The irony is that we're commending Forever Elmwood for having this meeting, which is something the BP should have done when they were formulating this design. Not just at the first stages, but later.
One may like or dislike the plan, but the BP cannot be commended for the way they handled the public's desire for knowledge about the plan. They don't care.
Some sensitive and architecturally knowledgeable people have explained why this is a predictable, shy, and possibly ill tailored design. But the BP has shown a stingy courtesy in hearing any questions. If we commend Forever Elmwood for having this forum, we can also look askance at the BP for closing its doors on some thoughtful and reasonable questions.
Well good luck to them with the project. But the sad thing is that no one will be talking about this building in ten years. Like the Center for the Arts (by the same firm), it offends no one and moves no one. It has no conversation with the surrounding buildings and sits squat on its site. It's functional. I guess that's all that people want.

I think that the building should have its front on Elmwood, rather than its flat butt end.

What a pathetic, patronizing, submissive, anything-is-good-if-someone-will-build-it-HERE tone to this post.

Still think the building is a crashing bore; formulaic; a reflection of a "it's just Buffalo."

This is a city that helped to change architecture; that fostered creation; that said something with so many of its commonplace buildings as well as its masterpieces.

It's not a terrible building; it's just not anything distinctive. And it is certainly unworthy of its very special site.

The B-P and Piertzak are really sad excuses for a cultural advocates and a cultural institution.

This building has no connection to Burchfield or his artwork. They treated this building from day1 like it was not a cultural institution of the public but just another college building for the campus of Buffalo State (which is why it is so UB like)

So if this is their attitude, then why do they need local municipal monies!

Some say the building is neither offensive or inspiring and I say that it is both. The trend in architecture is to rediscover the details. Gone are the days of 60s minimalism. If you look at the 1970s brutalism of our court building.....we will be looking back on the B-P as a form of 1990's brutalism.

If it was hidden in the Buffalo State Campus, then it would fit with the rest of the 1970s Planet of the Apes architecture that dominates the campus...but because its visable from Elmwood it is both part of Elmwood, the cultural/museum district and the Buffalo State Campus so to treat is as an isolated campus building is something that is both destructive, saddening and offensive.

Well-argued, Lou.

Far easier to say "Nay" than to come up with a solution. What do you think the solution should be? Should they stop the work and do a design charrette (invite voluntary designs)? What would you folks rather see?

Keep in mind that an entrance on Elmwood means there is also parking on Elmwood, or people have to walk all the way around the building, OR it's a decorative entrance. Because realistically, they are driving to the BP.

The building could have two entrances. Or at least some windows that look directly on Elmwood.

Architects are not royalty, or some sort of gods, even if some of them would have people believe so. In a building project of this cost they are being paid a very substantial fee-- more than most people make for decades of hard work, and more than many people make in a lifetime. If there are times when they are asked to go back to the drawing board, so be it. I don't expect to see that in this case, but one can still express disappointment in what's been served up.

Too bad if there are still a few people who feel passionately about the things they will see everyday of their lives and who demand that we work for something of more-than-just serviceable value to our cities.

Perry,

I think we can just disagree on aesthetics. What's great to you is not the same thing as what's great to others. And architects can't be gods, they make peanuts.

I don't understand the resistance to this plan, I don't think it's mediocre. It's not world-shaking, but it's good, and I don't think we have to resist all change.

Perhaps those of you who think the architects here are phoning it in just don't get their aesthetic. There's no accounting for taste. But it's not a reason to belittle those who may like the design as submssive. I'm not so crazy about their UB Center for the Arts, but I do like the Guggenheim addition.

Frankly I think the hotel design is more predictable and mediocre, but the project as a whole is a good one.

What bothers me is that the report on the 6 o'clock news on TV was that there are some concerns about the project - more naysayers. Holding out for holding-outs sake seems ridiculous. There's a whole city tat needs revitalization, and some of the projects won't appeal to every last person.

I've said it before: Buffalo isn't the armpit of the nation, it's the Eeyore of the nation. "Nothing good ever happens here, and if it's here, it's probably just not good enough. Predictable."

It's good, and it's here. Now let's see what's happening with our Twin Towers, eh?

I like the design and think it will stand the test of time. Actually, I think it's far more interesting to look at than the big black glass box across the street that's so highly regarded as great architecture. So who's right here? Is my opinion valid or is Eric's opinion right?

My point is that if a design was put forth that Eric (and many others) liked, I (and many others) might hate it. Who would be right? Do we put this to a vote of the citizens to decide? But what does the general public know? Should a panel of highly regarded architects be the ones to decide? But aren't they a bunch of elitist's on the dole? WHO gets to make the call????

I think people are overreacting. I don't think there's a conspiracy on the part of Buff State, BP and the architectural firm to offend those of you who don't like this design. It's not going to be the ruin of Buffalo - it's not city hall - it's a building on the Buff State campus. I, along with many others, think it's quite worthy. Subtle, elegant, understated - just like Buffalo. Which, I admit, is my own opinion - just like everyone else's objections here. This is a subjective matter with no one "right" solution that will make EVERYONE happy.

I'm beginning to understand where the anti-preservationists in this town are coming from.

Newel wrote "mostly came to support to support the project".

I took careful notes. 6 of the 13 people who spoke in support of the project WORK AT Buffalo State College. Perhaps the other 7 supporters are also connected to BSC but did not mention it, perhaps not.

2 BSC vice presidents were at the meeting!

I know that one of the VPs told a BSC worker to not oppose this BSC project. Anyone who thinks BSC people did not feel threatened by their college is naive (to put it nicely).

More later...

Larry and Greentessier,

Thanks for your responses.

Your arguments are well-reasoned. There will of course be strong reactions pro and con to any design for a building this large and in such a prominent location and housing public functions.

I think this firm could have done a lot better for Buffalo (the city). I acknowledged in my very first comment that I thought they had a tough job in being asked to create a structure that has to contain public gallery/classroom/offices/conservation areas/ collections storage etc.

It is, as you say, Eric, not going to be the ruin of the city if built as proposed.

But neither is this a preservation issue (other than some people may have wanted the Richardson-towers restoration "jump started" by serving as a site for the new gallery/Buffalo State expansion). It would be unfair to equate what some commentators on this site continually call "preservation obstructionists" with the many others who have given serious thought to how this might be a better civic project-- and yes, statement of Buffalo's progress.

Buffalo's lack-of-development problem, as many people seem to viewe it, is not primarily the work of "obstructionists," (in my opinion). There are dozens of (comparatively) thriving cities whose citizens' associations and preservation obstructionists make Buffalo's look like pussycats. I have lived with them and worked with them. A big difference I observe is in the over-arching local governmental vision and commitment to urban excellence.

I appreciate this forum.

yesterday, regardless of what was said on the news, (and i too caught two channels 7 and 4 and they both took the neative slant, not surprised about 7, but shame on you 4!) in that room which was standing room only - just like the news said, yes there were some against - but the vast majority was for. perhaps it's this forum here just attracts the folks who want to go against the idea? but i walked away from crane library yesterday feeling i had just been among a group of like-minded folks. and the people getting up and speaking 'for' they didn't show on the news, (because it wasn't as sensational to say 'i like the idea' - therefore not news worthy,) were architects, art instructors and people and neighbors who are an active part of this neighborhood who are respected as knowing what they are talking about.

if the news yesterday had wanted to show the true feeling that was in that room yesterday, they totally missed the mark. the news doesn't care if they exhibit things as they are - just if they can get viewers. we can add the tv news media to the top of the list of detriments to this city. this sensationalism has gotten way out of hand. i never have heard the weather in all my life like it is predicted now - who ever heard of snow alerts for 3-4 inches of show???!!! they have been making the world seem out and out scarry! we have the goof we have in office now because of sensationalism, the list goes on and on. i think i'll go throw my tv out the window now.

Yes, "mollie a" (?) 14 - 7 in favor of the BPAC building in the room yesterday of those who spoke up. 6 of the "pro" associated with BSC. I know people who did not speak against the project because of threats or implied threats by BSC staff. President Muriel Howard should be ashamed.

Architect for? Yes. And an architect against. Unless an architect never wants work from the State University system they will support the project or shut up. I don't know which it was for the architect who spoke in favor of the project. I know the architect against the project does not care about NY State work.

And the arguments against us even having a public meeting?

Supporters of the project reported that the process was open - there were no secrets.

This after Ted Pietrzak (in the beginning of the meeting - weren�t you listening?) stated the two reasons why the designs were kept a secret!

1 - The design kept changing therefore (?) it made no sense to share the designs with the public.

2 - To help the fund raising effort it made sense to only share the design with �insiders� so they would feel like they were getting special treatment.

Note that when a developer changes design plans they go back the City Planning Board for approval (see item 12 on the Planning Board agenda on 2/14/06 published on BfloIssueAlerts). Good enough for Uniland Development, good enough for the BPAC!

�Insiders� How nice. Except that this is a proposal to spend over $17 million on public land! If you have your own money, your own property, and live in a community that does not have zoning regulations (they do exist) then it is legal to have �insiders�. I don�t know the legality of having no public hearings on this matter and can�t know without hiring a lawyer.

Remarkable - the Director of the PBAC explains why there was secrecy and then the supporters claim there was no secrecy! Go figure.

Greentessier - a solution? Yes they should redesign the building with an entrance facing Elmwood. And there can be parking ON ELMWOOD like there is one block south. Like there is on main street in Buffalo and all over the world!!! Not a parking lot but street parking on Elmwood and on Rockwell Road (like there is a few hundred feet west). �Realistically� I guess you drive to the BPAC - not all of �they� are driving. If we continue to build for cars we will continue to discourage pedestrians and bicyclists like we have been doing for fifty years. Is that what we want? People in cars driving to a parking lot - WALK to the front of the building - it is good for you.

Safety was a big issue for the BSC VP of student affairs who spoke at the meeting. Since Jane Jacobs wrote her seminal book Death and Life of Great American Cities urban planers have agreed that it is safer when more people can see each other on the streets and sidewalks. There is traffic on Elmwood 24 hours a day. High visibility from Elmwood = safer. Can�t be seen from Elmwood = less safe. What was he thinking?

I want a new BPAC. I have been a member for more than twenty years. But I don�t care if the building is finished in 2007 or 2009. I want a good building. Good for the BPAC, good for the community.

Note: the GNPA had nothing to do with the meeting. It was arranged by Forever Elmwood.
Note: I did mention at the meeting the regrettable pedestrian mall design downtown. I never spoke ill of a �train to nowhere� and I don�t agree with that sentiment.

Newell - again I argue with your statement that a majority of those at the meeting agreed the project should be built as designed. Only 21 people spoke. 6 of them with STATED connections to BSC. There must have been 75 people there, or more. I don�t think it fair to extrapolate from a biased sample what the majority of the meeting attendees thought or what a majority of the community thinks.

Has anyone taken a poll of the comments from the 4 or 5 discussions on BuffaloRising? Would comments here be a good account of the feelings of the community? Note to Stan Kandonsky (BSC VP) demand your people start writing here!

wow, bpac and a conspiracy to put local architects out of business who don't agree with them at neighborhood public forums, and buff state faculty conspiring along with them. this gets more fun all the time. and i thought they were simply advocates for the arts, our neighbors and our friends. little did i know. perhaps we should get the local news in on this, what a sensational story!

For all of you who love the design check out the slides shown on this site. SIX views of the exterior and they manage NOT ONE view of the building from the south and NOT ONE view of the building head on from Elmwood.

The only view showing the zinc wall shows an angled perspective so that the WALL is one quarter of the building pictured.

And I thought the proponents of the building LIKE the zinc wall.

Any explanations? Did the lab lose the negatives?

Remember - the people who like the building and the people who dislike the building are not getting the whole picture.

How about it Buffalo Rising - show us what all of the building will look like, not just the "best" (?) views.

I saw the model last week - it had all four sides. I think you're really stretching here... part of the conspiracy by the sinister intellectual elitists trying to stick it to Elmwood Ave?

Larry,

I saw the model at the Forever Elmwood meeting. As shown at the unveiling (from the news accounts I saw) the zinc wall faced away from the audience. I could walk around to the zinc wall side but it certainly wasn't displayed to show the Elmwood side.

I don't think any "intellectual elitists" are trying to "stick it" to anyone.

But why aren't the east and south views shown?

Thank you for using your name. Are most people on this site part of the witness protection program?!

I think those of us who oppose this hideous design need to stand up and be counted- we have the force of numbers and we need to show it! If we rally around a symbol, say a flag, we could display our solidarity. Just think, if about 39 of us got together!

If the majority of us who support this design wish to be proactive, I suggest we consider taking as our mark the ultimate badge of local pride, the municipal flag. At least 39 of us should grab one while we can- only 17 days to go!

Daniel, it's kind of interesting what you say. After leading one of SC's most powerful student organizations, I can say in full confidence that many of of the college's VPs are callous beuracrats who feel no responsiblity nor connection to the community around them. I have a gut feeling their intention was to make the BP a self-contained building, just another fixture of the campus that shows no relationship to the outside world.

The BP admins are not known for accountability or embracing trasnparency. They are well-known for doing just about anything under a cloud of secrecy. They are very representative of the way Albany works. The same Albany attitude led decades ago by Governor Nelson Rockefeller, the chief brain behind the fortress archietcture of the UB swamp campus.

This new BP building reflects the same fortress architecture, the "screw everyone else" design. Whoever planned this chose the perfect architects for sucn an undertaking. I browsed their website looking at all their works, and I don't think I found a single urban building. All of their comissions are either stand-alone college buildings or freeway-hugging suburban office parks. While, I didn't expect nor desire an urban building for BP (considering the charm of the whole meuseum/olmstead district is its pastoral character), but something that can be welcoming, warm, and show respect to the surroundings would be nice. Something that is still cutting-edge modern could have done these things well, but once again we suffer the "this is only Buffalo" attitude that architects from NYC seem to look down on us with. Incidentally this building would never be approved in any bigger, economically sucessful city.

This is fortress anti-community architecture at it's best. And this is what Albany seems to do quite well. A bent packing crate dressed in "zinc shingles" doesn't quite do it.

But, alas, this is another campus building. I don't think there was ever an intention to make this an addition to Buffalo.

Just another brick in BSC's wall.

we don't need no institution
we don't need no traffic control
no dark sarcasm at public forums
f-e leave b-pac alone

hey! f-e! leave b-pac alone!

all in all it's just a, -nother zink plate in the wall...

tee-hee, forgive me, i couldn't help it.

Great work Daniel.

What happens next to get this thing changed?

Daniel Sack,

I do appreciate your passion, and I think on the whole we disagree about this project. My name is Natalie Green Tessier, by the way.

Here are some places I think your argument falls apart. BSC is a commuter school, and has many part-time students, as well has having some people on campus and in the neighborhood. The Arts Center will also accomodate school busses, walking tours, and people coming in from out of town to visit, we hope. Maybe even seniors and disabled people will want to come too.

Should they all have to park on a city street pr ride their bikes? That stretch of Elmwood Avenue is not parkable, and the winter the college cannot control plowing. That section is already congested, and to widen it would take away more greenspace that I'd rather leave as greenspace. It's not like walking between Lafayette and Cleveland, it's park on one side and homes on the other. If safety is your concern, let's be very honest... there are a great many Psych Center out-patients walking there all day long. Because of the cuts in NYS aid, soem of these people should not be out-patients but we won't afford them as in-patients.

It's best to find out what IS governed by sunshine laws before throwing accusations around about what's right. You may be right that there should be no secrecy, but does that mean that if someone used the Freeedom of Information Act they'd eventually get the designs, or does it mean the design reviews were illegal if not open to the public? If your description of what Pietrzak (sp?) said was accurate, that was extremely clumsy. What is no surprise to me is that this organization operates as an unaccountable power unto itself.

I go back to my original statement. I've no doubt that this firm could have done something far more daring IF that were the task at hand. They should have no problem whatsoever fitting all the necessary bits and pieces into something cutting edge, (I don't actually buy that excuse) but if t he client wanted something understated, they'd get it.

Now, does anyone want to make the case that BSC officials are the best and brightest? The most forward-thinking in ther field? Or is it more likely they are middle-management, derriere-coverers who manage well within enormous bureacracies by never pissing much of anyone off?

If I see a flaw in this building, I see that this was the client, and the firm designed something mild for the client.

And for the silly statement that they only do suburban achitecture, a little quiz:

1) The Guggenheim musem in NYC is in what urban area?

2) Harvard University has its campus in Cambridge Massachusetts. Is Cambridge a suburb, or a city?

the most sickening thing about this BR post is the number of unqualifieds screaming about something that they cannot do anything about. I've posted this before: check out the new galleries in St. Louis and Reno...they absolutely pale by comparison to the BP. This is a structure that will indeed pass the test of time. BP will be an interesting gallery and educational space and that's what the customers who ordered it want. The inside views are spectacular. The way I see it the BP project has already begun to have an influence in the area by generating a hotel and retail and there will be more for sure. If people want to holler about something they need to speak-up about that tasteless quasi turret round thing over the door of the new hotel reminiscent of a suburban shopping plaza Starbucks. Now there's something that could probably be successfully negotiated out of the design. And what's up with these thinly-veiled references to intimidation tactics by BSC staff? Absurd and paranoid if you ask me. Build it now!

The Guggenheim and Harvard buildings indeed are urban. But they are additions to existing masterpieces. As such, they are extemely understated. That may be what G-S is better suited to. They are not great architects. They seem to be a marketing machine, with good connections at SUNY.

Why are we using the need for parking to justify the BP design? What if we leave the parking as shown? Can someone tell me then
why the Elmwood side needs to be a huge blank wall?

Can't the Elmwood side have some windows (with light filters if need be), or a door to the sculpture court, etc. Some kind of interaction with the public.

In the end, I agree with Green, architects give clients what the cients want. This design doesn't speak well of the people at BP. And the lack of public process is inexcusable.

Everyone I know who questions this design is neither a naysayer nor a general cynic about Buffalo. They are passionate about the beauty and health of the city. They are people who consistently praise and encourage first class projects and try to get the best possible product for their communities--especially ones with public money!

The stakes are higher with a public building on a singularly important site. It would be a relatively minor issue for the architects to rethink this design and improve it. The design need not be gutted; it needs to be improved. We're the client, along with Buff State and the BP.
Of course this is a question of taste and judgement, but that's what public forums are about--getting the spectrum of opinion to inform one's own judgement. The design will probably get built, alas, but isn't it the right of citizens to question and criticize any big project that will be done with their money? This seems so elementary; I am bewildered that people find it harmful or ill mannered or uncivic that some of us are doing this.
Why not have the very best? In a city of this architectural caliber? Why not?

Thank you Hamp.

Next? We'll see. Even if the building is built Forever Elmwood has taken a positive step. We had a mostly civil public meeting and invited everyone. BPAC and BSC were well represented and given more time at this one meeting than BSC gave the real public in six years of planning their building.

BSC now knows (I think they already knew but selected bad advice) that projects on Elmwood are subject to public scrutiny. They learned a new definition of �public�. Education is good. A BPAC board member told me they thought their project was �private� and they needn�t share their designs. The BPAC Director explained why they kept the designs secret. Other BSC and BPAC people said there were no secrets. I think they should at least agree.

I hear that many people at BSC dislike the building but will not speak up. I even hear that several BPAC insiders dislike the building.

Public input is messy, like democracy. The alternatives are worse.

One speaker at the Saturday FE meeting used the common cliche about how �a camel is a horse designed by committee� (it is attributed to Sir Alec Issigonis). I guess Sir Alec thought camels unlovely. But camels evolved (or were �designed� if you prefer), to be able to store great quantities of water and thus traverse great distances in deserts. That camel committee did good work. The horse died (of course)!

Interestingly the Burchfield invited design committee also though about transportation - which relates directly to the entrance. The invitation only Burchfield committee did good work. They insisted on an entrance facing Elmwood. I guess they were then dismissed. The architect and BSC had better ideas than their camel committee. Place the entrance in the back.

Write BSC President Muriel Howard. Write Sam Hoyt. Write Governor Pataki. And join the Burchfield - in spite of all this it is a wonderful institution.

for the record:

given my obviously 'pro' comments, it may be surprizing to some that i think it is great that there is such public interest in this - both for and against. we are all lucky to live in a neighborhood where not only are there strong opinions about the progress we are on the verge of, but places to voice them. bravo e-v i love where i live!

hamp, eric, daniel sack and everyone else opposed to the plans as they are now may not be the ones i largely agree with, but they are the posts that generate the conversation in the first place. if everyone agreed there'd be no conversation. thanks!

In a city which is under a financial control board, and in a state where taxes are thru the roof , the last thing we need is to throw money at a new art gallery. They managed to survive in their old location, let them stay there! . Better idea! ! So everyone is happy, put spending any public monies involed to a referendum,

Daniel Sack,

No one as far as I can tell has said no to a new Burchfield-Penney.

You are exactly right. There is no sound basis for anyone's or any institution's cavalierly closing down the discussion of the architecture and site design-- a discussion the college apparently only barely and grudgingly is tolerating-- because the college and the collection are in truth publicly owned. The public is also a client, or at least deserves the respect of a client.

bman,

I can appreciate your vision for Buffalo and your desire and impatience in this and many other projects to "get it built." However, if you have read the many sincere and thoughtful comments on this project, I don't see how you can so broadly paint those who raise questions as so many "unqualifieds screaming about something that they cannot do anything about." That attitute scares me. This is still supposed to be a participatory democracy. You don't know the backgrounds of all the people writing. Who do you think should determine how we build this country? If Wal-Mart came to Buffalo, approached the college and said, give us the land, and Wal-Mart will pay for everything and put a new Burchfield-Penney in the corner of a Super Center, would that be okay?

Predictable.

Dan Sack tosses out conspiract theories.

Hamp whines.

Eric presents his credentials as an architecture critic.

Now that the open meeting failed to produce the groundswell of disapprobation that the organizers hoped for, they've resorted to ad-hominem arguments.

The BPAC has provided rational and reasonable responses to the concerns raised. Since we don't like the answers, let's call them incompetents, liars, and cabalists.

The meeting may have been civil, but this blog is becoming an embarrassment.

I agree that conversation and dialogue are great. Especially the intelligent posts that don't start throwing around the name calling.

I feel the whole modernism movement is a direct result of $$. It started out by implementing new building materials and techinques. By keeping the buidling simple, you save a lot of money and time.. And once upon a time it was "new" and exciting, a big break from the excess of the architecture of the time. But I feel it has been easily worn out and forgetable. This can be seen by the renewed use of bricks and such as exterior treatments in office parks etc in combination with the large glass treatments of modern designs. The use of human scale materials and details does a lot in making a design feel accesable. I feel we are on the Dawn of a new era of Arcitecture that blend the best elements of old and new.

This building is stuck in the late 20th century. Looking at these slides I see about 9 boxes, one cylindical "turret" and a curved outer wall. I can see that the UB Amherst residence halls had some influence. Which one of us here could not have drawn this? Honestly? You can point to buildings like City Hall and the Psych Center that were contraversial. But these were contraversial due to pushing boundries on design. This pushes to almost not even being there. If it were an addition to another famous building, maybe this would be accetable/welcome.

This leaves as much of a mental impact as a new high school gymnasium, warehouse, or correctional facility. Those would be my first guesses driving up to this building as I searched for an art gallery.

On the inside the art is "king". So of coarse the inside would be bare to not distract from the art. But the ouside can make its own statement. Any statement is welcome from the current "pay no attention to me. I'm just another campus building." And it need not effect the interior.

Parking will always be an issue. Espesially when we design everything with the automobile as the first priority. Drive down Transit to see how inspiring and beautiful it makes things. Step up another fund drive to bury the parking beneath the building. Everyone will be cozy going form thier vehicles to the breath taking entrance at the front. It will also leave space for future campus expansion instead of sucking up land with another surface lot.

Ms. Tessier,

We have met before, in agreement, on BfloIssueAlerts. Thank you for your civilized tone here.

We do disagree about this building and that is okay.

Elmwood from Forest to Scajaquada is to be rebuilt in the next few years. There have been several meetings and engineering drawings prepared. Maybe there will be a roundabout between Rockwell Road and the A-K entrance. Nothing is settled yet. Some say roundabouts are safer, some say they increase the danger to pedestrians. I�m not sold on the roundabout but I am still listening.

One thing I believe is that parking on a street makes the street safer because parked cars slow vehicular traffic. It�s just natural. You will drive faster in a 12 feet wide lane with no parking than you will in a 9 feet wide lane with parking.

Parking may or may not be feasible in Elmwood�s redesign but on the south side (new BPAC side) of Rockwell more parking can easily be accommodated. Sure there is much traffic at Rockwell and Elmwood a few times a day. But far busier streets in Buffalo have parking within 20 feet of the corner and it is not a problem.

BSC people stressed the importance of a bus turnaround in back of the museum for young students, seniors, and the disabled. Many, many museums in cities all over US have their entrances at a sidewalk. MOMA NY, MOMA SF, NY Metropolitan Museum of Art, NY Museum of Natural History, to name a few. It is simply not a problem. School buses have there doors on the right (sidewalk) side of the bus.

BSC talk of safety is really about �fear�. Bring children and safety to the table and you can scare anyone into thinking, �Oh my god - we must not let children out on the sidewalk�. It is absurd. Psych Center out-patients?! More fear. You think walking another hundred yards will stop them. They have plenty of time. And really - we have nothing to fear anyway.

Sunshine laws? What I can tell you is that I (for Forever Elmwood) requested documents from BPAC and was told they were �quarantined� by VP Stan Kardonsky. Call Sam Hoyt - he could not obtain them either. BSC thought they could keep documents secret. A state lawyer in Albany though otherwise. Anyone wanting me to fax them the correspondence just leave me your fax number.

Some have suggested I�m paranoid by suggesting that BSC has intimidated staff who might oppose their plan. These are bureaucrats who think they can keep public documents from the public. Their arrogance does not stop there.

Yes, Ted Pietrzak said what I said he said. I don�t think it was clumsy. I think it was the truth. Unfortunately.

heh, Stan Kardonsky... figures. That man has a widespread reputation on campus as decietful, conniving snake. I have had experience dealing with him on a few ocassions and he is, let's just say, a real piece of work, to put it in the nicest terms possible.

I smelled a rat from when the initial designs were first leaked, and deep down suspected he might have something to do with the secrecy behind this.

Hey Gabe,

Did you flunk out of Buffalo State?