(Artvoice 16 March 2000, sort of)
What They Said
by Bruce Jackson
(These are from statements given at the Public Consensus Review Panel's sessions on March 7 and 8, 2000 at the WNED studios. Except for the selections from PBA chairman Victor Martucci's ’s remarks and the final paragraph of Tony Bullock’s remarks , which were transcribed from a tape, the passages that follow are selected from printed or handwritten texts provided by the speakers. The selection from Tony Bullock's remarks here is longer than what we were able to use in Artvoice. A few of the others were also shortened slightly for space reasons. When I get some time I'll post some photos from the morning panel meeting and the two evening sessions.)
Chief of staff to Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
...In general, the consulting team - under the direction of this panel - has provided an invaluable service to the community. They have clearly shown that the plaza design as originally proposed by the Public Bridge Authority is wholly inadequate and would not serve the needs of Canadian and American users of this facility into the 21st century.
It has been well-established that the delays and inefficiencies plaguing the current operation at the Peace Bridge are primarily due to its plaza operations. Bridge capacity itself is largely irrelevant to this ongoing problem. Providing emphasis on plaza design was the right thing to do. By endorsing the engineering team’s recommendation for either plaza option B or plaza option E, the review panel will acknowledge the clear superiority of such alternatives and help spare us all from the disastrous consequences that would otherwise result from the original PBA proposal.
The consultants - I would argue - got it half right. They are right on target in their treatment of the plaza. But they are dead wrong in their conclusion on the bridge span itself. I would further argue that the analysis is not, as yet, sufficient to make such a determination. The tortured logic that has resulted in a recommendation to proceed with the PBA’s original twin span - or an enhanced twin span that replaces the Parker Truss with a cloned arch - should be discarded.
Using the cost estimates provided by the engineering team on page 55 of their presentation, the enhanced twin arch plan (advanced by the PBA) will cost more than the single-span, cable-stayed option as proposed for plaza B ($164.4 million v. $163.7 million). Yet the conclusion of the engineering team objecting to a single-span alternative identifies additional funding as the primary reason why such an alternative should be rejected. The conclusion makes no sense whatsoever and is not supported by its own data.
More significant is the glaring deficiency in the examination of alternatives to the twin span proposal. For the moment, let’s rule out a full suspension bridge. There is no constituency for such a concept. Let’s also put aside the use of plaza option D at LaSalle Park for much the same reason. The reality here is that the only viable option to the twin span proposal is a single-span, six-lane bridge that would utilize more or less the same alignment as the existing span.
As such, why didn’t the engineering team provide an analysis on an apples to apples basis of a single span cable-stayed design (or any other type of six-lane bridge) in the exact alignment of the proposed companion span that would utilize plaza sites B or E?
Even if one accepts the cost estimates provided by the engineering team on page 55 (and I do not) the cost differential between the two bridge construction estimates is negligible - roughly $13 million. But when you add to the companion bridge proposal the cost of rehabilitation of the existing bridge and the proposed new decorative truss, the cost of the twin span far exceeds the single span alternative.
Why then should we be willing to accept the conclusion that we cannot afford the single span alternative? Why was such an obvious combination of span design and plaza location - one that would have cast the single span option in a favorable light - not provided by the engineering team?
There are further aspects of their analysis that warrant concern. The greatest shortcoming in their report lies in its treatment of the existing span. There is no examination of the $17.9 million figure assigned to the rehabilitation of the existing span. Who came up with this number? Where is the detail that would support such a number? The greatest uncertainty in this entire debate is what will it really cost to rehabilitate this old bridge? What will be discovered when the deck is removed? What is the structural integrity and general condition of the piers? Is there truth to the rumors that some of the piers no longer make contact with the river bottom lands? Why does the Federal Highway Administration give the bridge such low marks in its most recent inspection? Why is it that the superstructure of this bridge gets an FHA rating of poor condition and the substructure gets a rating of serious condition? And why is this of no apparent concern to the engineering team? I am sure that the members of this panel will recognize the obvious need to have a full and candid assessment of the condition of this bridge before making any final recommendation on which span alternative is best for Buffalo and Ft. Erie.
The PBA twin span proposal rests entirely on a terribly shaky premise: that this 75 year old bridge is ready for another 75 years of service. But what if that’s not so? The PBA’s economic argument for a twin span falls apart completely if it turns out that significant structural renovation and expensive time-consuming repairs to the existing span are needed.
To gloss over this critical premise would be tantamount to malpractice. Anyone who has been involved in renovation work on a home, commercial building or structure of any kind, knows that estimating such costs can be very difficult. As a rule, however, you don’t really know what your dealing with until you get into it and, generally, it always costs more and takes twice as much time as you thought it would. Considering the PBA constant emphasis on time and money, it is somewhat astonishing that they have not provided greater detail on this crucial component of their own proposal.
What will we do if it turns out that the existing bridge needs $40 or $50 million in structural and maintenance repairs? What if that work adds two or three years to the time-line?
One thing is for sure, the old bridge will never get any wider. It’s current lane widths are well below current engineering standards at 11 feet and always will be. There are no breakdown lanes on the old bridge and there never will be. Why was safety not more of a consideration in the analysis of the engineering team?
And what of maintenance costs? The table depicting comparative maintenance costs on page 56 of the engineering report utilizes a 75 year life-cycle analysis. The standard in the industry is to use a 100 year life-cycle. Could it be that the life expectancy of the existing bridge will not permit the use of this industry standard as a basis of comparison? Have the engineers done any sort of cost-benefit analysis on this proposal that would justify - or at the very least identify - the investment that would truly be required to keep this bridge in service for another 75 years? As Senator Moynihan pointed out in his letter to Coast Guard Bridge Engineer Nick E. Mpras on March 12, 1999, the FHA’s overall structural sufficiency rating is a pitiful 17 out 100. Not a passing grade by any measure.
It is apparent that the cost estimates for the construction and maintenance of a single-span, six-lane bridge have been overstated while the same estimates for the twin plan have been understated. Industry standards show that steel bridges require three to four times more annual maintenance than do concrete bridges. Yet the figures do not reflect the usual margins. In the case of an 75-year-old bridge in obvious need of major repair, this maintenance figure on an annualized basis could balloon out of control. Again, where is the cost-benefit analysis that would be essential to this discussion?
As has been said before, a six-lane, modern bridge provides a superior alternative in every measurable way to the twin span proposal. We don’t need a decorative arch, we need adequate lane width. We don’t need a new lift of asphalt to pretty up a structurally deficient, 75-year-old bridge designed with 19th Century technology that will create an ungodly maintenance burden on the toll payers and future users of this crossing. We need a modern, safe, low-maintenance bridge option that satisfies the cost constraints, maintenance concerns and design objectives that the people of this region deserve and have every right to expect.
Bad ideas don’t get better with time. The companion plan is bad engineering, bad economics, and bad planning. It should be dismissed not on the basis of its aesthetic shortcomings but rather on its obvious economic and engineering inferiority to options that are indeed readily available.
Buried a bit within the engineering report is an option that makes a great deal of sense. Accept the recommendation of plaza option E but couple it with a six-lane, single-span bridge in precisely the same location as the proposed companion span. Utilize its alignment, utilize its footprint, utilize whatever permits may exist for its construction and we are on our way to an end result that satisfies nearly everyone’s concerns.
Archeologically-sensitive sites are avoided. Maintenance worries over the old span are no longer. Engineering and permitting progress on the existing application can be conveyed to the new design. Alignment, approach roads and other cost efficiencies are retained. An improved plaza design can be realized. Safety issues are resolved and a new design can inspire communities on both sides of the Niagara.
As you conclude your work, I urge you to be swayed not by public relations campaigns but by the merits of the arguments raised. If the argument for a twin span was convincing in and of itself, it would not need so much advertising to sell itself. The essence of a fine recommendation is contained within the framework of the engineering report. It just got lost on its way to the conclusion. Help the report redeem itself. Connect the right bridge to the recommended plaza and let’s get this thing started.
One last point people have raised is, what kind of money might be available from the federal government? The best answer I can give you to that question is: a lot. We just passed under the leadership of Senator Moynihan and former Senator D’Amato, the largest transportation bill in the history of the universe: $214 billion, approximately $14 billion of which comes to the state of New York in various programs and various categories of the DOT hierarchy. There is money to be applied to this project but only when the community decides what it wants to do and the people in charge think that makes some sense.
Chairman, Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Authority
...The agreement was simply this: to commission a binational team of engineers to evaluate the Peace Bridge authority’s bridge and plaza plans against alternatives recommended by the PCRP. The binational team of engineers were asked to make a recommendation for a new bridge system based on established criteria by the PCRP. The PCRP would vote yes or no on the engineers’ recommendation. The Peace Bridge Authority, the mayor, and the county executive agreed to pursue the recommendation of the PCRP if they voted to ratify the recommendation of the engineers. The binational team of engineers has made its draft recommendation. We are here tonight and tomorrow night to publicly comment on that draft recommendation. On March 14 the PCRP will vote to ratify the recommendation. If I’m stating the obvious or reciting the facts that we all know I apologize, but I believe it’s important to clearly define for the public the process that we all agreed to follow. For the end result to be legitimate in the eyes of the public we must not deviate from the process.
The binational team of engineers has recommended a companion span bridge and a plaza to be located north of the existing plaza. The bridge plan also calls for removing the Parker truss on the existing Peace Bridge and replacing it with a twin Black Rock arch identical to the arch proposed for the new bridge. The recommendation of the engineers is not the system proposed by the Peace Bridge Authority. The recommended system will require the PBA to seek out financial partners for the project.
What’s critical, however, is that the recommended system allows this community to achieve one important goal: and that is to begin construction this summer.
....You see this is not just an issue about steel and concrete, superspan or twin span, aesthetics or functionality. It’s about jobs. It’s about the economic future of this region. It’s about securing a future where our children and our grandchildren won’t have to leave town to find a good paying job. In my opinion this is the beauty of the draft recommendation submitted by the binational team of engineers. This recommendation acknowledges the importance of aesthetic design, functionality and cost, but most importantly it gives the region a chance to move forward today, to capitalize on the incredible opportunities that cross-border trade between the US and Canada offer. And the opportunities are real. As we speak a coalition of government, business and community leaders from Toronto to Miami are working to establish a direct trade corridor linking these two cities and every marked in between. Dubbed Continental One, this trade corridor will pass directly through the Niagara region via the Peace Bridge. Buffalo and the Niagara region will be in a natural location for distribution and logistics related business, providing good-paying jobs for our community....Ladies and gentlemen, this issue is about jobs....
New York State Assembly
The engineers’ recommendation which was presented to all of you last Tuesday is unacceptable and does not accurately reflect what is desired by our community nor what is best for our community. I suggest that they go back to the drawing board and examine how to give our community what we want – a signature bridge and a new plaza. However, the engineers’ recommendation is just that – a recommendation. You have the power to accept or reject the engineers’ recommendation. The PBA agreed to accept your decision when they joined the process.
At a meeting in Albany with the western New York Delegation, the PBA said that they would explore removing the Parker Truss – when and if they have the funds, and if it is feasible. In fact, the presentation which they delivered last week also confirmed this - they recommend that studies to replace the arch should be pursued. I seriously doubt their intention to build a northern plaza as well. Every indication is that they will build south of the existing plaza. Their own documents show that the bridges turn SOUTH not north.
I understand that they have suggested that a Northern plaza is agreeable to them, and that Mayor Masiello has endorsed this plan. I agree that this is a viable option, but I am concerned that without a complete plan once construction begins on the bridge, when it comes time to build the plaza, they will change plans and state that they can’t go in that direction. I’d like to believe them, but frankly, I don’t trust any promises from this Authority – they have a long history of ignoring the public and undermining the public trust. They had to be dragged into this process kicking and screaming, and only joined at the last minute under duress to forestall the judge’s ruling on the lawsuits. Then, despite joining the process they engaged in an advertising campaign designed to undermine the process and didn’t even identify themselves as the sponsor of the commercials.
This is why I encourage you to approve nothing less than a complete plan. If we allow them to begin construction now, without a commitment for the balance of the project, we may tie our hands later. I will not stake our community’s future on empty promises and uncertain possibilities.
As a public official who represents more than 120,000 constituents, it is my duty to listen to and respond to the public that I represent. The Public Bridge Authority, as a public entity, is required to do the same. Yet, everything they do ignores this fact. As early as 1996, I sent a letter to the PBA, which I have provided to you, regarding my concerns over their intention to conduct a segmented EIS. I felt then, and I feel now, that this project cannot move forward until a full, non-segmented EIS has been undertaken. If the PBA had listened then, instead of fighting public input and behaving in their typical unresponsive arrogant manner, we might not be here and could have already commenced construction.
The PBA’s ad campaign stresses the fact that we need to start building now – but the critical fact is not when we start, it’s when we finish. The PBA’s plan for the companion span will create 10 years of delays and detours at the border, while a signature bridge and an all new plaza can be built more quickly and with no disruption at the border. Furthermore, Buffalo is no longer a steel town – the PBA’s steel companion span will pump more than 100 million dollars into another city’s economy, a significant portion of this for repairs to a decrepit 80-year-old bridge. We heard last night from Figg engineers that a pre-stressed concrete bridge can be built using more than 80% local materials. This is the sort of economic boost we need. Additionally, using local materials makes sense because I want to use local labor.
The PBA doesn’t have the money to construct this bridge – as they indicated Tuesday night, they need an increase in their bond cap to build – and to get a bond increase from the state legislature, they need to go through me. I can not in good conscience, and will not, support a bond increase for the companion span which will wreak economic havoc on our region for 10 years. We cannot afford this type of devastating impact on our community. If the PBA expects the State Legislature to listen to them, then they better begin listening to the public that we legislators represent.
I have introduced legislation, which I have also provided to you, which would make the operations of the PBA more open to public accountability, and begin to bring the PBA more in line with other public authorities. Another piece of legislation would allow the cities of Buffalo and Fort Erie a direct appointment to the PBA, adding more community input to the PBA’s activities as well as requiring Buffalo and Fort Erie’s common council’s approval of all major capital projects...
There has been a lot of focus on the plaza recently, and this is good - the plaza is critical, but it is not JUST the plaza that matters – there are more than 12,000 signatures on petitions, most from city residents, saying they want a signature bridge. The advocates of the companion span will likely attempt to portray my position as holding up progress – Nothing could be further from the truth. I recognize as well as anybody the potential for job creation and economic development, and the great asset a restored Front Park would be to our city. I also recognize the potential for the revitalization of the West Side.
Other speakers have implied that unless we begin a companion span now that we will jeopardize all of these important objectives. I disagree. We can have all of these things and a great bridge. Buffalo is a great city – we all know that. However, I fear that Buffalonians have accepted mediocrity for far too long. We have an opportunity to break away from that and show the world that we can do something exceptional: something exceptional that can be accomplished in the same time frame or less; something exceptional that can be done within a similar budget and without the negative impact at our border during construction.
We have the occasion to create a legacy by building an iconic signature bridge. We are not going to get another chance to do this right, let’s not squander this once in a century opportunity.
This is clearly an outmoded relic of another age, originally a grand design, but a design defiled at the very outset when it was built without the final arch on the U.S. side. When did it suddenly become a revered historical icon, a treasured landmark? Only very recently, when supporters of the Twin Span scheme sought to elevate it to that status for their own self-serving purposes.
Representing the Town of Fort Erie
I can share with you that the Fort Erie Council has tremendous respect for these matters and the Peace Bridge’s Canadian portion does have a heritage designation applied to it. Any effort to remove this designation and to demolish the Bridge would be vigorously opposed by the Town of Fort Erie....
For Erie does not want a dramatic, ostentatious presence. The difference in the Fort Erie view and that of some in Buffalo is as pronounced as the two-land, 30mph scenic Niagara Parkway on the Canadian side of the River and the four-lane, 55mph expressway on the American side. Fort Erie’s view is that the Peace Bridge should not be dominating and overpowering, but rather, should compliment and respect the River, the Niagara Parks lands, the old Fort, the Native Archeological sites and the community itself. The existing Peace Bride, at least the Canadian portion, does this quite well and the companion span should do likewise. Let us not forget that the Niagara River is not even a half mile wide, it is not San Francisco Bay or Tampa Bay with its seven mile long Sunshine Skyway.
If it’s a sense of arrival you’re after, which we in Fort Erie are, then the place to do that is in and around the respective plazas. That is why the Town of Fort Erie has embarked on a Gateway Master Plan in partnership with the Niagara Parks Commission and the Bridge Authority. I encourage the City of Buffalo to do likewise with its Plaza.
Anthony M. Masiello
Mayor, City of Buffalo
As long as I am Mayor, this new bridge system is what we are collectively going to work on. This is a symbol of our renaissance! This is a symbol of our rebirth! The significance of the symbol is the community effort we put forth; what we do together towards reach our goal, should be what we are remembered for in making it happen.
....I have more questions now than ever before. Here are just 15 of them. Help me to understand.
1) Whose bridge is this anyway? The PBA acts as if Buffalo is merely a thoroughfare for truck traffic, 80% of which is destined for far away profit centers and special interests. Our streets, parks, air quality, safety and very identity are at best of secondary importance to the movement of trucks. Who really benefits from this?
2) T.Y. Lin, world-famous bridge builder, and Bruno Freschi, a Canadian citizen, recipient of his country’s highest civilian honor for his work in the field of architecture, produced a stunning design that promised a five-year completion span for less money. Why was that plan eliminated so casually?
3)UB Professor of Engineering John Mander and noted bridge designer Eugene Figg both stated that a single six-lane bridge and new American plaza could be completed in 5 years. Are they wrong? . . .
5) The PBA’s original cost estimates were off by 40%. Did the consultants conduct an independent accounting of cost or simply accept the PBA’s latest figures?
6) The consultants propose moving the plaza to a site NE of the existing one but want to start construction of the twin before plans for the new plaza are developed. Will they merely point the new bridge somewhere toward the American side? . . .
9) What is the dollar value of the new park land that will be gained for Western New York by the restoration of Front Park and Fort Porters? And was this factored into total cost? . . .
12) If we can build a bridge and plaza simultaneously without disrupting existing traffic patterns and routing thousands of heavy trucks through our city streets–why choose the chaos of a multiple-step construction project?
13) Time and again we’ve heard the bottleneck to traffic flow is the US customs plaza, yet your plan solves this problem last! Shouldn’t this be given top priority? . . .
15) Why does the PBA refuse to do a full EIS as required by law for projects of this magnitude and significance? With all the work that’s already been don an EIS could be completed in ten to twelve months. To paraphrase an old saying, “It’s not when you start, it’s when you finish that matters.
I’m tired of hearing “just do it.” Most of us were raised to believe to “do it right or not at all.”
businessman, Niagara Falls, Canada
....Since this debate began, the perception has been that all Canadians want to “just get on with it, and build a twin or companion span.” The “American vs. Canadian” angle has been very cleverly created and perpetuated by very clever and I trust well-paid public relations consultants. It makes great press. It is also just not true.
...The public Bridge Authority and their public relations consultants have been ruthless in their determination to “just get on with it,” and to build their plan of record....
For two years, and again last night, we have heard that the Peace Bridge has received Canadian heritage designation. The truth, confirmed with the Town of Fort Erie and the PBA this morning, is that no such Canadian, Ontario or even local municipal designation exists. In reality, Fort Erie’s local architectural conservancy board are now preparing to apply to the Town of Fort Erie to have the Peace Bridge designated....
For this once-in-a-century opportunity, I respectfully urge panel members, engineers and politicians to think less like politicians and more like leaders and statesmen.
Member of Parliament for the riding/district of Erie-Lincoln, which includes the town of Fort Erie
. . . A new bridge is needed now as an economic catalyst for our respective regions, to exploit the trade and commercial boom between Canada and the United States and the jobs that both create. We wish to prevent the forfeiture of progress by default.
Thus we can see that this issue is more than a Buffalo–Fort Erie issue or a Western New York–Southern Ontario issue. The Peace Bridge is an integral link in the trade, tourism, and social infrastructure of our two countries. . . .
I agree with David Collenette the Canadian Minister of Transport’s assessment in a letter to you that the review team exercised due diligence in reaching their decision which was based on agreed-upon criteria, including functionality of traffic and plaza operators, local and regional economic impacts, environmental impact, aesthetics, completion schedule and cost.
The preferred alternative advanced by the engineering team is the twin span companion bridge, replacing the Parker Truss with twin arches thereby providing signature quality aesthetics while ensuring the heritage aspect of the existing bridge.
Perhaps not everyone here agrees with the decision, but I do. I urge you to join the consensus behind the preferred alternative. I am supported in my position by many of my colleagues in the House of Commons as confirmed by their letters to you....
The greatness or mediocrity of aesthetics of a bridge often differ only in the eyes of the beholder. My eyes find our historic Bridge the majestic, strong and gracious monument to Peace that it is. . . .
Lifelong resident on Columbus Parkway, Buffalo
. . .In my association with the PBA for the past ten years, I have tried to cooperate with them, but have found them to be arrogant, deceitful and trying to run rough shod over everyone. I had hoped that through the hard work of the Review Panel my opinion of them would change but so far it remains the same. I hope that somehow the men in the PBA will change their tactics. Expect a miracle–we may just get it.
I have attended almost all of the so-called public meetings conduced by the PBA. We tried to cooperate with them but they would not even consider any alternative possibilities, other than their own plans. We were not there for input—we were there to be told what was going to be.
The PBA quietly bought up half a city block under the pretense that they needed to widen the present plaza and we were to receive a buffer zone between their property and ours. Once they had acquired the property they told us they were building a four story parking ramp and an administration building that would abut the rear of our property. When asked how they could do this they told us that since these buildings were off-site and not on the plaza they could do whatever they wanted to. We offered to sell them our properties so they would have a buffer zone and eliminate the problem of a common sewer system. Construction there in the past has caused some neighbors to have their basements filled with feces.
Their reason for not buying our property was that they didn’t have the money. I question that. It is my understanding that the PBA has spent millions of dollars building public buildings for the town of Fort Erie. Some of these buildings are state of the art aesthetically beautiful ice skating rink and a new town hall for the public officials. With all due respect to our Canadian friends of which I have many, I have to ask how can we believe the opinions of these public officials under these circumstances? Would you come to a meeting such as this and bite the hand that feeds you? I think not.
And why is it that Canada gets all the social and economic benefits from the PBA and we are treated with absolutely no respect or consideration? And also where have all the American representative on the PBA been all of this time?
Because of the PBA actions no one in their right ind would want to buy my property at the present time–unless I give it away, which I don’t intend to do. I have had years of expose to the noise, fumes, dirt, pollution and psychological abuse from the PBA. Therefore, I favor plaza Plan B–in order to get away from this overbearing neighbor.
I don’t trust the PBA in any way, shape or form, so I want some stipulations written in stone.
1. The property currently owned by the PBA on Busti Avenue be taken away from them. Until this happens, I want them held responsible for the upkeep of these properties so they don’t continue to deteriorate and will not need to be condemned.
2. They are never allowed to do to others what they have done to us by putting off plaza buildings wherever they choose.
3. Since no environmental studies have been done I have other concerns. If Plaza plan E is adapted as it is, it would place my home in such close proximity to all the noise and pollution we would be adversely affected for the next 8-10 years or more. Plus our property values would be nil. We would have the demolition of the Episcopal home, the building of the bridge and plaza on our right, the tearing down of the present plaza and restoration of Fort Porter behind us. We can’t open our windows now. What will it be like then?
Mayor Masiello said that we should be willing to compromise. I suggested that since our small group at the edge of the plaza near Rhode Island would be forced to live under these adverse conditions we should be compensated for the taxes we have to pay, loss of property value , repainting our houses, and even medical care, or else new properties be purchased for green space between the plaza and residential homes.
If our voices and concerns are not heard loud and clear that we are not taking any more abuse, the only recourse left us is to pursue the meal means that are open to us.
I realize what a monumental task you have undertaken and I thank you for it. Now I hope that you have the stamina and courage to do what is right for all of us.
Statue of Liberty
George Washington Monument
Great Pyramids of Pisa
The Leaning tower of Pisa
England’s Big Ben
George Washington Bridge
CN Tower, Sears Tower
London Tower Bridge
St. Patrick’s Cathedral
St. Paul’s Cathedral
St. Peter’s Basilica
The Chrysler Building
Empire State Building
Golden Gate Bridge
Sydney Opera House
United Nations Building
World Trade Center
NYC’s Center Park
The Capitol Building
The White House
The Canadian Parliament Building
St. Louis Arch
Guggenheim at Bilbao
Arc de Triumph
Notre Dame Cathedral
Grand Central Station
The Brooklyn Bridge
The Roman Aquaducts
Rock ‘n’ Roll Hall of Fame
Museum of Modern Art
Museum of Natural History
City of Baltimore
City of Pittsburgh
City of Cleveland
City of Toronto
Buffalo Psychiatric Center
The Botanical Gardens
The Butterfly Conservatory
Buffalo & Erie County Historical Society
Buffalo City Hall
The Pan Am Exposition
Our Lady of Victory Basilica
Albright-Knox Art Gallery
Ellicott Square Building
Niagara Mohawk Building
The Olmsted Park System of Buffalo
Darwin Martin House
The Larkin Building
....a Signature Peace Bridge!
copyright 2000 Bruce Jackson