Viewpoints like Nelson German's are what perpetuate the lack of a positive relationship or any relationship at all between the U of R and the surrounding neighborhoods. The developer for this project, John Yurtchuk, did not "succumb" to the PLEX neighborhood group. In fact, Yurtchuk was not taking the residents' opinions and feelings into account enough.

German says: "It is U of R students like me who are going to live in those apartments, not members of PLEX. It's no secret that among us students, there is a stigma that the area ‘over the footbridge' is considered unsafe." I live in this area "over the footbridge," and I do not deny that there are problems. But the stigma that German speaks of, which is bombarded into impressionable underclassman minds, is a problem. It discourages students from learning about, spending time in, investing in, and contributing to the city that they are living in for four years. There is a complete disconnect between the bubble of the campus and the real world that surrounds it.

City quotes Yurtchuk as saying: "I don't want to leave the impression that people can use this site as a public space. We have students who are paying to live in here and we have to consider their privacy and security needs."

Yes, students will be paying to live in these new apartments. But guess who else pays to live in that neighborhood? The people who already live there and have lived there for years without university involvement.

What about the privacy and security needs of the people who already live in this community? What about the privacy and security needs of the many university workers who also live in this neighborhood? Is this really solving the bigger problem?

The University of Rochester, being the largest employer in the City of Rochester, has a responsibility to invest in the outlying community. This does not mean expanding the campus bubble to the other side of the river; this means integration and thinking about the larger problems of the City of Rochester and how the university as a large contributor to the city economy can have a positive effect on this.

I think that the new apartments would be safer if they were more architecturally and visually integrated into the area on South Plymouth. From an urban planning perspective, constructing buildings that look away from the street and visually stick out like a sore thumb is problematic.

According to the November 28 City article, residents say that "the $27 million housing project on South Plymouth Avenue will resemble a ‘prison' or a gated community where the ‘haves' are separated from the ‘have-nots' if it is built according to current plans." This further separation between the university and the surrounding neighborhood is what we should be trying to avoid.

JOANNA REYNOLDS, ROCHESTER