to build 50 “rent-to-own” houses on the city’s East Side, in the Cold Springs neighborhood, scattered across 60 city blocks.
He questions whether scattershot new-builds are a good strategy for revitalization. He asks whether $240,000 per house is a bit too keen a pricetag for these sorts of properties in these neighborhoods. He suggests, and references, what a lot of other smart people have been saying: that we’d do better to focus our energies on preserving and rehabbing historic structures in tightly focused project areas, preserving the urban nature of the environment rather than swapping it out for a false sense of suburbia.
Torke is at four posts and counting. Start with this one.
Interestingly, someone who claims to be former board member of Belmont Shelter has been commenting on Torke’s posts, suggesting Belmont’s first loyalty is not to its housing mission or to its target communities, but to the bottom lines of the for-profit construction, development, and property ownership companies that are subsidiaries of the not-for-profit housing agency.
Potentially related posts (automatically generated):
This post is not truthful. Look up the cost of rehab for old housing in Buffalo. You will find it is similar to newbuilds and the end product is not as sustainable.
The reason the cost of the newbuilds is so high is because Belmont has to follow the law and remediate the contamination from lead paint, asbestos, etc….
The rent to own model is proven nationally and would work in Buffalo. Granted, building the homes on a single street would be the best approach, but politics in Buffalo blocks that option.
People in Buffalo have to get off the misguided kick of trying to dwell on the past and rebuild the lost neighborhoods. Think about the future and build something new. Also, it is silly to call the housing suburban, it is urban townhouse style development like that found in most American cities.
Yes, we need replacement housing in Buffalo at about a 1:2 ratio to every demolition. Buffalo’s only hope is to demo all of its old, obsolete housing stock and replace it with appropriate housing for the people who live here.
Comment by AICPplanner — March 27, 2009 @ 11:31 pm
The form and character of the new housing is the problem, not the cost. To cut-and-paste inappropriate suburban style housing on a street like Ada Place violates the common sense of any trained urban planner. The type of housing being proposed by the City and Belmont Shelter is humiliating to Buffalo. The new-builds could easily follow the character and configuration of existing housing on the block and reinforce a streetscape that has so much economic potential – the same type of potential now driving some reinvestment on Coe Place.
Buffalo’s only home is to demo all its old, obsolete housing stock? The rehabilitation of this type of historic housing stock is what’s driving redevelopment in every neighborhood in Buffalo and every city around the country. If we can’t preserve our historic architecture – and the beauty and character of streets like Ada Place – there is no hope for revival of these neighborhoods down the line.
Sounds like the above AICP planner needs to get his or her head out of the 1970s.
Comment by Also an AICP Planner — March 28, 2009 @ 12:14 am
1. This post is truthful. Look up the cost of rehab for old housing in Buffalo. You will find it is not similar to newbuilds and the end product is as sustainable.
FALSE: “The reason the cost of the newbuilds is so high is because Belmont has to follow the law and remediate the contamination from lead paint, asbestos, etc….”
IN REALITY: Newbuilds do not use lead paint, asbestos, etc… There is no remediation in a newbuild.
TRUE: building the homes on a single street would be the best approach, but FALSE: politics in Buffalo blocks that option. The People of Buffalo decide who represents them every November.
FALSE: People in Buffalo have to get off the misguided kick of trying to dwell on the past and rebuild the lost neighborhoods. Think about the future and build something new. IN REALITY: People in Rome, Paris, Beijing, Montréal, Mexico City, etc. would eagerly dispute that.
ALSO: we do not need replacement housing in Buffalo at about a 1:2 ratio to every demolition. Buffalo doesn’t have an “only hope,” but TRUE: Buffalo should demo all of its old, unrecoverable housing stock.
Even if the demo work went to the “friends and family” of someone at Belmont for $10,000 per structure; $12,100,000 would remove 1,210 unrecoverable double or single eyesores.
Comment by Lancey Howard — March 28, 2009 @ 10:23 am
What’s the logic of a 1:2 ratio? Based on the deep population slide and huge backlog of rotting vacant houses, I’d say a 1:10 ratio makes more sense.
“we need replacement housing in Buffalo at about a 1:2 ratio to every demolition”
Comment by huh? — March 28, 2009 @ 4:13 pm
So much to answer so little space. Here it goes:
To Also an AICP Planner:
The houses that Belmont is building are in character with the housing stock in the area. Similar set backs, design, facade, etc…. Yes, they do have garages. That is because buyers demand garages. They are also on larger lots. That is because the strategy is to merge two lots in the face of the reality that the city is 1/2 the population it was years ago and declining. There is also a little more space between the homes than in the past. Fire safety and other benefits drive this.
The homes do use different building materials. This is a cost and upkeep issue. In order to make the long term costs of the housing affordable, the materials selected are simialar to other modern housing. What you recommend is a custom, craftsman house. That is economically infeasable. I heard a UB professor talk about the cost of housing in Buffalo about 6 month ago. He said that the average cost of housing is so low that new manufactured housing is to expensive for the market. So, keeping the cost of upkeep is of primary importance in any construction effort. If trailers are too costly to build in Buffalo, custom homes are on another planet.
Maybe you haven’t been to an APA conference in a while, but Belmont is building something similar to the best practice infill housing being done in other inner cities around the country. This type of housing is well received across the country and has been proven to work (i.e. the rent to own model has been around for well over 30 years now).
Sorry, but my head is in 2009, not the 1970’s, and I am looking to the future. I think your head is hung up on the past (around 1909) and dwelling on the past.
To L Howard:
Before a new home is build (or rehab happens) you have to clean up the existing site. You have to remove the asbestos and lead from the soil, etc…. It’s the law. Thanks for reminding me not to buy a house from you.
Take a look at the map of the target area for Belmont. It was created by the city and crammed down Belmont’s throat. This isn’t targeted rehab, it is a map that includes the council districts of the supporter who release the funds. Every politicial has to have some patronage from any effort to do rehab in Buffalo. Let’s not waste time debating the degree to which people vote on their political future in Buffalo. Let’s spend the time productively on passing term limits, initiative legeslation, ethics law, and municipal reform. Enough said on that topic (pull your head out of the political sand).
Been to Rome, Paris, Bejing, etc… lately. Outslide of a few areas preserved for the tourists, there is some of the newest and most innovative development in the world. A lot of it is affordable housing especially in the more socially progressive countries. I’ll leave China out of the discussion, since they eradicate all of the old cities and build new ones from scratch. But if you want to see real cutting edge architecture that is a break from the past and inspiring, go to places like Spain, Italy, and Germany. There is something to be said for pursuing new things, it makes people fell alive. In Buffalo, people are hung up on the past and they would rather have a city that serves as a cemetary for dead ideas than think fresh, new and alive.
To huh:
Right on brother!!
Comment by AICPplanner — March 29, 2009 @ 11:11 am
To AlCPplanner:
I agree with you; “passing term limits, initiative legeslation, ethics law, and municipal reform.”
But on; “Before a new home is build (or rehab happens) you have to clean up the existing site. You have to remove the asbestos and lead from the soil,” I was not in favor of new builds at $240,000 each in an area of decling population.
With a rehab there isn’t a new site with harmful elements in the soil under an existing structure, it’s the building’s cellar.
Many of the properties that have a grade of Good to Very Good can become Top of the Line properties at ($50,000)20% (20.83%)of the cost of a new build. You can get 5 x (4.8 times)the amount for the same expense.
Demolishing the other 75% (3/4) of abandoned properties may be agreeable to everyone.
Comment by Lancey Howard — March 30, 2009 @ 1:45 am
Any property up for rehab will have to go through remediation. One of the problems in Buffalo is that unscruplous private parties quickly spruce up the old houses and sell or rent them. They put $10k-$50k into a house (paint, carpet, roof repair, furnace service, etc…), but the houses are still loaded with lead, asbestos, foundation problems, electrical hazards, bad plumbing etc….. Within a year of the flip, the houses are abandoned again, or the new residents find out their kids have lead poisoning, etc….. If rehab was done correctly, it would cost 3x to 4x as much. When government money is used, these things are required, so the cost are there upfront (rather than paid with further abandonment and human suffering).
So, rehab cost the same if it is done right. Also, you need the infill or you will end up with one rehab next to 100 vacant lots and boarded up properties. Just take a walk down the streets in Buffalo and you can see it first hand.
Buffalo needs to clear all the excess inventory of housing and then start from scratch.
Comment by AICPplanner — March 30, 2009 @ 11:17 am
AICP Planner: Your planning philosophy is misguided. The response to declining population is not decreased density, but increased density in focused “pockets” of public and private investment. No neighborhood in the country is becoming more vital, economically or socially, through the strategies you celebrate.
Belmont in fact is not building housing of similar character to the existing housing. Ada Place is a fine example. Here, three (not two, as you state) houses are being combined, the setback is much deeper than the other houses, and the style of the housing (not only its materials) is out of sync with the narrow Queen-Anne houses that surround it.
I would love for you to explain to me how custom housing is inappropriate in this case. How much does it take with the money on the table for a decent hometown architect to stand on Ada Place, look at the existing housing, and create a design for housing that fits modern needs as well as the neighborhood’s existing character.
AICP Planner, one does not have to travel far from Ada Place to see how existing character building stock is the single reason neighborhoods are being revitalized. The City and Belmont’s plan neither recognizes this opportunity in distinct places like Ada nor is proposing housing that will make it more likely for creative people to invest in these historic properties. The Belmont houses will be a blight, nothing more.
Comment by Also an AICP Planner — March 30, 2009 @ 6:52 pm
Every house Belmont builds adds density to the neighborhood. The houses replace vacant lots and boarded up blight. To suggest otherwise is dishonest. You need to stop blocking progress and revitalization, and start looking to the future. New housing is the future.
Buffalo is a poor city without jobs. Building affordable housing is the best solution. Once Belmont finishes its housing project, the next step will be to add some apartment buildings for low-income people.
Comment by AICPplanner — March 30, 2009 @ 7:03 pm
AICP Planner, this is the drivel that brought us Ellicott Town Center east of Michigan Avenue. All those pretty new houses have added no new economic development. Zip. Zero. Zilch.
And why is that? There is so little density in the rebuilt neighborhood to even support a corner store. People who live in these costly new homes must drive in their increasingly costly cars filled with increasingly costly fuel to buy a newspaper or a carton of milk. You want to create economically efficient, affordable neighborhoods? The only way to do that is through density and walkability. You don’t even studies any more to conclude that urban, mixed-use neighborhoods are inherently more affordable than car-dependent ones – it is so ingrained in 21st century common sense about planning that they are barely needed anymore except to point out the obvious. Keep poor people in their cars and you keep them poor. Planning 101, AICP…
The problem with Belmont’s plan is that they are building new houses, it is that they are foreclosing on an opportunity to build denser neighborhoods that can sustain further economic development. They ignore the economic opportunity of the community’s character that could attract new residents, as is happening on Coe Place. They ignore the opportunity to reuse existing resources – the untapped wealth represented in the city’s existing historic building stock – by concentrating mostly on cheaply-constructed new housing that is not built to last. They ignore that they are blocking the possibility of urban densities to support a half-billion dollar light rail system only a few blocks away. There are so many reasons to oppose the Belmont plan and so many opportunities on which to spend $12 million that it makes any real planner’s stomach turn.
Jane Jacobs was right in 1961: Planners, despite all their precious training and credentials, imitate empiric failure and ignore empiric success. All the AICP symposiums and roundtable discussions in the world does make a failure something worth emulating.
Comment by Also an AICP Planner — March 30, 2009 @ 7:35 pm
There is no evidence to support anything you argue for in the above post. Not in a place like Buffalo. I don’t have a problem with density, but it is not the issue here. Go ahead and build multi-unit rentals in the neighborhood. I would support it 1000%. Multi-unit, low-income housing would be great in Buffalo to replace the converted rental units scattered all over the city.
But you are totally wrong about the economic impacts of housing. There will be no new jobs created by just simply adding housing units in the city. That would require a committment to education, training, and job creation for the low-income residents. Also, enfocement of the living wage ordinance, etc….
Transportation is an issue, but the light rail is not the answer in its present form. It is a train to nowhere. You either have to expand it as a regional transit system and lower fares for the poor or give the poor access to fuel efficient cars of their own. With our present road system and the policy environment, the latter is more likely to happen. I’d like to see every poor person in Buffalo driving a low cost hybrid.
Open your eyes and thing beyond Jane Jacobs elitist dribble from the 1960s. That was 1/2 a century ago. Imagine a real city people can live in today. Green homes and cars, jobs with fair wages, choice in where you live, etc… etc….
All you offer is a failed NFTA that will never expand to meet the needs of citizens (unlike progressive cities), neighborhoods in decline, and endless dispair. Plan for the future, not the past.
Comment by AICPplanner — March 30, 2009 @ 11:35 pm
AICP Planner, the rail system brings 9,000 people to jobs downtown every weekday, to say nothing of the 20,000 total that use the system every day. Per mile, it is the 5th most heavily used light rail system in the country. Living near this amenity is a boon to lower and middle class people. It is a quick, money-saving alternative to car transport. Using transit regularly in the absence of frequent automobile use is the equivalent of adding thousands of dollars yearly to a family’s income.
It seems AICP doles out credentials too easily. You are like a few “planners” in Buffalo who consistently say we must lower the bar because “we will never be like Miami or Toronto or Portland” or any interesting, dense, economically vibrant city. As long as folks like you call the shots, we will indeed never be like these cities. You can keep pushing to mow down the old city you despise and create stale, suburban environments in their place, but I demand a higher standard.
Comment by Chris Hawley — March 31, 2009 @ 3:03 pm
The rail system loses money at a higher rate than any NFTA operating unit. It was never developed as a regional system, it merely allows for people to travel from the VA to the county wefare office and various social service agencies along Main Street. The main subsidy for the rail system’s operating costs comes from airport parking and landing fees (the only money makers in NFTA). Yes, parking is the cash cow for NFTA. The fare box for the rail system and the bus system combined is well below operating costs annually. That is true even with the new increased fares. That is true even with the heavy influx of funds from BPS. The only reason NFTA continues to operate the rail system is because they would have to give back the federal funds that built it if it was scuttled.
Why is the rail system so cost ineffective in Buffalo. 1) the routes are not extensive enough, 2)it was built below ground at a high cost for maintenance and upkeep versus on the surface or on elevated platforms, 3) the rail cars are expensive maintain
Why is the rail system in Buffalo unfair to the poor: 1) the poor do not get discounted fares, so it is unaffordable to most working poor people, 2) the rail system does not give the poor access to regional jobs centers, 3)stations are not fully accessible due to limited elevators and access points
To throw out some bogus statistics like being the 5th most heavily uses system per mile is dishonest. Disneyland has more miles of rail than Buffalo.
Comment by AICPplanner — March 31, 2009 @ 10:25 pm
Au contraire, mon frere. Concentrated pockets of housing in walkable neighborhoods is the best way to create conditions for local economic development. The Queen City Hub Plan and the future of downtown retail and entertainment development is depending on the continuing development of downtown housing (40,000 people lived within a five-minute walk of downtown in the 1940s) to reorient income for local spending and job creation. The same strategy is needed in neighborhoods like Midtown, where Belmont can take the first step to rebuilding densities that can sustain neighborhood commerce.
The densities the City and Belmont Shelter now propose, on combined City-owned lots, are insufficient to help create those densities and a sufficient diversity of people to create new economic development over the long haul. This project should be viewed as a first step to reestablishing a more vibrant, walkable neighborhood. Instead they are planning a housing subdivision with its very own clubhouse. Bad move, Buffalo. You can do better!
Comment by Also an AICP Planner — April 1, 2009 @ 5:40 pm
Do not believe that the nomenclature of “AICP Planner” conveys authority and expertise. There were plenty of C-grade students in school that the bursar was happy to take tuition from, and that schoolmates were happy to send on beer runs when group projects came due. These students middled their way out of school and wormed their way into languid jobs at partnerships and shelters, and have learned how to shill their way into retirement plans.
That said, Belmont’s plan is insipid and thin. A block built with tight quarters and consistent dimensions needs to have replacement in kind – identical house setbacks, matching porches and rooflines, etc.. If modern codes will not allow it, seek variances. If this is not possible, seek to replace a whole block at a time. There is not shortage of available space to build in East Buffalo, it simply needs to be part of the ground rules for development that the municipality sets.
Comment by Wenda — April 1, 2009 @ 6:13 pm
About rehab vs. new build, I was in Buffalo Saturday for the House Restoration Fair, and had the chance to chat with some folks from Buffalo Habitat For Humanity. I was delighted to find that, unlike our H4H in My Fair City, which focuses almost exclusively on new builds, the Buffalo folks do rehab projects by a more than 2-to-1 ratio. They told me (and gave me a fact sheet) that a new build costs them over $70K, and a rehab typically about half that — although a rehab requires twice the labor hours.
About the designs with garages: we don’t find that to be necessary here. We have several community development organizations in My Fair City that are building infill houses in styles compatible with the surrounding stock — including some “neo-Queen Annes” — which don’t have attached garages. In some cases (where there’s room) there’s a separate garage built behind the house, but usually none. You can see an example here (scroll down to where it says “Olean Heights” on the left): http://www.providencehousing.org/Families.html
One thing our two cities have in common is that we both have some housing/community development organizations which don’t act ethically and transparently, and seem to have paramount their self-interest — that of their executives and associated companies — rather than that of the neighborhoods where they do projects. They do *to* a neighborhood, rather than *with* and *for* a neighborhood. Something must be done on a policy level to address that nonsense!
Comment by RaChaCha — April 2, 2009 @ 9:39 am
Belmont does not work *WITH* neighborhoods..They fixed up the house on Coe place because they were pressured into it.Newbuilds are not the answer but this project will happen because its going to make people rich.
Comment by michele j — April 2, 2009 @ 12:03 pm
Anyone know what the pay-off will be for whatever builders, etc., construct this housing as compared to similar market-rate housing in the suburbs?
What is the incentive to do garbage that will trash some of our best streets? When things make no sense, the rule seems to be to follow the money…
Comment by Also an AICP Planner — April 2, 2009 @ 12:30 pm
Is Belmont Management selling stock and if so how can shares be bought?
Comment by invest in buffalo — April 2, 2009 @ 3:01 pm
Yes, please continue the demo and scattershot new builds which have been oh-so sucessful in Buffalo so far. 1/4 mil per house is fully reasonable for infil on the east side fo Buffalo. Maybe throw in a rent-to-own car too.
Comment by MJ — April 2, 2009 @ 4:06 pm
Today, added to all the previous comments about Belmont Shelter’s project, we have Belmont being characterized as a housing organization that doesn’t act ethically or transparently, and is serving their own self interest and not that of the neighborhood. That is complete nonsense. Then there is the sentiment that new builds “will trash some of our best streets”. One wonders if that writer has been down some of the streets in that neighborhood. Far too many vacant lots and decaying houses line those streets to characterize it them as some of our best.
As to the price tag of $240,000 per house, in tax credit rental projects that number includes upfront capitalization of operating and maintenance reserves, legal fees for partnership and syndication costs, guarantees, A & E fees and environmental reviews. Then add the city’s requirement for soil remediation by removing the top two feet throughout each site, and that adds a minimum of $20,000 per lot. The basic home costs are about $120/sq ft and that’s pretty typical today. Belmont doesn’t make “profits”, pay its board members, or wash money through unnamed affiliated corporations. Much of the payment of developer fees (aka “profits”) to Belmont are typically deferred over 5-10 years. It’s a long term rental project, not a quick-turnaround build-and-sell. In addition, Belmont Shelter and Belmont Management are two separate and unrelated organizations.
While people get excited about Artspace and the restoration of the house at 19 Coe Place, do they forget that Belmont played a significant role in getting both of those projects done and that Belmont manages Artspace? Yes, Belmont was pushed to change their original plans on Coe Place, but they didn’t have to spend anywhere near what they did on it. It’s an investment that exceeds the market value by several times and is a lot more than most critics would go out of pocket for. Is Belmont serving its own self interest by building houses that are affordable to people who have lived for years in a neighborhood that it has been ignored an allowed to deteriorate? Should they abondon their mission of providing for the needs of low-income families in favor of satisfying the interests of the new wave of urban afficionados who have suddenly discovered the area? Not at all.
Belmont is an easy target because they are the local face of the project, but they weren’t the driving force behind this one. Belmont’s development partner, NRP Group approached the city about it and Belmont was asked to participate. NRP Group has done over 2,500 homes like these in Ohio and they made a real difference in the neighborhoods there. Of course there are things that could be done better from a planning perspective. Belmont would have preferred a more tightly focused project area. In-filling more of the neighborhood around where they did their first multi-site project of 29 homes would make things much easier to manage. The city needs to do a better job of acquiring properties and planning for reuse in more concentrated way. In Ohio the projects include rehab as well as new construction and I recall that as many as 40% of the homes were rehabs in those projects.
While criticism is being focused on the new builds that Belmont is doing, the discussion ignores the rehabilitation that Belmont will be taking on using State Block-by-Block funding. It will target the rehabilitation of almost 50 existing and vacant units in a six block area between Michigan and Jefferson Avenues. You’d be very hard-pressed to name just one other group that can do 5 houses a year let alone 50-100. Belmont alone does about 4 times more more housing annually than all the other publicly funded groups in the city combined. Habitat for Humanity is in a distant second place and they don’t get any public money.
Anyone familiar with the successful Richmond, VA “Neighborhoods in Bloom” program, which LISC helped start, knows that it targeted a limited number of neighborhoods that had been left to decay for years. Those neighborhoods had a lot of vacant lots and houses but had connections to public transit, economic development investments like the Buffalo Niagara Medical Campus and Canisius College, new school projects, etc. It was not about slowing the rate of abandonment citywide as much as redeveloping a few neighborhoods that can be made economically relevant and sustainable again. Rebuilding those kinds of places requires in-filling vacant lots with new housing as well as rehabilitating existing homes, and mixing rental and ownership opportunities that can bring people into safer and better neigborhoods from others that are becoming more unstable by the day. This project moves the neighborhood further ahead, a little awkwardly perhaps, but it will continue and it should. While it’s taking place the discussion of how to make the next phase better should go forward. They’ll be no shortgage of houses and lots to work with there for while.
Comment by mclarke at LISC — April 2, 2009 @ 4:23 pm
Michael, this topic has certainly grabbed a lot of attention from folks who do not live in the neighborhood, but do live in Buffalo and recognized the shared destiny we all share in the city. Even folks who live a few blocks away have a stake in what happens on the East Side.
I am not as embittered about the project as some other folks on this comment stream might be. There’s certainly nothing inherently deficient about constructing new housing for low-income people. It is a laudable goal. What does seem to be at issue is the configuration, density, and design of the housing being proposed. No doubt worse project have come down the pipeline without a peep from the peanut gallery, but the standards we set for our city’s development is elevating. There’s no reason this project could not be designed better to reinforce existing community character that can attract new residents, set the stage for more focused and urban densities linked to transit and walkable amenities, and create lasting value – not just housing.
I would agree with a commenter above (who is sitting across from me with seeming eagerness to lash out some more about this project) that while many streets east of Main Street are far from among our best streets, streets like Ada Place are very nice, and are diamonds in the rough awaiting some progressive reinvestment. There’s no reason this project could not achieve the real excellence this neighborhood deserves and more.
Comment by Chris Hawley — April 2, 2009 @ 6:32 pm
mclarke,
You said: “Should they abondon their mission of providing for the needs of low-income families in favor of satisfying the interests of the new wave of urban afficionados who have suddenly discovered the area?”
I believe everyone here has good intentions. Why would Belmont have to “abandon” their mission in order to utilize better urban design in building more contextual houses that fit in better with the existing neighborhood? I don’t understand why it has to be low-density suburban-style homes or nothing at all. It seems like a false choice.
Comment by reflip — April 2, 2009 @ 8:23 pm
Mclarke, I’m sure there’s some decent City-owned houses in the project area which the City would as much rather not have as the City-owned vacant lots that are part of this project. Why can’t the 40% renovation to new-build ratio apply to this project area?
And yes, I have recently discovered this area. Clearly the history and potential of the Midtown neighborhood is being ignored by this out-of-town developer and their buddies at Belmont and the City. Awkward is certainly an understated way of describing their planning strategy.
Comment by Also an AICP Planner — April 2, 2009 @ 8:58 pm
McClarke, it sounds like this project is a done deal.
Comment by buffalo deservfes better — April 3, 2009 @ 3:54 pm
Chris, Reflip, Also and AICP Planner,
I don’t really disagree with most of your comments re: design, placement,density, rehab, PLANNING, etc. I don’t see this as low-density suburban. The lots won’t end up as 25ft, but they also won’t be 70ft.
The upfront work that goes into putting a credit deal together is enormous, and getting costs firm on rehabs is a lot tougher than going off plans for new. In order to get investors lined up who will really provide most of the upfront cash, the numbers have to be hard, or the application to the state won’t be competitive. Given all the work that has gone on already this will go ahead, but the time is now to look at how to do the next one better, and there does need to be more of them if we’re to bring this neighborhood back. But financing through things like tax credits will always be needed and some compromises on materials, etc will be needed simply because the residents in that area can’t afford the conventional financing and the city doesn’t have enough other soft money available to ignore the opportunities to attract credit investment capital.
Chris, I agree totally on Ada. more than 6 years ago we gave money to another not-for-profit to acquire 2 of those houses to do it right. We had a contractor that would do gut rehabs for $50k. The city had a few on the street that fit the bill too. Instead the 2 we hoped to see done are still sitting vacant, the city tore down the ones they owned, and the song goes on.
Comment by mclarke at LISC — April 3, 2009 @ 5:30 pm
Yes, the song continues on Ada Place, but the fat lady has yet to enter the stage. A few setbacks on getting two houses renovated shouldn’t reduce our passion for this street or strengthen misguided arguments about steam-rolling through a housing project that will make the street worse. How many times do we need to shoot ourselves in the foot only because the state is paying for the gun powder? Who in the halls of power is willing to take the risk of proposing something that will really matter down the line?
This project could become great with a few tweaks. Narrower housing on existing lot widths, housing that matches the character of the historic streetscape and can represent a good first start at rebuilding appropriate densities in the neighborhood… I’m not afraid to propose delaying a bad project so it could become a very good one. The neighborhood has waited 50 years for something good to happen there and if this ill-conceived project is steam-rolled through, the neighborhood will be waiting still.
Comment by Also an AICP Planner — April 4, 2009 @ 5:41 pm
The lot width for the proposed Ada Place house in 61.5′, according to the site plans for the project. Sure, 70′ would be worse, but a 61.5′ lot with a deep setback for a house that defies the character of the street is not something for which I would cheer. If there is a next phase for this project that could be better than this one, the first phase undermines it. Bad planning and poor design make poor arguments for further investment. Why take one step back and hope the next two steps bring us forward when there is no evidence so far that the intent is there to do something progressive?
Comment by Chris Hawley — April 5, 2009 @ 1:02 am
It’s hard to know where to start here. There seem to be issues of both design, and community involvement. It’s very clear from these comments, and from following David Torke’s blog for several years, that there are people who care very much about this area of the city, have given it much thought and attention, and have a vision for how it could be revitalized. And among them are people who are very smart, committed, visionary, credentialed, and savvy. Why wouldn’t the City and Belmont, then, immediately involve them from stage one in the development of a project like this–? And their involvement could be had without an extra dime in A & E fees.
As for design and project composition, everyone knows that Buffalo (and especially the Midtown area) has lost population and has an abundant supply of vacant houses — yet due to the city’s one-time wealth, leadership in the lumber industry, and attraction to immigrants with old-world skills, many of these vacant houses (and especially in the Midtown area) are of a significant quality, character, and craftsmanship that is never to be had again and is a limited and precious heritage asset for the whole city. Given that, why wasn’t NRP told upfront: “We’re so glad you want to invest here! We have houses waiting for attention, so let’s get to it! People want choices, and neighborhoods benefit from having some brand-new housing (as was emphasized in Rochester during the recent housing market study led by Zimmerman-Volk), so yes lets include some new infill in appropriate size and style — but given the population decline, new builds pull people out of existing houses that need stewardship, and too many new builds means eventual loss of existing stock elsewhere — so we don’t want to go overboard.” If NRP wants to come to Buffalo to play, outstanding! But the community has the right and obligation to set the rules so that both NRP and the community win equally and big.
Some of the new infill housing I’ve seen in My Fair City — done by both H4H and Providence Housing — stays within existing lot sizes, is in historically compatible styles (neo-Queen Annes, and H4H even built a neo-Greek Revival in a historic district), and does not include attached garages. Yet the waiting list for these homes are always full before the framing goes up. In many cases, I believe, they even use non-plastic siding. These are projects that are viable for everyone. And where there is a block that is largely vacant for one reason or another, new-urbanist developments (compatible with neighborhood character) are constructed, which adds variety and options. All good.
Yes, this proposed Belmont/NRP project is better than the vinyl Victorians and colonials that you see in places like William Street near downtown (and we have them in My Fair City, as well) that were built over a decade ago, I believe. But it doesn’t seem to be anywhere close to good enough, given the money being invested. I’ve gotten a better perspective on Belmont from reading comments here by MClark, and on BR by SKarnath. Clearly, they were a key partner on ArtSpace, they did rehab the Coe Place house, and they have decades of experience successfully applying their formula of turning funding streams into structures and getting people into them. This gets people into housing, and employs staff, contractors, and executives. Yet it seems that they are leaving chances for excellence on the table, by not more carefully involving (or outright ignoring) those who could help make their projects better (both committed volunteers, and professionals like MClarke), by disregarding the character and uniqueness of the neighborhoods, and by not making good use of existing built resources. Why should “good enough” be good enough–? And I would disagree with those who would suggest that these project plans are good enough. They’re not!
And so I’m squarely on the side of those who want to go back to the drawing board. Recently, we did that here in a neighborhood in My Fair City. The neighborhood stood solidly against seriously sub-par redevelopment plans for a waterfront low/mixed-income housing development. A tweaking clearly wasn’t enough, so eventually HUD and the development company involved fired the architects and developed, new, both site plans and building designs. We’re now just starting site work on the vastly improved project, and everyone is patting each other on the back and taking credit!
This meal needs both a new cook and a new recipe. Someone with standing should convene a rethinking. My suggestion of where to begin the discussion–? Focus first on a street like Ada Place, and get it right. Then use the same thought process and approach on other blocks.
Comment by RaChaCha — April 5, 2009 @ 8:26 pm
Buffalo deserves better, and Belmont can do better. The end results, as proposed, disrupt and rend the neighborhood fabric and create discontinuity in housing typology. A taking of the prospective rebuilt value of the existing neighborhood will occur. This incurs a future liability to Belmont. Should they risk potential suits in the future, just to jack-ram this project “before the financing runs out”?
McClarke and other executive & housing development profiters, would you give up your current housing arrangements to move to the new houses in this proposed development? This litmus test could proactively warranty that a project is beneficial to neighborhoods – require that the executives of the agency proposing it live in the completed project for two years – in order for financing to be approved.
This is not so far-fetched – recall how the then-new executive director of the nfta Larry Meckler required the top brass of the nfta to ride buses – and lo and behold the bus service improved!
The same can happen with housing. Move out of the comfortable, insulated confines of the Delaware District, the Elmwood Village and Spaulding Lake. Come live in neighborhood that you propose. Do not hide behind the curtin and pull the levers of development only. Come out and rake some leaves with the rest of the community.
Comment by buffalo rocks — April 6, 2009 @ 1:33 pm
Living in our own housing works for us. Most of our employees live in places like the Belasario, the condos at the waterfront, the Commodore, etc… and we hear about problems firsthand and immediately too. There is nothing like the hand on the tiller to get the feel of the boat.
Comment by Ellicott Development does — April 6, 2009 @ 3:05 pm
Cool! Salaries at local groups can be quickly ascertained. Folks looking for a great paying job should try to get in at Belmont Shelter, where the top eight employees/directors shared $733,815 in 2007. That’s not even counting health insurance!! 2008 and 2009 are probably even better, so send get your applications over there ASAP
2007 salaries at Belmont Shelter
TOTALS INCLUDED ON FORM 990, PART V-A
Top five employess salaries $305,702 pension contributions $51,910
Directors salaries $329,628. Directors pension contributions $46,575
Top 5 paid employees (other than directors)
MICHAEL SCARPELLO –CONTROLLER
25 HAMPTON CT. LANCASTER, NY 14086 salary 66,222. pension contribution 13,040.
ERIC_SCHIFFMAN_____________________REHAB PROGRAMS MGR
18 LAKEWOOD DR., ORCHARD PARK, NY 141 salary 63,649. pension contribution 12.784.
JUDITH SCOTT ——————————–PROJECT MANAGER
12277 HANOVER RD. SILVERCREEK NY 14 salary 61,529. pension contribution 8,626.
JOHN MCMAHON —————————— HOUSING PROGRAMS MGR
143 CARLA LN WEST SENECA NY 14224 salary 58,864. pension contribution 11200.
LYNN BRENNAN ——————————— PROPERTY MANAGER
44 HARVARD PL ORCHARD PARK NY 14127 salary 55,438. pension contribution 6,260.
Total top five salaries $305,702 pension contributions $51910
Board of Directors and their salaries for 2007
ELIZABETH HUCKABONE
1195 MAIN STREET
BUFFALO, NY 14209 PRESIDENT/DIR
salary 115,833. pension contribution 17,851.
JEFFERY NOWACKI
4633 DEERFIELD ROAD
HAMBURG, NY, 14075
BRUCE C. BAIRD
215 BROADWAY
BUFFALO, NY 14204
MIKE D. RIEGEL
1195 MAIN STREET
BUFFALO, NY 14209 VICE PRESIDENT/TREASURER
salary 116,239. pension contribution 12,662.
KATHY O’BRIEN
1195 MAIN STREET
BUFFALO, NY 14209 VICE PRESIDENT/ SECRETARY
salary 97,556. pension contribution 16,062.
RODNEY RICHARDSON
120 SOUTH DR.
BUFFALO, NY 14226
GLENDORA JOHNSON
1097 ELLICOTT ST.
BUFFALO, NY 14209
EVELYN PIZARRO
97 AVA LANE
WILLIAMSVILLE, NY 14221
CHRISTOPHER JACOBS
70 SENECA ST
BUFFALO, NY 14210
TOTALS INCLUDED ON FORM 990, PART V-A
Directors salaries $329,628. Directors pension contributions $46,575
Top five salaries $305,702 pension contributions $51910
Comment by sunshine daydream — April 9, 2009 @ 3:46 pm
Belmont employees live at their office on Main Street so that is why there are bike racks there.
Comment by 10 speed — April 15, 2009 @ 6:19 pm
I can appreciate folks who disagree with the type of housing activiites we might chose to provide or question the cost or even call us stupid, but I have to comment when someone maligns our commitment to our charitable mission and ethical behaviour. To set the record straight – (1) the comment from “former board member” attributes the “high cost of these houses” to a need to produce profits for “for-profit sister companies”. This is absolutely untrue. The entities referred to are either not-for-profit housing development fund companies (reguired in order to provide HUD financing for housing) or partnerships (required in order to provide the low income housing tax credit financing) none of which derrive income from Belmont Shelter nor do their board members receive any compensation from those entities; (2) Belmont Shelter does not have any interest in any construction company (”closely-held” or otherwise. (3)Belmont Shelter is not under any pressure to “make money back”;(4) The property on the corner of Coe and Main is not owned by Belmont Shelter or any affiliate of Belmont Shelter. Finally, I do not believe that any former Belmont Shelter Board Member would comment annoymously on a blog.
Comment by Liz Huckabone — July 28, 2009 @ 10:56 am