Above image, Chicago's Navy Pier from the John Hancock Tower
Build This instead of the Queen City Landing Glass Residential Tower
by Larry Brooks and Jim Carr
Apartments at Queen City Landing (QCL) is a proposal by a local developer for a 23-story apartment tower at 975 Fuhrmann Blvd., a site currently occupied by the vacant remains of the former Freezer Queen food processing plant. This proposal has created some controversy between people who think that the development is a good idea, that we need housing on this part of the waterfront, that it will attract visitors to the waterfront, that this development has no impact on the environment, and that the existing structure is not usable. Many, on the other hand, feel that it is the wrong thing to put on the site for legal, urban planning, architectural, and environmental reasons. In this essay, we would like to pose an alternative which might just satisfy both sides.
Developer Gerald Buchheit has owned this site since 2007. He initially put out an architectural rendering showing remodeling of the existing structure into apartments and also expressed an interest in possibly developing the adjacent Terminals A and B. A few months ago, he came up with a new proposal radically different from the original one, involving demolition of the current structure. He argues that the structure has deteriorated to a point where it is no longer usable. If true, it is a condition for which he is responsible. But do we know for a fact the building is deficient? He and his supporters argue that this particular proposal is the highest and best use of this particular site for the community’s benefit. We will argue in this essay that it is not the best use and that there is a far better use for the site.
Chicago’s Navy Pier
For those of you who have not traveled to the waterfront of Chicago, let us tell you about the number one attraction in that city — Navy Pier. It is also the number one attraction in the Midwest and draws over 9 million visitors a year. It is a major economic engine providing jobs and income for the city.
Now celebrating its 100th anniversary, the complex was originally built for shipping purposes. It has helped transform the lakefront into attractive and useful public space for active recreation and social interaction. The site is an exciting mix of parks, gardens, shops, restaurants, museums, family attractions, amusement rides, and exhibition facilities, operating year-round and from morning to night.
Developer Gerald Buchheit has owned this site since 2007. He initially put out an architectural rendering showing remodeling of the existing structure into apartments and also expressed an interest in possibly developing the adjacent Terminals A and B. A few months ago, he came up with a new proposal radically different from the original one, involving demolition of the current structure. He argues that the structure has deteriorated to a point where it is no longer usable. If true, it is a condition for which he is responsible. But do we know for a fact the building is deficient? He and his supporters argue that this particular proposal is the highest and best use of this particular site for the community’s benefit. We will argue in this essay that it is not the best use and that there is a far better use for the site.
Chicago’s Navy Pier
For those of you who have not traveled to the waterfront of Chicago, let us tell you about the number one attraction in that city — Navy Pier. It is also the number one attraction in the Midwest and draws over 9 million visitors a year. It is a major economic engine providing jobs and income for the city.
Now celebrating its 100th anniversary, the complex was originally built for shipping purposes. It has helped transform the lakefront into attractive and useful public space for active recreation and social interaction. The site is an exciting mix of parks, gardens, shops, restaurants, museums, family attractions, amusement rides, and exhibition facilities, operating year-round and from morning to night.
|
|
Chicago's Navy Pier is always crowded. Not shown are the docks where cruise ships board for tours of Lake Michigan and the Chicago River.
It wasn’t always this way. During World War II, for instance, the pier was used to train Navy pilots for service in WWII including a young George H. W. Bush. In the 1970s it fell into disuse when the much larger McCormick Place convention center opened. But some visionary citizens saw potential here and decided to invest public resources in a public place that would eventually become the city’s number one attraction.
The Freezer Queen site could be coupled with the old NFTA Port Terminal buildings A & B just to the north to create a similarly-sized parcel with reusable structures. Ours isn’t a new idea. Years ago, the NFTA commissioned a study for the Port Terminal complex just north of the Freezer Queen site which envisioned something very much like Navy Pier. Additionally, our proposal fits in with the recent Perkins + Will plan for the waterfront commissioned by the Erie Canal Harbor Development Corporation.
The few versus the many?
The main difference between the current QCL proposal and what we propose is how many people can enjoy it — that is to say, how much it will benefit the community. The current proposal is for anywhere from 160 to 200 one- and two- bedroom apartments of about 1400 square feet. In this region, such upscale apartments charge rents of $2000 a month and upward. Using the old rent affordability rule of thumb — rent should be no more than 20% of your gross income — these apartments are affordable for households that have an annual gross income of $120,000 and up. If you look at census data, this means that these units are affordable for less than 20% of the households in Erie County. Another aspect of this is that given an average of two persons per household, these apartments will only be enjoyed by somewhere between 300 and 400 people plus occasional visitors. What we propose will be enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of people — maybe millions — from all income brackets and not only from within Erie County but visitors to our region. Our proposal benefits far more people within the community than an upscale apartment tower.
Bewildering public support
In the Buffalo News, in letters to the editor and online, there have been a number of statements of support from people for the proposed tower. More than four out of five people in the county would not even qualify to live there, and four one-hundredths of one percent of the county’s population would actually live there.
Some say that the apartment tower would draw more people to the waterfront. Let’s be clear about this — no one is going to drive down Route 5 just to look at an apartment building. As calculated before, the only additional traffic will be about 400 people who actually live there. Our proposal, on the other hand, could potentially draw some of the 14 million tourists in Niagara Falls by complementing Canalside and creating a synergy with that attraction, anchoring the Niagara River Greenway, giving visitors yet another reason to come down to the outer harbor. Coming up from the south on Route 5, the public would see a signature gateway complex. An apartment tower would be no such attraction.
Some say “it’s about time” and “we need to put” housing on Buffalo’s waterfront. We already have housing on the waterfront. There’s Marine Drive Apartments in the inner Harbor and across Erie Street, between the 190 and Erie Basin Marina, a waterfront village of condos and townhomes. At the foot of Hertel Avenue, several apartment towers face the Niagara River, affordable to many of the county residents. Currently, there are three existing buildings on Niagara Street between the Peace Bridge and the Scajaquada Expressway being converted from former industrial use into residential as well as two new multi-story towers on Ohio Street alongside the Buffalo River.
The Lake Erie shore is a superhighway for migratory birds in North America. Glass skyscrapers are the number one cause of bird mortality. The developer hired a consultant to claim that this tower design will have little or no impact on birds but the facts say otherwise. 99 out of 100 ornithologists and amateur birders will tell you that this building will cause a lot of bird deaths. Some people would say, so what? Birds are important in our ecosystem. They are our first line of defense against insect pests — including the mosquitoes that carry the Zika virus — and a reduction in their numbers would automatically result in an increase in insect pests. Some people say, so what, we still have chemicals. But insects, just like the new superbugs that are antibiotic resistant, can mutate resistance to chemicals. They cannot mutate a defense against bird predators.
Some QCL supporters have taken aim at the critics of the project accusing them of obstructionism, opposing any kind of new development. This criticism is blatantly false and a logical fallacy, an ad hominem argument, not a valid criticism at all. In fact, many of the critics of the QCL cheer the repurposing of the three buildings along Niagara Street and the construction of two buildings along the Buffalo River, plus all the warehouse-to-residential conversions underway right now.
If Mister Buchheit is the community minded developer he says he is, and remembers his initial interest in the Port Terminal properties, then we hope he would choose this proposal which would have a far greater positive impact on the community. Mister Buchheit, would you please build this instead?
Larry Brooks is an author and environmentalist; James Carr is a retired urban planner. Both reside in Buffalo.
The Freezer Queen site could be coupled with the old NFTA Port Terminal buildings A & B just to the north to create a similarly-sized parcel with reusable structures. Ours isn’t a new idea. Years ago, the NFTA commissioned a study for the Port Terminal complex just north of the Freezer Queen site which envisioned something very much like Navy Pier. Additionally, our proposal fits in with the recent Perkins + Will plan for the waterfront commissioned by the Erie Canal Harbor Development Corporation.
The few versus the many?
The main difference between the current QCL proposal and what we propose is how many people can enjoy it — that is to say, how much it will benefit the community. The current proposal is for anywhere from 160 to 200 one- and two- bedroom apartments of about 1400 square feet. In this region, such upscale apartments charge rents of $2000 a month and upward. Using the old rent affordability rule of thumb — rent should be no more than 20% of your gross income — these apartments are affordable for households that have an annual gross income of $120,000 and up. If you look at census data, this means that these units are affordable for less than 20% of the households in Erie County. Another aspect of this is that given an average of two persons per household, these apartments will only be enjoyed by somewhere between 300 and 400 people plus occasional visitors. What we propose will be enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of people — maybe millions — from all income brackets and not only from within Erie County but visitors to our region. Our proposal benefits far more people within the community than an upscale apartment tower.
Bewildering public support
In the Buffalo News, in letters to the editor and online, there have been a number of statements of support from people for the proposed tower. More than four out of five people in the county would not even qualify to live there, and four one-hundredths of one percent of the county’s population would actually live there.
Some say that the apartment tower would draw more people to the waterfront. Let’s be clear about this — no one is going to drive down Route 5 just to look at an apartment building. As calculated before, the only additional traffic will be about 400 people who actually live there. Our proposal, on the other hand, could potentially draw some of the 14 million tourists in Niagara Falls by complementing Canalside and creating a synergy with that attraction, anchoring the Niagara River Greenway, giving visitors yet another reason to come down to the outer harbor. Coming up from the south on Route 5, the public would see a signature gateway complex. An apartment tower would be no such attraction.
Some say “it’s about time” and “we need to put” housing on Buffalo’s waterfront. We already have housing on the waterfront. There’s Marine Drive Apartments in the inner Harbor and across Erie Street, between the 190 and Erie Basin Marina, a waterfront village of condos and townhomes. At the foot of Hertel Avenue, several apartment towers face the Niagara River, affordable to many of the county residents. Currently, there are three existing buildings on Niagara Street between the Peace Bridge and the Scajaquada Expressway being converted from former industrial use into residential as well as two new multi-story towers on Ohio Street alongside the Buffalo River.
The Lake Erie shore is a superhighway for migratory birds in North America. Glass skyscrapers are the number one cause of bird mortality. The developer hired a consultant to claim that this tower design will have little or no impact on birds but the facts say otherwise. 99 out of 100 ornithologists and amateur birders will tell you that this building will cause a lot of bird deaths. Some people would say, so what? Birds are important in our ecosystem. They are our first line of defense against insect pests — including the mosquitoes that carry the Zika virus — and a reduction in their numbers would automatically result in an increase in insect pests. Some people say, so what, we still have chemicals. But insects, just like the new superbugs that are antibiotic resistant, can mutate resistance to chemicals. They cannot mutate a defense against bird predators.
Some QCL supporters have taken aim at the critics of the project accusing them of obstructionism, opposing any kind of new development. This criticism is blatantly false and a logical fallacy, an ad hominem argument, not a valid criticism at all. In fact, many of the critics of the QCL cheer the repurposing of the three buildings along Niagara Street and the construction of two buildings along the Buffalo River, plus all the warehouse-to-residential conversions underway right now.
If Mister Buchheit is the community minded developer he says he is, and remembers his initial interest in the Port Terminal properties, then we hope he would choose this proposal which would have a far greater positive impact on the community. Mister Buchheit, would you please build this instead?
Larry Brooks is an author and environmentalist; James Carr is a retired urban planner. Both reside in Buffalo.