Comment Archives: stories: News & Opinion
Re: “Court says communities can ban drilling”
It seems humans are prone to losing their common sense. We either do not spend enough time noticing or understanding what is going on around us or we simply let ourselves say it does not matter.
Common sense tells me hydrofracking, when fully explained and understood, could not possibly take place anywhere. Surely, people would just say NO before it had a chance to get started. Fracking uses up millions of gallons of water and injects toxic chemicals into the ground....GAME OVER, right? But wait, there's more. JOBS! Economic prosperity will come to regions of poverty. Employed people spending their wealth means success and growth for businesses. The only loser is Earth.
There are examples besides hydrofracking. Back in 1938 a patent was issued for a new process meant to ensure coal mines shored up with wood could withstand the test of time. Pressure treated lumber was born. It almost makes sense that in the dark, dangerous depths of the coal mine, the combination of arsenic, copper and chomium did not seem much like an added threat. But soon, the toxic poison arsenic made a leap into the light...your new backyard deck, your garden shed, your picnic table and your child's jungle gym were all nearly indestructable and would last an eternity. All this time people knew that the pressure treated wood contained arsenic and no one set off the alarm bells. How could this be? How could we invite a toxic poison into our homes, yards and families?
It is happening again with hydrofracking. Concerned citizens are asking why fracking is being considered in New York. Some did not have the chance to ask this question before fracking was already in their neighborhoods. It seems we truly never learn from history. It seems common sense loses to the power of corporations and the greed of individuals. How many times must we suffer the consequences of our own making? How many times will we acquiesce because we still believe government and corporations are doing the right thing.
Common sense, history and science all say NO to fracking. What do you say?
Re: “Owners of Craft Company No. 6 speak out against University Ave. project”
Ms. Tow;er - City provides a "Feedback" section for this type of letter. So why is it be published under the "News" category?
Re: “City should turn down University Ave. project”
RE: Christopher--Great reasoned OPPOSITION! Ms. Towler's statement "adding density to an area of the city that doesn't need more" is ambiguous since "area" could refer to NOTA or the whole Park/East Ave area. But. . .
it's really not unfounded for either considering their one-lane roads can't accommodate current traffic that backs up from Portsmouth to Culver when the Gleason Works lets out or such shortage of parking that one of the businesses on University is considering relocating because clients can't find a place to park. The same is true for traffic now backing up from East Ave all the way to the 490 entrance to get out of the Park Ave area and sometimes over 30 cars waiting in line on the 490 exit to get on Culver at rush hour; of course, finding parking spots for tenants or business customers in the Park Ave. area has always been a major problem. I agree with everything Christopher says: perceptive, important, and balanced.
The city really does need to reassess its values, goals, and planning (as Ken discusses). During the last year the City approved demolition of the Cataract Building (now a parking lot built by NYC developers who never actually came here) after it spent millions to create the faltering High Falls area across the bridge. The 19th century stores there, across from the original Kodak building which could become MCC, have just been restored. Why the demolition? the complete lack of vision?
The City also approved the demolition of the last remaining historic buildings from "Old Brighton" on East Ave. so Wegmans could build its unnecessarily HUGE store which tries unsuccessfully to imitate old buildings now lost forever. So how much more of our city history will be demolished? Will 933 University be next? It certainly is change, but is it worth this ongoing destruction of Rochester's historical "fabric" (borrowing Ms. Towler's word). She's dead-on right in observing this 933 University Ave. proposal of demolition and over-development is a potentially dangerous precedent and potentially (more) bad City planning.
Re: “City should turn down University Ave. project”
To Rochester Resident: I do indeed live near the East Avenue Preservation District. I hope that proximity hasn't influenced my decision, but it's hard for any journalist to be certain that we're completely objective about the things we cover. I do think my long-time residence there informs my writing. And I'm not at all against apartments; we lived in one, two doors from our current home, when we moved to Rochester. And we own a rental double next door. We like living in a neighborhood that includes a variety of ages and uses. That's why we settled there. That's why we have stayed.
Several readers have noted that I didn't oppose the demolition of the Cataract Building. That was a hard decision for me, personally, because I agree that the building was an important one, and we've lost far, far too many important buildings in this city. This newspaper has campaigned to save many of them. And we fought hard for one of the city's most controversial preservation districts, Corn Hill. But in each case, we've tried to consider the feasibility of the project. Others disagree, but in our opinion, no firm, feasible alternatives had been presented.
Re: “City should turn down University Ave. project”
Mary Anna, might your opinion on this project have something to do with the fact that you live near the East Avenue Preservation District? Given your lack of interest in saving the Cataract Building, I find it hard to believe that your viewpoint is based on your concern for preservation.
"While this project isn't appropriate for the East Avenue Preservation District, it could be a real boon to other areas." I think what you're really trying to say is that you don't want apartment dwellers moving into your neighborhood. This provincial attitude is a big part of what prevents Rochester from reaching its full potential. You should consider thinking of Rochester as a city, not as a collection of preservation districts.
By the way, I own a house in the East Avenue Preservation District, and I welcome this potential new addition to our neighborhood. I'm not sure where you are getting your data (I suspect you don't have any) on "traffic problems and parking problems", but a good city planner will tell you that we have a long way to go before reaching our "apartment saturation point." If you care about the future of Rochester, you should rethink your opinion. We should encourage the approval of this project, which will bring vibrancy to our neighborhood and to the CITY of Rochester.
Re: “The D&C by the numbers”
D&C circulation numbers by themselves, whether for print or digital editions, are in the end uninformative. Let's see some revenue numbers boys. What are your monthly earnings on the print edition over the past five years (realizing that you whacked your loyal print subscribers with a MASSIVE rate hike last year)? What about print edition advertising revenues for the same period? And what were the same numbers for you digital edition for say the past 12 months?
If you’re making more money or at least holding your own then your business plan was apparently correct. If not, maybe it’s time to stop waving around a bunch of useless stats and start re-examining your assumptions.
Re: “City should turn down University Ave. project”
I agree with not having an apartment complex built in t he spot proposed.
I have a better idea. Instead of building something new, Let Morgan take the Savannah complex next to Manhattan Square Park and turn it into high range apartments / condos. There are already 126 units there within walking distance of the East End. The Section 8 housing there does no good as all of the jobs downtown have dried up and moved to the Burbs thereby defeating the purpose of having low income people live there. That should be step 1 in bringing people with money back downtown and it also helps to increase momentum on the gentrification that has already started. The restaurants and bars will follow.
Re: “Owners of Craft Company No. 6 speak out against University Ave. project”
Ms Allinger and Mr Stam have "weighed in" with an opinion that was written and issued by the George Eastman House at their opposition website: https://sites.google.com/a/geh.org/933-university/home/what-you-can/write-a-letter. They are certainly entitled to go on record with their agreement with the GEH position, but highlighting it here, with that headline, creates a false impression of this being an opinion developed independently from the anti-project PR campaign emanating from GEH.
Re: “Blumenauer talks up investment in bike-pedestrian infrastructure”
I fall somewhere between Toby's pessimistic myopia and Scott's over-achieving optimism. . . but I did get to ride all 12 months this year. I will ride any day it's going to be dry on the ground. Could be 12 or 92 degrees, as long as it's not going to be wet/slushy - I'm pedaling.
There were definitely days this winter when a wider road would have been appreciated by both myself and the car traffic passing me (or trying to).
Re: “City should turn down University Ave. project”
Mary Anna, I find your argument against the addition of density in NOTA unfounded. Density gives vibrancy. Also with increasing density and walk-ability the use of automobiles inherently decreases. Furthermore, the parking added by this building is self-contained. While I disagree with your density sentiments I absolutely agree with the notion that the Voiture Building should not be torn down. Hanlon Architects should try to be a bit more creative in the inclusion and rehabilitation of this building into design of the site. I also would stress that the preservation board be pointed in their criticism and recommendations,as this project demands a significant level of care and detail. Bring on the density and the main building, but save the Voiture Building!
As a further point of contention, where was the lengthy and supporting article for the Cataract Building. Why be so vehement for the opposition of the demolition of a relatively non-descript tudor revival, but yet be quiet and even supporting of the demolition of a significantly sited and unique landmark that was important not only to local cultural heritage, but also national brewery architecture as a whole. If you and or CITY are going to battle for the good of preservation, there is much needed reassessment of your values.
Re: “Directory dilemma”
I encourage all to go around their neighborhoods, jot down the address of those places that still have phone books sitting on porches (after two months) and ask the phone company to come and pick those up.
Re: “Blumenauer talks up investment in bike-pedestrian infrastructure”
Toby, in past years, you were right - I was part of a very small group riding in Rochester in the winter, and I did not do so consistently. However, that is changing - this year I commuted to work and ran errands almost every day on my bicycle, with studded snow tires. More significantly, I saw many cyclists out on the streets along with me. Not thousands, or even hundreds, yet - but dozens.
Rochester is not Portland, as you point out. We are much more like Minneapolis and Boston, two other very active year-round cycle transportation communities, in our winter challenges. (In fact, I would claim that Rochester is between those two cities in winter cycling environment.)
It is true that for Rochester to be a more attractive year-round cycling city some changes will have to be made.
Snow removal on major cycle routes must be done to accommodate bicycles as well as automobiles. Winter storms here result in snow and ice obstructing the parts of the road that cyclists normally use; we are forced then to occupy (legally, I might add) the same narrowed lanes used by automobiles. I really don't mind, but other cyclists may be intimidated, and automobile traffic is certainly slowed by my presence.
Traffic signals will need to be modified to be able to detect bicycles. While it is "feasible" (albeit awkward, inconvenient, and somewhat dangerous) for a cyclist to request a green light at a traffic signal by going onto the sidewalk and pushing the pedestrian cross button in the summer, it is impossible to do so in the winter when access to the pedestrian cross button is obstructed by a 6 foot wide, 4 foot high snowbank.
Bike-specific infrastructure will require winter maintenance. As with sidewalks, bicycle and multi-use paths must be plowed promptly with the intent that they be open when commuters need them.
So far I have avoided the rather cliche proverb, but I'll say it:
There is no such thing as bad cycling weather, only bad cycling gear!
-Scott Wagner
Re: “Rochester's apartment boom”
All this building would be fine if it was being done with private money. The problem is that the city is offering a diverse package of loans, grants, land give-aways, and tax breaks.For example, Voters Block is getting the land for free, $1.3 million in cash, and a tax rate at roughly a fifth of what other rental properties in the area are paying. Furthermore, many of these loans are really grants and many others are forgiven after a period of time. Let us not forget the city often does infrastructure improvement around these projects for millions more, such as the river promenade behind Erie Harbor. The result is that the city does not recoup the money they give to get these developers to build in any reasonable time period, say twenty or even fifty years! Meanwhile these neighborhoods the city calls "less than desirable" fund this development. While money is easy for these projects to obtain, it is next to impossible for people in these "less than desirable” neighborhoods to get money for repair. The worst thing is that at one time the city money was used for neighborhood improvement loans, which prevented the blight that is now destroying our neighborhoods and every elected official in the city of Rochester has approved these subsidies to large developments.
Re: “City should turn down University Ave. project”
"At what point does the density become too much?"
Walkscore.com gives 900 East Ave a score of 84. Pretty good. I moved here from DC where my place had a walk score of 94 so there is plenty of room to go.
"Has this part of the city's southeast area reached its apartment saturation point? "
There is actually a really easy way to tell when a neighborhood has reached its apartment saturation point. When people no longer want to pay $1500 a month to live in an apartment in the neighborhood and prices start falling because supply has soaked up the demand. Erie Harbor is charging high rents. Hickory Place is charging high rents. People clearly want to live in the East Ave area because rents are high. Adding more housing in that area will help more people live there and it will bring even more amenities to the area.
"It is encouraging that Morgan is willing to invest in the city. But the city has other properties that could be developed." Yes. Perhaps Morgan should build some luxury apartments on Wilkins St. However I think that street may have already reached its luxury apartment saturation point.
There are NIMBYs in every neighborhood. Every project will have some reason to be shot down because nothing should ever change because change is baaaad. I see opposition to this by neighborhood groups as complete NIMBYism. "I got mine, screw everyone else." And yes, ParkResident, it's the same self-centeredness as in Pittsford with the Mark IV project.
Re: “City should turn down University Ave. project”
Mary Anna Fowler writes a well-researched, thorough, balanced presention of this issue. Then she has the courage to draw a conclusion and state her OPPOSITION to this proposal. I live here, I've been to the meetings and full discussions about this development, and I agree with her. The majority of resisdents here are opposed
to thsis proposal becasue a Preservation District has buildings and an atmsophere that are supposed to be
preserved--the Morgan building isn't right for thjis location. It would be fine in the new College Town, or th enew Midtown, etc. That doesn't mean residents don't want appropraite change. This was orinally all single and double houses, so six new town houses or condos would presrebve the characterr of the mebeighborhood--and
Park and East Ave., NOTA, ABC Streets, Upper Monroe, etc. are NEIGHBORHOODS, not districts or urban centers. They all have been brough back to life proimariily by normal working people, not developers, who
bought neglected old houses and fixed themn up with hard wirk and their oown money. It's the historic houses and atmsohere that draws people--not 102 unit commercial apartment buildings. The Voiture building was built as a small mansion by the same architect who designed Oak Hill Country Club. The wife was a descendent of Nathaniel Rochester. The additions added to the front of the huse by the veterans who bought it in 1941 are ugly, but the house isn't, it's not inn riuins, or gutted by fire--it can easily be restored like most every building here has been. The Voiture group, however, doesn't have the money to pay fror a new roodf, kitchen, bar room and other repairs. Demolishing the house and ruining the beauty of GEH and the historic charcater of this
area is not necessaruy or acceptable in a real Preservation District. The Morgans can build theitr apartments somewhere else; GEH and the Greek Orthodox Church are willing to pay for restoration, maintenasce, and at least 20 years or more of their full use: other developers are also interseted in working with the property.
Re: “City should turn down University Ave. project”
Mary Anna,
I don't know whether this apartment looks good across the street from the Gleason Works or not. I don't know if its a good idea or not. My neighbors don't like it so I'll go along with that.
Me and a lot of other neighbors would definitely prefer to see something go up in the empty parking lot between Anderson and Atlantic. But we're not developers. Maybe we'll get frustrated enough and develop it ourselves.
On the other hand, the high rise on the corner of Goodman and University is totally incongruent and we don't care. It's a wonderful addition to the neighborhood. It keeps the corner store open and I want that corner store there when I need it.
One thing for certain - density isn't a reason to oppose this. My folks live in high rises in Manhattan, which, by all accounts, seems to be surviving the density quite well.
Re: “City should turn down University Ave. project”
@Parkresident "but the neighborhood surrounding Starry Nites, while up and coming, is still pretty dicey (wouldn't want my daughter walking around there at night)."
Well, my daughters have grown up in this neighborhood and one thing is for certain - I wouldn't allow my daughters to walk around at night on Park Avenue either.
So there.
Re: “City should turn down University Ave. project”
What I see is a fairly good-looking apartment complex being built on an almost nasty site across from the Gleason Works. How is that a bad thing? That the George Eastman House would prefer to have ownership of the site, but has clearly been unwilling to deal honestly with the folks who own it, well, huh, too bad. Right now, if you are visiting the GEH grounds, the view is "impacted" by the unsightly lot on University.
Re: “City should turn down University Ave. project”
Clarification: low income actual houses, not apartments. Even better to help them into the middle class, though.
Re: “The D&C by the numbers”
No matter the format, the quality of the news coverage has declined appreciably in the last year plus. That's why I unsubscribed. Very little news left between the ads. Very little local coverage at all. Are there but two or three writers left?