Effete Snobbery

In response to Bill Altreuter’s comment:

It is wrong to label the efforts of people like Tim Tielman as effete snobbery– there is nothing wrong with wanting to see something done right, and local history seems to pretty clearly demonstrate that things won’t be done right if they are allowed to just happen. Would we have replaced Humbolt Parkway with a ditch if Tim Tielman had been around? It seems unlikely.

What you are arguing here, by implication, is the same sort of “Silver Bullet” theory that you usually mock. By saying, “Just build it already”, you are suggesting that it is better to do something wrong, and hope for the best, than to strive for excellence. I don’t think that’s what you mean to be saying.

I respond thusly:

So far, the people opposed to the Canal Side project haven’t uttered a word about “excellence”, because that would imply that they have been seeking some sort of positive outcome. Everything that I’ve read recently in the Buffalo News about their opposition has been 100% negative.

1. I don’t think Bass Pro & Canal Side is a “silver bullet”. I think it’s a heritage destination that is more than a mere time capsule, but contains shopping and other contemporary things for contemporary people to do. Its design will be vetted by a team of architects, some of whom will be slated to be historical preservation / heritage tourism specialists. It will retain the streetscape – right down to the cobblestones – of the old wharf district as depicted in the plans drawn up in 1999.

So far, all I have heard from those opposed to the project amounts to conclusory subjective statements about the project’s abominable design – yet they were absent in December 2006 when the original project, save Bass Pro, was unveiled. I think “silver bullet” can often be a phrase that is used by those opposed to a large project just because it’s large. I’ve already stated that I don’t think Canal Side is all of a sudden going to turn Buffalo’s waterfront into Seattle’s or Boston’s. (I said the same thing about the Aud plan). But it’s a start, and a damn good one that. It has the right historical blueprint, the right design, the right scale, and the right people running the show – people who know how to attract retail shops, bars, and restaurants.

Had it been unveiled in 1999 as described today, it would pretty much mirror the basic demands that the PresCo had back then. If people want it just to be a museum, then they should be honest about it and not couch their objections in terms of “big box” (which is BS), or “silver bullet” (which I also think is BS) or “parking” (which a museum would also need).

2. The Mr Show clip is a hyperbolic joke, and I sort of figure everyone gets that. But going to the point about effete snobbery; upon reading some comments, and considering their timing, I don’t think the objections are about the design or the Bass Pro or the parking. Instead, I think they are objections based on a fundamental opposition to there being any sort of commerce that involves chains, national retailers, or parking.

Much like Dylan’s disdain for CDs in favor of a Victrola due to its “purity”, there are certain people who just want the thing to be a carbon-copy, museum site of that old district. But is a museum site what we need? Quincy Market, which was the example that Roy Mann cited positively in his op-ed piece, is all about Ann Taylor, Crate & Barrel, Brookstone, The Gap, and other national chains. And there is also the Freedom Trail running through, and Faneuil Hall and its history to view separately as a museum site. A mix. There are local retailers, as well, throughout the ground floor of Faneuil Hall, the upper levels of North and South market, and throughout the cobblestone lanes selling wares from carts.

I would be willing to bet that if Quinn and the ECHDC had put forth a plan where the Bass Pro building wasn’t a Bass Pro, but a large building to house small artisans and merchants (think London’s OXO Tower), and if Benderson wasn’t involved (because they build shopping plazas and have relationships with national merchants) there wouldn’t be an outcry.

Now, I could be wrong, but it’s the timing that is so very important here. Tielman didn’t open a mouth in December 2006. Then, the same plan is presented, plus Bass Pro and Benderson, and suddenly, miraculously, it’s abominable. The timing is not only important, it’s suspect.

The project, incidentally, isn’t even finalized yet. Instead of offering one iota of constructive criticism, all I’ve seen so far from almost all who are opposed to the plan is conclusory declarations of disgust. I think Esmonde’s column and Tielman’s statements are gross overreactions to something that isn’t final yet. Well, that’s fine, but the reason I posted the press releases and links to the materials from 1999 – 2000 (partly so I could educate myself about that controversy from that time) is that apparently the target keeps moving, and there’s no way in hell that anyone will ever be able to (a) satisfy everyone; or (b) hit a moving target.

So, has Tielman been in touch with Giambra to suggest architects whom he’d like to see on the design panel? Has Esmonde yet been able to reconcile his support for a $60 million public investment in the Aud Bass Pro versus his opposition for $25 million to help construct a Bass Pro that is a replica of a 19th century brick building in a wharf district that is a replica of a 19th century wharf district?