AN ADVISORY SERVICES PANEL REPORT H.H. Richardson...

A N A D V I S O R Y S E R V I C E S P A N E L R E P O R T

H.H. Richardson ComplexBuffalo, New York

Urban LandInstitute$

H.H. Richardson ComplexBuffalo, New YorkStrategies for Reusing a National Historic Landmark

May 20–25, 2007An Advisory Services Panel Report

ULI–the Urban Land Institute1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.Suite 500 WestWashington, D.C. 20007-5201

An Advisory Services Panel Report2

The mission of the Urban Land Institute is toprovide leadership in the responsible use ofland and in creating and sustaining thrivingcommunities worldwide. ULI is committed to

• Bringing together leaders from across the fieldsof real estate and land use policy to exchangebest practices and serve community needs;

• Fostering collaboration within and beyondULI’s membership through mentoring, dia-logue, and problem solving;

• Exploring issues of urbanization, conservation,regeneration, land use, capital formation, andsustainable development;

• Advancing land use policies and design prac-tices that respect the uniqueness of both builtand natural environments;

• Sharing knowledge through education, appliedresearch, publishing, and electronic media; and

• Sustaining a diverse global network of localpractice and advisory efforts that address cur-rent and future challenges.

Established in 1936, the Institute today has morethan 38,000 members from 90 countries, represent-ing the entire spectrum of the land use and develop-ment disciplines. Professionals represented includedevelopers, builders, property owners, investors,architects, public officials, planners, real estatebrokers, appraisers, attorneys, engineers, financiers,academics, students, and librarians. ULI reliesheavily on the experience of its members. It isthrough member involvement and informationresources that ULI has been able to set standardsof excellence in development practice. The Insti-tute has long been recognized as one of the world’smost respected and widely quoted sources of ob-jective information on urban planning, growth,and development.

About ULI–the Urban Land Institute

©2007 by ULI–the Urban Land Institute1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 500 WestWashington, D.C. 20007-5201

All rights reserved. Reproduction or use of the whole or anypart of the contents without written permission of the copy-right holder is prohibited.

Buffalo, New York, May 20–25, 2007 3

The goal of ULI’s Advisory Services Programis to bring the finest expertise in the realestate field to bear on complex land use plan-ning and development projects, programs,

and policies. Since 1947, this program has assem-bled well over 400 ULI-member teams to helpsponsors find creative, practical solutions forissues such as downtown redevelopment, landmanagement strategies, evaluation of develop-ment potential, growth management, communityrevitalization, brownfields redevelopment, mili-tary base reuse, provision of low-cost and afford-able housing, and asset management strategies,among other matters. A wide variety of public,private, and nonprofit organizations have con-tracted for ULI’s Advisory Services.

Each panel team is composed of highly qualifiedprofessionals who volunteer their time to ULI.They are chosen for their knowledge of the paneltopic and screened to ensure their objectivity.ULI’s interdisciplinary panel teams provide aholistic look at development problems. A re-spected ULI member who has previous panelexperience chairs each panel.

The agenda for a five-day panel assignment is in-tensive. It includes an in-depth briefing day com-posed of a tour of the site and meetings with spon-sor representatives; a day of hour-long interviewsof typically 50 to 75 key community representa-tives; and two days of formulating recommenda-tions. Many long nights of discussion precede thepanel’s conclusions. On the final day on site, thepanel makes an oral presentation of its findingsand conclusions to the sponsor. A written report isprepared and published.

Because the sponsoring entities are responsiblefor significant preparation before the panel’s visit,including sending extensive briefing materials toeach member and arranging for the panel to meetwith key local community members and stake-holders in the project under consideration, partici-

pants in ULI’s five-day panel assignments areable to make accurate assessments of a sponsor’sissues and to provide recommendations in a com-pressed amount of time.

A major strength of the program is ULI’s uniqueability to draw on the knowledge and expertise ofits members, including land developers and own-ers, public officials, academicians, representativesof financial institutions, and others. In fulfillmentof the mission of the Urban Land Institute, thisAdvisory Services panel report is intended toprovide objective advice that will promote the re-sponsible use of land to enhance the environment.

ULI Program StaffMarta V. GoldsmithSenior Vice President, Community Group

Thomas W. EitlerDirector, Advisory Services

Cary SheihSenior Associate, Advisory Services

Matthew RaderSenior Associate, Advisory Services

Carmen McCormickPanel Coordinator, Advisory Services

Romana KernsAdministrative Assistant, Advisory Services

Nancy H. StewartDirector, Book Program

Lise Lingo, Publications Professionals LLCManuscript Editor

Betsy VanBuskirkArt Director

Martha LoomisDesktop Publishing Specialist/Graphics

Craig ChapmanDirector, Publishing Operations

About ULI Advisory Services


On behalf of the Urban Land Institute, thepanelists would like to thank the sponsor,the Richardson Center Corporation, no-tably Chairman Stanford Lipsey and Vice

Chairman Howard Zemsky. Without their sup-port and assistance, the panel would not havebeen possible.

Special thanks go to Tom Dodson and Sue Joffe ofthe Buffalo Psychiatric Center (BPC); BarbaraSeals-Nevergold and Hal Fabinsky of the BPCBoard of Visitors; Sandy Tolkacz and Donald Lan-greck of the BPC Recipient Associate Managers;Commissioner Rich Tobe, Christina Akers, andEric Birner of the city of Buffalo; Senator CharlesSchumer, Senator Hillary Clinton, CongressmanBrian Higgins, Assemblyman Sam Hoyt, Council-man Joseph Golombek, and Councilman DavidFranczyk; Richard Geiger and Edward Healy ofthe Buffalo Niagara Convention and Visitors Bu-reau; and Dr. Muriel Howard and Frank Kowskyof Buffalo State College.

The panel also expresses thanks to the followingorganizations for their participation: the Albright-Knox Art Gallery, Architectural Resources, theArts Council in Buffalo and Erie County, theBaird Foundation, the Buffalo and Erie CountyHistorical Society, the Buffalo Niagara MedicalCampus, the Buffalo Niagara Partnership, theBuffalo Olmsted Parks Conservancy, BuffaloPlace, the Buffalo Niagara Association of Real-tors, the Burchfield-Penney Art Center, the Cam-

paign for Greater Buffalo, Cannon Design, theCommunity Preservation Corporation, ErieCounty, the Elmwood Village Association, theEmpire State Development Corporation, the ErieCounty Industrial Development Agency, FlynnBattaglia Architects, Foit Albert Associates, theGrant Ferry Association, Hunt Real Estate, theLandmark Society of the Niagara Frontier, theMartin House Restoration Company, MJ PetersonReal Estate, Militello Realty, the National Al-liance on Mental Illness, the National Park Ser-vice, the National Trust for Historic Preservation,the New York State Historic Preservation Office,the Preservation Coalition of Erie County, theUniversity at Buffalo School of Architecture andPlanning’s Urban Design Project and the Univer-sity at Buffalo Law School’s Regional Institute,Signature Development Buffalo, and the WestSide Community Collaborative.

Interviews conducted with numerous stakehold-ers, including residents, business owners, andpublic officials, provided valuable information anddiverse perspectives, aiding the panel in its analy-sis. The panelists thank all those who consented tobe interviewed.

We extend a special thanks to the residents ofBuffalo, who were welcoming and helpful through-out our stay.

Acknowledgments


ULI Panel and Project Staff 6

Foreword: The Panel’s Assignment 7

Market Potential 13

Planning and Design Strategies 15

Development Strategies 21

Implementation Strategies 25

Conclusion 29

About the Panel 30

Contents


Panel ChairMike HigbeePresidentDevelopment Concepts, Inc.Indianapolis, Indiana

Panel MembersJohn (Jack) F. Crowley IIIDean, College of Environment and DesignUniversity of GeorgiaAthens, Georgia

Abigail Byers FerrettiVice PresidentBay Area EconomicsSilver Spring, Maryland

Charles Johnson IVPresidentJohnson ConsultingChicago, Illinois

James T. KienlePresidentJames T. Kienle & Associates Inc.Indianapolis, Indiana

Paula KonikoffVice Chair Appraisal Standards BoardNew York, New York

Ralph L. NúñezPresident/Design PrincipalDesignTeam LimitedSouthfield, Michigan

Christine L. SaumDirector, Urban Design and Plan Review National Capital Planning CommissionWashington, D.C.

Douglas M. WrennPrincipalRodgers Consulting, Inc.Germantown, Maryland

ULI Project DirectorsThomas W. EitlerDirector, Advisory Services

Cary SheihSenior Associate, Advisory Services

ULI On-Site CoordinatorRomana KernsPanel Coordinator

ULI Panel and Project Staff


At the invitation of the Richardson CenterCorporation, a ULI Advisory Servicespanel was convened to study the H.H.Richardson Complex in Buffalo, New York.

The sponsors were interested in addressing thecurrent and future market opportunities for thisNational Historic Landmark, a large hospital ofMedina red sandstone and brick designed in HenryHobson Richardson’s characteristic Romanesquestyle, sprawling over grounds designed by thefamed landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted.The panel analyzed key economic and demographicfactors, developed design and planning scenarios,looked at ways to develop and implement the plan,and came up with strategic recommendations thatcan be put into action immediately.

BackgroundOne hundred and fifty years ago, Buffalo was knownas the “Queen City of the Great Lakes,” a referenceto its rank as the second largest city in New YorkState (behind New York City). By 1900, Buffalohad become the eighth largest city in the country.It hosted the Pan American Exhibition in 1901.This growth and prosperity was marked—andcelebrated—by its radial street plan, parks andparkways, and world-renowned architecture.

By the end of the 20th century, Buffalo had enduredan entire generation of economic hardship that isonly now beginning to pass. The city population,which peaked in 1950 at just under 600,000, haddeclined by almost 50 percent in 2007, as indus-tries shut down and people left for employmentopportunities elsewhere. The population is de-creasing by 13 people per day. Buffalo’s 1990 popu-lation of 328,123 decreased to 292,648 in 2000 andis projected to fall to 263,384 by 2010. Simultane-ously, the population in the suburbs adjacent toBuffalo has doubled, from 300,000 to 600,000, re-sulting in further decay of the parent city. The city

Foreword: The Panel’s Assignment

experienced a housing vacancy rate of 10.2 percentin 1990, and that grew to 15.7 percent by 2000.

In recent years, however, the city’s economy hasexperienced an upturn and a resurgence. Newproposals and renovations abound, especially inthe downtown area. Renovations of existing com-mercial properties are attracting new businessesinto the city. One example is Labatt Breweries ofCanada, which moved its U.S. headquarters to

Location map, above.Regional map, left.

LAKE ERIE

LAKE ONTARIO

11

11

11

20

20

20

209

20A

219

44

62

9

9

11

11

119

15

209

219

219

22

220

30

322

322

322

422

422

522

522

6

6

6

62

202

206

46

1

44

1

44

6

20

20

202

7

2

2

4

5

5

5

7

7

3

302

4

1

20

20A

390

495

476

81

81

87

87

87

88

90

90

86

86

86

76

76

76

76

78

80

80

8081

81

83

84

84

78

95

395

91

84

84

95

95

495

90

91

90

89

89

91

91

91

89

93

90

90

290190

NEW JERSEY

RhodeIsland

CONNECTICUTPENNSYLVANIA

MASSACHUSETTS

N E W Y O R K

VERMONT

New Hampshire

C A N A D A

Kings

QueensHudson

New York

Nassau

Bronx Suffolk

Rockland

Westchester

Putnam

Orange

Sullivan DutchessUlster

Chemung

Tioga Broome

GreeneColumbia

Delaware

AlleganyCATTARAUGUS

Schuyler

CHAUTAUQUA Steuben

Tompkins

ChenangoYates

CortlandAlbany

Schoharie

WYOMING

Otsego

Schenectady Rensselaer

Livingston

SenecaOntario Montgomery

ERIE

GENESEEMadison

Onondaga

FultonWayneMONROE

NIAGARAORLEANS

SaratogaCayuga

OneidaOswego

Warren

Washington

Herkimer

Hamilton

Lewis

Jefferson

Essex

Franklin

Saint Lawrence

Clinton

ONTARIO

A t l a n t i cO c e a n

Albany

New York

Rochester

Syracuse

Niagara Falls

Troy

Utica

SchenectadyBuffaloBuffalo

90

86

90

81

8784

8187

390

495

9086

88

NEW JERSEY

CONNECTICUTPENNSYLVANIA

MASSACHUSETTS

N E W Y O R K

VERMONTNEW HAMPSHIRE

C A N A D A

A t l a n t i cO c e a n

L A K E O N T A R I O

L A K E E R I E Albany

New York

RochesterSyracuse

Niagara Falls

Troy

Utica

SchenectadyBuffalo

VIRGINIA

Toronto


Buffalo in May 2007. Another is the renovation of Frank Lloyd Wright’s Darwin Martin House,which establishes a world-class museum in a resi-dential neighborhood. Several commercial andresidential developments are underway on thewaterfront, and luxury condominiums are beingdeveloped on the water’s edge.

Buffalo and its surrounding areas offer attractionsthat encompass everything from the arts and cul-ture to sports and natural beauty. The Buffalo-Niagara region, a diverse metropolitan area witha population of 1.2 million people, contains a multi-ethnic and diverse binational community, anarray of colleges and universities, Lake Erie andNiagara Falls, the Erie Canal terminus, the

Frank Lloyd Wright’s Dar-win Martin House under-going major renovation,including repairs of theexterior masonry.

Right: The approach fromthe main entry on ForestAvenue to the dramaticcentral towers of the H.H. Richardson Complex.Far right: The locationand design of the StrozziBuilding is a challenge tothe development of thestudy area.


Albright-Knox Art Gallery (a major showplace forcontemporary and modern art), the historic parksand parkway system, the Kleinhans Music Hall,Underground Railroad heritage sites, and world-class medical research and clinical facilities. Thecity’s architecture is also of world-class caliber.Then there are the museums, the performing artsvenues, AAA baseball, NHL hockey, NFL foot-ball—and the list goes on. The challenge is to letmore of the world know about Buffalo’s treasuresand, when travelers come, to entice them to stay alittle longer and visit a few more venues, shops,and restaurants.

The seeds have been sown for the next major re-development in Buffalo—the H.H. RichardsonComplex—to move forward. To a large extent, theexisting momentum has been achieved becausethe champions of the project have foresight, en-ergy, and the respect of a broad spectrum of com-munity stakeholders. The complex already enjoyssite recognition and benefits from the potential fordevelopment with private uses that will be eco-nomically self-sustaining. The site also already en-joys the company of excellent neighbors, includingseveral museums, Buffalo State College, and thecommercial core along Elmwood Avenue, and issurrounded by several residential neighborhoods.

However, the development of the H.H. Richard-son Complex is not without its challenges. Theproject faces the same uphill battle as many Buf-falo developments—a belief that it will not reachcompletion. Other common perceptions includemisconceptions that the site can be developed onlywith limited public funds or subsidies and that thesite faces real constraints, including the physicalcondition of the buildings and grounds, as well asthe location and design of the Strozzi Building, thenew home of the Buffalo Psychiatric Center.

The AssignmentThe panel was challenged to create a strategy toredevelop the H.H. Richardson Complex with theobjective of making it a financially viable, mixed-use, multipurpose civic campus of public and pri-vate activities, that has better physical links toand remains compatible with neighboring dis-tricts. The market potential was to be consideredwhile bearing in mind that the Buffalo Psychiatric

Center, a functioning psychiatric hospital, is locatedon the site. Maintaining public access to the site isa primary concern, as is ensuring that any rede-velopment includes economically self-sustaining or revenue-generating elements. The panel wasasked to address a series of questions:

• What are the most compelling opportunities foraddressing the current and future market op-portunities of the site?

• What is the best mix of public and private sec-tor uses for the complex’s final reuse?

• How can stakeholders best help stabilize neigh-borhoods and catalyze economic developmentin the surrounding area and on the site, recog-nizing that the complex is a National HistoricLandmark?

• How should the proposed redevelopment besequenced?

• What is a realistic timetable for a redevelop-ment project such as this?

190

198

PEACEBRIDGE

NIA

GAR

A ST

REE

T

GR

ANT

STR

EET

RIC

HM

ON

D

AVEN

UE EL

MW

OO

DAV

ENU

E

DEL

AWAR

EAV

ENU

E

BIDWELL

PARKWAY

MAIN

STR

EET

FOREST AVENUE

CHAPIN

PARKWAY

AMHERST STREET

LIN

COLN

PAR

KWAY

5

4

6

31

2

RIVERSIDEC O M M U N I T Y

NORTH BUFFALOC O M M U N I T Y

WEST SIDEC O M M U N I T Y

ELMWOODC O M M U N I T Y

THHE OLMMSSTTEED

CR

ESC

ENT

NIAG

ARA R

IVER

S ITE

BUFFALO STATE COLLEGE

ALBRIGHT-KNOX GALLERY

DELAWARE PARK

ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS

FOREST LAWN CEMETERY

PARKWAY INTERSECTIONS

KEY

1

2

3

4

5

6

Q

Q

Q

Q

The study area and itssurroundings.


• Historic elements were altered over time, creat-ing confusion regarding the future.

• The location of the Buffalo Psychiatric Centeron the site must be considered in assessing theimpact of potential new uses.

• Existing buildings are in various stages of dis-repair and neglect. Time is not on the site’sside—buildings continue to deteriorate.

• Building consensus will be a challenge, giventhe history and significance of the site.

• The site lacks a strong land use plan. Once itwas clearly defined, but time has blurred it, andthe lack of response to previous calls to restorethe complex has hurt the community and thebuildings. The lack of a plan and the uncertaintyof uses produces chaos and indecision, both ofwhich are enemies of redevelopment of the site.

Opportunities

The panel is convinced that the site offers manyopportunities:

• The site’s rich history and heritage present aone-of-a-kind opportunity for redevelopment.

• Taken collectively, the site’s architectural as-sets represent an opportunity for economicdevelopment.

• The rich context provided by Elmwood Av-enue and the surrounding neighborhoods is astrong setting from which to encourage newinvestment.

• Buffalo State College offers both demand andresources that could positively affect the site.

• The community is engaged, at all levels,which will maintain attention on leaders of the redevelopment.

• The current state commitment to activating re-development of the site offers a good start.

• What types of financing should be accessed for a project like this?

The Panel’s Guiding PrinciplesThe panel began by establishing a set of guidingprinciples that would help clarify the kinds ofchanges that should be made and the historicqualities that should be maintained:

• Ensure that the master planning process is ac-cepted by the community. It may be difficult toachieve consensus, but the process for doing somust be accepted.

• After the master plan is in place, organize forsuccess. A plan is a necessary first step but doesnot guarantee success. The ability to do the heavylifting with expertise and diligence is essentialto creating and focusing the development andthe organizational capacity to see the job through.

• Identify early successes that will serve as goodbuilding blocks. Stabilizing the buildings, clean-ing and maintaining the site, introducing newuses—these accomplishments will create newhope and new investment by showing that posi-tive change is now possible.

• Keep the site open to the Buffalo communityand residents. Even though the site will havesome private investment, it will remain a com-munity treasure that should be enjoyed by allwho appreciate what it continues to represent.

• Ensure that the master plan recognizes thatOlmstedian principles can be revived. The origi-nal Olmsted plan was never fully implemented.However, its principles and values can and shouldbe reflected in all future steps taken on the site.This will demonstrate both respect for the pastand the relevance of Richardson’s and Olmsted’sprinciples in today’s world.

Issues

After reviewing the information provided by thesponsor, the panel identified the following issues:

• Older buildings were built for specific uses ofhousing mentally ill patients.


Summary of Findings andRecommendationsFollowing an intensive week of site visits, inter-views, and presentations, the panel recommendedthe adoption of a framework for creating a masterplan for the H.H. Richardson Complex. Followingare key components of the panelists’ findings:

• The historic value and combined efforts ofRichardson and Olmsted elevate this site andits importance to the community to a preemi-nent level. It would be nearly impossible to ex-aggerate the importance of this site both as aunique treasure bestowed on the communityand as an asset that can provide economic valueto the citizenry. The stronger the associationbetween the site and Richardson and Olmsted,the more likely that the site will be revered andvalued not only locally, but also nationally andeven internationally.

• Olmstedian principles can be implemented inthe landscape design. An important and realisticgoal is to ensure that the site retains the fullspirit of and common sense values representedby the special collaboration of Richardson andOlmsted. They are as relevant today as theywere in the mid-1800s. Given their ability to ad-dress human needs, their adaptation into thecurrent surrounding environment is worthstriving for, both on the site and in new invest-ment throughout a revitalized Buffalo.

• It is important to retain and reuse the eightmain residential and administrative buildings(the Richardson Complex), given their conditionand their contribution to the site. These build-ings are a commanding presence and togethercreate both a pleasurable and historic settingand a significant reuse opportunity. A truelandmark, they must be incorporated in a man-ner that speaks to the past, present, and fu-ture Buffalo.

• Those Olmstedian elements that retain theirsubstantial form should be restored. Opportuni-ties for a contemporary introduction of the Olm-sted principles should be identified and incorpo-rated into the master plan. Although much ofthe Olmsted plan was either never completed

or irretrievably altered, the site clearly demon-strates the landscape architect’s dynamic hand.The site’s historic and new landscape elementsshould continue to articulate his principles.

• The site needs to embrace and interact with thesurrounding neighborhoods. As the role of thesite changes and becomes more public, it canopen up to the adjacent neighborhoods in amanner that brings positive energy to the siteand allows neighboring residents and businessesto enjoy all that the site and its buildings haveto offer. This enhanced relationship will intro-duce an economic well-being that is consistentwith the holistic approach taken by Richardsonand Olmsted.

• The reactivation of the Richardson Complexand the introduction of other site improvementswill be expensive. It is important to encourageprivate investment in order to offset what will

The panelists gatherinformation about thecomplex through a brief-ing given by the sponsorand a walking tour insidethe building.


certainly be a substantial public investment.The magnitude of the complex combined withthe years of deferred maintenance and the needto make the buildings functional for new useswhile respecting their historic character will re-quire a sophisticated, multilayered financingplan. It will be imperative to create a diverseand extensive list of financing sources, to en-sure that the restoration and reuse is done withsensitivity and quality. The plan will need to ad-dress both capital and operational expenses.Addressing these short- and long-term financialneeds will require the best and the brightestminds from the private and public sectors. It isimportant to remember that although the in-vestment will be substantial, a long-term sus-tainable return is possible. The generation ofrevenue on site and through a substantial con-tribution to the business of cultural tourism willaccrue benefits for decades to come if imple-mented well.

• A sustainable reuse program needs to includea mix of uses that respond to well-documentedcommunity and market demands and needs.Given the investment needed to bring thesewonderful buildings back to life, it is criticalthat the new uses be able to support the costs oftheir respective spaces for a long period. Usesthat have an uncertain future or little relevancein addressing documented needs would createan economic deficit that will undermine theproject’s prospect of long-term success. A di-verse mix of private and public uses will reducethe financial risk, especially if strong considera-tion is given to finding high-quality users andtenants.


Based on the market review, the panelistsbelieve that a significant development op-portunity exists for the H.H. RichardsonComplex. The market potential analysis fo-

cuses on identifying and capitalizing on both near-term and long-term opportunities. The panelistsbelieve that the site is well-suited to sustain a mixof uses that capture current market interests aswell as to build on potential markets, thereby mit-igating the risk of any one use failing.

Tourism MarketThe Buffalo Convention and Visitors Bureau esti-mates that three million visitors a year visit Buf-falo, not counting visitors to Niagara Falls and thesouthern tier of Ontario. The current hotel inven-tory lists many older hotels, with an average occu-pancy rate of 65 percent and an average daily rateof $80. Interestingly, smaller-scale boutique hotelssuch as the Mansion and the Roycroft Inn enjoyhigher occupancy rates—between 75 percent and80 percent—reflecting their success in targeting amore affluent audience. Given the site’s recogni-tion as a landmark, its location adjacent to BuffaloState College, and the strengths of the surround-ing community, there is a significant opportunityfor a 200-room full-service hotel and conferencecenter on the site.

Critical to achieving the potential of this use is theprovision of a conference center. There is alreadya source of demand from Buffalo State College,which holds conferences and workshops at localhotels. Additional sources of demand for conven-ing space include the local and regional businessand leisure community and the adjacent area’smuseum district.

Residential MarketDominated by single-family houses, split three-three doubles, or low- to medium-density multi-

family complexes, Buffalo neighborhoods offer alimited amount of housing types. Despite the city’spopulation loss, there is evidence of movementback to Buffalo from suburban areas. Similar toreal estate trends nationwide, residential brokersreport rising inmigration and a quickening salespace, including home sales in less than 10 days onthe market.

The limited diversity in Buffalo’s housing stock of-fers an opportunity to diversify infill developmentwith new housing types. Condominiums in adap-tively used or newly constructed locations farewell in Buffalo. These units typically represent amix of one- and two-bedroom units, targeted toyoung professionals, childless couples, and emptynesters. Condominium sale prices are in the rangeof $300,000. As would be expected, units along thewaterfront command higher prices, up to $500,000for larger ones.

National examples of adaptive use of state hospi-tals include the Avalon Bay project in Danvers,Massachusetts, and the Boston State Hospital atthe far end of Boston’s equivalent of the OlmstedCrescent—the Emerald Necklace. Both projectsoffer rental apartments and high-end condomini-ums, showcasing an attractive and respectfulreuse option. Local examples that highlight thestrong market for new residential products in Buf-falo include the Sideway Apartments, the Lofts atElk Terminal, the Belesario Lofts, Granite Works,and City Centre. These projects have had quick-paced absorption.

Buffalo’s rental market shifts between single-family homes and medium-scale apartment com-plexes, well placed throughout its neighborhoods.Near downtown or the larger institutional users,Buffalo’s rental stock becomes high-rise. Rentsvary wildly with the condition of the structuresand surrounding neighborhood, from $500 to$900 a month. Luxury apartments represent anexcellent residential product type for Buffalo,

Market Potential


supporting monthly rents of $1,200 to $3,000 fornewly built units. There is sufficient demand foradditional middle-market and luxury apartments.

Live/work apartments near the site represent anew rental product, targeted to a creative class ofresidents. Live/work units include few amenitiesbut offer a flexible layout. Although these types ofunits might require a subsidy to make the projectsfinancially feasible, they could balance the neigh-borhood composition and add to the arts vision forthe area.

Finally, Buffalo State College and other local col-leges and universities offer a market for dormi-tory or student apartments. Buffalo State Collegedoes not have sufficient on-campus housing for itsstudent population but anticipates continuedgrowth, with a need for 800 student beds in fiveyears. This new housing will help to further re-generate the neighborhood.

Commercial MarketThe H.H. Richardson Complex presents an un-paralleled opportunity to fill gaps in the currentmarketplace. There are several unmet needs fordistinctive commercial uses including a hotel/conference center, retail, and neighborhood-serving office space.

The Elmwood Avenue commercial corridor offersa variety of restaurants, cafés, boutiques, andservice-oriented retail operations such as salons,flower shops, and banks. Although it providesample small-scale retail operations, there are

opportunities to expand these offerings withmedium-scale operations. They would not mimiccurrent offerings but rather include a bookstore,national apparel chains, and restaurants. Thearea will be enlivened with complementary retailuses that meet the needs of residents, visitors, and students.

The location advantages—a unique green oppor-tunity in an adaptive historic space—make officean attractive use regardless of overall market be-havior. Buffalo office trends indicate climbingrents for newly constructed space, reaching $25per square foot, with quick lease-up periods andlimited vacancies. Professional neighborhood-serving office space with dedicated parking wouldwork well at the H.H. Richardson Complex. Inaddition, Class A professional office space that istypically found in suburban office parks could beenticed to locate on the site.

Other educational uses on the site, including acad-emic and laboratory space for Buffalo State Col-lege or a K–12 elementary and secondary school,may also be appropriate.

A healthy mix of residen-tial and retail uses line theElmwood Avenue commer-cial corridor from down-town to the study area.


The opportunity to develop the H.H. Richard-son Complex and the surrounding groundsis now of critical importance. The marketassessment indicated the need to reconsider

the land uses on the site and suggested a sustain-able mix of uses. However, it is important to runthrough two scenarios to gauge their strengthsand weaknesses in light of the presence of the Buf-falo Psychiatric Center—the New York State Of-fice of Mental Health facility—within the bound-ary of the site. For the purposes of analysis, thepanel has considered two development scenarios:

• With the facility; and

• Without the facility.

Of the two scenarios, site transformation with-out the facility would create the greatest valuewith regard to economic development, reverencefor historical values, and links to the neighbor-ing districts.

Study AreaThe study area is bounded by Rockwell Road tothe north, Elmwood Avenue to the east, ForestAvenue to the south, and Rees Street to the west—an area of approximately 91 acres. The H.H.Richardson Complex is the focal point of the majorinstitutions and districts that are directly adjacentto it: Buffalo State College to the north; the Olm-sted Crescent (which includes the Olmsted parksand parkway system and the Buffalo museum dis-trict), to which the site is tied; the Elmwood com-munity (including its commercial corridor) to theeast and south; the West Side community (includ-ing its commercial corridor) to the south and west;and the Black Rock Riverside community (includ-ing its commercial corridor) to the north. Othersignificant features include the Niagara River, aless than 10 minute walk due west, and the Sca-jaquada Expressway to the north of Buffalo StateCollege. The 91-acre study area breaks down into

Planning and Design Strategies

Summary of site acreage.

ROCKWELL ROAD

FOREST AVENUE

ELM

WO

OD

AV

ENU

E

REE

S S

TREE

T

2 .5ACRES

38.2ACRES

4.9ACRES

37.4ACRES

8.0ACRES

2.5ACRES

38.2ACRES

4.9ACRES

37.4ACRES

8.0ACRES

BUFFALO PSYCHIATRIC CENTER BUFFALO STATE COLLEGE BURCHFIELD-PENNEY ART CENTERKEY SURPLUS


the components identified in the illustration andFigure 1.

Scenario 1—Partial SiteTransformationIn the first scenario, the panel assumed that theBuffalo Psychiatric Center will remain on the site.

Landscape Program A major objective for the landscape program atthe site is to create a more inviting pedestrian en-vironment that encourages people to walk alongthe edges of the site and across it. The panel rec-ommends the following improvements for thestudy area, starting at Elmwood Avenue and pro-ceeding counterclockwise around the site:

• Elmwood Avenue

• Reinstate Olmsted landscaping character.

• Eliminate surface parking along ElmwoodAvenue.

• Open up the fencing.

• Create a grand entry from Elmwood Avenue.

• Corner of Forest and Elmwood avenues

• Establish a landmark plaza or other focalpoint.

• Retain trees.

• Possibly relocate the picnic pavilion.

• Forest Avenue

• Locate the original entry and reestablish thepedestrian link.

• Provide access to Richmond Avenue for ve-hicular traffic.

• Delete surface parking in the southeastquadrant.

• Retain the Strozzi Building, open up thegrounds, enhance the landscape, and removeportions of the fencing.

• Establish a pedestrian connection near Clare-mont and Richmond avenues.

• Retain buildings 34, 35, and 37.

• Remove building 50 and reestablish the Olm-sted landscaping.

• Corner of Forest Avenue and Rees Street

• Create a corner marker of Medina sandstone.

• Create a pedestrian node with benches and aplaza area at this corner.

• Create a new walk in the Olmsted style,linked to Rockwell Road and internally linkedat multiple points into the park system.

• Enhance the landscaping around the cornerand continuing along the perimeter of ReesStreet.

• Corner of Rockwell Road and Rees Street

• Eliminate surface parking.

• Rockwell Road

• Continue eastward by strengthening thevegetation.

• Extend the walk on the south side so that itmeanders into and out of the park systemand connects to Elmwood Avenue. This cre-ates connectivity to Delaware Park and theBurchfield-Penney Art Center.

Figure 1 Summary of Site Acreage

Parcel Acres

Buffalo Psychiatric Center1 37.4

Buffalo Psychiatric Center2 8.0

Burchfield-Penney Art Center 4.9

Buffalo State College parking3 2.5

Surplus land for development 38.2

Total 91.01 Main buildings on east side of study area.2 Ancillary buildings on south side of study area.3 North side of study area.


ROCKWELL ROAD

FOREST AVENUE

ELM

WO

OD

AV

ENU

E

REE

S S

TREE

T

8 .0ACRES

BUFFALO PSYCHIATRIC CENTER

SHARED PARKING STRUCTURE

HOTEL AND CONFERENCE CENTER

ARCHITECTURE AND VISITORS CENTER

LUXURY RESIDENTIAL HOUSING

BURCHFIELD-PENNEY ART CENTER

KEY

ROCKWELL ROAD

FOREST AVENUE

ELM

WO

OD

AV

ENU

E

REE

S S

TREE

T

8 .0ACRES

Proposed architecturalprogram for Scenario 1.

Proposed landscapeprogram for Scenario 1.


Proposed architecturalprogram for Scenario 2.

Proposed landscapeprogram for Scenario 2.

ROCKWELL ROAD

FOREST AVENUE

ELM

WO

OD

AV

ENU

E

REE

S S

TREE

T

8 .0ACRES

RE-CREATE TWO EAST WINGS

SHARED PARKING STRUCTURE

LIVE/WORK AND SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING

HOTEL AND CONFERENCE CENTER

ARCHITECTURE AND VISITORS CENTER

LUXURY RESIDENTIAL HOUSING

MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT

BURCHFIELD-PENNEY ART CENTER

KEY

ROCKWELL ROAD

FOREST AVENUE

ELM

WO

OD

AV

ENU

E

REE

S S

TREE

T

8 .0ACRES


Architectural ProgramThe panel proposes a program of reuse for themain buildings of the H.H. Richardson Complex,which form the “flock of geese” pattern.

• Reuse buildings 9, 10, 12, and 13 for a new hoteland conference center. Restore building 11, theformer greenhouse.

• Consolidate site surface parking for the StrozziBuilding, the Burchfield-Penney Art Center, andthe proposed hotel and conference center in anew structure on the south side of RockwellRoad. The structure should have six levels,with two underground, and its roof should re-main below the cornice line of the RichardsonComplex. Create a new dropoff area behindbuilding 51.

• Reuse buildings 43, 44, and 45 for a new Archi-tecture and Visitors Center, and for administra-tive and flexible or shared space with BuffaloState College.

• Reuse buildings 38, 39, 40, 41, and 42 for ap-proximately 60 high-quality upscale residentialunits.

• Retain the 2.5-acre Buffalo State College sur-face lot on the south side of Rockwell Road forefficient bus parking, serving the Architectureand Visitors Center. This provides a direct

means of access for visitors from RockwellRoad. Provide a landscaped buffer.

• Retain the physical plant of the Buffalo Psychi-atric Center—building 22.

Scenario 2—Total Site TransformationWhen the climate is receptive to discussion of theremoval of the major buildings of the Buffalo Psy-chiatric Center, the panel recommends the second

Artist’s sketch of potentiallive/work and single-family housing underScenario 2.

Artist’s sketch of potentialmixed-use developmentunder Scenario 2.


scenario. It retains many of the landscaping prin-ciples and architectural programming of the firstscenario. A dramatic difference is the complete re-moval of the buildings that inhibit the physicallinkage and view lines of the iconic towers fromthe Elmwood Avenue corridor to the east. Majorbuildings that would require demolition includebuildings 4, 51, 62, and 62A. Additional opportuni-ties include the following:

• Re-create the three east wing buildings thatwere demolished to create the current facilitiesfor the Buffalo Psychiatric Center, in order tocomplete the “flock of geese” formation and re-turn the Richardson Complex to its formerglory. These buildings could be used to expandthe hotel and conference center with approxi-mately 100 rooms.

• Increase capacity for a parking structure,through elimination of the need for a dropoffarea adjacent to the Burchfield-Penney ArtCenter.

• Create a mixed-use development on the westside of Elmwood Avenue between RockwellRoad and Forest Avenue, bringing additionalsources of income to the site.

• Create infill development in the form of live/work and single-family homes on the northwestcorner of the site, bringing additional sources of income.


The panel recommends development strate-gies for the H.H. Richardson Complex thatrespond to the immediate and long-termneeds of the site while meeting the needs of

the broader community. This section provides rec-ommendations on the strategic direction thatshould guide implementation.

Buffalo and Its Peer CitiesBuffalo is a paradox. It is blessed with a legacy ofbuildings and community design that is unparal-leled in similarly sized cities in the country. Mean-while, such cities are seeking billions of dollars torecreate what Buffalo has—often in the form ofreproductions that could never equal the realityrepresented in Buffalo.

The following examples of state policy demonstratewhy the local government in Buffalo cannot gener-ate economic development as well as governmentin its peer cities:

• Communities and states that have enabledtourism-targeted legislation—notably Iowa,Kansas, Kentucky, and West Virginia—estab-lish programs that grant the sales tax earnedby projects to be used as subsidies. These statescollect many taxes that are typically used for in-centives and then, through merit and politicalconsideration, grant subsidies and incentives to projects.

• Although New York has economic developmentincentives that use income tax credits, theseprograms are not as powerful as other toolsused by other states.

• In New York the enabling legislation for taxes,such as hotel room taxes, does not carefully re-strict its use; hence, those monies go to broader,general fund uses. In periods of financial stress,funds that are typically used for marketing and

convention center development are diverted forother purposes.

• New York has not enabled certain programsthat other states have:

• A 1 percent restaurant tax, as in numerouscities.

• A 0.02 percent sales tax rebate for tourist fa-cilities, as in Washington.

• Local options sales taxes, as in Tulsa, Okla-homa, which are extended by popular voteafter certain initiatives are addressed.

• Property and sales taxes, as well as tax incre-ment financing, which are commonplace.

These policies have consequences for the city ofBuffalo:

• New York cities and counties have compara-tively poor economic development tools acrossthe board.

• Buffalo, which has established sports, arts, cul-ture, and architecture as a branding theme fortourism, has a lower marketing budget than anyof its peer cities.

These conditions create a need to establish someentity to act as a steward for the project. The pan-elists believe that the Richardson Center Corpo-ration should be charged with the task of stabil-izing, renovating, and redeveloping the H.H.Richardson Complex. The tasks clearly requirean enabled not-for-profit corporation to serve asthe master developer and manager, in order tocarry the project through its multiyear, phasedimplementation and subsequent management.

An excellent example of a similar organization al-ready exists in Buffalo. The Buffalo Niagara Med-ical Campus, Inc., shoulders the responsibility fordevelopment of an urban site of similar size that

Development Strategies


also abuts residential neighborhoods. As at theRichardson Complex, the adjacent neighborhoodsmay be affected and require support and invest-ment. The medical campus abuts the Fruit Beltand Allentown districts. The Richardson Complexabuts the West Side, Elmwood Village, and BlackRock Riverside districts. The Buffalo NiagaraMedical Campus, Inc. has succeeded under theleadership of a board of directors that is broadlyinclusive, transparent in the conduct of business,and focused on a clear vision for development andmanagement. The panel compliments the suc-cesses of this organization and recommends such aboard for the Richardson Complex. Once such aboard is seated and a director for the organizationis hired, implementation of the project shouldbegin, as outlined in the following section.

In a way, the challenge facing the H.H. Richard-son Complex is greater than that facing the med-ical campus, because at this point the RichardsonComplex has no niche or focus, whereas the med-ical campus has a niche. The use of nonprofit orcultural entities alone is not sustainable; a for-profit real estate use is the vehicle for creating asustainable platform.

Principal TasksThe site has immense potential because of its size,quality, and uniqueness. It is going to require avery significant public investment as a beginningstep, simply to facilitate viable project investmenton the part of the private or public/private part-nerships that will follow. Fortunately, approxi-mately $76 million of public monies is already ear-marked for the site. Following is an outline of thepotential development sequence.

The Richardson Center Corporation, as the mas-ter developer and manager, will immediately em-bark on five principal tasks:

• Develop state enabling legislation that is suffi-cient to implement and manage the project.

• Open and staff an on-site office.

• Develop and formally adopt a clear master planfor the site.

• Stabilize and renovate the exterior shells of allthe structures to be retained. This includes trialversions (in accordance with preservation stan-dards) of drainage systems, lights, exterior ma-sonry structure, and foundations. Illuminate thebuildings.

• Renovate the grounds immediately adjacent tothe preserved structures according to Olmsted’sdesign principles.

On the heels of accomplishing these principaltasks, the board and its staff should immediatelyembark on a sequence of projects that begin to de-velop the site:

• Define, plan, design, and implement an architec-ture and visitors center and use the already-funded initiative to attract the initial occupants

Figure 2Summary of Convention and VisitorsBureau Budgets, 2007

City 2007 Budget

Louisville, KY $12,800,000

Philadelphia, PA 12,000,000

Pittsburgh, PA 10,950,000

Indianapolis, IN 10,700,000

Nashville, TN 9,500,000

Baltimore, MD 8,500,000

Charlotte, NC 8,200,000

Memphis, TN 7,800,000

Cleveland, OH 7,500,000

Columbus, OH 6,900,000

Milwaukee, WI 6,565,000

Cincinnati, OH 5,142,000

Lexington, KY 4,400,000

Rochester, NY 3,200,000

Buffalo, NY 2,500,000

Source: 2007 data from respective convention and visitorsbureaus.


of the center and to ensure public access to thegrounds and tower buildings.

• Develop a multidimensional marketing plan andbrand the project.

• Illuminate the H.H. Richardson building.

• Identify and select a hotel and conference cen-ter developer. In accordance with the masterplan, this project will involve public and privatedelivery of the renovated shells of the historicbuildings and private development of the hotelinteriors and ancillary structures. Principalstakeholders include the Richardson CenterCorporation, the Richardson Architecture Cor-poration, Buffalo State College, the museumdistrict, and area neighborhoods. The land rentcharged to the private hotel owner, indexed per-haps to a percentage of room sales, should be-come the first sustained income to support oper-ations and investment.

• Develop a parking deck along the south edge ofRockwell Road to the west of the Burchfield-Penney Art Center. The deck will serve theparking needs of the Buffalo Psychiatric Center,whose parking (except for visitors) is therebymoved off the Richardson Complex frontages onForest and Elmwood avenues. In addition, thedeck will serve the hotel, area visitors, and Buf-falo State College. It should be financed througha combination of public and hotel developer funds,as well as other forms of revenue anticipation fi-nancing, such as tax-increment financing.

• Identify and select a developer for the westwing—buildings 38 through 42.

• Identify and select a use and user for building37, which fronts on Forest Avenue. A compati-ble use is likely an office or restaurant. Thisproject should help activate the grounds, servethe neighborhoods and visitors, reinforce arearetail districts, and produce a modest amount ofsustained rental income.

• When the timing is right, identify and select adeveloper for the residential infill project on thesite’s northwest corner. This project will addcritical mass to the residential occupancy of thesite and enhance the adjacent neighborhoods

and the Buffalo State College campus. The proj-ect should be done as a supportive element ofthe campus plan and the plan for the adjacentneighborhood. It will produce ground rents forthe Richardson Center Corporation as well.

Priority Uses and Initial ElementsIn the panelists’ judgment, the following land usesshould launch the project and should be initiatedsimultaneously:

• Architecture and Visitors Center—Althoughthis project is not fully defined, a first stakeshould be placed in the ground, representingwhat will become an architecture and landscap-ing institute. This venue should serve as a stagefor input from the public, the American Insti-tute of Architects (AIA), the American Societyof Landscape Architects (ASLA), and the local,national, and international AIA and ASLAcommunity.

• Hotel and Conference Center—Again, althoughthis project is not fully defined, a hotel and con-ference center should be developed in the firstphase of the redevelopment. The panel recom-mends a venue with 200 rooms and 30,000square feet of meeting and conference space.The model can follow that of a traditional uni-versity conference center, a boutique hotel, or ahybrid of the two.

• Residential and Office Space—The maximumamount of residential and office space shouldbe configured out of the rest of the existing his-torical space.

Being a Good NeighborThe Elmwood district is healthy and the Richard-son Complex should reinforce its strength. Thefirst role of the redevelopment should reinforcethe link between this district and Buffalo StateCollege. Some development along the ElmwoodAvenue edge of the site would break up the dis-tance between Forest Avenue and Buffalo StateCollege and provide the Architecture and VisitorsCenter with operating revenues.


The West Side and Forest Avenue edges needthe most support, with the West Side being theweakest link. The following improvements arerecommended:

• Consideration should be given to consolidatingsports uses into an area in the west edge ofcampus if Buffalo State undertakes a suggestedcomprehensive plan. This area could serve insome form as a park for West Side residents.

• A traffic circle should be considered for the in-tersection of Grant Street and Forest Avenue.

• The Grant Street edge of the district should berestored to the level of quality achieved on Elm-wood Avenue.

• The Architecture and Visitors Center shouldpromote efforts to support West Side improve-ment, similar to those supported by the BuffaloNiagara Medical Campus for the Allentown andFruit Belt areas around that campus. Festivalsand events should be considered, along with arevolving fund to be used for residential im-provement. This revolving fund could be usedfor both the west and the south sides of the site.


The H.H. Richardson Complex is unsurpassedin its potential to host diversified opportuni-ties for economic development, public enjoy-ment, and civic identity. The economic bene-

fits are rooted in the creation of a cultural tourismdestination, the investment in community revital-ization, and the increase in property values. Thepublic enjoyment will come from enhanced openspace, social interaction, and educational and cul-tural activities. The reuse of this monumental sitewill be of international significance, redefiningthe identity of Buffalo as a leading center of artand architecture.

Implementation will require entrepreneurial skill,public leadership, and market support for the mixof uses recommended for this site. The panelistsunderstand that there is a strong undercurrentof skepticism and doubt from the broader com-munity about the likelihood that progress willbe made. As a result, the panel recommends the following:

• Bring a sense of urgency without expediency toevery aspect of implementation. It is not un-common for the implementation of big ideas toget mired in jurisdictional processes, special in-terests, and unforeseen circumstances. Thebroader community can begin to doubt that theprojected outcomes will ever be realized. In ad-dition, for historic resources such as the H.H.Richardson Complex, delays can result in moredeterioration of the buildings. That is not to saythat decisions should be made for the sake of ex-pediency. Progress should be measured in termsof achieving the goals and objectives of thereuse plan. In other words, hurry but do notrush the implementation process.

• Ownership of the property should be trans-ferred from the state to the corporation for im-plementation of a comprehensive approach toredevelopment and reuse of the property.

The Richardson Center CorporationThe panel makes the following recommendationsto supplement the existing bylaws of the Richard-son Center Corporation.

MissionThe panel recommends the following missionstatement: “To engage and represent the Buffalocommunity in the reactivation and reuse of theH.H. Richardson Complex and grounds, and thetargeted redevelopment opportunities in adjacentneighborhoods.”

StructureThe panel expects that the corporation should be a not-for-profit corporation—probably a 501c(6).The corporation might also create a subsidiary tosupport cultural heritage and arts promotion andthe operations of the Architecture and VisitorsCenter—probably a 501c(3). The panel recom-mends that the corporation have a representativeand diverse board of directors. The chief execu-tive officer and staff should have the followingskill sets and responsibilities:

• Development skills;

• Financial skills;

• Neighborhood liaison;

• Project management skills; and

• Grant writing and fundraising skills.

TasksThe panel recommends that the corporation as-sume the following tasks:

• Engage key stakeholders in an ongoing, partici-patory process from the onset of the redevelop-ment process.

• Finalize the master plan for the site and sur-rounding area.

Implementation Strategies


• Conduct and complete a search for a develop-ment company to partner with the RichardsonCenter Corporation.

• Initiate a design competition for the design anddevelopment of the Architecture and VisitorsCenter.

• Select land adjacent to the site to acquire insupport of neighborhood redevelopment oppor-tunities.

• Solicit and secure public funding opportunitiesat the local, state, and national levels.

• Identify and solicit foundation support for vari-ous development components.

• Work with a development partner to establish aproject pro forma that represents a long-term,sustainable economic development opportunity.

• Negotiate development agreements that gener-ate revenues which endow the Richardson Cen-ter Corporation and its subsidiaries, in order toimplement their missions.

• Ensure ongoing property management andmaintenance on site.

Key TenetsThe panel recommends that the corporation followthese key tenets:

• The corporation holds title to the site and alltransactions on land leases.

• The corporation acts as a conduit for all publicmonies.

• The corporation is an active participant in alldevelopment on the site.

• The corporation participates in a percentage ofthe net cash flow from projects.

Guiding PrinciplesThe corporation should work with its board toadopt a statement of guiding principles. The cre-ation of this statement is an important step increating a framework for making decisions. Theprinciples will endure through changes in themembership of the board and the staff of the cor-poration, providing continuity and stability to theprocess. Although the panel cannot create theseprinciples for the corporation, the followingthoughts are worth considering:

• Produce a world-class environment: Go beyondjust the preservation of buildings and create aplace that honors the architectural, cultural, andhistorical features that shape the character ofthis place.

• Encourage economic development: Provide thepublic leadership and resources needed to stim-ulate the private investment that will lead togreater prosperity for the residents of Buffalo.

• Allow flexibility for the long term: Agree to ap-propriate responses to unforeseen conditionsand opportunities.

• Clearly define priorities: Agree on how multiplepriorities will compete for limited resources toachieve the vision for the Richardson Complex.

• Create an inclusive, open, and transparentprocess for making decisions.

A Comprehensive ApproachUnder the comprehensive approach to imple-mentation, many items can be initiated in the

The extraordinary interiorspaces offer an excellentopportunity to produce aworld-class environment.


near term. They are listed below. It will be im-portant for the corporation to demonstrate prog-ress and establish credibility and confidence inthis endeavor.

• Redevelopment/reuse projects:

• Developer selection process;

• Community input;

• Preparation of reuse plan; and

• Public investment.

• Economic investment incentives:

• Tax credits;

• Public improvement fee; and

• Expedited approvals and permits.

• A clean and green program, in which the follow-ing tasks are undertaken:

• Clean and stabilize buildings.

• Clean grounds and improve landscaped areas.

• Carry out aggressive litter collection andgraffiti removal.

• Implement streetscape improvements.

• Improve signage and site lighting.

• Special events and activities that accomplishthe following goals:

• Celebrate art and architecture.

• Reinforce branding of the Architecture andVisitors Center.

• Create physical and virtual connections to thecity, region, country, and world.

Furthermore, the panel recommends that the cor-poration set up a number of working groups, eachled by two board members and involving a cross-section of community participants. The workinggroups could be organized around implementationelements such as preservation, marketing andspecial events, arts and architecture, education,and neighborhood revitalization. This approach

expands the level of participation and informs thework of the corporation.

Architecture and Visitors CenterUnder the comprehensive approach to implemen-tation, many items can be initiated in the nearterm. One such example is the proposed Architec-ture and Visitors Center. It presents a number ofopportunities, including the development of archi-tecture-based tourism and the generation of in-creased local interest in the city’s architecturalheritage, leading to a broad base of support forcivic design excellence.

To take full advantage of these opportunities, thepanel recommends a number of short-term strate-gies as well as several longer-term models. To-gether they represent strategies for the followingefforts:

• Building capacity at the grass-roots level tosupport architecture and design;

• Developing a civic culture that understands andsupports design excellence; and

• Generating enthusiasm that will support rede-velopment efforts at the Richardson Complex.

Interior condition of thecomplex.


The panel found two models for longer-term ef-forts that seem particularly appropriate, one largeand one small:

• Large: The Chicago Architecture Foundation wasfounded in 1966 as part of an effort to save H.H.Richardson’s Glessner House, one of the oldestresidences in Chicago. It has an annual budgetof about $7 million and is arguably the most suc-cessful program of its kind in the country.

• Mission: To advance public interest and edu-cation in architecture and design.

• Activities: Exhibits, lectures, classes, tours.

• Small: The Nashville Civic Design Center wasfounded in 2000, following a five-year effort by agroup of local architects and interested citizensto build support for such a center. Although ithas nowhere near the public profile and influ-ence of the Chicago Architecture Foundation, ithas already demonstrated some noted successin developing public support and involvement incivic design projects.

• Mission: To elevate the quality of the built en-vironment and to promote public participa-tion in the creation of a more beautiful city.

• Activities: Educational programs, design con-sultation, research.

The creation of institutions like these takes timeand a broad base of community support, and werecommend that the board visit these and othercenters to learn from their experiences.

In the meantime, the establishment of the Archi-tecture and Visitors Center can be used to beginlaying the groundwork for future success, startingwith the establishment of the center within build-ing 45 as soon as adequate rehabilitation can takeplace. In preparation, the panel recommends thatthe board create a task force to develop and imple-ment a program of outreach activities:

• A Web site to act as a conduit for informationabout the redevelopment effort;

• Exhibits and public meetings that provide op-portunities for people to see what is being pro-posed and to ask questions;

• Occasional “hard hat” tours so people can seeprogress for themselves; and

• A base of potential volunteers, developedthrough the architecture and planning programand other stakeholder organizations.

The Architecture and Visitors Center should beseen as an opportunity to support and reinforcethis and future efforts. It provides an opportunityfor both the celebration of Buffalo’s architecturalhistory and the creation of a civic culture that sup-ports design excellence. The panel recommendsthat the center promote knowledge of the city’sarchitectural achievements while creating a cul-ture of design awareness that will facilitate futuresuccess through various activities:

• The promotion of architectural landmarksthrough marketing and tours;

• In-depth exhibits on architecture, landscape ar-chitecture, and other aspects of civic design, fo-cusing not only on Buffalo but also on subjectsof local interest such as waterfront developmentand adaptive use;

• Public education on design topics through lec-tures, symposiums, and classes for both lay andprofessional audiences; and

• Development of proposals for specific projects,such as infill developments or civic spaces,through activities such as student design stu-dios and public design workshops.

The potential benefits of these activities includeimproved quality of the built environment in Buf-falo through increased understanding and aware-ness among the city’s civic leaders, citizens, anddesign professionals and the facilitation of her-itage tourism.


The panel believes that the H.H. RichardsonComplex has five outstanding attributesthat, taken together, offer a singularprospect for future community success:

• The history and combined efforts of Richardsonand Olmsted, which elevate this site and its im-portance to the community to a preeminentlevel;

• The ability to accommodate unique develop-ments of international, national, and regionalsignificance;

• The opportunity to retain and reuse the eightmain residential and administrative buildings(Richardson Complex), given their relative con-dition and their contribution to the site;

• The opportunity to create a sustainable reuseprogram that includes a mix of uses that re-spond to well-documented community and mar-ket demands and needs; and

• The potential to leverage these developments toopen the adjacent neighborhoods in a mannerthat provides positive energy to the site and al-lows the neighborhood residents and businessesto enjoy all that the site and its buildings haveto offer.

The panel challenges the public and private civicleaders of Buffalo to join in implementing a newvision for the future. The H.H. Richardson Com-plex has the opportunity to become an active placewhere people want to live because of the qualityof architecture and the special destinations to befound here. The city must embrace a vision of thefuture that is beyond everything that has beendiscussed in the past. The city must fully embracethe belief that it can be whatever it chooses to be.

To do so, the city and the Richardson Center Cor-poration must search for and retain the best possi-ble team. In addition to high-quality management,

vision and leadership will be essential attributes.The staff must be driven by a sense of purposeand mission and come to the table with a broadrange of experience and world views. The idealcandidates will embrace challenge and haveproven track records of innovation and creativity.These candidates will have a history of results, notsimply maintenance. Finally, the city and the cor-poration must be given the freedom and tools toaggressively seek the best solutions that promoteand advance the civic vision.

The private sector must be completely on boardwith the new vision, and the city must workclosely to find, create, and ensure the achievementof win-win solutions to development issues. Theprivate sector must be an active and integral partof the civic development team. The city and thecorporation must study the ways in which thegreat American cities came into being, then exam-ine the respective roles of public and private sec-tors and determine what parts of that history areapplicable today.

The city and the corporation are purveyors of civicleadership and therefore have the opportunity tolay the groundwork for what happens for genera-tions. The city is also the keeper and implementerof civic visions. It must be wise and thoughtful inhow it makes policy, and it must base its decisionson the understanding that every decision affectsthe lives of residents’ children and their children.The corporation must be expansive in its vision,clear about its mission, firm in its convictions,committed to principled action, steadfast in itswillingness to seek creative and ambitious solu-tions, and assertive in its purposeful leadership.Great civic leadership, public and private, is thestuff of legend in America. The panel challengesthe city to join those legendary leaders in mak-ing history.

Conclusion

Mike HigbeePanel ChairIndianapolis, Indiana

Higbee is president of Development Concepts, Inc.(DCI), a development services company that workswith private and public sector clients. Beforeforming DCI, Higbee served as director of the cityof Indianapolis’s Department of Metropolitan De-velopment. During his tenure, he was the city’spoint man for several important projects, includ-ing the $700 million Circle Centre Mall, the lowercanal improvement project, and the negotiationsfor the $1 billion United Airlines maintenance fa-cility at Indianapolis International Airport.

As a consultant to the city of West Lafayette,Indiana, Higbee helped implement a public/privatepartnership for a $50 million mixed-use develop-ment project. In Bloomington, Indiana, he helpedfacilitate the redevelopment of the Thomson Con-sumer Electronics plant—a vacant 200-acre indus-trial site with more than 2 million square feet ofspace. He coauthored state legislation that enabledthe city to offset high predevelopment costs bycapturing local and state tax revenues.

In 1996, DCI codeveloped a $7 million affordablehousing development in Gary, Indiana—the firstprivately led development initiative in the city inmore than 20 years. The firm currently is develop-ing three housing projects that have more than320 residential units. Higbee has been involvedwith redevelopment projects in Durham, NorthCarolina; Wichita, Kansas; and several commu-nities in northwest Indiana. His company is in-volved with the redevelopment of the CentralState Hospital in downtown Indianapolis.

Higbee has a bachelor’s degree from Purdue University and is an active member of the UrbanLand Institute, the National Congress for

Community Economic Development, and the Na-tional Council for Urban Economic Development.

John F. (Jack) CrowleyAthens, Georgia

Crowley, a planner, designer, architect, and devel-oper, just completed ten years as dean of the Col-lege of Environment and Design at the Universityof Georgia. The college houses the largest pro-gram of landscape architecture in the UnitedStates. Crowley began as an urban renewal plan-ner, director of planning for a small town, andchief planner for Oklahoma’s state parks. In the1980s, he served as vice president of developmentfor a subsidiary of the Williams Companies andbuilt large downtown projects such as Tulsa’sWilliams Center, Denver’s Tabor Center, Phase IIof Kansas City’s Crown Center, Charlotte’s Inde-pendence Center, and San Antonio’s Rivercenter.

Crowley served as director of the Oklahoma De-partment of Transportation in the early 1990s be-fore returning to Georgia as dean. He consults onreal estate development for the Williams Compa-nies and for clients throughout the southeasternUnited States and Central America. His graduatedegrees are in regional and city planning andurban geography with research in urban storm-water engineering.

Crowley contributes considerable time to probono urban and civic design for cities and townsthroughout Georgia and the southeast. He con-tinues to develop and own real estate projects,serves on numerous boards and commissions, andconsults. Recently he completed a $130 milliontechnology office structure in Tulsa. Presently,he is advising the Williams Companies (Tulsa)on a large mixed-use project in Florida and thePechanga Development Corporation on a $200million resort and casino complex in southernCalifornia.


About the Panel


Crowley is a member of many development andconservation organizations, such as the UrbanLand Institute and the Nature Conservancy. He isa member of the American Society of LandscapeArchitects and is fellow of the American Instituteof Certified Planners.

Abigail Byers FerrettiSilver Spring, Maryland

Ferretti, vice president at Bay Area Economics(BAE), specializes in market and financial analysisand economic development planning. Workingwith public institutions to help manage real estateand future planning, she provided market inputsto the planning efforts of the town of Bladensburg,Maryland. For the U.S. Navy, she provided de-tailed case studies of best practices and trends inthe disposition of surplus federal properties. Forthe Howard County Route 40 corridor and theUptown/Shaw and Georgia Avenue/Petworth cor-ridors in the District of Columbia, she preparedcommercial revitalization analyses that detailedthe level of new supportable development. Fortransit-oriented development planning projects indowntown Baltimore, central Maryland along U.S.Route 1, District of Columbia neighborhoods, andinner-ring suburbs in Prince George’s County,Ferretti used market conclusions to produce de-tailed financial analyses, helping to project futurerevenues and subsidies needed to support moreintensive development efforts.

Ferretti provided housing market and needsassessment reports for both the GreensboroHousing Consortium’s and the Asheville RegionalHousing Consortium’s five-year consolidated planupdates. For Hopewell, Virginia’s StrategicNeighborhood Plan, she evaluated the housingmarket and analyzed surveys that measured resi-dents’ satisfaction with their housing and theirneighborhoods. She conducted focus groups witharea residents and analyzed market conditions indowntown Hampton, Virginia neighborhoods. Shecompiled and analyzed housing market and demo-graphic data as part of a citywide housing marketanalysis in Hartford, Connecticut. Ferretti alsoprepared financial development models used to

quantify the impact of proposed inclusionary hous-ing policies in Arlington and Alexandria, Virginia,and in the District of Columbia.

She has supported BAE’s work in New York City,including research on competitive supply for theHigh Line and the East River Waterfront Es-planade. She investigated market support for thereuse of the Historic Williams Ordinary in Dum-fries, Virginia; the Monumental Church in Rich-mond, Virginia; the Bostwick House in Bladens-burg, Maryland; and the Marine Hospital inLouisville, Kentucky. She assessed the impact ofthe Maryland Independent College and Univer-sity Association and the Johns Hopkins Institu-tions on Maryland’s economy.

Before joining BAE, Ferretti worked for the Bal-timore County Department of Economic Develop-ment as a revitalization specialist. She holds aB.A. in political science and economics from Wash-ington College and an M.B.A. with a concentrationin finance from Loyola College.

Charles Johnson IVChicago, Illinois

Johnson is a nationally recognized consultant withmore than 22 years of experience in convention,sports, hospitality, and general real estate con-sulting. Before forming Johnson Consulting, heworked for the Chicago-based real estate develop-ment firm, Stein & Company, which was designerand builder for the expansion at McCormick Placein Chicago. Prior to that, he was national directorof KPMG Peat Marwick’s convention, sports, andleisure consulting practice.

He served as program manager for the PuertoRico Convention Center District project in SanJuan for four years and successfully guided thatproject from an idea to a highly regarded 110-acreurban redevelopment project. He has worked onthe expansion analysis of the Buffalo Conven-tion Center, analyzed the merits of the Buffalo-Niagara partnership buying a World Trade Centerlicense, and analyzed redevelopment options forthe successful bidder for developing Buffalo’sInner Harbor, Opus East. Johnson has worked on


Paula KonikoffNew York, New York

Konikoff is a member of the Appraisal StandardsBoard and an independent professional real estateconsultant with 20 years of experience providingclients with advisory, valuation, and other real es-tate consulting services. The scope of her practiceranges from designing and conducting due dili-gence investigations on properties to conductingand evaluating property appraisals and advisingprivate and public institutions (both owners andlenders) in connection with the acquisition, devel-opment, and disposition of their real estate hold-ings, as well as their fit within a real estate port-folio. Konikoff has been retained to provide suchservices concerning properties throughout thecountry and abroad. Her work is informed byher broad national and international experience,which enables her to provide an unusually com-prehensive analysis that is particularly valuablewhen dealing with the growing number of in-vestors and lenders whose portfolio investmentsin real estate are increasingly evaluated on both a national and a global level.

Before establishing her independent real estateadvisory practice in 1993, Konikoff was director of National Real Estate Valuation Services atKPMG. She joined KPMG after having served aspresident of The Hudson Group, a national realestate consulting and appraisal firm. Previously,Konikoff was an attorney in private practice atthe Philadelphia law firm of Dilworth, Paxson,Kalish & Kauffman, where she worked in boththe real estate and corporate law practices.

Konikoff is an adjunct professor at New York Uni-versity, where she has taught graduate and under-graduate courses on real estate finance, real es-tate markets, and real estate appraisal. She is aninstructor for the Appraisal Foundation as well,where she conducts programs on standards of ap-praisal practice and on ethical rules for profes-sional appraisal. In addition, she develops and pre-sents real estate valuation seminars for continuingeducation credits for certified public accountantsand attorneys. She has also served as an expertwitness in a variety of cases in which real estatevaluation and damages issues have come into dis-

more than 600 public assembly and urban develop-ment consulting assignments in the United Statesand abroad.

James KienleIndianapolis, Indianapolis

Kienle has spent the majority of his 40-year archi-tectural career specializing in preservation andurban design, bringing new life to historic struc-tures, campuses, small town main streets, andurban environments. He formed James T. Kienle& Associates in 2003 to concentrate his design tal-ents and his passion for historic preservation onpreservation architecture and urban design. Theformer vice president and national director of his-toric preservation for HNTB Corporation, Kienlehas significant experience in master plan develop-ment, historic structure assessment, and preser-vation design of residential and commercial facili-ties, recreation and entertainment venues, andmany significant public buildings. They includethe Indiana and Kentucky state capitols and suchGeneral Services Administration projects as theOld Executive Office Building and the Design Ex-cellence project at the Mary Switzer Building inWashington, D.C. His projects have received nu-merous local, regional, and national AIA, civic,and other institutional awards.

Kienle has served on the Indianapolis HistoricPreservation Commission, the city’s regulatorybody for 14 historic districts, for ten years—thelast eight as president. This experience provideshim with the opportunity to deal with a widerange of preservation issues across different proj-ect types and urban design applications. He is thechair of the Urban Design Committee for AIA In-dianapolis and has been highly involved in the de-velopment of urban design guidelines for the Indi-anapolis Regional Center initiative.

Kienle is viewed in his community as one who hasforged the way in historic preservation in hiswork, his leadership, and his mentoring. He hasreceived special recognition from the governor ofIndiana, AIA Indiana, and the Indiana Architec-tural Foundation for his pioneering work in his-toric preservation. He was made a fellow of theAIA in 2004 for his work in preservation design.


pute, including the bankruptcy of Livent, an inter-national owner of live theater properties, and sev-eral matters in which she was retained by theSecurities and Exchange Commission to testifyregarding the value of developments in Californiathat were funded in part by Mello-Roos bonds.She was also qualified by the court as an expert inpension real estate portfolio investments in JMBv. Cadillac Fairview.

Konikoff has served as a member of several Ap-praisal Institute committees and other profes-sional organizations. She is also a member of theReal Property Law Committee of the Associationof the Bar of the City of New York and is chair ofits program subcommittee.

Konikoff earned a B.S. from Temple Universityand a J.D. from Villanova University School ofLaw. She is a frequent speaker and author on ap-praisal and other real property issues. Before herappointment to the Appraisal Standards Board inJanuary 2003, she presented seminars on stan-dards of practice, ethics, and valuation issues inlitigation for the Appraisal Institute.

Ralph L. NúñezSouthfield, Michigan

Núñez is president of DesignTeam Limited, a full-service planning and landscape architectural firm.He directs multidisciplinary teams in broad-basedproblem-solving assignments. Each solution is de-veloped through a highly interactive client-consul-tant relationship that balances client goals and fi-nancial objectives with environmental, regulatory,and market conditions. The DesignTeam was es-tablished specifically to meet the demand for effi-cient consultant support.

Núñez established the firm in 1984 in Houston,Texas. He has successfully designed, planned, andmanaged multimillion-dollar redevelopment proj-ects and has a multidisciplinary background spe-cializing in land planning, landscape architecture,and land development. His responsibilities inthese areas have encompassed the master plan-ning of residential communities; park and recre-ation amenities; and commercial, industrial and of-fice campuses, and resort developments ranging

from ten to several thousand acres. He was ap-pointed by the governor of Michigan as chairmanof the State Board of Landscape Architects.

Núñez received his Bachelor of Science fromPennsylvania State University in 1976. He hasserved on a number of ULI Advisory Servicespanels, including one held for the Dorothea DixHospital in Raleigh, North Carolina.

Christine L. SaumWashington, D.C.

Saum is a licensed architect and works for the Na-tional Capital Planning Commission (NCPC)—thepublic agency that conducts planning for all fed-eral facilities in the Washington, D.C. region. Sheis director of the Urban Design and Plan ReviewDivision, attempting to bring a high level of de-sign excellence to the federal presence in Wash-ington. Before her work at NCPC, she served forten years as the director of the Mayors’ Instituteon City Design, a project of the National Endow-ment for the Arts.

In all of this work, Saum has focused on creatingvibrant downtowns and on helping lay people un-derstand the issues of urban design and how theycan work for better built environments in theirown communities. Most recently, she has been dis-tressed by the sprawl of the federal governmentoutward from Washington and the harm that isdoing to the beautiful landscapes of northern Vir-ginia, the Shenandoah Valley, and the Marylandcountryside. At Harvard she studied urban andregional planning as well as sustainable develop-ment, focusing particularly on ways of sustainingbusiness and agriculture in smaller communitiesso they can resist the powerful market forces ofever-expanding residential development.

Doug M. WrennGermantown, Maryland

Wrenn is a principal with Rodgers Consulting,Inc., where he directs the firm’s work on a broadrange of urban planning and site developmentprojects. Before joining Rodgers Consulting,Wrenn was the director of redevelopment pro-grams for Montgomery County, Maryland. He was


responsible for the management of all aspects ofthe county government’s participation in a $400million public/private partnership to revitalizedowntown Silver Spring, Maryland.

Wrenn has many years of consulting experienceas a land planner and urban development special-ist. He has directed multidisciplinary teams onlarge-scale community planning and urban rede-velopment projects for both public and privatereal estate interests. He established a national

reputation for his work on urban waterfronts, ini-tially as author of the Urban Land Institute’s firstbook on the subject and later as a planning consul-tant on numerous projects.

He holds a bachelor of science degree in environ-mental management and a master’s degree inlandscape architecture, both from North CarolinaState University.

$ULI–the Urban Land Institute1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.Suite 500 WestWashington, D.C. 20007-5201

AN ADVISORY SERVICES PANEL REPORT H.H. Richardson...

Documents

Transcript of AN ADVISORY SERVICES PANEL REPORT H.H. Richardson...